C2

C2
C2
C2
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
Importance of Classification of Actions
The following matters are dependent on the nature
of the action:
1. The law on jurisdiction;
2. The rules on venue and prescription;
3. Defenses against the action;
4. Payment of docket fee; and
5. Service of summons (Herrera, 2007)
Independent Civil Action
These are actions based on provisions of the Civil
Code, namely Articles 32, 33, 34 that arise from law
and Article 2176 that arises from quasi-delicts. They
shall proceed independently of the criminal action
and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
In no case, however, may the offended party recover
damages twice for the same act or omission charged
in the criminal action. (Sec. 3, Rule 111, ROC, as
amended)
The responsibility arising from quasi-delict is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability
arising from negligence under the Penal Code.
Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, only
the civil liability of the accused arising from the
crime charged is deemed included in the criminal
action. Thus, the civil actions referred to in the
above stated provisions of the law shall remain
separate, distinct and independent of any criminal
prosecution which may be based on the same act.
(Riano, 2019, citing Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.
v. People, G.R. No. 147703, 14 Apr. 2004)
Two Separate Civil Liabilities that may arise
from a Single Act or Omission
1. Civil liability ex delicto; or
2. Independent civil liabilities such as those:
a. Not arising from an act or omission
complained of as felony (e.g., culpa
contractual or obligations arising from law;
intentional torts; and culpa aquiliana); or
39
b. Where the injured party is granted a right to
file an action independent and distinct from
the criminal action. (L.G. Foods Corporation v.
Pagapong-Agraviador, G.R. No. 158995, 26
Sept. 2006)
The remedies are alternative in case the obligation
has the possibility of arising indirectly from the
delict/crime or directly from quasi-delict/tort.
Victims of negligence or their heirs have a choice
between an action to enforce the civil liability
arising from culpa criminal under Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code, and an action for quasi-delict
(culpa aquiliana) under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the
Civil Code.
Q: Lily Lim filed a criminal complaint for estafa
against Co for allegedly failing to return the
former’s money in consideration of the
withdrawal authorities Lim bought from Co.
Trial ensued and Co was acquitted of the estafa
charge for insufficiency of evidence. After the
trial on the civil aspect of the criminal case, the
Pasig City RTC also relieved Co of civil liability to
Lim. Her motion for reconsideration having
been denied, Lim filed her notice of appeal on
the civil aspect of the criminal case. Meanwhile,
Lim filed a civil complaint for specific
performance and damages before another RTC.
The defendants in the civil case were Co and all
other parties to the withdrawal authorities
including FRCC. The complaint asserted two
common causes of action: breach of contract and
abuse of rights. Did Lim commit forum shopping
in filing the civil case for specific performance
and damages during the pendency of her appeal
on the civil aspect of the criminal case for estafa?
A: NO. The filing of the collection case after the
dismissal of the estafa cases against the offender did
not amount to forum-shopping. Although the cases
filed by the offended party arose from the same act
or omission of the offender, they are, however,
based on different causes of action. There can be no
forum-shopping in the instant case because the law
expressly allows the filing of a separate civil action
which can proceed independently of the criminal
action. The two cases herein involve different kinds
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
C2
C2
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
GR: The sufficiency of the statement of cause of
action must appear on the face of the complaint, and
its existence is only determined by the allegations of
the complaint. (Viewmaster Construction Corp. v.
Roxas, G.R. No. 133576, 13 July 2000)
NOTE: Under the 2019 amendments to the ROC,
that every pleading shall contain not only the
statement of ultimate facts but including the
evidence on which a party relies for his or her claim.
(Sec. 1, Rule 8, ROC, as amended)
Moreover, documentary and object evidence in
support of the allegations must be contained in the
pleading. (Sec. 6, Rule 7, ROC, as amended)
XPN: In some cases, the Court considered, in
addition to the complaint, the appended annexes or
documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or
admissions in the records so that such annexes are
considered as parts of the complaint. (Riano, 2019,
citing Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v.
Nicolas, G.R. No. 168394, 06 Oct. 2008; Sps. Zepeda v.
China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 172175, 09 Oct.
2006)
NOTE: The truth or falsity of the allegations is
beside the point because the allegations in the
complaint are hypothetically admitted. (Riano,
2019, citing PNB v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121251,
26 June 1998; Sta. Clara Homeowner’s Association v.
Gaston, G.R. No. 141961, 23 Jan. 2002)
Q: Spouses Bernabe and Rhodora Pamaran
owned adjacent lots respectively. Rosa Pamaran
built her residential house on these lots with the
consent of Rhodora and spouses Bernabe.
Rhodora and Spouses Bernabe constituted real
mortgages over their lots as security for loans
obtained from the Bank of Commerce
(Bankcom). Rosa claimed that Bankcom neither
included her house in determining the loan
amount nor obtained her consent to the real
estate mortgage. Later, Bankcom filed petitions
for issuance of writs of possession, which were
granted by the RTC of Muntinlupa City. Rosa
prayed that Bankcom be ordered to pay her
damages as she was dispossessed of her house
by reason of the writs. The RTC Olongapo
43
granted Bankcom’s motion to dismiss and
accordingly, dismissed the Complaint on the
grounds of lack of cause of action and of
improper venue. How should Bankcom’s Motion
to Dismiss be resolved?
A: Bankcom’s motion to dismiss must be resolved
with reference to the allegations in the Complaint
assuming them to be true. The RTC Olongapo does
not need to inquire on the truthfulness of these
allegations and declare them to be false. If it does,
such court would be denying the plaintiff of her
right to due process of law. In determining whether
a complaint states or does not state a cause of
action, the court must hypothetically admit the
truth of the allegations and determine if it may grant
the relief prayed for based on them. (Rosa Pamaran
v. Bank of Commerce, G.R. No. 205753, 04 July 2016)
Tests to ascertain whether Two Suits relate to a
Single or Common Cause of Action (E-D-E)
1. Evidence – Whether the same evidence would
support and sustain both the first and second
causes of action (Same Evidence Test);
2. Defenses – Whether the defenses in one case
may be used to substantiate the complaint in
the other; and
3. Existence – Whether the cause of action in the
second case existed at the time of the filing of
the first complaint (Umale v. Canoga Park
Development. Corporation, G.R. No. 167246, 20
July 2011)
SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION
AND ITS EFFECTS
Splitting of Cause of Action
It is the act of instituting two or more suits on the
basis of the same cause of action. (Sec. 4, Rule 2, ROC,
as amended) It is the act of dividing a single or
indivisible cause of action into several parts or
claims and bringing several actions thereon. (Riano,
2019, citing Quadra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
147593, 31 July 2006) This practice, which applies
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and
crossclaims, is discouraged.
Rationale
1. Breeds multiplicity of suits;
2. Clogs the court dockets;
3. Leads to vexatious litigation;
4. Operates as an instrument of harassment; and
5. Generates unnecessary expenses to the parties.
(Riano, 2019) (1999, 2005 BAR)
NOTE: The rule against splitting causes of action is
not altogether one of original right but is one of
interposition based upon principles of public policy
and of equity to prevent the inconvenience and
hardship incident to repeated and unnecessary
litigation. (BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Vda de
Coscolluela, G.R. No. 167724, 27 June 2006)
Effect of Splitting a Cause of Action
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. (Sec. 4, Rule 2, ROC, as
amended)
Remedies against Splitting Cause of Action
The defendant may file a motion to dismiss based on
either of the following grounds:
1. Litis pendentia – that there is another action
pending between the same parties for the same
cause; or
2. Res judicata – if the first action has already
been terminated – that the cause of action is
barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of
limitations. (Sec. 12(a), Rule 15, ROC, as
amended)
Rationale
1. Prevent repeated litigation between the same
parties in regard to the same subject or
controversy;
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
2. Protect the defendant from unnecessary
vexation. Nemo debet vexare pro una et eadem
causa (No man shall be twice vexed for one and
the same cause); and
3. Avoid the costs and expenses incident to
numerous suits. (City of Bacolod v. SM Brewery,
G.R. No. L-25134, 30 Oct. 1969)
NOTE: Litis pendentia and forum shopping have
similar elements, so it is best for the counsel to move
for the dismissal based on forum shopping under
Sec. 5, Rule 7 instead, and show that the party or his
counsel willfully and deliberately resorted to forum
shopping. This is because the effect is a dismissal
with prejudice, in addition to the sanction for direct
contempt as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions.
Joinder of Causes of Action (2005 BAR)
It is the assertion of as many causes of action a party
may have against another in one pleading alone.
(Sec. 5, Rule 2, ROC, as amended) It is the process of
uniting two or more demands or rights of action in
one action. (Riano, 2019, citing Unicapital, Inc. v.
Consing, Jr., G.R. No. 192073, 11 Sept. 2013)
Requisites of Joinder of Causes of Action
1. The party shall comply with the rules on joinder
of parties (Sec. 6, Rule 3, ROC, as amended):
a. Right to relief exists in favor of or against
several persons;
b. Right to relief arises out of the same
transaction or series of transaction; and
c. There is a common question of law of law
or fact.
2. The joinder shall not include special civil
actions governed by special rules;
3. Where the causes of action are between the
same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
RTC provided one of the causes of action falls
within the jurisdiction of said court and venue
lies therein; and
44
C2
C2
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
action for unfair competition and may be sued
for acts done against a person or persons in the
Philippines, or may be sued in Philippine
Courts.
5. If it does business in the Philippines without
license, a Philippine citizen or entity which has
contracted with said corporation may be
estopped from challenging the foreign
corporation’s corporate personality in a suit
brought before Philippine courts. (Herrera,
2007)
Rule on Spouses as Parties
GR: Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly,
except as provided by law. (Sec. 4, Rule 3, ROC, as
amended)
NOTE: Husband and wife shall sue and be sued
jointly inasmuch as both are co-administrators of
the community property under the system of
absolute community of property, as well as the
conjugal partnership property. (Feria & Noche,
2013)
XPNs:
1. Arts. 101 & 108, FC – A spouse without just
cause abandons the other or fails to comply
with his or her obligations to the family with
respect to marital, parental or property
relations;
2. Art. 111, FC – A spouse of age mortgages,
encumbers, alienates or otherwise disposes of
his or her exclusive property;
3. Art. 145, FC – The regime of separation of
property governs the property relations
between spouses.
NOTE: In the foregoing exceptions, the
presentation of the final judgment against the
guilty or absent spouse shall be sufficient basis
for the grant of the decree of judicial separation
of property.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
Despite the separation of property, one spouse
may end up being sued and held answerable for
the liabilities incurred by the other spouse
because “the liability of the spouses to creditors
for family expenses, however, be solidary.”
(Riano, 2019, citing Art. 146, FC)
4. Art. 135 – Any of the following shall be
considered sufficient cause for judicial
separation of property:
a. That the spouse of the petitioner has been
sentenced to a penalty which carries with
it civil interdiction;
b. That the spouse of the petitioner has been
judicially declared an absentee;
c. That loss of parental authority of the
spouse of petitioner has been decreed by
the court;
d. That the spouse of the petitioner has
abandoned the latter or failed to comply
with his or her obligations to the family as
provided for in Art. 101;
e. That the spouse granted the power of
administration in the marriage
settlements has abused that power; and
f. That at the time of the petition, the spouses
have been separated in fact for at least one
year and reconciliation is highly
improbable.
5. 5. Art. 142 – The administration of all classes of
exclusive property of either spouse may be
transferred by the court to the other spouse:
a. When one spouse becomes the guardian of
the other;
b. When one spouse is judicially declared an
absentee;
c. When one spouse is sentenced to a penalty
which carries with it civil interdiction; or
d. When one spouse becomes a fugitive from
justice or is in hiding as an accused in a
criminal case.
48
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
NOTE: If the other spouse is not qualified by reason
of incompetence, conflict of interest, or any other
just cause, the court shall appoint a suitable person
to be the administrator. (Art. 142, Family Code)
Kinds of Parties in a Civil Action (R-I-R-N-I-P)
1. Real parties-in-interest;
2. Indispensable parties;
3. Representatives as parties;
4. Necessary parties;
5. Indigent parties; and
6. Pro-forma parties.
REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST
He or she is the party who stands to be: (B-I-E)
1. Benefited;
2. Injured by the judgment in the suit; or
3. The party Entitled to the avails of the suit
(Sec. 2, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: The interest must be ‘real,’ which is a present
substantial interest as distinguished from a mere
expectancy or a future, contingent subordinate or
consequential interest. (Rayo v. Metrobank, G.R. No.
165142, 10 Dec. 2007) It is an interest that is
material and direct, as distinguished from a mere
incidental interest in the question. (Samaniego v.
Aguila, G.R. No. 125567, 27 June 2007)
Reasons why Actions should be filed under the
Name of the Real Party-in-Interest
1. To prevent the prosecution of actions by
persons without any right, title or interest in the
case;
2. To require that the actual party entitled to legal
relief be the one to prosecute the action;
3. To avoid multiplicity of suits; and
4. To discourage litigation and keep it within
certain bounds, pursuant to sound public
policy. (Albano, 2022, citing Oco v. Limbaring,
G.R. No. 161298, 31 Jan. 2006; Stronghold Ins. Co.,
v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 173297, 06 Mar. 2013)
49
NOTE: The mere failure to include the name of a
party in the title of the complaint is not fatal because
the Rules of Court requires the courts to pierce the
form and go into the substance and not be misled by
a false or wrong name in the pleadings. Hence, if the
body indicates the defendant as a party to the
action, his omission in the title is not fatal. (Vlason
Enterprises v. CA, 310 SCRA 26, 58-59, G.R. Nos.
121662-64, 06 July 1999)
Q: Miñoza is a duly licensed owner operator of a
cockpit. His temporary license to operate a new
cockpit was revoked. Thereafter, a public
bidding for a 25-year franchise of the cockpit
operation was opened. Among four of the
qualified parties that submitted their cash bids
were Marcelo Epe and Miñoz’s uncle, Jose Uy.
Miñoza did not personally join the bidding.
Marcelo won in the public bidding and was
granted the franchise. Miñoza filed a case to
annul the bidding process and grant of franchise
to Marcelo. The trial court dismissed the
complaint. Can Miñoza file the suit?
A: NO. Miñoza, not being one of the bidders clearly
has no personality to contest the alleged rigged
bidding and grant of the franchise to Marcelo. Every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name
of the real party-in-interest, who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or
the party entitled to the avails of the suit. By real
interest is meant a present substantial interest, as
distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future,
contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest.”
(Miñoza v. Lopez, G.R. No. 170914, 13 Apr. 2011)
Q: The heirs of Hilaria and Elena affirmed the
waiver of rights over a property in favor of
Francisca. However, some of the heirs refused to
do so. This prompted Francisca to file an action
for quieting of title. Estanislao De Vera, not a
named defendant in the case, filed an answer,
presenting himself as the real party-in-interest
on the ground that some of the named
defendants executed a Deed of Renunciation of
Rights in his favor. The RTC admitted his answer
but, later on, set it aside and ordered him to file
a pleading-in-intervention. Can De Vera
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
participate in the case without filing a pleading-
in-intervention?
A: YES. De Vera is not a stranger to the action but a
transferee pendente lite. His interest cannot be
considered and tried separately from the interest of
the named defendants as his rights were derived
from them. De Vera’s interest is not independent of
the interest of the named defendants. There may be
no need for the transferee pendente lite to be
substituted or joined in the case because, in legal
contemplation, he is not really denied protection as
his interest is one and the same as his transferors,
who are already parties to the case. (Medrano v. De
Vera, G.R. No. 165770, 09 Aug. 2010)
Q: Respondent entered into an agreement with
Conpil Realty Corporation (Conpil) for the
purchase of a house and lot and issued two
checks in favor of the latter. When Conpil
deposited the checks, the same were dishonored
and stamped as "Account Closed."
On 04 Feb. 2000, a criminal complaint for
violation of B.P. 22 was filed before the MTC. The
criminal case was titled, “People of the
Philippines v. Mary Ann Resurreccion,” and was
docketed as Crim. Case No. 35066. Although the
checks were issued in favor of Conpil, the
criminal complaint for B.P. 22 was signed by
petitioner Alfredo C. Pili, Jr. (petitioner) as
“Complainant.” Petitioner was, at that time, the
President of Conpil.
After trial, the MTC rendered a judgment
acquitting respondent. However, it ordered
respondent to pay an amount by way of civil
indemnity.
Respondent appealed the MTC's ruling on her
civil liability to the RTC under Rule 122 in
relation to Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. The
appeal that respondent filed was titled, “People
of the Philippines v. Mary Ann Resurreccion”
and was docketed as Crim. Case No. 11-7661-
SPL. The RTC, however, affirmed the Judgment
of the MTC. Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was, however, likewise
denied.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
Respondent thus filed a petition for review
under Rule 122, Section 3(b) in relation to Rule
42 of the Rules of Court with the CA, which was
docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 35178. While the
criminal case was originally captioned, “People
of the Philippines v. Mary Ann Resurreccion,”
respondent’s petition for review was captioned
by her as “Mary Ann Resurreccion v. Alfredo Pili,
Jr.” Nevertheless, Paragraph 12 of petitioner’s
Memorandum filed with the CA in the petition
for review alleged that “Conpil authorized its
President to file cases for violation of BP 22” in
order to enforce its right. The CA held that the
criminal case was not prosecuted in the name of
the real party in interest as Conpil was not
included in the title of the case even if it was the
party: 1) that signed the contract and 2) in
whose favor the checks were issued. On the
other hand, it was petitioner who signed the
complaint and it was his name that appeared in
the title of the case, even though he was not a
party to any of the documents or checks. Is the
decision of the CA correct?
A: NO. It has long been settled that “in criminal
cases, the People is the real party-in-interest and
the private offended party is but a witness in the
prosecution of offenses, the interest of the private
offended party is limited only to the aspect of civil
liability.” While a judgment of acquittal is
immediately final and executory, either the
offended party or the accused may appeal the civil
aspect of the judgment despite the acquittal of the
accused. The real parties-in-interest in the civil
aspect of a decision are the offended party and the
accused.
There is no doubt that the People is the real party-
in-interest in criminal proceedings. As the criminal
complaint for violation of B.P. No. 22 was filed in the
MTC, necessarily the criminal case before it was
prosecuted “in the name of the People of the
Philippines.” This very basic understanding of what
transpired shows ineluctably the egregious error by
the CA in ruling that the Conpil should have been
“included in the title of the case.”
As discussed in Magallanes, the private complainant
is the real party-in-interest only as regards the civil
50
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
aspect arising from the crime. A review of the
records of the instant case unequivocally shows that
the civil aspect of the criminal case was, in fact,
appealed by respondent and that it was Conpil,
being the victim of the fraud, that was the private
complainant therein. (Pili, Jr. v. Resurreccion, G.R. No.
222798, 19 June 2019)
Sole Proprietorship has no Juridical Personality
Separate and Distinct from the Personality of
the Owner
The law merely recognizes the existence of a sole
proprietorship as a form of business organization
conducted for profit by a single individual and
requires its proprietor or owner to secure licenses
and permits, register its business name, and pay
taxes to the national government. The law does not
vest a separate legal personality on the sole
proprietorship or empower it to file or defend an
action in court. The proprietor or proprietress can
be considered as a real party-in-interest and has a
standing to file a case. (Stanley Fine Furniture, Elena
v. Gallano, G.R. No. 190486, 26 Nov. 2014)
Pro forma Party
One who is joined as a plaintiff or defendant, not
because such party has any real interest in the
subject matter or because any relief is demanded,
but merely because the technical rules of pleadings
require the presence of such party on the record.
(Samaniego v. Agulia, G.R. No. 125567, 27 June 2000)
INDISPENSABLE PARTY
Party in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action. (Sec. 7, Rule
3, ROC, as amended) An indispensable party is one
whose interest in the subject matter of the suit and
the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined
with other parties that his legal presence as a party
to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. (Riano,
2019, citing Benedicto-Muñoz v. Cacho-Olivares, G.R.
No. 179121, 09 Nov. 2015)
NOTE: The joinder of indispensable parties is
mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is
necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which
51
is the authority to hear and determine a cause, the
right to act in a case. (Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz,
et al., G.R. No. 166302, 28 July 2005) The absence of
an indispensable party renders all subsequent
actions of the court null and void for want of
authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but
even as to those present. (Riano, 2019)
The joinder of all indispensable parties is a
condition sine qua non for the exercise of judicial
power. While the failure to implead an
indispensable party is not per se a ground for the
dismissal of an action, the absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions
of the court null and void for want of authority to
act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to
those present. The judgment is vulnerable to attack
even when no appeal has been taken and does not
become final in the sense of depriving a party of his
right to question its validity. (TESDA v. Abragar, G.R.
No. 201022, 17 Mar. 2021)
Tests to determine whether a Party is an
Indispensable Party
1. Can relief be afforded to the plaintiff without
the presence of the other party?
2. Can the case be decided on its merits without
prejudicing the rights of the other party?
(Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, 15
July 2003)
Unwilling Co-Plaintiff
A party who is supposed to be a plaintiff but whose
consent to be joined cannot be obtained, as when he
refuses to be a party to the action. He may be made
a defendant, and the reasons therefor shall be stated
in the complaint. (Sec. 10, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
Q: Conrado Nobleza, Sr. owned a 313-square
meter parcel of land located in Iloilo City
covered by TCT No. T- 12255. Upon Conrado’s
death some of his children sold their respective
interests over the subject land to a certain
Santiago for a consideration of 447,695.66, as
embodied in a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement
or Adjudication with Deed of Sale which was,
however, not signed by the other heirs who did
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
NOTE: 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 otherwise
provided. (Sec. 21, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS
Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of
several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join
any or all of the m in the alternative, although a right
to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right
to relief against the other. (Sec. 13, Rule 3, ROC, as
amended)
COMPULSORY AND PERMISSIVE
JOINDER OF PARTIES
Compulsory Joinder of Parties (2009 BAR)
The joinder of parties becomes compulsory when
the one involved is an indispensable party. (Riano,
2019)
The plaintiff is mandated to implead all the
indispensable parties, considering that the absence
of one such party renders all subsequent action of
the court null and void for want of authority to act,
not only as to the absent parties but even as to those
present. One who is a party to a case is not bound by
any decision of the court; otherwise, he will be
deprived of his right to due process. (Sepulveda, Sr.
v. Pelaez, G.R. No. 152195, 31 Jan. 2005)
Effect of Failure to join an Indispensable Party
(2017, 2015 BAR)
The presence of indispensable parties is a condition
for the exercise of juridical power and when an
indispensable party is not before the court, the
action should be dismissed. (Riano, 2019, citing
Lucman v. Malawi, G.R. No. 159794, 19 Dec. 2006)
However, an outright dismissal is not the immediate
remedy authorized because, under the Rules,
misjoinder/non-joinder of parties is NOT a ground
for dismissal. It is when the order of the court to
implead an indispensable party goes unheeded may
the case be dismissed. In such a case, the court may
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
dismiss the complaint due to the fault of the plaintiff
as when he does not comply with any order of the
court (Sec. 3, Rule 17, ROC, as amended) such as an
order to join indispensable parties. (Riano, 2019,
citing Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519, 31 Mar. 2009)
Effect of Non-Joinder of a Necessary Party
1. The court may order the inclusion of the
omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his
person may be obtained;
2. The failure to comply with the order for his
inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be
deemed a waiver of the claim against such
party; and
3. The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not
prevent the court from proceeding in the action,
and the judgment rendered therein shall be
without prejudice to the rights of such
necessary party. (Sec. 9, Rule 3, ROC, as
amended)
Requisites of Permissive Joinder of Parties
(2002 BAR)
1. Right to relief arises out of the same transaction
or series of transactions (connected with the
same subject matter of the suit); and
2. There is a question of law or fact common to all
the plaintiffs or defendants.
NOTE: There is a question of law in a given case
when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question
of fact when doubt arises as to the truth or the
falsehood of alleged facts. (Manila Bay Club Corp. v.
CA, et al., G.R. No. 110015, 11 Jan. 1995)
Rationale of Permissive Joinder of Parties
The purpose and aim of the principle is to have
controversies and the matters directly related
thereto settled once and for all once they are
brought to the courts for determination. Litigation
is costly both to litigants and to the State, and the
objective of procedure is to limit its number or
54
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
joinder does not warrant the dismissal of the
complaint.
b. If the case should proceed to trial without
Grieg being impleaded as a party to the case,
what is his remedy to protect his interest?
(2015 BAR)
A: The remedy of Grieg is to file a motion for leave
to intervene. Under Rule 19, a person who has a legal
interest in the matter in litigation may intervene in
the action. Here Grieg is a mortgagee and such fact
was annotated in the title. Hence, he has a legal
interest in the title subject-matter of the litigation
and may thus intervene in the case.
CLASS SUITS
It is an action where one or some of the parties may
sue for the benefit of all if the requisites for said
action are complied with. (Riano, 2019)
Requisites of Class Suit (S-I-N-Ben) (2005 BAR)
1. Subject matter of the controversy is one of
common or general interest to many persons;
2. Parties affected are so numerous that it is
Impracticable to bring them all before the
court;
3. Parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently
Numerous or representative of the class and
can fully protect the interests of all concerned;
and
4. Representatives sue or defend for the Benefit of
all. (Sec. 12, Rule 3; Sulo ng Bayan v. Araneta, G.R.
No. L-31061, 17 Aug. 1976)
A civil case instituted for the cancellation of existing
timber license agreements in the country by
petitioners on behalf of themselves and others who
are equally concerned about the preservation of the
country’s resources 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. (Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No.
101083, 30 July 1993)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
Instances where the Requisite of Common
Interest is NOT present:
1. Suit brought by a non-stock corporation to
recover property of its members (Sulo ng Bayan
v. Araneta, supra);
2. Recovery of damages for personal reputation,
i.e., in a libel case on behalf of a specific
individual (Newsweek, Inc. v. IAC G.R. No. L-
63559, 30 May 1986);
3. In an action for recovery of real property
individually held i.e., where each of the
defendants has an interest only in the particular
portion of the land he is actually occupying, and
not in the portions individually occupied by the
other defendants (Ortigas & Company, Limited
Partnership v. Hon. Vivencio M. Ruiz et. al., G.R.
No. L-33952, 9 Mar. 1987); and
4. When the interests of parties in the subject
matter are conflicting. (Riano, 2019)
In Ibañes v. Roman Catholic Church (G.R. No.
4695, 12 Dec. 1908), it was held that an action
brought by 17 residents of a town with a
population of 2,460 persons to recover
possession of a holy image was held not to
qualify as a class suit because the plaintiffs did
not represent the membership of the churches
they purport to represent and that the interests
of the plaintiffs conflict with those of other
inhabitants who were opposed to recovery.
(Riano, 2019)
NOTE: Even if the parties are numerous, there must
be a community of interest for a class suit because
the subject matter of the controversy must be of
common interest among all of them. If the class suit
is not proper, the remedy of the parties is either to
bring suit individually or join them all as parties
under the rule on permissive joinder of parties.
Class Suit is Improper for Claimants of Different
Portions of Land
A class suit would not lie because each of the
defendants had an interest only in the particular
portion of the land he was actually occupying, which
56
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
was completely different from the other portions
individually occupied by the other defendants.
(Valencia, et al. v. The City of Dumaguete, et al., G.R.
No. L-17799, 31 Aug. 1962, citing Berces v.
Villanueva, 25 Phil. 473)
A class suit does not lie in actions for the recovery of
real property where separate portions of the same
parcel are occupied and claimed individually by
different parties, to the exclusion of each other.
(Valencia, et al. v. The City of Dumaguete, et al., G.R.
No. L-17799, 31 Aug. 1962, citing Rallonza v.
Evangelists, 15 Phil. 531)
Examples of class suit are taxpayer’s suit and
stockholder’s derivative suit.
Suits against Entities without Juridical
Personality
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 names and
addresses of the persons composing said entity
must all be revealed. (Sec. 15, Rule 3, ROC, as
amended)
NOTE: Persons associated in an entity without
juridical personality, however, cannot sue under
such name, because, as stated in the Rules, its
authority to be a party is confined only to being a
defendant, as is evident from the words “they may
be sued.” (Riano, 2019)
Effect of the Death of a Party upon a Pending
Action (1999 BAR)
1. Purely personal action – the death of either of
the parties extinguishes the claim and the
action is dismissed.
2. Action that is not purely personal – claim is
not extinguished and the party should be
substituted by his heirs, executor or
administrator. In case of minor heirs, the court
may appoint a guardian ad litem for them.
57
3. Action for recovery of money arising from
contract and the defendant dies before entry
of final judgment – it shall not be dismissed but
shall instead be allowed to continue until entry
of judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by
the plaintiff shall be enforced in the manner
provided in the rules for prosecuting claims
against the estate of a deceased person as
rovided under Rule 86 of the Rules. (Sec. 20,
Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: Since the action survives the death of the
defendant, the case shall not be dismissed and the
Court shall merely order the substitution of the
deceased defendant. (Atty. Sarsaba v. Vda. De Te, G.R.
No. 175910, 30 July 2009) (2014 BAR)
The substitute defendant need not be summoned.
The order of substitution shall be served upon the
parties substituted for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the substitute party. (Riano, 2019)
If there is notice of death, the court should await the
appointment of a legal representative; otherwise,
subsequent proceedings are void. (1999 BAR)
CLAIMS THAT SURVIVE VS. CLAIMS THAT DO
NOT SURVIVE
Claims/Actions that Survive
1. Recovery of contractual money /claims (oral or
written) (1999 BAR);
2. Recovery/protection of property rights;
3. Recovery of real or personal property or
interest;
4. Enforcement of lien;
5. Recovery of damages for an injury to person or
property and suits by reason of the alleged
tortious acts of the defendant (Board of
Liquidators v. Kalaw, G.R. No. L-18805, 14 Aug.
1967);
6. Actions and obligations arising from delicts;
(Aguas v. Llemos, G.R. No. L-18107, 30 Aug.
1962); and
7. Ejectment case. (Tanhueco v. Aguilar, G.R. No. L-
30369, 29 May 1970)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Claims that Do Not Survive
1. Purely personal (e.g., legal separation);
2. Performance that cannot be purely delegated;
and
3. Claims that cannot be instituted by executor or
administrator.
NOTE: The question as to whether an action
survives or not depends on the nature of the action
and the damage sued for. In the causes of action
which survive, the wrong complained of affects
primarily and principally property and property
rights, the injuries to the person being merely
incidental, while in the causes of action which do not
survive, the injury complained of is to the person,
the property and rights of property affected being
incidental. (Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. 173292, 01 Sept.
2010)
Substitution of party in Sec. 16, Rule 3 of the ROC
only applies where the claim is thereby not
extinguished or actions that survived after the death
of the party.
Substitution of the Heir of the Deceased Party
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. (Sec. 16, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
In San Juan v. Cruz (G.R. No. 167321, 31 July 2006), it
was held that an heir does not need to first secure
the appointment of an executor or administrator of
the estate of the deceased because, from the very
moment of death, he steps into the shoes of the
deceased and acquires his rights as devisee/legatee.
(Riano, 2019)
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
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
be recovered as costs. (Sec. 16, Rule 3, ROC, as
amended)
Substitution of Heirs is a Requirement of Due
Process
The rule on substitution by heirs is not a matter of
jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process. The
rule on substitution was crafted to protect every
party's right to due process. It was designed to
ensure that the deceased party would continue to be
properly represented in the suit through his heirs or
the duly appointed legal representative of his estate.
Moreover, non-compliance with the Rules results in
the denial of the right to due process for the heirs
who, though not duly notified of the proceedings,
would be substantially affected by the decision
rendered therein. Thus, it is only when there is a
denial of due process, as when the deceased is not
represented by any legal representative or heir, that
the court nullifies the trial proceedings and the
resulting judgment therein. (Sarsaba v. Fe Vda. De
Te, G.R. No. 175910, 30 July 2009)
Estate of the Deceased cannot be a Party in a
Court Action
Neither a dead person nor his estate may be a party
plaintiff in a court action. A deceased person does
not have such legal entity as is necessary to bring
action so much so that a motion to substitute cannot
lie and should be denied by the court. An action
begun by a decedent’s estate cannot be said to have
been begun by a legal person, since an estate is not
a legal entity; such an action is a nullity and a motion
to amend the party plaintiff will not likewise lie,
there being nothing before the court to amend.
Considering that capacity to be sued is a correlative
of the capacity to sue, to the same extent, a decedent
does not have the capacity to be sued and may not
be named a party defendant in a court action.
(Ventura v. Militante, G.R. No. 63145, 05 October
1999)
NOTE: The deceased or his estate cannot be a party
in a civil action since they did not have any capacity
to be sued. Sec. 1, Rule 3, of the ROC as amended
clearly states that “only natural or juridical persons,
or entities authorized by law may be parties in a
civil action.”
58
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
Purpose of Non-Survival of Claims
The reason for the dismissal of the case is that upon
the death of the defendant a testate or intestate
proceeding shall be instituted in the proper court
wherein all his creditors must appear and file their
claims which shall be paid proportionately out of
the property left by the deceased. (Moran, 1979)
Duty of Counsel
Whenever a party to a pending action dies, 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. (Rule 3, Section 16, ROC, as
amended)
Purpose and Importance of Substitution of the
Deceased (2014 BAR)
The purpose behind the rule on substitution of
parties is the protection of the right of every party
to due process. It is to ensure that the deceased
would continue to be properly represented in the
suit through the duly appointed legal representative
of the estate. (Torres v. CA, G.R. No. 120138, 5 Sept.
1997; Vda. De Salazar v. CA, G.R. No. 121510 23 Nov.
1995)
Effect of Non-Compliance with the Rules on
Substitution (1999 BAR)
GR: It renders the proceedings of the trial court
infirm because the court acquired no jurisdiction
over the person of the legal representative. (Brioso
v. Rili-Mariano, G.R. No. 132765, 31 Jan. 2003)
Non-compliance therewith results in the undeniable
violation of the right to due process of those who,
though not duly notified of the proceedings, are
substantially affected by the decision rendered
therein. (Vda. De Salazar v. CA, G.R. No. 121510, 23
Nov. 1995)
XPNs: Where the non-compliance does NOT deprive
the court of jurisdiction:
59
1. When the heirs themselves voluntarily
appeared, participated in the case and
presented evidence in defense of the deceased
defendant (Vda. De Salazar v. CA, G.R. No.
121510, 23 Nov. 1995); or
2. In ejectment cases, where the counsel fails to
inform the court of the death of his client and
thereby results in the non-substitution of the
deceased by his legal representatives.
NOTE: The decision of the court is binding upon the
successors-in-interest of the deceased. A judgment
in an ejectment case may be enforced not only
against defendants but also against the members of
their family, their relatives, or privies who derived
their right of possession from the deceased
defendant. (Vda. De Salazar v. CA, G.R. No. 121510,
November 23, 1995 23 Nov. 1995 citing Florendo Jr.
v. Coloma, G.R. No. L-60544, 19 May 1984)
Death of Counsel; Duty of Party Litigant
It is the party's duty to inform the court of its
counsel's demise, and failure to apprise the court of
such fact shall be considered negligence on the part
of said party. For failure of petitioner to notify the
CA of the death of its counsel of record and have said
counsel substituted, then service of the CA Decision
at the place or law office designated by its counsel
of record as his address, is sufficient notice. The case
then became final and executory when no motion
for reconsideration or appeal was filed within the
reglementary period therefor. (Ventanilla v. Tan,
G.R. No. 180325, 20 Feb. 2013 citing Mojar, et al. v.
Agro Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc.,)
Death or Separation of a Party who is a Public
Officer
The action may be continued and maintained by or
against the successor in the public office if the
following requisites are present:
1. The public officer is a party to an action in his
official capacity;
2. During the pendency of the action, he either
dies, resigns or ceases to hold office;
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
3. It is satisfactorily shown to the court by any
party, within 30 days after the successor takes
office, that there is a substantial need for
continuing or maintaining the action;
4. That the successor adopts or continues or
threatens to adopt or continue the action of his
predecessor; and
5. The party or officer affected has been given
reasonable notice of the application therefor
and accorded an opportunity to be heard. (Rule
3, Sec. 17, ROC, as amended)
Doctrine of Locus Standi
This doctrine requires a litigant to have a material
interest in the outcome of the case. It refers to a
personal and substantial interest in a case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury
because of the challenged governmental act. (Riano,
2019, citing Osmeña III v. Abaya, G.R. No. 211737, 13
Jan. 2016)
However, since the rule is a mere procedural
technicality, the Court has waived or relaxed the
rule, allowing persons who may not have been
personally injured by the operation of a law or a
governmental act. The Court has laid out the bare
minimum norm to extend the standing to sue to the
“non-traditional suiters” as such:
1. Taxpayers – there must be a claim of illegal
disbursement of public funds, or that the tax
measure is unconstitutional;
2. Voters – there must be a showing of obvious
interest in the validity of the law in question;
3. Concerned citizens – there must be a showing
that the issues raised are of transcendental
importance, which must be settled early; and
4. Legislators – there must be a claim that the
official action complained of infringes on their
prerogative as legislators. (Funa v. Agra, G.R. No.
191644, 19 Feb. 2013)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
XPN: Where the transcendental importance of the
issue has been established despite petitioner failed
to show a direct injury. (Prof. David v. Pres.
Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 03 May 2006)
Determinants whether the issue is of
Transcendental Importance:
1. The character of the funds or other assets
involved in the case;
2. The presence of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the
public respondent agency or instrumentality of
the government; and
3. The lack of any other party with a more direct
and specific interest in the questions being
raised. (CREBA v. ERC, G.R. No. 174697, 08 July
2010)
NOTE: The rule on standing will not be waived
where these determinants are not established.
(Advocates for Truth in Lending, Inc. v. Bangko
Sentral Monetary Board, G.R. No. 192986, 15 Jan.
2013, citing Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. The
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 166052, 29 Aug. 2007)
E. VENUE
(RULE 4)
Definition
Venue is the place, or geographical area, in which a
court with jurisdiction may hear and determine a
case. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 1936)
Venue vs. Jurisdiction
See discussion under F. Jurisdiction vs. Venue on
page 28.
Purpose of Rules on Fixing Venue
The situs for bringing real and personal actions is
fixed by the rules to attain the greatest convenience
possible to the party litigants by taking into
consideration the maximum accessibility to them of
60
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
the courts of justice. (Bartiua v. CA, G.R. No. 100748,
03 Feb. 1997)
Q: Can a complaint be dismissed by the court
motu proprio based on improper venue?
A: NO. Improper venue is not one of the grounds
wherein the court may dismiss an action motu
proprio. (Universal Corp. v. Lim, G.R. No. 154338, 05
Oct. 2007) Improper venue is an affirmative defense
which the defendant may raise in his or her answer
seasonably, else it is deemed waived. (Sec. 12, Rule
8, ROC, as amended; Marcos-Araneta, et al. v. CA, G.R.
No. 154096, 22 Aug. 2008)
NOTE: In civil cases, venue is not a matter of
jurisdiction. (Heirs. of Lopez v. de Castro, G.R. No.
112905, 03 Feb. 2000)
Venue becomes jurisdictional only in a criminal
case. Where the Information is not filed in the place
where the offense was committed, the information
may be quashed for lack of jurisdiction over the
offense charged. (Sec. 3, Rule 117, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: For Philippine courts to have jurisdiction
when the abusive conduct or act of violence under
Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 in relation to Section
3(a), Paragraph (C) was committed outside
Philippine territory, the victim be a resident of the
place where the complaint is filed in view of the
anguish suffered being a material element of the
offense. (AAA v. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, 11 Jan. 2018)
Venue of Real Actions (2008 BAR)
The venue is local; hence the venue is the place
where the real property involved or, any portion
thereof, is situated. (Sec. 1, Rule 4, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: An action for annulment of mortgage is a real
action if there has already been a foreclosure sale.
(Chua v. Total Office Products and Services, G.R. No.
152808, 30 Sept. 2005) (2016 BAR)
61
Venue of Personal Actions
The venue is transitory; hence the venue is the
residence of the plaintiff or defendant, at the option
of the plaintiff. (Sec. 2, Rule 4, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: The residence of a person must be his
personal, actual or physical habitation or his actual
residence or abode. It does not mean fixed
permanent residence to which when absent, one has
the intention of returning. Actual residence may in
some cases be the legal residence or domicile, but
for purposes of venue, actual residence is the place
of abode and not necessarily legal residence or
domicile. Actual residence signifies personal
residence, i.e., physical presence and actual stay
thereat. This physical presence, nonetheless, must
be more than temporary and must be with
continuity and consistency. (Jose Baritua v. CA, et al.
G.R. No. 108547, 03 Feb. 1997)
In personal actions, if the plaintiff does not reside in
the Philippines, the complaint in such case may only
be filed in the court of the place where the defendant
resides. There can be no election as to the venue of
the filing of a complaint when the plaintiff has no
residence in the Philippines. (Theodore and Nancy
Ang v. Spouses Alan and Em Ang G.R. No. 186993, 22
Aug. 2012)
Personal actions include those filed for recovery of
personal property, or for enforcement of contract or
recovery of damages for its breach, or for the
recovery of damages for injury committed to a
person or property. (Pamaran v. Bank of Commerce,
G.R. No. 205753, 04 July 2016)
Principal Residence
The venue of personal actions is the court 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. (Marcos-Araneta, et al. v. CA, G.R. No.
154096, 22 Aug. 2008, supra.)
Sec. 2 of Rule 4 indicates quite clearly that when
there is more than one plaintiff in a personal action
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
case, the residences of the principal parties should
be the basis for determining proper venue. (Ibid.)
Rationale for the Addition of the Word
‘Principal’
According to the late Justice Jose Y. Feria, “the word
‘principal’ has been added in order to prevent the
plaintiff from choosing the residence of a minor
plaintiff or defendant as the venue.” Eliminate the
qualifying term “principal” and the purpose of the
Rule would, to borrow from Justice Regalado, “be
defeated where a nominal or formal party is
impleaded in the action since the latter would not
have the degree of interest in the subject of the
action which would warrant and entail the desirably
active participation expected of litigants in a case.”
(Ibid.)
Venue of Actions against Non-Residents
1. Defendant does not reside but IS FOUND in the
Philippines
a. Personal actions: the venue is where
the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides, or where the non-
resident defendant may be found, at
the election of the plaintiff. (Riano,
2019, citing Sec. 2, Rule 4, ROC, as
amended)
b. Real actions: it 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. (Id.
citing Sec. 1, Rule 4, ROC, as amended)
2. Defendant does not reside and IS NOT FOUND
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. (Sec. 3, Rule 4, ROC, as
amended)
NOTE: Unless the Court declares otherwise, it
is submitted that a liberal interpretation of Sec.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
3, Rule 4—giving the plaintiff a choice of venue
in actions affecting any property of a non-
resident defendant who is not found in the
Philippines—would well serve the interest of a
resident plaintiff rather than of the possible
absconding non-resident defendant. (Riano,
2019)
RATIONALE: A more liberal interpretation of
the rule would save the plaintiff from going
through the rigors of travelling to a distant
place to file and prosecute the action. A
contrary interpretation would lead to an
unfortunate situation wherein the defendant
who refuses to pay a just debt would have the
capacity to cause so much inconvenience to an
aggrieved plaintiff. (Riano, 2019)
When the Rules on Venue do not apply
1. In cases where a specific rule or law provides
otherwise (e.g., an action for damages arising
from libel); or
2. Where the parties have validly agreed in
writing before the filing of the action on the
exclusive venue. (Sec. 4, Rule 4, ROC, as
amended)
NOTE: The venue, though technically wrong, may be
acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the
rules on venue had been devised. The trial court
cannot pre-empt the defendant’s prerogative to
object to the improper laying of the venue by motu
proprio dismissing the case. (Dacoycoy v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74854, 02 Apr.
1991)
EFFECTS OF STIPULATIONS ON VENUE
Stipulations on Venue (W-E-B)
The parties may stipulate on the venue as long as
the agreement is:
1. In Writing;
2. Exclusive as to the venue; and
3. Made Before the filing of the action. (Sec. 4(b),
Rule 4, ROC, as amended)
62
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
The parties may agree on a specific venue which
could be in a place where neither of them resides.
(Universal Robina Corp. v. Lim, G.R. No. 154338, 05
Oct. 2007)
NOTE: A stipulation on venue is void and
unenforceable when it is contrary to public policy.
(Sweet Lines v. Teves, G.R. No. 28324, 19 Nov. 1978)
Written Stipulations as to Venue are either
Mandatory or Permissive
In interpreting stipulations, an inquiry must be
made as to whether or not the agreement is
restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only
in the place agreed upon, or permissive in that the
parties may file their suits not only in the place
agreed upon, but also in the places fixed by the
Rules. (Supena v. De la Rosa, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1031,
28 Jan. 1997)
When Venue is Exclusive
Venue is exclusive when the stipulation clearly
indicates, through qualifying and restrictive words
that the parties deliberately exclude causes of
actions from the operation of the ordinary
permissive rules on venue and that they intended
contractually to designate a specific venue to the
exclusion of any other court also competent and
accessible to the parties under the ordinary rules on
venue of actions. (Philippine Banking Corp. v.
Tensuan, G.R. No. 106920, 10 Dec. 1993)
In the absence of restrictive words, the stipulation
should be deemed as merely an agreement on an
additional forum, not as limiting venue. While they
are considered valid and enforceable, venue
stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede
the general rule set forth in Rule 4 in the absence of
qualifying or restrictive words. If the language is
restrictive, the suit may be filed only in the place
agreed upon by the parties. (Spouses Lantin v.
Lantion, G.R. No. 160053, 28 Aug. 2006)
Example of Words with Restrictive Meaning
1. Only;
2. Solely;
63
3. Exclusively in this court;
4. In no other court save —;
5. Particularly;
6. Nowhere else but/except;
7. Words of similar import. (Pacific Consultants
International Asia, Inc. v. Schonfeld, G.R. No.
166920, 19 Feb. 2007)
NOTE: In cases where the complaint assails only the
terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a written
instrument and not its validity, the exclusive venue
stipulation contained therein shall still be binding
on the parties, and thus, the complaint may be
properly dismissed on the ground of improper
venue. (Briones v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 204444,
14 Jan. 2015)
Conversely, therefore, a complaint directly assailing
the validity of the written instrument itself should
not be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation
contained therein and should be filed in accordance
with the general rules on venue. To be sure, it would
be inherently consistent for a complaint of this
nature to recognize the exclusive venue stipulation
when it, in fact, precisely assails the validity of the
instrument in which such stipulation is contained.
(Ibid.)
NOTE: Although venue may be changed or
transferred from one province to another by
agreement of the parties in writing pursuant to the
Rules, such an agreement will not be held valid
where it practically negates the action of the
claimants. (Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Hon. Bernardo Teves,
GR. No. L-37750, 19 May 1978)
Q: Nutri-Asia purchased plastic containers from
Hygienic Packaging Corporation (Hygienic). The
sale was evidenced by Sales Invoice and
Purchase Orders signed by the employee of
Nutri-Asia.
Subsequently, Hygienic filed a complaint for
sum of money before the RTC of Manila pursuant
to the stipulation in the sales invoice that “any
action arising from the transaction should be
filed with the City of Manila.”
Nutri-Asia argued that the venue was
improperly laid since the complaint should have
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2

REMEDIAL LAW
been filed either before the RTC of San Pedro, (Tantuico v. Republic, G.R. No. 89114, 2 Dec.
Laguna or RTC of Pasig City where the principal 1991)
business of Hygienic and Nutri-Asia are located.
The venue stated in the Sales Invoice could not 1. KINDS
bind Nutri-Asia since it did not give its express (RULE 6)
conformity to the stipulation. Is the venue
improperly laid? 1. Complaint;
2. Answer;
A: YES. There is lack of any written contract of sale 3. Counterclaim;
containing the specific terms and conditions agreed 4. Cross-claim;
upon by the parties. They failed to provide evidence 5. Reply;
of any contract which could have contained 6. Rejoinder;
stipulations on the venue. The Court cannot 7. Third party (fourth-party etc.) complaint
consider Sales Invoice and the Purchase Orders as Counter-claim;
contracts that would bind the parties as to the venue 8. Counter-cross-claim; and
of the dispute resolution. 9. Complaint-in-intervention.
The signing of the Purchase Orders by Nutri-Asia’s
employee was limited to acknowledging Hygienics’s
order and facilitating the payment. Since there is no COMPLAINT
contractual stipulation that can be enforced on the
venue, the rules on venue under the Rules of Court Pleading alleging the plaintiff’s or claiming party’s
shall govern. (Hygienic Packaging Corporation v. cause or cause of action. (Sec. 3, Rule 6, ROC, as
Nutri-Asia, Inc., doing business under the name and amended)
style of UFC Philippines, G.R. No. 201302, 23 Jan.
2019) NOTE: The names and residences of the plaintiff
and defendant, if known, must be stated. (Sec. 3, Rule
6, ROC, as amended)
F. PLEADINGS
Evidentiary Facts

Definition Those facts which are necessary for determination

Pleadings are the written statements of the
respective claims and defenses of the parties
submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
(Sec. 1, Rule 6, ROC, as amended) (2007 BAR)
of the ultimate facts; they are the premises upon
which conclusions of ultimate facts are based.
(Tantuico v. Republic, G.R. No. 89114, 02 Dec. 1991)
Ultimate Facts

Functions It is the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's

1. To inform the defendant clearly and definitely
of the claims made against him so that he may
be prepared to meet the issues at trial;
2. To inform the defendant of all material facts on
which the plaintiff relies to support his demand;
and
3. To state the theory of a cause of action which
forms the bases of plaintiff’s claim of liability.
cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be
stricken out without leaving the statement of the
cause of action insufficient. A pleading should state
the ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or
defense asserted, as distinguished from mere
conclusion of fact, or conclusion of law. An
allegation that a contract is valid, or void, as in the
instant case, is a mere conclusion of law. (Remitere
v. Yulo, G.R. No. L-19751, 28 Feb. 1966)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 64

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
NOTE: The allegations of the complaint must be
based on the ultimate facts, including the evidence
on which the party pleading relies for his claims or
defenses which need to be attached to the
complaint. (Sec. 1, Rule 8, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: Basic is the rule that it is the allegations of
the complaint and not the prayer that determines
the basis of the plaintiff’s relief. In the same vein, the
prayer will not be construed as enlarging the
complaint so as to embrace a cause of action not
pleaded therein. (Republic v. Capital Resources Corp.,
G.R. No. 217210, 7 Nov. 2016)
ANSWER
It is the pleading in which the defending party sets
forth his or her affirmative or negative defenses.
(Sec. 4, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
It may likewise be the response to a counterclaim or
a crossclaim. It may be an answer to the complaint,
an answer to a counterclaim, or an answer to a
cross-claim. (Riano, 2019)
Two Kinds of Defenses that may be set forth in
the Answer
1. Negative defenses; and
2. Affirmative defenses
NEGATIVE DEFENSES
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. (Sec. 5(a), Rule
6, ROC, as amended)
Kinds of Specific Denials
1. Absolute denial – the defendant specifies each
material allegation of fact the truth of which he
or she does not admit and, whenever
practicable, sets forth the substance of the
matters upon which he relies to support his
denial;
2. Partial denial – the defendant denies only a
part of the averment, whereby he or she
65
specifies that part the truth of which he admits
and denies only the remainder; and
3. Denial by disavowal of knowledge – the
defendant alleges that he or she is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of a material averment
made in the complaint. (Sec. 10, Rule 8, ROC, as
amended)
This form of denial must be availed of with sincerity
and good faith, not for the purpose of confusing the
other party, nor for purposes of delay. (Warner
Barnes v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-9531, 14 May 1958)
Insufficient Denials or Denials amounting to an
Admission
1. General denial – an admission of the material
averments in a pleading asserting a claim or
claims (Sec. 11, Rule 8, ROC, as amended);
2. Denial in the form of a negative pregnant;
(Riano, 2019) and
3. Denial not under oath regarding actionable
document. (Riano, 2019)
Negative Pregnant
It is a negative implying also an affirmative and
which, although is stated in negative form, really
admits the allegations to which it relates. (Riano,
2019) It is a form of a negative expression which
carries with it an affirmation or at least an
implication of some kind favorable to the adverse
party. (Valdez v. Dabon, A.C. No. 7353, 16 Nov. 2015)
NOTE: It does not qualify as a specific denial. It is
conceded to be actually an admission. Otherwise
stated, it refers to a denial which implies its
affirmative opposite by seeming to deny only a
qualification or an incidental aspect of the allegation
but not the main allegation itself. (Riano, 2019)
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
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2

REMEDIAL LAW
intended to be denied. (Galofa v. Nee Bon Sing, G.R.
No. L-22018, 17 Jan. 1968)
Example: An assertion of a defendant which
questions the amount of money involved in a bank
account but does not deny its existence, when such
is the issue in the case, is said to have admitted the
existence of such bank account. The denial of the
amount of money deposited is pregnant with an
admission of the existence of the bank account.
(Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 152154, 15 July 2003)
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
It 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. (Sec. 5(b),
Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
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.
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. (Delgado v. GQ Realty
Development Corp., G.R. No. 241774, 25 Sept. 2019)
Kinds of Affirmative Defenses
A defendant shall raise his or her affirmative
defenses in his or her answer, which shall be limited
to the following
A. Under Sec. 5(b), Rule 6, 2019 Revised Rules on
Civil Procedure
1. Fraud;
2. Statute of Limitations;
3. Release;
4. Payment;
5. Illegality;
6. Statute of Frauds;
7. Estoppel;
8. Former Recovery;
9. Discharge of Bankruptcy;
10. Any other matter by way of confession or
avoidance; and
11. Grounds for the dismissal of the complaint:
a. The court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter;
b. There is another action pending between
the same parties for the same cause; or
c. The action is barred by a prior judgment.
B. Under Sec. 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Revised
Rules on Civil Procedure
1. The court has no jurisdiction over the person
of the defending party;
2. The venue is improperly laid;
3. 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. (Sec. 12(a), Rule
8, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: Raising affirmative defenses does not
amount to acceptance of the jurisdiction of the
court, but praying for affirmative reliefs is
considered voluntary appearance and acquiescence
to the court’s jurisdiction. (NM Rothschild & Sons
Ltd. V. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co., G.R. No.
175799, 28 Nov. 2011)
According to Rule 6, Section 5(b) of the Rules of
Court, 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. 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.
(Francisco Delgado, represented by Jose Mari
Delgado v. GQ Realty Corp. G.R. No. 241774, 25 Sept.
2019)
COUNTERCLAIMS
It is any claim which a defending party may have
against an opposing party. (Sec. 6, Rule 6, ROC, as
amended) It partakes of a complaint by the

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 66

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Test to Determine whether the Counterclaim is
Compulsory (I-R-E-L)
1. Issues – Are the issues of fact and law raised by
the claim and the counterclaim largely the
same?
2. Res judicata – Would res judicata bar a
subsequent suit on the defendant’s claims,
absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
3. Evidence – Will substantially the same evidence
support or refute the plaintiff’s claim, as well as
the defendant’s counterclaim?
4. Logical relation – Is there any logical relation
between the claim and the counterclaim?
A positive answer to all four questions would
indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory.
(Buncayao v. Fort Ilocandia Property, G.R. No.
170483, 19 Apr. 2010; GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero, G.R.
No. 158090, 04 Oct. 2010)
NOTE: The rule that a compulsory counterclaim not
set up is barred, when applied to the municipal trial
court, presupposes that the amount involved is
within the said court’s jurisdiction. Otherwise, there
would be an absurd situation where a claim must be
filed with the municipal court which it is prohibited
from taking cognizance of, being beyond its
jurisdiction. (Calo v. Ajax International, Inc., G.R. No.
L-22485, 13 Mar. 1968)
For, even if the counterclaim in excess of the amount
cognizable by the inferior court is set up, the
defendant cannot obtain positive relief. The Rules
allow this only for the defendant to prevent the
plaintiff from recovering from him. This means that
should the court find both plaintiff’s complaint and
defendant's counterclaim (for an amount exceeding
said court's jurisdiction) meritorious, it will simply
dismiss the complaint on the ground that defendant
has a bigger credit. Since the defendant still has to
institute a separate action for the remaining balance
of his counterclaim, the previous litigation did not
really settle all related controversies. (Ibid.)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
Counterclaim Arising after the 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.
(Sec. 9, Rule 11, ROC, as amended)
Period to Answer a Counterclaim
A counterclaim or cross-claim must be answered
within twenty (20) calendar days from service. (Sec.
4, Rule 11, ROC, as amended)
Effect on Counterclaim when Complaint is
Dismissed
Notwithstanding the dismissal of the action, the
counterclaim shall not be dismissed in the following
instances:
1. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by the
defendant prior to the service upon him or her
of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Sec. 2, Rule
17, ROC, as amended); and
2. If the dismissal is due to the fault of the plaintiff.
(Sec. 3, Rule 17, ROC, as amended)
When Pleader Failed to Set up a Counterclaim
(Omitted Counterclaim)
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a
cross-claim through oversight, inadvertence, or
excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he or
she may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim
or cross-claim by amendment before judgment.
(Sec. 10, Rule 11, ROC, as amended)
Defendant’s Options when he has Pleaded a
Counterclaim
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
68
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Instances when Third-Party Complaint shall be
Denied and Separate Action must be Instituted
The complaint shall be denied and the defendant
should then institute a separate action, where:
a. The third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant cannot
be located within thirty (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 introduce a new and
separate controversy into the action. (Sec. 11,
Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: Leave of court is necessary in order to
obviate delay in the resolution of the complaint,
such as when the third-party defendant cannot be
located, or when unnecessary issues may be
introduced, or when a new and separate
controversy is introduced. (Herrera, 2007)
When a third-party complaint is filed, it need not be
based on the same theory as that in the main
complaint. It can be a different theory altogether.
(Philtranco Service Enterprises v. CA, G.R. No. 161909,
25 Apr. 2012)
Tests to Determine whether the Third-Party
Complaint is in respect of Plaintiff’s Claim
1. Whether it arises out of the same transaction on
which the plaintiff’s claim is based, or, although
arising out of another or different transaction,
is connected with the plaintiff’s claim;
2. Whether the third-party defendant would be
liable to the plaintiff or to the defendant for all
or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the
original defendant; and
3. Whether the third-party defendant may assert
any defenses which the third-party plaintiff has
or may have to the plaintiff’s claim. (Capayas v.
CFI of Albay, G.R. No. L-475, 31 Aug. 1946)
NOTE: Where the trial court has jurisdiction over
the main case, it also has jurisdiction over the third-
party complaint, regardless of the amount involved
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
as a third-party complaint is merely auxiliary to and
is a continuation of the main action. (Republic v.
Central Surety & Insurance Co., G.R. No. L-27802, 26
Oct. 1968)
Q: Abby obtained a favorable judgment against
UNICAP for a sum of money. For failure to get full
payment, Abby went after UNICAP’s debtor, Ben.
Ben is a policy holder of Insular. The court’s
sheriff then served a notice of garnishment to
Insular over several account receivables due to
Ben. Insular refused to comply with the order
alleging adverse claims over the garnished
amounts. The trial court ordered Insular to
release to Abby the said account receivables of
Ben under the policies. Insular then filed a
petition for certiorari with the CA alleging that
the trial judge gravely abused his discretion
when he issued the garnishment order despite
its adverse claim on the garnished amounts. The
CA gave due course to the petition and annulled
the order of the trial court. Is the CA correct?
A: NO. Neither an appeal nor a petition for certiorari
is the proper remedy from the denial of a third-
party claim. Since the third-party claimant is not
one of the parties to the action, he could not, strictly
speak, appeal from the order denying its claim, but
should file a separate reinvindicatory action against
the execution creditor or a complaint for damages
against the bond filed by the judgment creditor in
favor of the sheriff. The rights of a third-party
claimant should be decided in a separate action to
be instituted by the third person. (Solidum v. CA, G.R.
No. 161647, 22 June 2006)
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
It is a pleading filed for the purpose of asserting a
claim against either or all of the original parties.
(Sec. 3, Rule 19, 2019, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: Intervention is a remedy by which a third
party, not originally impleaded in a proceeding,
becomes a litigant therein to enable him to protect
or preserve a right or interest which may be affected
by such proceeding. (Restaurante Las Conchas v.
Llego, G.R. No. 119085, 09 Sept. 1999, citing First
70
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
Philippine Holdings Corporation v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 88345, 01 Feb. 1996)
Kinds of Pleadings-in-Intervention
1. Complaint-in-intervention – If intervenor
asserts a claim against either or all of the
original parties.
2. Answer-in-intervention – If intervenor unites
with the defending party in resisting a claim
against the latter (Sec. 3, Rule 19, ROC, as
amended)
NOTE: Intervention is never an independent action,
but is ancillary and supplemental to an existing
litigation, and in subordination to the main
proceeding. (Saw v. CA, G.R. No. 90580, 08 Apr. 1991)
An intervention is merely an interlocutory
proceeding dependent or subsidiary to the main
action. If the main action ceased to exist, there is no
pending proceeding wherein the intervention may
be based. A judgment approving a compromise
agreement is final and immediately executory.
Continuance of an intervention in this case would
serve no purpose at all. (Ordoñez v. Gustillo, G.R. No.
81835, 20 Dec. 1990)
Requisites for an Intervention by a Non-Party in
an Action pending in Court (2000 BAR)
1. There must be a motion for leave to intervene
filed before rendition of judgment by the trial
court.
2. Movant must show that he or she has a:
a. Legal interest in the matter in controversy;
b. Legal interest in the success of either of the
parties; or
c. Legal interest against both; or
d. 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.
e. Intervention will not unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of
original parties; and
f. Intervenor’s rights may not be fully
protected in a separate proceeding. (Sec. 1,
Rule 19, ROC, as amended)
71
NOTE: In general, an independent controversy
cannot be injected into a suit by intervention, hence,
such intervention will not be allowed where it
would enlarge the issues in the action and expand
the scope of the remedies. It is not proper where
there are certain facts giving the intervenor’s case
an aspect peculiar to himself and differentiating it
clearly from that of the original parties; the proper
course is for the would-be intervenor to litigate his
claim in a separate suit. (Mactan-Cebu International
Airport Authority v. Heirs of Minoza, G.R. No. 186045,
02 Feb. 2011)
How to Intervene
1. With leave of court, the court shall consider the
requisites mentioned in Section 1, Rule 19;
2. Motion to intervene may be filed at any time
before rendition of judgment by the trial court
(Sec. 2, Rule 19, ROC, as amended); and
3. Copy of the pleadings-in-intervention shall be
attached to the motion and served on the
original parties. (Sec. 2, Rule 19, ROC, as
amended)
When to Intervene
GR: The motion to intervene must be filed at any
time before rendition of judgment by the trial court.
(Sec.2, Rule 19, ROC, as amended)
XPNs:
1. With respect to indispensable parties,
intervention may be allowed even on appeal
(Falcasantos v. Falcasantos, G.R. No. L-4627, 29
Mar. 1952);
2. When the intervenor is the Republic (Lim v.
Pacquing, G.R. No. 115044, 27 Jan. 1995); and
3. Intervention may be allowed after judgment
where necessary to protect some interest which
cannot otherwise be protected, and for the
purpose of preserving the intervenor’s right to
appeal. (Pinlac v. CA, G.R. No. 91486, 10 Sept.
2003)
Remedies for Denial of Motion for Intervention
Where the lower court’s denial of a motion for
intervention amounts to a final order, an appeal is
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
the proper remedy, as when the denial leaves the
intervenor without further remedy or resort to
judicial relief.
A prospective intervenor’s right to appeal applies
only to the denial of his intervention. Not being a
party to the case, a person whose intervention the
court denied has no standing to question the
decision of the court. (Foster-Gallego v. Sps. Galang,
G.R. No. 130228, 27 July 2004)
Answer to Complaint-in-Intervention
The original parties are required to file an answer to
the complaint-in-intervention within 15 days from
notice of the order admitting the same, unless a
different period is fixed by the court. (Sec. 4, Rule 19,
ROC, as amended)
NOTE: Failure to file the required answer can give
rise to default. (Lim v. National Power Corporation,
G.R. No. 178789, 14 Nov. 2012)
REPLY
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.
(Sec. 10, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
It is a responsive pleading to an answer.
NOTE: 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. (Sec. 4, Rule
19, ROC, as amended)
Filing of Reply is not Mandatory
As a rule, the filing of a reply to the answer is not
mandatory and will not have an adverse effect on
the plaintiff. Under Sec. 10 of Rule 6, if a party does
not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the
answer are deemed controverted or denied. No
admission follows from the failure to file a reply.
(Riano, 2019)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
NOTE: New matters or material allegations in the
answer need not be denied because they are
deemed denied by the Rules for the plaintiff. (Riano,
2019)
When a Reply may be filed
The plaintiff may file a reply ONLY if the defending
party attaches an actionable document to his
answer. (Sec. 10, Rule 6, ROC)
Necessity of Filing a Reply under Oath
Where the defense in the answer is based on an
actionable document, a reply under oath pursuant
to Sec. 8 of Rule 8 may be made. Otherwise, the
genuineness and due execution of the document
shall be deemed admitted.
REJOINDER
A rejoinder is the defendant’s answer to the
plaintiff’s replication. (Bouvier, 6th ed., 1856)
When a Rejoinder may be filed
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.
(Sec. 10, Rule 6, ROC, as amended) Therefore, the
rejoinder is limited to said actionable document.
PLEADINGS ALLOWED UNDER RULES ON
EXPEDITED PROCEDURES IN THE FIRST LEVEL
COURTS (A.M. NO. 08-8-7-SC, March 1,2022)
Pleadings allowed in Small Claims Cases
1. Statement of Claim with verification and
certification against forum shopping, splitting
a single cause of action, and multiplicity of suits
(Form 1-SSC) and duly certified photocopies of
the actionable document/s subject of the claim,
affidavits of witnesses, and other evidence to
support the claim, with as many copies thereof
as there are defendants. No evidence shall be
allowed during the hearing which was not
attached to the claim unless good cause is
72
C2

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

shown for the admission of the evidence. (Sec. Sec. 417 of the Local Gov’t Code. (Sec. 4, A.M. No.
4, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC) 08-8-7-SC)

2. Response; Pleadings allowed in Cases covered by the Rules

3. Counterclaim: on Summary Procedure
a. Compulsory counterclaim
i. Is within the coverage of the Rule, 1.
exclusive of interest and costs; 2.
ii. Arises out of the same transaction or
event that is the subject matter of the
plaintiff’s claim;
iii. Does not require for its adjudication
the joinder of third parties; and
iv. Is not a subject of another pending
action. (Sec. 15, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)
Complaint;
Compulsory counterclaim;
NOTE: While in small claims cases, permissive
counterclaim is allowed as long as the amount
and nature thereof are within the coverage of
the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims cases,
the same is not allowed under the Rules on
Summary Procedure.

b. Permissive counterclaim 3. Crossclaims pleaded in the answer; and

Counterclaim against the plaintiff that does not
arise out of the same transaction or occurrence,
provided that the amount and nature thereof
are within the coverage of the Rule and the
prescribed docket and other legal fees are paid.
(Sec. 15, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)
Civil Cases covered by the Rule on Small Claims
Claims or demands may be:
1. For money owed under any of following:
4. Reply.
Prohibited Pleadings, Motions and Petitions in
Small Claims and Summary Procedure
1. In civil cases, a Motion to Dismiss the complaint
or the statement of claim, and in criminal cases,
a motion to quash the complaint or information,
except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter or failure to comply with the
requirement of barangay conciliation, pursuant
to Chapter VII, Title I, Book III of Republic Act
No. 7160;

a. Contract of lease; In cases covered by small claims, a Motion to

b. Contract of loan; Dismiss is a prohibited pleading which admits
c. Contract of services; no exceptions. (SC En Banc Resolution dated
d. Contract of sale; or October 27, 2009 in A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)
e. Contract of mortgage;
2. Motion to hear and/or resolve affirmative
NOTE: On 01 Mar. 2022, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC was defenses;
amended by the SC, which increases the amount 3. Motion for a bill of particulars;
of small claims to P1,000,000, exclusive of 4. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
interest and costs. (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as judgment, or for reopening of proceedings;
amended)
NOTE: Judgment referred herein is a judgment
2. For liquidated damages arising from contract; on the merits.
and
3. For the enforcement of a barangay amicable 5. Petition for relief from judgment;
settlement or an arbitration award involving a 6. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
money claim covered by this rule pursuant to affidavits, or any other paper;
7. Memoranda;

73 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2

REMEDIAL LAW
8. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or additional witnesses, no other witness or affidavit
prohibition against any interlocutory order shall be heard or admitted by the court; and
issued by the court;
9. Motion to declare the defendant in default; 8. Documentary and object evidence in support of
10. Dilatory motions for postponement. Any the allegations contained in the pleading. (Secs.
motion for postponement shall be presumed 1-6, Rule 7, ROC, as amended)
dilatory unless grounded on acts of God, force
majeure, or physical inability of a counsel or CAPTION
witness to personally appear in court, as
supported by the requisite affidavit and medical The caption sets forth the: (N-T-D)
proof;
11. Rejoinder 1. Name of the court;
12. Third-party complaints; 2. Title of the action; and
13. Motion for and Complaint in Intervention; 3. Docket number, if assigned (Sec. 1, Rule 7, ROC,
14. Motion to admit late judicial affidavit/s, as amended).
position papers, or other evidence, except on
the ground of force majeure or acts of God; and The title of the action indicates the names of the
15. Motion for judicial determination of probable parties. They shall all be named in the original
cause in criminal cases. (Sec. 2, Rule II, A.M. No. complaint or petition but in subsequent pleadings,
08-8-7-SC) it shall be sufficient if the name of the first party on
each side be stated with an appropriate indication
2. PARTS OF A PLEADING when there are other parties. (Ibid.)
(RULE 7)
Their respective participation in the case shall be
1. Caption; indicated. (Ibid.)
2. Body – sets forth its designation, the allegations
of the party’s claims or defenses, the relief BODY
prayed for, and the date of the pleading:
Sets forth the pleading’s designation, the allegations
a. Paragraphs; of party's claims or defenses, the relief prayed for,
b. Headings; and its date.
c. Relief; and 1. Paragraphs – The allegations in the body of a
d. Date. pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so
numbered as to be readily identified, each of
3. Signature and address; which shall contain a statement of a single set of
4. Verification (whenever required); circumstances so far as that can be done with
5. Certification against forum shopping; convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by
6. Names of witnesses who will be presented to its number in all succeeding pleadings.
prove a party’s claim or defense;
7. Summary of the witnesses’ intended testimonies, 2. Headings
provided that the judicial affidavits of said a. When two or more causes of action are
witnesses shall be attached to the pleading and joined, the statement of the first shall
form an integral part thereof. be prefaced by the words “first cause of
action,” of the second by “second cause
NOTE: Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits of action,” and so on for the others.
are attached to the pleading shall be presented by
the parties during trial. Except if a party presents b. When one or more paragraphs in the
meritorious reasons as basis for the admission of answer are addressed to one of several
causes of action in the complaint, they

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 74

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
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.
3. 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.
4. Date (Sec. 2, Rule 7, ROC, as amended)
SIGNATURE AND ADDRESS
Every pleading and other written submissions to
the court must be signed by the party or counsel
representing him or her. (Sec. 3, Rule 7, ROC, as
amended)
Effect of Counsel’s Signature
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by
him that:
1. He has read the pleading and document;
2. To the best of his knowledge, information, and
belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
under the circumstances:
a. It is not being presented for any improper
purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase
the cost of litigation;
b. The claims, defenses, and other legal
contentions are warranted by existing law
or jurisprudence, or by a nonfrivolous
argument for extending, modifying, or
reversing existing jurisprudence;
c. 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
75
d. 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. (Sec. 3, Rule 7, ROC,
as amended)
Effect of Violation of the Rule on Signature and
Address
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, on
any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the
rule, or is responsible for the violation. (Ibid.)
NOTE: Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm
shall be held jointly and severally liable for a
violation committed by its partner, associate, or
employee. (Ibid.)
Sanctions for Non-Compliance
Sanction shall include, but shall not be limited to:
1. Non-monetary directive or sanction;
2. An order to pay a penalty in court; or
3. If imposed on motion and warranted for
effective deference, an order directing
payment to the movant of part or all 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. (Sec. 3, Rule 7, ROC, as amended)
VERIFICATION
How Pleadings are Verified
It 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 of special power of attorney, should be
attached to the pleading, and shall allege the
following attestations: (T-No-Fact)
1. The allegations in the pleading are True and
correct based on his or her personal
knowledge, or based on authentic documents;
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2

REMEDIAL LAW
2. The pleading is Not filed to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the
cost of litigation; and
3. The Factual allegations therein have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likewise have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for
discovery.
The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a
certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in
the pleading. (Sec. 4, Rule 7, ROC, as amended)
14. Petition for appointment of general guardian;
15. Petition for leave to sell or encumber property
of an estate by a guardian;
16. Petition for the declaration of competency of a
ward;
17. Petition for habeas corpus;
18. Petition for change of name;
19. Petition for voluntary judicial dissolution of a
corporation;
20. Petition for correction or cancellation of
entries in Civil Registry (Sec.1, Rule 108, ROC, as
amended); and
21. All other initiatory pleadings, e.g., Complaint

NOTE: Pleadings need not be under oath, verified or
accompanied by affidavit, except when so required
by law or a rule (Ibid.)
Significance of Verification
It is intended to secure an assurance that the
allegations in a pleading are true and correct and
not the product of the imagination or a matter of
speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good
faith. (Riano, 2019, citing Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R.
No. 167471, 05 Feb. 2007; BPI v. CA, G.R. No. 170625,
17 Oct. 2008)
Example of Pleadings that must be Verified
Effects of Lack of or Defective Verification
A pleading required to be verified that contains a
verification based on “information and belief,” or
upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks
the proper verification shall have the following
effects:
1. It shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
(Sec. 4, Rule 7, ROC, as amended)
2. It does not necessarily render the pleading
defective. (Datem, Inc. v. Alphaland Makati
Place, Inc., G.R. Nos. 242904-05, 10 Feb. 10,
2021)

1. Petition for relief from judgment; 3. The absence of verification may be corrected
2. Petition for review from the RTCs to the CA; by requiring an oath. The rule is in keeping
3. Petition for review from the CTA and quasi- with the principle that rules of procedure are
judicial agencies to the CA; established to secure substantial justice and
4. Appeal by certiorari from the CA to the SC; that technical requirements may be dispensed
5. Petition for annulment of judgments or final with in meritorious cases. (Ibid.)
orders and resolutions;
6. Complaint for injunction; CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
7. Application for appointment of receiver;
8. Application for support pendente lite; Forum Shopping (2006 BAR)
9. Petition for certiorari against the judgments,
final orders or resolutions of constitutional It is an act of a party against whom an adverse
commissions; judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking
10. Petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another
quo warranto forum, other than by appeal or the special civil
11. Complaint for expropriation; action of certiorari. (Sps. Carpio v. Rural Bank of Sto.
12. Complaint for forcible entry or unlawful Tomas Batangas, G.R. No. 153171, 04 May 2006)
detainer;
13. Petition for indirect contempt;

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 76

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
Elements of Forum Shopping:
1. Identity of parties, or at least such parties
representing the same interests in both actions;
2. Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for,
the relief being founded on the same facts; and
3. The identity of 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. (Buan v. Lopez, G.R. No. 75349, 13
Oct. 1986)
Q: Yu Han Yat filed a Petition for Quieting of Title
before the RTC of Quezon City. Bernas also filed
an Answer with Application for Injunctive Relief
to restrain Yu Han Yat from undertaking
development works on the subject property.
Respondent claims that petitioners violated the
rule against forum shopping when petitioner
Bernas failed to inform the Court that a similar
case was pending because Mejia had filed an
appeal of the assailed CA Decision subsequent to
the filing by Bernas. This failure supposedly
constitutes a violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the
Rules of Court. In addition, respondent also
asserts that since the heirs of Esperanza Nava
(Heirs of Nava) did not appeal the CA Decision,
then the same constitutes res judicata as
regards petitioners Bernas and Mejia. Thus, the
case should be dismissed. Are the contentions
correct?
A: NO. There is forum shopping where there exist:
(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions; (b)
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the
identity of the two preceding particulars is such that
any judgment rendered in the pending case,
regardless of which party is successful would
amount to res judicata.
While there was identity of rights asserted and relief
prayed for, there was no identity of parties in the
case at bar. Granted that both Mejia and Bernas
trace their title from Nava, this does not, by itself,
make their interests identical. Bernas' and Mejia's
interests remain separate, and a judgment on one
77
will not amount to res judicata on the other as, for
instance, Bernas could, and did, raise the defense
that he was an innocent purchaser for value of the
subject property and thus should not be bound by
any adverse judgment should Mejia's title be found
defective.
The same reasoning applies to respondent's
assertion that Mejia's and Bernas' claims were now
barred by res judicata because the Heirs of Nava did
not appeal. The heirs of Nava hold an interest
separate from Mejia's and Bernas', and the latter
could not be adversely affected by the fact that the
Heirs of Nava no longer filed an appeal. (Jose A.
Bernas v. Estate of Felipe Yu Han Yat, G.R. No. 195908,
15 Aug. 2018)
Nature of the Certification against Forum
Shopping
It is a mandatory requirement in filing a complaint
and other initiatory pleadings asserting a claim or
relief. (Sec. 5, Rule 7, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: This rule also applies to special civil actions
since a special civil action is governed by the rules
for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific
rules prescribed for special civil action. (Riano,
2019, citing Wacnang v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178024,
17 Oct. 2008)
Res judicata may also be applied to decisions
rendered by agencies in judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings and not to purely administrative
proceedings. Thus, shopping, in the concept of res
judicata, is applicable to judgments or decisions of
administrative agencies performing judicial or
quasi-judicial functions. (Malixi v. Baltazar, G.R. No.
208224, 22 Nov. 2017)
NOTE: The dismissal of all cases involved in forum
shopping is a punitive measure against the
deplorable practice of litigants resorting to different
fora to seek similar reliefs, so that their chances of
obtaining a favorable judgment is increased. This
results in the possibility of different competent
tribunals arriving at separate and contradictory
decisions. Moreover, it adds to the congestion of the
heavily burdened dockets of the courts. To avoid
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
this grave evil, the Court has held that the rules on
forum shopping must be strictly adhered to. (The
Heirs of Inocentes and Raymundo Mampo v. Josefina
Morada, G.R. No. 214526, 03 Nov. 2020)
Q: Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity
Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) filed a Joint
Complaint-Affidavit charging Emelita Maraasin
Braña with violation of Sections 7 and 8 of R.A.
No. 3019 and Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713, Articles
171 (4) and 183 of the RPC, Grave Misconduct,
and Serious Dishonesty. The DOF-RIPS alleged
that Braña acquired illegal wealth amounting to
P8,708,025.98 from the year 2001 to 2013,
which were disproportionate to her and her
husband's lawful income. The amount was
determined after DOF-RIPS found irregularities
in her SALN in which she failed to disclose
several real and personal properties and made
misleading and inconsistent declarations.
Braña, thereafter, filed several pleadings
assailing the Decision of the Office of
Ombudsman. Braña initially filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Decision on April 19,
2016 on grounds of errors of facts or law that are
prejudicial to her interest. Several days
thereafter, she filed a Petition for Injunction
(with Urgent Application for Issuance of
Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] or Status
Quo Ante Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction [WPI]) which sought to enjoin the
Ombudsman from implementing the Decision.
On April 28, 2016, the CA issued a Resolution
denying the Petition for Injunction by reason of
lack of jurisdiction. Undeterred, Braña filed a
Petition for Certiorari (with Urgent Application
for Issuance of TRO or Status Quo Ante Order
and/or WPI) under Rule 65, assailing the
implementation of the January 27, 2016
Decision, while her Motion for Reconsideration
was pending resolution. Is Braña’s fact of filing
of three successive petitions with the Court of
Appeals a violation of the rule against forum
shopping?
A: NO. Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who
repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in
different courts, simultaneously or successively, all
substantially founded on the same transactions and
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
the same essential facts and circumstances, and all
raising substantially the same issues, either pending
in or already resolved adversely by some other
court, to increase his chances of obtaining a
favorable decision if not in one court, then in
another.
The circumstances in the filing of the pleadings
negate forum shopping. Braña, in filing the Petition
for Certiorari, sought to prevent the
implementation of the assailed Decision of the
petitioner pending resolution of her Motion for
Reconsideration. The Petition for Review, on the
other hand, is an appeal on the assailed Order of the
Ombudsman which dismissed the Motion for
Reconsideration.
The reliefs sought for in the pleadings are dissimilar
such that the judgment in one of the petitions is not
a claim preclusion to the other. Furthermore, the CA,
upon consolidation of the petitions, dismissed the
Petition for Certiorari for being moot and academic;
thus, negating the existence of forum shopping.
(Office of the Ombudsman v. Emelita Brana, G.R.
238903, 24 Mar. 2021)
Q: Danes Sanchez filed a complaint for damages
against the University of Santo Tomas for their
refusal to release his Transcript of Records. UST
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
Danes Sanchez sought administrative recourse
before the Commission on Higher Education
(CHED), thus, it had primary jurisdiction to
resolve matters pertaining to school
controversies, and not the Regional Trial Court.
UST claims that Danes is guilty of forum
shopping as it sought recourse with both the
CHED and the RTC. Will UST’s claim prosper?
A: NO. There is no forum shopping in this case
because CHED is without quasi-judicial power and
cannot make any disposition of the case whether
favorable or otherwise. Forum shopping only exists
when a party seeks favorable opinion in another
court after an adverse decision or instituting two or
more actions grounded on the same case hoping for
a favorable decision. (University of Santo Tomas, et
al., v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 165569, 29 July 2010)
78
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
When the Execution of Certification against
Forum Shopping is required (2014 BAR)
The certification against forum shopping is only
required in a complaint or other initiatory pleading,
namely: Permissive counterclaim, Crossclaim, Third
(fourth, etc.) party complaint, and Complaint-in-
intervention. (Sec. 5, Rule 7, ROC, as amended;
Arquiza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160479, 08 June
2005) A petition for the issuance of the writ of
execution is not an initiatory pleading; it does not
require a certification against forum shopping.
Who Executes the Certification against Forum
Shopping
GR: It is the plaintiff or principal party who executes
the certification under oath. (Sec. 5, Rule 7, ROC, as
amended) The certification must be executed by the
party, not the attorney.
Reason: It is the petitioner and not the counsel who
is in the best position to know whether he or she or
it actually filed or caused the filing of a petition. (Far
Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 130068, 01 Oct 1998)
Requirements of a Corporation executing the
Verification/Certification against Forum
Shopping; Rule when the Plaintiff is a Juridical
Person
A corporation exercises its powers through its
board of directors and/or its duly authorized
officers and agents. Physical act, like signing of
documents, can be performed only by natural
persons duly authorized for the purpose by
corporate by-laws or by a specific act of the board of
directors. (Mediserv, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
161368, 05 Apr. 2010)
In the case of corporations, the physical act of
signing may be performed, on behalf of the
corporate entity, only by specifically authorized
individuals for the simple reason that corporations,
as artificial persons, cannot personally do the task
themselves. (Filipinas Eslon Manufacturing Corp. v.
Heirs of Basilio Llanes, et.al., G.R. No. 194114, 27 Mar.
2019)
79
GR: The certification against forum shopping where
the plaintiff is a juridical entity like a corporation,
may be executed by a properly authorized person.
This person may be a lawyer of a corporation. As
long as he or she is duly authorized by the
corporation and has personal knowledge of the facts
required to be disclosed in the certification, such
may be signed by the authorized lawyer. (Riano,
2019, citing National Steel Corporation v. CA, G.R. No.
134468, 29 Aug. 2002)
XPN: The following officers may sign the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping
on behalf of the corporation even in the absence of
a board resolution:
1. Chairperson of the Board of Directors;
2. President;
3. General Manager;
4. Personnel Officer; or
5. Employment Specialist in labor cases
These officers are in the position to verify the
truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in
the petition. (Mid Pasig Land and Development
Corporation v. Tablante, G.R. No. 162924, 04 Feb.
2010)
NOTE: The authorization of the affiant to act on
behalf of a party to execute the verification and/or
the certification against forum shopping, whether in
the form of a secretary’s certificate or a special
power of attorney, should be attached to the
pleading. (Secs. 4 and 5, Rule 7, ROC, as amended)
Q: Corporation XYZ is the petitioner in a civil
case. Alexander, president of corporation XYZ,
signed the certification against forum shopping
on behalf of said corporation without
presenting any proof of authority from the
corporation. Is the certification against forum
shopping valid? If not, how may it be cured?
A: NO. When the petitioner in a case is a
corporation, the certification against forum
shopping should be signed by its duly authorized
director or representative. The authorized director
or representative of the corporation should be
vested with authority by a valid board resolution. A
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
proof of said authority must be attached with the
certification. (PAL v. FASAP, G.R. No. 143088, 24 Jan.
2006)
Execution of Certificate against Forum Shopping
when there are Two or More Plaintiffs
GR: All of them must execute the certification of
non-forum shopping. (Loquias v. Office of the
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 139396, 15 Aug. 2000)
NOTE: Those who did not sign will be dropped as
parties to the case. (Vda. De Formoso v. Philippine
National Bank, G.R. No. 154704, 01 June 2011)
XPN: Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances,
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. (Heirs of
Dinglasan v. Ayala Corp., G.R. No. 204378, 05 Aug.
2019)
Example: When the petitioners are husband and
wife, and the subject property in the case belongs to
the conjugal property of the said petitioners, the
Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping signed by one of
the spouses is deemed to constitute substantial
compliance with the Rules. (Docena v. Hon.
Lapesura, G.R. No. 140153, 28 Mar. 2001)
Substantial Compliance with the Filing of
Certification against Forum Shopping (2016
BAR)
GR: The rule is that the certificate of non-forum
shopping must be signed by all the petitioners or
plaintiffs in a case and the signing by only one of
them is insufficient.
XPN: Rules on forum shopping were designed to
promote and facilitate the orderly administration of
justice and should not be interpreted with such
absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate
and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial
compliance may be availed of with respect to the
contents of the certification. This is because the
requirement of strict compliance with the
provisions regarding the certification of non-forum
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature
in that the certification cannot be altogether
dispensed with or its requirements completely
disregarded. It does not thereby interdict
substantial compliance with its provisions under
justifiable circumstances. (Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita
Cavile, G.R. No. 148635, 01 Apr. 2003)
Q: CGN and other residents of Baguio filed two
complaints to enjoin SMIC from cutting and/or
earth-balling trees. The RTC and the CA
dismissed their complaints. They, thus, filed a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
but only 30 of the 202 petitioners signed the
Verification and Certification against Forum
Shopping. Should the petition be dismissed for
having a defective Verification and Certification
against Forum Shopping?
A: NO. The Court, as emphasized in Altres v. Empleo,
has consistently applied the substantial compliance
rule when it comes to a supposedly defective
verification and certification against forum
shopping attached to a petition. Altres, citing Tan v.
Ballena, mentioned that the purpose of a
verification was to assure this Court that a petition
contains allegations that are true, and that it was
filed in good faith. Thus, the signing of the
verification by some petitioners already served the
purpose contemplated by the verification. However,
when it comes to the certification against forum
shopping, Altres ruled that the non-signing
petitioners shall be dropped from the petition.
Nonetheless, there is an exception: when all
petitioners share a common interest, the signature
of one (1) petitioner in the certification against
forum shopping is enough to satisfy the substantial
compliance rule. Here, petitioners all share a
common interest, which is to declare the cutting or
earth-balling of the trees affected by the Expansion
Project illegal. Hence, the signature of 30 petitioners
to the certification against forum shopping amounts
to substantial compliance with the requirement
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. (Cordillera
Global Network, et al. v. Paje, et al., G.R. No. 215988,
10 Apr. 2019)
Q: Sharwin purchased a townhouse from Riel. A
notarized Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by
Riel in favor of Sharwin. The same was also
80
C2

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

notarized and the purchase price was paid in the ROC. (Dizon v. Matti, Jr., G.R. No. 215614, 17 Mar.
full. However, it was later found that all of the 2019)
documents that were in Sharwin's possession
b. Is the CA correct in dismissing outright Riel’s
were falsified. A case was then filed by Sharwin
Motion for Reconsideration due to the fact
against Riel which was dismissed by the RTC for
that the said pleading was left unsigned by
lack of merit. On appeal, the CA held that since a
petitioner Riel's counsel?
notarized document enjoys the presumption of
regularity, and only clear, strong, and
A. NO. The CA held that every pleading must be
convincing evidence can rebut such
signed by the party or counsel representing him and
presumption, the evidence presented by Riel
that an unsigned pleading produces no legal effect.
was not enough to refute the notarized Deed of
Absolute Sale. The Motion for Reconsideration While the CA is correct in invoking the aforesaid
filed by Riel was also denied by the CA. Thus, a Rule, the rest of Section 3, Rule 7 elucidates that the
petition was filed before the SC questioning the court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to
CA’s decision. be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due
to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. In
a. Is the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping the instant case, the Court accepts petitioner Riel's
attached to the instant Petition valid? explanation that the failure of her counsel to affix his
A. YES. According to Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the ROC, it is signature in the Motion for Reconsideration was
the plaintiff or principal party who should execute due to an honest inadvertence without any
the certification of non-forum shopping under oath. intention to delay the proceedings. (Ibid.)
However, if, for reasonable or justifiable reasons,
the party-pleader is unable to sign the certification, c. Is the CA correct in upholding the sale on the
another person may be authorized to execute the basis of the presumption of regularity of the
certification on his or her behalf through a Special supposedly notarized Deed of Absolute
Power of Attorney. Sale?
Petitioner Riel claims that she, a senior citizen, was
A: NO. In Suntay v. Court of Appeals, the Court held
suffering from sickness while in London, United
though the notarization of the deed of sale in
Kingdom at around the time of the filing of the
question vests in its favor the presumption of
instant Petition, disabling her from traveling to the
regularity, it is not the intention nor the function of
Philippine Embassy to personally execute a
the notary public to validate and make binding an
certification of non-forum shopping. She presented
instrument never, in the first place, intended to have
a Medical Certificate to show that she was in poor
any binding legal effect upon the parties thereto.
medical condition, preventing her from personally
The intention of the parties still and always is the
executing the Certification at the Philippine
primary consideration in determining the true
Embassy.
nature of a contract.
While it is true that at the time of the filing of the
Notarization per se is not a guarantee of the validity
instant Petition, a Special Power of Attorney
of the contents of a document. The presumption of
authorizing a representative to execute the
regularity of notarized documents cannot be made
Certification was not attached, petitioner Riel was
to apply and may be overthrown by highly
able to belatedly submit before the Court a Special
questionable circumstances, as may be pointed out
Power of Attorney fully signed by petitioner Riel
by the trial court. (Ibid.)
and duly authenticated by the Philippine Embassy
in London. The Court has held that the belated
submission of an authorization for the execution of
a certificate of non- forum shopping constitutes
substantial compliance with Secs. 4 and 5, Rule 7 of

81 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2

REMEDIAL LAW
Undertakings of a Party under the Certification b. If the forum shopping is willful and
against Forum Shopping (2007 BAR) deliberate, both (or all, if there are more
than two) actions shall be dismissed with
1. That the party has not commenced or filed any prejudice. (Chua v. Metropolitan Bank &
claim involving the same issues in any court, Trust Co., G.R. No. 182311, 19 Aug. 2009) It
tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the shall be a ground for the summary
best of his knowledge, no such other action or dismissal of the action, and shall constitute
claim is pending; direct contempt, as well as cause for
administrative sanctions on the party of
2. That if there is such other pending action or the counsel. (Sec. 5, Rule 7, ROC, as
claim, a complete statement of the present amended)
status thereof; and
Belated Filing of Certification against Forum
Shopping
3. That if he or she should therefore learn that the
same or similar action or claim has been filed or
GR: The lack of certification against forum shopping
is pending, he or she shall report that fact within
is generally not curable by the submission thereof
five days therefrom to the court wherein his
after the filing of the petition.
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
been filed. (Sec. 5, Rule 7, ROC, as amended)
XPN: In certain exceptional circumstances, the
Court has allowed the belated filing of the
Defects and their Effects
certification.
1. Non-Compliance with any of the
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:
requirements on Certification against Forum
Shopping (2000, 2006 BAR) – It is not curable
1. In Loyola v. CA, et al. (G.R. No. 117186, 29 June
by mere amendment and shall be a cause for the
1995), the Court considered the filing of the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless
certification one day after the filing of an
otherwise provided, upon motion and after
election protest as substantial compliance with
hearing. (Ibid.)
the requirement.
2. Submission of a False Certification – It shall
2. In Roadway Express, Inc. v. CA, et al. (G.R. No.
constitute indirect contempt of court, without
121488, 21 Nov. 1996), the Court allowed the
prejudice to the corresponding administrative
filing of the certification 14 days before the
and criminal actions. (Ibid.)
dismissal of the petition.
3. Non-compliance with any of the
3. In Uy v. LandBank (G.R. No. 136100, 24 July
Undertakings – It shall constitute indirect
2000), the Court had dismissed Uy’s petition
contempt of court, without prejudice to the
for lack of verification and certification against
corresponding administrative and criminal
non-forum shopping. However, it
actions. (Ibid.; Sps. Oliveros v. Sison, A.M. NO. RTJ-
subsequently reinstated the petition after Uy
07-2050, 29 Oct. 2008)
submitted a motion to admit verification and
non-forum shopping certification.
4. Commission of Forum Shopping

In the foregoing cases, there were special

a. If the forum shopping is not considered
circumstances or compelling reasons that justified
willful and deliberate, the subsequent
the relaxation of the rule requiring verification and
case shall be dismissed without prejudice,
certification on non-forum shopping.
on the ground of either litis pendentia or
res judicata.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 82

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
NOTE: Any liberal application of the rule on
attachment of certification against forum shopping
has to be justified by ample and sufficient reasons
that maintain the integrity of, and do not detract
from, the mandatory character of the rule. (Bank of
the Philippine Islands v. CA, G.R. No., 168313, 06 Oct.
2010)
Period to Invoke Rule on Forum Shopping
GR: It should be raised at the earliest opportunity.
(Young v. Keng Seng, G.R. No.143464, 05 Mar. 2003)
XPNs: It may be invoked in later stages only if the
violation arises from or will result in:
1. The loss of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2. The pendency of another action between the
same parties for the same cause;
3. Barring of the action by a prior judgment; or
4. The Statute of Limitations has been crossed.
(Ibid.)
Q: Mayor Miguel of Koronadal City filed an
action against RD Corporation for the
annulment of the deed of absolute sale over
several real properties of Koronadal City with
the RTC. He alleges irregularities thereto but the
RTC dismissed the petition because the
certification against forum shopping was signed
by the City Legal Officer of City of Koronadal and
not by Mayor Miguel. Is the RTC correct?
A: YES. It is the mayor, not the City Legal Officer,
who has the authority to file suits for the recovery
of funds and property on behalf of the city even
without the prior authorization from the
Sanggunian. Here, Mayor Miguel had the authority
to institute the action against RD Corporation.
However, being the proper party to file such suits,
Mayor Miguel must necessarily be the one to sign
the certification against forum-shopping, and not
the City Legal Officer, who, despite being an official
of the City, was merely its counsel and not a party to
the case. (City of Caloocan v. CA, G.R. No. 145004, 03
May 2006)
83
3. MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS
(RULE 8)
a) 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. (Sec. 1, Rule 8, ROC, as amended)
b) ACTION OR DEFENSE BASED ON DOCUMENT
Actionable Document
It is a written instrument or document which is the
basis of an action or a defense (e.g., a promissory
note in an action for collection of a sum of money).
Pleading an Actionable Document
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a
written instrument or document:
1. The substance of such instrument or document
shall be set forth in the pleading; and
2. 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. (Sec. 7,
Rule 8, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: A variance in the substance of the document
set forth in the pleading and the document annexed
thereto does not warrant the dismissal of the action.
(Convets, Inc. v. National Development Co., G.R. No. L-
10232, 28 Feb. 1958) However, the contents of the
document annexed are controlling.
Q: Gemma Ridao obtained a $4,000 loan, as
evidenced by a Promissory Note (PN), with
Handmade Credit and Loans, Inc., a corporation
engaged in the business of lending of money.
Ridao’s brother-in-law, Teofilo Manipon, was
the duly authorized representative of
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Handmade Credit. Ridao obtained two
additional loans, evidenced by another PN. For
failing to pay, Handmade sent Ridao a Demand
Letter. Having received no response, Handmade
filed a Complaint for collection of sum of money
with damages against Ridao. Handmade
attached several annexes. Handmade
emphasized that Ridao had not paid a single
centavo.
In her Answer with Special and Affirmative
Defenses and Counterclaim, Ridao admitted that
she obtained a loan from Teofilo, but that she
had fully paid it through her husband Avelino,
who tendered payments to Teofilo. Ridao
attached Avelino’s payment record consisting of
a copy of a page of a ledger.
A Complaint was filed against Ridao. Ridao, then
contends that Handmade had impliedly
admitted the genuineness and due execution of
the ledger where payment had been
acknowledged by Handmade when Handmade
failed to file a Reply and specifically deny the
actionable document attached by Ridao in her
Answer.
a. Is Ridao correct?
A: NO. A document is actionable when an action or
defense is grounded upon such written instrument
or document. A copy of a page of a ledger is not an
actionable document. The ledger merely indicates
that money was received as payment, but it is not
evidence of the transaction between the parties. The
ledger does not provide for the terms and
conditions of the loan transaction from which a
right or obligation may be established.
b. Has Ridao fully paid her obligations?
A: YES. It is a settled rule in evidence that the one
who alleges payment has the burden of proving it.
The burden of proving that the debt had been
discharged by payment rests upon the debtor once
the debt's existence has been fully established by
the evidence on record. However, when the debtor
introduces some evidence of payment, the burden of
going forward with the evidence—as distinct from
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2023 GOLDEN NOTES
the burden of proof—shifts to the creditor.
Consequently, the creditor has a duty to produce
evidence to show non-payment.
Here, Ridao readily disclosed that she had a loan
obligation with Teofilo and presented the ledger as
proof that through Avelino, she had fully paid for
her loan obligation. Since Ridao had shown evidence
of payment, upon presentation of Avelino's
payment record, then the burden to go forward with
the evidence and to prove non-payment shifted to
Handmade, which the latter failed to overcome.
(Gemma Ridao v. Handmade Credit and Loans, Inc.,
G.R. No. 236920, 03 Feb. 2021)
c) SPECIFIC DENIAL
Forms of Denials Amounting to Negative
Defenses
1. Absolute denial – The defendant specifies each
material allegation of fact the truth of which he
or she does not admit and, whenever
practicable, sets forth the substance of the
matters upon which he relies to support his
denial;
2. Partial denial – The defendant denies only a
part of an averment; and
3. Denial by disavowal of knowledge – the
defendant alleges that he or she is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of a material averment
made in the complaint (Riano, 2019, citing Sec.
10, Rule 8, ROC, as amended; Philippine Bank and
Communications v. Go, G.R. No. 175514, 14 Feb.
2011) (2004, 2005 BAR)
NOTE: If such matters are plainly and necessarily
within the defendant’s knowledge, a claim of
ignorance of information will not be considered a
specific denial. (Aquintey v. Tibong, G.R. No. 166704,
20 Dec. 2006)
Effect of Failure to Make Specific Denials
GR: Material averments not specifically denied are
deemed admitted.
84