g

CIVIL PROCEDURE 2020 almost always, enforcement of rights and obligations as are provided
for or created by substantive law, necessitates the filing of appropriate
Based on the lectures of Atty. Galeon
I’m not sure if everything’s correct, okaaay!! Please tell me if there’s something wrong legit action.

THE LAW
RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE CONGRESS

ART. VI, SECTION 1. (1987 PH CONSTITUTION)

The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people
by the provision on initiative and referendum.

ART. VIII, SECTION 1. (1987 PH CONSTITUTION)

The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and
in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to

settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

ART. VIII, SECTION 2. (1987 PH CONSTITUTION)

The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of various courts but may not
deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
SUBSTANTIVE LAW VS. REMEDIAL LAW.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
SUBSTANTIVE LAW undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
- is that which creates, defines and regulates rights and obligations,
which pertain to your life, liberty and property
- deals with creation of rights and obligations Congress’ Powers (in three points)
- Creates substantive laws
EXAMPLES: Criminal law, Property, Oblicon, Sales, Wills & - Creates the courts of law (Court of appeals, Sandiganbayan, RTC,
Succession, Persons & Family Relations MTC) – all courts except the Supreme Court
- Prescribes, defines and apportions the jurisdiction of various courts
REMEDIAL LAW (but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases
- does not create any right or obligation enumerated in Section 5 of the same article 8 in the 1987 Constitution)
- merely lays down the procedure or the methods of enforcing,
protecting or giving effect to substantive rights and obligations which SUMMARY
were created pursuant to and by virtue of substantive laws
SUBSTANTIVE LAW REMEDIAL LAW
ILLUSTRATIONS: one that creates rights and provides for the method by
(1) In a contract of sale involving car: duties and obligations which we can enforce these
The buyer already pays the agreed consideration but the seller does rights, or to give effect to
not deliver the car, the subject matter of such transaction, then it gives substantive rights
rise to a cause of action on the part of the buyer. He can either file a is enacted by Congress, where created by the Supreme court
case for specific performance with damages or rescission of contract the Congress is likewise pursuant to its ruling making
with damages. empowered to define, power under sec 5, par 5, art 8
apportion, or prescribe the of the 1897 constitution.
The law on obligations and contracts and the law on sales do not teach jurisdiction of the various courts,
how to prepare a complaint, how to prepare a complaint for specific but it cannot deprive supreme
performance with damages, or what to alleged on such complaint or court of its powers under
where to file any complaint for specific performance – whether it be section 5 of article 8
filed before the RTC or MTC. These things are governed by Remedial
Law, the rules on civil procedure.

(2) The instance where there is taking of life: LIMITATIONS OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CONFER
Criminal law will tell you the case is either Homicide, Murder, JURISIDCTION OF THE COURTS
Infanticide or Parricide. But criminal law does not teach how to file or
initiate a criminal action, how to prepare a criminal complaint or ART. VIII, SECTION 5. (1987 PH CONSTITUTION)
information. Criminal law does not teach as to what cases need The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
preliminary investigation, as to how such preliminary investigation
should be conducted or how trial in criminal cases should be (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
conducted. These questions are provided by Remedial Law. ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
(3) Spouse does not perform marital obligation: and habeas corpus.
The husband does not perform his marital obligation, Article 36 is there
for relief for the wife. But the way to enforce Article 36 of the Family
Code necessitates the filing of action for the nullity of marriage. So

1
 g

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or

certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations
as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment
shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge
concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
THE SUPREME COURT
- the only court that is created by no less than the Constitution
WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF SC:
ü Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights
ü Pleading, practice and procedure of the court
ü Admission to the practice of law
ü Rules governing the issuance of the writ of amparo, the writ
of habeas data, the writ of kalikasan (idk where the legal
basis of this is, but he mentioned this in class)
NOTE: Because the SC has the power to promulgate rules of
procedure, it necessarily implies that it also has the power to amend,
repeal, or even suspend or relax the operation of any such rules and
regulations promulgated by the SC
NOTE: Under Administrative Circular No. 19-10-20-SC, the SC
imposed amendments to the Rules of Court affecting, among others,
Rules 6 to 34.

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and RULES BY THE CONGRESS VS. RULES BY THE SUPREME
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and COURT
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law,
the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive CONGRESS SUPREME COURT
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
BP 129, as amended by RA Administrative Circular No.
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
7691 09-94
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
- expanded the jurisdiction of - implemented the amendments
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
the first-level courts brought about by RA 7691
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in
BP 129, as amended by RA Revised Rules on Summary
accordance with the Civil Service Law.
7691 Procedure
- conferred jurisdiction over - covers disposition and hearing
CERTAIN CASES THAT THE CONGRESS CANNOT DEPRIVE SC’S
cases such as (1) Forcible of ejectment cases
JURISDICTION:
Entry, and/or (2) Unlawful
ü Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
Detainer. These are forms of
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
ejectment case
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus
ü Cases involving the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, Local Government Code of Section 18 of the Revised
international or executive agreement, law, presidential 1991, Section 408 Rules of Summary Procedure
- Provides that civil cases - where a case is filed in court,
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation involving party-disputants, without prior referral to the
ü Cases in which what is involved is the legality of any tax, residing in the same barangay, appropriate lupong-
municipality, or city, must first tagapamayapa, it may be
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed thereon
ü Cases decided by lower courts where what is in issue is the be referred to the appropriate dismissed without prejudice to
very jurisdiction of the lower courts lupong-tagapamayapa for revival of the same upon
appropriate amicable settlement compliance of such requirement
ü All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher or mediation
ü Cases where what is at issue is a pure question of law PD 902-A, as amended by RA
ü Cases mentioned under Section 5, par. 1 and 2, Article VIII 8799
of the 1987 Constitution. Supreme Court which
- jurisdiction over Corporate prescribed or promulgated the
Rehabilitation was vested or rules on CR
THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT. under with the SEC
- Congress transferred the
jurisdiction over petitions of CR
ART. VIII, Section 5(5). (1987 PH CONSTITUTION) from SEC to the regular courts

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and CASES IN POINT:

enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, Estipona vs. Lobrigo
the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. GR. 226679 Aug. 15, 2017

Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
FACTS: Congress enacted RA 9165 the Dangerous Drugs Act and
Section 23 thereof provides that no plea-bargaining is allowed.
RULING: The SC struck down such provision, Section 23, of RA
9165 for being unconstitutional because, according to the SC, it
2
 g

trampled upon its power to promulgate rules and regulations
concerning pleadings, practice and procedures in all courts of law.
The rationale of SC was that plea-bargaining was NOT one of the
constitutional rights enumerated in the BOR. Therefore it is a
procedural right, only within the purview of the SC’s power to
promulgate laws.
In essence, that such rules shall be given a liberal construction with
the view of promoting the attainment of justice -- to have a just,
speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding.
There should be compliance with the Rules of Procedure, in that
abandonment thereof, or relaxation thereof is only the exception and
this should only be done in the most exceptional cases

Neypes vs. CA
GR 141524 Sept. 14, 2005 NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES OF COURT

FACTS: There was a complaint for annulment of judgement,
annulment of title and or conveyance of property and such
complaint was filed before the RTC.
When some of the defendants in that civil action filed a motion to
dismiss on the grounds of prescription of action, at first the motion
to dismiss was denied but it was eventually recanted by the trial
court on motion for reconsideration filed by the movants. When the
plaintiff in that action received a copy of the order of the court, he
then filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds of
prescription of action. But the plaintiff filed such motion on the 15th
day following the receipt of the dismissal order.
RULING: To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules
and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the
Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within
which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court,
counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial
or motion for reconsideration.
A party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days
from receipt of the Regional Trial Court's decision or file it within 15
days from receipt of the order (the 'final order') denying his motion
for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Obviously, the new 15-
day period may be availed of only if either motion is filed; otherwise,
the decision becomes final and executory after the lapse of the
original appeal period provided in Rule 41, Section 3.
Petitioners here filed their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998 or five
days from receipt of the order denying their motion for
reconsideration on July 22, 1998. Hence, the notice of appeal was
well within the fresh appeal period of 15 days, as already
discussed.
Rule 1. Section 4. (RULES OF COURT)
In what case not applicable. — These Rules shall not apply to
election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and
insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided
for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and
whenever practicable and convenient.
The Rules of Court do NOT apply in these following cases:
ü Election cases
ü Land registration
ü Cadastral
ü Naturalization
ü Insolvency proceedings
ü Cases pending before administrative bodies or quasi-judicial
bodies
ILLUSTRATIONS
(1) Cases before the DARAB or the Dept. of Agriculture, cases
before the COMELEC, cases before the Civil Service
Commission
(2) labor cases are primarily governed by the rules of procedure
promulgated by the NLRC
NOTES
• For cases enumerated above, they contain catch-all provisions.
The Rules of Court may only be applied suppletorily, when
their own/ distinct rules are silent, insufficient or obscure.
• But when they are clear, do NOT apply ROC.
• Under the last sentence of sec 5 par 5 art VIII 1987 constitution,
it is clearly provided therein that the rules of procedures of
special courts and/ or quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective
unless disapproved by the SC.

THE COURT
Alonso vs. Villamor
GR L-2352 July 26, 1910 A court is a creation of law. It is a product of legal fiction. A court is an
organ of the government that belongs to the judicial department, the
“A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more function of which is to apply to laws with respect to cases filed before
deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and the same as well as administration of justice.
position, entraps and destroys the other. It is, rather, a contest in
which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court NOTE: It can be likened to a corporation, as a corporation is also a
the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and product of legal fiction. But, like a corporation, differentiate it from a court
indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, room and a court. (Ex: Ayala Mall vs. Ayala Corp.)
asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels,
are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it desserts THE JUDGE
its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great
hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from A judge is the officer who presides over the court.
courts. There should be no vested rights in technicalities. No litigant
should be permitted to challenge a record of a court of these
Islands for defect of form when his substantial rights have not been A COURT A JUDGE
prejudiced thereby.”
a tribunal that is a simple, the officer who presides that
organized or created pursuant particular tribunal
to a law
INTERPRETATION OF RULES OF COURT an office the public officer running the
affairs of that particular office
Rule 1, Section 6. (RULES OF COURT) like a corporation, it is is a tangible, you can see a
Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally construed in intangible, abstract judge in their flesh presiding a
order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and particular case
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. has a personality distinct and has a personality distinct and
separate from the judge who separate from the court
presides the same
3
 g

jurisdiction actually attaches not Jurisdiction does not attach to

to the judge but to the Court the judge
(This is why we continually fill (2) As to its hierarchy
the court the vacancy of the
judgement, orders issued by the Hierarchy of Courts
Court is not necessarily In our jurisdiction, there is a hierarchy of courts, with the Supreme
rendered invalid by the death, Court on top of the ladder, then other courts down the line. The lowest
resignation or removal of the level is the First-level Courts (e.g. MTC, MeTC, MTCC).
judge from service)
Why is there hierarchy of courts?
There is division of labor (e.g. cases, judicial power, jurisdiction) so
ILLUSTRATIONS: that no court will be overburdened with cases. If you want to file a
1. A judge issued a decision, but one day after such issuance, he dies. case, you cannot file directly with the Supreme Court. If you want to file
a case for ejectment, you cannot go directly to the Supreme Court; you
Q: Does the death of the judge render the decision/judgement he have to file the case with the MTC, or MCTC, as the case may be.
made invalid?
The classification of INFERIOR COURTS and SUPERIOR COURTS is
A: NO, it is NOT invalid. This is because the continuity of the Court relative.
again is not affected by the death, resignation or removal of the judge.
In other words, judges of the Courts come and go but the Court MTC, METC, MCTC, MTCC
remains. A Court therefore is a continuing body so indeed Court is Is it an inferior court? Is it a superior court?
different from a judge. Yes, all other courts are No
superior to it.

2. In a criminal case, the judge denied an interpleader order, so the

opposition could not confront the witness on the documents vital to the RTC
case. The defense lawyers think of filing a petition for Certiorari. But Is it an inferior court? Is it a superior court?
then, the other lawyer files a motion for inhibition, so the case was It is inferior to the CA and SC. It is superior to the MTC, et al
raffled to another sala of the RTC.
CA
Q: Does the re-raffling make the denial of the interpleader of the judge Is it an inferior court? Is it a superior court?
invalid? It is inferior to SC. It is superior to RTC and MTC
A: NO, because the order of the Court will not render such invalid by
the re-raffling of the case because judge and Courts are two different
SC
things
Is it an inferior court? Is it a superior court?
No. Yes, it is superior to all other
courts
KINDS OF COURTS

(1) As to its creation DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS

Bottomline is the observance of hierarchy of courts is highly enjoined,
A. CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS - a court created by no less than the failing which would cause the dismissal of the case.
Constitution (Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution)

NOTE: There is only one Constitutional Court in the Philippines, the People vs. Mateo
rest are merely statutory courts being a creation of Congress. GR 147678-87 July 7, 2004

B. STATUTORY COURTS - created by statutes enacted by Congress;
therefore, they may be abolished or removed by Congress, provided
that no laws shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary if it undermines
the security of the tenure of the members thereof.
Article VIII, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution:
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
The Constitution (Art VIII, Section 5, Par 2(b)) mentions that the SC
can review basically the decisions rendered by the lower court
where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. But SC,
in this case, ruled that there is no direct review by the SC. If at all
the case is that if the penalty imposed is Reclusion Perpetua or
higher it must first be reviewed by the CA, observing the
Hierarchy of Courts.

NOTE: The RTC, the CA, the first-level courts like the MTC among Falcis III vs. Registrar General
others are considered as statutory courts being a creation of a law. GR No. 212017910 (Sept. 3 2019)

Why is this classification important?
This tells us that the Supreme Court can never be abolished by
Congress because it is a Constitutional Court. The SC is NOT a
creation of the Congress. Perhaps, the only way to abolish the
Supreme Court is to amend and/or revise the Constitution.
What about the Sandiganbayan?
The 1973 and 1987 Constitutions both mention the Sandiganbayan. In
the 1973 Constitution, there is a provision under Article XIII, Section 5
directing the Batasan Pambansa to enact a law creating the
Sandiganbayan. But when Marcos became a Constitutional Dictator,
he issued P.D. No. 1486, thereby creating the Sandiganbayan. Ergo,
Sandiganbayan, though mentioned in the Constitution, can never be
considered a Constitutional Court because it is created by law.
FACTS: Falcis filed a case for certiorari with prohibition asking for
the nullification for being unconstitutional Articles 1 and 2 of the
Family Code. He wanted same sex marriage be allowed here in our
jurisdiction.
RULING: But the SC said that what he is filing is a declaratory relief
and he should have filed it with the RTC, SC having no original
jurisdiction for declaratory relief, observing hierarchy of courts.
(3) As to its jurisdiction
4
 g

A. COURT WITH ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - court where you file (3) appellate jurisdiction over all
your case or where the case is commenced cases in which what is involved
is the legality of any tax, impost,
B. COURT WITH APPELLATE JURISDICTION - where the decisions assessment, or toll, or any
of the lower courts are reviewed penalty imposed thereon.
(4) its appellate jurisdiction over
all cases decided by lower
MTC, MCTC, courts where what is in issue is
Original Jurisdiction Appellate jurisdiction the very jurisdiction of the lower
(1) Ejectment cases NO appellate jurisdiction. courts
(2) Criminal case punishable at (5) its appellate jurisdiction over
xxx Note: SEC 408 of LGC - there all criminal cases in which the
file of the complaint before your penalty imposed is reclusion
barangay or lupon for perpetua or higher.
conciliation. BUT this should not (6) its appellate jurisdiction over
be considered as lower courts all cases where what is at issue
because the purpose is for is a pure question of law.
amicable settlement or (7) cases mentioned under
conciliation Section 5, par. 1 and 2, Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
xxx xxx

(disclaimer: the enumeration of the shit here is not exclusive or

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Original Jurisdiction
(1) Criminal cases where the
penalty imposable is
imprisonment ranging from 6
years and 1 day and up
(2) Petition for issuance of Writ
of Amparo
(3) Petition for issuance of Writ
of Habeas Data
xxx
Appellate jurisdiction
(1) Cases originating from MTC
xxx
I’m not super sure)
The SC is fundamentally an appellate court.
NOTE: Writ of Amparo, Writ of Habeas Corpus, certiorari, mandamus
– you can file it at either the RTC, CA, and even the Supreme Court.
(4) As to its nature
A. CIVIL COURTS – courts that hear civil cases
B. CRIMINAL COURT - courts that hear criminal cases

LEGAL BASES:
COURT OF APPEALS (1) RPC, ART 100 – Persons who are criminal liable are also civilly
liable.
Original Jurisdiction Appellate jurisdiction (2) Sec 1, Rule 111:
(1) Petition for Certiorari* (1) Cases originating from RTC
(2) mandamus* and MTC Section 1. Institution of criminal actions. — Criminal actions
(3) quo warranto* xxx shall be instituted as follows:
(4) Petition for nullification of (a) For offenses where a preliminary investigation is required
judgments rendered by the RTC pursuant to section 1 of Rule 112, by filing the complaint with
on ground of extrinsic fraud the proper officer for the purpose of conducting the requisite
(5) Writ of Kalikasan preliminary investigation.
xxx (b) For all other offenses, by filing the complaint or information
directly with the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
** These are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of CA. Trial Courts, or the complaint with the office of the prosecutor.
In Manila and other chartered cities, the complaint shall be
ILLUSTRATION: There is a decision rendered by the judge in RTC filed with the office of the prosecutor unless otherwise
that has been suspected to be the result of a bribe. So, if you’re the provided in their charters.
losing party, file a petition for nullification or annulment of judgment on The institution of the criminal action shall interrupt the running
the ground of extrinsic fraud. File this with the CA – who has the period of prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise
original jurisdiction for this type of petition. provided in special laws.

SUPREME COURT
Original Jurisdiction
5 par. 1 Art. 8 of the 1987
Constitution:
(1) cases affecting
ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls
(2) petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
xxx
Appellate jurisdiction
(1) Cases originating from MTC,
RTC or CA
(2) appellate jurisdiction over
cases involving the
constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law,
presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation.
Why have this classification if the trial courts today hear both criminal
and civil cases?
In the past, in the 1970’s, there used to be a specialized court
which is the Criminal Court, which would only hear and try
criminal cases. But with the advent of BP 129, the said
specialized court had already been abolished and jurisdiction
thereof had been transferred to the RTC. As it is now our court is
both a civil court and a criminal court
(5) Courts of law or of equity
A. COURT OF LAW - a court which decides by applying the
provisions of the law; applies the provision of the law even if the
law is supposedly harsh hence the term “Dura lex sed lex”

5

B. COURT OF EQUITY - a court which renders judgement
applying equitable principles such as principles of equity,
principles of fairness and principles of fair play
NOTE: The courts in the Philippines only act as courts of equity when
the law is silent, when there is no law governing that situation, or when
the law is seemingly obscure or insufficient.
In the Philippines, ours are courts of law and of equity.
Why are our courts considered as courts of law and equity at the same
time?
The reason is simple -- because in the Philippines, there is actually a
thin line dividing principles of law and principles of equity. Because
here, principles of equity can also be found in the principles of law
Equitable Principles found in the law:
(1) Laches
(2) Solutio Indebiti
(3) Estoppel in Pais
(4) Art 4 of the Civil Code
CASES IN POINT:
Pacita David-Chan vs. CA
G.R. No. 105294 February 26, 1997
Even petitioner's plea for equity becomes unavailing because resort
to equity is possible only in the absence, and never in
contravention, of statutory law.
Pepsico Inc v. NLRC
GR No. 51632 (Sept. 7, 1999)
Under the provisions of the Labor Code, if an employee is
terminated for cause, then he should not be awarded separation
pay or backwages.
But in this case, the SC has ruled that where the cause of the
termination does not involve moral turpitude or it does not involve
the moral integrity of the employee, then there is a good chance
that the terminated employee is to be given separation pay by way
of financial assistance. Such that if an employee is terminated from
work because of chronic absentism or habitual tardiness, and for as
long he has been *?* for quite some time, then there is a good
chance that he will be awarded separation pay by way of financial
assistance. And that, no doubt, is a good example of a case
decided applying equitable discretion.
Because the Labor Code does not provide that a terminated
employee or one who has been terminated for cause should be
given financial assistance or separation pay.
In re: Adoption of Stefanie Nathy Astorga Garcia
G.R. No. 148311. March 31, 2005
FACTS: This case was about the adoption of an illegitimate child
by her father. The petition was granted, but the problem was the
child had no middle name. So, the father filed a motion for
reconsideration asking the court to allow the child to use the
maiden family name of the mother as the child’s middle name. But
the trial court denied holding that there is no law for that.
ISSUE: Whether or not she can change her name
RULING: the SC found that indeed the trial court is correct in that
there is no law, but SC also said that there is no law prohibiting the
same. Change of name was allowed.
ILLUSTRATION: The Congress enacted a law reimposing death
penalty and you are a judge hearing a case. In the event of conviction
g
death penalty is to be applied. As a judge, you have no choice but to
impose it. Even if it is the death penalty, notwithstanding your personal
conviction or religion. This is because the law is very clear that in that
situation you are to impose the death penalty.
But you may want to recommend executive clemency. But the fact
remains that in your judgment you should impose the appropriate
penalty which is death. Because where there is the law governing the
case then the law should be applied. It would be equitable only there is
no law governing or the law is silent or obscure. That is why equity
follows the law. So with this in mind, it is true that our courts are indeed
both courts of law and of equity.
THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT
RULE 135: Section 5. Inherent powers of court.
Every court shall have power:
(a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
(b) To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a
person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial
investigation under its authority;
(c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and
processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a
case pending therein;
(d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its
ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner
connected with a case before it, in every manner appertaining
thereto;
(e) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case
pending therein;
(f) To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case
pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be
necessary in the exercise of its powers;
(g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make
them conformable to law and justice;
(h) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other
paper to be filed and used instead of the original, and to
restore, and supply deficiencies in its records and
proceedings.
These are inherent, they do not need to be written or embraced by
rules in order to confer the courts with such powers. But nonetheless,
the SC still spelled it out in ROC.
(a) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence;
This inherent power of the court allows the court to cite persons in
contempt when there is a disruption of proceedings conducted in
court. The court/judge can also initiate disciplinary action on you, or a
motion for inhibition may be filed if there is seeming animosity between
the judge and lawyers.
(b) To enforce order in proceedings before it, or before a
person or persons empowered to conduct a judicial
investigation under its authority;
ILLUSTRATION: There are instances when the Court may just appoint
a commissioner or Board of the Commissioners to conduct the
proceedings. Almost always the judge will appoint the branch of court
as the court commissioner. The fact that it is not up to judge but the
branch of the court who presides the proceedings does not have the
license to also disrespect the branch of court. Because if you do that,
upon proper application, upon proper motion, then the judge may also
cite you in contempt because again it's one of the powers of the court
to enforce order in the proceeds before it or any proceedings
conducted by any person or persons as may be authorized by the
Court.
(c) To compel obedience to its judgments, orders and
processes, and to the lawful orders of a judge out of court, in a
case pending therein;
6

How do you enforce decisions?
ILLUSTRATION: An ejectment case was filed in MTC, and the
judgement favored the eviction. But the case was appealed to RTC,
which affirmed the MTC decision. With this, the judgment of the RTC
of the case will be remanded to the court of origin (MTC) for the
execution of the judgment. The court will issue the writ of execution
upon proper application and proper motion filed by the winning plaintiff
and the sheriff will enforce the said writ of execution. Any disobedience
to the writ of execution enforced by the sheriff may prompt the court to
issue a writ of demolition.
So, in the writ of execution, if you are the losing defendant in that
ejectment case, you will be directed to peacefully vacate the premises
subject matter of the litigation.
But if you do not obey the writ of execution then the court may issue
another order that is the writ of demolition. They will destroy your
house without deprivation against the relief and against your concern.
The court can do that because it has this inherent power to see to
it that its orders, judgments be enforced or obeyed.
NOTE: There is nothing in the law which shall serve as guidelines in
the enforcement thereof. But the court cannot be rendered muted just
because the law is silent. The court has to find ways to enforce the
order or processes it already issued. In fact, that is sanctioned under
Rule 135, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. (discussed later)
Bottomline is the courts have to look for ways to enforce or command
respect for the writs issued even if the law is seemingly silent.
(d) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its
ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner
connected with a case before it, in every manner appertaining
thereto;
(e) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in a case
pending therein;
(f) To administer or cause to be administered oaths in a case
pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be
necessary in the exercise of its powers;
(g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make
them conformable to law and justice;
(h) To authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other
paper to be filed and used instead of the original, and to
restore, and supply deficiencies in its records and
proceedings.
ILLUSTRATION: Sometimes, records of cases get lost, e.g. record
were burned. The Court may compel the parties to submit copies of
said records. Ordinarily, in a case, there is best evidence rule, that
where the evidence consists of a written document, then the original
must be presented in court. However, the Court may, at times, relax
the rules.
POWER OF ENFORCEMENT
Section 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect. — When by
law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all
auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry
it into effect may be employed by such court or officer; and if
the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such
jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law or by these
rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be
adopted which appears comfortable to the spirit of the said law
or rules.
g
ILLUSTRATIONS:
1. X is a resident of Leyte. His girlfriend is studying in Cebu. But X was
th
taken into custody in Pasig. (Note that Pasig is in the 8 judicial region,
th
while Cebu and Leyte are in the 7 judicial region). X’s family filed a
petition for habeas corpus to produce the warm body of the detained.
Q1: May the family file petition in Leyte? And if RTC of Leyte grants
the issuance of the writ, may it be enforced in Pasig, where he is
abducted?
Q2: what if they file the petition in Cebu RTC? May it be enforced in
Pasig? How about warrant of arrest? May it be enforced in Pasig,
Manila etc.?
A: Section 3 of Interim rules. (GOOGLE: It’s called SUPERVISORY
CIRCULAR NO. 14 issued on Oct 22, 1985)
3. Writs and Processes. -
"(a) Writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction issued by a Regional Trial Court may be enforced
in any part of the region.
"(b) All other processes, whether issued by a regional trial court or a
metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court or municipal circuit trial
court may be served anywhere in the Philippines, and, in the last three
cases, without a certification by the judge of the Regional Trial Courts.
A1: No. If RTC of Leyte issues a writ of habeas corpus, it cannot be
executed in Pasig as Leyte and Pasig are in different judicial regions.
A2: Pasig and Cebu are assigned to different judicial regions.
Therefore, a writ issued in Cebu cannot be enforced in Pasig.
INTERPRETATION OF SUCH LAW: Although the law mentions about
region, it should be understood to be as judicial region, not the regional
classification or division as we know, like Region VIII. No. judicial
region is different. It’s outlined in BP129, as amended by RA7691.
th
Cebu city belongs to the 7 judicial region. Bohol also belongs to the
th
7 judicial region.
2. A case was filed in the RTC of Davao City. In that case, the plaintiff
filed an application for issuance of an injunctive relief. The defendants
argued that the case should be filed in Cebu City because the case
was an intra-corporate dispute and the principal office of the
corporation is in Cebu City.
In the alternative, the plaintiffs also argued, with respect to the
application for injunctive relief, that the injunctive relief should not be
issued by the RTC of Davao because according to Section 3 of the
Interim Rules, such injunctive relief can only be enforced within the
territorial jurisdiction where the court sits.
Q: Whose contention should be upheld?
A: The defendant’s contention should be upheld, since the rule
(Section 3, of Interim rules) dictates writs of injunction, habeas corpus,
quo warranto, certiorari, mandamus, among others, may only be
enforced within the issuing court’s judicial region.
NOTE: these writs may only be issued by the RTC. In other words, the
first level courts cannot issue any such writs, because these petitions
are cognizable only by RTC, CA and SC.
But as to any other writs issued by the RTC, Metropolitan Trial Court in
Manila (MeTC), Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court
and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, may be enforced anywhere in the
Philippines. In fact, the writs, as issued by the first level courts may not
be certified by the higher court or the RTC.
3. For situation under #1: What if what was issued by the court is a
warrant of arrest? Can a warrant of arrest be enforceable anywhere
around the Philippines?
YES.
7

4. Continue from situation #1: Summons, directing the defendant to file
his answer to the complaint, was issued. May any such summons may
be served anywhere in the Philippines?
YES.
Defendant needs to file his answer within the reglementary period.
Summons do not fall under the writs mentioned under Sec. 3, Par. A of
the interim rules.
REMEMBER: What are mentioned under this rule? Habeas Corpus,
Certiorari Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo warrant. But for any other
writs it can be enforced anywhere in the Philippines.
5. Continue from situation under #1: What if what was issued was a
search warrant?
A: Sec 2, Rule 126 of ROC
Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be
filed. — An application for search warrant shall be filed with
the following:
a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was
committed.
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court
within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the
place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court
within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the
application shall only be made in the court where the criminal
action is pending. (n)
GENERAL RULE: A search warrant can be issued by a court in
which region the crime was allegedly committed.
5.1 If the crime was supposedly committed in Lapu Lapu City,
then following the general rule: the application for search warrant
and any such warrant may be issued by a court based in Lapu-
Lapu City.
EXCEPTION: An application for search warrant may be filed
within the judicial region where the crime was committed for
compelling reasons stated in the application.
5.2 If the offense is committed in Danao City then any application
of such warrant would be filed in the court based in Danao City
but by way of exception where there are compelling reasons. The
search warrant may be issued by a court within the judicial region
where the search warrant will be served or enforced.
5.3 For a crime committed in Lapu-Lapu City:
Generally: only be issued by a court in Lapu-Lapu city
Exception: an application for search warrant may be filed to the
Family Court after all the family court is still within the judicial
region but before you do that you need to present you need to
state in your affidavit in your application for issuance of search
warrant any and all compelling reasons why you filed such
application with the family court and the reason why it was not
filed before any court in Lapu-Lapu city.
5.4 The mayor in Lapu-Lapu is subject to a search warrant. If you
file your application for search warrant before a court in Lapu-
Lapu City, it is likely that this information will be leaked. So the
law allows you to apply for a search warrant probably in Danao or
in Barili because these places are still what matters within the
judicial region or sits within the judicial region where the crime is
supposedly committed or where the search warrant is to be
implemented.
ANOTHER EXCEPTION: Administrative Circular 03-08-02,
effective 2004.
g
SEC. 11. Issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases
filed with multiple-branch courts. – All applications for search
warrants in criminal cases relating to crimes against public
order as defined by the provisions of Chapters I to VII, Title
Three, Book Two of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions, violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and such similar
laws as may subsequently be enacted and deemed by the
Supreme Court as included herein shall no longer be raffled and
shall immediately be taken cognizance of and acted upon by the
Executive Judges of multiple-branch RTCs, MeTCs and MTCCs
under whose jurisdiction the place to be searched is located.
For expediency, the Executive Judge may assign on rotation
basis the Vice-Executive Judges to take cognizance of and act
on such applications. The provisions of this Section shall apply
only to cases falling within the respective jurisdictions of the
aforementioned courts. Whenever the Executive Judge is on
official leave of absence or is not physically present in the
station, the Vice-Executive Judge shall take cognizance of and
personally act on the applications for search warrants.
Whenever the Executive Judge and the Vice-Executive Judge/s
are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in
the station, the application may be taken cognizance of and
acted upon by the judge who is the most senior in tenure among
the permanent judges in the station. If there are two or more
judges of equal seniority in tenure, the application may be acted
upon by the judge who is the most senior in the judiciary. If
there are two or more judges of equal seniority in the judiciary,
the application may be acted upon by the judge who is the most
senior in age in the station.
ISSUING AUTHORITY: the executive judge of RTC of Quezon City
or Manila, or in his absence, Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs
APPLICANT ALLOWED: applications for search warrant filed by the
NBI, PNP, ACTA,
CRIMES COVERED:
ü Any heinous crime
ü Illegal gambling
ü Illegal possession of firearms
ü Violation of the comprehensive drugs act
ü Violation of IPL
ü Anti-money laundering act
ü Tariff and customs code
EFFECT: Such search warrant is enforceable anywhere within the
Philippines.
5.5 There is an intellectual property law violation. The criminal
made fake Lacoste apparel. Expect that always the SW will be
issued in Manila or Quezon.
JURISIDICTION
Latin: Juris – law
Dico – to speak
Jurisdiction – speak by the law
When you speak by the law, you speak by authority of the law, you are
therefore authorized. You have the authority.
JURISDICTION - power to hear and decide cases filed before the
same and includes the power to demand obedience and enforce any
judgment that it may issue in any particular case
It is conferred by BP 129, as amended by RA 7691.
VENUE
8

Venue – the place specified by the parties by means of a written
agreement, whenever the court shall have jurisdiction to try the action
by reason of its nature or the amount involved
CIVIL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Venue may be stipulated for as Venue as a rule is jurisdictional,
long as the venue of the court where jurisdiction by the courts
stipulated has jurisdiction are defined by law.
If an offense is committed in
Cebu City, then the action
should be filed in Cebu City. If
you file it elsewhere, then the
action is vulnerable to dismissal
for want of jurisdiction. Because
again, jurisdiction is necessary
before any court can take
cognizance of the case and
validly render any judgment
thereof.
CASE IN POINT:
Atlas Developer & Steel Industries vs. Sarmiento Enterprises
G.R. No. L-64735. April 5, 1990
Judge Jurado’s ruling carried an overly strict and literal
interpretation of the stipulation in the sales invoice. Although it
provides that the City Court of Manila shall have "jurisdiction" over a
legal action arising from the contract, the parties must have
intended to fix the venue only, for jurisdiction over an action is
conferred by law, and may not be changed by mere agreement of
the parties.
ILLUSTRATION: A crime of murder was committed in Lapu-lapu. But
without the order of the SC, the case was transferred, tried and heard
in Danao City. Is this valid? NO. Any judgment to this case is void,
because the court in Danao City would not have jurisdiction to hear
such case.
ILLUSTRATION: A crime of murder was committed in Lapu-lapu. But
without the order of the SC, the case was transferred, tried and heard
in an MTC in Lapu-lapu. Is this valid? NO. Any judgment to this case is
void, because MTC would not have jurisdiction to hear such case.
ILLUSTRATION: An ejectment case was filed in RTC. Even if the
party-litigants do not dispute to the jurisdiction, the judgment would still
be void.
Therefore: Jurisdiction is important in both criminal and in civil cases.
JURISDICTION VS. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION - pertains to the action of the court in
putting to action the authority conferred upon it; when the court acts,
conducts proceedings and infers rights as conferred by law.
If the court has jurisdiction over a case, then such jurisdiction is not
necessarily affected by any irregularity in the exercise of such
authority. And the same is not also affected by the error that is
committed in rendering a judgement.
ILLUSTRATION: In an ejectment case, the MTC takes cognizance of
the case. It issues summons, directing the defendant to file his answer.
And the defendant filed an answer. The court conducts a pretrial
conference and directs the parties to submit position papers. And on
the basis of which, the court renders judgment then that is exercise of
authority.
g
ERROR OF JURISDICTION VS. ERROR OF JUDGMENT
ERROR OF JUDGMENT – the court had jurisdiction, but rendered the
wrong judgement
ERROR OF JURISDICTION – the court, from the very beginning,
never had jurisdiction
ILLUSTRATION 1: In an ejectment case, because of the ignorance of
the lawyer, the plaintiff filed its case in RTC. When the defendant was
served summons, he filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court
has no jurisdiction to hear the case. But the court denied the
defendant’s motion to dismiss. Is there an error? What kind of error is
that?
A: There is an error of jurisdiction, because RTC never had jurisdiction
over that ejectment case. At its very inception, the RTC had no
jurisdiction.
ILLUSTRATION 2: An ejectment case was filed by the lawyer before a
MTC. The defendant filed his answer and argued that he has the right
to continue occupying the property under the contract of lease and the
lease is still valid and subsisting. But in the complaint, it was rather
argued and posited by the plaintiff that the contract of lease had
already expired. Defendant argued otherwise, contending that it is
automatically renewed. They both filed their respective position
papers, and on the basis of which, the court rendered judgement ruling
in favor for the plaintiff and against the defendant, saying that there
was already an expiration of the contract of lease. When in truth and in
fact, under the law, the contract is valid and subsisting. Was there an
error? What kind?
A: Error of judgment. It was an error on the part of the court in the
appreciation of the evidence, in interpreting the contract and the
conditions therein.
But why is it important to characterize these two errors?
Because our remedy or course of legal action, after encountering an
adverse ruling, would depend on the kind of error that is supposedly
committed
CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION 1: If that is the situation,
therefore, the decision of the court holding that it has jurisdiction over
the case, is void. It is patently a nullity. The defendant’s remedy here is
not just appeal – but a (1) certiorari or (2) prohibition or (3) injunction, to
enjoin the RTC from proceeding with the case because in the first place,
it has no jurisdiction.
CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION 2: An ejectment case was filed
in the MTC but the court erred in the appreciation of the facts - it’s an
error of judgment. So here, the judgment, although it is erroneous, is
not necessarily void or invalid. If that is the situation now, your remedy
is ordinary appeal.
ORDINARY APPEAL PROHIBITION / CERTIORARI
the proceedings in the appellate not a mode of appeal – it is
court is considered as a considered as an original action
continuation of the proceedings
conducted by the lower court
file a Notice of Appeal before petition with the Supreme Court
the trial court
a period of 15 days reckoned you have a longer period in that
from the receipt of the judgment you are given a period of 60
or order appealed from and if days. And more than that, you
you file a Motion for can even file for an extension of
Reconsideration time within which you can file
your petition for certiorari.
9

Pursuant to the case of Neypes,
then you are given a fresh
period of 15 days.
NOTE: These remedies are mutually exclusive.
Where the remedy of appeal is available, then you cannot file, in lieu
thereof, a petition for certiorari. IN fact, certiorari, in our jurisdiction, is
not considered a remedy for a lost appeal.
CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION 2: The defendant wants to
appeal. But the 15 days lapsed. Instead of filing an appeal, can Atty.
Gravador, the counsel for the defendant, file a petition for certiorari?
A: NO, because these remedies (appeal and petition for certiorari) are
mutually exclusive. When appeal is available, you cannot file a petition
for certiorari. An petition for certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal.
ILLUSTRATION 3: An ejectment case was filed with the MTC. But the
defendant, in his answer, raised the issue of ownership. On the basis of
his Answer, the MTC dismissed the case, holding that the case should
have been filed with the RTC, because case already involves the issue
of ownership. Is the dismissal proper? How is such error characterized?
A: The dismissal is NOT proper. There is an error of judgment, because
the case was filed in the proper court as provided under BP 129, as
amended.
KINDS OF JURISDICTION
(1) Original and appellate
A. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - the power of the court to hear and
decide a case at its inception or commencement
B. APPELLATE JURISDICTION - the power or authority of a superior
court to review, revise, affirm, or modify on appeal a decision rendered
by the lower court.
In appellate jurisdiction, the case is commenced before a lower court,
only that the decision of the lower court is elevated on review before the
superior court.
In the hierarchy of courts, the first level courts (e.g. MTC, MeTC, among
others) only have original jurisdiction.
EXAMPLE: the MTC, in a case, renders a decision, and one of the
party-disputants questions the ruling of the MTC, and interposed it on
an Appeal before the RTC, then what the RTC is doing in the review of
that case is an exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
(2) As to scope
A. GENERAL JURISDICTION - power of the court to hear and decide
various cases
B. LIMITED JURISDICTION - means that a particular court can only
hear and decide specific or particular cases.
First level courts – exercise limited jurisdiction
Regional trial courts – exercise general jurisdiction
ILLUSTRATION: In Cebu City, when there is an action for collection of
sum of money, and the amount demanded, exclusive of damages,
interest, and attorney’s fees, is P300,000, which court has jurisdiction
over the case? MTC.
If the amount demanded is more than 300k, then jurisdiction now is
with the RTC.
Therefore: First level court only has limited jurisdiction, because there
is a ceiling with respect to the amount that may be demanded in a
g
case. (This will be discussed thoroughly in the BP 129 part of these
notes)
(3) As to exclusivity
A. EXCLUSIVE JURISIDICTION - means a case cognizant only of a
particular court to the exclusion of other courts
B. CONCURRENT JURISIDICTION - means that there is a shared
jurisdiction over the same by several courts
NOTE: For cases that have concurrent jurisdiction, election is given to
the person to file the action. (Googi: this means that when there are
cases that have concurrent jurisdiction, the complainant can choose
any of the courts that has concurrent jurisdiction – he has the power to
elect). But with the caveat that once the court assumes jurisdiction
over the case, then a similar action involving the same facts may no
longer be filed with other courts.
QUESTION FROM STUDENT: Is that rule on concurrent jurisdiction
subject to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts? Ordinarily, yes. Because
of the case of People vs. Mateo, the SC said, regarding automatic
review of cases of death, to not go directly before to SC – go through
lower courts first.
ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION
In criminal procedure, courts acquire jurisdiction with three elements:
(1) over the subject matter, (2) over the person of the accused, and (3)
the crime charged.
But for Civil Procedure, it’s different.
THE ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION are: (SPRI)
(1) Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
(2) Jurisdiction over the parties in the case
(3) Jurisdiction over the res or the thing involved in the case
(4) Jurisdiction over the issue in the case
Absent any one of them would make the decision invalid for want of
jurisdiction
(1) Jurisdiction over subject matter
Important points to remember:
- This refers to the power of the court to hear and decide cases of a
general class in which the proceeding in question belong
- This is actually a matter of legislative concern where only the
Congress can change such because the Constitution empowers only
Congress to define the jurisdiction of courts (BP 129 by RA 7691).
Jurisdiction is conferred by law.
- This is based on the cause of action embraced in the allegations in
the initiatory pleading and the defenses in the answer are deemed
irrelevant and immaterial in its determination. (General Rule)
Examples of Causes of Action:
1. Action for specific performance
2. Recission of contracts
3. Petition for legal separation
4. Petition for nullity of marriage
5. Ejectment cases, publiciana, reivindicatoria
Whereby: If the cause of action or the nature of action is one for
ejectment, then it should be filed before the MTC. If the nature of the
action is say legal separation, declaration of nullity of marriage then it
is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation so it ought to be filed
with the RTC. This illustrates how the nature of the action is
determinative of the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case, where jurisdiction is covered by the law.
10

ILLUSTRATION 1: By virtue of a contract, Galeon rents an apartment
owned by Gravador. There is then a dispute regarding the expiration of
the contract. Because they are friends, Gaelon and Gravador agree to
let the RTC presided by Judge Adviento hear the case, because they
believe Judge Adviento is smart. Gravador and Galeon then execute
an agreement agreeing that the case for ejectment be filed before the
RTC and pursuant thereof, Gravador filed the case before the RTC.
Q: Does their agreement confer upon the RTC the jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case?
A: NO. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is conferred by
law, it can never be conferred upon the court by mere agreement of
the parties, among others. While there, indeed, is a provision in the
Oblicon part of Civil Law that provides that a contract is the law
governing between the parties, this does not hold true with respect to
jurisdiction, because jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is
conferred by law, it can never be conferred upon the court by mere
agreement of the parties.
ILLUSTRATION 2: A wife refuses to have sex, like the case of Chi
Ming Tsoi. The husband then wanted to file for declaration of nullity of
marriage, but he did not file such in RTC, but in MTC. The wife did not
interpose any objection. The judge of the RTC also did not interpose
any doubt as to its jurisdiction.
Q: Does that confer upon the court jurisdiction over the petition for
nullity of marriage?
A: NO. The argument that the parties even waived the their right to
object cannot fly as a valid omission, since jurisdiction is dictated by
law and not mere agreement, waiver, inaction or failure to interpose
any objection.
THEREFORE: Jurisdiction can be assailed anytime. When the court
has no jurisdiction over the case, it can motu proprio dismiss the case
without the parties moving for the dismissal of the case.
GENERAL RULE: Faus vs. People
Faus & Fajardo vs. People
GR No. 167764, October 9, 2009
FACTS: Faus and Fajardo were the columnists and the editors of
Panay News. They published an article about Dr. Contejo, a
physician who had misdiagnosed his patients. The article was
published in Panay, since the principal office of the newspaper
company was in Panay. Dr. Contejo, on the other hand, practiced
his profession in Iloilo.
Dr. Contejo then filed a case of libel against the writers in the RTC
of Iloilo. When the case was at the trial court level, Faus and
Fajardo, did not file a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
They even participated in the trial. Eventually, they were convicted.
Aggrieved, they went to the CA, where they were again convicted.
In the proceedings in the CA, no question of jurisdiction was raised.
They ended up in the SC, where they finally questioned the
jurisdiction of the RTC of Iloilo, who first heard the case.
Take note that under Article 360 of the RPC, if an aggrieved party
to libel is a private individual, he has two options in where to file his
complaint: (1) where the article was first published (Panay) or (2)
his actual residence at the time of publication of the libelous article.
ISSUE: Whether or not RTC Iloilo had jurisdiction?
RULING: It did not have jurisdiction, since the information did not
state clearly that Panay News or the questioned article was fist
printed and published in Iloilo. For indeed, it was first published in
Panay. And for another, in the criminal information, it was simply
averred that Dr. Contejo is a medical practitioner in Iloilo. It was not
stated therein that he was actually residing in Iloilo city at the time
g
of the publication of the article. So citing article 360 of the RPC, the
SC dismissed the case, although without prejudice, for want of
jurisdiction.
TAKE NOTE: The accused did not raise the issue of jurisdiction at
the trial court level, they did not raise it in the CA, it was only in the
SC, and only upon filing of the reply, that the accused, for the first
time, raised the issue, questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC of
Iloilo, and they were sustained.
EXCEPTION: Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy
GR L-21450, April 15, 1968
Galeon’s input: This case is something that is peculiar because for
one, it pertains to a civil case, and then there was a considerable
delay in questioning the jurisdiction of the court.
There was estoppel by laches. But again, the general rule is that
jurisdiction may be questioned even for the first time, on appeal,
and motu propio, the case may be dismissed.
GENERAL RULE: Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is
determined based on the allegations or averments in the complaint. It
can never be based, and it should never be based on the allegations in
the answer, or the allegations of the motion to dismiss.
Balibago Faith Baptist Church vs. Faith in Christ Jesus Baptist
Church
GR 191527 Aug. 22, 2016
The rule is that the allegations in the complaint determine both the
nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court. The cause of
action in a complaint is not what the designation of the complaint
states, but what the allegations in the body of the complaint define
and describe. The designation or caption is not controlling, more
than the allegations in the complaint themselves are, for it is not
even an indispensable part of the complaint. The complaint must
specifically allege the facts constituting unlawful detainer or forcible
entry if the complaint filed was for unlawful detainer, or forcible
entry, respectively. It cannot be made to depend on the exclusive
characterization of the case by one of the parties, jurisdiction
cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer,
in a motion to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration.
EXCEPTION: When the allegations of the complaint are vague and
iffy in revealing the nature of the action, the allegations made in the
answer may be considered.
De la Cruz vs. CA & Tan Te
510 SCRA 103
As previously discussed, the settled rule is jurisdiction is based on
the allegations in the initiatory pleading and the defenses in the
answer are deemed irrelevant and immaterial in its determination.
However, we relax the rule and consider the complaint at bar as an
exception in view of the special and unique circumstances present.
ILLUSTRATION: Gravador filed an ejectment case against Galeon
involving a parcel of land in MTC. In Galeon’s answer, he raised a
question of ownership over the parcel of land.
Q: does the question of ownership deprive MTC jurisdiction over the
case?
A: NO. Under BP 129, as amended, it is clear as day, that ejectment
cases (either unlawful detainer or forcible entry) will have to be filed
before the first level courts.
11

(2) Jurisdiction over the parties in the case
Recall in Criminal Procedure: The court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the accused, either by arrest or voluntarily surrender. When
the accused is not arrested or voluntarily surrenders, the court will
never acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused, and we
know that trial in absentia cannot be had. In CrimPro, it was discussed
that trial in absentia may only be had when, among others, the
accused had already been arraigned.
Parties of a Civil Case
1. Plaintiff - the one who files the case/complaint
2. Defendant - the one being sued
The court acquires jurisdiction over these two parties differently.
For the Plaintiff
In so far as plaintiff is concerned, filing of the complaint means
submission to the jurisdiction of court.
For the Defendant
For the court to acquire jurisdiction over him, there must (1) be a
proper service of summons or (2) a voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.
1. SERVICE OF SUMMONS
- It must be a personal service of summons. It can be substituted
service to any of the defendant’s family members of sufficient age and
discretion.
- Summons by publications is NOT PROPER for actions in personam
(personal actions).
- If such service is not proper, then the Court does not acquire
jurisdiction over the defendant.
ILLUSTRATION 1: Galeon borrowed P300,000 from Gravador which
was already due and demandable. Gravador sends Galeon a demand
letter. But Galeon did not heed. Gravador duly filed a case of collection
with MTC, then the Judge issued summons. The summons was
personally received by Galeon. But Galeon did not file an answer.
Q: Did the court acquire jurisdiction over me?
A: YES. If properly served with summons, then the court acquired
jurisdiction over the defendant. Even if the defendant did not file an
answer. What matters is that the defendant is properly served
summons. When, however, the service of summons is improper,
invalid or irregular the Court does not acquire jurisdiction over the
defendant.
ILLUSTRATION 2: Gravador filed a case for collection of a sum of
money for what Galeon owed him in the amount of P300,000, so he
filed a case at the MTC. (NOTE! This kind of action is a PERSONAL
ACTION – it is NOT IN REM) The judge issued summons, but Galeon
hid and could not be found. So, the Court upon application of Gravador
directed that the summons be served upon me through publication in
Sunstar. Is that proper service of summons? The answer is no,
because that is a personal action. It requires personal service of
summons. Even if I read the summons as published in the newspaper
but I do not file an answer, the judgement is not binding upon me.
Because the court has not properly acquired jurisdiction over my
person.
The nature of the action then dictates the proper service of summons.
In this case, it must be done personally to Galeon. or in certain
situations it may be done through substituted service.
Otherwise stated, summons by publication as a rule will not suffice.
Publications in the newspaper cannot be counted as proper service of
summons of personal cases. That does not hold proper in personal
action such as ordinary collection of a sum of money.
2. VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT
g
- the rule of mirisi applies
ILLUSTRATION 3: Gravador sued Galeon for a sum of money and
filed a case in MTC. Judge issued summons, but could not find
Galeon. So there was publication of the service of summons. Because
Galeon read the publication and did not even read it well and was told
by some of his friends about such, Galeon filed an answer.
Therefore, in this case, there was indeed an improper service of
summons but Galeon nonetheless filed an Answer.
Did the court then acquire jurisdiction of the defendant’s person? YES.
The rule on mirisi applies.
ILLUSTRATION 4: A case was filed against a corporation. Summons
was issued by the judge. Who should personally receive the
summons? Where the action is brought against the corporation,
summons should be served upon the defendant corporation through
some responsible officers like the president or the secretary. Not the
janitor.
ILLUSTRATION 5: A defendant was not properly served with
summons. But he nonetheless goes to court and files a motion to
dismiss questioning the improper service of summons, questioning the
court's jurisdiction over his person.
Q: does the defendant thereby submit to the jurisdiction of the court?
A: NO.
(3) Jurisdiction over the res of the case
Res – Latin: thing or object
JURISDICTION OVER THE RES - power of the court over the object
or the thing, the subject matter of the contest or litigation which is
obtained by seizure under and pursuant to the legal process issued by
the court whereby the object is supposedly held to be liable and to
abide by such order as the court may thereafter make
Types of res in civil cases:
1. Tangible
- personal property, real property, money
- the court acquires jurisdiction over the tangible property by the
process of attachment
2. Intangible
- right of a person, status of a person, condition
ILLUSTRATION 1: Gravador files a petition for declaration of nullity or
marriage based on Article 36 invoking the famous case of Tsi Ming
Choi. That action does not involve property, does it have a res?
The answer is yes - the status of the marriage.
When the action pertains to ownership of a real property whereby the
object or the res there is undoubtedly a real property. But with respect
to that petition filed by Gravador, that action still has an object or the
res, and that is the status/condition of his marriage with his wife.
Importance of acquiring jurisdiction over the res:
Because in some cases and in some situations, the acquisition of the
court over the res could substitute jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant because there are situations where the court can hardly
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant specially if the
defendant is a non-resident of the Philippines and he is out of the
country.
In some situations, for as long as the res or the object of the
controversy is here in the Philippines and for as long as the court
already validly acquired jurisdiction over the res then the court may
proceed to meet and try the case. This holds true in cases
12

characterized as partaking the nature of actions in rem or actions quasi
in rem.
ILLUSTRATION 2: The wife of Gravador is a foreigner non-resident.
They separated and she left the Philippines. Her whereabouts are
unknown. Gravador wanted to file for nullity. It was impossible for the
court to serve the wife summons because her location was unknown.
So how does the court acquire jurisdiction? Upon proper application by
Gravador, the complaint may just be published in the newspaper of
general circulation. When that is done the court may already acquire
jurisdiction over the res.
Can the court proceed to render judgment in that case even if the wife
of Gravador is not properly served with summons? Yes. In actions in
rem if the court acquired jurisdiction over the res then that is enough
for the court to render a valid judgment thereof. So that’s why in some
cases and in some situations where the court acquired jurisdiction over
the res. Then that is already sufficient. And it may substitute
jurisdiction over the defendant.
Galeon’s advice: When you’re a practioner and your client asks for
you for advice about a foreigner fleeing the country who still has utang
to your client but the foreigner is non-resident defendant and out of the
country – this is a personal action. It is better if you convert this into an
action quasi-in rem. How will you do that? If naakay nahibal an nga
condo unit diri which is a property then you apply for attachment,
because when the court issues an order of attachment and if the order
is already recorded in the TCT covering the property then the court
already acquired jurisdiction over the person of the res or the object so
with that the court may now proceed to hear the case.
Although there are decisions to the end that the summons just the
same must be served to the defendant but that is not for the purpose
of acquiring jurisdiction over him but is merely for compliance of
procedural due process. Kung ma return na then mirisi ka, if ma
received unanswered the rule on mirisi applied.
(4) Jurisdiction over the issue of the case
- the power of the court to hear and the decide the issues as thus
raised by the parties in the pleadings that the respectively filed before
the court and speaking of pleadings are mentioned under now
amended rule 6 of the rules of court such as complaints, answer, reply
and rejoinder as the case may be
Pleadings Motion
Insert Riano definitions here
when the parties whereby they
put forth their respective claims
and defenses for the court to
determine and decide
ILLUSTRATION: Gravador files against Galeon an action for collection
of money before the appropriate court then he files a complaint. If
Galeon files an answer, the answer is considered his pleading. If
Gravador files a reply, then reply is another pleading. If Galeon files a
rejoinder then that is another pleading.
In the complaint Gravador asserts that Galeon has an unpaid loan
obligation owing to him but in the Answer, Galeon interposed payment.
The issue of this case is whether or not there is payment of the loan
obligation. That is the issue in the case. THEREFORE, the issues in
the case is defined by or determined by the pleadings submitted by the
parties. In fact, the issue in the case may be considered as soon as
answer had already been filed.
RULE: The court cannot take upon issue that is not brought forth
by the parties in their respective pleadings.
ILLUSTRATION: if Gravador asserts that Galeon has an unpaid loan
owing to him (Grava). But the in Galeon’s answer, he interposed and
g
argued that he had already rendered payment and presented therewith
signed by Gravador but the Gravador disowned the signature
appearing therein. Galeon then filed a rejoinder asserting that it was
his (Grava’s) signature.
In this case, the issue is about payment or non-payment of obligation,
so when that is the issue the case then as a rule the court cannot
render judgment on the basis of an issue that is not stated in the
pleadings submitted by the parties.
With this, the court therefore cannot render judgment holding that
Galeon no longer liable to Gravador, because of condonation since not
one of us the parties in the case ever raised this issue on condonation.
The court therefore does not acquire jurisdiction over that particular
issue under condonation because that is not and never raised by the
parties in the case and take note again that the issues in the case
maybe considered as having joined already once the answer is already
filed. (Googi: I’m kinda confused with this part of the transcript I’m so
so so so sorry but that’s what Galeon supposedly said during his
lecture)
DISTINGUISH:
JURISDICTION OVER THE JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER ISSUE
pertains to the power of the pertains to its power to resolve
court to hear and decide the the question that is involved in
case the case
pertains to the power and pertains to the jurisdiction of the
authority to take cognizance of court to resolve the issue that is
the case presented in the case
normally conferred or acquired acquired by the court as soon
by the court the moment the as the answer shall have
complaint is filed before it already been filed
conferred by law conferred not by law but by the
averments or allegations of the
parties in their respective
pleadings
ILLUSTRATION: if Gravador files a complaint for collection of money
alleging therein that Galeon owed him, then the court acquired
jurisdiction over the subject matter, BUT not yet with regards to the
issue. But if Galeon files a case interposing payment then the court
acquires jurisdiction over the issue - that is regarding the payment or
non-payment of the obligation.
BP 129, AS AMENDED
This is the law that confers courts with jurisdiction.
THE JURISDICTION OF THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and
probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant
of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
exceed P300,000.00 or, in Metro Manila where such personal
property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
P400,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of
which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses,
and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing
fees: Provided, further, That where there are several claims or
causes of actions between the same or different parties,
embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand
13

shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the
same or different transactions;
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction
Exclusive - to the exclusion of all other courts, these cases are only
cognizable by the first level courts, to the exclusion of rtc, ca or the sc,
unless these cases will be elevated to them on appeal or on review
Original – at first instance
2. Civil actions and probate proceedings
Civil actions – those actions that pertain to personal property or
something that involves money
Probate proceedings – may include real property, depending on the
composition of the estate being divided/distributed
3. Amount does not exceed P300,000 and P400,000 ceilings
300,000 – outside Metro Manila, such as Cebu, Davao
400,000 – Metro Manila
Anything exceeding – becomes within the purview of the jurisdiction of
the RTC
Are these amounts arbitrary?
No. They are brought about by the provision under Section 5 of R.A.
No. 7691, which provides:
Section 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act,
the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8);
and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this
Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional
amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00): Provided, however, That in the case of
Metro Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall
be adjusted after five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act to
Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00)
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNTS
General Rule: It must be exclusive of damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, as these will then be
included in the determination of the filing fees.
ILLUSTRATION 1: There is an action filed in Cebu City for collection
of sum of money amounting to P250,000.00. No interest was stipulated
in writing. In the complaint, P50,000 attorney’s fees, P20,000 moral
damages and P30,000 exemplary damages were prayed for. All claims
totaled P350,000.
Q: Which court has jurisdiction over the case?
A: MTC has jurisdiction, since the law requires that the determination
of jurisdictional amounts will exclude attorney’s fees and claims for
damages. In this case, the basis/jurisdictional amount is only
P250,000, which is not exceeding P300,000 and therefore within the
jurisdiction of the MTC.
ILLUSTRATION 2: There is an action filed in Cebu City for collection
of sum of money amounting to P250,000.00. Interest was stipulated in
writing at P60,000 per annum. In the complaint, P50,000 attorney’s
fees, P20,000 moral damages and P30,000 exemplary damages were
prayed for. All claims totaled P410,000.00
Q: Which court has jurisdiction over the case?
g
A: The RTC has jurisdiction, since the amount of demand exceeds
300,000, it amounting to P310,000. The stipulated interest of 60,000
must be considered in the jurisdictional amount, since the accured
interest is merely incidental to the principal agreement between the
parties.
Gomez v. Montalban
G.R. No. 174414, 15 March 2008
FACTS: Gomez filed a complaint with RTC Davao City for sum of
money totaling P238,000 consisting of principal (P40,000) and
interests. Montalban was declared in default for failing to answer.
She claimed that the RTC had no jurisdiction as the principal
amount being claimed by Gomez was only P40,000.00, an amount
falling within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
ISSUE: Which court has jurisdiction? (NOTE: The ceiling during this
case is still P200,000)
RULING: The case is within the jurisdiction of the RTC since the
interest on the loan is a primary and inseparable component of
the cause of action, not merely incidental thereto, and already
determinable at the time of filing of the Complaint, it must be
included in the determination of which court has the jurisdiction
over petitioners case. Jurisdiction is determined by the cause of
action as alleged in the complaint and not by the amount ultimately
substantiated and awarded.
ILLUSTRATION 3: Gravador is in to the transportation business, like
Angkas. Galeon rode on Grava’s motor. But they got into an accident.
Galeon ended up in the hospital and incurred hospitalization expenses
at P250,000 (actual damages). Then Galeon sued also for moral and
exemplary damages, because he filed a culpa contractual case. Moral
damages prayed for amounted to P50,000 and exemplary damages
were P50,000.
Q: Which court has jurisdiction over this case? And what is the
jurisdictional amount?
A: The answer is provided for by Circular issued by the SC, and I’m
referring to the Admin Circular No. 09-04 which provides:
The exclusion of the term "damages of whatever kind" in
determining the jurisdictional amount under Section 19 (8) and
Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691,
applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or
a consequence of the main cause of action. However, in cases
where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or
one of the causes of action, the amount of such claim shall be
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
Because of this provision, it becomes clear that where the principal
action is a claim of damages, the amount of such claim shall be
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE:
Situation: What to do?
The claim of damages is merely THE AMOUND OF DAMAGES
incidental to the main cause of SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
action FROM COMPUTING
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT
Purely an action for damages THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
BECOMES THE BASIS OF
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT
Sante vs. Hon. Claravall
14

G.R. No. 173915. February 22, 2010
FACTS: Plaintiff filed a case in the RTC praying for payment of
damages. Moral damages = 350,000. Exemplary and atty.’s fees =
30,000. So it was argued by the defendant that considering that the
amount demanded is more than 300,000 and considering also the
provision in Sec. 33, Par. 1, it should be excluded. The defendant
argued that the case should be filed in the MTC not the RTC which
has jurisdiction. Because of course, the amount of moral damages,
maximum of which, the highest amount is only 300,000 which is
well within the jurisdictional amount for the first level courts.
RULING: The SC held in essence that the exclusion on the term
damages of whatever kind in determining the jurisdictional amount,
applies to cases wherein the damages are merely incidental to the
main cause of action, just like in that situation. But where that is the
main cause of action or the main claim is for damages, then the
amount of each or such claim shall be considered in determining
the jurisdiction of the court and this is illustrated in the second
situation.
REMEMBER: In the determination of the jurisdictional amount,
subject to the rulings in the cases Gomez and Sante, is that
interest, damages, litigation expenses, costs and attorney’s fees
must be excluded therefrom but the same should be factored in
or should be considered in computing the filing fee or docket fee
which should be paid.
PAYMENT OF FILING FEE
Rule: A complaint is not deemed filed unless the corresponding docket
or filing fee is paid in full and that assumes paramount importance
especially if the offense or the cause of action is highly prescribing.
CASE IN POINT: CHARLES
Charles Cu-Unjieng vs. CA
G.R. NO. 139596 - January 24, 2006
Time and again, this Court has consistently held that full payment
of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the
perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appeal is not
perfected and the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction to
entertain the appeal, thereby rendering the decision sought to be
appealed final and executory. For sure, nonpayment of the
appellate court docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary
period as provided under Section 4, Rule 41, supra, is a ground for
the dismissal of an appeal
ILLUSTRATION 4: Galeon files a case against Grava on Feb 13 but
did not pay the correct docket fee/ did not pay the docket fee at all.
Galeon only paid on February 17. Because of this, the complaint is not
deemed filed actually on February 13 but only on February 17 upon full
payment of the appropriate or corresponding filing fee.
Why does this matter?
It assumes paramount importance especially in situations where the
offense is highly prescribing or the cause of action is about to
prescribe. Late payment may bar the action. The filing thereof may
already prescribed because the rule, again, is that unless the
corresponding filing fee is paid faithfully and fully, the complaint is not
deemed filed.
Manchester vs. CA
149 SCRA 562
FACTS: There was a complaint that was filed. The payment for
docket fee was paid but in the complaint, there was a prayer for the
award of damages. (Galeon interjection: We already discussed that
while damages should not be factored in determining the
jurisdictional amount but pursuant to section 53, paragraph 1, it
should be factored in, not for determining the jurisdictional amount,
g
but for the purpose of paying the correct docket fee).
In this case of Manchester, there was payment of docket fee as for
the principal cause of action but there was no payment of docket
fee with respect to the answer - they were praying for moral
damages.
Citing section 33 paragraph 1 of BP 129 as amended, defendant
moved that the case be dismissed because the correct filing fee
was not paid. Realizing his mistake, the plaintiff in this case
amended the complaint and filed the amended complaint, he paid
the balance of the docket fee.
Galeon: (DISCLAIMER: THE AMOUNTS BELOW ARE NOT THE
ACTUAL AMOUNTS IN THE CASE)
Let’s say for example, and it was P50,000. There was a deficiency
that was not included in his claim. Given the objection of the
defendant, the plaintiff amended the complaint and this time
around, he paid the variance. Let’s say the variance is P10,000.
P50,000 plus P10,000, that amounts to P60,000 including
damages.
So, when the plaintiff filed the amended complaint, he only paid the
amount corresponding to the deficiency or the balance.
RULING: The Supreme Court said the defect is not curable, or that
the subsequent amendment does not cure the defect even with the
payment of the balance of the docket fee, because the action has
to be dismissed and that the court does not acquire jurisdiction over
the case.
The remedy, said the Supreme Court, is to really file the complaint
and to pay again the complete amount of docket fees.
Because of this, the P50,000 docket fee already paid by the plaintiff
was FORFEITED in favor of the government.
The plaintiff would have to file AGAIN and pay AGAIN.
LESSON: Indeed, there is a need for us to pay the correct docket
fee upon the filing of the complaint. Because, unless the same is
done, your complaint is not deemed filed.
COMPARE TO:
Sun Insurance vs. CA
170 SCRA 274
Googi digest: Sun Insurance filed a complaint in RTC for the
consignation of a premium refund insurance policy against Manuel
Tiong, who was declared default for failure to file the required
answer. Manuel Tiong, on the other hand, filed a complaint in RTC
for the refund of premiums and the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment against Sun Insurance. Although not explicitly stated in
the complaint, the amount (damages, atty’s fees, costs of suit) he
prayed for amounted to P50,000,000.00.
But even with that huge amount, the docket fee paid by Manuel
Tiong was only P210.00.
Later on, Manuel Tiong filed an amended complaint where he
prayed that he be award no less than P10,000,000 as actual and
exemplary damages. But in the body of the complaint, his
pecuniary claim was around P44,000,000. The complaint was
admitted, which prompted the assessment and collection of
P39,786.00 docket fee.
Manuel Tiong then filed a supplemental complaint, alleging an
additional claim of P20,000,000 in damages. This would make his
claim a total of P64M. He also paid an additional docket fee for his
supplemental complaint of P80,000.00
15

After the promulgation of the decision, Manuel Tiong also paid an
additional docket fee of P62,000 due to the reassessment of docket
fee by the court. He spent a total of P182,824.90 on docket fees.
Regardless of this, Sun Insurance comes to court and assails the
jurisdiction of RTC on the ground that Manuel Tiong never paid the
proper docket fee and therefore the case was never even properly
filed.
RULING: The SC therefore said that a more liberal interpretation of
the rules is called for considering that, unlike Manchester, Manuel
Tiong demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying
the additional docket fees as required. The promulgation of the
decision in Manchester must have had that sobering influence on
Manuel Tiong who thus paid the additional docket fee as ordered
by the respondent court. It triggered his change of stance by
manifesting his willingness to pay such additional docket fee as
may be ordered.
Nevertheless, Sun Insurance contend that the docket fee that was
paid is still insufficient considering the total amount of the claim.
This is a matter which the clerk of court of the lower court and/or his
duly authorized docket clerk or clerk in-charge should determine
and, thereafter, if any amount is found due, he must require the
private respondent to pay the same.
Thus, the Court rules as follows: (Take note of these three points,
because each were discussed by Galeon)
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory
pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that
vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or
nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow
payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond
the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third
party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered
filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The
court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time
but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the
filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed
filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not
specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left
for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor
shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility
of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said
lien and assess and collect the additional fee.
ADDITIONAL INFO:
TERM DEFINITION BY RIANO
Pleading in its own right; a pleading which
Counterclaim sets forth a claim a defending party may
have against an opposing party
Compulsory A kind of counterclaim which a defending
counterclaim party has at the time he files his answer
A counterclaim that does not have to be
raised in the same proceeding because by
its nature it could be invoked as an
Permissive independent action
counterclaim
“Something that is not basically intertwined
with the cause of action as stated in the
complaint.” (Galeon)
Pleading containing the claim by one party
Cross-claim
against a co-party
A complaint that brings into the litigation a
Third party
third party and that implead him as a party
complaint
to the suit
g
ATTY GALEON’S COMMENTS ON THE CASE OF SUN
INSURANCE:
• But one thing that is good about this case is that somehow the
party is given the time to pay the correct docket fee, the case is
not dismissed outright.
• In the very same sun insurance case, the Supreme Court also
made a ruling with respect to permissive counterclaim - That
when it comes to permissive counterclaim or third party
complaint, the same rule shall apply.
SITUATION: Galeon had a P350,000 claim against Grava. In support
of my complaint, I appended the receipts for my medical expenses and
medicines, but then some medications are still continuining. So in the
course of my trial, I presented additional receipts, proving the payment
of the medicines after I filed the complaint. Galeon said: “Your honor!
Naa pay lain! Naa pay additional P50,000! Wa man ni ma kuan kay
pag file nakos complaint wa pa man ni gi bayad nako!”
If the court awards in its judgement, this additional amount – take note
that Galeon didn’t pay additional filing fee for this new amount – will be
awarded and the court will resolved this in my favor, meaning not just
the original amount demanded 350,000 but also the additional 50,000.
Then the filing fee of this will constitute as a lien on the judgement.
The branch clerk of court will then, if Gravador will pay the judgement
award, deduct from what Galeon was awarded by the court. the
deduction will correspond to the unpaid, additional filing fees.
But take note of the rule for permissive counterclaims.
4. Totality of Claims Rule
Rule: Where there are several claims or causes of action between the
same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount
of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of
action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the
same or different transactions.
There can be two situations: (1) when there are multiple transactions
or (2) when there are multiple complainants.
Use the totality rule - that where there are
When there are several claims or causes of action between
multiple the same or different parties, embodied in
transactions the same complaint, the amount of the
demand shall be the totality of the claims
If they institute action separately, do not
Where there are
use totality rule.
multiple
If they institute action jointly, use totality
complainants
rule
ILLUSTRATION: Grava borrowed P100,000 four times. One in
November, in December, in January and in February. How will Galeon
institute action? USE TOTALITY – RTC has jurisdiction.
ILLUSTRATION: Money was borrowed from Galeon and Torregosa.
Torregosa has a 300,000 claim and Galeon has a 200,000 claim.
Where to file? It depends on whether action was instituted jointly or
separately.
If separately, MTC. If jointly, RTC. (look at the amounts, it’s not
automatic.)
Sec. 33. (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of
forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, that when, in
such cases, the defendant raises the questions of ownership
in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of
ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of
possession; and
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
16

1. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer are ejectment cases that
can only be heard and tried by the MTC, regardless of the assessed
value of the property involved.
- what is determinative of jurisdiction is the nature and characterization
of the case.
2. The Jurisdiction here is exclusive + original.
3. When the issue of ownership is raised and questioned
Recall: Ejectment cases only resolve the issue of material possession
over property.
RULE: Even if the MTC would pass judgment on the issue of
ownership, that judgment is not conclusive on that particular issue.
For example, in resolving the issue of possession, the MTC ruled in
favor of the defendant, stating therein that the defendant is the owner
of the property.
However, that determination is only to resolve the issue of possession,
and if such decision is not appealed to the RTC, nothing could prevent
the plaintiff from filing a case questioning the ruling on the ownership
by the MTC. It does not constitute res judicata.
CASES IN POINT:
Balibago Faith Baptist Church, Inc. v. Faith in Christ Jesus
Baptist Church
G.R. No. 191527, 22 August 2016
General Rule: The rule is that the allegations in the complaint
determine both the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the
court. The cause of action in a complaint is not what the designation
of the complaint states, but what the allegations in the body of the
complaint define and describe. The designation or caption is not
controlling, more than the allegations in the complaint themselves
are, for it is not even an indispensable part of the complaint. The
complaint must specifically allege the facts constituting unlawful
detainer or forcible entry if the complaint filed was for unlawful
detainer, or forcible entry, respectively. It cannot be made to depend
on the exclusive characterization of the case by one of the parties,
jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in
the answer, in a motion to dismiss or in a motion for reconsideration.
Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No.139442, 6 December 2006
Exception: (1) Undeniably, the aforequoted allegations of the
complaint are vague and iffy in revealing the nature of the action for
ejectment.
Ignacio v. CFI of Bulacan
G.R. No. L-27897-98, 29 October 1971
While the allegations in the complaint make out a case for forcible
entry, where tenancy is averred by way of defense and is proved to
be the real issue, the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
as the case should properly be filed with the then Court of Agrarian
Relations
SEC. 33. (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions
which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein where the assessed value of the property or
interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such
assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That
in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value
g
of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of
the adjacent lots.
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
1. Assessed value is found in the Tax declaration.
QUESTION: Where do you file an action to Quiet Title?
Before RA 7691 – QT was within the jurisdiction of the RTC, since:
1. under B.P. 129, Section 19(1), before and after amendment,
actions for quieting of title fall under actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation, or actions other than collection of sum of money
2. even if an action for quieting of title may be characterized as a real
action, first level courts were not vested with jurisdiction to resolve
issues of title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
other than ejectment.
Now, it’s a little bit more confusing.
Heirs of Concha v. Sps. Lumocso
GR. No.1581212, 12 December 2007
FACTS: This is an action for quieting of title filed before the RTC.
Heirs of Concha claim to be the rightful owners of several lots. The
Lumocsos are the patent holders and registered owners of the
subject lots.
Conchas filed a complaint for Reconveyance and/or Annulment of
Title with Damages against the Lumocsos. They sought to annul
the Free Patent and the corresponding TCT issued in the name of
Gregorio Lumocso. The case was raffled to the RTC. In their
Amended Complaint, Heirs of Concha prayed that judgment be
rendered.
The Lumocsos argued that RTC had no jurisdiction over the
complaints pursuant to B.P. 129, Section 19(2), as amended by
R.A. No. 7691, considering that the assessed value of the
properties involved are less than P20,000. Hence, the case should
have been filed with the MTC. However, the Heirs of Concha
argued that the action partook the nature of quieting of title, hence,
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Thus, in adherence to B.P 129,
Section 19(1), the case is properly filed with the RTC.
RULING: MTC has jurisdiction
The original text of Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 as well as its
forerunner, Section 44(b) of R.A. 296,47 as amended, gave the
RTC exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve
the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands
or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon
Metropolitan Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
(conferred upon the city and municipal courts under R.A. 296, as
amended).
Thus, under the old law, there was no substantial effect on
jurisdiction whether a case is one, the subject matter of which
was incapable of pecuniary estimation, under Section 19(1) of
B.P. 129 or one involving title to property under Section 19(2).
The distinction between the two classes became crucial with
the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 769148 in 1994 which
expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level
courts to include all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the
assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs.
Thus, under the present law, original jurisdiction over cases
the subject matter of which involves title to, possession of,
real property or any interest therein under Section 19(2) of B.P.
17

129 is divided between the first and second level courts, with
the assessed value of the real property involved as the
benchmark. This amendment was introduced to unclog the
overloaded dockets of the RTC which would result in the speedier
administration of justice.
Summary: Action for quieting of title is no longer characterized
purely as one incapable of pecuniary estimation; it is now regarded
as a real action. Hence, jurisdiction over such case would have to
be determined on the basis of the assessed value of the real
property involved.
Heirs of Sebe v. Heirs of Sevilla
G.R. No. 174497, 12 October 2009
FACTS: Sebes filed with the RTC an action for Annulment of
Document, Reconveyance, and Recovery of Possession of two lots
with the assessed value of P9,910.00 against Sevilla. The RTC
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
considering that the ultimate relief that the Sebe sought was the
reconveyance of title and possession over two lots that had a total
assessed value of less than P20,000.00.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC’s dismissal is proper.
RULING: Yes. The power of the RTC under B.P. 129, Section 19,
as amended, to hear actions involving title to, or possession of, real
property or any interest in it now covers only real properties with
assessed value in excess of P20,000.00. But the RTC retained the
exclusive power to hear actions the subject matter of which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation.
The present action is not about the declaration of the nullity of the
documents or the reconveyance to the Sebe of the certificates of
title covering the two lots. These would merely follow after the trial
court shall have first resolved the issue of which between the
contending parties is the lawful owner of such lots, the one also
entitled to their possession. Based on the pleadings, the ultimate
issue is whether or not defendant Sevilla defrauded the Sebe
of their property by making them sign documents of
conveyance rather than just a deed of real mortgage to secure
their debt to him. The action is, therefore, about ascertaining
which of these parties is the lawful owner of the subject lots,
jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed value of such
lots.
Here, the total assessed value of the two lots subject of the suit is
P9,910.00. Clearly, this amount does not exceed the jurisdictional
threshold value of P20,000.00 fixed by law. The other damages that
the Sebes claim are merely incidental to their main action and,
therefore, are excluded in the computation of the jurisdictional
amount.
NOTE: based on the rulings on these two cases, it would now appear
that even if the action is delineated as one for quieting of title, that may
be now taken cognizance of by the first level courts if it would involve
real property.
Sabitsana vs. Muertegui
GR 181359
The SC reverted to its ruling in the past that an action to quiet title
is one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Hence, pursuant
to Sec 19 of BP129 before and even after the amendment brought
about by RA7691, has to be lodged with the RTC.
Because according to our SC in this case, under the Rules of
Court, an Action to Quiet Title is considered as part of the actions
contemplated under Rule 63. It is expressly provided therein in
the rules of court.
QUESTION: WHICH IS THE CONTROLLING DOCTRINE?
g
Dean Monteclar – Goncha and Sebe
Dean Torregosa – Sabitsana
Atty Galeon – Goncha and Sebe
For two reasons: (This is just Galeon’s opinion)
1. The reason why BP 129 was amended was precisely to unclog the
dockets of RTC, by expanding the jurisdiction of the first level courts
2. While indeed quieting of title is mentioned expressly Rule 63 of ROC
and is one for declaratory relief hence to be filed with the RTC, take
note: Rule 63 was promulgated by SC before the enactment of RA
7691. And, if there is a conflict between a substantive law and a
procedural law, the rule is that substantive law must prevail.
Sec. 34. Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land
Registration Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may be assigned by
the Supreme Court to hear and determine cadastral or land
registration cases covering lots where there is no controversy
or opposition, or contested lots where the value of which does
not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such
value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or by
agreement of the respective claimants if there are more than
one, or from the corresponding tax declaration of the real
property. Their decisions in these cases shall be appealable in
the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts.
GENERALLY: This confers MTC, etc the jurisdiction to hear cadastral
and land registration cases.
Cadastral is the old survey that mandated
CADASTRAL CASES all lands in the Philippines to undergo
registration. (MANDATORY)
It is the voluntary process at the
LAND discretion of the owner of the property for
REGISTRATION the issuance of a torrens title that will be
CASES binding upon the entire world
(COMPULSORY)
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
1. This is delegated jurisdiction from the SC.
Therefore: it is not inherent.
2. The existence of controversy divests the MTC of jurisdiction.
NOTE: If there is a petition for registration for a parcel of land that is
filed before the MTC, and there is no opposition thereto, take note that
even if the value of the property involved exceeds P100,000, MTC still
has jurisdiction over the case. Because this amount (P100,000) would
only come into play if there is an opposition to the petition for land
registration.
18

DISTINGUISH FROM SECTION 33 (3): Section 34 only applies to
land registration or cadastral cases. Actions for reconveyance,
acquisition, other than cadastral registration, will have to be governed
by Sec 33(3) and not sec 34. So the assessed value only applies to
land registration cases or cadastral cases.
3. These cases shall be appealable in the same manner as
decisions of the RTC.
This means that decisions for land registration made by the MTC
should be appealed to the CA, and NOT the RTC.
The import of the provision is that its appealability is in the same
manner as the decisions of RTC. So decision rendered by first level
courts in land registration cases are appealable, not to the RTC, but to
the CA.
Section 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. – In the
absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province or city,
any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal
Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ
of habeas corpus or applications for bail in criminal cases in
the province or city where the absent Regional Trial Judges
sit.
This provision confers upon the MTC special jurisdiction.
Recall: Petition for Habeas Corpus and application for bail are heard
by RTC, CA or SC in their concurrent jurisdictions.
This is special because it only attaches to MTC when there is an
absence of the judge in RTC. The reason for this provision is because
of the impelling necessity and urgency of the situation in these two
types of cases. (Habeas Corpus presupposes illegal detention, and
bail presupposes deprivation of liberty)
JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation;
Note: Exclusive and original jurisdiction
CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY
ESTIMATION (REAL ACTION) ESTIMATION
ü Action for a sum of money ü Action for expropriation
ü Collection of a loan ü Action seeking to annul
ü Recovery of personal resolution of a competent
property court
ü Action for Interpleader ü Injunction
ü Action for recognition of an
Acc to Galeon: illegitimate child / support
ü Action for foreclosure of ü Interpretation of contracts
real property ü Declatory relief
ü Petition for correction of
entries in the birth records
Acc to Galeon:
ü Rescission of foreclosure
sale
Action for expropriation - deals with the exercise by the government
of its powers’ the controlling factor here is not the value of the property,
but rather the characterization of the action which is rather incapable of
pecuniary estimation. It is regarded as such because an action for
expropriation concerns mainly with the exercise of the government of
its inherent power of eminent domain
g
Action for recognition of an illegitimate child / support - primary
action is more on the status on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the
child
Interpleader – an action where the one instituting it is not claiming title
to or ownership of the property-subject matter of the litigation, but
wants to compel two other parties having contrasted claims to litigate
on who owns the property; then the one who holds the property may
institute an action for interpleader so as to bring the parties to the court
and allow them to resolve their disputes before the court
WHAT ABOUT ACTIONS FOR SPECIFIC PERSOMANCE OR
RECISSION OF CONTRACTS OR ACTION FOR PARTITION? The
SC flip-flops. Lol
Spouses Saraza vs. William Fransisco
GR 198718 Nov. 27, 2013
FACTS: It was an action for specific performance primarily to
enforce the contract to execute a deed of sale. It therefore involved
acquisition of real property. The plaintiff prayed to the court to direct
the defendant to execute a deed of sale in his favor so that he will
become the owner of the property. That action would be founded
on the contract of sale.
RULING: The SC said the action is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. So RTC has jurisdiction. Even if that action involves a
real property, it is still considered one that is primarily incapable
of pecuniary estimation.
The SC said although the end result of the litigation would be the
transfer of the title of the property to the plaintiff, the suit was
essential specific performance – a personal action, because it
sought of the defendant for the execution of a deed of sale based
on a contract they previously executed.
Basically: the case of spouses saraza = action for specific
performance = incapable of pecuniary estimation = RTC, regardless
of assessed value of the property. It fell under section 19,
paragraph 1. For as long as the action is one that is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, it will fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Manuel Ruiz vs. JM Tuason & Co
G.R. No. L-18692, January 31, 1963
FACTS: There was an action for specific performance, because
the plaintiff prayed, among others, that the defendant executes in
his favor a final deed of sale concerning a parcel of land.
ISSUE: Which court has jurisdiction?
RULING: SC sang a different tune, holding that the action is one for
recovery of acquisition of ownership and that is an action
capable of pecuniary estimation and will therefore depend on the
assessed value of the property. If it’s a real action, consider the
assessed value of the property to determine the jurisdiction of the
court. Here the SC said that although the complaint is entitled one
for specific performance but he asked that the deed of sale of a
parcel of lot in Quezon city.
Russell vs. Vestil
304 SCRA 738, March 17, 1999
We find merit in the petition.
Petitioners maintain the view that the complaint filed before the
Regional Trial Court is for the annulment of a document
denominated as "DECLARATION OF HEIRS AND DEED OF
CONFIRMATION OF PREVIOUS ORAL PARTITION," which is
clearly one incapable of pecuniary estimation, thus, cognizable by
the Regional Trial Court.
19

The complaint filed before the Regional Trial Court is doubtless one
incapable of pecuniary estimation and therefore within the
jurisdiction of said court.
Barrido vs. Nonato
G.R. No. 176492. October 20, 2014
The petition lacks merit.
Contrary to Barrido’s contention, the MTCC has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of real actions or those affecting title to real property, or
for the recovery of possession, or for the partition or condemnation
of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on real property.
Genesis Investment vs. Heirs of Ceferino Ebarasabal
G.R. No. 181622, November 20, 2013
Here, it’s also an action for declaration of nullity, rescission again,
nullification of document, partition, damages, and attorney’s fees –
it involves a parcel of land with a value not exceeding 20K.
So it was of course contended that the case should be filed with the
MTC because it was a real action involving a parcel of land.
But, just like in the case of Saraza, the case of Russell, the SC said
the action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation. The primary
objective is to have the document nullified and the recovery of the
parcel of land is merely incidental.
But again, you take note of the case of Ruiz – even if that is specific
performance capable of pecuniary estimation, but considering that
it involves property then it is a real action – jurisdiction is dependent
on the assessed value of the property.
HOW TO RECONCILE THESE CONFLICTING RULINGS:
Atty Galeon’s observation:
That where the action or the acquisition or recovery of land is rooted
on a document and the acquisition or recovery is dependent on
the nullification or enforcement of that pre-existing document or
contract, almost always you can say that the action is considered to
be one FUCKING INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION.
So where there’s an existing contact, say, a deed of sale, and one of
the parties wants it to be enforced or rescinded, even if that would
involve recovery or acquisition of a parcel of land, the action is almost
always (may be 99%) considered as one incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
Sec. 19. (2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the
assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000,00) or, for civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful
detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which
is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
POINTS:
1. It likewise vests upon the RTC exclusive and original jurisdiction in
all civil actions which involve a title to or possession of real property or
any interest therein.
2. This does NOT include ejectment cases.
g
Sec. 19. (3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
where the demand or claim exceeds P300,000 or, in Metro
Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds P400,000.
What are admiralty/ maritime cases?
These are the cases arising from situations when you transport goods
by sea, thru a commercial vessel, and there’s a damage to the goods
transported, then someone may want to file a case.
If claim for damages exceeds P300,000 in places outside metro
manila, then you file your admiralty case in the RTC.
ANYTHING 300,000 UNDER = MTC’S JURISDICTION. (Argue on two
bases: 1. By inference, and 2. By Par 1 of Sec 33)
Sec. 19. (4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate,
where the gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000 or, in
probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value
exceeds P400,000
Paragraph 4 reinforces the notion that where the claim already
exceeds then it should be filed with the RTC. So this is but a
consequence of the amendment of BP 129
Sec. 19. (5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and
marital relations;
Actions covered by this paragraph: (this list is NOT exclusive)
ü Declaration of nullity of marriage
ü Annulment of marriage
ü Support
ü RA 9262 (VOWC)
NOTE: This provision has already been superseded by RA 8369,
which created the Family Courts – regional trial courts that have been
specifically designated by the Supreme Court to hear cases involving
marriage and marital relations. These courts are still RTCs.
In Cebu City: RTC 6 (Judge Veloso) and RTC 22
Sec. 19. (6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions;
This is the provision that manifest the GENERAL JURISDICTION of
the Regional Trial Courts.
It is clearly provided that the RTCs have exclusive and original
jurisdiction over cases not within (take note of this: “not within”) the
exclusive jurisdiction of any court.
Let’s read this in conjunction with Section 9, BP 129:
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgements of Regional Trial Courts
What is stated therein is that the CA has exclusive original jurisdiction
over petitions of annulment or decisions of RTCs. In other words,
Section 19 does not mention about annulment of decisions of MTC.
So where can we annul decisions of MTC? It depends on the grounds.
QUESTIONING THE DECISION OF MTC
On the grounds of (1) simple On the ground of fraud
misappreciation of evidence or
(2) error in the conclusion of law
Remedy: APPEAL Remedy: GO TO RTC, by virtue
of its general jurisdiction, not
20

because it was specially
conferred with such jurisdiction.
Lupangco vs. CA
160 SCRA 848
FACTS: This case of Lupangco is a case questioning the resolution
issued by the PRC, which prohibited the distribution of handouts or
review materials or tips for the CPA Board exam. This was
questioned by the prospective examiners.
A case was filed before the RTC seeking to nullify the resolution of
the PRC. But the PRC argued that if at all, the case should have
been filed with the CA, because under the rules decisions rendered
by quasi-judicial bodies or admin bodies, like PRC among others,
may be questioned before the CA. that was the contention of PRC.
RULING: our SC disagreed and said that while indeed it’s true that
your (PRC’s) decisions should be reviewed by the CA if there’s a
question about it, BUT that only pertains to decisions regarding
your performance of your quasi-judicial functions.
In the case at bar, the resolution in question was being issued in
the exercise of PRC’s administrative functions.
Further, there is nothing in the law which says that if you want to
question the resolution issued by PRC that you should file the
action in the CA. There is also no law that prescribes which court
should take cognizance over such petition.
Therefore: SC said the case should be filed with the RTC. For one,
RTC has jurisdiction over cases of incapable of pecuniary
estimation and more than that, we have par 6 which confers upon
the RTC jurisdiction over the cases not falling within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal or body.
Bernardo v. Caltex
216 SCRA 170
FACTS: Bernardo was a fuel dealer. He purchased fuel from Caltex
that morning but then there was a price increase in the evening.
When Caltex delivered, as ordered by Bernardo, it demanded that
he paid the variance representing the effect of the increase which
took in the evening for the contract of sale perfected in the morning.
When the case was filed, it was filed with the RTC. It was argued
that it should be filed with the ERB, which is the body tasked to
supervise oil companies. SC said that the transaction involves a
debtor-creditor relationship. Hence, it is not within the ambit the
ERB, which is merely regulatory or a quasi-judicial function. But,
this transaction involved an ordinary contract involving a debtor-
creditor relationship. Hence, RTC has jurisdiction over the case.
But, where a case for example, is already under the jurisdiction of a
particular tribunal or the same falls within the purview of the
exclusive jurisdiction of another court, tribunal or body, then RTC is
without jurisdiction to hear the case
Sandoval v. Caneba
190 SCRA 77
This is a dispute involving a land developer and the buyer of the
subdivision lot. The buyer defaulted the payments of installments
so a case was filed for the collection of the unpaid installments.
Which court has jurisdiction over the same?
SC: The regular courts have no jurisdiction. Regardless of the filing
of the case, it cannot be filed under the RTC or MTC, rather it
should be with the HLURB. The body tasked with the power and
g
authority to hear disputes involving land developers and the buyer
thereat.
C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. vs. Hon. Romeo J. Hibionada
191 SCRA 268
This time around the one filing the case is the land owners. They
filed a case against the developer because it failed to maintain the
roads in and about the subdivision.
SC: Just the same with the previous case, the case should be filed
with the HLURB and not within the regular courts.
Medical Plaza v. Cullen
GR. 181416
This case was filed with the HLURB because it involves a
condominium corporation and a condo unit owner. In the
corporation law, if there is a condo unit owner, he becomes a
stockholder of the corporation.
What happened here was that there was a member of the
condominium core who was not allowed to vote or be voted in the
homeowners meeting, on the supposition that he failed to pay
associations dues. He said that he already paid the assessments,
the causal dues but the corporation argued otherwise. So, as he
was not allowed to vote or be voted, he filed a case before the
regular RTC. The case was an action for damages.
RULING: Case should not be tried in a regular RTC but an RTC,
which has been designated as a special commercial court,
because here the SC characterized the action as partaking of the
nature an intra-corporate controversy or one involving a member of
a corporation or stockholder of corporation and the corporation
itself. Hence, the regular RTC is without jurisdiction over the case
or the case should rather be filed and tried and decided by an RTC
which is to act as a special commercial court.
Benguet v. Laviste
204 SCRA 99
LESSON: This is already under the exclusive jurisdiction of another
court then RTC may not anymore entertain the case.
FACTS: A mining company entered into an operations agreement
for investment management contract between the mining company
and another company. Then, there was a case filed for the
rescission of the agreement and it was filed in the RTC. So now we
know for a fact then the action or case filed is for specific
performance or rescission, almost always or it is generally
characterized as one incapable of pecuniary estimation. Hence,
falling under the jurisdiction of RTC. At a glance, it would appear
that correct ang filing before the RTC.
RULING: it should be filed in the bureau of mines. So here, its clear
as day that in as much as the case falls under the exclusive
jurisdiction of another tribunal then RTC cannot anymore hear the
case even if RTC is a court of general jurisdiction.
Machete v. CA
250 SCRA 176
So there was a case that was filed for the collection of unpaid
rentals but the rentals pertain to an agricultural land. SC: Case
should be filed with the DARAB because it falls under the
jurisdiction of another tribunal.
21

THEREFORE: When a case already falls within the purview of the
exclusive jurisdiction of another court, tribunal or body, then RTC,
although it is a court of general jurisdiction, is without a jurisdiction or
authority to hear the case because it already belongs to the domain of
another court or tribunal.
But, where the case is filed and there is nothing in law which provides
that it shall be filed in a particular court, then being a general court,
RTC can take cognizance of the action.
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian Relations as now
provided by law;
Before BP 129: Cases involving marital relations; such as
adoption, custody of minors, legal support should be filed in
the Court of Juvenile and Domestic Relations.
In the advent of BP 129, these cases were transferred to the
exclusive, original jurisdiction of the RTC.
But with the enactment of RA 8369, cases originally
cognizable by CJDR, then RTC where eventually transferred
to the so-called Family Courts.
RA 8369: Section 5. Jurisdiction of family Courts. - The Family
Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and
decide the following cases:
b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas
corpus in relation to the latter;
c) Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation
thereof;
d) Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity
of marriage and those relating to marital status and property
relations of husband and wife or those living together under
different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution
of conjugal partnership of gains;
NOTE: Par 7 likewise confers upon the RTC the jurisdiction overs
cases cognizable before by the agrarian relations.
BP 129 confers RTC with cases involving agra relations.
But CARL (RA6657) divested RTC of their jurisdiction over
agricultural tenancy cases and these were transferred
already to the Department of Agrarian Reform or
specifically, DARAB.
Quisimundo v. CA
201 SCRA 609
SC verified the enactment of EO 229 which should effect on August
29, 1987. The RTCs were divested of their jurisdiction over agrarian
reform matters and the said jurisdiction is now vested to the
department of the agrarian reform EXCEPT with two cases, that is
payment or just compensation to landowners and prosecution of
criminal offenses under the same act.
So these are the only cases which are retained under the
jurisdiction of RTCs. Because again, all the rest have been
transferred from RTC to Department of Agrarian Reform or
specifically, DARAB.
GENERAL RULE: Agra cases – DARAB
g
EXCEPTION: If the issue is regarding (1) payment or just
compensation to landowners, (2) prosecution of criminal offenses
under the same act
ILLUSTRATION: the action is for petition for the determination of just
compensation, because the government is taking your land as it is in
excess of the retention limit of CARL. But you are not amenable to the
valuation by the Land Bank. So you filed a petition before the RTC
questioning or for the determination of just compensation.
Although this case involves agricultural land, your petition must be filed
with the RTC and not with DAR.
ILLUSTRATION: Your tenant somehow took of your income of your
property – He took your lubi and sold it to third persons. That’s estafa,
right? So file in RTC, not DARAB or DAR.
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds P300,000 or, in such other cases in Metro
Manila, where the demand exclusive of the abovementioned
items exceeds P400,000.
This clarifies that where the amount demanded exceeds 300K or 400K
as the case may be, then the action should now be filed with the RTC.
TN: the property referred under Par. 8 is personal property.
Because if what is involved a real property then what should be
applied is Sec. 19 Par 2 of BP 129, as amended as it deals with real
action
ILLUSTRATION: Contract of deposit. Kana inyong contract of deposit.
For example, commudatum. Then, demanded for the return, other
person refused. The amount is say 500k, so you demand for the return
of the deposit. Question is, where do you file the action?
Ortigas vs. Herrera
120 SCRA 89
50k deposited with another person. Demand for the return. It was
filed with the MTC. Argued that it should rather be filed with RTC
because action is one that is incapable of pecuniary of estimation.
But plaintiff said it is demand of collection of sum of money
because obviously it involves a sum of money. SC: action should
be considered as one incapable of pecuniary estimation. Why?
Because the action is akin to a specific performance, what is
sought to be enforced here is a contact of deposit and not a
contract of loan. So, it is not purely a simple collection of sum of
money. It is for the return of what was deposited. Hence, it is
properly considered as one for specific performance.
Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. – Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction which
may be enforced in any part of their respective regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public
ministers and consuls.
This confers upon the RTC original jurisdiction in other cases.
Why does this differ from section 19?
Section 19 Section 21
fall under the exclusive original the cases governed clearly
jurisdiction of the RTC would fall under the original
jurisdiction, but not necessarily
exclusive, jurisdiction of the
22
 g

RTC
cases referred to under Section
21 would be under the MODES OF APPEAL/REVIEW
concurred jurisdiction of the - It highly depends on where the case originated.
RTC with another court or
courts, as the case may be See tables:

OTHER CASES:

1. Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas

corpus, and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their
respective regions.

ü ORIGINAL, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE, BUT THIS IS SHARED

WITH CA AND SC.

ü You cannot anymore institute a similar petition involving the

same parties and the same factual milieu with another court.
Otherwise, you will be held guilty of forum shopping

ILLUSTRATION: Grava was kidnapped. So his wife filed for petition of

habeas corpus in RTC. RTC took so long in granting. So she filed the
same in SC or CA. Is that allowed? NO. Even if this case falls under
the concurrent jurisdiction of the CA and SC, you can only choose one,
or else you will be guilty of forum-shopping. So, the consequences of
that is that your petitions will be dismissed and you will be meted out
with the appropriate administrative sanction

ü But take note that the writs for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction that may be issued
by the RTCs again are only enforceable within their respective
regions, and there lies the difference.

Where a writ for certiorari, prohibition is issued by the CA or the

Supreme Court, that writ is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
But if that is only issued by RTC, its application or enforceability is only
limited within the territorial region of the issuing court.

2. Cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and

consuls

ü ORIGINAL. NOT EXCLUSIVE. Shared with SC.

Otherwise stated, CA has no jurisdiction of cases affecting

ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls

Section 22. Appellate jurisdiction. – Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial
jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the
entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and
such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the
parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts. The decision
of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall be appealable
by petition for review to the Court of Appeals which may give it
due course only when the petition shows prima facie that the
lower court has committed an error of fact or law that will
warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment
sought to be reviewed.
This provision confers the RTC with the power of appellate
jurisdiction.
Remember: RTC is both an original and appellate court.
In such appellate jurisdiction, the RTC will require the parties to submit
their respective memoranda or briefs.
BRIEF - a memorandum where you have your arguments
REMEMBER: the RTCs will have appellate jurisdiction over cases
decided by the MTC or first level courts within their respective
territorial jurisdictions.
ILLUSTRATION: A case was filed for ejectment in Mandaue City. But
it was appealed through a Petition for Review in RTC of Cebu City.
Q: What were the mistakes made by the counsel of the plaintiff?
A: (1) Filing the appeal with an RTC in Cebu City. This is wrong,
because Cebu City is not within the same territorial jurisdiction as that
of Mandaue City.
(2) Filing a Petition for Review. Where the case originates from MTC
and appeal is sought with RTC, the correct motion is to file a NOA with
RTC.
RA 8799. Section 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission.
– 5.1. The commission shall act with transparency and shall
have the powers and functions provided by this code,
Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the Corporation Code, the
Investment Houses law, the Financing Company Act and other
existing laws. Pursuant thereto the Commission shall have,
among others, the following powers and functions: (a) Have
jurisdiction and supervision over all corporations, partnership

23

or associations who are the grantees of primary franchises
and/or a license or a permit issued by the Government;
Before: jurisdiction over cases used to be cognizable by the Securities
Exchange Commission
Now: they have been transferred to the court of general jurisdiction.
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
HISTORY OF THE CA
Before BP 129
“Court of Appeals” – the name of the appellate court of the PH
Because of BP 129 (1983 - 1986)
“Intermediate Appellate Court” – the appellate court of the PH at that
time
EO 33 by Corazon Aquino
“Court of Appeals” - it was resolved by the SC that the CA actually is
a new court. There, it is mentioned that the IAC existed only for 3
years, but Aquino not only re-baptized IAC, but she actually abolished
the same and created a new CA.
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue of mandamus , prohibition,
certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary
writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction;
POINTS TO REMEMBER
1. Original jurisdiction, not exclusive
2. Reiterates the proposition that indeed, the issuance of writs of
mandamus, etc. fall under the concurrent jurisdiction of not only the
RTC and SC but also of the ca
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgements of Regional Trial Courts; and
CA has exclusive original jurisdiction for the annulment of the decision
of RTC NOT first level courts.
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgements,
resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and
quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commission, including the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees
Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission,
Except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor
Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1)
of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth
paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
The appellate jurisdiction of the CA, where the CA will have exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over all final judgment, decisions, resolutions,
court orders or awards of the RTC and quasi-judicial agencies or
instrumentalities.
Lupangco vs. CA
Supra
PRC argued that their decision should have been questioned, not in
the CA, but in RTC. But the SC ruled otherwise.
g
The CA will have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions
rendered by the RTC and even quasi-judicial agencies.
RA 7902: The decisions rendered by the Civil Service
Commission, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, will
have to be appealed to the CA.
ART. IX-A. SECTION 7. Each Commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought
before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for
decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted
for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the
Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or
ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days
from receipt of a copy thereof.
Unless otherwise provided for in this constitution or by law, the
decisions rendered by the constitutional commissions (CSC,
COMELEC, COA) may be reviewed by certiorari before the SC.
QUESTION: Is RA 7902 constitutional?
ANSWER: Yes. because under Section 7 of Article 9-A, it is stated that
unless otherwise provided in this Constitution or by law that the
decisions of constitutional bodies should be dedicated to the Supreme
Court via Certiorari.
So, when the law provides that the decisions of the quasi-judicial
agency or the constitutional body may be appealed to the CA, then it
should be valid because the Constitution allows it. But take note that
decisions rendered by the Commission on Audit and the COMELEC
rendered in the exercise of their respective quasi-judicial functions are
only reviewable by the SC, meaning it would not pass through the CA
because under the law it's only the decisions of the CSC which shall
pass through the CA before the said decision may be reviewed by the
SC.
EXCLUSIONS OF THE COVERAGE OF CA’S APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
1. Those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
2. Pure questions of law
- if mixed questions of law and fact – go through CA.
Ynot vs IAC
G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987
The case was filed or it originated from the RTC, and the RTC did
not tackle the validity of the EO 626-A then from the RTC to the CA
then eventually to the SC. If what was questioned by Ynot was
purely a legal question of pure questions of law, whether or not EO
626-A is unconstitutional then he is allowed to go directly to the SC.
But if he is questioning whether or not there is for example when he
presented a permit, and his question is whether or not the permit
was authentic, or was it duly issued and there is also a question
rather, an alternative question of law then he cannot bypassed the
CA. Because whether or not he has a permit to transport carabao
from one province to another that is a factual question, that is not a
purely legal question. But when the question of the case is only with
regards to the validity of the EO 626-A then he is authorized to go
directly to the SC, he doesn’t have to go through the CA.
People vs. Mateo
Supra
24

Where the penalty imposed is death, if at all, there is such thing as
intermediate review to be conducted first by the CA before the case
may be reviewed finally by the SC. So, in other words it does not
mean that the cases falling under or enumerated under Section 5,
par 2 would have to go directly from the RTC level to the SC or the
same would not pass through the CA. Again, if what is involved is a
mix question of facts and law, then you can’t bypass the CA. You
take note also section 9 of BP 129 as amended, excludes from the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CA.
3. Subparagraph 1, par 3, subparagraph 4 and paragraph 4 of Section
17 of Judiciary Act of 1948
(This is the last paragraph of Section 9)
The court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and
conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all
acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling
within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the
power to grant and conduct new trials or Appeals must be
continuous and must be completed within three (3) months,
unless extended by the Chief Justice. (as amended by R.A. No.
7902.)
This basically deals with the powers of the CA to receive evidence
and to conduct hearings.
1. The Court of Appeals may conduct clarificatory hearings when
exercising its original jurisdiction and when exercising its appellate
jurisdiction. But such hearings are not mandatory.
NOTE: Clarificatory hearings done in CA is different from RTC, MTC
hearings, because in CA, the lawyers talking to the Magistrate of the
CA, as if they are mooting. They do not talk to the opposing counsel.
2. The CA can only receive evidence when it (1) exercises original
jurisdiction or (2) exercises appellate jurisdiction if the receipt is
incidental to the main issue and not to answer the main issue.
QUESTION: Can a party then reserve/withhold the presentation of
evidence during the trial in the RTC level knowing full-well that he can
present such evidence during the CA level?
ANSWER: NO. This provision (the last paragraph) on reception of
evidence applies only to cases filed before the Court of Appeals
in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. In fact, reception of
evidence is not equivalent to a trial on the merits, where there is direct
or cross examination.
Lingner & Fisher GMBH v. IAC
G.R. No. L-63557, 28 October 1983
Galeon: The SC said where the power of the CA to receive
evidence refers only to incidental facts which were not 100%
touched upon, or fully heard by the trial court. Meaning to say, you
cannot opt to not present evidence before the RTC, because the
reception of evidence in CA only refers to incidental matters, not
the main issue of the case.
“Evidence necessary in regards to factual issues raised in cases
falling within the Appellate Court's original and appellate jurisdiction
contemplates incidental facts which were not touched upon, or
fully heard by the trial or respondent Court. The law could not
have intended that the Appellate Court would hold an original and
full trial of a main factual issue in a case, which properly pertains to
Trial Courts.”
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is defined by the Constitution. The
Congress is powerless to define the jurisdiction of a constitutional
g
court. It only has the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the
jurisdiction of various courts. (Article VIII, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution).
ORIGINAL JURISIDCTION OF THE SC
(Article VIII, Section 5(1) of the 1987 Constitution)
1. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus
2. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus is shared with the RTC and the
Court of Appeals.
NOTE: There are petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
which fall exclusively under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. There are petitions of similar kind which fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, such as: filing a petition for certiorari
against the Court of Appeals, filing a petition for mandamus against the
Sandiganbayan. Naturally, following the hierarchy of courts, these
cases should be filed with the Supreme Court.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SC
(Article VIII, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution)
1. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.
Ynot v. IAC
G.R. No. 74457, 20 March 1987
This Court has declared that while lower courts should observe a
becoming modesty in examining constitutional questions, they are
nonetheless not prevented from resolving the same whenever
warranted, subject only to review by the highest tribunal. We
have jurisdiction under the Constitution to "review, revise, reverse,
modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court
may provide," final judgments and orders of lower courts in, among
others, all cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures.
This simply means that the resolution of such cases may be made
in the first instance by these lower courts.
2. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
3. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in
issue.
4. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher.
People vs. Mateo
Supra
Pass through the CA for an intermediate review before the case will
be reviewed by the SC
5. All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
OTHER JURISDICTION OF THE SC:
SECTION 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote
of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within
sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or
resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision
25

or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by
the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt
of a copy thereof.
- deals with the power of the SC to review decisions rendered by the
Constitutional Commissions like the COMELEC, COA, and CSC.
DON’T FORGET: RA 7902 already qualified this provision.
CSC COMELEC COA
These are bodies created by no less than the Constitution
Decisions made in Decisions made in Decisions made in
the exercise of the exercise of the exercise of
quasi-judicial quasi-judicial quasi-judicial
functions must be functions can functions can
reviewed first by CA directly be reviewed directly be reviewed
then the SC (RA by the SC by the SC
7902)
Art 7. SECTION 4. The President and the Vice-President shall
be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years
which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the
same date six years thereafter. The President shall not be
eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as
President and has served as such for more than four years
shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.
- confers jurisdiction upon the SC acting as the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections
and qualifications of the President and Vice President.
Grace Poe case
No citation L
SC ruled, contrary to its previous rulings in the case of Limkaichong
(?) and other cases, that election contests involving presidentiables
can only be decided by the SC or that the COMELEC is without
jurisdiction to hear any such petition for disqualification. This is not
our concern, but as I’ve said before I’m not comfortable with that
ruling, because it is against the ruling in Limkaichong, but just the
same, SC remains to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election and qualifications of the P and VP.
Ingon man gud to sa Grace Poe nga presidentiable kuno, so
COMELEC should have no jurisdiction. But take note of the
wording, “qualifications of the President and the Vice President” – it
does not say of presidentiables or vice presidentiables. That’s why
don’t agree with the case of Poe. In fact the SC previously said that
any qualifications of the president and VP must first be decided by
the COMELEC. But after the declaration of winners, that’s when
COMELEC will be divested of its jurisdiction and the case will not
be referred to the PET. But in the case of Poe, ambot lang naunsa
ang SC.
Art 8. SECTION 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and
judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior
until they reached the age of seventy years or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The
Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline
judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a
g
majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
SC en banc has the power to discipline judges of the lower courts.
In fact, there have been cases of judges in Cebu who were dismissed
by the SC, and only the SC can do that.
The Ombudsman has no authority to dismiss judges.
Article 7 Section 18, The Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of
the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof,
and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days
from its filing.
- SC may hear petitions questioning the sufficiency or insufficiency of
the factual basis for the declaration of martial law or suspension of the
privilege of habeas corpus.
This is a good provision because in the past there were flip-flopping
decisions where the SC can entertain petitions questing the sufficiency
of the factual basis for declaring martial law.
Previously, in the Montenegro case, SC said, political question.
Garcia, SC said justiciable controversy. And in the case of Padilla, the
court reverted to the ruling in Montenegro, political question.
To erase all doubts, under the 1978 Consti, it is now clearly provided
that the SC may hear in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen
any petition questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis for
the declaration of martial law.
NOTE: the rule on legal standing is seemingly relaxed. It says that
the petition may be filed by any citizen of the Philippines, even if that
citizen is not necessarily affected by any such declaration of martial
law or suspension of the privilege therein. Notwithstanding the so-
called rule on judicial review, locus standi – this is an exception.
Sidenote: That explains why when President Duterte declared Martial
Law in Marawi, there were even petitions filed by Cebu residents.
Art. 6. SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to
define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various
courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
Art 6. SECTION 30. No law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
What does that imply?
That Congress, therefore, cannot deprive the SC of its appellate
jurisdiction, but can increase the same with the concurrence or prior
advise of the SC.
Congress cannot do it on its own without consulting the SC and
without getting its concurrence.
You take note of the difference: Here, Congress is prohibited from
depriving the SC of its appellate jurisdiction, but Congress may
increase the same, but with the caveat that it should be done with the
advise and concurrence of the SC.
So consider Articles 8 and 6 somehow with respect to the power of the
Congress to define and apportion the powers of the courts. So there is
a limitation when it comes to the jurisdiction of the SC. Congress is
powerless to deprive it of jurisdiction over cases mentioned under
Section 5 Article 8. But it can increase the same but with conformity of
the SC.
26

THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED
RULE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1
SECTION 1. Title of the Rules. — These Rules shall be known and cited
as the Rules of Court.
The coverage of the Rules of Court includes:
ü Ordinary Civil Actions (what this subject will focus on)
ü Provisional remedies
ü Special civil actions
ü Criminal procedure
ü Evidence
SECTION 2
SECTION 2. In What Courts Applicable. — These Rules shall apply in all
the courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
1. SC has promulgated these rules of court, and therefore, has the power to
choose its application.
GENERAL RULE: The rules of court will apply in all courts.
EXCEPTION: Unless the SC promulgates otherwise, by virtue of its rule-making
power
EXAMPLES:
(1) Rule 70, which provides for the rules on ejectment cases (Forcible Entry and
Unlawful Detainer), mandates that such cases should be cognizable at its first
instance by the first level courts.
(2) Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, which are only applicable in MTCs
or the first level courts, because RTCs do not take cognizance of cases falling
under the purview of the rules on summary procedure.
2. This provision must be read in conjunction with Section 4, Rule 1.
Section 4. In what case not applicable. — These Rules shall not apply to
election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency
proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy
or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
** this provision adds another exception as to the applicability of these rules.
EXAMPLE: The supreme Court sits as the presidential Electoral tribunal, which
shall hear and decide cases involving the qualifications of the president and the
VP, but in disposing such cases, the SC should be guided by the provisions **
SECTION 3
Section 3. Cases governed. — These Rules shall govern the procedure
to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and special proceedings.
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement
or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
g
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the
rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed
for a special civil action. (n)
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for
an act or omission punishable by law. (n)
(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish
a status, a right, or a particular fact.
This provision provides for a definition of the terms.
CRIMINAL ACTION - one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or
omission punishable by law
CIVIL ACTION - one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong
CLASSIFICATION OF CIVIL ACTIONS
(1) As to the nature of the action
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION – actions governed by Rule 1 - 56
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION - actions referred to and enumerated under Rules 62
to 71 of the Rules of Court
Rule 62 Action for Interpleader
Rule 63 Action for Declatory Relief
Review of Final Judgment or Orders rendered by
Rule 64
Constitutional Bodies
Rule 65 Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus
Rule 66 Quo Warranto
Rule 67 Expropriation Proceedings
Rule 68 Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
Rule 69 Partition
Rule 70 Unlawful Detainer and Forcible Entry
Rule 71 Contentions
NOTE: Where there are specific rules that prescribe for special civil action, then
that special action shall be governed in the name by the specific rules. But where
such rules are not sufficient, then that’s the time where the rule or the special
civil action concerned may now be governed by the rules governing the ordinary
civil actions.
Amberti v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 79981, April 2, 1991
FACTS: There was a petition for certiorari that was filed under Rule 65
(Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus). Before the respondent judge could be
given a chance to file his comment to the petition for certiorari, the petitioner
however unilaterally withdrew the petition. It was approved by the higher court.
Later on, the petitioner had a change of heart, wherein he refiled the action.
A meticulous examination of Rule 65 would provide nothing that mentions
about the effect of withdrawal of a petition for certiorari.
RULING: The SC struggled in finding the appropriate rule because Rule 65 is
silent on that point. But in deciding that case, the SC applied by analogy Rule
50 of the Rules of Court, which is the rule governing, where it provides therein
that where there is a withdrawal of an appeal, then the appeal decision or
resolution shall already attain finality.
Therefore, the SC said that the withdrawal of the petition for certiorari shall
have the effect of prohibiting the refiling of the same in that the questioned
judgment or resolution had already thereby attained finality.
(2) As to the case or the foundation of the action
REAL ACTION - one that involves title to or possession of real property or any
interest therein
PERSONAL ACTION - one that may be founded on a contract, expressed or
implied, or even the recovery or acquisition of personal property, movable
properties or actions founded on quasi-delicts
MIXED ACTION – involves real property but with a cause of action considered to
be personal actions
27
 g

Examples: Action for recovery of real property and damages, or unlawful detainer
with demand for the payment of rental
REAL ACTIONS
ü Accion Publiana
ü Unlawful Detainer
ü Forcible Entry
ü Accion Reivindicatoria
ü Partition (Barrido v. Nonato)
ü Action for Foreclosure of Real
Property
ü Quieting Title (Concha v.
Lumocso and Heirs of Sebe
vs. Heirs of Sevilla)**
ü Action for Specific Performance
(Ruiz v. JM Tuason)**
** Beware of conflicting rulings
PERSONAL ACTIONS
ü Quieting of Title (Sabtisana v.
Muertegui)**
ü Recovery or Acquisition of
personal property
ü Actions founded on Quasi-
Delicts
ü Action to annul or nullify the
foreclosure sale
ü Action for Specific
Performance (Russell v.
Vestil, Genesis Investment v.
Ebarasabal, Saraza v.
Francisco) **
A1: In the case of Barrido v. Nonato, the Supreme Court said that an action for
foreclosure of real estate mortgage is considered to be a real action.
A2: The venue of the action would be in Bohol, since the real property subject to
the litigation is located in Bohol.
NOTE:
RULE 4 - Venue of Actions.
Section 1. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and
tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the
municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
CONTINUATION OF THE ILLUSTRATION: The foreclosure proceeded, where
Randi became the highest bidder for the property. Grava, then wanted to nullify
such foreclosure sale.

Atty Galeon’s opinion regarding the conflicting rulings: Q1: Where should he file?

For Action to Quiet Title: A1: Because the action is one that is personal, then follow Section 2 of Rule 4.
Concha and Sebe are controlling, since the reason why BP 129 was amended Gravador then has the option to file in Cebu City, where he resides or to file the
was to unclog the dockets of RTC, by expanding the jurisdiction of the first level case in Leyte where Galeon resides.
courts, and while indeed quieting of title is mentioned expressly Rule 63 of ROC
and is one for declaratory relief hence to be filed with the RTC, take note: Rule Section 2. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may be
63 was promulgated by SC before the enactment of RA 7691. And, if there is a commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
conflict between a substantive law and a procedural law, the rule is that resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants
substantive law must prevail. resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff.
For Action for Specific Performance:
In the cases of Saraza, De Leon, and Russell, our SC has INVALDILY declared
that an action for specific performance or rescission of a contract is still SUMMARY ON FORECLOSURE CASES
considered to be incapable of pecuniary estimation – or a personal action and
not necessarily a real action, since the recovery of the property is merely KIND OF JURISDICTIONAL
incidental thereto or incidental to the main cause of action which is enforcement ACTION VENUE
ACTION BASIS
or rescission of a contract. Capable of
pecuniary
CAVEAT: These are only Atty Galeon’s opinions. Where the real
Action to estimation –
Real action property is
foreclose depends on
Russell vs. Vestil situated
jurisdictional
304 SCRA 738, March 17, 1999 amount
At the election of
RULING: The Supreme Court said that to determine whether the action is the plaintiff:
incapable of pecuniary estimation or that whether or not it is real action, we Action to Where the Incapable of
have to ascertain the ultimate objective of the action. Personal
nullify plaintiff resides, pecuniary
action
foreclosure or where the estimation - RTC
If the ultimate objective of the action is acquisition or recovery of real property, defendant
then it is considered to be a real action. resides

Atty Galeon’s personal observation: where acquisition or recovery of property

is rooted from or dependent on the enforcement or rescission of a written
contract other than real estate mortgage, the action is generally one
considered to be incapable of pecuniary estimation, because although
action was for specific performance there was no contract of whatsoever
between Ruiz and respondent JM Tuason.
(3) As to the object of the action
ACTION IN REM - It is a kind of action in which involve the property or status the
judgment is enforceable as against the whole world

ACTION IN PERSONAM - a kind of action which only binds the party disputants
IMPORTANANCE OF CLASSIFYING ACTIONS AS REAL, PERSONAL, OR and their respective successors in interest
MIXED
ACTION QUASI IN REM - an action directed against specific person but the
1. To determine the jurisdiction of the court objective of which is to impose an obligation burdening the property of the
defendant or the respondent. [Googi: basically, this is directed against a
Jurisdiction is dictated particular human, but then its main purpose or objective is to have a real property
If the action was a real Capable of pecuniary
by the assessed owned by the defendant answer for an obligation, or like, have some lien on the
action estimation
value of the property property]
Jurisdiction is with
If the action was a May be incapable of
RTC, as conferred by Alba v. De la Cruz
personal action pecuniary estimation
law G.R. No. L-5246, Sept. 16, 1910

2. To determine the venue of the action.
ILLUSTRATION: Gravador is a resident of Cebu City. Galeon is a resident of
Leyte. Grava obtained a loan of money from Galeon for the amount of P50,000.
Such loan was secured by a real estate mortgaged, the real property of which was
situated in Bohol. Grava defaulted on his payment, so Galeon decided to file an
action for the foreclosure of the REM.
Q1: What kind of action did Galeon institute? Personal or real action?
Q2: Where should Galeon file the action?
A proceeding in rem, dealing with a tangible res, may be instituted and carried
to judgment without personal service upon the claimants within the State or
notice by name to those outside of it. Jurisdiction is secured by the power of
the court over the res. Such a proceeding would be impossible were this not
so, for it would hardly do to make a distinction between the constitutional rights
of claimants who were known and those who were not known to the plaintiff,
when the proceeding is to bar all.
If the technical object of the suit is to establish a claim against some particular
person, with a judgment which generally, in theory at least, binds his body, or
to bar some individual claim or objection, so that only certain persons are
28
 g

entitled to be heard in defense, the action is in personam, although it may EXAMPLE 2: Cases filed for the Torrens System of Registration - once a title is
concern the right to or possession of a tangible thing. obtained then that is undoubtedly a real action but at the same time an action
in rem because the decision therein is binding against the whole world.
If, on the other hand, the object is to bar indifferently all who might be minded
to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, and
PERSONAL ACTION ACTION IN PERSONAM
if anyone in the world has right to be heard on the strength of alleging facts
which, if true, show an inconsistent interest, the proceeding is in rem. those that may be founded on the binds the party disputants and their
contract, expressed or implied, or respective successors in interest
Atty Galeon: The problem with those definitions is that they are merely an apt even the recovery or acquisition of
to the condition. If we follow this given by the Court, ma wagtang nata. personal property, movable
properties or actions founded on
quasi-delicts
ILLUSTRATION 1: An action for a collection of sum of money was instituted by
Galeon against Grava. What kind of action is this? It is an action in personam,
since it would only bind Grava, the defendant and Galeon, the plaintiff. EXAMPLE 1: The nullification of marriage is undoubtedly a personal action,
because that action does not involve a real property but the effect of which is
ILLUSTRATION 2: Gravador, citing the case of Chi Ming Choi, filed a case for binding against the whole world hence it is a personal action but at the same time
declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family against his wife, an action in rem.
Maria Ozawa. What kind of action is this? It is an action in rem, as it will bind the
whole world. The judgment rendered granting such petition for declaration of nullity EXAMPLE 2: An action collection of sum of money which binds only the party-
of marriage will allow Gravador to contract another marriage, and in like manner, litigants in the case is an action in personam and a personal action.
the respondent wife Ozawa may contract a subsequent marriage.

ILLUSRTATION 3: An action for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage is what kind

of action? It is an action quasi in rem, since such in action, the defendant in the
action is impleaded but the main thrust of the action is to subject his property his
real estate mortgage to the lien or obligation.
IMPORTANCE OF THIS CLASSFICATION
1. In order to determine the proper process of acquiring jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant
Acquiring jurisdiction over the res may substitute
the requirement of the court to acquire the
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
Action in rem
Acquiring jurisdiction over the res may be done
through attachment or authorative statute (? Check
riano)
A personal service of summons upon the defendant
is necessary in order to acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.
Action in personam
In some instances, substituted service of summons
is allowable.
BASIS OF DISTINCTION
Real & personal actions Object of the litigation
Actions in rem & in personam The binding effect of the parties
NOTE: The binding effect is determinative whether the action is an action in
personam or action in rem. But when the action is a real action or a personal action,
the object or the subject matter of the action or the foundation provided in the law
thereof that involves title to, or possession of or any interest therein, involving a
real property then that is a real action, but the effect of which will have to be
determined, determinative whether that is also an action in personam or action in
rem.
(4) as to the place of the institution of action
LOCAL ACTION - kind of action that has to be filed only in the specific place.
A real action is a local action, because under the Rules, a real action would have
to be filed in the place where the property subject matter of the dispute is located.

CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION 2: If Maria Osawa would go back to her TRASITORY ACTION - those which may be filed depending on the residence of
the parties involved.
place of origin, and the petition for nullity of marriage was just published though
newspaper. Did the court trying the nullity case acquire jurisdiction over Maria?
A personal action is a transitory action, which may be filed either at the place
Yes, because the petition for nullity of marriage is an action in rem, whereby
jurisdiction over the defendant may be suspended, provided the court acquires of the residence of the plaintiff or the place of the residence of the defendant, at
jurisdiction over the rest. Such summons by publication is valid, because that the option or election of the plaintiff pursuant to Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of
action is considered to be an action in rem, hence, personal service of summons Court. (discussed further later, under rule 4)
upon the defendant to sum up or the respondent to sum up is no longer necessary.
(5) As to its nature again? Idk na
NOTE: Whether the action is one in personam or in rem, that is
determinative of the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS - A civil action is one by which a party sues another
defendant. for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are governed by the rules for
ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil
action.
DISTINCTION OF REAL & PERSONAL ACTIONS FROM ACTIONS IN REM &
ACTIONS IN PERSONAM
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right, or a particular fact,
REAL ACTION ACTION IN REM
THE OBJECT - REAL THE BINDING EFFECT - WORLD
Examples: Adoption, settlement of estate, escheat proceedings.
those actions that involve title to or an action in which involve the
ORDINARY CIVIL SPECIAL
possession of real property or any property or status the judgment is
ACTION PROCEEDINGS
interest therein enforceable as against the whole
enforcement of a right, to establish a particular
world
examples: accion publiciana, protection of right, status, right, or
Objective prevention of a wrong particular fact then that
recovery of possession and
ownership over the real property is considered as a
special proceeding
Atty Galeon: The best argument that a real action should not be equated with an The contending parties - the defendant is merely
action in rem is that there are real actions which in reality are also actions in the plaintiff vs. the a nominal defendant,
personam. defendant, or the like the Local Civil
Parties
complainant vs the Registrar, the Philippine
EXAMPLE 1: If Galeon files a case of accion publiciana against Gravador, it’s a respondent, as the case Statistics Authority,
real action. but when there is a judgement in that case in Galeon’s favor, then that may be Office of the SolGen
action is only binding between the parties. That makes the case action in
personam. Third parties are not bound by the judgement because that remains to
be an action in personam.

29

commenced by the filing normally commenced
of the complaint by the filing of an
Commencement appropriate petition
of action
the ordinary appeal normally the
period is 15 days reglementary period for
Appeal Period
filing an appeal is 30
days
SECTION 4
Section 4. In what case not applicable. — These Rules shall not apply to
election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency
proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy
or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
Self-explanatory
SECTION 5
Section 5. Commencement of action. — A civil action is commenced by
the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is
impleaded in a later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to
him on the dated of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of
whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the
court.
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
1. Commencement of Civil Action = Filing of Original Complaint in court +
Full payment of prescribed docket fees
CASES IN POINT: Manchester, Sun Insurance, Tacay, Lacson, Suson, Gonzaga
& De Leon
REMEMBER: Jurisdictional amounts, considering the totality rule in Section 33 (1)
of BP 129, as amended.
2. The impleading of an additional defendant
This will be presumed to have commenced on the day of filing such subsequent
pleading.
EXAMPLE: Today, in the morning, Galeon filed a case against Grava. This action
also prescribed today. Next week, I wanted to include Randi as an additional
defendant. Because of this, Randi can interpose a defense that the action has
already prescribed, because in so far as Randi is concerned, the action is deemed
commenced only on the day of the filing of the subsequent pleading. So that is the
importance of the second sentence of Section 5, Rule 1 especially if the action is
already due to prescribed.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally construed in
order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
CASES IN POINT:
Neypes Invoke to make the court chill
Invoke when you’re gg and you wanna tell the
Alonso
court to chill the rules
Invoke when you’re gg and you wanna tell the
Sumbilla
court to chill the rules
Invoke when your kalaban is gg and you wanna
Regulus
tell the court to be a tight ass about the rules
NOTE: The relaxation or suspension of the application of the Rules of Court is
only an exception. The general rule remains to be that we have to abide by the
Rules of Procedure as prescribed under the Rules of Court
ILLUSTRATION:
Recently. There is this case that we’ve handled, the appellant of course was given
the 45 days to file appellant’s brief. Appellant’s counsel moved or filed an extension
of time. Milampas ang period nga gi-extended, gi-file niya, so the appeal was
dismissed. So, Appellant file a motion for reconsideration citing the relaxation of
the rules, leniency with respect to the application of the rigidities of technical
procedures, citing the case again of Alonso vs Villamor.
g
But you know what we pleaded in defense, we cited the case if Cu-unjieng, where
the Supreme Court said that the relaxation of the rule is not a magical formula,
then in our opposition we somehow enumerated the leniency or the abuse of
leniency that was rather committed already by the Appellant, hoping to convince
the CA that is no more rhyme or reason why defendant-appellant should be given
or accorded another leniency. Tagaan naka sauna ug pabor 45 days, ngayo kag
30 days, nilampas, worse you didn’t even file a motion, you didn’t even have the
courtesy in filing a motion to admit the belatedly filed appellant’s brief.
Sa amo admittedly, uwahi among appellate’s brief but the case on appeal may be
set with or without the appellate’s brief. Appellant’s brief is important, appellate’s
brief may be dispensed with. But nonetheless, when we file, although belatedly,
our appellate’s brief, we filed a motion to admit the belatedly filed, appellate’s brief
citing reasons therein why we filed the appellate’s brief out of time. So at least we
have the courtesy, then we ascribed to the defendant nga papel rana siya, wala
jud kay kortesiya, as if nothing happened, you filed your pleading go out of the
blue even if it was already filed out of time.
RULE 2 – CAUSE OF ACTION
SECTION 1
Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. — Every ordinary civil action
must be based on a cause of action.
Criminal Procedure – there must be actual case or controversy
Civil Procedure – there must be cause of action.
But what is cause of action? Such definition is provided in Section 2 of Rule 2.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Cause of action, defined. — A cause of action is the act or
omission by which a party violates a right of another.
ELEMENTS OF CAUSE OF ACTION – ROVD
1. A legal right pertaining to the plaintiff
2. An obligation on the part of the defendant
3. A violation of plaintiff’s right; and
The violation is made through an act or an omission.
Act - presupposes that something is already done; a positive
performance of a thing (ex: trespassing)
Omission - presupposes a person does not do anything (ex: non-
payment of debt)
4. There is damage suffered by the plaintiff.
Most authors include DAMAGE as an element of cause of action in order to combat
the principle of Damnum Absque Injuria.
Damnum Absque Injuria (Damage without injury)
Not in all instances when a party is aggrieved, a tort action may prosper,
because the award of damages does not just depend on the existence of the
damage but the existence of a violation of a duty.
Hence it shall be determined from the viewpoint of the victim and the supposed
offender. There is a lack of either a legal right or good faith. When a right is
exercised in good faith and cases damage to another, he cannot be held liable.
(Taken from Googi’s Persons Torregs notes)
ILLUSTRATION 1: If a road in colon is somehow partially closed for repairs, the
owners of the nearby establishments cannot go to court and ask that they be
compensated for their unearned profit or unrealized income because that is a
situation where the State is simply exercising its police power. There is
perceived damage but in actuality there is no actual injury. There is no cause of
action.
ILLUSTRATION 2: In a beauty pageant, the contestant thinks she’s very smart
but she is not beautiful. If she joins and then subsequently gets eliminated, she
cannot go to court and ask for damages. There is no cause of action.
ILLUSTRATION 3: Husband files a case for a nullity of marriage based on Article
36 based on that of Chi Ming Tsoi. Is there cause of action? YES, because all
elements are present. (1) As a spouse, he has the right to get fucked, (2) his wife
has the marital obligation to fuck him, (3) there is omission on the part of his wife,
which violates the right of the husband, and (4) damage is suffered.
30
 g

ILLUSTRATION 4: Gravador borrows money from Galeon. When the obligation

became due, Grava did not pay. Is there cause of action? Yes, all the elements
are present. (1) As the creditor, Galeon has a right to demand payment from
debtor. (2) Grava, as debtor, has a correlative obligation to pay what he is due
Galeon. (3) There is violation because the obligation is already due but there is no
payment so it would result of pecuniary disadvantage and prejudice on the part of
creditor.

But, if the obligation is not yet due, then Galeon cannot go to court, because there
is as yet no violation on the part of Gravador and there is no damage yet on
Galeon’s part. There is no obligation, because it is yet to mature.

NOTE: Before going to court, it is imperative that all the elements of a cause of
action are already present. Otherwise, there may be possible dismissal of the
case for lack of a cause of action or there is a failure to state the cause of action.

LACK OF A CAUSE OF ACTION VS. FAILURE TO STATE THE CAUSE OF

ACTION

LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION - Not all of the elements constitutive of a cause

of action is present. There is insufficiency of the factual basis for the action.

FAILURE TO STATE THE CAUSE OF ACTION - This simply proceeds from the
imperfection of the making of the allegations embraced in the complaint. All
elements of the cause of action may be present, but there was a defect in the
complaint.

EXAMPLE 1: Grava borrowed money from Galeon. The obligation is due.

Galeon made a demand, but Grava still does not pay. In this case, all elements
of COA are present. But in the filing of the complaint, Galeon, by inadvertence,
failed to allege that the obligation was due.

Even if in truth and in fact, the obligation was due and Galeon even made such
demand, there is still a failure to state the cause of action. While indeed, there
are all the elements of COA, but there was a mistake or imperfection in making
the allegations in the pleading or complaint, and therefore, there is a failure to
state cause of action. ILLUSTRATION 1: Gravador leased a commercial lot and building in Cebu City
from Galeon, and that building is situated in Cebu City. Assume that Galeon and
Grava are residents of Cebu City. When the lease contract expired, Galeon made
EXAMPLE 2: Continue from Example 1: Assume Gravador had already paid the proper demands to Grava to vacate. Such demands were left unheeded.
obligation, but Galeon still insisted that the debt had not been paid.
Q1: Is there a cause of action?
then what we have here is lack of cause of action. In truth and in fact, I don’t have Q2: Is there a right of action?
any right to collect from Gravador.
A1: Yes, there is a cause of action, since all elements of COA are present. Since
FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF the contract already expired, and he did not heed my demand. Galeon was
LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION
ACTION therefore deprived of the use of the property. (unlawful detainer case)
simply proceeds from the not all elements of a cause of action
imperfection of the complaint. There are present. A2: No, there is no right of action, since the plaintiff has not performed all the
is imperfection in making the conditions precedent to the filing of the action. Note that Gravador and Galeon are
allegations. You may have all the both residents of Cebu City, so the case should have been referred first to the
elements of a cause of action, but proper lupong tagapamayapa.
there is a defect in the complaint.
may give rise to the filing of motion to that can only be established after the
dismiss (pursuant to Section 5, Rule plaintiff shall have already presented ILLUSTRATION 2: Article 151 of the Family Code gives life to the right of action.
6 of the Amended Rules) his evidence in due. What should be
filed is DTE Art. 151. No suit between members of the same family shall prosper
The effect of dismissal on the ground Judgment based on merits unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that
of failure to state COA is not a earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same
judgment based on merits. have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the same
No res judicata Res judicata case must be dismissed.

ILLUSTRATION 3: Such conditions precedent may also come from stipulation

between or among parties.

Philippine American General Insurance vs. Sweet Lines, Inc., Davao

RIGHT OF ACTION VS. CAUSE OF ACTION
RIGHT OF ACTION - pertains to the right of the plaintiff to institute the complaint
or action, and prosecute the same until final judgment
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF RIGHT OF ACTION
(1) The plaintiff must have a good cause of action;
(2) The plaintiff must have performed all the conditions precedent to the filing of
the action.
Veterans Arrastre And Port Services, Inc. And Hon. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 87434 August 5, 1992
FACTS: This case involves a shipment of cargo from Manila to Davao. Then,
the goods were damaged. However, there is a stipulation in the Bill of Lading
that if the consignee wants to file a case arising from the contract of carriage,
then the consignee must first send a notice of loss to the carrier. Then, if the
carrier will not honor the notice, then that’s when the consignee can file an
action.

CAUSE OF ACTION - the foundation of the action instituted by the plaintiff
NOTE: When there is no cause of action, then there is no right of action. When
there is cause of action, then there may be right of action.
In this case, the consignee of the damaged goods directly went to the court
without adhering to the stipulation.
RULING: In the case at bar, there is neither any showing of compliance by
petitioners with the requirement for the filing of a notice of claim within the
prescribed period nor any allegation to that effect. It may then be said that

31

while petitioners may possibly have a cause of action, for failure to
comply with the above condition precedent they lost whatever right of
action they may have in their favor or, token in another sense, that remedial
right or right to relief had prescribed. The right of action does not arise until
the performance of the conditions precedent to filing of the action.
This case therefore validates the proposition that indeed when we speak of
right of action, it presupposes not just the existence of cause of action, in that
it likewise demands the performance of conditions precedent to the filing of
the action.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CAUSE OF ACTION AND RIGHT OF ACTION:
CAUSE OF ACTION RIGHT OF ACTION
Defined by Rule 2 Section 2 Defined by jurisprudence ? – the
right of the plaintiff to institute an
action
Created by substantive law Governed by procedural law (Googi:
this is kinda a shady statement,
because the PH American General
Insurance case tells us that Right of
Action may arise from stipulation?
So idk haha)
It does not bow down to prescription, It may be taken away by the running
estoppel, etc. of the statute of limitations, estoppel,
and other circumstances which do
not affect, at all, the substantive
rights.
SECTION 3
Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. — A party may not
institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.
RULE: A single cause of action may only give rise to one suit or one case. The
counterpart of that is the prohibition on splitting your cause of action.
ILLUSTRATION 1: Grava owed Galeon. There is one sole obligation in Galeon’s
favor. If this is the case, Galeon should only file one complaint – the collection for
the main obligation. Any prayer for interest or damages should be included in this
main complaint, since such additional claims are incidental to the main obligation.
ILLUSTRATION 2: In an Unlawful Detainer suit, the plaintiff should not only pray
that the defendant vacates the property but he should likewise also pray for the
unpaid rentals of such occupancy. There should be no separate action to vacate
and to pay rentals.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. — If two or more
suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of
one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for
the dismissal of the others.
SPLITTING THE CAUSE OF ACTION
- Splitting a single cause of action is the act of instituting two or more suits for the
same cause of action
- It is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts and making
each part the subject of a separate complaint (Bachrach vs. Icaringal)
- In splitting a cause of action, the pleader divides a single cause of action, claim
or demand into two or more parts, brings a suit for one of such parts with the
intent to reserve the rest for another separate action. It also occurs when a party
brings a suit for each part of the same action that was split. (Quadra vs. CA, GR
147593, July 31, 2006)
RESULT OF SPLITTING THE CAUSE OF ACTION
Two or more suits are instituted on the same cause of action, which may give
rise to a ground for dismissal
ILLUSTRATION 1: Galeon filed an action for collection. But he subsequently
instituted a separate action for additional interest and damages. Therefore, these
were the cases filed by Galeon:
First case – a pure action for collection of a debt
Second case – an action for collection of interests, damages and costs
So verily, there is one single cause of action but such single cause of action was
split.
Q: What is the remedy available to the defendant?
g
A: The defendant can move for the dismissal of the second case, because it
arose out of the first case. The defendant can also invoke litis pendencia
(Google: a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, where there is a situation
where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of
action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious). The defendant
can also say it’s forum-shopping.
ILLUSTRATION 2: Galeon filed an action for collection. It was decided with
finality in his favor. But he subsequently instituted a separate action for additional
interest and damages.
Q: What is the remedy of the defendant?
A: The defendant can invoke res judicata.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ILLUSTRATION 1 AND ILLUSTRATION 2:
In the first situation, both actions are still pending in court. That’s why the
ground for dismissal there is litis pendencia. The judgment rendered on the first
case is a judgment NOT based on merits.
In the second situation, the first case was already decided with finality. The
dismissal of the second case should then be anchored on res judicata. The
judgment rendered on the first case is a judgment based on merits.
DETERMINING THE SINGLENESS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION
The singleness of a cause of action is determined by the singleness of the
delict or wrong committed by the defendant and not by the number of
remedies that the law grants the injured party.
Meaning, a single delict may give rise to two or more possible remedies but it
does not mean to say the injured party can avail of all those remedies
simultaneously or one after another. (David vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-11656,
April 18, 1958)
ILLUSTRATION 1: In an action of Unlawful Detainer, is splitting the cause of
action possible? It is not possible, since there is only one delict performed by the
defendant (overstaying in a property previously validly occupied). But the plaintiff
will have multiply remedies: (1) to have the defendant vacate the property, (2)
ask for damages, among others.
ILLUSTRATION 2: In a case for simple breach of contract, can such action be
split? No, since there is only one, single cause of action. But the plaintiff has
multiple remedies: (1) rescission and damages, or (2) specific performance and
damages. But these remedies are alternative.
ILLUSTRATION 3: There is an obligation secured by a real estate mortgage. If
the debtor has not paid the principal obligation, what remedies are available to
the unpaid creditor?
A: The unpaid creditor can avail of either of the remedies: (1) go after the
collateral by foreclosing the real estate mortgage, or (2) collect the debt owed
him by filing a case for collection of sum of money.
These remedies are considered to be alternative. If the unpaid creditor institutes
the action for collection of a sum of money then he cannot later on institute
foreclosure of mortgage. And as a rule, if he opts for the foreclosure, he cannot
later on go back to option number two which is the collection of the sum of
money.
GENERAL RULE: While a creditor-mortgagor has a single cause of action only
against the debtor-mortgagee, such creditor-mortgagor has two remedies: (1) to
recover the debt through the filing of personal action for collection of sum of
money or (2) the institution of a real action to foreclose on the mortgaged
property. The remedies said the Supreme Court, are alternative, not cumulative
or successive and each remedy is complete by itself.
Spouses Danao vs. CA
154 SCRA 446
FACTS: The Danao spouses borrowed money from the bank and mortgaged
their property. Later, they failed to pay. Instead of foreclosing the property, the
bank filed a civil action to collect the loan. After filing a civil action to collect
the loan, the bank instituted an action to foreclose the mortgage.
RULING: Anent real properties in particular, the Court has laid down the rule
that a mortgage creditor may institute against the mortgage debtor either a
personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. In other
words, he may pursue either of the two remedies, but not both.
32

Evidently, the prior recourse of the creditor bank in filing a civil action against
the Danao spouses and subsequently resorting to the complaint of foreclosure
proceedings, are not only a demonstration of the prohibited splitting up of a
cause of action but also of the resulting vexation and oppression to the debtor.
EXCEPTION: Where the recovery for whatever deficiency may remain in the
outstanding obligation of the debtor in a loan obligation, the creditor-mortgagor
will then have the available remedy provided in Section 6, Rule 68 on deficiency
judgement.
NOTE: This Rule only applies if the remedy that is pursued by the unpaid
creditor is first foreclose of real estate mortgage.
RULE 68 - Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
Section 6. Deficiency judgment. — If upon the sale of any real property
as provided in the next preceding section there be a balance due to the
plaintiff after applying the proceeds of the sale, the court, upon motion,
shall render judgment against the defendant for any such balance for
which, by the record of the case, he may be personally liable to the
plaintiff, upon which execution may issue immediately if the balance is
all due at the time of the rendition of the judgment; otherwise; the plaintiff
shall be entitled to execution at such time as the balance remaining
becomes due under the terms of the original contract, which time shall
be stated in the judgment.
Therefore, if, in a foreclosure sale, if the proceeds of such sale would not be
enough to pay off the obligation due the creditor, then the unpaid creditor may still
ask the Court that the defendant to pay the deficit. This is not considered to be the
prohibited splitting the cause of action.
Marilag vs. Martines
GR 201892, July 22 2015
In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, the rule is that the
creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of action against the debtor -
mortgagor, i.e., to recover the debt, through the filing of a personal action
for collection of sum of money or the institution of a real action to
foreclose on the mortgage security. The two remedies are alternative, not
cumulative or successive, and each remedy is complete by itself. Thus, if the
creditor-mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate mortgage, he waives the
action for the collection of the unpaid debt, except only for the recovery of
whatever deficiency may remain in the outstanding obligation of the debtor-
mortgagor after deducting the bid price in the public auction sale of the
mortgaged properties. Accordingly, a deficiency judgment shall only issue
after it is established that the mortgaged property was sold at public auction
for an amount less than the outstanding obligation.
In the present case, records show that petitioner, as creditor mortgagee,
instituted an action for judicial foreclosure pursuant to the provisions of Rule
68 of the Rules of Court in order to recover on Rafael's debt. In light of the
foregoing discussion, the availment of such remedy thus bars recourse to the
subsequent filing of a personal action for collection of the same debt, in this
case, under the principle of litis pendentia, considering that the foreclosure
case only remains pending as it was not shown to have attained finality.
RULES IN DETERMINING SINGLENESS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION
Note: these rules have been built by jurisprudence.
RULE # 1
GENERAL RULE: If the action is founded on a written contract or a
contract, there is only one cause of action for that single contract.
Quiloque vs Bautista
G.R. No. L-13159, Feb. 28, 1962
A contract embraces only one cause of action because it may be violated only
once even if it contains several stipulations.
ILLUSTRATION 1: In the course of pursuing his hobby (motorbiking), Grava
went home to Gihulngan. Somewhere in Negros, he decided to sell sugarcane,
molasses, etc. Galeon then entered into a contract with Grava, so that Galeon
would be supplied with such sugar products. In this case, there is only one
contract, despite the fact that Galeon bought many kinds of sugar. Therefore,
one contract = one cause of action.
ILLUSTRATION 2: Under one contract, Galeon and Grava entered into an
agreement that Grava would supply to Galeon sugarcane, molasses, brown sugar,
white sugar and muscovado. It was further stipulated that Gravador would deliver
to me products on March 30, 2020. Galeon had paid the products.
g
But March 30, 2020 passed by without Gravador delivering to Galeon the products.
Q: How many complaints should Galeon file against Gravador?
A: One. The rule is very clear. The undertaking was founded under only one
contract.
RULE # 2
The contract which provides for several stipulations to be performed at
different times, gives rise as to as many causes of action as there are
violations.
Larena vs. Villanueva
G.R. No. L-29155, Nov. 5, 1928
A contract which provides for several stipulations to be performed at different
times gives rise to as many causes of action as there are violations.
ILLUSTRATION: Under one contract, Galeon and Grava entered into an
agreement that Grava would supply to Galeon sugarcane, molasses, brown
sugar, white sugar and muscovado. It was further stipulated that Gravador would
deliver to Galeon the sugarcane and molasses on March 30, 2020 and the white
sugar, the brown sugar and the muscovado on July 30, 2020. Galeon has paid
for the full price.
Q: How many cases can Galeon file against Gravador March 30, 2020 already
passed by without Grava delivering the goods? Can a case be filed against
Gravador for failure to deliver the sugarcanes and molasses?
A: Yes, a case can be filed against Grava, since there is a cause of action already
in March 30, 2020, grounded on the fact that Grava failed to fulfill his obligation to
deliver the sugarcane and molasses.
Q: By July 30, 2020 if Grava also subsequently fails to deliver the other products,
can another case be filed against Grava?
A: Yes. Despite the fact that the undertaking is founded only in one contract,
Rule #2, as provided by jurisprudence, allows that several stipulations embraced
in a single contract give rise to as many causes of action as there are violations.
Q: If Galeon decides to file a case on March 31, 2020, can he include claim over
the brown sugar, white sugar and muscovado?
A: No, Galeon should only institute action over the items he has a right over. Any
case he files on March 31, 2020 would only include the non-delivery of sugarcane
and molasses.
ILLUSTRATION 2: There is a contract of loan for P1,000,000.00 to be paid in 4
equal installments. Such loan was evidenced by a promissory note, to facilitate the
payment of the instalments.
1st instalment P250,000 January 2019
2nd instalment P250,000 June 2019
3rd instalment P250,000 December 2019
4th instalment P250,000 February 2020
TOTAL P1,000,000
Q: Can Galeon file a case against Gravador in January 2019?
A: Yes, pursuant Rule # 2. If this check already bounced resulting to non-payment,
then in January 2019, Galeon is permitted to file a case. If by June 2019, second
st
check would have bounced then Galeon is still permitted to file another case. 1
nd
case, 2 case. By December the check again bounced then Galeon is again also
allowed to file case. Because the rule is that when a contract which provides for
several stipulations to be performed at different times, gives rise as to as
many causes of action as there are violations. So, that is pursuant to Rule #2.
NOTE: Where Galeon files the case for the January 2019 case is where he should
file the same for the June, December, February cases.
RULE # 3
All obligations which have matured at the time of the suit must be
integrated as one cause of action in one complaint and those not
included would be filed.
Blossom & Co. vs. Manila Gas Corp.
33

G.R. No. L-32958, Nov. 8, 1930
Inasmuch as there was a total breach of the contract by the defendant's refusal
to deliver, the plaintiff cannot split up his demand and maintain successive
actions, but must either recover all his damages in the first suit or wait until
the contract matured or the time for the delivery of all the goods had arrived.
In other words, there can be but one action for damages for a total breach of
an entire contract to deliver goods, and the fact that they were to be delivered
in installment from time to time does not change the general rule.
CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION 2: When Grava failed to pay in January
2019, Galeon did not institute action. Galeon only instituted action when the
fourth check bounced.
Q: Considering the inaction of Galeon for the first three defaults, how many
cases can Galeon institute on February 2020?
A: One. This situation is governed by rule # 3. The rule on mirisi applies.
RULE #4
Where the failure to comply with any of the several stipulations made in
continuing contract constitutes a total breach, then a single cause of
action for damages, actual as well as prospective (?) arises from each
substantial breach.
ILLUSTRATION 3: There are now 4 separate contracts of loan embraced in four
different loan documents. Gravador defaulted all four loans, but Galeon only
instituted action after the fourth default.
Q: How many cases can Galeon file?
A: In this case, there are 4 distinct and separate cotnracts. even if I decide to file
a case only sometime in march of this year, then I am allowed to somehow file
separate cases against Gravador because actually there are four separate
causes of action as there are four separate and distinct contracts.
WA KO KASABOT ANI POINT ANI PUTA GI KAPOY NA KO
ILLUSTRATION 4: There is one loan contract at P1M, payable in 4 equal
installments. First installment due on January 2019. Second installment due on
June 2019. Third due on December 2019. Then fourth on February 2020. It was
stipulated further that such obligation would have an acceleration clause. On
January 2019, Grava defaulted.
Q: How much is Galeon’s claim in January 2019?
A: With an acceleration clause, the filing of the case in January 2019 will allow
the inclusion of all installments, even though technically speaking these checks
are not yet due. That’s justified because of the acceleration clause.
SPECIAL RULE:
Repudiation – insert technical description here – the one Alljun mentioned in
class
ILLUSTRATION: There is one loan contract at P1M, payable in 4 equal
installments. Galeon files a case for collection for sum of moneyafter the default
in one installment. But Grava, in his Answer, alleged that Galeon had forged his
(Grava’s) signature on the promissory notes that evidenced the loan.
A: In this case, there is no intention for Grava to pay the entire obligation. The
law then does not let the plaintiff wait until the last check matures in order for the
plaintiff to pursue an action for the entire amount. In this situation, the plaintiff is
then permitted in a single complaint to claim the entire P1M without the P750,000
being due and demandable.
SUMMARY
RULE # 1
RULE # 2
RULE # 3
RULE # 4
SECTION 5
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may in one pleading
assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he
may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions:
g
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on
joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed
by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain
to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery
of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION – allows a party to join in one pleading two
or more causes of actions against the opposing party. (Lakas)
IMPORTANT POINTS TO REMEMBER ABOUT THIS SECTION:
1. There is more than one cause of action. It is not one cause of action split into
multiple causes of action.
2. Option is given to the plaintiff.
ILLUSTRATION 1: There are 4 distinct loan transactions between debtor and
creditor. If the creditor is unpaid, the law allows him to institute four different and
separate complaints. But the law also allows the creditor-plaintiff to file one single
action for the four loan obligations.
In such a case, the court cannot compel the creditor to file only one or to file the
four separate actions. It is entirely up to the creditor.
Galeon’s Advice: If you’re the creditor and you want to piss the debtor off, file
four different cases so that malagot ang debtor. But be careful with this because
each case also has a different acceptance fee for the lawyer.
NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN APPLICATION OF TOTALITY RULE.
ALTERNATIVE JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION - exists when the plaintiff is
uncertain against who he is entitled to relief. The redress he seeks stems from a
cause of action that is either case or the other. What is not sought is relief from
both defendants.
Rule 3 – Parties to a Civil Action. Section 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.
ILLUSTRATION: X entered into an agreement with Y Corporation, where Y Corp
would handle the services of shipment, but Y Corp availed the services of
Cokaliong Shipping to ship the perishable goods. When the goods arrived the port
of destination, it was discovered that X’s goods were damaged.
Q: Who should X file a case against? Cokaliong Shipping? Or Y Corporation?
A: X should join the defendants, since X seeks relief from either Cokaliong
Shipping or Y Corp, but not both of them. This is easy for the plaintiff, since all he
has to do is prove that his goods were loaded in the vessel and that his goods
were damaged in transit.
CUMULATIVE JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION - exists when the plaintiff
seeks relief for all causes of action, the plaintiff prays that all should be awarded
to him.
ILLUSTRATION: Galeon and Torregs hire Grava for his services as an Angkas
driver. The three of them meet a vehicular accident with a taxi driver. Galeon and
Torregs file a case against Grava. Grava interposes that he exercised
extraordinary diligence.
Q1: Galeon and Torregs are unsure whose fault was the accident. It might have
been Grava’s fault or the fault of the taxi driver. So what to do?
A1: Galeon and Torregs should file an alternative joinder of causes of action
against both Grava and the taxi driver, as they are uncertain from who relief should
be sought. They would have a cause of action against Grava (culpa contractual)
and they also have a cause of action against the taxi driver (culpa aquiliana). Here,
there are multiple causes of action joined into one complaint. Joinder of causes of
action.
LIMITATIONS TO JOINDERS OF CAUSES OF ACTION
34

(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on
joinder of parties;
The rules of Joinder of Causes of Action are governed by Rule 3, Section 6,
where it requires that there may be common questions of facts and of law.
(Googi: just remember that phrase jud when it comes to Joinder.)
RULE 3 – Parties to Civil Action.
Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom or
against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in
these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one
complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such
plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court
may make such orders as may be just 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.
ILLUSTRATION: Grava, an Angkas driver, rendered his services to Galeon and
Torregs. They met an accident. In this case, Galeon and Torregs can make
sabot that they, together, file one action against Grava. This is permissible,
because there is a common question of fact or law since the transaction
happened within the same setting.
ILLUSTRATION 2: What if the accident involving Torregosa happened in the
morning, and the other accident involving Galeon happened in the evening? Are
they allowed to join the causes of action? NO. The incidents happened at
different dates. There is no common question of fact or common question or law.
In this case, Gravador probably may have a valid defense regarding the accident
that happened in the morning and another defense for the one that happened in
the evening.
(This will be further discussed in Rule 3)
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed
by special rules;
Joinders cannot include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules,
because regular actions are very different from special civil actions, in their
natures and in the laws that actually govern their procedures.
Union Glass and Container Corp vs SEC
G.R. No. L-64013, Nov. 28, 1983
FACTS: A stockholder of a corporation who is also the creditor of the
corporation decided to file one complaint against the corporation asserting
several causes of action. Among them is his right as a stockholder under the
Corporation Code and also his rights as a creditor under the Civil Code.
(Basically, he asserted his right as stockholder and his right as a creditor). He
filed the case with the SEC (this was before the transfer of jurisdiction
concerning intra-corporate disputes from SEC to Special Commercial Court)
RULING: The SC said that the causes of action of the creditor-stockholder
cannot be joined, because one is an intra-corporate controversy, which is
governed by the SEC, and the other one involves a debtor-creditor
relationship, which is not under the jurisdiction of the SEC but was cognizable
by the regular court.
Galeon’s Comments: Another question is, will this ruling still apply, especially
that intra-corporate disputes have now been transferred from the SEC to the
RTCs? The answer is YES, because not all RTCs can take cognizance of intra-
corporate disputes – only those that are designated as a Special Commercial
Court. That’s why I give this caveat that intra-corporate disputes are not
cognizable by regular RTCs.
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain
to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
ELEMENTS OF THIS LIMITATION:
1. The causes of action involve the same parties
2. The causes of action pertain to different venues or jurisdictions
3. The joinder is allowed in RTC, provided one of the COAs falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTC
g
ILLUSTRATION 1: Galeon intruded into the property owned by Gravador. The
value of the property was P18,000. After one year, Grava wished to file an accion
publiciana in the MTC.
In another instance, Galeon intruded in Grava’s other property, valued at
P1,000,000. Grava filed another case of accion publiciana in RTC. These
properties were located in Cebu City.
Q: May Grava join the two causes of action where one is cognizable by MTC and
the other is cognizable by RTC?
A: Joinder of the causes of action is possible. But any such joinder of the causes
of action may be had not before the MTC but before the RTC.
ILLUSTRATION 2: Galeon intruded into the property of Gravador situated in
Cebu City. The assessed value of which is P18,000. He did nothing within 1 year
period. Grava eventually filed an accion publiciana in the MTC. But in other
situation, Galeon intruded in Grava’s property situated in Mandaue City. The
value was P1M. Only after one year was when Grava filed an accion publiciana.
Q: May there be joinder of Grava’s causes of action?
A: Check the elements!
ü (1) Same parties are involved
ü (2) The COA pertain to different venues
ü (3) One action is cognizable by RTC
Therefore, joinder of causes of action may be had, whereby the action will then
be cognizable by RTC.
ILLUSTRATION 3: Galeon intruded into the property of Gravador, the value of
which is P200,000 and is situated in Cebu City. He did nothing within the one year
period. So, he could file a case for accion publiciana.
In a separate occasion, Galeon likewise intruded in his other property that is
situated in Mandaue City, the value of which is P1M. He did nothing within one
year from my unlawful intrusion so what he could file against me is no longer an
action for forcible entry but accion publiciana.
Q1: Can there be joinder of causes of action?
Q2: Where could we possibly file a case joining the composite action?
A1: Yes, all elements are present
A2: In the first intrusion, such is cognizable by RTC Cebu City. In the second,
such is cognizable by RTC Mandaue. With this, either RTCs could hear and try
the case. It doesn’t matter as long as the venue is properly made.
ILLUSTRATION 4: Galeon intruded into the property of Mr. Gravador, situated in
Cebu City, the value of which is P18,000. He did nothing within the one year
period reckoned from the intrusion, so what he could file against Galeon is no
longer a case for forcible entry but accion publiciana.
On a separate occasion, Galeon likewise intruded in this property situated in
Mandaue City, the assessed value of which is P20,000. Within the one year
period he did nothing to file a case for forcible entry, so what could be filed
against me is accion publiciana and this time around the case is cognizable also
by the MTCC of Mandaue City.
Q: May Gravador join the causes of action?
Answer: The two causes of action can be joined, not under paragraph c but
under the general rule, subject to joinder of parties. It’s basically subject to the
general rule.
In this case, Paragraph c would be wanting in application. But it doesn’t matter
because this situation is covered under the general rule, because what is
important is that there is possible joinder of parties, common issues of facts and
law
ATTENTION: HE SAID HE MIGHT ASK THIS IN THE EXAM
ILLUSTRATION 5: Galeon intruded into the property of Gravador situated in
Cebu City, the assessed value of which is say, P18,000. Within one year, Grava
demanded that Galeon vacate the property. Such demand was left unheeded.
Forcible Entry ensued in the MTC of Cebu City.
But previous to that, Galeon intruded into his other property, the value of which is
P200,000, but he did nothing within one year from such unlawful intrusion, so
what he can file against Galeon from that unlawful intrusion is accion publiciana,
cognizable by the RTC but take note that the properties are both in Cebu City.
Q: May the two causes of action be joined?
35

A: This situation is proscribed not by paragraph c but paragraph b of Section 5,
prohibition of the joinder of action between an ordinary civil action and one that is
governed by special rules because forcible entry and unlawful detainer are
subject to the Rules on Summary Procedure and this one, accion publiciana is
governed by rules governing ordinary civil actions.
ILLUSTRATION 6: Galeon intruded into the property of Mr. Gravador. The value
of which is P20,00, he did nothing within one-year period, so he could possible
file a case of accion publiciana in the MTC of Cebu.
In another occasion, Randi Torregosa intruded into the property of Mr. Gravador,
the assessed value of which is P200,000 likewise situated in Cebu City,
Gravador likewise did nothing within one-year period, so what he could file
against Torregosa is accion publiciana but this time it is cognizable by the RTC
because the value of the property is P200,000.
Q: May the two causes of action may be joined? Subject to the different
jurisdictions?
A: No.
CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION 6: this time, in Mandaue. Subject to the
different venue.
Q: May there be joinder of causes of action?
A: No, because the requirement that there should be sameness of the parties is
wanting in application.
REMEMBER: paragraph c would only be applicable if the parties are the same
but the causes of actions that can be joined pertain to different jurisdiction,
different courts, the venue of which also pertains to the different jurisdictions.
(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery
of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
ILLUSTRATION 1: Randi and Renato hired the services of Gravador as the
Angkas driver. Three of them suffered in a vehicular accident. Randi then asked
for damages of P300,000. Renato asked for P50,000.
Q: Will there be joinder of cause of action in the first place?
A: Yes, because the basic requirement under paragraph a of Section 5 is joinder
of causes of action may be had, if or subject to the rules of joinder of parties and
of course there is a common question of facts here and questions of law because
this happened in one setting.
There is possible joinder of action, although Randi may choose to institute his
case separately from my purported case. But, there is nothing that could prevent
us from joining as party-complainants in one complaint. So there is possible
joinder, although that is permissive, not necessarily mandatory. Because we’ll
have to ask whether we’d like to join in one action or in one complaint. Such that
if a party decides to separately file his case, then obviously the case would be
cognizable by the MTCC. If I, on the other hand, likewise decide to file my case
separately, then my case is also cognizable by the MTCC.
But should we decide to join together as complaints in one complaint or one
action, then, following Paragraph D of Section 5, juxtaposed, if you can recall,
the Totality Rule under B.P. 129, Section 33(1), as amended, the total demand
P350,000, and this time around, cognizable by the RTC. And that is of course
pursuant to Paragraph B. This should read in conjunction with the last sentence
of B.P. 129, Section 33(1) regarding the Totality Rule.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. — Misjoinder of causes of
action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of
action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be
severed and proceeded with separately.
The result of an improper joinder of causes of action is a misjoinder.
ILLUSTRATION: Galeon intruded into the property of Mr. Gravador, situated in
Cebu City, and the value of which is P20,000; and immediately he sent a
demand letter, demanding that Galeon vacate.
g
But then, previous to that, Galeon likewise intruded into his property, likewise
situated in Cebu City, and then the amount of which is P200,000, the action is
publiciana, because indeed, he didn’t do anything within one year from intrusion,
so the case is cognizable by the RTC.
Q: Can Grava join the two causes of action - (1) forcible entry, because he did
send me a demand letter within one year, and it is cognizable in the RTC and (2)
accion publiciana, and it is cognizable in the MTCC?
A: No, because one is governed by a special rule, the Revised Rules on
Summary Proceedings, and the other is governed by the Ordinary Rules on Civil
Actions. So, applying Rule 2, Section 5(b), we cannot join these two causes of
action, although there may be similar parties involved in the two actions.
CONTINUATION: Gravador filed a case before the RTC, joining the two causes
of action, although as a rule, or under the rules, these two causes of action could
not be joined.
Question: what would be the effect of this improper joinder of causes of action?
A: The court would just direct Gravador to amend the complaint, forthwith,
separate the action for forcible entry. Mr. Gravador, then, would file the case
with the MTCC. The action filed with the RTC is not be dismissed.
Take note that the separation or severance of improperly joined causes of
action may be on the initiative of the court. It may also be on the initiative
of the adverse parties.
RULE 3 – PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTION
SECTION 1
Section 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 counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth,
etc.) — party defendant.
Section 1 speaks of the LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE.
WHO MAY SUE OR BE SUED?
1. Natural persons – defined by the Civil code
Article 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be
considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be
born later with the conditions specified in the following article.
Article 41. For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if it is alive at
the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb. However, if
the foetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months, it is not
deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery
from the maternal womb.
Article 42. Civil personality is extinguished by death. The effect of death
upon the rights and obligations of the deceased is determined by law, by
contract and by will.
NOTE: Those who are born through artificial insemination are considered natural
persons.
2. Juridical persons – also defined by the Civil Code
Article 44. 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.
Examples:
(1) Those organized for private interest/ enterprise
- Private corporations, partnerships
(2) Those organized for public interest
- GSIS, SSS, National Irrigation authority, UP
36
 g

ILLUSTRATION 2: RMG dined at Tuslob Buwa Azul, which is owned by RCT as

(3) Government shit
- government instrumentalities, GOCCs especially those where the charters
expressly state that they can sue or can be sued
(4) The State
- where the state gives its consent to be sued, either through the enactment of a
special or general law allowing itself to be sued, then it may be sued.
a sole proprietor. RMG failed to pay his bill. This prompted the filing of a case
entited Tuslob Buwa Azul vs. RMG.
Q: Taking into consideration that the plaintiff of the case, a business, has no legal
capacity to sue since it is not a natural person, nor a juridical person, nor an entity
enumerated by the law conferring it with such capacity, should RMG file a Motion
to Dismiss?

Article 16 of the 1987 PH Consti: A: RMG, the defendant, should file a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the
SECTION 3. The State may not be sued without its consent. plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue. Such ground is by virtue of Paragraph 3,
Section 12 of Rule 8. Note that in this case, the plaintiff has no legal capacity to
Typically, the state consents to be sued by enacting special laws. sue.

Act No. 3083 - An Act Defining The Conditions Under Which The
Government Of The Philippine Islands May Be Sued
CA No. 327, as amended by Section 26 of PD 1445 - Ordaining and
Instituting a Government Auditing Code of The Philippines
ILLUSTRATION 3: What if it’s the other way around? When RMG ordered his
food, he found a cockroach in the plate. So, he decided to file a case against
Tuslob Buwa Azul.
Q: If you were the lawyer for Tuslob Buwa, the defendant, can you file a Motion to
Dismiss?

Amigable vs. Cuenca A: If you were the lawyer of the defendant (Tuslob Buwa), you should file a Motion
G.R. No. L-26400, February 29, 1972 to Dismiss on the ground for failure to state cause of action, and not on the ground
of lack of legal capacity to sue. This is by virtue of Paragraph 4, Section 12 of Rule
When the state takes away private properties supposedly for public purpose 8. Note that in this case, the defendant has no legal capacity to sue.
and when the state does not pay just compensation, then it can be sued even
without its consent.
SUMMARY:

(5) Political subdivisions REMEDY OF GROUNDS FOR

- Provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays can be sued by virtue of SITUATION
OPPOSING PARTY REMEDY
Section 32 of the LGC

3. Entities authorized by law If the plaintiff is NOT a

- those not necessarily bestowed with juridical personalities but may be allowed natural, juridical or
by the ROC to file an action No legal capacity to
authorized person to File a Motion to
sue on the part of the
bring action (basically, Dismiss
Examples of entitles authorized by law to sue or be sued: plaintiff
has no legal capacity to
sue)
(1) Corporation by estoppel (Sec 21, Corporation Code)

Rule 3: Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. —

When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical if the defendant is the
personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by one which has no legal
which they are generally or commonly known. File a Motion to failure to state a cause
personality to sue (not
Dismiss of action
a natural person, it is
Rule 8: Section 4. Capacity. — Facts showing the capacity of a party to not a juridical person)
sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a
representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized
association of person that is made a party, must be averred. A party LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE TERMS “PLAINTIFF” AND
desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the “DEFENDANT”
capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall
do so by specific denial, which shall include such supporting particulars PLAINTIFF - refers to a claiming party, he counter-claimant, the cross-claimant,
as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge. or the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff.

(discussed further later)
(2) Partnership having a capital of P3,000 or more but failed to register (Art
1772, in relation to Art 1768 of the Civil code)
(3) Estate of a deceased person (Nazarino vs. CA, 343 SCRA 637)
(4) A legitimate labor organization may sue and be sued in its registered name
(Art 242 of the Labor Code)
DEFENDANT - refers to the original defending party, the defendant in a counter-
claim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant
Ordinarily, plaintiff would be associated with the person actually filing the case,
the one who brings the action.
When in truth and in fact the defendant therein may also be considered to some
extent as a plaintiff that is with respect to his counter claim or cross claim or
third-party claim, as the case may be.

(5) The roman catholic church may be a party and as to its properties, the
archbishop or diocese, to which they belong, may be a party (Barlin vs.
Ramirez, 7 Phil 41)
(6) A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend suits provided that the suit
(1) occur within three years after its dissolution and (2) the suits are in
connection with the settlement and closure of its affairs
ILLUSTRATION 1: RMG filed a case in an action against RCT for damages of
P10,000, since RMG ate a cockroach in RCT’s restaurant. In RCT’s Answer, he
not only denied liability but also averred that RMG had owed him money by virtue
of a contract priorly entered into by the parties. The loan amounted to P20,000.
(This averment is a permissive counterclaim)
Q: Who is the plaintiff? Who is the defendant?

ILLUSTRATION 1: Torregosa, Gravador, Galeon, and their associates in the
office would do business under the name of Opaw Corporation, but they are not a
registered corporation. Those that did business with such corporation could file a
complaint against them even if it is not registered in SEC, because by estoppel,
among others, the corporation falls within the ambit of the so-called entities, which
may be sued in an action.
A: in so far as the main complaint is concerned, RMG is the plaintiff and RCT is
the defendant. But insofar as the permissive counter claim is concerned, RMG
becomes the defendant therein, and RCT is the plaintiff therein.
ILLUSTRATION 2: In an action, there are two defendants therein, RCT & BBG.
But RCT filed a cross-claim against BBG. In such cross-claim, RCT becomes the
plaintiff and BBG is the defendant.

37

In like manner, if a third party files a third-party complaint or a fourth party
complaint, then the defendants here may become plaintiffs in their own right
insofar as the third-party complaint or the fourth party complaint as the case may
be.
BASICALLY: A plaintiff or defendant should not be given strict interpretation, so
as to refer only to the main plaintiff or the main defendant.
THIS IS BECAUSE: Even the defendant in an action may become the plaintiff in
respect to counterclaims or crossclaims or third-party complaints. And the plaintiff
impleaded in the action may become the defendant insofar as the counter-claim
or cross claim is concerned.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or
these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party in interest.
GENERAL RULE: Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party in interest, the one who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
ILLUSTRATION 1: Grava and Ozawa move to have their marriage nullified by
virtue of Article 36 of the Family Code.
Q: Who are the real party in interest?
A: Only the spouses are the real parties in interest. Their parents, their ninongs,
their sponsors cannot be considered real parties in interest.
ILLUSTRATION 2: X is a passenger in a vehicular accident and decided to file a
case for culpa contractual.
Q: In that action, who is the defendant? Is it the driver of the taxi cab or the
operator?
A: The operator is the defendant, because the contract was between the operator
and the passenger, and the basis of your cause of action is culpa contractual. In
that context, the real parties therein are the (1) passengers of the taxi cab; and (2)
operator of the taxi cab.
NOTE: In a breach of contract, only the contracting parties are allowed to bring
the action. In the case for specific performance, or rescission, with damages, it is
not enough that the litigant be a natural person, or corporation. It must be shown
in the complaint that you are a party to the contract, the basis of your cause of
action.
EXCEPTIONS: (1) Article 1311 and (2) Article 1314
(1) Article 1311 – Stipulation Pour Autrui
Art. 1311. Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns 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.
The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property he received from the
decedent.
If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he
may demand its fulfillment provided he communicated his acceptance to the
obligor before its revocation. A mere incidental benefit or interest of a person
is not sufficient. The contracting parties must have clearly and deliberately
conferred a favor upon a third person.
Such third person may bring an action based on the contract, even if he is not a
contracting party.
ILLUSTRATION: Most vehicles have compulsory third-party insurance (TPI),
where a pedestrian, the victim of a vehicular accident, may implead an insurance
company to the action.
(2) Article 1314 – Inducer of a violation
g
Art. 1314. Any third person who induces another to violate his contract shall
be liable for damages to the other contracting party
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
ILLUSTRATION 1: Grava, the owner of a piece of land, leased such to Galeon.
But Torregosa claimed ownership thereof.
Q: Can the Galeon, tenant of the parcel of land, bring an action against
Torregosa for quieting of title?
A: No, because Galeon is not a real party in interest. If at all, the action should
be initiated by Gravador, the owner of the parcel of land.
ILLUSTRATION 2: There is a lease contract between Grava, lessor, and
Galeon, lessee. Torregosa entered forcibly the apartment leased by Galeon.
Q: Can Galeon file a case against Torregosa?
A: Yes, because the issue in this case only concerns the possession of the
property, and not necessarily the ownership thereof.
Philippine Trust Company v. CA
320 SCRA 719
Rule 3, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every
action "must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in
interest."
This means that the action must be brought by the person who, by
substantive law, possesses the right sought to be enforced and not
necessarily the person who will ultimately benefit from the recovery.
Since private respondent was in possession of the aforesaid parcel of land
when the writ of possession was improperly implemented by the sheriff, it is
not correct therefore to say that private respondent does not have a
cause of action, simply because it was no longer the owner of the property in
question when the writ of possession was implemented. It is elementary that a
lawful possessor of a thing has the right to institute an action should he
be disturbed in its enjoyment.
Verily, Article 539 of the Civil Code states that: Every possessor has a right to
be respected in his possession; and should he be disturbed therein, he shall
be restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and rules
of court.
Galeon: The Supreme Court said should the lawful possessor be disturbed in
his possession, then it is the possessor, not necessarily the owner, of the
property that can bring the action. In this case, there is an action for ejectment.
The argument that the complaint states no cause of action, because the action
was filed by the possessor, does not hold water. But, in an action to recover
damages caused by the intruder on the property, then it is the owner who can
file such action.
Baliwag Transit, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 80447 January 31, 1989
FACTS: A student was riding the bus owned by Baliwag Transit. He fell off the
bus and sustained injuries, which led him to incur some medical expenses.
While the student was of age, his parents still had to pay the expenses.
The student filed an action for damages and blamed the bus company, since,
as he claimed, the driver was driving in such a way as to make him fall off the
bus. The bus, on the other hand, claimed that the student jumped off the bus.
In the action instituted by the student, the parents joined as the co-plaintiffs
therein.
But without the knowledge and acquiescence of the parents, the student
entered into a compromise agreement with the defendant. And on the basis
thereof, a motion to dismiss was filed seeking for the approval of the payment
and it was dismissed over the objection of the parents.
The parents argued that they were also a real party in interest because they
were the ones who paid for the medical expenses of the student.
RULING: The SC disagreed with the parents. According to the Supreme Court,
the parents were not the real parties in interest, as they were not passengers
of the bus during the incident, and the action here is culpa contractual.
38
 g

The real parties in a contract of carriage are the parties of the contact itself.
In the absences of a contract of carriage between the Baliwag Transit and the
parents, then the parents therefore could not be considered as real parties in SUMMARY:
interest.
REMEDY OF GROUNDS FOR
SITUATION
OPPOSING PARTY REMEDY
The plaintiff is NOT a
ILLUSTRATION 3: May a co-owner bring an action for ejectment without bringing natural, juridical or
No legal capacity to
in as the plaintiff of the action the other co-owner or co-owners? authorized person to File a Motion to
sue on the part of the
bring action (basically, Dismiss
plaintiff
Yes. Although co-owners are considered as indispensable parties, but the law is has no legal capacity
very clear that a co-owner may bring an action for ejectment because anyway to sue) – section 1
that is for the benefit if the other co-owners. if the defendant is the
one which has no legal
Article 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. personality to sue (not File a Motion to failure to state a cause
a natural person, it is Dismiss of action
not a juridical person) –
LOCUS STANDI VS REAL PARTY IN INTEREST section 1
where the action is
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST – he stands to be benefited or injured by the filed by or against a
File a motion to failure to state a cause
judgement in the case or that he stands to be entitled to the avails of the suit person who is not a
dismiss of action
real party in interest –
LOCUS STANDI - a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the section 2
party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental
act that is being challenged (a mere procedural technicality)
SECTION 3
IBP VS. Zamora
G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000 Section 3. Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by
a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the
Supreme Court said that IBP is not the real party in interest, because there’s beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed
no showing that its members stand to suffer any injury regarding of the acts to be the real property in interest.
complained of. It has no locus standi.
A representative may be a trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an
But the Supreme Court said that we can relax the rule on locus standi, because executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules.
the issue is of transcendental importance because the issue of the case is a
political case. But if applied in an ordinary civil action, if you are not a real party An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed
in interest then that could bring about the dismissal of the case, because the principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when
plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue or that the defendant has not stated a the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
cause of action.
REPRESENTATIVE SUIT
Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain “Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a
direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real
The term "interest" means a material interest, an interest in issue affected by property in interest.”
the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a
mere incidental interest. Section 3 relaxed the provision under Section 2, to the end that Section 3 allows
a person who is not really a real party in interest to bring the action, but the same
The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal is only allowed if the brings or defends the action in a rather representative
stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete capacity.
adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court
depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. Requisites of who can be a representative: (made up by Googi lol)
1. The person bringing the suit is not a real party in interest
2. The person bringing the suit does such in a representative capacity
3. The beneficiary (the one who is represented) shall be included in the case
ILLUSTRATION: Why is a resident of Cebu allowed to question the sufficiency because he is the real party in interest
of the basis of the declaration of Martial Law in Mindanao?
ILLUSTRATION 1: RMG minor child, represented by his guardian/parents. That
To erase all doubts, under the 1987 Consti, it is now clearly provided that the SC should be the title of the case, because the requirement is that the beneficiary
may hear in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen any petition shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed a real party in
questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis for the declaration of interest
martial law.
ILLUSTRATION 2: Suppose that Gravador is landlord and Galeon is the tenant.
Grava’s property consists of different rooms for rent. Grava then executed in
Aguila vs CA Galeon’s favor a special power of attorney, making Galeon the administrator and
G.R. No. 127347. November 25, 1999 caretaker with the authority to collect rents, hire the services of a lawyer, and
even bring an action against those who may not be able to pay their rent.
It stated there that any decision rendered against a person who is not a RCT was another tenant who was unable to pay his rent. Because of this,
real party in interest of the case cannot be executed. Hence the complaint Galeon instituted an action against RCT, which was entitled “Galeon vs. RCT.”
filed against a person who is not a real party in interest is vulnerable to
dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. Q: What’s wrong with the case filed by Galeon?

That is if the action is direct against that person, against that defendant who is
not a real party in interest. And if it is the complainant who is not really the real
party in interest, the action Is still is dismissible because the complaint states
no cause of action.
A: The titled plaintiff is not a real party in interest. BBG, the real party in interest
as the owner and lessor of the property is the real party in interest, as he stands
to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. Therefore, the title of the
case should have been “Grava, represented in the suit by his attorney-in-fact
Galeon vs. RCT”

Balagtas vs. CA
G.R. No. 109073. October 20, 1999
The Supreme Court held in essence that if the suit is not brought in the name
of or against the real party in interest, then a motion to dismiss may be filed on
the ground that the complaint states no cause of action.
But if the suit is only brought in the name of Galeon or even is the same is
brought by RMG as attorney-in-fact of BBG, then that does not comply with the
requirement.
NOTE: there is a world of difference in saying “RMG, as attorney-in-fact of BBG”
and “this case is filed by BBG as represented by RMG”.

39

V-Gent Inc vs. Morning Star
GR 186305, July 22, 2015
SC held that the power to collect and received payments on behalf of the
principal is an ordinary act of administration covered by general powers of an
agent. On the other hand, the filing of suits is an action of strict dominion.
Salonga vs. Warner Barnes
G.R. No. L-2246, January 31, 1951
The SC said that while a person may bring an action in a representative
capacity, beneficiary must be named in the title of the case. Otherwise, the
action is not compliant with Section 3 Rule 3 of the Rules.
REPRESENTATIVE
“A representative may be a trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an
executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules.” -
TGEAPA
Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario
G.R. No. 124320. March 2, 1999
(Googi digest) FACTS: The Yaptinchays (petitioners) claimed that they are
legal heirs of Guido and Isabel Yaptinchay, who are the owners of two lots in
Cavite.
The Yaptinchays executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the
deceased, and soon discovered that the properties were actually titled in the
name of Golden Bay Realty. Because of this, they moved and filed a complaint
for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of the Title.
Upon discovery that Golden Bay Realty had sold some portions of the
properties, the Yaptinchays filed with the RTC an Amended Complaint to
implead new and additional defendants and to mention the TCTs to be
annulled.
The private respondents presented a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that
the complaint failed to state a cause of action, that plaintiffs did not have a right
of action, that they have not established their status as heirs, that the land
being claimed is different from that of the defendants, and that plaintiffs claim
was barred by laches. This MTD was granted.
This prompted the Yaptinchays to file a petition for certiorari. They contend that
the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the
issue of heirship should first be determined before trial of the case could
proceed. It is petitioners submission that the respondent court should have
proceeded with the trial and simultaneously resolved the issue of heirship in
the same case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA abused their discretion
RULING: The Yaptinchays are full of shit.
(1) The petition for certiorari is not the proper recourse, since the proper
recourse should have been appeal. Where appeal is available as a
remedy, certiorari will not lie.
(2) The Yaptinchays have not shown any proof or even a semblance of it -
except the allegations that they are the legal heirs of the aforementioned
Yaptinchays. The determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased
couple must be made in the proper special proceedings in court, and not in an
ordinary suit for reconveyance of property.
The trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the
reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding.
Under Section 3, Rule 1, a civil action is defined as one by which a party sues
another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress
of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a
special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the
establishment of a status or right.
g
If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest, a
motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no
cause of action.
Galeon’s comments: Take note that the Yaptinchays did not file a special
action for probate proceedings or declaration of heirship.
Therefore, the SC sustained RTC’s dismissal. SC said that RTC cannot make
the declaration of heirship in the ordinary civil action because it can only be
made in a special proceeding.
Civil action is an action by which one sues another for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or a redress of a wrong. While in a
special proceeding it pertains to the establishment of a status, a particular
fact or a right.
Under the rules on permissive joinder of action, an ordinary action may not
be joined with an action covered with special rules.
Kalika – Galeon mentions this case a lot of time, but I can’t find any citation
L I can’t find it in Lakas either
CASES ANALYSIS:
The rulings in Yaptinchay and Kalika should teach that any person claiming to
be legal heirs of a decedent should file for a declaration of heirship prior to
settlement of estate. These special proceedings for declaration of heirship
becomes a condition sine qua non before the supposed heirs can bring an
action or defend an action the estate of the deceased person.
COMPARE TO:
Mendoza Vda. de Bonnevie vs. Cecilia Vda. de Pardo
59 Phil 486
SC said that unless there is a pending special proceedings for the settlement
of the estate of the deceased person, then the legal heirs may commence an
ordinary action arising out of the right belonging to the ancestor, without the
necessity of the provision that separate judicial declaration of ownership and
such, and without the necessity of appointing an executor or administrator.
NOTE: This is exactly opposite of Yaptinchay.
RECONCILATION:
Mendoza somehow is an old case and the case of Yaptinchay (1999) and the
case of Kalika (2017) are decided just recently by the SC.
But take note that in the case of Yaptinchay and Kalika, the SC did not
categorically state that the ruling in the case of Mendoza and other cases are
already abandoned.
Atty Galeon’s advice: there is no right or wrong case.
If you are defendant in the action, invoke the case of Yaptinchay.
But if you are the plaintiff in the action, invoke the Mendoza case.
Alfredo Ching vs. CA
G.R. No. L-59731, January 11, 1990
(Googi digest) FACTS: A spouse sold a portion of their titled property to Ching
Leng. Ching Leng was issued a TCT for such land.
When Ching Leng died, his son, Alfredo Ching (petitioner) filed a petition for
administration of the estate of his father. He was then named the administrator
of his father’s estate.
Thirteen years after Ching Leng’s death, Pedro Asedillo commenced action for
reconveyance of the subject property and the cancellation of the TCT in his
favor based on possession.
Pedro amended his complaint and stated that on account of the fact that the
defendant has been residing abroad up to the present, and it is not known
whether the defendant is still alive or dead, he or his estate may be served by
summons and other processes only by publication.
40

With this amended complaint, the court then directed a summons by
publication. The defendant failed to file a responsive pleading. So the court
rendered the judgment in favor of Pedro and declared him the absolute owner
of the property.
Eventually, Alfredo Ching learned of such decision and filed a verified petition
to set aside the decision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Alfredo contends that an action for reconveyance and cancellation of title is in
personam and the court a quo never acquired jurisdiction over the deceased
Ching Leng and/or his estate by means of service of summons by publication
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Ching Leng’s estate may be served by summons by
publication
(2) Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction
RULINGS:
(1) An action to redeem or to recover title to or possession of, real property is
not an action in rem or an action against the whole world, like a land registration
proceeding or the probate of a will; it is an action in personam, so much so that
a judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded and
duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard.
(2) Private respondent's action for reconveyance and cancellation of title
being in personam, the judgment in question is null and void for lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the deceased defendant Ching Leng. Verily, the
action was commenced thirteen (13) years after the latter's death.
As ruled by this Court in Dumlao v. Quality Plastic Products, Inc. the decision
of the lower court insofar as the deceased is concerned, 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, that is fitness to be subject of legal relations, was lost through
death.
ILLUSTRATION: There was a case, Ching v. Chong and or the estate of Chong.
The decision of such case was to be reinforced. But in the course of the
reinforcement the decision, it was passed out that indeed the defendant had
already died even before the action could be filed.
So naturally, the legal heirs of the defendant objected and questioned the validity
of the decision in the case.
But the plaintiff countered that it doesn’t matter if Chong was already dead
because the estate was impleaded also in the action. Thereall, the title was
Ching v. Chong and/or the estate of Chong.
Question: is the judgment therein valid?
Answer: No.
Section 3 mentions the institutor or administrator as regards to the estate of the
person. In this illustration, what was named as the alternative defendant was the
estate without naming therein the institutor and/or administrator thereof.
Inasmuch as Chong was not properly served with summons because he died
already even before the filing of the case, and considering also that the estate
was merely impleaded therein without naming therein the institutor or
administrator thereof, there was a violation of Section 3 of Rule 3.
The judgment in that case was considered to be null and void.
Basically, Section 3 of Rule 3 allows the bringing of an action for or against a
person who may not be a party in interest, but with the vision that the beneficiary
therein must be named in the title of the case.
AGENT
“An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed
principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the
contract involves things belonging to the principal.”
Who is an agent?
Article 1868. By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render
some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of
another, with the consent or authority of the latter.
For this paragraph to apply, remember the following:
g
1. The principal is not disclosed but benefits from the case
2. The agent acts in his own name
ILLUSTRSTION 1: Galeon is the agent of Torregosa, for which Torreogs
entrusted to him money to be used in lending loans to other persons. BBG
obtained a loan from Galeon, as an agent of Torregs. BBG believed that the
money loaned actually belonged to Galeon, since Galeon did not disclose to
BBG his agency with Torregs.
In the event of non-payment and Galeon files a case against BBG, then Galeon
may not include the name of RCT, the principal, in the action, since the principal
was not disclosed in the first place. And under the Rules, an agent acting in his
own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued
without joining the principal.
ILLUSTRATION 2: Suppose RCT entrusted to Galeon his laptop and
commissioned Galeon to dispose of the same. Galeon, an agent of RCT, offered
to sell the laptop to BBG, in which BBG accepted the offer and paid for the
purchase price. But Galeon failed to deliver such laptop. BBG then instituted
action for rescission with damages, demanding the return of the money. In the
action that BBG filed, only Galeon was named as the defendant in the action
therein.
Q: Is the action null for not including the name of RCT?
A: No, the action may prosper despite the non-inclusion of RCT’s name in the
complaint, because the provision is that the agent acting in his own name and for
the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the
principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
But where the demand is for the delivery of the laptop, it now involves a property
of RCT, then that would not prosper unless RCT would be impleaded on the
action.
NOTE: The last sentence of Section 3 echoes 1883 of the Civil Code.
Article 1883. If an agent acts in his own name, the principal has no right
of action against the persons with whom the agent has contracted;
neither have such persons against the principal.
In such case the agent is the one directly bound in favor of the person
with whom he has contracted, as if the transaction were his own, except
when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.
The provisions of this article shall be understood to be without prejudice
to the actions between the principal and agent.
BASICALLY THE RULE IS!!!! the agent can sue or be sued except when it
would not involve a property belonging to the principal.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Spouses as parties. — Husband and wife shall sue or be sued
jointly, except as provided by law.
GENERAL RULE: The spouses should be sued jointly.
ILLUSTRATION 1: A kumare says, “kumare pautanga ko for pedicure,
manicure.” Then a wife, who is the good friend of kumara, granted the loan to the
kumare without the knowledge of the husband. The kumare does not pay the
obligation, so the wife files a case.
Q: Should the husband be joined as co-plaintiff? (Does the answer depend on
the property regime? Does it matter if the property regime is absolute community
property or conjugal partnership of gains?)
A: Article 94 (3) [Absolute Community of Property] and Article 121 (3) [Conjugal
Partnership of Gains] of the Family Code provides that even if a debt is
contracted by one spouse without the knowledge of the other party, and benefits
redound to family, then the property regime shall be liable.
Family Code: Art. 94. The absolute community of property shall be liable
for: (3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the
consent of the other to the extent that the family may have been benefited
41

Family Code: Art. 121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for: (3)
Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent
of the other to the extent that the family may have benefited
Therefore, the kumare or even the husband of the kumare should be impleaded
in the action. Likewise, on the part of the plaintiff, the husband also of that wife
should be joined also as the co-plaintiff, because whatever will be collected
will be for the benefit of the property belonging to the plaintiff spouses.
As far as the defendant spouses are concerned, although the kumare obtained
the loan without the knowledge of her husband, the law already provides that
even if the debt is contracted without the knowledge of the other spouse, it
may be chargeable to the property regime if somehow it redounded to the
benefit of the family.
This is the context in this situation where the husband of the kumare should be
impleaded as defendant in the action and likewise for the creditor, the
husband of the wife should also be included as a plaintiff in the action.
EXCEPTION: A spouse may appear in court alone, when a spouse of age
mortgages, encumbers, alienates or disposes of his/her exclusive property
without the consent of the other spouse.
Family Code: Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, encumber,
alienate or otherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property, without
the consent of the other spouse, and appear alone in court to litigate with
regard to the same.
ILLUSTRATION 2: In her first marriage, the wife bore a son. Her husband died
soon after. She married another man. In this case, the second husband could
now institute a case to adopt the legitimate child of the wife. The son is already a
legitimate child of the wife, then it is only the husband who should file a petition
for adoption. This is another situation where only one spouse may bring an
action without impleading the other spouse as a party plaintiff or defendant in the
case.
EFFECT OF NON-INCLUSION OF A SPOUSE
If the action is brought only by one spouse without including the other spouse,
then such will not necessarily bring about the dismissal of the claim. The
court will just direct the inclusion of the other spouse.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. — A minor or a person alleged
to be incompetent, may sue or be sued with the assistance of his father,
mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem.
For this section to apply, remember the following:
1. One of the litigants is a minor or is incompetent.
2. At that instance, the case may then continue through the guardian of the minor
or incompetent.
NOTE: This is a manifestation of Section 3, Rule 3, where the guardian may
proceed with the case or defend the action in behalf of the child under his/her
custody.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom or
against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in
these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one
complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such
plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court
may make such orders as may be just 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.
PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES – When a right of relief arises from a
particular transaction and there is also a common question of fact or law
common to the parties, then a permissive joinder of parties may be had
Basically, the equation is:
RIGHT OF RELIEF FROM A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION + COMMON QUESTION OF FACT OR
LAW = PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES
ILLUSTRATION 1: RCT and RRG, together, rode on the Angkas of BBG. In their
journey, they met an accident. May RCT’s and RRG join together as plaintiffs in
g
one case? YES, RCT and RRG may join as plaintiffs in one action, thereby
joining their causes of action. With this, there is also permissive joinder of
parties.
ILLUSTRATION 2: While on BBG’s Angkas, RCT and BBG met an accident in
the morning. On the same day, RRG suffered the same fate. In this case, RRG
and RCT may not join their causes of action, because one of the requirements
for joinder of parties is a common question of fact or law that is common to the
plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be.
ILLUSTRATION 3: Passengers rode on Ceres bus. The bus got into an
accident. Here, the passengers may be joined as complainants in a single
action.
ILLUSTRATION 4: Two accidents happened in two different Ceres buses. In this
case, the passengers may not join their causes of action, because although the
buses belong to the same company, there is no common question of fact or law.
ILLUSTRATION 5: While RRG was driving his car, he collided with a taxi. This
resulted in injuries to both the driver and passenger of the taxi and in damages to
the taxi car. In this case, the driver and the passenger of the taxi and even the
owner of the taxi may join together in one action to file against RRG.
REMEMBER: The application of Section 6 only pertains to PERMISSIVE
joinders, NOT MANDATORY. In the illustrations above, the parties may
CHOOSE to join together their actions, but they may also opt to file such action
separately.
REMEMBER ALSO: Where there is joinder of parties, there is always
joinder of causes of action. But when there is joinder of causes of action, it
does not automatically follow that there is joinder of parties.
WHY?
ILLUSTRATION 6: If BBG files a case against RRG, then BBG may or may not
join together his causes of action in one complaint.
If he decides to join them, then there is JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION, but
NOT OF PARTIES. Nobody has been impleaded therein as additional party
either as plaintiff or defendant.
NOTE: Joinder of parties is different from class suit.
SECTION 7
Section 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.
COMPULSORY JOINDER OF PARTIES – where the parties are sought to be
joined in one complaint or pleading, since they are indispensable to the
determination of the case
SECTION 6 SECTION 7
Permissive joinder / optional Compulsory / mandatory joinder
Who may be regarded as indispensable parties?
Section 7 provides as with the answer: “Parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
defendants.”
Therefore, if without the participation of an indispensable party in a case, there
can be no final determination of the case.
Examples of mandatory inclusion of certain parties:
1. Action for Partition of Property involving the Estate left by the Decedent
All the claimants, all the legal heirs of the decedent must be impleaded as parties
in that particular proceeding.
Reason: When one is left out, that will affect the validity of the judgment. In fact,
the decision in that case will be considered as null and void with regards not just
to the person not included but also those already impleaded in the action.
2. Action for Annulment of Partition
All the legal heirs of the decedent should be made parties in that particular
proceeding in order to have final determination of the case.
42

Reason: Without any one of them, there can be no final determination of the
case. Or that absent any one of them, the decision in that case will be
considered as null in void.
CASES THAT DEFINE INDISPENSIBLE PARTIES:
Benedicto-Munoz vs. Vacho-Olivares
G.R 179121, Nov. 9, 2015
In this case, the SC ruled that an indispensable party is one whose the
interest in the subject matter of the suit and the relief sought are so inextricably
intertwined with the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the
proceeding is an absolute necessity.
Yaptinchay vs. Hon. Del Rosario
G.R. No. 124320, March 2, 1999
Galeon: What is important is that any and all claiming to be the legal heirs of
Yap must appear and participate in the proceeding as plaintiff or an unwilling
plaintiff, because an indispensable party is one whose the interest in the
subject matter of the suit and the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined
with the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is
absolutely necessary.
De Castro vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 115838, July 18, 2002
An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court's
action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can
be had. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory and courts cannot
proceed without their presence. Whenever it appears to the court in the course
of a proceeding that an indispensable party has not been joined, it is the duty
of the court to stop the trial and order the inclusion of such party.
Marcelino M. Florete, Jr vs. Rogelio M. Florete Sr
GR. No. 174909, Jan. 20, 2016
Any decision rendered by a court without first obtaining the required jurisdiction
over indispensable parties is null and void for want of jurisdiction: "the
presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with
jurisdiction, which is ‘the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to
act in a case.’”
What lesson can you learn from this shit?
Galeon’s advice: If (1) there is a case that is filed and (2) it appears that not all
the indispensable parties are joined together in that action, either as plaintiffs or
defendants, and if (3) you are the defendant, you may file a motion to dismiss
on the ground that there is failure of the complaint to state a cause of action.
But, even if there is a motion to dismiss on the ground that one or few of the
indispensable parties are not impleaded as plaintiffs, in that action such that
according to the defendant there is failure to state a cause of action, it does not
necessarily follow that the court will forthwith grant the motion to dismiss.
So, confronted with a motion, even if there is a ground, the court will not ipso
facto or automatically grant to motion to dismiss.
Even if there is a motion to dismiss and the movant or the defendant calls
the attention of the court that there is one or few of the indispensable
parties are not impleaded in the action, the court will not automatically
grant to motion to dismiss. What the court will do is to direct the plaintiff to
amend the complaint so as to implead these excluded indispensable
parties.
This is the court’s power by virtue of Section 11, Rule 3.
Section 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.
g
Additional point to remember: The responsibility of two or more persons who
are liable for a quasi-delict (culpa aquilana) is solidary.
Cerezo vs. Tuazon
G.R. No. 141538, March 23, 2004
FACTS: A tricycle collided with a bus. Tricycle driver filed case for damages
based on quasi delict against the owner of the bus and the driver.
The bus driver was not served with summons. It was on this basis that the bus
owner questioned the validity of the court’s decision because, according to the
owner, the driver was an indispensable party in the case.
RULING: But Supreme Court disagreed. According to the Supreme Court, the
bus owner’s liability, Mr. Cerezo, as an employer, in an action for quasi delict,
is not only solidary, that it is primary and direct. The driver, said the Supreme
Court, is not an indispensable party to the final resolution of Tuazon’s action
for damages against Mrs. Cerezo.
Again, because in culpa aquillana, the liability of the bus operator is direct and
primary, more so if the action is for fine. So, driver, therefore, is not an
indispensable party. Is that clear? And that should be clarified because there
is also such thing as necessary party.
“The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict
(culpa aquilana) is solidary. Where there is a solidary obligation on the part of
debtors, as in this case, each debtor is liable for the entire obligation. Hence,
each debtor is liable to pay for the entire obligation in full. There is no merger
or renunciation of rights, but only mutual representation. Where the obligation
of the parties is solidary, either of the parties is indispensable, and the other is
not even a necessary party because complete relief is available from
either. Therefore, jurisdiction over Foronda is not even necessary
as Tuazon may collect damages from Mrs. Cerezo alone.”
SECTION 8
Section 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.
NECESSARY PARTY - one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined
as a party in order to be accorded relief or for a complete determination or
settlement of the claim subject matter of the action
ILLUSTRATION 1: BBG loaned RCT and RMG P100,000 evidenced by a
promissory note. RCT and RMG were joint debtors. Is it possible for BBG to file a
case against only RMG in case of nonpayment?
A: BBG can file a case against RMG only, but BBG can only collect P50,000
from RMG. Therefore, the inclusion of RCT is not considered mandatory, but
RCT would just be then a necessary party.
ILLUSTRATION 2: BBG loaned RCT and RMG P100,000 evidenced by a
promissory note. RCT and RMG were solidary debtors. Is it possible for BBG to
file a case against only RMG in case of nonpayment?
A: BBG filing a case against only RMG would lead to the collection of the entire
loan – P100,000, because of the very nature of the solidary obligation entered
into by the parties.
NOTE: Solidary or joint debtors may be sued by the creditor. And the debtors are
merely considered as necessary parties and not necessarily indispensable
parties.
ILLUSTRATION 3: RMG obtained a loan from BBG in the gargantuan sum of
P50M, for which BBG required RMG to have somebody else to act as a surety.
So BBG granted the P50M loan and to secure payment of the obligation, RCT
acted as a surety.
Q: If BBG would file a case against RMG, can there be a resolution in this case
filed by BBG against RMG, without the participation of RCT?
A: The answer is yes. The surety is merely regarded as a necessary party and
not necessarily an indispensable party.
ALTERNATION 1 OF ILLUSTRATION 3: Suppose that in the same given
problem, RCT acted not as a surety but as a guarantor.
43
 g

Q: May this case filed BBG against RMG prosper without the participation of the The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from
guarantor? proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be
without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.
A: The answer is yes. While a complete settlement of this case would call for the
impleading of the guarantor, this does not necessarily mean that the guarantor Insert graph graph here
should be initially impleaded in the case, since the guarantor is merely a
necessary party. The action filed by the creditor against the principal debtor may
proper, with or without the participation or inclusion therein of the surety and
guarantor, because the surety and guarantor are merely considered as
necessary parties.

ALTERATION 2 OF ILLUSTRATION 3: Suppose BBG opted to file a case

directly against the surety. Will it prosper? Yes, because the responsibility of the
surety is solidary, direct, primary to that of the principal debtor. The principal
debtor in an action filed by the creditor against the surety is merely considered to
be a necessary party. So, the debtor in that situation is not an indispensable
party in an action filed by the creditor as against the surety for the simple reason
that the surety is solidarily liable with the obligor or the debtor.

ALTERATION 1 OF ALTERATION 1: Suppose BBG rather runs after the

guarantor directly, RCT without filing a case against the principal debtor RDG.
will such prosper? No, because unlike that of a surety, the obligation of the
guarantor is merely secondary and that is when the principal debtor is declared
to be insolvent.

In an action filed against the creditor against the guarantor, that action will not
prosper UNLESS the debtor is impleaded therein. In that context, that the action
was filed against the guarantor by the principal creditor, the debtor must be
included therein because the debtor is a necessary party.

SUMMARY:

GUARANTOR SURETY

What kind of
obligation does he
A guarantor is A surety is solidarily
have in relation to
subsidiarily liable. liable.
that of the principal
debtor?

What kind of party? Necessary party Necessary party

Can the creditor file a

No, his liability is Yes, his liability is
case directly against
merely subsidiary solidary
him?

Can the creditor

Yes, as a necessary Yes, as a necessary
implead him if he
party, the guarantor party, the surety may
initially files a case
may be impleaded as a be impleaded as a
against the principle
necessary party. necessary party.
debtor?

ILLUSTRATION 1: Gravador filed a case against RMG for nonpayment of a loan

with a guarantor or a surety. The court then declared that in order to have
complete determination of this case and to avoid multiplicity of suits, Mr. BBG
Estrella-Pamatis must amend the complaint and include therein the surety or guarantor, as the
I can’t find citation for this L case may be. And the same was not obeyed.

A surety, according to the SC, promises to pay the debt if the principal will not
pay, while the guarantor agrees that the creditor after proceeding against the
principal debtor may proceed against the guarantor if the principal is unable to
pay. So while the guarantor contracts to pay if by use of the due diligence the
debt cannot be made out of the principal debtor. So again, the liability of the
guarantor is merely secondary such that the creditor cannot go against him
directly without impleading the principal debtor, because the debtor is
considered an indispensable party.
Q: May the court dismiss the case, based on section 3, Rule 17, for
noncompliance of his order?
A: NO. Failure to comply with the order of his inclusion without justifiable cause
shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party. If BBG does not heed
the order of the court, as he did not amend his complaint to include therein the
surety or the guarantor, then he cannot anymore run against the surety or
guarantor.

SECTION 9
Section 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.
If RMG is unable to pay, then BBG cannot anymore institute another case
against the surety or guarantor, as the case may be. That’s the consequence for
disobeying the order of the court. The case, however, is not dismissed. But
there’s still an adverse consequence.
But where the party sought to be included is an indispensable party, and there is
no compliance of the court, the result will be dismissal of the case, based on
section 3, rule 17.
ILLUSTRATION 2: The court directed Grava to include in his action the surety.
But RMG’s whereabouts were unknown, so he could not be issued with
summons.

44

In this case, the non-inclusion is justifiable. The court will proceed with the case,
and if, for example, after the court renders a judgment, and the surety appeals,
then the surety can still defend the case, if a case will be filed against him
eventually, in the event that RMG is unable to pay.
The rule provides that such decision shall be without prejudice to the rights of
such necessary parties.
SECTION 10
Section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. — If the consent of any party who
should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a
defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.
UNWILLING CO-PLAINTIFF
1. He must be an indispensable party
2. He must be impleaded as a defendant because of his unwillingness
ILLUSTRATION: A dies leaving behind his 3 children, B, C and D, as co-heirs or
co-owners to a parcel of land. In the settlement of the estate proceedings, they
proved that there’s a will and that they are named as the legal and compulsory
heirs of A. But E, friend of A, intruded in that parcel of land. B, C and D had a
meeting and discussed the possibility of filing a case against E. But D begged off
from proceeding the case against E, because E is his friend!
Take note that this B, C and D are indispensable parties, because they are all
co-owners of the property. If they want to file a case for accion publiciana against
E, it is imperative that D should be joined therein, because D is an indispensable
party.
Applying Section 7, Rule 3 would make it imperative to make all of them be
joined in one complaint as their joinder is not only permissive but compulsory.
In that situation, B and C will just proceed to file a case and make D as an
unwilling plaintiff. In effect, D will be akin to a plaintiff but he is named as an
unwilling plaintiff.
Here, it the requirement of impleading all indispensable parties is addressed. But
D is just noted to be one unwilling to institute action.
SECTION 11
Section 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.
This provision echoes Section 6, Rule 2, except Rule 2 is a misjoinder of COA,
while Rule 3 is a misjoinder of PARTIES.
Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. — Misjoinder of causes of
action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of
action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be
severed and proceeded with separately.
BUT REMEMBER! There’s a difference in the definition, consequences and
effects of misjoinder of causes of action, misjoinder of parties and non-joinder of
parties.
MISJOINDER MISJOINDER NON-JOINDER
OF ACTION OF PARTIES OF PARTIES
What is it?
What should the
court do?
What happens if
there’s
disobedience?
MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION - There is misjoinder when two (2) or
more causes of action where joined in one complaint when they should no be
joined. (Lakas)
g
Example: An ejectment case is joined with an accion publiciana case is not
allowed, because an ordinary civil action (accion publiciana) cannot be joined
with one that is covered by a special rule (ejectment case). In this case, the court
will direct the parties to misjoin or sever the misjoined causes of action. But
where the order of the court severing the misjoined causes of action is not
followed, then the case will now be dismissed. And this is pursuant to Section
2, Rule 17.
MISJOINDER OF PARTIES – means that two or more parties should not be
joined but they are improperly joined; usually when there is no common question
of fact or law; It is also known as “spurious class suit.”
What is the consequence of a misjoinder of parties?
There is no outright dismissal of the case, but the court may direct that the party
misjoined be dropped from the suit.
ILLUSTRATION: RCT rode BBG’s Angkas in the morning and they got into an
accident. RMG rode BBG’s Angkas in the afternoon, and they also got into an
accident.
In this case, there cannot be a joinder of parties under one complaint, even
applying Section 6, Rule 2 because Section 6 requires a common question of
fact or law. And in this situation, the accident involving RCT happened in the
morning and the one involving RMG happened in the afternoon.
CONTINUATION: But what if, despite the non-allowable joinder of actions in the
prior illustration, RCT and RMG still joined their causes of action in one
complaint? In this situation, when the court is notified about such misjoinder, then
it may direct that the co-cause of action should be severed, or that the
parties should not join together as co-plaintiffs in one complaint.
And if that order is not obeyed, the court can then dismiss the case. This is
pursuant to Section 11, Rule 3.
NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES – the instance where there should be joinder of
parties, since such parties are considered to be indispensable parties or
necessary parties ordered by the court to have included in the proceedings but
there is no inclusion of such indispensable party or there is disobedience of the
inclusion of necessary party.
What is the consequence of non-joinder of parties?
GENERAL RULE: A non-joinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal. The
court will direct the parties to include such parties.
What then happens if there is disobedience of the order of the court? It depends
on the type of party sought to be joined in the instance of non-joinder.
If the party is an indispensable party:
The court may dismiss the case motu proprio. (Section 3 of Rule 17)
If the party is a necessary party that has been already ordered by the court to be
joined in the action:
NOT bring about a dismissal of the case, in that the case will proceed, but only
that the party is deemed to have waived his claims against the omitted necessary
party
ILLUSTRATION: (This is not exactly what happened in the case for Yaptinchay,
this is only for illustrative purposes) If the legal heirs of Yaptinsay - assuming that
they have the legal standing to bring the action even without instituting first the
special proceedings of declaration of heirship - filed a case against the
corporation. But then one of the heirs of Yaptinsay were not included as part of
the plaintiff’s action.
Q: What should the court do?
A: The court will direct the plaintiffs to amend the complaint and include the
omitted indispensable parties.
If that order is not followed, then the case will be dismissed, because the parties
sought to be included by the court are undoubtedly indispensable parties.
ILLUSTRATION: G was the guarantor of D’s principal debt. C, the creditor, filed
a case against D. The court, seeing that there was a guarantor, recommended
that G be included as a party to the proceedings. G was not included.
Q: What should the court do?
45

A: The case will not be dismissed only that, by way of penalty, the plaintiff is
deemed to have waived his claim against the guarantor. So if it turned out
that the principal debtor is insolvent, then the principal creditor can no longer
proceed against the guarantor because he defied the order for his inclusion in
the action.
NOTE: In a case, our SC emphasized that Section 11 of Rule 3 does not
give us unbridled license to just file cases indiscriminately.
Meaning to say that they should file it in good faith, that it should be
though out that this party should be included or that this party should be
omitted in the action.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 84895, May 4, 1989
The Section 11, Rule 3 does not comprehend whimsical and irrational dropping
or adding of parties in a complaint. What it really contemplates is erroneous or
mistaken non-joinder and misjoinder of parties.
No one is free to join anybody in a complaint in court only to drop him
unceremoniously later at the pleasure of the plaintiff.
The rule presupposes that the original inclusion had been made in the honest
conviction that it was proper and the subsequent dropping is requested
because it turned out that such inclusion was a mistake. And this is the reason
why the rule ordains that the dropping be 'on such terms as are just' — just to
all the other parties.
SECTION 12
Section 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.
ELEMENTS OF A CLASS SUIT
1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest
to many persons
2. Persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all as parties to
the action
3. Parties actually before the court are sufficiently numerous and representative
as to fully protect the interests of all those concerned
4. Representative may sue or defend for the benefit of all.
[Here’s a thorough discussion of the first element, since Atty Galeon said it was
the most important element:]
COMMON OR GENERAL INTEREST - the interest of the person/s concerned,
where the parties must be so numerous that bring them in court would appear to
be impracticable
Oposa vs. Factoran
G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original
defendant and the present respondents did not take issue with this matter.
Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit.
The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not
just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the
parties are so numerous, it, becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible,
to bring all of them before the court.
We likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and
representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests.
Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12,
Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case
and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former.
This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors
assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn.
We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their
generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their
g
personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based
on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter
expounded, considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature.
Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait vs.
Secretary Angelo Reyes
G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015
This case was also instituted not only for the benefit of the children, but also
for the benefit of the generation yet unborn.
To sue under this rule, two elements must be present: "(a) the suit is brought
on behalf of an identified party whose right has been violated, resulting in
some form of damage, and (b) the representative authorized by law or the
Rules of Court to represent the victim."
The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases allows filing of a citizen's
suit. A citizen's suit under this rule allows any Filipino citizen to file an action
for the enforcement of environmental law on behalf of minors or generations
yet unborn. It is essentially a representative suit that allows persons who are
not real parties in interest to institute actions on behalf of the real party in
interest.
Bulig-Bulig v. Sulpicio Lines
G.R. No. 84750, May 19, 1989
FACTS: This was the case involving the sinking of Doña Paz. This vessel sank
resulting to the death of its passengers. Only a few of them were saved. a class
suit was supposedly filed by the victims and the heirs of those who died.
RULING: SC said that the action would not partake the nature of a class suit
for the reason that, according to the SC, the survivors also had no interest in
the death of the other passengers and that the interest also of those who died
are different – some would claim damages of millions and some only
thousands. So that was not a class suit.
Sulo Ng Bayan Association vs. Araneta
G.R. No. L-31061, Aug. 17, 1976
FACTS: Araneta here owned a vast land and then there were a lot of squatters
in such land. Araneta subdivided the land, so this case was instituted by Sulo
Ng Bayan Assoc., claiming to be the organization representing the squatters.
ISSUES:
(1) The first issue there is as regards the legal capacity of the Sulo Ng Bayan
to bring the action, whether they are the real party in interest.
(2) the more relevant issue is whether or not the case would qualify as a class
suit because there were a lot of occupants.
RULINGS:
(1) SC ruled in the negative, saying that Sulo ng Bayan is not a real party in
interest because the parties in interest are the illegal occupants or the
squatters themselves, and not the organization seeking to represent these
squatters.
(2) SC said that no, it’s not a class suit because each lot occupant, basically,
is only interested on claiming the portion that he/she is occupying. An occupant
of a certain area in Araneta’s lot is not at all interested in the rights or claims of
other occupants. His only interest is as regards the portion which he is
occupying. So that’s why the SC said that there is no commonality of interest
because each one of them has his/her interest in or about the property, but
their interest only is limited to the portion that they are respectively occupying.
So it’s not a class suit.
Juana Complex I Homeowners Association vs. Fil-Estate
G.R. No. 152272, Mar. 5, 2012
FACTS: There was a public road that was closed and excavated by the Fil-
Estate and its affiliates. There was a class suit instituted by the co-owners of
Juana Complex and subsequently there were other homeowners or
subdivision owners who joined the action and they characterized their action
as partaking the nature of a class suit. So, it was argued by the defendant that
it was not a class suit. The case filed was one for damages and one for
injunctive relief.
46
 g

RULING: The Supreme Court sustained that it was a class suit because the estate of the decedent, being the
suit is clearly one that benefits all of the commuters and motorists who used beneficiary of the action
the La Paz Road which is the only ingress to or egress from the estate. There the persons in a class suit, are not The beneficiary is the real party in
is therefore a commonality of interest involving all commuters and motorists merely suing as representatives in interest and not the representative
who wanted to go to the SLEX passing through the La Paz Road and the action that they also are real parties in as illustrated in the situation where
is considered as partaking the nature of a class suit. interest the executor of the estate files a
case for the benefit of the estate of
the decedent.

HOW TO RECONCILE THESE CASES:

Liana’s Supermarket vs. National Labor Relations Commission and
In Oposa and Resident Mamals, the class suit was allowed as it instituted for National Labor Union
children and children unborn. This was an application of the Doctrine of G.R. No. 111014, May 31, 1996
Intergenerational Responsbility. Ok kyeoh.

In Bulig-Bulig and Araneta, it was not a class suit. But in Juana, it was a class FACTS: There was a labor union supposedly in illegal representation of the
suit. members of that union had filed against Liana’s.

Bulig-bulig – dfifferent passangers had fifferent amounts of claims for damages.
But Araneta and Juana have very similar facts - there were also numerous
homeowners or occupants affected
Bulig-builig and Araneta’s similarity - have different claims and different
interests.
In Araneta, there were those who died and there were those who survived and
as for those who filed the case in behalf of those who died, they claimed different
amounts of damages.
APPLICATION TO A REAL-LIFE SITUATION:
The case of Naga Landslide.
If a group of people want to file an action for damages due to the deaths
and injuries of the landslide, what kind of action should they file? it will not
partake the nature of a class suit because each one of them, those who died,
have different interests. Others also did not die, but were merely injured.
RULING: The Supreme Court said that that is not a class suit. It was merely a
representative suit, for the reason again that each worker has his own interest
different from others. The Supreme Court also said that while they could allow
the filing of a case by that labor organization, that does not involve a class suit
in that it is merely a representative suit.
The Supreme Court said that the labor union could file a representative suit in
behalf of its members in the interest.
A "representative suit" is akin to a "class suit" in the limited sense that the
phrases found in See. 12 of Rule 3, "one or more may sue or defend for the
benefit of all," and "the parties actually before it are 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 Sec.
3 of the same Rule. In other words, both suits are always filed in behalf of
another or others. That is why the two terms are sometimes used
interchangeably
CLASS SUIT VS. DERIVATIVE SUIT

if the action of the residents is the enjoin altogether limestone excavation DERIVATIVE SUIT - a suit filed by a stockholder against the directors of the
in the place of Naga then probably, what kind of action should they file? A corporation, who are the persons through which a corporation acts; where the
class suit. That action will partake the nature of a class suit because they have minority files a suit in behalf of the entire corporation because intra-corporate
now a common interest to stop the excavation for limestone. remedy is useless

Alternative remedy if one cannot file a class suit:

Apply the permissive joinder of parties pursuant to Section 6 of Rule 3.
REMEMBER: Whether the case is akin to class suit, or whether it partakes of a
class suit, do not rely solely on the number of the plaintiffs or the defendants
involved. You first look at if there is a common interest shared by all, and this is
the most important element.
CLASS SUIT VS. REPRESENTATIVE SUIT
REPRESENTATIVE SUIT – not all who are directly affected by the action will
become parties (either as plaintiff or defendant) as long as some of them or a good
number of them would represent as plaintiffs or defendants and the action is
instituted for the benefit of the those who were not included in the action; those
who actually appear in court in a class suit are also acting in a representative
capacity (Galeon definition)
CLASS SUIT DERIVATIVE SUIT
covers even ordinary civil actions applicable in intra-corporate cases
ILLUSTRATION: In a corporation, all the directors and members of the board
conspired to embezzle the money of the corporation to the detriment of the
stockholders. (Take note that normally, when the corporation is involved in a
case, it has to issue board resolution, who are acted on by the BODs.) In this
case, the Board wouldn’t issue a Board Resolution since they themselves
embezzled money from the corporation.
In that situation, an ordinary stockholder may bring a case against the
corporation, the directors, the members of the board, and that action is filed not
only in behalf of that stockholder but also for the benefit of the corporation
itself.
SECTION 13

Section 13. Alternative defendants. — Where the plaintiff is uncertain

CLASS SUIT
Governed by Section 12, Rule 3
those who actually participate in the
action are also acting in behalf of
other persons, they themselves are
also real parties in interest
in a class suit, the actual plaintiffs,
those who appear in court, or the
defendants, not only appear as
representatives for those who are
impleaded in the action but they also
appear for and in behalf of
themselves because they are also
affected by the act complained of.
They are also real parties in interest.
REPRESENTATIVE SUIT
Governed by Section 3, Rule 3
in a representative suit, the party in
interest is actually the principal or
the beneficiary and not necessarily
the representative plaintiff or
representative defendant
in a representative suit, let’s have an
example. Executor of an estate files
a case for the benefit of an estate of
the deceased person, you take note
that that is an example of a
representative suit but the executor
actually is not the real party in
interest. That’s why the requirement
is that the executor must name or
include in the title of the case the
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.
This was discussed earlier.
Remember to differentiate: (it’s easy to have these mixed up, since they
involve lots of people)
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION – there is more than one cause of action
JOINDER OF PARTIES – common question of law or fact
CLASS SUIT - common interest of multiple parties, as stressed by the primary
action of the people
ALTERNATIVE JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION - exists when the plaintiff is
uncertain against who he is entitled to relief. The redress he seeks stems from a
47
 g

cause of action that is either case or the other. What is not sought is relief from defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent
both defendants. person in charge thereof.

SECTION 14
Section 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.
This provision applies in a situation where the plaintiff does not know or cannot
identify the defendant.
Remedy
1. Describe the defendant in that he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir,
devisee, or by such other designations as the case may warrant.
2. If his identity is known later, then amend the pleading accordingly.
Ordinarily, in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a
corporation, service of summons is directed to the secretary or president of the
corporation.
For corporation by estoppel
In order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant that
happens to be a corporation by estoppel, summons may be served on any one of
them or upon the person in charge of the office/place of business maintained in
such name.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Such service shall not bind, individually, any person
whose connection with it has, upon due notice, been severed already upon
the execution of the action. (Googi: he shouldn’t be included jud, since his ties
with the corporation have been severed. So even if he got served, it won’t bind
him but it’ll bind the corporation by estoppel.)

ILLUSTRATION: While walking around IT Park, Galeon got hit by a Black
Toyota Fortuner with plate no. ABC-123. Not knowing who the owner of such car
was, Galeon inquired in LTO. Their system was done.
Q: How should Galeon file the case? Can he still file despite not knowing who hit
him?
JUDGMENT ON THESE PERSONS
Rule 36. Section 6. Judgment against entity without juridical personality.
— When judgment is rendered against two or more persons sued as an
entity without juridical personality, the judgment shall set out their
individual or proper names, if known.

A: Galeon may still file the case. He should file the case in his own name, being
the plaintiff, and against the registered owner of the Black Toyota Fortuner
bearing plate number ABC-123. And if in the course of the action, it will be
disclosed that that’s owned by Gravador, then, Galeon is allowed by law to
amend the complaint.
This provision is similar to Section 7 of Rule 110 as discussed in Criminal
Procedure.
Judgment is directed to the people behind the entity.
In the example above, judgment will then be directed to Torregosa, Gravador,
Galeon, and their associates.
Rationale: A corporation by estoppel does not exist in the eyes of the law, and
therefore cannot be held liable, since it has no legal personality. Because of this,
the liability should fall on the persons composing the de facto corporation or
corporation by estoppel.

Rule 110. Section 7. Name of the accused. — The complaint or

information must state the name and surname of the accused or any Before discussing Section 16 of Rule 3, there should be an understanding
appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known. If his name about actions which survive and actions which do not survive.
cannot be ascertained, he must be described under a fictitious name with
a statement that his true name is unknown. There are two types of actions on the basis of their survivability: (1) actions
which survive, and (2) actions which do not survive.
If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him or appears
in some other manner to the court, such true name shall be inserted in
the complaint or information and record.

SECTION 15

Section 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.

Parties who can be sued under this section:

1. Persons who conduct business even without formal registration as
corporations or partnerships
2. Corporations by estoppel (Section 21, of Corporation Code)

ILLUSTRATION: Gravador, Torregosa, Galeon, and the other associates would

conduct business involving as a corporation called Opaw Corporation. It was not
registered.

Q: Does the non-registration of the corporation bar them from being sued?

A: No. it does not bar any action. They, in fact, will be sued in the name that they
are generally or commonly known – the Opaw Corporation. But in the Answer of
the defendants, it is imperative of them to specify their personal circumstances.

SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON THESE PERSONS

Rule 14. Section 7. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes, the
defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the
preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the
summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age
and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at I. ACTIONS WHICH SURVIVE
48

ACTIONS WHICH SURVIVE - an action which is not abated upon the death of a
party, thereby making substitution possible. The case can go on even if a party
dies.
Examples:
ü Action for collection of sum of money founded on a contract of loan
ü Recognition of illegitimate child, as provided by Art 175 of Family Code
(this will be thoroughly discussed later)
ü An action for Damages, especially one that is based on quasi-delict
ü A personal action for recovery, based on unlawful detainer or forcible
entry, as the case may be
ü Accion publiciana
KINDS OF ACTIONS WHICH SURVIVE:
A. CONTRACTUAL - Founded on a contract, expressed or implied (usually money
claims based on contracts of loans)
B. NOT CONTRACTUAL – Not founded on a contract or quasi-contract (usually
an action for damages, based on quasi-delict)
A. CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS WHICH SURVIVE
RULES CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIMS
RULE # 1
If it is the plaintiff who dies, the case will continue. The legal
representatives, which may be the executor or administrator of the
estate, or legal heirs will substitute the plaintiff. So, there is
substitution.
RULE # 2
If it is the defendant who dies, we need to determine the date of his
death, in relation to the status of the case, as different rules apply.
A. If defendant died before entry of final judgment, apply Section 20,
Rule 3 of Rules of Court.
The case shall not be dismissed but shall be allowed to continue until
entry of final judgment. Any 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, that is found in Section 5 of Rule 86.
B. If the defendant dies after the entry of the final judgment but before
execution (after the judgment became final and executory but before
there could be levy or execution), you cannot move to execute. Apply
Section 5 of Rule 86 – file your claim against the estate of the
deceased defendant.
C. If the defendant died after levy or execution but before the auction
sale, that is, the property was already levied by the sheriff, apply Rule
39, Section 7( c ).
Discussion of each rule:
RULE # 1
If it is the plaintiff who dies, the case will continue. The legal
representatives, which may be the executor or administrator of the
estate, or legal heirs will substitute the plaintiff. So, there is substitution.
See notes under Section 16 of Rule 3 for further discussion
RULE # 2
A. If defendant died before entry of final judgment, apply Section 20, Rule
3 of Rules of Court.
The case shall not be dismissed but shall be allowed to continue until
entry of final judgment. Any 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, that is
found in Section 5 of Rule 86.
Applicability, requisites:
1. The action was one for a sum of money based on a contract.
2. The defendant died during the pendency of the case, before the entry of final
judgment.
g
Effects
1. The case cannot be dismissed, substitution is allowed.
2. If the judgment is thereafter rendered in favor of the plaintiff-creditor, he must
then enforce such judgment in the probate court.
(This is thoroughly discussed in Section 20, Rule 6.)
RULE # 2
B. If the defendant dies after the entry of the final judgment but before
execution (after the judgment became final and executory but before
there could be levy or execution), you cannot move to execute. Apply
Section 5 of Rule 86 – file your claim against the estate of the deceased
defendant.
Applicability, requisites:
1. The action was one for a sum of money based on a contract.
2. The defendant died after the entry of the final judgment but before execution
thereof, or after the judgment attained finality but before the sheriff could proceed
with the levy of the properties of the defendant, pursuant to the writ of execution,
Effects
Apply Section 5, Rule 86
1. Since judgment is rendered, the case is basically over. Enforcement is the next
step.
2. Enforcement of the rendered judgment should be done in the probate court
hearing the settlement proceedings of the estate of the deceased, pursuant to
Section 5, Rule 86.
RULE 86 - Claims Against Estate
Section 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not
filed, barred; exceptions. — All claims for money against the decent,
arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not
due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expense for the
last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the
decent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they
are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in
any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the
claimants. Where an executor or administrator commences an action, or
prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime,
the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he has against the
decedent, instead of presenting them independently to the court as
herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in
such action; and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant,
the amount so determined shall be considered the true balance against
the estate, as though the claim had been presented directly before the
court in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet due, or
contingent, may be approved at their present value.
ILLUSTRATION: There is an action for collection of sum of money based on a
contract of loan. Then, the court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff, and
the defendant did not file an appeal on the decision. The decision attained finality.
However, the defendant died after the decision attained finality, but before the
sheriff could enforce the judgment.
Q: Will the enforcement continue?
A: No. In other words, the decision may now be enforced by applying Section 5 of
Rule 86. You cannot enforce that decision in that very same proceeding for
collection of sum of money. As the plaintiff, you have to present the judgment
before the probate court where there is a pending action for the settlement of the
estate of the defendant.
RULE # 2
C. If the defendant died after levy or execution but before the auction
sale, that is, the property was already levied by the sheriff, apply Rule 39,
Section 7( c ).
Applicability, requisites:
1. The action was one for a sum of money based on a contract.
2. Judgment was rendered, and decision attained finality
3. There was levy or execution upon the defendant’s property
4. No auction sale was had yet, which would have satisfied the debt of the
defendant
Effect
Apply Rule 39, Section 7 – c, where:
1. Substitution is no longer needed
49
 g

2. The decision rendered can be enforced without need of presenting in the

probate court where there is a pending action for the settlement of the estate of Examples:
the decedent ü Action for annulment of marriage or probably
3. The sale of his properties in a public auction will proceed ü Action for legal separation
ü Action for declaration of nullity of marriage
BASICALLY: You can proceed with the auction sale for the properties that were ü Action for support
levied pursuant to the writ of execution only that where there is an excess or the
proceeds of the sale is more than enough to pay off the judgment award in favor
of plaintiff, then the sheriff therefore would have to turn over to the executor or ILLUSTRATION 1: A plaintiff institutes an action for collection of sun of money
administrator of the estate of the same decedent the excess of any such proceeds based on the contract he entered into with the defendant. If the defendant does,
of sale. does the action survive?

RULE 39 - Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments.
Section 7. Execution in case of death of party. — In case of the death of
a party, execution may issue or be enforced in the following manner:
(c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, after execution is actually
levied upon any of his property, the same may be sold for the satisfaction
of the judgment obligation, and the officer making the sale shall account
to the corresponding executor or administrator for any surplus in his
hands.
B. NON-CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS WHICH SURIVE
These kinds of actions may be (1) non-contractual money claims or (2) non-
contractual non-money claims
RULES ANENT NON-CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIMS WHICH SURVIVE
A: Yes, the action will survive. Therefore, it becomes the duty of the counsel of
the defendant to inform the court of such death and likewise to give the court the
name and address of the legal representative, who is the executor or
administrator of the estate of the defendant
ILLUSTRATION 2: Gravador filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his
marriage with Maria Ozawa. His petition that founded on Article 36 of the Family
Code which was known as the so-called Chi Ming Tsoi doctrine. In that action, or
assume that in that action, Maria Ozawa, God forbids, somehow died with her
creator, in other words, there was death on the part of the respondent, so
when that happens, there is no more need to continue with the action, the
same action should not be continued because that action is considered to
be one which does not survive. There’s no more need to continue with that
action after all it may be terminated in the first place with the death of his wife
and that is Maria Ozawa.

If a party dies in an action which survives but is a non-contractual money SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE RULES:
claim, there is substitution of parties.
CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS WHICH SURVIVE
Substitution applies. Apply Section 16, Rule 3. (See: Discussion on Section 16,
Rule 3) If plaintiff dies Apply Section 16 of Rule 3

Recall in Criminal Procedure: Under Section 4 of Rule 111, in an action for If defendant dies:
damages based on quasi-delict, such action may be proceeded as against the
estate or legal heirs of the accused where the accused dies during the pendency
of the criminal case. Apply Section 20, Rule 3 but enforce a
A – before entry of final
favorable judgment to the plaintiff through
judgment
In other words, the death of the accused in a criminal case will not extinguish his Section 5, Rule 86
civil liability, especially if the action is characterized as an independent civil
action.
B – after entry but before
Apply Section 5, Rule 86
execution
RULES ANENT NON-MONEY CLAIMS WHICH SURVIVE
C – after execution Apply Section 7c, Rule 39
If a party dies in an action which survives but is a non-money claim, there
is still a substitution of parties. Any adverse decision therein can be
enforced in that very same proceeding.
NON -CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS WHICH DO NOT SURVIVE

Examples: Accion publiciana, Accion reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership over Apply Section 16, Rule 3, but enforce in
Money claim
property) probate court
Non-money claim Apply Section 16, Rule 3
Substitution may occur, the executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased
(may it be the plaintiff or the defendant) is impleaded in the main action.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MONEY CLAIMS AND NON-MONEY CLAIMS: In

non-money claims, the enforcement of such judgment may be had in the same
very proceeding. No need to go to probate court. SPECIAL DISCUSSION:

Recognition of illegitimate child is a very special case.

ILLUSTRATION: Galeon will file a case for recovery of ownership and possession
of a parcel of land. In the course of the proceeding, the defendant died, such that
his executor is substituted as a defendant. If the decision will be rendered by the
Court in Galeon’s favor in that same case, then that decision can be enforced in
that very same case. Galeon no longer is required to present that judgment in the
probate court where there is a pending action for the settlement of the estate of
the decedent.
IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ACTION WHICH SURVIVES.
The family code provides that an illegitimate child may bring action for
recognition in the same way as a legitimate child. Moreover, Artcile 175 further
provides that the secondary evidence invoked by the illegitimate child may only
be used during the lifetime of the putative parent.

NOTE: Rule 86 is very specific that such actions only applies to situations for
money claims.
NOTE: This section supports the notion that the action for recovery of real or
personal property, survives even after the death of the party, since the action will
be proceeded against the executor or administrator of the estate.
Family Code. Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their
illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as
legitimate children.
The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article
173, except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article
172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the
alleged parent.

II. ACTIONS WHICH DON’T SURVIVE Family Code. Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established
by any of the following:
ACTIONS WHICH DO NOT SURVIVE - an action which is abated upon the (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment;
death of a party. The case cannot go on once a party dies. or
50

(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be
roved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate
child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
But if the putative parent dies during the pendency of the case, the action will still
continue. The effect is just the illegitimate child cannot use secondary evidence.
This was clarified by the Supreme Court in this case:
Mendoza vs Court of Appeal
G.R. No. 86302, Sept. 24, 1991
RULING: The death of the putative father during the pendency of the action
for compulsory recognition is not a bar to the action commenced during this
lifetime by one who pretended to be his natural son. Such action therefore
may survive and the same is now may be executed against the executor,
administrator or any other legal representative of the testate or intestate
estate.
SECTION 16
Section 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
his 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.
Section 16 governs ACTIONS WHICH SURVIVE.
BASIC GENERAL RULE: When the client dies, the lawyer-client relationship is
terminated. A lawyer-client relationship is founded on trust and confidence, which
shall terminate when the client dies. But, this rule gives the lawyer a duty even
despite the termination of such relationship.
Paragraph One
Effect of death
(1) The claim is not extinguished
(2) There arises a duty of the counsel of the deceased to do the following:
1. To inform the court within 30 days after the death of the fact thereof
2. To give the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives (executor or administrator of the estate, or legal heirs)
(3) Failure lawyer may be facing an administrative sanction or maybe imposed
with a fine, or even cited in contempt by the court.
Rationale for the imposition of the duty of the counsel: This facilitates the
substitution of parties
Paragraph Two and Three
Effect of notification to the court by the counsel
g
1. Substitution will occur, whereby the heirs of the deceased, be allowed to
substitute the litigant without appointment of an executor or administrator and the
court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs
- There will also be no need for the amendment of the pleading or complaint
- There will be no need to serve summons on the legal rep or heirs
2. The court shall order the legal representative to appear
NOTE: The case of Yaptinchay does not apply this rule:
Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario
G.R. No. 124320. March 2, 1999
RULING: The Supreme Court frowned upon the filing of the case by the
supposed legal heirs of Yaptinchay, since they did institute first a special
proceeding to have them declared as legal heirs of the decedent.
The death of the party concerned occurred prior to the institution of the action.
This is why section 16 does not apply, since for Section 16 should apply, the
party should have died during the pendency. And in this case, the party died
prior the institution of the case.
NOTE: There is a preference/order of priority when it comes to substitution.
Lawas vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. L-45809, Dec. 12, 1986
RULING: The priority of substitution would be the executor or administrator,
not the heirs.
The heirs would only be allowed to be substituted if there is an (1)
unreasonable delay in the appointment of administrator or executor, or (2)
when the heirs resort to extrajudicial partition. But outside of those two
reasons, the law always gives priority to the administrator or executor.
Paragraph Four
When is there no formal substitution
1. No legal representative is named by the counsel
2. Failure to appear within the specified period
Effect of failure of formal substitution
1. 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.
2. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing
party, may be recovered as costs.
- this is the penalty aspect
Vda. De Salazar vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 121510, Nov. 23, 1995
FACTS: This is an ejectment. case. The defendant died while the case is going
on. There should have been substitution, but there was no substitution in the
case for ten years, until it was decided. The court was not informed of the
death of the defendant. Until finally, there was a decision.
ISSUE: When there is failure to effectuate the substitution of heirs before the
rendition of judgment, is the judgment jurisdictionally detective? Because here,
the case continued, in which somebody is already dead.
RULING: NO, the judgment is valid where the heirs themselves appeared
before the trial court and participated in the proceedings. Therein, they
presented evidence in defense of the deceased defendant. It is undeniably
evident that the heirs themselves sought their day in court and exercised their
right to due process.
In other words, when there was a defect the heirs however cannot use that
because they themselves appeared and continued the case, even presented
evidences. So, the formal substitution therefore could be dispensed with
because there is no denial of due process on the part of the defendant as the
legal heirs participated in the legal proceedings
Florendo vs. Coloma
G.R. No. L-60544, May 19, 1984
FACTS: This is an ejectment case. An adverse decision was rendered against
the plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff died but there was
no substitution of party; hence, plaintiff continued to be the appellant therein.
51

The appeal was dismissed. Later, plaintiff’s heirs assailed the decision of the
Court of Appeal as null and void.
ISSUE: WON the court has been deprived of its jurisdiction?
RULING: The judgment in an ejectment case may be enforced not only against
defendants therein but also against the members of their family, their relatives,
or privies who derived their right of possession from the defendants (Ariem vs.
De los Angeles). Under the circumstances of this case, the same rule should
apply to the successor-in-interest.
Galeon: The decision therein binds not only the party-disputants in that case,
in that the decision in that ejectment case would also bind third-party families,
their relatives and their privies who also derive their right of possession from
the party-disputants in that case.
BASICALLY: (insert point here)
SECTION 17
Section 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 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.
Applicability, requisites:
1. If the defendant is (or the action is filed against) a public officer.
2. The public officer is sued in his official capacity, NOT his personal capacity
3. In the pendency of the case, such public officer dies, resigns or is removed from
his office.
NOTE: If any of these requisites is absent, apply Section 16 (especially if he is
sued in his personal capacity. Take note.)
ILLUSTRATION: The Cebu City Mayor Labella declared state of calamity and
directed the suspension of classes from March 16 to March 28. Suppose that the
students opposed the idea of suspension and questioned the validity of the
directive. But during the pendency of the case, Labella was infected with COVID,
which resulted to his untimely demise. He is then succeeded by Vice-Mayor
Rama.
Q: What is the status of the action filed?
A: Applying Section 17 - If now mayor Rama disapproves the directive issued by
Labella or discontinues it, then action would have to be dismissed.
But if Rama would continue or adopt the directive of his predecessor, then Mayor
Rama would be substituted in the action and the proceeding will continue.
Here, the court will (1) notify Mayor Rama for the substitution of party and (2) will
be give him ample time to comment or file his answer. He will be given
opportunity to be heard.
SECTION 18
Section 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.
This section governs also REPRESENTATIVE SUITS, but such incapacity
occurred during the pendency of the action.
Section 3, Rule 3 Section 18, Rule 3
may involve a situation where a pertains to a situation where person
person becomes incapacitated or after the filing and during pendency
incompetent before the filing of the has become incompetent or
action incapacitated
Effect
g
1. The court may allow the action may be continued by or against such
incompetent person,
2. But the incompetent should be assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad
littem.
NOTE: When the incompetent has no guardian, then the court will appoint a
guardian for the incapacitated.
SECTION 19
Section 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.
THREE OPTIONS OF THE COURT
1. To allow the transferee to be substituted for the original party
2. To direct the action join the transferee together with the original party (the
transferee becomes a co-defendant, together with the lot disposer)
3. To continue the action without need of joining the transferee in the action
ILLUSTRATION: Galeon owns a parcel of land, evidenced by a TCT in his name.
A case is filed against him by Waldy, because Waldy claims a part of Galeon’s
land as his own. During the pendency of the case, Galeon disposed his land and
sold it to Randi. The TCT was annotated with a notice of lis pendens. Randi bought
the property with the knowledge of the existence of the pending suit.
Q: What is the status of the case?
A: In that situation, the court may:
(1) direct that the transferee, Randi, may be joined as a co-defendant
in the action filed by Waldi against Galeon
(2) direct that Randi be substituted as the defendant in the action that
was filed by Waldi against Galeon, or the Court
(3) may not anymore direct that the transferee be joined or be
substituted as defendant in the action, as the court will decide to
continue and Randi will be bound by the judgment therein.
Rationale: Because if there is a transfer of interest during the pendency of the
case, and the transferee acknowledged the pendency of the action, then and in
that situation, the transferee is deemed joined already by operation of law at
that very moment when there is transfer of interest in his favor done by the
original party in the action.
BUT! If the transferee was not aware of the pending suit, Randi therefore may
not be bound by the judgment, because he can put up the defense that he is a
purchaser of value and in good faith of the property involved in the action
SECTION 20
Section 20. Action and 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.
This is basically what will happen:
52

(insert graph graph here)
RULE 86 - Claims Against Estate
Section 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not
filed, barred; exceptions. — All claims for money against the decent,
arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not
due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expense for the
last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the
decent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice; otherwise they
are barred forever, except that they may be set forth as counterclaims in
any action that the executor or administrator may bring against the
claimants. Where an executor or administrator commences an action, or
prosecutes an action already commenced by the deceased in his lifetime,
the debtor may set forth by answer the claims he has against the
decedent, instead of presenting them independently to the court as
herein provided, and mutual claims may be set off against each other in
such action; and if final judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant,
the amount so determined shall be considered the true balance against
the estate, as though the claim had been presented directly before the
court in the administration proceedings. Claims not yet due, or
contingent, may be approved at their present value.
Ordinary, under Section 2 of Rule 86, the probate court, or the court where the
action for settlement of estate is filed, will issue an order, commanding the
creditors or those who have money claims against the estate of the decedent to
file their claims within that court within the period of six months to twelve months,
reckoned from the date of the publication of that order of the probate court.
RULE 86 - Claims Against Estate
Section 2. Time within which claims shall be filed. — In the notice
provided in the preceding section, the court shall estate the time for the
filing of claims against the estate, which shall not be more than twelve
(12) not less than six (6) months after the date of the first publication of
the notice. However, at any time before an order of distribution is entered,
on application of a creditor who has failed to file his claim within the
previously limited, the court may, for cause shown and on such terms as
are equitable, allow such claim to be filed within a time not exceeding
one (1) month.
g
SECTION 21
Section 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 docket and
other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the
court may order to be furnished him. The amount of the 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 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 docket 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.
This is a manifestation of Article 3, Section 11 of the 1987 PH Consti.
1987 PH CONSTI, ARTICLE 3.
SECTION 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason
of poverty.
Recall in Criminal Procedure: If the accused is without a counsel, it is incumbent
upon the court to appoint the accused with a counsel de officio.
Section 21 allows a person to litigate as an indigent party upon proper
application
Who is an indigent party?
1. One who has no money; or
2. Property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for
himself and his family
Effects
1. The court will allow him to prosecute his claim or defend the action
2. He is exempted from the payment of docket fees and other lawful fees
3. The court can also direct that he be furnished with copies of the transcript of
stenographic notes without him having to pay therefor
4. But if judgment is rendered in favor of the indigent plaintiff, the amount of unpaid
docket fees and other lawful fees for which he was exempted from paying shall be
considered as a lien on the judgment rendered in his favor. (pina file now, pay
later)
5. The opposing party may question the order of the court allowing the adverse
party to litigate the action as an indigent party
SECTION 22
Section 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 a
representative duly designated by him.
GENERAL RULE: The Solicitor General is only required to appear in appellate
cases.
In appellate cases, it is the SolGen who will represent the government.
In cases before the trial court, it is the prosecutor who will appear before the
government.
EXCEPTION: Sec 22, Rule 3
Section 22 gives the court the discretion to require the appearance of the SolGen
or any representative that he may assign. He may assign a prosecutor.
NOTE: This is also the requirement in an action for declaratory relief.
53
 g

ILLUSTRATION: Supposed Galeon’s wife filed a case for the issuance of a
Temporary Protecting Order against Galeon, alleging therein that he maltreated
her. In Galeon’s Answer, he said that it was rather his wife who maltreated him.
Also in his Answer is a contest of the constitutionality of RA 9262, as it is violative
of the Equal Protection Clause.
Q2: But where is the venue?
A2: In as much as Catmon has no RTC, then it should be filed with the RTC of
Danao. After all, the RTC of Danao has territorial jurisdiction over Catmon, Cebu.
st
This is pursuant to the 1 paragraph, Section 1 of Rule 4.

In this case, the court has the discretion to require the appearance of the SolGen VARIATION OF ILLUSTRATION 1: The property of X, resident of Cebu City, is
for in the allegations of any party in their assailment of the validity of RA 9262. situated in the boundary between Danao and Carmen. Y intruded.

Galeon’s comment: Ordinarily, in acts like this, the SolGen may authorize the
Fiscal to act on his behalf.
RULE 4 – VENUE OF ACTIONS
Simply, VENUE refers to the place where a case of the case has been filed and
tried.
ILLUSTRATION: X, a resident of Cebu City, owns property situated in Mandaue
City. Without the knowledge of X, Y forcibly entered into his Mandaue property. X,
then seeks, to file a case of forcible entry against Y. But where should he file the
case – Mandaue or Cebu? And in what court?
A: The two questions actually have two different answers. The questions finds its
answer in the provision of venue of actions (Rule 4), while the second question
can be answered by BP 129, as amended, which provides for the jurisdiction.
Therefore, the venue of the action is Mandaue City, as forcible entry is a real action
that must be tried in the court which has the jurisdiction over the area where the
property is located. The jurisdiction of the case is with the MTCC, as it is expressly
provided in BP 129 as amended.
Q1: Where should X file the action for Forcible Entry?
A1: File it with the MTC in Danao, because Carmen is within the territorial
jurisdiction of the MTCC in Danao.
ANOTHER VARIATION OF ILLUSTRATION 1: X, resident of Cebu City, owns
property in Sogod, which Y intruded.
Q1: Where should X file the action for forcible entry?
A1: File the case for ejection in the MTC of Catmon because the MTC of Catmon
has territorial jurisdiction over the place, that is, Sogod.
NOTE: Where the property involved is situated in the boundary of 2 places and
these 2 places have their respective courts like MTC, then, file the action in
either of the MTC/MTCC involved.
ILLUSTRATION 2: X, resident of Cebu City, owns property within the border of
Catmon and Sogod. (ASSUME THAT SOGOD HAS ITS OWN MTC). Therefore,
at the option of X, the plaintiff of the Forcible Entry case, he can choose between
the MTC of Catmon or the MTC of Sogod.

SECTION 1 SECTION 2

Section 1. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or
possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and
tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the
municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Section 2. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may be
commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants
resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff.
Recall the difference between real actions and personal actions:

RULE: Real actions, Actions for Forcible Entry and Actions for Unlawful Detainer
REAL ACTIONS
shall be commenced in the court which has jurisdiction over the area where the
property is situated.
DEFINITION
NOTE BEFORE READING THE ILLUSTRATION: Actions that involve the title to or
possession of real property or any
On the way to Bogo, you will pass by Danao, then Carmen, then Catmon, then interest therein
Sogod. Catmon, Cebu is the second municipality from Danao City. Catmon has EXAMPLES
its own MTC, but is under the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Danao City, as ü Accion publiciana
it does not have its own RTC. Carmen, Cebu does not have its own MTC or ü Accion reinvindicatoria
RTC, but is within the territorial jurisdiction of the MTC and RTC of Danao. ü Forcible entry
Danao City also has its own MTCs. Sogod, Cebu does not have its own MTC, ü Unlawful detainer
but is within the territorial jurisdiction of the MTC of Catmon. ü Partition of real property,
ü Foreclosure of real estate
ILLUSTRATION: X, a resident of Cebu City, owns property situated in Catmon, mortgage (Barrido vs.
Cebu. The property has an assessed value of P100,000.00. Without the Nonato)
knowledge of X, Y entered the Catmon property. X, then, seeks to file a case of CASES IN POINT
Forcible Entry against Y. Spouses Concha vs. Spouses
Lumocso – Action to Quiet Title is a
Q1: Which court should X institute his action? real action. (RTC or MTC,
depending on assessed value)
A1: EZ, MTC, because that’s what BP 129 as amended provides. Jurisdiction of
forcible entry cases are with the MTCs. Heirs of Sebe vs. Heirs of Sevilla –
Action to Quiet Title is a real action.
Q2: Which MTC should X file his case? Catmon or Danao? (RTC or MTC, depending on
assessed value)
A2: X should file his action with the MTC of Catmon, as Actions for Forcible
Entry are expressly mandated by Section 1 of Rule 4 to be filed in the municipal Spouses Sabtisana vs. Muertegui
trial court where the real property is situated. – Action to Quiet Title is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. (RTC)
CONTINUATION: Suppose X failed to file the case for forcible entry within the 1-
year period reckoned from the unlawful intrusion. He then sought to file accion Atty’s opinion: The prevailing
publiciana. doctrine is that of Concha and Sebe,
since substantive law must prevail
Q1: Which court has jurisdiction over the case of accion publiciana? over procedural law and the intent of
BP 129 (which was to unclog the
A1: EZ – RTC. The type of action and the assessed value dictate that the dockets of RTC) should be honored.
jurisdiction of the case of accion publiciana is with the RTC. BP 129 as amended
provides that where the assessed value of the property exceed P50,000.00 Therefore: Action to Quiet Title
(because the case is outside Metro Manila), then RTC. should be considered real actions.
PERSONAL ACTIONS
Actions founded on privity of
contract
ü Actions for quasi-delict
ü Actions for sum of money
based on loan
ü Damages
ü Recovery of personal
properties
ü Rescission of contract
ü Enforcement of contract
Spouses Saraza vs. Fransisco –
Action for specific performance is an
action incapable of pecuniary
estimation. (RTC)
Russell vs. Vestil - Inquire into the
primary objective of the action, such
that if the primary objective is the
recovery or acquisition of real
property then the action is a real
action. (RTC or MTC, depends on
AV)
Genesis Investment vs.
Ebarasabal – action to nullify
contracts are incapable of pecuniary
estimation (RTC)
Atty’s opinion: Where the
acquisition or recovery of real
property is dependent on, or
primarily rooted on the enforcement
54

(RTC or MTC, depends on the or rescission of a pre-existing
assessed value) contract or deed, (except real estate
mortgage) almost always the action
is characterized to be one that is
incapable of pecuniary
estimation. Hence, a personal
action. (RTC)
POINTS TO REMEMBER FOR THIS PROVISION :
1. The provision governs personal actions
2. Election is preferred to the principal plaintiff
2. Residence contemplated in this provision is domicile
3. Non-resident defendant contemplated in this provision are those who can be
found in the Philippines.
RULE: Personal actions are transitory actions, whereby the venue thereof would
depend on the residence of the plaintiff, or the residence of the defendant –
at the election of the plaintiff.
ILLUSTRATION: In a personal action, there were three plaintiffs – A, B and C –
who all resided in different places. The action was filed against three different
defendants – X, Y, Z – who resided in different places also. In this case, the action
may be filed in either of the six available venues, at the election of the plaintiff.
NOTE: The venue is preferred that of the principal plaintiff’s, or the principal
defendant’s – at the election of the plaintiff.
But who are PRINCIPAL PLAINTIFFS and PRINCIPAL DEFENDANTS?
Those who are not impleaded in a case in a nominal capacity
ILLUSTRATION: X owns property, which he mortgaged in favor of Gravador,
since X borrowed money from Gravador. X then failed to pay his debt, so
Gravador had the mortgaged foreclosed. The sheriff of the court then performed
the foreclosure. X wanted to file a case against Gravador assailing the validity of
the foreclosure.
In this case, the sheriff should be impleaded in the case as nominal capacity.
The principal defendant is Gravador, and the sheriff is a nominal defendant.
Therefore, for purposes of determining the venue of the action, what must be
factored in is (1) the residence of X, or (2) the residence of Gravador, the
principal defendant, at the election of X.
There is no need to factor in the residence of the sheriff, since the sheriff is not a
principal defendant in the action.
But what is RESIDENCE?
Of a natural person
Residence, for purposes of determining the venue of an action, refers only to the
actual physical residence of the person and should not be equated with domicile.
It is enough that the person is actually residing in a particular place.
NOTE: Residence for the purposes of determining venue of action is different
from residence for the purposes of qualifying in the elections.
Ong vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 105717, Dec. 23, 1992
FACTS: Ong (most of the time) resided in Mindoro, Manila, but he ran as a
candidate for Congress representing a district in Northern Samar. His
qualifications were questioned, on the ground that he lacked the necessary
residency requirement.
RULING: Supreme Court said that it is enough that Ong has the intention of
returning to his place of origin, and that is Samar. Residence in Election Law
refers to the domicile of the person, where there is intention of returning.
ILLUSTRATION: X intends to file a case against Atty. Gravador, a resident of
Cebu, but lives in the meantime in Manila.
In this case, while Gravador’s legal residence/domicile is Cebu, X can still institute
action in Manila, because residence, in the context of venue, refers to
actual/physical residence of the person.
g
But there is one case, which serves as an exception to the rule that residence for
purposes of determining the venue of an action refers only to the actual residence
and not necessarily the domicile or the legal residence of the person.
GENERAL RULE: Residence = physical residence
EXCEPTION: Corre vs. Corre (Googi: invoke Corre vs. Corre, when you don’t
want the basis of the venue to be actual, physical residence)
Corre vs. Corre
G.R. No. L-10128, Nov. 13, 1956
FACTS: An American who resides in San Francisco came to the Philippines
and rented an apartment in Manila to sue his Filipina wife. The wife is from
Mindanao. The American husband filed a case in Manila, claiming to be a
resident therein, because he actually rented an apartment in Manila.
ISSUE: Is the venue of the American husband’s action proper?
RULING: It was ruled that the husband was not considered to be a resident of
Manila, despite the fact he was actually and physically living in Manila.
According to the Supreme Court, the husband is actually a resident of San
Francisco and not Manila.
Galeon: It appears in this case, the Supreme Court was just trying to be
patriotic, because it is protecting the wife, who is from Mindanao.
Of a juridical person (specifically, a corporation)
Note: under the Corporation Law, a corporation has a personality distinct and
separate from its stockholders or incorporators.
RULE: The residence of a corporation for purposes of filing an action is the
place where its main office actually is located indicated in its Articles of
Incorporation.
Clavecilla Radio System vs. Antillon
G.R. No. L-22238, Feb. 18, 1967
RULING: Any person, whether natural or juridical, can only have one
residence. Therefore, a corporation cannot be allowed to file personal actions
in a place other than its principal place of business, unless such place is
also the residence of a co-plaintiff or defendant.
Who is a NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT, as contemplated by Section 2?
A NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT refers to a person who is (1) not actually
residing in the Philippines but (2) may be found in the Philippines.
ILLUSTRATION 1: X has a Filipino friend who is a permanent resident of Wuhan,
China, but the friend came to the Philippines for a short visit. But in view of the
lockdown, he wasn’t able to leave for Wuhan. He was stuck in Dumaguete,
Philippines. While in the Philippines, he ran out of cash and borrowed money from
X. In the contract of loan, the period for payment was stipulated but the friend failed
to pay his indebtedness upon due date. Because of failure to pay, X wanted to file
a case.
Q1: Can X file a case against his friend when his friend is not a resident of the
Philippines?
A1: Yes, X can still file a case against his friend despite the fact that his friend is
not a permanent resident of the Philippines. The friend is considered a non-
resident defendant as contemplated in Section 2 of Rule 4, since he is not a
resident of the Philippines but is still found in the Philippines.
Q2: Where should the case be filed?
A2: X should then file an action for collection of sum of money in (1) wherever X
resides, or (2) Dumaguete City, which is where his friend is currently residing, at
the election of X.
VARIATION OF ILLUSTRATION 1: Before X could instate action, his friend left
for Wuhan. Q1: Can X still file an action?
A1: Without having served him proper summons, then X cannot anymore file an
action, since the court would not have acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, especially since the action filed by X is an action in personam
(collection for sum of money).
Q2: Is X’s case a lost cause then?
55
 g

A2: No. Atty Galeon advises that if this is the case, the best option for X is to turn
his action in personam to an action quasi in rem, in order that the requirement of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be converted to jurisdiction over the
res. X, in his complaint, must pray/ apply for attachment of his friend’s properties
located in the Philippines, in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the res.
In such case, even if the court has not actually acquired jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant, the court may now proceed to hear the case.
converted to a quasi in rem. So, the action will definitely prosper, and the venue
thereof will be the place where X, the plaintiff, resides, or where the property or
any portion thereof is situated.
EFFECT OF FILING AN ACTION IN THE WRONG VENUE
(1) Dismissed
(2) No reimbursement of docket fees (Suson vs. CA)

Question from student: What if the non-resident defendant who left the
Philippines does not have any property in the Philippines? Will the case be
dismissed?
Galeon: if I’m the judge, I will not dismiss the case at once. I would just have it
archived. But that’s good as dismissal, because unless the defendant is served
with summons, there’s no way the case will continue.
SECTION 4
Section 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.

I. IN THOSE CASES WHERE A SPECIFIC RULE OR LAW PROVIDES

SECTION 3 OTHERWISE

Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. — 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.
(1) A civil action arising from Libel under Article 360 of the Revised Penal
Code
The venue of the action depends on who the crime was committed against – either
a private citizen or a public officer.

NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANTS (contemplated by Section 3)

(1) Not residing in the Philippines, and
(2) Cannot be found in the Philippines (difference with Section 2)

ACTIONS COVERED
(1) Involves the personal status of the plaintiff – such that the action therefor
would partake of an action in rem, an action binding the whole world; or
(2) The action is quasi in rem, like collection for a sum of money with prayer for
attachment; or
(3) A real action, like an action for recovery of real property as against a person
who is not residing in the Philippines anymore and who cannot be found in the
Philippines.

REMEMBER JUD TAYA: Where the action filed is a real action, the general
rule is that you file the action in the place where the property is situated,
pursuant to Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, which prescribes the venue
of real actions.

Riano: In a situation where the defendant in a real action is a non-resident
defendant and who cannot be anymore found within in the Philippines, the
plaintiff has the election – whether to file the action (1) in the place where he
resides or (2) where the property is situated. (pursuant to Section 3, Rule 4)
Galeon’s advice: to play safe – file the action in the place where the real
property is located, pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 4, which governs venue for
real actions.
ILLUSTRATION: X, a public officer and a resident of Cebu City holds office in
Manila. A scurrilous article was published in Paranaque City about him. X wants
to institute an action for Libel.
In this case, X has the option to file in the place where the libelous article is printed
and first published or in the Manila where I hold office
(2) Cases ordered by the Supreme Court to change or transfer venue

Applicability of this provision
(1) The defendant is a non-resident who cannot be found in the Philippines
(2) The action is one that affects the personal status of the plaintiff (this is an
action in rem) or involves the property of the defendant that is located in the
Philippines
1987 PH Consti: SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers: (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
The venue is wherever the SC orders such to be.

RULE: The venue of the action is (1) in the place where the plaintiff resides or (3) A case for quo warranto filed by the Solicitor General in the RTC under
(2) where the property or any portion thereof is situated. Section 7 of Rule 66

Rule 66 – Quo Warranto. Section 7. Venue. — An action under the

ILLUSTRATION 1: Waldy filed for declaration of nullity of marriage against his
wife Maria, based on Article 36 of the Family Code, specifically the Chi Ming Tsoi
doctrine. Maria is a resident of Canada and could not be found in the Philippines
even before Waldy instituted such action.
Q: Will such action prosper, where Maria Ozawa is not a resident of the
Philippines and she cannot be anymore be found in the Philippines as she
already went back to her native country, Canada?
preceding six sections can be brought only in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction
over the territorial area where the respondent or any of the respondents
resides, but when the Solicitor General commences the action, it may be
brought in a Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila, in the Court of
Appeals, or in the Supreme Court.
The venue is in RTC Manila.

A: YES. And the venue of the action now is where the plaintiff, Waldy, resides,
because that action definitely affects the personal status of the marriage of the (4) Section 2 of Rule 8 for Environmental Cases where the action is for
plaintiff with the defendant. And the res here is the marriage, and the res here is Continuing Writ of Mandamus
situated in the Philippines.
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
ILLUSTRATION 2: (mentioned before na ni) X’s friend (permanently residing in
Wuhan who visited the Philippines for a while) left for Wuhan before X could file RULE 8 - WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS
action. If X couples his complaint with a prayer for attachment, then the action is
56
 g

Section 2. Where to file the petition. - The petition shall be filed with the
Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the
actionable neglect or omission occurred or with the Court of Appeals or the
Supreme Court.
The venue must be in the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the
actionable neglect or omission occurred.
We cannot read into that clause that plaintiff and defendant bound themselves
to file suits with respect to the last two transactions in question only or
exclusively in Manila. For, that 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 Section
2(b) of Rule 4.

ILLUSTRATION: Because there was the landslide in Naga, an action for

Continuing Writ of Mandamus is filed by environmental lawyers in Cebu City
directed against the Secretary of DENR, which is situated in Manila. 2.
Gesmundo vs. JRB Realty Corp.
Q: Where do you file it? 234 SCRA 153

A: Pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 8 for Environmental Cases, any such case for
Continuing Writ of Mandamus must be filed in the RTC which has jurisdiction over
the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred. So, even if the
plaintiffs are residents of Cebu City or even if the defendant is based in Manila,
the case must be filed in the RTC of Naga, which is the territory where the
actionable neglect or omission occurred.
FACTS: This involves a lease contract which contained a stipulation on venue.
As stipulated in the contract: “venue for all suits, whether for breach hereof or
damage or any cause between the LESSOR and the LESSEE, and persons
claiming under each, being the courts of appropriate jurisdiction in Pasay City.”
ISSUE: Is this intention of the parties to make Pasay City an exclusive venue?

HELD: Pasay City is the exclusive venue.

(5) The rules governing Special Proceedings
Examples:
CASE
Petition of correction of entries in the
civil registry
Settlement of the Estate of the
deceased
Escheats Proceedings
Guardianship over a person or the
estate of a minor or incompetent
Trustees
Adoption of Minors
II. WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE VALIDLY AGREED IN WRITING BEFORE
THE FILING OF THE ACTION ON THE EXCLUSIVE VENUE THEREOF
GENERAL RULE: Venue may be stipulated.
VENUE
RTC where the corresponding civil
registry is located
RTC of the place where the deceased
resided at the time of his death,
pursuant to Section 1, Rule 73
RTC of the place where the deceased
last resided, pursuant to Section 1,
Rule 91
RTC of the place where such minor
should be found, pursuant to Section
1, Rule 92
RTC where the property is located,
pursuant to Section 1, Rule 98
RTC where the petitioner resides,
pursuant to Section 1, Rule 99
“It is true that in Polytrade Corporation vs. Blanco, a stipulation that ‘the parties
agree to sue and be sued in the City of Manila’ was held to be merely provide
an additional forum in the absence of any qualifying or restrictive words.
But here, by laying in Pasay City the venue for all suits, the parties made it
plain that in no other place may they bring suit against each other for breach
contract or damages or any other cause between them and persons claiming
under each of them. In other words, the intention of the parties is to make
Pasay City the exclusive venue.
EXCEPTION: The stipulation of venue will not be upheld for the sake of equity.
Sweet Lines Inc. vs. Teves
G.R. No. L-37750, May 19, 1978
FACTS: There was a group of passengers who rode on Sweet Lines bound
for Cebu city. During that trip, they were not treated well by the officers of the
vessel, as they were forced to hide at the cargo section to avoid inspection of
the officers of the Philippine Coast Guard. They were exposed to the scorching
heat of the sun and the dust from the ship’s cargo.
When they went back to Cagayan they filed a damage suit against Sweet Lines
in CFI CDO, since they were residents of CDO.

Requisites of the stipulation
1. Must be in writing; and
2. Must exist before the filing of the action; and
3. Must pertain to an exclusive venue
- it should be restrictive, otherwise, it is merely construed as permissive or that any
such stipulation that does not prescribe for the exclusivity of this other chosen
venue is considered to be as merely permissive or that it is merely providing for
an additional venue of the purported action
CASES THAT PROVIDE THE GENERAL RULE:
1.
Polytrade Corporation vs. Victoriano Blanco
G.R. NO. L-27033, Oct. 31, 1969
FACTS: Plaintiff Polytrade Co. filed a case to recover the purchase price of
rawhide against defendant Blanco in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.
Plaintiff had its principal office located in Makati, JP Rizal, while defendant
Victoriano Blanco resided in Maycauayan, Bulacan.
Defendant Sweet Lines filed a Motion to Dismiss, questioning the venue of the
action, because in the ticket issued by the Sweet Lines, there was a
stipulation at the back thereof, which stated that “in case of a civil action
arising from the contract of carriage, the venue shall be Cebu City ONLY and
in no other place.”
Sweet Line also cited the case of Polytrade as defense.
But the presiding judge, Judge Teves, denied the Motion to Dismiss despite
the express stipulation as to filing of case only in Cebu City, since he found it
unfair to dismiss based on that stipulation as the aggrieved parties would be
discouraged and inconvenienced in going to Cebu just to litigate the case as
they were residents in Cagayan.
ISSUE: Whether or not the case filed in Cagayan court should be dismissed
for wrong venue
HELD: No. The case should not be dismissed on the ground of improper
venue, Judge Teves was correct in not dismissing the case.

Prior to the case filed by the plaintiff, both parties made a written stipulation in
their contract that the parties agree to sue and be sued in the Courts of Manila.
Blanco moved to dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue because,
as per contract, the parties agreed in writing that the stipulation
abovementioned must be followed. According to him, he can only be sued in
the courts of Manila.
HELD: An accurate reading, however, of the stipulation, “The parties agree to
sue and be sued in the Courts of Manila,” reveals that it 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.
Firstly, the stipulation is placed at the back of the ticked and is written in
fine prints. These people never even bothered to read this. Therefore, the
passengers did not have a hand, or a say, in preparing that stipulation. The
contract is a contract of adhesion.
Secondly, for the sake of equity, it is not fair that these poor people will be
compelled to go to Cebu to file a case there. They will be discouraged. It is
very expensive to go back and forth to Cebu. Whereas, Sweet Lines had the
resources, the means, the lawyers here in Cagayan to litigate. Therefore, it
would be inequitable to compel them or to apply the stipulation there.

Qualifying or restrictive words which would indicate that Manila, and But in the case of Arquero, Sweet Line case could not be invoked, and the General
Manila alone, is the venue of the action are totally absent therefrom. Rule was upheld:

57

Arquero vs. Floro
G.R. No. L-68111, Dec. 20, 1988
FACTS: Arquero, a lawyer and the municipal mayor of Sta. Teresita, Cagayan
Valley, sent a telegram through the RCPI branch in Cagayan. It was addressed
to a Congressman in Manila. In the telegram, Arquero requested for a meeting
with the Congressman thereby setting a date for the purported visit, as Arquero
needed a favor from the Congressman.
When Arquero went to the office of the congressman a few days after sending
the telegram, the congressman got mad because in the telegram, it was made
to appear that charges or fees shall be charged to the congressman.
Arquero, on the other hand, was stunned, as he already paid for the telegram.
He was embarrassed. He then filed a case against RCPI in Cagayan, but in
the RCPI telegram form, there was a stipulation that “venue for any action
shall be filed in the courts of Quezon City ALONE, and in no other courts.”
Lawyer as he is, Arquero, went to SC citing case of Sweet Lines, where the
SC did not apply the rigidity to the restrictive stipulation of venue.
RULING: The SC however disagreed. Trial court was found to be correct in
dismissing the case for proper venue.
Arquero cannot find comfort under the ruling in Sweet Lines, because:
Firstly, Arquero is a lawyer, so he presumed to know the law and the rules.
Secondly, the stipulation was found in the front page of the telegram, such that
Arquero could easily read the same.
Thirdly, Arquero even signed the telegram where there was an express
stipulation on venue which was restrictive, so he should have known what he
was signing.
He ought to know the law. Here, his being a lawyer, was taken against him.
RECONCILIATION OF SWEET LINES AND ARQUERO:
One: In the case of Arquero, the lawyer signed the telegram form, but in the case
of Sweet Lines, of course, if you buy a ticket, you don’t sign the same.
Two: In the case of Sweet Lines, the stipulation on venue was printed at the back
portion of the ticket, such that the Supreme Court ruled that of course, no one
would bother or dare to read what was stipulated at the back. More so, it was
written in fine print. However, in the case of Arquero, the stipulation on the venue
was printed on the front page of the telegram form.
Three (In Atty. Galeon’s opinion, this is pivotal): In the case of Sweet Lines, the
petitioners therein were given a shabby treatment, or they were even treated
harshly by the respondent. They were placed in the cargo hold to hide them from
the Coast Guard.
SPECIAL SITUATION: The parties enter into two separate contracts with
contrasting stipulations.
In the separated written contracts, there are contrasting stipulations pertaining to
venue of action. Meaning to say, parties entered into a transaction, and this
transaction was evidenced by two documents, but by one reason or another, these
two documents contained different stipulations when it comes to venue of any
possible action. To resolve this issue, refer to the case of Rigor v. Consolidated
Orix Leasing Finance Corporation.
RULE: The two contrasting contracts must be construed as one single instrument,
as provided by Art. 1374 of the Civil Code.
Rigor vs. Consolidated Orix Leasing and Finance Corporation
G.R. No. 136423, Aug. 20, 2002
FACTS: Petitioners obtained a loan from private respondent, Consolidated
Orix Leasing and Finance Corporation. To secure payment of the loan,
petitioners executed in favor of private respondent a deed of chattel mortgage
over two dump trucks. Eventually, petitioners failed to pay several installments
despite demand from private respondent, so the private respondent sought to
foreclose the chattel mortgage by filing a complaint for Replevin with Damages
against petitioners before the RTC of Dagupan City.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue,
based on a provision in the promissory note which states that “all legal
actions arising out of this note or in connection with the chattels subject hereof
g
shall only be brought in or submitted to the proper court in Makati City,
Philippines.”
Private respondent opposed the motion to dismiss and argued that venue was
property laid in Dagupan City where it has a branch office based on a provision
in the deed of chattel mortgage which states that “in case of litigation arising
out of the transaction that gave rise to this contract, complete jurisdiction is
given to the proper court of the city of Makati or any proper court within the
province of Rizal, or any court in the city, or province where the
holder/mortgagee has a branch office, waiving for this purpose any proper
venue.”
HELD: In this wise, both the Promissory Note and the Chattel Mortgage
should be treated as a singular contract with one complementing the
other.
Appropriately, Article 1374 of the Civil Code provides: “Art. 1374. The various
stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the
doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.”
And in giving meaning to the contract, an interpretation of all its provisions must
be adopted as will give effect to all. The stipulations of the contract shall be
interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may
result from all of them taken jointly. (Layug vs. Intermediate Appellate Court)
Tolentino, in his Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 4, 1995 Reprint, pp. 563-
564 said: “xxx The whole contract must be interpreted or read together in
order to arrive at its true meaning. Certain stipulations cannot be segregated
and then made to control; neither do particular words or phrases necessarily
determine the character of a contract. The legal effect of the contract is not to
be determined alone by any particular provision disconnected from all others,
but in the ruling intention of the parties as gathered from all the language they
have used; and from their contemporaneous and subsequent acts.
Provisions of a contract are to be given reasonable and practical
interpretation so as to be efficacious. Titles given to sections of a contract
may be resorted to in interpreting its scope. An interpretation that gives effect
to the contract as a whole should be adopted.
By and large, it was therefore not an error or grave abuse of discretion
when the controversial Motion to Dismiss was denied by the respondent
Court. Indeed, venue is properly laid in the case at bar under the provisions of
the Chattel Mortgage in issue.
FEW CONCEPTS TO REMEMBER REGARDING VENUE
1. It’s different from jurisdiction
2. It’s highly waivable, unlike in criminal cases, where venue is jurisdictional.
3. It is not a ground for motu proprio dismissal.
- the trial court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground of improper
venue unless there is an objection filed by the defendant as raised in his motion
to dismiss or answer as the case may be.
JURISDICTION VERSUS VENUE
JURISDICTION VENUE
Refers to the authority the court to Refers only to the place where the
hear the case action is brought or tried
Waivable and can be subject to
The subject matter cannot be waived
agreement
Fixed by law and cannot be May be conferred by act or
conferred by the parties agreement of the parties
The court may dismiss an action But the court may not dismiss an
motu proprio in case of lack of action motu proprio in case of
jurisdiction over the subjectment improper venue
Jurisdiction over the subject matter
may be raised at any stage of the But not venue, as this is highly
proceedings, since it is conferred by waivable
law
58
 g

a particular provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either of said

Jurisdiction is governed by
substantive law: BP 129, as
amended
Jurisdiction refers to the relation of
the parties to the court
Venue is governed by procedural
law: Rule 4 of Rules of Court
Venue refers to the relation between
the parties
courts, or (b) in civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
GENERAL RULE: Procedures outlined for the RTC shall equally apply to the
first level courts.
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) A particular provision provides otherwise, or

Examples:
ü Rule 40, which governs appeal of cases form MTC to RTC
Jurisdiction limits the court’s ü Rule 70, which governs Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer, since these
Venue limits the plaintiff’s rights cases are only cognizable by MTC
authority

(2) Those cases governed by Summary Procedure

Venue in criminal cases is

jurisdictional, and is not, therefore SECTION 2
waivable, but not in civil cases as
the same is subject to stipulation Section 2. Meaning of terms. — The term "Municipal Trial Courts" as used
and is highly waivable in these Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts.
VENUE IS HIGHLY WAIVABLE
Self-explanatory lol

BPI Savings Bank vs. Spouses Benedicto and Yujuico RULE 6 – KINDS OF PLEADINGS
G.R. No. 175596, Jul. 22, 2015 SECTION 1

HELD: We underscore that in civil proceedings, venue is procedural, not Section 1. Pleadings defined. - Pleadings are the written statements of
jurisdictional, and may be waived by the defendant if not seasonably raised the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of for appropriate judgment.
Court thus expressly stipulates that defenses and objections not pleaded either
in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. As it relates to the PLEADINGS - the written statements of the claims of the plaintiff or the defenses
place of trial, indeed, venue is meant to provide convenience to the parties, of the defendant or the defendants.
rather than to restrict their access to the courts. In other words, unless the
defendant seasonably objects, any action may be tried by a court despite its Requisites
being the improper venue. 1. It must be written
2. It must follow prescribed form (Efficient use of Paper Rule)
3. It must be submitted to the court for appropriate judgment
VENUE IS NOT A GROUND FOR AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL
NOTE: Letters or text messages sent to the judge, although written, are NOT
GENERAL RULE: Trial court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground compliant to the rule
of improper venue. Invoke Dacoycoy.
FORMALITY REQUIREMENT
Dacoycoy vs. IAC
G.R. No. 74854, April 2, 1921 EFFICIENT USE OF PAPER RULE
A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC (salient features)
HELD: Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion Paper Size 13-inch by 8.5-inch, white bond paper
to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to have been improperly laid, as for Left margin – 1.5 inches
all practical intents and purposes, the venue, though technically wrong, may Upper margin – 1.2 inches
be acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had Margins
Right margin – 1 inch
been devised. The trial court cannot pre-empt the defendant's prerogative to Lower margin – 1 inch
object to the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case. Font Size 14
The body should be single space with one-and-a –
Indeed, it was grossly erroneous for the trial court to have taken a procedural Spacing
half space between paragraph
short-cut by dismissing motu proprio the complaint on the ground of improper Font easily readable font style of the party’s choice
venue without first allowing the procedure outlined in the Rules of Court to take Other matters Every page must be consecutively numbered
its proper course.
SECTION 2
Although we are for the speedy and expeditious resolution of cases, justice
and fairness take primary importance. The ends of justice require that
Section 2. Pleadings allowed. - The claims of a party are asserted in a
respondent trial court faithfully adhere to the rules of procedure to afford not
complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint,
only the defendant, but the plaintiff as well, the right to be heard on his cause.
or complaint-in-intervention.
This shows that in civil cases venue is highly waivable, unlike in criminal cases
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the pleading
where venue is jurisdictional.
asserting a claim against him or her.

An answer may be responded to by a reply only if the defending party

EXCEPTIONS: The trial court can motu proprio dismiss the case if such case is:
attaches an actionable document to the answer.
1. Actions covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure (Section 4, Summary
Procedure; Section 9, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)
PLEADINGS ALLOWED IN AN ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS
2. Small claims cases (Section 11, Rule of Procedure for Small Claims cases);
ü Complaint
and
ü Answers
3. Actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer (Section 5, Rule 70 of the
ü Counterclaim
Rules of Court)
ü Cross-claim
ü Third-party complaint, fourth-party complaint, etc
RULE V - UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS
ü Complaint-in-intervention
ü Rejoinder (governed by Section 1, Rule 6)
SECTION 1
ü Reply (governed by Section 10, Rule 6)
Section 1. Uniform procedure. — The procedure in the Municipal Trial
Courts shall be the same as in the Regional Trial Courts, except (a) where

59
 g

PLEADINGS ALLOWED
IN ORDINARY CIVIL DEFINITION PROHIBITED PLEADINGS UNDER THE RULES ON SMALL-CLAIM CASES:
ACTIONS 1. Petition for relief from judgment
The pleading whereby the plaintiff states his or 2. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against interlocutory orders
Complaint her cause or causes of action (Section 3, Rule 3. Reply
6) 4. Third-party complaint (or forth-party, as the case may be)
pleading in which a defending party sets forth his 5. Intervention
Answer
or her defenses (Section 4, Rule 6)
any claim which a defending party may have PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO & HABEAS DATA
Counterclaim
against an opposing party (Section 6, Rule 6)
any claim by one party against a co-party arising PROHIBITED PLEADINGS IN PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO OR
out of the transaction or occurrence that is the HABEAS DATA
Cross-Claim 1. Counterclaim
subject matter either of the original action or of a
counterclaim therein (Section 8, Rule 6) 2. Cross-clam
a claim that a defending party may, with leave of 3. Third-party complaint
court, file against a person not a party to the 4. Reply
Third-party Complaint 5. Intervention
action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or
any other relief (Section 11, Rule 6)
ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
the intervenor shall file a complaint-in-
intervention if he or she asserts a claim against
Complaint in either or all of the original parties, or an answer- ALLOWABLE PLEADINGS UNDER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CASE:
Intervention in-intervention if he or she unites with the
defending party in resisting a claim against the 1. Complaint
2. Answer, which may include compulsory counterclaim
latter (Section 3, Rule 19)
3. Cross-claim
the same may only be had if there is an
4. Intervention (in citizen suits)
Rejoinder actionable document that is appended to the
reply (Section 10, Rule 6)
PROHIBITED PLEADINGS UNDER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR
a reply may only be filed if there is an actionable
ENVIRONMENTAL CASES:
Reply document that is appended or attached to the 1. Reply
answer (Section 10, Rule 6)
2. Rejoinder
3. Third-party complaint
NOTE: Rejoinder & Reply are new additions (by virtue of the 2019 Amendment) to
allowable pleadings in ordinary civil actions. SECTION 3
EXAMPLE: Waldy filed a case for collection of unpaid loan against Renato,
Section 3. Complaint. - The complaint is the pleading alleging the
praying that Renato pays him. Renato as the defendant, filed his answer to the
plaintiff’s or claiming party’s cause or causes of action. The names and
complaint. In his answer, there was admission that Renato indeed contracted a
residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.
loan with Waldy but such was already paid. Attached to the answer was the
acknowledgment receipt supposedly signed by Waldy, recognizing receipt of
COMPLAINT - contains the written averments, outlining the plaintiff’s or claiming
Renato’s payment.
party’s cause or causes of action, where all elements of the cause of action are
described
Q: What is the next step of Waldy, the plaintiff?
ILLUSTRATION 1: Gravador wants to file for a case of collection of unpaid loan
A: The amended rules will now allow Waldy to file a Reply, which should either
against Galeon. How should Gravador make his complaint?
(1) deny the authencity of the signature on such document, or (2) totally assailing
the existence or validity of such acknowledge receipt.
[TITLE]
CONTINUATION: What if in Waldy’s Reply, he alleges that he just issued that (Start with the statements:) Gravador, plaintiff, by counsel and to this Honorable Court
receipt by way of accommodation or that Renato requested that Waldy issue that respectfully states:
accommodation receipt to make it appear, (perhaps to Renato’s wife only) that
Renato already paid. When in truth and in fact, it has not been paid. 1. That plaintiff is a Filipino citizen and a resident of Espiña Village which he may be
served with the orders and processes of this court;
Further, in Waldy’s Reply, he attached thereto a copy of this letter coming from
Renato’s end, requesting that he issue an accommodation receipt. 2. That defendant Renato Galleon is a Filipino and a resident of Consolacion, Cebu
wherein he may be served upon with the summons of this case;
Q: If that is the tenor of the reply of Waldi, what should Renato’s next step be?
3. That on February 14, 2010, defendant obtained a loan from the plaintiff in the amount
A: if Renato wants to file or dispute that reply, saying that the signature therein is of P10,000 payable within 1 year evidenced by the promissory note hereto attached as
not his, then I need to file a rejoinder. (more on this later) “Annex A” hereof;

ANOTHER NOTE: This means that these pleadings are only allowed in ordinary 4. That the loan obligation incurred by defendant from the plaintiff had long matured but
civil actions, and not special civil actions, summary procedure, small-claims cases, despite repeated demands, defendant failed and still fails to pay the amount of the loan.
petition for writ of amparo, writ of habeas data, and environmental cases.
(End with the PRAYER) WHEREFORE, after notice and hearing, this court shall issue an
SUMMARY PROCEDURE order or judgment holding defendant liable to pay the amount of P10,000 probably plus
interest, representing the principal loan that he obtained from the plaintiff.
ALLOWABLE PLEADINGS FOR SUMMARY PROCEDURE AND EJECTMENT
CASES NOTE: Regarding the amendatory phrase “or claiming party’s”
1. Complaint
2. Answer RATIONALE OF AMENDMENT: To be consistent with Section 1 of Rule 3, since
3. Compulsory counterclaim, pleaded in the answer and answers there to if any such section provides that the term plaintiff includes the counterclaimant, the
cross-claimant or the third-party claimant as the case may be. In fact, plaintiff
PROHIBITED PLEADINGS UNDER THE RULES ON SUMMARY may also refer to the defendant with respect to his counterclaim, cross-claim of
PROCEDURE OR EJECTMENT CASES: third part complaint as the case maybe.
1. Permissive counterclaims
2. Third-party complaint The amendment is introduced to Section 3 of Rule 6 if only to be consisted
3. Reply with the definition given under Section 1 of Rule 3.
4. Pleading in intervention
5. Petition for Relief from Judgment NOTE: To be technical about it, the complaint normally referred to is actually the
6. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against interlocutory orders initiatory pleading, the first pleading that the plaintiff files in court.

SMALL CLAIMS CASES SECTION 4

- Money claims, where the amount of which does not exceed P300,000 outside
Manila
60

Section 4. Answer. - An answer is a pleading in which a defending party
sets forth his or her defenses.
ANSWER - a written document in which the defendant pleads his answer to the
charges or the claims of the plaintiff
NOTE: The phrase “or her” is the amendment to this section because equality
among genders
SECTION 5
Section 5. Defenses. – Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.
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.
This section provides the kind of defenses allowed in the Answer.
NEGATIVE DEFENSE
NEGATIVE DEFENSE - a specific denial of a material fact or facts alleged in the
pleading of the claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of action
CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION 1: What should Galeon put in his Answer?
Galeon, in his Answer, may put forth therein a negative defense, as by stating that
probably:
[TITLE]
Paragraph 1 – The circumstances of the plaintiff is denied for lack of knowledge
Paragraph 2 – Galeon’s personal circumstances is admitted
Paragraph 3 – where Galeon specifically denies under oath the allegations made by
Gravador; asserting the truth that, defendant did not incur any loan obligation from the
plaintiff because, in truth and in fact, the defendant does not know plaintiff and that the
promissory note appended in the complaint, supposedly signed by the defendant is sham
or bogus
Paragraph 4 – Asserting that the signature therein purporting to be that of the defendant
is a forgery evidenced by the PNP Report signifying that the signature appearing therein
is not of the defendant, a copy herein is attached as “Annex 1” of the Answer.
Above is a NEGATIVE DEFENSE, because the defendant denies knowing the
plaintiff, denies having obtained any loan from him, and vehemently denies the
signature.
ALTERNATIVE DEFENSES
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES - a confession and an avoidance; confession in the
sense that the defendant hypothetically admits the allegations in the complaint but
interposes a defense that would prevent recovery of plaintiff in his claim
ILLUSTRATION: Gravador filed a case against Galeon for collection of unpaid
loan. In the defendant’s answer:
Scenario 1: Galeon admitted having issued a promissory note for the loan of
P20,000.00. However, Galeon interposed his payment to such loan obtained from
Gravador by attaching acknowledgement receipt thereof. (PAYMENT)
Scenario 2: Galeon admits that he did borrow money from Gravador on February
2010, however Gravador cannot claim, since the action has prescribed, as an
action based on a written instrument prescribes after 10 years. (STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS)
In these two scenarios, Galeon’s answer is made by way of CONFESSION and
AVOIDANCE. He confesses the existence of the loan, but forwards the fact of
payment.
REMEMBER: The affirmative defenses include:
g
ü Fraud
ü Statute of limitations
ü Release
ü Payment
ü Illegality
ü Statute of frauds
ü Estoppel
ü Former recovery
ü Discharge in bankruptcy
ü Any other matter by way of confession and avoidance
ü Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
ü That there is another action pending between the same parties for
the same cause (litis pendencia)
ü The action is barred by a prior judgment (res judicata)
OLD RULES: (1) Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter, (2) Litis pendencia and
(3) Res judicata are grounds for filing Motion to Dismiss
AMENDMENT: these grounds are now to be pleaded by way of affirmative
defenses in the answer.
QUESTION: Because the Amendment mandates that such three grounds be
pleaded in the Answer, does that make the filing of a motion to dismiss
prohibited? This question particularly pops up when you read Section 6, Rule 6
in conjunction with Section 12, Rule 8.
RULE 8. Section 12. Affirmative defenses. — (a) A defendant shall raise
his or her affirmative defenses in his or her answer, which shall be limited
to the reasons set forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6, and the following
grounds:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending
party;
2. That venue is improperly laid;
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied
with.
(b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity
shall constitute a waiver thereof.
(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above affirmative defenses
within thirty (30) calendar days from the filing of the answer.
(d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the first paragraph of
Section 5(b), Rule 6, the court may conduct a summary hearing within
fifteen (15) calendar days from the filing of the answer. Such affirmative
defenses shall be resolved by the
court within thirty (30) calendar days from the termination of the
summary hearing.
(e) Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the subject of a motion
for reconsideration or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus,
but may be among the matters to be raised on appeal after a judgment
on the merits.
The Amended Rules provides that Rule 16, which governs Motion to Dismiss
has been transposed. The amended rules do not expressly provide that the filing
a motion to dismiss is prohibited.
Therefore, there are two ways in answering this question.
First Answer / Interpretation
Because Section 5, Rule 6 is merely permissive (by using the word “may”), then
if the ground of the defendant to move for the dismissal of the case is on
enumerated in this section, then the defendant may still file a Motion to Dismiss.
But such MTD must be based on the grounds provided in Section 5, Rule 6.
Likewise, if the ground to move for the dismissal of the case is that enumerated in
Section 12, Rule 8, then the defendant is now not allowed to file a Motion to
Dismiss, since such ground is mandated (by using the word “shall”) to plead such
ground only in the answer by way of affirmative defense.
Second Answer / Interpretation
Section 5, Rule 6 and Section 12, Rule 8 must be read together, since Section 12,
Rule 8 is very clear that the grounds mentioned therein should collectively
considered with those mentioned in Section 5, Rule 6.
Also, despite the usage of the term “may” in Section 5, Rule 6, it is well-settled in
jurisprudence that “may” can be construed sometimes as “shall”, making it
mandatory
61

Therefore, it would appear now that the filing of motion to dismiss prior to the filing
of the answer is prohibited.
Importantly, the main thrust of this amendment is to prevent any delay in the
proceedings, since in practice, it has been seen that the filing of a MTD delays
such, as it gives the plaintiff a chance to reply and the defendant the same. Even
now, summons issued by the court comes with a directive, which prohibits the
defendant from filing a motion to dismiss.
GALEON’S ADVICE: Err in the side of caution.
If you were the lawyer for the defendant, file an answer and then incorporate
therein the grounds for dismissal of the action. It is very likely that the second
interpretation is correct (that filing of MTD is prohibited). Therefore, incorporating
your grounds to dismiss the case in your answer would appear to be consistent
with the intent of the amendment and is the more cautious plan of action.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Counterclaim. — A counterclaim is any claim which a
defending party may have against an opposing party.
COUNTERCLAIM - any claim which a defending party may have as against an
opposing party
After the plaintiff files his complaint, the defendant will file his answer to the
complaint, where he may raise therein a counterclaim, which will be against an
opposing party.
ILLUSTRATION 2: There was a car collision, wherein Gravador alleged that
Galeon was negligent in driving his car, which had caused damage to Gravador’s.
Gravador thereafter filed a case against Galeon for damages (culpa aquiliana). In
Gravador’s complaint, the damages prayed for amounted to P50,000.00.
In this case, Galeon must file his answer to Gravador’s complaint, where he
(Galeon) can argue that the cause of the collision complained of is the negligence
of Gravador, and he (Gravador) is the one who is to be held liable for the damages
of P100,000.00.
ANALYSIS OF ILLUSTRATION: If in Galeon’s answer, he prayed that it is
Gravador that should instead be held liable, then that is a counterclaim.
Specifically, that is a compulsory counterclaim, since it is related to the
principal claim of the plaintiff. Galeon’s denial of having driven his car
negligently is a negative defense.
CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION 2: What if in Galeon’s answer, he, instead,
demanded that Gravador be held liable to Galeon for his unpaid loan obligation
to Galeon of P100,000.00 in addition to his hypothetical admission that he was
indeed negligent. Is that allowed?
A: It is allowed, as Section 6 defines counterclaim as any claim which a defending
party may have as against an opposing party. It does not necessarily have to be
principally or directly related to the plaintiff’s cause of action. my counterclaim
against him is on account of the unpaid load. That kind of counterclaim is
considered as a permissive counterclaim – one that is not related with the claim
of the opposing party.
NOTE: The counterclaim may even demand a sum of money more than what was
demanded in the complaint.
GENERAL RULE: A counterclaim can bring about any claim, even those unrelated
to the principal cause of action
Deborja v. Deborja
G.R. No. L-28040, Aug. 18, 1972
A counterclaim need not be diminished by the amount claimed by the opposing
party and it may even claim an amount exceeding the amount demanded by
the opposing party.
RATIONALE OF ALLOWING BOTH KINDS OF COUNTERCLAIM IN AN
ANSWER: to prevent the multiplicity of suits
EXCEPTION: While the defendant may raise a counterclaim against the plaintiff,
but the plaintiff must be sued in that counterclaim in the same capacity that he is
filing the case against the defendant.
Deborja v. Deborja
G.R. No. L-28040, Aug. 18, 1972
FACTS: A died leaving behind his estate. X was appointed administrator or
legal representative. W owed a sum of money to the estate of A, and X in his
capacity as the administrator of A’s estate (pursuant to Section 3, Rule 3), filed
g
a case against W for collection of sum of money. W filed an answer asserting
against a counterclaim against X’s personal capacity.
RULING: The counterclaim of W is improper. When X sued W, he did such in
a representative capacity and not in his own personal capacity. The real
plaintiff of the case was the estate of A. Therefore, W cannot file a counterclaim
against the X in the latter’s personal capacity as X sued W in his representative
capacity as administrator of the A’s estate.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim. — A compulsory counterclaim is
one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out
of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction
of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that in
an original action before the Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may
be considered compulsory regardless of the amount. A compulsory
counterclaim not raised in the same action is barred, unless otherwise
allowed by these Rules.
REQUISITES OF A COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM RCTWA
1. It is cognizable by the regular courts of justice
2. It arises out of or is connected with a transaction or occurrence constituting a
subject matter of the opposing party’s claim
3. It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction
4. It must be within the jurisdiction of the court, both as to the amount and the
nature thereof, except that in an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim
may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount
5. The defending party has a counterclaim at the time he files his answer, pursuant
to Section 8, Rule 11.
(1) It is cognizable by the regular courts of justice
First, it is a requirement sine qua non that it is cognizable by the regular courts of
justice.
ILLUSTRATION: Gravador filed a case for collection of sum of money, alleging
that Galeon had obtained a loan from him but failed to pay. In Galeon’s answer, is
he allowed to raise – by way of compulsory counterclaim – the fact/defense that
Gravador likewise owes Galeon money due to unpaid salaries?
A: NO, because Galeon’s counterclaim is not cognizable by the regular courts of
justice. Galeon’s counterclaim of unpaid salaries is cognizable by the Labor Arbiter
or the NLRC. These are NOT regular courts.
(2) It arises out of or it is connected with a transaction or occurrence
constituting a subject matter of the opposing party’s claim
ILLUSTRATION: Gravador filed a case against Galeon for damages for allegedly
causing damage to his car by reason of Galeon’s negligence in driving his car. In
Galeon’s answer, he argued that it was Gravador that was negligent and who
should be liable to pay for damages.
Q1: What kind of counterclaim did Galeon assert?
A1: It is a compulsory counterclaim because Galeon’s claim obviously arises
out of or is connected with the claim hoisted by Gravador in his complaint.
Q2: What if Galeon asserted in his answer that Gravador is liable to Galeon by
reason of an unpaid obligation? What kind of counterclaim is that?
A2: Such counterclaim should be considered as a permissive counterclaim, as
it is not connected with the claim of Gravador, which is for damages arising out of
a vehicular accident; whereas Galeon’s counterclaim is as regards the unpaid loan
obligation of Gravador.
This element is the most important element:
Meliton v. CA
G.R. No. 101883, Dec. 11, 1992
It has been postulated that while a number of criteria have been advanced for
the determination of whether the counterclaim is compulsory of permissive, the
one compelling test of compulsoriness is the logical relationship
between the claim alleged in the complaint and that of in the
counterclaim, that is, where conducting separate trials of the respective
claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort and
time, as where they involve many of the same factual and/or legal issues.
62

BASICALLY: in order for it to be considered COMPULSORY, it must be logically
connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of
the opposing party’s claim.
(3) It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties who
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction
RATIONALE OF THIS ELEMENT: to avoid multiplicity of suits; to avoid further
delay also of the proceedings, since the court would have to acquire jurisdiction
over the third person if such counterclaim would involve a third party.
(4) It must be within the jurisdiction of the court, both as to the amount and
the nature thereof, except that in an original action before the RTC, the
counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount; and
GENERAL RULE: The counterclaim is considered compulsory IF the principal
action and the counterclaim are within the jurisdiction of the court.
EXCEPTION: The counterclaim is still considered compulsory even if both are not
cognizable by the same court, PROVIDED that the original action is filed before
the RTC.
THEREFORE: Even if the defendant’s compulsory counterclaim or the
amount thereof falls below the jurisdiction of the RTC, such counterclaim
may be pleaded in that action for as long as the original action is filed before
the RTC.
BASICALLY: The principal action and the claim asserted in the counterclaim must
be within the jurisdiction of the court in order for the counterclaim be compulsory,
or if the original action is before the RTC regardless of amount, the counterclaim
is still considered compulsory.
ILLUSTRATION: A case of Forcible Entry is filed against Galeon. But in his
answer, Galeon pleaded that he should be reimbursed with the necessary
expenses of P600,000.00 he incurred in cultivating the land which he supposedly
entered. Analyze the counterclaim asserted by Galeon.
A: The principal action is one for ejectment, as a case of Forcible Entry was filed
against Galeon. Such case is cognizable by the first level courts, as conferred by
BP 129 as amended. But the counterclaim asserted by the defendant introduces
a claim of damages amounting to more than the jurisdictional amount cognizable
by the MTC.
Because of this, the counterclaim made Galeon is not a compulsory counterclaim,
since it does not comply with Requirement #4, where the principal action and the
claim asserted must be within the jurisdiction of the court.
VARIATION OF THE ILLUSTRATION: Assume that the case of Accion Publiciana
(instead of Forcible Entry) was filed against Galeon, where the assessed value of
the land was P100,000.00. Galeon still pleaded for damages to the amount of
P50,000.00.
A: In this case, accion publiciana (P100,000 is more than the jurisdictional amount
of P20,000) is cognizable by RTC, while Galeon’s claim for damages (P50,000 is
less than the jurisdictional amount of P300,000) is cognizable by MTC. Despite
the fact that the cases are cognizable by different courts, Galeon’s counterclaim
is still compulsory, because it falls within the “except” phrase in Requirement #4.
NOTE: But if the original action is filed before the MTC, and Galeon’s compulsory
counterclaim is beyond the jurisdictional amount of the MTC, then that cannot be
pleaded by way of counterclaim in the action before the MTC. It will not be
considered a compulsory counterclaim.
Maceda v. CA
G.R. No. 83545 Aug. 11, 1989
The jurisdiction of the MTC in a civil action for a sum of money is limited to a
demand that does not exceed P100,000.00 (NOW: P300,000.00), exclusive of
interest and loans. A counterclaim beyond its jurisdiction and limit may be
pleaded only by way of defense to weaken the plaintiff’s claim, but not to obtain
affirmative relief.
But if the case is filed with the RTC then, the proviso or the exception will apply.
(5) The defending party has a counterclaim at the time he files his answer,
pursuant to Section 8, Rule 11
Section 8 requires that a compulsory counterclaim must already be existing at the
time of the filing of the answer, and that requirement should be added to the
requisites mentioned under Section 7, Rule 6.
RULE 8 - WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
g
Section 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. — A compulsory
counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party has at the time he
or she files his or her answer shall be contained therein.
IMPORTANCE OF DETERMINING WHETHER COUNTERCLAIM IS
COMPULSORY OR PERMISSIVE
1. The filing of a compulsory counterclaim does not require the payment of filing
fee; whereas the filing of permissive counterclaim requires the payment of filing
fees.
Metal Engineering v. CA
G.R. No. 95631, Oct. 28, 1991
The rules regarding payment of docket fees have been summarized in a
subsequent case as follows:
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading,
but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of
the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the
court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case
beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims
and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and
unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is pa
The rule, therefore is made to apply specifically to permissive counterclaims
only, thereby excluding compulsory counterclaims from its purview. This
is because there is no need to pay docketing fees for a compulsory
counterclaim.
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 00-2-01-SC
March 1, 2000
Only permissive counterclaim (among others) requires payment of docket fee.
There is no required payment if what is put forth in the answer is an ordinary
or a compulsory counterclaim.
2. A compulsory counterclaim must be raised in the very same action, otherwise,
it shall be barred forever; whereas, a permissive counterclaim, not raised in the
same action, can still be raised in another or subsequent action.
This is founded by the provisions of Section 7, Rule 6 and Section 2, Rule 9
RULE 9 - EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD. Section 2. Compulsory
counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up barred. — A compulsory
counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall be barred.
ILLUSTRATION: There was a vehicular collision between Gravador and Galeon,
where Gravador thereafter filed a complaint against Galeon for culpa aquiliana. In
his answer, Galeon only asserted that he was not driving recklessly. Galeon did
not demand that Gravador be held liable for the damages of his (Galeon’s) car.
Q1: Can the court in that case award damages in favor of Galeon?
A1: NO, because Galeon did not pray for such in his answer.
Q2: Can Galeon file a subsequent case demanding that Gravador pay him for the
damage of the car?
A2: NO, because the demdand for damages in favor of Galeon is a compulsory
counterclaim which should have been raised in the same action. His failure to do
so bars the action forever.
3. Counterclaims in Criminal Actions –The accused in a criminal action cannot
file a counterclaim, even if such is an assertion for the civil aspect of the criminal
case. But this is without prejudice to the opportunity of the accused to file a
separate action for such assertion.
Javier v. IAC
G.R. No. 75379, Mar. 31, 1989
FACTS: The Javier spouses filed a criminal case in RTC Makati against Leon
Gutierrez Jr. for BP 22 or the Bouncing Check Law, for issuing a bad check.
The Javiers did not reserve the civil action. The implication, therefore is that
the claim for civil liability is deemed instituted with the criminal case.
Guitierrez filed a civil action for damages against the Javiers in the RTC Samar,
wherein he accused the spouses of having tricked him into signing the check.
63

RULING: The civil case in Samar should be dismissed. It must be in the Makati
court that Gutierrez, as accused in the criminal charge of violation of BP 22,
should explain why he issued the bouncing check. He should explain that story
in Makati and not in Samar. This should have been done in the form of
counterclaim for damages for the alleged deceoption by the Javier spouses. In
fact, the counterclaim was compulsory and should have been filed by
Guiterrrez upon the implied institution of the civil action for damafes in the
criminal case.
Basically: SC said that there is a counterclaim available to the accused in a
criminal case, where he can raise his defenses. The counterclaim of
Gutierrez and the one that he filed before the RTC of Catarman should have
been fused
Galeon’s comment: But this ruling was heavily criticized by the legal
luminaries, because even the venues of a criminal case and a civil action are
different.
Cabaero v. Cantos
G.R. No. 102942, April 18, 1997
The logic and cogency of Javier notwithstanding, some reservations and
concerns were voiced out by members of the Court during the deliberations on
the present case. These were engendered by the obvious lacuna in the Rules
of Court, which contains no express provision for the adjudication of a
counterclaim in a civil action impliedly instituted in a criminal case. By the
foregoing discussion, we do not imply any fault in Javier.
The real problem lies in the absence of clear-cut rules governing the
prosecution of impliedly, instituted civil actions and the necessary
consequences and implications thereof.
For this reason, the counter-claim of the accused cannot be tried together
with the criminal case because, as already discussed, it will
unnecessarily complicate and confuse the criminal proceedings. Thus,
the trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect and the possible
civil liability of the accused arising out of the crime.
The counterclaim (and cross-claim or third party complaint, if any) should be
set aside or refused cognizance without prejudice to their filing in separate
proceedings at the proper time. At balance, until there are definitive rules of
procedure to govern the institution, prosecution and resolution of the civil
aspect (and the consequences and implications thereof) impliedly instituted in
a criminal case, trial courts should limit their jurisdiction to the civil liability of
the accused arising from the criminal case. In fairness to the accused, he may
file separate proceedings to litigate his counterclaim after the criminal case is
terminated and/or in accordance with the new Rules which may be
promulgated as and when they become effective.
RECONCILIATION OF THE CONFLICTING RULINGS:
In the case of Javier v. IAC, the SC said that there may be a counterclaim in a
criminal case.
In the case of Cabaeros v. Cantos, the SC abandoned the Javier ruling and said
there is no such thing as a counterclaim in a criminal case. Such ruling was even
incorporated in Section 1, Rule 111:
Section 1. “No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be
filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which
could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil
action.”
CONTROLLING RULE: There’s no such thing as a counterclaim even for the civil
aspect in a criminal case. But you can file a separate action or a civil case for that.
SECTION 8
Section 8. Cross-claim. - A cross-claim is any claim by one party against
a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject
matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. Such
cross-claim may cover all or part of the original claim.
CROSSCLAIM - any claim by one party against a co-party, or that it may be a
claim by a defendant against a co-defendant
ILLUSTRATION: Randi and Galeon obtained a loan of money from Gravador, and
they executed a promissory note, thereby obligating Randi and Galeon to pay
solidarily the obligation of P100,000.00. And when Galeon signed the promissory
note, all the money went to Randi. Upon default in the payment thereof, Gravador
filed a case with both Galeon and Randi impleaded as defendants. Galeon
objected, since he received no amount in the loan.
g
In this case, Galeon may, if he wants, in his answer, raise a cross-claim against
Randi to the end that – if the court holds both debtors liable, then Randi should be
made liable also to reimburse Galeon for what Galeon may be held liable to pay
to Gravador.
ILLUSTRATION: Randi and Galeon obtained a P100,000.00 loan from Gravador,
obligating themselves to the creditor solidarily. But all the money went to Randi.
Upon failure of payment, Gravador filed an action against both of them.
In his answer, Galeon raised, by way of a cross-claim against Randi, his co-
defendant, a demand for the payment of a separate [earlier] loan that Randi
obtained from Galeon of P100,000.00. In total, Galeon demanded P50,000 for his
share of the loan from Gravador and P100,000.00 from Randi’s debt to him.
Q: Is that permissible by way of a cross-claim?
A: NO. Cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of
the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original
action or of a counterclaim. Cross-claims should be within the scope of the
original action or of a counterclaim.
In the case, the P100,000.00 claim of Galeon is alien to the transaction between
the parties, especially Gravador. Galeon can only plead the P100,000.00 from
Randi by counterclaim. This is an example of a cross-claim arising from a
counterclaim.
ILLUSTRATION: Randi and Renato rode the motorbike of Gravador, and they met
an accident. Joinining their causes of action, they filed a complaint against
Gravador for damages, culpa aquillana and prayed for damages of P50,000.00.
In Gravador’s defense, he raised by way of permissive counterclaim a demand
for the payment of unpaid loan, in his supposition that Randi and Renato obtained
a loan from him and for which they signed a promissory note, obligating
themselves solidarily for a loan of P100,000. Then entire amount went to Randi.
By way of cross-claim, Renato may demand from Randi, if Renato will be held
liable for the unpaid loan obligation owing to Gravador. Randi should be made to
reimburse to Renato the amount that never reached Renato.
It is possible that Gravador can demand from Renato the entire obligation. If that
happens, Renato may, in the very same answer, raise a cross-claim against
Randi, demanding that Randi should reimburse Renato any amount that the latter
may be made to pay to Gravador.
THIS SCENARIO ILLUSTRATES A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A CROSSCLAIM
THAT IS CONNECTED WITH A COUNTERCLAIM.
THEREFORE: A crossclaim is considered proper, even if it is not connected
with the main action for as long as it is connected at the very least with the
counterclaim in the same action and such crossclaim may cover all or part of the
original claim.
ILLUSTRATION 3: Galeon and Randi obtained a P100,000 loan from Gravador.
All proceeds went to Randi. In Galeon’s crossclaim, he can ask for the entire
amount. ??
ILLUSTRATION 4: Galeon and Randi split the proceeds of the loan obtained from
Gravador, 50-50. Here, Galeon’s would only be for the remaining P50,000. Such
that if the court would adjudge Galeon liable to pay the entire amount to Gavador,
because he is a solidary debtor together with Randi, then Galeon can only demand
P50,000 from Randi.
CROSSCLAIM VS. COUNTERCLAIM
COUNTERCLAIM CROSSCLAIM
A claim by the defendant against the A claim by the defendant against a
plaintiff co-defendant
Specially a permissive counterclaim Must always arise out of the same
may be asserted whether or not it transaction or occurrence that is the
arises out of the same transaction; it subject matter of the action or at the
could be alien transaction, for as very least the counterclaim therein
long as it is permissive
specially a permissive counterclaim, the life of a crossclaim depends on
if then the action is dismissed, such the life of the main action
counterclaim may still survive
Ruiz Jr. v. CA
G.R. No. 101566, Aug. 17, 1992
When the main action was dismissed, the cross-action, referring to the
crossclaim, must also be dismissed. Because according to the Supreme Court,
the life of a crossclaim depends on the life of the main action such that if the
main action is dismissed, the crossclaim will have to be automatically
dismissed.
64

A crossclaim could not be the subject of an independent adjudication once it
lost the nexus, upon which its life depended, then it must also be dismissed.
The cross-claimants cannot claim more rights than the plaintiffs themselves
whose cause of action the crossclaim depended. The dismissal of the
complaint divested the cross-claimants of whatever appealable interest they
might have had before and also made the crossclaim itself no longer viable.
Simply: where the main action is dismissed, then the crossclaim is thereby
necessarily dismissed. But if that is a permissive counterclaim, even if the main
action is dismissed, the permissive counterclaim is not necessarily dismissed.
SECTION 9
Section 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-cross-claims. — A
counterclaim may be asserted against an original counter-claimant.
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant.
COUNTER-COUNTERCLAIM – a counter to a counterclaim lol?
COUNTER-CROSS-CLAIM – a counter to a crossclaim lol
SITUATION 1: Galeon files an action for damages against Gravador. In his
complaint, Galeon asserts that Gravador was driving recklessly, which led to the
damage of Galeon’s car.
In his answer, Gravador not only denies having driven recklessly but he also
brings up the fact that Galeon owed him a sum of money by virtue of an unpaid
loan. Gravador further attached a promissory note in his answer with such
counterclaim.
Realizing that the signature in the promissory note was forged, Galeon counters
the counterclaim of Gravador, praying for damages for forging Galeon’s
signature. The pleading Galeon filed herein is a COUNTER-COUNTERCLAIM.
SITUATION 2: Randi and Galeon obtained a loan from Gravador. They signed a
promissory note and made it appear that they would be solidarily liable for the loan
to Gravador. But in truth and in fact, all money loaned went to Randi. So, upon
failure to pay the loan, Gravador filed a complaint against both his debtors, Randi
and Galeon.
Galeon, in his answer, pleaded a cross-claim against his co-defendant, Randi,
that Randi should reimburse Galeon for his share of the supposed loan in the event
the court would adjudge them to be liable to Gravador. Here, Galeon filed a cross-
claim against Randi.
If Randi would advance the argument that he did not receive the full amount of the
loan; that, on the contrary, Galeon had received all the money; and that Galeon
should therefore be held liable to pay the entire amount to Gravador, then Randi
filed a counter to Galeon’s cross-claim.
Such is a COUNTER-CROSS-CLAIM.
SECTION 10
Section 10. Reply. — All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of
the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an amended
or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if
the defending party attaches an actionable document to his or her
answer.
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege
facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to, said
actionable document.
In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, the
defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based solely on an
actionable document.
REPLY - a pleading that denies or alleges facts in denial or avoidance of new
matters alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document
REJOINDER – a pleading made by the defendant that assails the Reply by the
plaintiff with an attached actionable document
HIGHKEY NOTE: The plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party
attaches an actionable document to his answer
OLD RULE: Reply may be filed at the option of the plaintiff, where they argue
matters placed in the answer and even if the answer does not contain or does not
somehow put forth an actionable document.
g
ILLUSTRATION: Waldy filed a case against Galeon for the collection of unpaid
loan. In Galeon’s answer, he admitted obtaining a loan from Waldy, but contended
that the same had been duly and fully paid. To prove his assertion, Galeon
attached an acknowledgement receipt supposedly signed by Waldy,
acknowledging that the amount had already been paid already.
NOTE: The acknowledgement receipt purportedly signed by Waldy is an
actionable document.
In the case, if Waldy wanted to dispute the existence or the authenticity of that
document, the acknowledgement receipt, then he should file a reply.
CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION: But what is the consequence if Waldy
does not file the reply, when there already is an actionable document attached
to Galeon’s answer?
If Waldy does not file a reply, then he is deemed to have admitted the due
execution and the existence of the acknowledgement receipt that is appended
to Galeon’s answer.
VARIATION OF THE ILLUSTRATION: But if in Galeon’s answer, he merely
averred therein or alleged that he already paid the amount supposedly owing the
Waldy but did not attach any proof of such payment, or he did not attach any
acknowledgement receipt in his answer, then Waldy is not allowed to file a Reply,
by virtue of the Amended Rules, since no actionable document was attached to
the defendant’s answer.
THEREFORE: A simple denial or averment of payment of the loan without any
attachment of an actionable document would not necessitate a Reply from the
Plaintiff.
NOTE: Other than filing a reply converting or disputing the existence or authenticity
of such actionable document, plaintiff can even file a SUPPLEMENTAL
COMPLAINT, praying for additional damages for defendant’s act of supposedly
counterfeiting or falsifying plaintiff’s signature in the questioned actionable
document.
ANOTHER VARIATION OF THE ILLUSTRATION: In Gravador’s Reply to
Galeon’s Answer (with the attached acknowledgement receipt), Gravador does
not dispute his signature. Instead, he states that such receipt was merely signed
by way of accommodation – that Galeon had requested in a letter that Gravador
issue a receipt in order to show his (Galeon’s) wife that he has paid such already.
Attached in his Reply was also the letter Galeon sent Gravador requesting for such
accommodation.
If Galeon wants to dispute the requesting letter, then Galeon should file a
REJOINDER, as provided in the last sentence of Section 10.
If Gravador simply alleged in his reply that the acknowledgment receipt was issued
by him by way of accommodation, no more no less, then REJOINDER IS NOT
ALLOWED.
OLD RULES: Where there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, a reply would
be the last pleading allowed.
AMENDED RULES: Even if there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, the last
pleading may be allowed is no longer the reply but the rejoinder.
NOTE: You should be careful and understand the difference between when a
plaintiff files a REPLY to an ANSWER from when a plaintiff files an ANSWER to a
COUNTERCLAIM.
What is the difference between a reply filed by the plaintiff and an answer filed by
plaintiff in an action?
REPLY V. ANSWER
REPLY BY A PLAINTIFF TO AN ANSWER BY A PLAINTIFF TO A
ANSWER COUNTERCLAIM
a response to the defenses a response to a cause of action by the
interposed by the defendant in his defendant against the plaintiff
answer to which an actionable
document is attached
The filing of a REPLY is required only the filing of an ANSWER TO A
when an actionable document is COUNTERCLAIM (especially
attached to the answer permissive) is generally mandatory
under Rule 11, because if the plaintiff
fails to file an answer to the
counterclaim, he will be declared in
default on the counterclaim
SECTION 11
65
 g

Section 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. — A third (fourth, etc.)- THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT CROSS-CLAIM
party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, This complaint is filed against the This claim is filed against the person
file against a person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth, person not an original defendant in who is already made a defendant in
etc.)-party defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any an action the action
other relief, in respect of his or her opponent's claim. This requires a leave of court or This does not require a leave of court
permission from the court or permission from the court
The third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be denied admission, and This requires payment of appropriate This does not entail payment of
the court shall require the defendant to institute a separate action, where: docket or filing fee (just like in a docket fee or filing fee pursuant to
(a) the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant cannot be located within thirty permissive counterclaim) Administrative Circular 00-2-01
(30) calendar days from the grant of such leave; (b) matters extraneous
to the issue in the principal case are raised; or (c) the effect would be to PURPOSES OF FILING A THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
introduce a new and separate controversy into the action. (1) Contribution;
(2) Indemnity;
THIRD, (FOURTH, ETC)-PARTY COMPLAINT - a complaint that a defending (3) Subrogation; or
party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action for (4) Any other relief in respect to one’s or to his or her opponents claim
contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief in respect of his or her
opponent’s claim EXAMPLES
CONTRIBUTION Share in solidary obligations (Situation 1)
THIRD PARTY – A party not part of the action but is impleaded therein Share of the surety in an obligation (Situation 2)
INDEMNITY
Culpa aquiliana case (Situation 3)
In determining whether or not the complaint is a third-party complaint, remember SUBROGATION Sublease (Situation 4)
the following:
OTHERS Recovery of land (Situation 5)
1. It is filed against a person not a party to the action
2. It is done with leave of court
3. It is different from cross-claim
4. It is for the purpose mentioned in Section 11 THE TESTS TO DETERMINE PROPRIETY OF A THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
5. Use the tests
1. It arises out of the same transaction on which plaintiff is based
2. If the third party’s complaint, although arising out of another transaction, is
SITUATION 1: Randi and Galeon obtained a loan of P100,000 from Waldy, where
connected with the plaintiff’s claim
they signed a promissory note making themselves solidarily liable for the debt.
3. Third-party defendant would be liable to the original plaintiff’s claim. Although
Upon non-payment, Waldy only filed an action against Randi and not against
the third-party defendant’s liability arises out of another transaction
Galeon.
4. The third-party defendant may assert any defense which the third-party plaintiff
has or may have against plaintiff’s claim
In this situation, Randi has the option to file a third-party complaint against
Galeon in order to implead Galeon as a defendant in the action for collection of
sum of money instituted by Gravador. Purpose of TPC: contribution. Capayas v. CFI of Albay
G.R. No. L-475, Aug. 31, 1946
SITUATION 2: Randi obtained a loan from Waldy, and Galeon was the surety of
such obligation. Upon non-payment of Randi, Gravador instituted an action for There are four possible tests to determine the propriety of a third-party
collection of sum of money against Randi. complaint. In order for it to be allowed, it must pass one of them. And these
are:
Similar to Situation 1, Randi has the option to file a third-party complaint to
implead Galeon, the surety, in the action. Purpose: Indemnity 1. A third-party complaint is proper if it arises out of the same transaction on
which plaintiff is based;
Note: A surety is solidarily liable to a debt, without prejudice to the surety’s right to 2. A third-party complaint is proper if the third party’s complaint, although
demand reimbursement from the principal debtor. arising out of another transaction, is connected with the plaintiff’s claim
3. Third-party defendant would be liable to the original plaintiff’s claim.
SITUATION 3: X injured a pedestrian, Y, and Y filed a case of reckless imprudence Although the third-party defendant’s liability arises out of another transaction.
with damages against X. X’s car is covered by a third-party liability insurance. So, 4. The third-party defendant may assert any defense which the third-party
it is now the option of X to file a third-party complaint in order to implead the plaintiff has or may have against plaintiff’s claim.
insurance company as an additional defendant. Purpose: indemnity
ILLUSTRATIONS FOR EACH TEST:
SITUATION 4: A is the owner of a property that is leased by B. In their contract of
lease, there was a stipulation that allowed B to sublease the property of A. (1) It arises out of the same transaction on which plaintiff is based
pursuant to this, B then subleased it to C, who was physically occupying the
property. Damage was caused on the property, which prompted A to file a case 1. In a solidary obligation, one of the solidary debtors can file a third-party
against B. In that action, B may file a third-party complaint to bring C for possible complaint against the other solidary debtor, since the complaint would arise from
subrogation, as C is the one physically occupying the property. the same transaction from which the creditor would institute action.

SITUATION 5: Christian, the real owner of a parcel of land, filed a case against
Janil for recovery of parcel of land. Janil had previously purchased the land from
Edward, who pretended to be the owner thereof. In the recovery case, Janil then
may file a third-party complaint, impleading Edward on the basis of warranty
against eviction in a contract of sale.
2. If such solidary debtor, though, would file a third-party complaint against another
solidary debtor on the basis of another loan contracted, then such third-party
complaint is not proper.
(2) If the third party’s complaint, although arising out of another
transaction, is connected with the plaintiff’s claim;

RULE TO ALWAYS REMEMBER: A defending party MUST file an application
for leave to file a Third-Party Complaint, as the court has the power to deny such
leave upon valid grounds.
WHEN THE COURT MAY DENY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE FOR FILING A
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT:
(1) When the third party cannot be located within 30 calendar days from the grant
of such leave, or
(2) When the matter of the third-party complaint is extraneous (irrelevant) to the
issue in the principal case; OR
(3) When such complaint introduces a new and separate controversy into the
action
REMEMBER: This is NOT the same as a cross-claim. Know the difference.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AND CROSS-CLAIM
1. See Situation 3
2. Case:
Shafer v. Judge of RTC of Olongapo City
G.R. No. 78848, Nov. 14, 1988
FACTS: Shafer, while driving his Ford Laser car covered by a TPL, bumped
another Volkswagen car driven by Legaspi. Legaspi filed a criminal case
against Shafer for physical injuries arising from reckless imprudence. Legaspi
did not make any reservation to file a separate civil action. So obviously, the
claim for civil liability is deemed instituted.
Shafer was covered by the insurance, so he filed a third-party complaint
against the insurance company, insofar as the civil liability is concerned.
The insurance company questioned the propriety of the third-party complaint
in a criminal case, because according to the insurance company, the third-
party complaint is entirely different from the criminal liability.

66

ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of a third-party complaint in a criminal case is
procedurally correct
RULING: Yes, the filing of third-party complaint in a criminal case is
procedurally correct.
There could be a third-party complaint in a criminal case, because an offense
causes two classes of injuries – the SOCIAL and the PERSONAL injury. In this
case, the civil aspect of the criminal case is deemed impliedly instituted in the
criminal case.
Shafer (plaintiff) may raise all defenses available to him in so far as the criminal
and civil aspects are concerned. Shafer’s claim of indemnity against the
insurance company are also the claim by the victim in the criminal action.
Therefore, Shafer’s claim against the insurance company is related to the
criminal case.
NOTE: The case of Shafer vs. Judge of RTC of Olongapo City is no longer
controlling, because Section 1 of Rule 111 prohibits counterclaims, cross-claims
and third-party complaints to be filed by the accused, as the action may be litigated
in a separate civil action.
(3) Third-party defendant would be liable to the original plaintiff’s claim,
although the third-party defendant’s liability arises out of another
transaction
1. See Situation 4
2. Case:
Samala v. Victor
G.R. No. L-53969, Feb. 21, 1989
FACTS: This case involves a vehicular accident. Emerita Jumaman rode a
passenger jeepney on her way to work, which collided with a bus owned by
Saint Raphael Transit. Emerita Jumaman suffered injuries so she filed a case
for damages against the jeepney operators and the jeepney driver. The
jeepney operators and driver filed a third-party complaint against the owner
and the driver of the Saint Raphael Bus. The trial court found that the jeepney
driver was not at fault and held the third-party defendants liable for the plaintiff’s
claim.
ISSUE: Can third-party defendants be held liable directly to the original
plaintiff?
RULING: YES, third party defendants may be held liable to the original
plaintiff.
In a third-party complaint, normally, third-party defendant is liable to the
third-party plaintiff. But the third-party defendant can be made liable to the
original plaintiff or the third-party defendant can be made liable to both the
original plaintiff and third-part plaintiff.
Under the rules, a person not a party to an action may be impleaded by the
defendant either:
(a) on an allegation of liability to the latter (original defendant);
(b) On the ground of direct liability to the plaintiff; or
(c) Both a and b (meaning third-party defendant is liable to both original plaintiff
and original defendant who is the third-party plaintiff)
The situation in (a) is covered by the phrase “for contribution, indemnity, or
subrogation”; while (b) and (c) are subsumed under the catch all phrase “or
any other relief, in respect of his opponent’s claim.
(4) The third-party defendant may assert any defense which the third-
party plaintiff has or may have against plaintiff’s claim
1. See Situation 2
2. The registered owner of a car sold his car to a willing purchaser, who eventually
did not cause the transfer of the registration of the car in his (buyer’s) name, but
the purchaser was able to use the car. He hit a pedestrian. The pedestrian filed a
case against the registered owner of the car. With this, the registered owner may
implead the purchaser by way of a third-party complaint, because the third-party
defendant (purchaser) may assert any defense that he may have against the
plaintiff.
IMPORTANT CASES TO REMEMBER RE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINTS
Eastern Assurance & Surety Corp. v. Cu
G.R. No. 54452. July 20, 1981||
g
FACTS: Transunion Corporation filed a complaint in CFI Manila against Rey
Pan, Pan Phil Trading and Eastern Assurance Corporation for payment of
Merchandise.
After Eastern Assurance Corporation filed its answer, it filed a third-party
complaint against Rey Pan’s wife, Loreta B. Pan, but the latter filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, invoking that in the Indemnity
Agreement Contract, it was stipulated that venue of any suit between her, and
her husband, on one hand, and the Eastern Assurance Corporation, on the
other hand, shall be filed in Quezon City.
ISSUE: Is the venue proper?
RULING: The venue is proper because the venue of the main action is proper.
So, automatically, third-party complaint is also proper. The third-party
complaint has to yield to the jurisdiction and venue of the main action.
The third-party complaint has to yield to the jurisdiction and venue of the main
action. Otherwise, there will be a splitting of cause of action.
Republic v. Central Surety & Insurance Co.
G.R. No. L-27802, Oct. 26, 1968
FACTS: Republic filed a case with the CFI (now RTC) against Central Surety
Co. as a Surety, as it executed in favor of the Deportation Board a bond for the
temporary release of Po Kee Kam, a Chinese citizen and the respondent in the
deportation proceeding. Po Kee Kam did not anymore show up during the
scheduled hearings of his case, so such case was filed.
Central Surety Co. filed a third-party complaint against Po Kee Kam for the
amount of P5,000.00 that it assumed under the Surety Bond.
The Trial Court dismissed the third-party complaint for being cognizable by the
lower court.
ISSUE: Is the Trial Court correct?
RULING: No. The third-party complaint is an ancillary suit which depends
on the jurisdiction of the court over the main action.
Since the trial court had acquired jurisdiction over the complaint, it
necessarily follows that it likewise had jurisdiction over the third-party
complaint which is but an incident thereof.
This must be so because jurisdiction over the main case embraces all
incidental matters arising therefrom and connected therewith. A contrary
rule would result in “split jurisdiction” which is not favored, and in
multiplicity of suits, a situation obnoxious to the orderly administration
of justice.
The court acquired jurisdiction over the third-party complaint, provided it had
jurisdiction over the main case, for the reason that third-party complaint is but
a continuation thereof, its purpose being to seek “contribution, indemnity,
subrogation, or any other relief, in respect to his opponent’s claim.
SECTION 12
Section 12. Bringing new parties. — When the presence of parties other
than those to the original action is required for the granting of complete
relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court
shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them
can be obtained.
GENERAL RULE: In counterclaims, it must only relate to the main action.
EXCEPTION: Some parties, other than those to the original action, are required
for the granting of complete relief. Therefore, they may be brought into the action
as defendants.
SITUATION: X and Y solidarily obtained a P100,000.00 loan from A. Each
received P50,000. Upon non-payment, A filed a case against X only. X did not file
a third-party complaint against Y.
In this case, the court may direct that Y be impleaded in the action in order to avoid
multiplicity of suits. (The same may also happen if the creditor files a case directly
against the surety.)
DIFFERENTIATE THE FOLLOWING CASES:
Sapugay v. CA
G.R. No. 86792, Mar. 21, 1990
67

FACTS: Mobil Philippines filed a case against Sapugay, its gasoline dealer.
Sapugay filed an answer and interposed a counterclaim for damages against
Mobil and included Cardenas (the manager of Mobil) who is not a plaintiff.
As counterclaim, Sapugay prayed that Mobil and its manager be made liable
for their pre-operation expenses, rental, storage, and guarding fees, unrealized
profit including damages and the return of the LP-Gas equipment to the
premises.
After trial, the court dismissed the complaint and ordered Mobil and its
manager to pay the counterclaims of the Sapugay.
ISSUE 1: Whether or not the inclusion of Cardenas in the counterclaim is
proper where he is not an original plaintiff in the Mobil case.
RULING: Cardenas may be included in the counterclaim even if he was
not an original plaintiff in the case.
A counterclaim is defined as any claim for money or other relief which a
defending party may have against an opposing party. However, the general
rule (that a defendant cannot by a counterclaim bring into action any
claim against persons other than the plaintiff) admits of an exception
under Section 12, Rule 6 which provides that “when the presence of
parties other than those to the original action is required for the granting
of complete relief in the determinations of a counter claim or cross-claim,
the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction
over them can be obtained.” The inclusion, therefor, of Cardenas in
petitioner’s counterclaim is sanction by the rules.
ISSUE No. 2: Did the court acquire jurisdiction over Cardenas?
RULING: Yes. In her answer, filed on November 29, 1982, to the amended
complaint, Sapugay impleaded Cardenas as a defendant in her counterclaim
therein, and prayed that judgment be rendered holding specifically Mobil and
Cardenas jointly and severally liable to herein petitioners.
Thereafter, Sagupay filed a “Motion to Declare Plaintiff and its Manager,
Ricardo P. Cardenas, in Default on Defendant’s Counterclaim” for failure of
private respondents to answer the counterclaim.
Cardenas was furnished copies of both the answer and the motion to
declare them in default, alleging that they, the private respondents
herein, may not be so declared. The court below agreed with private
respondents’ reasoning therein that a compulsory counterclaim being involved,
the uses raised in the counterclaim are deemed automatically jointed by the
allegations of the complaint, hence the complaint itself stood as the answer to
the defendants’ counterclaim. Consequently, the trial court denied the motion
to declare the herein private respondents in default.
Galeon: This is a peculiar case.
Normally, the defendant files a counterclaim against the plaintiff. But in the
case, the defendant filed a counterclaim against Cardenas, a third party who
was not formally impleaded as a plaintiff.
The SC rationed by saying that Cardenas was presumed to have
knowledge of the filing of such counterclaim, because Cardenas knew,
participated and testified in the case. Cardenas, as the manager of Mobil,
would be necessarily interested in the case and could have access to the
records of such.
Essentially, this ruling is based on the principles of estoppel and waiver.
Chavez v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 91391, Jan. 24, 1991
FACTS: Petitioner Francisco Chaves (former Solicitor General) represented
the government for PCGG. The case arose out of PCGG cases, wherein Enrile
was sued for accumulation of his ill-gotten wealth.
Enrile filed an answer to the complaint and contended that the case is
harassment suit whose mastermind was the Solicitor General himself. Enrile
filed a counterclaim against Chavez. (Enrile’s lawyer must be aware of the
Sapugay case). Chaves questioned such counterclaim contending that he was
not a plaintiff. Sandiganbayan denied such contention.
RULING: The inclusion of the plaintiff’s lawyer is improper.
To allow a counterclaim against a lawyer who files a complaint for his clients,
and who is merely their representative in court, and is not the plaintiff or
complainant in the case, would lead to mischievous consequences.
A lawyer owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal in
the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost
g
learning and ability. A lawyer cannot properly attend to his duties toward is
client if, in the same case, he is kept busy defending himself.
RECONCILIATION OF THE TWO CASES
The remedy for those who are victim of lawyers violating their oath is NOT by way
of counterclaim, but by filing an administrative case against the lawyer and/or a
separate civil case against him.
In the Sapugay case, Cardenas was impleaded because of his familiarity of the
transactions entered into by the company. In the Chavez case, despite the
lawyer’s familiarity, he cannot be impleaded in the case, because not only would
such lead to mischievous consequences but the lawyer should not be busy
defending himself in the same action, he should devote his genuine interest to his
client.
SECTION 13
Section 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. —A third
(fourth, etc.)-party defendant may allege in his or her answer his or her
defenses, counterclaims or cross-claims, including such defenses that
the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff may have against the original
plaintiff's claim. In proper cases, he or she may also assert a
counterclaim against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter's claim
against the third-party plaintiff.
POINT TO REMEMBER:
1. The third-party defendant may put up defenses against (1) the third-party
plaintiff and even (1) the original plaintiff
SITUATION 1: There are six vehicles involved in a vehicular accident. Vehicle A
is bumped by B. Vehicle B is bumped by C. Vehicle C is bumped by D. D is bumped
by E. And E is bumped by F.
If A would file a case against B, B could put up a defense that he was not at fault,
that he was bumped by C. B should put this defense in a third-party complaint
against C. C, on the other hand, could file a fourth-party complaint against D.
Then D would file a fifth-party complaint against E. Then ultimately, E would put
the blame on vehicle F, the last vehicle.
SITUATION 2: X filed a case against Y. Y filed a third-party complaint against Z.
In this case, Z would refute Y’s claims. But Section 13 allows Z to put up any
defense that would inure to the benefit of Y. In fact, Z can answer directly the
allegations hurled against Y by X. So this basically illustrated Section 13.
ILLUSTRATION: The registered owner of a car sold his car to a willing purchaser,
who eventually did not cause the transfer of the registration of the car in his
(buyer’s) name, but the purchaser was able to use the car. He hit a pedestrian.
The pedestrian filed a case against the registered owner of the car. With this, the
registered owner may implead the purchaser by way of a third-party complaint,
because the third-party defendant (purchaser) may assert any defense that he
may have against the plaintiff.
Under Section 13, the purchaser, who is now the third-party defendant, is
permitted to meet the allegations of the pedestrian head on. He can state in his
answer that while it is true that the purchaser is the true owner, but it was the fault
of the pedestrian which caused the accident and not his. This defense would not
only benefit the purchaser but also the registered owner.
Consider this case:
Singapore Airlines v. CA
G.R. No. 107356, Mar. 31, 1995
FACTS: Sancho Rayos was an overseas contract worker who had a renewed
contract with the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco). As part of
Aramco’s policy, its employees returning to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia from Manila
are allowed to claim reimbursement for amounts paid for excess baggage of
up to 50 kilograms, as long as it is properly supported by receipt.
Rayos took a Singapore Airlines (SIA) flight to report for his new assignment,
with a 50-kilogram excess baggage for which he paid P4,147.50. Rayos was
one of several employees being investigated by Aramco for fraudulent claims.
He immediately asked his wife Beatriz in Manila to seek a written confirmation
from SIA that he indeed paid for an excess baggage of 50 kilograms.
SIA’s manager, Johnny Khoo, notified Beatriz of their inability to issue the
certification requested because their records showed that only 3 kilograms
were entered as excess and accordingly charged.
SIA issued the certification requested by the spouses Rayos but only after its
investigation of the anomaly and after Beatriz, assisted by a lawyer, threatened
it with a lawsuit.
68

Subsequently, Aramco did not anymore renew Sancho’s employment. The
spouses Rayos, convinced that SIA was responsible for the non-renewal of
Rayos’ employment contract with Aramco, sued it for damages.
SIA claimed that it was not liable to the Rayoses because the tampering was
committed by its handling agent, PAL. It then filed a third-party complaint
against PAL.
PAL, in turn, countered that its personnel did not collect any charges for excess
baggage, that it had no participation in the tampering of any excess baggage
ticket; and that if any tampering was made, it was done by SIA’s personnel.
The trial court adjudged SIA liable to plaintiffs, but PAL was also held liable to
SIA on the latter’s third-party complaint. PAL filed an appeal.
Notably, in its appeal, PAL claimed that the spouses Rayos had no valid claim
against SIA because it was the inefficiency of Rayos which led to the non-
renewal of his contract with Aramco, and not the alleged tampering of his
excess baggage ticket. (Galeon: PAL took up the cudgels for SIA by saying
that the reason why Rayos was terminated was not because of the alleged
tampering of the excess baggage ticket but because of its non-performance
with respect to his job at Aramco. There was clearly a change of the theory of
the case. Here, PAL questioned the ruling of the trial court which held it liable
for the third-party complaint filed by SIA.)
RULING: The third-party defendant (PAL) cannot set up the defense
against the original plaintiff. While the Rules allow them to, they could
not because of the circumstances of the case.
The third-party complaint is actually independent of and separate and
distinct from the plaintiff’s complaint. (???? contrary to republic vs
central surety co or idk maybe I understood it wrong lol)
When leave to file the third-party complaint is properly granted, the Court
renders in effect two judgements in the same case, one on the plaintiff’s
complaint and the other on the third-party complaint. When he finds
favorably on both complaints, as in this case, he renders judgement on the
principal complaint in favor of plaintiff against defendant and renders another
judgement on the third-party complaint in favor of defendant as third-party
plaintiff, ordering he third-party defendant to reimburse the defendant whatever
amount said defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff in the case.
Failure of any of said parties in such a case to appeal the judgement as against
him makes such judgement final and executory. By the same token, an appeal
by one party from such judgement does not inure to the benefit of the other
party who has not appealed nor can it be deemed to be an appeal of such
other party from the judgement against him.
It must be noted that in the proceeding below, PAL disclaimed any liability to
the Rayoses and imputed the alleged tampering to SIA’s personnel. On
appeal, however, PAL changed its theory and averred that the Spouses Rayos
had no valid claim against SIA and instead took up the cudgels for SIA by
stating on appeal that the ground why Rayos was dismissed was his
unsatisfactory performance and not necessarily because of his alleged
tampering of excess baggage ticket. In response to PAL’s appeal, SIA argued
that it was improper for PAL to question SIA’s liability to the plaintiff, since this
was no longer an issue on account of the finality and, in fact, satisfaction of the
judgement.
There is no question that a third-party defendant is allowed to set up in his
answer the defenses which the third-party plaintiff (original defendant)
has or may have to the plaintiff’s claim.
There are, however, special circumstances present in this case which
preclude third-party defendant PAL from benefiting from the said
principle.
One of the defenses available to SIA was that the plaintiffs had no cause of
action, that is, it had no valid claim against SIA. SIA investigated the matter
and discovered that tampering was, indeed, committed, not by its personnel
but by PAL’s. This became its defense as well as its main cause of action in
the third-party complaint filed against PAL. For its part, PAL could have used
the defense that plaintiffs had no valid claim against it or against SIA. This
could be done indirectly by adopting such a defense in its answer to the third-
party complaint if only SIA had raised the same in its answer to the main
complaint, or directly by so stating in unequivocal terms in its answer to SIA’s
complaint that SIA and PAL were both blameless. Yet, PAL opted to deny any
liability which it imputed to SIA’s personnel. It was only on appeal – in a
complete turnaround of theory – that PAL raised the issue of no valid claim by
the plaintiff against SIA. This simply cannot be allowed.
While the third-party defendant would benefit from a victory by the third-party
plaintiff against the plaintiff, this is true only when the third-party plaintiff and
third-party defendant have non-contradictory defenses. Here, the defendant
g
and third-party defendant had no common defense against the plaintiff’s
complaint, and they were even blaming each other for the fiasco.
The trial court’s decision, although adverse to SIA as defendant, made PAL
ultimately answerable for not the judgement by ordering the latter to reimburse
the former for the entire monetary award. On appeal, PAL tried to exonerate
itself by arguing that the Rayoses had no valid claim against SIA. From PAL’s
viewpoint, this seems to be the only way to extricate itself from a mess which
the court a quo ascribed to it. This cannot, however, be allowed because it was
neither raised by SIA in its answer to the main complaint nor by PAL in its
answer to the third-party complaint. The prudent thing that PAL should have
done was to state in its answer to the third-party complaint filed by SIA against
it everything that it may conceivably interpose by way of its defense, including
specific denials of allegations in the main complaint which implicated it along
with SIA.
CASE ANALYSIS: If PAL really would want to take up the cudgels for SIA (or
wanted to defend SI), it should have stated such in its answer to the third-party
complaint filed by SIA. Rather, PAL rather put the blame on SIA in its answer. But
it only in its appeal when PAL defended SIA. So, the SC said that was not allowed.
In other words, while under Section 13, the third-party defendant may put up a
defense favorable to the third-party plaintiff that should be at the very least state
in its answer to the third-party complaint. Especially if that defense is not put up by
the original defendant themselves.
If that defense is already asserted by the original defendant then the third-party
defendant may just adapt the answer of the original defendant.
What is peculiar here in this case is that SIA, in its answer to the complaint of
Rayos did not say that the termination of Rayos was by reason of the fact that he
was inefficient in his work. SIA – the plaintiff - did not put up the defense that it
was not the alleged tampering of the excess baggage tickets that was the cause
of the termination of the employment of Rayos. And in the answer also of PAL –
the third-party defendant, PAL did not mention such defense. It was only on appeal
that PAL made that as a defense.
SC said the defense came too late.
CRITICISM OVER THIS CASE:
There is this legal luminary who opines that PAL should have filed two answers,
especially since it was clear that PAL wanted to put up a defense directly against
the claims of Rayos.
The first answer would be the answer to the third-party complaint filed by SIA.
The second answer would be in answer to the complaint of Spouses Rayos.
GALEON’S OPINION: If you look at also Section 13, it mentions here that such
defense must be alleged in the answer to the third-party complaint. It does not
mention about filing of two separate answers. That’s why I cannot subscribe to the
view that two answers should be filed.
The important thing to do is to raise that defense in the answer to the third-
party complaint.
But the bottomline is that:
A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT MAY INCLUDE AS HIS DEFENSE AN ANSWER
WHICH IS FAVORABLE TO THE ORIGINAL OR MAIN DEFENDANT IN THE
ACTION.
In fact, the third party may directly confront or refute the allegation of the complaint
head-on and that should be taken up in his answer to the third-party complaint, in
that, under Section 13, the third-party defendant may even file a counterclaim as
against the original plaintiff in the action.
RULE 7 - PARTS AND CONTENTS OF A PLEADING
SECTION 1
Section 1. Caption. — The caption sets forth the name of the court, the
title of the action, and the docket number if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be
named in the original complaint or petition; but 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.
Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
1. Captain sets forth court’s name, the title of the action, docket number (CTD)
2. All parties in the complaint must be named.
69
 g

GENERAL RULE: It is only in the complaint where the names of all the parties
must be stated in the title. (1) Designation of Paragraphs

EXCEPTIONS: The names of all the parties need not be stated in the complaint:
1. Class suit (Rule 3, Section 12)
2. When the identity or name of the defendant is unknown (Rule 3, Section 14)
3. When you sue an entity without juridical personality (Rule 3, Section 15); and
4. If a party is sued in his official capacity. Official designation is sufficient.
Example: Renato M. Galeon vs. City Mayor of Cebu
A pleading is divided into paragraphs, sequentially numbered. The sequential
numbering allows paragraphs to be alluded to by their numberings.
EXAMPLE:
1. Paragraph 1 of the complaint, insofar as it recites or narrates the personal
circumstances of the plaintiff, is admitted in its entirety.

Unabia v. City Mayor 2. Paragraph 2 of the complaint, insofar as it relates to the personal
G.R. No. L-8759, May 25, 1956 circumstances of the defendant is admitted in its entirety.

As said persons were sued in their official capacity, it is sufficient that they be 3. Paragraph 3 of the complaint is specifically denied, the truth being that ….
designated by their official positions.
Therefore, if there are two or more causes of actions joined in one complaint,
NOTE: Even if there are 50 defendants, name all of them in the complaint. But in each and every cause must be labelled.
the subsequent pleadings (answer, reply, etc), you can use “et al.”
Example: X files a complaint based on three unpaid promissory notes. All three
FUN FACT: Et al is a scholarly abbreviation for “et alia,” which means “and others” promissory notes arose from three distinct and separate contracts but all involved
the same parties. In this case, X must specifically designate in the body of his
SAMPLE OF A CAPTION IN A COMPLAINT: complaint the “First cause of action,” which would relate to the first promissory note
(and so on and so forth).
Republic of the Philippines
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES NOTE: If you are the party-pleader, do not mix up the allegations pertaining to the
7TH Judicial Region 3 promissory notes, so that the court can readily understand your storyline.
Branch 01
Lapu-Lapu City NOTE: Do not confuse cause of action and relief sought.

RENATO M. GALEON, Example: X files a collection of sum of money with prayer for damages is your
Plaintiff, cause of action. He labelled in his complaint, “First Cause of Action: Collection,”
“Second Cause of Action: Actual Damages,” “Third Cause of Action: Attorney’s
-versus- fees,” and “Fourth Caase of Action: Moral Damages.” This is palpably erroneous,
CIVIL CASE No. R-3900
as his sole cause of action is collection.
or: Forcible Entry, etc.

JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA, (2) Allegations and Defenses

WALDEMAR R. GRAVADOR,
DIANA A. VELASCO, and Plaintiff in a Complaints – makes allegations
CHEVROLIE M. ISOTO, Defendant in his Answer – defenses
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------------/ (3) Relief

COMPLAINT GENERAL RULE: The court will only grant a relief that is prayed for in the
pleadings or in excess of that being sought.
Plaintiff, through counsel, respectfully avers that:

1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Example: Normally, the plaintiff in his complaint prays that the defendant is made
2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx liable, while the defendant in his answer prays for dismissal of the case and award
of all his counterclaims, if any.

EXCEPTION: The General Prayer

SECTION 2
Section 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.
(a) Paragraphs. — The allegations in the body of a pleading shall be
divided into paragraphs so numbered to be readily identified, each of
which shall contain a statement of a single set of circumstances so far
as that can be done with convenience. A paragraph may be referred to
by its number in all succeeding pleadings.
(b) Headings. — When two or more causes of action are joined, the
statement of the first shall be prefaced by the words "first cause of
action,'' of the second by "second cause of action", and so on for the
others.
When one or more paragraphs in the answer are addressed to one of
several causes of action in the complaint, they 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 addressed to several causes of action, they shall be prefaced
by words to that effect.
GENERAL PRAYER – A prayer made by a plaintiff or defendant which prays for
“such other relief as the court may deem just and equitable under the premises”
This kind of prayer was allowed by the court in the case of Prince Transport Inc
vs. Gracia:
Prince Transport, Inc. v. Garcia
G.R. No. 167291, Jan. 12, 2011
In any case, Section 2 (c), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a pleading
shall specify the relief sought, but may add a general prayer for such further
or other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable.
Under this rule, a court can grant the relief warranted by the allegation and the
proof even if it is not specifically sought by the injured party; the inclusion of a
general prayer may justify the grant of a remedy different from or together with
the specific remedy sought, if the facts alleged in the complaint and the
evidence introduced so warrant.
ILLUSTRATION: In a case for collection of sum of money, plaintiff X failed to
specifically ask in his complaint for an award of attorney’s fees in his favor.

(c) Relief. — The pleading shall specify the relief sought, but it may add
a general prayer for such further or other relief as may be deemed just or
equitable.
(d) Date. — Every pleading shall be dated.
BODY has three important parts: (1) Designation of paragraphs, (2) Allegations,
and (3) Relief
Q: May the court award him with such attorney’s fees?
A: This may still be awarded to him by the court if he stated in his complaint that
he was constrained to hire the services of a lawyer to prosecute the case and
where he presented evidence during the trial showing that he paid the professional
fee of his counsel.
DON’T FORGET: As required under the rules, the pleading should be dated.

70

Example: “Cebu City (for Mandaue City), Philippines, 1 April 2020.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Signature and address. — (a) Every pleading and other written
submissions to the court must be signed by the party or 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 litigation;
(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
existing law or jurisprudence, or by a non-frivolous 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 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 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.
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
1. Warrants in a signature
2. Consequences for violations
RULE: Every pleading must be signed by the plaintiff or counsel representing him.
AN UNSIGNED PLEADING PRODUCES NO LEGAL EFFECT.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE SIGNATURE OF THE COUNSEL:
BASICALLY: By signing the pleading, a lawyer vouches to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief, that:
ü The claim is meritorious
ü The claim has basis in law and in fact
ü The claim is not trumped up; and
ü The lawyer holds true to his oath “not to delay any man for money or
malice.”
SANCTIONS:
Note: this may be discovered on motion of opposing party or motu proprio by the
court after due notice and hearing.
1. Payment of penalty to the court
2. If sanction is 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;
3. Non-monetary sanctions (Ex: reprimand, suspension, disbarment)
- Office of the Bar Confidant in the SC or IBP is the proper office for appropriate
disciplinary action
NOTE!!!!! The lawyer or law firm cannot pass on the monetary penalty to the
client.
The pleading must also contain the following info regarding the lawyer:
1. His complete address (advisable to include email address and contact numbers)
2. Attorney’s Roll Number
3. Current Professional Tax Receipt Number, the date and place of its issuance
4. IBP Official Receipt Number, indicating its place and date of issuance
g
5. The number; date of issue; place of issue; and the expiry date of the Certificate
of Compliance of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, or Certificate of
Exemption
SECTION 4
Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required by
law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath or verified.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly 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, and shall allege 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.
A pleading required to be verified that 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.
RULE: A pleading is verified by an affidavit.
The affidavit must state that:
1. The affiant (the one who signed the verification) has read the pleading;
2. The allegations therein are true and correct BASED ON HIS OR HER
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, OR BASED ON AUTHENTIC RECORDS;
Note: verification based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge,
information and belief,” IS IMPROPER
3. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly
increase the cost of litigation; and
4. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
discovery.
NOTE: #3 and #4 are new matters, as are now required under the Amended Rules.
SAMPLE: (this is without the certificate against forum-shopping)
VERIFICATION
I, CARDO B. DALISAY, Filipino, of legal age, married, and resident of Sta. Fe, Bantayan
Island, Cebu, after having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state
that:
1) I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;
2) I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaims;
3) I have read all the allegations contained in such Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaims;
4) The allegations therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and/or
based on authentic records;
5) Such Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and
6) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support, or will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature, this 1ST day of April
2020, in Cebu City, Philippines.
CARDO B. DALISAY
Affiant
71
 g

Vda. de Formoso v. PNB

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me, this 1st day of April 2020, at Cebu City, G.R. No. 154704, June 1, 2011
Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)
License Card bearing No. 0007, which is valid until September 06, 2020. The Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already
reflected above respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or
submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping:
Doc. No. ____; Notary Public
Page No. ___; 1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement
Book No. ___; on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the
Series of 2020. requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.

PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION: to give assurance that the allegations in a 2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does
pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The Court may
speculation and that the pleading is filed in good faith (BPI v. CA) order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending
circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be
RULE: Pleadings need not be under oath or verified, except when otherwise dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
specifically required by law or rule.
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample
PLEADINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition
signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made
BASIS PLEADING BASIS PLEADING in good faith or are true and correct.
Section 3, Petition for Relief from Section 1,
Petition for Quo Warranto 4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a
Rule 38 Judgment Rule 66

Section 1, Petition for Review from Section 1, Complaint for defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent
Rule 42 the Regional Trial Courts Rule 67 Expropriation submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on
the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances
Petition for Review from
Complaint/Answer for or compelling reasons."
Section 5, the quasi-judicial Section 4,
forcible entry or unlawful
Rule 43 agencies to the Court of Rule 70
detainer IMPORTANT IMPORTS OF THE CASE:
Appeals
Section 12, Appeal by Certiorari from Section 4, Petition for Indirect
RA 9282) the Court of Tax Appeals Rule 71 Contempt
(1) The requirement of verification is only formal and not jurisdictional.
Appeal by Certiorari from
Section 1, Section 2, Petition for Appointment (2) Absence of a verification or the non-compliance with the verification
the Court of Appeals to
Rule 47 Rule 93 of a General Guardian requirement, does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective
the Supreme Court
Petition for Annulment of Petition for Leave to Sell (3) The court may order its submission or correction, or act on the pleading if
Section 1, Section 1,
Judgments or final orders or Encumber Property of
Rule 47 Rule 95 the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be
and resolutions the Ward by a guardian
dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served
Petition for the
Section 4, Section 1,
Rule 58
Complaint for Injunction Rule 97
Declaration of OTHER PEOPLE’S ADVICE: In case of doubt, it’s better to have the pleading
Competency of a Ward verified
Section 1, Application for Section 3, Petition for Habeas
Rule 59 Appointment of Receiver Rule 102 Corpus GALEON’S ADVICE: To some extent, this advice is sound, but it only shows that
Section 1, Application for Support Section 2, Petition for Change of the lawyer assisting the litigant does not know the rules or is otherwise indolent to
Rule 69 pendente lite Rule 103 Name read the rules if only to determine what pleadings are required to be verified. For
Petition for Certiorari another, if it happens that a statement in a verified pleading is fallacious, then the
against the judgments, Petition for Voluntary affiant may be unnecessarily exposed to possible prosecution for perjury. This is
Section 2, Section 1,
Rule 64 final orders or resolutions Rule 104 Judicial Dissolution of a the danger of having the pleading verified even if it is not supposed to be verified.
of constitutional Corporation
commissions SECTION 5
Petition for Cancellation or
Section 1, Section 1,
Rule 65 Petitions for Certiorari Rule 108 Correction of Entries in Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or
the Civil Registry principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
Rule on pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
Section 2,
Summary Pleading filed in the
Petition for Prohibition thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he or she has not
Rule 65
Procedure inferior courts
theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
Section 3,
Petition for Mandamus issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of
Rule 65
his or her knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
(b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement
PLEADINGS NOT REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED BUT MUST BE MADE of the present status thereof; and (c) if he or she should thereafter learn
UNDER OATH that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he
or she shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the
NOTE: A mere jurat would suffice – e.g. “SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before court wherein his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
me, this 1st day of April 2020, at Cebu City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his been filed.
Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) License Card bearing No. 0007,
which is valid until September 06, 2020 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
BASIS PLEADING BASIS PLEADING attached to the pleading.
Denial of the
Section 8, genuineness and due Section 2, Answer to Written Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable
Rule 8 execution of an Rule 25 Interrogatories by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall
actionable document be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless
Motion to Set Aside a Answer to Request for otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a
Section Section 2,
3[b], Rule 9 Default Order Rule 26 Admission 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
EFFECT OF UNVERIFIED PLEADING
or his or her counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum
shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
Such pleading shall be treated as an unsigned pleading, but does not render the
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
pleading fatally defective.
administrative sanctions.
UNSIGNED PLEADING - a pleading required to be verified that contains a
verification based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge, information and CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING - constitutes an assurance
belief,” or lacks a proper verification given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving

72

basically the same parties, issues and causes of action (Uy vs. CA, G.R. No.
173186, Sept. 16, 2015)
CAFS sets forth:
1. No other action has been commenced
2. If there is, the status of such pending action
3. If there is, the litigant shall report such.
SAMPLE:
VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON-FORUM
SHOPPING
I, CARDO B. DALISAY, Filipino, of legal age, married, and resident of Sta. Fe, Bantayan
Island, Cebu, after having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state
that:
1) I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;
2) I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition;
3) I have read all the allegations contained in such Petition;
4) The allegations therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and/or
based on authentic records;
5) Such Petition is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the
cost of litigation;
6) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support, or will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery; and
7) I hereby certify that I have not heretofore commenced any petition, nor filed any action
involving the same issues, subject matter, and parties before the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency,
and to the best of my personal knowledge, no such other action, petition or claim is
pending therein; If I should hereafter learn of such other similar action, petition or claim,
then we shall report that fact to this Court, within five (5) calendar days from knowledge
thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature, this 1ST day of April
2020, in Cebu City, Philippines.
CARDO B. DALISAY
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me, this 1st day of April 2020, at Cebu
City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)
License Card bearing No. 0007, which is valid until September 06, 2020.
Doc. No. ____; Notary Public
Page No. ___;
Book No. ___;
Series of 2020.
GENERAL RULE: The plaintiff or principal party executes and signs the CAFS,
not the counsel. Where there are several plaintiffs, all must sign.
EXCEPTION: When the plaintiffs share a common interest and invoke a common
cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them substantially
complies with the Rule
ANOTHER EXCEPTION: If for justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to
sign, he must execute a special power of attorney designating his counsel of
record (or any person knowledgeable about the case) to sign in his behalf
Vda. de Formoso v. PNB
G.R. No. 154704, June 1, 2011
The Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already
reflected above respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or
submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping:
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the
plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will
be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or 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 Rule.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the
party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable
g
reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special
Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his
behalf.
NOTE: If a person signs the certificate in a representative capacity, the
authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party should be attached to the
pleading, be it a Secretary’s Certificate of SPA.
HOW TO SIGN WHEN THE PARTY-PLEADER IS A JURIDICAL PERSON
Secretary’s Certificate or a Board Resolution is submitted or required if the
party-pleader is a corporation or a juridical person
STRICT RULE: Certificate must be executed by an officer of the BOD.
Cosco Philippines Shipping Lines v. Kemper Insurance Company
G.R. No. 179488, April 23, 2012
In the present case, since respondent is a corporation, the certification must
be executed by an officer or member of the board of directors or by one
who is duly authorized by a resolution of the board of directors; otherwise,
the complaint will have to be dismissed.
The lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by
mere amendment of the complaint, but shall be a cause for the dismissal of
the case without prejudice. The same rule applies to certifications against
forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are
unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file the complaint
on behalf of the corporation.
RELAXED RULE: It doesn’t have to be the officer that should execute and
sign the certification.
South Cotabato Communications Corp v. Hon. Patricia Sto. Tomas
GR No. 173326, Dec. 15, 2010
RULING: In sum, we have held that 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.
It must be stressed, however, that the Cagayan ruling qualified that the better
procedure is still to append a board resolution to the complaint or
petition to obviate questions regarding the authority of the signatory of
the verification and certification.
INITIATORY PLEADINGS MUST HAVE A CERTIFICATE AGAINST FORUM-
SHOPPING
ü Complaint
ü Permissive counterclaim
ü Cross-claim
ü Third-party complaint
ü Complaint-in-intervention
ü Other petition or application in which a party asserts his claim for relief
Santo Tomas University v. Surla
G.R. No. 129718, Aug. 17, 1998
The rule does not require a certification against forum-shopping for a
compulsory counterclaim because it cannot be the subject of a separate and
independent adjudication, as when the counterclaim is for damages, moral,
exemplary or attorney’s fees, by reason of the alleged malicious and
unfounded suit filed against the defendant. It is, therefore, not an initiatory
pleading
Spouses Carpio v. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas Batangas
G.R. NO. 153171, May 4, 2006
Parenthetically, if the answer with a counterclaim is filed merely to counter
petitioner’s complaint, and is a claim for relief that is derived only from, or is
necessarily connected with the main action or complaint, it is not an initiatory
pleading.
73
 g

ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed a case against RMG for allegedly causing damages The lawyer may even be suspended
on Waldi’s car on account of RMG’s negligence in driving his own car. In his or disbarred.
Answer with Counterclaim, RMG alleged that the vehicular collision complained of
was rather due to Waldi’s negligence, thereby praying that Waldi be held liable The party-pleader may even be
instead to pay for the damages of RMG’s car, in the amount as, thus, stated and prosecuted for perjury, and the
prayed for in the Answer with Counterclaim, plus attorney’s fees, moral and lawyer may also be prosecuted for
exemplary damages. RMG’s Answer with Counterclaim need not contain a subornation of perjury, if he consents
certification against forum-shopping. to the doing of falsehood by his client.
Failure to comply with the 1. It shall have the same effect as the
REQUISITES OF FORUM-SHOPPING pra undertaking – that is, if the party- submission of a false certificated
pleader should thereafter learn that against forum shopping
1. Identity of parties, or at least such parties as would represent the same interest the same or similar action or claim 2. Case shall be dismissed
in both actions; has been filed or is pending, he or 3. Such shall constitute indirect
she shall report that fact within 5 contempt without prejudice to
2. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on calendar days therefrom to the court administrative sanctions
the same facts; and wherein his or her aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has
3. Identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in been filed
the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata in the action under consideration SECTION 6

Spouses Isidro & Lea Cruz v. Spouses Florencio & Amparo Caraos
GR No. 138208, April 23, 2007
Forum shopping is an act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment
or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly getting
a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special civil
action for certiorari. It may also be the institution of two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the
other court would make a favorable disposition.
Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, and
where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.
The elements of forum shopping are: (a) identity of parties, or at least such
parties as would represent the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of
rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts;
and (c) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment
rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.
Section 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:
(a) Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove a party’s claim or
defense;
(b) Summary of the witnesses’ intended testimonies, provided that the
judicial affidavits of said witnesses shall be attached to the pleading and
form an integral part thereof. Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits
are attached to the pleading shall be presented by the parties during trial.
Except if a party presents meritorious reasons as basis for the admission
of additional witnesses, no other witness or affidavit shall be heard or
admitted by the court; and
(c) Documentary and object evidence in support of the allegations
contained in the pleading.
TAKE NOTE: This provision is new and is a substantial departure from the
previous and current rules.

METHODS OF COMMITTING FORUM-SHOPPING
1. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same
prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (litis pendentia);
2. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer,
the previous case having been finally resolved (res judicata);
3. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers
(splitting of causes of action).
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE:
CAUSE EFFECT
1. Case will be dismissed
2. Dismissal is without prejudice
Failure to submit a certification (presumed)
against forum shopping, but the party 3. Dismissal is upon motion and after
has not actually committed forum hearing
shopping 4. The case can be refiled
5. Such dismissal cannot be cured by
amending the pleading
1. The case can be dismissed
2. Dismissal can be summary
3. Dismissal is with prejudice
4. Such can constitute direct
contempt
“Summary dismissal” – may be done
without any motion coming from the
Submitting a false certification
opposing party
against forum-shopping, in that the
party-pleader is actually guilty of
The case cannot anymore be refiled
committing forum shopping
Where the proscription on litis
pendentia is consciously violated,
both (or all, if there are more than
two) actions shall be dismissed with
prejudice (Phil Pharmawealth, Inc.
v. Pfizer, Inc.)
OLD RULES: The pleading shall only state the ultimate facts constituting the
claim or defense, as the case may. Evidentiary facts need not be stated in the
pleading, much less the names of the witnesses for the party-pleader and the
substance of their respective testimonies, as these things are only required to be
stated in the Pre-Trial Brief and are to be taken up only during Pre-Trial.
AMENDED RULES: It is now required that the pleading asserting a party’s claims
or defenses shall now include, among others, the following:
1. Names of witnesses
2. Summary of testimonies
3. Documentary and object evidence
RATIONALE FOR AMENDMENT: For the court and the parties to readily be able
to determine (even before actual trial) if the complaint or the defense has merit or
not.
This requirement is meant to put give more teeth to the implied representations
under Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 7 to the end that the complaint or defense is not
trumped up, or concocted, or that it has, indeed, basis in fact and in law.
This requirement is also meant to avoid surprises during the trial.
RULE 8 - MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
SECTION 1
Section 1. In general. — Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and
logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts,
including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his or her
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 her shall be clearly
and concisely stated.
METHODICAL AND LOGCAL FORM – usage of plain, concise and direct
statements or language. You write to express, and not necessarily to impress.
Refrain from using idiomatic expressions.
ULTIMATE FACTS - those which are essential to a one’s cause of action or
defense; The fact is essential if its omission renders such incomplete.
Take note of the elements of cause of action.

74

Example: G is drafting a complaint for collection of an unpaid loan. In the
complaint, G states that she granted money to L, defendant, and that L had
received such money. Such allegation already establishes G’s right of collection
and L’s correlative obligation to pay.
But if by sheer inadvertence, G failed to state that the obligation had already
matured and a demand was made, then her complaint failied to make out a cause
of action. Maturity and demand are ultimate facts.
AMENDED RULE: The pleading must not only state ultimate facts but also include
the evidence on which the party-pleader relied for his claim.
RULE 8. Section 7. Action or defense based on document. - Whenever an
action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the
substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the
pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the
pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading.
OLD RULES: Evidentiary facts are not supposed to be stated in the pleading, as
they are brought out during the trial.
Evidentiary facts - the facts which will prove the ultimate facts.
ILLUSTRATION: On March 1, 2020, F called up the defendant K by phone and
demanded payment from him. On March 3, 2020, F sent a letter demanding
payment from the K. F also sent again demand letters on March 5, 10, and 15,
2020. F, by riding a car with his wife, personally went to the post office to send the
letters via registered mail on the given dates.
Q1: What kind of facts are narrated above?
A1: The fact of maturity and demand are ultimate facts. But those regarding the
number of times he sent the demand letter, that he went to post office, etc, are
evidentiary facts.
Q2: Which facts should F put forth in his complaint?
A2: As per the amended rules, all facts – ultimate and evidentiary – must be stated
in the pleading, but it must be guided by the ULTIMATE FACTS RULE, where such
averment must be done in a manner that the pleader would not go into full, specific
detail to the point as to make his pleading very long and voluminous. But even
documentary and object evidence must now be contained in the pleading, as
provided by Section 6, Rule 7 (discussed earlier).
Galeon’s suggested answer for Q2: “the defendant obtained a loan of money
from him evidenced by the promissory described in the complaint, with a copy
thereof attached to the complaint; that the obligation fell due; that he made
repeated demands for the defendant to pay, evidenced by the demand letters
dated March 3, 5, 10, and 15, all of 2020, but despite repeated demands he
refused to pay.”
RULE: A party-pleader may cite the law on which his claim is based.
LIMITATION: He must not make any conclusions of fact or law and is not
required to state matters presumed by law, or those which are in the domain of
judicial notice.
ILLUSTRATION: L’s property was taken by the state for public purpose. He then
filed a case for payment of just compensation. In this case, L is now permitted to
cite Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provides:
“Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” BUT
he must NOT provide mere conclusions of facts of law.
De Dios v. Bristol Laboratories
G.R. No. L-25530, Jan. 29, 1974
The statement in the pleading that the defendant acted “willfully, maliciously,
unlawfully and arbitrary manner” is considered a mere conclusion of law,
unless the same is supported by facts aptly set forth in the pleading and
supported by evidence attached thereto.
The pleader is not also required to state matters presumed by law, or those
which are in the domain of judicial notice.
Example: In action of breach of contract of carriage, the plaintiff need not state in
the pleading that the driver acted negligently. The failure to make such allegation
in the complaint is not fatal, since such negligence is presumed under the Civil
Code, that whenever there is a breach of contract of carriage, there is a
presumption of negligence on the part of carrier. It is not for the passenger to prove
that the common carrier is negligent.
It is for the common carrier to prove that it is not negligent. After all, Art. 1756 of
the Civil Code provides: “In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common
g
carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless
they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles
1733 and 1755.”
In like manner, in a pleading, the pleader need not state that the month of April
consists of just 30 days, as the court can simply take judicial notice of this fact.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses. — A party may set
forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or
hypothetically, either in one cause of action or defense or in separate
causes of action or defenses. When two or more statements are made in
the alternative and one of them if made independently would be
sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of
one or more of the alternative statements.
This Section relates to the following:
where a party may, in one pleading state in the
Rule 2, Section 5
alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action
Rule 3, Section 6 on permissive joinder of parties
Rule 3, Section 13 on alternative defendants
RULE: A party may set forth in one pleading two or more statements of a
claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, even if the same be
inconsistent.
Where two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of these
statements is sufficient, then the pleading is already deemed sufficient, even
if the other statement or statements are insufficient.
ILLUSTRATION: T is the registered owner of a certain parcel of land. S entered
T’s property without permission, but T did not also interpose any objection during
the time that S physically entered the property.
After 3 months from the entry, T finally decided to drive S out. T sent a letter,
demanding that S vacate the property, where such was ignored. That person
simply ignored your demand letter. T referred the matter to the Office of the
Barangay Chairman, supposedly for mediation, but S did not show up. So, T wants
to file a case for ejectment is at quandary whether the case is one for forcible entry
or one for unlawful detainer.
Q: What is T’s remedy?
A: In his complaint, T should make alternative or hypothetical statements:
(i) The person entered the property and deprived T possession thereof by
strategy or stealth
– purportedly to establish a case for forcible entry
(ii) Assuming arguendo that you had tolerated his entry into, and occupancy
thereof, by your passivity or inaction, such possession becomes nonetheless
illegal when you served upon him a letter demanding that he vacate the
property, thereby making such ‘tolerated possession’ illegal
– purportedly to establish a case for unlawful detainer
If T’s first statement is found to be insufficient to make out a case for forcible entry,
the complaint remains valid for as long as the other statement – pertaining
to the case for unlawful detainer -- is found to be sufficient.
La Mallorca v. CA
G.R. No. L-20761, July 27, 1966
FACTS: Beltran, his wife, and their 3 minor daughters boarded the Pambusco
bus owned by La Mallorca. When they reached their point of destination, they
all disembarked from the bus, but the father went back to the bus to get his
bayong which he had left behind. Unknown to him, his second minor daughter
followed him.
Because she followed him, an accident occurred, which crushed the
daughter’s skull.
Spouses Beltran filed a case for damages. The trial court found defendant La
Mallorca liable for breach of contract of carriage.
On appeal to the CA, La Mallorca claimed that there could not be a breach of
contract in the case, for the reason that when the child met her death, she was
no longer a passenger of the bus involved in the incident and, therefore, the
contract of carriage had already terminated. Although the CA sustained this
theory, it nevertheless found the defendant-appellant guilty of quasi-delict and
held the latter liable for damages, for the negligence of its driver, in accordance
with Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
75

On appeal to the Supreme Court, La Mallorca contended that the Court of
Appeals erred in holding it liable for quasi-delict considering that respondents’
complaint was for breach of contract.
RULING: The inclusion in the complaint of averment for quasi-delict,
while incompatible with the other claim under the contract of carriage, is
permissible under Section 2 of Rule 8 of the New Rules of Court, which allows
a plaintiff to allege causes of action in the alternative, be they compatible with
each other or not, to the end that the real matter in controversy may be
resolved and determined.
NOTE: The same approach or legal recourse may also be resorted to by the
defendant.
ILLUSTRATION: X is sued for collection of an alleged monetary loan. But X never
signed any contract of loan or a promissory note. How should X defend himself?
In defending the suit, X may argue that:
(i) The action is unfounded because the money was given to you by way of a
gift or donation, AND
(ii) Even assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that plaintiff gave the money to you by
way of loan, the filing of the action had long prescribed.”
NOTE: During the trial, however, X might have to make up his mind on which
defense to pursue. But by then, an informed decision may be made since
evidence would have already been presented by the plaintiff.
GALEON’S ADVICE: Put forth said defenses, albeit conflicting - knowing full well
that under Section 1, Rule 9, defenses and objections not pleaded in the answer
are deemed waived, subject to some exceptions mentioned therein.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Conditions precedent. — In any pleading, a general averment
of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be
sufficient.
RULE: It is enough to make a general averment anent the performance or
occurrence of the conditions precedent. It is not required that the same
should be stated in full detail. You need not state in details of how you
complied with any such condition precedent.
RECALL:
CAUSE OF ACTION ¬RIGHT OF ACTION ¬ ACTIONS PRECEDENT
Instances that are required to be done before one may institute a legal action:
1. Tender of payment is required before making a consignation (Art. 1256 of the
Civil Code)
2. Prior resort to barangay conciliation proceedings in certain cases (Chapter 7,
Title I, Book III LGC)
3. Earnest efforts toward a compromise must be undertaken when the suit is
between members of the same family and if no efforts were in fact made, the case
must be dismissed (Article 151 of the Family Code)
4. Exhaustion of administrative remedies before resorting to judicial action (Lopez
v. City of Manila)
5. Arbitration proceedings, especially when the contract between the parties
provides for such mechanism before recourse to judicial action.
ILLUSTRATION: N wanted to oust W who is occupying N’s property. Since N and
W reside in the same locality, N referred the matter to the Office of the Barangay
Chairman, then to the Lupong Tagapmayapa for conciliation-mediation, but such
efforts failed.
In filing the case in court, N needs not state in his complaint that “on the second
day of February 2020, N lodged a formal complaint before the Office of Barangay
Chairman; that on the third day of February 2020, defendant W was served with
summons directing him to appear before the Brgy. Chairman, ... xxx”.
What is required is a general averment of performance of conditions
precedent in order to vest the plaintiff his right of action.
Therefore, it is sufficiently to state that the matter had been referred first to the
Office of the Barangay Chairman/Lupong Tagapamayapa for conciliation and
mediation, but such efforts failed, leading to the issuance of a Certification to File
Action.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Capacity. — Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be
sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative
capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons
that is made a party, must be averred. A party desiring to raise an issue
as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue
g
or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial,
which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within
the pleader’s knowledge.
The legal capacity of the party-disputants to sue or be sued must be averred.
Usual averments:
ü Of legal age, since legal capacity cannot be presumed
ü Corporation duly organized under Philippine laws
ü Others: (graph)
ILLUSTRATION: In the first few paragraphs in a complaint, personal
circumstances of the disputants are always stated:
1) Plaintiff Otaner M. Noelag is a Filipino, of legal age, and resident of BR 119 Purple
Duke Street, Briza Subdivision, Nangka, Consolacion, Cebu. For facility and convenience,
plaintiff may be served with the notices and processes of this Honorable Court through
his counsel, at the address hereinafter given.
2) Defendant RMG Corporation is a domestic corporation, duly organized and existing
under Philippine laws, with principal place of business at M.L. Quezon Highway,
Maribago, Lapu- Lapu City, at which it may be served with summons and other processes
of this Honorable Court. Defendant is primarily engaged in hotel and resort business, as
it, in fact, owns and operates the Imperial Palace Waterpark Resort and Spa, located at
M.L. Quezon Highway, Maribago, Lapu-Lapu City.
In this case, if the defendant corporation would dispute plaintiff’s legal capacity to
sue, then it shall do so by making a specific denial in its answer and even
raise that by way of affirmative defense, and it shall include therein such
supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge –
e.g. by attaching to its pleading a copy of plaintiff’s alleged Birth Certificate
showing that he is not yet of legal age.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. — In all averments of
fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must
be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, or other condition
of the mind of a person may be averred generally.
RULE:
HOW STATED
Fraud, Mistake Particularly
Malice, Intent, Knowledge, other
Generally
condition of the mind
ILLUSTRATION: Because A was duped into buying a fake gold bar, he filed a
case against the seller R, asking for rescission of the contract of sale and the
reimbursement for payment.
In A’s complaint, he cannot casually allege that “Plaintiff was duped or defrauded
by the defendant into buying gold bar.” That allegation is not sufficient.
A should state concisely, clearly, and methodologically how the fraud took place.
STATE: “On 01 April 2020, defendant went to plaintiff’s house and introduced
himself as the CEO of RMG Mining Corporation; that defendant presented to the
plaintiff an identification card purportedly showing that he, the defendant, is the
CEO RMG Mining Corporation; that, there and then, the defendant presented to
the plaintiff an alleged 24 karat gold bar, weighing 500 grams, and offered the
same for sale to the plaintiff for a measly sum of P500,000.00; that the defendant
represented and warranted to the plaintiff that it was a genuine and authentic 24
karat gold bar; the defendant even presented to the plaintiff a supposed
certification from the Central Bank of the Philippines showing that it was pure gold;
and that faithfully relying on defendant’s representation and warranties, plaintiff
bought the supposed gold bar for a discounted price of P450,000.00; that plaintiff
76

was horrified to learn later that the alleged gold bar is fake, as it is but made of
nickel, when plaintiff had it tested by, as he wanted to pawn it at, ML pawnshop
....xxx,”
Why can malice, intent, knowledge and others be stated generally? To fathom
what is in the other person’s mind. Therefore, it is permitted to state that “defendant
acted with malice aforethought when he offered the supposed gold bar for sale to
the plaintiff.”
SECTION 6
Section 6. Judgment. — In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic
or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer,
it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth
matter showing jurisdiction to render it. An authenticated copy of the
judgment or decision shall be attached to the pleading.
This rule deals with the invocation of res judicata.
ILLUSTRATION: D is the defendant in a case, who sought for the dismissal of the
case on the ground of res judicata. In doing so, D must present to the court an
authenticated copy of the previous judgment attached to his Answer of Motion to
Dismiss. It is not required of D to establish that the court had jurisdiction over the
presented case, since the rules presume that the judgment therein is valid.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Action or defense based on document. - Whenever an action
or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the
substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the
pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the
pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading.
ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT - one which is the basis or the foundation of the
cause of action or defense and not merely an evidence of the cause of action or
defense (Araneta, Inc. v. Lyric Film Exchange). It is the very heart and soul of
your cause of action or defense, not merely an evidence thereof.
SITUATION: In an action for collection of sum of money based on a promissory
note, such promissory note is not just an evidence of the plaintiff’s cause of action,
but it is the very cause of action or foundation of his cause of action.
As for the defendant in that action, the receipt, if any, is not only evidence of his
defense but is the very foundation of his defense.
If it happens that plaintiff previously sent demand letters to the defendant, such
demand letters, while relevant and important in the case, are not considered
actionable documents.
Guidelines for Actionable Documents
AMENDED RULE: The only permissible way to plead and actionable document is
to set forth the substance of such instrument or document in the pleading, and
the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit,
which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading.
OLD RULE: One is permitted NOT to attach an actionable document to his
pleading, for as long a copy of said actionable document is set forth in the pleading.
This could be done by simply quoting the instrument verbatim.
OLD:
The defendant issued to the plaintiff a promissory note, viz: `01 February 2019
For value received, I promise to pay Otaner Noelag or order the sum of Php500,000.00, Philippine
currency, on or before 01 March 2019.
Sgd: Waldimar Bigotilyo’
AMENDED:
1. Plaintiff Otaner Noelag is Filipino, of legal age, xxx of legal age xxx;
2. Defendant Waldimar Bigotilyo is likewise Filipino, of legal age, xxxxxxx;
3. Sometime on 01 February 2019, defendant Waldimar Bigotilyo secured a loan from
plaintiff Otaner Noelag for the sum of Php500,000.00, Philippine currency, payable not
later 01 March 2019. Copy of the said Promissory Note hereto attached as Annex “A”,
forming integral part hereof;
4. The account is now overdue, and defendant Waldimar Bigotilyo failed and still fails to
pay the same unto and in favor of Plaintiff Otaner Noelag, despite the demand letter sent
by plaintiff to the defendant under date of 02 March 2019;
NOTE: The old and amended rules only really differ in the manner of pleading the
actionable document. It remains that the actionable document must be attached
to the pleading.
g
Guidelines for Non-Actionable Documents
AMENDED RULE: An analysis of Section 6, Rule 7 and section 7, Rule 8 allows
one to argue that Non-Actionable Documents need not be attached to the
complaint, as it is enough that such is stated or averred therein.
OLD RULE: A non-actionable document, being in the nature of an evidentiary fact,
need not be attached to the pleading or complaint.
Analysis: Section 6, Rule 7 of the Amended Rules reveals that while the judicial
affidavits of the witness are required to be attached to the pleading, the same is
not expressly mentioned or required with respect to the documentary and object
evidence – other than an actionable document, of course. It merely requires that
these (other) documentary and object evidence be STATED in the pleading.
Galeon’s advice: As this remains to be clarified by the Supreme Court, the most
prudent thing to do is to likewise attach the demand letter aforesaid to the
complaint. There is no harm in doing that. Besides, it is better to err at the side of
caution.
SECTION 8
Section 8. How to contest such documents. - When an action or defense
is founded upon a written instrument, or attached to the corresponding
pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due
execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse
party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he or she
claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply
when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument
or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original
instrument is refused.
How would you contest an actionable document attached to the pleading?
Read Section 8, Rule 8! Basically: (1) Specifically deny it; (2) Such specific
denial must be under oath; and (3) You should set forth the facts you claim to be
true
SITUATION: In an action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff attached to
the complaint the promissory note evidencing the loan. The defendant wished to
contest the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note. In this
case, the defendant must in his answer, specifically deny under oath the
genuineness and due execution thereof and set forth what he claims to be
the facts. Denial under oath is obtained if the answer has a jurat. But in current
usage, this means that the answer must be verified.
Failing to make such specific denial under oath, would deem the defendant to have
admitted the due genuineness and due execution of such actionable document.
But what is specific denial? It basically means that the party has complied with
Section 10, Rule 8.
RULE 8. Section 10. Specific denial. — A defendant must specify each
material allegation of fact the truth of which he or she does not admit
and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters
upon which he or she relies to support his or her denial. Where a
defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he or she shall
specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the
remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made to
the complaint, he or she shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a
denial.
What is genuineness? “Genuineness” is meant that the document is not
spurious, fake, counterfeit, intercalated, or of different import on its face from the
one executed by the party (Bough v. Cantiveros).
What is due execution? “Due execution” is meant that the document was signed
voluntarily and knowingly by the party whose signature appears thereon; that if
signed by somebody else, such representative had the authority to do so; that it
was duly delivered; and that the formalities were complied with (Hibberd v. Rhode).
CONT OF SITUATION: If the defendant fails to specifically deny under oath the
genuineness of the promissory, he is deemed to have admitted that:
1. The party whose signature it bears signed it, or that is signature appearing
therein is authentic;
2. If the instrument is signed by another person, that other person is his agent and
that said person really signed for him under his authority;
3. At the time it was signed, the instrument was in the words and figures exactly
as set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it, or that it was not tampered
with;
4. The document was delivered; and
5. The formal requisites of the law, if any, (such as, but not limited seal,
notarization or revenue stamp) have been complied with or waived.
77
 g

The admission drawn from the failure to make a denial under oath of the
EFFECT OF NON-DENIAL BY DEFENDANT genuineness and due execution of an actionable document is a JUDICIAL
ADMISSION, and as such, is CONCLUSIVE and cannot be contradicted
City of Cebu v. CA unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake that no such
G.R. No. 109173, July 5, 1996 admission was made, as provided for in Section 4, Rule 129 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence.
RULING: All documents attached to a complaint, the due execution and
genuineness of which are not denied under oath by the defendant, must be SITUATION TO TAKE NOTE OF: If it is the defendant who attaches an actionable
considered as part of the complaint without need of introducing evidence document in his answer (e.g. receipt evidencing payment of an unpaid loan, in an
thereon. action for collection of sum of money), the plaintiff, if he wishes to contest such
receipt, should file a verified reply, specifically denying therein the due the
Galeon: The actionable document not denied need not be formally offered in genuineness and the execution of such receipt and setting forth what he claims to
evidence. the facts, in accordance with Section 8, Rule 8 of the Amended Rules, and in
conjunction with Section 10, Rule 6 of the Amended Rules:

EFFECT OF PRESENTATION AS EVIDENCE OF ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT RULE 6. Section 10. Reply. — All new matters alleged in the answer are
DESPITE NON-DENIAL deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims
arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth
Generally, non-denial of an actionable document attached to the complaint in an amended or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file
renders it unnecessary to present such as evidence, because the defendant a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document to
would have been deemed to have admitted its due genuineness and due his or her answer. xxx
execution. (Googi: no need to use as evidence bec the defendant isn’t contesting
it) SUPER NOTE: Even if the party fails to specifically deny an actionable document
under oath, he is not precluded from setting forth the other defenses, such as:
But in the event the plaintiff still presents such as evidence, the plaintiff (or 1. Fraud;
defendant, as the case may be) is deemed to waive the implied admission by 2. Mistake;
the defendant of the authenticity of the document.
3. Compromise;
4. Payment;
Yu Chuck v. Kong Li Po
G.R. No. L-22450, Dec. 3, 1924 5. Statute of Limitations;
6. Estoppel;
Where a document is executed by an agent on behalf of his principal, the 7. Want of consideration;
failure of the adverse party to deny its authenticity under oath, constitutes and 8. Minority;
admission of the genuineness and due execution of the document as well as 9. Imbecility;
of the agent's authority to bind the principal. 10. Imperfection in writing, or that the instrument fails to express the true
agreement of the parties; or
But where a case has been tried in complete disregard of the rule and the 11. There is intrinsic ambiguity in the writing
plaintiff having pleaded a document by a copy, presents oral evidence to prove
the due execution of the document as well as the agent's authority and no WHEN SPECIFIC DENIAL IS NOT REQUIRED
objection are made to the defendant's evidence in refutation, the rule will be 1. The adverse party (against whom the actionable document is presented) does
considered waived. not appear to be a party to the instrument (he does not sign the document, or the
same is not supposedly signed on his behalf); or
Koh v. Ongsiaco 2. When compliance with an order of inspection of the original instrument is
G.R. No. 11106, Jan. 27, 1917 refused;
3. The document appended to the pleading is not actually an actionable document
The plaintiff, after hearing the answer of the defendant, did not in writing and (or that it is merely an evidentiary matter, like a demand letter in an action for
on oath deny the genuineness and proper insertion of the words "at the will of collection of sum of money), in which even an unverified pleading controverting
both parties" in the contract Exhibit 1. Nevertheless, the defendant, in allowing the same would suffice.
proof to be presented as to whether the said words were inserted before or
after the contract was signed by the parties and certified to before a notary
SECTION 9
public, and as to whether they were inserted with the knowledge of the plaintiff,
consented that the questions should be submitted to the court and waived his
Section 9. Official document or act.- In pleading an official document or
right to claim that the phrase was inserted with the knowledge and
official act, it is sufficient to aver that the document was issued or the act
consent of the plaintiff lessee.
was done in compliance with law.
ILLUSTRATION: In an action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff attached
RULE: An official act or document may be pleaded by expediently alleging in
to the complaint the promissory note evidencing the loan. In his answer, defendant
the pleading that the document was issued or the act was done in compliance with
failed to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution thereof
the law.
and set forth what he claims to be the facts.
ILLUSTRATION: The plaintiff stated in his complaint, “Cebu City Edgardo Labella
Q1: What are the effects of the defendant’s failure to deny the genuineness of the
issued Memorandum No. 2020-233, on March 15, 2020, directing all offices in city
promissory note?
hall to adopt a four-day workweek as a precautionary measure against COVID-
19.” Is such enough?
A1: The defendant is deemed to have impliedly admitted the due genuineness and
execution of the promissory note. There is no need on the part of the plaintiff to
In this case, there is no need to further state that his act is valid, or he acted in
prove during the trial that the signature appearing in the promissory note is that of
accordance with law. Therefore, the pleading Labella’s official act is valid.
the defendant. There is even no need on the part of the plaintiff to formally offer
said promissory note after presentation of his evidence in chief.
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS INVOKING RANDOM SHIT
Q2: What if by inadvertence, the plaintiff, during the trial, still presented evidence
to prove the authenticity of defendant’s signature on the promissory note? LAW THINGS INVOKED
Section 3, Rule 8 Conditions precedent
A2: The plaintiff, in effect, is thereby deemed to have abandoned or waived such Section 5, Rule 8 Conditions of the mind
implied admission by the defendant of the document’s authenticity (an admission, Section 6, Rule 8 Judgment
which would have been favorable to the plaintiff). The defendant (despite his Section 9, Rule 8 Official document or act
earlier implied admission) can now introduce evidence tending to prove that the
signature in the promissory note is not his. SUMMARY OF AVERMENTS THAT MUST BE DONE WITH PARTICULARITY

TAKE NOTE OF THE RULING: Yu Chuck vs. Kong Li Po & Koh vs. Ongsiaco are LAW SHIT
now of doubtful validity of in the light of the subsequent ruling: Section 4, Rule 8 Capacity to sue and be sued
Section 4, Rule 8 Legal existence of any party to sue or be sued
Bell Carpets International Trading Corp. v. CA Section 5, Rule 8 Fraud or mistake
G.R. No. 75315, May 7, 1990
SECTION 10
78

Section 10. Specific denial. — A defendant must specify each material
allegation of fact the truth of which he or she does not admit and,
whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon
which he or she relies to support his or her denial. Where a defendant
desires to deny only a part of an averment, he or she shall specify so
much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder.
Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of a material averment made to the complaint, he
or she shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.
MODES OF MAKING A SPECIFIC DENIAL
1. The defendant must specify each material allegation of fact, the truth of which
he does not admit and whenever practicable shall set forth the substance of the
matters which he will rely upon to support the denial
2. When a pleader desires to deny only a part or a qualification on an averment,
he shall specify so much of it as true and material and he shall deny the remainder
3. Where the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint, he shall so
state, and this shall have the effect of a denial
(1) The defendant must specify each material allegation of fact, the truth of
which he does not admit and whenever practicable shall set forth the
substance of the matters which he will rely upon to support the denial
SAMPLE:
Paragraph 7(a) is specifically denied, the truth being that respondent was forced to leave
the conjugal dwelling, together with their four (4) children, because petitioner, then drunk
as usual, violently hit respondent several times during arguments. Petitioner’s coping
mechanism when confronted with domestic problems, is to resort to excessive drinking.
Since petitioner would become so unreasonable and violent every time he got drunk,
respondent and their children had to leave the conjugal dwelling and stay at her parents’
house for a month to protect her and their children from petitioner’s continued verbal
and physical abuses.
NOTE: The mere use of the words “specifically denies,” without any further support
for the denial is hollow or empty. (Agton v. CA)
(2) When a pleader desires to deny only a part or a qualification on an
averment, he shall specify so much of it as true and material and he shall
deny the remainder
SAMPLE:
Paragraph 2 of the Complaint is admitted, insofar as it is alleged that respondent is of legal
age, married, and a Filipino citizen. The allegation that respondent is presently residing in
Sta. Monica Homes, Timpolok Babag I, Lapu-Lapu City is specifically denied, the truth
being that, from the time petitioner and respondent separated de facto on 17 March 2004
and up to the present, respondent has been residing in Maryville Subdivision, Talamban,
Cebu City.
NOTE: Where a fact is alleged with qualifying words or language, and the words
of the allegation as so qualified or modified are just literally denied, the qualifying
circumstances alone are denied, while the fact itself is admitted (Blume v.
McGregor) (don’t worry, you’ll understand this if you read until the end)
In such situation, the defendant’s denial is a NEGATIVE PREGNANT, and is
equivalent to an admission.
Galofa v. Nee Bon Sing*
G.R. No. L-22018, Jan. 17, 1968
FACTS: Galofa filed a complaint against the Nee Bon Sing for the recovery of
possession of and to quiet title over a certain parcel of land.
In his complaint, Galofa alleged that:
“4. That plaintiff however, despite the foregoing, was unable to take actual
possession of the property due to an unwarranted adverse claim of rights of
ownership and possession by the defendant and/or his tenant or encargado,
Abion Pantilone, alleging sale by a certain Fe Nicolas of said property to
defendant, which if true, had no right whatsoever to legally dispose the above-
described property not being the owner thereof, aside from the fact that the
defendant is not allowed under the law to own and possess real properties
being an alien, pursuant to the Constitution and/or the Krivenko case”
In his answer, defendant Nee Bon Sing manifested:
“3. That the defendant denies the material averments contained in paragraph
4 of the Complaint, the truth being, that the defendant never asserted title of
ownership to the property described in the Complaint to anybody, much less
to the herein plaintiff in virtue of any deed of conveyance executed in favor of
the defendant by one Fe Nicolas, nor claimed any possessory right over the
said property, either by himself or through another.”
g
The lower court rendered judgment on the pleadings, declaring the plaintiff the
owner of the property and ordering the defendant to deliver possession of the
property to the plaintiff.
RULING: The lower court committed no reversible error in rendering the
appealed judgment.
The defendant's denial is, therefore, a negative pregnant, which is
equivalent to an admission.
"A denial in the form of a negative pregnant is an ambiguous pleading, since
it cannot be ascertained whether it is the fact or only the qualification that is
intended to be denied." (41 Am. Jur. 429)
"Where a fact is alleged with some qualifying or modifying language, and the
denial is conjunctive, a 'negative pregnant' exists, and only the qualification
or modification is denied, while the fact itself is admitted. Ison v. Ison, 115
SW 2d. 330, 272 Ky. 836." (28 Words & Phrases 314)
Galeon’s Analysis: This case is about possession of a parcel of land. In the
above case, defendant merely denies having asserted title in virtue of any
deed of conveyance executed in his favor by one Fe Nicolas, but defendant
did not specifically deny the allegation in the complaint that he effectively
denied the plaintiff of, or that the plaintiff was unable to take, actual
possession of the litigated property.
Googi: A Negative Pregnant occurs when a denial is ambiguous, since it
cannot be ascertained if the fact or the qualifying words are the ones assailed.
The effect of a Negative Pregnant is that the qualification is denied but the fact
is admitted.
ILLUSTRATION: The complaint alleges that “the defendant surreptitiously and
maliciously entered into, and actually occupied, plaintiff’s property.”
In the answer, defendant simply averred that “the foregoing allegation is
specifically denied, in that is it never true that defendant surreptitiously and
maliciously entered into, and occupied, plaintiff’s property.”
Q: What is the effect of the defendant’s statements?
A: The defendant basically admitted that he did indeed entered and occupied
plaintiff’s property. He just didn’t do it surreptitiously and maliciously.
His allegation in his complaint therefore, is a negative pregnant because of the
denial’s ambiguity. In effect, while the qualification is denied. the fact is admitted.
It would have been different if the defendant categorically stated to that “he never
actually entered and occupied plaintiff’s property, in any manner and under any
circumstances,” or words of similar import.
(3) Where the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint, he
shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial
SAMPLE:
2.0. Paragraph 13 of the complaint is denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as the truth of facts alleged therein, more so that there is nothing in the complaint
which shows or even hint that plaintiff underwent psychological therapy.
This kind of denial should be availed of with sincerity and in good faith,
and not for the purpose of delay.
Capitol Motors v. Nemesio Yabut
G.R. No. L-28140, Mar. 19, 1970
RULING: Denial is unavailing if the fact to which want of knowledge is asserted
is to the knowledge of the court so plainly and necessarily within the
defendant’s knowledge that his averment of ignorance must be probably
untrue
Philippine National Bank v. Utility Assurance & Surety Co. Inc.
G.R. No. L-39215, Sept. 1, 1989
In an action for collection of sum of money, where the Real Estate Mortgage
and the promissory note signed and executed by the defendant are attached
to the complaint, the defendant cannot just casually aver in his answer
that he has no knowledge about the same. Either he admits the due
execution and genuineness thereof or specifically denies the same.
Defendant’s posturing that he has no knowledge about the said documents is,
under that circumstance, is empty and hollow; hence, it is akin to an admission.
SECTION 11
79
 g

Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. —
Material averments in a pleading asserting a claim or claims, other than
those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed
admitted when not specifically denied.
GENERAL RULE: The fact is deemed admitted if there is failure to make a
specific denial of a material averments in a pleading.
EXCEPTIONS: Even where there is a failure to make a specific denial, the
following matters are NOT deemed admitted:
1. Amount of unliquidated damages (like moral and exemplary damages)
2. Immaterial allegations (Worcester v. Lorenzana)
3. Incorrect conclusions of facts drawn from facts set out in the complaint
4. Conclusions of law
5. Default (Section 1, Rule 9)
6. Annulment of marriage (Article 48, Family Code)
7. Legal Separation (Article 60, Family Code)
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: If what is claimed is liquidated damages
(which the penalty expressly agreed upon and stipulated in an instrument), the
same is admitted if there is a failure to make a specific denial.
PLEADINGS INCLUDED:
ü compulsory counterclaims
ü cross-claims
ü third-party complaints (Valdez v. Paras)
ü reply, if any.
SECTION 12*
Section 12. Affirmative defenses. — (a) A defendant shall raise his or her
affirmative defenses in his or her answer, which shall be limited to the
reasons set forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6, and the following grounds:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending
party;
2. That venue is improperly laid;
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied
with.
Second postulate
The Amended Rules still allow the filing of a motion to dismiss prior to the filing
of the answer, if it is based on any or all of the grounds enumerated under
second paragraph of Section 5(b), Rule 6.
OPINION: It appears that the second postulate is the correct one,
The filing of a motion to dismiss prior to the filing of the answer is STILL
ALLOWED, if it is based:
(1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
(2) there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause; or
(3) the action is barred by a prior judgment; and,
(4) that the claim is barred by statute of limitations.
As the foregoing submission finds meaning and support under:
RULE 9. Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses
and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer
are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record 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 or by
statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
RULE 15. Section. 12. Prohibited motions. — The following motions shall
not be allowed:
(a) Motion to dismiss except on the following grounds:
1) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
2) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the
same cause; and
3) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute
of limitations;
GUIDELINES FOR THIS MOTION TO DISMISS SHIT
#1
BASICALLY:

(b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity

shall constitute a waiver thereof.

(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above affirmative defenses
within thirty (30) calendar days from the filing of the answer.

(d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the first paragraph of

Section 5(b), Rule 6, the court may conduct a summary hearing within
fifteen (15) calendar days from the filing of the answer. Such affirmative
defenses shall be resolved by the court within thirty (30) calendar days
from the termination of the summary hearing.

(e) Affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the subject of a motion

for reconsideration or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus,
but may be among the matters to be raised on appeal after a judgment
on the merits.

NOTE: This is a new ass provision.

OLD RULES: The affirmative defenses that are actually enumerated in Section
12, Rule 8 of the Amended Rules are grounds for filing of a Motion to Dismiss
under Rule 16 of the Old & Present Rules.

DOES SECTION 12, RULE 8 OF THE AMENDED RULES ALTOGETHER

PROHIBIT THE FILING OF A MOTION TO DISMISS?

To answer this, we must also consider Section 5, Rule 6, which enumerates three
grounds that a defendant may plead in his answer by way of affirmative defense.

Section 5, Rule 6 – worded in a permissive manner: “may”

Section 12, Rule 8 – worded in a restrictive manner: “shall”

With this in mind, it would ostensibly appear that there are two postulates
on whether the Amended Rules now proscribe the filing of a motion to
dismiss.

First postulate
The Amended Rules altogether prohibit the filing of a motion to dismiss prior to, or
in lieu of, filing of the answer. Any and all grounds for filing a motion to dismiss
should just be pleaded in the answer by way of affirmative defenses.

80
 g

In more detail:

81
 g

#2 #5

#3

SECTION 13

Section 13. Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein. — Upon

motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no
responsive pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon motion made by
a party within twenty (20) calendar days after the service of the pleading
upon him or her, or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court
may order any pleading to be stricken out or that any sham or false,
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be stricken out
therefrom.
#4
STRIKING A PLEADING - that the pleading will be deemed erased as if it was
never filed; may be done in whole or in part; may be initiated by a party-pleader or
motu proprio by the court

ILLUSTRATION: In an action for recovery of parcel of land, the plaintiff averred in

his complaint that the defendant is an adulterer. Such is a condition which, even if
true, has no bearing or relation to the issue in such case.

If such be the case, the defendant may move to strike out such impertinent,
irrelevant, and scandalous allegation, and this the defendant should do before
filing his answer to the complaint.

But even without such motion from the defendant, the court may, on its own
initiative, and at any time or even after the defendant had already filed his
answer to the complaint, direct that such allegation be stricken out for being
impertinent, irrelevant, or scandalous.

EFFECT OF STRIKING OUT A PLEADING

No prejudice to appropriate sanctions that may be meted out to the pleader and/or
his lawyer, which may even include criminal prosecution for libel.

NOTE: If the scandalous matter is contained in the Rejoinder (Section 10, Rule
6), then the motion to strike out the same may be filed by the plaintiff within 20
days after service of the Rejoinder.

RULE 9 – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

SECTION 1

82

Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. — Defenses and
objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are
deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record 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 or by
statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
GENERAL RULE: Defenses and objections not pleaded in a Motion to Dismiss
or Answer will be deemed waived.
EXCEPTIONS: The court shall dismiss the claim when it appears from the
pleadings or evidence that: JLRP
1. The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim
2. There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause
3. The action is barred by prior judgment
4. The action is barred by the statute of limitations.
HIGHKEY NOTE: Always remember that lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter can be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal, because
jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and cannot be waived.
(Tijam v. Sibonghanoy)
NON-APPLICABLILTY OF THE GENERAL RULE
When an omitted defense is belatedly raised during the trial but which the party-
disputants nonetheless submitted to the court for resolution, such defense will
not be deemed waived & the court may rule on such issue. (Florentino Atillo III
vs. CA, G.R. No. 119053, Jan. 23, 1997)
ILLUSTRATION: In an action for collection of unpaid loan, defendant filed his
answer in which the only affirmative defense that he interposed is payment.
During the trial, however, he presented evidence tending to prove that his
obligation has been extinguished by way of novation, and, for one reason or
another, the plaintiff did not interpose any objection to such evidence and that
he even prayed the court to rule on that issue. The court, in that situation, may
tackle and resolve such issue on novation of obligation.
JUST REMEMBER THE RULES ON MOTION TO DISMISS, ANSWER AND THE
SHIT ON THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS!!
Rule #1
The filing of a motion to dismiss prior to the filing of the answer is allowed for as
long it is based on any or all of the following grounds: (1) that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) that there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause; or (3) that the action is barred by
a prior judgment; or (4) that the claim is barred by statute of limitation. These are
the four permissible grounds for filing a motion to dismiss;
Rule #2
If no such motion to dismiss is filed based on any or all of the above-enumerated
grounds, then any or all of the said grounds must be pleaded in the answer by
way of affirmative defenses, together with any or all of the grounds enumerated
under items (1) to (5) of paragraph (a), Section 12, Rule 8, of the Amended Rules
(which are no longer grounds for filing a motion to dismiss, as they should just be
pleaded in the answer by way of affirmative defenses);
Rule #3
But even if any or all of the above-enumerated grounds are not raised in the
motion to dismiss or pleaded in the answer by way of special defenses, the case
or claim may still be dismissed on any or all of those grounds, when it appears
from the pleadings or the evidence on record 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, or by
statute of limitations, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the Amended Rules.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up barred.
— A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall be
barred.
RULE: A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall be barred,
as a compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim that a defending party has at the time
he files his answer shall be contained therein.
(Read in conjunction with Section 8, Rule 11)
Reyes v. CA
G.R. No. L-28466, Mar. 27, 1971
The reason for the foregoing rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits and to
dispose of the whole matter in controversy in one action, and adjustment
of defendant’s demand by counterclaim rather than by independent suit
g
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed a complaint against Galeon for allegedly causing
damage to his car due to Galeon’s reckless driving. In Galeon’s answer, he
denied that he was driving recklessly. He asserted that it was Waldi who was
negligent in driving, and that he was the one who hit and damaged Galeon’s car.
But Galeon did not pray that Waldi be adjudged liable instead for the damages.
During the trial, Galeon cannot present evidence to establish the claim of the
damages for his car, more so if Waldi will object thereto.
Q1: If, after trial, court finds that, indeed, Waldi is at fault, can the court award
damages in favor of Galeon?
A1: No, the court cannot, in the very same case, award damages in my favor.
Q2: But can Galeon file a separate case for the damages?
A2: Not anymore. The rule is very clear. A compulsory counterclaim not set up
shall be barred.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Default; Declaration of. — If the defending party fails to answer
within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the
claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such
failure, declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall
proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his or
her pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the
claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may be
delegated to the clerk of court.
(a) Effect of order of default. — A party in default shall be entitled to
notices of subsequent proceedings but shall not take part in the trial.
(b) Relief from order of default. — A party declared in default may at any
time after notice thereof and before judgment, file a motion under oath to
set aside the order of default upon proper showing that his or her failure
to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
and that he or she has a meritorious defense. In such case, the order of
default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as the judge may
impose in the interest of justice.
(c) Effect of partial default. — When a pleading asserting a claim states a
common cause of action against several defending parties, some of
whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case
against all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the
evidence presented.
(d) Extent of relief to be awarded. — A judgment rendered against a party
in default shall neither exceed the amount or be different in kind from
that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages.
(e) Where no defaults allowed. — If the defending party in an action for
annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal separation
fails to answer, the court shall order the Solicitor General or his or her
deputized public prosecutor, to investigate whether or not a collusion
between the parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for
the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not
fabricated.
For better appreciation, we will dissect the foregoing provisions:
“If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor,
the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the
defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in
default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting
the claimant such relief as his or her pleading may warrant, unless the
court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such
reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court.”
DEFAULT - a procedural concept that occurs when the defending party fails to file
his answer within the reglementary period
TWO STAGES OF DEFAULT
1. DECLARATION OF DEFAULT
- phase contemplated under the first sentence of Section 3, Rule 9 of the Amended
Rules
- happens when a party-disputant fails to file his answer to the pleading asserting
a claim against him, within the time specified by Rule 11 of the Amended Rules or
within such extended time as allowed by the court
Note: this is the only instance wherein a defendant can properly be declared in
default
83

2. RENDITION OF JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
- the phase contemplated under the second sentence of Section 3, Rule 9 of the
Amended Rules
- when the court would render judgment granting the claimant such relief his
complaint and/or the facts proven may warrant
Note: This can be had also under Section 3(c) and Section 5, Rule 29 of the
Amended Rules, when a party refuses to answer any question in oral examination
in a deposition or any written interrogatory under Rule 25, or comply with the
modes of discovery. (Discussed further later)
PARTIES THAT MAY BE AT DEFAULT
(which conforms to Section 1, Rule 3)
ü Original defendant
ü Original plaintiff (with respect to his permissive counterclaim)
ü Co-defendant (with respect to the cross-claim)
ü Third-party defendant (with respect to his third-party complaint)
ELEMENTS OF DEFAULT jmnph
1. The court must have validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
defending party either by service of summons or voluntary appearance (Laus v.
CA)
2. The claiming party must file a motion to declare the defending party in
default (Sablas v. Sablas)
NOTE: The rule is different in environmental cases.
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. Part II, Rule 1. Section
15. Effect of failure to answer. - Should the defendant fail to answer the
complaint within the period provided, the court shall declare defendant
in default and upon motion of the plaintiff, shall receive evidence ex parte
and render judgment based thereon and the reliefs prayed for.
The motion is just for the reception of the evidence ex parte.
3. The defending party must be notified of the motion to declare him in default
(Momarco Import Company, Inc. v. Villamena)
4. The claiming party must prove that the defending party failed to file his answer
within the time therefor (Momarco Import Company, Inc. v. Villamena)
Gonzales v. Francisco
G.R. No. 25976, Dec. 16, 1926
In some cases, failure to furnish plaintiff with copy of answer is ground
for default.
Also in: Ramirez and Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76366, July
3, 1990
Bañares v. Flordeliza, et al
G.R. No. 29355, July 20, 1928
This failure is not fatal, because the declaration of default may be set aside
by a timely and proper motion with the requisite affidavit of merit and
provided no loss of time occurs.
Gojo v. Goyala
G.R. No. L-26768, Oct. 30, 1970
A plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a COMPULSORY
COUNTERCLAIM cannot be declared in default, principally because the
issues raised in the counterclaim are deemed automatically joined by the
allegations in the compliant.
Also in: Metal Engineering Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 95631, October 28, 1991
5. There must be a hearing of the motion to declare the defending party in default.
Philippine British Co. v. De Los Angeles
G.R. No. L-25748, Mar. 10, 1975
An order of default cannot be issued motu proprio, except in environmental
cases.
Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. Romillo
G.R. No. 64276, Mar. 4, 1986
As no default could be had without any motion, then if the defendant filed
his answer, albeit belatedly, where no motion is filed yet to declare him
in default and/or where no order is issued yet declaring him in default,
g
and there is no showing that he intended to delay the case, then his
answer should be ADMITTED.
Also in: San Pedro Cineplex Properties, Inc. v. Heirs of Manuel Humada
Enano, G.R. No. 190754. Nov.17, 2010
EFFECTS OF DEFAULT
(a) Effect of order of default. — A party in default shall be entitled to
notices of subsequent proceedings but shall not take part in the trial.
1. Party in default loses his standing in court.
Cavili v. Florendo
G.R. No. 73039, Oct. 9, 1987
Loss of standing in court is the consequence of an order of default. He cannot
appear therein, adduce evidence, and be heard nor take party in trial. He
loses his right to present his defense, control the proceedings and examine the
witnesses. He has no right that his pleadings will be acted upon or to object to
evidence. The reception of evidence may even be delegated by the judge to
the clerk of court.
GENERAL RULE: A party in default loses his standing in court.
EXCEPTION: If the party in default is the plaintiff of the case with respect to the
defendant’s permissive counterclaim, OR the if the party in default is the
defendant with respect to a cross-claim, then he will NOT LOSE STANDING IN
COURT.
Navarro v. Bello
G.R. No. L-11647, Jan. 31, 1958
Where it is the plaintiff who is declared in default (with respect to the
PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM of the defendant), the plaintiff is not divested
of his standing in court or right to produce evidence on his complaint nor
will it per se entitle the defendant to immediate judgment on the counterclaim.
Consequence of Plaintiff in Default:
1. The plaintiff is not allowed to introduce evidence to oppose defendant’s
permissive counterclaim once the defendant presents evidence therefor.
2. The defendant can still participate in the trial and present evidence to meet or
oppose the main complaint.
WHAT THE PARTY IN DEFAULT CANNOT DO: Appear, adduce, be heard, take
part in trial.
WHAT THE PARTY IN DEFAULT CAN DO: Take the witness stand and testify
for his co-defendants who have not been declared in default.
Cavile v. Florendo
G.R. No. 73039, Oct. 9, 1987
There is no reason why the non-defaulting defendants should be deprived of
the testimony of the party in default and thereby also suffer the consequences
of the latter’s procedural omission.
NOTE: In an expropriation proceeding, the defendant who fails to answer may
still present evidence as the amount of compensation to be paid for his property
(Section 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court)
2. The party in default is still entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings,
but cannot take part in trial.
REMEMBER: The exception in the Narvarro v. Bello case, where the plaintiff,
even if in default, is still not divested of his standing with respect to the
defendant’s counterclaim.
S.C. Johnson & Sons v. CA
G.R. No. 54040, Aug. 14, 1990
But "being declared in default does not constitute a waiver of rights except that
of being heard and of presenting evidence in the trial court. In other words, a
defaulted defendant is not actually thrown out of court. While in a sense it
may be said that by defaulting he leaves himself at the mercy of the court, the
rules see to it that any judgment against him must be in accordance with law.
RATIONALE: The defaulted defendant is still entitled to notice of the subsequent
proceedings (although he cannot take part of the trial), because he still has the
right to appeal in the case and, in his appeal, he may assign as error the order
84

of the court declaring him in default or refusing to set such order of default as
the case may be.
NOTE: The defaulted defendant must be served with amended pleadings and
supplemental pleadings.
If the defendant was declared in default upon the original complaint, and where
the filing of the amended complaint (involving substantial amendments) resulted
in the withdrawal of the of the original complaint, the defaulted defendant,
therefore, is entitled to file an answer to the amended complaint as to which
he was not in default. If the supplemental pleading introduced new claims, he
is entitled to plead thereto as jurisdiction had not been acquired over him
with respect thereto.
Googi: A party is only declared in default pertaining to specific pleadings. So, if
the defendant was only in default because of his late response to the initial
complaint, this does not automatically make the defendant in default for
subsequent, amended or supplemental complaints. Lol idk I might understand
this wrong hahahaha shit bogo ko
RELIEF FROM ORDER OF DEFAULT
(b) Relief from order of default. — A party declared in default may at any
time after notice thereof and before judgment, file a motion under oath
to set aside the order of default upon proper showing that his or her
failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence and that he or she has a meritorious defense. In such case,
the order of default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as
the judge may impose in the interest of justice.”
Don’t be stupid and think that there is no remedy for one who is declared to be in
default.
REMEDY AFTER NOTICE OF ORDER OF DEFAULT AND BEFORE
JUDGMENT
1. Party in default may file a motion under oath to set aside the order of
default and show proper grounds for such.
Villareal v. CA
The motion under oath must properly show that:
1. The failure to answer was due to FRAUD, ACCIDENT, MISTAKE, OR
EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE (FAME), and
2. He has meritorious defense contained in an affidavit of merit.
Also in: Lui Enterprises, Inc. Zuilig Pharma Corporation, G.R. No. 193494
2. The Motion must be accompanied by a statement of evidence.
Development Insurance Corp. v. IAC
G.R. No. L-71360, July 16, 1986
Thus his motion must be accompanied by a statement of the evidence which
he intends to present if the motion is granted and which is such as to
warrant a reasonable belief that the result of the case would probably be
otherwise if a new trial is granted. A default will not be lifted if the defendant
has no valid defense.
Ponio v. IAC
G.R. No. 66782, Dec. 20, 1984
An affidavit of merit is not necessary, where a motion to lift the order of
default is grounded on the very root of the proceedings, as when the court
has not acquired jurisdiction over the defendants.
Lim Tanhu, et al. v. Ramolete, et al.
G.R. L-40098, Aug. 29, 1975
Also, if the motion to lift an order of default is under oath and contains the
reasons for the failure to answer, as well as his defenses, a separate
affidavit of merits is not necessary
Atty Galeon: It is advisable though to just attach an affidavit of merit to avoid
any technical objection on that matter. Again, it is better to err at the side of
caution.
REMEDY AFTER JUDGMENT AND BEFORE JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL
AND EXECUTORY
1. The party in default may file a motion for new trial under Rule 37 of the Rules
of Court; OR
g
2. If the motion for new trial is denied, or where he did not file one, he may also
file an appeal from and on the merits (from the judgment by default) within the
period for perfecting an appeal (15 days from notice of the judgment by default,
except in habeas corpus where the period to perfect an appeal is 48 hours).
In his appeal, he must assail such judgment by default as being contrary to the
evidence or the law and thereby raising, as one of the issues in that appeal, the
propriety of declaring him in default (Lina vs. Court of Appeals; Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan).
REMEDY AFTER THE JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL AND EXECUTORY
1. The party in default may file a petition for relief under Rule 38, within 60 days
from notice of the judgment but within 6 months from entry thereof (Lina vs.
Court of Appeals; Republic vs. Sandiganbayan)
2. He may file for certiorari
Vincilan v. Vano
17 SCRA 758
[WARNING: I checked the title and citation online, both don’t show up on
CDAsia & Google]
An order of default is interlocutory and is not appealable.
Viacrusis v. Estenzo
G.R. No. L-18457, June 30, 1962
But if the order of default is patently void or improvidently issued, as
where the reglementary period to answer had not yet expired, then
CERTIORARI will lie even without waiting for the default judgment.
Matute v. CA, et al.
G.R. No. L-26751, Jan. 3, 1969
Where a default judgment was already rendered, he can also resort
immediately to certiorari to challenge both the order of default and the
judgment by default, not necessarily the merits or correctness of the
judgment.
Zenith Insurance Corp. vs. Purisima, et al.
G.R. No. 57535, May 24, 1982
Where a writ of execution was already issued, an appeal would not be
a speedy and adequate remedy.
REMEMBER THIS SHIT ABOUT DEFAULT:
Montinola v. Planters Bank
G.R. No. 66183, May 4, 1988
The Courts should be liberal in setting aside orders in default, for a default
judgment is frowned upon and are not looked upon with favor, since such
judgment may amount to a positive and considerable injustice to the
defendant and the possibility of such serious consequences necessitates a
careful examination of the grounds upon which the defendant asks that it be
set aside
Fuentes vs. Macandog
G.R. No. L-45445, June 16, 1978
After all, default is not a mechanical gadget to accelerate judicial litigations.
IMPLIED LIFTING OF ORDER OF DEFAULT
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 148154, Dec. 17, 2007
FACTS: Former President Marcos was declared in default for failure to file an
answer. His representatives failed to file a motion to order the order of default.
But his son, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., and as executor of his father’s estate, filed
a motion for leave to file a responsive pleading and three motions for extension
of time to file an answer which where all granted by the Sandiganbayan.
Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. also filed a motion for bill of particulars which was also
granted.
85

RULING: While it is true that there was no positive act on the part of the
court to lift the default order because there was no motion nor order to that
effect, the anti-graft court’s act of granting respondent the opportunity to
file a responsive pleading meant the lifting of the default order on terms the
court deemed proper in the interest of justice. It was the operative act lifting
the default order and thereby reinstating the position of the original defendant
whom respondent is representing, founded on the court’s discretionary power
to set aside orders of default.
EFFECT WHEN ORDER OF DEFAULT IS LIFTED:
The party declared in default will be restored of his standing in court.
Jaime v. Maniego
G.R. No. L-9421, June 29, 1957
If the court sets aside the order of default, the defendant is restored to his
standing and rights in the action. However, proceedings already taken are not
to be disturbed.
Denso, Inc. v. IAC, et al.
G.R. No. 7500, Feb. 27, 1987
It is within the discretion of the court to re-open the evidence submitted by the
plaintiff and enable the defendant to challenge the same, as by cross-
examination of plaintiff’s witnesses or introducing countervailing evidence.
DBP v. CA
G.R. No. L-49410, Jan. 26, 1989
The lifting of an order of default does not revert the case to its pre-trial stage,
much less render a second pre-trial mandatory.
EFFECTS OF PARTIAL DEFAULT
(c) Effect of partial default. — When a pleading asserting a claim states
a common cause of action against several defending parties, some of
whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case
against all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the
evidence presented.
PARTIAL DEFAULT – that instance where there are several defending parties,
and while some answer, others fail to do so
EFFECTS OF PARTIAL DEFAULT
1. The answer that was filed NOT in default may inure to the advantage to those
in default, provided some requirements
Imson v. CA
G.R No. 106436, Dec. 3, 1994
A party in default loses his standing in court. But where there are several
defendants in a case and some of them file their answer while one or a few of
them are declared in default, the answer thus filed may inure to the advantage
of the defaulted defendant(s) if:
(1) the complaint asserting a claim states a COMMON CAUSE OF ACTON
against the defendants, and
(2) all the defendants are indispensable parties to the case.
ILLUSTRATION: X filed case for recovery of a parcel of land against A, B, and
C, three being siblings and who all occupied the litigated parcel of land under
claim, and in the concept, of co-ownership having allegedly. A and B jointly filed
an answer, but C did not file join with them in filing that answer, much less has
he filed a separate answer to the complaint.
In this case, even if C is declared in default, he would stand to be benefited by
the answer filed by his siblings, A and B.
Thus, in the above, situation, if the answering defendants, A and B succeed in
defeating X’s claim, such positive result inures also to the benefit of C.
Case in point: Bringas vs. Hernando, G.R. No. 51933, September 24, 1986
Q: What if both A and B died during the pendency of tha action, and the case was
dismissed as to both of them, will the same rule apply?
A: No, the answer filed by A and B will now NOT inure to the party in default, C.
Note: The same rule applies where the defenses alleged by A and B are personal
to them,
ILLUSTRATION: X filed case for recovery of a parcel of land against A, B, and
C, three being siblings and who all occupied the litigated parcel of land under
claim, and in the concept, of co-ownership having allegedly. In their joint answer,
g
A and B allege that they were forced and coerced by C to enter the property. C
did not file an answer and was subsequently declared in default.
In this case, since the defense interposed by A and B are personal to them, their
allegations will not inure to the benefit of C.
Case in point: (by analogy) Luzon Surety vs. Magbanua, 72 SCRA 255
EXTENT OF RELIEF
(d) Extent of relief to be awarded. — A judgment rendered against a
party in default shall neither exceed the amount or be different in kind
from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages.
RULE: Any judgment ruled in favor of the party in default should not be different
from what was prayed for.
Unliquidated damages – those not stipulated by the parties
Edward A. Keller & Co., Ltd. v. COB Group Marketing, Inc.
G.R. No. L-68097, Jan. 16, 1986
If the evidence presented against the defendant should not justify a judgment
for the party (if defendant wins), the claim must be dismissed.
If an unfavorable judgment against the defaulted defending party be justifiable
(if plaintiff wins), it cannot, however, exceed in amount or different from what
is prayed for in the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, and the prohibition
holds true even if the complainant is able to prove during the reception of
evidence a higher amount of damages.
NOTE: The rule does not prohibit an award for unliquidated damages, for as long
as the amount thereof is specified in the complaint and supported by the evidence.
DEFAULTS NOT ALLOWED
(e) Where no defaults allowed. — If the defending party in an action for
annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal separation
fails to answer, the court shall order the Solicitor General or his or her
deputized public prosecutor, to investigate whether or not a collusion
between the parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for
the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not
fabricated.”
CASES WHERE DEFAULTS ARE NOT ALLOWED:
1. Declaration of nullity of marriage;
2. Annulment of marriage;
3. Legal separation
THEREFORE: If the respondent failed to file an answer, the court shall not, as it
cannot, issue an order declaring the respondent in default.
The court will just order the Solicitor General or his deputized public prosecutor, to
investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties exists.
If there is no collusion, the court will order the SG to intervene for the State in
order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated.
In other words, there will be RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE EX PARTE, without the
court issuing an order of default.
CASES WHERE THERE IS ALSO RECEIPTION OF EVIDENCE EX PARTE
AFTER A PARTY FAILS TO FILE AN ANSWER
CASE BASIS
Section 14, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Rules of
Small claims cases Procedure for Small Claims Cases as
amended
Writ of Amparo cases Section 11(h), Rules on the Writ of Amparo
Writ of Habeas Data Section 13(h), Rules on the Writ of Habeas
cases Data
Case governed by the
Section 19(h) of the 1991 Revised Rules on
Rules on Summary
Summary Procedure
Procedure
RULE 10 – AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Amendments in general. — Pleadings may be amended by
adding or striking out an allegation or the name of any party, or by
correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken or inadequate
allegation or description in any other respect, so that the actual merits of
86

the controversy may speedily be determined, without regard to
technicalities, in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner.
AMENDMENT OF PLEADING - the process of making changes or alterations
therein
WAYS OF AMENDING
(1) adding or striking out an allegation or the name of any party,
(2) correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or
(3) a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description in any other respect.
Amendments are allowed so that the actual merits of the controversy may
speedily be determined, without regard to technicalities, in the most expeditious
and inexpensive manner.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right. — A party may amend his
pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive
pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10)
calendar days after it is served.
AMENDING A COMPLAINT
As a matter of right
1. Any time before a responsive pleading is served
2. Even if the defendant has already filed Motion to Dismiss, since MTD is not a
responsive pleading (Paeste v. Jaurigue; Bautista v. Maya-Maya Cottages, Inc)
2. Even if such MTD has already been submitted for resolution (Republic v. Ilao)
3. Even where such MTD has already been granted by the court for as long as the
amended pleading is filed before such order of dismissal attained finality (Dauden
Hernandez v. De los Angeles; Bautista v. Maya-Maya Cottages, Inc.)
Not a matter of right / When leave of court is necessary
1. Amending for the second time, even if the defendant has not filed his answer to
the complaint. If the plaintiff wants to amend his complaint for the second time, he
needs to obtain a leave of court
2. When the defendant has already filed an answer, plaintiff needs to obtain leave
of court before amending his complaint even if such purported amendment is to
be done for the first time.
3. After defendant has already submitted a rejoinder, pursuant to Section 10, Rule
6 (See “REMEMBER!” for further discussion)
AMENDING A REPLY
As a matter of right
1. Any time within 10 calendar days after it is served
2. Any time before the filing of a reply by the plaintiff
Not a matter of right / when leave of court is necessary
1. After that 10-day period, the reply may be amended but only upon leave of court
2. Amending for a second time even if the plaintiff has not yet filed a reply
2. When the plaintiff has already filed a reply even if such purported amendment
would be done for the first time
REMEMBER! Under Section 10, Rule 6 of the Amended Rules the defendant is
allowed to file a rejoinder if an actionable document is attached to plaintiff’s reply.
Atty. Galeon: It is submitted that the plaintiff cannot amend his reply as a matter
of right, or that he needs leave of court so to amend his reply, if the defendant
has already submitted a rejoinder within the ten-day period from the time of
the filing of such reply.
NOTE: Amendments of Rejoinders will follow the same rule as Amendment of
Replies.
By inadvertence or otherwise, the Amended Rules is also silent as to the
amendment of a rejoinder. So, it is submitted that such rejoinder may likewise be
amended as a matter of right within 10 calendar days from the time it is served.
After such ten-day period, the rejoinder may be amended but only upon leave of
court.
SECTION 3
g
Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. — Except as provided in the
next preceding Section, substantial amendments may be made only
upon leave of court. But such leave shall be refused if it appears to the
court that the motion was made with intent to delay or confer jurisdiction
on the court, or the pleading stated no cause of action from the beginning
which could be amended. Orders of the court upon the matters provided
in this Section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice
to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard.
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS – introducing a new cause of action or a defense
or changing theory of a case; even if this is to confer jurisdiction on the court or
introduce a cause of action even where none actually existed at all at the time of
the filing of the pleading sought be amended.
RULE: (graph)
SUMMARY OF THE RULE
WHEN SHOULD SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS BE ALLOWED BY THE
COURT EVEN AFTER DEFENDANT HAS ALREADY FILED HIS ANSWER?
Should be granted by the court Should not be granted by the court
When it is made to correct a defect in When it is made with (1) intent to
the allegation of the original delay, (2) to confer jurisdiction, or (3)
complaint, because it failed to state to introduce a cause of action where
cause of action none existed at all at the time of the
filing of the pleading sought be
amended
ILLUSTRATION 1: A case for forcible entry is filed with the RTC (which has no
original jurisdiction over the case), involving a real property, the assessed value
of which is P500,000.00. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case. Without waiting for the resolution
of the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which
transformed the action for forcible entry into an action for quieting of title which
falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC (given the assessed value of the property).
Q: Is the amendment allowed?
A: Yes, because it is a matter of right. The defendant has not yet filed a
responsive pleading. Motion to Dismiss is not a responsive pleading. Here, the
admission of the amended pleading is a ministerial duty of the court. It
requires no positive action from the court. Since it would not be acting in this
regard, it could not be deemed as acting without jurisdiction.
Cases in point: Gumabay v. Baralin; Rosario v. Carandan
ILLUSTRATION 2: A case for recovery of unpaid rentals is filed with the MTC,
where the amount demanded is P700,000.00. Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the amount demanded exceeds the jurisdictional
amount of the MTC. Before any action could be taken on the motion to dismiss,
the plaintiff amended the complaint to make it an action for unlawful detainer
with prayer for payment of back rentals.
Q: Is the amendment allowed?
A: Yes, because it is a matter of right. The defendant has not yet filed a
responsive pleading. Motion to Dismiss is not a responsive pleading. Here, the
admission of the amended pleading is a ministerial duty of the court. It requires
87
 g

no positive action from the court. Since it would not be acting in this regard, it
could not be deemed as acting without jurisdiction. SECTION 4

Case in point: Soledad v. Mamangun
ILLUSTRATION 3: An action is filed for collection of an alleged unpaid loan.
When the complaint was filed the promissory note upon which the cause of action
is based has not yet actually matured. Before the defendant could file his answer
to the complaint, the promissory note fell due. Realizing the pitfall of the original
complaint, the plaintiff hastily amended the complaint to state therein that the
promissory note which served as the foundation of his complainant has already
fell due.
Q: Is the amendment allowed?
A: Yes, because it is a matter of right. The defendant has not yet filed a
responsive pleading. (apply by deductive reasoning the ruling in Swagman Hotels
and Travel Inc. vs. Court of Appeals; Surigao Mines Exploration Co. Harris)
Section 4. Formal amendments. — A defect in the designation of the
parties and other clearly clerical or typographical errors may be
summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, at its
initiative or on motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the
adverse party.
FORMAL AMENDMENT – clerical or typographical errors in a pleading
WHEN? At any stage of the action – before or after the filing of a responsive
pleading or during the pendency of the action
AT WHOSE INITIAVE? Motu proprio or upon motion
HOW DONE? Summarily by the court, provided there is no prejudice cause
thereby to the parties

ANALYSIS OF ILLUSTRATIONS Juasing Hardware v. Mendoza

In the above three examples, if the defendant in the pertinent action had already G.R. No. L-55687, July 30, 1982
filed an answer before the plaintiff could amend the complaint, such amendment
could not anymore be done as a matter of right. Verily, an amendment from sole proprietorship to name of owner is a mere
formal amendment and should thus be allowed.
Even if the plaintiff sought for a leave of court before amending the complaint, such
leave of court SHOULD BE REFUSED by the court, pursuant to Section 3, Rule SECTION 5
10 of the Amended Rules.
Section 5. No amendment necessary to conform to or authorize
In a situation where the plaintiff would seek for leave of court for amendment, such presentation of evidence. — When issues not raised by the pleadings are
amendment would have required the court to exercise sound judicial discretion. tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be
This requires the performance of a positive act by the court. If it grants leave of treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. No
court, it would be acting on a complaint without jurisdiction. amendment of such pleadings deemed amended is necessary to cause
them to conform to the evidence.
Therefore, if the plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint after the defendant had
already filed a complaint, his remedy is to WITHDRAW the case and FILE A Remember that defenses and allegations not pleaded in the pleadings will be
NEW AND DISTINCT COMPLAINT. But note that the docket fees already paid for deemed waived, as provided in Section 1, Rule 9.
the first complaint would be forfeited.
But under Section 5, Rule 10 of the Amended Rules, when issues not raised by
the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, such issues
ILLUSTRATION 4: An action for collection of an unpaid loan is filed in court. At shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
the time of the filing of the complaint the promissory note had already matured, but
the complaint failed to state that plaintiff already made a demand upon the MWSS v. CA
defendant to pay. Defendant had already filed his answer to the complaint.
G.R. No. L-54526, Aug. 25, 1986
Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint,
attaching thereto the amended complaint wherein he incorporated a new
This provision is premised on the fact that evidence has been introduced on
allegation, stating that he had actually made a demand upon the defendant to pay.
an issue not raised by the pleadings without any objection thereto being raised
by the parties.
Q1: Is that amendment substantial?
ILLUSTRATION: In an action for collection of unpaid loan, defendant filed his
A1: Yes.
answer in which the only affirmative defense that he interposed is payment.
During the trial, the defendant presented evidence tending to prove that his
Q2: Should the amendment be refused?
obligation has been extinguished by way of novation. But the plaintiff did not
interpose any objection to such evidence and that he even prayed the court to rule
A2: No, the amendment should be allowed, because at the time of the filing
on that issue.
thereof, the cause of action had already accrued, and the amendment is
merely intended to correct an allegation in the complaint which, by inadvertence
In this case, the court may tackle and resolve such issue on novation of obligation,
or otherwise, nonetheless failed to state a cause of action
albeit it was not raised in the pleadings.
Case in point: Tamayo v. San Miguel Brewery
RULE: No amendment is needed where the (1) complaint insufficiently states a
cause of action, and (2) such insufficiency was cured by evidence presented
Q3: Suppose, in the above problem, the promissory note had not yet matured
during trial
when the complaint was filed, and that it only matured after the defendant had
already filed an answer to the complaint. Is that curable by amendment of the
ILLUSTRATION: An action for collection of an unpaid loan is filed in court. At
complaint?
the time of the filing of the complaint the promissory note had already matured, but
the complaint failed to state that plaintiff already made a demand upon the
A3: No, because, no cause of action ever existed at all then the original complaint
defendant to pay. Defendant had already filed his answer to the complaint. Plaintiff
was filed and defendant had already filed an answer to the original complaint;
did not bother to amend his complaint. But during the trial, plaintiff introduced in
hence, amendment of the complaint is no longer a matter of right
evidence the demand letter which he sent to the defendant, and defendant did not
object thereto.
Cases in point: Swagman Hotels And Travel Inc. vs. Court of Appeals; Surigao
Mines Exploration Co. Harris
Q1: Can the court take cognizance of the demand letter?
Q4: What if the plaintiff sought for amendment after the defendant filed his answer
A1: Yes, and that’s allowed under Section 5, Rule 10 of the Amended Rules.
for the purpose of including an omitted allegation regarding compliance of the
earnest effort towards compromise agreement with family members?
Q2: Is there a need for the plaintiff to amend his complaint as he failed to state
cause of action?
A4: Amendment may be allowed by the court even after the defendant had already
filed an answer if the purpose of such amendment is to include an omitted
A2: There is no more need to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence
allegation regarding compliance of the earnest effort toward a compromise
presented – unlike under the previous rule.
agreement in a suit involving family members -- where such was really had.
NOTE: This cannot be made to apply where no COA existed at all at the time of
Case in point: Versoza v. Versoza
the filing of the pleading sought be amended and where a responsive pleading
has already been filed.
Note: In actual practice, the amended pleading is ordinarily attached to the motion
for leave to admit the original pleading.
88

Swagman Hotels And Travel Inc. v. CA
G.R. No. 161135, April 8, 2005
FACTS: This is an action for collection of unpaid loan. At the time of the filing
of the complaint, NONE of the promissory notes subject of the action was due
and demandable. The defendants filed their answer, raising as a defense lack
of cause of action. During the pendency of the action, two of the promissory
notes matured and the same were introduced in evidence.
RULING: With these findings of facts, it has become glaringly obvious that
when the complaint for a sum of money and damages was filed with the trial
court on 2 February 1999, no cause of action has as yet existed because
the petitioner had not committed any act in violation of the terms of the
three promissory notes as modified by the renegotiation in December 1997.
Without a cause of action, the private respondent had no right to maintain
an action in court, and the trial court should have therefore dismissed
his complaint.
Amendments of pleadings are allowed under Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure in order that the actual merits of a case may be determined in
the most expeditious and inexpensive manner without regard to
technicalities, and that all other matters included in the case may be
determined in a single proceeding, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits.
Section 5 thereof applies to situations wherein evidence not within the issues
raised in the pleadings is presented by the parties during the trial, and to
conform to such evidence the pleadings are subsequently amended on motion
of a party. Thus, a complaint which fails to state a cause of action may be
cured by evidence presented during the trial.
However, the curing effect under Section 5 is applicable only if a cause of
action in fact exists at the time the complaint is filed, but the complaint
is defective for failure to allege the essential facts.
For example, if a complaint failed to allege the fulfillment of a condition
precedent upon which the cause of action depends, evidence showing that
such condition had already been fulfilled when the complaint was filed may be
presented during the trial, and the complaint may accordingly be amended
thereafter. Thus, in Roces v. Jalandoni, this Court upheld the trial court in
taking cognizance of an otherwise defective complaint which was later cured
by the testimony of the plaintiff during the trial. In that case, there was in fact a
cause of action and the only problem was the insufficiency of the allegations
in the complaint. This ruling was reiterated in Pascua v. Court of Appeals.
It thus follows that a complaint whose cause of action has not yet
accrued cannot be cured or remedied by an amended or supplemental
pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action while the
case is pending. Such an action is prematurely brought and is, therefore, a
groundless suit, which should be dismissed by the court upon proper motion
seasonably filed by the defendant. The underlying reason for this rule is that a
person should not be summoned before the public tribunals to answer for
complaints which are immature. As this Court eloquently said in Surigao Mine
Exploration Co., Inc. v. Harris:
“It is a rule of law to which there is, perhaps, no exception, either at law or in
equity, that to recover at all there must be some cause of action at the
commencement of the suit. As observed by counsel for appellees, there are
reasons of public policy why there should be no needless haste in bringing up
litigation, and why people who are in no default and against whom there is yet
no cause of action should not be summoned before the public tribunals to
answer complaints which are groundless. We say groundless because if the
action is immature, it should not be entertained, and an action prematurely
brought is a groundless suit.
We are therefore of the opinion, and so hold, that unless the plaintiff has a
valid and subsisting cause of action at the time his action is commenced,
the defect cannot be cured or remedied by the acquisition or accrual of
one while the action is pending, and a supplemental complaint or an
amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of action is not
permissible.”
CAVEAT: The ruling would have been different if after the maturity of the
promissory notes and before the defendant could file his answer, the complaint
has been amended to allege the maturity of the promissory notes because, in
this situation, amendment is matter of right.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Supplemental pleadings. — Upon motion of a party, the court
may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit
him or her to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions,
occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the
pleading sought to be supplemented. The adverse party may plead
g
thereto within ten (10) calendar days from notice of the order admitting
the supplemental pleading.
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS - those which aver facts occurring after the filing
of the original pleadings and which are material to the mature claims or defenses
therein alleged
Chan v. Chan
569 SCRA 106
[WARNING: Citation and title don’t match, and the cases with the title and
citation don’t discuss supplemental pleadings either.]
A supplemental pleading exists side by side with the original. It does not
replace that which it supplements. Moreover, a supplemental pleading
assumes that the original pleading is to stand and that the issues joined with
the original pleading remain as issues to be tried in action. It is but a
continuation of the complaint. Its usual office is to set up new facts which justify,
enlarge or change the kind of relief with respect to the same subject matter as
the controversy referred to in the original complaint
ILLUSTRATION: Renato obtained a P1M loan from Waldi, payable in 1 year and
in 4 equal quarterly installments, and for which Renato issued 4 post-dated
checks. When the first two post-dated checks matured, Waldi presented the same
for payment but the same were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Waldi filed
a case for sum of money based on the first two post-dated checks which bounced.
But during the pendency of the case, the other two post-dated checks fell due
and were likewise dishonored by non-payment.
Q: Can Waldi subsequently file a supplemental complaint for the other two post-
dated checks?
A: Yes, provided that he obtains LEAVE OF COURT. A supplemental complaint
may be filed for installments that fall due after the filing of the complaint
Case in point: Asiatic Petroleum vs. Veloso
NOTE: A supplemental complaint must be based on matters arising
subsequent to the original complaint and that it should be related to the claim
or defense presented therein and founded on the same cause of action.
Leobrera v. CA
G.R. No. 80001, Feb. 27, 1989
FACTS: A obtained a housing loan from the bank, evidenced by a
promissory note. A few months thereafter A secured another loan from the
same bank – an agricultural loan, secured by another promissory note.
When the first promissory note fell due, A failed to pay, so the bank filed an
action for collection of the said promissory note. During the pendency of the
case, the second promissory note for the agricultural loan fell due, so the
bank filed a supplemental complaint to include the second promissory note
in the action.
ISSUE: Is the filing of the supplemental complaint proper?
RULING: NO. Although the parties are the same, yet the fact remains that the
two promissory notes pertain to different or separate loans.
Superclean Services Inc. v. CA
G.R. No. 107824, July 5, 1996
FACTS: Superclean Service Corp. is a company engaged in janitorial services.
The Home Development and Mutual Fund (HDMF) conducted a public bidding
for janitorial services to the offices of the HDMF for the year 1990. Superclean
won in the bidding and it was supposed to start providing janitorial services for
the year 1990. However, the HDMF refused to honor the award.
On November 8, 1989, Superclean filed in the RTC of Manila a complaint for
mandamus and certiorari against HDMF, alleging that at the public bidding for
janitorial services for the year 1990, it won as the lowest bidder but HDMF
refused, without just cause, to award the contract to them. However, 1990 had
elapsed or ended but the case was still on-going.
Superclean decided to file a supplemental complaint in 1991 alleging that,
because the contract of service was the furnishing of janitorial services for the
year 1990, the delay in the decision of the case has rendered the case moot
and academic without Superclean obtaining complete relief to redress the
wrong committed against it by HDMF, which relief now consists of unrealized
profits, exemplary damages and attorney‘s fees.
So, instead of pursuing its prayer for mandamus, Superclean sought for the
payment of damages to it through a supplemental complaint.
89

ISSUE: Is the filing of supplemental complaint proper in order to seek a
different relief in view of developments rendering the original complaint
impossible of attainment?
RULING: The transaction, occurrence or event happening since the filing of
the pleading, which is sought to be supplemented, must be pleaded in aid of a
party's right of defense as the case may be. But in the case at bar, the
supervening event is not invoked for that purpose but to justify the new relief
sought.
To begin with, what was alleged as a supervening event causing damage to
Superclean was the fact that the year for which the contract should have been
made had passed without the resolution of the case. The supervening event
was cited not to reinforce or aid the original demand, which was for the
execution of a contract in petitioner's favor, but to say that, precisely because
of it, petitioner's demand could no longer be enforced, thus justifying petitioner
in changing the relief sought to one for recovery of damages. This being the
case, petitioner's remedy was not to supplement, but rather to amend its
complaint.”
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMENDED PLEADING AND SUPPLEMENTAL
PLEADING
AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL
Amended pleadings refer Supplemental pleadings refer
As to
to the facts existing at the to those occurring after the
subject
time or original pleading filing of the original pleading
Amended pleading Supplemental pleading
As to effect
supersedes the original merely supplements
Original pleadings may be
amended without leave of A supplemental pleading
As to time
court before a responsive always needs leave of court
pleading is filed
In amended pleadings, the But there is no such
As to form amendment must be requirement in supplemental
appropriately marked pleadings
GENERAL RULE: Failure to answer a supplemental pleading is a ground for
dismissal. (Del Bros. v. IAC)
EXCEPTION: Where the basic and principal issue (which has been previously
traversed and joined by the answer) remained, there is no need to answer
supplemental pleading, and he will not be declared in default. (basis: Section 7,
Rule 11)
Section 7, Rule 11. Answer to supplemental complaint. — A supplemental
complaint may be answered within twenty (20) calendar days from notice
of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the
court. The answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the
supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed.
ILLUSTRATION: Galeon obtained a P1M loan from Waldi, payable in 1 year and
in 4 equal quarterly installments, and for which Galeon issued 4 post-dated
checks. When the first 2 post-dated checks matured, Waldi presented the same
for payment but the same were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Waldi then
filed a case for collection of unpaid loan based on the first 2 post-dated checks
which bounced, albeit, in his complaint, he likewise mentioned about, and even
attached copies of, the other two post-dated checks which have yet to mature but
he did not, as he could not, make a demand for the payment thereof.
After having been served with summons, Galeon filed his answer, whereby he
denied having obtained any such loan from Waldi. Galeon even denied under
oath the specimen signatures appearing in the 4 post-dated checks.
During the pendency of the case, the other two post-dated checks fell due and
were likewise dishonored by non-payment, such that Waldi filed a supplemental
complaint to cover the other two post-dated checks.
Q1: Does Galeon need to answer the supplemental complaint?
A1: No. The answer to the complaint shall then serve as the answer to the
supplemental complaint if no new supplemental answer is filed. And Galeon
cannot be declared in default if he does not file an answer to the supplemental
complaint.
Q2: Suppose, in Galeon’s answer, he actually admitted having obtained a loan
from Waldi and having issued the checks. But he interposed the defense that first
2 checks that bounced (subject of the original complaint) had already been
redeemed with cash, at face value. If Waldi subsequently filed, and was allowed
by the court, to file a supplemental complaint, with respect to the other 2 other
checks which subsequently bounced, for which the court directed me to file an
answer thereto, would Galeon’s answer to the original complaint stand as my
g
answer to the supplemental complaint in the event that Galeon would not file a
supplemental answer?
A2: No. Galeon’s answer to the original complaint would not serve as the answer
to the supplemental complaint, inasmuch as Galeon did not deny the obligation
and the issuance of the checks and more so that the said answer interposed a
defense that specifically pertains to the first 2 checks only; hence, Galeon may
be declared in default insofar as the supplemental complaint is concerned
relative to the other 2 checks
SECTION 7
Section 7. Filing of amended pleadings. — When any pleading is
amended, a new copy of the entire pleading, incorporating the
amendments, which shall be indicated by appropriate marks, shall be
filed.
RULE: Amendments to a pleading should be indicated in the amended
pleading, as by underscoring, enclosing them in quotation marks, putting them
in capital letters, etc., as would make them readily evident.
In actual practice, amendments are normally indicated in the pleading as by
underscoring the changes.
SECTION 8
Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An amended pleading
supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in
superseded pleadings may be offered in evidence against the pleader,
and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended
pleading shall be deemed waived.
GENERAL RULE: An amended pleading supersedes the pleading it amends.
EFFECTS:
ü The original the pleading is not physically expunged from the records of the
case.
ü Reference can thereby be made thereto, in that any statement contained
therein may be considered as an extrajudicial admission.
ü In order that the court may take it into consideration as such, it should be
formally offered in evidence.
ü No need of ipso facto service of summons to a defendant who already
appeared before court, but amended complaint would just have to be
served upon the defendant without need of another summons
ü If the defendant has not yet been served with summons under the original
complaint and such is amended, new summons should thus be served upon
the defendant. If the trial court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the
defendant, a new summons for the amended complaint is required (Vlason
Enterprises Corp. v. CA)
NOTE: This is the rule to be followed also with respect to newly impleaded
defendant or one who is impleaded only under the amended complaint. Summons
must also be served on the newly impleaded defendant, so that the court can
acquire jurisdiction over his person because, logically, the newly impleaded
defendant cannot be deemed to have already appeared by virtue of the summons
under the original complaint.
SITUATION: If in the original answer, the defendant admitted the obligation but
interposed the defense of payment. But later on, the defendant amended his
answer and totally denied having contracted a debt from the plaintiff, the
admission contained in the original answer may be received in evidence
against the defendant. Such original answer, however, should be introduced
formally in evidence by the plaintiff, as the court will not motu proprio take
judicial notice of that. If it is not offered in evidence, the admission contained
therein will not be considered.
Ruymann, et al. v. Director of Lands
G.R. No. 9845. Mar. 28, 1916
The rule is that the amended pleading supersedes the original pleading.
However, the filing of the amended pleading does not retroact to the filing
of the original pleading. Hence, the statute of limitations runs until the
filing of the amendment.
Verzosa v. CA
G.R. No. 119511-13, Nov. 24, 1998
But an amendment which merely supplements and amplifies facts originally
alleged in the complaint relates back to the date of the commencement of
the action and is not barred by the statute of limitations which expired after
the service of the original complaint. It is the actual filing in court (of the original
pleading) that controls and not the date of the formal admission of the amended
pleading.
90
 g

Seno v. Mangubat, et al.

G.R. No. L-44339, Dec. 2, 1987

However, the immediately preceding rule would not apply to the party who
was impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint which was filed
after the period of prescription had already lapsed. Hence the amended must
be dismissed as to such party who was thus belatedly included in the action.

ILLUSTRATION: Galeon obtained a P1M loan from Waldi, issued in 2 post-dated

checks, which would fall due on a similar date, but to be drawn against two different
drawee banks – PNB and BPI.

Gaelon did not pay the obligation, prompting Waldi to file a case for collection of
sum of money. Waldi filed the complaint on the last day of the prescription of
the action.

In the complaint that he filed, Waldi merely demanded payment for the PNB check,
as he forgot about the BPI check. After the filing of the complaint, Waldi realized
that he omitted the BPI check. H e hurriedly amended the complaint to include
the BPI check in the action and demand payment therefor, and to likewise include
an allegation that he actually made demands upon Galeon for the payment of the
two checks, and he filed the amended complaint even before Galeon could file my
answer to the original complaint.

Q1: Has the action prescribed insofar as the BPI check is concerned?

A1: Yes. The action has prescribed insofar as the BPI check is concerned. The
filing of the amended pleading does not retroact to the filing of the original
pleading, hence, the statute of limitations runs until the filing of the amendment
(Ruymann, et al. vs. Director of Lands)

Q2: Has the action also prescribed insofar as the PNB check is concerned?

A2: No. The action has not prescribed insofar as the PNB check is concerned.
An amendment which merely supplements and amplifies facts originally alleged
in the complaint relates back to the date of the commencement of the action and
is not barred by the statute of limitations which expired after the service of the
original complaint. It is the actual filing in court (of the original pleading) that
controls and not the date of the formal admission of the amended pleading
(Verzosa vs. Court of Appeals)

Q3: Suppose in the amended complaint, Waldi impleaded Randi as an additional

defendant, inasmuch as Randi likewise signed the two bum checks as a co-
signatory/joint signatory therein. Has the action prescribed as to him?

A3: Yes, both with respect to the PNB and the BPI Checks. The immediately
preceding rule as enunciated in Verzosa case would not apply to the party who
was impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint which was filed after
the period of prescription had already lapsed, hence the action must be dismissed
as to such party who was thus belatedly included in the action (Seno vs.
Mangubat)

91
 g

RULE 11 – WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Answer to the complaint. — The defendant shall file his or her
answer to the complaint within thirty (30) calendar days after service of
summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court.
FILING AN ANSWER BY THE DEFENDANT
OLD RULE: Defendant is given 15 days from service of summons to file his
complaint.
AMENDED RULES: Defendant is given 30 calendar days from service of
summons to file an answer to the complaint, unless a different period is fixed by
the court.
Instead of filing an answer, the defendant on March 19, 2020 filed a motion for
bill of particulars, seeking clarification on the perceived vague allegation on the
pleading. Acting on that motion for bill of particulars, the court denied the same
per its Order dated March 30, 2020, a copy of which was served upon and received
by the defendant on March 31, 2020.
A: Where defendant’s bill of particulars is denied, then he should file his answer
to the complaint within the remaining days of the original 30 calendar days
for filing an answer. Clearly, his period for filing an answer is clearly extended
or stretched, as his filing of a bill of particulars effectively interrupted the
period for filing an answer.
RULE 22. Section 2. Effect of Interruption. — Should an act be done
which effectively interrupts the running of the period, the allowable
period after such interruption shall start to run on the day after notice of
the cessation of the cause thereof.

RATIONALE FOR THE AMENDMENT: It is only proper that defendant is given a
longer period in view of the requirements under Section 6, Rule 7 that the judicial
affidavits of the witnesses shall already be stated, prepared, and attached to the
appropriate pleading, like an answer.
COMPUTATION OF PERIOD
RULE 22. Section 1. How to compute time. — In computing any period of
time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by
any applicable statute, the day of the act or event from which the
designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of
performance included. If the last day of the period, as thus computed,
falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the
court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day.
The day of the act that caused the interruption shall be excluded in the
computation of the period.
RULE: The day on which the defendant filed his bill of particulars SHALL BE
EXCLUDED in the counting of the period (meaning--the period that is deemed
consumed or wasted), as well as the day on which he was served with the order
denying his bill of particulars.
CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION: When the defendant filed the bill of
particulars on March 19, 2020, he still has 13 remaining calendar days within
which to file his answer. And this remaining 13 calendar days shall be counted
starting April 1, 2020 (the day after he received the order of denial on March 31,
2020). In fine, defendant has until April 13, 2020 within which to file his answer to
the complaint

ILLUSTRATION: The defendant was served with summons on March 1, 2020 Case in point: Labitad v. CA, G.R. No. 53877, July 17, 1995
(assume that it was a working day). Applying Section 1, Rule 22, the defendant
will have until March 31, 2020 to file his answer to the complaint (March 1 + 30 WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FILING A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE
days). REGLEMENTARY PERIOD FOR FILING AN ANSWER?

In computing the 30-day period to file an answer, exclude the day on which
summons was served on the defendant, include the last day within which to
file the required pleading.
If the last day to file the pleading–March 31, 2020–fell on a Saturday, a Sunday,
or was declared a legal holiday, the defendant could then file his answer on the
next business day–that is, April 1, 2020.
Note: This rule holds true even if the Bureau of Posts and its branches are open
on a holiday which happens to be the last day for filing a pleading. (Galang v.
WCC, et al., G.R. No. L-33928, March 29, 1972)
ALWAYS REMEMBER!
General rule: 30 days from service of summons
Exception: Unless the court fixes another period
Acosta-Ofalia v. Sundian
82 SCRA 412
Following the dismissal of his motion to dismiss, the defendant would have a
fresh period within which to file his answer to the complaint, thus:
The period for filing a responsive pleading commences to run all over again
from the time the defendant receives notice of the denial of his motion to
dismiss.
Atty. Galeon: This ruling has been abandoned by virtue of Section 4, Rule 16
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. BUT under the Amended Rules, Section
4, Rule 16 was not retained.
Does that mean that the Supreme Court wants to revert to its ruling in Acosta?

WHEN A LONGER PERIOD IS GIVEN TO THE DEFENDANT ADVICE: If you are the lawyer for the defendant whose motion to dismiss is
denied, file a motion for extension of time to file an answer, asking for
Case Time period Law another 30 calendar days for filing an answer, to be reckoned from the date of
The defendant is a your filing such motion for extension of time to file answer.
60 calendar days from
foreign private Section 2, Rule 11
service of summons And you should file this motion within the balance (and much better, on the last
juridical entity
The identity or 60 calendar days from day) of the original 30 calendar days for filing an answer. You can never go
whereabouts of the summons by Section 16, Rule 14 wrong with this approach–whether or not the denial of the motion to dismiss
defendant is unknown publication would have the effect of giving you a fresh period to file an answer, or just the
remaining balance of the original 30 calendar days reglementary period to file
There is
60 calendar days from answer.
extraterritorial service Section 17, Rule 14
notice
of summons
ANOTHER ADVICE: If you file a motion to dismiss and the same is denied, it would
an additional period of
be prudent to just file an answer afterwards, instead of filing a motion for
not more than thirty
reconsideration on the order denying your motion to dismiss; otherwise, you run
(30) calendar days to
The defendant files a the risk of being declared in default.
file an answer
motion for extension Section 11, Rule 11
A defendant is only
of time to file answer Golden Country Farm, Inc. v. Sanvar Dev’t Corp
allowed to file one
motion for extension of G.R. No. 58027, Sept. 28, 1992
time to file an answer
FACTS: Sanvar sued Golden Country Farm Inc. (GCFI). GCFI received the
The defendant files a
summons on March 5, 1980.
motion for bill of
Not less than 5
particulars before the Section 2, Rule 12
calendar days ? On March 20, 1980, GCFI filed a motion to dismiss, but it was denied by the
expiration of the period
court on May 2, 1980, and a copy of such denial order was received by GCFI
for filing an answer
on May 15, 1980. On May 30, 1980, GCFI filed a motion for reconsideration,
the resolution of which was held in abeyance by the court. Subsequently,
ILLUSTRATION: In an action, the defendant was served with summons on March
Sanvar filed a motion seeking to declare GCFI in default, and on February 16,
1, 2020 (assuming that it was a working day). The defendant had until March 31,
1981, the court denied GCFI’s motion for reconsideration and declared it to be
2020 to file his answer.
in default.

92
 g

RULING: GCFI received the denial order of its motion to dismiss on May 15,
1980; hence, by mathematical computation, the 15-day period to file an answer
provided in Section 1, Rule 77 of the Revised Rules of Court expired on May
30, 1980. However, on May 30, 1980, which was the last day to file its answer,
petitioner filed a joint motion for reconsideration, instead of filing an answer.
However, new material allegations in the amended complaint, if any, which
are not specifically denied are deemed admitted.
SECTION 4

In this regard, we share the opinion of the lower court that petitioner’s
joint motion for reconsideration which merely reiterated the grounds in
its motion to dismiss was pro forma and did not toll the running of the
period to file an answer.
In the case of PCIB v. Escolin, this Court ruled that a motion for reconsideration
which does not make out a new matter sufficiently persuasive to induce
modification of judgment will be denied and that a repetition of arguments or
grounds already discussed in prior incidents may properly be categorized as
merely for purposes of delay.
Section 4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim. — A counterclaim or
cross-claim must be answered within twenty (20) calendar days from
service.
Answer to a Compulsory Counterclaim – a plaintiff need not answer a
compulsory counterclaim and cannot be declared in default (Gojo v. Goyala;
Navarro v. Bello; Sarmiento v. Juan)
Answer to Permissive Counterclaim – answer within 20 days from service.
Failure does not necessarily divest him of his standing in court. (Navarro vs. Bello)

An answer, not a motion for reconsideration of the order denying its
motion to dismiss, should have been filed within the reglementary
period. The record does not disclose that the proper answer was in fact filed.
Withal, there can be no serious challenge to the reception of evidence for the
plaintiff thereafter.”
SECTION 2
Section 2. Answer of a defendant foreign private juridical entity. — Where
the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity and service of summons
is made on the government official designated by law to receive the
same, the answer shall be filed within sixty (60) calendar days after
receipt of summons by such entity.
When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity, summons may be served
to either: (1) its resident agent designated, (2) government official
designated, or (3) any of its officers, agents, directors or trustees within the
Philippines.
This is provided by Rule 14, Section 14.
Recipient of
Time period Legal basis
summons
Answer a cross-claim - answer within 20 days from service. Failure does not
necessarily divest him of his standing in court.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. — The time to
answer a third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be governed by the
same rule as the answer to the complaint.
The period to file AN ANSWER TO THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT shall be
governed by Sections 1, 2, or 3, all of Rule 11 of the Amended Rules.
The third-party defendant also has 30, 60, or 15 (anent amended complaint filed
upon leave of court) calendar days from service/receipt of summons or
amended complaint, as the case may be.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Reply. — A reply, if allowed under Section 10, Rule 6 hereof,
may be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days from service of the pleading
responded to.
This is in relation to Rule 6, Section 10. Recall:

Resident agent 30 calendar days from RULE 6. Section 10. Reply. — All new matters alleged in the answer are
Section 1, Rule 11
designated service of summons, deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims
arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth
Government official 60 calendar days after in an amended or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may
Section 2, Rule 11
designated receipt file a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document
Any of its officers, to his or her answer.
agents, directors or 30 calendar days from
Section 1, Rule 11
trustees within the service of summons A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege
Philippines facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to, said
actionable document.
SECTION 3
In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, the
Section 3. Answer to amended complaint. — When the plaintiff files an defendant may file a rejoinder if the same is based solely on an
amended complaint as a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the actionable document.
same within thirty (30) calendar days after being served with a copy
thereof. Basically: plaintiff has 15 calendar days from receipt of the complaint with attached
actionable document to file a reply. Congruently, defendant can file a rejoinder to
Where its filing is not a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the a plaintiff’s reply with attached actionable document.
amended complaint within fifteen (15) calendar days from notice of the
order admitting the same. An answer earlier filed may serve as the CAVEAT: The Amended Rules which now provides and allows the filing of a
answer to the amended complaint if no new answer is filed. rejoinder does not have an express provision on the reglementary period for
filing a rejoinder.
This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended counterclaim,
amended crossclaim, amended third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, and Galeon: I may be wrong on this, but it is my considered view that, inasmuch as
amended complaint-in-intervention. rejoinder is of similar footing with a reply, then rejoinder may thus be filed within
fifteen (15) calendar days from defendant’s receipt of the reply to which an
RULE: actionable document is attached.

Defendant must file Answer within 30 SECTION 7

Amendment as a matter of right days from service of amended
complaint
Defendant must file Answer within 15
days from notice of order admitting
the same
Amendment as not a matter of
This is on the assumption that the
right
amended complaint was attached to
the motion for leave to file/admit
amended complaint, as required
under Section 9, Rule 15
NOTE: Where no answer is filed to the amended complaint, the answer to the
original complaint may then serve as the answer to the amended complaint.
Section 7. Answer to supplemental complaint. — A supplemental
complaint may be answered within twenty (20) calendar days from notice
of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the
court. The answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the
supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed.
ANSWERS TO SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINTS - filed within 20 calendar days
from notice of the order admitting the supplemental complaint, unless a different
period is fixed by the court.
NOTE: There should be a court order for the reason that the filing and admission
of a supplement complaint needs leave of court.
93
 g

SECTION 8
Section 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. — A compulsory
counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party has at the time he
or she files his or her answer shall be contained therein.
Relate this to Section 7, Rule 6 and Section 2, Rule 9.
RULE: A compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim should be pleaded in the
answer, and not in any other pleading. Otherwise, it is barred.
Therefore, a PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM need not be set up in the answer,
as it can be prosecuted separately.
NOTE!! A plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a COMPULSORY
COUNTERCLAIM–where the purported answer thereto would just be a repetition
of the allegations in the complaint or where the issues raised in the counterclaim
are inseparable from those raised in the complaint – cannot be declared in default.
(Gojo vs. Goyala; Navarro vs. Bello; Sarmiento vs. Juan)
SECTION 9
Section 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer. — A
counterclaim or a cross-claim which either matured or was acquired by
a party after serving his or her pleading may, with the permission of the
court, be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by supplemental
pleading before judgment.
Relate this to Section 7, Rule 6; Section 2, Rule 9; and Section 8, Rule 11.
APPLICABILITY - If the counterclaim or cross-claim accrues only after the filing
of the answer, the same could not be pleaded therein
Note: A motion for extension of time to file answer should be filed before (and
expectedly near) the expiration of the original period to file an answer because
if it is filed after that, then there is no longer any period to extend.
Cathay Pacific Airways v. Romillo
G.R. No. 64276, Mar. 4, 1986
Even if the original or the extended period to answer has already expired, the
defendant can still file his answer belatedly, and he cannot be declared in
default, especially where no motion is yet filed to declare him in default and/or
where no order is yet issued declaring him in default, and there is no showing
that he intended to delay the case
Galeon: Out of courtesy to the court, file an Ex-parte Motion to Admit the Answer
and attach thereto the answer that is belatedly filed.
Also in: San Pedro Cineplex Properties, Inc. vs. Heirs of Manuel Humada Enano
While one motion for extension may be filed with respect to filing of an answer, the
rule prohibits the filing of a motion for extension for the filing of other
pleadings, like reply or rejoinder, as the case may be. However, and as provided
under the rules, the court may allow any other pleading to be filed after the time
fixed by these Rules.
SUMMARY OF THE RULES
PLEADING TIME PERIOD
30 calendar days (may be extended for
ANSWER another 30 calendar days) from service of
summons

REMEDY - the pleader may present such belated counterclaim via a ANSWER OF A PRIVATE FOREIGN CORPORATION
supplemental pleading, but this naturally requires permission or leave of court,
pursuant to Section 6, Rule 10 of the Amended Rules. With authorized agents,
officers, directors, or trustees 30 calendar days from receipt of summons
ILLUSTRATION: Galeon borrowed money from Waldi, evidenced by a in the Philippines
promissory which contained a stipulation on interest at the rate of 10% per month.
The obligation was to fall due and payable after 1 year. After 6 months, however,
the borrower, filed a case against Waldi, seeking for the nullification of the With government official
stipulated interest (and only the interest) for being supposedly usurious, unjust designated by law to receive 60 calendar days from receipt of summons
and unconscionable. In his answer, Waldi merely traversed the issue about the the same
legality and propriety of the interest.
ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
ANALYSIS: In his Answer, Waldi cannot set up the demand of payment of the Where amendment is a matter
loan, since the loan has not yet matured. If the obligation matures during the 30 calendar days from receipt of summons
of right
pendency of the case, Waldi then can ask for leave of court to file a supplemental
answer thereby demanding, by way of counterclaim, the payment of the principal Where amendment is not a
15 calendar days from receipt of summons
loan. matter of right

SECTION 10 ANSWER TO
COUNTERCLAIM OR 20 calendar days
Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. — When a pleader fails CROSS-CLAIM
to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight, RD TH
inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he or she ANSWER TO 3 (4 )- 30, 60, or 15 calendar days, as the case
may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by PARTY COMPLAINT may be
amendment before judgment.
REPLY 15 calendar days
Unlike Section 9, Rule 11 of the Amended Rules, the counterclaim or cross-claim ANSWER TO
under this rule is one which had already accrued at the time of the filing of the SUPPLEMENTAL 20 calendar days
answer, only that, by oversight, or inadvertence, or excusable neglect, such COMPLAINT
counterclaim or cross-claim has been omitted in the answer.
Not specifically provided in the rules. But is
To remedy the situation, the defending party is permitted to amend his answer, REJOINDER opined that it has to be filed with 15
but such requires leave of court, especially if the opposing party had already filed calendar days
a responsive pleading to the answer, like a reply.

SECTION 11 RULE 12 – BILL OF PARTICULARS

Section 11. Extension of time to file an answer. — A defendant may, for
meritorious reasons, be granted an additional period of not more than
thirty (30) calendar days to file an answer. A defendant is only allowed to
file one (1) motion for extension of time to file an answer.
A motion for extension to file any pleading, other than an answer, is
prohibited and considered a mere scrap of paper. The court, however,
may allow any other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these
Rules.
SECTION 1
Section 1. When applied for; purpose. — Before responding to a
pleading, a party may move for a definite statement or for a bill of
particulars of any matter, which is not averred with sufficient
definiteness or particularity, to enable him or her properly to prepare his
or her responsive pleading. If the pleading is a reply, the motion must be
filed within ten (10) calendar days from service thereof. Such motion shall
point out the defects complained of, the paragraphs wherein they are
contained, and the details desired.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE ANSWER is allowed to be filed only once, BILL OF PARTICULARS - a complementary procedural document consisting of
and such is granted for 30 calendar days. an amplification or more particularized outline of a pleading and being in the nature
of a more specific allegation of the facts recited in the pleading (Virata v.
Sandiganbayan)

94

FUNCTION AND PURPOSE OF BOP
1. To define, particularize, and limit or circumscribe the issues in the case, to
expedite the trial, and assist the court
2. To prevent injustice or do justice in the case when that cannot be accomplished
without the aid of such a bill
3. NOT to supply material allegations necessary to the validity of the pleading, or
to change a cause of action or defense stated in the pleading, or to state a cause
of action or defense other than the one stated
Tan v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 84195, Dec. 11, 1989
The complaint for which a bill for a more definite statement is sought, need
only inform the defendant of the essential (or ultimate) facts to enable him, the
defendant, to prepare an intelligent answer. As we indicated, its primary
objective is to apprise the adverse party of what the plaintiff wants — to
preclude the latter from springing a surprise attack later. Any more
"particulars", in that event, would be evidentiary in character, which must be
adduced at the trial proper.|
Co Tiamco v. Diaz
G.R. No. L-7, Jan. 22, 1946
Mere ambiguity or indefiniteness is not a ground for a motion to dismiss so
long as complaint sufficiently shows a cause of action.
City of Cebu v. CA
G.R. No. 109173. July 5, 1996|||
The deficiency could be cured by means of a motion for bill of particulars.
ILLUSTRATION 1: In an action for sum of money, the plaintiff made averments
to the end “that he and the defendant entered into a transaction, for which the
defendant obligated to deliver money in the plaintiff’s favor; that defendant’s
obligation already fell due; that plaintiff sent a demand letter to the defendant, but
the defendant failed and still refuses to pay.”
ANALYSIS: Though vague, the allegations stated all the elements of a cause of
action. The defendant cannot file a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
cause of action or failure to state cause of action. But his remedy is to file a
motion for bill of particulars, seeking to compel the plaintiff to particularize the
specificities of the transaction. (such as: date of transaction, type of transaction,
amount owed, etc)
ILLUSTRATION 2: In an action for rescission of a contract of sale of gold bars,
the plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the defendant lured and defrauded him
into buying gold bars which turned out to be fake.
ANALYSIS: Said allegation fails to comply with the requirement under Section 5,
Rule 8 of the Amended Rules that “in all averments of fraud or mistake, the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity.”
Where that happens, the remedy of the defendant is not to file a motion to dismiss
but to file a motion for bill of particulars, seeking to compel the plaintiff to
narrate the facts with particularity on how the defendant supposedly committed
the fraud.
NOTE: It is not the province of the bill of particulars to obtain a disclosure of
evidentiary facts.
ILLUSTRATION: In an action for collection of sum of money, the plaintiff stated in
his complaint that he made countless and repeated verbal demands upon the
defendant.
ANALYSIS: In that action, the defendant cannot file a motion for bill of
particulars to compel the plaintiff to specify when or how such verbal demands
were made, because the facts averred by the plaintiff are evidentiary facts. If
defendant wants, he may resort to the various modes of discovery, as provided
for under Rules 23, 25, 26, or 27 of the Amended Rules.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Action by the court. — Upon the filing of the motion, the clerk
of court must immediately bring it to the attention of the court, which may
either deny or grant it outright, or allow the parties the opportunity to be
heard.
RULE: The granting of a motion of BOP is at the discretion of the court, outright
or not.
GROUNDS FOR DENIAL:
g
1. The face of the complaint contains no ambiguity, or
2. The allegations therein are clear and specific, or
3. It would readily appear that the motion was filed to delay the proceedings or vie
for time to file an answer
Santos v. Liwag
G.R. No. L-24238, Nov. 28, 1980
As worded in the afore-quoted provision, the granting of a motion for bill of
particulars lies within the sound discretion of the court, and its ruling will not be
reversed unless there was palpable abuse of discretion or it was a clearly
erroneous order.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Compliance with order. — If the motion is granted, either in
whole or in part, the compliance therewith must be effected within ten
(10) calendar days from notice of the order, unless a different period is
fixed by the court. The bill of particulars or a more definite statement
ordered by the court may be filed either in a separate or in an amended
pleading, serving a copy thereof on the adverse party.
RULE: When granted, the litigant has 10 calendar days from notice of such order
to file a Bill of Particulars.
WAYS OF MAKING BILL OF PARTICULARS
1. Amending the original pleading
- the amended pleading will supersede the original pleading
2. Making a separate pleading
- the original pleading is not thereby superseded
- the separate pleading becomes part of the pleading for which it is intended,
complying with Section 6, Rule 12
SECTION 4
Section 4. Effect of non-compliance. — If the order is not obeyed, or in
case of insufficient compliance therewith, the court may order the
striking out of the pleading or the portions thereof to which the order was
directed, or make such other order as it deems just.
RULE: Non-compliance will result to either (1) strike out the pleading, (2) another
order by the court, or (3) motion to dismiss.
Bautista v. Teodoro
G.R. No. L-8894, May 31, 1957
Where the court grants the motion for bill of particulars that is directed at the
complaint, but the plaintiff unjustifiably refuses or fails to comply with court’s
directive, such non-compliance may be a ground for the dismissal of the
complaint, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Amended Rules of Court.
Such dismissal, unless made without prejudice, would be a bar to a
subsequent action on the same cause.
NOTE THAT:
RULE 17. Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no
justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the
presentation of his or her evidence in chief on the complaint, or to
prosecute his or her action for an unreasonable length of time, or to
comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be
dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion,
without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his or her
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall
have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise
declared by the court.
BE CAREFUL: If the defendant is the one who unjustifiably refuses to comply with
the order of the court granting the motion of bill of particulars, then logically, it is
NOT a ground for dismissal.
The plaintiff should not be penalized for defendant’s omission, or that the latter
could not profit from his omission.
Where that happens, the court may just direct that such ambiguous statement in
the answer be stricken out, and the court may even cite the disobedient or
recalcitrant defendant in contempt of the court for disobeying its lawful order.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Stay of period to file responsive pleading. — After service of
the bill of particulars or of a more definite pleading, or after notice of
denial of his or her motion, the moving party may file his or her
responsive pleading within the period to which he or she was entitled at
95
 g

the time of filing his or her motion, which shall not be less than five (5)
calendar days in any event. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE IN FILING A MOTION FOR BILL OF
PARTICULARS
ILLUSTRATION: In an action, the defendant was served with summons on March
1, 2020 (assume it is a working day). The defendant had until March 31, 2020 to
file his answer to the complaint. Instead of filing an answer, the defendant, on
March 19, 2020, filed a motion for bill of particulars, seeking clarification on the
perceived vague allegation on the pleading. Acting on that motion for bill of
particulars, the court denied the same per its Order dated March 30, 2020, a copy
of which was served upon and received by the defendant on March 31, 2020.

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

Applying Section 2, Rule 22 of the Amended Rules, as previously discussed, the

defendant still has 13 remaining calendar days within which to file his answer.
And this remaining 13 calendar days shall be counted starting April 1, 2020 (the
day after he received the order of denial on March 31, 2020). In fine, defendant
has until April 13, 2020 within which to file his answer to the complaint.

Case in point: Labitad v. CA, G.R. No. 53877, July 17, 1995

CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION: But where the defendant filed the motion

for bill of particulars on the last day for filing his answer, and the motion for bill of
particulars is subsequently denied, the defendant will have five (5) calendar
days from receipt of the order denying the motion for bill of particulars within
which to file his answer to the complaint.

SECTION 6

Section 6. Bill a part of pleading. — A bill of particulars becomes part of

the pleading for which it is intended.

See the discussion under Section 3, Rule 1

96

RULE 13 – FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND
OTHER PAPERS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the filing of all pleadings,
motions, and other court submissions, as well as their service, except
those for which a different mode of service is prescribed.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Filing and Service, defined. — Filing is the act of submitting
the pleading or other paper to the court.
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or any
other court submission. If a party has appeared by counsel, service upon
such party shall be made upon his or her counsel, unless service upon
the party and the party’s counsel is ordered by the court. Where one
counsel appears for several parties, such counsel shall only be entitled
to one copy of any paper served by the opposite side.
Where several counsels appear for one party, such party shall be entitled
to only one copy of any pleading or paper to be served upon the lead
counsel if one is designated, or upon any one of them if there is no
designation of a lead counsel.
FILING - act of submitting the pleading or other paper to the court
SERVICE - the act of providing a party of the pleading or other court submission;
includes the act of furnishing a party with the notices, orders, resolutions, or
judgments by the court
GENERAL RULE: Service to lawyer is effective notice to client, where the
reglementary period will run from the service made upon the counsel [Cases in
point: Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel v. Ledesma; Gundayao v. CA]
If a party has appeared by counsel, service upon such party shall be made upon
his counsel, and not necessarily upon the party, unless service upon the party and
the party’s counsel is directed by the court.
PURPOSE OF SERVICE
1. To maintain a uniform procedure, calculated to place in competent hands the
orderly prosecution of a party’s case (Natl Investment & Development Cor vs. CA)
2. Since the litigants have no sufficient knowledge about the rigidities of the rules
of procedure, it is best for the courts to deal only with one person in the interest of
orderly procedure (De los Santos vs. Elizalde)
FORMAL APPEARANCE BY COUNSEL
Dirige v. Biranya
G.R. No. L-22033, July 30, 1966
Without formal appearance, counsel is not entitled to notice. It is not
enough that he appears at the trial. Judicial administration cannot afford to
suffer uncertainty because of the uncertainty concerning the lawyer upon
whom service is to be made.
MODE OF PROPER SERVICE
GENERAL RULE: Service of any pleading must be given to the counsel’s exact
address.
Where a lawyer makes a formal entry of appearance in a case, notice should be
made upon the counsel of record at his exact given address. [Natl Investment &
Development Corp v. CA]
PLDT Co. v. NLRC
G.R. No. 60050, Mar. 26, 1984
Hence, practical considerations and the realities of the situation dictate that the
service made by the bailiff on March 23, 1981 at the ground floor of the
petitioner's building and not at the address of record of petitioner's counsel on
record at the 9th floor of the PLDT building cannot be considered a valid
service. It was only when the Legal Services Division actually received a
copy of the decision on March 26, 1981 that a proper and valid service may
be deemed to have been made.
EXCEPTION: Service is deemed valid despite not done in the exact original
address of the counsel, when the lawyers accepted such without objection of any
sort.
g
Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank v. Ortiz
G.R. No. L-49223, May 29, 1987
Where the law firm accepted service at the station or place which is three floors
down from the address originally given by them, without objection of any sort,
the lawyers cannot subsequently disown such accepted manner of service to
relieve them from the effects of their negligence, complacency or inattention.
WHEN FORMAL NOTICE TO THE COURT IS NEEDED:
1. CHANGE OF OFFICIAL ADDRESS
GENERAL RULE: It is an imperative duty of the counsel to file a formal notice to
the court if he changes his official address.
Philippine Suburban Development Corp v. CA
G.R. No. L-33448, Sept. 17, 1980
To ensure proper service of pleadings and other court submissions, it is
imperative that where the lawyer changed his address, he should file a formal
change of address to fairly inform the court and the adverse party about
such change of address.
The fact that counsel used a different address in later pleadings should not be
taken as notice to the court of either the change of address or another address
in addition to that which was already of record.
It is their inescapable duty to make of record their correct address in all cases
in which they are counsel for a suitor. For, instances there have been in the
past when, because of failure to inform the court of the change of address,
litigations were delayed. And this, not to speak of inconvenience caused the
other parties and the court. Worse still, litigants have lost their cases in court
because of such negligence on the part of their counsel. It is painful enough
for a litigant to suffer a setback in a legal battle.
Antonio v. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 77656, Aug. 31, 1987
It is the duty of counsel to adopt and strictly maintain a system that efficiently
takes into account all court notices sent to him. His failure to do so cannot
excuse him from the consequences of his non-receipt of court notices
EXCEPTION: Formal notice of change of address to the court is no longer proper
if the court had already taken notice of such change of address of counsel. [Case
in point: Anthony Sy v. IAC]
2. CHANGE OF COUNSEL PENDING PROCEEDINGS
GENERAL RULE: There must be a formal notice of withdrawal and substitution.
EFFECT: Service of pleadings to old/original counsel is still considered valid if
there is no formal notice.
Cubar v. Mendoza
G.R. No. L-55035, Feb. 23, 1983
Petitioner's argument, likewise, fails to consider the need of observing a legal
formality before a counsel of record may be considered relieved of his
responsibility as such counsel on account of withdrawal. This legal formality
is that a lawyer's withdrawal as counsel must be made in a formal petition
filed in the case, without which, notice of judgment rendered in the case
served on the counsel of record is, for all legal purposes, notice to the
client, the date of receipt of which is considered the starting point from
which the period of appeal prescribed by law shall begin to run.
Not having withdrawn formally as counsel in the case, Atty. Romeo Gonzaga
continued to be the counsel for record and was, for all legal purposes, private
respondents' attorney upon whom the court's processes may be served, as
they were in fact duly served.
Googi note: it’s a good case to read re all the rules in this provision
EXCEPTION: If the court already recognized substitution & withdrawal
Rinconda Telephone Company v. Buenaviaje
G.R. Nos. L-49241-42, April 27, 1990
Where the court has already recognized the substitution of counsel even
without a formal substitution or withdrawal of the previous counsel, it would be
error on the part of the court to still insist that the previous lawyer is still the
counsel of record, such that service of the court judgment upon the previous
counsel is not considered proper.
97

NOTE: If one counsel appears for several parties, such counsel shall only be
entitled to one copy of any paper served by the opposite side.
Likewise, where several counsels appear for one party, such party shall be entitled
to only one copy of any pleading or paper to be served upon the lead counsel if
one is designated, or upon any one of them if there is no designation of a lead
counsel.
SECTION 3
Section. 3. Manner of filing. — The filing of pleadings and other court
submissions shall be made by:
(a) Submitting personally the original thereof, plainly indicated as such,
to the court;
(b) Sending them by registered mail;
(c) Sending them by accredited courier; or
(d) Transmitting them by electronic mail or other electronic means as
may be authorized by the Court in places where the court is electronically
equipped.
In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date
and hour of filing. In the second and third cases, the date of the mailing
of motions, pleadings, and other court submissions, and payments or
deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the
registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment,
or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the
case. In the fourth case, the date of electronic transmission shall be
considered as the date of filing.
OLD RULE: Manner of filing was: (1) personal filing, or (2) registered mail.
AMENDED RULES: Manner of filing:
1. Personal filing in court
2. Registered mail
3. Accredited couriers (LBC, DHL, etc)
4. Transmission by electronic mail or other electronic means as authorized by the
court
NOTE: Ordinary mail is not a manner of filing under old, present and amended
rules. Where the party opts to file his pleading via ordinary mail, such pleading is
not considered filed until it is actually delivered and received by the court.
MANNER OF FILING DATE OF FILING
the clerk of court (or any authorized court personnel)
shall endorse or indicate on the face of the pleading
the date and hour of the filing thereof.
(1) Personal filing in
court
This is when the court personnel will stamp “filed
with,” “received by,” “time,” “date,” “original copy,”
etc.
The date of mailing is the date of filing, payment or
(2) Registered mail
deposit in court.
(3) Accredited
courier NOTE: Not the date of receipt by the court
The date of electronic transmission shall be
considered as the date of filing
(4) Transmitting by
electronic mail Electronic filing of pleading may be done through e-
mail or facsimile transmission, or through other
electronic means as the court may allow.
NOTE: #2 and #3 are VERY DIFFERENT from old rules.
Benquet Electronic Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, et al.
G.R. No. 89070, May 18, 1992
If the pleading is filed through a courier (like LBC or DHL), the date of the actual
receipt by the court of such pleading is deemed to be date of the filing of the
pleading, and not the date of delivery to the courier or carrier.
CAVEAT: But pursuant to the rules, as amended, the ruling in the Benquet
case is no longer controlling.
HIGHKEY NOTE: There are certain types of pleadings, processes and other court
submissions that cannot and should not be filed thru electronic mail, unless
expressly permitted by the court. (Sec 14, Rule 13)
RULE: The pleadings, orders, and other documents as enumerated under Section
14, Rule 13 can only be filed or served either personally or by registered mail.
g
RULE 13. Section 14. Conventional service or filing of orders, pleadings
and other documents. – Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following
orders, pleadings, and other documents must be served or filed
personally or by registered mail when allowed, and shall not be served
or filed electronically, unless express permission is granted by the Court:
(a) Initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings, such as an
answer;
(b) Subpoenae, protection orders, and writs;
(c) Appendices and exhibits to motions, or other documents that are not
readily amenable to electronic scanning may, at the option of the party
filing such, be filed and served conventionally; and
(d) Sealed and confidential documents or records.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Papers required to be filed and served. – Every judgment,
resolution, order, pleading subsequent to the complaint, written motion,
notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be
filed with the court, and served upon the parties affected.
COURT DOCUMENTS OR PAPERS THAT MUST BE FILED THEN SERVED
ü Judgments
ü Resolutions
ü Orders
ü Pleadings subsequent to the complaint
ü Written motions
ü Notices
ü Appearances
ü Demands
ü Offer of judgment
ü Similar papers
RULE ON COMPLAINTS
1. It has to be filed with the court first
2. Service of copy thereof would normally be effected by the court sheriff or
process server upon the defendant, together with the summons issued by the court
RULE ON PLEADINGS SUBSEQUENT TO COMPLAINT
1. Serve or furnish copies to opposing parties before filing the same with the court.
Why do judgments of the court need to be filed with the court and then
served upon the parties? Because of Section 1, Rule 36:
Section 1, Rule 36. Rendition of judgments and final orders. - A
judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in
writing personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly
and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him,
and filed with the clerk of the court.
Note: The lawyer has the right to be served with the formal or written order of the
court.
Echaus v. CA
G.R. No. 57343, July 23, 1660
No judgment or order, final or interlocutory, has juridical existence unless
reduced to writing, filed with the clerk of court, and the same does not bind the
parties unless notice thereof is served upon them by any of the modes
prescribed by law.
Empress Television v. Buencamino
G.R. No. L-55753, Jan. 30, 1982
But an order of postponement of hearing given in open court (verbally
promulgated in open court) in the presence of the lawyer is held to be valid
and is presumed received by the parties on the very date and time of
promulgation and amounts to legal notification.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Modes of Service. — Pleadings, motions, notices, orders,
judgments, and other court submissions shall be served personally or
by registered mail, accredited courier, electronic mail, facsimile
transmission, other electronic means as may be authorized by the Court,
or as provided for in international conventions to which the Philippines
is a party.
OLD RULES: Manner of service were (1) by personal service; (2) by registered
mail.
98
 g

AMENDED RULE: Manner of service: known, otherwise at his or her residence, if known, with postage fully
1. By Personal service; or pre-paid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the
2. By registered mail; or sender after ten (10) calendar days if undelivered. If no registry service
3. Accredited courier; or is available in the locality of either the sender or the addressee, service
4. Electronic mail; or may be done by ordinary mail.
5. Facsimile transmission; or
6. Other electronic means as may be authorized by the Court; or SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL: Procedure:1. Deposit in post office
7. Through other means as provided for in international conventions to which 2. Seal in envelope
the Philippines is a party. 3. Properly addressed

Such modes of service, among others, are now allowed to facilitate and expedite
service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, etc.
ELECTRONIC SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
Effect: Shall have the same effect and validity as other services
GENERAL RULE: Ordinary mail is not allowed.
When service is done by ordinary mail, the pleading, motion, or other court
submission is not considered filed until it is actually delivered and received
by the court. (Unlike where the filing is done by registered mail or by an accredited
courier where the date of the mailing shall be considered as the date of filing)

Rule: A paper copy of the document electronically served shall be retained and EXCEPTION: Ordinary mail may be resorted to if there is no registry service
attached to the records of the case available in the locality of the sender or addressee.

Atty Galeon’s Advice: It is advisable though that, where the pleading or motion SECTION 8
is to be furnished to the other or opposing party through electronic means, the
sending party must employ any and all means to ensure that his pleading or motion Section 8. Substituted service. – If service of pleadings, motions, notices,
may not be tampered with or intercalated. resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be made under the two
preceding sections, the office and place of residence of the party or his
Electronic service of judgments, final orders and resolutions or her counsel being unknown, service may be made by delivering the
copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal service
ALLOWED ELECTRONIC NOT ALLOWED ELECTRONIC and service by mail. The service is complete at the time of such delivery.
SERVICE SERVICE
Those contemplated under Sections Those contemplated under Section SUBSTITUTED SERVICE – type of service done when pleadings, motions,
5 and 18 of Rule 13, that do not 13 of Rule 13 that finally dispose of notices, etc. cannot be served on the party or his lawyer either by personal service
finally dispose or terminate the case and/or terminate the case, and those or by registered mail, since the office and place of residence of the party or his
enumerated under Section 14 of counsel is unknown.
Rule 13.
Examples: Examples: RULE: Service may be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof
ü Notice of trial ü Judgment/decisions on the of failure of both personal service and service by mail. The service is complete at
ü Order/ resolution/ judgment on a merits of the case the time of such delivery.
litigious or even a litigious motion ü Order/resolution terminating the
that is, however, short of, or other case NOTE: Differentiate from Section 6.
than, deciding the case on the ü Order approving the motion to
merits or dismissing the same dismiss SECTION 9
ü Resolution of a motion to declare ü Initiatory pleadings and initial
the defendant in default responsive pleadings, such as an Section 9. Service by electronic means and facsimile. — Service by
ü Order denying a motion to answer electronic means and facsimile shall be made if the party concerned
dismiss, which is but interlocutory ü Subpoenae, protection orders, consents to such modes of service.
and writs
ü Appendices and exhibits to Service by electronic means shall be made by sending an e-mail to the
motions, or other documents that party’s or counsel’s electronic mail address, or through other electronic
are not readily amenable to means of transmission as the parties may agree on, or upon direction of
electronic scanning may, at the the court.
option of the party filing such, be
filed and served conventionally Service by facsimile shall be made by sending a facsimile copy to the
ü Sealed and confidential party’s or counsel’s given facsimile number.
documents or records
This provision is entirely new.
SECTION 6
ELECTRONIC SERVICE: through e-mail to the party’s or counsel’s e-mail
Section 6. Personal Service. — Court submissions may be served by address, or it may be done through other electronic means (perhaps through Viber,
personal delivery of a copy to the party or to the party’s counsel, or to or Facebook Messenger, etc.)
their authorized representative named in the appropriate pleading or
motion, or by leaving it in his or her office with his or her clerk, or with a REMEMBER: so long as the parties may agree on, or upon direction of the court.
person having charge thereof. If no person is found in his or her office,
or his or her office is not known, or he or she has no office, then by Galeon’s advice: The sending party must employ any and all means to ensure that
leaving the copy, between the hours of eight in the morning and six in his pleading or motion may not be tampered with or intercalated.
the evening, at the party's or counsel's residence, if known, with a person
of sufficient age and discretion residing therein. SECTION 10

MANNER OF PERSONAL SERVICE
- personally delivering the pleading, motion, notice, order, etc. (1) to the party or
(2) to the party’s counsel, or (3) to their authorized representative named in the
appropriate pleading or motion, or (4) by leaving it in his or her office with his or
her clerk, or with a person having charge thereof
Leaving a copy in the party’s or counsel’s residence is proper service, if:
(1) there is no person found in his office, or if his office is not known, or if he has
no office
(2) it was served between 8am – 6pm
(3) it was served upon a person residing therein of sufficient age and discretion
SECTION 7
Section 10. Presumptive service. — There shall be presumptive notice to
a party of a court setting if such notice appears on the records to have
been mailed at least twenty (20) calendar days prior to the scheduled date
of hearing and if the addressee is from within the same judicial region of
the court where the case is pending, or at least thirty (30) calendar days
if the addressee is from outside the judicial region.
This is an entirely new provision.
PRESUMPTIVE NOTICE – Notice that is presumed to have been made when
service is done by mail at least 20 calendar days prior to scheduled hearing if the
addressee is from the same judicial region of the court where the case is pending,
or at least 30 calendar days if the addressee is outside the judicial region

Section 7. Service by mail. — Service by registered mail shall be made NOTE: It is a disputable presumption that party or counsel received notification of
by depositing the copy in the post office, in a sealed envelope, plainly such court setting.
addressed to the party or to the party’s counsel at his or her office, if

99

Cabuang v. Bello
G.R. No. L-14781. July 15, 1959
The rule on completeness of service by registered mail, however, only provides
for a disputable presumption and may, therefore, be rebutted.
SECTION 11
Section 11. Change of electronic mail address or facsimile number. — A
party who changes his or her electronic mail address or facsimile
number while the action is pending must promptly file, within five (5)
calendar days from such change, a notice of change of e-mail address or
facsimile number with the court and serve the notice on all other parties.
Service through the electronic mail address or facsimile number of a
party shall be presumed valid unless such party notifies the court of any
change, as aforementioned.
This is an entirely new provision.
VALID CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS
1. Notice of change of email given to the given within 5 calendar days from such
change
2. Failure to file notice will make service through his or her previous electronic
mail address or facsimile number as appearing in the case records shall still be
considered as valid
Antonio v. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 77656, Aug. 31, 1987
The foregoing rule proceeds from the hornbook doctrine that it is the duty of
counsel to adopt and strictly maintain a system that efficiently takes into
account all court notices sent to him. His failure to do so cannot excuse him
from the consequences of his non-receipt of court notices.
SECTION 12
Section 12. Electronic mail and facsimile subject and title of
pleadings and other documents. — The subject of the electronic
mail and facsimile must follow the prescribed format: case
number, case title and the pleading, order or document title. The
title of each electronically-filed or served pleading or other
document, and each submission served by facsimile shall
contain sufficient information to enable the court to ascertain
from the title: (a) the party or parties filing or serving the paper,
(b) nature of the paper, (c) the party or parties against whom
relief, if any, is sought, and (d) the nature of the relief sought.
This is an entirely new provision.
SUBJECT OF EMAIL: Case number, Case title and the leading, order or
document title
TITLE OF DOCUMENT: (a) the party or parties filing or serving the paper, (b)
nature of the paper, (c) the party or parties against whom relief, if any, is sought,
and (d) the nature of the relief sought
NOTE: From here, we can then conclude that the only difference between filing
and service is its manner of doing so.
SECTION 13
Section 13. Service of Judgments, Final Orders or Resolutions. —
Judgments, final orders, or resolutions shall be served either personally
or by registered mail. Upon ex parte motion of any party in the case, a
copy of the judgment, final order, or resolution may be delivered by
accredited courier at the expense of such party. When a party summoned
by publication has failed to appear in the action, judgments, final orders
or resolutions against him or her shall be served upon him or her also by
means of publication at the expense of the prevailing party.
Remember: Judgments, final orders and resolutions may or may not be allowed
to be filed or served through email – depending on its substance.
See Section 5, Rule 13.
SECTION 14
Section 14. Conventional service or filing of orders, pleadings and other
documents. – Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following orders,
pleadings, and other documents must be served or filed personally or by
g
registered mail when allowed, and shall not be served or filed
electronically, unless express permission is granted by the Court:
(a) Initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings, such as an
answer;
(b) Subpoenae, protection orders, and writs;
(c) Appendices and exhibits to motions, or other documents that are not
readily amenable to electronic scanning may, at the option of the party
filing such, be filed and served conventionally; and
(d) Sealed and confidential documents or records.
As related to Sections 3 and 5, the following pleadings, documents:
1. Initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings, such as an answer;
2. Subpoenae, protection orders, and writs;
3. Appendices and exhibits to motions, or other documents that are not readily
amenable to electronic scanning may, at the option of the party filing such, be
filed and served conventionally; and
4. Sealed and confidential documents or records
FILING & SERVICE
Can only be filed personally or through registered mail, unless otherwise
permitted by court
(a) Initiatory pleadings and initial responsive pleadings, such as an
answer;
INITIATORY PLEADINGS - complaint, third-party complaint, or complaint-in-
intervention, among others, and the answers thereto.
INITIAL RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS - an answer
Rationale: The filing thereof ordinarily entails or requires payment of the
prescribed docket or filing fees (and to my knowledge, the court has no
infrastructure yet allowing e-payment) – especially if permissive counterclaims are
pleaded in an answer
(b) Subpoenae, protection orders, and writs;
Rationale: Service of such processes or writs would have to be done by the court
sheriff and service thereof ordinarily requires the submission of a return (report) to
be submitted by the court sheriff.
(c) Appendices and exhibits to motions, or other documents that are not
readily amenable to electronic scanning may, at the option of the party
filing such, be filed and served conventionally; and
Rationale: Such appendices and exhibits are so voluminous that it would be
difficult, if not impossible, to scan and send them via electronic means.
(d) Sealed and confidential documents or records.
Rationale: The reason for the proscription is simple – to keep and maintain the
confidentiality of such documents or records
SECTION 15
Section 15. Completeness of service. — Personal service is complete
upon actual delivery. Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the
expiration of ten (10) calendar days after mailing, unless the court
otherwise provides. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual
receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) calendar days from the date he
or she received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is
earlier. Service by accredited courier is complete upon actual receipt by
the addressee, or after at least two (2) attempts to deliver by the courier
service, or upon the expiration of five (5) calendar days after the first
attempt to deliver, whichever is earlier.
Electronic service is complete at the time of the electronic transmission
of the document, or when available, at the time that the electronic
notification of service of the document is sent. Electronic service is not
effective or complete if the party serving the document learns that it did
not reach the addressee or person to be served.
Service by facsimile transmission is complete upon receipt by the other
party, as indicated in the facsimile transmission printout.
TYPES OF SERVICE
1. Actual Service – personal or by registered mail actually received by party or
counsel or employee or messenger of the office (Mata vs. Legarda)
100

2. Constructive Service – through mail if such is not claimed by addressee after
the lapse of a certain number of days
MANNER OF SERVICE WHEN SERVICE IS COMPLETE
Actual Service
Personal service Upon actual delivery
Receipt by party, counsel, employee or
By registered mail
messenger
Constructive Service
if the mail is not claimed by the addressee
after the lapse of five (5) calendar days from
By registered mail
the date the addressee received the first
notice of the postmaster (for registered mail),
of after the at least two (2) attempts to deliver
by the courier service, or upon the expiration
By accredited courier of five (5) calendar days after the first attempt
to deliver, whichever is earlier (for service by
courier).
upon the expiration of ten (10) calendar days
By ordinary mail after mailing, unless the court otherwise
provides
at the time of the electronic transmission of
the document, or when available, at the time
By email
that the electronic notification of service of the
document is sent
upon receipt by the other party, as indicated
By facsimile transmission
in the facsimile transmission printout
ILLUSTRATION: On Feb 3, 2020, the postmaster informed and directed the
addressee to secure from the postal services a registered mail addressed to him.
But the addressee failed to get such mail after 5 calendar days from the date the
addressee received notice from the postmaster.
ANALYSIS: The service by registered mail is deemed complete by Feb 8, 2020 –
5 calendar days after notice, even if the mail was not actually received by the
addressee. The law does not allow the address to defeat the process by not
claiming the mail.
NOTE: Presumption of regularity does not exist for the postmaster, as there should
be clear proof of postal regulations evidenced by a postmaster’s certification.
Elane vs. CA
G.R. No. 80638, April 26, 1989
For constructive notice to apply with respect to registered mail, the
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed by the postal
services or by the postmaster does not apply.
Barrameda vs. Castillo
G.R. No. L-27211, July 6, 1977
There must be clear proof of compliance with postal regulations governing
sending and receipt of the notice referred to under now Section 15, Rule 13 of
the Amended Rules.
Santos vs. CA
G.R. No. 120861, Sept. 3, 1998
This notice refers to the postmaster’s certification to end that the addressee
has been duly notified about the registered mail which he is to secure from the
postal service (see).
Johnson & Johnson (Phils.) Inc. vs. CA
G.R. No. 99434, Sept. 24, 1991
Conversely, mere notations on the envelope, such as “RETURN TO SENDER”
and “UNCLAIMED,” standing alone and without the postmaster’s certification,
would not suffice.
Grafil vs. Feliciano
G.R. No. L-27156, June 30, 1967
But where there is such certification by the postmaster, such certification shall
prevail over the bare denial of the lawyer about his having been notified of the
registered mail addressed to him.
SECTION 16
Section 16. Proof of filing. — The filing of a pleading or any other court
submission shall be proved by its existence in the record of the case.
g
(a) If the pleading or any other court submission is not in the record, but
is claimed to have been filed personally, the filing shall be proven by the
written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk of court on
a copy of the pleading or court submission;
(b) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed by registered
mail, the filing shall be proven by the registry receipt and by the affidavit
of the person who mailed it, containing a full statement of the date and
place of deposit of the mail in the post office in a sealed envelope
addressed to the court, with postage fully prepaid, and with instructions
to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) calendar
days if not delivered.
(c) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed through an
accredited courier service, the filing shall be proven by an affidavit of
service of the person who brought the pleading or other document to the
service provider, together with the courier’s official receipt and
document tracking number.
(d) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed by electronic
mail, the same shall be proven by an affidavit of electronic filing of the
filing party accompanied by a paper copy of the pleading or other
document transmitted or a written or stamped acknowledgment of its
filing by the clerk of court. If the paper copy sent by electronic mail was
filed by registered mail, paragraph (b) of this Section applies.
(e) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed through other
authorized electronic means, the same shall be proven by an affidavit of
electronic filing of the filing party accompanied by a copy of the
electronic acknowledgment of its filing by the court.
PROOF OF FILING PLEADINGS IN THE COURT
MANNER OF FILING PROOF OF FILING
When such is not found in the record, the pleader
shall prove its filing and existence by the written or
stamped acknowledgement of its filing that is
annotated or appearing on the face of the copy of
Personal filing the pleading or other court submission as kept on file
by the pleader.
This is when the clerk of court shall endorse on the
pleading the date and hour of filing
By registered mail Registry receipt
Courier’s official
By accredited
receipt & document
courier
tracking number
Prove by Affidavit of Paper copy of the
Filing of the person who pleading, or a written
filed the same through or stamped
By email
acknowledgement of
PLUS: its filing by the clerk of
court
Copy of the electronic
By facsimile
acknowledgment of its
transmission
filing by the court
NOTE: Unlike before, there is no more requirement to explain why filing or service
of pleading or motion, etc. is not done personally, but there is no harm if the
pleading or motion, etc. that is not filed or served personally will be accompanied
by such explanation.
SECTION 17
Section 17. Proof of service. –— Proof of personal service shall consist
of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the
server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a statement of the
date, place, and manner of service. If the service is made by:
(a) Ordinary mail. – Proof shall consist of an affidavit of the person
mailing stating the facts showing compliance with Section 7 of this Rule.
(b) Registered mail. – Proof shall be made by the affidavit mentioned
above and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry
return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or
in lieu thereof, the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn
copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.
(c) Accredited courier service. – Proof shall be made by an affidavit of
service executed by the person who brought the pleading or paper to the
service provider, together with the courier’s official receipt or document
tracking number.
101
 g

ATTY. WALDEMAR BIGOTILYO

(d) Electronic mail, facsimile, or other authorized electronic means of Counsel for plaintiff-appellee ABC Corporation
transmission. – Proof shall be made by an affidavit of service executed Room 403, Oftana Building,
by the person who sent the e-mail, facsimile, or other electronic Jasmin corner M. Cui Streets,
transmission, together with a printed proof of transmittal. Capitol Site, Cebu City

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

MANNER OF Branch 09, Cebu City
PROOF OF FILING
SERVICE
By registered mail to:
Proven by written admission of the party served,
usually by putting a written or stamp annotation on
ATTY. RANDI TORREGS Registered mail No.: _____
the space provided therein
TORREGS LAW OFFICE Date of Mailing:________
Counsel for plaintiff-appellee DEF Corporation
OR 18th, 19th and 17th Floor, Liberty Center
104 H.V. dela Costa St., Salcedo Village
Affidavit of the party effecting personal service 1227 Makati City, Metro Manila
Personal filing
OR c.) Service by registered mail to Atty. Randi Torregs is effected by depositing copies of
such pleading, on ___ March 2020, in the post office at Cebu City, evidenced by the
Official return of the server - this normally happens if Registry Receipt Numbers attached to the first original copy of this pleading and as
what is personally served on the parties and/or indicated after the name of the addressee, and with instructions to the postmaster to
counsels emanated from the court, and personal return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. Service by registered mail
service whereof is effected by the court sheriff or to Atty. Randi Torregs is resorted to by reason of distance, which makes personal service
process server of the court impractical and costly.
By registered mail Registry receipt
By accredited Courier’s official receipt & IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature, this
Prove by ____ day of March 2020, Cebu City, Philippines.
courier document tracking number
Affidavit of
Paper copy of the pleading, or
Service of the
a written or stamped
By email person who filed RAMON C. DOBLADO
acknowledgement of its filing
the same through Affiant
by the clerk of court
PLUS: Copy of the electronic
By facsimile SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this ___ day of
acknowledgment of its filing by
transmission March 2020, at Cebu City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his LTO Driver’s License
the court
No. GO6-99-055257, which is valid until December 12, 2021.
Proved by the Affidavit of Service of the person who
effected such service by ordinary mail, and there is Doc. No. _____
By ordinary mail no accompanying mailing receipt, as no mailing Page No. ____
receipt will be issued for an ordinary mail (unlike Book No. ____ Notary Public
registered mail) Series of 2020.

NOTE: When service is done by registered mail, the sender has to file with the
court the registry return card upon receipt by the sender, or the unclaimed letter
together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to
the addressee.
In actual practice, litigation lawyers do not usually comply with such rigid
requirement in filing and service of pleadings, as the registry receipts are simply
attached to the pleadings.
This is an entirely new provision.
But the collegiate courts, CA and SC, are very strict, such that without an
accompanying Affidavit of Service, the pleading filed will not be acted upon and
See: Sections 5, 9, 13, and 14, Rule 13.
given due course, and the same will just be regarded as a mere scrap of paper.
SAMPLE: of an Affidavit of Service with an accompanying explanation on why
filing or service is not effected, as previously required under Section 11, Rule 13
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY OF CEBU )S.S.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, RAMON C. DOBLADO, Filipino, of legal age, resident of Cebu City,
after being duly sworn, hereby depose and state that
a.) I am the messenger of XYZ Law Office, with address at Suite 210, The Walk, Cebu
I.T. Park, Lahug, Cebu City.
b.) That on ____ March 2020, and in my aforesaid capacity as the messenger of staff
XYZ Law Office, I personally served copies of the following pleading/paper:
SECTION 18
Section 18. Court-issued orders and other documents. — The court may
electronically serve orders and other documents to all the parties in the
case which shall have the same effect and validity as provided herein. A
paper copy of the order or other document electronically served shall be
retained and attached to the record of the case.
SECTION 19
Section 19. Notice of lis pendens. –— In an action affecting the title or the
right of possession of real property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when
affirmative relief is claimed in his or her answer, may record in the office
of the registry of deeds of the province in which the property is situated
a notice of the pendency of the action. Said notice shall contain the
names of the parties and the object of the action or defense, and a
description of the property in that province affected thereby. Only from
the time of filing such notice for record shall a purchaser, or
encumbrancer of the property affected thereby, be deemed to have
constructive notice of the pendency of the action, and only of its
pendency against the parties designated by their real names.
The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may be cancelled only
upon order of the court, after proper showing that the notice is for the
purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to
protect the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded.

NATURE OF PLEADING/PAPER:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
in CA-G.R. CV- No. ____________ (RTC-09, Cebu City; Civil Case No. CEB-
___________ and Civil Case No. CEB-_____________), titled "ABC Corporation and
DEF Corporation, plaintiff-appellees vs. GHI Corporation, defendant-appellant”, pursuant to
Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 15, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, as follows:
By Personal Service to:
NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS – annotation made with the registry of deeds on a title
which notifies title holder of the fact that action affecting such real property is
pending in court
PURPOSE OF NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS
1. To protect the real rights of the party who caused the registration thereof
(Natano vs. Esteban)
2. To serve as a warning to prospective encumbrances or purchasers that they
should keep their hands off the property under litigation unless they wish to gamble

102

on the result of the litigation involving the same (Tanchoco, et al. vs. Aquino, et
al)
EFFECTS OF NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS
1. Binding to all parties (even third persons) once annotated at the back of the
certificate (Dino vs. CA)
2. No invocation of purchaser in good faith and cannot acquire better rights than
those of his predecessors in interest (Heirs of Marasigan vs. IAC)
WHEN PROPER
In re: El Registrador de Titulos de Pampanga vs. Mercado
G.R. No. 47570, June 17, 1941
Under Section 18, Rule 13 of the Amended Rules, notice of lis pendens is
proper only where the action or proceeding in court affects title to or possession
of real property. It is essential that the property be directly affected, as where
the relief sought in the action includes the recovery of possession, or the
enforcement of a lien, or an adjudication between conflicting claims of title,
possession, or right of possession of specific real property, or requiring its
transfer or sale.
WHEN CANCELLED
1. Cancelled during the pendency of the case only upon order of the court after
proper showing that the notice is just for the purpose of molesting the adverse
party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to
be recorded (Vilayco vs. Tengco).
2. It may be cancelled by the RD upon verified petition of the party who caused
the registration thereo (Section 77, P.D. 1529)
3. Deemed cancelled upon registration of a certificate of the clerk of court in which
the action or proceeding that the action has already been finally terminated
(Section 77, P.D. 1529)
NOTE: It cannot be cancelled upon mere filing of bond by the party whose title is
annotated (Tan vs. Lantin)
RULE 14 – SUMMONS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Clerk to issue summons. — Unless the complaint is on its face
dismissible under Section 1, Rule 9, the court shall, within five (5)
calendar days from receipt of the initiatory pleading and proof of
payment of the requisite legal fees, direct the clerk of court to issue the
corresponding summons to the defendants.
SUMMONS - the writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought
against him
PURPOSE OF SUMMONS
1. To acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and
2. To notify the defendant that an action has been commenced, so that he may be
given an opportunity to be heard on the claim against him (Nation Petroleum Gas
Incorporated vs. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation)
Velayo-Fong v. Velayo
510 SCRA 320
The service of summons assumes paramount importance in an action in
personam, or one brought against a person on the basis of his or her
personality. This is in order that the court can validly acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant and for the court to validly try and decide the case
Recall: there are two ways to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant:
proper service of summons or his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court.
NOTE: it is the clerk of court who will issue the summons upon the direction of
the court.
WHEN THE CASE IS DISMISSIBLE ON ITS FACTS
1. the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause
3. that the action is barred by a prior judgment or
4. by statute of limitations
Therefore, the court, instead of directing the issuance of summons, may dismiss
the case motu proprio.
g
SECTION 2
Section 2. Contents. — The summons shall be directed to the defendant,
signed by the clerk of court under seal, and contain:
(a) The name of the court and the names of the parties to the action;
(b) When authorized by the court upon ex parte motion, an authorization
for the plaintiff to serve summons to the defendant;
(c) A direction that the defendant answer within the time fixed by these
Rules; and
(d) A notice that unless the defendant so answers, plaintiff will take
judgment by default and may be granted the relief applied for.
A copy of the complaint and order for appointment of guardian ad litem,
if any, shall be attached to the original and each copy of the summons.
CONTENTS OF THE SUMMONS
1. Names of the court and parties
2. Authorization for plaintiff to serve summons to defendant
- This is a new item in the Amended Rules, since there is a new rule
3. Direction to answer
4. Notice that judgment may be made
AMENDED RULE: The court may motu proprio authorize the plaintiff to cause the
service of summons to the defendant, provided the plaintiff files an ex parte motion
to allow him to serve summons to the defendant, albeit such may not be embodied
in the summons itself.
This rule was made for situations where summons is to be served outside the
judicial regions of the court where the case is pending, in consonance with the
provisions of Section 3, Rule 14:
xxx In cases where summons is to be served outside the judicial region
of the court where the case is pending, the plaintiff shall be authorized
to cause the service of summons.
If the plaintiff is a juridical entity, it shall notify the court, in writing, and
name its authorized representative therein, attaching a board resolution
or secretary’s certificate thereto, as the case may be, stating that such
representative is duly authorized to serve the summons on behalf of the
plaintiff. xxx
SECTION 3
Section 3. By whom served. — The summons may be served by the
sheriff, his or her deputy, or other proper court officer, and in case of
failure of service of summons by them, the court may authorize the
plaintiff - to serve the summons - together with the sheriff.
In cases where summons is to be served outside the judicial region of
the court where the case is pending, the plaintiff shall be authorized to
cause the service of summons.
If the plaintiff is a juridical entity, it shall notify the court, in writing, and
name its authorized representative therein, attaching a board resolution
or secretary’s certificate thereto, as the case may be, stating that such
representative is duly authorized to serve the summons on behalf of the
plaintiff.
If the plaintiff misrepresents that the defendant was served summons,
and it is later proved that no summons was served, the case shall be
dismissed with prejudice, the proceedings shall be nullified, and the
plaintiff shall be meted appropriate sanctions.
If summons is returned without being served on any or all the
defendants, the court shall order the plaintiff to cause the service of
summons by other means available under the Rules.
Failure to comply with the order shall cause the dismissal of the initiatory
pleading without prejudice.
SERVICE IS DONE BY: (but with authority granted by court)
1. Sheriff
- police sergeant, postmaster, patrolman
2. Plaintiff
EXCEPTIONS
1. Jail warden shall be deemed as a special sheriff to serve summons on the
defendant who is in prison. (Sec 8, Rule 14)
103

2. Where the defendant is a foreign juridical entity not registered in the
Philippines, or has no resident agent but has transacted business or is doing
business in the Philippines, service of summons may be coursed through the
appropriate court in the foreign country with the assistance of the department of
foreign affairs (Paragraph a, Sec 14, Rule 14)
3. Service by publication (Paragraph b, Sec 14, Rule 14)
If plaintiff is a juridical entity
1. it shall notify the court in writing
2. name its authorized representatives
3. attach board resolution or secretary’s certificate, stating that representative is
duly authorized to serve summons
If service is outside judicial region of court
1. Court may motu proprio authorize the plaintiff to cause the service of summons
2. In such case, plaintiff may or may not be accompanied by the court sheriff or
other proper court officer.
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed before RTC of Cebu City a case for collection of
sum of money against Otaner Noelag, a resident of Maasin City, Southern Leyte.
[NOTE: Cebu City belongs to the seventh judicial region, while Maasin City,
Southern Leyte, belongs to the eighth judicial region]
In this case, RTC Cebu City, upon ex parte motion of Waldi, may authorize and
direct Waldi or his authorized representative to cause the service of summons on
Otaner Noelag in Maasin City, Southern Leyte.
Or, the court may even motu proprio authorize plaintiff Waldi to cause the service
of summons.
In so serving the summons, Waldi or his authorized representative may or may
not be accompanied by the court sheriff, or other court officer.
If plaintiff misrepresents service
1. The case shall be dismissed with prejudice
- The case cannot be refiled.
2. Proceedings are nullified
3. Plaintiff shall be meted with appropriate sanctions.
- can be cited in contempt, prosecuted criminally for submitting a falsified return to
the court anent the alleged service of summons on the defendant.
If sheriff fails to serve summons
- this is despite diligent efforts of the sheriff
1. The court may motu proprio aiuthorize plaintiff to serve summons
2. the plaintiff may file ex parte motion to be allowed to serve summons
3. If dmd, the court shall order the plaintiff to cause the service of summons by
other means available. This may include, but not limited to, service of summons
by publication under Section 16, Rule 14.
4. If plaintiff fails to cause service or assist sheriff, the case shall be dismissed but
without prejudice
Example: Complaint lacks specifications (no house number, block number, etc.),
such that the court sheriff, his or her deputy, or other property officer could not
locate the defendant even if the latter actually resides within the judicial region of
the court where the case is pending.
In this situation, the court may authorize the plaintiff or his/her/its representative to
serve the summons.
NOTE: In this situation, the plaintiff would only be assisting the sheriff in serving
the summons on the defendant. The directive of the court has to be in a separate
order.
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed before RTC of Cebu City a case for collection of sum
of money against Randi Torregs whose address in the complaint was “Quiot,
Pardo, Cebu.”
Since there was no house number, block number, phase number, or street
number, the sheriff failed to locate said defendant and serve the summons on
him despite diligent efforts exerted.
ANALYSIS: RTC Cebu City, either on its own accord or upon ex parte motion of
Waldi, may authorize and direct Waldi or his authorized representative to serve
the summons on Randi Torregs, together with the sheriff. This court directive,
of course, would have to be in a separate order, as this could not be embodied
in the summons.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Validity of summons and issuance of alias summons —
Summons shall remain valid until duly served, unless it is recalled by the
court. In case of loss or destruction of summons, the court may, upon
motion, issue an alias summons.
g
There is failure of service after unsuccessful attempts to personally
serve the summons on the defendant in his or her address indicated in
the complaint. Substituted service should be in the manner provided
under Section 6 of this Rule.
Note: This is an entirely new provision.
VALIDITY OF SUMMONS
The summons shall remain valid until duly served or unless recalled by the court,
and that alias summons may be issued, upon motion, only in the event of the loss
or destruction of summons
OLD RULES: the issuance of alias summons is allowed even if the summons
previously issued has just been returned unserved.
AMENEDED RULES: Summons previously issued by the court has remained
unserved but not been recalled by the court, said summons remains valid despite
the lapse of time. There is no need for the issuance of an alias summons.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Service in person on defendant. — Whenever practicable, the
summons shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in
person and informing the defendant that he or she is being served, or, if
he or she refuses to receive and sign for it, by leaving the summons
within the view and in the presence of the defendant.
Don’t fucking say “personal service of summons,” because that’s the phrase used
by the old rules.
Rationale for change: Such change has been made, if only to avoid confusion
with personal filing and service of pleadings, motions, or other court submissions
under Rule 13 of the Amended Rules.
SERVICE IN PERSON ON DEFENDANT
RULE: Service in person on defendant happens if summons is directly and
actually served on the defendant himself or herself.
If the defendant refuses to receive the summons and sign the court’s file copy of
the summons to acknowledge receipt of a copy thereof, the one serving the
summons is authorized to just leave the copy of the summons intended for
the defendant within the view, and in the presence, of the defendant.
But this circumstance should be stated in the Return, which shall be filed with the
court and furnished to plaintiff’s counsel, in consonance with Section 20, Rule 14.
NOTE: The preferred mode of serving summons on the defendant is “personal
service,” or by serving such summons directly and actually upon the defendant
himself or herself.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes, the defendant
cannot be served personally after at least three (3) attempts on two (2)
different dates, service may be effected:
a) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence to a
person at least eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient discretion
residing therein;
b) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's office or regular
place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. A
competent person includes, but is not limited to, one who customarily
receives correspondences for the defendant;
c) By leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making his
or her authority and purpose known, with any of the officers of the
homeowners’ association or condominium corporation, or its chief
security officer in charge of the community or the building where the
defendant may be found; and
d) By sending an electronic mail to the defendant’s electronic mail
address, if allowed by the court.
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE under Section 6, Rule 14 of the Amended Rules is not
the preferred mode of service of summons.
National Petroleum Gas Inc. v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp.
G.R. No. 183370, Aug. 17, 2015
104

Resort to substituted service is permitted only when the summons cannot
be promptly served on the defendant in person and after stringent formal
and substantive requirements have been complied with.
OLD AND CURRENT RULES: Substituted of service may be had if the defendant
cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time.
AMENDED RULES: substituted service can only be had if the defendant cannot
be served personally after at least 3 attempts on 2 different dates.
This amendment incorporated the doctrine of the SC pronounced in Manotoc vs.
CA:
Manotoc v. CA
G.R. No. 130974, Aug. 16, 2006
Under the Rules, the service of summons has no set period. However, when
the court, clerk of court, or the plaintiff asks the sheriff to make the return of
the summons and the latter submits the return of summons, then the validity
of the summons lapses. The plaintiff may then ask for an alias summons if the
service of summons has failed.
What then is a reasonable time for the sheriff to effect a personal service
in order to demonstrate impossibility of prompt service? x x x
For substituted service of summons to be available, there must be
several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the summons within
a reasonable period of 1 month which eventually resulted in failure to prove
impossibility of prompt service.
"Several attempts" means at least 3 tries, preferably on at least two
different dates. In addition, the sheriff must cite why such efforts were
unsuccessful. It is only then that impossibility of service can be confirmed or
accepted.
Reiterated in:
Ong v. Co
G.R. No. 206653, Feb. 25, 2015
The landmark case of Manotoc vs. CA thoroughly discussed the rigorous
requirements of a substituted service of summons, to wit:
(1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service xxx
For substituted service of summons to be available, there must be several
attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the summons within a reasonable
period of one month which eventually resulted in failure to prove impossibility
of prompt service. "Several attempts" means at least three (3) tries,
preferably on at least two different dates. In addition, the sheriff must cite
why such efforts were unsuccessful. It is only then that impossibility of
service can be confirmed or accepted.
(2) Specific Details in the Return xxx
The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and
circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service. The efforts made
to find the defendant and the reasons behind the failure must be clearly
narrated in detail in the Return. The date and time of the attempts on
personal service, the inquiries made to locate the defendant, the name/s
of the occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant and all
other acts done, though futile, to serve the summons on defendant must
be specified in the Return to justify substituted service.
(3) A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion xxx
The sheriff must therefore determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling
or residence of defendant is of legal age, what the recipient's relationship with
the defendant is, and whether said person comprehends the significance of
the receipt of the summons and his duty to immediately deliver it to the
defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons. These
matters must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of
Summons.
METHODS OF SUBSTITUTED SERVICES - roae
1. Leaving at the residence of the defendant with a person, at least 18 and of
sufficient discretion residing therein
2. Leaving at the office or regular place of business with a competent person
3. If refused entry, leaving with any of the officers of the homeowners’ association
or condo corp
4. Through email, if allowed by the court
Note: Methods 3 and 4 are new methods
g
Method # 1
RESIDENCE - dwelling house of the defendant at the time of service, not former
dwelling house, office, or abode; the place where the person named in the
summons is living at the time when service is made, even though he may be
temporarily out of the country at the time (Venturanza vs. CA)
Hence, substituted service to the wife of the summons intended for her husband
is valid (Daran vs. Angco), but not when the spouses are not residents of the same
place (Valmonte vs. CA).
Method # 2
OFFICE OR REGULAR PLACE OF BUSINESS
To whom given? It is enough that he appears to be in charge (Guanzon vs.
Arradaza), or that he customarily receives correspondences for the defendant.
Method # 3
Robinson v. Miralles
G.R. No. 163584, Dec. 12, 2006
FACTS: The Sheriff explained that the security guard of Alabang Hills refused
to let him (the sheriff) inside the subdivision. The security guard told the sheriff
that he (security guard) was instructed by the defendant not to let anyone
proceed to her house if she was not around. Despite explaining to the security
guard that he was to serve summons to defendant, the sheriff was still not
allowed in.
Therefore, the summons was served by leaving a copy thereof together with
the copy of the complaint to the security guard, who refused to affix his
signature on the original copy thereof, so he will be the one to give the same
to the defendant.
Defendant/petitioner contended that the service of summons was invalid,
since the security guard of the subdivision is not duly authorized to receive
summons for the residents of the village.
RULING: We have ruled that the statutory requirements of substituted service
must be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully and any substituted service other
than that authorized by the Rules is considered ineffective. However, we
frown upon an overly strict application of the Rules. It is the spirit, rather
than the letter of the procedural rules, that governs.
In his Return, Sheriff declared that he was refused entry by the security guard
in Alabang Hills twice. The latter informed him that petitioner prohibits him
from allowing anybody to proceed to her residence whenever she is out.
Obviously, it was impossible for the sheriff to effect personal or substituted
service of summons upon petitioner. We note that she failed to controvert the
sheriff’s declaration. Nor did she deny having received the summons through
the security guard.
Considering her strict instruction to the security guard, she must bear
its consequences. Thus, we agree with the trial court that summons has
been properly served upon petitioner and that it has acquired
jurisdiction over her.
Because of this case and similar situations, the SC was compelled to impel such
method of substituted service in the Rules of Court.
Method # 4
PURPOSE: to expedite service of summons and is consistent with the policy of
the Supreme Court to now allow electronic service of court documents. But such
must be allowed by the court.
Take note, however, that substituted service of summons through electronic mail
to the defendant’s electronic mail address may only be had, IF ALLOWED BY THE
COURT.
EFFECTS OF VALID SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON THE
DEFENDANT
1. Actual physical receipt (or lack thereof) is immaterial, as this does not affect the
validity of the service.
2. Defendant may be charged by a judgment in personam as a result of legal
proceeding upon a method of substituted service which is not personal (Montalban
vs. Maximo)
3. While it is not required for the validity of substituted of service of summons that
defendant actually receives such summons, his actual receipt thereof would
nonetheless cure any irregularity in effecting substituted service of summons.
105

Boticano v. Chu, Jr
G.R. No. L-58036, Mar. 16, 1987
Where summons was in fact received by the defendant, his argument that the
sheriff should have tried first to serve summons on him personally before
resorting to substituted service of summons to his wife, is not meritorious.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Service upon entity without juridical personality. — When
persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued
under the name by which they are generally or commonly known, service
may be effected upon all the defendants by serving upon any one of
them, or upon the person in charge of the office or place of business
maintained in such name. But such service shall not bind individually
any person whose connection with the entity has, upon due notice, been
severed before the action was filed.
Recall: that Sec. 15, Rule 3 allows entities without juridical personality to be a
defendant in a civil case.
Examples: Corporation or partnership by estoppel, firms not registered with SEC
HOW SUMMONS IS SERVED
1. By serving the summons upon any one them, or
2. By serving the summons upon the person in charge of the office of place of
business maintained in such name
Ablaza v. Court of Industrial Relations
G.R. No. L-33906, Dec. 21, 1983
Where the action was brought against “Cerisco Blackat Trading,” which
designation was a combination of the trademark and business name under
which the owners of the establishment were doing business, the summons
served upon the “president/owner/manager” of said firm, although they
were not impleaded as defendants in the complaint, was valid and the court
acquired jurisdiction over their persons.
EFFECT OF SUCH SERVICE
1. it shall not individually bind any person whose connection with the entity has
been severed before action was filed, which had due notice.
- For that person to be bound in the action, he must be separately served with
summons.
SECTION 8
Section 8. Service upon prisoners. — When the defendant is a prisoner
confined in a jail or institution, service shall be effected upon him or her
by the officer having the management of such jail or institution who is
deemed as a special sheriff for said purpose. The jail warden shall file a
return within five (5) calendar days from service of summons to the
defendant.
This was discussed earlier, as an exception to sheriff & plaintiffs as the human
who can serve summons.
JAIL WARDEN OR THE OFFICER
Requisites:
1. Is in charge of the management of the jail wherein the defendant is imprisoned
2. Deputized as special sheriff (therefore is authorized to serve the summons on
the prisoner-defendant)
3. Must file a return within 5 calendar days from service of summons to the
defendant
SECTION 9
Section 9. Service consistent with international conventions. — Service
may be made through methods which are consistent with established
international conventions to which the Philippines is a party.
This provision is entirely new.
The Hague Convention
This is an international agreement that established a more simplified means for
parties to effect service in other contracting states.
Under the convention, each contracting state is required, among other things,
to designate a central authority to accept incoming requests for service. A
judicial officer who is competent to serve process in the state of origin is permitted
to send request for service directly to the central authority of the state where
service is to be made. Upon receiving the request, the central authority in the
g
receiving state arranges for service in a manner permitted within the receiving
state, typically through a local court. Once service is effected, the central authority
sends a certificate of service to the judicial officer who made the request. Parties
are required to use three standardized forms: a request for service, a summary of
the proceedings (similar to a summons), and a certificate of service.
The Hague Convention likewise provides for various modes of process service of
documents such as by postal channel or by diplomatic/consular agents, judicial
officers, officials or other competent persons, or even by mail in states that have
not objected to that method.
If the Philippines accedes to and ratifies The Hague Convention, then service of
summons in other jurisdiction may be done pursuant to such treaty.
SECTION 10
Section 10. Service upon minors and incompetents. — When the
defendant is a minor, insane or otherwise an incompetent person,
service of summons shall be made upon him or her personally and on
his or her legal guardian if he or she has one, or if none, upon his or her
guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be applied for by the plaintiff.
In the case of a minor, service shall be made on his or her parent or
guardian.
UPON WHO MUST SUMMONS BE SERVED?
Upon the minor/insane/incompetent personally AND his parent or guardian.
If the minor/ insane/ incompetent has no guardian, the plaintiff must obtain the
appointment of a guardian ad litem for such defendant.
SECTION 11
Section 11. Service upon spouses. — When spouses are sued jointly,
service of summons should be made to each spouse individually.
This is a new provision and in relation to Sec 4, Rule 3.
RULE: When spouses are sued jointly, service of summons must be made to each
spouse individually.
This is important, when the spouses are not residents of the same place.
GENERAL RULE: When one spouse resides in the Philippines and the other
resides abroad, service of summons to one spouse (when they are sued jointly) is
not considered service to them two.
Valmonte v. CA
G.R. No. 108538, Jan. 22, 1996
Substituted service of summon done on the spouse in the Philippines with
respect to the summons intended for his spouse who does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines is invalid.
EXCEPTION: Service to once spouse will effect to service to them to if the spouse
residing in the Philippines is empowered to represent the other spouse who does
not reside and is not found in the Philippines.
Gemperle v. Schenker
G.R. No. L-18164, Jan. 23, 1967
We hold that the lower court had acquired jurisdiction over said defendant,
through service of the summons addressed to him upon Mrs. Schenker, it
appearing from said answer that she is the representative and attorney-in-fact
of her husband aforementioned civil case No. Q-2796, which apparently was
filed at her behest, in her aforementioned representative capacity. In other
words, Mrs. Schenker had authority to sue, and had actually sued on behalf
of her husband, so that she was, also, empowered to represent him in suits
filed against him, particularly in a case, like the of the one at bar, which is
consequence of the action brought by her on his behalf.
ILLUSTRATION: Husband is in the Philippines, while wife does not reside or is
not found in the Philippines (a non-resident alien). An action, characterized as in
rem or quasi in rem, is filed against them jointly.
Q: How should summons be served to the wife?
A: In this case, service of summons for the wife should be done strictly in
accordance with Section 17, Rule 14, which includes, but is not necessarily limited
to, service of summons by publication, but which does not allow substituted
service of summons.
ILLUSTRATION: Husband and wife both reside in the Philippines, but wife is
temporarily out of the country, as she was taking a solo vacation abroad. A case
was filed against them jointly.
106

Q: How should service be served?
A: Insofar as the defendant wife is concerned, service of summons should be done
in accordance with Section 18, Rule 14 of the Amended Rules, which includes, but
is not limited to, service of summons by publication, but which also allows
substituted service.
SECTION 12
Section 12. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. — When the
defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized under
the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be
made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate
secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel of the corporation wherever
they may be found, or in their absence or unavailability, on their
secretaries.
If such service cannot be made upon any of the foregoing persons, it
shall be made upon the person who customarily receives the
correspondence for the defendant at its principal office.
In case the domestic juridical entity is under receivership or liquidation,
service of summons shall be made on the receiver or liquidator, as the
case may be.
Should there be a refusal on the part of the persons above-mentioned to
receive summons despite at least three (3) attempts on two (2) different
dates, service may be made electronically, if allowed by the court, as
provided under Section 6 of this Rule.
Who served? The entity’s president, managing partner, general manager,
corporate secretary, treasurer or in-house counsel. This list is exclusive.
Remember! It may be served upon their secretaries in their absence.
E.B. Viilarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. v. Hon. Benito
G.R. No. 136426, Aug. 4, 1999
RULING: Service of summons upon the Branch Manager of the petitioner at
its branch in CDO is invalid.
The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons
for a domestic corporation or partnership is now limited and more clearly
specified in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule
now states "general manager" instead of only "manager"; "corporate secretary"
instead of "secretary"; and "treasurer" instead of "cashier." The phrase "agent,
or any of its directors" is conspicuously deleted in the new rule.”
LOCATION OF SERVICE – Wherever they may be found
It is not necessary that it be made in the principal office of the corporation. It may
be done in their residence.
If no 6 or their secretaries
Service shall be made upon the person who customarily receives the
correspondence for the defendant at its principal office. This may be a mere
corporate clerk or any corporate personnel at its principal office, if such clerk or
personnel customarily receives the correspondence for the defendant at its
principal office.
If it’s under receivership or liquidation
Service of summons shall be made on the receiver or liquidator, as the case may
be.
SUMMARY!
Serve upon:
1. President; or
2. Managing partner; or
3. General manager; or
4. Corporate secretary; or
5. Treasurer; or
6. In-house counsel; or
7. On the respective secretaries of the above-named corporate officers, in their
absence or unavailability; or
8. On the person who customarily receives the correspondence for the domestic
juridical entity at its principal office, in the event that service of summons could
not be made on the persons enumerated under items (a) to (g), above; or
9. The receiver or liquidator, as the case may be, in case the domestic juridical
entity is under receivership or liquidation
10. Electronically, if dmd na jud
SECTION 13
g
Section 13. Duty of counsel of record. — Where the summons is
improperly served and a lawyer makes a special appearance on behalf of
the defendant to, among others, question the validity of service of
summons, the counsel shall be deputized by the court to serve summons
on his or her client.
This is a new provision.
Galeon: This new provision renders the objection on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant meaningless.
IN SHORT – The court’s lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
seems to be impossible to be objected, since (1) it is not a valid ground to
file a motion to dismiss, (2) pleading such ground as an affirmative defense
in the answer will automatically make the defendant voluntarily submit
himself to the jurisdiction of the court (which eventually cures the court’s
defect), and (3) special appearance of counsel questioning the validity of
service of summons will deputize the counsel to serve summons on his
client.
Not a ground to file motion to dismiss
Later on, Sec 12, Rule 15 will present GROUNDS FOR MOTION TO DISMISS:
1. No jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Litis pendencia
3. Res judicata
4. Statute of limitations.
NOTICE that lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is NOT a ground
to file motion to dismiss.
Therefore, counsel for the defendant cannot then appear and court and object to
the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, since the court will
deputize the counsel to serve summons upon his client, the defendant.
May be pleaded in an affirmative defense in the answer
The ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may only be
pleaded in the answer by way of affirmative defense, as provided in Sec 12,
Rule 8.
But because Section 12 (b), Rule 15 prohibits motion to hear affirmative
defenses, the defendant have to file an answer, which would necessarily make
him voluntarily submit to the jurisdiction of the court, which is provided by Sec 23,
Rule 14.
Automatic deputation of the counsel
Section 13, Rule 14 of the Amended Rules would seal the fate of the defendant
who wishes to question the court’s jurisdiction over his person, as it provides that
where a lawyer makes a special appearance on behalf of the defendant to, among
others, question the validity of service of summons, “the counsel shall be
deputized by the court to serve summons on his or her client.”
SECTION 14
Section 14. Service upon foreign private juridical entities. — When the
defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted or is
doing business in the Philippines, as defined by law, service may be
made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that
purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official
designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers, agents, directors
or trustees within the Philippines.
If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines,
or has no resident agent but has transacted or is doing business in it, as
defined by law, such service may, with leave of court, be effected outside
of the Philippines through any of the following means:
a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the
foreign country with the assistance of the department of foreign affairs;
b) By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the
country where the defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the
summons and the court order by registered mail at the last known
address of the defendant;
c) By facsimile;
d) By electronic means with the prescribed proof of service; or
e) By such other means as the court, in its discretion, may direct.
107
 g

KINDS OF FOREIGN PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITIES

2. Insurance Commissioner, for insurance corporations (Section 177 of the
1. ENGAGED IN TRADE AND BUSINESSS Insurance Act, as amended);

Acts that constitute “doing business in the Philippines,” - enumerated under
Section 3 (d) of the Foreign Investment Act of 1991 and the Rules and Regulations
implementing the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987, among others (which you
will take up in your Corporation Law subject).
A. Licensed
A foreign corporation may be allowed to transact business in the Philippines after
it shall have obtained a license to transact business in the country and a
certificate of authority from the appropriate government agency.
RULE: A foreign corporation with license to do business in the Philippines may
sue or be sued in the country.
Corporation Code: Section 128. Resident agent; service of process. - The
Securities and Exchange Commission shall require as a condition
precedent to the issuance of the license to transact business in the
Philippines by any foreign corporation that such corporation file with the
Securities and Exchange Commission a written power of attorney
designating some person who must be a resident of the Philippines, on
whom any summons and other legal processes may be served in all
actions or other legal proceedings against such corporation, and
consenting that service upon such resident agent shall be admitted and
held as valid as if served upon the duly authorized officers of the foreign
corporation at its home office. x x x
3. Securities and Exchange Corporation, for other corporations (Section 123 of the
Corporation Code).
NOTE: Summons may be served upon government officials even if the
corporation has ceased doing business in the PH.
Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. v. CA
G.R. No. 112573, Feb. 9, 1995
The laws authorizing service of processes upon the afore-named government
officials allow such service of summons even if the foreign corporation has
ceased to do business in the Philippines.
Section 128 of the Corporation Code and Section 190 of the Insurance Code
contemplates of two situations:
(1) if the corporation has left the Philippines or had ceased to transact business
therein, and
(2) if the corporation has no designated agent. Section 17 of the General
Banking Act does not even speak of a corporation which had ceased to
transact business in the Philippines.
UNLICENSED FOREIGN PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITIES DOING
BUSINESS IN THE PH OR LICENSED BUSINESSES WITHOUT
RESIDENT AGENTS

B. Unlicensed Service may be made: Time to file answer:

GENERAL RULE: Unlicensed foreign businesses cannot sue, but may be sued.
PERSONAL SERVICE
Corporation Code. Section 133. Doing business without a license. - No
foreign corporation transacting business in the Philippines without a - coursed through the appropriate court
license, or its successors or assigns, shall be permitted to maintain or in the foreign country with the
intervene in any action, suit or proceeding in any court or administrative assistance of the department of foreign
agency of the Philippines; but such corporation may be sued or affairs
proceeded against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals
on any valid cause of action recognized under Philippine laws.
PUBLICATION IN A NEWSPAPER OF
EXCEPTION: Unlicensed foreign businesses may bring action in the PH against GENERAL CIRCULATION &
a PH citizen or entity who had contracted with and benefited from said SENDING BY REGISTERED MAIL TO
corporation for such citizen shall be deemed in estoppel. (Agilent Technologies THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF
Singapore Ltd. vs. Integrated Silicon Technology Philippines Corp.) THE DEFENDANT
within the period of not less than
2. NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE AND BUSINESS - in the country where the defendant 60 calendar days from notice
may be found
A foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines is not required to (pursuant to Sec 17, Rule 14)
obtain license to do business in the country.

GENERAL RULE: It may not sue. FACSIMILE

EXCEPTION: It may be allowed to bring an action in the country when it is suing ELECTRONIC MEANS
under an isolated transaction (Rimbunan Hijau Group of Companies vs. Oriental
World Processing Corp.) or to protect its trade name or goodwill which has - with the prescribed proof of service
been infringed (Philip Morris, Inc. vs. CA)

RULES ON SERVICE OF SUMMONS

SUCH OTHER MEANS AS THE
COURT, IN ITS DISCRETION, MAY
LICENSED FOREIGN PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITIES DOING BUSINESS DIRECT
IN THE PH

Service may be made: Time to file answer:

DON’T FORGET: Must be done with leave of court

on its RESIDENT AGENT designated
in accordance with law for that purpose
if there be no such agent, on
DIRECTORS OR TRUSTEES within
the Philippines
on the GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
designated by law to that effect
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DESIGNED BY LAW TO RECEIVE SUMMONS
SECTION 15
30 calendar days from service of
summons
Section 15. Service upon public corporations. — When the defendant is
the Republic of the Philippines, service may be effected on the Solicitor
General; in case of a province, city or municipality, or like public
corporations, service may be effected on its executive head, or on such
30 calendar days from service of
other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct.
summons
Upon whom to serve the
Defendant
60 calendar days after receipt summons
thereof by the home office REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Solicitor General
PROVINCE, CITY, MUNICIPALITY
Executive head, other officers
OR LIKE PUBCORPS

1. Superintendent of Banks, for banking, savings and loan trust corporations NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
(Section 17, R.A. 337);
108

Even if the public corporation is not impleaded as a respondent, it is necessary for
the public corporation to be notified in the following cases:
1. Any action involving the validity of a statute, executive order or regulation –
notify the SolGen
2. Any action involving the validity of a local government ordinance – notify the
prosecutor or attorney of LGU involved. (If such ordinance is alleged to be
unconstitutional, the Solicitor General shall also be notified and entitled to be
heard.)
SECTION 16
Section 16. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are
unknown. — In any action where the defendant is designated as an
unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his or her whereabouts are
unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, within ninety (90)
calendar days from the commencement of the action, service may, by
leave of court, be effected upon him or her by publication in a newspaper
of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court
may order.
Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which
shall not be less than sixty (60) calendar days after notice, within which
the defendant must answer.
Recall Sec 14, Rule 3: When the identity or name of the defendant is unknown, he
may be sued as “the unknown owner,” until his true name is discovered.
POINTS TO REMEMBER FOR SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION
1. must be done with leave of court
2. May be validly done regardless of kind of action (in personam, in rem, quasi in
rem)
3. Defendant has 60 calendar days from notice to answer
SECTION 17
Section 17. Extraterritorial service. — When the defendant does not
reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is,
property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a
lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded
consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest
therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the
Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the
Philippines by personal service as under Section 6; or as provided for in
international conventions to which the Philippines is a party; or by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for
such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons
and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known
address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem
sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time,
which shall not be less than sixty (60) calendar days after notice, within
which the defendant must answer.
REQUISITES FOR EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE
1. The defendant is a nonresident;
2. He is not found in the Philippines; and
3. The action against him is either in rem or quasi in rem, such as:
(1) Actions that affect the personal status of the plaintiff; or
(2) Actions which relate to, or the subject matter of which is property within
the Philippines (real or personal), in which the defendant claims a lien or
interest, actual or contingent; and
(3) Actions in which the relief demanded consists wholly or in part, in
excluding the defendant from an interest in property located in the Philippines;
or
(4) When the defendant’s property has been attached in the Philippines.
MODES OF EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE
MUST BE WITH LEAVE OF COURT
1. Personal service as under Section 5, Rule 14 of the Amended Rules, which
is to be effected outside the Philippines
this mode of service obviously entails expense and is usually cumbersome
Purpose of extraterritorial service: to be complaint to due process requirements,
and not for the purposes of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
Northwest Orient Airlines v. CA
g
G.R. No. 112573, Feb. 9, 1995
The fundamental rule is that jurisdiction in personam over
nonresidents, so as to sustain a money judgment, must be based upon
personal service within the state which renders the judgment
The process of a court, has no extraterritorial effect, and no jurisdiction is
acquired over the person of the defendant by serving him beyond the
boundaries of the state. Nor has a judgment of a court of a foreign country
against a resident of this country having no property in such foreign country
based on process served here, any effect here against either the defendant
personally or his property situated here.
Process issuing from the courts of one state or country cannot run into
another, and although a nonresident defendant may have been
personally served with such process in the state or country of his
domicile, it will not give such jurisdiction as to authorize a personal
judgment against him.”
2. Through any manner as provided for in international conventions to which
the Philippines is a party
This is in consonance with Section 9, Rule 14
3. By publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and
for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons
and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known
address of the defendant
SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION - publishing the (1) summons, together the (2)
order of the court allowing such summons by publication, in the newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines in such places and for such time as the court
may order (Sahagun vs. CA), although there is no prohibition against availing of
foreign newspaper in extraterritorial service of summons
NOTE: There is an added requirement that copies of the summons and the order
of the court allowing summons by publication shall be sent by registered mail to
the last known address of the defendant.
Biaco v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank
G.R. No. 161417, Feb. 8, 2007
Such sending by registered mail of the summons and the order of the
court is not for purposes of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely
for satisfying the due process requirements
Sahagun v. CA
G.R. No. 78328, June 3, 1991
In fine, as long as the summons, together the order of the court allowing such
summons by publication, had been published in the newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines in such places and for such time as the court may
order and as long as copies of the summons and the order of the court were
sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, the court
may already proceed to hear and decide the case even if there is no absolute
assurance that said nonresident defendant shall thereby receive actual notice;
after all, such service of summons is required not for purposes of physically
acquiring jurisdiction over his person but simply in pursuance of the
requirements of fair play.
Castillo v. CFI of Bulacan
G.R. No. L-55869, Feb. 20, 1984
Failure to send copies of the summons and the order of the court by registered
mail to the last known address correct address of the defendant is a fatal
defect in the service of summons as to annul the proceedings.
4. In any other manner the court may deem sufficient
Valmonte v. Santos
supra
In a few cases, service of summons by registered mail on nonresident
defendant who is not found in the Philippines was considered valid.
ILLUSTRATIONS ILLUSTRATING HAHAHA
ILLUSTRATION 1: Maria Ozawa, a Japanese-Canadian, came to visit the
Philippines. While sojourning as a tourist in the Philippines, she met and got
enamored with the dashing debonair Waldi Bigotilyo, a Filipino citizen. Sooner
than expected, the two tied the knot in marriage, but shortly after their marriage,
Maria Ozawa deserted Waldi. She returned to her Canada and her whereabouts
were not known.
109

Q: Can Waldi file a case before the appropriate Philippine court against Maria
Ozawa for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Court,
when she is not a resident of the Philippines and is not found in the Philippines?
A: Yes, he can. The action involves the personal status of the plaintiff. The res is
the status of the marriage of plaintiff and res happens to be in the Philippines.
The case can be filed in the proper court where Waldi resides. The court may
validly acquire jurisdiction over the res through extraterritorial service of
summons under Section 17, Rule 14 of the Amended Rules.
ILLUSTRATION 2: Suppose your Filipino friend, who has long been permanently
residing in Wuhan, China, came to visit the Philippines. After a brief stay in the
Philippines, he was supposed to go back to Wuhan, China, but was prevented
from leaving due to the lockdown brought about by CoVid-19. As he was stuck
here, he ran out of cash, so he obtained a short loan from you, secured with a
real estate mortgage constituted on his inherited parcel of land situated in the
Philippines. He failed to pay his loan upon due date. So, you instituted a
foreclosure proceeding involving the mortgaged property, but even before you
could file the action, your friend had already surreptitiously flown back to Wuhan,
China.
Q1: Can the court still acquire jurisdiction over the defendant?
A1: No. The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
because he is not a resident of the Philippines and is not found in the Philippines.
Q2: Is there a way that the court can proceed to hear and decide the foreclosure
case?
A2: Yes. A foreclosure sale is an action quasi in rem. In this kind of action,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not required. In this situation,
extraterritorial service of summons under Section 17, Rule 14 of the Amended
Rules may be effected for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the res, not
necessarily over the person of the defendant. And, if, for instance summons has
been served by publication strictly in accordance with Section 17, Rule 14 of the
Amended Rules, then the court can proceed to hear the case.
Q3: May the court validly render a judgment in the foreclosure proceedings?
A3: Yes. On the premise that the court had already acquired jurisdiction over the
res and as long summons by publication was validly effected, strictly in
accordance with Section 17, Rule 14 of the Amended Rules, the court can
proceed to render judgment in the case.
Q4: Suppose the proceed of the foreclosure sale is not enough to pay the
outstanding loan of the defendant plus interests, can the plaintiff proceed to ask
the court for deficiency judgment?
A4: No. Deficiency judgment partakes of the nature of action in personam.
Considering that the defendant who is not a resident of the Philippines and who
is not residing herein had not been personally served with summons, then no
personal judgment for deficiency can be entered against him.
Case in point: Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 930
Q5: Suppose the defendant rather voluntarily appeared in the foreclosure
proceedings and submitted to jurisdiction of the court, can the court proceed to
likewise award the deficiency judgment if found to be warranted?
A5: Yes, because the action has become a suit in personam
Case in point: Villareal vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107314, September 17,
1998
ILLUSTRATION 3: Suppose, in the above problem, the obligation of the
defendant was not secured by real estate mortgage, and you filed the action for
collection of sum of money only after the defendant had already returned to
Wuhan, China.
Q1: can the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of defendant?
A2: No, because the defendant cannot anymore be personally served with
summons in the Philippines.
Q2: May the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant as by
effecting extraterritorial service of summons pursuant to Section 17, Rule 14 of
the Amended Rules?
A2: No. The action for simple collection of sum of money is an action in
personam. The rule is well-settled that extraterritorial service of summons may
not lie in an action in personam against the defendant who does not reside and
is not found in the Philippines.
g
Case in point: Kawasaki Port Service Corporation vs. Amores, 199 SCRA 230
Q3: So, is there a way by which the court can proceed to hear and decide the
collection case?
A3: An action for collection for sum of money is an action in personam and, as,
such, it is required that the court should acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant. Inasmuch, however, as the defendant could not be served with
summons in the Philippines, the remedy of the plaintiff is look for and attach the
properties of the defendant in the Philippines, pursuant to Rule 57 of the Rules of
Court.
If this is done, the action becomes an action quasi in rem, so extraterritorial
service of summons may now be effected pursuant to Section 17, Rule 14 of the
Amended Rules, for the court to validly acquire jurisdiction over the res, and not
necessarily over the defendant. Thereafter, the court can proceed to hear and
decide the case.
Case in point: Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. Alejandro, 533
SCRA 738
NOTE: Summons by publication will not lie as against a nonresident defendant
and who is not found in the Philippines if the action filed against him is an
action in personam
GENERAL RULE: that summons by publication is not available as a means of
acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in action in personam.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Where the defendant is unknown or his whereabouts is unknown (Sec 15, Rule
14)
2. Where the defendant is a resident of the PH but is temporarily not in the PH
(Sec 18, Rule 14)
3. When the defendant is foreign private juridical entity, not registered in the PH,
or has no resident agent but transacted business in the PH. (Sec 14, Rule 14)
Artemio Baltazar v. CA
G.R. No. 78728, Dec. 8, 1988
The first point that must be made in this connection is that the propriety of
service of summons by publication is not dependent upon the technical
characterization of the action being initiated as an action in rem or quasi in
rem. The propriety of service by publication is dependent, rather, upon
compliance with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the Rules of
Court. We note secondly, that service of summons of publication may be
allowed under Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court in three (3) different
situations. The first is the situation of an "unknown defendant" addressed
by Section 16 of Rule 14:
The second refers to situations where "extra-territorial service" is proper.
This kind of situation is governed by Section 17 of Rule 14.
The third situation is that of a resident of the Philippines who is
temporarily out of the Philippines and who may be served with summons
by publication under Section 18.
SECTION 18
Section 18. Residents temporarily out of the Philippines. — When any
action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within
the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of
court, be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the preceding
Section.
RESIDENT TEMPORARILY OUT OF THE PH
Examples: vacation, working as an OFW.
SERVICES OF SUMMONS MODES
1. By personal service of summons on the defendant himself or herself, in the
Philippines, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 14 of the Amended Rules of Court; or
This is possible if the defendant to happens to be here in the Philippines during
the service of summons.
2. Through substituted service of summons, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 14 of
the Amended Rules of Court; or
Montalban v. Maximo
110

G.R. No. L-22997, Mar. 15, 1968
A man temporarily absent from this country leaves a definite place of residence,
a dwelling where he lives, a local base, so to speak, to which any inquiry about
him may be directed and where he is bound to return. Where one temporarily
absents himself, he leaves his affairs in the hands of one who may be
reasonably expected to act in his place and stead; to do all that is necessary to
protect his interests; and to communicate with him from time to time any incident
of importance that may affect him or his business or his affairs.
It is usual for such a man to leave at his home or with his business associates
information as to where he may be contacted in the event a question that affects
him crops up. If he does not do what is expected of him, and a case comes up
in court against him, he cannot in justice raise his voice and say that he is not
subject to the processes of our courts. He cannot stop a suit from being filed
against him upon a claim that he cannot be summoned at his dwelling house or
residence or his office or regular place of business.
3. Through extraterritorial service of summons, in consonance with Section 17,
Rule 14 of the Amended Rules of Court which includes, but is not limited, to
service of summons by publication or personal service outside the
Philippines, upon leave of court
Case in point: Asiavest Limited vs. CA, G.R. No. 128803, Sept. 25, 1998
Note: Defendant has 60 calendar days from notice to file answer.
Again, in summons by publication, there is an added requirement that copies of
the summons and the order of the court allowing summons by publication shall be
sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant.
PURPOSE OF EXTRATERRIOTRIAL PERSONAL SERVICE: To validly vest the
court with jurisdiction over the purpose of the accused.
This is different from when the defendant is a non-resident not found in the
Philippines.
Northwest Orient Airlines v. CA
G.R. No. 112573, Feb. 9, 1995
“The principle was put at rest by the United States Supreme Court when it
ruled in the 1940 case of Milliken vs. Meyer that domicile in the state is alone
sufficient to bring an absent defendant within the reach of the state's
jurisdiction for purposes of a personal judgment by means of appropriate
substituted service or personal service without the state. This principle is
embodied in section 18, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which allows service of
summons on residents temporarily out of the Philippines to be made out of
the country. The rationale for this rule was explained in Milliken as follows:
The authority of a state over one of its citizens is not terminated by the mere
fact of his absence from the state. The state which accords him privileges and
affords protection to him and his property by virtue of his domicile may also
exact reciprocal duties. "Enjoyment of the privileges of residence within the
state, and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws, are
inseparable" from the various incidences of state citizenship. The
responsibilities of that citizenship arise out of the relationship to the state which
domicile creates. That relationship is not dissolved by mere absence from the
state. The attendant duties, like the rights and privileges incident to domicile,
are not dependent on continuous presence in the state. One such incident of
domicile is amenability to suit within the state even during sojourns without the
state, where the state has provided and employed a reasonable method for
apprising such an absent party of the proceedings against him.”
SECTION 19
Section 19. Leave of court. — Any application to the court under this Rule
for leave to effect service in any manner for which leave of court is
necessary shall be made by motion in writing, supported by affidavit of
the plaintiff or some person on his behalf, setting forth the grounds for
the application.
WHEN LEAVE OF COURT IS REQUIRED:
1. Unregistered foreign private juridical entity or has no agent but transacted in
the PH (Sec 14, Rule 14)
2. Defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown (Sec 16, Rule 14)
3. Extraterritorial service of summons (Sec 17, Rule 14)
4. Residents of the PH but who are temporarily out of the country (Sec 18, Rule
14)
g
NOTE: There must be a filing of a written motion, supported by the affidavit of
the plaintiff or some person acting on his or her behalf in order for it to be a valid
leave of court
SECTION 20
Section 20. Return. — Within thirty (30) calendar days from issuance of
summons by the clerk of court and receipt thereof, the sheriff or process
server, or person authorized by the court, shall complete its service.
Within five (5) calendar days from service of summons, the server shall
file with the court and serve a copy of the return to the plaintiff’s counsel,
personally, by registered mail, or by electronic means authorized by the
Rules.
Should substituted service have been effected, the return shall state the
following:
(1) The impossibility of prompt personal service within a period of thirty
(30) calendar days from issue and receipt of summons;
(2) The date and time of the three (3) attempts on at least (2) two different
dates to cause personal service and the details of the inquiries made to
locate the defendant residing thereat; and
(3) The name of the person at least eighteen (18) years of age and of
sufficient discretion residing thereat, name of competent person in
charge of the defendant’s office or regular place of business, or name of
the officer of the homeowners’ association or condominium corporation
or its chief security officer in charge of the community or building where
the defendant may be found.
This obligates the server to file with the court a copy of the RETURN to the
plaintiff’s counsel after 5 calendar days from service of summons to defendant.
If service was done through substitution, the return must have the following
contents:
1. The impossibility of personal service
2. The fact of 3 attempts on 2 different dates
3. details of the inquiries made to locate defendant during the attempts
4. Name of recipient
SECTION 21
Section 21. Proof of service. — The proof of service of a summons shall
be made in writing by the server and shall set forth the manner, place,
and date of service; shall specify any papers which have been served
with the process and the name of the person who received the same; and
shall be sworn to when made by a person other than a sheriff or his or
her deputy.
If summons was served by electronic mail, a printout of said e-mail, with
a copy of the summons as served, and the affidavit of the person mailing,
shall constitute as proof of service.
PROOF OF SERVICE, IN GENERAL
1. Written
2. Sets forth manner, place and date of service
3. Specifies papers served and name of recipient
4. Sworn by a person other than the sheriff
PROOF OF SERVICE, THROUGH EMAIL
1. Printout of email
2. Copy of summons
3. Affidavit of the person mailing
Orosa v. CA
G.R. No. 118696, Sept. 3, 1996
The Return filed by the sheriff or process server, whose duties include service
of summons and other court processes, is prima facie evidence of the facts
stated therein, and said officer enjoys the presumption that he has
regularly performed his duty. Hence, to overcome the presumption arising
from the Sheriff’s return, the evidence must be clear and convincing.
SECTION 22
Section 22. Proof of service by publication. — If the service has been
made by publication, service may be proved by the affidavit of the
publisher, editor, business or advertising manager, to which affidavit a
copy of the publication shall be attached and by an affidavit showing the
deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the post
office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to
his or her last known address.
111

PROOF OF SERVICE, BY PUBLICATION
1. The affidavit of either the publisher, or editor, or business or advertising
manager of the newspaper company which published the summons and the court
order authorizing summons by publication, to which affidavit copies of the
publication shall be attached; and
2. Another affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for
publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by
registered mail to his or her last known address.
SECTION 23
Section 23. Voluntary appearance. — The defendant's voluntary
appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The
inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall be deemed a voluntary
appearance.
HOW TO COURT ACQUIRES JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
DEFENDANT
1. Proper service of summons
2. Voluntary appearance through (1) defendant’s appearance in court, or (2)
inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds other than lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant.
Instances deemed to be voluntary submission of the defendant:
1. He enters in the case through a lawyer (Tuason vs. CA)
2. He files a motion for extension of time to file answer (Villareal vs. CA)
3. Filing a motion for reconsideration of the judgment by default and a motion to
admit answer (Europa vs. IAC & Hunter Garments Mfg)
4. Jointly submitting a compromise agreement for approval of the trial court
(Algabre vs. CA)
OLD AND PRESENT RULES: The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not
be deemed a voluntary appearance.
But the rules have already been drastically altered
AMENDED RULES: The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside
from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall be deemed a
voluntary appearance
More than that, recall in Sec 13, Rule 14 that the court’s lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant seems to be impossible to be objected, since:
(1) it is not a valid ground to file a motion to dismiss,
(2) pleading such ground as an affirmative defense in the answer will automatically
make the defendant voluntarily submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court (which
eventually cures the court’s defect), and
(3) special appearance of counsel questioning the validity of service of summons
will deputize the counsel to serve summons on his client.
Galeon: The objection on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant now appears to be meaningless
RULE 15 – MOTIONS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Motion defined. – A motion is an application for relief other
than by a pleading.
MOTION - application for relief other than by a pleading
Therefore, a complaint, answer, counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party complaint,
or complaint-in-interventions, or reply, or rejoinder are not motions.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Motions must be in writing. — All motions shall be in writing
except those made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial.
A motion made in open court or in the course of a hearing or trial should
immediately be resolved in open court, after the adverse party is given
the opportunity to argue his or her opposition thereto.
When a motion is based on facts not appearing on record, the court may
hear the matter on affidavits or depositions presented by the respective
g
parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly
on oral testimony or depositions.
GENERAL RULE: All motions shall be in writing.
EXCEPTION: Except those made in open court or in the course of a hearing or
trial.
WRITTEN MOTIONS
Where the motion is in writing, and where applicable, it must comply with
the requirements, under the following:
1. Section 3, Rule 15 of the Amended Rules, in respect to the contents thereof
and the supporting documents thereof, if necessary;
2. Section 7, Rule 15 of the Amended Rules, anent proof of service to the
opposing party;
3. Section 9, Rule 15 of the Amended Rules, otherwise known as omnibus
motion rule, if the motion is geared at attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or
proceeding;
4. Section 10, Rule 15 of the Amended Rules, requiring the attachment to the
motion of the pleading or another motion sought to be allowed admission by the
court, if such is the trust of the motion;
5. Section 11, Rule 15 of the Amended Rules, with respect to the form of such
motion; and
6. Section 12, Rule 15 of the Amended Rules, anent payment of the required
fee, if such be a motion for postponement.
VERBAL MOTIONS
GENERAL RULE: It must be resolved by the court immediately, after the adverse
party is given the opportunity to argue his or her opposition thereto.
applies only:
1. simple oral motions - motions for postponement, or motion for
exclusion of other witnesses during cross-
examinations, or motion for issuance of an
alias summons, etc., or
2. resolution of such oral
motions that does not involve
extraneous facts or intricate
/difficult legal provisions
EXCEPTIONS: An oral motion need not be resolved immediately where its
resolution involves extraneous facts or facts not evident in the records of the case
ILLUSTRATION: The wife filed a case for legal separation against the husband.
During the hearing of the case, the wife, through her lawyer, verbally asked the
court to direct the husband to give support to the wife pendente lite, in the amount
of P50,000.00 per month. The husband vigorously opposed such verbal motion,
contending that he has no means to give the support demanded, as, according to
him, his monthly income is only P20,000.00 and, more than that, he is allegedly
saddled with debts.
ANALYSIS: In this case, even if the motion was verbally done in open court, the
court is not required, as it cannot reasonably be expected, to resolve such
motion right there and then. Here, the court may just require the movant to
reduce his motion in writing and for the opposing party to file his or her written
comment or opposition thereto. After all, haste is not a substitute for justice.
Remember: Asking for support is a resolution that involves extraneous facts or
intricate legal provisions, therefore, it does not necessarily have to be resolved
immediately.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Contents. – A motion shall state the relief sought to be
obtained and the grounds upon which it is based, and if required by these
Rules or necessary to prove facts alleged therein, shall be accompanied
by supporting affidavits and other papers.
RULE: A written motion that alleges facts not evident in the case records should
be accompanied by supporting affidavits and other documents to establish those
extraneous facts.
SECTION 4
[Section 4. Hearing of motion. — Deleted]
112

Section 4. Non-litigious motions. — Motions which the court may act
upon without prejudicing the rights of adverse parties are non-litigious
motions. These motions include:
a) Motion for the issuance of an alias summons;
b) Motion for extension to file answer;
c) Motion for postponement;
d) Motion for the issuance of a writ of execution;
e) Motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution;
f) Motion for the issuance of a writ of possession;
g) Motion for the issuance of an order directing the sheriff to execute the
final certificate of sale; and
h) Other similar motions.
These motions shall not be set for hearing and shall be resolved by the
court within five (5) calendar days from receipt thereof.
This is an innovation under the Amended Rules.
OLD AND PRESENT RULES: Old rules do not explicitly enumerate what motions
are litigious and what are not.
AMENDED RULES: There is an explicit enumeration.
NON-LITIGOUS MOTION – One that does not prejudice the rights of the adverse
party; usually does not require notice to the other party (but not in all instances)
[definition by Googi, so don’t salig lol]
A close scrutiny of the above-mentioned non-litigious motions would reveal that
they all have a common denominator – that is, the grant thereof (or its denial) is
par for the course, so to speak, or that such outcome is somehow expected, as
the resolution of any such motion can readily be had on the basis of the case
records. [Googi: I don’t get what this means tbh hahaha]
(a) Motion for issuance of an alias summons
Recall Sec 4, Rule 14 - an alias summons may only be issued in case of
destruction or destruction of summons
ILLUTRATION: If the plaintiff files such motion, all that the court will do is to verify
from the records if the summons (which apparently had not been served) was lost
or destroyed. If it was lost or destroyed, then the court will grant the motion.
otherwise, it will deny the same.
NOTE: There is no necessity to notify the other party, since court doesn’t even
have jurisdiction over him.
(b) Motion for extension to file answer
ILLUSTRATION: If the defendant files such motion, all that the court will do is to
look at the records of the case. If it appears that the defendant did not previously
ask for an extension to file his answer, then such motion, if based on meritorious
ground, will be granted, pursuant to Section 11, Rule 11; otherwise, it must be
denied.
(c) Motion for postponement
ILLUSTRATION: If the movant asks for postponement due to force majeure
(Examples: COVID-19 pandemic, or the physical disability of the witness as he
confined at the hospital due to COVID as shown in the medical certificate) then, it
can be expected that the motion for postponement will be granted.
(d) Motion for execution
The grant of a motion for execution depends on whether such grant is a matter of
right or now.
Rule 39. Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. —
Execution shall issue as a matter of right, or motion, upon a judgment
or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration
of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
xxx
Rule 39. Section 2. Discretionary execution. —
(a) Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal. — On motion
of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial
court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of
either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be,
at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion,
order execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration
of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction the motion for execution
pending appeal maybe filed in the appellate court.
g
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated
in a special order after due hearing.
(b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. — A several,
separate or partial judgment may be executed under the same terms and
conditions as execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal.
NON-LITIGOUS MOTION
1. Motion for execution as a matter of right
2. Motion for issuance of an alias writ of execution premised on the previous
issuance of a writ of execution
Note: It is a matter of right when judgment disposes of the action or the period to
appeal is expired.
LITIGOUS MOTION
1. Motion for execution that is discretionary
2. Motion pending appeal
(e) Motion for the issuance of a writ of possession
When issuance of writ of possession is a ministerial duty à NON-LITIGOUS
MOTION
When issuance of writ of possession is not a ministerial duty à LITIGOUS
MOTION
The issuance of the writ of possession may become a ministerial duty of the
court:
LZK Holding and Dev. Corp. vs. Planters Dev. Ban
G.R. No. 187973, Jan. 20, 2014
A writ of possession is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment
to recover the possession of land. It commands the sheriff to enter the land
and give possession of it to the person entitled under the judgment. It may
be issued in case of an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate
mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118.
Under said provision, the writ of possession may be issued to the
purchaser in a foreclosure sale either within the one-year redemption
period upon the filing of a bond, or after the lapse of the redemption
period, without need of a bond.
Municipality of Cordova vs. Pathfinder Dev. Corp.
G.R. No. 205544, June 29, 2016
The issuance of a writ of possession becomes ministerial in an expropriation
proceeding if the following circumstances be met.
However, no hearing is actually required for the issuance of a writ of
possession, which demands only two requirements: (a) the sufficiency in form
and substance of the complaint, and (b) the required provisional deposit. The
sufficiency in form and substance of the complaint for expropriation can be
determined by the mere examination of the allegations of the complaint.
Here, there is indeed a necessity for the taking of the subject properties as
these would provide access towards the RORO port being constructed in the
municipality. The construction of the new road will highly benefit the public as
it will enable shippers and passengers to gain access to the port from the
main public road or highway.
The requisites for authorizing immediate entry are the filing of a
complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance, and the
deposit of the amount (as thus required by law). Upon compliance with
these requirements, the petitioner in an expropriation case is entitled to
a writ of possession as a matter of right and the issuance of the writ
becomes ministerial.
If the issuance of a writ of possession is not considered a ministerial duty of the
court, then it is submitted that any such motion for the issuance of a writ of
execution is considered a litigious motion.
Rule 70. Section 15. Preliminary injunction. — The court may grant
preliminary injunction, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 58
hereof, to prevent the defendant from committing further acts of
dispossession against the plaintiff.
A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible from the filing
of the complaint, present a motion in the action for forcible entry or
unlawful detainer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
113

injunction to restore him in his possession. The court shall decide the
motion within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof.
(f) Motion for the issuance of an order directing the sheriff to execute the
final certificate of sale
The execution of a final certificate of sale is the necessary consequence of the
judgment-debtor’s failure to redeem, within the prescribed period, where
property sold in a public auction pursuant to a final and executory judgment.
To be considered non-litigious:
1. There is failure to redeem
2. The same shall not be set for hearing, in that the court shall resolve the same
within five (5) calendar days from receipt hereof.
- there is motu proprio decision by court
3. The movant must furnish a copy of such motion to the opposing party, as
mandated by Sec 7, Rule 15.
Note: There is no need for the court to issue an order giving the opposing party an
opportunity to file his opposition to, or comment on, that non-litigious motion
Galeon’s advice: If you are the lawyer of the party who is to receive the movant’s
motion to execute final certificate of sale, file a comment on, or opposition to that
motion before it is resolved by the court. While such motion is not required to be
heard, or while the court can motu proprio resolve the same, there is no express
prohibition against the filing of comment on, or opposition thereto, and, at any rate,
the court will read your comment or opposition.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Litigious motions. — (a) Litigious motions include:
1) Motion for bill of particulars;
2) Motion to dismiss;
3) Motion for new trial;
4) Motion for reconsideration;
5) Motion for execution pending appeal;
6) Motion to amend after a responsive pleading has been filed;
7) Motion to cancel statutory lien;
8) Motion for an order to break in or for a writ of demolition;
9) Motion for intervention;
10) Motion for judgment on the pleadings;
11) Motion for summary judgment;
12) Demurrer to evidence;
13) Motion to declare defendant in default; and
14) Other similar motions.
(b) All motions shall be served by personal service, accredited private
courier or registered mail, or electronic means so as to ensure their
receipt by the other party.
(c) The opposing party shall file his or her opposition to a litigious motion
within five (5) calendar days from receipt thereof. No other submissions
shall be considered by the court in the resolution of the motion.
The motion shall be resolved by the court within fifteen (15) calendar
days from its receipt of the opposition thereto, or upon expiration of the
period to file such opposition.
SECTION 6
Section. 6. Notice of hearing on litigious motions; discretionary. — The
court may, in the exercise of its discretion, and if deemed necessary for
its resolution, call a hearing on the motion. The notice of hearing shall be
addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date
of the hearing.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Proof of service necessary. — No written motion shall be acted
upon by the court without proof of service thereof, pursuant to Section
5(b) hereof.
SECTION 8
Section 8. Motion day. — Except for motions requiring immediate action,
where the court decides to conduct hearing on a litigious motion, the
same shall be set on a Friday.
LITIGIOUS MOTION - basically prejudices the right of the adverse party (Alcaraz
vs. Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala); a denial or grant thereof would substantially
prejudice the rights of the parties
g
Motion for bill of particulars - litigious because while the allegation in a pleading
may appear to be ambiguous insofar as the defendant is concerned, but it may not
be ambiguous insofar as the plaintiff is concerned
It could be that the filing of a motion for bill of particulars is just defendant’s ploy to
suspend the running of the period for him to file his answer to the complaint. And
if, indeed, there are allegations in the complaint that are ambiguous, the defendant
cannot reasonably be expected to file an intelligent answer unless such
ambiguous averments in the complaint be clarified.
Motion to dismiss - litigious because, if it is granted, the case is perforce
dismissed, to the prejudice of the plaintiff. If denied, the defendant will be
prejudiced, as he will undergo the rigors of having to litigate.
The same thing can be said about the other motions mentioned in Section 5, Rule
15 of the Amended Rules, as the grant or denial thereof will prejudice the rights of
either of the party-disputants.
REQUISITES FOR LITIGIOUS MOTIONS
1. Must be written
2. Served personally, by registered mail, by accredited courier, or email
3. Must furnish opposition with copy, otherwise, said motion will not be acted upon
by the court
HEARING, NOT A REQUISITE FOR LITIGIOUS MOTIONS
The movant in a litigious motion is NO LONGER REQUIRED to set his motion for
hearing or request that it be heard, as it is now discretionary on the part of the
court to set such litigious motion for hearing. [In other words, the court may or may
not set the motion for hearing.]
Where the court, in the exercise of its discretion, deems it prudent to set the
litigious motion for hearing, such hearing shall be calendared on a Friday – which
is considered a motion day – and, towards that end, it shall send notices to the
parties, informing them of the time and date of the hearing of the litigation motion.
OPPOSING PARTY MUST FILE OPPOSITION
Whether or not the court sets the litigious motion for hearing, and without need of
any directive from the court, it behooves the opposing party to file his opposition
to the litigated motion.
He has to file such opposition within 5 calendar days from receipt of a copy of
the litigated motion.
The opposing party does not have to wait for the court’s order to direct him to file
opposition.
If he does not file any opposition within 5 days from his receipt of the litigated
motion, then he is deemed to have waived the filing of any such purported
litigation.
Note: No other submissions shall be allowed; hence, the movant cannot file a
rejoinder to the opposition filed by the opposing party, if one was filed.
Thereafter, the court shall resolve such litigated motion within 15 calendar days
from its receipt of the opposition thereto, if one was filed, or upon expiration of the
period to file such opposition.
SECTION 9
Section 9. Omnibus motion. — Subject to the provisions of Section 1 of
Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding
shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so
included shall be deemed waived.
The above rule used to be under Section 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
OMNIBUS MOTION – A motion that attacks a pleading, order, judgment or
proceeding
ILLUSTRATION: Upon motion of the plaintiff, the defendant in an action had been
declared in default for his failure to file his answer within the reglementary period,
despite the service of summons through substituted service.
Defendant, filed a motion to lift the order declaring him in default (this is an
omnibus motion) on the sole ground that the substituted of service was improper
because, according to him, while the summons was served at his place or
residence, the sheriff just left or entrusted such summons to the defendant’s stay-
out helper.
If the court denied defendant’s motion to lift the order of default, the defendant
cannot argue or raise another ground in his motion for reconsideration or in
another motion to lift the order of default. Because the ground was NOT raised in
the first motion to lift order, then defendant is deemed to have waived it.
114

OLD AND PRESENT RULES: The old rules enumerated specific grounds for
which a defendant may invoke in his motion to dismiss.
AMENDED RULES: There are now only 4 specific grounds for motion to dismiss.
ILLUSTRATION: The defendant in the action filed a motion to dismiss based only
on the three specific grounds (lack of jurisidciton ovefr the subject matter, litis
pendencia or res judicata). The court denied the motion to dismiss.
ANALYSIS: The defendant-movant could still raise those three grounds in his
answer by way of affirmative defenses therein. But he could not anymore raise, as
additional affirmative defenses in his answer, the other grounds (such as improper
venue or the failure to state cause of action), because these additional defenses
were deemed waived already, as they were not raised in the motion to
dismiss earlier filed.
But the defendant in his answer can raise, as an additional affirmative defense,
the additional ground that the action is barred by the statute of limitation.
The latter situation is permissible both under 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and
under the Amended Rules.
Note: Considering, however, that the 4 exceptional grounds mentioned under
Section 1, Rule 9 of the Amended Rules of Court are, incidentally, the only
remaining grounds for filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Section 12 (a), Rule
15 of the Amended Rules, it stands to reason that this omnibus motion rule now
hardly applies to a motion to dismiss, given the proviso or exception referred to
under Section 9, Rule 15 of the Amended Rules.
SECTION 10
Section 10. Motion for leave. — A motion for leave to file a pleading or
motion shall be accompanied by the pleading or motion sought to be
admitted.
Where a party to the actions intends to file a pleading, or motion, which requires
prior leave of court, such motion for leave of court must already be accompanied,
as attachment thereto, the pleading or motion which the party sought to be
admitted.
INSTANCES WHERE LEAVE OF COURT IS REQUIRED:
1. To admit an amended complaint or answer which is not a matter of right (Sec
2, Rule 10)
2. To admit a supplemental pleading (Sec 6, Rule 10)
3. To admit a supplemental answer with counterclaim or cross-claim which
belatedly matured (Sec 9, Rule 11)
4. To admit an amended answer with the omitted counterclaim or cross-claim
(Sec 10, Rule 11)
5. To admit complaint-in-intervention or answer-in-intervention (Sec 1, Rule
19)
RATIONALE: to aid the court in weighing the propriety of allowing or denying such
motion for leave to admit a pleading or motion.
SECTION 11
Section 11. Form. — The Rules applicable to pleadings shall apply to
written motions so far as concerns caption, designation, signature, and
other matters of form.
The appearance of a motion does not substantially differ from a pleading,
insofar as it concerns caption, designation, signature, and other matters of
form.
NOTE: A motion need not be verified or under oath, except for a motion to set
aside a default order.
SECTION 12
Section. 12. Prohibited motions. — The following motions shall not be
allowed:
(a) Motion to dismiss except on the following grounds:
1) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
claim;
2) That there is another action pending between the same parties
for the same cause; and
3) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the
statute of limitations;
(b) Motion to hear affirmative defenses;
g
(c) Motion for reconsideration of the court’s action on the affirmative
defenses;
(d) Motion to suspend proceedings without a temporary restraining order
or injunction issued by a higher court;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other
papers, except a motion for extension to file an answer as provided
by Section 11, Rule 11; and
(f) Motion for postponement intended for delay, except if it is based on
acts of God, force majeure or physical inability of the witness to
appear and testify. If the motion is granted based on such
exceptions, the moving party shall be warned that the presentation
of its evidence must still be terminated on the dates previously
agreed upon.
A motion for postponement, whether written or oral, shall, at all times, be
accompanied by the original official receipt from the office of the clerk of
court evidencing payment of the postponement fee under Section 21(b),
Rule 141, to be submitted either at the time of the filing of said motion or
not later than the next hearing date. The clerk of court shall not accept
the motion unless accompanied by the original receipt.
As culled from the above provision a motion to dismiss is prohibited, except if the
same is based on any or all of the following grounds:
(a) Motion to dismiss
GENERAL RULE: MTD are prohibited.
EXCEPTIONS: MTDs are not prohibited if it invokes one of the following grounds:
(1) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
(2) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause;
(3) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment; or
(4) That the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.
(This is thoroughly discussed in Sec 12, Rule 8 and Sec 1, Rule 11)
Since MTD on the following grounds are allowed, then it can be argued that
Motion for Reconsideration on such grounds can also be filed.
This can be done before filing an answer wherein the defendant can still reiterate
or raise such grounds for filing a motion to dismiss by way of affirmative defenses
in the answer.
Golden Country Farm, Inc. v. Sanvar Devt Corp
G.R. No. 58027. September 28, 1992
FACTS: Sanvar Dev’t. Corp. (Sanvar) sued Golden Country Farm, Inc. (GCFI).
March 5 – GCFI received summons
March 20 – GCFI filed a MTC
May 2 – Court denied MTD
May 15 – GCFI received the denial order
May 30 – GCFI filed a motion for reconsideration
Subsequently, Sanvar filed a motion seeking to declare GCFI in default, an on
February 16, 1981, the court denied GCFI’s motion for reconsideration and
declared it to be in default.
RULING: Since GCFI received the denial order of its motion to dismiss on May
15, 1980, by mathematical computation, the 15-day period to file an answer
provided in Section 1, Rule 77 of the Revised Rules of Court expired on May
30, 1980. However, on May 30, 1980, which was the last day to file its answer,
GCFI filed a joint motion for reconsideration, instead of filing an answer.
In this regard, we share the opinion of the lower court that GCFI’s joint motion
for reconsideration which merely reiterated the grounds in its motion to dismiss
was pro forma and did not toll the running of the period to file an answer.
In the case of PCIB v. Escolin, this Court ruled that a motion for
reconsideration which does not make out a new matter sufficiently
persuasive to induce modification of judgment will be denied and that a
repetition of arguments or grounds already discussed in prior incidents
may properly be categorized as merely for purposes of delay.
An answer, not a motion for reconsideration of the order denying its motion to
dismiss, should have been filed within the reglementary period.
115

NOTE: If your valid (and not prohibited) motion to dismiss is denied, you can still
file a motion for reconsideration, but it is risky, since the court might think it’s meant
for purposes of delay
(b) Motion to hear affirmative defenses
(c) Motion for reconsideration of the court’s action on the affirmative
defenses
SITUATION: When the four grounds are not raised in the motion to dismiss, or
that the same are only raised in the answer by way of affirmative defenses therein
and the court denied such affirmative defenses, it is in this situation when the
defendant-movant CANNOT file a motion for reconsideration on the court’s
order denying such affirmative defense or defenses.
RULE: A defendant, who filed a prohibited MTD or raised any of the 4 grounds in
his affirmative defense is prohibited from filing a motion for reconsideration on the
court’s order denying such affirmative defense.
Legal basis: Section 12, Rule 15 and Sec 12, Rule 8
What if the affirmative defense is granted and the case is thereby dismissed,
can the plaintiff file a motion for reconsideration on the order dismissing the
case?
You can either answer yes or no, depending on the section you invoke.
NO, the tenor of Section 12 (c) of Rule 15 appears to prohibit the plaintiff from
filing a motion for reconsideration in the situation where the court grants the
defendant’s affirmative defense and thereby dismisses the case.
YES, the tenor of the Section 12 (e) of Rule 8 appears to allow the plaintiff to file
a motion for reconsideration on the order of the court affirmative defenses, since
what is prohibited is a motion for reconsideration on the order DENYING an
affirmative defense.
GALEON’S OPINION: Unless this is clarified by SC, it seems that the plaintiff is
allowed to file a motion for reconsideration in such situation, because:
(1) Section 12 (e), Rule 8, is more specific. Section 12 (c), Rule 15 is rather broad
and general insofar as it speaks of “court’s action” on the affirmative defenses,
which may include, but not limited to, the court’s action in denying a motion to hear
affirmative defenses. Such “court’s action” may also include, but is not necessarily
limited to, the court’s action in resolving the affirmative defenses without summary
hearing thereon.
(2) The rationale of Sec 12, Rule 15 is to avoid unnecessary delay in the
proceedings. But if an affirmative defense is granted by the court, and the case is
thereby dismissed, the filing of the motion for reconsideration on the order
approving the affirmative defense cannot be considered as one that would delay
the proceedings, because the case has already been ordered dismissed.
(d) Motion to suspend proceedings without a temporary restraining order or
injunction issued by a higher court
RULE: Motion to suspend proceedings is prohibited.
ILLUSTRATION: The plaintiff filed a motion for execution pending appeal. The
court granted the same, despite the defendant’s petition for certiorari (Rule 65),
which questioned the court’s grant of the execution pending appeal.
ANALYSIS: In such case, the defendant is prohibited from filing a motion to
suspend the proceedings, unless he has secured from the higher court a
temporary restraining order or the higher court with which the petition for certiorari
is pending has issued an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the writ of
execution pending appeal.
BUT the trial court, out of courtesy to the higher court, should refrain from
immediately enforcing the writ of execution that it issued pending appeal.
The trial court should somehow allow a reasonable time to lapse before enforcing
the writ, so as to give reasonable time to the higher court to act on the petition for
certiorari.
Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. v. CA
G.R. No. 50054, Aug. 17, 1988
Although this Court did not issue any restraining order against the Intermediate
Appellate Court to prevent it from taking any action with regard to its resolutions
respectively granting respondents' motion to expunge from the records the
petitioner's motion to discuss and denying the latter's motion to reconsider
such, order, upon learning of the petition, the appellate court should have
refrained from ruling thereon because its jurisdiction was necessarily limited
upon the filing of a petition for certiorari with this Court questioning the propriety
of the issuance of the above-mentioned resolutions.
g
Due respect for the Supreme Court and practical and ethical
considerations should have prompted the appellate court to wait for the
final determination of the petition before taking cognizance of the case
and trying to render moot exactly what was before this court.
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other
papers, except a motion for extension to file an answer as provided by
Section 11, Rule 11
GENERAL RULE: No motion for extension of time to file pleadings is allowed.
EXCEPTION: Extension to file answer is allowed, but may only be availed of once.
NOTE: Where a motion for extension to file answer had been filed and granted, it
necessarily follows that the filing of the judicial affidavit of the witnesses for the
defendant is likewise extended, since such affidavits shall be attached to the
answer
(f) Motion for postponement intended for delay, except if it is based on acts
of God, force majeure or physical inability of the witness to appear and
testify
GENERAL RULE: Motion for postponement is not allowed.
EXCEPTION: Motion for postponement is allowed if such is grounded on cogent
or compelling reasons, such as force majeure, or physical inability of the witness
to appear and testify.
EFFECTS OF A GRANTED MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT
Movant shall be warned that the presentation of evidence must be terminated on
the dates previously agreed upon
- the party might not be given an additional trial date for reception of evidence
NOTE: Written motion for postponement must be accompanied by receipt showing
payment of the required postponement fee under Section 21(b), Rule 141
But where the motion for resetting is done orally in open court, the payment of the
postponement fee and the submission of the receipt may be done afterwards but
not later than the next hearing date.
POSTPONEMENT FEES
Rule 141. Section 20. Other fees. — The following fees shall also be
collected by the clerks of Regional Trial Courts or courts of the first level,
as the case may be:
(b) For motions for postponement after completion of the pre-trial stage,
one hundred pesos (P100.00) for the first, and an additional fifty pesos
(P50.00) for every postponement thereafter based on that for the
immediately preceding motion: Provided, however, that no fee shall be
imposed when the motion is found to be based on justifiable and
compelling reason;
While no postponement fee is required for a motion for resetting based on
justifiable reason, it is advisable to just pay the required fee, if only to avoid
objection to such motion on that ground.
SECTION 13
Section. 13. Dismissal with prejudice. — Subject to the right of appeal,
an order granting a motion to dismiss or an affirmative defense that the
cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of
limitations; that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff’s pleading
has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished; or that the
claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the
provisions of the statute of frauds, shall bar the refiling of the same
action or claim.
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
1. An order granting MTD or affirmative defense on the ground of res judicata or
prescription
2. Demand of plaintiff was extinguished by payment, waiver or abandonment
3. The claim is unenforceable by virtue or statute of frauds
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1. MTD grounded on bases other than the 4 grounds
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
But just because it’s been dismissed with prejudice does not necessarily mean it’s
NOT APPEALABLE.
116

APPEALABLE CASES [See: Section 1, Rule 40]
1. If the motion to dismiss or affirmative defense is granted and the ground for the
dismissal is based on the three specific grounds
- But once the said order of dismissal is affirmed on appeal with finality, then the
case or claim CANNOT ANYMORE BE REFILED.
2. Dismissal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
- an appeal from such order of dismissal may be had to RTC (where the originating
court was a first-level court), provided by Section 8 of Rule 40
RULE 16 - MOTION TO DISMISS
[Provisions either deleted or transposed]
RULE 17 – DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. — A complaint may be
dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before
service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon such
notice being filed, the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal.
Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice,
except that a notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when
filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action
based on or including the same claim.
PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
- Why? For whatever reason
- How? By (1) filing mere notice of dismissal at any time before service of the
answer or of (2) a motion for summary judgment
MERE NOTICE OF DISMISSAL – it is not a motion; it is sufficient to be only a
notice because it is a matter of right, so the court merely confirms the dismissal
GENERAL RULE: Where the dismissal of the complaint is a matter of right, such
dismissal of the complaint is WITHOUT PREJUDICE, such that the complaint can
be refiled.
WHEN DISMISSAL IS WITH PREJUDICE:
1. Where the notice of dismissal filed by the plaintiff states that the dismissal is
with prejudice (Second sentence of Section 1, Rule 17 of the Amended Rules)
– expressly stipulated ish
2. Even if the notice of dismissal states that the dismissal is without prejudice, but
the ground for filing such notice of dismissal is one which prevents the
filing of the complaint,
Example: The ground is prescription of action, or extinguishment of the obligation
of the defendant by payment, etc., or where the ground for filing a notice of
dismissal is res judicata
Case in point: Serrano vs. Cabrera
3. The Two-Dismissal Rule
This is a situation where the plaintiff has previously dismissed his complaint
in a court of competent jurisdiction based or including the same claim (Second
sentence of Section 1, Rule 17 of the Amended Rules).
REQUISITES: (tsj)
1. The plaintiff has twice dismissed the complaint or actions; and
2. Based on or including the same claim; and
3. The complaints must have been dismissed in a court of competent jurisdiction.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE TWO-DISMISSAL RULE
The second dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice, if:
1. The prior dismissal was by reason of a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant
2. The prior dismissal was because the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed a case for unlawful detainer against Randi before
the RTC of Cebu City. Realizing afterwards that the RTC has no jurisdiction over
the case, Waldi forthwith filed a notice of dismissal before Randi could file his
answer to the complaint. Waldi then re-filed the case with the MTCC of Cebu City.
But even before Randi could file his answer to the complaint, Waldi filed a notice
of dismissal again.
Q: Should the second dismissal be now with prejudice?
A: No. The prior dismissal was before the RTC which had no jurisdiction over the
case for unlawful detainer. The plaintiff’s filing of a notice of dismissal is a matter
of right, since it was done before the defendant filed his answer in MTCC Cebu
g
City. Therefore, the general rule applies that the dismissal is without prejudice
since such is a matter of right.
NOTE: What actually forecloses plaintiff’s right to dismiss his complaint by mere
notice is not the “filing” of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment but
the “service” thereof upon the plaintiff
Go v. Cruz*
G.R. No. 58986, April 17, 1989
FACTS: On October 26, 1981, California Manufacturing Co., Inc. (California)
brought an action in the CFI of Manila against Dante Go, accusing him of unfair
competition.
Go dated his answer with counterclaim on Nov 6.
Go filed his answer on Nov 9.
California filed a notice of dismissal on Nov 12.
California received Go’s answer on Nov 16.
California then filed another complaint in CFI Caloocan with the same cause
of action against Go on Dec 1.
Go's thesis is that the case filed against him by California in the Manila Court
remained pending despite California's notice of dismissal. According to him,
since he had already filed his answer to the complaint before California sought
dismissal of the action 3 days afterwards, such dismissal was no longer a
matter of right and could no longer be effected by mere notice in accordance
with Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, but only on plaintiff s motion, and
by order of the Court; hence, the Caloocan Court acted without jurisdiction over
the second action based on the same cause. He also accused California of
forum shopping, of selecting a sympathetic court for a relief which it had failed
to obtain from another.
ISSUE: Whether or not California has the right to dismiss its complaint, and
by a mere notice of dismissal, on November 12, 1981, when it would appear
that such notice of dismissal was only filed after the defendant has “filed” his
answer on November 9, 1981, albeit California Manufacturing Co. received
such answer only on November 16, 1981?
RULING: Go is in error.
What marks the loss by a plaintiff of the right to cause dismissal of the
action by mere notice is not the filing of the defendant's answer with the
Court (either personally or by mail) but the service on the plaintiff of said
answer or of a motion for summary judgment.
This is the plain and explicit message of the Rules. "The filing of pleadings,
appearances, motions, notices, orders and other papers with the court,"
according to Section 1, Rule 13 of the [old] Rules of Court, means the delivery
thereof to the clerk of the court either personally or by registered mail. Service,
on the other hand, signifies delivery of the pleading or other paper to the parties
affected thereby through their counsel of record, unless delivery to the party
himself is ordered by the court, by any of the modes set forth in the Rules, i.e.,
by personal service, service by mail, or substituted service.
Here, California filed its notice of dismissal of its action in the Manila
Court after the filing of Dante Go's answer but before service thereof.
Thus having acted well within the letter and contemplation of the afore-
quoted Section 1 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, its notice ipso facto
brought about the dismissal of the action then pending in the Manila
Court, without need of any order or other action by the Presiding Judge.
The dismissal was effected without regard to whatever reasons or motives
California might have had for bringing it about, and was, as the same Section
1, Rule 17 points out, "without prejudice," the contrary not being otherwise
"stated in the notice" and it being the first time the action was being so
dismissed.”
Where the dismissal of the complaint is a matter of right, or by plaintiff’s mere
filing of a notice of dismissal, such dismissal of the complaint is WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, such that the complaint can be refiled.
INSTEAD OF RE-FILING THE CASE, CAN THE PLAINTIFF JUST REVIVE
THE ACTION?
It depends on whether or not the court’s order confirming the dismissal
has already become final.
Ortigas & Co. Limited Partnership v. Velasco*
234 SCRA 455
FACTS: On Nov 14, 1991, Molina filed a petition in RTC Quezon, praying for
reconstitution of her TCT.
117

On Nov. 29, 1991 Molina moved for permission to withdraw her petition, since
she had to go to the US for 10 months.
The respondent Judge Velasco issued an order granting the motion; the case
was dismissed, the petition being considered withdrawn.
Four months later, around April 3, 1992, Molina filed an ex parte motion for
"revival" of the reconstitution case and admission of an amended petition for
reconstitution of her title. Judge Velasco reinstated the (original, withdrawn)
petition and admitted the amended petition, giving it "due course."
RULING: The order of Judge Velasco reviving the reconstitution case was
therefore legally inefficacious. It could not and did not operate to reinstate the
proceeding. And even assuming that the amended petition submitted by
Molina together with her motion to revive the case may be deemed a new
petition, the non-payment of the requisite docketing fees precluded the
acquisition of jurisdiction by the Trial Court over the second proceeding.
The dismissal of the case, and the lapse of the reglementary period to
reconsider or set aside the dismissal, effectively operated to remove the case
from the Court's docket.
The situation is not at all altered by the circumstance that the dismissal of the
action was effected by the plaintiff as a matter of right, without order of the
court, in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. There having been a
dismissal or withdrawal of the action, albeit without prejudice, and the order
considering the action withdrawn having become final, revival of the case could
not be done except through the commencement of a new action, i.e., by the
filing of another complaint and the payment of the concomitant docketing fees.
A plaintiff who has dismissed his action by notice under this provision may later
change his mind and decide to continue with it. In that event, since
theoretically every final disposition of an action does not attain finality
until after 15 days therefrom, and consequently within that time the
action still remains within the control of the Court, the plaintiff may move
to withdraw and set aside his notice of dismissal and revive his action,
before that period lapses. But after the dismissal has become final
through the lapse of the fifteen-day reglementary period, the only way by
which the action may be resuscitated or "revived," is by the institution of
a subsequent action through the filing of another complaint and the
payment of the fees prescribed by law.
This is so because upon attainment of finality of the dismissal through the lapse
of said reglementary period, the Court loses jurisdiction and control over it and
can no longer make any disposition in respect thereof inconsistent with such
dismissal.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except as provided in
the preceding section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at the
plaintiff's instance save upon approval of the court and upon such terms
and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been
pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him or her of the
plaintiff's motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the
complaint. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in a separate action
unless within fifteen (15) calendar days from notice of the motion he or
she manifests his or her preference to have his or her counterclaim
resolved in the same action. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a
dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class suit
shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court.
OKAY, SO THIS IS THE STORY.
The general rule is dismissal as a matter of right is without prejudice.
But if an answer of motion for summary judgment has been served, then it is not
a matter of right na.
But the plaintiff can still file a motion to dismiss, but such will be at the discretion
of the court.
If the court grants the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the dismissal will be WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, unless the motion prays that is be with prejudice or where the court
directs that the dismissal will be with prejudice.
Case in point: Vergara, et al. vs. Ocumen, G.R. No. 53971, June 19, 1982
EFFECTS OF DISMISSAL
1. What is only dismissed is the complaint, but NOT THE ACTION
2. The defendant may prosecute his counterclaim in the same action if within
15 calendar days from notice of plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the defendant
g
manifests to the court his preference to have his counterclaims resolved in that
very same action
3.If there is no manifestation by the defendant, the court will dismiss the
counterclaims, but there is no prejudice to the defendant’s opportunity to file a
suit on the basis of what he states in his counterclaim.
NOTE: The counterclaims contemplated may be either compulsory or permissive,
as there is no qualification in the language of the rule.
For class suits
RULE: Dismissal shall always be approved by the court, since a class suit does
not only affect those who are actually present in, or those who actually appear
before, the court, but also those are similarly situated and who are, in essence,
“represented” in the action.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justifiable cause,
the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his or her
evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his or her action for
an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any
order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the
defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right
of the defendant to prosecute his or her counterclaim in the same or in a
separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication
upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
WHEN PLAINTIFF IS AT FAULT
1. The plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his or her evidence
in chief
Calalang v. CA
G.R. No. 103185, Jan. 22, 1993
it is plaintiff’s failure to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence
in chief, and not the absence of his lawyer, which may warrant the dismissal
of his case
Jalover v. Ytoriaga
G.R. No. L-35989, Oct. 28, 1977
If plaintiff had already presented his or her evidence in chief, his and his
counsel’s failure to appear in the subsequent hearings for the presentation of
the evidence for the defendant will not warrant a dismissal of the case for
failure to prosecute, as it would only amount to a waiver of plaintiff’s right to
cross-examine the witnesses for the defendant and to object to the
admissibility of the evidence for the latter.
2. Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time;
“Unreasonable length of time” – depends on the circumstances of the case
Jordas v. Vedad
101 SCRA 649
Where the trial had previously been postponed 9 times at the plaintiff’s
request and the case had been pending for more than 4 years, the action may
be dismissed upon the court’s own motion for failure to prosecute
Sunga v. Lacson
23 SCRA 393
The failure to serve summons on the defendant for four months is a ground
for dismissal for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff cannot simply put the blame
on the court.
BAC Mfg. v. CA
200 SCRA 130
Upon issuance of the summons, plaintiff or counsel should see to it that the
sheriff or process server immediately cause its service. If the plaintiff is not
furnished a return of service, plaintiff should inquire from the court as to the
status of the summons, not only to take appropriate action if unserved, but to
know if period to answer has expired.
Arellano v. CFI of Sorsogon
65 SCRA 46
Under the rule, it is the duty of a plaintiff to always take the initiative in keeping
the proceedings active and going until it is terminated; otherwise, the case may
be dismissed either upon motion of his adversary or of the court itself
118

3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with these Rules
Sto. Domingo-David v. Guerrero
G.R. No. 120965, Sept. 25, 1998
An initiatory pleading must have a certification against forum shopping. So, if
the complaint has no such certification against forum shopping, the complaint
may be dismissed motu proprio by the court for plaintiff’s failure to comply with
the rules.
4. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with any order of the court.
This includes:
ü Failure to submit bill of partciulars
ü Failure to include indispensable parties in the action (NOT NECESSARY)
Gojo v. Golaya
G.R. No. L-26768, Oct. 30, 1970
The order of the court must be valid. Verily, where, upon the death of the
defendant, the court ordered the plaintiff to amend his complaint [contrary to
now Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules which directs that the heirs of defendant
be substituted in lieu of the defendant]. Non-compliance with that order which
is null and void would not warrant a dismissal of the case.
EFFECT WHEN PLAINTIFF IS AT FAULT
The dismissal of the action may either be (1) upon motion of the defendant or (2)
upon the court’s own motion.
1. Dismissal is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
or her counterclaim in the same or in a separate action
2. Dismissal of the complaint is generally with prejudice to the right of the
plaintiff, as it shall have the effect of an adjudication of merits.
NOTE: Dismissal cannot be said to be with prejudice of the right of the plaintiff if
the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the defendant in the first place.
Republic Planters Bank v. Molina*
166 SCRA 39
FACTS: The Republic Planters Bank filed a case against the defendant for a
sum of money. Defendant could be summoned because his whereabouts was
unknown. Several attempts were made by the plaintiff to look for him proved
futile.
After a while, the court dismissed the complaint for RBP‘s failure to prosecute,
and the order of dismissal was silent whether the dismissal was with or without
prejudice.
Later, the plaintiff (RPB) discovered the whereabouts of the defendant, so it re-
filed the complaint.
Defendant moved to dismiss the re-filed case because when the first complaint
was dismissed. According to the defendant, because the order of dismissal was
silent, the dismissal had the effect of an adjudication on the merits.
RULING: Dismissal of the first case cannot be with prejudice to the plaintiff’s
right to re-prosecute, since the court never acquired jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant. [Therefore, the plaintiff can refile without it being res judicata]
For the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it
must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. If it did
not acquire jurisdiction over the private respondents as parties to the first case,
it cannot render any binding decision, favorable or adverse to them, or dismiss
the case with prejudice which, in effect, is an adjudication on the merits.
The controverted orders disregarded the fundamental principles of remedial law
and the meaning and the effect of jurisdiction. A judgment, to be
considered res judicata, must be binding, and must be rendered by a
court of competent jurisdiction. Otherwise, the judgment is a nullity.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party
complaint. — The provisions of this Rule shall apply to the dismissal of
any counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint. A voluntary
dismissal by the claimant by notice as in Section 1 of this Rule, shall be
made before a responsive pleading or a motion for summary judgment is
g
served or, if there is none, before the introduction of evidence at the trial
or hearing.
RULE: A counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint may also be
dismissed by the claimant as a matter of right (1) by his filing of a notice of
dismissal at any time before an answer or a motion for summary judgment is
served on the claimant or, if there is none, before the introduction of evidence at
the trial or hearing.
CIVIL PROCEDURE 2020 | ATTY GALEON | EH 405
THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED BY A.M. NO. 19-10-
20-SC
NOTE: The discussion below based on 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure that are purported to take effect in May 1, 2020. As of
now, these rules are called found in A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC.
RULE 18 – PRE-TRIAL
SECTION 1
Section 1. When conducted. — After the last responsive pleading has
been served and filed, the branch clerk of court shall issue, within five
(5) calendar days from filing, a notice of pre-trial which shall be set not
later than sixty (60) calendar days from the filing of the last responsive
pleading.
PRE-TRIAL - a procedural device by which the court can compel the parties and
their respective lawyers to appear before it and take up the matters enumerated
under Section 2, Rule 18, with possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement, but
where no settlement is reached by the parties, then done for the purpose of
simplifying and narrowing down the issues in the case, among others
PURPOSE OF PRE-TRIAL
ü To clarify and narrow down the basic issues between the parties
ü To ascertain the facts relative to those issues
ü To enable the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues
and facts before civil trials and thus prevent said trials from being carried
on in the dark (Fortune Corporation vs. CA)
ü To take the trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering
(Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. vs. Teodoro)
OLD RULE: It is mandated that the plaintiff promptly file an ex parte motion to set
the case for pre-trial after the service and filing of last pleading.
AMENDED RULE: Within 5 days from the service and filing of the last responsive
pleading, the clerk of court must issue a notice of pre-trial.
Within 60 days from the service and filing of the last responsive pleading, a pre-
trial shall be set in the calendar.
WHEN WILL PRE-TRIAL HAPPEN?
1. After the defendant files an answer – if he fails to do so, he will be declared in
default, there the court render judgment, granting the plaintiff relief
2. After the lapse of the reglementary period for filing the last responsive pleading
- there should be a lapse of the reglementary period to give an opportunity for
parties to opt to file a reply or rejoinder.
What is the last pleading? Rejoinder which the defendant may file in the event
that the plaintiff filed a reply, attaching thereto an actionable document.
SECTION 2
Section. 2. Nature and Purpose. — The pre-trial is mandatory and should
be terminated promptly. The court shall consider:
(a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to
alternative modes of dispute resolution;
(b) The simplification of the issues;
(c) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and
of documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
(d) The limitation of the number and identification of witnesses and the
setting of trial dates;
(e) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a
commissioner;
(f) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary
judgment, or of dismissing the action should a valid ground
therefor be found to exist;
119

(g) The requirement for the parties to:
1. Mark their respective evidence if not yet marked in the judicial
affidavits of their witnesses;
2. Examine and make comparisons of the adverse parties' evidence vis-
a vis the copies to be marked;
3. Manifest for the record stipulations regarding the faithfulness of the
reproductions and the genuineness and due execution of the adverse
parties' evidence;
4. Reserve evidence not available at the pre-trial, but only in the following
manner:
i. For testimonial evidence, by giving the name or position and the
nature of the testimony of the proposed witness;
ii. For documentary evidence and other object evidence, by giving a
particular description of the evidence.
No reservation shall be allowed if not made in the manner described
above.
(h) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the
action.
The failure without just cause of a party and counsel to appear during
pre-trial, despite notice, shall result in a waiver of any objections to the
faithfulness of the reproductions marked, or their genuineness and due
execution.
The failure without just cause of a party and/or counsel to bring the
evidence required shall be deemed a waiver of the presentation of such
evidence.
The branch clerk of court shall prepare the minutes of the pre-trial, which
shall have the following format: (See prescribed form)
COURT’S CONSIDERATIONS DURING PRE-TRIAL:
(a) Possibility of an amicable settlement
OBJECTIVE - to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
July 13, 2004
But even where the parties manifest to the court that they cannot or are not
willing to settle the case amicably, the judge cannot just terminate the pre-trial.
After all, there are still other things that need to be done and performed during
pre-trial, such as, but not limited, to simplification of issues, and obtaining
admissions or stipulations of facts, etc.
NOTE: During pre-trial, the court and the parties may also consider alternative
modes of dispute resolution (voluntary arbitration)
(b) Simplification of Issues and (c) Possibility of obtaining stipulations or
admissions facts and documents
OBJECTIVES - to clarify and narrow down the basic issues between the parties;
to ascertain the facts relative to those issues; to enable the parties to obtain the
fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus
prevent said trials from being carried on in the dark (Fortune Corporation vs. CA)
(d) Limitation of the number of witnesses, identification of witness and setting
of trial dates
AMENDED RULE: It is during pre-trial where not only the number of witnesses is
specified, but the witnesses per se are now identified. This is to prevent surprises
and to settle the trial dates.
(e) Advisability of preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner
OBJECTIVE - to discuss the propriety of referring the issues to a commissioner
COMMISSIONER -
Referral to a commissioner - may be had under any of the circumstances
contemplated under Section 2, Rule 32:
g
RULE 32. Section 2. Reference Ordered on Motion. — When the parties
do not consent, the court may, upon the application of either or of its own
motion, direct a reference to a commissioner in the following cases:
(a) When the trial of an issue of fact requires the examination of a long
account on either side, in which case the commissioner may be directed
to hear and report upon the whole issue or any specific question involved
therein;
(b) When the taking of an account is necessary for the information of the
court before judgment, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect;
(c) When a question of fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises upon
motion or otherwise, in any stage of a case, or for carrying a judgment or
order into effect
(f) Propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment,
or of dismissing the action
OBJECTIVE – Is it proper the render judgment now on the basis of the pleadings
submitted by the parties?
Sec 10, Rule 18 even allows the court to submit the case for summary judgment
if (1) there be no more controverted facts, (2) there be no more genuine issues,
or (3) the answer fails to render an issue
(g) (1) Marking of exhibits
MARKING OF EXHIBITS – already mandated by Sec 6, Rule 7 (must append
affidavits of witnesses to pleadings); but can be done during pre-trial if did not do
in pleadings
Judicial Affidavit Rule
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sep. 4, 2012
In the preparation of the judicial affidavits of the witnesses, it shall already
identify and establish the authenticity of the pertinent documentary and object
evidence that they are testifying on, and such documentary evidence shall then
be attached to their respective judicial affidavits and marked accordingly.
If there are documentary or object evidence that a particular witness mentioned in
his judicial affidavit but somehow failed to do so, such documentary or object
evidence should be produced and marked during the pre-trial of the case.
THEREFORE: While actionable documents are required to be attached to the
pertinent pleading [pursuant to Section 7, Rule 8], “other documentary evidence
(non-actionable documents)” need not be attached to the pertinent pleading.
(g) (2) Comparison of the evidence
OBJECTIVE – to avoid objection later on based the ground that the documentary
evidence of the adverse party is not the genuine or authentic, or that the same is
not a faithful reproduction of the original
During pre-trial, parties are to compare their opposition’s evidence with the
purported originals.
(g) (4) Reservation of evidence
Section 2, Rule 18 of the Amended Rules expressly mentions reservation of
testimonial evidence, as well as documentary or other object evidence, but
the same shall strictly be done in the manner provided for therein.
RESERVATION OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE – presupposes that the intended
witness has not executed a judicial affidavit, such that his or her affidavit has not
been attached to the party’s pleading
Recall: Sec 6, rule 7 requires the judicial affidavits be attached to the pleading in
order for a witness to be presented in trial, EXCEPT if a party presents meritorious
reasons as basis for the admission of an additional witness.
WHAT MAY BE RESERVED:
ü Testimonial evidence
ü Documentary or object evidence
Example 1: If a witness was abroad or the witness simply does not want to testify
unless he is subpoenaed by the court, then the party who wishes to present the
testimony of such intended witness may just reserve such testimonial evidence.
In making such reservation, he needs to disclose already the name of the witness
or his position and the nature of the testimony of the proposed witness.
120

Example 2: The documentary evidence intended to be presented by the plaintiff
is still to be secured and authenticated abroad. Therefore, it was not yet available
to the plaintiff.
In making such reservation, the plaintiff is required to give already the particular
description of the evidence, so as to prevent surprises to the adverse party.
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MAKE RESERVATION - deemed a waiver of the
presentation of such evidence
GENERAL RULE:
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
July 13, 2004
No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in
support of a party’s evidence-in-chief other than those that had been earlier
identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial, except if allowed by the court for
good cause shown.
EXCEPTION: Section 2, Rule 18 - The failure without just cause of a party and/or
counsel to bring the evidence required shall be deemed a waiver of the
presentation of such evidence.
NOTE: Even if a document had not been identified or pre-marked during the pre-
trial, a party is still allowed to present the same during the cross-examination of,
and for purposes of impeaching, the adverse party or his or her witness and,
thereafter, offer the same in evidence, because the proscription under A.M. No.
03-1-09-SC applies only to the presentation of evidence during the trial in support
of a party’s evidence-in-chief
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR
No appearance without just cause – waiver of any objections to the faithfulness
of the reproductions marked, or their genuineness and due execution; suffer
sanctions or adverse consequences
No appearance with just cause -
SECTION 3
Section. 3. Notice of pre-trial. — The notice of pre-trial shall include the
dates respectively set for:
(a) Pre-trial;
(b) Court-Annexed Mediation; and
(c) Judicial Dispute Resolution, if necessary.
The notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel, or on the party if he or
she has no counsel. The counsel served with such notice is charged with
the duty of notifying the party represented by him or her.
Non-appearance at any of the foregoing settings shall be deemed as
nonappearance at the pre-trial and shall merit the same sanctions under
Section 5 hereof.
CONTENTS OF NOTICE OF PRE-TRIAL
1. The date pre-trial
2. The date of court-annexed mediation
3. The date of the judicial dispute resolution, if any
OLD RULES: Separate notices should be sent to the party and his lawyer,
AMENDED RULES: The notice of the pre-trial shall be served on the counsel of
the party only. Only when the litigant is not represented is when the notice of pre-
trial is sent to the litigant.
EFFECT OF THE AMENDED RULES – Charges the counsel with the duty to notify
his client about the dates contained in the notice of pre-trial.
Taroma vs. Sayo
67 SCRA 512
If despite notice of the pre-trial, the counsel fails to inform his or her client about
the pre-trial, such that the client fails to appear therein, the client shall suffer
the sanctions. The client concerned may file the appropriate disciplinary action
against his own lawyer who failed to discharge his duty.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Appearance of Parties. — It shall be the duty of the parties and
their counsel to appear at the pre-trial, court-annexed mediation, and
judicial dispute resolution, if necessary. The non-appearance of a party
g
and counsel may be excused only for acts of God, force majeure, or duly
substantiated physical inability.
A representative may appear on behalf of a party, but must be fully
authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to
alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or
admissions of facts and documents.
SECTION 5
Section. 5. Effect of failure to appear. — When duly notified, the failure of
the plaintiff and counsel to appear without valid cause when so required,
pursuant to the next preceding Section, shall cause the dismissal of the
action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered
by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant and counsel
shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his or her evidence ex-
parte within ten (10) calendar days from termination of the pre-trial, and
the court to render judgment on the basis of the evidence offered.
RULE: Both client and counsel must appear at the pre-trial, court-annexed
mediation and judicial dispute resolution.
FAILURE TO APPEAR
WITH JUST CAUSE
Justifiable grounds: acts of God, force majeure, or duly substantiated physical
injury.
Representative Requisites:
1. In writing
2. expressly authorizing the party’s representative to do every and all things
mentioned under the second paragraph of Section 4.
3. in the form of a Special Power of Attorney
Far Corporation v. IAC
159 SCRA 698
It was held that a certificate of the secretary of the corporation which is merely
couched in general terms, authorizing the lawyer to appear all cases filed
against the corporation and on all matters that may be necessary to be taken
up in said pre-trials on the date for the hearing thereof and in all pre-trial
conferences thereafter is insufficient.
Therefore, it is not enough that the written authority empowers the
representative to enter into an amicable settlement, in that it must also
empower him to submit the case to alternative modes of dispute, and to enter
into stipulations or admissions of facts and documents; otherwise, such grant
of authority is defective, and is equivalent to no authority at all.
Republic v. Plan, et al
G.R. No. 56962, Aug. 21, 1982
Even if it is the counsel who is appointed by the party as his representative to
appear on the latter’s behalf during the pre-trial, Section 23, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court also prohibits any attorney to compromise his client’s case or
receive anything in discharge of this client’s claim, but the full amount in cash,
without a “special authority.” It should be added that where the party is a
corporation, such written authority must be made pursuant to and with an
appropriate board resolution of its board of directors.
Development Bank v. CA
169 SCRA 409
Without that special authority, the lawyer or representative cannot be deemed
capacitated to appear in place of the party; hence, it will be considered that the
latter has failed to put in an appearance at all, notwithstanding his lawyer’s or
delegate’s presence.
WITHOUT JUST CAUSE
EFFECTS
1. Dismissal with prejudice; an adjudication on merits, which can only be remedied
2. the court shall allow the present party to present his evidence within 10 days
from termination of pre-trial, and the court will render judgment on the basis of
evidence presented
2. where a defendant fails to appear in pre-trial, he will NOT be declared in default
REMEDIES
1. Through an appeal
2. Through a motion for reconsideration (which need not be accompanied by
affidavit of merits)
NOTE: Remedy is not certiorari.
121

Additional Notes regarding the ex parte presentation of evidence by the
plaintiff:
• When the court decides on the basis of the ex parte presentation of evidence
by the plaintiff due to the absence of the defendant during the pre-trial, this
judgment is based on evidence presented. This is different from judgment
made by the court when the defendant is declared in default for failing to file
an answer, since this kind of judgment is based on what is prayed for by the
plaintiff.
• The court will err if it will allow plaintiff to present evidence without the
presence of the defendant. Therefore, an order allowing the plaintiff to present
his or her evidence ex parte does not dispose of the case with finality. It is an
interlocutory order; hence, it is not appealable. Because this is
unappealable, defendant can only resort to certiorari, provided he first filed a
motion for reconsideration on such order without the need of attaching an
affidavit of merit thereto.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Pre-trial brief. — The parties shall file with the court and serve
on the adverse party, in such manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof
at least three (3) calendar days before the date of the pre-trial, their
respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, among others:
(a) A concise statement of the case and the reliefs prayed for;
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
(c) The main factual and legal issues to be tried or resolved;
(d) The propriety of referral of factual issues to commissioners;
(e) The documents or other object evidence to be marked, stating the
purpose thereof;
(f) The names of the witnesses, and the summary of their respective
testimonies; and
(g) A brief statement of points of law and citation of authorities.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to
appear at the pre-trial.
CONTENTS OF A PRE-TRIAL BRIEF – Case, relief sought, facts, issues,
propriety of referral to commissioner, evidence, witnesses, laws applicable
RULE: Submission of a pre-trial brief is mandatory. Failure to submit the same
warrants operation of Section 5, Rule 18.
Requirements: (1) File with court, (2) serve copy to adverse party, (3) ensure
receipt at least 3 days before scheduled pre-trial
SECTION 7
Section 7. Pre-Trial Order. — Upon termination of the pre-trial, the court
shall issue an order within ten (10) calendar days which shall recite in
detail the matters taken up. The order shall include:
(a) An enumeration of the admitted facts;
(b) The minutes of the pre-trial conference;
(c) The legal and factual issue/s to be tried;
(d) The applicable law, rules, and jurisprudence;
(e) The evidence marked;
(f) The specific trial dates for continuous trial, which shall be within
the period provided by the Rules;
(g) The case flowchart to be determined by the court, which shall contain
the different stages of the proceedings up to the promulgation of
the decision and the use of time frames for each stage in setting the
trial dates;
(h) A statement that the one-day examination of witness rule and most
important witness rule under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Guidelines for
Pre-Trial) shall be strictly followed; and
(i) A statement that the court shall render judgment on the pleadings
or summary judgment, as the case may be.
g
The direct testimony of witnesses for the plaintiff shall be in the form of
judicial affidavits. After the identification of such affidavits, cross-
examination shall proceed immediately.
Postponement of presentation of the parties’ witnesses at a scheduled
date is prohibited, except if it is based on acts of God, force majeure or
duly substantiated physical inability of the witness to appear and testify.
The party who caused the postponement is warned that the presentation
of its evidence must still be terminated within the remaining dates
previously agreed upon.
Should the opposing party fail to appear without valid cause stated in the
next preceding paragraph, the presentation of the scheduled witness will
proceed with the absent party being deemed to have waived the right to
interpose objection and conduct cross-examination.
The contents of the pre-trial order shall control the subsequent
proceedings, unless modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice.
CONTENTS OF THE PRE-TRIAL ORDER – facts, minutes, issues, laws,
evidence, schedule of trial, flowchart, one-day examination rule, statement that the
court can render judgment
(a) Factual admissions
Admissions need not be proved, as it is embodied in a pre-trial order.
Any error on factual admission must be moved for rectification of the pre-trial order,
where the court will grant 10 days from receipt of the PTO to review and move for
corrections.
Heirs of Conahap v. Regaña
458 SCRA 741
Admissions as embodied in the pre-trial order are binding upon the parties and
are conclusive upon them.
Procopio Villanueva, et al. v. CA
G.R. No. 143286, April 14, 2004
Where the case proceeded to trial, with the parties actively participating therein
without raising their objection to the pre-trial order, they are bound by the
stipulations at the pre-trial which they cannot anymore disown.
(c) Issues to be tried
GENERAL RULE: The determination of issues at the pre-trial bars the
consideration of other issues during the trial and more so on appeal.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Issues that are impliedly included therein or may be inferable therefrom by
necessary implication are as much as integral parts of the pre-trial order as those
that are expressly stipulated therein (PH Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee
Corp vs. Amalgamated Management and Development Corp.).
Jimmy Co. v. CA
G.R. No. 124922, June 22, 1998
While the issue of delay was not specifically mentioned in the pre-trial order
as one of the issues to be tried, but the same was basically intertwined and
subsumed under the issue of negligence. Since per allegations in the
complaint, plaintiff’s imputation of negligence on the part of the defendant is
premised on the latter’s delay in the performance of his obligation, then the
court can tackle and pass judgment on that issue concerning delay.
2. Issues not raised by the pleadings but tried with the express or implied
consent of the parties shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised
in the pleadings. No amendment of such pleadings deemed amended is
necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence (Sec 5, Rule 10)
3. While defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in
the answer are deemed waived, when it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record 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 or by statute of
limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim (Sec. 1, Rule 9)
(h) One-day examination of witness rule and most important witness rule
(A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC)
ONE-DAY EXAMINATION OF WITNESS RULE: A witness shall be examined in
one day only, subject to the court’s discretion during the trial on whether or not to
extend the examination for justifiable reasons
122

MOST IMPORTANT WITNESS RULE: The court shall determine the most
important witnesses, limit the number of such witnesses, thereby dispensing with
other witnesses whose testimonies may just be corroborative, and requiring the
parties or counsels to submit to the branch clerk of court the names, addresses,
and contact numbers of the witnesses to be summoned by subpoena
Judicial Affidavit Rule
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sept. 4, 2012
The pre-trial order shall likewise state, among others, that the direct testimony
of witnesses for the plaintiff shall be in the form of judicial affidavits, subject,
however, to cross-examination by the opposing party which shall proceed
immediately.
Other contents
ü Reminder of prohibiton of postponement of presentation of witness, except
if it is based on acts of God, force majeure or duly substantiated physical
inability of the witness to appear and testify.
The party who caused the postponement shall be warned, however, that
the presentation of its evidence must still be terminated within the remaining
dates previously agreed upon. This statement is basically in consonance
with Section 12 (f), Rule 15 of the Amended Rules.
ü Should the opposing party fail to appear without valid reason during the
presentation testimony of the adverse party’s witness, the presentation of
the testimony of the scheduled witness will proceed, and the absent party
shall be deemed to have waived the right to interpose objection and conduct
cross-examination.
A SECOND PRE-TRIAL IS UNNECESSARY WHEN:
1. An amended complaint has been filed where no additional cause of action
was introduced and the amount of damages under the original complaint was the
same (Pioneer vs. Hontanosas)
2. There is no possibility of settlement (Sta. Maria vs. CA)
3. Only legal questions are involved (Trocio vs. Labayo)
4. Once a party attends a pre-trial and manifests its opposition to settling the case
amicably, said party may no longer be compelled to attend a second pre-trial
conference (Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic)
5. Where the plaintiff was allowed to present evidence ex parte after the defendants
failed to appear during the pre-trial, but the court subsequently set aside its order
against the defendants. The lifting of the order in respect to defendants’ failure to
appear during the pre-trial did not revert the action to the pre-trial stage or authorize,
much less render mandatory, the holding of a second pre-trial. The court should just
proceed with the trial, but allowing the defendants to cross-examine plaintiff’s
witness (Dev. Bank of the PH vs. CA)
NOTE: Where the parties voluntarily agreed that the case be set for pre-trial
again, and the court yielded to the agreement, a second pre-trial may thus be
had. (Young vs. CA)
SECTION 8
Section 8. Court-Annexed Mediation. — After pre-trial and, after issues
are joined, the court shall refer the parties for mandatory court-annexed
mediation.
The period for court-annexed mediation shall not exceed thirty (30)
calendar days without further extension.
This is a formal incorporation of CAM in the ROC
COURT-ANNEXED MEDIATION - mechanism whereby the parties are directed
to appear before a mediator who is not necessarily a lawyer
THE MEDIATOR
- not allowed to propose to the parties any possible term of settlement. - limited to
providing the parties an avenue to talk to each other directly and explore the
possibility of settlement.
COUNSELS
- not do the talking for their clients
- advise their clients in respect to the legality of any proposed settlement and assist
them in the drafting of compromise agreement, if any is reached by the parties.
NOTE: In court-annexed mediation, the parties will be advised by the mediator to
refrain from discussing the merits of the case.
g
Senarlo v. Judge Paderanga
617 SCRA 247
As stated in the rules, court-annexed mediation is mandatory. It is also part of
pre-trial, such that failure of the parties to appear therein merits the imposition
of sanctions on the part of the absent party, by virtue of Section 5, Rule 18.
Period of CAM - not exceed thirty (30) calendar days, and no extension is allowed.
Nature of CAM - confidential, where any statement, disclosure, or admissions
made by the parties therein cannot be utilized for or against them during the trial
of the case
SECTION 9
Section 9. Judicial Dispute Resolution. — Only if the judge of the court
to which the case was originally raffled is convinced that settlement is
still possible, the case may be referred to another court for judicial
dispute resolution. The judicial dispute resolution shall be conducted
within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) calendar days from notice
of failure of the court-annexed mediation.
If judicial dispute resolution fails, trial before the original court shall
proceed on the dates agreed upon.
All proceedings during the court-annexed mediation and the judicial
dispute resolution shall be confidential.
This is a formal incorporation of JDR in the ROC.
JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION - not mandatory, as it may only be had if the
judge of the court to which the case was originally raffled is convinced that
settlement is still possible
MEDIATOR
- a judge but not by the judge of the court to which the case was originally raffled
- takes an active role in assisting the parties in coming up with a settlement
- allowed to discuss the merits of the case, but, at the end of the day, the parties
cannot be compelled to settle the case amicably
Period - non-extendible period of 15 calendar days from notice of the failure of the
court-annexed mediation
Nature – confidential, as any statement, disclosure, or admissions made by the
parties cannot be utilized for or against them during the trial of the case;
considered part of pre-trial;
NOTE: Non-appearance during the judicial dispute resolution, if one is ordered
conducted, shall merit the imposition of sanctions under Section 5 thereof.
SECTION 10
Section. 10. Judgment after pre-trial. — Should there be no more
controverted facts, or no more genuine issue as to any material fact, or
an absence of any issue, or should the answer fail to tender an issue, the
court shall, without prejudice to a party moving for judgment on the
pleadings under Rule 34 or summary judgment under Rule 35, motu
proprio include in the pre-trial order that the case be submitted for
summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings, without need of
position papers or memoranda. In such cases, judgment shall be
rendered within ninety (90) calendar days from termination of the pre-
trial.
The order of the court to submit the case for judgment pursuant to this
Rule shall not be the subject to appeal or certiorari.
This is a new provision
Rationale for the amendment: to give more teeth to the authority of the court
under Section 2 (f), Rule 18 of the Amended Rules to determine during the pre-
trial the propriety of rendering judgment on the pleading, or summary judgment,
among others.
WHEN THE CASE SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1. There is no more controverted facts
2. No more genuine issues as to any material fact
3. An absence of any issue
4. Where the answer fails to tender an issue
JUDGMENT SHALL BE MADE:
1. Motu proprio
2. Summarily or judgment on the pleadings
3. No need of position paper or memoranda
123

4. Without prejudice to the filing by any of the parties of a formal motion for
judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34 or summary judgment under Rule 35
Where that happens, the court shall render judgment within 90 calendar days from
termination of the pre-trial.
Jaranilla, Jr. v. Adil*
88 SCRA 779
If at the pre-trial, the defendant admitted and stipulated to have obtained a loan
from the plaintiff but merely asked for time for him to be able to pay, there is
no need to reset the pre-trial. The proper procedure is to issue an order
submitting the case for summary judgment.
NOTE: the order of the court to submit the case for judgment on the pleadings or
summary judgment shall not be subject to appeal or certiorari. Be where a
judgment is eventually rendered by the court, then such judgment may already be
appealed from.
QUESTIONS FROM STUDENT:
Q: What happens if a litigant doesn’t appear in pre-trial but with just cause? Is it
postponed? Or does it continue despite his absence? Or is the absent litigant
compelled to authorize a representative?
A: If the client has foreseen that he or she might not be able to attend the pre-
trial, then it is advisable that he or she execute a special power of attorney
empowering his or her lawyer or any other person to appear on his or her behalf
during the pre-trial. But if the client really has the intention to appear at the pre-
trial but is unable to do so due to unforeseen but justifiable reason -- e.g., he or
she met an accident on the way to the court, or he or she suddenly feel ill -- then
the client should promptly inform his or her lawyer about the predicament.
The lawyer will relay that circumstance to the court and ask for the resetting of the
pre-trial. Without the appearance of the client and without any SPA, and sans any
justifiable reason, the client will suffer the adverse consequences.
RULE 19 - INTERVENTION
SECTION 1
Section 1. Who may intervene. — A person who has a legal interest in the
matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest
against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court
or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene
in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention
will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original
parties, and whether or not the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected
in a separate proceeding.
INTERVENTION - a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the
proceedings, becomes a litigant therein to enable him to protect or preserve a right
or interest which may be affected by such proceedings.
MCIAA v. Heirs of Miñoza
G.R. No. 186045, Feb. 2, 2011
It is a proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the
court to make himself a party, either joining the plaintiff in claiming what is
sought by the complaint, or uniting with the defendant in resisting the claims of
plaintiff, or demanding something adversely to both of them; the act or
proceeding by which a third person becomes a party in a suit pending between
others; the admission, by leave of court, of a person not an original party to
pending legal proceedings, by which such person becomes a party thereto for
the protection of some right of interest alleged by him to be affected by such
proceedings.
Characteristics:
1. Not a matter of right, but may be permitted when the applicant shows facts which
satisfy the requirements of the statute authorizing intervention (SM Land, Inc. vs.
Bases Conversion and Development Authority)
2. Not an independent proceeding, but an ancillary and supplemental one, in
subordination to the main proceeding (Saw vs. CA)
3. Cannot alter the nature of the action and issues already joined (Castro vs.
David)
ELEMENTS OF A VALID INTERVENTION
1. There must be a motion for leave to intervene filed before rendition of judgment
by the trial court (Section 1, Rule 19)
2. The pleading-in-intervention should already be attached to the motion (Section
2, Rule 19)
3. The movant must show in his motion and pleading-in-intervention that he or
she has: (1) legal interest in the matter in litigation, (2) legal interest in the success
g
of either of the parties in the action, (3) ;egal interest against both parties, or (4)
The movant is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution of other
disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof
a. Legal interest in the matter in litigation
First Philippine Holdings Corporation v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 88345, Feb. 1, 1996
The purported intervention by First Philippine Holdings Corporation (FPHC)
was proper in the sequestration proceedings filed by Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the Philippine Commission on Good Government
(PCGG), against spouses Benjamin “Koko” and Juliette Romualdes, as
PHHC claimed to be the owner of shares of stocks which the PCGG sought
to sequester.
b. Legal interest in the success of either of the parties in the action;
Example 1: When the principal debtor intervenes in an action filed by the creditor
as against the debtor’s surety only.
Example 2: A sold a parcel of land to B. But C, claiming to be the owner of the
land, filed an action for recovery of the same parcel of land against B. Not being
impleaded in the case, A may intervene as a defendant-in-intervention in the
action, in order to defend B’s ownership over the property; after all, under Article
1547 of the Civil Code, A impliedly warranted unto and in favor of B that the latter
would have legal and peaceful possession over the parcel of land and the former
has a right to sell the thing.
C. Legal interest against both parties;
Example 1: A filed a case against B for quieting of title. But C, not being an
original party to the case, filed an intervention, contending that neither A nor B
owns the property as it rather belongs to him, C.
Example 2: A filed a foreclosure sale involving the property owned by B for the
latter’s failure to pay his obligation. During the foreclosure sale, C emerged as
the highest bidder, such that property was sold to him. Subsequently, B filed a
case against A only for the nullification of the foreclosure sale.
In that action, C, the buyer may be allowed to intervene. As the purchaser in such
foreclosure sale did not acquire the property from their owners but adverse to
them, he could expect no party in the pending suit to safeguard his interest.
Hence the necessity of allowing his intervention
But had C rather acquired the property during the pendency of the case through
voluntary sale from B, C may not be allowed to intervene, and there is no need
for him to intervene, because he can expect B to defend him, C, or his interest,
and more so that under now Section 19, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, it is provided
that “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”
Case in point: Santiago Land vs. CA, G.R. No. 106194, August 7, 1997
d. The movant is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution of
other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer
thereof
Example 1: Randi obtained a loan from Waldi secured by a real estate mortgage
constituted on the property owned by Renato, who allegedly executed a special
power of attorney in favor of Randi, allowing the latter to mortgage the property.
As Randi failed to pay the obligation, Waldi then filed an action to foreclose
Renato’s property. But Renato insisted that he did not allow Randi to mortgage his
property and that the SPA that was allegedly executed in favor of Randi is
spurious. Where that happens, Renato, may be allowed to intervene in the
foreclosure proceedings.
HIGHKEY NOTE: Legal interest must be actual material, direct and of an
immediate character, not merely contingent or expectant, so that the intervenor
will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment.
Magsaysay v. Labrador*
180 SCRA 266
FACTS: Adelaida Rodriguez-Magsaysay, widow and special administratix of
the estate of the late Senator Genaro Magsaysay, brought before the then CFI
of Olongapo an action against Panganiban, SUBIC, FILMANBANK and the RD
of Zambales.
In her complaint, she alleged that she and her husband acquired, thru conjugal
funds, Pequena Island covered by TCT. After the death of her husband, she
discovered her husband executed and registered a Deed of Assignment, which
124

resulted in the issuance of a new TCT in favor of SUBIC. Moreover, there was
a Deed of Mortgage executed by SUBIC to FILMANBANK.
Magsaysay alleged that these acts were void and done in an attempt to defraud
the conjugal partnership considering that the land is conjugal, and her marital
consent to the annotation on the TCT was not obtained.
The sisters of the late senator filed a motion for intervention on the ground
that their brother conveyed to them one-half of his shareholdings in SUBIC.
Because of this. they have a substantial and legal interest in the subject matter
of litigation and that they have a legal interest in the success of the suit with
respect to SUBIC.
RULING: The interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit
between other parties must be in the matter in litigation and of such
direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose
by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. Otherwise, if
persons not parties of the action could be allowed to intervene, proceedings
will become unnecessarily complicated, expensive and interminable. And this
is not the policy of the law.
The words "an interest in the subject" mean a direct interest in the cause of
action as pleaded, and which would put the intervenor in a legal position to
litigate a fact alleged in the complaint, without the establishment of which
plaintiff could not recover.
In this case, the interest, if it exists at all, of the sisters is indirect, contingent,
remote, conjectural, consequential and collateral. At the very least, their
interest is purely inchoate, or in sheer expectancy of a right in the management
of the corporation and to share in the profits thereof and in the properties and
assets thereof on dissolution, after payment of the corporate debts and
obligations.
While a share of stock represents a proportionate or aliquot interest in the
property of the corporation, it does not vest the owner thereof with any legal
right or title to any of the property, his interest in the corporate property being
equitable or beneficial in nature. Shareholders are in no legal sense the owners
of corporate property, which is owned by the corporation as a distinct legal
person.
Clareza v. Rosales*
2 SCRA 455
RULING: That right of the intervenor should merely be in aid of the right
of the original party, like the plaintiffs in this case. As this right of plaintiffs
had cease to exist, there is nothing to aid or fight for. So, the right of
intervention has ceased to exist.
CASE ANALYSIS: Since an intervention is not an independent proceeding but
ancillary and supplemental to an existing litigation and in subordination to the
main proceeding (Saw vs. CA), so where the main action is dismissed, the
intervention must follow suit, or that it must also be dismissed.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. RTC of Manila*
G.R. No. 89909, Sept. 21, 1990
FACTS: Good Earth Emporium, Inc. (GEE) executed a deed of chattel
mortgage in favor of Metropolitcan Bank (MB) over aircon units. Thereafter,
MB filed a complaint for replevin against Uniwide and BPI for the recovery of
the possession of the aircon units or in the event they may not be recovered,
for the defendants to be required, jointly and severally, to pay the MB the
unpaid obligations on the units. The defendants filed their Answer.
Raycor Air Control Systems, Inc. filed a motion for leave to intervene alleging
it has a direct and immediate interest on the subject matter of the litigation such
that it will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the
judgment' and attached the 'Intervention Complaint'. There was no opposition
to the motion and the intervention complaint was admitted by the lower court.
Subsequently, Metrobank and the building owners entered into a compromise
agreement and, on their motion, the complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.
The intervenor, however, filed a motion for reconsideration from the dismissal
of the case with prejudice, and such motion was granted. Thereafter, the trial
court allowed the filing of an amended complaint-in-intervention, and this was
questioned by Metropolitan Bank.
RULING: Having been permitted to become a party in order to better protect
his interests, an intervenor is entitled to have the issues raised between him
and the original parties tried and determined. He had submitted himself and
his cause of action to the jurisdiction of the court and was entitled to relief as
though he were himself a party in the action.
g
After the intervenor has appeared in the action, the plaintiff has no
absolute right to put the intervenor out of court by the dismissal of the
action. The parties to the original suit have no power to waive or
otherwise annul the substantial rights of the intervenor. When an
intervening petition has been filed, a plaintiff may not dismiss the action
in any respect to the prejudice of the intervenor.
It has even been held that the simple fact that the trial court properly dismissed
plaintiff s action does not require dismissal of the action of the intervenor. An
intervenor has the right to claim the benefit of the original suit and to prosecute
it to judgment. The right cannot be defeated by dismissal of the suit by the
plaintiff after the filing of the petition and notice thereof to the other parties. A
person who has an interest in the subject matter of the action has the right, on
his own motion, to intervene and become a party to the suit, and even after the
complaint has been dismissed, may proceed to have any actual controversy
established by the pleadings determined in such action. The trial court's
dismissal of plaintiffs action does not require dismissal of the action of the
intervenor.”
RECONCILATION OF THE CASES:
Where the purpose of the intervention is just to lend support to either of parties
of the original action, then the dismissal of the main case carries with it the
dismissal of the intervention.
Where the purpose of the intervention is to put forth a claim adverse to both of
the original parties in the case, then the dismissal of the main case does not
carry with it the dismissal of the intervention.
ILLUSTRATION: (of the application of the general rule): A, the creditor, filed
an action for collection of sum of money against the surety, C. B, the principal
debtor, sought to, and was allowed to intervene in the action, in defense of C.
During the pendency of the case A and C, submitted a joint motion to dismiss,
whereby A acknowledged that B’s debt was already paid. In that situation, the
dismissal of the action necessarily carries with it the dismissal of the intervention,
as it has no more leg to stand on.
ILLUSTRATION (of the exception): A filed a case against B for quieting of title.
But C, not being an original party to the case, filed an intervention, contending that
neither A nor B owns the property as it rather belongs to him, C.
Should A and B enter into a compromise, to the exclusion of C, and, on the basis
thereof, jointly pray of the dismissal of the case, the court should not, as it cannot,
dismiss the case-in-intervention. C’s claim should be adjudicated, his interest
being adverse to both A and B.
INTERVENTION VS. INTERPLEADER
INTERVENTION INTERPLEADER
Intervention is an ancillary action. Interpleader is an original action.
In interpleader, the plaintiff has no
interest in the subject matter of the
Intervention is proper in any of the
action, or has an interest therein
four situations mentioned in Section
which, in whole or in part, is NOT
1, Rule 19 of the Amended Rules.
disputed by the other parties to the
action
In complaint-in-intervention, the In interpleader, the defendants are
defendants are already parties to being sued precisely to implead
the pending suit. them
SECTION 2
Section 2. Time to intervene. — The motion to intervene may be filed at
any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the
pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on
the original parties.
WHEN TO INTERVENE? At any time before rendition of judgment by the trial
court. Hence, intervention after trial and decision is not permitted (Yau vs. Manila
Banking Corporation).
Lim v. Pacquing
G.R. No. 115044, Jan. 27, 1995
the Republic was allowed to intervene in a case pending before the Supreme
Court on a question involving the validity of a permit issued by Manila Mayor
Lim to operate the Jai Alai, citing the old ruling in the case of Director of Lands
vs. CA.
Francisco Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.
G.R. No. 130876, Jan. 31, 2002
The Supreme directed the Solicitor General to intervene in the action in behalf
of the Republic, even when the case was already at the Supreme Court level.
125

NOTE: The pleading-in-intervention shall already be attached to the motion and
served on the original parties. This is consistent with the requirement under
Section 10, Rule 15.
REMEDY OF DENIED MOTION TO INTERVENE
1. Appeal from the order denying the intervention, and not from the decision of the
main proceeding (Saw vs. CA)
2. Extraordinarily, mandamus
First Phil. Holdings, Inc. v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 883345, Feb. 1, 1996
While, generally, writ of mandamus will not prosper to compel a discretionary
act, but where appeal would not be an adequate and speedy remedy and there
is a grave abuse of discretion, manifest injustice or palpable excess of authority
equivalent to denial of a settled right to which petitioner is entitled MANDAMUS
may lie
SECTION 3
Section 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. — The intervenor shall file a
complaint-in-intervention if he or she asserts a claim against either or all
of the original parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he or she unites
with the defending party in resisting a claim against the latter.
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION – A pleading filed by an intervenor who seeks
to join forces with the plaintiff or who asserts claim against both plaintiff and
defendant in the original action
ANSWER-IN-INTERVENTION – A pleading filed by an intervenor who unites with
the original defendant in the action
SECTION 4
Section 4. Answer to complaint-in-intervention. — The answer to the
complaint-in-intervention shall be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days
from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is
fixed by the court.
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION – a pleading filed by the
plaintiff or defendant within 15 calendar days from notice of the order admitting the
same, unless a different period is fixed by the court.
Note: Where there is an amendment to the complaint or complaint-in-intervention,
to which an answer-in-intervention has been filed, then the period for filing an
amended answer-in-intervention, if necessary, shall be governed by Section 3,
Rule 11 – 30 days (as a matter of right) or 15 days (not as a matter or right).
RULE 20 – CALENDAR OF CASES
SECTION 1
Section 1. Calendar of cases. — The clerk of court, under the direct
supervision of the judge, shall keep a calendar of cases for pre-trial, for
trial, those whose trials were adjourned or postponed, and those with
motions to set for hearing. Preference shall be given to habeas corpus
cases, election cases, special civil actions, and those so required by law.
THE FOUR SEPARATE CALENDARS OF THE CLERK OF COURT:
(1) Cases for pre-trial;
(2) Cases for trial;
(3) Cases whose trials were adjourned or postponed; and
(4) Cases with motions to set for hearing
This has to be done for efficient and close monitoring of cases.
PREFERRED CASES:
ü Habeas corpus cases – deprivation of liberty
ü Election cases – you’re trying to be the expiration of a contested term
ü Special civil action cases
SECTION 2
Section 2. Assignment of cases. — The assignment of cases to the
different branches of a court shall be done exclusively by raffle. The
assignment shall be done in open session of which adequate notice shall
be given so as to afford interested parties the opportunity to be present.
HOW ASSIGNMENT OF CASES ARE DONE? Exclusively by raffle.
In highly urbanized cities, the raffling of cases is now done electronically.
When raffling cannot be done
1. When the place has only one eligible court
g
2. When it comes to cases falling under specialized court and where there is but
one such specialized court in the place.
NOTE: Give adequate notices to interested parties to give them opportunity to be
present in the raffling of cases.
Galeon’s observation: But truth is this is hardly followed. This provision is
normally followed only in cases where there is an application of a restraining order
or an injunctive writ.
RULE 21 — SUBPOENA
SECTION 1
Section 1. Subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. — Subpoena is a
process directed to a person requiring him or her to attend and to testify
at the hearing or the trial of an action, or at any investigation conducted
by competent authority, or for the taking of his or her deposition. It may
also require him or her to bring with him or her any books, documents,
or other things under his or her control, in which case it is called a
subpoena duces tecum.
SUBPOENA - a process directed to a person, requiring him to attend and to testify
at the hearing or the trial of an action, or at any investigation conducted by
competent authority, or for the taking of his deposition
KINDS OF SUBPOENA
1. SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM - whereby a person is directed to appear at
the hearing or the trial of an action, or at any investigation conducted by competent
authority and for him to testify thereat
2. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM - by which a person is directed to bring to the
court or any competent authority conducting investigation any books, documents,
or other things under his control
3. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AD TESTIFICANDUM – whereby a person is
directed to appear in the court or competent authority conducting an investigation,
at a designated date and time, and to bring with him or her certain books,
documents, or things, and, there and then, testify thereon
SECTION 2
Section 2. By whom issued. — The subpoena may be issued by -
(a) The court before whom the witness is required to attend;
(b) The court of the place where the deposition is to be taken;
(c) The officer or body authorized by law to do so in connection with
investigations conducted by said officer or body; or
(d) Any Justice of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in any case
or investigation pending within the Philippines.
When an application for a subpoena to a prisoner is made, the judge or
officer shall examine and study carefully such application to determine
whether the same is made for a valid purpose.
No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
and who is confined in any penal institution shall be brought outside the
penal institution for appearance or attendance in any court unless
authorized by the Supreme Court.
WHO ISSUED THE
APPLICABILITY
SUBPOENA
Any court Which required the witness to attend
Where a party to a pending action avails of the
discovery procedure under Rule 23 to take the
deposition of any person during the pendency of the
case
The court of the
Example: A case is pending before the RTC Branch
place where the
9, Cebu City. But the person who is to testify for the
deposition is to be
plaintiff resides in Bohol, and he is incapacitated to
taken
travel to Cebu City. In that situation, his testimony
may just be taken upon oral deposition in Bohol, and
it may be taken before any judge therein, and the
judge in Bohol may then issue a subpoena to that
person who is to testify on deposition.
The officer or body In connection with investigations conducted by said
authorized by law to officer or body
subpoena, in
connection with Administrative bodies / quasi-judicial bodies
investigations that are vested with the power to subpoena:
126

conducted by said ü Civil Service Commission
officer or body ü National Labor Relations Commission
ü PNP Chief, PNP Director, Deputy Director for
Administration of the PNP-Criminal Investigation
and Detection Group (RA 10973)
ü Congress or any committee thereof
Any Justice of the In any case or investigation pending within the
Supreme Court or Philippines
the Court of
Appeals
The last two paragraphs in the afore-quoted section were taken from
Administrative Circular No. 6 issued by the Supreme Court under date of
December 5, 1977. Such provisions are clearly for precautionary measure, lest
that the prisoner will escape.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Form and contents. — A subpoena shall state the name of the
court and the title of the action or investigation, shall be directed to the
person whose attendance is required, and in the case of a subpoena
duces tecum, it shall also contain a reasonable description of the books,
documents or things demanded which must appear to the court prima
facie relevant.
CONTENTS – Name of court; title of action/ investigation; name of person to be
subpoenaed; description of things subpoenaed; the place, the date and the time,
at which the person to whom the subpoena is directed shall appear before the
court, officer, or body conducting the hearing or investigation
SECTION 4
Section 4. Quashing a subpoena. — The court may quash a subpoena
duces tecum upon motion promptly made and, in any event, at or before
the time specified therein if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or the
relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear, or if the
person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the
reasonable cost of the production thereof.
The court may quash a subpoena ad testificandum on the ground that
the witness is not bound thereby. In either case, the subpoena may be
quashed on the ground that the witness fees and kilometrage allowed by
these Rules were not tendered when the subpoena was served.
MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA – a litigated motion that should be filed
before the date of the scheduled appearance of the person subpoenaed; must
comply with Rule 15
GROUNDS TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM:
1. Where the subpoena duces tecum appears to be unreasonable and
oppressive
ILLUSTRATION 1: The subpoena duces tecum directs the accountant of the
corporation to bring to the court the financial books, ledgers, portfolio, receipts,
and vouchers of the defendant corporation from the time of its incorporation in
the year 2000 up to the present. Clearly, that subpoena is unreasonable and
oppressive, as the documents demanded are clearly voluminous. If that is the
case, the subpoena can be quashed.
ILLUSTRATION 2: The subpoena commands that the cadaver of a person be
brought to the court. Clearly the subpoena should be quashed, as it obviously is
unreasonable and reprehensible.
2. The books, documents or things do not appear to the relevant in the case
Reason: Books, documents or things subpoenaed must be vital in a case.
ILLUSTRATION: In an action for simple collection of sum money, the
presentation of the birth certificate, scholastic records, or marriage contract of the
defendant is clearly irrelevant to the caseH. ence, any subpoena duces tecum for
the production and presentation thereof should be quashed.
3. The person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the
reasonable cost of the production thereof
For subpoena duces tecum, when it’s too expensive and the plaintiff refuses to
incur such expense, then it can be quashed.
ILLUSTRATION: A subpoena has been issued directing the independent auditor
of the defendant corporation to bring to the court the original and the true copies
of the audited final statements of the corporation say for 5 years. The costs of
having the audited statement would amount to Php10,000.00, but the plaintiff who
g
caused the issuance of the subpoena does not want to pay therefor. Where that
happens, the subpoena duces tecum may be quashed by the court.
For subpoena ad testificandum, it may also be quashed:
(1) if and when the witness is not bound by such subpoena; or
(2) if it is directed against an adverse party who had not been served with written
interrogatories, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 25.
ILLUSTRATION 1: In a civil case, the subpoena is addressed to a purported
witness who resides in a place which is more than 100 kilometers from the place
where the trial court or the issuing court sits.
ILLUSTRATION 2: In a civil pending before the RTC Branch 10, Cebu City, the
plaintiff caused the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum who happens to be
a resident of Baguio City. [Baguio City is more than 100 kilometers away from the
situs of the trial, Cebu City] Where that happens, the subpoena may be quashed.
NOTE: Section 10, Rule 21 provides an exception, where a resident more than
100 km from his residence to the place where he is to testify cannot be compelled
to testify.
Spouses Vicente Afulugencia & Leticia Afulugencia v. Metropolitan
Bank & Trust Co., et al.
G.R. No. 185145, Feb. 14, 2014
RULING: As a rule, in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to
the witness stand is not allowed, unless written interrogatories are first
served upon the latter. This is embodied in Section 6, Rule 25 [Now Section
10, Rule 21].
CASE ANALYSIS: A person subpoenaed must be served with written
interrogatories:
(1) to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays
(2) to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial
It will be presumed that a party who does not serve written interrogatories on
the adverse party beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to
its case if it later opts to call the adverse party to the witness stand as its
witness. Instead, the process could be treated as a fishing expedition or an
attempt at delaying the proceedings; it produces no significant result that a
prior written interrogatories might bring.
Since the calling party is deemed bound by the adverse party’s
testimony, compelling the adverse party to take the witness stand may result
in the calling party damaging its own case.
4. The person sought to be subpoenaed is disqualified to testify therein
This is pursuant to Section 23 (Disqualification by reason of marriage), Section 24
(Disqualification by reason of privileged communication), Section 25 (Parental and
filial privilege), and Section 26 (Privilege relating to trade secrets), all of Rule 130
of the Revised Rule on Evidence.
5. The witness fees and kilometrade are not tendered when the subpoena
was served
Section 13, Rule 141 provides for the WITNESS FEES.
RULE 141. Section 13. Witness fees. — (a) Witnesses in the Supreme
Court, in the Court of Appeals and in the Regional Trial Courts, either in
actions or special proceedings, shall be entitled to one hundred
(P100.00) pesos per day inclusive of travel time;
(b) Witnesses before courts of the first level shall be allowed fifty (P50.00)
pesos per day;
(c) Fees to which witnesses may be entitled in a civil action shall be
allowed, on a certification of the clerk of court or judge of his appearance
in the case. A witness shall not be allowed compensation for his
attendance in more than one case or more than one side of the same
case at the same time, but may elect in which of several cases or on
which side of a case, when he is summoned by both sides, to claim his
attendance. A person who is compelled to attend court on other business
shall not be paid as witness.
ILLUSTRATION: If the applicant for the issuance of a subpoena would not pay
the aforesaid witness fee, then the court may quash the subpoena that it issued.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Subpoena for depositions. — Proof of service of a notice to
take a deposition, as provided in Sections 15 and 25 of Rule 23, shall
constitute sufficient authorization for the issuance of subpoenas for the
persons named in said notice by the clerk of the court of the place in
127

which the deposition is to be taken. The clerk shall not, however, issue a
subpoena duces tecum to any such person without an order of the court.
This provision pertains to issuance of subpoena in connection with deposition
pending action.
ILLUSTRATION: A case is pending before the RTC Branch 9, Cebu City, but the
person who is to testify for the plaintiff in that case resides in Talibon, Bohol, and
he is incapacitated to travel to Cebu City and testify in the case. In this case, his
testimony may just be taken upon oral deposition in Talibon, Bohol, and it may be
taken before any judge therein, pursuant to Section 10, Rule 23.
The clerk of court of the RTC of Talibon, Bohol, upon order of the Presiding Judge
of that court, can issue subpoena to the person whose deposition is to be taken,
provided that there is proof of the service of the notice to take such
deposition in compliance with Sections 15 and 25, Rule 23 of the Amended Rules.
RULE 23. Section 10. Persons before whom depositions may be taken
within the Philippines. — Within the Philippines, depositions may be
taken before any judge, notary public, or the person referred to in
Section 14 hereof.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Service. — Service of a subpoena shall be made in the same
manner as personal or substituted service of summons. The original
shall be exhibited and a copy thereof delivered to the person on whom it
is served. The service must be made so as to allow the witness a
reasonable time for preparation and travel to the place of attendance.
Costs for court attendance and the production of documents and other
materials subject of the subpoena shall be tendered or charged
accordingly.
SERVICES OF SUBPOENA - made in the same manner as personal or
substituted service of summons
(1) Personal service
(2) Registered mail
(3) Accredited courier
(4) Electronic mail
(5) Facsimile transmission
(6) Substituted service
Requisites
1. With leave of court
2. Payment of costs for court attendance and production of documents and
materials
Or else, it may be quashed.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Personal appearance in court. — A person present in court
before a judicial officer may be required to testify as if he or she were in
attendance upon a subpoena issued by such court or officer.
This is an instance where one can be compelled to testify without a subpoena
RULE: Personal appearance in court may lead to compel him to testify in court
even if no subpoena has been issued to him.
NOTE: His testimony is relevant to the case and there is no legal impediment for
his giving testimony.
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed a case against Randi for specific performance.
Waldi was supposed to present Renato as his witness during the hearing
because Renato was one of the material witnesses during the signing and
execution of the contract subject matter of the litigation. But then Waldi failed to
notify Renato about such hearing and failed to cause the issuance of a subpoena
for Renato.
But, if during the trial of Waldi’s case against Randi, Renato happened to be there
also to attend to his own case, Waldi could just verbally move the court to call
Renato to the witness stand and to testify in Waldi’s case. This could be done
even if no subpoena had been issued against Renato, and Renato could not
refuse to testify therein just because no subpoena had been issued for him.
SECTION 8
Section 8. Compelling attendance. — In case of failure of a witness to
attend, the court or judge issuing the subpoena, upon proof of the
service thereof and of the failure of the witness, may issue a warrant to
the sheriff of the province, or his or her deputy, to arrest the witness and
g
bring him or her before the court or officer where his or her attendance
is required, and the cost of such warrant and seizure of such witness
shall be paid by the witness if the court issuing it shall determine that his
or her failure to answer the subpoena was willful and without just excuse.
SECTION 9
Section 9. Contempt. — Failure by any person without adequate cause to
obey a subpoena served upon him or her shall be deemed a contempt of
the court from which the subpoena is issued. If the subpoena was not
issued by a court, the disobedience thereto shall be punished in
accordance with the applicable law or Rule.
CONSEQUENCES FOR FAILURE TO OBEY, WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLY CAUSE,
A COURT-ISSUED SUBPOENA:
1. A disobedient person may be cited for indirect contempt of court
On indirect contempt, Section 3, Rule 71 requires a written charge and a hearing
before a person may be cited for indirect contempt of court,
but the last paragraph thereof provides that “noting in this section shall be so
construed as to prevent the court from issuing process to bring the respondent into
court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings.”
2. The issuing court, even without such written charge and prior hearing, can
immediately issue a warrant for the arrest of the disobedient person
3. The disobedient person may also be adjudged liable to pay for the cost of
the issuance and the enforcement of the warrant for his arrest.
NOTE: Where the subpoena that is not obeyed is not issued by the court (but
by another competent authority), such failure so to obey shall be dealt with in
accordance with the law or the rules granting such other officer or body the
authority to issue a subpoena
ILLUSTRATION 1: If a person disobeys a subpoena issued by the Congress of
the Philippines in connection with a legislative inquiry, then the disobedient person
may be cited in contempt of the Congress and may thus be ordered arrested.
ILLUSTRATION 2: If the subpoena that is not obeyed is one issued by the PNP
Chief, then under RA 10973, the same shall just authorize the filing of a case for
indirect contempt under the Rules of Court with the RTC, as the PNP has no power
to issue a warrant of arrest.
SECTION 10
Section 10. Exceptions. — The provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of this Rule
shall not apply to a witness who resides more than one hundred (100)
kilometers from his or her residence to the place where he or she is to
testify by the ordinary course of travel, or to a detention prisoner if no
permission of the court in which his or her case is pending was obtained.
GENERAL RULE: The court can compel one to testify in court by issuing a
subpoena
EXCEPTION: A witness who resides more than 100 kilometers from his residence
to the place where he is to testify by the ordinary course of travel, or to a detention
prisoner if no permission of the court in which his case is pending was obtained.
ILLUSTRATION: In a civil case pending before RTC Cebu City, the plaintiff
caused the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum who happens to be a resident
of Baguio City. By reason of such distance, the witness failed to appear at the
scheduled hearing at which he was supposed to testify, can the witness be validly
ordered arrested or be cited in indirect contempt?
A: The witness cannot be cited in indirect contempt. He cannot be ordered to be
arrested. Rather, the subpoena can even be quashed. To remedy the situation,
the plaintiff may just want to take the deposition of the that purported witness in
Baguio City.
REMEMBER! The 100-km exception does not apply to a witness in a criminal case
Genorga v. Quitain*
78 SCRA 95
ISSUE: Whether a court of first instance hearing a criminal case may compel
by subpoena the attendance of a witness in his sala in Zamboanga City, when
the known address of such witness is at Montalban, Rizal.
ARGUMENTS: It was argued that under the Rules of Court, a witness is not
bound to attend a hearing if held outside the province he resides unless the
distance be less than 50 kilometers from his residence to the place of trial.
128

RULING: Undoubtedly, it is the inherent power of the Court to compel the
attendance of persons to testify in a case pending therein. Section 9 of Rule
23 [Now: Section 10, Rule 21] is the interpreted to apply solely to civil cases.
Under the circumstances, in view of the serious handicap to which the
prosecution would thus be subjected in proving its case, the order of
respondent judge denying the motion for an order of arrest or a citation
for contempt in the alternative, based on a clear misapprehension of the
Rules of Court, could be viewed as amounting to grave abuse of
discretion.
Galeon: Simply put, a witness in a criminal case can be compelled to
testify therein even if he resides in a place more than 100 kilometers away
from where the issuing court sits; otherwise, such witness may be
ordered arrested or be cited for indirect contempt.
QUESTION FROM STUDENT:
Q: Under the rule on Subpoena, it says that personal appearance in court may
allow the court to compel that person to testify without a subpoena. If that person
refuses, what are the consequences? Is there any way that the person can
justifiably refuse to take the stand (aside from relevance and legal impediment)?
A: If a person is in court, then he may be called to testify in the case even without
a subpoena. But where there is a justifiable reason for him not to take the witness
stand -- e.g., his testimony is not relevant, his testimony would be violative of
the so-called privileged communications rule, or where he is the adverse
party but he had not been served with interrogatories, etc. -- then, he can be
excused from testifying; otherwise, he can be cited in contempt of court.
But in actual legal practice, it is advisable that you inform that person before the
hearing that you want him to testify in the case, if you want to utilize him as your
witness, lest that he will be offended and testify adverse to your interest. But if you
want to call him in as an adverse witness, then get him by surprise.
RULE 22 – COMPUTATION OF TIME
SECTION 1
Section 1. How to compute time. — In computing any period of time
prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any
applicable statute, the day of the act or event from which the designated
period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of
performance included. If the last day of the period, as thus computed,
falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the
court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day.
RULE: Exclude the day the period begins, and include the date of performance
ILLUSTRATION 1: The defendant was served with summons on March 1, 2020
(assume that it was a working day). Therefore, the defendant has until March 31,
2020 within which to file his answer to the complaint (March 1 + 30 days)
In computing the 30-day period to file an answer, you exclude the day on which
summons was served on the defendant, but you have to include the last day
within which to file the required pleading.
Q: What happens if however the last day to file the pleading – March 31, 2020 –
fell on a Saturday, a Sunday, or was declared a legal holiday?
A: The defendant could then file his answer on the next business day – that is,
April 1, 2020.
NOTE: Even if the Bureau of Posts and its branches are open on a holiday which
happens to be the last day for filing a pleading (Galang vs. WCC, et al., L-33928,
March 29, 1972).
Further, in applying the rule on pretermission of holidays, as provided under the
second sentence of Section 1, Rule 22 of the Amended Rules, we have to give
due consideration to the place where the court actually sits. This is because
certain non-working holidays, or special days, are applicable only in some
particular places or regions of the country.
CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION 1: If the case is was filed in the RTC of
Maasin City, Southern Leyte, and the last day to file the answer to the complaint –
that is, March 31, 2020 – was declared a Holiday for Maasin, Southern Leyte
only, it being its Charter Day, then the period to file answer would still be on the
next business day – that is, April 1, 2020 – regardless of the fact that March 31,
2020 is a working day for the rest of country.
RECALL Article 13 of the Civil Code:
g
Article 13. When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall
be understood that years are of three hundred sixty-five days each;
months, of thirty days; days, of twenty-four hours; and nights from
sunset to sunrise.
If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the
number of days which they respectively have.
In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day
included.
Caltex Phil., Inc. v. Katipunan Labor Union
98 Phil. 340
If the answer to the complaint was filed by registered mail on April 1, 2020, it
is deemed filed on time even if the registered mailing was done after the
court’s regular office hours.
De Chavez v. Ocampo, et al.
66 Phil. 76
Where the same was personally filed, it would still considered as seasonably
filed if received by a person duly authorized to do so, even if such was filed
after the court’s regular office hours considering that under Article 13 of the
Civil Code, a day consists of twenty-four (24) hours.
NOTE: The rulings in the above-cited Caltex case and De Chavez case assume
paramount importance under the Amended Rules, which now allow filing and
service of pleading through electronic means.
If the pleading or motion is filed and served through email at or around 11:00
o’clock in the evening of a particular day – i.e., May 03, 2020 – then such
pleading or motion is deemed filed on that day, regardless if the filing and service
were all done past the regular office hours.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Effect of Interruption. — Should an act be done which
effectively interrupts the running of the period, the allowable period after
such interruption shall start to run on the day after notice of the cessation
of the cause thereof.
The day of the act that caused the interruption shall be excluded in the
computation of the period.
ILLUSTRATION: In a civil action, the defendant was served with summons on
March 1, 2020 (assume a working day). So, the defendant had until March 31,
2020 within which to file his answer to the complaint. But instead of filing an
answer, the defendant, on March 19, 2020, filed a motion for bill of particulars,
seeking clarification on the perceived vague allegations in the pleading.
Assume further that, acting on the motion for bill of particulars, the court, however,
denied the same per its Order dated March 30, 2020, a copy of which was served
upon and received by the defendant on March 31, 2020.
ANALYSIS: Where defendant’s bill of particulars is denied, then he should file his
answer to the complaint within the remaining days of the original 30 calendar
days for filing an answer, which shall not be less than five (5) calendar days
in any event.
[In counting the remaining period within which defendant should file his answer
following the denial of his bill of particulars, we should be guided by Section 2,
Rule 22 of the Amended Rules.]
Applying Section 2, Rule 22 of the Amended Rules, the day on which the
defendant filed his bill of particulars SHALL BE EXCLUDED in the counting
of the period (meaning--the period that is deemed consumed or wasted), as well
as the day on which he was served with the order denying his bill of particulars.
Hence, when the defendant filed the bill of particulars on March 19, 2020, he still
has 13 remaining calendar days within which to file his answer. And this
remaining 13 calendar days shall be counted starting April 1, 2020 (the day after
he received the order of denial on March 31, 2020). In fine, defendant has until
April 13, 2020 within which to file his answer to the complaint
Case in point: Labitad vs. CA, G.R. No. 53877, July 17, 1995
If the last day to file a pleading fell on a Saturday, Sunday, or Legal Holiday,
but the party-pleader filed an extension of time to file the desired pleading,
how should such extension be counted?
Labad v. The University of Southeastern Philippines*
G.R. No. 139665, August 9, 2001
129
 g

RULING: “Based on Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court and as applied

in several cases, where the last day for doing any act required or permitted by
law falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the
court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day. In this case,
petitioner still had until December 28, 1998, a Monday and the next business
day to move for a 15-day extension considering that December 26, 1998, the
last day for petitioner to file her petition for review fell on a Saturday. The
motion for extension filed on December 28, 1998 was thus filed on time since
it was filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended. The next
issue to resolve then is when should the 15-day extension be reckoned, should
it be counted from December 26, 1998 or December 28, 1998?
As a rule, the extension should be tacked to the original period and commence
immediately after the expiration of such period. However, in Moskowsky vs.
Court of Appeals and Vda. De Capulong vs. Workmens Insurance Co.,
Inc., we allowed the extended period to commence from the specific time
prayed for in the motion for extension. In this case, petitioner specifically
manifested that she be granted an extension of 15 days from December 28,
1998 or until January 12, 1999 for her to file her petition for review. Hence, the
period for reckoning the commencement of the additional 15 days should have
been from December 28, 1998, and not December 26, 1998. Thus, the petition
filed by petitioner with the Court of Appeals on January 12, 1998, exactly 15
days from December 28, 1998, was filed on time.
The underpinning consideration in Moskowski, Vda. de Capulong and in the
case at bar, is the liberal interpretation of the Rules to achieve substantial
justice. Petitioner would be outright denied her right to appeal if the original
period of December 26, 1998 would be the basis of the 15day extension period.
While the right to appeal is a statutory, not a natural right, nonetheless it is an
essential part of our judicial system and courts should proceed with caution so
as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every
party-litigant has the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of
his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.
CAVEAT: The factual setting in the above-cited Labad case happened in 1998
(albeit it was only decided in 2001). Hence, the ruling therein is now of doubtful
applicability in light of the Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc, A.M. No.
00-2-14-SC, February 29, 2000.
A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC
February 29, 2000
If a party to the case files a motion for extension to file a pleading, such
extension should be counted from the expiration of the original period, or
that it should be tacked to the original period, regardless of the fact the said
due date is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.
RULE 23 – DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTIONS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken. — Upon ex
parte motion of a party, the testimony of any person, whether a party or
not, may be taken by deposition upon oral examination or written
interrogatories. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the
use of a subpoena as provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken
only in accordance with these Rules. The deposition of a person confined
in prison may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the court
prescribes.
DISCOVERY - procedure by which one party in an action is enabled to obtain
before trial knowledge of relevant facts and of material evidence in the
possession of the adverse party or of a witness (Google)
MODES OF DISCOVERY:
1. Depositions pending action (Rule 23)
2. Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24)
3. Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25)
4. Admission by parties (Rule 26)
5. Production or inspection of documents or things (Rule 27)
6. Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28)
PURPOSE OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURE
Koh v. IAC
G.R. No. 71388, Sept. 23, 1986
The rules on discovery (Rules 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Revised
Rules of Court) are intended to:
ü enable a party to obtain knowledge of material facts within the
knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties through depositions;
ü obtain knowledge of material facts or admissions from the adverse
party through written interrogatories;
ü obtain admissions from the adverse party regarding the genuineness
of relevant documents or relevant matters of fact through requests for
admission;
ü inspect relevant documents or objects and lands or other property in
the possession or control of the adverse party; and
ü determine the physical or mental condition of a party when such is in
controversy.
This mutual discovery enables a party to discover the evidence of the
adverse party and thus facilitates an amicable settlement or expedites the trial
of the case. All the parties are required to lay their cards on the table so that
justice can be rendered on the merits of the case.

Note that the use of discovery procedures is not mandatory. Thus, if the parties
do not choose to resort to such procedures, the pre-trial conference should be
set pursuant to the mandatory provisions under now Section 1, Rule 18 of the
Amended Rules

DISCOVERY PROCEDURE VS. BILL OF PARTICULARS

DISCOVERY PROCEDURE BILL OF PARTICULUARS

procedure by which one party in an
action is enabled to obtain before trial
knowledge of relevant facts and of
material evidence in the possession
of the adverse party or of a witness
evidentiary matters” may be inquired
into and learned by the parties before
the trial through discovery
procedures
to discover in advance the evidence
of the adverse party
a complementary procedural
document consisting of an
amplification or more particularized
outline of a pleading and being in the
nature of a more specific allegation of
the facts recited in the pleading
limited to making more particular or
definite the ultimate facts in a
pleading
not to supply evidentiary matters
purpose of bill of particulars is to seek
clarification or to make definite any
vague allegations of ultimate facts in
the pleading, and not to inquire into
evidentiary matters

A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC

July 13, 2004

The court shall issue an order, which shall be served on the parties, requiring
the parties to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 and request for
admission by adverse party under Rule 26, or, at their discretion, make use of
depositions under Rule 23, or other measures under Rules 27 and 28, within
five (5) days from the filing of the answer.
130

Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. v. Reyes*
G.R. No. 108229, August 24, 1993
FACTS: Dasmariñas also contends that the "taking of deposition is a mode of
pretrial discovery to be availed of before the action comes to trial."
RULING: Not so. Depositions may be taken at any time after the institution
of any action, whenever necessary or convenient. There is no rule that
limits deposition-taking only to the period of pre-trial or before it; no prohibition
against the taking of depositions after pre-trial. Indeed, the law authorizes the
taking of depositions of witnesses before or after an appeal is taken from the
judgment of a Regional Trial Court "to perpetuate their testimony for use in the
event of further proceedings in the said court" (Rule 134, Rules of Court), and
even during the process of execution of a final and executory judgment (East
Asiatic Co. v. C.I.R., 40 SCRA 521, 544).”
TAKE AWAY: Depositions under now Rule 23 of the Amended Rules may be
taken at any time after the institution of the action
DEPOSITION - written testimony of a witness (that which is reduced in writing)
given in the course of a judicial proceeding, in advance of the trial or hearing, upon
oral examination or in response to written interrogatories, and where an
opportunity is given for cross-examination (16 Am. Jur. 699)
As a mode of discovery, deposition under Rule 23 of the Amended Rules is
actually a device by which a party may obtain knowledge of the material facts or
evidence within the knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties.
FORM OF DEPOSITION – oral examination or written interogatory
DEPOSITION MAY BE FROM – Any person, whether or not a party to the case,
but always upon the instance of a party to the case
KINDS OF DEPOSITION
1. Deposition de benne esse - Deposition may be taken for purposes of a
pending action (Rule 23)
2. Deposition perpetuam rei memoriam - taken for purposes of an anticipated
action or further proceedings, such as the one under Rule 24 of the Amended
Rules
REQUISITES OF A VALID DEPOSITION DE BENNE ESSE
1. Upon ex parte motion of a party
2. With prior leave of court
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed a case against Galeon. In his complaint, he identified
Randi as his possible witness. If Galeon wants to know in advance what Waldi and
Randi would testify against him, or what evidence do they have against him, then
Galeon may take their deposition in advance. In so doing, Galeon may also elicit
admissions from them which may be useful in my defense.
[Take note that if Galeon can do that to Waldi and/or his intended witness, Waldi
can also do that to Galeon and/or my potential witness.]
Q1: Can Galeon take the deposition of his own potential witness?
A1: Yes. After all, Section 1, Rule 23 of the Amended Rules allows the taking of
deposition of any person, whether a party or not, provided that it shall be done at
the instance of a party to the action upon ex parte motion.
Q2: What if Waldi, or Randi, or Galeon’s potential witness is not willing to have
their deposition taken?
A2: Under Section 1, Rule 23 of the Amended Rules, their appearance may be
compelled through a subpoena as provided under Rule 21
SECTION 2
Section 2. Scope of examination. — Unless otherwise ordered by the
court as provided by Section 16 or 18 of this Rule, the deponent may be
examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the
subject of the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense of
any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible
things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of
relevant facts.
DEPOSISTION PENDING ACTION – akin to a fishing expedition, as the party
requesting for such deposition might not have known what the witness (the
deponent) actually knows about the subject matter of the case.
If the deponent testifies on something favorable to the requesting party, then the
latter may want to call the deponent as his witness during the trial of the case;
g
if the deponent’s testimony is damaging to the requesting party’s case, then the
latter will not present the deponent as his witness during the trial.
POINTS ABOUT DEPOSITION PENDING ACTION:
1. The matter inquired into is not privileged
What can’t be asked to the deponent?
- Things which may expose him to criminal liability (Right against self-incrimination:
Sec 17, Art III)
- Things falling within the purview of privileged communications
- Matters within the ambit of Section 23 (Disqualification by reason of marriage)
- Section 24, Rule 130 of Revised Rules on Evidence (Disqualification by reason
of privileged communication)
- Section 25, Rile 130 of Revised Rules on Evidence (Parental and filial privilege)
- Section 26, Rule 130 of Revised Rules on Evidence (Privilege relating to trade
secrets)
ILLUSTRATION 1: As counsel, you cannot compel a priest to testify on what the
party to the action had confided to the priest in the course of administering the
sacrament of confession or reconciliation, as this matter is covered by the so-
called priest-penitent communication privilege under Section 24 (d), Rule 130 of
the Revised Rules on Evidence.
ILLUSTRATION 2: A deponent who happens to be a public officer may not be
asked on things falling within the realm of executive privilege (vide Neri vs. Senate
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation).
2. The matter inquired into is relevant to the subject matter of the pending
action
ILLIUSTRATION: In an action for recognition and support of a minor child
instituted against the putative father, the child’s mother, during the taking of her
deposition upon the instance of the putative father, may not be asked with
questions about her “favorite dish”, “favorite songs”, or “how big is her butt,” as
these things have no bearing upon the issue of the case at all.
3. The court may issue orders for the protection of the parties, pursuant to
Sections 16 or 18, Rule 23
Protection of the parties entail that the deponent may not be asked questions that
may tend to unreasonably annoy, embarrass or oppress him or her. Questions
must be related to the cause. The court may even prohibit the taking of deposition
or, where one is conducted, order that it be terminated.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Examination and cross-examination. — Examination and
cross- examination of deponents may proceed as permitted at the trial
under Sections 3 to 18 of Rule 132.
DEPOSITION-TAKING UPON ORAL EXAMINATION,
1. The requesting party or his or her lawyer will be the first to ask questions
2. The opposing party or his or her lawyer may propound questions to the
deponent on cross-examination.
NOTE: There may be objections that may be raised, but, the deposition officer
will simply note such objections, as he cannot rule thereon
SECTION 4
Section 4. Use of depositions. — At the trial or upon the hearing of a
motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so
far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against any
party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or
who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any one of the following
provisions:
(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of
contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness;
(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of taking the
deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or
private corporation, partnership, or association which is a party may be
used by an adverse party for any purpose;
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by
any party for any purpose if the court finds: (1) that the witness is dead;
or (2) that the witness resides at a distance more than one hundred (100)
kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines,
131

unless it appears that his or her absence was procured by the party
offering the deposition; or (3) that the witness is unable to attend or
testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or (4) that
the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the
attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon application and
notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable,
in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of
presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the
deposition to be used; and
(d) If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, the
adverse party may require him or her to introduce all of it which is
relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other
parts.
GENERAL RULE: THE REQUESTING PARTY OF THE DEPOSITION SHALL
NOT BE DEEMED TO MAKE THE DEPONENT HIS WITNESS FOR ANY
PURPOSE. [It’s not automatic that the deponent becomes a witness] The other
party may utilize such deposition.
WHO THE DEPOSITION MAY BE USED AGAINST:
1. Against any party (to the case) who was present during the deposition-taking;
or
2. Against a party (to the case) who was represented at the taking of the
deposition, as when the party is not present thereat but is duly represented by his
or her counsel; or
3. Against a party (to the case) who was duly notified about the purported
deposition-taking but who did not appear thereat or was not represented therein
- this party will be deemed to have waived his participation in the deposition-taking
but may be bound thereby
With this in mind, it is not, thus, advisable for a party to simply ignore this
proceeding or brush this off as inconsequential.
CIRCUMSTANES WHEN A PERSON MAY USE A DEPOSITION
1. At the trial proper (of the case)
2. Upon a hearing of a motion (e.g., hearing of the motion for summary judgment,
which, under Section 1, Rule 35 of the Amended Rules, may involve depositions,
among others)
3. Upon a hearing of an interlocutory incident (e.g., hearing on the application for
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, etc.)
USES OF A DEPOSITION
1. To impeach a testimony
2. To use as evidence in chief
GUIDELINES ON DEPOSITIONS:
1. The deponent can be a third party [not a party to the case
GENERAL RULE: Depositions are not meant to substitute for the actual testimony
in open court of a party or witness.
REMEMBER! DEPOSITION SHOULD BE PRESENTED IN COURT DURING
TRIAL PROPER.
EXCEPTIONS: In the following exceptional circumstances, the deposition may
be presented and offered in evidence, without need of presenting him in court
during the trial proper:
(1) The witness is dead; or
(2) The witness resides at a distance more than one hundred (100) kilometers from
the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it appears that his
or her absence was procured by the party offering the deposition; or
(3) The witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or
imprisonment; or
(4) The party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of
the witness by subpoena; or
(5) Upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to
make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance
of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the
deposition to be used
PROVIDED:
g
RULE 130. Section 49. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.
— The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or out of the
Philippines or who cannot, with due diligence, be found therein, or
unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who
had the opportunity to cross-examine him. [REVISED RULES ON
EVIDENCE]
ILLUSTRATION 1: Waldi filed a case against Randi for breach of contract. Even
before the pre-trial, Waldi sought for, and was granted, leave of court to take the
deposition of Renato Gwapo, a third party. The taking of Renato Gwapo’s
deposition proceeded, wherein Waldi, Randi, and their respective lawyers were all
present and actively participated.
Q1: If Renato’s deposition is adverse to Waldi’s cause of action, is Waldi duty-
bound to present Renato as his witness during the trial proper of the case?
A1: No. Under Section 7, Rule 23, the party who requests for the taking of the
deposition of another person shall not be deemed to make that person his own
witness for any purpose just by reason of taking that person’s deposition. [general
rule]
Q2: If Renato Gwapo’s deposition is favorable to Waldi, can Waldi utilize Renato
Gwapo’s deposition as evidence in the case without presenting Renato Gwapo to
the witness stand, for him to testify during the trial proper of the case, even if the
latter is willing and is available to testify therein?
A2: No. Waldi cannot conveniently do that. Depositions are not meant to be a
substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. The
deponent must be presented for oral examination in open court at the trial. [There
is no automatic conversion of deposition to presentable evidence in trial]
Indeed, any deposition offered to prove the facts therein at the trial of the case, in
lieu of the actual testimony of the deponent in court, may be opposed and excluded
for being hearsay, except in those specific instances authorized by the Rules under
peculiar conditions and for certain limited purposes
Case in point: Dasmariñas Garments vs. Reyes, G.R. NO. 108229, AUG. 24, 1993
(READ)
Q3: Are there no instances whereby Waldi can just present and offer in evidence
Renato Gwapo’s favorable deposition, without need of presenting him in court
during the trial proper?
A3: Waldi can do that in the event that Renato Gwapo cannot come and testify
in court under any of the exceptional circumstances mentioned in Section 4 (c),
Rule 23 of the Amended Rules
CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION 1: If Renato Gwapo could not anymore
personally appear in court and testify in the case because he had long migrated
to Australia and his whereabouts are no longer known, Waldi may, upon
establishing such fact, offer Renato Gwapo’s earlier deposition as evidence in the
case.
Q4: Suppose Waldi was able to present Renato Gwapo to the witness stand during
the trial proper, as Waldi’s own witness. But when Renato Gwapo testified in court,
he made a 180° somersault and made oral declarations in court adverse to Waldi
and contrary to his earlier deposition. What can Waldi do, if any?
A4: In that situation, Waldi should move that Renato Gwapo be declared a hostile
witness and could utilize Renato Gwapo’s earlier deposition, confront him with
it, and, using such deposition, impeach Renato Gwapo on the basis of such prior
inconsistent statements. This is in consonance with the provision of Section 4 (a),
Rule 23 of the Amended Rules. - IMPEACHING
Q5: Suppose Waldi presented Renato Gwapo to the witness stand during the trial
proper, as Waldi’s own witness. Renato Gwapo testified in favor of Waldi. But in
his earlier depositions, Renato Gwapo somehow made statements favorable to
Randi, but which Renato Gwapo recanted and changed when he testified in open
court. What can Randi do, if any?
A5: Randi can utilize Renato Gwapo’s earlier deposition, confront him with it,
and, using such deposition, impeach Renato Gwapo on the basis of such prior
inconsistent statements.
This is in consonance with the provision of Section 4 (a), Rule 23 of the Amended
Rules, and Section 11, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, which
provides:
RULE 132. Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A
witness may be impeached by the party against whom he or she was
132

called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his or her general
reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he
or she has made at other times statements inconsistent with his or her
present testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts,
except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the
record of the judgment, that he or she has been convicted of an offense.
2. The deponent can be a party to the case, or one who at the time of taking
the deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or
private corporation, partnership, or association which is a party to the case
RULE: If the deposition is made by a party or an employee of a corporation, it can
be used by the adverse party for impeachment of the deponent or as direct
evidence of his case whether the deponent is available to testify or not.
Said deposition cannot be used by the deponent-party as evidence of his/its case,
unless he or the corporate employee cannot testify for any reason stated in
paragraph (c), Section 4, Rule 23. (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I,
Nineth Edition, 2005, p. 339)
(GRAPH)
ILLUSTRATION 2: WXY Corporation, a domestic private corporation, filed a
collection suit against Renato Gwapo. Even before the pre-trial, WXY
Corporation, upon prior leave of court, took the deposition of its President, Waldi
Bigotilyo, anticipating that he may not be available during the trial of the case, in
view of his frequent business travels abroad. During the deposition-taking upon
oral examination, the parties and their respective lawyers were all present and
actively participated therein.
Q1: Can WXY Corporation just utilize Waldi’s deposition as its evidence in chief
without presenting him to the witness stand and for him to testify during the trial
proper of the case, even if the Waldi is willing and is available to testify therein?
A1: No. WXY Corporation cannot conveniently do that. Depositions are not meant
to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open court of a party or witness. The
deponent must, as a rule, be presented for oral examination in open court at the
trial. Indeed, any deposition offered to prove the facts therein at the trial of the
case, in lieu of the actual testimony of the deponent in court, may be opposed and
excluded for being hearsay, except in those specific instances authorized by the
Rules under peculiar conditions and for certain limited purposes.
Case in point: Dasmariñas Garments vs. Reyes, G.R. NO. 108229, AUG. 24, 1993
(READ)
Q2: Is there no instance whereby WXY Corporation can just present and offer in
evidence Waldi’s favorable deposition, without need of presenting him in court
during the trial proper?
A2: WXY Corporation can only do that UNDER any of the exceptional
circumstances mentioned in Section 4 (c), Rule 23
Q3: Suppose WXY Corporation was able to present Waldi to the witness stand
during the trial proper, as its own witness. But when Waldi testified in court, he
made a 180° somersault and made oral declarations in court adverse to WXY
Corporation and contrary to his earlier deposition. What can WXY Corporation
do, if any?
A3: In that situation, WXY Corporation should move that Waldi be declared a
hostile witness and, thereafter, WXY Corporation could utilize Waldi’s earlier
deposition, confront him with it, and, using such deposition, impeach Waldi on the
basis of such prior inconsistent statements. This is in consonance with the
provision of Section 4 (a), Rule 23 of the Amended Rules.
g
Q4: Suppose WXY Corporation presented Waldi to the witness stand during the
trial proper, as its own witness, and, as expected, Waldi testified in favor of WXY
Corporation, but then, in his earlier depositions, Waldi somehow made statements
favorable to Renato but which Waldi recanted and changed when he testified in
open court. What can Renato do, if any?
A4: Renato can utilize Waldi’s earlier deposition, confront him with it, and, using
such deposition, impeach Waldi on the basis of such prior inconsistent
statements. This is in consonance with the provision of Section 4 (a), Rule 23 of
the Amended Rules, and in line with Section 11, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules
on Evidence.
Q5: Suppose that Waldi is willing and available to testify in the case, but WXY
Corporation consciously opted not to present him to the witness stand during the
trial proper, realizing that his statements are detrimental to WXY’s case. What can
Renato do, if any?
A5: Renato cannot utilize Waldi’s deposition for impeachment purposes, as
this can only be done if Waldi takes the witness stand.
Regalado: Renato, being the adverse party, can utilize and offer Waldi’s
deposition as part of Renato’s evidence in chief, even without need of calling
Waldi to the witness stand and notwithstanding the fact that Waldi is willing
and available to testify during the trial of the case.
Insofar as Renato is concerned, he can utilize Waldi’s deposition even if the
Waldi’s failure so to testify in the case is not actually due to any of the exceptional
circumstances mentioned under Section 4 (c), Rule 23 of the Amended Rules.
Galeon: I subscribe to Regalado’s legal viewpoint. In the given situation wherein
the deponent, Waldi, gave his deposition during his tenure, and in his capacity, as
the President of WXY Corporation, which is a party to the case, then his testimony
may be admissible against WXY Corporation of which he is an officer.
Of relevance is the provision under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, to wit:
RULE 130. Section 30. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act or
declaration of a partner or agent authorized by the party to make a
statement concerning the subject, or within the scope of his or her
authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be
given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule
applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other
person jointly interested with the party. [Revised Rules on Evidence]
Renato can all the more make use of Waldi’s deposition as part of Renato’s
evidence in chief, even if Waldi does or would not take the witness stand, if Waldi
has joined or has been impleaded as a party to the case, for, and in such situation,
his deposition will bind him, among others, pursuant to Section 27, Rule 130 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence, which provides:
RULE 130. Section 26. Admission of a party. — The act, declaration or
omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against
him or her. [Revised Rules on Evidence]
3. If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence, the adverse party may
require him to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and
any party may introduce any other parts
ILLUSTRATION 3: In the case involving WXY Corporation against Renato,
assume that the deposition of Waldi was taken, where he made declarations
favorable to the corporation. But, on cross-examination, he made statements
therein that are favorable to Renato [that Renato already made substantial
payments to the corporation, such that what he owed to the corporation is no
longer in the whole amount as, thus prayed for in the complaint]
Q1: If during the trial at which Waldi was presented by WXY Corporation as its
witness, the corporation’s lawyer presented to and made Waldi identify his earlier
deposition. But for obvious tactical reasons, the corporation’s lawyer only
presented that part of Waldi’s deposition which is favorable to the corporation, or
that the corporation’s lawyer did not present the part pertaining to the cross-
examination conducted by Renato’s lawyer, what then can Renato do, if any?
A2: Renato or his lawyer can demand that WXY Corporation and/or Waldi
should present the entire deposition, including that part wherein, on cross-
examination, Waldi made admissions as are favorable to Renato. Renato has the
right so to make such demand, pursuant to Section 4 (b), Rule 23 and Section 17,
Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
RULE 132. Section 17. When part of transaction, writing or record given
in evidence, the remainder, the remainder admissible. — When part of an
133

act, declaration, conversation, writing or record is given in evidence by
one party, the whole of the same subject may be inquired into by the
other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, writing or
record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation,
writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in
evidence. [Revised Rules on Evidence]
If WXY Corporation and/or Waldi will not present the omitted portion, then Renato
has every right to present the missing or omitted portion of Waldi’s
deposition.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Effect of substitution of parties. — Substitution of parties does
not affect the right to use depositions previously taken; and, when an
action has been dismissed and another action involving the same
subject is afterward brought between the same parties or their
representatives or successors in interest, all depositions lawfully taken
and duly filed in the former action may be used in the latter as if originally
taken therefor.
The use of the deposition that is previously taken is not affected by:
ü the substitution of the parties
ü the dismissal of the case and the re-filing or revival thereof as long as the
second case substantially involves the same parties or their representatives
or successor-in-interests
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed a case against John for recovery of the possession
and ownership over a parcel of land. During the pendency of the case, Waldi
moved, and was granted leave of court, to take the deposition of Renato. John,
through his lawyer, actively took part during the deposition-taking of Renato, as by
conducting cross-examination on the deponent.
Q1: Suppose during the pendency of the case and even before Waldi could make
use of Renato’s deposition, John died, such that he was substituted by his legal
heirs, pursuant to Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, can Waldi still make
use of Renato’s deposition and introduce it as against the legal heirs of John, in
consonance with Section 4, Rule 23 of the Amended Rules, when they were not
yet parties to the case during the taking of Renato’s deposition
A1: Yes. Section 5, Rule 23 of the Amended Rules clearly allows it.
Q2: Suppose John is very much alive, but after the taking of Renato’s deposition,
the case was dismissed without prejudice because it was found out during the
hearing of the affirmative defenses that there was no compliance with the condition
precedent, but later Waldi re-filed the case, can the Renato’s previous deposition
be still used in the re-filed case?
A2: Yes, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 23 of the Amended Rules, as the case still
involves the same parties who actively took part, or who were duly represented,
during the taking of Renato’s deposition.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Objections to admissibility. — Subject to the provisions of
Section 29 of this Rule, objections may be made at the trial or hearing to
receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which
would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then
present and testifying.
OBJECTIONS ARE ONLY ALLOWED AT TRIAL OR HEARING.
It would be premature to object to the admissibility of any such deposition or part
thereof before and during the taking of the deposition because, in the end, such
deposition may or may not even be used at all.
Moreover, there is no point interposing such objection regarding the admissibility
of evidence before and during the taking of the deposition, as under Section 17,
Rule 23 of the Amended Rules, the deposition officer will simply note such
objections, as he or she cannot rule thereon.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Effect of taking depositions. — A party shall not be deemed to
make a person his or her own witness for any purpose by taking his or
her deposition.
refer to our discussions under Sections 2, 4 and 6, above
SECTION 8
Section 8. Effect of using depositions. — The introduction in evidence of
the deposition or any part thereof for any purpose other than that of
g
contradicting or impeaching the deponent makes the deponent the
witness of the party introducing the deposition, but this shall not apply
to the use by an adverse party of a deposition as described in paragraph
(b) of Section 4 of this Rule.
Relate to Section 4.
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
1. If a party uses the deposition to impeach or discredit the deponent, such party
is deemed not utilizing the deponent as his witness.
2. If a party utilizes the deposition to advance his cause of action or defense, then
the deponent becomes such party’s or the offeror’s own witness.
3. If the adverse party is to use the deposition as evidence in chief, provided the
deponent is an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation, then the deposition does not need to be testified
ILLUSTRATION: The adverse party – the plaintiff, for instance – or plaintiff’s
officer or employee : if plaintiff happens to be a corporation, would still remain as
the hostile party or hostile witness, as the case may be, insofar as the defendant
in the action is concerned, even if the plaintiff or its corporate officer or employee
may have somehow given declarations favorable to the defendant and which the
latter use to his advantage: Such favorable declarations may bind the defendant,
but he is not thereby bound by the adverse declarations.
SECTION 9
Section 9. Rebutting deposition. — At the trial or hearing, any party may
rebut any relevant evidence contained in a deposition whether
introduced by him or her or by any other party.
RULE: NO OBJECT, BUT YES REBUT.
SECTION 10
Section 10. Persons before whom depositions may be taken within the
Philippines. — Within the Philippines, depositions may be taken before
any judge, notary public, or the person referred to in Section 14 hereof.
SECTION 11
Section 11. Persons before whom depositions may be taken in foreign
countries. — In a foreign state or country, depositions may be taken (a)
on notice before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines;
(b) before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or
under letters rogatory; or (c) the person referred to in Section 14 hereof.
SECTION 12
Section 12. Commission or letters rogatory. — A commission or letters
rogatory shall be issued only when necessary or convenient, on
application and notice, and on such terms and with such direction as are
just and appropriate. Officers may be designated in notices or
commissions either by name or descriptive title and letters rogatory may
be addressed to the appropriate judicial authority in the foreign country.
SECTION 13
Section 13. Disqualification by interest. — No deposition shall be taken
before a person who is a relative within the sixth degree of consanguinity
or affinity, or employee or counsel of any of the parties; or who is a
relative within the same degree, or employee of such counsel; or who is
financially interested in the action.
SECTION 14
Section 14. Stipulations regarding taking of depositions. — If the parties
so stipulate in writing, depositions may be taken before any person
authorized to administer oaths, at any time or place, in accordance with
these Rules, and when so taken may be used like other depositions.
DEPOSITIONS, WHERE MADE
I. IN THE PHILIPPINES
1. Before any judge
- not necessarily be the judge of the court in which the case is pending
134

ILLUSTRATION: If a case is pending before the RTC Cebu City. But the person
who is to testify for the plaintiff in that case resides in Talibon, Bohol, and he is
incapacitated or is not willing to travel to Cebu City and testify in the case.
ANALYSIS: In that situation, his testimony may just be taken on deposition in
Talibon, Bohol, and it may be taken before any judge therein –e.g., the RTC judge
of Talibon, Bohol. The judge of the RTC is Talibon, Bohol, can compel the
attendance of the witness for the taking of deposition, but judge therein should not,
as he cannot, decide the case. The judge there simply takes the deposition of the
witness.
2. Before Notary Public
Notary public - is authorized by law to administer oath [Not all lawyers are notaries]
ILLUSTRATION: Suppose a case is filed and pending before the RTC Cebu City.
But the person who is to testify for the plaintiff in that case resides in Baguio City,
and this person does not want to travel to Cebu City for him to testify in the case.
In that situation, his testimony may just be taken on deposition before a Notary
Public in Baguio City.
Q: Suppose the witness is not willing to appear before the designated Notary
Public in Baguio City, may his appearance be compelled?
A: Yes. Under Section 1, Rule 23 of the Amended Rules, the appearance of the
deponent may be compelled by the use of a subpoena.
Q: But who will issue the subpoena?
A: It is not the Notary Public, the one who is to act as the deposition officer, who
is going to issue the subpoena, for he has no power to issue a subpoena.
The RTC Cebu City CANNOT also issue a subpoena for that witness because
under Section 10, Rule 21 of the Amended Rules, the coercive power of the
subpoena does not extend to one who resides in a place which is more than 100
kilometers from where the issuing court sits.
So, the subpoena may be applied for in any court of Baguio City. Upon order of
the judge of that court, the clerk of court therein may issue a subpoena
commanding the witness to appear before the Notary Public for deposition-taking,
and this is pursuant to Sections 2 (b) and 5 of Rule 21.
3. Before any person referred to in Section 14, Rule 23
CHOSEN PARTY – (1) Stipulated in writing (2) parties agree (3) not necessarily
a judge or notary, can be Clerk of Court; Labor Arbiter; or PAO lawyer
II. OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES
1. A Secretary of an embassy or legation, Consul-General, Consul, Vice-
Consul, or Consular Agent of the Republic of the Philippines
The court will arrange this type of deposition. The court will communicate and
request for the taking of deposition before these humans in the foreign service,
challenge thru DFA
2. Such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or letters
rogatory
A commission - instrument issued by a court of justice, or other competent
tribunal, to authorize a person to take depositions or do any other act by authority
of such court or tribunal; addressed to the officer designated either by name or
descriptive title
Letters rogatory - instruments sent in the name and by authority of a judge or
court to another (judge or court), requesting the latter to cause to be examined,
upon interrogatories filed in a cause pending before the former, a witness who is
within the jurisdiction of the judge or court to whom such letters are addressed;
addressed to some appropriate judicial authority in the foreign state; may be
applied for and issued only after a commission has been returned unexecuted
Case in point: Dasmariñas Garments vs. Reyes, G.R. NO. 108229, AUG. 24, 1993
SITUATION: In foreign countries where the PH does not have an embassy or a
consular office, the deposition of a witness residing in such foreign country, relative
to a case pending before a Philippine court, may be had before a person of officer
who may be appointed by commission or letters rogatory
ILLUSTRATION: A case is pending in RTC Cebu City. The plaintiff therein wanted
to take the deposition of person who is already residing, say, in Turkey. Assume
that we have no embassy or consular office in Turkey, but we have a Philippine
Department of Tourism there.
Q1: What should the plaintiff do, if any?
g
A1: Plaintiff should file a motion before the RTC Cebu City asking for leave of
court to take the deposition of that person in Turkey and for the issuance of a
commission authorizing the Head of the Philippine Department of Tourism in
Turkey to take the deposition of the intended witness there.
Q2: Suppose the Philippine Department of Tourism in Turkey had already shut
down its operations, but the plaintiff knew of Filipino lawyer who is already
practicing law in Turkey, what should the plaintiff do, if any?
A2: Plaintiff should file a motion before the RTC Cebu City asking for leave of
court to take the deposition of that person in Turkey and for the issuance of a
commission authorizing the Filipino lawyer who is already practicing law in Turkey
to take the deposition of the intended witness there.
HIGHKEY NOTE: Foreign countries will not compel the attendance of witnesses
before commissioners appointed by our local courts.
If the witness cooperates and appears voluntarily, the examination may be held.
However, if the witness refuses to appear, the commission must be aborted;
hence, resort to letters rogatory may be resorted to. (Moore, A Digest of
International Law [1906], 104 et seq., Sec. 189, cited by Oscar Herrera, Remedial
Law, Vol. II, 2000 Edition, p. 189)
Q3: Suppose that the RTC Cebu City, on motion of the plaintiff, issued a
commission authorizing the Filipino lawyer in Turkey to take the deposition of the
intended witness there. But the commission was returned unexecuted because
the witness is unwilling to appear before that Filipino lawyer there, what recourse
may the plaintiff pursue, if any?
A3: The plaintiff may file a motion before RTC Cebu City asking that the
deposition be rather done before a competent court in Turkey, and the RTC Cebu
City may then issue letters rogatory, requesting the competent court in Turkey to
take the deposition of the intended witness before that foreign court and to send
any such deposition to the RTC Cebu City with information to the foreign court that
a similar request in the future coming from that foreign court will be honored by
our local court by way of reciprocity
3. Any person referred to in Section 14, Rule 23 of the Amended Rules.
CHOSEN PARTY – (1) Stipulated in writing (2) parties agree (3) not necessarily
a judge or notary, can be District Attorney in such foreign land
DISQUALIFICATION BY INTEREST
RULE: The deposition officer (the one who will take the deposition) must be
impartial or neutral.
A person is disqualified to be a deposition officer if he is:
1. A relative within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity of any of the parties
2. An employee or attorney of any of the parties
3. Related to the attorney of any of the parties, within the same degree, or an
employee of such counsel
4. He or she is financially interested in the action
SECTION 15
Section 15. Deposition upon oral examination; notice; time and place. —
A party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral
examination shall give reasonable notice in writing to every other party
to the action. The notice shall state the time and place for taking the
deposition and the name and address of each person to be examined, if
known, and if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to
identify him or her or the particular class or group to which he or she
belongs. On motion of any party upon whom the notice is served, the
court may for cause shown enlarge or shorten the time.
RULES ON DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION
Requisites:
1. Requesting party must file an ex parte motion for leave of court for the taking of
the testimony of the person (whether a party to the case or not)
2. There must be notice in writing to all parties
3. Notice must state time and place
4. Notice must state name and address of deponent, or general description
sufficiently identify deponent or the particular class which he belongs
NOTE: Upon notice, the other party may file a motion in court, asking that the
time allotted for the purported deposition be enlarged or shortened.
ILLUSTRATION: In the notice, it was stated that the deposition will be taken for
10 consecutive days, in the morning and in the afternoon, despite the fact that the
135

purported testimony of the deponent is only with respect to a simple matter that
does not really require a longer period. Here, the opposing party upon whom a
notice to take deposition was served may move the court to issue an order limiting
the period for the deposition-taking.
SECTION 16
Section 16. Orders for the protection of parties and deponents. — After
notice is served for taking a deposition by oral examination, upon motion
seasonably made by any party or by the person to be examined and for
good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may make
the following orders:
(a) That the deposition shall not be taken;
(b) That the deposition may be taken only at some designated place other
than that stated in the notice;
(c) That the deposition may be taken only on written interrogatories;
(d) That certain matters shall not be inquired into;
(e) That the scope of the examination shall be held with no one present
except the parties to the action and their officers or counsel;
(f) That after being sealed the deposition shall be opened only by order
of the court;
(g) That secret processes, developments, or research need not be
disclosed; or
(h) That the parties shall simultaneously file specified documents or
information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by
the court.
The court may make any other order which justice requires to protect the
party or witness from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.
PROCESS: Ex parte motion by requesting party of the case -> Motion by proposed
deponent on the grounds enumerated in section 16 -> The court issues order
The court has the power to control the deposition-taking.
Manifestations of the court’s control over deposition-taking:
1. Its power to approve or disapprove the ex parte motion
2. Its power to issue orders upon deponent’s motion on good cause enumerated
in Sec 16
3. Its power to issue protection orders (Sec 18, Rule 23)
COURT’S POWER TO ISSUE ORDERS
Requisites:
1. A motion is filed by a party or person to be examined
2. The motion is seasonably filed
3. There is good cause shown (those enumerated in Section 16)
4. Notice of motion is served to the other party.
ILLUSTRATION: An ex parte motion is filed and a notice to serve deposition has
been filed by the plaintiff in an action and served upon the defendant therein,
whereby plaintiff seeks to take the deposition of the defendant’s wife.
ANALYSIS: In such situation, the defendant or his wife may file a motion in court
thereby showing good cause and thereby asking the court to order that the
purported deposition shall not be taken, or that, at the very least, certain things be
not inquired into [like: the matters or things sought to be inquired into fell under the
realm of privileged communication under Section 24 (Disqualification by reason of
privileged communication), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence]
ILLUSTRATION: When the purported deposition upon oral examination is to be
done in a foreign country, so the opposing party may file a motion in court,
thereby showing good cause and praying therein that the deposition be rather
done through written interrogatories, the court may, among others, make an
order that the deposition be taken only on written interrogatories (De Los Reyes
vs. CA, 63 SCRA 144)
COURT’S POWER TO ISSUE PROTECTION ORDERS
Protection Orders – an order issued by the court to the officer conducting the
examination to cease forthwith from taking the deposition, or may limit the scope
and manner of the taking of the deposition
Kinds of Protection Orders
1. Section 16 – issued before the taking of the deposition
2. Section 18 – during the taking of the deposition
g
(Discussed more under Section 18, Rule 23)
SECTION 17
Section 17. Record of examination; oath; objections. — The officer before
whom the deposition is to be taken shall put the witness on oath and
shall personally, or by someone acting under his or her direction and in
his or her presence, record the testimony of the witness. The testimony
shall be taken stenographically unless the parties agree otherwise. All
objections made at the time of the examination to the qualifications of
the officer taking the deposition, or to the manner of taking it, or to the
evidence presented, or to the conduct of any party, and any other
objection to the proceedings, shall be noted by the officer upon the
deposition. Evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the objections.
In lieu of participating in the oral examination, parties served with notice
of taking a deposition may transmit written interrogatories to the officers,
who shall propound them to the witness and record the answers
verbatim.
DUTY OF THE OFFICER DURING DEPOSITION-TAKING
1. Put witness on oath
2. Record the testimony stenographically, unless the parties agree otherwise –
i.e., that the testimony be just recorded through an audio recorder or a video
recorder.
3. Note questions or objections to the qualifications of the deposition offer, to the
manner of taking the deposition, or to the proceedings,
GENERAL RULE: The deposition officer, therefore, has no authority or power to
rule any such objection.
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) When the question propounded are annoying, embarrassing, or oppressive to
the deponent, in which case, the matter may be submitted to the trial judge for a
ruling, or when the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is invoked by
the deponent or by counsel in his behalf, the staying hand of the trial court may
likewise be demanded
(2) Where the objection to a particular question hinges on matters falling within the
ambit of Section 23 (Disqualification by reason of marriage), Section 24
(Disqualification by reason of privileged communication), Section 25 (Parental and
filial privilege), and Section 26 (Privilege relating to trade secrets), all of Rule 130
of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
4. Note evidence presented, whether documentary or object
NOTE: Instead of physically appearing in the oral deposition-taking and verbally
conduct cross-examination on the deponent, either personally or through counsel,
the opposing party or the parties served with notice of taking a deposition, may
just transmit written interrogatories to the deposition officer, who shall propound
them to the witness and record the answers verbatim.
Galeon: While this is permissible, this recourse should be resorted with utmost
caution. While the deposition officer is supposedly neutral or impartial, there
is no substitute for external vigilance.
SECTION 18
Section 18. Motion to terminate or limit examination. — At any time
during the taking of the deposition, on motion or petition of any party or
of the deponent and upon a showing that the examination is being
conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy,
embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the
action is pending or the Regional Trial Court of the place where the
deposition is being taken may order the officer conducting the
examination to cease forthwith from taking the deposition, or may limit
the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition, as provided in
Section 16 of this Rule. If the order made terminates the examination, it
shall be resumed thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the
action is pending. Upon demand of the objecting party or deponent, the
taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time necessary to
make a notice for an order. In granting or refusing such order, the court
may impose upon either party or upon the witness the requirement to pay
such costs or expenses as the court may deem reasonable.
COURT’S POWER TO ISSUE PROTECTION ORDERS DURING DEPOSITION
- TAKING
Purpose:
1. To cease forthwith from taking the deposition
2. To limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition
Requisites:
136

1. At any time during the taking of the deposition
2. On motion or petition of any party or of the deponent
3. Upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such
manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party
Effects:
1. If terminated, deposition shall be resumed only upon order of the court
2. If upon demand of the object party of deponent, the taking of deposition is
suspended for the time necessary to make notice for an order
3. Court can require any party to pay reasonable costs or expenses
ILLUSTRATION: During the deposition-taking in a civil case, the deponent is
propounded with a question tending to expose him or her to a possible criminal
liability. Here, the deponent can invoke his right against self-incrimination,
such that, upon motion and upon showing of good cause, the court may stop the
deposition-taking, or, at the very least, prohibit such question to be propounded to
the deponent
Case in point: Isabela Sugar Co. vs. Macadaeg, 49 O.G., No. 22, p. 4393
SECTION 19
Section 19. Submission to witness; changes; signing. — When the
testimony is fully transcribed, the deposition shall be submitted to the
witness for examination and shall be read to or by him or her, unless
such examination and reading are waived by the witness and by the
parties. Any changes in form or substance which the witness desires to
make shall be entered upon the deposition by the officer with a statement
of the reasons given by the witness for making them. The deposition
shall then be signed by the witness, unless the parties by stipulation
waive the signing or the witness is ill or cannot be found or refuses to
sign. If the deposition is not signed by the witness, the officer shall sign
it and state on the record the fact of the waiver or of the illness or absence
of the witness or the fact of the refusal to sign together with the reason
given therefor, if any, and the deposition may then be used as fully as
though signed, unless on a motion to suppress under Section 29(f) of
this Rule, the court holds that the reasons given for the refusal to sign
require rejection of the deposition in whole or in part.
SECTION 20
Section 20. Certification and filing by officer. — The officer shall certify
on the deposition that the witness was duly sworn to by him or her and
that the deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness.
He or she shall then securely seal the deposition in an envelope indorsed
with the title of the action and marked "Deposition of (here insert the
name of witness)" and shall promptly file it with the court in which the
action is pending or send it by registered mail to the clerk thereof for
filing.
SECTION 21
Section 21. Notice of filing. — The officer taking the deposition shall give
prompt notice of its filing to all the parties.
SECTION 22
Section 22. Furnishing copies. — Upon payment of reasonable charges
therefor, the officer shall furnish a copy of the deposition to any party or
to the deponent.
DUTY OF THE OFFICER AFTER DEPOSITION-TAKING
1. Submit the deposition to the witness for examination
2. Enter the formal and substantial changes desired by the deposition in the
deposition and makes a statement for reasons of change
3. Let the witness sign the deposition; if unable, signs it himself
4. Certifies on the deposition that the witness was duly sworn in and that the
deposition is a true record of the testimony
5. Securely seals the deposition in an envelope indorsed with the title of action and
marked properly
6. Files it with the court pending action
7. Gives prompt notice of its filing to all parties
8. Furnishes copy of the deposition to any party or the deponent
SECTION 23
Section 23. Failure to attend of party giving notice. — If the party giving
the notice of the taking of a deposition fails to attend and proceed
therewith and another attends in person or by counsel pursuant to the
notice, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay such other
party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by him or her and
his or her counsel in so attending, including reasonable attorney's fees.
g
SECTION 24
Section 24. Failure of party giving notice to serve subpoena. — If the
party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition of a witness fails to
serve a subpoena upon him or her and the witness because of such
failure does not attend, and if another party attends in person or by
counsel because he or she expects the deposition of that witness to be
taken, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay such other
party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by him or her and
his or her counsel in so attending, including reasonable attorney's fees.
The court may impose pecuniary sanctions on the requesting party in certain
situations.
When? When deposition-taking did not push through for reasons attributable to
the fault of the party who requested for the deposition-taking but the opposing
party personally appeared during such scheduled deposition-taking
When such cancellation of deposition-taking is due to any of the following:
1. The party who requested for the taking of deposition or his or her lawyer did
not show up or appear at the scheduled deposition-taking; or
2. Even if the party who requested for the taking of deposition and/or his or her
lawyer appeared in the scheduled deposition-taking but the supposed witness or
deponent failed to appear thereat because of the requesting party’s failure to
secure and cause the service of subpoena upon such purported deponent for him
or for her to be present thereat.
ILLUSTRATION: The plaintiff in a case in Cebu City sought to take the deposition
of a third person upon oral deposition, on a particular date, time and place, and
before a designated deposition officer in Cebu City. The defendant and his
counsel, who both hailed from Manila, came to Cebu and appeared during the
scheduled deposition-taking but only to learn that the deposition-taking would not
push through either because the plaintiff and his counsel failed to appear thereat,
or the supposed witness or the deponent did not show up because the plaintiff
failed to secure a subpoena for such witness.
ANALYSIS: Here, the defendant may move that the court order the plaintiff to pay
or reimburse for the reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant and his
lawyer in coming to Cebu, including reasonable attorney’s fees of defendant’s
counsel.
SECTION 25
Section 25. Deposition upon written interrogatories; service of notice and
of interrogatories. — A party desiring to take the deposition of any
person upon written interrogatories shall serve them upon every other
party with a notice stating the name and address of the person who is to
answer them and the name or descriptive title and address of the officer
before whom the deposition is to be taken.
Within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, a party so served may serve
cross-interrogatories upon the party proposing to take the deposition.
Within five (5) calendar days thereafter the latter may serve re-direct
interrogatories upon a party who has served cross-interrogatories.
Within three (3) calendar days after being served with re-direct
interrogatories, a party may serve recross-interrogatories upon the party
proposing to take the deposition.
SECTION 26
Section 26. Officers to take responses and prepare record. — A copy of
the notice and copies of all interrogatories served shall be delivered by
the party taking the deposition to the officer designated in the notice,
who shall proceed promptly, in the manner provided by Sections 17, 19
and 20 of this Rule, to take the testimony of the witness in response to
the interrogatories and to prepare, certify, and file or mail the deposition,
attaching thereto the copy of the notice and the interrogatories received
by him or her.
SECTION 27
Section 27. Notice of filing and furnishing copies. —When a deposition
upon interrogatories is filed, the officer taking it shall promptly give
notice thereof to all the parties and may furnish copies to them or to the
deponent upon payment of reasonable charges therefor.
RULES ON DEPOSITION OF WRITTEN INTERROGATORY
1. The parties to the action or their counsels do not have to personally appear
before the designated deposition officer during the scheduled deposition-taking,
137

for them to be able to verbally propound questions on direct examination or cross-
examination
2. The parties to the case, through their counsel, may prepare their respective
questions in advance and in writing
3. The parties must serve copies of their written questions on the opposing
parties, in the manner and within the period prescribed under Section 25
4. Within 10 days thereafter, a party so served may serve cross-interrogatories
upon the party proposing to take the deposition.
5. Within 5 days thereafter, the latter may serve re-direct interrogatories upon a
party who has served cross-interrogatories
6. Within 3 days after being served with re-direct interrogatories, a party may serve
recross-interrogatories upon the party proposing to take the deposition.
7. After the written interrogatories, cross-interrogatories, and recross-
interrogatories shall have been prepared and served by and between the parties,
a copy of the notice and copies of all interrogatories served shall be delivered by
the party wanting to take the deposition to the officer designated in the notice
8. The officer shall proceed promptly take the testimony of the witness in response
to the interrogatories and to prepare, certify, and file or mail the deposition,
attaching thereto the copy of the notice and the interrogatories received by him
NOTE: It is the deposition officer who will read to the deponent the questions
prepared by the parties. It is also the deposition officer who will take the testimony
of the witness in response to the interrogatories.
He may be aided by a stenographer in recording or jotting down the questions that
read out to the deponent and his or her responses thereto.
NOTE: Even if the deposition is to be taken upon written interrogatories, the
opposing party may ask permission from the court to cross-examine orally. There
is a right to cross-examine orally even if the examination is based on written
interrogatories (Alitalia vs. De Borja, et al., 19 SCRA 366)
SECTION 28
Section 28. Orders for the protection of parties and deponents. — After
the service of the interrogatories and prior to the taking of the testimony
of the deponent, the court in which the action is pending, on motion
promptly made by a party or a deponent, and for good cause shown, may
make any order specified in Sections 15, 16 and 18 of this Rule which is
appropriate and just or an order that the deposition shall not be taken
before the officer designated in the notice or that it shall not be taken
except upon oral examination.
Just like deposition-taking upon oral examination, in deposition by written
interrogatories, the party concerned or the deponent, may file a motion in court for
the issuance of protection order
SECTION 29
Section 29. Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions. —
(a) As to notice. — All errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a
deposition are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon
the party giving the notice.
(b) As to disqualification of officer. — Objection to taking a deposition
because of disqualification of the officer before whom it is to be taken is
waived unless made before the taking of the deposition begins or as
soon thereafter as the disqualification becomes known or could be
discovered with reasonable diligence.
(c) As to competency or relevancy of evidence. — Objections to the
competency of a witness or the competency, relevancy, or materiality of
testimony are not waived by failure to make them before or during the
taking of the deposition, unless the ground of the objection is one which
might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time.
(d) As to oral examination and other particulars. — Errors and
irregularities occurring at the oral examination in the manner of taking
the deposition, in the form of the questions or answers, in the oath or
affirmation, or in the conduct of the parties and errors of any kind which
might be obviated, removed, or cured if promptly prosecuted, are waived
unless reasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the
deposition.
(e) As to form of written interrogatories. — Objections to the form of
written interrogatories submitted under Sections 25 and 26 of this Rule
g
are waived unless served in writing upon the party propounding them
within the time allowed for serving succeeding cross or other
interrogatories and within three (3) calendar days after service of the last
interrogatories authorized.
(f) As to manner of preparation. — Errors and irregularities in the manner
in which the testimony is transcribed or the deposition is prepared,
signed, certified, sealed, indorsed, transmitted, filed, or otherwise dealt
with by the officer under Sections 17, 19, 20 and 26 of this Rules are
waived unless a motion to suppress the deposition or some part thereof
is made with reasonable promptness after such defect is, or with due
diligence might have been, ascertained. (29a)
Section 29, Rule 23 of the Amended Rules, whose provisions are self-explanatory
NOTE: Failure to interpose a proper and timely objection relative to the deposition-
taking, and in the manner prescribed under Section 29, Rule 23 of the Amended
Rules, generally results in the waiver of any such possible objection or objections.
RULE 24 - DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR PENDING APPEAL
SECTION 1
Section 1. Depositions before action; petition. — A person who desires
to perpetuate his or her own testimony or that of another person
regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the
Philippines, may file a verified petition in the court of the place of the
residence of any expected adverse party.
Two kinds of Depositions: (1) deposition de benne esse (deposition pending
action) and (2) deposition perpetuam rei memoriam (deposition before action or
pending appeal)
Rule 24 governs deposition perpetuam rei memoriam.
PURPOSE OF DEPOSITION PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM – for purposes of
an anticipated action
Here, the deposition that may be taken is that of the would-be litigant or that of
another person, relative to any matter that be may be cognizable in any court of
the Philippines.
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi and Randi entered into contract of lease, whereby Waldi
leased a commercial space to Randi. Subsequently, the two had a disagreement
resulting from their contrasting interpretations on some provisions in the contract
of lease. According to Randi, the subject contractual provisions did not truly reflect
the true intention of the contracting parties.
Somehow, the two have exerted efforts at settling their dispute amicably, but Randi
already foresees a possible litigation. Randi mulls the idea of calling their common
friend, Renato Gwapo, as a witness in the purported case, the latter being around
during the negotiation of the subject lease contract. Randi got wind, however, that
Renato Gwapo and his family are migrating to Canada and are already scheduled
to leave soon.
Q: What can Randi do to secure the testimony of Renato Gwapo in advance or
before the filing of the case involving him, Randi, and Waldi?
A: Randi may file a petition in court to perpetuate the testimony of Renato
Gwapo.
Q: What would be the nature of the action?
A: The action is purely for the perpetuation of the testimony of Renato Gwapo.
Q: How should it be done?
A: Randi should file a verified petition for the perpetuation of the testimony
of Renato Gwapo with the court in the residence of any expected adverse party
– that is, with the appropriate court in Waldi’s place of residence. The petition
should be filed with the RTC, as it is one which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Contents of petition. — The petition shall be entitled in the
name of the petitioner and shall show: (a) that the petitioner expects to
be a party to an action in a court of the Philippines but is presently unable
to bring it or cause it to be brought; (b) the subject matter of the expected
action and his or her interest therein; (c) the facts which he or she desires
to establish by the proposed testimony and his or her reasons for
desiring to perpetuate it; (d) the names or a description of the persons
he or she expects will be adverse parties and their addresses so far as
known; and (e) the names and addresses of the persons to be examined
and the substance of the testimony which he or she expects to elicit from
138

each, and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the
depositions of the persons to be examined named in the petition for the
purpose of perpetuating their testimony.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Notice and service. — The petitioner shall serve a notice upon
each person named in the petition as an expected adverse party, together
with a copy of the petition, stating that the petitioner will apply to the
court, at a time and place named therein, for the order described in the
petition. At least twenty (20) calendar days before the date of the hearing,
the court shall cause notice thereof to be served on the parties and
prospective deponents in the manner provided for service of summons.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Order and examination. — If the court is satisfied that the
perpetuation of the testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice, it
shall make an order designating or describing the persons whose
deposition may be taken and specifying the subject matter of the
examination and whether the depositions shall be taken upon oral
examination or written interrogatories. The depositions may then be
taken in accordance with Rule 23 before the hearing.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Reference to court. — For the purpose of applying Rule 23 to
depositions for perpetuating testimony, each reference therein to the
court in which the action is pending shall be deemed to refer to the court
in which the petition for such deposition was filed.
(graph)
CONTENTS OF PETITION
1. Petitioner’s name
2. Subject matter of action
3. Facts to be established
4. EAP
g
5. Proposed deponent and substance of the testimony
PROCESS OF DEPOSITION-TAKING (Points to remember)
1. Presided by a judge of the court in which perpetuation of the testimony is filed
(esp if the deponent can be subpoenaed by such court)
2. Presiding judge makes no decision AT ALL (cannot rule on credibility of witness
or probative value of testimony)
3. Judge hears the testimony ra jud
Alonso, et al. v. Lagdameo*
7 Phil. 75
RULING: In proceedings for the perpetuation of testimony, no question of
law is involved; the court makes no decision therein; no right is recognized or
declared in favor of or against anyone, and all that the court has to do is to
hear the witnesses and certify to their depositions. (Section 373, Code of Civil
Procedure.)
The court cannot even make any findings as to the credibility of the witnesses
or the probatory value of their testimony. The only time when this can be done
is at the trial where the testimony thus preserved is to be utilized or offered in
evidence in such cases; and in such manner as provided in section 375 of the
code, being subject even then to any objection in the same manner as the
testimony of any other witness. (Section 376.)
Therefore, properly speaking, the testimony thus perpetuated is not in itself
conclusive proof, either of the existence of any right nor even of the facts to
which they relate, as it can be controverted at the trial in the same manner as
though no perpetuation of testimony was ever had.”
SECTION 6
Section 6. Use of deposition. — If a deposition to perpetuate testimony
is taken under this Rule, or if, although not so taken, it would be
admissible in evidence, it may be used in any action involving the same
subject matter subsequently brought in accordance with the provisions
of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 23.
See the discussions under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 23
SECTION 7
Section 7. Depositions pending appeal. — If an appeal has been taken
from a judgment of a court, including the Court of Appeals in proper
cases, or before the taking of an appeal if the time therefor has not
expired, the court in which the judgment was rendered may allow the
taking of depositions of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use
in the event of further proceedings in the said court. In such case, the
party who desires to perpetuate the testimony may make a motion in the
said court for leave to take the depositions, upon the same notice and
service thereof as if the action was pending therein. The motion shall
state (a) the names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the
substance of the testimony which he or she expects to elicit from each;
and (b) the reason for perpetuating their testimony. If the court finds that
the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay of
justice, it may make an order allowing the depositions to be taken, and
thereupon the depositions may be taken and used in the same manner
and under the same conditions as are prescribed in these Rules for
depositions taken in pending actions.
(graph)
139
 g

Section 1. Interrogatories to parties; service thereof. — Upon ex parte

motion, any party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts from any
adverse parties shall file and serve upon the latter written interrogatories
to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or
private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer thereof
competent to testify in its behalf.

INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES - a mode of discovery which a party to a case

may utilize against his or her opposing party in order to assist the parties in
clarifying the issues and in ascertaining the facts involved in the case (Philippine
Health Insurance Corporation vs. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, G.R. No. 193158,
Nov. 11, 2015)

A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC

July 13, 2004

The court is required to issue an order, and serve it upon the parties, requiring
them to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 and request for
admission by adverse party under Rule 26, or avail of depositions under Rule
23, or other measures under Rules 27 and 29, within five (5) days from the
filing of the answer.

Producers Bank of the Philippines v. CA

G.R. No. 110495, Jan. 29, 1998

Written interrogatories may still be availed of later in the proceedings; it is

allowed even at the rebuttal stage.

INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES DISTINCTIONS

INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES BILL OF PARTICULARS

interrogatories to parties are not
directed to a particular pleading, as it
rather seeks the disclosure of ALL
material and relevant facts from a
party
RATIONALE OF ALLOWING DEPOSITION AFTER DECISION - allowed in
contemplation of a possible further proceeding in such case and in the same court.
INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
UNDER RULE 25
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed a case against Randi with the RTC Cebu City, for interrogatories to parties under Rule
recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land. On motion filed by 25 are directed to, and are to be
Waldi, Randi was declared in default. After allowing Waldi to present evidence ex answered, by the adverse party in an
parte, the RTC rendered judgment by default. action
Upon learning of the rendition of judgment by default, but the before the same has
interrogatories to parties under Rule
become final and executory, Randi hurriedly file a Motion for New Trial, alleging
25 are served directly upon the
therein that his failure to file an answer in the case was due to accident or
adverse party
excusable negligence.
written interrogatories to parties
If the Motion for New Trial be granted by the trial court, the case will be re-opened.
under Rule 25 do not require or entail
Randi may be allowed to present his countervailing evidence, including, among
that the party shall appear before a
others, the testimony of Renato Gwapo, a vital witness, who happens, to be
deposition officer
leaving for Canada any time soon.
A bill of particulars is directed to a
particular pleading and is aimed at
seeking for a more definitive
statement or particulars with respect
to any matter that is not averred with
sufficient definiteness in a pleading
INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
UNDER RULE 23
written interrogatories under Rule 23
may be directed to, and be answered
by, one who is not a party to an action
(Section 1, Rule 23 of the Amended
Rules)
written interrogatories under Rule 23
are instead delivered to the
deposition officer (Section 26, Rule
23 of the Amended Rules)
written interrogatories under Rule 23
require that the deponent shall
appear before the designated
deposition officer.

[GOOGI NOTE: Analyze the situation at hand: (1) case was decided; (2) the
decision was NOT yet final and executory; (3) There is possible further proceeding
in the same court]
ANALYSIS: To address the situation, Randi may already file with the trial court a
motion under Section 7, Rule 24, to perpetuate the testimony of Renato Gwapo,
and this may be done during the pendency of Motion for New Trial.
Q: But what happens, if before Randi could file a motion to perpetuate the
testimony of Renato Gwapo, the trial court already resolved to deny Randi’s
Motion for New Trial?
A: Where that happens, Randi may still file an appeal from the judgment by
default, within the balance of the period for perfecting an appeal, thereby assailing
such judgment by default as being contrary to the evidence or the law and thereby
raising, as one of the issues in that appeal, the propriety of declaring him in default
and the denial of his motion of new trial
PROCEDURE:
1. Litigant who desires to avail of written interrogatories must file an ex parte
motion for leave of court
2. written interrogatories to parties are served upon
3. It should be answered by, the adverse party in an action.
NOTE: But if the adverse party is a juridical entity, the written interrogatories shall
be answered by any of its officers competent to testify in its behalf.
NOTE: This is unlike in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which only requires
leave of court if the written interrogatories are served before the service of an
answer but after jurisdiction has been acquired over any defendant or over the
property subject of the action, or that no such leave of court is required if the written
interrogatories are filed and served after an answer had already been served in
the case.
SECTION 2

Even if Randi has already filed a notice of appeal, as he is appealing from the
judgment by default, Randi can still file in the same trial court a motion under the
afore-quoted Section 7, Rule 24 of the Amended Rules, to perpetuate the
testimony of Renato Gwapo.
Case in point: Lina vs. CA, 135 SCRA 637, Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 540
SCRA 431
Section 2. Answer to interrogatories. — The interrogatories shall be
answered fully in writing and shall be signed and sworn to by the person
making them. The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served
shall file and serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting the
interrogatories within fifteen (15) calendar days after service thereof,
unless the court, on motion and for good cause shown, extends or
shortens the time.

RULE 25 - INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES SECTION 3

SECTION 1

140

Section 3. Objections to interrogatories. — Objections to any
interrogatories may be presented to the court within ten (10) calendar
days after service thereof, with notice as in case of a motion; and
answers shall be deferred until the objections are resolved, which shall
be at as early a time as is practicable.
ANSWER TO WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES – should be made by the parties
themselves or a juridical entities’ officers competent to testified in its behalf, NOT
the lawyer
Galeon: Although, in truth and in fact, the parties will be assisted by their respective
lawyers in answering the written interrogatories
Rules in Answering: (1) in writing, (2) signed by the party answering the same,
and (3) under oath; (4) copy must be served to the party submitting the
Interrogatories within 15 days after service thereof (unless the court, on motion
and for good cause shown, extends or shortens the time)
NOTE! The 15 days within which to file and serve answers to such written
interrogatories shall be reckoned from the responding party’s notice of the
court’s order granting leave for such service of written interrogatories.
Even more, the 15 calendar days to file answers to written interrogatories shall be
suspended, and the period to file and serve answers thereto deferred, if the
responding party presents to the court objections to any interrogatories within 10
calendar days from service upon him or her of any such written interrogatories.
Googi example: [not sure]
January 1 – Plaintiff files motion for leave to sere written interrogatories. He
attached therein a copy of the written interrogatories.
January 15 – Court issues order and gives notice to grant leave.
January 16 - Order was received by defendant.
Defendant has until January 31 (15 days after notice) to answer to such written
interrogatories.
The run of this time limit will be suspended if the defendant presents objections
within 10 days from January 16 (day of service and notice)
Defendant has until January 26 to interpose an objection. Where this happens, he
can file his answer on February 4.
Cason v. San Pedro
G.R. No L-18928, Dec. 28, 1962
[Also Section 5, Rule 29:]
It is bears to stress that a party so served with written interrogatories should
file his or her answers thereto, within the reglementary period. Failure to file
such answers will merit the imposition on him of some adverse sanctions
under the rules, which may include, but not limited to, his or her being declared
in default if he is the defendant in the action, or the dismissal of the action if
he is the plaintiff therein
SECTION 4
Section 4. Number of interrogatories. — No party may, without leave of
court, serve more than one set of interrogatories to be answered by the
same party.
GENERAL RULE: A party to an action may only serve written interrogatories to
the adverse party
EXCEPTION: Should such party desire to serve another set of written
interrogatories to the same adverse party, another leave of court is required
thereby.
Note: the depositions (Rule 23 or 24) are availed of, this is not a preclusion from
resorting to written interrogatories.
After all, the various modes of discovery under the Rules are clearly intended to
be cumulative, and not alternative or mutually exclusive (Fortune Corporation vs.
CA)
SECTION 5
Section 5. Scope and use of interrogatories. — Interrogatories may relate
to any matters that can be inquired into under Section 2 of Rule 23, and
the answers may be used for the same purposes provided in Section 4
of the same Rule.
g
RULE: Questions in written interrogatories must embrace matters relevant to the
action, excepting those which are considered privileged or those prohibited by
court order.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan*
204 SCRA 229
FACTS: The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), in
behalf of the Philippines, filed an action denominated as one "for
reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages," against
Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago.
After the respondents filed their Answer with Counterclaims, they filed and
served a pleading denominated as interrogatories to plaintiff. Subsequently,
they also served an amended interrogatories to plaintiff, as well as a motion
for production and inspection of documents, which were all granted by the
Sandiganbayan.
The PCGG sought reconsideration of the resolution of the Sandiganbayan
allowing the written interrogatories and the production of documents, but was
denied.
RULING: That the interrogatories deal with factual matters which will be part
of the PCGG's proof upon trial, is not ground for suppressing them either. As
already pointed out, it is the precise purpose of discovery to ensure mutual
knowledge of all the relevant facts on the part of all parties even before
trial, this being deemed essential to proper litigation. This is why either
party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his
possession; and the stage at which disclosure of evidence is made is advanced
from the time of trial to the period preceding it.
The PCGG's assertion that its members are not amenable to any civil action
"for anything done or omitted in the discharge of the task contemplated by . .
(Executive) Order (No. 1)," is not a ground to refuse to answer the
interrogatories. The disclosure of facts relevant to the action and which
are not self-incriminatory or otherwise privileged is one thing; the matter
of whether or not liability may arise from the facts disclosed in light of
Executive Order No. 1, is another. No doubt, the latter proposition may
properly be set up by way of defense in the action.
The apprehension has been expressed that the answers to the interrogatories
may be utilized as foundation for a counterclaim against the PCGG or its
members and officers. They will be. The private respondents have made no
secret that this is in fact their intention. Withal, the Court is unable to uphold
the proposition that while the PCGG obviously feels itself at liberty to
bring actions on the basis of its study and appreciation of the evidence
in its possession, the parties sued should not be free to file
counterclaims in the same actions against the PCGG or its officers for
gross neglect or ignorance, if not downright bad faith or malice in the
commencement or initiation of such judicial proceedings, or that in the
actions that it may bring, the PCGG may opt not to be bound by rule
applicable to the parties it has sued, e.g., the rules of discovery.
So, too, the PCGG's postulation that none of its members may be
"required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial proceeding
concerning matters within its official cognizance," has no application to
a judicial proceeding it has itself initiated. As just suggested, the act of
bringing suit must entail a waiver of the exemption from giving evidence;
by bringing suit it brings itself within the operation and scope of all the
rules governing civil actions, including the rights and duties under the
rules of discovery. Otherwise, the absurd would have to be conceded,
that while the parties it has impleaded as defendants may be required to
"disgorge all the facts" within their knowledge and in their possession,
it may not itself be subject to a like compulsion.
The State is, of course, immune from suit in the sense that it cannot, as a rule,
be sued without its consent. But it is axiomatic that in filing an action, it divests
itself of its sovereign character and sheds its immunity from suit, descending
to the level of an ordinary litigant. The PCGG cannot claim a superior or
preferred status to the State, even while assuming to represent or act for the
State.”
SECTION 6
Section 6. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories. — Unless
thereafter allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a
failure of justice, a party not served with written interrogatories may not
be compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to
give a deposition pending appeal.
GENERAL RULE: Any person who can perceive, and is perceiving, and can make
known his perception to others, may become witnesses to an action. Even if he
has an interest in the outcome of the case, or that he is a party thereto, and even
141
 g

if he has not been served with subpoena, as long as he is in court, he may become
a witness.

PERTINENT REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE:

Section 7, Rule 21. Personal appearance in court. — A person present in

court before a judicial officer may be required to testify as if he or she
were in attendance upon a subpoena issued by such court or officer.

Section 21, Rule 130. Witnesses; their qualifications. – All persons who
can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others,
may be witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or

conviction of a crime, unless provided by law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification.

Section 10, Rule 132. Leading and misleading questions. – A question

which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party
desires is a leading question.

It is not allowed except:

(e) of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or

managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or
association which is an adverse party.

EXCEPTION: Unless allowed by the court for good reason and to prevent a failure
of justice, a party to the action not served with written interrogatories may NOT be
compelled by the adverse party to …

1. To give the testimony in open court; or

2. To give a deposition pending appeal.

ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed a case against Randi. The parties did not serve
written interrogatories to each other. At the trial of the case for the presentation of
Waldi’s evidence in chief, he was supposed to present Renato Gwapo, as his first
witness, but by sheer forgetfulness, Waldi and/or his lawyer failed to cause the
issuance of subpoena ad testificandum to Renato Gwapo, much less did they
request him to voluntarily come to court and testify in the case.

Q: If, by sheer stroke of luck, Renato Gwapo happens to be in court also during
the hearing of Waldi’s case, as the former is also appearing therein for his own
personal case, can Waldi call Renato Gwapo to the witness stand to testify in
Waldi’s case, when Renato Gwapo has not been served with subpoena in
connection with Waldi’s case?
A: Yes, Renato Gwapo may be called to the witness stand and testify in Waldi’s
case. This is allowed pursuant to Section 7, Rule 21 of the Amended Rules and
Section 21, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

Q: Suppose Renato Gwapo is not in court, can Waldi rather call Randi, who is in
court, to testify as a hostile witness, for which he may be asked with leading
questions, as if on cross-examinations, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 21 of the
Amended Rules; Section 21, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence; and
Section 10 (e), Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence?

A: No. Under Section 6, Rule 25 of the Amended Rules, a party to the action not
served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to
give the testimony in open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal, unless
allowed by the court for good reason and to prevent a failure of justice.

142

RULE 26 - ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
SECTION 1
Section 1. Request for admission. — At any time after issues have been
joined, a party may file and serve upon any other party a written request
for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any material and
relevant document described in and exhibited with the request or of the
truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.
Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the request unless
copies have already been furnished.
ADMISSIONS – a mode of discovery that allows one party to request the adverse
party, in writing, to make admissions concerning any or all of the following:
1. The genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and
exhibited in the request; or
2. The truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.
PURPOSE: To avoid the inconvenience and unnecessary efforts of proving during
the trial such material facts or things that the parties could just readily stipulate on
Po v. CA, et al.
G.R. No. L-34341, Aug. 22, 1988
A request for admission should not merely reproduce or reiterate the
allegations of the requesting party’s pleading, as it should rather set forth
relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or documents described in and exhibited
with the request, for the purpose of establishing the party’s cause of action or
defense.
On the other hand, the adverse party should not be compelled to admit matters
of fact already admitted in his pleading and concerning which there is no issue,
nor should he be required to make a second denial of those matters already
denied in his answer to the complaint
Requisites:
1. Had only after the issues have been joined – with the filing of the answer or of
the reply and/or rejoinder
2. Must be served on the party himself, and not on his lawyer (Valenzuela, et al.
v. CA)
3. Party concerned who is seeking admissions from the adverse party concerning
(i) the genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and
exhibited in the request; or (ii) the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact
set forth in the request must ask questions answerable by a simple YES or NO.
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
July 13, 2004
The court is required to issue an order, and serve it upon the parties, requiring
them to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 and request for
admission by adverse party under Rule 26, or avail of depositions under
Rule 23, or other measures under Rules 27 and 29, within five (5) days from
the filing of the answer.
(graph)
ANSWER TO A REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
The answer to a request for admission may be made by the lawyer of the party
and not necessarily the party himself (Nestle Philippines, Inc., et al. v. CA, et al)
Note: Failure to answer request for admissions shall be deemed admitted.
This cannot be had if the request for admissions is not answerable by a simple yes
or no, or where the questions are open-ended.
FAILURE TO ANSWER REQUESTION FOR ADMISSION
g
1. The failure to answer a request for admission may be a basis for summary
judgment (Diman vs. Alumbres)
2. Failure of the party to answer the request for admission, or his silence in respect
thereto amounts an implied acceptance of the facts set forth therein (Motor Service
Co. Inc. v. Yellow Taxicab)
A REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS MAY BE FRAMED IN THIS MANNER:
1. Will the defendant admit the authenticity and genuineness of the following
documents, as thus exhibited with this request?
a. (Here describe the document):
b. (Here describe the other document);
2. Will the defendant admit that the following statements are true and correct?
a. The parcel of land subject matter of the action is registered in the name of
the plaintiff, per Transfer Certificate of Tile bearing No. 123456, duly recorded
in the Registry of Deeds of Cebu City;
b. The defendant has no certificate of title in his name supposedly covering the
litigated parcel of land
SITUATION: If the foregoing request for admissions is not answered by the
defendant, the matters of which the admissions are sought for shall be deemed
established - as if each of the question is answered in the affirmative.
GALEON TIP: If you want to ask open-ended questions, then you should avail of
Rule 25 of the Amended Rules [Written Interrogatories], not Rule 26.
Example: “How big is the land subject matter of the litigation?” should be asked
under Rule 25 of the Amended Rules. But if want to avail of Rule 26 of the
Amended Rules, the question should be framed like this: “Will you admit that the
land subject of the present case is 1.5 hectares?”
DISTINCTIONS
WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES ADMISSIONS
Rule 25 Rule 26
Both are directed to the adverse party, who is a party to the action
Requires leave of court Does not require leave of court, in
that it is enough that the issues
have already been joined
Answer to the interrogatories must be Answer to the request for
made by the party himself or herself admissions may be made by the
party’s lawyer
The questions may be open-ended. The questions should be
answerable by a simple “Yes” or
“No”
The effects of the failure to answer are Failure to answer is governed by
governed by the provisions of Rule 29 of Section 2, Rule 26 of the Amended
the Amended Rules Rules
SECTION 2
Section 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters of which an
admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within a period
designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15)
calendar days after service thereof, or within such further time as the
court may allow on motion, the party to whom the request is directed files
and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement
either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is
requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he or she cannot
truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court
by the party requested within the period for and prior to the filing of his
or her sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding paragraph and
his or her compliance therewith shall be deferred until such objections
are resolved, which resolution shall be made as early as practicable.
Request for admission must be answered by the party served with such request
for admissions or by his lawyer, within 15 calendar days after service thereof upon
the party.
ü Extendable
ü Subject to objection
Under the rules, each matter must be denied specifically under oath, or, where
the party cannot make an admission or denial, there should be a statement setting
forth in detail the reason why the party cannot truthfully admit or deny those
matters.
Such being the case, the failure to answer a request for admission may be a basis
for summary judgment.
143

Diman v. Alumbres*
G.R. No. 131466, Nov. 27, 1998
FACTS: The heirs of Veronica Lacalle filed an action with the RTC against the
Dimans for quieting of title, thereby alleging that their mother (Veronica
Lacalle) is the real registered owner of that parcel of land covered by TCT. The
heirs of Veronica Lacalla filed such action in an apparent attempt to muddle
and thwart the enforcement of the final judgment adverse to them in the
ejectment case filed by the Dimans. In that case before the RTC, the Dimans
denied the allegation of the heirs of Veronica Lacalle, as the Dimans asserted
they are the owners of the subject parcel of land and that whatever title that
the heirs of Veronica Lacalla has, if any, is spurious. After the filing of their
answer, the Dimans served upon the heirs of Veronica Lacalle a request
for admission of the following matters:
a) The Heirs' TCT is not recorded in the Registry of Rizal, or of Pasay City, or
of Parañaque, or of Las Pinas;
b) The Dimans' TCT are all duly registered in their names in Pasay City, as
alleged in their answer;
c) In the Index Records of Registered Property Owners under Act No. 496 in
the Office of LRA, there is no record of any property situated in Las Piñas in
the name of Veronica Lacalle, more particularly described in TCT;
4) The Heirs cannot produce a certified true copy of TCT:
5) Neither Veronica Lacalle nor any of her heirs ever declared the property
under TCT for taxation purposes;
6) Not a single centavo has been paid by the Heirs as real estate taxes; and
7) No steps have been taken by the Heirs to ascertain the genuineness and
authenticity of the conflicting titles.
The heirs of Veronica Lacalle did not respond to the request for admission.
Subsequently, the Dimans filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, but it was
denied by the RTC judge.
RULING: A Trial Court has no discretion to determine what the
consequences of a party's refusal to allow or make discovery should be;
it is the law which makes that determination; and it is grave abuse of
discretion for the Court to refuse to recognize and observe the effects of
that refusal as mandated by law.
Particularly as regards requests for admission under Rule 26 of the Rules of
Court, the law ordains that when a party is served with a written request that
he admit: (1) the genuineness of any material and relevant document
described in and exhibited with the request, or (2) the truth of any material and
relevant matter of fact set forth in the request, said party is bound within the
period designated in the request, to file and serve on the party requesting the
admission a sworn statement either (1) denying specifically the matters of
which an admission is requested or (2) setting forth in detail the reason why
cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters. If the party served does
not respond with such a sworn statement, each of the matters of which an
admission is requested shall be deemed admitted.
It is also the law which determines when a summary judgment is proper.
It declares that although the pleadings on their face appear to raise
issues of fact — e.g., there are denials of, or a conflict in, factual
allegations — if it is shown by admissions, depositions or affidavits, that
those issues are sham, fictitious, or not genuine, or, in the language of
the Rules, that "except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law." the Court shall render a summary judgment
for the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be.
NOTE: A refusal to admit based on a constitutional privilege (e.g., proper
invocation of the right against self-incrimination) does not amount to a
presumptive admission; proper invocation of privileged communications under
the Rules on Evidence would not result to such presumptive admission.
ANOTHER NOTE: If the answer of a request for admission turns out to be false,
such circumstance would not result to an implied admission on his part of such
particular matter. He is only penalized by being subjected to the payment of costs
for proving that fact by the other party, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 29 of the
Amended Rules, which provides:
RULE 29. Section 4. Expenses on refusal to admit. — If a party after being
served with a request under Rule 26 to admit the genuineness of any
document or the truth of any matter of fact, serves a sworn denial thereof
and if the party requesting the admissions thereafter proves the
genuineness of such document or the truth of any such matter of fact, he
or she may apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay
him or her the reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof,
including reasonable attorney's fees. Unless the court finds that there
were good reasons for the denial or that admissions sought were of no
substantial importance, such order shall be issued.
SECTION 3
g
Section 3. Effect of admission. — Any admission made by a party
pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the pending action only
and shall not constitute an admission by him or her for any other purpose
nor may the same be used against him or her in any other proceeding.
LIMITATION OF ADMISSION
1. Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request for admission is
admissible against him BUT only for the purpose of the pending action, and not
for other purposes or in any other action.
2. It is only limited in application to the pending action in which the request for
admission was made.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Withdrawal. — The court may allow the party making an
admission under this Rule, whether express or implied, to withdraw or
amend it upon such terms as may be just.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AN IMPROVIDENT ADMISSION
1. Requires approval by the court; must be made with leave of court
2. Party files an answer
3. Party makes erroneous admission on ground of sheer advertence, mistake,
or negligence
NOTE: It is not a matter of right.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission. —
Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good cause shown and to
prevent a failure of justice, a party who fails to file and serve a request
for admission on the adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue
which are, or ought to be, within the personal knowledge of the latter,
shall not be permitted to present evidence on such facts.
FAILURE TO FILE AND SERVE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
Sanction - the party who fails or refuses to request the admission of facts in
question may be prevented from presenting any evidence to prove a matter for
which he could have obtained an admission from the adverse party
NOTE: This is not mandatory, because of the phrase “unless otherwise allowed
by the court for good cause and to prevent failure of justice”
Galeon: This provision is hardly applied by the court, as this may result to
miscarriage of justice. In actual litigation, even if the party fails to avail of this mode
of discovery – request for admission under Rule 26 of the Amended Rules – the
parties may still tackle these things during the pre-trial proper, pursuant to Section
2, Rule 18:
RULE 18. Section. 2. Nature and Purpose. — The pre-trial is mandatory
and should be terminated promptly. The court shall consider:
(c) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of
documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
(g) The requirement for the parties to:
2. Examine and make comparisons of the adverse parties' evidence vis-
a-vis the copies to be marked;
3. Manifest for the record stipulations regarding the faithfulness of the
reproductions and the genuineness and due execution of the adverse
parties' evidence;
RULE 27 - PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Motion for production or inspection; order. — Upon motion of
any party showing good cause therefor, the court in which an action is
pending may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection
and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of
any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute
or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and
which are in his or her possession, custody or control; or (b) order any
party to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his or her
possession or control for the purpose of inspecting, measuring,
surveying, or photographing the property or any designated relevant
object or operation thereon. The order shall specify the time, place and
manner of making the inspection and taking copies and photographs,
and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.
PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS:
(a) To produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing,
by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents,
papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
144

things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to
any matter involved in the action and which are in his or her possession,
custody or control; or
ILLUSTRATION: W Realty Corp. (WRC) is engaged in the business of selling
house and lot. Rami bought a designated house and lot from WRC on
installments. He paid the agreed down payment and obligated himself to pay, as
he, indeed, religiously paid, the stipulated installments. Rami had been issued
with the corresponding receipts, but he unfortunately lost the same.
Upon full payment of stipulated purchase price for the house and lot, Rami
requested WRC to execute the corresponding deed of absolute sale. But WRC
flatly refused so to execute the deed of absolute, as Rami could not present the
pertinent payment receipts. Aggrieved, Rami then filed an action in court for
specific performance and damages, seeking to compel WRC to execute the deed
of absolute sale. WRC filed its answer the complaint, justifying its refusal so to
execute the deed of absolute sale because, according to it, Rami failed to pay
the agreed purchase price in full. Obviously, WRC took advantage of the fact that
Rami lost the payment receipts.
In that action, it is unlikely that WRC will present its corporate books, ledgers,
journals, receipts and invoices, among others, for the period material to its
transaction with Rami, as by doing such would only expose WRC’s bad faith.
Q: What is Rami’s remedy?
A: Rami may file a motion with the trial court, pursuant to Rule 27, for the court
to direct WRC to produce the afore-mentioned corporate documents and to
allow Rami to inspect and photocopy the same.
If the court grants the motion, it shall then specify the time, place and manner of
making the inspection and taking copies and photographs, and may prescribe
such terms and conditions as are just. The inspection of documents need not be
done before the court, in that the court may just direct that it be done at the
corporate office of WRC.
(b) To permit entry upon designated land or other property in his or her
possession or control for the purpose of inspecting, measuring,
surveying, or photographing the property or any designated relevant
object or operation thereon. The order shall specify the time, place and
manner of making the inspection and taking copies and photographs,
and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi and Randi are the owners of two adjoining parcels of
land. Alleging that Randi has encroached on Waldi’s parcel of land, Waldi filed
an action in court for quieting of title. Waldi would have wanted to conduct a
survey on the disputed portion of land, but Randi would not allow Waldi and his
surveyor to enter that portion of land which Randi claimed to be part of his
property. What can Waldi do, if any?
Waldi may do well by filing a motion with the trial court, pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Amended Rules, for the court to direct Rand to allow Waldi and his surveyor
to enter the disputed portion of land for the purpose of inspecting, measuring,
surveying, or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or
operation thereon. If the court grants the motion, it shall then specify the time,
place and manner of making the inspection, surveying, and taking photographs,
and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.
Eagleridge Development Corp v. Cameron Granville 3 Asset
Management, Inc.
G.R. No. 204700, April 10, 2013
“The provision on production and inspection of documents is one of the modes
of discovery sanctioned by the Rules of Court in order to enable not only the
parties, but also the court to discover all the relevant and material facts
in connection with the case pending before it.
Generally, the scope of discovery is to be liberally construed so as to
provide the litigants with information essential to the fair and amicable
settlement or expeditious trial of the case. All the parties are required to
lay their cards on the table so that justice can be rendered on the merits
of the case.
Although the grant of a motion for production of document is admittedly
discretionary on the part of the trial court judge, nevertheless, it cannot
be arbitrarily or unreasonably denied because to do so would bar access
to relevant evidence that may be used by a party-litigant and hence,
impair his fundamental right to due process.
The test to be applied by the trial judge in determining the relevancy of
documents and the sufficiency of their description is one of reasonableness
and practicability.”
REQUISITES FOR PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS:
g
1. A motion for leave of court must be filed by a party showing good cause
therefor
Eagleridge Development Corp v. Cameron Granville 3 Asset
Management, Inc.
Supra
It is addressed to the discretion of the court, but cannot be arbitrarily or
unreasonably denied because to do so would bar access to relevant evidence
that may be used by a party-litigant and, thus, impair his fundamental right to
due process.
Good cause - the reason for the production and inspection of documents or
things, and not to the substance of the documents or things
2. Notice of the motion must be given to all other parties
This recourse is generally available only as between the opposing parties to an
action, and it may only be availed of in a pending court action
3. The motion must sufficiently describe the document or thing sought to be
produced or inspected
4. The document or thing sought to be produced or inspected must constitute
or contain evidence material to the pending action;
5. The document or thing sought to be produced or inspected must not be
privileged
Matters under privileged communication:
1. Section 23 (Disqualification by reason of marriage)
2. Section 24 (Disqualification by reason of privileged communication)
3. Section 25 (Parental and filial privilege)
4. Section 26 (Privilege relating to trade secrets)
5. Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
Air Philippines Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc.
540 SCRA 215
Similarly, (a) editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published
news (b) voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted; (c)
trade secrets; (d) information contained in tax census returns; and (e) bank
deposits
6. The document or thing sought to be produced or inspected must be in the
possession of the adverse party or, at least, under his control.
NOTE: The production or inspection of documents or things under Rule 27 of the
Amended Rules may still be had if the documents are already exhibited in court
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
204 SCRA 232
“The Court gives short shrift to the argument that some documents
sought to be produced and inspected had already been presented in
Court and marked preliminarily as PCGG's exhibits, the movants having
in fact viewed, scrutinized and even offered objections thereto and made
comments thereon. Obviously, there is nothing secret or confidential
about these documents. No serious objection can therefore be presented
to the desire of the private respondents to have copies of those
documents in order to study them some more or otherwise use them
during the trial for any purpose allowed by law.
The PCGG says that some of the documents are non-existent. This it can
allege in response to the corresponding question in the interrogatories, and it
will incur no sanction for doing so unless it is subsequently established that the
denial is false.
The claim that use of the documents is proscribed by Executive Order No. 1
has already been dealt with. The PCGG is however at liberty to allege and
prove that said documents fall within some other privilege, constitutional or
statutory.
The Court finally finds that, contrary to the petitioner's theory, there is good
cause for the production and inspection of the documents subject of the motion
dated August 3, 1989. Some of the documents are, according to the verification
of the amended complaint, the basis of several of the material allegations of
said complaint. Others, admittedly, are to be used in evidence by the plaintiff.
It is matters such as these into which inquiry is precisely allowed by the
rules of discovery, to the end that the parties may adequately prepare for
pre-trial and trial. The only other documents sought to be produced are
needed in relation to the allegations of the counterclaim. Their relevance
is indisputable; their disclosure may not be opposed.”
145

DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
Subpoena Duces Tecum Production of Documents
Rule 21 Rule 27
Subpoena duces tecum is a means of Production/inspection of documents
compelling the production of evidence or things is a mode of discovery, and
in court the same need not had in the court.
Subpoena duces tecum may be The order for the production or
addressed to a third party, or one who inspection of documents is directed
is not a party to the action. to one who is a party to the action.
RULE 28 - PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS
SECTION 1
Section 1. When examination may be ordered. — In an action in which
the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court in
which the action is pending may in its discretion order him or her to
submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Order for examination. — The order for examination may be
made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the party
to be examined and to all other parties, and shall specify the time, place,
manner, conditions and scope of the examination and the person or
persons by whom it is to be made.
MENTAL OR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AS A MODE OF DISCOVERY
Requisites:
1. The action should be one in which the mental or physical condition of a party
is the ultimate issue or one of the ultimate issues therein
- mental or physical condition of a party must be the ultimate issue or one of the
ultimate issues in the action and not merely collateral or preliminary (2 Moran, p.
112, 1963 Edition)
2. There should be a motion showing good cause on why the court should order
such mental of physical examination of a party to the case;
3. The party to be examined and the other parties to the action must be notified
of such motion;
4. The examination can be made without any serious pain or damage to the
party
5. The order of the court allowing such mental or physical examination must
specify the time, place, manner, condition and scope of the examination and
the person by whom it is to be made.
Examples of actions wherein the foregoing mode of discovery may be
availed of are the following:
(1) Petition for guardianship of a person alleged to be insane (Rule 92 and 93 of
the Rules of Court);
(2) Petition for hospitalization of insane persons (Rule 101 of the Rules of
Court);
(3) Petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of impotency of the
husband;
(4) An action for damages for alleged physical injuries sustained by the plaintiff
ILLUSTRATION: Rami got hit by Waldi’s car. Rami then filed a civil case for
damages against Waldi based on quasi-delict, alleging that he, Rami, sustained
six broken ribs by reason of the accident complained of. Waldi, in his answer,
alleged that Rami got hit because he crossed the road in reckless abandon even
when the green traffic light for vehicles was still on. Waldi also alleged that Rami
only suffered peripheral bruises. Rami attached to his complaint a medical
certificate issued by his family physician, but Waldi doubted the authenticity and
veracity thereof.
So, in that action, Waldi may move that the court direct Rami to undergo another
medical check-up by another doctor, one who is acceptable to Waldi and the court.
(5) Paternity suits.
Herrera v. Alba
G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005
In an action for recognition and support of an illegitimate child filed against the
putative father, the court, on motion of any party, may direct that the child, the
mother, and the putative father submit themselves to, and undergo, a DNA
test, in accordance with A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, in relation to Article 195 (4) of
the Family Code
SECTION 3
Section 3. Report of findings. — If requested by the party examined, the
party causing the examination to be made shall deliver to him or her a
g
copy of a detailed written report of the examining physician setting out
his or her findings and conclusions. After such request and delivery, the
party causing the examination to be made shall be entitled upon request
to receive from the party examined a like report of any examination,
previously or thereafter made, of the same mental or physical condition.
If the party examined refuses to deliver such report, the court on motion
and notice may make an order requiring delivery on such terms as are
just, and if a physician fails or refuses to make such a report, the court
may exclude his or her testimony if offered at the trial.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Waiver of privilege. — By requesting and obtaining a report of
the examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner,
the party examined waives any privilege he or she may have in that action
or any other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of
every other person who has examined or may thereafter examine him or
her in respect of the same mental or physical examination.
CONSEQUENCES
As the party examined requests and obtains the report, the consequences are:
1. Where the party examined makes a request therefor, the party causing the
examination to be made shall deliver to the party examined a copy of a detailed
written report of the examining physician setting out his or her findings and
conclusions;
2. After such request and delivery, the party causing the examination to be made
shall be entitled upon request to receive from the party examined a report of any
examination, previously or thereafter made, of the same mental or physical
condition
If the party examined refuses to deliver such report, the court on motion and
notice may make an order requiring delivery on such terms as are just, and if a
physician fails or refuses to make such a report, the court may exclude his or her
testimony if offered at the trial; and
3. By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by taking
the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege he or
she may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy,
regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined or may thereafter
examine him or her in respect of the same mental or physical examination
ILLUSTRATION: Rami got hit by Waldi’s car. He then filed a civil case for
damages against Waldi based on quasi-delict, alleging that he, Rami, sustained
six broken ribs by reason of the accident complained of. Waldi, in his answer,
alleged that Rami got hit because he crossed the road in reckless abandon even
when the green traffic light for vehicles was still on. Waldi also alleged that Rami
only suffered peripheral bruises. While Rami attached to his complaint a medical
certificate issued by his family physician, Waldi doubted the authenticity and
veracity thereof.
So, Waldi then filed a motion with the trial court asking that Rami be directed to
undergo another or a second medical check-up by an independent physician,
one who is acceptable to Waldi and the court. The court approved Waldi’s motion
and directed Rami to undergo another check-up by a government physician, so
named in the court order.
Q: Can Rami demand for a copy of the result of the court-ordered medical check-
up (second check-up)?
A: Yes. Waldi is duty-bound to furnish Rami with a copy of the detailed written
report of the government physician who conducted the second check-up,
complete with the government physician’s findings and conclusion.
Q: Suppose that after Waldi had furnished Rami with the written report of the
government physician who conducted the second medical check-up, Rami was
not satisfied with the results such that, on his own accord, he had himself
examined for the third time by another private practicing physician, can Waldi
demand that he be furnished by Rami of the results of the third medical
examination?
A: Yes, Waldi can demand that he be furnished by Rami with the results of the
third medical examination, in like manner that Waldi can demand from Rami a
copy of the medical results of the alleged first medical examination conducted by
Rami’s family physician.
Q: What if there is a refusal on the part of Rami to furnish to Waldi the results of
the first and/or third medical examinations?
A: If Rami refuses to deliver such reports, the court on motion of Waldi and
notice to Rami may make an order requiring delivery on such terms as are
just. If it is the physician who rather fails or refuses to make such report(s), the
court may exclude his or her testimony if offered during the trial.
146

Q: Can the court validly compel Rami so to furnish Waldi with the results of the
first and/or third medical examinations even if Rami timely invoked the provision
under Section 24 (c), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence? The said rule
provides, in part, thus:
Rule 130. Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communications. – The following persons cannot testify as to matters
learned in confidence in the following cases:
(c) A physician, psychotherapist or person reasonably believed by the
patient to be authorized to practice medicine or psychotherapy cannot in
a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any
confidential communication made for the purpose of diagnosis or
treatment of the patient’s physical, mental, or emotional condition,
including alcohol or drug addiction, and his or her physician or
psychotherapist. This privilege also applies to persons, including
members of the patient’s family, who have participated in the diagnosis
or treatment of the patient under the direction of the physician or
psychotherapist.
A: Yes. Under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 28 of the Amended Rules, by requesting
and obtaining the result of the second medical examination conducted on him per
order of the court, Rami thereby waived the so-called patient-physician privilege
under Section 24 (c), Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence. In other words,
Rami could no longer invoke the patient-physician privilege involving him, on one
hand, and the first/third physician(s), on the other hand.
Q: In that action, can Rami still invoke the patient-physician privilege, insofar
as the second physician is concerned (the government physician)?
A: No. For one, Rami’s examination by the second physician was, in the first
place, directed by the court; hence, the result of which was not really intended to
be kept confidential. For another, Rami obtained a copy of the result thereof.
Furthermore, such examination was not for treatment purposes but merely to
assess the extent of the injury or to evaluate his physical condition (Regalado,
Remedial Law Compendium, Volume 1, 2005 Edition, page. 367).
RULE 29 - REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY
SECTION 1
Section 1. Refusal to answer. — If a party or other deponent refuses to
answer any question upon oral examination, the examination may be
completed on other matters or adjourned as the proponent of the
question may prefer. The proponent may thereafter apply to the proper
court of the place where the deposition is being taken, for an order to
compel an answer. The same procedure may be availed of when a party
or a witness refuses to answer any interrogatory submitted under Rules
23 or 25.
If the application is granted, the court shall require the refusing party or
deponent to answer the question or interrogatory and if it also finds that
the refusal to answer was without substantial justification, it may require
the refusing party or deponent or the counsel advising the refusal, or
both of them, to pay the proponent the amount of the reasonable
expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees.
If the application is denied and the court finds that it was filed without
substantial justification, the court may require the proponent or the
counsel advising the filing of the application, or both of them, to pay to
the refusing party or deponent the amount of the reasonable expenses
incurred in opposing the application, including attorney's fees.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Contempt of court. — If a party or other witness refuses to be
sworn or refuses to answer any question after being directed to do so by
the court of the place in which the deposition is being taken, the refusal
may be considered a contempt of that court.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Other consequences. — If any party or an officer or managing
agent of a party refuses to obey an order made under Section 1 of this
Rule requiring him or her to answer designated questions, or an order
under Rule 27 to produce any document or other thing for inspection,
copying, or photographing or to permit it to be done, or to permit entry
upon land or other property, or an order made under Rule 28 requiring
him or her to submit to a physical or mental examination, the court may
make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others
the following:
(a) An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked,
or the character or description of the thing or land, or the contents of the
paper, or the physical or mental condition of the party, or any other
designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the
action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
g
(b) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose
designated claims or defenses or prohibiting him or her from introducing
in evidence designated documents or things or items of testimony, or
from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition;
(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further
proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or
proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgement by default
against the disobedient party; and
(d) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order
directing the arrest of any party or agent of a party for disobeying any of
such orders except an order to submit to a physical or mental
examination.
The remedies and adverse consequences where there is a willful and unjustified
refusal to heed or comply with the discovery procedures (Rules 23, 25, 27 and 28)
1. Depositions pending action (Rule 23)
2. Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24)
3. Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25)
4. Admission by parties (Rule 26)
5. Production or inspection of documents or things (Rule 27)
6. Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28)
DISOBEDIENCE TO RULE 23 AND RULE 25
RULE 23 – Deposition pending action
RULE 25 – Interrogatories to parties
Possible violations: Refusal to answer any particular questions (but not all of the
questions) upon oral examination, or when a party or witness refuses to answer
any particular questions or interrogatories (but not all the questions)
CONSEQUENCES:
1. The proponent may apply to the proper court of the place where the
deposition is being taken, for an order to compel an answer
- This is required only where a particular question in a set of written interrogatories
served upon the party is concerned, but not where the whole set of written
interrogatories is ignored and none of the questions is answered, the sanction of
which is under Section 5, Rule 29; see Arellano vs. CFI);
2. If the application is denied and the court finds that it was filed without
substantial justification, the court may require the proponent or the counsel
advising the filing of the application, or both of them, to pay to the refusing
party or deponent the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in
opposing the application, including attorney's fees;
3. If the application is granted, the court shall require the refusing party or
the deponent to answer the question or interrogatory and if it also finds that
the refusal to answer was without substantial justification, it may require the
refusing party or deponent or the counsel advising the refusal, or both of them,
to pay the proponent the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in
obtaining the order, including attorney's fees;
3.1 If despite the order of the court directing him or her to answer the
designated question or question, the party or other witness still refuses to
answer the same, then the proponent or the requesting party may move that
the disobedient party or witness be cited in contempt of the court which
issued that order. A party or other witness who refuses to be sworn to in
connection with deposition-taking may also be cited in contempt of the court;
3.2 If any party or an officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey the
court order requiring him or her to answer designated questions, the court may
make an order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked
or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the
purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining
the order
3.3 The court may also issue an order refusing to allow the disobedient
party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses
3.4 The court may also order the striking out of pleadings or parts thereof,
or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing
the action or proceeding or any part thereof or rendering a judgment by default
against the disobedient party
3.5 In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order
directing the arrest of any party or agent of a party for disobeying any of such
orders.
147

3.2 - but this is only feasible if the question that is not answered is not open-ended,
or where any such question merely requires a mere confirmation or denial; hence,
answerable by a “yes” or “no”
3.3 - this proceeds from the order that may be issued under the immediately
preceding item 3.2
3.4 - this is feasible if the disobedient party is the plaintiff, and this can also be
justified under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Amended Rules (Arellano vs. CFI of
Sorsogon, et. al.)
- if the disobedient party is the defendant; this is one instance when a judgment by
default may be rendered even if the defendant had filed his answer to the
complaint in the case
DISOBEDIENCE TO RULE 27 AND RULE 28
RULE 27 – Production or inspection of documents or things
RULE 28 – Physical and mental examination of persons
CONSEQUENCES:
1. An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or the
character or description of the thing or land, or the contents of the paper, or
the physical or mental condition of the party, or any other designated facts shall
be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance
with the claim of the party obtaining the order
- but this is only feasible if the question that is not answered is not open-ended, or
where any such question merely requires a mere confirmation or denial; hence,
answerable by a “yes” or “no”
2. An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose
designated claims or defenses or prohibiting him or her from introducing in
evidence designated documents or things or items of testimony, or from
introducing evidence of physical or mental condition
- this proceeds from the order that may be issued under the immediately preceding
item 1 hereof
3. An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further
proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding
or any part thereof or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient
party and
- this is feasible if the disobedient party is the plaintiff, and this can also be justified
under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Amended Rules
- if the disobedient party is the defendant; this is one instance when a judgment by
default may be rendered even if the defendant had filed his answer to the
complaint in the case
4. In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order directing
the arrest of any party or agent of a party for disobeying any of such orders
except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination
NOTES:
Imposed on who? The party who refuses to allow mode of discovery
Importance of sanctions? To under underscore the importance of such modes
of discovery and to ensure that the availment thereof is otherwise untrammeled
and efficacious
Nature of imposition? On the sound discretion of the trial court
Nature of mode of discovery? Not mandatory. If the parties do not choose to
resort to such procedures, the pre-trial conference should be set pursuant to the
mandatory provisions under now Section 1, Rule 18 of the Amended Rules.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Expenses on refusal to admit. — If a party after being served
with a request under Rule 26 to admit the genuineness of any document
or the truth of any matter of fact, serves a sworn denial thereof and if the
party requesting the admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of
such document or the truth of any such matter of fact, he or she may
apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay him or her
the reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof, including
reasonable attorney's fees. Unless the court finds that there were good
reasons for the denial or that admissions sought were of no substantial
importance, such order shall be issued.
Situation: A party is requested to admit the genuiness of a document (Rule 26)
but serves a sworn denial thereof, which later was proven to be false. The
requesting party can apply to the court for an order requiring the requested party
to pay reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees, unless the court finds good
reasons for such sworn denial
ILLUSTRATION: In a civil case for collection of sum of money, after the defendant
had already served his answer to the complaint, the plaintiff served upon the
g
defendant a written request for admission by the latter of the genuineness and
authorship of the handwritten letter supposedly written by the defendant, wherein
the defendant acknowledged indebtedness owing to the plaintiff and thereby
asked for extension of time to pay therefor. A copy of such handwritten letter was
attached to such request for admission.
Q: What would happen if the defendant does not respond at all to such written
request for admission, within 15 calendar days from his receipt thereof?
A: The defendant shall be deemed to have admitted the genuineness and
authorship of such handwritten letter, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 26 of the
Amended Rules.
Q: What would happen if the defendant had responded to such request for
admission, thereby denying under oath the authorship and the genuineness of the
handwritten letter, such that the plaintiff was constrained to prove, during the trial
of the case, the genuineness and authorship of that letter, as by presenting the
testimony of a handwriting expert and for which the plaintiff had to spend for the
expert’s professional fee, among others?
A: Pursuant Section 4, Rule 29 of the Amended Rules, the plaintiff may apply
to the court for an order requiring the defendant to pay him (the plaintiff) the
reasonable expenses in proving that defendant’s denial of the authorship and
genuineness of the subject handwritten letter is false, or that, contrary to
defendant’s denial, the said letter is authentic and is, in fact, authored by the
defendant.
SECTION 5
SECTION 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers. — If a party or an
officer or managing agent of a party willfully fails to appear before the
officer who is to take his or her deposition, after being served with a
proper notice, or fails to serve answers to interrogatories submitted
under Rule 25 after proper service of such interrogatories, the court on
motion and notice, may strike out all or any part of any pleading of that
party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a
judgment by default against that party, and in its discretion, order him or
her to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other, including
attorney's fees.
Situation: A party or an officer or managing agent of a party willfully and
unjustifiably fails to appear before the officer who is to take his or her deposition
(thereby failing to answer ALL of the purported questions on oral deposition), upon
after being served with a proper notice, or fails to answer the WHOLE set of written
interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 after proper service of such
interrogatories [Cases in point: Zepeda v. China Banking Corporation, Arellano v.
CFI]
CONSEQUENCES:
1. Requesting party may file a motion in court, with notice to the adverse party,
regarding the failure to appear in deposition
2. The court may thus impose the following sanctions:
a. The court on motion and notice, may strike out all or any part of any pleading
of the refusing party;
b. The court may dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof (this is
feasible if the refusing party is the plaintiff); or
c. The court may enter a judgment by default against that party (if the disobedient
party is the defendant; this is one instance when a judgment by default may be
rendered even if the defendant had filed his answer to the complaint in the case);
and
d. The court, in its discretion, order him or her to pay reasonable expenses
incurred by the other, including attorney's fees.
REMEMBER:
Refusal to answer questions Follow Sections 1, 2 and 3, Rule 29
Refusal to answer ALL questions Follow Section 5, Rule 29
SECTION 6
Section 6. Expenses against the Republic of the Philippines. — Expenses
and attorney’s fees are not to be imposed upon the Republic of the
Philippines under this Rule.
RULE: Expenses and attorney’s fees relative to discovery procedures are NOT to
be imposed upon the Republic of the Philippines.
RATIONALE: By virtue of the separation of powers by and Section 29 (1), Article
VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, no money shall be paid out of the Treasury
except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
148

RULE 30 - TRIAL
SECTION 1
Section 1. Schedule of trial. — The parties shall strictly observe the
scheduled hearings as agreed upon and set forth in the pre-trial order.
(a)The schedule of the trial dates, for both plaintiff and defendant, shall
be continuous and within the following periods:
i. The initial presentation of plaintiff’s evidence shall be set not
later than thirty (30) calendar days after the termination of the
pre-trial conference. Plaintiff shall be allowed to present its
evidence within a period of three (3) months or ninety (90)
calendar days which shall include the date of the judicial
dispute resolution, if necessary;
ii. The initial presentation of defendant’s evidence shall be set
not later than thirty (30) calendar days after the court’s ruling
on plaintiff’s formal offer of evidence. The defendant shall be
allowed to present its evidence within a period of three (3)
months or ninety (90) calendar days;
iii. The period for the presentation of evidence on the third (fourth,
etc.) -party claim, counterclaim or cross-claim shall be
determined by the court, the total of which shall in no case
exceed ninety (90) calendar days; and
iv. If deemed necessary, the court shall set the presentation of the
parties’ respective rebuttal evidence, which shall be
completed within a period of thirty (30) calendar days.
(b) The trial dates may be shortened depending on the number of
witnesses to be presented, provided that the presentation of evidence of
all parties shall be terminated within a period of ten (10) months or three
hundred (300) calendar days. If there are no third (fourth, etc.)-party
claim, counterclaim or cross-claim, the presentation of evidence shall be
terminated within a period of six (6) months or one hundred eighty (180)
calendar days.
(c) The court shall decide and serve copies of its decision to the parties
within a period not exceeding ninety (90) calendar days from the
submission of the case for resolution, with or without memoranda.
The terms “trial” and “hearing” are sometimes used interchangeably.
HEARING
- not confined to the trial and presentation of evidence as it embraces several
stages in the litigation; includes pre-trial and the determination of granting or
denying a motion (Trocio vs. Labayo)
- does not necessarily mean the presentation of evidence; does not imply the
presentation of oral or documentary evidence in open court but that the parties are
afforded the opportunity to be heard.
TRIAL - the reception of evidence and other processes, as it embraces the period
for the introduction of evidence by both parties (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan)
A CASE IS READY FOR TRIAL WHEN THE ISSUES HAD ALREADY BEEN
JOINED AND AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE PRE-TRIAL.
Cases that may be adjudicated without trial:
1. Where the complaint is dismissed with prejudice (adjudication on the merits)
(Section 3, Rule 17)
2. Where there is a violation of the proscription against forum-shopping under
the last paragraph of Section 5, Rule 7);
2. Where the parties have entered into a compromise agreement or an amicable
settlement of the case either during the pre-trial or while the trial is in progress
(Rule 18; Article 2028, Civil Code);
3. Where the parties agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and
submit the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the
introduction of evidence (Section 7, Rule 30);
4. Where the pleadings of the parties tender no issue at all, such that a judgment
on the pleadings may be directed by the court (Rule 34);
5. Where from the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and other papers, there is
actually no genuine issue, the court may render summary judgment (Rule 35);
6. Where the case falls under the operation of the Rules of Summary
Procedure; it will be decided on the basis of the position papers of the parties,
and the evidence and affidavits attached.
GENERAL RULES:
g
• Periods mandated may be shorted, depending on the witnesses
• Presentation of evidence of all parties must be done within 10 months
• If there is no third-party claim, counterclaims or cross claims, then the
proceedings must be done within 6 months
[insert drawing here – picture from May 31, 2020 in your phone]
NOTES:
90 Calendar days
à third party complaint
à counterclaim
à crossclaim
30 Calendar days
à rebuttal evidence
EFFECTS OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERIOD LIMITS
1. Does not render the proceedings invalid
2. Not divest the court of its authority to hear and decide the case
3. Proceeding beyond such maximum period is still valid and
4. Any decision that the court may eventually render in the case is still valid and
binding
5. May impose administrative sanctions on the presiding judge concerned, if the
delay in the termination of the case is unjustified
SECTION 2
Section 2. Adjournments and postponements. — A court may adjourn a
trial from day to day, and to any stated time, as the expeditious and
convenient transaction of business may require, but shall have no power
to adjourn a trial for a longer period than one month for each
adjournment, nor more than three months in all, except when authorized
in writing by the Court Administrator, Supreme Court.
The party who caused the postponement is warned that the presentation
of its evidence must still be terminated on the remaining dates previously
agreed upon.
ADJOURNMENT RULES
Allowed Not allowed
Day-to-day Longer than one month for each
adjournment
Authorized by the court Not more than three months in all
PROHIBITIONS:
1. Adjournment of a trial for a longer period than one month for each
adjournment, nor more than three months in all, except when authorized in writing
by the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, that under
Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 49-2003(B)
Judges and court personnel must secure a travel authority from the Office of
the Court of Administrator before they can travel abroad even during their
approved leave of absence or free time.
2. Motion for postponement is prohibited if it is solely intended for delay.
- If the reason is cogent or compelling, the same may be granted by the court
- Compelling reasons: force majeure, physical inability of the witness to appear
and testify
REMEMBER: The trail dates must follow the schedule set forth in the pre-
trial order.
ü Presentation of evidence must still be terminated on the dates previously
agreed upon.
ü The party-movant’s trial dates for the reception of his evidence fixed during
the pre-trial and in the pre-trial order shall remain.
ü The requesting party will not be given a substitute or additional trial date in
lieu of the setting that is ordered cancelled upon his or her instance.
If the continuance or re-setting of trial is upon the instance of the court [e.g., the
judge is on sick leave or vacation leave], then the trial settings shall be adjusted
accordingly, giving the parties the same number of trial dates for the presentation
of their respective evidence as, thus, fixed in the pre-trial order.
SECTION 3
[Section 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for absence of
evidence. — Deleted]
Section 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for illness of party or
counsel. — A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of illness of a
party or counsel may be granted if it appears upon affidavit or sworn
certification that the presence of such party or counsel at the trial is
indispensable and that the character of his or her illness is such as to
render his or her non-attendance excusable.
149

MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT OR RESETTING FOR TRAIL – allowable when
the basis is illness of a party or counsel
REQUISITES:
1. Must be filed
2. Supported by an affidavit or sworn certification showing that (1) the presence
of the party or counsel at the trial is indispensable, and (2) that the character of his
illness is such as to render his non-attendance excusable
GENERAL RULE: A medical certificate that is submitted in support of a motion
for postponement must be under oath.
EXCEPTION:
Sarmiento v. Juan
G.R. No. 56605, Jan. 28, 1983
Even if the motion to postpone on account of illness was not accompanied
by a medical certificate, since not every ailment is attended to by a physician
and the required medical certificate under oath could not be obtained within
a limited time, such requirement may be dispensed with in the interest of
justice.
3. Be accompanied by the original official receipt from the office of the clerk
of court evidencing payment of the postponement fee under Section 21(b),
Rule 141, to be submitted either at the time of the filing of said motion or not later
than the next hearing date.
The clerk of court shall not accept the motion unless accompanied by the original
receipt (see last paragraph of Section 12, Rule 15 of the Amended Rules).
SUMMARY OF RULES!!
Valid ground of motion for postponement:
1. The illness of the party or counsel [Sec 3, Rule 30]
2. Acts of God, force majeure (e.g., typhoon, pandemic like COVID-19) [Sect 7,
Rule 18 and Sec 12(f), Rule 15]
3. Physical inability of the witness to appear and testify (e.g., travel restrictions due
to ECQ) [Sect 7, Rule 18 and Sec 12(f), Rule 15]
OTHER IMPORTANT NOTES:
Pepsi Cola Phils., Inc. v. CA,
299 SCRA 518
A motion for postponement is not a matter of right, but is addressed to the
sound discretion of the court, and its action thereon will not be disturbed by
appellate courts in the absence of clear and manifest abuse of discretion
resulting in a denial of substantial justice
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 123937, Jan. 20, 1999
The court’s discretion on the matter should always be predicated on the
consideration that more than the convenience of the courts or the parties of
the case, the ends of justice and fairness would be served thereby. When
no substantial rights are affected and the intention to delay not manifest,
the corresponding motion to transfer hearing having been filed accordingly, it
is sound judicial discretion to allow the same to the end that the merits of the
case may be fully ventilated.
The party asking for postponement, however, has no absolute right to expect
that his motion would be granted.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Hearing days and calendar call. — Trial shall be held from
Monday to Thursday, and courts shall call the cases at exactly 8:30 a.m.
and 2:00 p.m., pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 3-99. Hearing on
motions shall be held on Fridays, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 15.
All courts shall ensure the posting of their court calendars outside their
courtrooms at least one (1) day before the scheduled hearings, pursuant
to OCA Circular No. 250-2015.
This is entirely a new provision.
RECALL: Friday is designated as the motion day, during which litigious motions
may be heard, at the discretion of the court (Section 8, Rule 15).
MONDAY – THURSDAY à TRIAL DAYS
(starting 8:30am and 2:00pm)
g
Note: It is possible for a case to be heard both in the morning and in the afternoon
of the same date, especially in criminal cases.
Administrative Circular No. 3-99 - Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 30, judges and
lawyers are enjoined to be punctual
Galeon tip: When you become lawyers, do not be surprised that there are courts
that do not start the trial at exactly 8:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., as the case may be.
This is admittedly frustrating, but, as a good trial lawyer, be punctual
SECTION 5
Section 5. Order of trial. — Subject to the provisions of Section 2 of Rule
31, and unless the court for special reasons otherwise directs, the trial
shall be limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order and shall
proceed as follows:
(a) The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his or her complaint;
(b) The defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of his or her
defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint;
(c) The third-party defendant, if any, shall adduce evidence of his or her
defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and fourth-party complaint;
(d) The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall adduce evidence of the
material facts pleaded by them;
(e) The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross-claim has been
pleaded, shall adduce evidence in support of their defense, in the order
to be prescribed by the court;
(f) The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting evidence only,
unless the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice,
permits them to adduce evidence upon their original case; and
(g) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted
for decision, unless the court directs the parties to argue or to submit
their respective memoranda or any further pleadings.
If several defendants or third-party defendants, and so forth, having
separate defenses appear by different counsel, the court shall determine
the relative order of presentation of their evidence.
RULE: Unless the court for special reasons otherwise directs, the trial shall be
limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order.
THE ORDER OF TRIAL:
(A) The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his complaint. He will
present his evidence in chief or main evidence in support of his cause of
action, consisting of testimonial evidence, documentary evidence, and/or
object evidence
(B) After the plaintiff formally offered his evidence, after the evidence shall
have been admitted by the court and the plaintiff rested his case, the
defendant shall then adduce his own evidence in chief or main evidence in
support of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party
complaint, if any, and this evidence shall likewise consist of testimonial
evidence, documentary evidence, and/or object evidence;
- If several defendants having separate defenses appear by different counsel, the
court shall determine the relative order of presentation of their evidence.
(C) The third-party defendant shall adduce his own evidence in chief or main
evidence in support of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and fourth-
party complaint, if any;
- If several third-party defendants, and so forth, having separate defenses appear
by different counsel, the court shall determine the relative order of presentation of
their evidence.
(D) The fourth-party defendant, and so forth, if any, shall adduce his or her
own evidence in chief or main evidence of the material facts pleaded by
them
- If several third-party defendants, and so forth, having separate defenses appear
by different counsel, the court shall determine the relative order of presentation
of their evidence.
(E) The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross-claim has been
pleaded, shall adduce his or her own evidence in chief or main evidence in
support evidence in support of their defense, in the order to be prescribed by
the court;
(F) The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting evidence only, unless
the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice, permits them to
adduce evidence upon their original case;
150

- If the plaintiff wishes to rebut defendant’s own evidence in chief, then the plaintiff
may present rebuttal evidence
- If the defendant wishes to rebut plaintiff’s rebuttal evidence, then the defendant
may present sur-rebuttal evidence
(G) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted for
decision, unless the court directs the parties to argue or to submit their
respective memoranda or any further pleadings.
HIGHKEY NOTES/ REMINDERS!!!
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
- must be in the form of judicial affidavits, pursuant to AM No. 12-8-8-SC
- must be stated in the court’s pre-trial order [Sec 7, Rule 18]
- attached to the pertinent pleadings and form integral part thereof [Sec 6 (b), rule
7]
REBUTTAL EVIDENCE [Sec 5(f), Rule 30]
- General rule: After the parties have already produced or adduced their
respective direct proofs or evidence in chief, they are allowed to offer rebutting
evidence ONLY.
- Parties are not generally allowed to present any evidence that should
have been presented during the presentation of their evidence in chief.
- Exception: The court finds good reason and in furtherance of justice to permit
such offer of evidence (Siulong & Co. v. Ylagan)
PERMISSIBLE REBUTTAL EVIDENCE:
1. When it is newly discovered;
2. When the evidence was omitted through inadvertence or mistake;
3. When the purpose is to correct evidence previously offered (Lopez v. Liboro)
4. When the additional evidence offered is material and not merely cumulative or
impeaching (64 C.J. 160-163).
Anita M. Seares v. The Hon. Judge Harold M. Hernando*
G.R. No. L-56314, Dec.14, 1981
FACTS: This is involved an election case filed before the CFI of Abra presided
by the Hon. Judge Harold M. Hernando.
After the protestee then presented his evidence and rested his case, the
counsel for the protestant manifested in open court that from the evidence
presented by the protestee, he discovered that about 200 to 300 persons who
were not registered voters were allowed to vote in the subject voting centers.
Consequently, he verbally moved for the reopening of the ballot boxes and
that he be given 20 days after his presentation of additional evidence within
which to submit his written memorandum.
Counsel for the protestee opposed the motion for reopening of the ballot
boxes on the ground that the evidence sought to be presented by the
protestant was not in the nature of rebuttal evidence.
The trial court ruled that since the evidence sought to be presented by
the protestant was not rebuttal in nature, the same should have been
presented before the protestant had rested her case.
RULING: The respondent judge erred when he held as an absolute rule
that the presentation of additional evidence could not be allowed after
the party had finished presenting his direct evidence. For a trial judge has
the discretion to allow, in the furtherance of justice, the presentation of
additional evidence after the parties have produced their respective direct
proofs. (Sec. 1[f], Rule 30, Rules of Court).
The first reason given by the respondent judge in denying the protestant's
motion was that the evidence sought to be presented was not rebuttal in nature
and could not therefore be allowed after the protestant had finished presenting
her direct evidence. But the protestant never claimed that the evidence sought
to be presented was of that nature. She admitted that the same was additional
evidence which was discovered only after the protestee had presented
witnesses whose testimony revealed the fact that many unregistered voters
actually voted in Lagayan.
THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL MAY BE CHANGED IN THE FOLLOWING
INSTANCES:
1. If the court will order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, etc. pursuant
to Section 2, Rule 31.
RULE 31. Section 2. Separate Trials. — The court, in furtherance of
convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of any
claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any
separate issue or of any number of claims, crossclaims, counterclaims,
third-party complaints or issues.
g
2. Where the defendant in the action admitted the obligation stated in the
complaint but put up special affirmative defenses, the plaintiff has every right to
insist that it was for the defendant to come forward first and present evidence of
support of his special defense
Yee v. Mapayo*
44 SCRA 163
FACTS: Yu filed a case against Mapayo to recover the unpaid balance of the
purchase price of a Gray Marine Engine sold by Yu to Mapayo, plus attorney's
fees. The answer admitted the transaction and the balance due but
contended that by reason of hidden defects of the article sold, Mapayo had
been forced to spend P2,800 for repairs and labor.
At the hearing of the case, the plaintiff opted not to present his evidence
first. According to the plaintiff, inasmuch as defendant admitted his obligation
to the plaintiff but put up a special affirmative defense aimed at avoiding
payment, then the defendant, said the plaintiff, must present his evidence first,
even as the plaintiff reserved his right to present rebuttal evidence.
The court disapproved plaintiff’s move, such that it dismissed the case for
plaintiff’s alleged failure to prosecute.
HELD: The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the court. We find for plaintiff-
appellant. Since the answer admitted defendant's obligation as stated in
the complaint, albeit special defenses were pleaded, plaintiff had every
right to insist that it was for defendant to come forward with evidence in
support of his special defenses.
3. Where the court utilized a “hot tub” method in its hearings.
International Service for the Acquisition of the Agri-Biotech
Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia Philippines
G.R. No. 209271, Dec. 8, 2015
In a “hot tub hearing,” the judge can hear all the experts discussing the
same issue at the same time to explain each of their points in a discussion
with a professional colleague. The objective is to achieve greater efficiency
and expedition, by reduced emphasis on cross-examination and increased
emphasis on professional dialogue, and swifter identification of the critical
areas of disagreement between the experts
4. Where the court has conducted a face-to-face trial or alternate trial, as applied
in the designated Pilot Courts hearing cases for nullity of marriage or intra-
corporate cases, among others, pursuant to A.M. No. 14-03-02-SC.
Face-to-face trial - the witnesses from the contending sides appear together
before the court, sit face-to-face around a table in a non-adversarial environment,
and answer questions from the court as well as the parties’ counsels respecting
the factual issue under consideration. Here, the contending parties present their
evidence on a particular or specific issue simultaneously.
Alternate trial - where parties take turns in presenting their witnesses respecting
the first factual issue or related issues stated in the order of trial. The party who
bears the burden of proving the affirmative of the issue under consideration
shall be the first to present a witness. Here, the contending parties present
their evidence on a particular or specific issue in the alternate, and the
process may continue with respect to the other remaining issues.
SUBMISSION OF THE CASE FOR DECISION
- occurs upon admission of all evidence for the parties
RULE: Within 90 days from submission of case for resolution, the court shall
render decision
90 DAYS
- from submission of case for resolution
- from the time oral arguments have been concluded
- from the time that the memorandum shall have been submitted
- upon the lapse of the period for submission
[last three – if the court allows oral arguments or submission of memoranda]
While it is best for the court to direct that the memoranda be submitted
simultaneously, there is still a possibility of not being simultaneous, as when one
party files his memorandum personally and the other party files his memorandum
by registered mail. So, the court may do well by specifying in advance or
declare after submission of the memoranda the date when the case is
deemed submitted for decision (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium,
Volume I, 2005 Edition, p. 377).
SECTION 6
Section 6. Oral offer of exhibits. — The offer of evidence, the comment or
objection thereto, and the court ruling shall be made orally in accordance
with Sections 34 to 40 of Rule 132.
151
In this offer of exhibits, you present the witness, for instance, in a
debt. Then you tell the court, "Your honor, this witness proves
that the defendant incurs a loan to the plaintiff..."
This is a new provision.
RULES FOR OFFERING TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
- Must be made at the time that the witness is made to testify - orally
- Any objection thereto will have to be done verbally and the court will also rule on
it orally
- Offering such testimony is oral. The testimony itself is in a judicial affidavit.
RULES FOR OFFERING DOCUMENTARY AND OBJECT EVIDENCE
OLD RULE: The court may allow a party to formally offer his documentary and/or
object evidence in writing, in the same way that the court may allow adverse party
to file his written objections thereto, and the court would make its ruling on the
admissibility of evidence vis-à-vis the objections thereto also in writing.
AMENDED RULES: The offer of all kinds evidence shall be done orally, in the
same way that the comments or objections thereto shall be done orally, as
well as the ruling of the court thereon.
RATIONALE FOR AMENDMENT: Expediting the termination of the case;
Offerring evidence and objections in writing would entail delay
DETRIMENTS OF AMENDMENT:
1. The parties will have difficulty in making such oral offer of documentary
evidence and/or object evidence, especially if there are a lot of them, and the
opposing party will also have a hard time interposing oral objections to their
admissibility
2. Demands that the presiding judge should be adept with the rules on
evidence; otherwise, the judge may make erroneous rulings on the admissibility
or inadmissibility of evidence, to the prejudice of the parties.
TO ADDRESS THE FOREGOING CONCERNS:
It is suggested that:
1. The offeror will prepare notes in advance, listing down therein the evidence
to be presented and the purposes of presenting the same in evidence.
2. The opposing party shall do the same
3. These notes will prove to be useful in making oral offer of evidence, or in making
oral comments or objections thereto.
4. As for the court, the presiding judge is presumed to be knowledgeable about
the laws and the rules, but he or she may do well also by mastering the provisions
on the Revised Rules in Evidence.
In case of doubt with respect to the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence, it is
advisable for the judge to refrain from making an oral and on-the-spot ruling
thereon, as the judge may validly opt to have reasonable time to inform himself or
herself of the question presented, pursuant provision under Section 38, Rule 132
of the Revised Rules of Evidence, to wit:
REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE. RULE 132. Section 38. Ruling. — The
ruling of the court must be given immediately after the objection is made,
unless the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself on the
question presented; but the ruling shall always be made during the trial
and at such time as will give the party against whom it is made an
opportunity to meet the situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need not be stated.
However, if the objection is based on two or more grounds, a ruling
sustaining the objection on one or some of them must specify the ground
or grounds relied upon.
Galeon tip: In actual practice, there are some judges who would issue a ruling,
“admitting the evidence offered by the party-offer, subject to the objections of the
opposing party.” By doing this, the judge would be ruling on the objections to the
admissibility of the evidence only in the course of deciding the case on merits, or
in the decision itself.
This is, with due respect, is stretching the import of the provisions of Section 38,
Rule 132 of the Revised Rule of Evidence, and is, in a strict sense, repugnant
thereto, as said rule directs that the ruling of the court anent the objection to the
offer of evidence shall, at the latest, be made during the trial and at such time as
will give the party against who such ruling is made an opportunity to meet the
situation presented by the ruling.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Agreed statement of facts. — The parties to any action may
agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation, and submit the
case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of
evidence.
If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall be
held as to the disputed facts in such order as the court shall prescribe.
RECALL: Rule 18 - the parties may enter into stipulations of facts during the pre-
trial, as it is basically one of the purposes thereof
g
RULE: Parties are allowed to enter into stipulation of facts even if the case
is on trial already.
The facts stipulated upon by the parties are the “be-all and end-all” of the
case, therefore: the court is authorized to render a decision in the case without
need of introduction of evidence.
If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall be held as
to the disputed facts in such order as the court shall prescribe.
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed a case against Otaner for collection of unpaid loan.
Waldi attached a copy of the promissory note to the complaint. In his answer,
however, Otaner denied under oath the due execution of the promissory note,
alleging that he had not executed any such promissory note. In the alternative,
Otaner posited, in his answer, that assuming for the nonce that he was obligated
to Waldi, the action that the latter had filed is already barred by prescription of
action.
At the pre-trial, Otaner, consistent with his answer, refused to stipulate on the due
execution and authenticity of the promissory note.
At the start of the trial, Waldi called to the witness stand, as his expert witness, the
document examiner who examined the subject promissory note and who
concluded that the signature appearing therein is Otaner’s. After the document
examiner was sworn in but before he could start with his testimony on direct
examination, Otaner, however, promptly proposed to stipulate not just on the
qualifications of such expert witness but also on the veracity and
correctness of his finding, as Otaner did not want that his lame denial be
exposed in open court.
ANALYSIS: Where the parties made such stipulation and in writing, and where
there is no other factual issues to be resolved, then the court may already
render decision in the case, as the only issue that remains – that is,
prescription of action – can easily be determined and resolved based on what
appeared in the promissory notes vis-a- vis the date of the filing of the action.
SECTION 8
[Section 7. Statement of judge. — Deleted]
Section 8. Suspension of actions. — The suspension of actions shall be
governed by the provisions of the Civil Code and other laws.
LAWS ON SUSPENSION OF ACTIONS:
CIVIL CODE. Art. 2030. Every civil action or proceeding shall be
suspended:
(1) If willingness to discuss a possible compromise is expressed by one
or both parties; or
(2) If it appears that one of the parties, before the commencement of the
action or proceeding, offered to discuss a possible compromise but the
other party refused the offer.
The duration and terms of the suspension of the civil action or
proceeding and similar matters shall be governed by such provisions of
the rules of court as the Supreme Court shall promulgate. Said rules of
court shall likewise provide for the appointment and duties of amicable
compounders.
CIVIL CODE. Art. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions
shall be valid:
(1) The civil status of persons;
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
(3) Any ground for legal separation;
(4) Future support;
(5) The jurisdiction of courts;
(6) Future legitime.
Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Sec. 2. When separate civil
action is suspended. – After the criminal action has been commenced,
the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final
judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been
instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever state it may be found
before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final
152

judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before
judgment on the merits rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon
motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in
the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence
already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically
reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the right of the
prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by the offended
party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional
evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried and
decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the running period of
prescription of the civil action which cannot be instituted separately or
whose proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled.
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the
civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed
extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the criminal action
that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
exist.
THEREFORE:
Civil action may be suspended by:
1. Possible compromise
2. Subsequent filing and pendency of criminal action founded on the same act or
omission - One such situation is where the civil action that is instituted ahead of
the criminal action is for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged (civil liability ex delicto)
SECTION 9
Section 9. Judge to receive evidence; delegation to clerk of court. — The
judge of the court where the case is pending shall personally receive the
evidence to be adduced by the parties. However, in default or ex parte
hearings, and in any case where the parties agree in writing, the court
may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court who is a
member of the bar. The clerk of court shall have no power to rule on
objections to any question or to the admission of exhibits, which
objections shall be resolved by the court upon submission of his or her
report and the transcripts within ten (10) calendar days from termination
of the hearing.
GENERAL RULE: The presentation and reception of evidence shall be done
before the presiding judge.
EXCEPTION: Presentation and reception of evidence may be delegated to its
clerk of court who is a member of the bar, under the following instances:
1. Where the defendant has been validly declared in default; or
2. Ex-parte hearings (e.g., in petition for reconstitution of lost title where there is
no opposition); or
3. Where the parties agreed in writing.
NOTE: While clerks of court of MTCs need not be lawyers, but clerks of court of
RTCs must be lawyers. Therefore, not all MTC clerks of courts may receive and
be presented with evidence.
DUTIES OF THE CLERK OF COURT
1. No power to rule on objections to any question or to the admission of exhibits,
if any (unlike a commissioner under Rule 32 of the Amended Rules)
2. Must submit his report and transcripts of the proceedings to the judge
within 10 calendar days from the termination of the hearing
RULE 31 - CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE
SECTION 1
Section 1. Consolidation. — When actions involving a common question
of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or
trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the
actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
CONSOLIDATION - a procedural device, granted to the court, as an aid in
deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried, so that the business of the court
may be dispatched expeditiously while providing justice to the parties (Republic v.
Heirs of Oribellos, Jr.)
RATIONALE OF CONSOLIDATION:
ü to have all cases, which are intimately related, acted upon by one branch of
the court
ü to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered
ü to prevent confusion, unnecessary costs and delay
ü to avoid multiplicity of suits
ü to guard against oppression and abuse
ü to clear congested dockets
g
ü to simplify the work of the trial court in order to attain justice with the least
expense and vexation to the parties (Puncia v. Toyota Shaw Pasig, Inc.)
TEST OF CONSOLIDATION – Common question of law or fact.
Republic v. Heirs of Oribellos*
supra
In the context of legal procedure, the term "consolidation" is used in three
different senses:
(1) Where all except one of several actions are stayed until one is tried, in
which case the judgment in the one trial is conclusive as to the others.
This is not actually consolidation but is referred to as such. (quasi-
consolidation)
(2) Where several actions are combined into one, lose their separate
identity, and become a single action in which a single judgment is rendered.
This is illustrated by a situation where several actions are pending between the
same parties stating claims which might have been set out originally in one
complaint. (actual consolidation)
(3) Where several actions are ordered to be tried together but each retains
its separate character and requires the entry of a separate judgment. This
type of consolidation does not merge the suits into a single action, or cause
the parties to one action to be parties to the other. (consolidation for trial)
OLD DOCTRINE:
Phil. Airlines, Inc. v. Teodoro, et. al.
Earlier, it has been held that said provision (on consolidation of actions) must
be understood to refer to the consolidation of the hearing of two or more cases
which are before the same judge, not when the cases are pending before
different courts or different branches of the same court
RELAXATION OF THE RULE:
Now, the Supreme Court has invariably allowed the consolidation of cases in
different branches of the same court or in even in different courts.
ALLOWABLE CONSOLIDATIONS
1. In different courts
2. Different natures – ordinary civil proceeding and special proceeding
3. Cases on appeal
4. Civil and criminal cases (with qualifications)
Delta Motor Sales v. Hon. Judge Mangosing*
70 SCRA 599
FACTS: Delta Motor Sales sold a Toyota Car to Pamintuan. Pamintuan filed a
case for damages against Delta Motor Sales before the CFI of Manila. It
appeared, however, Delta Motor Sales filed a case for rescission of the sale
and recovery of the car against Pamintuan before the CFI of Pasig.
RULING: In the interest of justice and to avoid conflicting decisions, the
trial of the two cases should be consolidated. The Pasig case should be
transferred to Branch XXI of the Court of First Instance of Manila where
Civil Case No. 97373 is assigned. Apparently, Delta Motor filed its replevin
case in Pasig because it was stipulated in the invoice covering the sale that
any action thereunder may be instituted in any competent court of Rizal.
Vallacar Transit v. Yap*
126 SCRA 500
FACTS: A bus with Mario Hambala at the wheel, collided with a dump truck
owned by Hanil in Gingoog City. This resulted to physical injuries of the Yaps,
who were passengers of the bus and the death of Eddie Gonzaga, the driver
of the dump truck.
The Yaps filed an action for damages against Vallacar, Mario Hambala and
Hanil in the CFI of Agusan del Sur, docketed as Civil Case No. 264. The
cause of action against Vallacar was based on culpa contractual, while that
against Hanil was on quasi-delict.
Vallacar and Mario Hambala filed their answer with cross-claim against Hanil,
laying the blame for the accident on the latter’s driver Eddie Gonzaga. The
Yaps subsequently filed an undated motion to discharge Hanil as party-
defendant in said case, on the ground that the latter, whose address was
unknown, could not be served with summons. This was approved by the court.
Hanil filed a separate complaint for damages against Vallacar before the CFI
of Misamis Oriental, docketed therein as Civil Case No. 6742. Hanil alleged
that the accident, which resulted in the death of its (Hanil’s) driver Eddie
153

Gonzaga and the destruction of its dump truck, was due to the reckless and
gross negligence of Vallacar’s driver.
Vallacar filed its answer with counter claim in Civil Case No. 6742, alleging that
the mishap was due solely to the fault of Hanil’s driver and that it exercised
due diligence in the selection, recruitment and supervision of its employees.
Vallacar filed in Civil Case No. 264 of the Agusan del Sur Court a motion for
leave to file a third-party complaint against Hanil. Said motion was granted by
the court. In its third-party complaint, Vallacar sought to hold Hanil liable for
damages suffered by its injured passengers as well as its vehicle.
RULING: Civil Case No, 6742 should therefore be consolidated and tried
with Civil Case No, 264 of the RTC of Agusan del Sur. The latter court, to
Our mind, is the more suitable forum for the determination of the controversy
since Civil Case No. 264, instituted by respondents Yap against Vallacar,
Hambala and Hanil, had already been pending before the filing of Civil Case
No. 6742. Such consolidation is desirable in order to prevent confusion, to
avoid multiplicity of suits, and to save unnecessary cost and expense.
Needless to add, this procedure is well in accord with the principle that the
rules of procedure "shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object
and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding.
SuperLines Transportation v. Victor*
124 SCRA 939
FACTS: Bus No. 3008 of the Pantranco driven by Dillomas, collided with Bus
No. 331 of the Superlines, then driven by Lorca in Quezon, resulting in the
instantaneous death of Moralde, Sr., a passenger in the Pantranco bus.
Superlines instituted an action for damages before the then CFI of Quezon
against Pantranco and Dillomas. It alleged that the recklessness and
negligence of the Pantranco bus driver was the proximate cause of the
accident and that there was want of diligence on the part of Pantranco in the
selection and supervision of its driver.
The widow of the deceased Moralde, Sr., and her children filed a complaint for
damages, docketed as Civil Case No. N-4338 of the RTC of Cavite City,
against Superlines and its driver, Lorca, as well as Pantranco and its driver,
Rogelio Dillomas. The cause of action pleaded against Superlines was based
on quasi-delict, while that against Pantranco, on culpa-contractual.
RULING: It is suggested by petitioners that private respondents Moraldes
should pursue their claim for damages by intervening in the Gumaca action,
pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court and in the light of Municipality
of Hagonoy v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources [73 SCRA 507]
and Orellano v. Alvestir [76 SCRA 536].
There is a more pragmatic solution to the controversy at bar; and that is to
consolidate the Gumaca case with the Cavite case. Considerations of
judicial economy and administration, as well as the convenience of the
parties for which the rules on procedure and venue were formulated,
dictate that it is the Cavite court, rather than the Gumaca court, which serves
as the more suitable forum for the determination of the rights and obligations
of the parties concerned.
As observed by both the trial and appellate courts, to require private
respondents who are all residents of Kawit, Cavite, to litigate their claims in the
Quezon Court would unnecessarily expose them to considerable
expenses. On the other hand, no like prejudice would befall the defendants
transportation companies if they were required to plead their causes in Cavite,
for such change of venue would not expose them to expenses which they are
not already liable to incur in connection with the Gumaca case. The objection
interposed by Superlines that it has its offices in Atimonan, Quezon, should not
detract from the overall convenience afforded by the consolidation of cases in
the Cavite Court. For apart from the fact that petitioner and its driver are
represented by the same counsel with offices located in Manila, defendants
transportation companies can readily avail of their facilities for conveying their
witnesses to the place of trial.
Galeon: Take note that, it was the Gumaca case that was ordered
consolidated to the Cavite case, notwithstanding the fact that the Gumaca was
instituted way ahead of the Cavite case. The reason for this, as stated in the
decision, is for the convenience and economy of the plaintiffs in the Cavite
case – the heirs of the deceased passenger of the Pantranco bus
CONSOLIDATION OF AN ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION (NULLITY OF THE
FORECLOSURE SALE) AND A SPECIAL PROCEEDING (PETITION FOR WRIT
OF POSSESSION) à allowable
Active Wood Products Co., Inc. v. CA*
G.R. No. 86603, Feb. 5, 1990
g
In the case at bar, this technical difference between an action and a
proceeding becomes insignificant and consolidation becomes a logical
conclusion. The consolidation of cases becomes mandatory because it
involves the same parties and the same subject matter which is the same
parcel of land.
The rules do not distinguish between cases filed before the same branch
or judge and those that are pending in different branches, or before
different judges of the same court, in order that consolidation may be
proper, as long as the cases involve the resolution of questions of law or
facts in common with each other. Therefore it appears that the respondent
court in denying the motion for consolidation, has sanctioned the departure of
the trial court from the usual course of judicial proceedings, thus calling for the
exercise of the power of supervision of the Supreme Court. The respondent
court has, indeed, committed a reversible error.
NOTE: Consolidation of cases may be allowed even when the cases are on
appeal with the Court of Appeals and with the Supreme Court.
Active Wood Products Co., Inc. v. CA*
Supra
“Even in the Supreme Court which sits en banc or in three divisions, the
consolidation of cases with issues of fact or law intimately or substantially
related pending in the same division or in different divisions, and en banc, be
they assigned to the same ponente or to different ponentes is practically given
or conceded to the ponente assigned to the case with the lower number, i.e.,
the one filed earlier. We have found this practice beneficial and desirable from
the results. We think the same advantage would accrue to the lower courts if
they adhere to this procedure.”
CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES:
- allowable
(1) Where the civil action is one for the recovery of civil liability arising from
an offense (civil liability ex delicto) and it is instituted ahead of the criminal
case
RULE 111. Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended. – xxx If the
criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been
instituted, the latter [criminal case] shall be suspended in whatever state
it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last
until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless,
before judgment on the merits rendered in the civil action, the same may,
upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal
action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the
evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed
automatically reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to the
right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by the
offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present
additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be
tried and decided jointly. xxx
(2) When the civil action arose of a violation of BP 22 and the same is
instituted ahead of the criminal case. Apropos to this Section 1 (b), Rule 111
RULE 111. Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — xxx
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed. xxx
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not
yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon
application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is
granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section
2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
(3) Independent civil actions may be ordered consolidated with the related
criminal case
Adela J. Caños v. Hon. E.L. Peralta*
G.R. No. L-38352, Aug. 19, 1982
FACTS: Caños was charged in the CFI of Davao del Sur with violation of RA
602, the Minimum Wage Law, for alleged non-payment of the minimum wage
to her employee, Apas. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 326.
Apas instituted an action against Canos for collection of differential, overtime
and termination pay, plus damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 558 of the
same court. The complaint averred that Apas had been employed by petitioner
as cashier in her gasoline station since August 1965 up until he was illegally
dismissed on January 15, 1971; that during his employment, he was not paid
the minimum wage or the overtime pay prescribed by law, neither was he given
154

termination pay after his dismissal. Apas, however, did not pray for
reinstatement.
After joinder of issues, the provincial fiscal of Davao del Sur and Apas filed a
"motion for consolidated trial" of the criminal and civil cases. The court
granted the motion. But the petitioner challenged the order of the court.
RULING: Civil Case No. 558 is a separate and distinct action from Criminal
Case No. 326. The former is based upon a contract of services entered into
by the parties, not upon the civil liability arising from the offense charged in
Criminal Case No. 326, i.e., non-payment of the minimum wage, punishable
under RA 602. Being essentially an action for enforcement of an
obligation ex-contractu the civil case can proceed independently of the
latter, in accordance with Article 31 of the Civil Code:
Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from
the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may
proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the
result of the latter.
But did respondent judge abuse his discretion in ordering the
consolidation and joint trial of the criminal and civil cases? A court may
order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they
arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like
issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence,
provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated
and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or
prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.
Consolidation of actions is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and
its action in consolidating will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse
of discretion. In the instant case, judge did not abuse his discretion in
ordering the joint trial of the two cases. There is no showing that such joint
trial would prejudice any substantial right of petitioner. Neither does the latter
question the court's jurisdiction to try and decide the two cases.”
SECTION 2
Section 2. Separate Trials. — The court, in furtherance of convenience or
to avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim,
counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate issue or of any
number of claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, third-party complaints or
issues.
SEVERANCE - in the exercise of its discretion, the court may order a separate
trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any
separate issue or of any number of claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, third-party
complaints or issues, if such would serve the convenience of parties and of the
court or to avoid prejudice
ILLUSTRATION: Paspasero bus, owned by Paspasero, Inc. collided with
Danghag bus, owned by Danghag, Inc., resulting in the instantaneous death of
Johnny, an alleged passenger of Danghag bus.
The heirs of Johnny filed a civil case for damages against Danghag, Inc., based
on culpa- contractual. Danghag, Inc. filed its answer to the complaint, contending,
among others, that Johnny was not, in legal contemplation a “passenger” of its
bus, as he just surreptitiously hitched a ride thereon. Moreover, the vehicular
collision was due to the fault of the driver of Paspasero bus. Thereafter, and with
prior leave of court, Danghag, Inc. filed a third-party complaint against Paspasero,
Inc. and its driver.
ANALYSIS: In that action, the third-party defendants – Danghag, Inc. and its bus
driver – may file a motion asking for a separate trial of the third-party complaint
against them, or that there be separate a schedule or schedules for the trial
thereof, such that they may not appear in the trial of the main case by and between
the heirs of Johnny and Danghag, Inc.
The court, in the exercise of its discretion, may grant such motion and order
for a separate trial insofar as the third-party is complaint, especially, if, for
instance, the third-party defendants are not from the place where the trial
court sits.
Where that happens, the sequence or order in the presentation of evidence as,
thus, outlined in Section 5, Rule 30 of the Amended Rules may strictly be
followed.
RULE 32 - TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER
SECTION 1
Section 1. Reference by Consent. — By written consent of both parties,
the court may order any or all of the issues in a case to be referred to a
commissioner to be agreed upon by the parties or to be appointed by the
court. As used in these Rules, the word "commissioner" includes a
referee, an auditor and an examiner.
g
SECTION 2
Section 2. Reference Ordered on Motion. — When the parties do not
consent, the court may, upon the application of either or of its own
motion, direct a reference to a commissioner in the following cases:
(a) When the trial of an issue of fact requires the examination of a long
account on either side, in which case the commissioner may be directed
to hear and report upon the whole issue or any specific question involved
therein;
(b) When the taking of an account is necessary for the information of the
court before judgment, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect;
(c) When a question of fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises upon
motion or otherwise, in any stage of a case, or for carrying a judgment or
order into effect.
COMMISSIONER - a person to whom a cause pending in court is referred, for him
to take the testimony, hear the parties and report thereon to the court, and upon
whose report, if confirmed, judgment is entered (2 Martin, p. 142, cited in Herrera,
Remedial Law II)
Galeon: Referral of the matter to a commissioner is oftentimes resorted to by the
court in situations where the determination of a fact calls for a specialized
knowledge or expertise, or when such determination of fact is so tedious as it
would eat up the precious time of the court.
PURPOSE OF REFERRAL TO COMMISSIONER:
1. To aid the court in coming up with the decision therein,
2. To carry a judgment or order into effect
ILLUSTRATION # 1: Waldi and Randi are owners of two adjoining parcels of land.
Waldi filed a case against Randi for recovery of possession and ownership,
alleging that Randi encroached on a portion of Waldi’s parcel of land, as when
Randi constructed a perimeter fence. In his answer, Randi posited that he did not
encroach on Waldi’s property.
So, if only to determine whether or not there was an encroachment on Waldi’s
property, the matter may be referred to a licensed and practicing geodetic
engineer, with the latter to act as a commissioner in that case.
ILLUSTRATION 2: Renato and Rami entered into a joint business venture. Ten
years into their joint venture, Renato filed a case against his business partner,
Rami, for accounting and damages, accusing the latter of embezzling their
business funds and profits, which Rami sternly denied in his answer.
The case obviously calls for the examination of voluminous financial records,
vouchers, ledgers, portfolios, etc., over which the court may not have the
competence, especially if the judge is not a certified public accountant, or, even
if he is one, the judge may not have enough time to do the auditing and accounting
by himself. So, in this situation, the matter may be referred to a certified public
accountant for audit purposes, with the latter to act as the commissioner in the
case. [Section 2 (a) and (b)]
FORMS:
1. By written consent of both parties, where they can appoint/ designate
- a possible referral of the case or an issue therein to a commissioner is one of the
things that the parties may consider or take up during the pre-trial
2. The court may upon application of any party or of its own motion direct
reference to a commission but only on three certain instances
ILLUSTRATION: During the trial in a case involving siblings for the partition of the
properties that they inherited from their deceased parents, one of them presented
in evidence a Deed of Donation supposedly executed by their parents, wherein it
was made to appear that their parents, during their lifetime, had donated unto him
(the offeror of the document) their ancestral home. But the other siblings
questioned the authenticity thereof, holding that the signatures therein purporting
to those of their parents were rather forged.
To determine the authenticity of the signatures appearing in the questioned
Deed of Donation, the court, upon application by any of the parties, or on its
motion, refer the matter to a document examiner or a handwriting expert, with
the latter to act as commissioner and determine authenticity of the signatures in
the questioned instrument.
ILLUSTRATION 4 In a case for separation of conjugal properties, the spouses
entered into a compromise agreement to divide their real properties, not
necessarily through actual physical partition thereof but through offsetting on basis
of the relative market values thereof, and which compromise agreement is
approved by the court.
In carrying out the judgment based on compromise agreement and for purposes
of determining the market values of the real properties involved, the court, upon
155

application of any of the parties, on its own accord, may refer the matter to an
independent and licensed realtor to determine the market value of the real
properties involved. [Section 2 (c)]
WHEN COMMISSIONERS ARE MANDATORY:
(1) Special Civil Action of Expropriation under Rule 67, as under Section 5,
thereof, the court has to constitute a board of commissioners for purposes of
determining the just compensation for the expropriated property;
(2) Special Civil Action of Partition under Rule 69, as under Section 3, thereof,
the court shall appoint a commissioner when the parties or heirs cannot agree on
how to partition a property under co-ownership.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Order of reference; powers of the commissioner. — When a
reference is made, the clerk shall forthwith furnish the commissioner
with a copy of the order of reference. The order may specify or limit the
powers of the commissioner, and may direct him or her to report only
upon particular issues, or to do or perform particular acts, or to receive
and report evidence only, and may fix the date for beginning and closing
the hearings and for the filing of his or her report. Subject to the
specifications and limitations stated in the order, the commissioner has
and shall exercise the power to regulate the proceedings in every hearing
before him or her and to do all acts and take all measures necessary or
proper for the efficient performance of his or her duties under the order.
He or she may issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, swear
witnesses, and unless otherwise provided in the order of reference, he
or she may rule upon the admissibility of evidence. The trial or hearing
before him or her shall proceed in all respects as it would if held before
the court.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Oath of commissioner. — Before entering upon his or her
duties the commissioner shall be sworn to a faithful and honest
performance thereof.
ORDER OF REFERENCE
1. Furnished by clerk to commission
2. Specify or limit the powers of the commissioner, and may direct him or her to
report only upon particular issues, or to do or perform particular acts, or to receive
and report evidence only, and may fix the date for beginning and closing the
hearings and for the filing of his or her report
DUTIES OF A COMMISSIONER
1. Must take oath
2. Exercise the power to regulate the proceedings in every hearing before him
3. Do all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient
performance of his duties under the order
4. May issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, swear witnesses,
5. Unless otherwise provided in the order of reference, may rule upon the
admissibility of evidence
6. Unless otherwise provided in the order of referral, should hold a hearing, as it
constitutes the essence of due process (Aljem’s Corp vs. CA)
Froilan v. Pan Oriental, Shipping
103 Phil. 473
Where the order of the court was merely to examine the accounts involved in
the counterclaim without any direction to hold hearings, the commissioner did
not need the presence of the parties.
NOTE: The failure to take an oath does not necessarily vitiate the proceedings
if the parties did not raise the question. If they did, the proceeding before the
commissioner is null and void (Perlas v. Ehrman)
COMISSIONER CLERK OF COURT
The power is more broad than clerk’s, the clerk of court shall have no power
because he has the power to rule on to rule on objections to any question
admissibility of evidence or to the admission of exhibits
[Section 9, Rule 30]
SECTION 5
Section 5. Proceedings before commissioner. — Upon receipt of the
order of reference unless otherwise provided therein, the commissioner
shall forthwith set a time and place for the first meeting of the parties or
their counsel to be held within ten (10) calendar days after the date of the
order of reference and shall notify the parties or their counsel.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Failure of parties to appear before commissioner. — If a party
fails to appear at the time and place appointed, the commissioner may
proceed ex parte or, in his or her discretion, adjourn the proceedings to
g
a future day, giving notice to the absent party or his or her counsel of the
adjournment.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Refusal of witness. — The refusal of a witness to obey a
subpoena issued by the commissioner or to give evidence before him or
her, shall be deemed a contempt of the court which appointed the
commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER’S POWER TO CONDUCT HEARINGS
ü Receive evidence
ü Rule on admissibility
ü Issue subpoena
ü CANNOT cite in contempt, he must apply or petition for indirect contempt
NOTE: The unjustified refusal of a witness to obey a subpoena issued by the
commissioner or to give evidence before him is punishable as a contempt of the
court which appointed the commissioner. Only the court which can issue an
order citing the disobedient witness in contempt of court.
SECTION 8
Section 8. Commissioner shall avoid delays. — It is the duty of the
commissioner to proceed with all reasonable diligence. Either party, on
notice to the parties and commissioner, may apply to the court for an
order requiring the commissioner to expedite the proceedings and to
make his or her report.
SECTION 9
Section 9. Report of commissioner. — Upon the completion of the trial or
hearing or proceeding before the commissioner, he or she shall file with
the court his or her report in writing upon the matters submitted to him
or her by the order of reference. When his or her powers are not specified
or limited, he or she shall set forth his or her findings of fact and
conclusions of law in his or her report. He or she shall attach thereto all
exhibits, affidavits, depositions, papers and the transcript, if any, of the
testimonial evidence presented before him or her.
SECTION 10
Section 10. Notice to parties of the filing of report. — Upon the filing of
the report, the parties shall be notified by the clerk, and they shall be
allowed ten (10) calendar days within which to signify grounds of
objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire. Objections to
the report based upon grounds which were available to the parties during
the proceedings before the commissioner, other than objections to the
findings and conclusions therein set forth, shall not be considered by the
court unless they were made before the commissioner.
SECTION 11
Section 11. Hearing upon report. — Upon the expiration of the period of
ten (10) calendar days referred to in the preceding section, the report
shall be set for hearing, after which the court shall issue an order
adopting, modifying, or rejecting the report in whole or in part, or
recommitting it with instructions, or requiring the parties to present
further evidence before the commissioner or the court.
REPORT BY COMMISSIONER
The delegation of power to the commissioner carries with it the correlative
obligation on his part to submit a report on his findings of facts and conclusions of
law, the evidence that he gathered in the course of conducting a hearing.
NOTIFICATION BY THE CLERK OF COURT
Upon the submission of the report, the clerk of the court shall inform the parties
about it, and they shall be given a period of 10 calendar days within which to signify
grounds of objections to the findings of the report, if they so desire.
Apurillo v. Garciano
28 SCRA 1054
Objections to the report based upon grounds which were available to the
parties during the proceedings before the commissioner, other than objections
to the findings and conclusions therein set forth, shall not be considered by the
court unless they were made before the commissioner. Verily, the objection
to the qualification of the commissioner that he was not a handwriting expert
competent to make a determination of the genuineness of signature in question
cannot be entertained for the first time on appeal
COURT’S ORDER
After hearing and objections, court shall issue an order adopting, modifying, or
rejecting the report in whole or in part, or recommitting it with instructions, or
requiring the parties to present further evidence before the commissioner or
the court. The court is not bound to absolutely adopt commissioner’s report.
NPC v. De la Cruz
156
 g

G.R. No. 156093, Feb. 2, 2007 [Sec. 12 (a), Rule 15] [Rule 33]
Filed before the filing of the answer Filed after the plaintiff had already
In an expropriation case, it was held that where the commissioners have presented his evidence in chief and
applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them, or where they have rested his case
disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or where the amount allowed Four grounds for filing a motion to Anchored only on insufficiency of
is either grossly inadequate or excessive, the trial court may then disregard the dismiss, specified under Sec 12(a), evidence
commissioners’ finding Rule 15
If denied, the defendant may file his If denied, the defendant may present
SECTION 12 answer his evidence
Section 12. Stipulations as to Findings. — When the parties stipulate that If granted on the ground of lack of If granted, the remedy of the plaintiff
a commissioner's findings of fact shall be final, only questions of law jurisdiction over the subject matter is to appeal from the dismissal of the
shall thereafter be considered. and/or litis pendentia, the case may case
be refiled
EFFECTS OF COMMISSIONER’S REPORT
Stipulation of facts render unnecessary presentation of evidence to such matter. (2) It is a litigious motion, subject to the provisions of Rule 15 thereof.
When such is final, the court will proceed to consider questions of law only. ü Put in writing
ü Copy served upon plaintiff
SECTION 13 ü Plaintiff should file opposition within 5 days from recept
Section 13. Compensation of Commissioner. — The court shall allow the ü Discretionary upon the court to call a hearing to rule upon the matter
commissioner such reasonable compensation as the circumstances of
the case warrant, to be taxed as costs against the defeated party, or (3) Interlocutory in nature
apportioned, as justice requires.
EFFECTS WHEN THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IS DENIED:
Because the tasks of a commissioner involve expertise or field of specialization, it 1. The defendant shall have the right to present his evidence
is only proper and just that the commissioner should be compensated. 2. Court shall set the date for the reception of the defendant’s evidence in chief.
It should not proceed to grant the relief demanded by the plaintiff (Northwest
Galeon: Ordinarily, the court will direct both the parties to apportion among Airlines, Inc. vs. CA)
themselves (like 50-50) the fee for the commissioner. But if it appears that losing 3. The order denying the demurrer to evidence shall not be subject of an appeal
party acted with evident bad faith in pressing or defending a claim, then the court or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus before the judgment
may adjudge such losing party to bears the costs of hiring or appointing (Section 2, Rule 33). This is to avoid unnecessary delay in the proceedings
commissioner. 4. Being interlocutory in nature, it need not comply with Section 1, Rule 36,
which requires that it shall distinctly and clearly state the facts and the law on which
RULE 33 - DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE it is based (Nepomuceno. vs. COMELEC)
SECTION 1
Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. — After the plaintiff has completed the EFFECTS WHEN THE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IS GRANTED:
presentation of his or her evidence, the defendant may move for 1.The case shall be dismissed
dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has 2. Amounts to an adjudication on the merits; hence, should state clearly and
shown no right to relief. If his or her motion is denied, he or she shall distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based (Section 1, Rule 36)
have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal (Nepomuceno, et al. v. COMELEC)
the order of dismissal is reversed, he or she shall be deemed to have 3. Plaintiff may file an appeal from the order dismissing his case
waived the right to present evidence.
EFFECT OF REVERSING THE GRANT OF DTE
SECTION 2 1. Defendant loses his right to present evidence (Republic vs. Tuvera)
Section 2. Action on demurrer to evidence. — A demurrer to evidence 2. The appellate court should render judgment based on the evidence presented
shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15. by the Plaintiff (Radiowealth Finance Co. vs. Del Rosario)

The order denying the demurrer to evidence shall not be subject of an DISTINCTIONS
appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus before Demurrer to Evidence in Demurrer to Evidence in
judgment. Civil Cases Criminal Cases
(Rule 33) (Sec. 23, Rule 119)
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE - an objection by one of the parties to the action, to Leave of
Not required May or may not file
the effect that the evidence that were presented by the plaintiff is insufficient to court
make out a case or sustain the issue (Felipe v. MGM Motor Trading Corp) The prosecution, generally,
When The order dismissing the cannot appeal from such order
If the defendant is in view that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden granted case is appealable of dismissal because of double
of proving his case by preponderant evidence or that, upon the facts and the law jeopardy
presented, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief, then the defendant may, If with leave of court à the
instead of presenting his or her countervailing evidence, file a demurrer to accused may still adduce
The defendant shall have
evidence, thereby asking that the case be dismissed for insufficiency of When evidence
the right to present
evidence. denied
evidence
If no leave à accused cannot
(Insert chart here) anymore present his evidence
The court cannot, on its The court can motu proprio
Initiative own, make a demurrer to dismiss the case for
evidence insufficiency of evidence

RULE 34 - JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

SECTION 1
Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. – Where an answer fails to tender
an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
party’s pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment
on such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of nullity or
annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material facts alleged
in the complaint shall always be proved.

CHARACTERISTICS OF A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
(1) It is akin to a motion to dismiss, as both may bring about the dismissal of
the case without the defendant having to present his own evidence
SECTION 2
Section 2. Action on motion for judgment on the pleadings. — The court
may motu proprio or on motion render judgment on the pleadings if it is
apparent that the answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the
material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. Otherwise, the
motion shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15 of these Rules.

Motion to Dismiss Demurrer to Evidence

157

Any action of the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall
not be subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus.
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS - a procedural device or remedy by which the
courts can expeditiously resolve a civil action without need of conducting a trial
GROUNDS:
1. When the answer fails to tender an issue
2. When the answer admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s
pleading
(1) WHEN THE ANSWER FAILS TO TENDER AN ISSUE
When does an answer fail to tender an issue?
1. Deemed admitted
- When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument or document, or
attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the
genuineness and due execution of the instruments shall be deemed
admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and set
forth what he or she claims to be the facts (GSIS v. Prudential Guarantee and
Assurance, Inc.) [Sec 8, Rule 8]
ILLUSTRATION: Randi filed an action for collection of sum of money against
Waldi. Randi attached to the complaint the promissory note purportedly signed by
Waldi. In his answer, Waldi simply denied having secured a loan from Randi
and averred that the signature appearing in the promissory note is not his – and
that is his only defense – but his answer containing such denial is not verified or
under oath.
Q: Can Randi move that the court render judgment on the pleadings?
A: Yes. Inasmuch as the only issue in the case is whether or not Waldi contracted
a loan from Randi and considering that Waldi, in his answer, failed to make denial
under oath, he is thereby deemed to have admitted due execution of the
promissory note appended to the complaint; hence, judgment on the pleadings is
proper.
2. No specific denial
- Non-compliance with Sec 10, Rule 8
- The mere use of the words “specifically denies,” without any further support for
the denial is hollow or empty (Agton v. CA)
How to make a special denial:
1. Specify each material allegation of factual (indicate which paragraph of the
complaint)
2. Truth may or may not be admitted (This type of denial is called a negative
pregnant)
3. Set forth the substance of the matters which he will rely upon to support the
denial or which he claims to be the truth of the matter
EXAMPLE OF A NEGATIVE PREGNANT: The complaint alleges that “the
defendant acted surreptitiously and maliciously entered into, and actually
occupied, plaintiff’s property.”
In the answer, defendant simply averred that “the foregoing allegation is
specifically denied, in that is it never true that defendant surreptitiously and
maliciously entered into, and occupied, plaintiff’s property” – and that is all.
ANALYSIS: The foregoing allegation in the answer is a NEGATIVE PREGNANT
because, in effect, the defendant impliedly admitted having entered and
occupied plaintiff’s property, only that it was not, according to him, done
surreptitiously and maliciously. He merely denied the qualifying words describing
the manner of his entry to the litigated property. It would have been different if the
defendant categorically stated to that “he never actually entered and occupied
plaintiff’s property, in any manner and under any circumstances,” or words of
similar import.
Galofa v. Nee Bon Sing*
22 SCRA 48
FACTS: The Galofas filed a complaint against the Nee Bon Sing for the
recovery of possession of and to quiet title over a certain parcel of land in
Sorsogon, alleging prior ownership and possession of the land by his late
father and its adjudication in favor of the plaintiff in an oral partition among his
co-heirs. The complaint alleges further:
4. That plaintiff however, despite the foregoing, was unable to take actual
possession of the above-described property due to an unwarranted adverse
claim of rights of ownership and possession by the defendant and/or his tenant
or encargado, Abion Pantilone, alleging sale by a certain Fe Nicolas of said
property to defendant, which if true, had no right whatsoever to legally dispose
the above-described property not being the owner thereof, aside from the fact
g
that the defendant is not allowed under the law to own and possess real
properties being an alien, pursuant to the Constitution and/or the Krivenko
case;
In his answer corresponding to the above-quoted allegations in the complaint,
the defendant-appellant Nee Bon Sing manifested as follows:
3. That the defendant denies the material averments contained in paragraph
4 of the Complaint, the truth being, that the defendant never asserted title of
ownership to the property described in the Complaint to anybody, much less
to the herein plaintiff in virtue of any deed of conveyance executed in favor of
the defendant by one Fe Nicolas, nor claimed any right over the said property,
either by himself or through another:
RULING: It is to be noted that, to the plaintiff's allegation of his inability to take
actual possession of the parcel of land due to "an unwarranted adverse claim
of rights of ownership and possession by the defendant", followed by an
allegation of how such claim was exercised, the defendant's denial is as to "the
materials averments contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, . . ." conjoined
with his disclaimer or dominical or possessory rights in the manner alleged in
the complaint. The defendant's denial is, therefore, a negative pregnant,
which is equivalent to an admission.
Galeon: This case is about possession of a parcel of land. In the above case,
defendant merely denies having asserted title in virtue of any deed of
conveyance executed in his favor by one Fe Nicolas, but defendant did not
specifically deny the allegation in the complaint that he effectively denied the
plaintiff of, or that the plaintiff was unable to take, actual possession of the
litigated property.
3. Omission to deal with the material allegations in the complaint at all
(Fernando Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Wesleyan University Philippines, Inc.).
ILLUSTRATION: Randi filed an action for collection of sum of money against
Waldi. Randi attached to the complaint the promissory note purportedly signed by
Waldi. In his answer, Waldi simply kept mum about his alleged monetary loan
owing to Randi – i.e., Waldi did not admit or deny his obligation to Randi – as Waldi
simply interposed the defense, by way of affirmative defense, that the case is
dismissible for improper venue.
Q: Can Randi move that the court render judgment on the pleadings?
A: Yes. Clearly, the answer does not tender an issue. The defense that the venue
of the case is improperly laid involved a matter that is extrinsic to the merits of the
plaintiff’s claim and, thus, did not negate the material averments of the complaint.
(2) WHEN THE ANSWER ADMITS THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE
ADVERSE PARTY’S PLEADING
ILLUSTRATION: Randi filed an action for collection of sum of money against
Waldi. Randi attached to the complaint the promissory note purportedly signed by
Waldi. In his answer, admitted the genuineness and due execution of the
promissory note and the existence of his unpaid obligation owing to Randi, but
Waldi posited that he is willing to pay his unpaid load whenever his means would
permit.
Q: Can Randi move that the court render judgment on the pleadings?
A: Yes, inasmuch as the answer admits the material allegations of the complaint.
REQUISITES:
Before a judgment on the pleadings may be had:
1. An answer has been filed [which fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits
the material allegations of the adverse party]
2. Upon moto proprio or upon motion of the plaintiff, buttressed by Section 10,
Rule 18 and Section 2, Rule 34 subject to the provisions of Rule 15
3. It must be written, because it is a litigious motion
RULE 18. Section. 10. Judgment after pre-trial. — Should there be no
more controverted facts, or no more genuine issue as to any material
fact, or an absence of any issue, or should the answer fail to tender an
issue, the court shall, without prejudice to a party moving for judgment
on the pleadings under Rule 34 or summary judgment under Rule 35,
motu proprio include in the pre-trial order that the case be submitted for,
summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings, without need of
position papers or memoranda. In such cases, judgment shall be
rendered within ninety (90) calendar days from termination of the pre-
trial.
The order of the court to submit the case for judgment pursuant to this
Rule shall not be the subject to appeal or certiorari.
158
 g

EFFECTS OF FILING OF MOTION TO HAVE THE CASE SUBMITTED FOR
JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS
1. The plaintiff is deemed to have admitted all the material and relevant
allegation of the opposing party, and to rest his motion for judgment on those
allegations taken together with such of his own as are admitted in the pleading
(Galofa v. Nee Bun Sing)
2. The plaintiff is not deemed to have admitted irrelevant allegations of
defendant’s answer (Araneta vs. Perez).
In the above cases, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be
proved, even where the answer fails to tender an issue. Collusion of parties is, in
fact, prohibited in these cases.
The foregoing prohibition is based on the fact that marriage is not an ordinary
contract. It is rather a special contract that is imbued with public policy and over
which the State has an interest. That explains why the State will actively participate
in those cases, through the Office of the Solicitor General. It is for the same reason
that, under the rules, there is no declaration of default in these cases, among
others.

The judgment is based exclusively upon the allegations appearing in the
pleadings of the parties and the annexes thereto, if any, without consideration of
any evidence aligned or extrinsic evidence (Rodrigues v. Llorente)
3. The defendant is deemed to have admitted the truth of the allegations of the
complaint, so that there is no longer necessity of the plaintiff to submit evidence of
his claim (Phil. Advertising Counselors v. Revilla).
RULE 35 - SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant. — A party seeking to recover
upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory
relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been
served, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a
summary judgment in his or her favor upon all or any part thereof.

Tropical Homes v. CA SECTION 2

G.R. No. 111858, May 14, 1997
This principle all the more holds true if the defendant assents to having a
judgment on the pleadings. Thus, in a case where the plaintiff and the
defendant jointly submitted the case for judgment on the pleadings, the
Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court which not only granted the
principal amount demanded but also the stipulated interests and liquidated
damages.
NOTE: There can be no award of unliquidated damages in a judgment of the
pleading in the absence of proof therein (Lichauco vs. Guash) especially in the
light of Section 11, Rule 8, which provides: that
Material averments in the pleading asserting a claim or claims, other than those
as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when
not specifically denied.
WHEN THE JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADING IS MERITORIOUS
1. Court shall approve the motion for judgment on the pleadings
2. Court shall render judgment on the pleadings
WHEN MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS IS NOT MERITORIOUS
1. The court shall deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings and
2. Trial shall ensue
Section 2. Summary judgment for defending party. — A party against
whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory
relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his or her favor as
to all or any part thereof.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT / ACCELERATED JUDGMENT
- a procedural device or remedy by which the courts can also expeditiously
resolve a civil action without need of conducting a full-blown trial
- a device for weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the
litigation, thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial
OBJECTIVE OF SUMMARY JUDGMENTS:
Estrada v. Hon. Consolacion
71 SCRA 523
The very object is to separate what is formal or pretended in denial or
averment from what is genuine and substantial, so that only the latter may
subject a suitor to the burden of a trial.
The test of a motion for summary judgment is whether the pleadings, affidavits
and exhibits in support of the motions are sufficient to overcome the opposing
papers and to justify a finding as a matter of law that there is no defense to the
action or the claim is clearly meritorious

EFFECT OF APPROVING THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE DISTINCTION:

PLEADINGS Judgment on the Pleadings Summary Judgment
Rule 34 Rule 35
1. Any action of the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall not be There is an absence of a factual The complaint, answer, or any
subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. issue, because the (1) answer responsive pleading tenders an
tenders no issue at all or (2) admits issue but is not genuine, except in
2. The order of the court to submit the case for judgment on the pleadings or the material allegations of the respect to damages, if any
summary judgment, as the case may be, shall not be subject to appeal or certiorari. adverse party’s pleading
The absence of a factual issue is to The determination of whether the
3. If the court issues a separate order granting plaintiff’s motion for judgment on be determined on the basis of the issue is genuine or not is based not
the pleading, the defendant cannot question such separate court order pleadings alone, especially the only on the pleadings but also on
holding or directing that judgment on the pleadings may be had, as by filing answer of the defending party the basis of the affidavits,
a direct appeal therefrom, or certiorari, or prohibition. depositions, and admissions which
may be obtained and filed submitted
4. Where a judgment on the pleadings is eventually rendered by the court, then subsequent to the submission of the
such judgment on the pleadings may now be appealed from, and, where the pleadings
appellant is the defendant, then the defendant may assign, as one of the In judgment on the pleadings upon a In summary judgment, any such
errors on appeal, the propriety of submitting the case for judgment on the motion, any such motion may only motion therefor may be filed by
pleadings. be filed by the plaintiff or the either the plaintiff/claiming party or
claimant the defendant/defending party
EFFECT OF DENYING THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Not required to be supported with Shall cite the supporting affidavits,
affidavits, depositions, or submission depositions, or admission, and the
1. Plaintiff cannot also file question such denial order, as by filing a direct
specific law relied upon
appeal therefrom, certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition, as it is proscribed
under Section 2, Rule 34 of the Amended.
ILLUSTRATION: Randi filed an action for collection of sum of money against
Waldi. Randi attached to the complaint the promissory note purportedly signed by
2. Trial may then ensue. And where the court eventually renders judgment on the
Waldi.
merits, that judgment may now be appealed from, and, where the appellant
is the plaintiff, then the plaintiff may assign, as one of the errors on appeal,
Q1: Suppose that, in his answer, Waldi simply averred that he did not secure a
the denial of his motion for judgment on the pleadings.
loan from Randi and that the signature appearing in the promissory note is not his
– and that is his only defense -- but his answer containing such denial is not
CASES WHERE JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WILL NOT LIE
verified or under oath. What procedural device may be availed of, if any, to
expedite the resolution of the case?
1. Actions for declaration of nullity of marriage;
2. Actions for annulment of marriage; and
A1: Judgment on the pleadings. Here, the answer does not tender an issue.
3. Actions for legal separation
Considering that Waldi failed to make denial under oath, he is thereby deemed to
have admitted the due execution of the promissory note appended to the
complaint; hence, in the case, there is an absence of factual issue, as, thus,
determined on the basis of the answer that was filed (Section 1, Rule 34).
159

Q2: In the above scenario, who can file a motion for judgment on the pleadings?
A2: It is only the plaintiff, Randi, who can file any such motion for judgment on
the pleadings (Section 1, Rule 34)
Q3: Suppose that, in his answer, Waldi denied under oath the existence,
genuineness and due execution of the promissory note and, thus, he denied
obtaining a loan from Randi, but thereafter Randi served a written request for
admission to Waldi, and the latter responded thereto, in writing, admitting that,
indeed, he obtained a loan from Randi and the same has remained unpaid.
What procedural device may be availed of, if any, to expedite the resolution of the
case, and who can avail of the same?
A3: Summary judgment. Randi, being the interested party, should file a motion
for summary judgment, attaching thereto, and citing therein, the written request for
admission and the Waldi’s reply thereto (wherein he admitted his loan and the non-
payment thereof), as well as other affidavits or depositions, if any. In his motion for
summary judgment, Randi should also cite the specific law that relied upon
(Sections 1 and 3, Rule 35).
Q4: Suppose that Randi did not serve a request for admission to Waldi and there
no such admission from Waldi, but Randi is confident that he can really prove
the existence of the loan and non-payment thereof through his own affidavit,
as well as the affidavits or depositions his witnesses – e.g. the persons who were
allegedly present during the execution of the promissory note. What may Randi
do, if any? And what would be the possible consequences thereof?
A4: If he wants, Randi may still file a motion for summary judgment, attaching
thereto his affidavit and the affidavits or depositions of his witnesses, and citing
therein the law that he relied upon. Upon receipt of the said motion for summary
judgment and the attachments thereto, it behooves Waldi to file an opposition
thereto and submit opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions, if any.
If Waldi does not file any opposition and/or opposing affidavits, or if it appears
to the court that his opposition is lame, the court may proceed to grant the
motion for summary judgment and thereafter render summary judgment in favor
of Randi.
But if Waldi files his opposition, together with the opposing affidavits and
depositions, and it appears to the court that Waldi’s opposition and opposing
affidavits are more credible and meritorious, the court may instead render
summary judgment in favor of Waldi.
But if despite plaintiff’s filing of the motion for summary judgment, complete with
affidavits or depositions, and defendant’s filing of opposition, opposing affidavits
or depositions, it still appears to the court that the contested factual issue
cannot be resolved unless a full-blown trial be conducted, wherein the parties
will have the opportunity to cross-examine the adverse party and his witness, the
court may deny the motion for summary judgment and proceed to conduct a full-
blown trial therein (Section 3 and 4, Rule 35)
Q5: Suppose that, in his answer, Waldi rather admitted having obtained a loan
from Randi but interpose the defense that loan had already been paid in full,
albeit he failed to present a payment receipt, but thereafter Waldi served a written
request for admission to Randi and the latter responded, in writing, thereby
admitting that, indeed, Waldi’s obligation had already been paid in full. What
procedural device may be availed of, if any, to expedite the resolution of the case,
and who can avail of the same?
A5: Summary judgment. Waldi, being the interested party, should file a motion
for summary judgment, attaching thereto, and citing, the written request for
admission and the Randi’s reply thereto (wherein he admitted the full payment of
the loan), as well as other affidavits or depositions, if any, and, in his motion, Waldi
should also cite the specific law that he relied upon (see Section 2, Rule 35 of the
Amended Rules).
Q6: Suppose Randi’s cause of action is not only for the payment of the principal
loan but also for stipulated interests fixed in the promissory note at 10% per
month, plus moral and exemplary damages, and, in his answer, Waldi admitted
the loan and the non-payment thereof but he took issue with, and protested on,
the claim for interests and unliquidated damages, contending, among others, that
stipulated interests is illegal, as it is allegedly usurious, and that Randi is not
entitled to damages. What procedural device may be availed of, if any, to expedite
the resolution of the case?
A6: Summary judgment. While Waldi, in his answer, admitted the debt and the
non-payment thereof, there still are still remaining issues pertaining to the
stipulated interests and unliquidated damages, such that the remedy of judgment
on the pleadings is not the appropriate recourse. The remaining issue pertaining
to the interests, alleged to be usurious, may not, however, be truly regarded as a
“genuine” factual issue, as it is more of a question of law; hence summary
judgment may lie. Even if there is a question of law, even a complicated one,
summary judgment is not barred (Velasco vs. Court of Appeals, 329 SCRA 392).
g
As regards the other remaining issue on damages, the same will not bar remedy
of summary judgment, as provided under Section 3, Rule 35 of the Amended Rules
Q7: In the immediately preceding situation (Q & A: 6), who can file a motion for
summary judgment?
A7: Either Randi or Waldi can file a motion for summary judgment, and any
such motion must be accompanied by, and should cite, their respective affidavits
or depositions or those of their respective witnesses, and such motion should also
cite the specific law relied upon. Such accompanying affidavits or deposition are
useful in the possible determination, among others, of Randi’s entitlement or non-
entitlement to damages, or the extent or amount thereof, if warranted (see
Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, Rule 35 of the Amended Rules).
Northwest Airlines v. CA*
G.R. No. 120334, Jan. 20, 1998
In this case, the motion for summary judgment was integrated in the
Demurrer to Evidence, although the Supreme Court decreed that such
motion for summary judgment was not proper because there are still
factual issues that remained to be determined therein.
As culled from Section 1, Rule 35 of the Amended Rules, if it is the plaintiff or
claimant who files a motion for summary judgment, he can only do so after the
answer had already been filed. But if it is the defendant or the defending party
who files a motion for summary judgment, the same may be filed at any time
after the answer has been filed, or even after the plaintiff or the claimant had
presented evidence.
In either case, a summary judgment may only be filed after the filing of the
answer (11 Moran 1979 ed., p. 170).
NOTE: Summary judgment may be available in actions for declaratory relief,
in the same way that it may be available in actions whereby one party seeks to
recover a “claim,” but it needs to be underscored that this later action is not solely
confined to purely monetary claims. Summary judgment is applicable to all
kinds of actions (De Leon vs. Faustino, November 29, 1960)
Summary judgment is not available in cases for declaration of nullity of
marriage, annulment of marriage, and legal separation, for the same reason
that judgment on the pleadings will not lie in these cases.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. — The motion shall cite the
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions, and the specific law
relied upon. The adverse party may file a comment and serve opposing
affidavits, depositions, or admissions within a non-extendible period of
five (5) calendar days from receipt of the motion. Unless the court orders
the conduct of a hearing, judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if
the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions on file,
show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.
Any action of the court on a motion for summary judgment shall not be
subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Case not fully adjudicated on motion. — If on motion under
this Rule, judgment is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the
reliefs sought and a trial is necessary, the court may, by examining the
pleadings and the evidence before it and by interrogating counsel,
ascertain what material facts exist without substantial controversy,
including the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief is
not in controversy, and direct such further proceedings in the action as
are just. The facts so ascertained shall be deemed established, and the
trial shall be conducted on the controverted facts accordingly.
RULE: Summary judgment may be had upon the motion of either:
ü the plaintiff
ü the defendants
ü By the court motu proprio, as Section 10, Rule 18 adopted the ruling
in Jaranilla, Jr. vs. Adil
Why can the court motu proprio move for summary judgment? Because
Section 6, Rule 7 already requires the litigant to state their documentary and object
evidence in their pleadings.
Motion to have summary judgment is a litigious motion. (Sec 5(11), Rule 15)
1. It must be written
2. Such motion shall cite the supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions, and
the specific law relied upon [Section 3, Rule 35 of the Amended Rules].
160

3. A copy of the said motion, together with the accompanying affidavits, deposition
or admissions, shall be furnished to the adverse party [see Section 3), Rule 35 of
the Amended Rules].
4. It then behooves the adverse party to file and serve his or her comment or
opposition thereto, together with opposing affidavits, depositions or admissions,
within a non-extendible period of five (5) calendar days from receipt thereof [see
Section 3, Rule 35 of the Amended Rules; also Section 5 (c), Rule 15 of the
Amended Rules] without need for an order of the court towards that end, and, it is
discretionary upon the court whether or not to call a hearing on such motion for
summary judgment [Section 6, Rule 15 of the Amended Rules].
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT:
The court may either
1. Deny the motion for summary judgment
2. Approve the motion for summary judgment and thereafter render summary
judgment upon the whole case, or for all the reliefs sought in the case,
3. Approve the motion for summary judgment but not upon the whole case, or that
the court only renders a partial summary judgment on some but not for all the
reliefs sought in the case.
EFFECTS OF DENYING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT:
1. Any action of the court on a motion for summary judgment shall not be subject
of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
2. The movant cannot question such denial order, as by filing a direct appeal
therefrom, or certiorari, or mandamus, or prohibition, as it is proscribed.
3. Trial may then ensue.
4. Where the court eventually renders judgment on the merits, judgment may be
now appealed from, and, where the appellant is the one who previously filed the
motion for summary judgment that was denied, he may assign, as one of the errors
on appeal, the denial of his motion for summary judgment.
EFFECT OF APPROVING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND
WHERE THE COURT THEREAFTER RENDERS SUMMARY JUDGMENT
UPON THE WHOLE CASE, OR FOR ALL THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THE
CASE:
1. A motion for summary judgment shall not be subject of an appeal or petition
for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
2. The order of the court to submit the case for judgment on the pleadings or
summary judgment, as the case may be, shall not be subject to appeal or
certiorari.
3. If the court issues a separate order granting the motion for summary
judgment, the opposing party cannot question such separate court order
decreeing that summary judgment is in order, as by filing a direct appeal therefrom,
or certiorari, or prohibition, as the same is prohibited.
4. Where summary judgment is eventually rendered by the court, then such
summary judgment may now be appealed from, and, where the appellant is the
one who previously opposed the motion for summary judgment, then the appellant
may assign, as one of the errors on appeal, the propriety of submitting the case
for summary judgment.
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi was driving his motorbike while intoxicated. Waldi hit
Renato, a pedestrian, for which the latter got seriously injured, hospitalized, and
had been made to undergo physical rehabilitation procedures. Renato filed a case
against Waldi for quasi-delict. Waldi filed his answer, denying that he was
drunk at the time of the incident complained of and contending that the accident
was rather due to Renato’s reckless act in suddenly crossing the street even if the
traffic light for the vehicles was still on green.
Thereafter Renato filed a motion for summary judgment, attaching thereto his
affidavit; the affidavits of his witnesses; the affidavit of the traffic investigator who
responded to the incident; the sketch drawn and prepared by the traffic
investigator; as well the result of the liquor test conducted on Waldi showing that
he was intoxicated when the incident happened. Waldi filed an opposition to the
motion for summary judgment, but without any opposing affidavits,
depositions and other controverting evidence.
Acting on such motion for summary judgment, the court issued an order, dated
May 29, 2020, holding that summary judgment is in order, decreeing, in part:
“The court has considered at length and thoroughly the motion for summary
judgments, the affidavits and other pertinent documents attached to such motion,
and has found that there is no genuine issue as to the material facts and has
concluded that plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
It is, therefore, or ordered and decreed that the plaintiff has judgment summarily
against the defendant for such amount as may be found due the plaintiff, to be
g
ascertained by trial upon that issue alone on June 9, 2020 at 8:30 o’clock in the
morning.”
Q1: Can Waldi file an appeal, certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against the May
29, 2020 Order of the trial court which basically held that summary judgment is in
order?
A1: No. Again, under Section 3, Rule 35 of the Amended Rules, any action of
the court on a motion for summary judgment shall not be subject of an
appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. Section 10, Rule
18 of the Amended Rules likewise provides that the order of the court to submit
the case for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, as the case may
be, shall not be subject to appeal or certiorari.
Q2: But is the May 29, 2020 Order proper, when it directs that a hearing be still
conducted to determine the amount of damages that may be awarded to the
plaintiff?
A2: Yes. That order is in consonance with Section 3, Rule 35 of the Amended
Rules, which allows the court to render judgment if the pleadings, supporting
affidavits, depositions and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount
of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Gregoria Estrada v. Hon. Francisco Consolacion, et al.
G.R. No. L-40948, June 29, 1976
Strictly speaking, the subject order is merely interlocutory directing that a
hearing be conducted for the purpose of ascertaining the amount or the
assessment of damages which may be adjudged in favor of the prevailing
party. It is a determination of the court of a preliminary point or directing some
steps in the proceedings, but not a disposition of the merits. In the absence of
any findings of fact and conclusions of law, the aforesaid order of respondent
Judge cannot be considered a judgment. It has been held that a trial court in
granting summary judgment should file findings of fact and conclusion of law
or a memorandum opinion so as to disclose grounds upon which the trial court
reached its determination
Q3: Suppose that, after conducting the hearing purportedly to determine the
amount of damages due the plaintiff, the court eventually renders a judgment,
thereby holding Waldi liable for causing physical injuries to Renato by reason of
Waldi’s negligence in driving his motorbike, and, thus, adjudging the latter to pay
Renato the amount of Php200,000.00, for and as actual damages, and wherein
the court stated the facts and the law on which its decision is based. What remedy
can Waldi pursue, if any?
A3: Waldi can now appeal from such judgment, and in his appeal, he may
assign, as one of the errors on appeal, the propriety of submitting the case for
summary judgment.
EFFECT OF APPROVING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BUT
NOT UPON THE WHOLE CASE, OR THAT THE COURT ONLY RENDERS A
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SOME BUT NOT ALL OF THE RELIEFS
SOUGHT IN THE CASE:
RULE: Any action of the court on a motion for summary judgment shall not be
subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus
RULE: Order of the court to submit the case for judgment on the pleadings or
summary judgment, as the case may be, shall not be subject to appeal or certiorari.
RULE: If one of the parties in the case files a motion for partial summary judgment,
or summary judgment one some but not all of the claims in an action, and the court
issues a separate order granting such motion for partial summary judgment, the
opposing party cannot question such separate court order decreeing that
partial summary judgment may be had in the case, as by filing a direct appeal
therefrom, or certiorari, or prohibition, as the same is prohibited, more so that
partial summary judgment may be had, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 35 of the
Amended Rules.
IF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RENDERED à
GENERAL RULE: Not appealable
Guevarra v. CA
124 SCRA 297
What the rules contemplate is that the appeal from the partial summary
judgment shall be taken together with the judgment that may be rendered
in the entire case after a trial is conducted on the material facts on which
a substantial controversy exists.
Also: Province of Pangasinan vs. CA, 220 SCRA 726
161

Parenthetically, in the appeal from the judgment in the entire case, and, where
the appellant is the one who previously opposed the motion for partial
summary judgment, then the appellant may assign, as one of the errors on
appeal, the propriety of submitting the case for partial summary judgment.
Province of Pangasinan v. CA*
220 SCRA 726
FACTS: Coquial filed a complaint against Province of Pangasinan and
Provincial Governor Rafael M. Colet before the RTC City. He alleged therein
the following: 1) they entered into a contract for the improvement of a Road for
a total consideration of P5M; 2) upon 100% completion of Phase I, it was
accepted by petitioners and in accordance with the report of the auditors,
private respondent should be paid P3M; 3) petitioners had paid only P1.3M ,
leaving a balance of P1.8M, which petitioners refused to pay; and 4) he has
also completed 60% of Phase II which costs P1M but petitioners, who have
decided not to pursue the project, refused to pay. He, therefore, prayed for the
payment of said amounts; including monetary awards for damages and
attorney's fees. Defendants filed their Answer to the complaint.
Private respondent subsequently filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the balance of P1.8M (for the Phase I of the project). The trial
court granted the motion filed by private respondent.
The petitioner sought an extension to file a motion for reconsideration which
was granted by the trial court. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration,
but it was denied by the trial for being supposedly filed out of time.
Private respondent then filed a motion for execution of the partial summary
judgment.
Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal from partial summary judgment, but the
trial court denied due course to the notice of appeal, the same being
supposedly out of time also. On the other hand, the court granted the motion
for execution of the partial summary judgment; hence, recourse to the Court of
Appeals and eventually to the Supreme Court.
RULING: We were categorical in the case of Guevarra, et al. v. Court of
Appeals, et al., supra, that a partial summary judgment is merely
interlocutory and not a final judgment.
What Rule 34 (now Rule 35) contemplates is that the appeal from the
partial summary judgment shall be taken together with the judgment that
may be rendered in the entire case after a trial is conducted on the
material facts on which a substantial controversy exists. The trial court
and the respondent court erroneously relied on Section 5 of Rule 36 of the
Rules of Court, which pertains to judgments in general.
In addition, inasmuch as a partial summary judgment does not finally
dispose of the action, execution thereof shall not issue, conformably with
Section 1 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.”
NOTE: The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of
demonstrating clearly the absence of a genuine issue of fact, and any doubt
as to the existence of such issue is resolved in against the movant (Gatchalian vs.
Pavilin)
SECTION 5
Section 5. Form of affidavits and supporting papers. — Supporting and
opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth
such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show
affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated
therein. Certified true copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in
the affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith.
RULE: In support of summary judgment, there must be a submiossion of affidavits
among others
Requisites:
1. The affidavit shall be made based on personal knowledge;
- It should not be based on mere hearsay information, or on what the affiant simply
heard from another person.
2. It shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence;
- not merely reiterate the ultimate facts in the pleadings.
- set forth evidentiary facts, where the affidavit would serve as basis in rendering
summary judgment, if warranted
- not narrate matters falling within the ambit of privileged communications under
Section 24, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, among others.
3. The affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein; and
- The affiant must be one who can perceive, and perceiving, and can make known
his perception to others (Section 21, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence).
The affiant must be one who is not disqualified under the Rules on Evidence to
g
testify in the case; hence, a priest cannot, for instance, execute an affidavit
disclosing the confessions given to him by a person who is a party-litigant in the
case, without the latter’s consent, for it is proscribed under Section 24 (e), Rule
130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
4. Certified true copies of all papers of parts thereof referred to in the affidavit shall
be attached thereto or served therewith.
- Plain photocopy of the documents referred to in the affidavits would not suffice.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Affidavits in bad faith. — Should it appear to its satisfaction at
any time that any of the affidavits presented pursuant to this Rule are
presented in bad faith, or solely for the purpose of delay, the court shall
forthwith order the offending party or counsel to pay to the other party
the amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing of the affidavits
caused him or her to incur, including attorney's fees, it may, after hearing
further adjudge the offending party or counsel guilty of contempt.
DETERMINATION THAT SUBMISSION OF AFFIDAVIT WAS IN BAD FAITH
When? in the course of hearing the motion for summary judgment vis-à-vis the
opposition thereto, if any, or during the trial of the case
How? It is submitted in bad faith, or solely for delay, if the matters set forth therein
are proven to be false.
Penalties for bad faith? Requiring them to pay the reasonable costs incurred,
including attorney’s fees, cited in contempt of court after a hearing is conducted
for that purpose, in accordance with Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
RULE 36 - JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY THEREOF
SECTION 1
Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders. — A judgment or final
order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing personally
and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts
and the law on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk
of the court.
JUDGMENT - the court’s official and final consideration and determination of the
respective rights and obligations of the parties; normally synonymous with
“decision”
Note: It is different from Interlocutory Order, which refers to something
intervening between the commencement and the end of the suit which decide
some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy
Examples of interlocutory orders: An order granting an extension of time to file
answer; an order denying a motion to dismiss; an order denying a motion for
judgment on the pleadings or summary judgments
SUBSTANTIAL REQUISITES FOR A JUDGMENT: (Acosta v. COMELEC)
1. The court or tribunal must be clothed with authority to hear and determine the
matter before it
2. The court must have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of
the case
3. The parties must have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence in their
behalf
4. The evidence must have been considered by the tribunal in deciding the case
FORMAL REQUISITES: (Section 1, Rule 36):
1. The judgment should be in writing
- An oral judgment is not valid
- The mere pronouncement of the judgment in open court with the stenographer
taking note thereof does not constitute a rendition of judgment. It is the filing of
the signed decision with the clerk of court that constitutes rendition of
judgment (Ago v. CA)
2. It should be personally and directly prepared by the judge
- Judge may seek the assistance of the clerk of court or the court’s legal researcher
in making legal research
RULE: It is not necessary that the judge who heard the evidence be the same
judge who shall pen the decision. It is not necessarily violative of
substantive and procedural due process.
People v. Tomaru
319 SCRA 515
The judge trying the case may die, resign, be disabled, or transferred to
another court. In such eventuality, another judge can examine and evaluate
the evidence already presented by the simple expedient of going over the
transcripts of the testimony of the witness in the same manner as appellate
courts review the evidence on record.
162

Kummer v. People
G.R. No. 1774461, Sept. 11, 2013
It is not necessary for the validity of a judgment that the judge who penned
the decision should actually hear the case in its entirety, for he can merely rely
on the transcribed stenographic notes taken during the trial as the basis for his
decision.
Valentin v. Sta. Maria
55 SCRA 40
On the other hand, a judge who was permanently transferred to another court
of equal jurisdiction, before the case heard by him was decided, may validly
prepare and sign his decision on the said case and send the same to the court
where he was originally assigned.
Marchadesch v. Vda. de Yepes
442 SCRA 254
The judge who pens the decision of a case heard by him before he was
assigned to another district or branch of equal jurisdiction is considered an
incumbent judge, albeit assigned to a different branch at the time the decision
was promulgated.
Note: The SC adapted this AM to prevent a “ball tossing” or the possible discord
between the judge who has been permanently transferred to another court of equal
jurisdiction before the case heard by him was decided and the one who replaced
him in his previous station
A.M. No. 93-3-114-RTC*
July 22, 1998
In Re: Undecided Cases by Judge Mabunay
A case once raffled to a branch belongs to that branch unless re-raffled or
otherwise transferred to another branch in accordance with established
procedure.
When the Presiding Judge of that branch to which a case has been raffled or
assigned is transferred to another station, he leaves behind all the cases he
tried with the branch to which they belong. He does not take these cases
with him even if he tried them and the same were submitted to him for decision.
The judge who takes over this branch inherits all these cases and
assumes full responsibility for them. He may decide them as they are his
cases, unless any of the parties moves that his case be decided by the
judge who substantially heard the evidence and before whom the case
was submitted for decision.
If a party therefore so desires, he may simply address his request or motion
to the incumbent Presiding Judge who shall then endorse the request to the
Office of the Court Administrator so that the latter may in turn endorse the
matter to the judge who substantially heard the evidence and before whom
the case was submitted for decision. This will avoid the "renvoir" of records
and the possibility of an irritant between the judges concerned, as one may
question the authority of the-other to transfer the case to the former. If coursed
through the Office of the Court Administrator, the judge who is asked to decide
the case is not expected to complain, otherwise, he may be liable for
insubordination and his judicial profile may be adversely affected. Upon
direction of the Court Administrator, or any of his Deputy Court Administrators
acting in his behalf, the judge before whom a particular case was earlier
submitted for decision may be compelled to decide the case accordingly.
We take this opportunity to remind trial judges that once they act as presiding
judges or otherwise designated as acting/assisting judges in branches
other than their own, cases substantially heard by them and submitted
to them for decision, unless they are promoted to higher positions in the
judicial ladder, may be decided by them wherever they may be if so
requested by any of the parties and endorsed by the incumbent Presiding
Judges through the Office of the Court Administrator.
The following procedure may be followed: First, the judge who takes over the
branch must immediately make an inventory of the cases submitted for
decision left behind by the previous judge (unless the latter has in the
meantime been promoted to a higher court), Second, the succeeding judge
must then inform the parties that the previous judge who heard the case,
at least substantially, and before whom it was submitted for decision, may be
required to decide the case. In this event, and upon request of any of the
parties, the succeeding judge may request the Court Administrator to formally
endorse the case for decision to the judge before whom it was previously
submitted for decision. Third, after the judge who previously heard the case is
through with his decision, he should send back the records together with
his decision to the branch to which the case properly belongs, by registered
mail or by personal delivery, whichever is more feasible, for recording and
promulgation, with notice of such fact to the Court Administrator.
g
Since the primary responsibility over a case belongs to the presiding
judge of the branch to which it has been raffled or assigned, he may also
decide the case to the exclusion of any other judge provided that all the
parties agree in writing that the incumbent presiding judge should decide the
same, or unless the judge who substantially heard the case and before whom
it was submitted for decision has in the meantime died, retired or for any
reason has left the service, or has become disabled, disqualified, or
otherwise incapacitated to decide the case.
The Presiding Judge who has been transferred to another station cannot,
on his own, take with him to his new station any case submitted for
decision without first securing formal authority from the Court
Administrator. This is to minimize, if not totally avoid, a situation of "case-
grabbing." In the same vein, when the Presiding Judge before whom a case
was submitted for decision has already retired from the service, the judge
assigned to the branch to take over the case submitted for decision must
automatically assume the responsibility of deciding the case.
Nazarino v. CA
378 SCRA 28
But a decision penned by a judge after his retirement cannot be validly
promulgated and cannot acquire a binding effect. In like manner, a decision
penned by a judge during his incumbency cannot be validly promulgated after
his retirement. When the judge retires, all his authority to decide a case, i.e.,
to write, sign and promulgate the decision has also “retired” with him.
3. It should state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based
- part of due process to be informed of how the case was decided
- A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which
it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially
prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the
court for review by a higher tribunal (Nicos Industrial Corp. vs. CA)
People v. Derpo
168 SCRA 447
The court, however, is not required to state in its decision all the facts found
in the records. It is enough that the court states the facts and the law on
which its decision is based. Thus, the mere fact that no mention was made
in the decision of the testimony of a prosecution witness does not necessarily
mean that said testimony was overlooked by the trial court in arriving at its
decision.
People v. Molina
184 SCRA 597
Trial courts should not merely reproduce everything testified to by the
witnesses no matter how unimportant and immaterial it may be, even if this
might lighten their work. By such indolent process, they only complicate and
lengthen their decisions, beclouding and possibly misreading the real issues
in their tiresome narration of the facts, including even those without bearing in
the case. Judges should make an effort to sift the record and relieve it of all
inconsequential matters, to give them a clearer view of how the real question
is to be resolved and a better idea of how this resolution should be done.
NOTE: The foregoing is pursuant to the mandate of the first paragraph of Section
14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution to the end that:
No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
MINUTE RESOLUTIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
- based on: second paragraph of Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution:
(Macario Tayamura. vs. IAC)
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the
court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal
basis therefor.
Komatsu Industries vs. CA
supra
When the Supreme Court, after deliberating on a petition and any subsequent
pleadings, manifestations, comments, or motions decides to deny due course
to the petition and states that the questions raised are factual or no reversible
error in respondent court’s decision is shown or for some other legal basis
stated in the resolution, there is already sufficient compliance with the
constitutional requirement
Galeon: minute resolution says it all – that is, that the petition for review lacks
merit and that the respondent court’s decision is correct
Notes on Minute Resolutions
ü Need not be signed by the members of the Court who took part in the
deliberations of a case nor do they require the certification of the Chief
Justice
163

Borromeo v. CA
186 SCRA 1
To require members of the Court to sign all resolutions would not only
unduly delay the issuance of its resolutions but a great amount of
their time would be spent on functions more properly performed by
the Clerk of Court and which time could be more profitably used in the
analysis of cases and the formulation of decisions and orders of
important nature and character
ü Promulgated by the Supreme Court though the Clerk of Court, who takes
charge of sending copies thereof to the parties concerned by quoting
verbatim the resolution issued on a particular case (Borromeo v. CA)
ü The result of a thorough deliberation among the members of the Court,
which does not and cannot delegate the exercise of its judicial functions to
its Clerk of Court or any of its subalterns, which could be known to counsel.
When a petition is denied or dismissed by the Court, it, in effect, sustains
the challenged decision or order together with its finds of facts and legal
conclusions (Rhine Marketing Corp. vs. Felix Gravante)
MEMORANDUM DECISIONS
- one rendered by an appellate court and incorporates by reference the findings of
fact and conclusions of law contained in the decision or order under review
- not proscribed by this rule; authorized by Section 40 of B.P 129 and Rule 51 of
the Rules of Court:
Every decision or final resolution of a court in appealed cases shall
clearly and distinctly state the findings of facts and the conclusions of
law on which it is based, which may be contained in the decision or final
resolution itself, or adopted by reference from those set forth in the
decision, order or resolution appealed from.
RATIONALE FOR MEMORANDUM DECISIONS
- to avoid the cumbersome reproduction and repetition of the decision of the lower
court in the decision of the appellate court.
REQUISITES OF MEMORANDUM DECISION
1. Incorporates the findings of facts and the conclusions of law of the lower
court by reference
2. Provides directs access to the facts and the law being adopted, which must be
contained in a statement attached to the memorandum decision and made
an indispensable part of the decision
Note: the memorandum decision authorized under Section 40 of B.P. 129 should
actually embody the findings and conclusions of law of the lower court in an
annex attached to and made indispensable part of the memorandum decision
(Francisco vs. Permskul)
RULE: A judgment must conform to the pleading and the theory of the action
under which the was tried.
Lazo v. Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc
31 SCRA 329
A judgment going outside the issues and purporting to adjudicate something
on which the parties were not heard is invalid. The exception is when such
other issues not contained in the pleadings were tried with the express or
implied consent of the parties (Section 5, Rule 10 of the Amended Rules).
4. It should be signed by the judge and filed with the clerk of court
Lianga Bay Logging v. Enaje
152 SCRA 80
Even if dictated in open court, the court may still modify an order. Even if it is
already in writing and signed by the judge while it has not yet been delivered
to the clerk for filing, it is still subject to amendment or change by the judge.
It is only when the judgment signed by the judge is actually filed with the
Clerk of Court that it becomes a valid and binding judgment. Prior thereto,
it still be subjected to amendment and change (even a substantial change) and
may not, therefor, constitute the real judgment of the court.
PROMULGATION
- the delivery of a court decision to the clerk of court for filing and publication
(Araneta vs. Dinglasan)
- The process by which a decision is published, officially announced, made known
to the public or delivered to the Clerk of Court for filing, coupled with notice to the
parties or their counsel (Neria vs. Commissioner of Immigration)
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SIN PERJUICIO JUDGMENT
A sin perjuicio judgment is an incomplete judgment, or a judgment without a
statement of the facts in support of its conclusions to be later supplemented by a
final judgment
Abay vs. Garcia*
G.R. No. L-66132, June 27, 1998
g
FACTS: This is a criminal case for direct assault upon an agent of a person in
authority.
During the scheduled trial for the continuation of the cross-examination of the
prosecution witness, the witness and the private prosecutor failed to appear
despite notice. Whereupon, the presiding judge verbally ordered, motu
proprio, the dismissal of the case. The fiscal did not object to the
dismissal, while the accused remained silent and later left the courtroom
after the judge dictated the order of dismissal.
Not long after, the private prosecutor and the witness to be cross-examined
arrived in court. And upon learning that the criminal case was ordered
dismissed, the private prosecution verbally moved to have the order of
dismissal set aside. Subsequently, the court issued a written order granting
the verbal motion for reconsideration of the private prosecution and,
thus, set aside the verbal order of dismissal. He further ordered the
resetting of the case for hearing on another date.
Subsequently, the accused, through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration
of the court’s order vacating the verbal order of the dismissal of the case,
invoking double jeopardy, claiming that the verbal order of dismissal, even
if provisional, was rendered without the express consent of the accused.
The motion for reconsideration was denied, after which the accused filed a
petition for certiorari, which sought to annul and set aside the order of the court.
HELD: The order of dismissal must be written in the official language,
personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him
conformably with the provisions of Rule 120, section 2 of the Rules of Court
(now Rule 120, section 2 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure).
In the instant case, it is very clear that the order was merely dictated in open
court by the trial judge. There is no showing that this verbal order of dismissal
was ever reduced to writing and duly signed by him. Thus, it did not yet
attain the effect of a judgment of acquittal, so that it was still within the
powers of the judge to set it aside and enter another order, now in writing and
duly signed by him, reinstating the case.
Galeon: What is contemplated under Section 1, Rule 36 is a kind of judgment that
operates as the court’s official and final consideration and determination of
the respective rights and obligations of the parties in the case.
CONDITIONAL JUDGMENTS
- a kind of judgment in which the award in favor of a party is made dependent upon
the happening of a future event
RULE: CONDITIONAL JUDGMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED.
Cu Unjieng y Hijos v. Mabalacat Sugar Co
supra
Supreme Court declared as invalid the decision of the lower court which
provided that the case would be decided in favor of one party in the case
if the case pending before the Supreme Court be decided in his favor.
“The order of November 13, 1935, was conditioned upon a contingency,
namely, the outcome of the Berkenkotter case that was then pending
appeal in this Court. It did not dispose definitely of the issue as to who should
be awarded the amount of P36,793.99 — whether the plaintiff- appellee or the
defendant-appellant. The order provided that the sum should be awarded to
the appellee if Berkenkotter should win the case, or to the appellant should
Berkenkotter lose the case in this Court. And this is not a final disposition
of the case.
“We have once held that orders or judgments of this kind, subject to the
performance of a condition precedent, are not final until the condition is
performed. (Jaucian v. Querol) Before the condition is performed or the
contingency has happened, the judgment is not effective and is not capable of
execution. In truth, such judgment contains no disposition at all and is a mere
anticipated statement of what the court shall do in the future when a particular
event should happen. For this reason, as a general rule, judgments of such
kind, conditioned upon a contingency, are held to be null and void.
"A judgment must be definitive. By this is meant that the decision itself must
purport to decide finally the rights of the parties upon the issue submitted, by
specifically denying or granting the remedy sought by the action.” And when a
definitive judgment cannot thus be rendered because it depends upon a
contingency, the proper procedure is to render no judgment at all and defer the
same until the contingency has passed.”
OTHER FORMS OF JUDGMENTS:
TERM SHORT DEFINITION
164

Judgment “on Amounts to a legal declaration of the respective rights
the merits” and duties of the parties based on the disclosed facts
Judgment rendered by the court on the basis of a
Judgment upon a compromise agreement entered into by and between
compromise the parties to the action (Diamond Builders
Conglomeration vs. Courty Bankers Corp)
Judgment by judgment rendered by the court when a party expressly
confession agrees to the other party’s claim or acknowledges the
(cognovit action validity of the claim against him. It is not a plea but an
em) affirmative and voluntary act of the defendant himself
judgment which orders the entry of something which
was actually previously done. Its purpose is not to
Judgment nunc supply an omitted action by the court but to enter into
pro tunc the record an action previously done but which was not
reflected in the record by reason or inadvertence or
mistake (Perkins vs. Haywood)
JUDGMENT “ON THE MERITS”
“Merits” as a matter of substance in law, as distinguished from a matter of form,
refers to the real or substantial grounds of action or defense, as contrasted
with some technical or collateral matter raised in the course of the suit (Luzon
Development Bank v. Conquilla)
Remember:
• There can be a judgment on the merits even if there is no trial (judgment on
the pleadings, summary judgment, judgment by default)
• Where the case is dismissed without prejudice (lacks a certification
against forum shopping) such dismissal is not based on the merits, as it
based on mere technicality
JUDGMENT UPON A COMPROMISE
Characteristics:
ü Not appealable (Central Bank v. CA; Montejo v. Urotia)
- the litigation comes to an end except only as regards to its compliance
and fulfillment by the parties of their respective obligations thereunder
(Riano, Civil Procedure)
The reason for this is that when both parties so enter into an agreement to
put a close to a pending litigation between them and ask that a decision
be rendered in conformity therewith, it would only be “natural to presume
that such action constitutes an implicit waiver of the right to appeal” against
that decision (Domingo vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 189).
ü A lawyer cannot, without a special authority from his client, compromise
his client’s case. Any such agreement is unenforceable (Dungo v. Lopena)
where the client, on becoming aware of the compromise agreement
and the judgment based thereon, does not repudiate promptly the
action done by his lawyer, the client is deemed to have ratified the action
of his lawyer; hence, the compromise agreement becomes valid
(Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921).
ASSAILING JUDGMENT BY COMPROMISE
Requisites:
(1) There must be a proper motion to set aside the compromise
(2) On the ground that the compromise was obtained either by fraud, violence,
intimidation, falsity of documents, or some vices of consent (Cadano vs. Cadano)
(3) The movant should also move to annul the compromise agreement itself
(Mabale vs. Apalisok)
OLD RULE: Appeal may be had on the denial of the motion to set aside the
compromise. [Delos Reyes vs. Ugarte, 75 Phil. 505; Enriquez vs. Padilla, 77
Phil. 373; Salvador vs. Ortoll, 343 SCRA 668,]
AMENDED RULE: Section 1 (d), Rule 41 an order denying a motion to set aside
judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud,
mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent non-appealable.
REMEDIES FOR DENIAL OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT BY
COMPROMISE:
1. Certiorari
Section 1, Rule 41 provides that in any of the foregoing circumstances, the
aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action as provided in
Rule 65.
Case in point: Lazaro Pasco and Lauro Pasco vs. Heirs of Filomena de
Guzman, G.R. No. 165554, July 26, 2010.
Domingo v. Court of Appeals*
supra
where an aggrieved party alleges mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, undue
influence, or falsity in the execution of the compromise embodied in a
g
judgment, an action to annul it could be brought before the Court of Appeals,
in accordance with Section 9 (2) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, which gives
that court exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of
judgments of regional trial courts
2. Petition for Relief from Judgment
- Associate Justice of CA Oscar Herrera:
“There seems to be no strong reason why a Petition for Relief from Judgment
based on. The reason why jurisdiction to annul judgments of regional trial
courts was transferred to the Court of Appeals is to avoid a court from annulling
a judgment of a co-equal court. A petition for relief from judgment
presupposes loss of jurisdiction by reason of the finality of the judgment.
The evil sought to be avoided in transferring jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals
is not possible in a petition for relief from judgment, which under the present
rules should be filed only in the same case of the same court. (Sec. 1, Rule
38)
Upon the other hand, under the present rule on annulment of judgment, this
remedy is only available when petition for relief or other appropriate remedies
are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner (Sec. 1); and provides
that extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of or could have
been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. (Sec. 2, Rule 47).
This is a recognition of the Regional Trial Court’s authority to annul its
judgments under Rule 38.”
Jacinto v. Montesa
G.R. No. L-23098, Feb. 28, 1967
Where a judgment based on compromise is sought to be enforced
against a person who was not a party thereto, he may file an original
petition for certiorari to quash the writ of execution. He could not move to
have the compromise agreement set aside since he is not a party to the
compromise agreement or the judgment therein. A petition for relief would be
an inadequate remedy as the execution was already being carried out
GALEON: By inference, the Jacinto case suggests that if the execution is not
yet carried out, then Petition for Relief, therefore, may lie.
From the foregoing rulings and disquisition, it would appear that a party to a
compromise agreement who wishes to annul a compromise agreement
entered into by him has multiple remedies.
But it is my considered view that the safest route is that in Lazaro Pasco and
Lauro Pasco vs. Heirs of Filomena de Guzman, supra – that is to file a
motion to set aside the compromise agreement and, where such motion is
denied, file a certiorari under Rule 65.
JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION (COGNOVIT ACTIONEM)
The court exercises a certain amount of supervision over the entry of judgment,
as well as equitable jurisdiction over their subsequent status (Republic vs. Bisaya
Land Transportation Co., Inc)
When may be rendered? When the defendant appears in court or files a
pleading expressly agreeing to the plaintiff’s demand.
JUDGMENT NOTE
- promissory note where the maker authorizes in advance, on warrant of attorney,
a confession of judgment against him in the event of non-payment of the note on
its maturity
- VOID for contrary to public policy and no law which recognizes this, since the
promisor bargains away his day in court and this might be a source of abuse and
oppression
PNB v. Manila Oil Refining
43 Phil. 444
We are of the opinion that warrants of attorney to confess judgment are not
authorized nor contemplated by our law. We are further of the opinion that
provisions in notes authorizing attorneys to appear and confess
judgments against makers should not be recognized in this jurisdiction
by implication and should only be considered as valid when given express
legislative sanction.”
DISTINCTION
JUDGMENT UPON A
JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION
COMPROMISE
based on the unilateral act of the based on the mutual agreement or
defendant in acknowledging the consent of the party-disputants who
validity of the claim against him likewise mutual agreed on the terms
and provisions of their compromise
agreement
the liability of the defendant, if any, is the defendant confesses the action
to be determined in accordance with and consents to the judgment that the
165

terms and provisions of the court may render in accordance with
agreement of the parties the prayer in the complaint
JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC
In a sense, it is a correction of clerical and not a judicial error. (CIR v. Fortune
Tobacco Corp.)
Filipinas Palmoil Processing, Inc. v. Dejapa*
641 SCRA 572, Feb. 7, 2011
FACTS: Dejapa filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims
against petitioner Filipinas Palmoil Processing, Inc., Villareal and Madula. The
Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Dejapa’s complaint for lack of merit.
Dejapa filed his appeal with the NLRC, which affirmed the LA decision.
Depaja’s motion for reconsideration was denied also by the NLRC.
Aggrieved, he filed with the CA a petition for certiorari.
The CA reversed and set aside the NLRC decision and resolution. The
decretal portion of the decision stated that petitioner was ordered reinstated.
But the CA did not expressly mention who was liable to reinstate the
complaining employee and who was to pay him all awards.
The CA found that petitioner company was Dejapa’s employer and that Madula
was not really an independent contractor, but the Operations Manager. As its
operations manager, he is deemed an agent of private respondent company.
CA ruled that Dejapa was illegally dismissed by petitioner-company. The CA
was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Dejapa filed with the LA a Motion for Execution and Computation of the Award.
The LA issued a Writ of Execution. Pursuant to the said writ of execution,
petitioners' deposit in the UCPB in the amount of P736,910.10 was garnished.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution on the ground that it
can be held liable only insofar as the reinstatement aspect and/or the monetary
award were concerned, but not to backwages. Then, the LA issued its Order
partially granted petitioners' Motion to Quash Writ of Execution, where it held
petitioner liable for P266,757.
Dissatisfied, both parties filed their respective appeals with the NLRC.
Dejapa then filed before the CA a Very Urgent Motion for Clarification of
Judgment, praying carification to the effect that petitioner be made solely liable
to the judgment award. On December 10, 2004, The CA rendered the assailed
Resolution granting Depaja’s motion for clarificatory judgment, the decretal
portion whereof reads: “this Court renders, nunc pro tunc, the following
clarification to the decretal portion of this Court's August 29, 2002 decision.”
This decision of the CA already expressed categorically that the liability
adjudged under its previous decision shall be borne petitioner-company only
and that Madula (the alleged contractor) was not liable therefor.
HELD: The CA did just right in rendering the December 10, 2004 Decision.
As a general rule, final and executory judgments are immutable and
unalterable, except under these recognized exceptions, to wit: (a) clerical
errors; (b) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; and
(c) void judgments. What the CA rendered on December 10, 2004 was a nunc
pro tunc order clarifying the decretal portion of the August 29, 2002 Decision.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Entry of judgments and final orders. — If no appeal or motion
for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these
Rules, the judgment or final order shall forthwith be entered by the clerk
in the book of entries of judgments. The date of finality of the judgment
or final order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry. The record shall
contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final order and shall be
signed by the clerk, within a certificate that such judgment or final order
has become final and executory.
WHEN DOES A JUDGMENT BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY?
(1) If there is no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration that is being filed
against the same within the reglementary period therefor +
(2) The judgment is entered in the book od entries of judgments
The date of finality of the judgment or final order shall also be date of its
entry in the book of entries of judgments (even if the actual entry of the finality
of the decision in the book of entries of judgment is done on a later date)
Note: This is important, because the Entry of Judgment or final order is also
necessary in reckoning some reglementary periods, such as the 5-year period for
execution of judgment by a mere motion (Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of
g
Court) or the 6-month period for filing a petition for relief (Section 3, Rule 38
of the Rules of Court).
RULES ON AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENTS
Before Finality of Judgments
The power to amend a judgment is inherent in the court before the judgment
becomes final and executory.
RULE 135. Section 5. Inherent powers of the courts – Every court shall
have the power: (g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to
make them conformable to law and justice.
Quintin Sta. Maria v. Hon. Alberto Ubay,
A.M. No. 595-CFI, Dec. 11, 1978
Courts have the inherent power to amend and control their processes and
orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. Certainly,"[a] judge
has an inherent right, while his judgment is still under his control, to
correct errors, mistakes, or injustices. After the judgment becomes final, of
course, he loses his right to change or modify it in the slightest degree, except
for the purpose of correcting clerical errors."
To deprive the judge of power to amend his own judgment to make it
conformable to law and justice, before the expiration of the statutory period for
appeal, would limit his power without authority of statute, in disregard of
sound rules of practice and in violation of the provisions of the Rules of Court
Also: Eternal Gardens Memorial Parks Corporation vs. CA., G.R. No.
73794, September 19, 1988).
Note: It is because of this that motions for reconsideration are allowed to be filed
to convince the courts that their rulings are erroneous and improper
EFFECTS OF AMENDED JUDGMENT
1. It supersedes the original judgment (Esquivel, et al. vs. Alegre)
2. It is not considered a supplemental decision. A supplemental decision does
not take the place of or extinguish the original; it only serves to bolster or add
something to the primary decision (Esquivel, et al., vs. Alegre, supra).
After Finality of Judgments
GENERAL RULE: After a judgment becomes final and executory, by the
expiration of the time to appeal, no further amendment or correction can be made
by the court which rendered the judgment.
EXCEPTIONS: Amendments may be made for:
1. Clerical errors or mistakes (Nieva vs. Manila Banking Corp)
2. Nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; and
3. Void judgments (Filipinas Palmoil Processing, Inc. vs. Dejapa)
Aguerre vs. Aguerre
G.R. No. L-33080, Aug. 25, 1974
It a mere clerical error when the CA, in its decision, stated therein that actual
damages due the petitioners is only Php1,000.00, when from the body of its
decision, it unequivocally found and mentioned that the damages due them
amounted to P1,000 yearly since 1995.
Filipinas Palmoil case
the Supreme Court affirmed the rendition by the CA of a resolution clarifying
its earlier decision, as by stating clearly that the liability adjudged in its earlier
decision shall be borne by Filipinas Palmoil Processing Inc. only. The
resolution of the Court of Appeals was meant to correct a clerical error and by
way of nunc pro tunc judgment.
People v. Medrano
122 SCRA 586
The Supreme Court issued a resolution amending its previous decision which
had already attained finality, thereby deleting the increased sentence
imposed on accused Medrano after the Supreme Court noted that Medrano
was not among those who appealed from the decision of the lower court. The
sentence against him, said the Supreme Court, is void for want of jurisdiction
over his case.
Ablaza v. Sycip, et al.,
G.R. No. L-121125, Nov. 23, 1960
Once a decision becomes final, even the court which rendered it cannot
lawfully alter or modify the same, especially where the alteration or
modification is material and substantial
Samson v. Hon. Montejo
G.R. No. L-18605, Oct. 31, 1963
166

Where a final judgment of an executory character had been rendered in a suit,
the mission of the court is limited to the execution and enforcement of the said
final judgment in all of its parts and in accordance with its express orders.
Johnson & Johnson [Phils.], Inc. v. CA
212 SCRA 299
Litigations must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, it being
essential to the effective and efficient administration of justice that once a
judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere
subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. No matter how just the intention
of the trial court, it cannot legally reverse what has already been settled
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE BODY OF THE DECISION AND ITS FALLO:
WHERE A JUDGMENT ATTAINS FINALITY, IT IS ENTITLED TO
ENFORCEMENT OR EXECUTION.
PARTS OF A JUDGMENT:
1. The body of the judgment or the ratio decidendi; and
2. The dispositive portion of the judgment or the fallo; the WHEREFORE part
NOTE: The fallo is the only portion of the decision that is subject to execution.
GENERAL RULE: If there is a conflict between the fallo of the decision and the
ratio decidendi, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo
is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering
nothing. (Contreras v. Felix)
EXCEPTION: Where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so
clear that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the
decision will prevail (Aguirre v. Aguirre; Locsin v. Paredes)
Light Rail Transit Authority v. CA
444 SCRA 125
The fallo is the dispositive part of the judgment that actually settles and
declares the rights and obligations of the parties, finally, definitively, and
authoritatively, notwithstanding the existence of inconsistent statements in the
body that may tend to confuse.
Example: The dispositive part makes the defendant merely jointly liable even if
in the body of the decision it was seemingly found to be solidarily liable, the
dispositive part or the fallo must prevail, on the theory that the fallo is the final
order of disposition and actual adjudication of the rights litigated.
Contreras v. Felix*
78 Phil. 570
FACTS: Contreras and Gingco brought a suit against China Banking
Corporation, Inc., Molina and Arenas, husband and wife to annul a mortgage
executed by the spouses in favor of the Bank and to recover damages.
CFI Manila absolved the Bank but condemned the other two defendants to pay
various amounts in various concepts. However, the case was elevated to the
Supreme Court, where it rendered judgment that the mortgage was null and
that all defendants pay P6,951.The decision of the Supreme Court attained
finality, and the case was sent back to the lower court and execution was
issued.
The sheriff at first undertook to collect from the China Banking Corporation ½
of the judgment, but the bank averred that it was only liable for 1/3 of the
judgment.
Therefore arises the issue as to how to execute the decision of the Supreme
Court, and on whether the bank was liable solidarily or jointly.
HELD: China Banking Corporation's liability under the terms of the judgment
of the SC is merely joint. When it is not provided in a judgment that the
defendants are liable to pay jointly and severally a certain sum of money, none
of them may be compelled to satisfy in full said judgments.
A judgment must be distinguished from an opinion. The latter is the informal
expression of the views of the court and cannot prevail against its final order
or decision. While the two may be combined in one instrument, the opinion
forms no part of the judgment. There is a distinction between the findings
and conclusions of a court and its judgment. While they may constitute its
decision and amount to the rendition of a judgment, they are not the judgment
itself. They amount to nothing more than an order for judgment, which must, of
course, be distinguished from the judgement.
In the case at bar, the petitioners relied on the statement that “the bank must
answer for the amounts as a consequence of the conclusion of the nullity
of the mortgage.” This statement was made in reference to the assignment
of error of the court, where it stated “that the trial court had failed to order
g
than bank to indemnify Gingo.” These statements did not exhibit any
intention to hold the bank liable in solido. The idea of solidarity is no more
manifest that the idea of mere joint liability among the co-obligators.
If there was any intention to make the defendants' obligation under the
judgment solidary, it is not apparent from the language employed. If there
was inadvertence on the part of the court, the omission was not so obvious as
to justify rectification. Nowhere in the decision is there any reference to article
1902 of the Civil Code, or unequivocal declaration that each of the defendants
was bound to the performance or payment of the entire judgment.
Even if the liability of the bank arose from tort and is in solido, it is now too late
to enforce that liability in the manner specified in the applicable provisions.
When a claim or demand has been put in suit and has passed on to final
judgment, it is merged and swallowed up in the judgment and loses its
vitality. All the particular qualities of the claim are merged in the judgment.
And this rule applies to all claims or demand. (34 C.J., 752, 754.)
In another connection this court has ruled: "It is of no consequence that the
obligation contracted by the sureties was joint and several in character. The
final judgment, which superseded the action brought for the enforcement of
said contract, declared the obligation to be merely joint, and the same cannot
be executed otherwise.
WHAT CAN BE CULLED FROM THIS CASE: The perceived conflict between
the fallo and decision was more imagined than real because the court had not
really intended to hold the China Bank solidarily liable with the other
defendants, and it was not also mentioned in the body of the decision that
China Banking Corporation, Inc.’s liability is solidary with the other defendants
therein.
The general rule applies – the fallo must prevail over the opinions and matter
discussed in the ratio decidendi.
Locsin v. Paredes*
63 Phil. 688
FACTS: Respondent Hodges filed a complaint in CFI Iloilo against the
petitioners Locsin for the recovery of the sum of P16,417.25 with interest
thereon, representing the proceeds of a joint and several promissory note
signed by the petitioners in question, which promissory note was reproduced
in said complaint and made an integral part thereof. In the prayer of said
complaint, it was requested that the therein defendants and petitioners Locsin
be ordered to pay jointly and severally to the herein respondent and therein
plaintiff Hodges.
After the necessary proceedings, the petitioners admitted the existence of said
debt. The respondent judge ordered that “defendants pay plaintiff X sum.”
Such was final and executory.
Pending execution, the respondent filed a motion praying that additional [later
he motioned to make it an amendatory judgment] judgment be rendered,
ordering the petitioners to pay solidarily. The judge denied him, which
prompted respondent that the word “severally” was inadvertently omitted from
the dispositive part of the decision through slip of the pen.
The respondent court then issued an amendatory Order inserting the word
“severally” in the fallo – making the defendants jointly and severally liable.
HELD: it is clear from the allegations of the complaint, the prayer thereof, the
evidence and the conclusions of fact and of law arrived at by the trial judge in
his decision that the obligation, compliance with which is sought to be enforced
through the courts, is joint and several in character. It should be understood
that the intention of the judge has been to order that payment be made
jointly and severally, although the word "severally" was not used in the
dispositive part of said judgment, through oversight, and the judge in question,
in supplying the omission by means of an amendment, has done nothing but
clarify an ambiguity.
Galeon comment: The body of the decision indubitably discussed how the
liability incurred was to be solidary. Only that it was by omission or
inadvertence that there was a failure to insert in the dispositive portion of its
decision the word “severally,” so as to make it clear that their liability is solidary;
hence, the error therein is found be clerical in nature.
People v. Cilot
G.R. No. 208410, Oct. 19, 2016
Where there is a conflict between the fallo, or the dispositive part, and the body
of the decision or order, the fallo prevails on the theory that the fallo is the
final order and becomes the subject of execution, while the body of the
decision merely contains the reasons or conclusions of the court
ordering nothing.
167

We are aware of an exception to the aforestated rule, i.e., where one can
clearly and unquestionably conclude from the body of the decision that there
was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.
The mistake contemplated in the exception refers to a clerical error.
In Spouses Rebuldea v. IAC, the Court held that the trial court did not gravely
abuse its discretion when it corrected the dispositive portion of its decision
to make it conform to the body of the decision, and to rectify the clerical
errors which interchanged the mortgagors and the mortgagee. In People v.
Lacbayan, the mistake in the dispositive portion of the decision pertains to the
omission of actual damages and a wrong amount attached to moral damages
when it was clear from the body of the decision that the trial court did in fact
award the heirs of the victim P30,069.00 as actual damages and P100,000.00
as moral damages.
What are clerical errors?
ü All errors, mistakes, or omissions which are not the result of the
exercise of the judicial function (Llanes and Company v. Bocar)
ü Typographical errors
ü Not a judicial error à not open to correction on motion in the court
which made it
SUMMATIVE GUIDELINES ON CONFLICT BETWEEN FALLO AND RATIO
DECIDENDI
1. When the dispositive portion (fallo) of a final and executory judgment is clear,
definite, unequivocal, and unmistakable and can be wholly given effect without
need of interpretation or construction, the fallo should be enforced, to the
exclusion of anything in the body of decision (Contreras vs. Felix)
2. If the fallo is rather ambiguous or equivocal, the concerned party should file
a motion for a so-called clarificatory judgment (Almendras v. Del Rosario)
3. If there is truly an ambiguity in the fallo, and if only to get the true intent and
meaning thereof, it must be construed in harmony with the spirit of the body
of the decision (Filipinas Palmoil Processing, Incs. v. Dejapa)
4. The fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a statement
ordering nothing (Contreras vs. Felix)
5. If the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear that there
was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.
This is in terms of a clerical error. For the court may correct a clerical error or
clarify an ambiguity in the judgment even after finality (Presbitero v. CA)
THE RULE ON STARE DECISIS
STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE
When the Supreme Court has laid down a principle of law to a certain state of
facts, such principle, once it attained finality, will be adhered to and applied to all
future cases where the facts are substantially the same (Republic v. Del Rosario)
unless the same is overturned by the Supreme Court.
Recall: section 9. NCC
Olympia Housing, Inc. v. Lapastora
G.R. No. 18769, Jan. 13, 2016
The rule enjoins adherence by the lower courts to doctrinal rules established
by the Court in its final decision. It is based on the principle that once a question
of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and
closed to further argument. It is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same
issues, necessary for two simple reasons: economy and judicial stability.
STARE DECISIS RED JUDICATA
follow past precedents and do not matter adjudged
disturb what has been settled
For the sake of certainty, a a judgment on the merits in a
conclusion reached in one case previous case rendered by a court of
should be doctrinally applied to those competent jurisdiction would bind a
that follow if the facts are subsequent case if, between the first
substantially the same, even though and second actions, there exists an
the parties may be different. identity of parties, of subject matter,
and of causes of action.
It proceeds from the first principle of
justice that, absent any powerful
countervailing considerations, like
cases ought to be decided alike.
Thus, where the same questions
relating to the same event have been
put forward by the parties similarly
situated as in a previous case
litigated and decided by a competent
court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar
g
to any attempt to re-litigate the same
issue.
only to decisions rendered by the may apply to decisions of the trial
Supreme Court court and even those of quasi-judicial
bodies
Focal point: doctrines created, Judgement, would bind a subsequent
proceeds from the first principle of case if, between the first and second
justice that, absent any powerful actions, there exists an identity of
countervailing considerations, like parties, of subject matter, and of
cases ought to be decided alike causes of action.
Case: Belgica vs. Ochoa
PRO HAC VICE
“for this one particular case”
- such case cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern subsequent cases
- an exception to the rule of Stare Decisis
People v. Licayan*
415 Phil. 459
FACTS: All the accused were convicted of the crime of kidnapping for ransom
and sentenced to death by the trial court. More than two years after their
conviction became final and executory, the accused Lara and Licayan filed an
Urgent Motion to Re-Open the Case with Leave of Court. They attached
thereto the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by two of their co-accused in the
case, to the effect that Lara and Licayan had not participated in the commission
of the crime. The OSG also recommended the reopening of the case.
RULING: This Court remanded the case to the trial court for the reception of
newly discovered evidence and granted PRO HAC VICE the Urgent Motion to
Re-Open the Case with Leave of Court. [SC provided a pro hac vice ruling.]
Thus, in the subsequent case of Tajeda vs. People*, 691 SCRA 252, February
20, 2013, the invocation of the accused therein of the ruling in People vs. Licayan,
supra, was not sustained.
Tajeda v. People*
691 SCRA 252, Feb. 20, 2013
FACTS: The convicted accused moved for the reopening of the homicide
case against them, on the basis of the extrajudicial confession of their co-
accused, a certain Plaridel (who was only arrested after the conviction of the
accused-movants) who admitted to the killing.
RULING: The Supreme Court rejected the plea of the convicted accused and
cannot invoke the ruling of People v. Licayan, because such case was
only granted pro hac vice.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Judgment for or against one or more of several parties. —
Judgment may be given for or against one or more of several plaintiffs
and for or against one or more of several defendants. When justice so
demands, the court may require the parties on each side to file adversary
pleadings as between themselves and determine their ultimate rights and
obligations.
Applicability: There are two or more plaintiffs and/or two or more defendants.
THE JUDGMENT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE IN FAVOR OF ALL
PLAINTIFFS, OR IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST ALL THE DEFENDANTS.
ILLUSTRATION 1: Waldi and Renato, joint debtors, obtained a loan from Randi,
in the amount of Php100,000.00, divded equally. Alleging that he had not been
paid of the loan, Randi subsequently filed a collection suit against Waldi and
Renato. In trial, Waldi proved Php50,000.00 payment to Randi. Renato was
proven to have failed payment.
ANALYSIS: In the judgment of the court, only Renato shall be adjudged liable to
pay PhP50,000.00 to Randi. Waldi shall be absolved of any liability.
ILLUSTRATION 2: Waldi and Renato, joint creditors, granted loan to Randi, in
the total amount of Php100,000.00, divded equally. Alleging that they had not been
of the loan, Waldi and Renato subsequently filed a collection suit against Randi.
In trial, Randi proved payment of Php50,000.00 to Waldi. It was established that
Randi has not yet paid what he owed to Renato.
ANALYSIS: Only Renato shall be decreed to be entitled to be paid PhP50,000.00
by Randi. Waldi shall not be given a similar award.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Several judgments. — In an action against several defendants,
the court may, when a several judgment is proper, render judgment
168

against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed against the
others.
Applicability: Case of two or more defendants, regardless number of plaintiffs
THE COURT MAY, WHEN A SEVERAL JUDGMENT IS PROPER, RENDER
JUDGMENT AGAINST ONE OR MORE OF THE SEVERAL DEFENDANTS,
LEAVING THE ACTION TO PROCEED AGAINST THE OTHER.
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi and Renato, joint debtors, obtained a loan from Randi,
in the amount of Php100,000.00, divided equally. Alleging that he had not been
paid of the loan, Randi subsequently filed a collection suit against Waldi and
Renato. In his answer, Waldi advanced the defense that he had already paid his
due. Renato interposed the defense that Randi had already condoned the
former’s obligation.
Not to muddle the issue, the court directed, and all the parties agreed, that
there would be separate trials – First, as between Waldi and Randi, and, next,
as between Renato and Randi. In trial between Waldi and Randi, Waldi proved
due payment.
ANALYSIS: the court may already issue a judgment exonerating Waldi of any
liability to Randi, even as the court is yet to continue with trial as between Renato
and Randi.
DISTINCTION:
SECTION 3, RULE 36 SECTION 4, RULE 36
Judgment against several plaintiffs/ Several Judgment
defendants
involve ONE JUDGMENT for or involve a situation where there are
against one or more of several SEVERAL JUDGMENTS for or
plaintiffs, or for or against one or against one or more of several
more of several defendants defendants
only apply if the liability of each
defendant is clearly separable and
distinct from that of his co-parties
- the claims against each of them
could have been the subject of
separate suits, and judgment for or
against one of them will not
necessarily affect the other
(Fernando v. Santamaria)
NOTE: Section 4, Rule 36 WILL NOT APPLY IF THE DEFENDATS ARE
SOLIDARY, because of their common cause of action.
Co v. Acosta*
134 SCRA 185, 1985
reiterating the case of Lim Tanhu vs. Ramolete (66 scra 425)
FACTS: A and B were solidary debtors of C, who eventually sued them for
nonpayment. A filed an answer but B did not. The case was tried based on A’s
answer. C moved to drop A from the case, but sought to retain action against
B.
ISSUE: Is the motion of C proper?
HELD: NO. When there is a common cause against two or more
defendants. If you drop the case against one, you drop the case against
all. Selection is not allowed. To drop A means that the cause of action against
him is weak. Why should one drop somebody if a case against such person is
meritorious? If such is the fact, necessarily the cause of action against the
other is also weak, given the fact there is actually a common cause of action.
This ruling applies the Rule 9:
Rule 9. Section 3 - (c) Effect of partial default. — When a pleading
asserting a claim states a common cause of action against several
defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the
court shall try the case against all upon the answers thus filed and render
judgment upon the evidence presented.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Separate judgments. — When more than one claim for relief is
presented in an action, the court, at any stage, upon a determination of
the issues material to a particular claim and all counterclaims arising out
of the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the claim,
may render a separate judgment disposing of such claim. The judgment
shall terminate the action with respect to the claim so disposed of and
the action shall proceed as to the remaining claims. In case a separate
judgment is rendered the court by order may stay its enforcement until
the rendition of a subsequent judgment or judgments and may prescribe
such conditions as may be necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the
party in whose favor the judgment is rendered.
g
THE RENDITION OF MORE THAN ONE JUDGMENT
- anchored mainly on the existence of several claims for reliefs, such that the
latter provision may apply even if there is only one defendant (unlike Section 4 with
many defendants) for as long as there is separate trial for the several claims for
reliefs
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed a case against Randi for recovery of personal
properties, sum of money, plus damages, anchored on separate causes of
action, albeit such causes were joined under one complaint:
Cause of Action # 1: Recovery of a specific SUV, per a Contract of Sale;
Cause of Action # 2: Recovery of a motorbike, per a separate Contract of Sale;
Cause of Action # 3: Collection of unpaid loan, founded on promissory note.
Randi filed his answer, foisting varying defenses against for Waldi’s different
causes of action, with counterclaims and permissive counterclaims.
Not to muddle the issue, the court directed, and all the parties agreed, that
there would be separate trials for each and every cause of action vis-à-vis
the corresponding counterclaims, as well as a separate trial for Randi’s
permissive counterclaims.
ANALYSIS: In this case, the court may render a separate judgment for Waldi’s
cause of action # 1, once reception of the evidence in chief and the countervailing
evidence therefor has been done, even as the court is yet to continue with the trial
for causes of action # 2 and # 3, and for the permissive counterclaim.
NOTE: When separate judgment is rendered, the court, by order, may stay its
enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent judgment and may prescribe
such conditions as may be necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the party in
whose favor the judgment is rendered.
REMEDY OF AN AGGRIEVED PARTY FROM THE SEPARATE JUDGMENT:
à AN APPEAL.
Bank of America NT & SA v. CA
G.R. No. 78017, June 8, 1990
The party aggrieved by such a "several" or separate judgment may disagree
with the Court as to its propriety, in which case he may seek its reversal by
appealing therefrom. But it is appeal that is the remedy against a final order
or judgment, not a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. If the party
does not appeal, the judgment becomes final and executory
Can a party file an appeal while the other parts of the case are still unsettled?
Yes, invoking Bank of America v. CA
No, invoking Rule 41 & Justice Herrara’s opinion
RULE 41. Section 1. Subject of appeal. — No appeal may be taken from:
(f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties
or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party
complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an
appeal therefrom;
REGALADO OPINION: Appeals are not absolutely prohibited but depend
upon the circumstances of the case and the sound discretion of the court.
HERRERA OPINION: The court may not allow separate appeals to be taken
until judgment has been rendered on all claims.
How would the party know whether the court will allow separate appeals or
not?
GALEON: You will have two options with two different consequences.
OPTION 1:
1. File a notice of appeal with a record on appeal from the adverse separate
judgment.
2. The court will either hear or deny his appeal.
3. If granted, the court will issue an order, decreeing the deferment on the action
on such notice of appeal until the case is fully terminated with the rendition of
judgment or judgments on the remaining claims in the case
Note: By filing an appeal, the party cannot be considered as having waived his
prerogative to interpose a timely appeal.
OPTION 2
1. File a Manifestation and Motion, informing the court of his intention to file a
separate appeal
2. Such should also ask the court a leave to file such purported separate
appeal
Note: This is less tedious, but the danger here is when the court does not resolve
such motion within the period for perfecting such separate appeal
169
 g

SECTION 6
Section 6. Judgment against entity without juridical personality. — When
judgment is rendered against two or more persons sued as an entity
without juridical personality, the judgment shall set out their individual
or proper names, if known.
JUDGMENT AGAINST ENTITES WITH NO JUDICIAL PERSONALITY
The court must set out in its judgment on the individual or proper names of the
persons who composed such entity sans juridical personality. Such names are
found in the answer of the defendant, who are mandated by Section 15, Rule 3 to
be revealed.
Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. —In the
answer of such defendant, the name and addresses of the persons
composing said entity must all be revealed.
RULE 37 - NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATIONS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or
reconsideration. — Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved
party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order
and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially
affecting the substantial rights of said party:
These periods only apply to judgment or an order that finally disposes of a
civil action (Heirs of Timbang, et al. vs. Atty. Abdulla Alug)
However, in criminal cases, and pursuant to the Revised Guidelines for
Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases, a motion for reconsideration of the
resolution of the so-called meritorious motion must be filed within a non-
extendible period of five (5) calendar days from notice thereof.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
GROUNDS:
1. Damages awarded are excessive,
2. Evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order
3. Decision or final order is contrary to law.
Cahn Suanco v. Alonso,
14 Phil. 517
Even without any such motion for reconsideration filed by any party to the
action, the court can motu proprio amend, as it has the inherent power so
to amend, its judgment before it attains finality if it subsequently finds that the
damages it awarded therein are excessive, or that the evidence is insufficient
to justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary
to law.

(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary CASES WHERE MR IS PROHIBITED:
prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which such 1. Civil case covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure;
aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights; or 2. Unlawful detainer
3. Forcible entry
(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable 4. Small claims cases;
diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if 5. In petitions for a writ of amparo or a writ of habeas data (The MR that is
presented would probably alter the result. prohibited is one which is directed against interlocutory order; hence, MR on the
main judgment is permitted)
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for
reconsideration upon the grounds that the damages awarded are MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final
order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law. OBJECTIVE - to bring to the attention of the trial court errors which may have
been committed in the course of the trial, and to enable the court to correct such
REMEDIES BEFORE FINALITY OF JUDGMENT: errors without subject the parties to the expense and inconvenience of prosecuting
1. Motion for Reconsideration review proceedings (Waxham vs. Fink)
2. Motion for New Trial
3. Appeal CASES WHERE MNT IS PROHIBITED:
1. Civil case covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure;
REMEDIES AFTER FINALITY OF JUDGMENT: 2. Unlawful detainer
1. Petition of Relief from Judgment 3. Forcible entry;
2. Action for Annulment of Judgment 4. Small claims cases;
3. Petition for Certiorari
4. Collateral Attack of a Judgment GROUNDS:
1. Fraud;
Rule 37 à Motion for New Trial and Motion for Reconsideration 2. Accident;
3. Mistake;
PERIOD FOR FILING A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR A MOTION 4. Excusable Negligence;
FOR NEW TRIAL: 5. Newly discovered evidence.

It must filed within the period for taking an appeal. (1) FRAUD
- must be extrinsic fraud in order to warrant the filing of a motion for new trial and/or
PERIODS OF TAKING AN APPEAL: the grant thereof; not intrinsic fraud

Within 15 the appeal is made by mere notice of Sec. 2, Rule 40 EXTRINSIC FRAUD
calendar days appeal Sec. 3, Rule 41 - fraud which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his
from notice of Sec. 3, Rule 45 case to the court, or was used to procure the judgment without fair submission of
judgment the controversy.
for cases which require a record on Sec. 2, Rule 40
appeal for the perfection of the Sec. 3, Rule 41 Magno vs. CA
Within 30 days appeal, such as in special
from notice proceedings, and in ordinary cases Instances of collateral fraud are acts intended to keep the unsuccessful party
which allow multiple or separate away from the court by false promise of a compromise, or purposely keeps
appeals* him in ignorance of the suit, or where the attorney pretends to represent a party
Within 48 hours in habeas corpus cases Sec. 3, Rule 41 and connives at his defeat, or corruptly sells out his client’s interest, etc
from notice of
decision INTRINSIC FRAUD
- the act of a party at the trial which prevented a fair and just determination of the
NOTE: If the court allows separate appeals, multiple appeals may be had, as case and which could have been litigated and determined at the trial or
discussed in Section 4 and 5, Rule 36. When allowed, filing of records on appeal adjudication of the case [such as falsification (introduction in evidence of a falsified
is necessary. evidence), false testimony and so forth, and does not constitute a ground for new
trial] (Conde vs. IAC)
Another note: Service of judgment on party represented by counsel is not - not a ground for filing a motion for new trial, but the aggrieved party may file a
considered the official notice and receipt of the judgment (De los Santos vs. motion for reconsideration
Elizalde)
ILLUSTRATION1: A case was filed in court, and summons was issued, but the
NOTE: These periods of appeals do not apply to a motion for reconsideration on plaintiff and the court process server connived to make it appear that the summons
a mere interlocutory order, as they may be filed even beyond the 15 calendar was served on the defendant, albeit not true. The court issued an order of
days. default. Thereafter, plaintiff was allowed to present evidence ex parte. Then,
ultimately the court issued judgment by default. Copy of the judgment by default is
served on the defendant.

170

Q: What kind of fraud is that?
A: Extrinsic fraud.
Q: Suppose the defendant had been served with the order declaring him in
default, what would be his remedy, if any?
A: File a motion to set aside the default order, pursuant to Section 3 (b), Rule
9 of the Amended Rules.
Q: Suppose the defendant has not been served with the order declaring him
in default but he is served with the judgment by default, what is his remedy, if
any?
A: File a motion for new trial under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, the same to
be filed within the period for taking an appeal.
ILLUSTRATION2: In the trial for recovery of ownership and possession of a
parcel of land, the defendant presented evidence tending to show that he acquired
the property from the plaintiff, consisting of a falsified deed of sale and the
perjured testimony of a witness. Plaintiff, through counsel, was able to examine
the defendant’s evidence and cross-examine the latter’s witness. Plaintiff even
presented rebuttal evidence. But the court decided the case in favor the defendant,
as it lent credence to the evidence offered by the defendant.
Q: Can the plaintiff file a motion for new trial?
A: No. What was involved here is an intrinsic fraud – i.e., the introduction in
evidence of falsified evidence and a perjured testimony – or one that is committed
in the trial itself. It is not an extrinsic fraud. Motion for new trial, therefore, is
unavailing.
Q: What is plaintiff’s remedy then, if any?
A: He may file a motion for reconsideration, thereby pointing out that the court
miserably erred in giving credence to defendant’s evidence. Plaintiff should
point out any admissions on cross-examination or any evidence that may establish
that defendant’s evidence is sham or incredulous.
(2) ACCIDENT
To warrant the filing of MNT à the party seeking it had exercised diligence to
ascertain the facts which, it is claimed surprised or prevented said party from
presenting his case (Sunico vs. Villapando)
EXAMPLE: The hearing was conducted on June 5, 2020 but the party’s lawyer
received the notice for such hearing only on June 9, 2020. The failure to attend a
trial for lack of advance notice is an accident and can be a ground for MNT. (Soloria
vs. De la Cruz)
EXAMPLE: Defendant was declared in default for his supposed failure to file an
answer, when, in truth and in fact, he filed an answer through registered mail,
only that there was a delay in the delivery thereof to the court (Ong Guan Can v.
Century Inc)
(3) MISTAKE
- Some unintentional act, omission or error arising from ignorance, surprise,
imposition or misplaced confidence. It is the result of ignorance of law or of fact
that has mislead a person to commit that which, if he had not been in error, he
could not have done
- It may arise either from unconsciousness, ignorance, forgetfulness, imposition,
or misplaced confidence (Black’s Law Dictionary)
EXAMPLE: Defendant was declared in default, as his answer was late by 1 day.
The judgment by default was nonetheless set aside because the late filing of the
answer was due to the mistaken belief that the month of October consists not just
of 30 days but of 31 days (Mata vs. Flores)
EXAMPLE: Defendant was declared in default for his failure to file his answer
and to appear for trial, but the reason for his failure so to file answer in the case
and appear therein was because he and the plaintiff had already entered into a
compromise agreement which the plaintiff did not, however, inform the court about
(Salazar vs. Salazar)
(4) EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE
- a failure to take the proper steps at a proper time, not in consequence of a party’s
carelessness, inattention, or willful disregard of process of the unavoidable
hindrance or accident, or on reliance on the care and vigilance of his counsel or
on promises made by the adverse party (Black’s Law Dictionary)
GENERAL RULE: A client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel (Que vs. CA),
in like manner that a client is bound by the negligence of his lawyer (Ayllon vs.
Sevilla).
The negligence of the lawyer is, more often than not, considered inexcusable, and
in a few instances excusable.
Examples of excusable negligence:
g
• Failure to file the answer on time because counsel’s employee who was
commissioned to file the answer was suddenly taken ill and the lawyer was
not informed of his failure to file the answer until it was too late
(Bustamante vs. Alfonso)
• Failure to appear after filing a motion for postponement because counsel
was attending to a detention prisoner’s case (Lopez vs. Cabaies)
Examples of inexcusable negligence:
• Failure to appear without filing a motion for postponement (Bufete vs.
Victoriano)
• Repeated failure to appear because the office clerk misfiled the notice
of hearing and who then went on vacation. The lawyer, said the Supreme
Court, should have first inquired for court notices received by the clerk
before allowing the latter to take vacation (Mendoza vs. Bulandi)
• The lawyer who forgot to note the notice of hearing in his calendar does
not constitute accident, mistake or excusable negligence contemplated in
the rules (Antonio vs. Ramos)
• Volume of work of lawyer is not an excuse (Velasco vs. Ortiz)
OTHER NOTES:
Republic v. Arro
G.R. No. L-48241, June 11, 987
The rule in this jurisdiction is that the client is bound by the negligence or
failings of counsel. It is the duty of an attorney to himself and to his clients to
invariably adopt a system whereby he can be sure of receiving promptly all
judicial notices during his absence from his address of record. The attorney
must so arrange matters that communications sent by mail, addressed to his
office or residence, may reach him promptly. The negligence of a counsel's
secretary in failing to note down the trial date on his desk calendar is
negligence and failings of counsel in having a negligent secretary — said
circumstances are not constituting excusable negligence
Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA
G.R. No. 100643, Oct. 30, 1992
Making the law office secretary, clerk or messenger the scapegoat or patsy for
the delay in filing of pleading, motion and other paper and for the lawyer's
dereliction of duty is a common alibi of practicing lawyer. Like the alibi of the
accused in criminal cases, counsel's shifting of the blame to his office
employee is usually a concoction utilized to cover up his own negligence,
incompetence, indolence and ineptitude
People v. Manzanilla
43 Phil. 167
This Court has held that mistakes of counsel as to the competency of
witnesses, the sufficiency and relevancy of evidence, the proper defense,
or the burden of proof, his failure to introduce certain evidence, or to
summon witnesses and to argue the case, are not proper grounds for a
new trial, unless the incompetence of counsel be so great that his client is
prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting his case.
Lim Tupas v. CA
193 SCRA 597
The reason behind the rule that the negligence or mistake of counsel would
bind the client is that, according to the Supreme Court, there will be no end to
a suit so long as new counsel could be employed and who could allege
negligence or incompetence of the former lawyer.
Florendo v. Florendo
27 SCRA 432
Litigants, represented by counsel, should not expect that all they need to do is
sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case. They should give the
necessary assistance to their counsel for what is at stake is their interest in the
case (Greenhills Air-conditioning and Services, Inc. vs. NLRC) It is the duty of
the duty of a party litigant to make inquiries to counsel on matters concerning
his case.
People v. Manzanilla
43 Phil. 167
The negligence of counsel may become a ground for new trial if it was so
great such that the party was prejudiced and prevented from fairly
presenting his case
People’s Homesite and Housing Corp. v. Tiongco*
G.R. No. L-188891, Nov. 28, 1964
FACTS: People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC) filed a case for
recovery of possession against Tiongco and Escasa. When the case was
set for hearing, the defendants’ lawyer failed to notify them of the scheduled
hearings. When the case was heard, they were absent. The court rendered
judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Although the judgment was received by counsel for the defendants, the
counsel never informed them about the matter. Neither did he take steps to
171
 g

protect the interests of his clients, by presenting a motion for reconsideration
and/or filing a petition to set aside judgment. Defendants only came to know
when they were served them a copy of writ of execution ordering them to
vacate.
Defendants then engaged the services of another lawyer, who presented with
the lower Court a Petition for Relief from Judgment (because the judgment
already attained finality), accompanied by affidavits of merit.
The former lawyer admitted to the court that he did not inform the defendants
of the hearing, as he forgot all about the same; that he received the decision
but did not also inform the defendants about it, because he forgot all about
the case, explaining that he had so many ejectment cases then, that the
orders and decisions in the case just escaped his attention.
HELD: The petition for relief should be granted.
There should be no dispute regarding the doctrine that normally notice to
counsel is notice to parties, and that such doctrine has beneficient effects upon
the prompt dispensation of justice. Its application to a given case, however,
should be looked into and adopted, according to the surrounding
circumstances; otherwise, in the court's desire to make a short cut of the
proceedings, it might foster, wittingly or unwittingly, dangerous collusions to
the detriment of justice. It would then be easy for one lawyer to sell one's rights
down the river, by just alleging that he just forgot every process of the court
affecting his clients, because he was so busy. Under this circumstance, one
should not insist that a notice to such irresponsible lawyer is also a
notice to his clients.
(5) NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
REQUISITES:
(1) The evidence was “discovered” after trial;
(2) Such evidence could not have been “discovered” (secured) and produced at
the trial with reasonable diligence;
(3) It is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching;
(4) It is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment
Case: Ombudsman-Mindanao v. Liling Lanto Ibrahim
It is to the latter that the requirement of due diligence has relevance. In order
that a particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded as newly
discovered to justify new trial, what is essential is not so much the time when
the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the time when it first came
to the knowledge of the party now submitting it; what is essential is that the
offering party had exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such
evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it
ILLUSTRATION1: Randi filed a case for collection of unpaid loan against Renato.
In his answer, Renato interposed the defense of payment but failed to present any
receipt proving such payment because Randi did not issue any receipt. At the trial,
or even before the start thereof, Renato would have wanted to present, as his lone
and vital witness, Mr. Waldi, as the latter was around when Renato tendered the
payment to Randi. The problem was that Waldi could not testify, as he has
been kidnapped and held captive by the Abu Sayaf. The government and the
family of Waldi, and even Renato, exerted diligent efforts to secure Waldi’s release
but all their efforts went to naught. After trial, the court resolved the case in favor
of Randi.
3 days after Renato’s lawyer received a copy of the adverse judgment, Waldi was
released from captivity, and, upon knowing of Renato’s predicament, Waldi
voluntarily executed an affidavit in Renato’s favor.
Q: Can Renato file a motion for new trial on the basis of the basis of Waldi’s
testimony?
A: Yes.
Q: But can Waldi’s testimony be regarded a “newly discovered evidence,” when
right from the get-go, Renato already knew about Waldi’s would-be testimony and
the importance thereof in proving his (Renato’s) defense?
A: It is still considered a newly discovered evidence. In order that a particular
piece of evidence may be properly regarded as newly discovered to justify new
trial, what is essential is not so much the time when the evidence offered first
sprang into existence nor the time when it first came to the knowledge of the party
now submitting it; what is essential is that the offering party had
exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or
during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it (Custodio, et. al., v.
Sandiganbayan)

Tumang v. CA Q: Suppose Waldi had not been kidnapped, only that Renato did not deem it
G.R. No. 82072, Apr. 17, 1989 necessary to present Waldi as his (Renato’s) witness, confident that his sole
testimony would be enough, can Renato, after encountering an adverse decision,
Newly discovered evidence, under prevailing jurisprudence, need not be subsequently file a motion for new trial on the basis of Waldi’s affidavit?
newly created evidence; newly discovered evidence in other words, may and A: No. In this situation, Waldi’s testimony can well be characterized as a
does commonly refer to evidence already in existence prior or during the “forgotten” evidence, which is not a valid basis for filing a motion for new trial.
trial but which could not have been secured and presented during the
trial despite reasonable diligence on the part of the litigant offering it or NOTE: The mere hostility of the witness would not exempt a party from
his counsel. Newly discovered evidence, again, is not limited to evidence presenting the former’s testimony during the trial and in eventually moving for new
which, though already in existence before or during trial was not known to the trial upon cessation of such hostility. The reason is plain and obvious, that person
offering litigant. may be compelled by subpoena to appear and testify in the trial or give deposition
under Rule 23 of the Amended Rules.
In order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded as "newly
discovered" for purposes of a grant of new trial, what is essential is not so DISTINCTION BETWEEN MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND REOPENING OF
much the time when the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the TRIAL
time when it first came to the knowledge of the party now submitting it; what it
essential is, rather, that the offering party had exercised reasonable Case: Alegre vs. Honorable Manuel T. Reyes
diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial but MOTION TO REOPEN TRIAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
had nonetheless failed to secure it. A motion to reopen trial may properly On the other hand, a motion for new
be presented only after either or both trial is proper only after rendition or
Thus, a party who, prior to the trial had, no means of knowing that a specific parties have formally offered, and promulgation of judgment, but
piece of evidence existed and was in fact obtainable, can scarcely be charged closed their evidence, but before within the period for taking an
with lack of diligence. It is commonplace to observe that the term "diligence" is judgment; appeal;
a relative and variable one, not capable of exact definition and the contents of
which must depend entirely on the particular configuration of facts obtaining in But in a pro hac vice ruling in People Under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court,
each case. vs. Licayan, the Supreme allowed the motion for new trial may be filed only
filing of a motion to reopen trial long before finality of the decision.
The so-called "forgotten" evidence may, upon the other hand, be seen to after the finality of the decision.
refer to evidence already in existence or available before or during trial, which Motion to reopen trial is not A motion for new trial is specifically
was known to and obtainable by the party offering it and, which could have specifically mentioned and mentioned in the Rules of Court as
been presented and offered in a seasonable manner were it not for the prescribed as a remedy by the one of the so-called post-judgment
oversight or forgetfulness of such party or his counsel. Forgotten evidence Rules of Court. It is albeit a remedies.
cannot be a basis for filing a motion for new trial. recognized procedural recourse or
device, deriving validity and
Custodio, et. al., vs. Sandiganbayan acceptance from long, established
G.R. No. 96027-28, Mar. 08, 2005 usage.
The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly
discovered evidence is whether the proffered evidence is in fact a 'newly The reopening of a case for the A motion for new trial in civil or
discovered evidence’ which could not have been discovered by due reception of additional evidence criminal actions may be applied for
diligence. after a case has been submitted for and granted only upon specific, well-
decision but before judgment is defined grounds, set forth
The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two aspects: actually rendered is, it has been said, respectively in Section 1, Rule 37
(1) a temporal one, i.e., when was the evidence discovered, and controlled by no other rule than that of and Section 2, Rule 121 , of the
(2) a predictive one, i.e., when should or could it have been discovered. the paramount interests of justice, Rules of Court.
resting entirely in the sound judicial

172

discretion of a Trial Court; and its
concession, or denial, by said Court in
the exercise of that discretion will not
be reviewed on appeal unless a clear
abuse thereof is shown.
May be made by the court motu
proprio (Gaas vs. Fortich)
SECTION 2
Section 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice
thereof. — The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or
grounds therefor, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant
on the adverse party.
A motion for new trial shall be proved in the manner provided for proof
of motion. A motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph (a) of the
preceding section shall be supported by affidavits of merits which may
be rebutted by affidavits. A motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph
(b) shall be supported by affidavits of the witnesses by whom such
evidence is expected to be given, or by duly authenticated documents
which are proposed to be introduced in evidence.
A motion for reconsideration shall point out a specifically the findings or
conclusions of the judgment or final order which are not supported by
the evidence or which are contrary to law making express reference to
the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law
alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions.
A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the
reglementary period of appeal.
REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL:
1. Filed within the period of taking an appeal
2. In writing, stating the grounds therefor, with a copy furnished to the adverse
party
3. Must comply with the provisions of rule 15 on litigious motion
4. Where the ground for new trial is fraud, accident, mistake, excusable neglect –
it should be supported with two affidavits
5. Where the ground for new trial is newly discovered evidence, then such motion
must be supported
TWO AFFIDAVITS FOR FAME GROUNDS (Yap vs. Tanada) [Requirement #4]
1. An affidavit setting forth the facts and circumstances constituting FAME
- because any such motion shall be proved in the manner provided for proof of
motions” – that is, by affidavits or depositions (See Section 2 & 3, Rule15)
2. Affidavit of merits
- setting forth the particular facts claimed to constitute the movant’s meritorious
cause of action or defense
- But affidavit of merits is not required if the granting of the motion for new trial is
not discretionary with the court, but is rather demandable as a right, as in the
following instances:
i. Where the movant has been deprived of his day in court through no fault
or negligence on his part because no notice of hearing was furnished him
in advance so as to enable him to prepare for trial (Valerio vs. Tan)
ii. Where judgment by default was rendered before period to answer expired
(Gonzales vs. Francisco)
iii. When the attack is on the jurisdiction of the court (Republic vs. De Leon)
iv. When the motion for new trial is not based on F.A.M.E (Mendoza vs.
Bautista)
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR NDE GROUND: [Requirement #5]
Where the ground for new trial is newly discovered evidence, then such motion
must be supported by the following:
1. Affidavits of the witnesses – that is, if the new discovered evidence consists
of testimonial evidence; or
2. Duly authenticated documents which are proposed to be introduced in
evidence.
NOTE: There is no need to attach an affidavit of merit, as the motion is not based
on FAME.
REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION:
1. Filed within the period for taking an appeal
2. It must be in writing, stating the grounds therefor, with a copy furnished to the
adverse party
3. Must comply with the provisions of rule 15 on litigious motion
4. Must point out the findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order
which were not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law, making
g
express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or the provisions of
law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions.
NOTE: Unlike a motion for new trial based on F.A.M.E, motion for reconsideration
does not have to be supported by an affidavit of merits (Mendoza vs.
Bautista).
PRO FORMA MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION:
RULE: A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the
reglementary period of appeal. [pro forma à runs]
In other words: The filing of the pro forma motion for reconsideration does
not stop the running of the reglementary period for taking an appeal.
WHEN CONSIDERED PRO FORMA:
1. The motion for new trial or reconsideration does not comply with the
provisions under Rule 15 on litigious motions
2. Where the motion for new trial based on F.A.M.E is not supported with the
required two (2) affidavits, subject to the exceptional circumstances wherein
affidavit of merits is not required
PCIB v. Ortiz
supra
But where the motion for new trial is founded not only on fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence, but also on the ground of "award
of excessive damages," as to which no affidavit of fraud, etc., or of merits is
required, what is being required of the movant being to "point out specifically
the findings or conclusions of the judgment demonstrating the invoked ground,
the motion cannot be denied as pro forma simply because no affidavit of merits
is appended thereto, provided there be a specification of the findings or
conclusions of the judgment alleged to be erroneous because awarding
excessive damages. The tenability of the grounds is dependent upon different
premises. The untenability of one does not of itself, render the other
unmeritorious
City of Cebu, et al. v. Mendoza, et al.,
G.R. No. L-26321, Feb. 25, 1975
In fact, where the motion for new trial is based on the last paragraph of Section
1, Rule 37, it is properly a motion for reconsideration as the movant merely
asks the court to reevaluate its decision without a trial being conducted again
on the issues involved
3. Where the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is not
supported with the affidavit of the new witnesses or duly authenticated documents
which are proposed to be introduced in evidence;
4. Where the motion for reconsideration failed to point out the findings or
conclusions of the judgment or final order which were not supported by the
evidence or which are contrary to law, or failed to make express reference to the
testimonial or documentary evidence or the provisions of law alleged to be contrary
to such findings or conclusions.
5. Where it is already a second motion for reconsideration.
CASES REGARDING PRO FORMA MRS:
Estrada v. Sto. Domingo
28 SCRA 890
A motion for reconsideration which merely reiterated the grounds
already discussed in the memorandum is considered pro forma.
Note: this is not controlling
Guerra Enterprises Co., Inc, v. CFI of Lanao del Sur
G.R. No. L-28310, April 17, 1970
The mere fact that a motion for reconsideration deals with the same issues
and arguments already posed and resolved by the trial court does not
necessarily mean that the same is pro forma
Also: Maturan vs. Araula
PNB v. Hon. Jose G. Paneda, et al.
G.R. No. 149236, Feb. 14, 2007
Among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed, one
is precisely to convince the court that its ruling is erroneous and
improper, contrary to the law or the evidence; and in doing so, the
movant has to dwell of necessity upon the issues passed upon by the
court. If a motion for reconsideration may not discuss these issues, the
consequence would be that after a decision is rendered, the losing party would
be confined to filing only motions for reopening and new trial
BA Finance Corp. vs. Pineda
173

119 SCRA 493
At any rate, the pro forma rule vis-à-vis a motion for reconsideration applies
only to final orders or judgment. A motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory
order may not be declared pro forma because it is a reiteration of the same
ground stated in the original motion
Rodriguez vs. Rovira
63 Phil. 476
But where the second motion for reconsideration partakes of the nature of a
motion for new trial, the same may not be considered pro forma, as long as it
complies with the requirements of a motion for new trial. After all, a motion for
reconsideration, if based on the same grounds as that of a new trial, is
considered a motion for new trial and has the same effect . What is proscribed
under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court is the filing of a second motion
for reconsideration.
EXAMPLE: A party received, through counsel, an adverse judgment in an
ordinary civil case. Ordinarily, he has 15 calendar days from such receipt of an
adverse judgment to file an appeal. But, let us say that, instead of taking an appeal,
th
he rather filed a motion for new trial based on F.A.M.E., on the 10 day following
such receipt of that adverse judgment, but no affidavit, whatsoever, was
attached thereto.
ANALYSIS: It follows just as clearly that the motion for new trial is pro forma,
because no affidavit was attached.
If the court resolved that motion for new trial and denied the same for being pro
th
forma, and such order of denial was issued only on the 20 day reckoned from
the movant’s receipt of the adverse judgment, the movant cannot anymore file
an appeal from the main judgment, the reglementary period therefor having
already lapsed.
On the other hand, a motion for new trial or reconsideration that is not pro forma
shall toll the reglementary period of appeal. In fact, it resets the prescriptive
period for taking an appeal.
Neypes v. CA
469 SCRA 633
A “fresh period” for taking an appeal shall be reckoned from receipt or notice
of the order denying a motion for reconsideration or a motion for new trial,
thereby providing a uniform rule or standardized periods for taking an appeal
under Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the Rules of Court.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Action upon motion for new trial or reconsideration. — The
trial court may set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial,
upon such terms as may be just, or may deny the motion. If the court
finds that excessive damages have been awarded or that the judgment
or final order is contrary to the evidence or law, it may amend such
judgment or final order accordingly.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Resolution of motion. — A motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall be resolved within thirty (30) days from the time it
is submitted for resolution.
WHAT DOES THE COURT DO WITH MR OR MNT?
1. Deny the motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration; or
2. Grant the motion
GRANTING MNT à Set aside judgment
GRANTING MR à Amend judgment, without new trial
NOTE: Amended judgment is in the nature of a new judgment which
supersedes the original judgment. It is not a mere supplemental decision which
does not supplant the original but only serves to add something to it (Esquivel vs
Alegre)
In any case, the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be resolved within
thirty (30) days from the time it is submitted for decision, not necessarily from the
time of its filing.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Second motion for new trial. — A motion for new trial shall
include all grounds then available and those not so included shall be
deemed waived. A second motion for new trial, based on a ground not
existing nor available when the first motion was made, may be filed within
the time herein provided excluding the time during which the first motion
had been pending.
No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a
judgment or final order.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
g
GENERAL RULE: A motion for new trial shall include all grounds then available
and those not so included shall be deemed waived.
OMNIBUS MOTION RULE – a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or
proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so
included shall be deemed waived
EXCEPTION: A second motion for new trial, based on a ground not existing nor
available when the first motion was made, may be filed within the time herein
provided excluding the time during which the first motion had been pending.
EXAMPLE: if the first motion for new trial was based on fraud and it was denied,
the movant can still a second motion for new trial based on newly discovered
evidence if such evidence was discovered and/or became available only after the
first motion for new trial had been filed.
City of Cebu v. Mendoza
62 SCRA 440
It bears to stress that a second motion for new trial is an exceptional case. A
litigant, who does not observe the requisites of a second motion for new trial,
files it at his peril, the peril of losing his right to appeal due to the expiration of
the remaining period within which to appeal.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
GENERAL RULE: No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration
of a judgment or final order
Galeon: In the CA and the SC, a second motion for reconsideration may be
allowed but only on extraordinarily persuasive reasons and only after an
express leave shall have first been obtained (Roasters Philippines, Inc. vs.
Gaviola)
NOTE: When the second motion for reconsideration partakes of the nature of a
motion for new trial, the same may not be considered pro forma or prohibited,
as long as it complies with the requirements of a motion for new trial
After all, a motion for reconsideration, if based on the same grounds as that
of a new trial, is considered a motion for new trial and has the same effect
(Rodriguez vs. Rovira)
NOTE: The proscription against filing of a second motion for reconsideration
applies only to situation where the two motions for reconsideration are filed by the
same party.
EXAMPLE: A filed a case against B. The court rendered judgment adverse to B
such that the latter filed a motion for reconsideration. Acting on B’s motion for
reconsideration, the court issued an amended judgment, reducing the liability of
B.
Q: Can B still file a motion for reconsideration on the amended judgment?
A: No. No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment
or final order.
Q: Can A file a motion for reconsideration on the amended judgment?
A: Yes, he can. “A” did not previously file a motion for reconsideration against the
court’s judgment.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Effect of granting of motion for new trial. — If a new trial is
granted in accordance with the provisions of this Rules the original
judgment or final order shall be vacated, and the action shall stand for
trial de novo; but the recorded evidence taken upon the former trial,
insofar as the same is material and competent to establish the issues,
shall be used at the new trial without retaking the same.
EFFECTS OF GRANTING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL:
ON THE GROUNDS OF FAME
1. There shall be a trial de novo (new trial)
2. Previous proceedings shall be set aside
3. Evidence shall be taken anew, except from those taken in the former trial of
the same materiality and competence to establish the issues (usually when the
error pertains only to a particular segment)
NOTE: When it’s grounded on FAME, the circumstances basically boil down to the
errors and irregularities committed right at the inception, or through the whole
course, of the trial (eg: the defendant was invalidly declared in default) – then there
shall be a trial de novo, or a new trial
particular segment: e.g., the defendant was erroneously declared to have waived
his right to present his evidence, but the defendant had actively participated during
174
 g

the presentation of the evidence in chief for the plaintiff and even conducted cross-
examination of plaintiff’s witness A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC
December 1, 2007
ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE Section 1, Rule 41: when there is an “order denying a motion for new trial or
1. No trial de novo motion for reconsideration,” the remedy of appeal is NOT available. The
2. Proceedings previously conducted and evidence already presented shall stand remedy of certiorari (Rule 65) may be availed of.
3. Case is reopened for purposes of allowing presentation of new evidence
THEREFORE: Where the motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration
EFFECTS OF GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION: is denied, the remedy of the aggrieved party or the movant is to appeal from
1. No trial de novo the judgment or final order and assign, as one of the errors on appeal, the
2. Re-examination of decision that is pointed out by the movant denial of his motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration.
3. If granted, amendment of decision
WHEN CERTIORARI IS AVAILABLE
DISTINCTIONS: 1. When MR or MNT is denied
Motion for New Trial Motion for Reconsideration 2. When MR or MNT is not pro-forma
The grounds for motion for new trial Motion for reconsideration is based on - stops the running of reglementary period (apply neypes)
are F.A.M.E. (fraud, accident, the ground that that the damages
mistake, excusable negligence), or awarded are excessive, or that the NEYPES DOCTRINE - basically provided for a “fresh period” for taking an
newly discovered evidence; evidence is insufficient to justify the appeal, which shall be reckoned from receipt or notice of the order denying a
decision or final order, or that the motion for reconsideration or a motion for new trial, thereby providing a uniform
decision or final order is contrary to rule or standardized periods for taking an appeal under Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and
law; 45 of the Rules of Court.
If the motion for new trial is granted, If the motion for reconsideration is
there may be a trial de novo; granted, there is no trial de novo; CAN THE OPPOSING PARTY OF A MR OR MNT FILE A CERTIORARI UNDER
RULE 65 WHEN THE MOTION IS GRANTED?
Filing by the same party of a second Filing of a second motion for
motion for new trial is allowed if the reconsideration by the same party is Yes, invoking Pineda v. CA – because MNT is an interlocutory order and not
second motion is based on another prohibited. subject to appeal. [He was amenable to the initial judgment and not expected to
ground that was not yet existing file an appeal. So he can avail of certiorari]
when the first motion was filed.
Pineda v. CA
SECTION 7 65 SCRA 258
Section 7. Partial new trial or reconsideration. — If the grounds for a If the order granting a new trial is reversed by the CA, the period to appeal
motion under this Rule appear to the court to affect the issues as to only (insofar as the one who had filed the motion for new trial that was granted by
a part, or less than all of the matter in controversy, or only one, or less the trial court but subsequently reversed by the appellate court) shall be
than all, of the parties to it, the court may order a new trial or grant reckoned from entry of judgment of the Court of Appeals and not from the
reconsideration as to such issues if severable without interfering with receipt of the decision of the trial court.
the judgment or final order upon the rest.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF ONE OF THE PARTIES FILES A MOTION FOR
SECTION 8 NEW TRIAL OR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE OTHER PARTY
Section 8. Effect of order for partial new trial. — When less than all of the FILES AN APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OR DECISION OF THE COURT?
issues are ordered retried, the court may either enter a judgment or final
order as to the rest, or stay the enforcement of such judgment or final Simsion v. Belmonte
order until after the new trial. G.R. No. L-25388, Aug. 31, 1970
Where one party files a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration and
Applicability: Where the case is capable of having “several” or “separate” the other party seeks to perfect an appeal from the said decision, the court
judgments (Sections 4 or 5, Rule 36) should withhold action on the appeal until after the motion for new trial
or reconsideration shall have been resolved.
RULE: When the MR or MNT is meritorious, the court may just allow a partial
new trial or reconsideration on some but not all of the issues in the case. RULE 38 - RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, OR OTHER
PROCEEDINGS
OPTIONS OF THE COURT: SECTION 1
1. To enter a final judgment to the rest not affected by partial new Section 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings.
trial/reconsideration — When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is
2. To stay the execution thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and
NOTE: in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set
RULE 39. Sec. 2. Discretionary execution. (b) Execution of several, aside.
separate or partial judgments.— A several separate or partial judgment
may be executed under the same terms and conditions as execution of a SECTION 2
judgment or final order pending appeal. Section 2. Petition for relief from denial of appeal. — When a judgment or
final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by
Note: Any such execution while the case is still in progress is subject to the sound fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented
discretion of the court. from taking an appeal, he may file a petition in such court and in the same
case praying that the appeal be given due course.
SECTION 9
Section 9. Remedy against order denying a motion for new trial or POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES à Petition for Relief from Judgment
reconsideration. — An order denying a motion for new trial or
reconsideration is not appealable, the remedy being an appeal from the
judgment or final order. PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
- remedy provided by law to any person against whom a decision or order is
DENIAL OF MNT AND MR IS NOT APPEALABLE. entered though fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
- This remedy is equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases where
Is the order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration is not there is no other available or adequate remedy provided by law or by the rules
appealable, may it be questioned on certiorari? (Cagayan Economic Zone Authority v. Meridian Vista Gaming Corp)

Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank v. Campos REQUISITES

G.R. No. 39905, Mar. 31, 1975
If a motion for new trial is denied, the movant can appeal from the judgment
and also proceed on certiorari to set aside the order denying his motion for
new trial. There is no incompatibility between the two remedies as one is
directed against the judgment and the other, against the order denying a
motion for new trial.
CAVEAT: This ruling has now been MODIFIED.
1. After judgment attained finality
2. Filed in the same court, which rendered the judgment, or issued the writ of
execution, or denied due course to the appeal and in the same case.
3. Based on FAME
4. There is no available or adequate remedy provided by law or by the rules.
5. No MNT was filed prior on the same ground
175

Recall: FAME can be used for (1) motion to set aside order of default; (2) motion
for new trial; (3) petition for relief
RELIEF DIRECTED AT:
1. Judgment or final order disposing of a case; or
2. Other proceedings, such as orders of execution (Cayetano v. Cequerra); or
3. Denial of an appeal;
Balor v. Tecson
40 O.G. 4308
The lawyer who was sharing with another firm upon whose employee the
notice of decision was erroneously given was held that there was excusable
negligence in failing to perfect the appeal on time.
Cagayan Economic Zone Authority v. Meridian Vista Gaming
Corporation*
G.R. No 194962, Jan. 27, 2016
FACTS: MVGC filed a case for mandamus against CEZA, praying that it be
allowed to continue with its gaming operations inside CEZA.
The case was referred by CEZA to the Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel which assigned Atty. Baniaga to handle the case. All notices, orders
and legal processes in connection with the case were forwarded to him for
appropriate action. The parties filed a Joint Manifestation with Motion to
Render Judgment based on the Pleadings.
October 30 à Trial court decided against CEZ
October 30 à copy of the decision was received by Atty Baniaga
November 26 à OGCC filed a manifestation infrming the court that they
received info about the decision and requested for a copy of such
December 3 à OGCC Representative Manuel received the copy
December 9 à CEZA filed a Notice of Appeal, stating it received decision on
Dec 3
December 9 à RTC denied the NOA on the ground of prescription – that the
period ran from Oct 30 to Nov 15
January 25 à CEZA filed a Petition for Relief alleging honest mistake or
excusable negligence on the part of Atty Baniaga, since he thought he was just
receiving a resolution pertaining the motion to render judgment based on
pleadings.
CEZA also pointed out that the reckoning period for the filing of its appeal
should be December 3, 2009, the day when it was furnished a copy of the
decision, and not October 30, 2009, the date of receipt by Atty. Baniaga.
The RTC, in its Resolution, dated March 4, 2010, denied the petition for relief
from judgment for lack of merit. It stated that the negligence of CEZA’s
counsel, Atty. Baniaga, was binding on his client and could not be used as an
excuse to revive the right to appeal which had been lost.
HELD: Petition for Relief should be granted.
There should be no dispute regarding the doctrine that: notice to counsel is
notice to parties, and that such doctrine has beneficient effects upon the
prompt dispensation of justice.
Its application to a given case, however, should be looked into and
adopted, according to the surrounding circumstances; otherwise, in the
court’s desire to make a short cut of the proceedings, it might foster,
wittingly or unwittingly, dangerous collusions to the detriment of justice.
If the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great and the
error committed as a result thereof is so serious that the client, who otherwise
has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in court, the litigation
may be reopened to give the client another chance to present his case.
Clearly, the negligence of Atty. Baniaga
was unconscionable and inexcusable. It was highly suspicious, if not
outright deliberate. Obviously, he fell short of the high standard of
assiduousness that a counsel must perform to safeguard the rights of his
clients.
At the inception, CEZA was already deprived of its right to present evidence
during the trial of the case when Atty. Baniaga filed a joint manifestation
submitting the case for decision based on the pleadings without informing
CEZA.
Under the circumstances, CEZA should not be made to suffer the
consequences of its counsel’s gross negligence. A petition for relief from
judgment is an equitable remedy that is allowed in exceptional cases where
there is no other available or adequate remedy. In the interest of justice and
equity, the Court deems it just and equitable to grant the petition and enable
CEZA to appeal its case.
g
GALEON: The negligence of the handling lawyer was so gross that the OGCC
dismissed him from service and the SC even referred the matter to the Board
of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines so it may conduct the
appropriate investigation on the handling lawyer
DISTINCTION:
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL PETITION FOR RELIEF
Rule 37 Rule 38
be based on newly discovered Only FAME
evidence
shall be availed of before the after the judgment or final order
judgment or final order disposing of disposing of the case attains finality
case attains finality
Remedy upon denial: appeal from the Certiorari
main judgment
Jalover vs. Ytoriaga*
80 SCRA 101,
The Supreme Court considered the petition for relief filed therein as a motion
for new trial because the assailed judgment has not yet attained finality for
the reason that no copy thereof was served on the movant’s counsel of record,
albeit the movants themselves were served with a copy of the said judgment.
WHO CAN FILE A PETITION FOR RELIEF:
à Only the parties to the case can avail of the petition for relief
Alaban v. CA
470 SCRA 697
A petition for relief from judgment, together with a motion for new trial and
a motion for reconsideration are remedies available only to parties in the
proceedings where the assailed judgment is rendered. A person, who was
never a party to the case, or even summoned to appear therein, cannot avail
of a petition for relief
It may be added that a person who is not made a party to the case or privy
to the parties therein is generally not bound by the decision therein; hence,
there is no need for him to even resort to filing petition for relief.
NOTE: In LAND REGISTRATION CASES, a person not originally a party thereto
and did not file any opposition or claim to the property applied for was allowed to
file a petition for relief, since this is an action in rem and affects everyone. (Ong v.
CA)
CASES WHEREIN PETITION FOR RELIEF IS UNAVAILING:
1. Land registration cases
2. Interstate proceedings (In re: Estate of Johnson)
3. Guardianship proceedings (Panis vs. Yangco)
4. Civil cases falling under the Rules on Summary Procedures (Section 19 [d],
Rules on Summary Procedure);
5. Unlawful detainer cases (Section 13, Rule 70);
6. Forcible entry cases (Section 13, Rule 70);
7. Small claims cases (Section 16 [d], Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases);
and
8. In cases before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
Purcon v. MRM Philippines*, Inc.
566 SCRA 645
ISSUE: Can petitioner avail of a petition for relief from judgment under Rule
38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure from Our resolution denying his
petition for review?
RULING: We answer in the negative. A petition for relief from judgment is
not an available remedy in the Supreme Court.
First, although Section 1 of Rule 38 states that when a judgment or final order
is entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, a party
in any court may file a petition for relief from judgment, this rule must be
interpreted in harmony with Rule 56, which enumerates the original cases
cognizable by the Supreme Court, where a petition for relief from judgment is
not included in the list of Rule 56 cases originally cognizable by this Court.
In Dela Cruz v. Andres, a petition for relief from judgment is not an available
remedy in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The Court explained
that under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition for relief
must be filed within sixty (60) days after petitioner learns of the judgment,
final order or other proceeding to be set aside and must be accompanied
with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
relied upon, and the facts constituting petitioner’s good and substantial cause
of action or defense, as the case may be. Most importantly, it should be
filed with the same court which rendered the decision.
176

Second, while Rule 38 uses the phrase "any court," it refers only to
Municipal/Metropolitan and Regional Trial Courts.
Third, the procedure in the CA and the Supreme Court are governed by
separate provisions of the Rules of Court. It may, from time to time, be
supplemented by additional rules promulgated by the Supreme Court through
resolutions or circulars. As it stands, neither the Rules of Court nor the Revised
Internal Rules of the CA allows the remedy of petition for relief in the CA.
There is no provision in the Rules of Court making the petition for relief
applicable in the CA or this Court. The procedure in the CA from Rules 44 to
55, with the exception of Rule 45 pertains to the Supreme Court.
If a petition for relief from judgment is not among the remedies available
in the CA, with more reason that this remedy cannot be availed of in the
Supreme Court. This Court entertains only questions of law. A petition
for relief raises questions of facts on fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence, which are beyond the concerns of this Court.”
Doctrine: petition for relief is not available in cases before the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court
ILLUSTRATION: After summons was issued, the plaintiff and the court process
server allegedly connived to make it appear that the summons was served on the
defendant. The court issued an order of default. Thereafter, plaintiff was allowed
to present evidence ex parte. Ultimately the court issued judgment by default.
Copy of the judgment by default is served on the defendant, through counsel.
Q1: Suppose the defendant has not been served, though counsel, with the order
declaring him in default but he is served, through counsel, with the judgment by
default, what is his remedy, if any?
A1: He can file a motion for new trial under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, the
same to be filed within the period for taking an appeal.
Q2: Suppose the defendant did not file a motion for new trial, although nothing
prevented him from filing the same, such that the decision has become final and
executory, but soon thereafter and within the periods prescribed under Section 3,
Rule 28, he filed a petition for relief, is the filing thereof proper?
A2: The petition for relief should not be given due course, as the filing thereof is
improper. Where the party has other remedy available to him, which may be either
a motion for new trial or reconsideration or appeal from an adverse decision, and
he was not prevented by fraud accident, mistake or excusable negligence
from filing such motion or taking such appeal, he cannot avail himself of the
petition for relief (Trust International Paper Corporation vs. Pelaez)
Q3: Suppose the defendant rather filed a motion for new trial on the ground of
fraud, within the period for taking an appeal, but the court denied the motion for
new trial, can the defendant still file a petition for relief based on the same ground
and/or act constituting as fraud?
A3: No, he cannot. A party who has filed a timely motion for new trial cannot
file a petition for relief based on the same ground after his motion for new
trial has been denied. These two remedies are exclusive of each other. It is
only in appropriate cases where a party aggrieved by a judgment has not been
able to file a motion for new trial that a petition for relief can be filed (Franscisco v.
Puno). His remedy is to appeal from the judgment pursuant to Section 9, Rule
37 and assign, as one of the errors on appeal, the denial of his motion for new trial
Q4: Suppose after his motion for new trial based on fraud had been denied by
the trial court, the defendant filed a notice of appeal against the main judgment
supposedly on the last day for filing the same but it was only filed on the next day
as the counsel’s messenger unfortunately met a vehicular accident on his way
to court for which he was brought to the hospital, such that the court denied due
course to the appeal for being filed out of time, can the defendant still file a petition
for relief against the order denying due course to his appeal?
A4: Yes, he can. The ruling in the case of Francisco vs. Puno, supra, is
inapplicable because, here, the petition for relief is based on another ground,
and not on the same ground upon which the previous motion for new trial was
based.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Time for filing petition; contents and verification. — A petition
provided for in either of the preceding sections of this Rule must be
verified, filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the
judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more
than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered, or
such proceeding was taken, and must be accompanied with affidavits
showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied
upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial of
action or defense, as the case may be.
g
PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION FOR RELIEF:
à filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final
order, or other proceeding to be set aside; and
à not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was
entered, or such proceeding was taken.
RULE: BOTH PERIODS MUST CONCUR.
THEY ARE NOT EXTENDABLE AND NEVER INTERRUPTED.
THE SIXTY-CALENDAR DAY PERIOD
- begins to run from the date the petitioner’s counsel of record is notified of the
judgment, or final order, or other proceeding to be set aside (Heirs of Maria
Marasigan vs. IAC)
- or, where petitioner is not represented by a counsel, it shall be reckoned from his
receipt of such judgment, or final order, as the case may be
THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD
- shall be counted from:
ü The date of the entry of judgment (which now coincides with, or refers
to, the finality of the judgment pursuant to Section 2, Rule 36 of the
Rules of Court), if the petition for relief is directed against a judgment;
or
ü If the petition is directed against an order of execution, or an order
denying due to course to the appeal, both of which do not require to
be entered or be issued with an entry of judgment, the six (6)-month
period shall be counted from the rendition of the order or the taking
of the proceeding or from date of occurrence (Samonte vs.
Samonte); or
ü If the petition for relief is directed against a judgment upon
compromise, the six (6)-month shall run from the rendition thereof,
it being immediately executory (Bodiogran vs. Ceniza, et al)
EXAMPLE 1: A judgment was rendered against Waldi in January 2019 and an
entry of judgment was issued in February 2019, certifying its finality. But Waldi
learned about it only in May 15, 2020, such that, on May 18, 2020, he immediately
filed a petition for relief.
Q: Is the petition for relief filed on time?
A: No. It is filed out of time. It is true that he only learned about the judgment in
May 15, 2020 and that he forthwith filed a petition for relief, but such filing of the
petition for relief did not comply with the second period – the 6-month period,
counted from the entry of judgment – as, thus, prescribed under Section 3, Rule
38 of the Rules of Court.
EXAMPLE 2: A judgment was rendered against Waldi in January 2019 and an
entry of judgment was issued in February 2019 certifying its finality. He came to
know about it in the same month, February 2019. But filed a petition for relief only
in June 2019.
Q: Is the petition for relief filed on time?
A: No. It is filed out of time. While he complied with the second period for filing
a petition for relief– the 6-month period, counted from the entry of judgment – as,
thus, prescribed under Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, but he failed to
comply with the other period – the 60-calendar day period, to be reckoned from
the time that he learned of such adverse judgment.
NOTES:
• A petition for certiorari does not suspend the periods prescribed under
Section 3, Rule 38 (Palomares vs Jimenez)
• Periods are not interrupted the filing of a motion for reconsideration or motion
for new trial (Mercado vs. Domingo)
• Even if one day late à deny the petition
WEIRD INSTANCES WHEN THE SC BENT THE RULES AS NECESSITATED
BY CIRCUMSTANCE:
1. Balite v. Cabangon à the Supreme Court allowed the petition for relief that
th
was filed on the 65 day from notice of the impugned order, but within 6 months
from the taking of such proceeding
Galeon: This involved a proceeding before the defunct Court of Industrial Relations
which, after all, was not bound by the technical rules of procedure
2. PHHC v. Tiongco à The petition for relief was allowed even if it was filed
beyond the 60-day reglementary period prescribe under Section 3, Rule 38 of the
Rules of Court because the original counsel for the petitioners was grossly
negligent in the discharge of his functions and, thus, effectively denied the
petitioners their day in court by his “fishy and suspicious” actuations in
abandoning their case and without even informing them of the adverse decision
against them
177
 g

Galeon: In this case, the Supreme Court also considered the petition for relief not
only as against the judgment in the case but also against the execution thereof;
hence, the petition for relief could well be considered as seasonably filed);
3. Trinidad v. Yatco à the Supreme Court did not apply the prescriptive periods
under Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court for the reason that the trial court
actually was without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, such
that its decision is a patent nullity.
RULES ON VERIFICATION AND SUPPORT
GENERAL RULE: Petition for relief must be verified and supported with
affidavits
SECTION 6
Section 6. Proceedings after answer is filed. — After the filing of the
answer or the expiration of the period therefor, the court shall hear the
petition and if after such hearing, it finds that the allegations thereof are
not true, the petition shall be dismissed; but if it finds said allegations to
be true, it shall set aside the judgment or final order or other proceeding
complained of upon such terms as may be just. Thereafter the case shall
stand as if such judgment, final order or other proceeding had never been
rendered, issued or taken. The court shall then proceed to hear and
determine the case as if a timely motion for a new trial or reconsideration
had been granted by it.
[Graph]

Two affidavits:
1. An affidavit setting forth the facts and circumstances constituting FAME
2. Affidavit of merits, setting forth the particular facts claimed to constitute the
movant’s meritorious cause of action or defense

EXCEPTION: An affidavit of merit is not required if the granting of petition

for relief is not discretionary by the court but demandable as a right.

This happens when:

1. Where the movant has been deprived of his day in court through no fault or
negligence on his part because no notice of hearing was furnished him in advance
so as to enable him to prepare for trial (Valerio vs. Tan)
2. Where judgment by default was rendered before the period to answer expired
(Lupisan vs. Alfonso)
3. When the attack is on the jurisdiction of the court (Republic vs. De Leon)
4. Where the petition is verified and the merits of petitioner’s case are apparent
from the recitals of the petition and the petition was under oath (Consul vs.
Consul)
5. Where the sworn petition merely alleged that defendant has a meritorious
defense as shown in the answer that was filed (Eduque vs. CA)

SECTION 4
Section 4. Order to file an answer. — If the petition is sufficient in form
and substance to justify relief, the court in which it is filed, shall issue an
order requiring the adverse parties to answer the same within fifteen (15)
days from the receipt thereof. The order shall be served in such manner
as the court may direct, together with copies of the petition and the
accompanying affidavits.

FILE PETITION OF RELIEF à COURT ISSUES ORDER REQUIRING ADVERSE

PARTY TO ANSWER à ORDER MUST BE SERVED WITH AFFIDAVITS
Note: The court does not have to issue summons to the adverse parties.
An order to answer shall issue only if the petition for relief is found to be sufficient
in form and in substance (Saloc vs. Tensuan).
SECTION 5
Section 5. Preliminary injunction pending proceedings. — The court in
which the petition is filed may grant such preliminary injunction as may
be necessary for the preservation of the rights of the parties, upon the
filing by the petitioner of a bond in favor of the adverse party, conditioned
that if the petition is dismissed or the petitioner fails on the trial of the
case upon its merits, he will pay the adverse party all damages and costs
that may be awarded to him by reason of the issuance of such injunction
or the other proceedings following the petition, but such injunction shall
not operate to discharge or extinguish any lien which the adverse party
may have acquired upon, the property, of the petitioner.
Because petition for relief of judgment may only be filed after the judgment
attained finality, the execution of the judgment is also affected, but not
automatically.
GENERAL RULE: Execution of Judgments is not automatically stayed by the
mere filing a petition for relief from judgment.
REQUISITES TO STAY EXECUTION:
1. Writ of preliminary injunction must be obtained
2. Petitioner must post a bond in favor of the adverse party, conditioned that if the
petition is dismissed or the petitioner fails on the trial of the case upon its merits,
he will pay the adverse party all damages and costs that may be awarded to him
Ayson v. Ayson***
Phil. 1223
The issuance of the preliminary injunction where a writ of execution was
already issued and levy was made before the petition for relief was filed, the
lien that may have been created over the property is not discharged by
the subsequent issuance of the preliminary injunction, such that if the
petition is denied, the court shall reinstate the writ of execution.
NOTE: The failure to file an answer to the petition for relief does not constitute
default.
TWO HEARINGS
1. Hearing to determine whether the judgment, order or proceeding should be
set aside – that is, to determine whether or not there is really F.A.M.E.;
2. If the result is in the affirmative, a hearing on the merits of the case will be had,
as if a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration had been granted
by it
REMEDY OF THE PETITIONER IF PETITION IS DENIED
à Certiorari under Rule 65
à He cannot file an appeal, gleaned from the proscription in Section 1, Rule 41
of the Rules of Court which provides:
RULE 41. Section 1. Subject of appeal. — No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking
relief from judgment; xxx
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not
appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil
action under Rule 65 (As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 1,
2007).
Note: the remedies are different for MNT and PR. MNT à appeal from judgement;
PR à certiorari
Basically, there is a trial de novo.
As for the winning party, who will surely be affected by the granting of the petition
for relief and the reopening of the case, his remedy to question the order of the
court approving the petition for relief is to question the same through certiorari
under Rule 65, because such order is, after all, an interlocutory order; hence,
not subject to appeal.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Procedure where the denial of an appeal is set aside. — Where
the denial of an appeal is set aside, the lower court shall be required to
give due course to the appeal and to elevate the record of the appealed
case as if a timely and proper appeal had been made.
178

The afore-quoted Section 7, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court prescribes the manner
by which the court may act on a petition for relief directed against its order denying
due course to petitioner’s appeal.
DENIAL OF APPEAL IS SET ASIDE [Appeal is sustained]
If after hearing on the petition for relief, the court determines that the failure of the
petitioner to file and perfect his appeal on time is by reason of FAME, the court
shall give due course to the appeal and elevate the record of the appealed case
to the appropriate appellate court as if a timely and proper appeal had been filed.
No new trial or trial de novo will be conducted.
Again, as for the winning party, who will surely be affected by the granting of the
petition for relief, his remedy to question the order of the court approving the
petition for relief is to question the same through certiorari under Rule 65, because
such order is, after all, an interlocutory order; hence, not subject to appeal.
[ASK HELP WITH THIS PROVISION]
RULE 39 - EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. — Execution shall
issue as a matter of right, or motion, upon a judgment or order that
disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to
appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution
may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the
judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the
judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced
and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest
of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of
execution.
EXECUTION - the remedy afforded for the satisfaction of a judgment, its object
being to obtain satisfaction of the judgment on which the writ is issued (Cagayan
de Oro Coliseum vs. CA). It is fruit and end of the suit and aptly called the life of
the law (Garcia vs. Echiveri)
WHAT MAY BE EXECUTED
à A judgment or an order that disposes of the action or proceeding
à NOT an interlocutory order
WHEN SHALL EXECUTION ISSUE
à When a case reaches finality = upon the expiration of the period to appeal
therefrom but no appeal has been made and duly perfected, or if the appeal that
had been duly perfected is finally resolved
RULE: Upon the finality of the judgment, the prevailing party is entitled, as a
matter of right, to a writ of execution to enforce the judgment, the issuance of
which is a ministerial duty of the court (Calilung vs. Paramount Insurance Corp)
Philippine Trust Co vs. Roxas
G.R. No. 171897, Oct. 14, 2015
This right to execution is even compellable by mandamus. This is in
accordance with the doctrine of immutability of final judgments, which states
that, as a rule, a judgment that has become final and executory is immutable
and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect
HOW EXECUTION SHALL ISSUE
à Execution shall issue as a matter of right on motion.
à Not motu proprio (even if the fallo states “immediately executory”) (Lou vs.
Siapno
MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF EXECUTION
- not a litigious motion, as the trial court may take judicial notice of the record of
the case to determine the propriety of the issuance thereof
- no hearing & resolved in 5 calendar days
- copy required to be furnished to adverse party, who may still file opposition before
court acts on the motion
Note: Adverse party should not wait for any court order to file his comment on, or
opposition to, the said motion, as the court is not duty-bound to issue any such
order because the said motion is a non-litigious one.
WHERE TO APPLY FOR EXECUTION
GENERAL RULE: Execution must be had in the court of origin.
Note: The winning party need not wait for the case records to be remanded by the
appellate court to the court of origin – as this normally takes time. All he has to do
g
is to attach to his motion for execution the certified true copies of (i) the
judgment of the appellate court and (ii) the entry of judgment, certifying that the
subject judgment has already become final and executory.
EXCEPTION: If for whatever reason, execution cannot be had with dispatch in
the court of origin, the winning party may file his motion for execution with the
appellate court, and where the motion is meritorious and when the interest of
justice so requires, the appellate court will direct the court of origin to issue
the writ of execution.
PARTIES OF AN EXECUTION
1. Judgment-obligee à one who can file a motion for execution or is the only one
entitled to a writ of execution [General Rule]
Exception: in the interest of justice… [Chi v. Taneda]
Vda. De Chi v. Taneda*
111 SCRA 190
FACTS: Judgment was rendered in favor of the victims of a vehicular accident
and who were confined in a hospital without paying their bills. When a favorable
judgment was rendered in favor of the victims, the hospital asserted its claim
against them.
RULING: The hospital was allowed to recover on the judgment in a proceeding
supplementary to execution even if the hospital was not a party to the case.
Technically it was error for the respondent Court to order the defendants and
the surety company to pay the respondents Southern Islands Hospital and
Chong Hua Hospital the amounts from the balance of the judgment yet to be
paid to the herein petitioner by the defendants and the surety company since
the said respondents are not parties in the case.
The judgment sought to be executed specifically ordered the defendants
Alfonso Corominas, Jr. and Simplicio Lawas to pay, jointly and severally,
the plaintiff Rosita Yap Vda. de Chi.
On the other hand, it cannot also be denied that the sums of money in
question have been awarded to the herein petitioner as expenses for her
hospitalization in the respondent hospitals and are based upon
petitioner's own evidence.
To order the filing of a separate and independent action to recover a
claim where the respondent hospitals concerned will have to prove
exactly a claim which had already been tried, litigated and adjudged
would unduly result in multiplicity of suits. Considering that the herein
respondents claim that the herein petitioner has not yet paid the amounts she
incurred for hospitalization, the interests of justice will be best served if a
hearing be conducted to determine whether or not the hospital bills have
been paid, instead of requiring the respondent hospitals to file separate
actions to recover their respective claims.
2. Adverse party à who the writ shall be enforced against; real-party-interest
bound by judgment [General Rule]
Note: It is axiomatic that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he
is a stranger and for which he has not been given an opportunity be heard. This is
due process.
Exception: Supreme Court upheld the issuances of writs of execution against
non-parties:
1. Salamat vda. De Medina v. Cruz à against one who is privy to the judgment
debtor
- SC affirmed issuance of an order of execution and writ of demolition against the
petitioner who, while not being a party to the case, just derived her right over
the property by purchasing it from a person who, in turn, purchased the same
from the losing defendants in the case
2. Jose v. Blue à against one who not being originally a party to the case submits
his interest to the court for consideration in the same case and invites adjudication
regarding said interest
- the writ of execution was directed against one who acquired through foreclosure
sale a parcel of land which was the subject matter of the case, the certificate of
title of which contained a memorandum of encumbrance and a notice of lis
pendens (notice about the pendency of an action involving the land), and who has
been given the opportunity to be heard during the hearing at the execution stage,
as by filing her opposition to the motion for execution;
3. Rodriguez v. Alikpala à against non-parties voluntarily signed the
compromise agreement or voluntarily appeared before the court
- estoppel
4. Lising v. Plan à against a buyer in bad faith
179

- issuance of the writ of execution was directed against persons who bought the
property in bad faith, as they were aware of the pendency of the case involving the
property that they bought by reason of the notice of the lis pendens on the
corresponding certificate of title, and for which they were even adjudged as buyers
in bad faith in a separate case; hence, they really have no right whatsoever over
the property;
5. Cordova v. Tornilla à In an ejectment case where the third party derived his
right of possession of the premises from the defendant particularly when such right
was acquired only after the filing of the ejectment case
6. Koppel v. Yatco à Dummy Corporations
Koppel (Philippines), Inc. v. Alfredo L. Yatco, CIR
G.R. No. L-47673, Oct. 10, 1946
FACTS: Koppel (Philippines), Inc. is a domestic corporation. Koppel Industrial
Car and Equipment company is an American corporation not licensed to do
business in the PH but owned 995 shares of the Plaintiff.
CIR demanded of the plaintiff the sum for the merchants' sales tax. The plaintiff
paid under protest paid sum in order to avoid further penalties, levy and
distraint proceedings. But the defendant overruled plaintiff's protest, and
defendant has failed and refused and still fails and refuses, notwithstanding
demands by plaintiff, to return to the plaintiff said sum of P64,122.51 or any
part thereof
HELD: Koppel (Philippines), Inc. is a mere dummy or branch ("hechura") of
Koppel industrial Car and Equipment Company. The lower court did not deny
legal personality to Koppel (Philippines), Inc. for any and all purposes, but in
effect its conclusion was that, in the transactions involved herein, the public
interest and convenience would be defeated and what would amount to a tax
evasion perpetrated, unless resort is had to the doctrine of "disregard of the
corporate fiction.
There is a valid piercing of the veil of corporate fiction, as when the
juridical personality of the corporation is used to defeat public
convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, or where a
corporation is the mere alter ego or business conduit of a person, or where the
corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as
to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit, or adjunct of another
corporation, the corporation shall be considered as a mere association of
persons.
INSTANCES WHEREIN EXECUTION MAY BE STAYED
GENERAL RULE: Upon finality of judgment, the prevailing party is entitled, as a
matter of right, to a writ of execution to enforce the judgment, the issuance of which
is a ministerial duty of the court (Calilung vs. Paramount Insurance Corp)
EXCEPTIONS:
1. When there has been a change in the situation of the parties:
Heirs of Pedro Guminpin vs. CA
G.R. No. L-34220, Feb. 21, 1983
In an ejectment case, the losing defendant cannot anymore be evicted from
the land subject matter of the case, where it appears that during the pendency
of the case the property owner mortgaged his property to the bank, and the
property was eventually foreclosed and was sold at the public auction to the
losing defendant in the ejectment case. Being now the owner of the property,
the losing defendant in the ejectment case could not be driven out of the
property
2. Where the judgment has been novated by the parties.
Fua Cam Lu vs. Yap Fauco
74 Phil. 287
The judgment in the case could not anymore be executed because the parties
therein had already extinguished, as it was novated when the parties agreed
to reduce the judgment award from P1,538.04 to just P1,200.00 which was
agreed to be payable in installments and the performance of which was
secured by the mortgage executed by the judgment debtor in favor of the
judgment creditor
3. When certain facts and circumstances transpire or supervene after the
judgment has become final which could render the circumstances of the
judgment unjust
Butuan City vs. Ortiz
G.R. No. L-18054, Dec. 22, 1961
Supreme Court stayed the execution of the judgment of the trial court
reinstating the suspended police corporal after the lapse of his 60-day
suspension because of the subsequent or supervening decision of the Civil
Service Commission finding the police corporal administratively guilty and,
thus, ordering his dismissal from service.
g
Luna vs. IAC
137 SCRA 7
Supreme Court stayed the execution of the final judgment of the appellate court
awarding the custody of the child to her biological parents where the child
manifested that she would kill herself if she would be taken from the custody
of her maternal grandparents and delivered to her biological parents. These
supervening facts and circumstances must, however, relate to new matters
which developed after the judgment has acquired finality; matters which the
parties were not aware of, and which could not have been aware of prior to or
during the trial as they were not yet in existence at that time (Ago vs. Court of
Appeals, 16 SCRA 81);
4. When it appears that the controversy had never been submitted to the judgment
of the court (Luna v. IAC)
5. When it appears that the writ has been issued improvidently or without
authority against the wrong party.
Asuncion v. Plan
103 SCRA 187
it was held that a writ of execution cannot be issued against the occupant of
the parcel of land subject matter of the case for partition, where that person
was not a party to the case, much less heard thereon
6. Where it becomes imperative, in the higher interests of justice, to direct its
modification in order to harmonize the disposition with the prevailing
circumstances
Raymundo Ortigas vs. Hon. Vicente A. Hidalgo
G.R. No. 80140, June 28, 1991
the Supreme Court stayed the execution convicting the petitioners of the crime
of squatting and suspended enforcement of the order of demolition where after
the judgment had become final and executory, the lot was declared public land
and the Director of Lands gave due course to the claim of petitioner (see also
Luna vs. IAC, supra);
7. Where the judgment turns out to be incomplete
Del Rosario vs. Villegas
49 Phil. 634
The Supreme Court stayed the execution of the judgment pertaining to the
payment of the prices of the cavans of corn from the year 1920 and the
coconuts from the year 1915, where the judgment simply stated their value
would be determined by the price they might bring in Guihulgan on the day of
the execution of the judgment, inasmuch as the judgment contained no data
by which to determine said prices, and such would necessitate further
introduction of evidence;
8. Where the judgment is conditional
Cu Unjieng v. Mabalacat Sugar Co.
70 Phil. 380
Judgment of the trial court which was conditioned upon the outcome of another
case which was then pending appeal before the Supreme Court was not
actually effective and was not capable of execution, as it did not contain a
disposition
9. When a petition for relief or an action to enjoin the judgment is filed and a
preliminary injunction is prayed for and granted (Section 5, Rule 38 of the Rules
of Court);
10. When the judgment has become dormant, the 5-year period under Section 5
of this Rule having expired without the judgment having been revived (Cunanan
vs. CA)
11. When execution is sought against property exempt from execution under
Section 13, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court;
12. The judgment debt has been paid or by the voluntary compliance thereof by
the parties (Cunanan vs. CA)
13. Where the judgment is void, as when the trial court has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the case or over the parties, or both.
REMEDIES TO ASSAIL OR STAY THE EXECUTION OF A FINAL AND
EXECUTORY JUDGMENT
WHAT STAYS EXECUTION
1. Filing a petition for relief
2. Filing a direct action to annul or set aside decision that is void on the lack of
jurisdiction, or extrinsic fraud (Panlilio vs. Garcia) [Recall Sec 2, Rule 47]
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. — The annulment may be based only
on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could
have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.
180

Note: When the decision is void on such grounds, aggrieved party may also
collaterally attack the same.
Reyes vs. Barreto-Datu
94 Phil. 446
A collateral attack is made when in another action to obtain a different relief,
an attack on the judgment is made as an incident in said action. But this is
proper only when the judgment on its face is null and void as where it is patent
that the court which rendered said judgment has no jurisdiction.
A Torrens title, however, is not subject to a collateral attack (Marcelita Co vs.
CA)
EXAMPLE OF A COLLATERAL ATTACK: Waldi filed a case against Randi for
recovery of ownership and possession of parcel of land, with an assessed
value of P1,000,000.00 as, thus, stated in the complaint and as shown in the tax
declaration appended to the complaint. Waldi filed the case with the MTCC, which
rendered judgment by default in his favor, as Randi did not file an answer to the
complaint. The MTCC decision attained finality, there being no appeal filed
therefrom or motion for new trial.
When Waldi sought to enforce the final and executory judgment in his favor,
he discovered, much to his chagrin, that the land was the subject of the
expropriation case that was filed by the Republic of the Philippines, wherein
Randi was named as the respondent, given the fact that the property has been
registered in his name. Upon learning of this development, Waldi sought to
intervene in the expropriation case, praying that the just compensation of the
property be given to him, being the owner of the property per the final and
executory decision of the MTCC.
Randi tenaciously objected to Waldi’s purported intervention, contending that the
MTCC decision is null and void as, according to him, MTCC had no
jurisdiction over the case for recovery of ownership and possession of the subject
land given the assessed value thereof which, indeed, exceeded the jurisdictional
amount of the MTCC. But Waldi argued that it is now too late in the day for
Randi to assail the validity of the judgment of the MTCC, considering that
Randi did not have the said judgment set aside or annulled in a direct
proceeding.
Q: Is Waldi’s contention tenable?
A: No. Randi can still question the judgment of the MTCC. What Randi is doing
is collaterally attacking the judgment of the MTCC, which appeared on its face
as void for want of jurisdiction.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Discretionary execution. —
(a) Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal. — On motion
of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial
court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either
the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the
time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order
execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the
period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction the motion for execution pending
appeal may be filed in the appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated
in a special order after due hearing.
(b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. — A several,
separate or partial judgment may be executed under the same terms and
conditions as execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal.
DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
- Discretionary executions of judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the
trial court. In other words, discretionary execution is not compellable by
mandamus.
1. Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal
2. Execution of several, separate or partial judgments
- Sec 4 and 5, Rule 36: The court may stay the enforcement of such several,
separate, or partial judgments until the rendition of a subsequent judgment or
judgments in the case.
REQUISTES OF DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
1. There must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse
party
- cannot be issued motu proprio by the court
- motion for discretionary execution is a LITIGOUS MOTION
ü In writing
ü Notice to adverse
g
ü Adverse party must file opposition/comment with non-extendible
period of 5 calendar days without need of court order
ü Discretion of the court to call a hearing
2. There must be good reasons for issuing execution; and
- Financial distress is not in itself a good reason to justify the execution pending
appeal (Intramuros Tennis Club, Inc. v. CA)
- While there may be execution pending appeal for an award of actual damages,
upon good reasons, there is no way that there can be an execution pending appeal
for the awards of moral and exemplary damages (RCPI v. Lantin)
- Execution pending appeal is not favored in election cases unless there are good
reasons apart from the protestant being declared as winner (Camalian v.
COMELEC) In Lindo v. COMELEC, the fact that barely 18 months is left to the
tenure of the mayor and that the people have the right to be governed by their
chosen mayor was considered as good reasons for execution pending appeal.
3. The good reasons should be stated in a special order.
- The element that gives validity to an order of execution is the existence of good
reasons which must be stated (in the motion and) in the order as security for their
existence (Roxas v. CA);
The mere posting of a bond cannot be considered sufficient or a “good reason” for
allowing discretionary execution; otherwise, that would make immediate execution
of decision pending appeal routinary, the rule rather than the exception (Eudela
vs. CA)
EXAMPLES OF GOOD REASONS FOR ALLOWING DISCRETIONARY
EXECUTION:
(1) Where the lapse of time would make the ultimate judgment ineffective, as
where the debtors were withdrawing their business and assets from the country
(Scottish Union & National Insurance Co., et al. v. Macadaeg, et al);
(2) Where the judgment is for support and the beneficiary is clearly in need
thereof (Javier vs. Lucero, et al.)
(3) Where the articles subject of the case would deteriorate or where the same
are perishable (Federation, etc. vs. NAMARCO);
(4) Where the defendants are exhausting their income and have no other
property aside from the proceeds from the subdivision lots subject matter of the
action (Lao vs. Mencias);
(5) Where the prevailing party is of advanced age and in a precarious state of
health, and the obligation in the judgment is non-transmissible, being for support
(De Leon, et al., vs. Soriano, et al.);
(6) Where there is uncontradicted evidence showing that, in order to house
machineries which they were forced to place on the street, movants were in
extreme need of the premises subject of the suit and the possession thereof was
adjudged to them in the trial court’s decision, and the corresponding bond to
answer for damages in case of reversal on appeal had been posted by them (Lu
vs. Valeriano)
(7) The purpose of preventing irreparable injury to consumers of an electric
cooperative which needs the amount of the judgment for its operations and the
repair of its transmission lines, electric posts, transformers, accessories, towers,
and fixtures, within its coverage area (Fortune Guarantee and Insurance Corp. vs.
CA)
(8) The failure of the losing defendant in an ejectment case to make the required
periodic deposits to cover the amount or rentals due under the contract or for
payment of the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises, or the
failure to post supersedeas bond may be good reasons to allow execution
pending appeal (Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court); and
(9) Where the appeal is clearly dilatory (Rodriguez vs. CA).
-Intent to delay is to be determined from the surrounding circumstances of the
case. But there is no hard and fast rule for this.
CONTRARY RULING: Ong vs. CA à the Supreme Court ordained that where the
reason given is that an appeal is frivolous and dilatory, execution pending appeal
cannot be justified, for it is not for the trial court to find that an appeal is frivolous
and consequently to disapprove it since the disallowance of an appeal by said
court constitutes a deprivation of the right to appeal. The authority to disapprove
an appeal rightfully pertains to the appellate court.
WHERE TO FILE THE MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION:
1. Trial Court
The motion shall be filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the case
and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal, as
the case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion;
When does the court still have jurisdiction?
181

RULE 41. Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — In appeals by
notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the
perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time
to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the
subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed
in due time and the expiration of the appeal of the other parties.
ILLUSTRATION:
June 4 – judgment served on plaintiff
June 7 – judgment served on defendant
June 15 – defendant served notice of appeal
June 19 – plaintiff’s deadline to file appeal
June 22 – defendant’s deadline for appeal
Q: When was appeal perfected?
A: June 15, for the defendant, but the court still had jurisdiction over the case,
because the plaintiff’s deadline was still on June 19. The court only loses
jurisdiction upon perfection of appeal AND expiration of time to appeal for
the other party.
Q: What if the plaintiff filed motion for execution pending appeal on June 17?
A: The filing was on time and the court could even validly act thereon considering
that it still had jurisdiction over the case at the time of filing the motion.
Q: What if motion for execution was granted by the court on June 23?
A: The court then can act on it for as long as it has the records of the case and
the records are not yet transmitted to the appellate court. What is important is
that the motion was filed while the court still had jurisdiction over the case and, at
the time that it acted and granted the motion, the case records are still with it
[Cases in point: Abe Industries, et al. vs. CA; Universal Far East Corp. v. CA]
2. Appellate Court
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction over the case, with the perfection and/or
expiration of the period to appeal of all the parties, the motion for discretionary
execution may now, as it shall, be filed in the appellate court.
CONTINUATION OF ILLUSTRATION: If the plaintiff filed a motion for execution
pending appeal on June 22, where the records are not transmitted to the appellate
court, does the trial court still have jurisdiction?
A: NO. The motion was filed out of time. If he wants, plaintiff may file another
motion for execution pending appeal in the appellate court
[Case on point: Abe Industries, et al. v. CA]
REMEDY AGAINST DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
1. Certiorari under 65 (Echaus vs. CA)
2. Losing party can appeal and even certiorari. There is no bar, since appeal could
not be an adequate remedy for premature execution (David vs. CA)
Where the motion for execution pending appeal or discretionary execution is
denied, the plaintiff may assail such denial through certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Stay of discretionary execution. — Discretionary execution
issued under the preceding section may be stayed upon approval by the
proper court of a sufficient supersedeas bond filed by the party against
whom it is directed, conditioned upon the performance of the judgment
or order allowed to be executed in case it shall be finally sustained in
whole or in part. The bond thus given may be proceeded against on
motion with notice to the surety.
HOW TO STAY THE A DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
1. Posting a supersedeas bond to be approved by the proper court
- bond is intended to answer for whatever damages as may be awarded by the
appellate court or for the performance of the judgment appealed from in the event
that it is affirmed on appeal
2. Supersedeas bond must be approved in order to suspend execution
- the court still has discretion to deny if the need of the prevailing party is
compelling and urgent (De Leon vs. Soriano)
NOTE: Filing of such supersedeas bond does not guarantee the suspension. It is
not a matter of right. supersedeas bond may only stay a discretionary execution
SECTION 4
Section 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal. — Judgments in actions for
injunction, receivership, accounting and support, and such other
judgments as are now or may hereafter be declared to be immediately
executory, shall be enforceable after their rendition and shall not, be
stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the
g
trial court. On appeal therefrom, the appellate court in its discretion may
make an order suspending, modifying, restoring or granting the
injunction, receivership, accounting, or award of support.
The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as to bond or otherwise
as may be considered proper for the security or protection of the rights
of the adverse party.
GENERAL RULE: An appeal from the judgment or final order that disposes of a
case shall stay the enforcement of such judgment or final order
EXCEPTION: If the court allows execution pending appeal, then execution may
occur.
APPLICABILITY OF THE EXCEPTION:
1. Judgment for injunction;
2. Judgment for receivership;
3. Judgment for accounting;
4. Judgment for support; and
5. Other judgments declared by the law or the rules to be immediately executory;
JUDGMENT FOR INJUNCTION
à Immediately operative (Dimaculangan vs. Arana-Reyes)
à No stay of a judgment decreeing dissolution of a preliminary injunction (Aguilar
vs. Tan)
à Even though there’s appeal, it’s immediately effective even though not final
Defensor-Santiago v. Vasquez**
217 SCRA 663
FACTS: Criminal cases for violation of R.A. 3019 were filed against Miriam
Santiago, in her capacity as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration,
for she posted bail for her temporary liberty.
Santiago then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction before the SC, seeking to enjoin the Sandiganbayan and the RTC
of Manila from proceeding with the criminal cases against her. Consequently,
the SC issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining the Sandiganbayan
and the RTC of Manila from proceeding.
Eventually, the SC dismissed the petition for certiorari and lifted the
temporary restraining order that it previously issued. Santiago then filed a
motion for reconsideration thereon.
While Santiago’s MR for the dismissal of her certiorari and lifting of TRO was
pending, the Sandiganbayan issued a hold departure order against
Santiago.
Santiago then questioned the propriety of the Sandiganbayan’s issuance
of the hold departure order despite the pendency of her motion for
reconsideration with the Supreme Court.
HELD: While Santiago submits that the filing of her motion for reconsideration
stayed the lifting of the temporary restraining order, where the respondent
court continued to be enjoined from acting on and proceeding with the case
during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration, the SC rejected this
contention.
The rule is that the execution of a judgment decreeing the dissolution of a
writ of preliminary injunction shall not be stayed before an appeal is
taken or during the pendency of an appeal [The execution lifting the TRO
must happen before appeal is taken.] We see no reason why the foregoing
considerations should not apply to a temporary restraining order. The
rationale therefor is that even in cases where an appeal is taken from a
judgment dismissing an action on the merits, the appeal does not suspend
the judgment, hence the general rule applies that a temporary injunction
terminates automatically on the dismissal of the action.
It has similarly been held that an order of dissolution of an injunction may
be immediately effective, even though it is not final. A dismissal,
discontinuance, or non-suit of an action in which a restraining order or
temporary injunction has been granted operates as a dissolution of the
restraining order or temporary injunction and no formal order of dissolution is
necessary to effect such dissolution. Consequently, a special order of the court
is necessary for the reinstatement of an injunction. There must be a new
exercise of judicial power.
CONTRAST WITH:
Marcelo Dimaunahan v. Hon. Diego Aranes*
G.R. No. L-49046, Nov. 22, 1943
FACTS: Dimaunahan is the offended party in a criminal case filed before the
justice of the peace court of Batangas, filed by the chief of police against
182

Apolonio Jumarang and Geronimo Jumarang, for less serious physical
injuries.
The chief of police attemted to amend the complaint by charging the accused
with frustrated homicide instead of less serious physical injuries. The court
rejected the amendment. Before arraignment, there was a second amendment
(serious physical injuries) but the chief refused to sign. The private prosecutor
then intended to institute a mandamus proceeding in CFI to object to
arraignment. But arraignment still pursued.
Dimaunahan then filed a petition for mandamus before the CFI to compel the
chief to sign the second amended complaint. Meanwhile, the CFI granted a
writ of preliminary injunction as an auxiliary remedy.
The CFI eventually dismissed the mandamus case, but the CFI did not
dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction. The CFI even gave due course
to the appeal that Dimaunahan filed questioning the dismissal of the
mandamus case.
In the meantime, the court dismissed the criminal case before it for the non-
appearance of the offended party and his witnesses. And this was questioned
by Dimaunahan.
RULING: [exception:] In an action for injunction, the judgment granting,
dissolving, or denying an injunction is immediately operative, unless otherwise
ordered by the court. (See section 4, Rule 39.)
[exception to the exception:] But in an action in which the writ of preliminary
injunction has been issued as an auxiliary remedy, does the judgment of
dismissal ipso facto dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction notwithstanding
an appeal?
In the cases of Watson vs. Enriquez and Sitia Teco vs. Ventura, the trial court,
in rendering judgment in favor of the defendants, dissolved the temporary
injunction theretofore issued by it. This Court held that the dissolution was
operative notwithstanding the appeal from the judgment. This Court quoted
with approval from Knox Company vs. Harshman, that "when an injunctions
has been dissolved, it cannot be revived except by a new exercise of judicial
power, and not appeal by a dissatisfied party can of itself revive it." It was also
held in said cases that the trial court "has the power, if the purposes of
justice require it, to order a continuance of the status quo until a decision
should be made by the appellate court or until that court should order to
contrary.”
In the case the trial court did not dissolve the temporary injunction it had
issued. Thus, we have here the converse of the Watson and Sitia Teco cases.
There it was held that once an injunction has been dissolved, it stays dissolved
unless revived by another order. Here we have an injunction which has not
been dissolved and which, therefore, should remain in force, unless otherwise
ordered by the court, until the case is finally decided.
In the instant case the appeal, which was expressly admitted by the trial
court, would have been a moot case if the court had dissolved the
temporary injunction. That is evidently the reasons why the trial court
refrained from dissolving it in the order of dismissal. The injunction ordered the
justice of the peace to suspend all further action in criminal case No. 1 "hasta
nueva orden." We hold, therefore, that in view of the absention by the trial court
from expressly dissolving the temporary injunction, and in view of the appeal
from the judgment of dismissal, the temporary injunction was not dissolved but
remained in force until the appeal was finally decided. Hence the actuations of
the justice of the peace in violation of said injunction were null and void.”
RECONCILIATION OF CASES:
GENERAL RULE: Appeal will stay/suspend execution
EXCEPTION: Injunction shall not stay/suspend execution
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: Injunction will stay execution if it’s for auxiliary
remedy for the security and protection of the rights of the adverse party.
Santiago is an application of the exception.
When she filed a certiorari and MR, a TRO was issued therefor. Even with the
subsisting TRO, Sandiganbayan still issued a HDO. With this, the TRO DID NOT
STAY EXECUTION.
Dimaunahan is the exception to the exception.
In line with Dimaunahan’s mandamus, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued.
But once the mandamus was rejected, the WPI still subsisted. The execution
stayed, because the WPI remained in force while an appeal was taken from its
judgment [so that the appeal will not be moot and academic]. The trial court has
the power, if the purposes of justice require it, to order the continuance of the
status quo until a decision should be made by the appellate court or until that court
should order to the contrary. The stay of execution here was “for the security or
protection of the rights of the adverse party.”
JUDGMENT FOR RECEIVERSHIP
g
à not stay execution / immediately executory
JUDGMENT FOR ACCOUNTING
à not stay execution / immediately executory
JUDGMENT FOR SUPPORT
à not stay execution / immediately executory
OTHER JUDGMENTS DECLARED BY THE LAW OR THE RULES TO BE
IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY
1. Ejectment case
RULE 70. Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay
same. - the judgment in an ejectment case against the defendant shall be
immediately executory, unless appeal has been perfected and the
defendant, to stay execution, files a supersedeas bond, approved by the
Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the
rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment
appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, the losing
defendant deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from
time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of
the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit
with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and
occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate
determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day
of each succeeding month or period;
2. Intra-corporate controversy
RULE 1. Sec. 4. Executory nature of decisions and orders. – All decisions
and orders issued under these Rules shall immediately be executory. No
appeal or petition taken therefrom shall stay the enforcement or
implementation of the decision or order, unless restrained by an
appellate court. Interlocutory orders shall not be subject to appeal.
[Interim Rule of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies]
REMEMBER!
The rule that judgments in actions for injunction, receivership, accounting and
support shall be immediately executory is not absolute. The trial court may order
execution be stayed while appeal is pending.
Likewise, on appeal from said judgments, the appellate court, in its discretion, may
make an order suspending, modifying, restoring or granting the injunction,
receivership, accounting, or award of support.
The stay of execution of such judgments, as may be ordered by the trial court or
the appellate court, shall be upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as may be
considered proper for the security or protection of the rights of the adverse party.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Effect of reversal of executed judgment. — Where the executed
judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or
otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of restitution
or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant under the
circumstances.
EFFECTS WHEN EXECUTED JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED
Judgment-debtor is entitled to:
1. Restitution + Compensation for deprivation and use of property
2. Compensation (if restitution is not possible), as follows:
(1) If the purchaser of the property at the public auction was the erstwhile judgment
creditor (but the property could no longer be returned because it was perishable
or consumable, or otherwise sold to innocent third parties), then he must pay the
full value of the property at the time of its seizure, plus interest thereon;
(2) If the purchaser at the public auction was an innocent third person, the
judgment creditor must pay the judgment debtor the amount realized from the
sale of said property at the sheriff’s sale, with interest thereon; and
(3) If the judgment award was but reduced on appeal, the judgment creditor must
return to the judgment debtor only the excess which he received over and
above that to which the judgment creditor is entitled under the final judgment,
with interest over such excess (Po Pauco vs. Tan Juco)
Note: There is no need of specifying in the judgment that there should be restitution
because restitution is expressly provided for in the Rules. Said rule shall apply in
the absence of a disposition to the contrary in the judgment of the appellate court
(Salas vs. Quinga)
SECTION 6
183

Section 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. — A final and
executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5)
years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before
it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by
action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five
(5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is
barred by the statute of limitations.
HOW TO ENFORCE EXECUTION
1. By mere motion, if the execution of the judgment be done within five (5) years
from the date of its entry
2. By action for revival of judgment, if the execution of the judgment be done
after 5 years from the date of its entry and before it is barred by the statute of
limitation.
PURPOSE OF TIME LIMITS à to prevent litigants from sleeping on their rights
(Ilaw Buklod ng Manggagawa [IBM] Nestle Philippines, Inc. Chapter [Ice Cream
and Chilled Products Division] vs. Nestle Philippines, Inc.).
EXECUTION BY MERE MOTION
1. Done within five (5) years from the date of its entry, when it becomes final and
executory
- counted NOT from the date the judgment became final in the sense that no
appeal therefrom could be taken, or had been taken, but when it became
executory in the sense that it could already be enforced. After all, it does not
always follow that just because a judgment had become final that it is already
executory (Tan Ching vs. Mapalo,).
ILLUSTRATION: Under a compromise agreement approved by the Court in its
decision dated February 4, 1954, the defendant obligated himself to pay plaintiff
the sum of P23,000.00, without interest within a period of six years from date
thereof.
ANALYSIS: The said judgment can be executed only after the expiration of the
stipulated six-year period. The remedy of the judgment creditor, after the lapse
of the six-year period is not revival of judgment since no execution could be had
within that period (Tan Ching vs Mapalo, supra).
In other words, the 5-year period within which the judgment based on compromise
can be executed by mere motion shall NOT start to run from February 4, 1954,
the date the court promulgated its decision, which, by its nature, is immediately
executory as it was based on the compromise agreement of the parties), as the
said period should properly start to run only after the lapse of the six-year grace
period given to the defendant under the decision based on the compromise
agreement of the parties.
The rule is that the court could issue a writ of execution upon a mere motion within
five (5) years from the time the judgment became final and executory. A writ
of execution issued after the expiration of that period is null and void.
Sabulao v. Delos Angeles
G.R. No. May 29, 1971
Failure to object to a writ of execution issued after 5 years from final
judgment does NOT validate the writ, as the question of jurisdiction of the
court is involved and jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the will of the parties.
Rodriguez vs. CA
G.R. No. 123026, Sept. 4, 1996
It has been invariably held, however, that where the writ of execution was
issued and the levy was made within five years from the time the judgment
became final and executory, the auction sale may be validly made even
after the five (5)-year period; provided, however, that the sale be made
within ten (10) years during which the judgment can be enforced (Jalandoni
vs. PNB). In this situation, the sale of the property and the application of the
proceeds are merely the means to carry out the writ of the execution and a
levy already validly made (Government vs. Echaus).
Jalandoni vs. PNB
supra
If no levy was made within the said five (5)-year period, the writ of execution
may no longer be enforced even it was issued within the five (5)-year period.
Levy is the essential act by which the property is set apart for the
satisfaction of the judgment and taken into custody of the law and that after
it has been taken from the judgment debtor, his interest is limited to its
application to the judgment.
Primo vs. Fernandez
5 SCRA 463
g
Conversely, the mere filing of a motion for execution without follow-up
does NOT interrupt the five (5)-year period within which a judgment can be
executed by mere motion.
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE 5-YEAR PERIOD RULE IS RELAXED
[The delay in the execution of judgment is through no fault of the prevailing party
and more so if the delay is caused or occasioned by actions of the judgment debtor
and/or is incurred for his benefit or advantage]
Examples:
1. The defendant’s current address cannot, with due diligence, be ascertained
and no property of his can be found, the period of prescription is tolled/suspended
under Article 1108 (2) of the New Civil Code (Marc Donelly v. CFI Manila)
2. Where the parties entered into a compromise agreement to suspend the
enforcement of the judgment (Macias vs Lim) especially if the agreement was
approved by the court (Manila Railroad Co. v. CIR; Tan Ching v. Mapalo, supra)
3. Where the writ of execution was not carried out due to the repeated refusal of
the sheriff to enforce the same (Lancita vs. Magbanua)
4. Where the execution was suspended by order of the court (Casela vsCA)
5. Where it was interrupted by the filing of a motion for examination of the
judgment debtor and an action for mandamus for that purpose by the judgment
creditor (Potenciano vs. Mariano);
6. Where the execution was withheld due to the financial difficulties of the
debtor (Lancita vs. Magbanua)
7. When the judgment debtor employed legal maneuvers to block the
enforcement of the judgment (Camacho vs. CA)
8. When the judgment debtor filed petitions in the Court of Appeals and in the
Supreme Court challenging the trial court’s judgment, as well as the writ of
execution (Macapagal vs. Gako)
9. Where the judgment debtor refused to abide by the writ of execution (David
vs. Ejercito)
10. Where the judgment creditors had complied with virtually all the requirements,
made, however, in piecemeal fashion by the Commission on Audit, for the payment
to them by the defendant province of the judgment account but which still remained
unpaid after 8 years from finality of the judgment, the Supreme Court held that said
8 years should not be included in computing the 5-year period to execute judgment
by mere motion (Provincial Government of Sorsogon vs. Villaroya)
ACTION FOR REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT
1. Made if the execution be not made within five years from the date the
judgment became final and executory
2. Prevailing party has to file an action for revival of judgment.
Ilaw Buklod ng Manggagawa [IBM] Nestle Philippines, Inc. Chapter v.
Nestle Philippines, Inc
supra
The reason is that after the lapse of the five (5)-year period, the judgment is
reduced to a mere right of action, in which judgment must be enforced, as
all other ordinary actions, by the institution of a complaint in the regular form
Tan vs. FNCBNY
4 SCRA 501
If judgment has not been executed after 5 years, it is reduced to a condition of
a mere right of action. If the judgment debtor dies, the dormant judgment
(judgment for money) may well be presented as a claim in the probate court
where the settlement of the estate of the deceased debtor is pending.
Any such dormant judgment for money must first be revived in an action for
revival thereof before it is presented against the estate of the deceased
judgment debtor. (Romualdez vs. Tiglao)
I. Prescriptive period for action for revival of judgment:
1. Filed within ten years from the date the judgment became final and executory
in accordance with Article 1144 [3], in relation to Article 1152, of the Civil Code of
the Philippines (Estonina vs. Southern Marketing).
2. The 10-year period is NOT to be counted from the expiration of the five-year
period within which the judgment may be enforced by mere motion (PNB vs.
Deloso).
WHEN COUNTED FROM?
184

If an amendatory and from the date that said amendatory judgment
“clarificatory” became final and executory Sta. Romana vs.
judgment was rendered Lacson
the filing of that action interrupted the running of
the prescriptive period of ten (10) years (Donelly
Where an action to
vs. CFI of Manila)
revive judgment is
filed seasonably but
Hence, a second revival action may again be
was dismissed without
filed within the balance of the said period, after
prejudice
deducting the period of interruption (PNB vs.
Deloso)
II. Nature of the action for revival of judgment
à no more than a procedural device to secure execution
à not intended to re-open any issue affecting the maertis of the judgment debtor’s
case or the propriety of the first judgment (Saligumba vs. Palanog)
à new and independent action (Saligumba vs. Palanog)
à different and disctinct from the original judgment (Heirs of Miranda, Sr. vs.
Miranda)
à subject to defenses such as (a) matters of jurisdiction, (b) prescription, (c)
payment, or (d) other defenses arising after the finality (Basilonia vs. Villacruz)
Realiza vs. Duarte
20 SCRA 1265
Because the revival is a mere right of action, which may be subject to defenses,
the subsequent approval of the losing defendant’s homestead legalized his
possession over the property, and such approval constitutes a justifiable
defense against an action for revival of a judgment in an ejectment suit. Such
defense undoubtedly arose after the finality of the first judgments.
Compania General de Tabacos v. Martinez and Nolan
29 Phil. 516
By the mere pleading of the judgment, the plaintiff effectually blocks all
investigation into the merits of the original controversy.
III. Venue of the action for revival of judgment
à governed by the rules governing venue (Rule 4)
Infante vs. Aran Builders, Inc**
531 SCRA 123
Proper venue depends on the determination of whether the present
action for revival of judgment is a real action or a personal action.
Applying the afore-quoted rules on venue, if the action for revival of judgment
affects title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, then it is a
real action that must be filed with the court of the place where the real
property is located. If such action does not fall under the category of real
actions, it is then a personal action that may be filed with the court of the
place where the plaintiff or defendant resides.
IV. Jurisdiction over the action for revival of judgment:
Torrefranca, et al. vs. Albiso; Heirs of Miranda v. Miranda – before the court
which rendered the judgment sought to be revived
Aldeguer vs. Gemelo; Infante vs. Aran Builders; Riano – RTC
CAVEAT! Aldeguer and Infante case was criticized because the primordial issue
therein was on venue, not jurisdiction.
CONTROLLING DOCTRINE à Anama v. Citibank
Douglas F. Anama v. Citbank*
G.R. No. 192048, Dec. 13, 2017
“In determining the jurisdiction of an action whose subject is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought
must first be ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money,
the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation and the jurisdiction of
the court depends on the amount of the claim. But, where the primary issue
is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the
money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
sought, such are actions whose subjects are incapable of pecuniary
estimation, hence cognizable by the RTCs.
As an action to revive judgment raises issues of whether the petitioner
has a right to have the final and executory judgment revived and to have
that judgment enforced and does not involve recovery of a sum of
money, we rule that jurisdiction over a petition to revive judgment is
properly with the RTCs.
Anama's reliance on Aldeguer v. Gemelo to justify his filing with the CA is
misplaced. The issue in Aldeguer is not jurisdiction but venue. The issue was
g
which between the RTC of Iloilo and RTC of Negros Occidental was the proper
court to hear the action.
However, venue and jurisdiction are entirely distinct matters. Jurisdiction
may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise would
have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action; but the venue of an
action as fixed by statute may be changed by the consent of the parties and
an objection that the plaintiff brought his suit in the wrong county may be
waived by the failure of the defendant to make a timely objection. In either
case, the court may render a valid judgment. Rules as to jurisdiction can never
be left to the consent or agreement of the parties, whether or not a prohibition
exists against their alteration. Venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and
hence may be waived.
NOTE: For labor cases, action for revival of judgment should be filed in NLRC.
(Maricalum Mining Corporation vs. NLRC)
V. Enforcement of the revived judgment
à the same manner of enforcing the original judgment
1. BY mere motion
2. Executable within 5 years from the time the revived judgmenet became final and
executory
3. If still dormant after 5 years, the party has 10 years to file another action to
enforce his right of action.
PNB vs. Bondoc,
4 SCRA 770
A revived judgment may be further revived. The ten (10)-year period to revive
the revived judgment shall commence to run from the date the revived
judgment became final and executory, and not from the date of the finality of
the old or original judgment
CASES WHERE THE 5-YEAR OR 10-YEAR PERIOD IN SECTION 6, RULE 39
OF THE RULES OF COURT WILL NOT APPLY
The five (5)-year or ten (10)-year period prescribed in Section 6, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court is not applicable in the following cases:
1. Judgments for support which do not become dormant and which can always
be executed by motion (Canonizado vs. Benitez)
2. It does not apply to contempt orders by reason of unauthorized reentry on the
land by the ejected defendant (Azotes vs. Blanco)
3. Judgments in special proceedings, such as land registration cases, wherein
the right to ask for a writ of possession does not prescribe (Rodil vs. Benedicto)
SECTION 7
Section 7. Execution in case of death of party. — In case of the death of
a party, execution may issue or be enforced in the following manner:
(a) In case of the death of the judgment oblige [creditor], upon the
application of his executor or administrator, or successor in
interest;
(b) In case of the death of the judgment obligor [debtor], against his
executor or administrator or successor in interest, if the judgment
be for the recovery of real or personal property, or the enforcement
of a lien thereon;
(c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, after execution is
actually levied upon any of his property, the same may be sold for
the satisfaction of the judgment obligation, and the officer making
the sale shall account to the corresponding executor or
administrator for any surplus in his hands.
WHEN THE DEFENDANT OR PLAINTIFF DIES AFTER JUDGEMENT
BECOMES FINAL AND EXECUTORY
[before that, apply Rule 16 or Rule 20]
DEATH OF OBLIGEE/CREDITOR/WINNING PARTY
à execution may then issue upon the application of his executor or administrator,
or successor in interest
DEATH OF OBLIGOR/DEBTOR/LOSING PARTY
à It depends on the type of action
a. Where the judgment is for recovery of real or personal property:
à execution will issue against the executor or administrator or successor in
interest of the deceased judgment obligor, commending such executor or
administrator to deliver the subject real or personal property or satisfy the lien
thereon in favor of the prevailing party (Section 7 [b], Rule 39)
HIGHKEY NOTE: Such judgment need not [and could not] be presented as a claim
against the eststae, as this privision only applies to money claims
b. Where it is for money claims or is a money judgment:
185

à It depends on whether he dies before or after levy.
AFTER LEVY
à Public auction shall proceed for the satisfaction of the judgment, and the
officer conducting the auction sale shall account to the corresponding executor
or administrator for any surplus in his hands (Evangelista vs. Provedora)
If the proceeds of the auction sale be not enough to satisfy the judgment award,
then the deficiency shall be presented as a money claim against the estate of
deceased judgment obligor pursuant to Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court;
BEFORE LEVY
à Writ of execution will no longer issue
à If already issued, it will no longer be enforced, in that the judgment for money
shall just be presented as money claim against the estate of deceased judgment
obligor pursuant to Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court (Paredes vs. Moya).
NOTE: Such claim need not anymore be proved, since the judgment itself is
conclusive (Evangelista vs. La Provedora)
SECTION 8
Section 8. Issuance, form and contents of a writ of execution. — The writ
of execution shall: (1) issue in the name of the Republic of the Philippines
from the court which granted the motion; (2) state the name of the court,
the case number and title, the dispositive part of the subject judgment or
order; and (3) require the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it is
directed to enforce the writ according to its terms, in the manner
hereinafter provided:
(a) If the execution be against the property of the judgment obligor,
to satisfy the judgment, with interest, out of the real or personal
property of such judgment obligor;
(b) If it be against real or personal property in the hands of personal
representatives, heirs, devisees, legatees, tenants, or trustees of
the judgment obligor, to satisfy the judgment, with interest, out of
such property;
(c) If it be for the sale of real or personal property to sell such property
describing it, and apply the proceeds in conformity with the
judgment, the material parts of which shall be recited in the writ of
execution;
(d) If it be for the delivery of the possession of real or personal
property, to deliver the possession of the same, describing it, to
the party entitled thereto, and to satisfy any costs, damages,
rents, or profits covered by the judgment out of the personal
property of the person against whom it was rendered, and if
sufficient personal property cannot be found, then out of the real
property; and
(e) In all cases, the writ of execution shall specifically state the
amount of the interest, costs, damages, rents, or profits due as of
the date of the issuance of the writ, aside from the principal
obligation under the judgment. For this purpose, the motion for
execution shall specify the amounts of the foregoing reliefs
sought by the movant.
WRIT OF EXECUTION - a judicial writ issued to an officer authorizing and
requiring him to execute the judgment of the court (Pelejo vs. CA); directed to the
officer who is thereby commanded to enforce the same
FORMS AND CONTENT OF WRIT
1. in the name of the Republic of the Philippines from the court which granted
the motion
2. directed to the officer who is thereby commanded to enforce the same
3. specify the amount or amounts that the judgment obligor is held liable for; If
none is provided in the judgment or in the writ, the sheriff is not allowed to
determine the amount (Section 8 (e), Rule 39)
ILLUSTRATION: Suppose the case was filed and tried before the MTC, which
rendered a judgment favorable to the plaintiff, but said judgment was appealed to
the RTC, which reversed the decision of the lower court. But, on further appeal to
the CA the CA reversed the ruling of the RTC and reinstated the ruling of the MTC
with modifications, thereby increasing the award due the plaintiff, and the decision
of the CA became final and executory. Which court can issue the writ of
execution?
A: It depends on the kind of execution.
EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF
DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
RIGHT
g
the writ of execution shall be issued by 1. MTC - before it lost jurisdiction over
the trial court or the court of origin. the case and while the case records of
the case are still with it
In the above situation, the CA, whose
decision became final and executory, Case: City of Manila vs. Court of
should remand the case records to the Appeals
RTC, which, in turn, should return the
records to the MTC, and, upon motion
of the prevailing party, the MTC shall
then issue the writ of execution to
implement the final and executory
decision of the CA
MONEY JUDGMENT à satisfied out of the real or personal property of such
judgment debtor
Said rule does not provide for any preferential treatment as to what properties shall
be proceeded first. But this provision must be read in conjunction with Section 9
(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which, in essence, gives the judgment obligor
the option to choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon to
satisfy the judgment and, where he does not exercise such option, the sheriff shall
first levy on the personal properties of the judgment obligor, if any, before
proceeding to levy his real properties in the event his personal properties be not
sufficient to satisfy the judgment award.
RULE 39. Section 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced. —
xxx (b) Satisfaction by levy. —giving the latter the option to immediately
choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient to
satisfy the judgment. If the judgment obligor does not exercise the
option, the officer shall first levy on the personal properties, if any, and
then on the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to
answer for the judgment.
JUDGMENT CONSISTING OF DELIVERY OF REALTY OR PERSONALTY à
Same preferential treatment
SECTION 9
Section 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced. —
(a) Immediate payment on demand. — The officer shall enforce an
execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment
obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ
of execution and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay in
cash, certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any
other form of payment acceptable to the latter, the amount of the
judgment debt under proper receipt directly to the judgment obligee
or his authorized representative if present at the time of payment.
The lawful fees shall be handed under proper receipt to the
executing sheriff who shall turn over the said amount within the
same day to the clerk of court of the court that issued the writ.
If the judgment obligee or his authorized representative is not
present to receive payment, the judgment obligor shall deliver the
aforesaid payment to the executing sheriff. The latter shall turn over
all the amounts coming into his possession within the same day to
the clerk of court of the court that issued the writ, or if the same is
not practicable, deposit said amounts to a fiduciary account in the
nearest government depository bank of the Regional Trial Court of
the locality.
The clerk of said court shall thereafter arrange for the remittance of
the deposit to the account of the court that issued the writ whose
clerk of court shall then deliver said payment to the judgment
obligee in satisfaction of the judgment. The excess, if any, shall be
delivered to the judgment obligor while the lawful fees shall be
retained by the clerk of court for disposition as provided by law. In
no case shall the executing sheriff demand that any payment by
check be made payable to him.
(b) Satisfaction by levy. — If the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part
of the obligation in cash, certified bank check or other mode of
payment acceptable to the judgment obligee, the officer shall levy
upon the properties of the judgment obligor of every kind and nature
whatsoever which may be disposed, of for value and not otherwise
exempt from execution giving the latter the option to immediately
choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient
to satisfy the judgment. If the judgment obligor does not exercise
the option, the officer shall first levy on the personal properties, if
any, and then on the real properties if the personal properties are
insufficient to answer for the judgment.
The sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion of the personal or real
property of the judgment obligor which has been levied upon.
186
 g

When there is more property of the judgment obligor than is

sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees, he must sell only
so much of the personal or real property as is sufficient to satisfy
the judgment and lawful fees.

Real property, stocks, shares, debts, credits, and other personal

property, or any interest in either real or personal property, may be
levied upon in like manner and with like effect as under a writ of
attachment.

(c) Garnishment of debts and credits. — The officer may levy on debts PRIORITY:
due the judgment obligor and other credits, including bank
deposits, financial interests, royalties, commissions and other
#1. The sheriff shall first levy the personal properties of the judgment
personal property not capable of manual delivery in the possession obligor, if any;
or control of third parties. Levy shall be made by serving notice
upon the person owing such debts or having in his possession or
In levying the personal properties of the judgment obligor, the sheriff may levy
control such credits to which the judgment obligor is entitled. The
on debts due the judgment obligor and other credits, including bank deposits,
garnishment shall cover only such amount as will satisfy the
financial interests, royalties, commissions and other personal property not
judgment and all lawful fees. capable of manual delivery in the possession or control of third parties;
The garnishee shall make a written report to the court within five (5) Levy shall be made by serving notice upon the person owing such debts or
days from service of the notice of garnishment stating whether or
having in his possession or control such credits to which the judgment obligor
not the judgment obligor has sufficient funds or credits to satisfy is entitled. The garnishment shall cover only such amount as will satisfy the
the amount of the judgment. If not, the report shall state how much
judgment and all lawful fees;
funds or credits the garnishee holds for the judgment obligor. The
garnished amount in cash, or certified bank check issued in the
In the event there are two or more garnishees holding deposits or credits
name of the judgment obligee, shall be delivered directly to the sufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment obligor, if available, shall have
judgment obligee within ten (10) working days from service of notice
the right to indicate the garnishee or garnishees who shall be required to
on said garnishee requiring such delivery, except the lawful fees
deliver the amount due, otherwise, the choice shall be made by the judgment
which shall be paid directly to the court.
obligee;
In the event there are two or more garnishees holding deposits or The garnished amount in cash, or certified bank check issued in the name of
credits sufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment obligor, if
the judgment obligee, shall be delivered directly to the judgment obligee within
available, shall have the right to indicate the garnishee or ten (10) working days from service of notice on said garnishee requiring such
garnishees who shall be required to deliver the amount due,
delivery, except the lawful fees which shall be paid directly to the court.
otherwise, the choice shall be made by the judgment obligee.
#2. If the personal properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment,
The executing sheriff shall observe the same procedure under paragraph
(a) with respect to delivery of payment to the judgment obligee. then the sheriff shall now levy the real properties of the judgment obligor.

The sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion of the personal or real property of
MANNER OF ENFORCING THE JUDGMENTS FOR MONEY
the judgment obligor which has been levied upon. When there is more property
of the judgment obligor than is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees,
Either through demand for payment or levy and sale of properties.
he must sell only so much of the personal or real property as is sufficient to
satisfy the judgment and lawful fees.
1. Through a demand for payment

LEVY OF PROPERTIES

LEVY - the act whereby the sheriff sets apart or appropriates for the purpose of
satisfying the command of the writ, a part or the whole of the judgment-debtor’s
property (Filstone vs. CA); A property already mortgaged may still be levied.

Golden Sun Finance Corporation v. Alban***o

A.M. No. P-11-2888, July 27, 2011

“In determining properties to be levied upon, the Rules require the sheriff to
levy only on those "properties of the judgment debtor" which are "not
otherwise exempt from execution."

For purposes of the levy, a property is deemed to belong to the judgment

debtor if he holds a beneficial interest in such property that he can sell or
otherwise dispose of for value. In a contract of mortgage, the debtor retains
beneficial interest over the property notwithstanding the encumbrance,
since the mortgage only serves to secure the fulfillment of the principal
2. Through levy and Sale of Properties. obligation. Indeed, even if the debtor defaults, this fact does not operate to vest
à Only if the judgment obligor CANNOT pay in cash, certified bank check or other in the creditor the ownership of the property; the creditor must still resort to
mode of payment acceptable to the judgment oblige: foreclosure proceedings. Thus, a mortgaged property may still be levied
upon by the sheriff to satisfy the judgment debtor’s obligations, as what
The officer shall levy upon the properties of the judgment obligor of every kind and nature whatsoever happened in the present case. After ascertaining the judgment debtor’s
which may be disposed, of for value and not otherwise exempt from execution. (Reyes’) interest over the car, the respondent properly enforced the levy
thereon — an act that, to our mind, is in accordance with the Rules of Court.
If payment can be done, a levy is not necessary.
It was thus irrelevant for the complainant to argue that had the respondent
checked the car’s certificate of registration, the respondent would have been
STEPS:
aware of the encumbrance. The encumbrance, until foreclosed, will not in any
way affect the judgment debtor’s rights over the property or exempt the
property from the levy. Even the pendency of the proceeding for replevin that
the complainant instituted would not serve to prevent the sheriff from levying
on the car, since Reyes’ default and the complainant’s right to foreclose still
had to be settled in the proceeding.”

GARNISHMENT

187

GARNISHMENT
- a kind of levy which involves the “freezing” or “putting on hold” of the money,
deposits, collectibles, credits, financial interests, royalties, commissions, stocks or
other incorporeal property belonging to or owing to the judgment obligor but is in
the hands of third persons, so that the judgment obligor cannot move or withdraw
the same
- a species of attachment for reaching any property or credits pertaining or payable
to a judgment debtor
- In legal contemplation, it is a forced novation by the substitution of creditors: the
judgment debtor, who is the original creditor of the garnishee is, through service
of the writ of garnishment, substituted by the judgment creditor who thereby
becomes creditor of the garnishee
- a warning to a person having in his possession property or credits of the judgment
debtor, not to pay the money or deliver the property to the latter, but rather to
appear and answer the plaintiff's suit (Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. vs.
Romalete).
NOTE: In order that the trial court may validly acquire jurisdiction to bind the person
of the garnishee, it is not necessary that summons be served upon him. The
garnishee need not be impleaded as a party to the case.
Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. vs. Romalete
SuPRA
All that is necessary for the trial court lawfully to bind the person of the
garnishee or any person who has in his possession credits belonging to the
judgment debtor is service upon him of the writ of garnishment (Ibid.).
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. vs. De Castro
168 SCRA 49
The garnishment of property to satisfy a writ of execution operates as an
attachment and fastens upon the property a lien by which the property is
brought under the jurisdiction of the court issuing the writ. It is brought in
custody legis, under the sole control of such court
PCIB vs CA
G.R. No. 84526, Jan. 28, 1991
The garnishment of the deposit of judgment debtor is not violative of R.A. No.
1405, otherwise known as “An Act Prohibiting Disclosure of or Inquiry Into,
Deposits with any Banking Institution”
Salvacion vs. Central Bank
G.R. No. 94723, Aug. 21, 1997,
While Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 exempts foreign currency
deposit from attachment or garnishment or any process of the court, it is
inapplicable to case where the levy was to carry out a judgment for damages
for the rape committed by the foreigner against a 12-year old Filipina.
SECTION 10
Section 10. Execution of judgments for specific act. —
(a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other specific acts; vesting
title. — If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of
land or personal property, or to deliver deeds or other
documents, or to perform, any other specific act in connection
therewith, and the party fails to comply within the time specified,
the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the
disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court
and the act when so done shall have like effect as if done by the
party. If real or personal property is situated within the
Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof
may by an order divest the title of any party and vest it in others,
which shall have the force and effect of a conveyance executed
in due form of law.
(b) Sale of real or personal property. — If the judgment be for the
sale of real or personal property, to sell such property,
describing it, and apply the proceeds in conformity with the
judgment.
(c) Delivery or restitution of real property. — The officer shall
demand of the person against whom the judgment for the
delivery or restitution of real property is rendered and all persons
claiming rights under him to peaceably vacate the property
within three (3) working days, and restore possession thereof to
the judgment obligee, otherwise, the officer shall oust all such
persons therefrom with the assistance, if necessary, of
appropriate peace officers, and employing such means as may
be reasonably necessary to retake possession, and place the
judgment obligee in possession of such property. Any costs,
damages, rents or profits awarded by the judgment shall be
satisfied in the same manner as a judgment for money.
(d) Removal of improvements on property subject of execution. —
When the property subject of the execution contains
g
improvements constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or
his agent, the officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said
improvements except upon special order of the court, issued
upon motion of the judgment obligee after the hearing and after
the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable
time fixed by the court.
(e) Delivery of personal property. — In judgment for the delivery of
personal property, the officer shall take possession of the same
and forthwith deliver it to the party entitled thereto and satisfy
any judgment for money as therein provided.
The judgment to be enforced requires the judgment obligor to perform something
other than payment of sum of money.
I. CONVEYANCE, DELIVERY OF DEEDS, OR OTHER SPECIFIC
ACTS; VESTING TITLE
The court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by
some other person appointed by the court and the act when so done shall have
like effect as if done by the party.
People’s Homesite & Housing Corporation vs. Ericta, the Clerk of Court
124 SCRA 203
Thus, where the action is for specific performance to compel the defendant
to execute a deed of absolute sale for a specific parcel of land in favor of the
plaintiff and the latter prevailed in the action pursuant to a final and executory
judgment but the defendant dastardly refuses to execute the appurtenant deed
of sale, the court may just direct somebody else execute the appurtenant
instrument with like effect. Parenthetically, the Clerk of Court was ordered
to execute the deed of sale pursuant to a final judgment.
Note: If real or personal property is situated within the Philippines, the court in lieu
of directing a conveyance thereof may just issue an Order divesting the title of any
party and vest it in the party who prevailed in the suit, and such court order shall
have the force and effect of a deed of sale or deed of conveyance. Thus, instead
of directing the clerk of court to execute a deed of sale on behalf of the losing
defendant, the court may just direct the Register of Deeds to cancel the certificate
of title covering the property in the name of the losing defendant and issue a new
one in the name of the prevailing party.
II. SALE OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY
If the judgment be for the sale of real or personal property, the sheriff shall sell
such property, describing it, and apply the proceeds in conformity with the
judgment.
III. DELIVERY OR RESTITUTION OF REAL PROPERTY
Under Section 10 (c), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, where the judgment to be
enforced calls for the delivery or restitution of real property, the sheriff shall first
demand of the person against whom the judgment for the delivery or restitution of
real property is rendered and all persons claiming rights under him to peaceably
vacate the property within three (3) working days, and restore possession thereof
to the judgment obligee. And it is only after such period that the sheriff may enforce
the writ by the bodily removal of the defendant and his personal belongings
(Reformina vs Adriano, 189 SCRA 723).
Mendoza vs. Doroni
481 SCRA 41
Immediacy of execution does not mean instant execution. When a decision is
immediately executory, it does not mean dispensing with the required three
(3)-day notice. A sheriff who enforces the writ without the required notice is
running afoul with the rules
Mabale vs. Apalisok
88 SCRA 247).
Where a writ of possession is addressed to the sheriff, the occupants who
refuse to comply therewith could not have been guilty of disobeying that
writ, and, therefore, could not be held liable for contempt of court. The
occupants could be deemed to have violated the writ of possession
because, in the first place, the writ is directed to the sheriff for him to do
something. Contempt, therefore, is not the remedy. The remedy is for the
sheriff to physically dispossess the defendant and deliver the possession to
the plaintiff (Pascua vs. Heirs of Simeon, 161 SCRA 1).
Arcadio vs. Ylagan
143 SCRA 168
There is no need for the sheriff to secure a break open order where the
character of the writ in their hands authorized them if necessary to break open
the premises, or where it directs the sheriff to cause the defendant to vacate
the property. The officer enforcing the writ has the right to employ
necessary force to enable him to enter the house and enforce the
judgment.
188
 g

thereby, or by law, to obey the same, and such party or person may be
Bunag v sCA punished for contempt if he disobeys such judgment.
G.R. No. 107364, Feb. 25, 1999
Under the present rules, the sheriff may even seek assistance, if necessary, JUDGMENT OTHER THAN PAYMENT OF MONEY
of appropriate peace officers, and employing such means as may be
reasonably necessary to retake possession, and place the judgment obligee EXAMPLES:
in possession of such property SECTION 10, RULE 39 SECTION 11, RULE 39
judgment for the defendant to judgment in a mandamus case to
Abinujar v. CA*** execute a deed of conveyance of a reinstate the petition as chief of the
243 SCRA 531 parcel of land hospital clinic
judgment directing the losing Special action for certiorari,
FACTS: Spouses Ramiro filed a case for ejectment against spouses Abinujar defendant to vacate the premises prohibition, or mandamus, under
for the latter to vacate their house which they sold under pacto de retro to the subject matter of the suit Rule 65
plaintiffs, and which spouses Abinjuar failed to repurchase.
EFFECTS ON DISOBEDIENCE TO EXECUTE JUDGMENT
While the case was pending, the parties, assisted by their counsels, entered à Punishable by contempt in court, by Section 9, Rule 65
into a compromise agreement, whereby it was agreed that defendant would
tender monthly payments to the plaintiffs with an additional stipulation to the SECTION 12
end that “ failure on the part of the defendants to pay three (3) consecutive Section 12. Effect of levy on execution as to third person. — The levy on
payments, plaintiffs will be entitled to a writ of execution, unless the execution shall create a lien in favor of the judgment obligee over the
parties agree to extend the period of entitlement to a writ of execution in right, title and interest of the judgment obligor in such property at the
writing to be submitted and/or approved by this Honorable Court.” time of the levy, subject to liens and encumbrances then existing.
Defendants failed to pay the first three installments as, thus, stipulated in the REMEMBER: Without a valid levy having been made, any sale of the property is
compromise agreement, so that the plaintiffs filed a motion for execution. The void (Valenzuela vs. Aguilar).
MTC, at first, denied the motion for execution, but pursuant to the ruling of the
RTC in the mandamus case filed by the plaintiffs, the MTC eventually issued Notes!
a writ of execution which eventually led to the sheriff’s issuance of a notice to • If real property is involved, notice of levy must be registered with RD and
the defendants directing them to “voluntarily vacate the premises.” This was annotated in the TCT. Lacking this renders lecy defective. (Phil. Surety &
questioned by the defendants. Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Zabal)
• But this defect is cured by the service upon the judgment obligor of the
HELD: “When the parties entered into a compromise agreement, the original notice of sale prior to the date of the actual sale (Pamintuan vs. Munoz)
action for ejectment was set aside and the action was changed to a monetary
obligation. FUCKING DON’T FORGET LANDTITS à
A perusal of the compromise agreement signed by the parties and approved A valid levy is superior compared to a prior but unregistered sale involving
by the inferior court merely provided that in case the defendants (petitioners
the subject property.
herein) failed to pay three monthly installments, the plaintiffs (private
respondents herein) would be entitled to a writ of execution, without specifying
Levy also takes precedence over a notice of lis pendens which does not
what the subject of execution would be. Said agreement did not state that even create a lien
petitioners would be evicted from the premises subject of the suit in case
of any default in complying with their obligation thereunder. This was the Levy, however, is subject to liens and encumbrances then existing, like a mortgage
result of the careless drafting thereof for which only private respondents which was annotated on the appurtenant certificate of title prior to the registration
were to be blamed.
of the levy (Section 12, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court). Verily, even the property
subject to a prior and registered mortgage is sold pursuant to the levy, the buyer
“A judgment is the foundation of a writ of execution which draws its vitality
of the property takes the property subject to, as he must respect, the prior lien or
therefrom (Monaghon v. Monaghon, 25 Ohio St. 325). An officer issuing a writ encumbrance created by the recorded mortgage.
of execution is required to look to the judgment for his immediate authority
(Sydnor v. Roberts, 12 Tex. 598). SECTION 13
Section 13. Property exempt from execution. — Except as otherwise
As petitioners' obligation under the compromise agreement as approved
expressly provided by law, the following property, and no other, shall be
by the court was monetary in nature, private respondents can avail only
exempt from execution:
of the writ of execution provided in Section 15 (now Section 9), Rule 39
of the Revised Rules of Court, and not that provided in Section 13 (now
(a) The judgment obligor's family home as provided by law, or the
Section 10 [c]).
homestead in which he resides, and land necessarily used in
connection therewith;
IV. REMOVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY SUBJECT OF
EXECUTION (b) Ordinary tools and implements personally used by him in his
trade, employment, or livelihood;
When the property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or
planted by the judgment obligor or his agent, the sheriff shall not destroy, demolish
(c) Three horses, or three cows, or three carabaos, or other
or remove said improvements except upon special order of the court, issued upon beasts of burden, such as the judgment obligor may select
motion of the judgment obligee after the hearing and after the former has failed to necessarily used by him in his ordinary occupation;
remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court.
(d) His necessary clothing and articles for ordinary personal use,
If there are physical structures on the property belonging losing defendant, the excluding jewelry;
remedy is to move for demolition (Fuentes vs. Leviste)
(e) Household furniture and utensils necessary for
V. DELIVERY OF PERSONAL PROPERTY housekeeping, and used for that purpose by the judgment
obligor and his family, such as the judgment obligor may
In judgment for the delivery of personal property, the officer shall take possession select, of a value not exceeding one hundred thousand pesos;
of the same and forthwith deliver it to the party entitled thereto and satisfy any
judgment for money as therein provided. (f) Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for four
months;
In an action for replevin for the recovery of an unpaid vehicle, for instance, the
sheriff is authorized to seize the vehicle from the possessor thereof and deliver it (g) The professional libraries and equipment of judges, lawyers,
to the party entitled thereto. physicians, pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors,
clergymen, teachers, and other professionals, not exceeding
SECTION 11 three hundred thousand pesos in value;
Section 11. Execution of special judgments. — When a judgment requires
the performance of any act other than those mentioned in the two (h) One fishing boat and accessories not exceeding the total
preceding sections, a certified copy of the judgment shall be attached to value of one hundred thousand pesos owned by a fisherman
the writ of execution and shall be served by the officer upon the party and by the lawful use of which he earns his livelihood;
against whom the same is rendered, or upon any other person required

189

(i) So much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the judgment
obligor for his personal services within the four months
preceding the levy as are necessary for the support of his
family;
(j) Lettered gravestones;
(k) Monies, benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in any
manner growing out of any life insurance;
(l) The right to receive legal support, or money or property
obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity from the
Government;
(m) Properties specially exempted by law.
But no article or species of property mentioned in this section shall be
exempt from execution issued upon a judgment recovered for its price
or upon a judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage thereon.
EXEMPT PROPERTIES
(a) The judgment obligor's family home as provided by law, or the
homestead in which he resides, and land necessarily used in connection
therewith
HOMESTEAD HOUSE – dwelling house in which the judgment obligor resides
and the land necessarily used in connection therewith (Young vs. Olivares). Even
in the debtor is merely leasing the land, the exemption applies.
FAMILY HOME - constituted jointly by the husband and the wife or by an
unmarried head of the family, is the dwelling house where they and their family
reside, and the land on which it is situated (Article 152, Family Code)
Art. 155. The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale or
attachment except:
(1) For nonpayment of taxes;
(2) For debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home;
(3) For debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such
constitution; and
(4) For debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders,
materialmen and others who have rendered service or furnished material
for the construction of the building.
(5) The value of the family home exceeds the amount set under Article 157
of the Family Code à not exempt from execution
FAMILY CODE. Art. 157. The actual value of the family home shall not
exceed, at the time of its constitution, the amount of three hundred
thousand pesos in urban areas, and two hundred thousand pesos in rural
areas, or such amounts as may hereafter be fixed by law.
FAMILY CODE Art. 160. When a creditor whose claims is not among
those mentioned in Article 155 obtains a judgment in his favor, and he
has reasonable grounds to believe that the family home is actually worth
more than the maximum amount fixed in Article 157, he may apply to the
court which rendered the judgment for an order directing the sale of the
property under execution.
At the execution sale, no bid below the value allowed for a family home
shall be considered. The proceeds shall be applied first to the amount
mentioned in Article 157, and then to the liabilities under the judgment
and the costs. The excess, if any, shall be delivered to the judgment
debtor.
(b) Ordinary tools and implements personally used by him in his trade,
employment, or livelihood:
TOOLS AND IMPLEMENTS - instruments of husbandry or manual labor needed
by an artisan, craftsman or laborer to obtain his living; if you are a mechanic, your
tools, such as pliers, screw drivers, etc. may be not levied by the sheriff.
Pentagon Security v. Jimenez*
192 SCRA 492
FACTS: Pentagon Security and Investigation Agency (PSIA) is a single
proprietorship engaged in security services. A judgment was rendered against
it in a labor case filed by its security guards. The NLRC sheriff levied PSIA’s
licensed firearms as are used in its operations. But this was questioned by the
PSIA.
HELD: Petition dismissed. “The term "tools and implements" refers to
instruments of husbandry or manual labor needed by an artisan craftsman or
laborer to obtain his living. Here petitioner is a business enterprise. It does not
use the firearms personally, but they are used by its employees. Not being a
g
natural person, petitioner cannot claim that the firearms are necessary
for its livelihood.
However, it would appear that the exemption contemplated by the provision
involved is personal, available only to a natural person, such as a dentist's
dental chair and electric fan (Belen v. de Leon, G.R. No. L-16412, 30 Nov.
1962). As pointed out by the Solicitor General, if properties used in
business are exempt from execution, there can hardly be an instance
when a judgment claim can be enforced against the business entity.
However, for security reasons, and to prevent the possibility that the
firearms to be sold at the execution sale may fall into the hands of lawless
and subversive elements, the sale at public auction should be with the
prior clearance and under supervision of the PC-INP authorities.
In fine, the juridical persons cannot claim the foregoing exemptions
under Section 13, Rule 39
(c) Three horses, or three cows, or three carabaos, or other beasts of
burden, such as the judgment obligor may select necessarily used by
him in his ordinary occupation:
à Losing defendant uses the animals in his ordinary occupation, (farmer).
à Regardless of the value of the animals, the exemption applies to 3 horses, or
cows, or carabaos or other beasts of burden.
(d) His necessary clothing and articles for ordinary personal use,
excluding jewelry
à his necessary articles, like his slippers, shoes, toothbrush, etc. are exempt from
execution.
à The judgment obligor’s jewelry items are not exempt from execution
ILLUSTRATION: The judgment obligor, who is not a basketball player by
profession, has, under its ownership and as a priced collector’s item, the basketball
jersey of Michael Jordan which the latter wore when he sank the winning shot in
his last game with the Chicago Bulls, which would fetch in a price of P200,000.00,
will that be exempt from execution? The answer is NO. It cannot be considered
a necessary clothing, and it is not likewise intended for ordinary use of the
judgment obligor.
(e) Household furniture and utensils necessary for housekeeping, and
used for that purpose by the judgment obligor and his family, such as
the judgment obligor may select, of a value not exceeding P100,000.00
à like dining table, chair, sala set, kitchen utensils, cook wares, kettle, frying pans,
plates, spoons and forks, etc
à for the day-to-day living of the judgment obligor and his or her family
à aggregate value thereof does not exceed P100,000.00.
àTV, refrigerator, washing machine, etc. not exempt
(f) Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for four (4) months:
sacks of rice
(g) The professional libraries and equipment of judges, lawyers,
physicians, pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors, clergymen,
teachers, and other professionals, not exceeding P300,000.00 in value
(h) One fishing boat and accessories not exceeding the total value of
P100,000.00 owned by a fisherman and by the lawful use of which he
earns his livelihood
à judgment obligor is a fisherman.
à where the total value of his fishing boat and accessories exceeds P100,000.00,
the same may now be levied upon and sold in execution.
(i) So much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the judgment obligor
for his personal services within the four months preceding the levy as
are necessary for the support of his family:
ILLUSTRATION: If the judgment obligor has a receivable backwages for a seven
(7)-month work, the amount corresponding to his salary for four (4) months shall
be exempt from execution. What the sheriff may levy is just the amount
corresponding to 3-month salary.
ILLUSTRATION: It is submitted that where the judgment creditor’s monthly
income is, for example, P200,000.00, and it is determined that his family would
only need P100,000.00, in the maximum, for his and his family’s monthly needs,
the excess of his salaries within the preceding four-month period may be
levied or garnished by the sheriff.
NOTE: The salary of a government employee, cannot be garnished.
Tiro vs. Hontanosas**
G.R. No. 32312, Nov. 25, 1983
“The salary check of a government officer or employee such as a teacher does
not belong to him before it is physically delivered to him. Until that time
the check belongs to the Government. Accordingly, before there is actual
190

delivery of the check, the payee has no power over it; he cannot assign it
without the consent of the Government.”
(j) Lettered gravestones
(k) Monies, benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in any manner
growing out of any life insurance
à Regardless of the amount involved, the proceeds of any life insurance are
wholly exempt from execution, because it is predicated on insured’s life, and it is
simply revolting to human conscience to allow a person to profit, so to speak, out,
or at the expense, of somebody else’s life.
(l) The right to receive legal support, or money or property obtained as
such support, or any pension or gratuity from the Government
à GSIS pensions or SSS pensions – are exempt from execution.
(m) Properties specially exempted by law
1. Property mortgaged to the DBP (Section 26, C.A. 458);
2. Property taken over by the Alien Property Administration (section 9 [F], US
Trading With The Enemy Act);
3. Savings of national prisoners deposited with the Postal Savings Bank (Act
2489);
4. Backpay of pre-war civilian employees (R.A. 304);
5. Philippine Government backpay to guerillas (R.A. 897);
6. Produce, work animals and farm implements of agricultural lessees, subject to
limitations (Section 21, R.A. 6389);
7. Benefits from private retirement systems of companies and establishments, with
limitations (R.A. 4917);
8. Laborer’s wages, except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and
medical attendance (Article 1708, Civil Code);
9. Benefit payments from SSS (section 16, R.A. 1161, as amended by P.D. 24,
65, and 177);
10. Copyrights and other rights in intellectual property under the former copyright
law, P.D. 49 (R.A. 8293);
11. Bonds issued under R.A. 1000;
12. Homestead under Act No. 141;
13. Government property used for public purposes.
WHERE EXEMPTIONS MAY NOT APPLY
No article or species of property mentioned in this section shall be exempt from
execution issued upon a judgment recovered for its price or upon a judgment of
foreclosure of a mortgage thereon.
Example: The value of the family home located in the urban area does not
exceed P300,000.00. It may still be sold recovered upon a judgment of foreclosure
of a mortgage thereon. In other words, if that family home is mortgaged by the
owners thereof with the consent of its beneficiaries before or after it has been
constituted as such, it can be foreclosed by the mortgagee in the event that
the loan secured by such mortgaged is not paid.
WHO CAN CLAIM, AND WHEN TO CLAIM, THE EXEMPTION
WHO? The judgment obligor humself, because this is a personal privilege.
When? At the time of the levy or within reasonable time thereafter and the
claimant must establish exemption (Agatep vs. Taguinod).
Note: The claim for exemption must be presented before its sale on execution by
the sheriff (Gomez vs. Gealone)
These exemptions must be claimed, otherwise they are deemed waived (Herrera
vs. McMicking)
SECTION 14
Section 14. Return of writ of execution. — The writ of execution shall be
returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been
satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within
thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the
court and state the reason therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect
during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion.
The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the
proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its
effectivity expires. The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the
whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and
copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.
OLD RULE: The lifetime of a writ of execution was just sixty (60) days, counted
from receipt by the sheriff of the same.
AMENDED RULE: The lifetime of a writ of execution is five (5) years,
reckoned from the date the judgment sought to be executed became final
and executory.
Philippine Bank of Communications vs. Torio
A.M. No. 98-1260, Jan. 14, 1998
g
In enforcing the writ, the sheriff is required to perform the duties as an officer
of the court without needless severity or oppression as he is an agent of the
law. In enforcing the writ, he must not exercise unnecessary violence or
subject the person whose premises he enters (or whose properties the sheriff
will levy) to indignities and he is liable where process is legally and properly
issued but afterwards employed wrongfully and unlawfully by him).
RULE 141. Section 9. The sheriff is entitled, of course, to sheriff’s fees,
including the expenses in serving or executing the writ, or safeguarding
the property levied upon, attached or seized, as well as kilometrage for
each kilometer of travel, guard’s fees, warehousing and similar charges,
in an amount initially estimated by the sheriff but subject to the approval
of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested
party has to deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio
sheriff. These expenses shall then be disbursed to the executing sheriff
subject to his liquidation within the same period for rendering a return
on the writ. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party who made
the deposit. Ultimately, the sheriff’s fees and expenses shall be taxed as
costs against the judgment obligor.
Bercasio vs. RTC Naga
A.M. No. P-95-1158, July 14, 1997
Thus, the sheriff’s unilaterally and repeatedly demanding sums of money from
a party-litigant purportedly to defray the expenses of execution, without
obtaining the approval of the trial court for such purported expense and without
rendering an accounting thereof, in effect, constituted dishonesty and
extortion
SECTION 15
Section 15. Notice of sale of property on execution. — Before the sale of
property on execution, notice thereof must be given as follows:
(a) In case of perishable property, by posting written notice of the
time and place of the sale in three (3) public places, preferably
in conspicuous areas of the municipal or city hall, post office
and public market in the municipality or city where the sale is
to take place, for such time as may be reasonable, considering
the character and condition of the property;
(b) In case of other personal property, by posting a similar notice
in the three (3) public places above-mentioned for not less
than five (5) days;
(c) In case of real property, by posting for twenty (20) days in the
three (3) public places abovementioned a similar notice
particularly describing the property and stating where the
property is to be sold, and if the assessed value of the
property exceeds fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos, by
publishing a copy of the notice once a week for two (2)
consecutive weeks in one newspaper selected by raffle,
whether in English, Filipino, or any major regional language
published, edited and circulated or, in the absence thereof,
having general circulation in the province or city;
(d) In all cases, written notice of the sale shall be given to the
judgment obligor, at least three (3) days before the sale,
except as provided in paragraph (a) hereof where notice shall
be given at any time before the sale, in the same manner as
personal service of pleadings and other papers as provided
by section 6 of Rule 13.
The notice shall specify the place, date and exact time of the sale which
should not be earlier than nine o'clock in the morning and not later than
two o'clock in the afternoon. The place of the sale may be agreed upon
by the parties. In the absence of such agreement, the sale of the property
or personal property not capable of manual delivery shall be held in the
office of the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal
Trial Court which issued the writ or which was designated by the
appellate court. In the case of personal property capable of manual
delivery, the sale shall be held in the place where the property is located.
REQUIREMENTS BEFORE PUBLIC ACTION SALE:
1. Posting
- requires the posting of written notices of the time and place of the purported sale
in 3 public places, preferably in conspicuous areas [municipal or city hall, post
office and public market in the municipality or city]
191
 g

2. Terceria
DURATION OF POSTING NOTICES 3. Separate appropriate action
Non-perishable posting for not less than 5 days
personal properties (1) Motion to be filed with the issuing court
Perishable personal the posting may be for less than 5 days, considering - can file a motion with the court which issued the writ of execution questioning the
properties the character and condition of the property validity of such writ or the implementation thereof
Real properties posting for at least 20 days
ü Motion to quash the writ of execution
2. Notice to judgment obligor ü Motion to annul the levy
In all cases, written notice of the sale shall be given to the judgment obligor.
- manner as effecting personal service of pleadings and other papers; - he must tenaciously interposes an objection against the wrongful seizure of his
- at least three (3) days before the sale, but where the personal properties to be properties and that he states therein the grounds for his objection
sold at a public auction are perishable, it is enough that such notice shall be given
to him or her at any time before the sale. Ong v. Tating*
149 SCRA 265
3. Publication in the newspaper.
- real property sold in public action exceeds P50,000.00 When the sheriff seizes property of a third person in which the judgment
- published once a week for 2 consecutive weeks in one newspaper selected debtor holds no right or interest, and so incurs in error, the supervisory
by raffle power of the Court which has authorized execution may be invoked by the third
- in English, Filipino, or any major regional language published, edited and person. Upon due application by the third person, and after summary
circulated or, in the absence thereof, having general circulation in the province hearing, the Court may command that the property be released from the
or city mistaken levy and restored to the rightful owner or possessor.

NOTE: The notice shall specify the place, date and exact time [9am to 2pm] What the Court can do in these instances however is limited to a
determination of whether the sheriff has acted rightly or wrongly in the
PLACE OF SALE à Agreed upon by the parties performance of his duties in the execution of the judgment, more specifically,
If no agreement à office of the clerk of RTC or MTC who issued the writ [realty or if he has indeed taken hold of property not belonging to the judgment debtor.
personalty cannot be manually delivered]; where property is located [personalty The Court does not and cannot pass upon the question of title to the
which can be manually delivered] property, with any character of finality. It can treat of that matter only in so far
as may be necessary to decide if the Sheriff has acted correctly or not. The
Sps. Flavio P. Bautista v. Premiere Development Bank Court can require the sheriff to restore the property to the claimant's
September 05, 2018 possession if warranted by the evidence. If the claimant's proofs do not
The auction sale (of a real property) without the publication and posting is however persuade the Court of his title or right of possession thereof, the claim
void ab initio (here, the purchaser at the auction sale was the judgment will of course be denies.
creditor). This is in line with the earlier ruling to the end that if the purchaser is
the judgment creditor and was responsible for the sale without notice, the sale This remedy is not that of intervention, which is dealt with in Rule 12 of the
without notice is void (Borja vs. Addison). However, if the purchaser is a third Rules of Court, and may be availed of only before or during trial, not thereafter,
party without collusion, it was held that the sale was valid even if there was and certainly not when judgment is executory. It is rather simply an
no notice and publication and the remedy of the judgment obligor is invocation of the Court's power of supervision and control over the
damages against the sheriff (Pando vs. Kette) actuations of its officers and employees to the end that it be assured that
these conform to the law.
SECTION 16
Section 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person. — If the If the application or motion questioning the enforcement of the writ is denied by
property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment the issuing court, or even without filing any such motion, the third-party claimant
obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title or movant may likewise avail of the remedies of “third-party claim or terceria”
thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such and/or “appropriate separate action”
right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy and
copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall not be bound EFFECTS OF DENIAL OF MOTION
to keep the property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand of the 1. Not res judicata
officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnity the third-party 2. Appeal or certiorari not proper remedies
claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on. In 3. May file terceria or separate action
case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by
the court issuing the writ of execution. No claim for damages for the Why not res judicata? What the Court can do in these instances however is
taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond limited to a determination of whether the sheriff has acted rightly or wrongly in the
unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days performance of his duties in the execution of the judgment, more specifically, if he
from the date of the filing of the bond. has indeed taken hold of property not belonging to the judgment debtor. The Court
does not and cannot pass upon the question of title to the property, with any
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of character of finality.
the property, to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing
herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from (2) Third-party claim or “terceria”
vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action, or prevent the
judgment obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate TERCERIA
action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly - independent recourse instituted by filing a motion with the issuing court
spurious claim. questioning the issuance or enforcement of a writ of execution against a third-party
or his property – and even before or without the availing thereof
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the - requires that the third-party claimant makes an affidavit of his title thereto or
Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond right to the possession of the properties seized or levied upon by the sheriff,
shall not be required, and in case the sheriff or levying officer is sued for stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the sheriff
damages as a result of the levy, he shall be represented by the Solicitor making the levy and furnishing copy thereof to the judgment obligee
General and if held liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the
court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of such funds as may THIRD PAERTY CLAIM /
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
be appropriated for the purpose. TERCERIA
just a mere affidavit a pleading filed by a defendant
THIRD-PARTY CLAIM OR TERCERIA OR APPROPRIATE SEPARATE against the third person not a party to
ACTION the case
- remedies that may be pursued by a THIRD PARTY or one whose properties are no such docket fees in filing a “third-party complaint”
wrongly seized pursuant to a writ of execution issued in a case to which he is NOT under Rule 6, Rule 39, docket fees
a party have to be paid
- cannot be claimed by parties to the case (remedies are petition for relief, purpose of questioning the wrongful to demand for contribution,
annulment of judgment, collateral attack of judgment, motion to quash writ of seizure of properties in the execution indemnity, subrogation, or any other
execution, ) of judgment relief in respect of the plaintiff‘s
complaint
THE REMEDIES: after the rendition and finality of should be done before trial
1. Motion to be filed with the issuing court decision in case and only in the

192

course of implementing the writ of
execution issued therein
THIRD PARTY CLAIM INTERVENTION (Rule 19)
affidavit Intervention requires the filing of a
pleading-in-intervention
only be filed during and in the course Intervention may only be had before
of the enforcement of a final and a judgment is rendered in the case
executory judgment
EFFECTS OF SERVING THIRD PARTY CLAIM
1. Sheriff shall not be bound to keep the property, unless the judgment obligee,
on demand of the sheriff, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify the
third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on
execution
- no bond, he is not bound to proceed with the levy
- if sheriff proceeds without bond, he will be personally liable for damages
sustained
- If the private person in whose favor the writ had been issued posts the bond
required by the sheriff, the sheriff shall hold on to, and keep, the properties levied
and thereafter proceed with the sale thereof at a public auction, notwithstanding
the filing of a “third-party claim or terceria” by a third party, and for which the
sheriff, this time around, shall not be personally held liable for damages, as any
such damages shall be charged against the bond
2. If the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic, the filing of such
bond shall not be required
- In case the sheriff or levying officer is sued for damages as a result of the levy,
he shall be represented by the Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the
actual damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out
of such funds as may be appropriated for the purpose
The action for the claim for damages upon the bond should, however, be filed
within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond;
In an action for damages against the bond, the surety must be impleaded,
otherwise the judgment therein cannot be enforced against the bond (Montojo vs.
Hilario). But an action against the surety is binding upon the principal if the latter
had knowledge thereof and an opportunity to participate therein
Galeon: To avoid complications, in an action for damages against the bond,
it is better to implead therein the judgment obligee, the sheriff, and the surety
(3) Separate appropriate action
- “Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from
vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action”
à Action for recovery of possession of property with an application for a
temporary restraining order and an injunctive writ
Ong vs. Tating
Proper action would have for its object the recovery of the possession of
the property seized by the sheriff, as well as damages resulting from the
allegedly wrongful seizure and detention thereof despite the third-party claim;
and it may be brought against the sheriff, of course, and such other parties as
may be alleged to have joined with the sheriff in the supposedly wrongful
execution proceedings, such as the judgment creditor himself. And such a
"proper action," as above pointed out, is and should be an entirely separate
and distinct action from that in which execution has issued, if instituted by a
stranger to the latter suit (Ching vs. CA; Imani vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Co)
NOTE: An application for a temporary restraining order and an injunctive writ
is to prohibit the sheriff to proceed with the auction sale of the levied properties
(especially if this separate action is filed before the public auction could be had)
GENERAL RULE: a court cannot enjoin the proceedings of a co-equal court, as
it is denounced as undue judicial interference,
EXCEPTION: This does not apply to a suit filed by one who is not a party in the
case
Estonina v. CA**
G.R. No. 111547, Jan. 27, 1997
“Such an independent action cannot be considered as an encroachment
upon the jurisdiction of a co-equal and coordinate court. While it is true
that property in custody of the law may not be interfered with, without the
permission of the proper court, this rule is confined to cases where the property
belongs to the defendant or one in which the defendant has proprietary
interests. But when the Sheriff, acting beyond the bounds of his office seizes
a stranger's property, the rule does not apply and interference with his custody
is not interference with another court's custody.
g
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
• These remedies are cumulative.
- party-party claimant may resort to any of such remedies independently of
or separately from and without need of availing of the others
• The judgment oblige has the remedy to make a claim for damages in the
very same case or in a separate action against the third party who filed a
frivolous or spurious claim
SECTION 17
Section 17. Penalty for selling without notice, or removing or defacing
notice. — An officer selling without the notice prescribed by section 15
of this Rule shall be liable to pay punitive damages in the amount of five
thousand (P5,000.00) pesos to any person injured thereby, in addition to
his actual damages, both to be recovered by motion in the same action;
and a person willfully removing or defacing the notice posted, if done
before the sale, or before the satisfaction of the judgment if it be satisfied
before the sale, shall be liable to pay five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos to
any person injured by reason thereof, in addition to his actual damages,
to be recovered by motion in the same action.
EFFECTS:
• Auction sale without notice is void.
• Sheriff is liable for damages.
• The sale is valid if the purchaser is in good faith even if there was no
notice and publication.
LIABILITIES OF THE SHERIFF
- damages
- punitive damages of P5,000.00
LIABILITIES OF THE PERSON WILFULLY REMOVING NOTICE
- P5,000 to any person injured in addition to actual damages
SECTION 18
Section 18. No sale if judgment and costs paid. — At any time before the
sale of property on execution, the judgment obligor may prevent the sale
by paying the amount required by the execution and the costs that have
been incurred therein.
RULE: Before sale, the judgment obligor can pay in full the amount adjudged
together the costs that may have been incurred in enforcing the writ.
SECTION 19
Section 19. How property sold on execution; who may direct manner and
order of sale. — All sales of property under execution must be made at
public auction, to the highest bidder, to start at the exact time fixed in the
notice. After sufficient property has been sold to satisfy the execution,
no more shall be sold and any excess property or proceeds of the sale
shall be promptly delivered to the judgment obligor or his authorized
representative, unless otherwise directed by the judgment or order of the
court. When the sale is of real property, consisting of several known lots,
they must be sold separately; or, when a portion of such real property is
claimed by a third person, he may require it to be sold separately. When
the sale is of personal property capable of manual delivery, it must be
sold within view of those attending the same and in such parcels as are
likely to bring the highest price. The judgment obligor, if present at the
sale, may direct the order in which property, real or personal shall be
sold, when such property consists of several known lots or parcels
which can be sold to advantage separately. Neither the officer
conducting the execution sale, nor his deputies, can become a
purchaser, nor be interested directly or indirectly in any purchase at such
sale.
Sale of properties levied upon in execution must be made at a public
auction with the end in view of getting the best price offer, and the
properties shall be sold to the highest bidder.
De los Reyes vs. Erispe
A.M. No. P-96-1205, July 24, 1997
A judgment creditor cannot be given the property of the judgment debtor
upon a writ of execution except through a public auction sale. An auction sale
is mandatory. Whatever is sold or is in excess of the judgment should be
returned to the judgment debtor
Galeon: If the judgment obligee wants to acquire the properties of the
judgment obligor as, thus, levied upon in execution, the judgment obligee
should participate in the public auction, compete with the other bidders, and
offer the highest bid price for the properties that he wants.
RULES AFTER SATISFIED EXECUTION
193

1. No more shall be sold and any excess property or proceeds of the sale shall
be promptly delivered to the judgment obligor or his authorized representative,
unless otherwise directed by the judgment or order of the court.
2. When the sale is of real property, consisting of several known lots:
à they must be sold separately, especially if a larger sum would be realized from
a sale in parcels, or a sale less than the whole would already satisfy the debt
(Hermana vs. La Urbana)
à If a portion is claimed by a third person, a portion whereof is subject of a third-
party claim – he may require it to be sold separately. Obligor if present at the
sale, may also direct the order in which property, real or personal shall be sold,
when such property consists of several known lots or parcels which can be sold to
advantage separately.
à Sale is of personal property capable of manual delivery, it must be sold within
view of those attending the same and in such parcels as are likely to bring the
highest price.
3. At the public auction, neither the officer conducting the execution sale, nor his
deputies, can become a purchaser, nor be interested directly or indirectly in any
purchase at such sale.
4. Article 1491 of the Civil Code likewise prohibits the following persons from
participating in the public auction
Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a
public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of
another:
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons who may be
under his guardianship;
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been
entrusted to them, unless the consent of the principal has been given;
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under
administration;
(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the State or of any
subdivision thereof, or of any government-owned or controlled
corporation, or institution, the administration of which has been
entrusted to them; this provision shall apply to judges and government
experts who, in any manner whatsoever, take part in the sale;
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and
inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the
administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied
upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory
they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act
of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to
the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which
they may take part by virtue of their profession.
(6) Any others specially disqualified by law.
SECTION 20
Section 20. Refusal of purchaser to pay. — If a purchaser refuses to pay
the amount bid by him for property struck off to him at a sale under
execution, the officer may again sell the property to the highest bidder
and shall not be responsible for any loss occasioned thereby; but the
court may order the refusing purchaser to pay into the court the amount
of such loss, with costs, and may punish him for contempt if he disobeys
the order. The amount of such payment shall be for the benefit of the
person entitled to the proceeds of the execution, unless the execution
has been fully satisfied, in which event such proceeds shall be for the
benefit of the judgment obligor. The officer may thereafter reject any
subsequent bid of such purchaser who refuses to pay.
INSTANCE WHEN THE PURCHASER REFUSES TO PAY THE AMOUNT BID
1. sheriff may again sell and shall not be responsible for any loss
2. that bidder is no longer be allowed to participate in the second bidding
3. Any loss sustained in the second bidding will be borne by first fucker bidder
4. Court may cite him in contempt
Mata vs Lichauco
36 Phil. 809
The measure of damages to which the judgment obligee may be entitled to is
the variance between the amount which would have been realized were it not
for the illegal intervention (failed purchase) and the total amount which he
actually recovered from all sources, including the amount actually realized at
the auction sale, plus the expenses incurred as a consequence of the illegal
intervention.
SECTION 21
Section 21. Judgment obligee as purchaser. — When the purchaser is
the judgment obligee, and no third-party claim has been filed, he need
g
not pay the amount of the bid if it does not exceed the amount of his
judgment. If it does, he shall pay only the excess.
When the purchaser (highest bidder) is the judgment obligee, and no third-party
claim has been filed, he need not pay the amount of the bid IF it does not exceed
the amount of his judgment.
Where there is, however, a third-party claim, the judgment creditor must pay his
winning bid in cash (Filipinas Colleges, Inc. vs. Timbang, G.R. No. 12812,
September 29, 1969). The sheriff has no authority to decide that the execution
creditor’s claim is superior to the third-party claim (Filipinas Yap vs. Carmelito
Catajan, Adm. Matter No. P-86-33). In this event, the payment shall be deposited
with the office of the clerk of court and the amount will be released to the judgment
obligee if it be decreed that the third-party claim is frivolous or without merit, or to
the third-party claimant if it turns out that his third-party claim is meritorious.
Another instance where the judgment obligee is required to pay if he emerges as
the winning bidder at the public auction is when the amount of his successful bid
exceeds the amount due him under the judgment. Any such excess shall be turned
over to the judgment obligor.
SECTION 22
Section 22. Adjournment of sale. — By written consent of the judgment
obligor and obligee, or their duly authorized representatives, the officer
may adjourn the sale to any date and time agreed upon by them. Without
such agreement, he may adjourn the sale from day to day if it becomes
necessary to do so for lack of time to complete the sale on the day fixed
in the notice or the day to which it was adjourned.
WHEN ALLOWED TO ADJOURN
ü Day-to-day
ü Lack of time
* Must be with written consent of obligor and obligee
Abrogar vs. IAC
157 SCRA 57
Where there is no valid postponement of the original date of the auction sale
because of the absence of the written agreement of the judgment obligor and
obligee, the public auction held after the original date of sale without proper
notice and publication is null and void.
WHEN WRITTEN CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED
1. Sheriff complied anew with posting, notice, and publication
2. Lack of time to complete the sale on the day fixed in the notice or the day to
which it was adjourned
ILLUSTRATION: At the auction sale, personal properties of the judgment obligor
were sold. Under Section 23, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, where the personal
properties are capable of manual delivery, the same must be delivered to the
purchaser and, if desired, the sheriff execute to the purchaser the certificate of
sale. But where the personal properties sold during the auction date were so
numerous that the same could not be delivered to the purchaser right there and
then, the sheriff, even without the consent of the judgment obligor and obligee,
may adjourn to another date if only to complete the sale or to effect delivery of the
items sold.
SECTION 23
Section 23. Conveyance to purchaser of personal property capable of
manual delivery. — When the purchaser of any personal property,
capable of manual delivery, pays the purchase price, the officer making
the sale must deliver the property to the purchaser and, if desired,
execute and deliver to him a certificate of sale. The sale conveys to the
purchaser all the rights which the judgment obligor had in such property
as of the date of the levy on execution or preliminary attachment.
SECTION 24
Section 24. Conveyance to purchaser of personal property not capable
of manual delivery. — When the purchaser of any personal property, not
capable of manual delivery, pays the purchase price, the officer making
the sale must execute and deliver to the purchaser a certificate of sale.
Such certificate conveys to the purchaser all the rights which the
judgment obligor had in such property as of the date of the levy on
execution or preliminary attachment.
SALE OF PERSONALTY
CAPABLE OF MANUAL NOT CAPABLE OF
DELIVERY MANUAL DELIVERY
Sheriff must physically Sheriff needs only to
Mode of deliver to the purchaser the execute and deliver to the
delivery personalty and, if desired, purchaser a certificate of
execute a certificate of sale sale
Certificate of The certificate of sale is This completes the sale,
sale normally issued if the as the execution and
194

transfer of ownership delivery of the certificate of
requires a document for sale amounts to a Sale of realty à right of redemption
registration purposes – constructive delivery of
e.g., sale and transfer of the the personal property
registration of a car. The
certificate of sale would have
to be signed by the sheriff
conducting the public
auction.
Purchaser acquires “all the rights which the judgment
Purchaser obligor had in such property as of the date of the levy
on execution or preliminary attachment”
EFFECT OF SALE: The purchaser acquires all the rights of the judgment obligor
over the personal property conveyed and retroacts to the date of the levy of such
property, and not just on the date such property is actually or constructively
delivered to the purchaser.
Leyson vs. Tañada*
G.R. No. 31472, Nov. 10, 1981
What the winning bidder actually acquired is limited only to any and all rights
which the judgment obligor actually had on the property conveyed. It
should not go beyond. In other words, if what the judgment obligor had on the
property is full ownership, then the purchaser becomes the full owner thereof.
But if the judgment obligor only had a usufructuary right over the property
conveyed – that is, beneficial use of the property but not the naked ownership
thereof – then, the purchaser only acquires such beneficial use, but he does
not become the owner, of the property.
“Further, this Court had held in Pabico vs. Ong Pauco that purchasers at
execution sales should bear in mind that the rule of caveat
emptor applies to such sales, that the sheriff does not warrant the title to
real property sold by him as sheriff, and that it is not incumbent on him to
place the purchaser in possession of such property. The rationale for this rule
is:
‘At a sheriff's sale they do not sell the land advertised to sell, although that is
a common acceptation, but they simply sell what interest in that land the
judgment debtor has and if you buy his interest, and it afterwards
develops that he has none, you are still liable on your bid, because you
have offered so much for his interest in open market, and it is for you to
determine before you bid what his interest is worth. Now, even if it should
appear that at a sheriff's sale one has bought the interest of the judgment
debtor in a certain tract of land, and paid his money for it, and then suit is
brought to recover the land, and he is defeated in the suit, he has no right to
recover his money back, because he has paid that much for the interest that
his particular judgment debtor had in that tract of land’.”
SECTION 25
Section 25. Conveyance of real property; certificate thereof given to
purchaser and filed with registry of deeds. — Upon a sale of real property,
the officer must give to the purchaser a certificate of sale containing:
(a) A particular description of the real property sold;
(b) The price paid for each distinct lot or parcel;
(c) The whole price paid by him;
(d) A statement that the right of redemption expires one (1) year
from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale.
Such certificate must be registered in the registry of deeds of the place
where the property is situated.
SALE OF REALTY
SHERIFF OBLIGATIONS:
1. Issue of a certificate of sale (mandatory)
2. Register the certificate of sale in the registry of deeds
3. There must be a statement of right of redemption [not in sale of personalty]
RIGHT OF REDEMPTION IN EXECUTION SALE
When exercisable? Within 1 year from the date of registration {only applies to the
judgment obligor or the first redemptioner}; may be agreeable to extend – statutory
period for legal redemption converts to conventional redemption (Lazo v. Republic
Surety & Insurance)
On possession and ownership
Sale of personalty à no right of redemption
The purchaser of the personal property sold on execution becomes the absolute
owner of the subject personal property upon its delivery, be it through manual
delivery or constructive delivery.
g
The purchaser of the real property at the execution sale does not as yet become
the absolute owner thereof.
Gonzales v. Calimbas, et al.
51 Phil. 358
The certificate of sale of real property is merely an evidence or memorial of
the fact of sale and does not confer any right to the possession, much less
ownership, of the real property purchased in execution sale. What effectively
and finally conveys the property sold in execution sale as would entitle the
purchaser to the possession and ownership of the property is the final deed of
sale which shall be executed by the sheriff at the expiration of the period of
redemption pursuant to Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Inadequacy in the price
GENERAL RULE: Inadequacy in price does not nullify sale, more so if there is a
right to redeem, since the judgment debtor may reacquire the property or sell his
right to redeem
EXCEPTION: If there is gross and unconscionable inadequacy of price in the sale
of personal property at the execution sale, the sale may be nullified, because
there is no right of redemption in the sale of personal properties at the public
auction or execution sale.
Example: A diamond ring worth 1 million was only sold for 10 thousand – such
sale may be nullified on the ground of gross and shocking inadequacy of the price.
If there is gross and even unconscionable inadequacy of price in the sale of
real property at the execution sale, such sale may not be nullified, because there
is a right of redemption. After all, right of redemption exists if what is sold at the
public auction or execution sale is a real property.
FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
RULE: There is no redemption in judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage for
the mortgagor. He only has EQUITY OF REDEMPTION.
Note: needs conformation of sale, unlike sale of realty in execution sale
Gross inadequacy of price à nullifies sale, because no right to redeem
Quimson vs. PNB
36 SCRA 26
Equity of redemption is the right to extinguish the mortgage and retain
ownership of the property by paying the debt within the stipulated period or
even after the foreclosure sale provided that it is made before the sale is
confirmed by the court (Section 3, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court) -- except
where the mortgagee is a banking institution where there is right of
redemption within one year from registration of sale. Conversely, gross
inadequacy in the price of real property that is rather sold in judicial foreclosure
sale may result in the nullification of such sale, especially if there is no right of
redemption.
SECTION 26
Section 26. Certificate of sale where property claimed by third person. —
When a property sold by virtue of a writ of execution has been claimed
by a third person, the certificate of sale to be issued by the sheriff
pursuant to sections 23, 24 and 25 of this Rule shall make express
mention of the existence of such third-party claim.
Rationale: To protect the interest of the third-party claimant in the event that his
claim later turns out to be valid and meritorious, especially if what is sold in the
execution sale is capable of restitution – that is, the property may still be returned
to him
SECTION 27
Section 27. Who may redeem real property so sold. — Real property sold
as provided in the last preceding section, or any part thereof sold
separately, may be redeemed in the manner hereinafter provided, by the
following persons:
(a) The judgment obligor; or his successor in interest in the whole or
any part of the property;
(b) A creditor having a lien by virtue of an attachment, judgment or
mortgage on the property sold, or on some part thereof,
subsequent to the lien under which the property was sold. Such
redeeming creditor is termed a redemptioner.
VALID REDEMPTIONER:
1. The judgment obligor himself
195
 g

- A third-party claimant has no right to redeem (CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc. v. CA)
2. His successor-in-interest in the whole or any part of the property; and
ü to whom the debtor has conveyed his interest in the property
ü transferred his statutory right of redemption
ü succeeds to the interest of the debtor by operation of law
ü one or more joint owners of the property sold
ü the wife as regards her husband’s homestead; or
ü an attorney who agreed to divide the property in litigation (Magno vs.
Viola)
Note: The declared heirs of the deceased whose estate was levied upon in
execution to satisfy the money judgment against it qualifies as successors-in-
interest and may exercise the right of redemption despite the presence of an
administrator (Palicte vs. Ramolete)
Can he
SUCCESSOR-
redeem the OTHER NOTES
IN-INTEREST
property?
He has interest in the preservation of the
estate, which is greater than the
Declared heirs administrator’s interest who merely holds
of a levied YES the estate for the creditors. There’s no
estate need on the part of the redeeming heir to
secure the consent of the administrator
and that of his co-heirs
Even his interest is not yet fixed and is not
Co-heir YES
actually for the entire property
The estate of the deceased is the
judgment-debtor and the heirs who will
Administrator
NO eventually acquire the estate should not
of an estate
be prohibited from their share in its
preservation
The redeeming heir cannot, on motion,
automatically transfer the titles of the
properties in his name; otherwise, it
would amount to a premature distribution
of the estate. To remedy the situation, the
Redeeming heir YES
co-heirs were given a six-month period
to join as co-redemptioners in the
redemption made by the petitioner before
the motion to transfer titles over the
properties may be granted
Wife YES as regards her husband’s homestead
Surety NO A surety cannot redeem the property of
the principal sold on execution because
the surety, by paying the debt of the
principal, stands in the place of the
creditor, not of the debtor, and
consequently, is not a successor-in-
interest
as Lot A, but Randi did not registered the mortgage with the Register of Deeds,
trusting that Neil could pay his indebtedness.
Neil failed to pay Waldi, such that the latter filed a collection case against Neil.
After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of Waldi. The judgment became
final and executory. As Neil could not pay the judgment award, and pursuant to
the writ of execution issued by the court, the sheriff levied Neil’s Lot A, and the
levy was properly annotated on the certificate of title covering Lot A.
When Randi got wind of the judgment rendered against Neil, and as Neil’s
obligation to Randi already fell due but remained unpaid, Randi hurriedly went to
the Register of Deed to have the real estate mortgage in his favor annotated on
the certificate of title covering Neil’s Lot A, but he was devastated to learn that the
sheriff had already levied the said property, as thus appearing in the annotations
at the back of the corresponding certificate of title. Nonetheless, Randi had the
real estate mortgage annotated likewise on the certificate of title covering Neil’s
Lot A.
At the public auction, both Waldi (the judgment creditor) and Randi (the
mortgagee) submitted bid proposals, but Waldi emerged as the winner, as he
offered the highest bid. The sheriff forthwith executed a certificate of sale in favor
of Waldi and it was registered with the appropriate Register of Deeds.
Q: Can Randi redeem the property from Waldi?
A: Yes. Randi is, in legal contemplation, a redemptioner, as he has a lien on the
real property sold on execution subsequent to the lien under which the
property was sold (Section 27 [b], Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).
ILLUSTRATION # 2: Neil obtained a clean loan from Waldi. Neil likewise obtained
a loan from Randi, for which Neil mortgaged his only parcel of land designated as
Lot A. Randi immediately registered the real estate mortgage in his favor with
the Register of Deeds.
Neil failed to pay his clean loan as, thus, owing to Waldi, such that the latter filed
a collection case against Neil. After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of
Waldi. As Neil failed to, as he could not, pay the judgment award, and pursuant to
the writ of execution issued by the court, the sheriff scouted for Neil’s properties to
be levied upon in execution. Neil has no personal property that are exempt from
execution. But the sheriff later learned that Neil owned a parcel of land designated
as Lot A.
The sheriff hurriedly went to the Register of Deed to effect levy on Neil’s Lot A,
but, there and then, the sheriff was informed that the corresponding certificate of
title had already been annotated with the real estate mortgage that Neil executed
in Randi’s favor. Nonetheless, the sheriff proceeded to levy Lot A and the
corresponding lien created thereby was likewise annotated on the certificate of
title.
Q1: Was the levy valid when the mortgage in favor of Randi had already been
annotated on the corresponding certificate of title?

NOTE: The right of redemption on the part of the judgment obligor is a property
right which may be sold voluntarily (Papa vs. Manalo) and, where that happens,
the transferee becomes the successor-in-interest of the judgment obligor.
3. Redemptioner
- a creditor having a lien by virtue of an attachment, judgment or mortgage on the
property sold, or on some part thereof, subsequent to the lien under which the
property was sold (Section 27 [b], Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; Medida vs.
CA)
For a creditor to be considered a redemptioner à his lien by virtue of
attachment, judgment or mortgage on the property sold must be SUBSEQUENT
to the judgment pursuant to which the real property is sold (Javellana vs. Mirasol)
GALEON: While the judgment debtor’s right of redemption may be voluntarily
sold (Papa vs. Manalo), it cannot be levied upon in the same case by the
judgment obligee (Lichauco v. Oligario), as the judgment obligor would be in a
double whammy situation, so to speak. Such right of redemption, however, can
be levied upon and sold for the satisfaction of a subsequent judgment rendered
in another case (Gonzalez Diaz vs. Delgado), in which case the purchaser of
such right of redemption may be considered as a redemptioner within the
purview of Section 27 [b], Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
NOTE: A creditor whose lien by virtue of an attachment, judgment, or mortgage
on the property sold, or on some part thereof within the purview of Section 27 [b],
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, as he h, is PRIOR to the lien under which the
property was sold is not considered a mere redemptioner within the purview of
Section 27 [b], Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, as he rather has a superior right over
the property sold, in consonance with Section 12, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
ILLUSTRATION # 1: Neil obtained a clean loan from Waldi. Neil likewise obtained
a loan from Randi, for which Neil mortgaged his only parcel of land designated
A1: Yes. The levy was valid, albeit it is subject to the lien and encumbrances then
existing (Section 12, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court). In a contract of mortgage,
the debtor retains beneficial interest over the property notwithstanding the
encumbrance, since the mortgage only serves to secure the fulfillment of
the principal obligation. Indeed, even if the debtor defaults, this fact does not
operate to vest in the creditor the ownership of the property; the creditor must still
resort to foreclosure proceedings. Thus, a mortgaged property may still be levied
upon by the sheriff to satisfy the judgment debtor’s obligations, as what happened
in the present case (Golden Sun Finance Corporation v. Albano, A.M. No. P-
11-2888, July 27, 2011).
Q2: Suppose pursuant to the levy, Lot A was sold on execution to Waldi (the
judgment obligee) being the highest bidder thereof, and the corresponding
certificate of sale was issued to him, and it was likewise duly registered with the
Register of Deeds. Then, one month thereafter, the obligation of Neil, as thus
owing to Randi fell due. Neil was unable to pay, such that Randi decided to
extrajudicially foreclose Lot A. Can Randi still foreclose Lot A when it was
already sold on execution to Waldi?
A2: Yes. While the levy and the sale in execution were no doubt valid, the same
were, however, subject to the lien and encumbrances then existing (Section 12,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court). Where the property attached by the judgment
creditor had previously been mortgaged, the judgment creditor’s lien is inferior
to that of the mortgagee which must first be satisfied in the event of
foreclosure.
In reality, what was attached by the judgment creditor was merely the judgment
debtor’s right or equity of redemption (Top Rate International Services, Inc. vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 67496, July 7, 1986). A creditor whose
lien by virtue of an attachment, judgment, or mortgage on the property sold, or on
some part thereof, is PRIOR to the lien under which the property was sold is not
considered a mere redemptioner within the purview of Section 27 [b], Rule 39 of
196

the Rules of Court, as he rather has a superior right over the property sold, in
consonance with Section 12, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Q3: Suppose at the foreclosure sale, Lot A was sold to Randi (the mortgagee)
being the highest bidder thereof, but the winning bid price was only equivalent to
Neil’s unpaid loan as, thus, owing to Randi (even if the actual market value of Lot
A is way more than such unpaid loan), such that there was no excess in the
purchase price that could be given to Waldi to satisfy the judgment award in his
favor, what can Waldi do, if any?
A3: Waldi (the judgment obligee) may redeem the property foreclosed by Randi.
As the levy in pursuant to the judgment in his favor was nonetheless annotated on
the corresponding certificate of title, albeit subsequent and inferior to the mortgage
that had been annotated thereon, Randi thereby succeeded to the incidental rights
of the debtor, such as the right of redemption.
Technically speaking, Waldi, in this situation, could well be considered as a
redemptioner as a lien on the real property sold on execution subsequent to the
lien under which the property was sold. In reality, what was acquired by the
judgment creditor was merely the judgment debtor’s right or equity of redemption
(Top Rate International Services, Inc. vs. IAC, G.R. No. 67496, July 7, 1986).
SECTION 28
Section 28. Time and manner of, and amounts payable on, successive
redemptions; notice to be given and filed. — The judgment obligor, or
redemptioner, may redeem the property from the purchaser, at any time
within one (1) year from the date of the registration of the certificate of
sale, by paying the purchaser the amount of his purchase, with the per
centum per month interest thereon in addition, up to the time of
redemption, together with the amount of any assessments or taxes which
the purchaser may have paid thereon after purchase, and interest on
such last named amount at the same rate; and if the purchaser be also a
creditor having a prior lien to that of the redemptioner, other than the
judgment under which such purchase was made, the amount of such
other lien, with interest.
Property so redeemed may again be redeemed within sixty (60) days after
the last redemption upon payment of the sum paid on the last
redemption, with two per centum thereon in addition and the amount of
any assessments or taxes which the last redemptioner may have paid
thereon after redemption by him, with interest on such last named
amount, and in addition, the amount of any liens held by said last
redemptioner prior to his own, with interest.
The property may be again, and as often as a redemptioner is so
disposed, redeemed from any previous redemptioner within sixty (60)
days after the last redemption, on paying the sum paid on the last
previous redemption, with two per centum thereon in addition, and the
amounts of any assessments or taxes which the last previous
redemptioner paid after the redemption thereon, with interest thereon,
and the amount of any liens held by the last redemptioner prior to his
own, with interest.
Written notice of any redemption must be given to the officer who made
the sale and a duplicate filed with the registry of deeds of the place, and
if any assessments or taxes are paid by the redemptioner or if he has or
acquires any lien other than that upon which the redemption was made,
notice thereof must in like manner be given to the officer and filed with
the registry of deeds; if such notice be not filed, the property may be
redeemed without paying such assessments, taxes, or liens.
SECTION 29
Section 29. Effect of redemption by judgment obligor, and a certificate to
be delivered and recorded thereupon; to whom payments on redemption
made. — If the judgment obligor redeems he must make the same
payments as are required to effect a redemption by a redemptioner,
whereupon, no further redemption shall be allowed and he is restored to
his estate. The person to whom the redemption payment is made must
execute and deliver to him a certificate of redemption acknowledged
before a notary public or other officer authorized to take
acknowledgments of conveyances of real property. Such certificate must
be filed and recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the
property is situated and the registrar of deeds must note the record
thereof on the margin of the record of the certificate of sale. The
payments mentioned in this and the last preceding sections may be
made to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him to the officer who
made the sale.
SECTION 30
Section 30. Proof required of redemptioner. — A redemptioner must
produce to the officer, or person from whom he seeks to redeem, and
serve with his notice to the officer a copy of the judgment or final order
under which he claims the right to redeem, certified by the clerk of the
court wherein the judgment or final order is entered, or, if he redeems
g
upon a mortgage or other lien, a memorandum of the record thereof,
certified by the registrar of deeds, or an original or certified copy of any
assignment necessary to establish his claim; and an affidavit executed
by him or his agent, showing the amount then actually due on the lien.
PERIODS FOR REDEMPTION
1. One (1) year, reckoned from the date of registration of the certificate of
sale with the appropriate Register of Deeds;
- applies to the judgment obligor
2. Sixty (60) days from the previous redemption.
- applies in situations where there are two (2) or more redemptioners or to the
second and the subsequent redemptioners
GENERAL RULE: The periods for redemption in Section 28, Rule 39 of the Rules
of Court are not extendible or interrupted.
- financial hardship/pending quieting of title does not interrupt or toll the period
running
EXCEPTION: The following interrupt the period of redemption:
1. Where the parties agreed to extend the date of redemption (Lazo vs. Republic
Surety & Insurance Co.,).
2. The filing and pendency of an action, brought in good faith and relating to the
validity of the sale of property involved (Consolidated Bank & Trust Corp. vs.
IAC)
ILLUSTRATION: Rami obtained a loan from the following persons:
A - in the amount of 1 million;
B - in the amount of 2 million
C - in the amount of 3 million.
Rami defaulted in paying all of the aforesaid obligation, prompting his creditors to
file cases against him. All of those cases were decided against Rami, on different
dates, and the decisions became final and executory, respectively.
When demanded for payment for the judgment in favor of A, Rami did not pay,
as he had no money to pay. Rami had no personal properties that are exempt from
execution, but he had one parcel of land, designated as Lot 13, with a market
value of 10 million. Consequently, the sheriff levied Lot 13 pursuant to the writ
of execution in favor of A, and such was properly annotated on the certificate of
title covering the property.
Upon learning of what A did, B likewise caused a levy of the same Lot 13
supposedly to satisfy the judgment in his favor. Then, C followed suit, in that he
also caused the levy of Lot 13. Verily, the order of the levy on Lot 13 is as follows:
st
A - 1 levy
nd
B - 2 levy
RD
C - 3 levy
Pursuant to the levy made in A’s favor, Lot 13 was sold at public auction,
wherein A emerged as the highest bidder, having offered 1.5 million for Lot 13.
The corresponding certificate of sale was issued and the registered with the
appropriate Register of Deeds.
Q1: Can Rami redeem Lot 13 from A?
A1: Yes. He can redeem it within one (1) year, reckoned from the registration of
the certificate of sale with the appropriate register of deeds [Section 25 (d) and
Section 28, Rule 39].
Q2: If Rami will redeem Lot 13, how much should he pay?
A2: Rami should pay the following:
a. Auction price of 1.5 million (not necessarily the amount of the unpaid loan or
judgment award) + interest at the rate of 1% per month (up to the time of
redemption) [First paragraph of Section 28 and Section 29, Rule 39];
b. Assessments and taxes paid (including capital gains tax, notarial fees,
documentary stamp tax, etc.) + interest at the rate of 1% per month (up to the
time of redemption) [First paragraph of Section 28 and Section 29, Rule 39];
Q3: Suppose Rami redeemed the property from A, can B redeem the same from
Rami, on the premise that B is a redemptioner within the purview of Section 27 (b),
Rule 39?
A3: No. If the judgment obligor redeems, no further redemption shall be
allowed and he is restored to his estate [Section 29, Rule 39].
Q4: In the immediately preceding situation, what then would B’s remedy, if any?
197
 g

A4: B should, as he can, enforce the levy that he caused upon Lot 13. The
property can be sold again at a public auction, this time to satisfy the judgment in
favor of B [Section 9, Rule 39].
Q5: Suppose Rami did not redeem the property, as he had no money to redeem,
can B, instead, redeem the property from A?
the rate of one per centum per month in addition up to the time of
redemption, together with the amount of any assessments or taxes which the
purchaser may have paid thereon after the purchase and interest on such last
named amount at the same rate.”
But the foregoing ruling in PNB was modified in the subsequent case of …

A5: Yes. B can redeem the property from A, as B is a redemptioner within the Sy v. CA*
purview of Section 27 (b), Rule 39. G.R. No. 60208, Dec. 5, 1985

Q6: Within what period can B redeem the property from A?
A6: B, being the first redemptioner, can redeem it from A within one (1) year,
reckoned from the registration of the certificate of sale with the appropriate register
of deeds [Section 28, Rule 39].
Q7: If B will redeem the property , how much should he pay?
A7: B, being the first redemptioner, should pay the same amount that Rami
ought to pay if the latter were to make the redemption [First paragraph of
Section 28, Rule 39];
Q8: Can C also redeem the property from B?
A8: Yes. After all, C is likewise a redemptioner within the purview of Section 27
(b), Rule 39.
ISSUE: Just like in PNB vs. CA, supra, one of the issues in this case is whether
or not the judgment debtor who wanted to redeem his foreclosed properties
has to pay interest on the unpaid loan at the rate stipulated in the loan
agreement and the promissory note (which was higher than 1% per month), or
at the rate(s) prescribed under Section 28, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (1%
for the first redemption, or 2% for the subsequent redemptions).
HELD: “Had Carlos Coquinco attempted to redeem the subject foreclosed
property, he would have had to pay "the amount due under the mortgage deed
... with interest thereon at the rate specified in the mortgage and all costs
... and other expenses incurred . . . by reason of the execution (or foreclosure]
and sale and as a result of the custody of said property less the income
received from the property . . ." pursuant to Section 78 of the General
Banking Act in order to effect a valid redemption. Since petitioner merely
stepped into the shoes of Carlos Coquinco his assignor, petitioner should have
tendered and paid the same amount in order to redeem the property.

Q9: Within what period can C redeem the property from B?
A9: C can redeem the property from B within sixty (60) days, reckoned from the
time that B redeemed the property from A.
Q10: Suppose B, the first redemptioner, redeemed the property from A on the last
day of the one (1)-year redemption period reckoned from the date of the
registration of the certificate of sale, such that C’s purported redemption from B
would already be beyond such one (1)-year period, albeit it would still be within
the sixty (60)-day period reckoned from the time B redeemed the property from A,
can C still validly effect such redemption?
SC explained that the General Banking Act partakes of the nature of an
amendment to Act No. 3135 insofar as the redemption price is concerned,
when the mortgagee is a bank or banking or credit institution.
RECONCILIATION:
Sy vs. Court of Appeals, would only apply:
1. In a foreclosure proceedings – whether judicial or extrajudicial –
2. That is instituted by banks and banking institutions and/or credit institutions
If these two conditions do not concur with each other, then apply PNB v. CA/ Rules
of Court.

A10: Yes. It is enough that C effects the redemption from B within the sixty (60)- PROCEDURES IN MAKING REDEMPTION
day period reckoned from the time B redeemed the property from A. The one
(1)-year redemption period only applies to Rami and the first redemptioner, B.

Q11: How much should C pay in redeeming the property from B?

Q11: C should pay B the following:

A. The amount that B paid to A + interest at the rate of 2% per month (up to the
time of redemption) [Second paragraph Section 28, Rule 39; here, it involved a
second redemption];
B. Assessments and taxes paid in connection with the first redemption made by
B (including capital gains tax, notarial fees, documentary stamp tax, etc.) +
interest at the rate of 1% per month (up to the time of redemption) [Second
paragraph of Section 28, Rule 39];
C. Rami’s unsatisfied judgment award as, thus, owing to B, the first/prior
redemptioner + 1% interest per month (up to the time of redemption) [Second
paragraph of Section 28, Rule 39].
[In fine, C should pay 3.5 million plus]

RULES ON INTEREST RATES

PNB v. CA à 1% for the first redemption; 2% for the second redemption (Rules
of Court)
Sy v. CA à stipulated in the contract (GBL)

PNB v. CA*
G.R. No. 60208, Dec. 5, 1985

FACTS: Divina Alin obtained a loan from PNB, secured by a mortgage

constituted on her parcels of land. As the loan was not paid, PNB foreclosed
the mortgaged properties. Alin negotiated with the bank for redemption of the
foreclosed properties, but they could not agree on the interests to be paid
by Ms. Alin.

The Bank wanted that she continue paying the interest stipulated in the loan
agreement and the promissory note (which was higher than 1% per month)
even after the foreclosure sale, but Ms. Alin asserted that from the time the
properties were foreclosed the stipulated interest would no longer apply,
as what should since then apply, according to her, is the interest rate provided #1 Notes:
for under Section 28, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (1% for the first An offer to redeem must be accompanied by simultaneous bona fide tender or
redemption, or 2% for the subsequent redemptions). delivery of the redemption price, which constitutes the legal use or exercise of
the right to repurchase. Formal offer to redeem may be dispensed with where the
HELD: After the foreclosure proceedings and the execution of the right to redeem is exercised through the filing of judicial action to redeem, within
corresponding certificate of sale of the property sold at public auction in favor the period of redemption.
of the successful bidder, the redemptioner mortgagor would be bound to
pay only for the amount of the purchase price with interests thereon at
198

Should the court allow redemption, the redemptioners should then pay the
amount adverted to in the judgment (Tolentino vs. CA). To prove the
earnestness of the intention to redeem and the capacity so the redeem, the one
filing the action to redeem should consign in court the purported redemption price
(State Investment House, Inc. vs. CA);
Where the complaint for redemption was filed after the redemption period
expired, the complaint is a useless exercise which cannot defeat the purchaser’s
right to have the title of the property transferred in his name (State Investment
House, Inc. vs. CA).
As a general rule, the redemption must be for the whole amount (Belisario vs.
IAC; Rumbaoa vs. Arzaga).
Where, however, several parcels of land were sold at public auction to satisfy a
judgment, the judgment obligor may redeem some of the properties by paying the
price at which they were sold at the auction sale. Piecemeal redemption is allowed
since, in the redemption of properties sold at an auction sale, the amount payable
is no longer the judgment debt but the purchase price (Dulay vs. Carriaga).
#2 Notes:
The required affidavit is merely as regards the amount due the redemptioner. Proof
is not needed from the judgment debtor but only from the redemptioner (Brusas vs
Infante).
SECTION 31
Section 31. Manner of using premises pending redemption; waste
restrained. — Until the expiration of the time allowed for redemption, the
court may, as in other proper cases, restrain the commission of waste on
the property by injunction, on the application of the purchaser or the
judgment obligee, with or without notice; but it is not waste for a person
in possession of the property at the time of the sale, or entitled to
possession afterwards, during the period allowed for redemption, to
continue to use it in the same manner in which it was previously used, or
to use it in the ordinary course of husbandry; or to make the necessary
repairs to buildings thereon while he occupies the property.
SECTION 32
Section 32. Rents, earnings and income of property pending redemption.
— The purchaser or a redemptioner shall not be entitled to receive the
rents, earnings and income of the property sold on execution, or the
value of the use and occupation thereof when such property is in the
possession of a tenant. All rents, earnings and income derived from the
property pending redemption shall belong to the judgment obligor until
the expiration of his period of redemption.
SECTION 33
Section 33. Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption
period; by whom executed or given. — If no redemption be made within
one (1) year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale, the
purchaser is entitled to a conveyance and possession of the property;
or, if so redeemed whenever sixty (60) days have elapsed and no other
redemption has been made, and notice thereof given, and the time for
redemption has expired, the last redemptioner is entitled to the
conveyance and possession; but in all cases the judgment obligor shall
have the entire period of one (1) year from the date of the registration of
the sale to redeem the property. The deed shall be executed by the officer
making the sale or by his successor in office, and in the latter case shall
have the same validity as though the officer making the sale had
continued in office and executed it.
Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or
redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title,
interest and claim of the judgment obligor to the property as of the time
of the levy. The possession of the property shall be given to the
purchaser or last redemptioner by the same officer unless a third party
adversely to the judgment obligor.
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
DURING PERIOD OF REDEMPTION
1. Judgment-obligor is entitled to possession
2. Judgment-obligor is not required to pay rent, because he is entitled to receive
rents
3. Judgment-obligor may even pursue a case of forcible entry against the
purchaser
UPON EXPIRATION Of THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION
1. This is time when purchaser/ last redemptioner shall acquire all rights, title,
interest and claim that the judgment obligor had at the time of levy
2. Sheriff shall execute final deed of sale, which conveys the ownership to
purchaser. NOT the certificate of sale, as it is only evidence of the execution sale.
It does not confer right to possession or ownership
3. The sale retroacts to the date of levy
g
- any disposition or lien in favor of third persons created by acts of the judgment
obligor after the levy on the subject real property shall not be binding upon the
purchaser or the last redemptioner, as the case may be, to whom the final deed of
sale was subsequently issued
- a later sale on execution takes precedence over (or is not invalidated by) a prior
private sale NOT recorded with the Register of Deeds, and even if such
unregistered right is registered before the auction sale
4. After the deed of sale has been executed, the purchaser or the last
redemptioner, as the case may be, is entitled to a writ of possession. This does
not need a separate proceeding because it is complementary to the writ of
execution
- this does NOT apply to lands held by third parties, as the court should order a
hearing to determine the nature of this adverse possession
5. The court’s power is limited to making an order authorizing the judgment
obligor to sue in a court where a third person has possession of the property
SECTION 34
Section 34. Recovery of price if sale not effective; revival of judgment. —
If the purchaser of real property sold on execution, or his successor in
interest, fails to recover the possession thereof, or is evicted therefrom,
in consequence of irregularities in the proceedings concerning the sale,
or because the judgment has been reversed or set aside, or because the
property sold was exempt from execution, or because a third person has
vindicated his claim to the property, he may on motion in the same action
or in a separate action recover from the judgment obligee the price paid,
with interest, or so much thereof as has not been delivered to the
judgment obligor, or he may, on motion, have the original judgment
revived in his name for the whole price with interest, or so much thereof
as has been delivered to the judgment obligor. The judgment so revived
shall have the same force and effect as an original judgment would have
as of the date of the revival and no more.
THE PURCHASER HAS THE RIGHT TO RECOVER PRICE IF HE IS BOOTED
OUT FROM THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO EXECUTION SALE.
Instances he is booted out:
1. He fails to recover the possession of the real property; or
2. He is evicted due to (1) Irregularities in the proceedings concerning the sale;
(2)The judgment has been reversed or set aside (3) The property is exempt from
execution; (4) Because a third party has vindicated his claim to the property (e.g.,
the third- party’s claim over the property levied is sustained in the appropriate
separate action that he filed)
PROCEDURE TO RECOVER:
1. File a separate action against the judgment obligee for the recovery of the full
amount that the purchaser paid for the property at the public auction, with interest,
or so much thereof as has not been delivered to the judgment obligor; or
2. File a motion in the same action in which the public auction was conducted
for the recovery from the judgment obligee of the full amount that the purchaser
paid for the property at the public auction, with interest, or so much thereof as has
not been delivered to the judgment obligor; or
3. File a motion with notice to have the original judgment revived in his name for
the whole price, with interest, or so much thereof as has been delivered to the
judgment debtor or obligor;
à this may only be availed of by the purchaser if he does not recover from the
judgment-obligee
EFFECT WHEN MOTION/ACTION IS GRANTED BY THE COURT
1. The purchaser is deemed subrogated to the rights of the judgment oblige
2. Purchaser may now cause the judgment enforced anew against the judgment
obligor [the purchaser will look for other properties of the judgment obligor against
which the revived judgment in the purchaser’s name be enforced]
SECTION 35
Section 35. Right to contribution or reimbursement. — When property
liable to an execution against several persons is sold thereon, and more
than a due proportion of the judgment is satisfied out of the proceeds of
the sale of the property of one of them, or one of them pays, without a
sale, more than his proportion, he may compel a contribution from the
others; and when a judgment is upon an obligation of one of them, as
security for another, and the surety pays the amount, or any part thereof,
either by sale of his property or before sale, he may compel repayment
from the principal.
Applicability: There are two or more judgment obligors and one of them paid, or
was made to pay, for the judgment award in excess of the proportion due from
him. This also applies in a case wherein the surety paid, or was made to pay, for
the liability of the principal obligor.
THE PAYOR HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND CONTRIBUTION OR
REIMBURSEMENT FROM CO-OBLIGORS.
199

ILLUSTRATION1: Waldi, Renato and Randi obtained a loan from Rami, in the
amount of P600,000.00 and they divided the money equally. In the promissory
note that they executed, it was expressly stipulated that their obligation to pay is
solidary. For their failure to pay, Rami filed a case against them and judgment
was rendered holding solidarily liable to pay. Randi’s property was levied and
sold on execution, and the proceeds of which were applied in full payment of the
judgment award.
In that situation, Randi may demand contribution for Waldi and Renato, for
200K each.
ILLUSTRATION 2: Otaner obtained a loan from Waldi to the tune of 1 million.
Randi acted as Otaner’s surety in that transaction. Waldi brought a collection suit
against Otaner and Randi. Judgment was rendered for 1 million and Randi paid
the same. Randi, the surety, may then ask for reimbursement from Otaner for the
entire 1 million that he paid.
SECTION 36
Section 36. Examination of judgment obligor when judgment unsatisfied.
— When the return of a writ of execution issued against property of a
judgment obligor, or any one of several obligors in the same judgment,
shows that the judgment remains unsatisfied, in whole or in part, the
judgment obligee, at any time after such return is made, shall be entitled
to an order from the court which rendered the said judgment, requiring
such judgment obligor to appear and be examined concerning his
property and income before such court or before a commissioner
appointed by it at a specified time and place; and proceedings may
thereupon be had for the application of the property and income of the
judgment obligor towards the satisfaction of the judgment. But no
judgment obligor shall be so required to appear before a court or
commissioner outside the province or city in which such obligor resides
or is found.
REMEDIES OF JUDGMENT-OBLIGEE WITH REGARDS UNSATISFIED
JUDGMENT [Judgement-obligor]
1. judgment obligee may apply from the court which rendered the judgment for an
order commanding the judgment obligor to appear before that court or before
a commissioner appointed by the court for him to be examined concerning his
property and income. [there will be pain of perjury/ contempt regard his assets]
2. Judgment obligor cannot be compelled to appear outside the province/city he
resides
[To remedy this situation, the court where he resides should better appoint a
competent person in the place where the court is to hear the case to act as
commissioner and command the judgment obligor to appear before the
court-appointed commissioner for the judgment obligor to be examined about his
assets]
3. A judgment obligor may no longer be examined after the lapse of five years
within which a judgment may be enforced by motion for execution (Umali vs.
Coquia)
4. May compel by subpoena the judgment-obligor to testify (Section 38)
-- cite in contempt if disobey; perjury if lie
SECTION 37
Section 37. Examination of obligor of judgment obligor. — When the
return of a writ of execution against the property of a judgment obligor
shows that the judgment remain unsatisfied, in whole or in part, and upon
proof to the satisfaction of the court which issued the writ, that a person,
corporation, or other juridical entity has property of such judgment
obligor or is indebted to him, the court may, by an order, require such
person, corporation, or other juridical entity, or any officer, or member
thereof, to appear before the court or a commissioner appointed by it, at
a time and place within the province or city where such debtor resides or
is found, and be examined concerning the same. The service of the order
shall bind all credits due the judgment obligor and all money and
property of the judgment obligor in the possession or in the control of
such person corporation, or juridical entity from the time of service; and
the court may also require notice of such proceedings to be given to any
party to the action in such manner as it may deem proper.
REMEDIES OF JUDGMENT-OBLIGEE WITH REGARDS UNSATISFIED
JUDGMENT [Third party]
1. The person to be examined is a person, corporation, or other juridical entity who
is shown to have owed money, or who holds a property belonging, to the judgment
debtor.
Example: Judgment is rendered against Otaner. The judgment remained
unsatisfied. But the judgment obligee has knowledge and he has proof that
Otaner has a collectible from Waldi, as the latter previously obtained a loan from
Otaner. In this situation, the judgment obligee may apply for a court order to the
end that Waldi be examined concerning Otaner’s collectible from him.
g
If the court is satisfied that, indeed, Otaner has a collectible from Waldi and the
latter does not deny it, the court may then direct Waldi to tender the payment
instead to the judgment obligee.
2. The third person cannot be compelled to appear before the judge or
commissioner outside of the province or city in which that person resides.
- remedy: appoint competent officer to act as commissioner
3. The remedy provided for under Section 37 may be availed of separately from,
or simultaneously with, the remedy under Section 36. But both remedies cannot
be availed of after the lapse of five (5) years within which a judgment may be
enforced by motion for execution.
4. May compel by subpoena the third party to testify (Section 38)
-- cite in contempt if disobey; perjury if lie
SECTION 38
Section 38. Enforcement of attendance and conduct of examination. — A
party or other person may be compelled, by an order or subpoena, to
attend before the court or commissioner to testify as provided in the two
preceding sections, and upon failure to obey such order or subpoena or
to be sworn, or to answer as a witness or to subscribe his deposition,
may be punished for contempt as in other cases. Examinations shall not
be unduly prolonged, but the proceedings may be adjourned from time
to time, until they are completed. If the examination is before a
commissioner, he must take it in writing and certify it to the court. All
examinations and answers before a court commissioner must be under
oath, and when a corporation or other juridical entity answers, it must be
on the oath of an authorized officer or agent thereof.
See Section 36 and 37, #4
SECTION 39
Section 39. Obligor may pay execution against obligee. — After a writ of
execution against property has been issued, a person indebted to the
judgment obligor may pay to the sheriff holding the writ of execution the
amount of his debt or so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy
the judgment, in the manner prescribed in section 9 of this Rule, and the
sheriff's receipt shall be a sufficient discharge for the amount so paid or
directed to be credited by the judgment obligee on the execution.
Applicability: Debtors of the judgment-obligor may tender payment to sheriff
instead of the judgment-obligor.
ILLUSTRATION: Judgment is rendered against Otaner to the tune of 500,000.
Waldi, however, is indebted to Otaner for 1 million. Waldi may opt to rather
tender his payment for his loan to the sheriff enforcing the judgment against
Otaner. So, if Waldi paid 500,000 to the sheriff for which he is issued the
corresponding receipt, Waldi is partially discharged of his obligation to Otaner to
the extent of 500,000. Waldi remains indebted to Otaner for the remaining
500,000.
SECTION 40
Section 40. Order for application of property and income to satisfaction
of judgment. — The court may order any property of the judgment
obligor, or money due him, not exempt from execution, in the hands of
either himself or another person, or of a corporation or other juridical
entity, to be applied to the satisfaction of the judgment, subject to any
prior rights over such property.
If, upon investigation of his current income and expenses, it appears that
the earnings of the judgment obligor for his personal services are more
than necessary for the support of his family, the court may order that he
pay the judgment in fixed monthly installments, and upon his failure to
pay any such installment when due without good excuse, may punish
him for indirect contempt.
THE COURT MAY CHOOSE PROPERTIES OF THE JUDGMENT OBLIGOR TO
BE APPLIED TO SATISFY JUDGEMT
[Recall Section 9- judgment obligor may choose properties to satisfy levy]
If earnings are more than necessary for support of his family, court may order that
he pay the judgment in fixed monthly installments, and upon his failure to pay any
such installment when due without good excuse, may punish him for indirect
contempt.
Tiro v. Hontanosas*
G.R. No. 32312, Nov. 25, 1983
The salary check of a government officer or employee such as a teacher
does not belong to him before it is physically delivered to him. Until that
time the check belongs to the Government. Accordingly, before there is
200

actual delivery of the check, the payee has no power over it; he cannot
assign it without the consent of the Government.
SECTION 41
Section 41. Appointment of receiver. — The court may appoint a receiver
of the property of the judgment obligor; and it may also forbid a transfer
or other disposition of, or any interference with, the property of the
judgment obligor not exempt from execution.
APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER
- resorted to if the properties of the judgment obligor that are levied upon on
execution are in danger of being wasted, dissipated, or materially injured
- in the preservative
The receiver shall preserve, manage and administer the properties of the
judgment debtor in the meantime that there are still issues being threshed
out at the execution stage.
SECTION 42
Section 42. Sale of ascertainable interest of judgment obligor in real
estate. — If it appears that the judgment obligor has an interest in real
estate in the place in which proceedings are had, as mortgagor or
mortgagee or otherwise, and his interest therein can be ascertained
without controversy the receiver may be ordered to sell and convey such
real estate or the interest of the obligor therein; and such sale shall be
conducted in all respects in the same manner as is provided for the sale
of real state upon execution, and the proceedings thereon shall be
approved by the court before the execution of the deed.
Interest of obligor in real estate may be used to satisfy judgments.
ü Mortgagor
ü Mortgagee
ü Usufructuary rights
ü Any real right
Where the property to be sold is under mortgage, what may be sold is the
judgment obligor’s real right therein – the right to foreclose the property, if he is
the mortgagee thereof, or the right of redemption or equity of redemption, if he is
the mortgagor.
The judgment debtor’s equity of redemption in the mortgaged lots is an interest
which may be levied upon (Blouse Potenciano vs. Mariano)
SECTION 43
Section 43. Proceedings when indebtedness denied or another person
claims the property. — If it appears that a person or corporation, alleged
to have property of the judgment obligor or to be indebted to him, claims
an interest in the property adverse to him or denied the debt, the court
may authorize, by an order made to that effect, the judgment obligee to
institute an action against such person or corporation for the recovery of
such interest or debt, forbid a transfer or other disposition of such
interest or debt within one hundred twenty (120) days from notice of the
order, and may punish disobedience of such order as for contempt. Such
order may be modified or vacated at any time by the court which issued
it, or by the court in which the action is brought, upon such terms as may
be just.
The judgment obligee is allowed to apply for a court order for the
examination of a third party who holds property or money belonging to
judgment obligor.
PROCEDURE
1. Judgment obligee can institute action against the person for recovery of such
interest/debt
2. Such action is done in a representative capacity
3. The court may forbid transfer of such questioned interest within 120 days from
notice of order [disobey à contempt]
3. The court issuing such writ cannot rule on this supplemental proceeding
4. In a proceeding supplemental to execution, a trial court cannot summarily
make a finding that a third person has in his possession property of the judgment
debtor. The trial court can only make an order authorizing the creditor or the
judgment obligee to sue in the proper court (Economic Ins. Co. vs. Torres).
SECTION 44
Section 44. Entry of satisfaction of judgment by clerk of court. —
Satisfaction of a judgment shall be entered by the clerk of court in the
court docket, and in the execution book, upon the return of a writ of
execution showing the full satisfaction of the judgment, or upon the filing
of an admission to the satisfaction of the judgment executed and
acknowledged in the same manner as a conveyance of real property by
the judgment obligee or by his counsel unless a revocation of his
authority is filed, or upon the endorsement of such admission by the
judgment obligee or his counsel, on the face of the record of the
judgment.
g
SECTION 45
Section 45. Entry of satisfaction with or without admission. — Whenever
a judgment is satisfied in fact, or otherwise than upon an execution on
demand of the judgment obligor, the judgment obligee or his counsel
must execute and acknowledge, or indorse an admission of the
satisfaction as provided in the last preceding section, and after notice
and upon motion the court may order either the judgment obligee or his
counsel to do so, or may order the entry of satisfaction to be made
without such admission.
WHEN THERE IS SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT
1. Clerk of court must make an entry of satisfaction in court docket and in
execution book.
2. Bases of satisfied execution
ü The sheriff’s return of an execution showing full satisfaction of the
judgment; or
ü An admission of the satisfaction of judgment executed and
acknowledged by the judgment obligee or his counsel;
ü The indorsement of such admission by the judgment creditor or his
attorney on the face of the record of the judgment; or
ü By order of the court, upon satisfactory proof of such satisfaction of
judgment, issued upon motion and with due notice.
3. Judgment obligor may, upon motion, move for the issuance of a court order
directing that an entry of satisfaction of judgment be made.
SECTION 46
Section 46. When principal bound by judgment against surety. — When
a judgment is rendered against a party who stands as surety for another,
the latter is also bound from the time that he has notice of the action or
proceeding, and an opportunity at the surety's request to join in the
defense.
JUDGMENT AGAINST SURETY
1. Principal debtor is bound to this, provided he was notified of the action and had
an opportunity to join in defense [even if he was not formally impleaded to the
case]
2. The principal may be held directly liable to pay the judgment award rendered
against the surety, or, if the surety pays the judgment award, the latter may
demand reimbursement from the principal without instituting another action or
proceeding.
JUDGMENT AGAINST PRINCIPAL DEBTOR AND NOT THE SURETY
1. Surety may be bound by the judgment only if he is formally impleaded
2. If not formally impleaded, writ of executiona against the surety is void (Luzon
Surety v. Beson)
SECTION 47
Section 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. — The effect of a
judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in
respect to the probate of a will, or the administration of the estate
of a deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or
legal condition or status of a particular person or his relationship
to another, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title
to the thing, the will or administration or the condition, status or
relationship of the person, however, the probate of a will or
granting of letters of administration shall only be prima
facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate;
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the
matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have
been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties
and their successors in interest, by title subsequent to the
commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for
the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity;
and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their
successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged
in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to
have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily
included therein or necessary thereto.
EFFECT OF JUDGMENT à RES JUDICATA
RES JUDICATA
-“a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter
settled by judgment
201

- rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits
on points and matters determined in the former suit (Black’s Law Dictionary)
Statutory basis Kind of action
Paragraph (a), Section 47 In rem
paragraph (b), Section 47 In personam
paragraph (c), Section 47 Deals with auter action pendant or
conclusiveness of judgment
(a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in
respect to the probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of a
deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal
condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to another,
the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the
will or administration or the condition, status or relationship of the
person, however, the probate of a will or granting of letters of
administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the
testator or intestate.
RES JUDICATA IN JUDGMENTS IN ACTIONS IN REM
GENERAL RULE: Conclusive - will bind practically everyone, or even persons
who are not party-litigants in those cases
EXCEPTION: The judgment in the probate of a will or granting of letters of
administration shall only be a prima facie evidence of the death of the testator.
TO BIND THE WHOLE WORLD à Section 76 of P.D 1529 must be complied,
thus:
Section 76. Notice of lis pendens. No action to recover possession of real
estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to remove clouds upon the title thereof,
or for partition, or other proceedings of any kind in court directly
affecting the title to land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings
thereon, and no judgment, and no proceeding to vacate or reverse any
judgment, shall have any effect upon registered land as against persons
other than the parties thereto, unless a memorandum or notice stating
the institution of such action or proceeding and the court wherein the
same is pending, as well as the date of the institution thereof, together
with a reference to the number of the certificate of title, and an adequate
description of the land affected and the registered owner thereof, shall
have been filed and registered.
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the
matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been
raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their
successors in interest, by title subsequent to the commencement of the
action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the
same title and in the same capacity;
RES JUDICATA IN JUDGMENTS IN PERSONAM
à operates as “bar by prior judgment”
Requisites:
1. The former judgment must be final;
2. It must be a judgment or order on the merits;
3. It must be rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the parties; and
4. There must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of
subject matter and of cause of action. [APSC]
A discussion of the each and every requisite is in order.
(1) The former judgment must be final
- means that the former judgment must be final and executory, either because no
appeal has been taken therefrom, or where an appeal had been taken, the same
was already resolved with finality
- If the former judgment is not yet final and executory, it may still be utilized as a
ground for dismissal of action on the ground of litis pendentia
Galiancia vs. CA
173 SCRA 42
It is not necessary that the former judgment had already become final and
executory before the filing of a similar subsequent action, as it is enough that
it already attained finality at the time that it is invoked to cause the dismissal of
the subsequent action.
(2) It must be a judgment or order on the merits
- amounts to a declaration of the law as to the respective rights and duties of the
parties, based upon the ultimate fact or state of facts disclosed by the pleadings
and evidence, and upon which the right of recovery depends, irrespective of
formal, technical or dilatory objections or contentions (Escarte vs. Office of the
President)
g
- one that finally settles the issues raised in the pleading (Manila Electric vs.
Artiaga)
- Ordinarily, judgment on the merits proceeds from trial, wherein the parties adduce
their respective evidence
Examples: Want of jurisdiction, improper venue à NOT ON MERITS
The dismissal of the actions even without trial operates as res judicata or a
bar to the institution of subsequent similar actions:
a. The application of the two-dismissal rule under Section 1, Rule 17
b. Dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute, or failure to appear at trial, or
to comply with the rules or order of the court under Section 3, Rule 17 operates as
an adjudication on the merits, unless otherwise ordered by the court (subject,
however, to the ruling in Republic Planters vs. Molina, to be discussed hereafter);
c. A dismissal for failure to appear at the pre-trial is an adjudication on the merits
(Gutierrez vs. CA);
d. Judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34;
e. Summary Judgments under Rule 35;
f. Judgment by default under Section 3, Rule 9;
g. Judgment based on compromise agreement; and
h. Dismissal of actions for non-compliance of the requirement on certification
against forum shopping, if declared to be with prejudice, pursuant to Section
5, Rule 7.
(3) It must be rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties
Republic Planters Bank v. Molina*
166 SCRA 39
FACTS: Republic Planters Bank (RPB) filed a collection case. The
defendants could not be served with summons in the case, such that the
court dismissed the case for failure of the RPB to prosecute the case. Under
Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, the dismissal shall have the effect of
an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. In
this case, the dismissal order did not state that it does not amount to an
adjudication on the merits.
HELD: In the very order of dismissal of Civil Case No. 116028, the trial court
admitted that it did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of private
respondents and yet, it held that it was of no moment as to the dismissal of
the case. We disagree. For the court to have authority to dispose of the
case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties. If it did not acquire jurisdiction over the private respondents
as parties to Civil Case No. 116028, it cannot render any binding decision,
favorable or adverse to them, or dismiss the case with prejudice which, in
effect, is an adjudication on the merits. The controverted orders in Civil Case
No. 116028 disregarded the fundamental principles of remedial law and the
meaning and the effect of jurisdiction. A judgment, to be considered res
judicata, must be binding, and must be rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction. Otherwise, the judgment is a nullity
(4) There must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties,
of subject matter and of cause of action.
Identity of parties
ü Substantial identity of the same parties
ü Successors-in-interest
ü Legal heirs
ü Purchasers who acquired title from original parties
RULE: Only substantial, and not absolute, identity of parties is required.
- There is substantial identity of parties when there is community of interest
between a party in the first case and a party in the second case albeit the latter
was not impleaded in the first case (Sempio vs. CA)
- the inclusion of additional parties in the second case is no obstacle to its dismissal
on the ground of litis pendentia or res judicata (Investors Finance Corp. vs. Judge
Ebarle)
Delfin v. Inciong*
192 SCRA 151
FACTS: Labor organizations filed an unfair labor practice case against
Atlantic. A decision was rendered holding Atlantic guilty of unfair labor
practice, with a directive to reinstate some but not all of the striking
employees.
Alleging that Atlantic stopped its operations, its employees, in their individual
capacities, file another unfair labor practice case against Atlantic, but this
second case was dismissed by the NLRC on the ground of res judicata by
reason of the decision of the previous unfair labor practice case. The
employees faulted the NLRC, holding that there is no res judicata because the
previous case was filed by the labor organizations (of which they are
202

members) and the second case was filed by them in their individual
capacities.
HELD: “While it is true that the complainants in the first charge was the union,
in reality it had no material interest in the outcome of the case. The real party
who stands to be benefited or defeated by a case brought in the name of
the union are the union members themselves.
Since the judgment therein had become final and executory, the subsequent
filing of another ULP charge against Atlantic for the same violations committed
during its existence, is barred by res judicata. The bringing of the same
action in the name of the individual members of the union will not take
out the case from the ambit of the principle of res judicata.
Valdez vs. Mendoza,
9 Phil. 83
Res judicata does not operate between persons who, having been co-
parties in the first case, are opposing parties in the second case, except
where the individual claims of such co-parties in the first case were brought in
issue, litigated and determined in the first case (Aguirre vs. Atienza), as when,
for example, in the first case the parties filed their cross-claims against each
other and such claims have been determined and passed upon therein.
Identity of subject matter
à same thing
à portion of a large land à same thing
à action for accounting of a certain funds would be a bar for a subsequent action
for the partition of the same funds (Chua Tan vs. Del Rosario)
Identity of cause of action
à When the two actions are based on the same delict or wrong committed by the
defendant, even if the remedies be different (Qiogue vs. Bautista)
à A change in the form of the action or in the relief sought does not remove the
proper case from the application of res judicata (Vocal vs. Vda. de Subia)
Mendiola v. CA
G.R. No. 122807, July 5, 1996
Where the first action was to enjoin the Philippine National Bank from
foreclosing petitioner’s property, and the second action is to annul the
auction sale over the foreclosed property based on the same grounds, the
doctrine of res judicata applies.
Carlet vs. CA
G.R. No. 114275, July 7, 1997
Neither does the fact that the first case was an action for annulment of sale
while the second case is for reconveyance of property alter the fact that both
cases have an identical cause of action
TESTS OF SAMENESS OF CAUSE OF ACTION
(1) Same evidence test:
- same evidence is needed to support both the present and the previous cases,
the decision in the previous case bars the filing of the present case
Concepcion v. Agana*
ADM. No. RTJ-96-227
FACTS: A judge was disbarred for a dishonest act. A second case was filed
for his dismissal as a judge for the same act.
RULING: It is barred by res judicata even if the relief sought in both actions
may be different, the same is of no consequence. The test of identity of causes
of action is not in the form of an action but on whether the same evidence
would support and establish the former and the present causes of action
But in Nabus vs. Court of Appeals*, 193 SCRA 732, res judicata was not
applied. The first case was for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on
petitioner’s right to repurchase the property but it was dismissed for failure of the
plaintiff to deposit the required amount. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed another case
involving the same parcel of land praying for the recission of contract of sale for
defendant’s alleged failure to pay the purchase price. According to the Supreme
Court, The Supreme Court observed, thus:
Nabus v. CA*
193 SCRA 7
FACTS: The first case was reconveyance of parcel of land based on petitioner’s
right to repurchase. It was dismissed for dailure to deposit the required
amount.
A second case was filed involving the same parcel land praying for recission
of the contract, for defendant’s alleged failure to pay purchase price.
RULING: The filing of the second case is not barred by the judgment in the prior
case, as the two cases are not founded on the same evidence. Res judicata
cannot be applied.
g
‘It will be observed that Civil Case No. 2159(24) is based on petitioner's light to
repurchase the subject property under Section 119 of the Public Land Act, while
Civil Case No. 4293 involves the rescission of the contract of sale by reason of
the failure of private respondent to pay in full the value of the property, pursuant
to Article 1191 of the Civil Code. The former, in order to prosper, requires proof
that the land was granted under a free patent, that the land was sold within five
years from the grant thereof, and that the action for reconveyance was filed
within five years from the execution of the deed of sale. In the second case,
proof of the unpaid installments is the only evidence necessary to sustain the
action for rescission. It is thus apparent that a different set of evidence is
necessary to sustain and establish the variant causes of action in the two
cases.”
(2) Inconsistency test:
- there is identity of causes of action when the judgment sought will be inconsistent
with the prior judgment
Valencia v. RTC of Quezon City*
G.R. No. 82112, April 3, 1990
FACTS: The Valencias filed a case against one Jose Balot for the
cancellation and annulment of the award in his favor of a parcel of land by
the Philippine Housing and Homesite Corporation. Doneta Carino, sister-in-
law of Corazon Llanes, intervened in the action on the ground the Valencias
had already sold to her their “squatter’s rights” over the litigated lot. The
trial court decided the case in favor of the intervenor, but the Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court, ruling in favor of the Valencias and holding that no
such sale of “squatter’s rights” had taken place. The decision of the Court of
Appeals attained finality.
Later, Corazon Llanes, sister-in-law of Doneta Carino file case against the
Valencias for recovery of ownership and possession over the lot subject
matter of the previous case, alleging that the Valencias already sold to the
plaintiff their “squatter’s rights” over the property in question. The Valencias
moved the dismissal of the complaint based on res judicata but it was not
favorably acted by the trial court, prompting them to file a petition for certiorari
and mandamus before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, however,
ruled that res judicata would not apply. The Valencia’s questioned the ruling of
the Court of Appeals.
HELD: Hence, although Corazon C. Llanes was not a party in the prior
case, Civil Case No. Q-17465, her claim in the subsequent case, Civil
Case No. Q-43239, was identical to that of Donelita J. Carino, that is, that
she had purchased Rosa Sabadlan Valencia's "squatter rights" to the
Litigated Lot. They thus shared an identity of interest from which flowed an
identity of relief sought, namely, to be declared the owners of the same
property, premised on the same alleged purchase. Such identity of interest is
sufficient to make them privy-in-law, one to the other and meets the requisite
of substantial identity of parties.
One test of identity of causes of action is whether or not the judgment
sought in a subsequent case will be inconsistent with the prior judgment.
If no inconsistency will result, the prior judgment cannot be held to be a
bar.
Herein, the Valencias have been pronounced by final judgment in a prior case
to be the owners of the Litigated Lot, and all occupants thereof to be illegal
occupants. If affirmative relief is granted to Corazon C. Llanes in the second
case, that judgment will definitely be inconsistent with the prior judgment in the
first case, which has conclusively resolved the specific issue of sale and the
overall question of ownership. Tried by the inconsistency test, therefore,
identity (at the very least, substantial identity) of causes of action must be held
to be present.”
(3) Identity of facts rule
- If the two actions rest upon different set of facts, or if different proofs would
be required to sustain the two actions, a judgment of one is no bar to the
maintenance of the other
Pagsisihan vs. CA*
95 SCRA 540
FACTS: The first case was for the declaration of the pacto de retro sale as
a mere equitable mortgage under Article 1602 of the Civil Code. It was
dismissed. A second case was filed seeking to declare the same deed as null
and void from the beginning as well as the nullification of the consolidation of
ownership on the ground that there was no judicial order authorizing the same
as provided in Article 1607 of the Civil Code.
RULING: Res judicata does not apply.
From the above allegations as culled from the two cases, it is quite apparent
that the cause of action in the first case is different from that of the second
case. The first case seeks only to declare the deed of pacto de retro as a
203

mere equitable mortgage. The action is premised on Article 1602 of the New
Civil Code.
The second case also places in issue the validity of the petition for
dismissal of Civil Case No. 3599 filed by Ambrosio Pagsisihan upon which
the dismissal of said case is based alleging fraud in its execution. Accordingly,
the validity of the order of dismissal is itself placed in issue. Obviously, it was
not placed in issue in the first case. Whether or not the land in question is
a conjugal property of the late spouses Ambrosio Pagsisihan and Isabel
Esguerra is another issue raised in the present case. These issues are
more basic and fundamental than the declaration of the deed of pacto de
retro sale as an equitable mortgage, which was the main, if not sole, issue in
the first case.”
THERE IS A CORRELATIVE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE FILING OF A
SUBSEQUENT CASE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN RELATION
THERETO.
Example: Waldi filed a complaint against Randi before the RTC for allegedly
causing damage to his car due to Randi’s reckless driving. In his answer, Randi
denied that he was driving recklessly and that, according to him, it was rather
Waldi who was negligent in driving his car. Yet, in Randi’s answer, he did not pray
that Waldi be held liable instead for the damages of Randi’s car.
Q: If, after trial, the court finds that, indeed, Waldi is at fault, can the court award
damages for Randi’s car?
A: No, the court cannot, in the very same case, award damages in Randi’s favor,
as it was not raised as an issue nor claimed therein.
Q: But can Randi subsequently file a case against Waldi for the damages on
Randi’s car?
A: No. Section 2, Rule 9 of the Amended Rules provides that a compulsory
counterclaim not set up shall be barred. Moreover, the filing of the second case
is barred by the judgment in the first case, as the concept of res judicata under
paragraph (b), Rule 47 of the Rules of Court embraces not only all matters that
are directly adjudged in the former case but also matters that could have been
raised in relation thereto.
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors
in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former
judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so
adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or
necessary thereto.
AUTER ACTION PENDANT
à the rule on conclusiveness of judgment
Elisa O. Gamboa vs. CA*
G.R. No. 38068, Sept. 30, 1981
Section 47 (b) enunciates the concept of res judicata which is known as "bar
by prior judgment" whereas Sec. 47 (c) is referred to as "conclusiveness of
judgment."
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, between the first case where the
judgment was rendered and the second case which is sought to be barred,
there is identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. The
judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the subsequent action.
It is final as to the claim or demand in controversy, including the parties and
those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and
received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other
admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all
matters that could have been adjudged in that case.
But where between the first and second cases, there is identity of parties but
no identity of cause of action, the first judgment is conclusive in the
second case, only as to those matters actually and directly controverted
and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein.”
Res judicata vs. conclusiveness of judgment:
RES JUDICATA BY
RES JUDICATA BY PRIOR
CONCLUSIVENESS OF
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
Identity of cause of action No identity of cause of action
bars or abate the filing of a does not necessarily bar or abate the
subsequent similar action filing of the second action only
prohibits a re-litigation of a fact or
issue that is already finally resolved
or adjudicated in the previous case or
is necessarily included therein
a ground for filing a motion to dismiss not a ground for filing a motion to
dismiss
g
embraces not only all matters that covers only matters which were
are directly adjudged in the former actually adjudged in the former case
case but also matters that could or necessarily included therein
(should) have been raised in relation
thereto been (see example regarding
the collision involving the vehicles of
Wald and Randi)
EXAMPLE OF CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT: Otaner borrowed 4 million
from Waldi, payable in four (4) installments, evidenced by a promissory note which
does not have any acceleration clause. Otaner failed to pay the first installment,
such that Waldi filed a case for collection of the amount due on the first installment.
In his answer, Otaner foisted the defense that he did not obtain a loan from
Waldi and that the promissory note appended to the complaint was a forgery.
After trial on the merits, the trial court ruled in favor of Waldi, holding that the
promissory note was not forged and directing Otaner to pay the amount due on
the first installment.
When the second installment fell due, Otaner likewise failed to pay the same,
prompting Waldi to institute another case for the collection of the second unpaid
installment.
Q: Is the filing of the second case barred by the prior judgment rendered in the
first case?
A: No. The causes of auction of first and the second case are different. The first
case was for the non-payment of the first installment. The second case is for
the non-payment of the second installment. Hence, there is no res judicata.
Q: In the second case, can Otaner again raise the defense of forgery of the
promissory note?
A: No. That issue was already raised, traversed and finally adjudicated in the first
case. It cannot be re-litigated anymore, as it is barred by the “conclusiveness
of judgment” in the first case anent that issue.
NOTE: “conclusiveness of judgment” and even res judicata do not apply to an
ejectment case with respect to the issue on ownership. Judgment in an
ejectment case is no bar to a suit to compel execution of deed of sale because an
action for ejectment is no bar to another action contesting ownership (Iñigo vs.
Estate of Maloto).
RULE 70. Section 18. Judgment conclusive only on possession; not
conclusive in actions involving title or ownership. — The judgment rendered in
an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the
possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership
of the land or building. Such judgment shall not bar an action between the
same parties respecting title to the land or building.
INSTANCES WHERE RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLIED
Where its application would be antithetical to the higher principle of justice, or
when it would amount to a denial of justice and subvert due process
Suarez v. CA*
193 SCRA 183
FACTS: The mother of the child filed a petition for habeas corpus for the custody her minor
child. Before she could finish with the presentation of her evidence, she moved for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice to her right to file right to file another action for
custody of minor under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court. The dismissal of her petition for
habeas corpus was, however, with prejudice. Subsequently, she filed another action for
custody and support. The defendant, her erstwhile common-law husband moved to
dismiss the case on the ground of res judicata. The motion to dismiss was denied by the
trial court.
HELD: In the case at bar, the purpose of the plaintiff in dismissing the first action for a writ
of habeas corpus was not to end litigation concerning the right of the former to the
custody of her child but on the contrary, to pursue it in a second action, this time for
custody of minor.
It is worthy to note that the ground upon which respondent Manese filed her motion for
dismissal is erroneous since the question as to who shall have the custody of the child can
be sufficiently resolved in the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Rule 102,
Revised Rules of Court without the necessity of filing a separate action under Rule 99 of the
said rules for that purpose.
Nevertheless, it is error for the trial court to dismiss the first case with prejudice to the filing
of the second action without stating the reasons or basis thereof. This should not prevent
the filing of the second action for custody of minor, since no opportunity was granted by the
trial court to the plaintiff to raise this issue for the determination of the court in the habeas
corpus case.
Assuming in gratia argumenti that the prior judgment of dismissal with prejudice was validly
rendered within the lawful discretion of the court and could be considered as an adjudication
on the merits, nonetheless, the principle of res judicata should be disregarded if its
application would involve the sacrifice of justice to technicality. The application of the
said principle, under the particular facts obtaining, would amount to denial of justice
and/or bar to a vindication of a legitimate grievance (Ronquillo v. Marasigan, No. L-
11621, May 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 304). It is worth stating here that the controversy in the
instant case is not just an ordinary suit between parties over a trivial matter but a litigation
204
 g

initiated by the natural mother over the welfare and custody of her child, in which the State finality but not necessarily the whole be that of the trial court only, as when
has a paramount interest. The fundamental policy of the State as embodied in the case itself; no appeal is filed therefrom
Constitution in promoting and protecting the welfare of children shall not be
disregarded by the courts by mere technicality in resolving disputes which involve
relates entirely to adjudications on relates to adjudication of facts or law,
the family and the youth. questions of law or mixed
application of the “law of the case” application of res judicata results in
Isidora Salud v. CA* principle denotes that the case that the dismissal of the subsequent case
G.R. No. 100156, June 27, 1994 was once elevated on appeal be or action
continued at the court below
FACTS: Spouses Salud owned an undivided ½ share of a parcel of land. They sold half of law of the case applies to both civil a res judicata applies only to civil
such share to their daughter and the other half thereof to their other children. The spouses, and criminal cases cases
however, changed their minds, such that the did not register the deeds of sale, and they
remained in possession of their land and continued to exercise acts of ownership.
Stare Decisis vs. Res judicata
The co-owners of the spouses filed two cases against the children of spouses Salud
for redemption of what was supposedly conveyed by the spouses to their children. STARE DECISIS NON QIETA MOVERE - when the Supreme Court has laid down
a principle of law to a certain state of facts, such principle, once it attained finality,
In one case (Civil Case No. 3022), the children of the spouses were declared in default. will be adhered to and applied to all future cases where the facts are substantially
Spouses Salud tried to but were denied the opportunity to intervene in the action before the the same (Republic vs. Del Rosario), unless the same is overturned by the
Court of Appeals.
Supreme Court.
The other case (Civil Case No. 3023) was decided on the merits and the complaint was
dismissed. It was held that the co-owners have no right to redeem. Lower courts are enjoined to adapt the doctrines applied by the SC. it is a bar to
any attempt to relitigate the same issues, necessary for two simple reasons:
Spouses Salud later filed a case against their co-owners for quieting of title, and this economy and judicial stability.
was calculated to stifle their co-owners’ right of redemption as, thus, adjudged in Civil Case
No. 3022. The co-owners moved to dismiss the case on the ground of res judicata, invoking
See page 6 of the same notes.
the judgment in Civil Case No. 3022)

HELD: “The difference in the results of Civil Cases No. 3022 and 3023 accentuates the Law of the case vs. Stare decisis
necessity not to give res judicata effect to the default judgment in Civil Case No. 3022
where petitioner was a non-party. The demands of due process present a weightier Law of the case Stare decisis
consideration than the need to bring an end to the parties' litigation. For more confined only to the case that was calls for the application in a case of
important than the need to write finis to litigation is to finish it justly, and there can be no
justice that satisfies unless the litigants are given the opportunity to be heard. The once elevated on appeal wherein a the doctrine laid down in another
constitutional right to due process of petitioner cannot be defeated by the argument that particular legal issue therein was case
petitioner is a privy of her children in Civil Case No. 3022, and hence is bound by its decided with finality and which case
judgment. Case law, both here and in the United States, recognizes privity of interest under was subsequently continued at the
the following situation.” court below

RELATED PRINCIPLES Obiter Dictum

Law of the Case
- opinion delivered on a former appeal.
- whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision
between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case,
whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts before court (Agustin v. CA)
Law of the case enunciates that determinations of questions of law will
generally be held to govern a case throughout all its subsequent stages
where such determination has already been made on a prior appeal to a court of
last resort. It relates entirely to questions of law, and is confined in its operations
to subsequent proceedings in the same case (Villa vs. Sandiganbayan)
- an opinion expressed by a court upon some question of law which is not
necessary to the decision of the case before it. It is a remark made, or opinion
expressed, by a judge, in his decision upon a cause, "by the way," that is,
incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before him, or
upon a point not necessarily involved in the determination of the cause, or
introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument.
- Such are not binding as precedent (Delta Motor Corporation vs. CA)
SECTION 48
Section 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. — The effect of a
judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:

People v. Olarte*
19 SCRA 494
FACTS: Olarte was charged with libel. He moved to quash the information on the ground
of prescription of the offense. The court granted the motion to quash. The complainant
elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. In resolving the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled
that offense had not prescribed. The Supreme Court ruled that the filing of the complaint
for libel with the justice of the peace interrupted the running of the statute of limitation
and, therefore, there is no prescription. The decision became final and executory. The
case was then remanded to the trial court for trial for trial.
In the subsequent case of in People vs. Coquia, June 23, 1963, the Supreme Court,
however, ruled that the prescriptive period in grave oral defamation is interrupted
only by filing a complaint in the Court of the First Instance (equivalent to RTC at
present). On the basis of this ruling , Olarte filed a second motion to quash.
HELD: “Suffice it to say that our ruling in Case L-13027, rendered on the first appeal,
constitutes the law of the case, and, even if erroneous, it may no longer be disturbed
or modified since it has become final long ago. A subsequent reinterpretation of the
law may be applied to new cases but certainly not to an old one finally and
conclusively determined (People vs. Pinuila).
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the
judgment or final order, is conclusive upon the title to the thing,
and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the
judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties and their successors in interest by a
subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence
of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact.
RULE OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
ACTION FOR THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THAT FOREIGN
JUDGMENT à Before a foreign judgment can be given effect in the Philippines,
a civil action must first be filed in court for its recognition and enforcement

'Law of the case' has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. More Mijares, et al. v. Ranada*
specifically, it means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005
rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the
case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
There is an evident distinction between a foreign judgment in an action in
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court. (21 C.J.S. rem and one in personam. For an action in rem, the foreign judgment is
330). (cited in Pinuila case, supra) deemed conclusive upon the title to the thing, while in an
action in personam, the foreign judgment is presumptive, and not
As a general rule a decision on a prior appeal of the same case is held to be the law of conclusive, of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest
the case whether that decision is right or wrong, the remedy of the party being to by a subsequent title. However, in both cases, the foreign judgment is
seek a rehearing (5 C.J.S. 1277). (also cited in Pinuila case)
susceptible to impeachment in our local courts on the grounds of want of
jurisdiction or notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or
Law of the case vs. Res judicata
fact. Thus, the party aggrieved by the foreign judgment is entitled to
defend against the enforcement of such decision in the local forum. It is
Law of the case Res judicata essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign
requires that the case be elevated on the case itself be fully decided and judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine
appeal wherein a particular legal such decision attained finality, even it its efficacy.”
issue in the case be decided with

205

GUIDELINES:
1. Where the foreign judgment or final order is upon a specific thing, the
judgment or final order, is conclusive upon the title to the thing;
Example: Waldemar and Otaner, both Russians entered into a business
partnership, and they conducted business both here and in Russia. Then, they had
a dispute over their business and the ownership of their assets. They litigated
before the proper court in Russia, and after trial, it was decided by the Russian
court that they would divide their assets in Russia share and share alike, but
their lone asset in the Philippines – i.e, a Ford Mustang car – was adjudicated
to Otaner.
Upon their return to the Philippines, Otaner filed a case for the recognition and
enforcement of that foreign decision. Waldemar opposed the same on the
ground that he was allegedly denied due process before the court in Russia.
But the Philippine court found the opposition lame and unfounded.
Q: Will the Philippine court likewise adjudicate the ownership of the Ford
Mustang to Otaner?
A: Yes. The decision rendered by the Russian court relates to a specific thing,
such that it is already conclusive upon the title to the thing.
BUT!!!!! The doctrine that a foreign judgment will not be given effect in the
Philippines if it is contrary to law, customs and public order is not applicable
in case of recovery and/or determination of title to personal property (Perkins
vs. Benguet Consolidated).
2. In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final
order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title.
Example: Waldemar and Otaner are both Russians. Waldemar obtained a
monetary loan from Otaner in Russia. Waldemar did not pay, such that Otaner
filed a collection case against Waldemar before the proper court in Russia, and,
after trial, the Russian court rendered judgment in favor of Otaner, holding
Waldemar liable to pay € 1 million. Waldemar did not pay the judgment award.
He even absconded and fled to the Philippines. Otaner followed Waldemar in
the Philippines. Otaner then filed a case for recognition and enforcement of
that foreign decision in his favor, hoping to levy Waldemar’s Ford Mustang
car in the Philippines. Waldemar opposed the same on the ground that he was
allegedly denied due process before the court in Russia.
Q: Will the recognition of that foreign judgment in the Philippines automatically
vests upon Otaner ownership and possession of the Mustang car?
A: No, because the foregoing decision does not relate to a specific thing, much
less relate to the title thereof.
Q: So what is the effect of recognizing that foreign judgment here?
A: The final foreign judgment is a presumptive evidence that Waldemar has
obligation to pay a sum of money to Otaner. Waldemar assumes the burden of
overcoming the presumption of the validity of such foreign judgment
Case: Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CA
Q: What is the implication of admitting the foreign judgment as presumptive
evidence of the prevailing party’s right?
A: It is enough for Otaner to just present and offer that foreign judgment in
evidence. There is no need for Otaner to prove anew his cause of action against
Waldemar and present evidence to prove the same. The local court will not go
back to trial because if every judgment of a foreign court were reviewable on
the merits, the plaintiff would be forced back on his/her original cause of
action, rendering immaterial the previously concluded litigation (Mijares vs.
Ranada). It’s just that the burden of proof is now shifted to Waldemar to
overcome the presumed validity of that foreign judgment. Unless rebutted,
then the right of the prevailing party should be recognized. Verily, if Waldemar
cannot overcome the presumptive validity of that foreign decision, Otaner will be
entitled to the issuance of a writ of execution that may result in the levy and the
sale of Waldemar’s Mustang car on execution.
Asiavest Limited vs. CA
G.R. No. 128803, 241 SCRA 492
It may not be amiss to state that in resolving issues relating to the procedures
and processes observed by the foreign court in rendering a foreign
judgment sought to be enforced in our forum, the party assailing the
validity thereof has the burden of proving that the foreign court did not
follow the correct procedures as, thus, provided under the pertinent foreign
law. Towards that end, he needs to offer in evidence and prove the pertinent
foreign law on the matter. Failing in that, then it will be presumed that the
foreign procedural law is similar to ours, pursuant to the so-called processual
presumption
APPEALS
g
APPEAL - remedy pursuant to which a decision of the lower court may reviewed
by the appropriate higher court on grounds of perceived errors in the findings of
facts and/or conclusions of law
Spouses Lee v. Land Bank of the Philippines
G.R. No. 221636, July 11, 2016
In our jurisdiction, the right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due
process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.
When there is no law providing for the remedy of appeal, such as in small claims
cases as provided under A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, one cannot, therefore, decry that
he is denied due process.
RULE 40 - APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS TO THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURTS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Where to appeal. — An appeal from a judgment or final order
of a Municipal Trial Court may be taken to the Regional Trial Court
exercising jurisdiction over the area to which the former pertains. The
title of the case shall remain as it was in the court of origin, but the party
appealing the case shall be further referred to as the appellant and the
adverse party as the appellee.
MTC à RTC
BP 129. Sec. 22. Appellate jurisdiction. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs
in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on
the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and
such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required
by the RTCs. The decision of the RTCs in such cases shall be appealable by
petition for review to the CA which may give it due course only when the
petition show prima facie that the lower court has committed an error of fact or
law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment
sought to be reviewed.
RULE: Only judgments or final orders of the court that completely dispose of the
case, or of a particular matter therein, may be elevated on appeal.
A final judgment, or order or decree is one that finally disposes of, adjudicates or
determine the rights, or some rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy
or some definite and separate branch thereof, and which concludes them until it is
reversed or set aside (Gold City Integrated Port Services vs. IAC).
An order which decides an issue or issues in the complaint is final and
appealable, although the other issue or issues have not been resolved, if the latter
issues are distinct and separate from the others (Day vs. RTC Zamboanga City)
EXAMPLE: An expropriation proceedings under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
Such case basically involves two stages, (1) the determination of the propriety
of the taking of property, which may lead to the issuance of an order of
expropriation; and (2) the determination of the just compensation leading to the
issuance of the main judgment. If the court issues an order of expropriation
pursuant to Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, that order is already final as
to the specific matter or issue on the propriety of the taking of the property; hence,
appealable in itself, even if the trial court is yet to proceed with the main case
in respect to the determination of the just compensation.
WHEN APPEAL CANNOT IS UNAVAILABLE:
RULE 41. Section 1. Subject of appeal. — An appeal may be taken from a
judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular
matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking
relief from judgment;
(b) An interlocutory order;
(c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent,
confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or
any other ground vitiating consent;
(e) An order of execution;
(f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties
or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party
206
 g

complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an Interlocutory orders in cases an appeal from the judgment in the case and
appeal therefrom; and falling under the Revised assign, as one of the errors on appeals, the
Rules on Summary validity of any such interlocutory order
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice. Procedure

In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable,
the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule
65 [As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, December 4, 2007].
NOTE: An order denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration under
Rule 37 may no longer be assailed by certiorari under Rule 65, the remedy
thereof being an appeal from the judgment or final order disposing of the case and
assign, as one of the errors on appeal, the denial of his or her motion for new trial
or motion for reconsideration (Section 9, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court)
1. Remedy against an order denying a petition for relief or any similar
motion seeking relief from judgment
à certiorari pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 1, Rule
2. Remedies against an interlocutory order
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - something between the commencement and the
end of the suit which decides some point or matter, but it is not a final decision of
the whole controversy (Black’s Law Dictionary)
Examples of interlocutory orders: an order denying/granting a motion for
extension of time to file answer; order denying/granting a motion to amend
pleading; an order denying/granting a motion for resetting of trial; and an order on
the admissibility of evidence; an order setting aside the order of default
Otto Gmur, Inc. vs. Revilla
55 Phil. 627
An order denying a motion for intervention is appealable, because the
order denying such motion for intervention is “final” insofar as the movant or
would-be intervenor is concerned, there being nothing left to be done as to
him. Thus, it was held that where a motion to intervene is denied, the remedy
of the would-be intervenor is appeal
3. Remedies against an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal
à certiorari
à mandamus
à petition for relief
4. Remedies against an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment
by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake
or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent
à certiorari
à prohibition
à mandamus
à action to annul it could be brought before the Court of Appeals [Section 9 (2) of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, which gives that court exclusive original jurisdiction
over actions for annulment of judgments of regional trial courts]
à Petition for relief from judgment against a judgment based on compromise
5. Remedies against an order of execution
à Certiorari
à filing a motion with the court which issued the writ of execution questioning the
validity of such writ or the implementation thereof
à filing of “third-party claim or terceria
à filing of “appropriate separate action
6. Remedies against a judgment or final order for or against one or more
of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and
third-party complaints, while the main case is pending
RENDITION OF SEPARATE JUDGMENTS
RULE 36. Section 4. Several judgments. — In an action against several
defendants, the court may, when a several judgment is proper, render
judgment against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed against
the others.

But the appeal should be from the order denying the intervention, as he cannot RULE 36. Section 5. Separate judgments. — When more than one claim for
appeal from the decision, not being made a party to the case (Saw vs. CA). relief is presented in an action, the court, at any stage, upon a determination
Mandamus is also available in respect to such order. While, generally, writ of of the issues material to a particular claim and all counterclaims arising out of
mandamus will not prosper to compel a discretionary act, but where appeal the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the claim, may
would not be an adequate and speedy remedy and there is a grave abuse of render a separate judgment disposing of such claim. The judgment shall
discretion, manifest injustice or palpable excess of authority equivalent to terminate the action with respect to the claim so disposed of and the action
denial of a settled right to which petitioner is entitled MANDAMUS may lie (First shall proceed as to the remaining claims. In case a separate judgment is
Phil. Holdings, Inc. vs. Sandiganbayan). rendered the court by order may stay its enforcement until the rendition of a
subsequent judgment or judgments and may prescribe such conditions as may
Section 1 (b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court prohibits an appeal from an be necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the party in whose favor the
interlocutory order, the remedy being certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court judgment is rendered.
(Last paragraph of Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court).
RULE: Appeal from several judgments is not absolutely prohibited, but will
WHY ARE INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS UNAPPEALABLE? To forestall useless depend upon the circumstance of the case and the sound discretion of the court,
appeals and avoid undue inconvenience to appealing party by having to assail while the main case is pending
orders as they are promulgated by the court, when all such orders may be
contested in a single appeal [Please refer to our discussion under Section 5, Rule 36].
Thus, a party aggrieved by an interlocutory may just have to wait for the rendition If the court will allow that appeals be taken from the “several” judgments, then
of the final judgment in the case, appeal therefrom and question therein, as one appeal(s) may be pursued.
of the assignments on appeal, such interlocutory order. If he cannot until the
rendition of the final judgment, then he may avail of certiorari under Rule 65 Otherwise, the party aggrieved by such several judgments may just have wait for
the rendition of the ultimate judgment and interpose a consolidated appeal
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER REMEDY from the ultimate and “several” judgments.
order denying the affirmative proceed with trial and then appeal from the
defenses pleaded in the judgment in the case and assign, as one of PROVIDED THE JUDGMENT IS NOT FROM A SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Rule
answer the errors on appeal, the denial of the 35, Section 4]
affirmative defense
order of the court submitting proceed with trial and then appeal from the Province of Pangasinan v. CA*
the case for judgment on the judgment in the case and assign, as one of 220 SCRA 726
pleadings or summary the errors on appeal, such order submitting
judgment the case for judgment on the pleading or FACTS: Respondent Coquial filed a complaint against petitioners Province of
summary judgment Pangasinan and Provincial Governor Colet before the Regional Trial Court of
order denying the demurrer to proceed with trial and then appeal from the Quezon City. He alleged the province failed to pay the improvement contract
evidence judgment in the case and assign, as one of entered into by the parties that was 100% complete
the errors on appeal, the denial of the
demurrer to evidence Respondent subsequently filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the
order of the court approving or an appeal from the judgment in the case and balance for the first project. The trial court granted the motion filed by
denying a motion for assign, as one of the errors on appeal, the respondent and rendered partial summary judgment, ordering defendants to
judgment on the pleadings approval/denial of the motion for judgment pay the balance.
on the pleadings
order of the court approving or an appeal from the judgment in the case and Respondent then filed a motion for execution of the partial summary
denying a motion for assign, as one of the errors on appeal, the judgment. Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal from partial summary
summary judgment approval/denial of the motion for summary judgment, but the trial court denied due course to the notice of appeal, the
judgment same being supposedly out of time also. On the other hand, the court granted
207

the motion for execution of the partial summary judgment; hence, recourse to
the Court of Appeals and eventually to the Supreme Court.
HELD: A partial summary judgment is merely interlocutory and not a final
judgment. What Rule 34 (now Rule 35) contemplates is that the appeal from
the partial summary judgment shall be taken together with the judgment
that may be rendered in the entire case after a trial is conducted on the
material facts on which a substantial controversy exists. The trial court
and the respondent court erroneously relied on Section 5 of Rule 36 of the
Rules of Court, which pertains to judgments in general.
In addition, inasmuch as a partial summary judgment does not finally
dispose of the action, execution thereof shall not issue, conformably with
Section 1 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.”
BASICALLY: Partial appeal is not allowed. it must be taken together with
judgment.
7. Remedies against an order dismissing an action without prejudice
Cases where dismissal may be without prejudice are as follows
1. First dismissal of the complaint at the instance of the plaintiff, unless the court
directs otherwise (Section 1, Rule 17);
2. Dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute, or failure to appear at trial,
or to comply with the rules or order of the court under Section 3, Rule 17 of the
Amended Rules, where the order of dismissal expressly states that the
dismissal does not operate as an adjudication on the merits (Section 3, Rule
17);
3. Non-compliance with the requirement anent certification against forum
shopping, unless the order of dismissal states that such dismissal is with
prejudice (Section 5, Rule 7);
4. Dismissal of the case based on the affirmative defense that the venue is
improperly laid (Section 12, Rule, in relation to Section 13, Rule 15, thereof);
5. Dismissal of the case on the affirmative defense that the plaintiff has no legal
capacity to sue (Section 12, Rule 8, in relation to Section 13, Rule 15, thereof);
6. Dismissal of the case on the affirmative defense that the complaints states no
cause of action (Section 12, Rule 8, in relation to Section 13, Rule 15, thereof);
7. Dismissal of the case based on the affirmative defense that a condition
precedent for filing a claim has not been complied with (Section 12, Rule 8 of the,
in relation to Section 13, Rule 15, thereof);
8. Dismissal of the case for non-payment of the correct docket fees;
9. Dismissal of the case because the complaint is pro forma (e.g., unsigned
pleading)
REMEDY
à Refile the case; or
à question such dismissal of the case without prejudice through certiorari under
Rule 65
If the dismissal of the case is with prejudice, the remedy is appeal, as it amounts
to an adjudication on the merits already.
Cases where dismissal is with prejudice:
1. Dismissal of the case for the repeated failure of the plaintiff to appear in the
pre-trial. The dismissal here is deemed to be with prejudice, unless the court
deems otherwise (Section 5, Rule 18). A dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication
on the merits; hence, appealable (Chingkoe vs. Republic);
2. Dismissal of the case pursuant to the ground of res judicata or prior judgment
(See Section 12, Rule 15, in conjunction with Section 13);
3. Dismissal of the case on the ground that the action is barred by the statute of
limitations (See Section 12, Rule 15, in conjunction with Section 13);
4. Dismissal of the case pursuant to the affirmative defenses that the claim or
demand set forth in the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid, waived,
abandoned, or otherwise extinguished (Section 13, Rule 15); or
5. Dismissal of the case on the ground that the claim on which the action is founded
is unenforceable under the provisions of the statutes of frauds (Section 13, Rule
15).
GENERAL RULE: Cases dismissed without prejudice is not appealable.
EXCEPTION: When the MTC, MTCC, MCTC has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the case is appealable to the RTC
Rule 40. Section 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of
jurisdiction. — If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing
the case without a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court may affirm or
reverse it, as the case may be. In case of affirmance and the ground of
dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial
Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on the merits as if the
case was originally filed with it. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded
for further proceedings. xxx
EFFECT OF PARTIAL EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT ON THE RIGHT TO
APPEAL
g
GENERAL RULE: When a party already caused the execution of the judgment,
he cannot anymore take an appeal therefrom, as by enforcing the judgment he is
deemed to have accepted the same,
EXCEPTION: If the execution is done pursuant Sections 2 and 4, Rule 39, which
allows execution of judgments even pending appeal.
Vital-Gozon v. CA*
G.R. No. 101428, Aug. 5, 1992
FACTS: Dr. de la Fuente was the Chief of Clinics of the National Children’s
Hospital (a government hospital). He was demoted from his position, so he
filed a case before the Civil Service Commission (CSC), questioning his
demotion. The CSC ruled in his favor and directed the Department of Health
to reinstate to him to his former position. The CSC resolution became final and
executory. But when, Dr. de la Fuente requested that he be reinstated to
his position pursuant to final and executory resolution of the CSC, his
request was not favorably acted upon. So, he filed a case for mandamus
with the Court of Appeals, seeking for the enforcement of the CSC resolution
and praying for damages.
The CA granted the writ of mandamus but denied his claim for damages, on
the ground that the petition for mandamus was not the vehicle nor is the CA
the forum for claim of damages. He filed a motion for reconsideration from
the decision of the CA, but during the pendency of his motion for
reconsideration he sought to enforce that part of the decision of the Court of
Appeals directing his reinstatement, and such motion was granted by the
Court of Appeals, and was, in fact, subsequently implemented.
Acting on Dr. de la Fuente’s motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals
rendered another resolution modifying its previous decision by deleting the
disposition therein disallowing Dr. de la Fuente’s claim for damages and
treating such earlier decision as a “partial decision.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA could still modify its earlier decision when it was
already executed by Dr. de La Fuente’s reinstatement
HELD: The general rule is that when a judgment has been satisfied, it passes
beyond review, satisfaction being the last act and end of the proceedings, and
payment or satisfaction of the obligation thereby established produces
permanent and irrevocable discharge; hence, a judgment debtor who
acquiesces in and voluntarily complies with the judgment, is estopped
from taking an appeal therefrom.
On the other hand the question of whether or not a judgment creditor is
estopped from appealing or seeking modification of a judgment which has
been executed at his instance, is one dependent upon the nature of the
judgment as being indivisible or not.
This is the doctrine laid down by this Court in a case decided as early as 1925,
Verches v. Rios.:
Where the judgment is indivisible, the weight of authority is to the effect
that an acceptance of full satisfaction of the judgment annihilates the
right to further prosecute the appeal. Where the judgment is divisible,
estoppel should not operate against the judgment creditor who causes
implementation of a part of the decision by writ of execution.
In this case, the amended judgment of the Court of Appeals is clearly
divisible, satisfaction of which may be "split up." One part has reference to the
enforcement of the final and executory judgment of the Civil Service
Commission, that de la Fuente should be reinstated to the position of Chief of
Clinics (now Chief of Medical Professional Staff) without loss of seniority rights
and that he be paid his back salaries and all monetary benefits due him from
the date of his illegal demotion.
This part is no longer issuable, and has not in truth been controverted by
Gozon herself. The other part has reference to the damages which de la
Fuente contends he suffered as a result of the unjustified refusal of Gozon and
her co-parties to comply with the final and executory judgment of the Civil
Service Commission, and which the Appellate Tribunal has allowed him to
prove. Obviously, the second part cannot possibly affect the first. Whether de
la Fuente succeed or fail in his bid to recover damages against Gozon, Et. Al.
because of their refusal to obey the judgment of the Civil Service Commission,
is a contingency that cannot affect the unalterable enforceability of that
judgment. Similarly, the enforcement of the Commission’s judgment (already
accomplished by writ of execution of the Court of Appeals issued at de la
Fuente’s instance) cannot influence in any manner the question of whether or
not there was culpable refusal on the part of Gozon, Et. Al. to comply with said
judgment when first required so to do, and whether de la Fuente did in fact
suffer compensable injury thereby.”
SECTION 2
208

Section 2. When to appeal. — An appeal may be taken within fifteen (15)
days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final order appealed
from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a
notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days after notice
of the judgment or final order.
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial
or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for
new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.
PERIOD OF TAKING APPEAL
Within 15 days from notice of judgment à for cases wherein appeal is made by
mere notice of appeal
Within 30 days from notice of judgement à for cases which require record on
appeal
Within 48 hours à habeas corpus
CASES WHICH ALLOW MULTIPLE APPEALS
1. In special proceedings (Section 3, Rule 40, Rule 109);
2. Where the court renders “several” or “separate” judgments under Sections 4
or 5, Rule 36, if the trial court allows the filing of multiple appeals;
3. In actions for recovery of property with accounting (Miranda vs. CA);
4. In actions for partition of property with accounting (Section 2, Rule 69; De
Guzman vs. CA,);
5. In the special civil action for eminent domain (Rule 67; Tan vs. Republic);
6. Foreclosure of mortgage (Rule 68; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs.
CA)
RULE ON INTERRUPTION
Controlling: Neypes Doctrine, where there is a fresh period for taking an appeal
from the order denying a MR or MNT, provided such motions are not pro-forma
If it is pro-forma, remedy of appeal cannot be acailed of for being time-
barred.
NOTE: Motion for extension to file MTR and MR is prohibited.
De Castro, Jr. vs. CA
158 SCRA 288
The perfection of an appeal of the filing of a petition within the reglementary
period fixed by the rules is mandatory and jurisdictional and the failure to do
so renders the questioned decision final and executory that deprives the
appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less to entertain
the appeal Thus, in one case, it was held that delay of one (1) day is fatal.
Trans International v. CA*
G.R. No. 128421, Jan. 26, 1998
Perfection is appeal is not inflexible. Applied only when to do so would
serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of our equity
jurisdiction. Thus, for a party to seek exception for its failure to comply strictly
with the statutory requirements for perfecting its appeal, strong compelling
reasons such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave
miscarriage thereof must be shown, in order to warrant the Court's
suspension of the rules.
SECTION 3
Section 3. How to appeal. — The appeal is taken by filing a notice of
appeal with the court that rendered the judgment or final order appealed
from. The notice of appeal shall indicate the parties to the appeal, the
judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from, and state the
material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.
A record on appeal shall be required only in special proceedings and in
other cases of multiple or separate appeals.
The form and contents of the record on appeal shall be as provided in
Section 6, Rule 41.
Copies of the notice of appeal, and the record on appeal where required,
shall be served on the adverse party.
HOW TO APPEAL à File a Notice of Appeal with the court that rendered a
decision sought to be impugned by such appeal
NOTICE OF APPEAL
ü Indicate parties, judgment
ü State material dates showing timeliness of appeal
ü Title of the case
ü Furnish copy to adverse party
g
Galeon: NOA consists of just one or two pages. While it is not a litigious motion
or pleading, a copy of which must be furnished to the adverse party.
NOTE: Record on appeal shall be required in special proceedings and in other
cases of multiple or separate appeals, and served on the adverse party.
MOTION TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR FILING THE RECORD APPEAL à
Filed within 30 day reglementary period for perfecting appeal
It is submitted that notwithstanding the “fresh period” rule to file an appeal, a
motion to extend the period for filing the record on appeal may still be allowed,
especially if the ground for such extension is cogent.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — The perfection of the
appeal and the effect thereof shall be governed by the provisions of
Section 9, Rule 41.
For easy reference and guidance:
RULE 41. Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — A party's appeal
by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice
of appeal in due time.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with
respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal
filed in due time.
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case
upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of
the time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the
subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed
in due time and the expiration of the appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on
appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the
rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal,
approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution
pending appeal in accordance with 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the
appeal.
Rule where an appeal just requires a mere notice of appeal:
PERFECTED à Upon filing NOA
Effects: (1) Cannot file MR or MNT; (2) court can act on notice of appeal despite
exeuction
LOSING JURISDICTION à upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time
+ the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties
ILLUSTRATION: Waldi filed a case against Renato. The court rendered judgment
on June 3, 2020. The judgment was served on Renato, through counsel, on June
7, 2020. Thus, he has until June 22, 2020 to file his appeal by filing a notice of
appeal. On the other hand, a copy of the judgment was served on Waldi, through
counsel June 4, 2020. Hence, he has until June 19, 2020 to file his appeal by
filing a notice of appeal.
Q1: Suppose Renato filed a notice of appeal on June 15, 2020, is the appeal in
the case already perfected as of that date?
A1: Yes, but only insofar as Renato is concerned.
Q2: What is the consequence of Renato’s filing and perfecting his own appeal?
A2: Renato can no longer file a motion for new trial or a motion for
reconsideration in the case. On the other hand, Waldi still has until June 19, 2020
to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or to file his own appeal.
Q3: Suppose Waldi filed a motion for execution pending appeal on June 17,
2020, could the court still act on that motion when Renato had already perfected
his appeal on June 15, 2020?
A3: Yes. While Renato had already perfected his appeal on June 15, 2020, the
court, at the time that the motion for execution pending appeal was filed by Waldi,
still had jurisdiction over the case because when such motion was filed Waldi’s
period to appeal had not yet expired.
Q4: Suppose the court acted and granted Waldi’s motion for execution pending
appeal only on June 25, 2020, while the case record was still with the court, was
the action of the court valid?
A4: Yes. The court could validly act on the motion for execution pending appeal.
What is important is that the court still had jurisdiction over the case at the time
of the filing of the motion for execution pending appeal and the case record
was still with it when it granted the same.
Rule where an appeal just requires a notice of appeal and record on appeal:
209

PERFECTION à Filing NOA and Record + Approval with respect to the subject
matter thereof
In cases where an appeal requires records on appeal, the approval of the records
on appeal for the one who filed his appeal and the expiration of the period to appeal
of the other party, if the latter does not interpose his own appeal, results only in
the court’s losing jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal.
à The court will render separate judgments
Thus, where the court issues a “separate” judgment under either Section 4 or 5,
Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, and the court allows the parties to file a separate
appeal therefrom even during the pendency of the main case, the approval of the
records on appeal for the one who filed his separate appeal and the expiration of
the period to appeal of the other party, results only in the court’s losing jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the separate appeal but the court retains jurisdiction
over the remaining subject matter not covered by the appeal.
Where the trial court already lost its jurisdiction over the case or the subject
matter of a separate appeal in view of the appeal filed therein, it cannot, as a rule,
act thereon.
Even then, and in the exercise of the court’s “residual jurisdiction after perfection
of appeal,” the trial court can still act accordingly on the following matters, for as
long as the original case record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, is
still with the trial court or where the case record or records on appeals has not yet
been transmitted to the appellate court:
1) To issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties
which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal;
2) To approve compromises;
3) Permit appeals of indigent litigants;
4) To order execution pending appeal in accordance with 2 of Rule 39 (provided
that the motion for execution pending appeal was filed when the court still has
jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter of the appeal);
5) To allow withdrawal of the appeal; or
6) Dismiss the appeal pursuant to Section 13, Rule 41, for being filed out of time
or for non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. — Within the
period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the
court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from the full
amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of
payment thereof shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with
the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be.
IS PAYMENT OF APPELLATE COURT DOCKET FEE REQUIRED TO
PERFECT APPEAL?
Fontanar vs. Bonsubre
145 SCRA 663 (1986)
Payment of the appeal fee for taking an appeal from the Municipal Trial Court
to the Regional Trial Court is not required to perfect an appeal.
Santos v. CA*
253 SCRA 632 (1996)
Under said Section 20, "the only requirement for taking an appeal from the
judgment or order of the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts or
municipal circuit courts to the regional trial courts, in cases where no record on
appeal is required, is the filing of a notice of appeal. Said appeal is deemed
perfected upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party.
“Section 21 6 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines also provides for the
procedure to be followed after the perfection of the appeal to the regional trial
courts. Nothing is stated therein about the payment of appellate docket
fees.
Under the Interim Rules and Guidelines, the payment of the appeal fee is
not a prerequisite for the perfection of an appeal. On the other hand, while
Section 8, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court imposes an appeal fee in
cases of appeals from the municipal trial courts and specifies the persons to
whom the appeal fee shall be paid, said provision does not specify when
said payment shall be made.”
-VERSUS-
Section 5, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, which requires the payment of appeal fee
within the period for taking an appeal.
RULE 41. Section 13. Dismissal of appeal. — Prior to the transmittal of the
original record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court
may motu propio or on motion dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of
g
time or for non-payment of the docket fee and other lawful fees within the
reglementary period.
Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be dismissed
by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the
following grounds: (c) Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and other
lawful fees as provided in section 5, Rule 40 and section 4 of Rule 41; (Bar
Matter No. 803, 17 February 1998)
[While it may be argued that Section 13, Rule 41 pertains to appeal from a decision
of the RTC to the CA, and Section 1, Rule 50, relates to a dismissal of an appeal
by the CA, but it can be countered by the submission that what applies to an
appeal from the decision of the RTC likewise applies to an appeal from the
decision of the MTC, as provided in Section 9, Rule 40]
Section 9. Applicability of Rule 41. — The other provisions of Rule 41
shall apply to appeals provided for herein insofar as they are not
inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the provisions of this Rule.
RECONCILIATION: Just pay to be sure.
Galeon: If, by sheer misfortune, the required appeal and lawful fees were not paid
on time, then invoke the liberal construction rule under Section 6, Rule 1 of
the Rules of Court. But do not just rely on mere rhetorical invocation of the
principles of justice and equity. You need to justify your failure to pay the required
fees on time and demonstrate the substantive merits of your case.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Duty of the clerk of court. — Within fifteen (15) days from the
perfection of the appeal, the clerk of court or the branch clerk of court of
the lower court shall transmit the original record or the record on appeal,
together with the transcripts and exhibits, which he shall certify as
complete, to the proper Regional Trial Court. A copy of his letter of
transmittal of the records to the appellate court shall be furnished the
parties.
CLERK OF MTC
- Transmits/forwards records to RTC with transcripts and stenographic notes
- Furnish the parties with copies
-Certifies as complete
SECTION 7
Section 7. Procedure in the Regional Trial Court. —
(a) Upon receipt of the complete record or the record on appeal, the
clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court shall notify the parties of
such fact.
(b) Within fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall be the duty of the
appellant to submit a memorandum which shall briefly discuss the
errors imputed to the lower court, a copy of which shall be furnished
by him to the adverse party. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
the appellant's memorandum, the appellee may file his
memorandum. Failure of the appellant to file a memorandum shall
be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
(c) Upon the filing of the memorandum of the appellee, or the expiration
of the period to do so, the case shall be considered submitted for
decision. The Regional Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis
of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of original
and such memoranda as are filed.
CLERK OF RTC à Notify parties of receipt
APPELLANT à Submits memorandum to discusses errors imputed opf MTC
[Failure to file memorandum is ground for dismissal]
APPELLEE à May file memoraumdum
[Failure to file does not result in the reversal of decision question]
AFTER SUBMISSION OF MEMOS à Submitted to RTC for decision
RULE: RTC decides based on the entire record of the proceedings.
SECTION 8
Section 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of
jurisdiction. — If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court
dismissing the case without a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court
may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In case of affirmance and
the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
Regional Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on
the merits as if the case was originally filed with it. In case of reversal,
the case shall be remanded for further proceedings.
210

If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction
over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not
dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the
case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to the
admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest
of justice.
Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court pertains in the main to an appeal from the
order of the Municipal Trial Court dismissing the case without trial on the merits.
WHEN MTC DISMISSES THE CASE WITHOUT TRIAL ON MERITS
Nature of dismissal à dismissed with prejudice & appealable
Examples of cases dismissed with prejudice: see page 2
APPEAL FROM MTC TO RTC à RTC CAN AFFIRM OR DENY
If RTC affirms
- aggrieved can elevate to CA by filing a Petition for Review (Rule 42)
if RTC reverses
- case will be remanded bach to MTC for continuation of the proceedings or trial
WHEN MTC DISMISSES THE CASES FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
[Same rules apply if MTC decided without jurisdiction]
Rule where the case is dismissed by the MTC for want of jurisdiction over
the subject matter
Nature of dismissal à Without prejudice; can be refiled; STILL APPEALABLE
If RTC affirms dismissal of MTC
- RTC will try the case as if the case was originally filed with it. Pretrial first.
EXAMPLE: Waldi filed a case against Otaner for recovery of ownership and
possession of a parcel of land, with an assessed value of 1 million. He filed the
case with the MTC, but the MTC dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction (as
it really has no jurisdiction over the case). Aggrieved, Waldi appealed the order
of dismissal to the RTC.
Q: Suppose the RTC affirms the order of dismissal issued by the MTC, what
will happen to the case?
A: The case clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. So, pursuant to Section
8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, the RTC shall try the case on the merits as if
the case was originally filed with it. RTC, therefore, will conduct the pre-trial
and, thereafter, proceed to trial where the parties will adduce their respective
testimonial, documentary, and object evidence.
If RTC reverses dismissal of MTC
- Remand to MTC for its own hearing
EXAMPLE: Waldi filed a case against Otaner for unlawful detainer involving a
parcel of land, with an assessed value of 1 million. He filed the case with the MTC,
but the MTC dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction (although it has
jurisdiction over the case). Aggrieved, Waldi appealed the order of dismissal to the
RTC.
Q: What will happen if the RTC reverses the order of dismissal, holding that the
MTC has jurisdiction over the case?
A: The case will be remanded to the MTC, for it to proceed with the hearing of
case.
Rule where the MTC conducted trial on the merits and rendered judgment in
the case despite the fact that it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter:
If RTC affirms dismissal of MTC
- adverse party can appeal to CA under Rule 41, since RTC will be deemed to
have exercised ORIGINAL JURISIDICTION.
If RTC reverses dismissal of MTC
- RTC shall not dismiss the case, but shall assume jurisdiction over the case,
where RTC will review the evidence on record without conducting trial de novo
EXAMPLE: Waldi filed a case against Otaner [d] for recovery of ownership and
possession of a parcel of land, with an assessed value of 1 million. Otaner moved
to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of no jurisdiction over the case, but
MTC denied the motion to dismiss. Otaner did not interpose an appeal from the
denial of his motion to dismiss, such that trial ensued. MTC rendered a decision
adverse to Otaner. Aggrieved, Otaner appealed the decision of the MTC to the
RTC, and, in his appeal, Otaner raised his objection to the jurisdiction of the
MTC.
Q: What will happen on appeal if the RTC sustains Otaner’s argument that MTC
has no jurisdiction over the case?
g
A: RTC shall not dismiss the case. The RTC shall assume jurisdiction over the
case as if the case was originally filed with it. But considering that the parties had
already presented evidence in the court below, the RTC will just review the
evidence on record without need of conducting a trial de novo, without prejudice,
however, to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the
interest of justice.
Q: Suppose the RTC renders a decision adverse to Otaner, and he wants to
assail said decision to the Court of Appeals, what will be his remedy, if any?
A: Otaner should file an appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court because,
here, the RTC decides the case in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
SECTION 9
Section 9. Applicability of Rule 41. — The other provisions of Rule 41
shall apply to appeals provided for herein insofar as they are not
inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the provisions of this Rule.
See Section 5 of this Rule.
RULE 41 - APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Subject of appeal. — An appeal may be taken from a judgment
or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular
matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion
seeking relief from judgment;
(b) An interlocutory order;
(c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent,
confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or
duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
(e) An order of execution;
(f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several
parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and
third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless
the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not
appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil
action under Rule 65.
See Section 1, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court
RTC à
SECTION 2
Section 2. Modes of appeal. —
(a) Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the
court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from
and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on
appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other
cases of multiple or separate appeals where law on these Rules
so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and
served in like manner.
(b) Petition for review. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases
decided by the s Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in
accordance with Rule 42.
(c) Appeal by certiorari. — In all cases where only questions of law are
raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by
petition for review on certiorari in accordance with the Rule 45.
MODES OF APPEAL FROM RTC
1. Ordinary appeal
Applicability à decisions rendered by RTC in the exercise of its original jurisidciton
for questions of fact or mixed questions of law and fact
Initiated through à filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the
judgment sought to be impugned & serving a copy to adverse party
211

For special proceedings and other cases where law or the rules allow
multiple appeals, an appeal from the decision therein requires the filing of a
notice of appeal and a record on appeal.
2. Petition for review
Applicability à decisions by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
* This remedy is treated under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court;
Initiated through à Filing a petition for review in CA, not just by a mere notice of
appeal or a record on appeal, on questions of fact, or even purely of law, or mixed
questions of fact and law [payment of docket fee is also with the CA]
3. Appeal by certiorari
Applicability à decisions by RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction on
pure questions of law [with some exceptions]
Initiated through à Filing Appeal by Certiorari with the SC and payment with SC
Other notes:
• Filing of a notice of appeal does not toll the running of the period to appeal
(Tang Hang vs. Paredes)
• appeal under Rule 41 taken from the RTC to CA raising only questions of
law shall be dismissed; issues purely of law not being reviewable by said
court (the remedy should have been petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45). Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal (under Rule 41), instead
of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a RTC (Rule 42),
shall be dismissed (Dy Chiao vs. Bolivar).
SECTION 3
Section 3. Period of ordinary appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from.
Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of
appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the
judgment or final order.
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial
or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for
new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.
SEE: Section 2, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court on NEYPES DOCTRINE [Fresh
period for taking an appeal from notice of denying of MR or MNT]
SECTION 4
Section 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. — Within the
period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the
court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full
amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of
payment of said fees shall be transmitted to the appellate court together
with the original record or the record on appeal.
PAYMENT TO RTC Clerk in order to perfect an appeal
Zosa vs. Consilium*, Inc.
G.R. No. 196765, Sept. 19, 2018
“With the foregoing provisions, "the Court has consistently upheld the dismissal
of an appeal or notice of appeal for failure to pay the full docket fees within the
period for taking the appeal. Time and again, this Court has consistently held
that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for
the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court
does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the
decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.”
Litigants must bear in mind that procedural rules should always be
treated with utmost respect and due regard since these are designed to
facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of
delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice.
While it is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true
that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed
procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
See: Section 5, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Notice of appeal. — The notice of appeal shall indicate the
parties to the appeal, specify the judgment or final order or part thereof
appealed from, specify the court to which the appeal is being taken, and
state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
ü indicate the parties to the appeal
ü indicate the judgment
g
ü state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal, as well
as the court to which the case will be elevated on appeal
ü served with copies
TITLE OF THE CASE
- shall remain as it was in the court of origin
Pacific Life Assurance Corp. vs. Concorda Franklin, et al.,
G.R. No. 122839, Nov. 20, 1998
Where a notice of appeal was already filed by a party from the original
decision of the court with respect the damages awarded therein which was
later on amended and increased pursuant to the motion for
reconsideration filed by the other party therein, there is no more need on
the part of the appellant to file a second notice of appeal
Phi. Resources Dev. Corp. v. NAWASA
G.R. No. 12803, Feb. 27, 1962
In an ordinary appeal, the filing of the notice of appeal is a requirement sine
qua non for taking an appeal from a judgment. But even if no notice of appeal
was filed, such defect may be disregarded if there was a record on appeal duly
filed (in special proceedings and other cases where multiple appeals are
allowed), as such record on appeal is equivalent to a notice of appeal.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Record on appeal; form and contents thereof. — The full
names of all the parties to the proceedings shall be stated in the caption
of the record on appeal and it shall include the judgment or final order
from which the appeal is taken and, in chronological order, copies of only
such pleadings, petitions, motions and all interlocutory orders as are
related to the appealed judgment or final order for the proper
understanding of the issue involved, together with such data as will show
that the appeal was perfected on time. If an issue of fact is to be raised
on appeal, the record on appeal shall include by reference all the
evidence, testimonial and documentary, taken upon the issue involved.
The reference shall specify the documentary evidence by the exhibit
numbers or letters by which it was identified when admitted or offered at
the hearing, and the testimonial evidence by the names of the
corresponding witnesses. If the whole testimonial and documentary
evidence in the case is to be included, a statement to that effect will be
sufficient without mentioning the names of the witnesses or the numbers
or letters of exhibits. Every record on appeal exceeding twenty (20) pages
must contain a subject index.
RECORD ON APPEAL
- a reproduction of the case records, more or less, containing, among other things,
the judgment or final order from which the appeal is taken and, in chronological
order, copies of only such pleadings, petitions, motions and all interlocutory orders
as are related to the appealed judgment or final order for the proper understanding
of the issue involved, together with such data as will show that the appeal was
perfected on time, but excepting therefrom other pleadings and motions that are
not necessary in resolving the issues on appeal need not be included the record
on appeal, like motion for postponement, etc.
- Every record on appeal exceeding twenty (20) pages must contain a subject
index.
- It is like a history book, as it shall state, in chronological order, the important
stages of the case, as by stating, for example that:
1. On 02 June 2018, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant, alleging as follows:
(verbatim reproduction of the allegations in the complaint);
2. On 02 July 2019, defendant herein filed his answer to the complaint, with the following
averments …
(verbatim reproduction of the allegations in the answer)
3. On 03 January 2020, the trial court rendered the judgment herein impugned on appeal,
decreeing thus:
(verbatim reproduction of the judgment)
CONTENTS OF RECORD ON APPEAL
1. A caption as would readily show who the party-disputants are
2. the case number; and the nature of the case.
3. Signed by counsel [failure to sign does not become ground for dismissal]
NOTE: This is kapoy to make, that’s why the reglementary period is 30 days from
notice of judgment
ORDNIARY APPEALS THAT REQUIRE RECORDS ON APPEAL:
1) In special proceedings
2) Where the court renders “several” or “separate” judgments under Sections
4 or 5, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, if the trial court allows the filing of multiple
appeals;
3) In actions for recovery of property with accounting
4) In actions for partition of property with accounting
5) In the special civil action for eminent domain
6) Foreclosure of mortgage
212

RATIONALE FOR MANDATE: Above cases allow taking of multiple appeals at
some stages even while main case is pending. Thus, record on appeal is
necessary considering that the case record will not be forwarded or transmitted to
the appellate court so as not to forestall the proceedings in the main case.
Note: the filing of motion for extension of time to file records of appeal may still be
allowed, especially where the record is voluminous (Lacsamana vs. Second
Special Division Cases of the IAC
Semira vs. Enriquez
88 Phil. 288
Any such motion for extension to file record on appeal, together with a
notice of appeal, must be filed, however, within the 30-day reglementary
period for perfecting the appeal. Such motion for extension for extension of
time to file record on appeal should be heard and resolved promptly, or before
the lapse of said period, so as to apprise the appellant whether or not his
motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal is granted or denied
King vs. Joe, et al.
G.R. No. 23617, Aug. 26, 1997
The filing of the motion for extension of time to file a record on appeal
does not suspend the running of the period for perfecting the appeal.
Thus, the appellant-movant has the duty to ascertain the status of his motion,
for if no action is taken thereon or it is denied after the lapse of the period, the
right to appeal is lost (Cumplido vs. Mendoza).
Berkenkotter vs. CA
G.R. No. 36629, Sept. 28, 1973
The approval of the trial court of the record on appeal even if the period for
the appeal has already expired is tantamount to a valid order granting the
extension prayed for by the appellant-movant if any such motion for extension
to file a record on appeal has been filed
SECTION 7
Section 7. Approval of record on appeal. — Upon the filing of the record
on appeal for approval and if no objection is filed by the appellee within
five (5) days from receipt of a copy thereof, the trial court may approve it
as presented or upon its own motion or at the instance of the appellee,
may direct its amendment by the inclusion of any omitted matters which
are deemed essential to the determination of the issue of law or fact
involved in the appeal. If the trial court orders the amendment of the
record, the appellant, within the time limited in the order, or such
extension thereof as may be granted, or if no time is fixed by the order
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, shall redraft the record by
including therein, in their proper chronological sequence, such
additional matters as the court may have directed him to incorporate, and
shall thereupon submit the redrafted record for approval, upon notice to
the appellee, in like manner as the original draft.
SECTION 8
Section 8. Joint record on appeal. — Where both parties are appellants,
they may file a joint record on appeal within the time fixed by section 3
of this Rule, or that fixed by the court.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
- does not have to be approved by the trial court; a record on appeal has to be
approved, without which the appeal is not yet deemed perfected
- does not have to be set for hearing in the trial court by the appellant, as it is
deemed submitted for approval upon its filing and the rule merely requires the
adverse party to file any objection thereto within five (5) days from his or her receipt
of a copy thereof (Olvido vs. Ferraris).
NOTE: Court may direct appellant to amend the record on appeal, especially if
there are material matters essential to the determination of the issues on appeal
that are omitted therein.
Where an amended record is filed, it is deemed filed on the date of the
presentation of the original record on appeal (Alino vs. Mendoza)
Where both party-disputants file their respective appeals from the judgment of the
trial court, they may file a joint record on appeal withing the time fixed by Section
3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, or that fixed by the court. In this way, objections
to a record on appeal is minimized.
SECTION 9
Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — A party's appeal by
notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the
notice of appeal in due time.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with
respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on
appeal filed in due time.
g
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case
upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of
the time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the
subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed
in due time and the expiration of the appeal of the other parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record
on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation
of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by
the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants,
order execution pending appeal in accordance with 2 of Rule 39, and
allow withdrawal of the appeal.
See: Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court
SECTION 10
Section 10. Duty of clerk of court of the lower court upon perfection of
appeal. — Within thirty (30) days after perfection of all the appeals in
accordance with the preceding section, it shall be the duty of the clerk of
court of the lower court:
(a) To verify the correctness of the original record or the record
on appeal, as the case may be aid to make certification of its
correctness;
(b) To verify the completeness of the records that will be,
transmitted to the appellate court;
(c) If found to be incomplete, to take such measures as may be
required to complete the records, availing of the authority that
he or the court may exercise for this purpose; and
(d) To transmit the records to the appellate court.
If the efforts to complete the records fail, he shall indicate in his letter of
transmittal the exhibits or transcripts not included in the records being
transmitted to the appellate court, the reasons for their non-transmittal,
and the steps taken or that could be taken to have them available.
The clerk of court shall furnish the parties with copies of his letter of
transmittal of the records to the appellate court.
SECTION 11
Section 11. Transcript. — Upon the perfection of the appeal, the clerk
shall immediately direct the stenographers concerned to attach to the
record of the case five (5) copies of the transcripts of the testimonial
evidence referred to in the record on appeal. The stenographers
concerned shall transcribe such testimonial evidence and shall prepare
and affix to their transcripts an index containing the names of the
witnesses and the pages wherein their testimonies are found, and a list
of the exhibits and the pages wherein each of them appears to have been
offered and admitted or rejected by the trial court. The transcripts shall
be transmitted to the clerk of the trial court who shall thereupon arrange
the same in the order in which the witnesses testified at the trial, and
shall cause the pages to be numbered consecutively.
SECTION 12
Section 12. Transmittal. — The clerk of the trial court shall transmit to the
appellate court the original record or the approved record on appeal
within thirty (30) days from the perfection of the appeal, together with the
proof of payment of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees, a
certified true copy of the minutes of the proceedings, the order of
approval, the certificate of correctness, the original documentary
evidence referred to therein, and the original and three (3) copies of the
transcripts. Copies of the transcripts and certified true copies of the
documentary evidence shall remain in the lower court for the
examination of the parties.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT
1. see to it the case record or record on appeal is complete and,
2. where the same is incomplete, take the appropriate measures for its completion,
and then
3. to eventually submit the same to the appellate court, including the transcript of
the stenographic notes of the hearings, as well as the receipts evidencing payment
of the appeal fees and other lawful fees.
The case record or the record on appeal shall be forwarded to the appellate court
within thirty (30) calendar days from the perfection of the appeal.
Where the case record is incomplete and could not be completed – e.g., the
transcript of the stenographic notes could not be completed because the
stenographer who took them died – the case record should still be transmitted to
213

the appellate court but with an explanation as to the why the same is not complete
and the steps taken supposedly for its completion.
SECTION 13
Section 13. Dismissal of appeal. — Prior to the transmittal of the original
record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court
may motu propio or on motion dismiss the appeal for having been taken
out of time or for non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within
the reglementary period (As amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, May 1,
2000).
The trial court is authorized to deny due course to the appeal, motu proprio
or on motion to dismiss the appeal, that is taken from its judgment or final order
for being filed out of time or for non-payment of the appeal fees and other lawful
fees.
RTC has no jurisdiction to deny NOA on a different ground.
PROPER GROUNDS à Nonpayment; out of time
RULE 42 - PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
SECTION 1
Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. — A party desiring to appeal
from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court
of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the
corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of
P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the
adverse party with a copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and
served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be
reviewed or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or
reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and
the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and
the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period,
the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days
only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall
be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to
exceed fifteen (15) days.
RTC à CA
SHIT TO REMEMBER
1. From RTC, exercising its appellate jurisdiction
2. File in CA, pay in CA
3. Questions of fact, pure question of law, or mixed
4. Filed within 15 days from notice of denial of petitioner’s MR or MNT (observe
Neypes Doctrine)
5. Filing period may be extended to another 15 days by proper motion with the CA
and pay full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs
before the expiration of the reglementary period, for compelling reasons
Do not file Petition for review on Certiorari if RTC renders decision by its appellate
jurisdiction. Petition for review on certiorari is filed with SC under rule 45, where
what is to be reviewed is pure question of law, as RTC decided by its original
jurisdiciton
Yalong vs. People
G.R. No. 187174, Aug. 28, 2013
Where a party wishes to question before the CA the ruling of the RTC
dismissing a petition for certiorari filed before it under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court (e.g., a petition for certiorari that is directed against an interlocutory order
of the Municipal Trial Court say, in a collection suit cognizable by the Municipal
Trial Court), the remedy is ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court, not petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, because
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an original action and, as
such, the Regional Trial Court took cognizance of that action in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Form and contents. — The petition shall be filed in seven (7)
legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being
indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of
the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges
thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific
material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a
statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of
errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial
Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the
appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true
copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified
correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite
number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material
portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.
g
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a certification
under oath that he has not theretofore commenced any other action
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is
such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same;
and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he
undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or
agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
PETITION FOR REVIEW
- judge and the RTC are not to be impleaded as among the respondents
- attaches duplicate or true copies of judgments or final orders of both lower courts
- verification and certification against forum-shopping.
- furnished to RTC and adverse parties; evidenced by affidavit of service
SECTION 3
Section 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of
the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements
regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit
for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the
documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal thereof.
Grounds of dismissal:
1. non-compliance with content requires
2. nonpayment of docket fee
Zosa v. Consilium Inc*
G.R. No. 196765, Sept. 19, 2018
Litigants must bear in mind that procedural rules should always be treated with
utmost respect and due regard since these are designed to facilitate the
adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the
resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. While it is true
that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every
case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure
to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Though
litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and
not on technicalities, this does not mean, however, that procedural rules
are to be belittled to suit the convenience of a party. Indeed, the primordial
policy is a faithful observance of the Rules of Court, and their relaxation or
suspension should only be for persuasive reasons and only in meritorious
cases.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Action on the petition. — The Court of Appeals may require
the respondent to file a comment on the petition, not a motion to dismiss,
within ten (10) days from notice, or dismiss the petition if it finds the
same to be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or
that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
consideration.
WHAT DOES COURT OF APPEALS DO?
à may require respondent to file comment
à may even dismiss outright if patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for
delay, of that the questions raised are too unsubstantial to require consideration
Ong vs. Tating
149 SCRA 265
Petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court is not a matter of right.
It is discretionary on the Court of Appeals, which may give due course only
when the petition shows prima facie that the lower court – the Regional Trial
Court - has committed error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or
modification of the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Contents of comment. — The comment of the respondent shall
be filed in seven (7) legible copies, accompanied by certified true copies
of such material portions of the record referred to therein together with
other supporting papers and shall (a) state whether or not he accepts the
statement of matters involved in the petition; (b) point out such
insufficiencies or inaccuracies as he believes exist in petitioner's
statement of matters involved but without repetition; and (c) state the
reasons why the petition should not be given due course. A copy thereof
shall be served on the petitioner.
COMMENT TO PETITION FOR REVIEW
- state whether he accepts statements in the petition
- point out inefficiencies
- state why petitioner us a fucker
- accompanied by certified true copies of the material portions of the record
referred to therein together with other supporting papers applies only if the
214

comment makes reference to pleadings or documents that are not part of or
appended to the petition for review
- copies furnished to RTC and adverse party, evidenced by affidavit of service
Note: Comment to the petition for review is not an initiatory pleading; hence, it
does not need a verification and certification against forum shopping.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Due course. — If upon the filing of the comment or such other
pleadings as the court may allow or require, or after the expiration of the
period for the filing thereof without such comment or pleading having
been submitted, the Court of Appeals finds prima facie that the lower
court has committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or
modification of the appealed decision, it may accordingly give due
course to the petition.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Elevation of record. — Whenever the Court of Appeals deems
it necessary, it may order the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court to
elevate the original record of the case including the oral and
documentary evidence within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Just fucking remember that petition for review is not a fucking matter of right. CA
can make buot whether or not to give due course to the shit.
SECTION 8
Section 8. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — (a) Upon the timely filing
of a petition for review and the payment of the corresponding docket and
other lawful fees, the appeal is deemed perfected as to the petitioner.
The Regional Trial Court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the
perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time
to appeal of the other parties.
However, before the Court of Appeals gives due course to the petition,
the Regional Trial Court may issue orders for the protection and
preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter
litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent
litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with section 2 of
Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.
(b) Except in civil cases decided under the Rule on Summary Procedure,
the appeal shall stay the judgment or final order unless the Court of
Appeals, the law, or these Rules shall provide otherwise.
PERFECTION OF PETITION FOR REVIEW
à timely filing thereof and the payment of the corresponding docket and other
lawful fees
à the RTC does not lose its jurisdiction over the case, as such will happen only
upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time
to appeal of the other parties.
The Regional Trial Court has this “residual jurisdiction after perfection of
appeal,” to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the
parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal; approve
compromises; permit appeals of indigent litigants; order execution pending appeal
in accordance with 2 of Rule 39; and to allow withdrawal of the appeal.
Section 9, Rule 41 Section 8, Rule 42
residual power of the RTC to grant such residual power may still be
such reliefs may only be validly exercised by the RTC even after it
exercised for as long as it still has has lost jurisdiction over the case;
jurisdiction over the case (except provided, however, that the CA has
with respect to the grant execution not yet given due course to the
pending appeal; provided, that the petition for review filed before it.
motion for execution pending appeal
was filed when the court still has
jurisdiction over the case or the
subject matter of the appeal)
GENERAL RULE: An appeal stays the execution of the judgment or final order
appealed from
EXCEPTION: Stay of judgment will not apply to civil cases covered by the Rules
on Summary Procedure.
Example: An ejectment case which originated from the MTC and whose decision
granting the ejectment cannot anymore be stayed after the RTC affirmed the said
decision on appeal, even while the decision is still being elevated on petition for
review to the CA
RULE 70. Section 21. Immediate execution on appeal to Court of Appeals or
Supreme Court. — The judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the
g
defendant shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal
that may be taken therefrom.
SECTION 9
Section 9. Submission for decision. — If the petition is given due course,
the Court of Appeals may set the case for oral argument or require the
parties to submit memoranda within a period of fifteen (15) days from
notice. The case shall be deemed submitted for decision upon the filing
of the last pleading or memorandum required by these Rules or by the
court itself.
ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE CA
- different from trial; very uncommon
- justices of CA will propound questions to the lawyers; The lawyers will not be
directly arguing against each other. Lawyers must be smart.
SUBMISSION OF MEMORANDUM TO CA
- common
-the submission is simultaneous, and the case shall then be submitted for decision
upon the filing of memorandum or reply memorandum, if allowed, or upon the
lapse of the period for the submission
RULE 43 - APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND QUASI-
JUDICIAL AGENCIES COURT OF APPEALS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Scope. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or
final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments,
final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency
in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are
the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land
Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics
Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer,
National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board,
National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian
Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance
System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Invention
Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission,
Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission,
and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
AGENIES COVERED BY THIS PROVISION:
1. Civil Service Commission
2. Central Board of Assessment Appeals
3. Securities and Exchange Commission
4. Office of the President
5. Land Registration Authority
6. Social Security Commission
7. Civil Aeronautics Board
8. Bureau of Patents
9. Trademarks and Technology Transfer
10. National Electrification Administration
11. Energy Regulatory Board
12. National Telecommunications Commission
13. Department of Agrarian Reform
14. Government Service Insurance System
15. Employees Compensation Commission
16. Agricultural Invention Board
17. Insurance Commission
18. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission
19. Board of Investments
20. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
21. Voluntary arbitrators authorized by law*
These agencies have operate in its administrative function or in its quasi-judicial
function.
Administrative functions à appeal to Office of the President [Doctrine of
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies]
Quasi-judicial functions à appeal to CA
Voluntary arbitrators à voluntary arbitrators appointed and accredited under the
Labor Code or pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act 876
OTHER DECISIONS ARE ALSO APPEALABLE TO THE CA:
1. Decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
cases (Gonzales vs. Rosas), and appeal therefrom is also governed by Rule 43.
Note: Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal cases are, by law,
unappealable, except that where the finding of the existence of probable case – or
the lack thereof – is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, then it may be challenged through a petition for certiorari
with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (Feliciano Duyon vs.
CA);
215

2. Decisions of the MTC in cadastral or land registration cases pursuant to
their delegated jurisdiction (Section 34, B.P. 129, as amended), but any such
appeal therefrom shall be governed by Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, and not by
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, because Section 34, B.P. 129 explicitly mentions
that appeals in such cases are “appealable in the same manner as decisions of
the Regional Trial Courts.”
SECTION 2
Section 2. Cases not covered. — This Rule shall not apply to judgments
or final orders issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines.
This is based on the provision of Section 9 (3) of B.P. 129 and RA 7902 (An Act
Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals).
Thus, decisions of the NLRC may only be brought to the Court of Appeals under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (St. Martin’s Funeral Homes vs. NLRC).
SECTION 3
Section 3. Where to appeal. — An appeal under this Rule may be taken
to the Court of Appeals within the period and in the manner herein
provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed
questions of fact and law.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court involves
questions of question of fact, or even purely of law, or mixed question of fact
and law.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Period of appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fifteen
(15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or
from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for
its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or
reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the
court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be
allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the
docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of
Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within
which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted
except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen
(15) days.
APPEAL PERIOD à within fifteen (15) calendar days
ü from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or
ü from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its
effectivity, or
ü from the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly
filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo
Note: fresh period for taking an appeal to the Court of Appeals reckoned from
receipt or notice of the order denying a motion for reconsideration or a motion for
new trial, if one was filed
the party desiring to appeal from the judgments or final orders of the quasi-judicial
bodies concerned as are rendered in the exercise of their quasi-judicial functions
to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court may also ask for an
extension of fifteen (15) calendar days. To avail of this extension though, the party
shall file the proper motion for extension with the Court of Appeals and pay the full
amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the
expiration of the reglementary period. No further extension shall be granted except
for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) calendar
days.
SECTION 5
Section 5. How appeal taken. — Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified
petition for review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals,
with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and on the
court or agency a quo. The original copy of the petition intended for the
Court of Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner.
Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the clerk of court
of the Court of Appeals the docketing and other lawful fees and deposit
the sum of P500.00 for costs. Exemption from payment of docketing and
other lawful fees and the deposit for costs may be granted by the Court
of Appeals upon a verified motion setting forth valid grounds therefor. If
the Court of Appeals denies the motion, the petitioner shall pay the
docketing and other lawful fees and deposit for costs within fifteen (15)
days from notice of the denial.
INITIATION OF APPEAL UNDER RULE 43 à filing a petition for review, not just
a notice of appeal
à seven (7) legible copies shall be filed with the CA, with
à copies thereof served on the adverse party and the court or agency a quo,
à within the reglementary period or the extended period, as the case may be.
g
à extendible
à docket fees
Note: the CA may grant exemption from the payment of docketing and other
lawful fees and the deposit for costs upon a verified motion setting forth valid
grounds therefor. But if the CA denies the motion, the petitioner shall pay the
docketing and other lawful fees and deposit for costs within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the denial.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Contents of the petition. — The petition for review shall (a)
state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the
court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a
concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds
relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible
duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final
order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of
such material portions of the record referred to therein and other
supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum
shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The
petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed
within the period fixed herein.
CONTENTS OF PETITION FOR REVIEW
à the officers or quasi-judicial agencies which rendered the impugned judgment
or final order are not to be impleaded as among the respondents in the petition
for review.
à accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the
judgments or final orders assailed of, together with certified true copies of the
pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the
allegations of the petition
à accompanied by a verification and certification against forum shopping.
à furnished to the officer or quasi-judicial agency and adverse officer, denced by
an affidavit of service
Non-compliance with this requirement of forum shopping may prove fatal, albeit in
a few case, and in the interest of justice, the Supreme Court has relaxed the rigid
application of the rules. Even then, it is better to comply with the requirements
prescribed in the rules.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of
the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements
regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit
for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the
documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal thereof.
Supreme Court has somehow relaxed the rigid applications of the rules in some
case, in the interest of justice, but said leniency is not demandable as a matter
of right.
SECTION 8
Section 8. Action on the petition. — The Court of Appeals may require
the respondent to file a comment on the petition not a motion to dismiss,
within ten (10) days from notice, or dismiss the petition if it finds the
same to be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or
that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
consideration.
REMEMBER JUD. DON’T BE BOGO: PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE
COURT, 43 IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT. It is discretionary on the Court of
Appeals, which may give due course only when the petition shows prima facie
that the officer or the quasi-judicial body concerned has committed error of
fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or
judgment sought to be reviewed.
The Court of Appeals may even dismiss the petition outright if it finds the same to
be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, of that the questions
raised are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
Part of its discretion in acting on a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court, the Court of Appeals, without necessarily giving due course to the
petition, may require the adverse party to file a comment on the petition, not
a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice. In fact, this is what the Court
of Appeals normally does. In actual practice also, the adverse party may ask for
and be granted an extension of time to file comment on the petition for review.
SECTION 9
Section 9. Contents of comment. — The comment shall be filed within ten
(10) days from notice in seven (7) legible copies and accompanied by
clearly legible certified true copies of such material portions of the record
referred to therein together with other supporting papers. The comment
shall (a) point out insufficiencies or inaccuracies in petitioner's
216

statement of facts and issues; and (b) state the reasons why the petition
should be denied or dismissed. A copy thereof shall be served on the
petitioner, and proof of such service shall be filed with the Court of
Appeals.
COMMENT ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
- accompanied by certified true copies of the material portions of the record
referred to therein together with other supporting papers applies only if the
comment makes reference to pleadings or documents that are not made part of or
appended to the petition for review
- not an initiatory pleading; not need a verification and certification against
forum shopping
- furnished to the officer or quasi-judicial agency and to the adverse party as well,
evidenced by an affidavit of service
SECTION 10
Section 10. Due course. — If upon the filing of the comment or such other
pleadings or documents as may be required or allowed by the Court of
Appeals or upon the expiration of the period for the filing thereof, and on
the records the Court of Appeals finds prima facie that the court or
agency concerned has committed errors of fact or law that would warrant
reversal or modification of the award, judgment, final order or resolution
sought to be reviewed, it may give due course to the petition; otherwise,
it shall dismiss the same. The findings of fact of the court or agency
concerned, when supported by substantial evidence, shall be binding on
the Court of Appeals.
MEMORIZE: The petition for review under Rule 43 is not a matter of right. It is
discretionary on the CA, which may give due course only when the petition shows
prima facie that the officer of quasi-judicial body concerned has committed error
of fact or law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment
sought to be reviewed. But where the findings of fact of the administrative officer
or agency concerned are supported by substantial evidence, such findings of
facts shall be binding on the CA.
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
- the standard in appeals from judgment of admin agencies; not preponderance,
not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Don’t be stupid jud. Grabe na jud.
RULE 133. Sec. 6. Substantial evidence. – In cases filed before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established
if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
[RULES ON EVIDENCE]
Sumifru [Phils.] Corp. vs. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm
G.R. No. 202091, June 07, 2017
Findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies are entitled to great respect when
they are supported by substantial evidence and, in the absence of any
showing of a whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment, the factual findings
bind the Court.
Werr Corp. Int’l vs. Highlands Prime, Inc.
G.R. No. 187543, Feb. 08, 2017
In our jurisdiction, it is well settled that factual findings by a quasi-judicial
body which has acquired expertise because its jurisdiction is confined to
specific matters, are accorded not only with respect but even finality if they are
supported by substantial evidence.
SECTION 11
Section 11. Transmittal of record. — Within fifteen (15) days from notice
that the petition has been given due course, the Court of Appeals may
require the court or agency concerned to transmit the original or a legible
certified true copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review.
The record to be transmitted may be abridged by agreement of all parties
to the proceeding. The Court of Appeals may require or permit
subsequent correction of or addition to the record.
Due course à Agency transmit records to CA à CA may require correct or
addition of the records; may require certified true copies of the entire record be
forwarded to it.
SECTION 12
Section 12. Effect of appeal. — The appeal shall not stay the award,
judgment, final order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the
Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem
just.
EFFECTS OF APPEAL
Section 8, Rule 42 Section 12, Rule 43
GR: Appeal stays the execution, GR: Shall not stay the exection,
unless CA orders otherwise unless CA directs otherwise
g
*Under Section 8 (b), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, except in civil cases decided
under the Rule on Summary Procedure, the petition for review under that rule
(from the decision of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction)
SECTION 13
Section 13. Submission for decision. — If the petition is given due
course, the Court of Appeals may set the case for oral argument or
require the parties to submit memoranda within a period of fifteen (15)
days from notice. The case shall be deemed submitted for decision upon
the filing of the last pleading or memorandum required by these Rules or
by the court of Appeals.
ORAL ARGUMENTS
- Seldom
SUBMISSION OF MEMORANDUM
- done simultaneous, and the case shall then be submitted for decision upon the
filing of memorandum or reply memorandum, if allowed, or upon the lapse of the
period for the submission thereof
RULE 44 - ORDINARY APPEALED CASES
SECTION 1
Section 1. Title of cases. — In all cases appealed to the Court of Appeals
under Rule 41, the title of the case shall remain as it was in the court of
origin, but the party appealing the case shall be further referred to as the
appellant and the adverse party as the appellee.
RTC* à CA
*RTC exercising original jurisdiction
à Tile remains the same as the one in court of origins
à Parties are appellants and appellees
à RTC shall not be impleaded among respondents/defendants
SECTION 2
Section 2. Counsel and guardians. — The counsel and guardians ad
litem of the parties in the court of origin shall be respectively considered
as their counsel and guardians ad litem in the Court of Appeals. When
others appear or are appointed, notice thereof shall be served
immediately on the adverse party and filed with the court.
ORDINARY APPEAL - a continuation of the proceedings had in the court below
Note: the counsel and guardians ad litem of the parties in the court of origin shall
remain as such while the case is on appeal, unless somebody else is hired,
appointed and/or added whereby a notice thereof shall be filed with the Court of
Appeals and served upon the adverse party.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Order of transmittal of record. — If the original record or the
record on appeal is not transmitted to the Court of Appeals within thirty
(30) days after the perfection of the appeal, either party may file a motion
with the trial court, with notice to the other, for the transmittal of such
record or record on appeal.
OLD RULE: Delay in the transmittal of the case record is a ground for dismissal of
the appeal for failure to prosecute.
AMENDED RULE: A delay in the transmittal of the case record or record on appeal
may be remedied by either party may file an ex parte motion with the trial court
for the transmittal of the same, furnishing a copy of that motion to the adverse
party.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Docketing of case. — Upon receiving the original record or the
record on appeal and the accompanying documents and exhibits
transmitted by the lower court, as well as the proof of payment of the
docket and other lawful fees, the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals
shall docket the case and notify the parties thereof.
Within ten (10) days from receipt of said notice, the appellant, in appeals
by record on appeal, shall file with the clerk of court seven (7) clearly
legible copies of the approved record on appeal, together with the proof
of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.
Any unauthorized alteration, omission or addition in the approved record
on appeal shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
SECTION 5
Section 5. Completion of record. — Where the record of the docketed
case is incomplete, the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals shall so
inform said court and recommend to it measures necessary to complete
the record. It shall be the duty of said court to take appropriate action
towards the completion of the record within the shortest possible time.
217

SECTION 6
Section 6. Dispensing with complete record. — Where the completion of
the record could not be accomplished within a sufficient period allotted
for said purpose due to insuperable or extremely difficult causes, the
court, on its own motion or on motion of any of the parties, may declare
that the record and its accompanying transcripts and exhibits so far
available are sufficient to decide the issues raised in the appeal, and shall
issue an order explaining the reasons for such declaration.
DUTIES OF CLERK OF COURT
à upon receipt of the records must assign new docket number
à direct the clerk of court of the trial court to complete the same within a given
period
à If not completed, the court on its own or upon motion, may declare that
documents are sufficient to decide based on the issued raised in the appeal and
can issue order explaining
note: Appellant must file with the clerk the record on appeal if it is required
SECTION 7
Section 7. Appellant's brief. — It shall be the duty of the appellant to file
with the court, within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the notice of the
clerk that all the evidence, oral and documentary, are attached to the
record, seven (7) copies of his legibly typewritten, mimeographed or
printed brief, with proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the
appellee.
SECTION 8
Section 8. Appellee's brief. — Within forty-five (45) days from receipt of
the appellant's brief, the appellee shall file with the court seven (7) copies
of his legibly typewritten, mimeographed or printed brief, with proof of
service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellant.
SECTION 9
Section 9. Appellant's reply brief. — Within twenty (20) days from receipt
of the appellee's brief, the appellant may file a reply brief answering
points in the appellee's brief not covered in his main brief.
APPELLANT’S BRIEF à APPELLEE’S BRIEF à APPELLANT’S REPLY
BRIEF
DUTIES OF APPELLANT
1.File legibly typewritten, mimeographed or printed brief
2. Provide proof of service of 2 copies thereof upon the appellant
3. File a reply brief answering points in the appellee's brief not covered in his main
brief
Clerk of CA will notify and direct the parties to submit their respective briefs.
Note: Extensions of time for filing briefs may be granted but only for good and
sufficient cause:
RULE 44. Section 12. Extension of time for filing briefs. — Extension of
time for the filing of briefs will not be allowed, except for good and
sufficient cause, and only if the motion for extension is filed before the
expiration of the time sought to be extended.
Failure of appellant to file brief is a ground for dismissal of appeal.
à non-filing of the appellee’s brief will not necessarily result in having the appeal
granted and the reversal of the impugned judgment or final order, especially if the
judgment of trial court is well-reasoned.
SECTION 10
Section 10. Time of filing memoranda in special cases. — In certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus cases, the
parties shall file in lieu of briefs, their respective memoranda within a
non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice issued
by the clerk that all the evidence, oral and documentary, is already
attached to the record.
The failure of the appellant to file his memorandum within the period
therefor may be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
CASES WITH SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR APPEAL TO CA:
1. Certiorari
2. Prohibition
3. Mandamus
4. Quo warranto
5. Habeas corpus
PROCEDURE
à Submit memoranda, which is relatively less cumbersome compared to the
preparation of briefs
g
à brief have a statement of the case, statement of facts, and even table of
contents, which things are not explicitly required in a memorandum
à period of filing must be within non-extendible period of thirty (30) calendar days
from receipt of the notice
à submission is done simultaneously
Failure of the appellant to file his memorandum within the reglementary period
may be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
SECTION 11
Section 11. Several appellants or appellees or several counsel for each
party. — Where there are several appellants or appellees, each counsel
representing one or more but not all of them shall be served with only
one copy of the briefs. When several counsel represent one appellant or
appellee, copies of the brief may be served upon any of them.
SECTION 12
Section 12. Extension of time for filing briefs. — Extension of time for the
filing of briefs will not be allowed, except for good and sufficient cause,
and only if the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the
time sought to be extended.
see our discussion under Section 9, hereof.
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - filed before the expiration of the time
sought to be extended, for what is there to extend if the period sought to be
extended had already lapsed
Galeon: In actual practice, the appellate court and even the Supreme Court
normally grant extensions of time to file briefs. But then again, such leniency
cannot be demanded as a matter of right and it should be abused.
If, for whatever reason, one submits his brief beyond the original or extended
period given him, prudence and courtesy to the court demand that he should
likewise file a “Motion to Admit” such tardy pleading or brief, explaining therein
the delay in the filing or submission of such pleading.
SECTION 13
Section 13. Contents of appellant's brief. — The appellant's brief shall
contain, in the order herein indicated, the following:
(a) A subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the
arguments and page references, and a table of cases
alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with
references to the pages where they are cited;
(b) An assignment of errors intended to be urged, which errors
shall be separately, distinctly and concisely stated without
repetition and numbered consecutively;
(c) Under the heading "Statement of the Case," a clear and
concise statement of the nature of the action, a summary of
the proceedings, the appealed rulings and orders of the court,
the nature of the judgment and any other matters necessary
to an understanding of the nature of the controversy with page
references to the record;
(d) Under the heading "Statement of Facts," a clear and concise
statement in a narrative form of the facts admitted by both
parties and of those in controversy, together with the
substance of the proof relating thereto in sufficient detail to
make it clearly intelligible, with page references to the record;
(e) A clear and concise statement of the issues of fact or law to
be submitted, to the court for its judgment;
(f) Under the heading "Argument," the appellant's arguments on
each assignment of error with page references to the record.
The authorities relied upon shall be cited by the page of the
report at which the case begins and the page of the report on
which the citation is found;
(g) Under the heading "Relief," a specification of the order or
judgment which the appellant seeks; and
(h) In cases not brought up by record on appeal, the appellant's
brief shall contain, as an appendix, a copy of the judgment or
final order appealed from.
CONTENTS OF THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Liberality of the Rules à the prescribed form and contents of an appellant’s brief
should not be disdain as mere procedural niceties because non-compliance
therewith may be a ground for the dismissal of the appeal
218

RULE 50. Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be
dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the
appellee, on the following grounds:
(a) Failure of the record on appeal to show on its face that the appeal was
taken within the period fixed by these Rules;
(b) Failure to file the notice of appeal or the record on appeal within the period
prescribed by these Rules;
(c) Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and other lawful fees as provided
in section 5, Rule 40 and section 4 of Rule 41; (Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February
1998)
(d) Unauthorized alterations, omissions or additions in the approved record on
appeal as provided in section 4 of Rule 44;
(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of
his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules;
(f) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant's brief, or of
page references to the record as required in section 13, paragraphs (a),
(c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44;
(g) Failure of the appellant to take the necessary steps for the correction or
completion of the record within the time limited by the court in its order;
(h) Failure of the appellant to appear at the preliminary conference under Rule
48 or to comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the court without
justifiable cause; and
(i) The fact that the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable.
GENERAL RULE: Only errors specifically assigned and properly argued in the
brief will be considered by the CA
EXCEPTION: Errors affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity
of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein, as well as plain and
clerical errors
Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 117020, April 4, 2003
The exceptional circumstances wherein errors not specifically assigned
in the brief may still be considered on appeal:
(1) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject
matter;
(2) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or
clerical errors within contemplation of law;
(3) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is
necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case
or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice;
(4) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial
court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted
which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored;
(5) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error
assigned; and
(6) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination
of a question properly assigned, is dependent.
SECTION 14
Section 14. Contents of appellee's brief. — The appellee's brief shall
contain, in the order herein indicated the following:
(a) A subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the
arguments and page references, and a table of cases
alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with
references to the pages where they are cited;
(b) Under the heading "Statement of Facts," the appellee shall state
that he accepts the statement of facts in the appellant's brief, or
under the heading "Counter-Statement of Facts," he shall point
out such insufficiencies or inaccuracies as he believes exist in
the appellant's statement of facts with references to the pages
of the record in support thereof, but without repetition of
matters in the appellant's statement of facts; and
(c) Under the heading "Argument," the appellee shall set forth his
arguments in the case on each assignment of error with page
references to the record. The authorities relied on shall be cited
by the page of the report at which the case begins and the page
of the report on which the citation is found.
CONTENTS OF APPELLEE’S BRIEF
g
- An appellee, who has not also appealed from the judgment, cannot make
assignment of errors in his brief (Gorospe vs. Peñaflorida). If so, he should have
appealed himself
- can only make counter-assignments [to sustain judgment being assailed]
- can argue issues raised on trial to sustain judgment, even if the same were not
included in the decision of the court a quo nor raised in appellant’s assignment of
errors or arguments
Corazon S. Cruz v. Manila International Airport Authority*
G.R. No. 184732, Sept. 9, 2013
“Jurisprudence dictates that the appellee’s role in the appeal process is
confined only to the task of refuting the assigned errors interposed by
the appellant. Since the appellee is not the party who instituted the appeal
and accordingly has not complied with the procedure prescribed therefor, he
merely assumes a defensive stance and his interest solely relegated to the
affirmance of the judgment appealed from. Keeping in mind that the right to
appeal is essentially statutory in character, it is highly erroneous for the
appellee to either assign any error or seek any affirmative relief or
modification of the lower court’s judgment without interposing its own
appeal. As held in the case of Medida v. CA:
An appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate
court any affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of the
court below. He cannot impugn the correctness of a judgment not appealed
from by him. He cannot assign such errors as are designed to have the
judgment modified. All that said appellee can do is to make a counter-
assignment of errors or to argue on issues raised at the trial only for the
purpose of sustaining the judgment in his favor, even on grounds not
included in the decision of the court a quo nor raised in the appellant's
assignment of errors or arguments.
SECTION 15
Section 15. Questions that may be raised on appeal. — Whether or not
the appellant has filed a motion for new trial in the court below he may
include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has
been raised in the court below and which is within the issues framed by
the parties.
GENERAL RULE: Points of law, theories, and arguments not brought before the
trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and will not be
considered by the Supreme Court.
RATIONALE: To allow otherwise would be a denial of respondent’s right to due
process; the Supreme Court will consider and resolve the issue in the interest of
justice and the complete adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties
(Republic of the Phils. vs. Phil. Int’l. Corp)
[even constitutionality of a law is required to be raised at the earliest opportunity
(Ynot vs. IAC)
Helmut Dosch v. NLRC*
G.R. No. 51182, July 5, 1983
FACTS: Helmut Dosch, an American, married to a Filipino, was the resident
Manager of Northwest Airlines, Inc.. He was to be transferred to Minneapolis,
U.S.A. In a letter addressed to his employer, Dosch expressed his reservations
to his purported transfer, as well as his intention remain in the Philippines. The
management took his letter as a resignation from service, such that he was
no longer allowed to report for work.
Dosch filed a case for illegal dismissal. In its defense, Northwest Airlines
posited that Dosch rather resigned. The Labor Arbiter decided the case in
favor of Dosch, but Northwest Airlines appealed the case to the NLRC,
whereby Northwest Airlines faulted the Labor Arbiter in not ruling that the
Dosch could be validly terminated from work because of his refusal to
obey with the management directive for his transfer.
HELD: Northwest changed its theory, and such posturing should not be
countenanced.
Realizing that its "resignation" theory was weak and flimsy, Northwest
abandoned it and contended for the first time that petitioner was guilty of
insubordination when he refused to comply with the transfer order. This
change of theory on appeal is improper; it is offensive to the basic rules
of fair play and justice and violative of petitioner’s constitutional right to
due process of law. Appellate courts may not entertain questions of law
or fact not raised in the lower courts, for that would constitute a change of
theory not permissible on appeal.
It is undoubtedly the law, that, where a cause has been tried upon the theory
that the pleadings are at issue, or that a particular issue is made by the
pleadings, or where an issue is tacitly accepted by all parties as properly
presented for trial and as the only issue, the appellate court will proceed upon
219

the same theory. It would be unjust and oppressive for the appellate court
to adopt a theory at variance with that on which the case was presented
to and tried by the lower court. It would surprise the parties, to take them
unaware and off their guard, and would in effect, deprive them of their
day in court.
Since "resignation" was the particular cause alleged by Northwest in
terminating petitioner’s employment, Northwest is restricted to the ground
specified and may not invoke any other cause for the discharge.
CONTRAST:
Rivera v. CA*
G.R. No. 44111, Aug. 10, 1989
FACTS: Spouses Martinez filed a case for the nullification of the document
dubbed as “Deed of Absolute Sale” that they executed in favor of Mercedes T.
Rivera, the predecessor-in-interest of the other defendants, alleging that their
real transaction with the defendant Rivera was but a real estate mortgage.
After trial, the trial court rendered judgment against the plaintiffs and in
favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the CA, and, in
their appellant’s brief, plaintiff-appellants prayed that they be allowed to just
redeem their property. The CA later held that the contract involving the
plaintiffs and defendant Rivera was a contract of sale with a right of
repurchase and, thus, allowing the plaintiffs to repurchase the property.
Defendants protested the ruling of the CA, as the court, according to them,
brazenly allowed the plaintiffs to change their theory on appeal.
HELD: There was no change of case theory.
“The private respondents' position is well-taken. There was no change of
theory of the case on appeal. There was no surprise sprang on the petitioners
in the Court of Appeals, which surprise, after all, is the raison d' etre of the
prohibition against such a change of theory. The injunction against change of
theory on appeal insures fairness in the proceedings; in other words, fair play
or due process bars flip-flopping.
And then the same complaint prays, among others, that the Deeds of Sale,
Annexes "A" and "B" thereof, be declared null and void. Prescinding from those
allegations and from the prayer all clearly set out in the complaint, it is fair to
conclude that the real purpose in asking for the nullity of the contract of sale is
to enable the private respondents to recover or redeem the property they
deeded in favor of Mercedes Teehankee Rivera. Thus the nature of the
contract has been raised as an issue the pleadings. It would be absurd to pray
for the nullity of an agreement and stop there. There would be a vacuum and
the law, like nature, abhors a vacuum.
ANOTHER RULE: Reversal of a judgment on appeal is generally binding only on
the parties in the appealed case and does not affect or inure to the benefit of those
who did not join or were not made parties to the appeal.
EXCEPTION: If a judgment cannot be reversed as to the party who did not appeal,
or where the rights and liabilities of the parties who did not appeal and those who
appealed are so interwoven and dependent on each other as to be inseparable, a
reversal to one operates as a reversal to all because of the community of their
interests (Tropical Homes, Inc. vs. Fortun).
Example: In a collection suit a judgment is rendered against 2 solidary debtors,
and one of them filed an appeal but the other did not, in the event that the appellate
court finds that the obligation was already paid in full, the reversal of the judgment
of the trial court will inure to the advantage of the other defendant even if he
did not file his own appeal (Universal Motors Corporation vs. CA)
BUT!! An appellee, who has not also appealed from the judgment, cannot
make assignment of errors in his brief to have the judgment modified in his
favor (Carbonel vs. CA) [But this rule is not iron-clad]
Radio Communications of the PH, Inc. (RCPI) v. NLRC, et al.*
G.R. Nos. 101181-84, June 22, 199
FACTS: Luz Mendero, et al. filed a case for illegal dismissal against RCPI.
The Labor Arbiter found that the complainants were illegally dismissed from
work and ordered RCPI to pay them their separation pays and ECOLA
differentials. The Labor Arbiter did not grant them reinstatement.
RCPI appealed from the decision of the Labor Arbiter, but the complainants
did not. In their appellees’ memorandum before the NLRC, the
complainants prayed to have the decision modified in their favor, so as
to include an award of reinstatement with payment of backwages.
g
The NLRC affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, but it did not grant
reinstatement with backwages to the complainants, as they did not appeal from
the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
HELD: “Quite significantly, private respondents did not appeal from the award
made by the Labor Arbiter directing payment of separation pay at the rate of
one (1) month for every year of service. Thus, invoking the time-honored
procedural rule that "a party who did not appeal cannot assign errors as
are designed to have the judgment modified," public respondent
disregarded the efforts of private respondents expressed through their
appellees' memorandum filed with the NLRC to have the decision modified to
include their reinstatement with payment of backwages.
“Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of
justice, their strict and rigid application, which would result in
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial
justice, must always be avoided. Thus, substantive rights like
reinstatement and award of backwages resulting from illegal dismissal
must not be prejudiced by a rigid and technical application of the rules.
In the instant case, We hold that there is sufficient justification to order
the reinstatement of private respondents although they failed to bring
this matter up to public respondent on appeal. For it is clear that the Labor
Arbiter erred in simply awarding separation pay equivalent to one (1) month
salary for every year of service despite his finding that the retrenchment was
not justified, and in invoking, albeit erroneously, "strained relations" for
withholding reinstatement when the records fail to disclose any ill-will between
the parties except perhaps what would normally go with ordinary litigations. In
other words, the mere filing of a complaint by an employee for illegal dismissal
should not be treated as the kind of "strained relations" that would make
reinstatement "impracticable", for, he is merely exercising a right under the law.
Certainly, it is unfair and unjust to deprive the private respondents of their just
due by reason of a mere technicality.”
RULE 45 - APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
SECTION 1
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. – A party desiring to
appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court
of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional
Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file with the
Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition
may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other
provisional remedies and shall raise only questions of law, which must
be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional
remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any
time during its pendency (as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, effective
December 27, 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
Requisites
1. Assails judgment of CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC in its original jurisdiction, CTA
with respect to decisions rendered en banc
2. Raise only questions of law
3. May pray for writ of preliminary injunction or any other provisional remedy
RULE: Rule 45 petitions may only raise pure questions of law and that the factual
findings of lower courts are generally binding and conclusive on the Supreme
Court (Daayata vs. People)
RATIONALE:
Sitel Phils. Corp. v. CIR
G.R. No. 201326, Feb. 08, 2017
It is because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally
embark in the evaluation of evidence adduced during trial; it is not the Supreme
Court’s function to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already
considered in the proceedings below, the Court’s jurisdiction being limited to
reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court
QUESTION OF FACT QUESTION OF LAW
Calls for a review of evidence in order question of law exists when the doubt
to establish a fact centers on what the law is on a
certain set of facts while a question of
fact results when the issue revolves
around the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts
Once it is clear that the issues invites not involve an examination of the
a review of the evidence presented probative value of the evidence
presented by the litigants or any of
them. The resolution of the issue
must rest solely on what the law
provides on the given set of
circumstances
Examples: Examples:
220
 g

- whether or not a litigant is a builder - interpretation of the true agreement mutually exclusive. Certiorari (under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court), by
in good faith or in bad between the parties its very nature, is proper only when appeal is not available to the aggrieved
- whether the deed of sale entered party; the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not
into by the parties is a simulated alternative or successive. It cannot substitute for a lost appeal, especially if
contract one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss
- whether or not there exists a or lapse
perfected contract of sale
SECTION 2
TEST OF WHETHER QUESTION OF FACT OR QUESTION OF LAW Section 2. Time for filing; extension. — The petition shall be filed within
à Whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution
or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or
a question of fact (Yabut vs. Alcantara) reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion
duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful
GENERAL RULE: Petition for review on Certiorari only must involve fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary
questions of law. period, the Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension
of thirty (30) days only within which to file the petition.
EXCEPTIONS: [Aldaba vs. Career Phils. Ship-Management] These questions of
fact may be brought up to the SC: SECTION 3
1. When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or Section 3. Docket and other lawful fees; proof of service of petition. —
conjectures; Unless he has theretofore done so, the petitioner shall pay the
2. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the
3. When there is grave abuse of discretion; Supreme Court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time
4. When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; of the filing of the petition. Proof of service of a copy thereof on the lower
5. When the findings of facts are conflicting; court concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted together
6. When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its with the petition.
findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;
7. When the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; FILING OF PETITION ON REVIEW FOR CERTIORARI
8. When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on - within 15 days from judgment [the party has a “fresh period” of fifteen (15) days,
which they are based; reckoned from his receipt of the denial of his motion for new trial or motion for
9. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reconsideration]
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; - with payment of docket fees to the clerk
10. When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence - filed with the Supreme Court
and contradicted by the evidence on record; and - extendible by filing Motion for Extension of Time within the 15-day period [with
11. When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not justifiable reasons]
disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different - furnish copies to adverse parties and lower court concerned
conclusion
12. Appeal from the judgment or final order in a petition for writ of amparo SECTION 4
(Section 19, Rules on the Writ of Amparo); Section 4. Contents of petition. — The petition shall be filed in eighteen
13. Appeal from the judgment or final order in a petition for habeas data (Section (18) copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated
19, Rules on the Writ of Habeas Data); as such by the petitioner and shall (a) state the full name of the appealing
14. Appeal from the judgment or final order in a petition for writ of kalikasan party as the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without
(Section 16, Rule 7). impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or
respondents; (b) indicate the material dates showing when notice of the
Appeal by certiorari Certiorari judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when
Rule 45 Rule 65 a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when
Mode of appeal Original special civil action notice of the denial thereof was received; (c) set forth concisely a
continuation of the case subject of mode of appeal statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or arguments relied
the appeal on for the allowance of the petition; (d) be accompanied by a clearly
seeks to review judgments or final may be directed against an legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final
orders interlocutory order or matter where no order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo and
appeal may be taken therefrom the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions
raises only questions of law; raises questions of jurisdiction because of the record as would support the petition; and (e) contain a sworn
a tribunal, board or officer exercising certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of
judicial or quasi-judicial functions has section 2, Rule 42.
acted without jurisdiction, in excess of
jurisdiction, or with abuse of discretion Parties: Petitioner vs. Respondent [court and judge not impleaded]
amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction Attachments:
shall be filed within 15 days from shall be filed not later than 60 days àoriginals and copies of judgements assailed, pleadings, other shit
notice of judgment, final order or from notice of judgment, order or Galeon: attach to the original copy of the petition for review on certiorari – that
resolution appealed from, or the resolution. In cases a motion for new copy intended for the Supreme Court – the certified true copies of these other
denial of motion for new trial or trial or motion for reconsideration is orders, pleadings, and other material portions of the records. Anyways, that will
reconsideration, if one was filed; timely filed, whether such motion is not be costly as what will be attached to the remaining sets of the petition for review
required or not, the 60-day period shall on certiorari are just clear copies of the (certified) attachments or appendices to
be counted from notice of the denial of the first/original copy of such petition
such motion; à verification and certification against forum shopping [non-compliance – fatal but
does not require a prior motion for requires, as a general rule, a prior may be relaxed]
reconsideration; motion for reconsideration; à 18 copies
stays the judgment appealed from; does not stay the judgment or order à furnished with affidavit of service
subject matter of the petition, unless
restrained or enjoined; SECTION 5
the parties are the original parties the tribunal, board, officer exercising Section 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. — The failure of the petitioner
with the appealing party as the judicial or quasi-judicial functions is to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment
petitioner and the adverse party as impleaded as respondent; of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of
respondent, without impleading the the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should
lower court or its judge; accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
as a mode of appeal, is filed only as a special civil action, may be filed thereof.
with the Supreme Court. with the Regional Trial Court, the Court
of Appeals, or the Supreme Court The Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny the petition on the
ground that the appeal is without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for
Isabel N. Guzman vs. Aniano Guzman and Primitiva Montealto delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to
G.R. No. 172588, Mar. 13, 2013 require consideration.
The remedy of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and
a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court are SECTION 6
221

Section 6. Review discretionary. — A review is not a matter of right, but
of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are
special and important reasons thereof. The following, while neither
controlling nor fully measuring the court's discretion, indicate the
character of the reasons which will be considered:
(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance,
not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has
decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the
applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or
(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted
and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned
such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of
the power of supervision.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Pleadings and documents that may be required; sanctions. —
For purposes of determining whether the petition should be dismissed
or denied pursuant to section 5 of this Rule, or where the petition is given
due course under section 8 hereof, the Supreme Court may require or
allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it
may deem necessary within such periods and under such conditions as
it may consider appropriate, and impose the corresponding sanctions in
case of non-filing or unauthorized filing of such pleadings and
documents or non-compliance with the conditions therefor.
PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI IS NOT A RIGHT
à SC has the discretion to give due course, may outright dismiss due to:
= failure of the petitioner to comply with the requirements on the timeliness of the
filing of the petition;
= non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of
service of the petition;
= failure to comply with the requirements anent the contents of and the documents
which should accompany the petition;
= without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, of that the questions raised are
too unsubstantial to require consideration.
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
ü SC may require filing of pleadings, briefs, memoranda
ü impose the corresponding sanctions in case of non-filing
ü Considerations
(1) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not
theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way
probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the
Supreme Court; or
(2) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and
usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure
by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.
SECTION 8
Section 8. Due course; elevation of records. — If the petition is given due
course, the Supreme Court may require the elevation of the complete
record of the case or specified parts thereof within fifteen (15) days from
notice.
Elevation or transmittal of records à only if SC had given due course &
expressly directs such
SECTION 9
Section 9. Rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases. — The mode
of appeal prescribed in this Rule shall be applicable to both civil and
criminal cases, except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
GR: Applicable to civil and criminal
EX: Not applicable if death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed
RATIONALE: There is intermediate review by the CA first [may be appealed to
the SC] for reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment, initiated by filing a notice of
appeal with the trial court. There is automatic ultimate review of the Supreme
Court if death is imposed.
NOTE: Intermediate review by the CA in criminal cases where the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or death may validly be had
even if such review involves a pure question of law.
Ultimately review of criminal cases by the Supreme Court pursuant to the rules
and the 1987 Philippine Constitution may involve questions of fact, not just
pure questions of law.
RULE 46 - ORIGINAL CASES
SECTION 1
g
Section 1. Title of cases. — In all cases originally filed in the Court of
Appeals, the party instituting the action shall be called the petitioner and
the opposing party the respondent.
SECTION 2
Section 2. To what actions applicable. — This Rule shall apply to original
actions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto.
Except as otherwise provided, the actions for annulment of judgment
shall be governed by Rule 47, for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
by Rule 65, and for quo warranto by Rule 66.
ORIGINAL CASES IN THE CA
Exclusive Original jurisdiction:
1. Annulment of the decisions of RTC (Rule 47)
Original but concurrent jurisdiction
1. Certiorari* (Rule 65)
2. Prohibition* (Rule 65)
3. Mandamus* (Rule 65)
4. Quo warranto* (Rule 66, 46)
5. Habeas corpus
6. Petition for issuance of writ of amparo** (46)
7. Petition for issuance of writ of habeas data* (46)
8. Petition for issuance of writ of kalikasan* (46)
* Concurrent with RTC and SC
** Concurrent with RTC, Sandiganbayan and SC
SECTION 3
Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with
requirements. — The petition shall contain the full names and actual
addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of
the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the
grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the
material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof
was received.
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of
service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the
court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a
clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment,
order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the
record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or
pertinent thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper
clerk of court or by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper
officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly
authorized representative. The other requisite number of copies of the
petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all
documents attached to the original.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn
certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is
such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same;
and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he
undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or
agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees
to the clerk of court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the
time of the filing of the petition.
The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the requirements shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (n; Bar Matter No. 803,
21 July 1998)
CONTENTS
à accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the
judgments or final orders assailed of, together with plain copies of the pleadings
and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the
petition
à accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the
original.
à accompanied by a verification and certification against forum shopping.
à affidavit of service
222

FILING
à originally filed with the Court of Appeals also requires the payment of the
concomitant docket and other lawful fees, as well as deposit for costs.
SECTION 4
Section 4. Jurisdiction over person of respondent, how acquired. — The
court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the
service on him of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the
petition or by his voluntary submission to such jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE RESPONDENT
à through service of a copy of the resolution issued by CA indicating initial action
on the petition filed; or voluntary submission
à no summons
SECTION 5
Section 5. Action by the court. — The court may dismiss the petition
outright with specific reasons for such dismissal or require the
respondent to file a comment on the same within ten (10) days from
notice. Only pleadings required by the court shall be allowed. All other
pleadings and papers, may be filed only with leave of court.
ACTION OF CA
- may dismiss outright with specific reason
- may require respondent to file COMMENT within
- all pleadings and papers may be filed only with leave of court
Galeon: In original actions filed in the Court of Appeals, the parties are not at liberty
to file any pleading as they please because only pleadings required by the
Court of Appeals shall be allowed. Where one party desires to file a pleading
not required by the Court of Appeals, he or she must ask for leave of court to file
the same. In actual practice, the party may file the pleading without prior leave of
court but it should have a corresponding “Motion to Admit” the said pleading.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Determination of factual issues. — Whenever necessary to
resolve factual issues, the court itself may conduct hearings thereon or
delegate the reception of the evidence on such issue to any of its
members or to an appropriate court, agency or office.
Court of Appeals - not purely an appellate court and may actually conduct
hearing thereon, or delegate the reception of the evidence on any issue to any
of its members or to an appropriate court, agency or office
SECTION 7
Section 7. Effect of failure to file comment. — When no comment is filed
by any of the respondents, the case may be decided on the basis of the
record, without prejudice to any disciplinary action which the court may
take against the disobedient party.
FAILURE TO FILE RESPONDENT’S COMMENT
- not necessarily directive that petition is granted
- may trigger the imposition of appropriate disciplinary action through fine
DECISIONS MUST BE BASED ON RECORD AND ON MERIT.
RULE 47 - ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OF FINAL ORDERS AND
RESOLUTIONS
SECTION 1
Section 1. Coverage. — This Rule shall govern the annulment by the
Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil
actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no
longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Grounds for annulment. — The annulment may be based only
on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could
have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT BY THE CA OF THE JUDGMENTS OR FINAL
ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE RTC IN CIVIL ACTIONS
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
- a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be
annulled was rendered (Canlas vs. CA)
- a post-judgment remedy
FILING OF ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
à file with CA, who has exclusive original jurisdiction over such action
à governed by Section 9, BP 129:
g
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall Exercise: 2.
Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgements
of Regional Trial Courts;
GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
1. Extrinsic fraud; or
2. Lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic Fraud
- the kind of fraud which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or
presenting his case to the court, or was used to procure the judgment without fair
submission of the controversy.
- Instances of collateral fraud are acts intended to keep the unsuccessful party
away from the court by false promise of a compromise, or purposely keeps him in
ignorance of the suit, or where the attorney pretends to represent a party and
connives at his defeat, or corruptly sells out his client’s interest, etc. (Magno vs.
CA
Note: Intrinsic fraud refers to the act of a party at the trial which prevented a fair
and just determination of the case and which could have been litigated and
determined at the trial or adjudication of the case, such as falsification (introduction
in evidence of a falsified evidence), false testimony and so forth, and does not
constitute a ground for new trial (Conde vs. IAC)
[refer to Section 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court]
Lack of jurisdiction
- trial court’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, or over the
res, and/or over the person and denial of due process (Arcelona vs. CA)
CONDITIONS FOR AVAILING OF THE REMEDY:
Grounded on extrinsic fraud
1. ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner
2. No motion for new trial or petition for relief was availed of, OR if the party could
have availed of these motions, he is still precluded from filoing Annulment of
Judgment
Grounded on lack of jurisdiction
1. No motion for new trial or petition for relief was availed of, OR if the party could
have availed of these motions, he is still precluded from filoing Annulment of
Judgment
Ancheta v. Ancheta**
G.R. No. 145370, Mar. 4, 2004
FACTS: R. Ancheta filed with the RTC of Naic, Cavite, a case for declaration
of nullity of his marriage with M. Ancheta. In his petition, the husband
deliberately stated a wrong address for his wife, such that the sheriff served
the summons for the wife on the wrong person (possibly a conduit of the
husband) supposedly by way of substituted service of summons. As expected,
the wife failed to file her answer and, after ex-parte hearing, the RTC granted
the petition and declared their marriage void ab initio. The said decision
attained finality sometime in July 1996.
In July 2000, the wife, M. Ancheta, filed a verified petition with the Court of
Appeals under Rule 47, seeking for the annulment of the RTC decision,
asserting in the main that her husband committed gross misrepresentation in
his petition in respect to her address, which resulted in her having failed to
participate in the proceedings before the trial court.
The CA dismissed the action for annulment of the RTC decision on the ground
that the petitioner, the wife, failed to specifically aver in her petition that the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies were no longer available. The Court further held that,
on the assumption that there was extrinsic fraud in the proceedings below, yet
there was no showing that such ground “was not availed of, or could have been
availed of, in a motion for new trial, or petition for relief.”
The wife elevated the case to the Supreme Court
HELD: The petition is meritorious.
In this case, the petitioner failed to allege in her petition in the CA that the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, and petition for relief, were no longer
available through no fault of her own. She merely alleged therein that she
received the assailed order of the trial court on January 11, 2000. The
petitioner’s amended petition did not cure the fatal defect in her original
petition, because although she admitted therein that she did not avail of the
remedies of new trial, appeal or petition for relief from judgment, she did not
explain why she failed to do so.
We, however, rule that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the original
petition and denying admission of the amended petition. This is so because
223

apparently, the Court of Appeals failed to take note from the material
allegations of the petition, that the petition was based not only on
extrinsic fraud but also on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
petitioner, on her claim that the summons and the copy of the complaint in
Sp. Proc. No. NC-662 were not served on her. While the original petition and
amended petition did not state a cause of action for the nullification of the
assailed order on the ground of extrinsic fraud, we rule, however, that it states
a sufficient cause of action for the nullification of the assailed order on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the person of the petitioner,
notwithstanding the absence of any allegation therein that the ordinary remedy
of new trial or reconsideration, or appeal are no longer available through no
fault of the petitioner.
In a case where a petition for the annulment of a judgment or final order
of the RTC filed under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is grounded on lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant/respondent or over the
nature or subject of the action, the petitioner need not allege in the
petition that the ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration of the
final order or judgment or appeal therefrom are no longer available
through no fault of her own. This is so because a judgment rendered or
final order issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and void and
may be assailed any time either collaterally or in a direct action or by
resisting such judgment or final order in any action or proceeding
whenever it is invoked, unless barred by laches.
WHO MAY AVAIL OF THE REMEDY:
à Anyone, not even impleaded in the action
Islamic Da’Wah Council of the Philippines vs. CA
G.R. No. 80892, Sept. 29, 1989
A person who is not party to the judgment may sue for its annulment provided
he can prove that the same was obtained through fraud or collusion and that
he would be adversely affected thereby. An action for annulment of judgment
may be availed of even if the judgment to be annulled had already been fully
executed or implemented.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Period for filing action. — If based on extrinsic fraud, the action
must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack
of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.
PERIOD à within four years from its discovery by the petitioner
If the ground for such action is based on lack of jurisdiction, there is no definite
prescriptive therefor but it is subject to the application of the principle on laches
or estoppel (Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy).
SECTION 4
Section 4. Filing and contents of petition. — The action shall be
commenced by filing a verified petition alleging therein with particularity
the facts and the law relied upon for annulment, as well as those
supporting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or
defense, as the case may be.
The petition shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies, together with
sufficient copies corresponding to the number of respondents. A
certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution shall be
attached to the original copy of the petition intended for the court and
indicated as such by the petitioner.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition affidavits of
witnesses or documents supporting the cause of action or defense and
a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other
action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency if
there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the
same, and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding
has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency,
he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal
or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
CONTENT OF PETITION
à verification with particularity the facts and the law
à accompanied those supporting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of
action or defense [the affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting]
à certified true copy of the assailed decision or final order must also be appended
to the original copy of the petition intended for the Court of Appeals and property
indicated as such
à certification against forum shopping.
[seven copies, plus extra copies or sets thereof corresponding the number of the
respondents named therein]
SECTION 5
g
Section 5. Action by the court. — Should the court find no substantial
merit in the petition, the same may be dismissed outright with specific
reasons for such dismissal.
Should prima facie merit be found in the petition, the same shall be given
due course and summons shall be served on the respondent.
SECTION 6
Section 6. Procedure. — The procedure in ordinary civil cases shall be
observed. Should trial be necessary, the reception of the evidence may
be referred to a member of the court or a judge of a Regional Trial Court.
ACQUIRING JURISDICTION OVER PERSON OF RESPONDENT
- the issuance and proper service of summons on him, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 14 of the Amended Rules. But the issuance of summons may
only be had if and when the Court of Appeals found prima facie merit in the petition;
otherwise, the Court of Appeals can validly dismiss the same outright
Where the Court of Appeals has already acquired jurisdiction over the person of
the respondent through the proper service of summons, the proceeding may then
take its course observing the procedures as, thus, observed in ordinary civil
actions. Hence, where the respondent files his answer to the petition, pre-trial and
trial may then ensue. Should trial be necessary, the reception of the evidence may
be referred to a member of the court or a judge of a Regional Trial Court.
This is one of the permissible situations wherein, the Court of Appeals may act as
a trial court.
SECTION 7
Section 7. Effect of judgment. — A judgment of annulment shall set aside
the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same
null and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the
proper court. However, where the judgment or final order or resolution is
set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order
the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been
granted therein.
EFFECT OF MERITORIOUS JUDGMENT
à assailed judgment or final order shall then be aside, as the same shall be
decreed null and void
If on the ground of extrinsic fraud
1. setting aside of judgment shall be without prejudice to the refiling of the original
action in the proper court
2. refile to the appropriate court or refile to the original court in order to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant properly
On the ground of lack of jurisdiction
1. such setting aside of judgment shall be without prejudice also to the refiling of
the original action in the proper court; or
2. Court of Appeals may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely
motion for new trial had been granted therein – and where this happens, there
is no need to refile the original action, in that the trial court will just conduct a trial
de novo
SECTION 8
Section 8. Suspension of prescriptive period. — The prescriptive period
for the refiling of the aforesaid original action shall be deemed
suspended from the filing of such original action until the finality of the
judgment of annulment. However, the prescriptive period shall not be
suspended where the extrinsic-fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the
original action.
If the annulment of judgment by RTC is granted, the remedy of refiling is upon the
petitioner. In such event, the refiling of original action is still subject to the rules on
prescription. But the prescriptive periods have been deemed interrupted by
the period corresponding to the filing of the original action up to the finality
of the judgment of CA in annulling the judgment.
However, the prescriptive period shall not be suspended where the extrinsic-
fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the original action. Simply put, the guilty
party cannot, as he should not, be allowed to profit from his misdeeds.
SECTION 9
Section 9. Relief available. — The judgment of annulment may include
the award of damages, attorney's fees and other relief.
If the questioned judgment or final order or resolution had already been
executed the court may issue such orders of restitution or other relief as
justice and equity may warrant under the circumstances.
RELIEFS
1. Annulment of RTC judgment
2. Damages, atty’s fees
224

3. Reparation for damages if possible
RULE 39. Section 5. Effect of reversal of executed judgment. — Where the
executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or
otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of restitution or
reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant under the
circumstances
SECTION 10
Section 10. Annulment of judgments or final orders of Municipal Trial
Courts. — An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal
Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction
over the former. It shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and sections
2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be applicable thereto.
What happens when one seeks to annul judgment rendered by MTC?
By expression unius est exclusion alterius, these rules will not apply when the
decision availed of was rendered by the MTC.
Therefore, to annul decisions by MTC, the exclusive original jurisdiction is with
RTC, pursuant to Section 19 (6) of B.P. 129. This will be an ordinary civil action,
where Sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of rule 47 apply.
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction: (6) In all cases not within the exclusive
jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any
court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
RULE 48 - PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE
SECTION 1
Section 1. Preliminary conference. — At any time during the pendency of
a case, the court may call the parties and their counsel to a preliminary
conference.
(a) To consider the possibility of an amicable settlement, except
when the case is not allowed by law to be compromised
(b) To define, simplify and clarify the issues for determination;
(c) To formulate stipulations of facts and admissions of documentary
exhibits, limit the number of witnesses to be presented in cases
falling within the original jurisdiction of the court, or those within
its appellate jurisdiction where a motion for new trial is granted on
the ground of newly discovered evidence; and
(d) To take up such other matters which may aid the court in the
prompt disposition of the case.
SECTION 2
Section 2. Record of the conference. — The proceedings at such
conference shall be recorded and, upon the conclusion thereof, a
resolution shall be issued embodying all the actions taken therein, the
stipulations and admissions made and the issues defined.
SECTION 3
Section 3. Binding effect of the results of the conference. — Subject to
such modifications which may be made to prevent manifest injustice, the
resolution in the preceding section shall control the subsequent
proceedings in the case unless, within five (5) days from notice thereof,
any party shall satisfactorily show valid cause why the same should not
be followed.
PRE-LIMINARY CONFERENCE
- apply to actions originally filed before CA and those brought to it on appeal
- non-compliance may be ground for dismissal
RULE 50. Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may
be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the
appellee, on the following grounds: (h) Failure of the appellant to appear at
the preliminary conference under Rule 48 or to comply with orders, circulars,
or directives of the court without justifiable cause;
It may be added that even if the case is already on appeal before the Court of
Appeals, the same may still undergo mediation at that level, pursuant to A.M.
No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA.
RULE 49 - ORAL ARGUMENT
SECTION 1
Section 1. When allowed. — At its own instance or upon motion of a
party, the court may hear the parties in oral argument on the merits of a
case, or on any material incident in connection therewith.
The oral argument shall be limited to such matters as the court may
specify in its order or resolution.
g
SECTION 2
Section 2. Conduct of oral argument. — Unless authorized by the court,
only one counsel may argue for a party. The duration allowed for each
party, the sequence of the argumentation, and all other related matters
shall be as directed by the court.
SECTION 3
Section 3. No hearing or oral argument for motions. — Motions shall not
be set for hearing and, unless the court otherwise directs, no hearing or
oral argument shall be allowed in support thereof. The adverse party may
file objections to the motion within five (5) days from service, upon the
expiration of which such motion shall be deemed submitted for
resolution.
ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS
- applies equally to original and appeal cases
- motu proprio by the court and upon motion by a litigant left to the discretion of
the CA
- not very often, asked directly by Justices of CA
- may be substituted by a simultaneous submission of memorandum, after
which the case would be submitted for decision
RULE 50 - DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
SECTION 1
Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be
dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the
appellee, on the following grounds:
(a) Failure of the record on appeal to show on its face that the
appeal was taken within the period fixed by these Rules;
(b) Failure to file the notice of appeal or the record on appeal
within the period prescribed by these Rules;
(c) Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and other lawful fees
as provided in section 5, Rule 40 and section 4 of Rule 41; (Bar
Matter No. 803, 17 February 1998)
(d) Unauthorized alterations, omissions or additions in the
approved record on appeal as provided in section 4 of Rule
44;
(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number
of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided
by these Rules;
(f) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant's
brief, or of page references to the record as required in section
13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44;
(g) Failure of the appellant to take the necessary steps for the
correction or completion of the record within the time limited
by the court in its order;
(h) Failure of the appellant to appear at the preliminary
conference under Rule 48 or to comply with orders, circulars,
or directives of the court without justifiable cause; and
(i) The fact that the order or judgment appealed from is not
appealable.
ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR THE DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL:
1. The parties entered into an amicable settlement and moved for the approval
thereof (Arcos vs. Aradales);
2. The appealed case has become moot and academic (NAWASA vs. Cloribel);
3. The appeal is frivolous or dilatory (De la Cruz, et al. vs. Blanco).
NOTE: The opening sentence of Section 1, Rule 50 uses the term “may” in
describing the dismissal of the appeal, denoting, that any such dismissal of appeal
based on the grounds enumerated above is not mandatory.
Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Carpo
G.R. No. 140162, Nov. 22, 2000
The foregoing grounds for the dismissal of appear are merely directory and
not mandatory. After all, rules shall be liberally construed in order to
promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding (Section 6, Rule 1)
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. vs. Royal Ferry Services, Inc.
G.R. No. 188146, Feb. 01, 2017
Compliance with the procedures is the general rule and the liberality in its
application is but the exception. At the end of the day, the Court of Appeals
has discretion to dismiss an appeal based on the enumerated grounds
225
 g

Zosa vs. Consilium, Inc.*

G.R. No. 196765, Sept. 19, 2018
One cannot disregard the rules of procedure in reckless abandon and
expediently invoke the liberality in construction and application thereof as if the
exception is a panacea or a magical incantation. The exception may only be
successfully invoked if the non-compliance with the rules is due to a
compelling and excusable circumstance and only if the pleader’s case is
meritorious.

“Litigants must bear in mind that procedural rules should always be treated
with utmost respect and due regard since these are designed to facilitate the
adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the
resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. While it is true that
a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must
be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an
orderly and speedy administration of justice. Though litigations should, as
much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicalities, this
does not mean, however, that procedural rules are to be belittled to suit the
convenience of a party. Indeed, the primordial policy is a faithful observance
of the Rules of Court, and their relaxation or suspension should only be for
persuasive reasons and only in meritorious cases.”

SECTION 2
Section 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. — An
appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of
Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely
of law not being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by notice
of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of
a Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed.

An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be

transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.

OLD RULE: The rule of referral à If an appeal was erroneously taken to the CA
when it should have been to SC, as it raised only question of law, the CA should
not dismiss the case but simply refer the case to the Supreme Court.
Conversely, where the appeal was erroneously brought to the SC, as where it
raised questions of fact, the cause should just be referred to the CA (Rosales vs.
Rosales)

AMENDED RULE: Pursuing the wrong mode of appeal with the CA authorizes the
CA to dismiss the appeal. Court of Appeals is no longer allowed to just refer
the appealed case to the appropriate court.

Anacleto Murillo vs. Consul

UDR-9748, March 1, 1990.

“d). No transfer of appeals erroneously taken. – No transfer of appeals

erroneously taken to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals to whichever
of these Tribunals has appropriate appellate jurisdiction will be allowed;
continued ignorance or willful disregard of the law on appeals will not be
tolerated.

e) Duty of Counsel. – It is therefore incumbent upon every attorney who would

seek review of a judgment or order promulgated against his client to make sure
of the nature of the errors he proposes to assign, whether these be of fact or
of law; then upon such basis to ascertain carefully which court has appellate
jurisdiction; and finally, to follow scrupulously the requisites for appeal
prescribed by law, ever aware that any error or imprecision in compliance may
well be fatal to his client’s cause.”

B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Bernardo

G.R. No. 233135, Dec. 05, 2018

Parenthetically, the general rule is that the negligence of counsel, even

mistakes in the application of procedural rules, except when the negligence of
counsel is so gross that the due process rights of the client were violated

SECTION 3
Section 3. Withdrawal of appeal. — An appeal may be withdrawn as of
right at any time before the filing of the appellee's brief. Thereafter, the
withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of the court.

WITHDRAWAL OF AN APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT

- A matter of right before the filing of the appellee’s brief.
- After the filing of the appellee’s brief, any such withdrawal is addressed to the
sound discretion of the Supreme Court

226