CIVIL PROCEDURE (RULE 3-11)

PART 4: RULE 3 - PARTIES TO THE CIVIL ACTTIONS SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I. Actions; Derivative Suit vs. Class Suit (2005) NO, because the non-joinder of parties is not a ground for
dismissal of action (Rule 3, Sec. 11). The motion to dismiss
Distinguish a Derivative Suit from a Class Suit. should be denied.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Mariano, through his attorney-in-fact, Marcos, filed with the
RTC of Baguio City a complaint for annulment of sale
A DERIVATIVE SUIT is a suit in equity that is filed by a against Henry. Marcos and Henry both reside in Asin Road,
minority shareholder in behalf of a corporation to redress Baguio City, while Mariano resides in Davao City. Henry filed
wrongs committed against it, for which the directors refuse to a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of
sue, the real party in interest being the corporation itself (Lint prematurity for failure to comply with the mandatory
v. Lim-Yu, G.IL No. 138343, February 19, 2001), barangay conciliation. Resolve the motion with reasons.
(3%)
while a CLASS SUIT is filed regarding a controversy of
common or general interest in behalf of many persons so SUGGESTED ANSWER:
numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a
number which the court finds sufficiently representative who The motion to dismiss should be denied because the parties
may sue or defend for the benefit of all. (Sec. 12, Rule 3) It is in interest, Mariano and Henry, do not reside in the same
worth noting that a derivative suit is a representative suit, just city/municipality, or is the property subject of the controversy
like a class suit. situated therein. The required conciliation/mediation before
the proper Barangay as mandated by the Local Government
Code governs only when the parties in dispute reside in the
same city or municipality, and if involving real property as in
II. Parties; Death of a Party; Effect (1999) this case, the property must be situated also in the same city
or municipality.
What is the effect of the death of a party upon a pending
action? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: V. Parties; Death of a Party; Effect (1999)

1. When the claim in a pending action is purely personal, the When A (buyer) failed to pay the remaining balance of the
death of either of the parties extinguishes the claim and the contract price after it became due and demandable, B
action is dismissed. (seller) sued him for collection before the RTC. After both
parties submitted their respective evidence, A perished in a
1 When the claim is not purely personal and is not thereby
plane accident. Consequently, his heirs brought an action for
extinguished, the party should be substituted by his heirs or
the settlement of his estate and moved for the dismissal of
his executor or administrator. (Sec. 16, Rule 3)
the collection suit.
2 If the action is for recovery of money arising from contract,
1 Will you grant the motion? Explain. (2%)
express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of
final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at 2 Will your answer be the same if A died while the case is
the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall already on appeal to the Court of Appeals? Explain. (2%)
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced In the same case, what is the effect if B died before the RTC
in the manner provided in the rules for prosecuting claims has rendered judgment? (2%)
against the estate of a deceased person. (Sec. 20, Rule 3)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1 No, because the action will not be dismissed but shall

III. Non-joinder of parties (2017) instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment.
(Id.)
Hanna, a resident of Manila, filed a complaint for the partition
of a large tract of land located in Oriental Mindoro. She 2 No. If A died while the case was already on appeal in the
impleaded her two brothers John and Adrian as defendants Court of Appeals, the case will continue because there is no
but did not implead Leica and Agatha, her two sisters who entry yet of final judgment. (Id.)
were permanent residents of Australia.
3 The effect is the same. The action will not be dismissed but
Arguing that there could be no final determination of the case will be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. (Id.)
without impleading all indispensable parties, John and Adrian
moved to dismiss the complaint.

Does the trial court have a reason to deny the motion?

Explain your answer. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the trial court has a reason to deny the motion to

dismiss. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure,
non-joinder of parties, eve indispensable ones, is not a
ground of a motion to dismiss. [S11 R3; Vesagas v.CA, 371
SCRA 508 (2001)]

IV. Partition; Non-joinder (2009); Katarungang

Pambarangay; Parties (2009)

Florencio sued Guillermo for partition of a property they

owned in common. Guillermo filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint because Florencio failed to implead Hernando and
Inocencio, the other co-owners of the property. As judge, will
you grant the motion to dismiss? Explain. (3%)
 CIVIL PROCEDURE (RULE 3-11)
A, a resident of Lingayen, Pangasinan sued X, a resident of
San Fernando La Union in the RTC (RTC) of Quezon City for
the collection of a debt of P1 million. X did not file a motion to
dismiss for improper venue but filed his answer raising
therein improper venue as an affirmative defense. He also
filed a counterclaim for P80,000 against A for attorney's fees
PART 2: RULE 4 – VENUE OF ACTIONS
and expenses for litigation. X moved for a preliminary
I. Civil Procedure: Venue (2016) hearing on said affirmative defense. For his part, A filed a
motion to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction.
Eduardo, a resident of the City of Manila, filed before the
Regional Trial Court (R TC) of Manila a complaint for the 1 Rule on the affirmative defense of improper venue. [3%]
annulment of a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage he signed in
2 Rule on the motion to dismiss the counterclaim on the
favor of Galaxy Bank (Galaxy), and the consequent·
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. [2%]
foreclosure and auction sale of his mortgaged Makati
property. Galaxy filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
improper venue alleging that the complaint should be filed
with the RTC of Makati since the complaint involves the 1. There is improper venue. The case for a sum of money,
ownership and possession of Eduardo's lot. Resolve the which was filed in Quezon City, is a personal action. It must
motion with reasons. (5%) be filed in the residence of either the plaintiff, which is in
Pangasinan, or of the defendant, which is in San Fernando,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: La Union. (Sec. 2 of Rule 4) The fact that it was not raised in
a motion to dismiss does not matter because the rule that if
The Motion to dismiss should be granted. An action for
improper venue is not raised in a motion to dismiss it is
nullification of the mortgage documents and foreclosure of
deemed waived was removed from the 1997 Rules of Civil
the mortgaged property is a real action that affects the title to
Procedure. The new Rules provide that if no motion to
the property; thus, venue of the real action is before the
dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal may
court having jurisdiction over the territory in which the
be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer. (Sec. 6
property lies (Jimmy T. Go v. United Coconut Planters Bank,
of Rule 16.)
G.R. No. 156187, November 11, 2004; Chua v. Total Office
Products & Services, G.R. No. 152808, September 30, 2. The motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
2005). over the subject matter should be denied. The counterclaim
for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is a compulsory
In Fortune Motors v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112191,
counterclaim because it necessarily arose out of and is
February 7, 1997), the Supreme Courtalso held that an
connected with the complaint. In an original action before the
action to annul a foreclosure sale of a real estate mortgage
RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory
is no different from an action to annul a private sale of real
regardless of the amount. (Sec. 7 of Rule 6)
property. 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 III. Venue; Personal Actions (1997)
building which, under the law, is considered immovable
property, the recoveryof which is petitioner’s primary X, a resident of Angeles City, borrowed P300,000.00 from A,
objective. a resident of Pasay City. In the loan agreement, the parties
stipulated that "the parties agree to sue and be sued in the
The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or City of Manila."
rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to
efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the a) In case of nonpayment of the loan, can A file his complaint
case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action to collect the loan from X in Angeles City?
(Paglaum Management & Development Corporation v. Union
Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179018, June 18, 2012). b) Suppose the parties did not stipulate in the loan
agreement as to the venue, where can A file his complaint
Being a real action, it shall be commenced and tried in the against X?
proper court which has jurisdiction over the area where the
real property involved. or a portion thereof, is situated c) Suppose the parties stipulated in their loan agreement that
(Section 1, Rule 4, Rules of Court). The complaint should be "venue for all suits arising from this contract shall be the
filed in the RTC of Makati where the mortgaged property is courts in Quezon City," can A file his complaint against X in
situated. Pasay City?

[NOTE: Under the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Procedure, improper venue is no longer a valid ground for a
Motion to Dismiss. However, it may be raised as an (a) Yes, because the stipulation in the loan agreement that
affirmative defense, Section 12, Rule 8] "the parties agree to sue and be sued in the City of Manila"
does not make Manila the "exclusive venue thereof." (Sec, 4
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER of Rule 4, as amended by Circular No. 13 95: Sec. 4 of new
Rule 4) Hence, A can file his complaint in Angeles City where
The motion to dismiss should be denied. An action for the he resides, (Sec, 2 of Rule 4).
annulment of a real estate mortgage is a personal action,
which may be commenced and tried where the defendant or (b) If the parties did not stipulate on the venue, A can file his
any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the complaint either in Angeles City where he resides or in
plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides or may be found, at the Pasay City where X resides, (Id).
election of plaintiff (Sec. 2, Rule 4, Rules of Court; Chua v.
Total Office Products & Services, G.R. No. 152808, (c) Yes, because the wording of the stipulation does not
September 30, 2005; Orbeta v. Orbeta, G.R. No. 166837, make Quezon City the exclusive venue. (Philbanking v.
November 27, 2006). Since the plaintiff resides in Manila, Tensuan. 230 SCRA 413; Unimasters Conglomeration, Inc.
the complaint was properly filed in RTC of Manila v. CA. CR-119657, Feb. 7, 1997)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: (c) No. If the parties stipulated

that the venue "shall be in the courts in Quezon City", A
II. Venue; Improper Venue; Compulsory Counterclaim (1998) cannot file his complaint in Pasay City because the use of
the word "shall" makes Quezon City the exclusive venue
thereof. (Hoechst Philippines vs. Torres, 83 SCRA 297).
 CIVIL PROCEDURE (RULE 3-11)
Toto nor Atty.Arman were duly authorized by the other
petitioners through a special power of attorney to sign on
their behalf; hence, the motion to dismiss should be granted.

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion to dismiss should be denied, because there is

substantial compliance of the requirements of the rules.
PART 3: RULE 6-11 Verification is not a jurisdictional but merely a formal
requirement which the court may motu proprio direct a party
I. Actions; Counterclaim vs. Crossclaim (1999)
to comply with are correct, as the case may be. On the other
Distinguish a counterclaim from a crossclaim. (2%) hand, regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping, the
general rule is that all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case
SUGGESTED ANSWER: should sign it. However, the Supreme Court has time and
again stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were
A counterclaim is distinguished from a CROSSCLAIM in that designed to promote the orderly administration of justice, do
a cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party not interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under
arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject justifiable circumstances. As ruled by the Court, the
matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim signature of any of the principal petitioners or principal
therein. A counterclaim is against an opposing party while a parties, would constitute a substantial compliance with the
cross-claim is against a co-party. (Sec. 8, Rule 6) rule on verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
And should there exist a commonality of interest among the
II. Actions; Cross-Claims; Third Party Claims (1997) parties, or where the parties filed the case as a collective,
raising only one common cause of action or presenting a
B and C borrowed P400,000.00 from A. The promissory note common defense, then the signature of one of the petitioners
was executed by B and C in a Joint and several capacity. B, or complainants, acting as representative, is sufficient
who received the money from A, gave C P200,000.00. C, in compliance (Irene Marcos-Araneta v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
turn, loaned P100,000.00 out of the P200,000.00 he No. 154096, August 22, 2008). Evidently, since there is a
received to D. commonality of interest among Tailors Toto, Nelson and
Yenyen, there is substantial compliance with the rules on
a) In an action filed by A against B and C with the RTC of
verification and certification against forum shopping, when
Quezon City, can B file a cross-claim against C for the
Toto signed the verification and certification, and Atty. Arman
amount of P200,000.00?
signed the same for Nelson.
b) Can C file a third-party complaint against D for the amount
of P 100,000.00?
IV. 2015
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aldrin entered into a contract to sell with Neil over a parcel of
(a) Yes. B can file a cross-claim against C for the amount of
land. The contract stipulated a P500,000.00 down payment
200,000.00 given to C. A cross-claim is a claim filed by one
upon signing and the balance payable in twelve (12)
party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
monthly installments of P100,000.00. Aldrin paid the
occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or
down payment and had paid three (3) monthly installments
a counterclaim therein and may include a claim that the party
when he found out that Neil had sold the same property to
against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-
Yuri for P1.5 million paid in cash. Aldrin sued Neil for specific
claimant for all or part of a claim asserted against the
performance with damages with the RTC. Yuri, with leave of
crossclaimant. (Sec. 8 Rule 6)
court, filed an answer-in-intervention as he had already
(b) No, C cannot file a third-party complaint against D obtained a TCT in his name. After trial, the court rendered
because the loan of P100,000 has no connection with the judgment ordering Aldrin to pay all the installments due, the
opponent's claim. C could have loaned the money out of cancellation of Yuri's title, and Neil to execute a deed of sale
other funds in his possession. in favor of Aldrin. When the judgment became final and
executory, Aldrin paid Neil all the installments but the latter
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: refused to execute the deed of sale in favor of the former.
Aldrin filed a "Petition for the Issuance of a Writ
Yes, C can file a third-party complaint against D because the of Execution" with proper notice of hearing. The petition
loan of 100,000.00 was taken out of the P200,000 received alleged, among others, that the decision had become
from B and hence the loan seeks contribution in respect to final and executory and he is entitled to the issuance
his opponent's claim. (Sec. 11 of Rule 6) of the writ of execution as a matter of right. Neil filed a
motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it lacked the
III. Civil Procedure: Pleadings; Certification Against Forum required certification against forum shopping.
Shopping (2016)
Should the court grant Neil's Motion to Dismiss? (3%)
Tailors Toto, Nelson and Yenyen filed a special civil action for Despite the issuance of the writ of execution directing Neil to
certiorari under Rule 65 from an adverse decision of the execute the deed of sale in favor of Aldrin, the former
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on the obstinately refused to execute the deed.
complaint for illegal dismissal against Empire Textile
Corporation. They were terminated on the ground that they SUGGESTED ANSWER:
failed to meet the prescribed production quota at least four
No, the court should not grant Neil’s Motion to Dismiss.
(4) times. The NLRC, decision was assailed in a special civil
action under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In Under Section 5 of Rule 7, a certification against forum
the verification and certification against forum shopping, only shopping is required only for initiatory pleadings or petitions.
Toto signed the verification and certification, while Atty.
Arman signed for Nelson. Empire filed a motion to dismiss Here the “Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution,”
on the ground of defective verification and certification. although erroneously denominated as a petition is actually a
Decide with reasons. (5% motion for issuance of a writ of execution under Rule 39.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion to dismiss should be granted. The V. Forum Shopping; Effects; Lack of Certification (2006)
verification and certification of non-forum shopping were
not signed by all the petitioners. There was no showing that
 CIVIL PROCEDURE (RULE 3-11)
Honey filed with the Regional Trial Court, Taal, Batangas a VII. 2017
complaint for specific performance against Bernie. For lack
of certification against forum shopping, the judge dismissed On the basis of an alleged promissory note executed by
the complaint. Honey's lawyer filed a motion for Harold in favor of Ramon, the latter filed a complaint for
reconsideration, attaching thereto an amended complaint ₱950,000.00 against the former in the RTC of Davao City. In
with the certification against forum shopping. If you were the an unverified answer, Harold specifically denied the
judge, how will you resolve the motion? (5%) genuineness of the promissory note. During the trial, Harold
sought to offer the testimonies of the following: (1) the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: testimony of an NBI handwriting expert to prove the forgery
of his signature; and (2) the testimony of a credible witness
If I were the judge, the motion should be denied after hearing to prove that if ever Harold had executed the note in favor of
because, as expressly provided in the Rules, failure to Ramon, the same was not supported by a consideration.
comply with the requirement of forum shopping is not curable
by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory May Ramon validly object to the proposed testimonies? Give
pleading, but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case, a brief explanation of your answer. (5%)
without prejudice, unless otherwise provided (Sec. 5, Rule 7,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). However, the trial court in SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the exercise of its sound discretion, may choose to be liberal
1) Ramon may validly object to the proposed testimony of
and consider the amendment as substantial compliance
an NBI handwriting expert to prove forgery.
(Great Southern Maritime Services Corp. v. Acuna, G.R. No.
140189, February 28,2005; Chan v. RTC of Zamboanga del Under S8 R8, the genuineness and due execution of an
Norte, G.R. No. 149253, April 15, 2004; Uy v. Land Bank, actionable document is deemed admitted by the adverse
G.R. 136100, July 24, 2000). party if he fails to specifically deny such genuineness and
due execution.
VI. 2018
Here the genuineness and due execution of the promissory
Dorton Inc. (Dorton) sued Debra Commodities Inc. (Debra), note, which is an actionable document, was impliedly
Daniel, and Debbie in the RTC of Manila for recovery of sum admitted by Harold when he failed to deny the same
of money. The complaint alleged that, on October 14, 2017, under oath, his answer being unverified. Hence
Debra obtained a loan from Dorton in the amount of PhP 10 Harold is precluded from setting up the defense of forgery
million with interest of 9% per annum. The loan was and thus Ramon may object to the proposed testimony
evidenced by a promissory note (PN) payable on demand seeking to prove forgery.
signed by Daniel and Debbie, the principal stockholders of
Debra, who also executed a surety agreement binding 2) Ramon may not validly object to the proposed testimony
themselves as sureties. Copies of both the PN and the showing that the note was not supported by a consideration.
surety agreement were attached to the complaint. Dorton
further alleged that it made a final demand on March 1, 2018 The Supreme Court has held that an implied admission
for Debra and the sureties to pay, but the demand was not under S8 R8does not preclude the adverse party
heeded. from introducing evidence that the actionable document
was not supported by a consideration. The reason is that
Debra, Daniel, and Debbie filed their answer, and raised the such evidence is not inconsistent with the implied admission
affirmative defense that, while the PN and the surety of genuineness and due execution. [Acabal v. Acabal, 31
agreement appeared to exist, Daniel and Debbie were March 2005]
uncertain whether the signatures on the documents were
theirs. The PN and the surety agreement were pre-marked The fact that the defense of lack of consideration is
during pre-trial, identified but not authenticated during trial, inconsistent with Harold’s defense of forgery is also not
and formally offered. objectionable.

Can the RTC of Manila consider the PN and the surety Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may set forth two
agreement in rendering its decision? (5%) or more statements of defense alternatively or hypothetically.
[S2 R8]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the RTC of Manila may consider the PN and the surety
agreement in rendering its decision. VIII. Default; Remedies; Party Declared in Default (2006)

The PN and the surety agreement are actionable Jojie filed with the Regional Trial Court of Laguna a
documents, defined under Rule 8, Section 7 of the Rules of complaint for damages against Joe. During the pre-trial, Jojie
Court as a written instrument upon which an action is and her counsel failed to appear despite notice to both of
founded upon Rule 8, Section 8, moreover, provides that them. Upon oral motion of Jojie, Joe was declared as in
when an action is founded upon a written instrument, copied default and Jojie was allowed to present her evidence ex
in or attached to the corresponding pleading, the palte. Thereafter, the court rendered its Decision in favor of
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be Jojie.
deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath
specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be Joe hired Jose as his counsel. What are the remedies
the facts. available to him? Explain. 5%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In this case, Debra, Daniel, and Debbie are parties to the PN The remedies available to a party against whom a default
and the surety agreement. Since the PN and surety decision is rendered are as follows:
agreement are attached to the complaint, Debra, Daniel, and
1. BEFORE the judgment in default becomes final and
Debbie are deemed to have admitted the genuineness and
executory: Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 37; Motion
due execution thereof for their failure to: (a) deny the
for New Trial under Rule 37; and
genuineness and due execution of these documents under
oath; and (b) to set for what they claim to be facts. 2. AFTER the judgment But BEFORE its finality: he may file
a motion for new trial MNTon the grounds of FAMES and
The court, therefore, may consider the PN and the surety
that he has a meritorious defense, or a MR on the ground of
agreement in rendering its decision.
excessive damages, insufficient evidence or decision or final
order contrary to law. Thereafter, it the motion is denied,
appeal available to rules 41 or rule 42 whichever applicable.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE (RULE 3-11)
2. AFTER the judgment in default becomes final and Robert complied. In his promissory note dated September
executory: Appeal under Rule 41; Petition for Relief under 20, 2006, Robert undertook to pay the loan within a year
Rule 38; Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47; and c. from its date at 12% per annum interest. In June 2007,
Certiorari under Rule 65. (See Talsan Enterprises, Inc. v. Arturo requested Robert to pay ahead of time but the latter
Baliwag Transit, Inc., G.R. No. 126258, July 8, 1999) refused and insisted on the agreement. Arturo issued a
demand letter and when Robert did not comply, Arturo filed
an action to foreclose the mortgage. Robert moved to
dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action as the debt
was not yet due. The resolution of the motion to dismiss was
delayed because of the retirement of the judge.
IX. Default (2001)

Mario was declared in default but before judgment was

rendered, he decided to file a motion to set aside the order of On October 1, 2007, pending resolution of the motion to
default. dismiss, Arturo filed an amended complaint alleging that
Robert's debt had in the meantime become due but that
a) What should Mario state in his motion in order to justify
Robert still refused to pay.
the setting aside of the order of default? (3%)
Should the amended complaint be allowed considering that
b) In what form should such motion be? (2%)
no answer has been filed? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Would your answer be different had Arturo filed instead a
a) In order to justify the setting aside of the order of default, supplemental complaint stating that the debt became due
Mario should state in his motion that his failure to answer after the filing of the original complaint? (2%)
was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and that he has a meritorious defense. [Sec. 3(b) of Rule 9,].
No, the complaint may not be amended under the
b) The motion should be under oath. (Id.)
circumstances. A complaint may be amended as of right
before answer (Sec. 2, Rule 10; See Ong Peng vs. Custodio,
G.R. No. 14911, 12 March 1961; Toyota Motors [Phils} vs.
X. Default; Order of Default; Effects (1999) C.A., G.R. No. 102881, 07 December 1992; RCPI vs. C.A.,
G.R. No. 121397, 17 April 1997, citing Prudence Realty &
1. When may a party be declared in default? (2%) Dev‟t. Corp. vs. C.A., G.R. No. 110274, 21 March 1994;
Soledad vs. Mamangun, 8 SCRA 110), but the amendment
2 What is the effect of an Order of Default? (2%)
should refer to facts which occurred prior to the filing of the
3 For failure to seasonably file his Answer despite due original complaint. It thus follows that a complaint whose
notice, A was declared in default in a case instituted against cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured or
him by B. The following day, A's mistress who is working as a remedied by an amended or supplemental pleading alleging
clerk in the sala of the Judge before whom his case is the existence or accrual of a cause of action while the case
pending, informed him of the declaration of default. On the is pending (Swagman Hotels & Travel, Inc. vs. C.A., G.R.
same day, A presented a motion under oath to set aside the No. 161135, 08 April 2005).
order of default on the ground that his failure to answer was
(b) Would your answer be different had Arturo filed instead a
due to fraud and he has a meritorious defense. Thereafter,
supplemental complaint stating that the debt became due
he went abroad. After his return a week later, with the case
after the filing of the original complaint?
still undecided, he received the order declaring him in
default. The motion to set aside default was opposed by B SUGGESTED ANSWER:
on the ground that it was filed before A received notice of his
having been declared in default, citing the rule that the A supplemental complaint may be filed with leave of court to
motion to set aside may be made at anytime after notice but allege an event that arose after the filing of the original
before judgment. Resolve the Motion. (2%) complaint that should have already contained a cause of
action (Sec. 6, Rule 10). However, if no cause of action is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: alleged in the original complaint, it cannot be cured by the
filing of a supplement or amendment to allege the
1. A party may be declared in default when he fails to answer
subsequent acquisition of a cause of action (Swagman
within the time allowed therefor, and upon motion of the
Hotels & Travel, Inc. vs. C.A., G.R. No. 161135, 08 April
claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of
2005).
such failure. (Sec. 3, Rule 9)

2. The effect of an Order of Default is that the court may

proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief
XII. Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint; Matter of Right
as his pleading may warrant unless the court in its discretion
(2005)
requires the claimant to submit evidence (Id.) The party in
default cannot take part in the trial but shall be entitled to On May 12, 2005, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the RTC of
notice of subsequent proceedings. (Sec. 3[A]) Quezon City for the collection of P250,000.00. The
defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
3. Assuming that the motion to set aside complies with the
ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the action since
other requirements of the rule, it should be granted. Although
the claimed amount of P250,000.00 is within the exclusive
such a motion may be made after notice but before judgment
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, of Quezon City.
(Sec. 3[B] of Rule 9), with more reason may it be filed after
Before the court could resolve the motion, the plaintiff,
discovery even before receipt of the order of default.
without leave of court, amended his complaint to allege a
new cause of action consisting in the inclusion of an
additional amount of P200,000.00, thereby increasing his
total claim to P450,000.000. The plaintiff thereafter filed his
opposition to the motion to dismiss, claiming that the RTC
XI. Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint (2008) had jurisdiction, over his action. Rule on the motion of the
defendant with reasons. (4%)
Arturo lent P1 Million to his friend Robert on the condition
that Robert execute a promissory note for the loan and a real SUGGESTED ANSWER:
estate mortgage over his property located in Tagaytay City.
 CIVIL PROCEDURE (RULE 3-11)
The motion to dismiss should be denied. Basic is the rule
that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. Under
the Rules, a pleader may amend his pleading as a matter of
right before the other party has served his responsive
pleading. (Sec. 2, Rule 10, Rules of Court) The court, in
allowing the amendment, would not be acting without
jurisdiction because allowing an amendment as a matter of
right does not require the exercise of discretion. The court
therefore would not be "acting" and thus, could not have
acted without jurisdiction. It would have been different had
the amendments been made after a responsive pleading had
been served. The court then would have been exercising its
discretion in allowing or disallowing the amendment. It
cannot do so however, because it would be then acting on
an amendment of a complaint over which it has no
jurisdiction. (Soledad v. Mamangun, G.R. No. L-17983, May
30, 1963; Gumabay v. Baralin, G.R. No. L-30683, May 31,
1977; Prudence Realty v. CA, G.R. No. 110274, March 21,
1994)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The motion to dismiss should be granted. Jurisdiction must

be conferred by the contents of the original complaint.
Amendments are not proper and should be denied where the
court has no jurisdiction over the original complaint and the
purpose of the amendment is to confer jurisdiction on the
court. (Rosario v. Carandang, G.R. No. L-7076, April 28,
1955) While a plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint
before a responsive pleading is served (Sec. 2, Rule 10,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Remington Industrial Sales
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133657, May 29,
2002), still, a complaint cannot be amended to confer
jurisdiction on a court where there was none to begin with.

XIII. Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint; By Leave of Court

(2003)

After an answer has been filed, can the plaintiff amend his
complaint, with leave of court, by changing entirely the
nature of the action? 4%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the present rules allow amendments substantially

altering the nature of the cause of action. (Sec. 3, Rule 10,
1977 Rules of Civil Procedure; Heirs of Marcelino Pagobo v.
Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 870 [1997]).

This should only be true, however, when the substantial

change or alteration in the cause of action or defense shall
serve the higher interests of substantial justice and prevent
delay and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules
which is to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition
of every action and proceeding. (Valenzuela v. Court of
Appeals, 363 SCRA 779 [2001]).
 CIVIL PROCEDURE (RULE 3-11)

PART 4: Verification and Certification of Non-Forum

Shopping
PART 5: Civil Procedure Flowchart
VERICATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING
I, ___, of legal age, with office address at ___, after having
been sworn in accordance with law do hereby depose and I, __, of legal age, with office address at __, after having
say: been sworn in accordance with law do hereby depose and
1. I am the Plaintiff/Petitioner in the instant case; say:
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing
1. I am the plaintiff/petitioner in the instant case;
Complaint/Petition and that based on my own
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing
personal knowledge and authentic records, the
complaint/petition and that based on my own
facts stated therein is true and correct.
personal knowledge and authentic records, the
3. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause
facts stated therein is true and correct.
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the
3. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause
cost of the litigation: and
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the
4. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary
cost of litigation; and
support (or will likewise have evidentiary support
4. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary
after a reasonable opportunity for discovery).
support or will likewise to have evidentiary support
5. I hereby certify that no petition or proceeding of a
after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
similar nature has been filed in any office, court or
5. I hereby certify that no petition or proceeding of
with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court or
similar nature has been filed in any office, court or
any government agency or instrumentality for that
Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court or any
matter, and should I learn of any of such case
government agency or instrumentality for that
being pending or filed in such agencies or courts
matter, and should I learn of any of such case
above-mentioned, I undertake to inform the
being pending or filed in such agencies or courts
Honorable Court or any government
above-mentioned, I undertake to inform the
instrumentalities having jurisdiction of this case of
Honorable Court or any government
the existence or pendency of such proceeding or
instrumentalities having jurisdiction of the case the
action, within five (5) calendar days from
existence or pendency of such proceeding or
knowledge of such fact.
action, within five calendar days from the
knowledge of such fact.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature on
this ____ at ____. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my
signature on this 4th of July at Cebu City,Philippines.

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ____ at SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 4 th
____, affiant exhibiting to me his Gov’t ID No. ___, issued at of July at Cebu City, Philippines, the affiant exhibiting to
___ on ___. me Government ID No. 123, issued at Cebu City on
January 1, 2023.

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No. Doc
Series of 2023.
Page

Book

Series of 2023.
CIVIL PROCEDURE (RULE 3-11)