A.

GENERAL PROVISIONS (RULE 1)

Applicability
The Rules of Court shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court. (Sec. 2, Rule 1,
ROC, as amended)

Actions or Proceedings governed by the Rules of Court

1. Civil actions;
2. Criminal actions; and
3. Special Proceedings. (Sec. 3, Rule 1, ROC, as amended)

Actions or Proceedings NOT governed by the Rules of Court

1. Election cases;
2. Land registration cases;
3. Cadastral cases;
4. Naturalization cases; and
5. Insolvency proceedings.

NOTE: The Rules may still apply to the cases above by analogy or in suppletory character and whenever practicable
and convenient. (Sec. 5, Rule 1, ROC, as amended)

Commencement of Civil Action

A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is impleaded in a
later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on the date of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective
of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court. (Sec. 5, Rule 1, ROC, as amended)

It can be instituted by filing the complaint by personal service, by registered mail, by accredited courier, by electronic
mail or other electronic means as may be authorized by the Court. (Sec. 3, in relation to Section 14(a), Rule 13, ROC,
as amended)

NOTE: It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed
docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. (Heirs of Hinog v.
Melicor, G.R. No. 140954, 12 Apr. 2005)

Construction
The Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding. (Sec. 6, Rule 1, ROC, as amended)

Ordinary Civil Actions - It is one in which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right or the
prevention or redress of a wrong. (Sec. 3(a), Rule 1, ROC, as amended)
It is governed by ordinary rules. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed.; Words and Phrases, Vol. 2)

Subject Matter of an Action - It is the physical facts, the thing, real or personal, the money, lands, chattels, and the
like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted. (Iniego v. Purganan, G.R. No. 166876, 24 Mar. 2006)

Special Civil Actions - It is one in which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right or the
prevention or redress of a wrong wherein it has special features not found in ordinary civil actions. It is governed by
ordinary rules but subject to specific rules prescribed under Rules 62-71. (Riano, 2019)

Criminal Actions - It is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law. (Sec.
3(b), Rule 1, ROC, as amended)

Civil Actions vs. Special Proceedings

A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong. (Sec. 3(a), Rule 1, ROC, as amended)

A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (Sec. 3(c),
Rule 1, ROC, as amended)

Substantive Law vs. Procedural Law

Substantive law creates, defines or regulates rights concerning life, liberty or property or the powers of agencies or
instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs. (Primicias vs. Ocampo G.R. No. L-6120) It operates
prospectively and cannot be construed retroactively without affecting previous or past rights except when there is a
contrary intent in its provisions.
Procedural law refers to the adjective law which prescribes rules and forms of procedure so that courts may be able to
administer justice. It does not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against the
retroactive operation of statutes.

Rules of procedure can be given retroactive application since there is no vested right therein.

B. CAUSE OF ACTION (RULE 2)

Meaning of Cause of Action

It is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. (Sec. 2, Rule 2, ROC, as amended)
The question as to whether a plaintiff has a cause of action is determined by the averments in the pleadings pertaining
to the acts of the defendant. Whether such acts give him a right of action is determined by substantive law. (Herrera,
2007)

It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over such action are to be
determined from the material allegations of the complaint, the law in force at the time of the complaint is files, and the
character of the relief sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims averred.
Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer to the complaint or a
motion to dismiss the same. (Republic v. Heirs of Paus, G.R. No. 201273, 14 Aug. 2019, J. Caguioa)
Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. (Sec. 1, Rule 2, ROC, as amended)

Elements of a Cause of Action (L-A-C)

1. A legal right in favor of the plaintiff;
2. A correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such rights; and
3. An act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff; or constituting a breach of
the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or
other appropriate relief with a resulting injury or damage which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of
relief from the defendant. (Riano, 2019, citing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Ley Construction and
Development Corporation, G.R. No. 185590, 3 Dec. 2014)

NOTE: A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. Otherwise, there will be splitting of a
single cause of action, which is prohibited.

Cause of Action in Administrative Case

In an administrative case, the issue is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the respondent, but
whether the respondent has breached the norms and standards of the office. (Riano, 2019)

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 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 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. (Section 12(a), Rule 15, ROC, as amended)

Rationale
1. Prevent repeated litigation between the same parties in regard to the same subject or controversy;
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

4. Totality Test - Where claims in all causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount
claimed shall be the test for jurisdiction. (Sec. 5, Rule 2, ROC, as amended) (2002 BAR)

NOTE: A joinder of causes of action is only permissive, not compulsory; hence, a party may desire to file a single suit
for each of his claims. (Riano, 2019) Joinder of Claims in Small Claims cases
The plaintiff may join, in a single statement of claim, one or more separate small claims against a defendant provided
that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed P1,000,000.00. (Rules on Expedited
Procedures in First Level Courts, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)

Misjoinder of Causes of Action - There is a misjoinder when two or more causes of action were joined in one
complaint when they should not be so joined.

This is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the
initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately by filing a motion in relation thereto. (Sec. 6, Rule 2,
ROC, as amended) There is no sanction against non-joinder of separate causes of action.
However, if the plaintiff refuses to sever the misjoined cause of action, the complaint may be dismissed pursuant to
Sec. 3, Rule 17. (ROC, as amended)

C. PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS (RULE 3)

Who may be Parties to a Civil Action
1. Natural persons;
2. Juridical persons:
a. The State and its political subdivisions;
b. Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created by law; and
c. Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the law grants a
juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or member (Art. 44, NCC);

3. Entities authorized by law:

a. Corporation by estoppel is precluded from denying its existence and the members thereof can be sued and
be held liable as general partners (Sec. 21, Corporation Code);
b. A contract of partnership having a capital of three thousand pesos or more but which fails to comply with
the registration requirements is nevertheless liable as a partnership to third persons (Art. 1772 in relation to Art. 1768,
NCC);
c. Estate of a deceased person (Limjoco v. Intestate Estate of Fragante, G.R. No. L-770, 27 Apr. 1948);
d. A legitimate labor organization may sue and be sued in its registered name (Art. 242[e], Labor Code of the
Philippines);
e. The Roman Catholic Church may be a party and as to its properties, the archbishop or diocese to which
they belong (Versoza v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-25264, 22 Nov. 1926); and
f. A dissolved corporation may prosecute and defend suits by or against it provided that the suits:
i. Occur within three (3) years after its dissolution; and
ii. The suits are in connection with the settlement and closure of its affairs. (Sec. 112, Corporation
Code)

NOTE: A deceased person or his estate may not be impleaded as defendant in a civil action as they lack legal
personality. When a person dies, his legal personality ceases and he could no longer be impleaded as respondent in
an ordinary civil suit for collection. (Gaffney v. Butler, G.R. No. 219408, 8 Nov. 2017, J. Caguioa)

Action if the Party Impleaded is NOT Authorized to be a Party

It can be raised as an affirmative defense based on the following grounds:
1. Plaintiff not authorized – the ground that “the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue.” (Sec.12(a), Rule 8, ROC, as
amended)
2. Defendant not authorized – the ground that the “pleading asserting a claim states no cause of action.” (Sec.12(a),
Rule 8, ROC, as amended)

NOTE: A complaint cannot possibly state a cause of action against one who cannot be a party to a civil action. (Riano,
2019)

Rules with regard to the Right of a Foreign Corporation to bring Suit in Philippine Courts
1. If it does business in the Philippines with the required license, it can sue before Philippine courts on any transaction.
(Agilent Technologies v. Integrated Silicon, G.R. No. 154618, 14 Apr. 2004)

2. If it does business in the Philippines without a license, it cannot sue before the Philippine courts. (Id.)

3. If it is not doing business in the Philippines, it needs no license to sue before Philippine courts on an isolated
transaction or on a cause of action entirely independent of any business transaction. (Id.)

4. If it is without license to do business and is not doing business in the Philippines is not disqualified from filing and
prosecuting an 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, Family Code (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.
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, Family Code of the Philippines)

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. 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.

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.

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, 6 Mar. 2013)

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, 6 July 1999)
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, 9 Nov. 2015)

NOTE: The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest
the court with jurisdiction, which is "the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a case". (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)

REPRESENTATIVE AS PARTIES
Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary
capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real property in
interest. (Sec. 3, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)

Who may be representatives:

1. A trustee of an express trust;
2. An executor or administrator; and
3. A party authorized by law or the Rules. (Ibid.)

NOTE: An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without
joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal

NECESSARY PARTY
Those who are not indispensable but ought to be joined as parties:
1. If complete relief is to be accorded to those already parties; or
2. For a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. (Sec. 8, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)

NOTE: Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set
forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. (Sec 9, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)

Rule when the Defendant’s Name or Identity is Unknown

He may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require.
However, when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended accordingly. (Sec. 14, Rule 3,
ROC, as amended)
INDIGENT PARTY (2016 BAR)
He or she is one:
1. Whose gross income and that of his immediate family do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage
of an employee

NOTE: The term "immediate family" includes those members of the same household who are bound together by ties
of relationship but does not include those who are living apart from the particular household of which the individual is a
member (Tokio Marine Malaya v. Valdez, G.R. No. 150107-08, 28 Jan. 2008); and
2. Who does not own real property with a fair market value as stated in the current tax declaration of more than Php
300,000.00. (Sec. 19, Rule 141, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC)

He or she is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for
himself and his family. (Sec. 21, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: He or she shall be exempt from the payment of legal fees.

For purposes of a suit in forma pauperis, an indigent litigant is not really a pauper, but is properly a person who is an
indigent although not a public charge, meaning that he has no property or income sufficient for his support aside from
his labor, even if he is self-supporting when able to work and in employment. (Tokio Marine Malaya v. Valdez, supra.)

Rule on Indigent Litigants

If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property requirements under Sec. 19, Rule 141, then the grant of
the application is mandatory.

However, if the trial court finds that one or both requirements have not been met, then it would set a hearing to enable
the applicant to prove that the applicant has “no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities for himself and his family”, as provided in Sec. 21, Rule 3. In that hearing, the adverse party may adduce
countervailing evidence to disprove the evidence presented by the applicant; after which the trial court will rule on the
application depending on the evidence adduced.
In addition, Sec. 21, Rule 3 also provides that the adverse party may later still contest the grant of such authority at
any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court, possibly based on newly discovered evidence not obtained at
the time the application was heard. (Algura v. LGU of Naga, G.R. No. 150135, 30 Oct. 2006)