1

CIVIL PROCEDURE

RULE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. Civil action – one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or
the prevention or redress of a wrong; may be ordinary or special
Criminal action – one by which the state prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable
by law
Special proceeding – remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact
2. Rules of Court shall NOT be applicable to the following, except by analogy or in a suppletory
character, and whenever practicable and convenient
a. Election cases;
b. Land registration;
c. Cadastral proceedings;
d. Naturalization proceedings; and
e. Insolvency proceedings

RULE 2 CAUSE OF ACTION

1. Cause of action – an act or omission by which a party violates the right of another
2. REQUISITES OF JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION:
a. The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
b. The joinder shall NOT include special civil action or actions governed by special rules;
c. Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdiction, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of action falls
within the jurisdiction of the RTC and the venue lies therein;
3. Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
4. Misjoinder of causes of action NOT a ground for dismissal; the action may, on motion or motu
proprio, be severed and proceeded with separately.

RULE 3 PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

1. CLAIMS THAT SURVIVE THE DEATH OF A PARTY:
a. Actions to recover real and personal property against the estate;
b. Actions to enforce liens thereon;
c. Actions to recover for injury to persons or property by reason of tort;
d. Actions to recover money arising from contract, express or implied.
2. Death of defendant in action on contractual money claims before judgment of RTC NOT ground for
dismissal. Action continues until entry of final judgment. Any judgment against estate of
deceased will be enforced as money claim. Writ of preliminary attachment, if any, not dissolved.
3. REQUISITES OF PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES:
a. Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative;
b. There is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs and defendants;
c. Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and
venue.
4. REQUISITES OF A CLASS SUIT:
a. Subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons;
b. Parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to the court;
c. Parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and have
the legal capacity to file the action.
5. TRANSFER OF INTEREST
 2

 Action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court, on motion, directs
the transferee to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party; however, if
transfer is made before commencement of the action, the transferee must necessarily be the
party, since only he is the real party in interest.

RULE 4 VENUE OF ACTIONS

* Uniform rule on venue in RTC and MTC
1. VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS – in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein
real property involved or a portion thereof is situated.
2. VENUE FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER ACTIONS – in the MTC of the municipality or city
wherein the real property or a portion thereof is situated.
3. VENUE OF PERSONAL ACTIONS – 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.
NOTE: “residence” means place where party actually resides at time of action; does NOT mean
permanent home or domicile.
4. Action against non-resident not found in the Philippines
A. ACTION AFFECTS THE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL STATUS - in the court of the place where the
plaintiff resides.
B. ACTION AFFECTS ANY PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANT IN THE PHILIPPINES - where the
property or any portion thereof is situated or found.
5. Rules on Venue shall NOT apply:
a. In those case where a specific rule or law provides otherwise (e.g., civil case for damages in
cases of libel, where Article 360 of RPC provides specific rules on venue); OR
b. Where the parties have validly agreed IN WRITING before the filing of the action on the
EXCLUSIVE venue thereof.
 In this instance, the action can only be filed in the place agreed upon even if the other
place is the place of residence of the parties or the location of the real property involved.

RULE 5 UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS

1. The procedure in the MTCs shall be the same as that in the RTC.
2. Uniform Procedure shall NOT be applicable:
a. Where a particular provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either of said courts.
b. In civil cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.

RULE 6 KINDS OF PLEADINGS

1. Negative Defense – specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his cause of action.
2. Affirmative defense – 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. Includes:
a. Fraud
b. Statute of limitations
c. Release
d. Payment
e. Illegality
f. Statue of frauds
g. Estoppel
h. Former recovery
i. Discharge in bankruptcy
 3

j. Any other matter by way of confession or avoidance.

3. Compulsory counterclaim – REQUISITES:
a. Arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence which is the
subject matter of the opposing party’s claim;
b. Does not require for its adjudication the presence of 3 rd parties of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction; and
c. Must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the nature and the amount, except that in
an ORIGINAL action in the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered regardless of the
amount.
 Agustin vs. Bacalang
A court (if MTC) has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a set-off or counterclaim
in excess of its jurisdiction. A counterclaim beyond the court’s jurisdiction may only be
pleaded by way of defense, the purpose of which is to defeat or weaken the plaintiff’s claim,
but NOT to obtain affirmative relief. MOREOVER, the amount of judgment obtained by the
defendant on appeal cannot exceed the jurisdiction of the court in which the action began.
Since the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the counterclaim in excess of the
jurisdictional amount, the appellate court likewise did not have jurisdiction over the same. In
such a case, the award in excess of the jurisdiction of the trial court is void.
 Calo vs. Ajax
A counterclaim, even if otherwise compulsory, but amount exceeds the jurisdiction
of the inferior court, will only be considered permissive. Hence, fact that it is not set-up in the
inferior court will not bar plaintiff from instituting a separate action to prosecute it.

RULE 7 PARTS OF A PLEADING

1. FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF PLEADINGS:
a. Caption
b. Title
c. Body divided into headings and paragraphs
d. Body divided into headings and paragraphs
e. Signature and address
f. Verification in some cases
2. Signature of the lawyer constitutes a certification by him that:
a. He has read pleading
b. To the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, there is good ground to support it
c. It is not interposed for delay.
3. HOW A PLEADING IS VERIFIED: By an affidavit stating that
a. Affiant (person verifying) has read the pleading
b. Allegations therein are true and correct as of his personal knowledge or based on authentic
records. (SC Circular 48-2000, effective May 1, 2000)
4. A pleading required to be verified which:
a. Contains a verification based on “information and belief”, OR
b. Contains a verification based on “knowledge, information and belief,” OR
c. Lacks a proper verification
 Shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
5. What pleadings have to be verified:
a. Petition for relief from judgment (38.3)
b. Appeal by certiorari from CA to SC (45.1)
c. Complaint with prayer for preliminary attachment (57. 3)
d. Complaint for injunction (58.4)
e. Complaint for replevin (60.2)
 4

f. Petition for certiorari (65.1)

g. Petition for prohibition (65.2)
h. Petition for mandamus (65.3)
i. Complaint for forcible entry or unlawful detainer (70.4)
j. Petition for appointment of general guardian (93.2)
k. Petition for leave to sell or encumber property of estate or guardian (95.1)
l. Petition for declaration of competency of the ward (97.1)
m. Petition for habeas corpus (102.3)
n. Petition for change of name (103.2)
o. Petition for voluntary dissolution of a corporation (104.1)
p. Petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry (108.1)
q. Petition to take deposition in perpetuam rei memoriam (before action or pending appeal)
(24.2)
r. Motion to set aside a default order of an inferior court
s. Motion for dissolution of preliminary injunction on the ground of irreparable damage to the
movant while the adverse party can be fully compensated
t. Petition for appointment of receiver
u. Petition for review of the decision of an RTC in cases within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the inferior court, by and elevated to the CA.
v. Pleadings that need not be verified but must be under oath:
w. Denial of the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document (8.8)
x. Denial of allegations of usury (8.11)
y. Answer to written interrogatories (25.2)
z. Answer to request for admission (26.2)
aa. Notice of appeal from administrative tribunals to the CA
6. Supporting affidavits of merit required:
a. Motion to postpone for absence of evidence (30.3)
b. Motion to postpone for illness of a party or counsel (30.4)
c. Motion for summary judgment or opposition thereto (35.1,2,3,5)
d. Motion for new trial on the ground of FAME or opposition thereto (37.2)
e. Petition for relief from judgment (38.3)
f. Third-party claim (39.16)
g. Proof required of a redemptioner (39.30)
h. Motion for preliminary attachment (57.3)
i. Motion for dissolution of preliminary injunction (58.6)
j. Application for writ of replevin (60.2)
k. Claim against the estate of the decedent (86.9)
l. Motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence in criminal cases (121.4)
7. CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING: Plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in
the complaint or other initiatory pleading or in a sworn certification annexed and filed therewith:
a. That he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency; to the best of his knowledge no such other claim or
action pending;
b. If there is such other pending action, a complete statement of the present status thereof;
c. If he should thereafter learn that same or similar action or claim is filed or pending, he shall
report the same within 5 days therefrom to the court where he filed his complaint.
NOTE: FAILURE TO COMPLY NOT CURABLE BY MERE AMENDMENT OF THE
COMPLAINT OR PLEADING BUT SHALL BE CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL OF THE CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; IF THE ACTS OF PARTY OR COUNSEL CLEARLY CONSTITUTE
 5

WILLFUL & DELIBERATE FORUM SHOPPING, GROUND FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL

WITH PREJUDICE AND CONSTITUTE DIRECT CONTEMPT.
 For Forum-Shopping to exist, there must be:
i. Same transactions involved;
ii. Same essential facts and circumstances; and
iii. Actions raise identical cause of action, subject matter, and issues

RULE 8 MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS

1. Allegations of capacity
a. Capacity of party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a
representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association that is made a party
must be averred;
b. To raise an issue as to the legal existence of a party or the capacity of a party in a
representative capacity, do so by specific denial, including such supporting particulars as are
peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge.
2. Action or defense based on document
a. Substance of such document set forth in the pleading;
b. Original or copy attached to the pleading as exhibit and deemed to be part of the pleading; OR
c. Copy may be set forth in the pleading with like effect.
3. How to contest actionable document: Genuineness and due execution of instrument deemed
admitted unless adverse party:
a. Specifically denies them under oath;
b. Sets forth what he claims to be the facts.
 Requirement of an oath does NOT apply:
i. When diverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument; or
ii. When compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.
 Admission of genuineness and due execution:
i. Party whose signature appears admits that he signed it, or that it was signed by another
with his authority
ii. Was in words and figures as set out at the time it was signed
iii. Document was delivered
iv. Any formal requisites required by law which it lacks are waived by him
 The following defenses are cut-off by admission of genuineness and due execution of the
document:
i. Signature is a forgery
ii. Signature is unauthorized
iii. Corporation is not authorized under its charter to sign the instrument
iv. Party charged signed the instrument in some other capacity than that alleged in the
pleading setting it out
v. Document was never delivered.
4. SPECIFIC DENIAL
a. Defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit;
b. Defendant must set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his
denial, whenever practicable;
c. If denying only part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and
shall deny the remainder;
d. If defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of a material averment, he shall so state and this has effect of denial.
 Negative pregnant – a denial which at the same time involves an admission of the
substantial facts in the pleading responded to.
 6

5. Allegations not specifically denied, other than those as to amount of unliquidated damages deemed
admitted.

RULE 9 EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD

1. General Rule: Defenses and objections not pleaded in answer or motion to dismiss are deemed
waived (Omnibus Motion Rule).
Exception: Court shall dismiss the claim, even without allegation in answer or motion to dismiss,
if any of the following appear from the pleadings or the evidence on record:
a. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b. Litis pendentia between same parties for the same cause;
c. Res judicata
d. Action barred by statute of limitations.
2. DECLARATION OF DEFAULT
a. Defendant entitled to notice of motion to declare him in default and of order of default;
b. Motion to set aside order of default may be filed after notice and before judgment;
c. Party may make motion, under oath, to set aside order of default upon proper showing that
failure to answer was due to FAME;
d. Effect of order of default – party in default entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but
not to take part in trial;
e. Partial default – if several defending parties and not all in default, the court shall try the case
against all upon the answers thus filed and evidence presented;
f. After declaration of default, court may render judgment on the basis of the complaint or
require claimant to submit evidence;
g. Judgment against party in default shall not exceed the amount or differ in kind from that
prayed for nor award unliquidated damages;
h. No defaults in action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal
separation.

RULE 10 AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

1. Amendments of pleadings may be made once as a matter of right:
a. At any time before responsive pleading is served
b. In the case of a reply, anytime within 10 days after service.
 Plaintiff may amend complaint as a matter of right even after defendant files a Motion to
Dismiss, since the same is not a “responsive pleading.”
2. Substantial amendments may be made only with leave of court, except as provided above.
3. An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends but admissions in superseded
pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader. (NOT judicial admissions anymore;
thus, must be formally offered)
4. Claims and defenses alleged in original but not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be
deemed waived.
5. Amended and Supplemental pleadings distinguished:
AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL
Refers to facts existing at the time of the Refers to facts arising after the filing of the original
commencement of the action pleading
Results in the withdrawal of the original pleading Merely an addition, and does NOT result in the
withdrawal of, the original pleading
Can sometimes be made as a matter of right Always filed with leave of court

RULE 11 WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

1. Answer to complaint – 15 days from service, unless different period fixed by the courts;
 7

2. Answer of defendant foreign private juridical entity – when service of summons is made on the
government official designated by law, answer to be filed within 30 days from receipt of summons
by such entity.
3. Answer to amended complaint – if amended as a matter of right, 15 days from being served with
copy thereof
 If amended not as a matter of right, 10 days from notice of order admitting the same
 Answer earlier filed may be answer to amended complaint, if no new answer is filed
 Applicable to amended counterclaim, cross, third, etc,
4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim – within 10 days from service.
5. Answer to 3rd party complaint – 15 days from service
6. Reply – may be filed within 10 days from service of the pleading responded to

RULE 12 BILL OF PARTICULARS

1. Bill of particulars
a. Period of filing motion – before responding to a pleading; if pleading is a reply, within 10
days from service thereof;
b. Order for bill must be complied with in 10 days from notice OR period fixed by court
c. After service of bill or denial of motion – party has balance of time he was entitled to file
responsive pleading, but not less than 5 days
 Motion for Bill of Particulars may NOT call for matters which form part of the proof of the
complaint. Thus, motion should not be granted if the complaint, while not very definite,
nonetheless already states a sufficient cause of action.

RULE 13 FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS

1. Kinds of service of pleadings:
a. Personal service – to be done whenever practicable (Most preferred mode)
b. Service by mail (ordinary if no registered mail)
c. Substituted service (delivering copy to clerk of court with proof of failure of 1st 2 modes)
 Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be
accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally.
 Violation of rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.
2. Kinds of service of final orders:
a. Personal
b. Registered mail
c. Publication (if summons by publication)
3. Proof of personal service
a. Written admission of party served;
b. Official return of the server; or
c. Affidavit of party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service.

RULE 14 SUMMONS
1. Contents of summons
a. Signed by the clerk under the seal of the court
b. Name of the court and that parties to the action
c. Direction that the defendant answer within the time fixed by these rules
d. Notice that unless defendant so answers, plaintiff will take judgment by default
2. Kinds of service of summons:
A. PERSONAL:
i. Handing a copy to the defendant in person; OR
 8

ii. If he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him

B. SUBSTITUTED:
i. Leave copies at his residence, with person of suitable age and discretion residing therein;
OR
ii. Leave copies at defendant’s office/regular place of business, with competent person in
charge thereof.
c. By publication
3. By whom served:
a. Sheriff
b. Other proper court officer
c. Any suitable person specially authorized by the judge
4. When extraterritorial service allowed:
a. Defendant is a non-resident and is not found in the Philippines and action affects plaintiff’s
personal status
b. Subject of action is property within the Philippines in which the defendant has or claims a lien
or interest
c. Where relief demanded consists in whole or in part in excluding the defendant from any
interest in such property
d. When property of defendant has been attached within the Philippines
5. Kinds of extra territorial service
a. Personal service
b. Publication and summons sent by registered mail to last known address
c. Any other matter the court may deem sufficient
6. When service by publication in a newspaper of general publication allowed:
a. Identity of defendant unknown
b. Whereabouts of defendant unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry
 (a) and (b), applies to ANY action, even actions in personam
c. Defendant is non-resident and the suit is quasi in rem
d. Defendant is temporarily out of the country and the suit is quasi in rem
7. Service upon private domestic juridical entity – refers to corporation, partnership, or association
organized under Phil. Laws with a juridical personality:
a. President
b. Managing partner
c. General manager
d. Corporate secretary
e. Treasurer
f. In-house counsel
8. Service upon private foreign juridical entity transacting business in the Phils:
a. Resident agent designated in accord with Law
b. If no such agent, on government official designated by law OR
c. On any of its officers or agents within the Phils
NOTE: IF NO RESIDENT AGENT, SERVICE OF SUMMONSES AND PROCESSES ON THE
SEC.
9. Newspaper of general circulation (RA 4883, PD 1079)
a. Published for the dissemination of local news and general information
b. Has a bona fide subscription list of subscribers
c. Published at regular intervals
d. Not published for nor devoted to the interest of a particular group of persons
 9

e. Must have been regularly published for at least 2 years before the date of the publication in
question.
 Mere filing of an answer per se should not be automatically treated as a voluntary appearance
by the defendant for the purpose of sumons. It should be noted that when the appearance of
the defendant is precisely to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, it cannot be
considered as an appearance in court.

RULE 15 MOTIONS
1. All motions must be in writing except:
a. Those made in open court; OR
b. Those made in the course of a hearing or trial.
2. Exceptions to the three-day notice rule:
a. Ex parte motion
b. Urgent motion
c. When court sets hearing on shorter notice for good cause
d. Motion for summary judgment (must be served at least 10 days before the hearing)
 A prudent judge would, in the absence of the opposing party in the hearing of a motion,
inquire from the other party or inquire from the records the proof of the service of notice
rather than proceed with the hearing. He should not rely on a party’s undertaking to notify the
adverse party of a scheduled hearing. The judge must demand what the rule requires, i.e.,
proof of such notice on the adverse party. Otherwise, a contentious motion should be
considered a mere scrap of paper which should not have even been received for filing.
 Subsequent service of the motion on the adverse party may be considered substantial
compliance with the Rule 15, § 6. Failure to attach to the motion proof of service thereof to
the adverse party is not fatal when the adverse party had actually received a copy of the
motion and was in fact present in court when the motion was heard.

RULE 16 MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Motion to Dismiss must be filed within the time for and before the filing of an answer to
complaint.
2. Grounds for motion to dismiss:
a. Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant- unlike old rule, inclusion in motion
to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person does NOT
constitute a waiver of the said ground or voluntary appearance;
b. Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
c. Venue is improperly laid;
d. Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
e. There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
 Requisites of litis pendentia:
i. Identity of parties/interest
ii. Identity of rights asserted and prayed for/relief founded on the same facts;
iii. Identity of the 2 cases (such that judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the
other)
f. Cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations;
 Requisites of res judicata:
i. Final judgment or order
ii. Rendered by court of competent jurisdiction
iii. On the merits (even without trial, such as cases decided by Judgment on the
Pleadings, Summary Judgment, or dismissed for failure to prosecute or for refusal to
obey an order of the court)
iv. Identity of the parties
g. Pleading asserting claim states no cause of action;
 10

h. Claim or demand in the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, extinguished;
i. Claim on which action is founded is unenforceable under the statute of frauds;
j. Condition precedent for filing has not been complied with (this includes prior recourse to
barangay conciliation, or failure to make attempts to reach a compromise in cases between
members of the same family)
 The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the reason that the ground relied
upon is not indubitable.
3. Actions that court may take on a Motion to Dismiss:
a. Grant it – remedy: appeal
b. Deny – NOT appealable; but may avail of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
c. Order amendment of the pleading
4. If denied, defendant must file answer within the balance of the 15-day period, but not less than 5
days from the time he received notice of the denial;
5. Subject to the right to appeal, dismissal based on the following grounds will be bar to refiling:
a.Res judicata
b.Extinguishment of claim or demand
c.Prescription
d.Unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds
6. The dismissal of the complaint shall be without prejudice to the prosecution in the same or
separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer.
 A motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action in the complaint must
hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint. The admission, however, is
limited only to all material and relevant facts which are well pleaded in the complaint. The
demurrer does not admit the truth of mere epithets charging fraud; nor allegations of legal
conclusions; nor an erroneous statement of law; nor matters of evidence; nor to legally impossible
facts.

RULE 17 DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS

1. Dismissal by the plaintiff
a. Notice of dismissal any time before service of the answer or a motion for summary judgment;
 Dismissal is without prejudice EXCEPT on 2nd notice of dismissal, which operates as
adjudication on the merits when filed by same plaintiff who has once dismissed an action
based on or including said claim.
b. If answer or motion for summary judgment already served, dismissal by a Motion for
Dismissal, which shall require approval of the court; shall be without prejudice unless
otherwise specified by the court
 If counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him of
plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, dismissal is limited to the complaint; dismissal is without
prejudice to defendant’s right to prosecute counterclaim in a separate action or, if he
makes a manifestation within 15 days from notice of the motion, to prosecute CC in same
action.
2. Dismissal due to plaintiff’s fault - the following must be without justifiable cause
a. If plaintiff fails to appear on the date of presentation of his evidence in chief;
b. Plaintiff fails to prosecute claim for an unreasonable length of time
c. Plaintiff fails to comply with the Rules of Court or any order of the court
 Complaint may be dismissed upon defendant’s motion or motu proprio.
 Unless otherwise declared by the court, dismissal has effect of adjudication upon the merits.
RULE ON SEVERANCE OF COMPULSORY CC: Dismissal of principal action upon plaintiff’s
motion or due to plaintiff’s fault does not necessarily carry with it the dismissal of the compulsory
CC; defendant is also given option to prosecute the same in same or separate action.
 11

3. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim, or 3 rd-party complaint – must be made by claimant before

a responsive pleading or a motion for summary judgment is served, or if there is none, before the
introduction of evidence.

RULE 18 PRE-TRIAL
1. What to consider in pre-trial (with notice to counsel or party without counsel)
a. Possibility of amicable settlement or arbitration
b. Simplification of the issues
c. Amendments to the pleadings
d. Stipulations or admissions of facts and documents
e. Limitation of number of witnesses
f. Preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner
g. Propriety of judgment on the pleadings, summary judgments, or dismissal of action
h. Other matters for the prompt disposition of the action
2. It is the duty of the plaintiff to move ex parte for the setting of the case for pre-trial. However, if
plaintiff answers the defendant’s counterclaim, it will be the latter’s duty to set the pre-trial.
3. Failure of plaintiff to appear shall be cause for dismissal of the action. Non-appearance of
defendant is cause to allow plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment
on basis thereof.
4. Non-appearance of party excused only if:
a. A valid cause is shown therefor OR
b. If representative shall appear in his behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable
settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations
or admissions of facts and of documents,
5. Must file pre-trial brief so as to ensure that other party receives it at least 3 days before pre-trial.
Failure to file brief has same effects as failure to appear at pre-trial.
6. Proceedings recorded, and court shall issue an order reciting in detail matters taken up.

RULE 19 INTERVENTION
1. Grounds for intervention
a. Legal interest in the matter in litigation
b. Interest in the success of either or both parties or interest against both
c. Party is so situated as to be adversely affected by the distribution of the court
d. Disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof.
2. Motion may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment.
3. Answer to complaint-in-intervention must be filed within 15 days from notice of court admitting
the complaint.
4. Motion for intervention will be granted if it will not unduly delay or prejudice adjudication of
rights or original parties and if the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in separate
proceedings.
5. Complaint in intervention is merely collateral to the principal action. Hence, it will be dismissed if
main action is dismissed.
6. A complaint in intervention that seeks affirmative relief prevents a plaintiff from taking a
voluntary dismissal of the main action. Such a case is not subject to dismissal upon intervenor’s
petition showing him to be entitled to affirmative relief. The petition will be preserved and heard
regardless of the disposition of the main action.

RULE 20 CALENDAR OF CASES

1. Calendar of cases to be kept by clerk of court for cases set for pre-trial, trial, those whose trials
adjourned or postponed and those with motions set for hearings.
2. Preference given to habeas corpus, election cases, special civil actions and those so required by
law.
 12

RULE 21 SUBPOENA
1. Subpoena issued by:
a. The court before whom witness is required to attend;
b. The court of the place where the deposition is to be taken;
c. The officer or body authorized by law to do so in connection with its investigations;
d. Any Justice of the SC or CA in any case or investigation pending within the Phils
2. No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment and who is confined in any
penal institution shall be brought outside said institution for appearance or attendance in any court
unless authorized by the SC.
3. Grounds for quashing subpoena duces tecum
a. It is unreasonable or oppressive
b. The articles sought to be produced do not appear to be relevant
c. Person asking for subpoena does not advance cost of production
4. Ground for quashing subpoena ad testificandum
a. The witness is not bound thereby – if witness resides more than 100 km from the place where
he is to travel by the ordinary course of travel, or if he is a detention prisoner and no
permission is obtained from the court in which his case is pending
 This is known as the “viatory right” of the witness; NOTE, however, that the right is
available only in CIVIL cases
b. Witness fees and kilometrage allowed by rules not tendered when subpoena served.
5. Service of subpoena made in the same manner as personal or substituted service of summons.
6. Person present in court before a judicial officer may be required to testify as if he were in
attendance upon a subpoena.
7. Failure by any person without adequate cause to obey a subpoena served upon him shall be
deemed a contempt of the court from which subpoena issued.

RULE 22 COMPUTATION OF TIME

1. Computing for any period of time: day of the act or event from which designated period of time
begins to run is to be excluded and the date of performance included.
2. If last day of period falls on Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in place where court sits, the time
shall not run until the next working day.
3. If there is effective interruption of period, it shall start to run on the day after notice of the
cessation of the cause of the interruption. The day of the act that caused the interruption is
excluded in the computation of the period.

RULE 23 DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION

DEPOSITIONS DE BENE ESSE – taken for purposes of pending action
1. Depositions pending action
a. Taken by leave of court after court obtains jurisdiction over any defendant or property subject
of the action
b. Taken without leave after an answer has been served
c. Upon the instance of any party
d. May be deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories
2. Scope of examination – deponent may be examined regarding any matter not privileged relevant to
the subject of the action
3. Examination and cross-examination proceeds as in trials
4. Depositions and Affidavits distinguished
DEPOSITIONS AFFIDAVITS
Written testimony of witness in course of judicial Mere sworn written statements
proceedings, in advance of trial and hearing
 13

Opportunity for cross-examination No cross-examination

Can be competent testimonial evidence Little probative value (hearsay)

5. Use of depositions
 Any part or all of a deposition which is admissible in evidence may be used against any party
who was present or represented during the taking of the deposition or who had notice thereof
as follows:
DEPOSITION OF MAY BE USED BY PURPOSE
A witness Any party To contradict or impeach the deponent’s
testimony as a witness
Any party, or anyone who at the An adverse party For any purpose
time of taking the deposition was
an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private
corporation
Of any witness, whether a party Any party For any purpose, IF court finds that:
or not a. Witness is dead;
b. Witness resides at a distance more than
100 km from place of trial, UNLESS
absence procured by party offering the
deposition
c. Witness is unable to testify because of
age, sickness, infirmity, or
imprisonment;
d. Party offering the deposition has been
unable to procure the attendance of the
witness by subpoena; OR
e. Other exceptional circumstances make
it desirable to allow deposition to be
used.

 Deponent is made the witness of the party offering the deposition.

 If only part of the deposition is introduced, adverse party may require that all of it which is
relevant to the part introduced be introduced.
6. Persons before whom depositions may be taken
a. Within the Philippines
i. Judge
ii. Notary public
iii. Any person authorized to administer oaths if the parties so stipulate in writing
b. In foreign countries
i. On notice, before a secretary of any embassy or legation, consul-general, consul, vice-
consul, consular agent of the Phils
ii. Before such person or officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters-
rogatories
iii. Any person authorized to administer oaths if the parties so stipulate.
Commission – addressed to any authority in a foreign country authorized therein to take down
depositions; the taking of such depositions is subject to the rules laid down by the court issuing the
commission
Letters Rogatory – addressed to judicial authority in the foreign country; the taking of the
depositions is subject to the rules laid down by such foreign judicial authority.
7. Persons disqualified to take depositions
a. Relative within 6th degree of consanguinity or affinity of any party
b. Employee of any party
 14

c. Counsel of any party

d. Relative within the same degree of party’s counsel
e. Employee of party’s counsel
f. Anyone financially interested in the action
8. Depositions upon written interrogatories
 Party desiring to take such deposition shall serve them upon every other party with a notice
stating the name and address of the person who is to answer them and the name and
descriptive title of the officer before whom the deposition is to be taken;
 Party so served may serve cross-interrogatories upon the proponent within 10 days thereafter
 Re-direct interrogatories served within 5 days
 Re-cross interrogatories served within 3 days
9. Effects of errors and irregularities in the depositions
a. As to notice – waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the
notice
b. As to disqualification of officer – waived unless made before the taking of the deposition
begins or as soon thereafter as the disqualification becomes known or could be discovered
with reasonable diligence
c. As to competency or relevancy of evidence - NOT waived by failure to make them before or
during the taking of the deposition, unless ground is one which might have been obviated or
removed if presented at that time
d. As to oral exam and other particulars - Errors occurring at the oral exam in the manner of
taking the deposition, in the form of questions and answers, in oath or affirmation, or in
conduct of parties, and errors of any kind which might be obviated, removed, cured if
promptly prosecuted are waived unless reasonable objection is made at the taking of the
deposition.
e. As to form of written interrogatories - waived unless served in writing upon party
propounding them within the time allowed for serving succeeding cross or other
interrogatories and within 3 days after the service of the last interrogatories authorized.
f. As to manner of preparation - errors as to manner in which the testimony is transcribed or the
deposition is prepared, signed, certified, sealed, indorsed, transmitted, filed or otherwise dealt
with by the officer are waived unless a motion to suppress the deposition or some part of it is
made with reasonable promptness after such defect is, or with due diligence might have been,
ascertained.
 A deposition, in keeping with its nature as a mode of discovery, should be taken before and
not during trial. IN fact, the rules on criminal practice – particularly on the defense of alibi –
states that when a person intends to rely on such a defense, that person must move for the
taking of the deposition of his witness within the time provided for filing a pre-trial motion.

RULE 24 DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION

DEPOSITIONS IN PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM – taken to perpetuate evidence for purposes of an
anticipated action or further proceedings in a case or appeal.
1. Depositions before action
A person desiring to perpetuate his own testimony or that of another person regarding any
matter that may be cognizable in any court of the Phils may file a verified petition in the court of
the place of the residence of any expected adverse party, which petition shall be entitled in the
name of the petitioner and shall show:
a. That petitioner expects to be a party to an action in a court of the Phils but is presently unable
to bring it or cause it to be brought;
b. The subject matter of the expected action and his interest therein;
c. The facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring
to perpetuate it;
d. The names or description of the persons he expects will be the adverse parties and their
addresses so far as known;
 15

e. The name and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony
which he expects to elicit from each.
2. Use of deposition
If deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under this rule or if not so taken is still
admissible in evidence may be used in any action involving the same subject matter subsequent
brought in accordance with the provisions of Rule 23.

RULE 25 INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES

1. Interrogatories and the answers thereto should be filed in court and served on adverse parties, so
that the answers may constitute judicial admissions.
2. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories – a party not served with such may NOT be
compelled by the adverse party to give testimony in open court or deposition pending appeal.

RULE 26 ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY

1. Request for admission
A written request for the admission of the other party of the genuineness of any material
or document or request for the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the
request may be filed and served upon the other party at any time after issues have been joined.
2. Implied admission
Each of the matter requested to be admitted shall be deemed admitted within a period
designated in the request, which shall not be less than 15 days after service thereof or within such
further time as the court may allow on motion, UNLESS, party requested serves upon the party
requesting a sworn statement either specifically denying or setting forth in detail the reasons why
he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
3. Effect of admission
Admission is only for the purpose of the pending action and shall NOT constitute an
admission for any other person nor may it be used against him in any other proceeding.
4. A party who fails to file and serve a request for admission on the adverse party of material facts
within the personal knowledge of the latter shall not be permitted to present evidence thereon,

RULE 27 PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS

1. Any party may move for the court in which the action is pending to order any party to:
a. Produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any designated
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not
privileged, which:
i. Constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action AND
ii. Are in his possession, custody or control.
b. Permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the
purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any designated
relevant object or operation thereon.
2. The order:
a. Shall specify the time, place and manner of making the inspection and taking copies AND
b. May prescribe such terms and conditions which are just.

RULE 28 PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS

1. If the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court may order him to submit
to a physical or mental examination by a physician.
2. The party examined waives any privilege he may have in that action regarding the testimony of the
person who has examined or may examine him with respect to that same mental or physical
examination by:
a. Requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered OR
b. Taking the deposition of the examiner.

RULE 29 REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE MODES OF DISCOVERY

 16

1. If a party/deponent refused to answer:

a. The examination may be completed on other matters
b. The examination may be adjourned
c. The proponent may apply to the court for order to compel answer
 The court may then order:
i. The refusing party or his counsel to pay the expenses incurred in obtaining the order,
including the attorney’s fees (if it finds the refusal to answer without substantial
justification)
ii. The proponent or his counsel to pay the expenses incurred in opposing the
application, including attorney’s fees (if it finds the application to be without
substantial justification)
2. If a party/witness refuses to be sworn or to answer after being directed to do so by the court, the
refusal may be considered a contempt of that court.
3. If a party/officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey an order requiring him:
a. To answer designated questions
b. To produce a thing for inspection or to permit entry upon property
c. To submit to a physical or mental examination
 the court may order:
i. That the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or the character of the land or
the thing, or the physical and mental condition of the party be taken to be established.
ii. The disallowance of the disobedient party’s claims
iii. The prohibition of the disobedient party to present evidence
iv. The striking out of the pleadings or parts thereof
v. The dismissal of the action or parts thereof
vi. Rendering judgment by default against the disobedient party OR
vii. The arrest of any party or agent EXCEPT in disobeying an order to submit to a physical
or mental examination.
4. If a party refuses to attend or serve answers, the court may:
a. Strike out all or any part of any pleading of that party.
b. Dismiss the action or any part thereof.
c. Enter a judgment by default against that party, OR/AND
d. Order that party to pay reasonable expenses incurred, including attorney’s fees.
5. The Republic of the Philippines cannot be required to pay expenses and attorney’s fees under this
Rule.

RULE 30 TRIAL
1. Order of trial
Trial shall be limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order and shall proceed as
follows:
a. The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his complaint;
b. The defendant shall adduce evidence in support of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, and
third-party complaint;
c. The 3rd-party defendant, if any, shall adduce evidence of his defense, counterclaim, cross-
claim, and 4th party complaint;
d. The 4th party and so forth, if any, shall adduce evidence of the material facts pleaded by them;
e. The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross-claim has been pleaded, shall adduce
evidence in support of their defense, in the order to be prescribed by the court;
f. The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting evidence only, unless the court, for good
reasons and in the furtherance of justice, permits them to adduce evidence upon their original
case; and
 17

g. Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision, unless the
court directs the parties to argue or to submit their respective memoranda or any further
pleadings.
2. Judge should personally receive evidence EXCEPT that in default or ex parte hearings and in any
case where the parties so agree in writing, the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its
clerk of court who is a member of the bar. The clerk shall have no power to rule on objections to
any question or to the admission of exhibits, which objections shall be resolved by the court upon
submission of his report and the transcripts within 10 days from the termination of the hearing.

RULE 31 CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE

1. CONSOLIDATION – the court may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all matters in issue
when actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court.
2. BUT the court may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party
complaint, in furtherance of convenience or in the interest of justice.

RULE 32 TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER

Trial by commissioner:
1. Reference by consent of both parties
2. Reference by motion of one of the parties or motu proprio:
a. Trial requires examination of a long account of either side
b. Taking of an account is necessary for the information of the court before judgment or for
carrying a judgment order into effect
c. Question of fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises upon motion or otherwise, in any stage
of the case.

RULE 33 DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

Demurrer to evidence is made by the defendant after the plaintiff has completed the
presentation of his evidence where the defendant moves for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts
and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.
1. If motion denied – defendant has the right to present evidence
2. If motion granted, but reversed on appeal – defendant deemed to have waived the right to
present evidence.

RULE 34 JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

1. Judgment on the Pleadings is proper:
a. If answer fails to tender an issue; or
b. If answer otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading
 Then court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on the pleadings
2. However, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved in actions for:
a. Declaration of nullity of marriage
b. Annulment of marriage
c. Legal separation

RULE 35 SUMMARY JUDGMENTS

Summary judgment:
1. Proper if no genuine issue as to any material fact (except as to damages recoverable) and if moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law
2. Based not only on pleadings but also on affidavits, deposition, and admissions of the parties
showing that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue.
3. Motion shall be served at least 10 days before the time specified for the hearing.
4. May be asked for by a party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or to
obtain a declaratory relief.
 18

5. Although Rule does not specifically provide, also unavailable in actions for annulment of and
declaration of nullity of marriage, and for legal separation since Sec. 1 refers to actions “to recover
upon a claim”, or to recover a debt or a liquidated demand for money, or “to obtain declaratory
relief.”
6. Judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment distinguished:
Judgment on the pleadings Summary judgment
Proper when there is no genuine issue between the Proper even if there is an issue as to the damages
parties recoverable
Based exclusively on the pleadings without Based not only on pleadings but also on affidavits,
introduction of evidence depositions and admissions of the parties
Available in any action, except the 3 exceptions Proper only in actions to recover a debt, or for a
liquidated sum of money, or for declaratory relief

 Motions for summary judgment may be filed by the claimant or by the defending party. The
defending party may file such motion, pursuant to Rule 35, §2“at any time”, as distinguished from §1
where the claimant may file the motion at any time after the answer is filed.

RULE 36 JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY THEREOF

1. The date of the finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry.
The judgment or final order shall be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of judgments if no
appeal or motion for new trial or consideration is filed within 15 days
2. Several Judgments
In action against several defendants, the court may render judgment against one or more
of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others.
3. Separate judgments
Judgment rendered to dispose of one of the several claims for relief presented in an
action, made at any stage, upon a determination of the issues material to a particular claim and all
counterclaims arising out of the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the claim,
which terminates such claim. Action shall proceed as to other claims

RULE 37 NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

1. Motion for new trial or reconsideration filed within 15 days from notice of judgment and resolved
by the court within 30 days from submission for resolution.
2. Grounds: Motion for New Trial
a. Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence;
b. Newly discovered evidence
 Requisites:
i. Discovered after trial
ii. Could not have been discovered and produced at trial despite the exercise of
reasonable diligence
iii. If presented, could probably alter the result of the action
3. Grounds: Motion for Reconsideration
a. Damages awarded are excessive
b. Evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order
c. Decision is contrary to law
4. Motion for new trial shall be in writing, and supported by affidavits of merit if the ground is
FAME; for newly-discovered evidence, it must be supported by affidavits of witnesses by whom
such evidence is expected to be given, or by duly authenticated documents to be introduced.
Motion for reconsideration shall specifically point out the findings or conclusions of the
judgment which are unsupported by evidence or contrary to law, with express reference to the
testimonial or documentary evidence or the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such
findings.
5. Pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the period for appeal.
 19

6. No second motion for reconsideration allowed. Second motion for new trial must be based on a
ground not existing or available when the first motion was made, which may be filed during the
remainder of the 15-day period.

RULE 38 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS

1. Petition for relief from judgment filed within 60 days after learning of judgment and not more than
6 months after such judgment
 Must be supported by affidavit showing the FAME and the facts constituting the petitioner’s
good or substantial cause of action or defense
2. Party who has filed a timely motion for new trial cannot file a petition for relief after the former is
denied. The two remedies are exclusive of one another.
3. Grounds:
a. Judgment or final order entered against a party by FAME; or
b. Judgment or final order is rendered and party has been prevented by FAME from taking an
appeal
 For fraud to be extrinsic, the losing party must never have had a chance to controvert the
adverse party’s evidence.
 Uniform procedure for relief from judgments of MTC and RTC
4. After petition is filed, court shall order adverse parties to answer within 15 days from receipt.
After answer is filed or expiration of period therefor, court shall hear the petition.
5. If granted, judgment set aside and court shall proceed as if timely motion for new trial has been
granted; if granted against denial of appeal, court shall give due course to appeal.

RULE 39 EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS

1. Execution as a matter of right
On motion with notice, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding
upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
 For so long as there is a certificate of entry of judgment, execution may already be issued by
the court of origin or directed to do so by the CA.
2. Discretionary execution – pending period to appeal or during appeal; may issue only upon good
reasons to be stated in a special order after hearing.
a. By trial court – even after the perfection of the appeal for so long as the motion for execution
was filed while the TC has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession or the records, upon
motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party
b. Appellate court – after the TC has lost jurisdiction
 Example:
P receives judgment: June 3
D receives judgment: June 1
D files notice of appeal: June 5
When does trial court lose jurisdiction? June 18
BUT, if P also files a notice of appeal on June 10, trial court loses jurisdiction on that date.
 Execution with respect to appealed cases- there is no need to await remand of the records.
 Execution with respect to consequential and exemplary damages should be postponed until
such time as the merits of the case have been finally determined in the regular appeal, as the
amounts remain uncertain and indefinite pending resolution.
3. a. Motion for execution of final and executory judgment should be served on adverse party and
set for hearing;
b. In case of appeal, motion is filed with court of origin supported by certified true copies of
final judgment of appellate court.
c. Appellate court may on motion order court of origin to issue writ of execution (SC Circular
No. 24-94, 4/18/94)
4. Judgments NOT stayed by appeal (immediately executory, unless court provides otherwise)
 20

a. Actions for injunction

b. Receivership
c. Accounting
d. Support
e. Judgments declared immediately executory
5. A final and executory judgment may be executed on motion within 5 years from entry. May be
revived and enforced by action after lapse of 5 years but before 10 years from entry. Revived
judgment may be enforced by motion within 5 years from entry and thereafter by action before
barred by statute of limitations – file motion within 10 years from the finality of the revived
judgment.
6. Execution in case of party’s death:
a. Death of judgment obligee - application of his executor or administrator or successor-in-
interest
b. Death of judgment obligor -
i. Against his executor, etc. if the judgment be for recovery of real or personal property or
the enforcement of a lien thereon.
ii. If death after execution is actually levied upon his property, it may be sold for satisfaction
of the obligation.
 If the judgment obligor dies after the entry but before levy, execution will issue if it be for the
recovery of real or personal property. However, if judgment is for a sum of money, and the
judgment obligor dies before levy, such judgment cannot be enforced by writ of execution but
must be filed as a claim against his estate.
7. Writ of execution:
a. Shall issue in the name of the Republic of the Phils from court which granted the motion
b. State the name of the court, case number and title, dispositive portion of the judgment order
c. Require the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it is directed to enforce the writ according
to its terms
8. Manner of executing writ:
a. If judgment against property of the judgment obligor – out of real or personal property with
interest
b. If against his real or personal property in the hands of the personal representatives, heirs,
devisees, legatees, tenants, or trustees of the judgment obligor – out of that property, with
interest
c. If for sale of real or personal property – to sell property, describing it and apply the proceeds
in conformity with judgment.
d. If for delivery of possession of property – deliver possession of the same to the party entitled
to it, describing it, and to satisfy any costs, damages, rents, or profits covered by the judgment
out of the personal property of the person against whom it was rendered, and out of real
property if sufficient personal property cannot be found.
e. In all cases, writ of execution shall specifically state the amount of the interest, costs,
damages, rents, or profits due as of date of issuance of writ, aside from principal obligation.
 Judgment obligor is given option to choose which property may be levied on sufficient to
satisfy the judgment.
9. Property exempt from execution
a. Family home as provided by law, homestead in which he resides, and land necessarily used in
connection therewith;
b. Tools and implements used in trade, employment, or livelihood;
c. 3 horses, cows, or carabaos or other beasts of burden used in his ordinary occupation;
d. Necessary clothing and articles for ordinary personal use, excluding jewelry;
e. Household furniture and utensils necessary for housekeeping not exceeding P3,000;
f. Professional libraries and equipment of judges, lawyers, physicians, etc. not exceeding
P300,000;
 21

g. One fishing boat and accessories not more than P100,000 owned by a fisherman and by which
he earns his living;
h. Salaries, wages, or earnings for personal services within the 4 months preceding the levy
which are necessary for the support of the family;
i. Lettered gravestones;
j. Money, benefits, annuities accruing or in any manner growing out of any life insurance;
k. Right to receive legal support or any pension or gratuity from the government;
l. Properties especially exempted by law.
 Exemption does not apply if execution upon a judgment for its purchase price or for
foreclosure of mortgage.
 Right of Exemption is a personal right granted to the judgment creditor. The sheriff may thus
not claim it.
10. Third party claims:
a. Purpose of bond filed by judgment obligee or plaintiff is to indemnify third-party claimant,
not the sheriff or officer;
b. Amount of bond not less than value of property levied on;
c. Sheriff not liable for damages if bond is filed;
d. Judgment obligee or plaintiff may claim damages against third-party claimant in the same or a
separate action.
e. 3rd Party claimant may vindicate his claim to property levied in a separate action because
intervention is no longer allowed since judgment already executory; in preliminary attachment
and replevin, 3rd party claimant may vindicate his claim to the property by intervention since
the action is still pending.
11. Who may redeem real property sold:
a. Judgment obligor or his successor in interest in the whole or any part of the property;
b. Creditor having lien by virtue of an attachment, judgment, or mortgage on the property sold
subsequent to the lien under which the property was sold. (Redeeming creditor is termed a
redemptioner).
12. Judgment obligor has one year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale to redeem
property sold by paying the purchaser the amount of his purchase, with 1% per month interest plus
any assessments or taxes which he may have paid thereon after purchase with interest on said
amount at 1% per month.
Redemptioners have one year to redeem from the date of registration of the certificate of
sale. They may also redeem beyond one-year period within 60 days after the last redemption, with
2 % interest on the sum to be paid on the last redemption. The judgment obligor’s right to redeem
within 60 days from last redemption is limited to the one-year period, beyond which he can no
longer redeem.
 Purchaser or redemptioner not entitled to receive rents and income of property sold inasmuch
as these belong to the judgment obligor until the expiration of the period of redemption.
13. Effect of judgment or final orders
a. In case of judgment against a specified thing, probate of will, or administration of estate or
legal condition or status, it is conclusive on the title or condition, status, relationship, will or
administration.
b. In other cases/matters directly adjudged, or matters relating thereto that could have been
raised subsequent to commencement of action, judgment is conclusive between parties and
their successors in interest.
c. In any other litigation, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or
which was actually and necessarily included therein.
14. Effect of foreign judgment
a. Judgment upon a specific thing, conclusive upon title to the thing;
b. If against a person, judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and
their successors in interest;
 22

15. When foreign judgment may be repelled

a. Evidence of want of jurisdiction
b. Want of notice to party
c. Collusion
d. Fraud
e. Clear mistake of law.
16. Requisites for res judicata
a. Final former judgment
b. Judgment is on the merits
c. Rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction
d. Between first and second actions, identity of subject matter, parties and cause of action.
17. When quashal of writ of execution proper
a. Improperly issued
b. Defective in substance
c. Issued against the wrong party
d. Judgment was already satisfied
e. Issued without authority
f. Change of the situation of the parties renders execution inequitable
g. Controversy was never validly submitted to the court
h. Writ varies the terms of the judgment
i. Writ sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution
j. Ambiguity in the terms of the judgment
18. SPECIAL JUDGMENT - requires the performance of any other act than the payment of money or
the sale or delivery of real or personal property.
19. Remedies against executory judgments or orders:
a. Petition for relief
b. Direct attack
c. Collateral attack - judgment is null on its face or court had no jurisdiction
20. When court may order execution even before an executory judgment and pending an appeal
a. Lapse of time would make the ultimate judgment ineffective;
b. Appeal is clearly dilatory;
c. Judgment is for support and the beneficiary is in need thereof;
d. Articles subject of the case are perishable;
e. Defendants are exhausting their income and have no other property aside from the proceeds
from the subdivision of lots subject of the action;
f. Movants were in extreme need of the premises subject of the suit and the bond to answer for
damages in case of reversal on appeal (supersedeas bond) was posted by them;
g. Judgment debtor is in imminent danger of insolvency;
h. Prevailing party is of advanced age and in a precarious state of health and the right in the
judgment is non-transmissible being for support;
i. Prevailing party posts sufficient bond to answer for damages in case of reversal of judgment
 But in most cases, the mere filing of a bond is not sufficient justification for discretionary
execution.
21. Order granting writ of execution ONLY appealable when:
a. Order varies terms of the judgment
b. When vague and court renders what is believed to be wrong interpretation.
 23

22. Garnishment – act of appropriation by the sheriff if the property involved is money, stocks, or
other incorporeal property in the hands of third persons; merely sets apart such funds but does not
constitute the creditor the owner of the garnished property.
23. Persons disqualified from participating in the execution sale:
a. Officer conducting the execution sale or his deputy;
b. Guardian with respect to the property under his guardianship;
c. Agents, the property entrusted to them, unless with principal’s consent;
d. Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration;
e. Public officers and employees, the property of the State or any subdivision thereof, or any
GOCC, the administration of which has been entrusted to them;
f. Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of courts, and other officers and employees
connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied
upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their
respective functions;
g. Lawyers, the property and rights which may be the subject of litigation in which they take part
by virtue of their profession;
h. Others specifically disqualified by law. (e.g. seller of goods who exercise right of resale of
goods).

RULE 40 APPEAL FROM MTC TO RTC

1. Appeal from judgment or final order of MTC taken to RTC exercising jurisdiction over the area to
which MTC pertains. File notice of appeal with the MTC which rendered decision appealed from
within 15 days after notice of such judgment.
2. Record on appeal is filed within 30 days and required only for special proceedings
3. Appellate docket fees paid to clerk of court of MTC - payment not a condition precedent for
perfection of appeal but must nonetheless be paid within the period for taking appeal;
4. Procedure for appeal from cases dismissed without trial for lack of jurisdiction:
a. If affirmed because the MTC has no jurisdiction, RTC will try case on the merits as if it has
original jurisdiction;
b. If reversed, the case shall be remanded to the MTC;
c. If the first level court tried the case on the merits without jurisdiction, the RTC should not
dismiss the case but shall decide it in the exercise of original jurisdiction.

RULE 41 APPEAL FROM THE RTC

1. Appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case or of a
particular matter therein.
2. No appeal may be taken from:
a. Order denying a motion for new trial or recon;
b. Order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment;
c. Interlocutory order;
d. Order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
e. Order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession, compromise on the
ground of fraud, mistake, or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
f. Order of execution;
 Not appealable because execution is only the result of the judgment. If order of execution
is not in accord with the dispositive portion, remedy is certiorari under Rule 65.
g. Judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims,
while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom;
h. Order dismissing an action without prejudice;
 In all these cases, aggrieved party may file an appropriate civil action under Rule 65.
 24

3. Ordinary appeal from RTC (in the exercise of original jurisdiction) to CA is by filing notice of
appeal with the RTC within 15 days from notice of its judgment. Record on appeal required only
for special proceedings and where multiple appeals allowed filed within 30 days.
4. Motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration is prohibited.
5. Contents of Notice on appeal:
a. Names of the parties to the appeal;
b. Specify judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from;
c. Court to which the appeal is being taken;
d. Material dates showing timeliness of appeal;
6. Contents of Record on appeal:
a. Full names of all parties to the proceedings shall be stated in the caption;
b. Include judgment or final order from which appeal taken;
c. In chronological order, copies of only such pleadings, petitions, etc. and all interlocutory
orders as are related to the appealed judgment;
d. Data showing that appeal perfected in time - material data rule;
e. If an issue of fact is to be raised, include by reference all the evidence, oral or documentary,
taken upon the issues involved.
7. Appeal from decision of RTC in appellate jurisdiction is by petition for review filed with CA.
8. Where only questions of law are raised, by petition for review on certiorari with SC.
9. Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal distinguished:
Notice of Appeal Record of Appeal
Party’s appeal by notice of appeal deemed perfected Deemed perfected as to appellant with respect to the
as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in subject matter upon the approval of the record on
due time appeal filed in due time
Court loses jurisdiction over case upon perfection of Court loses jurisdiction only over subject matter
the appeals filed in due time and expiration of time upon approval of records on appeal filed in due time
to appeal of other parties and expiration of the time to appeal of other parties.

10. Failure to pay appellate docket fees within the reglamentary period is ground for dismissal of
appeal.
11. General Rule: An ordinary appeal stays the execution of a judgment
Exceptions: a. Decisions of quasi-judicial body appealed to the CA
b. Executions pending appeal
c. Cases covered by Summary Procedure

RULE 42 PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE RTC TO THE CA

1. Form and contents of petition for review (from RTC to CA)
In 7 legible copies:
a. Full names of parties to case, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof;
b. Indicate specific material dates showing it was filed on time;
c. Concise statement of matters involved, issues raised, specification of errors of fact or law, or
both allegedly committed by the RTC, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the
allowance of the appeal;
d. Accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final
order of both MTC and RTC;
e. Certification under oath of non-forum shopping.
2. Contents of comment
In 7 legible copies, accompanied by certified true copies of material portions of record and other
supporting papers:
a. State whether or not appellee accepts the statement of matters involved in the petition;
 25

b. Point out such insufficiencies or inaccuracies as he believes exists in petitioner’s statement of

matters;
c. State reasons why petition should not be give due course.
3. CA may:
a. Require respondent to file a comment; or
b. Dismiss the petition if it finds:
i. Patently without merit
ii. Prosecuted manifestly for delay
iii. Questions raised are to insubstantial to require consideration

RULE 43 APPEALS FROM THE CTA AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES TO THE CA

1. Appeals from judgments and final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and quasi-judicial agencies
in exercise of quasi-judicial functions (unless otherwise provided by law and the Labor Code
[NLRC decisions]) shall be by petition for review to the CA, to be taken within 15 days from
notice of award or judgment or from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Only 1
Motion for reconsideration allowed
2. Quasi-judicial agencies covered:
a. Civil Service Commission;
b. Central Board of Assessment Appeals;
c. Securities and Exchange Commission;
d. Office of the President;
e. Land Registration Authority;
f. Social Security Commission;
g. Civil Aeronautics Board;
h. Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer;
i. National Electrification Administration;
j. Energy Regulatory Board;
k. National Telecommunications Commission;
l. Department of Agrarian Reform under RA No. 6657;
m. GSIS;
n. Employees Compensation Commission;
o. Agricultural Inventions Board;
p. Insurance Commission;
q. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission;
r. Voluntary arbitrators
 St. Martin’s Funeral Home vs. NLRC - DECISIONS OF THE NLRC – ORIGINAL ACTION
FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 FILED WITH THE CA, NOT SC
 Fabian vs. Desierto – Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the CA under Rule 43.
∅ According to A.M. no. 99-2-02-SC (promulgated February 9, 1999), any appeal by way
of petition for review from a decision, final resolution or order of the Ombudsman, or
special civil action relative to such decision, filed with the SC after March 15, 1999 shall
no longer be referred to the CA, but shall be dismissed.

RULE 45 APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT

1. Question of Law – exists when doubt or difference arises as to what the law is, based on a
certain state of facts
Question of Fact – exists when doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of
alleged facts
2. Findings of fact of the CA may be reviewed by the SC on appeal by certiorari when:
 26

a. The conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures;

b. The inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
c. There is grave abuse of discretion;
d. The judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
e. Findings of fact of trial court and CA are conflicting;
f. The CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to
the admissions made;
g. CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
3. Certiorari as mode of appeal:
From judgment or final order of the CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC on pure questions of law,
or other courts whenever authorized by law, by filing a petition for review on certiorari with the
SC within 15 days from notice of judgment.
4. Rule 45 and Rule 65 distinguished:
Rule 45 Rule 65
No need for Motion for Recon Motion for Recon generally required
Relates to final judgments Applies to interlocutory orders rendered in
excess/lack of jurisdiction
An appeal Not an appeal in the strict sense
15 days from notice of judgment 60 days from notice of judgment

 Kho vs. Camacho: An RTC judge has no right to disapprove a notice of appeal on the ground
that the issues raised involve a pure question of law, and that the mode of appeal is erroneous.
That is the prerogative of the CA, not the RTC judge. A notice of appeal need not be
approved by the judge, unlike a record on appeal.

RULE 47 ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS

1. Grounds for annulment of judgment of RTC in civil cases:
a. Extrinsic fraud – not available as a ground if availed of earlier in a motion for new trial or
petition for relief
b. Lack of jurisdiction.
2. Petition for annulment available only if ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or
other appropriate remedies no longer available through no fault of the Petitioner.
3. Periods:
a. For extrinsic fraud – four years from discovery;
b. Lack of jurisdiction – must be filed before action barred by laches.
4. Effects of judgment of annulment – gives the CA authority to order the trial court on motion to try
the case if the ground for annulment is extrinsic fraud, but not if it is lack of jurisdiction.
 Prescriptive period for refiling the original action is suspended unless the extrinsic fraud is
attributable to the plaintiff in the original action.

RULE 50 DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal by the CA:
a. Failure of the record on appeal to show on its face that the appeal was taken within the
reglamentary period;
b. Failure to file the notice of appeal or record on appeal within the period;
c. Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and other lawful fees;
d. Unauthorized alterations, omissions, or additions in the approved record on appeal;
e. Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or
memorandum within the time provided;
f. Absence of specific assignment of errors in appellants brief or page references to the record;
 27

g. Failure of the appellant to take necessary steps for the completion or correction of the record
within the time limited by the order;
h. Failure of appellant to appear at the preliminary conference or to comply with orders,
circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause
i. Judgment or order appealed from is not appealable.

RULE 51 JUDGMENT
1. Memorandum decisions are permitted in the CA.
2. After judgment or final resolution of the CA and dissenting or separate opinions if any, are signed
by the Justices taking part, they shall be delivered for filing to the clerk who shall indicate thereon
the date of promulgation and cause true copies to be served upon parties or counsel.
3. Date when judgment or final resolution becomes executory shall be deemed as date of entry.

RULE 56 PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT

1. Original cases cognizable – exclusive list:
a. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus;
b. Disciplinary proceedings against judges and attorneys;
c. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.
2. An appeal to SC can only be taken by petition for review on certiorari, except in criminal cases
where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
3. Grounds for dismissal of appeal by SC
a. Failure to take appeal within the reglementary period;
b. Lack of merit in the petition;
c. Failure to pay the requisite docket fee and other lawful fees or to make deposit for costs;
d. Failure to comply with the requirements regarding proof of service and contents of and the
documents which should accompany the petition;
e. Failure to comply with any circular, directive or order of the SC without justifiable cause;
f. Error in choice or mode of appeal
g. Case is not appealable to the SC.
4. Discretionary upon SC (and CA) to call for preliminary conference similar to pre-trial.
5. General Rule: Appeal to SC by notice of appeal shall be dismissed.
Exception: In criminal cases where the penalty imposed is life imprisonment, or when a lesser
penalty is imposed but involving offenses committed on the same occasion or arising
out of the same occurrence which gave rise to the more serious offense for which the
penalty of death or life imprisonment is imposed (Section 3, Rule 122)
6. Appeal by certiorari from RTC to SC submitting issues of fact may be referred to the CA for
decision or appropriate action, without prejudice to considerations on whether or not to give due
course to the appeal as provided in Rule 45.

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
Provisional remedies (ancillary/auxiliary)
 Writs and processes available during the pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a
litigant to preserve and protect rights and interests therein pending rendition, and for the purpose of
ultimately affecting a final judgment in the case.
 PROVISIONAL - constituting temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action.
 ANCILLIARY - incidents in and dependent on the result of the main action.

RULE 57 PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

1. Preliminary Attachment
a. Available even if the recovery of personal property is only an incidental relief sought in the
action;
b. May be resorted to even if the personal property is in the custody of a third person;
 28

c. Extends to all kinds of property, real or personal or incorporeal;

d. To recover possession of personal property unjustly detained, presupposes that the same is
being concealed, removed, or disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant;
e. Can still be resorted to even if the property is in custodia legis, as long as the property belongs
to the defendant, or is one in which he has proprietary interests, AND with permission of the
court
2. Grounds
a. Recovery of specified amount of money and damages, except moral or exemplary, where
party is about to depart from the Phils with intent to defraud creditors;
b. Action for money or property embezzled or for willful violation of duty by public officers,
officers of corporation, agent, or fiduciary;
c. Recovery of possession of property (both real and personal) unjustly detained, when the
property is concealed or disposed of to prevent is being found or taken;
d. Action against party guilty of fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation or in the
performance thereof;
e. Action against party who is concealing or disposing of property, or is about to do so, with
intent to defraud creditors;
f. Action against party who is not a resident of the Phils and cannot be found therein or upon
who service by publication can be made.
3. PRINCIPLE OF PRIOR OR CONTEMPORARY JURISDICTION:
Enforcement of writ of preliminary attachment must be preceded by or simultaneously
accompanied by service of summons, copy of complaint, application and affidavits for the
attachment and the bond upon the adverse party; BUT the requirement of prior or
contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply where the summons could not be served
despite diligent efforts, or the defendant is a resident of the Phils temporarily absent therefrom, or
the defendant is a non-resident of the Phils or the action is in rem or quasi in rem.
4. When preliminary attachment is discharged
a. Debtor posts a counterbond or makes requisite cash deposit- if attachment to be discharged is
with respect to particular property, counterbond or deposit shall be equal to the value of the
property as determined by the court; in all other cases, amount of counterbond should be equal
to the amount fixed in the order of attachment.
 CASH DEPOSIT OR COUNTERBOND SHALL SECURE THE PAYMENT OF ANY
JUDGMENT THAT ATTACHING PARTY MAY RECOVER
b. Applicant’s bond is insufficient or sureties fail to justify;
c. Attachment was improperly or irregularly issued;
d. Property attached is exempt from execution;
e. Judgment is rendered against attaching party;
f. Attachment is excessive – discharge is with respect to the excess
5. Application for discharge may only be filed with the court where the action is pending and may be
filed even before enforcement of the writ so long as there has been an order of attachment.
6. When to apply for damages against the attachment bond
a. Before trial;
b. Before appeal perfected;
c. Before judgment becomes executory;
d. In the appellate court for damages pending appeal, before judgment becomes executory.
7. When judgment becomes executory, sureties on counterbond to lift attachment are charged and can
be held liable for the amount of judgment and costs upon notice and summary hearing. There is no
need to first execute judgment against the judgment obligor before proceeding against sureties.
8. Claims for damages cannot be subject of independent action except:
a. When principal case is dismissed by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction without giving the
claiming party opportunity to prove claim for damages;
b. When damages sustained by a third person not a party to the action.
 29

RULE 58 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1. Preliminary injunction distinguished from Prohibition
Preliminary Injunction Prohibition
Generally directed against party to the action but Directed against a court, tribunal, or person
may be against any person exercising judicial powers
Does NOT involve the jurisdiction of the court May be on the ground that the court against whom
the writ is sought acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction;
May be main action itself or just a provisional Always a main action
remedy in the main action

2. Grounds for Preliminary Injunction

a. Plaintiff is entitled to relief sought which consists in restraining or requiring the performance
of acts (latter is preliminary mandatory injunction);
b. The commission of acts or non-performance during pendency of litigation would probably
work injustice to the plaintiff;
c. Defendant is doing or about to do an act violating plaintiff’s rights respecting the subject of
the action and tending to render judgment ineffectual.
3. Injunction may be refused or dissolved when:
a. Complaint is insufficient;
b. Defendant is permitted to post a counterbond it appearing that he would sustain great and
irreparable injury if injunction granted or continued while plaintiff can be fully compensated;
c. Plaintiff’s bond is insufficient or defective
4. No Preliminary Injunction or TRO may be issued without posting of bond and notice to adverse
party and hearing.
5. PRINCIPLE OF PRIOR OR CONTEMPORARY JURISDICTION:
 When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order is
included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court,
shall be raffled only after NOTICE to and IN THE PRESENCE of the adverse party or the
person to be enjoined. In any event, such notice shall be preceded, or contemporaneously
accompanied by service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint and the
applicant’s affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in the Phils; BUT the requirement of
prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall NOT apply where the summons could not
be served despite diligent efforts, or the defendant is a resident of the Phils temporarily absent
therefrom, or the defendant is a non-resident of the Phils
 Difference with principle in preliminary attachment – In attachment, the principle applies only
in the implementation of the writ, while in applications for injunction or TRO, this principle
applies before the raffle and issuance of the writs or TRO.
6. TRO good for only 20 days from service; 60 days for CA; until further orders from SC.
7. TRO can be issued ex parte only if matter of grave urgency and plaintiff will suffer grave injustice
and irreparable injury. Good for 72 hours from issuance, within which judge must comply with
service of summons, complaint, affidavit and bond, and hold summary hearing to determine
whether TRO should be extended for 20 days. In no case can TRO be longer than 20 days
including 72 hours.
8. No TRO, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction may issue against the
government in cases involving implementation of government infrastructure projects. (Garcia vs.
Burgos, reiterated in Administrative Circular no. 7-99, promulgated June 25,1999)

RULE 59 RECEIVERSHIP
1. When receiver may be appointed:
 30

a. Party has an interest in the property or fund subject of the action and such is in danger of
being lost, removed, or materially injured;
b. Action by mortgagee for foreclosure of mortgage when the property is in danger of being
wasted or materially injured and that its value is probably insufficient to discharge the
mortgage debt, OR that the parties have stipulated in the contract of mortgage;
c. After judgment, to preserve the property during the pendency of the appeal, or to dispose of it,
or to aid in execution when execution has been returned unsatisfied or the judgment debtor
refuses to apply his property to satisfy judgment, or to carry out the judgment.
d. When appointing one is the most convenient and feasible means to preserve, administer, or
dispose of the property in litigation.
2. When receivership may be denied/lifted
a. Appointment sought is without sufficient cause;
b. Adverse party files sufficient bond for damages;
c. Applicant or receiver’s bond is insufficient.
3. Both the applicant for the receivership and the receiver appointed must file separate bonds.
4. In claims against the bond, it shall be filed, ascertained and granted under the same procedure as
Section 20, Rule 57, whether is be damages against the applicant’s bond for the unlawful
appointment of the receiver or for enforcing the liability of the sureties of the receiver’s bond by
reason of the receiver’s management (in the latter case, no longer need to file a separate action).

RULE 60 REPLEVIN
1. Replevin
a. Available only where the principal relief sought in the action is the recovery of possession of
personal property;
b. Can be sought only where the defendant is in the actual or constructive possession of the
personal property involved.
c. Extends only to personal property capable of manual delivery;
d. Available to recover personal property even if the same is NOT being concealed, removed, or
disposed of;
e. Cannot be availed of if property is in custodia legis, as where is it under attachment, or was
seized under a search warrant or distrained for tax assessment.
2. Defendant entitled to return of property taken under writ if:
a. He seasonably posts redelivery bond
b. Plaintiff’s bond is insufficient or defective
c. Property is not delivered to plaintiff for any reason.
 Replevin bond is only intended to indemnify defendant against any loss that he may suffer by
being compelled to surrender the possession of the disputed property pending trial of the
action. Thus, surety not liable for payment of judgment for damages rendered against plaintiff
on a counterclaim for punitive damages for fraudulent or wrongful acts committed by the
plaintiffs which are unconnected with the defendant’s deprivation of possession by the
plaintiff.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

1. Types of Special Civil Actions
a. Mandamus
b. Interpleader
c. Certiorari
d. Contempt
e. Prohibition
f. Eminent Domain
g. Declaratory Relief
h. Quo warranto
 31

i. Partition of real estate

j. Foreclosure of mortgage
k. Unlawful detainer
l. Forcible Entry

RULE 62 INTERPLEADER
1. Interpleader
a. Original action
b. Presupposes that the plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of the action or has an
interest therein which, in whole or part, is not disputed by the other parties to the action;
c. Complaint in interpleader must be answered 15 days from service of summons

RULE 63 DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES

1. Requisites for action for declaratory relief:
a. Subject matter of controversy is a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, statute,
executive order, or regulation, or ordinance;
 Court may refuse to adjudicate where decision would not terminate the uncertainty or
controversy which gave rise to the action OR where the declaration is not necessary and
proper at the time;
b. Terms and validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction;
c. No breach of the document, otherwise ordinary civil action is the remedy;
 Must be before breach is committed, as in the case where the petitioner paid under protest
the fees imposed by an ordinance. Declaratory relief still proper because the applicability
of the ordinance to future transactions still remains to be resolved, although the matter
could be threshed out in an ordinary suit for the recovery of the fees paid.
d. There is an actual justiciable controversy between persons whose interests are adverse;
e. The same is ripe for adjudication;
f. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.

RULE 64 REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMISSION

ON ELECTIONS AND THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT

 For petition for review of judgments and final orders of the COMELEC and COA – period to file
is 30 days to be counted from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed and not from the receipt of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration; the period to
file petition is merely interrupted by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration and continues to
run again for the remaining period which shall not be less than 5 days from notice of denial.

RULE 65 CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS

1. Certiorari
a. Purpose – to correct an act performed by respondent;
b. Act sought to be controlled – discretionary acts;
c. Respondent – one who exercises judicial functions and acted with grave abuse of discretion or
in lack or excess of jurisdiction.
d. Generally directed against an interlocutory order of the court prior to appeal from the
judgment in the main case;
e. Need merely be filed seasonably (within 60 days), without undue delay and before the act,
order, or proceedings, sought to be reviewed or set aside has become fait accompli such that
any reversal thereof shall have become academic;
f. Unless a writ of preliminary injunction shall have issued, does NOT stay the challenged order;
g. Parties are the aggrieved parties against the lower court or quasi-judicial agency and the
prevailing parties;
h. Motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent, subject to certain exceptions;
 32

i. Higher court exercises original jurisdiction under its power of control and supervision over the
orders of lower courts.
 If CA reverses the judge, the latter may not go the SC via a petition for certiorari. He is
merely a nominal party, and he should not seek the reversal of a decision that is
unfavorable to the action taken by him.
 Professional Regulation Commission vs. CA – It is well settled that the remedies of
ordinary appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive.
However, it has also been held that after a judgment has been rendered and an appeal
therefrom had been perfected, a petition for certiorari relating to certain incidents therein
may prosper where the appeal does not appear to be a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
In this case, the SC noted that, while petitioners tried to justify their recourse to both an
appeal and to a petition for certiorari by claiming that their appeal would not constitute a
plain, speedy and adequate remedy, they did not see fit to withdraw or abandon said
appeal after filing the petition. Thus, both the CA and SC are reviewing the same
decision of the RTC at the same time. Such a situation would lead to absurdity and
confusion in the ultimate disposition of the case.
2. Prohibition
a. Purpose – to prevent the commission or carrying out of an act;
b. Act sought to be controlled – discretionary and ministerial acts;
c. Respondent – one who exercises judicial or non-judicial functions.
3. Mandamus
a. Purpose – to compel the performance of the act desired;
b. Act sought to be controlled – ministerial act;
c. Respondent – one who performs judicial or non-judicial functions.
4. When SC allows the writ of certiorari even when appeal is available and proper:
a. Appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy;
b. Orders were issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction;
c. For certain special considerations, such as public welfare or policy;
d. Where in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution, as in
acquittal;
e. Where the order is a patent nullity;
f. Where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigation.
5. Cases where Motion for Reconsideration is NOT condition precedent for certiorari:
a. Order is a patent nullity;
b. Questions raised in the certiorari proceeding were duly raised and passed upon by the lower
court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
c. Urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the
interests of the government;
d. Under the circumstances, a motion for recon would be useless;
e. Petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
f. Where in a criminal case, relief from order or arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by
the trial court is improbable;
g. Proceedings in the lower court are null for lack of due process;
h. Proceeding was ex parte or in which petitioner had no opportunity to object;
i. Issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
6. The period for filing any of the 3 actions is not later than 60 days from notice of judgment, order,
or resolution sought to be reviewed.
 In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is
required or not, the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
(SC Circular 56-2000, effective September 1, 2000)
 33

 No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in
no case exceeding 15 days. (SC Circular 56-2000)

RULE 66 QUO WARRANTO

1. Quo Warranto distinguished from Election Contest:
Quo Warranto Election Contest
Basis is that occupant is disqualified from holding Challenge rights of a person to hold office on the
office by reason of ineligibility or disloyalty ground of irregularities in the conduct of the
election
If successful, respondent is ousted but petitioner Successful protestant will assume office if he had
shall not automatically assume the office vacated obtained plurality of valid votes

RULE 67 EXPROPRIATION
1. In expropriation, the complaint must be verified.
2. The defendant can only file an answer instead of a motion to dismiss
3. The final order of expropriation is appealable, but the lower court may determine the just
compensation to be paid.
 The power of eminent domain is exercised by the filing of a complaint which shall join as
defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any party of the expropriated
land or interest therein. If a known owner is not joined as defendant, he is entitled to
intervene in the proceedings; or if he is joined but not served with process and the proceeding
is already closed before he came to know of the condemnation, he may maintain an
independent suit for damages.
 34

RULE 70 FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER

1. Forcible entry distinguished from Unlawful detainer
Forcible entry Unlawful detainer
Possession of land is unlawful from the beginning Possession of defendant is inceptively lawful but
due to force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth becomes illegal by reason of termination of right of
possession
No requirement of previous demand for defendant Demand is jurisdictional
to vacate premises
Plaintiff must prove that he was in prior physical Plaintiff need not have been in prior physical
possession until he was deprived thereof by possession
defendant
1-year period counted from date of actual entry or 1-year period from date of last demand
when plaintiff learned thereof.

2. When prior demand in unlawful detainer actions not required;

a. When purpose of action is to terminate lease because of expiry of term and not because of
failure to pay rental or to comply with terms of lease contract;
b. Purpose of suit is not for ejectment but for enforcement of terms of contract;
c. When defendant is not a tenant but a pure intruder
 In all other cases, there must be a demand:
i. To pay or to comply with the conditions of the lease; AND
ii. To vacate by written notice on the person in the premises or by posting such notice on the
premises if no person is found thereon and this is a condition precedent to the filing of the
case; ORAL demand is not permitted.
iii. If demand is in the alternative (pay OR vacate), this is NOT the demand contemplated by
the Rules.
3. When the defendant raises the issue of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession
cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the latter issue shall be resolved only
to determine the issue of possession.
 A forcible entry/unlawful detainer action has an entirely different subject matter from that of
an action for reconveyance. The former involves material possession, and the latter,
ownership. Thus, the pendency of an action for reconveyance does not divest the MTC of its
jurisdiction over an action for FE/UD, nor will it preclude execution of judgment in the
ejectment case where the only issue involved is material possession.

RULE 71 CONTEMPT
1. Criminal contempt
a. Purpose is to vindicate public authority;
b. Conduct directed against the dignity or authority of the court.
2. Civil Contempt
a. Purpose is to protect and enforce civil rights and remedies for the litigants;
b. Failure to do something ordered by the court for the benefit of a party.
3. Direct Contempt (contempt in facie curiae)
a. Commit in the presence of or so near a court or judge;
b. Punished summarily without hearing;
c. No appeal may be taken but the party adjudged in contempt may avail himself of actions of
certiorari or prohibition which shall stay the execution of the judgment, provided a bond fixed
by the court is filed.
4. Indirect Contempt
a. Not committed in the presence of the court;
b. Punished only after hearing – complaint in writing or motion or party or order of court
requiring person to appear and explain, opportunity to appear and show cause.
 35

JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

1. ORIGINAL jurisdiction over cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus (concurrent with
RTC).
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, final judgments of lower courts in:
a. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation is in
question;
b. Cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed
thereto;
c. Cases involving the jurisdiction of lower courts;
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher;
e. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

1. ORIGINAL jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and
quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
(concurrent with SC and RTCs)
2. EXCLUSIVE original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of RTCs.
3. EXCLUSIVE appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or
awards of RTCs and quasi-judicial agencies, bodies, or commissions, EXCEPT those which fall
within the appellate jurisdiction of the SC, namely:
a. COMELEC;
b. Commission on Audit;
c. Sandiganbayan.

JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

I. ORIGINAL
A. CIVIL CASES
1. Cases where the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
2. Involving the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the
assessed value of the property involved exceeds P20,000/ P50,000, EXCEPT actions for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
3. All actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds
P200,000/P400,000;
4. Probate proceedings, both testate and intestate, where the gross value of the estate
P200,000/P400,000;
5. In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;
6. In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising jurisdiction;
7. In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agrarian
Relations as now provided by law; and
8. In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy
exceeds P200,000/P400,000;
B. CRIMINAL CASES
All criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, or body
EXCEPT those within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, where the penalty exceeds 6
years imprisonment irrespective of fine, or if only a fine is imposable, exceeds P6,000,
regardless of the amount of civil liability.
 36

 Manzano vs. Valera

R.A. 7691 places jurisdiction over criminal cases where the penalty is 6 years or
less with the MTCs. Libel is punishable by prision correcional in its minimum and
medium periods and prision correcional has a range from six months and one day to six
years. ON the other hand, Art. 360 of the RPC gives jurisdiction over libel cases to the
CFI (now RTC). The latter is a special law which must prevail over general laws.
Moreover, from the provisions of R.A. 7691, there seems to be no manifest intent to
repeal or alter the jurisdiction in libel cases. Thus, RTCs still have jurisdiction over libel
cases.
II. APPELLATE
All cases decided by the lower courts (MTCs) in their respective territorial jurisdictions.
NOTE: no trial de novo; case is decided on the basis of decision and supporting affidavits.

JURISDICTION OF THE FAMILY COURTS (R.A. 8369)

Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
1. Criminal cases where:
a. One or more of the accused is below eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9) years
of age, OR
b. One or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the commission of the offense.
Provided, That if the minor is found guilty, the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any
civil liability which the accused may have incurred. The sentence, however, shall be suspended
without need of application pursuant to the "Child and Youth Welfare Code";
2. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in relation to the latter;
3. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;
4. Complaints [for]:
a. Annulment of marriage
b. Declaration of nullity of marriage
c. Those relating to marital status and property relations of:
i. Husband and wife OR
ii. Those living together under different status and agreements, AND
d. Petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains;
5. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
6. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of the "Family Code of the
Philippines";
7. Petitions for:
a. Declaration of status of children as
i. Abandoned
ii. Dependent OR
iii. Neglected children
b. Voluntary or involuntary commitment of children;
c. The suspension, termination, or restoration of parental authority and other cases cognizable
under "Child and Youth Welfare Code", Executive Order No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other
related laws;
8. Petitions for the constitution of the family home;
9. Cases against minors cognizable under the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended;
10. Violations of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," as amended by Republic Act No.
7658; and
11. Cases of domestic violence against:
a. Women
 37

 Which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in physical,
sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women; and other forms of physical abuse
such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's personhood, integrity
and freedom of movement; AND
b. Children
 Which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation,
violence, and discrimination and all other conditions prejudicial to their development.
If an act constitutes a criminal offense, the accused or batterer shall be subject to criminal
proceedings and the corresponding penalties.
If any question involving any of the above matters should arise as an incident in any case
pending in the regular courts, said incident shall be determined in that court.
Decisions and orders of the court shall be appealed in the same manner and subject to the
same conditions as appeals from the ordinary Regional Trial Courts.

JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS AND THE
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
A. CIVIL CASES
1. Civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional
remedies where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages, attorney’s fees and costs, does not
exceed P100,000/200,000.
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer; issue of
ownership resolved only to determine issue of possession.
 After lapse of 1 year, MTC loses jurisdiction, and case becomes one for recovery of
possession de jure (accion publicicana), although MTC may still have jurisdiction if
value of property does not exceed P20,000/50,000.
3. Actions involving personal property valued at not more than P100,000/200,000.
4. Actions involving title or possession of real property where the assessed value doe not exceed
P20,000/50,000.
5. Inclusion/exclusion of voters.
B. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
1. Violations of city or municipal ordinances.
2. All offenses punishable with not more than 6 years imprisonment, irrespective of fine, or a
fine of not more than P6,000, regardless of civil liabilities and accessory penalties.

SUMMARY PROCEDURE
I. CASES APPLICABLE
A. CIVIL CASES
1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer irrespective of amount of damages or
unpaid rentals; without question of ownership; attorney’s fees not exceeding P20,000 if
quieting of ownership; resolved to determine question of possession.
2. Other civil cases EXCEPT probate proceedings, where the total amount of the claim does
not exceed P10,000, exclusive of interest and cost.
B. CRIMINAL CASES
1. Violation of traffic laws, rules, regulations
2. Violation of rental laws
3. Violations of city or municipality ordinances
4. All other criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed 6 months or a fine of P1000 or
both
5. Damage to property through criminal negligence where the fine does not exceed P10,000.
II. PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS
 38

1. Motion to dismiss or quash EXCEPT for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter or failure to
comply with Katarungang Pambarangay (LGC) requirements
2. Motion for bill of particulars
3. Motions for new trial, reconsideration, re-opening
4. Petition for relief from judgment
5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits
6. Memoranda
7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by
the court
8. Motion to declare defendant in default
9. Dilatory motion for postponement
10. Reply
11. Third-party complaints
12. Motion for intervention

JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD (HLURB)

EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over
1. Unsound real estate business practices
2. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer
against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman
3. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of
subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer, broker, or salesman

JURISDICTION OF THE KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY (UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF

1991)
1. No complaint, petition, action or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon
shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication, unless:
a. There has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or pangkat,
AND
b. That no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon/pangkat secretary
as attested to by lupon chairman or pangkat chairman, or unless such settlement has been
repudiated by the parties thereto
2. Disputes subject to Conciliation Requirement: All disputes between parties actually residing in the
same city or municipality
 HOWEVER, the court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the
Lupon may, at any time before trial, refer the case to the lupon for amicable settlement.
3. EXCEPTIONS TO CONCILIATION REQUIREMENT (SC Circular 14-93)
a. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
b. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of
his official functions;
c. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless
the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate
Lupon;
d. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or juridical entities, since only
individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or
respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
e. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, EXCEPT:
i. Where such barangay units adjoin each other, AND
ii. The parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate Lupon;
 39

f. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1)
year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
g. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
h. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or
further continued, specifically the following:
i. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention;
ii. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over
another or a person illegally deprived of his liberty or one acting in his behalf;
iii. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment,
delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the action; AND
iv. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
i. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
j. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Sections.
46 & 47, R.A. 6657);
k. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya vs.
Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original and
exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to
certain offices of the Department of Labor and Employment);
l. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise, which may be filed directly in court.

4. VENUE OF PROCEEDINGS:
Situation Venue
Parties reside in same barangay That barangay
Parties reside in different barangays Barangay where respondent, or any of the
respondents, actually resides, at the option of the
complainant
Disputes involving real property or interest therein Barangay where property is situated
Disputes arising at the workplace where the Barangay where such workplace or institution is
contending parties are employed, or at the located
institution where such parties are enrolled for study

 Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the punong barangay;
otherwise, they are deemed waived. Legal questions confronting the punong barangay which
might arise in resolving such objections are to be submitted to the Secretary of the DOJ, whose
ruling shall be binding.
5. EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE:
a. Dismissal upon motion of defendants for failure to state cause of action or prematurity; OR
b. Suspension of proceedings upon petition and referral of case motu proprio to appropriate
barangay authority.
6. PROCEDURE FOR AMICABLE SETTLEMENT:
a. Complainant pays appropriate filing fees, and shall complain, orally or in writing, to the lupon
chairman of the barangay;
b. Lupon chairman shall make attempts at mediation; if he fails within 15 days from date of first
meeting, he shall set a date for the constitution of a pangkat ng tagapagsundo (3 members;
chosen by the parties from the list of the members of the lupon)
c. Pangkat shall have power to issue summons, and shall hear both parties and their witnesses,
and attempt to arrive at an amicable settlement. It shall arrive at said settlement or resolution
of the dispute within 15 days from the day it convenes.
 During the period while the dispute is under mediation, the prescriptive periods for offenses,
and for causes of action shall be interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the punong
barangay. Said interruption shall not exceed 60 days from said filing.
 40

 In all proceedings, parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel or
representatives, EXCEPT for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-
kin who are not lawyers.
7. Amicable settlement shall have the force and effect of a final judgment upon the expiration of 10
days from its date, unless:
a. It is repudiated, or
 Repudiation must be done within 10 days, by filing a sworn statement with the lupon
chairman;
 The grounds for repudiation are vitiation of consent by fraud, violence or intimidation;
 Such repudiation is a sufficient basis for the issuance of a certification for filing a
complaint with the court.
b. A petition to nullify the settlement is filed in the proper city or municipal court
 The above does not apply to cases not within jurisdiction of the lupon but submitted to it.
In this case, the compromise agreed upon by the parties before the lupon/pangkat chair
shall be submitted to the court and upon approval thereof, shall have the force and effect
of a judgment of said court.
8. EXECUTION OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT:
a. Within 6 months from date of settlement: by the lupon.
b. Thereafter, by action in the appropriate city of municipal court
9. CERTIFICATION OF BARANGAY AUTHORITIES (for filing a complaint in court) shall be issued only
upon complying with the following requirements:
a. Issued by lupon secretary and attested by lupon chairman/ punong barangay, that
confrontation took place and conciliation settlement was reached, but subsequently
repudiated.
b. Issued by pangkat secretary and attested by pangkat chairman, that:
i. There was a confrontation but no settlement; OR
ii. There was no personal confrontation without any fault on the part of the complainant.
c. Issued by the Punong Barangay, as requested by the proper party, on the ground of failure of
settlement, where the dispute involves members of the same indigenous cultural community,
which shall be settled in accordance with the customs and traditions of that particular cultural
community, or where one or more of the parties to the aforesaid dispute belong to the minority
and the parties mutually agreed to submit their dispute to the indigenous system of amicable
settlement, and there has been no settlement as certified by the datu or tribal leader or elder, to
the Punong Barangay of the place of settlement
 If mediation or conciliation proved unsuccessful before punong barangay there having been
no agreement to conciliate, OR respondent failed to appear before punong barangay, Punong
Barangay shall not issue the certification (because now mandatory for him to constitute the
Pangkat before whom mediation, conciliation, or arbitration proceedings shall be held.)

JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN

A. ORIGINAL
1. Violations of:
a. “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”;
b. R.A. 1379 (“An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State of Any Property Found to
Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for
the Proceedings Therefor”); or
c. Title VII, Chapter II, § 2 of the RPC (i.e., Articles 210-212 of RPC)
 Where one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the
time of the commission of the offense:
i. Officials of executive branch occupying positions classified as Grade 27 or higher
ii. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade 27 or higher
 41

iii. Members of the Judiciary, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution (on
impeachment)
iv. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution
v. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 or higher; or
2. Other offenses or felonies, committed by public officials and employees mentioned in #1, in
relation to their office, whether simple or complexed with other crimes
3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2,
14 and 14-A.
B. APPELLATE
If none of the principal accused are occupying positions of grade 27 or higher, original jurisdiction
will be with either the MTC or RTC; SB will exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction on said
cases.
 The procedure prescribed in BP Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme
Court has promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review
to the Court of Appeals shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the
Sandiganbayan.
C. NOTES:
1. Private individuals charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public
officers or employees shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the
proper courts
2. Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action
and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the
same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal
action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to
reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized.
3. Decisions of the Sandiganbayan:
a. Appealable to the SC by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in
accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court;
b. If SB imposes penalty of reclusion perpetua or higher, the decision shall be appealable to
the SC by Notice of Appeal;
c. If penalty imposed is death, review by the Supreme Court shall be automatic, whether or
not the accused filed an appeal.

REMEDIAL LAW DEFINITIONS/CONCEPTS

JURISDICTION AND VENUE DIFFERENTIATED

JURISDICTION VENUE
Authority to hear and determine a case Court/place where the case is to be tried and heard
A matter of substantive law A matter of procedural law
Fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties May be conferred by the act or agreement of the
parties
Establishes a relation between the court and subject Establishes a relation between plaintiff and
matter defendant, or petitioner and respondent

CLASSIFICATIONS OF JURISDICTION
1. General vs. Specific/Limited:
General - power to adjudicate all controversies EXCEPT those expressly withheld from the plenary
powers of the court
 42

Specific/Limited - restricted to particular cases and subject to such limitations as may be provided
by the governing law
2. Original vs. Appellate
Original – power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action for
the first time
Appellate – authority of a court higher in rank to reexamine the final order or judgment of a lower court
which tried the case now elevated for judicial review
3. Exclusive vs. Concurrent
Exclusive – power to adjudicate a case or proceeding to the exclusion of all other courts at that stage
Concurrent – also known as confluent or coordinate jurisdiction; power conferred upon different
courts, whether of the same or different ranks, to take cognizance at the same state of
the same case
NOTE:
General Rule: Jurisdiction, once acquired, continues until the case is finally terminated.
Exceptions:
1. When a subsequent law provides a prohibition for the continued exercise of jurisdiction;
2. Where the law penalizing an act is punishable is repealed by a subsequent law;
3. When accused is deprived of his constitutional right such as where the court fails to
provide counsel for the accused who is unable to obtain one and does not intelligently
waive his constitutional right;
4. Where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it intended to
operate as to actions pending before its enactment;
5. When the proceedings in the court acquiring jurisdiction is terminated, abandoned or
declared void;
6. Once appeal has been perfected.

CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIONS
1. Real, personal and mixed
Real – brought for the protection of real rights, land, tenements, or one founded on privity of estate
only
Personal – not founded upon the privity of real rights or real property
Mixed – brought for protection or recovery of real property and also for an award for damages
sustained
2. In rem, in personam, and quasi in rem
In rem – not directed against particular persons but against the thing itself; object is to bar indifferently
all who might be minded to make objection against the right sought to be enforced; hence,
judgment is binding upon the whole world (e.g., land registration; special proceedings)
In personam – directed against particular persons on the basis of their personal liability to establish a
claim against them; judgment is binding only upon the parties impleaded and their
successors in interest (e.g., action for breach of contract)
Quasi in rem – directed against particular persons, but the purpose of which is to bar and bind not only
said persons but any other person who claims any interest in the property or right
subject of the suit (e.g. action for judicial foreclosure of mortgage)
3. Transitory vs. local
Transitory – one the venue of which depends generally upon the residence of the parties, regardless of
where the cause of action arose (e.g., personal actions)
Local – one required by the Rules to be instituted in a particular place in the absence of an agreement
to the contrary (e.g., real actions)

KINDS OF PARTIES
1. Real party in interest – person having an interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the
relief demanded.
 43

2. Indispensable party – a person without whom no final determination can be had of an action.
3. Proper party – a person who is not indispensable but should be included if complete relief is to
be accorded as between those already parties.
4. Pro forma party – a husband or wife who is required to be joined in suits by or against his spouse
5. Quasi-parties – those in whose behalf a class or representative suit is brought; parties not
initially/ formally impleaded as original parties but later bind themselves to
comply with the terms of a judgment or compromise rendered therein.

PLEADINGS
Pleading – written allegation of the parties of their respective claims and defenses submitted to the
court for trial and judgment.

KINDS OF PLEADINGS
1. COMPLAINT – concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause or causes of
action.
2. ANSWER – pleading where an adverse party sets forth negative and affirmative defenses upon
which he relies.
a. Negative Defense – specific denial of a fact alleged.
b. Affirmative Defense – an allegation of new matter which, though admits the material
allegations of the complaint, nevertheless prevents recovery.
3. COUNTERCLAIM – any claim for money or other relief which a party may have against an
opposing party.
a. Compulsory Counterclaim – one arising out of or is necessarily connected with the subject
matter of the claim (e.g., recoupment).
b. Permissive Counterclaim – does not arise or is not connected with the subject matter of the
claim (e.g., set-off).
4. CROSS CLAIM – claim by one party against a co-party arising out of a transaction or occurrence
which is the subject matter of the action or counterclaim.
5. REPLY – a pleading that denies or alleges facts in denial of new matters alleged by way of defense
in the answer with the purpose of joining the issues as to such new matters.
6. THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT – a claim which a defending party may file against a person not a
party to the action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or
any other relief.

OTHER DEFINITIONS
Specific Denial – specific allegation of the fact the truth of which he does not admit and setting
forth the substance of the matter relied upon to support the denial OR allegation
of lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as the truth of the
averment.
Negative Pregnant – a form of denial where only the qualification or modification of the fact
alleged is denied while the fact itself is admitted.
Summons – an order directed to a defendant in the name of the court and under its seal directing that
the defendant answer the complaint upon failure of which judgment will be taken.
Motion – application for an order not included in the judgment.
Subpoena – process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at a hearing or the
trial or to bring with him any book or thing under his control.
Demurrer to Evidence – a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of evidence of the
prosecution.
Preliminary Attachment – an order of the court granted at the commencement of the action or at
any time before entry of judgment to seize the property of the debtor in
advance of final judgment to hold it for the purpose of satisfying the
judgment.
Preliminary Injunction – an order granted at any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final
order requiring a person to refrain from a particular act.
 44

Preliminary Mandatory Injunction – an order requiring the performance of a particular act.

Criminal Complaint – sworn written statement charging a person with an offense subscribed by
an offended party, peace officer, or other public officer.
Information – an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense subscribed by the fiscal
and filed with court.
Preliminary Investigation – an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of determining whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty
thereof.
Arrest – taking a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an
offense.
Bail – the security for the release of a person in custody of the law furnished by him or a bondsman
conditioned upon his appearing before any court as required under the condition hereinafter
specified.
Property Bond – an undertaking constituted as lien on the real property given as security for the
amount of bail.
 45

CIVIL PROCEDURE COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE

EQUALITY BRIEF.
Though leave policies that are gender-neutral may
affect the employment interests of both sexes, such
LET'S START AT THE VERY BEGINNING policies place an additional burden on females with
the fundamental non-employment right of
Angel of God, my Guardian dear procreative choice.
To Whom His Love entrusts Me here
Ever this day, be at my side The law in question reduces the discriminatory
To Light and Guide, to Rule and Guard impact of inadequate leave policies on women's
Amen procreative rights, while conferring no special
benefit on any group of employees, and imposing
no special burden on others.

DISCLAIMER: This is not authoritative since this There is no inconsistency between the federal law's
is based solely on the lecture notes, hence the goal of removing artificial barriers to equal
frequent WITs (what is this?) NOTE: all WORD employment opportunity between the sexes, and
GAMES are not formal definitions but word for the California statute's effect of equalizing male
word transcriptions of L's mind maps. Hence, and female employees' ability to exercise
these are practical definitions just to juggle your procreative choice w/o jeopardizing their jobs.
memory according to SIr's mental outline
MENKEL. PORTIA IN A DIFFERENT VOICE.

GILLIAN, IN A DIFFERENT VOICE. Re: Gillian's observations about M/F

Jake: Rule Based on Principle Based differences in moral reasoning re: structure of
Resolution. Apply the law, and make allowances legal system, practice of law, creation of laws, legal
for mistakes in the law. Situation does not create reasoning and law as part of the decision-making
the rule. process; 2 questions:
Amy: Relational / Consensual /
Processional Based Resolution 1. How has the exclusion, or at least the
devaluation of women's voices affected the choices
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND made in the values underlying our current legal
LOAN V. GUERRA. Issue: Re: 1978 California structures? (Value system)
legislation re: State mandated employee benefits 2. Is there another set of values within
but not for other temporary disabilities. Single existing legal structures?
mother lost her job as a receptionist after her
maternity leave, and as a result of her Usually, tendency for one set of characteristics to
unemployment, lost custody of her daughter. mitigate the excesses of the other, therefore the
Mother filed case to enforce maternity harshness of law produced the flexibility of equity,
benefits: employer challenged statute as and the abuse of flexibility gave rise to rules of law
inconsistent with Federal Pregnancy to limit discretion. Still, the tendency for male-
Discrimination Act (PDA) which treats pregnancy dominated or male-created forms and values to
as similar with other temporary disabilities for control.
employment purposes.

ACLU BRIEF.
Elimination of pregnancy-based RULE 1
distinctions valid re: employment purposes since Purpose of Rules
protectionist laws tend to promote stereotype of
female childbearers and caregivers, and deter
employers from hiring them or putting them in Alonzo v. Villamor, 16 Phil 315, 321-322
more responsible positions; they make women Facts: Defendant members of the Municipal Board
appear as more expensive, less reliable employees. took over certain church & personal properties on
By making pregnancy comparable to other the ground that the buildings were erected on the
land owned by the municipality & therefore the
temporary physical conditions, Congress directs municipality can administer & collect the revenues.
attention away from debilitating stereotypes and The CFI granted recovery of the properties. One of
focus attention on workers' need for disability leave the arguments posed by the defendants was that Fr.
itself. Benefits should be provided on a gender- Alonso, the parish priest, was not the real party-in-
interest but rather the Bishop of the diocese.
neutral basis.
Held: The property in question at the time it was
taken was Church property. It is undoubted that the
Bishop is the real party. But by Code of Civil
 46

Procedure §10, cts. are authorized & directed to Facts: Santos was bumped off his flight back to
allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding the USA despite confirmation. He sued in the
at any stage of the action, in furtherance of justice. Makati RTC for damages. NWOA filed a MTD for
§ 503 prohibits the reversal of any judgment on on the ground of lack of jurisdiction citing the
merely formal or technical grounds or for such Warsaw Convention Art. 28(1) w/c states that the
error as has not prejudiced the rights of the complaint could be instituted only in the territory
excepting party, The error in CAB is purely of one of the High Contracting Parties, before: (1)
technical. The plaintiff has asserted all throughout the ct. of the domicile of the carrier; (2) the ct. of
that he is prosecuting the case not for himself but the principal place of business; (3) the ct. where it
for the Bishop. Substantially, no one is deceived. has a place of business thru w/c the contract had
Substitution is not substantial but formal & mere been made; & (4) the ct. of the place of destination.
defect in form cannot possibly prejudice so long as The suit was not filed in any of these places.
the substantial is clearly evident. Held: The Warsaw Convention applies to all
international transportation cases. A number of
ALONZO V VILLAMOR. misjoinder/non- reasons tends to support the characterization of Art.
joinder of parties not ground for dismissal. Must 28 (1) as a jurisdiction & not a venue provision.
First, the wording of Art. 32, w/c indicate the
allege lack of cause of action places where the actin for damages must be
Amendment allowed for matters of form; brought underscores the mandatory nature of Art.
therefore, if parties acquiesce during trial, there 28 (1). Second, this characterization is consistent
may be no need for formal lesson. wit one of the objectives of the Convention w/c is
to regulate in a uniform manner the condition of
Lesson in ALONZO: If rules are clear, apply; if international transportation by air. Third, the
there is ambiguity, constr5uct so that there is Convention does not contain any provision
justice for all prescribing rules on jurisdiction other than Art. 28
(1) w/c means that the phrase “rules of jurisdiction”
used in Art. 32 must refer only to Art. 28 (1). In
Jurisdiction fact, the last sentence of Art. 32 specifically deals
w/ the exclusive enumeration in Art. 28 (1) as
BP Blg. 128 jurisdictions w/c as such cannot be left to the will
RA No. 7691 of the parties regardless of the time when the
damage occurred. The Constitutional right on free
RA No. 8369 access to cts. refers to cts. w/ jurisdiction over the
suit. The place of destination as determined by the
contract is the ultimate destination w/c is San
Javier v. CA, 214 SCRA 572 (1992) Francisco, not Manila. Domicile is where NWOA
is incorporated. Important is the distinction
between the country where the principal place of
Facts: Javier filed a case vs. Jebsens Maritime, Inc. business is located & the country in w/c it has a
in RTC Makati to avail of death benefits when her place of business thru w/c the particular contract in
husband drowned off the coast of Spain. JMI’s new question was made.
counsel instead of continuing the trial filed a
Motion to Dismiss (MTD) on the ground that it is
the POEA that has jurisdiction. RTC denied. JMI SANTOS V NORTHWEST.
failed to appear at the hearing & RTC declared Jurisdiction. 2 meanings: a) place of filing and b)
them as having waived right to cross-examine. level of court. Can't be changed, set by law.
Motion for Reconsideration was denied. JMI Venue. Place of filing. Can be changed by consent
successfully appealed to CA. Javier’s MFR was
denied. of parties subject to pertinent rules.
Held: EO 247 §3 (d) provides that the POEA shall In the case at bar, the source of law is treaty, not
have exclusive & original jurisdiction to hear & contract. Therefore, jurisdiction set by law.
decide all claims arising out of an EE-ER relation Venue prescribed by process or Rules of Court
or by virtue of any law or contract involving (what does this mean?)
Filipino workers for overseas employment.
Javier’s’ contention that JMI is estopped fr. The difference between jurisdiction and venue.
assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC considering Look at a) consequence and b) source of law
that the latter had actively participated in the
proceedings before said ct. is unavailing since JMI Lopez v. NW, 223 SCRA 469
had raised the question of jurisdiction in the RTC.
The doctrine of estoppel cannot be properly
invoked by Javier despite the participation of JMI Facts: Lopez was bumped off her flight to New
at the initial stages of the trial proceedings as the York by Northwest. She filed a complaint for
issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any time & at breach of contract of carriage w/ damages, alleging
any stage of the action. bad faith on the part of the airline. NW filed MTD
on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction
under the Warsaw Convention. RTC & CA denied:
JAVIER V CA. Doctrine of Primary Art. 28 (1) prescribes venue for actions under Arts.
Administrative Jurisdiction: file original and 17-19 & does not cover carrier’s bad faith in
exclusive jurisdiction of administrative tribunal, absolutely refusing to comply w/ contract of
even if possible to lead jurisdiction in both. carriage; off-loading, & bumping off is not covered
under the Warsaw Convention. Appeal in the SC
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is to give a failed. After trial on the merits, RTC directed
chance for administrative functions to work. parties to submit their respective memoranda for
decision 30 days & it expired Feb. 14, 1992. On
Santos v. NW, 210 SCRA 256 (1992) July, NW filed MTD after SC ruling on Santos vs.
NW. RTC granted.
 47

so the ct., upon motion, issued a writ of execution.

Held: RTC had jurisdiction. It is not clear whether Appeal w/ the CA failed. MFR filed, alleging that
the complaint contains the allegation w/c may fall the CFI had no jurisdiction bec. 1 month before the
w/in Art. 28 (1). What is clear is that NW did not case was filed, RA 926, or the Judicial
object to RTC’s order to submit evidence & declare Reorganization Act of 1948, took effect, Sec. 88 of
case submitted for decision pursuant to 1987 w/c places original & exclusive jurisdiction in
Consti, Art. 8, Sec. 15, Nos. 1 & 2. TC had 90 days inferior cts. over all civil actions where the value of
fr. Feb. 15 to decide w/c was the only thing left for the subject matter is ≤P2T. CA set aside decision
it to do. BY virtue of the SC’s resolution, RTC had by certifying the case to the SC, w/c has exclusive
prima facie jurisdiction. It was also not established appellate jurisdiction over all cases in w/c the
that the facts in Santos were substantially the same. jurisdiction of inferior cts. is at issue.
Besides, posterior changes in SC doctrines cannot
be retroactively applied to nullify a prior SC ruling. Held: Although objections to jurisdiction may be
Jurisdiction continues until termination. While raised at any stage of the proceedings, in the CAB,
jurisdiction over subject matter may be raised at it took almost 15 years before the Surety filed its
any time, party may be barred on ground of MTD (1963), raising lack of jurisdiction for the
laches/estoppel. first time. It is now barred by laches. From the time
it became a quasi-party upon filing of a counter
Bulao v. CA, 218 SCRA 321 (1992) bond in 1948, it could have raised the objection.
Instead, at several stages of the action, it invoked
the jurisdiction of said cts. to obtain an affirmative
Facts: Santiago Belleza sued Honorio Bulao for relief. It was only when the CA ruled adversely that
damages in MuTC for having built a dam on an it finally raised the question of jurisdiction. SC
irrigation canal, causing the waterflow to divert to frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party
Belleza’s land, resulting into crop damage. Bulao submitting his case for decision & then accepting
filed a MTD on the ground that RTC had the judgment only if it is favorable & attacking it
jurisdiction - denied. He then argued that it was the for lack of jurisdiction when adverse.
National Water Resources Council that had
jurisdiction - denied. MuTC declared Bulao in
default & ruled for Belleza. Bulao appealed to the TIJAM V SIBONGHANOY. The trial court, after
RTC -denied. 15 years, can act motu proprio and dismiss the case
for lack of jurisdiction. Estoppel by laches does
Held: MuTC had jurisdiction. But to resolve this, not apply to judge.
determine first the nature of the action. This can be
ascertained fr. the ultimate facts averred in the Abalos v. CA, 30 April 1991
complaint constituting the COA. Allegations in the
complaint determine the nature of the action &
consequently the jurisdiction of the cts.. It is clear Facts: Abalos spouses sued to recover possession
fr. a reading of the complaint that it is an action for of a lot in Quezon City registered in their name.
damages predicated on quasi-delict Although the The squatters, against whom the action was filed,
title of the complaint (“Damages”) is not lost the case in the QC RTC so they appealed to the
necessarily determinative of the nature of the CA on the ground that the RTC erred in not
action, it would nevertheless indicate that what was dismissing the case for failure to comply w/ the
contemplated was an action for damages. Katarungang Barangay conciliation procedure. CA
Allegations of the facts set forth in the complaint & granted.
not the prayer for relief determine the nature of the Held: RTC had jurisdiction. When the Abalos
action. spouses filed their complaint, they placed QC as
their address. But they were able to change it to
BULAO V CA. The wonderful thing about the Caloocan upon leave of ct. w/o the respondents
objecting. The requirement of conciliation cannot
servient's estate's complaint was the allegation that be enforced since the property is in QC, where the
the dominant estate "maliciously put a dam" and respondents reside, while the Abalos spouses live
this phrase placed it within the court's jurisdiction. in Caloocan (PD 1508 Sec. 20). Respondents
To place the case within the National Water effectively waived their right when they failed to
object to the correction of the Abalos’ residence fr.
Resources Council (NWRC)'s jurisdiction, allege QC to Caloocan participated in the trial on the
that dominant estate set up dam without a permit in merits. The fact that they argued their case &
violation of PD 1067 and took control of the water, adduced their evidence amounts to a waiver of this
in effect appropriated water illegally. defense. Once a party submits to the jurisdiction of
the ct. & participates in the trial on the merits, he
cannot thereafter, after an unfavorable judgment,
Name game: Jurisdiction is prescribed by law and take a total turnabout & say that compliance w/ PD
acquired by court. 1508 was not made.

Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA ABALOS V CA. Ruling (acc. to L): Amendment

already happens implicitly when parties acquiesce
Facts: The Tijams filed a civil case against the Q: Is failure to undergo Katarunggang
Sibonghanoys for recovery of P1,900 + interest. Pambaranggay a ground for dismissal for failure to
The Sibonghanoys filed an answer w/
counterclaim, to w/c the Tijams filed a reply. The comply with condition precedent?
CFI Cebu ruled in the Tijam’s favor. A writ of L: Abalos fails to clarify this. Formerly,
execution was returned unsatisfied so the Tijams grounds for MTD in ROC Rule 16 provided
filed a motion for execution against the Manila "failure to state a cause of action". Now clarified
Surety & Fidelity Co., w/c was denied due to lack
of demand. A demand later made was unsatisfied,
 48

by Revised ROC Rule 16 (j) which now states CALIMLIM V RAMIREZ. Res judicata: bar by
"failure to comply with condition precedent" prior judgment (diff. From estoppel)

NOTE: In this class, L is synonymous with A in L: General Rule: Jurisdiction is conferred by law
Q & A; but more often, he prefers to be Q. All Qs and thus it can be raised at any point in the
are Ls unless otherwise indicated proceedings even on appeal
TIJAM rule: Estoppel by laches occurs when 2
Galuba v. Laureta, 157 SCRA 627 requisites concur
a. passage of an unreasonable length of time
LECTURE ON JURISDICTION a. party sleep on its rights to make other party
believe that the former has abandoned his rights
RA 8369: Changes jurisdiction for cases Therefore, party can't raise question of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction, remedy, relief, cause of action, subject if he is guilty of estoppel by laches
matter (what is this?) CALIMLIM rule: W/N party asked for affirmative
Place: Rules prescribing place to file may not relief irrelevant; what matters is whether party was
necessarily refer to venue but to jurisdiction as well led to believe that the other party slept on his
rights. A rule on equity.
P20T/P50T -- subject matter General Rule: Court can dismiss case for lack of
P100T/P200T -- relief jurisdiction motu proprio

If allegations not coMplete, vulnerable to MTD Ortigas & Co. v. CA 106 SCRA

Judicial power: sum total of all courts comprising Facts: Ortigas & Co. sold to Maximo Belmonte a
the judiciary power of judicary of make decisions piece of land. Terms: Belmonte would be
on actual controversies. considered a lessee until full payment & in case of
default he would be ejected as trespasser or
Jurisdiction: a particular court exercising power unlawful detainer. Belmonte failed to pay so an
over a specific controversy action for unlawful detainer was field in the San
Juan MuTC, where Ortigas prayed that the
Flores v. Mallare Philipps, 144 SCRA residential building constructed by Belmonte be
forfeited in its favor. Belmonte lost so he appealed
to the CFI Rizal by filing an MTD under ROC 40
Facts: Abalos spouses sued to recover possession Sec. 11 w/c, if granted, would in effect dismiss the
of a lot in Quezon City registered in their name. case & render judgment by MuTC invalid for lack
The squatters, against whom the action was filed, of jurisdiction. It was denied but an appeal to the
lost the case in the QC RTC so they appealed to the CA set aside the MuTC & CFI rulings. On appeal,
CA on the ground that the RTC erred in not the SC ruled that the issues were purely legal &
dismissing the case for failure to comply w/ the should have been brought directly to the SC, but it
Katarungang Barangay conciliation procedure. CA proceeded to adjudicate the case anyway as if
granted. brought for the first time.

Held: RTC had jurisdiction. When the Abalos Held: MuTC had jurisdiction according to the
spouses filed their complaint, they placed QC as ruling in Fuentes & Goter vs. Muñoz-Palma. An
their address. But they were able to change it to action for unlawful detainer, w/c is a summary
Caloocan upon leave of ct. w/o the respondents proceeding to wrest possession fr. one who has no
objecting. The requirement of conciliation cannot right thereto, is applicable only when the issue is
be enforced since the property is in QC, where the that of possession. According to the Judiciary Act
respondents reside, while the Abalos spouses live Sec. 44 (b), the CFI has original jurisdiction in all
in Caloocan (PD 1508 Sec. 20). Respondents civil actions w/c involve title to or possession of
effectively waived their right when they failed to real property, except actions of forcible entry &
object to the correction of the Abalos’ residence fr. detainer over lands or buildings where original
QC to Caloocan participated in the trial on the jurisdiction is conferred upon city or municipal cts..
merits. The fact that they argued their case & This case involves not merely right of possession
adduced their evidence amounts to a waiver of this but also rights of ownership over the improvements
defense. Once a party submits to the jurisdiction of as indicated in the prayer. CFI should have
the ct. & participates in the trial on the merits, he dismissed the case when its was brought on appeal
cannot thereafter, after an unfavorable judgment, bec. it could only have entertained the same if the
take a total turnabout & say that compliance w/ PD parties did not object to nor raised the question of
1508 was not made. jurisdiction.

FLORES V MALLARE-PHILIPPS: Example Dy v. CA, 195 SCRA

where it is possible to allege facts in pleading that
gives rise to 2 causes of action: misjoinder of Facts: Ramon Roxas filed an ejectment suit in the
parties MeTC Makati vs. Andres & Gloria Dy where he
L: lack cause of action a separate case (WIT?) won. Dys appealed to the RTC, but failed. MeTC
granted immediate execution, so the next day, the
Strategy: file answer for 1st cause of action; file Sheriff & some policemen ejected the Dys by
MTD for 2nd cause of action throwing their belongings to the street. They filed a
motion to quash/recall of the writ of execution on
 49

the ground that they had not received a copy of the complaint stated a claim of not less than P10M in
RTC decision. MeTC denied. CA appeal failed. the prayer but a second amendment raised the
amount to P44M+ w/c was admitted in ct.. Sun
questions this order.
Held: There must first be copy of the RTC decision
served on the losing party before judgment is
executed. Refer to ROC 39 Sec. 1, Rules on Held: Petition dismissed for lack of merit. The
Summary Procedure Sec. 12 & BP 129 Sec. 22. contention that Manchester ruling cannot apply
retroactively to this case is untenable. Statutes
Proof of service of copy of judgment determines regulating the procedure of the cts. will be
whether or not the appeal period has lapsed. If no construed to apply to actions pending &
appeal was filed after the copy is served, then the undetermined at the time of their passage.
decision is immediately executory as a matter of Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense & to
that extent. It is not simply the filing of the
right. A petition for review by CA of RTC complaint or pleading but the payment of the
judgment may be filed only after notice of RTC prescribed docket fee that vests the trial ct. w/
judgment has been served on the losing party. If no jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the
notice was served, the losing party has no legal action. Where the TC acquires jurisdiction over a
claim w/ the filing of the appropriate pleading &
remedy against an illegal judgment nor does the payment of the prescribed filing fee, but
CA have the power to prevent the execution of an subsequently the an award of an amount not
illegal order. However, the Dys cannot have the specified in the pleading, or if specified, the same
relief prayed for since they failed to appeal after has been left for determination by the ct., the
additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the
they were served notice. Nothing is more settled judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk
than the rule that in every litigation, the parties of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce
thereto are entitled to due process, & if there is a said lien & assess the additional fee.
denial thereof, then the validity of the proceedings
is open to question. Katarungang Pambarangay

Manchester Dev. Co. v. CA, 149 SCRA See RA 7160 provisions

Facts: MDC filed a complaint for damages & Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444
specific performance against City Land to compel
the latter to push through w/ the sale of the land. Facts: This was a case for the recovery of a sum
The amount of damages was not specified in the of money plus damages = P49,400.00. AA MTD
prayer but was alleged in the body of the was filed bec. of failure to undergo conciliation
complaint. Thus, a docket fee of only P410 was proceeding in the brgy. The MTD was opposed on
paid on the presumption that the amount involved the ground that the law on KP covers only to those
was not capable of pecuniary estimation, when in cases falling w/in the exclusive juris. of the MTCs.
fact it was. MDC’s second counsel deleted all
mention of damages. SC ordered the reassessment Held: There is no distinction whatsoever w/
of docket fees. Reduced damages were still not respect to the classes of civil dispute that should be
specified in the prayer. CA ruled that docket fees compromised at the brgy level as
should be based on the orig. comp. contradistinguished w/ that of the criminal cases.

Held: A case is deemed filed only upon payment of Royales v. IAC, 127 SCRA 470
docket fees regardless of the actual date of filing in
ct.. Thus, the TC did not acquire jurisdiction w/ the Facts: This is an ejectment case again in the MTC.
payment of the P410 docket fee. An amendment of R, the lessee, participated in the trial & even cross-
the complaint or similar pleading will not vest examined the petitioner. R, then, filed a certiorari
jurisdiction, much less payment of the docket fee, & prohibition w/ preliminary injunction when the
based on the amount averred in the amended decision was adverse to him.
pleading. The design to avoid payment is obvious Held: Petition denied. A party who has affirmed &
since it misled the docket clerk. All complaints, invoked the jurisdiction of a ct. in a particular
petitions, answers, & similar pleadings should matter to secure an affirmative relief cannot,
specify the amount of damages being prayed for afterwards, deny the same jurisdiction to escape a
not only in the pleading but also in the prayer & penalty.
said damages should be considered in the
assessment of the filing of fees in any case. Any
pleading that fails to comply w/ this requirement LECTURE ON KATARUNGANG
shall not be accepted nor admitted, & shall be PAMBARANGAY
expunged fr. the record.
General Rule. All civil actions, regardless of
Sun Insurance v. Asuncion, 170 SCRA amount of relief, between parties of the same
baranggay, should undergo Katarunggang
Facts: Sun Insurance filed a complaint in the RTC Pambaranggay
for consignation of a premium fund on a private
fire insurance policy against Manuel Uy Po Tiong. Remedy: a) Don't arrive at a settlement
Manuel filed for a refund of the premium but the b) File case v. Lupon to compel them to
amount of damages was not specified in the prayer, dismiss objectinable Lupon member
although it could be inferred in the body. Thus, (This case need not undergo KP re sec. 408 (b) and
only P210 docket fee was paid. SC ordered sec. 406 (a)) (WIT?)
reassessment of the docket fees. The amended
 50

Acquisition of Jurisdiction: Rule 1 Section 5:

MANCHESTER rule: full payment of docket fees Filing of complaint vests court with jurisdiction
necessary for court to acquire jurisdiction over res. Summons vests court with jurisdiction
All prayers must be in the complaint, not over the corpus.
just in the body NOTE: filing of complaint happens upon full
Overruled LEGASPI re: installment payment of docket fees
payments no longer allowed
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
SUN INSURANCE: bar problem. If there is an NOTE: Failure to undergo Katarunggang
honest difference of opinion as to amount of docket Pambarangay not issue of jurisdiction Sec. 412
fees and P is in good faith, court can grant period Loc. Government Code; neither a defect in
of time to allow payment. Qualifies jurisdiction but vulnerable to a MTD (Rule 16 sec.
MANCHESTER only to that extent J) for failure to undergo condition precedent.
Failure to undergo condition precedent
MANCHESTER: if award to judgment creditor is can only be raised in a MTD or as an affirmative
greater than the amount prayed form, difference in defense
docket fees constitutes first lien.
NOTE: but no payback of excess fees even if
awarded less Summary Procedure

L: Remember to bill your client for "incidental" or Rules on Summary Procedure (Oct. '91)
"out of pocket" costs for sheriff's transportation,
food and vitamins Del Rosario v. CA, 241 SCRA 519 ('95)

Held: The presence of an action for quieting of

title does not divest the MeTC of original
JURISDICTION (power to hear, try and decide jurisdiction over the ejectment case. An ejectment
cases) case (possession de facto) is independent of any
claim of ownership (possession de jure). Under the
Conferred by law. Law can only be changed by revised Summary Procedure (Nov. 15, 1991) all
passing through Congress. Party can't amend rules types of ejectment cases are now covered by it
on jurisdiction by agreement or voluntary act regardless of whether or not the issue of ownership
Jurisdiction can be raised at any time even on of subject property is pleaded by a party. No
hearings are required in this procedure. The
appeal, after termination of case of decision adjudication of cases here are done on the basis of
becomes final and executory, subject to rules on affidavits & position papers.
prescription. Raise issues of jurisdiction via a
MTD (Rule 16) but court can act motu proprio. SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Rule on place not necessarily a rule on venue. Remedy for forcible entry, unlawful detainer, <
P10,000
TIJAM. Bar problem. Qualifies who can raise Katarunggang Pambaranggay condition precedent
matters of jurisdiction. If estopped by laches, can't before parties can obtain judicial relief
file MTD in equity Not apply to ordinary civil actions in RTC

JURISDICTION. May be subject to nature of Summary Procedure

1. Cause of action - eg. Admiralty cases, domestic Ordinary Civil Action
violence Pleadings Allowed
1. Relief Verified complaint
1. Subject matter (thing over which the rights and Compulsory counterclaim
duties occur - eg. rights or title to real property > Answer to complaint
P50 T; claims incapable of pecuniary estimation Crossclaim v existing defendant
1. Remedy - eg. forcible entry and unlawful Complaint
detainer, review by certiorari; BULAO v CA Counterclaim
a. Compulsory(relates to transaction)
Jurisdiction, once acquired, is never lost. a. Permissive (not related)
Exception: DY V CA. Court violates constitution; Crossclaim
ousted from jurisdiction. Third party claim
NOTE: judgment still valid, no jurisdiction only for Intervention
purposes of issuing writ of execution due to lack of Answer
notice to party Reply
Answer
WORD GAME: File answer w/in 10 days of service of summons
Conferment of Jurisdiction: law prescribes File answer w/in 15 days of service of summons
jurisdiction Can court act motu proprio in dismissing the case?
 51

YES. Court can act motu proprio and dismiss Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect
NO. Court cannot dismiss action motu proprio but of. - If two or more suits are instituted on the basis
must wait for MTD of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
Effect of other party's failure to file an answer judgment upon the merits in any one is available as
Get judgment. No need for motion for default or a ground for the dismissal of the others.
order for default
File a motion to declare the other party in default Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. - A party
may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or
Preliminary Conference not later than 30 days otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have
against an opposing party, subject to the following
Effect of P's failure to appear conditions:
Cause for dismissal (a) The party joining the causes of action
Counterclaim barred shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special
Main Action dismissed but Compulsory civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
Counterclaim not dismissed. D gets judgment (c) Where the causes of action are
Cause for dismissal with prejudice between the same parties but pertain to different
venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed
Main action dismissed and Compulsory in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the
counterclaim also dismissed causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said
Process court and the venue lies therein; and
Submit position papers and affidavits 10 days from (d) Where the claims in all the causes of
receipt of pre-trail order action are principally for recovery of money, the
L: on those affidavits hinge your entire case so aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
pray (Angel of God, hindi motion) that the court jurisdiction.
ask for clarificatory affidavits (motu proprio)
Extension of time not allowed Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. -
You figure it out. Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for
Contents of Affidavits dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action
State facts may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the
Show competence to testify court, be severed and proceeded with separately.
Show admissibility of witness

Absent these: affidavits excluded and lawyer may Joseph v. Bautista, 170 SCRA 540 ('89)
be subject to disciplinary action
FACTS: Joseph was a paying passenger in a cargo
Prohibited Motions truck. The cargo truck tried to overtake a tricycle
MTD on sec. 16 except lack of jurisdiction proceeding in the same direction. At the same time,
a pick-up truck tried to overtake the cargo truck,
Bill of particulars thus the cargo truck was forced to veer towards the
New judgment shoulder of the road & rammed a mango tree in the
process. Joseph sustained a bone fracture in one of
Periods his legs. Joseph sued the owner of the cargo truck
for breach of the contract of carriage & the owner
No time period from beginning to end but of the pick-up for quasi-delict for injuries he
mandatory periods in between sustained. The owner of the pick-up paid Joseph
the amount he was claiming thru a settlement
agreement. Joseph still wants to maintain the action
vs. the truck owner claiming that he still has
Rule 2 another cause of action vs. the latter, for breach of
Actions in General contract of carriage.

Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. - Every HELD: When there is only one delict or wrong
ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of (i.e. one injury), there is only one cause of action
action. regardless of the number of rights that may have
been violated belonging to one person (violation of
contract of carriage & quasi-delict).
Section 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of
action is the act or omission by which a party The singleness of a cause of action lies in
the singleness of the delict or wrong violating the
violates a right of another. rights of one person. Nevertheless, if only one
injury resulted fr. several acts, only 1 cause of
Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. - A action arises. In this case, the petitioner sustained a
party may not institute more than one suit for a single injury on his person. That vested in him a
single cause of action, albeit w/ the correlative
single cause of action. rights of action vs. the different respondents thru
appropriate remedies allowed by law.
 52

The resps. having been found to be Ramos’ failure to comply w/ it’s conditions. Ramos
solidarily liable to the pet., the full payment made now moves to dismiss the 2nd case on grounds that
by some of the solidary debtors & their subsequent Enriquez split the cause of action.
release fr. any & all liability to pet. inevitably
resulted in the extinguishment & release fr. liability
of other solidary debtors. HELD: An examination of the 1st complaint shows
it was based on appellant’s having unlawfully
stopped payment of the check for P2,500 she had
JOSEPH V BAUTISTA: NCC 2177: Bar v double issued in favor of appellees; while the complaint in
recovery the first action is for the non-payment of the
balance of 96,000 guaranteed by the mortgage. The
City of Bacolod v. SM Brewery 29 SCRA claim for 2,500 was therefore a distinct debt not
covered by security; the security was for the
balance of the purchase price amounting to 96,000.
FACTS: The City of BCD passed an ordinance Therefore, there is no splitting of C of A in this
imposing a bottling tax for every case of soft drinks case.
sold. For delinquency in paying said tax, a
surcharge was to be imposed. For failure to pay
said taxes on time, City of BCD sued SMB. The Cuevas v. Pineda, 143 SCRA 674 ('86)
SC ruled in favor of the City & ordered SMB to
pay taxes. Later, the City of BCD filed a second FACTS. Priv. Resps. filed a complaint in the CFI
complaint vs. SMB to recover the surcharges it for quieting of title alleging that they are the heirs
forgot to claim in the first case. of Igaya &, as such, are the rightful owners of the
parcels of land. They came to know that petitioners
HELD: SMB’s failure to pay the taxes violated have caused the preparation of a table-survey plan
of the lots in the name of Cancio (prepared by
the City’s right to be paid. Thus, there was a Roxas for Cuevas). Petitioners then filed an
single cause of action. However, under the Application for Free Patent for the lots, w/c was
ordinance, the City became entitled to 2 reliefs: granted. Priv. resps. filed an administrative protest
payment of taxes & the corresponding surcharges. w/ the Bureau of Lands & Register of Deeds,
seeking the recall & cancellation of the free
The act of the City of filing separate complaints patents. They then prayed for the issuance of writ
for each of the two reliefs related to the same of preliminary injunction to declare null & void the
single cause of action resulted in the splitting of free patents & be declared as the absolute owners.
the cause of action. Under the rule that a party may This was granted upon the posting of a bond.
Meanwhile, a hearing on the protest did not
not institute more than 1 suit for a single cause of materialize as the ct. had already issued the writ of
action, the City’s 2nd complaint is barred by res preliminary injunction. Did the ct. actually acquire
judicata. jurisdiction over the complaint?

Bayang v. CA, 148 SCRA 91 ('87) HELD: Resps. have assumed inconsistent
positions. After filing an administrative protest w/
FACTS: Bayang sued Biong for Quieting of Title the BoL, claiming the lands belong to them, they
w/ damages in 1969, w/c resulted in a ruling in his questioned the jurisdiction w/c they invoked of
favor in 1978. In 1978, Bayang sued Biong again that same agency, claiming that it is the cts. & not
but this time for the income earned fr. the land the administrative tribunal that should settle the
while it was still in the latter’s possession fr. 1970 issue. At this time, both parties had already
to 1978. invoked the jurisdxn. of BoL, alleging that since
the BoL, w/c had jurisdiction over the case, had
already issued the free patents, the land had
HELD: The subject matter in the 2 cases are become private. Orderly procedure requires that
essentially the same as the income is only a BoL, on a matter w/in its competence & expertise,
consequence or accessory of the disputed property. should first resolve the issues before it.
The claim for income fr. the land is incidental to,
& should have been raised by Bayang in his earlier CUEVAS V PINEDA: Petition for Certiorari was
claim for ownership of the land. As the filing of the
2 cases constitute splitting of the cause of action, dismissed on the ground of non-exhaustion of
the 2nd case is barred by the 1st. Also, for about 7 administrative remedies, not for lack of cause of
years, the petitioner made no move at all to amend action: was dismissed due to primary
his complaint to include a claim for the income administrative jurisdiction = failure to undergo
supposedly received by private resp. during that
period. He did not make the proper claim at the condition precedent
proper time & in the proper proceeding. Whatever
right he might have had is now deemed waived L: We are concerned with law, not with justice,
bec. of his negligence. which is why we're not called the College of
Justice but the College of Law. Technique lang
Enriquez v. Ramos, 7 SCRA 265 ('63) lahat iyan.

FACTS: Enriquez sold to Ramos 11 parcels of LECTURE ON ACTIONS

land for P101,000. Ramos paid 5,000 as down
payment.( 2,500-cash, 2,500-check). To secure the
96,000 balance, Ramos mortgaged the land to the Action : Remedy /
vendors. Enriquez filed a complaint vs. Ramos for Process
stopping the ;payment of the check. Enriquez filed Cause of Action : Basis to file an
another case for foreclosure of the mortgage due to action Rule 2 sec. 2
 53

Section 4. Spouses as parties. - Husband and wife

Prohibition against splitting a single cause of shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by
action: law.
1. Prevent multiplicity of suits
1. Prevent indirect violation / avoidance of res Section 5. Minor or incompetent persons. - A
judicata rule minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may
Remedy: Instead, file cause of action and ask for sue or be sued, with the assistance of his father,
different reliefs mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad
BAYANG: File supplemental pleading for new litem.
relief or file amendment to pleading to introduce
new facts which arose after filing Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. - All
persons in whom or against whom any right to
WORD GAME: relief in respect to or arising out of the same
REMEDY: Procedure transaction or series of transactions is alleged to
RELIEF: Specific things asked from court or right exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the
granted by a specific court due to violation of alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in
another right these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as
defendants, in one complaint, where any question
of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all
such defendants, may arise in the action; but the
court may make such orders as may be just to
prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being
embarrassed or put to expense in connection with
any proceedings in which he may have no interest.

Rule 3 Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable

Parties parties. - Parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be
Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
defendant. - Only natural or juridical persons, or
entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil Section 8. Necessary party. - A necessary party is
action. The term “plaintiff’ may refer to the one who is not indispensable but who ought to be
claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross- joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded
claimant, or the third (fourth etc.)-party plaintiff. as to those already parties, or for a complete
The term “defendant” may refer to the original determination or settlement of the claim subject of
defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the action.
the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-party
defendant. Section 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be
pleaded. - Whenever in any pleading in which a
Section 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the
interest is the party who stands to be benefited or pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall
injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party state why he is omitted. Should the court find the
entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order
authorized by law or these Rules, every action must the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
party in interest. The failure to comply with the order for
his inclusion, without justifiable cause shall be
Section 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.
action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a The non-inclusion of a necessary party
representative or someone acting in a fiduciary does not prevent the court from proceeding in the
capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be
title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real without prejudice to the rights of such necessary
party in interest. A representative may be a trustee party.
of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these section 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. - If the consent
Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for of nay party who should be joined as plaintiff can
the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and
be sued without joining the principal except when the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.
the contract involves things belonging to the
principal. Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.
- Neither misjoinder or non-joinder of parties is
ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be
 54

dropped or added by order of the court on motion period, the court may order the opposing party
of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of within a specified time, to procure the appointment
the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim of an executor or administrator for the estate of the
against a misjoined party may be severed and deceased and the latter shall immediately appear
proceeded with separately. for and on behalf of the deceased. The court
charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed
Section 12. Class suit. - When the subject matter by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs.
of the controversy is one of common or general
interest to many persons so numerous that it is Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a
impracticable to join all as parties, a number of public officer. - When a public officer is a party in
them which the court finds to be sufficiently an action in his official capacity and during its
numerous and representative as to fully protect the pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceased to hold
interest of all concerned may sue or defend for the office, the action may be continued and maintained
benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the by or against his successor if, within thirty (30)
right to intervene to protect his individual interest. days after the successor takes office or such time as
may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily
Section 13. Alternative defendants. - Where the shown to the court by any party that there is a
plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons substantial need for continuing or maintaining it
he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of and that the successor adopts or continues or
them as defendants in the alternative, although a threatens to adopt or continue the action of his
right to relief against one may be inconsistent with predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the
a right of relief against the other. party or officer to be affected, unless expressly
assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice
Section 14. Unknown identity or name of of the application therefor and accorded an
defendant. - Whenever the identity or name of a opportunity to be heard.
defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the
unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. - If a
designation as the case may require; when his party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the
identity or true name is discovered, the pleading court, upon motion with notice, may allow the
must be amended accordingly. action to be continued by or against the
incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his
Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as legal guardian or guardian ad litem.
defendant. - When two or more persons not
organized as an entity with juridical personality Section 19. Transfer of interest. - In case of any
enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the transfer of interest, the actin may be continued by
name by which they are generally or commonly or against the original party, unless the court upon
known. motion directs the person to whom the interest is
In the answer of such defendant the names transferred to be substituted in the action or joined
and addresses or persons composing said entity with the original party.
must all be revealed.
Section 20. Action on contractual money claims. -
Section 16. Death of party, duty of counsel. - When the action is for recovery of money arising
Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the from contract, express or implied , and the
claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the
duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty court in which the action was pending at the time
(3) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall
give the name and address of his legal instead be allowed to continue until entry or final
representative or representatives. Failure of judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the
counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner
for disciplinary action. especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed claims against the estate of a deceased person.
to be substituted for the deceased, without
requiring the appointment of an executor or Section 21. Indigent party. - A party may be
administrator and the court may appoint a guardian authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as
ad litem for the minor heirs. an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte
The court shall forthwith order said legal application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is
representative or representatives to appear and be one who has no money or property sufficient and
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from available for food, shelter and basic necessities for
notice. himself and his family.
If no legal representative is named by the Such authority shall include an exemption
counsel for the deceased party, or if the one s from payment of docket and other lawful fees, and
named shall fail to appear within the specified of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court
 55

may order to be furnished him The amount of the L: What if defendant is a volleyball player of a
docket and other lawful fees which the indigent sportsfest and the plaintiff wants to sue all
was exempted from paying shall be alien on any participants of the sportsfest?
judgment rendered in the case favorable to the A: Identify all and do not apply sec. 15 since
indigent, unless the court otherwise provides. identifiable and also a volleyball team is not a
Any adverse party may contest the grant proper juridical entity
of such authority at any time before judgment is
rendered by the trial court. If the court should JOINDER OF PARTIES (Sec. 6) not necessary
determine after hearing that the party declared as that parties be indispensable or necessary parties
an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient a. Necessary or proper party (Sec. 8) Case may
income or property, the proper docket and other proceed, only plaintiff may not be able to obtain
lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the complete relief
clerk of court. If payment is not made within the
time fixed by the court, execution shall issue or the Aranico-Rabino v. Aquino, 80 SCRA 254 ('77)
payment thereof; without prejudice to such other
sanctions as the court may impose. Facts: Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of
a lot w/c priv. resp. claims to be owned by one
Section 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. - In Meimban & his successors-in-interest. The ct.
ordered the complaint be amended to include all
any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, the heirs of the late Meimban in order that there
ordinance, executive, order, presidential decree, will be a final adjudication of the rights of the
rules or regulations, the court in its discretion, may parties in the case. Counsel for petners. refused.
require the appearance of the Solicitor General who
may be heard in person or through a representative Held: The heirs of Meimban are indispensable
duly designated by him. parties who should be included in the complaint in
order that there will be a final adjudication of the
rights of the parties in their case.
Filipinas Industrial Corp. v. Sn. Diego, 23
ARANICO: Dismissal not due to failure to
SCRA 706 ('68)
implead a party but due to contumacious refusal to
comply with the order of the court; misjoiner or
FACTS: Pastor Ago filed a complaint vs.
petitioner in his name as atty. in fact of Laiz. non-joinder is not basis for the dismissal of case
Petitioner filed a MTD on the ground that action
was not brought in the name of the real party in Laperal Dev. Co. v. CA, 223 SCRA 261 ('93)
interest.
HELD: Under the RoC, every action must be Facts: Counsel sought recovery of atty.’s fees fr.
brought in the name of the real party in interest. Sunbeams Foods referred to in the complaint as
This provision is mandatory. The real party in “Mr. Laperal’s Corporation” but w/c was not
interest is the party who would be benefited or joined by name as a party-defendant.
injured by the judgment or is the party entitled to
the avails of the suit. An atty.-in-fact is NOT a real
party in interest; there is no law permitting an Held: Sunbeams should have been joined as a
action to be brought by an atty.-in-fact & hence, an party-deft. in order that the judgment of the lower
action brought by him cannot be maintained. Even ct. could legally affect it. But even if it was not
if the principal authorizes his agent to commence impleaded, the ct. could still validly proceed w/ the
actions in a ct. for & in behalf of the principal, case bec. Sunbeams was not an indispensable party
such action must still be filed in the name of the but only a proper party. A proper party is one w/c
principal who is the real party in interest. ought to be a party if complete relief is to be
accorded as between those already parties. A party
FILIPINAS: Case dismissed due to lack of cause is indispensable if no final determination can be
had of an action unless it is joined either as plff. or
of action; not due to non-joinder of parties. Atty-in- deft.
fact can't represent principal in the case since atty-
in-fact was not the one injured FILIPINAS INDUSTRIAL - Indispensable
LAPERAL DEVT V CA - Proper party. Sunbeam
REPRESENTATIVE PARTIES: Not the real only a necessary party and therefore not a party to
parties but are allowed by law or the Rules to sue the compromise agreement. But atty can't collect
on behalf of the principal atty's fees since there was a udicial admission as to
Example of representative party authorized by the waiver of all claims
Rules: Class suit
Plaintiffs sue in 2 capacities: 1) themselves; 2) on Barfel Dev. Co. v. CA, 223 SCRA 268 ('93)
behalf of the parties of the class or those with an
interest in the subject matter of the suit but are too Facts: Barfel (seller) & Reginas (seller) concluded
numerous to be brought in the suit (OPOSA V an agreement to buy/sell 2 parcels of land w/c the
FACTORAN) former warranted to be free fr. liens &
encumbrances except for the BPI mortgage.
Reginas found out later that there was a second
mortgage in favor of PISO Bank. Things went sour
 56

& Reginas found out that Barfel was selling the right to a sound environment constitutes, at the
land to other parties. Reginas brought suit. Reginas same time, the performance of their obligation to
filed an amended complaint impleading PISO as ensure the protection of that right for the
additional party.
generations to come.
Held: The reason for the amendment impleading OPOSA V FACTORAN. Are unborn children w/
PISO is to compel the latter to accept payment &
release the 2nd mortgage thereby enabling Barfel to capacity to be party to a suit? No, but purposes of
deliver to Reginas the titles free fr. all liens & this class suit, SC used intergenerational
encumbrances. But, PISO is NOT a party to the responsibility argument. Limit Consti Art 11 sec.
contracts w/c are the subject of the action for 16 to ecological suits. L's note: no legal basis,
specific performance & damages between Barfel &
Reginas. PISO is not a party to the transactions & natural law only. Also, other Art. 11 provisions
is thus not an indispensable party. PISO is a 2nd hortatory and not basis for a class action suit. Not
mortgagee, whatever the outcome of the litigation all taxpayers' suits are class suits
between Reginas & Barfel. A “real interest” means
a present substantial interest, as distinguished fr. a
mere expectancy or a future, contingent, L: Is the environment property? Note: not need to
subordinate or consequential interest. Complete be property to be subject of a suit.
relief by Reginas vs. Barfel can be had even if
PISO was not impleaded as a party deft in the Mathay v. Consolidated Bank, 58 SCRA 559
original case.
('74)
Also, amendment sought is a substantial
one. Priv. resp. will have to present additional
evidence on PISO. Effect would be to start trial Facts: The stockholders of Consolidated Mines
anew w/ parties recasting theories of the case. filed a class suit vs. the Board of Organizers of
Consolidated Bank of alleged anomalies in the
incorporation of the latter to w/c the stockholders
BARFEL: disclosure, not existence of 2nd were subscribers.
mortgage is the issue. The 2nd mortgagee is liable
to plaintiff in Contract to Purchase. Not a proper Held: The necessary elements for the maintenance
party. Mortgages follow property wherever it goes, of a class suit are: (1) the subject matter of the
thus, PISO can't become a party since there is no controversy be one of common or general interest
cause of action against it. to many persons; & (2) such persons be so
numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them
all in ct.. An action does not become a class suit
b. Indispensable (Sec. 7) If not impleaded, case bec. it is designated as such in the pleadings: it
cannot proceed since there can be no final depends upon the attending facts & the complaint,
determination or other pleading initiating the class action should
allege the existence of the necessary facts.
Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 ('93) As to the 1st element: the interest that
appellants-plff. & intervenors & the CMI
stockholders had in the subject matter was several,
Facts: Plaintiffs-minors duly represented & joined not common or general in the sense required by
by their parents instituted this taxpayers’ class suit law. Each one had a determinable interest, each
vs. the Secretary of DENR to order the latter to had a right, if any, only to his respective portion of
cancel of timber license agreements (TLA) & to the stocks None of them had an interest, or a right
cease & desist fr. renewing & granting new TLAs. to, the stock to w/c another was entitled.
The suit was filed for themselves & others who are As to the 2nd element, the number of said
equally concerned about the preservation of natural CMI subscribing stockholder was not stated in the
resources but are so numerous that it is complaint. Thus, the ct. could not infer or make
impracticable to bring them all before the ct.. The sure that the parties before it were sufficiently
minors also asseverate that they represent their numerous & representative.
generation as well as the generations yet unborn.
Veterans Manpower & Protective Services v,
Held: The case is a class suit: the subject matter of CA, 214 SCRA 286 ('92)
the complaint is of common & general interest not
just several but to all citizens of the Phils. Parties
are so numerous that it is impracticable, if not FACTS: Petitioner filed a complaint vs. the PC
totally impossible, to bring them all before the ct.. Chief & PC-SUSIA, government agencies
Plaintiffs are so numerous & representative enough regulating security services, to compel said
to insure full protection of all concerned interests. agencies to issue licenses to petitioner.
Petitioner-minors can, for themselves, for
others of their generation, & for the succeeding HELD: The State may not be sued w/o its consent.
generation, file a class suit. Their personality to Invoking this rule, the PC Chief & PC- SUSIA,
sue in behalf of succeeding generations can only be being instrumentalities of the national gov’t.
exercising a primarily governmental function may
based on the concept of intergenerational not be sued w/o the Gov’t’s consent. This doctrine
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced & is also applicable to complaints filed vs. officials of
healthful ecology is concerned. Every generation the state for acts allegedly performed by them in
has a responsibility to preserve the rhythm & the discharge of their duties.
harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced & A public official may sometimes be held in his
healthful ecology. The minor’s assertion of their personal or private capacity if he acts in bad faith
 57

or beyond his authority or jurisdiction. In this case, Section 1. Venue of real actions. - Actions
however, the acts were performed as part of official affecting title to or possession of real property, or
duties w/o malice, gross negligence or bad faith. interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in
Thus, no recovery may be had vs. them in their
private capacity as well. the proper court which has jurisdiction over the
area wherein the real property involved, or a
LECTURE ON PARTIES: Remedies available for portion thereof, is situated.
certain situations. L at his most practical. Forcible entry and detainer actions shall
1. P not the real party in interest but act as a be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court
plaintiff of the municipality or city wherein the real
Counsel for D: MTD since no cause of action. No property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
injury v his person
Section 2. Venue of personal actions. - All other
1. X an Indispensable party but P refuses to bring actions may be commenced and tried where the
him in as an indispensable party plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or
Eg. Co-owner sues for partition of property owned where the defendant or any of the principal
in common; thus, he must implead all co-owners in defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident
order that final determination might be made. defendant where he may be found, at the election
What if P sues only 1 co-owner? (ARANICO- of the plaintiff.
RABINO)
Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. -
Counsel for D: Plan A) Motion to implead the If any of the defendants does not reside and ins not
other co-owners found in the Philippines, and the action affects the
Plan B) If court refuses to implead the other co- personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of
owners, file MTD for lack of due process for said defendant located in the Philippines, the action
failure to implead an indispensable party may be commenced and tried in the court of the
Plan C) Go to CA for certiorari on grounds of place where the plaintiff resides, or where the
grave abuse of discretion on part of trial court property of any portion thereof is situated or found.
judge for refusing to iplead indispensable party w/o
whom there can be no final determination of the Section 4. When Rule not applicable. - This Rule
case. shall not apply -

To determine whether or not a party is (a) In those cases where a specific rule or
indispensable: law provides otherwise; or
Proper joinder of parties: Parties necessary (b) Where the parties have validly agreed
Permissive joinder of parties: not necessarily in writing before the filing of the action on the
imply that parties indispensable or necessary exclusive venue thereof.
Rule 3 sec. 6 same transaction or common question
of law or fact is involved
Diaz v. Adiong, 219 SCRA 631 ('93)
1. Party becomes insane
Counsel for D: Rule 3 sec. 18 file motion to bring Facts: Certain public officers instituted separate
criminal & civil complaints arising fr. libel vs. the
guardian of insane party brought in as a publisher & editor of the Mindanao Kris, a
representative. If insane > 18 years old, ask for newspaper of general circulation in Cotabato City
guardian ad litem in the RTC of Marawi City. Diaz claims it should
not be in Marawi since the resps. didn’t hold office
there; nor was the article published there.
1. Party dies. His counsel duty bound to inform
court of such fact and of his legal representative
If there is no rep, court will order Counsel for D to Held: An offended party who is at the same time a
procure appointment of executor or administrator public official can only institute an action arising
fr. libel in 2 venues: the place where he holds office
& the place where the alleged libelous articles were
NOTE: Personal action: remedy filed where cause printed & first published. In this case, although it
of action involves personal property or right. is indubitable that venue was improperly laid,
Subject matter involves personal property and unless & until the deft. objects to the venue in a
MTD prior to a responsive pleading, the venue
others. Not a real action which involves title to or cannot truly be said to have been improperly laid
possession of real property. Important for proper since, for all practical intents & purposes, the
venue venue through technically wrong may yet be
considered acceptable to the parties for whose
convenience the rules on venue had been devised.
The laying of venue is procedural rather
Rule 4 than substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction
Venue of the ct. over the person rather than the subject
matter. Venue relates to trial not to jurisdiction.
The rule, therefore, is that objections to improper
 58

venue must be made in a MTD before any RULE 5

responsive pleading is filed (Sec. 1 Rule 16). VENUE
Otherwise, it may be deemed waived.

Section 1. Uniform procedure. - The procedure in

LECTURE ON VENUE: the Municipal Trial Courts shall be the same as in
Exceptions: the Regional Trial Courts, except (a) where a
1. non-resident particular provision expressly or impliedy applies
a) where P resides or only to either of said courts, or (b) in civil cases
a) b) where property or port6ion thereof is situated governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
or found
1. when a specific Rule or Law provides otherwise Section 2. Meaning of terms. - The term
1. when parties validly agreed in writing before “Municipal Trial Courts” as used in these rules
filing of action in the exclusive venue thereof shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
L: state in agreement "shall exclusively be" or Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
"shall only be"; if not phrased this way, can still Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
sue elsewhere
Rule 6
Person dies (governed by Rule 87) action Pleadings
dismissed in cases where decedent is required to (Substantial Requirements)
personally perform his obligation, where his estate
or his heirs' defense is that the relief cannot be NOTES OF ANZIE-GIRL:
complied with. If action is for a sum of money, file PLEADINGS
it as a creditor in the settlement of estate
proceedings Definition
Pauper litigant: one who has no money or property Rule 6, Sec. 1.
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic Pleadings are the written statements of the
necessities is exempted from payment of fees. respective claims and defenses of the parties
Counsel for D: contest indigent status of party by submitted to the court for appropriate judgment
filing a motion to reverse order declaring party as
pauper litigant Allowed Pleadings
Rule 6, Sec. 2
THE CLAIM-ANSWER-COUNTERCLAIM- The claims of a party are asserted in a
REPLY-CROSSCLAIM-LABYRINTH complaint, counter-claim, cross-claim, third
P files Complaint So D (fourth, etc.) party complaint, or complaint - in -
files answer intervention.
D files The defenses of a party are alleged in the
counterclaim answer to the pleading asserting a claim against
So P files Answer to counterclaim him.
P then files Amended Complaint due to new An answer may be responded to by a
matters raised reply.
So D Liberal construction
files an amended answer called a reply
Gerales v. CA, 218 SCRA 638
A third guy files a CROSSCLAIM against ('93)
D
So D Facts: Counsel for petitioner: Sir Luigi, este,
files an answer to the crossclaim Camacho pala) A vehicular accident occurred
And resulting in respondent filing a case for damage to
he files his own crossclaim against Third property. Two cases were filed, criminal & civil.
The crim. case was dismissed beech. the parties
While P files his Answer to the 3rd Party entered into an amicable settlement. The civil case
Complaint continued but resp. was declared in default for
failure to file an answer. What respondent did was
merely to send a letter to the Clerk of Court
informing the ct. about the amicable settlement.
THE OGDEN CASE
Held: The trial ct. should have considered the
letter as a responsive pleading even if it lacks the
OGDEN-BECTEL formalities required by law. The letter contains an
FILIPINO LANDOWNERS affirmative defense, i.e. mutual settlement w/c, if
Cause of action proven in preliminary hearing would constitute a
X breach of contract meritorious defense barring pet. fr. recovery.
Pleadings as well as remedial laws should be
liberally construed in order that the litigant may
 59

have ample opportunity to prove their respective Rule 8, Sec. 6

claims & to prevent possible denial of substantive In pleading a judgment or decision of a
due process. Litigations should be decided on the domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial
merits not merely on technicality. tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to
aver the judgment or decision without setting forth
How allegations made the matter showing jurisdiction to render it.
In General
Rule 8, Sec. 1 Official Documents
Every pleading shall contain in a Rule 8, Sec. 9
methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and In pleading an official document or
direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the official act, it is sufficient to aver that the document
party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the was issued or the act done in compliance with law.
case may be, omitting the statement of mere
evidentiary facts. Complaint
If a defense relied on is based on law, the
pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability Defined and in general
to him shall be clearly and concisely stated. Rule 6, Sec. 3
The complaint is the pleading alleging the
Capacity plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The names
Rule 8, Sec. 4 and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must
Facts showing the capacity of a party to be stated in the complaint.
sue or be sued or the authority of a prty to sue or be
sued in a representative capacity or the legal Tantuico v. Republic, 204 SCRA 428 ('91)
existence of an organized association of persons
that is made a party, must be averred. A prty Facts: A case was filed by the PCGG vs. the
desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of Marcoses & Tantuico, the latter on the theory that
any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be he collaborated & aided the Marcoses in concealing
the ill-gotten wealth. Tantuico filed a motion for a
sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by bill of particulars. The SolGen opposed the motion
specific denial, which shall include such supporting saying that the matters sought by Tantuico are
particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's evidentiary in nature & that the complaint was
knowledge. sufficient as it contains the essential elements of a
cause of action.
Alternative claims and defenses
Rule 8, Sec. 2 Held: A complaint is defined as a concise
statement of the ultimate facts constituting the
A party may set forth two or more plaintiff’s cause or causes of action. Its office or
statements of a claim or defense alternatively or purpose is to inform the defendant clearly &
hypothetically, either in one cause of action or definitely of the claims made vs. him so that he
defense or in separate causes of action or defenses. may be prepared to meet the issues at trial. The
complaint should inform the defendant all the
When two or more statements are made in the material facts on w/c the plaintiffs rely to support
alternative and one of them if made independently his demand The complaint should inform the
would be sufficient, the pleading is not made defendant of all the material facts on w/c the
insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of plaintiff relies to support his demand; it should
state the theory of a cause of action w/c forms the
the alternative statements. bases of the plaintiffs claim of liability. The rules
on pleading speak of two (2) kinds of facts: the
Conditions precedent first, the "ultimate facts", & the second, the
Rule 8, Sec. 3 "evidentiary facts." The term "ultimate facts" as
used in Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, means
In any pleading a general averment of the the essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause
performance or occurrence of all conditions of action.
precedent shall be sufficient.
TEST: A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out
Fraud and Mistake w/o leaving the statement of the cause of action
Rule 8, Sec. 5 insufficient....
In all averments of fraud or mistake, the
circumstances constituting the fraud or mistake
must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, Ultimate facts are important & substantial facts
knowledge or other condition of the mind of a w/c either directly form the basis of the primary
person may be averred generally. right & duty, or w/c directly make up the wrongful
acts or omissions of the defendant. The term does
Condition of mind not refer to the details of probative matter or
Rule 8, Sec. 5 supra. particulars of evidence by w/c these material
elements are to be established. It refers to
Judgments principal, determinate, constitutive facts, upon the
 60

existence of w/c, the entire cause of action rests. Held: Bare allegations that one is entitled to
"Evidentiary facts" are those facts w/c are something is an allegation of a conclusion. Such
necessary for determination of the ultimate facts; kind of allegation adds nothing to the complaint it
they are the premises upon w/c conclusions of being necessary to plead specifically the facts upon
ultimate facts are based. w/c such conclusion is founded. In CAB, the pet.
did not show their qualifications to being
Where the complaint states ultimate facts that stockholders nor their right to subscribe the shares.
constitute the three (3) essential elements of a Did not show how they acquired the right, the
cause of action, namely: (1) the legal right of the extent of its exercise & amount of shareholdings
plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the that they are entitled to.
defendant, & (3) the act or omission of the
defendant in violation of said legal right, the Capacity of parties
complaint states a cause of action, otherwise, the Rule 8, Sec. 4
complaint must succumb to a motion to dismiss on Facts showing the capacity of a party to
that ground of failure to state a cause of action. sue or be sued or the authority of a prty to sue or be
However, where the allegations of the complaint sued in a representative capacity or the legal
are vague, indefinite, or in the form of conclusions, existence of an organized association of persons
the proper recourse would be, not a motion to that is made a party, must be averred. A prty
dismiss, but a motion for a bill of particulars. desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of
any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be
Allegations sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by
In general specific denial, which shall include such supporting
Rule 8, Sec. 1 particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's
Every pleading shall contain in a knowledge.
methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and
direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the Actions based upon a document
party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the Rule 8, Sec. 7
case may be, omitting the statement of mere Whenever an action or defense is based
evidentiary facts. upon a written instrument or document, the
If a defense relied on is based on law, the substance of such instrument or document shall be
pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability set forth in the pleading and the original or a copy
to him shall be clearly and concisely stated. thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an
exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the
Metropolitan Bank v. Quilts, 222 SCRA 486 pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set
('93) forth in the pleading.

Facts: The property of Quilts was mortgaged to Answer

Metrobank to secure a personal loan of its pres. Defined and in general
Dizon. Quilts asked for the cancellation of the Rule 6, Sec. 4
mortgage on the ground that Dizon had no An answer is a pleading in which a
authority to mortgage the property. Metrobank
refused. Quilts filed an action vs. Metrobank for defending party sets forth his defenses.
the annulment & cancellation of the mortgage.
Metrobank moved to dismiss the complaint for Types of Defenses
failure to state a cause of action as the complaint Negative
merely contained a single par. alleging that
Metrobank committed illegal acts vs. Quilts. Rule 6, Sec. 5(a)
Defenses may either be negative or
affirmative.
Held: The complaint filed vs. Metrobank does not
contain sufficient COA. The complaint expresses (a) A negative defense is the specific
legal conclusions & not averments or allegations of denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the
ultimate facts. The ultimate facts upon w/c such pleading of the claimant essential to his cause or
conclusions rest must be alleged. In CAB, the bare causes of action.
allegations neither establishes any right or COA on
part of the plaintiff.
How alleged, generally
Mathay v. Consolidated Bank, 58 SCRA Rule 8, Sec. 10
A defendant must specify each material
allegation of fact the truth of which he does not
Facts: This is the classic case of the class suit filed admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth that
by Mathay vs. Consolidated Bank. Mathay & Co.
averred in the complaint that they were denied the substance of the matters upon which he relies to
right to subscribe shares in the Bank. All in all, the support his denial. Where a defendant desires to
complaint filed by Mathay contained 6 COA’s . deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify so
much of it as is true and material and shall deny
only the remainder. Where a defendant is without
 61

knowledge or information sufficient to form a number to plaintiff PHILAMGEN. Sweet Lines

belief as to the truth of a material averment made in argued that the action has prescribed since the
the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have claim for damages were not presented within the
the effect of a denial. period stipulated in the bills of lading.
PHILAMGEN contended that the bills of lading
Capacity of parties were not presented in evidence, therefore, since the
Rule 8, Sec. 4 tenor and existence of the stipulations were not
Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be established, it was inconceivable how they can
sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in comply therewith. Trial court held in favor of
a representative capacity or the legal existence of PHILAMGEN but CA reversed.
an organized association of persons that is made a Supreme Court held that the action has
party, must be averred. A prty desiring to raise an already prescribed. Besides, plaintiff's failure to
issue as to the legal existence of any party or the specifically deny the existence, genuineness and
capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a due execution of the instruments amounted too an
representative capacity, shall do so by specific admission.
denial, which shall include such supporting PHILAMGEN's denial has procedural
particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's earmarks of a "negative pregnant" which is a denial
knowledge. pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts
in the pleading responded to which are not squarely
denied. Such defense is in effect an admission of
Genuineness of document the averment. Thus, while they objected to the
Rule 8, Sec. 8 stipulation in the bills of lading as being contrary to
When an action or defense is founded policy, existence of the bills were nevertheless
upon a written instrument, copied in or attached t o impliedly admitted.
the corresponding pleading as provided in the
preceding section, the genuineness and due Affirmative
execution of the instrument shall be deemed unless Rule 6, Sec. 5(b)
the adverse party, under oath specifically denies (b) An affirmative defense is an allegation
them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; of a new matter which, while hypothetically
but the requirement of an oath does not apply when admitting the material allegations in the pleading of
the adverse party does not appear to be party to the the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar
instrument or when compliance with an order for recovery by him. The affirmative defenses include
an inspection of the original instrument is refused. fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment,
illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former
Donato v. CA recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other
matter by way of confession and avoidance.
Controversy over a parcel of land
allegedly sold to defendants by Rarang by virtue of Periods to plead
special power of attorney executed the by the Rule 11, Sec. 1
mother (deceased) of plaintiffs. Trial court held in The defendant shall file his answer to the
favor of plaintiffs on the ground that defendants complaint within 15 days after service of summons,
failed to present evidence to prove genuineness of unless a different period is fixed by the court.
the power of attorney. CA Affirmed.
Supreme Court held that while R.8, Sec. 8 Rule 11, Sec. 2
provides for rule on implied admission of the Where the defendant is a foreign private
genuineness and due execution of a document juridical entity and service of summons is made on
subject of an action/defense, one exception is the government official designated by law to
when the adverse party does not appear to be a receive the same, the answer shall be filed within
party to the instrument. In this case, their plaintiffs 30 days after receipt of summons by such entity.
were mere witnesses to the power of attorney in
question. Besides, the document should not be Rule 11, Sec. 3
afforded presumption of genuineness and due Where the plaintiff files an amended
execution in view of the discrepancies in its complaint as a matter of right, the defendant shall
execution. answer the same within 15 days after being served
with a copy thereof.
Negative pregnant
Where its filing is not a matter of right,
PHILAMGEN v. Sweet Lines the defendant shall answer the amended complaint
within 10 days from notice of the order admitting
Controversy over several shipments of the same. An answer earlier filed may serve as the
chemicals aboard the vessel owned by Sweet Lines answer to the amended complaint if no new answer
which were delivered damaged and lacking in is filed.
 62

L: Go did not sue Lim since business partners or

This Rule shall apply to the answer to an didn't want to spend more, etc.
amended counterclaim, amended cross-claim, SC wanted Go to sue Lim, wondered why?
amended third (fourth, etc) party complaint, and L: see that SC not acquainted with business
amended complaint-in-intervention. practices
Test: if P chose to sue only one P, then
Waiver of defenses the other P can be joined as party
Rule 9, Sec. 2 Lim could have been necessary
A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross- party thus Clover v Go
claim, not set up shall be barred. Go can file 3rd party complaint v.
Lim
Director of Lands v. CA, 106 SCRA 426 ('81)
L: Do all 3rd party complaints arise from the same
Facts: Resp. filed an application for confirmation transaction or question of law?
of imperfect title. The Dir. of Lands opposed. The A: No eg. Insurance and torts
trial ct. ruled in favor of resp. On appeal, the Dir. Test: if 3rd party D can be subrogated for D and D
raised the argument that the award to resp. is
erroneous on ground of res judicata. The lots were can raise same defense (Rule 14)
already declared public lots in a cadastral
proceeding, it cannot be awarded to the private PASCUAL V BAUTISTA
resp. L: SC did not rule on W/N 3rd party complaint
propert since not put in issue. Here, 3rd-party
Held: The failure of the Dir. to raise in the complaint, since ancillary, then left behind, not
proceedings before the trial ct. to interpose his carried with main cause of action on appeal
objection nor set up the defense of res judicata
constitutes procedural infirmity w/c cannot be (Differentiate from REPUBLIC V CENTRAL
cured on appeal. All defenses not interposed in a SURETY where CA acquired jurisdiction since
motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed Central Surety appealed) Since Flores did not
waived. It cannot be pleaded for the first time or appeal, CA did not acquire appellate jurisdiction
on appeal.
over him

Defined and in general

Counterclaims Rule 6, Sec. 6
A counterclaim is any claim which a
LECTURE ON CLAIMS AND defending party may have against an opposing
COUNTERCLAIMS: party.
L: are all counterclaims that are not compulsory Rule 6, Sec. 7
permissive? A compulsory counterclaim is one which,
A: No; permissive counterclaims need not arise being cognizable by the regular courts of justice,
from same transaction or occurrence constituting arises out of or is connected with the transaction or
the subject matter of the opposing party's claim occurrence constituting the subject matter of the
opposing party's claim and does not require for its
Compulsory counterclaim: need not pay docket adjudication the presence of third parties of whom
fees since ancillary to main case the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a
Permissive counterclaim: need to pay docket fees counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the
since has lfe independent of transaction in main court both as the amount and the nature thereof,
case except that in an original action before the RTC,
the counterclaim may be considered compulsory
Apply Logical Relationship Test: arising out of regardless of the amount.
same transaction
If there is duplication of effort and time, then BA Finance v. Co, 224 SCRA 163 ('93)
compulsory counterclaim
Facts: Does the dismissal of the complaint for
ROC: if counterclaim only for sum of money less non-appearance of plaintiff at pre-trial upon motion
juridical limit, within RTC jurisdiction via of the defendant carry w/ it the dismissal of
compulsory/permissive counterclaim compulsory counterclaim? In CAB, the plaintiff
did not appear at pre-trial, the defendant moved for
the dismissal of the complaint. The same was
Crossclaims always compulsory since arise from granted. Now, the defendant moves for an
same transaction or occurrence that is the subject adjudication of his compulsory counterclaim.
matter of the complaint. Mandatory to raise it or
else barred forever Held: YES. Compulsory counterclaim is also
GO V CA dismissed. There are several requirements of a
compulsory counterclaim:
 63

• It arises out or is necessarily. connected w/ the How raised

transaction or occurrence that is the subj. matter of Included in answer
the opposing parties claim. Rule 6, Sec. 9
• It does not require the presence of third parties of A counterclaim may be asserted against an
whom the ct. cannot acquire jurisdiction. original counterclaimant.
• The trial ct. has jurisdiction to entertain the A cross-claim may also be filed against an
same. The test of compulsoriness is : WON the original cross-claimant.
same evidence to sustain it would refute the
plaintiff’s cause of action.
In CAB, the compulsory counterclaim Rule 11, Sec. 8
cannot remain pending for independent A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-
adjudication. The CC is auxiliary to the proceeding claim that a defending party has at the time he filed
in the original suit & merely derives its his answer shall be contained therein.
jurisdictional support fr. the orig. case. If the ct.
has no or loses jurisdiction over the main case, it
has no jurisdxn over the comp. counterclaim. In After answer
CAB, the ct. has lost jurisdxn. over the main case Rule 6, Sec. 9 supra.
by virtue of its dismissal upon motion by the Rule 11, sec. 9
defendant. A counterclaim or a cross-claim which
either matured or was acquired by a party after
Reyes v. CA, 38 SCRA 138 ('71) serving his pleading may, with the permission of
the court, be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-
Facts: Reyes were lessees of a bldg. owned by claim by supplemental pleading before judgment.
Kalaw. Kalaw sought the ejectment of Reyes.
Reyes filed an action w/ City Court for prel.
injunction & Kalaw filed a counterclaim for Rule 11, Sec. 10
damages. The CA ultimately awarded temperate When a pleader fails to set up a
damages in favor of Kalaw. counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice
Held: The award of temp. damages is in error. the requires, he may, by leave of court, set up the
damages contemplated in a forcible entry & counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before
detainer cases like the one at bar means rents & judgment.
reasonable compensation or for use of the property
excluding profits w/c might be received. The issue
in this kind of suit is merely possession. In CAB, In criminal actions
while the damages arose out of the same Rule 111, Sec. 1
transaction, these are not CC’s bec. they exceed the Rule 119, Sec. 3
jurisdiction of the inferior ct.. The rule on bars to
cc, meaning the counterclaim cannot be set up in a
difference. case if not set up in the main case, Shafer v. RTC Judge, 167 SCRA 386 ('88)
applies only when the inferior ct. involved has
jurisdiction over the claim. Facts: Shafer is the owner of a car involved in an
The reason for barring cc not set up in an accident. A case was filed vs. him for reckless
orig. case is to avoid multiplicity of suits & to imprudence. Shafer filed a third party complaint
dispose of the whole matter in controversy in one impleading his insurer. The TPC was dismissed
upon motion by the ins. co. on the ground that
action & adjustments of defendants demand by Shafer has to pay first & found liable before the
counterclaim. insurer could be made to pay the claim. Shafer
alleges that the dismissal of the TPC amounts to a
Maceda v. CA, 176 SCRA 440 ('89) denial or curtailment of his right to defend himself
in the civil aspect of the case.
Facts: Three ejectment cases were filed in the
MTC vs. Maceda. Maceda set up a counterclaim Held: The lower ct. erred in dismissing the TPC
amounting to 240,000. The RTC granted Maceda’s on the ground that there is no COA vs. the ins. co.
counterclaim. The CA denied the grant on appeal. There is no need on the part of the insured to wait
Held: The CA correctly ruled that the MTC did for the decision of the trial ct. finding him guilty of
reckless imprudence. The occurrence of the injury
not have original jurisdiction over the counterclaim to third party immediately gave rise to the liability
as it exceeds 20,000, correspondingly, the RTC of the insurer. A third party complaint is a device
could not have appellate jurisdiction over the allowed by the ROC by w/c the defendant can
claim. Thus, the award to Maceda is invalid for bring into the original suit a party vs. whom he
will have a claim for indemnity or remuneration as
lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the MTC in a result of a liability established vs. him in an
a civil action is limited to a demand that does not original suit. TPC’s are allowed to minimize the
exceed 20,000 exclusive of interests & costs but number of lawsuits established vs. him to avoid the
inclusive of damages of whatever kind. A necessity. of two or more lawsuits involving the
counterclaim in a municipal or city ct. beyond that same subj. matter.
jurisdictional limit may be pleaded only by way
defense to weaken the plaintiff’s claim but not to Javier v. IAC, 171 SCRA 605 ('89)
obtain affirmative relief.
Facts: A case for violation of BP 22 was filed vs.
resp. Resp. on his part filed a separate civil action
 64

in another ct. for damages alleging that the check Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, 66 SCRA 425 ('75)
was issued through fraud & deception practiced
upon him by the pet. the pet. filed a motion to Facts: This is the 30++ page case w/c was so
dismiss the second case on grounds of lack of diligently digested by Miss Secretary Lourie but
jurisdiction & litis pendentia. The same was was not discussed in class (Ang bitter!). Upon
denied. motion of the plaintiff, 4 of the 6 defendants were
declared in default while the case vs. the remaining
Held: The lower ct. should dismiss the second case two were dismissed upon motion by the plaintiff.
for damages. As the civil action was not reserved Held: The respondent judge erred in dismissing
by the pet. in the orig. case, it is deemed impliedly the 2 defendants fr. the case. The respondent
instituted w/ the crim. case in the RTC in judge disregarded the existence of a counterclaim
accordance. w/ Rule 111 Sec. 1. It was before the
RTC where resp. could have explained why he had w/c the judge earlier declared to be compulsory in
issued the check. The civil action filed by resp. nature. A counterclaim is compulsory nature if it
based on the same act should be deemed filed in arose out of or is necessarily connected w/ the
the same RTC too. He could have done this by occurrence that is the subject matter of the
way of a counterclaim for damages for the alleged
deception of the pet. In fact, the counterclaim is plaintiff’s claim. It is compulsory not only bec. the
compulsory & could have been also set up as an same evidence to sustain it will also refute the
affirmative defense. cause of action alleged in plaintiff’s complaint but
also bec. fr. its very nature it is obvious that the
counterclaim cannot remain pending for
Kinds of counterclaims independent adjudication of the ct.. ( see Rule 17
Sec. 2 )
Compulsory Permissive
Rule 6, Sec. 7, supra.
Rule 9, Sec. 2, supra. Remedies
Meliton v. CA, 216 SCRA 485 ('92) For failure to raise
Rule 9, Sec. 2, supra.
Facts: Ziga filed a complaint adjacent Meliton for
rescission of a contract of lease. Meliton answered Visayan Packing v. Reparations Commission,
w/ counterclaims. Ziga filed an MTD & the same
was granted. The CC of Meliton was dismissed 155 SCRA 542 ('87)
w/o prejudice on the ground that the docket fees
were not paid, the ct. did not acquire jurisdiction Facts: REPACOM sought to collect vs. Visayan.
over the counterclaim. Meliton instituted a Visayan instituted an action for declaratory relief
separate. civil action for his counterclaim but the alleging that the contract bet. them is ambiguous w/
same was dismissed on the ground that his claims respect to its failure to define clearly the terms of
are compulsory & should have been set up in the payment. REPACOM then filed an ordinary civil
case filed vs. him by Ziga. Meliton’s failure to do action for collection. Visayan moved to dismiss
so amounted to a bar to a filing of a subsequent the collection suit on the ground of LCOA.
case based on the same ground.
Held: The separate. collection suit should have
Held: While it is true that the counterclaim of been dismissed & set up as a CC in the declaratory
Meliton satisfies the requisites of a compulsory relief suit filed by Visayan packing by way of an
counterclaim, in CAB, the SC allowed Meliton to
file a separate. civil action on the counterclaim. amended answer. In CAB, the actions proceeded
The SC held that Sec. 4 of Rule 9 is not applicable independently & were decided on the merits.
beech. 1) Meliton set up the CC in the prior case However, under the circ. where the length of time
but the same was dismissed. 2) The prior case was the case has been pending, it would be violative to
adjudicated not on the merits so that res judicata
would not lie. 3) the first counterclaim was subs. justice to pronounce the proceedings in the
dismissed by the RTC on the ground of LOJ. 4) In collection suit totally defective for breach of the
the RTC order, there was a reservation for the rule on compulsory counterclaim. Rules of
filing of a separate. case based on the counterclaim. Procedure are after all laid down to attain justice &
The lower ct. in the prior case erred in technicalities cannot prevail over substance.
dismissing the counterclaim for non-payment of
docket fees. The lesson of Manchester provides
that payment of docket fees for purposes of
assuming jurisdiction over the claim is necessary Oversight, inadvertence, excusable
only for permissive counterclaims & does not apply neglect, et al
for compulsory counterclaims like the one at bar. Rule 11, Sec. 10, supra.

TEST OF COMPULSORINESS: BA Finance v. Co, 224 SCRA 163 ('93)

Existence of a logical relationship
between the claim in the complaint & the Facts: Does the dismissal of the complaint for
counterclaim. Where conducting separate trials of non-appearance of plaintiff at pre-trial upon motion
the respective claims would entail substantial of the defendant carry w/ it the dismissal of
duplication of effort & time & involves many of compulsory counterclaim? In CAB, the plaintiff
the same factual & legal issues. did not appear at pre-trial, the defendant moved for
the dismissal of the complaint. The same was
 65

granted. Now, the defendant moves for an Period to plead

adjudication of his compulsory counterclaim. Rule 11, Sec. 6
A reply may be filed within 10 days from
Held: YES. Compulsory counterclaim is also service of the pleading responded to.
dismissed. There are several requirements of a
compulsory counterclaim: Third/Fourth Party Complaint
• It arises out or is necessarily. connected w/ the
transaction or occurrence that is the subj. matter of Defined
the opposing parties claim.
Rule 6, sec. 11
• It does not require the presence of third parties of A third (fourth,etc.)-party complaint is a
whom the ct. cannot acquire jurisdiction.
claim that a defending party may, with leave of
• The trial ct. has jurisdiction to entertain the court, file against a person not a party to the action,
same. The test of compulsoriness is : WON the
same evidence to sustain it would refute the called the third (fourth, etc)-party defendant, for
plaintiff’s cause of action. contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other
In CAB, the compulsory counterclaim relief, in respect of his opponent's claim.
cannot remain pending for independent
adjudication. The CC is auxiliary to the proceeding Go v. CA, 224 SCRA 143 ('93)
in the original suit & merely derives its
jurisdictional support fr. the orig. case. If the ct.
has no or loses jurisdiction over the main case, it Facts: Clover delivered denim garments to Go but
has no jurisdxn over the comp. counterclaim. In the latter refused to pay on the ground that he
CAB, the ct. has lost jurisdxn. over the main case received the goods fr. Lim to whom he already
by virtue of its dismissal upon motion by the made payments. Lim was made a witness for Go
defendant. instead of being impleaded as a third party def.
Held: Lim should have been impleaded as a third
party def. Go should still pay. A third party
In case main action fails complaint is a claim that a def. may w/ leave of ct.
file vs. a third person not party to the action called
For failure to raise permissive third party def. for cont. indemnity, subrogation or
counterclaims any other relief in respect to opponent’s claim. In
CAB, if payments to Lim were true, then Go could
Answer to counterclaim have impleaded him as a TPD for relief vs.
Clover’s claim vs. him.
In general
Rule 6, Sec. 4, supra. Pascual v. Bautista, 33 SCRA 301 ('70)

Period to plead Facts: The issue involved in this case is the nature
Rule 11, Sec. 4 of a third party complaint. Is a third party
An counterclaim or cross-claim must be complaint arising fr. the same transaction or
occurrence a separate action fr. the main
answered within 10 days from service. complaint?
Held: A TPC is similar to a cross-claim in that a
Reply TPC plaintiff seeks to recover fr. another person
some relief w/ respect to the opposing party’s claim
Defined and in general but it differs fr. a cross-claim in that in cross-
claims, the third party is already impleaded in the
Rule 6, Sec. 10 main action while in TPC, the def. seeks to implead
A reply is a pleading, the office of which a third party not yet include in the main action. A
is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of counterclaim does not depend upon the main claim
new matters alleged by way of defense in the but rests on WON the claim is based or related to
the same transaction. A TPC, the relation must be
answer and thereby join or make issue as to such to the claim, to the COA & not to the transaction fr.
new matters. If a party does not file such reply, all w/c the claim arises.
the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted. Balbastro v. CA, 48 SCRA 232 ('72)
If a plaintiff wishes to interpose any
claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, Facts: There are two persons contesting the right
such claims shall be set forth in an amended or to receive rental payments of Balbastro. the Latter
supplemental complaint. filed an action for interpleader & consignation vs.
the two claimants. One claimant, Fernandez then
filed a third [party complaint vs. Balbastro for
When required refusing to pay the rents to him. Balbastro moved
Rule 6, sec. 10, supra. to dismiss the TPC but the RTC & CA denied the
Challenge due authenticity of documents motion.
Rule 8, Sec. 8, supra.
Usury Held: A TPC has the following requisites.
Rule 9, sec. 1
 66

• The complaint should assert a derivative/ eviction since it leaves no other alternative to
secondary claim for relief fr. the third party enforce such warranty. Remember Sales, where
defendant. the vendee must file an action vs. the vendor to
make him liable for breach of warranty vs.
• The third party should not be a party to the eviction. ( Art. 1559 CC- the vendee may do this in
action, otherwise, the claim should be a two ways. 1) As a co-defendant. 2) As a third party
counterclaim or cross-claim def.)
• Claim vs. the third party def. must be based on The appeal would finally dispose of
the pltf. claim vs. the orig. def. Balagot’s rights to enforce the warranty.
Thus, citing the case of Capayas, “ the
test to determine WON to allow a TPC is WON it Answer to third/fourth party complaint
arises out of the same transaction on w/c pltf’s
claim is based o retired party’s claim, though In general
arising out of a different transaction or contract is Rule 6, Sec. 13
connected w/ pltf’s claim. Absent a nexus between A third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant may
third party def. & third party pltf. showing strong allege in his answer his defenses, counterclaims or
evidence of a secondary or derivative liability of
former in favor of the latter, no third party cross-claims, including such defenses that the third
complaint may be allowed. (fourth, etc)-party plaintiff may have against the
However, in the CAB, in lieu w/ the original plaintiff's claim. In proper cases, he may
policy of avoiding multiplicity of suits, the SC also assert a counterclaim against the original
allowed the TPC of Fernandez. plaintiff in respect of the latter's claim against the
third-party plaintiff.
Republic v. Central Surety, 25 SCRA 641 ('68)
Time to plead
Facts: Rep. filed an action vs. Central Surety for Rule 11, Sec. 5
forfeiture of the bond it issued when Po Kee Kam, The time to answer a third (fourth, etc.)-
a def. in CID proceedings failed to appear . The
Surety filed a TPC vs. Po Kee Kam on ground that party complaint shall be governed by the same rule
the latter executed an indemnity agreement in favor as the answer to the complaint.
of the surety. The TC dismissed the TPC on the
ground that the 3rd party claim is only 6,000. Extension of time to plead
Rule 11, Sec. 11
Held: A TPC is an ancillary suit w/c depends on Upon motion and on such terms as may be
the jurisdiction of the ct. over the main action. just, the court may extend the time to plead as
Jurisdiction over the main action embraces all the
incidental matters arising therefr. or connected provided in these Rules.
therew/, otherwise there would be split jurisdiction. The court may also, upon like terms, allow
The TPC is a continuation of the main action the an answer or other pleading to be filed after the
purpose of w/c is to seek contribution or any other time fixed by these Rules.
relief in resp. to opponents claim. Thus, regardless
of LOJ over the amount in TPC, when ct. has
jurisdxn. over main action, it has jurisdxn. over the
TPC. Formal Requirements
In TPC, the defendant sue in capacity he Rule 7
is being sued w/ resp. to pltf. claim in the main Sec. 1 Caption
action. the def. cannot compel the pltf. to implead The caption sets forth the name of the
the third party def. There must also be privity of
contract in relation to the property in litigation. court, the title of the action, and the docket number
if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names
TEST: there must be a showing that such
third party is or might be liable to the def. or pltf. of the parties. They shall be named in the original
for all or part of the claim vs. the def. complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings,
- WON it arises out of the same it shall be sufficient if the name of the first party in
transaction on w/c pltf’s claim is based. each side be stated with an appropriate indication
( CAVEAT) when there are other parties.
The ct. must wait before the 3rd party def. Their respective participation in the case
files his answer before proceeding to trial since shall be indicated.
before the answer, the case is not yet ready for
trials as issues have not yet been joined.
Sec. 2 The body
Remedies when denied The body of the pleading sets forth its
Appeal, De Dios v. Balagot, 20 SCRA 950 designation, the allegations of the party's claims or
defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the
Facts: This is an action for recovery of possession pleading.
of land filed by De Dios v. Balagot. the latter filed (a) Paragraphs - The allegations in the
a third party complaint fr. his alleged seller of the body of a pleading shall be divided into paragraphs
lot. The TPC was denied. so numbered as to be readily identified, each of
Held: The remedy for an order denying motion to which shall contain a statement of a single set of
file TPC is APPEAL. An order disallowing TPC is circumstances so far as that can be done with
appealable to enforce the vendor’s warranty vs.
 67

convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not
its number in all succeeding pleadings. theretofore commenced any action or filed any
(b) Headings - when 2 or more causes of claim involving the same issues in any court,
action are joined, the statement of the first shall be tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of
prefaced by the words ""first cause of action" of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is
the second by pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending
"second cause of action", and so on for the others. action or claim, a complete statement of the present
When one or more paragraphs in the status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn
answer are addressed to one of several causes of that the same or similar action or claim has been
action in the complaint, they shall be prefaced by filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within 5
the words "answer to the first cause of action", or days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
"answer to the second cause of action" and so on; complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
and when one or more paragraphs of the answer Failure to comply with the foregoing
are addressed to several causes of action, they shall instruments shall not be curable by mere
be prefaced by the words to that effect. amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
(c) Relief - The pleading shall specify the pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the
relief sought, but it may add a general prayer for case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided,
such further or other relief as may be deemed just upon motion and after hearing. The submission of
or equitable. a false certification or non-compliance with any of
d) Date - Every pleading shall be dated. the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the
Sec. 3 Signature and address corresponding administrative and criminal actions.
Every pleading must be signed by the If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly
party or counsel representing him, stating in either constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping,
case his address which should not be a post office the same shall be ground for summary dismissal
box. with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt,
The signature of counsel constitutes a as well as a cause for administrative sanctions
certificate by him that he has read the pleading;
that to the best of his knowledge, information and
belief there is good ground to support it; and that it
is not interposed for delay.
An unsigned pleading produces no legal
effect. However, the court may, in its discretion,
allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall
appear that the same was due to mere inadvertence LECTURE ON STAGES OF TRIAL:
and not intended for delay. Counsel who
deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a WORD GAME:
pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges Motion: request for interlocutory order related to
scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to relief prayed for in pleading
promptly report to the court a change of his Pleading: sets forth ultimate facts and defenses
address, shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary
action. Complaint: pleading that starts off civil action
Answer: defense against claims in complaint and
Sec. 4 Verification present issues in case
Except when otherwise specifically Issue: allegation denied
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be Allegation: ultimate fact
under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that L: Distinguish between: Conclusion of Law;
the affiant has read the pleading and that the Ultimate Facts; and Evidentiary Facts
allegations therein are true and correct of his
knowledge and belief. Non-issue if a) not alleged therefore not need
A pleading required to be verified which to be denied
contains a verification based on "information and b) acceptance of allegation
belief", or upon "knowledge, information and
belief", or lacks proper verification shall be treated Defense: tends to defeat claim as alleged in
as an unsigned pleading. complaint
L: prayer would be to dismiss for fact of merit
Sec. 5 Certification against forum shopping Counterclaim: if answer with affirmative relief
The plaintiff or principal party shall
certify under oath in the complaint or other Negative defenses: which factual allegations in
initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in complaint alleged as issues
a sworn certification annexed thereto and Issues: allegations and denials joined
 68

General denial: accept everything: admission of If you want to bring in a new D, need to find
everything: it specifically denies each and every commonality in cause of action originally raised,
allegation made by the plaintiff: therefore, no not commonality of parties
factual issues anymore and so no more need to go
through trial or pre-trial Counsel for D: Remedies when a complaint is
L: Counsel for P: file motion for judgment on the filed:
pleading (note: D must wait until court acquires jurisdiction
and serves him with summons (service, not
Specific denial proper: qualified, under oath and summons, if court sends him other pleadings) or he
allege lack of knowledge or information sufficient can voluntarily appear and let the court acquire
to support a belief (WIT) jurisdiction over him
file bill of particulars; file motion for extension of
Affirmative defense: defeats allegations contained time for filing a pleading and file an amended
in complaint pleading / supplemental pleading
Effect: if able to prove during hearing,
then entire pleading of the other party is defeated Final Order/Dismissal
Eg. Defense of Lack of jurisdiction or failure to 1. MTD (filed by D)
undergo a condition precedent. It is a new matter. 1. Dismissal of action by notice or motion (filed by
Hypothetical admission but still avoidance. Relief P)
prayed for is dismissal of complaint 1. Default (D not act)
1. Non-sut (P acts maliciously and not do what is
Unlike Counterclaim: raises a relief other than required of him Rule 17 sec. 3
dismissal of complaint; always allege a new matter Or P acts passively)
will have specific and general denials.
L: the trial is not about justice, it's about what you
Compulsory counterclaim: arises from the same can prove
transaction or relation. If not set up immediately,
deemed barred
Test: the logical relationship test - if there is Rule 13
substantial duplication of efforts or that the same Service of Pleadings
set of evidences will be used to prove the complaint
and the counterclaim Coverage, Rule 13, Secs. 1, 4
Filing
Reply: if no reply, matters raised in counterclaim Defined, Rule 13, Sec. 2
deemed incontroverted How, Rule 13, Sec. 12
If with reply, all new matters raised in Proof of Filing, Rule 13, Sec. 12
answer deemed controverted Service
Reply necessary when need to challenge new Defined, Rule 13, Sec. 12
matters raised by affirmative defense. Can't rely on Modes of Service
implied setting up of specific denial Generally, Rule 13, Sec. 5, Sec. 11
Personal, Rule 13, Sec. 6
Document: res ipsa loquitur: thing speaks for Registered Mail, Rule 13, Sec. 7
itself Substituted Service, Rule 13, Sec. 8
Deny under oath: a) genuineness and due
execution of the document Echaus v. CA
b) usury charges
Facts: Spouses Gonzales file action for collection
L: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings of debt vs. Echaus. Ct. orders E to pay. E files w/
SC certiorari to set aside decision, denied; then
mandamus to allow appeal, granted. E files w/ TC
Joinder of Parties: arises from the same transaction Urgent Motion to Transmit Record on Appeal to
or common question of fact or law CA. At the hearing, Judge verbally approves the
Joinder of Causes of Action: so long as the court record on appeal in abeyance, until resolution of
has jurisdiction, party can raise all causes of action Gps Motion for Execution of the TC judgment. E
asks CA to order Judge to comply w/ SC decision,
between the original P and D denied. CA says no willful refusal on part of Judge
P can raise all causes of action against D arising to comply w/ order. E goes to SC, says her appeal
from different sources but if court has no J over the had been perfected when the Judge verbally
cause of action, can't join cause of action approved the record on appeal.
But if complaint filed with the RTCF for a sum of Held: The oral order approving the record on
appeal had no juridical existence; to give it that
money, if the sum is within RTC's jurisdiction, then existence it had to be reduced to writing &
can raise promulgated (filed w/ clerk of ct.). But even if it
had been written & promulgated, even if it had
already been properly served on the parties, it still
was w/in the power of the Judge to recall it & set it
 69

aside. For every ct. has the inherent power to Summit Trading v. Avendano, 146 SCRA 197
amend its process & orders so as to make them (1986)
conform to law & justice.
No judgment, or order whether final or Facts: In connection w/ a case for redemption of
interlocutory, has juridical existence until & unless lots filed vs. ST (Type!), summons were served on
it is set down in writing, signed & promulgated, the Secretary of the President of Summit Trading.
i.e., delivered by Judge to clerk of ct. for filing, ST was later held in default. Judgment was
rendered vs. it. ST filed MFR contending that ct. in
release to the parties & implementation & even the first place did not acquire jurisdiction over the
after this, it does not bind the parties unless & until company when it served summons on the Sec of
notice thereof is duly served on them by any of the the Pres. who is not an agent of the company.
modes prescribed by law. Held: Since the Secretary did not explain what she
did to the summons, the logical assumption is that
Service of Judgments, Final Orders or she gave it to her boss. (SC here considered the
fact that a copy of the default judgment held vs. ST
Resolutions, Rule 13, Sec. 9 was also served on the Sec. & the same reached the
Completeness of Service, Rule 13, Sec. 10 Pres., & consequently, ST was able to file a MFR.)
Proof of Service, Rule 13, Sec. 12, 13 While Summit Trading is technically
See also SC Circular No. 19-91 correct in contending that there was no strict
compliance w/ Sec. 13, under the facts of this case,
where the President contact the outside world
normally through his Secretary, the latter may be
Rule 14 regarded as an “agent” w/in the meaning of Sec.
Summons 13.
Note: Remember that SC did not rule
Definition and purpose that service upon Secretaries is always proper. It
Duty to issue, Rule 14, Sec 1, 5 was only under the facts of the CAB that Sec. may
be considered as an agent of the corporation.
Form
Content, Rule 14, Sec 2
Foreign, Rule 14, Sec 12
If with leave of court, Rule 14, Sec. 17
Public corporation, Rule 14, Sec
Who serves, Rule 14, Sec 3
13
On Whom,
Minors, RuLe 14, Sec 10
In general, Rule 14, Sec 1, 6
Insane, incompetents, Rule 14, Sec 10
Entity without juridical personality, Rule
Prisoners, Rule 14, Sec 9
14, Sec 8
Unknown defendant, Rule 14, Sec 14
Associations, Rule 14, Sec 9
Residents temporarily out, Rule 14, Sec
Domestic, Rule 14, Sec 11
18, 16
Rebolido v. CA, 170 SCRA 800 (1989)
Venturanza v. CA, 156 SCRA 305 (1987)
Facts: Pepsi Cola was served summons, in
connection w/ a case for damages arising fr. Facts: Venturanza was sued for collection of a
vehicle-collision, through Sison who represented sum of money. Summons for V was served upon
herself as a person authorized to received ct. her father at his residence in Tondo. V was later
process as she was a secretary of the legal dept. of held in default. V filed Motion to Set Aside
Pepsi Cola. Later, Pepsi Cola was dissolved, & all Default Judgment on the ground that there was no
its debts & liabilities were assumed by PEPSICO. proper service of summons when it was served not
Meanwhile, Pepsi Cola was declared in default in in her residence w/c was in Pasay City.
the aforementioned case, & writ of execution was Held: There was no proper service of summons.
served on PEPSICO. The latter now moves to 1. It is only when defendant cannot be served w/in
vacate judgment, alleging lack of jurisdiction of the reasonable time that a substituted service may be
ct. as the summons was served on the legal availed of under Sec. 8 (Pls. see Part VI). The law
secretary of Pepsi Cola, not PEPSICO. requires an effort or attempt to personally serve the
Held: There was valid service of summons. defendant, & only after this has failed that a
1. Although Pepsi Cola was already dissolved substituted service may be availed of. Why? Bec.
when summons was served, the same may be Substituted Service is in derogation of the usual
served upon the same person upon whom the method of service. It is a method extraordinary in
process could be served before the dissolution. character & hence may be used only as prescribed
Therefore, service to any of the persons in R 14 in the circumstances authorized by statute.
Sec. 13 is allowed. 2. Substituted service is valid only if served at
2. Purpose of Summons: To render it reasonably defendant’s residence, NOT former residence.
certain that corporation will receive prompt & “Residence” means where he is living at the time
proper notice in an action vs. it. service was made, even though temporarily out of
the country.
3. Liberal Interpretation of Sec. 13: That there is
Substantial Compliance w/ the requirement of Sec.
13 if the purpose for the service of summons is
attained, & the person served knew what to do w/ Non-resident, Rule 14, Sec 15
the legal papers served upon him. Modes of service
Personal, Rule 14, Sec 6
 70

Substituted, Rule 14, Sec 7

3. In an action in personam as in the CAB,
Laus v. CA, 219 SCRA 688 (1993) personal service of summons w/in the forum is
Facts: This is the 10-minute case. Torres filed a essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the
complaint for Collection vs. Laus. Deputy Sheriff person of the defendant who does not voluntarily
went to Laus’ residence to serve summons, but submit himself to the authority of the ct..
found that there was no one in the house. He
waited for 10 minutes. Then a three-wheeled Extraterritorial, Rule 14, Sec 15
vehicle (tricykol) came w/ the savior who claimed
to be the maid in the house. The Sheriff served
summons upon the latter. Laus was declared in Dial Co. v. Soriano, 161 SCRA 737 (1988)
default. Before he received the final judgment,
Laus filed an MTD on the ground that there was DIAL CO. V. SORIANO
ineffective service of summons bec. there was no Facts: Dial is a foreign corporation organized &
indication that S first exerted efforts to serve the existing under the laws of UK, US & Malaysia. It
same personally before resorting to substituted has NO agents, officers or office in the Philippines.
service. Imperial Vegetable Oil, a Phil. corp., entered,
Held: There was an ineffective service of through its President, into several contracts w/ Dial
summons. for the delivery of coco oil by the former to the
latter. Later, IVO repudiated said contracts on the
General Rule: Must serve personally. ground that they are “mere paper trading in
Exception: If cannot serve personally w/in futures” as no actual delivery of coco oil was really
reasonable period of time, may resort to Substituted intended. IVO also filed complaint for Damages
Service. vs. Dial. RTC, upon motion of IVO, authorized the
How can Impossibility of Service be shown? By latter to effect Extraterritorial Service of Summons
stating efforts made to find defendant personally & to Dial through DHL. Dial, w/o submitting itself to
the fact that such efforts failed. court’s jurisdiction, filed MTD on the ground that
Extraterritorial Service was improper, hence RTC
Mapa v. CA, 214 SCRA 417 (1993) acquired no jurisdiction.
Facts: A complaint for Recovery of sum of money Held: There was an Improper service of summons.
was filed vs. High Peak Mining. Summons was
issued to be served upon Mapa, the chairperson, & 1. There are 4 instances when Extraterritorial
upon other officers of the corporation. However, service of summons can be properly done:
said summons was served upon an employee of a) Action affects status of the plaintiff
said corp. Defendants were declared in default. b) Action relates to, or the subject of w/c is,
Defs. filed MTD & Set Aside Default Judgment on property w/in the Phils., in w/c defendant has or
the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the ct. over claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent
their person as the service of summons was
improper, i.e., served upon an EE who may not be c) When relief demanded consists in whole or in
considered as an “agent” of the corporation; part, in excluding the def. fr. any interest in the
moreover, Sheriff did not indicate in his Return his property located in the Phils.
efforts at serving summons personally before d) Defendant non-resident’s property has been
resorting to substituted service. attached w/in the Phils.
Held: Court lacked jurisdiction. 2. The CAB is purely an action for Injunction, not
any of the 4. This is only an action in personam.
In any of the 4 instances, Court has
1. General Rule: Sheriff’s Return must show that jurisdiction over the RES, i.e. personal status or
prior attempts at personal service were made by the property, so jurisdiction over the person is NOT
Sheriff & that such attempts had failed, prompting essential.
him to resort to Substituted service. HOWEVER,
it must be emphasized that Absence in the Sheriff’s In Personam - an action vs. a person on
Return of a statement about the impossibility of the basis of his personal liability;
personal service DOES NOT conclusively prove In Rem - action vs. the thing itself instead
that the service is invalid. Proof of such prior of vs. the person.
attempts may be submitted by the plaintiff during 3. In CAB, Court cannot subject Dial & Co. to
the hearing of any incident assailing the validity of processes of RTC w/c are powerless to reach them
the substituted service. While Sheriff’ Return outside the region over w/c they exercise their
carries w/ it the presumption of regularity, that authority.
entries therein are deemed correct, it does not
necessarily follow that an act done in relation to the
official duty for w/c the return is made was not Sievert v. CA, 168 SCRA 692 (1988)
simply done bec. it is not disclosed therein. Facts: Sievert, a citizen & resident of the Phils.
Besides, the sheriff’s neglect in making such a received by mail a Petition for Issuance of
disclosure should not unduly prejudice the plaintiff Preliminary Attachment w/o previously receiving
if what was undisclosed was in fact done. any summons & copy of the complaint filed vs.
him. His counsel entered a special appearance for
a limited purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of
2. The EE may be considered as an “agent” for the ct..
the purpose of Sec. 13, & there was a substantial
compliance under the said sec. bec. in the CAB, Held: RTC has no jurisdiction over Sievert.
petitioner failed to deny the statement in Sheriff’s 1. Rule 57 Sec. 1. -- Writ of Preliminary
Return that the EE is “authorized to receive process Attachment may be applied for by a plaintiff “at
of this nature”, said Return enjoying the the commencement of the action or at anytime
presumption of regularity, & the logical conclusion thereafter...” However, what should be identified is
is that she delivered the summons to the not the time when the action may be regarded as
corporation. having commenced, as this is not necessarily fixed
nor identical. The Critical Time to be identified is
 71

when the trial ct. acquires authority under the law Waiver of service, Rule 14, Sec 20
to act coercively vs. the defendant or his property
in a proceeding in attachment. Answer: the time Delos Santos v. Montesa, 221 SCRA 15
of the vesting of jurisdiction in the ct. over the
person of the defendant in the main case. (1993)
2. NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT: Attachment Facts: In connection w/ a complaint for Ejectment
of property may be sought in order to bring RES filed vs. De los Santos, summons was served upon
w/in the jurisdiction of the ct., in substitution, as it the latter through her mother as the process server
were, of the body of the defendant. Jurisdiction failed to locate the defendant. DLS filed an MFR
over the res & the person of the defendant is, in of MC decision, alleging, inter alia, that the
such case, acquired by service of summons by summons was improperly served.
publication, though that jurisdiction may be made Held: While it may appear that there is no proof
effective only in respect of the res attached. that it was impossible to personally serve the
RESIDENT DEFENDANT: A ct. w/c has not summons, & the statutory norms on service of
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the summons were not strictly complied w/, by the acts
defendant cannot bind that def. whether in the main of the petitioner’s counsel, such defects are deemed
case or in an ancillary proceeding such as erased. (Counsel filed MFR ) Appearance of
attachment proceedings. The service of a Petition counsel is equivalent to summons unless such is
for Prelim Attachment w/o the prior or made to protest the jurisdiction of the ct. over the
simultaneous service of summons & a copy of the person of the defendant. The MFR filed cannot be
complaint in the main case does not confer treated as a special appearance as it raised other
jurisdiction upon the issuing ct. over the person of grounds than the invalid service of summons, i.e.
the defendant. failure to state COA, no Katarungang
Pambarangay).
Citizen's Surety v. Herrera, 38 SCRA 369 (1972)
Return of service, Rule 14, Sec 4
Facts: Citizen’s Surety filed complaint for
reimbursement of money vs. Dacanay. Since Proof of service, Rule 14, Sec 18
Dacanay’s address was unknown, CS petitioned the Publication, Rule 14, Sec 19
Court that summons be made by publication. Registered mail, Rule 14, Sec 19
Petition was granted, but still no Dacanay
appeared. (Kung kayo ba s’ya lalabas kayo?) CS
asked the ct. that Dacanay be held in Default. Trial NOTES ON SUMMONS:
ct. denied since this is an action in personam, &
dismissed the case. Venturanza - residence means "actual residence"
Held: The judge was correct that the Court could
not validly acquire jurisdiction on a non-appearing What make time reasonable is the efforts exerted
defendant, absent a personal service of summons by the sheriff in serving the summons personally to
w/in the forum. Otherwise, there would be a
violation of Due Process. the defendants.
The proper recourse for the creditor is to
locate properties, real or personal, of the resident Remedies in default judgment:
defendant debtor w/ unknown address & cause 1. Motion for New Trial
them to be attached under R57 Sec. 1(f), in w/c 2. Appeal
case, the attachment converts the action into a
proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, & the summons 3. Motion for Relief from Judgment
by publication may then accordingly be deemed 4. Motion to Set Aside Judgment
valid & effective.
A judgment rendered without jurisdiction never
Consolidated Plywood v. Breve, prescribes, passage of time can never correct the
166 SCRA 589 (1988) judgment of a court which has never acquired
Facts: Consolidated Plywood & Mindanao Hemp jurisdiction.
Export are co-owners of real property: land &
building. Consolidated undertook to repair & Personal and real actions are important in
improve the property, subject to reimbursement fr.
Mindanao of 1/2 of costs. After Mindanao refused determining venue of actions.
to pay, a suit for collection was filed by Actions in personam and in rem are important for
Consolidated. When summons was issued, it was service of summons.
found out that Mindanao was no longer doing Actions affecting personal actions are actions in
business at its former address. Can summons be
served by publication? rem and therefore extraterritorial service by
Held: No. Suit is for the collection of an amount publication may be made.
of money--a personal action, ct. cannot acquire
jurisdiction over the person by serving summons by Options for service of summons:
publication. The proper recourse for a creditor is to 1. Personal service
locate properties, real or personal, of the resident 2. Substituted service
defendant debtor w/ unknown address & cause 3. Extraterritorial service: not a mode of service,
them to be attached under R57 Sec. 1(f), in w/c principally
case, the attachment converts the action into a (a) personal
proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, & the summons (b) service by publication (always accompanied by
by publication may then accordingly be deemed registered mail)
valid & effective.
 72

Service of other Pleadings: Rule 13 Service of intertwined w/ complaint that it could not remain
Summons: Rule 14 pending for independent adjudication.
1. Personal Delivery
1. Personal Service Calalang v. CA, 217 SCRA 462
To party/counsel To the
defendant only Facts: The 7-year delay in the prosecution of the
Residence, to person of suitable no bank’s case was due to the several MTD’s w/c
required oppositions & replies, pre-trial was reset
such thing as service by registered several times, & the judges handling the case were
Age and Discretion constantly being replaced.
mail Held:
1. Though it is w/in the discretion of the TC to
Purpose: acquisition of jurisdiction declare a party non-suited for non-appearance in
2. Substituted Service pre-trial conference, such discretion must not be
2. Substituted Service abused.
3. Extraterritorial Service 2. To constitute sufficient ground for dismissal,
delay must not only be lengthy but also
Either personally or by publication unnecessary & dilatory resulting in the trifling of
File a motion for leave of court inorder to be able judicial process.
to serve extraterritorially
Rule 16
Extraterritorial Service by publication - may be Motion to Dismiss
made only in four (4) instances as enumerated in
§15 of Rule 14 and Dial Co. v. Soriano. Lagutan v. Icao, 224 SCRA 9

In rem for publication. FACTS: The heirs of L filed a complaint vs. I for
Resident temporarily out may be served specific performance. I, in his answer, raised the
extraterritorially, personally ff. defenses: lack of cause of action, prescription,
Can apply to a foreigner having residence in the non-compliance w/ the Statute of Frauds.
Afterwards, I filed a motion to dismiss. CFI
Philippines granted the MTD.
HELD: Under R. 16, a MTD must be filed w/in
the time for pleading (period to answer). Thus, the
Rule 15 ct. erred in granting the MTD considering that it
Motions was filed 3 mo. after the amended answer was
filed.
Municipality of Binan v. CA, 219 SCRA The sufficiency of a motion to dismiss
should be tested on the strength of the allegations
of facts contained in the complain & no other. The
FACTS: P filed a civil case for unlawful detainer ct. cannot inquire into the truth of the allegations &
vs. G. After filing an answer, G filed a Motion for declare them to be false. Otherwise, there would
Preliminary Hearing as if a Motion to Dismiss has be a denial of procedural due process.
been Filed on the ground that the complaint states
no cause of action. The MTC, instead of
conducting a hearing, rendered a judgment order in Laus v. CA, 219 SCRA
G to vacate the premises.
HELD: A motion for Preliminary Hearing is HELD: If a defendant had not been properly
merely PERMISSIVE. Sec. 5 Rule 16 is not summoned, the period to file a MTD for lack of
mandatory even when prayed for. It rests largely jurisdiction over his person does not commence to
on the sound discretion of the TC & is not a matter run until he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction
of right demandable. A prelim hearing on an of the ct..
affirmative defense of lack of cause of action is not In this case, D did not voluntarily submit.
necessary since the question submitted is the Thus, the period to file a responsive pleading did
sufficiency of allegation in the complaint itself. not even commence to run.
As a general rule: an order denying a
International Container Terminal Services v, MTD being interlocutory cannot be the subject of
CA, 214 SCRA certiorari.
EXCEPTION: When TC clearly acted
outside of its jurisdxn or w/ grave abuse of
Facts: ICTSI adopted its co-respondent PPA’s discretion in denying MTD.
MTD the complaint vs. them filed by Sharp. When
such MTD was granted, ICTSI moved for a
reconsideration of said order insofar as it dismissed Bar by prior judgment
ICTSI’s counterclaim.
Held: DBP v. Pondugar, 218 SCRA 118
1. Dismissal of complaint on defendant’s own
motion operated to also dismiss the counterclaim FACTS: CFI dismissed the injunction suit filed
questioning the complaint. by IISMI vs. the government, DBP CB BOI &
2. Defendant himself joined PPA in moving for Sheriff of Lanao del Norte w/ prejudice for IISMI’s
dismissal of complaint; it did not object to the failure to appear during the pre-trial. Fourteen
dismissal. Secondly, compulsory claim was so years later, IISMI, Fernando Jacinto & Jacinto
 73

Steel filed a complaint vs. DBP, NDC & NSC PR filed a MTD & or to suspend
before the RTC Iligan praying that the proceedings 1st case. RTC Makati Br. 63
extrajudicial foreclosure conducted in accordance dismissed the 1st case on the ground of litis
w/ the decision in the first case be annulled. pendentia
HELD: HELD: The 2nd case should be the one dismissed
1. As a general rule, certiorari is not & not the 1st case.
available since a motion to dismiss is merely REQUISITES OF LITIS PENDENTIA
interlocutory. However, when the ct., in denying 1. Identity of parties or at least such as
the MTD, acts w/o or in excess of jurisdiction or w/ representing the same interests in both actions;
grave abuse of discretion, certiorari becomes
available to relieve the defendant of the trouble of 2. Identity of rights asserted & relief
undergoing the ordeal & expense of a useless trial. prayed for; the relief being founded on the same
facts;
2. 2nd Case should be dismissed bec. of
res judicata. 3. Identity in the 2 cases should be such
that the judgment that may be rendered in the
RES JUDICATA - ELEMENTS pending case would, regardless of w/c party is
a. Former judgment must be successful, amount to res judicata in the other.
final. CFI order has attained finality In our jurisdiction, the ROC simply
since there was no motion for recon or requires that there is a PENDING action, NOT a
appeal. PRIOR PENDING ACTION. Therefore, the
b. The ct. w/c rendered it had priority in time rule is not applicable.
jurisdiction over the subject matter ***CRITERIA IN DETERMINING
& the parties. WHICH OF THE CASES SHOULD BE ABATED
c. Must be a judgment on the 1. The more appropriate action shall be
MERITS. The first case was an adjudication maintained (Teodoro vs. Mirasol)
on the merits since the CFI considered the 2. Interest of justice test, taking into
evidence presented during the hearing; account a) the nature of controversy; b)
comparative accessibility of the ct. to the parties; c)
dismissed w/ prejudice due to failure to other similar factors (Roa-Magsaysay vs.
appear during pre-trial despite due notice. Magsaysay)
d. There must be, between the **In both tests, the bona fides or the good
1st & 2nd actions, identity of parties, subject faith of the parties shall be taken into consideration
matter & cause of action.
Absolute identity of parties is not Res judicata
required. Substantial identity is sufficient.
Inclusion of add’l parties will not affect the
application of RJ. Abalos v. CA, 223 SCRA
Test Of Identity of COA does not FACTS: The RTC, acting as a Land Registration
lie in the form of the action but on whether Court, granted the application for registration of
title filed by A. After this, PR filed a complaint vs.
the same evidence would support & A for the annulment of the document of sale & or
establish the former & present COA redemption of ownership plus damages. A filed a
3. RTC has committed grave abuse of MTD on the ground of res judicata.
discretion in taking jurisdiction . Although it is not HELD: MTD granted on the ground of res
prayed that the CFI orders be annulled, the effect is judicata. The general rule is that the land
to annul the findings of mismanagement & to registration ct. has limited jurisdiction.
relitigate the same claims. Action for EXCEPTIONS: 1. The parties have agreed or
reconveyance is misleading since it is but the have acquiesced in submitting the issues for
inevitable consequence if the CFI orders are determination by the ct. in the proceedings; 2. the
annulled. parties were accorded opportunity in presenting
4. A finding that the complaint states a their respective arguments of the issues litigated &
COA does not imply that the complainant is of the evidence in support thereof; 3. the ct. has
assured of a ruling in his favor. While a MTD already considered the evidence on record & is
based on failure of the complainant to state a COA convinced that the same is sufficient & adequate
necessarily carries w/ it the admission, for purposes for rendering a decision upon the issues
of the motion, of the truth of all material facts controverted. In the CAB, the issue of ownership
pleaded in the complaint, what is submitted for was fully ventilated.
determination therein is the sufficiency of the While the jurisdiction of the LRC is
allegations in the complaint. limited, the power to determine the validity of the
5. A MTD may be granted even if only 1 documents pertaining to sale of lands is necessarily
ground is present. w/in its jurisdiction.

Litis pendencia Res judicata v. conclusiveness of judgment

Vitrionics Computers v. RTC, 217 SCRA 1 Nabus v. CA, 190 SCRA

FACTS: Nabus brought an action for
FACTS: P filed w/ the RTC Makati Br. 63 a reconveyance of land vs. Lim. This was based on
complaint for a sum of money & damages vs. PR the Public Land Law. Upon failure of N to comply
(*1st case - Civil Case # 91-2069) The following w/ the ct. order (CFI ordered him to deposit the
day, the PR filed a complaint for the nullification repurchase price), the ct., upon L’s filing of a
of the contract on the ground of fraud. This was MTD, dismissed the case w/ prejudice.
docketed as Civil Case # 91-2192 * 2nd case.
 74

N filed a 2nd case for the rescission of the contract This is akin to a prayer for a judicial declaration of
Was the complaint for rescission & damages citizenship w/c may not be granted in a petition for
barred by prior judgment of dismissal. declaratory relief.
HELD: NO.
A. Res Judicata has 2 concepts: LECTURE ON DISMISSALS
1. Bar by Former Judgment. There is MTD should contain:
identity of parties, subject matter & COA. The a) relief sought to be obtained
judgment on the merits rendered on the 1st case a) grounds on which it is based
constitutes an absolute bar to the subsequent action
not only as to every matter w/c was offered but as a) supporting affidavits and other papers as
to any admissible matter w/c might have been required by the Rules or to prove the facts alleged
offered for that purpose. a) notice of hearing since MTD can't be heard ex
ELEMENTS OF BAR BY FORMER parte
JUDGMENT
a. presence of a final former Procedure: Movant: one who files motions: sets
order date for hearing: clerk of court to calendar it after
b. former judgment rendered by getting proof of service: oppositor should have
a ct. having jurisdiction over actual receipt of notice 3 days before hearing and
the subject matter & the parties hearing should not be > 10 days from filing of the
c. former judgment is a motion: periods depend on how the filing is done
judgment on the merits.
whether personal delivery or registered mail: if the
d. identity of parties, subject latter, explainwhy not personal delivery and with
matter & cause of action.
proof of service
Judgment on the Merits Execptions to motions must be in writing:
⇒ When it determines the rights & liabilities of a) made in open court or made in the course of a
the parties based on disclosed facts, irrespective of hearing or trial
formal, technical or dilatory objections.
eg. Exclude public; hold other counsel in
⇒ Where complaint is dismissed for failure of P contempt; admissibility of evidence; motion to
to comply w/ a lawful order of the ct., this has the
effect of an adjudication upon the merits. leave the court
a) motions which do not substantially prejudice the
rights of the other party
In the CAB, there is No identity of Cause
of Action since the evidence that was presented in eg. Motions for suspension of the trial
the 1st case is not the same evidence that is needed
to sustain the 2nd case. If no MTD filed, any of the grounds for an MTD
can be raised as an affirmative defense
2. Conclusiveness of Judgment - There is Except lack of jurisdiction over the person
identity of parties but no identity of cause of action. Affirmative defense since it means that D made an
In this case, judgment is conclusive only as to answer and subjected himself to the jurisdiction of
matters actually & directly controverted &
determined & not as to matters merely involved. the court
This is not applicable bec. the unpaid balance was
never put in issue. Defenses NOT waived when not set up in an MTD
or affirmative defense Rule 9 sec 1
B. Nevertheless, the action was dismissed a) jurisdiction over subject matter
bec. it had has already prescribed. a) res judicata or statute of limitations
a) litis pendencia
UP v. CA, 218 SCRA 72
if D files MTD for failure to state a cause of action,
FACTS: Elizalde & the Tasaday P's remedy is to file an amended pleading
representatives filed a case vs. B & S based on Nature of MTD: hypothetically admits allegations
torts. UP filed a motion to intervene w/c was in complaint as true: affirmative defense
granted. After UP has filed an answer in
intervention, B & S filed a MTD on the ground of MTD confusion and avoidance (WIT):
lack of COA. Court denied B & S’s MTD. Up hypothetical admission and denial
also filed a MTD but this was denied bec. UP has
already filed an answer. Possible defenses when served with a complaint.
HELD: Res Judicata does not apply bec. there is Line by line:
no identity of subject matter. The ct. denied B & RTC - lack of jurisdiction
S’s MTD on the ground that there is a COA while
it denied UP’s MTD bec. it had already filed an NCR, QC - wrong venue
answer. P - lack of capacity to sue
The argument that B & S are protected by Summons - lack of J over D
academic freedom is a valid defense that must be Pleading - no cause of action
raised during trial. Body - litis pendentia, res judicata,
It is not w/in the competence of the ct. to paid/waived/unenforceable
declare the Tasadays a distinct ethnic community.
 75

Allegations of conditions precedent - JUDGMENT Former judgment

failure to undergo conditions precedent F
Failure to include certification against Valid court with jurisdiction
forum shopping under oath V
Merits
Court after proper hearing on MTD can: M
a) sustain MTD and dismiss the complaint
b) deny the MTD and compel D to file an answer
c) order that the complaint be amended IDENTITY Cause of action
Subject matter
Court will rule on face of document: no need to Parties
receive evidence but should give other party the
opportunity to be heard. Other party to file his
opposition to the MTD Certiorari Special civil action
May be related to main cause of
Hearing not necessary if there is no need to present action
evident WON court a quo committed
eg. improper venue, no jurisdiction over subject grave abuse of discretion
matter or person - just study complaint or return of
summons U. P. case - certiorari by Bailen and Salazar in SC
When hearing necessary, movant has the burden of first civil action
proving his opposition. D to present evidence first.
Evidence presented during hearing on MTD Certiorari - as a mode of appeal
automatically reproduced during trial Certiorari - special civil action, grave abuse of
discretion
Hearing on motion: receive evidence in support of Distinguish between petition for review by
motion certiorari and original special civil action for
Trial : receive evidence on ultimate certiorari
causes
UP -orders of MTD contained two (2) different
MTD not a responsive pleading but a motion things
After filing MTD can no longer file Bill of Special civil action is a different thing
Particulars since MTD means that D is presumed to Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy
have understood the complaint. Must file B of P
before MTD then motion for extension of time to Answer-in-intervention: grounds for dismissal may
plead then pleading with counterclaim be raised in an affirmative defense inspite of prior
dismissal of a MTD by the original defendant.
NOTE Rule 16 sec 6 makes it discretionary on the
trial court to rule on affirmative defense raising any Procedure to intervene:
of the grounds of MTD as long as MTD not filed 1. Motion for leave of court to intervene
2. After granting by the court, intervenor may file
L: res judicata already raised as MTD, MTD denied MTD.
during hearing, then can't raise affirmative defense Denial of MTD is only a denial of the hypothetical
on same ground since already settled that not res admission mode by the defendant but may still be
judicata (WIT) controverted in the trial. Once a MTD has been
filed and denied, grounds raised can no longer be
LINA V CA: Remedies for default judgment set up as affirmative defenses.
a) motion to set aside order of default
b) motion for new trial Lack of Jurisdiction over the person cannot be
c) appeal raised in an affirmative defense.
d) petition for review of judgment
Default - remedy of the complainant
LAUS: no default since D did not receive Rule 17 §37 - plaintiff declared non-suited.
summons. Period for filing answer has not yet If answer filed after reglementary period
started to run. Remedy: MTD. Remedy if MTD and default (motion) filed thereafter, court should
denied: certiorari for arbitrary ruling not render an order of default since default are
generally frowned upon.
NOTES ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Remedies for a default judgment:
Bar by prior judgment 1. Motion under oath to set aside order of default
conclusiveness of judgment 2. Motion for new trial - judgment not final &
executory
 76

3. Petition for relief from judgment - judgment having been no consideration & adjudication of the
final & executory case on the merits.
4. Appeal - no way that defendant can present DBP v. Pondugar, supra
evidence. Facts: IISMI instituted an injunction suit to stop
foreclosure on its property. PI was issued. While
Rule 19 § 5 - failure of defendant to appear, case was pending in 1972, Martial Law was
declared. 1972 LC dissolved the writ & held there
presentation of evidence shall be proved. was mismanagement b IISMI. LC said applicant
No more "as in default" for preliminary injunction should establish a clear
No opportunity to jump to judgment, only that case & must come to ct. w/ clean hands. PI being
plaintiff may present evidence ex-parte. an equitable remedy. LC dismissed the case. 14
years later, complaint was filed to set aside the
foreclosure.
Lesaca - What judgment can be rendered Held: Complaint should be dismissed. There is res
judicata as the former judgment was final, ct. had
Rule 34. Judgment on the Pleadings jurisdiction over subject matter & parties, there was
judgment on the merits, & there was identity of
parties, subject matter & COA’s. Martial Law
If no material issue is contested (e.g. only amount doesn’t qualify as a force majeure w/c would
of damages), judgment on the pleadings may be suspend the running of the period. That the Jacintos
issued. were abroad & couldn’t come home as Marcos
canceled their passports is not a bar to the filing of
the injunction case. When they lost, they should
MTD - confession/avoidance have filed an appeal or separate action to annul the
Motion for Summary Judgment - remedy so as not same through their consuls based here.
to go through the entire trial.
Motion for Summary Judgment may be substituted
by an Answer. Rule 9, Sec. 3
Default
Judgment after Trial ]
Summary Judgment ] Lim Tan Hu v. Ramolete, supra
Judgment on the merits;
Judgement on the Pleadings ] ways Facts: supra.
of terminating trial
Held: Parties declared in default waive their right
Judgment by Default ]
to be heard & present evidence & are not entitled to
receive notice of other proceedings & to service of
MTD - judgment which do not look at the merits
papers except when the latter consist of
Final orders
substantially amended pleadings & final orders. If
the parties in default file a Motion to Lift Order of
Judgment ] Ways of terminating
Default, they shall not lose their right to the
trial
notices.
Order ]
Malanyaon v. Sunga, 208 SCRA
Facts: Petitioner got sick & asked the judge to
defer the schedule of his appearance at the pre-trial
Rule 17 hearings. As P did not appear at the hearings, the
Dismissal of Actions judge declared P in default & ordered his arrest.
Held: Where the failure to appear at the pre-trial
Meliton v. CA, supra hearing was uncontrovertedly due to illness, the
Facts: When the complaint vs. Meliton was default order may be set aside on the ground of
dismissed, her counterclaims were also dismissed, accident over w/c petitioner had no control. Also,
w/ the trial ct. ruling that it acquired no jurisdiction the order of arrest was illegal as there is nothing in
over such counterclaims due to non-payment of the Rules of Court w/c authorizes such as a
docket fees. Later, Meliton sued on these consequence of a default order.
counterclaims. The defendants therein raised the
defense of res judicata. Lesaca v. CA, 215 SCRA
Held: Where a counterclaim is made the subject of
a separate suit, it may be abated upon a plea of Facts: Defendant failed to appear at the scheduled
auter action pendentia or litis pendentia, &/or preliminary conference for a complaint for
dismissal on the ground of res judicata. Res ejectment & as such was declared in default. The
ct. then considered the case submitted for decision.
judicata, however, is not applicable since
Held: The Rules on Summary Procedure was
counterclaim was dismissed w/o prejudice since the applied in this case. Sec. 6 thereof states that in
ct. held that it did not acquire jurisdiction due to case of failure of parties to appear at the pre-trial
non-payment of docket fees. Neither is there litis conf., the ct. should have issued a "preliminary
pendentia. Dismissal on the ground of lack of conference order" defining the issues of the case.
Thereafter the parties should have submitted their
jurisdiction does not constitute res judicata, there affidavits & other evidence. Sec. 5 states that it is
only when defendants fail to file a responsive
 77

pleading w/in the reglementary period may the ct.

proceed to render judgment. In the CAB, resp. did Rule 35
not file an answer. TC may not declare him in Summary Judgments
default bec. a motion to declare defendant in
default is a prohibited pleading under Sec. 15 (h) of
the Rules on SumPro.
Rule 18
Datu v. CA, 215 SCRA Pre-Trial
Facts: Defendant Habaluyas was declared in
default. Decision was rendered in favor of Sec. 1. When conducted. – After the last pleading
Mangelen awarding him exemplary damages w/c has been served and filed, it shall be the duty of the
was not included in his prayer for specific
performance. plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be
Held: In a judgment based on evidence presented set for pre-trial.
ex-parte, judgment should not exceed the amount
or be different in kind fr. that prayed for Thus, Sec. 2. Nature and purpose. – The pre-trial is
Mangelen is not entitled to exemplary damages. mandatory. The court shall consider:
On the other hand, in a judgment where an answer
was filed but def. did not appear at the hearing, the
award may exceed the amount or be different in (a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of
kind fr. that prayed for. a submission to alternative modes of dispute
resolution;
Dulos v. CA, 188 SCRA (b) The simplification of the issues;
Facts: Dulos spouses were declared as in default (c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to
for failure to appear at the pre-trial conference. In the pleadings;
their action for certiorari w/ the SC, they contend
that they were not able to move to set aside the (d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or
order of default since they were not furnished w/ admissions of facts and of documents to avoid
copies of the order declaring them in default. unnecessary proof;
Held: Party in default is not entitled to notice of (e) The limitation of the number of witnesses;
subsequent proceedings under the Rules of Court.
(f) The advisability of a preliminary reference of
issues to a commissioner;
Ramnami v. CA, 221 SCRA
(g) The propriety of rendering judgement on the
Facts: A complaint for collection of a sum of pleadings, or summary judgement, or of dismissing
money was filed vs. the Ramnanis, who failed to the action should a valid ground therefor be found
appear at pre-trial. They were declared in default. to exist;
A motion to lift the order of default was filed w/c (h) The advisability or necessity of suspending the
was denied. TC decision rendered vs. them. They
filed w/ the CA a petition for certiorari w/c was proceedings; and
dismissed since it was not the proper remedy. (i) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt
Hence this petition. disposition of the action.
Held: Motion to set aside default order could not
be issued since there was inexcusable non- Sec. 3. Notice of pre-trial. – The notice of pre-
appearance (remember FAME?). The appropriate
remedy was an ordinary appeal under Sec. 2, Rule trial shall be served on counsel, or on the party who
41 of the Rules of Court. Certiorari is proper only has no counsel. The counsel served with such
if party was illegally declared in default. In CAB, notice is charged with the duty of notifying the
no irregularities in the pre-trial have been alleged. party represented by him.
It is w/in the sound discretion of the ct. to set
aside an order of default but it is not error, or abuse
of discretion to refuse to set aside order of default Sec. 4. Appearance of parties. – It shall be the
& to refuse to accept the answer where it finds no duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the
justiciable reason for the delay of the filing of an pre-trail. The non-appearance of a party may be
answer. excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor or if
a representative shall appear in his behalf fully
Gerales v. CA, 218 SCRA 68 authorized in writing to enter into an amicable
settlement, to submit to alternative modes of
Facts: supra. dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or
Held: Pleadings, as well as remedial laws, should admissions of facts and of documents.
be liberally construed in order that litigants may
have ample opportunity to prove their respective
claims, & possible denial of substantial justice, due Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear. – The failure of
to technicalities may be avoided. Default judgment the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to
is frowned upon, & unless it clearly appears that the next preceding section shall be cause for
reopening of the case is intended for delay, it is
best to give parties a chance to fight their case. dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with
prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A
Rule 34 similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be
Judgment on the Pleadings cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence
 78

ex parte and the court to render judgement on the 16 (refer to Rule 16). Her MTD was filed pursuant
basis thereof. to R67, S3 of the ROC : “Within the time specified
in the summons, each defendant , in lieu of an
answer, shall present in a single motion to dismiss
Sec. 6. Pre-trial brief. – The parties shall file with of for other appropriate relief, all his objections &
the court and serve on the adverse party, in such defenses to the right of the plaintiff to take his
manner as shall ensure their receipt thereof at least property for the use specified in the complaint.”
three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial, their The TC :
respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, ❃ reversed the order of trial allowing defendant
among others: to present her evidence before the plaintiff &
❃ subsequently rendered order sustaining
defendant’s defense & dismissing the action as to
(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into her, solely on her evidence
amicable settlement or alternative modes of dispute Rule: A MTD under Eminent Domain (R67) is
resolution, indicating the desired terms thereof. really an answer. Thus if such MTD is filed (under
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed R67), the order of trial remains under R30.
stipulation of facts; CAB: There was no valid cause to reverse the
(c) The issues to be tried or resolved; order of trial. MTD here partakes the nature of a
(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented, pleading. Plaintiff should thus go first. What the
stating the purpose thereof; trial ct. have in mind was the provision of Sec. 5,
(e) A manifestation of their having availed or their R16 allowing “any of the grounds for dismissal in
intention to avail themselves of discovery R16 to “be pleaded as an affirmative defense” &
procedures or referral to commissioners; and authorizing the holding of a preliminary hearing x
(f) The number and names of the witnesses, and x thereon as if a MTD has been filed. Defendants
the substance of their respective testimonies. defense however was not a ground for dismissal
under R16. She meant to prove plaintiff’s lack of
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same cause of action w/c is not the same as failure to
effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial. state a cause of action. There is also nothing in the
record to prove the Municipality’s waiver of right
Sec. 7. Record of pre-trial. – The proceedings in to present contrary proof.
the pre-trial shall be recorded. Upon the Rule 20
termination thereof, the court shall issue an order Calendar of Cases
which shall recite in detail the matters taken up in
the conference, the action taken thereon, the
amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the
agreements or admissions made by the parties as to Rule 30
any of the matters considered. Should the action Trial
proceed to trial, the order shall explicitly define and
limit the issues to be tried. The contents of the
order shall control the subsequent course of the
action, unless modified before trial to prevent
manifest injustice. Rule 31
Consolidation or Severance

Citibank v, Chua, 220 SCRA

Facts: Pre-Trial was set. Counsel of Citibank
appeared w/ an SPOA executed by Citibank officer Rule 32
Tarriela in favor of the counsel to represent & bind Trial by Commissioner
Pet at the PT conference. Velezes, the private resps,
moved to have Citibank declared “as in default”
since SPOA was not executed by the Board of
Directors. TC declared the bank “as in default.” Laluan v. Malpaya, 64 SCRA
Held: TC should have accepted the first SPOA as
sufficient for PT. SC admonished Courts vs. Lim Tan Hu v. Ramolete, supra
precipitate orders of default as they have the effect
of denying the litigant the chance to be heard. Pagkatipunan v. Bautista, 108 SCRA
There are instances when parties may properly be
defaulted, but such is the EXC rather than the rule
& should be allowed only in clear cases of NOTES ON TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER
obstinate refusal or inordinate neglect to comply w/
ct. orders. Rule 18. Pre-Trial
Laying down the issues - allegations and what are
Municipality of Binan v. Garcia, 180 SCRA being denied.
Stipulation of facts - evidentiary facts
Facts: A special civil action for eminent domain/ Compromise judgment - final & executory;
expropriation. Defendant, instead of filing answer immediately executory.
filed “MTD” on grounds not specified under Rule
 79

1. Trial by assessors - Pagkatipunan v. Bautista, Section 4. Quashing a subpoena. - The court may
mandatory quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion
Rarely invoked; tend to earn the ire of the judge promptly made and, in any event, at or before the
Sit only for the trial time specified therein if it is unreasonable and
oppressive, or the relevancy of the books,
2. Trial by commissioners documents or things does not appear, or if the
3. Delegation of reception of evidence by the Clerk person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails
of Court to advance the reasonable cost of production
thereof.
Qualifications of Assessors Act 190 - The court may quash the subpoena ad
testificandum on the ground that the witness is not
bound thereby. In either case, the subpoena may be
quashed on the ground that the witness fees and
Rule 33 kilometrage allowed by these Rules were not
Demurrer to Evidence tendered when the subpoena was served.

Section 5. Subpoena for depositions. - Proof of

service of a notice to take a deposition, as provided
Rule 21 in sections 15 and 25 of Rule 23, shall constitute
Subpoena sufficient authorization for the issuance of
subpoenas for the persons named in said notice by
Section 1. Subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. - the clerk of the court of the place in which the
Subpoena is a process directed to a person deposition is to be taken. The clerk shall not,
requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing however, issue a subpoena duces tecum to any such
or the trial of an action, or at any investigation person without an order of the court.
conducted by competent authority, or for the taking
of his deposition. It may also require him to bring Section 6. Service. - Service of a subpoena shall be
with him any books, documents, or other things made in the same manner as personal or substituted
under his control in which case it is called a service of summons. The original shall be
subpoena duces tecum. exhibited and a copy thereof delivered to the
Section 2. By whom issued. - the subpoena may be person on whom it is served, tendering to him the
issued by - fees for one day’s attendance and the kilometrage
allowed by these rules, except that, when a
(a) the court before whom the witness is subpoena is issued by or on behalf of the Republic
required to attend; of the Philippines or an officer or agency thereof,
(b) the court of the place where the the tender need not be made. The service must be
deposition is to be taken; made so as to allow the witness a reasonable time
(c) the officer or body authorized by law for preparation and travel of the place of
to do so in connection with investigations attendance. If the subpoena is duces tecum, the
conducted by said officer or body or reasonable cost of producing the books, documents
(d) any Justice of the Supreme Court or of or things demanded shall also be tendered.
the Court of Appeals in any case or investigation
pending within the Philippines. Section 7. Personal appearance in court. - A person
When the application for a subpoena to a present in court before a judicial officer may be
prisoner is made, the judge or officer shall examine required to testify as if he were in attendance upon
and study carefully such application to determine a subpoena issued by such court or officer.
whether the same is made for a valid purpose.
No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion Section 8. Compelling attendance. - In case of
perpetua or life imprisonment and who is confined failure of a witness to attend, the court or judge
in any penal institution for appearance or issuing the subpoena, upon proof of the service
attendance in any court unless authorized by the thereof and of the failure of the witness, may issue
Supreme court. a warrant to the sheriff of the province, or his
deputy, to arrest the witness and bring him before
Section 3. Form and Contents. - A subpoena shall the court or officer where his attendance is
state the name of the court and the title of the required, and the cost of such warrant and seizure
action or investigation, shall be directed to the of such witness shall be paid by the witness if the
person whose attendance is required, and in the court issuing it shall determine that his failure to
case of a subpoena duces tecum, it shall also answer the subpoena was willful; and without just
contain a reasonable description of the books, excuse.
documents or things demanded which must appear
to the court prima facie relevant. Section 9. Contempt. - Failure by any person
without adequate cause to obey a subpoena served
 80

upon him shall be deemed a contempt of the court represented at the taking of the deposition or who
from which the subpoena is issued. If the subpoena had due notice thereof, in accordance with any one
was not issued by a court, the disobedience thereto of the following provisions:
shall be punished in accordance with the applicable (a) Any deposition may be used by any
law or Rule. party for the purpose of contradicting or
impeaching the testimony of deponent as a witness;
Section 10. Exceptions. - The provisions of (b) The deposition of a party or of any one
sections 8 and 9 of this Rule shall not apply to a who at the time of taking the deposition was an
witness who resides more than one hundred (100) officer, director, or managing agent of a public or
kilometers from his residence to the place where he private corporation, partnership, or association
is to testify by the ordinary course of travel, or to a which is a party may be used by an adverse party
detention prisoner if no permission of the court in for any purpose;
which his case is pending was obtained. (c) The deposition of a witness, whether
of not a party may be used by any party for any
purpose if the court finds: (1) that the witness is
dead; or (2) that the witness resides at a distance
Discovery more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the
place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines,
unless it appears that his absence was procured by
the party offering the deposition; or (3) that the
Modes of Discovery witness is unable to attend or testify because of
age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or (4)
RULE 23 that the party offering the deposition has been
DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION unable to procure the attendance of the witness by
subpoena; or (5) upon application and notice, that
Section 1. Depositions pending actin, when may such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it
be taken. - By leave of court after jurisdiction has desirable, in the interest of justice and with due
been obtained over any defendant or over property regard to the importance of presenting the
which is the subject of the action, or without such testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to
leave after an answer has been served, the allow the deposition to be used; and
testimony of any person, whether a party or not, (d) If only part of a deposition is offered
may be taken, at the instance of any party, by in evidence by a party; the adverse party may
deposition upon oral examination or written require him to introduce all of it which is relevant
interrogatories. The attendance of witnesses may to the part introduced, and any party may introduce
be compelled by the use of a subpoena as provided any other parts.
in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken only in
accordance with these Rules. The deposition of a Section 5. Effect of substitution of parties. -
person confined in prison may be taken only by Substitution of parties does not affect the right to
leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes. use depositions previously taken, and, when an
action has been dismissed and another action
Section 2. Scope of examination. - Unless involving the same subject is afterward brought
otherwise ordered by the court as provided by between the same parties or their representatives or
section 16 or 18 or this Rule, the deponent may be successors in interest, all depositions lawfully taken
examined regarding any matter, not privileged, and duly filed in the former action may be used in
which is relevant to the subject of the pending the latter as if originally taken therefor;
action, whether relating to the claim or defense of
any other party, including the existence, section 6. Objections to admissibility. - Subject to
description, nature, custody, condition, and location the provisions of section 29 of this Rule, objection
of any books, documents, or other tangible things may be made at the trial or hearing to receiving in
and the identity and location of persons having evidence any deposition or part thereof for any
knowledge of relevant facts. reason which would require the exclusion of the
evidence if the witness were then present and
Section 3. Examination and cross-examination. - testifying.
Examination and cross-examination of deponents
may proceed as permitted at the trial under sections Section 7. effect of taking depositions. - A party
3 to 18 of Rule 132. shall not be deemed to make a person his own
witness for nay purpose by taking his deposition.
Section 4. Use of depositions. - At the trial or upon
the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory Section 8. Effect of using depositions. - The
proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as introduction in evidence of the deposition or any
admissible under the rules of evidence, may be part thereof for any purpose other than that of
used against any party who was present or contradicting or impeaching the deponent makes
 81

the deponent the witness of the party introducing served, the court may for cause shown enlarge or
the deposition, but this shall not apply to the use by shorten the time.
an adverse party of a deposition as described in
paragraph (b) of section 4 of this rule. Section 16. Orders for the protection of parties and
deponents. - After notice is served for taking a
Section 9. Rebutting deposition. - At the trial or deposition by oral examination upon motion
hearing any party may rebut any relevant evidence seasonably made by any party or by the person to
contained in a deposition whether introduced by be examined and for good cause shown, the court
him or by any other party, in which the action is pending may make an order
that the deposition shall not be taken, or that it may
Section 10. Persons before whom depositions may be taken only at some designated place other than
be taken within the Philippines. - Within the that stated in the notice or that it may be taken only
Philippines, depositions may be taken before any in written interrogatories, or that certain matters
judge, notary public, or the person referred to in shall not be inquired into, or that the scope of the
section 14 hereof. examination shall be held with no one present
except the parties to the action and their officers or
Section 11. Persons before whom depositions may counsel, or that after being sealed the deposition
be taken in foreign countries. - In a foreign state or shall be opened only by order of the court or that
country, depositions may be taken (a) on notice secret processes, developments, or research need
before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul not be disclosed, or that the parties shall
general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of simultaneously file specified documents or
the Republic of the Philippines; (b) before such informatin enclosed in sealed envelope to be
person or officer as may be appointed by opened as directed by the court, or the court may
commission or under letters rogatory; or (c) the make any other order which justice requires to
person referred to in section 14 hereof. protect the party or witness from annoyance,
embarrassment or oppression.
Section 12. Commission or letters rogatory. - A
commission or letters rogatory shall be issued only Section 17. Record of examination; oath;
when necessary or convenient, on application and objections. - The officer before whom the
notice, and on such terms and with such direction deposition is to be taken shall put the witness on
as are just appropriate. Officers may be designated oath and shall personally, or by some one acting
in notices or commissions either by name or under his direction and in his presence, record the
descriptive title and letters rogatory may be testimony of the witness. The testimony shall be
addressed to the appropriate judicial authority in taken stenographically unless the parties agree
the foreign country. otherwise. All objectins made at the time of the
examination to the qualifications of the officer
Section 13. Disqualification by interest. - No taking the deposition, or to the manner of taking it,
deposition shall be taken before a person who is a or to the evidence presented, or to the conduct of
relative within the sixth degree of consanguinity or any party and any other objection to the
affinity, or employee or counsel of any of the proceedings, shall be noted by the officer upon the
parties; or who is a relative within the same degree, deposition. Evidence objected to shall be taken
or employee of such counsel; or who is financially subject to the objections. In lieu of participating in
interested in the action. the oral examination, parties served with notice of
taking a deposition may transmit wrtieen
Section 14. Stipulations regarding taking of interrogatories to the officers, who shall propound
depositions. - If the parties so stipulate in writing, them to the witness and record the answers
depositions may be taken before any person verbatim.
authorized to administer oaths, at any time or place,
in accordance with these Rules, and when so taken Section 18. Motion to terminate or limit
may be used like other depositions. examination. - At any time during the taking of the
depositin, on motion or petition of any party or of
Section 15. Deposition upon oral examination; the deponent and upon a shwing that the
notice, time and place. - A party desiring to take examination is being conducted in bad faith or in
the deposition of any person upon oral examination such manner, as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass,
shall give reasonable notice in writing to every or oppress the deponent or party, the court in which
other party to the action. The notice shall state the the action is pending or the Regional Trial Court of
time and place for taking the deposition and the the place where the deposition is being taken may
name and address of each person to be examined, if order the officer conducting the examinatin to
known, and if the name is not known, a general cease forthwith from taking the deposition , or may
description sufficient to identify him or the limit the scope and manner of the taking of the
particular class or group to which he belongs. On deposition, as provided in section 16 of this Rule.
motion of any party upon whom the notice is If the order made terminates the examination, it
 82

shall be resumed thereafter only upon the order of counsel in so attensing, including reasonable
the court in which the action is pending. Upon attorney’s fees.
demand of the objecting party or deponent, the
taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the Section 23. Failure of party giving notice to serve
time necessary to make a notice for an order. In subpoena. - If the party giving the notice of the
granting or refusing such order, the court may taking of a deposition of a witness fails to serve a
impose upon either party or upon the witness the subpoena upon him and the witness because of
requirement to pay such costs or expenses as the such failure does not attend, and if another party
court may deem reasonable. attends in person or by counsel because he expects
the deposition of that witness to be taken, the court
Section 19. Submission to witness; changes; may order the party giving the notice to pay to such
signing. - When the testimony is fully transcribed, other party the amount of the reasonable expenses
the deposition shall be submitted to the witness for incurred by him andhis counsel in so attending,
examination and sahll be read to or by him, unless including reasonable attorney’s fees.
such examination and reading are waived by the
witness and by the parties. Any changes in form or Section 25. Deposition ypon written
substance which the wirness desires to make shall interrogatories; service of notice and of
be entered upon the deposition by the officer with a interrogatories. - A party desiring to take the
statement of the reasons given by the witness for deposition of any person ypon written
making them. The deposition shall then be signed interrogatories shall serve them upon every other
by the witness, unless the parties by stiplation party with a notice stating the name and address of
waive the signing or the witness is ill or cannot be the person who is to answer them and the name or
found or refuses to sign. If the deposition is not descriptive title and address of the officer before
signed by the witness, the officer shall sign it and whom the deposition is to be taken. Within ten
state on the record the fact of the waiver or of the (10) days thereafter, a party so served may serve
illness or absence of the witness or the fact of the cross-interrogatories upon the party proposing to
refusal to sign together with the reason given take the deposition. Within five (5) days thereafter,
therfor, if any, and the deposition may then be used the latter may serve re-direct interrogatories upon a
as fully as though signed, unless on a motion to party who has served cross-interrogatories. Within
suppress under section 29(f) of this Rule, the court three (3) days after being served with a re-direct
hold that the reasons given for the refusla to sign interrogatories, a party may serve recross-
require rejection of the deposition in whole or in interrogatories upon the party proposing to take the
part. deposition.

Section 20. Certification and filing by officer. - Section 26. Officers to take responses and prepare
The officer shall certify on the deposition that the record. - A copy of the notice and copies of all
witness was duly sworn to by him and that the interrogatories served shall be delivered by the
deposition is a true record of the testimony given party taking the deposition to the officer designated
by the witness. He shall then securely seal the in the notice, who shall proceed promptly in the
deposition in an envelope indorsed with the title of manner provided by sections 17, 19 and 20 of this
the action and marked “Deposition of (here insert Rule, to take the testimony of the witness in
the name of witness)” and shall promptly file it response to the interrogatories and to prepare,
with the court in which the action is pending or certify, and file or mail the deposition; attaching
send it by registered mail to the clerk thereof for thereto the copy of the notice and the
filing. interrogatories received by him.

Section 21. Notice of filing. - The officer taking Section 27. Notice of filing and furnishing copies.
the deposition shall give prompt notice of its filing - When a deposition uon interrogatories is filed, the
to all the parties. officer taking it shall promptly give notice thereof
to all the parties, and may furnish copies to them or
Section 22. Furnishing copies. - Upon payment of to the deponent upon payment of reasonable
reasonable charges therefor, the officer shall charges therefor.
furnish a copy of the deposition to any party or to
the deponent. Section 28. Orders for the protectin of parties and
deponents. = After the service of the interrogatories
Section 23. Failure to attend of party giving notice. and prior to the taking of the testimony of the
- If the party giving the notice of the taking of a deponent, the court in which the action is pending,
deposition fails to attend and proceed therewith and on motin promptly made by a party or a deponent,
another attends in person or by counsel pusuant to and for good cause shown, may make any order
the notice, the court may order the party giving the specified in sections 15, 16 and 18 of this Rule
notice to pay such other party the amount of the which is appropriate and just or an order that the
reasonably expenses incurred by him and his deposition shall not be taken before the officer
 83

designated in the notice or that it shall not be taken may file a verified petition in the court of the place
except upon oral examination. of the residence of any expected adverse party.

Section 29. Effect of errors and irregularities in Section 2. Contents of petition. - The petition shall
depositions. - be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall
(a) As to notice. - All errors and show: (a) that the petitioner expects to be a party to
irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition an action in a court of the Philippines but is
are waived unless writeen objection is promptly presently unable to bring it or cause it to be
served upon the party giving the notice. brought; (b) the subject matter of the expected
(b) As to disqualification of officer. - action and his interest therein; (c) the facts which
Objection to taking a deposition because of he desires to establish by the proposed testimony
disqualification of the officer before whom it is to and his reasons for desiring to perpetuate it; (d) the
be taken is waived unless made before the taking of names or a description of the persons he expects
the deposition begins or as soon thereafter as the will be adverse parties and them addresses so far as
disqualificatin becomes known or could be known; and (e) the names and addresses of the
discovered with reasonable diligence. persons to be examined and the substance of the
(c) As to competency or relevancy of testimony which he expects to elicit from each, and
evidence. - Objections to the competency of a shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to
witness or the competency, relevancy, or take the depositions of the persons to be examined
materiality of testimony are not waived by failure named in the petition for the purpose of
to make them bofore or during the taking of the perpetuating their testimony.
deposition, unless the ground of the objection is
one which might have been obviated or removed if Section 3. Notice and service. - The petitioner
presented at that time. shall serve a notice upon each person named in the
(d) As to oral examinatin and other petition as an expected adverse party, together with
particulars. - Errors and irregularities occurring at a copy of the petition; stating that the petitioner
the oral examination in the manner of taking the will apply to the court, at a time and place named
deposition , in the form of the questions or therein, for the order described in the petition. At
answers; in the oath or affirmation, or in the least twenty (20) days before the date of the
conduct of the parties and errors of any kind which hearing, the court shall casue notice thereof to be
might be obviated, removed, or cured if promptly served on the parties and prospective deponenets
prosectued, are waived unless reasonable objection int he manner provided for service of summons.
thereto is made at the taking of the deposition.
(e) As to form of written interrogatories. - Section 4. Order and examination. - If the court is
Objections to the form of written interrogatories satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may
submitted under sections 25 and 26 of this Rule are prevent a failure or delay of justice, it shall make
waived unless served in writing upon the party an order designating or describing the persons
propounding them within the time allowed for whose depostion may be takne and specifying the
serving succeeding cross or other interrogatories subject matter of the examination and wherher the
and within three (3) days after service of the last depositions shall be taken upon oral examination or
interrogatories authorized. written interrogatories. The depositions may then
(f) As to manner of preparation. - Errors be taken in accordance with Rule 23 before the
and irregularities in the manner in which the hearing.
testimony is transcribed or the deposition is
parepared, signed, certified, selaed, indorsed, Section 5. Reference to court. - For the purpose of
transmitted, filed, or otherwise dealt with by the applying Rule 23 to depositions for perpetuating
officer under sections 17, 19, 20 and 26 of this testimony, each reference therein to the court in
Rule are waived unless a motion to suppress the which the action is pending shall be deemed to
deposition or some part thereof is made with refer to the court in which the petition for such
reasonable promptness after such defect is, or with deposition was filed.
due diligence might have been, ascertained.
Section 6. Use of deposition. - If a deposition to
perpetuate testimony is taken under this Rule,or if,
RULE 24 although not so taken, it would be admissible in
DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION OR evidence, it may be used in any action involving
PENDING APPEAL the smae subject matter subsequently brought in
accordance with the provisions of sections 4 and 5
of Rule 23.
Section 1. Depositions before action; petition. - A
person who desires to perpetuate his own testimony Section 27. Depositions pending appeal. - If an
or taht of another person regarding any matter that appeal has been taken from a judgment of a court,
may be cognizable in any court of the Philippines, including the Court of Appeals in proper cases, or
 84

before the taking of an appeal if the time therefor answers may be used for the same purposes
has not expired, the court in which the judgment provided in section 4 of the same Rule.
was rendered may allow the taking of depositions
of witnesses to perpetuate their testimony for use in Section 6. Effect of failure to serve written
the event of further proceedings in the said court. interrogatories. - Unless thereafter allowed by the
In such case the party who desires to perpetuate the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure
testimony may make a motion in the said court for of justice; a party not served with written
leave to take the depositions, upon the smae notice interrogatories may now be compelled by the
and service thereof as if the action was pending adverse party to give testimony in open court; or to
therein.. The motion shall state a) the names and give a deposition pending appeal.
addresses of the persons to be examined and the
substance of the testimony which he expects to RULE 26
elicit from each; and (b) the reason for perpetuating ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
their testimony. If the court finds that the
perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a Section1. Request for admission. - At any time
failure or delay of justice, it may make an order after issues have been joined, a party may file and
allowing the depositions so be taken, and thereupon serve upon any party a written request for the
the depositions may be takne and used in the same admission by the latter of the genuineness of any
manner and under the smae conditions as are material and releant document described in and
prescribed in these Rules for depositions taken in exhibited with the request or of the truth of any
pending actions. meterial and relevant matter of fact set forth in the
request. Copies of the documents shall be
RULE 25 delivered with the request unless copies have
INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES already been furnished.

Section 1. Interrogatories to parties; service Section 2. Implied admission. -0 Each of the

thereof. - Under the same conditions specified in matters of which an admission is requested shall be
section 1 of Rule 23, any party desiring to elicit deemed admitted unless, within a period designated
material and relevant facts from any adverse parties in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen
shall file and serve upon the latter written (15) days after service thereof, or within such
interrogatories to be answered by the party served further time as the court may allow on motion, the
or, fi the party served is a public or private party to whom the request directed files and serves
corporation or a partnership or association, by any upon the party requesting the admission a sworn
officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf. statement either denying specifically the matters of
which an admission si requested or setting forth in
Section 2. Answer to interogatories. - The detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either
interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing admit or deny those matters.
and shall be signed and sworn t by the person Objections to any request for admission
making them. The party upon whom the shall be submitted to the court by the party
interrogatories have been sserved shall file and requested within the period for and prior to the
serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting filinf of his sworn statement as contemplated in the
the interrogatories within fifteen (15) days after preceding paragraph and his compliance therewith
service thereof, unless the court on motino and for shall be deferred until such obligatins are resolved,
good cause shown, extends or shortens the time. which resolution shall be made as early as
practicable.
Section 3. Objections to interrogatories. -
Objections to any interrogatories may be presented Section 3. Effect of admission - Any admission
to the court within ten (10) days after service made by a party pursuant to such request is for the
thereof, with notice as in case of a motion; and purpose of the pending actin only and shall not
answers shall be deferred until the objections are consitute an admission by him for any other
resolved., which shall be at as early a time as is purpose nor may the same be used against him in
practicable. any other proceeding.

Section 4. Number of interrogatoties. - No party Section 4. Withdrawal. - The court may allow the
may, without leave of court, serve more than one party making an admissin under this Rule, whether
set of interrogatories to be answered by the same express or implied, to withdraw or amend it upon
party. such terms as may be just.

Section 5. Scope and use of interrogatories. - Section 5. Effect of failure to file and serve request
Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can for admission. - Unless otherwise allowed by the
be inquired into under section 2 of Rule 23, and the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure
of justice, a party who fails to file and serve aw
 85

request for admission on the adverse party of requiring delivery on such terms as are just, and if a
material and relevant facts at issue which, or ought physician fails or refuses to make such a report the
to be within the personal knowledge of the latter, court may exlude his testimony if offered at the
shall not be permitted to present evidence on such trial.
facts.
Section 4. Waiver of Privilege. - By requesting and
RULE 27 obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or
PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF by taking the deposition of the examiner , the party
DOCUMENT OR THINGS examined waives any privilege he may have in that
action or any other involving the same controversy,
Section 1. Motion for productio or inspection; regarding the testimony of every other person who
order. - Upon motion of any party showing good has examined or may thereafter examine him in
cause therefor, the court in which an action is respect of the mental or physical examination.
pending may (a) order any party to produce and
permit the inspection and dopying or RULE 29
photographing, by or on behalf of the moving REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF
party, of any designated documents, papers, books, DISCOVERY
accounts, loetters, photographs, objects or tangible
things, not privileged, which constitute or contain Section 1. Refusal to answer. - If a party or other
evidence material to any matter involved in the deponent refuses to answer any question upon oral
action and which are in his possessin, custody or examination, the examination may be completed
control; or (b) order any party or permit entry upon on other matters or adjourned as the proponent of
designated land or other porpoerty in his possession the question may prefer. The proponent may
or control for the puropse of inspecting, measuring, thereafter apply to the proper court of the place
surveying, or photogrpahing the property or any where the deposition is being taken, for an order to
designated relevant object or operation thereon. compel an answer. The same procedure may be
The order shall specify the time, place and manner availed of when a party or a witness refuses to
of making the inspection and taking ciopies and answer any interrogatory submitted under Rules 23
photogrpahs, and may prescribe such terms and or 25.
conditions as are just. If the application is granted, the court
shall require the refusing party or deponent to
RULE 28 answer the question or interrogatory and if it also
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION finds that the refusal to answer was without
OF PERSONS substantial justification, it may require the refusing
party or deponent or the counsel advising the
Section 1. When examination may be ordered. - In refusal, or both of them, to pay the proponent the
an action on which the mental or physical condition amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in
of a party is ain controversy, the court in which the obtaining the order, including attorney’s fees.
acito is pending may in its discretion order him to If the application is denied and the court
submit to a physical or mental examination by a finds that it was filed without substantial
physician. justification, the court may require the proponent or
the counsel advising the filing of the application, or
Section 2. Oder for examination. - The orer for both of them, to pay to the refusing party or
examination may be made only on motion for good deponent the amount of the reasonable expenses
cause shown and upon notice to the party to be incurred in opposing the application, including
examined and to all other parties, and shall specify attorney’s fees.
the time, place, manner, conditions and scope of
the esmination and the person or persons by whom Sec. 2. Contempt of court. - If the party or other
it is to be made. witness refuses to be sworn to answer any question
after being directed to do so by the court of the
Section 3. Report of findings. - If requested by the place in which the deposition is being taken, the
party examined, the party causeing the esamination refusal may be considered a contempt of that court.
to be madee shall deliver to him a copy of a
detailed written report of the examining physician Sec. 3. Other consequences - If any party or an
setting out his findings and conclusions. After such officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey
request and delivery, the party causing the an order made under section 1 of this Rule
examination to be made shall be entitled upon requiring him to answer designated questions, or an
request to receive from the party examined a like order under Rule 27 to produce any document or
report of any examination, previously or thereafter other thing for inspection copying or
made, of the same metnal or physical condition. If photographing or to permit it to be done, or to
the party examined refuses to deliver such report, permit entry upon land or other property, or an
the court on motion and notice may make an order order made under Rule 28 requiring him to submit
 86

to a physical or mental examination, the court may

make such orders in regard to the refusal as are
just, and among others the following:
(a) An order that the matters regarding
which the questions were asked, or the character or Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212
description of the thing or land, or the contents of
the paper , or physical or mental condition of the The various modes or instruments of
party, or any other designated facts shall be taken discovery are meant to serve (1) as a device, along
to be established for the purposes of the action in with the pre-trial hearing, to narrow and clarify the
accordance with the claim of the party obtaining basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a device
the order; for ascertaining the facts relative to those issues.
(b) An order refusing to allow the The evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable the
disobedient party to support or oppose designated parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to
claims or defenses or prohibiting him from obtain fullest possible knowledge of the issues and
introducing in evidence designated document or facts before civil trails and thus prevent that said
things or items of testimony, or from introducing trials are carried on in the dark. To this end, the
evidence of physical or mental condition; field of inquiry that may be covered by depositions
(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts or interrogatories is as broad as when the
thereof, or staying further proceedings until the interrogated party is called as a witness to testify
order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or orally at trial. The inquiry extends to all facts
proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a which are relevant, whether they be ultimate or
judgment by default against the disobedient party; evidentiary, excepting only those matters which are
and privileged. The objective is as much to give every
(d) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders party the fullest possible information of all relevant
or in addition thereto, an order directing the arrest facts before the trial as to obtain evidence for use
of any party or agent of a party for disobeying any upon said trial.
such orders except an order to submit to a physical
or mental examination. In line with the principle of according
liberal treatment to the deposition-discovery
Sec. 4. Expenses on refusal to admit. - If a party mechanism, such modes of discovery as a)
after being served with a request under Rule 26 to depositions (whether by oral examination or
admit the genuineness of any document or the truth written interrogatories), (b) interrogatories to
of any matter of fact, serves a sworn denial thereof parties, and (c) requests for admissions, may be
and if the party requesting the admissions thereafter availed of without leave of court, and generally,
proves the genuineness of such document or the without court intervention. The Rules of Court
truth of any such matter of fact, he may apply to explicitly provide that leave of court is not
the court for an order requiring the other party to necessary to avail of said modes of discovery after
pay him the reasonable expenses incurred in an answer to the complaint has been served. It is
making such proof, including attorney’s fees. only when an answer has not yet been filed (but
Unless the court finds that there were good reasons after jurisdiction has been obtained over the
for the denial or that admissions sought were of no defendant or property subject of the action) that
substantial importance, such order shall be issued. prior leave of court is needed to avail of these
modes of discovery, the reason being that at that
Sec. 5. Failure of party to attend or serve answers. - time the issues are not yet joined and the disputed
If a party or an officer or managing agent of a party facts are not clear.
willfully fails to appear before the officer who is to
take his deposition, after being served with a proper On the other hand, leave of court is
notice, or fails to serve answers to interrogatories required as regards discovery by (a) production or
submitted under Rule 25 after proper service of inspection of documents or things in accordance
such interrogatories, the court on motion and with Rule 27, or (b) physical and mental
notice, may strike out all or any part of any examination of persons under Rule 28, which may
pleading of the party, or dismiss the action or be granted upon due application and a showing of
proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment due course.
by default against the party, and in its discretion,
order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by
the other, including attorney’s fees. Po v. CA, 164 SCRA 668
A party should not be compelled to admit
Sec. 6. Expenses against the Republic of the matters of fact already admitted by his pleading
Philippines. - Expenses and attorney’s fees are not and concerning which there is no issue, nor should
to be imposed upon the Republic of the Philippines he be required to make a second denial of those
under this Rule. already denied in his answer to the complaint. A
request for admission is not intended to merely
 87

reproduce or reiterate the allegations of the

requesting party’s pleading but should set forth NATURE ancilliary
relevant evidentiary matters of fact, or documents ancilliary
described in and exhibited with the request, whose -may be extrajudicial -should be
purpose is to establish said party’s cause of action applied for before the court where the action is
or defense. pending

Bribonera v. CA, 216 SCRA 607 MODES 1. Deposition

1. Preliminary attachment; pending appeal
(Same ruling as in Po v. CA.) 2. Written
The request for admission should be Interrogatories 2. Preliminary
served upon the party himself and not upon injunction
counsel. 3. Admission of adverse party
3. Receivership - pending appeal
4. Production/Inspection of Doc.
Revilla v. CA, 217 SCRA 583 4. Replevin
5. Physical & mental examination
Evidence is negative when the witness 5. Support pendente lite - pending appeal
states that he did not see or know the occurrence of
a fact, and positive when the witness affirms that a
fact did or did not occur. Don Cayetano’s
declaration that he did not execute a second will, PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
constitutes positive evidence of a fact personally
known to himself: that he did not make a second Preliminary Attachment
will. Rule 57

Sec. 1. Grounds upon which attachment may

NOTES ON DISCOVERY: issue. - At the commencement of the action or at
any time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or
Modes of Discovery allowed by the Rules: any proper party may have the property of the
1. Depositions adverse party attached as security for the
2. Written interrogatories of the parties satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered
3. Admissions of the adverse party in the following cases:
4. Production or inspection of document or things (a) In an action for the recovery of a
5. Motion for physical and mental examination of specified amount of money or damages, other than
persons moral and exemplary, on a cause of action arising
from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-
Two Kinds of Depositions: delict against a party who is about to depart from
1. Oral examination the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors;
2. Written Interrogatories - different from two (b) In an action for money or property
above embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted
to his own use by a public officer, or an officer of a
corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, agent,
Motions: Don't forget: or clerk, in the course of his employment as such,
Notice, signatures or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or
Request for admission, questions are for a willful violation of duty;
answerable by yes or no (c) In an action to recover the possession
Attach receipt of registered mail in the of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained
pleading to be sent to the court. or converted, when the property, or any part
thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed
Purpose for suppression of evidence - based on of to prevent its being found or taken by the
form. applicant or an authorized person;
Purpose of provisional remedies - to prevent (d) In an action against a party who has
judgment from being useless, judgment can be been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or
satisfied incurring the obligation upon which the action is
brought, or in the performance thereof;
DISCOVERY (e) In an action against a party who has
PROVISIONAL removed or disposed of his property, or is about to
do so, with intent to defraud his creditors; or
PURPOSE to discover evidence (f) In an action against a party who does
prevent judgment from being not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or on
ineffective whom summons may be served by publication.
 88

116 SCRA
If prayer for writ of attachment is included in a
Complaint, verification in the Complaint is Facts:
sufficient, separate affidavit is not necessary. Held: In pleading for attachment against a
foreigner, allegation must not be merely that
Sec. 2. Issuance and contents of order. - An order defendant is a foreigner; there must also be a
of attachment may be issued either ex-parte or showing that defendant is about to leave the
upon motion with notice and hearing by the court Philippines with intent to defraud their creditor, or
in which the action is pending, or by the Court of that he is a non-resident alien.
Appeals or the Supreme Court, and must require
the sheriff of the court to attach so much of the Requisites for issuance of writ of attachment:
property in the Philippines of the party against 1. a sufficient cause of action exists;
whom it is issued, not exempt from execution, as 2. case is one of those mentioned in Sec 1(a) of
may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand, Rule 57;
unless such party makes deposit or gives a bond as 3. there is no other sufficient security for the claim
hereinafter provided in an amount equal to that sought to be enforced by the action;
fixed in the order, which may be the amount 4. the amount due to the applicant for attachment or
sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s demand or the the value of the property of which he is entitled to
value of the property to be attached as stated by recover is as much as the sum for which the order
the applicant, exclusive of costs. Several writs may is granted above all legal counterclaims.
be issued at the same time to the sheriffs of the
courts of different judicial regions. Once defendant files a counter-bond, the writ of
attachment should be dissolved.
Consolidated Bank and Trust Company v. Court of
Appeals
197 SCRA Sec. 4. - Condition of applicant’s bond. - The
party applying for the order must thereafter give a
Where the basis for the application of a writ of bond executed to the adverse party in the amount
attachment is embezzlement of money or property fixed by the court in its order granting the issuance
committed by a defendant who is an officer of a of the writ, conditioned that the latter will pay all
corporation, a public officer, or an atorney, factor, the costs which may be adjudged to the adverse
broker or agent or clerk of the plaintiff, it is not party and all damages which he may sustain by
necessary to establish his fiduciary capacity before reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally
the writ is granted as such fiduciary capacity is adjudge that the applicant was not entitled thereto.
assumed from the nature of his position. it is only
when the misappropriation was committed by any Bond - undertaking done by the surety that it will
other person that his fiduciary relationship with the pay the damages in case the party guaranteed does
plaintiff will have to be established. Such not comply with the orders of the court.
relationship does not have to be shown because it
suffices that the questioned acts of employing Sec. 5. Manner of attaching property. - The sheriff
illegal machinations in obtaining enormous credit enforcing the writ shall without delay and with all
facilities for the corporation were committed by the reasonable diligence attach, to await judgment and
officers of UPLFC in the course of their duties and execution in the action, only so much of the
not by “any other person in a fiduciary capacity.” property in the Philippines of the party against
whom the writ is issued, not exempt from
Sec. 3. Affidavit and bond required. - An order of execution, as may be sufficient to satisfy the
attachment shall be granted only when it appears applicant’s demand, unless the former makes a
by the affidavit of the applicant, or some other deposit with the court from which the writ is
person who personally knows the facts, that a issued, or gives a counter-bond executed to the
sufficient cause of action exists, that the case is one applicant, in an amount equal to the bond fixed by
of those mentioned in section 1 hereof, that there is the court in the order of attachment or to the value
no other sufficient security for the claim sought to of the property to be attached, exclusive of costs.
be enforced by the action, and that the amount due No levy on attachment pursuant to the writ issued
to the applicant, or the value of the property the under section 2 hereof shall be enforced unless it is
possession of which he is entitled to recover, is as preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by
much as the sum for which the order is granted service of summons, together with a copy of the
above all legal counterclaims. The affidavit, and complaint, the application for attachment, the
the bond required by the next succeeding section, applicant’s affidavit and bond, and the order and
must be duly filed with the court before the order writ of attachment, on the defendant within the
issues. Philippines.
The requirement of prior
K.O. Glass Const. Co., Inc. v. Valenzuela contemporaneous service of summons shall not
 89

apply where the summons could not be served name of such other person are attached, and by
personally or by substituted service despite diligent leaving a copy of such order, description, and
efforts, or the defendant is a resident of the notice with the occupant of the property, if any, or
Philippines temporarily absent therefrom, or the with such other person or his agent if found within
defendant is a non-resident of the Philippines, or the province. Where the Land Registration Act or
the action is one in rem or quasi in rem. the Property Registration Decree, the notice shall
contain a reference to the number of the certificate
Oñate v. Abrogar of title, the volume and page in the registration
230 SCRA 181 book where the certificate is registered, and the
registered owner or owners thereof.
Facts: The registrar of deeds must index
attachments filed under this section in the names of
Held: Writ of preliminary attachment may be the applicant, the adverse party, or the person by
validly applied for and granted even before the whom the property is held or in whose name it
defendant is summoned or is heard from. stands in the records. If the attachment is not
claimed on the entire area of the land covered by
Enforcement of the preliminary attachment is valid the certificate of title, a description sufficiently
even if it preceded the actual service of summons accurate for the identification of the land or
where a previous attempt to serve the summons and interest to be affected shall be included in the
the writ of attachment failed due to factors beyond registration of such attachment;
the control of either the plaintiff or the process (b) Personal property capable of manual
server. delivery, by taking and safely keeping it in his
custody, after issuing the corresponding receipt
Reasons: therefor;
1. Defendant may put his property beyond the (c) Stocks or shares, or an interest in
reach of the plaintiff while the latter is trying to stocks or shares, of any corporation or company,
serve the summons and the writ anew. by leaving with the president or managing agent
2. Court eventually acquired jurisdiction over the thereof, a copy of the writ, and a notice stating that
plaintiffs (6 days later). the stock or interest of the party against whom the
3. Ease by which a writ of attachment can be attachment is issued is attached in pursuance of
obtained is counter-balanced by the ease with such writ;
which the same can be discharged. To discharge (d) Debts and credits, including bank
writ of preliminary attachment, defendant simply deposits, financial interest, royalties, commissions
has to make a cash deposit or post a counter-bond and other personal property not capable of manual
equivalent to the value of the property attached. delivery, by leaving with the person owing such
debts, or having in his possession or under his
Sec. 6. Sheriff’s return. - After enforcing the writ, control, such credits or other personal property, or
the sheriff must likewise without delay make a with his agent, a copy of the writ, and notice that
return thereon to the court from which the writ the debts owing by him to the party against whom
issued, with a full statement of his proceedings attachment is issued, and the credits and other
under the writ, and a complete inventory of the personal property in his possession or under his
property attached, together with any counter-bond control, belonging to said party, are attached in
given by the party against whom attachment is pursuance of such writ;
issued, and serve copies thereof on the applicant. (e) The interest of the party against whom
attachment is issued in the property belonging to
Sec. 7. Attachment of real and personal property; the estate of the decedent, whether as heir, legatee,
recording thereof. - Real and personal property or devisee, by serving the executor or
shall be attached by the sheriff executing the writ administrator or other personal representative of
in the following manner: the decedent with a copy of the writ and notice that
(a) Real property, or growing crops said interest is attached. A copy of said writ of
thereon, or any interest therein, standing upon the attachment and of said notice shall also be filed in
records of the registry of deeds of the province in the office of the clerk of court in which said estate
the name of the party against whom attachment is is being settled and served upon the heir, legatee
issued, or not appearing at all upon such records, or devisee concerned.
or belonging to the party against whom attachment If the property sought to be attached is in
is issued and held by any other person, or standing custodia legis, a copy of the writ of attachment
on the records of the registry of deeds in the name shall be filed with the proper court or quasi-
of any other person, by filing with the registry of judicial agency, and notice of the attachment
deeds a copy of the order, together with a served upon the custodian of such property.
description of the property attached, and a notice
that it is attached, or that such real property and Properties subject to Manner of attachment
any interest therein held by or standing in the attachment
 90

File with register of Garnishment - is a species of attachment for

deeds a copy of the reaching any property or credits pertaining or
order of attachment payable to a judgment debtor. It is a forced
with notice that it is novation by the substitution of creditors: the
Real property, growing attached and a judgment debtor, who is the original creditor of the
crops thereon, any description of the garnishee, is, through the service of the writ of
interest in such real property being garnishment, substituted by the judgment creditor
property attached who thereby becomes creditor of the garnishee. It
Leave copy of serves as a warning to a person having in his
attachment order, possession property or credits of the judgment
description and notice debtor, not to pay the money or deliver the property
with the occupant of to the latter, but rather to appear and answer the
the property plaintiff’s suit.
Serve attachment
Personal property order, issue receipt for Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Ramolete
capable of manual the property being 203 SCRA
delivery attached and take
property in his custody Facts:
Leave with president
or managing agent Held: Service of summons upon the person of the
Stocks or shares, copy of the writ and garnishee is not necessary to acquire jurisdiction
interest in such stocks notice that said stocks over his person, all that is necessary is the service
or shares or shares or any of the writ of garnishment. Through the service of
interest therein is the writ of garnishment, the person who has in his
attached possession credits belonging to the judgment
Debts and credits Leave with person debtor becomes a “virtual party” to or a “forced
(bank deposits, owing such debts or intervenor” in, the case and the trial court thereby
financial interest, credits a copy of the acquires jurisdiction over his person. Such person
royalties,commissions) writ and a notice that is, therefore, bound to comply with all orders and
such debts or credits processes of the trial court with a view to the
Other personal are attached complete satisfaction of the judgment of the court.
property not capable of
manual delivery Garnishment of third party liability insurance
Serve executor or contract may be effected from the moment the
administrator with a insured became liable to the third person for it is
Interest of an heir, copy of the writ and a also at that moment that the insured acquired an
legatee or devisee in notice that said interest interest in the insurance contract. Such interest may
the property of a is attached. be garnished like any other credit. It is not
decedent File copy of the writ necessary that the insured has effected payment to
and notice of the injured third person in order that the obligation
attachment with clerk of the insurer may arise.
of court where estate is
being settled. Sec. 9. Effect of attachment of interest in property
belonging to the estate of a decedent. - The
Sec. 8. Effect of attachment of debts, credits and attachment of the interest of an heir, legatee, or
all other similar personal property. - All persons devisee in the property belonging to the estate of a
having in their possession or under their control decedent shall not impair the powers of the
any credits or other similar personal property executor, administrator, or other personal
belonging to the party against whom attachment is representative of the decedent over such property
issued, or owing any debts to him, at the time of for the purpose of administration. Such personal
service upon them of the copy of the writ of representative, however, shall report the
attachment and notice as provided in the last attachment to the court when any petition for
preceding section, shall be liable to the applicant distribution is filed, and in the order made upon
for the amount of such credits, debts or other such petition, distribution may be awarded to such
similar personal property, until the attachment is heir, legatee, or devisee, but the property attached
discharged, or any judgment recovered by him is shall be ordered delivered to the sheriff making the
satisfied, unless such property is delivered or levy, subject to the claim of such heir, legatee, or
transferred, or such debts are paid, to the clerk, devisee, or any person claiming under him.
sheriff, or other proper officer of the court issuing
the attachment. Sec. 10. Examination of party whose property is
attached and persons indebted to him or
controlling his property; delivery of property to
 91

sheriff. - Any person owing debts to the party additional counter-bond, the attaching party may
whose property is attached or having in his apply for a new order of attachment.
possession or under his control any credit or other
personal property belonging to such party, may be Motion to Discharge cannot be acted upon ex-parte
required to attend before the court in which the - must be accompanied by hearing.
action is pending, or before a commissioner
appointed by the court, and be examined on oath Sec. 13. Discharge of attachment on other
respecting the same. The party whose property is grounds. - The party whose property has been
attached may also be required to attend for the ordered attached may file a motion with the court
purpose of giving information respecting his in which the action is pending, before or after levy
property, and may be examined on oath. The court or even after the release of the attached property,
may, after such examination, order personal for an order to set aside or discharge the
property capable of manual delivery belonging to attachment on the ground that the same was
him, in the possession of the person so required to improperly or irregularly issued or enforced, or
attend before the court, to be delivered to the clerk that the bond is insufficient. If the attachment is
of court of sheriff on such terms as may be just, excessive, the discharge shall be limited to the
having reference to any lien thereon or claim excess. If the motion be made on affidavits on the
against the same, to await the judgment in the part of the movant but not otherwise, the attaching
action. party may oppose the motion by counter-affidavits
or other evidence in addition to that on which the
Sec. 11. When attached property may be sold after attachment was made. After due notice and
levy on attachment and before entry of judgment. hearing, the court shall order the setting aside or
- Whenever it shall be made to appear to the court the corresponding discharge of the attachment if it
in which the action is pending, upon hearing with appears that it was improperly or irregularly
notice to both parties, that the property attached is issued or enforced, or that the bond is insufficient,
perishable, or that the interests of all the parties to or that the attachment is excessive and the defect is
the action will be subserved by the sale thereof, the not cured forthwith.
court may order such property to be sold at public
auction in such manner as it may direct and the Peroxide Philippines Corp. v. Court of Appeals
proceeds of such sale to be deposited in court to 199 SCRA
abide the judgment in the action.
Where the order lifting of the writ of attachment
Sec. 12. Discharge of attachment upon giving was improperly issued as the attaching creditor was
counter-bond. - After a writ of attachment has not allowed to oppose the application for the
been enforced, the party whose property has been discharge of the attachment by counter-affidavit or
attached or the person appearing on his behalf, other evidence, such order is void and does not
may move for the discharge of the attachment have any effect at all to the writ of attachment. The
wholly or in part on the security given. The court writ continued to be valid from its issuance since
shall, after due notice and hearing, order the the judgment had not been satisfied , nor has there
discharge of the attachment if the movant makes a been a valid discharge thereof either by the filing of
cash deposit, or files a counter-bond executed to a counter-bond or for improper or irregular
the attaching party with the clerk of the court issuance.
where the application is made an amount equal to
that fixed by the court in the order of attachment, Sec. 14. Proceedings where property claimed by
exclusive of costs. But if the attachment is sought to third person. - If the property attached is claimed
be discharged with respect to a particular by any person other than the party against whom
property, the counter-bond shall be equal to the attachment had been issued or his agent, and such
value of that property as determined by the court. person makes an affidavit of his title thereto, or
In either case, the cash deposit or the counter- right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds
bond shall secure the payment of any judgment that of such right or title, and serves such affidavit upon
the attaching party may recover in the action. A the sheriff while the latter has possession of the
notice of the deposit shall forthwith be served on attached property, and a copy thereof upon the
the attaching party. Upon the discharge of the attaching party, the sheriff shall not be bound to
attachment in accordance with the provisions of keep the property under attachment, unless the
this section, the property attached, or the proceeds attaching party or his agent, on demand of the
of any sale thereof, shall be delivered to the party sheriff, shall file a bond approved by the court to
making the deposit or giving the counter-bond, or indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not
to the person appearing on his behalf, the deposit less than the value of the property levied upon. In
or counter-bond aforesaid standing in place of the case of disagreement as to such value, the same
property so released. Should such counter-bond for shall be decided by the court issuing the writ of
any reason be found to be or become insufficient, attachment. No claim for damages for the taking or
and the party furnishing the same fail to file an keeping of the property may be enforced against
 92

the bond unless the action therefor is filed within Whenever the judgment shall have been paid, the
one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the sheriff, upon reasonable demand, must return to
filing of the bond. the judgment obligor the attached property
The sheriff shall not be liable for damages remaining in his hands, and any proceeds of the
for the taking or keeping of such property, to any sale of the property attached not applied to the
such third-party claimant, if such bond shall be judgment.
filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such
claimant or any third person from vindicating his Sec. 17. Recovery upon the counter-bond. - When
claim to the property, or prevent the attaching the judgment has become executory, the surety or
party from claiming damages against a third-party sureties on any counter-bond given pursuant to the
claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious provisions of this Rule to secure the payment of the
claim, in the same or separate action. judgment shall become charged on such counter-
When the writ of attachment is issued in bond and bound to pay the judgment obligee upon
favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or any demand the amount due under the judgment, which
officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond amount may be recovered from such surety or
shall not be required, and in case the sheriff is sureties after notice and summary hearing in the
sued for damages as a result of the attachment, he same action.
shall be represented by the Solicitor General, and
if held liable therefor, the actual damages Towers Assurance Co. v. Ororama Supermart
adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National 80 SCRA
Treasurer out of the funds to be appropriated for
the purpose. In order that the judgment creditor might recover
from the surety on the counterbond, it is necessary
Sec. 15. Satisfaction of judgment out of property (1) that execution be first issued against the
attached; return of sheriff. - If judgment be principal debtor and that such execution was
recovered by the attaching party and execution returned unsatisfied in whole or in part; (2) that the
issue thereon, the sheriff may cause the judgment creditor made a demand upon the surety for the
to be satisfied out of the property attached, if it be satisfaction of the judgment; and (3) that the surety
sufficient for that purpose in the following manner: be given notice and a summary hearing in the same
(a) By paying to the judgment obligee the action as to his liability for the judgment under his
proceeds of all sales of perishable or other counterbond.
property sold in pursuance of the order of the court
or so much as shall be necessary to satisfy the Sec. 18. Disposition of money deposited. - Where
judgment; the party against whom attachment had been
(b) If any balance remains due, by selling issued has deposited money instead of giving
so much of the property, real or personal, as may counter-bond, it shall be applied under the
be necessary to satisfy the balance, if enough for direction of the court to the satisfaction of any
that purpose remain in the sheriff’s hands, or in judgment rendered in favor of the attaching party,
those of the clerk of the court; and after satisfying the judgment the balance shall
(c) By collecting from all persons having be refunded to the depositor or his assignee. If the
in their possession credits belonging to the judgment is in favor of the party against whom
judgment obligor, or owing debts to the latter at attachment was issued, the whole sum deposited
the time of the attachment of such credits or debts, must be refunded to him or his assignee.
the amount of such credits and debts as determined
by the court in the action, and stated in the Sec. 19, Disposition of attached property where
judgment, and paying the proceeds of such judgment is for party against whom attachment
collection over to the judgment obligee. was issued. - If judgment be rendered against the
The sheriff shall forthwith make a return attaching party, all the proceeds of sales and
in writing to the court of his proceedings under this money collected or received by the sheriff, under
section and furnish the parties with copies thereof. the order of attachment, and all property attached
remaining in any such officer’s hands, shall be
Sec. 16. Balance due collected upon execution; delivered to the party against whom attachment
excess delivered to judgment obligor. - If after was issued, and the order of attachment
realizing upon all the property attached, including discharged.
the proceeds of any debts or credits collected, and
applying the proceeds of any debts or credits Sec. 20. Claim for damages on account of
collected, and applying the proceeds to the improper, irregular or excessive attachment. - An
satisfaction of the judgment, less the expenses of application for damages on account of improper,
proceedings upon the judgment, less the expenses irregular, or excessive attachment must be filed
of proceedings upon the judgment, any balance before the trial or before appeal is perfected or
shall remain due, the sheriff must proceed to before the judgment becomes executory, with due
collect such balance as upon ordinary execution. notice to the attaching party and his surety or
 93

sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory
damages and the amount thereof. Such damages injunction.
may be awarded only after proper hearing and
shall be included in the judgment on the main case. The primary purpose of injunction is to preserve
If the judgment of the appellate court be the status quo by restraining action or interference
favorable to the party against whom attachment or by furnishing preventive relief. The status quo is
was issued, he must claim damages sustained the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status which
during the pendency of the appeal by filing an precedes the pending controversy.
application in the appellate court, with notice to
the party in whose favor the attachment was issued A mandatory injunction is an extreme remedy and
or his surety or sureties, before judgment of the will be granted only on a showing that (a) the
appellate court becomes executory. The appellate invasion of the right is material and substantial, (b)
court may allow the application to be heard and the right of the complainant is clear and
decided by the trial court. unmistakable, and (c) there is an urgent and
Nothing herein contained shall prevent paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious
the party against whom the attachment was issued damage.
from recovering in the same action the damages
awarded to him from any property of the attaching Distinctions between injunction and prohibition:
party not exempt from execution should the bond
or deposit given by the latter be insufficient or fail a. Injunction is generally directed against a party
to fully satisfy the award. in the action while prohibition is directed
against a court, tribunal or person exercising
Santos v. Court of Appeals judicial powers;
95 Phil 360 b. Injunction does not involve the jurisdiction of
the court, whereas prohibition may be on the
Where a writ of attachment was issued and levied ground that the court against whom the writ is
upon a property belonging to a third person not sought acted without or in excess of
party to the main action, said third person may file jurisdiction;
a separate action for damages. The rule that c. Injunction may be the main action itself, or
recovery of damages on account of the issuance of just a provisional remedy in the main action,
a writ of attachment cannot be subject of a separate whereas prohibition is always a main action.
action, is not applicable where damages are sought Hence, for temporary restraint in a proceeding
not because the writ of attachment was illegally or for prohibition, preliminary injunction must be
wrongfully issued by the court, but because said sought therein.
writ was caused to levied upon the property of the
plaintiff which was not a party in the case where
the attachment was issued. Bataclan v. Court of Appeals
175 SCRA

Rule on Third party Claim & §20, Rule 57, A writ of preliminary injunction is primarily
important. intended to maintain the status quo between the
parties existing prior to the filing of the case. As an
Status quo ante - refers to a legal situtation ancillary or preventive remedy, it may only be
Preliminary writ of injunction - status quo resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his
Final injunction - change in legal relationship, rights or interests and for no other purpose during
Bacolod Milling the pendency of the principal action.
Grave & irreparable injury - no fair or reasonable
orders can be granted by the court Courts should not just summarily issue an order of
Right in esse and clear for a writ of preliminary denial without an adequate hearing and judicious
mandatory injunction evaluation of the merits of the application as the
same would be a denial of procedural due process
Preliminary Injunction and could result in irreparable prejudice to a party.
Rule 58
Sec. 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction. - A
Sec. 1. Preliminary injunction defined; classes. - preliminary injunction may be granted by the court
A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any where the action or proceeding is pending. If the
stage of an action or proceeding prior to the action or proceeding is pending in the Court of
judgment or final order, requiring a party or a Appeals or in the Supreme Court, it may be issued
court , agency or a person to refrain from a by said court or any member thereof.
particular act or acts. It may also require the
performance of a particular act or acts, in which
 94

Sec. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary possession, during the pendency of the main case,
injunction. - A preliminary injunction may be of the property involved is very clear; where the
granted when it is established: considerations of relative inconvenience bear
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the strongly in favor of the complainant seeking the
relief demanded, and the whole or part of such possession of pendente lite; where there was willful
relief consists in restraining the commission or and unlawful invasion of plaintiff’s rights, over his
continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in protest and remonstrance the injury being a
requiring the performance of an act or acts, either continuing one; where the effect of the preliminary
for a limited period or perpetually; mandatory injunction is to re-establish and
(b) That the commission, continuance or maintain a pre-existing and continuing relationship
non-performance of the act or acts complained of between the parties, recently and arbitrarily
during the litigation would probably work injustice interrupted by the defendant, rather than to
to the applicant; or establish a new relationship during the pendency of
(c) That a party, court, agency or a the principal case. It is for the party requesting the
person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, writ to demonstrate clearly the presence of one or
or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or more of the above grounds.
acts probable in violation of the rights of the
applicant respecting the subject of the action or Sec. 4. Verified application and bond for
proceeding, and tending to render the judgment preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
ineffectual. order. - A preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order may be granted only when:
Bacolod Murcia Milling v. Capitol (a) The application in the action or
17 SCRA proceeding is verified and shows facts entitling the
applicant to the relief demanded; and
For the writ of preliminary injunction to issue, (b) Unless exempted by the court, the
there must be a showing based on facts that the applicant files with the court where the action or
party availing of the remedy is entitled to the relief proceeding is pending a bond executed to the party
demanded. or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the
court, to the effect that the applicant will pay to
An injunction will not issue to protect a right not in such party or person all damages which he may
esse and which may never arise or to restrain an sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary
act, which does not give rise to a cause of action restraining order if the court should finally decide
that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon
The function of an injunction is the maintenance of approval of the requisite bond, a writ of
the status quo as of the time of its issuance. In the preliminary injunction shall be issued.
case at bar, the right of the Central in using the (c) When an application for a writ of
railway has already expired: there being no right to preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining
be protected anymore, the writ of preliminary order is included in a complaint or any initiatory
injunction cannot be had. pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court,
shall be raffled only after notice to and in the
Merville Park Homeowners Association Inc. v. presence of the adverse party or the person to be
Velez enjoined. In any event, such notice shall be
196 SCRA preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied by
service of summons, together with a copy of the
Where the village association seeks to take complaint or initiatory pleading and the
possession and control of the waterworks system applicant’s affidavit and bond, upon the adverse
from the Salandanan who failed to undertake party in the Philippines.
certain contractual obligations necessary to assure However, where the summons could not
the homeowners of a steady water supply, a writ of be served personally or by substituted service
preliminary mandatory injunction will not be despite diligent efforts, or the adverse party is a
granted absent a showing that the severe water resident of the Philippines temporarily absent
shortage had not been remedied and that a clear and therefrom or is a nonresident thereof, the
present danger of the same or similar default on requirement of prior or contemporaneous service
Salandanan’s part, threatening the same severe of summons shall not apply.
consequences for the subdivision residents. (d) The application for a temporary
restraining order shall thereafter be acted upon
A preliminary mandatory injunction is not a proper only after all parties are heard in a summary
remedy to take property out of the possession and hearing which shall be conducted within twenty-
control of one party and to deliver the same to the four (24) hours after the sheriff’s return of service
other party where possession of such property is and/or the records are received by the branch
being disputed. It may issue pendente lite only in selected by raffle and to which the records shall be
cases of extreme urgency, where the right to the transmitted immediately.
 95

1. When great or irreparable injury would result

Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted to the applicant even before the application is
without notice; exception. - No preliminary heard on notice; 20-day temporary restraining
injunction shall be granted without hearing and order is issued.
prior notice to the party or person sought to be
enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by 2. If the matter is of extreme urgency and the
affidavits or by verified application that great or applicant will suffer grave injustice and
irreparable injury would result to the applicant irreparable injury, the court may issue ex parte
before the matter can be heard on notice, the court a 72-hour temporary restraining order; can
to which the application for preliminary injunction only be issued by the executive judge of a
was made, nay issue ex parte a temporary multiple-sala court or by the presiding judge of
restraining order to be effective only for a period a single-sala court.
of twenty (20) days from service on the party or
person sought to be enjoined, except as herein The judge issuing a 72-hour TRO is obliged to
provided. Within the said twenty-day period, the conduct a summary hearing within the effectivity
court must order said party or person to show of the 72-hour TRO to determine whether the TRO
cause, at a specified time and place, why the shall be extended in which case, the same is
injunction should not be granted, determine within converted into a 20-day TRO. Within the 20-day
the same period whether or not the preliminary period of effectivity of the TRO the court shall
injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue determine in a hearing whether or not the
the corresponding order. preliminary injunction is to be granted. This 20-day
period is inextendible.
However, and subject to the provisions of
the preceding sections, if the matter is of extreme Thus, a TRO may be converted to a preliminary
urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injunction, which in turn may be converted into a
injustice and irreparable injury, the executive final injunction. TRO and preliminary injunction
judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding are issued to maintain the status quo ante, that is,
judge of a single-sala court may issue ex parte a prior to the institution of the main action. A final
temporary restraining order effective for only injunction confirms a preliminary injunction and
seventy-two (72) hours from issuance but he shall perpetually enjoins a party or person from doing
immediately comply with the provisions of the next the act/s complained of.
preceding section as to service of summons and the
documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, Effectivity of TROs:
within the aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the
judge before whom the case is pending shall TRO issued by trail court may either be for 72
conduct a summary hearing to determine whether hours or 20 days; if issued by the CA or a member
the temporary restraining order shall be extended thereof, it shall be effective for sixty (60) days;
until the application for preliminary injunction can TROs0 issued by the SC shall be effective until
be heard. In no case shall the total period of further notice.
effectivity of the temporary restraining order
exceed twenty (20 days, including the original
seventy-two hours provided herein. Social Security Commission v. Bayona
5 SCRA
In the event that the application for
preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the
within the said period, the temporary restraining rule relative to the issuance of injunction when
order is deemed automatically vacated. The there is no standard by which their amount can be
effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not measured with reasonable accuracy. An irreparable
extendible without need of any judicial declaration injury which a court of equity will enjoin includes
to that effect and no court shall have authority to that degree of wrong of a repeated and continuing
extend or renew the same on the same ground for kind which produce hurt, inconvenience, or
which it was issued. damage that can be estimated only by conjecture
However, if issued by the Court of and not by any accurate standard of measurement.
Appeals or a member thereof, the temporary An irreparable injury to authorize an injunction
restraining order shall be effective for sixty (60) consists of “a serious charge of, or is destructive to,
days from service on the party or person sought to the property it affects, either physically or in the
be enjoined. A restraining order issued by the character in which it has been held and enjoined, or
Supreme Court or a member thereof shall be when the property has some peculiar quality or use,
effective until further orders. so that its pecuniary value will not fairly
recompense the owner of the loss thereof.”
Temporary restraining order, when issued
 96

For an injury to be irreparable, it does not have to continuance of the act or acts or confirming the
refer to the amount of damages that may be caused preliminary mandatory injunction.
but rather to the difficulty of measuring the
damages inflicted. If full compensation can be
obtained by way of damages, equity will not apply
the remedy of injunction.
Gilchrist v. Cuddy
Sec. 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of 29 Phil 542
dissolution of, injunction or restraining order. -
The application for injunction or restraining order
may be denied, upon a showing of its insufficiency. Receivership
The injunction or restraining order may also be Rule 59
denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, on other
grounds upon affidavits of the party or person Sec. 1. Appointment of receiver. - Upon a verified
enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant application , one or more receivers of the property
also by affidavits. It may further be denied or subject of the actin or proceeding may be
granted, may be dissolved, if it appears after appointed by the court where the action is pending,
hearing that although the applicant is entitled to or by the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme
the injunction or restraining order, the issuance or Court, or a member thereof, in the following cases:
continuance thereof, as the case may be, would (a) When it appears from the verified
cause irreparable damage to the party or person application, and such other proof as the court may
enjoined while the applicant can be fully require, that the party applying for the
compensated for such damages as he may suffer, appointment of a receiver has an interest in the
and the former files a bond in an amount fixed by property or fund which is the subject of the action
the court conditioned that he will pay all damages or proceeding, and that such property or fund is in
which the applicant may suffer by the denial or the danger of being lost, removed, or materially
dissolution of the injunction or restraining order. If injured unless a receiver be appointed to
it appears that the extent of the preliminary administer and preserve it;
injunction or restraining order granted is too (b) When it appears in an action by the
great, it may be modified. mortgagee for the foreclosure of a mortgage that
the property is in danger of being wasted or
Sec. 7. Service of copies of bonds; effect of dissipated or materially injured, and that its value
disapproval of same. - The party filing a bond in is probable insufficient to discharge the mortgage
accordance with the provisions of this Rule shall debt, or that the parties have so stipulated in the
forthwith serve a copy of such bond on the other contract of mortgage;
party, who may except to the sufficiency of the (c) After judgment, to preserve the
bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon. If the property during the pendency of an appeal, or to
applicant’s bond is found to be insufficient in dispose of it according to the judgment, or to aid
amount, or if the surety or sureties thereon fail to execution when the execution has been returned
justify, and a bond sufficient in amount with unsatisfied or the judgment obligor refuses to
sufficient sureties approved after justification is not apply his property in satisfaction of the judgment,
filed forthwith, the injunction shall be dissolved. If or otherwise to carry the judgment into effect;
the bond of the adverse party is found to be (d) Whenever in other cases it appears
insufficient in amount, or the surety or sureties that the appointment of a receiver is the most
thereon fail to justify a bond sufficient in amount convenient and feasible means of preserving,
with sufficient sureties approved after justification administering, or disposing of the property in
is not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be litigation.
granted or restored, as the case may be. During the pendency of an appeal, the
appellate court may allow an application for the
Sec. 8. Judgment to include damages against appointment of a receiver to be filed in and
party and sureties. - AT the trial, the amount of decided by the court of origin and the receiver
damages to be awarded to either party, upon the appointed to be subject to the control of said court.
bond of the adverse party, shall be claimed,
ascertained, and awarded under the same Commodities Storage v. Court of Appeals
procedure prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57. G.R. No. 125008

Sec. 9. When final injunction granted. - If after A petition for receivership requires that the
the trial of the action it appears that the applicant property or fund which is the subject of the action
is entitled to have the act or acts complained of must be in danger of loss, removal or material
permanently enjoined, the court shall grant a final injury which necessitates protection or
injunction perpetually restraining the party or preservation. In the instant case, there is no
person enjoined from the commission or sufficient showing that the ice plant is in danger of
 97

disappearing or being wated and reduced to a in amount or the surety or sureties thereon fail to
‘scrap heap.” At the time the trial court issued the justify, and a bond sufficient in amount with
order for receivership of the property, the problem sufficient sureties approved after justification is not
had been remedied and there was no imminent filed forthwith, the receiver shall be appointed and
danger of any leakage. re-appointed, as the case may be.

Neither party to a litigation should be appointed as Sec. 6. General powers of receiver. - Subject to the
receiver without the consent of the other because a control of the court in which the action or
receiver should be a person indifferent to the proceeding is pending, a receiver shall have the
parties and should be impartial and disinterested. power to bring and defend, in such capacity,
The receiver is not the representative of any of the actions in his own name; to take and keep
parties but of all of them to the end that their possession of the property in controversy; to
interests may be equally protected with the least receive rents; o collect debts due to himself as
possible inconvenience and expense. receiver or to the fund, property, estate, person, or
corporation of which he is the receiver; to
Sec. 2. Bond on appointment of receiver. - Before compound and compromise the same; to make
issuing the order appointing a receiver the court transfers; to pay outstanding debts; to divide the
shall require the applicant to file a bond executed money and other property that shall remain among
to the party against whom the application is the persons legally entitled to receive the same;
presented, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to and generally to do such acts respecting the
the effect that the applicant will pay such party all property as the court may authorize. However,
damages he may sustain by reason of the funds in the hands of a receiver may be invested
appointment of such receiver in case the applicant only by order of the court upon the written consent
shall have procured such appointment without of all the parties to the action.
sufficient cause; and the court may, I its discretion, No action may be filed by or against a
at any time after the appointment, require an receiver without leave of the court which
additional bond as further security for such appointed him.
damages.
Sec. 7. Liability for refusal or neglect to deliver
Sec. 3. Denial of application or discharge of property to receiver. - A person who refuses or
receiver. - The application may be denied, or the neglects, upon reasonable demand, to deliver to
receiver discharged, when the adverse party files a the receiver all the property, money, books, deeds,
bond executed to the applicant, in an amount to be notes, bills, documents and papers within his
fixed b the court, to the effect that such party will power of control subject of or involved in the
pay the applicant all damages he may suffer by action or proceeding, or in case of disagreement,
reason of the acts, omissions, or other matters as determined and ordered by the court, may be
specified in the application as ground for such punished for contempt and shall be liable to the
appointment. The receiver may also be discharged receiver for the money or the value of the property
if it is shown that his appointment was obtained and other things so refused or neglected to be
without sufficient cause. surrendered, together with all damages that may
have been sustained by the party or parties entitled
Sec. 4. Oath and bond of receiver. - Before thereto as a consequence of such refusal or
entering upon his duties, the receiver shall be neglect.
sworn to perform them faithfully, and shall file a
bond, executed to such person and in such sum as Sec. 8. Termination of receivership;
the court may direct, to the effect that he will compensation of receiver. - Whenever the court,
faithfully discharge his duties in the action or motu propio or on motion of either party, shall
proceeding and obey the orders of the court. determine that the necessity for a receiver n longer
exists, it shall, after due notice to all interested
Sec. 5. Service of copies of bonds; effect of parties and hearing, settle the accounts of the
disapproval of same. - The person filing a bond in receiver, direct the delivery of the funds and other
accordance with the provisions of this Rule shall property in his possession to the person adjudged
forthwith serve a copy thereof on each interested to be entitled to receive them, and order the
party, who may except to its sufficiency or of the discharge of thereceiver from further duty as such.
surety or sureties thereon. If either the applicant’s The court shall allow the receiver such reasonable
of the receiver’s bond is found to be insufficient in compensation as the circumstances of the case
amount, or if the surety or sureties thereon fail to warrant, to be taxed as costs against the defeated
justify, and a bond sufficient in amount with party, or apportioned, as justice requires.
sufficient sureties approved after justification is not
filed forthwith, the application shall be denied or Sec. 9. Judgment to include recovery against
the receiver discharged, as the case may be. If the sureties. - The amount, if any, to be awarded to
bond of the adverse party is found to be insufficient any party upon any bond filed in accordance with
 98

the provisions of this Rule, shall be claimed, broken open and take the property as herein
ascertained, and granted under the same provided, he must keep it in a secure place and
procedure prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57. shall be responsible for its delivery to the party
entitled thereto upon receiving his fees and
necessary expenses for taking and keeping the
same.

Sec. 5. Return of property. – If the adverse party

Replevin objects of the sufficiency of the applicant’s bond,
Rule 60 or of the surety or sureties thereon, he cannot
immediately require the return of the property, but
if he does not so object, he may, at any time before
Sec. 1. Application - A party praying for the the delivery of the property to the applicant,
recovery of possession of personal property may, require the return thereof, by filing with the court
at the commencement of the action or at any time where the action is pending a bond executed to the
before answer, apply for an order for the delivery applicant, in double the value of the property as
of such property to him, in the manner hereinafter stated in the applicant’s affidavit for the delivery
provided. thereof to the applicant, if such delivery be
adjudged, and for the payment of such sum to him
Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond. - The applicant must as may be recovered against the adverse party, and
show by his own affidavit or that of some other by serving a copy of such bond on the applicant.
person who personally knows the facts:
(a) That the applicant is the owner of the Sec. 6. Disposition of property by sheriff. – If
property claimed, particularly describing it, or is within five (5) days after taking the property by the
entitled to the possession thereof; sheriff, the adverse party does not object to the
(b) That the property is wrongfully sufficiency of the bond, or the surety or sureties
detained by the adverse party, alleging the cause of thereon; or if the adverse party so objects and the
detention thereof according to the best of his court affirms its approval of the applicant’s bond
knowledge, information, and belief; or approves a new bond, or if the adverse party
(c) That the property has not been requires the return of the property but his bond is
distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a fine objected to and found insufficient and he does not
pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution forthwith file an approved bond, the property shall
or preliminary attachment, or otherwise placed be delivered to the applicant. If for any reason the
under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is property is not delivered to the applicant, the
exempt from such seizure or custody; and sheriff must return it to the adverse party.
(d) The actual market value of the
property. Sec. 7. Proceedings where property claimed by
The applicant must also give a bond, third person. – If the property taken is claimed by
executed to the adverse party in double the value of any third person other than the party against
the property as stated in the affidavit whom the writ of replevin had been issued or his
aforementioned, for the return of the property to agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his
the adverse party if such return be adjudged, and title thereto, or right to the possession thereof,
for the payment to the adverse party of such sum as stating the grounds therefor, and serves such
he may recover from the application in the action. affidavit upon the sheriff while the latter has
possession of the property and a copy thereof upon
Sec. 3. Order. - Upon the filing of such affidavit the applicant, the sheriff shall not be bound to keep
and approval of the bond, the court shall issue an the property under replevin or deliver it to the
order and the corresponding writ of replevin applicant unless the applicant or his agent, on
describing the personal property alleged to be demand of said sheriff shall file a bond approved
wrongfully detained and requiring the sheriff by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant
forthwith to take such property into his custody. in a sum not less than the value of the property
under replevin as provided in section 2 hereof. In
Sec. 4. Duty of the sheriff. - Upon receiving such case of disagreement as to such value, the court
order, the sheriff must serve a copy thereof on the shall determine the same. No claim for damages
adverse party, together with a copy of the for the taking or keeping of the property may be
application, affidavit and bond, and must forthwith enforced against the bond unless the action
take the property, if it be in the possession of the therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120)
adverse party, or his agent, and retain it in his days from the date of the filing of the bond.
custody. If the property or any part thereof be The sheriff shall not be liable for
concealed in a building or enclosure, the sheriff damages, for the taking or keeping of such
must demand its delivery, and if it be not delivered, property, to any such third-party claimant if such
he must cause the building or enclosure to be bond shall be filed. Nothing herein contained shall
 99

prevent such claimant or any third person from The capacity of the person who will provide the
vindicating his claim to the property, or prevent support and the needs of the one entitled to be
the applicant from claiming damages against a supported are taken into consideration in setting the
third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or amount of support to be granted.
plainly spurious claim, in the same or a separate
action. Support pendente lite can be availed of at the
When the writ of replevin is issued in commencement of the action or at any time before
favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or any the judgment or final order is rendered in the action
officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond or proceeding.
shall not be required, and in case the sheriff is
sued for damages as a result of the replevin, he The one claiming for support must establish before
shall be represented by the Solicitor General, and the court the relationship between the parties as to
if held liable therefor, the actual damages entitle one to receive support from the other.
adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National
Treasurer out of the funds to be appropriated for The following are obliged to support each other:
the purpose.
1. The spouses;
Sec. 8. Return of papers. – The sheriff must file the 2. Legitimate ascendants and descendants;
order, with his proceedings indorsed thereon, with 3. Parents and their legitimate children and the
the court within ten (10) days after taking the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter;
property mentioned therein. 4. Parents and their illegitimate children and the
legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter;
Sec. 9. Judgment. – After trial of the issues, the and
court shall determine who has the right to the 5. Legitimate brothers and sisters, whether of the
possession to and the value of the property and full or half-blood. ( Art. 195, Family Code)
shall render judgment in the alternative for the
delivery thereof to the party entitled to the same, or Sec. 2. Comment. - A copy of the application and
for its value in case delivery cannot be made, and all supporting documents shall be served upon the
also for such damages as either party may prove, adverse party, who shall have five (5) days to
with costs. comment thereon unless a different period is fixed
by the court upon his motion. The comment shall
Sec. 10. Judgment to include recovery against be verified and shall be accompanied by affidavits,
sureties. – The amount, if any, to be awarded to depositions or other authentic documents in
any party upon any bond filed in accordance with support thereof.
the provisions of this Rule, shall be claimed,
ascertained, and granted under the same The application for support pendente lite is
procedure as prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57. responded to not by an answer but by a verified
comment accompanied by affidavits, depositions or
other authentic documents in support of the facts
Support Pendente Lite set forth in the comment.
Rule 61
Sec. 3. Hearing. - After the comment is filed, or
Sec. 1. Application. - At the commencement of the after the expiration of the period for its filing, the
proper action or proceeding, or at any time prior application shall be set for hearing not more than
to the judgment or final order, a verified three (3) days thereafter. The facts in issue shall be
application of support pendente lite may be filed by proved in the same manner as is provided for
any party stating the grounds for the claim and the evidence on motions.
financial conditions of both parties, and
accompanied by affidavits, depositions or other Hearing on the application is mandatory. It shall be
authentic documents in support thereof. held not later than three (3) days from the receipt of
the comment or from the expiration of the period to
file the same.
What is support pendente lite?
Sec. 4. Order. - The court shall determine
It is a provisional remedy which grants a person provisionally the pertinent facts, and shall render
entitled to support an amount enough for his such orders as justice and equity may require,
“sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical having due regard to the probable outcome of the
attendance, education and transportation” (Art. case and such other circumstances as may aid in
194, Family Code) while the action is pending in the proper resolution of the question involved. If
court. It may be availed of by any of the parties in the application is granted, the court shall fix the
the action for support or in a proceeding where one amount of money to be provisionally paid or such
of the reliefs sought is support for the applicant. other forms of support as should be provided,
 100

taking into account the necessities of the applicant Sec. 6. Support in criminal cases. – In criminal
and the resources or means of the adverse party, actions where the civil liability includes support
and the terms of payment or mode for providing for the offspring as a consequence of the crime and
the support, If the application is denied, the the civil aspect thereof has not been waived,
principal case shall be tried and decided as early reserved or instituted prior to its filing, the accused
as possible. may be ordered to provide support pendente lite to
the child born to the offended party allegedly
Ramos v. Court of Appeals because of the crime. The application therefor
45 SCRA may be filed successively by the offended party, her
parents, grandparents or guardian and the State in
Held: Where the trial court ruled that the claim of accordance with the procedure established under
filiation and support has been adequately proven, this Rule.
alimony pendente lite can be validly granted
pending appeal of such decision. Sec. 7. Restitution. – When the judgment or final
Trial court’s refusal to grant support pendente lite order of the court finds that the person who has
does not deprive the appellate court the authority to been providing support pendente lite is not liable
grant the same especially so where, in view of the therefor, it shall order the recipient thereof to
poverty of the child, it would be a travesty of return to the former the amounts already paid with
justice to refuse him support until the decision of legal interest from the dates of actual payment,
the judge is sustained on appeal. without prejudice to the right of the recipient to
obtain reimbursement in a separate action from the
Reyes v. Ines-Luciano person legally obliged to give support. Should the
81 SCRA recipient fail to reimburse said amounts, the
person who provided the same may likewise seek
Facts: reimbursement thereof in a separate action from
Held: Where petitioner failed to present evidence the person legally obliged to give such support.
on the alleged adultery of his wife when the action
for legal separation is heard on the merits, the grant JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS
of support pendente lite is valid. Adultery is a good
defense and if properly proved and sustained will FORM
defeat the action. However, the alleged adultery of
the wife must be established by competent Rule 36, Sec. 1. Rendition of final judgements and
evidence. Mere allegation would not suffice to bar final orders. -- A judgement or final order
her from receiving support pendente lite. determining the merits of the case shall be in
writing personally and directly prepared by the
In determining the amount to be awarded as judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and
support pendente lite it is not necessary to go fully the law on which it is based, signed by him, and
into the merits of the case, it being sufficient that filed with the clerk of court.
the court ascertain the kind and amount of evidence
which it may deem sufficient to enable it to justly Concept of Final Judgement and Final
resolve the application, one way or the other, in Order
view of the merely provisional character of the
resolution to be entered. Mere affidavits may Rule 41, Sec. 1. Subject of appeal. – An
satisfy the court to pass upon the application for appeal may be taken from a judgement or
support pendente lite. It is enough that the facts be final order that completely disposes of the
established by affidavits or other documentary case, or of a particular matter therein
evidence appearing in the record. when declared by these Rules to be
appealable.
Sec. 5. Enforcement of order. – If the adverse
party fails to comply with an order granting No appeal may be taken from:
support pendente lite, the court shall, motu propio
or upon motion, issue an order of execution (a) An order denying a motion for new trial or
against him, without prejudice to his liability for reconsideration;
contempt. (b) An order denying a petition for relief or any
When the person ordered to give support similar motion seeking relief from judgement;
pendente lite refuses or fails to do so, any third (c) An interlocutory order;
person who furnished that support to the applicant (d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
may, after due notice and hearing in the same case,
(e) An order denying a motion to set aside a
obtain a writ of execution to enforce his right of
judgement by consent, confession or compromise
reimbursement against the person ordered to
on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any
provide support.
other ground vitiating consent;
 101

(f) An order of execution; Rule 42, Sec. 1. How appeal taken; time for filing
(g) A judgement or final order for or against one – A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the
or more of several parties or in separate claims, Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its
counter-claims, cross-claims and third-party appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for
complaints, while the main case is pending, unless review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the
the court allows an appeal therefrom; and same time to the clerk of said court the
(h) An order dismissing an action without corresponding docket and other lawful fees,
prejudice. depositing the amount of P 500.00 for costs, and
furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the
In all the above instances where adverse party with a copy of the petition. The
the judgement or final order is not appealable, the petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15)
aggrieved party may file an appropriate special days from notice of the decision sought to be
civil action under Rule 65. reviewed or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for
new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after
Ceniza v. CA, 218 SCRA 390 judgement. Upon proper motion and the payment
Facts: CA, in a resolution, dismissed petitioner of the full amount of the docket and other lawful
Ceniza’s appeal on the ground of delayed filing of fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration
appellants’ brief. Issue here is WON this resolution of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals
was a final order? may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days
Held: Yes. A final order or judgment is one w/c only within which to file the petition for review.
either TERMINATES the action itself or operates No further extension shall be granted except for the
to vest some right in such a manner as to put out of most compelling reason and in no case to exceed
the power of the ct. making the order to place in the fifteen (15) days.
parties in their original conditions. A final order
disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates Entry of judgement
proceedings/action, LEAVING NOTHING TO BE
DONE BUT TO ENFORCE BY EXECUTION. Rule 36, Sec. 2. Entry of judgements and final
However, a final order is appealable. orders. – If no appeal or motion for new trial or
KINDS reconsideration is filed within the time provided in
these Rules, the judgement or final order shall
As to finality forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of
entries of judgements. The date of finality of the
Rendition of Judgement judgement or final order shall be deemed to be the
date of its entry. The record shall contain the
Rule 36, Sec. 1, supra. dispositive part of the judgement or final order and
shall be signed by the clerk, with a certificate that
Rule 40, Sec. 2. When to appeal. – An appeal may such judgement or final order has become final and
be taken within fifteen (15) days after notice to the executory.
appellant of the judgement or final order appealed
from. Where a record on appeal is required, the Rule 38, Sec. 3. Time for filing petition; contents
appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record and verification. – A petition provided for in either
on appeal within thirty (30) days after notice of the of the preceding sections of this Rule must be
judgement or final order. verified, filed within sixty (60) days after the
petitioner learns of the judgement, final order, or
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than
timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No six (6) months after such judgement or final order
motion for extension of time to file a motion for was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and
new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed. must be accompanied with affidavits showing the
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
Rule 41, Sec. 3. Period of ordinary appeal – The relied upon, and the facts constituting the
appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or
notice of the judgement or final order appealed defense, as the case may be.
from. Where a record on appeal is required, the
appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record Rule 39, Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by
on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the independent action. – A final and executory
judgement or final order. judgement or order may be executed on motion
within five (5) years from the date of its entry.
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred
timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No by the statute of limitations, a judgement may be
motion for extension of time to file a motion for enforced by action. The revived judgement may
new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed. also be enforced by motion within five (5) years
 102

from the date of its entry and thereafter by action Sec. 1. Summary judgement for claimant. – A
before it is barred by the statute of limitations. party seeking to recover upon a claim, counter-
claim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory
Entry of Satisfaction of Judgement relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer
thereto has been served, move with supporting
Rule 39, Sec. 44. Entry of satisfaction of affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary
judgement by clerk of court. – Satisfaction of a judgement in his favor upon all or any part thereof.
judgement shall be entered by the clerk of court in
the court docket, and in the execution book, upon Sec. 2. Summary judgement for defending party. –
he return of a writ of execution showing the full A party against whom a claim, counter-claim, or
satisfaction of the judgement executed and cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is
acknowledged in the same manner as a conveyance sought may, at any time, move with supporting
of real property by the judgement obligee or by his affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary
counsel unless a revocation of his authority is filed, judgement in his favor as to all or any part thereof.
or upon the endorsement of such admission by the
judgement obligee or his counsel on the face of the Sec. 3. Motion and proceedings thereon. – The
record of the judgement. motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before
the time specified for the hearing. The adverse
Sec. 45. Entry of satisfaction with or without party may serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or
admission. – Whenever a judgement is satisfied in admissions at least three (3) days before the
fact, or otherwise than upon an execution, on hearing. After the hearing, the judgement sought
demand of the judgement obligor, the judgement shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
obligee or his counsel must execute and supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions
acknowledge, or indorse, an admission of the on file, show that, except as to the amount of
satisfaction as provided in the last preceding damages, there is no genuine issue as to any
section, and after notice and upon motion the court material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
may order either the judgement obligee or his a judgement as a matter of law.
counsel to do so, or may order the entry of
satisfaction to be made without such admission. Sec. 4. Case not fully adjudicated on motion. – If
on motion under this Rule, judgement is not
As to process of procuring rendered upon the whole case or for all the reliefs
sought and a trial is necessary, the court at the
Judgement of the Pleadings hearing of the motion, by examining the pleadings,
and the evidence before it and by interrogating
Rule 34, Sec. 1. Judgement on the pleadings. – counsel shall ascertain what material facts exist
Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or without substantial controversy and what are
otherwise admits the material allegations of the actually and in good faith controverted. It shall
adverse party’s pleading, the court may, on motion thereupon make an order specifying the facts that
of that party, direct judgement on such pleading. appear without substantial controversy, including
However, in actions for declaration of nullity or the extent to which the amount of damages or other
annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the relief is not in controversy, and directing such
material facts alleged in the complaint shall always further proceedings in the action as are just. The
be proved. facts so specified shall be deemed established, and
the trial shall be conducted on the controverted
Judgement on Demurrer to Evidence facts accordingly.

Rule 33, Sec. 1. Demurrer to evidence. – After the Sec. 5. Form of affidavits and supporting papers. –
plaintiff has completed the presentation of his Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made
evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as
the ground that upon the facts and the law the would be admissible in evidence, and shall show
plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify
is denied, he shall have the right to present to the matters stated therein. Certified true copies
evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal of all papers or parts thereof referred to in the
the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be affidavit shall be attached thereto or served
deemed to have waived the right to present therewith.
evidence.
Sec. 6. Affidavits in bad faith. -- Should it appear
Summary Judgements to its satisfaction at any time that any of the
affidavits presented pursuant to this Rule are
Rule 35 presented in bad faith, or solely for the purpose of
delay, the court shall forthwith order the offending
party or counsel to pay to the other party the
 103

amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing (b) Relief from order of default. – A party
of the affidavits caused him to incur, including declared in default may at any time after notice
attorney’s fees. It may, after hearing, further thereof and before judgement file a motion under
adjudge the offending party or counsel guilty of oath to set aside the order of default upon proper
contempt. showing that his failure to answer was due to
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
Rule 29, Sec. 3. Other consequences. – If any and that he has a meritorious defense. In such case,
party or an officer or managing agent of a party the order of default may be set aside on such terms
refuses to obey an order made under section 1 of and conditions as the judge may impose in the
this Rule requiring him to answer designated interest of justice.
questions, or an order under Rule 27 to produce (c) Effect of partial default. – When a pleading
any document or other thing for inspection, asserting a claim states a common cause of action
copying, or photographing or to permit it to be against several defending parties, some of whom
done, or to permit entry upon land or other answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall
property, or an order made under Rule 28 requiring try the case against all upon the answers thus filed
him to submit to a physical or mental examination, and render judgement upon the evidence presented.
the court may make such orders in regard to the (d) Extent of relief to be awarded. – A judgement
refusal as are just, and among others the following: rendered against a party in default shall not exceed
the amount or be different in kind from that prayed
(a) An order that the matters regarding which the for nor award unliquidated damages.
questions were asked, or the character or (e) Where no defaults allowed. – If the defending
description of the thing or land, or the contents of party in an action for annulment or declaration of
the paper, or the physical or mental condition of the nullity of marriage or for legal separation fails to
party, or any other designated facts shall be taken answer, the court shall order the prosecuting
to be established for the purposes of the action in attorney to investigate whether or not a collusion
accordance with the claim of the party obtaining between the parties exists, and if there is no
the order; collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see
(b) An order refusing to allow the disobedient to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated.
party to support or oppose designated claims or
defenses or prohibiting him from introducing in Judgements after ex parte presentation
evidence designated documents or things or items of Evidence
of testimony, or from introducing evidence of
physical or mental condition; Rule 18, Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear. – The
(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required
thereof, or staying further proceedings until the pursuant to the next preceding section shall be
order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal
proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered
judgement by default against the disobedient party; by the court. A similar failure on the part of the
and defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to
(d) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in present his evidence ex parte and the court to
addition thereto, an order directing the arrest of any render judgement on the basis thereof.
party or agent of a party for disobeying any of such
orders except an order to submit to a physical or Compromise Judgement
mental examination.

Default Judgements
Order for Dismissal
Rule 9, Sec. 3. Default; declaration of. – If the
defending party fails to answer within the time Motion to Dismiss (See Rule 16)
allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of
the claiming party with notice to the defending Dismissals under Rule 17 (Dismissal of
party, and proof of such failure, declare the Actions)
defending party in default. Thereupon, the court
shall proceed to render judgement granting the Dismissals under Rule 18, Sec. 5
claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant,
unless the court in its discretion requires the Rule 18, Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear. – The
claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required
evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court. pursuant to the next preceding section shall be
cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal
(a) Effect of order of default. – A party in default shall be with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered
shall be entitled to notice of subsequent by the court. A similar failure on the part of the
proceedings but not to take part in the trial. defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to
 104

present his evidence ex parte and the court to Rule 36, Sec. 5. Separate judgements. – When
render judgement on the basis thereof. more than one claim for relief is presented in an
action, the court, at any stage, upon a determination
Dismissals under Rule 29, Sec. 5 of the issues material to a particular claim and all
counter-claims arising out of the transaction or
Rule 29, Sec. 5. Failure of party to attend or serve occurrence which is the subject matter of the claim,
answers. – If a party or an officer or managing may render a separate judgement disposing of such
agent of a party wilfully fails to appear before the claim. The judgement shall terminate the action
officer who is to take his deposition, after being with respect to the claim so disposed of and the
served with a proper notice, or fails to serve action shall proceed as to the remaining claims. In
answers to interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 case a separate judgement is rendered, the court by
after proper service of such interrogatories, the order may stay its enforcement until the rendition
court on motion and notice, may strike out all or of a subsequent judgement or judgements and may
any part of any pleading of that party, or dismiss prescribe such conditions as may be necessary to
the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or secured the benefit thereof to the party in whose
enter a judgement by default against that party, and favor the judgement is rendered.
in its discretion, order him to pay reasonable
expenses incurred by the other, including attorney’s Rule 31. Sec. 2. Separate trials. – The court, in
fees. furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice,
may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-
As to parties claim, counter-claim, or third-party complaint, or
of any separate issue or of any number of claims,
As against one or more several parties cross-claims, counter-claims, third-party
complaints or issues.
Rule 36, Sec. 3. Judgement for or against one or
more of several parties. – Judgement may be given Rule 41, Sec. 1 (g). No appeal may be taken from:
for or against one or more of several plaintiffs, and x x x x A judgement or final order for or against
for or against one or more of several defendants. one or more of several parties or in separate
When justice so demands, the court may require the claims, counter-claims, cross-claims and third-
parties on each side to file adversary pleadings as party complaints, while the main case is pending,
between themselves and determine their ultimate unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and x
rights and obligations. xxx

Several Judgement As to how executed

Rule 36, Sec. 4. Several judgements. – In an action Judgements not stayed on appeal
against several defendants, the court may, when a
several judgement is proper, render judgement Rule 39, Sec. 4. Judgements not stayed by appeal.
against one or more of them, leaving the action to – Judgements in actions for injunction receivership,
proceed against the others. accounting, support, and such other judgements as
are now or may hereafter be declared to be
Rule 9, Sec. 3 (c). Effect of partial default. – When immediately executory, shall be enforceable after
a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause their rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal
of action against several defending parties, some of taken therefrom, unless otherwise ordered by the
whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court trial court. On appeal therefrom, the appellate
shall try the case against all upon the answers thus court in its discretion may make an order
filed and render judgement upon the evidence suspending, modifying, restoring or granting the
presented. injunction, receivership, accounting, or award of
support.
Against entity without juridical personality
The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as
Rule 36, Sec. 6. Judgement against entity without to bond or otherwise as may be considered proper
juridical personality. – When judgement is for the security or protection of the rights of the
rendered against two or more persons sued as an adverse party.
entity without juridical personality, the judgement
shall set out their individual or proper names, if Judgements for money
known.
Rule 39, Sec. 9. Execution of judgements for
As to claims money, how enforced. –

At various stages or separate judgements (a) Immediate payment on demand. – The officer
shall enforce an execution of a judgement for
 105

money by demanding from the judgement obligor Real property, stocks, shares, debts, credits, and
the immediate payment of the full amount stated in other personal property, may be levied upon in like
the writ of execution and all lawful fees. The manner and with like effect as under a writ of
judgement obligor shall pay in cash, certified bank attachment.
check payable to the judgement obligee, or any
other form of payment acceptable to the latter, the (c) Garnishment of debts and credits. – The officer
amount of the judgement debt under proper receipt may levy on debts due the judgement obligor and
directly to the judgement obligee or his authorized other credits, including bank deposits, financial
representative if present at the time of payment. interests, royalties, commissions and other personal
The lawful fees shall be handed under proper property not capable of manual delivery in the
receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn over possession or control of third parties. Levy shall be
the said amount within the same day to the clerk of made by serving notice upon the person owing
court of the court that issued the writ. such debts or having in his possession or control
such credits to which the judgement obligor is
(b) If the judgement obligee or his authorized entitled. The garnishment shall only cover such
representative is not present to receive payment, amount as will satisfy the judgement and all lawful
the judgement obligor shall deliver the aforesaid fees.
payment to the executing sheriff. The latter shall
turn over all the amounts coming into his The garnishee shall make a written report to the
possession within the same day to the clerk of court court within five (5) days from service of the notice
of the court that issued the writ, or if the same is of garnishment stating whether or not the
not practicable, deposit said amounts to a fiduciary judgement obligor has sufficient funds or credits to
account in the nearest government depository bank satisfy the amount of judgement. If not, the report
of the Regional Trial Court of the locality. shall state how much funds or credits the garnishee
. holds for the judgement obligor. The garnished
The clerk of said court shall thereafter arrange for amount in cash, or certified bank check issued in
the remittance of the deposit to the account of the the name of the judgement obligee, shall be
court that issued the writ whose clerk of court shall delivered directly to the judgement obligee within
then deliver said payment to the judgement obligee ten (10) working days from service of notice on the
in satisfaction of the judgement. The excess, if said garnishee requiring such delivery, except the
any, shall be delivered to the judgement obligor lawful fees which shall be paid directly to the
while the lawful fees shall be retained by the clerk court.
of court for disposition as provided by law. In no
case shall the executing sheriff demand that any In the event there are two or more garnishees
payment by check be made payable to him. holding deposits or credits sufficient to satisfy the
judgement, the judgement obligor, if available,
(b) Satisfaction by levy. – If the judgement obligor shall have the right to indicate the garnishee or
cannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash, garnishees who shall be required to deliver the
certified bank check or other mode of payment amount due; otherwise, the choice shall be made by
acceptable to the judgement obligee, the officer the judgement obligee.
shall levy upon the properties of the judgement
obligor of every kind and nature whatsoever which The executing sheriff shall observe the same
may be disposed of for value and not otherwise procedure under paragraph (a) with respect to
exempt from execution giving the latter the option delivery of payment to the judgement obligee.
to immediately choose which property or part
thereof may be levied upon, sufficient to satisfy the Judgements for specific acts
judgement. If the judgement obligor does not
exercise the option, the officer shall first levy on Rule 39, Sec. 10. Execution of judgements for
the personal properties, if any, and then on the real specific acts. –
properties if the personal properties are insufficient
to answer for the judgement. (a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other
specific acts; vesting title. – If a judgement directs
The sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion of a party to execute a conveyance of land or personal
the personal or real property of the judgement property, or to deliver deeds or other documents, or
obligor which has been levied upon. to perform any other specific act in connection
therewith, and the party fails to comply within the
When there is more property of the judgement time specified, the court may direct the act to be
obligor than is sufficient to satisfy the judgement done at the cost of the disobedient party by some
and lawful fees, he must sell only so much of the other person appointed by the court and the act
personal or real property as is sufficient to satisfy when so done shall have like effect as if done by
the judgement and lawful fees. the party. If real or personal property is situated
within the Philippines, the court in lieu of directing
 106

conveyance thereof may by an order divest the title Rule 39, Sec. 47. Effect of judgements or final
of any party and vest it in others, which shall have orders. – The effect of a judgement or final order
the force and effect of a conveyance executed in rendered by a court of the Philippines, having
due form of law. jurisdiction to pronounce the judgement or final
order, may be as follows:
(b) Sale of real or personal property. – If the
judgement be for the sale of real or personal (a) In case of a judgement or final order against a
property, to sell such property, describing it, and specific thing, or in respect to the probate of a will,
apply the proceeds in conformity with the or the administration of the estate of a deceased
judgement. person, or in respect to the personal, political, or
legal condition or status of a particular person or
(c) Delivery or restitution of real property. – The his relationship to another, the judgement or final
officer shall demand of the person against whom order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the
the judgement for the delivery or restitution of real will or administration, or the condition, status or
property is rendered and all persons claiming rights relationship of the person; however, the probate of
under him to peaceably vacate the property within a will or granting of letters of administration shall
three (3) working days, and restore possession only be prima facie evidence of the death of the
thereof to the judgement obligee; otherwise, the testator or intestate.
officer shall oust all such persons therefrom with
the assistance, if necessary, of appropriate peace (b) In other cases, the judgement or final order is,
officers, and employing such means as may be with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to
reasonably necessary to retake possession, and any other matter that could have been raised in
place the judgement obligee in possession of such relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and
property. Any costs, damages, rents or profits their successors in interest by title subsequent to
awarded by the judgement shall be satisfied in the the commencement of the action or special
same manner as a judgement for money. proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under
the same title and in the same capacity; and
(d) Removal of improvements on property subject
of execution. – When the property subject of the (c) In any other litigation between the same
execution contains improvements constructed or parties or their successors in interest, that only is
planted by the judgement obligor or his agent, the deemed to have been adjudged in a former
officer shall not destroy, demolish or remove said judgement or final order which appears upon its
improvements except upon special order of the face to have been so adjudged, or which was
court, issued upon motion of the judgement oblige actually and necessarily included therein or
after due hearing and after the former has failed to necessary thereto.
remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by
the court. Foreign

(e) Delivery of personal property. – In judgements Rule 39, Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgements or
for the delivery of personal property, the officer final orders. – The effect of a judgement or final
shall take possession of the same and forthwith order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
deliver it to the party entitled thereto and satisfy jurisdiction to render the judgement or final order
any judgement for money as therein provided. is as follows:

Special Judgements (a) In case of a judgement or final order upon a

specific thing, the judgement or final order is
Rule 39, Sec. 11. Execution of special judgements. conclusive upon the title of the thing; and
– When a judgement requires the performance of
any act other than those mentioned in the two (b) In case of a judgement or final order against a
preceding sections, a certified copy of the person, the judgement or final order is presumptive
judgement shall be attached to the writ of execution evidence of a right as between the parties and their
and shall be served by the officer upon the party successors in interest by a subsequent title.
against whom the same is rendered, or upon any
other person required thereby, or by law, to obey In either case, the judgement or final order may be
the same, and such party or person may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want
punished for contempt if he disobeys such of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
judgement. mistake of law or fact.

Effect of Judgements and Final Orders NOTES ON JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDERS:

Local
 107

Rule 36 § 1. Rendition of judgment and final

orders. A judgment or final order determining the Before it becomes final and executory
merits of the case shall be:
(1) in writing Eternal Gardens Memorial v. IAC
(2) personally and directly prepared by the judge 165 SCRA 439
(3) stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the Facts: A Land Development Agreement was
law on which it is based. executed between Eternal & Mission. Mission
(4) Signed by him owned the property & Eternal was to develop it
into a memorial park. Thereafter, a Deed of
(5) And filed with the Clerk of Court. Absolute Sale w/ mortgage was executed. BUT
Maysilo claimed ownership over the land. Thus,
Rule 36 § 3. Judgment for or against one or more Eternal filed w/ the CFI a complaint for
of several parties. interpleader vs. Mission & Maysilo Estate. It
alleged that, in view of the conflicting claims & to
Judgment is rendered in favor of party A; protect its interests, defendants should be required
based on particular judgment is rendered only to interplead & litigate between themselves.
against Mission filed a Motion for placing on judicial
deposit the amounts due & unpaid fr. Eternal.
Motion was DENIED. The contract was declared
ineffective on the ground that the subject matter of
Final order - Court has nothing else to do. the sale was not existing.
Mission then filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Order granting a MTD - a Final Order Interpleader. TC ordered Eternal to comply w/ the
Only final orders and judgment are subjects of contract EXCEPT w/ regard to the interpleader of
appeal. Interlocutory orders are not subject of Maysilo Estate. Maysilo filed Motion for Recon
appeal. w/c was GRANTED by the TC. Hearings on the
merits were ordered BUT Mission filed for Writ of
Execution. This was DENIED. On appeal, CA
Rendition of judgment - upon the clerk receiving dismissed & this was affirmed by the SC. The
the copy order became final & executory.
Book of entry of judgment - date of the lapse of the In 1983, heirs of Singson spouses filed an action
fifteen (15) days; not on the date of entry. for quieting of title where Eternal & Mission were
defendants. This case is still pending.
Book of satisfaction of judgment
In the present case, Mission filed a petition for
certiorari w/ the CA for the setting aside of RTC
Entry of judgment - important for counting of orders regarding the setting of the hearing on the
petition for entry of judgment, among others. merits. CA dismissed BUT later on reversed.
First Sense - terminates action Eternal filed a Motion for Recon w/c was again
Second Sense of finality - final and executory. DENIED.
Held: Courts have the power to amend their
judgments, to make them conformable to the
Final judgment under new rules - that which can applicable jurisprudence PROVIDED said
already be executed judgments ARE NOT YET FINAL. In the CAB,
Nunc pro tunc - "then as now" Eternal admitted it still has to pay whoever will be
declared as owner. Therefore, there was no
plausible reason for petitioner’s objections to the
Final & executory - even if ground is substantial deposit order after having asked the ct. by
can no longer be modified, except: complaint for interpleader whose deposit is not
1. Clerical errors only required but is a contractual obligation.
2. Nunc pro tunc Finally, there is no res judicata here bec. there
3. Annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud was no judgment on the merits. Also, there was no
(Jep Management Co.) identity of issues. One case involved the propriety
of motion for recon w/o a hearing & the denial of
4. Void judgment (Paluwagan and Vda de Macoy) the motion for execution. The other case involved
a void judgment never prescribes. the propriety of a CA order that Eternal shall
deposit what was required of it pending the trial on
Difference between Motion for Re-open and MNT the merits.
(taken within the period for taking appeal):
To re-open trial - make use of ordinary prudence, After it becomes final and executory
rules on motions
MNT - extrinsic fraud - basis of the cause of action, David v. CA< 214 SCRA 644
performance of a contract Facts: SUPRA
Content of the action itself. Held: The filing of the petition for relief fr.
judgment w/ the TC was an unequivocal admission
on Afable’s part that his period to appeal fr. the
Extrinsic Fraud - one of the parties prevented the decision had already expired. When a final
other by fraudulent acts to be given his day in judgment has become executory, it thereby
court. becomes immutable & unalterable. The judgment
MAY NO LONGER BE MODIFIED in any
respect even if the modification is meant to correct
what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of
Amendment of judgment fact or law, & regardless of whether the
 108

modification is attempted to be made by the ct.

rendering it or by the highest ct. of the land. Motion for New Trial/Reconsideration
The only recognized EXCEPTIONS are:
1. Correction of clerical errors Grounds and nature, Rule 37, Sec. 1
2. Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc
3. Where the judgment is VOID Motion for new trial, Rule 37, Sec. 1, par
These are entries w/c cause NO INJURY to any 1
party. Distinguished from Motion to reopen trial

Agulto v. CA, 181 SCRA 30

Judgments nunc pro tunc Facts: Agulto was convicted of bigamy. He filed a
motion to reopen trial due to newly discovered
Cardoza v. Singson, 181 SCRA 45 evidence AFTER THE PARTIES HAD RESTED
BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT. His new evidence
was a photocopy of a marriage certificate of his
Annulment of judgment second wife to another man. (His theory was that if
his second wife had been previously married, he
Top Management Programs v. CA could not have validly married her, therefore, no
bigamy).
222 SCRA 763
Held: The MNT may be filed AFTER judgment
Facts: Gregorio promised to give a large tract of but w/in the period of perfecting an appeal for the
land to Trinidad & Fajardo if a case bet. Greggy & grounds stated in S1,R37 & S2R121.
Velasquez regarding the lot will be successful.
Trini & Fajards then filed an action to ENFORCE A Motion to Reopen Trial may be
the agreement & the TC ruled in their favor. Trini presented only after either or both parties have
& Fajards then filed a motion for the issuance of a formally offered & closed their evidence but
writ of execution w/c was granted by the TC. The BEFORE judgment. The reopening of a trial for
Register of Deeds, however, informed the ct. that the reception of new evidence is not a grant of a
the deed of conveyance cannot be issued in favor of new trial. There is no specific provision in the
Trini & Fajards bec. the land had already been sold rules w/c governs. It is only a recognized
to other persons. However, the TC directed the procedural recourse deriving validity fr. long
Register of Deeds to issue separate titles in favor of established rules. The governing rule is paramount
the two. Top Management then filed this petition to interests of justice resting entirely on the sound
annul the orders of the TC on the ground of judicial discretion of the trial ct.. Therefore, the
extrinsic fraud. It claimed the it has title to the grant/denial is not subject to certiorari under grave
same parcel of land w/c was being levied upon abuse of discretion.
since it bought the same fr. the heirs of Greggy. On the merits, the SC decided that the new
The CA dismissed the petition for annulment. evidence had defects & it failed to show that the
HELD: Extrinsic fraud is one the effect of w/c 2nd wife's marriage was still existing when she
PREVENTS a party fr. having a trial or real contest married Agulto.
or fr. presenting all of his case to the ct. or where it
operates upon matters pertaining NOT TO THE Grounds
JUDGMENT ITSELF but of the MANNER in w/c
it was procured so that there is not a fair
submission of the controversy. Velasco v. Ortiz, 184 SCRA 303
In other words, EXTRINSIC FRAUD refers to Facts: The ward of the spouses Velasco was able
any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the to w/draw money of the dead husband of P Velasco
litigation w/c is committed OUTSIDE OF THE (the latter was diagnosed as disabled). The ward
TRIAL of the case, whereby the defeated party has argued that she was instructed by the decedent to
been PREVENTED fr. exhibiting FULLY his side w/draw money. The TC ruled in favor of Velasco.
of the case, by fraud, deception or deception Copy of the decision was given to the 1st counsel
practiced upon him by his opponent. of the ward. The NEW counsel filed an MNT
based on newly discovered evidence (a certification
The relief is granted on the theory that by reason fr. a doctor that the decedent can still properly
of the extrinsic fraud preventing a party fr. fully communicate)
trying his case, there has never been a real contest
before the ct. on the subject matter of the action. Held: For Velasco. There is no dispute that at
the time the MNT was filed, the reglementary
The allegations that the judge had no period to appeal had lapsed, & the decision had
jurisdiction to order the sheriff to levy on execution become final & executory. A judgment w/c has
since the judge had full knowledge that Top become final & executory can no longer be altered
Management & not Greggy who owned the land, & modified, mush less set aside by the ct. w/c
that the writ vs. the prop. was not justified bec. Top rendered it since such ct. has already lost
Management was not a party to the case--These jurisdiction over the case. Thereafter, the power &
DO NOT CONSTITUTE FRAUD. prerogative to order suspension of the rules of
Top Management has not pointed to any act w/c procedure is reposed, not in the ct. w/c had
prevented it form fully ventilating its case. If ever rendered such decision but rather in an appellate ct.
there was any failure in the presentation of its case, & ultimately in the SC, & then only upon a
it was caused by its own inaction. showing that otherwise the imperious demands of
substantial justice will be thwarted.
Paluwagan ng Bayan v. King, 172 SCRA 60 Where the reglementary period to appeal
had expired, the remedy is an MNT. If it has
become final & executory, one can file a petition
Vda. De Macoy v. CA, 206 SCRA 244 for relief under R 38 or a petition for annulment of
judgment.
 109

An MNT upon the ground of newly See also Rule 41, Sec. 3,
discovered evidence is properly granted where par. 2; Rule 40, Sec. 2, par. 2
there is concurrence of the following requisites:
1. the evidence had been discovered after Habaluyas v. Japson, 142 SCRA 208
trial;
This a resolution on a Motion for Reconsideration
2. the evidence could not have been on the SC's 2nd division decision.
discovered & produced during trial even w/
exercise of reasonable diligence Held: In S 39 of BP 129, the period of appeal in
the RTC was reduced fr. 30 to 15 days for appeals
3. the evidence is material & not merely fr. final orders, resolution, awards, judgment or
corroborative, cumulative or impeaching. decision. But only 48 hours for habeas corpus
What is essential is not so much the time cases.
when the evidence offered first sprang into Only notice of appeal is required. Record
existence not the time when it first came to the is not required except in (a) appeals in spl. proc.;
knowledge of the party now submitting it; what is (2) where multiple appeals are allowed. In these
essential is, rather, that the offering party had cases, the period is 30 days. According to the
exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate Interim Rules, no appeal bond in necessary for
such evidence before or during trial but had not appeal. Its S 4 disallows a second MFR of a final
nonetheless failed to secure ( it must have been order or judgment.
searched for but not found during trial. )
The purpose of such is to avoid procedural
In the CAB, the new evidence was already delays. But the Rules does not expressly prohibit a
presented as evidence in a criminal case vs. the motion for extension of time to file a MFR of a
ward for falsification. Therefore, she had already final order or judgment.
come across that evidence before.
The interest of justice would be better
Moreover, it is in the nature of an served if the ruling in the original decision
impeaching evidence for it seeks merely to weaken (denying extension) were applied prospectively fr.
or controvert previous evidence; it is not material the time herein stated. It would be unfair to
or corroborative. deprive parties of their right to appeal simply bec.
they availed themselves of a procedure w/c was not
Tumang v. CA 172 SCRA 332 expressly prohibited or allowed by the law or
Facts: Tumang filed for an annulment of a deed of Rules.
sale bec. there was no consideration. The trial ct. On the other hand, an MNT or MFR is not
rule for her. The defendant filed an MFR & an a prerequisite to an appeal, a petition for review or
MNT based on the ground that the decision was a petition for review on certiorari, & since the
based on insufficiency of evidence & that it was purpose is to expedite the final disposition of cases,
contrary to law. As evidence, D presented receipts a strict but prospective application of said ruling is
proving consideration. Tumang assails the decision in order
of the CA w/c granted the motion of D by saying From June 30, 1986, the rule shall be
that it was FORGOTTEN EVIDENCE (it had strictly enforced that no motion for extension of
existed at trial & w/c could have been discovered time to file an MNT or MFR, may be filed w/ the
by D if due diligence was exercised. MeTC, MTC, RTC, & IAC. Such a motion may be
Held: NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE: filed only in cases pending w/ the SC as the ct. of
need not be newly created evidence. May & does last resort, w/c may in its sound discretion either
commonly refer to evidence already in existence grant or deny the extension requested.
prior or during the trial but w/c could not have been In appeals in spl. proc. under R 109 & in
secured & presented during the trial despite other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed, a
reasonable diligence. motion for extension of time to file the record on
FORGOTTEN EVIDENCE: evidence already in appeal may be filed w/in the reglementary period
existence or available before or during the trial, w/c of 30 days. If the ct. denies the motion for
was known to & obtainable by the party offering it extension, the appeal must be taken w/in the
w/c could have been presented seasonably were it original period since such a motion does not
not for the oversight or forgetfulness of such party suspend the period for appeal.
or his counsel. The TC may grant said motion after the
In the case at bar, the receipts were found expiration of the period for appeal provided it was
during a gen. cleaning, w/c goes to show that the it filed w/in the original period.
could hardly have been located w/ the exercise of
reasonable/average diligence. Not required for appeal
The receipts are MATERIAL bec. they
are of such import that a reasonably prudent man
would have searched for them. There would be a Director of Lands v. Aquino, 192 SCRA 296
great benefit to D if he presents it in trial, therefore, Facts: Abra Industrial applied for registration of a
there is no reason why did not try to locate it. piece of land w/c was granted. The Director
opposed saying that the land was mineral &
unalienable. Within one year fr. the issuance of the
Motion for reconsideration, Rule 37, Sec. registration decree, Director filed a petition for
1, par. 2 review the decrees of registration.
Held: An MNT or MFR is not a pre-requisite to an
Periods. Rule 37, Sec. 1 appeal for review or petition for review on
certiorari. The reglementary period for filing a
petition for review on certiorari in the instant case
For filing was 30 days fr. notice of order or judgment subject
Effect of Motion for Extension of of review w/c period, parenthetically, is now 15
Time to File days pursuant to S 39 of BP129. The Director
 110

having been granted a total of 60 days w/in w/c to Remedies, Rule 37, Sec. 9; Rule
file the petition, the same was timely filed. 41, Sec. 1 (a)

Second Motion for New Trial,

Rule 37, Sec. 5, par. 1 NOTES ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL &
Second Motion for MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION:
Reconsideration, Rule 37, Sec. 5, par. 2
For Resolution, Rule 37, Sec. 4 Judgment is vacated.
On appeal - accept evidence as it is; attach the
Contents of Motion for New Trial, Rule 37, Sec. 2 evidence as it is.
New trial is not de novo, only those affected
In general, Rule 37, Sec. 2; see also Rule Denial of MNT - appeal the judgment within the
15 remaining time to file an appeal even if less than
Motion for New Trial, Rule 37, Sec. 2, five (5) days.
par. 2 MNT- not supported by evidence, not supported by
Motion for Reconsideration, Rule 37, Sec. law, damages are excessive.
2, par. 3 There can be a second MNT only when ________
Pro forma motion and its effects, Rule 37, Order granting MNT - first judgment is vacated for
Sec. 2, par. 4 purposes of entering new evidence.
When judgment may be vacated in part - in case of
Pojas v. Gozo-Dadole, 192 SCRA 575 separate and several judgments.
Facts: The plaintiff filed a complaint for recovery
of possession. The TC ruled for the plaintiff &
ordered the defendant to vacate. The defendant
filed an MFR BUT IT FAILED TO MENTION Motion to Re-open - governed by rules on Motions.
THE DAY THE MOTION IS TO BE RESOLVED
(no notice of hearing). Later, the defendant filed a Options after judgment: but not yet final &
notice of appeal. executory:
Held: Notice of appeal denied. The MFR was a 1. Appeal
mere scrap of paper & therefore, pro forma. It did 2. Motion for new trial FAME/good &
not contain the day when the motion is to be heard,
violating S5 R15. As such it does not suspend the substantial grounds for saying so
running of the period of appeal. The notice of Discovery after J is ren
appeal filed out of time. Newly discovered evidence Not discovered
with reasonable evidence
Action upon Motion for New Trial Not merely colorative

Options in general, Rule 37, Sec. 3 3. Motion for reconsideration

Granting, Rule 37, Sec. 6 (a) evidence
Effect in general, Rule 37, Sec. 5 (b) law
(c) award of damages is excessive
Fernan v. CA, 142 SCRA 208
Facts: Fernan was suspected of having stolen a After final & executory:
wallet. The TC ruled against the plaintiff store & 1. Nunc pro tunc
awarded damages to Fernan. The CA affirmed the
TC but upon the MFR of the plaintiff, the TC was 2. Petition for relief from judgment
reversed. 3. Annulment of judgment
Held. The appeal of the store raises no question of 4. Remedies during execution
law but of fact Review of facts is not a function of
the CA. An exception to this rule is when Final judgment - 16th day after notice
manifestly correct findings has been unwarrantedly No prescriptive period in actions to nullify
rejected or reversed. In the CAB, the CA reversed
the TC. These instances of conflict of findings Estoppel - by act
between the CA & TC is a basis of recourse to the Laches - by negligence
SC. Petition for relief from judgment- equitable
There must be a showing on the face of remedy; only very highly discretionary on the part
the record of gross or extraordinary misperception of the court.
or manifest bias.
In the CAB, there was no substantial
reason given by Fernan refuting the assessment of Action to annul - separate action. Res judicata may
the CA w/c ruled that her testimony had be raised.
contradictions & inconsistencies. Any kind of order for Petition for relief, if granted,
not appealable.
Partial New Trials, Rule 37, Sec. 6, 7 If not granted, not
Denying appealable - only special civil actions
 111

equitable character & is allowed only in

Relief from Judgments, Orders or other exceptional cases where there is no other available
Proceedings or adequate remedy. Meralco could have
proceeded by appeal to vacate or modify the
default judgment. Relief will not be granted when
the loss of remedy at law was due to his own
Grounds and nature, Rule 38, Secs. 1, 2 negligence or a mistaken mode of procedure,
Grounds otherwise the petition for relief will be tantamount
to the right of appeal already. Further, when other
lawyers could have appeared & moved for
Garcia v. CA, 202 SCRA 228 postponement, sickness of counsel is not excusable.
Facts: Eduardo Garcia was able to secure a
judgment fr. the trial ct. issuing to him the Requires final judgment or loss of appeal
Certificate of Title to a land actually owned by the
spouses Garcia. He did this by misinforming the
ct. of the spouses’ address so that the notices wont Villa Rey Transit v. Far East Motor Co., 81
reach them thereby depriving them of the SCRA 298
opportunity to participate in the trial. Garcia Facts: Villa Rey failed to answer w/in the
further made further recovery of the land difficult reglementary period even after denial of its motion
by conveying the land to another. The couple filed to extend time to answer. Hence, & order of default
a petition for relief (PFR) fr. said judgment but was rendered. Thereafter it filed a MTQ Service of
failed to categorically allege extrinsic fraud in Summons, Motion to Lift Order of Default & To
their affidavit of merit. The PFR was dismissed by Set Aside Judgment. This was denied. The 30-day
CA saying that extrinsic fraud should be expressly appeal period expired w/o any appeal. Villa Rey
alleged in the affidavit of merit for the petition to contends the motion it filed should be considered
lie. The SC said that since in case at bar, the as Petition for Relief.
spouses were able to allege facts leading to
extrinsic fraud, express allegation of such is not Held: This is untenable. A petition for relief
necessary. presupposes a final & unappealable judgment. In
this case, judgment has not yet become final &
Held: Where fraud is the ground, the fraud must unappealable at the time of the filing of the motion.
be extrinsic or collateral & the facts upon w/c the
extrinsic fraud is based must have not been
controverted or resolved in the case where the David v CA, 214 SCRA 644
judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. For Facts: An RTC decision was affirmed by CA w/
this purpose, fraud is regarded as extrinsic or slight modification to reflect the date for the
collateral where it has prevented a party fr. having computation of the interest to be awarded. This
a trial or fr. presenting all of his case to the ct.. was done after denying the petitioner’s relief fr.
Intrinsic fraud takes the form of acts of the party in judgment.
a litigation during the trial, such as the use of Held: CA. In sustaining the RTC decision to deny
forged instruments of perjured testimony w/c did the petition for relief fr. judgment the respondent
not affect the presentation of the case but did Court cannot at the same time modify the decision
prevent a fair & just determination of the case. sought to be overturned by such a petition. The
filing of the petition for relief fr. judgment w/ the
Conde v. IAC, 144 SCRA 144 trial ct. was an unequivocal admission on the
Facts: Petitioners alleged fraud. Gutierrez was private respondent’s that his period to appeal fr. the
able to make it appear that he was the son of decision had already expired. A petition for relief
Esteban & Fermina Gutierrez & as a necessary fr. judgment under Rule 38 presupposes a final
consequence of such filiation, was the absolute judgment or loss of the right to appeal. The
owner by succession of the prop. in Q. affirmance of the CA of the denial of the petition is
a confirmation of the existence of a final &
Held: Petition should be dismissed for lack of executory judgment. CA can neither amend nor
merit bec. the fraud allegedly perpetuated by G is modify it. When a final judgment becomes
only intrinsic in nature & not extrinsic. Fraud is executory it becomes immutable & unalterable,
regarded as extrinsic or collateral where it has even if modification is meant to correct an
prevented a party fr. having a trial or fr. presenting erroneous conclusion of fact or law. Only
all of his case to the ct.. In the case at bar, the corrections of clerical errors or the making of so-
fraud was in the nature of documents allegedly called NUNC PRO TUNC entries & other
manufactured by G to make it appear he was the judgment w/c cause no prejudice to any party are
rightful heir of the disputed property. Hence the the exceptions to this rule, otherwise any other
fraud is intrinsic in nature. modifications of a final & executory judgment is
VOID.
Meralco v. CA, 187 SCRA 200
Facts: Meralco, after failing to appear at a pre-trial
conference, was declared in default. Thereafter, Time for Filing, Rule 38, Sec. 3
Meralco made the following steps: 1) Filed a MFR
to Lift Order of Default & to Vacate Judgment by Strictly followed
Default - bec. of counsel’s influenza. Denied. 2)
Petition for Relief fr. Judgment . Dismissed. 3) First Integrated Bonding v. Hernando, 199
Petition for Certiorari. Propriety of this last action SCRA 796
is the issue in this case.
Facts: FIB was impleaded as the insurance agency
Held: Certiorari is not proper. Such remedy had of defendant who figured in an accident killing one
already been lost bec. of Meralco’s neglect or error person. FIB failed to answer so it was declared in
in the choice of remedies. Certiorari shall not lie to default. FIB took no positive step to vacate the
shield Meralco fr. the adverse consequences of order of default. Instead it chose to file a petition
such neglect or error. Relief under Rule 38 is of
 112

for relief fr. judgment almost five months fr. its forcible entry case for the Nocoms. The Dulos’
receipt of copy of the amended decision. filed a motion for reconsideration of said judgment
Held: The petition for relief fr. judgment was w/c was denied & the aggrieved spouses went to
filed out of time. The rules require that such the Supreme Court via special civil action for
petition should be filed w/in 60 days after receipt of certiorari, w/c the Supreme Court dismissed.
judgment & not more than six months after entry of Nocoms filed for a writ of demolition w/c was
judgment. Period required by R 38 is non- countered by petitioner spouses by filing for a
extendible & never interrupted. It is not subject to petition for certiorari, prohibition & preliminary
any cond. or contingency, bec. it is itself devised to injunction, w/c was granted by the CA. Hence, this
meet a condition or contingency. The remedy appeal.
under the Rule 38 was an act of grace, designed to Held: A motion for reconsideration of a judgment
give the party one last chance. Being in the of default may be considered a petition for relief fr.
position of one who begs, such party’s privilege is judgment under R38 S2 only if it is a)verified, b)
not to impose conditions, haggle, or dilly-dally, but filed w/in 60 days fr. time petitioner learns of the
to grab what is offered him. decision but not more than 6 months fr. entry of
judgment & c) if in case of failure to file an answer
the motion must be accompanied by an affidavit of
Contents merit. It may be considered as a motion for new
Affidavit of Merit, Rule 38, Sec. 3 trial under R27 S2 only if it is accompanied by an
affidavit of merit.
Garcia v. CA, 202 SCRA 228
Facts: Eduardo Garcia was able to secure a
judgment fr. the trial ct. issuing to him the Action of Court before Answer
Certificate of Title to a land actually owned by the Power to Deny, Rule 37, Sec. 4
spouses Garcia. He did this by misinforming the
ct. of the spouses’ address so that the notices wont Remedies after denial, see Rule
reach them thereby depriving them of the 41, Sec. 1(b)
opportunity to participate in the trial. Garcia
further made further recovery of the land difficult Service Specialists v. Sheriff of Manila, 145
by conveying the land to another. The couple filed
a petition for relief fr. said judgment but failed to SCRA 139
categorically allege extrinsic fraud in their affidavit Facts: Service Specialists & counsel failed to
of merit. The PFR was dismissed by CA saying appear at a pre-trial & was declared in default.
that extrinsic fraud should be expressly alleged in Service filed a petition for relief fr. judgment. The
the affidavit of merit for the petition to lie. The SC lower ct. dismissed the petition for relief for lack of
said that since in case at bar, the spouses were able jurisdiction to hear & determine the same. Service
to allege facts leading to extrinsic fraud, express filed a notice of appeal to the IAC.
allegation of such is not necessary. Held: Service filed its petition for relief also w/
Held: CA denied PFR for want of express the RTC Manila but not in the same case but in
allegation of extrinsic fraud. SC reversed saying another case. This is erroneous. A judgment or
that since Rule 38 Sec 3 (FAME as ground in order denying relief under Rule 38 is final & not
affidavit of merit for PFR) & that in case at bar, appealable, unlike an order granting such relief w/c
petitioners were able to show extrinsic fraud, is interlocutory. However, in such an appeal, the
affidavit is not necessary. HELD: The affidavit of appellate ct. is only to determine the existence of
merit serves as a jurisdictional basis for a ct. to any of the grounds relied upon (fraud, accident,
entertain a petition for relief. But it admits of mistake or excusable negligence) & the merit of the
exceptions, i.e. Where the attachment of the petitioner’s cause of action or defense, as the case
affidavit of merit in the petition for relief is may be. Moreover, Service merely filed a notice of
unnecessary. The affidavit of merit is essential appeal to the IAC fr. the order of the lower ct. w/c
bec. a new trial would be a waste of court’s time if dismissed his petition for relief. The appeal should
the complaint turned out to be groundless. Thus, have been made to this Court through a petition for
where there was no jurisdiction over the defendant review on certiorari.
on the subject matter of the action, where a
judgment was taken by default before defendant’s
time to answer had expired, where it was Prelimnary Injunction pending
entertained by mistake, or was obtained by fraud & proceedings, Rule 38, Sec. 5
other similar cases, as when the applicant had no Order to file an answer, Rule 38, Sec. 4
notice of the trial, we ruled that an affidavit is not
necessary. Procedure
Order to file an answer, Rule 38, Sec. 4
When motion for reconsideration Availability of preliminary injunction,
considered as petition for relief Rule 38, Sec. 5
Proceedings after answer is filed, Rule 38,
Dulos v. CA, supra Sec. 6
Facts: Nocom spouses filed forcible entry case v Where denial of appeal is set aside, Rule
Dulos spouses in the MTC Las Piñas. Pre-trial was
set but the Nocoms still filed another case for 38, Sec. 7
annulment & a writ of preliminary injunction in
Makati. Dulos’ motion for suspension on forcible Action of court after giving due course
entry case was dismissed there being no prejudicial Granting of petition for relief, Rule 38,
question. Pre-trial saw that the Dulos spouses were
in default despite the presence of a purported Sec. 7
representative (Rectra) who held a special power of Remedies
attorney executed by said spouses. Judgment on
 113

David v. CA, 214 SCRA 644 upon whether it be fraud, accident, mistake or
Facts: An RTC decision was affirmed by CA w/ excusable negligence, but also & primarily, the
slight modification to reflect the date of computing merit of the petitioner’s cause of action or the
interest. This was done after denying the defense, as the case may be. If the appellate ct.
petitioner’s relief fr. judgment. finds that one of the grounds exist & that the
petitioner has a good cause of action or importance,
Held: The remedy under R41 w/c provides that a it will reverse the denial or dismissal, set aside the
judgment denying relief under R38 is subject to judgment in the main case & remand the case to the
appeal, & in the course thereof, a party may also lower ct. for a new trial in accordance w/ Sec 7
assail the judgment on the merits, upon the ground Rule 38. Finally, a notice of appeal fr. the order of
that it is not supported by the evidence or it is the lower ct. w/c dismissed his petition for relief
contrary to law. This provision, however, can’t be fr. judgment “for lack of jurisdiction to hear &
construed as allowing the review of the decision on determine the same” should have been made to the
the specific ground therein indicated, if the denial SC through a petition for review on certiorari & not
of the petition for relief by the TC is sustained by to the IAC.
the Appellate Court. It may only be done if the
appellate ct. overturns such denial. The CA, after
sustaining the trial court’s denial of the petition for Remedies after petition for relief expires
relief should have dismissed the appeal & to
declare the lower court’s decision as firm, final & Ramirez v. CA, 187 SCRA 153
executory.
Facts: Ramirez, as a plaintiff in a suit over an
airstrip failed to do the following: furnish a copy
Cheesman v. IAC, 193 SCRA 93 of the notice of hearing to other party; appear at the
Facts: Thomas Cheesman attempted to annul the pre-trial; file appeal instead of seeking relief; &
sale by his Filipino wife of a residential lot & seasonably file a motion for reconsideration. After
building to Padilla. The sale was declared void ab the judgment in (favor of Ramirez’s opponent) had
initio. However, judgment was set aside as regards become final & executory. Ramirez filed a petition
Padilla on a petition for relief filed by her ground for relief fr. judgment even if the period for filing
on fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence the same had expired.
w/c had seriously impaired her right to present her Held: There is no means whereby the defeated
case adequately. The petition for relief fr. party may procure a final & executory judgment to
judgment was given due course & a new judge be set aside w/ a view to the removal of the
presided over the case. Padilla filed a motion for litigation beyond the period for seeking relief, fr. a
summary judgment w/c was granted. The final order of judgment under Rule 38 unless A)
judgment declared sale as valid. Cheesman judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or for lack
questions the propriety of such judgment. of due process of law or B) it has been fraud. (In
Held: An order of the CFI granting a petition for other words, period for filing of PFR is mandatory
relief under Rule 38 is interlocutory & is not but admits of exceptions – lack of J & fraud.)
appealable. Once the petition for relief is granted
& the judgment subject thereof set aside, & further Reopening not allowed
proceedings are thereafter had, the ct. in its
judgment on the merits may properly grant the
relief sought in the petitioner’s basic pleadings, Alvendia v. IAC, 181 SCRA 252
although different fr. that stated in his petition for
relief. Therefore, since both CFI & IAC found that Facts: Alvendia defaulted on his obligation to pay
the facts adequately proved fraud, mistake or Bonamy. Alvendia did not do anything fr. the filing
excusable negligence by w/c Padilla’s rights have of the complaint against him up to the time that the
been substantially impaired, the sale was declared judgment became final & executory. Execution has
valid. been ordered & his property has been levied. He
moved for extension of time to file petition for
Denying petition for relief, Rule 41, Sec. 1 (b) review.
Held: It is axiomatic that there is no justification in
Service Specialists v. Sheriff of Manila, supra law & in fact for the reopening of a case w/c has
Facts: Petitioner filed an action for replevin & long become final & w/c in fact has been executed.
damages against private respondents. A pre-trial Time & again this ct. has said that the doctrine of
conference was set but private respondent & finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental
counsel failed to appear w/c resulted in the
issuance of an order & judgment of default against considerations of public policy & sound practice
respondents. Private respondent then moved for that at the risk of occasional error, the judgments of
relief fr. judgment & order of default. This motion cts. must become final at some definite date fixed
was opposed by a motion to dismiss filed by by law – Alvendia cannot invoke equity to reopen
petitioner. The Lower ct. dismissed the petition for
relief on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. case since they have been given opportunity but
Respondent filed a notice of appeal but a writ of failed.
execution was nevertheless filed. This case stems
fr. the deputy sheriff’s refusal to proceed w/ the
auction of respondent’s properties.
Held: A judgment or order denying relief under
Rule 38 is final & appealable, unlike an order
granting such relief w/c is interlocutory. However,
in the appeal the ct. may not reverse or modify the
judgment on the merits. The judgment fr. w/c
relief is sought is already final & executory. This
remedy only enables the appellate ct. to determine
not only the existence of any of the grounds relied