CIVIL PROCEDURE

PART I
1. General Principles
1.1 Concept of Remedial Law
Remedial Law is that branch of law which prescribes the methods of enforcing rights
and obligations created by substantive law in case of invasion of these rights.
Nature of Remedial Law:
Since they (remedial law) are promulgated by authority of law, they have the force and
effect of law if not in conflict with substantive law (Ateneo v. De La Rosa, G.R. No. L-286, March
28, 1946)
1.2 Substantive Law vis a vis Remedial Law
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, or
which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; that part of the law
which courts are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or remedial law, which
prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their invasion. (Bustos v.
Lucero, G.R. No. L-2086, March 8, 1949 Motion for Reconsideration Resolution)
Distinction between Remedy and Substantive right:
The distinction between "remedy" and "substantive right" is incapable of exact
definition. The difference is somewhat a question of degree. It is difficult to draw a line in any
particular case beyond which legislative power over remedy and procedure can pass without
touching upon the substantive rights of parties affected, as it is impossible to fix that boundary
by general condition. This being so, it is inevitable that the Supreme Court in making rules
should step on substantive rights, and the Constitution must be presumed to tolerate if not to
expect such incursion as does not affect the accused in a harsh and arbitrary manner or deprive
him of a defense, but operates only in a limited and unsubstantial manner to his disadvantage.
For the Court's power is not merely to compile, revise or codify the rules of procedure existing
at the time of the Constitution's approval. This power is "to promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts," which is a power to adopt a general, complete
and comprehensive system of procedure, adding new and different rules without regard to
their source and discarding old ones. (Bustos v. Lucero, supra)
1.2.1 Meaning of Procedural Laws
According to De los Santos v. Vda. de Mangubat: Procedural law refers to the adjective
law which prescribes rules and forms of procedure in order that courts may be able to
administer justice. Procedural laws do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive
law, or the general rule against the retroactive operation of statues they may be given
retroactive effect on actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and this
will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, insomuch as
there are no vested rights in rules of procedure. (Priscilla Alma Jose, Vs. Ramon C. Javellana, Et
Al., G.R. No. 158239, January 25, 2012)

1.2.2 Procedural rules applicable to actions pending at the time of promulgation

Statutes and rules regulating the procedure of courts are considered applicable to
actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. Procedural laws and rules are
retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The effect of procedural statutes and rules on the
rights of a litigant may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. This
retroactive application does not violate any right of a person adversely affected. Neither is it
constitutionally objectionable. The reason is that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach
to or arise from procedural laws and rules. It has been held that "a person has no vested right in
any particular remedy, and a litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his case,
whether civil or criminal, of any other than the existing rules of procedure." More so when, as
in this case, petitioner admits that it was not able to pay the docket fees on time. Clearly, there
were no substantive rights to speak of when the RTC dismissed the Notice of Appeal. Panay
Railways Inc., Vs. Heva Management And Development Corporation, Pamplona Agro-Industrial
Corporation, And Spouses Candelaria Dayot And Edmundo Dayot, G. R. No. 154061, January 25,
2012)
1.2.3 Liberal construction or suspension of procedural rules
It should be emphasized that the resort to a liberal application, or suspension of the
application of procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the well-settled principle that
rules must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice. (Building Care
Corporation/Leopard Security & Investigation Agency And/Or Ruperto Protacio, Vs. Myrna
Macaraeg, G.R. No. 19835710 December 2012)
In Rural Bankers Association of the Philippines v. Tanghal-Salvaa, this Court held:
Obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if the parties are to expect fair
results therefrom, and utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on
the policy of liberal construction. Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the
adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules.
And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this
was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The
liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and
under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of
technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the
prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. (Mca-Mbf
Countdown Cards Philippines Inc., Amable R. Guiluz V, Amable C. Aguiluz Ix, Cielo C. Aguiluz,
Alberto L. Buenviaje, Vicente Acsay And Mca Holdings And Management Corporation, Vs. Mbf
Card International Limited And Mbf Discount Card Limited, G.R. No. 173586, March 14, 2012)
When liberal construction of the rules proper?
A liberal construction of the procedural rules is proper where the lapse in the literal
observance of a rule of procedure has not prejudiced the adverse party and has not deprived
the court of its authority. Indeed, Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the Rules
should be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Rules of procedure are tools designed
to facilitate the attainment of justice, and courts must avoid their strict and rigid application
which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial
justice. (Douglas F. Anama Vs. Philippine Savings Bank, G.R. No. 187021, January 25, 2012)

The liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there may be
some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not
subvert the essence of the proceeding and it at least connotes a reasonable attempt at
compliance with the rules. Besides, fundamental is the precept that rules of procedure are
meant not to thwart but to facilitate the attainment of justice; hence, their rigid application
may, for deserving reasons, be subordinated by the need for an apt dispensation of substantial
justice in the normal course. They ought to be relaxed when there is subsequent or even
substantial compliance, consistent with the policy of liberality espoused by Rule 1, Section 6.
Not being inflexible, the rule on verification allows for such liberality. (Felix Martos, Jimmy
Eclana, Rodel Pilones, et al. Vs. New San Jose Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 192650. October 24, 2012)
1.2.3.1 When liberal construction is not applicable?
The Court is aware of the exceptional cases where technicalities were liberally
construed. However, in these cases, outright dismissal is rendered unjust by the presence of a
satisfactory and persuasive explanation. The parties therein who prayed for liberal
interpretation were able to hurdle that heavy burden of proving that they deserve an
exceptional treatment. It was never the Courts intent "to forge a bastion for erring litigants to
violate the rules with impunity."
This Court will not condone a cavalier attitude towards procedural rules. It is the duty of
every member of the bar to comply with these rules. They are not at liberty to seek exceptions
should they fail to observe these rules and rationalize their omission by harking on liberal
construction. (Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual, Vs. Spouses Marilyn Lim And George Lim And
The Registry Of Deeds Of Valenzuela City, G.R. No. 191837, September 19, 2012)
1.3 Rule-Making Power of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court shall have the following power Promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasijudicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. (Article VIII,
Section 5(5), 1987 Phil. Constitution)
1.3.1 Limitations of Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court
1. The rules provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases;
2. The rules shall be uniform (not different or varying) for all courts of the same grade;
3. The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. (Article VIII,
Section 5(5), 1987 Phil. Constitution)
1.3.2 Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules
The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except
a case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice
requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules

is discretionary upon the court (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant Pagbilao

Corporation, G.R. No. 159593. October 12, 2006).
In fact, this Court has held that even if there was complete non-compliance with the rule
on certification against forum shopping, the Court may still proceed to decide the case on the
merits, pursuant to its inherent power to suspend its own rules on grounds, as stated above,
of substantial justice and apparent merit of the case. (SM Land, Inc. (Formerly Shoemart, Inc.)
and Watsons Personal Care Store, Phils., Inc. Vs. City of Manila, Liberty Toledo, in her official
capacity as the City Treasurer of Manila, et al. G.R. No. 197151. October 22, 2012)
1.3.3. Power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules carries with it the power to overturn
judicial precedents:
a) The constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and
procedure to amend or repeal the same necessarily carries with it the power to overturn
judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of
Court.(Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago, G.R No. 170354, June 30, 2006).
1.3.4. Power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules are means for the court to exercise
jurisdiction:
The Rules of Court does not define jurisdictional boundaries of the courts. In
promulgating the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court is circumscribed by the zone properly
denominated as the promulgation of rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all
courts; consequently, the Rules of Court can only determine the means, ways or manner in
which said jurisdiction, as fixed by the Constitution and acts of Congress, shall be exercised.
(Minerva A. Gomez-Castillo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 187231, June 22, 2011)
1.3.5. Rule on the Writ of Amparo an exercise of Rule-making Power
The writ of amparo was promulgated by the Court pursuant to its rulemaking powers in
response to the alarming rise in the number of cases of enforced disappearances and
extrajudicial killings. (In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor
of Lilibeth Ladaga Vs. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of the Philippine
Army's 10th Infantry Division, et al./In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
Amparo in Favor of Angela A. Librado-Trinidad Vs. Major General Reynaldo Mapagu,
Commanding General of the Philippine Army's 10th Infantry Division, et al.In the Matter fo the
Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in Favor of Carlos Isagani T. Zarate Vs. Major
General Reynaldo Mapagu, Commanding General of the Philippine Army's 10th Infantry
Division, et al., G.R. No. 189689/G.R. No. 189690/G.R. No. 189691. November 13, 2012)
1.3.6 Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules
The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except
a case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice
requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules
is discretionary upon the court (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Migrant Pagbilao
Corporation, G.R. No. 159593. October 12, 2006).
1.3.7. Primary objective of the suspension of the rules

In the interest of just and expeditious proceedings, the Supreme Court may suspend the
application of the Rules of Court and except a case from its operation because the Rules were
precisely adopted with the primary objective of enhancing fair trial and expeditious justice
(Republic v. CA, et al., L-31303-04, May 31, 1978).
1.4 Nature of Philippine Courts
1.4.1 What is a Court?
An organ of government belonging to the judicial department the function of which is
the application of the laws to controversies brought before it as well as the public
administration of justice (Blacks, 5th Edition, 356).
A court is called upon and authorized to administer justice. Sometimes it refers to the
place where justice is administered (20 Am Jur 2d, Courts, 1, 1965; 21 C.J.S., Courts, 1).
It is a board or tribunal which decides a litigation or contest (Hidalgo v. Manglapus, 64
O.G. 3189)
1.4.2. Court distinguished as from Judge
1. A court is a tribunal officially assembled under authority of law; a judge is simply an
officer of such tribunal (Wagen Horst v. Philadelphia Insurance Company 358pa. 55, 55 82d
762).
2. A court is an organ of the government with a personality separate and distinct from
the person or judge who sits on it.
3. A court is an office while a judge is a public officer.
4. .The circumstances of the court are not affected by the circumstance that would
affect the judge. The continuity of a court and the efficacy of its proceeding are not affected by
the death, resignation, or cessation from the service of the judge presiding over it. In other
words the judge may resign, become incapacitated, or be disqualified to hold office but the
court remains.
The death of the judge does not mean the death of the court (Riano, Civil Procedure;
restatement for the bar 2009, p.45).
1.4.3 Classification of Philippine Courts
Constitutional Court - Those which owe their creation and existence to the Constitution. Its
existence as well as the deprivation of its jurisdiction and powers cannot be made a subject of
legislation. Example: The Supreme Court (Article VIII, Section 1(1), 1987 Phil. Constitution)
Note: Supreme Court is the only Constitutional Court in the Philippines. All others are
Statutory Courts.
Statutory Courts A court created by law whose jurisdiction is exclusively determined by
legislation. It may be abolished by Congress by simply repealing the law which created them.
Example: Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan/Municipal Courts (created by BP

129), The Court of Tax Appeals (created by RA 1125) Family Courts, Shariah District Courts,
Shariah Cicuit Courts (P.D. 1083)
1.4.4. Nature of Philippine Courts: Law and Equity
a. Court of law decides a case according to the promulgated law
b. Court of Equity decides a case according to the common precepts of what is right
and just without inquiring into the terms of the statutes.
Philippines courts, either original or appellate, exercise both the legal and equitable
jurisdictions (U.S. v. Tamparong, G.R. No. 9527, August 23, 1915).
1.4.5. What is jurisdiction?
Refers to the power and authority of the court to hear, determine controversies, and
decide a case (People v. Mariano, G.R. L-40527, June 30, 1976)
1. Kinds of jurisdiction:
a) Original and Appellate Jurisdiction
a) Original Jurisdiction power of the court to take cognizance of a case at its inception
or commencement.
b) Appellate Jurisdiction power vested in a superior court to review and revise the
judicial action of a lower court.
b) General and Special Jurisdiction
a) General Jurisdiction authority of the court to hear and determine all actions and
suits.
Example: Regional Trial Court is a court of general jurisdiction:
b) Special or Limited Jurisdiction authority of the court to hear and determine
particular cases only.
Example: MTC/MCTC can entertain petition for habeas corpus if there is no available
RTC judge:
1.4.6. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy:
Hierarchy of courts meant that while the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the
Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue original writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus, such concurrence does not accord
litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of court to which filing thereof may be directed.
Petitions should be filed with the court of lower level unless the importance of the issue
involved deserves the action of a higher court. (Audi AG v. Mejia, G.R. No. 167533, July 27,
2007; De los Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 138297, January 27, 2006)
General rule: A higher court will not entertain a direct resort to it UNLESS the redress cannot be

obtained in the appropriate lower court.

Exception: In cases of national interest and of serious implications, Supreme Court does not
hesitate to set aside the rule and proceed with the determination of the case (COMELEC v.
Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992, September 18, 2002).
Purposes of Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts; Exception
This Courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive. It is shared by
this Court with Regional Trial Courts and with the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of
jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an
absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be
directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue
of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for
the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates
that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should
be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A
direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be
allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically
set out in the petition. (United Claimants Association of NEA (Unican) Vs. National
Electrification Administration (NEA), G.R. No. 187107, January 31, 2012)
Doctrine of Transcendental Importance
Evidently, the instant petition should have been filed with the RTC. However, as an
exception to this general rule, the principle of hierarchy of courts may be set aside for special
and important reasons. Such reason exists in the instant case involving as it does the
employment of the entire plantilla of NEA, more than 700 employees all told, who were
effectively dismissed from employment in one swift stroke. This to the mind of the Court entails
its attention. (United Claimants Association of NEA (Unican) Vs. National Electrification
Administration (NEA), G.R. No. 187107, January 31, 2012)
The rule on hierarchy of courts does not prevent the Supreme Court from assuming
jurisdiction where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the resort to such remedy,
in which case, the Supreme Court exercises its primary jurisdiction (Agan vs. Philippine
International Air Terminal Co.,[PIATCO], G.R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003).
Doctrine of Non-interference or Judicial Stability
Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere or review with the orders of
each other. A court is barred from reviewing judgments of a co-equal court over which it has no
appellate jurisdiction nor power of review.
Doctrine of Non-interference applicable in administrative bodies:
The doctrine applies with equal force to administrative bodies. When the law provides
for an appeal from the decision of an administrative body to the SC or CA, it means that such
body is co-equal with the RTC in terms of rank and stature, and logically beyond the control of
the latter (Civil Procedure [A Restatement For The Bar], Riano, 2007 ed. Citing Sinter
Corporation and Phividec Industrial Authority v. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc., G.R.
No. 127371, 25 April 2002).
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
The court cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within
the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal prior to resolving the same, where the

question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge,
experience and services in determining technical or intricate matters of fact. (Omictin vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 148004, January 22, 2007)
Exceptions:
(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice
the complainant;
(d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and
oppressive;
(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by
the courts of justice;
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;
(i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered
moot;
(j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
(k) when strong public interest is involved; and,
(l) in quo warranto proceedings.
(Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255)

Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction/Continuing Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction, once it attaches, cannot be ousted by the happening of subsequent events
even of such character which should have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first
instance. The rule of adherence of jurisdiction (exists) until a cause is finally resolved or
adjudicated. (Abad, et. al. v. RTC of Manila, et. al. G.R. No. L-65505, October 12, 1987)
Exceptions:
When the change in jurisdiction is curative in character (Abad et. al. v. RTC of Manila et.
al., supra)
2.How jurisdiction is acquired?
2.1 Over the Plaintiff
The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of
the plaintiff by the filing of his complaint. (Dilweg v. Phillips, G.R. L-19596, October 30, 1964,
citing Manila Railroad Co. vs. Attorney General, 20 Phil. 523)
Petitioners were correct when they argued that upon Macaria Berots death, her legal
personality ceased, and she could no longer be impleaded as respondent in the foreclosure suit. It is
also true that her death opened to her heirs the succession of her estate, which in this case was an
intestate succession. However, it can be gleaned from the records of the case that petitioners did
not object when the estate of Macaria was impleaded as respondent in the foreclosure case.
Petitioners did not object either when the original Complaint was amended and respondent
impleaded him as the administrator of Macarias estate, in addition to his being impleaded as an
individual respondent in the case. Thus, the trial and appellate courts were correct in ruling that,
indeed, petitioners impliedly waived any objection to the trial courts exercise of jurisdiction over
their persons at the inception of the case. SPOUSES RODOLFO BEROT AND LILIA BEROT vs. FELIPE C.
SIAPNO, G.R. No. 188944, July 9, 2014, CJ. Sereno
Pag-IBIG requested the intervention of the trial court through a letter on the alleged
anomalous auction sale conducted. The Court ruled that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
over the case since no proper initiatory pleading was filed. Said letter could not in any way be
considered as a pleading. Also, no docket fees were paid before the trial court. Rule 141 of the Rules
of Court mandates that upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action
or proceeding, the fees prescribed shall be paid in full. EDUARDO D. MONSANTO, DECOROSO D.
MONSANTO, SR., and REV. FR. PASCUAL D. MONSANTO, JR. vs. LEONCIO LIM and LORENZO DE
GUZMAN G.R. No.178911, September 17, 2014, J. Del Castillo
2.1.2. Over the defendant:
In civil cases, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be acquired either by
service of summons or by the defendants voluntary appearance in court and submission to its
authority. (Optima Realty Corporation Vs. Hertz Phil., Exclusive, Inc. G.R. No. 183035. January 9,
2013)
Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or
the defendants voluntary appearance in court. (Afdal & Afdal v. Carlos, G.R. No. 173379,
December 1, 2010)
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is required only in an action in personam.

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is NOT a prerequisite in an action in rem and
quasi in rem (Gomez v. CA, 425 SCRA 98).
2.2 Over Subject Matter:
Meaning of Jurisdiction over Subject Matter
Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the
general class to which the proceedings in question belong (C. J. S., p. 36) and is conferred by the
sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers (Banco Espaol Filipino
vs. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921; Perkins vs. Dizon, 40 Off. Gaz. No. 7, 3d Sup. p. 216; Ng Si Chok vs. Vera,
G.R. No. 45674). (Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-48754, November 26, 1941). In other terms, it is
provided by law.
How is jurisdiction over the subject matter acquired?
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general
class to which the proceedings in question belong. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by
erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Basic is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject
matter is determined by the cause or causes of action as alleged in the complaint. (G.R. No.
178193, Danilo S. Ursua Vs. Republic of the Philippines)
How Jurisdiction is conferred and determined
It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the case is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of
whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. As a
necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the
defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of
jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant. What determines the jurisdiction
of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the
complaint. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the
matters to be consulted. (Fe V. Rapsing, Tita C. Villanueva and Annie F. Aparejado, represented by
Edgar Aparejado Vs. Hon. Judge Maximino R. Ables, of RTC-Branch 47, Masbate City; SSGT.
Edison Rural, et al. G.R. No. 171855. October 15, 2012)
It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations
in the complaint. It is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law. It cannot be
conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties, or acquired through or waived,
enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court.
Well to emphasize, it is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this
matter being legislative in character. (Mendoza v. Germino & Germino, G. 165676, November 22,
2010)
Generally, the court should only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine
whether a suit is within its jurisdiction. There may be instances, however, when a rigid application of
this rule may result in defeating substantial justice or in prejudice to a partys substantial right. In
Marcopper Mining Corp. vs. Garcia, [the Court] allowed the RTC to consider, in addition to the
complaint, other pleadings submitted by the parties in deciding whether or not the complaint
should be dismissed for lack of cause of action. In Guaranteed Homes, Inc. vs. Heirs of Valdez, et al.,
[the Court] held that the factual allegations in a complaint should be considered in tandem with the
statements and inscriptions on the documents attached to it as annexes or integral parts.

In the present case, [the Court finds] reason not to strictly apply the above-mentioned
general rule, and to consider the facts contained in the Declaration of Real Property attached to the
complaint in determining whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the Esperanzas case. A mere
reference to the attached document could facially resolve the question on jurisdiction and would
have rendered lengthy litigation on this point unnecessary. ESPERANZA TUMPAG, SUBSTITUTED BY
HER SON, PABLITO TUMPAG BELNAS, JR. vs. SAMUEL TUMPAG, G.R. No. 199133, September 29,
2014, J. Brion
Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter a ground for annulment of judgment.
As this Court previously clarified in Republic of the Philippines v. "G" Holdings, Inc., "lack of
jurisdiction" as a ground for the annulment of judgments pertains to lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. It does not contemplate
"grave abuse of discretion" considering that "jurisdiction" is different from the exercise
thereof. As ruled in Tolentino v. Judge Leviste: Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of
jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to
decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the
person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an
exercise of the jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of
jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. (Remedios
Antonino, Vs. The Register Of Deeds Of Makati City And Tan Tian Su, G.R. No. 185663, June 20,
2012)
When to raise objections to jurisdiction over subject matter?
As a rule, an objection over subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time of the
proceedings. This is because jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties or vested by the
agreement of the parties. Jurisdiction is vested by law, which prevails at the time of the filing of
the complaint. (Lasmis v. Dong-E, G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010)
Effects of Estoppel on objections to jurisdiction
The defense of lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any stage of
the proceeding even on appeal since it is conferred by law (De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, 245
SCRA 166, 1995).
A party may be barred from raising the defense of lack of jurisdiction or jurisdiction may
be waived on the ground of estoppel by laches. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to
secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such
relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450,
April 15, 1968).
Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter vs. lack of jurisdiction over person of the petitioner

Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the judgment or final order is
either lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action, or lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the petitioner. The former is a matter of substantive law because statutory law
defines the jurisdiction of the courts over the subject matter or nature of the action. The
latter is a matter of procedural law, for it involves the service of summons or other process on the
petitioner. A judgment or final order issued by the trial court without jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action is always void, and, in the words of Justice Street in Banco
Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca (37 Phil 949 [1918]), in this sense it may be said to be a lawless
thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever

it exhibits its head. But the defect of lack of jurisdiction over the person, being a matter of
procedural law, may be waived by the party concerned either expressly or impliedly.
(Pinausukan Seafood House-Roxas Blvd., Inc. v. Far East Bank and Trust Cp., now Bank of the
Philippine Islands, et al., G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014.)
Lack of jurisdiction due to violation of constitutional rights
The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are
ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a partys right to due process raises a serious
jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the
fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void
for lack of jurisdiction. APO CEMENT CORPORATION vs. MINGSON MINING INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION G.R. No. 206728, November 12, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
2.3 Over the Issues
This is determined and conferred by the pleadings filed in the case by the parties, or by
their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation, or, at times by their implied consent as by
the failure of a party to object to evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings, as
provided in Sec. 5, Rule 10. (De Joya v. Marquez, et. al., G.R. No. 163416, January 31, 2006)
Note: An issue is a single, certain, and material point arising out of the allegations and
contentions of the parties; it is a matter affirmed on one side and denied on the other, and
when a fact is alleged in the complaint and denied in the answer, the matters is then put in issue
between the parties (Blacks, 9th Ed. Citing 35A C.J.S. Federal Civil Procedure Sec. 357, at 541).
2.4 Over the Res or Property Involved in Litigation
This is acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the court of the thing in
question, thus placing it in custodia legis, as in attachment or garnishment; or by provision of
law which recognizes in the court the power to deal with the property or subject matter within
its territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration proceedings or suits involving civil status or real
property in the Philippines of a non-resident defendant. (De Joya v. Marquez, et. al., supra)
2.5. Error of Jurisdiction as distinguished from Error of Judgment
Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that
cannot be remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in
the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was
issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which
is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the
extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in its
appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and
its conclusions of law. (First Corporation v. Former Sixth Division of Court of Appeals et. al., G.R.
No. 171989, July 4, 2007)
2.6. Jurisdiction versus the Exercise of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction should be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. The authority to
decide a case at all and not the decision rendered therein is what makes up jurisdiction. Where
there is jurisdiction of the person and the subject matter, the decision of all other question
arising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction. (Napa v. Weissenhagen, G.R. No. L9698, January 6, 1915)

2.7. Jurisdiction of different Courts:

JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN CIVIL CASES
2.5.1 Supreme Court (SC)

ORIGINAL

Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against CA,

COMELEC, COA, CTA and Sandiganbayan.

1. Exclusive

2. Concurrent
a. with the CA

b. with the CA,

SANDIGANBAYAN and
RTC

1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against RTC,

Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals,
Other quasi-judicial agencies and NLRC
2. Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and continuing mandamus
pursuant to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
(A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, effective 29 April 2010)
1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against courts
of the first level and other bodies; and
2. Petitions for Habeas Corpus and Quo Warranto
3. Petition for continuing mandamus pursuant to the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC,
effective 29 April 2010)

c. with RTC

Actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls

d. with CA, RTC and

1. Petition for Writ of Amparo; and

2. Petition for a Writ of Habeas Data

Sandiganbayan

APPELLATE

Petitions for Review on Certiorari against the CA, Sandiganbayan,

CTA en banc, Final judgment or order in a Writ of Amparo or
Habeas Data case and RTC in cases involving:
a. Constitutionality or validity of a treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation,
order, instruction, ordinance or regulation
b. Legality of a tax, impost, assessment, toll or a penalty in
relation thereto
c. Jurisdiction of a lower court, and
d. Pure error or question of law.

2.5.2 Court of Appeals (CA)

ORIGINAL
1.
Exclusive

2. Concurrent

1. Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC

1.

a. with the SC
2.

1.
2.
3.
b. with SC, Sandiganbayan
and RTC

Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus

against RTC, Civil Service Commission, Central Board
of Assessment Appeals, Other quasi-judicial agencies
& NLRC
Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and continuing
mandamus pursuant to the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, effective
29 April 2010)
Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus
against courts of the first level and other bodies; and
Petitions for Habeas Corpus and Quo Warranto
Petition for continuing mandamus pursuant to the
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No.
09-6-8-SC, effective 29 April 2010)

c. with SC, Sandiganbayan 1.

and RTC
2.

Petition for Writ of Amparo (Sec. 3, Rule on the Writ

of Amparo); and
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Data (Sec. 3, Rule on the
Writ of Habeas Data)

1.

Ordinary Appeals from RTC, except in cases

exclusively appealable to the SC, Family Courts and
Special Commercial Courts
Appeal by Petition for Review from Civil Service
Commission, SEC, Land Registration Authority, Social
Security Commission, Office of the President and any
other quasi-judicial agency, instrumentality, board or
commission in the exercise of its quasi- judicial
functions
Petitions for Review from RTC in cases appealed
thereto from the lower courts

APPELLATE
2.

3.

The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of
the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders,
directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.
Bunag-Cabacungan's contention that the phrase "in all other cases" has removed the
distinction between administrative and criminal cases of the Ombudsman is ludicrous. It must be
stressed that the above-quoted Section 7 is provided under Rule III, which deals with the procedure
in administrative cases. When Administrative Order No. 07 was amended by Administrative Order
No. 17, Section 7 was retained in Rule III. It is another rule, Rule II, which provides for the procedure
in criminal cases. Thus, the phrase "in all other cases" still refers to administrative cases, not
criminal cases, where the sanctions imposed are different from those enumerated in Section 7. It is
important to note that the petition filed by Bunag-Cabacungan in CA-G.R. SP No. 86630 assailed only
the "administrative decision" rendered against her by the OMB for Luzon. FELICIANO B. DUYON,
SUBSTITUTED BY HIS CHILDREN vs. THE FORMER SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND ELEONOR P. BUNAG-CABACUNGAN, G.R. No. 172218, November 26, 2014, J.
Leonardo-De Castro

2.5.3 Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

1. Over all criminal cases arising from violation of NIRC of the TCC
and other laws, part of laws, or special laws administered by
the BIR or the BOC where the principal amount of taxes and
fees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is less than
P1M or where there is no specified amount claimed;
2. In tax collection cases involving final and executor assessments
of taxes, fees, charges and penalties where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties
claimed is less than P1M tried by the proper MTC, MeTC and
RTC.

APPELLATE

Exclusive original or
appellate to review by
appeal

1. In criminal offenses (1) over appeals from the judgments,

resolutions, or orders of the RTC in tax cases originally decided
by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction and (2) over
petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of
the RTC in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax
cases originally decided by the MeTCs, MTCs,and MCTCs in
their respective jurisdiction;
2. In tax collection cases (1) over appeals from the judgments,
resolutions, or orders of the RTC in tax collection cases
originally decided by them, in their respective territorial
jurisdiction and (2) over petitions for review of the judgments,
resolutions or orders of the RTC in the the exercise of their
appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally
decided by the MeTCs, MTCs,and MCTCs in their respective
jurisdiction.
1. Decisions of CIR in cases involving disputed assessment,
refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges,
penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the
NIRC or other laws administered by the BIR;
2. Inaction by the CIR in cases involving disputed assessment,
refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges,
penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the
NIRC or other laws administered by the BIR where the NIRC or
other applicable law provides s specified period of action, in
which case the inaction shall be deemed an implied denial;
3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTCs in local taxes
originally decided by them in the exercise of their original and
appellate jurisdiction;
4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs (1) in cases
involving liability for customs duties, fees or other charges,
seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines,
forfeiture, or other penalties in relation thereto, or (2) other
matters arising under the Customs law, or other laws, part of
laws or special laws administered by BOC;
5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction over cases involving
assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by
the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;
6. Decision of the Secretary of Finance on custom cases elevated
to him automatically for review from the decisions of the
Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the
government under section 2315 of the TCC;
7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry I the case of
non- agricultural product, commodity or article and the
secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product,
commodity or article, involving dumping duties and
counterveiling duties under Secs. 301 and 302 of TCC and
safeguard measures under RA **)), where the party may
appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties.
(RA 9282 and Rule 5, AM 05-11-07-CTA)

2.5.4. Sandiganbayan

ORIGINAL
1. Exclusive

Civil cases filed pursuant to E. O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A

(PCGG cases for recovery of ill-gotten wealth)

Three conditions:
1. What offenses: offenses must be cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan (Hannah Serana vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 162059, January 22, 2008).

2. Offender: offender must be a public officer (Escobal

vs. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 124644, February 5, 2004).
3. How committed: it must be committed in relation to their
public office (Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
128096, January 20, 1999).

2.5.5. Regional Trial Court (RTC)

2. Concurrent
a. with the SC

Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus,

injunction and other ancillary writs in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction including quo warranto arising in cases falling under
E.O.s 1, 2, 14, 14-A (PCGG cases for recovery of ill-gotten wealth)

b. with the SC, CA

Petition for writ of amparo and habeas data

APPELLATE

Final judgments, resolutions or orders of RTC whether in the

exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction (RA 8249) over
crimes and civil cases falling within the original exclusive
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but which were committed by
public officers below SG 27

1. Actions in which the subject of litigation is incapable of

pecuniary estimation;
ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

2. Actions involving title to or possession of real property or an

interest therein, where the assessed value of such property
exceeds P50,000 in Metro Manila, or P20,000 outside Metro
Manila, except forcible entry and unlawful detainer;
3. Actions involving marriage and marital relations;
4. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions;
5. Other cases where the demand, exclusive of interest, damages,
attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs, or the value of the
property exceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila, or P300,000
outside Metro Manila (SC Circular No. 09-94);
6. Actions for annulment of MTC judgments;
7. Actions for recognition and enforcement of arbitration
agreement, vacation or modification of arbitration award,
application for arbitration award and supervision (Sec. 47, ADR
Act of 2004);
8. Citizen suit (Sec. 41 of the Clean Air Act).

9. Admiralty and maritime cases where the demand or claim

exceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila, or P300,000 outside Metro
Manila, exclusive of interest, damages, attorneys fees, litigation
expenses, and costs (CLAID);
10. Probate proceedings, testate or intestate, where gross value of
estate exceeds P400,000 in Metro Manila, or P300,000 outside
Metro Manila

As a SPECIAL
COMMERCIAL COURT

2. Concurrent

1. Cases involving violations of Intellectual Property Rights;

2. Cases enumerated under Sec. 5, PD 902-A (Intra-corporate
disputes, fraud scheme cases, election cases, petitions for
suspension of payments and/or rehabilitation proceedings).

Actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.

a. with the SC

b. with the SC and CA

c. with the SC, CA and

Sandiganbayan

1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against

lower courts and bodies; and
2. Petitions for habeas corpus and quo warranto
3. Petition for continuing mandamus pursuant to the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC,
effective 29 April 2010)

Petition for writ of amparo and habeas data

d. With MeTC, MTCC,

MTC, & MTCC

APPELLATE

All
cases decided by the MTCs in their respective territorial
jurisdiction

2.5.6. Family Courts

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL

1. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus

in relation to the latter;
2. Petitions for adoption of children and the revocation thereof;
3. Complaints for annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of
marriage and those relating to marital status and property
relations of husband and wife or those living together under
different status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution
of conjugal partnership of gains;
4. Petitions for support and/or acknowledgment;
5. Summary judicial proceedings brought under the provisions of
E.O. No. 209 or the Family Code;
6. Petitions for declaration of status of children as abandoned,
dependent o neglected children, petitions for voluntary or
involuntary commitment of children; the suspension,
termination, or restoration of parental authority and other
cases cognizable under P.D. No. 603, E.O. No. 56, (Series of
1986), and other related laws;

7. Petitions for the constitution of the family home; and

8. Cases of domestic violence against women and children, as
defined in sec. 5(k), R.A. 8369, but which do not constitute
criminal offenses subject to criminal prosecution and penalties
9. Cases covered by Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344)

2.5.7. Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC)

and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC)

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

NOTE: The jurisdictional

amount was adjusted
pursuant to Sec. 5, RA
7691, now being the 2nd
5-year period from the
date of effectivity of said
act.

1. Actions involving personal property valued at not more than

P400,000 in Metro Manila and P300,000 outside Metro
Manila;

2. The following cases or actions where the value in consideration

does not exceed P400,000 in Metro Manila and P300,000
outside Metro Manila, in both cases, exclusive of interest,
damages, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs (CLAID):
a. Actions demanding sums of money;
b. Demand or claim in admiralty and maritime
cases;
c. The estate value in probate proceedings,
interstate or estate;
3. Actions involving title or possession of real property where
the assessed value does not exceed P50,000 in Metro Manila,
or P20,000 outside Metro Manila, exclusive of interest,
damages, attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and costs
(CLAID);
4. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, provided that in cases
where the defendant raises the question of ownership and the
question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding on
the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be
resolved only to determine the issue of possession;

2. Concurrent
a. with RTC
3. Delegated

Cadastral and land registration cases assigned by the SC where

there is a). no controversy or opposition, or b). where there is
controversy, the contested lot valued at not more than P100,000.

4. Special

Petition for habeas corpus or application for bail in criminal cases

in the absence of all RTC Judges in a province or city (BP 129, as
amended, Chapter III, Sec 35)

1. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the

amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered;
but attorneys fees shall not exceed P20,000;
5. Summary Procedure

2. All other cases, except probate proceedings, where total claim

does not exceed P200,000.00 in Metro Manila, or P100,000
outside Metro Manila, exclusive of interest and costs.
3. Small claims cases where the amount of the claim for payment
or reimbursement of money does not exceed P100,000.00

2.5.8. Sharia Court (P.D. No. 1083)

ORIGINAL

1. Exclusive

NOTE: The Sharia District

Courts are equivalent to
the RTC in rank which
were established in
certain provinces of
Mindanao where the
Code of Muslim Personal
Laws of the Philippines is
enforced.
(P.D. No. 1083)

1. All cases involving custody, guardianship, legitimacy, paternity

and filiation arising under PD No. 1083;
2. All cases involving disposition, distribution and settlement of
the estate of a deceased Muslim, probate of wills, issuance of
letters of administration or appointment of administrators or
executors regardless of the nature or the aggregate value of the
property;

3. Petitions for declaration of absence and death and for

cancellation and correction of entries in the Muslim Registries
mentioned in Title VI, Book Two of P.D. No. 1083;

4. All actions arising from customary contracts in which the

parties are Muslims, if they have not specified which law shall
govern their relations;
5. All petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction, certiorari,
habeas corpus, and all auxiliary writs and processes in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction (Art. 143[1]).

2. Concurrent with
EXISTING CIVIL COURTS

1. Petitions by Muslim for the constitution of the family home,

change of name and commitment of insane person to any
asylum;
2. All other personal and real actions not mentioned in paragraph
1(d) wherein the parties involved are Muslims except those for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer which shall fall under the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Courts;
and
3. All special civil actions for interpleader or declaratory relief
where the parties are Muslims or the property involved belong
exclusively to a Muslim (Art. 143[2]).

APPELLATE

All cases tried in the Sharia Circuit Court within their territorial
jurisdiction.
NOTE: The Sharia District Court shall decide every case appealed
to it on the basis of the evidence and records transmitted as well
as such memoranda, briefs or oral arguments as the parties may
submit (Art. 144[2]).

NOTE: The decisions of the Sharia District Courts whether on appeal from the Sharia Circuit
Courts or not, shall be final. The Supreme Court shall, however, continue to exercise original
and appellate jurisdiction over certain issues as provided by the Constitution (Art. 145).
Vivencio filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court alleging that the decision
rendered by the Sharia District Court is void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. He
asserts that he is a Christian which means that the Sharia District Court does not have any
jurisdiction to rule on the matter. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 143 of the Muslim Code
would reveal that Sharia courts has jurisdiction over real actions when the parties are both
Muslims. The fact that the Sharia courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the regular courts in
cases of actions involving real property means that jurisdiction may only be exercised by the said
courts when the action involves parties who are both Muslims. In cases where one of the parties
is a non-muslim, the Shariah Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over it. It would immediately
divest the Shariah court jurisdiction over the subject matter. VIVENCIO B. VILLAGRACIA vs. FIFTH
(5th) SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT and ROLDAN E. MALA, represented by his father HadjiKalam T.
Mala, G.R. No. 188832, April 23, 2014, J. Leonen
2.7. Jurisdiction over Small Claims cases:
Over all actions which are:
a. purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely
for payment or reimbursement of sum of money, and
b. the civil aspect of criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal action
in court, pursuant to Rule of 111.
Court which has jurisdiction.
To be tried before the Metropolitan trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts for payment of money where the

value of the claim does NOT exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) exclusive
of interest and costs.
These claims or demands may be:
a.For money owned under any of the following:
1) Contract of Lease;
2) Contract of Loan;
3) Contract of Services;
4) Contract of Sale; or
5) Contract of Mortgage.
b.

For damages arising from any of the following:

1) Fault or negligence;
2) Quasi-contract; or
3) Contract.

Immediate execution of judgment in Small Claims cases.

Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases states that the decision
shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and
a copy thereof forthwith served on the parties. (A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Emma Mondejar,
accompanied by her husband, Efren Mondejar,G.R. No. 200804. January 22, 2014.)
Rule on Summary Procedure
A. Civil Cases:
1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages
or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered; but attorney's fees shall not exceed
P20,000.00.
2. All other civil cases, EXCEPT probate proceedings, where the total amount of the
plaintiff's claim does not exceed P100, 000.00 or P200,000.00 in Metro Manila, exclusive
of interest and costs. (as amended by A.M. 02-11-09-SC, effective November 25, 2002)
Criminal Cases:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;

Violations of the rental law;
Violations of Municipal or city ordinances;
All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is
imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding P1,000.00, or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties,
5. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule shall
govern where the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.00
Note:
This Rule shall NOT apply to a civil case where the plaintiffs cause of action is pleaded in
the same complaint with another cause of action subject to the ordinary procedure; nor to a
criminal case where the offense charged is necessarily related to another criminal case subject
to the ordinary procedure.
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer summary proceedings:

An action for forcible entry is filed in the municipal trial court and is a summary action,
while accion publiciana is a plenary action in the RTC. x x x Because they only resolve issues of
possession de facto, ejectment actions are summary in nature, while accion publiciana (for the
recovery of possession) and accion reivindicatoria (for the recovery of ownership) are plenary
actions.48 The purpose of allowing actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer to be
decided in summary proceedings is to provide for a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of
preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly taking and continuing his
possession during the long period it would take to properly resolve the issue of possession de
jure or ownership, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community;
otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might take the law in his hands and seize
the property by force and violence. An ejectment case cannot be a substitute for a full blown
trial for the purpose of determining rights of possession or ownership. (Fiorello R. Jose Vs.
Roberto Alfuerto, et al. G.R. No. 69380. November 26, 2012)
Barangay Conciliation:
General rule:
The lupon tagapamayapa of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the
parties residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of ALL disputes
EXCEPT
a. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; however,
when it is only one of the contending parties, a confrontation should still be undertaken
among the other parties (Gegare v. CA, G.R. No. 83907. September 13, 1989)
b. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance
of his official functions;
c. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 1 year or a fine exceeding P5,000;
d. Offenses where there is no private offended party;
e. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless
the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon;
f. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or
municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto
agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;
g. Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice
or upon the recommendation of the Sec. of Justice; and
h. Where one of the parties is a juridical entity (Sec. 408, R.A. 7160)
i. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
j. The submission of disputes before the Lupon prior to their filing with the court or other
government offices are not applicable to labor cases. (Montoya v. Escayo, G.R. No. 8221112 March 21, 1989)
k. An action for annulment of a compromise judgment which as a general rule is immediately
executory and accordingly, beyond the authority of the Barangay Court to change or
modify.(Sanchez v. Tupaz, G.R. No. 76690 February 29, 1988)
l. Proceedings where relief is sought under R.A. No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Women
and their Children Act (Sec. 33, R.A. No. 9262)
Other Instances where parties may go directly to court without the need of prior barangay
conciliation:
a. Where the accused is under detention
b. Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas

corpus proceedings;
c. Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction,
attachment, replevin and support pendent lite; and
d. Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. (Section 412,
LGC)
Barangay conciliation not required in case of juridical entity:
Referral of a dispute to the Lupon is required only in cases involving natural persons,
and not where any of the parties is a juridical person such as a corporation, partnership,
corporation sole, testate or intestate, estate, etc. (Vda. De Borromeo v. Pogoy, G.R. No. L63277. November 29, 1983)
Nature and effects of non-compliance with barangay conciliation:
As cited in the case Sanchez v. Tupaz, referral to the Lupon is compulsory (as ruled in
the cited case of Morato vs. Go, 125 SCRA 444), [1983] and non-compliance of the same could
affect the sufficiency of the cause of action and make the complaint vulnerable to dismissal on
the ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity (Peregrina vs. Panis, 133 SCRA 75).
Venue of barangay conciliation.
1. Disputes between or among persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be
brought for amicable settlement before the Lupon of said barangay.
2. Actual residents of different barangays within the same city or municipality shall be
brought in the barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents actually resides, at
the election of the complainant
3. All disputes which involved real property or any interest therein shall be brought in
the barangay where the real property or any part thereof is situated.
4. Disputes arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at
the institution where the contending parties are enrolled to study, the barangay where such
workplace or institution is located. (Sec. 409, LGC).
Nature of Amicable Settlement
[A]n amicable settlement reached at the barangay conciliation proceedings, like the
Kasunduang Pag-aayos in this case, is binding between the contracting parties and, upon its
perfection, is immediately executory insofar as it is not contrary to law, good morals, good
customs, public order and public policy. This is in accord with the broad precept of Article 2037
of the Civil Code. (Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel vs. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25,
2012)
Effect of amicable settlement:
Being a by-product of mutual concessions and good faith of the parties, an amicable
settlement has the force and effect of res judicata even if not judicially approved. It
transcends being a mere contract binding only upon the parties thereto, and is akin to a
judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules. (Crisanta Alcaraz Miguel vs.
Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012)
Remedy of Execution of settlement, when available?

Modes of execution of amicable settlement or arbitration award:

Thus, under Section 417 of the Local Government Code, such amicable settlement or
arbitration award may be enforced by
(1) Execution by the Barangay Lupon within six (6) months from the date of
settlement, or
(2) by filing an action to enforce such settlement in the appropriate city or municipal
court, if beyond the six-month period.
Execution before the barangay:
Under the first remedy, the proceedings are covered by the Local Government Code and
the Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Punong Barangay is
called upon during the hearing to determine solely the fact of non-compliance of the terms of
the settlement and to give the defaulting party another chance at voluntarily complying with
his obligation under the settlement.
Execution before the court:
Under the second remedy, the proceedings are governed by the Rules of Court, as
amended. The cause of action is the amicable settlement itself, which, by operation of law, has
the force and effect of a final judgment.
Execution is available only when there is no repudiation of the amicable settlement:
It must be emphasized, however, that enforcement by execution of the amicable
settlement, either under the first or the second remedy, is only applicable if the contracting
parties have not repudiated such settlement within ten (10) days from the date thereof in
accordance with Section 416 of the Local Government Code.
Remedies if a party repudiated the settlement
If the amicable settlement is repudiated by one party, either expressly or impliedly, the
other party has two options, namely, (1) to enforce the compromise in accordance with the
Local Government Code or Rules of Court as the case may be, or (2) to consider it rescinded
and insist upon his original demand. This is in accord with Article 2041 of the Civil Code, which
qualifies the broad application of Article 2037, viz: If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide
by the compromise, the other party may either enforce the compromise or regard it as
rescinded and insist upon his original demand.
In the case at bar, the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides for a two-tiered
mode of enforcement of an amicable settlement, to wit:
(a) by execution by the Punong Barangay which is quasi-judicial and summary in nature
on mere motion of the party entitled thereto; and
(b) an action in regular form, which remedy is judicial.
However, the mode of enforcement does not rule out the right of rescission under Art.
2041 of the Civil Code. The availability of the right of rescission is apparent from the wording of
Sec. 417 itself which provides that the amicable settlement "may" be enforced by execution by
the lupon within six (6) months from its date or by action in the appropriate city or municipal
court, if beyond that period. The use of the word "may" clearly makes the procedure provided
in the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law directory or merely optional in nature.

The CA took off on the wrong premise that enforcement of the Kasunduang Pag-aayos is
the proper remedy, and therefore erred in its conclusion that the case should be remanded to
the trial court. The fact that the petitioner opted to rescind the Kasunduang Pag-aayos means
that she is insisting upon the undertaking of the respondent under the original loan contract.
Thus, the CA should have decided the case on the merits, as an appeal before it, and not
prolong the determination of the issues by remanding it to the trial court. Pertinently, evidence
abounds that the respondent has failed to comply with his loan obligation. In fact, the
Kasunduang Pag-aayos is the well nigh incontrovertible proof of the respondents indebtedness
with the petitioner as it was executed precisely to give the respondent a second chance to
make good on his undertaking. And since the respondent still reneged in paying his
indebtedness, justice demands that he must be held answerable therefor. (Crisanta Alcaraz
Miguel vs. Jerry D. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, January 25, 2012)
2.8. Totality Rule
Where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different
parties embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the
claims in all causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same
or different transactions.
The causes of action in favor of two or more plaintiffs or against two or more
defendants should arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and there should
be a common question of law or fact as provided in Sec. 6, Rule 3 (Flores v. Mallare-Philips, L66620, September 24, 1986).
3. Civil Procedure
3.1. Kinds of Actions:
3.1.1. Meaning of Ordinary Civil Actions
A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of
a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong (Rule 1, Section 3(a), Rules of Court). It is
governed by ordinary rules on action.
3.1.2. Meaning of Special Civil Actions
It is one which is also governed by the rules of ordinary civil actions, but subject to the
specific rules prescribed for such particular special civil action (Rule1, Sec. 3[a] 2nd par., Rule 1).
3.1.3. Meaning of Criminal Actions
It is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law.
(Sec. 3[b], Rule 1)
3.1.4. Civil Actions versus Special Proceedings
A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact. It is distinguished from an ordinary civil action where a party sues another for
the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. To initiate a
special proceeding, a petition and not a complaint should be filed. (Ramon Ching and Po Wing
Corp. v. Rodriguez, et. al., G.R. No. 192828, November 28, 2011)
3.1.5. Real Actions and Personal Actions: Issue as to venue:

Real Actions are actions affecting title to or the recovery of possession of real property,
or an interest therein, or forcible entry and detainer actions. A real action is local, i.e., its
venue depends upon the location of the property involved in the litigation. (Riano).
Personal Actions are actions founded on privity of contract or for the enforcement or
resolution of a contract, or for recovery of personal property (Feria Noche, Civil
Procedure Annotated, Vol. I). A personal action is transitory, i.e., its venue depends
upon the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the plaintiff (Riano).
Action to annul Sale and Title over a real property is a Real Action:
Civil Case No. 01-1567, being an action for Annulment of Sale and Titles resulting from
the extrajudicial foreclosure by Union Bank of the mortgaged real properties, is classified as a
real action. In Fortune Motors v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that a case seeking to annul a
foreclosure of a real estate mortgage is a real action, viz: An action to annul a real estate
mortgage foreclosure sale is no different from an action to annul a private sale of real property.
(Muoz v. Llamas, 87 Phil. 737, 1950). While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the
recovery of title or possession of the property in question, his action for annulment of sale and
his claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building which,
under the law, is considered immovable property, the recovery of which is petitioners primary
objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of
real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of
the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action. (Paglaum Management &
Development Corp. And Health Marketing Technologies, Inc., Vs. Union Bank Of The Philippines,
Notary Public John Doe, And Register Of Deeds Of Cebu City And Cebu Province, $J. King & Sons
Co., Inc. Intervenor, G.R. No. 179018, June 18, 2012)
3.1.6. Local and Transitory Actions
Local Actions are actions which can only be instituted in a particular place. Transitory
Actions are actions where the venue of which is generally dependent upon the residence of the
parties regardless of where the cause of action arise.
3.1.7. Actions In Rem, In Personam, Quasi- in- Rem: Issue as to jurisdiction in relation to
service of summons (Rule 14):
In Rem:
One which is not directed against a particular person but on the thing or res itself and
the relief sought is binding upon the whole world.
The thing or res may be personal or real property or it may be a status, right, or a
particular fact (Primer-Reviewer on Remedial Law, Vol.I, Civil Procedure, Riguera, 1st ed., 2009).
The object is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make any objection against
the right sought to be enforced, hence the judgment therein is binding theoretically upon the
whole world, e.g., expropriation (Regalado).
In Personam
One which is directed against a particular person and the relief sought is binding upon
such person e.g., action for sum of money or for specific performance.
Service of summons in actions in personam

Where the action is in personam [footnote: An action in personam is one which seeks to
enforce personal rights and obligations against a defendant and is based on the jurisdiction of
the person, although it may involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific
property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of
the court. (See Belen v. Chavez , G.R. No. 175334, March 26, 2008, 549 SCRA 479, 481.)] and the
defendant is in the Philippines, service of summons may be made through personal service,
that is, summons shall be served by handing to the defendant in person a copy thereof, or if he
refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. If the defendant cannot be personally
served with summons within a reasonable time, it is then that substituted service may be
made. Personal service of summons should and always be the first option, and it is only when
the said summons cannot be served within a reasonable time can the process server resort to
substituted service. (Planters Development Bank, Vs. Julie Chandumal, G.R. No. 19561905
September 2012)
Quasi in Rem:
It is a proceeding where an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property
e.g., Quieting of Title where the object is in rem (real property) and the subject is in personam
(defendant). The judgment entered in this proceeding is conclusive only between the parties
(Feria Noche, Civil Procedure, Vol. I)
Whether a proceeding is in rem, or in personam or quasi in rem is determined by its
nature and purpose (Yu v. Pacleb, etc., G.R. No. 172172, 24 Feb. 2009).
3.1.8. Independent Civil Actions
Rules on independent civil actions: Nature:
In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
the independent civil action may be brought by the offended party. It shall proceed
independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no
case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action. (Rule 111, Section 3)
Cases which are considered as an independent civil action:
Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following
(constitutional) rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages
x x x Article 32, Civil Code (in italics added for clarification)
In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely
separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence. Article 33, Civil Code
When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or
protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be
primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible
therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings,
and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action. Article 34, Civil Code

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter. Article 2176, Civil Code
3.2. Cause of Action
3.2.1 Meaning of Cause of Action
It is the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another (Rule 2, Sec. 2).
A cause of action is defined in Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court as the act or omission
by which a party violates the right of another. (Goodland Company, Inc., vs. Asia United Bank,
Abraham Co, Atty. Joel T. Pelicano And The Register Of Deeds Of Makati City, G.R. No. 195561,
March 14, 2012)
Elements of Cause of Action:
1) A legal right of the plaintiff;
2) A correlative duty of the defendant to respect plaintiffs right; and
3) An act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plaintiffs right with
consequential injury or damage to the plaintiff for which he may maintain an action for
recovery or other relief (Relucio vs. Lopez, 373 SCRA 578, 2002).
Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as an act or omission by
which a party violates the right of another. A complaint states a cause of action when it
contains three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely:
1) the legal right of the plaintiff,
2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and
3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right (Juana Complex I
Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. vs. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., G.R. No. 152272, March 5, 2012)
3.2.2. Right of Action versus Cause of Action
Right of action is the right to commence and prosecute an action to obtain the relief
sought, while cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates the right of
another (Rule 2, Sec. 2).
Elements of Right of Action:
a) Existence of the cause of action;
b) Performance of all conditions precedent; and
c) The action must be instituted by the proper party.
3.2.3. Failure to State Cause of Action
Where there is failure to state a cause of action in a pleading, the remedy of the
defendant is to move for its dismissal on the ground that the pleading asserting the claim
states no cause of action. Rule 16, Sec 1 (g)

The petitioner Lourdes Suites filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against the
respondent Noemi Binaro. After the presentation of the evidence, the Metropolitan Trial Court

found that there is lack of cause of action against Binaro as there was an insufficiency of evidence
presented by Lourdes Suites against Binaro. Hence, it dismissed the complaint. After the
presentation of the evidence, the Metropolitan Trial Court found that there is lack of cause of
action against Binaro as there was an insufficiency of evidence presented by Lourdes Suites
against Binaro. Hence, it dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that failure to state a
cause of action and lack of cause of action are really different from each other. On the one hand,
failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for
dismissal under Rule 16 ofthe Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause [of] action refers to
a situation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged inthe pleading.
LOURDES SUITES (Crown Hotel Management Corporation) vs. NOEMI BINARO G.R. No. 204729,
August 6, 2014, J. Carpio
3.2.4. Test of Sufficiency of Action
Whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon
the same in accordance with the prayer in the complaint (Misamis Occidental II Cooperative,
Inc. v. David, 468 SCRA 63).
The question of whether the complaint states a cause of action is determined by its
averments regarding the acts committed by the defendant. Thus, it must contain a concise
statement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. To be
taken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts and
circumstances or other matters aliunde are not considered.
The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action
is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in
accordance with the prayer of said complaint. Stated differently, if the allegations in the
complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should
not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be asserted by the defendant. (Juana
Complex I Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. vs. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., G.R. No. 152272, March
5, 2012)
A cause of action is a formal statement of the operative facts that give rise to a remedial
right. The question of whether the complaint states a cause of action is determined by its
averments regarding the acts committed by the defendant. Thus it "must contain a concise
statement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action." Failure to
make a sufficient allegation of a cause of action in the complaint "warrants its dismissal." A
perusal of the complaint would show that aside from the fact that respondent spouses had
mortgaged the property subject herein to respondent bank, there is no other allegation of an act
or omission on the part of respondent Bank in violation of a right of petitioner. The RTC is,
therefore, correct in dismissing the case for failure to state cause of action. EMILIANO S. SAMSON
vs. SPOUSES JOSE and GUILLERMINA GABOR, TANAY RURAL BANK, INC., and REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF MORONG, RIZAL G.R. No. 182970, July 23, 2014, J. Peralta
A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3)
essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever
means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission on the part of the
named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of
defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. If
the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these elements, the complaint
becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. It is
well to point out that the plaintiffs cause of action should not merely be "stated" but,
importantly, the statement thereof should be "sufficient." This is why the elementary test in a
motion to dismiss on such ground is whether or not the complaint alleges facts which if true

would justify the relief demanded. As a corollary, it has been held that only ultimate facts and not
legal conclusions or evidentiary facts are considered for purposes of applying the test. This is
consistent with Section 1, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court which states that the complaint need only
allege the ultimate facts or the essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. A fact is
essential if they cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action
inadequate. Since the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations, it
follows that the analysis should be confined to the four corners of the complaint, and no other.
ELIZA ZUNIGA-SANTOS,* represented by her Attorney-in Fact, NYMPHA Z. SALES vs. MARIA
DIVINA GRACIA SANTOS-GRAN** and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MARIKINA CITY G.R. No. 197380,
October 8, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
A complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if, admitting what appears solely
on its face to be correct, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for. Accordingly, if the
allegations furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should
not be dismissed, regardless of the defenses that may be averred by the defendants. Petitioners
are pushing the case too far ahead of its limits. They are themselves determining that the issue is
whether the properties of the corporation can be included in the inventory of the estate of the
decedent when the only question to be resolved in a demurrer to evidence is whether based on
the evidence, respondents, as already well put in the prior Chua Suy Phen case, have a right to
share in the ownership of the corporation. CAPITOL SAWMILL CORPORATION and COLUMBIA
WOOD INDUSTRIES CORPORATION vs. CONCEPCION CHUA GAW, ANGELO CHUA GAW, JOHN
BARRY CHUA GAW, LEONARD BRANDON CHUA GAW and JULITA C. CHUA G.R. No. 187843, June 9,
2014, J. PEREZ
When a party states the circumstances in the complaint of dispossession of a property
through force, intimidation and threat, the nature of the case shall be that of forcible entry. It is
the allegations in the complaint that determines the nature of the case. HOMER C. JAVIER,
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SUSAN G. CANENCIA vs. SUSAN
LUMONTAD G.R. No. 203760, December 3, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
The nature of the cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint.
Three essential elements must be shown to establish a cause of action. In this case, the legal
rights of the petitioner Bank and the correlative legal duty of LCDC have not been sufficiently
established in view of the failure of the Bank's evidence to show the provisions and conditions
that govern its legal relationship. METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs. LEY
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No.185590, December 03, 2014, J.
Leonardo-De Castro
3.2.5. Splitting a Single Cause of Action and its Effects
Splitting a single cause of Action
The act of dividing a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, and
bringing the suit for one of such parts only, intending to reserve the rest for another separate
action is the prohibited act of splitting a single cause of action (Regalado).
Effects
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of
one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the
others (Rule 2, Sec. 4).
When a single cause of action is split, the remedy of the defendant is to move for its
dismissal under Rule 16 on the ground that:

1) There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or litis
pendentia (Sec. 1[e]); or
2) If the first action has already been finally terminated, on the ground of res judicata
(Sec. 1[f]).
The well-entrenched rule is that "a party cannot, by varying the form of action, or
adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that
one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated. This Court has laid down the test
in determining whether or not the causes of action in the first and second cases are identical, to
wit: would the same evidence support and establish both the present and former cause of
action? If so, the former recovery is a bar; if otherwise, it does not stand in the way of the
former action. (Goodland Company, Inc., vs. Asia United Bank, Abraham Co, Atty. Joel T.
Pelicano And The Register Of Deeds Of Makati City, G.R. No. 195561, March 14, 2012
What is litis pendentia?
Litis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means "a pending suit" and is variously
referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant. As a ground for the
dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the
same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and
vexatious. It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits. (Philippine National Bank vs.
Gateway Property Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 181485, February 15, 2012)
3.2.6. Joinder and Mis-joinder of Causes of Action.
Joinder of Causes of Action:
The assertion, in the alternative or otherwise, of as many causes of action as a party
may have against another in one pleading alone is valid. (Rule 2, Section 5)
Requisites for joinder of parties:
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 that:
1) one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC; and
2) the venue lies therein.
d) 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 (Totality Rule, Sec. 33[1], B.P. 129).
Elements for Joinder of Parties
a) There must be a right to relief in respect to or arising from the same transaction or
series of transaction;
b) There is a question of fact or law common to all the plaintiffs or defendants; and
c) Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction
and venue (Sec. 6, Rule 3).
Nature of joinder of causes of action:

The rule on joinder of causes of action is purely permissive and the plaintiff can always
file separate actions for each cause of action (Baldovir v. Sarte, 36 Phil. 550).
Conditions of causes of action:
The rule on permissive joinder of causes of action is subject to the rules regarding
jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties.
Note: When the joinder refers to joinder of indispensable parties, joinder is COMPULSORY (Sec.
7, Rule 3).
The provision allowing joinder of causes of action which pertains to different
jurisdictions under Section 5 (c) of Rule 2 applies only if the joinder is in the RTC.
Misjoinder of Causes of Action
Two or more causes of action are joined in one complaint when they should not have
been joined. (Rule 2, Section 6)
Misjoinder of causes of action is NOT a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined
cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and
proceeded with separately (Rule 2, Section 6)
3.3. Parties to Civil Actions:
3.3.1. Real parties-in-interest; indispensable parties; representatives as parties; necessary
parties; indigent parties; alternative defendants
Real Party in Interest (Rule 3, Sec. 2)
The party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party
entitled to the avails of the suit.
General Rule: Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest.
Exception: An exception to the rule that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the
name of the real party in interest is in the case of representatives as parties (Rule 3, Section 3)
To be a real party-in-interest, the interest must be real, which is a present substantial interest
as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent subordinate or consequential
interest (Fortich v. Corona, 289 SCRA 624). It is an interest that is material and direct, as
distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question (Samaniego v. Aguila, 334 SCRA
438).
It should be borne in mind that the action for revival of judgment is a totally separate and
distinct case from the original civil case for partition. As explained in Saligumba v. Palanog, An
action for revival of judgment is no more than a procedural means of securing the execution of a
previous judgment which has become dormant after the passage of five years without it being
executed upon motion of the prevailing party. It isnot intended to re-open any issue affecting the
merits of the judgment debtor's case nor the propriety or correctness of the first judgment. An
action for revival of judgment is a new and independent action, different and distinct fromeither
the recovery of property case or the reconstitution case [in this case, the original action for
partition], wherein the cause of action is the decision itself and not the merits of the action upon
which the judgment sought to be enforced is rendered. With the foregoing in mind, it is

understandable that there would be instances where the parties in the original case and in the
subsequent action for revival of judgment would not be exactly the same. The mere fact that the
names appearing as parties in the complaint for revival of judgment are different from the names
of the parties in the original case would not necessarily mean that they are not the real parties-ininterest. What is important is that, as provided in Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, they are
"the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled
to the avails of the suit." Definitely, as the prevailing parties in the previous case for partition, the
plaintiffs in the case for revival of judgment would be benefited by the enforcement of the
decision in the partition case. PETRONIO CLIDORO, et al., vs. AUGUSTO JALMANZAR, et al. G.R.
No. 176598, July 9, 2014, J. Peralta
Under our procedural rules, a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof
that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of
action. In this case, the corporation that initiated the complaint for B.P. 22 is different from the
corporation that filed the memorandum at the RTC and the petition for review before the CA. The
RTC Decision absolving petitioner from civil liability has attained finality, since no appeal was
interposed by a real party-in-interest. GERVE MAGALLANES vs. PALMER ASIA, INC. G.R. No.
205179, July 18, 2014, J. Carpio
Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only real parties-in-interest who
participated in the litigation of the case before the CA can avail of an appeal by certiorari. The
Secretary of Labor is not the real party-in-interest vested with personality to file the present
petitions. A real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. As thus defined, the real
parties-in-interest in these cases would have been PALCEA-SUPER and PJWU-SUPER. It would
have been their duty to appear and defend the ruling of the Secretary of Labor for they are the
ones who were interested that the same be sustained. As to the Secretary of Labor, she was
impleaded in the Petitions for Certiorari filed before the CA as a nominal party because one of the
issues involved therein was whether she committed an error of jurisdiction. But that does not
make her a real party-in-interest or vests her with authority to appeal the Decisions of the CA in
case it reverses her ruling. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NAMBOKU PEAK, INC. G.R. No.
169745, July 18, 2014, J. Del Castillo
The petitioner Association of Flood Victims and its representative Jaime Hernandez filed a
petition for certiorari and mandamus before the court assailing Resolution No. 12-0859. The
Supreme Court ruled that under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, only natural and
juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties to a civil action, which must be
prosecuted and defended by a real party-in-interest. A real party-in-interest is the person who
stands benefitted or injured to the outcome of the case or is entitled to the avails of the suit.
Moreover, under Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court the facts showing the capacity of a party
to sue or be sued or the authority of the party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or
the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, must be averred.
ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD VICTIMS and JAIME AGUILAR HERNANDEZ vs.COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ALAY BUHAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, INC., and WESLIE TING
GATCHALIAN G.R. No. 203775, August 5, 2014, J. Carpio
Verily, where a transfer of interest was effected before the commencement of the suit
as in this case the transferee must necessarily be the plaintiff (or defendant, as the case may
be) as it is he who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. Thus, on the
supposition that they were the cases plaintiffs, Sps. Nazal should bear the obligation imputed by
the RTC upon Tito to diligently and expeditiously prosecute the action within a reasonable length
of time. The RTC, however, pointed out that Sps. Nazal failed in this regard. MAJESTIC FINANCE
AND INVESTMENT CO., INC., vs. JOSE D. TITO & ORNELIO MENDOZA and PAULINA CRUZ vs. JOSE
NAZAL and ROSITA NAZAL G.R. No. 197442, October 22, 2014, J. Estela Perlas-Bernabe
Meaning of interest.

Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an interest
in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere
curiosity about the question involved. A real party in interest is the party who, by the
substantive law, has the right sought to be enforced.
Applying the foregoing rule, it is clear that Atty. Aceron is not a real party in interest in
the case below as he does not stand to be benefited or injured by any judgment therein. He
was merely appointed by the petitioners as their attorney-in-fact for the limited purpose of
filing and prosecuting the complaint against the respondents. Such appointment, however,
does not mean that he is subrogated into the rights of petitioners and ought to be considered
as a real party in interest. (Theodore And Nancy Ang, Represented By Eldrige Marvin B. Ceron,
Vs. Spouses Alan And Em Ang, Respondents. G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012)
Effect of Failure to include Real Party in Interest
Real party in interest applies both to the plaintiff and defendant. The suit may be
dismissed if neither of them is a Real party in interest
REMEDY where Real Party in Interest is NOT impleaded:
Amendment of the pleadings or the complaint may be deemed amended to include the
RPII.
If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest, a motion to
dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action (Sec. 1[g], Rule
16; Regalado, 2010).
Only parties to the contract may sue. However, a beneficiary of a stipulation pour autrui
may demand its fulfillment.
In Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, 1993), minors represented by their parents were
held as real parties in interest to file an action to annul timber licenses issued by the state
under the following principles:
a) Inter-generational responsibility;
b) Inter-generational justice;
c) The right of the Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology; and
d) Minors represent themselves and the generation to come.
Court requires that an action must be brought in the name but not necessarily by the
real party in interest. In fact, the practice is for an attorney in fact to bring the action in the
name of the plaintiff (Tuason v. Bolanos, G.R. No. L-25894, Jan. 30, 1971).
Indispensable parties
Those without whom no final determination can be had of an action; they must be
joined under all conditions (Rule 3, Sec.7).
The definition in the Rules of Court, Section 7, Rule 3 thereof, of indispensable parties as
"parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action" has been
jurisprudentially amplified. In Sps. Garcia v. Garcia, et.al., this Court held that:
An indispensable party is a party who has such an interest in the controversy or subject
matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting
that interest, a party who has not only an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but

also has an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his
interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be
wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It has also been considered that an
indispensable party is a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the
parties already before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Further, an
indispensable party is one who must be included in an action before it may properly go
forward. (Simny G. Guy, Geraldine G. Guy, Gladys G. Yao, And The Heirs of the Late Grace G.
Cheu Vs. Gilbert G. Guy, G.R. No. 189486, September 05, 2012)
The nature of the solidary obligation under the surety does not make one an
indispensable party. An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined mandatorily either as plaintiffs
or defendants. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with
jurisdiction, thus, without their presence to a suit or proceeding, the judgment of a court
cannot attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions
of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even
as to those present. (Living @ Sense, Inc. Vs. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. G.R. No.
193753. September 26, 2012)
An indispensable party is one who has an interest in the controversy or subject matter and
in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the parties already before the court
which is effective, complete or equitable. Such that, when the facilities of a corporation, including
its nationwide franchise, had been transferred to another corporation by operation of law during
the time of the alleged delinquency, the former cannot be ordered to pay as it is not the proper
party to the case. In this case, the transferees are certainly the indispensable parties to the case
that must be necessarily included before it may properly go forward. NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION vs. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF BATAAN, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF
BATAAN, PASTOR B. VICHUACO (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF
BATAAN) and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN G.R. No. 180654, April 21,
2014, J. Abad
The fact that one of the respondents did not file their answer to the complaint does not
divest the court of jurisdiction. So long as the case has been prosecuted against the indispensable
parties, the court retains its jurisdiction. ANNIE GERONIMO, SUSAN GERONIMO and SILVERLAND
ALLIANCE CHRISTIAN CHURCH vs. SPS. ESTELA C. CALDERON and RODOLFO T. CALDERON G.R. No.
201781, December 10, 2014, J. Villarama Jr.
The Court reiterated that an indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no
final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. The presence of indispensable
parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear and
determine a cause, the right to act in a case.
Considering that David was asking for judicial determination of his rights in Olympia, it is
without a doubt, an indispensable party as it stands to be injured or benefited by the outcome of
the main proceeding. It has such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would
necessarily affect its rights. Not having been impleaded, Olympia cannot be prejudiced by any
judgment where its interests and properties are adjudicated in favor of another even if the latter
is a beneficial owner. It cannot be said either to have consented to the judicial approval of the
compromise, much less waived substantial rights, because it was never a party in the proceedings.
DAVID M. DAVID vs. FEDERICO M. PARAGAS, JR., G.R. No. 176973, February 25, 2015, J. Mendoza
Purpose of the rules
The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable parties is a complete determination

of all issues not only between the parties themselves, but also as regards other persons who
may be affected by the judgment. A decision valid on its face cannot attain real finality where
there is want of indispensable parties. (Philip L. Go, Pacifico Q. Lim And Andrew Q. Lim, Vs.
Distinction Properties Development And Construction, Inc. G.R. No. 194024, April 25, 2012)
Burden of procuring indispensable parties lis with the plaintiff:
The burden of procuring the presence of all indispensable parties is on the plaintiff. (39
Amjur [sic] 885). The evident purpose of the rule is to prevent the multiplicity of suits by
requiring the person arresting a right against the defendant to include with him, either as coplaintiffs or as co-defendants, all persons standing in the same position, so that the whole
matter in dispute may be determined once and for all in one litigation. (Palarca v. Baginsi, 38
Phil. 177, 178).
Effects of non-joinder of indispensable parties
The presence of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua non for the exercise of
judicial power. It is precisely when an indispensable party is not before the court that the action
should be dismissed (Sepulveda, Sr. v. Pelaez, G.R. No. 152195, 31 January 2005).
The court cannot proceed without their presence. Any judgment rendered by the court
would be null and void.
Settled is the rule that joinder of indispensable parties is compulsory being a sine qua non
for the exercise of judicial power, and, it is precisely when an indispensable party is not before
the court that the action should be dismissed for such absence renders all subsequent actions
of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but
even as to those present. (Simny G. Guy, Geraldine G. Guy, Gladys G. Yao, And The Heirs of the
Late Grace G. Cheu Vs. Gilbert G. Guy, G.R. No. 189486, September 05, 2012)
With regard to actions for partition, the Rules of Court requires that all persons interested
in the property shall be joined as defendants. The Court ruled that the co-heirs to the subject
property are indispensable parties. The Court also held that the CA erred in ordering the dismissal
of the complaint on account of Santiagos failure to implead all the indispensable parties in his
complaint. In instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties, the proper remedy is to implead
them and not to dismiss the case. The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the
dismissal of an action. MA. ELENA R. DIVINAGRACIA, as Administratrix of the ESTATE OF THE LATE
SANTIAGO C. DIVINAGRACIA vs. CORONACION PARILLA, CELESTIAL NOBLEZA, CECILIA LELINA,
CELEDONIO NOBLEZA, and MAUDE NOBLEZA G.R. No. 196750, March 11, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
Representative as parties
Someone acting in a fiduciary capacity (i.e. trustees of an express trust, guardians,
executors or administrators). In this case, the rule requires that the name of the beneficiary
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed as the real party in interest (Rule
3, Sec. 3).
The petitioners reliance on Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court to support their
conclusion that Atty. Aceron is likewise a party in interest in the case below is misplaced.
Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that:
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and
defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be
included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real property in interest. A
representative may be a trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or

a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of
an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the
contract involves things belonging to the principal. (Emphasis ours)
Nowhere in the rule cited above is it stated or, at the very least implied, that the
representative is likewise deemed as the real party in interest. The said rule simply states that,
in actions which are allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative, the beneficiary
shall be deemed the real party in interest and, hence, should be included in the title of the case.
Indeed, to construe the express requirement of residence under the rules on venue as
applicable to the attorney-in-fact of the plaintiff would abrogate the meaning of a "real party in
interest", as defined in Section 2 of Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Court vis--vis Section 3 of the
same Rule. (Theodore And Nancy Ang, Represented By Eldrige Marvin B. Ceron, Vs. Spouses Alan
And Em Ang, Respondents. G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012)
Necessary Parties
Those who are not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is
to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of
the claim subject of the action; may or may not be joined (i.e. joint debtor is a necessary party
in a suit against his co-debtor) (Rule 3, Sec. 8).
Indigent Parties
A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the
court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no
money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
and his family.
The RTC issued an order denying the petitioners motion for leave to lititgate as indigents.
Petitioners argue that respondent judge did not conduct the proper hearing as prescribed under
Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. They claim that private respondents neither submitted
evidence nor were they required by respondent judge to submit evidence in support of their
motions on the issue of indigency of petitioners. The Supreme Court ruled that the hearing
requirement, contrary to petitioners claim, was complied with during the hearings on the
motions to dismiss filed by respondents. In said hearings, petitioners counsel was present and
they were given the opportunity to prove their indigency. Clearly, their non-payment of docket
fees is one of the grounds raised by respondents in their motions to dismiss and the hearings on
the motions were indeed the perfect opportunity for petitioners to prove that they are entitled to
be treated as indigent litigants and thus exempted from the payment of docket fees as initially
found by the Executive Judge. FELIPE JHONNY A. FRIAS, JR. AND HEIRS OF ROGELIO B.
VENERACION vs. THE HONORABLE EDWIN D. SORONGON, ASSISTING JUDGE, BRANCH 211,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANDALUYONG CITY; FIRST ASIA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
AND/OR SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., AND ORTIGAS & COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP G.R. No.
184827, February 11, 2015, J. Villarama
Effects of declaration of indigency:
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful
fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished him.
The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted from paying
shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court
otherwise provides. (Rule 3, Sec. 21)
Exemption from Payment of Legal fees

(Sec.19. Rule 141)

Requisites:
1) Party must have a gross income and that of their immediate family do not exceed an
amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee; and
2) Party do not own real property with a fair market value as stated in the current tax
declaration of more than P300,000.00.
Grant of the application mandatory if requisites are present:
If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and property requirements under Section
19 of Rule 141, then the grant of the application is mandatory. On the other hand, when the
application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the application should not be
denied outright; instead, the court should apply the "indigency test" under Section 21 of Rule 3
and use its sound discretion in determining the merits of the prayer for exemption (Algura v.
LGU, G.R. No. 150135, October 30, 2006).
Alternative Defendants
Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he
may join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief against
one may be inconsistent with a right to relief against the other. (Rule 3, Section 13)
3.3.2. Compulsory and Permissive Joinder of Parties
Compulsory Joinder of Parties
Those without whom no final determination can be had of an action; they must be
joined under all conditions (Rule 3, Sec.7). (indispensable parties must be joined compulsorily)
Permissive Joinder of Parties (Rule 3, Sec. 6)
Requisites:
a) There must be a right to relief in respect to or arises out of the same transaction or
series of transactions;
b) There is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or all the defendants;
and
c) Such joinder is not proscribed by the provisions of the rules on jurisdiction and venue.
What is series of transaction?
Series of transaction means separate dealings with the parties but all of which
dealings are directly connected with the same type of subject-matter of the suit (Regalado).
3.3.3. Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties
Both are NOT grounds for the dismissal of the action. Parties may be dropped or added
by order of the court motu proprio or on motion of any party at any stage of the action and on
such terms as are just. (Rule 3, Section 11)
3.3.4. Class Suit

A suit brought by or defended by a representative member or members of a large group

of persons on behalf of all the members of the group. (Rule 3, Section 12)
Requisites:
1) The subject matter of controversy is of common or general interest to many persons;
2) Persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties;
3) Parties actually before the court are sufficiently numerous and representative so that
all interests concerned are fully protected;
4) The representatives sue or defend for the benefit of all. (Rule 3, Section 12)
The complaint must specially state that the same is being brought in behalf of others
with whom parties share a common interest (Borlasa v. Polistico, 47 Phil. 345).
In case of conflict no class suit:
If there is a conflict of interest between those sought to be represented and those who
filed the action, the class suit will NOT prosper (Ibaez v. Roman Catholic Church, 12 Phil. 227).
Legal capacity is a requirement in class suit:
The party bringing the class suit must have legal capacity to do so (Chinese Flour
Importers Assoc. v. Price Stabilization Board, 9 Phil. 461).
Nature of taxpayers suit/derivative suit = Class suit:
A taxpayers suit or a stockholders derivative suit is in the nature of class suit, although
subject to the other requisites of the corresponding governing law especially on the issue of
locus standi (Regalado P.97).
Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest.
(This is an instance when a person may intervene as a matter of right).
Common or general interest:
In this case, the suit is clearly one that benefits all commuters and motorists who use La
Paz Road. As succinctly stated by the CA: The subject matter of the instant case, i.e., the closure
and excavation of the La Paz Road, is initially shown to be of common or general interest to
many persons. The records reveal that numerous individuals have filed manifestations with the
lower court, conveying their intention to join private respondents in the suit and claiming that
they are similarly situated with private respondents for they were also prejudiced by the acts of
petitioners in closing and excavating the La Paz Road. Moreover, the individuals sought to be
represented by private respondents in the suit are so numerous that it is impracticable to join
them all as parties and be named individually as plaintiffs in the complaint. These individuals
claim to be residents of various barangays in Bian, Laguna and other barangays in San Pedro,
Laguna. (Juana Complex I Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. vs. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., G.R. No.
152272, March 5, 2012)
3.3.5. Suits against entities without juridical personality (Section 15)
Under Section 1 of Rule 3, only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law
may be parties in a civil action. However, an entity without juridical personality be sued as a
defendant when it has entered into a transaction with the plaintiff.
Two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality to enter into a

transaction may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known but
they cannot sue under such name.
In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons composing
said entity must all be revealed (See Sec. 8, Rule 14 as to the manner of the service of summons
of such entities).
With respect to judgments to be rendered in this situation, Sec. 6 of Rule 36 provides
that when judgment is rendered against two or more persons associated in an entity without
juridical personality, the judgment shall set out their individual or proper names if known
(Regalado, 2010).
3.3.6. Effect of death of party-litigant
Whenever a party to a pending action dies AND the claim is not thereby extinguished, it
shall be the duty of his counsel:
1) To inform the court within 30 days after such death of the fact thereof; and
2) To give the name and address of the deceased partys legal representative/s.
(Rule 3, Sec.16)
Failure to comply is a ground for disciplinary action:
Failure to comply by counsel shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
Duty of the counsel to inform the court applies on appeal
The duty of counsel also applies to death of a party in cases pending appeal (Riviera
Filipina v. CA, G.R. No. 117355, April 5, 2002).
No summons is required in case of substitution:
No summonses are required to be served on substitute defendants. Instead, the order
of substitution shall be served upon the parties substituted in the action; otherwise, the court
does not acquire jurisdiction over the substitute party (Ferreria, et al. v. Vda. De Gonzales, et
al., 104 Phil. 143). Proceedings conducted by the trial court after the death of the defendant,
and without such substitution, are null and void (Lawas v. CA, et al., L-45809, 12 Dec.
1986)(Regalado, 2010).
Legal representatives given priority:
The rule is that in the substitution of the deceased, priority is given to his legal
representatives, i.e., the executor or administrator of his estate. The court may allow the
substitution by the heirs instead IF there is unreasonable delay in the appointment of an
executor or administrator or when the estate was extrajudicially settled (Regalado, 201).
3.4. Venue
3.4.1. Venue versus Jurisdiction
(a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case; venue is the place where
the case is to be heard or tried; (b) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue, of
procedural law; (c) Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter;
venue, a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent; and, (d)

Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by
the act or agreement of the parties. (Nocum and Philippine Daily Inquirer v. Tan, G.R. No.
145022, September 23, 2005)
3.4.2. Venue of real actions (Rule 4, Section 1)
In the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area where the real property involved
or a portion thereof is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the Municipal Trial
Court of the municipality or city where the real property involved or a portion thereof is
situated.
Rule in case if there are two boundaries:
If the property is located at the boundaries of two places, file the case in EITHER place at
the option of the plaintiff (Regalado, 2010).
Venue in case of various real properties:
Where the subject matter of the action involves various parcels of land situated in
different provinces, the venue is determined by the singularity or plurality of the transactions
involving said parcels of land.
1) Where said parcels are the objects of one and the same transaction, the venue is in
the court where ANY of the provinces (places) where a parcel of land is situated (El Hogar
Filipino v. Seva, No. 36627, November 19, 1932).
2) If parcels of land are subject of separate and distinct transactions where there is no
common venue, separate actions should be laid in the court of the province where each parcel
of land is situated (Mijares, et al. v. Piccio, et al., L-10458 April 22,1957; Regalado, 2010).
Location of the property venue in real property:
According to the Rules, real actions shall be commenced and tried in the court that has
jurisdiction over the area where the property is situated. In this case, all the mortgaged
properties are located in the Province of Cebu. Thus, following the general rule, PAGLAUM and
HealthTech should have filed their case in Cebu, and not in Makati. (Paglaum Management &
Development Corp. And Health Marketing Technologies, Inc., Vs. Union Bank Of The Philippines,
Notary Public John Doe, And Register Of Deeds Of Cebu City And Cebu Province, $J. King & Sons
Co., Inc. Intervenor, G.R. No. 179018, June 18, 2012)
Lozada filed an application and confirmation of title over a parcel of land before RTC of
Makati. The application was approved by the said court. Within a year from the issuance of the
aforementioned decree, Bracewell filed a nullification of the degree before RTC Las Pias which
was given by the said court. Lozada questioned the jurisdiction of RTC Las Pias in cognizing the
matter. In upholding the jurisdiction of RTC Las Pias, the Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction
over an application for land registration is still vested on the CFI (now, RTC) of the province or city
where the land is situated. Since the land is situated in Las Pias, it is proper that the cancellation
of the decree was filed before RTC Las Pias. NICOMEDES J. LOZADA vs. EULALIA BRACEWELL,
EDDIE BRACEWELL, ESTELLITA BRACEWELL, JAMES BRACEWELL, EDWIN BRACEWELL, BRACEWELL,
JOHN ERIC BRACEWELL, and HEIRS OF GEORGE BRACEWELL G.R. No. 179155, April 2, 2014, J.
Perlas-Bernabe

3.4.3. Venue of personal actions (Rule 4, Section 2

1) Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides;
2) Where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides; or
3) In the case of non-resident defendants, where the non-resident defendant may be
found.
NOTE: All of the abovementioned venues shall be at the election of the plaintiff.
Purpose of the rules on venue in personal actions:
It is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of personal actions are fixed for the
convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Equally settled, however, is the principle that
choosing the venue of an action is not left to a plaintiffs caprice; the matter is regulated by the
Rules of Court.
The petitioners complaint for collection of sum of money against the respondents is a
personal action as it primarily seeks the enforcement of a contract. The Rules give the plaintiff
the option of choosing where to file his complaint. He can file it in the place (1) where he
himself or any of them resides, or (2) where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or
may be found. The plaintiff or the defendant must be residents of the place where the action
has been instituted at the time the action is commenced. (Theodore And Nancy Ang,
Represented By Eldrige Marvin B. Ceron, Vs. Spouses Alan And Em Ang, Respondents. G.R. No.
186993, August 22, 2012)
3.4.4. Venue of actions against non-residents (Rule 4, Section 3)
If the non-resident defendant CAN be found in the Philippines:
1) Personal actions shall be commenced where the plaintiff resides; or
2) Real actions shall be commenced where the property is located.
If the nonresident defendant CANNOT be found in the Philippines:
An action may be commenced only if it involves:
1) Personal status of the plaintiff: venue is where the plaintiff resides;
2) Property of the defendant located in the Philippines: venue shall be where the
property or a portion thereof is situated.
When there is more than one defendant/plaintiff in the case, the residences of the
principal parties should be the basis for determining the proper venue (Regalado, 2010).
Exceptions on the rules on venue:
An exception to the general rules on venue is found in civil actions for damages in case
of LIBEL whether a criminal case therefor has been filed or not, as special rules of venue are
provided in Art.360 of the RPC, as last amended by R.A. 4363. Said venue applies to BOTH
RESIDENTS and NON-RESIDENTS, assuming that jurisdiction over the latter has been acquired
(Regalado, 2010).
However, if the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the complaint in such case
may only be filed in the court of the place where the defendant resides. In Cohen and Cohen v.
Benguet Commercial Co., Ltd., this Court held that there can be no election as to the venue of
the filing of a complaint when the plaintiff has no residence in the Philippines. In such case, the
complaint may only be filed in the court of the place where the defendant resides. Thus:

Section 377 provides that actions of this character "may be brought in any province
where the defendant or any necessary party defendant may reside or be found, or in any
province where the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff." The
plaintiff in this action has no residence in the Philippine Islands. Only one of the parties to the
action resides here. There can be, therefore, no election by plaintiff as to the place of trial. It
must be in the province where the defendant resides. x x x (Theodore And Nancy Ang,
Represented By Eldrige Marvin B. Ceron, Vs. Spouses Alan And Em Ang, Respondents. G.R. No.
186993, August 22, 2012)
3.4.5. When the rules on venue do not apply (Rule 4, Section 4)
The rules on venue shall NOT apply:
1) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise;
2) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the
exclusive venue thereof (Principle of Stipulations on Venue) (Sec. 4).
Requisites for venue to be exclusive:
a) There is a valid written agreement;
b) Executed by the parties before the filing of the action; and
c) Venue is of exclusive or restrictive nature (qualifying words such as only, solely,
exclusively in this court, in no other place, to the exclusion of must be used).
Requisites for venue agreement to be valid: (Rule 4, Section 4)
1) In writing; and
2) Executed by the parties before the filing of the action.
3.4.6. Effects of stipulations on venue
In Sps. Lantin v. Lantion, this Court explained that a venue stipulation must contain
words that show exclusivity or restrictiveness, as follows:
At the outset, we must make clear that under Section 4 (b) of Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, the general rules on venue of actions shall not apply where the parties,
before the filing of the action, have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. The mere
stipulation on the venue of an action, however, is not enough to preclude parties from
bringing a case in other venues. The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is
exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed
as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. x
xx
Clearly, the words "exclusively" and "waiving for this purpose any other venue" are
restrictive and used advisedly to meet the requirements. (Paglaum Management &
Development Corp. And Health Marketing Technologies, Inc., Vs. Union Bank Of The Philippines,
Notary Public John Doe, And Register Of Deeds Of Cebu City And Cebu Province, $J. King & Sons
Co., Inc. Intervenor, G.R. No. 179018, June 18, 2012)
Briones filed a complaint directly assailing the validity of the subject contracts, claiming
forgery in their execution. However, Cash Asia filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
improper venue. In this regard, Cash Asia pointed out the venue stipulation in the subject
contracts which is Malati City and as such, Brioness complaint should be dismissed for having
been filed in the City of Manila. The Court ruled that a complaint directly assailing the validity of

the written instrument itself should not be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation
contained therein and should be filed in accordance with the general rules on venue. VIRGILIO C.
BRIONES vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CASH ASIA CREDIT CORPORATION G.R. No. 204444, January
14, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
Effect of absence of exclusive words.
In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words (e.g. only, solely, exclusively in this
court, in no other court save, particularly, nowhere else but/except) venue stipulation is merely
permissive and not exclusive which means that the stipulated venue is in addition to the venue
provided for in the rules (Polytrade Corp. v. Blanco, G.R. No. L-27033, 1969).
Effect if the stipulation is contrary to public policy:
When the stipulation as to venue in a passenger ticket of a vessel would be contrary to
public policy of making courts accessible to all who may have need of their service, the
stipulation is void and unenforceable (Sweet Lines v. Teves, G.R. No. 28324, May19, 1972).
Venue based on tortuous acts
When the action is no longer based on the agreement but ON THE TORTIOUS ACT of
sending collection telegrams despite the fact that the obligation had already been paid, venue
is no longer based on the written stipulation but at the ELECTION OF THE PLAINTIFF as fixed by
law (Herrera, 2007 Vol.1, p. 636).
Rule on change of venue:
The Supreme Court, to avoid miscarriage of justice, has the power to order a change of
venue or place of the trial in civil or criminal cases or other judicial proceedings (Sec. 5 [4], Art.
VIII, 1987 Constitution).
Nature of Intervention must yield to the venue in the main action:
An intervention cannot alter the nature of the action and the issues joined by the
original parties thereto. (Claridades v. Mercader, G.R. No. L-20341, May 14, 1966) An
intervention is not an independent proceeding but one which is merely ancillary to the existing
action.
Third party complaint must yield to the venue in the main action
It has to be remembered that a third-party complaint is but ancillary to the main action
and is a procedural device to avoid multiplicity of suits. Thus, a third-party complaint has to
yield to the jurisdiction and venue of the main action. (Eastern Assurance & Surety Corp. v. Cui,
G.R. No. L-54452, July 20 1981)
3.5. Pleadings
These are written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties
submitted to the court for appropriate judgment (Rule 6, Sec. 1).
3.5.1. Kinds of pleadings
a) Complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint,
complaint-in-intervention - The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes
of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the

complaint. (Rule 6, Sec. 3)

b) Answer - An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses.
(Rule 6, Sec. 4)
Kinds of defenses:
1) Negative Defenses - The specific denial (Sec. 10, Rule 9) of the material fact/s alleged in
the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause/s of action. (Sec. 5[a])
Kinds of denial:
1) Absolute denial - the defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the
truth of which he does not admit and setting forth the substance of the matters upon which he
relies to support his denial, whenever practicable.
2) Partial denial - the defendant shall specify so much of it as is true and material and
shall deny the remainder.
3) Disavowal of knowledge - the defendant shall state in his pleading that he does not
have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material
averment.
The defendant must positively state how it is that he is ignorant of the facts as alleged.
This denial does not apply where the facts as to which want of knowledge is asserted, is
so plainly and necessarily within the defendants knowledge, that his averment of ignorance
must be palpably untrue. It is as if that no denial at all has been made.
Negative Pregnant a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at
least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an
admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading.
Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the
allegation are so qualified or modified are literally denied, has been held that the qualifying
circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted (Republic vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003).
Example: In Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, it was alleged that it was clearly and overwhelmingly
showed how the respondents stashed away the countrys wealth to Switzerland amounting to
$356M and hid the same under layers of foundations and corporate entities to prevent
detection.
Negative Pregnant: The respondents specifically denies the allegations for it was false, the truth
being that respondents properties in the bank were lawfully acquired. Thus, it was implied that
they admit that it was stashed to Switzerland.
Affirmative Defenses - 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.
Kinds of affirmative defenses:
Affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality,
statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy and any other matter by

way of confession and avoidance. (Sec. 5[b])

Counterclaim It is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party
(Rule 6, Sec. 6).
Nature of a counterclaim
A counterclaim is in the nature of a cross complaint such that it must be answered
within 10 days from service. It is a cause of action against plaintiff.
Counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court
Where to file: A counterclaim which is filed before the MTC must be within the
jurisdiction of said court as to the amount and the nature thereof.
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 courts jurisdiction may only be pleaded
by way of defense, the purpose of which is to defeat or weaken the plaintiffs claim, but NOT to
obtain affirmative relief.
Counterclaim cannot exceed the jurisdiction of the court
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 (Agustin v. Bacalan, L-16000 March 18, 1985).
Effect if counterclaim in excess of the jurisdiction of the court
A counterclaim, even if otherwise compulsory, but the amount exceeds the jurisdiction
of the inferior court, will only be considered permissive. Hence, the fact that it is not set-up in
the inferior court will not bar plaintiff from instituting a separate action to prosecute it (Calo v.
Ajax, L-20865, March 13, 1968).
Counterclaim in the RTC no limit: Requirement
A counterclaim may be entertained by the RTC regardless of the amount involved
provided that, in addition to the other requirements, it is cognizable by the regular courts of
justice (Regalado, 2010).
(i) Compulsory Counterclaim (Sec. 7)
Requisites:
1) It must arise out of, or be necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence
that is the subject matter of the opposing partys claim;
2) It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction; and
3) It must be cognizable by the regular courts.
4) The trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim both as to the amount and the
nature thereof, EXCEPT that in an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be
considered compulsory regardless of the amount.
5) It must be existing at the time the defendant files his answer (Sec. 8, Rule 11).
Test of Compulsoriness:
The logical relationship between the claim and counterclaim.

(ii) Permissive Counterclaim

It is a counterclaim which does not arise out of or is necessarily connected with the
subject matter of the opposing partys claim. It is not barred even of it is not set up in the
original action.
Effect if counterclaim is not raised: General rule:
A compulsory counterclaim not set up in the answer is deemed barred.
Exceptions:
a) If it is a counterclaim which either matured or was acquired by a party after serving
his answer. In this case, it may be pleaded by filing a supplemental answer or pleading before
judgment.
b) When a pleader fails to set-up a counterclaim through oversight, inadvertence,
excusable negligence, or when justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set-up the
counterclaim by amendment of the pleadings before judgment (Sec. 10, Rule 11).
Effect if compulsory counterclaim is not answered
A plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a compulsory counterclaim may not be
declared in default principally because the issues raised in the counterclaim are deemed
automatically joined by the allegations of the complaint (Gojo v. Goyala, G.R. No. 26768, Oct.
30, 1970).
Motion to dismiss with compulsory counterclaim is incompatible
The filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting up of a compulsory counterclaim are
incompatible remedies. In the event that a defending party has a ground for dismissal and a
compulsory counterclaim at the same time, he must choose only one remedy. If he decides to
file a motion to dismiss, he cannot set up his counterclaim. But if he opts to set up his
counterclaim, he may still plead his ground for dismissal as an affirmative defense in his answer
(Regalado, 2010).
(iii) Effect on the counterclaim when the complaint is dismissed
Under the 1997 Rules, the dismissal of the main complaint will not correspondingly
result in the dismissal of the counterclaim where the defendant had already filed and served
the answer with counterclaims upon the plaintiff. The defendant has the option of prosecuting
the counterclaim in the same or in a separate action (Riguera, Primer Reviewer on Remedial
Law).
1) If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in
this Rule (Rule 16) may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the
discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had
been filed.
The dismissal of the complaint under this section shall be without prejudice to the
prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer (Sec. 6,
Rule 16).
2) Where the plaintiff himself files a motion to dismiss his complaint after the defendant
has pleaded his answer with a counterclaim, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint and
is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate

action unless within 15 days from notice of the motion he manifests his preference to have his
counterclaim resolved in the same action (Sec. 2, Rule 17).
3) If the dismissal is due to the fault of the plaintiff and a counterclaim has been set up
by the defendant, the latter may prosecute such counterclaim in the same or in a separate
action (Sec. 3, Rule 17; Riano).
Petitioners filed counterclaim against respondents. However, the latter alleged that the
dismissal of the main action results to the dismissal of the counterclaims. The Court ruled that as
the rule now stands, the nature of the counterclaim notwithstanding, the dismissal of the
complaint does not ipso jure result in the dismissal of the counterclaim, and the latter may remain
for independent adjudication of the court, provided that such counterclaim, states a sufficient
cause of action and does not labor under any infirmity that may warrant its outright dismissal.
Stated differently, the jurisdiction of the court over the counterclaim that appears to be valid on
its face, including the grant of any relief thereunder, is not abated by the dismissal of the main
action. The courts authority to proceed with the disposition of the counterclaim independent of
the main action is premised on the fact that the counterclaim, on its own, raises a novel question
which may be aptly adjudicated by the court based on its own merits and evidentiary support.
VIRGINIA S. DIO and H.S. EQUITIES, LTD vs. SUBIC BAY MARINE EXPLORATORIUM, INC.,
represented by its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, TIMOTHY DESMOND G.R. No. 189532,
June 11, 2014, J. Perez
Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is now explicitly provided that the dismissal of
the complaint due to failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his case is "without prejudice to the right
of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action." Since
petitioners counterclaim is compulsory in nature and its cause of action survives that of the
dismissal of respondents complaint, then it should be resolved based on its own merits and
evidentiary support. AIDA PADILLA vs. GLOBE ASIATIQUE REALTY HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
FILMAL REALTY CORPORATION, DELFIN S. LEE and DEXTER L. LEE G.R. No. 207376, August 6,
2014, J. Villarama, Jr.
Respondents, including the plaintiff, filed for joint dismissal of the case. It was granted by
the RTC, dismissing also the petitioners counterclaim and cross-claim. The Court ruled that
petitioners preference to have his counterclaim prosecuted in the same action is valid and in
accordance with Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. A dismissal of an action is different from
a mere dismissal of the complaint. Since only the complaint and not the action is dismissed, the
defendant in spite of said dismissal may still prosecute his counterclaim in the same action. LIM
TECK CHUAN vs. SERAFIN UY and LEOPOLDA CECILIO, LIM SING CHAN @ HENRY LIM G.R. No.
155701, March 11, 2015, J. Reyes
Cross-Claims
It is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein
(Rule 6 Sec. 8).
The dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal of a cross-claim which is
purely defensive (but NOT a cross-claim seeking affirmative relief)
Reason: It has no independent existence and based entirely on the complaint.
Third (fourth, etc.) party complaints
It is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a
party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant for:

a.
b.
c.
d.

contribution,
indemnity,
subrogation or
any other relief in respect to his opponents claim (Rule 6, Sec. 11).

Application of third- party complaint

Explaining the application of Section 12, Rule 6, supra, the Court said in Balbastro v.
Court of Appeals, to wit: Section 12 of Rule 6 of the Revised Rules of Court authorizes a
defendant to bring into a lawsuit any person "not a party to the action . . . for contribution,
indemnity, subrogation or any other relief in respect of his opponent's claim." From its explicit
language it does not compel the defendant to bring the third-parties into the litigation, rather it
simply permits the inclusion of anyone who meets the standard set forth in the rule. The
secondary or derivative liability of the third-party is central whether the basis is indemnity,
subrogation, contribution, express or implied warranty or some other theory. The impleader of
new parties under this rule is proper only when a right to relief exists under the applicable
substantive law. This rule is merely a procedural mechanism, and cannot be utilized unless
there is some substantive basis under applicable law.
Apart from the requirement that the third-party complainant should assert a
derivative or secondary claim for relief from the third-party defendant there are other
limitations on said partys ability to implead. The rule requires that the third-party defendant is
"not a party to the action" for otherwise the proper procedure for asserting a claim against
one who is already a party to the suit is by means of counterclaim or cross-claim under
sections 6 and 7 of Rule 6. In addition to the aforecited requirement, the claim against the
third-party defendant must be based upon plaintiff's claim against the original defendant
(third-party claimant). The crucial characteristic of a claim under section 12 of Rule 6, is that
the original "defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability
asserted against him by the original plaintiff. (Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc., Vs. Felix Paras
And Inland Trailways, Inc., And Hon. Court Of Appeals, G.R. No. 161909, April 25, 2012)

Third-party complaint: Requisites

Accordingly, the requisites for a third-party action are, firstly, that the party to be
impleaded must not yet be a party to the action; secondly, that the claim against the thirdparty defendant must belong to the original defendant; thirdly, the claim of the original
defendant against the third-party defendant must be based upon the plaintiffs claim against
the original defendant; and, fourthly, the defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party
defendant the liability asserted against him by the original plaintiff.
As the foregoing indicates, the claim that the third-party complaint asserts against the
third-party defendant must be predicated on substantive law. (Philtranco Service Enterprises,
Inc., Vs. Felix Paras And Inland Trailways, Inc., And Hon. Court Of Appeals, G.R. No. 161909,
April 25, 2012)
Third-party complaint need not be based on same claim
The third-party claim need not be based on the same theory as the main claim. For
example, there are cases in which the third-party claim is based on an express indemnity
contract and the original complaint is framed in terms of negligence. Similarly, there need not
be any legal relationship between the third-party defendant and any of the other parties to the
action. Impleader also is proper even though the third partys liability is contingent, and
technically does not come into existence until the original defendants liability has been
established. In addition, the words is or may be liable in Rule 14(a) make it clear that

impleader is proper even though the third-party defendants liability is not automatically
established once the third-party plaintiffs liability to the original plaintiff has been determined.
(Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc., Vs. Felix Paras And Inland Trailways, Inc., And Hon. Court Of
Appeals, G.R. No. 161909, April 25, 2012)
Complaint in Intervention
A pleading wherein an intervenor asserts a claim against either or all of the original
parties (Rule 19, Sec. 3).
Reply
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial
or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in the answer and thereby join or make
issue as to such new matters. If a party does not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in
the answer are deemed controverted. (Rule 6, Sec. 10).
3.5.2. Pleadings and motions not allowed in small claim cases and cases covered by the Rules
on Summary Procedure
SMALL CLAIM:
Pleadings allowed:
1. Verified Statement of Claims
2) Verified response
3) Compulsory counterclaim
4) Permissive counterclaim
Prohibited pleadings/ motions
(Sec. 14 A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

Motion to dismiss the complaint;

Motion for a bill of particulars;
Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;
Petition for relief from judgment;
Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper;
Memoranda;
Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by
the court;
h. Motion to declare the defendant in default;
i. Dilatory motions for postponement;
j. Reply;
k. Third-party complaints; and
l. Interventions
Jurisdictional amount
The rule shall govern the procedure before the MTC in actions for payment of money
where the value of the claim does not exceed P100,000, exclusive of interests and costs.
The prohibited pleadings and motions are essentially the same as those prohibited under the
Rule on Summary Procedure. The only difference is that motions to dismiss on whatever
ground are prohibited in small claims cases.

SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Pleadings allowed under the Rule on Summary Procedure:
a. Complaint
b. Compulsory Counterclaim
c. Cross-claim
d. Answer
All pleadings must be verified.
Prohibited pleadings/ motions
1. Motion to dismiss the complaint EXCEPT on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, or failure to comply with the requirement of prior referral to the Lupon;
2. Motion for bill of particulars;
3. Motion for new trial or for reconsideration of a judgment or for reopening of trial;
4. Petition for relief from judgment;
5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other papers;
6. Memoranda;
7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by
the court;
8. Motion to declare the defendant in default;
9. Dilatory motions for postponement;
10. Reply;
11. Third party complaint;
12. Intervention.
Note: The filing of a motion to dismiss after the answer had already been submitted does not
constitute prohibited pleading (Heirs of Olivas v. Flor, L-78343 May 21, 1988).
Lack of jurisdiction may be raised in a motion to dismiss
The defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised in a motion to dismiss as an exception
to the rule on prohibited pleadings.
Motion to render judgment
While the plaintiff cannot file a motion to declare defendant in default, he may still file a
motion to render judgment should the defendant fail to file his answer.
3.5.3. Parts of a pleading
a) Caption
The caption sets forth the name of the court, the title of the action, and the docket
number if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be named in the
original complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of
the first party on each side be stated with an appropriate indication when there are other
parties.
Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated. (Rule 7, Sec.1)
b) Signature and address

Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in
either case his address which should not be a post office box.
The signature of counsel constitutes a 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 and not intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading,
or signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or
fails promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action. (Rule 7, Sec.3)
c) Verification
Rule 7, Section 4. Verification. Except when otherwise specifically required by law or
rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit .(5a)
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information
and belief", or upon "knowledge, information and belief", or lacks a proper verification, shall be
treated as an unsigned pleading.
Importance of verification
The verification requirement is significant, as it is intended to secure an assurance that
the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a
matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. Verification is deemed
substantially complied with when, as in this case, one who has ample knowledge to swear to
the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters
alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct. (Felix Martos,
Jimmy Eclana, Rodel Pilones, et al. Vs. New San Jose Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 192650. October 24,
2012)
The main issue of this case is whether or not there is proper verification of the complaint.
Contrary to Uniwides claim, the records of the case show that the petitions verification page
contains Trajanos competent evidence of identity, specifically, Passport No. XX041470. Trajanos
failure to furnish Uniwide a copy of the petition containing his competent evidence of identity is a
minor error that this Court may and chooses to brush aside in the interest of substantial justice.
This Court has, in proper instances, relaxed the application of the Rules of Procedure when the
party has shown substantial compliance with it. In these cases, The court have held that the rules
of procedure should not be applied in a very technical sense when it defeats the purpose for
which it had been enacted, i.e., to ensure the orderly, just and speedy dispensation of cases JUAN
TRAJANO a.k.a. JOHNNY TRAJANO vs. UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB G.R. No. 190253, June
11, 2014, J. Brion
d) Certification against forum shopping
Rule 7, Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff or principal party
shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief,
or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has

not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action
or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
When there has been a final and executory ruling by the Court, petitioner filing an action
for quieting of title constitutes deliberate forum shopping. Forum shopping consists of the
following elements:
(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both
actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same
facts; and
(c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the
other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the
action under consideration.
All the elements of forum shopping are present in this case. The parties in G.R. No. 112564
and this case are the same: Molina and TMBC. ORTIGAS & COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
vs. JUDGE TIRSO VELASCO AND DOLORES V. MOLINA, G.R. No. 109645, January 21, 2015, J.
Leonen
There is forum shopping when as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party
seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The Rules of Court
mandates petitioner to submit a Certification Against Forum Shopping and promptly inform the
court about the pendency of any similar action or proceeding before other courts or tribunals.
Failure to comply with the rule is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs. SPOUSES RUNE AND LEA STROEM G.R. No. 204689,
January 21, 2015, J. Leonen
Effects of failure to comply
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of
the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The
submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative
and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and
deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and
shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
Requirements of a corporation executing the verification/certification of non-forum shopping
The requirement that a petitioner or principal party should sign the certificate of nonforum shopping applies even to corporations, considering that the mandatory directives of the
Rules of Court make no distinction between natural and juridical persons.
A corporation, however, exercises its powers through its board of directors and/or its duly
authorized officers and agents. Physical acts, like the signing of documents, can be performed
only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-laws or by a specific
act of the board of directors (Pascual and Santos, Inc. v. The Members of the Tramo Wakas
Neighborhood Association, Inc., G.R. No. 144880, November 17, 2004).
Purpose of Certification against Forum Shopping

We emphasize that the rules on forum shopping are meant to prevent such
eventualities as conflicting final decisions. This Court has consistently held that the costly
consequence of forum shopping should remind the parties to ever be mindful against abusing
court processes. In addition, the principle of res judicata requires that stability be accorded to
judgments. Controversies once decided on the merits shall remain in repose for there should be
an end to litigation which, without the doctrine, would be endless. (Elsa D. Medado vs. Heirs of
the Late Antonio Consing, G.R. No. 186720, February 8, 2012)
Test of whether there is a violation of non-forum shopping
To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most
important factor to ask is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final
judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another; otherwise stated, the test for
determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases pending, there is identity of
parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought. In turn, prior judgment or res judicata bars a
subsequent case when the following requisites concur: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is
rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a
judgment or an order on the merits; (4) there is between the first and the second actions
identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action. As to the third requisite, it has been
settled that the dismissal for failure to state a cause of action may very well be considered a
judgment on the merits and, thereby, operate as res judicata on a subsequent case. ABOITIZ
EQUITY VENTURES, INC., vs. VICTOR S. CHIONGBIAN, BENJAMIN D. GOTHONG, and CARLOS A.
GOTHONG LINES, INC. (CAGLI) G.R. No.197530, July 9, 2014, J. Leonen
There is no question that Ferro Chemicals, Inc. committed forum shopping when it filed an
appeal before the Court of Appeals and a petition for certiorari before the SC assailing the same
trial court decision. The test for determining the existence of forum shopping is whether the
elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case amounts to res
judicata in another. Thus, there is forum shopping when the following elements are present: (a)
identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b)
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
(c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other
action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount tores judicata in the action under
consideration; said requisites are also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis
pendens. ANTONIO M. GARCIA vs. FERRO CHEMICALS, INC., G.R. No. 172505, October 01, 2014, J.
Leonen
e) Effect of the signature of counsel in a pleading
The signature of counsel constitutes a 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 and not intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading,
or signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein, or
fails promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action. (Rule 7, Sec.3)
Effect of signing by a person not authorized to sign
What then, is the effect of a complaint filed by one who has not proven his authority to
represent a plaintiff in filing an action? In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals, the Court

categorically stated that *i+f a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff [by one] who is
not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does
not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that
it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff. This ruling was reiterated in Cosco
Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company, where the Court went on to say that
*i+n order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, and to be bound by a decision, a party should first be
subjected to the court's jurisdiction. Clearly, since no valid complaint was ever filed with the
[MeTC], the same did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent [plaintiff before
the lower court]." Pursuant to the foregoing rulings, therefore, the MeTC never acquired
jurisdiction over this case and all proceedings before it were null and void. The courts could not
have delved into the very merits of the case, because legally, there was no complaint to speak
of. The court's jurisdiction cannot be deemed to have been invoked at all. (Atty. Fe Q.
Palmiano-Salvador Vs. Constantino Angeles, Substituted By Luz G. Angeles, G.R. No. 171219,
September 3 2012)
Substantial compliance in verification
1. When the party who signed the verification has sufficient knowledge of its contents

Verification is deemed substantially complied with when, as in the instant case, one who
has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or
petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have
been made
in good faith or are true and correct. (Georgia T. Estel, vs. Recaredo P.
Diego, Sr. and Recaredo R. Diego, Jr., G.R. No. 174082, January 16, 2012)
When is the party who signed covered by a valid authorization?
[R]ecords show that Soledad signed the verification and certification against forum
shopping on behalf of her co-petitioners by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
attached to the petition filed with the CA.
[T]he authority of Soledad includes the filing of an appeal before the CA, including the
execution of a verification and certification against forum shopping therefor, being acts
necessary "to protect, sue, prosecute, defend and adopt whatever action necessary and
proper" in relation to their rights over the subject properties.
In addition, the allegations and contentions embodied in the CA petition do not deviate
from the claims already made by the heirs in Civil Case Nos. 00-11320 and 797-C, both
specifically mentioned in the SPA. We emphasize that the verification requirement is simply
intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct, and
not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in
good faith. We rule that there was no deficiency in the petition's verification and certification
against forum shopping filed with the CA.
In any case, we reiterate that where the petitioners are immediate relatives, who share
a common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact that only one of the
petitioners executed the verification or certification of forum shopping will not deter the court
from proceeding with the action. (Elsa D. Medado vs. Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing, G.R.
No. 186720, February 8, 2012)
The submission of an SPA authorizing an attorney-in-fact to sign the verification and
certification against forum-shopping in behalf of the principal party is considered as substantial

compliance with the Rules. At the very least, the SPA should have granted the attorneys-in-fact
the power and authority to institute civil and criminal actions which would necessarily include the
signing of the verification and certification against forum-shopping. Hence, there is lack of
authority to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in the petition filed
before the Court of Appeals when the SPA reveals that the powers conferred to attorneys-in-fact
only pertain to administrative matters. ZARSONA MEDICAL CLINIC vs. PHILIPPINE HEALTH
INSURANCE CORPORATION G.R. No. 191225, October 13, 2014, J. Perez
When only a part of the undertaking is missing
As to respondents' certification on non-forum shopping, a reading of respondents
certification/Certification reveals that they, in fact, certified therein that they have not
commenced any similar action before any other court or tribunal and to the best of their
knowledge no such other action is pending therein. The only missing statement is respondents'
undertaking that if they should thereafter learn that the same or similar action has been filed
or is pending, they shall report such fact to the court. This, notwithstanding, the Court finds
that there has been substantial compliance on the part of respondents. (Georgia T. Estel, vs.
Recaredo P. Diego, Sr. and Recaredo R. Diego, Jr., G.R. No. 174082, January 16, 2012)
Rule when only one of parties having common interest signs
Sisters Lourdes and Cecilia filed a petition to recover possession of a land. However, only
Lourdes was the signatory in the verification and certification against forum shopping. Norma
questioned the propriety of the petition. The Court then ruled that where the petitioners are
immediate relatives, who share a common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact
that only one of the petitioners executed the verification or certification of forum shopping will
not deter the court from proceeding with the action. LOURDES C. FERNANDEZ vs. NORMA
VILLEGAS and any person acting in her behalf including her family G.R. No. 200191, August 20,
2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
It may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification
The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the
certification. This is because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions
regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in
that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely
disregarded. Thus, under justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the
submission of such certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.
Certificate of Non-forum shopping required in Petition for Certiorari
The Rules of Court provide that a petition for certiorari must be verified and
accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. Failure to comply with these
mandatory requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. Considering
that only 3 of the 228 named petitioners signed the requirement, the CA dismissed the case
against them, as they did not execute a Verification and Certification against forum shopping.
(Vivian T. Ramirez Et. Al., vs. Mar Fishing Co., Inc., Miramar Fishing Co., Inc., Robert Buehs And
Jerome Spitz, G.R. No. 168208, June 13, 2012)
3.5.4. Allegations in a pleading
Manner of Making Allegations
In General (Rule 8, Sec.1)

Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form a plain, concise and direct
statement of the ultimate facts, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.
Only ultimate facts must be alleged
Ultimate Facts are those important and substantial facts which form the basis of the
primary right of the plaintiff and which make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the
defendant. They are the principal, determinate, constitutive facts, upon the existence of which,
the entire cause of action rests (Tantuico, Jr. v. Republic, G.R. No. 89114, December 2, 1991).
In an earlier ruling, the Court had stated that a pleading should state the ultimate facts
essential to the rights of action or defense asserted, as distinguished from mere conclusions of
fact, or conclusions of law. General allegations that a contract is valid or legal, or is just, fair, and
reasonable, are mere conclusions of law. Likewise, allegations that a contract is void, voidable,
invalid, illegal, ultra vires, or against public policy, without stating facts showing its invalidity, are
mere conclusions of law. Hence, when the petitioner merely stated a legal conclusion, he
amended complaint presented no sufficient allegation upon which the Court could grant the relief
petitioner prayed for. ELIZA ZUNIGA-SANTOS,* represented by her Attorney-in Fact, NYMPHA Z.
SALES vs. MARIA DIVINA GRACIA SANTOS-GRAN** and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MARIKINA CITY
G.R. No. 197380, October 8, 2014, J. PERLAS-BERNABE
Legal conclusions or evidentiary facts need not be alleged
Only ultimate facts and not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts, which should not be
alleged in the complaint in the first place, are considered for purposes of applying the test.
(D.M. Ferrer & Associates Corporation vs. University Of Santo Tomas, G.R. No. 189496, February
1, 2012)
Alternative Causes of Action (Rule 8, Sec.2)
A party may set forth 2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or
hypothetically, EITHER in one cause of action or defense or in separate causes of action or
defense.
Condition precedent (Rule 8, Sec.3)
A general averment of performance of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient. If
condition precedent is required, the complaint must allege fulfillment or excuse for nonfulfillment.
Fraud, mistake, malice, intent, knowledge and other condition of the mind, judgments,
official documents or acts
Fraud, mistake, condition of mind
Rule 8, Section 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. In all averments of fraud or
mistake the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity.
Malice, intent, knowledge, or other condition of the mind of a person may be averred generally.
Judgment:
Rule 8, Section 6. Judgment. In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or
foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver
the judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it.

Rule 8, Section 9. Official document or act. In pleading an official document or official act, it is
sufficient to aver that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law.
Pleading an actionable document
Rule 8, Section 7. Action or defense based on document. Whenever an action or
defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or
document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached
to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy
may with like effect be set forth in the pleading.
c) Specific Denials
Rule 8, Section 10. Specific denial. A defendant must specify each material allegation
of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the
substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant desires
to 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 knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made to the complaint, he shall
so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.
Effect of Failure to make specific denials
The genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless
the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the
facts, but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear
to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the
original instrument is refused. (Rule 8, Section 8)
(ii). When a specific denial requires an oath: Exception
The genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless
the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the
facts, but the requirement of an oath does not apply
a) when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument; or
b) When compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
refused. (Rule 8, Section 8)
3.5.5. Effect of Failure to Plead
a) Failure to plead defenses and objections
General rule:
Defenses and objections not pleaded in an answer or motion to dismiss are deemed waived.
(Rule 9, Section 1)
Exceptions:
When it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record
1) That the court lack jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2) Litis pendentia between same parties for the same cause;

3) Res judicata;
4) Action barred by statute of limitations.
The court shall dismiss the claim.
NOTE: These defenses may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, except
lack of jurisdiction which may be barred by laches (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450,
April 15, 1968).
Failure to plead compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim
General rule:
A compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim which is not set up is deemed barred. (Rule 9,
Sec. 2)
Exception:
If the counterclaim or cross claim matured or was acquired by a party after serving his
answer, he may, with the permission of the court, be allowed to present his counterclaim or
cross-claim by filing a supplemental answer or pleading before judgment (Rule 11, Sec. 9).
The filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting up of a compulsory counterclaim are
incompatible remedies. If he decides to file a motion to dismiss, he will lose his compulsory
counterclaim. But if he opts to set up his compulsory counterclaim, he may still plead his
ground for dismissal as an affirmative defense in his answer. (Finacial Building Corp. v. Forbes
Park PARK Association, G.R. No. 133119, Aug. 17, 2000)
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set up
the counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment. (Sec. 10, Rule 11).
NOTE: An after-acquired counterclaim is merely permissive even if it arises from or is connected
with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject-matter of the opposing partys
claim.
3.5.6. Default
When a declaration of default is proper?
If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall,
upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure,
declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment
granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion
requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the
clerk of court. (Rule 9, Sec. 3)
Failure to file an Answer-in-intervention; Default
Lim points out that an answer-in-intervention cannot give rise to default since the filing of
such an answer is only permissive. But Section 4, Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
requires the original parties to file an answer to the complaint-in-intervention within 15 days
from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. This
changes the procedure under the former rule where such an answer was regarded as optional.
Thus, Lims failure to file the required answer can give rise to default. Natividad Lim Vs.

National Power Corporation, Sps. Roberto Ll. Arcinue and Arabela Arcinue, G.R. No.
178789. November 14, 2012)
Effect of an order of default
A party in default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but not to take
part in the trial. (Rule 9, Sec. 3(a))
The petitioners default by their failure to file their answer led to certain consequences.
Where defendants before a trial court are declared in default, they thereby lose their right to
object to the reception of the plaintiffs evidence establishing his cause of action. This is akin to
a failure to, despite due notice, attend in court hearings for the presentation of the
complainants evidence, which absence would amount to the waiver of such defendants right
to object to the evidence presented during such hearing, and to cross-examine the witnesses
presented therein.(Magdiwang Realty Corporation, Renato P. Dragon And Esperanza Tolentino
Vs. The Manila Banking Corporation, Substituted By First Sovereign Asset Management (SpvAmc), Inc., G .R. No. 195592, 5 Sep 2012)
Relief from an order of default
A party declared in default may at any time after notice thereof and before judgment
file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon proper showing that his failure
to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a
meritorious defense. In such case, the order of default may be set aside on such terms and
conditions as the judge may impose in the interest of justice. (Rule 9, Sec. 3(b))
The records reveal that the judgment of default was sent via registered mail to PTAs counsel.
However, PTA never availed of the remedy of a motion to lift the order of default. Since the
failure of PTA to present its evidence was not a product of any fraudulent acts committed
outside trial, the RTC did not err in declaring PTA in default. (Philippine Tourism Authority, Vs.
Philippine Golf Development & Equipment, Inc., G.R. No. 176628, G.R. No. 176628 March 19,
2012)
Effect of a partial default
When a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action against several
defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the
case against all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented.
(Rule 9, Sec. 3(c))
Extent of relief
A judgment rendered against a party in default shall not exceed the amount or be
different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages. (Rule 9, Sec. 3(d))
Notably, the Rules is even more strict in safeguarding the right to due process of a
defendant who was declared in default than of a defendant who participated in trial. For
instance, amendment to conform to the evidence presented during trial is allowed the parties
under the Rules. But the same is not feasible when the defendant is declared in default because
Section 3(d), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court comes into play and limits the relief that may be
granted by the courts to what has been prayed for in the Complaint. It provides:
(d) Extent of relief to be awarded. A judgment rendered against a party in default shall
not exceed the amount or be different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated
damages.
Rationale for limiting the extent of relief

The raison dtre in limiting the extent of relief that may be granted is that it cannot be
presumed that the defendant would not file an Answer and allow himself to be declared in
default had he known that the plaintiff will be accorded a relief greater than or different in kind
from that sought in the Complaint. No doubt, the reason behind Section 3(d), Rule 9 of the
Rules of Court is to safeguard defendants right to due process against unforeseen and
arbitrarily issued judgment. This, to the mind of this Court, is akin to the very essence of due
process. It embodies the sporting idea of fair play39 and forbids the grant of relief on matters
where the defendant was not given the opportunity to be heard thereon. (Leticia Diona, rep. by
her attorney-in-fact, Marcelina Diona Vs. Romeo A. Balangue, Sonny A. Balangue, Reynaldo A.
Balangue, and Esteban A. Balangue, Jr. G.R. No. 173559. January 7, 2013)
Actions where default is not allowed
If the defending party in an action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or
for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate
whether or not a collusion between the parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene
for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated. (Rule 9, Sec.
3(e))
Filing a motion to dismiss stall the running of the period within which a party must answer,
hence no default shall lie within the suspended period
As a consequence of the motion to dismiss that defendant Narciso filed, the running of
the period during which the rules required her to file her answer was deemed suspended.
When the trial court denied her motion to dismiss, therefore, she had the balance of her period
for filing an answer under Section 4, Rule 16 within which to file the same but in no case less
than five days, computed from her receipt of the notice of denial of her motion to dismiss.
Thus:
SEC. 4. Time to plead. If the motion is denied, the movant shall file his answer within
the balance of the period prescribed by Rule 11 to which he was entitled at the time of serving
his motion, but not less than five (5) days in any event, computed from his receipt of the notice
of the denial. If the pleading is ordered to be amended, he shall file his answer within the
period prescribed by Rule 11 counted from service of the amended pleading, unless the court
provides a longer period.
But apart from opposing defendants motion to dismiss, plaintiff Garcia asked the trial
court to declare Narciso in default for not filing an answer, altogether disregarding the
suspension of the running of the period for filing such an answer during the pendency of the
motion to dismiss that she filed in the case. Consequently, when the trial court granted Garcias
prayer and simultaneously denied Narcisos motion to dismiss and declared her in default, it
committed serious error. Narciso was not yet in default when the trial court denied her motion
to dismiss. She still had at least five days within which to file her answer to the complaint.
What is more, Narciso had the right to file a motion for reconsideration of the trial courts
order denying her motion to dismiss. No rule prohibits the filing of such a motion for
reconsideration. Only after the trial court shall have denied it does Narciso become bound to
file her answer to Garcias complaint. And only if she did not do so was Garcia entitled to have
her declared in default. Unfortunately, the CA failed to see this point. (Anita A. Ledda Vs. Bank
of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 200868. November 21, 2012)
3.5.7. Filing and service of pleadings
a) Payment of Docket Fees

Docket fees MUST be paid at the commencement of the action

1) A court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed
docket fee, and in order to curb the unethical practice of misleading the docket clerk in the
assessment of the correct filing fee, the SC laid down the rule that henceforth all complaints,
petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being
prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer therein, and said
damages shall be the basis for assessing the amount of the filing fees. (SC Circular No. 7, March
24, 1988; Manchester Development v. CA, No. L-75919, May 7, 1987).
2) Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a
claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified, the same has been left for determination by
the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment (Sun
Insurance Office, Ltd., v. Asuncion, G.R. Nos. 79937-38, February 13, 1989).
3) Payment of filing fees is also required in cases of appeal (Sec. 5, Rule 40; Sec. 4, Rule 41;
Sec. 3, Rule 45).
Effect of non-payment of docket fees:
Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement,
nonpayment of which at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the
case for as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period; more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by
the rules prescribing such payment. (Sps. Go v. Tong, G.R. 151942, Nov. 27, 2003)
Docket fees based on value of the stocks:
An action seeking for the execution of a deed of assignment of shares of stock is an
action for recovery of personal property. The payment of docket fees should be based on the
value of the shares of stock and the amount of damages he seeks to recover. (NSC v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 123215. February 2, 1999)
Exception: Docket fees need NOT be paid at the time of filing of the complaint and may be
considered a lien on the judgment in the following instances:
1. The damages or claim arose after the filing of the complaint/initiatory pleading or if the
court awards damages not prayed for in the complaint (Original Devt & Construction
Corp. v. CA, 202 SCRA 75;, Sec.2, Rule 141);
2. Indigent litigant (Sec. 19, Rule 141);
3. Failure of the adverse party to timely raise the issue of nonpayment of the docket fee
(National Steel Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 123215, February 2, 1999);
4. Civil action instituted with the criminal action where the moral, exemplary, nominal, and
temperate damages are not specified in the complaint or information (Sec. 1, Rule 141);
5. Petition for Writ of Amparo shall be exempt from the payment of docket and other filing
fees (Sec. 1, Rule on the Writ of Amparo).
6. Indigent petitioner for writ of habeas data is exempt from payment of docket or other
lawful fees. (Section 5, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data A.M. No. 08-1-16 SC)
Payment of Court fees under Rule 141: Cooperatives not exempt
Since the payment of legal fees is a vital component of the rules promulgated by this

Court concerning pleading, practice and procedure, it cannot be validly annulled, changed or
modified by Congress. As one of the safeguards of this Courts institutional independence, the
power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now the Courts exclusive
domain. That power is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, much less with the
Executive.
With the foregoing categorical pronouncements of the Supreme Court (Supreme Court En
Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 08-2-01-0, which denied the petition of the GSIS for recognition of
its exemption from payment of legal fees imposed under Section 22 of Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, 11 February 2010; Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO)
v. Cabato-Cortes, 26 February 2010), it is evident that the exemption of cooperatives from
payment of court and sheriffs fees no longer stands. Cooperatives can no longer invoke
Republic Act No. 6938, as amended by Republic Act No. 9520, as basis for exemption from the
payment of legal fees. (Re: In The Matter of Clarification of Exemption From Payment of All
Court And Sheriff's Fees of Cooperatives Duly Registered in Accordance with Republic Act No.
9520 Otherwise Known as the Philippine Cooperative Code Of 2008, Perpetual Help Community
Cooperative (Phcci), A.M. No. 12-2-03-0 , March 13, 2012)
Mandatory payment of docket fees
The Court may only grant liberal application of technical rules to the party seeking the
same only on meritorious grounds and upon proof. The full payment of docket fees is mandatory
to perfect an appeal and the rules on payment may only be relaxed after the party has proven
that a valid ground exists to warrant the liberal application of the rules, otherwise, the appeal
shall be dismissed despite payment of a substantial amount ALONZO GIPA, IMELDA MARO LLANO,
JUANITO LUDOVICE, VIRGILIO GOJIT, DEMAR BIT ANGCOR, FELIPE MONTALBAN AND DAISY M.
PLACER vs. SOUTHERN LUZON INSTITUTE AS REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT FOR
OPERATIONS AND CORPORATE SECRETARY, RUBEN G. ASUNCION G.R. No.177425, June 18, 2014,
J. Del Castillo
Some guidelines in payment of filling fees
In Siapno (505 Phil. 430 [2005]) the complaint alleged in its body the aggregate sum of
P4,500,000 in moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, but the prayer portion did not
mention these claims, nor did it even pray for the payment of damages. This Court held that
such a complaint should be dismissed outright; or if already admitted, should be expunged from
the records. The Court explained that the rule requiring the amount of damages claimed to be
specified not only in the body of the pleading but also in its prayer portion was intended to
put an end to the then prevailing practice of lawyers where the damages prayed for were
recited only in the body of the complaint, but not in the prayer, in order to evade payment of
the correct filing fees. As held by the Court in Manchester:
To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers and
other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the
body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the
assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this
requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the
record.
In Sun Insurance Office Ltd. v. Judge Asuncion, the Court laid down the following rules as
regards the payment of filing fees:
1) It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time

but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

2) The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar
pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor
is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no
case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
3) Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a
claim not specified in the pleading, or, if specified [but] the same has been left for
determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the
judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to
enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.
It cannot be gainsaid from the above guidelines that, with the exception of pauper
litigants (Section 16, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court states that "the legal fees shall be a lien on
the monetary or property judgment in favor of the pauper-litigant) without the payment of the
correct docket or filing fees within the reglementary period, jurisdiction over the subject-matter
or nature of the action will not vest in the trial court. In fact, a pauper litigant may still have to
pay the docket fees later, by way of a lien on the monetary or property judgment that may
accrue to him. Clearly, the flexibility or liberality of the rules sought by the petitioners cannot
apply in the instant case. (Ricardo Rizal, Potenciana Rizal, Saturnina Rizal, Elena Rizal, And
Benjamin Rizal, Vs. Leoncia Naredo, Anastacio Lirio, Edilberto Cantavieja, Gloria Cantavieja,
Celso Cantavieja, And The Heirs Of Melanie Cantavieja, G.R. No. 151898, March 14, 2012)
b) Filing versus service of pleadings
Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court.
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned.
If any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one
of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel
appears for several parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon
him by the opposite side. (Rule 13, Section 2)
c) Periods of filing of pleadings. (Rule 11)
1. Answer to complaint (Sec.1) 15 days from service, unless different period is fixed
by the court
2. Answer of a defendant foreign private juridical entity (Sec.2)

TO WHOM SERVED

PERIOD TO FILE AN ANSWER

Resident Agent

15 days after service of summons

Government official
designated by law to receive
summons

30 days after the receipt of summons by

foreign private juridical entity

Officers of agents within the

Philippines

15 days after the service of summons

NOTE: A non-resident defendant on whom extraterritorial service of summons is made - the

period to answer should be at least 60 days.
3) Answer to amended complaint (Sec.3)
a) As a matter of right: 15 days from being served with copy thereof
b) 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 (Sec.4) - within 10 days from service
General rule:
An answer to counterclaim or cross claim is required. Failure to answer is ground for
default.
Exceptions: (in case of counterclaim)
a) Where answer would be a repetition of allegations in the complaint (Navarro v. Bello ,
L-11647 January 31, 1958);
b) Where the issues raised in the counterclaim are inseparable from those posed in the
complaint (Sarmiento v. Juan, No. 56605 January 28, 1983);
c) A plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a compulsory counterclaim may not be
declared in default, principally because the issues raised in the counterclaim are deemed
automatically joined by the allegations in the complaint (Gojo v. Goyala, G.R. No. L-26768, 30
October 1970).
5. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint (Sec.5) - within 15 days from service.
6. Reply (Sec.6) may be filed within 10 days from service of the pleading responded to.
7. Answer to supplemental complaint (Sec.7) - within 10 days from notice of the order
admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court.
NOTE: The answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if
no new or supplemental answer is filed.
Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer (Sec.9)
It may, with permission of the court, be presented as such by supplemental pleading
before judgment.
Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim (Sec.10)
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or cross claim through oversight,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by leave of court, be set
up as such by amendment before judgment.
Extension of time to plead (Sec.11)

Requisites:
1. That the party files a motion for extension;
2. The terms are just; and
Service of such motion must be given to the other party.
d) Manner of filing
The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments and all other
papers shall be made by presenting the original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such,
personally to the clerk of court or by sending them by registered mail. In the first case, the clerk
of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second case, the date
of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown by
the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of
their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the
case. (Rule 13, Sec. 3)
If a party avails the services of a private carrier, the date of actual receipt by the court of
such pleading and not the date of delivery to the private carrier, is deemed to be the date of
the filing of that pleading (Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 89070 May 18,
1992).
Modes of service
Service of pleadings motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers shall be made
either personally or by mail. (Rule 13, Sec. 5)
i. Personal service
Service of the papers may be made by delivering personally a copy to the party or his
counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with a person having charge thereof. If no
person is found in his office, or his office is not known, or he has no office, then by leaving the
copy, between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening, at the party's or
counsel's residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion then residing
therein. (Rule 13, Sec. 6)
ii. Service by mail
Service by registered mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the post office in a
sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if known, otherwise
at his residence, if known, with postage fully prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster
to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. If no registry service is
available in the locality of either the senders or the addressee, service may be done by ordinary
mail. (Rule 13, Sec. 7)
iii. Substituted service
If service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be
made under the two preceding sections, the office and place of residence of the party or his
counsel being unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with
proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail. The service is complete at the time
of such delivery. (Rule 13, Sec. 8)

Under Section 3 Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (2008) and
Section 6 of the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies, any
pleading and /or document required by the said Rules may be filed with the court and/or
served upon the other parties by fax or email if so authorized by the court. In such cases, the
date of transmission shall be deemed to be prima facie the date of service. (Primer-Reviewer on
Remedial Law, Vol.I, Civil Procedure, Riguera, 2nd ed., 2013)
iv. Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions
Judgments, final orders or resolutions shall be served either personally or by registered
mail. When a party summoned by publication has failed to appear in the action, judgments,
final orders or resolutions against him shall be served upon him also by publication at the
expense of the prevailing party. (Rule 13, Sec. 9)
v. Priorities in modes of service and filing
Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done
personally. 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. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. (Rule 13,
Sec. 11)
vi. When service is deemed complete
Personal service is complete upon actual delivery. Service by ordinary mail is complete
upon the expiration of ten (10) days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides. Service
by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) days from
the date he received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier. (Rule 13, Sec.
10)
Nature of proof of service of motions, pleadings and other papers
In Cruz v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that with respect to motions, proof of service is a
mandatory requirement. We find no cogent reason why this dictum should not apply and with
more reason to a petition for certiorari, in view of Section 3, Rule 46 which requires that the
petition shall be filed "together with proof of service thereof." We agree with the Court of
Appeals that the lack of proof of service is a fatal defect. The utter disregard of the Rule cannot
be justified by harking to substantial justice and the policy of liberal construction of the Rules.
Technical rules of procedure are not meant to frustrate the ends of justice. Rather, they serve
to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of
court dockets. (Emphasis in the original)
Indeed, while an affidavit of service is required merely as proof that service has been
made on the other party, it is nonetheless essential to due process and the orderly
administration of justice. Salvador O. Mojar, Edgar B. Begonia, Heirs Of The Late Jose M. Cortez,
Restituto Gaddi, Virgilio M. Monana, Freddie Rances, And Edson D. Tomas, Vs. Agro Commercial
Security Service Agency, Inc., Et Al., G.R. No. 187188, June 27, 2012)
Service to persons represented by counsel
Such service to Atty. Espinas, as petitioners counsel of record, was valid despite the fact
he was already deceased at the time. If a party to a case has appeared by counsel, service of
pleadings and judgments shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon
the party is specifically ordered by the court. It is not the duty of the courts to inquire, during

the progress of a case, whether the law firm or partnership representing one of the litigants
continues to exist lawfully, whether the partners are still alive, or whether its associates are still
connected with the firm. (Salvador O. Mojar, Edgar B. Begonia, Heirs Of The Late Jose M.
Cortez, Restituto Gaddi, Virgilio M. Monana, Freddie Rances, And Edson D. Tomas, Vs. Agro
Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc., Et Al., G.R. No. 187188, June 27, 2012)
Service to Counsel
Rule 13, Section 2 of the Rules of Court states in part that if any party has appeared by
counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the
party himself is ordered by the court." In the case at bar, Atty. Pilapil was furnished a copy of the
motion for execution which states that the trial court rendered a decision, yet petitioner's counsel
filed no opposition. At that time, he did not file any motion asserting that he was not furnished a
copy of the Decision. It was only when his client informed him of the Writ of Execution did
petitioner's counsel file an Urgent Motion to Vacate the Writ of Execution on the ground that he
did not receive a copy of the RTC decision. The receipt of Atty. Pilapil of a copy of the motion for
execution amounts to effective official notice of the Regional Trial Court Decision albeit he was
not furnished a copy of the Decision. NESTOR BRACERO vs. RODULFO ARCELO AND THE HEIRS OF
VICTORIANO MONISIT G.R. No. 212496, March 18, 2015, J. Leonen
Ledesma filed an amended petition and contended that his receipt on March 24,
2010 (and not the receipt on March 15, 2010 by Atty. Abellana), is the reckoning date of the 60day reglementary period within which to file the petition. When a party to a suit appears by
counsel, service of every judgment and all orders of the court must be sent to the counsel. This is
so because notice to counsel is an effective notice to the client, while notice to the client and not
his counsel is not notice in law. Receipt of notice by the counsel of record is the reckoning point
of the reglementary period. WATERFRONT CEBU CITY CASINO HOTEL, INC. and MARCO
PROTACIO vs. ILDEBRANDO LEDESMA G.R. No. 197556, March 25, 2015, J. Villarama, Jr.
Effect of change of address of parties
When the complainant declared a certain address as its business address in its complaint
before the RTC, and that there is dearth of evidence to show that it had since changed its address
or had moved out, appellant cannot be faulted for adopting the said address in serving a copy of
its certiorari petition in light of the requirement under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 46 of the Rules.It
must also be noted that in ordinary civil cases, a conditional appearance to object to a trial courts
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant may be made when said party specifically objects to
the service of summons, which is an issuance directed by the court, not the complainant. If the
defendant, however, enters a special appearance but grounds the same on the service of the
complainants initiatory pleading to him, then that would not be considered as an objection to the
courts jurisdiction over his person. It must be underscored that the service of the initiatory
pleading has nothing to do with how courts acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
in an ordinary civil action. Rather, it is the propriety of the trial courts service of summons same
as the CAs service of its resolution indicating its initial action on the certiorari petition which
remains material to the matter of
the courts acquisition jurisdiction over the
defendants/respondents person. Hence, the Court observes that jurisdiction over the person of
respondent had already been acquired by the CA through its voluntary appearance by virtue of
the Manifestation, filed by its counsel, who, as the records would show, had consistently
represented Diamond before the proceedings in the court a quo and even before this Court.
REICON REALTY BUILDERS CORPORATION vs. DIAMOND DRAGON REALTY AND MANAGEMENT,
INC., G.R. No. 204796, February 04, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
3.5.8. Amendment

How to amend a pleading?

Pleadings may be amended by adding or striking out an allegation or the name of any
party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken or inadequate allegation
or description in any other respect, so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be
determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive
manner. (Rule 10, Section 1)
a) Amendment as a matter of right
A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a
responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it
is served. (Rule 10, Section 2)
Amendment as a matter o right though there is a motion to dismiss
A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading; hence the plaintiff can still amend his
complaint as a matter of right.
Mandamus is an available remedy in case of amendment as a matter of right:
The right of a plaintiff to amend his pleading once as a matter of right before a
responsive pleading is served, has been held to be one which the court should always grant,
otherwise mandamus will lie against it since it is a ministerial duty of the court to accept
amendment as a matter of right. (Ong Peng v. Custodio, L-14911, March 25, 1961).
If the purpose of the amendment is to confer jurisdiction upon the court then the court
cannot admit the amended complaint. Not having acquired jurisdiction over the case by the
filing of the original complaint, the lower court has neither the power nor the jurisdiction to act
on the motion for the admission of the amended complaint, much less to allow such
amendment, since it is elementary that the court must first acquire jurisdiction over the case in
order to act validly therein. (Rosario v. Carangdang, G.R. No. L-7076, April 28, 1955)
The cause of action must exist at the time the action was begun, and the plaintiff will
not be allowed by an amendment to introduce a cause of action which had no existence when
the action was commenced. (Surigao Mine Exploration Co. v. Harris, G.R. No. L-45543, May 17,
1939)
b) Amendments by leave of court
Except as provided in the next preceding section, substantial amendments may be made
only upon leave of court. But such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the
motion was made with intent to delay. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this
section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and an
opportunity to be heard. (Rule 10, Section 3)
Amendment may be made despite substantial change in the cause of action or defense
if such will serve the higher interest of justice or prevent delay and promote a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of the case (Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals).
When amendments by leave of court NOT allowed
1. Cause of action, defense or theory of the case is changed;
2. Amendment is intended to confer jurisdiction to the court;

3. Amendment seeks to cure the defect in the cause of action;

4. Amendment is made with intent to delay.
c) Formal amendment
A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or typographical
errors may be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on
motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party. (Rule 10, Section 3)
d) Amendments to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence
When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of
the parties they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such
amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence
and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after
judgment; but failure to amend does not effect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence
is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings,
the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the
presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved
thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made. (Rule 10,
Section 5)
e) Difference from supplemental pleadings
Supplemental Pleadings (Sec.6)
Those which aver facts occurring after the filing of the original pleadings and which are
material to the mature claims and/or defenses alleged therein.
Under Section 6, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing
supplemental pleadings, the court may admit supplemental pleadings, such as the
supplemental petition filed by respondent before the appellate court, but the admission of
these pleadings remains in the sound discretion of the court. Nevertheless, we have already
found no credence in respondents claim that petitioner is a corporate officer, consequently,
the alleged lack of jurisdiction asserted by respondent in the supplemental petition is bereft of
merit. (Ma. Mercedes L. Barba Vs. Liceo De Cagayan University, G.R. No. 193857. November 28,
2012)

AMENDED
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

PLEADINGS
As to allegations
Refers to transaction, occurrences or events
already existing at the time of the filing of the
original action.

Refers to transactions, occurrences or events

which have happened since the date of the
pleading sought to be supplemented.

As to right
Can be a matter of right such as when made
before a responsive pleading is served.

Always with leave of court.

As to form
A new copy of the entire pleading must be filed
incorporating the amendments and indicated by
appropriate marks.

No need to file but must serve a copy to the

court and the adverse party.

As to effect
An amended pleading supersedes the original
one.

Original pleadings stands.

Effect of amended pleading

An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in
superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader, and claims or defenses
alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived. (Rule 10,
Section 8)
3.6. Summons
What is summons?
It is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him.
How can the court acquire jurisdiction over the defendant?
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in a civil case is acquired either by his
voluntary appearance or service of summons upon him (Minucher v. CA G.R. No.142963, Feb.
11, 2003).
Jurisdiction over the res
Under Section 15, service of summons only confers jurisdiction over the res and not
over the person of the defendant.
Effect if the court has not validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
The fundamental rule is that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either
through service of summons or through voluntary appearance in court and submission to its
authority. If a defendant has not been properly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction

over its person, and a judgment rendered against it is null and void. (Planters Development Bank,
Vs. Julie Chandumal, G.R. No. 19561905 September 2012)
3.6.1. Nature and purpose of summons in relation to actions in personam, in rem and quasi in
rem
a) Action in Personam To acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
In actions in personam such as ejectment, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant through personal or substituted service of summons. Before substituted service of
summons is resorted to, the parties must: (a) indicate the impossibility of personal service of
summons within a reasonable time; (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant; and (c)
state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in
the address, or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business of the defendant. The
readily acceptable conclusion in this case is that the process server at once resorted to substituted
service of summons without exerting enough effort to personally serve summons on respondents.
In the case at bar, the Returns contained mere general statements that efforts at personal service
were made. Not having specified the details of the attendant circumstances or of the efforts exerted
to serve the summons, there was a failure to comply strictly with all the requirements of substituted
service, and as a result the service of summons is rendered ineffective. PRUDENTIAL BANK (now
Bank of the Philippine Islands) as the duly appointed ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JULIANA
DIEZ VDA. DE GABRIEL vs. AMADOR A. MAGDAMIT, JR., on his behalf and as substituted heir (son) of
AMADOR MAGDAMIT, SR., and AMELIA F. MAGDAMIT, as substituted heir (Widow) of AMADOR
MAGDAMIT, SR. G.R. No. 183795, November 12, 2014, J. Perez
b) Action in Rem or Quasi in Rem
1.To give notice to the defendant that an action has been commenced against him; and
2) To afford the defendant an opportunity to be heard on the claim against him.
Rule on unknown defendant or when the whereabouts is unknown
Under the old rule, the distinction between the nature of actions was important for it
determines the mode of service of summons to be made. However, in Santos v. PNOC (G.R. No.
170943, September 23, 2008), the Supreme Court held that the in rem/in personam distinction
was significant under the old rule because it was silent as to the kind of action to which the rule
was applicable. Because of this silence, the court limited the application of the old rule to in
rem actions only. This has been changed. The present rule expressly states that it applied to
any action where the defendant is designated as unknown owner, or the like, or whenever
his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry. Thus, it now
applies to any action, whether in personam, in rem or quasi in rem.
3.6.2. Voluntary appearance
Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or
the defendants voluntary appearance in court. (Afdal & Afdal v. Carlos, G.R. No. 173379,
December 1, 2010) Thus, voluntary appearance by the defendant is equivalent to service of
summons (Rule 14, Section 20). Even if the summons is defective, jurisdiction over the defendant
attaches.
Instances of submission to courts jurisdiction:
1. Filing a motion for extension to file a responsive pleading.
2. The filing of motions seeking affirmative relief -- to admit answer, for additional time to
file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with

motion for reconsideration (Oaminal v. Castillo, G.R. No. 152776, Oct. 8, 2003)
Other forms of voluntary appearance:
a) Appearance of counsel in behalf of defendant
b) Filing of pleadings or papers in court
c) A telegraphic motion for postponement.
d) The filing of a motion for dissolution of attachment.
Special Appearance to file a motion to dismiss on grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant shall NOT be deemed a voluntary appearance.
In this case, the MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of respondent Hertz by reason
of the latters voluntary appearance in court. In Philippine Commercial International Bank v.
Spouses Dy we had occasion to state: Preliminarily, jurisdiction over the defendant in a civil case
is acquired either by the coercive power of legal processes exerted over his person, or his
voluntary appearance in court. As a general proposition, one who seeks an affirmative relief is
deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It is by reason of this rule that we have
had occasion to declare that the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file
answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for
reconsideration, is considered voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. This, however, is
tempered by the concept of conditional appearance, such that a party who makes a special
appearance to challenge, among others, the court's jurisdiction over his person cannot be
considered to have submitted to its authority.
Prescinding from the foregoing, it is thus clear that:
(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance;
(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant
must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and
(3) Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in
instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court
for resolution. (Optima Realty Corporation Vs. Hertz Phil., Exclusive, Inc. G.R. No. 183035.
January 9, 2013)
When Chandumal filed an Urgent Motion to Set Aside Order of Default and to Admit
Attached Answer, she effectively submitted her person to the jurisdiction of the trial court as
the filing of a pleading where one seeks an affirmative relief is equivalent to service of summons
and vests the trial court with jurisdiction over the defendants person. Thus, it was ruled that
the filing of motions to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a
default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration is considered
voluntary submission to the trial courts jurisdiction. The Court notes that aside from the
allegation that she did not receive any summons, Chandumals motion to set aside order of
default and to admit attached answer failed to positively assert the trial courts lack of
jurisdiction. In fact, what was set forth therein was the substantial claim that PDB failed to
comply with the requirements of R.A. No. 6552 on payment of cash surrender value, which
already delves into the merits of PDBs cause of action. In addition, Chandumal even appealed
the RTC decision to the CA, an act which demonstrates her recognition of the trial courts
jurisdiction to render said judgment. (Planters Development Bank, Vs. Julie Chandumal, G.R. No.
19561905 September 2012)
3.6.3 Modes of service of summons

Personal service
Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handling a copy thereof to the
defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him. (Rule 14,
Section 6)
Regardless of the type of action whether it is in personam, in rem or quasi in rem the
preferred mode of service of summons is personal service. To avail themselves of substituted
service, courts must rely on a detailed enumeration of the sheriffs actions and a showing that the
defendant cannot be served despite diligent and reasonable efforts. The sheriffs return, which
contains these details, is entitled to a presumption of regularity, and on this basis, the court may
allow substituted service. Should the sheriffs return be wanting of these details, substituted service
will be irregular if no other evidence of the efforts to serve summons was presented. Failure to
serve summons will mean that the court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. However, the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration is tantamount to
voluntary appearance. AURORA N. DE PEDRO vs. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION G.R. No.
194751, November 26, 2014, J. Leonen
Personal service of summons has nothing to do with the location where summons is served.
A defendants address is inconsequential. Rule 14, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is
clear in what it requires: personally handing the summons to the defendant. What is determinative
of the validity of personal service is, therefore, the person of the defendant, not the locus of service.
SPOUSES BENEDICT and SANDRA MANUE vs. RAMON ONG G.R. No. 205249, October 15, 2014, J.
Leonen
Substituted service
If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as
provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons
at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing
therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof. (Rule 14, Section 7)
In this case, the sheriff resorted to substituted service of summons due to his failure to
serve it personally. In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, the Court detailed the requisites for a valid
substituted service of summons, summed up as follows: (1) impossibility of prompt personal
service the party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that the defendant
cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt service; (2) specific details in the
return the sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances
surrounding the attempted personal service; (3) a person of suitable age and discretion the
sheriff must determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or residence of defendant is of
legal age, what the recipients relationship with the defendant is, and whether said person
comprehends the significance of the receipt of the summons and his duty to immediately
deliver it to the defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons, which
matters must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of Summons; and (4) a
competent person in charge, who must have sufficient knowledge to understand the obligation of
the defendant in the summons, its importance, and the prejudicial effects arising from inaction on
the summons. Xxx Planters Development Bank, Vs. Julie Chandumal, G.R. No. 19561905
September 2012)
Substituted service of summons require that the process server should first make several
attempts on personal service. "Several attempts" means at least three (3) tries, preferably on at
least two different dates. In addition, the sheriff must cite why such efforts were unsuccessful. The
date and time of the attempts on personal service, the inquiries made to locate the defendant, the
name/s of the occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant and all other acts done,

though futile, to serve the summons on defendant must be specified in the Return to justify
substituted service. These matters must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of
Summons. Thus, where the servers return utterly lacks sufficient detail of the attempts undertaken
by the process server to personally serve the summons on Ong, a defendant in a case for nullity of
marriage; that the return did not describe in detail the person who received the summons, on
behalf of Ong, and that her husband, the respondent, failed to indicate any portion of the records
which would describe the specific attempts to personally serve the summons, then the substituted
service was invalid and the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Ong. Co cannot rely
on the presumption of regularity on the part of the process server when, like in the instant case, it is
patent that the sheriff's or server's return is defective. YUK LING ONG vs. BENJAMIN T. CO G.R. No.
206653, February 25, 2015, J. Mendoza
Service of Summons; When valid?
We agree with the finding that Pua committed delay in prosecuting his case against the
respondents. We clarify, however, that Puas delay is limited to his failure to move the case
forward after the summons for Ang had been published in the Manila Standard; he could not be
faulted for the delay in the service of summons for Ang.
A 13-month delay occurred between the filing of the complaint and the filing of the
motion to serve summons by publication on Ang. This delay, however, is attributable to the
failure of the sheriff to immediately file a return of service of summons. The complaint was filed
on November 24, 2000, but the return of service of summons was filed only on January 3, 2002,
after the RTC ordered its submission and upon Puas motion.
Under Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, service of summons may be effected on a
defendant by publication, with leave of court, when his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry. The Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown. In any
action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his
whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of
court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such
places and for such time as the court may order.
In Santos, Jr. v. PNOC Exploration Corporation, the Court authorized resort to service of
summons by publication even in actions in personam, considering that the provision itself allow
this mode in any action, i.e., whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The
ruling, notwithstanding, there must be prior resort to service in person on the defendant and
substituted service, and proof that service by these modes were ineffective before service by
publication may be allowed for defendants whose whereabouts are unknown, considering that
Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court requires a diligent inquiry of the defendants
whereabouts.
Until the summons has been served on Ang, the case cannot proceed since Ang is an
indispensable party to the case; Pua alleged in his complaint that the respondents are co- owners
of JD Grains Center. An indispensable party is one who must be included in an action before it
may properly go forward. A court must acquire jurisdiction over the person of indispensable
parties before it can validly pronounce judgments personal to the parties. The absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority
to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. (Pablo Pua Vs. Lourdes L.
Deyto, Doing Business Under The Name Of "JD Grains Center," And Jennelita Deyto Ang A.K.A.
"Janet Ang G.R. No. 173336. November 26, 2012)
3.6.5. Constructive service (by publication)

a) Service upon a defendant where his identity is unknown or his whereabouts are unknown
In any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or
whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service
may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation
and in such places and for such time as the court may order. (Rule 14, Section 14)
b) Service upon residents temporarily outside the Philippines
When any action is commenced against a defendant who ordinarily resides within the
Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court, be also effected out of
the Philippines, as under the preceding section. (Rule 14, Section 16) (Note: See Extraterritorial
Service for this section refers to it)
3.6.6. Extra-territorial service, when allowed
When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action
affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within
the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in
which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any
interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines,
service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under
section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time
as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be
sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the
court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time,
which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer.
(Rule 14, Section 15)
Service of summons through other modes
Extraterritorial service may be validly served by telefax or email as the rule provides in
any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
The court had acquired jurisdiction over said defendant, through service of the summons
addressed to him upon Mrs. Schenker, it appearing from said answer that she is the
representative and attorney-in-fact of her husband. She had authority to sue, and had actually
sued on behalf of her husband. (Gemerple v. Schenker, G.R. No. L-18164 January 23, 1967)
However, in the case Valmonte v. CA, Mrs. Valmonte did not appoint Mr. Valmonte as
her attorney-in-fact to represent her in litigations and in court. Mr. Valmonte was merely acting
as his wifes counsel in negotiations with but this cannot be construed as an authorization.
(Valmonte v. CA, G.R. No. 108538. January 22, 1996)
3.6.7. Service upon prisoners and minors
When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a jail or institution, service shall be effected
upon him by the officer having the management of such jail or institution who is deemed
deputized as a special sheriff for said purpose. (Rule 14, Section 9)
When the defendant is a minor, insane or otherwise an incompetent, service shall be
made upon him personally and on his legal guardian if he has one, or if none his guardian ad
litem whose appointment shall be applied for by the plaintiff. In the case of a minor, service
may also be made on his father or mother. (Rule 14, Section 10)

3.6.8. Proof of service

Rule 14, Section 18. Proof of service. The proof of service of a summons shall be made in
writing by the server and shall set forth the manner, place, and date of service; shall specify any
papers which have been served with the process and the name of the person who received the
same; and shall be sworn to when made by a person other than a sheriff or his deputy. (20) Rule
14, Section 19. Proof of service by publication. If the service has been made by publication,
service may be proved by the affidavit of the printer, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the
editor, business or advertising manager, to which affidavit a copy of the publication shall be
attached and by an affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of the summons and order for
publication in the post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered mail to his
last known address.
Service of Summons on Cooperatives
Cathay Metal argued that Laguna West was sufficiently served with summons and a copy of its
petition for cancellation of annotations because it allegedly sent these documents to Laguna West's
official address as registered with the Cooperative Development Authority. Cathay Metal further
argued that the Rules of Procedure cannot trump the Cooperative Code with respect to notices
because the Cooperative Code is substantive law, as opposed to the Rules of Procedure, which
pertains only to matters of procedure. The Court ruled that the Cooperative Code provisions may
govern matters relating to cooperatives activities as administered by the Cooperative Development
Authority. However, they are not procedural rules that will govern court processes. A Cooperative
Code provision requiring cooperatives to have an official address to which all notices and
communications shall be sent cannot take the place of the rules on summons under the Rules of
Court concerning a court proceeding. CATHAY METAL CORPORATION vs. LAGUNA WEST MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC., G.R. No. 172204, July 10, 2014, J. Leonen
3.7. Motions
3.7.1. Motions in general
Definition of a motion
A motion is an application for relief other than by a pleading. (Rule 15, Section 1)
Under the rules on Small Claims Cases a motion is an oral or written request asking for
an affirmative action from the court, that includes a letter
b) Motions versus pleadings
A motion is an application for relief other than by a pleading. (Rule 15, Section 1). A
motion prays for another relief other than the main cause of action or the main defense, while a
pleading prays for a relief which is directly related to the cause of action or defense
c) Contents and forms of motions
Contents
A motion shall state the relief sought to be obtained and the grounds upon which it is
based, and if required by these Rules or necessary to prove facts alleged therein, shall be
accompanied by supporting affidavits and other papers. (Rule 15, Section 3)

Form
All motions shall be in writing except those made in open court or in the course of a
hearing or trial. (Rule 15, Section 2)
d) Notice of hearing and hearing of motions
Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the
adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in
such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date
of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. (Rule 15, Section
4)
The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time
and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
There is substantial compliance with the foregoing Rule if a copy of the said motion for
reconsideration was furnished to the counsel of the adverse party. CESAR V. AREZA and LOLITA B.
AREZA vs. EXPRESS SAVINGS BANK, INC. and MICHAEL POTENCIANO G.R. No. 176697, September
10, 2014, J. Perez
In every written motion, the three-day notice rule for hearing is not absolute. The purpose of
the rule on hearing is to safeguard the adverse partys right to due process. Thus, if the adverse
party was given a reasonable opportunity to study the motion and oppose it, then strict compliance
with the three-day notice rule may be dispensed with. Under Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, petitions for review by certiorari "shall raise only questions of law." A question of fact exists
when there is a doubt as to the truth of certain facts, and it can only be resolved through a
reexamination of the body of evidence. Probable cause is dependent largely on the opinion and
findings of the judge who conducted the examination and who had the opportunity to question the
applicant and his witnesses. For this reason, the findings of the judge deserve great weight. In the
instant case, when the court a quo ordered petitioners to submit their comment on the motion to
quash, it was, in effect, giving petitioners their day in court. Thus, while the three-day notice rule
was not strictly observed, its purpose was still satisfied when respondent judge did not immediately
rule on the motion giving petitioners the opportunity to study and oppose the arguments stated in
the motion. MICROSOFT CORPORATION and ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED vs. SAMIR
FARAJALLAH, VIRGILIO D.C. HERCE, RACHEL P. FOLLOSCO, JESUSITO G. MORALLOS, and MA.
GERALDINE S. GARCIA (directors and officers of NEW FIELDS (ASIA PACIFIC), INC.) G.R. No. 205800,
September 10, 2014, Acting C.J Carpio
Motion Which Does Not Require Notice & Hearing Writ Of Execution: Opportunity to be
heard:
Elementary is the rule that every motion must contain the mandatory requirements of
notice and hearing and that there must be proof of service thereof. The Court has consistently
held that a motion that fails to comply with the above requirements is considered a worthless
piece of paper which should not be acted upon. The rule, however, is not absolute. There are
motions that can be acted upon by the court ex parte if these would not cause prejudice to the
other party. They are not strictly covered by the rigid requirement of the rules on notice and
hearing of motions.
The motion for execution of the Spouses Co is such kind of motion. It cannot be denied
that the judgment sought to be executed in this case had already become final and executory.
As such, the Spouses Co have every right to the issuance of a writ of execution and the RTC has
the ministerial duty to enforce the same. This right on the part of the Spouses Co and duty on
the part of the RTC are based on Section 1 and Section 2 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Revised Rules of

Civil Procedure.
As can be gleaned therefrom, under Paragraph 1 of Section 1 of Rule 39 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the Spouses Co can have their motion for execution executed as
a matter of right without the needed notice and hearing requirement to petitioner. This is in
contrast to the provision of Paragraph 2 of Section 1 and Section 2 where there must be notice to
the adverse party. In the case of Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. v. Virginia
D. Vda. De Hernandez, it was written:
It is evident that Section 1 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court does not prescribe
that a copy of the motion for the execution of a final and executory judgment be served on the
defeated party, like litigated motions such as a motion to dismiss (Section 3, Rule 16), or motion
for new trial (Section 2, Rule 37), or a motion for execution of judgment pending appeal (Section
2, Rule 39), in all of which instances a written notice thereof is required to be served by the
movant on the adverse party in order to afford the latter an opportunity to resist the
application. (Douglas F. Anama Vs. Philippine Savings Bank, G.R. No. 187021, January 25, 2012) In
Somera Vda. De Navarro v. Navarro, the Court held that there was substantial compliance of the
rule on notice of motions even if the first notice was irregular because no prejudice was
caused the adverse party since the motion was not considered and resolved until after several
postponements of which the parties were duly notified.
Likewise, in Jehan Shipping Corporation v. National Food Authority, the Court held that
despite the lack of notice of hearing in a Motion for Reconsideration, there was substantial
compliance with the requirements of due process where the adverse party actually had the
opportunity to be heard and had filed pleadings in opposition to the motion. The Court held:
This Court has indeed held time and again, that under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of
the Rules of Court, mandatory is the requirement in a motion, which is rendered defective by
failure to comply with the requirement. As a rule, a motion without a notice of hearing is
considered pro forma and does not affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of
the requisite pleading. As an integral component of the procedural due process, the three-day
notice required by the Rules is not intended for the benefit of the movant. Rather, the
requirement is for the purpose of avoiding surprises that may be sprung upon the adverse party,
who must be given time to study and meet the arguments in the motion before a
resolution of the court. Principles of natural justice demand that the right of a party should not be
affected without giving it an opportunity to be heard. The test is the presence of opportunity to
be heard, as well as to have time to study the motion and meaningfully oppose or
controvert the grounds upon which it is based. (United Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. vs. Acropolis
Central Guaranty Corporation, G.R. No. 171750, January 25, 2012)
e) Omnibus motion rule
Subject to the provisions of section 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order,
judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so
included shall be deemed waived. (Rule 15, Section 8)
Exception
Motions arguing that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is
another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is
barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations (Rule 9, Section 1)
Defense and objections not pleaded either in motion to dismiss or in answer are deemed
waived; exceptions.

Significantly, the Rule requires that such a motion should be filed within the time for
but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim. The time frame
indicates that thereafter, the motion to dismiss based on the absence of the condition precedent
is barred. It is so inferable from the opening sentence of Section 1 of Rule 9 stating that defense
and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived. There are, as just noted, only four exceptions to this Rule, namely, lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter; litis pendentia; res judicata; and prescription of action.
Failure to allege in the complaint that earnest efforts at a compromise has been made but had
failed is not one of the exceptions. (Heirs of Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr., represented by their co-heirs
and attorneys-in-fact, Mercedes A. Favis and Nelly Favis-Villafuente v. Juana Gonzales, her son
Mariano Favis, all minors represented herein by their parents, Sps. Mariano Favis and Larcelita D.
Favis,G.R. No. 185922, January 15, 2014.)
f) Litigated and ex parte motions
Litigated Motions
They are motions which the court may not act upon without prejudicing the rights of the
adverse party. Made with notice to the adverse party to give an opportunity to oppose e.g.,
motion for reconsideration, motion to dismiss motion to declare defendant in default.
Examples of Litigious Motions:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Motion for reconsideration

Motion to dismiss
Motion to declare defendant in default
Motion for execution

Ex Parte Motions
They are motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse
party. Made without the presence or a notification to the other party because the question
generally presented is not debatable e.g., motion for extension of time to file answer, motion for
postponement, motion for extension of time to file record on appeal.
Examples of Ex Parte Motions:
1. Motion for postponement
2. Motion to set case for pre-trial
g) Pro-forma motions
They are motions which do not satisfy the requirements of the rules and one which will be
treated as a motion intended to delay the proceedings (Riano, 2007 citing Marikina Valley Dev't.
Corp. v. Hon. Flojo, G.R. No. 110801, December 8, 1995).
3.7.2. Motions for bill of particulars
Bill of Particulars
- a more definite statement of a matter which is not stated or declared with sufficient
definiteness or particularity.
a) Purpose and when applied for

Before responding to a pleading, a party may move for a definite statement or for a bill of
particulars of any matter which is not averted with sufficient definiteness or particularity to
enable him properly to prepare his responsive pleading. If the pleading is a reply, the motion
must be filed within ten (10) days from service thereof. Such motion shall point out the defects
complained of, the paragraphs wherein they are contained, and the details desired. (Rule 12,
Section 1)
Vagueness in the allegations in the complaint not a ground for dismissal
An action cannot be dismissed on the ground that the complaint is vague or indefinite.
The remedy of the defendant is to move for a bill of particulars or avail of the proper mode of
discovery (Galeon v. Galeon, G.R. No. L-30380, Feb. 28, 1973).
Remedy if the allegations fails to state a cause of action
If the pleading is not only indefinite or ambiguous but fails to state a cause of action, the
remedy of the party is to file a motion to dismiss on the ground that the pleading states no
cause of action. (Primer-Reviewer on Remedial Law, Vol.I, Civil Procedure, Riguera, 2nd ed.,
2013)
When to file?
The motion for bill of particulars shall be filed before responding to a pleading. Hence, it
must be filed within the period granted by the Rules (Rule 11) for the filing of a responsive
pleading.
b) Actions of the court
Upon the filing of the motion, the clerk of court must immediately bring it to the attention
of the court which may either deny or grant it outright, or allow the parties the opportunity
to be heard. (Rule 12, Section 2)
c) Compliance with the order and effect of noncompliance
Compliance with Order
If the motion is granted, either in whole or in part, the compliance therewith must be
effected within ten (10) days from notice of the order, unless a different period is fixed by the
court. The bill of particulars or a more definite statement ordered by the court may be filed
either in a separate or in an amended pleading, serving a copy thereof on the adverse party.
(Rule 12, Section 3)
Effect of Noncompliance
If the order is not obeyed, or in case of insufficient compliance therewith, the court may
order the striking out of the pleading or the portions thereof to which the order was directed or
make such other order as it deems just. (Rule 12, Section 4)
If the plaintiff fails to obey, his complaint may be dismissed with prejudice UNLESS
otherwise ordered by the court (Rule 12, Sec. 4; Rule 17, Section 3);
If defendant fails to obey, his answer will be stricken off and his counterclaim dismissed,
and he will be declared in default upon motion of the plaintiff (Rule 12, Section 4; Rule 17,
Section 4; Rule 9, Sec. 3).

d) Effect on the period to file a responsive pleading

After service of the bill of particulars or of a more definite pleading, or after notice of
denial of his motion, the moving party may file his responsive pleading within the period to
which he was entitled at the time of filing his motion, which shall not be less than five (5) days in
any event. (Rule 12, Section 5)
3.7.3. Motion to dismiss
a) Grounds
(Rule 16, Sec. 1)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.

Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant

Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim
Venue is improperly laid
Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue
There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (Litis
Pendentia)
Cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations (Res judicata/
Prescription)
Lack of Cause of action.
Claim or demand in the plaintiffs pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned,
extinguished
Claim on which action is founded is unenforceable under the statute of frauds
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 of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC dismissing the complaint
filed by the respondents due to failure to prosecute. The petitioner contends that the Court of
Appeals erred in reversing the said decision. The Supreme Court ruled that relief is accorded to the
client who suffered by reason of the lawyers palpable mistake or negligence and where the interest
of justice so requires. The Court finds that respondents would be deprived of the opportunity to
prove the legitimacy of their claims if the RTCs dismissal of the case on a procedural technicality
at that, which was clearly caused by the palpable negligence of their counsel is sustained. DIANA
YAP-CO, Petitioner vs. SPOUSES WILLIAM T. UY AND ESTER GO-UY, G.R. No. 209295, February 11,
2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
Furthermore, contrary to the claim of petitioners, the issue of lack of jurisdiction was raised by
respondents in their Appellant's Brief. And the fact that it was raised for the first time on appeal is
of no moment. Under Sec. 1, Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court, defenses not pleaded either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except for lack of jurisdiction, litis
pendentia, res judicata, and prescription, which must be apparent from the pleadings or the
evidence on record. In other words, the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may
be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. In fact, the court may
motu proprio dismiss a complaint at any time when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence
on record that lack of jurisdiction exists. HEIRS OF TELESFORO JULAO, NAMELY, ANITA VDA. DE
ENRIQUEZ, SONIA J. TOLENTINO AND RODERICK JULAO vs. SPOUSES ALEJANDRO AND MORENITA DE
JESUS, G.R. No. 176020, September 29, 2014, J. Del Castillo
Note: Under the Rules on Environmental cases Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation is a
ground for the dismissal of the action
Instances of motu proprio dismissal

Section 1, Rule 9 provides for only four instances when the court may motu proprio
dismiss the claim, namely: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) litis pendentia; (c) res
judicata; and (d) prescription of action.
Specifically in Gumabon v. Larin (422 Phil. 222, 230 [2001]), cited in Katon v. Palanca, Jr. (481
Phil. 168, 180 [2004]), the Court held:
x x x [T]he muto proprio dismissal of a case was traditionally limited to instances when the
court clearly had no jurisdiction over the subject matter and when the plaintiff did not appear
during trial, failed to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time or neglected to
comply with the rules or with any order of the court. Outside of these instances, any motu proprio
[sic] dismissal would amount to a violation of the right of the plaintiff to be heard.
Except for qualifying and expanding Section 2, Rule 9, and Section 3, Rule 17, of the Revised
Rules of Court, the amendatory 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure brought about no radical change.
Under the new rules, a court may muto proprio dismiss a claim when it appears from the
pleadings or evidence on record that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; when there is
another cause of action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or where the
action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations. x x x. Heirs of Dr. Mariano
Favis, Sr., represented by their co-heirs and attorneys-in-fact, Mercedes A. Favis and Nelly FavisVillafuente v. Juana Gonzales, her son Mariano Favis, all minors represented herein by their
parents, Sps. Mariano Favis and Larcelita D. Favis, G.R. No. 185922, January 15, 2014)
b) Resolution of motion
After the hearing, the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion, or order
the amendment of the pleading.
The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the reason that the ground relied
upon is not indubitable. (Rule 16, Sec. 3)
c) Remedies of plaintiff when the complaint is dismissed
The plaintiff may:
a. File a motion for reconsideration, to appeal from the order of dismissal
b. Appeal from the order of dismissal
c. Re-file the complaint
d) Remedies of the defendant when the motion is denied
The defendant may:
a. File a motion for reconsideration; or
b. File a petition for certiorari; or
c. Prohibition
e) Remedy for denial of motion to dismiss
An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates
nor finally disposes of a case as it leaves something to be done by the court before the case is
finally decided on the merits. Thus, as a general rule, the denial of a motion to dismiss cannot
be questioned in a special civil action for certiorari which is a remedy designed to correct errors of
jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. However, when the denial of the motion to dismiss is

tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be
justified. (Republic of the Philippines, rep. by the Regional Executive Director of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Regional Office No. 3 Vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Manila/Samahang Kabuhayan ng San Lorenzo KKK, Inc., rep. by its vice President Zenaida Turla
Vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, G.R. No. 192975/G.R. No. 192994. November 12,
2012)
e) Effect of dismissal of complaint on certain grounds
General rule: The action may be re-filed.
Exceptions: The action can no longer be re-filed if it was dismissed on the grounds of:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Res judicata;
Extinguishment of the claim or demand;
Prescription; or
Unenforceability of the claim

f) When grounds pleaded as affirmative defenses

If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in
this Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in the discretion of the
court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed. (Rule
16, Sec. 6)
g) Bar by dismissal
The action can no longer be re-filed if it was dismissed on the grounds of:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Res judicata;
Extinguishment of the claim or demand;
Prescription; or
Unenforceability of the claim

h) Distinguished from demurrer to evidence under Rule 33

DISTINCTION BETWEEN
Motion to Dismiss
under Rule 16

Motion to Dismiss under Rule 33 (demurrer to

evidence)

Filed before the service and filing of the

answer

Made after the plaintiff rests his case

Anchored on many grounds

Anchored on one ground, that is, plaintiff has

no right to relief

If a motion to dismiss is denied, the

defendant may file his responsive pleading

The defendant may present his evidence.

3.8. Dismissal of actions

3.8.1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff; two-dismissal rule
Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff
A complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time
before service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon such notice being
filed, the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. (Rule 17, Sec. 1)
Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs dismissals of actions at the instance of the
plaintiff. Hence, the "two-dismissal rule" under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure will
not apply if the prior dismissal was done at the instance of the defendant. RAMON CHING AND
POWING PROPERTIES, INC. vs. JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE AND LUCINA
SANTOS G.R. No. 175507, October 8, 2014, J. Leonen
Two-Dismissal Rule
Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a
notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once
dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same claim. (Rule 17, Sec.
1) Thus, when the same complaint had twice been dismissed by the plaintiff under Sec.1 by
simply filing a notice of dismissal, the second dismissal shall be with prejudice.
What causes the loss by a plaintiff of the right to effect dismissal of the action by mere
notice is not the filing of the defendants answer with the court but the service on the plaintiff
of said answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Where the plaintiff filed the notice of
dismissal of his action in the court after the filing of defendants answer but before service
thereof, the plaintiffs notice to that effect ipso facto brought about the dismissal of the
pending action without need of any order from the trial court (Go v. Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 58986,
April 17, 1983).
3.8.2. Dismissal upon motion by plaintiff; effect on existing counterclaim
Except as provided in the preceding section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at the
plaintiff's instance save upon approval of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the
court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service
upon him of the plaintiffs motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint.
The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in a separate action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion he
manifests his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action. Unless
otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. A
class suit shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court. (Rule 17,
Sec. 2)
The dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal of the compulsory
counterclaim if the counterclaim was pleaded by the defendant after service upon him of the

plaintiffs motion for dismissal.

The dismissal shall be limited to the complaint or the defendant can prosecute his
counterclaim in a separate action if the counterclaim was pleaded by the defendant before
service upon him of the plaintiffs motion for dismissal.
The defendant can revive the compulsory counterclaim within 15 days from notice of
such motion.
3.8.3. Dismissal due to the fault of plaintiff
If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of
his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of
time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed
upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of
the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal
shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
(Rule 17, Sec. 3)
It is plaintiffs failure to appear at the trial, and not the absence of his lawyer, which
warrants dismissal (Regalado).
Test of Non-prosequitur
The fundamental test for non prosequitur is whether, under the circumstances, the
plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable
promptitude. There must be unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute. (Shimizu
Philippines Contractors, Inc., Vs. Mrs. Leticia B. Magsalin, Doing Business Under The Trade Name
"Karen's Trading," Fgu Insurance Corporation, Godofredo Garcia, Concordia Garcia, And Reynaldo
Baetiong, G.R. No. 170026, June 20, 2012)
Effects of Failure to Prosecute/ Non-Prosequitur
Once a case is dismissed for failure to prosecute, the dismissal has the effect of an
adjudication on the merits and is understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another
action unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal.
In this case, Pua failed to take any action on the case after summons was served by
publication on Ang. It took him more than two years to file a motion to declare Ang in default
and only after the RTC has already dismissed his case for failure to prosecute. That Pua renewed
the attachment bond is not an indication of his intention to prosecute. The payment of an
attachment bond is not the appropriate procedure to settle a legal dispute in court; it could not
be considered as a substitute for the submission of necessary pleadings or motions that would
lead to prompt action on the case. (Ma. Mercedes L. Barba Vs. Liceo De Cagayan University,
G.R. No. 193857. November 28, 2012)
Under Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, the failure on
the part of the plaintiff, without any justifiable cause, to comply with any order of the court or
the Rules, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, may result in the
dismissal of the complaint either motu proprio or on motion by the defendant. The failure of a
plaintiff to prosecute the action without any justifiable cause within a reasonable period of time
will give rise to the presumption that he is no longer interested to obtain from the court the
relief prayed for in his complaint; hence, the court is authorized to order the dismissal of the
complaint on its own motion or on motion of the defendants. The presumption is not, by any
means, conclusive because the plaintiff, on a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal,
may allege and establish a justifiable cause for such failure. The burden to show that there are

compelling reasons that would make a dismissal of the case unjustified is on the petitioners.
While under the present Rules, it is now the duty of the clerk of court to set the case for
pre-trial if the plaintiff fails to do so within the prescribed period, this does not relieve the
plaintiff of his own duty to prosecute the case diligently. This case had been at the pre-trial
stage for more than two years and petitioners have not shown special circumstances or
compelling reasons to convince us that the dismissal of their complaint for failure to prosecute
was unjustified. (Eloisa Merchandising, Inc. And Trebel International, Inc., Vs. Banco De Oro
Universal Bank And Engracio M. Escasinas, Jr., In His Capacity As Ex-Officio Sheriff Of The Rtc Of
Makati City, G.R. No. 192716, June 13, 2012)
3.8.4. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint
The provisions of this Rule shall apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim, or
third-party complaint. A voluntary dismissal by the claimant by notice as in section 1 of this
Rule, shall be made before a responsive pleading or a motion for summary judgment is served or,
if there is none, before the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing. (Rule 17, Sec. 4)
3.9. Pre-trial
3.9.1. Concept of pre-trial
Pre -trial is a mandatory procedural device by which the court is called upon, after the filing of
the last pleading, to compel the parties and their lawyers to appear before it for the purposes
enumerated under Section 2, Rule 18.
The pattern of delay the pre-trial of the instant case is quite evident from the foregoing.
Paraaque Kings clearly trifled with the mandatory character of a pre-trial, which is a procedural
device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues raised by the parties and to take the trial of
cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. More significantly, a pre-trial has been
institutionalized as the answer to the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases. Hailed as the
most important procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice in the nineteenth century, it paves the
way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case. It is, thus, mandatory for the trial court to
conduct pre-trial in civil cases in order to realize the paramount objective of simplifying;
abbreviating, and expediting trial. PARAAQUE KINGS ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. CATALINA L. SANTOS,
REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LUZ B. PROTACIO AND DAVID R. RAYMUNDO G.R. No.
194638, July 2, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
When Conducted? (Sec.1)
It shall be the duty of the plaintiff, after the last pleading has been served and filed, to
promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial.
The motion is to be filed within 5 days after the last pleading joining the issue has been
served and filed (Admin. Circular No. 3-99, Jan. 15, 1999).
If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period, the Clerk of Court shall
issue a notice of pre-trial (A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, Re: Pre-trial guidelines, Effective August 16,
2004).
Expiration of the period to file sufficient
The plaintiff need not wait until the last pleading has been actually served and filed as the
expiration of the period for filing the last pleading will suffice (Sarmiento v. Juan, No. 56605
January 28, 1983).

3.9.2. Nature and purpose (Rule 18, Sec. 2)

The pre-trial is mandatory. The court shall consider:
(a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a submission to alternative modes of
dispute resolution;
(b) The simplification of the issues;
(c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
(d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to
avoid unnecessary proof;
(e) The limitation of the number of witnesses;
(f) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner;
(g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of
dismissing the action should a valid ground therefor be found to exist;
(h) The advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings; and
(i) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action.
3.9.3. Notice of pre-trial
The notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel, or on the party who has no counsel.
The counsel served with such notice is charged with the duty of notifying the party represented
by him. (Rule 18, Sec. 3)
3.9.4. Appearance of parties; effect of failure to appear
It shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial. The nonappearance of a party may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor or if a
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. (Rule 18, Sec. 4)
Counsel for Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company failed to produce written authorization to
represent her client during the pre-trial. The Trial Court rendered Metropolitan in default. In
affirming the decision of the Trial Court, the Supreme Court held that where a party may not himself
be present at the pretrial, and another person substitutes for him, or his lawyer undertakes to
appear not only as an attorney but in substitution of the clients person, it is imperative for that
representative of the lawyer to have special authority to make such substantive agreements as
only the client otherwise has capacity to make. ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION vs.
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY G.R. No. 190277, July 23, 2014, J. Villarama, Jr.,
During pre-trial, if the absent party is the plaintiff, then his case shall be dismissed. If it is the
defendant who fails to appear, then the plaintiff is allowed to present his evidence ex parte and the
court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. In the case at bench, the petitioners failed to
attend the pre-trial conference. They did not even give any excuse for their non-appearance. Thus,
the MCTC properly allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte. Thus, the Court can only
consider the evidence on record offered by respondent. The petitioners lost their right to present
their evidence during the trial and, a fortiori, on appeal due to their disregard of the mandatory
attendance in the pre-trial conference. NEIL B. AGUILAR AND RUBEN CALIMBAS vs. LIGHTBRINGERS
CREDIT COOPERATIVE G.R. No. 209605, January 12, 2015, J. Mendoza
On the procedural aspect, the Court reiterates the rule that the failure to attend the pre-trial
conference does not result in the default of an absent party. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, a defendant is only declared in default if he fails to file his Answer within the
reglementary period. On the other hand, if a defendant fails to attend the pre-trial conference, the

plaintiff can present his evidence ex parte. There is no dispute that Spouses Salvador and their
counsel failed to attend the pre-trial conference set on February 4, 2005 despite proper notice.
Spouses Salvador aver that their non-attendance was due to the fault of their counsel as he forgot
to update his calendar. This excuse smacks of carelessness, and indifference to the pre-trial stage. It
simply cannot be considered as a justifiable excuse by the Court. As a result of their inattentiveness,
Spouses Salvador could no longer present any evidence in their favor. SPOUSES ROLANDO AND
HERMINIA SALVADOR vs. SPOUSES ROGELIO AND ELIZABETH RABAJA AND ROSARIO GONZALES,
G.R. No. 199990, February 04, 2015, J. Mendoza
3.9.5. Pre-trial brief; effects of failure to file (Rule 18, Sec. 6)
The parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, in such manner as
shall ensure their receipt thereof at least three (3) days before the date of the pre-trial, their
respective pre-trial briefs which shall contain, among others:
(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into amicable settlement or alternative
modes of dispute resolution, indicating the desired terms thereof;
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
(c) The issues to be tried or resolved;
(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented stating the purpose thereof;
(e) A manifestation of their having availed or their intention to avail themselves of
discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and
(f) The number and names of the witnesses, and the substance of their respective
testimonies.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the
pre-trial.
3.9.6. Distinction between pre-trial in civil case and pre-trial in criminal case
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRE-TRIAL IN
CIVIL CASE

CRIMINAL CASE

The presence of the defendant is

required unless he is duly represented by

The presence of the accused is not indispensable

unless required by the court, he is just required

his counsel with authority to enter into a

compromise agreement, failure of which
the case would proceed as if the
defendant has been declared in default.

to sign the written agreement arrived at the pretrial if he is in conformity therewith.

The presence of the plaintiff is required

at the pre-trial unless excused or
represented by person fully authorized in
writing to perform the acts specified in
Sec4, Rule 18. Failure of which the case
may be dismissed with or without
prejudice.

The offended party is not required to be present

at the pre-trial but must appear at the
arraignment for the purpose of plea bargaining,
determination of civil liability and other matters
requiring his presence. (If the offended party fails
to appear, and the accused offer to plea to a
lesser offense, the same may be allowed with the
conformity of the prosecutor alone.

A pre-trial brief is required

Does not require filing of pre-trial brief but

attendance only in a pre-trial conference to
consider the matters stated in sec 2, rule18
(Regalado)

Effect of failure to set the case for pre-trial

Under Section 1, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, it is the
duty of the plaintiff, after the last pleading has been served and filed, to promptly move
ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial. On August 16, 2004, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (Re:
Proposed Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in
the Conduct of Pre- Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures) took effect, which
provides that:
Within five (5) days from date of filing of the reply, the plaintiff must promptly move
ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial conference. If the plaintiff fails to file said
motion within the given period, the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial.
We note that when the above guidelines took effect, the case was already at the
pre- trial stage and it was the failure of petitioners to set the case anew for pre-trial
conference which prompted the trial court to dismiss their complaint.
In Olave v. Mistas, this Court said that even if the plaintiff fails to promptly move
for pre-trial without any justifiable cause for such delay, the extreme sanction of dismissal
of the complaint might not be warranted if no substantial prejudice would be caused to the
defendant, and there are special and compelling reasons which would make the strict
application of the rule clearly unjustified. In the more recent case of Espiritu v. Lazaro,
this Court affirmed the dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute, the plaintiff having failed
to take the initiative to set the case for pre-trial for almost one year from their receipt of
the Answer. Although said case was decided prior to the effectivity of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC,
the Court considered the circumstances showing petitioners and their counsels lack of
interest and laxity in prosecuting their case. (Eloisa Merchandising, Inc. And Trebel
International, Inc., Vs. Banco De Oro Universal Bank)
Contending that the RTC was correct in dismissing the case for failure of respondent to
prosecute his case, petitioner filed the instant petition praying that the decision of the CA be set
aside. The SC however ruled that respondent had the option to move for pre-trial and if he fails to
do so as he did, the branch clerk of court had the duty to have the case set for pre-trial. The Court
emphasizes that in the absence of a pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a
wanton failure to observe the mandatory requirement of the rules on the part of the plaintiff, as

in the case at bar, courts should decide to dispense with rather than wield their authority to
dismiss. AUGUSTO C. SOLIMAN vs. JUANITO C. FERNANDEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER OF SMC
PNEUMATICS (PHILS.), INC. G.R. No. 176652, June 4, 2014, J. Perez
3.9.7. Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION
Any process or procedure used to resolve a dispute or controversy, other than by
adjudication of a presiding judge of a court or an officer of a government agency, in which a
neutral third party participates to assist in the resolution of issues, which includes arbitration,
mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation, mini-trial, or any combination thereof
Referral to Arbitration
A court before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject matter of an
arbitration agreement shall, if at least one party so requests not later that the pre-trial
conference, or upon the request of both parties thereafter, refer the parties to arbitration
unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being
performed.
a) Special Rules of Court on ADR (A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC) (Note: this is a very long set of rules
and was not included anymore)
Disputes do not go to arbitration unless and until the parties have agreed to abide by the
arbitrators decision. Necessarily, a contract is required for arbitration to take place and to be
binding. The provision to submit to arbitration any dispute arising therefrom and the
relationship of the parties is part of that contract. As a rule, contracts are respected as the law
between the contracting parties and produce effect as between them, their assigns and heirs.
Only those parties who have agreed to submit a controversy to arbitration who, as against each
other, may be compelled to submit to arbitration. ABOITIZ TRANSPORT SYSTEM CORPORATION
and ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION vs. CARLOS A. GOTHONG LINES, INC. and VICTOR S.
CHIONGBIAN, G.R. No. 198226, July 18, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
While there is jurisprudential authority stating that "a clerical error in the judgment
appealed from may be corrected by the appellate court," the application of that rule cannot be
made in this case considering that the CIAC Rules provides for a specific procedure to deal with
particular errors involving "an evident miscalculation of figures, a typographical or arithmetical
error. While the CA correctly affirmed in full the CIAC Arbitral Tribunals factual determinations,
it improperly modified the amount of the award in favor of AIC, which modification did not
observe the proper procedure for the correction of an evident miscalculation of figures in the
arbitral award. Section 17.1 of the CIAC Rules mandates the filing of a motion for the foregoing
purpose within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. Failure to file said motion would
consequently render the award final and executory under Section 18. 1 of the same rules.
NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION vs. ALPHAOMEGA INTEGRATED CORPORATION, G.R.
No. 184295, July 30, 2014, J. Perlas- Bernabe
While it appears that the Special ADR Rules remain silent on the procedure for the
execution of a confirmed arbitral award, it is the Courts considered view that the Rules
procedural mechanisms cover not only aspects of confirmation but necessarily extend to a
confirmed awards execution in light of the doctrine of necessary implication which states that
every statutory grant of power, right or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power, right
or privilege.

As the Court sees it, execution is but a necessary incident to the Courts confirmation of an
arbitral award. To construe it otherwise would result in an absurd situation whereby the
confirming court previously applying the Special ADR Rules in its confirmation of the arbitral
award would later shift to the regular Rules of Procedure come execution. Irrefragably, a courts
power to confirm a judgment award under the Special ADR Rules should be deemed to include
the power to order its execution for such is but a collateral and subsidiary consequence that
may be fairly and logically inferred from the statutory grant to regional trial courts of the power
to confirm domestic arbitral awards. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES (DENR) vs. UNITED PLANNERS CONSULTANTS, INC. (UPCI), G.R. No. 212081,
February 23, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
3.10. Intervention
What is intervention?
a proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the court to
become a party by intervening in the pending case after meeting the conditions and compliance
with the requirement set by the Rules.
Nature:
Intervention is ancillary and supplemental to an existing action. Hence, it cannot exist
independent of the principal action and the dismissal of the latter shall also cause the dismissal
of the complaint-in-intervention.
Intervention is never an independent action, but is ancillary and supplemental to the
existing litigation. Its purpose is not to obstruct nor unnecessarily delay the placid operation of
the machinery of trial, but merely to afford one not an original party, yet having a certain right or
interest in the pending case, the opportunity to appear and be joined so he could assert or
protect such right or interests. In this case, Pulgar does not contest the RTC's dismissal of Civil
Case No. 0587-M for lack of jurisdiction, but oddly maintains his intervention by asking in this
appeal a review of the correctness of the subject realty tax assessment. This recourse, the Court,
however, finds to be improper since the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the main case necessarily
resulted in the dismissal of his intervention. FRUMENCIO E. PULGAR vs. THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MAUBAN, QUEZON, BRANCH 64, QUEZON POWER (PHILIPPINES) LIMITED, CO.,
PROVINCE OF QUEZON, and DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE G.R. No. 157583, September 10, 2014, J.
PERLAS-BERNABE
General rule: Intervention is discretionary.
Exceptions: It is a matter of right when:
1) Intervenor turns out to be an indispensable party
2) Class suit
Note:
Intervention is a prohibited pleading in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases under
Sec. 13, Rule 70.
3.10.1. Requisites for intervention
A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of
the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof

may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider
whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of
the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a
separate proceeding. (Rule 18, Sec. 1)
A leave of court is necessary in order that the third party may be allowed to intervene in
the action.
An intervention cannot legally alter the nature of the action and the issue joined by the
original parties. (Clardidades v. Mercader, G.R. No. L-20341, May 14, 1966)
3.10.2. Time to intervene
The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the
trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on
the original parties. (Rule 18, Sec. 2)
3.10.3. Remedy for the denial of motion to intervene
Answer to Complaint in Intervention (Rule 18, Sec.4)
Must be filed within 15 days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless otherwise
fixed by the court.
Remedies if motion for intervention is denied
1) Appeal;
2) File a petition for mandamus if there is grave abuse of discretion.
3) If the grant of intervention is improper, the remedy available to the parties is
Certiorari.
4) File a separate action
3.11. Subpoena
Subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to either:
1) Attend and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an action or at any investigation
conducted by a competent authority;
2) Give his deposition;
3) Bring with him any books, documents or other things under his control.
Subpoena may be issued by: (Rule 21, Sec.2)
1) The court before whom the witness is required to attend;
2) The court of the place where the deposition is to be taken;
3) The officer or body authorized by law to do so in connection with the investigations
conducted by said officer or body; or
4) Any Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals in any case or
investigation pending within the Philippines.
3.11.1. Subpoena duces tecum
A process by which the court to compel the production of books, records, things or
documents therein specified. (Roco v. Contreras, et.al., G.R. No. 158275, June 18, 2005, 500 Phil

275)
3.11.2. Subpoena ad testificandum
Ordinary subpoena. Requires a person to whom the order is directed to attend and to
testify at the hearing or the trial of an action or at any investigation conducted by a competent
authority or for the taking of his deposition.
It is used to compel a person to testify. (Roco v. Contreras, et.al., supra)
3.11.3. Service of subpoena
Service of a subpoena shall be made in the same manner as personal or substituted
service of summons. The original shall be exhibited and a copy thereof delivered to the person
on whom it is served, tendering to him the fees for one day's attendance and the kilometrage
allowed by these Rules, except that, when a subpoena is issued by or on behalf of the Republic
of the Philippines or an officer or agency thereof, the tender need not be made. The service
must be made so as to allow the witness a reasonable time for preparation and travel to the
place of attendance. If the subpoena is duces tecum, the reasonable cost of producing the
books, documents or things demanded shall also be tendered. (Rule 21, Sec.6)
3.11.4. Compelling attendance of witnesses; contempt
In case of failure of a witness to attend, the court or judge issuing the subpoena, upon
proof of the service thereof and of the failure of the witness, may issue a warrant to the sheriff
of the province, or his deputy, to arrest the witness and bring him before the court or officer
where his attendance is required, and the cost of such warrant and seizure of such witness shall
be paid by the witness if the court issuing it shall determine that his failure to answer the
subpoena was willful and without just excuse. (Rule 21, Sec.8)
Failure by any person without adequate cause to obey a subpoena served upon him
shall be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena is issued. If the subpoena
was not issued by a court, the disobedience thereto shall be punished in accordance with the
applicable law or Rule. (Rule 21, Sec.9)
The provisions of sections 8 and 9 of this Rule shall not apply to a witness who resides
more than one hundred (100) kilometers from his residence to the place where he is to testify
by the ordinary course of travel, or to a detention prisoner if no permission of the court in
which his case is pending was obtained. (Rule 21, Sec.10)
3.11.5. Quashing of subpoena
Grounds for quashing subpoena duces tecum
Court may quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly made, and in any
event, at or before the time specified if:
1) It is unreasonable or oppressive;
2) The relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear;
3) The person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable
cost of the production thereof; or
4) The witness fees and the kilometrage allowed by these Rules were not tendered
when the subpoena was served.

Grounds for quashing subpoena ad testificandum

1) The witness is not bound thereby; where the residence is more than 100km from
place of trial.
2) The witness fees and the kilometrage allowed by these Rules were not tendered
when the subpoena was served.
Viatory Right of the witness 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, then he cannot be compelled to attend
the trial. The right is available only in CIVIL cases.
There is no viatory right in criminal cases. (People v. Montejo, G.R. No. L-24154, Oct. 31, 1967)
3.12. Modes of discovery
Discovery: (A) device employed by a party to obtain information about relevant matters on the
case from the adverse party in preparation for the trial. (Riano 2011)
The modern pre-trial procedure by which one party gains vital information concerning the case
in order to aid him in his litigation. (Riguera 2013, citing Steven Gifis, Law Dictionary 61 [1975]).
Purpose: to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties, to ascertain the facts
relative to the issues and enable the parties to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of issues
and facts before civil trials.
The primary purpose of discovery is to enable the parties to obtain the fullest possible
knowledge of the issues and facts before trial and thus prevent the situation where trials are
carried on in the dark. It makes the parties lay down their cards on the table so that justice can
be rendered on the merits of the case. (Riguera 2013, citing Koh v. IAC, 144 SCRA 259).
Modes or Methods of Discovery provided by the Rules of Court:
1) Depositions pending action (Rule 23); or Depositions before action or pending appeal
(Rule 24);
2) Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25);
3) Request for admission by adverse parties (Rule 26);
4) Motion for Production or inspection of documents or things (Rule 27); and
5) Motion for physical and mental Examination of persons (Rule 28).
Availing modes of discovery is not mandatory but the failure to avail may be sanctioned under
Rules 25 and 26.

BILL OF PARTICULAR

To compel to clarify vague statements of

ultimate facts.

MODES OF DISCOVERY

To compel other party to reveal his evidence

and evidentiary facts.

Prior Leave of Court, When Required

Rules 27 and 28 always require prior leave of court, unlike other modes of discovery
which could be availed of without leave of court as long as the defendant has filed or served a
responsive pleading.
3.12.1. Depositions pending action; depositions before action or pending appeal
a) Meaning of deposition
Deposition is a written testimony of a witness given in the course of a judicial
proceeding in advance of the trial or hearing upon oral examination or in response to written
interrogatories and where an opportunity is given for cross-examination (Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 112710, May 30, 2001).
Deposition is a method of pre-trial discovery which consists in taking the testimony of a
person under oath upon oral examination (oral deposition) or upon written interrogatories. The
term deposition also refers to the testimony or statement so taken. (Riguera 2013)
b) Uses; scope of examination
Applies also for depositions under Rule 24
The purpose for which a deposition may be used depends on who the deponent is and
on who will be using the deposition. Rule 23, Section 4(c) lays down the relevant rules:
a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or
impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness. This is a common use of a deposition,
to impeach a witness who is under cross-examination.
b) The deposition of a party or of anyone who at the time of the taking the deposition
was an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation, partnership, or
association which is a party may be used by an adverse party for any purpose.
c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any
purpose if the court finds:
(1) that the witness is dead; or
(2) that the witness resides at a distance more than 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;
(3) that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or
imprisonment;
(4) that the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of
the witness by subpoena; or
(5) upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstance exist as to make it
desirable, in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of presenting the
testimony of the witness orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used. (Rule 23,
Section 4) The deposition in such case is admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay
rule (Antonio R. Bautista, Basic Civil Procedure 124[2003 ed.]; United States Federal Rules of
Evidence, sec.804[b][1]).

If the deposition is taken not in the same case but in a former case or proceeding, it is
governed NOT by Sec. 4(c) Rule 23 but by Sec. 47 Rule 130. (Riguera 2013)
If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, the adverse party may
require him to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may
introduce any other parts (Rule 23, Section 4(d)) (Primer-Reviewer on REMEDIAL LAW, Manuel
R. Riguera)
When is deposition pending action taken? (Rule 24, Sec.1)
1. With leave of court
a) after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property subject of
the action;
b) deposition of a person confined in prison
2. Without leave of court
After an answer has been served.
General rule:
Plaintiff may not be permitted to take depositions before answer is served.
Reason: He must wait for the joinder of issues because only this time that it can be
determined what is relevant
Exception: Under special circumstances where there is necessity and good reason for
presenting a strong case. Thus, there must be necessity and good reason for the taking of the
testimony immediately.
Example: Where the witness is aged or infirm
An answer ex abudanti cautela (out of abundant caution or to be on the safe side) does
not make their answer less of an answer and when such answer is filed, deposition may be
made without leave of court (Rosete v. Lim G.R No.136051, June 8, 2006).
Scope of Examination
Applies also for depositions under Rule 24
Deponent may be examined regarding any matter which is:
1) Not privileged;
2) Relevant to the subject of the pending action;
3) Not restricted by court order for the protection of parties and deponents;
4) Not meant to annoy, embarrass or oppress the deponent or party.
c) When may objections to admissibility be made?
Subject to the provisions of section 29 of this Rule, objection may be made at the trial or
hearing, to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would

require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying. (Rule 23,
Sec. 6)
(Rule 23, Sec. 29)
Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions.
(a) As to notice. All errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are
waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice.
(b) As to disqualification of officer. Objection to taking a deposition because of
disqualification of the officer before whom it is to be taken is waived unless made before the
taking of the deposition begins or as soon thereafter as the disqualification becomes known or
could be discovered with reasonable diligence.
(c) As to competency or relevancy of evidence. Objections to the competency of
witness or the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to
make them before or during the taking of the deposition, unless the ground, of the objection is
one which might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time.
(d) As to oral examination and other particulars. Errors and irregularities occurring at
the oral examination in the manner of taking the deposition in the form of the questions or
answers, in the oath or affirmation, or in the conduct of the parties and errors of any kind
which might be obviated, removed, or cured if promptly prosecuted, are waived unless
reasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the deposition.
(e) As to form of written interrogatories. Objections to the form of written
interrogatories submitted under sections 25 and 26 of this Rule are waived unless served in
writing upon the party propounding them within the time allowed for serving succeeding cross
or other interrogatories and within three (3) days after service of the last interrogatories
authorized.
(f) As to manner of preparation. Errors and irregularities in the manner in which the
testimony is transcribed or the deposition is prepared, signed, certified, sealed, indorsed,
transmitted, filed, or otherwise dealt with by the officer under sections 17, 19, 20 and 26 of this
Rule are waived unless a motion to suppress the deposition or some part thereof is made with
reasonable promptness after such defect is, or with due diligence might have been,
ascertained.
d) When may taking of deposition be terminated or its scope limited?
At any time during the taking of the deposition, on motion or petition of any party or of
the deponent, and upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in
such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, the court
in which the action is pending or the Regional Trial Court of the place where the deposition is
being taken may order the officer conducting the examination to cease forthwith from taking
the deposition, or may limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition, as provided
in section 16 of this Rule. If the order made terminates the examination, it shall be resumed
thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the action is pending. Upon demand of the
objecting party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time
necessary to make a notice for an order. In granting or refusing such order, the court may

impose upon either party or upon the witness the requirement to pay such costs or expenses as
the court may deem reasonable. (Rule 23, Sec. 18)
3.12.2. Written interrogatories to adverse parties
Under the same conditions specified in section 1 of Rule 23, any party desiring to elicit
material and relevant facts from any adverse parties shall file and serve upon the latter written
interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private
corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer thereof competent to testify in its
behalf. (Rule 25, Sec. 1)
a) Consequences of refusal to answer
The examination may be completed on other matters or adjourned as the proponent of
the question may prefer. The proponent may thereafter apply to the proper court of the place
where the deposition is being taken, for an order to compel an answer. The same procedure
may be availed of when a party or a witness refuses to answer any interrogatory submitted
under Rules 23 or 25.
If the application is granted, the court shall require the refusing party or deponent to
answer the question or interrogatory and if it also finds that the refusal to answer was without
substantial justification, it may require the refusing party or deponent or the counsel advising
the refusal, or both of them, to pay the proponent the amount of the reasonable expenses
incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees.
If the application is denied and the court finds that it was filed without substantial
justification, the court may require the proponent or the counsel advising the filing of the
application, or both of them, to pay to the refusing party or deponent the amount of the
reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the application, including attorney's fees. (Rule 29,
Sec. 1)
If a party or an officer or managing agent of a party wilfully fails to appear before the
officer who is to take his deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or fails to serve
answers to interrogatories submitted under Rule 25 after proper service of
such
interrogatories, the court on motion and notice, may strike out all or any part of any pleading of
that party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by
default against that party, and in its discretion, order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred
by the other, including attorney's fees. (Rule 29, Sec. 5)
b) Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories
Unless thereafter allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of
justice, a party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse
party to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal. (Rule 25, Sec. 6)
3.12.3. Request for admission
At any time after issues have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any other
party may file and serve upon any other party a written request for the admission by the latter
of the genuineness of any material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the
request or of the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.

Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the request unless copy have already been
furnished. (Rule 26, Sec. 1)
A request for admission must be served directly upon the party requested. Otherwise,
that party cannot be deemed to have admitted the genuineness of any relevant matters of fact
set forth therein on account of failure to answer the request for admission. (Riguera 2013,
citing Laada vs. CA, 1 February 2002).
a) Implied admission by adverse party
Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted
unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days
after service thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow on motion, the party to
whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn
statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting
forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters. (Rule
26, Sec. 2(1))
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court by the party
requested within the period for and prior to the filing of his sworn statement as contemplated
in the preceding paragraph and his compliance therewith shall be deferred until such objections
are resolved, which resolution shall be made as early as practicable. (Rule 26, Sec. 2(2))
Exceptions:
1. The requested party files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn
statement either specifically denying or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot
truthfully either admit or deny those matters., 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.
2. When the request for admission is not directly served upon the party requested, the party
requested cannot be deemed to have admitted the genuineness of any relevant matters of
fact set forth therein on account of failure to answer the request for admission. (Riguera
2013, citing Laada vs. CA, 1 February 2002).
b) Consequences of failure to answer request for admission
If a party after being served with a request under Rule 26 to admit the genuineness of
any document or the truth of any matter of fact serves a sworn denial thereof and if the party
requesting the admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of such document or the truth of
any such matter of fact, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay
him the reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof, including attorney's fees. Unless
the court finds that there were good reasons for the denial or that admissions sought were of
no substantial importance, such order shall be issued. (Rule 29, Sec. 4)
c) Effect of admission
Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the
pending action only and shall not constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor
may the same be used against him in any other proceeding. (Rule 26, Sec. 3)
d) Effect of failure to file and serve request for admission

Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice
a party who fails to file and serve a request for admission on the adverse party of material and
relevant facts at issue which are, or ought to be, within the personal knowledge of the latter,
shall not be permitted to present evidence on such facts. (Rule 26, Sec. 5)
3.12.4. Production or inspection of documents or things
Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in which an action is
pending may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or
photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers,
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which
constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in
his possession, custody or control, or (b) order any party to 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. The order shall specify the time, place and manner of making the inspection and
taking copies and photographs, and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just. (Rule
27, Sec. 1)
Intervention is never an independent action, but is ancillary and supplemental to the
existing litigation. Its purpose is not to obstruct nor unnecessarily delay the placid operation of
the machinery of trial, but merely to afford one not an original party, yet having a certain right or
interest in the pending case, the opportunity to appear and be joined so he could assert or
protect such right or interests. In this case, Pulgar does not contest the RTC's dismissal of Civil
Case No. 0587-M for lack of jurisdiction, but oddly maintains his intervention by asking in this
appeal a review of the correctness of the subject realty tax assessment. This recourse, the Court,
however, finds to be improper since the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the main case necessarily
resulted in the dismissal of his intervention. FRUMENCIO E. PULGAR vs. THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MAUBAN, QUEZON, BRANCH 64, QUEZON POWER (PHILIPPINES) LIMITED, CO.,
PROVINCE OF QUEZON, and DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE G.R. No. 157583, September 10, 2014, J.
PERLAS-BERNABE

3.12.5. Physical and mental examination of persons

This mode of discovery is available in an action in which the mental or physical condition
of a party is in controversy.
Examples:
1. Annulment of contract on the ground of insanity
2. Petition for guardianship of a person alleged to be insane
3. Action for damages where the issue is the extent of injuries of plaintiff
(Riano 2011)
Requisites:
1. Physical or mental condition must be the subject of controversy.
2. Motion showing good cause must be filed.
3. Notice of motion must be given to the party to be examined and to all other parties.
When examination may be ordered? (Rule 28, Sec.1)
In an action in which the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the
court in which the action is pending may in its discretion, order him to submit to a physical or
mental examination by a physician.

Since the results of the examination are intended to be made public, the same are not
covered by the physician-patient privilege. Furthermore such examination is not necessary to
treat or cure the patient but to assess the extent of injury or to evaluate his physical or mental
condition (Rule 130, Sec. 24[c]).
Order for Examination (Rule 28, Sec.2)
Requisites:
1. Physical or mental condition must be the subject of controversy.
2. Motion showing good cause must be filed.
3. Notice of motion must be given to the party to be examined and to all other parties.
Report of Findings (Rule 28, Sec.3)
A copy of the detailed written report of the examining physician may be delivered to the
party examined, if the latter should request.
Waiver of Privilege (Rule 28, Sec.4)
A party examined waives any privilege he may have in that action or any other involving
the same controversy:
1) By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered; or
2) By taking the deposition of the examiner.
Consequences of Requesting and Obtaining a Report of Examination
Where the party examined requests and obtains a report on the results of the
examination, the consequences are that:
1) He has to furnish the other party a copy of the report of any previous or subsequent
examination of the same physical and mental examination; and
2) He waives any privilege he may have in that action or any other involving the same
controversy regarding the testimony of any other person who has so examined him or may
thereafter examine him (Regalado).
Prior Leave of Court, when required
Rules 27 and 28 always require prior leave of court, unlike other modes of discovery
which could be availed of without leave of court as long as the defendant has filed or served a
responsive pleading.
3.12.6. Consequences of refusal to comply with modes of discovery
Sanctions:
A. Refusal to answer any question (Rule 29, Sec. 1)
1. Examination may be completed on other matters, or adjourned, as the proponent of the
question may prefer;
2. Upon application by the proponent, the court may compel the deponent to answer the
questions;
3. If the refusal was without substantial justification, court may require the refusing party or
deponent or the counsel advising the refusal or both of them, to pay the proponent the

amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorneys
fees.
The remedies above are available under Rule 23 and Rule 25.
B. Refusal to answer designated or particular questions or refusal to produce documents or
things or to submit to physical examination (Rule 29, Sec.3)
1. Order that the matters regarding which questions were asked shall be taken to be
established for purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining
the order;
2. Refuse to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or
defenses;
3. Strike out all or any part of the pleading of the disobedient party;
4. In lieu of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order directing the arrest of any
party or agent of any party for disobeying any such orders, except an order to submit to a
physical or mental examination.
C. Refusal to be sworn (Rule 29, Sec. 2)
If a party or other witness refuses to be sworn or refuses to answer question after
being directed to do so by the court of the place in which deposition is being taken, such refusal
may considered a contempt of that court.
D. Refusal to admit (Rule 29, (Sec. 4)
The court upon proper application may order the former to pay the reasonable
expenses in making such proof, including attorneys fees.
If:
1. A party requests for the admission of either:
a. the genuineness of any document, or
b. the truth of any matter of fact
2. The party requested refuses to admit the same and thereafter serves a sworn denial
thereof, and;
3. Later, the party requesting for admission proves the genuineness or truthfulness, as the
case may be; then, the party requesting for the admission may apply to the court for an order
requiring the adverse party to pay reasonable expenses incurred in making such proof, including
attorney's fees.

E. Failure to attend depositions or to serve answers to interrogatories (Rule 29, Sec. 5)

1.Strike out all or any part of the pleading of the disobedient party;
2. Render a judgment by default against the disobedient party;
3.Order him to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other, including attorneys fees.
Other sanctions:
1. Stay further proceedings until order is obeyed;
2. Dismiss the action or proceeding;
3. Arrest the disobedient party or his agent.
Note:

The Republic of the Philippines cannot be required to pay expenses and attorneys fees
under this Rule.
The matter of how and when the above sanctions should be applied is one that primarily
rests on the sound discretion of the court where the case is pending.
3.13. Trial
It is an examination before a competent court or tribunal of the facts or law put in issue
in a case for the purpose of determining such issue.
In a limited sense, trial refers to the stage of a case when the parties present their
evidence before the court up to the point when the case is deemed submitted for decision.
(Riguera 2013)
General rule: Decision should not be made without trial.
Exceptions: When is there judgment without trial
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Judgment on the pleading (Rule 34);

Summary judgment (Rule 35);
Judgment on compromise;
Judgment by confession;
Dismissal with prejudice (Rule 17);
Judgment under Rule on Summary Procedure;
Stipulation of facts. (Sec. 6 Rule 30)

Notice of Trial (Rule 30, Sec.1)

The clerk shall notify the parties of the date of trial, upon entry of the case in the trial
calendar in such manner as shall ensure their receipt of that notice at least 5 days before such
date.
3.13.1. Adjournments and postponements (Rule 30, Section 2)
General rule: A court may adjourn a trial from day to day, and to any stated time
Limitations: The court shall have no power to:
1. Adjourn a trial for more than 1 month for each adjournment; or
2. More than 3 months in all; except when authorized in writing by the court
administrator, the Supreme Court.
Exception: The court can go beyond the period provided by law when authorized in writing by
the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court.
3.13.2. Requisites of motion to postpone trial
a) For absence of evidence
A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of absence of evidence can be granted only
upon affidavit showing the materiality or relevancy of such evidence, and that due diligence has

been used to procure it. But if the adverse party admits the facts to be given in evidence, even
if he objects or reserves the right to object to their admissibility, the trial shall not be
postponed. (Rule 30, Sec.3)
b) For illness of party or counsel
A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of illness of a party or counsel may be
granted if it appears upon affidavit or sworn certification that the presence of such party or
counsel at the trial is indispensable and that the character of his illness is such as to render his
non-attendance excusable. (Rule 30, Sec.4)
3.13.3. Agreed statement of facts
The parties to any action may agree, in writing, upon the facts involved in the litigation,
and submit the case for judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of
evidence.
If the parties agree only on some of the facts in issue, the trial shall be held as to the
disputed facts in such order as the court shall prescribe. (Rule 30, Sec.6)
Exceptions: Judgment based on stipulation of facts is not allowed in actions for declaration of
nullity of marriage, annulment of marriage and legal separation. (Riguera 2013, citing Arts. 48 &
60, Family Code)
3.13.4. Order of trial; reversal of order
Subject to the provisions of section 2 of Rule 31, and unless the court for special reasons
otherwise directs, the trial shall be limited to the issues stated in the pre-trial order and shall
proceed as follows:
(a) The plaintiff shall adduce evidence in support of his complaint;
(b) The defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of his defense, counterclaim,
cross-claim and third-party complaints;
(c) The third-party defendant if any, shall adduce evidence of his defense, counterclaim,
cross-claim and fourth-party complaint;
(d) The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall adduce evidence of the material facts
pleaded by them;
(e) The parties against whom any counterclaim or cross-claim has been pleaded, shall
adduce evidence in support of their defense, in the order to be prescribed by the court;
(f) The parties may then respectively adduce rebutting evidence only, unless the court,
for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice, permits them to adduce evidence
upon their original case; and
(g) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision,
unless the court directs the parties to argue or to submit their respective memoranda or
any further pleadings.

If several defendants or third-party defendants, and so forth, having separate defenses

appear by different counsel, the court shall determine the relative order of presentation of
their evidence. (Rule 30, Sec.5)
Trial in reverse defendant presents evidence ahead of the plaintiff.
When proper
If the defendant instead of filing a motion to dismiss files an answer, invoking the
ground as an affirmative defense
3.13.5. Consolidation or severance of hearing or trial
Consolidation.
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court,
it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order
all the actions consolidated, and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as
may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (Rule 31, Section 1)
When available?
Many authorities held that consolidation may occur even if cases are pending before
different courts or tribunal. The necessary thing is that actions involve the common questions
of law or fact (Superlines Transportation v. Victor).
Separate trials.
The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a separate
trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate issue
or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints or issues. (Rule
31, Section 2)
3.13.6. Delegation of reception of evidence
The judge of the court where the case is pending shall personally receive the evidence
to be adduced by the parties. However, in default or ex partehearings, and in any case where
the parties agree in writing, the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of
court who is a member of the bar. The clerk of court shall have no power to rule on objections
to any question or to the admission of exhibits, which objections shall be resolved by the court
upon submission of his report and the transcripts within ten (10) days from termination of the
hearing. (Rule 30, Section 9)
3.13.7. Trial by commissioners
Who is a commissioner?
Commissioner is the person to whom a cause pending in court is referred, for him to
take testimony, hear the parties and report thereon to the court, and upon whose report, if
confirmed, judgment is rendered.
Who are included under the term commissioner

The word "commissioner" includes a referee, an auditor and an examiner. (Rule 32,
Section 1)
a) Reference by consent or ordered on motion
By written consent of both parties, the court may order any or all of the issues in a case
to be referred to a commissioner to be agreed upon by the parties or to be appointed by the
court. As used in these Rules, the word "commissioner" includes a referee, an auditor and an
examiner. (Rule 32, Section 1)
b) Powers of the commissioner
Subject to other specifications and limitations stated in the order, the commissioner has
and shall exercise the power to regulate the proceedings in every hearing before him and to do
all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient performance of his duties
under the order. He may issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, swear witnesses, and
unless otherwise provided in the order of reference, he may rule upon the admissibility of
evidence. The trial or hearing before him shall proceed in all respects as it would if held before
the court. (Rule 32, Section 3)
c) Commissioners report; notice to parties and hearing on the report
Report of commissioner
Upon the completion of the trial or hearing or proceeding before the commissioner, he
shall file with the court his report in writing upon the matters submitted to him by the order of
reference. When his powers are not specified or limited, he shall set forth his findings of fact
and conclusions of law in his report. He shall attach thereto all exhibits, affidavits, depositions,
papers and the transcript, if any, of the testimonial evidence presented before him. (Rule 32,
Section 9)
Notice to parties of the filing of report.
Upon the filing of the report, the parties shall be notified by the clerk, and they shall be
allowed ten (10) days within which to signify grounds of objections to the findings of the report,
if they so desire. Objections to the report based upon grounds which were available to the
parties during the proceedings before the commissioner, other than objections to the findings
and conclusions therein, set forth, shall not be considered by the court unless they were made
before the commissioner. (Rule 32, Section 10)
Hearing upon report.
Upon the expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the preceding section,
the report shall be set for hearing, after which the court shall issue an order adopting,
modifying, or rejecting the report in whole or in part, or recommitting it with instructions, or
requiring the parties to present further evidence before the commissioner or the court. (Rule
32, Section 11)
3.14. Demurrer to evidence

Demurrer to Evidence is a motion to dismiss based on the ground of insufficiency of

evidence and is presented after the plaintiff rests his case.
Nature of demurrer to evidence: Only within the province of the trial courts:
The Court has previously explained the nature of a demurrer to evidence in the case of
Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago as follows: "A demurrer to evidence is a motion to
dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented after the plaintiff rests his
case. It is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which
his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or
sustain the issue. The evidence contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that which pertains to
the merits of the case."
In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely
required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the judgment.
Being considered a motion to dismiss, thus, a demurrer to evidence must clearly be filed before
the court renders its judgment.
Accordingly, the CA committed reversible error in granting the demurrer and dismissing
the Amended Complaint a quo for insufficiency of evidence. The demurrer to evidence was
clearly no longer an available remedy to respondents and should not have been granted, as the
RTC had correctly done. Nenita Gonzales, Et. Al. Vs. Mariano Bugaay And Lucy Bugaay, G.R. No.
173008, February 22, 2012
3.14.1. Ground
A motion to dismiss filed by the defendant after the plaintiff has completed the
presentation of his evidence on the ground that upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has
shown no right to relief. (Riguera 2013)
3.14.2. Effect of denial
1. Defendant shall have the right to present evidence. (Rule 33, Section 1)
2. The date for reception of defendants evidence should be set.
3.The order is interlocutory and therefore not appealable but can be subject of petition
for certiorari in case of grave abuse of discretion or oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
3.14.3. Effect of grant
1) The case shall be dismissed. (Rule 33, Section 1)
2) The appellate court should render judgment on the basis of the evidence submitted
by the plaintiff.
3) If, on appeal, the order of dismissal is reversed, the movant shall be deemed to have
waived his right to present evidence. In practical terms, this means that the plaintiff already
wins the case since the appellate court should forthwith render judgment for the plaintiff on
the basis of his evidence alone. (Riguera 2013)
3.14.4. Waiver of right to present evidence
If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be
deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. (Rule 33, Section 1)

3.14.5. Demurrer to evidence in a civil case versus demurrer to evidence in a criminal case
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IN
CIVIL CASES
CRIMINAL CASES
As to Requirement to Leave of Court
Leave of court is not required before It may be filed with or without leave of court (Sec. 23,
filing a demurrer.
Rule 119).
As to Right to Appeal
If the demurrer is granted, the order
of dismissal is appealable (Sec. 1,
Rule 33).

But if on appeal, the appellate court

reverses the order of dismissal, the
defendant loses his right to present
evidence (Radiowealth vs. Spouses
Del Rosario, G.R. No. 138739, July 6,
2000).

The order of dismissal is not appealable because of the

constitutional policy against double jeopardy.

As to the Effects of Denial

Court denies the demurrer:
a. if demurrer was with leave, accused may present
his evidence.
If the demurrer is denied, the
defendant may proceed to present
his evidence.

b. if the demurrer was without leave, accused can no

longer present his evidence and submits the case
for decision based on the prosecutions evidence.

3.15. Judgments and final orders

What is a judgment?
It is the final consideration and determination by a court of the rights of the
parties, upon matters submitted to it in an action or proceeding.
Requisites of a Valid Judgment:
a) The court or tribunal must be clothed with authority to hear and determine the
matter before it (Riano 2011 citing Acosta vs. COMELEC, 293 SRA 578, 580) The term
"clothed with authority" includes jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and over the
person of the defendant, or over the res, in an action in personam or quasi in rem.
(spr)(Riguera 2013)
b) Parties must have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence in their behalf
(Riano 2011 citing Acosta vs. COMELEC, 293 SRA 578, 580). Indispensible parties should have
been impleaded. (Riguera 2013)

c) It should be in writing. A verbal judgment is, in contemplation of law, not in esse,

therefore, ineffective (Riano 2011, citing Corpus vs. Sandiganbayan, 442 SCRA 294, 309);
d) It must state clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based,
signed by the judge and filed with the clerk of court; and
e) It should contain a dispositive part (Riano 2011, citing Cu-Unjieng vs. Mabalacat
Sugar Co., 70 Phil. 384) and should be signed by the judge and filed with the clerk of court.
What is Findings of fact?
These are statement of facts and not conclusions of law. Statement of facts in judgment
must contain not only the ultimate facts. The supporting evidentiary facts must as well be
established. This rule, however, does not require that the court shall state in its decision all the
facts found in the records. (Riano 2011, citing People vs. Derpo, 168 SCRA 447, 455).
3.15.1. Judgment without trial
Default judgment
A binding judgment in favor of either party based on some failure to take action by the
other party. Most often, it is a judgment in favor of a plaintiff when the defendant has not
responded to a summons or has failed to appear before a court of law.
It is a judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant after the
defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefore, upon motion of the claiming
party, with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure to answer. (Sec. 3 Rule 9)
Summary judgment
A determination made by a court without a full trial. Such judgment may be issued as to
the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case.
A judgment rendered by a court without a full-blown trial, if the court finds that, except
as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the plaintiff
or defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Riguera 2013)
A judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded, and is based
exclusively upon the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the accompanying
annexes. It is settled that the trial court has the discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the
pleadings filed by a party if there is no controverted matter in the case after the answer is filed. A
genuine issue of fact is that which requires the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from a
sham, fictitious, contrived or false issue. Under Rule 35, on Summary Judgments, the petitioner
had recourse to move for summary judgment, wherein it could have adduced supporting
evidence to justify its action on the parties lease, but it did not do so. COMGLASCO
CORPORATION/AGUILA GLASS vs. SANTOS CAR CHECK CENTER CORPORATION G.R. No. 202989,
March 25, 2015, J. Reyes
When a party moves for summary judgment, this is premised on the assumption that a
scrutiny of the facts will disclose that the issues presented need not be tried either because these
are patently devoid of substance or that there is no genuine issue as to any pertinent fact. A
judgment on the motion must be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits,
depositions, and admissions on file show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no
genuine issue and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A prudent

examination of the evidence on record yields to no other conclusion that there exists a genuine
issue of fact as raised in both petitions. Hence, the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the motion
for summary judgment. YKR CORPORATION, MA. TERESA J. YULO-GOMEZ, JOSE ENRIQUE J. YULO,
MA. ANTONIAJ. YULO-LOYZAGA, JOSE MANUEL J. YULO, MA. CARMEN J. YULO and JOSE MARIAJ.
YULO vs. PHILIPPINE AGRI-BUSINESS CENTER CORPORATION G.R. No. 191838, October 20, 2014, J,
VIllarama, Jr.
Trial is the judicial examination and determination of the issues between the parties to the
action. During trial, parties present their respective evidence of their claims and defenses. Parties
to an action have the right "to a plenary trial of the case" to ensure that they were given a right to
fully present evidence on their respective claims. However, there are instances when trial may be
dispensed with. Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court may dispense
with trial and proceed to decide a case if from the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and other
papers on file, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. In such a case, the judgment
issued is called a summary judgment. OLIVAREZ REALTY CORPORATION and DR. PABLO R.
OLIVAREZ vs. BENJAMIN CASTILLO G.R. No. 196251, July 9, 2014, J. Leonen
Voluntary dismissal
The lawsuit is terminated by voluntary request of the plaintiff (Secs. 1 & 2 Rule 17)
3.15.2. Contents of a judgment
I) The opinion of the court Contains the findings of facts and conclusions of law;
2) The disposition of the case The final and actual disposition of the rights litigated
(the dispositive part); and
3) Signature of the judge (Herrera, p. 145)
4)
3.15.3. Judgment on the pleadings
When judgment on the pleadings proper?
Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations
of the adverse party's pleading, the court may; on motion of that party, direct judgment on
such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for
legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved. (Rule 34,
Section 1) It is a judgment based solely on the relief prayed for in the complaint without
plaintiff adducing any evidence. (Riguera 2013)
Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise
admits the material allegation of the adverse partys pleading. However, the trial court cannot
direct a judgment on the pleading in the absence of a motion filed for the purpose by a party
litigant (De Luna v. Abrigo, 181 SCRA 150).
The issue in this case is whether or not judgment on the pleading is proper. The court ruled
that Judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise
admits the material allegations of the adverse partys pleading. An answer fails to tender an issue
if it does not comply with the requirements of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8 and
10, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, resulting in the admission of the material
allegations of the adverse partys pleadings. ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, vs. SANNAEDLE CO., LTD. G.R. No. 181676, June 11, 2014, J. Peralta
Judgment on the pleadings is proper where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise
admits the material allegations of the adverse partys pleading. An answer would fail to tender
an issue if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material

allegations of the adverse partys pleadings by confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or
omitting to deal with them at all. Now, if an answer does in fact specifically deny the material
averments of the complaint and/or asserts affirmative defenses (allegations of new matter which,
while admitting the material allegations of the complaint expressly or impliedly, would
nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by the plaintiff), a judgment on the pleadings would
naturally be improper. TEOFILO B. ADOLFO vs. FE T. ADOLFO G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015, J.
Del Castillo.
Grounds:
1) When answer fails to tender an issue because of:
a) general denial of material allegations of the compliant;
b) insufficient denial of the material allegations of the complaint; or
2) When answer admits the material allegation of the adverse partys pleading, the court
may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading (Sec. 1 Rule 34);
3) Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, should the defendant fails to answer the
complaint within 10 days from service of summons (Sec. 6 RSP);
4) Where the defendant is declared in default, the court shall proceed to render judgment
granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion
requires the claimant to submit evidence (Sec. 3 Rule 9)
5) During pre-trial, the court may render a judgment on the pleadings if it finds a valid
ground therefor. (sec. 2(g) Rule 18).
6) As a penalty for non-compliance or refusal to answer in discovery proceedings, the court
may render judgment by default against the recalcitrant or disobedient party. (Secs. 3 & 5, Rule
29)(Riguera 2013)
When NOT Proper
1. When the answer raises an issue.
2. In actions for annulment of marriage or for legal separation, or declaration of nullity
of marriage.
3. Issue is the amount of unliquidated damages (Sec. 11 Rule 8).
4. Only questions of law are being alleged.
Implied Admission under Third Mode of Specific Denial
The third mode of specific denial may not be availed of when the fact as to which want
of knowledge or information is claimed is so plainly and necessarily within the defendant's
knowledge that his averment of ignorance must be palpably untrue. The defendant must aver
positively or state how it is that he is ignorant of the fact alleged. Since there is an implied
admission of material averments of the complaint, a judgment on the pleadings may be
rendered. (Riguera 2013, citing Capitol Motors vs. Yabut, 32 SCRA 1)
Judgment on the Pleadings may be Rendered Only Upon Motion
A court may direct judgment on the pleadings only if there is a motion to that effect.
(Riguera 2013, citing Sec. 1 Rule 34) However, trial court may render a judgment on the
pleadings if, after the pre-trial, the facts warrant such a judgment (Regalado, Tenth Edition,
citing Taleon vs. Sec. of Public Works & Communication, L-24281, May 19, 1967)

What is Deemed Admitted by the Movant?

One who prays for judgment on the pleadings without offering proof as to the truth of
his own allegations, and without giving the opposing party an opportunity to introduce
evidence, impliedly admits the truth of all the material and relevant allegations of the opposing
party, and to rest his motion for judgment on those allegations taken together with such of his
own are admitted in the pleadings. (Riguera 2013, citing Sanchez vs. Rigos, 45 SCRA 368). The
plaintiff, by moving for judgment on the pleadings, is not deemed to have admitted irrelevant
allegations in the defendant's answer (Regalado, Remedial Law Compenium, Tenth Edition,
citing Araneta vs. Perez, L-20787-8, June 29, 1965), neither is the defendant deemed to have
admitted allegations of damages in the complaint (Ibid., citing Abubakar Tan vs. Tian Ho, L18820, Dec. 29, 1962). Hence, there can be no award of damages in the absence of proof. (Ibid.,
citing Lichauco vs. Guash, 76 Phil., 5).
3.15.4. Summary judgments
A judgment rendered by a court without a full-blown trial, if the court finds that, except
as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the plaintiff
or defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Riguera 2013)
Nature and purpose
Summary judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out
litigations and useless delays. Such judgment is generally based on the facts proven summarily
by affidavits, depositions, pleadings, or admissions of the parties.
When available?
When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried,
the Rules of Court allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment, that
is, when the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by
applying the law to the material facts. Conversely, where the pleadings tender a genuine issue,
summary judgment is not proper.
A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and a moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment is
proper if, while the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues, the affidavits, depositions,
and admissions presented by the moving party show that such issues are not genuine. (Spouses
Ramon Villuga And Mercedita Villuga, Vs. Kelly Hardware And Construction Supply Inc.,
Represented By Ernesto V. Yu, Executive Vice-President And General Manager, G.R. No. 176570,
July 18, 2012)
Meaning of Genuine Issue
A "genuine issue" is such issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as
distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. Section 3 of [Rule 35 of the Rules
of Court] provides two (2) requisites for summary judgment to be proper: (1) there must be no
genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the amount of damages; and (2) the party
presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law. (Spouses Ramon Villuga And Mercedita Villuga, Vs. Kelly Hardware And Construction
Supply Inc., Represented By Ernesto V. Yu, Executive Vice-President And General Manager, G.R.
No. 176570, July 18, 2012)
Burden of proof is on the part of movant

A party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the
absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is so patently
unsubstantial as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial, and any doubt as to the existence of
such an issue is resolved against the movant. (Maritime Industry Authority (Marina) Vs Marc
Properties Corporation, G.R. No. 173128, February 15, 2012)
Requisites of a valid summary judgment:
1. Upon filing of a motion
2. After issues have been joined
3. The court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact based on the
pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions on file EXCEPT as to the
amount of damages.
4. The moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Genuine Issue an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence as distinguished
from an issue which is fictitious and contrived, set up in bad faith and patently unsubstantial so
as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.
When NOT Proper?
In actions for:
a. Declaration of nullity of marriage
b. Annulment of marriage
c. Legal separation
Exhibits to Support the Motion for Summary Judgment
There is no bar to supporting the motion with documents or exhibits. In practice, such
exhibits are attached to the supporting affidavits. (Riguera 2013, citing Thomas Mauet,
Fundamentals of Pretrial Techniques 262 [1988]).
a) For the claimant
A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a
declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move
with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary judgment in his favor upon
all or any part thereof. (Rule 35, Section 1)
b) For the defendant
A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory
relief is sought may, at any time, move with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for
a summary judgment in his favor as to all or any part thereof. (Rule 35, Section 2)
c) When the case not fully adjudicated
If on motion under this Rule, judgment is not rendered upon the whole case or for all
the reliefs sought and a trial is necessary, the court at the hearing of the motion, by examining
the pleadings and the evidence before it and by interrogating counsel shall ascertain what
material facts exist without substantial controversy and what are actually and in good faith
controverted. It shall thereupon make an order specifying the facts that appear without
substantial controversy, including the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief is
not in controversy, and directing such further proceedings in the action as are just. The facts so

specified shall be deemed established, and the trial shall be conducted on the controverted
facts accordingly. (Rule 35, Section 4)
Partial Summary Judgment
A judgment not on the entire case but only on the specified factual issues, with the
court proceeding to try the other factual issues
Note: Propriety of Summary Judgment may be corrected only on appeal or other direct review,
not by certiorari.
May a partial summary judgment be appealed separately from the judgment in the entire
case?
No. A partial summary judgment as a rule is not appealable sepearately from the judgment
in the entire case, unless allowed by the court under Sec.1(f) Rule 41. Hence, the failure to
appeal separately from a partial summary judgment or to challenge it by a special civil action
for certiorari does not make the same final and executory. (Riguera 2013, citing Philippine
Business Bank vs. Chua, 15 November 2010).
Partial summary judgment not to be considered a final judgment
Rule 35 on summary judgments, admits of a situation in which a case is not fully
adjudicated on motion, and judgment is not rendered upon all of the reliefs sought. In
Philippine Business Bank v. Chua, we had occasion to rule that a careful reading of its Section 4
reveals that a partial summary judgment was never intended to be considered a "final
judgment," as it does not "[put] an end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either
has or has not entitled himself to recover the remedy he sues for." In this case, there was never
any final or complete adjudication of Civil Case No. 0141, as the Sandiganbayans partial
summary judgment in the Swiss Deposits Decision made no mention of the Arelma account.
Separate judgment allowed on entirely different subject matter after rendition of partial
summary judgment
Section 4 of Rule 35 pertains to a situation in which separate judgments were
necessary because some facts existed without controversy, while others were
controverted. However, there is nothing in this provision or in the Rules that prohibits a
subsequent separate judgment after a partial summary judgment on an entirely different
subject matter had earlier been rendered. There is no legal basis for petitioners contention
that a judgment over the Swiss accounts bars a motion for summary judgment over the
Arelma account. (Imelda Romualdez- Marcos, Vs. Republic Of The Philippines, G.R. No.
189505)
d) Affidavits and attachments
Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set
forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the
affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Certified true copies of all
papers or parts thereof referred to in the affidavit shall be attached thereto or served
therewith. (Rule 35, Section 5)
Should it appear to its satisfaction at any time that any of the affidavits presented
pursuant to this Rule are presented in bad faith, or solely for the purpose of delay, the
court shall forthwith order the offending party or counsel to pay to the other party the
amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing of the affidavits caused him to incur
including attorney's fees, it may, after hearing further adjudge the offending party or

counsel guilty of contempt. (Rule 35, Section 6)

3.15.5. Judgment on the pleadings versus summary judgments
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

As to Its Basis

Based not only on the pleadings but also on

depositions, admissions and affidavits

Based solely on the pleadings, without

introduction of evidence

To Whom Available
Generally available only to the plaintiff,
unless the defendant presents a
counterclaim.

Available to both parties.

As to Issues
There may be issues involved in the case but
these issues are irrelevant

The answer fails to tender an issue or there is

an admission of material allegations

When Proper
No genuine issue of fact to be tried except as to
the amount of damages (Sec. 3 Rule 35)

No issue of fact at all.

As to Period for Notice of Hearing

10-day notice of hearing required

3-day notice of hearing required

3.15.6. Rendition of judgments and final orders

A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing
personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of the court. (Rule 36, Section 1)
Rendition of judgment is the filing of the same (the decision signed by the judge) with the clerk
of court, not the pronouncement of judgment in open court (which is promulgation). (Riano
2011)
Promulgation of judgment the process by which a decision is published, officially announced,
made known to the public or delivered to the clerk of court for filing, coupled with notice to the
parties or their counsel.
Even if the judgment has already been put in writing and signed, it is still subject to
amendment if it has not yet been filed with the clerk of court and before its filing does not yet
constitute the real judgment of the court. (Riano 2011, citing Ago vs. CA, 6 SCRA 530, 535)
Extent of promulgation/rendition of judgment
It bears stressing that a judgment is not confined to what appears upon the face of the
decision, but also those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. (Bernardo de Leon
vs. Public Estate Authority, G.R. No. 181970, August 3, 2010)
When a judgment calls for the issuance of a new title in favor of the winning party, it
logically follows that the judgment also requires the losing party to surrender its title for

cancellation. It is the only sensible way by which the decision may be enforced. To this end,
petitioners can obtain a court order requiring the registered owner to surrender the same and
directing the entry of a new certificate of title in petitioners favor. (Col. Francisco Dela
Merced Vs. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 167140. November 23, 2011)
Entry of judgment and final order
When made?
If no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided
in these Rules, the judgment or final order shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of
entries of judgments. The date of finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed to be
the date of its entry. The record shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final order
and shall be signed by the clerk, within a certificate that such judgment or final order has
become final and executory. (Rule 36, Section 2)
Importance of Date of Entry
It is the starting point of the 6-month period for filing a petition for relief (Sec. 3 Rule 38),
the 5-year period for filing a motion for execution (Sec. 6 Rule 39), and the 10-year period for
filing an action for revival of judgment (Art. 1144 Civil Code). (Riguera 2013)
Kinds of judgment:
Sin Perjuico Judgment
It is a judgment without statement of the facts in support of its conclusions. Such a
judgment is void for it violates Sec. 15, Article VIII of the Constitution. Thus, the party adversely
affected would be unable to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal the judgment for he has
to speculate on the grounds upon which the judge based his decision. (Riguera 2013)
Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment or Order
One rendered to record some judicial act done at a former time but which was not
carried into the record. Since the only function of a nunc pro tunc judgment or order is to place
into the record a judicial action actually taken, it cannot correct judicial errors, however flagrant
and glaring these may be. (Riguera 2013, citing Henderson vs. Tan, 87 Phil. 466), nor can it
construe what a judgment means. (Ibid., citing Lichauco vs. Tan Po, 51 Phil. 862).
Several Judgments (Rule 36, Sec.4)
A judgment rendered by a court against one or more defendants, but not against all,
leaving the action to proceed against the others (Riano 2011, citing Sec.4 Rule 36)
Separate Judgments (Rule 36, Sec.5)
This kind of judgment presupposes that there are several claims for relief presented in a
single action. The court may render separate judgment on one of the several claims. The
judgment will terminate the action with respect to that claim and the action shall proceed as to
the remaining claims. The court may stay the execution of the separate judgment until the
rendition of a judgment on all the other claims. (Riano 2011, citing Sec. 5 Rule 36)
Memorandum decision
It is a decision of appellate court which adopts the true findings of fact and conclusion of
the trial court if it is affirming the latters decision.

Appeal on Separate or Several Judgments

Appeal on either is not allowed unless the court allows the appeal. (Sec. 1(g) Rule 41).
Where an appeal is allowed, the same shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal and a record on
appeal within 30 days from notice of the order allowing the appeal. (Sec. 3 Rule 41). (Riguera
2013).
Judgment against Entity without Juridical Personality (Rule 36, Sec. 6)
The judgment shall set out their individual or proper names if known.
Doctrine of Immutability of Judgments
Sometimes referred to as conclusiveness of judgments, preclusion of issues or
collateral estoppels (Riano 2011). Once judgment becomes final and executory, the judgment
can no longer be disturbed.
A judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and is no
longer to be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct an erroneous
conclusion of fact or of law, and whether the modification is made by the court that rendered
the decision or by the highest court of the land. (Dare Adventure Farm Corporation Vs. Spouses
Felix and Nenita Ng, Spouses Martin and Azucena Ng and Agripina R. Goc-ong, et al. G.R. No.
161122. September 24, 2012)
It is well- settled that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to
correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered
it or by the Highest Court of the land. In this case, the Court concurs with the CAs view that the
Assailed Order had already become final and executory at the time when the NHA sought to have
it reconsidered before the court a quo. As evidenced by the registry return receipt on record, the
NHA however, moved for reconsideration therefrom only on March 11, 1999, or more than four
(4) months from notice. As the motion was filed way beyond the 15-day reglementary period
prescribed therefor, the court a quos judgment had already lapsed into finality. NATIONAL
HOUSING AUTHORITY VS COURT OF APPEALS, BERNABE NOBLE ET, AL G.R. No. 173802, April 7,
2014, J. PERLAS-BERNABE
For a judgment to constitute res judicata, the following requisites must concur: (a) the
former judgment was final; (b) the court that rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties; (c) the judgment was based on the merits; and (d) between the first and the
second actions, there was an identity of parties, subject matters, and causes of action. In the case
at bar, the present action arose from a case for quieting of title where the plaintiff must show or
prove legal or equitable title to or interest in the property which is the subject-matter of the
action. On the other hand, the administrative proceedings before the DENR and now the OP, were
instituted on behalf of the Director of Lands, in order to investigate any allegation of irregularity
in securing a patent and the corresponding title to a public land under Section 91 of the Public
Land Act. While there is identity of parties and subject matter between the instant case and the
matter before the DENR and later the OP, the causes of action are not the same. CHARLIE LIM vs.
SPOUSES DANILO LIGON and GENEROSA VITUG-LIGON G.R. No. 183589, June 25, 2014, J.
Villarama
Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides for the immediate execution of
judgment in favor of the plaintiff in ejectment cases, which can only be stayed if the defendant
perfects an appeal, files a supersedeas bond, and makes periodic deposit of rental or other
reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy of the subject premises during the pendency

of the appeal. These requirements are mandatory and concurrent, without which execution will
issue as a matter of right. REMEDIOS M. MAULEON vs. LOLINA MORAN PORTER represented by
ERVIN C. MORAN G.R. No. 203288, July 18, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that factual findings of the trial court,
especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and
considered conclusive between the parties, save for the following exceptional and meritorious
circumstances: (1) when the factual findings of the appellate court and the trial court are
contradictory; (2) when the findings of the trial court are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises or conjectures; (3) when the lower courts inference from its factual findings is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (4) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the
appreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the
case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different
conclusion; (6) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (7) when the findings of fact are
themselves conflicting; and (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the
specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are
contradicted by evidence on record.
In the instant case, there is an absence of any record to otherwise prove FSIs neglect in
the fulfillment of its obligations under the contract, this Court shall refrain from reversing the
findings of the courts below, which are fully supported by and deducible from, the evidence on
record. Indeed, FBI failed to present any evidence to justify its refusal to pay FSI for the works it
was contracted to perform. As such, Supreme Court does not see any reason to deviate from the
assailed rulings. FEDERAL BUILDERS, INC. vs. FOUNDATION SPECIALISTS, INC. G.R. No. 194507,
September 8, 2014, J. Peralta
A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no
longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact or law, and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the
highest court of the land. There are, however, exceptions to the general rule, namely: (1) the
correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tuncentries which cause no prejudice to
any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the
decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. In this case, the clarification made by
Secretary Pangandaman in his February 2, 2006 Order falls under the fourth exception. RENATO L.
DELFINO, SR. (Deceased), Represented by his Heirs, namely: GRACIA DELFINO, GREGORIO A.
DELFINO; MA. ISABEL A. DELFINO, RENATO A. DELFINO, JR., MA. REGINA DELFINO ROSELLA, MA.
GRACIA A. DELFINO, MARIANO A. DELFINO, MA. LUISA DELFINO GREGORIO and REV. FR.
GABRIELA. DELFINO vs. AVELINO K. ANASAO and ANGEL K. ANASAO (Deceased and represented
by his sole heir, SIXTO C. ANASAO) G.R. No. 197486, September 10, 2014, J. Villarama, Jr.
Club Filipino, Inc. argued that the court prematurely issued the Entry of Judgment because
it still had to resolve the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and argued that that the
NLRCs Resolution of the issue constituted res judicata. For the Court to entertain second Motions
for Reconsideration, the second Motions must present extraordinarily persuasive reasons and
only upon express leave first obtained. Once leave to file is granted, the second Motion for
Reconsideration is no longer prohibited. CLUB FILIPINO, INC. and ATTY. ROBERTO F. DE LEON vs.
BENJAMIN BAUTISTA, et.al G.R. No. 168406, January 14, 2015, J. Leonen
FAJ Construction's claim that res judicata cannot apply has no merit. The Court has
repeatedly said that minute resolutions dismissing the actions filed before it constitute actual
adjudications on the merits. They are the result of thorough deliberation among the members of
the Court. When the Court does not find any reversible error in the decision of the CA and denies
the petition, there is no need for the Court to fully explain its denial, since it already means that it
agrees with and adopts the findings and conclusions of the CA. FAJ CONSTRUCTION &
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. SUSAN M. SAULOG March 25, 2015, G.R. No. 200759, J. Del

Castillo
Reasons:
1. To avoid delay in the administration of justice
2. To put an end to judicial controversies (Riano 2011)
Purpose:
The doctrine of immutability and unalterability serves a two-fold purpose, namely: (a) to
avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the
discharge of judicial business; and (b) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of
occasional errors, which is precisely why the courts exist. . (Dare Adventure Farm Corporation
Vs. Spouses Felix and Nenita Ng, Spouses Martin and Azucena Ng and Agripina R. Goc-ong, et al.
G.R. No. 161122. September 24, 2012)
Exceptions:
1. Clerical Errors or mistakes
2. Nunc Pro Tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party
3. Void judgments
When a judgment or final order becomes final and executory
A judgment becomes final and executory upon the expiration of the period to appeal
therefrom and no appeal has been perfected (Sec. 1 Rule 39)
The judgment attains finality by the lapse of the period for taking an appeal without
such appeal or motion for reconsideration being filed.
Interlocutory Order vs. Final Order or Judgment
An order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Court's task of
adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each
other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court, is
interlocutory, e.g., an order denying a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules x x x
Unlike a final judgment or order, which is appealable, an interlocutory order may not be
questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final
judgment rendered in the case. The RTC Order denying respondents' special and affirmative
defenses contained in their answer is no doubt interlocutory since it did not finally dispose of the
case but will proceed for the reception of the parties' respective evidence to determine the rights
and obligations of each other. HEIRS OF TIMBANG DAROMIMBANG DIMAAMPAO vs. ATTY.
ABDULLAH ALUG, et al., G.R. No. 198223, February 18, 2015, J. Peralta
Effects of finality of judgment
1. The prevailing party is entitled to have the judgment executed as a matter of right
and the issuance of the corresponding writ of execution becomes a ministerial duty of the
court.
2. The court rendering the judgment loses jurisdiction over the case so that it can no
longer correct the judgment in substance, except clerical errors and omissions due to
inadvertence or negligence.
3. Res judicata supervenes.

Doctrine of the law of the case

Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal, and
means, more specifically, that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal
rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case,
whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was
predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.
The doctrine of law of the case simply means, therefore, that when an appellate court
has once declared the law in a case, its declaration continues to be the law of that case even on
a subsequent appeal, notwithstanding that the rule thus laid down may have been reversed in
other cases. For practical considerations, indeed, once the appellate court has issued a
pronouncement on a point that was presented to it with full opportunity to be heard having
been accorded to the parties, the pronouncement should be regarded as the law of the case
and should not be reopened on remand of the case to determine other issues of the case, like
damages. But the law of the case, as the name implies, concerns only legal questions or issues
thereby adjudicated in the former appeal. (Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) v.
Guaria Agricultural and Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 160758. January 15, 2014.)
Compromise Agreements
Respondents entered into compromise agreement with the petitioner. It attained finality.
However, petitioner questioned its validity. The court ruled that a judgment on compromise
agreement is a judgment on the merits. It has the effect of res judicata, and is immediately final
and executory unless set aside because of falsity or vices of consent. The doctrine of immutability
of judgments bars courts from modifying decisions that have already attained finality, even if the
purpose of the modification is to correct errors of fact or law. NESTOR T. GADRINAB vs. NORAT.
SALAMANCA, ANTONIO TALAO AND ELENA LOPEZ G.R. No. 194560, June 11, 2014, J. Leonen
A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal
concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. It contemplates mutual
concessions and mutual gains to avoid the expenses of litigation; or when litigation has already
begun, to end it because of the uncertainty of the result. Its validity is dependent upon the
fulfillment of the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law; and its terms and
conditions must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy, and public order.
When given judicial approval, a compromise agreement becomes more than a contract binding
upon the parties. Having been sanctioned by the court, it is entered as a determination of a
controversy and has the force and effect of a judgment. It is immediately executory and not
appealable, except for vices of consent or forgery. The nonfulfillment of its terms and conditions
justifies the issuance of a writ of execution; in such an instance, execution becomes a ministerial
duty of the court. METRO MANILA SHOPPING MECCA CORP., SHOEMART, INC., SM PRIME
HOLDINGS, INC., STAR APPLIANCES CENTER, SUPER VALUE, INC., ACE HARDWARE PHILIPPINES,
INC., HEAL TH AND BEAUTY, INC., JOLLIMART PHILS. CORP., and SURPLUS MARKETING
CORPORATION, vs MS. LIBERTY M. TOLEDO G.R. No. 190818, November 10, 2014, J. PerlasBernabe
Decisions of Administrative Bodies
It is an oft-repeated rule that findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded
not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or
arbitrariness that would amount to abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. The findings of facts
must be respected, so long as they are supported by substantial evidence even if not
overwhelming or preponderant. However, there are cases that warrant a departure from said rule
after an exhaustive review of the records. In the case at bar, while recantation is frowned upon

and hardly given much weight in the determination of a case, an Affidavit is still a notarized
document which carries in its favor the presumption of regularity with respect to its due
execution, and that there must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant
evidence to contradict the same. ZARSONA MEDICAL CLINIC vs. PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE
CORPORATION G.R. No. 191225, October 13, 2014, J. Perez
Via petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the petitioner
questions the transfer of the management of the water work system to GMAWD done by the
NHA. The Supreme Court ruled that well-entrenched is the rule in our jurisprudence that
administrative decisions are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be interfered with
by the courts. Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of
the government agency entrusted with regulation of activities coming under its special and
technical training and knowledge, for the exercise of administrative discretion is a policy decision
and a matter that is best discharged by the concerned government agency and not by the courts.
GENERAL MARIANO ALVAREZ SERVICES COOPERATIVE, INC. (GEMASCO) vs. NATIONAL HOUSING
AUTHORITY (NHA) AND GENERAL MARIANO ALVAREZ WATER DISTRICT (GMAWD)G.R. No.
175417, February 09, 2015, J. Peralta
Dispositive Portion of the Judgment
A look at the dispositive portion of the decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 97196 would lead us to
reasonably conclude that the grant of authority to sell is still good and valid. The October 31, 2006
Omnibus Order of the testate court in so far as it authorizes the sale of the three properties in
question was not declared by the Court of Appeals, as null and void. It is axiomatic that it is the
dispositive portion of the decision that finally invests rights upon the parties, sets conditions for
the exercise of those rights, and imposes the corresponding duties or obligations. This Court agree
with the CA that the permanent injunction issued under the said decision, as explicitly stated in its
fallo, pertained only to the order upholding the grant of letters of administration to and taking of
an oath of administration by Silverio, Jr., as otherwise the CA would have expressly set aside as
well the directive in the same Omnibus Order allowing the sale of the subject properties.
RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. vs. RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR., CITRINE HOLDINGS, INC., MONICA P.
OCAMPO and ZEE2 RESOURCES, INC. G.R. Nos. 208828-29, August 13, 2014, J. Villarama
The rule is that in case of ambiguity or uncertainty in the dispositive portion of a decision,
the body of the decision may be scanned for guidance in construing the judgment. The Courts
silence as to the payment of the legal interests in the dispositive portion of the decision is not
tantamount to its deletion or reversal. If such was the intention, it should have also expressly
declared its deletion together with its express mandate to remove the award of liquidated
damages to UPSI. UPSI PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC. vs. DIESEL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. G.R. No.
200250, August 06, 2014, J. Mendoza
3.16. Post-judgment remedies
Remedies against judgment or final orders:
Before finality
1) Motion for new trial or reconsideration (Rule 37)
2) Appeal
3) Reopening of the case
After finality
1) Relief from judgment (Rule 38)
2) Annulment of judgment (Rule 47)

3) Special Civil Action for Certiorari (Rule 65)

4) Collateral attack
Power to amend inherent before the court
The power to amend a judgment is inherent to the court before judgment becomes final
and executory. Once a judgment has attained finality (expiration of the period to appeal), no
further amendment or correction can be made by the court except for clerical errors or
mistakes.
3.16.1. Motion for new trial or reconsideration
Grounds for New Trial:
Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to
set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following
causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:
(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not
have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired
in his rights (FAME); or
(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have
discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.
Grounds for Motion for Reconsideration:
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration upon
the grounds that the damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to justify
the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law. (Rule 37, Section
1) (acronym supplied)
What is the kind of fraud referred under Rule 37?
Fraud in Sec. 1(a) Rule 37 refers to extrinsic fraud, that is, deception or trickery by which
the aggrieved party was prevented from having trial or presenting his case before the court.
(Riguera 2013)
What is extrinsic fraud?
Extrinsic Fraud connotes any fraudulent scheme executed by the prevailing party
outside of the trial against the losing party who because of such fraud is prevented from
presenting his side of the case (ex. prevent witness from testifying). Fraud, as a ground for new
trial, must be extrinsic or collateral, that is, it is the kind of fraud which prevented the aggrieved
party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court, or was used to procure the
judgment without fair submission of the controversy (Regalado).
What is intrinsic fraud?
Intrinsic Fraud refers to acts of a party during the trial which does not affect the
presentation of the case (ex. presentation of a forged promissory note). It is not a ground for
new trial.
When to file?

Motion for new trial or reconsideration must be filed within 15 days from notice of
judgment and resolved by the court within 30 days from submission for resolution.
Denial of the motion; effect
A motion for new trial shall include all grounds then available and those not so included
shall be deemed waived. A second motion for new trial, based on a ground not existing nor
available when the first motion was made, may be filed within the time herein provided
excluding the time during which the first motion had been pending.
Second motion for reconsideration not allowed
No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final
order. (Rule 37, Section 5)
Grant of the motion; effect
If a new trial is granted in accordance with the provisions of this Rules the original
judgment or final order shall be vacated, and the action shall stand for trial de novo; but the
recorded evidence taken upon the former trial, insofar as the same is material and competent
to establish the issues, shall be used at the new trial without retaking the same. (Rule 37,
Section 6)
Motion for New Trial if Granted
1.
2.
a.
b.
c.

Based on FAME there will be trial de novo

Newly Discovered Evidence
No trial de novo;
Evidence admitted based on same decision will remain;
Case will be opened only for the purpose of admitting the new evidence

Motion for Reconsideration if Granted

1. No trial de novo
2. Court will amend its judgment
Motion for Reconsideration when denied
The denial of a motion for reconsideration signifies that the grounds relied upon have
been found, upon due deliberation, to be without merit, as not being of sufficient weight to
warrant a modification of the judgment or final order. It means not only that the grounds relied
upon are lacking in merit but also that any other, not so raised, is deemed waived and may no
longer be set up in a subsequent motion or application to overturn the judgment; and this is true,
whatever may be the title given to such motion or application, whether it be second motion for
reconsideration or motion for clarification or plea for due process or prayer for a second
look, or motion to defer, or set aside, entry of judgment, SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS)
OFFICERS vs. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, et al.,, March 10, 2015, G.R. No. 187916,
e) Remedy when motion is denied, fresh 15-day period rule
An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration is not appealed, the remedy
being an appeal from the judgment or final order. (Rule 37, Section 9)
The aggrieved party has a fresh period of 15 days from the denial of motion for
reconsideration or new trial within which to file his appeal. This applies to Rules 40, 41, 42, 43

and 45 (Neypes v. CA, GR 141524, September 14, 2005).

The denial of a motion for reconsideration signifies that the grounds relied upon have
been found, upon due deliberation, to be without merit, as not being of sufficient weight to
warrant a modification of the judgment or final order. It means not only that the grounds relied
upon are lacking in merit but also that any other, not so raised, is deemed waived and may no
longer be set up in a subsequent motion or application to overturn the judgment; and this is true,
whatever may be the title given to such motion or application, whether it be second motion for
reconsideration or motion for clarification or plea for due process or prayer for a second
look, or motion to defer, or set aside, entry of judgment, SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS)
OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, AND VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO vs. ALFREDO
S. LIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, G.R. No. 187836, March 10, 2015, J.
Perez
3.16.2. Appeals in general
Appeal is a proceeding by which a party seeks from a higher court the review of a
judgment or final order of a lower court on the ground that the judgment or final order is
against the evidence or the law. (Riguera 2013)
It is axiomatic that a party who does not appeal or file a petition for certiorari is not
entitled to any affirmative relief. An appellee who is not an appellant may assign errors in his
brief where his purpose is to maintain the judgment but he cannot seek modification or
reversal of the judgment or claim affirmative relief unless he has also appealed. Thus, for failure
of respondent to assail the validity of her dismissal, such ruling is no longer in issue.
IMMACULATE CONCEPCION ACADEMY/DR. JOSE PAULO E. CAMPOS vs. EVELYN E. CAMILON
G.R. No. 188035, July 2, 2014, J. Villarama, Jr.
Nature of the right to appeal
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a
statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the
provisions of law.
It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory
privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or
rules allowing it. The rule is that failure to file or perfect an appeal within the reglementary
period will make the judgment final and executory by operation of law. Filing of an appeal
beyond the reglementary period may, under meritorious cases, be excused if the barring of the
appeal would be inequitable and unjust in light of certain circumstances therein. ESTRELLA D. S.
BAEZ vs. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM and DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY G.R. No. 189574, July 18,
2014, J. Perez
Judgments and final orders subject to appeal
An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the
case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. (Rule 41,
Section 1(1))
Matters not appealable
No appeal may be taken from:
(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from

judgment;
(c) An interlocutory order;
(d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(e) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or
compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
(f) An order of execution;
(g) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate
claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending,
unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
(h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
(Rule 41, Section 1(2))
Remedy against judgments and orders which are not appealable
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the
aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. (Rule 41, Section 1(2))
A party may file a Special Civil Action for Certiorari or Prohibition if there is lack or excess of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion or Mandamus if there is no performance of duty.
d) Modes of appeal
Ordinary appeal
The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which
rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the
adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other
cases of multiple or separate appeals where law on these Rules so require. In such cases, the
record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner. (Rule 41, Section 2(a))
Petition for review
The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.
(Rule 41, Section 2(b))
Petition for review on certiorari
In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the
Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with the Rule 45. (Rule 41,
Section 2(c))
As correctly pointed out by the respondents, a review of the instant petition under Rule 45 is
not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion and will be granted only when there are
special and important reasons therefor. Moreover, a petition for review under Rule 45 covers
questions of law only. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the
CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors of law.
[The] Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the
CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh
evidence all over again. [The] Court finds that no special and important reasons exist to warrant a
thorough review of the assailed CA Decision. Quite the contrary, the Court is satisfied with and
can simply rely on the findings of the DARAB Urdaneta, DARAB Quezon City and the CA as well
as the very admission of the petitioners themselves to the effect that respondents fulfilled all
the requirements under the agrarian laws in order to become entitled to their EPs; that Felicisimo

voluntarily surrendered and abandoned the subject property in favor of his creditors, who took
over the land and tilled the same until 1987; that Felicisimo migrated to the U.S.A. and became a
naturalized American citizen; that in 1991, respondents were illegally dispossessed of their
landholdings through force and intimidation by the petitioners after Felicisimo returned from
abroad; and that as between petitioners and respondents, the latter are legally entitled to the
subject property. These identical findings are not only entitled to great respect, but even finality.
For petitioners to question these identical findings is to raise a question of fact. MARIANO JOSE,
FELICISIMO JOSE, DECEASED, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS CHILDREN MARIANO JOSE, CAMILO JOSE,
TIBURCIA JOSE, FERMINA JOSE, AND VICTORIA JOSE vs. ERNESTO M. NOVIDA, RODOLFO
PALAYPAY, JR., ALEX M. BELARMINO, RODRIGO LIBED, LEONARDO L. LIBED, BERNARDO B.
BELARMINO, BENJAMIN G. ACOSTA, MODESTO A. ORLANDA, WARLITO B. MEJIA, MAMERTO B.
BELARMINO, MARCELO O. DELFIN AND HEIRS OF LUCINO A. ESTEBAN, REPRESENTED BY
CRESENCIA M. VDA. ESTEBAN G.R. No. 177374, July 2, 2014, J. Del Castillo
The question of existence of bad faith is a factual issue, and the same may not be raised in a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, where only questions of law may be entertained.
Thus, a corporation who instituted a suit for damages which the trial court and the CA dismissed
cannot question such dismissal before the Supreme Court under Rule 45 when the factual findings
of the lower courts point out that the suit had all the marks of malicious prosecution. MEYR
ENTERPRISES CORPORATION vs. ROLANDO CORDERO G.R. No. 197336, September 3, 2014, J. Del
Castillo
Issues to be raised on appeal
General Rule
Only questions of law or fact that has been raised in the lower court and must be within the
issues framed by the parties can be raised on appeal.
Exceptions
1. Those assigned as errors
2. Those closely related to or dependent on an assigned error
3. Those which affect subject matter jurisdiction of the court or the validity of the
judgment
4. Plain and clerical errors (Riguera 2013)
Period of appeal
The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final
order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of
appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final
order.
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or
reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall be allowed. (Rule 41, Section 3)
Moleta filed a case against Consigna, the Municipal Treasurer of General Luna, Surigao del
Norte, for the violation of AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices and Estafa before the Sandiganbayan.
Sandiganbayan found Consigna guilty, hence, she filed a petition for review under Rule 45. The
Supreme Court ruled that the petition was timely filed, because it was filed within 15 days from
notice of judgement. However, the grounds raised by the petitioner were jurisdictional errors
purportedly committed by the Sandiganbayan i.e., whether or not the court a quo committed
grave abuse of discretion, is the proper subject of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

SILVERINA E. CONSIGNA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD
DIVISION), and EMERLINA MOLETA G.R. Nos. 17575051, April 2, 2014, J. Perez
In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that
the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision
from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of
discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the
merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook
a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the
approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form,
the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse
of discretion in ruling on the case? EUGENE S. ARABIT, EDGARDO C. SADSAD, LOWELL C.
FUNTANOZ, GERARDO F. PUNZALAN, FREDDIE M. MENDOZA, EMILIO B. BELEN, VIOLETA C.
DIUMANO and MB FINANCE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FFW CHAPTER (FEDERATION OF FREE
WORKERS) vs. JARDINE PACIFIC FINANCE, INC. (FORMERLY MB FINANCE) G.R. No. 181719, April
21, 2014, J. Brion
Perfection of appeal
A party's appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the
notice of appeal in due time.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the
subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the
perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other
parties.
In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the subject matter
thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the
appeal of the other parties.
Residual power of the court:
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the
court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do
not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of
indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with 2 of Rule 39, and allow
withdrawal of the appeal.
(Rule 41, Section 9)
Payment of appeal docket fees:
Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the court
which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate
court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall be transmitted to the
appellate court together with the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may
be. (Rule 40, Section 5; Rule 41, Section 4) If not paid, it could be a ground for dismissal of the
appeal.
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC
(All Sections are from Rule 40)

This rule governs appeal from judgment or final order of an MTC to RTC exercising
jurisdiction over the area to which the former pertains.
Where to Appeal
An appeal from a judgment or order of a Municipal Trial Court may be taken to the
Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the area to which the former pertains.
Title of the Case: as it was in the court of origin. But the party appealing the case shall be
further referred to as appellant and the adverse party as the appellee.
When to Appeal? (Sec.2)
An appeal may be taken within 15 days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or
final order appealed from.
Where record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a
record on appeal within 30 days after notice of the judgment.
Effect of filing of motion for new trial or reconsideration
The period to appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or
reconsideration.
Prohibition on filing of motion for extension
No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be
allowed.
The CA correctly ordered that De Leon's appellant's brief be stricken off the records. De
Leons motion for time praying for an additional 10 days to file his motion for partial
reconsideration is validly denied by the RTC, since such motion is a transgression of the
mandatory prohibition on the filing of a motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration.
Doctrinally-entrenched is that the right to appeal is a statutory right and the one who seeks to
avail that right must comply with the statute or rules. The perfection of appeal in the manner and
within the period set by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, hence, failure to
perfect the same renders the judgment final and executory. GREGORIO DE LEON, DOING
BUSINESS AS G.D.L. MARKETING vs. HERCULES AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND/OR JESUS
CHUA AND RUMI RUNGIS MILK G.R. No. 183239, June 02, 2014, J. Peralta
NOTE: To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair
opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days
within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the
order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.
Fresh Period Rule applicable from an appeal from MTC to RTC
Henceforth, this fresh period rule shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals from
the Municipal Trial Courts to Regional Trial Courts. (Neypes vs. Court of Appeals, 469 SCRA 633,
2005)
The RTC denied the notice of appeal filed the petitioners. The CA affirmed. Petitioners
sole contention is that the RTCs denial of their Notice of Appeal contravenes the ruling in Neypes
v. Court of Appeals, which grants an aggrieved party a fresh period of 15 days from receipt of the
denial of a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration within which to file the notice of
appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of finality of judgment dictates that, at the risk

of occasional errors, judgments or orders must become final at some point in time. In Neypes, the
Supreme Court, in order to standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford
litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, declared that an aggrieved party has a fresh period
of 15 days counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration, within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC. HEIRS OF FRANCISCO BIHAG,
NAMELY: ALEJANDRA BIHAG, NICOMEDES B. BIHAG, VERONICA B. ACOSTA, SUSANA B. MINOZA,
PAULINO B. BIHAG, DANILO B. BIHAG, TIMOTEO B. BIHAG JR., EDILBERTO B. BIHAG, JOSEPHINE B.
MINOZA, and MA. FEB. ARDITA vs. HEIRS OF NICASIO BATHAN, NAMELY: PRIMITIVA BATHAN and
DUMININA B. GAMALIER G.R. No. 181949, April 23, 2014, J. Del Castillo
How to Appeal (Sec.3)
1. File a notice of appeal with the trial court.
2. Notice of appeal must indicate:
a. parties
b. judgment or final order appealed from
c. material dates showing timeliness of appeal
3. A copy served on the adverse party.
4. Payment in full of docket fees and other lawful fees
NOTE: A record on appeal shall be required only in a) special proceedings and b) in other cases
of multiple or separate appeals. The forms and contents of the record on appeal shall be as
provided in Sec. 6, Rule 41.
Material Dates Showing the Timeliness of the Appeal
The material dates showing the timeliness of an appeal includes:
1) The day the notice of judgment or final order was received
2) The day when a motion for reconsideration or new trial, if any, was filed
3) The day when notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial was
received (Riguera 2013)
Appeal Bonds
Appeal bonds under Sec. 3 Rule 40 and Sec. 5 Rule 41 was removed by the Interim
Rules. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, appeal bonds are no longer provided therein.
An exception is found under Sec. 46 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (RA 9285)
which provides that the losing party who appeals to the CA from a judgment of the court
confirming the arbitral award shall be required by the appellate court to post counterbond
executed in favor of the prevailing party equal to the amount of the award. (Riguera 2013)
Perfection of Appeal (Sec.4)
Governed by the provisions of Sec. 9, Rule 41.
Appellate Court Docket and other Lawful Fees (Sec.5)
Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of court
which rendered judgment docket and other lawful fees; otherwise it is a ground for dismissal.
Duty of the Clerk of Court (Sec.6)

The clerk of court shall within 15 days from perfection of appeal:

a) transmit to the RTC the original record or the record on appeal, with the transcripts
and exhibits; and
b) certify them as complete record.
Procedure in RTC (Sec.7)
1) Upon receipt of the complete record, the clerk of court of the RTC shall notify the
parties of such fact;
2) Within 15 days from notice, the appellant shall submit a memorandum.
3) Within 15 days from receipt of the appellants memorandum, the appellee may file
his memorandum. Failure of the appellant to file memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal.
Appeals from orders dismissing the case without trial; Lack of Jurisdiction (Sec. 8)
If the appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial
on the merits, the Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be.
Effect if the appeal was granted
In case of affirmance and the ground is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
Regional Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on the merits as if the case
was originally filed with it.
Effect of reversal
In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings.
If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original
jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section, without
prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in interest of justice.
Applicability of Rule 41 (Sec. 9)
The other provisions of Rule 41 shall apply to appeals provided herein (Rule 40) insofar
as NOT INCONSISTENT WITH or MAY SERVE TO SUPPLEMENT the provisions.
Direct Appeal to SC, Not Applicable
The provision allowing direct appeal to the Supreme Court on pure question/s of law
applies only to a judgment of the RTC, not that of the MTC. (Riano 2013, citing Sec. 2(c) Rule
41).
Delegated Jurisdiction in Cadastral and Land Registration Cases
Under Sec. 34 of B.P. Blg. 129 on the delegated jurisdiction of the MTC in cadastral and
land registration cases, it is provided that the decision of the MTC shall be appealable in the
same manner as decisions of the RTC. (Riano 2013)
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC
(All Sections are from Rule 41)

Rule 41 refers to an ordinary appeal from the RTC to the CA in cases where the RTC rendered a
decision in the exercise of its ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
Subject of Appeal (Sec.1)
(As amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC December 4, 2007)
When an appeal is proper?
An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the
case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
When is an order considered final?
A court order is final in character if it puts an end to the particular matter resolved,
leaving thereafter no substantial proceeding to be had in connection therewith except its
execution. (Bairan vs. Tan Siu Lay, G.R. No. L-19460, 1966)
What is an interlocutory order?
An interlocutory Order is an order which does not dispose of the case, but leaves
something else to be done by the trial court on the merits of the case.
Meaning of Interlocutory order
The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the
end of the suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole
controversy. (Ma. Carminia C. Calderon (formerly Ma. Carminia Calderon-Roxas), represented
by her attorney-in-fact, Marycris V. Baldevia Vs. Jose Antonio F. RoxasG.R. No. 185595. January
9, 2013)
As to extent of resolution/decision made
The Court has distinguished between final and interlocutory orders in Pahila-Garrido v.
Tortogo, thuswise:
The distinction between a final order and an interlocutory order is well known. The first
disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action,
leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the court has
determined, but the latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else
to be decided upon. An interlocutory order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the
merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered. The test to ascertain whether or not an
order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something to
be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the order or
judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.
As to applicability of the remedy of appeal; rationale
And, secondly, whether an order is final or interlocutory determines whether appeal is
the correct remedy or not. A final order is appealable, to accord with the final judgment rule
enunciated in Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court to the effect that "appeal may be taken
from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter
therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable; but the remedy from an interlocutory
one is not an appeal but a special civil action for certiorari. The explanation for the
differentiation of remedies given in Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo is apt:

xxx The reason for disallowing an appeal from an interlocutory order is to avoid
multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which necessarily suspends the hearing and decision
on the merits of the action during the pendency of the appeals. Permitting multiple appeals will
necessarily delay the trial on the merits of the case for a considerable length of time, and will
compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may interpose
as many appeals as there are incidental questions raised by him and as there are interlocutory
orders rendered or issued by the lower court. An interlocutory order may be the subject of an
appeal, but only after a judgment has been rendered, with the ground for appealing the order
being included in the appeal of the judgment itself.
The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an appropriate
special civil action under Rule 65, provided that the interlocutory order is rendered
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Then is certiorari under
Rule 65 allowed to be resorted to. Priscilla Alma Jose, Vs. Ramon C. Javellana, Et Al., G.R.
No. 158239, January 25, 201
Non-Appealable Judgment or Orders:
a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from
judgment;
b. An interlocutory order;
c. An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
d. An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or
compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating
consent;
e. An order of execution;
f. A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in
separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case
is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
g. An order dismissing an action without prejudice (Sec. 1 Rule 41 as amended by
SC Resolution effective 27 December 2007). (SSCC)
h. A judgment of direct contempt (Sec. 2 Rule 71)
i. Compromise judgment
j. Judgments of the court in summary judicial proceedings in the family law (Art.
247 Family Code)
k. Judgments in small claims cases (Sec. 23 Rules of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases). (Riguera 2013)
Perfection of Appeal (Sec. 9)
1. Notice of appeal
A partys appeal is perfected upon the FILING of the notice of appeal in due time.
The court loses jurisdiction over the case upon:
a. Perfection of the appeal filed in due time; and
b. Expiration of the time to appeal by the other parties (Ex. One party may receive
the judgment or final order of the court later than the other. Hence, one partys period to
appeal may have already expired while the other partys period has not yet expired. Until the
period to perfect an appeal on the party who belatedly received the notice has elapsed, the
court has not yet lost jurisdiction)
2. Record on Appeal

A partys appeal is perfected upon the APPROVAL of the record on appeal filed in
due
time.
The court loses jurisdiction ONLY over the subject matter upon:
a) Approval of the records on appeal filed in due time; and
b) Expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties
Residual Jurisdiction
It is the power of the trial court after it has lost jurisdiction but prior to the transmittal
of the original record or the record on appeal, to:
1) Issue orders for the protection and preservation of the parties' rights which do not
involve any matter litigated by the appeal;
2) Approve compromises;
3) Permit appeals of indigent parties;
4) Order execution pending appeal in accordance with Sec. 2 Rule 39, and;
5) Allow withdrawal of the appeal (Sec. 9 Rule 41). (Riguera 2013)
Remedy Where Appeal Not Allowed
A party may file a Special Civil Action of Certiorari or Prohibition if there is lack or excess
of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion or Mandamus if there is no performance of duty.
No Appeal for Dismissal Without Prejudice
A dismissal for forum-shopping under Sec. 5 Rule 7 is without prejudice unless
otherwise stated in the dismissal order. Under Sec. 1 Rule 41, no appeal lies from an order
dismissing a case without prejudice and hence a party may file an appropriate civil action under
Rule 65. (Riguera 2013, citing Casupanan vs. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, 26 August 2002).
Where appeals permitted beyond reglementary period
a.
b.
c.
d.

matters of life, liberty, honor or property;

counsels negligence without any negligence on the client;
existence of special/ compelling circumstances;
merits of the case.

When Appeal is a Matter of Right; Effects

Ordinary appeal is a matter of right. This means that the appellate court should review
the case, and this duty is compellable by mandamus. Appeals under Rules 42, 43, and 45 are
NOT a matter of right. Review is discretionary and the appellate court may dismiss the petition
outright if it finds that the questions raised are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
(Riguera 2013)
Rule 42 refers to a mode of appeal from the RTC to the CA in cases where the RTC rendered a
decision in the exercise of its APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(All Sections are from Rule 42)
How Appeal Taken (Sec.1)

1. Filing a verified petition for review with the CA

2. Payment of docket and other lawful feeS
3. Depositing 500.00 for costs
4. Serving the RTC and the adverse party a copy.
When to appeal
Within 15 days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of
petitioners motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment.
Upon proper motion and payment of the full amount of the docket and other
lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the
Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of 15 days only within which to file the
petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling
reason and in no case to exceed 15 days.

RULE 41

RULE 42

File the notice of appeal with the RTC

File the petition for review directly with the CA

If motion for reconsideration is denied,

appeal is within the remaining balance of
the 15-day period.

If the motion for reconsideration is denied, the

15-day period starts all over again
(FRESH PERIOD RULE)

The 15-day period to file a notice of appeal

is NON-EXTENDIBLE.

The 15-day period to file a petition for review is

EXTENDIBLE.

Form and contents (Sec.2)

Requirements:
1) Petition must be filed in seven (7) copies with the original copy intended for Court
of Appeals
NOTE: This has been amended in view of A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC, Efficient Use of Paper Rule. In the
Court of Appeals, only one original (properly marked) and two copies with their annexes.
2) Payment of docket and other lawful fees
3) Deposit for costs
4) Proof of service of the petition
5) Contents of petition must specify:
a) Names of parties, without impleading the court or judges
b) material dates
c) errors of fact and/or law
d) duplicate originals or certified true and correct copies of the judgment or final order
e) certification of non-forum shopping
Effect of failure to Comply with Requirements (Sec.3)

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the
dismissal of the petition.
Section 2 (d), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court requires the petition for review to be
accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final
orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court,
and the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material
portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. The failure of the
petitioner to comply with the requirement shall be a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the
petition for review. JUANITO MAGSINO vs. ELENA DE OCAMPO and RAMON GUICO G.R. No.
166944, August 18, 2014, J. Bersamin
Perfection of Appeal by Petition for Review (Sec.8)
1. Upon its timely filing; and
2. Payment of docket and other lawful fees;
The RTC loses its jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeal filed in due
time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
Effect of Appeal
Rule: The appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final order or resolution sought to be
reviewed.
Exception: When the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem
just.
Petition Given Due Course (Sec.9)
If petition is given due course, CA may set the case for oral argument or require parties to
submit memoranda. The case shall be deemed submitted for a decision after the filing of the
last pleading or memoranda.
Decisions of Special Agrarian Courts
Section 60 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 provides that an appeal
may be taken from a decision of the Special Agrarian Courts by filing a petition for review with
the CA within 15 days from receipt of the notice of the decision. Otherwise, the decision shall
become final. Hence, the proper mode of appeal is by a petition for review under Rule 42 and
not through an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. (Riguera 2013, citing Land Bank vs. CA, G.R. No.
190660, 11 April 2011).
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CA
Rule 45
Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a
judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional
Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a
verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which
must be distinctly set forth.
Section 2. Time for filing; extension. The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days

from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the
petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the
judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful
fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme
Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to file
the petition.
Section 3. Docket and other lawful fees; proof of service of petition. Unless he has
theretofore done so, the petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to
the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the
time of the filing of the petition. Proof of service of a copy, thereof on the lower court
concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted together with the petition.
Section 4. Contents of petition. The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies, with
the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner and shall (a)
state the full name of the appealing party as the petitioner and the adverse party as
respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or
respondents; (b) indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final
order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received; (c) set
forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or arguments relied on for
the allowance of the petition; (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a
certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of
the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such material portions of
the record as would support the petition; and (e) contain a sworn certification against forum
shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42.
Section 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. The failure of the petitioner to comply with
any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees,
deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which
should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
The Supreme Court may on its own initiative deny the petition on the ground that the appeal is
without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too
unsubstantial to require consideration.
Section 6. Review discretionary. A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial
discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons thereof. The
following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court's discretion, indicate the
character of the reasons which will be considered:
(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by
the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the
applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or
(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of
the power of supervision.
Section 7. Pleadings and documents that may be required; sanctions. For purposes of
determining whether the petition should be dismissed or denied pursuant to section 5 of this
Rule, or where the petition is given due course under section 8 hereof, the Supreme Court may
require or allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it may deem
necessary within such periods and under such conditions as it may consider appropriate, and
impose the corresponding sanctions in case of non-filing or unauthorized filing of such
pleadings and documents or non-compliance with the conditions therefor.
Section 8. Due course; elevation of records. If the petition is given due course, the

Supreme Court may require the elevation of the complete record of the case or specified parts
thereof within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Section 9. Rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases. The mode of appeal
prescribed in this Rule shall be applicable to both civil and criminal cases, except in criminal
cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
QUESTION OF LAW v. QUESTION OF FACT
A question of law exists when there is a doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference rises as to
the truth or falsehood of facts.
Test to determine question of law or fact
One test is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without
reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case it is a question of law, otherwise, it will be a
question of fact.
When does question of law exist?
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application
of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts, or when the issue does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts
being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or
falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering
mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding
circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of
the situation. (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. BPI/MS Insurance Corp., and Mitsui Sumitomo
Insurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 193986, January 15, 2014.)
The question of existence of bad faith is a factual issue, and the same may not be raised
in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, where only questions of law may be
entertained. Thus, a corporation who instituted a suit for damages which the trial court and the
CA dismissed cannot question such dismissal before the Supreme Court under Rule 45 when the
factual findings of the lower courts point out that the suit had all the marks of malicious
prosecution. MEYR ENTERPRISES CORPORATION vs. ROLANDO CORDERO G.R. No. 197336,
September 3, 2014, J. Del Castillo
Petitioners ask (1) whether Balmores failure to implead PPC in his action with the
[RTC] was fatal; (2) whether the *CA+ correctly characterized respondent Balmores action as a
derivative suit; (3) whether the *CAs+ appointment of a management committee was proper;
and (4) whether the CA may exercise the power to appoint a management committee. These
are questions of law that may be determined without looking into the evidence presented. The
question of whether the conclusion drawn by the [CA] from a set of facts is correct is a question
of law, cognizable by this court. Petitioners, therefore, properly filed a petition for review under
Rule 45. ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR, JR. vs. JOHN S. UMALE, IN SUBSTITUTION OF HERNANDO F.
BALMORES G.R. No. 172843, RODIVAL E. REYES, HANS M. PALMA AND DOROTEO M.
PANGILINAN vs. HERNANDO F. BALMORES G.R. No. 172881, September 24, 2014, J. Leonen
Conclusiveness of Facts
General Rule:
The findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal

to the SC. Thus, only questions of law are entertained by SC under Rule 45.
Exceptions:
1. When the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures;
2. When inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible;
3. When the judgment is premised on a misrepresentation of facts;
4. When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
5. When the findings of fact are conflicting;
6.When the CA in making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
contrary to both the admissions of appellants and appellees;
7. When the findings of fact of the CA are at variance with those of the trail court, the SC
has to review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct findings based on the record;
8. When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based;
9.When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondents;
10. The findings of fact of the CA is premised on the supposed evidence and is
contradicted by the evidence on record;
11. When certain material facts and circumstances have been overlooked by the trial
court which, if taken into account, would alter the result of the case in that they would entitle
the accused to acquittal.
Rule 45 on Labor Cases
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (SC) in cases brought before it from the Court of
Appeals (CA) via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing
errors of law. This principle applies with greater force in labor cases, where this Court has
consistently held that findings of fact of the NLRC are accorded great respect and even finality,
especially if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and are supported by substantial
evidence. Judicial review by the SC does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the
evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination. Factual issues are
beyond the scope of the SCs authority to review on certiorari. ROSE HANA ANGELES, doing
business under the name and style of LAS MARIAS GRILL AND RESTAURANT, and ZENAIDA
ANGELES, doing business under the name and style of CAF TERIA BAR AND RESTAURANT vs.
FERDINAND M. BUCAD, CHARLESTON A. REYNANTE, BERNADINE B. ROAQUIN, MARLON A.
OMPOY, RUBEN N. LAROZA, EVANGELINE B. BUMACOD, WILMA CAINGLES, BRIAN OGARIO,
EVELYN A. BASTAN, ANACLITO A. BASTAN, MA. GINA BENITEZ, HERMINIO AGSAOAY, NORBERTO
BALLASTEROS, DEMETRIO L. BERDIN, JR., JOEL DUCUSIN, JOVY R. BALATA and MARIBEL ROAQUIN
G.R. No. 196249, July 21, 2014, J. Del Castillo
Rosemarie Esmarialino filed an application for the Employees Compensation Death
Benefits before the SSS. She contends there is a causal connection between Leukemia to her late
husbands job as a security guard. SSS denied her claim. Such denial was affirmed by ECC and CA.
Hence, Rosemarie filed petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court. In ruling that
the case does not fall within the ambit of Rule 45 the Court held that Rule 45 limits merely to the
review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In this case, the issues are
beyond the ambit of a petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court since they are factual in
nature, essentially revolving on the alleged increased risk for Edwin to contract leukemia as a
result of hardships incidental to his employment as a security guard. ROSEMARIE ESMARIALINO
vs. EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSION, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM and JIMENEZ
PROTECTIVE and SECURITY AGENCY G.R. No. 192352, July 23, 2014, J. Reyes
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CTA

A party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the CTA en banc may file with the
Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules on
Civil Procedure (sec.19, R.A. 1125, as amended by Sec. 12, R.A. 9282) (Primer-Reviewe on
REMEDIAL LAW Manuel R. Riguera).
The CTAs decision is no longer appealable to the CA. The appeal to the CTA shall be by
petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rules 42 and 43 of
the Rules of Court. However, it is not governed by the technical rules of evidence. (RA 9282,
March 30 2004).
An appeal directly filed to the Supreme Court from the Court of Tax Appeals division must
be dismissed for failure to comply with the procedure on appeal. It must be emphasized that an
appeal is neither a natural nor a constitutional right, but is merely statutory. The implication of its
statutory character is that the party who intends to appeal must always comply with the
procedures and rules governing appeals; or else, the right of appeal may be lost or
squandered. Neither is the right to appeal a component of due process. It is a mere statutory
privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the
provisions of law. DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES vs. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, represented by
Hon. Anselmo G. Adriano, Acting Regional Director, Revenue Region No. 8, Makati City G.R. No.
197228, October 8, 2014, CJ. Sereno
Rule 16, A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, November 22, 2005
SECTION 1. Appeal to Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari. A party
adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Court en banc may appeal therefrom by filing
with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari within fifteen days from
receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution, as provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. If
such party has filed a motion for reconsideration or for new trial, the period herein fixed shall
run from the partys receipt of a copy of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration
or for new trial.
SEC. 2. Effect of appeal. The motion for reconsideration or for new trial filed before the Court
shall be deemed abandoned if, during its pendency, the movant shall appeal to the supreme
Court pursuant to Section 1 of this Rule.
See also Rule 43 which is discussed under o) Review of final judgments or final orders of quasijudicial agencies
l) Review of final judgments or final orders of the Comelec and COA
Rule 64
Section 1. Scope. This Rule shall govern the review of judgments and final orders or
resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit.
Section 2. Mode of review. A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission
on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the
Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided. (n; Bar Matter No.
803, 17 February 1998)
Section 3. Time to file petition. The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from
notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion
for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under
the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the
motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but
which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.

Section 4. Docket and other lawful fees. Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner
shall pay to the clerk of court the docket and other lawful fees and deposit the amount of
P500.00 for costs.
Section 5. Form and contents of petition. The petition shall be verified and filed in
eighteen (18) legible copies. The petition shall name the aggrieved party as petitioner and shall
join as respondents the Commission concerned and the person or persons interested in
sustaining the judgment, final order or resolution a quo. The petition shall state the facts with
certainty, present clearly the issues involved, set forth the grounds and brief arguments relied
upon for review, and pray for judgment annulling or modifying the questioned judgment, final
order or resolution. Findings of fact of the Commission supported by substantial evidence shall
be final and non-reviewable.
The petition shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of
the judgment, final order or resolution subject thereof, together with certified true copies of
such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and other documents relevant
and pertinent thereto. The requisite number of copies of the petition shall contain plain copies
of all documents attached to the original copy of said petition.
The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period
fixed herein, and shall contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the
third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
The petition shall further be accompanied by proof of service of a copy thereof on the
Commission concerned and on the adverse party, and of the timely payment of docket and
other lawful fees.
The failure of petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Section 6. Order to comment. If the Supreme Court finds the petition sufficient in
form and substance, it shall order the respondents to file their comments on the petition within
ten (10) days from notice thereof; otherwise, the Court may dismiss the petition outright. The
Court may also dismiss the petition if it was filed manifestly for delay or the questions raised
are too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings.
Section 7. Comments of respondents. The comments of the respondents shall be filed
in eighteen (18) legible copies. The original shall be accompanied by certified true copies of
such material portions of the record as are referred to therein together with other supporting
papers. The requisite number of copies of the comments shall contain plain copies of all
documents attached to the original and a copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner.
No other pleading may be filed by any party unless required or allowed by the Court.
Section 8. Effect of filing. The filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the
execution of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, unless the
Supreme Court shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just. (n)
Section 9. Submission for decision. Unless the Court sets the case for oral argument,
or requires the parties to submit memoranda, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision
upon the filing of the comments on the petition, or of such other pleadings or papers as may be
required or allowed, or the expiration of the period to do so.

Cases affecting Rule 64

Fresh Period Rule under Neypes did not apply to the petition for certiorari under Rule 64
of the Rules of Court. The reglementary periods under Rule 42 and Rule 64 are different. In the
former, the aggrieved party is allowed 15 days to file the petition for review from receipt of the
assailed decision or final order, or from receipt of the denial of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration. In the latter, the petition is filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or
final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. Fortune filed its motion for reconsideration on
January 14, 2013, which was 31 days after receiving the assailed decision of the COA on
December 14, 2012. Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 64, it had only five days from receipt of the
denial of its motion for reconsideration to file the petition. Considering that it received the notice
of the denial on July 14, 2014, it had only until July 19, 2014 to file the petition. However, it filed
the petition on August 13, 2014, which was 25 days too late. FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, INC. vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) PROPER; COA REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VIWESTERN VISAYAS; AUDIT GROUP LGS-B, PROVINCE OF ANTIQUE; AND PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT OF ANTIQUE G.R. No. 213525, January 27, 2015, J. Bersamin
In this case, Laguesma received the decision of the COA on October 16, 2007. It filed a
motion for reconsideration on November 6, 2007, or after 21 days. It received notice of the denial
of its motion on November 20, 2008. The receipt of this notice gave Laguesma nine (9) days, or
until November 29, 2008, to file a petition for certiorari. Since November 29, 2008 fell on a
Saturday, Laguesma could still have filed on the next working day, or on December 1, 2008. It,
however, filed the petition on December 19, 2008, which was well beyond the reglementary
period.
This petition could have been dismissed outright for being filed out of time. This court,
however, recognizes that there are certain exceptions that allow a relaxation of the procedural
rules. xxx.
Considering that the issues in this case involve the right of Laguesma to receive due
compensation on the one hand and respondents duty to prevent the unauthorized disbursement
of public funds on the other, a relaxation of the technical rules is in order. THE LAW FIRM OF
LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA AND GASTARDO vs. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND/OR
REYNALDO A. VILLAR AND JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR. IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRMAN AND
COMMISSIONER, RESPECTIVELY, G.R. No. 185544, January 13, 2015, J. Leonen
m) Review of final judgments or final orders of the Ombudsman
Administrative Disciplinary Cases Appealable to the CA via Petition for Review Under
Rule 43
SEC. 7. Finality and execution of decision. Where the respondent is absolved of the
charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand,
suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision
shall be final, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to
the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions
set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written
Notice of the Decision or Order denying the motion for reconsideration.
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is
suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having
been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that
he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as
a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly
enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to

comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or
censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against such officer.
(Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman)
Ombudsmans decision imposing the penalty of removal shall be executed as a matter of
course and shall not be stopped by an appeal thereto. An appeal shall not stop the decision from
being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such
appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the
salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or
removal. A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a
matter of course. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. ALEX M. VALENCERINA G.R. No. 178343,
July 14, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
Decision of the Ombudsman in administrative appealable to CA under Rule 43
Appeals from the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary
cases are no longer appealable to the SC but to the CA via a petition for review (Rule 43)
(Fabian v. Desierto, GR. No. 129742, Sept. 16, 1998). However, the remedy of an aggrieved
party from a decision or order of the Office of the Ombudsman in a criminal case is to file a
petition for certiorari before the SC (Perez v. Ombudsman, GR. No. 131445, May 27, 2004).
The decision and final orders of the COA, and COMELEC are also reviewable by the Supreme
Court.
Review of final judgments or final orders of the NLRC
The Commission shall decide all cases within twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of
the answer of the appellee. The decision of the Commission shall be final and executory after
ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties. (Article 223, Labor Code)
Since it is final and executory, the only remedy is certiorari under Rule 65, which must
be first lodged in the Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court according to the doctrine of
judicial hierarchy. (St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130886, September 16, 1998)
Review of final judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies
Administrative Disciplinary Cases Appealable to the CA via Petition for Review Under
Rule 43
Section 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of
the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or
authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among
these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security
Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer,
National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications
Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service
Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Invention Board,
Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments,
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
Section 2. Cases not covered. This Rule shall not apply to judgments or final orders
issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines.
Section 3. Where to appeal. An appeal under this Rule may be taken to the Court of

Appeals within the period and in the manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves
questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
Section 4. Period of appeal. The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication,
if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new
trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a
quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the
payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period,
the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file
the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling
reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (n)
Section 5. How appeal taken. Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for
review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals, with proof of service of a copy
thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo. The original copy of the petition
intended for the Court of Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner.
Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the clerk of court of the Court of
Appeals the docketing and other lawful fees and deposit the sum of P500.00 for costs.
Exemption from payment of docketing and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs may be
granted by the Court of Appeals upon a verified motion setting forth valid grounds therefor. If
the Court of Appeals denies the motion, the petitioner shall pay the docketing and other lawful
fees and deposit for costs within fifteen (15) days from notice of the denial.
Section 6. Contents of the petition. The petition for review shall (a) state the full
names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners
or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the
grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or
a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together
with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other
supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in
the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates
showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein.
Section 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the petitioner
to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and
other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and
the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
thereof.
Section 8. Action on the petition. The Court of Appeals may require the respondent to
file a comment on the petition not a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice, or
dismiss the petition if it finds the same to be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for
delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
Section 9. Contents of comment. The comment shall be filed within ten (10) days
from notice in seven (7) legible copies and accompanied by clearly legible certified true copies
of such material portions of the record referred to therein together with other supporting
papers. The comment shall (a) point out insufficiencies or inaccuracies in petitioner's statement
of facts and issues; and (b) state the reasons why the petition should be denied or dismissed. A
copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner, and proof of such service shall be filed with the
Court of Appeals. (9a)
Section 10. Due course. If upon the filing of the comment or such other pleadings or
documents as may be required or allowed by the Court of Appeals or upon the expiration of the

period for the filing thereof, and on the records the Court of Appeals finds prima facie that the
court or agency concerned has committed errors of fact or law that would warrant reversal or
modification of the award, judgment, final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, it may
give due course to the petition; otherwise, it shall dismiss the same. The findings of fact of the
court or agency concerned, when supported by substantial evidence, shall be binding on the
Court of Appeals.
Section 11. Transmittal of record. Within fifteen (15) days from notice that the
petition has been given due course, the Court of Appeals may require the court or agency
concerned to transmit the original or a legible certified true copy of the entire record of the
proceeding under review. The record to be transmitted may be abridged by agreement of all
parties to the proceeding. The Court of Appeals may require or permit subsequent correction of
or addition to the record. (8a)
Section 12. Effect of appeal. The appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final
order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise
upon such terms as it may deem just.
Section 13. Submission for decision. If the petition is given due course, the Court of
Appeals may set the case for oral argument or require the parties to submit memoranda within
a period of fifteen (15) days from notice. The case shall be deemed submitted for decision upon
the filing of the last pleading or memorandum required by these Rules or by the court of
Appeals.
Appeals from decisions in administrative disciplinary cases of the Office of the
Ombudsman should be taken to the CA by way of petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Rule 43 which prescribes the manner of appeal from quasijudicial agencies, such as the Ombudsman, was formulated precisely to provide for a uniform rule
of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies. Thus, certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie, as
appeal under Rule 43 is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. THE HONORABLE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. LEOVIGILDO DELOS REYES, JR. G.R. No. 208976, October 13,
2014, J. Leonen
Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, an appeal from the awards, judgments, final orders or
resolutions, authorized by any quasi-judicial agency such as the Office of the President, in the
exercise of its quasi judicial functions shall be filed to the CA within a period of fifteen (15) days
from notice of, publication or denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. The appeal may
involve questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. A direct resort to this Court,
however, may be allowed in cases where only questions of law are raised. In the present petition,
the petitioners raised valid questions of law that warranted the direct recourse to this Court.
DANILO ALMERO, TERESITA ALAGON, CELIA BULASO, LUDY RAMADA, REGINA GEGREMOSA,
ISIDRO LAZARTE, THELMA EMBARQUE, FELIPE LAZARTE, GUILERMA LAZARTE, DULCESIMA
BENIMELE vs. HEIRS OF MIGUEL PACQUING, as represented by LINDA PACQUING FADRILAN G.R.
No. 199008, November 19, 2014, J. Brion
The present rule is that a government party is a "party adversely affected" for purposes of
appeal provided that the government party that has a right to appeal must be the office or agency
prosecuting the case. The grant of the right to appeal in administrative cases is not new. In
Republic Act No. 2260 or the Civil Service Law of 1959, appeals "by the respondent" were allowed
on "the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service rendered in an administrative case involving
discipline of subordinate officers and employees." Thus, LRTA had standing to appeal the
modification by the Civil Service Commission of its decision. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
represented by its Administrator MELQUIADES A. ROBLES vs. AURORA A. SALVAA G.R. No.
192074, June 10, 2014, J. Leonen

3.16.3. Relief from judgments, orders and other proceedings

Relief from Judgments
A petition for relief is an equitable remedy and is allowed only in exceptional cases from
final judgments or orders where no other remedy is available (Regalado, 10th Ed., citing
Palmores vs. Jimenez, 90 Phil. 773). It will not be entertained if the proper remedy is appeal or
certiorari (Ibid., citing Fajardo vs. Bayona, 98 Phil. 659).
The city government thru its handling attorney filed its motion for reconsideration which
was opposed by Maramba on the ground that the motion for reconsideration was not set for
hearing. The Court has indeed held time and time again that, under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of
the Rules of Court, mandatory is the notice requirement in a motion, which is rendered defective
by failure to comply with the requirement. As a rule, a motion without a notice of hearing is
considered pro forma and does not affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of
the requisite pleading. CITY OF DAGUPAN vs. ESTER F. MARAMBA, represented by her ATTORNEYIN-FACT JOHNNY FERRER, G.R. No. 174411, July 2, 2014, J. Leonen
Kinds of Relief from Judgments, Orders and other Proceedings
1. Relief from judgment, order or other proceedings (Rule 38, Sec.1)
2. Relief from denial of appeal (Rule 38, Sec.2)
Grounds for availing of the remedy
Judgment or final order entered against a party through: (FAME)
1. Fraud (extrinsic fraud),
2. Accident,
3. Mistake, or
4. Excusable negligence
and no other remedy is available.
Similar to a Motion for New Trial
Petition for Relief under Sec. 1 is similar to a motion for new trial on the ground of
FAME, the difference being that the motion for new trial under Rule 37 is filed before the
judgment becomes final, while a petition for relief in this section presupposes a final judgment
or order (Riguera 2013)
Time to file petition
A petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this Rule must be verified,
filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other
proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order
was entered, or such proceeding was taken (Rule 38, Sec.3)
The 6-month period is computed from the date of entry of the order or judgment.
However, as now amended, the date of the finality of the judgment or final order is deemed to
be the date of its entry (Regalado, 10th Ed., citing Dirige vs. Biranya, L-22033, July 30, 1966).
The two periods for the filing of a petition for relief are not extendible and never interrupted
(Regalado, 10th Ed., citing Quijano vs. Tameta, L-16472, April 20, 1961). Thus, a petition for
certiorari does not suspend the periods prescribed by this section (Ibid., citing Palomares vs.
Jimenez, 90 Phil. 773), and neither does a motion for reconsideration of the order subject of the

petition for relief (Ibid., citing Cruz vs. Oppen, L-23861, Feb. 17, 1968), especially if filed in the
wrong court. These periods cannot be subject to a condition or a contingency as they are
devised to meet a condition or a contingency (Ibid., citing Vda. de Salvatierra vs. Garlitos, 103
Phil. 157). Both periods must be complied with (Ibid., citing Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines vs.
Arciaga, L-29701, Mar. 16, 1987).
A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within 60 days after petitioner learns of
the judgment, final order, or proceeding and within six (6) months from entry of judgment or
final order. The double period required under Section 3, Rule 38 is jurisdictional and should be
strictly complied with. A petition for relief of judgment filed beyond the reglementary period is
dismissed outright. Under Section 1, Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for
relief from judgment may be filed on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence. A motion for reconsideration is required before a petition for certiorari is filed to
grant the court which rendered the assailed judgment or order an opportunity to correct any
actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual
circumstances of the case. In this case, petitioners had until July 9, 2010 to file a notice of
appeal, considering that their former counsel received a copy of the order denying their motion
for reconsideration of the trial courts decision on June 24, 2010. Since petitioners filed their
notice of appeal only on August 11, 2010, the trial court correctly denied the notice of appeal
for having been filed out of time. Even if we assume that petitioners filed their petition for relief
from judgment within the reglementary period, petitioners failed to prove that their former
counsels failure to file a timely notice of appeal was due to a mistake or excusable negligence.
JULIET VITUG MADARANG and ROMEO BARTOLOME, represented by his attorneys-in-fact and
acting in their personal capacities, RODOLFO and RUBY BARTOLOME vs. SPOUSES JESUS D.
MORALES and CAROLINA N. MORALES G.R. No. 199283, June 9, 2014, J. Leonen
A party filing a petition for relief from judgment must strictly comply with two (2) reglementary periods: first, the petition must be filed within sixty (60) days from knowledge of the
judgment, order or other proceeding to be set aside; and second, within a fixed period of six (6)
months from entry of such judgment, order or other proceeding.
Strict compliance with these periods is required because a petition for relief from judgment is a final act of liberality on the part of the State, which remedy cannot be allowed to
erode any further the fundamental principle that a judgment, order or proceeding must, at
some definite time, attain finality in order to put an end to litigation.
In the present case, *Contreras+ counsel received a copy of the RTCs decision dated
September 13, 1993 on September 15, 1993. Thus, the petition for relief from judgment should
have been filed on or before November 14, 1993. However, the records showed that the
petition was filed only on December 15, 1993, or ninety-one (91) days later. PHILIPPINE
AMANAH BANK (NOW AL-AMANAH ISLAMIC INVESTMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ALSO
KNOWN AS ISLAMIC BANK) vs. EVANGELISTA CONTRERAS, G.R. No. 173168, September 29,
2014, J. Brion
Contents of petition
1. Petition must be verified;
2. Must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and
substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. (Rule 38, Sec.3)
3.16.4. Annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions
Nature

A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature

that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final
order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or
through extrinsic fraud. Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is not allowed to be so
easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions.
(Dare Adventure Farm Corporation Vs. Spouses Felix and Nenita Ng, Spouses Martin and
Azucena Ng and Agripina R. Goc-ong, et al. G.R. No. 161122. September 24, 2012)
Basis for the rule
The attitude of judicial reluctance towards the annulment of a judgment, final order or
final resolution is understandable, for the remedy disregards the time-honored doctrine of
immutability and unalterability of final judgments, a solid corner stone in the dispensation of
justice by the courts. (Dare Adventure Farm Corporation Vs. Spouses Felix and Nenita Ng,
Spouses Martin and Azucena Ng and Agripina R. Goc-ong, et al. G.R. No. 161122. September 24,
2012)
The underlying reason is traceable to the notion that annulling final judgments goes
against the grain of finality of judgment. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and
somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment
has become final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. (Leticia Diona, rep.
by her attorney-in-fact, Marcelina Diona Vs. Romeo A. Balangue, Sonny A. Balangue, Reynaldo
A. Balangue, and Esteban A. Balangue, Jr. G.R. No. 173559. January 7, 2013)
Annulment of a Judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the
judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. x x x
A person who is not a party to the judgment may sue for its annulment provided he can
prove that the same was obtained through fraud or collusion and that he would be adversely
affected thereby. An action for annulment of judgment may be availed of even if the judgment
to be annulled had already been fully executed or implemented. (Regalado, 10th Ed., citing
Isalmic DaWah Council of the Phil. Vs. CA, G.R. No., 80892, Sept. 29, 1989).
The general rule is that a final and executory judgment can no longer be disturbed,
altered, or modified in any respect, and that nothing further can be done but to execute it. A
final and executory decision may, however, be invalidated via a Petition for Relief or a Petition
to Annul the same under Rules 38 or 47, respectively, of the Rules of Court. Rule 47 of the
Rules of Court is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances where a party,
without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies. The same petition is not available as a
substitute for a remedy which was lost due to the partys own neglect in promptly availing of
the same. There is here no attempted substitution; annulment of judgment is the only remedy
available to petitioner. Requisite elements for the filing of a petition for annulment of judgment
on the grounds of extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and want of due process, are present in
this case All the requisite elements for the filing of a petition for annulment of judgment on the
grounds of extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and want of due process, are present in this case.
It should be stressed that Genato instituted the case before the CA precisely to seek relief from
the declaration of nullity of TCT No. 33341, which had been issued without first giving Genato
an opportunity to be heard. The petition need not categorically state the exact words extrinsic
fraud; rather, the allegations in the petition should be so crafted to easily point out the ground
on which it was based. The allegations in the petition filed with the CA sufficiently identify the
ground upon which the petition was based - extrinsic fraud. The allegations clearly charged the
RTC and respondent with depriving Genato of the opportunity to oppose the auction sale and
the cancellation of her title and ventilate her side. This allegation, if true, constitutes extrinsic
fraud. GENATO INVESTMENTS, INC., vs. HON. JUDGE OSCAR P. BARRIE~TOS et al. G.R. No.

207443, July 23, 2014, J. Jose Portugal Perez

Grounds for annulment
1) Grounds for Annulment of Judgment of RTC in Civil Cases (Rule 47, Sec.2)
a. Extrinsic fraud not available as a ground if availed of earlier in a motion for new trial
or petition for relief
Meaning of extrinsic fraud
Fraud is extrinsic, according to Cosmic Lumber Corporation v. Court of Appeals (265 SCRA
168, 180 *1996+), where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his
case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from
court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the
suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or
without authority connives at his defeat; these and similar cases which show that there has
never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case are reasons for which a new suit
may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment and open the case for a new and
fair hearing. (Pinausukan Seafood House-Roxas Blvd., Inc. v. Far East Bank and Trust Cp., now
Bank of the Philippine Islands, et al., G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014)
2) Lack of jurisdiction.
Lack of Jurisdiction refers to either jurisdiction over the person of the defending party,
or over the subject matter of the claim, since in either case the judgment or final order and
resolution are void. (Regalado, 10th Ed.)
3) Third ground Lack of due process
While under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court a Petition for Annulment of
Judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction,
jurisprudence recognizes lack of due process as additional ground to annul a judgment. In
Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, this Court declared that a final and executory judgment may still
be set aside if, upon mere inspection thereof, its patent nullity can be shown for having been
issued without jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law. (Leticia Diona, rep. by her attorneyin-fact, Marcelina Diona Vs. Romeo A. Balangue, Sonny A. Balangue, Reynaldo A. Balangue, and
Esteban A. Balangue, Jr. G.R. No. 173559. January 7, 2013)
IMPORTANT CONDITION
For the remedy under Rule 47 to be available, the petitioner must have failed, with
sufficient justification, to either:
1. Move for new trial or reconsideration
2. Appeal from the judgment or final order
3. File a petition for relief against the judgment or final order, or;
4. Take other appropriate remedies assailing the questioned judgment or final order
If he failed to avail of those remedies without sufficient justification, he cannot resort to
the action for annulment provided in this Rule, otherwise he would benefit from his own
inaction or negligence (Regalado, 10th Ed.)
Allegations and requirements in the pleading

The fourth requirement demands that the petition should be verified, and should allege
with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting
the petitioners good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. The need
for particularity cannot be dispensed with because averring the circumstances constituting
either fraud or mistake with particularity is a universal requirement in the rules of pleading. The
petition is to be filed in seven clearly legible copies, together with sufficient copies
corresponding to the number of respondents, and shall contain essential submissions,
specifically: (a) the certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution, to be
attached to the original copy of the petition intended for the court and indicated as such by the
petitioner; (b) the affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause of action or
defense; and (c) the sworn certification that the petitioner has not theretofore commenced any
other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the CA or the different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must
state the status of the same, and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the CA, or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the said courts and
other tribunal or agency thereof within five days therefrom. (Pinausukan Seafood House-Roxas
Blvd., Inc. v. Far East Bank and Trust Cp., now Bank of the Philippine Islands, et al., G.R. No.
159926, January 20, 2014.)
Period to file action
a. For extrinsic fraud within four years from discovery; (Rule 47, Sec.3)
b. Lack of jurisdiction same period for annulment of contracts on that ground, under
Art. 1371, NCC (within 4 years from discovery of fraud), as well as the time when the period
starts to run (Regalado, 10th Ed.); must be filed before action is barred by estoppels by laches
The action, if based on extrinsic fraud, must be filed within four years from the discovery of the
extrinsic fraud; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, must be brought before it is barred by laches
or estoppel. (Pinausukan Seafood House-Roxas Blvd., Inc. v. Far East Bank and Trust Cp., now
Bank of the Philippine Islands, et al., G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014)
c) Effects of judgment of annulment
A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or
resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being
refiled in the proper court. However, where the judgment or final order or resolution is set
aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order the trial court to try the
case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein. (Rule 47, Sec.7) The judgment
may include the award of damages, attorneys fees and other relief. (Rule 47, Sec.9)
3.16.5. Collateral attack of judgments
A collateral or incidental attack is made when, in another action to obtain a different
relief, an attack on the judgment is made as an incident in said action. This is proper only when
it is patent that the court which rendered such judgment had no jurisdiction.
3.17. EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
Execution under Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court is a remedy afforded by law for
the enforcement of a judgment, its object being to obtain satisfaction of the judgment on which
the writ is issued. It issues by order of the court a quo, on motion of the judgment obligee,
upon finality of a judgment or order sought to be enforced, and is directed to an officer
authorizing and requiring him to execute the judgment of the court. (CAGAYAN DE ORO VS CA,
.R. No. 129713. December 15, 1999 )

Execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of law. A judgment that is left
unexecuted is nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party. (AYO VS VIOLAGO, A.M.
No. RTJ-99-1445. June 21, 1999)
Gumaru informed the SC that the judgment award has been satisfied in full. Jacinto
does not dispute this claim, in which case, the labor case is now deemed ended. It is axiomatic
that after a judgment has been fully satisfied, the case is deemed terminated once and for all.
And when a judgment has been satisfied, it passes beyond review, satisfaction being the last
act and the end of the proceedings, and payment or satisfaction of the obligation thereby
established produces permanent and irrevocable discharge; hence, a judgment debtor who
acquiesces to and voluntarily complies with the judgment is estopped from taking an appeal
therefrom. With the development in the case, the instant Petition is rendered moot and
academic. The satisfaction of the judgment in full has placed the case beyond the Courts
review. JOSELITO MA. P. JACINTO (FORMERLY PRESIDENT OFF. JACINTO GROUP, INC.) vs.
EDGARDO GUMARU, JR. G.R. No. 191906, June 02, 2014, J. Del Castillo
3.17.1. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINALITY OF JUDGMENT FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL; FOR
PURPOSES OF EXECUTION
The concept of final judgment, as distinguished from one which has become final (or
executory as of right *final and executory+), is definite and settled. A final judgment or order
is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect
thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at
the trial declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which
party is in the right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance,
of res judicata or prescription. Once rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as
deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned.
Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties next move (which
among others, may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or the
taking of an appeal), this is what is referred to as the final judgment for purposes of appeal.
Ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes final
or, to use the established and more distinctive term, final and executory. (HEIRS OF RETERTA
VS MORES & LOPEZ, G.R. No. 159941, August 17, 2011)
Judgment in latter sense is more precisely referred to as final and executory in order
to avoid confusion with final judgment in the first sense (Riguera 2013)
3.17.2. WHEN EXECUTION SHALL ISSUE
Execution as a matter of right (section 1, Rule
39)
Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders.
Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that
disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if
no appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith
be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith
certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be
enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.

The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so
requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.
When can a judgment be executed?
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party can have it
executed as a matter of right, and the issuance of a Writ of Execution becomes a ministerial
duty of the court. It is axiomatic that once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the
case regardless of any claim that it is erroneous. Having been rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction acting within its authority, the judgment may no longer be altered even at the risk
of occasional legal infirmities or errors it may contain. (BUAYA VS STRONGHOLD INSURANCE,
G.R. No. 139020. October 11, 2000)
A judgment becomes final and executory by operation of law. Its finality becomes a
fact when the reglamentary period to appeal lapses, and no appeal is perfected within such
period. The admiralty case filed by private respondent with the trial court involved multiple
defendants. This being the case, it necessarily follows that the period of appeal of the February
18, 1991 RTC Decision depended on the date a copy of the judgment was received by each of
the defendants. Elsewise stated, each defendant had a different period within which to appeal,
depending on the date of receipt of the Decision. (VLASON VS CA, G.R. NOS. 121662-64. JULY
6, 1999)
Under Supreme Court Circular No. 24-94, a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of
Execution must contain a notice to the adverse party -Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that
disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no
appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, such execution may forthwith
be applied for in the lower court from which the action originated, on motion of the judgment
obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or the final
order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse
party.
The appellatte court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so
requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution. (italics supplied) (PALLADA VS
RTC OF KALIBO, G.R. No. 129442. March 10, 1999)
General Rule
Where the judgment or order has become executory, the court cannot refuse to issue a
writ of execution.
Exceptions
a) When the subsequent facts and circumstances transpire which render such execution
unjust or impossible;
b) On equitable grounds, as when there has been a change in the situation of the parties
which makes the execution inequitable (Albar v. Carandang, L-18003, 29 Sept. 1962);
c) Where the judgment has been novated by the parties (Dormitorio v. Fernandez, et al., L25889, 21 Aug. 1976);
d) When a petition for relief or an action to enjoin the judgment is filed and a preliminary
injunction is prayed for and granted (see Sec. 5, Rule 38);

e) When the judgment has become dormant, the 5-year period under Sec. 6 of this Rule
having expired without the judgment having been revived (Cunanan v. CA, et al., L25511, 28 Sept. 1968); or
f) Where the judgment turns out to be incomplete (Del Rosario v. Villegas, 49 Phil. 634) or
is conditional (Cu Unjieng, etc. v. Mabalacat Sugar Co., 70 Phil. 380) since, as a matter of
law, such judgment cannot become final (Regalado).
MANDAMUS is the proper remedy when a motion for execution (as a matter of right) is denied.
However, if the appellate court reversed the decision of the lower and the latter denies the
motion for execution for the same, the judgment obligee may file with the appellate court a
motion to direct the lower court to issue the writ of execution. Mandamus is not proper since
there is a plain, adequate, and speedy remedy under Sec. 1 Rule 39 (Riguera 2013, citing Jose
Feria, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure 115 [1997]).
b) Discretionary execution
Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 2. Discretionary execution.
(a) Execution of a judgment or a final order pending appeal. On motion of the
prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction
over the case and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal, as the
case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order
execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may
be filed in the appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special
order after due hearing.
(b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. A several separate or partial
judgment may be executed under the same terms and conditions as execution of a judgment or
final order pending appeal.
Requisites:
1. There must be a motion filed by the prevailing party with a notice to the adverse
party;
2. There must be a hearing of the motion for discretionary execution;
3. There must be good reasons to justify the discretionary execution; and
4. The good reasons must be stated in a special order. (Civil Procedure, Bar Lecture
Series by Willard Riano, 2011 Ed. Page 661)
Primary basis of execution pending appeal:
A primary consideration for allowing execution pending appeal would be the existence of
good reasons. In turn, "good reasons" has been held to consist of compelling circumstances
justifying the immediate execution lest judgment becomes illusory. Such reasons must
constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency which will outweigh the injury or
damages should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment.
In upholding the disallowance of the execution pending appeal ordered by the trial
court, albeit on different grounds, we are guided by the rule that execution pending appeal

must be strictly construed being an exception to the general rule. So, too, execution pending
appeal is not to be availed of and applied routinely, but only in extraordinary
circumstances. Here, with the alleged collapse of petitioner's business operations rendered
doubtful, we find no good reason to
order
execution
pending
appeal.
(CORONA INTERNATIONAL VS CA, G.R. No. 127851. October 18, 2000)
As provided in Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules., the existence of good reasons is what
confers discretionary power on a Court . . . to issue a writ of execution pending appeal. The
reasons allowing execution must constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency which
will outweigh the injury or damages should be losing party secure a reversal of the judgment."
(JACA V. LUMBER CO., G.R. NO. L-25771, MARCH 29, 1982; 113 SCRA 107, 121)
Whatever doubts may have been generated by early decisions have been clarified
in Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, thus:
It is not intended obviously that execution pending appeal shall issue as a matter of
course. "Good reasons," special, important, pressing reasons must exist to justify it; otherwise,
instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice, it may well become a tool of oppression and
inequity. But to consider the mere posting of a bond a "good reason" would precisely make
immediate execution of a judgment pending appeal routinary, the rule rather than the
exception. Judgments would be executed immediately, as a matter of course, once rendered, if
all that the prevailing party needed to do was to post a bond to answer for damages that might
result therefrom. This is a situation, to repeat, neither contemplated nor intended by law.
(EUDELA VS CA, G.R. No. 89265 July 17, 1992)
The execution of a judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule that only
a final judgment may be executed; hence, under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (Rules),
the existence of "good reasons" for the immediate execution of a judgment is an indispensable
requirement as this is what confers discretionary power on a court to issue a writ of execution
pending appeal. Good reasons consist of compelling circumstances justifying immediate
execution, lest judgment becomes illusory, that is, the prevailing partys chances for recovery on
execution from the judgment debtor are altogether nullified. The "good reason" yardstick
imports a superior circumstance demanding urgency that will outweigh injury or damage to the
adverse party and one such "good reason" that has been held to justify discretionary execution
is the imminent danger of insolvency of the defeated party. The factual findings that NSSC is
under a state of rehabilitation and had ceased business operations, taken together with the
information that NSSC President and General Manager Orimaco had permanently left the
country with his family, constitute such superior circumstances that demand urgency in the
execution of the October 31, 2007 Decision because respondents now run the risk of its nonsatisfaction by the time the appeal is decided with finality. CENTENNIAL GUARANTEE
ASSURANCE CORPORATION vs. UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORPORATION, RODRIGO T. JANEO, JR.,
GERARDO GELLE, NISSAN CAGAYAN DE ORO DISTRIBUTORS, INC., JEFFERSON U. ROLIDA, and
PETER YAP G.R. No. 189358, October 8, 2014, J. Perlas-Bernabe
Effect of reversal of a judgement executed pending appeal
Spouses Eserjose instituted a complaint for the release of mortgage and payment for
moral and exemplary damages against Allied Banking Corporation . The Regional Trial Court
rendered judgment in their favor. The spouses then became the highest bidder of the property
levied by the sheriff. However, by way of certiorari, Allied Banking Corporation was able to secure
a favorable judgment with the Supreme Court. The Court reduced the amount of damages
awarded to the spouses from Php 8M to Php 4M. This being the case ABC filed a motion to nullify
the sale and. However, the RTC denied the motion. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to
Sec. 5 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, where the executed judgment is reversed totally or
partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of

restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances.
SPS. DAVID ESERJOSE and ZENAIDA ESERJOSEvs.ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION and PACITA UY
G.R. No. 180105, April 23, 2014, J. Abad
3.17.3. HOW A JUDGMENT IS EXECUTED
Execution by motion or by independent action (Section 6, Rule 39)
Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action.
A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5)
years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the
statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also
be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action
before it is barred by the statute of limitations.
Execution by motion
The prevailing party shall ask the court to issue a writ of execution by simply filing a
motion in the same case within 5 years from the date of its entry.
After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a
judgment may be enforced by action.
Execution by independent action
The prevailing party should file an action for revival of judgment after 5 years but within
10 years from the date of its entry. (Art. 1144[3], Civil Code) When the judgment has been
revived, the prevailing party can then enforce it by motion within 5 years from the date of entry
of the revived judgment.
Dormant judgment one that is not enforced within 5 years.
Remedy: File another civil action for the revival of judgment (Execution by independent Action)
which must be filed before it is barred by the Statute of limitations.
A judgment unenforced within 10 years after its finality shall be barred. However an
exception is when a registered owner of land cannot invoke the protection accorded by the
Statute of Limitations when he derived his right from misrepresentation. JUANITO G. CAMPIT vs.
ISIDRA B. GRIPA, PEDRO BARDIAGA, AND SEVERINO BARDIAGA, REPRESENTED BY HIS SON,
ROLANDO BARDIAGA G.R. No. 195443, September 17, 2014, J. Brion
Venue in case of revival of judgment
Qualify whether the action for revival of judgment is a real or personal action.
If the action affects title to or possession of real property or any interest therein, the
action for revival must be filed with the court having jurisdiction over the place where the real
property or any portion thereof is situated. Otherwise, the action for revival of judgment is a
personal action wherein the venue lies with the residence of either the plaintiff or defendant,
at the option of the plaintiff (INFANTE VS. ARAN BUILDERS, INC., G.R. NO.156596, 24 AUGUST
2007).
Five and ten year period not applicable in special proceedings: imprescriptible:

The five- and ten-year periods do not apply to special proceedings, such as land
registration and cadastral cases where the right to apply for a writ of possession is
imprescriptible (Rodil vs. Benedicto, 95 SCRA 137 [1980]). This is so because a party in a civil
action must promptly enforce a judgment that is secured against the adverse party, and his
failure to act to enforce the same makes it unenforceable. In special proceedings, the purpose
is to establish a status, right or a particular fact; in land registration proceedings, the ownership
by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be established (TING VS. HEIRS OF LIRIO, G.R. NO.
168913, 14 MARCH 2007).
Issuance and contents of a writ of execution (Section 8, Rule 39)
Issuance, form, contents of a writ of execution
a. Shall issue in the name of the Republic of the Philippines from court which granted the
motion;
b. State the name of the court, case number and title, and the 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.
Manner of executing writ:
a. If judgment is 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.
Execution of judgments for money
Sec. 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced.
(a) Immediate payment on demand. - The officer shall enforce an execution of a
judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the
full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay in
cash, certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee or his authorized representative if
present at the time of payment. The lawful fees shall be handed under proper receipt to the
executing sheriff who shall turn over the said amount within the same day to the clerk of court
of the court that issued the writ.
If the judgment obligee or his authorized representative is not present to receive
payment, the judgment obligor shall deliver the aforesaid payment to the executing sheriff. The

latter shall turn over all the amounts coming into his possession within the same day to the
clerk of court of the court that issued the writ, or if the same is not practicable, deposit said
amount to a fiduciary account in the nearest government depository bank of the Regional Trial
Court of the locality.
The clerk of court shall thereafter arrange for the remittance of the deposit to the
account of the court that issued the writ whose clerk of court shall then deliver said payment to
the judgment obligee in satisfaction of the judgment. The excess, if any, shall be delivered to
the judgment obligor while the lawful fees shall be retained by the clerk of court for disposition
as provided by law. In no case shall the executing sheriff demand that any payment by check be
made payable to him.
(b) Satisfaction by levy. - If the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of the obligation
in cash, certified bank check or other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee, the
officer shall levy upon the properties of the judgment obligor of every kind and nature
whatsoever which may be disposed of for value and not otherwise exempt from execution
giving the latter the option to immediately choose which property or part thereof may be levied
upon, sufficient to satisfy the judgment. If the judgment obligor does not exercise the option,
the officer shall first levy on the personal properties, if any, an then on the real properties if the
personal properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment.
The sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion of the personal or real property of the
judgment obligor which has been levied upon.
When there is more property of the judgment obligor than is sufficient to satisfy the
judgment and lawful fees, he must sell only so much of the personal or real property as is
sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees. Real property, stocks, shares, debts, credits,
and other personal property, or any interest in either real or personal property, may be
levied upon in like manner and with like effect as under a writ of attachment.
(c) Garnishment of debts and credits. - The officer may levy on debts due the judgment
obligor and other credits, including bank deposits, financial interests, royalties, commissions
and other personal property not capable of manual delivery in the possession or control of third
parties. Levy shall be made by serving notice upon the person owing such debts or having in his
possession or control such credits to which the judgment obligor is entitled. The garnishment
shall cover only such amount as will satisfy the judgment and all lawful fees.
The garnishee shall make a written report to the court within five (5) days from service
of the notice of garnishment stating whether or not the judgment obligor has sufficient funds or
credits to satisfy the amount of the judgment. If not, the report shall state how much funds or
credits the garnishee holds for the judgment obligor. The garnished amount in cash, or certified
bank check issued in the name of the judgment obligee, shall be delivered directly to the
judgment obligee within ten (10) working days from service of notice on said garnishing
requiring such delivery, except the lawful fees which shall be paid directly to the court.
In the event there are two or more garnishees holding deposits or credits sufficient to satisfy
the judgment, the judgment obligor, if available, shall have the right to indicate the garnishee
or garnishees who shall be required to deliver the amount due; otherwise, the choice shall be
made by the judgment obligee.
The executing sheriff shall observe the same procedure under paragraph (a)
respect to delivery of payment to the judgment obligee.

with

Based on the foregoing, the sheriff is required to first demand of the judgment obligor
the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution before a levy can be
made. The sheriff shall demand such payment either in cash, certified bank check or any other

mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee. If the judgment obligor cannot pay by
these methods immediately or at once, he can exercise his option to choose which of his
properties can be levied upon. If he does not exercise this option immediately or when he is
absent or cannot be located, he waives such right, and the sheriff can now first levy his personal
properties, if any, and then the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to
answer for the judgment. (VILLARIN VS MUNASQUE, G.R. No. 169444, September 17, 2008)
The sheriff should demand from the judgment obligor the immediate payment in cash,
certified bank check or any other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee. If the
judgment obligor cannot pay by these methods immediately or at once, he can exercise his
option to choose which of his property can be levied upon. If he does not exercise this option
immediately or when he is absent or cannot be located, he waives such right, and the sheriff
can now first levy his personal properties, if any, and then the real properties if the personal
properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment. ATTY. RICO PAOLO R. QUICHO,
representing Bank of Commerce vs. BIENVENIDO S. REYES, JR., Sheriff IV, Branch 98, Regional
Trial Court, Quezon City A.M. No. P-14-3246, October 15, 2014, J. Mendoza
The sheriff should demand from the judgment obligor the immediate payment in cash,
certified bank check or any other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee. If the
judgment obligor cannot pay by these methods immediately or at once, he can exercise his
option to choose which of his property can be levied upon. If he does not exercise this option
immediately or when he is absent or cannot be located, he waives such right, and the sheriff
can now first levy his personal properties, if any, and then the real properties if the personal
properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment. ATTY. RICO PAOLO R. QUICHO,
representing Bank of Commerce vs. BIENVENIDO S. REYES, JR., Sheriff IV, Branch 98, Regional
Trial Court, Quezon City A.M. No. P-14-3246, October 15, 2014, J. Mendoza.
Only property of the debtor can be the subject of execution:
The power of the court in executing judgments extends only to properties
unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor alone. An execution can be issued only
against a party and not against one who did not have his day in court. The duty of the sheriff is
to levy the property of the judgment debtor not that of a third person. For, as the saying goes,
one man's goods shall not be sold for another man's debts.
A sheriff is not authorized to attach or levy on property not belonging to the judgment
debtor. The sheriff may be liable for enforcing execution on property belonging to a third
party. If he does so, the writ of execution affords him no justification, for the action is not in
obedience to the mandate of the writ.
The levy upon the properties of the judgment obligor may be had by the executing
sheriff only if the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of the full amount stated in the writ of
execution. If the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash, certified
bank check, or other mode acceptable to the judgment obligee, the judgment obligor is given
the option to immediately choose which of his property or part thereof, not otherwise exempt
from execution, may be levied upon sufficient to satisfy the judgment. If the judgment obligor
does not exercise the option immediately, or when he is absent or cannot be located, he waives
such right, and the sheriff can now first levy his personal properties, if any, and then the real
properties if the personal properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment. Therefore,
the sheriff cannot and should not be the one to determine which property to levy if the
judgment obligor cannot immediately pay because it is the judgment obligor who is given the
option to choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon to satisfy the judgment.
(LEACHON VS PASCUA, A.M. No. P-11-2972, SEPTEMBER 28, 2011)
Execution of judgments for specific acts (Section 10, Rule 39)

Scope:
a. Conveyance, delivery of deeds;
b. Sale of personal or real property;
c. Delivery or Restitution of real property;
d. Removal of improvements on property subject of execution;
e. Delivery of personal property.
If a judgment directs a party who execute a conveyance of land or personal property, or
to deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform any other specific act in connection
therewith, and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act
to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court
and the act when so done shall have like effect as if done by the party.
If real or personal property is situated within the Philippines, the court in lieu of
directing a conveyance thereof may be an order divest the title of any party and vest it in
others, which shall have the force and effect of a conveyance executed in due form of law.
(Section 10 (A), Rule 39)
How can a judgment for specific acts be made?
Judgment for Specific acts pertains to a judgment directs a party to execute a
conveyance of land or to deliver deeds or other documents or to perform any specific act which
may be performed by some other person, or in some other way provided by law with the same
effect, as in the present case, section 10, and not said section 9 of Rule 39 applies; and under
the provision of said section 10, the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the
disobedient party, by some other person appointed or designated by the court, and the act
when so done shall have like effect as if done by the party himself. (CALUAG VS PECSON,
October 29, 1948, G.R. No. L-1403)
Removal of an Improvement (Sec. 10 [d])
Requisites before demolition order is issued:
a) Motion;
b) Notice to the adverse party;
c) Hearing;
d) Special order;
e) Reasonable time to remove improvements
Execution of special judgments
Sec. 11. Execution of special judgments.
When a judgment requires the performance of any act other than those mentioned
in the two preceding sections, a certified copy of the judgment shall be attached to the
writ of execution and shall be served by the officer upon the party against whom the same is
rendered, or upon any other person required thereby, or by law, to obey the same, and
such party or person may be punished for contempt if he disobeys such judgment.
What is a special judgment?
Special Judgment refers to a specific act which the party or person must personally do,
because his personal qualification and circumstances have been taken into consideration in
accordance with the provision of article 1161 of the Civil Code. (CALUAG VS PECSON,

October 29, 1948, G.R. No. L-1403)

Effect of levy on third persons
Sec. 12. Effect of levy on execution as to third persons.
The levy on execution shall create a lien in favor of the judgment obligee over the
right, title and interest of the judgment obligor in such property at the time of the levy,
subject to liens and encumbrances then existing.
3.17.4. PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION
(1) There are certain properties exempt from execution enumerated under Sec. 13, Rule
39:
(a) The judgment obligors family home as provided by law, or the homestead in which
he resides, and the land necessarily used in connection therewith;
(b) Ordinary tools and implements personally used by him in his trade, employment, or
livelihood;
(c) Three horses, or three cows, or three carabaos, or other beasts of burden, such
as the judgment obligor may select necessarily used by him in his ordinary occupation;
(d) His necessary clothing and articles for ordinary personal use, excluding jewelry;
(e) Household furniture and utensils necessary for housekeeping, and used for
that purpose by the judgment obligor and his family, such as the judgment obligor may
select, of a value not exceeding 100,000 pesos.
(f) Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for four months;
(g) The professional libraries and equipment of judges, lawyers, physicians,
pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors, clergymen, teachers, and other professionals, not
exceeding 300,000 pesos;
(h) One fishing boat and accessories not exceeding the total value of 100,000 pesos
owned by a fisherman and by the lawful use of which he earns his livelihood;
(i) So much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the judgment obligor for his personal
serviceswith 4 months preceding the levy as are necessary for the support of his family;
(j) Lettered gravestones;
(k) Monies, benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in any manner growing out of
any life insurance;
(l) The right to receive legal support, or money or property obtained as such support, or
any pension or gratuity from the government; and
(m) Properties specially exempted by law (Sec. 13, Rule 39) .
(2) If the property mentioned in Sec. 13 is the subject of execution because of a
judgment for the recovery of the price or upon judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage upon the
property, the property is not exempt from execution.
It is not sufficient that the person claiming exemption merely alleges that such property
is a family home. This claim for exemption must be set and proved to the sheriff. Failure to do
so would estop the party from later claiming the exemption (SPOUSES VERSOLA VS. CA, G.R.
NO. 164740,31 JULY 2006).
3.17.5. PROCEEDINGS WHERE PROPERTY IS CLAIMED BY THIRD PERSONS
(1) If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor or
his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the possession
thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making

the levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall not be bound to keep
the property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by
the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property
levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the court
issuing the writ of execution. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property
may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty
(120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the property, to
any third party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such
claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action, or
prevent the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate action against a
third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim.
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or any
officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in case the sheriff
or levying officer is sued for damages as a result of the levy, he shall be represented by the
Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the court shall be
paid by the National Treasurer out of such funds as may be appropriated for the purpose.
(2) Requisites for a claim by a third person:
(a) The property is levied;
(b) The claimant is a person other than the judgment obligor or his agent; (Remedial
Law Reviewer by Elmer Brabante)
In relation to third-party claim in attachment and replevin
Certain remedies available to a third person not party to the action but whose property
is the subject of execution:
(a) Terceria - By making an affidavit of his title thereto or his right to possession thereof,
stating the grounds of such right or title. The affidavit must be served upon the sheriff and the
attaching party (Sec. 14, Rule 57). Upon service of the affidavit upon him, the sheriff shall not
be bound to keep the property under attachment except if the attaching party files a bond
approved by the court. the sheriff shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of
the property, if such bond shall be filed.
(b) Exclusion or release of property Upon application of the third person through a
motion to set aside the levy on attachment, the court shall order a summary hearing for the
purpose of determining whether the sheriff has acted rightly or wrongly in the performance of
his duties in the execution of the writ of attachment. The court may order the sheriff to release
the property from the erroneous levy and to return the same to the third person. In resolving
the application, the court cannot pass upon the question of title to the property with any
character of finality but only insofar as may be necessary to decide if the sheriff has acted
correctly or not (CHING VS. CA, G.R. NO. 124642, FEBRUARY 23, 2004) .
(c) Intervention This is possible because no judgment has yet been rendered and
under the rules, a motion for intervention may be filed any time before the rendition of the
judgment by the trial court (Sec. 2, Rule 19).
(d) Accion Reinvindicatoria - The third party claimant is not precluded by Sec. 14, Rule
57 from vindicating his claim to the property in the same or in a separate action. He may file a
separate action to nullify the levy with damages resulting from the unlawful levy and seizure.
This action may be a totally distinct action from the former case.

Distinction between third party complaint and third party claim

Third party compliant under Rule 6 is a pleading filed by a defendant against the
3rd person not a party to the action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other
relief in respect of the plaintiffs complaint.
Third party claim under rule 39 pertains to an affidavit made by a third person who
claims to be entitled to the property in custody of a sheriff by virtue of a writ of execution.
3.17.6. RULES ON REDEMPTION
Who may Redeem Real Property Sold (Sec. 27)
a) Judgment obligor or his successor in interest in the whole or any part of the property;
b) Redemptioner or 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.
Procedure: (Section 28)
1) The judgment obligor, whether exercising a first or subsequent registration, 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. Once he redeems, there shall be no further redemption. In no case
may the judgment obligor redeem beyond the one-year period.
2) The redemptioner exercising first redemption has the same one-year period within
which to redeem.
3) The redemptioner exercising a subsequent registration has a period of 60 days after
the last redemption within which to redeem. The redemptioner may redeem even beyond the
one-year period provided it is within 60 days after the last redemption.
Effect of Redemption
If the judgment obligor redeems, he must make the same payments as are required to
effect a redemption by a redemptioner, whereupon, no further redemption shall be allowed
and he is restored to his estate. The person to whom the redemption payment is made must
execute and deliver to him a certificate of redemption acknowledged before a notary public or
other officer authorized to take acknowledgments of conveyances of real property. Such
certificate must be filed and recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the property
is situated, and the registrar of deeds must note the record thereof on the margin of the record
of the certificate of sale. The payments mentioned in this and the last preceding sections may
be made to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him to the officer who made the sale (Sec.
29).
Proof Required of Redemptioner (Sec. 30)
1. Copy of the judgment or final order under which he claims the right to redeem.
2. If he redeems upon a mortgage or other lien, a memorandum of record
3. Original or certified true copy of any assignment
4. Affidavit executed by him or his agent.

Rents, Earnings and Income of Property Pending Redemption (Sec. 32)

Purchaser or redemptioner shall not be 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.
Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period; by whom executed or
given (Sec.33)
Two document which the sheriff executes in case of Real Property:
1. Certificate of Sale executed after auction sale (Sec.25).
2. Deed of conveyance executed after 1 year if there is no redemption (Sec. 33).
Recovery of price if sale not effective; revival of judgment (Sec. 34)
1. Recover the money from obligee
2. Have the judgment revived.
Remedies in Aid of Execution:
1. Examination of judgment obligor when judgment unsatisfied (Sec. 36).
2. Examination of obligor of judgment obligor (Sec. 37).
3. Enforcement of attendance and conduct of examination (Sec.38).
4. Order of application of property and income to satisfaction of judgment (Sec. 40).
5 .Appointment of receiver (Sec. 41).
6. Sale of ascertainable interest of judgment obligor in real estate (Sec. 42).
7. Proceedings when indebtedness denied or another person claims the property (Sec.
43). (FEU Remedial Bar Reviewer 2014, page 105)
3.17.7. EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT OBLIGOR WHEN JUDGMENT IS UNSATISFIED
Sec. 36. Examination of judgment obligor when judgment unsatisfied.
When the return of a writ of execution issued against property of a judgment obligor, or
any one of several obligors in the same judgment, shows that the judgment remains
unsatisfied, in whole or in part, the judgment obligee, at any time after such return is made,
shall be entitled to an order from the court which rendered the said judgment, requiring such
judgment obligor to appear and be examined concerning his property and income before such
court or before a commissioner appointed by it, at a specified time and place; and proceedings
may thereupon be had for the application of the property and income of the judgment obligor
towards the satisfaction of the judgment. But no judgment obligor shall be so required to
appear before a court or commissioner outside the province or city in which such obligor
resides or is found.
3.17.8. EXAMINATION OF OBLIGOR OF JUDGMENT OBLIGOR
Sec. 37. Examination of obligor of judgment obligor.
When the return of a writ of execution against the property of a judgment obligor shows
that the judgment remains unsatisfied, in whole or in part, and upon proof to the satisfaction of
the court which issued the writ, that a person, corporation, or other juridical entity has
property of such judgment obligor or is indebted to him, the court may, by an order, require
such person, corporation, or other juridical entity, or any officer or member thereof, to appear

before the court or a commissioner appointed by it, at a time and place within the province or
city where such debtor resides or is found, and be examined concerning the same. The service
of the order shall bind all credits due the judgment obligor and all money and property of the
judgment obligor in the possession or in the control of such person, corporation, or juridical
entity from the time of service; and the court may also require notice of such proceedings to be
given to any party to the action in such manner as it may deem proper.
3.17.9. EFFECT OF JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDERS
Section 47 of Rule 39 provides:
The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in respect to the
probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the
personal, political, or legal condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to
another, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or
administration, or the condition, status or relationship of the person; however, the probate of a
will or granting of letters of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of
the testator or intestate;
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter directly
adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive
between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement
of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in
the same capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that
only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon
its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or
necessary thereto.
What is res judicata?
Res judicata means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing
or matter settled by judgment." It lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree
rendered on the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon
any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all
other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the
points and matters in issue in the first suit.(Selga vs SONY, G.R. No. 175151, September 21,
2011)
Res judicata has two concepts. The first is bar by prior judgment under Rule 39, Section
47(b), and the second is conclusiveness of judgment under Rule 39, Section 47(c).
Jurisprudence taught us well that res judicata under the first concept or as a bar against the
prosecution of a second action exists when there is identity of parties, subject matter and cause
of action in the first and second actions. The judgment in the first action is final as to the claim
or demand in controversy, including the parties and those in privity with them, not only as to
every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as
to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all
matters that could have been adjudged in that case. The case at hand satisfies the essential
requisites of res judicata under the first concept. The RTC is therefore correct in dismissing the
case on the ground of res judicata. EMILIANO S. SAMSON vs. SPOUSES JOSE and GUILLERMINA
GABOR, TANAY RURAL BANK, INC., and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MORONG, RIZA G.R. No.

182970, July 23, 2014, J. Peralta

MTC rendered a decision, which dismissed the complaint for forcible entry filed by the
Dionisios. Thereafter, the complaint for recovery of possession filed by them on the ground
of res judicata. The Court ruled that a judgment rendered in a forcible entry case will not bar an
action between the same parties respecting title or ownership because between a case for
forcible entry and an accion reinvindicatoria, there is no identity of causes of action. Such
determination does not bind the title or affect the ownership of the land; neither is it
conclusive of the facts therein found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause
of action involving possession. SPOUSES MARIO OCAMPO and CARMELITA F. OCAMPO
vs. HEIRS OF BERNARDINO U. DIONISIO, represented by ARTEMIO SJ. DIONISIO G.R. No.
191101, October 1, 2014, J. Reyes
The principle of res judicata is applicable either by way of "bar by prior judgment" or by
"conclusiveness of judgment." Here, Salvador's defense was res judicata by conclusiveness of
judgment. Contrary to Salvador's contention ,however, there appears to be no identity of
issues and facts in the two administrative cases. The first case involved facts necessary to
resolve the issue of whether or not Salvador falsified her PDS. The second one involved facts
necessary to resolve the issue of whether or not Salvador was convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude. Falsification was the main issue in the first case, while it was no longer an
issue in the second case. The only fact to consider in the second administrative complaint is the
fact of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. It must be borne in mind that both
administrative complaints were based on different grounds. The grounds were separate and
distinct from each other and entailed different sets of facts. CECILIA PAGADUAN vs. CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION et al G.R. No. 206379, November 19, 2014, J. Mendoza
The respondent filed two separate complaints of unlawful detainer against the
petitioner. The first case was dismissed by MCTC Compostela Valley Branch upon a finding that
the contract oflease was simulated. The respondent against filed another unlawful detainer
case this time with MCTC Davao. The petitioner contends that the case filed is already barred
by prior judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that there is a bar by prior judgment where there
is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action between the first case where the
judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred. There is
conclusiveness of judgment, on the other hand, where there is identity of parties in the first
and second cases, but no identity of causes of action. Tested against the foregoing, the Court
rules that res judicata, in the concept of bar by prior judgment, applies in this case. ROBERT
AND NENITA DE LEON vs. GILBERT AND ANALYN DELA LLANA G.R. No. 212277, February 11,
2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe
Two aspects of res judicata
Res judicata embraces two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Rule 39,
Section 47(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) conclusiveness of judgment in Rule 39,
Section 47(c).
There is bar by prior judgment when, as between the first case where the judgment
was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties,
subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes
an absolute bar to the second action.
But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of
causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly
controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is the concept
of res judicata known as conclusiveness of judgment. Stated differently, any right, fact or
matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action

before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by
the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies,
whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.
Thus, if a particular point or question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment
will depend on the determination of that particular point or question, a former judgment
between the same parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if that same
point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit. Identity of cause of action is not
required but merely identity of issue.
The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be
final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and
(4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter,
and causes of action. Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action be
shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a bar by prior judgment would
apply. If as between the two cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but not identical
causes of action, then res judicata as conclusiveness of judgment applies. (SOCIAL SECURITY
COMMISSION VS RIZAL POULTRY, G.R. No. 167050, June 1, 2011)
Res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment.
The doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment postulates that when a right
or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or when
an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court, as long as it remains
unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them.
All the elements of the doctrine are present in this case. The final judgment in G.R. No.
167998 was rendered by the Court pursuant to its jurisdiction over the review of decisions and
rulings of the CA. It was a judgment on the merits of Planters Banks right to apply for and be
issued a writ of possession. Lastly, the parties in G.R. No. 167998 are the same parties involved
in the present case. (LZK Holdings and Development Corporation v. Planters Development Bank,
G.R. No. 187973, January 20, 2014)
3.17.10. ENFORCEMENT AND EFFECT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS
Section 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. The effect of a judgment or
final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final
order is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order,
is conclusive upon the title to the thing, and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a
subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
Generally, in the absence of a special contract, no sovereign is bound to give effect
within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country; however, under
the rules of comity, utility and convenience, nations have established a usage among civilized
states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally
respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different
countries. Certainly, the Philippine legal system has long ago accepted into its jurisprudence and

procedural rules the viability of an action for enforcement of foreign judgment, as well as the
requisites for such valid enforcement, as derived from internationally accepted doctrines.
Under Rule 39, Section 48, a foreign judgment or order against a person is merely
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties. It may be repelled, among others, by
want of jurisdiction of the issuing authority or by want of notice to the party against whom it is
enforced. The party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the
presumption of its validity. (ST. AVIATION SERVICES VS GRAND INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS,
G.R. NO. 140288, OCTOBER 23, 2006)
In an action for enforcement of foreign judgment, the Court has limited review over the
decision rendered by the foreign tribunal. The Philippine courts cannot pass upon the merits of
the case pursuant to the incorporation clause of the Constitution, unless there is proof of want
of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. BANK
OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SECURITIES CORPORATION vs. EDGARDO V. GUEVARA G.R. No.
167052, March 11, 2015, J. Leonardo-De Castro