Part I: Ordinary Civil Actions procedure in order that courts may be able to administer Cannot be enacted by the Can

be enacted by the Can be enacted by the

justice. Supreme Court, but only by Supreme Court pursuant to
Chapter I: General Principles Congress its rule making power
They may be given retroactive effect on (a) actions embodied in the
Rule 1, Sec. 1. Title of the Rules – These Rules shall be pending and undetermined at the time of their passage Constitution.
known and cited as the Rules of Court and (b) this will not violate any right of a person who may
feel that he is adversely affected, insomuch as there are no 7. Retrospective Application of Procedural Laws:
vested rights in the rules of procedure. Reason: Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Payment of
I. General Principles
Docket Fees
5. Nature of Procedural Rules/Adjective Law: Purpose
A. Basic Concepts in Remedial Law
Panay Railways, Inc. v. Heva Management and Dev.
Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt v. VA Magsalin, Corp., (2012). Reason: GR: No vested right may attach to
1. What is Remedial law? Concept of Remedial Law
(2011). Adjective law ensures the effective enforcement or arise from procedural laws and rules. A person has no
of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy vested right in any particular remedy, and a litigant cannot
Bustos v. Lucero. Remedial law is that branch of law
administration of justice. They help provide for a vital insist on the application to the trial of his case, whether
which prescribes the method of enforcing the rights or
system of justice where suitors may be heard following civil or criminal, of any other than the existing rules of
obtaining redress for their invasions.
judicial procedure and in the correct forum. Public order procedure. More so when, as in this case, petitioner adits
and out system of justice are well served by a that it was not able to pay the docket fees on time.
2. What is a Remedial Statute?
conscientious observance by the parties of the procedural
rules. 8. “Fresh-Period Rule” a Procedural Law: Retroactive
Castro v. Sagales. Remedial statutes refers to the Statutes
Application
relating to (a) remedies or (b) modes of procedure which
6. What are the Distinctions between Substantive Law
do not create new or take away vested rights, but only
and Procedural law? Jose v. Javellana. The “fresh period rule” is a procedural
operate in furtherance of the (a) remedy or (b)
law as it prescribes a fresh period of 15 days within which
confirmation of rights already existing, do not come within
Substantive Law Procedural Law an appeal may be made in the event that the MR (or new
the legal conception of a retrospective law, or the general
(a) Creates, defines and Provides for the legislation trial) is denied by the lower court. Following the rule on
rule against the retrospective operation of statutes.
regulates (CDR) rights providing means and retroactivity of procedural laws, the “fresh period rule”
concerning life liberty and methods whereby (a) should be applied to pending actions, such as the present
3. What are the mechanics of Due Process as Part of
property or (b) the powers causes of action are case.
Remedial law?
of agencies or effectuated, (b) wrongs
instrumentalities for the redressed and (c) relief 9. Power to Promulgate Rules of Procedure Lodged
Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. CA. Remedial law
administration of public obtained (CE-WR-RO) with the SC: Constitutional Basis
provides for the mechanics of due process which are:
affairs
Cannot be waived Can be waived or subject to • See Art. VIII, Sec. 5, par. 5 in constitutional
(a) A court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear
the agreement of the provisions, infra
and determine the matter before it;
parties
(b) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person
of the defendant or over the property; Makes vested rights Has no vested rights a. SC has the Sole Power to Amend, Repeal, or
(c) The defendant must be given an opportunity to be Prospective in application GR: Prospective in Establish New Rules
heard; and application
(d) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. Neypes v. CA. The SC has the sole power to amend, repeal
(e) Judgment must show the facts and the law on which XPN: Can be given or even establish new rules for a more simplified and
it is based retroactive application in inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases
cases pending and
undetermined at the time GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero. Unlike the 1935 and 1973
4. Meaning of Procedural Law
of their passage and this Constitutions, which empowered Congress to repeal or
will not violate and right of supplement the rules of the SC concerning pleading,
Jose v. Javellana, (2012). Procedural Law refers to the
a person who may feel that practice, and procedure, the 1987 Constitution removed
adjective law which prescribes rules and forms of
he is adversely affected. this power from the Congress
10. What is the Nature of the ROC? what the promulgated law according to the common
is precepts of what is right R.A. The law creating the CTA, and for other purposes
Alvero v. De la Rosa. The rules embodied in the ROC are and just without inquiring 1125
not laws in the strict sense of the word since they did not into the terms of the R.A. An Act (1) Expanding the Jurisdiction of the CTA,
emanate from the legislature, but since they were statute 9282 (2) Elevating its Rank to the level of a Collegiate
promulgated under authority of law, such rules have the Court with Special Jurisdiction and (3) Enlarging its
force and effect of law. U.S. Tamparong. In the Philippines, every court, both Membership, amending for the purposes R.A.
original and appellate, exercises both legal and equitable 1125, otherwise known as the law creating the
11. Application of the ROC jurisdictions CTA, and for other purposes

Rule 1, Sec. 2. In what courts applicable — These Rules 14. What are the Different Courts in the Philippines? (4) RTC
shall apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided
by the Supreme Court. a. Constitutional court – SC B.P. An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating
129 Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes otherwise
a. Courts where the ROC will apply • Only the SC is created by the Constitution known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
• Sandiganbayan is constitutionally-mandated not (August 14, 1981)
(a) SC constitutionally created
(b) CA (5) Shari’ah District Courts
(c) Sandiganbayan Art. XI, Sec. 4. The present anti-graft court known as the
(d) CTA Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its P.D. Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines
(e) RTC jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law. 1083 (CMPLP)
(f) MTC, MeTC, MCTC
b. Statutory courts – courts which are established by
12. Distinction Between Court and Judge law (6) MTC, MeTC, MeCTC, MCTC

Court Judge (1) CA B.P. An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating

A tribunal clothed with
power and authority to
entertain and resolve legal
disputes between the
parties to carry out the
dispensation of justice in
accordance with law
More of a permanent
status of existence
An organ of the
government with a
personality separate and
distinct from the person
A being in imagination
comparable to a
corporation
Office
13. Court of Law and Court of Equity
Court of Law
Decides a case according to
A public officer who
exercises the power of the
court in the dispensation of
justice
Merely temporary
Has no separate personality
A physical person
Public officer
Court of Equity
Adjudicates a controversy
B.P. An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating
129 Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes otherwise
known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
(August 14, 1981)
(2) SDB
P.D. Creating a Special Court known as
1486 “Sandiganbayan” and for other Purposes
P.D. Revising P.D. 1486 creating a special court known
1606 as “Sandiganbayan” and for other purposes
R.A. An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the
8249 Sandiganbayan, Amending for the Purpose P.D.
1606, as amended, Providing Funds Therefore
and for Other Purposes
R.A. An Act Strengthening Further the Functional and
10660 Structural Organization (FSO) of the
Sandiganbayan, further amending P.D. 1606, as
amended, and appropriating funds therefor
(3) CTA
129 Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes otherwise
known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
(August 14, 1981)
R.A. An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the MeTC,
7691 MTC and MCTC, amending for the purpose B.P.
129, otherwise known as the “Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980”
(7) Shari’ah Circuit Courts
P.D. Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines
1083 (CMPLP)
15. Courts Outside the Judicial System
a. Tribal Courts are advisory and Conciliatory Bodies
Sps. Badua v. Cordillera Bodong Administration, (1991).
Tribal courts are courts which are existing under the
customs and traditions of an indigenous cultural
community (CT-ICC) and are not part of the Philippine
Judicial System. Like the pangkat or conciliation panels
created by P.D. 1508, in the barangay, they are advisory 18. Application of the ROC governed by the Procedure (Rule the absence of
and conciliatory bodies. Decisions of a tribunal based on a rules for ordinary 110-127) special
compromise may be enforced or set aside, in and through Rule 1, Sec. 3. Cases governed — These Rules shall govern civil actions (Art. provisions, the
the regular courts only. the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal 1-56), subject to rules provided
and special proceedings. the specific rules for in ordinary
b. Military Commissions or Tribunal Not Judicial Courts prescribed for a actions shall be,
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another special civil as far as
Olaguer v. Military Commission. This is not a court of law for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the action (Rule 62- practicable,
and does not form part of the judicial system and process. prevention or redress of a wrong, (1a, R2) 71) applicable in
They are not courts but agencies of executive character. special
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are proceedings.
Their decisions are not appealable to the courts but would governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to (Rule 72-109)
pass the reviewing and conferring authority, but the SC the specific rules prescribed for a special civil action. (n) May involve two Involves the GR: May involve
may exercise its supervision or correcting power over or more parties State against the only one party
court-martial proceedings when (a) jurisdictional errors (b) A criminal action is one by which the State accused
are involved or (b) when there is grave abuse of prosecutes a person for an act or omission Initiated by a Initiated by a Initiated by a
discretion. punishable by law. (n) complaint, or in complaint – (a) is petition
(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party some special civil a sworn written
A military commission or tribunal cannot try and exercise seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular actions, a statement (b)
jurisdiction over civilians for offenses allegedly committed fact. petition (63-66, charging a
by them as long as the civil courts are open and 71) or Verified person with an
functioning. Any judgment rendered by such body relating 19. What are the Kinds of Actions under the Rules? Statement of offense (c)
to a civilian is null and void for lack of jurisdiction on the Claims in Small subscribed by the
part of the military tribunal concerned. • See Rule 1, Sec. 3(a), (b) and (c) Claims cases (1) offended (2)
party, any peace
c. Nature of Military Courts 20. What are the Kinds of Civil Actions under The Rules officer, or (3)
other public
Ruffy v. Chief of Staff of the Philippine Army, (2012). The a. Ordinary civil actions Rule (1-56) - officer charged
Court did not hold that the word “court” in general used in b. Special civil actions (62-71) with the
our Constitution does not include Court-Martial; what the c. Actions under the Rules on Summary Procedure enforcement of
Court held is that the words “inferior courts” used in the law violated
connection with the appellate jurisdiction of the SC to 21. What are the Distinctions Between Civil Action, (Rule 110, Sec. 3)
“review on appeal certiorari or writ of error, as the law or Criminal Action and Special Proceeding? (DRPC-)
rules of court may provide, final judgments of inferior and information
courts in all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is Civil Action Criminal Action Special (1) is an
death or life imprisonment,” as provided in Art. VIII, Sec. 2 Proceeding accusation in
of the Constitution, do not refer to Court-Martial for writing (2)
An action by An action by A remedy by
Military Courts. charging a
which a party which the State which a person
sues another for prosecutes a seeks to establish person with an
16. Judicial Power is Lodged with the Courts: offense, (3)
the enforcement person for an act a status, a right
Constitutional Basis subscribed by the
or protection of a or omission or a particular
right or the punishable by fact prosecutor and
• See Art. 8, par. 1, in constitutional provisions prevention or law (4) filed with the
infra redress of a court.
wrong Based on cause Based on an act GR: Not based on
17. What is Judicial Power? of action, except or omission a cause of action
A civil action may Governed by the Governed by
be ordinary or Revised Rules on special certain special punishable by
• See Art. 8, par. 2, in constitutional provisions, special. Both are Criminal provisions, but in civil actions like law XPN: Petition for
infra
interpleader, habeas corpus of whatever judgment might be Rule 71 Contempt
declaratory relief rendered in said action
Adversarial Adversarial GR: Non- (e) in favor of the attaching creditor 23. In What Cases the ROC will NOT apply?
adversarial against the defendant.
Rule 1, Sec. 4. In what case not applicable — These Rules
XPN: If there is Preliminary (a) is a provisional remedy consisting of shall not apply to election cases, land registration,
an opposition to Injunction an order granted at any stage of an cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and
the proceedings (Rule 58) action or proceeding prior to the other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or
it becomes judgment or final order. in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
adversarial (b) requiring a party or a court, agency or convenient.
Preponderance Proof beyond The Rules on person (PCAP) to refrain from a
of evidence – the reasonable doubt Special particular act or acts. a. What are the Cases which are Not Directly Governed
evidence – means moral Proceedings is (c) It may also require the performance by the ROC?
adduced by one certainty is only still silent as to of a particular act or acts, which case
side is, as a required, or that quantum of it shall be known as preliminary 1. See Rule 1, Sec. 4 (E-LR-C-N-I-O)
whole, superior degree of proof proof required. mandatory injunction. 2. Labor cases
to or has greater which produces However, under Receivership (a) a provisional remedy 3. Impeachment cases
weight than that conviction in an Rule 72, Sec. 2, in (Rule 59) (b) wherein the property subject of such
of the other unprejudiced the absence of action or proceeding requires b. XPN to the non-applicability of the ROC:
mind. It does not special preservation.
mean such a provisions, the Replevin (a) is a provisional remedy • See Rule 1, Sec. 4
degree of proof rules provided (Rule 60) (b) by which the owner or one who has a
as, excluding the for in ordinary general or special property in the 24. Suppletory Character of the ROC
possibility of actions shall be, thing taken or detained
error, produces as far as (c) seeks to recover possession in specie, • See Rule 1, Sec. 4
absolute practicable, the recovery of damages being
certainty. applicable in incidental. a. What is the meaning of “Suppletory character”
special Support (a) a provisional remedy Application of the ROC
proceedings. Pendente (b) which grants a person entitled to
Rule 1-71 Rule 110-127 Rule 72-109 Lite support an amount enough GSIS v. Villaviza, (2010). It means that the provision of the
(c) for his “sustenance, dwelling, ROC will be made to apply where there is an insufficiency
22. Coverage of Civil Procedure clothing, medical attendance, in the applicable rule.
education and transportation (S-D-C-
a. Ordinary Rules on Civil Action (Rule 1-56) MA-E-T)” (Art. 194, FC) 25. Application of the ROC in Impeachment Trial
b. Provisional Remedies (57-61) – are (1) temporary, (d) while the action is pending in court.
auxiliary and ancillary remedies (TAAR) resorted to by Art VI, Rules of Impeachment Trial in the Senate. The
litigants (a) to preserve and protect their rights and c. Special civil actions (Rule 62-71) Rules of evidence and procedure shall be applied (a)
interests while the main action is pending, (a) to liberally and (b) whenever they are practicable in
secure the judgment, (b) preserve the status quo or Rule 62 Interpleader Impeachment Trial Cases
(c) preserve the subject matter of action. Rule 63 Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
Rule 64 Review of Judgment, Final Orders or 26. Application of the ROC in cases of Civil Forfeiture,
Preliminary (a) a provisional remedy Resolutions of the COMELEC and COA Assets Privatization, and Freezing of Monetary
Attachment (b) issued upon order of the court where Rule 65 Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus Instruments, Property or Proceeds (CF-AP-FMIPP)
(Rule 57) the action is pending, Rule 66 Quo Warranto representing, involving, or relating (RepIRel) to an
(c) to be levied upon the property or Rule 67 Expropriation unlawful activity or money laundering offense under
properties of the defendant therein, Rule 68 Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage R.A. 9160 (A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC)
(d) the same to be held thereafter by the Rule 69 Partition
sheriff as security for the satisfaction Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, Sec. 1. The Revised Rules of Court 4. What are the Classification of Jurisdiction? (GSL- a. What are the courts of special jurisdiction?
shall apply suppletory when not inconsistent with the OEEO-ACDT)
provision of this special rules. 1. SDB
a. General 2. CTA
27. Application of the ROC in Labor Cases b. Special or Limited 3. SDC
c. Original 4. RTC
Rule I, Sec. 3, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. Suppletory d. Exclusive 5. Family Courts
Application of the Rules of Court – In the absence of any e. Exclusive Original
applicable provision in these Rules, and in order to f. Appellate R.A. An (a) Act establishing family courts, (b) granting
effectuate the objectives of the Labor Code, the pertinent g. Concurrent 8369 them exclusive jurisdiction over child and family
provisions of the ROC of the Philippines may, in the h. Delegated; and cases, (c) amending B.P. 129 otherwise known as
interest of expeditious dispensation of labor justice and i. Territorial the judiciary reorganization act of 1980, (d)
whenever practicable and convenient, be applied by appropriating funds therefor and (e) for other
analogy or in a suppletory character and effect. 5. Classification as to its Nature purposes.

28. Applicability of the Rules of Procedure for Small a. General – the power of the court to adjudicate all 6. Shari’ah Circuit Court
Claims Cases controversies (AAC) except those expressly withheld 7. MTC, MeTC, MCTC
from the plenary powers of the court (WPP) and
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 25. Applicability of the Rules of extends to all controversies within the legal bounds of b. What is the Scope of Limited Jurisdiction?
Civil Procedure – The Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply rights and remedies. (LBRR) (ex. RTC)
suppletorily insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Francisco, Civil Procedure. A court of limited jurisdiction
Rule. b. RTC is a Court of General Jurisdiction has only the jurisdiction expressly delegated and must
appear from record that its acts are within its jurisdiction.
II. Basic Concepts of Jurisdiction Durisol Phil., Inc. v. CA. RTC is a court of general
jurisdiction because all cases, the jurisdiction of which is c. Probate Court is of Limited Jurisdiction: Approval of
A. Basic Concepts on Jurisdiction not specifically provided by law to be within the the Agreement Entered Other Than Judicially
jurisdiction of any other court falls within the jurisdiction Approved Compromise Agreement Not Within Its
1. What is Jurisdiction? of the RTC. Jurisdiction

a. Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice. Jurisdiction is defined as Legal Basis: B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. 7691, Sec. 19(6) Reyes-Mesugas v. Aquino-Reyes, (2010). A probate court
the power of the court to hear and decide cases and is a court of limited jurisdiction. The probate court acts on
to execute the judgment thereon. c. What is the Presumption in Case the Court Assumes matters pertaining to the estate but never on the rights to
b. Palma v. Q&S, Inc. It is the authority to hear and General Jurisdiction? property arising from the contract. Any agreement other
determine a cause – the right to act in a particular than the judicially approved compromise agreement
case. Francisco, Civil Procedure. A court of general jurisdiction is between the parties was outside the limited jurisdiction
presumed to be acting within its jurisdiction unless the of the probate court.
2. Bacalso v. Ramolete. Jurisdiction is vested in the contrary is shown
court and not in the judge. 7. Original – (a) The power of the court (b) to take
3. Allegations in the Complaint Determines Jurisdiction 6. Limited – one which (a) restricts the court’s judicial cognizance of a case (JCC) (c) instituted for
jurisdiction only to particular cases and (b) subject to judicial action (IJA) for the first time (d) under the
Barayuga v. Adventist University of the Philippines, such limitations as may be provided by the governing conditions provided by law.
(2011). Determinative of which regular court had law.
jurisdiction would be: a. What are the Courts which has Original Jurisdiction?
Example: Probate court
a. The allegations of the complaint (on the assessed 1. SC
value of the property); and Special – power to decide cases permitted by statute 2. CA
b. The principal relief sought 3. SDB
Example: MTC under B.P. 129, Sec. 35 4. RTC
5. SDC
6. SCC
7. MTC, MeTC, MeCTC, MCTC
b. Original Jurisdiction of the SC (see table)
What is a writ of amparo?
A.M. 07-9-12-SC, Sec. 1. Petition – The petition for a writ
of amparo is a (a) remedy available to any person whose
right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened
(LLS-VT) (b) with violation by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or of a private individual
or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.
What is petition for habeas data?
A.M. 08-1-16-SC, Sec. 1. Habeas Data - The writ of habeas
data is a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened
by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in
the gathering, collecting or storing (GCS) of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence (PFHC) of the aggrieved party.
What is a petition for Continuing Mandamus?
Sec. 1. Petition for continuing mandamus - When any
agency or instrumentality of the government or officer
thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust or station in connection with the
enforcement or violation of an environmental law rule or
regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use or enjoyment of such right and there
is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may
file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the
facts with certainty, attaching thereto supporting
evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an
environmental law, rule or regulation, and praying that
judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do
an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied,
and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason
of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the
respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The
petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-
forum shopping.
What is a petition for Writ of Kalikasan?
Sec. 1. Nature of the writ – The writ is a remedy available
to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law,
people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or
any public interest group accredited by or registered with
any government agency, on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
c. Original Jurisdiction of the CA (see table)
(1) Original Jurisdiction of the CA over the following
Cases (see table)
R.A. “An Act of Defining the Crime of Money
9160 Laundering, Providing Penalties Therefore and
for Other Purposes (Sept. 29, 2001)”
R.A. “An Act Amending R.A. 9160, otherwise
9194 known as the “Anti-Money Laundering Act of
2001” (March 7, 2003)
Original Jurisdiction of the RTC (see table)
(2) What are the Cases Falling Under the Original
Jurisdiction of the RTC? (see table)
d. Original Jurisdiction of SDC (see table)
8. Exclusive – the power to adjudicate a case or
proceeding to the exclusion of all courts at that stage
9. Exclusive and Original – the power of the court to
take judicial cognizance of a case for judicial action
for the first time under the conditions provided by
law, and to the exclusion of all other courts.
9.1. Which Court has Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction?
a. SC
b. CA
c. Sandiganbayan
d. RTC
e. Shari’ah District/Circuit Court
f. MeTC and MTC
a. Supreme Court (see table)
b. CA (see table)
Barairo v. OP, (2011). The proper remedy to question the
decisions or orders of the Sec. of Labor is via Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65. Appeals to the OP in labor cases
have been eliminated, except those involving national
interest over which the President may assume jurisdiction.
The present case does not affect national interest.
d. SDB (see table)
R.A. An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the
1379 State any Property Found to Have Been
Unlawfully Acquired by any Public Officer or
Employee and Providing for the Proceedings
Therefore
a. Presidential Ad-hoc Fact-Finding Committee on
Behest Loans v. Desierto, (2011). The provision of
Art. IX, Sec. 15 of the 1987 Consti., that “the right of
the State to recover properties unlawful acquired by
public officials of employees from them or from their
nominees or transferees shall not be barred by
prescription, laches or estoppels, applies only in civil
action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth and not to
criminal cases.
d.1. Nature of the SDB
Payumo, et. al. v. Sandiganbayan, (2011). The SDB is a
special court of the same level as the CA.
e. RTC (see table)
e.1. Other Cases falling under the Exclusive and Original
Jurisdiction of the RTC (see table)
f. SDC (see table)
g. MeTC, MTC, MCTC (see table)
g.1. In Ordinary Civil Action Cases (see table)
g.2. Cases Under the Rules on Summary Procedure (see
table)
g.3. Small Claims Cases (see table)
(1) What Cases Falls Under the Rules on Small Claims? d. CTA credibility of the witnesses, the existence and the
e. RTC relevance of surrounding circumstances, and the
• See. A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 2, as amended f. SDC probability of specific situations

(2) Purpose of Small Claims: No lawyers, no formal 11.c. SC
pleadings, strict legal rules of evidence
a. Constitutional Basis on the Exercise of the SC to
Orbe v. Gumarang, (2011). The small claims process is review decisions of the lower courts
designed to function quickly and informally. There are no
lawyers, no formal pleadings, and no strict legal rules of • See Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2), constitutional provisions, infra
evidence.
b. Cases which are decided by the SC en banc
h. SCC (see table)
• See Art. VIII, Sec. 4(2), constitutional provisions, infra
10. Special Jurisdiction
c. SC may review decisions of the lower courts by way
10.a. RTC (see table) of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
10.b. MTC, MeTC, MCTC (see table)
Rule 45, Sec. 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court — A
11. Appellate – The power and authority conferred upon party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or
a superior court (PAC-SC) final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
(1) to rehear and determine causes (RDC) which have whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
been tried in lower courts, Court a verified petition for review on certiorari.
(2) the cognizance which a superior court takes of a case
removed to it, by appeal or writ of error, from the The petition shall raise only questions of law which must
decision of a lower court, or be distinctly set forth.
(3) the review by a superior court of the final judgment
or order of some lower courts. (1) What are the Cases Falling under the Appellate
Jurisdiction of the SC? (see table)
a. The authority of a court higher in rank to re-examine (2) What is the Ground Which can be Raised with the SC
the final order or judgment of a lower court which via Rule 45?
tried the case or elevated for judicial review. It is
jurisdiction conferred upon, or inherent in the first Cabaron v. People. GR: The decision, final order and
instance. resolution of the above mentioned courts are based on
pure questions of law under Rule 45 by way of petition for
11.a. Original and Appellate Exclusive of Each Other: review on certiorari
Must be Conferred by Law
(3) What is a Question of Law? Question of Fact
Garcia v. De Jesus. Since original and appellate are
exclusive of each other, each must be expressly conferred Question of Law Question of Fact
by law. One does not flow from, nor is inferred from, the Exists when there is doubt Exists when the doubt or
other. or controversy as to what controversy arises as to the
law is on a certain state of truth or falsity of the
11.b. Appellate Courts: facts alleged facts.
a. SC Cabaron v. People, (2009). The resolution of a question of
b. CA fact necessarily involves a calibration of the evidence, the
c. Sandiganbayan
11.d. CA (See table)
(1) What are the cases falling under the Exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the CA? (see table)
11.e. Powers of the CA in the exercise of its Exclusive and
Appellate Jurisdiction
B.P. 129, Sec. 9(3), par. 2. The Court of Appeals shall have
the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive
evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve
factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and
appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and
conduct new trials or Appeals must be continuous and
must be completed within three (3) months, unless
extended by the Chief Justice. (as amended by R.A. No.
7902.)
11.f. Sandiganbayan (see table)
11.g. CTA (see table)
(1) CTA is co-equal with the CA
• By virtue of R.A. 9282, the CA has been divested of its
jurisdiction over decisions or orders of the CTA, and
effectively made the same as its co-equal court.
• R.A. 9282, Sec. 9. The decision of the Divisions of the
CTA are now reviewed “under a procedure analogous
to that provided in Rule 43 with the CTA, which shall
hear the case en banc” and the latter by the SC on
questions of law under Rule 45
(2) Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction (see table)
(3) Decisions of the CTA Division are reviewable by the
CTA en banc
• See Sec. 9 of R.A. 9282
11.h. RTC (see table)
11.i. SDC (see table)
12. Territorial - refers to the geographical area within
which its powers can be exercised
SC and CA National jurisdiction (1) Mendoza v. Sangguniang Brgy. Of Balatasan, (2011).
RTC Regional jurisdiction Such concurrence does not give petitioner Theron v. Hon. Executive Secretary, (2011). The power of
Inferior courts Territorial jurisdiction as unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. A the Ombudsman to investigate offense involving public
may be defined by the SC direct invocation of the original jurisdiction to issue officials is not exclusive It is concurrent with other similarly
pursuant to Sec. 25, 28, 31 those writs should be allowed only when there are authorized agencies of the government in relation to the
of B.P. 129 special and important reasons therefore; clearly and offenses charged. The Ombudsman may share its authority
specifically set out in the petition. to conduct an investigation concerning administrative
Cities and Municipality in Metro Manila (CL-5Ma-1Mu- charges against them with other agencies.
NPPQ-QSTV) (2) CREBA v. Sec. of Agraian Reform, (2010). Rationale:
14. Delegated – The grant of authority to inferior courts
1. Caloocan 1. It would be an imposition upon the precious time of to hear and determine cadastral and land registration
2. Las Pinas this Court cases under certain conditions (see table)
3. Makati 2. It would cause an inevitable and resultant delay,
4. Marikina intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, (1) What is the in case of adverse decision of
5. Malabon which in some instances had to be remanded or MeTC/MTC/MCTC in cadastral and land registration
6. Manila referred to the lower court as the proper forum cases in the exercise of its delegated Jurisdiction?
7. Mandaluyong under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped
8. Muntinlupa to resolve the issue because this Court is not a trier of A: It shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions
9. Navotas facts. of the RTC which is an implied reference to Rule 41 on
10. Pasig appeals from decisions of the RTC to the CA in the exercise
11. Pasay 13.c. Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts of its original jurisdiction by way of notice of appeal within
12. Quezon City 15 days.
13. San Juan (1) Mendoza v. Villas. Resort to the higher courts should
14. Taguig be made in accordance with their hierarchical order. III. Basic Concepts of Venue
15. Valenzuela The SC will not entertain direct resort to it, unless the
16. Pateros (municipality) redress desired cannot be obtained in the A. Basic Concepts of Venue
appropriate courts or where exceptional and
13. Concurrent/Confluent/Coordinate - compelling circumstances justify availment of a 1. What is Venue?
remedy within and calling for the exercise of our
(a) Power conferred upon different courts, primary jurisdiction. Venue is defined as the place where the case is to be
(b) whether of the same or different ranks, heard and tried
(c) to take cognizance at the same stage of the same 13.d. Certiorari Not Exclusive; Hierarchy Determinative of
case Venue of Appeals and Petitions for Certiorari 2. What are the Distinctions Between Jurisdiction and
(d) in the same or different judicial territories Venue (Definition, Basis, Relation Established,
United Claimants Association of NEA v. NEA. The SC’s Conferred, Waiver)
13.a. What are the courts with concurrent jurisdiction? original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not
EXCLUSIVE. It is shared by SC with the RTC and with the Jurisdiction Venue
(1) SC and RTC over civil actions involving ambassadors, CA. The hierarchy is determinative of the venue of Is the authority to hear and Is the place where the case
other public ministers and consuls appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the determine a case and is to be heard or tried
(2) SC, CA, SDB and RTC over petitions for certiorari, appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary execute judgment thereon
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas writs.
Matter of substantive law Matter of procedural law
corpus, writ of amparo, habeas data and writ of Establishes a relation A relation between plaintiff
kalikasan and injunction 13.d. Exceptions to the Doctrine of “Hierarchy of Courts”
between the court and the and defendant, or
subject matter petitioner and respondent
13.b. What are the Limitations in the Exercise of UNICAN v. NEA, (2012). XPN: The principle of hierarchy of
Fixed by law and cannot be May be conferred by the
Concurrent Jurisdiction? Rationale. courts may be set aside for special and important reasons.
conferred by the parties act or agreement of the
parties
13.f. Concurrent Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to
Cannot be waived Can be waived
investigate offenses of Public Officials

3. Venue in Civil Cases v. Venue in Criminal Cases
Venue in Criminal Cases
Jurisdictional
Conferred by provision of
law
Improper venue is a ground
for a motion to quash the
complaint or information
on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the
offense charged
In case of denial of the
motion to quash on the
ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the
offense charged, remedy is
to proceed with the
arraignment
Venue in Civil Cases
Procedural and for the
purpose of convenience of
the parties
May be agreed upon by the
parties
Improper venue can be the
subject of a motion to
dismiss
Denial of the motion to
dismiss on the ground of
improper venue is to file
the answer with the
remaining balance of the
period to file a responsive
pleading, but in no case less
than 5 days and raised the
ground as an affirmative
defense, proceed with the
trial and in case of adverse
decision appeal the same
right and the the defendant in a party to
Rule 141, Sec. 1. Payment of fees — Upon the filing of the prevention and violation of the institute an
pleading or other application which initiates an action or redress of a primary rights of action against a
proceeding, the fees prescribed therefor shall be paid in wrong the plaintiff person who has
full. committed a
delict or wrong
2. When is a Small Claim Action Deemed Commenced? against him
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 5. Commencement of Small GR: The elements of a cause of action would have to be
Claims Action - A small claims action is commenced by present in order for a party to have a right to commence a
suit for a violation of a right
(a) filing with the court an (1) accomplished and (2)
verified Statement of Claim (Form 1 - SCC) in XPN:
duplicate,
(b) accompanied by a Certification of Non-forum (1) A special proceeding does not necessarily require a
Shopping (Form 1-A SCC), and cause of action to be commenced.
(c) two (2) duly certified photocopies of the (1) (2) Rule 3, Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff — If the
actionable document/s subjects of the claim, as (2) consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff
well as the affidavits of witnesses and (3) other cannot be obtained, he may be made a defendant
evidence to support the claim. and the reason therefor shall be stated in the
complaint.
GR: No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which
was (1) not attached to or (2) submitted together with the Note: There can be no right of action without a cause of
Claim action
XPN: Unless good cause is shown for the admission of 5. Right of Action Dependent on the Law on
additional evidence. Prescription of Action

IV. Commencement of a Civil Action

Par. 2. No formal pleading, other than the Statement of • A right of action, although existing, is also dependent
Claim described in this Rule, is necessary to initiate a small upon the prescription of an action, in accordance with
claims action. substantive law.
A. Basic Concepts on Commencement of Civil Actions
• It is not eternal, and therefore must be exercised by
3. Effect of the filing of complaint in court tolls the the claimant at the most opportune moment within
1. How to Commence a Civil Action
running of the prescriptive period the periods provided by law.
A civil action is commenced by the filing of the original
Legal Basis: Art. 1155, NCC 6. What is the Basis of a Civil Action?
complaint with the court (Rule 1, Sec. 5) plus the payment
of a corresponding docket and other legal fees (Rule 141,
Art. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when Rule 2, Sec. 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of — Every
as amended)
they are filed before the court, when there is a written ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is
Rule 1, Sec. 5. Commencement of action — A civil action any written acknowledgement of the debt by the debtor • Rule 2, Sec. 1 establishes the relevance of a cause of
is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in
action only as to ordinary civil actions in obtaining
court. 4. Action v. Cause of Action v. Right of Action redress for the violation of one’s right
• In special proceedings, there is normally no violation
If an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, Action Cause of Action Right of Action
the action is commenced with regard to him on the date of of a right to speak of, and hence, a cause of action is
A suit filed in The delict or The remedial not a condition sine qua non.
the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether
court for the wrongful act or right or right to
the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the
protection and omission relief (Re-Ri-Re)
court.
enforcement of a committed by granted by law to
7. What is the basis of the institution of a Criminal
Action?
• In a criminal case, the right of a party or the State to
institute an action arises from a violation of an act or
omission punishable by law, not necessarily against
the party instituting such action.
• Such right to prosecute an offender of the law is
simply an exercise of the inherent “police power” of
the state.
8. What is the Basis of the Institution of Special
Proceedings?
• In special proceedings, the right to institute an action
is merely an exercise of a privilege provided by law or
statute to establish a status, a right or a particular
fact.
9. What are the Classification of Actions?
a. As to its Subject: Determination of Venue
Padre v. Badillo, (2011). The distinction between real and
personal actions is necessary for the purpose of
determining the venue of an action in accordance with
Rule 4.
(1) Paper Industries Corp. v. Samson, (1975). Real
Actions – one brought for the protection of real
rights, lands, tenements or hereditaments (any kind
of property that can be inherited), or one founded on
privity of estate only.
Rule 4, Sec. 1. Venue of real actions — Actions affecting
title to or possession of real property, or interest therein,
shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which
has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced
and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or
city wherein the real property involved, or a portion
thereof, is situated.
a.1. Actions Involving Title to, of Possession or Interest in
a Real Property is a Real Action
• When an action involves title to or possession of any
interest in any of the property mentioned in Art. 415,
NCC, the same is in the nature of a real action.
Art. 415. The following are immovable property:
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds
adhered to the soil; (LBRC)
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are
attached to the land or form an integral part of an
immovable (TPGF);
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed
manner (AIFM), in such a way that it cannot be
separated therefrom without breaking the material or
deterioration of the object;
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects (SRPO) for
use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands
by the owner of the immovable in such a manner that
it reveals the intention to attach them permanently
(ATP) to the tenements;
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements
(MRII) intended by the owner of the tenement for an
industry or works which may be carried on in a
building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly
to meet the needs of the said industry or works;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds
or breeding places of similar nature (AH-PH-B-FP-BP),
in case their owner has (a) placed them or (b)
preserves them/with the intention to have them
permanently attached to the land/, and forming a
permanent part of it/; the animals in these places are
included;
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps (M-Q-SD), while the
matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters
either running or stagnant;
(9) Docks and structures (D-S) which, though floating, are
intended by their nature and object to remain at a
fixed place on a river, lake, or coast (RLC);
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other
real rights over immovable property.
(2) Personal Action – one which is not founded upon the
privity of real rights or real property.
Sioso v. CA. An action for specific performance is a
personal action. It is an action which seeks to recover
personal property, enforcement of a contract, or the
recovery of damages.
(3) Mixed Actions – when the plaintiff joins two or more
causes of actions based on the same act or
occurrence, one of which is a real action
Emergency Loan Pawnshop, Inc. v. CA. In an action to
annul a sale of a land and to recover the land; For the
purpose of venue determination, the action is a real action
must be filed in the place where the property is situated
regardless of the residence of the parties.
(4) Local Action – an action which is required by the
Rules to be instituted in a particular place in the
absence of an agreement to the contrary
(5) Transitory Action – an action the venue of which is
dependent generally upon the residence of the
parties regardless of where the cause of action arose.
b. As to its Purpose: Service of Summons; and
Acquisition of Jurisdiction
• Relevant to the service of summons under Rule 14,
particularly on the acquisition of jurisdiction by the
court upon the person of the defendant or upon
theres.
a. Action in rem – one which is not directed only to the
person, but against the thing itself/ and the object of
which 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 to the whole world
b. Action in personam – one which is directed against a
particular persons on the basis of their personal
liability/to establish a claim against them/ and the
judgment where is binding only upon the parties
impleaded or their successor in in interest.
c. Action quasi in rem – one which is directed against
particular persons but the purpose of which it to bar
and bind only said persons but any other person who
claims any interest in the property or right subject of
the suit.
b.1. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
necessary in an action in personam; not in an action in
rem and quasi in rem
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either:
 (a) By seizure of the property under legal process,
whereby it is brought into the custody of law.
(b) As a result of the institution of legal proceedings,
in which the power of the court is recognized
and made effective.
b.1. Lucas v. Lucas. Petition to establish illegitimate
filiation is an action in rem: mere filing of the petition, the
court acquires jurisdiction over the case
V. Liberal Construction of the Rules
A. Liberal Construction of the Rules
1. Construction
Rule 1, Sec. 6. Construction — These Rules shall be
liberally construed in order to promote their objective of
securing a just, speedy and inexpensive (JSI) disposition of
every action and proceeding (EAP).
a. Rules should be liberally construed in order to
secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action or proceeding.
(1) Anama v. PSB. A liberal construction of the
procedural rules is proper where:
a. The lapse in the literal observance of rule of
procedure has not prejudiced the adverse party; and
b. Has not deprived the court of its authority
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.
(2) Abrenica v. Law Firm of Abrenica. Procedural laws
has its own rationale in the orderly administration of
justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcement
of substantive rights by providing for a system that
obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism or
whimsicality in the settlement of disputes.
(3) Republic v. Kenrick Dev. Corp. The liberal
construction rule is not a license to violate procedural
requirements. Procedural rules are designed to
facilitate the adjudication of cases. And while the
Court in some instances allows a relaxation in the
application of the rules, this, we stress, was never
intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to
violate the rules with impunity.
Abrenica v. Law Firm of Abrenica. Concomitant to a
procedure adopting a liberal construction of the rules
should be an effort on the part of the party invoking
liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules.
(4) MCA-MBF Countdown Cards Phil., Inc. v. MBF Card
International Ltd. The liberality in the interpretation
and application of the rules applies only in proper
cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances,
(5) Building Care Corp. v. Macaraeg. 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.
b. Rules of Procedure used to Secure Substantial
Justice
Republic v. CA. The rules of procedure are used only to
secure and not override or frustrate justice.
c. Strict and Rigid Application of the Rules May be
Disregarded
Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Phil. v.
Celebrity Travel and Tours. A strict and rigid application of
the rules may be eschewed (avoided) when it would
subvert the rules’ primary objective of enhancing fair trials
and expediting justice.
d. Court May Relax the Application of the Rules if it
Will Result to Miscarriage of Justice
(1) PEZA v. Carates, (2010). Procedural rules may be
relaxed for persuasive reasons to relieve a litigant of
an injustice commensurate with his failure to comply
with the prescribed procedures.
(2) Uy v. Chua. When there is a strong showing that
grave miscarriage of justice would result from the
strict application of the Rules, this Court will not
hesitate to relax the same in the interest of
substantial justice
e. Amendment of the Procedural Rules Shall be Given
Retroactive Application to Pending Actions
Go v. Sunbanun, (2011). When a procedural rule is
amended for the benefit of litigants for the furtherance of
the administration of justice, it shall be retroactively
applied to likewise favor actions pending, as equity
delights equality.
f. Technical Rules of Procedure are Intended to Secure
not to Suppress Substantial Justice
Milestone Farms, Inc. v. OP, (2011). Under Rule 43, Sec. 3,
the CA can, in the interest of justice, entertain and resolve
factual issues. After all, technical and procedural rules are
intended to secure, and not suppress, substantial justice.
g. Llamas v. CA. Courts may suspend the application of
the Rules where matters of life, liberty, honor or
property are at stake
2. Jurisprudence on the Relaxation of the Rules of
Procedure
a. Relaxation of the Rules to Promote Substantial
Justice
Negros Slashers, Inc. v. Teng, (2012). The SC has relaxed
the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the
parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the
merits. This is in line with the time honored principle that
cases should be decided only after giving all the parties the
chance to argue their causes and defenses
Courts have the prerogative to relax procedural rules of
even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty
to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to
litigation and the parties’ right to due process. In
numerous cases, this Court allowed the liberal
construction of the rules when to so would serve the
demands of substantial justice and equity.
b. Relation of the Rules in Case of Excusable Formal
Deficiency in a pleading
Sps. Edillo v. Sps. Dulpina. The liberal construction of the
Rules may be invoked in situations where may be some
excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading,
provided that the same does not subvert the essence of
the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable
attempt at compliance with the Rules.
c. Exceptions to the Rigid Application of the Rules:
Reasonable and Meritorious Explanation must be
Given in Case of Failure to Comply with the Rules
GR: Procedural rules should be strictly followed:
Labao v. Flores. XPN:
(1) Most persuasive and weighty reasons;
(2) To relieve a litigant from an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed rule.
(3) Good faith of the defaulting party by immediately
paying within a reasonable time from the time of
default;
(4) The exercise of special or compelling circumstances;
(5) The merits of the case;
(6) A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
the rules
(7) A lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory
(8) The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby
(9) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
without appellant’s fault
(10) Peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant
to each case
(11) In the name of substantial justice and fair play
(12) Importance of issues involved
(13) Exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all
the attendant circumstances
d. Exceptions to the Immutability of Judgment:
Relaxation of Rules
Cebu Bionic Builders Supply, Inc. GR: A final and
executory judgment can no longer be attacked by any of
the parties or be modified, directly or indirectly, even by
the highest court of the land.
XPN:
a. Matters of life, liberty, honor or property
b. The existence of special or compelling circumstances
c. The merits of the case
d. A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
the rules
e. A lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous or dilatory
f. The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby
e. Relaxation of the Rules in Case of Dismissal of the
Appeal
(1) Rovira v. Heirs of Deleste. The court has the
discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appellant’s
appeal. It is a power conferred on the court, NOT a
duty.
(2) Osmena v. COA. Every plea for a liberal construction
of the Rules must at least be accompanied by an
explanation of why the party-litigant failed to comply
with the Rules and by a justification for the requested
liberal construction
f. Relaxation of the Rules Based on Persuasive Reasons
PEZA v. Carates. Procedural rules may be relaxed for
persuasive reasons to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed rules.
g. Merits of the Position of the party in the invocation
of liberality in the Application of the Rules
Munoz v. People. What impel the Court to set aside its
Rules is not a party’s empty invocations of liberality but
the merits of his position so that the same may be not be
obstructed by mere deficiencies in form. If a petition has
not an iota or merit in it, there is nothing for the Court to
bring to light at all.
h. Grounds for the Suspension of the Rules
• See enumeration in (c)
i. Merit of the Grounds for the Suspension of the Rules
Subject to the Discretion of the Court
CIR v. Migrant Pagbilao Corp. What constitutes good and
sufficient case that would merit suspension of the Rules is
discretionary upon the courts
j. Case Impressed with Public Interest Ground for
Relaxation of the Rules
Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank v. Celebrity Travel
and Tours. When a case is impressed with public interest,
the Court may relax the application of the Rules. Where
strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in
the petition, strict application of the rules of procedure
may be relaxed, in the exercise of equity jurisdiction. What
should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-
litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish
the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him
to lose life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities
k. Relaxation of the Rules affords the parties the
opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the
merits.
El Reyno Homes, Inc. v. Ong. In few instances, the SC
relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to
afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their
cases on the merits. This is in line with the time-honored
principle that cases should be decided only after giving all
parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses.
Technicality and procedural imperfection should, thus, not
serve as basis of decisions
l. Pre-requisite for the Relaxation of the Rules
a. Justifiable cause or plausible reason for non-
compliance
b. Compelling reason to convince the court that outright
dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the
orderly administration of justice
3. Jurisprudence on the Non-Application of the Liberal
Interpretation of the Rules
a. Rivera-Pascual v. Sps. Lim, (2012). While there was
compliance (with Rule 43), this took place, however,
after the CA had ordered the dismissal of
consolacion’s petition and without reasonable cause
proffered to justify its belatedness. Consolacion and
her counsel claimed inadvertence and negligence but
they did not explain the circumstances thereof.
b. Asian Spirit Airline Employees Cooperative v. Sps.
Bautista. Liberality in the application of the rules of
procedure may not be invoked if it will result in the
 wanton disregard of the rules or cause needless delay
in the administration of justice
c. Asian Spirit Airline Employees Cooperative v. Sps.
Bautista. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or
dismissed simply because their non-observance may
have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantive
rights.
d. Asian Spirit Airline Employees Cooperative v. Sps.
Bautista. Such procedural rules are tools designed to
facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and
litigants alike are, thus, enjoined to abide strictly by
the rules
4. Rules of Evidence and Procedures shall be Liberally
Construed in Impeachment Cases
Art. VI, Rules of Impeachment Trial. “Rules of evidence
and procedure shall be liberally construed”
5. Power of the SC to suspend its own Rules
Discretionary; Grounds for Suspension
a. Commissioner v. Migrant Pagbilao Corp. 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 courts.
b. Reasons which would warrant the suspension of the
Rules:
• See enumeration in letter c.
6. Power of the SC to amend or suspend Procedural
Rules
Republic v. CA, (1981). Inherent power of the SC to
suspend its own rules or to exempt a particular case from
the operation of said rules whenever demanded by justice
7. Retroactive Application of the Fresh Period to
Appeal
Neypes v. CA. The litigants must be given a fresh period of
15 days within which to appeal, counted from receipt of
order dismissing a motion for new trial or motions for b. Formal or Trial Type Hearing is Not Essential:
reconsideration under Rule 40-45 of the ROC. Opportunity to be Head and Explain One Side is
Enough
Chapter II: Constitutional Provisions Relative to Civil
Procedure Areno, Jr. v. Skycable. The essence of due process is
simply an opportunity to be heard, a formal or trial type
A. Constitutional Provisions hearing is not essential as the due process requirement is
satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and
1. Expanded Definition of Judicial Power and its reasonable opportunity to explain their state.
Coverage
3. Equal Protection of the Laws
Art. VIII, Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be • See Art. III, Sec. 1
established by law.
a. What is the Basic Purpose of the Equal Protection
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to Clause?
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine BOC Employees Association v. Teves, (2011) Equal
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion protection simply provides that all persons or things
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of similarly situated should be treated in a similar manner,
any branch or instrumentality of the Government. both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed
(RCRI). The concept of equal justice under the law requires
the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw
a. Judicial Power is exercised by the following courts
distinctions between individuals solely on differences that
are irrelevant to a legitimate government objective.
1. SC
2. CA
4. Right of Eminent Domain
3. SDB
4. CTA
Art. III, Sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken for
5. RTC
public use without just compensation.
6. SDC
7. MeTC, MTC, MeCTC, MCTC
8. SC a. What is Eminent Domain?
Republic v. Sps. Tan Song Bok. Eminent domain is the
2. Due Process of Law
power of the State to take private property for public use.
It is an inherent power of the State as it is a power
Art. III, Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law, nor shall any necessary for the State’s existence; it is the power of the
State cannot do without. As an inherent power, it does not
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
need at all to be embodied in the Constitution; if it is
mentioned at all, it is solely for purposes of limiting what is
a. What is the essence of due process clause under the
otherwise an unlimited power. The limitation is found in
bill of rights?
the Bill of Rights – that part of the Constitution whose
provisions all aim at the protection of individuals against
PDIC v. Phil. Countryside Rural Bank. The essence of due
the excessive exercise of governmental powers.
procedural due process is found in the reasonable
opportunity to be heard and submit one’s evidence in
b. In expropriation Proceedings Due Process Must be
support of his defense
Strictly Followed
Vda. de Ouano v. Republic, (2011). In expropriation, the b. Numbers of Postponement Not Determinative of 6. Power of the Congress to Enact Laws Affecting the
private owner is deprived of property against his will. The Violation of the Right to Speedy Trial Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
mandatory requirement of due process ought to be strictly
followed, such that the state must show, at the minimum, Mari v. Gonzales, (2011). A mere mathematical reckoning Art. VI, Sec. 30. No law shall be passed increasing the
a genuine need, an exact public purpose to take private of time involved is clearly insufficient to determine appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in
property, the purpose to be specifically alleged or least violation of right to speedy trial, and particular regard this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
reasonably deductible from the complaint. must be given to the facts and circumstances peculiar to
each case. a. Direct Appeal to the SC from the decision of the
c. Meaning of compensable taking Ombudsman under R.A. 6770, Sec. 27 was held
c. Right to Speedy Trial Applicable in All Cases unconstitutional
NPC v. Heris of Sangkay. The taking of private property for
public use, to be compensable, need not be an actual Roquero v. Chancellor of UP-Manila. The constitutional Fabian v. Desierto. The provision of R.A. 6770, Sec. 27
physical taking or appropriate. right to “speedy disposition of cases” is not limited to the (The Ombudman Act of 1987) insofar as it allowed a direct
Compensable taking includes destruction, restriction, accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties appeal to the SC was declared unconstitutional being one
diminution, or interruption (DR-DI) of the (a) rights of in all cases, including civil and administrative cases, and in which increased the appellate jurisdiction of the SC, was
ownership or (b) of the common and necessary use and all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial enacted without advice and concurrence of the court.
enjoyment of the property in a lawful manner (NUE), hearings.
lessening or destroying its value. 7. SC Sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal
d. Purpose of Speedy Trial
It is neither necessary that the owner be wholly deprived Art. VII, Sec. 4, par. 7 (last par.). The Supreme Court,
of the use of his property, nor material whether the Roquero v. Chancellor of UP-Manila. To stem the tide of sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests
property is removed from the possession of the owner, or disenchantment among the people in the administration
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications (ERQ) of
in any respect changes hands. of justice by our judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals.
the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its
Excessive delay in the disposition of cases renders the
rules for the purpose.
d. Expropriation Must be for Public Use Only rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution and by
various legislations
8. Power of the SC to Review Proclamation of Martial
Vda. de Ouano v. Republic. Public use includes any use
Law and Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of
that of usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is Speedy disposition Speedy Trial
Habeas Corpus
productive of general benefit of the public. Art. III, Sec. 16. All persons Art. III, Sec. 14(2). In all
shall have the right to a criminal prosecutions, the
5. Right to Speedy Trial Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. 3. The Supreme Court may review, in
speedy disposition of their accused shall have a
an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
cases before all judicial, speedy, impartial, and
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of
Art. III, Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy quasi-judicial or public trial.
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative bodies
the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision
or administrative bodies. Applies not only in the trial Refers to the trial phase of
thereon within thirty days from its filing.
stage but also before the proceedings
a. What are the factors to Determine Delay? arraignment up to the case
has already been submitted 9. Power of the Congress To Prescribe Jurisdiction of
for decision Courts
Mari v. Gonzales, (2011). In determining the right of an
accused to speedy trial, the factors to be consider and Applies in judicial, quasi- Applies in criminal
balance are the following: judicial and administrative proceedings Art. VIII, Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to
proceedings define, prescribe, and apportion (DPA) the jurisdiction of
1. Duration of delay Can be invoked by any Can be invoked by any the various courts/ but may not deprive the Supreme
2. Reason therefor citizen who is a party to a accused in a criminal Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Sec. 5
3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it judicial, quasi-judicial and proceeding hereof.
4. Prejudice caused by such delay administrative proceeding
Broad in scope Narrow in scope No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
10. Cases Decided by the SC En Banc
Art. VIII, Sec. 4(2). All cases involving the constitutionality
of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law,
which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc,
and all other cases which, under the Rules of Court, are
required to be heard en banc,
including those involving the constitutionality, application,
or operation (CAO) of (1) presidential decrees, (2)
proclamations, (3) orders, (4) instructions, (5) ordinances,
and (6) other regulations (PPO-IOO),
shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on
the issues in the case and voted thereon.
11. Transitory Provision: Power to Promulgate Rules of
Procedure Shared by the Supreme Court and
Congress
Art. XVIII, Sec. 10. All courts existing at the time of the
ratification of this Constitution shall continue to exercise
their jurisdiction, until otherwise provided by law.
The provisions of the existing Rules of Court, judiciary acts,
and procedural laws (ROC-JA-PL) not inconsistent with this
Constitution shall remain operative unless amended or
repealed by the Supreme Court or the Congress.
a. Based on Art. XVIII, Sec. 10, the power to
promulgate rules of procedure concurrent with
the SC and Congress
b. Neypes v. CA. Power to promulgate Rules of
Procedure not lodged SOLELY with the SC
Neypes v. CA. The SC has the sole power to amend, repeal
or even establish new rules for a more simplified and
inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases.
12. Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Art. VIII, Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
a. What are the cases falling under the Original
Jurisdiction of the SC
a. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls
b. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto and habeas corpus
c. Over petition for writ of amparo (07-9-12-SC)
d. Over petitions for habeas data (08-1-16-SC)
e. Over petitions for writ of kalikasan (09-6-8-SC)
13. Review and Appellate Jurisdiction of the SC
Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2). The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm (RRRMA) on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower
courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question (original
jurisdiction)
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll (TIAT), or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is
in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is
involved.
14. Rule-Making Power of the SC
Art. VIII, Sec.5(5). The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of (1) constitutional rights, (2) pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, (3) the
admission to the practice of law, (4) the integrated
bar, and (5) legal assistance to the under-privileged.
Such rules shall provide a (1) simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, (2) shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, (3) and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify (DIM) substantive rights.
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
Supreme Court.
a. Power of the SC to amend, repeal or establish new
rules: Purpose
Neypes v. CA. The SC has the power to amend, repeal or
even establish new rules for a more simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases
b. Power of the SC to promulgate rule carries with it
the power to overturn judicial precedents
Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago. Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) necessarily
carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents
on points of remedial law through the amendment of the
Rules of Court.
c. Power of the SC to promulgate rules are means for
jurisdiction to be exercised
Gomez-Castillo v. Minerva. The ROC does not define
jurisdictional boundaries of the courts. The ROC can only
determine the means, ways or manner in which said
jurisdiction, as fixed by the Constitution and acts of
Congress, shall be exercised.
d. The power to Promulgate Rules of Procedure Must
Conform to the Constitution
Apo Fruits Corp. v. Land Bank of the Phil. While the
Constitution grants the SC the power to promulgate rules
concerning the practice and procedure in all courts, these
procedural rules must be consistent with the standards set
by the Constitution itself. Rulings on the merits by the
Court en banc on 2nd motion for reconsideration, if
allowed by the Court to be entertained under its Internal
Rules, must be decided with the concurrence of a majority
of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations.
 b. COA suspended except in
Among these constitutional standards is the above quoted cases of invasion or
Section 4 which applies to "all other cases which under the b. Remedy of Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 rebellion when the
ROC are required to be heard en banc," and does not public safety requires
make any distinction as to the type of cases or rulings it Rule 64, Sec. 2. Mode of review — A judgment or final it.
applies to, i.e, whether these cases are originally filed with order or resolution of the Commission on Elections and Art. V, Sec. Assign temporarily Administrative
the SC, or cases on appeal, or rulings on the merits of the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved 5(3) judges of lower supervision
motions before the Court. Thus, rulings on the merits by party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, courts to other
the Court en banc on 2nd motions for reconsideration, if except as hereinafter provided. (In; Bar Matter No. 803, 17 stations as the public
allowed by the Court to be entertained under its Internal February 1998) interest may require.
Rules, must be decided with the concurrence of a majority Such temporary
of the Members who actually took part in the c. Period to File The Petition assignment shall not
deliberations. exceed six months
Rule 64, Sec. 3. Time to file petition — The petition shall without the consent
15. Constitutional Requirements of be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment of the judge
Judgments/Decisions and Final Orders or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The concerned
filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said Art. V, Sec. The SC shall have the Constitutional
Art. VII, Sec. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the 5(4) following powers: basis for venue
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall under Rule 4
facts and the law on which it is based. interrupt the period herein fixed. If the motion is denied, Order a change of
the aggrieved party may file the petition within the venue or place of trial
No (a) petition for review or (b) motion for reconsideration remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) to avoid miscarriage
of a decision of the court shall be (1) refused due course or days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial. (n) of justice
(2) denied without stating the legal basis therefor. Art. VIII, Sec. The SC shall have Constitutional
Other Constitutional Provisions: 6 administrative basis for the
16. Review of Decisions, Final Order of Constitutional supervision over all administrative
Commission Constitutional Provision Relevance courts and the jurisdiction of
Provision personnel thereof the SC
Art. IX-A, Sec. 7. Each Commission shall decide by a Art. II, Sec. The State shall Constitutional Art. VIII, Sec. The SC en banc shall Constitutional
majority vote of all its Members, any case or matter protect and advance basis for Rules 11 have the power to basis for the
brought before it within sixty (60) days from the date of its (PA) the right of on discipline judges of administrative
submission for decision or resolution. people to a balanced Environmental lower courts, or jurisdiction of
and healthful ecology Procedure order their dismissal the SC
A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or (BHE) in accord with by a vote of a
resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or the rhythm and majority of the
memorandum required by (a) the rules of the Commission harmony of nature Members who
or (b) by the Commission itself. (RHN) actually took part in
Art. III, Sec. 11 Free access to the Constitutional the deliberations on
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, courts and quasi- basis for Rule 3, the issues in the case
any decision, order, or ruling (DOR) of each Commission judicial bodies and Sec. 21 on and voted thereon
may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the adequate legal indigent parties Art. VIII, Sec. All cases or matters Constitutional
aggrieved party within thirty (30) days from receipt of a assistance shall not 15(1) filed after the basis for period
copy thereof. be denied by any effectivity of this of judgments
person by reason of Constitution must be
poverty decided or resolved
a. Review Power of the SC over decision of the
Constitutional Commission Art. III. Sec. 15 The privilege of the within 24 months
writ of habeas corpus from the date of
a. COMELEC shall not be submission to the SC,
 and unless reduced • Embodied in the pertinent provisions of the LGC of settlement with respondent Genabe, pursuant to Sec. 408
by the SC, 12 months 1991 (R.A. 7160), as amended, Sec. 399-422 and 409 of the LGC.
for all lower
collegiate courts and 2. What is the Purpose/Objective of Barangay Law? The compulsory process of barangay conciliation is a pre-
3 months for all condition for the filing of the complaint in court. Where
lower courts Aqiono v. Laure, (2008). the complaint:
Art. VIII. Sec. A case or matter shall Constitutional
5(2) be deemed basis of Rule 30, • To reduce the number of court litigants a. Did not state that it is one of the excepted cases
submitted for Sec. 5(g) (Trial) • To prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice b. Did not allege prior availment of said conciliation
decision or resolution which has been brought by the indiscriminate filing of process
upon the filing of the cases in the courts c. Did not have a certification that no conciliation had
last pleading, brief or • To insure this objective, P.D. 1508, Sec. 6 requires the been reach by the parties, the case should be
memorandum parties to undergo a conciliation process before the dismissed
required by the Rules Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo,
of Court or the Court as a precondition to filing a complaint in court subject Here, petitioner Agbayani failed to show that the instant
itself to certain exceptions. This said section has been case is not one of the cases that is covered by the
Art. XI, Sec. 4 The present anti- Constitution declared compulsory in nature. application of the rule on mandatory barangay
graft court known as provision that conciliation.
the Sandiganbayan mandates the 3. What is the Rule on Referral to the Barangay?
shall continue to continuation of 4. Guidelines on the KP Conciliation Proceedings
function and exercise jurisdiction of Sec. 412(a). Conciliation - Pre-condition to Filing of pursuant to A.C. No. 14-93
its jurisdiction as now the SDB Complaint in Court – 5. What are the XPNs to the Rule on Referral of the
or hereafter may be Case to the Barangay?
provided by law. GR: No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding (CPAP)
Art. XI, Sec. 15 The right of the State Exclusive involving any matter/ within the authority of the lupon/ Sec. 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement;
to recover properties original shall be filed or instituted (FI) directly in court or any other Exception Thereto - The lupon of each barangay shall have
unlawfully acquired jurisdiction of government office for adjudication (C-Go-A) authority to bring together the parties actually residing in
by public officials or the the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all
employees, from Sandiganbayan XPN: (1) Unless there has been a confrontation between disputes except:
them or from their over civil cases the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and
nominees or for the that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as (a) Where one party is the government, or any
transferees, shall not forfeiture of certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as subdivision or instrumentality thereof (G-S-I);
be barred by illegally attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or (b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and
prescription, laches, acquired wealth the dispute relates to the performance of his official
or estoppel under R.A. 1379 (2) Unless the settlement has been repudiated by the functions;
parties thereto. (c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one
Chapter III: Stages in Civil Procedure (1) year or a fine exceeding Five thousand pesos
a. Barangay conciliation procedure, a condition (P5,000.00);
precedent: Must be alleged otherwise the case will (d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
See Flow Chart in Tan, pp. 86-97
be Dismissed (e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in
different cities or municipalities unless the parties
Chapter IV: Katarungang Pambarangay Law thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable
Agbayani v. CA, (2012). Undeniably, both petitioner
Agbayani and respondent Genabe are residents of Las settlement by an appropriate lupon;
A. Katarungang Pambarangay Pinas and both work at the RTC, and the incident which is (f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in
the subject matter of the case happened in their barangays of different cities or municipalities/, except
1. What does the KPL establishes? workplace. Agbayani’s complaint should have undergone where such barangay units adjoin each other and the
the mandatory barangay conciliation for possible amicable parties thereto agree to submit their differences to
• It establishes a system of amicably settling the amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;
disputes at the barangay level
(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President
may determine in the interest of justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
The court/in which non-criminal cases not falling within
the authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may/,
at any time before trial motu propio refer the case to the
lupon concerned for amicable settlement.
f.1. Actual residence necessary in order for the Lupon to
Acquire Jurisdiction
Pascual v. Pascual, (2005). Where the real party-in-
interest, is not an actual resident of the barangay where
the defendant-herein respondent resides, the local lupon
has no jurisdiction over their dispute, hence, prior referral
to it for conciliation is not a pre-condition to its filing in
court
f.2. Barangay Conciliation NOT applicable in case
respondent is a non-resident
Sunbanun v. Go, (2010). In its decision dated 28 March
2000, the trial court held that the case is not covered by
the barangay conciliation process since respondent is a
resident of Hongkong.
Sec. 412(b). Where Parties May Go Directly to Court - The
parties may go directly to court in the following instances:
(1) Where the accused is under detention;
(2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of
personal liberty calling for habeas corpus
proceedings;
2.a. Barangay conciliation not applicable in habeas
corpus cases:
Tribiana v. Tribiana. The barangay conciliation under Art.
412 of the LGC does not apply to habeas corpus
proceedings where a person is “deprived of personal
liberty”. In such case, Sec. 412, LGC expressly authorizes
the parties “to go directly to court” without need of any
conciliation proceedings.
(3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies
such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery
of personal property and support pendente lite (PI-A-
DPP-SPL); and
(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the
statute of limitations.
6. Other Instances Where a Party May File the Case
Directly with the Court pursuant to A.C. 14-93
(a) Offenses for which the law prescribed the maximum
penalty of 1 year imprisonment or fine exceeding
5000 pesos
(b) Offenses where there is no private offended party
(c) Dispute where urgent legal action is necessary to
prevent injustice from being committed or further
continued, specifically the following:
c.1. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody
or detention
c.2. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally
deprived of his rightful custody over another or a person
illegally deprived of his liberty or one acting in his behalf
d. Actions couple with provisional remedies
e. Actions which may be barred by the Statutes of
Limitation
III.
7. Who May Initiate Barangay Proceeding?
Sec. 410(a). Procedure for Amicable Settlement -Who
may initiate proceeding - Upon payment of the
appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a cause of
action against another individual involving any matter
within the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or
in writing, to the lupon chairman of the barangay.
a. Who are the Persons Not Covered by Barangay Law?
Vda. De Borromeo v. Pogoy. Sec. 410 of the LGC applies
only to cases involving natural persons, and not where any
of the parties is a juridical person such as corporation,
partnership, corporation sole, testate or intestate estate.
Since the real party-in-interest in this case is the intestate
estate which is a juridical person, the plaintiff
administrator may file the complaint in court without the
same being coursed to the barangay lupon for arbitration.
8. Personal Appearance in Barangay Proceedings
Sec. 415. Appearance of Parties in Person - In all
katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must
appear in person without the assistance of counsel or
representative, except for minors and incompetents who
may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers.
a. Personal appearance of the parties in the
conciliation proceedings required: Rationale:
Prohibition on lawyers
Atty. Magno v. Atty. Velasco-Jacoba, (2005). Purpose: To
enable the lupon to secure first hand and direct
information about the facts and issues, the exception
being in cases where minors or incompetents are parties.
The presence of lawyers could sometimes obfuscate or
confuse issues and tends to prolong instead of expediting
the settlement of the case.
b. Duty of the Judge to Determine if there is
compliance with Barangay Conciliation Procedure
Before Judicial Actions can be Conducted
A.C. NO. 14-93.
All complaints and/or information filed or raffled to
your sala/branch of the RTC shall be carefully read
and scrutinized to determine if there has been
compliance with prior Barangay conciliation
procedure under the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations, as a pre-condition to judicial action,
particularly whether the certification to file action
attached to the records of the case comply with the
requirements hereinabove enumerated in par. II;
c. Confrontation with the Lupon Chairman for
amicable settlement is considered as Substantial
Compliance with the Law on Barangay
Lumbuan v. Ronquillo, (2006). The confrontation before
the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient
compliance with the precondition for the filing of the case
in court.
This is truth notwithstanding the mandate of Sec. 410(b) of
the same law that the Barangay Chairman shall constitute
a pangkat if he fails in his mediation efforts.
9. What are the Effects of Non-Referral of the Case
with the Barangay?
Banares II v. Balising, (2000). The non-referral of a case for
barangay conciliation when so required under the law is
not jurisdictional in nature and may therefore be deemed
waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss.
10. Non-Compliance with Barangay Conciliation, a
ground for a motion to dismiss for failure to comply
with the condition precedent
Rule 16, Sec. 1. Grounds – Within the time for but before
filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a
claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the
following grounds:
(j). That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not
been complied with
a. What is the nature of the dismissal?
• The dismissal of the case for failure to comply with
the condition precedent of non-referral of the case to
the barangay for purpose of conciliation is without
prejudice.
b. What is the Remedy of the Plaintiff?
(1) Before the finality of the order or dismissal, comply
with the requirements and motion to revive
(2) After the order of dismissal becomes final and
executory, re-file the case after compliance with the
condition precedent.
c. Motu proprio Dismissal of the Case for Failure to
Comply with the Barangay Conciliation under the
Rules on Summary Procedure
Rules on Summary Procedure, Sec. 4. Duty of court —
After the court determines that the case falls under
summary procedure, it may, (a) from an examination of
the allegations therein and (b) such evidence as may be
attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on any of the
grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of a civil
action.
If no ground for dismissal is found it shall forthwith issue
summons which shall state that the summary procedure
under this Rule shall apply.
d. Dismissal of the Case for Non-Compliance with
Barangay under the Rules on Summary Proceedings?
Remedy?
Sec. 18. Referral to Lupon — Cases requiring referral to
the Lupon for conciliation under the provisions of P.D.
1508 where there is no showing of compliance with such
requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice and
may be revived only after such requirement shall have
been complied with.
XPN: This provision shall not apply to criminal cases where
the accused was arrested without a warrant.
e. What is the Nature of the Dismissal for Non-
Compliance with Barangay Conciliation?
Banares Li v. Balising. Equally erroneous is private
respondent’s contention that the rules regarding the
finality of judgments under the ROC do not apply to cases
covered by the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure.
There is no declaration to the effect that said case may be
revived by mere motion even after the 15 days period
within which to appeal or to file a motion for
reconsideration has lapsed.
f. What is the Remedy In case of Dismissal
1. If may be revived by motion within the fifteen day
period form notice of order of dismissal after such
requirement has been complied with
2. Compliance with the rule and re-refilling of the case
g. Remanding of the Case by the Court to the Barangay
Cured Defect in the Barangay Conciliation
Monasterio-Pe v. Sps. Tan, (2011). The Court finds no
error in the previous conciliation proceedings leading to
the issuance of the first certificate to file action, which was
alleged to be defective, has already been cured by the
MTCC’s act of referring back the case to the Pangkat
Tagapagkasundo for proper conciliation and mediation
proceedings. These subsequent proceedings led to the
issuance anew of certificate to file action.
11. Effect of Amicable Settlement at the Barangay Level
Sec. 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration
Award - The amicable settlement and arbitration award
shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a
court upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date
thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been
made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed
before the proper city or municipal court.
However, this provision shall not apply to court cases
settled by the lupon under the last paragraph of Sec. 408
of this Code, in which case the compromise or the pangkat
chairman shall be submitted to the court and upon
approval thereof, have the force and effect of a judgment
of said court.
12. Amicable Settlement has the Force and Effect of
Law: Grounds for Repudiation of Amicable
Settlement
GR: The amicable settlement shall have the force and
effect of a final judgment of the court upon expiration of
10 days from the date thereof
XPN:
1. Unless repudiations of the settlement has been
made where consent is vitiated by force,
violence or intimidation
2. Petition to nullify the award.
Vidal v. Escueta, (2003). The repudiation of the settlement
shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of a certificate to
file a complaint.
13. What are the Rules of Venue for the Referral of the
Case to the Barangay (Sec. 409)
Sec. 409. Venue -
(a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the
same barangay shall be brought for amicable
settlement before the lupon of said barangay.
(b) Those involving 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 complaint.
(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest
therein shall be brought in the barangay where the
real property or the larger portion thereof is situated.
(d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending
parties are employed or at the institution where such
parties are enrolled for study, shall be brought in the
barangay where such workplace or institution is
located.
Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation
proceedings before the punong barangay; otherwise, the
same shall be deemed waived.
Any legal question which may confront the punong
barangay in resolving objections to venue herein referred
to may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice, or his duly
designated representative, whose ruling thereon shall be
binding.
14. Procedure for Amicable Settlement
Sec. 410. Procedure for Amicable Settlement -
(a) Who may initiate proceeding - Upon payment of the
appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a cause
of action against another individual involving any
matter within the authority of the lupon may
complain, orally or in writing, to the lupon chairman
of the barangay.
(b) Mediation by lupon chairman - Upon receipt of the
complaint, the lupon chairman shall within the next
working day summon the respondent(s), with notice
to the complainant(s) for them and their witnesses to
appear before him for a mediation of their conflicting
interests.
If he fails in his mediation effort within fifteen (15) days
from the first meeting of the parties before him, he shall
forthwith set a date for the constitution of the pangkat in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
(c) Suspension of prescriptive period of offenses - While
the dispute is under mediation, conciliation, or
arbitration, the prescriptive periods for offenses and
cause of action under existing laws shall be
interrupted upon filing the complaint with the
punong barangay.
The prescriptive periods shall resume upon receipt by the
complainant of the (a) complainant or (b) the certificate of
repudiation or (c) of the certification to file action issued
by the lupon or pangkat secretary:
Provided, however, That such interruption shall not
exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the complaint with
the punong barangay.
(d) Issuance of summons; hearing; grounds for
disqualification - The pangkat shall convene not later
than three (3) days from its constitution, on the day
and hour set by the lupon chairman, to hear both
parties and their witnesses, simplify issues, and
explore all possibilities for amicable settlement.
For this purpose, the pangkat may issue summons for the
personal appearance of parties and witnesses before it.
In the event that a party moves to disqualify any member
of the pangkat by reason of relationship, bias, interest, or
any other similar grounds discovered after the constitution
of the pangkat, the matter shall be resolved by the
affirmative vote of the majority of the pangkat whose
decision shall be final.
Should disqualification be decided upon, the resulting
vacancy shall be filled as herein provided for.
(e) Period to arrive at a settlement - The pangkat shall
arrive at a settlement or resolution of the dispute
within fifteen (15) days from the day it convenes in
accordance with this section.
This period shall, at the discretion of the pangkat, be
extendible for another period which shall not exceed
fifteen (15) days, except in clearly meritorious cases.
15. Actions of the Court in Case of Non-Compliance with
the Conciliation Proceedings
Royales v. IAC. A case filed in court without compliance
with prior Barangay conciliation which is a pre-condition
for formal adjudication may be dismissed upon motion of
defendant/s, NOT for lack of jurisdiction of the court BUT
for failure to state a cause of action; or
The Court may suspend proceedings upon petition of any
party under Rule 21, Sec. 1, and refer the case motu
proprio to the appropriate Barangay authority, applying by
analogy Sec. 408(g), par. 2.
16. Lack of Conciliation Process Does not Affect the
Jurisdiction of the Court once it Acquires Jurisdiction
over the Subject Matter and the Defendant
Aquino v. Laure, (2008). It is true that the precise
technical effect of failure to comply with the requirement
of Sec. 412 is much the same effect produced by non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies – the complaint
becomes afflicted with the vice of pre-maturity; and the
controversy there alleged is no ripe for judicial
determination. Hence, vulnerable to a motion to dismiss
Nevertheless, the conciliation process is not a
jurisdictional requirement, so that non-compliance
therewith cannot affect their jurisdiction which the court
has otherwise acquired over the subject matter or over
the person of the defendant.
17. Lack of Barangay Conciliation Must be Raised in a
Motion to Dismiss, otherwise waived
Banares Li v. Balising. The non-referral of a case for
barangay conciliation when so required under the law is
not jurisdictional in nature and may therefore be deemed
waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss.
18. Berba v. Pablo, (2005). New complaint should be filed
before the baranagay against the heirs of the original
respondent, otherwise there is non-compliance of the
rule.
19. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration
Sec. 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration
Award - The amicable settlement and arbitration award
shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a
court upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date
thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been
made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed
before the proper city or municipal court.
However, this provision shall not apply to court cases
settled by the lupon under the last paragraph of Sec. 408
of this Code, in which case the compromise or the pangkat
chairman shall be submitted to the court and upon
approval thereof, have the force and effect of a judgment
of said court.
a. Earnest Effort Towards Amicable Settlement
Between Members of the Same Family under Art.
151 of the FC must be complied with
Martinez v. Martinez, (2005). The petitioners were able to
comply with the requirements of Art. 151 of the FC
because they alleged in their complaint that they had
initiated a proceeding against the respondent for unlawful
detainer in the KP, in compliance with P.D. 1508; and that,
after due proceedings, no amicable settlement was arrived
at, resulting in the barangay chairman’s issuance of a
certificate to file action.
The Court rules that such allegation in the complaint, as
well as the certification to file action by the barangay
chairman, is sufficient compliance with Art. 151 of the FC.
b. Amicable Settlement has the Force and Effect of
Law: Grounds for Repudiation and Amicable
Settlement
• See Sec. 416
c. Amicable Settlement has the Force and Effect of a
Final Judgment/Res Judicata Even Not Judicially
Approved: Remedies for Enforcement
Miguel v. Montanez, (2012). It is true that an 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 Art. 2037 of the Civil Code, viz:
A compromise has upon the parties the effect and
authority of res judicata; but there shall be no execution
except in compliance with a judicial compromise.
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. Thus, under Sec.
417 of the LGC, such amicable settlement or arbitration
award may be enforced by execution by the Barangay
Lupon within six (6) months from the date of settlement,
or by filing an action to enforce such settlement in the
appropriate city or municipal court, if beyond the six-
month period.
Under the first remedy, the proceedings are covered by
the LGC and the KP-IRR. 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. Under
the second remedy, the proceedings are governed by the
ROC, 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.
20. Execution of Amicable Settlement or Arbitration
Award (See Sec. 417)
a. Execution of Amicable Settlement or Arbitration
Award (See Sec. 417)
b. Execution of Amicable Settlement within 6 months
from execution before filing of the action to the
court: Effect
Vidal, et. al. v. Escueta, (2003). The amicable settlement
by the parties before the Lupon on the arbitration award
has the force and effect of a final judgment of a court
upon the expiration of ten days from the date thereof.
The repudiation of the settlement shall be sufficient basis
for the issuance of a certification to file a complaint.
c. What is the duty of the Lupon Secretary as regards
the Amicable Settlement: Enforcement of Amicable
Settlement
Sec. 419. Transmittal of Settlement and Arbitration. -
Award to the Court - The secretary of the lupon shall
transmit the settlement or the arbitration award to the
appropriate city or municipal court within five (5) days
from the date of the award or from the lapse of the ten-
day period repudiating the settlement and shall furnish
copies thereof to each of the parties to the settlement and
the lupon chairman.
Enforcement of a Settlement of the parties before the
Lupon:
1. By execution of the Punong Barangay which is a
quasi-judicial and summary in nature on mere motion
of the party/parties entitled thereto
2. By an action in regular form, which remedy is judicial.
Reason of the 6 month Rule: To afford the parties during
the 6 month time line, a simple, speedy and less expensive
enforcement of their settlement before the Lupon.
d. How to Execute Agreement After the Six Months
Period under Sec. 417: Venue? Enforcement of
Settlement Does Not Fall under Summary Procedure
Vidal v. Escueta, (2003). Katarungang Pambarangay, IRR,
Sec. 2. Modes of Execution – The amicable settlement or
arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the
Lupon within 6 months from the date of settlement or
date of receipt of the award or from the date the
obligation is stipulated in the settlement or adjudged the
arbitration award becomes due and demandable.
The venue for such actions is governed by Rule 4, Sec. 1.
An action for the enforcement of a settlement is not one
of those covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure in
civil cases; hence, the rules on regular procedure shall not
apply, as provided in Rule 5, Sec. 1
21. Repudiation of Settlement
Sec. 418. Repudiation - Any party to the dispute may,
within ten (10) days from the date of the settlement,
repudiate the same by filing with the lupon chairman a
statement to that effect sworn to before him, where the
consent is vitiated by fraud, violence, or intimidation. Such
repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of the
certification for filing a complaint as hereinabove
provided.
a. Repudiation How Made? Grounds? (See Sec. 418 in
relation Sec. 416)
b. Effect of the Filing of the Repudiation (See Sec. 418)
c. Remedies in case of repudiation of the amicable
settlement: Amicable settlement deemed rescinded
even without court intervention
Miguel v. Montanez, (2012). If the amicable settlement is
repudiated by one party, either expressly or impliedly, the
other party has two options:
a. To enforce the compromise in accordance with the
LGC or ROC as the case may be
b. To consider it rescinded and insist upon his original
demand
Legal Basis: Art. 2041, NCC. 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
Art. 2041 does not require an action for rescission and the
aggrieved party, by the breach of compromise agreement,
may just consider it already rescinded.
Miguel v. Montanez. It is not needed to seek a judicial
declaration of rescission, for he may “regard” the
compromise agreement already “rescinded”
d. Enforcement of Amicable Settlement Before the
Barangay Through Regular Court
• The use of the word “may” in Sec. 417 clearly makes
the procedure provided in the Revised KBL directory
or merely optional in nature.
22. Requirements for the Issuance of a Certificate to File
Action
The certification for filing a complaint in court or any
government office shall be issued by Barangay authorities
only upon compliance with the following requirements:
1. Issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested by the
Lupon Chairman, certifying that a confrontation of
the parties has taken place and that a conciliation or
settlement has been reached, but the same has been
subsequently repudiated
2. Issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the
Pangkay Chairman, certifying that:
a. A confrontation of the parties took place but no
conciliation/settlement has been reach
b. That no personal confrontation took place before the
Pangkay through no fault of the complainant
23. Rule in Filing a Small Claims Case Before the Court in k. Where the action may otherwise be barred by the
Case Arbitral Award Involves Payment or statute of limitations.
Reimbursement of Money not Exceeding 100,000 l. Criminal cases where accused us under police custody
or detention
Sec. 4(c) Applicability – The enforcement of a barangay m. Where one of the parties is a juridical person
amicable settlement or an arbitration award involving
money claim covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 Chapter V: Basic Concepts on Pleadings/Complaint
a. What is the remedy in case of enforcement of
I. Matters to be Considered in the Preparation
amicable settlement or an arbitration award
of a Civil Complaint/Pleading
involving money claim?
a. Rules on pleading (Rule 6)
A: File a small claims case pursuant to the Sec. 4(c) on the
b. Rule on jurisdiction (B.P. 129, as amended by R.A.
rules of Summary Procedure in relation to Sec. 417 of R.A.
7691)
7160 c. Rule on causes of actions, joinder of causes of actions
(Rule 2)
Summary: d. Rule on parties, and joinder of parties (Rule 3)
e. Rule on venue (Rule 4)
GR: Art. 412. f. Rules on formal requirements of pleading (Rule 7)
g. Rule on manner of making allegations (Rule 8)
XPN: Conciliation is not required and thus the parties may h. Service of Pleadings, orders, judgment or resolution
go directly to court: (Rule 13)
i. Rule on Small Claims (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC)
a. Where one of the party is the government, or any j. Rules on Provisional Remedies (Rule 57-61)
subdivision or instrumentality thereof k. Rules on Special Civil Action (Rule 62-71)
b. Where one of the party is a public officer or l. Rule on Writ of Kalikasan and writ of continuing
employee, and the dispute relates to the mandamus
performance of his official functions
c. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding (1)
I. Basic Concepts on Pleadings
year or a fine exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000)
d. Offenses where there is no private offended party
A. Pleadings
e. Where the dispute involves real properties located in
different cities or municipalities unless the parties
1. Pleadings Defined
thereto agree to submit their differences to
amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
f. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in Rule 6, Sec. 1. Pleadings defined — Pleadings are the
barangays of different cities or municipalities, except written statements of the respective claims and defenses
where such barangay units adjoin each other and of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate
the parties thereto agree to submit their differences judgment.
to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon.
g. Where one of the parties is not a resident of the a. Q: Is a Motion a Pleading?
Philippines
h. Where the accused is under detention No. Rule 15, Sec. 1 provides that:
i. Where a person has been otherwise been deprived of
personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings Rule 15, Sec. 1. Motion defined — A motion is an
j. Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies application for relief other than by a pleading.
such as preliminary injunction, preliminary
attachment, receivership, replevin and support 2. Pleadings Allowed by the ROC
pendente lite.
Rule 6, Sec. 2. Pleadings allowed — The claims of a party
are asserted in a (a) complaint, (b) counterclaim, (c) cross-
claim, (d) third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or (e)
complaint-in-intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the (f) answer to the
pleading asserting a claim against him.
An answer may be responded to by a (g) reply.
3. What are the Kinds of Pleadings under the Rules?
a. Initiatory pleading
b. Responsive pleading
e. Fourth-party complaint D.M. Ferrer & Associates Corp. v. UST, (2012). Only
f. Complaint in intervention ultimate facts and not legal conclusions or evidentiary
g. Complaints for special civil actions facts, which should not be alleged in the complaint in the
h. Petition in special civil actions first place, are considered for purpose of applying the test
i. Petitions in special proceedings
j. Verified statement of claims under the Rules on Small 10. Compulsory counterclaim Defined
Claims
Rule 6, Sec. 7. Compulsory counterclaim — A compulsory
7. What is a responsive pleading? counterclaim is one which, (a) being cognizable by the
regular courts of justice, (b) arises out of or is connected
a. A responsive pleading is a pleading which responds with the transaction or occurrence (c) constituting the
to the pleadings of the adverse party subject matter of the opposing party's claim and (d) does
b. Black’s. A pleading that responds to the opponent’s not require for its adjudication the presence of third
earlier pleading. parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.

4. Distinction Between Initiatory Pleading and
Responsive Pleading
Initiatory
A pleading which
commences an action
containing plaintiff’s cause
or causes of action
Needs to be verified
Should contain a
certification of non-forum
shopping
5. What is an Initiatory Pleading?
Responsive
A pleading which responds
to the adverse party’s
pleading
GR: Need not be verified
XPN: Except those required
to be verified under the
rules and law
GR: Need not contain a
certification of non-forum
shopping
XPN: Unless it is
accompanied by
counterclaim or cross-claim
8. What are the Responsive Pleadings under the Rules? Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the
court both as to the amount and the nature thereof,
a. Answer to the original complaint except that in an original action before the Regional Trial
b. Answer to the permissive counterclaim Court, the counter-claim may be considered compulsory
c. Answer to the cross-claim regardless of the amount.
d. Answer to the third-party complaint
e. Answer to the fourth-party complaint a. What are the Requirements of a Counter-claim
f. Answer to the complaint in intervention
g. Answer to the amended pleading 1. It must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as
h. Answer to the supplemental pleading to amount and the nature thereof
i. Answer to the complaint in SCA 2. Except that in an original action before the RTC, the
j. Comment or Objection to the petition in SCA counterclaim may be considered compulsory
k. Reply to all the answers regardless of the amount.
l. Compulsory counter-claim
m. Response in a Small Claims Case. 11. What is a Permissive Counterclaim?
9. Complaint Defined A permissive counterclaim is a claim which, being
cognizable by the regular courts of justice, which does not
Rule 6, Sec. 3. Complaint — The complaint is the pleading arise out of or is not connected with the transaction or
alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The (a) occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing
names and (b)residences of the plaintiff and defendant party’s claim and require for its adjudication the presence
must be stated in the complaint. of third parties of whom the court can acquire jurisdiction.

Initiatory Pleading is a pleading filed before the court a. What are the Matters Alleged in the Complaint? 12. Counter-counterclaim defined
which commences an action and contains the plaintiff’s
cause or causes of action 1. The name and residences of the plaintiff and Rule 6, Sec. 9. A counterclaim may be asserted against an
defendant original counter-claimant.
6. What are the initiatory pleadings under the ROC? 2. The act or omission constituting the cause or causes
of action 13. Cross Claim Defined: Coverage
a. Original complaint 3. The relief prayed for
b. Permissive counterclaim Rule 6, Sec. 8. Cross-claim — A cross-claim is any claim by
c. Cross-claim b. What Must be Alleged in the Complaint? one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction
d. Third party complaint or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the (a)
original action or of a (b) counterclaim therein. Such cross-
claim may include a claim that the party against whom it is
asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or
part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-
claimant
14. Counter Cross-Claim Defined
Rule 6, Sec. 9. A cross-clam may also be filed against an
original cross-claimant.
15. Rules on Bringing New Parties
Rule 6, Sec. 12. Bringing new parties — When the
presence of parties other than those to the original action
is required for the granting of complete relief in the
determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court
shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if
jurisdiction over them can be obtained.
16. Third/Fourth Party Complaint
Rule 6, Sec. 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)—party complaint — A
third (fourth, etc.) — party complaint 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 contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his
opponent's claim.
a. Nature of a third-party complaint; Not Mandatory;
Secondary or Derivative Liability
Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras, (2012). From
Rule 6, Sec. 11, it does not compel the defendant to bring
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.
If the party is already a party to the action, the proper
procedure is through compulsory counterclaim or
crossclaim. The crucial characteristic of a claim under Rule
6, Sec. 12, is that the original “defendant is attempting to
transfer to the third-party defendant the liability asserted
against him by the original plaintiff.
b. Third Party Complaint; Requisites
1. The party to be impleaded must not yet be a party to
the action
2. The claim against the third-party defendant must
belong the original defendant
3. The claim of the original defendant against the third
party defendant must be based upon the plaintiff’s
claim against the original defendant; and
4. The defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-
party defendant the liability asserted against him by
the original plaintiff.
c. Third Party Complaint: When Proper
Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras, (2012). Third-
party claim need not be based on the same theory as the
main claim. 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 party’s liability is contingent, and technically does
not come into existence until the original defendant’s
liability has been established. The words “is or may be
liable” in rule 14(a) make it clear that impleader is proper
even though the third-party defendant’s liability is not
automatically established once the third-party plaintiff’s
liability to the original plaintiff has been determined.
17. Counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint
is available to the Parties in an action for
Interpleader
Rule 62, Sec. 5, par. 2. The parties in an interpleader
action may file counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party
complaints and responsive pleadings thereto, as provided
by these Rules.
18. What is a Complaint-in-Intervention
A complaint-in-intervention is a pleading filed before the
court, with leave of court by a person who has:
a. a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or
b. In the success of either of the parties
c. Or an interest against both,
d. Or is so situated as to be adversely affected by the
distribution or other disposition of property in the
custody of the court or of any officer thereof.
19. Answer, Defined
Rule 6, Sec. 4. Answer — An answer is a pleading in which
a defending party sets forth his defenses. (4a)
20. Reply, Defined
Rule 6, Sec. 10. 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.
21. Answer to third-(fourth, etc.) Party Complaint
Rule 6, Sec. 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)—party
complaint — A third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant may
allege in his answer his defenses, counterclaims or cross-
claims, including such defenses that the third (fourth, etc.)
— party plaintiff may have against the original plaintiff's
claim. In proper cases, he may also assert a counterclaim
against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter's claim
against the third-party plaintiff. (n)
22. Limitations on Pleadings in Criminal, Civil Cases,
Special Proceedings and Land Registration Cases
under A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC (February 21, 2012);
Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts
A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC, Sec. 1. Limitation on Pleadings –
Parties may file pleadings subsequent to the complaint,
answer and reply, regarding any incident in a pending
case, only upon prior leave of court, and in no case to
exceed 40 pages in length, double spaced, using font size
14.
23. What are the Pleadings which are Allowed under the
Rules on Summary Procedure?
Sec. 3. Pleadings —
A. Pleadings allowed — The only pleadings allowed to
be filed are the (a) complaints, (b) compulsory
counterclaims and (c) cross-claims' pleaded in the
answer, and (d) the answers thereto.
24. Prohibited Pleadings under the Rules on Summary
Procedure
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule II, Sec. 1. Pleadings and motions
allowed — The pleadings and motions that may be filed
are (a) complaint, (b) answer which may include
compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim, (c) motion for
intervention, (d) motion for discovery and (e) motion for
reconsideration of the judgment.
Motion for postponement, motion for new trial and
petition for relief from judgment shall be allowed in highly
meritorious cases or to prevent a manifest miscarriage of
justice.
Proceedings Even if not Raised in the Answer or a
Motion to Dismiss?
GR: Jurisdiction of a court may be questioned at any stage
of the proceedings as when there is lack of jurisdiction,
even if they were not raised in the answer or in a motion
to dismiss.
Reason: Jurisdiction is conferred by law, and lack of it
affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance
of an render judgment on the action.

g. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition 29. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions in Environmental 4. What is the “Residual power/Jurisdiction” of the
against any interlocutory order issued by the court Cases court Ancillary Jurisdiction?
j. Reply
k. Third-party complaints Sec. 2. Prohibited pleadings or motions — The following Rule 41, Sec. 9. In either case, prior to the transmittal of
l. Interventions pleadings or motions shall not be allowed: the (1) original record or the (2) record on appeal, the
court may issue orders (a) for the protection and
25. What are the Pleadings Which are Allowed under (a) Motion to dismiss the complaint; preservation of the rights of the parties which do not
the Rules on Small Claims? (b) Motion for a bill of particulars; involve any matter litigated by the appeal, (b) approve
(c) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, except compromises, (c) permit appeals of indigent litigants, (d)
a. Statement of Claim (Form 1-SCC) to file answer, the extension not to exceed fifteen order execution pending appeal in accordance with 2 of
b. Response (15) days; Rule 39, and (e) allow withdrawal of the appeal
c. Permissive counterclaim (d) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
d. Compulsory counterclaim (e) Reply and rejoinder; and 5. What is the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction?
(f) Third party complaint. Application?
26. Prohibited Pleadings under Rules on Small Claims
II. Basic Concepts on Jurisdiction Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction – (a) court must refrain
Sec. 14. from determining a controversy (b) involving a question
1. Origin of the Term Jurisdiction which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative
g. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition tribunal prior to its resolution by the latter/, (c) where the
against any interlocutory order issued by the Bouvier. “Jus” meaning law; “dicere” meaning to declare question demands the exercise of sound administrative
court discretion (d) requiring the special knowledge, experience,
j. Reply Macasaet v. People, (2005). It is “the power of a court to and services (KES) of the administrative tribunal (e) to
k. Third-party complaints hear and determine a cause of action presented to it, the determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
l. Interventions power of a court to adjudicate the kind of case before it,
the power of a court to adjudicate a case before it, the Bagunu v, Sos Aggabao and Acerit, (2011). It applies
27. What are the Pleadings which are Not Allowed in a power of a court to adjudicate a case when the proper “where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and
Petition for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data? parties are before it, and the power of a court to make the comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim
particular decision it is asked to render. requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory
a. Counterclaim scheme, have been placed within the special competence
b. Cross-claim 2. Definition of Jurisdiction of an administrative body, in such case the judicial process
c. Third-party complaint is suspended pending referral of such issues to the
d. Reply Jurisdiction is defined as the authority of the court to hear administrative body for its review”
e. Pleadings in intervention and decide actual cases and to implement its decision.
5.a. What is the Objective of Primary Jurisdiction?
28. Pleadings and Motion Allowed under the Rules on 3. When to Raise the Issue of Jurisdiction? Can
Environmental Cases Jurisdiction can be Questioned at any Stage of the Omictin v. CA, 12 Div., (2007). To guide a court in
determining whether it should refrain from exercising its
jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has
determined some question or some aspect of some
question arising in the proceeding before the court.
5.b. Acts and Decisions of the Court is Null and Void if it is
in Violation of the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
Agra v. COA, (2011). When an administrative body is
clothed with original and exclusive jurisdiction, courts are
utterly without power and authority to exercise
concurrently such jurisdiction. Accordingly, all the
proceedings of the court in violation of that doctrine and
all orders and decisions reached are null and void.
6. Court is Precluded in Resolving Controversy Falling
under the Jurisdiction of the Administrative
Tribunal: Agrarian Cases Falls Under the DARAB
Sps. Fajardo v. Flores, (2010). The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested
in the DAR; more specifically, in the DAR Adjudication
Board (DARAB)
7. What is the Doctrine of Non-Interference” or
“Doctrine of Judicial Stability”
a. Atty. Cabili v. Judge Balindong, (2011). Doctrine of
Non-Interference or Judicial Stability provides that
(a) no court can interfere by injunction (b) with the
judgment or orders of another court of concurrent
jurisdiction (c) having the power to grant the relief
sought by injunction.
Rationale: Founded on the concept of jurisdiction over its
judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts,
for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control,
in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers
acting in connection with the judgment.
b. PNB v. Pineda. The various branches of the RTC of a
province or city, having as they do the same or equal
authority and exercising as they do concurrent and
coordinate jurisdiction, should not, cannot and are
not permitted to interfere with their respective cases,
much less their orders or judgments by means of
injunctions
c. Villamor v. Salas. No RTC can pass upon and
scrutinize, and much less declare as unjust a
judgment of another RTC and sentence the judge
thereof liable for damages without running afoul with
the principle that only the higher appellate courts,
namely the CA and SC, are vested with authority to
review and correct errors of the trial courts.
8. Lack of Jurisdiction Should be Raised at the Earliest
Opportunity
Heirs of Marasigan v. Marasigan,(2008). Where the court
itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or
the nature of the action, the invocation of his defense may
be done at any time.
GR: Neither waiver nor estoppels shall apply to confer
jurisdiction upon a court
XPN: The Court may rule otherwise under meritorious and
exceptional circumstances (ex. Tijam v. Sibanghanoy)
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. “After voluntarily submitting a
cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits,
it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or
power of the court.
9. Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter may be
Raised at Any Stage of the Proceedings
Republic v. Batigue Point Dev. Corp., (2012). Jurisdiction
cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the
omission of the parties or conferred by acquiescence of
the court. Consequently, question of jurisdiction may be
cognizable even if raised for the first time on appeal.
10. Laches Defined; It must be clearly present in order to
bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction; Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy an XPN rather than GR
a. Laches has been defined as “failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable or unexplained length of time, to do
that which, by exercising due diligence, could or
should have been done earlier; it is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting the presumption that the party entitled to
assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.
b. Estoppel by laches – “a party may be estopped from
raising such jurisdictional question if he has actively
taken part in the very proceeding which he questions,
belatedly objecting to the court’s jurisdiction in the
event that the judgment or order subsequently
rendered is adverse to him.”
c. Vda. de Herrera v. Bernardo, (2011). Estoppel by
laches may be invoked to bar the issue for lack of
jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual milieu is
analogous to that in the cited case (Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy). In such controversies, laches should
have been clearly present, that is, lack of jurisdiction
must have been raised belatedly as to warrant the
presumption that the party entitled to assert it had
abandoned or declined to assert it.
11. What is the Doctrine of “Estoppel by Laches” or
“Equitable Estoppel”?
Megar Sugar Corp. v. RTC of Iloilo, Br. 68, (2011). It
provides that the active participation of the party against
whom the action was brought, coupled with his failure to
object to the jurisdiction of the court or administrative
body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an
invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by
the resolution of the case and will bar the said party from
later on impugning the court or the body’s jurisdiction.
12. Payment of Filing/Docket Fees – Jurisdictional
Manchester v. CA, (1987). Manchester rule: It is not
simply the filing of the complaint that vests the court with
jurisdiction over the action filed but also by the payment
of the prescribed docket fees.
13. Ruling in Manchester case relaxed by the SC: Unpaid
Legal Fees Considered as a Lien on the Judgment
Yuchengco v. Republic. In Sun Insurance v. CA, The court
made a liberal interpretation of the rule by allowing a late
payment of the docket fee as long as it should not be
made beyond the action’s prescriptive period. Any unpaid
fees should be considered a lien on the judgment. In this
case, there is no evidence that the plaintiff tried to evade
the payment of the docket fees.
While the timely payment of docket fees is jurisdictional,
consideration of equity also come into the picture.
B. Manner of Acquiring Jurisdiction by the Court
a. Over the subject matter of the action
b. Over the parties
c. Over the issues
d. Over the case
e. Over the res or the thing
a. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter, Defined
Ursua v. Republic. 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 the
parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the
cause or causes of action as alleged in the complaint.
2. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter is Conferred by
Law and Determined by the Allegations in the
Complaint
a. Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila,
(2012). It is axiomatic that the nature of an action and
whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over such action
are to be determined from the material allegations
of the complaint, the law in force at the time the
complaint is filed, and the character of the relief
sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is
entitled to all or some of the claims averred.
Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the
theories set up by defendant in an answer to the
complaint or a motion to dismiss the same.
b. Rapsing v. Judge Ables, (2012). 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.
c. Ursua v. Republic, (2012). It is, therefore, clear that
jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
law. In turn, the question on whether a given suit
comes within the pale of a statutory conferment is
determined by the allegations in the complaint,
regardless of whether or not the plaintiff will be
entitled at the end to recover upon all or some of the
claims asserted therein. We said as much in Magay v.
Estiandan;
“[J]urisdiction over the subject matter is determined by
the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether
or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some
of the claims asserted therein-a matter that can be
resolved only after and as a result of the trial. Nor may the
jurisdiction of the court be made to depend upon the
defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to
dismiss, for, were we to be governed by such rule, the
question of jurisdiction could depend almost entirely upon
the defendant.”
d. Deltaventures Resources, Inc. v. Cabato. Jurisdiction
over the subject matter of a case is generally
conferred by law and, unlike jurisdiction over the
parties, cannot bestowed upon the court by the
voluntary act or agreement of such parties.
But the determination of whether or not a court may
assume jurisdiction over a case for a subject matter that
by law is within its ambit is made by simply looking at the
“mere allegations of the complaint”
3. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter is a Matter of
Substantive Law
De la Cruz v. CA. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is not
procedural but a matter of substantive law. This
jurisdiction is conferred by law. Nothing else can confer
jurisdiction except the law.
4. Allegations in the Complaint Determines Jurisdiction
a. Barayuga v. Adventist University of the Phil., (2011).
Determinative of which regular court had jurisdiction
would be the allegations of the complaint (on the
assessed value of the property) and the principal
relief thereby sought
b. Ursua v. Republic, (2012). Jurisdiction over the
subject matter is determined by the allegations of the
complaint, irrespective or WON the plaintiff is
entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims
asserted therein – a matter that can be resolved only
after and as a result of the trial.
c. Sps. Villacastin v. Pelaez, (2008). In ascertaining
whether an action is one for forcible entry falling
within the exclusive jurisdiction of lower courts, the
averments of the complaint and the character of the
relief sought are to be examined.
d. Gregorio v. CA, (2009). Substantive law provides for
the jurisdictions of various courts in the entire judicial
system, depending on the nature of the action.
e. Sante v. CA, (2009). Jurisdiction is conferred by law
based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the
latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate
facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action.
5. Jurisdiction is Determined by the Allegations in the
Complaint and Not on the Averments in the Answer
City of Dumaguete v. Phil. Ports Authority, (2011). The
jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon
the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to
dismiss. What determines jurisdiction of the court is the
nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the
allegations in the complaint. The averments therein and
the character of relief sought are the ones to be consulted.
6. Jurisdiction Not Dependent on the Defense in the
Answer or Motion to Dismiss
Boleyley v. Villanueva, (1996). Jurisdiction of the court
over the nature of the action and the subject matter
thereof cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set
up in the court or upon a motion to dismiss for, otherwise,
the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely
on the defendant.
7. MTC does not lose Jurisdiction over an Ejectment
Case if the Party Alleged as a Defense their Tenancy
Relationship
Cerbantes v. CA. The MTC does not lose its jurisdiction
over an ejectment case by the simple and expedient of a
party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of
a tenancy relationship between the parties.
But it is the duty of the court to receive the evidence to
determine the allegations of tenancy. If, after hearing,
tenancy had, in fact, been shown to be the real issue, the
court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
8. Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter may be
Invoked at any time, even on Appeal
a. Republic v. Bantigue Point Dev. Corp., (2012).
Question of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if
raised for the first time on appeal
b. Calimlim v. Ramirez. Objections to jurisdiction over
the subject matter may, as a rule, be made at any
stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on
appeal as long as estoppel by laches does not set in.
Being estopped to question jurisdiction is the XPN
rather than the rule
9. Important Matters to Consider in Case of Lack of
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter of the Action
a. It is sufficient ground for the dismissal of an action
under Rule 16, Sec. 1(b)
Rule 16, Sec. 1(b). Within the time for but before filing the
answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a
motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following
grounds:
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action.
b. It can be Raised as an Affirmative Defense in the
Answer under Rule 16, Sec. 6
Rule 16, Sec. 6. Pleading grounds 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. (5a)
The dismissal of the complaint under this Sec. shall be
without prejudice to the prosecution in the same or
separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer.
c. Lack of Jurisdiction is a Ground for a Motion to
Dismiss an Action under the Rules on Summary
Procedure
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the
complaint or information except on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure
to comply with the preceding Section;
d. Dismissal of the Action Motu Proprio by the Court
for Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
under Rule 9, Sec. 1
d.1. In ordinary civil Action
Rule 9, Sec. 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded —
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However,
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record 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, the
court shall dismiss the claim. (2a)
d.2. In Summary Procedure
Sec. 4. Duty of court — After the court determines that
the case falls under summary procedure, it may, from an
examination of the allegations therein and such evidence
as may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on
any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of
a civil action. If no ground for dismissal is found it shall
forthwith issue summons which shall state that the
summary procedure under this Rule shall apply
e. It may be curable by amendment when made as a
Matter of Right
• If the ground was invoked by the defendant in a
motion to dismiss, the court may:
a. Dismiss the action
b. Deny the motion
c. Order the amendment of the pleading in order
to confer jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 16, Sec. 3
Rule 16, Sec. 3. Resolution of Motion — After the hearing,
the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the
motion, or order the amendment of the pleading.
f. The court may allow the plaintiff to amend his
complaint to confer jurisdiction upon the court as a
matter of right since a motion to dismiss is not a
responsive pleading under Rule 10, Sec. 2
Sec. 2. Amendments 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.
(2a)
g. If the court granted the motion and dismissed the
case, but the order is not yet final and executor,
amendment of the pleading may be done as a
matter of right in order to confer jurisdiction since
there is no responsive pleading yet filed
h. Appeal Dismissing the case without trial for Lack of
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter: RTC may
assume Jurisdiction if the Lower Court Has No
Jurisdiction
h.1. The RTC on appeal may affirm the order of dismissal
by the lower court without trial on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, and if it has
jurisdiction, it shall try the case as if it was originally filed
therein.
Rule 40, Sec. 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case
without trial; lack of jurisdiction — If an appeal is taken
from an order of the lower court dismissing the case
without a trial on the merits, the RTC may affirm or
reverse it, as the case may be. In case of affirmance and
the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the RTC, if it has jurisdiction thereover,
shall try the case on the merits as if the case was originally
filed with it. 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 RTC on
appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original
jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the case in
accordance with the preceding Sec., without prejudice to
the admission of amended pleadings and additional
evidence in the interest of justice.

i. Dismissal on this Ground is Without Prejudice
Rule 41, Sec. 1. Subject of 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.
(g) An order Dismissing an Action Without Prejudice
III. Jurisdiction Over the Parties
1. How Can Jurisdiction over the Parties be Acquired by
the Court?
a. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff or petitioner by filing a
complaint, petition or initiatory pleading before the
court by the plaintiff or petitioner.
b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent which
may be acquired:
1. By the voluntary appearance or submission by the
defendant or respondent to the court
2. By a coercive process issued by the court to him,
generally a valid service of summons.
2. Acquisition of Jurisdiction over the Person of the
Defendant by Voluntary Appearance: Motion
Questioning Jurisdiction of the Court Not Voluntary
Appearance.
A voluntary appearance is a waiver of the necessity of a
formal notice. An appearance in whatever form, without
explicitly objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over
the person, is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court
over the person. While the formal method of entering an
appearance in a cause pending in the courts is to deliver to
the clerk a written direction ordering him to enter the
appearance of the person who subscribes it, an
appearance may be made by simply filing a formal motion,
or plea or answer. This formal method of appearance is
not necessary. He may appear without such formal
appearance and thus submit himself to the jurisdiction of
the court. He may appear by presenting a motion, for
example, and unless by such appearance he specifically
objects to the jurisdiction of the court, he thereby gives his
assent to the jurisdiction of the court over his person.
When the appearance is by motion objecting to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person, it must be for the
sole and separate purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction
of the court. If his motion is for any other purpose than to
object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he
thereby submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
3. Special Appearance to Challenge Jurisdiction of the
Court is not Voluntary Appearance
a. JAPRL Dev. Corp. v. Security Bank Corp., (2011).
When the defendant appearance is made precisely to
object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person,
it cannot be considered as appearance in court
b. Go v. Cordero, (2010). A party who makes a special
appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of
said court based on the ground of invalid service of
summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the court.
4. Objection to Jurisdiction Must be Explicit: Motion
Seeking Affirmative Relief from the Court is
Submission to the Jurisdiction of the Court
Rapid City Realty and Dev. Corp. v. Villa, (2010).
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 (a) filing of motions
to admit answer, (b) for additional time to file answer, (c)
for reconsideration of a default judgment, and (d) 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:
Special appearance operates as an exception to the
general rule on voluntary appearance;
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
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.
Go v. Cordero, (2010). A party who makes a special
appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said
court based on the ground of invalid service of summons
is not deemed to have submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court.
Defendant having acknowledged the summons by
publication and also having invoked the jurisdiction of the
court to secure affirmative relief in his motion for
additional time, he effectively submitted voluntarily to the
trial court’s jurisdiction. He is now stopped from asserting
otherwise even before this Court.
5. Objection to Jurisdiction May be Raised in a Motion
to Dismiss or as an Affirmative Defense in the
Answer
• Rule 16, Sec. 6
6. Motion to Dismiss Questioning Jurisdiction over the
Person of the Defendant Together with Other
Grounds is Not Voluntary Appearance
Lhuiller v. British Airways, (2010). A defendant who files a
motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court
over his person, together with other grounds raised
therein, is not deemed to have appeared voluntarily
before the court. What the rule on voluntary appearance –
the first sentence of the above-quoted rule – means is that
the voluntary appearance of the defendant in court is
without qualification, in which case he is deemed to have
waived his defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person
due to improper service of summons.
7. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Defendant Can be
Acquired by the Court through Valid Service of
Summons
a. Summons is importance in order to comply with the
due process requirement of the Constitution on
proper notice.
However, in action in personam, valid service of summons
is more than just compliance with due process, in that the
same is jurisdictional in order for the court to render a
valid judgment over the defendant.
b. A resident defendant should be served personally
(Rule 14, Sec. 6), by substituted service (Rule 14, Sec.
7), or by extraterritorial service when his
whereabouts is unknown and cannot be ascertained
by diligent inquiry or his identity is unknown, or even
when he is simply temporarily out of the country
(Rule 14, Sec. 14), subject to the respective rules on
domestic private or public corporations, entities
without juridical personality, minors and
incompetents, and prisoners.
IV. Jurisdiction over the Issue of the Case
1. Jurisdiction is Conferred by the Pleadings
Jurisdiction over the issue of the case is determined:
1. By the pleadings filed in the case by the parties
2. By their agreement in a pre-trial order or
stipulation, or
3. By their implied consent by the failure of a party
to object to evidence on an issue not covered by
the pleadings, as provided in Rule 10, Sec. 5
Rule 10, Sec. 5. Amendment 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. (5a)
2. Only Issues Raised by the Parties in the Pleadings
Must be Passed Upon by the Court
Buce v. CA. This jurisdiction means that the court must • Acquired by the actual or constructive seizure by the
only pass upon issues raised by the pleadings of the court of the thing in question, thus placing it in
parties. custodia legis, as in attachment or garnishment; or by
provision of law which recognizes in the court the
Thus, it is not correct for the court to order the lessee to power to deal with the property or subject matter
vacate the premises where the lessor did not include in his within its territorial jurisdiction, as in land registration
pleadings a claim for restoration of possession. proceedings or suits involving civil status or real
property in the Philippines of a non-resident
3. Issues Which are Not Raised in the Pleading and defendant.
Trued with the Express or Implied Consent of the
Parties, Amendment is Allowed: Court Acquires III. Jurisdiction of Lower Courts
Jurisdiction over the Issue
A. MeTC, MTC, MCTC
• See Rule 10, Sec. 5
1. Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction in Civil Cases (B.P/
4. Court Acquires Jurisdiction over Issues Not Objected 129, as amended by R.A. 7691)
to by the Parties During Trial Though Not Raised in
the Pleadings 1.a. Determination of Jurisdictional Amount
Mercader v. DBP. If a party presents evidence on a matter A.C. No. 09-94, Sec. 2. The exclusion of “damages of
not at issue in the pleadings, the other may object to such whatever kind” applies to cases where damages are
evidence. The court may sustain the objection and exclude merely incidental to or a consequence of the main cause
the evidence. However, the same rule likewise allows the of action.
court, in the interest of substantial justice, to direct an
amendment to the pleadings so the pleadings may In cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of
conform to the evidence. action, or one of the causes of action, the amount of
damages shall be considered in determining the
V. Jurisdiction over the Case jurisdiction of the court.
1. How Can the Court Acquire Jurisdiction over the 1.b. Case of Specific Performance or Damages in the
Case Alternative – Jurisdictional Amount shall be Determined:
MTC can Acquire Jurisdiction
• By the act of the plaintiff in filing the complaint or
information before the said court Cruz v. Tan. In an action for specific performance OR
damages, being one in the alternative, to determine the
2. Distinction Between Jurisdiction over the Subject jurisdiction one must refer to the amount of damages
Matter vs. Over the Case sought for (MTC or RTC, based on jurisdictional amount of
damages)
Jurisdiction over the Jurisdiction over the Case
Subject Matter But an action for specific performance alone or an action
Conferred by law Invested by the act of for specific performance AND damages shall be filed with
Plaintiff and attaches upon the RTC.
the filing of the complaint
or information 1.c. Exclusive original jurisdiction Over admiralty and
maritime cases where the demand or claim does not
VI. Jurisdiction over the Res exceed 300,000 or, in Metro Manila, does not exceed
400,000
 1.d. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over Cases of Forcible
Entry and Unlawful Detainer (see table)
(1) Issue of Ownership Raised in Ejectment Case not
Conclusive
• When the defendant raises the issue of ownership in
his pleadings, and the question of possession cannot
be resolved without deciding the question of
ownership raised, the court may resolve the issue of
ownership only to determine the issue of possession.
This means that the judgment of ownership made is
merely provisional, not final and conclusive.
(2) Cervantes v. CA, (1998). The MTC does not lose its
Jurisdiction over an Ejectment case by Simple
Expedient of a Party Raising a Defense Therein the
Alleged Existence of a Tenancy Relationship Between
the Parties
But, it is the duty of the court to receive evidence to
determine the allegations of tenancy. If, after hearing,
tenancy had, in fact been shown to be the real issue, the
court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
(3) Ejectment Cases Must be Filed Within 1 year from
accrual of Cause of Action
• FEUD must be brought within one year from the
accrual of the cause of action.
• If brought after more than one year from the illegal
deprivation of possession, the action becomes a
plenary action called accion publiciana, which unlike
FEUD, although the same may also be cognizable by
the MTC depending on the assessed value, is an
ordinary civil action and may not be covered under a
summary proceeding.
(4) Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over Real Actions
Involving Title to or Possession of Real Property or
Any Interest Therein (see table)
4.1. Recovery of Ownership of Land-Assessed Value
Duero v. CA, (2002). A complaint for the recovery of
ownership of parcel of land with a value of P5,240.00 is
within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
4.2. MTC/MCTC has Jurisdiction over (a) Reconveyance of
Real Property, (b) Removal of Cloud in a Title of Property,
(c) Cancellation of Title of Real Property Depending on
the Assessed Value
Heirs of Concha v. Sps. Lumosco, (2009). Before the
amendments introduced by R.A. 7691, they were within
the jurisdiction of the RTC because of express provision of
the old law and also because they were considered also as
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
4.3. MTC/MCTC has Jurisdiction over Accion Publiciana
depending on the Assessed Value: Not Summary
Proceeding
(a) Quinagoran v. CA, (2007). Jurisdiction over a case of
accion publiciana, also now depends upon the
assessed value of the property involved but it will not
be covered by a summary proceeding
(b) BF City Corp. v. Otake. The MeTC can now assume
jurisdiction over accion publiciana cases
4.4. Hilario v. Salvador. MTC/MCTC has jurisdiction over
Accion Reivindicatoria depending on the assessed value
(5) Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over Civil Cases
Covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure (see
table)
2. Delegated Jurisdiction in Civil Cases (see table)
a. Delegated Jurisdiction of the MTC in Cadastral and
Land Registration Cases
Republic v. Bantigue Point Dev. Corp., (2012). Opposition
to petitioner’s application for registration does not fall
under the 1st instance in B.P. 129, Sec. 34 as to the
exercise of delegated jurisdiction of the MTC.
b. Basis for Determining the Value of the Property: Tax
Declaration
Republic v. Bantigue, (2012). Three ways to determine the
value of the property sought to be registered:
1. By the affidavit of the claimant
2. By agreement of the respective claimants if there are
more than one
3. From the corresponding tax declaration of the real
property
The value of the property must therefore be ascertained
with reference to the corresponding Tax Declarations
submitted by respondent Corporation together with its
application for registration
3. Special Jurisdiction of the MeTC Judge/ MTC Judge/
MCTC Judge (see table)
B. Regional Trial Court Judge
1. Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction in Civil Cases (see
table)
a. In all civil actions in which the subject matter of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation
a.1. Nature of the principal action and remedy sought
determines the subject matter as one incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
Heirs of Padilla v. Magdua, (2010). Pecuniary estimation –
where the basic issue is something other than the right to
recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely
incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief
sought
a.2. An action for specific performance incapable of
pecuniary estimation
Dacasin v. Dacasin, (2010). An action for specific
performance, such as petitioner’s suit to enforce the
Agreement on joint child custody, belongs to this species
of action. Thus, jurisdiction-wise, petitioner went to the
right court.
b. In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for
civil actions in Metro Manila, where such the value
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) except
actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer
of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which
is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts;
c. In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
where he demand or claim exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or , in Metro Manila,
where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred
thousand pesos (400,000.00);
d. In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate,
where the gross value of the estate exceeds One
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or, in
probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross
value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos
(400,000.00);
e. In all actions involving the contract of marriage and
marital relations;
f. In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
1. Constitutionality of Rules and Regulations Issued by
the Bureau of Customs falls under the Jurisdiction of
Regular Courts
Carbonilla v. Board of Airlines Representatives, (2011).
The jurisdiction over the validity and constitutionality of
rules and regulations issued by the Commissioner under
Sec. 608 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines
lies before the regular courts, not with the OP or CTA.
g. In all civil actions and special proceedings falling
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and
1. RTC as Special Agrarian Court has Exclusive Original
Jurisdiction over Determination of Just
Compensation
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Villegas, (2010). Special
Agrarian Courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over two categories of cases:
1. All petitions for the determination of just
compensation
2. The prosecution of all criminal offenses under R.A.
6657
h. In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the
property in controversy exceeds One hundred 5. Petitions for writ of continuing mandamus (A.M. No.
thousand pesos (300,000.00) or, in such other 09-6-8-SC)
abovementioned items exceeds Two hundred
thousand pesos (400,000.00). (as amended by R.A. a. RTC has NO Jurisdiction to Review the Validity or
No. 7691*) Regularity of Forfeiture Proceedings even through
Petition for Certiorari
1. Exclusion of Damages Merely Incidental in the Main
Action Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Rodriguez, (2010).
RTC are devoid of any competence to pass upon the
Sante v. Claravall, (2010). The exclusion of the term validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings
“damages of whatever kind” in determining the conducted by the Bureau of Customs and to enjoin or
jurisdictional amount under Sec. 19(8) and Sec. 33(1) of BP otherwise interfere with these proceedings. RTC are
129, as amended by R.A. 7691, applies to cases where the precluded from assuming cognizance over such matters
damages are merely incidental to or a consequence of the even through petitions for certiorari, prohibition or
main cause of action. mandamus.
2. Action for Damages – Amount of Claim Determines 3. Appellate Jurisdiction (see table)
Jurisdiction 4. Special Jurisdiction (see table)
Sante v. Claravall, (2010). In cases where the claim for C. Shari’ah District Court
damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes
of action, the amount of such claim shall be considered in 1. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of Shari’ah District
determining the jurisdiction of the court. Courts (see table)
2. Appellate Jurisdiction of Shari’ah District Courts (see
i. Other Cases Falling under the Exclusive Original table)
Jurisdiction of the RTC
D. Shari’ah Circuit Courts (see table)
i.1. Over cases involving intra-corporate controversies
under Sec. 5.2. of the Securities and Regulations Code IV. Basic Concepts on Cause of Action
(R.A. 8799)
A. Basic Concepts on Cause of Action
i.2. Jurisdiction of the RTC over Intra-corporate Disputes
1. Basis of Civil Action
• Pursuant to Sec. 5.2. of R.A. 8799, the SEC’s
jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes has been Rule 2, Sec. 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of — Every
transferred to the RTC as a Special Commercial Court ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.
(SCC) designated by the Court pursuant to AM No. 00-
11-03-SC
2. Cause of Action Defined
2. Original Jurisdiction of the RTC in Civil Cases
Rule 2, Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined — A cause of
1. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo action is the act or omission by which a party violates a
warranto and habeas corpus, and injunction which right of another.
may be enforced in any part of the respective regions
(B.P. 129, Sec. 21) a. What is a cause of action? Elements.
2. Actions affecting ambassadors, public minister and
consuls (B.P. 129, Sec. 21) 1. A right in favor of the plaintiff acquired by him in any
3. Petitions for writ of amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) manner or granted by law
4. Petitions for habeas data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
2. A correlative obligation of the defendant to respect accordance with the prayer of said complaint. Stated (Rule 16, Sec. 3) as a matter of evidence after the
such right differently, if the allegations in the complaint furnish of right before a responsive plaintiff rests its case, the
3. An act or omission of the defendant in violation of sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, pleading has been filed, latter may not anymore ask
such right the same should not be dismissed regardless of the even when a motion to for an amendment of his
4. The filing of the plaintiff in court of an action to defense that may be asserted by the defendant. dismiss on such ground has pleading, but may ask the
enforce and protect or obtain redress for such right. been made by the court for the admission of a
d. How to Determine Whether the Complaint States a defendant, the same not supplemental pleading in
DBP v. Hon. Castillo, (2011). If one of these elements is Cause of Action being a “responsive light of supervening events,
absent the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to pleading” under the Rules setting forth “transactions,
dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. Juana Complex I HOA v. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., (2012). The occurrences or events
question of whether the complaint states a cause of action which have happened since
3. Nature of a COA: Relation to the Complaint is determined by its averments regarding the acts the date of the pleading
committed by the defendant. Thus, it must contain a sought to be
PDI v. Hom Alameda, (2008). In relation to a complaint, it concise statement of the ultimate or essential facts supplemented.
is a formal statement of the operative facts that give rise constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. To be taken into
to a remedial right. It must contain a concise statement of account are only the material allegations in the complaint; The court may however
the ultimate or essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s extraneous facts and circumstances or other matters require an amendment
cause of action. aliunde are not considered. during the presentation of
evidence of the plaintiff, if
4. Elements of Cause of Action 5. Rule on One Suit for Single Cause of Action evidence that is not in issue
is not objected to by the
a. Texon Manufacturing v. Millena, (2004). The cause of Rule 2, Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of action — A defendant, in which case
action does not accrue until the party obligated party may not institute more than one suit for a single the evidence is deemed
refuses, expressly or implied, to comply with its duty. cause of action. “impliedly admitted” so an
b. PDI v. Hon. Alameda. An act or omission of the amendment is not really
defendant in violation of such right – most important 6. Failure to State Cause of Action Compared to Lack of necessary to appreciate the
element since it is only upon the occurrence of the Cause of Action evidence; or when an
last element that a cause of action arises, giving the objection was in fact made,
plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for Failure to State Cause of Lack of Cause of Action but at the liberal discretion
recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. Action of the court “if the
Rule 16, Sec. 1(g) Rule 33; Rule 10, Sec. 5 presentation of the merits
Test to determine an initiatory pleading states a cause of Refers to the insufficiency Refers to a situation where of the action and the ends
action: Admitting the truth of the facts alleged, can the of the pleading, and a the evidence does not of substantial justice will be
court render a valid judgment in accordance with the ground for dismissal under prove the cause of action subserved thereby (Rule 10,
prayer? Rule 16 alleged in the pleading Sec. 5)
A matter of insufficiency of A matter of insufficiency of If the motion to dismiss is If a demurrer is denied, the
To be taken into account are only the material allegations denied, the movant shall be defendant shall have the
the pleading evidence
in the complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or required to file his answer right to present evidence
The remedy is to move for The remedy is to demur to
other matters aliunde are not considered. The court may within the balance of the
dismissal of the pleading evidence
however consider, in addition to the complaint, the period to which he is
Motion to dismiss is made Demurrer is filed after the
appended annexes or documents, other pleadings of the entitled at the time such
within the time for but plaintiff has completed the
plaintiff, or admissions in the records. motion was filed, but in no
before the filing of an presentation of his
case shall be less than five
answer evidence/rested its case.
c. Test of Sufficiency of Cause of Action (5) days (Rule 16, Sec. 4)
Determined on the basis of Based on the appreciation
If a motion to dismiss on If a demurrer to evidence is
the allegations in the of evidence
Juana Complex I HOA v. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., (2012). The the ground of failure to granted, the dismissal is
complaint of the plaintiff
test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as state a cause of action has with prejudice, as the same
constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting May still be curable by When a demurrer is filed on
been granted, the dismissal is considered a judgment
the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in amendment of the pleading the ground of insufficiency
is without prejudice to the on the merits of the case, second cause of action would have been sufficient to record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
refilling of the action hence, the remedy of the authorize a recovery in the first matter, that there is another action pending between the
plaintiff is to appeal from (2) Umale v. Canoga Park Dev. Corp., (2011). Several same parties for the same cause, or that the action is
such judgment. tests exist to ascertain whether two suits relate to a barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the
single or common cause of action, such as whether court shall dismiss the claim.
Consequently, on appeal, if the same evidence would support and sustain both
the judgment was reversed, the first and second causes of action23 (also known 8. Consolidation of Cases in Case of Identity of Causes
the defendant shall be as the "same evidence" test), or whether the of Action
deemed to have waived his defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the
right to present his complaint in the other. Also fundamental is the test Rule 31, Sec. 1. Consolidation — When actions involving a
evidence of determining whether the cause of action in the common question of law or fact are pending before the
May be invoked in a motion The ground of insufficiency second case existed at the time of the filing of the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the
to dismiss or as an of evidence may be invoked first complaint. matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions
affirmative defense in the in a motion for demurrer to consolidated, and it may make such orders concerning
pleading (Rule 16, Sec. 6) evidence (Rule 33), in a MR d. Effects of Splitting of Cause of Action proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary
(Rule 37) or in an appeal costs or delay.
memorandum • It would result in the dismissal of the action on the
ground of litis pendentia or res judicata under Rule a. Consolidation of Cases Discretionary
7. Rule on the Splitting of Cause of Action 16, Sec. 1(e) and (f)
Sps. De Vera v. Agloro, (2005). It is plain as day that the
Rule 2, Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of Rule 16, Sec. 1. Grounds — Within the time for but before trial court is not mandated to consolidate the two or more
— If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a related cases. The trial court is vested with discretion
same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the whether or not to consolidate two or more cases.
the merits in any one is available as a ground for the following grounds:
dismissal of the others. b. Purpose of Consolidation
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment
or by the statute of limitations; Raymundo v. Felipe, (1971). However, it bears stressing
a. What is splitting a cause of action?
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause that consolidation is aimed to obtain justice with the lease
of action; expense and vexation to the litigants. The object of
Chu v. Sps. Cunanan, (2011). It is the act of dividing a
single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against
claims and instituting two or more actions upon them. A (1) What is the Remedy of the Defendant in Case of oppression or abuse, prevent delays and save the litigants
single cause of action or entire claim or demand cannot be Splitting of Cause of Action? unnecessary acts and expense.
split up or divided in order to be made the subject of two
or more different actions. a. If the first complaint is still pending, the ground is litis Sps. De Vera v. Agloro, (2005). Consolidation should be
pendentia (Rule 16, Sec. 1(e)) denied when prejudice would result to any of the parties
b. Example of Splitting b. If judgment upon the merits was rendered, the or would cause complications, delay, prejudice, cut off, or
ground is res judicata (Rule 16, Sec. 1(f)) restrict the rights of a party.
Progressive Dev. Corp. v. CA, (1999). Claim for damages c. File an answer alleging as affirmative defense either
or both grounds and a preliminary hearing may be c. GR: Consolidation is applicable if the Cases are
filed by the lessee of the property before the RTC and an
had thereon as if a motion to dismiss was filed (Rule Pending in the Same Judge: XPN
action for forcible entry in the MTC arising from a single
cause of action 16, Sec. 6)
Bank of Commerce v. Hon. Perlas-Bernabe, (2010). GR:
e. Motu Proprio Dismissal of the Claims on the Ground Consolidation applies only to cases pending before the
c. Same Evidence Test
of Litis Pendentia or Res Judicata same judge and not to cases pending in different branches
(1) Pantranco North Express, Inc., et. al. v. Standard of the same court or in different courts.
Insurance Co. Inc., (2005). To determine identity of Rule 9, Sec. 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded —
cause of action, it must be ascertained whether the Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to XPN: Yet in appropriate instances and in the interest of
same evidence which is necessary to sustain the dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, justice, cases pending in different branches of the court or
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on in different courts may be consolidated, consistent with
the rule in our jurisdiction that leans towards permitting
consolidation of cases whenever possible and irrespective
of the diversity of the issues for resolution.
9. Joinder of Causes of Action
Rule 2, Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action — A party may
in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as
many causes of action as he may have against an opposing
party, subject to the following conditions:
(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 actions or
actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same
parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and
the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
a. Limitations on the Rule on Joinder of Causes of
Action
Jurisdiction of causes of actions is only allowed for
ordinary civil actions. The rules provides that a cause of
action may not be joined with:
a. Special Civil Actions (Rule 62-71)
b. Action governed by Special Rules (Special
Proceedings, Rule 72-109)
c. Joinder of Claims under the Rule of Procedure on
Small Claims Cases
Sec. 8. Joinder of Claims – Plaintiff may join in a single
statement of claim one or more separate small claims
against a defendant provided that the total amount
claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00).
10. Misjoinder of Causes of Action
Rule 2, Sec. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action —
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.
a. Misjoinder of Causes of Action Not a Ground for
Dismissal of the Action
Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando Pampanga
v. Soriano, Jr., (2011). Rule 2, Sec. 6 explicitly provides
that misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for the
dismissal of the action.
V. Basic Concepts on Parties (Rule 3)
1. Parties in a Civil Action
Rule 3, Sec. 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and
defendant — Only natural or juridical persons, or entities
authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.
The term "plaintiff" may refer to the (a) claiming party, (b)
the counter-claimant, the (c) cross-claimant, or (d) the
third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff.
The term "defendant" may refer to the (a) original
defending party, (b) the defendant in a counter-claim, (c)
the cross-defendant, or (d) the third (fourth, etc.) — party
defendant.
a. “Entities authorized by law” who may be parties
1. State or its political subdivision
2. Labor organizations
3. Partnerships by estoppel (Art. 1825, CC)
4. Corporation by estoppel (Sec. 21, B.P. 29)
5. Foreign corporations, even though not engaged in
business in the Philippines may nevertheless bring a
civil or administration action for opposition,
cancellation, infringement, unfair competition, or
false designation of origin and false description, WON
it is licensed to do business in the Philippines under
existing laws (R.A. 8293, Sec. 160)
2. Classification of Parties in a Civil Action
a. Real parties in interest (Rule 3, Sec. 2)
b. Representative parties (Rule 3, Sec. 3)
c. Indispensable parties (Rule 3, Sec. 7)
d. Necessary parties (Rule 3, Sec. 8)
3. Real Parties in Interest, Defined
Rule 3, Sec. 2. Parties in interest. — 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. Unless otherwise authorized by law or
these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended
in the name of the real party in interest.
a. Who is a Real Party-in-Interest?
Go v. Cordero, (2010). Every action must be prosecuted
and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. 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 the failure to state a cause of action.
b. Rule on Real Party-in-Interest Defined: Meaning of
Interest
Mayor Dagadag v. Tongnawa, (2005). The word interest,
as contemplated by the Rules, means material interest or
an interest in issue and to be affected by the judgment,
as distinguished from mere interest in the question
involved or a mere incidental interest. Stated differently,
the rule refers to a real or present substantial interest as
distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future,
contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. As a
general rule, one who has no right or interest to protect
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-
plaintiff in an action
Farinas v. Executive Secretary, (2003). The gist of the
question of standing is whether a party has “alleged such a
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which the court so largely
depends for illumination of difficult constitutional
questions.
c. The Interest of a Party Must be Direct and Personal
Agan, Jr. v. PIATCO, (2004). The interest of a party
assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct
and personal. Such party must be able to show, not only
that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that
he has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining
some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not
merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It
must appear that the person complaining has been or is
about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is
lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to
some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act
complained of.
d. Real Party-in-Interest, Meaning
Ang v. Sps. Ang, (2012). Interest within the meaning of the
ROC 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.
e. Party Referred to Under Rule 45, Original Party
City Government of Tuguegarao v. Ting, (2011). The Court
has previously held that the "party" referred to in the rule
is the original party in the main case aggrieved by the
order or decision in the main case. Hence, only the
aggrieved original party in the main case is the only proper
party as petitioner. One who has not been an original
party in the main case has no personality to file a petition
under said rule.
f. Real Party-in-Interest in Environmental Cases
Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 4. Who may file – Any real party in
interest, including the government and juridical entities
authorized by law, may file a civil action involving the
enforcement or violation of any environmental law.
g. Real Party-in-Interest in Citizens Suit in
Environmental cases
Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 5. Citizen suit — Any Filipino citizen in
representation of others, including minors or generations
yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or
obligations under environmental laws. Upon the filing of a
citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall
contain a brief description of the cause of action and the
reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to
manifest their interest to intervene in the case within
fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may
publish the order once in a newspaper of a general
circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected
barangays copies of said order.
Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No. 9003
shall be governed by their respective provisions.
h. Parties to Civil Forfeiture
A.M. No. 05-11-04, Part II, Sec. 2. Party to institute
proceedings – The Republic of the Philippines, through the
Anti-Money Laundering Council, represented by the Office
of the Solicitor General, may institute actions for civil
forfeiture and all other remedial proceedings in favor of
the State of any monetary instrument, property, or
proceeds representing, involving, or relating to an
unlawful activity or a money laundering offense.
i. Real Party-in-Interest in a Derivative Suit
Cua, Jr. v. Tan, (2009). In a derivative suit, the corporation
is the real party-in-interest while the stockholders filing
suit for the corporation’s behalf is only a nominal party,
the corporation should therefore be included as a party in
the suit.
j. Action filed by or Against a Person Who is Not a Real
Party-in-Interest is a Ground for the Dismissal of the
Action under Rule 16, Sec. 1(g)
Rule 16, Sec. 1. Grounds — Within the time for but before
filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a
claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the
following grounds:
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause
of action;
k. Action Prosecuted by a Person Not a Real Party-in-
Interest May be Dismissed on the Ground that the
Pleadings Fails to State a Cause of Action
Aguila, Jr. v. CA. If the action is prosecuted in the name of
one who is not the real party-in-interest, the ground for
dismissal shall be that the complaint states no cause of
action or fails to state a cause of action.
l. Motu Proprio Dismissal of the Action under the
Rules of Summary Procedure on the Ground of
Failure to State Cause of Action
Sec. 4. Duty of court — After the court determines that
the case falls under summary procedure, it may, from an
examination of the allegations therein and such evidence
as may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on
any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of
a civil action. If no ground for dismissal is found it shall
forthwith issue summons which shall state that the
summary procedure under this Rule shall apply.
m. Remedy of the Defendant if He Failed to File a
Motion to Dismiss
Rule 16, Sec. 6. Pleading grounds 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. (5a)
The dismissal of the complaint under this Sec. shall be
without prejudice to the prosecution in the same or
separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer.
n. Remedies Available to the Plaintiff in Case of
Dismissal of the Action for Failure to State a Cause of
Action
(1) It may be curable by amendment when made as a
matter of right
Rule 16, Sec. 3. Resolution of Motion — After the hearing,
the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the
motion, or order the amendment of the pleading.
Rule 10, Sec. 2. Amendments 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.
(2) Re-filing of the Case
Rule 16, Sec. 5. Effect of dismissal — Subject to the right
of appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss based on
paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) of Sec. 1 hereof shall bar the
refiling of the same action or claim.
o. What is the Nature of the Dismissal of the Action
Based on the Complaint States No Cause of Action?
• It is not considered as a judgment on the merits that
completely disposes of the case, but rather the order
of dismissal is considered as “without prejudice” to
the refilling of the case and cannot be subject to
appeal
Rule 41, Sec. 1. Subject of 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.
No appeal may be taken from:
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
6. Representative as Parties
Rule 3, 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.
a. Representative as Parties is Not a Real Party-in-
Interest
Ang v. Sps. Ang, (2012). The petitioner’s reliance on Rule
3, Sec. 3 to support their conclusion that Atty. Aceron is
likewise a party in interest in the case below is misplaced.
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 Rule 3, Sec. 2 vis-à-vis Sec.
3 of the same Rule.
b. Representative Party in a Citizen’s Suit
Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 5. Citizen suit — Any Filipino citizen in
representation of others, including minors or generations
yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or
obligations under environmental laws. Upon the filing of a
citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall
contain a brief description of the cause of action and the
reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to
manifest their interest to intervene in the case within
fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may
publish the order once in a newspaper of a general
circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected
barangays copies of said order.
Citizen suits filed under R.A. No. 8749 and R.A. No. 9003
shall be governed by their respective provisions.
7. Spouses as Parties (Pro-Forma Parties)
Rule 3, Sec. 4. Spouses as parties — Husband and wife
shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law.
a. What is the Rule in Case of Spouses as Party in an
Action?
GR: Actions may be prosecuted jointly by or against the
husband and wife
XPN: Except as provided by law. The XPN as provided by
law are as follows, to wit:
Art. 109, FC. Action involving exclusive property of the
spouse which are as follows, to wit:
a. Property brought to the marriage as his or her own;
b. That which each acquires during the marriage by
gratuitous title
c. That which is acquired by right of redemption, by
barter or by exchange with property belonging to
only one of the spouses; and
d. That which is purchased with exclusive money of the
wife or of the husband
8. Minor or Incompetents
Rule 3, Sec. 5. Minor or incompetent persons — A minor
or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued
with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he
has none, a guardian ad litem.
9. Permissive Joinder of Parties
Rule 3, Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties — All persons
in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to
or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally,
or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in
these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in
one complaint, where any question of law or fact common
to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in
the action; but the court may make such orders as may be
just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being
embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any
proceedings in which he may have no interest.
10. Indispensable Parties
Rule 3, Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable
parties — Parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be joined
either as plaintiffs or defendants.
Guy v. Guy, (2012). 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.
a. Joinder of Indispensable Party is Compulsory
Guy v. Guy, (2012). 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.
b. What is the Rule in Case of Joinder of Indispensable
Parties? Effect of Non-Joinder
(1) Bulawan v. Aquende, (2011). The general rule with
reference to the making of parties in a civil action
requires, of course, the joinder of all necessary
parties where possible, and the joinder of all
indispensable parties under any and all conditions,
their presence being a 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." 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.
(2) Living@Sense, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Co., (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.
c. Interest of Party in the Controversy or Subject
Matter Which is Separable from the Interest of
Other Parties Not an Indispensable Party
Pimentel, Jr. v. Senate Committee of the Whole, (2010). A
person who is not an indispensable party, however, if his
interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable
from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not
necessarily be directly or injuriously affected by a decree
which does complete justice between them. Also, a person
is not an indispensable party if his presence would merely
permit a complete relief between him and those already
parties to the action, or if he has no interest in the subject
matter of the action. It is not a sufficient reason to declare
a person to be an indispensable party that his presence
will avoid multiple litigations.
d. Indispensable Party-Defined: Effect if Not Joined:
Purpose
Lim, et. al. v. Distinction Properties Dev. and
Construction, (2012). If there is a failure to implead an
indispensable party, any judgment rendered would have
no effectiveness. It is "precisely ‘when an indispensable
party is not before the court (that) an action should be
dismissed.’ 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 to those present." 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.
e. Presence of an Indispensable Party is a Sine Qua Non
for the Exercise of Judicial Power
Lim, et. al. v. Distinction Properties Dev. and
Construction, (2012). Similarly, in the case of Plasabas v.
CA the Court held that a final decree would necessarily
affect the rights of indispensable parties so that the Court
could not proceed without their presence. In support
thereof, the Court in Plasabas cited the following
authorities, thus:
"The general rule with reference to the making of parties
in a civil action requires the joinder of all indispensable
parties under any and all conditions, their presence being
a sine qua non of the exercise of judicial power. For this
reason, our SC has held that when it appears of record that
there are other persons interested in the subject matter of
the litigation, who are not made parties to the action, it is
the duty of the court to suspend the trial until such parties
are made either plaintiffs or defendants. Where the
petition failed to join as party defendant the person
interested in sustaining the proceeding in the court, the
same should be dismissed. When an indispensable party is
not before the court, the action should be dismissed.
f. Burden to Procure the Indispensable Party is on the
Plaintiff: Purpose
Lim, et. al. v. Distinction Properties Dev. and
Construction, (2012). The burden of procuring the
presence of all indispensable parties is on the plaintiff. 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 co-plaintiffs 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.
11. Necessary Party
Rule 3, Sec. 8. Necessary party — A necessary party is one
who is 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.
12. Effect of Non-Joinder and Misjoinder of Necessary
Parties
Rule 3, Sec. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be
pleaded — Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is
asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall
set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is
omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission
unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted
necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be
obtained.
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion,
without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the
claim against such party.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent
the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of
such necessary party.
13. Rule in Case of Unwilling Co-Plaintiff
Rule 3, Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff — If the consent of
any party who should be joined as plaintiff cannot be
obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason
therefor shall be stated in the complaint.
14. Misjoinder and Non-Joinder of Parties
Rule 3, Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties —
Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for
dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by
order of the court on motion of any party or on its own
initiative at any stage the action and on such terms as are
just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed
and proceeded with separately.
a. Dropping of Parties; Remedies for Joinder or
Misjoinder
Orpiano v. Sps. Tomas, (2013). Under the Rules, parties
may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion
of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the
action and on such terms as are just. Indeed, it would have
been just for the collection court to have allowed Estrella
to prosecute her annulment case by dropping her as a
party plaintiff in the collection case, not only so that she
could protect her conjugal share, but also to prevent the
interests of her co-plaintiffs from being adversely affected
by her conflicting actions in the same case. By seeking to
be dropped from the collection case, Estrella was
foregoing collection of her share in the amount that may
be due and owing from the sale. It does not imply a waiver
in any manner that affects the rights of the other heirs.
While Estrella correctly made use of the remedies
available to her – amending the Complaint and filing a
motion to drop her as a party – she committed a mistake
in proceeding to file the annulment case directly after
these remedies were denied her by the collection court
without first questioning or addressing the propriety of
these denials. While she may have been frustrated by the
collection court’s repeated rejection of her motions and its
apparent inability to appreciate her plight, her proper
recourse nevertheless should have been to file a petition
for certiorari or otherwise question the trial court’s denial
of her motion to be dropped as plaintiff, citing just reasons
which call for a ruling to the contrary. Issues arising from
joinder or misjoinder of parties are the proper subject of
certiorari.
b. Refusal of a Party to Comply with the Order of
Inclusion of an Indispensable or Necessary Party
May be Ground for the Dismissal of the Action
• The basis of a possible dismissal of the action is the
refusal of a party to comply with an order of the
inclusion of an indispensable or necessary party, in
accordance with Rule 17, Sec. 3 for “failure to comply
with the Rules or any order of the Court” (dismissal
with prejudice)
c. Non-Inclusion of the Names of All the Complainants
in the Title of the Complaint is Not Fatal
Sps. Genato v. Viola, (2010). The inclusion of the names of
all the parties in the title of a complaint is a formal
requirement under Rule 7, Sec. 3. However, the rules of
pleadings require courts to pierce the form and go into the
substance. The non-inclusion of one or some of the names
of all the complainants in the title of a complaint, is not
fatal to the case, provided there is a statement in the body
of the complaint indicating that such complainant/s
was/were made party to such action.
For clarity, the complaint should have been amended to
reflect in the title the individual complainants. There being
a "defect in the designation of the parties", its correction
could be summarily made at any stage of the action
provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse
party.
15. Class Suit
Rule 3, Sec. 12. Class suit — When the subject matter of
the controversy is one of common or general interest to
many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join
all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to
be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully
protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend
for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the
right to intervene to protect his individual interest.
a. Lack of Common or General Interest in the Subject
Matter of the Controversy is not a Class Suit
Newsweek Inc. v. IAC, (1986). Where the defamation is
alleged to have been directed at a group or class, it is
essential that the statement must be so sweeping or all-
embracing as to apply to every individual in that group or
class, or sufficiently specific so that each individual in the
class or group can prove that the defamatory statement
specifically pointed to him, so that he can bring the action
separately, if need be.
The case at bar is not a class suit. It is not a case where one
or more may sue for the benefit of all or where the
representation of class interest affected by the judgment
or decree is indispensable to make each member of the
class an actual party. We have here a case where each of
the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct reputation in the
community. They do not have a common or general
interest in the subject matter of the controversy.
b. What is Required in Class Suit is Not the
Commonality or General Interest in the Question
Involved in the Case But Common or General
Interest in the Subject Matter of the Litigation
Mathay v. Consolidated Bank & Trust Co. Whether the
suit is or is not a class quit depends upon the attending
facts. A class suit does not require commonality or interest
in the question involved in the suit. What is required by
the rules is a common or general interest in the subject
matter of the litigation. The subject matter of the action
means the physical, the things real or personal, the
money, lands, chattels and the like, in relation to the suit
which is prosecuted and not the direct or wrong
committed by the defendant. It is not also a common
question of law that sustains a class suit but a common
interest in the subject matter of the controversy.
c. Subject Matter is a Common or General Interest entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as within the specified period, the court may order the
defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief opposing party, within a specified time to procure the
Juana Complex I HOA v. Fil-Estate Land, Inc., (2012). In against one may be inconsistent with a right of relief appointment of an executor or administrator for the
this case, the suit is clearly one that benefits all against the other. estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately
commuters and motorists who use La Paz Road. As appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court
succinctly stated by the CA: 17. Rule in Case of Unknown Identity or Name of charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the
Defendant opposing party, may be recovered as costs.
The subject matter of the instant case, i.e., the closure and
excavation of the La Paz Road, is initially shown to be of Rule 3, Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant a. Duty of the Counsel in Case of Death of His Client
common or general interest to many persons. The records — Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is
reveal that numerous individuals have filed manifestations unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner heir Saligumba v. Palanog, (2008). It is the duty of counsel for
with the lower court, conveying their intention to join devisee, or by such other designation as the case may the deceased to inform the court of the death of his client.
private respondents in the suit and claiming that they are require, when his identity or true name is discovered, the The failure of counsel to comply with his duty under Rule
similarly situated with private respondents for they were pleading must be amended accordingly. 3, Sec. 16 to inform the court of the death of his client and
also prejudiced by the acts of petitioners in closing and the non-substitution of such party will not invalidate the
excavating the La Paz Road. Moreover, the individuals 18. Entity Without Juridical Personality as Defendant proceedings and the judgment thereon if the action
sought to be represented by private respondents in the survives the death of such party. The decision rendered
suit are so numerous that it is impracticable to join them shall bind the party’s successor-in-interest.
Rule 3, Sec. 15. Entity without juridical personality as
all as parties and be named individually as plaintiffs in the
defendant — When two or more persons not organized as
complaint. These individuals claim to be residents of b. Duty of the Counsel After the Death of His Client
an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction,
various barangays in Biñan, Laguna and other barangays in Under the Rules
they may be sued under the name by which they are
San Pedro, Laguna.
generally or commonly known.
Judge Sumaliag v. Sps. Literato, (2008). The duty of
d. Class Suit v. Derivative Suit v. Citizen Suit counsel under the Rule 3, Sec. 16 is to inform the court
In the answer of such defendant, the name and addresses
of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed. within thirty (30) days after the death of his client of the
Class Suit Derivative Suit Citizen Suit fact of death, and to give the name and address of the
Is filed regarding Is a suit in equity Is an action filed deceased's legal representative or representatives.
a controversy of that is filed by a by any Filipino 19. Duty of the Attorney in Case of Death of a Client
Incidentally, this is the only representation that counsel
common or minority citizen in can undertake after the death of a client as the fact of
general interest stockholder in representation of Rule 3, Sec. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel — death terminated any further lawyer-client relationship
in behalf of many behalf of a others, including Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim
persons so corporation to minors or is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his c. Purpose of the Rule
numerous that it redress wrongs generations not counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after
is impracticable committed yet born to such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and Regalado v. Regalado, (2011). The rule is intended to
to join all as against it, for enforce rights address of his legal representative or representatives. protect every party's right to due process. The estate of
parties, a which the and obligations Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a the deceased party will continue to be properly
number of which directors refuse under ground for disciplinary action. represented in the suit, through the duly appointed legal
the court finds to sue, the real environmental representative. Moreover, no adjudication can be made
sufficiently party-in-interest laws. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be against the successor of the deceased if the fundamental
representative being the substituted for the deceased, without requiring the right to a day in court is denied.
who may sue or corporation itself appointment of an executor or administrator and the
defend for the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. d. Duty of the Court to Order Legal Representatives to
benefit of all. Appear Arises Upon Notice
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or
16. Alternative Parties representatives to appear and be substituted within a Saligumba v. Palanog, (2008). Rule 3, Sec. 17 is explicit
period of thirty (30) days from notice. that the duty of the court to order the legal representative
Rule 3, Sec. 13. Alternative defendants — Where the or heir to appear arises only "upon proper notice." The
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the notation "Party-Deceased" on the unserved notices could
plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is
deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear not be the "proper notice" contemplated by the rule. As
the trial court could not be expected to know or take
judicial notice of the death of a party without the proper
manifestation from counsel, the trial court was well within
its jurisdiction to proceed as it did with the case.
Moreover, there is no showing that the court’s
proceedings were tainted with irregularities.
e. Effect of Failure to Inform the Court: Presumption on
the Attorney
Saligumba v. Palanog, (2008). The rules operate on the
presumption that the attorney for the deceased party is in
a better position than the attorney for the adverse party
to know about the death of his client and to inform the
court of the name and address of his legal representative.
f. Substitution of Heirs – Party of Due Process: Failure
to Substitute is Not Sufficient Ground to Nullify
Court’s Decision
Napere v. Barbarona, (2008). Mere failure to substitute a
deceased party is not sufficient ground to nullify a trial
court’s decision. The party alleging nullity must prove that
there was an undeniable violation of due process.
Strictly speaking, the rule on substitution by heirs is not a
matter of jurisdiction, but a requirement of due process.
The rule on substitution was crafted to protect every
party’s right to due process. It was designed to ensure that
the deceased party would continue to be properly
represented in the suit through his heirs or the duly
appointed legal representative of his estate. Moreover,
non-compliance with the Rules results in the denial of the
right to due process for the heirs who, though not duly
notified of the proceedings, would be substantially
affected by the decision rendered therein. Thus, it is only
when there is a denial of due process, as when the
deceased is not represented by any legal representative or
heir, that the court nullifies the trial proceedings and the
resulting judgment therein.
20. Death or Separation of a Party Who is a Public
Officer
Rule 3, Sec. 17. Death or separation of a party who is a
public officer – When a public officer is a party in an action
in his official capacity and during its pendency dies,
resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may
be continued and maintained by or against his successor if,
within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or
such time as may be granted by the court, it is
satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is
a substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that
the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or
continue to adopt or continue the action of his
predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the party or
officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto,
shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor
and accorded an opportunity to be heard.
21. Incompetency or Incapacity of a Party
Rule 3, Sec. 18. Incompetency or incapacity — If a party
becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon
motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued
by or against the incompetent or incapacitated person
assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem.
22. Transfer of Interest
Rule 3, Sec. 19. Transfer of interest — In case of any
transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or
against the original party, unless the court upon motion
directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to
be substituted in the action or joined with the original
party.
23. Action that Survives
Rule 3, Sec. 20. Action and contractual money claims —
When the action is for recovery of money arising from
contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies
before entry of final judgment in the court in which the
action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not
be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until
entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by
the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner
especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims
against the estate of a deceased person.
a. Actions Which May not be Brought Against the
Executor or Administrator under Rule 87, Sec. 1: XPN
Rule 87, Sec. 1. Actions which may and which may not be
brought against executor or administrator — No action
upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest
thereon shall be commenced against the executor or
administrator; but to recover real or personal property, or
an interest therein, from the estate, or to enforce a lien
thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to
person or property, real or personal, may be commenced
against him.
b. An Action for Quieting of Title With Damages is an
Action Involving Real Property, Hence, It is an Action
That Survives
Saligumba v. Palanog, (2008). An action for quieting of
title with damages which is an action involving real
property. It is an action that survives pursuant to Rule 87,
Sec. 1 as the claim is not extinguished by the death of a
party. And when a party dies in an action that survives,
Rule 3, Sec. 17 provides for the procedure.
Bonilla v. Barcena, (1976). The criteria for determining
whether an action survives the death of a plaintiff or
petitioner:
The question as to whether an action survives or not
depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued
for. 6 In the causes of action which survive the wrong
complained affects primarily and principally property and
property rights, the injuries to the person being merely
incidental, while in the causes of action which do not
survive the injury complained of is to the person, the
property and rights of property affected being incidental.
c. Claim Against The Estate Based on a Favorable
Judgment in an Action that Survives?
Rule 86, Sec. 1. Notice to creditors to be issued by court –
Immediately after granting letters testamentary or of
administration, the court shall issue a notice requiring all
persons having money claims against the decedent to file
them in the office of the clerk of said court.
d. When to File the Claims? Otherwise Barred
Rule 86, Sec. 5. Claims which must be filed under the
notice. If not filed, barred; exceptions – All claims for
money against the decent, arising from contract, express
or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or
contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expense for
the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money
against the decent, must be filed within the time limited in
the notice; otherwise they are barred forever, except that Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority be conferred by the act or conferred by the parties
they may be set forth as counterclaims in any action that at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. agreement of the parties
the executor or administrator may bring against the If the court should determine after hearing that the party GR: The court cannot The court may motu
claimants. Where an executor or administrator declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient dismiss a case based on proprio dismiss a case for
commences an action, or prosecutes an action already income or property, the proper docket and other lawful improper venue lack of jurisdiction (over the
commenced by the deceased in his lifetime, the debtor fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If subject matter)
may set forth by answer the claims he has against the payment is not made within the time fixed by the court, XPN: Unless the defendant
decedent, instead of presenting them independently to execution shall issue or the payment thereof, without timely invokes such ground,
the court as herein provided, and mutual claims may be prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose. otherwise, the same is
set off against each other in such action; and if final waived (except under the
judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the 25. Notice to the Solicitor General Rules on Summary
amount so determined shall be considered the true Procedure and Small Claims
balance against the estate, as though the claim had been Rule 3, Sec. 22. Notice to the Solicitor General — In any cases wherein the court
presented directly before the court in the administration action involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, may “dismiss a case
proceedings. Claims not yet due, or contingent, may be executive order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, outright on any of the
approved at their present value. the court, in its discretion, may require the appearance of grounds apparent
the Solicitor General who may be heard in person or a therefrom for the dismissal
e. Remedy of the Party in Case of Approval or representative duly designated by him. of a civil action)
Disapproval May be waived and Cannot be waived,
stipulated by the parties enlarged, or diminished by
VI. Basic Concepts on Venue (Rule 4)
Rule 86, Sec. 13. Judgment appealable — The judgment of agreement of the parties.
the court approving or disapproving a claim, shall be filed May be waived because it is Rules on jurisdiction can
with the record of the administration proceedings with A. Basic Concepts
meant to provide never be left to the consent
notice to both parties, and is appealable as in ordinary convenience to the parties or agreement of the parties
cases. A judgment against the executor or administrator 1. Venue Defined
rather than restrict their
shall be that he pay, in due course of administration, the access to the court, as it
amount ascertained to be due, and it shall not create any Venue is the place where the place is to be heard and tried
relates to the place of trial.
lien upon the property of the estate, or give to the In such an event, the court
judgment creditor any priority of payment. 2. Nature and Purpose of Venue
may still render a valid
judgment
24. Indigent Party In civil actions, venue is merely a matter of procedural and
not substantive law, as it was only meant for convenience
4. Venue in a Civil Action as Distinguished from Venue
of the parties.
Rule 3, Sec. 21. Indigent party — A party may be in a Criminal Action
authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an
3. Concept of Venue v. Concept of Jurisdiction
indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and Venue in Civil Action Venue in Criminal Action
hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no Relates to the place of trial It is fundamental that it is
money or property sufficient and available for food, Venue Jurisdiction
or geographical location in jurisdictional it being an
shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family. Deals with the place where Deals with the authority or
which an action or essential element of
the case shall be heard and power of the court to hear
proceeding should be jurisdiction.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment tried and determine cases and to
brought and not to the
of docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of execute judgment thereon
jurisdiction of the court. It
stenographic notes which the court may order to be Motion to dismiss that the Motion to dismiss that no
is meant to provide
furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful venue is improperly laid jurisdiction over the subject
convenience to the parties,
fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall matter/defendant
rather than restrict their
be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable Establishes a relation Establishes a relation
access to the courts as it
to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides. between plaintiff between the court and the
relates to the place of trial.
defendant, or petitioner subject matter
Assuming that venue were
and respondent
improperly laid in the court
Conferred by law but may Fixed by law and cannot be
where the action was
instituted, that would be
procedural, not a
jurisdictional impediment.
Improper venue does not
divest a court of its
jurisdiction to take
cognizance of a case
5. Venue in Criminal Action Jurisdictional
• In criminal actions, venue is but an element of
jurisdiction; jurisdiction includes venue; venue is
jurisdictional
• Territorial jurisdiction must be had before a court can
take cognizance of a criminal action
• Rule 110, Sec. 15 provides:
Rule 110, Sec. 15. Place where action is to be instituted –
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or
territory where the offense was committed or where
any of its essential ingredients occurred.
6. Rules on Venue Under Rule 4, Sec. 4 is Applicable in
Actions But Not to Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of
Mortgage
Sps. Ochoa v. China Banking Corp., (2011). The exclusive
venue of Makati City, as stipulated by the parties and
sanctioned by Rule 4, Sec. 4 cannot be made to apply to
the Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure filed by
respondent bank because the provisions of Rule 4 pertain
to venue of actions, which an extrajudicial foreclosure is
not.
B. Venue in Real Actions
1. What is a Real Action?
Real actions are actions involving title to, ownership,
possession, or any interest in real property. If the real
property is merely incidental to the issue, such as if the
action is to recover damages to real property, the same is
a personal action.
Paper Industries Corp. of the Phil. v. Samson, (1975). Real
action is one brought for the protection of real rights,
lands, tenements or hereditaments or one founded on
privity of estate only.
2. What are the Real Properties under Art. 415 of the
NCC which can be the subject of a real action?
Art. 415. The following are immovable property:
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds
adhered to the soil;
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are
attached to the land or form an integral part of an
immovable;
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed
manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated
therefrom without breaking the material or
deterioration of the object;
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or
ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the
owner of the immovable in such a manner that it
reveals the intention to attach them permanently to
the tenements;
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements
intended by the owner of the tenement for an
industry or works which may be carried on in a
building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly
to meet the needs of the said industry or works;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds
or breeding places of similar nature, in case their
owner has placed them or preserves them with the
intention to have them permanently attached to the
land, and forming a permanent part of it; the animals
in these places are included;
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter
thereof forms part of the bed, and waters either
running or stagnant;
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are
intended by their nature and object to remain at a
fixed place on a river, lake, or coast;
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other
real rights over immovable property.
a. When the Issue Involve in the Action is Title to,
Possession, or any Interest in the Enumerated
Properties under Art. 415, NCC, it is a real action
• For purposes of determining venue, if the issue
involve in the case it title to, possession or any
interest in the properties enumerated in Art. 415,
NCC, it is considered as a real action and venue is
governed by Rule 4, Sec. 1, par. 1
Rule 4, Sec. 1. Venue of real actions — Actions affecting
title to or possession of real property, or interest therein,
shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which
has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced
and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or
city wherein the real property involved, or a portion
thereof, is situated.
a. Action to Annul Sale and Titles is an Action in Rem
Paglaum Management & Dev. Corp. v. Union Bank of the
Phil., (2012). 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. CA, 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.
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 petitioner’s 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.
b. Venue of Real Actions; Rule on Exclusivity of Venue
Paglaum Management & Dev. Corp. v. Union Bank of the
Phil., (2012). 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.
Clearly, the words "exclusively" and "waiving for this
purpose any other venue" are restrictive and used
advisedly to meet the requirements.
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.
c. XPN to the Rule on Exclusivity of Venue
Paglaum Management & Dev. Corp. v. Union Bank of the
Phil., (2012). However, the Rules provide an exception, in
that real actions can be commenced and tried in a court
other than where the property is situated in instances
where the parties have previously and validly agreed in
writing on the exclusive venue thereof. In the case at bar,
the parties claim that such an agreement exists. The only
dispute is whether the venue that should be followed is
that contained in the Real Estate Mortgages, as contended
by Union Bank, or that in the Restructuring Agreement, as
posited by PAGLAUM and HealthTech. This Court rules
that the venue stipulation in the Restructuring Agreement
should be controlling.
Even if this Court were to consider the venue stipulations
under the Real Estate Mortgages, it must be underscored
that those provisions did not contain words showing
exclusivity or restrictiveness. In fact, in the Real Estate
Mortgages dated 11 February 1994, the phrase "parties
hereto waiving" – from the entire phrase "the parties
hereto waiving any other venue" – was stricken from the
final executed contract. Following the ruling in Sps. Lantin
as earlier quoted, in the absence of qualifying or restrictive
words, the venue stipulation should only be deemed as an
agreement on an additional forum, and not as a restriction
on a specified place.
C. Venue in Personal Actions
1. What is a Personal Action?
Siosoco v. CA. Personal action is one which is not founded
upon the privity real rights or real property. An action for
specific performance is a personal action.
2. What are the Personal Actions Under Art. 416 and
417 of the NCC which can be subject of a Personal
Action?
Art. 416. The following things are deemed to be personal
property:
(1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which
are not included in the preceding article;
(2) Real property which by any special provision of law is
considered as personalty;
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by
science; and
(4) In general, all things which can be transported from
place to place without impairment of the real
property to which they are fixed.
Art. 417. The following are also considered as personal
property:
(1) Obligations and actions which have for their object
movables or demandable sums; and
(2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and
industrial entities, although they may have real
estate.
a. What is the Nature of the Action Involving the
Properties Enumerated under Art. 416 and 417 of
the NCC?
A: If the property involve in the case is any of those
enumerated under Art. 416 and 417 of the NCC, it is
considered as a personal action
3. What is the Rule on Venue in Personal Action?
Rule 4, Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions — All other
actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff
or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the
defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in
the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff.
a. Venue in Personal Action: Plaintiff or Defendant
Must be Resident of the Place Where the Action
Must be Instituted
Ang v. Sps. Ang, (2012). 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 plaintiff’s 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.
b. Plaintiff Not Resident of the Philippines Venue if
Where the Defendant Resides: No Election of the
Plaintiff
Ang v. Sps. Ang, (2012). 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.
c. Personal Action Involving Juridical Personalities
• For personal actions involving juridical personalities,
“resident” is to be construed as the place where the
principal place of business is found
d. Venue in Real Action v. Venue in Personal Action
Real Personal
Rule 4, Sec. 1 Rule 4, Sec. 2
Marcos Araneta v. CA, (2008). Rule 4, Sec. 2 indicates
quite clearly that when there is more than one plaintiff in
a personal action case, the residences of the principal
parties should be the basis in determining the proper
venue.
4. Mixed Actions: Venue in Case of Annulment of Sale
and Recovery of Land – Real Action Where the
Property is Located
Emergency Loan Pawnshop, Inc. v. CA, (2010). When the
plaintiff joins two or more causes of actions based on the
same act or occurrence, one of which is a real action; For
instance, in an action to annul a sale of land and to recover
the land, for purposes of venue determination the action is
a real action must be filed in the place where the property
is situated regardless of the residence of the parties.
5. Venue in Case of Non-Resident Defendants
Rule 4, Sec. 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents — If
any of the defendants does not reside and is not found in
the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status
of the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located
in the Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried
in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or
where the property or any portion thereof is situated or
found.
6. Non-Applicability of the Rules on Venue
Rule 4, Sec. 4. When Rule not applicable — This Rule shall
not apply:
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides
otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing
before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue
thereof.
a. Venue Subject to the Agreement of the Parties
(1) Union Bank of the Phil. v. Maunlad Homes, Inc.,
(2012). Precisely, in this case, the parties provided for
a different venue. In Villanueva v. Judge Mosqueda,
etc., et al., the Court upheld the validity of a
stipulation in a contract providing for a venue for
ejectment actions other than that stated in the Rules
of Court. Since the unlawful detainer action is
connected with the contract, Union Bank rightfully
filed the complaint with the MeTC of Makati City.
(2) Pilipino Telephone Corp. v. Tecson, (2004). Rule 4,
Sec. 4 allows the parties to agree and stipulate in
writing, before the filing of an action, on the exclusive
venue of any litigation between them. Such an
agreement would be valid and binding provided that
the stipulation on the chosen venue is exclusive in
nature or in intent, that it is expressed in writing by
the parties thereto, and that it is entered into before
the filing of the suit.
b. If the Stipulation is Not Exclusive, the Agreement is
Merely an Additional Option
Polytrade Corp. v. Blanco. Where the stipulation was:
“parties agree to sue and be sued in the courts of Manila”,
it was held that the venue laid was not exclusive. Where
the stipulation is not exclusive, the agreed venue is merely
considered as an additional option for the plaintiff aside
from the residences of the latter and the defendant.
7. Venue in Case of Petition for Civil Forfeiture of
Monetary Instrument, Property or Proceeds
Representive, Involving, or Relating to an Unlawful
Activity, or to a Money Laundering Offenses
A.M. No. 05-01-04-SC, Title II, Sec. 3. Venue of cases
cognizable by the regional trial court – A petition for civil
forfeiture shall be filed in any regiona1 trial court of the
judicial region where the monetary instrument, property,
or proceeds representing, involving, or relating to an
unlawful activity or to a money laundering offense are
located; provided, however, that where all or any portion
of the monetary instrument, property, or proceeds is
located outside the Philippines, the petition may be filed in
the regiona1 trial court in Manila or of the judicial region
where any portion of the monetary instrument, property,
or proceeds is located, at the option of the petitioner.
8. Improper Venue is a Ground for a Dismissal of the
Action under Rule 16(c)
Rule 16, Sec. 1. Grounds — Within the time for but before
filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a
claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the
following grounds:
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
a. Court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case based
on improper venue: XPN: Summary Procedure
Docoycoy v. IAC, (1991). A court cannot motu proprio
dismiss a complaint on the ground of improper venue
since improper venue may be waived for failure to object
it.
9. Motu Proprio Dismissal Based on Improper Venue in
Cases Under the Rules on Summary Procedure
Sec. 4. Duty of court — After the court determines that
the case falls under summary procedure, it may, from an
examination of the allegations therein and such evidence
as may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on
any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of
a civil action. If no ground for dismissal is found it shall
forthwith issue summons which shall state that the
summary procedure under this Rule shall apply.
10. Dismissal on the Ground of Improper Venue –
Remedy is Re-Filing of the Case
Rule 16, Sec. 5. Effect of dismissal — Subject to the right
of appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss based on
paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) of Sec. 1 hereof shall bar the
refiling of the same action or claim.
11. Dismissal on the Ground of Improper Venue is Rule 7, Sec. 1. Caption — The caption sets forth the name
Without Prejudice: Re-filing of the Case of the court, the title of the action, and the docket number When one or more paragraphs in the answer are
if assigned. addressed to one of several causes of action in the
Rule 41, Sec. 1. Subject of appeal — An appeal may be complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words "answer to
taken from a judgment or final order that completely The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. the first cause of action" or "answer to the second cause
disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein They shall all be named in the original complaint or of action" and so on; and when one or more paragraphs of
when declared by these Rules to be appealable. petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient the answer are addressed to several causes of action, they
if the name of the first party on each side be stated with shall be prefaced by words to that effect.
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice an appropriate indication when there are other parties.
(c) Relief. — The pleading shall specify the relief sought,
Their respective participation in the case shall be but it may add a general prayer for such further or
12. Improper Venue Can be Raised in an Answer as indicated. other relief as may be deemed just or equitable.
Affirmative Defense if No Motion to Dismiss is Filed (d) Date. — Every pleading shall be dated.
a. The allegations in the Complaint Not the Caption
Rule 16, Sec. 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses Determine the Nature of the Case a. Court cannot Grant Relief Not Prayed for in the
— If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the Pleadings: Reason
grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be Lorbes v. CA, (2000). It is not the caption of the pleading
pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in but the allegations therein that determine the nature of DBP v. Tecson. Due process considerations justify this
the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be the action, and the court should grant relief warranted by requirement. It is improper to enter an order which
had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed. the allegations and the proof even if no such relief is exceeds the scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent
prayed for. notice, which affords the opposing party an opportunity to
VII. Basic Concepts on the Parts of a Pleading/Complaint be heard with respect to the proposed relief. Its purpose it
Thus, the fact that the complaint filed by petitioners to prevent surprise to the defendant.
A. Basic Concepts before the trial court was categorized to be one for
reformation of instrument should not preclude the Court b. When may a general prayer, “other reliefs just and
1. Formal Requirements of Pleadings (Sec. 7) (CB-SA- from passing upon the issue of whether the transaction equitable” be granted by the Court
VC) was in fact an equitable mortgage as the same has been
squarely raised in the complaint and had been the subject A general prayer (Rule 7, Sec. 2(c)) appearing in a
a. Caption of arguments and evidence of the parties. complaint or pleading normally enables the court to award
b. Body relief (a) supported by the complaint or other pleadings,
c. Signature and Address 3. The Body of the Pleading by the (b) facts admitted at the trial, and (c) by the
d. Verification evidence adduced by the parties, even if these reliefs are
e. Certification against forum shopping Rule 7, Sec. 2. The body — The body of the pleading sets not specifically prayed for in the complaint.
forth its designation, the allegations of the party's claims
Other Requirements or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the 4. Signature and Address
pleading.
f. Professional Tax Receipt No. Rule 7, Sec. 3. Signature and address — Every pleading
g. IBP Official Receipt No. (a) Paragraphs — The allegations in the body of a must be signed by the party or counsel representing him,
h. Roll of Attorney pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so stating in either case his address which should not be a
i. MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of numbered to be readily identified, each of which shall post office box.
Exemption contain a statement of a single set of circumstances
j. Evidence of Competent Identity in the Jurat of the so far as that can be done with convenience. A The signature of counsel constitutes (a) a certificate by
Pleading paragraph may be referred to by its number in all him that he has read the pleading; (b) that to the best of
succeeding pleadings. (3a) his knowledge, information, and belief there is good
2. Caption of the Pleading (b) Headings — When two or more causes of action are ground to support it; and (c) that it is not interposed for
joined, the statement of the first shall be prefaced by delay.
the words "first cause of action,'' of the second by
"second cause of action", and so on for the others. 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 (a) due to mere inadvertence and (b) not intended for
delay.
Counsel who (a) deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or
(b) signs a pleading in violation of this Rule, or (c) alleges
scandalous or indecent matter therein, or (d) fails
promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall
be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.
a. What is the Duty of the Counsel in Case of Change of
His Address?
Navarro v. Jarson Dev. Corp., (2008). It is the duty of the
counsel to promptly inform the court of a change of his
address. The contention of the defendant-appellants’
counsel that his failure to inform the Court of his change of
address was due to the fault of his legal secretary in not
including the instant case in the inventory of his cases is a
lame excuse and deserved no consideration.
It has to be stressed that it devolves upon every counsel to
take full responsibility in supervising the work in his office
with respect to all cases he handles and he should not
delegate the responsibility to his legal secretary.
5. Verification of Pleading
a. Verification Defined
Verification is a statement under oath which includes both
the actual swearing to the truth of the statements by the
subscriber and also the certification thereto by the notary
or other officer authorized to administer oath.
b. Purpose of Verification
Russel v. Ebasan and Austria, (2010). Purpose: To secure
an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been
made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely
speculative. The requirement is simply a condition
affecting the form of pleadings and non-compliance
therewith is neither jurisdictional nor does it render the
pleading fatally defective.
c. Use of Personal Knowledge and Authentic Records
Required
Mahinay v. Lee Gako, (2011). While the rule gives the
pleaders several ways of specifying their pleading, the use
of the phrase personal knowledge or authentic records is
not without any legal signification and the pleaders are not
at liberty to choose any of these phrases fancifully.
d. Manner of Verification
Rule 7, Sec. 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.
e. Purpose of Verification
(1) Martos, et. al. v. New San Jose Builders, Inc. 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.
(2) Uy v. Asia United Bank, (2007). The requirement of
verification is simply a condition affecting the form of
pleadings and non-compliance therewith is neither
jurisdictional nor renders the pleading fatally
defective.
f. Nature of Verification: Formal not Jurisdictional
Requisite
(1) Carbonilla v. Board of Airlines Representatives,
(2011). Verification of a pleading is a formal, not
jurisdictional, requirement.
(2) Mediserv, Inc. v. CA, (2010). The court may order the
(a) correction of the pleading if verification is lacking
or (b) act on the pleading although it is not verified, if
the attending circumstances are such that strict
compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in
order that the ends of justice may hereby be served.
(3) Regalado. The party to the action need not sign the
verification. A party’s representative, lawyer or any
person who personally knows the truth of the facts
alleged in the pleading may sign the verification.
g. Action of the Court in Case of Lack of Verification
Vallacar Transit v. Catubig, (2011). When circumstances
warrant, the court may simply (a) order the correction of
unverified pleadings or (b) act on it and waive strict
compliance with the rules in order that the ends of justice
may thereby be served
h. Liberal Application of the Rules on Verification
Martos, et. al. v. New San Jose Builders, (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.
i. Lack of Verification v. Lack of Certification against
Forum Shopping
Lack of Verification Lack of Certification
against Forum Shopping
Formal, not jurisdictional Jurisdictional
Can be cured Not curable by the
submission thereof after
the filing of the petition.
May be signed by the May not be signed by the
lawyer lawyer
Rule 45, Sec. 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.
Mediserv, Inc v. CA. The same rule applies to certifications
against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a
corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said
signatory is authorized to file a petition on behalf of the
corporation.
j. A Lawyer May Sign the Verification – but not the
Certification Against Forum Shopping
Commission on Appointment v. Paler, (2010). There was
no need to the Chairman himself to sign the verification.
With regard, however, to the certification of non-forum
shopping, the established rule is that it must be executed
by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not by
counsel.
k. Person who will Sign the Verification in Case of a
Corporation Must be Authorized by way of Board
Resolution
Salenga, et. al. v. CA. A corporation can only exercise its
powers and transact its business through its board of
directors and through its officers and agents when
authorized by a board resolution or its by-laws.
Absent the requisite board resolution, the person who
signed the verification, on behalf of the corporation may
not be considered as a party to the action.
l. Effect if the Person Who Signed the Verification has
No Authority; Dismissal of the Complaint Since the
Court has No Jurisdiction over the Complaint and the
Plaintiff
Q: What is the effect of a complaint filed by one who has
not proven his authority to represent the plaintiff in filing
an action?
A: Atty. Palmiano-Salvador v. Angeles, (2012). If a
complaint is filed for an 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.
5.
m. Substantial Compliance Rule if the Person who Signs
the Verification has Ample Knowledge and Made in
Good Faith
Estel v. Diego, (2012). Verification is deemed substantially
complied with when one 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 6.
correct.
n. Guidelines in Case of Non-Compliance or Submission
of Defective Verification
Traveno v. Bobongan Banana Growers Multi-Purpose
Cooperative, (2009). For the guidance of the bench and o.
bar, the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential
pronouncements already reflected above respecting non- 1.
compliance with the requirements on, or submission of
defective, verification and certification against forum 1.
shopping: 2.
3.
1. A distinction must be made between non-compliance
with the requirement on or submission of defective 4.
verification, and non-compliance with the
requirement on or submission of defective 5.
certification against forum shopping.
2. As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a 6.
defect therein does not necessarily render the 7.
pleading fatally defective. The court may order its 8.
submission or correction or act on the pleading if the 9.
attending circumstances are such that strict
compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in 10.
order that the ends of justice may be served thereby. 11.
3. Verification is deemed substantially complied with (a) 12.
when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the 13.
truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition 14.
signs the verification, and (b) when matters alleged in 15.
the petition have been made in good faith or are true
and correct.
4. As to certification against forum shopping, non-
compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in 16.
verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent 17.
submission or correction thereof, unless there is a 18.
need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial 19.
compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or
compelling reasons." 20.
The certification against forum shopping must be
signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case;
otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as
parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or
petitioners share a common interest and invoke a
common cause of action or defense, the signature of
only one of them in the certification against forum
shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
Finally, the certification against forum shopping must
be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel.
If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the
party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a
Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of
record to sign on his behalf.
Pleadings that Should be Verified under the Rules
Verified Pleadings Filed with the Courts
Petition for relief from judgment or order (Rule 38)
Petition for review from RTC to CA (Rule 42)
Petition for review from quasi-judicial bodies to CA
(Rule 43)
Petition for review on certiorari from RTC or CA to the
SC (Rule 45)
Petition for annulment of judgments or final orders
and resolutions of RTC to CA (Rule 47)
Complaint for Injunction
Application for the appointment of receiver
Application for support pendente lite
Petition for certiorari against judgments, final order
and resolutions of the COMELEC and COA
Petitions for certiorari
Petition for prohibition
Petition for mandamus
Petition for quo warranto
Complaint for expropriation
Complaint for forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
the answers thereto, and the answers to any
compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim pleaded in
the answer
Petition for indirect contempt
Petition for adoption
Petition for legal separation
Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
marriages and annulment of voidable marriages
Petitions for summary judicial proceedings in the
Family Code.

21. All complaint, compulsory counterclaims and cross-
claims pleaded in the answer, and the answers
thereto filed under the Rule on Summary Procedure
22. Petitions for the appointment of general guardian
(limited guardian, need not be verified)
23. Petition for leave to sell or encumber property of an
estate by a guardian’
24. Petition for the declaration of competency of a ward
25. Petition for habeas corpus
26. Petition for change of name
27. Petition for voluntary judicial dissolution of a
corporation
28. Petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the
civil registry or for correction of a clerical or
typographical error in an entry pursuant to R.A. 9048
29. Civil complaints or initiatory pleadings asserting
claims for relief (including permissive counterclaim)
30. Statement of Claim for Small Claims Cases, as well as
Response thereto
31. Complaints filed under the Interim Rules of Procedure
on Intra-Corporate Controversies, as well as the
Answer thereto
32. All pleadings, motions, oppositions, defenses or
claims filed by any interested party in any proceeding
governed by the Rules of Procedure on Corporate
Rehabilitation (2008)
33. Complaints filed with the CTA
34. Petitions for review filed with the CTA
35. Application of an issuance of a writ of search and
seizure in civil actions for infringement of intellectual
property rights
36. A petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo and
the return thereof; and in connection with the
Amparo proceedings, motion for an inspection order
or for a production order.
37. A petition for the issuance of writ of habeas data and
the return thereof
38. Elections protests or petitions for quo warranto
relating to elective municipal and barangay officials
filed with the general courts; as well as answers
thereto
2. Pleadings filed with Quasi-Judicial Bodies with
Verification
a. Complaints filed with the Regional Office of the
HLURB
b. Pleadings filed before the COMELEC, as well as the 1. Motion to postpone for absence of evidence
answers thereto: 2. Motion to postpone for illness of a party or counsel
3. Motion for summary judgment or opposition thereto
1. Protests or petitions in ordinary actions 4. Motion for new trial on the ground of FAMEN or
2. Special actions opposition thereto
3. Special cases 5. Petition for relief from judgment or order
4. Special reliefs 6. Third-party claim
5. Provisional remedies 7. Proof required of a redemptioner
6. Special proceedings 8. Motion for preliminary attachment
7. Counter-protests 9. Motion for dissolution of preliminary attachment
8. Counter-petitions 10. Application for writ of replevin
9. Interventions 11. Claim against the estate of a decedent
10. Motion for reconsiderations 12. Motion for new trial on the ground of newly
11. Appeals from rulings of board of canvassers discovered evidence in criminal cases.
c. Petition for review, as well as comments thereto, filed 6. Acts and Certification against Forum Shopping
with the Sec. of Justice, appealing from resolutions of
Chief State Prosecutors, Regional State Prosecutors, a. Act of Forum Shopping Defined
and Provincial/City Prosecutors in cases subject of
preliminary investigation/reinvestigation. (1) Sps. Arevalo v. Planters Bank. Forum shopping is the
d. Petitions for review filed with the Regional Officer of act of litigants who repetitively avail themselves of
the HLURB multiple judicial remedies (MJR) in different fora,
e. Position papers filed before the LA simultaneously or successively (SS), all substantially
f. Complaints filed in administrative cases filed with the founded on the same transactions and the same
Insurance Commission and complaints seeking relief essential facts and circumstances; and raising
from insurance companies or mutual benefit substantially similar issues either pending in or
associations filed with Insurance Commission already resolved adversely by some other court; or
g. Complaints and petitions filed with the SEC in the for the purpose of increasing their chances of
exercise of its adjudicative functions, as well as the obtaining a favorable decision, if not in one court,
answers thereto then in another.
h. Application for new services, complaints, petitions,
oppositions and answers filed with Land The rationale against forum-shopping is that a party
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in
two different courts, for to do so would constitute abuse
3. Pleadings or Motions that Should be Under Oath of court processes which tends to degrade the
administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly
The following pleadings need not be verified, but the same judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of the
must be under oath heavily burdened dockets of the courts.
1. Denial of genuineness and due execution of an The grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule against
actionable document forum shopping is the rendition by two competent
2. Denial of allegations of usury tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions.
3. Motion to set aside a default order
4. Answer to written interrogatories (2) Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. International
5. Answer to request for admission Exchange Bank, (2011). Forum shopping has been
defined as an act of a party, against whom an adverse
4. Pleadings or Motions Accompanied with an Affidavit judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking
of Merit and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another
forum, other than by appeal or special civil action for
 certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause on the
supposition that one or the other court would make a
favorable judgment.
(3) Beneco, Inc. v. NEA, (1991). Forum shopping is an act
of malpractice that is proscribed and condemned as
trifling with the courts and abusing their processes. It
is improper conduct that tends to degrade the
administration of justice.
b. Nature of Forum Shopping: Effects
Orpiano v. Sps. Tomas, (2013). Forum shopping is
expressly prohibited because it trifles with and abuses
court processes, degrades the administration of justice,
and congest our court dockets. A willful and deliberate
violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground
for summary dismissal of the case with prejudice, and
shall constitute direct contempt and shall be a cause for
administrative sanctions.
c. When Does Forum Shopping Exist?
(1) Making Enterprises, Inc. v. Marfori, (2011). There is
forum-shopping when as a result of an adverse
decision in one forum, or in anticipation thereof, a
party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum
through means other than appeal or certiorari.
Forum-shopping exists when two or more actions involve
the same transactions, essential facts, and circumstances;
and raise identical causes of action, subject matter, and
issues.
Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis
pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one
case will amount to res judicata in the other.
(2) Villanueva v. Adre, (1989). There is forum shopping
whenever, 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 principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in
the courts but also in connection with litigation
commenced in the courts while an administrative
proceeding is pending in order to defeat administrative
processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable
administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling.
(3) Melo v. CA, (1999). Forum shopping has taken the
form off filing multiple petitions or complaints
involving the same issues before two or more
tribunals or agencies in the hope that one or the
other court would make a favorable disposition.
(4) Fortich v. Corona, (1998). There is also forum
shopping when, because of adverse decision in one
forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than
by appeal or certiorari in another).
d. Factors in Determining Forum Shopping
(1) Catalina Balais-Mabanag v. Register of Deeds of QC,
(2010). An important factor in determining the
existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused to
the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of
similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.
(2) Lokin v. COMELEC, (2010). What is truly important to
consider in determining whether forum shopping
exists or not is the vexation cause to the courts and
the litigants by a party who accesses different courts
and administrative agencies to rule on the same or
related causes or to grant the same or substantially
the same reliefs, in the process creating the
possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by
the different for a upon the same issue.
e. Reason for the Prohibition of Forum Shopping
(1) Zebra Security Agency v. NLRC, (1997). Rational: A
party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous
remedies in two different fora. Filing of multiple
complaints constitutes abuse of court processes
which tends to degrade the administration of justice,
wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and
adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened
dockets of the courts.
(2) Solid Homes, Inc. v. CA, (1997). The rule proscribing
forum shopping seeks to promote candor and
transparency among lawyers and their clients in the
pursuit of their cases before the courts to promote
the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue
inconvenience upon the other party, and save the
precious time of the courts.
It also aims to prevent the embarrassing situation of two
or more courts or agencies rendering conflicting
resolutions or decisions upon the same issues.
f. Test to determine violation of Forum Shopping
(1) SM Systems Corp. v. Camerino, (2011) WON the
elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a
final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata
in another; WON in the two (or more) cases pending,
there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action,
and relief sought
Yap v. CA (11th Div.), et. al., (2012). Hornbook is the rule
that identity of causes of action does not mean absolute
identity; otherwise, a party could easily escape the
operation of res judicata by changing the form of the
action or the relief sought. The test to determine whether
the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether
the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether
there is an identity in the facts essential to the
maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or
evidence would sustain both, the two actions are
considered the same, and a judgment in the first case is a
bar to the subsequent action. Hence, 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 between the same parties or their
privies.
Among the several tests resorted to in ascertaining
whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of
action are: (1) whether the same evidence would support
and sustain both the first and second causes of action; and
(2) whether the defenses in one case may be used to
substantiate the complaint in the other. Also fundamental
is the test of determining whether the cause of action in
the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first
complaint.
g. Forum Shopping Exist When There is Substantial
Identity of Cases: Annulment of Extra-Judicial
Foreclosure and Injunction Case
Goodland Co. Inc. v. Asia United Bank, et. al., (2012).
There can be no determination of the validity of the
extrajudicial foreclosure and the propriety of injunction in
the Injunction Case without necessarily ruling on the
validity of the REM, which is already the subject of the
Annulment Case. The identity of the causes of action in
the two cases entails that the validity of the mortgage
will be ruled upon in both, and creates a possibility that
the two rulings will conflict with each other. This is
precisely what is sought to be avoided by the rule against
forum shopping.
The substantial identity of the two cases remains even if
the parties should add different grounds or legal theories
for the nullity of the REM or should alter the designation
or form of the action. 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.
h. Forum Shopping Exists When There is Identity of
Causes of Action
Goodland Co. Inc. v. Asia United Bank, et. al., (2012).
With respect to identity of cause of action, a cause of
action is defined in Rule 2, Sec. 2, as the act or omission by
which a party violates the right of another. 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.
i. Sps. Villanueva v. CA, (2011). Three (3) ways of
Committing Forum Shopping
(1) By filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action and with the same prayer, the previous case
not having been resolved yet (where the ground for
dismissal is litis pendentia);
(2) By filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action and with the same prayer, the previous case
having been finally resolved (where the ground for
dismissal is res judicata); and
(3) By filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action but with different prayers (splitting of causes
of action, where the ground for dismissal is also
either litis pendentia or res judicata).
j. Elements of Forum Shopping
(1) Dimagan v. Dacworks United Inc., (2011). Forum
shopping exists when a party repetitively avails
himself of several judicial remedies in different
courts, simultaneously or successively, all
substantially founded on the same transactions and
the same essential facts and circumstances, and all
raising substantially the same issues either pending
in, or already resolved adversely by, some other
court.
(2) In re: Reconstitution of TCT No. 303168 and 303169,
(2010). For forum shopping to exist, both actions
must involve the same transaction, same identical
causes of action, subject matter and issues.
(3) Sps. Villanueva v. CA, (2011) The elements of forum-
shopping are the same as in litis pendentia where the
final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata
in the other. The elements of forum shopping are:
(a) Identity of parties or at least such parties that
represent the same interests in both actions;
(b) Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts;
(c) 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.
k. No Forum Shopping if Two Remedies Were Availed
of For the Same Order With Different Objectives
Jose v. Javellana, (2012). The successive filing of a notice
of appeal and a petition for certiorari to challenge the
same orders, ruled by the SC in the cases of Young v. Sy
and Zosa v. Estrella as constituting forum shopping
because appeal and the petition for certiorari actually
sought different objectives. In his appeal in C.A.-G.R. No.
68259, Javellana aimed to undo the RTC’s erroneous
dismissal of Civil Case No. 79-M-97 to clear the way for his
judicial demand for specific performance to be tried and
determined in due course by the RTC; but his petition for
certiorari had the ostensible objective
Instead, we see the situation of resorting to two
inconsistent remedial approaches to be the result of the
tactical misjudgment by Javellana’s counsel on the efficacy
of the appeal to stave off his caretaker’s eviction from the
parcels of land and to prevent the development of them
into a residential or commercial subdivision pending the
appeal. In the petition for certiorari, Javellana explicitly
averred that his appeal was "inadequate and not speedy
to prevent private respondent Alma Jose and her
transferee/assignee from developing and disposing of the
subject property to other parties to the total deprivation
of petitioner’s rights of possession and ownership over the
subject property," and that the dismissal by the RTC had
"emboldened private respondents to fully develop the
property and for respondent Alma Jose to file an
ejectment case against petitioner’s overseer xxx."35
Thereby, it became far-fetched that Javellana brought the
petition for certiorari in violation of the policy against
forum shopping.
l. Jose v. Javella, (2012). Dangers of Forum Shopping
(a) The multiplicity of suits upon one and the same cause
of action
(b) The unethical practice of shopping for a friendly court
or judge to ensure a favorable ruling or judgment
after not getting it in the appeal.
m. What is the Essence of Forum Shopping?
Uy v. Asia United Bank, (2007). The essence of forum
shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same
parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of
obtaining a favorable judgment, through means other
than by appeal or certiorari. The rule thus does not apply
to cases that arise from an initiatory or original action
which has been elevated by way of appeal or certiorari to
higher or appellate courts or authorities. This is so not
only because the issues in the appellate courts
necessarily differ from those in the lower court, but also
because the appealed cases are a continuation of the
original case and treated as only one case. For, it would
be absurd to require, say in this instant petition, to make
mention in the certification against non-forum shopping
the CA case that is being sought to be reviewed in the
petition at bench.
n. Forum Shopping Exists When the Elements of Litis
Pendentia or Res Judicata are Present
(1) Cabreza v. Cabrea. Having ruled that litis pendentia
was properly invoked below, Amparo was necessarily
also guilty of forum-shopping, as correct ruled by RTC
Br. 67.
(2) Barba v. Liceo de Cagayan University, (2012). Lastly,
as to whether respondent was guilty of forum
shopping when it failed to inform the appellate court
of the pendency of Civil Case No. 2009- 320, a
 complaint for breach of contract filed by respondent
against petitioner, we rule in the negative.
o. No Forum Shopping in Case There is No Identity of
Causes of Action
Barba v. Liceo de Cagayan University, (2012). While there
is identity of parties in the two cases, the causes of action
and the reliefs sought are different. The issue raised in the
present case is whether there was constructive dismissal
committed by respondent. On the other hand, the issue in
the civil case pending before the RTC is whether petitioner
was guilty of breach of contract. Hence, respondent is not
guilty of forum shopping.
p. Litis Pendentia Defined
Goodland Co. Inc. v. Asia United Bank, et. al., (2012). 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.
q. Elements of Litis Pendentia
Goodland Co. Inc. v. Asia United Bank, et. al., (2012) Litis
pendentia requires the concurrence of the following
requisites:
(1) Identity of parties, or at least such parties as those
representing the same interests in both actions;
(2) Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the
reliefs being founded on the same facts; and
(3) Identity with respect to the two preceding particulars
in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be
rendered in the pending case, regardless of which
party is successful, would amount to res judicata in
the other case.
r. Forum Shopping a Sufficient Ground fort the
Dismissal of an Action under Sec. 1(e) and (f) of Rule
16 Based on Res Judicata or Litis Pendentia
Rule 16, Sec. 1. Sec. 1. Grounds — Within the time for but
before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading
asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any
of the following grounds:
(e) That there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause;
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment
or by the statute of limitations;
s. Remedy of the Defendant if He Failed to File a
Motion to Dismiss, He Can Raise it as an affirmative
defense in the answer under Rule 16, Sec. 6
Rule 16, Sec. 6. Pleading grounds 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. (5a)
t. Dismissal of the Action Motu Proprio by the Court
Based on Litis Pendentia or Res Judicata under Sec.
1, Rule 9
Rule 9, Sec. 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded —
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However,
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record 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, the
court shall dismiss the claim.
u. Dismissal on This Ground is With Prejudice
Rule 16, Sec. 5. Effect of dismissal — Subject to the right
of appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss based on
paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) of Sec. 1 hereof shall bar the
refiling of the same action or claim. (n)
v. Motu Proprio Dismissal Based on Res Judicata or
Litis Pendentia in Cases under the Rules on Summary
Procedure
Sec. 4. Duty of court — After the court determines that
the case falls under summary procedure, it may, from an
examination of the allegations therein and such evidence
as may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on
any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of
a civil action. If no ground for dismissal is found it shall
forthwith issue summons which shall state that the
summary procedure under this Rule shall apply.
7. Certification Against Forum Shopping
a. Nature of Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
Anderson v. Enrique, (2013). The need to abide by the
ROC and the procedural requirements it imposes has been
constantly underscored by this Court. One of these
procedural requirements is the certificate of non-forum
shopping which, time and again, has been declared as
basic, necessary and mandatory for procedural
orderliness.
b. Certification Against Forum Shopping
Rule 7, Sec. 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.
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.
 f. Can There be a Dismissal of the Action Motu Proprio (2) Complaint where the amount of the claim does not
1. Non-compliance with the Certification of Non-Forum Based on Failure to Comply with the Certification of exceed P100,000 outside Metro Manila, and
Shopping Not Curable by Amendment Non-Forum Shopping? P200,000 within Metro Manila
(3) Statement of Claims under Small Claims Cases
Anderson v. Enrique, (2013). In Vda. De Formoso v. PNB, A: No. By express provision of Rule 7, Sec. 5 which states
the Court reiterated the guidelines respecting non- that: “Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements l. Petitions which Must Contain a Certification Against
compliance with or submission of a defective certificate of shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint Forum Shopping under the Rules on Special
non-forum shopping, the relevant portions of which are as or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the Proceedings
follows: dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing” (1) Probate of will
As to certification against forum shopping, non- (2) Intestate estate proceedings
compliance therewith or a defect therein, is generally not g. Motu Proprio Dismissal Based on Failure to Comply (3) Escheat
curable by its subsequent submission or correction with Condition Precedent on Certification Against (4) Trustees
thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the Forum Shopping in Cases under the Rules on (5) Guardianship of minors and incompetents and
ground of ‘substantial compliance’ or presence of ‘special Summary Procedure custody
circumstances or compelling reasons’. (6) Adoption and revocation of adoption
• See Sec. 4 of Rules of Summary Procedure (7) Hospitalization of insane person
c. Remedy of the Defendant in Case of Failure to (8) Habeas corpus
Comply with the Certification of Non-Forum h. What are the Pleadings That Should Contain a (9) Change of name
Shopping Certification Against Forum Shopping under (10) Declaration of absence and death
Ordinary Rules on Civil Action? (11) Correction of entries in the civil registry
Rule 16, Sec. 1. Grounds — Within the time for but before (12) Insolvency proceedings
filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a a. Original complaint (13) ADR
claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the b. Permissive counterclaim (14) Annulment of marriage
following grounds: c. Cross-claim (15) Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
d. Third-party complaint (16) Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not e. Fourth-party complaint (17) Environmental Cases
been complied with. f. Complaint in Intervention
g. Petition’ m. Pleadings or Documents in Labor Cases which Must
(1) Rule 65: Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping Contain a Certification Against Forum Shopping
Required i. Petitions Filed Before the Appellate Courts which
Must Contain a Certification Against Forum (1) NLRC Complaint
Ramirez v. Mar Fishing Co. Inc., (2012). The ROC provides Shopping (2) Position Paper
that a petition for certiorari must be verified and (3) Reply
accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum a. Petition for review on the judgment of the RTC in the (4) Rejoinder
shopping. Failure to comply with these mandatory exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Rule 42 (5) Memorandum of Appeal
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of b. Petition for review on judgments, resolutions, orders
the petition. Considering that only 3 of the 228 named or awards of quasi-judicial bodies under Rule 43 n. Certification Against Forum Shopping is Mandatory
petitioners signed the requirement, the CA dismissed the c. Petition for review on certiorari against the judgment,
case against them, as they did not execute a Verification order or resolution of the RTC, CTA, SDB and CA (1) Building Care Corp., et. al. v. Macaraeg, (2012). It
and Certification against forum shopping. should be emphasized that the resort to a liberal
j. Petition or Complaint Which Must Contain a application, or suspension of the application of
d. Remedy of the Defendant if he Failed to File a Certification Against Forum Shopping under Rules on procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the
Motion to Dismiss, He Can Raise it as an Affirmative Special Civil Actions (Rule 62-71) well-settled principle that rules must be complied
Defense in the Answer under Rule 16, Sec. 6 k. Complaint in Summary Procedure with for the orderly administration of justice.
e. Dismissal on this Ground is Without Prejudice (Rule (2) BPI v. CA, (2010). The verification of a complaint and
16, Sec. 5) (1) Complaint for forcible entry and unlawful detainer the attachment of a certification of non-forum
shopping are requirements that – as pointed out by
 the Court, time and again – are basic, necessary and
mandatory for procedural orderliness.
(3) Mandaue Galleon Trade, Inc. v. Isidro, (2010). The
filing of a certificate of non-forum shopping is
mandatory in initiatory pleadings. The subsequent
compliance with the requirement does not excuse a
party’s failure to comply therewith in the first
instance. In those cases where the Court excused
non-compliance with the requirement to submit a
certificate of non-forum shopping, it found special
circumstances or compelling reasons which made the
strict application of the Circular clearly unjustified or
inequitable
o. Purpose of Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
Medado v. Heirs of Cosing, (2012). 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.
p. In Certain Exceptional Circumstances, However, the
Court Has Allowed the Belated Filing of the
Certification
Loyola v. CA. The Court considered the filing of the
certification one day after the filing of an election protest
as substantial compliance with the requirement.
Roadway Express, Inc. v. CA. The Court allowed the filing
of the certification 14 days before the dismissal of the
petition.
Uy v. Landbank. The Court had dismissed Uy’s petition for
lack of verification and certification against non-forum
shopping certification. In all these cases, there were
special circumstances or compelling reasons, that justified
the relaxation of the rule requiring verification and
certification on non-forum shopping.
q. Substantial Compliance Rule in Certification Against
Forum Shopping: Relations of Rules: Obligatory Not
Jurisdictional
Medado v. Heirs of Cosing, (2012). The general rule is that
the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by
all the plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of
them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed
that the rules on forum shopping were designed to
promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice
and thus should not be interpreted with such absolute
literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate
objective. The rule of substantial compliance may be
availed of with respect to the contents of the
certification. This is because the requirement of strict
compliance with the provisions regarding the certification
of non-forum 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.
Estel v. Diego, Sr. As to respondents' certification on non-
forum shopping, a reading of respondents’
Verification/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.
It is settled that with respect to the contents of the
certification against forum shopping, the rule of
substantial compliance may be availed of. 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. It does not thereby interdict
substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable
circumstances, as the Court finds in the instant case.
Loyola v. CA, (1995). The fact that Circular (Adm. Cir. 04-
94) requires that it be strictly complied with merely
underscores its mandatory nature in that it cannot be
dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded,
but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance
with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.
Dar v. Alonzo-Legasto, (2000). The rule requiring a
certification of non-forum shopping to accompany every
initiatory pleading “should not be interpreted with such
absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and
legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure –
which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as
possible.
r. Belated Filing of a Certification Against Forum
Shopping is a Substantial Compliance
De-Zuzuarregui v. Hon. Villarosa, (2010). Here, the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping was
signed by petitioner’s counsel. Upon receipt of the
resolution of the CA dismissing her petition for non-
compliance with the rules, petitioner submitted, together
with her motion for reconsideration, a verification and
certification signed by her in compliance with the said rule.
We deem this to be sufficient compliance especially in
view of the merits of the case, which may be considered
as a special circumstance or a compelling reason that
would justify tempering the hard consequence of the
procedural requirement on non-forum shopping.
Cagayan Valley Drug Corp. v. CIR, (2008). There was
substantial compliance with Sec. 4 and 5 of Rule 7. First,
the requisite board resolution has been submitted albeit
belatedly by petitioner. Second, we apply our ruling in
Lepanto with the rationale that the President of petitioner
is in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of
the allegations in the petition. Third, the President of
petitioner has signed the complaint before the CTA at the
inception of this judicial claim for refund or tax credit.
s. Who Shall Sign the Certification Against Non-Forum
Shopping?
Digital Microwave Corp. v. CA. Rule 7, Sec. 5 requires that
the certification should be signed by the “petitioner or
principal party” himself. The rationale behind this is
because only the petition himself has actual knowledge
of WON he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in
different court or agencies.
Sps. Wee v. Galvez, (2004). XPN: However, the rationale
does not apply where it is the attorney-in-fact, who
instituted the action.
t. As a Rule the Certification Against Forum Shopping
Must be Signed by the Party Not the Counsel
Commission on Appointments v. Paler, (2010).The
petitioner in this case is the Commission on Appointments,
a government entity created by the Constitution, and
headed by its Chairman. There was no need for the
Chairman himself to sign the verification. Its
representative, lawyer or any person who personally knew
the truth of the facts alleged in the petition could sign the
verification. With regard, however, to the certification of
non-forum shopping, the established rule is that it must be
executed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and
not by counsel
Far Eastern Shipping Co. v. CA, (1998). A party’s failure to
sign the certification against forum shopping is different
from the party’s failure to sign personally the verification.
The certification of non-forum shopping must be signed
by the party, and not by counsel. The certification of
counsel renders the petition defective
u. Instance Where Counsel May sign in Behalf of the
Client
Anderson v. Ho, (2013). Finally, the certification against
forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader,
not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or
justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he
must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his
counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
The requirement that it is the petitioner, not her counsel,
who should sign the certificate of non-forum shopping is
due to the fact that a "certification is a peculiar personal
representation on the part of the principal party, an
assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there
are no other pending cases involving basically the same
parties, issues and causes of action." "Obviously, it is the
petitioner, and not always the counsel whose professional
services have been retained for a particular case, who is in
the best position to know whether she actually filed or
caused the filing of a petition in that case." Per the above
guidelines, however, if a petitioner is unable to sign a
certification for reasonable or justifiable reasons, she must
execute an SPA designating her counsel of record to sign
on her behalf. "A certification which had been signed by
counsel without the proper authorization is defective and
constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition."
v. Authority to Institute Action Includes Power to
Execute Certification of Forum Shopping and
Verification
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap Trading Corp., (2009). The power
to institute actions necessarily includes the power to
execute the verification and certification against forum
shopping required in initiatory pleadings, such as the
complaint.”
w. Board Resolution is Required in Signing the
Certificate of Forum Shopping in Case of Corporation
Mediserv Inc. v. CA., (2010). The requirement that a
petitioner or principal party should sign the certificate of
non-forum shopping applies even to corporations,
considering that the mandatory directives of the ROC
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.
Only individuals vested with authority by a valid board
resolution may sign the certificate of non-forum shopping
in behalf of a corporation. The action can be dismissed if
the certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof
of the signatory’s authority. The Court believe that
appending the board resolution to the complaint or
petition is the better procedure to obviate any question on
the authority of the signatory to the verification and
certification. The required submission of the board
resolution is grounded on the basic precept that corporate
powers are exercised by the board of directors, and not
solely by an officer of the corporation. Hence, the power
to sue and be sued in any court or quasi-judicial tribunal is
necessarily lodged with the said board.
x. The President of a Corporation May Sign Without
Board Approval
HUTAMA-RSEA v. KCD Builders Corp., (2010). It is true
that the power of a corporation to sue and be sued is
lodged in the board of directors that exercises its
corporate powers However, it is settled – and we have so
declared in numerous decisions – that the president of a
corporation may sign the verification and the certification
of non-forum shopping.
y. Attorney-in-fact May Sign the Certification Against
Forum Shopping
Monasterio v. Juan Tong, (2011). The attorney in fact,
who has the authority to file, and who actually filed the
complaint as the representative of the plaintiff, is a party
to the ejectment suit.
z. Case when Corporate Counsel was Allowed to Sign
the Certification Against Forum Shopping
Cana v. Evangelical Free Church of the Phil. Circular 28-91
was prescribed by the SC to prohibit and penalize the evils
of forum shopping. We see no circumvention of this
rationale if the certificate was signed by the corporation’s
specifically authorized counsel, who had personal
knowledge of the matters required in the Circular. In
Bernardo v. NLRC, we explained that a literal
interpretation of the Circular should be avoided if doing so
would subvert its very rationale. Said the Court:
Indeed, while the requirement as to certificate of non-
forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the
requirements must not be interpreted too literally and
thus defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable
practice of forum-shopping.
Thus, the subsequent submission of the authority
granted to herein respondent’s counsel to sign the
certification is substantial compliance, especially in view
of the merits of the instant case.
aa. Failure to Sign the Verification and Certification
Against Forum Shopping is a Fatal Defect: Dismissal
of the Petition
Ramirez v. Mar Fishing Co. Inc., (2012). However, this very
case does not involve a failure to attach the Annexes.
Rather, the procedural infirmity consists of omission – the
failure to sign a Verification and Certification against
forum shopping. Addressing this defect squarely, we have
already resolved that because of noncompliance with the
requirements governing the certification of non-forum
shopping, no error could be validly attributed to the CA
when it ordered the dismissal of the special civil action
for certiorari. The lack of certification against forum
shopping is not curable by mere amendment of a
complaint, but shall be a cause for the dismissal of the
case without prejudice. Indeed, the general rule is that
subsequent compliance with the requirements will not
excuse a party's failure to comply in the first instance.
Thus, on procedural aspects, the appellate court correctly
dismissed the case.
bb. Liberal Application of the Rule on the Certification
Against Forum Shopping
SM Land Inc. v. City of Manila, (2012). It must be kept in
mind that while the requirement of the certification of
non-forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless, the
requirements must not be interpreted too literally and,
thus, defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable
practice of forum shopping.
Time and again, this Court has held that rules of procedure
are established to secure substantial justice. Being
instruments for the speedy and efficient administration of
justice, they must be used to achieve such end, not to
derail it. In particular, when a strict and literal application
of the rules on non-forum shopping and verification will
result in a patent denial of substantial justice, these may
be liberally construed.
In a number of cases, this Court has excused the belated
filing of the required verification and certification of non-
forum shopping, citing that special circumstances or
compelling reasons make the strict application of the rule
clearly unjustified. This Court ruled that substantial justice
and the apparent merits of the substantive aspect of the
case are deemed special circumstances or compelling
reasons to relax the said rule.
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.
cc. Certification Against Forum Shopping is Not
Required in Answer With Compulsory Counterclaim
Korea Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Hon. Lerma, (2008). As to
the failure to submit a certificate of forum shopping,
PGSMC’s Answer is not an initiatory pleading which
requires a certification against forum shopping under Sec.
5 of Rule 7, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. It is a
responsive pleading, hence, the courts a quo did not
commit reversible error in denying KOGIES’ motion to
dismiss PGSMC’s compulsory counterclaims.
dd. Is Compliance with the Certification Against Forum
Shopping Required in Case of Answer with
Permissive Counterclaim?
A: YES. Since permissive counterclaim is in effect, a
separate and distinct complaint or an initiatory pleading
within the purview of A.C. 04-94 which mandates a
certification against forum shopping by a “plaintiff,
petitioner, applicant or principal party seeking relief in the
complaint, petition, application or other initiatory
pleading”
ee. Rule of Certification Against Forum Shopping in Case
of Dismissal Prior Complaint under Rule 17, Sec. 1
Bendicto v. Lacson, (2010). When a complaint is dismissed
without prejudice at the instance of the plaintiff, pursuant
to Rule 17, Sec. 1, there is no need to state in the
certificate of non-forum shopping in a subsequent re-filed
complaint the fact of the prior filing and dismissal of the
former complaint
ff. Duty of the Plaintiff Not the Defendant to Declare
Pending Suits in the Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping
Yap v. CA Special 11th Div., (2012). Anent dismissal on
ground of forum shopping, the same is likewise denied for
lack of merit. It is well-settled that it is the duty of the
plaintiff, not the defendant, to declare pending suits it
initiated between and among parties in its verification and
certificate of non-forum shopping and not the other way
around. A plaintiff in a civil case therefore, is not
mandated under the Rules to declare that said plaintiff
was a defendant in a prior suit instituted against him and
other defendants by the defendant in a subsequent case
of different nature.
8. Professional Tax Receipt Number (PTR) and IBP
Official Receipt No. (Cir. 10, July 24, 1985, B.M. No.
287, Sept. 26, 2000; April 7, 2003)
Cir. No. 10., (1985). All pleadings, motions and papers filed
in the court by counsel should bear in addition to counsel’s
current PTR, counsel’s current IBP Official Receipt Number
indicating its date of issue
9. What is the Effect of Failure to Comply With the
Requirements?
Cir. 10., (1985). Pleadings, motions and papers which do
not comply with this requirement may not be acted upon
the court, without prejudice to whatever disciplinary
action the court may take against the erring counsel who
shall likewise be required to comply with the requirements
within five (5) fays from the notice. Failure to comply such
requirement shall be a ground for further disciplinary
sanction and for contempt of court.
10. MCLE Certification of Compliance or Certification of
Exemption (B.M. No. 1922, En Banc Resolution, June
3, 2008)
B.M. No. 1922, En Banc Reso. All practicing members of
the bar are required to indicate in all the pleadings filed
before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and
date of issue of their MCLE Certificate or their Compliance
or Certificate of Exemption
a. What is the effect of Failure to Indicate the MCLE
Compliance Number in the Pleadings?
B.M. No. 1922, En Banc Reso. Failure to disclose the
required information would cause the dismissal of the case
and the expunging of the pleadings from the record.
11. Roll of Attorneys (B.M. No. 1132, April 2003)
B.M. No. 1132. On Nov. 12, 2002, the SC granted the
request of the Board of Governors of the IBP and the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte to require all
lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in all
papers and pleadings filed in judicial and quasi-judicial
bodies in addition to the previously required current PTR
and IBP Official Receipt Number
 a. What is the Purpose of Indicating the Roll of
Attorney in the Pleading?
B.M. 1132. The requirement was meant to protect the
public by making it easier to detect impostors who
represent themselves as members of the bar. Non-
compliance with this requirement has the same effect as
the failure to indicate counsel’s IBP Receipt Number. This
requirement is directed only to lawyers and is not to be
construed as precluding a party who is not a lawyer from
signing a pleading himself.
12. Evidence of Competent Identity in the Jurat of the
Pleading (Sec. 12, 2004 Notarial Rules)
Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity – The phrase
“competent evidence of identity” refers to the
identification of an individual based on:
(a) at least one current identification document issued by
an official agency bearing the photograph and
signature of the individual; or
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not
privy to the instrument, document or transaction who
is personally known to the notary public and who
personally knows the individual, or of two credible
witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who each personally knows
the individual and shows to the notary public
documentary identification.
VII. Basic Concepts on the Manner of Making Allegations
in the Pleading
A. Basic Concepts on the Manner of Making Allegation
1. GR in Making Allegations
Rule 8, Sec. 1. In general — Every pleading shall contain in
a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct
statement of the ultimate facts on which the party
pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may
be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts. (1)
If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent
provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall be
clearly and concisely stated.
a. Plain, Concise and Direct Statement of the Ultimate
Facts is Required in a Pleading
Lucas v. Lucas, (2011). The petition to establish filiation is
sufficient in substance and satisfies Sec. 1 of Rule 8 of the
ROC, which requires the complaint to contain a plain,
concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts upon
which the plaintiff bases his claim. A fact is essential if it
cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of
the cause of action inadequate.
2. Rule in Case of Alternative Causes of Action
Rule 8, Sec. 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses —
A party may set forth two 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
defenses. When two or more statements are made in the
alternative and one of them if made independently would
be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the
insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements.
3. Rule in Case of Allegation of Condition Precedent
Rule 8, Sec. 3. Conditions precedent — In any pleading a
general averment of the performance or occurrence of all
conditions precedent shall be sufficient.
4. Rule in Case of Allegation of Capacity of a Party in
the Pleading
Rule 8, Sec. 4. Capacity. — Facts showing the capacity of a
party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue
or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal
existence of an organized association of person that is
made a party, must be averred. A party desiring to raise an
issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity
of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity,
shall do so by specific denial, which shall include such
supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the
pleader's knowledge
5. Rule in Case of Allegation of Fraud, Mistake, and
Condition of Mind in the Pleading
Rule 8, Sec. 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.
6. Rule in Case of Allegation of Judgment in the
Pleading
Rule 8, Sec. 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.
7. Rule on Allegation of a Written Instrument or
Document in the Pleading
Rule 8, Sec. 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
a. Terms and Conditions on the Use of Credit Card is
not an Actionable Document
Ledda v. BPI, (2012). In this case, the complaint is an
action for collection of sum of money arising from Ledda’s
default in her credit card obligation with BPI. BPI’s cause of
action is primarily based on Ledda’s (1) acceptance of the
BPI credit card, (2) usage of the BPI credit card to purchase
goods, avail services and secure cash advances, and (3)
non-payment of the amount due for such credit card
transactions, despite demands. In other words, BPI’s
cause of action is not based only on the document
containing the Terms and Conditions accompanying the
issuance of the BPI credit card in favor of Ledda.
Therefore, the document containing the Terms and
Conditions governing the use of the BPI credit card is not
an actionable document contemplated in Section 7, Rule
8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, it is not
required by the Rules to be set forth in and attached to the
complaint.
8. Rule in Contesting Actionable Document
Rule 8, Sec. 8. How to contest such documents — When
an action or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding
pleading as provided in the preceding Sec., 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.
a. What is the Remedy if the Pleading Denying the
Actionable Document is Not Under Oath?
A: The genuineness and due execution of the actionable
document is deemed impliedly admitted, and hence the
pleading does not pose any triable issue which is
vulnerable for the filing of a judgment on the pleading
9. Rule on the Manner of Allegation in Case of an
Official Document or Act
Rule 8, Sec. 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.
10. Rule on Specific Denial of Material Allegations
Rule 8, Sec. 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.
a. How to Make a Specific Denial (Rule 8, Sec. 10)?
1. Absolute denial
2. Partial denial
3. Disavowal of knowledge
b. Mere Denial for Lack of Knowledge is Insufficient
Equitable Cardnetwork, Inc. v. Capistrano, (2012). A
person’s denial for lack of knowledge of things that by
their nature he ought to know is not an acceptable denial.
An admission in the answer and due execution of the
plaintiff’s actionable document, can only be contradicted
by showing that defendant made such admission through
palpable mistake.
11. Rules in Case an Allegation was Not Specifically
Denied – Deemed Admitted
Rule 8, Sec. 11. Allegations not specifically denied
deemed admitted — Material averment in the complaint,
other than those as to the amount of unliquidated
damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically
denied. Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover
usurious interest are deemed admitted if not denied under
oath.
12. Rules on the Striking Out of the Pleading or Matters
Contained Therein
Rule 8, Sec. 12. Striking out of pleading or matter
contained therein — Upon motion made by a party before
responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is
permitted by these Rules, upon motion made by a party
within twenty (20) days after the service of the pleading
upon him, or upon the court's own initiative at any time,
the court may order any pleading to be stricken out or that
any sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter be stricken out therefrom.
13. Defenses and Objections Not Pleaded Deemed
Waived
Rule 9, Sec. 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded —
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However,
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record 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, the
court shall dismiss the claim.
a. XPN to the Rule that Defenses and Objections Not
Pleaded Deemed Waived
GSIS v. Villaviza, (2010). The averments that are not
deemed admitted by the failure to deny the same. Among
them are immaterial allegations and incorrect conclusions
drawn from facts set out in the complaint.
14. Compulsory Counterclaim or Cross-Claim Not Set-Up
Barred
Rule 9, Sec. 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim,
not set up barred — A compulsory counterclaim, or a
cross-claim, not set up shall be barred.
VIII. Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, as
Amended (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC), as amended
A. Basic Concepts: Nature
1. Purpose
Orbe v. Judge Gumarang, (2011). The small claims process
is designed to function quickly and informally. There are
no lawyers, no formal pleadings and no strict legal rules of
evidence. Thus, the intention of the law is clear when it
provided a period of five (5) days from receipt of the order
of re-assignment to hear and decide cases, if a motion for
re-assignment of a case has been granted by the Executive
Judge.
2. Coverage
Sec. 2. Scope – These Rules shall govern the procedure in
actions before the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs),
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial
Courts (MTCs) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs)
for payment of money where the value of the claim does
not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00)
exclusive of interest and costs.
3. Objective
Sec. 3. Objectives –
(a) To protect and advance the constitutional right of
persons to a speedy disposition of their cases;
(b) To provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
the disposition of small claims cases; and,
(c) To introduce innovations and best practices for the
benefit of the underprivileged.
4. Definition of Terms
Sec. 4. Definition of Terms – For purposes of this Rule:
(a) Plaintiff refers to the party who initiated a small
claims action. The term includes a defendant who has
filed a counterclaim against plaintiff;
(b) Defendant is the party against whom the plaintiff has
filed a small claims action. The term includes a
plaintiff against whom a defendant has filed a claim,
or a person who replies to the claim;
(c) Person is an individual, corporation, partnership,
limited liability partnership, association, or other
juridical entity endowed with personality by law;
(d) Individual is a natural person;
(e) Motion means a party’s request, written or oral, to
the court for an order or other action. It shall include
an informal written request to the court, such as a
letter;
(f) Good cause means circumstances sufficient to justify
the requested order or other action, as determined
by the judge; and,
(g) Affidavit means a written statement or declaration of
facts that are sworn to or affirmed to be true.
5. Applicability
Sec. 5. Applicability – The Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all
actions that are purely civil in nature where the claim or
relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or
reimbursement of sum of money.
The claim or demand may be:
(a) For money owed 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 liquidated damages arising from contracts;
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement
or an arbitration award involving a money claim
covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of R.A.
7160, otherwise known as The LGC of 1991.
6. Commencement of Small Claims Cases
Sec. 6. Commencement of Small Claims Action – A small
claims action is commenced by filing with the court an
accomplished and verified Statement of Claim (Form 1-
SCC) in duplicate, accompanied by a Certification Against
Forum Shopping, Splitting a Single Cause of Action, and
Multiplicity of Suits (Form 1-A-SCC), and two (2) duly
certified photocopies of the actionable document/s
subject of the claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses
and other evidence to support the claim. No evidence shall
be allowed during the hearing which was not attached to
or submitted together with the Statement of Claim, unless
good cause is shown for the admission of additional
evidence.
The plaintiff must state in the Statement of Claim if
he/she/it is engaged in the business of lending, banking
and similar activities, and the number of small claims cases
filed within the calendar year regardless of judicial station.
No formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim/s
described in this Rule, is necessary to initiate a small
claims action.
7. Venue
Sec. 7. Venue – The regular rules on venue shall apply.
However, if the plaintiff is engaged in the business of
lending, banking and similar activities, and has a branch
within the municipality or city where the defendant
resides, the Statement of Claim/s shall be filed where that
branch is located.
8. Joinder of Claims
Sec. 8. Joinder of Claims – Plaintiff may join in a single
statement of claim one or more separate small claims
against a defendant provided that the total amount
claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00).
9. Affidavits
Sec. 9. Affidavits – The affidavits submitted under this
Rule shall state only facts of direct personal knowledge of
the affiants or based on authentic records, which are
admissible in evidence.
A violation of this requirement shall subject the party, and
the counsel who assisted the party in the preparation of
the affidavits, if any, to appropriate disciplinary action. The
inadmissible affidavit(s) or portion(s) thereof shall be
expunged from the record.
The non-submission of the required affidavits will cause
the immediate dismissal of the claim or counterclaim.
10. Payment of Filing Fees
Sec. 10. Payment of Filing Fees – The plaintiff shall pay the
docket and other legal fees prescribed under Rule 141 of
the Revised Rules of Court, unless allowed to litigate as an
indigent. Exemption from the payment of filing fees shall
be granted only by the Supreme Court.
However, if more than five (5) small claims are filed by one
party within the calendar year, regardless of the judicial
station, an additional filing fee of 500.00 shall be paid for
every claim filed after the fifth (5th) claim, and an
additional 100.00 or a total of 600.00 for every claim filed
after the tenth (10th) claim, and another 100.00 or a total
of 700 for every claim filed after the fifteenth (15th) claim,
progressively and cumulatively.
If the plaintiff is engaged in the business of banking,
lending and similar activities, the amount of filing and
other legal fees shall be the same as those applicable to
cases filed under the regular rules.
A claim filed with a motion to sue as indigent (Form 6-SCC)
shall be referred to the Executive Judge for immediate
action in case of multisala courts. If the motion is granted
by the Executive Judge, the case shall be raffled off or
assigned to the court designated to hear small claims
cases. If the motion is denied, the plaintiff shall be given
five (5) days within which to pay the docket fees,
otherwise, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice.
In no case shall a party, even if declared an indigent, be
exempt from the payment of the P1,000.00 fee for service
of summons and processes.
11. Dismissal of Claim
Sec. 11. Dismissal of the Claim – After the court
determines that the case falls under these Rules, it may,
from an examination of the allegations of the Statement of
Claim/s and such evidence attached thereto, by itself,
dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the
dismissal of the case. The order of dismissal shall state if it
is with or without prejudice.
If, during the hearing, the court is able to determine that
there exists a ground for dismissal of the Statement of
Claim/s, the court may, by itself, dismiss the case even if
such ground is not pleaded in the defendant’s Response.
If plaintiff misrepresents that he/she/ it is not engaged in
the business of banking, lending or similar activities when
in fact he/she/it is so engaged, the Statement of Claim/s
shall be dismissed with prejudice and plaintiff shall be
meted the appropriate sanctions, such as direct contempt.
However, if the case does not fall under this Rule, but falls
under summary or regular procedure, the case shall not be
dismissed. Instead, the case shall be re-docketed under
the appropriate procedure, and returned to the court
where it was assigned, subject to payment of any
deficiency in the applicable regular rate of filing fees. If a
case is filed under the regular or summary procedure, but
actually falls under this Rule, the case shall be referred to
the Executive Judge for appropriate assignment.
12. Issuance of Summons and Notice of Hearing
Sec. 12. Summons and Notice of Hearing – If no ground
for dismissal is found, the court shall forthwith issue
Summons (Form 2- SCC) on the day of receipt of the
Statement of Claim/s, directing the defendant to submit a
verified Response.
The court shall also issue a Notice of Hearing (Form 4-SCC)
to both parties, directing them to appear before it on a
specific date and time for hearing, with a warning that no
unjustified postponement shall be allowed, as provided in
Section 21 of this Rule.
The Summons to be served on the defendant shall be
accompanied by a copy of the Statement of Claim/s and
documents submitted by plaintiff, and a blank Response
Form (Form 3-SCC) to be accomplished by the defendant.
A Notice of Hearing shall accompany the Summons and
shall contain: (a) the date of the hearing, which shall not
be more than thirty (30) days from the filing of the
Statement of Claim/s; and (b) the express prohibition
against the filing of a motion to dismiss or any other
motion under Section 16 of this Rule.
If Summons is returned without being served on any or all
of the defendants, the court shall order the plaintiff to
cause the service of summons and shall inform the court
within thirty (30) days from notice if said summons was
served or not; otherwise, the Statement of Claim/s shall be
dismissed without prejudice as to those who were not
served with summons.
13. Filing of Response
Sec. 13. Response – The defendant shall file with the court
and serve on the plaintiff a duly accomplished and verified
Response within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days
from receipt of summons. The Response shall be
accompanied by certified photocopies of documents, as
well as affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in
support thereof. No evidence shall be allowed during the
hearing which was not attached to or submitted together
with the Response, unless good cause is shown for the
admission of additional evidence.
14. Effect of Failure to File Response
Sec. 14. Effect of Failure to File Response – Should the
defendant fail to file his/her/its Response within the
required period, and likewise fail to appear on the date set
for hearing, the court shall render judgment on the same
day, as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the
Statement of Claim/s.
Should the defendant fail to file his/her/its Response
within the required period but appears on the date set for
hearing, the court shall ascertain what defense he/she/it
has to offer which shall constitute his/ her/its Response,
and proceed to hear or adjudicate the case on the same
day as if a Response has been filed.
15. Counterclaims
Sec. 15. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of this Rule –
If at the time the action is commenced, the defendant
possesses a claim against the plaintiff that (a) is within the
coverage of this Rule, exclusive of interest and costs; (b)
arises out of the same transaction or event that is the
subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim; (c) does not require
for its adjudication the joinder of third parties; and (d) is
not the subject of another pending action, the claim shall
be filed as a counterclaim in the Response; otherwise, the
defendant shall be barred from suing on the counterclaim.
The defendant may also elect to file a counterclaim against
the plaintiff that does not arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence, provided that the amount and
nature thereof are within the coverage of this Rule and the
prescribed docket and other legal fees are paid.
16. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions
Sec. 16. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions – The following
pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not be allowed in the
cases covered by this Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the Statement of Claim/s;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or for reopening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits, or any other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) 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 and rejoinder;
(k) Third-party complaints; and
(l) Interventions.
17. Availability of Forms: Assistance by the Court
Personnel
Sec. 17. Availability of Forms; Assistance by Court
Personnel – The Clerk of Court or other court personnel
shall provide such assistance as may be requested by a
plaintiff or a defendant regarding the availability of forms
and other information about the coverage, requirements
as well as procedure for small claims cases.
18. Appearance
Sec. 18. Appearance – The parties shall personally appear
on the designated date of hearing.
Appearance through a representative must be for a valid
cause. The representative of an individual-party must not
be a lawyer, and must be related to or next-of-kin of the
individual-party. Juridical entities shall not be represented
by a lawyer in any capacity.
The representative must be authorized under a Special
Power of Attorney (Form 7-SCC) to enter into an amicable
settlement of the dispute and to enter into stipulations or
admissions of facts and of documentary exhibits.
19. Prohibition on the Appearance of Lawyers
Sec. 19. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed – No
attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at
the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or
defendant.
If the court determines that a party cannot properly
present his/her claim or defense and needs assistance, the
court may, in its discretion, allow another individual who is
not an attorney to assist that party upon the latter’s
consent.
20. Non-Appearance of the Parties
Sec. 20. Non-appearance of Parties – Failure of the
plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the
Statement of Claim/s without prejudice. The defendant
who appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be
entitled to judgment on a permissive counterclaim.
Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same
effect as failure to file a Response under Section 14 of this
Rule. This shall not apply where one of two or more
defendants who are sued under a common cause of action
and have pleaded a common defense appears at the
hearing.
Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal
with prejudice of both the Statement of Claim/s and the
counterclaim.
21. Postponement When Allowed
Sec. 21. Postponement When Allowed – A request for
postponement of a hearing may be granted only upon
proof of the physical inability of the party to appear before
the court on the scheduled date and time. A party may
avail of only one (1) postponement.
22. Duty of the Court
Sec. 22. Duty of the Court – At the beginning of the court
session, the judge shall read aloud a short statement
explaining the nature, purpose and the rule of procedure
of small claims cases.
23. Hearing
Sec. 23. Hearing – At the hearing, the judge shall first exert
efforts to bring the parties to an amicable settlement of
their dispute. If efforts at settlement fail, the hearing shall
immediately proceed in an informal and expeditious
manner and be terminated within the same day.
Any settlement (Form 8-SCC) or resolution of the dispute
shall be reduced into writing, signed by the parties and
submitted to the court for approval (Form 9-SCC and Form
10-SCC).
24. Decision
Sec. 24. Decision – After the hearing, the court shall
render its decision based on the facts established by the
evidence (Form 11-SCC), within twenty-four (24) hours
from termination of the hearing. 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.
The decision shall be final, executory and unappealable.
a. What is the Possible Remedy in Case of Adverse
Decision?
Sps. Yusay v. CA, (2011). Aggrieved party may avail the
remedy of petition for certiorari since “there is no appeal
or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
25. Execution
Sec. 25. Execution – When the decision is rendered,
execution shall issue upon motion (Form 12-SCC) of the
winning party.
26. Certification of Documents
Sec. 26. Certification of documents – All documents
attached to the Statement of Claim/s or Response that are
required to be certified, except public or official
documents, shall be certified by the signature of the
plaintiff or defendant concerned.
27. Applicability of the Rules of Civil Procedure
Sec. 27. Applicability of the Rules of Civil Procedure – The
Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply suppletorily insofar as
they are not inconsistent with this Rule.
28. Non-Applicability
Sec. 28. Non-applicability – The rules on
mediation/judicial dispute resolution shall not apply,
inasmuch as the parties may enter into compromise at any
stage of the proceedings.
29. Effectivity
Sec. 29. Effectivity – These Revised Rules shall take effect
on February 1, 2016 following their publication in two
newspapers of general circulation. They shall govern all
cases filed after their effectivity, and also all pending
proceedings, except to the extent that in the opinion of
the court, their application would not be feasible or would
work injustice, in which case the procedure under which
the cases were filed shall govern.
 Chapter VI: Commencement of Civil Action
I. Basic Concepts on the Commencement of Civil
Action
A. Basic Concepts on the Commencement of Civil
Action
1. Commencement of Civil Action
A civil action is deemed commenced by:
a. The filing of the original complaint with the clerk of
court
b. The payment of a corresponding docket and other
legal fees.
Rule 1, Sec. 5. Commencement of action — A civil action
is commenced by the filing of the original complaint in
court. If an additional defendant is impleaded in a later
pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on
the dated of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective
of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is
denied by the court.
a. Failure to Attach All Pleadings and Documents Not a
Ground to Dismiss the Petition
Alcantara v. The Phil. Commercial and International Bank,
(2010). Failure to attach all pleadings and documents, by
itself, is not a sufficient ground to dismiss a petition. In
appropriate cases, the courts may liberally construe
procedural rules in order to meet and advance the cause
of substantial justice. Lapses in the literal observation of a
procedural rule will be overlooked when they do not
involve public policy, when they arose from an honest
mistake or unforeseen accident, and when they have not
prejudiced the adverse party or deprived the court of its
authority.
2. When is a Small Claim Action Deemed Commenced?
• A.M. No. 08-8-7SC, as amended, Sec. 6.
3. Meaning of Filing (Rule 13, Sec. 2)
Rule 13, Sec. 2. Filing and service, defined — Filing is the
act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk
of court.
II. Payment of Docket Fees
A. Payment of Docket and Other Lawful Fees
Rule 141, Sec. 1. Payment of fees – Upon the filing of the
pleading or other application which initiates an action or
proceeding, the fees prescribed therefor shall be paid in
full.
a. Docket Fees Must be Paid in Full at The Time of the
Filing of the Pleading
Home Guaranty Corp. v. R-II Builders, Inc. and NHA ,
(2011). Consistent with Sec. 1, Rule 141 of the Revised
ROC which provides that the prescribed fees shall be paid
in full "upon the filing of the pleading or other application
which initiates an action or proceeding", the well-
entrenched rule is to the effect that a court acquires
jurisdiction over a case only upon the payment of the
prescribed filing and docket fees.
Heirs of Reinoso, Sr. v. CA, (2011). The payment in full of
the docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory.
b. Payment of Docket Fees Vest the Court with
Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter or Nature of
the Action
Ungria v. CA, (2011). It is a settled rule in this jurisdiction
that when an action is filed in court, the complaint must
be accompanied by the payment of the requisite docket
and filing fees. 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.
c. Payment of Filing/Docket Fees – Jurisdictional
Manchester Dev. Corp. v. CA, (1987). It is not simply the
filing of the complaint that vests the court with jurisdiction
over the action filed but also by the payment of the
prescribed docket fee. The SC, in several cases has held
that a court acquires jurisdiction over the case ONLY upon
the payment of the said fees.
d. Ruling in Manchester Case Relaxed by the SC:
Unpaid Legal Fees Considered as a Lien on the
Judgment
(1) Sun Insurance v. CA. The ruling in Manchester was
relaxed, when the Court made a liberal interpretation
of the rule by allowing a late payment of the docket
fee as long as it should not be made beyond the
action’s prescriptive period. It also declared in this
case that any unpaid fees should be considered a lien
on the judgment. In this case, there is no evidence
that the plaintiff tried to evade the payment of the
docket fees.
(2) Yuchengco v.Republic, (2010). It should be noted,
however, that the pronouncements of this Court on
the matter have always been influenced by the
peculiar legal and equitable circumstances
surrounding each case. The rule is not as simple, as
rigid or as uncomplicated as the Manchester case
makes it appear. There are other circumstances
equally important. While the timely payment of
docket fees is jurisdictional, considerations of equity
also come into the picture.
e. Damages Must be Specifically Alleged for Proper
Assessment and Payment of Docket Fees
Rizal, et. al. v. Naredo, et. al. (2012). In Siapno, 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 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, 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.
2. Effects of Non-Payment of Docket Fees
a. In case of non-payment of the required docket fees,
the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case
and the said complaint shall not be admitted or
accepted.
Manchester Dev. Corp. v. CA, (1987). 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 bib accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be
expunged from the record.
The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon
the payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment
of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest
jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the
docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended
pleading.
Sun Insurance Office Ltd. v. Asuncion, (1989). 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 therefore is
paid.
b. Payment of Docket Fee Not Required in Case of
Sumpplemental Complaint
Do-All Metal Industries, Inc. v. Security Bank Corp.,
(2011). On the issue of jurisdiction, respondent Bank
argues that plaintiffs’ failure to pay the filing fees on their
supplemental complaint is fatal to their action.
But what the plaintiffs failed to pay was merely the filing
fees for their Supplemental Complaint. The RTC acquired
jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ action from the moment they
filed their original complaint accompanied by the payment
of the filing fees due on the same. The plaintiffs’ non-
payment of the additional filing fees due on their
additional claims did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction
it already had over the case.
A supplemental complaint is like any complaint and the
rule is that the filing fees due on a complaint need to be
paid upon its filing. The rules do not require the court to
make special assessments in cases of supplemental
complaints.
3. Rule on Pauper Litigant
Rule 3, Sec. 21, par. 1. Indigent party — 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.
a. Who is a Pauper Litigant?
Tokyo Marine Malayan Insurance, Co. v. Valdez, (2008).
For purposes of a suit in forma pauper is, an indigent
litigant is not really a pauper, but is properly a person who
is an indigent although not a public charge, meaning that
he has no property or income sufficient for his support
aside from his labor, even if he is self-supporting when
able to work and in employment. The term "immediate
family" includes those members of the same household
who are bound together by ties of relationship but does
not include those who are living apart from the particular
household of which the individual is a member.
4. Effect of Being Declared Indigent Party/Coverage of
Exemptions
Rule 3, Sec. 21, par. 2. 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.
5. Guidelines in the Determination of Indigent Litigant
Rule 141, Sec. 19, as amended. Indigent litigants exempt
from payment of legal fees – Indigent litigants (a) whose
gross income and that of their immediate family do not
exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of
an employee and (b) who do not own real property with A
FAIR MARKET VALUE AS STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX
DECLARATION of more than THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P300,000.00) PESOS shall be exempt from the payment of
legal fees.
The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in
the case favorable to the indigent litigant unless the court
otherwise provides.
To be entitled to the exemption herein provided, the
litigant shall execute an affidavit that he and his
immediate family do not earn a gross income
abovementioned, and they do not own any real property
with the fair value aforementioned, supported by an
affidavit of a disinterested person attesting to the truth of
the litigant’s affidavit. The current tax declaration, if any,
shall be attached to the litigant’s affidavit.
Any falsity in the affidavit of litigant or disinterested
person shall be sufficient cause to dismiss the complaint or
action or to strike out the pleading of that party, without
prejudice to whatever criminal liability may have been
incurred.
a. Who Shall Execute the Affidavit?
Tokyo Marine Insurance Co. Inc. v. Valdez, (2008). The
provision states that it is the litigant alone who shall
execute the affidavit. The Rule does not require that all
members of the litigant’s immediate family must likewise
execute sworn statements in support of the petition.
Expressio unius est exclusion alterius.
6. Remedy of the Adverse Party
Rule 3, Sec. 21, par. 3. Any adverse party may contest the
grant of such authority at any time before judgment is
rendered by the trial court. If the court should determine
after hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in
fact a person with sufficient income or property, the
proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and
collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made
within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue or
the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other
sanctions as the court may impose.
7. Cooperatives – Not Exempt from Payment of Docket
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 R.A. 9520, otherwise
known as the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008,
Perpetual Help Community Cooperative (PHCCI). 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
Court’s institutional independence, the power to
promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is
now the Court’s 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, it is evident that the exemption of
cooperatives from payment of court and sheriff’s fees no
longer stands. Cooperatives can no longer invoke R.A.
6938, as amended by R.A. 9520, as basis for exemption
from the payment of legal fees.
8. No Docket Fees in a Petition of Writ of Kalikasan
A.M. No. 09-6-08, Part III, Rule 7, Sec. 4. No docket fees –
The petitioner shall be exempt from payment of docket
fees.
9. No Payment of Docket Fees in a Petition for a Writ of
Continuing Mandamus
A.M. No. 09-6-08, Part III, Rule 8, Sec. 4. No docket fees –
No docket fees – The petitioner shall be exempt from
payment of docket fees.
III. Raffle of the Case (Rule 20)
A. Raffle of the Case
1. Basic Concepts on Raffle of the Case
Rule 20, Sec. 2. Assignment of cases — The assignment of
cases to the different branches of a court shall be done
exclusively by raffle. The assignment shall be done in open
session of which adequate notice shall be given so as to
afford interested parties the opportunity to be present.
2. Raffle of Cases: Purpose
GSIS v. Executive Judge Cancino-Erum, (2012). The
avowed purpose of instituting raffle as the exclusive
method of assigning cases among several branches of a
court in the same station is two-fold: one, to equalize the
distribution of the cases among the several branches, and
thereby foster the Court’s policy of promoting speedy and
efficient disposition of cases; and, two, to ensure the
impartial adjudication of cases and thereby obviate any
suspicion regarding assignment of cases to predetermined
judges.
3. Raffle of Cases – Not Mandatory at All Times
GSIS v. Executive Judge Cancino-Erum, (2012). Despite not
strictly following the procedure under Circular No. 7 in
assigning Civil Case No. MC08-3660 to Branch 213, the
respondents as members of the Raffle Committee could
not be held to have violated the rule on the exclusivity of
raffle because there were obviously less TRO or injunction
cases available at anytime for raffling than the number of
Branches of the RTC. Given the urgent nature of TRO or
injunction cases, each of them had to be immediately
attended to. This peculiarity must have led to the adoption
of the practice of raffling such cases despite their number
being less than the number of the Branches in
Mandaluyong City. The practice did not absolutely
contravene Circular No. 7 in view of the circular itself
expressly excepting under its fourth paragraph, supra, any
incidental or interlocutory matter of such urgent nature
(like a TRO application) that might not wait for the regular
raffle.
4. Immediate Raffle of the Case if There is a Prayer for
TRO
GSIS v. Executive Judge Cancino-Erum, (2012). The urgent
nature of an injunction or TRO case demands prompt
action and immediate attention, thereby compelling the
filing of the case in the proper court without delay. To
assume that a party desiring to file an injunction or TRO
case will just stand idly by and mark time until his favored
Branch is the only Branch left without an assigned
injunction or TRO case is obviously speculative. Moreover,
the "anomalous situation" is highly unlikely in view of the
uncertainty of having the favored Branch remain the only
Branch without an injunction or TRO case following the
series of raffle.

IV. Efficient Use of Paper Rule (A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC),
effective Jan. 1, 2013
1. Title of the Rule
Sec. 1. Title of the Rule – This rule shall be known and
cited as the Efficient Use of Paper Rule.
2. Applicability
Sec. 2. Applicability – This rule shall apply to all courts and
quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative supervision
of the Supreme Court.
3. Format and Style
Sec. 3. Format and Style –
a. All pleadings, motions and similar papers intended for
the court and quasi-judicial body’s consideration and
action (court-bound papers) shall written in single
space with one-and-a –half space between
paragraphs, using an easily readable font style of the
party’s choice, of 14-size font, and on a 13 –inch by
8.5- inch white bond paper; and
b. All decisions, resolutions and orders issued by courts
and quasi-judicial bodies under the administrative
supervision of the Supreme Court shall comply with
these requirements. Similarly covered are the reports
submitted to the courts and transcripts of
stenographic notes.
4. Margins and Prints
Sec. 4. Margins and Prints – The parties shall maintain the
following margins on all court-bound papers: a left hand
margin of 1.5 inches from the edge; an upper margin of
1.2 inches from the edge; a right hand margin of 1.0 inch
from the edge; and a lower margin of 1.0 inch from the
edge. Every page must be consecutively numbered.
5. Copies to be Filed
Sec. 5. Copies to be filed – Unless otherwise directed by
the court, the number of court- bound papers that a party
is required or desires to file shall be as follows:
Sec. 7. Date of Effectivity – This rule shall take effect on
a. In the Supreme Court, one original (properly marked) January 1, 2013 after publication in two newspapers of
and four copies, unless the case is referred to the general circulation in the Philippines
Court En Banc, in which event, the parties shall file
ten additional copies. For the En Banc, the parties
Chapter VII: Basic Concepts on Summons
need to submit only two sets of annexes, one
attached to the original and an extra copy. For the
A. Basic Concepts
Division, the parties need to submit also two sets of
annexes, one attached to the original and an extra
1. Summons defined
copy. All members of the Court shall share the extra
copies of annexes in the interest of economy of
Robinson v. Miralles. Summons is a writ by which the
paper.
defendant is notified of the action brought against him or
her.
Parties to cases before the Supreme Court are further
required, on voluntary basis for the first six months
In a civil action, service of summons is the means by which
following the effectivity of this Rule and compulsorily
the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
afterwards unless the period is extended, to submit,
defendant.
simultaneously with their court-bound papers, soft copies
of the same and their annexes (the latter in PDF format)
Any judgment without such service, in the absence of a
either by email to the Court’s e-mail address or by
valid waiver, is null and void.
compact disc (CD). This requirement is in preparation for
the eventual establishment of an e-filing paperless system
2. Kinds of Summons
in the judiciary.
Original Summons is the writ issued by the clerk of court
b. In the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, one
upon receipt of the complaint and the payment of the
original (properly marked) and two copies with their
requisite docket and other lawful fees by which the
annexes;
defendant is notified of the action brought against him
c. In the Court of Tax Appeals, one original (properly
and requiring him to file his responsive pleading within the
marked) and two copies with annexes. On appeal to
period prescribed by the rules.
the En Banc, one Original (properly marked) and eight
copies with annexes; and
Alias Summons is a writ issued by clerk of court when the
d. In other courts, one original (properly marked) with
(1) original summons has been lost or (2) not duly served
the stated annexes attached to it.
without fault on the part of the plaintiff.
6. Annexes Served on the Adverse Party
3. Distinctions Between Summons (Rule 14) and
Subpoena (Rule 21)
Sec. 6. Annexes Served on Adverse Party – A party
required by the rules to serve a copy of his court-bound on
Summons Subpoena
the adverse party need not enclose copies of those A writ by the clerk of court A writ issued by the judge
annexes that based on the record of the court such party
by which the defendant is by which a person is
already has in his possession. In the event a party requests notified of the action required to appear and
a set of the annexes actually filed with the court, the part brought against him testify before the court or
who filed the paper shall comply with the request within in an investigation or to
five days from receipt. bring documents or books
to the court.
7. Date of Effectivity Kinds: original and alias Kinds: duces tecum and ad
testificandum
Purpose is to acquire Purpose is to require a
jurisdiction over the person person to appear and fees, the clerk of court shall forthwith issue the
of the defendant or the res testify before the court or corresponding summons to the defendants. (1a) 10. Return
in an investigation or to
bring documents or books 7. Contents of Summons Rule 14, Sec. 4. Return — When the service has been
to the court completed, the server shall, within five (5) days therefrom,
Remedy in case of defective Remedy is a motion to Rule 14, Sec. 2. Contents — The summons shall be (a) serve a copy of the return, personally or by registered
service of summons: File a quash subpoena directed to the defendant, signed by the clerk of court mail, to the plaintiff's counsel, and (b) shall return the
motion to dismiss under under seal and contain (a) the name of the court and the summons to the clerk, who issued it, accompanied by
Rule 16, Sec. 1(a) names of the parties to the action; (b) a direction that the proof of service. (6a)
Summons is issued upon Subpoena is issued during defendant answer within the time fixed by these Rules; (c)
receipt by the clerk of court trial a notice that unless the defendant so answers plaintiff will 11. Issuance of Alias Summons
of the complaint and the take judgment by default and may be granted the relief
corresponding payment of applied for. Rule 14, Sec. 5. Issuance of alias summons — If a
docket and other lawful summons is returned without being served on any or all of
fees or when the original A (a)copy of the complaint and (b) order for appointment the defendants, the server shall also serve a copy of the
summons has not been of guardian ad litem if any, shall be attached to the original return on the plaintiff's counsel, stating the reasons for the
served or was lost without and each copy of the summons. (3a) failure of service, within five (5) days therefrom.
fault on the part of the
plaintiff 8. Purpose of Service of Summons In such a case, or if the summons has been lost, the clerk,
on demand of the plaintiff, may issue an alias summons.
4. Jurisdiction over the Person of the Defendant or a. Vda. de Macoy v. CA. Service of summons is for (4a)
Respondent the benefit of the defendant, and is intended to
afford the latter an opportunity to be heard on 12. Modes of Service of Summons
a. Sharuff v. Bubla. Jurisdiction over the person of the claim against him.
the defendant may be acquired in two ways: b. Two Fold Purpose: Summons may be served to the defendant on the
following manner:
1. By voluntary appearance or submission by the i. To acquire jurisdiction over the person of
defendant or respondent to the court the defendant a. Personal service
2. By coercive process issued by the court to him, ii. To notify the defendant that an action has b. Substituted service
generally by a valid service of summons been commenced so that he may be given c. Extra-territorial service
an opportunity to be heard in the claim
b. Planters Dev. Bank v. Chandumal. If a defendant against him. A. Service to the Person of the Defendant
has not been properly summoned, the court
acquires no jurisdiction over its person, and a Sagana v. Francisco. Since respondent refused to Rule 14, Sec. 6. Service in Person on defendant —
judgment rendered against it is null and void. disclose his true address, it was impossible to Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by
personally serve summons upon him. handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if
5. Effects of Invalid Service of Summons he refuses to receive and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
Considering that respondent could not have (7a)
Sagana v. Francisco. If defendants have not been validly received summons because of his own
summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over their pretenses, and has failed to provide an a. Purpose of Personal Service of Summons:
person, and the judgment against them shall be null and explanation of his purported “new” residence, Preferred Mode
void. he must now bear the consequences.
Personal service of summons most effectively ensures that
6. When Can the Summons be Issued? 9. By Whom Summons Shall be Served the notice desired under the constitutional requirement of
due process is accomplished
Rule 14, Sec. 1. Clerk to issue summons — Upon the filing Rule 14, Sec. 3. By whom served — The summons may be
of the complaint and the payment of the requisite legal served by (a) the sheriff, (b) his deputy, or (c) other proper Service of summons in the person of the defendant is
court officer, or (d) for justifiable reasons by any suitable generally preferred over substituted service – substituted
person authorized by the court issuing the summons. (5a) service derogates the regular method of personal service.

Sansio Phil. v. Mogul. For substituted service to be
justified, the following circumstances must be clearly
established:
(a) Personal service of summons within reasonable
time was impossible
(b) Efforts were exerted to locate the party;
(c) The summons was served upon a person of
sufficient age and discretion residing at the
party’s residence or upon a competent person in
charge of the party’s office or place of business.
b. In case of an Action in Personam and the
Defendant is in the Philippines, Personal Service
is Required
Planters Dev. Bank v. Julie Chandumal. Where the action
is in personam and the defendant is in the Philippines,
service of summons may be made through personal
service.
c. The modes of service of summons must be
strictly followed in an action in personam in
order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over
the defendant
Umandap v. Sabio, Jr. Service is the summons is the
means of acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant in action in personam and a means by which
the due process requirement of notice of the Constitution
is complied with.
B. Substituted Service of Summons
Rule 14, Sec. 7. Substituted service — If, for justifiable
causes (FJC), 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 (CPIC)
thereof.
a. When can a Substituted Service of Summons be
Resorted to?
Galura v. Math-Agro Corp. Substituted service may be
resorted to only when service of summons within a
reasonable time is impossible – impossibility of prompt
service should appear in the return of service.
Manotoc v. CA. Requisites for a valid substituted service
of summons:
(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 recipient’s 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
d. Statutory Requirements of Substituted Service
of Summons Must be Strictly Followed
B.D. Long Span Builders, Inc. v. R.S. Ampelaquio. As a
rule, summons should be personally served on the
defendant, and in case of a domestic private juridical
entity, the service of summons must be made upon an
officer who is named in the statute.
The statutory requirements of substituted service must be
followed strictly, faithfully and fully, and any substituted
service other than that authorized by statute is considered
ineffective.
e. Person to whom the summons was served must
be in charge of the place of business of the
defendant in case of substituted service
Gentle Supreme Phil. Inc. v. Consulta. It is not necessary
that the person in charge of the defendant’s place of
business is authorized to receive the summons. It is
enough that he appears to be in charge.
f. Presumption in case of Substituted Service of
Summons
Palma v. Galvez. The rule presupposes that such a relation
of confidence exists between the person with whom the
copy is left and the defendant and, therefore, assumes
that such person will deliver the process to defendant or in
some way give him notice thereof.
g. Liberal Application on the Rule on Substituted
Service of Summons
Sagana v. Francisco. The Court found that substituted
service of summons was validly made upon respondent
through his brother.
An overly strict application of the Riles is not warranted in
this case, as it would clearly frustrate the spirit of the law
as well as do injustice to the parties, who have been
waiting for almost 15 years for a resolution of this case.
h. Refusal of the defendant to reveal his
whereabouts justify substituted service
Sagana v. Francisco. There was a proper substituted
service of summons when the personal service of
summons was made impossible by the acts of the
respondents in refusing to reveal his whereabouts, and by
the act of the his brother in claiming that respondents no
longer lived at No. 36 Sampaguita St., yet failing to disclose
his brother’s location.
i. Service of Summons upon the Security Guard
Upon Strict Instruction of the Defendant is Valid
Robinson v. Millares. Service of summons upon the
subdivision security guard upon the strict instruction of
the defendant is considered a valid substituted service of
summons.
 j. Person who Will Receive the Summons only
Appeals to be in Charge
Gentle Supreme Phil. Inc. v. Consulta. A secretary whose
job description necessarily includes receiving documents
and other correspondence, would have the semblance of
authority to accept the court documents.
k. Duty of the Sheriff in Case Personal Service is
Not Available
• Rule 14, Sec. 6 in relation to Sec. 7
Laus v. CA. The sheriff or server must first exert all efforts
to serve the defendant in person. If this effort fails, then
substituted service can be made. This effort must be
stated in the proof of service.
Hamilton v. Levy. It is necessary that the pertinent facts
attendant to the service of summons must be stated in the
proof of service, otherwise substituted service in lieu of
personal service cannot be upheld.
l. Effect of Failure to Comply with the
Requirements of Substituted Service
Miranda v. CA. It renders the service ineffective.
C. Extra-Territorial Service of Summons/By
Publication
Rule 14, Sec. 15. Extraterritorial service — When the
defendant (a) does not reside and (b) is not found in the
Philippines,
and the action affects (1) the personal status of the
plaintiff or (2) 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 (c)
the property of the defendant has been attached within
the Philippines,
service may, by leave of court, (a) be effected out of the
Philippines by personal service as under Sec. 6; or (b) 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 (c) 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.
a. In action in rem service of summon is through
publication
Lucas v. Lucas. An in rem proceeding is validated
essentially through publication.
Publication is notice to the whole world that the
proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who
might be minded to make an objection of any sort to the
right sought to be established.
Through publication, all interested parties are deemed
notified of the petition
b. Service of summons on a non-resident
defendant/ Purpose
Acance, et.al. v. CA. Service of summons on a nonresident
defendant who is not found in the country is required, not
for purposes of physically acquiring jurisdiction over his
person but simply in pursuance of the requirements of fair
play, so that he may be informed of the pendency of the
action against him and the possibility that the property in
the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an
interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of a
resident, and that he may thereby be accorded an
opportunity to defend in the action, if he be so minded.
The only relief that may be granted in such an action
against such a nonresident defendant, who does not
choose to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the
Philippine court, is limited to the res
c. In case of a Non-Resident Defendant and the
case is an action in personam court cannot
Acquire Jurisdiction
NM Rothschild and Sons Ltd. v. Lepanto Consolidated
Mining Co. Since the action involved in the case at bar is in
personam and since the defendant, does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines, the Philippine courts cannot
try any case against it because of the impossibility of
acquiring jurisdiction over its person unless it voluntarily
appears in court
d. Resident Defendant Temporarily out of the
Philippines can be Served with Summons by
Extraterritorial Service
Sps. Domingo v. If the defendant cannot be served with
summons because he is temporarily abroad, but otherwise
he is a resident of the Philippines, service of summons
may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines
under Rule 14, Sec. 15 in relation to Sec. 16.
e. Strict Compliance with the Requirements in the
case of Service by Publication: Effect of
Defective Service of Summons by Mail or
Publication
(1) Acance, et. al. v. CA. The failure to strictly
comply correctly with the requirements of the
rules regarding the e-mailing of copies of the
summons and the order for its publication is a
fatal defect in the service of summons.
(2) Acance, et. al. v. CA. It is the duty of the court to
require the fullest compliance with all the
requirements of the statute permitting service
by publication
13. To Whom Summons shall be Served
• Rule 14, Sec. 8 to 16
13.a. Service upon an Entity Without Juridical Personality
Rule 14, Sec. 8. Service upon entity without juridical
personality — When persons associated in an entity
without juridical personality are sued under the name by
which they are generally or commonly known, service may
be effected upon (a) all the defendants by serving upon
any one of them, or (b) upon the person in charge of the
office or place of business maintained in such name.
But such service shall not bind individually any person
whose connection with the entity has, upon due notice,
been severed before the action was brought. (9a)
13.b. Service Upon Prisoners
Rule 14, Sec. 9. Service upon prisoners — When the
defendant is a prisoner confined in a jail or institution,
service shall be effected upon him (a) by the officer having
the management of such jail or institution who is deemed
deputized as a special sheriff for said purpose. (12a)
13.c. Service Upon Minors and Incompents
Rule 14, Sec. 10. Service upon minors and incompetents
— When the defendant is a minor, insane or otherwise an
incompetent, service shall be made (a) upon him
personally and on his legal guardian if he has one, (b) or if
none his guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be
applied for by the plaintiff.
In the case of a minor, (c) service may also be made on his
father or mother.
13.d. Service Upon Domestic Private Juridical Entity
Rule 14, Sec. 11. Service upon domestic private juridical
entity — When the defendant is a corporation,
partnership or association organized under the laws of the
Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be
made on the (a) president, (b) managing partner, (c)
general manager, (d) corporate secretary, (e) treasurer, or
(f) in-house counsel
(1) Enumeration under Rule 14, Sec. 11 is Exclusive
(2) Service of Summons in Case of a Domestic
Corporation must be Those Persons Mentioned
under Rule 14, Sec. 11
E.B. Villarosa v. Benito. Service upon any other person will
not enable the court to acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.
(3) What is the Remedy of the Plaintiff in Case of
Service of Summons Cannot be Made to the
Officers of the Corporation in an Action in
Personam
Remedy: Amend his pleading ask for the issuance of a writ
of preliminary attachment thereby converting the action in
an action quasi in rem where service of summons by
publication is allowed in order to acquire jurisdiction over
the res and the acquisition of jurisdiction is merely of
observance of due process.
Sec. 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue — At
the commencement of the action or at any time before
entry of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have
the property of the adverse party attached as security for
the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in
the following cases:
(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is
not found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may
be served by publication. (1a)
13.e. Service Upon Foreign Private Juridical Entity
Rule 14, Sec. 12. Service upon foreign private juridical
entities — When the defendant is a foreign private
juridical entity which has transacted business in the
Philippines, service may be made on (a) its resident agent
designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if
there be no such agent, (b) on the government official
designated by law to that effect, or (c) on any of its officers
or agents within the Philippines. (14a)
If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the
Philippines or has no resident agent, service, may with
leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines through
any of the following means:
a. By personal service coursed through the
appropriate court in the foreign country with the
assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs
b. By publication once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the country where the defendant
may be found and by serving a copy of the
summons and the court order by registered mail
at the last known address of the defendant
c. By facsimile or any recognized electronic means
that could generate proof of service
d. By such other means as the court may in its
discretion direct
Atiko Trans, Inc. v. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance,
Inc. In order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the
person of a defendant foreign private juridical entity under
Rule 14, Sec. 12, there must be prior valid service of
summons upon the agent of such defendant.
(1) Service of Summons to a Private Foreign
Corporation
H.B. Zachary Co. Intl v. CA. With respect to foreign
corporations, when a corporation has designated a person
to receive summons in its behalf pursuant to the
Corporation Code, that designation is exclusive and service
of summons on any other person is enfficacious.
13.f. Service upon Republic of the Philippines or Public
Corporations
Rule 14, Sec. 13. Service upon public corporations —
When the defendant is the Republic of the Philippines,
service may be effected on the Solicitor General; in case of
a province, city or municipality, or like public corporations,
service may be effected on its executive head, or on such
other officer or officers as the law or the court may direct.
13.g. Service Upon Defendant Whose Identity or
Whereabouts are Unknown
Rule 14, 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. (16a)
(1) Can Service of Summons by Publication Allowed
in case the Action is in Personam
A: Yes. Because Rule 14, Sec. 14 specifically used the
word “in any action”
(2) Service of Summons by Publication is Allowed
in an Action in Personam if the Defendant’s
Whereabouts are Unknown
Santos, Jr. v. PNOC. The Court authorized resort to service
of summons by publication even in actions in personam,
considering that the provisions itself allow this mode in
any action.
The ruling, notwithstanding, there must be prior resort to
service in person of 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.
13.h. Service Upon Residents Temporarily Out of the
Philippines
Rule 14, Sec. 16. Residents temporarily out of 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 Sec.. (18a)
14. Leave of Court
Rule 14, Sec. 17. Leave of court — Any application to the
court under this Rule for leave to effect service in any
manner for which leave of court is necessary shall be made
(a) by motion in writing, (b) supported by affidavit of the
plaintiff or some person on his behalf, (c) setting forth the
grounds for the application. (19)
15. Proof of Service
Rule 14, Sec. 18. Proof of service — The proof of service of
a summons shall be (a) made in writing by the server and
(b) shall set forth the manner, place, and date of service;
(c) shall specify any papers which have been served with
the process and (d) the name of the person who received
the same; and (e) shall be sworn to when made by a
person other than a sheriff or his deputy. (20)
16. Proof of Service by Publication
Rule 14, Sec. 19. Proof of service by publication — If the
service has been made by publication, service may be
proved by the (a) affidavit of the printer, (b) his foreman
or (c) principal clerk, (d) or of the editor, (e) 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. (21)
17. Voluntary Appearance
Rule 14, Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance — The
defendant's voluntary appearance in the action shall be
equivalent to service of summons.
The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside
from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. (23a)
a. Submission to the Jurisdiction of the Court:
Exceptions
Phil. Commercial International Bank v. Sps. Dy. GR: One
who seeks affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted
to the jurisdiction of the court.
Actions equivalent to voluntary appearance:
a. Motion to admit answer
b. Motion for additional time to file answer
c. Motion for reconsideration of a default
judgment
d. Motion to lift order of default with motion for
reconsideration
XPN: Special appearance operates as an exception to the
general rule on voluntary appearance.
Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over
the person of the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e.
set forth in an equivocal manner. Failure to do so
constitutes voluntary appearance.
b. Participation in the Proceedings by Filing of
Opposition Amounts to Voluntary Appearance
Lucas v. Lucas. We find that the due process requirement
with respect to respondent has been satisfied, considering
that he has participated in the proceedings in this case and
he has the opportunity to file his opposition to the petition
to establish filiation.
c. Acquisition of Jurisdiction over the Person of
the Defendant by Voluntary Appearance
Herrera-Felix v. CA. A voluntary appearance is a waiver of
the necessity of a formal notice. An appearance in
whatever form, without explicitly objecting to the
jurisdiction of the court over the person, is submission the
jurisdiction of the court over the person.
He may appear by presenting a motion, for example, and
unless by such appearance he specifically objects to the
jurisdiction of the court, he thereby gives his assent to the
jurisdiction of the court over his person. When the
appearance is by motion objecting to the jurisdiction of
the court over his person, it must be for the sole and
separate purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the
court. If his motion is for any other purpose than to object
to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he thereby
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
e. Filing of a Motion to Set Aside Order of Default
and Motion to Admit Answer is Tantamount to
the Submission to the Jurisdiction of the Court
Planter’s Dev. Bank v. Chandumal. The filing of motions to
admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for
reconsideration is considered voluntary submission to the
court’s jurisdiction.
f. Active Participation in the Proceedings
Amounts to Acquisition of Jurisdiction of the
Court by Voluntary Submission
Meat Packing Corp. v. Sandiganbayan. The active
participation of a party in the proceedings is tantamount
to an invocation of the court’s jurisdiction and a
willingness to abide by the resolution of the case, and will
bar said party from later or impugning the court or body’s
jurisdiction.
g. Filing of a motion to dismiss assailing the
jurisdiction of the court over his person is not
equivalent to the submission to the jurisdiction
of the court
Lhuilier v. British Airways. What the rule on voluntary
appearance – the first sentence of the above quoted rule –
means is that the voluntary appearance of the defendant
in court is without qualification, in which case he is
deemed to have waived his defense of lack of jurisdiction
over his person due to improper service of summons.
h. Voluntary Appearance before the NLRC is
Submission to the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
C.Alcantara & Sons, Inc. v. CA. The NLRC acquires
jurisdiction over the parties in cases before it either by
summons served on them or by their voluntary
appearance before the LA.
Seeking award for damages in their favor is considered an
affirmative relief which is equivalent to voluntary
appearance.
i. Special Appearance to Challenge Jurisdiction of
the Court is Not Voluntary Appearance
(1) French Oil Mill Machinery, Inc. v. CA. When the
defendant appearance is made precisely to
object to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person, it cannot be considered as appearance in
court.
j. Service of Summons in case of a Domestic
Private Juridical Entity Through a Co-defendant
agent is not Submission to the Jurisdiction of
the Court
Atiko Trans v. Cheng Lie Navigation Co. Where service of
summons upon the defendant principal is coursed thru its
co-defendant agent, and the latter happens to be a
domestic corporation, the rules on service of summons
upon domestic private juridical entity must be strictly
complied with.
k. Objection to the Jurisdiction of the Court Must
be Explicit: Motion Seeking Affirmative Relief
from the Court is Submission to the Jurisdiction
of the court
Rapid City Realty and Dev. Corp. v. Villa and Villa.
Objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person
of the defendant must be explicitly made, set forth in an
unequivocal manner. Failure to do so constitutes voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
l. Special Appearance Challenging the Jurisdiction
of the Court is Not Voluntary Submission
Go v. Cordero. Defendant having acknowledged the
summons by publication and also having invoked the
jurisdiction of the court to secure affirmative relief in his
motion for additional time, he effectively submitted
voluntarily to the trial court’s jurisdiction. He is now
estopped from asserting otherwise even before this Court.
m. Objection to Jurisdiction may be Raised in a
Motion to Dismiss or as an Affirmative Defense
in the Answer
n. Motion to Dismiss Questioning Jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant together with
other grounds is Not Voluntary Appearance
Lhuiller v. British Airways. A defendant who files a motion
to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court over his
person, together with other grounds raised therein, is not
deemed to have appeared voluntarily before the court.
o. Guidelines in Making Special Appearances Not
Equivalent to Voluntary Submission
(1) Special appearance operates as an exception to
the GR on voluntary appearance
(2) Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the
court over his person must be explicitly made,
i.e. in an unequivocal manner
(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
p. Filing of a MR of a judgment by default and lift
order of default is tantamount to the
Submission to the Jurisdiction of the Court
18. Lack of Jurisdiction over the Person of the
Defending Party is a Ground for a Dismissal of
the Action under Rule 16, Sec. 1(a).
19. Motu Proprio Dismissal of the Action in
Summary Proceedings
• See Sec. 4 of Rule on Summary Proceedings
20. Dismissal on the Ground of Lack of Jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant – Remedy is
Refiling under Rule 16, Sec. 5
21. Dismissal on the Ground of Lack of Jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant is without
prejudice: Refiling of the case in relation to Rule
41, Sec. 1(g)
22. Lack of Jurisdiction over the person of the
defending party can be raised in an answer as
an affirmative defense if no motion to dismiss is
filed (Rule 16, Sec. 5)
23. Test to Determine Whether Service of
Summons is Required in Case of Amended
Pleading
Q: If the old pleading is superseded, is a new summons
required to be served upon the defendant?
A: Where the defendant has already appeared before the
court by virtue of the summons in the original complaint
(as when the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss or an
answer), the amended complaint may be served upon him
without the need for another summons if new causes of
action are alleged in the amendment.
Conversely, a defendant who has not yet appeared must
be served with summons.
24. Issuance of Summons in Small Claims Case
Sec. 10. Summons and Notice of Hearing - If no ground for
dismissal is found, the court shall forthwith issue
Summons (Form 2-SCC) on the day of receipt of the
Statement of Claim, directing the defendant to submit a
verified Response.
The court shall also issue a Notice (Form 4-SCC) to both
parties, directing them to appear before it on a specific
date and time for hearing, with a warning that no
unjustified postponement shall be allowed, as provided in
Sec. 19 of this Rule.
The summons and notice to be served on the defendant
shall be accompanied by a copy of the Statement of Claim
and documents submitted by plaintiff, and a copy of the
Response (Form 3-SCC) to be accomplished by the
defendant. The Notice shall contain an express prohibition
against the filing of a motion to dismiss or any other
motion under Sec. 14 of this Rule.
25. Service of Summons, Order and Other
Processes in Environmental Cases
Sec. 13. Service of summons, orders and other court
processes - The summons, orders and other court
processes may be served by the sheriff, his deputy or
other proper court officer or for justifiable reasons, by the
counsel or representative of the plaintiff or any suitable
person authorized or deputized by the court issuing the
summons.
Any private person who is authorized or deputized by the
court to serve summons, orders and other court processes
shall for that purpose be considered an officer of the
court.
The summons shall be served on the defendant, together
with a copy of an order informing all parties that they have
fifteen (15) days from the filing of an answer, within which
to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 of the
Rules of Court and request for admission by adverse party
under Rule 26, or at their discretion, make use of
depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rules
27 and 28.
Should personal and substituted service fail, summons by
publication shall be allowed. In the case of juridical
entities, summons by publication shall be done by
indicating the names of the officers or their duly
authorized representatives.
26. Rules of Procedure on the Service of Summons
in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings Not Strictly
Construed
Duenas, Jr. v. HRET. In quasi-judicial proceedings,
procedural rules governing service of summons are not
strictly construed – substantial compliance therewith is
sufficient.
27. Service of Summons under the Rules on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Void Marriages
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Sec. 6. Summons. - The service of
summons shall be governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court and by the following rules:
(1) Where the respondent cannot be located at his
given address or his whereabouts are unknown
and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry,
service of summons may, by leave of court, be
effected upon him by publication once a week
for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines and in such
places as the court may order In addition, a copy
of the summons shall be served on the
respondent at his last known address by
registered mail or any other means the court
may deem sufficient.
(2) The summons to be published shall be contained
in an order of the court with the following data:
(a) title of the case; (b) docket number; (c)
nature of the petition; (d) principal grounds of
the petition and the reliefs prayed for; and (e) a
directive for the respondent to answer within
thirty days from the last issue of publication.
28. Service of Summons Under the Rules on Legal
Separation
A.M. No. 05-11-04, Sec. 3. Summons. - The service of
summons shall be governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court and by the following rules:
(1) Where the respondent cannot be located at his
given address or his whereabouts are unknown
and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry,
service of summons may, by leave of court, be
effected upon him by publication once a week
for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines and in such
places as the court may order In addition, a copy
of the summons shall be served on the
respondent at his last known address by
registered mail or any other means the court
may deem sufficient.
(2) The summons to be published shall be contained
in an order of the court with the following data:
(a) title of the case; (b) docket number; (c)
nature of the petition; (d) principal grounds of
the petition and the reliefs prayed for; and (e) a
directive for the respondent to answer within
thirty days from the last issue of publication.
29. Service of Notices under the Rules of Procedure
in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset Privatization,
And Freezing of Monetary Instrument, Property
or Proceeds Representing, Involving or Relating
to An Unlawful Activity or Money Laundering
Offense under R.A. 9160, as amended
A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC. Sec. 8. Notice and manner of
service -
(a) The respondent shall be given notice of the
petition in the same manner as service of
summons under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court
and the following rules:
(1) The notice shall be served on respondent
personally, or by any other means prescribed in
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court;
(2) The notice shall contain: (i) the title of the case;
(ii) the docket number; (iii) the cause of action;
and (iv) the relief prayed for; and
(3) The notice shall likewise contain a proviso that, if
no comment or opposition is filed within the
reglementary period, the court shall hear the
case ex parte and render such judgment as may
be warranted by the facts alleged in the petition
and its supporting evidence.
(b) Where the respondent is designated as an
unknown owner 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 of the
notice of the petition in a newspaper of general
circulation in such places and for such time as
the court may order. In the event that the cost of
publication exceeds the value or amount of the
property to be forfeited by ten percent,
publication shall not be required.
Chap. VIII: Motions
Part I: Motions in General
A. Motions in General
1. Motions Defined
Rule 15, Sec. 1. A motion is an application for relief other
than by a pleading
2. Definition under Rules on Summary Procedure
Sec. 3. Definition of terms – For purposes of this Rule
Motion means a party’s request, written or oral to the
court for an order or other action. It shall include an
informal written request to the court such as letter.
3. Kinds of Motions
a. Motion ex parte – is a motion made with the
presence or a notification to the other party
 because the question generally presented is not
debatable
b. Motion of course – motion where the movant is
entitled to the relief or remedy sought as a
matter of discretion on the part of the court
c. Litigated motion – it is a motion which is made
with notice to the adverse party to give an
opportunity to oppose
d. Non-litigated motion – motion where notice to
the adverse party and hearing is not required
e. Special motion – it is a motion which is
addressed to the sound discretion of the court
f. Oral motion – it is a motion made in open court
g. Written motion – it is a motion which is formally
placed in writing
4. GR: Motion must be in writing: Exceptions
Rule 15, Sec. 2. Motions must be in writings — All
motions shall be in writing except those made in open
court or in the course of a hearing or trial. (2a)
5. Contents of a Motion
Rule 15, Sec. 3. Contents — A motion shall (a) state the
relief sought to be obtained and (b) the grounds upon
which it is based, and if required by these Rules or
necessary to prove facts alleged therein, (c) shall be
accompanied by supporting affidavits and other papers.
(3a)
6. Requirements of a Written Motion
Rule 15, Sec. 4. Hearing of motion — 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. (4a)
Rule 15, Sec. 5. Notice of hearing — 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.
Rule 15, Sec. 6. Proof of service necessary — No written
motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court
without proof of service thereof. (6a)
a. Proof of Service of Motion is Mandatory
(1) Cruz v. CA. 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 Rule 46, Sec. 3
which requires that the petition shall be filed
“together with proof of service thereof”
We agree with the CA that the lack of proof of
service is a fatal defect.
(2) Mojar, et. al. v. Agro Commercial Security
Service Agency. 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.
b. Effect of Non-Compliance with the Above Rules
(1) Anama v. PSB. A motion that fails to comply
with the above requirements is considered a
worthless piece of paper which should not be
acted upon
XPN: Motions that can be acted upon by the
court ex parte if these would not prejudice to
the other party.
(2) MERALCO v. La Compana Food Products. A
motion that does not meet the requirements of
Sec. 4 and 5 of Rule 15 is a worthless piece of
paper which the clerk has no right to receive and
the court has no authority to act upon.
(3) Balagtas v. Sarmiento. An Urgent Motion to
Leave for Abroad without to notice and hearing
is violation of due process.
The Rules of Court is explicit on this point. A
motion without notice of hearing is pro forma, a
mere scrap of paper. It presents no question
which the court could decide. The court has no
reason to consider it and the clerk has no right to
receive it.
c. Failure to comply with Sec. 4,5 and 6 of Rule 15
on Motion is Fatally Defective: Exceptions
KKK Foundation, Inc. v. Hon. Calderon Vargas.
(1) Where a rigid application will result in a manifest
failure or miscarriage of justice especially if a
party successfully shows that the alleged defect
in the questioned final and executor judgment is
not apparent on its face or from the recitals
contained therein;
(2) Where the interest of substantial justice will be
served
(3) Where the resolution of the motion is addressed
solely to the sound discretion of the court
(4) Where the injustice to the adverse party is not
commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness is not complying with the
procedure prescribed.
d. Summary of the Effects of Failure to Comply
with Sec. 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15
1. It is a considered as a mere worthless piece of
paper
2. The clerk of court has no right to receive
3. The court has no right to act upon
4. It is considered a mere pro forma motion
5. It is considered not filed
6. It produces no legal effect
7. It is a ground for the denial of the motion
8. It presents no question which the court could
decide
9. It will not toll the running of prescriptive period
to appeal or file pleadings.
e. Three (3) day Notice Rule Not Absolute
Preysler v. Manila Southcoast Dev. Corp. The 3 day notice
rule is not absolute. A liberal construction of the
procedural rule 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.
 f. Purpose of the 3-day Notice: Test to be
Followed
Anama v. PSB. As an integral component of the procedural
due process, the 3-day notice required by the Riles 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.
Th 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
g. Exceptions to the 3-day Notice Rules
• See KKK Foundation, Inc v. Hon. Calderon-Bargas
h. In Execution of Judgment Notice to the Debtor
is Not Necessary
Anama v. PSB. Rule 39, Sec. 1 does not prescribe that a
copy of the motion for the execution of a final and
executor judgment be served on the defeated party.
Once a judgment becomes final and executor, the
prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right,
and the judgment debtor need not be given advance
notice of the application for execution.
Absence of such advance notice to the judgment debtor
does not constitute an infringement of the constitutional
guarantee of due process.
i. Prohibition on Pro Forma Motion Applies only
to a Final Order and Not to Interlocutory Order
San Juan v. Cruz. There is no rile which prohibits the filing
of a pro forma motion against an interlocutory order as
the prohibition applies only to a final resolution or order of
the court.
7. Motion Day
A. Remedies After Service of Summons
8. Omnibus Motion Rule
1. What are the available remedies to the parties
in a civil action after the service of summons
Rule 15, Sec. 8. Omnibus motion — Subject to the but before the filing of a responsive pleading?
provisions of Sec. 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a
pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding (POJP) shall A:
include all objections then available, and all objections not
so included shall be deemed waived. (8a) a. Amendment of the pleadings (Rule 10)
b. Motion for extension of time to file pleading
a. Examples of Omnibus Motion (Rule 11)
c. Motion for bill of particulars (Rule 12)
1. Motion to dismiss d. Motion to Dismiss (Rule 16)
2. Motion to quash complaint or information e. Dismissal by the plaintiff (Rule 17)
f. Intervention (Rule 19)
b. Grounds Not Waived g. Modes of Discoveries (Rule 23-28)
h. Summary Judgment (Rule 35)
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. That there is another action pending between I. Amendment of the Pleading (Rule 10)
the same parties for the same cause
3. That the action is barred by prior judgment A. Basic Concepts
4. By statute of limitations.
1. Amendment Defined
9. Motion for Leave
a. Cuenco v. Laya, (1969). Amendment is an act of
Rule 15, Sec. 9. Motion for leave — A motion for leave to adding, changing, or omitting something from a
file a pleading or motion shall be accompanied by the pleading, or instrument
pleading or motion sought to be admitted. (n) b. Amendment is the correction of an error
committed in any process, pleading, or
a. Example of Motion with an Accompanying proceeding law, or in equity, and which is done
Pleading – Motion for leave to Intervene and either as of course, or by the consent of the
the Copy of the Pleading in Intervention parties, or upon motion to the court in which the
proceeding is pending.
Rule 19, Sec. 2. Time to intervene – The motion for
intervention may be filed at any time before rendition of Fer. R. Civil P. Any change in pleadings, though not
judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in- necessarily a correction, which a party may accomplish
intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive
the original parties pleading has been served.
10. Form of Motions Such amendment may be necessary to cause pleadings to
conform to evidence. Rule 15(a)(b). The amendment
Rule 15, Sec. 10. Form — The Rules applicable to pleadings relates to the original pleading. If the subject of it arose
shall apply to written motions so far as concerns caption, out of the transaction set forth or attempted to be set
designation, signature, and other matters of form. (9a) forth in the original pleading.

Rule 15, Sec. 7. Motion day — Except for motions Part II: Remedies After Service of Summons and Before 2. Kinds of Amendment
requiring immediate action, all motions shall be scheduled the Filing of a Responsive Pleading
for hearing on Friday afternoons, or if Friday is a non- a. Formal amendment
working day, in the afternoon of the next working day. (7a) b. Substantial amendment
 c. Amendment as a matter of right
d. Amendment as a matter of discretion
e. Amendment to confer jurisdiction
f. Amendment to conform to evidence
3. Amendment in General
Rule 10, Sec. 1. Amendments in general — 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.
a. Manner of Making an Amendment
Air Aids Inc. v. Tagum Agricultural Dev. Corp., (2011).
Under Sec. 1, Rule 10 of the ROC, an amendment is done
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.
4. Prescription of Action Tolled Upon the
Submission of the Amended Pleading
a. Wallem, Philippine Shipping Inc. v. S.R. Farms,
Inc., (2010). The settled rule is that the filing of
an amended pleading does not retroact to the
date of the filing of the original; hence, the
statute of limitation runs until the submission of
the amendment. It is true that, as an exception,
this Court has held that an amendment which
merely supplements and amplifies facts
originally alleged in the complaint relates back to
the date of the commencement of the action
and is not barred by the statute of limitations
which expired after the service of the original
complaint. The exception, however, would not
apply to the party impleaded for the first time in
the amended complaint.
b. Sps. Dionisio v. Linsangan, (2011). An amended
complaint that changes the plaintiff’s cause of
action is technically a new complaint.
Consequently, the action is deemed filed on the
date of the filing of such amended pleading, not
on the date of the filing of its original version.
Thus, the statute of limitation resumes its run
until it is arrested by the filing of the amended
pleading.
5. Amendment as a Matter of Right
Rule 10, Sec. 2. Amendments 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.
a. Amendment as a Matter of Right: Motion to
Dismiss Not a Responsive Pleading
Araneta v. CA, (2008). The plaintiff may amend his
complaint once as a matter of right, i.e., without leave of
court, before any responsive pleading is filed or served.
Responsive pleadings are those which seek affirmative
relief and/or set up defenses, like an answer. A motion to
dismiss is not a responsive pleading.
Thus, the court did not err in admitting petitioner’s
amended complaint, respondents not having answered yet
the amended complaint, respondents not having
answered yet the original complaints when the amended
complaint was filed.
b. Amendment to Confer Jurisdiction
Santé and Sante v. Hon. Claravall, (2010). While it is a
basic jurisprudential principle that an amendment cannot
be allowed when the court has no jurisdiction over the
original complaint and the purpose of the amendment is
to confer jurisdiction on the court, here, the RTC clearly
had jurisdiction over the original complaint and
amendment of the complaint was then still a matter of
right.
c. What is the Remedy in Case of Denial of the
Motion to Amend as a Matter of Right?
The proper remedy in case of denial of the motion to
amend as a matter of right is to file a petition for
mandamus under Rule 65, Sec. 3, since it is ministerial
duty on the part of the court to allow amendment on the
pleading before the filing of a responsive pleading.
d. Amendment of Complaint Still Available Even if
a Motion to Dismiss is Filed or Submitted for
Decision
Breslin, et. al. v. Luzon Stevedoring Co., (1949). Even after
a motion to dismiss has been filed by defendant, or such
motion has been submitted for decision, the plaintiff can
still amend his complaint as a matter of right, since a
motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading within this
rule.
e. Amendment is Available Even if the Order of
Dismissal Has Been Issued Provided it is Not Yet
Final
Constantino v.Reyes, (1963). Amendment of the
complaint maybe allowed even if an order or its dismissal
has been issued as long as the motion to amend is filed
before the dismissal order became final.
Paman v. Diaz, (1982). An amended answer may also be
allowed even after the case had been set for trial on the
merits if the purpose of the amendments is to submit the
real matter in dispute without intent to delay the action.
6. Amendment by Leave of Court
Rule 10, Sec. 3. Amendments by leave of court — Except
as provided in the next preceding Sec., 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 Sec. shall be made
upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse
party, and an opportunity to be heard.
a. Amendment After the Filing of a Responsive
Pleading: Limitation
Ching Tiu v. PBCOM, (2009). The granting of leave to file
amended pleading is a matter particularly addressed to
the sound discretion of the trial court; and that discretion
is broad, subject only to the limitations that the
amendments should not substantially change the cause of
action or alter the theory of the case, or that it was not
made to delay the action. Nevertheless, as enunciated in
Valenzuela, even if the amendment substantially alters the
cause of action or defense, such amendment could still be
allowed when it is sought to serve the higher interest of
substantial justice; prevent delay; and secure a just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of actions and
proceedings.
b. Substantial Change or Alteration in the Cause of
Action or Defense Allowed under Rule 10, Sec. 3
if Based on Substantial Justice and to Prevent
Delay
PPA v. Gothong and Aboitiz, (2008). The Court has
emphasized the import of Section 3, Rule 10 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure in Valenzuela v. CA thus:
Interestingly, Section 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure amended the former rule in such manner that
the phrase "or that the cause of action or defense is
substantially altered" was stricken-off and not retained in
the new rules. The clear import of such amendment in
Section 3, Rule 10 is that under the new rules, "the
amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of
action or defense." This should only be true, however,
when despite a substantial change or alteration in the
cause of action or defense, the amendments sought to be
made 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."
f. What is the Remedy in Case of Denial of the
Motion for Leave to Amend?
The proper remedy in case of denial of the motion for
leave to file an amendment to a pleading is a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65, since the grant of the same is
merely discretionary and for being interlocutory which is
not appealable under Sec. 1(b) of Rule 41, and it is tainted
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
7. Formal Amendment
Rule 10, Sec. 4. Formal amendments – 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.
8. Amendment to Conform or Authorize remains in the sound discretion of the court. Nevertheless,
Presentation we have already found no credence in respondent’s claim
that petitioner is a corporate officer, consequently, the
Rule 10, Sec. 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize alleged lack of jurisdiction asserted by respondent in the
presentation of evidence — When issues not raised by the supplemental petition is bereft of merit.
pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of
the parties they shall be treated in all respects as if they c. Distinctions Between Amended Pleading and
had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the Supplemental Pleading
pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform
to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made Amended Pleading Supplemental Pleading
upon motion of any party at any time, even after The filing may either be a Always with leave court
judgment; but failure to amend does not effect the result matter of right or with
of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the leave of court
trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by Alleges facts that occurred Alleges facts occurring after
the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be before the filing of the the filing of the original
amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation original pleading pleading
of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial Supersedes the original Does not supersede the
justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a pleading original pleading but
continuance to enable the amendment to be made assumes that the original
pleading is to stand
9. Supplemental Pleading
10. Filing of an Amended Pleading
Rule 10, Sec. 6. Supplemental pleadings — Upon motion
of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon Rule 10, Sec. 7. Filing of amended pleadings — When any
such terms as are just, permit him to serve a supplemental pleading is amended, a new copy of the entire pleading,
pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events incorporating the amendments, which shall be indicated
which have happened since the date of the pleading by appropriate marks, shall be filed.
sought to be supplemented. The adverse party may plead
thereto within ten (10) days from notice of the order 11. Effects of Amended Pleading
admitting the supplemental pleading.
Rule 10, Sec. 8. Effect of amended pleadings — An
a. Office of a Supplemental Pleading amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it
amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings
Penta Capital Investment Corp. v. Mahinay, (2010). As a may be received in evidence against the pleader, and
general rule, leave will be granted to a party who desires claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the
to file a supplemental pleading that alleges any material amended pleading shall be deemed waived.
fact which happened or came within the party’s
knowledge after the original pleading was filed, such being a. What are the Effects of an Amended Pleading?
the office of a supplemental pleading.
1. It supersedes the pleading that it amends
b. Admission of Supplemental Pleading 2. The admissions in the superseded pleadings may
Discretionary to the Court be received in evidence against the pleader
3. Claims or defenses alleged therein not
Barba v. Liceo de Cagayan University, (2012). Under incorporated in the amended pleading shall be
Section 6, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as deemed waived
amended, governing supplemental pleadings, the court 4. The admissions is made in the original pleading
“may” admit supplemental pleadings, such as the shall be treated as an extra-judicial admission
supplemental petition filed by respondent before the which shall be alleged and proved
appellate court, but the admission of these pleadings
 5. Any ancillary order/remedy issued in the original
pleading shall be deemed vacated or lifted
6. It requires another certification of non-forum
shopping if it is a substantial amendment of the
original complaint
7. In case the complaint is amended, it requires the
services of summons if the defendant has not
yet appeared before the court and submitted to
its jurisdiction
b. Test to Determine Whether Service of
Summons is Required in Case of Amended
Pleading
Q: If the old pleading is superseded, is a new summons
required to be served upon the defendant?
Vlason Enterprises Corp. v. CA, (1999). Although it is well-
settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original
one, which is thus deemed withdrawn and no longer
considered part of the record, it does not follow ipso facto
that the service of a new summons for amended petitions
or complaints is required. Where the defendants have
already appeared before the trial court by virtue of a
summons on the original complaint, the amended
complaint may be served upon them without need of
another summons, even if new causes of action are
alleged. After it is acquired, a court's jurisdiction continues
until the case is finally terminated. Conversely, when
defendants have not yet appeared in court and no
summons has been validly served, new summons for the
amended complaint must be served on them.
II. Motion for Extension of Time to Plead (Rule 11,
Sec. 11)
A. Basic Concepts
1. Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading
(Rule 11, Sec. 11)
Rule 11, Sec. 11. Extension of time to plead — Upon
motion and on such terms as may be just, the court may
extend the time to plead provided in these Rules.
The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or
other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these
Rules.
a. Motion for Extension of Time to File Pleading
Must be Filed Before the Expiration of the
Period Sought to be Extended
Posiquit v. People, (2012). A motion for extension of time
to file a pleading must be filed before the expiration of the
period sought to be extended. The court’s discretion to
grant a motion for extension is conditioned upon such
motion’s timeliness, the passing of which renders the
court powerless to entertain or grant it. Since the motion
for extension was filed after the lapse of the prescribed
period, there was no more period to extend.
b. Filing of Motion for Extension of Time is
Tantamount to Submission to the Jurisdiction of
the Court (Go v. Cordero, 2010)
c. Motion for Extension of Time a Prohibited
Motion under the Rules on Summary Procedure
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits or any other paper;
d.1. Motion for Extension of Time and Admission of Late
Answer Not Allowed in Summary Procedure
Heirs of Feraren v. CA, (2011). If the extension for the
filing of these submissions cannot be allowed, we believe
it illogical and incongruous to admit a pleading that is
already filed late. To admit a late answer is to put a
premium on dilatory measures, the very mischief that the
rules seek to redress.
d. Prohibited Pleadings under the Rules on Small
Claims
Sec. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions - The following
pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be allowed in
the cases covered by this Rule:
e. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits, or any other paper;
f. Motion for Extension Prohibited Motion in
Environmental Cases
Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 2. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions –
The following pleadings and motions shall not be allowed:
c. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
except to file answer, the extension not to
exceed fifteen (15) days
III. Motion for Bill of Particulars (Rule 12)
A. Basic Concepts
1. What is a Bill of Particulars?
Bill of particulars – is a more definite statement of fact
and material allegations in the pleadings
2. What is a Motion for Bill of Particulars?
It is an application before the court for a more definite
statement of the facts and material allegations in the
pleading
3. What is the Nature of a Motion for Bill of
Particulars?
A motion for bill of particulars is a formal and litigated
motion which must be in writing and requires notice to the
adverse party and hearing.
4. When to Apply and Purpose?
Rule 12, Sec. 1. When applied for; purpose — 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.
5. Action by the Court
Rule 12, Sec. 2. Action by 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.
 6. Compliance Order for certiorari
(b) Motion for bill of particulars
Rule 12, Sec. 3. Compliance with order — If the motion is 10. Bill of Particulars Prohibited in Intra-Corporate
granted, either in whole or in part, the compliance Controversies 12. Motion for Bill of Particulars a Prohibited
therewith must be effected within ten (10) days from motion under the Rules on Small Claims Cases
notice of the order, unless a different period is fixed by the Guy v. Guy, (2012). In ordinary cases, the failure to
court. The bill of particulars or a more definite statement specifically allege the fraudulent acts does not constitute a Sec. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions - The following
ordered by the court may be filed either in a separate or in ground for dismissal since such a defect can be cured by a pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be allowed in
an amended pleading, serving a copy thereof on the bill of particulars. Thus: the cases covered by this Rule:
adverse party.
Failure to allege fraud or mistake with as much (b) Motion for bill of particulars
7. Effect of Non-Compliance particularity as is desirable is not fatal if the general
purport of the claim or defense is clear, since all pleadings 13. Motion for Bill of Particulars a Prohibited
Rule 12, Sec. 4. Effect of non-compliance — If the order is should be so construed as to do substantial justice. Doubt Motion in Environmental Cases
not obeyed, or in case of insufficient compliance as to the meaning of the pleading may be resolved by
therewith, the court may order the striking out of the seeking a bill of particulars. Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 2. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions –
pleading or the portions thereof to which the order was The following pleadings and motions shall not be allowed:
directed or make such other order as it deems just. A bill of particulars may be ordered as to a defense of
fraud or mistake if the circumstances constituting fraud or b. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
8. Effects of Filing of Bill of Particulars mistake are not stated with the particularity required by except to file answer, the extension not to
the rule. exceed fifteen (15) days
Rule 12, Sec. 5. Stay of period to file responsive pleading
— After service of the bill of particulars or of a more The above-stated rule, however, does not apply to intra- IV. Motion to Dismiss (Rule 16, Sec. 1)
definite pleading, or after notice of denial of his motion, corporate controversies. In Reyes, we pronounced that "in
the moving party may file his responsive pleading within cases governed by the Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra- 1. What is a Motion to Dismiss?
the period to which he was entitled at the time of filing his Corporate Controversies a bill of particulars is a prohibited
motion, which shall not be less than five (5) days in any pleading. It is essential, therefore, for the complaint to It is an application for the dismissal of the action based on
event. show on its face what are claimed to be the fraudulent the grounds set forth in Rule 16, Sec. 1 to be filed before
corporate acts if the complainant wishes to invoke the the filing of a responsive pleading.
9. Distinction Between Bill of Particulars in Civil court’s special commercial jurisdiction." This is because
and in Criminal Cases fraud in intra-corporate controversies must be based on 2. What is the Nature of a Motion to Dismiss?
"devises and schemes employed by, or any act of, the
BOP in Civil BOP in Criminal board of directors, business associates, officers or A motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion because it
Under Rule 12, it must be Must be filed before partners, amounting to fraud or misrepresentation which attacks a pleading, that is, the complaint. For this reason, a
filed before the filing of a arraignment may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of motion to dismiss, like any other omnibus motion, must
responsive pleading or in the stockholders, partners, or members of any raise and include all objections available at the time of the
case of a reply within (10) corporation, partnership, or association," as stated under filing of the motion under Rule 15, Sec. 8
days from receipt thereof Rule 1, Section 1 (a)(1) of the Interim Rules. The act of
Directed against a pleading Directed against a criminal fraud or misrepresentation complained of becomes a 3. What are the Exceptions to the Omnibus
complaint or information criterion in determining whether the complaint on its face Motion rule?
In case of denial, the The accused may proceed has merits, or within the jurisdiction of special commercial
moving party may file his with the arraignment and court, or merely a nuisance suit. The following defenses under Rule 9, Sec. 1, are:
responsive pleading within enter his plea, unless the
the period he is entitled to denial is tainted with grave 11. Motion for Bill of Particulars Prohibited Under a. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
but in no case less than five abuse of discretion, party the Rules on Summary Procedure b. There is another action pending between the
(5) days, unless the denial is may file a petition for same parties for the same cause (litis pendentia)
tainted with grave abuse of certiorari Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The c. The action is barred by prior judgment (res
discretion, hence, petition following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be judicata)
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
 d. The action is barred by the statute of limitations
or prescription
4. “Hypothetical Admission Rule”; Coverage
Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan v. Hon. Dumdum, Jr.,
(2010). When a motion to dismiss is filed, the material
allegations of the complaint are deemed to be
hypothetically admitted. This hypothetical admission
extends not only to the relevant and material facts well
pleaded in the complaint, but also to inferences that may
be fairly deduced from them.
5. Grounds for a Motion to Dismiss
Rule 16, Sec. 1. Grounds — Within the time for but before
filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a
claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the
following grounds:
(h) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of
the defending party;
(i) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the claim;
(j) That venue is improperly laid;
(k) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(l) That there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause;
(m) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment
or by the statute of limitations;
(n) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause
of action;
(o) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's
pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or
otherwise extinguished;
(p) That the claim on which the action is founded is
enforceable under the provisions of the statute of
frauds; and
(q) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not
been complied with.
a. Grounds for Dismissal under Rule 16, Sec. 1 are
exclusive
Robern Dev. Corp. v. CA, (2011). The grounds for dismissal
are exclusive to those specifically mentioned in Rule 16,
Sec. 1 of the ROC
1. First Ground: “That the Court has No
Jurisdiction over the Person of the Defending
Party”
a. How can the Court Acquire Jurisdiction over the
Person of the Defendant?
Planters Dev. Bank v. Chandumal, (2012). 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.
b. What are the Effects of Invalid Service of
Summons?
Sagana v. Francisco, (2009). As a rule, if defendants have
not been validly summoned, the court acquires no
jurisdiction over their person, and the judgment against
them shall be null and void.
c. Participation in All Stages of the Proceedings –
Estoppel Will Set in
(a) Bernardo v. Heirs of Villegas, (2010). Estoppel
sets in when a party participates in all stages of a
case before challenging the jurisdiction of the
lower court. One cannot belatedly reject or
repudiate its decision after voluntarily
submitting to its jurisdiction, just to secure
affirmative relief against one's opponent or after
failing to obtain such relief. The Court has, time
and again, frowned upon the undesirable
practice of a party submitting a case for decision
and then accepting the judgment, only if
favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction
when adverse
(b) Republic v. Bantigue Point Dev. Corp., (2012).
The ruling of the CA that "a party may be
estopped from raising such [jurisdictional]
question if he has actively taken part in the very
proceeding which he questions, belatedly
objecting to the court’s jurisdiction in the event
that the judgment or order subsequently
rendered is adverse to him" is based on the
doctrine of estoppel by laches. We are aware of
that doctrine first enunciated by this Court in
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. In Tijam, the party-litigant
actively participated in the proceedings before
the lower court and filed pleadings therein. Only
15 years thereafter, and after receiving an
adverse Decision on the merits from the
appellate court, did the party-litigant question
the lower court’s jurisdiction. Considering the
unique facts in that case, we held that estoppel
by laches had already precluded the party-
litigant from raising the question of lack of
jurisdiction on appeal. In Figueroa v. People, we
cautioned that Tijam must be construed as an
exception to the general rule and applied only in
the most exceptional cases whose factual milieu
is similar to that in the latter case.
d. Objection to the Jurisdiction May be Raised in a
Motion to Dismiss or as an Affirmative Defense
in the Answer
Calimlim v. Ramirez, (1982). Objections to jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant may be made initially
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer as an
affirmative answer
e. Motion to Dismiss Questioning Jurisdiction over
the Person of the Defendant Together with
Other Grounds is not Voluntary Appearance
Lhuilier v. British Airways, (2010). A defendant who files a
motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court
over his person, together with other grounds raised
therein, is not deemed to have appeared voluntarily
before the court. What the rule on voluntary appearance –
the first sentence of the above-quoted rule – means is that
the voluntary appearance of the defendant in court is
without qualification, in which case he is deemed to have
waived his defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person
due to improper service of summons.
2. Second Ground: “That the Court Has No
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter of the
Claim”
a. Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter Can
be Raised at Anytime
Atty. Cudiamat v. Batangas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc.,
(2010). While it is well-settled that lack of jurisdiction on
the subject matter can be raised at any time and is not lost
by estoppel by laches, the present case is an exception. To
compel petitioners to re-file and relitigate their claims
before the Nasugbu RTC when the parties had already
been given the opportunity to present their respective
evidence in a full-blown trial before the Balayan RTC which
had, in fact, decided petitioners’ complaint (about two
years before the appellate court rendered the assailed
decision) would be an exercise in futility and would
unjustly burden petitioners.
b. Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter
May be Invoked at Any Time, Even on Appeal
(a) Republic v. Bantigue Point Dev. Corp., (2012).
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred
only by the Constitution or the law. It cannot be
acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the
omission of the parties or conferred by the
acquiescence of the court. Consequently,
questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even
if raised for the first time on appeal.
(b) Calimlim v. Ramirez, (1982). Objections to
jurisdiction over the subject matter, as a rule, be
made at any stage of the proceedings, even for
the first time on appeal as long as estoppel by
laches does not set in.
Being estopped to question jurisdiction is the
exception rather than the rule.
c. Lack of Jurisdiction is a Ground for a Motion to
Dismiss an Action under the Rules on Summary
Procedure
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(b) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the
complaint or information except on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure
to comply with the preceding Sec.;
d. Sec. 4 of the Rules on Summary Procedure
Sec. 4. Duty of court — After the court determines that
the case falls under summary procedure, it may, from an
examination of the allegations therein and such evidence
as may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on
any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of
a civil action. If no ground for dismissal is found it shall
forthwith issue summons which shall state that the
summary procedure under this Rule shall apply.
3. Third Ground: “That Venue is Improperly Laid”
a. No Motu Proprio Dismissal on the Ground of
Improper Venue: Waivable
Dacoycoy v. IAC, (1991). A court cannot motu proprio
dismiss a complaint on the ground of improper venue may
be waived for failure to object it.
b. Motu Proprio Dismissal Based on Improper
Venue in Cases under the Rules on Summary
Procedure
• See Sec. 4of Rules on Summary Procedure
c. Dismissal on the Ground of Improper Venue-
Remedy is Refiling of the Case
Rule 16, Sec. 5. Effect of dismissal — Subject to the right
of appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss based on
paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) of Sec. 1 hereof shall bar the
refiling of the same action or claim. (n)
d. Dismissal on the Ground of Improper Venue id
Without Prejudice: Re-filing of the Case
Sec. 1. Subject of 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.
No appeal may be taken from:
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
e. Improper Venue Can be Raised in an Answer as
Affirmative Defense if No Motion to Dismiss is
Filed
Rule 16, Sec. 6. Pleading grounds 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. (5a)
The dismissal of the complaint under this Sec. shall be
without prejudice to the prosecution in the same or
separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer.
f. Remedy in Case of Denial of a Motion to
Dismiss Based on Improper Venue
Emergency Laon Pawnshop v. CA, (2001). An order
denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory. It is
not a final order. Only final orders or judgments may be
appealed from. The normal answer and interpose the
ground as an affirmative defense, go to trial and appeal
from the adverse decision. However, if the denial is
tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction, the remedy is certiorari or
prohibition.
4. Fourth Ground: “That the Plaintiff Has not Legal
Capacity to Sue”
The following persons have no legal capacity to sue:
a. When the plaintiff is not in full exercise of his
civil rights (i.e. those suffering from civil
interdiction)
b. If the plaintiff does not have the character or
representation that he claims;
c. Foreign corporation doing business in the
Philippines without securing a license;
d. Minority
e. Insanity
f. Lack of juridical personality; and
g. Incompetence
5. Fifth Ground: “That There is Another Action
Pending Between the Same Parties for the
Same Cause’
a. Litis Pendentia – Meaning
Goodland Co. Inc. v. Asia United Bank, (2012). 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.
b. Requisites of Litis Pendentia
(a) Optima Realty Corp. v. Hertz Phil. Exclusive
Cars, Inc., (2013). Litis pendentia requires the
concurrence of the following elements:
(1) Identity of parties, or at least their
representation of the same interests in both
actions;
(2) Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for,
the relief being founded on the same facts; and
(3) Identity with respect to the two preceding
particulars in the two cases, such that any
judgment that may be rendered in the pending
case, regardless of which party is successful,
would amount to res judicata in the other case.
(b) PNB v. Gateway Property Holdings, Inc., (2012).
As we held in Dotmatrix Trading v. Legaspi,
"[l]itis 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."
We further emphasized in Guevara v. BPI
Securities Corporation33 that "[t]here is litis
pendentia or another action pendente lite if the
following requisites 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 is 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."
c. Litis Pendentia – A Ground for the Dismissal of
the Action
Umale v. Canoga Park Dev. Corp., (2011). As a ground for
the dismissal of a civil action, litis pendentia refers to a
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.
Litis pendentia exists when the following requisites are
present: identity of the parties in the two actions;
substantial identity in the causes of action and in the
reliefs sought by the parties; and the identity between the
two actions should be such that any judgment that may be
rendered in one case, regardless of which party is
successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.
d. Litis Pendentia in Intervention
St. Catherine Realty Corp. v. Pineda, (2010). As to the
presence of intervenors, litis pendentia does not require a
literal identity of parties. It is sufficient that there is
identity of interests represented.
6. Sixth Ground: “That the Cause of Action is
Barred by a Prior Judgment or by the Statute of
Limitations”
A. Barred by Prior Judgment
a. Two Grounds for Res Judicata
Uy v. Chua, (2009). The doctrine of res judicata is a rule
that pervades every well- regulated system of
jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied
in various maxims of the common law, namely: (1) public
policy and necessity, which makes it in the interest of the
State that there should be an end to litigation, interest
reipublicae ut sit finis litium, and (2) the hardship of the
individual that he should be vexed twice for the same
cause, nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa.
b. Requisites of Res Judicata
Uy v. Chua, (2009). For res judicata, to serve as an
absolute bar to a subsequent action, the following
requisites must concur: (1) there must be a final judgment
or order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a
judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be,
between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter,
and causes of action.
c. Basis of the Principle of Res Judicata
Balais-Mabanag v. Register of Deeds of QC, (2010). Under
the doctrine of res judicata, therefore, a final judgment or
decree on the merits rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their
privies in all later suits and on all points and matters
determined in the previous suit. The foundation principle
upon which the doctrine rests is that the parties ought not
to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once;
that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long
as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the
parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.
d. Absolute Identity of Cause of Action Not
Required in Res Judicata
Reforzado v. Sps. Lopez, (2010). As to identity of causes of
action, it is hornbook rule that identity of causes of action
does not mean absolute identity, otherwise, a party could
easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing the
form of the action or the relief sought.
e. Is the Doctrine of Res Judicata Applicable in
Case of Exercise of Administrative Powers?
Exception?
Heirs of Derla v. Heirs of Derla, (2011). While it is true that
this Court has declared that the doctrine of res judicata
applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and
not to the exercise of administrative powers, we have also
limited the latter to proceedings purely administrative in
nature. Therefore, when the administrative proceedings
take on an adversary character, the doctrine of res
judicata certainly applies.
f. Res Judicata a Ground for the Dismissal of the
Action
PNB v. Aznar, (2011). When it appears from the pleadings
or the evidence on record that the action is already barred
by the statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the cause of action and not whether those
claim. debtor. allegations of fact are true, for said motion must
hypothetically admit the truth of the facts
g. Effects of “Res Judicata Rule” 7. Seventh Ground: “That the Pleading Asserting alleged in the complaint.
the Claim States No Cause of Action”
Cruz v. Sandiganbayan, (2010). The res judicata rule bars The inquiry is confined to the four corners of the
the re-litigation of facts or issues that have once been a. Test to Determine the Sufficiency of the Motion complaint, and no other. The test of the
settled by a court of law upon a final judgment on the to Dismiss the Material Allegations in the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is
merits Pleading whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the
court could render a valid judgment upon the
h. Distinctions Between Litis Pendentia and Res (a) Phil. Daily Inquirer v. Hon. Alameda, (2008). same in accordance with the prayer of the
Judicata When a defendant seeks the dismissal of the complaint.
complaint through a motion to dismiss, the
Litis Pendentia Res Judicata sufficiency of the motion should be tested on the If the allegations of the complaint are sufficient
Both cases have identical One of the case has already strength of the allegations of facts contained in in form and substance but their veracity and
parties, subject matter and been decided with finality the complaint and on no other basis.31 The issue correctness are assailed, it is incumbent upon
cause of action which are on the merits of whether or not the complaint failed to state a the court to deny the motion to dismiss and
still pending cause of action, warranting its dismissal, must be require the defendant to answer and go to trial
The motion to dismiss can The first case which was passed upon on the basis of the allegations to prove his defense. The veracity of the
be filed in either of the two decided bars the filing of a stated therein assuming them to be true and the assertions of the parties can be ascertained at
(2) suits pending second case and the court cannot inquire into the truth of the the trial of the case on the merits.
motion to dismiss can be allegations and declare them to be false;
filed in the subsequent case otherwise, it would be a procedural error and a b. Essential Elements to Determine Whether the
denial of due process to the plaintiff. Complaint States No Cause of Action
B. Barred by Statute of Limitation (b) PNB v. Sps. Encina, (2008). Nothing is more
settled than the rule that in a motion to dismiss DBP v. Hon. Castillo, (2011). A complaint states a cause of
i. Requirements of a Motion to Dismiss Based on for failure to state a cause of action, the inquiry action when it contains three essential elements: (1) a
Prescription is into the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and
material allegations. If the motion assails, whatever law it arises; (2) the correlative obligation of the
Francisco, et. al. v. Robles. A motion to dismiss on the directly or indirectly, the veracity of the defendant to respect such right; and (3) the act or
ground of prescription will be given due course only of the allegations in the complaint, it is improper to omission of the defendant violates the right of the
complaint shows on its face that the action has already grant the motion upon the assumption that the plaintiff. If any of these elements is absent, the complaint
prescribed averments in the motion are true and those in becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground
the complaint are not. The sufficiency of the of failure to state a cause of action
j. When Prescription of Actions Interrupted? motion should be tested on the strength of the
allegations of fact contained in the complaint c. Documents Attached to the Complaint May be
a. When the action is filed in court and no other. If the allegations of the complaint Considered in Determining The Sufficiency of
b. When there is an extra-judicial demand are sufficient in form and substance but their the Material Allegations Contained Therein
c. When there is a written acknowledgement of veracity and correctness are assailed, it is
the debt by the debtor incumbent upon the court to deny the motion to Lazaro v. Brewmaster International, Inc., (2010). To
dismiss and require the defendant to answer and determine whether the complaint states a cause of action,
k. Effect of the Filing of Complain in Court Tolls go to trial to prove his defense. The veracity of all documents attached thereto may, in fact, be
the Running of the Prescriptive Period the assertions of the parties can be ascertained considered, particularly when referred to in the complaint.
at the trial of the case on the merits. We emphasize, however, that the inquiry is into the
Art. 1155, CC. The prescription of actions is interrupted (c) Lucas v. Lucas, (2011). In a motion to dismiss a sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations in
when they are filed before the court, when there is a complaint based on lack of cause of action, the the complaint. Thus, consideration of the annexed
written extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when question submitted to the court for documents should only be taken in the context of
determination is the sufficiency of the ascertaining the sufficiency of the allegations in the
allegations made in the complaint to constitute a complaint.

d. Nature of the Motion to Dismiss if the Ground is
That “The Complaint States No Cause of Action”
(a) Heirs of Santos v. Heirs of Beramo, (2010).
When the ground for dismissal is that the
complaint states no cause of action under
Section 1 (g), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, such
fact must be determined from the allegations of
the complaint. In a motion to dismiss, a
defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the
material allegations of the plaintiff’s complain5
for the purpose of resolving the motion. The
general rule is that the allegations in a complaint
are sufficient to constitute a cause of action
against the defendant, if, admitting the facts
alleged, the court can render a valid judgment
upon the same in accordance with the prayer
therein. To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of
cause of action, the complaint must show that
the claim for relief does not exist.
(b) Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan v. Hon.
Dumdum, Jr., (2010). No other principle in
remedial law is more settled than that when a
motion to dismiss is filed, the material
allegations of the complaint are deemed to be
hypothetically admitted. This hypothetical
admission, according to Viewmaster
Construction Corporation v. Roxas and Navoa v.
Court of Appeals, extends not only to the
relevant and material facts well pleaded in the
complaint, but also to inferences that may be
fairly deduced from them. Thus, where it
appears that the allegations in the complaint
furnish sufficient basis on which the complaint
can be maintained, the same should not be
dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be
raised by the defendants. Stated differently,
where the motion to dismiss is predicated on
grounds that are not indubitable, the better
policy is to deny the motion without prejudice to
taking such measures as may be proper to assure
that the ends of justice may be served.
e. Absence of Cause of Action v. Failure to State a
Cause of Action
NM Rothschild and Sons (Australia) Ltd. v. Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Co., (2011). The alleged absence of a
cause of action (as opposed to the failure to state a cause
of action), the alleged estoppel on the part of petitioner,
and the argument that respondent is in pari delicto in the
execution of the challenged contracts, are not grounds in a
Motion to Dismiss as enumerated in Section 1, Rule 1617
of the Rules of Court. Rather, such defenses raise
evidentiary issues closely related to the validity and/or
existence of respondent’s alleged cause of action and
should therefore be threshed out during the trial.
f. What are the Instances Where a Motion to
Dismiss Can be Availed of on the Ground that
the Complaint Asserting a Claim Fails to State a
Cause of Action?
1. When the complaint does not contain all the
facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action;
2. When the plaintiff filing the case is not the real
party in interest;
3. When the plaintiff has not exhausted all
administrative remedies and the complaint fails
to allege the fact of such exhaustion
8. Eight Ground: “That the Claim or Demand Set
Forth in the Plaintiff’s Pleading Has Been Paid,
Waived, Abandoned, or Otherwise
Extinguished”
a. What are the Modes of Extinguishment of
Obligation?
1. Payment of performance
2. By the loss of the thing due
3. By the condonation or remission of the debt
4. By the confusion or merger of rights of debtor
and creditor
5. By novation
b. What is Laches?
Barcellano v. Banas, (2011). While the general rule is, that
to charge a party with laches in the assertion of an alleged
right it is essential that he should have knowledge of the
facts upon which he bases his claim, yet if the
circumstances were such as should have induced inquiry,
and the means of ascertaining the truth were readily
available upon inquiry, but the party neglects to make it,
he will be chargeable with laches, the same as if he had
known the facts.
Fernando v. Acuna, (2011). Laches means the failure or
neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of
time to do that which, by observance of due diligence,
could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting the presumption that the party entitled to
assert his right either has abandoned or declined to assert
it. Laches thus operates as a bar in equity.38 The essential
elements of laches are: (a) conduct on the part of the
defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to
the situation complained of; (b) delay in asserting
complainant’s rights after he had knowledge of
defendant’s acts and after he has had the opportunity to
sue; (c) lack of knowledge or notice by defendant that the
complainant will assert the right on which he bases his
suit; and (d) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the
event the relief is accorded to the complainant.
9. Ninth Ground: “That the Claim on Which the
Action is Founded is Unenforceable under the
Provisions of the Statute of Frauds”
Art. 1403,CC. The following contracts are unenforceable,
unless they are ratified:
(1) Those entered into in the name of another
person by one who has been given no authority
or legal representation, or who has acted
beyond his powers;
(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of
Frauds as set forth in this number. In the
following cases an agreement hereafter made
shall be unenforceable by action, unless the
same, or some note or memorandum, thereof,
be in writing, and subscribed by the party
charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of
the agreement cannot be received without the
writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents:
(a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be
performed within a year from the making
thereof;
(b) A special promise to answer for the debt,
default, or miscarriage of another;
(c) An agreement made in consideration of
marriage, other than a mutual promise to marry;
(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or
things in action, at a price not less than five
 hundred pesos, unless the buyer accept and
receive part of such goods and chattels, or the
evidences, or some of them, of such things in
action or pay at the time some part of the
purchase money; but when a sale is made by
auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in
his sales book, at the time of the sale, of the
amount and kind of property sold, terms of sale,
price, names of the purchasers and person on
whose account the sale is made, it is a sufficient
memorandum;
(e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period
than one year, or for the sale of real property or
of an interest therein;
(f) A representation as to the credit of a third
person.
(3) Those where both parties are incapable of giving
consent to a contract.
10. Tenth Ground: “That a Condition Precedent for
Filing the Claim Has Not Been Complied With”
a. What are the condition precedents that must
be complied with before the filing of the case
before the court?
1. Referral of the Case Before the Barangay for
Purposes of Conciliation
(1) Lack of Barangay Conciliation Must be Raised in
a Motion to Dismiss, Otherwise Waived
Banares Li v. Balising, (2000). It is well-settled that the
non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation when so
required under the law is not jurisdictional in nature and
may therefore be deemed waived if not raised seasonably
in a motion to dismiss. The Court notes that although
petitioners could have invoked the ground of prematurity
of the causes of action against them due to the failure to
submit the dispute to Lupon prior to the filing of the cases
as soon as they received the complaints against them,
petitioners raised the said ground only after their
arraignment.
(2) Non-referral of the Case Before the Barangay is
a Ground for a Motion to Dismiss an Action
under the Rules on Summary Procedure
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the
complaint or information except on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or
failure to comply with the preceding Sec.;
2. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Delos Reyes v. Flores, (2010). The thrust of the rule on
exhaustion of administrative remedies is that courts must
allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions
and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized
areas of their respective competence. To this end,
administrative agencies are afforded a chance to correct
any previous error committed in its forum. Furthermore,
reasons of law, comity, and convenience prevent the
courts from entertaining cases proper for determination
by administrative agencies.
(1) Procedural Requirements on Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies
Boracay Foundation, Inc. v. Province of Aklan, (2012). We
do not agree with respondents’ appreciation of the
applicability of the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies in this case. We are reminded of our ruling in
Pagara v. CA, which summarized our earlier decisions on
the procedural requirement of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, to wit:
The rule regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies
is not a hard and fast rule. It is not applicable (1) where the
question in dispute is purely a legal one, or (2) where the
controverted act is patently illegal or was performed
without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; or (3)
where the respondent is a department secretary, whose
acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied or
assumed approval of the latter, unless actually
disapproved by him, or (4) where there are circumstances
indicating the urgency of judicial intervention
Said principle may also be disregarded when it does not
provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, when there
is no due process observed, or where the protestant has
no other recourse.
3. Earnest Efforts Towards Amicable Settlement
Between Members of the Same Family under
Art. 151 of the FC
(1) Art. 151, FC
Art. 151. No suit between members of the same family
shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified
complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a
compromise have been made, but that the same have
failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made,
the same case must be dismissed.
This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the
subject of compromise under the Civil Code.
(2) Referral of the Case Before the Barangay in
Compliance with Under Art. 151 of the FC
Martinez v. Martinez, (2005). The petitioners were able to
comply with the requirements of Art. 151, FC because they
alleged in their complaint that they had initiated a
proceeding against the respondent for unlawful detainer
in the Katarungang Pambarangay, in compliance with P.D.
No. 1508; and that, after due proceedings, no amicable
settlement was arrived at, resulting in the barangay
chairman’s issuance of a certificate to file action. The
Court rules that such allegation in the complaint, as well as
the certification to file action by the barangay chairman, is
sufficient compliance with Art. 151, FC. It bears stressing
that under Sec. 412(a) of R.A. 7160, no complaint involving
any matter within the authority of the Lupon shall be
instituted or filed directly in court for adjudication unless
there has been a confrontation between the parties and
no settlement was reached.
(3) Instances Where No Compromise is Allowed
Art. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions
shall be valid:
(1) The civil status of persons;
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
(3) Any ground for legal separation;
(4) Future support;
(5) The jurisdiction of courts;
(6) Future legitime. (1814a)
4. Certification of Non-Forum Shopping

(1) Requirement of Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping
Anderson v. Ho, (2013). The need to abide by the Rules of
Court and the procedural requirements it imposes has
been constantly underscored by this Court. One of these
procedural requirements is the certificate of non-forum
shopping which, time and again, has been declared as
basic, necessary and mandatory for procedural
orderliness.
(2) Non-Compliance is a Ground for the Dismissal
of the Action
Ramirez v. Mar Fishing Co. Inc., (2012). The ROC 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.
5. Payment of Docket Fees
(1) Payment of Docket Fees Vest the Court with
Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter or Nature
of the Action
De Ungria v. CA, (2011). It is a settled rule in this
jurisdiction that when an action is filed in court, the
complaint must be accompanied by the payment of the
requisite docket and filing fees. 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.
(2) Payment of Filing/Docket Fees – Jurisdictional
Manchester Dev. Corp. v. CA, (1987). It is not simply the
filing of the complaint that vests the court with jurisdiction
over the action filed but also by the payment of the
prescribed docket fee. The SC, in several cases, has held
that a court acquire jurisdiction over the case ONLY upon
the payment of the said fees.
(3) Requirement of Payment of Docket Fees
Rizal v. Naredo, (2012). 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 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, 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.
6. Tender of Payment in Case of Consignation
Art. 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of payment has
been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the
debtor shall be released from responsibility by the
consignation of the thing or sum due.
7. Demand to Vacate and Payment of Rentals or
Reasonable Compensation for the Use and
Occupation of the Property
Rule 70, Sec. 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee only
after demand — Unless otherwise stipulated, such action
by the lesser shall be commenced only after demand to
pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to
vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving written
notice of such demand upon the person found on the
premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee
fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case
of land or five (5) days in the case of buildings.
8. Prior Resort to Alternative Dispute Resolution
In case of an express stipulation in a written agreement
that the action shall be referred to an alternative dispute
resolution, the same must be complied with otherwise it
will cause the dismissal of the action
6. Hearing of Motion
Rule 16, Sec. 2. Hearing of motion — At the hearing of the
motion, the parties shall submit their arguments on the
questions of law and their evidence on the questions of
fact involved except those not available at that time.
Should the case go to trial, the evidence presented during
the hearing shall automatically be part of the evidence of
the party presenting the same.
7. Hearing of the Motion
Rule 16, Sec. 3. 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.
In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and
distinctly the reasons therefor.
8. Time to Plead

Rule 16, 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.
a. Remedies in Case of Denial of the Motion to
Dismiss: Nature of the Order
(1) Ik Jin and Korean Christian Businessmen Assoc.
Inc. v. Choi Sung Bong, (2010). The ordinary
procedure, as a general rule, is that after the
denial of a Motion to Dismiss, the defendant
should file an Answer, go to trial and, if the
decision is adverse, reiterate the issues on
appeal. The exception is when the court denying
the Motion to Dismiss acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
in which case certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rule
of Court may be availed of
(2) Sps. Francisco, Jr. v. Ochoa and Ochoa, (2011).
An order denying a motion to dismiss is an
interlocutory order which neither terminates the
case nor finally disposes of it, as it leaves
something to be done by the court before the
case is finally decided on the merits. As such, the
general rule is that 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.
Therefore, an order denying a motion to dismiss
may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of
law by an appeal from the judgment after trial.
The ordinary procedure to be followed in such
cases is to file an answer, go to trial, and if the
decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal
from the final judgment.
(3) Marmo v. Acanay, (2009). An Order denying a
Motion to Dismiss is interlocutory because it
does not finally dispose of the case, and, in
effect, directs the case to proceed until final
adjudication by the court.
The appropriate remedy is for the party to wait
for the final judgment or order and assign such
interlocutory order as an error of the court on
appeal.
b. GR on Order Denying a Motion to Dismiss
Cannot be Questioned by Certiorari: XPN
(1) NM Rothschild and Sons Ltd. v. Lepanto
Consolidated Mining Co., (2011). The general
rule, therefore, is that 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, we have likewise held that
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.
(2) Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando
Pampanga v. Soriano, Jr., (2011). The trial
court’s denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be
questioned in a certiorari proceeding under Rule
65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended. This is because a certiorari writ is a
remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction
and not errors of judgment. The appropriate
course of action of the movant in such event is
to file an answer and interpose as affirmative
defenses the objections raised in the motion to
dismiss. If, later, the decision of the trial judge is
adverse, the movant may then elevate on appeal
the same issues raised in the motion.
The only exception to this rule is when the trial
court gravely abused its discretion in denying the
motion. This exception is, nevertheless, applied
sparingly, and only in instances when there is a
clear showing that the trial court exercised its
judicial power in an arbitrary or despotic manner
by reason of passion or personal hostility.
Further, the abuse of the court's discretion must
be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined by, or to act at all in
contemplation of, law.
d. Remedy in Case of Denial of the Motion to
Dismiss
Reoyvkuc v, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila,
(2012). 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. By grave abuse of discretion is
meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised
in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in
contemplation of law.
e. Not Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 in Case of Denial of the Motion to
Dismiss, But Rather Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65
Rayos v. City of Manila, (2011). An order denying a motion
to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable. An order
denying a motion to dismiss does not finally dispose of the
case, and in effect, allows the case to proceed until the
final adjudication thereof by the court. As such, it is merely
interlocutory in nature and thus, not appealable.
Clearly, no appeal, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
may be taken from an interlocutory order. In case of denial
of an interlocutory order, the immediate remedy available
to the aggrieved party is to file a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
9. Effect of Dismissal
Rule 16, Sec. 5. Effect of dismissal — Subject to the right
of appeal, an order granting a motion to dismiss based on
paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) of Sec. 1 hereof shall bar the
refiling of the same action or claim.
 the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing may be than five (5) days, raised
a. What is the Remedy in Case of Dismissal of had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed. (5a) the same as an affirmative
Action under (f), (h) and (i)? defense in the answer,
The dismissal of the complaint under this Sec. shall be proceed to trial, and in case
A: The remedy is to appeal since the order of dismissal is a without prejudice to the prosecution in the same or of adverse decision appeal
final order and an adjudication on the merits which bars separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer. the decision and raised the
the refilling of the action denial as assignment or
a. Hearing on the Affirmative Defense Should be error, unless the denial is
b. What is the remedy in case of dismissal of the Made to Avoid Tedious Trial tainted with grave abuse of
action other than (f), (h) and (i)? discretion, hence, certiorari
PDI v. Hon. Almeda, (2008). When a defendant seeks the is a remedy
A: The remedy is the refilling of the action or amendment dismissal of the complaint through a motion to dismiss, In case of granting, the In case of granting, the
of the pleading depending on the grounds the sufficiency of the motion should be tested on the order of dismissal is either order of dismissal is a final
strength of the allegations of facts contained in the with or without prejudice order of since it is an
c. Nature of Dismissal of the Action complaint and on no other basis. The issue of whether or adjudication on the merits
not the complaint failed to state a cause of action, In case of granting of the In the granting, the remedy
Heirs of Miranda v. CA, (1996). An order of dismissal, warranting its dismissal, must be passed upon on the basis motion to dismiss, the of the plaintiff is appeal the
whether correct or not, is a final order of the allegations stated therein assuming them to be true remedy of the plaintiff is order being a final order
and the court cannot inquire into the truth of the either to re-file the case if and an adjudication upon
d. Nature/Remedy in Case of Dismissal under Rule allegations and declare them to be false; otherwise, it the order of dismissal is the merits.
16/Remedy in Case of Denial of Motion to would be a procedural error and a denial of due process to without prejudice, and
Dismiss the plaintiff. appeal if the order of
dismissal is with prejudice
Francisco. An order granting a motion to dismiss is not Hence, the trial court should have granted petitioners’ 12. GR: Motion to Dismiss Not Allowed in Summary
interlocutory because the proceedings are terminated; it motion for a preliminary hearing on the affirmative Proceedings: Exceptions
leaves nothing more to be done by the lower court. defenses raised in the answer based on failure to state a
Therefore, the remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal the cause of action. This procedure is designed to prevent a Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
order. tedious, if not traumatic, trial in case the complaint falls following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
short of sufficiently alleging a cause of action allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
FEBTC v. CA, (2000). An order denying a motion to dismiss
is interlocutory and cannot be the subject of the 11. Distinction Between Motion to Dismiss (Rule (a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the
extraordinary petition for certiorari or mandamus. The 16) and Demurrer to Evidence (Rule 33) complaint or information except on the ground
remedy of the aggrieved party is to file an answer and to of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or
interpose as defenses the objections raised in his motion Motion to Dismiss (Rule Demurrer to Evidence failure to comply with the preceding Sec.;
to dismiss, proceed to trial, and in case of an adverse 16) (Rule 33)
decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due An omnibus and a litigated is a litigated motion 13. Motion to Dismiss is Prohibited Motion under
course motion the Rules on Small Claims Cases
Has ten (10) grounds as The ground is that upon the
However, if the denial of the motion to dismiss constitutes mentioned in Rule 16, Sec. facts and the law, the Sec. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions - The following
grave abuse of discretion or was issued without or in 1 plaintiff has shown no right pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be allowed in
excess of jurisdiction, this error is correctable by certiorari. to relief the cases covered by this Rule:
Filed before the filing of a Filed after the plaintiff
10. Pleading the Grounds as Affirmative Defenses responsive pleading rested its case (a) Motion to dismiss the compliant except on the
The remedy in case of The remedy in case of ground of lack of jurisdiction;
Rule 16, Sec. 6. Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses denial is to file an answer denial for the defendant is
— If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the within the balance of the to proceed with the trial, 14. Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Prohibited
grounds for dismissal provided for in this Rule may be period in which he is and in case of adverse Pleading under Environmental Cases
pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer and, in entitled but in no case less decision appeal the same
Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 2. Prohibited pleadings or motions —
The following pleadings or motions shall not be allowed:
(h) Motion to dismiss the complaint;
15. Motion to Dismiss in Interpleader
Rule 62, Sec. 4. Motion to dismiss — Within the time for
filing an answer, each claimant may file a motion to
dismiss on the ground of impropriety of the interpleader
action or on other appropriate grounds specified in Rule
16. The period to file the answer shall be tolled and if the
motion is denied, the movant may file his answer within
the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five
(5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.
V. Dismissal of Action by the Plaintiffs (Rule 17)
1. Test to Determine the Doctrine of “Non-
Prosequitur” as a Ground for Dismissal
Shimizu Phil. Contractors, Inc. v. Mrs. Magsalin, (2012).
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
2. Manner of Dismissal of the Action by the
Plaintiff
a. Dismissal upon notice of the plaintiff
b. Dismissal upon motion of the plaintiff
c. Dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff
3. Dismissal Upon Notice of the Plaintiff
Rule 17, Sec. 1. 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. 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.
4. Dismissal Upon the Motion of Plaintiff
Rule 17, Sec. 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff —
Except as provided in the preceding Sec., 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.
5. Dismissal Due to the Fault of the Plaintiff
Rule 17, Sec. 3. Dismissal due to 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.
a. Dismissal Due to Fault of Plaintiff; Failure to
Prosecute
(1) Eloisa Merchandising, Inc. v. Trebel
International, Inc., (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.
(2) PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. Milan, (2010).
Instances when a complaint may be dismissed
due to the plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to appear
on the date for the presentation of his evidence
in chief on the complaint; (2) if he fails to
prosecute his action for an unreasonable length
of time; or (3) if he fails to comply with the Rules
or any order of the court. The dismissal of a case
for failure to prosecute has the effect of
adjudication on the merits, and is necessarily
understood to be with prejudice to the filing of
another action, unless otherwise provided in the
order of dismissal. Stated differently, the general
rule is that dismissal of a case for failure to
prosecute is to be regarded as an adjudication
on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of
another action, and the only exception is when
the order of dismissal expressly contains a
qualification that the dismissal is without
prejudice."
b. Grounds for the Dismissal
Gomez v. Alcantara, (2009). The instances when a
complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiff's fault: (1)
if he fails to appear on the date for the presentation of his
evidence in chief on the complaint; (2) if he fails to
prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time; or
(3) if he fails to comply with the Rules or any order of the
court. The dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute has
the effect of adjudication on the merits, and is necessarily
understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another
action, unless otherwise provided in the order of dismissal.
c. Nature of the Dismissal
(1) Shimizu Phil. Contractors, Inc. v. Mrs. Magsalin,
(2012). Dismissals of actions for failure of the
plaintiff to prosecute is authorized under Section
 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. A plain
examination of the December 16, 2003 dismissal
order shows that it is an unqualified order and,
as such, is deemed to be a dismissal with
prejudice. "Dismissals of actions (under Section
3) which do not expressly state whether they are
with or without prejudice are held to be with
prejudice[.]" As a prejudicial dismissal, the
December 16, 2003 dismissal order is also
deemed to be a judgment on the merits so that
the petitioner’s complaint in Civil Case No. 02-
488 can no longer be refiled on the principle of
res judicata. Procedurally, when a complaint is
dismissed for failure to prosecute and the
dismissal is unqualified, the dismissal has the
effect of an adjudication on the merits
(2) Air Ads Inc. v. TADECO, (2011). On appeal, the
Court upheld the dismissal of the petition on the
ground that it amounted to an adjudication upon
the merits pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the
Rules of Court, which provides that failure to
comply with the rules shall result in the dismissal
that has the effect of an adjudication upon the
merits. The lack of any qualification that the
dismissal of the petition was without prejudice
rendered the dismissal an adjudication on the
merits.
(3) PNB v. The Intestate Estate of De Guzman,
(2010). Dismissal for failure to comply with an
order of the court shall have the effect of an
adjudication upon the merits. In other words,
unless the court states that the dismissal is
without prejudice, the dismissal should be
understood as an adjudication on the merits and
is with prejudice.
6. Dismissal of Counterclaim, Cross-claim, or
Third-Party Complaint
Rule 17, Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
VI. Intervention
A. Intervention (Rule 19, Sec. 1)
1. Intervention, Defined
Jose Agaton Sibal. Intervention is defined as an act or
proceeding by which a third person is permitted to
become a party to the action or proceeding between other
persons, and which results merely in the addition of a new
party or parties to an original action, for the purpose of
hearing and determining at the same time all conflicting
claims may be made to the subject matter of litigation.
In greater detail, it has been defined as the admission by
leave of court, of a person not an original to pending legal
proceedings, by which such person becomes a party
thereto for the protection of some right or interest alleged
by him to be affected by such proceedings, and as a
proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is
permitted by the court to make himself a party,, either
joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the
complainant, or uniting with defendant in resisting the
claim of plaintiff, or demanding something adversely to
both of them.
2. Purpose of Intervention
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. International
Exchange Bank, (2011). The purpose of intervention is to
enable a stranger to an action to become a party in order
for him to protect his interest and for the court to settle all
conflicting claims. Intervention is allowed to avoid
multiplicity of suits more than on due process
considerations.
3. Option of the Intervenor
Heirs of Medrano v. De Vera, (2010). The intevenor can
choose not to participate in the case and he will not be
bound by the judgment.
4. Granting or Denial of Intervention Discretionary
Carbonilla v. Board of Airlines Representatives, (2011). It
should be stressed that the allowance or disallowance of a
motion for intervention is addressed to the sound
discretion of the courts. The permissive tenor of the Rules
of Court shows the intention to give the courts the full
measure of discretion in allowing or disallowing the
intervention. Once the courts have exercised this
discretion, it could not be reviewed by certiorari or
controlled by mandamus unless it could be shown that the
discretion was exercised in an arbitrary or capricious
manner.
5. Intervention Allowed Even Beyond the Period
Quinto v. COMELEC, (2010). Interventions have been
allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule,
when demanded by the higher interest of justice.
Interventions have also been granted to afford
indispensable parties, who have not been impleaded, the
right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered
by the trial court, when the petition for review of the
judgment has already been submitted for decision before
the Supreme Court, and even where the assailed order has
already become final and executory. In Lim v. Pacquing,
the motion for intervention filed by the Republic of the
Philippines was allowed by this Court to avoid grave
injustice and injury and to settle once and for all the
substantive issues raised by the parties.
6. When Can Intervention be Allowed?
Carbonilla v. Board of Airlines Representatives, (2011).
Intervention is not a matter of right but it may be
permitted by the courts when the applicant shows facts
which satisfy the requirements authorizing intervention.
7. Guide in Determining Grant of Intervention
Virra Mall Tenants Assoc. Inc. v. Virra Malls Greenhills
Assoc. Inc. As a general guide in determining whether a
party may intervene, 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
8. Who May Intervene?
Rule 19, Sec. 1. Who may intervene — 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 therein which, in whole or 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires the
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original in part, is not disputed by original parties to file an answer to the complaint-in-
parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be the other parties to the intervention within 15 days from notice of the order
fully protected in a separate proceeding. action admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by
In complaint in In interpleader, the the court. This changes the procedure under the former
a. Nature of the Interest: It Must be Actual, intervention, the defendants are being sued rule where such an answer was regarded as optional.20
Substantial, Material, Direct and Immediate defendants are already precisely to implead them Thus, Lim’s failure to file the required answer can give rise
original parties to the to default.
Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corp. v. DOTC, (2008). The pending suit
interest contemplated by law must be actual, substantial, Can be filed where the Can be filed at the first 13. Intervention a Prohibited Pleading Under the
material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent original action is pending instance with the RTC or Rules on Summary Procedure
or expectant. It must be of such direct and immediate MTC depending on the
character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the nature of property and its Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. value/assessed following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
In case of denial, the The remedy is to appeal the allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
b. Essential Requisites of Intervention remedy is to appeal the judgment
denial being a final order or (l) Interventions.
(1) MBTC v. International Exchange Bank, (2011). file a separate action
To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the 14. Intervention a Prohibited Pleading Under the
Rules of Court, two requisites must concur: (1) 10. Time to Intervene Rules on Small Claims Cases
the movant has a legal interest on the matter in
litigation; and (2) intervention must not unduly Rule 19, Sec. 2. Time to intervene — The motion to Sec. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions - The following
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be allowed in
of the parties, nor should the claim of the judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in- the cases covered by this Rule:
intervenor be capable of being properly decided intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on
in a separate proceeding the original parties. (l) Interventions.
(2) Office of the Ombudsman v. Sison, (2010). To
warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules 11. Pleadings-in-Intervention 15. What are the Pleadings Which Are Not Allowed
of Court, two requisites must concur: (1) the in a Petition for Writ of Amparo and Habeas
movant has a legal interest in the matter in Rule 19, Sec. 3. Pleadings-in-intervention — The Data?
litigation; and (2) intervention must not unduly intervenor shall file a complaint-in-intervention if he
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights asserts a claim against either or all of the original parties, a. Counterclaim
of the parties, nor should the claim of the or an answer-in-intervention if he unites with the b. Cross-claim
intervenor be capable of being properly decided defending party in resisting a claim against the latter. c. Third-party complaint
in a separate proceeding. d. Reply
12. Answer to Complaint-in-Intervention e. Pleadings in intervention
The motion to intervene may be filed at any time
before rendition of judgment by the trial court. Rule 19, Sec. 4. Answer to complaint-in-intervention — 16. Motion for Intervention Allowed in
The answer to the complaint-in-intervention shall be filed Environmental Cases
9. Difference Between Intervention (Rule 19) and within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order admitting
Interpleader (Rule 62) the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 1. Pleadings and motions allowed —
The pleadings and motions that may be filed are
Intervention Interpleader a. Failure to File an Answer-in-Intervention; complaint, answer which may include compulsory
Ancillary action Original action Default counterclaim and cross-claim, motion for intervention,
Proper in any of the four Presupposes that the motion for discovery and motion for reconsideration of
situations mentioned in plaintiff has no interest in Lim v. NAPOCOR, (2012). Lim points out that an answer- the judgment.
Rule 19 the subject matter of the in-intervention cannot give rise to default since the filing
action or has an interest of such an answer is only permissive. But Section 4, Rule Motion for postponement, motion for new trial and
petition for relief from judgment shall be allowed in highly
meritorious cases or to prevent a manifest miscarriage of
justice.
VII. Modes of Discoveries (Rule 23-29)
A. Basic Concepts on Modes of Discoveries in Civil
Cases
1. What is a Mode of Discovery?
It is a device to obtain information about relevant matters
on the case from the adverse party in preparation for trial
2. What are the Purposes of Modes of Discovery?
a. It is used as a device to narrow and clarify basic
issues between the parties;
b. It is used as a device for ascertaining facts
relative to the issue of the case
c. To obtain full knowledge of the issues and facts
of the case
d. To avoid perjury and detection of false and
fraudulent claims and defenses
e. To expedite the proceedings
f. To simplify the issues of the case.
3. What is the Nature of the Modes of Discovery?
Lanada v. CA, (2002). The application of the rules on
modes of discovery rests upon the sound discretion of the
court.1âwphi1 In the same vein, the determination of the
sanction to be imposed upon a party who fails to comply
with the modes of discovery rests on the same sound
judicial discretion. It is the duty of the courts to examine
thoroughly the circumstances of each case and to
determine the applicability of the modes of discovery,
bearing always in mind the aim to attain an expeditious
administration of justice
4. What are the Modes of Discoveries under the
Rules?
a. Deposition pending action (Rule 23)
b. Deposition before action or pending appeal (Rule
24)
c. Interrogatories to Parties (Rule 25)
d. Admission by Adverse Party (Rule 26)
e. Production or Inspection of Documents or Things
(Rule 27)
f. Physical and Mental Examination of Persons
(Rule 28)
A. Deposition by Oral Examination or Written
Interrogatories (Rule 23)
a. Deposition – It is the taking of the testimony of
any person, upon oral or written interrogatories
whether a party or not, at the instance of any
party
b. Ayala Land Inc. v. Tagle, (2005). A deposition is
the testimony of a witness, put or taken in
writing, under oath or affirmation, before a
commissioner, examiner or other judicial officer,
in answer to interlocutory* and cross-
interlocutory*, and usually subscribed by the
witnesses.
2. Kinds of Deposition
a. As to Nature
a. Deposition de bene esse – testimony of a
witness or a party pending action
b. Deposition in perpetuam rei memoriam –
testimony of a witness or a party before action
c. Deposition of a minor child witness by videotape
under the Rule on Examination of Child Witness
b. As to Manner of Taking
a. Deposition by oral examination
b. Deposition by written interrogatories
3. Purpose of Taking Deposition
People v. Webb, (1993). The purposes of taking
depositions are to:
1. Give greater assistance to the parties in
ascertaining the truth and in checking and
preventing perjury;
2. Provide an effective means of detecting and
exposing false, fraudulent claims and defenses;
3. Make available in a simple, convenient and
inexpensive way, facts which otherwise could
not be proved except with great difficulty;
4. Educate the parties in advance of trial as to the
real value of their claims and defenses thereby
encouraging settlements;
5. Expedite litigation;
6. Safeguard against surprise;
7. Prevent delay;
8. Simplify and narrow the issues; and
9. Expedite and facilitate both preparation and
trial.
4. Deposition Pending Action
Rule 23, Sec. 1. Depositions pending action, when may be
taken — By leave of court after jurisdiction has been
obtained over any defendant or over property which is the
subject of the action, or without such leave after an
answer has been served, the testimony of any person,
whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of
any party, by deposition upon oral examination or written
interrogatories. The attendance of witnesses may be
compelled by the use of a subpoena as provided in Rule
21. Depositions shall be taken only in accordance with
these Rules. The deposition of a person confined in prison
may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the
court prescribes.
a. Deposition With Leave of Court: Functions
Jonathan Landoil International Co. Inc. v. Sps.
Mangundadatu, (2004). A deposition may be taken with
leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over
any defendant or over property that is the subject of the
action; or, without such leave, after an answer has been
served. Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the
primary function of which is to supplement the pleadings
for the purpose of disclosing the real points of dispute
between the parties and affording an adequate factual
basis during the preparation for trial. The liberty of a party
to avail itself of this procedure, as an attribute of
discovery, is "well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired
into are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the
inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of the
law."
b. Effect if Deposition Does Not Conform to the
Requirements of Law
Jonathan Landoil International Co. Inc. v. Sps.
Mangundadatu, (2004). When a deposition does not
conform to the essential requirements of law and may
reasonably cause material injury to the adverse party, its
taking should not be allowed. This was the primary
concern in Northwest Airlines v. Cruz. In that case, the
ends of justice would be better served if the witness was
to be brought to the trial court to testify. The locus of the
oral deposition therein was not within the reach of
ordinary citizens, as there were time constraints; and the
trip required a travel visa, bookings, and a substantial
travel fare. In People v. Webb, the taking of depositions
was unnecessary, since the trial court had already
admitted the Exhibits on which the witnesses would have
testified.
c. Depositions May Be Applied by a Non-Resident
Party
San Luis v. Hon. Rojas, (2008). While herein petitioner
prays that the CA be ordered to give due course to the
petition for certiorari filed before it and to remand the
case to the CA for proper disposition, the Court opts to
resolve the sole issue raised in the present petition which
is a pure question of law, i.e., whether Section 1, Rule 23
of the Rules of Court allows a non-resident foreign
corporation the privilege of having all its witnesses, all of
whom are foreigners, to testify through deposition upon
written interrogatories taken outside the Philippines to
prove an oral contract, in order to avoid further delay.
Unequivocally, the rule does not make any distinction or
restriction as to who can avail of deposition. The fact that
private respondent is a non-resident foreign corporation is
immaterial. The rule clearly provides that the testimony of
any person may be taken by deposition upon oral
examination or written interrogatories, at the instance of
any party. Depositions serve as a device for ascertaining
the facts relative to the issues of the case. The evident
purpose is to enable the parties, consistent with
recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest possible
knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and
thus prevent the said trials from being carried out in the
dark.
d. Deposition May be Taken Even After Trial Has
Commenced
Jonathan Landoil International Co. Inc. v. Sps.
Mangundadatu, (2004). The ROC and jurisprudence,
however, do not restrict a deposition to the sole function
of being a mode of discovery before trial. Under certain
conditions and for certain limited purposes, it may be
taken even after trial has commenced and may be used
without the deponent being actually called to the witness
stand. In Dasmariñas Garments v. Reyes, we allowed the
taking of the witnesses’ testimonies through deposition, in
lieu of their actual presence at the trial.
Thus, "[d]epositions may be taken at any time after the
institution of any action, whenever necessary or
convenient. There is no rule that limits deposition-taking
only to the period of pre-trial or before it; no prohibition
against the taking of depositions after pre-trial." There can
be no valid objection to allowing them during the process
of executing final and executory judgments, when the
material issues of fact have become numerous or
complicated.
In keeping with the principle of promoting the just, speedy
and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding, depositions are allowed as a "departure from
the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining
witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be
observed by the trial judge." Depositions are allowed,
provided they are taken in accordance with the provisions
of the Rules of Court (that is, with leave of court if the
summons have been served, without leave of court if an
answer has been submitted); and provided, further, that a
circumstance for their admissibility exists (Section 4, Rule
23, Rules of Court).
e. Deposition Discretionary to Court
Jonathan Landoil International Co. Inc. v. Sps.
Mangundadatu, (2004). The ROC vests in the trial court
the discretion to order whether a deposition may be taken
or not under specified circumstances that may even differ
from those the proponents have intended. However, it is
well-settled that this discretion is not unlimited. It must be
exercised -- not arbitrarily, capriciously or oppressively --
but in a reasonable manner and in consonance with the
spirit of the law, to the end that its purpose may be
attained.
f. Limitations on the Taking of Deposition
Jonathan Landoil International Co. Inc. v. Sps.
Mangundadatu, (2004). Limitations would arise, though, if
the examination is conducted in bad faith; or in such a
manner as to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the person
who is the subject of the inquiry; or when the inquiry
touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon the
recognized domains of privilege.
5. Scope of Deposition
Rule 23, Sec. 2. Scope of examination — Unless otherwise
ordered by the court as provided by Sec. 16 or 18 of this
Rule, the deponent may be examined regarding any
matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject of
the pending action, whether relating to the claim or
defense of any other party, including the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any
books, documents, or other tangible things and the
identity and location of persons having knowledge of
relevant facts.
6. Examination and Cross-Examination
Rule 23, Sec. 3. Examination and cross-examination —
Examination and cross-examination of deponents may
proceed as permitted at the trial under sections 3 to 18 of
Rule 132.
a. What Does Sec. 3-18 of Rule 132 covers for
Purposes of Taking of Deposition?
1. Rights and obligations of a witness (Sec. 3)
2. Order of examination of an individual witness
(Sec. 4)
3. Direct examination (Sec. 5)
4. Cross-examination (Sec. 6)
5. Re-direct examination (Sec. 7)
6. Re-cross examination (Sec. 8)
7. Recalling witness (Sec. 9)
8. Leading and misleading question (Sec. 10)
9. Impeachment of adverse party’s witness (Sec.
11)
10. Party may not impeach his own witness (Sec. 12)
11. How witness impeached by evidence of
inconsistent statements (Sec. 13)
12. Evidence of good character of a witness (Sec. 14)
13. Exclusions and separation of witness (Sec. 15)
14. When a witness may refer to memorandum (Sec.
16)
15. When part of transaction, writing or record given
in evidence, the remainder admissible (Sec. 17)
 16. Right to inspect writing shown to witness (Rule
18)
7. Use and Purpose of Deposition
Rule 23, Sec. 4. Use of depositions — At the trial or upon
the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding,
any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under
the rules of evidence, may be used against any party who
was present or represented at the taking of the deposition
or who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any
one of the following provisions;
(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the
purpose of contradicting or impeaching the
testimony of deponent as a witness;
(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at
the time of 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 one hundred (100) kilometers from the
place of trial or hearing, or is out of the
Philippines, unless it appears that his absence
was procured by the party offering the
deposition, or (3) that the witness is unable to
attend or testify because of age, sickness,
infirmity, or imprisonment, or (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 circumstances exist as to
make it desirable, in the interest of justice and
with due regard to the importance of presenting
the testimony of witnesses orally in open court,
to allow the deposition to be used; and
(d) 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.
a. Deposition as Evidence
Sales v. Sabino, (2005). While depositions may be used as
evidence in court proceedings, they are generally not
meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in open
court of a party or witness. Stated a bit differently, a
deposition is not to be used when the deponent is at hand.
Indeed, any deposition offered during a trial to prove the
facts therein set out, in lieu of the actual oral testimony of
the deponent in open court, may be opposed and
excluded on the ground of hearsay. However, depositions
may be used without the deponent being called to the
witness stand by the proponent, provided the existence of
certain conditions is first satisfactorily established. Five (5)
exceptions for the admissibility of a deposition are listed in
Section 4, Rule 23, supra, of the Rules of Court. Among
these is when the witness is out of the Philippines.
b. Deposition at a Former Proceeding May Be
Used as Evidence: Exception to Hearsay
Evidence Rule
Rule 130, Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former
proceeding – The testimony or deposition of a witness
deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same
parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence
against the adverse party who had the opportunity to
cross-examine him.
c. Requirements Under Rule 130, Sec. 47 Must be
Present in Order That Deposition May be Used
as an Evidence and an Exception to Hearsay
Evidence Rule
Ilao-Quianay v. Mapile, (2005). Petitioners’ objection to
the admission in evidence of the testimony of the notary
public who supposedly notarized the deed of sale taken in
another case in which petitioners were not parties is
persuasive. Such testimony does not qualify as an
exception to the hearsay rule under Sec. 47, Rule 130 of
the Rules of Court
None of the circumstances for the admission of the
testimony given at a former proceeding obtains in this
case. Not only were petitioners not parties to the former
proceeding and hence without opportunity to cross-
examine the notary public, there was also no proof that
the notary public was already deceased or unable to
testify. Hence, the testimony should not have been
accorded any probative weight.
d. Deposition for the Hearing of a Motion for an
Interlocutory Order
Jonathan Landoil Co. Inc. v. Sps. Mangudadatu, (2004).
The present case involved a circumstance that fell under
the above-cited Section 4(c)(2) of Rule 23 -- the witnesses
of petitioner in Metro Manila resided beyond 100
kilometers from Sultan Kudarat, the place of hearing.
Petitioner offered the depositions in support of its Motion
to Quash (the Writ of Execution) and for the purpose of
proving that the trial court’s Decision was not yet final. As
previously explained, despite the fact that trial has already
been terminated, a deposition can still be properly taken.
e. Deposition in Cases Witness is Aged or Infirm
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, (2001). If the witness is aged
or infirm, or about to leave the court’s jurisdiction, or is
temporarily out of the Philippines, leave of court may be
granted
8. Advantages of Deposition
Jonathan Landoil Co. Inc. v. Sps. Mangudadatu, (2004). As
a mode of discovery resorted to before trial, deposition
has advantages, as follows:
1. It is of great assistance in ascertaining the truth
and in checking and preventing perjury.
2. It is an effective means of detecting and
exposing false, fraudulent, and sham claims and
defenses.
3. It makes available in a simple, convenient, and
often inexpensive way facts which otherwise
could not have been proved, except with great
difficulty and sometimes not at all.
4. It educates the parties in advance of trial as to
the real value of their claims and defenses,
thereby encouraging settlements out of court.
5. It expedites the disposal of litigation, saves the
time of the courts, and clears the docket of many
cases by settlements and dismissals which
otherwise would have to be tried.
6. It safeguards against surprise at the trial,
prevents delays, and narrows and simplifies the
issues to be tried, thereby expediting the trial.
7. It facilitates both the preparation and the trial of
cases."
 Rule 23, Sec. 10. Persons before whom depositions may court making the request, to do the like for the order, in a
9. Effect of Substitution of Parties be taken within the Philippines — Within the Philippines similar case.
depositions may be taken before any judge, notary public,
Rule 23, Sec. 5. Effect of substitution of parties — or the person referred to in Sec. 14 hereof. c. Distinction Between Commission and Letters
Substitution of parties does not affect the right to use Rogatory
depositions previously taken; and, when an action has Rule 23, Sec. 14. Stipulations regarding taking of
been dismissed and another action involving the same depositions — If the parties so stipulate in writing, Commission Letters Rogatory
subject is afterward brought between the same parties or depositions may be taken before any person authorized to It is an instrument issued by It is an instrument whereby
their representatives or successors in interest, all administer oaths, at any time or place, in accordance with a court of justice, or other a foreign court is informed
depositions lawfully taken and duly filed in the former these Rules and when so taken may be used like other competent tribunal to of the pendency of a case
action may be used in the latter as if originally taken depositions. authorize a person to take and the name of the
therefor. depositions, or do any foreign witness, and is
b. If Outside the Philippines other act by authority of requested to cause their
10. Objections to Admissibility such court or tribunal depositions to be taken in
Rule 23, Sec. 11. Persons before whom depositions may due course of law for the
Rule 23, Sec. 6. Objections to admissibility — Subject to be taken in foreign countries — In a foreign state or furtherance of justice, with
the provisions of Sec. 29 of this Rule, objection may be country, depositions may be taken (a) on notice before a an offer on the part of the
made at the trial or hearing, to receiving in evidence any secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, court making the request,
deposition or part thereof for any reason which would vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the to do the like for the order,
require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were Philippines, (b) before such person or officer as may be in a similar case.
then present and testifying appointed by commission or under letters rogatory; or (c) Addressed to a non-judicial Addressed to a judicial
the person referred to in Sec. 14 hereof. foreign officer who will take officer of a foreign country
11. Effect of Taking Deposition the deposition who will direct the taking of
15. Letters Commission or Rogatory the deposition
Rule 23, Sec. 7. Effect of taking depositions — A party The rules which are The procedure applicable
shall not be deemed to make a person his own witness for Rule 23, Sec. 12. Commission or letters rogatory — A applicable are those of the will that be of the foreign
any purpose by taking his deposition. commission or letters rogatory shall be issued only when requesting court country
necessary or convenient, on application and notice, and on It is allowed if the It is allowed if commission
12. Effect of Using Deposition such terms, and with such direction as are just and permission of the foreign was disallowed by the
appropriate. Officers may be designated in notices or country is given foreign country
Rule 23, Sec. 8. Effect of using depositions — The commissions either by name or descriptive title and letters Leave of court is not Leave of court is necessary
introduction in evidence of the deposition or any part rogatory may be addressed to the appropriate judicial necessary
thereof for any purpose other than that of contradicting or authority in the foreign country.
impeaching the deponent makes the deponent the witness d. Distinction Between Deposition and Affidavit
of the party introducing the deposition, but this shall not a. What is a Commission?
apply to the use by an adverse party of a deposition as Deposition Affidavit
described in paragraph (b) of Sec. 4 of this Rule. It is an instrument issued by a court of justice, or other
Taken of the testimony May be taken ex parte
competent tribunal to authorize a person to take
requires notice to the other
13. Rebutting Deposition depositions, or do any other act by authority of such court
party
or tribunal
It may be taken in the form Being ex parte need not be
Rule 23, Sec. 9. Rebutting deposition — At the trial or
of a question and answer in such form
hearing any party may rebut any relevant evidence b. What is a Letter Rogatory?
based on oral examination
contained in a deposition whether introduced by him or by
or written interrogatories
any other party. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary. It is an instrument whereby a
before authorized persons
foreign court is informed of the pendency of a case and
May be used as evidence in May or may not be used in
14. Person Who May Take Deposition the name of the foreign witness, and is requested to cause
a pending case a proceeding
their depositions to be taken in due course of law for the
a. If Within the Philippines furtherance of justice, with an offer on the part of the
16. Disqualification by Interest

Rule 23, Sec. 13. Disqualification by interest — No
deposition shall be taken before a person who is a relative
within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or
employee or counsel of any of the parties, or who is a
relative within the same degree, or employee of such
counsel; or who is financially interested in the action.
17. Deposition Upon Oral Examination; Notice,
Time and Place
Rule 23, Sec. 15. Deposition upon oral examination;
notice; time and place — A party desiring to take the
deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give
reasonable notice in writing, to every other party to the
action. The notice shall state the time and place for taking
the deposition and the name and address of each person
to be examined, if known, and if the name is not known, a
general description sufficient to identify him or the
particular class or group to which he belongs. On motion
of any party upon whom the notice is served, the court
may for cause shown enlarge or shorten the time.
18. Orders for the Protection of Parties and
Deponents
Rule 23, Sec. 16. Orders for the protection of parties and
deponents — After notice is served for taking a deposition
by oral examination, upon motion seasonably made by any
party or by the person to be examined and for good cause
shown, the court in which the action is pending may make
an order that the deposition shall not be taken, or that it
may be taken only at some designated place other than
that stated in the notice, or that it may be taken only on
written interrogatories, or that certain matters shall not be
inquired into, or that the scope of the examination shall be
held with no one present except the parties to the action
and their officers or counsel, or that after being sealed the
deposition shall be opened only by order of the court, or
that secret processes, developments, or research need not
be disclosed, or that the parties shall simultaneously file
specified documents or information enclosed in sealed
envelopes to be opened as directed by the court or the
court may make any other order which justice requires to
protect the party or witness from annoyance,
embarrassment, or oppression.
19. Record of Examination; Oath; Objections
Rule 23, Sec. 17. Record of examination, oath; objections
— The officer before whom the deposition is to be taken
shall put the witness on oath and shall personally, or by
some one acting under his direction and in his presence,
record the testimony of the witness. The testimony shall
be taken stenographically unless the parties agree
otherwise. All objections made at the time of the
examination to the qualifications of the officer taking the
deposition, or to the manner of talking it, or to the
evidence presented, or to the conduct of any party, and
any other objection to the proceedings, shall be noted by
the officer upon the deposition. Evidence objected to shall
be taken subject to the objections. In lieu of participating
in the oral examination, parties served with notice of
taking a deposition may transmit written interrogatories to
the officers, who shall propound them to the witness and
record the answers verbatim.
20. Motion to Terminate or Limit Examination
Rule 23, Sec. 18. Motion to terminate or limit
examination — 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 Sec. 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.
21. Submission to Witness; Changes; Signing
Rule 23, Sec. 19. Submission to witness; changes; signing
— When the testimony is fully transcribed, the deposition
shall be submitted to the witness for examination and
shall be read to or by him, unless such examination and
reading are waived by the witness and by the parties. Any
changes in form or substance which the witness desires to
make shall be entered upon the deposition by the officer
with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for
making them. The deposition shall then be signed by the
witness, unless the parties by stipulation waive the signing
or the witness is ill or cannot be found or refuses to sign. If
the deposition is not signed by the witness, the officer
shall sign it and state on the record the fact of the waiver
or of the illness or absence of the witness or the fact of the
refusal to sign together with the reason be given therefor,
if any, and the deposition may then be used as fully as
though signed, unless on a motion to suppress under Sec.
29 (f) of this Rule, the court holds that the reasons given
for the refusal to sign require rejection of the deposition in
whole or in part.
22. Certification and Filing by Officer
Rule 23, Sec. 20. Certification, and filing by officer — The
officer shall certify on the deposition that the witness was
duly sworn to by him and that the deposition is a true
record of the testimony given by the witness. He shall then
securely seal the deposition in an envelope indorsed with
the title of the action and marked "Deposition of (here
insert the name of witness)" and shall promptly file it with
the court in which the action is pending or send it by
registered mail to the clerk thereof for filing.
23. Notice of Filing
Rule 23, Sec. 21. Notice of filing — The officer taking the
deposition shall give prompt notice of its filing to all the
parties.
24. Furnishing of Copies
Rule 23, Sec. 22. Furnishing copies — Upon payment of
reasonable charges therefor, the officer shall furnish a
copy of the deposition to any party or to the deponent.
25. Failure to Attend of the Party Giving Notice
Rule 23, Sec. 23. Failure to attend of party giving notice
— If the party giving the notice of the taking of a
deposition fails to attend and proceed therewith and
another attends in person or by counsel pursuant to the
notice, the court may order the party giving the notice to
pay such other party the amount of the reasonable
expenses incurred by him and his counsel in so attending,
including reasonable attorney's fees.
26. Failure of the Party Giving Notice to Serve
Subpoena
Rule 23, Sec. 24. Failure of party giving notice to serve
subpoena — If the party giving the notice of the taking of
a deposition of a witness fails to serve a subpoena upon
him and the witness because of such failure does not
attend, and if another party attends in person or by
counsel because he expects the deposition of that witness
to be taken, the court may order the party giving the
notice to pay to such other party the amount of the
reasonable expenses incurred by him and his counsel in so
attending, including reasonable attorney's fees.
27. Deposition Upon Written Interrogatories;
Service of Notice and of Interrogatories
Rule 23, Sec. 25. Deposition upon written interrogatories;
service of notice and of interrogatories — A party desiring
to take the deposition of any person upon written
interrogatories shall serve them upon every other party
with a notice stating the name and address of the person
who is to answer them and the name or descriptive title
and address of the officer before whom the deposition is
to be taken. Within ten (10) days thereafter, a party so
served may serve cross-interrogatories upon the party
proposing to take the deposition. Within five (5) days
thereafter, the latter may serve re-direct interrogatories
upon a party who has served cross-interrogatories. Within
three (3) days after being served with re-direct
interrogatories, a party may serve recross-interrogatories
upon the party proposing to take the deposition.
28. Officers to Take Responses and Prepare Record
Rule 23, Sec. 26. Officers to take responses and prepare
record — A copy of the notice and copies of all
interrogatories served shall be delivered by the party
taking the deposition to the officer designated in the
notice, who shall proceed promptly, in the manner
provided by Sec.s 17, 19 and 20 of this Rule, to take the
testimony of the witness in response to the interrogatories
and to prepare, certify, and file or mail the deposition,
attaching thereto the copy of the notice and the
interrogatories received by him.
29. Notice of Filing and Furnishing Copies
Rule 23, Sec. 27. Notice of filing and furnishing copies —
When a deposition upon interrogatories is filed, the officer
taking it shall promptly give notice thereof to all the
parties, and may furnish copies to them or to the
deponent upon payment of reasonable charges therefor.
30. Orders for the Protection of Parties and
Deponents
Rule 23, Sec. 28. Order for the protection of parties and
deponents — After the service of the interrogatories and
prior to the taking of the testimony of the deponent, the
court in which the action is pending, on motion promptly
made by a party or a deponent, and for good cause shown,
may make any order specified in Sec.s 15, 16 and 18 of this
Rule which is appropriate and just or an order that the
deposition shall not be taken before the officer designated
in the notice or that it shall not be taken except upon oral
examination.
31. Effects of Errors and Irregularities in
Depositions
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 Sec.s 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 Sec.s 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.
B. Deposition Before Action (Rule 24)
1. Petition for Deposition Pending Action
Rule 24, Sec. 1. Depositions before action; petition — A
person who desires to perpetuate his own testimony or
that of another person regarding any matter that may be
cognizable in any court of the Philippines may file a
verified petition in the court of the place of the residence
of any expected adverse party.
2. Contents of Petition
Rule 24, Sec. 2. Contents of petition — The petition shall
be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall show:
(a) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action in
a court of the Philippines but is presently unable to bring it
or cause it to be brought; (b) the subject matter of the
expected action and his interest therein; (c) the facts
which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony
and his reasons for desiring to perpetuate it; (d) the names
or a description of the persons he expects will be adverse
parties and their addresses so far as known; and (e) the
names and addresses of the persons to be examined and
the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit
from each, and shall ask for an order authorizing the
petitioner to take the depositions of the persons to be
examined named in the petition for the purpose of
perpetuating their testimony.
3. Notice and Service
Rule 24, Sec. 3. Notice and service — The petitioner shall
serve a notice upon each person named in the petition as
an expected adverse party, together with a copy of the
petition, stating that the petitioner will apply to the court,
at a time and place named therein, for the order described
in the petition. At least twenty (20) days before the date of
the hearing, the court shall cause notice thereof to be
served on the parties and prospective deponents in the
manner provided for service of summons
4. Order and Examination
Rule 24, Sec. 4. Order and examination — If the court is
satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may
prevent a failure or delay of justice, it shall make an order
designating or describing the persons whose deposition
may be taken and specifying the subject matter of the
examination and whether the depositions shall be taken
upon oral examination or written interrogatories. The
depositions may be taken in accordance with Rule 23
before the hearing.
5. Reference to the Court
Rule 24, Sec. 5. Reference to court — For the purpose of
applying Rule 23 to depositions for perpetuating
testimony, each reference therein to the court in which
the action is pending shall be deemed to refer to the court
in which the petition for such deposition was filed.
6. Use of Deposition
Rule 24, Sec. 6. Use of deposition — If a deposition to
perpetuate testimony is taken under this Rule, or if,
although not so taken, it would be admissible in evidence,
it may be used in any action involving the same subject
matter sub-sequently brought in accordance with the
provisions of Sec.s 4 and 5 of Rule 23.
7. Deposition Pending Appeal
Rule 24, Sec. 7. Depositions pending appeal — If an
appeal has been taken from a judgment of a court,
including the Court of Appeals in proper cases, or before
the taking of an appeal if the time therefor has not
expired, the court in which the judgment was rendered
may allow the taking of depositions of witnesses to
perpetuate their testimony for in the event of further
proceedings in the said court. In such case the party who
desires to perpetuate the testimony may make a motion in
the said court for leave to take the depositions, upon the
same notice and service thereof as if the action was
pending therein. The motion shall state (a) the names and
addresses of the persons to be examined and the
substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from
each, and (b) the reason for perpetuating their testimony.
If the court finds that the perpetuation of the testimony is
proper to avoid a failure or delay of justice, it may make an
order allowing the deposition to be taken, and thereupon
the depositions may be taken and used in the same
manner and under the same conditions as are prescribed
in these Rules for depositions taken in pending actions.
C. Interrogatories to Parties (Rule 25)
1. Interrogatories to Parties and Service
Rule 25, Sec. 1. Interrogatories to parties; service thereof
— Under the same conditions specified in Sec. 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.
a. Remedy in Case of Denial of Written
Interrogatories
Ong v. Mazo, (2004). The Trial Court’s order denying the
written interrogatories is interlocutory in nature. And the
extraordinary remedy writ of certiorari is generally not an
available remedy to challenge an interlocutory order of a
trial court, the proper remedy in such a case is appeal from
the adverse judgment where incorporated in said appeal
are the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order.
Nonetheless, this by no means is an absolute rule. If the
assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the
remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and
expeditious relief, certiorari may be allowed as a mode of
redress.
2. Answer to Interrogatories
Rule 25, Sec. 2. Answer to interrogatories — The
interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing and shall
be signed and sworn to by the person making them. The
party upon whom the interrogatories have been served
shall file and serve a copy of the answers on the party
submitting the interrogatories within fifteen (15) days
after service thereof unless the court on motion and for
good cause shown, extends or shortens the time.
3. Objections to Interrogatories
Rule 25, Sec. 3. Objections to interrogatories —
Objections to any interrogatories may be presented to the
court within ten (10) days after service thereof, with
notice as in case of a motion; and answers shall be
deferred until the objections are resolved, which shall be
at as early a time as is practicable.
4. Number of Interrogatories
Rule 25, Sec. 4. Number of interrogatories — No party
may, without leave of court, serve more than one set of
interrogatories to be answered by the same party.
5. Scope and Use of Interrogatories
Rule 25, Sec. 5. Scope and use of interrogatories —
Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be
inquired into under Sec. 2 of Rule 23, and the answers may
be used for the same purposes provided in Sec. 4 of the
same Rule.
6. Effect of Failure to Serve Interrogatories
Rule 25, Sec. 6. 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.
7. Distinguish Written Interrogatories Under Rule
23 and Written Interrogatories under Rule 25
 Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted
Written Interrogatories Written Interrogatories 3. Request for Admission to the court by the party requested within the period for
Under Rule 23 under Rule 25 and prior to the filing of his sworn statement as
The deponent is a third Directly served to the Rule 26, Sec. 1. Request for admission — At any time after contemplated in the preceding paragraph and his
person not necessarily a adverse party issues have been joined, a party may file and serve upon compliance therewith shall be deferred until such
party any other party may file and serve upon any other party a objections are resolved, which resolution shall be made as
It is required that it will be No officer to take written request for the admission by the latter of the early as practicable.
taken by a deposition deposition is required genuineness of any material and relevant document
officer described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth a. “Implied Admission Rule”
of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the
8. Distinguish Written Interrogatories to Parties request. Copies of the documents shall be delivered with Manzano v. Despabiladeras, (2004). Each matter must be
(Rule 25) from Bill of Particulars (Rule 12) the request unless copies have already been furnished. denied specifically under oath setting forth in detail the
reason why he cannot truthfully admit or deny. The silence
Written Interrogatories to Bill of Particulars (Rule 12) a. Purpose of Admission of defendant on the plaintiff’s request for admission
Parties (Rule 25) amounts to an implied acceptance of facts set forth
Seek to disclose all material Intended for the purpose of Republic v. Cojuangco, (2011). Every alleged admission is therein with the effect that plaintiff’s claim stood
and relevant facts from a clarifying ambiguities in a taken as an entirety of the fact which makes for the one undisputed.
party pleading or to state with side with the qualifications which limit, modify or destroy
sufficient definiteness the its effect on the other side. The reason for this is, where b. Limitations on the “Implied Admission Rule”
allegations in the pleading part of a statement of a party is used against him as an
Not directed to a pleadings, It is directed to the admission, the court should weigh any other portion Limos v. Sps. Odones, (2010). In this case, the redundant
but to material and pleadings with ambiguous connected with the statement, which tends to neutralize and unnecessarily vexatious nature of petitioners’ Request
relevant facts within the allegations or explain the portion which is against interest. for Admission rendered it ineffectual, futile, and irrelevant
knowledge of the adverse so as to proscribe the operation of the implied admission
party In other words, while the admission is admissible in rule in Section 2, Rule 26 of the Rules of Court. There being
evidence, its probative value is to be determined from the no implied admission attributable to respondents’ failure
D. Admission by Adverse Party (Rule 26) whole statement and others intimately related or to respond, the argument that a preliminary hearing is
connected therewith as an integrated unit. Although acts imperative loses its point.
A. Basic Concepts or facts admitted do not require proof and cannot be
contradicted, however, evidence aliunde can be presented e. Remedy of the Person Making an Implied
1. What is an Admission? to show that the admission was made through palpable Admission
mistake. The rule is always in favor of liberality in
Lacbayan v. Samoy, (2011). An admission is any statement construction of pleadings so that the real matter in dispute A party making an implied admission can file before the
of fact made by a party against his interest or unfavorable may be submitted to the judgment of the court. court a Motion to be Relieved of Implied Admission
to the conclusion for which he contends or is inconsistent
with the facts alleged by him. 4. Implied Admission 5. Effect of Admission

2. What are the Requirements in Order That Rule 26, Sec. 2. Implied admission — Each of the matters Rule 26, Sec. 3. Effect of admission — Any admission
Admission be Admissible? of which an admission is requested shall be deemed made by a party pursuant to such request is for the
admitted unless, within a period designated in the request, purpose of the pending action only and shall not
Lacbayan v. Samoy, (2011). To be admissible, an which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service constitute an admission by him for any other purpose nor
admission must: thereof, or within such further time as the court may allow may the same be used against him in any other
on motion, the party to whom the request is directed files proceeding.
(a) involve matters of fact, and not of law; and serves upon the party requesting the admission a
(b) be categorical and definite; sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of 6. Withdrawal of Admission
(c) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail
(d) be adverse to the admitter’s interests, otherwise the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny Rule 26, Sec. 4. Withdrawal — The court may allow the
it would be self-serving and inadmissible. those matters. party making an admission under the Rule, whether
express or implied, to withdraw or amend it upon such mass of documents. The inspection should be limited to
terms as may be just. a. Remedy of Production and Inspection of those documents designated with sufficient particularity in
Documents and Things the motion, such that the adverse party can easily identify
7. Effect of Failure to File and Serve Request for the documents he is required to produce.
Admission Air Phil. Corp. v. Penswell, Inc., (2007). The provision
shows that the production or inspection of documents or Rule 27 permits “fishing for evidence”. The lament against
Rule 26, Sec. 5. Effect of failure to file and serve request things as a mode of discovery sanctioned by the Rules of a fishing expedition no longer precludes a party from
for admission — Unless otherwise allowed by the court for Court may be availed of by any party upon a showing of prying into the facts underlying his opponent’s case.
good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice a good cause therefor before the court in which an action is Mutual knowledge of all relevant facts gathered by both
party who fails to file and serve a request for admission on pending. The court may order any party: a) to produce and parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either
the adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he
which are, or ought to be, within the personal knowledge designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, has in his possession.34 However, fishing for evidence that
of the latter, shall not be permitted to present evidence on photographs, objects or tangible things, which are not is allowed under the rules is not without limitations.
such facts. privileged; which constitute or contain evidence material
to any matter involved in the action; and which are in his 3. Distinctions Between Production and Inspection
E. Production and Inspection of Documents and possession, custody or control; or b) to permit entry upon of Document and Things Under Rule 27 and
Things (Rule 27) designated land or other property in his possession or Subpoena Duces Tecum Under Rule 21
control for the purpose of inspecting, measuring,
A. Basic Concepts surveying, or photographing the property or any Production and Inspection Subpoena Duces Tecum
designated relevant object or operation thereon. of Document and Things Under Rule 21
1. What are the Two (2) Motion Available under Under Rule 27
Rule 27? b. Documents, Papers, Objects, Accounts, Letters, It is a mode of discovery Is a writ or process of
Photographs, Objects and Other Tangible compelling production of
a. Motion for production and inspection of Things Which Are Privileged in Character and evidence
documents and things; and Cannot be Subject of Rule 27 It is directed to a party It is directed against any
b. Motion to allow entry upon a designated place a. Privileged communication between husband and litigant person which includes
for purposes of inspection, measuring and wife (Rule 130, Sec. 24(a)) litigants
surveying of property b. Privileged communication between attorney and It can be availed of by It is by means of a request
client (Rule 130, Sec. 24(b)) motion which is issued ex-parte
2. Motion for Production and Inspection Order c. Privileged communication between physician
and patient (Rule 130, Sec. 24(c)) 4. Distinctions Between Production and Inspection
Rule 27, Sec. 1. Motion for production or inspection; d. Privileged communication between priest and of Document and Things Under Rule 27 and
order — Upon motion of any party showing good cause penitent (Rule 130, Sec. 24(d)) Exception to the Best Evidence Rule When the
therefor, the court in which an action is pending may (a) e. Privileged communication of public officers and Original is in the Possession of the Adverse
order any party to produce and permit the inspection and public interest (Rule 130, Sec. 24(e)) Party under Rule 130, Sec. 3(b)
copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving f. Editors may not be compelled to disclose source
party, of any designated documents, papers, books, of published news Production and Inspection Exception to the Best
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, g. Voters may not be compelled to disclose for of Document and Things Evidence Rule When the
not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence whom they voted Under Rule 27 Original is in the
material to any matter involved in the action and which h. Trade secrets Possession of the Adverse
are in his possession, custody or control, or (b) order any i. Information contained in tax census returns Party under Rule 130, Sec.
party to permit entry upon designated land or other j. Bank deposits 3(b)
property in his possession or control for the purpose of It is a mode of discovery It is an exception to the
inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the c. Limitations on the Remedy of Production and Hearsay Rule
property or any designated relevant object or operation Inspection of Documents and Things Can be availed of through It can be done by notice
thereon. The order shall specify the time, place and motion
manner of making the inspection and taking copies and Solidbank Corp. v. Gateway Electronics Corp., (2008). A The movant has no prior Has knowledge of the
photographs, and may prescribe such terms and motion for production and inspection of documents knowledge on the contents contents of the documents
conditions as are just. should not demand a roving inspection of a promiscuous
of the documents to be to be produced
produced
F. Physical and Mental Examination of Parties
A. Physical and Mental Examination of the Parties
1. Physical and Mental Examination When May be
Ordered?
Rule 28, Sec. 1. When examination may be ordered — 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.
2. Order of Examination
Rule 28, Sec. 2. Order for examination — The order for
examination may be made only on motion for good cause
shown and upon notice to the party to be examined and to
all other parties, and shall specify the time, place, manner,
conditions and scope of the examination and the person or
persons by whom it is to be made.
3. Report of Findings
Rule 28, Sec. 3. Report of findings — If requested by the
party examined, the party causing the examination to be
made shall deliver to him a copy of a detailed written
report of the examining physician setting out his findings
and conclusions. After such request and delivery, the party
causing the examination to be made shall be entitled upon
request to receive from the party examined a like report of
any examination, previously or thereafter made, of the
same mental or physical condition. If the party examined
refuses to deliver such report, the court on motion and
notice may make an order requiring delivery on such
terms as are just, and if a physician fails or refuses to make
such a report the court may exclude his testimony if
offered at the trial.
4. Waiver of Privilege
Rule 28, Sec. 4. Waiver of privilege — By requesting and
obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by
taking the deposition of the examiner, the party examined
waives any privilege he may have in that action or any
other involving the same controversy, regarding the
testimony of every other person who has examined or
may thereafter examine him in respect of the same mental
or physical examination.
G. Refusal to Comply with the Modes of Discovery
(Rule 29)
A. Basic Concepts
1. What is the Nature of the Determination of the
Sanctions to be Imposed Upon a Party?
Lanada v. CA, (2002). The application of the rules on
modes of discovery rests upon the sound discretion of the
court. In the same vein, the determination of the sanction
to be imposed upon a party who fails to comply with the
modes of discovery rests on the same sound judicial
discretion. It is the duty of the courts to examine
thoroughly the circumstances of each case and to
determine the applicability of the modes of discovery,
bearing always in mind the aim to attain an expeditious
administration of justice
The determination of the sanction to be imposed upon a
party who fails to comply with the modes of discovery
rests on the same sound judicial discretion, taking into
account the overriding interest of justice and the
circumstances of each case.
2. Refusal to Comply With the Modes of Discovery
a. Refusal to Answer
Rule 29, Sec. 1. Refusal to answer — If a party or other
deponent refuses to answer any question upon oral
examination, 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
b. Contempt of Court
Rule 29, Sec. 2. Contempt of court — If a party or other
witness refuses to be sworn or refuses to answer any
question after being directed to do so by the court of the
place in which the deposition is being taken, the refusal
may be considered a contempt of that court.
c. Other Consequences
Rule 29, Sec. 3. Other consequences — If any party or an
officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey an
order made under Sec. 1 of this Rule requiring him to
answer designated questions, or an order under Rule 27 to
produce any document or other thing for inspection,
copying, or photographing or to permit it to be done, or to
permit entry upon land or other property or an order
made under Rule 28 requiring him to submit to a physical
or mental examination, the court may make such orders in
regard to the refusal as are just, and among others the
following:
(a) An order that the matters regarding which the
questions were asked, or the character or
description of the thing or land, or the contents
of the paper, or the physical or mental condition
of the party, or any other designated facts shall
be taken to be established for the purposes of
the action in accordance with the claim of the
party obtaining the order;
(b) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party
to support or oppose designated claims or
defenses or prohibiting him from introducing in
evidence designated documents or things or
items of testimony, or from introducing evidence
of physical or mental condition;
 (c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof,
or staying further proceedings until the order is
obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding
or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by
default against the disobedient party; and
(d) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in
addition thereto, an order directing the arrest of
any party or agent of a party for disobeying any
of such orders except an order to submit to a
physical or mental examination.
(1) Judgment by Default
Monzon v. Sps. Relova, (2008). According to former
Justice Florenz D. Regalado, failure to file a responsive
pleading within the reglementary period, and not failure to
appear at the hearing is the sole ground for an order of
default, except for failure to appear at the pre-trial
conference wherein the effects of a default on the part of
the defendant are followed, that is, the plaintiff shall be
allowed to present evidence ex parte and a judgment
based thereon may be rendered against the defendant.
d. Expenses on Refusal to Admit
Rule 29, Sec. 4. Expenses on refusal to admit — 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.
e. Failure to Attend to Serve Answers
Rule 29, Sec. 5. Failure of party to attend or serve
answers — 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.
(2) Judgment by Default For Failure to File Answer
to Interrogatories
Jaravata v. Karolus, (2007). The CA rightly held that the
court a quo erred in rendering a judgment by default
against the defendants for refusal or failure to answer
written interrogatories, without first requiring an
application by the proponent to compel an answer. This is
the requisite procedure under Section 1 of Rule 29 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
f. Expenses Against the Republic of the
Philippines
Rule 29, Sec. 6. Expenses against the Republic of the
Philippines — Expenses and attorney's fees are not to be
imposed upon the Republic of the Philippines under this
Rule.
H. Modes of Discovery in Criminal Cases
1. Production or Inspection of Material Evidence
in Possession of the Production
Rule 116, Sec. 10. Production or inspection of material
evidence in possession of prosecution — Upon motion of
the accused showing good cause and with notice to the
parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise,
suppression, or alteration, may order the prosecution to
produce and permit the inspection and copying or
photographing of any written statement given by the
complainant and other witnesses in any investigation of
the offense conducted by the prosecution or other
investigating officers, as well as any designated
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs,
objects or tangible things not otherwise privileged, which
constitute or contain evidence material to any matter
involved in the case and which are in the possession or
under the control of the prosecution, police, or other law
investigating agencies.
2. Application for Examination of Witness for
Accused Before Trial
Rule 119, Sec. 12. Application for examination of witness
for accused before trial — When the accused has been
held to answer for an offense, he may, upon motion with
notice to the other parties, have witnesses conditionally
examined in his behalf. The motion shall state: (a) the
name and residence of the witness; (b) the substance of
his testimony; and (c) that the witness is sick or infirm as
to afford reasonable ground for believing that he will not
be able to attend the trial, or resides more than one
hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial and has
no means to attend the same, or that other similar
circumstances exist that would make him unavailable or
prevent him from attending the trial. The motion shall be
supported by an affidavit of the accused and such other
evidence as the court may require.
3. Examination of Defense Witness; How Made
Rule 119, Sec. 13. Examination of defense witness; how
made — If the court is satisfied that the examination of a
witness for the accused is necessary, an order will be
made directing that the witness be examined at a specified
date, time and place and that a copy of the order be
served on the prosecutor at least three (3) days before the
scheduled examination. The examination shall be taken
before a judge, or, if not practicable, a member of the Bar
in good standing so designated by the judge in the order,
or if the order be made by a court of superior jurisdiction,
before an inferior court to be designated therein. The
examination shall proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the prosecutor provided he was duly notified of the
hearing. A written record of the testimony shall be taken.
4. Examination of Witness for the Prosecution
Rule 119, Sec. 15. Examination of witness for the
prosecution — When it satisfactorily appears that a
witness for the prosecution is too sick or infirm to appear
at the trial as directed by the order of the court, or has to
leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning, he
may forthwith be conditionally examined before the court
where the case is pending. Such examination, in the
presence of the accused, or in his absence after
reasonable notice to attend the examination has been
served on him, shall be conducted in the same manner as
an examination at the trial. Failure or refusal of the
accused to attend the examination after notice shall be
considered a waiver. The statement taken may be
admitted in behalf of or against the accused.

5. Will Rule 1, Sec. 3 Applicable to the Above
Rules?
Cuenco v. Risos, (2008). It is true that Section 3, Rule 1 of
the Rules of Court provides that the rules of civil
procedure apply to all actions, civil or criminal, and special
proceedings. In effect, it says that the rules of civil
procedure have suppletory application to criminal cases.
However, it is likewise true that the criminal proceedings
are primarily governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Considering that Rule 119 adequately and
squarely covers the situation in the instant case, we find
no cogent reason to apply Rule 23 suppletorily or
otherwise.
I. Modes of Discovery in Environmental Cases
A. Modes of Discovery in Environmental Cases
1. Discovery Measures
Part III, Rule 7, Sec. 12. Discovery Measures - A party may
file a verified motion for the following reliefs:
(a) Ocular Inspection; order — The motion must
show that an ocular inspection order is
necessary to establish the magnitude of the
violation or the threat as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces. It shall state in detail the
place or places to be inspected. It shall be
supported by affidavits of witnesses having
personal knowledge of the violation or
threatened violation of environmental law.
After hearing, the court may order any person in
possession or control of a designated land or other
property to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting or
photographing the property or any relevant object or
operation thereon.
The order shall specify the person or persons authorized to
make the inspection and the date, time, place and manner
of making the inspection and may prescribe other
conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all
parties.
(b) Production or inspection of documents or things;
order – The motion must show that a production
order is necessary to establish the magnitude of
the violation or the threat as to prejudice the
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces.
After hearing, the court may order any person in
possession, custody or control of any designated
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs,
objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or
electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence
relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and
permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on
behalf of the movant.
The production order shall specify the person or persons
authorized to make the production and the date, time,
place and manner of making the inspection or production
and may prescribe other conditions to protect the
constitutional rights of all parties.
VIII. Motion for Summary Judgment (Rule 35)
A. Basic Concepts
1. What is Summary Judgment?
Sps. Villuga v. Kelly Hardware and Construction Supply
Inc., (2012). 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.
Bungcayao, Sr. v. Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and
Dev. Corp., (2010). Summary judgment is a procedural
device resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out
litigations and useless delays. When the pleadings on file
show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried,
the Rules 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.
2. Genuine Issue – Meaning: Summary Judgment
Not Available if the Facts are Contested: Burden
of Proof
a. MARINA v. Marc Properties Corp., (2012).
Summary judgment is a procedural device
resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out
litigations and useless delays where the
pleadings on file show that there are no genuine
issues of fact to be tried. A "genuine issue" is
such issue of fact which require the presentation
of evidence as distinguished from a sham,
fictitious, contrived or false claim. There can be
no summary judgment where questions of fact
are in issue or where material allegations of the
pleadings are in dispute. 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.
b. Pilipino Tel. Corp. v. Radiomarine Network
(Smartnet) Phil. Inc., (2011). A genuine issue of
fact is that which requires the presentation of
evidence, as distinguished from a sham,
fictitious, contrived or false issue. When the
facts as pleaded appear uncontested or
undisputed, then there is no real or genuine
issue. Summary judgment is proper in such a
case.
3. Nature and Purpose of Summary Judgment
Atty. Ferrer v. Sps. Diaz, (2010). Summary judgment is a
procedural devise resorted to in order to avoid long drawn
out litigations and useless delays. When the pleadings on
file show that there are no genuine issues of facts to be
tried, the Rules of Court allows 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 genuine
issue is such fact which requires the presentation of
evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious,
contrived or false claim
4. Function of the Court in Case of a Motion for
Summary Judgment
Republic v. Cojuangco, (2011). A summary judgment
under Rule 35 of the Rules of Court is a procedural
technique that is proper only when there is no genuine
issue as to the existence of a material fact and the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. It is a
method intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases
where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the
pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on
record. Upon a motion for summary judgment the court’s
sole function is to determine whether there is an issue of
fact to be tried, and all doubts as to the existence of an
issue of fact must be resolved against the moving party. In
other words, a party who moves for summary judgment
has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of
any genuine issue of fact, and any doubt as to the
existence of such an issue is resolved against the movant.
Thus, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the
court should take that view of the evidence most favorable
to the party against whom it is directed, giving that party
the benefit of all favorable inferences.
5. Requisites for Summary Judgment: When
Proper?
Sps. Villuga v. Kelly Hardware and Construction Supply,
Inc., (2012). In this respect, the Court's ruling in Nocom v.
Camerino, is instructive, to wit:
x x x 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 "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. 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.
6. Limited Power of the Court to Render Summary
Judgment
MARINA v. Marc Properties, Corp., (2012). It must be
stressed that trial courts have limited authority to render
summary judgments and may do so only when there is
clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the
facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested,
proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place
of trial.31As already stated, the burden of demonstrating
clearly the absence of genuine issues of fact rests upon the
movant, in this case the respondent, and not upon
petitioners who opposed the motion for summary
judgment. Any doubt as to the propriety of the rendition
of a summary judgment must thus be resolved against the
respondent. But here, the partial summary judgment was
premised merely on the trial court’s hasty conclusion that
respondent is entitled to the reimbursement sought
simply because petitioners failed to point out what
particular works were not done or implemented not in
accordance with MARINA’s specifications after demands
were made by respondent and the filing of the complaint
in court. Precisely, a trial is conducted after the issues have
been joined to enable herein respondent to prove, first,
that repair/renovation works were actually done and such
were in accordance with MARINA’s request, and second,
that it actually advanced the cost thereof by paying the
contractors; and more importantly, to provide opportunity
for the petitioners to scrutinize respondent’s evidence,
cross-examine its witnesses and present rebuttal evidence.
Moreover, the trial court should have been more
circumspect in ruling on the motion for summary
judgment, taking into account petitioners’ concern for
judicious expenditure of public funds in settling its
liabilities to respondent.
7. Summary Judgment For Claimant
Rule 35, Sec. 1. Summary judgment for 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.
8. Summary Judgment for Defending Party
Rule 35, Sec. 2. Summary judgment for defending party
— 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.
9. Motion and Proceedings Thereon
Rule 9, Sec. 3. Motion and proceedings thereon — The
motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before the
time specified for the hearing. The adverse party may
serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at
least three (3) days before the hearing. After the hearing,
the judgment sought shall 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 as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.
a. Concept of Genuine Issue: Requisites for
Summary Judgment
Bungcayao, Sr. v. Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and
Dev. Corp., (2010). 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 the said rule 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. 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.
b. Requirements for a Summary Judgment
1. Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon, (2011). A summary
judgment is granted to settle expeditiously a
case if, on motion of either party, there appears
from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and
 affidavits that no important issues of fact are
involved, except the amount of damages. The
RTC judgment in this case fully determined the
rights and obligations of the parties relative to
the case for quieting of title and left no other
issue unresolved, except the amount of
damages. Hence, it is a final judgment.
2. Atty. Gubat v. NAPOCOR, (2010). A summary
judgment is allowed only if, after hearing, the
court finds that except as to the amount of
damages, the pleadings, affidavits, depositions
and admissions show no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the movant is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. The purpose of a
summary judgment is to avoid drawn out
litigations and useless delays because the facts
appear undisputed to the mind of the court.
Such judgment is generally based on the facts
proven summarily by affidavits, depositions,
pleadings, or admissions of the parties. For a full-
blown trial to be dispensed with, the party who
moves for summary judgment has the burden of
demonstrating clearly the absence of genuine
issues of fact, or that the issue posed is patently
insubstantial as to constitute a genuine issue.
"Genuine issue" means an issue of fact which
calls for the presentation of evidence as
distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or
contrived.
As certain facts pleaded were being contested by
the opposing parties, such would not warrant a
rendition of summary judgment.
3. Sps. Villuga v. Kelly Hardware and Construction
Supply, Inc., (2012). 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.
In this respect, the Court's ruling in Nocom v.
Camerino, is instructive, to wit:
x x x 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 "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. 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.
c. Even the Pleading Raised an Issue But the
Affidavits Shows that it has No Genuine Issue
Summary Judgment is Available: Factors to
Determine
Heirs of Cabigas v. Limbaco, (2011). Under the Rules of
Court, a summary judgment may be rendered where, on
motion of a party and after hearing, the pleadings,
supporting affidavits, depositions and admissions on file
show that, "except as to the amount of damages, there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
The Court explained the concept of summary judgment in
Asian Construction and Development Corporation v.
Philippine Commercial International Bank:
Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural
technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses
at an early stage of litigation thereby avoiding the expense
and loss of time involved in a trial.
Under the Rules, summary judgment is appropriate when
there are no genuine issues of fact which call for the
presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. Even if on
their face the pleadings appear to raise issues, when the
affidavits, depositions and admissions show that such
issues are not genuine, then summary judgment as
prescribed by the Rules must ensue as a matter of law. The
determinative factor, therefore, in a motion for summary
judgment, is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as
to any material fact.
10. Cases Not Fully Adjudicated on Motion
Rule 35, Sec. 4. Case not fully adjudicated on motion — 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.
a. Separate and Summary Judgments
Romualdez-Marcos v. Republic, (2012). In any case, the
Sandiganbayan rightly characterized their ruling on the
2004 Motion as a separate judgment, which is allowed by
the Rules of Court under Section 5 of Rule 36:
Separate judgments.—When more than one claim for
relief is presented in an action, the court, at any stage,
upon a determination of the issues material to a particular
claim and all counterclaims arising out of the transaction
or occurrence which is the subject matter of the claim,
may render a separate judgment disposing of such claim.
The judgment shall terminate the action with respect to
the claim so disposed of and the action shall proceed as to
the remaining claims. In case a separate judgment is
rendered, the court by order may stay its enforcement
until the rendition of a subsequent judgment or judgments
and may prescribe such conditions as may be necessary to
secure the benefit thereof to the party in whose favor the
judgment is rendered.
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 Sandiganbayan’s partial
summary judgment in the Swiss Deposits Decision made
no mention of the Arelma account.
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.
11. Forms of Affidavits and Supporting Papers
Rule 35, Sec. 5. Form of affidavits and supporting papers
— 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.
12. Affidavits in Bad Faith
Rule 35, Sec. 6. Affidavits in bad faith — 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.
Part III: Modes of Service of Pleadings, Motions,
Judgment Orders and Resolution (Rule 14)
A. Modes of Service of Pleadings, Motions,
Judgment Orders, and Resolutions
1. Coverage
Rule 13, Sec. 1. Coverage — This Rule shall govern the
filing of all pleadings and other papers, as well as the
service thereof, except those for which a different mode of
service is prescribed.
2. Definition of Filing and Service
Rule 13, Sec. 2. Filing and service, defined — 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.
a. Service of Pleadings Upon the
Counsel/Exception
Tak v. Makasiar, (2001). Rule 13, Sec. 2 provides that if
any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall
be made upon his counsel unless served upon the party
himself is ordered by the trial court (Sec. 2. Filing and
service, defined. – 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 be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon
him by the opposite side.). Notice or service made upon a
party who is represented by counsel is a nullity.
b. Service of Judgment to the Party Upon Death of
Her Counsel-Valid
Salting v. Velez, (2011). Thus, when the MeTC decision
was sent to petitioner’s counsel, such service of judgment
was valid and binding upon petitioner, notwithstanding
the death of her counsel.
It is likewise the duty of the party to inform the court of
the fact of her counsel’s death. Her failure to do so means
that she is negligent in the protection of her cause, and
she cannot pass the blame to the court which is not tasked
to monitor the changes in the circumstances of the parties
and their counsels.
c. Notice to the Client is Notice to the Counsel:
Exceptions
De Leon v. CA, (2002). Notice to the client and not to his
counsel of record is not notice in law
PNB v. CA, (1995). The rule admits of exceptions, as when
the court or tribunal orders service upon a party or when
the tribunal defendant is waived.
3. Manner of Filing of Pleadings
Rule 13, Sec. 3. 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.
a. Date of Mailing is the Date of Filing
Russel v. Ebasan and Austria, (2010). Rule 13, Sec. 3
provides that if a pleading is filed by registered mail, then
the date of mailing shall be considered as the date of filing.
It does not matter when the court actually receives the
mailed pleading.
b. Modes of Service of Pleadings, Motion Notices,
Judgments, and Other Papers
Aberca, et. al. v. Maj. Gen. Ver, (2012). The modes of
service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments,
and other papers, namely: (1) personal service; (2) service
by mail; and (3) substituted service, in case service cannot
be effected either personally or by mail.

The Rules of Court has been laid down to insure the
orderly conduct of litigation and to protect the substantive
rights of all party litigants. It is for this reason that the
basic rules on the modes of service provided under Rule 13
of the Rules of Court have been made mandatory and,
hence, should be strictly followed.
4. Papers Required to be Filed and Served
Rule 13, Sec. 4. Papers required to be filed and served —
Every judgment, resolution, order, pleading subsequent to
the complaint, written motion, notice, appearance,
demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be filed
with the court, and served upon the parties affected.
5. Modes of Service
Rule 13, Sec. 5. Modes of service — Service of pleadings
motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers shall
be made either personally or by mail.
a. Modes of Service of Pleadings, Motion Notices,
Judgments, and Other Papers
Aberca, et. al. v. Maj. Gen. Ver, (2012). The modes of
service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments,
and other papers, namely: (1) personal service; (2) service
by mail; and (3) substituted service, in case service cannot
be effected either personally or by mail.
The Rules of Court has been laid down to insure the
orderly conduct of litigation and to protect the substantive
rights of all party litigants.
6. Rules on Personal Service
Rule 13, Sec. 6. 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.
a. Notice to Counsel is Notice to Party
Sps. Belen v. Hon. Chavez, (2008). As a general rule, when
a party is represented by counsel of record, service of
orders and notices must be made upon said attorney and
notice to the client and to any other lawyer, not the
counsel of record, is not notice in law. The exception to
this rule is when service upon the party himself has been
ordered by the court. In cases where service was made on
the counsel of record at his given address, notice sent to
petitioner itself is not even necessary
7. Rules in Case of Service by Mail
Rule 13, Sec. 7. 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.
8. Rule on Substituted Service
Rule 13, Sec. 8. Substituted service — If service of
pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other
papers cannot be made under the two preceding Sec.s,
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.
a. How is Substituted Service Being Made
(1) Thermochem Inc. v. Naval, (2002). In the
absence of a proper and adequate notice to the
court of a change of address, the service of the
order or resolution of a court upon the parties
must be made at the last address of their
counsel on record.
(2) Garrucho v. CA, (2005). It is the duty of the party
and his counsel to device a system for the
receipt of mail intended for them, just as it is the
duty of the counsel to inform the court officially
of a change in his address. It is also the
responsibility of a party to inform the court of
the change of his address so that in the event
the court orders that an order or resolution be
served on the said party to enable him to receive
the said resolution or order.
b. Service to Counsel of Record Even Through
Deceased Valid: Duty of the Party
Mojar v. Agro Commercial Security Service Agency,
(2012). 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.
It is the duty of party-litigants to be in contact with their
counsel from time to time in order to be informed of the
progress of their case. It is likewise the duty of parties to
inform the court of the fact of their counsel’s death. Their
failure to do so means that they have been negligent in
the protection of their cause. They cannot pass the blame
to the court, which is not tasked to monitor the changes in
the circumstances of the parties and their counsel.
Litigants who are represented by counsel should not
expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await
the outcome of their cases. Relief will not be granted to a
party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the
judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to
his own negligence. The circumstances of this case plainly
show that petitioner only has himself to blame. Neither
can he invoke due process. The essence of due process is
simply an opportunity to be heard. Due process is satisfied
when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their respective sides of the
controversy. Where a party, such as petitioner, was
afforded this opportunity to participate but failed to do so,
he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. If said
opportunity is not availed of, it is deemed waived or
forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.
9. Service of Judgment, Final Orders or
Resolutions
Rule 13, Sec. 9. 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.
a. Service by Publication of Judgment, Final
Orders, Resolution
Aberca v. Maj. Gen. Ver, (2012). To stress, the only modes
of service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders,
judgments and other papers allowed by the rules are
personal service, service by mail and substituted service if
either personal service or service by mail cannot be made,
as stated in Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Rule 13 of the Rules of
Court. Nowhere under this rule is service of notice to file
answer by publication is mentioned, much less recognized.
Furthermore, the Court would like to point out that service
by publication only applies to service of summons stated
under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court where the methods of
service of summons in civil cases are: (1) personal
service;19 (2) substituted service;20 and (3) service by
publication.21 Similarly, service by publication can apply to
judgments, final orders and resolutions as provided under
Section 9, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, as follows:
SEC. 9. 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. [Emphasis supplied]
As correctly ruled by the CA:
Its third error was when it authorized service by
publication after initially dismissing the case for failure of
plaintiffs-appellees to furnish the current address of
defendants-appellants. There is, however, nothing in the
Rules that authorizes publication of a notice of hearing to
file answer. What is authorized to be published are: (1)
summons, and (2) final orders and judgments.
The above-quoted provision cannot be used to justify the
trial court’s action in authorizing service by publication.
Firstly, what was published was not a final order or
judgment but a simple order or notice to file answer.
Secondly, even granting that the notice to file answer can
be served by publication, it is explicit in the Rule that
publication is allowed only if the defendant-appellant was
summoned by publication. The record is clear that
defendants-appellants were not summoned by
publication.
b. Modes of Service of Judgments
Sps. Topacio v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage
Bank, (2010). As a rule, judgments are sufficiently served
when they are delivered personally, or through registered
mail to the counsel of record, or by leaving them in his
office with his clerk or with a person having charge
thereof. After service, a judgment or order which is not
appealed nor made subject of a motion for
reconsideration within the prescribed 15-day period
attains finality.
10. Completeness of Service
Rule 13, Sec. 10. Completeness of service — 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.
a. Completeness of Personal Service
Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz, (1988). It is a rule generally
accepted that when the service is to be made by
registered mail, the service is deemed complete and
effective upon receipt by the addressee as shown by the
registry return card.
b. Completeness of Service by Registered Mail:
Rule on Constructive Service
Bernarte v. PBA, (2011). The rule on service by registered
mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service the
completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the
addressee of the registered mail; and (2) constructive
service the completeness of which is determined upon
expiration of five days from the date the addressee
received the first notice of the postmaster.
Insofar as constructive service is concerned, there must be
conclusive proof that a first notice was duly sent by the
postmaster to the addressee. Not only is it required that
notice of the registered mail be issued but that it should
also be delivered to and received by the
addressee.1Notably, the presumption that official duty has
been regularly performed is not applicable in this
situation. It is incumbent upon a party who relies on
constructive service to prove that the notice was sent to,
and received by, the addressee.
The best evidence to prove that notice was sent would be
a certification from the postmaster, who should certify not
only that the notice was issued or sent but also as to how,
when and to whom the delivery and receipt was made.
The mailman may also testify that the notice was actually
delivered.
11. Priorities in the Modes of Service and Filing
Rule 13, Sec. 11. 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.
a. Personal Service of Pleading a Referred Mode
of Service
(1) Go v. Sunbanun, (2011). Whenever practicable,
personal service and personal filing of pleadings
are always the preferred modes of service.
Should one deviate from the general rule, it is
mandatory from him/her to submit a written
explanation why the pleading was not personally
filed/served
(2) Sps. Payongayong v. CA, (2004). Under the
above-quoted provision, service and filing of
pleadings and other papers must, whenever
practicable, be done personally. If they are made
through other modes, the party concerned must
provide a written explanation why the service or
filing was not done personally. If only to
 underscore the mandatory nature of this
innovation to the set of adjective rules requiring
personal service whenever practicable, the
provision gives the court the discretion to
consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the
other modes of service or filing were resorted to
and no written explanation was made as to why
personal service was not done in the first place.
Strictest compliance is mandated, lest this
provision be rendered meaningless and its sound
purpose negated.
b. Pleading is Considered Not Filed in Case of Non-
Compliance With the Written Explanation
City of Dumaguete v. PPA, (2011). The Court has the
discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if
said rule is not complied with.
In the case at bar, the address of respondent’s counsel is
Lopez, Quezon, while petitioner Sonia’s counsel’s is Lucena
City. Lopez, Quezon is 83 kilometers away from Lucena
City. Such distance makes personal service impracticable.
As in Musa v. Amor, a written explanation why service was
not done personally "might have been superfluous."
c. Relaxation of the Application of Rule 13, Sec.
11: Merely Permissive
Iligan Cement Corp. v. Iliascor Employees And Workers
Union-Southern Philippine Federation of Labor, (2009).
The use of "may," in the above quoted section signifies
permissiveness and gives the court discretion whether or
not to consider a pleading as not filed. While it is true that
procedural rules are necessary to secure an orderly and
speedy administration of justice, in this case, the rigid
application of Section 11, Rule 13 may be relaxed in the
interest of substantial justice.
12. Proof of Filing of Pleadings and Other Papers
Rule 13, Sec. 12. Proof of filing — The filing of a pleading
or paper shall be proved by its existence in the record of
the case. If it is not in the record, but is claimed to have
been filed personally, the filing shall be proved by the
written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the
clerk of court on a copy of the same; if filed by registered
mail, by the registry receipt and by the affidavit of the
person who did the mailing, containing a full statement of
the date and place of depositing the mail in the post office
in a sealed envelope addressed to the court, with postage
fully prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to
return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if not
delivered.
a. Between the Registry Return Card and Written
Note, The Former is Given Weight as to
Completeness of Service
Sps. Dela Cruz v. Ramiscal, (2005). Thus, between the
registry return card and said written note, the former
commands more weight. Not only is the former
considered as the official record of the court, but also as
such, it is presumed to be accurate unless proven
otherwise, unlike a written note or record of a party,
which is often self-serving and easily fabricated.
13. Proof of Service of Pleadings and Other Papers
Rule 13, Sec. 13. Proof of Service — Proof of personal
service shall consist of a written admission of the party
served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit
of the party serving, containing a full statement of the
date, place and manner of service. If the service is by
ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of
the person mailing of facts showing compliance with Sec. 7
of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof
shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt
issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall
be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in
lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the
certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the
postmaster to the addressee.
a. Failure to Attach the Affidavit of Service is Not
Fatal
PNB v. CIR, (2011). The failure to attach the required
affidavit of service is not fatal and the registry receipt
attached to the petition clearly shows service to the other
party.
14. Notice of Lis Pendens
a. What is Lis Pendens? Purpose.
Cunanan v. Jumping Jap Trading Corp., (2009). A notice of
lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a
particular real property is in litigation, serving as a warning
that one who acquires an interest over said property does
so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the
litigation over the said property. The filing of a notice of lis
pendens charges all strangers with a notice of the
particular litigation referred to therein and, therefore, any
right they may thereafter acquire on the property is
subject to the eventuality of the suit. Such announcement
is founded upon public policy and necessity, the purpose
of which is to keep the properties in litigation within the
power of the court until the litigation is terminated and to
prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by
subsequent alienation.
b. Notice of Lis Pendens
Rule 13, Sec. 14. Notice of lis pendens — In an action
affecting the title or the right of possession of real
property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when affirmative
relief is claimed in his answer, may record in the office of
the registry of deeds of the province in which the property
is situated notice of the pendency of the action. Said
notice shall contain the names of the parties and the
object of the action or defense, and a description of the
property in that province affected thereby. Only from the
time of filing such notice for record shall a purchaser, or
encumbrancer of the property affected thereby, be
deemed to have constructive notice of the pendency of
the action, and only of its pendency against the parties
designated by their real names.
The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may be
cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper
showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the
adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the
rights of the rights of the party who caused it to be
recorded.
c. Dual Effect of Lis Pendens
Gagoomal v. Sps. Villacorta, (2012). The filing of a notice
of lis pendens has a dual effect: (1) to keep the property
subject matter of the litigation within the power of the
court until the entry of the final judgment in order to
prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive
alienations; and (2) to bind a purchaser, bona fide or
otherwise, of the property subject of the litigation to the
judgment that the court will subsequently promulgate.
 d. What are the Actions Where Lis Pendens is
Proper?
Gagoomal v. Sps. Villacorta, (2012). A notice of lis
pendens is proper in the following actions and their
concomitant proceedings:
(a) an action to recover possession of real estate;
(b) an action to quiet title thereto;
(c) an action to remove clouds thereon;
(d) an action for partition; and
(e) any other proceedings of any kind in Court
directly affecting the title to the land or the use
or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon.”
Thus, a notice of lis pendens is only valid and effective
when it affects title over or right of possession of a real
property.
e. What are the Grounds for the Cancellation of
Lis Pendens
(1) Cunanan v. Jumping Jap Trading Corp., (2009).
Under Section 77 of P.D No. 1529, a notice of lis
pendens shall be deemed cancelled only upon
the registration of a certificate of the clerk of
court in which the action or proceeding was
pending stating the manner of disposal thereof if
there was a final judgment in favor of the
defendant or the action was disposed of
terminating finally all rights of the plaintiff over
the property in litigation.
(2) AFP Mutual Benefit Assoc. Inc. v. CA, (2000).
The notice of lis pendens hereinabove
mentioned may be cancelled only upon order of
the court, after proper showing that the notice is
for the purpose of molesting the adverse party,
or that it is not necessary to protect the right of
the party who caused it to be recorded.
f. When is Lis Pendends Deemed Cancelled?
AFP Mutual Benefit Assoc. Inc. v. CA, (2000). A notice of
lis pendens shall be deemed cancelled upon only upon the
registration of a certificate of the clerk of court in which
the action or proceeding was pending stating the manner
of disposal thereof if there was a final judgment in favor of
the defendant or the action was disposed of terminating
finally all rights of the plaintiff over the property in of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are
litigation. xxx Land Registration Authority
g. Remedy in Case of Denial of Registration of Lis i. Remedy of Petition for Review on Certiorari
Pendens by the Register of Deeds under Rule 45 in case of Adverse Decision of the
CA on Appeal from the Decision of the LRA
P.D. 1528, Sec. 117. Procedure – When the Register of
Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be Rule 45, Sec. 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court — A
taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or
deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to him for final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
registration, or where any party in interest does not agree Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
reference to any such instrument, the question shall be Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The
submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration by petition shall raise only questions of law which must be
the Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru the distinctly set forth.
Register of Deeds.
j. Lis Pendens Should be Distinguished from Litis
Where the instrument is denied registration, the Register Pendentia
of Deeds shall notify the interested party in writing, setting
forth the defects of the instrument or legal grounds relied Lis Pendens Litis Pendentia
upon, and advising him that if he is not agreeable to such Available as a remedy in Litis pendentia is a Latin
ruling, he may, without withdrawing the documents from case a real property is the term, which literally means
the Registry, elevate the matter by consulta within five subject of an action "a pending suit" and is
days from receipt of notice of the denial of registration to affecting the title or the variously referred to in
the Commissioner of Land Registration. right of possession of real some decisions as lis
property, where the pendens and auter action
The Register of Deeds shall make a memorandum of the plaintiff and the defendant, pendant. As a ground for
pending consulta on the certificate of title which shall be when affirmative relief is the dismissal of a civil
canceled motu proprio by the Register of Deeds after final claimed in his answer may action, it refers to the
resolution or decision thereof, or before resolution, if record in the office of the situation where two actions
withdrawn by petitioner. registry of deeds of the are pending between the
province in which the same parties for the same
The Commissioner of Land Registration, considering the property is situated a cause of action, so that one
consulta and the records certified to him after notice to notice of the pendency of of them becomes
the parties and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the action unnecessary and vexatious.
the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. His Purpose is to: (1) To keep Purpose is a ground for the
resolution or ruling in consultas shall be conclusive and the property subject matter dismissal of the action
binding upon all Registers of Deeds, provided, that the of the litigation within the under Rule 16, Sec. 1(e)
party in interest who disagrees with the final resolution, power of the court until the
ruling or order of the Commissioner relative to consultas entry of the final judgment
may appeal to the Court of Appeals within the period and in order to prevent the
in manner provided in Republic Act No. 5434. defeat of the final
judgment by successive
h. Remedy in Case of Adverse Decision of the LRA alienations; and (2) to bind
a purchaser, bona fide or
Rule 43, Sec. 1. Scope — This Rule shall apply to appeals otherwise, of the property
from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals subject of the litigation to
and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of the judgment that the court
or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise
will subsequently I. Defenses and Objections (Rule 9) the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall
promulgate proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such
Made through notice to be Availed by way of a motion A. Rules on Defenses and Objections relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
filed with the Register of to dismiss and filed with discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such
Deeds where the property the court where the case is 1. Defenses and Objections Not Pleaded Waived reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of
is located pending court. (1a, R18)
In case of denial by the In case of denial, the Rule 9, Sec. 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded —
Register of Deeds, the remedy is to file the answer Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to (a) Effect of order of default — A party in default
remedy of the aggrieved within the remaining period dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, shall be entitled to notice of subsequent
party is to appeal within but in no case less than five when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on proceedings but not to take part in the trial. (2a,
five (5) days to the LRA En (5) days under Rule 16, Sec. record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject R18)
Consulta under P.D. 1528, 4 matter, that there is another action pending between the (b) Relief from order of default — A party declared
Sec. 117 same parties for the same cause, or that the action is in default may at any time after notice thereof
Notice of lis pendens can A motion to dismiss based barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the and before judgment file a motion under oath to
be filed after the filing of on litis pendentia should be court shall dismiss the claim. set aside the order of default upon proper
the action in court, but filed before the filing of a showing that his failure to answer was due to
before finality of judgment responsive pleading 2. Compulsory Counterclaim or Cross-Claim Not fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
Set Up Barred and that he has a meritorious defense. In such
Part VI: Computation of Time (Rule 22) case, the order of default may be set aside on
Rule 9, Sec. 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, such terms and conditions as the judge may
A. Computation of Time not set up barred — A compulsory counterclaim, or a impose in the interest of justice. (3a, R18)
cross-claim, not set up shall be barred. (c) Effect of partial default — When a pleading
1. Computation of Time asserting a claim states a common cause of
II. Order of Default (Rule 9, Sec. 3) action against several defending parties, some of
Rule 22, Sec. 1. How to compute time — In computing any whom answer and the others fail to do so, the
period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by A. Basic Concepts in Order and Judgment by court shall try the case against all upon the
order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of Default answers thus filed and render judgment upon
the act or event from which the designated period of time the evidence presented. (4a, R18).
begins to run is to be excluded and the date of 1. What is an Order of Default? (d) Extent of relief to be awarded — A judgment
performance included. If the last day of the period, as thus rendered against a party in default shall not
computed, falls on a Saturday a Sunday, or a legal holiday A default order is issued by the court, on plaintiff’s motion exceed the amount or be different in kind from
in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run and at the start of the proceedings, for failure of the that prayed for nor award unliquidated
until the next working day. defendant to file his responsive pleading seasonably. damages. (5a, R18).
(e) Where no defaults allowed — If the defending
2. Effect of Interruption 2. What is a Judgment by Default? party in an action for annulment or declaration
of nullity of marriage or for legal separation fails
Rule 22, Sec. 2. Effect of interruption — Should an act be Judgment by default is a judgment rendered by the court to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting
done which effectively interrupts the running of the based on the presentation of the plaintiff’ evidence ex- attorney to investigate whether or not a
period, the allowable period after such interruption shall parte after the defendant has been declared in default, collusion between the parties exists, and if there
start to run on the day after notice of the cessation of the and the award shall not exceed the amount or be different is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order
cause thereof. from the kind of prayer that the plaintiff complained as to see to it that the evidence submitted is not
the facts and evidence so warrant fabricated.
The day of the act that caused the interruption shall be
excluded in the computation of the period. 3. Declaration of Default a. What are the Effects of Declaration of Default?

Chapter IX: Declaration of Default and Judgment by Rule 9, Sec. 3. Default; declaration of — If the defending A party declared in default shall be:
Default party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the
court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice 1. Entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings;
to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare 2. He cannot take part in the trial;
 3. He can be a witness in the case;
4. He is entitled to receive judgment, order or
resolution and substantially amended pleading
1. Effects of Declaration of Default
Magdiwang Realty Corp. v. Manila Banking Corp., (2012).
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 plaintiff’s 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 complainant’s evidence, which
absence would amount to the waiver of such defendant’s
right to object to the evidence presented during such
hearing, and to cross-examine the witnesses presented
therein.
1. Remedy in Case of Denial of Motion to Lift
Order of Default
In case of denial of the motion to lift order of default, the
defendant-movant may file a MR of the order of denial of
the motion to lift order of default.
In case of denial of the MR, then petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 is available on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction
since the order is interlocutory in character.
2. Liberality of the Rules Applied in Setting Aside
of Order of Default to Give Chance to the
Parties to Litigate
Zenith Insurance Corp. v. Juan, (1983). Liberality is the
rule in considering a MR. It is best for the trial court to give
both the plaintiff and the defendant a chance to litigate
their causes fairly and openly, without resort to
technicality.
Unless the reopening of the case is clearly intended for
delay, courts should be liberal in setting aside orders
barring defendants from presenting evidence. Judgments
based on an ex parte presentation of evidence are
generally frowned upon.
3. Certiorari is Available in Case of Declaration of
Default
Pacita v. Cariaga, Jr. Petition for certiorari is allowed when
the default is improperly declared, or when it is properly
declared where grave abuse of discretion attended such
declaration.
Lina v. CA. Certiorari has been held as the proper remedy
to question default order and judgment.
b. What is the Extent of Relief that May be
Awarded?
1. Judgment by Default Frowned Upon
Continental Leaf Tabacco (Phil.) Inc. v. IAC, (1985).
Judgment by default, not looked upon with favor, to
prevent a positive and considerable injustice to the
defendant and considering that petitioner’s answer
appears to have a meritorious defense.
2. Certiorari Available in Case of Judgment by
Default
(1) If a default judgment was already rendered, he
can also resort immediately to certiorari as his
challenge is on the nullity of both the order and
the judgment by default and not on the merits or
correctness of the judgment, especially where a
writ of execution was already issued, hence
appeal would not be a speedy and adequate
remedy”
(2) Continental Leaf Tabacco Phil. Inc. v. CA, (1985).
While, as a general rule, certiorari may not be
availed of where an appeal is available and an
appeal lies from a judgment by default,
nevertheless if there was grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial court, the
special civil action of certiorari may be availed of
by the aggrieved party as this is an exception to
said general rule.
Certiorari would provide a more speedy and
adequate remedy since the aggrieved party in a
default judgment had no opportunity to adduce
evidence in the courts, hence no appeal only the
self-serving evidence presented by the plaintiff
in the ex parte reception thereof would be
considered.
(3) Lina v. CA. Certiorari is the proper remedy to
question default order and judgment
(4) Sempio v. CA, (1996), Certiorari is often resorted
to in order to correct error of jurisdiction
(5) Viacrusis v. Estenzo, (1962). Where however,
the defendant was improperly declared in
default, as where the reglementary period to
answer had not yet expired, he can if such
default order is not lifted, elevate the matter by
certiorari without waiting for the default
judgment
(6) Yellow Bell Freight Lines, Inc. v. Bell Fast Surety
and Insurance Co. Judgment by default is not
looked upon with favor for they were made
without contest from the defendant.
(7) Republic v. CA. Judgment by default are not
looked upon with favor to prevent a positive and
considerable injustice to the defendant
(8) Santiago Syjuco, Inc. v. Castro. Certiorari is the
appropriate remedy against judgment or
proceedings alleged to have been rendered or
had without valid service of summons.
(9) People v. Pareja. Certiorari may be availed of
where an appeal would be slow, inadequate,
insufficient will not promptly relieve upon its
face or the nullity of the judgment is apparent
from its recitals.
(10) First Integrated Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Dizon.
Manifestly, the firm was denied due process. The
judgment by default was rendered against it by
reason of Villanueva’s negligence, if not
collateral fraud, which resulted in a depreciation
of its substantial rights to a hearing.
(11) Balangcad v. Justice of the CA, (1992). When
lack of jurisdiction is patent from the face of the
judgment or from the judicial records, he may
avail of the special civil action of certiorari under
the Rule 65.
c. Acts of Counsel: Conclusive Upon the Client
Phil. Tourism Authority v. Phil. Golf Dev. & Equipment,
Inc. (2012). PTA cannot escape these legal technicalities by
simply invoking the negligence of its counsel. This practice,
if allowed, would defeat the purpose of the Rules on
periods since every party would merely lay the blame on
its counsel to avoid any liability. The rule is that "a client is
bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the
realm of procedural technique[,]and unless such acts
involve gross negligence that the claiming party can prove,
the acts of a counsel bind the client as if it had been the
latter’s acts."
d. Acts of Counsel: Conclusive Upon the Client;
Exception: Gross Negligence
Phil. Tourism Authority v. Phil. Golf Dev. & Equipment,
Inc. (2012). In LBC Express - Metro Manila, Inc. v. Mateo,
the Court held that "[g]ross negligence is characterized by
want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently
but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference
to consequences insofar as other persons may be
affected." This cannot be invoked in cases where the
counsel is merely negligent in submitting his required
pleadings within the period that the rules mandate.
e. Extrinsic Fraud, Meaning
Phil. Tourism Authority v. Phil. Golf Dev. & Equipment,
Inc. (2012). Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of
the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed
outside of the trial of the case, whereby the unsuccessful
party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by
fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent."
Under the doctrine of this cited case, we do not see the
acts of PTA’s counsel to be constitutive of extrinsic fraud.
The records reveal that the judgment of default was sent
via registered mail to PTA’s 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.
f. Reason for Limiting the Extent of Award Against
a Party in Default
Diona v. Balangue, (2013). 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.
The raison d’être 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
defendant’s 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 play" and forbids the grant of
relief on matters where the defendant was not given the
opportunity to be heard thereon.
g. Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47); Not a
Remedy for Default
Phil. Tourism Authority v. Phil. Golf Dev. & Equipment,
Inc. (2012). PTA’s appropriate remedy was only to appeal
the RTC decision. "Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47
of the Rules of Court is a recourse equitable in character
and allowed only in exceptional cases where the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no
fault of petitioner."
In this case, appeal was an available remedy. There was
also no extraordinary reason for a petition for annulment
of judgment, nor was there any adequate explanation on
why the remedy for new trial or petition for relief could
not be used. The Court is actually at a loss why PTA had
withdrawn a properly filed appeal and substituted it with
another petition, when PTA could have merely raised the
same issues through an ordinary appeal.
4. Instances Where Order of Default May be
Issued
An order of default may be issued by the court in case of
failure of the defendant to file an answer in the following
instances:
a. Original complaint
b. Permissive counterclaim
c. Crossclaim
d. Third/fourth Party complaint
e. Complaint in intervention
f. Interrogatories to parties
g. Complaint for interpleader
5. Default in Complaint-in-Intervention
Lim v. NAPOCOR, (2012). 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, Lim’s failure to file the required answer can give rise
to default.
6. Declaration of Default in Interpleader
Rule 62, Sec. 5. Answer and other pleadings — Each
claimant shall file his answer setting forth his claim within
fifteen (15) days from service of the summons upon him,
serving a copy thereof upon each of the other conflicting
claimants who may file their reply thereto as provided by
these Rules. If any claimant fails to plead within the time
herein fixed, the court may, on motion, declare him in
default and thereafter render judgment barring him from
any claim in respect to the subject matter.
The parties in an interpleader action may file
counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party complaints and
responsive pleadings thereto, as provided by these Rules.
7. Failure to Serve Answers to Interrogatories
under Rule 25
Rule 29, Sec. 5. Failure of party to attend or serve
answers — 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
a. Application to Compel Answer Should be
Applied First Before Judgment by Default Can
be Availed of For Failure to File Answer to
Interrogatories
Jaravata v. Karolus, (2007). The CA rightly held that the
court a quo erred in rendering a judgment by default
against the defendants for refusal or failure to answer
written interrogatories, without first requiring an
application by the proponent to compel an answer. This is
the requisite procedure under Section 1 of Rule 29 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
8. Default Discretionary With the Court: May
Allow Filing of the Answer
Sablas v. Sablas, (2007). It is within the sound discretion of
the trial court to permit the defendant to file his answer
and to be heard on the merits even after the reglementary
period for filing the answer expires. The Rules of Court
provides for discretion on the part of the trial court not
only to extend the time for filing an answer but also to
allow an answer to be filed after the reglementary period.
In fact, the rule is that the answer should be admitted
where it is filed before a defending party is declared in
default and no prejudice is caused to the other aprty and
that there is no showing that the defendant intends to
delay the case.
9. Non-Applicability of Default Order in Summary
Proceedings
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
10. Motion to Declare Defendant in Default a
Prohibited Motion Under the Rules on Small
Claims Cases
Sec. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions - The following
pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be allowed in
the cases covered by this Rule:
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
11. Effect of Failure to File an Answer in Unlawful
Detainer and Forcible Entry
Rule 70, Sec. 7. Effect of failure to answer — Should the
defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period
above provided, the court, motu proprio or on motion of
the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted
by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is
prayed for therein. The court may in its discretion reduce
the amount of damages and attorney's fees claimed for
being excessive or otherwise unconscionable, without
prejudice to the applicability of Sec. 3 (c), Rule 9 if there
are two or more defendants.
12. Motion to Declare Defendant in Default a
Prohibited Motion in Environmental Cases
Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 2. Prohibited pleadings or motions —
The following pleadings or motions shall not be allowed:
(d) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
Chapter X: Answer (Rule 6)
I. Basic Concepts on Answer (Rule 6, Sec. 4)
A. Basic Concepts
1. Answer Defined
Rule 6, Sec. 4. Answer — An answer is a pleading in which
a defending party sets forth his defenses.
2. Answers That May be Filed Under the Rules
a. Answer to an original complaint;
b. Answer to permissive counterclaim;
c. Answer to cross-claim;
d. Answer to amended complaint;
e. Answer to a third/fourth party complaint
f. Answer to complaint in intervention;
g. Answer to a complaint for interpleader
h. Answer to complaint for foreclosure of
mortgage;
i. Answer to complaint for partition
j. Answer to a complaint for forcible entry and
unlawful detainer
k. Response to small claims cases
l. Answer to environmental cases
3. Period to Plead
a. Answer to Complaint
Rule 11, Sec. 1. Answer to the complaint — The
defendant shall file his answer to the complaint within
fifteen (15) days after service of summons, unless a
different period is fixed by the court.
b. Answer of a Defendant Foreign Private Juridical
Entity
Rule 11, Sec. 2. Answer of a defendant foreign private
juridical entity — Where the defendant is a foreign private
juridical entity and service of summons is made on the
government official designated by law to receive the same,
the answer shall be filed within thirty (30) days after
receipt of summons by such entity.
c. Answer to Amended Complaint
Rule 11, Sec. 3. Answer to amended complaint — When
the plaintiff files an amended complaint as a matter of
right, the defendant shall answer the same within fifteen
(15) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Where its filing is not a matter of right, the defendant shall
answer the amended complaint within ten (l0) days from
notice of the order admitting the same. An answer earlier
filed may serve as the answer to the amended complaint if
no new answer is filed.
This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended
counterclaim, amended cross-claim, amended third
(fourth, etc.)—party complaint, and amended complaint-
in-intervention.
d. Answer to Counterclaim or Cross-Claim
Rule 11, Sec. 4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim —
A counterclaim or cross-claim must be answered within
ten (10) days from service.
e. Answer to Third/Fourth-Party Complaint
Rule 11, Sec. 5. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party
complaint —The time to answer a third (fourth, etc.)—
party complaint shall be governed by the same rule as the
answer to the complaint.
f. Answer to Complaint-in-Intervention
Rule 19, Sec. 4. Answer to complaint-in-intervention —
The answer to the complaint-in-intervention shall be filed
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order admitting
the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court.
g. Reply
Rule 11, Sec. 6. Reply — A reply may be filed within ten
(10) days from service of the pleading responded to.
h. Answer to Supplemental Complaint
Rule 11, Sec. 7. Answer to supplemental complain — A
supplemental complaint may be answered within ten (10)
days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a
different period is fixed by the court. The answer to the
complaint shall serve as the answer to the supplemental
complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed.
i. Existing Counter-claim or Cross-claim
Rule 11, Sec. 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim — A
compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending
party has at the time he files his answer shall be contained
therein.
j. Counter-claim or Cross-claim Arising After
Answer
Rule 11, Sec. 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after
answer — A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either
matured or was acquired by a party after serving his
pleading may, with the permission of the court, be
presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by
supplemental pleading before judgment.
k. Omitted Counterclaim or Cross-claim
Rule 11, Sec. 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim —
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.
l. Answer to Interrogatories
Rule 25, Sec. 2. Answer to interrogatories — The
interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing and shall
be signed and sworn to by the person making them. The
party upon whom the interrogatories have been served
shall file and serve a copy of the answers on the party
submitting the interrogatories within fifteen (15) days
after service thereof unless the court on motion and for
good cause shown, extends or shortens the time.
m. Filing of Answer in Complaint for Interpleader:
Declaration of Default
Rule 62, Sec. 5. Answer and other pleadings — Each
claimant shall file his answer setting forth his claim within
fifteen (15) days from service of the summons upon him,
serving a copy thereof upon each of the other conflicting
claimants who may file their reply thereto as provided by
these Rules. If any claimant fails to plead within the time
herein fixed, the court may, on motion, declare him in
default and thereafter render judgment barring him from
any claim in respect to the subject matter.
The parties in an interpleader action may file
counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party complaints and
responsive pleadings thereto, as provided by these Rules.
n. Answer in Expropriation
Rule 67, Sec. 3. Defenses and objections — If a defendant
has no objection or defense to the action or the taking of
his property, he may file and serve a notice of appearance
and a manifestation to that effect, specifically designating
or identifying the property in which he claims to be
interested, within the time stated in the summons.
Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings
affecting the same.
If a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the
allegations in the complaint, or any objection or defense
to the taking of his property, he shall serve his answer
within the time stated in the summons. The answer shall
specifically designate or identify the property in which he
claims to have an interest, state the nature and extent of
the interest claimed, and adduce all his objections and
defenses to the taking of his property. No counterclaim,
cross-claim or third-party complaint shall be alleged or
allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading.
A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so
alleged but the court, in the interest of justice, may permit
amendments to the answer to be made not later than ten
(10) days from the filing thereof. However, at the trial of
the issue of just compensation whether or not a defendant
has previously appeared or answered, he may present
evidence as to the amount of the compensation to be paid
for his property, and he may share in the distribution of
the award.
o. Filing of an Answer in Forcible Entry and
Unlawful Detainer
Rule 70, Sec. 6. Answers — Within ten (10) days from
service of summons, the defendant shall file his answer to
the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff.
Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded therein
shall be deemed waived, except lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter. Cross-claims and compulsory
counterclaims not asserted in the answer shall be
considered barred. The answer to counterclaims or cross-
claims shall be served and filed within ten (10) days from
service of the answer in which they are pleaded.
p. Response in Small Claims Cases
Sec. 11. Response - The defendant shall file with the court
and serve on the plaintiff a duly accomplished and verified
Response within a non - extendible period of ten (10) days
from receipt of summons. The Response shall be
accompanied by certified photocopies of documents, as
well as affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in
support thereof. No evidence shall be allowed during the
hearing which was not attached to or submitted together
with the Response, unless good cause is shown for the
admission of additional evidence.
q. Answer in Summary Procedure

Sec. 5. Answer — Within ten (10) days from service of
summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the
complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff.
Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded therein
shall be deemed waived, except for lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter. Cross-claims and compulsory
counterclaims not asserted in the answer shall be
considered barred. The answer to counterclaims or cross-
claims shall be filed and served within ten (10) days from
service of the answer in which they are pleaded.
r. Answer in Environmental Cases
Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 14. Verified answer – Within fifteen
(15) days from receipt of summons, the defendant shall
file a verified answer to the complaint and serve a copy
thereof on the plaintiff. The defendant shall attach
affidavits of witnesses, reports, studies of experts and all
evidence in support of the defense.
Affirmative and special defenses not pleaded shall be
deemed waived, except lack of jurisdiction.
Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted
shall be considered barred. The answer to counterclaims
or cross-claims shall be filed and served within ten (10)
days from service of the answer in which they are pleaded.
4. Publication of Notice of Hearing to File Answer
Not Necessary
Aberca v. Maj. Gen. Fabian Ver, (2012). There is nothing
in the rules that authorizes publication of a notice of
hearing to file answer. What is authorized to be published
are: (1) summons, and (2) final orders and judgments.
The above-quoted provision cannot be used to justify the
trial court’s action in authorizing service by publication.
Firstly, what was published was not a final order or
judgment but a simple order or notice to file answer.
Secondly, even granting that the notice to file answer can
be served by publication, it is explicit in the Rule that
publication is allowed only if the defendant-appellant was
summoned by publication. The record is clear that
defendants-appellants were not summoned by
publication.
II. Kinds of Defenses (Rule 6, Sec. 5(a)(b))
A. Defenses
1. Kinds of Defenses
Rule 6, Sec. 5. Defenses — Defenses may either be
negative or affirmative.
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the
material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of
the claimant essential to his cause or causes of
action.
An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter
which, while hypothetically admitting the material
allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would
nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him. The
affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations,
release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel,
former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other
matter by way of confession and avoidance.
2. Rule on Specific Denial of Material Allegations
in the Complaint
Rule 8, Sec. 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.
a. How to Make Specific Denial?
a. Absolute denial
b. Partial denial
c. Disavowal of knowledge
b. Mere Denial for Lack of Knowledge is
Insufficient
Equitable Cardnetwork, Inc. v. Capistrano, (2012). A
person’s denial for lack of knowledge of things that by
their nature he ought to know is not an acceptable denial.
An admission in the answer of the genuineness and true
execution of the plaintiff’s actionable documents, can only
be contradicted by showing that defendant made such
admission through palpable mistake.
3. Defenses and Objections Not Pleaded Waived
Rule 9, Sec. 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded —
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However,
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record 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, the
court shall dismiss the claim.
4. What is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public
Participation (SLAPP)?
Part II, Rule 6, Sec. 1. Strategic lawsuit against public
participation (SLAPP) - A legal action filed to harass, vex,
exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that any
person, institution or the government has taken or may
take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection
of the environment or assertion of environmental rights
shall be treated as a SLAPP and shall be governed by these
Rules.
1. SLAPP as a Defense
Part II, Rule 6, Sec. 2. SLAPP as a defense; how alleged -
In a SLAPP filed against a person involved in the
enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the
environment, or assertion of environmental rights, the
defendant may file an answer interposing as a defense
that the case is a SLAPP and shall be supported by
documents, affidavits, papers and other evidence; and, by
way of counterclaim, pray for damages, attorney’s fees
and costs of suit.
The court shall direct the plaintiff or adverse party to file
an opposition showing the suit is not a SLAPP, attaching
evidence in support thereof, within a non-extendible
period of five (5) days from receipt of notice that an
answer has been filed.
The defense of a SLAPP shall be set for hearing by the
court after issuance of the order to file an opposition
within fifteen (15) days from filing of the comment or the
lapse of the period.
2. Summary Hearing on the SLAPP
Part II, Rule 6, Sec. 3. Summary hearing – The hearing on
the defense of a SLAPP shall be summary in nature. The
parties must submit all available evidence in support of
their respective positions. The party seeking the dismissal
of the case must prove by substantial evidence that his act
for the enforcement of environmental law is a legitimate
action for the protection, preservation and rehabilitation
of the environment. The party filing the action assailed as
a SLAPP shall prove by preponderance of evidence that the
action is not a SLAPP and is a valid claim.
3. Resolution on the Defense of a SLAPP
Part II, Rule 6, Sec. 4. Resolution of the defense of a
SLAPP – The affirmative defense of a SLAPP shall be
resolved within thirty (30) days after the summary hearing.
If the court dismisses the action, the court may award
damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit under a
counterclaim if such has been filed. The dismissal shall be
with prejudice.
If the court rejects the defense of a SLAPP, the evidence
adduced during the summary hearing shall be treated as
evidence of the parties on the merits of the case. The
action shall proceed in accordance with the Rules of Court.
III. Counterclaim/Cross-claim (Rule 6, Sec. 6-8)
1. Counterclaim
Rule 6, Sec. 6. Counterclaim — A counterclaim is any claim
which a defending party may have against an opposing
party.
2. Nature of Counterclaim
Engr. Leyson v. Bontuyan, (2005). A counterclaim is
considered a new suit in which the defendant is the
plaintiff and the plaintiff in the complaint becomes the
defendant. It stands on the same footing and is to be
tested by the same rules as if it were an independent
action.
3. Kinds of Counterclaim
e. It must already be existing at the time the
a. Compulsory counterclaim/Principle of defendant party files his answer
recoupment – is one which arises out of or is
necessarily connected with the transaction or 6. Distinctions Between Compulsory Counterclaim
occurrence that is the subject matter of the and Permissive Counterclaim
opposing party’s claim. If it is within the
jurisdiction of a regular court of justice and it Compulsory Counterclaim Permissive Counterclaim
does not require for its adjudication the Arises out of or is Does not arise out of an is
presence of third parties over whom the court connected with the not connected with the
cannot acquire jurisdiction, it is barred if not set transaction or occurrence transaction or occurrence
up in the action. This is known as a constituting the subject constituting the subject
“recoupment” matter of the opposing matter of the opposing
b. Permissive counterclaim/Principle of set-off is a party’s claim party’s claim
claim that does not arise out of nor is it Barred if not set up in the Is not barred even if not set
necessarily connected with the subject matter of answer or in the amended up in the answer
the opposing party’s claim. It is barred even if answer
not set up in the action. This is also known as Plaintiff need not answer Plaintiff must answer
“set-off” If plaintiff does not answer, The plaintiff who does not
he cannot be declared in answer may be declared in
4. Compulsory Counterclaim default default in respect thereto
Does not require a Being an initiatory pleading,
Rule 6, Sec. 7. Compulsory counterclaim — A compulsory certification on non-forum requires a certification on
counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular shopping non-forum shopping
courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter Cruz-Agana v. Hon. Santiago-Lagman, (2005). A
of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its compulsory counterclaim is not an initiatory pleading, and
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the thus need not require a certificate of non-forum shopping.
court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim If it is a permissive counterclaim, the lack of a certificate of
must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the non-forum shopping is fatal.
amount and the nature thereof, except that in an original
action before the Regional Trial Court, the counter-claim 7. Criteria in the Determination of the Nature of
may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount. Counterclaim
5. Requisites of a Compulsory Counterclaim (Rule GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero, (2010). To determine whether a
6, Sec. 7 and Rule 11, Sec. 8) counterclaim is compulsory or not, the Court has devised
the following tests: (a) Are the issues of fact and law raised
a. It arises out of or is necessarily connected with by the claim and by the counterclaim largely the same? (b)
the transaction or occurrence that is the subject Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s
matter of the opposing party’s claim claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (c) Will
b. It does not require for its adjudication the substantially the same evidence support or refute
presence of third parties of whom the court plaintiff’s claim as well as the defendant’s counterclaim?
cannot acquire jurisdiction and (d) Is there any logical relation between the claim and
c. It must be cognizable by the regular courts of the counterclaim? A positive answer to all four questions
justice would indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory.
d. It must be within the jurisdiction of the court
both as to the amount and the nature thereof, 8. “Compelling Test of Compulsoriness” in
except that in an original action before the RTC, Determining Counterclaim
the counterclaim is considered compulsory
regardless of the amount thereof
Quintanilla v. CA, (1997). Another test is the “compelling
test of compulsoriness” which requires a logical
relationship between the claim and counterclaim, that is,
where conducting separate trials of the respective claims
of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of
effort and time by the parties and the court.
9. Compulsory Counterclaim and Cross-Claim
Must be Set-up Otherwise Barred
Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. v. Glodel Brokerage
Corp., (2011). Under the Rules, a compulsory
counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall be barred.
Thus, a cross-claim cannot be set up for the first time on
appeal.
10. Docket Fees are Required in Permissive
Counterclaim
Bungcayao, Sr. v. Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and
Dev. Corp., (2010). The rule in permissive counterclaim is
that for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction, the
counterclaimant is bound to pay the prescribed docket
fees. Any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total
nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on
appeal before this Court. In this case, respondent did not
dispute the non-payment of docket fees. Respondent only
insisted that its claims were all compulsory counterclaims.
As such, the judgment by the trial court in relation to the
second counterclaim is considered null and void without
prejudice to a separate action which respondent may file
against petitioner.
11. Payment of Docket Fee in Compulsory
Counterclaim and Cross-Claim Suspended
Korea Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Hon. Lerma, (2008). On
July 17, 1998, at the time PGSMC filed its Answer
incorporating its counterclaims against KOGIES, it was not
liable to pay filing fees for said counterclaims being
compulsory in nature. We stress, however, that effective
August 16, 2004 under Sec. 7, Rule 141, as amended by
A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, docket fees are now required to be
paid in compulsory counterclaim or cross-claims.
(Suspended as per resolution of the SC dated September
21, 2004)
12. Counterclaim for Moral Damages and
Attorney’s fees
3. Counter-counterclaim/Counter-cross-claim
Filipino Lepanto-Tisho Insurance Corp. v. Chevron Phil., Defined
(2012). Finally, we hold that the trial court correctly
dismissed petitioner’s counterclaim for moral damages Rule 6Sec. 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-
and attorney’s fees. The filing alone of a civil action should crossclaims — A counter-claim may be asserted against an
not be a ground for an award of moral damages in the original counter-claimant.
same way that a clearly unfounded civil action is not
among the grounds for moral damages. A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-
claimant.
13. Counterclaim in Case of a SLAPP as a Defense
4. Rules on Bringing New Parties for Counterclaim
• See Rule on Environmental Cases, Part II, Rule 6, and Cross-Claim
Sec. 2
Rule 6, Sec. 12. Bringing new parties — When the
B. Cross-claim presence of parties other than those to the original action
is required for the granting of complete relief in the
1. Cross-Claim determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court
shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if
Rule 6, Sec. 8. Cross-claim — A cross-claim is any claim by jurisdiction over them can be obtained
one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction
or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the 5. Compulsory Counterclaim and Cross-Claim are
original action or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross- Allowed under the Rules on Summary
claim may include a claim that the party against whom it is Proceeding
asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or
part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross- Sec. 3. Pleadings —
claimant.
C. Pleadings allowed — The only pleadings allowed to
a. Cross-claim as Distinguished from a be filed are the complaints, compulsory
Counterclaim counterclaims and cross-claims' pleaded in the
answer, and the answers thereto.
Cross Claim Counterclaim
Against a co-defendant in a Against an opposing party 6. Compulsory and Permissive Counterclaim are
suit Allowed Under the Rules on Small Claims
Arises out of the May or may not arise out of
transaction or occurrence the same transaction or Sec. 13. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of this Rule -
that is the subject matter occurrence, as in the case If at the time the action is commenced, the defendant
either of the original action of a permissive possesses a claim against the plaintiff that (a) is within the
or the counterclaim counterclaim which is in coverage of this rule, exclusive of interest and costs; (b)
effect a separate pleading arises out of the same transaction or event that is the
itself subject matter of the plaintiff's claim; (c) does not require
for its adjudication the joinder of third parties; and (d) is
2. Compulsory Counterclaim or Cross-Claim Not not the subject of another pending action, the claim shall
Set Up Barred be filed as a counterclaim in the response; otherwise, the
defendant shall be barred from suit on the counterclaim.
Rule 9, Sec. 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim,
not set up barred — A compulsory counterclaim, or a The defendant may also elect to the file a counterclaim
cross-claim, not set up shall be barred. against the plaintiff that does not arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence, provided that the amount and
nature thereof are within the coverage of this Rule and the
prescribed docket and the other legal fees are paid.
7. What are the Pleadings Which are NOT allowed
in a petition for Writ of Amparo and Habeas
Data
a. Counterclaim
b. Cross-claim
8. Pleadings Allowed under the Rules on
Environmental Cases
Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 1. Pleadings and motions allowed —
The pleadings and motions that may be filed are
complaint, answer which may include compulsory
counterclaim and cross-claim, motion for intervention,
motion for discovery and motion for reconsideration of
the judgment.
9. Filing of Counterclaims and Cross-Claims in an
Action for Interpleader
Rule 62, Sec. 5, par. 2. Answer and other pleadings —
Each claimant shall file his answer setting forth his claim
within fifteen (15) days from service of the summons upon
him, serving a copy thereof upon each of the other
conflicting claimants who may file their reply thereto as
provided by these Rules. If any claimant fails to plead
within the time herein fixed, the court may, on motion,
declare him in default and thereafter render judgment
barring him from any claim in respect to the subject
matter.
The parties in an interpleader action may file
counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party complaints and
responsive pleadings thereto, as provided by these Rules.
10. No Counterclaim or Cross-Claim in
Expropriation
Rule 67, Sec. 3, par. 2. Defenses and objections — If a
defendant has no objection or defense to the action or the
taking of his property, he may file and serve a notice of
appearance and a manifestation to that effect, specifically
designating or identifying the property in which he claims
to be interested, within the time stated in the summons.
Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings
affecting the same.
If a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the Rule 34, Sec. 1. Judgment on the pleadings — Where an
allegations in the complaint, or any objection or defense answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the
to the taking of his property, he shall serve his answer material allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the
within the time stated in the summons. The answer shall court may; on motion of that party, direct judgment on
specifically designate or identify the property in which he such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of
claims to have an interest, state the nature and extent of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation,
the interest claimed, and adduce all his objections and the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be
defenses to the taking of his property. No counterclaim, proved.
cross-claim or third-party complaint shall be alleged or
allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading. 3. Nature of a Judgment on the Pleading
A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so Municipality of Tiwi v. Betito, (2010). A motion for
alleged but the court, in the interest of justice, may permit judgment on the pleadings admits the truth of all the
amendments to the answer to be made not later than ten material and relevant allegations of the opposing party
(10) days from the filing thereof. However, at the trial of and the judgment must rest on those allegations taken
the issue of just compensation whether or not a defendant together with such other allegations as are admitted in the
has previously appeared or answered, he may present pleadings. It is proper when an answer fails to tender an
evidence as to the amount of the compensation to be paid issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the
for his property, and he may share in the distribution of adverse party’s pleading. However, when it appears that
the award. (n) not all the material allegations of the complaint were
admitted in the answer for some of them were either
Chapter XI: Judgment on the Pleadings (Rule 34) denied or disputed, and the defendant has set up certain
special defenses which, if proven, would have the effect of
I. Judgment on the Pleadings (Rule 34, Sec. 1) nullifying plaintiff’s main cause of action, judgment on the
pleadings cannot be rendered.
1. What is the Basis of a Judgment on the
Pleading? 4. Distinction Between Judgment on the Pleadings
and Summary Judgment
PNB v. Aznar, (2011). Judgment on the pleadings is,
therefore, based exclusively upon the allegations Judgment on the Pleadings Summary Judgment
appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the annexes, Proper when it appears Proper even if there is an
if any, without consideration of any evidence aliunde. that there is no genuine issue as to damages
However, when it appears that not all the material issue between the parties recoverable
allegations of the complaint were admitted in the answer Based exclusively upon the Based not only on the
for some of them were either denied or disputed, and the pleadings without pleadings but also upon the
defendant has set up certain special defenses which, if introduction of evidence affidavits, depositions, and
proven, would have the effect of nullifying plaintiff’s main admissions of the parties
cause of action, judgment on the pleadings cannot be showing that, except as to
rendered. the amount of damages,
there is not genuine issue
2. Judgment on the Pleading Available in any action, Is proper only in action to
except for annulment of recover a debt, or for a
Under the present rules, judgment on the pleadings marriage or legal liquidated sum of money,
connotes that there is no controverted issue between the separation or for declaratory relief
parties to the case, as the answer fails to tender an issue, A motion for judgment on A motion for summary
or otherwise admits the material allegations of the the pleadings is subject to judgment requires prior 10-
adverse party’s pleadings the 3 day notice rule (Rule day notice (Rule 35, Sec. 3)
15, Sec. 4) and where all
the material averments of
the complaint are
admitted, such motion may
even be made ex parte
Chapter XII: Third/Fourth-Party Complaint
I. Third-Party Complaint (Rule 11, Sec. 6)
A. Basic Concepts on Third-Party Complaint
1. Third (Fourth, etc.)-Party Complaint Defined
Rule 6, Sec. 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)—party complaint — A
third (fourth, etc.) — party complaint 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 contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his
opponent's claim.
2. Nature of a Third-Party Complaint: Not
Mandatory: Secondary or Derivative Liability
Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras, (2012).
Explaining the application of Section 12, Rule 6, supra, the
Court said in Balbastro v. CA, 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 party’s 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."
3. Third-Party Complaint: Requisites
Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras, (2012).
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
third-party defendant must belong to the original
defendant; thirdly, the claim of the original defendant
against the third-party defendant must be based upon the
plaintiff’s 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.
4. Third-Party Complaint: When Proper?
Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Paras, (2012). 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 party’s liability is contingent, and
technically does not come into existence until the original
defendant’s 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
defendant’s liability is not automatically established once
the third-party plaintiff’s liability to the original plaintiff
has been determined.
5. Limitations on Pleadings in Criminal, Civil Cases,
Special Proceedings and Land Registration
Cases Under A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC (Feb. 21,
2012): Guidelines for Litigation in QC Trial
Courts
Sec. 1. Limitation on pleadings – Parties may file pleadings
subsequent to the complaint, answer and reply, regarding
any incident in a pending case, only upon prior leave of
court, and in no case to exceed 40 pages in length, double-
spaced, using size 14 font.
6. Third-Party Complaint a Prohibited Pleading
Under the Rules on Summary Procedure
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(k) Third party complaints;
7. Prohibited Pleadings under Rules on Small
Claims Cases
Sec. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions - The following
pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be allowed in
the cases covered by this Rule:
(k) Third-party complaints; and
8. What are the Pleadings Which are not Allowed
in a Petition for Writ of Amparo and Habeas
Data?
c. Third-party complaint
9. Prohibited Pleadings and Motion in
Environmental Cases
Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 2. Prohibited pleadings or motions —
The following pleadings or motions shall not be allowed:
(f) Third party complaint.
Chapter XIII: Reply

I. Basic Concepts on Reply (Rule 6, Sec. 10)
A. Reply
1. Definition
Rule 6, Sec. 10. 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.
If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of
the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth
in an amended or supplemental complaint.
2. Limitations on Pleadings in Criminal, Civil Cases,
Special Proceedings and Land Registration
Cases Under A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC (Feb. 21,
2012): Guidelines for Litigation in QC Trial
Courts
Sec. 1. Limitation on pleadings – Parties may file pleadings
subsequent to the complaint, answer and reply, regarding
any incident in a pending case, only upon prior leave of
court, and in no case to exceed 40 pages in length, double-
spaced, using size 14 font.
3. Reply a Prohibited Pleading under the Rules on
Summary Procedure
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(j) Reply;
4. Prohibited Pleadings under the Rules on Small
Claims Cases
Sec. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions - The following
pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be allowed in
the cases covered by this Rule:
(j) Reply;
5. What are the Pleadings which are Not Allowed
in a Petition for Writ of Amparo and Habeas
Data?
(d) Reply
6. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions in
Environmental Cases
Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 2. Prohibited pleadings or motions —
The following pleadings or motions shall not be allowed:
(e) Reply and rejoinder; and
Chapter XIV: Rejoinder
I. Basic Concepts on Rejoinder
A. Basic Concepts on Rejoinder
1. Rejoinder, Defined
Black’s. Rejoinder – in common law, pleading, is the
second pleading on the part of the defendant being his
answer to the plaintiff’s replication.
2. Rejoinder, A Prohibited Pleading in
Environmental Cases
Part II, Rule 2, Sec. 2. Prohibited pleadings or motions —
The following pleadings or motions shall not be allowed:
(e) Reply and rejoinder; and
3. Limitations on Pleadings in Criminal, Civil Cases,
Special Proceedings and Land Registration
Cases Under A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC (Feb. 21,
2012): Guidelines for Litigation in QC Trial
Courts
Sec. 1. Limitation on pleadings – Parties may file pleadings
subsequent to the complaint, answer and reply, regarding
any incident in a pending case, only upon prior leave of
court, and in no case to exceed 40 pages in length, double-
spaced, using size 14 font.
Chapter XV: Pre-Trial Conference
I. Pre-trial Conference (Rule 18, as amended)
A. Pre-Trial Conference
1. What is a Pre-Trial Conference?
Fed. R. Civil. It is a procedural device used prior to trial to
narrow issues to be tried, and to secure stipulations as to
matters and evidence to be heard, and to take all other
steps necessary to and in the disposition of the case.
Such conferences between opposing attorneys may be
called at the discretion of the court. The actions taken at
the conference are made the subject of an order which
controls the future course of action.
2. Nature of Pre-Trial Conference – Mandatory
Air Phil. Corp. v. International Business Aviation Services,
Inc., (2004). Because "pre-trial is essential in the
simplification and the speedy disposition of disputes,"
nonobservance of its rules "may result in prejudice to a
party’s substantive rights." Such rules are "not
technicalities which the parties may ignore or trifle with."
The Rules of Court cannot be "ignored at will and at
random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and
assessment of the issues and their just resolution."
3. When to Conduct Pre-Trial Conference?
Rule 18, Sec. 1. When conducted — After the last pleading
has been served and filed, if shall be the duty of the
plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for
pre-trial
4. What is the Meaning of “Last Pleading”?
Sarmiento v. Juan, (1983). The last permissible pleading
that a party may file would be the reply to the answer to
the last pleading of claim that had been filed in the case,
which may either be the complaint, a cross-claim, a
counterclaim or a third party complaint, etc. If an answer
is filed and served in response to these claims, the
pleading in response to these answers is the reply which is
to be filed within ten (10) days from the service of the
pleading responded to.
5. What is the Requirement in Order That Pre-trial
Conference Should be Scheduled?

Sarmiento v. Juan, (1983). Where the last pleading has not
yet been served and filed, the case is not ready for pre-
trial.
However, the last pleading need not be literally construed
as one having been served and filed. For purposes of pre-
trial, the expiration of the period for filing the last pleading
without it having been served and filed is sufficient.
6. Effect of Failure of the Plaintiff to Move Ex
Parte to Set the Case for Pre-Trial Conference:
Requirements of Dismissal
a. Eloisa Merchandising, Inc. v. BDO Universal
Bank, (2012). 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
counsel’s lack of interest and laxity in
prosecuting their case.
b. Polanco v. Cruz, (2009). Section 1, Rule 18 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure imposes upon the
plaintiff the duty to promptly move ex parte to
have the case set for pre-trial after the last
pleading has been served and filed. Moreover,
Section 3, Rule 1721 provides that failure on the
part of the plaintiff to comply with said duty
without any justifiable cause may result to the
dismissal of the complaint for failure to
prosecute his action for an unreasonable length
of time or failure to comply with the rules of
procedure.
It must be stressed 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.
7. What is the Proper Action of the Court in Case
of a Pending Motion to Dismiss During Pre-Trial
Conference?
Corpus v. Judge Ochotorena, (2004). The respondent
judge disregarded the provisions of Section 1, Rule 18 of
the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, which states that:
"After the last pleading has been served and filed, it shall
be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex-parte that
the case be set for pre-trial." Considering that the last
pleading was Mrs. Macias' Motion to Dismiss, the
respondent judge should have first resolved the motion
and then waited for Mr. Macias' motion to set the case for
pre-trial.
8. Consolidation of Cases Despite Pre-Trial in One
Case Has Already Been Conducted
Villarica Pawnshop Inc. v. Sps. Gernale, (2009). In the
instant case, it would therefore be more in keeping with
the demands of law and equity if Civil Case No. 502-M-
2002 will be consolidated with Civil Case No. 438-M-2002
in order that all the issues raised by the parties in both
cases will be properly resolved, and so that the evidence
already presented in the former case will no longer have
to be presented in the latter. Consolidation of cases, when
proper, results in the simplification of proceedings, which
saves time, the resources of the parties and the courts,
and a possible major abbreviation of trial. It is a desirable
end to be achieved within the context of the present state
of affairs, where court dockets are full and individual and
state finances are limited. It contributes to the swift
dispensation of justice, and is in accord with the aim of
affording the parties a just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of their cases before the courts. Another
compelling argument that weighs heavily in favor of
consolidation is the avoidance of the possibility of
conflicting decisions being rendered by the courts in two
or more cases which would otherwise require a single
judgment.
9. Lack of Pre-Trial Must be Objected to,
Otherwise Waived: If Not Raised During the
Trial Cannot be Raised for the First Time on
Appeal; Unless Substantial Justice is Present
Madrid v. Sps. Martinez, (2009). Without doubt, the
petitioners-defendants, having been belatedly served
summons and brought into the case, were entitled to a
pre-trial as ordained by Section 2, Rule 18 of the Rules of
Court. Unless substantial prejudice is shown, however, the
trial court’s failure to schedule a case for new trial does
not render the proceedings illegal or void ab initio. Where,
as in this case, the trial proceeded without any objection
on the part of the petitioners-defendants by their failure
to bring the matter to the attention of the RTC, the
petitioners-defendants are deemed to have effectively
forfeited a procedural right granted them under the Rules.
Issues raised for the first time on appeal and not raised
timely in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by
estoppel. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not
brought to the attention of the trial court ought not to be
considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal. To consider the alleged facts last pleading has been within thirty (30) days from (f) The advisability of a preliminary reference of
and arguments raised belatedly would amount to served and filed the date the court has issues to a commissioner;
trampling on the basic principles of fair play, justice, and acquired jurisdiction over (g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the
due process the person of the accused pleadings, or summary judgment, or of
Considers the possibility of Does not include dismissing the action should a valid ground
10. Pre-Trial Under Rule 18 Applicable in Tax Cases an amicable settlement as considering of the therefor be found to exist;
(Civil Aspect) an important objective possibility of amicable (h) The advisability or necessity of suspending the
(Rule 18, Sec. 2(a)) settlement of criminal proceedings; and
A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, Rule 11, Sec. 1. Applicability – liability as one of its (i) Such other matters as may aid in the prompt
The rule on pre-trial under Rules 18 and 118 of the Rules purposes disposition of the action.
of Court, as amplified in A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC dated July The agreements and All agreements or
13, 2004 (Re: Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial admissions made in pre- admissions made or 15. Court Annexed Mediation Part of Pre-Trial;
Court Judges and Clerk of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial trial are not required to be entered during the pre-trial Mandatory; Purpose
and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures), shall apply to signed by the parties and conference shall be
all cases falling within the original jurisdiction of the Court, their counsels. They are reduced in writing and Fiesta World Mall Corp. v. Lindbergh Phil. Inc., (2006).
except that the parties may not be allowed to compromise contained in the record of signed by the accused and Court-annexed mediation is part of the pre-trial
the criminal liability or submit the case to mediation, pre-trial and the pre-trial counsel; otherwise, they conference and is mandatory. A trained and accredited
arbitration or other mode of alternative dispute order cannot be used against the mediator of the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit
resolution. accused tackles the case for 30 days and if the mediation ends in a
The sanctions for non- The sanctions are imposed settlement, either a compromise agreement, a joint
11. When to Conduct Pre-Trial in Civil Cases under appearance imposed upon upon the counsel for the motion to dismiss the case by the parties, or a
A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA the plaintiff which will accused or the prosecutor manifestation of the plaintiff that the civil claim has been
result to the dismissal of satisfied, is submitted to the court for approval.
A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA, Rule 11, Sec. 2. Mandatory pre- the case with prejudice
trial – In civil cases, the Clerk of Court shall set the case for unless otherwise ordered A compromise agreement is the law between the parties
pre-trial on the first available date immediately following by the court to be without and since it is binding on them, they are expected to abide
the tenth day after the filing of the answer. prejudice; or the defendant by it in good faith.
in civil case which would
12. Grounds for Postponement of Pre-Trial result in the ex-parte 16. Cases Which are Mediatable
Conference presentation of evidence by
the plaintiff a. All civil cases
Phil. Am. Life v. Enario, (2010). In deciding whether to b. Settlement of estate
grant or deny a motion for postponement of pre-trial, the 14. Nature and Purpose of Pre-Trial Conference c. Cases cognizable by the Lupon Tagapamayapa
court must take into account the following factors: (a) the (Rule 18, Sec. 2) d. Cases covered by the Rule on Summary
reason for the postponement, and (b) the merits of the Procedure
case of movant Rule 18, Sec. 2. Nature and purpose — The pre-trial is e. Civil aspect of imprudence and negligence under
mandatory. The court shall consider: Title 14 of the RPC
13. What are the Distinctions Between Pre-Trial in f. Family law issues, such as support, custody,
Civil and Criminal Cases? (a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or of a visitation, guardianship of minors, and property
submission to alternative modes of dispute matters
Pre-Trial in Civil Cases Pre-Trial in Criminal Cases resolution; g. In criminal cases, the civil aspect or claim for
Set when the plaintiff Ordered by the court and (b) The simplification of the issues; damages for violation of B.P. 22 (bounced
moves ex parte to set the no motion to set the case (c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to checks), simple theft, libel, and estafa can be
case for pre-trial (Rule 18, for pre-trial is required the pleadings; mediated as well
Sec. 1) from either the prosecution (d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or
or the defense admissions of facts and of documents to avoid 17. Matters Which Cannot be Compromised
A motion to set the case for Pre-trial is ordered by the unnecessary proof;
pre-trial is made after the court after arraignment and (e) The limitation of the number of witnesses; a. Civil status of persons
b. Validity of marriage
 c. Legal separation (counseling is more
appropriate)
d. Ground for legal separation
e. Future support
f. Legitime
g. Jurisdiction
18. Lawyers Are Allowed to Attend Mediation
Frabelle Fishing Corp. v. PhilAm Properties, (2007).
Lawyers are allowed to attend mediation and their role is
that of an adviser, consultant, or free legal aid counselor
for indigent litigants particularly in the drafting of the
compromise agreement or they can be mediators
themselves.
No doubt, mediation is the “wave of the future” and the
gateway of Filipino lawyers into international/global legal
practice.
19. The RTC Must Refer the Case for Arbitration
Pursuant to an Arbitration Clause under R.A.
9285 Otherwise known as ADR Act of 2004
Korea Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Hon. Lerma, (2008). Under
Sec. 24, the RTC does not have jurisdiction over disputes
that are properly the subject of arbitration pursuant to an
arbitration clause, and mandates the referral to arbitration
in such cases, thus:
SEC. 24. 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 than 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.
20. Foreign Arbitral Awards Must be Confirmed by
the RTC
Korea Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Hon. Lerma, (2008).
Foreign arbitral awards while mutually stipulated by the
parties in the arbitration clause to be final and binding are
not immediately enforceable or cannot be implemented
immediately. Sec. 35 of the UNCITRAL Model Law
stipulates the requirement for the arbitral award to be
recognized by a competent court for enforcement, which
court under Sec. 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law may
refuse recognition or enforcement on the grounds
provided for.
It is now clear that foreign arbitral awards when confirmed
by the RTC are deemed not as a judgment of a foreign
court but as a foreign arbitral award, and when confirmed,
are enforced as final and executory decisions of our courts
of law.
Thus, it can be gleaned that the concept of a final and
binding arbitral award is similar to judgments or awards
given by some of our quasi-judicial bodies, like the
National Labor Relations Commission and Mines
Adjudication Board, whose final judgments are stipulated
to be final and binding, but not immediately executory in
the sense that they may still be judicially reviewed, upon
the instance of any party. Therefore, the final foreign
arbitral awards are similarly situated in that they need first
to be confirmed by the RTC.
(Note: Please refer to A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC, Oct. 30, 2009
on Special Rules of Court on ADR)
21. Issue on the Application of Rule 18, Sec. 2 is
Rendered Moot and Academic if There is
Already a Final and Executory Decision
Albay Electric Coop. Inc. v. Hon. Santelices, (2009).
Clearly, this is a question of procedure, particularly
involving the application of and compliance with Section 1,
Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It is axiomatic
that where a decision on the merits of a case is rendered
and the same has become final and executory, the action
on procedural matters or issues becomes moot and
academic.
22. Effect of Determination of Issues During Pre-
Trial Conference
Villanueva v. CA, (2004). The determination of issues
during the pre-trial conference bars the consideration of
other questions, whether during trial or on appeal.
Pre-trial is primarily intended to insure that the parties
properly raise all issues necessary to dispose of a case.7
The parties must disclose during pre-trial all issues they
intend to raise during the trial, except those involving
privileged or impeaching matters. Although a pre-trial
order is not meant to catalogue each issue that the parties
may take up during the trial, issues not included in the pre-
trial order may be considered only if they are impliedly
included in the issues raised or inferable from the issues
raised by necessary implication. The basis of the rule is
simple. Petitioners are bound by the delimitation of the
issues during the pre-trial because they themselves agreed
to the same.
23. Notice of Pre-Trial Conference (Rule 18, Sec. 3)
Rule 18, Sec. 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.
24. Pre-trial Pursuant to A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC,
Guidelines for Litigation in QC Trial Courts
a. Mediation, Judicial Dispute Resolution,
Preliminary Conference Parts of Pre-Trial:
1. Mediation, judicial dispute resolution,
preliminary conference as mandatory parts of
pre-trial – The order setting the case for pre-trial
shall also include (a) a referral to the PMC for
mandatory mediation proceedings in cases
covered by the rule, and/or (b) a setting for
judicial dispute resolution, as well as (c) a
preliminary conference before the Branch Clerk
of Court. The pre-trial proper before the court
must take place only after all the foregoing shall
have been completed.
The court shall strictly impose sanctions for non-
appearance during mediation, judicial dispute
resolution, and/or preliminary conference
before the Branch Clerk as these are mandatory
parts of pre-trial.
Courts must strictly comply with the Guidelines
to be Observed in the Conduct of Pre-Trial under
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC.
b. Motions Relating to Pre-Trial Matters Under
A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC
2. Motions relating to pre-trial matters –
 (a) Motions relating to the following pre-trial
matters shall be filed before the scheduled date
of pretrial, otherwise they shall be barred:
i. Summary judgment and judgment on the
pleadings
ii. Amendments to pleadings, including the adding
or dropping of parties
iii. Suspension of proceedings
iv. Dismissals under Rule 16, save for lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
(b) The courts must resolve said motions not later
than 30 days after submission. Pre-trial proper
shall only be conducted after such resolution.
25. Requirements of Appearance During Pre-Trial
Conference (Rule 18, Sec. 4)
Rule 18, Sec. 4. Appearance of parties — It shall be the
duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the pre-
trial. The non-appearance 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
a. Appearance of the Parties and Counsels –
Mandatory: Grounds for Non-Appearance
Durban Apartments Corp. v. Pioneer Insurance and
Surety Corp., (2011). Rule 18 of the Rules of Court leaves
no room for equivocation; appearance of parties and their
counsel at the pre-trial conference, along with the filing of
a corresponding pre-trial brief, is mandatory, nay, their
duty.
Their non-appearance cannot be excused as Section 4, in
relation to Section 6, allows only two exceptions: (1) a
valid excuse; and (2) appearance of a representative on
behalf of a party who is 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 documents.
b. When can a Party be Excused from Appearing
During the Pre-Trial Conference?
Kent v. Micarez, (2011). The personal non-appearance,
however, of a party may be excused only when the
representative, who appears in his behalf, has been duly
authorized to enter into possible amicable settlement or
to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution.
c. Requirements of Appearance in Case of
Juridical Entity
In case of a juridical entity, the person appearing for and
behalf of the party corporation must be duly authorized
by the Board of Directors through a Board Resolution, and
accompanied by a Secretary’s Certificate, to represent the
corporation in the proceedings, to appear for and in its
behalf; to attend pre-trial conferences and subsequent
hearings, to enter into stipulation of facts, amicable
settlement and approve the same; to undergo mediation
and other ADR.
26. Effects of Failure to Appear During Pre-trial
Conference (Rule 18, Sec. 5)
Rule 18, Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear — The failure of
the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the
next preceding Sec. shall be cause for dismissal of the
action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless other-
wise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of
the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to
present his evidence ex parte and the court to render
judgment on the basis thereof.
a. Effects if the Parties Failed to Appear During
Pre-Trial Conference
Alicer v. Compas, (2011). In this case, the trial court
declared petitioners in default for failing to attend the pre-
trial conference. Under Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure, non-appearance of the defendant at the
pre-trial conference allows the plaintiff to present his
evidence ex parte, thus:
SEC. 5. Effect of failure to appear. ̵ The failure of the
plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next
preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the
action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice, unless
otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the
part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the plaintiff
to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render
judgment on the basis thereof.
d. Effect of Failure of the Plaintiff to Appear –
Non-Suited
Miwa v. Atty. Medina, (2005). In this case, however, we
note that complainant is not exactly without blame. Recall
that she herself did not appear personally at the several
pre-trial conferences scheduled by the RTC. Under Rule 18,
Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
obligatory upon both a party and her counsel to appear at
a pre-trial conference. The failure of a party to appear at
pre-trial, given its mandatory character, may cause her to
be non-suited or considered as in default. Recall further
that complainant was given every opportunity to fully
ventilate her defenses before the court and thus allow Civil
Case No. 5147 to be decided completely on the merits.
Yet, complainant never once appeared at trial and was not
even bothered by the several postponements sought by
her counsel until the trial court finally had to rule that she
had waived her right to present her evidence as a result of
her counsels dilatory tactics. Vigilantibus, non
dormientibus, jura subveniunt. Complainant cannot now
come to us to say that her erring lawyer be penalized
severely without any mitigating circumstance at all.
Mondenodo v. CA. The failure of the plaintiff to appear
shall be cause for the dismissal of the action. This dismissal
will be with prejudice except when the court orders
otherwise.
The former rule (Rule 20, Sec. 2) provides that the plaintiff
who fails to appear in the pre-trial may be non-suited
e. What is the Nature of the Order Issued by The
Court For Failure of the Plaintiff to Appear
During Pre-trial? Remedy?
Since the dismissal of the action shall be with prejudice
unless otherwise provided, the same shall have the effect
of an adjudication on the merits, thus, final.
The remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal from the order of
dismissal. An order dismissing the action with prejudice is
appealable.
f. What are the Possible Remedy/ies of the
Defendant?
1. Before Judgment
 a. The order of the court allowing the plaintiff to
present his evidence ex parte does not dispose
of the case with finality, hence, merely
interlocutory.
The plaintiff may move for reconsideration of
the order and if the denial is tainted with grave
abuse of discretion, he may file a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65.
2. After Judgment But Before Finality
a. File MR of the judgment or new trial on the
ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence under Rule 37
b. In case of denial of MR or new trial, he may
appeal the judgment, unless is it tainted with
grave abuse of discretion, hence, certiorari may
be availed
3. After Finality of Judgment
a. File a petition for relief from judgment under
Rule 38
b. File a petition for annulment of judgment if the
remedy of MR or new trial or petition for relief
from judgment are not available.
c. File a petition for certiorari
d. Collateral attack
g. Who May Receive the Evidence Ex Parte?
Requirements?
Nieva v. Alvarez-Edad, (2005). Besides, Section 9, Rule 30,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is very specific that: ‘x x x in
default or ex-parte hearings, 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. x x x.’ As a Branch Clerk of Court who is a non-
lawyer, she ought to know that under the said rule it is
only a member of the bar who is authorized to receive
evidence ex-parte. Records reveal that there is no order of
the presiding judge showing that she was authorized to act
as such. Respondent even committed further blunder
when, aware of the existing rules and even without prior
authority from the judge, she gave the appearance to the
parties concerned that she is legally collecting
commissioner’s fee.
h. Can the Clerk of Court Demand Payment of
Commissioner’s Fee for the Reception of
Evidence Ex Parte?
Nieva v. Alvarez-Edad, (2005). Here, respondent
overstepped her powers and responsibilities. The records
convincingly show that she demanded and received a
commissioner’s fee from a litigant in an ex-parte
proceedings. Such act violates Section B, Chapter II of the
Manual for Clerks of Court which provides: "No Branch
Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive
commissioner’s fees for the reception of evidence ex-
parte."
This rule has been restated in Circular No. 50-2001 dated
August 17, 2001 issued by the Office of the Court
Administrator, which partly states: "For the guidance and
information of all concerned, "x x x Clerks of Court are not
authorized to collect compensation for services rendered
as commissioners in ex parte proceedings.’" In Conception
vs. Hubilla , we held that "branch clerks of court are not
entitled to demand or receive commissioner’s fees for the
reception of evidence ex parte."
i. Who May be Entitled to Commissioner’s Fee?
Nieva v. Alvarez-Edad, (2005). To be entitled to
reasonable compensation, a commissioner must not be an
employee of the court. Section D (7), Chapter IV of the
same Manual for Clerks of Court provides that "The Court
shall allow the commissioner, other than an employee of
the court, such reasonable compensation as the
circumstances of the case warrant to be taxed as costs
against the defeated party, or apportioned, as justice
requires."20 Accordingly, respondent, as a court
employee, has no authority to demand or receive any
commissioner’s fee. In RTC Makati Movement Against
Graft and Corruption vs. Atty. Inocencio E. Dumlao, Acting
Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela, Metro
Manila, we held:
"The Manual for Clerks of Courts, which in essence is the
‘Bible for Clerks of Courts,’ specifically provides that ‘No
Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive
commissioner’s fees for reception of evidence ex parte.
The court shall allow the commissioner, other than an
employee of the court, such reasonable compensation as
the circumstances of the case warrant.’"
27. Pre-Trial Brief
Rule 18, Sec. 6. Pre-trial brief — 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.
a. Relaxation of Sec. 5 and 6 of Rule 18 on the
Filing of Pre-Trial Brief: “Heavy Pressure of
Work” Not Sufficient to Excuse the Plaintiff in
Filing Pre-Trial Brief
BPI v. Dando, (2009). The counsel of BPI invokes "heavy
pressures of work" to explain his failure to file the Pre-Trial
Brief with the RTC and to serve a copy thereof to Dando at
least three days prior to the scheduled Pre-Trial
Conference. True, in Olave v. Mistas, we did not find
"heavy pressures of work" as sufficient justification for the
failure of therein respondents’ counsel to timely move for
pre-trial. However, unlike the respondents in Olave, the
failure of BPI to file its Pre-Trial Brief with the RTC and
provide Dando with a copy thereof within the prescribed
period under Section 1, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, was
the first and, so far, only procedural lapse committed by
the bank in Civil Case No. 03-281. BPI did not manifest an
evident pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the
case or a wanton failure to observe a mandatory
requirement of the Rules. In fact, BPI, for the most part,
exhibited diligence and reasonable dispatch in prosecuting
its claim against Dando by immediately moving to set Civil
Case No. 03-281 for Pre-Trial Conference after its receipt
of Dando’s Answer to the Complaint; and in
instantaneously filing a Motion for Reconsideration of the
10 October 2003 Order of the RTC dismissing Civil Case No.
03-281.
Accordingly, the ends of justice and fairness would be best
served if the parties to Civil Case No. 03-281 are given the
full opportunity to thresh out the real issues and litigate
their claims in a full-blown trial. Besides, Dando would not
be prejudiced should the RTC proceed with the hearing of
Civil Case No. 03-281, as he is not stripped of any
affirmative defenses nor deprived of due process of law
28. Effect of Non-Filing of Pre-Trial Brief
• See Rule 18, Sec. 3, last par.
29. Submission of Judicial Affidavit Before Pre-Trial
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 2. Submission of Judicial
Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies -
(a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on
the adverse party, personally or by licensed
courier service, not later than five days before
pre-trial or preliminary conference or the
scheduled hearing with respect to motions and
incidents
30. Record of Pre-Trial
Rule 18, Sec. 7. Record of pre-trial — The proceedings in
the pre-trial shall be recorded. Upon the termination
thereof, the court shall issue an order which shall recite in
detail the matters taken up in the conference, the action
taken thereon, the amendments allowed to the pleadings,
and the agreements or admissions made by the parties as
to any of the matters considered. Should the action
proceed to trial, the order shall, explicitly define and limit
the issues to be tried. The contents of the order shall
control the subsequent course of the action, unless
modified before trial to prevent manifest injustice.
II. Pre-Trial Conference in Environmental Cases
A. Pre-Trial Conference in Environmental Cases
(Part II, Rule 3)
1. Notice of Pre-Trial
Sec. 1. Notice of pre-trial. – Within two (2) days from the
filing of the answer to the counterclaim or cross-claim, if
any, the branch clerk of court shall issue a notice of the
pre-trial to be held not later than one (1) month from the
filing of the last pleading.
The court shall schedule the pre-trial and set as many pre-
trial conferences as may be necessary within a period of
two (2) months counted from the date of the first pre-trial
conference.
2. Pre-Trial Brief
Sec. 2. Pre-trial brief – At least three (3) days before the
pretrial, the parties shall submit pre-trial briefs containing
the following:
(a) A statement of their willingness to enter into an
amicable settlement indicating the desired terms
thereof or to submit the case to any of the
alternative modes of dispute resolution;
(b) A summary of admitted facts and proposed
stipulation of facts;
(c) The legal and factual issues to be tried or
resolved. For each factual issue, the parties shall
state all evidence to support their positions
thereon. For each legal issue, parties shall state
the applicable law and jurisprudence supporting
their respective positions thereon;
(d) The documents or exhibits to be presented,
including depositions, answers to interrogatories
and answers to written request for admission by
adverse party, stating the purpose thereof;
(e) A manifestation of their having availed of
discovery procedures or their intention to avail
themselves of referral to a commissioner or
panel of experts;
(f) The number and names of the witnesses and the
substance of their affidavits;
(g) Clarificatory questions from the parties; and
(h) List of cases arising out of the same facts
pending before other courts or administrative
agencies. Failure to comply with the required
contents of a pre-trial brief may be a ground for
contempt.
Failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect
as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
3. Referral to Mediation
Sec. 3. Referral to mediation. – At the start of the pre-
trial conference, the court shall inquire from the parties if
they have settled the dispute; otherwise, the court shall
immediately refer the parties or their counsel, if
authorized by their clients, to the Philippine Mediation
Center (PMC) unit for purposes of mediation. If not
available, the court shall refer the case to the clerk of
court or legal researcher for mediation.
Mediation must be conducted within a non-extendible
period of thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of referral
to mediation.
The mediation report must be submitted within ten (10)
days from the expiration of the 30-day period.
4. Preliminary Conference
Sec. 4. Preliminary conference – If mediation fails, the
court will schedule the continuance of the pre-trial. Before
the scheduled date of continuance, the court may refer
the case to the branch clerk of court for a preliminary
conference for the following purposes:
(a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement;
(b) To mark the documents or exhibits to be
presented by the parties and copies thereof to
be attached to the records after comparison
with the originals;
(c) To ascertain from the parties the undisputed
facts and admissions on the genuineness and
due execution of the documents marked as
exhibits;
(d) To require the parties to submit the depositions
taken under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, the
answers to written interrogatories under Rule
25, and the answers to request for admissions by
the adverse party under Rule 26;
(e) To require the production of documents or
things requested by a party under Rule 27 and
the results of the physical and mental
examination of persons under Rule 28;
(f) To consider such other matters as may aid in its
prompt disposition;
 (g) To record the proceedings in the "Minutes of
Preliminary Conference" to be signed by both
parties or their counsels;
(h) To mark the affidavits of witnesses which shall
be in question and answer form and shall
constitute the direct examination of the
witnesses; and
(i) To attach the minutes together with the marked
exhibits before the pre-trial proper.
The parties or their counsel must submit to the branch
clerk of court the names, addresses and contact numbers
of the affiants.
During the preliminary conference, the branch clerk of
court shall also require the parties to submit the
depositions taken under Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, the
answers to written interrogatories under Rule 25 and the
answers to request for admissions by the adverse party
under Rule 26. The branch clerk of court may also require
the production of documents or things requested by a
party under Rule 27 and the results of the physical and
mental examination of persons under Rule 28.
5. Pre-Trial Conference; Consent Decree
Sec. 5. Pre-trial conference; consent decree – The judge
shall put the parties and their counsels under oath, and
they shall remain under oath in all pre-trial conferences.
The judge shall exert best efforts to persuade the parties
to arrive at a settlement of the dispute. The judge may
issue a consent decree approving the agreement between
the parties in accordance with law, morals, public order
and public policy to protect the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology.
Evidence not presented during the pre-trial, except newly-
discovered evidence, shall be deemed waived.
6. Failure to Settle
Sec. 6. Failure to settle – If there is no full settlement, the
judge shall:
(a) Adopt the minutes of the preliminary conference
as part of the pre-trial proceedings and confirm
the markings of exhibits or substituted
photocopies and admissions on the genuineness
and due execution of documents;
(b) Determine if there are cases arising out of the
same facts pending before other courts and
order its consolidation if warranted;
(c) Determine if the pleadings are in order and if
not, order the amendments if necessary;
(d) Determine if interlocutory issues are involved
and resolve the same;
(e) Consider the adding or dropping of parties;
(f) Scrutinize every single allegation of the
complaint, answer and other pleadings and
attachments thereto, and the contents of
documents and all other evidence identified and
pre-marked during pre-trial in determining
further admissions;
(g) Obtain admissions based on the affidavits of
witnesses and evidence attached to the
pleadings or submitted during pre-trial;
(h) Define and simplify the factual and legal issues
arising from the pleadings and evidence.
Uncontroverted issues and frivolous claims or
defenses should be eliminated;
(i) Discuss the propriety of rendering a summary
judgment or a judgment based on the pleadings,
evidence and admissions made during pre-trial;
(j) Observe the Most Important Witness Rule in
limiting the number of witnesses, determining
the facts to be proved by each witness and fixing
the approximate number of hours per witness;
(k) Encourage referral of the case to a trial by
commissioner under Rule 32 of the Rules of
Court or to a mediator or arbitrator under any of
the alternative modes of dispute resolution
governed by the Special Rules of Court on
Alternative Dispute Resolution;
(l) Determine the necessity of engaging the services
of a qualified expert as a friend of the court
(amicus curiae); and
(m) Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates for
continuous trial, comply with the one-day
examination of witness rule, adhere to the case
flow chart determined by the court which shall
contain the different stages of the proceedings
up to the promulgation of the decision and use
the time frame for each stage in setting the trial
dates.
7. Effect of Failure to Appear
Sec. 7. Effect of failure to appear at pre-trial – The court
shall not dismiss the complaint, except upon repeated and
unjustified failure of the plaintiff to appear. The dismissal
shall be without prejudice, and the court may proceed
with the counterclaim.
If the defendant fails to appear at the pre-trial, the court
shall receive evidence ex parte.
8. Minutes of Pre-Trial
Sec. 8. Minutes of pre-trial – The minutes of each pre-trial
conference shall contain matters taken up therein, more
particularly admissions of facts and exhibits, and shall be
signed by the parties and their counsel.
9. Pre-Trial Order
Sec. 9. Pre-trial order – Within ten (10) days after the
termination of the pre-trial, the court shall issue a pre-trial
order setting forth the actions taken during the pre-trial
conference, the facts stipulated, the admissions made, the
evidence marked, the number of witnesses to be
presented and the schedule of trial. Said order shall bind
the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and
control the course of action during the trial.
10. Efforts to Settle
Sec. 10. Efforts to settle – The court shall endeavor to
make the parties agree to compromise or settle in
accordance with law at any stage of the proceedings
before rendition of judgment.
III. Preliminary Conference Under the Rules on
Summary Procedure
1. Preliminary Conference; Appearance of the
Parties
Sec. 7. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties —
Not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed,
a preliminary conference shall be held. The rules on pre-
trial in ordinary cases shall be applicable to the preliminary
conference unless inconsistent with the provisions of this
Rule.
The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary
conference shall be a cause for the dismissal of his
complaint. The defendant who appears in the absence of
the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his
counterclaim in accordance with Sec. 6 hereof. All cross-
claims shall be dismissed.
If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall be
entitled to judgment in accordance with Sec. 6 hereof. This
Rule shall not apply where one of two or more defendants
sued under a common cause of action who had pleaded a
common defense shall appear at the preliminary
conference.
2. Record of Preliminary Conference; Appearance
Sec. 8. Record of preliminary conference — Within five
(5) days after the termination of the preliminary
conference, the court shall issue an order stating the
matters taken up therein, including but not limited to:
(a) Whether the parties have arrived at an amicable
settlement, and if so, the terms thereof;
(b) The stipulations or admissions entered into by
the parties;
(c) Whether, on the basis of the pleadings and the
stipulations and admissions made by the parties,
judgment may be rendered without the need of
further proceedings, in which event the
judgment shall be rendered within thirty (30)
days from issuance of the order;
(d) A clear specification of material facts which
remain controverted; and
(e) Such other matters intended to expedite the
disposition of the case.
3. Submission of Affidavits and Position Papers
Sec. 9. Submission of affidavits and position papers —
Within ten (10) days from receipt of the order mentioned
in the next preceding Sec., the parties shall submit the
affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence on the
factual issues defined in the order, together with their
position papers setting forth the law and the facts relied
upon by them.
Chapter XVI: Trial/Hearing
I. Basic Concepts on Trial (Rule 30 and 132)
A. Basic Concepts on Trial
1. What is Trial?
Acosta v. People, (1962). A trial is a judicial process of
investigating and determining the legal controversies,
starting with the production of evidence by the plaintiff
and ending with his closing arguments.
2. What is the Nature of Trial?
Trial before the court is adversarial in character, and which
requires the presentation of evidence and witnesses
before the court.
3. Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial
Art. III, Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial,
or administrative bodies.
a. Right to Speedy Trial in the Disposition of
Cases: Factors to Determine Delay
Mari v. Gonzales, (2011). In determining whether
petitioner was deprived of his right to speedy trials, the
factors to consider and balance are the following:
(a) Duration of the delay;
(b) Reason therefor;
(c) Assertion of the right or failure to assert it
(d) Prejudice caused by such delay
b. Numbers of Postponement Not Determinative
of Violation of the Right to Speedy Trial
Mari v. Gonzales, (2011). In determining the right of an
accused to speedy trial, courts are required to do more
than a mathematical computation of the number of
postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case. A
mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is
clearly insufficient, and particular regard must be given to
the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.
c. Right to Speedy Trial Applicable in All Cases
Roquero v. Chancellor of UP Manila, (2010). The
constitutional right to a "speedy disposition of cases" is
not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but
extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and
administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including
judicial and quasi-judicial hearings.
d. Purpose of Speedy Trial
Roquero v. Chancellor of UP Manila, (2010). The
Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable delay in the
disposition of cases was intended to stem the tide of
disenchantment among the people in the administration
of justice by our judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals. The
adjudication of cases must not only be done in an orderly
manner that is in accord with the established rules of
procedure but must also be promptly decided to better
serve the ends of justice. Excessive delay in the disposition
of cases renders the rights of the people guaranteed by
the Constitution and by various legislations inutile.
e. Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
Mina v. Judge Mupas, (2008). The Constitution requires all
lower courts to decide or resolve cases or matters within
three months from the time said matter is submitted for
decision or resolution. The New Code of Judicial Conduct
in Canon 6, Section 5, also mandates judges to perform all
judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness; while
its antecedent, the Code of Judicial Conduct provides in
Rule 3.05 thereof that "judge[s] shall dispose of the court's
business promptly and decide cases within the required
periods."
These rules are in recognition of the right of every person
to the speedy disposition of their cases. For, as oft stated,
justice delayed is justice denied. Indeed, the public's faith
and confidence in the judiciary depends, to a large extent,
on the judicious and prompt disposition of cases and
matters pending before the courts. Any delay in the
disposition of cases diminishes the people's faith and
confidence in the judiciary. It erodes faith in the judicial
system and unnecessarily blemishes its stature. Judges
must therefore perform their official duties with utmost
competence and diligence, and they should be imbued
with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the
discharge of their obligation to promptly administer
justice. Judges must cultivate a capacity for quick decision,
and must not delay the judgment which a party justly agreed upon, without the introduction of (day) especially when there is no reason why it
deserves. For, truly, inability to decide a case within the evidence under Rule 30, Sec. 6 could not have been presented earlier.
required period is inexcusable and constitutes gross (2) Acuzar v. Judge Ocampo, (2004). In so far as the
inefficiency, which warrants the imposition of 7. Who has the Burden of Proof in Civil Cases? alleged delay in the disposition of the subject
administrative sanction against the erring magistrate. case is concerned, it is the duty of the
Heirs of Cruz-Zamora v. Multiwoof International, Inc. respondent to see to it that all cases he is
4. Trial Distinguished from Hearing (2009). It is a basic rule in civil cases that the party having handling be terminated with dispatch. Although
the burden of proof must establish his case by a the respondent should not be punished for
Hearing Trial preponderance of evidence, which simply means evidence granting postponements when it is shown that
More broader in scope as it Limited only to the which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that they are inevitable, he nevertheless, cannot
include pre-trial presentation of evidence which is offered in opposition to it. However, although the attribute the inordinate delay to the parties
conference, hearing on the and witnesses before the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is stronger than that and/or their counsel. A period of a little less than
motion, and trial court presented by the defendant, a judgment cannot be three (3) years to dispose a simple case of
entered in favor of the former, if his evidence is not collection of money is indicative of inefficiency.
5. Is it Necessary in Order to Secure a Judgment? sufficient to sustain his cause of action. The plaintiff must While the judge may grant postponements, it
rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the should not be for a period of more than one
GR: Trial is necessary if there are legal and factual issues weakness of the defendant’s month for each adjournment nor more than
involved in the case which requires presentation of three months in all. As pointed in our report
evidence and witnesses. 8. Notice of Trial dated 29 November 2001, it is in the interest of
speedy disposition of cases that the Rules of
6. What are the Exceptions? Rule 30, Sec. 1. Notice of Trial — Upon entry of a case in Court sought to provide in Section 2, Rule 30
the trial calendar, the clerk shall notify the parties of the that ‘A court may adjourn a trial from day to day,
Trial is no longer necessary in order for the adjudication of date of its trial in such manner as shall ensure his receipt and to any stated time, as the expeditious and
the action in the following instances: of that notice at least five (5) days before such date. convenient transaction of business may require,
but shall have no power to adjourn a trial for a
a. When the case falls under the Rules on Summary 9. Adjournment and Postponement longer period than one month for each
Procedure in civil cases; adjournment, nor more than three months in all,
b. When the parties enter into an amicable Rule 30, Sec. 2. Adjournments and postponements — A except when authorized by the Court
settlement or compromise of their claims court may adjourn a trial from day to day, and to any Administrator, Supreme Court.’"
c. In case of dismissal of the action under Rule 16; stated time, as the expeditious and convenient transaction
d. In case of dismissal of the action under Rule 17, of business may require, but shall have no power to c. Duty of a Litigant to Postpone Before the Day of
Sec. 1 and 2 adjourn a trial for a longer period than one month for each Hearing; Rationale
e. In case of dismissal of action under Rule 17, Sec. adjournment nor more than three months in all, except
3 when authorized in writing by the Court Administrator, De Castro v. OCP of Manila, (2009). It is the basic duty of a
f. In case of dismissal of the action for failure of Supreme Court litigant to move for postponement before the day of the
the plaintiff to appear during pre-trial hearing, so that the court could order its resetting and
conference under Rule 18 a. Postponement is NOT a Matter of Right timely inform the adverse party of the new date. This was
g. In case of judgment on the pleadings under Rule not the case at bar for the subject motion was presented
34 Garces v. Valenzuela. A postponement is not a matter of only on the day of the trial without any justification. We
h. In case of summary judgment under Rule 35 right. It is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. thus hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
i. In case of amicable settlement during mediation denying the motion for postponement.
before the Philippine Mediation Center b. Limitation on the Authority to Adjourn
j. In case of amicable settlement during Judicial 10. Requisites of Motion to Postpone Trial for
Dispute Resolution (JDR) (1) Republic v. Sandiganbayan. The court has no Absence of Evidence
k. In case of amicable settlement by virtue of power to adjourn a trial for a period longer than
Alternative Dispute Resolution one month from each adjournment, nor more Rule 30, Sec. 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for
l. When the parties to any action agree, in writing, than three months in all except when authorized absence of evidence — A motion to postpone a trial on
upon the facts involved in the litigation, and in writing by the Court Administration. A Motion the ground of absence of evidence can be granted only
submit the case for judgment on the facts for Postponement should not be filed on the last 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.
11. Requisites of Motion to Postpone Trial For
Illness of Party or Counsel
Rule 30, Sec. 4. Requisites of motion to postpone trial 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.
12. Order of Trial
Rule 30, Sec. 5. Order of trial — Subject to the provisions
of Sec. 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.
13. Agreed Statements of Facts
Rule 30, Sec. 6. 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.
14. Statement of the Judge
Rule 30, Sec. 7. Statement of judge — During the hearing
or trial of a case any statement made by the judge with
reference to the case, or to any of the parties, witnesses or
counsel, shall be made of record in the stenographic
notes.
15. Suspension of Actions
Rule 30, Sec. 8. Suspension of actions — The suspension
of actions shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil
Code.
16. Judge to Receive Evidence; Delegation to the
Clerk of Court
Rule 30, Sec. 9. Judge to receive evidence; delegation to
clerk of court — 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 parte
hearings, 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.
a. Rule on Ex Parte Hearings: Delegation to the
Clerk of Court Who Must be a Member of the
Bar
(1) Umali-Paco v. Quilala, (2003). With respect to
the charge that respondent judge left his
chambers on the afternoon of 19 February 2001
and that he delegated to acting clerk of court
Aida C. Lomugdang, who was not even a lawyer,
the task of receiving evidence for the parties, the
pertinent rules of procedure indeed were
obviously ignored (Rule 30, Sec. 9)
(2) Nieva v. Alvarez-Edad, Besides, Section 9, Rule
30, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is very specific
that: ‘x x x in default or ex-parte hearings, 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. x x
x.’ As a Branch Clerk of Court who is a non-
lawyer, she ought to know that under the said
rule it is only a member of the bar who is
authorized to receive evidence ex-parte. Records
reveal that there is no order of the presiding
judge showing that she was authorized to act as
such. Respondent even committed further
blunder when, aware of the existing rules and
even without prior authority from the judge, she
gave the appearance to the parties concerned
that she is legally collecting commissioner’s fee.
17. Issued Not Raised in the Trial Should Not be
Considered, Otherwise Irregular, Invalid and
Extra-Judicial
Sps. Sioson v. Heirs of Avancena, (2009). We agree with
petitioners. Courts of justice have no jurisdiction or power
to decide a question not in issue. It is elementary that a
judgment must conform to, and be supported by, both the
pleadings and the evidence, and must be in accordance
with the theory of the action on which the pleadings are
framed and the case was tried. The courts, in rendering
decisions, ought to limit themselves to the issues
presented by the parties in their pleadings. A judgment
that goes outside of the issues and purports to adjudicate
something on which the court did not hear the parties is
not only irregular but also extra-judicial and invalid. The
rule rests on the fundamental tenets of fair play.
 18. Application of the Judicial Affidavit Rule in Case
of Trial
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 1. Scope –
(a) This Rule shall apply to all actions, proceedings,
and incidents requiring the reception of
evidence before:
(1) The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal
Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts,
the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari'
a Circuit Courts but shall not apply to small
claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
(2) The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District
Courts;
(3) The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals,
the Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a Appellate
Courts;
(4) The investigating officers and bodies authorized
by the Supreme Court to receive evidence,
including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine
(IBP); and
(5) The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies,
whose rules of procedure are subject to
disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as
their existing rules of procedure contravene the
provisions of this Rule.
(b) For the purpose of brevity, the above courts,
quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating officers
shall be uniformly referred to here as the
"court."
II. Order of Examination of Individual Witnesses
(Rule 132, Sec. 4-7)
A. Basic Concepts on the Examination of Individual
Witnesses
1. Rights and Obligation of a Witness
Rule 132, Sec. 3. Rights and obligations of a witness — A
witness must answer questions, although his answer may
tend to establish a claim against him. However, it is the
right of a witness:
(1) To be protected from irrelevant, improper, or
insulting questions, and from harsh or insulting
demeanor;
(2) Not to be detained longer than the interests of
justice require;
(3) Not to be examined except only as to matters
pertinent to the issue;
(4) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject
him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise
provided by law; or
(5) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade
his reputation, unless it to be the very fact at
issue or to a fact from which the fact in issue
would be presumed. But a witness must answer
to the fact of his previous final conviction for an
offense. (3a, 19a)
2. Order of Examination of Individual Witness
Rule 132, Sec. 4. Order in the examination of an
individual witness — The order in which the individual
witness may be examined is as follows;
(a) Direct examination by the proponent;
(b) Cross-examination by the opponent;
(c) Re-direct examination by the proponent;
(d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent. (4)
3. Direct Examination Defined/ How Conducted
Rule 132, Sec. 5. Direct examination — Direct examination
is the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
4. Cross Examination
Rule 132, Section 6. Cross-examination; its purpose and
extent — Upon the termination of the direct examination,
the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party
as to many matters stated in the direct examination, or
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom
to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important
facts bearing upon the issue. (8a)
5. Re-Direct Examination – Purpose and Extent
Rule 132, Sec. 7. Re-direct examination; its purpose and
extent — After the cross-examination of the witness has
been concluded, he may be re-examined by the party
calling him, to explain or supplement his answers given
during the cross-examination. On re-direct-examination,
questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-
examination, may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
6. Re-Cross Examination
Rule 132, Sec. 8. Re-cross-examination — Upon the
conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse party
may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his
re-direct examination, and also on such other matters as
may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
7. Judicial Affidavit in Lieu of Direct Testimonies
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 2. Submission of Judicial
Affidavits and Exhibits in lieu of direct testimonies –
(a) The parties shall file with the court and serve on
the adverse party, personally or by licensed
courier service, not later than five days before
pre-trial or preliminary conference or the
scheduled hearing with respect to motions and
incidents, the following:
(1) The judicial affidavits of their witnesses, which
shall take the place of such witnesses' direct
testimonies; and
(2) The parties' docun1entary or object evidence, if
any, which shall be attached to the judicial
affidavits and marked as Exhibits A, B, C, and so
on in the case of the complainant or the plaintiff,
and as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and so on in the case of
the respondent or the defendant.
(b) Should a party or a witness desire to keep the
original document or object evidence in his
possession, he may, after the same has been
identified, marked as exhibit, and authenticated,
warrant in his judicial affidavit that the copy or
reproduction attached to such affidavit is a
faithful copy or reproduction of that original. In
addition, the party or witness shall bring the
original document or object evidence for
comparison during the preliminary conference
with the attached copy, reproduction, or
pictures, failing which the latter shall not be
admitted.

8. Contents of Judicial Affidavit
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 3. Contents of judicial Affidavit –
A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known
to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino,
accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and
shall contain the following:
(a) The name, age, residence or business address,
and occupation of the witness;
(b) The name and address of the lawyer who
conducts or supervises the examination of the
witness and the place where the examination is
being held;
(c) A statement that the witness is answering the
questions asked of him, fully conscious that he
does so under oath, and that he may face
criminal liability for false testimony or perjury;
(d) Questions asked of the witness and his
corresponding answers, consecutively
numbered, that:
(1) Show the circumstances under which the
witness acquired the facts upon which he
testifies;
(2) Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to
the issues that the case presents; and
(3) Identify the attached documentary and object
evidence and establish their authenticity in
accordance with the Rules of Court;
(e) The signature of the witness over his printed
name; and
(f) A jurat with the signature of the notary public
who administers the oath or an officer who is
authorized by law to administer the same.
9. Attestation Clause
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 4. Sworn attestation of the
lawyer –
(a) The judicial affidavit shall contain a sworn
attestation at the end, executed by the lawyer
who conducted or supervised the examination of
the witness, to the effect that:
(1) He faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded
the questions he asked and the corresponding
answers that the witness gave; and
(2) Neither he nor any other person then present or
assisting him coached the witness regarding the
latter's answers.
(b) A false attestation shall subject the lawyer
mentioned to disciplinary action, including
disbarment.
10. Subpoena
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 5. Subpoena – If the government
employee or official, or the requested witness, who is
neither the witness of the adverse party nor a hostile
witness, unjustifiably declines to execute a judicial affidavit
or refuses without just cause to make the relevant books,
documents, or other things under his control available for
copying, authentication, and eventual production in court,
the requesting party may avail himself of the issuance of a
subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum under Rule 21
of the Rules of Court. The rules governing the issuance of a
subpoena to the witness in this case shall be the same as
when taking his deposition except that the taking of a
judicial affidavit shal1 be understood to be ex parte.
11. Examination of the Witness on His Judicial
Affidavit
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 7. Examination of the witness on
his judicial affidavit – The adverse party shall have the
right to cross-examine the witness on his judicial affidavit
and on the exhibits attached to the same. The party who
presents the witness may also examine him as on re-
direct. In every case, the court shall take active part in
examining the witness to determine his credibility as well
as the truth of his testimony and to elicit the answers that
it needs for resolving the issues.
12. Effect of Non-Compliance with the Judicial
Affidavit Rule
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec.10. Effect of non-compliance with
the judicial Affidavit Rule –
(a) A party who fails to submit the required judicial
affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed
to have waived their submission. The court may,
however, allow only once the late submission of
the same provided, the delay is for a valid
reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing
party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not
less than P 1,000.00 nor more than P 5,000.00 at
the discretion of the court.
(b) The court shall not consider the affidavit of any
witness who fails to appear at the scheduled
hearing of the case as required. Counsel who
fails to appear without valid cause despite notice
shall be deemed to have waived his client's right
to confront by cross-examination the witnesses
there present.
(c) The court shall not admit as evidence judicial
affidavits that do not conform to the content
requirements of Section 3 and the attestation
requirement of Section 4 above. The court may,
however, allow only once the subsequent
submission of the compliant replacement
affidavits before the hearing or trial provided the
delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly
prejudice the opposing party and provided
further, that public or private counsel
responsible for their preparation and submission
pays a fine of not less than P 1,000.00 nor more
than P 5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.
III. Offer/Objection on Testimony/Ruling on the
Objections During Trial
A. Offer of Evidence and Testimony
1. Offer of Evidence
Rule 132, Sec. 34. Offer of evidence — The court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be
specified.
2. Offer of Testimony
Rule 132, Sec. 35. When to make offer – As regards the
testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time
the witness is called to testify.
3. Evidence Must be Formally Offered Otherwise it
Has No Probative Value
 a. Catacutan v. People, (2011). The rules of
procedure and jurisprudence do not sanction the
grant of evidentiary value to evidence which was
not formally offered. “It is well to remember that
good intentions do not win cases, evidence
does”
b. Sps. Raundo v. Fabella Estates Tenants Assoc.
Inc. Evidence must be formally offered. Under
the ROC, the court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered.
4. Offer of an Objection to Testimony in Judicial
Affidavit
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 6. Offer of and objections to
testimony in judicial affidavit – The party presenting the
judicial affidavit of his witness in place of direct testimony
shall state the purpose of such testimony at the start of
the presentation of the witness. The adverse party may
move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit
or any of the answers found in it on ground of
inadmissibility. The court shall promptly rule on the
motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any
excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials
of an authorized court personnel, without prejudice to a
tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule 132
of the Rules of Court.
B. Objections
1. When to Object?
Rule 132, Sec. 36. Objection — Objection to evidence
offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is
made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the
oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the
grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within
three (3) days after notice of the unless a different period
is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be
specified.
a. When to Make Objection on the Admissibility
of Evidence?
People v. Baida Salak, (2011). Objections to the
admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the
evidence offered, he must so state in the form of
objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the
question for the first time on appeal.
What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs as the
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of herein appellant.
2. What are the Kinds of Objections?
a. Irrelevant and immaterial evidence
b. Incompetent evidence
c. Opinion of witness
d. Leading question
e. Misleading question
f. Compound questions
g. General question
h. Question calling for narration
i. Vague question
j. Hypothetical question
k. Embarrassing questions
l. Question on admitted matters
m. Question already answered
n. Hearsay evidence
o. Parol evidence
p. Best evidence rule
q. Privileged communication between husband and
wife
r. Privileged communication between attorney-
client
s. Privileged communication between doctor and
patient
t. Privileged communication between priest and
penitent
u. Privileged communication on state secrets
v. Lack of basis
w. Self-incriminating question
x. Argumentative or harassing question
y. Illegally obtained evidence
z. Disqualification by reason of spousal immunity
aa. Disqualification by reason of dead man’s statute
bb. Parental and filial privilege
C. Ruling of the Court on the Objections During
Trial
Rule 132, Sec. 38. Ruling — The ruling of the court must
be given immediately after the objection is made, unless
the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself
on the question presented; but the ruling shall always be
made during the trial and at such time as will give the
party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the
situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need
not be stated. However, if the objection is based on two or
more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or
some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied
upon.
IV. Rules on Trial in Environmental Cases
1. Continuous Trial
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 4, Sec. 1. Continuous trial – The
judge shall conduct continuous trial which shall not exceed
two (2) months from the date of the issuance of the pre-
trial order.
Before the expiration of the two-month period, the judge
may ask the Supreme Court for the extension of the trial
period for justifiable cause.
2. Affidavits in Lieu of Direct Examination
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 4, Sec. 2. Affidavits in lieu of
direct examination – In lieu of direct examination,
affidavits marked during the pre-trial shall be presented as
direct examination of affiants subject to cross-examination
by the adverse party.
3. One Day Examination of Witness Rule
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 4, Sec. 3. One-day examination
of witness rule – The court shall strictly adhere to the rule
that a witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day,
subject to the court’s discretion of extending the
examination for justifiable reason. After the presentation
of the last witness, only oral offer of evidence shall be
allowed, and the opposing party shall immediately
interpose his objections. The judge shall forthwith rule on
the offer of evidence in open court.

V. Consolidation or Severance of Cases (Rule 31)
1. Consolidation of Cases
Rule 31, Sec. 1. 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.
2. Separate Trials
Rule 31, Sec. 2. 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.
VI. Trial by Commissioner (Rule 32)
A. Trial By Commissioner
1. Reference by Consent
Rule 32, Sec. 1. Reference by consent — 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.
2. Reference Ordered on Motion
Rule 32, Sec. 2. Reference ordered on motion — When
the parties do not consent, the court may, upon the
application of either or of its own motion, direct a
reference to a commissioner in the following cases:
(a) When the trial of an issue of fact requires the
examination of a long account on either side, in
which case the commissioner may be directed to
hear and report upon the whole issue or any
specific question involved therein;
(b) When the taking of an account is necessary for
the information of the court before judgment, or
for carrying a judgment or order into effect.
(c) When a question of fact, other than upon the
pleadings, arises upon motion or otherwise, in
any stage of a case, or for carrying a judgment or
order into effect
3. Order of Reference; Powers of the
Commissioner
Rule 32, Sec. 3. Order of reference; powers of the
commissioner — When a reference is made, the clerk shall
forthwith furnish the commissioner with a copy of the
order of reference. The order may specify or limit the
powers of the commissioner, and may direct him to report
only upon particular issues, or to do or perform particular
acts, or to receive and report evidence only and may fix
the date for beginning and closing the hearings and for the
filing of his report. 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.
4. Oath of Commissioner
Rule 32, Sec. 4. Oath of commissioner — Before entering
upon his duties the commissioner shall be sworn to a
faithful and honest performance thereof.
5. Proceedings Before a Commissioner
Rule 32, Sec. 5. Proceedings before commissioner —
Upon receipt of the order of reference and unless
otherwise provided therein, the commissioner shall
forthwith set a time and place for the first meeting of the
parties or their counsel to be held within ten (10) days
after the date of the order of reference and shall notify the
parties or their counsel.
6. Failure of Parties to Appear Before
Commissioner
Rule 32, Sec. 6. Failure of parties to appear before
commissioner — If a party fails to appear at the time and
place appointed, the commissioner may proceed ex parte
or, in his discretion, adjourn the proceedings to a future
day, giving notice to the absent party or his counsel of the
adjournment.
7. Refusal of Witness to Obey Subpoena
Rule 32, Sec. 7. Refusal of witness — The refusal of a
witness to obey a subpoena issued by the commissioner or
to give evidence before him, shall be deemed a contempt
of the court which appointed the commissioner.
8. Commissioner Shall Avoid Delays
Rule 32, Sec. 8. Commissioner shall avoid delays — It is
the duty of the commissioner to proceed with all
reasonable diligence. Either party, on notice to the parties
and commissioner, may apply to the court for an order
requiring the commissioner to expedite the proceedings
and to make his report.
9. Report of Commissioner
Rule 32, Sec. 9. 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.
10. Notice to Parties of the Filing of Report
Rule 32, Sec. 10. 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.
 11. Hearing Upon the Report
Rule 32, Sec. 11. Hearing upon report — Upon the
expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the
preceding Sec., 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.
12. Stipulations as to Findings
Rule 32, Sec. 12. Stipulations as to findings — When the
parties stipulate that a commissioner's findings of fact
shall be final, only questions of law shall thereafter be
considered.
13. Compensation of Commissioner
Rule 32, Sec. 13. Compensation of commissioner — The
court shall allow the commissioner such reasonable
compensation as the circumstances of the case warrant, to
be taxed as costs against the defeated party, or
apportioned, as justice requires.
VII. Hearing in Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-08-
7-SC)
A. Hearing in Small Claims Cases
1. Appearance
Sec. 16. Appearance — The parties shall appear at the
designated date of hearing personally.
Appearance through a representative must be for a valid
cause. The representative of an individual-party must not
be a lawyer, and must be related to or next-of-kin of the
individual-party. Juridical entities shall not be represented
by a lawyer in any capacity.
The representative must be authorized under a Special
Power of Attorney (Form 5-SCC) to enter into an amicable
settlement of the dispute and to enter into stipulations or
admissions of facts and of documentary exhibits.
2. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed
Sec. 17. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed – No
attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at
the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or
defendant.
If the court determines that a party cannot properly
present his/her claim or defense and needs assistance, the
court may, in its discretion, allow another individual who is
not an attorney to assist that party upon the latter’s
consent.
3. Non-Appearance of Parties
Sec. 18. Non-appearance of Parties—Failure of the
plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the
claim without prejudice. The defendant who appears shall
be entitled to judgment on a permissive counterclaim.
Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same
effect as failure to file a Response under Section 12 of this
Rule. This shall not apply where one of two or more
defendants who are sued under a common cause of action
and have pleaded a common defense appears at the
hearing.
Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal
with prejudice of both the claim and counterclaim.
4. Postponement When Allowed
Sec. 19. Postponement When Allowed – A request for
postponement of a hearing may be granted only upon
proof of the physical inability of the party to appear before
the court on the scheduled date and time. A party may
avail of only one (1) postponement.
5. Duty of the Court
Sec. 20. Duty of the Court – At the beginning of the court
session, the judge shall read aloud a short statement
explaining the nature, purpose and the rule of procedure
of small claims cases.
6. Hearing
Sec. 21. Hearing. — At the hearing, the judge shall exert
efforts to bring the parties to an amicable settlement of
their dispute. Any settlement (Form 7-SCC) or resolution
(Form 8-SCC) of the dispute shall be reduced into writing,
signed by the parties and submitted to the court for
approval (Form 12-SCC)
Settlement discussions shall be strictly confidential and
any reference to any settlement made in the course of
such discussions shall be punishable by contempt.
7. Failure of Settlement
Sec. 22. Failure of Settlement – If efforts at settlement
fail, the hearing shall proceed in an informal and
expeditious manner and be terminated within one (1) day.
Either party may move in writing (Form 10-SCC) to have
another judge hear and decide the case. The reassignment
of the case shall be done in accordance with existing
issuances.
The referral by the original judge to the Executive Judge
shall be made within the same day the motion is filed and
granted, and by the Executive Judge to the designated
judge within the same day of the referral. The new judge
shall hear and decide the case within five (5) working days
from receipt of the order of reassignment.
VIII. Subpoena (Rule 21)
A. Subpoena
1. Subpoena, Defined
Filipino Merchants Insurance Co. v. Medina. Subpoena is
a coercive process issued by the court or judge stating the
name of the court and the title of the action or
investigation, directed to a person and requiring him to
attend the hearing on the trial of an action, at a stated
date, time and place.
2. Kinds of Subpoena
a. Subpoena ad testificandum
b. Subpoena duces tecum
3. Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum
Rule 21, Sec. 1. Subpoena and subpoena duces tecum —
Subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him
to attend and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an
action, or at any investigation conducted by competent
authority, or for the taking of his deposition. It may also
require him to bring with him any books, documents, or
other things under his control, in which case it is called a
subpoena duces tecum
4. By Whom Subpoena May be Issued
Rule 21, Sec. 2. By whom issued — The subpoena may be
issued by —
(a) the court before whom the witness is required
to attend;
(b) the court of the place where the deposition is to
be taken;
(c) the officer or body authorized by law to do so in
connection with investigations conducted by
said officer or body; or
(d) any Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court
of Appeals in any case or investigation pending
within the Philippines.
When application for a subpoena to a prisoner is made,
the judge or officer shall examine and study carefully such
application to determine whether the same is made for a
valid purpose.
No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment and who is confined in any penal institution
shall be brought outside the said penal institution for
appearance or attendance in any court unless authorized
by the Supreme Court.
5. Forms and Contents
Rule 21, Sec. 3. Form and contents — A subpoena shall
state the name of the court and the title of the action or
investigation, shall be directed to the person whose
attendance is required, and in the case of a subpoena
duces tecum, it shall also contain a reasonable description
of the books, documents or things demanded which must
appear to the court prima facie relevant.
6. Quashing of a Subpoena
Rule 21, Sec. 4. Quashing a subpoena — The court may
quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly
made and, in any event, at or before the time specified
therein if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or the
relevancy of the books, documents or things does not
appear, or if the person in whose behalf the subpoena is
issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of the
production thereof.
The court may quash a subpoena ad testificandum on the
ground that the witness is not bound thereby. In either
case, the subpoena may be quashed on the ground that
the witness fees and kilometrage allowed by these Rules
were not tendered when the subpoena was served.
7. Subpoena of Deposition
Rule 21, Sec. 5. Subpoena for depositions — Proof of
service of a notice to take a deposition, as provided in
Sec.s 15 and 25 of Rule 23, shall constitute sufficient
authorization for the issuance of subpoenas for the
persons named in said notice by the clerk of the court of
the place in which the deposition is to be taken. The clerk
shall not, however, issue a subpoena duces tecum to any
such person without an order of the court.
8. Service of Subpoena
Rule 21, Sec. 6. Service – 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.
9. Personal Appearance in Court
Rule 21, Sec. 7. Personal appearance in court — A person
present in court before a judicial officer may be required
to testify as if he were in attendance upon a subpoena is
sued by such court or officer.
10. Compelling Attendance
Rule 21, Sec. 8. Compelling attendance — 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.
11. Contempt
Rule 21, Sec. 9. Contempt — 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.
12. Exceptions
Rule 21, Sec. 10. Exceptions — The provisions of Sec.s 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.
Chapter XVII: Formal Offer of Evidence
I. Formal Offer of Evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 34-36)
A. Offer of Evidence
1. Offer of Evidence
Rule 132, Sec. 34. Offer of evidence — The court shall
consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be
specified.
a. Offer of Evidence Required
Dizon v. CTA, (2008). No evidentiary value can be given
the pieces of evidence submitted by BIR, since they were
not formally offered. This is the rule under Rule 130, Sec.
34.
While the CTA is not governed strictly by technical rules of
evidence, as rules of procedure are not ends in themselves
and are primarily intended as tools in the administration of
justice, the presentation of the BIR's evidence is not a
mere procedural technicality which may be disregarded
considering that it is the only means by which the CTA may
ascertain and verify the truth of BIR's claims
Sps. Tan v. Republic, (2008). The SC sustained the CA
which refused to consider a document submitted for the
first time by the petitioners when the same was attached
to their motion for their reconsideration of the decision of
the CA. In sustaining the appellate court, the SC reiterated
the rule in Rule 132, Sec. 34. The document should have
been offered during the trial in the RTC
2. Objection on the Formal Offer of Evidence of
the Plaintiff
Rule 132, Sec. 36. Objection — Objection to evidence
offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is
made.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within
three (3) days after notice of the unless a different period
is allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be
specified.
3. Oral Offer of and Objections to Exhibits Under
the Judicial Affidavit Rule
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC Sec. 8. Oral offer of and objections to
exhibits –
(a) Upon the termination of the testimony of his last
witness, a party shall immediately make an oral
offer of evidence of his documentary or object
exhibits, piece by piece, in their chronological
order, stating the purpose or purposes for which
he offers the particular exhibit.
(b) After each piece of exhibit is offered, the
adverse party shall state the legal ground for his
objection, if any, to its admission, and the court
shall immediately make its ruling respecting that
exhibit.
(c) Since the documentary or object exhibits form
part of the judicial affidavits that describe and
authenticate them, it is sufficient that such
exhibits are simply cited by their markings during
the offers, the objections, and the rulings,
dispensing with the description of each exhibit.
4. Ruling of the Court on the Comment
Rule 132, Sec. 38. Ruling — The ruling of the court must
be given immediately after the objection is made, unless
the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself
on the question presented; but the ruling shall always be
made during the trial and at such time as will give the
party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the
situation presented by the ruling.
The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need
not be stated. However, if the objection is based on two or
more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or
some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied
upon.
5. Offer of Evidence Under A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC,
Re: Guidelines for Litigation in QC Trial Courts
Par. A(6). Oral offer of evidence – The offer of evidence,
the comment thereon, and the court ruling shall be made
orally. A party is required to make his oral offer of
evidence on the same as the presentation of his last
witness, and the opposing party is required to immediately
interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter, the judge shall
make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open court.
In making the offer, the counsel shall cite the specific page
numbers of the court record where the exhibits being
offered are found if attached thereto. The court shall
always ensure that all exhibits offered are submitted to
the court on the same day.
If the exhibits are not attached to the record, the party
making the offer must submit the same during the offer of
evidence in open court.
Chapter XVIII: Demurrer to Evidence
I. Basic Concepts of Demurrer to Evidence (Rule
33)
A. Demurrer to Evidence (Rule 33, Sec. 1)
1. What is a Demurrer to Evidence?
Gonzales, et. al. v. Bugaay, (2012). 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."
2. Nature of Demurrer to Evidence
Uy v. Chua, (2009). Demurrer to evidence authorizes a
judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant
having to submit evidence on his part, as he would
ordinarily have to do, if plaintiff's evidence shows that he
is not entitled to the relief sought. Demurrer, therefore, is
an aid or instrument for the expeditious termination of an
action, similar to a motion to dismiss, which the court or
tribunal may either grant or deny.
3. Guidelines in the Granting of Demurrer to
Evidence
Uy v. Chua, (2009). The Court has recently established
some guidelines on when a demurrer to evidence should
be granted, thus:
A demurrer to evidence may be issued when, upon the
facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.
Where the plaintiff's evidence together with such
inferences and conclusions as may reasonably be drawn
therefrom does not warrant recovery against the
defendant, a demurrer to evidence should be sustained. A
demurrer to evidence is likewise sustainable when,
admitting every proven fact favorable to the plaintiff and
indulging in his favor all conclusions fairly and reasonably
inferable therefrom, the plaintiff has failed to make out
one or more of the material elements of his case, or when
there is no evidence to support an allegation necessary to
his claim. It should be sustained where the plaintiff's
evidence is prima facie insufficient for a recovery.
 4. Resolution of Demurrer to Evidence Within the the presentation of his plaintiff’s claim
Power of the Trial Courts evidence Rule 132, Sec. 36. Objection — Objection to evidence
offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is
Gonzales, et. al. v. Bugaay, (2012). In passing upon the Chapter XIX: Presentation of Defendant’s Evidence-in- made.
sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court Chief
is merely required to ascertain whether there is An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within
competent or sufficient proof to sustain the judgment. I. Presentation of Defendant’s Evidence three (3) days after notice of the unless a different period
Being considered a motion to dismiss, thus, a demurrer to is allowed by the court.
evidence must clearly be filed before the court renders its A. Presentation of Defendant’s Evidence
judgment. In any case, the grounds for the objections must be
Sec. 5(b). Order of trial — Subject to the provisions of Sec. specified.
Accordingly, the CA committed reversible error in granting 2 of Rule 31, and unless the court for special reasons
the demurrer and dismissing the Amended Complaint a otherwise directs, the trial shall be limited to the issues IV. Ruling of the Court (Rule 132, Sec. 38)
quo for insufficiency of evidence. The demurrer to stated in the pre-trial order and shall proceed as follows:
evidence was clearly no longer an available remedy to A. Ruling of the Court
respondents and should not have been granted, as the RTC The defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of
had correctly done. his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party 1. Ruling
complaints;
5. Demurrer to Evidence When to File? Rule 132, Sec. 38. Ruling — The ruling of the court must
be given immediately after the objection is made, unless
Chapter XX: Defendant’s Formal Offer of Evidence
Rule 33, Sec. 1. Demurrer to evidence — After the plaintiff the court desires to take a reasonable time to inform itself
has completed the presentation of his evidence, the on the question presented; but the ruling shall always be
defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that II. Formal Offer of Evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 34-36) made during the trial and at such time as will give the
upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right party against whom it is made an opportunity to meet the
to relief. If his motion is denied he shall have the right to B. Defendant’s Formal Offer of Evidence situation presented by the ruling.
present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal
the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to 6. Offer of Evidence The reason for sustaining or overruling an objection need
have waived the right to present evidence. not be stated. However, if the objection is based on two or
Rule 132, Sec. 34. Offer of evidence — The court shall more grounds, a ruling sustaining the objection on one or
6. Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal (Rule 119, consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. some of them must specify the ground or grounds relied
Sec. 23) vs. Civil Cases (Rule 33) The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be upon.
specified.
Demurrer in Criminal Cases Demurrer in Civil Case Chapter XXI: Third Party Defendant/ Fourth-Party
7. When to Make an Offer?
The grant of a demurrer is Such grant is an Plaintiff and Fourth-Party Defendant’s Presentation of
tantamount to an acquittal adjudication on the merits Evidence
Rule 132, Sec. 35. When to make offer – As regards the
and the dismissal order of the case, which is
testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time
may not be appealed definitely subject to an I. Third Party Defendant/ Fourth-Party Plaintiff
the witness is called to testify.
because this would place appeal and Fourth-Party Defendant’s Presentation of
the accused in double Evidence
Documentary and object evidence shall be offered after
jeopardy. It is reviewable
the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such
only through Rule 65. A. Third-Party Defendant
offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court to be
The court may motu The court may not dismiss
done in writing.
proprio dismiss the case the case motu proprio 1. Third-Party Defendant’s Evidence
The motion for demurrer to May be filed without leave
III. Objection to the Offer of Evidence
evidence may be filed with of court, but the denial Sec. 5. Order of trial — Subject to the provisions of Sec. 2
or without leave of court. If thereof will still allow the of Rule 31, and unless the court for special reasons
A. Objection on the Offer of Evidence
granted and the appeal is defendant to present his otherwise directs, the trial shall be limited to the issues
granted, defense waives evidence to rebut the stated in the pre-trial order and shall proceed as follows:
1. Objection

(c) The third-party defendant if any, shall adduce
evidence of his defense, counterclaim, cross-
claim and fourth-party complaint; The fourth-
party, and so forth, if any, shall
II. Fourth-Party Defendant’s Evidence
1. Fourth-Party Defendant Evidence
Sec. 5. Order of trial — Subject to the provisions of Sec. 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:
(d) The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall
adduce evidence of the material facts pleaded by
them;
Chapter XXII: Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Evidence
I. Rebuttal Evidence
A. Rebuttal Evidence (Rule 30)
1. What is Rebuttal Evidence?
Ago Timber Corp. v. Abaya, (1978). Rebuttal evidence is
any competent evidence to explain, repel, counteract, or
disprove adversary’s proof. It is receivable only where new
matters have been developed by the evidence of one of
the parties and is generally limited to a reply to new
matters.
2. Rebuttal Evidence
Sec. 5. Order of trial — Subject to the provisions of Sec. 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:
(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
Chapter XXIII: Defendant’s Sur-Rebuttal Evidence
Chapter XXV: Judgment/Final Orders and Entry Thereof
I. Defendant’s Sur-Rebuttal Evidence
I. Judgment/Final Orders/ Entry (Rule 36)
A. Sur-Rebuttal Evidence
A. Basic Concepts on Judgment
1. Sur-Rebuttal Evidence Defined
1. Judgment Defined
Sandakan v. Sero, (1964). Sur-rebuttal evidence is an
evidence in reply to or to rebut new matter introduced in Macahilig v. Heirs of Magalit, (2000). Judgment is the
rebuttal. final ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction regarding
the rights or other matters submitted to in an action or
2. When to Present Sur-Rebuttal Evidence proceeding.
The defendant after the presentation of the plaintiff’s Legarda v. CA, (1997). It may be broadly defined as the
rebuttal evidence may be allowed to present sur-rebuttal decision or sentence of the law given by a court or other
evidence. tribunal as the result of proceedings instituted therein.
Chapter XXIV: Memorandum Tung Chin Hui v. Rodriguez, (2000). “Judgment” is
normally synonymous with “decision”
I. Memorandum (Rule 30, Sec. 5)
2. Constitutional Basis
A. Memorandum
Art. VIII, Sec. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any
1. What is a Memorandum? court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based.
National Waterworks & Sewerage System Authority v.
Montejo. Memorandum is a formal or written summary of No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a
arguments of counsel on issues involved in a litigation. decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied
without stating the legal basis therefor.
2. Is Memorandum a Pleading?
3. What is a Final Order?
SMC v. E. Razon, Inc. (1984). No. A memorandum is not a
pleading as contemplated under the ROC Jose v. Javellana, (2012). A final order is an order by the
court which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety
3. When to File a Memorandum? or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving
nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution
Rule 30, Sec. 5. Order of trial — Subject to the provisions what the court has determined, but the latter does not
of Sec. 2 of Rule 31, and unless the court for special completely dispose of the case but leaves something else
reasons otherwise directs, the trial shall be limited to the to be decided upon.
issues stated in the pre-trial order and shall proceed as
follows: 4. What is an Interlocutory Order?
(g) Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall Calderon v. Roxas, (2013). The word interlocutory refers
be deemed submitted for decision, unless the to something intervening between the commencement
court directs the parties to argue or to submit and the end of the suit which decides some point or
their respective memoranda or any further matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.
pleadings. An interlocutory order merely resolves incidental matters
and leaves something more to be done to resolve the
merits of the case. In contrast, a judgment or order is
considered final if the order disposes of the action or
proceeding completely, or terminates a particular stage of
the same action. Clearly, whether an order or resolution is
final or interlocutory is not dependent on compliance or
non-compliance by a party to its directive, as what
petitioner suggests. It is also important to emphasize the
temporary or provisional nature of the assailed orders.
Caliwan v. Ocampo, (2009). An interlocutory order is one
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. The word "interlocutory" refers to
something intervening between the commencement and
the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is
not a final decision of the whole controversy. Interlocutory
orders merely rule on an incidental issue and do not
terminate or finally dispose of the case as they leave
something to be done before it is finally decided on the
merits.
5. Distinctions Between Final Order and an
Interlocutory Order
Calderon v. Roxas, (2013). This Court has laid down the
distinction between interlocutory and final orders, as
follows:
x x x 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)
and 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."
xxxx
Conversely, 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, or granting a motion for
extension of time to file a pleading, or authorizing
amendment thereof, or granting or denying applications
for postponement, or production or inspection of
documents or things, etc. Unlike a "final" judgment or
order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, 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.
Jose v. Javellana, (2012). 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.
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.
Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, (2011). 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.
6. Remedy Against an Interlocutory Order
Calderon v. Roxas, (2013). 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.
Having chosen the wrong remedy in questioning the
subject interlocutory orders of the RTC, petitioner's appeal
was correctly dismissed by the CA.

7. Order Denying a Motion to Dismiss is an
Interlocutory Order: Remedy
Republic v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, (2012).
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 merits5 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. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion
must be grave as where the power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in
contemplation of law.
8. Remedy in Case of Denial of Motion to Dismiss
Marmo v. Anacay, (2009). An order denying a motion to
dismiss is interlocutory because it does not finally dispose
of the case, and, in effect, direct the case to proceed until
final adjudication by the court.
The appropriate remedy is for the party to wait for the
final judgment or order and assign such interlocutory
order as an error of the court on appeal.
9. Order for Support Pendente Lite is an
Interlocutory Order
Calderon v. Roxas, (2013). The assailed orders relative to
the incident of support pendente lite and support in
arrears, as the term suggests, were issued pending the
rendition of the decision on the main action for
declaration of nullity of marriage, and are therefore
interlocutory. They did not finally dispose of the case nor
did they consist of a final adjudication of the merits of
petitioner’s claims as to the ground of psychological
incapacity and other incidents as child custody, support
and conjugal assets.
10. Rendition of Judgment and Final Orders
Rule 36, Sec. 1. 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.
a. What Constitutes Rendition of Judgment?
Estoya v. Singson, (1994). The filing of the judgment or
final order with the clerk of court is what constitutes
rendition of judgment
b. Two (2) Main Essential Parts of Decision
UP v. Hon. Dizon, (2012). UP’s plea for equity warrants the
Court’s exercise of the exceptional power to disregard the
declaration of finality of the judgment of the RTC for being
in clear violation of the UP’s right to due process.
Section 14 of Article VIII of the Constitution prescribes that
express findings of fact and of law should be made in the
decision rendered by any court
Implementing the constitutional provision in civil actions is
Section 1 of Rule 36, Rules of Court
The Constitution and the Rules of Court apparently
delineate two main essential parts of a judgment, namely:
the body and the decretal portion. Although the latter is
the controlling part, the importance of the former is not to
be lightly regarded because it is there where the court
clearly and distinctly states its findings of fact and of law
on which the decision is based. To state it differently, one
without the other is ineffectual and useless. The omission
of either inevitably results in a judgment that violates the
letter and the spirit of the Constitution and the Rules of
Court.
c. What is the Meaning of Findings of Fact?
UP v. Hon. Dizon, (2012). The term findings of fact that
must be found in the body of the decision refers to
statements of fact, not to conclusions of law. Unlike in
pleadings where ultimate facts alone need to be stated,
the Constitution and the Rules of Court require not only
that a decision should state the ultimate facts but also that
it should specify the supporting evidentiary facts, for they
are what are called the findings of fact.
d. What is the Importance of the Findings of Fact
and of Law?
UP v. Hon. Dizon, (2012). The importance of the findings
of fact and of law cannot be overstated. The reason and
purpose of the Constitution and the Rules of Court in that
regard are obviously to inform the parties why they win or
lose, and what their rights and obligations are. Only
thereby is the demand of due process met as to the
parties. As Justice Isagani A. Cruz explained in Nicos
Industrial Corporation v. CA:
It is a requirement of due process that the parties to a
litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an
explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the
conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that
judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just
leave it at that without any justification whatsoever for its
action. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost, so
he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he
believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision
that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the
law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to
how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the
losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors
of the court for review by a higher tribunal.
e. Dismissal Order Must Conform to Rule 36, Sec.
1
Shimizu Contractors, Inc. v. Mrs. Magsalin, (2012). As an
adjudication on the merits, it is imperative that the
dismissal order conform with Section 1, Rule 36 of the
Rules of Court on the writing of valid judgments and final
orders.
A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the
facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in
the dark and is especially prejudicial to the losing party
who is unable to point the assigned error in seeking a
review by a higher tribunal.
We thus agree with the petitioner that the dismissal of
Civil Case No. 02-488 constituted a denial of due process.
Elementary due process demands that the parties to a
litigation be given information on how the case was
decided, as well as an explanation of the factual and legal
reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. Where
the reasons are absent, a decision (such as the December
16, 2003 dismissal order) has absolutely nothing to
support it and is thus a nullity.
f. Void Judgment Open to Collateral Attack:
Power of the SC to Review Void Judgment
Shimizu Contractors, Inc. v. Mrs. Magsalin, (2012). For
this same reason, we are not moved by respondent FGU
Insurance’s statement that the disposition of the present
petition must be limited to the issue of whether the CA
had correctly dismissed the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No.
83096. This statement implies that we cannot properly
look into the validity of the December 16, 2003 dismissal
order in this Rule 45 petition. A void decision, however, is
open to collateral attack. While we note that the validity
of the dismissal order with respect to Section 1, Rule 36 of
the Rules of Court was never raised by the petitioner as an
issue in the present petition, the Supreme Court is vested
with ample authority to review an unassigned error if it
finds that consideration and resolution are indispensable
or necessary in arriving at a just decision in an appeal.26 In
this case, the interests of substantial justice warrant the
review of an obviously void dismissal order.
g. A Decision Must Have Something to Support it;
Effect of Absence of Basis
Velarde v. SJS, (2004). A decision with nothing to support
it is a patent nullity. It should be struck down and set aside
as void.
h. Judgment Must Conform to the Pleadings and
Evidence Presented, and the Theory of the
Action, Otherwise Illegal and Void
Uy v. Sps. Medina, (2010). The rule is that a judgment
must conform to, and be supported by, both the pleadings
and the evidence, and must be in accordance with the
theory of the action on which the pleadings were framed
and the case was tried.
Sps. Adriano v. Heirs of Avancena, (2009). Courts of
justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a question
not in issue. It is elementary that a judgment must
conform to, and be supported by, both the pleadings and
the evidence, and must be in accordance with the theory
of the action on which the pleadings are framed and the
case was tried. The courts, in rendering decisions, ought to
limit themselves to the issues presented by the parties in
their pleadings. A judgment that goes outside of the issues
and purports to adjudicate something on which the court
did not hear the parties is not only irregular but also extra-
judicial and invalid. The rule rests on the fundamental
tenets of fair play.
Liga v. Alegro Resources Corp., (2008). Thirdly, there is no
allegation or prayer in the complaint that Allegro was
seeking the collection of the back rentals due Ortigas. Nor
was there evidence to that effect. It is elementary that a
judgment must conform to, and be supported by, both the
pleadings and the evidence, and be in accordance with the
theory of the action on which the pleadings are framed
and the case was tried. The judgment must be secundum
allegata et probata.
In Falcon v. Manzano, the Court set aside the judgment of
the trial court in conceding to her a remedy which was not
prayed for in the complaint as the trial court rendered
judgment allowing plaintiff to recover from the defendant
the unpaid portion of the purchase price of a parcel of
land when the plaintiff only asked for the nullification of
the contract of sale of the realty and the return of the
property to her. We held that courts, in rendering
decisions, ought to limit themselves to the issues
presented by the parties in their pleadings.
i. Effects of Lack of Jurisdiction on the Judgment
Tiu v. First Plywood Corp., (2010). A judgment rendered
by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and may be
attacked anytime. It creates no rights and produces no
effect. It remains a basic fact in law that the choice of the
proper forum is crucial, as the decision of a court or
tribunal without jurisdiction is a total nullity. A void
judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. All
acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating
from it have no legal effect.
Calanza v. PICOP, (2009). We have repeatedly ruled that a
judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is null
and void and may be attacked anytime.8 It creates no
rights and produces no effect. In fact it remains a basic fact
in law that the choice of the proper forum is crucial as the
decision of a court or tribunal without jurisdiction is a total
nullity. A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no
judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor
the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant
to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.
j. Conflict Between the Dispositive Portion or
Fallo and Opinion of the Court – Fallo Prevails
Law Firm of Armovit v. CA, (2011). When there is a
conflict between the dispositive portion or fallo of a
Decision and the opinion of the court contained in the text
or body of the judgment, the former prevails over the
latter.
The foregoing rule is now without an exception. The SC
has held that “where the inevitable conclusion from the
body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a
mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision
will prevail.
k. The Fallo or the Dispositive Portion Controls the
Resolution of the Issue
Gonzales v. Solid Cement Corp., (2012). The resolution of
the court in a given issue – embodied in the fallo or
dispositive part of a decision or order – is the controlling
factor in resolving the issues in a case. The fallo embodies
the court’s decisive action on the issue/s posed, and is
thus the part of the decision that must be enforced during
execution. The other parts of the decision only contain,
and are aptly called, the ratio decidendi (or reason for the
decision) and, in this sense, assume a lesser role in
carrying into effect the tribunal’s disposition of the case.
When a conflict exists between the dispositive portion and
the opinion of the court in the text or body of the decision,
the former must prevail over the latter under the rule that
the dispositive portion is the definitive order, while the
opinion is merely an explanatory statement without the
effect of a directive. Hence, the execution must conform
with what the fallo or dispositive portion of the decision
ordains or decrees.
l. When Will the Case be Considered Moot and
Academic?
BSP v. Orient Commercial Banking Corp., (2011). A moot
and academic case is one that ceases to present a
justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so
that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or
value." In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to
which petitioner would be entitled to and which would be
negated by the dismissal of the petition.
Nazarro, Jr. v. Andutan, Jr., (2011). A case becomes moot
and academic only when there is no more actual
controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can
be served in passing upon the merits of the case
11. Entry of Judgment and Final Orders
Rule 36, Sec. 2. Entry of judgments and final orders — 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.
a. Finality of Judgment
Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon, (2011). A final judgment or
order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing
more for the court to do in respect thereto, such as 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 of res judicata or prescription, for
instance. Just like any other judgment, a summary
judgment that satisfies the requirements of a final
judgment will be considered as such.
Diesel Construction Co. Inc. v. Jolibee Foods Corp. An
order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally
disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can be
done with it in the trial court. In other words, the order or
judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. Au
contraire, an interlocutory order does not dispose of the
case completely, but leaves something to be done as
regards the merits of the latter.
b. Immutability of Judgment
Labao v. Flores, et. al., (2010). A decision that has personality, the judgment shall set out their individual or
acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and proper names, if known.
may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of 16. Kinds of Judgment
fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that
rendered it or by the highest court of the land a. Judgment upon a compromise
b. Judgment upon a confession
12. Judgment for or Against One or More of Several c. Judgment upon the merits
Parties d. Clarificatory judgment
e. Judgment nunc pro tunc
Rule 36, Sec. 3. Judgment for or against one or more of f. Judment sin perjuicio
several parties – Judgment may be given for or against g. Judgment by default (Rule 9, Sec. 3)
one or more of several plaintiffs and for or against one or h. Judgment on the pleadings (Rule 34)
more of several defendants. When justice so demands, the i. Summary judgment (Rule 35)
court may require the parties on each side to file j. Several judgment (Rule 36, Sec. 4)
adversary pleadings as between themselves and k. Separate judgment (Rule 36, Sec. 5)
determine their ultimate rights and obligations. l. Special judgments (Rule 39, Sec. 11)
m. Judgment for specific acts (Rule 39, Sec. 10)
13. Several Judgments n. Judgment on demurrer to evidence (Rule 33)
o. Conditional judgment
Rule 36, Sec. 4. Several judgments — In an action against p. Final Judgment (Rule 39, Sec. 47)
several defendants, the court may, when a several q. Final and Executory Judgment
judgment is proper, render judgment against one or more r. Amended and Clarified Judgment
of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others. s. Supplemental judgment
t. Alternative judgment
14. Separate Judgments u. Deficiency judgment
v. Declaratory judgment
Rule 36, Sec. 5. Separate judgments — When more than
one claim for relief is presented in an action, the court, at a. Judgment Upon a Compromise
any stage, upon a determination of the issues material to a
particular claim and all counterclaims arising out of the 1. What is a Compromise Agreement?
transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of
the claim, may render a separate judgment disposing of Art. 2028. A compromise is a contract whereby the
such claim. The judgment shall terminate the action with parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation
respect to the claim so disposed of and the action shall or put an end to one already commenced.
proceed as to the remaining claims. In case a separate
judgment is rendered the court by order may stay its Land Bank of the Phil. v. Heirs of Sps. Soriano, (2013).
enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent judgment There is no question that the foregoing Agreement was a
or judgments and may prescribe such conditions as may be compromise that the parties freely and voluntarily entered
necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the party in into for the purpose of finally settling their dispute in this
whose favor the judgment is rendered. case. Under Article 2028 of the Civil Code, a compromise is
a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal
15. Judgment Against Entity Without Juridical concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already
Personality commenced. Accordingly, a compromise is either judicial,
if the objective is to put an end to a pending litigation, or
Rule 36, Sec. 6. Judgment against entity without juridical extrajudicial, if the objective is to avoid a litigation. As a
personality — When judgment is rendered against two or contract, a compromise is perfected by mutual consent.
more persons sued as an entity without juridical However, a judicial compromise, while immediately
binding between the parties upon its execution, is not
executory until it is approved by the court and reduced to
a judgment. The validity of a compromise is dependent
upon its compliance with the requisites and principles of
contracts dictated by law. Also, the terms and conditions
of a compromise must not be contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public policy and public order.
2. Requisites of a Compromise Agreement
Uy v. Chua, (2009). It must be emphasized, though, that
like any other contract, a compromise agreement must
comply with the requisites in Article 1318 of the Civil Code,
to wit: (a) consent of the contracting parties; (b) object
certain that is the subject matter of the contract; and (c)
cause of the obligation that is established. And, like any
other contract, the terms and conditions of a compromise
agreement must not be contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public policy and public order. Any compromise
agreement that is contrary to law or public policy is null
and void, and vests no rights in and holds no obligation for
any party. It produces no legal effect at all.
3. Nature of a Judgment Upon Compromise
Pasco v. Heirs of De Guzman, (2010). A decision based on
a compromise agreement is immediately final and
executory and cannot be the subject of appeal, for when
parties enter into a compromise agreement and request a
court to render a decision on the basis of their agreement,
it is presumed that such action constitutes a waiver of the
right to appeal said decision. While there may have been
other remedies available to assail the decision, petitioners
were well within their rights to institute a special civil
action under Rule 65.
4. Effect of a Judicial Compromise
Ranola v. Ranola, (2009). A compromise agreement
intended to resolve a matter already under litigation is a
judicial compromise. Having judicial mandate and entered
as its determination of the controversy, such judicial
compromise has the force and effect of a judgment. It
transcends its identity as a mere contract between the
parties, as it becomes a judgment that is subject to
execution in accordance with the Rules of Court.
b. Judgment by Confession
Republic v. Bisaya Land Tranportation Co., (1978).
Judgment by confession is not a Plea but an affirmative
and voluntary act of the defendant himself, Here, the
court exercises a certain amount of supervision over the
entry of judgment, as well as equitable jurisdiction over
their subsequent status
c. Judgment Upon the Merits
A judgment is on the merits when it amounts to a legal
declaration of the respective rights and duties of the
parties based upon the disclosed facts.
d. Clarificatory Judgment
A judgment which is difficult to execute and comply
because of ambiguity in its terms, the party may file a
motion for clarificatory judgment in order for the court to
remove the ambiguity.
e. Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc (literally “now for
then”)
1. Office of a Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment
Briones-Vasquez v. CA, (2005). The office of a judgment
nunc pro tunc is to record some act of the court done at a
former time which was not then carried into the record,
and the power of a court to make such entries is restricted
to placing upon the record evidence of judicial action
which has been actually taken. It may be used to make the
record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it
did not speak but ought to have spoken. If the court has
not rendered a judgment that it might or should have
rendered, or if it has rendered an imperfect or improper
judgment, it has no power to remedy these errors or
omissions by ordering the entry nunc pro tunc of a proper
judgment. Hence a court in entering a judgment nunc pro
tunc has no power to construe what the judgment means,
but only to enter of record such judgment as had been
formerly rendered, but which had not been entered of
record as rendered. In all cases the exercise of the power
to enter judgments nunc pro tunc presupposes the actual
rendition of a judgment, and a mere right to a judgment
will not furnish the basis for such an entry.
2. Object of Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc
Briones-Vasquez v. CA, (2005). The object of a judgment
nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a new judgment and
the ascertainment and determination of new rights, but is
one placing in proper form on the record, the judgment
that had been previously rendered, to make it speak the
truth, so as to make it show what the judicial action really
was, not to correct judicial errors, such as to render a
judgment which the court ought to have rendered, in
place of the one it did erroneously render, nor to supply
nonaction by the court, however erroneous the judgment
may have been.
f. Judgment Sin Perjuicio
It is a judgment rendered by the court without prejudice to
the refilling of the case
g. Judgment by Default (Rule 9, Sec. 3)
Veluz v. Justice of the Peace. A judgment by default is a
judgment rendered against the defendant for his failure to
file an answer.
A judgment by default is a judgment rendered by the court
based on the presentation of the plantiff’s evidence ex
parte after the defendant has been declared in default,
and the award shall not exceed the amount or be different
from the kind of prayer that the plaintiff complained as
the facts and evidence so warrant
h. Judgment on the Pleadings (Rule 34)
PNB v. Aznar, (2011). Judgment on the pleadings is,
therefore, based exclusively upon the allegations
appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the annexes,
if any, without consideration of any evidence aliunde.
However, when it appears that not all the material
allegations of the complaint were admitted in the answer
for some of them were either denied or disputed, and the
defendant has set up certain special defenses which, if
proven, would have the effect of nullifying plaintiff’s main
cause of action, judgment on the pleadings cannot be
rendered.
i. Summary Judgment (Rule 35)
MARINA v. Marc Properties Corp., (2012). Summary
judgment is a procedural device resorted to in order to
avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays where
the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues
of fact to be tried. A "genuine issue" is such issue of fact
which require the presentation of evidence as
distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false
claim. There can be no summary judgment where
questions of fact are in issue or where material allegations
of the pleadings are in dispute. 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.
BPI v. Sps. Yu, (2010). A summary judgment is apt when
the essential facts of the case are uncontested or the
parties do not raise any genuine issue of fact.
j. Several Judgments (Rule 36, Sec. 4)
It is a judgment rendered by the court whenever proper in
an action against several defendants against one or more
of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others
k. Separate Judgments (Rule 36, Sec. 5)
It is a judgment rendered by the court when more than
one claim for relief is presented in an action, the court, at
any stage, upon a determination of the issues material to a
particular claim and all counterclaims arising out of the
transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of
the claim, may render a separate judgment disposing of
such claim. The judgment shall terminate the action with
respect to the claim so disposed of and the action shall
proceed as to the remaining claims. In case a separate
judgment is rendered the court by order may stay its
enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent judgment
or judgments and may prescribe such conditions as may be
necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the party in
whose favor the judgment is rendered.
l. Special Judgments
Rule 39, Sec. 11. Execution of special judgments — When
a judgment requires the performance of any act other
than those mentioned in the two preceding Sec.s, 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.
Chinese Commercial Property Co. v. Martinez, (1962). The
special judgment in this section is one which requires the
performance of any act, other than the payment of money
or the sale or delivery of real or personal property, which a
party must personally do because his personal
qualifications and circumstances have been taken into
consideration. Refusal to comply is punishable by
contempt.
m. Judgment for Specific Acts (Rule 39, Sec. 10)
Sandico, et. al. v. Piguing, (1971). A judgment for specific
acts under Rule 39, Sec. 10 directs a party to execute
conveyance of land, or to deliver deeds or other
documents, or to perform any other specific acts in
connection therewith but which acts can be performed by
persons other than said party.
Hence, on refusal to comply, the court can appoint some
other person to perform the act directed to be done at the
expense of the disobedient party and the act when so
done shall have the same effect as if performed by the
party himself. The disobedient party incurs no liability for
contempt.
n. Judgment on Demurrer to Evidence (Rule 33)
It is a judgment rendered by the court on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence after the plaintiff has rested its
case.
1. Nature of Demurrer to Evidence
Gonzales, et. al. v. Bugaay, (2012). 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.
o. Conditional Judgment
Cotton v. Almeda-Lopez. Where the judgment is
indefinite, or requires the performance of a condition, the
court must first determine whether or not the condition
imposed therein had been complied with before it could
issue a writ of execution.
p. Final Judgment (Rule 39, Sec. 47)
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, all the
issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid
to rest. All that remains is the execution of the decision
which is a matter of right. The prevailing party is entitled
to a writ of execution, the issuance of which is the trial
court’s ministerial duty
Anama v. PSB, (2012). Just as a losing party has the right
to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning
party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of
the resolution of his case by the execution and satisfaction
of the judgment, which is the "life of the law." To frustrate
it by dilatory schemes on the part of the losing party is to
frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the
courts. It is in the interest of justice that this Court should
write finis to this litigation.
1. Determination of Whether a Judgment is Final
or Not
Ybiernes v. Tanco-Gabaldon, (2011). The issue of whether
the RTC judgment is a final judgment is indeed crucial. If
the judgment were not final, it would be an improper
subject of an appeal. Hence, no appeal would have been
perfected before the CA, and the latter would not have
acquired jurisdiction over the entire case, including the
motion for new trial. But more importantly, only a final
judgment or order, as opposed to an interlocutory order,
may be the subject of a motion for new trial.
q. Final and Executory Judgment
A final and executory judgment is one rendered by the
court when there is no motion for reconsideration or
appeal filed, or the same has already been denied with
finality.
1. Remedy/ies in Case of Final and Executory
Judgment
Salting v. Velez, (2011). A final and executory decision can
only be annulled by a petition to annul the same on the
ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, or by a
petition for relief from a final order or judgment under
Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. However, no petition to that
effect was filed. Well-settled is the rule that once a
judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be
disturbed, altered, or modified in any respect except to
correct clerical errors or to make nunc pro tunc entries.
Nothing further can be done to a final judgment except to
execute it.
r. Void Judgment
Quiao v. Quiao, (2012). A judgment is null and void when
the court which rendered it had no power to grant the
relief or no jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the
parties or both." In other words, a court, which does not
have the power to decide a case or that has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter or the parties, will issue a void
judgment or a coram non judice
1. Effects of Void Judgment
Planas v. Collector of Internal Revenue. A decision that is
null and void for want of jurisdiction is not a decision in
contemplation of law and, hence, can never become
executory.
PNB v. Sps. Perez, (2011). A void judgment is no judgment
at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator
of any obligation. All the facts performed pursuant to it
and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.
s. Amended and Clarified Judgment
An amended and clarified judgment is judgment in which
the lower court makes a thorough study of the original
judgment and renders the amended and clarified
judgment only after considering all the factual and legal
issues. The amended and clarified decision is an entirely
new decision which supersedes the original decision.
t. Supplemental Judgment
It is a kind of judgment which serves to bolster or adds
something to the primary decision
u. Amended Judgment v. Supplemental Judgment
Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corp. v. CA, (2010).
There is a difference between an amended judgment and
a supplemental judgment.1avvphi1 In an amended and
clarified judgment, the lower court makes a thorough
study of the original judgment and renders the amended
and clarified judgment only after considering all the factual
and legal issues. The amended and clarified decision is an
entirely new decision which supersedes the original
decision. Following the court's differentiation of a
supplemental pleading from an amending pleading, it can
be said that a supplemental decision does not take the
place or extinguish the existence of the original. As its very
name denotes, it only serves to bolster or adds something
to the primary decision. A supplement exists side by side
with the original. It does not replace that which it
supplements.
v. Alternative Judgment
Board of Liquidators v. Ricma Trading Corp. The rule is
that when the dispositive part of a final order or decision is
definite, clear and unequivocal and can be wholly given
effect without the need of interpretation or construction,
the same is considered as the judgment of the court, to
the exclusion of anything said in the body thereof.
w. Deficiency Judgment
First National City Bank of New York v. Cheng Tan. A
contingent claim and must be filed with probate court
where the settlement of the estate of the deceased
mortgagor is pending, within the period of the time fixed
for the filing of claims.
x. Declaratory Judgment
O’Racca Bldg. Tenants Assoc. Inc. v. Kintanar. Declaratory
judgment: Where the petition for declaratory judgment is
coupled with a prayer for the issuance of injunction, the
same is equivalent to an action for prohibition against
public officers.
y. Null and Void Judgment
Planas v. Collector of Internal Revenue. A decision that is
null and void for want of jurisdiction is not a decision in
contemplation of law and, hence, can never become
executory.
II. Doctrines and Principles on Judgment
A. Immutability of Judgment/Conclusiveness of
Judgment
1. What is the Doctrine of Immutability of
Judgment?
Land Bank of Phil. v. Listana, (2011). It is a fundamental
legal principle 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. The only exceptions to the
general rule on finality of judgments are the so-called nunc
pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party,
void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire
after the finality of the decision which render its execution
unjust and inequitable. Indeed, litigation must end and
terminate sometime and somewhere, even at the risk of
occasional errors.
Sps. Edillo v. Sps. Dulpina, (2010). A judgment that has
become final and executory is immutable and
unalterable;40 the judgment may no longer be modified in
any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or
law, and regardless of whether the modification is
attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the
highest Court of the land.
Uy v. Ngo Chua, (2009). Thus, despite containing
erroneous conclusions of fact or law, it can no longer be
modified.
Industrial Timber Corp. v. Ababon, (2006). Once a
judgment has become final and executory it can no longer
be disturbed, altered or modified except for clerical errors
or mistakes, all the issues between the parties being
deemed resolved and laid to rest.
Equatorial Realty Dev. Inc. v. Mayfair Theater. The court
loses jurisdiction over the judgment to amend (except for
clerical errors) or alter the same but it retains jurisdiction
to execute it during its lifetime.
 2. What are the Two-Fold Purposes of the
Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment: What are
the Exceptions to the Doctrine of Immutability
of Judgment?
FGU Insurance Corp. v. RTC of Makati, (2011). Under the
doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of
judgment, 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. Any act which violates this
principle must immediately be struck down.
But like any other rule, it has exceptions, namely: (1) the
correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc
entries 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.
UP v. Hon. Dizon, (2012). It is true that a decision that has
attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and
cannot be modified in any respect, even if the modification
is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law,
and whether the modification is made by the court that
rendered it or by this Court as the highest court of the
land. Public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes
final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party
should not be deprived of the fruits of victory by some
subterfuge devised by the losing party. Unjustified delay in
the enforcement of such judgment sets at naught the role
and purpose of the courts to resolve justiciable
controversies with finality. Indeed, all litigations must at
some time end, even at the risk of occasional errors.
The doctrine of immutability of a final judgment has not
been absolute, and has admitted several exceptions,
among them: (a) the correction of clerical errors; (b) the
so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to
any party; (c) void judgments; and (d) whenever
circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision
that render its execution unjust and inequitable.
Moreover, in Heirs of Maura So v. Obliosca, we stated that
despite the absence of the preceding circumstances, the
Court is not precluded from brushing aside procedural
norms if only to serve the higher interests of justice and
equity. Also, in Gumaru v. Quirino State College, the Court
nullified the proceedings and the writ of execution issued
by the RTC for the reason that respondent state college
had not been represented in the litigation by the Office of
the Solicitor General.
3. Execution Which is Unjust There Will be a
Modification of Judgment; Exception to
Immutability of Judgment
Mendoza v. Fil-Homes Realty Dev. Corp., (2012).
Obviously a prevailing party in a civil action is entitled to a
writ of execution of the final judgment obtained by him
within five years from its entry (Section 443, Code of Civil
Procedure). But it has been repeatedly held, and it is now
well-settled in this jurisdiction, that when after judgment
has been rendered and the latter has become final, facts
and circumstances transpire which render its execution
impossible or unjust, the interested party may ask the
court to modify or alter the judgment to harmonize the
same with justice and the facts
4. Right of the Winning Party to Enjoy the Finality
of Judgment
Agdeppa v. COA, (2011). Just as the losing party has the
right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the
winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the
finality of the resolution of his case. The doctrine of finality
of judgment is grounded on the fundamental
considerations of public policy and sound practice, and
that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or
orders of courts must become final at some definite time
fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end to
litigations, thus setting to naught the main role of courts of
justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of
law and the maintenance of peace and order by setting
justiciable controversies with finality.
5. Prohibition on the Filing of a Second MR is
Grounded on Immutability of Judgment
Verginesa-Suarez v. Judge Dilag, (2011). The rule against
entertaining a second motion for reconsideration is rooted
in the basic tenet of immutability of judgments. At some
point a decision becomes final and executory and,
consequently, all litigations must come to an end.
Indeed, there have been instances when we gave merit to
second motions for reconsideration, but only when there
are "extraordinary persuasive reasons and only after an
express leave shall have been obtained." In administrative
cases involving the discipline of judges and court
personnel, we even allowed third motions for
reconsideration but, still, only "whenever justified by the
circumstances."
6. Public Policy and Sound Practice Basis of
Immutability of Judgment
Filipro, Inc. v. Permanent Savings & Loans Bank, (2006).
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. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on
the fundamental principle of public policy and sound
practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment
of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must
become final at some definite date fixed by law
First United Constructors Corp. v. CA, (2006). Public policy
and sound practice demand that at the risk of occasional
errors, judgments of courts should become final and
irrevocable at some definite date fixed by law. This is
better observed if the court executing the judgment would
refrain from creating further controversy by effectively
modifying and altering the dispositive portion of the
decision, thus further delaying the satisfaction of the
judgment. No matter how just the intention of the trial
court, it cannot legally reverse what has already been
settled
Siy v. NLRC, (2005). Once a case is decided with finality,
the controversy is settled and the matter is laid to rest.
The prevailing party is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his
victory while the other party is obliged to respect the
court’s verdict and to comply with it.
B. Res Judicata
1. What is Res Judicata?
Sps. Villanueva v. CA, (2011). Res judicata literally 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.
2. Two Concepts of Res Judicata
a. Barred by prior judgment (Rule 39, Sec. 47(b))
b. Conclusiveness of judgment (Rule 39, Sec. 47(c))
3. Requisites of Res Judicata
Social Security Commission v. Rizal Poultry and Livestock
Assoc. Inc., (2011). 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.
Atty. Zamoranos v. People, (2011). The requisites for res
judicata or bar by prior judgment are:
(1) The former judgment or order must be final;
(2) It must be a judgment on the merits;
(3) It must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties; and
(4) There must be between the first and second
actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and
cause of action.
4. Requisites of Bar by Prior Judgment and
Conclusiveness of Judgment
Social Security Commission v. Rizal Poultry and Livestock
Assoc. Inc., (2011). 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.
5. Effects of Res Judicata
Balais-Mabanag v. Register of Deeds of QC, (2010). Under
the doctrine of res judicata, therefore, a final judgment or
decree on the merits rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their
privies in all later suits and on all points and matters
determined in the previous suit. The foundation principle
upon which the doctrine rests is that the parties ought not
to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once;
that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long
as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the
parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.
6. Res Judicata Rule Bars the Re-Litigation of Facts
or Issues
Cruz v. Sandiganbayan, (2010). The res judicata rule bars
the re-litigation of facts or issues that have once been
settled by a court of law upon a final judgment on the
merits
7. Effect of Judgment or Final Orders under Rule
39, Sec. 47
Rule 39, Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders —
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;
C. Conclusiveness of Judgment
1. Conclusiveness of Judgment
Social Security Commission v. Rizal Poultry and Livestock
Assoc. Inc., (2011). 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.
2. Purpose of Conclusiveness of Judgment
Ley Construction & Dev. Corp. v. PCIB, (2010).
Conclusiveness of judgment does not require identity of
the causes of action for it to work. 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
will be final and conclusive in the second if that same point
or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit;
but the adjudication of an issue in the first case is not
conclusive of an entirely different and distinct issue arising
in the second. Hence, facts and issues actually and directly
resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any
future case between the same parties, even if the latter
suit may involve a different claim or cause of action.
3. Effects of Conclusiveness of Judgment
Hacienda Bigaa, Inc. v. Chavez, (2010). While
conclusiveness of judgment does not have the same
barring effect as that of a bar by former judgment that
proscribes subsequent actions, the former nonetheless
estops the parties from raising in a later case the issues or
points that were raised and controverted, and were
determinative of the ruling in the earlier case. In other
words, the dictum laid down in the earlier final judgment
or order becomes conclusive and continues to be binding
between the same parties, their privies and successors-in-
interest, as long as the facts on which that judgment was
predicated continue to be the facts of the case or incident
before the court in a later case; the binding effect and
enforceability of that earlier dictum can no longer be re-
litigated in a later case since the issue has already been
resolved and finally laid to rest in the earlier case.
D. Law of the Case
1. What is the Law of the Case?
Ursua v. Republic, (2012). Yu v. Yu, as effectively
reiterated in Vios v. Pantangco, defines and explains the
ramifications of the law of the case principle as follows:
Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered
on a former appeal. It is a term applied to an established
rule that when an appellate court passes on a question
and remands the case to the lower court for further
proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law
of the case upon subsequent appeal. It means that
whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling
legal rule or decision between the same parties in the
same case continues to be the law of the case, … so long
as the facts on which such decision was predicated
continue to be the facts of the case before the court.
Otherwise put, the principle means that questions of law
that have been previously raised and disposed of in the
proceedings shall be controlling in succeeding instances
where the same legal question is raised, provided that the
facts on which the legal issue was predicated continue to
be the facts of the case before the court. Guided by this
definition, the law of the case principle cannot provide
petitioners any comfort.
E. Stare Decisis
1. What is the Doctrine of Stare Decisis?
Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, (2012).
The doctrine of stare decisis is one of policy grounded on
the necessity for securing certainty and stability of judicial
decisions, thus:
Time and again, the Court has held that it is a very
desirable and necessary judicial practice that when a court
has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain
state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to
all future cases in which the facts are substantially the
same. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the
decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis
simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion
reached in one case should be applied to those that follow
if the facts are substantially the same, even though the
parties may be different. It proceeds from the first
principle of justice that, absent any powerful
countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be
decided alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to
the same event have been put forward by the parties
similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and
decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a
bar to any attempt to relitigate the same [issue].
III. Modes of Service of Judgment, Final Orders or
Resolution (Rule 13, Sec. 9)
A. Modes of Service of Judgment, Final Orders,
Resolution
1. Mode of Service of Judgment or Final Orders
Rule 13, Sec. 9. 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.
a. Service of Judgment to Counsel Who is Already
Dead is Defective
Sps. Belen v. Hon. Chavez, (2008). Undoubtedly, upon the
death of Atty. Alcantara, the lawyer-client relationship
between him and petitioners has ceased, thus, the service
of the RTC decision on him is ineffective and did not bind
petitioners.
The subsequent service on petitioners’ purported "last
known address" by registered mail is also defective
because it does not comply with the requisites under the
aforequoted Section 7 of Rule 13 on service by registered
mail. Section 7 of Rule 13 contemplates service at the
present address of the party and not at any other address
of the party. Service at the party’s former address or his
last known address or any address other than his present
address does not qualify as substantial compliance with
the requirements of Section 7, Rule 13. Therefore, service
by registered mail presupposes that the present address of
the party is known and if the person who receives the
same is not the addressee, he must be duly authorized by
the former to receive the paper on behalf of the party.
Chapter XXVI: Remedies Before Finality of Judgment
The remedies available to the party after the judgment has
already been rendered, but before finality, are as follows:
a. Motion for New Trial (Rule 37 and 53)
b. MR (Rule 37 and 52)
c. Appeal (Rule 40,41, 42, 43, and 45)
I. Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration
A. Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration
1. What is a Motion for New Trial?
It is a complete retrial of the case after judgment has been
rendered based on the grounds specified under Rule 37,
Sec. 1
It is an application for a relief requesting that the judge set
aside the judgment and order a new trial on the basis that
the trial was improper or unfair due to specified prejudicial
errors that occurred.
2. Constitutional Mandate in Making a Ruling on a
MR
Art. VIII, Sec. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a
decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied
without stating the legal basis therefor.
3. Purpose of MR
Siy v. CA, (1985). The purpose of a MR is to point out the
findings and conclusions of the decision which , in the
movant’s view, are not supported by law or evidence. The
movant is therefore, confined to the amplification or
further discussion of the same issue already passed upon
by the court.

4. Right of the Defendant to File Motion for New
Trial or Reconsideration
NAPOCOR v. CA, (2004). The plaintiff or plaintiffs may not
deprive the defendants or co-plaintiffs and neither may
the defendant or defendants deprive the plaintiff or co-
defendants of the right to file a motion for reconsideration
or to move for a new trial or an execution pending appeal
by immediately filing a notice of appeal.
5. Grounds of and period for Filing Motion for
New Trial or Reconsideration
Rule 37, Sec. 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion
for new trial or reconsideration — 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; 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.
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.
a. Meaning of “Within the Period for Taking an
Appeal”
Distelleria Limtuaco & Co. Inc. v. CA, (1986). Under the
present procedure, an appeal is being taken by filing a
notice of appeal, and it is perfected upon the expiration of
the last day of the period to appeal by any party. In cases
where a record on appeal is required, appeal is taken by
filing a notice of appeal and the record on appeal and the
appeal is perfected upon the approval of the record on
appeal.
b. Motion for Extension of Time to File MR Does
Not Toll The Period to Appeal; Suspension of
the Rules
Winston Garcia v. CA, (2013). The assailed CA resolution
upheld the general rule that the filing of a motion for
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration in
the CA does not toll the fifteen-day period to appeal, citing
Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japson. However, in previous
cases we suspended this rule in order to serve substantial
justice.
In Barnes v. Padilla, we exempted from the operation of
the general rule the petitioner whose motion for extension
of time to file a motion for reconsideration was denied by
the CA. In the Resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration of our Decision dated September 30,
2004, we held that:
A suspension of the Rules is warranted in this case since
the procedural infirmity was not entirely attributable to
the fault or negligence of the petitioner. Petitioner’s
counsel was understandably confused with the absence of
an explicit prohibition in the 2002 Internal Rules of the
Court of Appeals (IRCA) that the period of filing a motion
for reconsideration is non-extendible, which was expressly
stated in the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals
that was in effect prior to the IRCA. The lawyer’s
negligence without any participatory negligence on the
part of the petitioner is a sufficient reason to set aside the
resolution of the CA.
More significantly, a careful study of the merits of the case
and the lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory, dictated the setting aside of
the resolutions of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 69573 and
Branch 215 in Civil Case No. Q-99-37219, as both are
patently erroneous.
Furthermore, the private respondents will not be unjustly
prejudiced by the suspension of the rules. What is subject
of the appeal is only a question of law, involving the issue
of forum-shopping, and not a factual matter involving the
merits of each party’s respective claims and defenses
relating to the enforcement of the MOA, wherein
petitioner was given an option to purchase the subject
property. Litigations should, as much as possible, be
decided on their merits and not on mere technicalities.
Every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest
opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his
cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.
After a conscientious review, we hold that a suspension of
the Rules is warranted in this case since the delay of one
week and two days in the filing of the motion for
reconsideration was not occasioned by negligence on the
part of petitioner’s lawyer in charge of the case, the latter
having a valid excuse to immediately take leave of absence
in view of her fathers’ sudden demise. Additionally, the
merits of the case impel us to adopt a more liberal stance.
There is likewise no showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory.
c. Requisites of Newly-Discovered Evidence: Must
be Raised During the Proceedings Below
Heirs of Racaza v. Sps. Abay-Abay, (2012). While the Rules
of Court allows the introduction by parties of newly-
discovered evidence, as in motions for new trial under
Rule 37, these are not to be presented for the first time
during an appeal. In addition, the term "newly-discovered
evidence" has a specific definition under the law. Under
the Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered
evidence are: (a) the evidence was discovered after trial;
(b) such evidence could not have been discovered and
produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) it is
material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or
impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, will
probably change the judgment.
d. Meaning of Extrinsic Fraud
Phil. Tourism Authority v. Phil. Golf Dev. & Equipment,
Inc. (2012). Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of
the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed
outside of the trial of the case, whereby the unsuccessful
party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by
fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent.
e. What is Accident?
Dela Cruz v. Capital Insurance & Surety Co. It is an event
that takes place without one’s foresight or expectation. An
event that proceeded from an unknown cause; or is
unusual effect of a known cause and therefore, not
expected
f. What is Mistake?

Combos v. Santos. An error in action; a blunder
Phil. Legal Encyclopedia, (1986). An incorrect belief held
by some concerned about a fact involved in a transaction
or a proceeding, or an incorrect opinion about the law
which governs the transaction of proceedings.
g. Client is Bound by Counsel’s Mistakes;
Exceptions
CMTC International Marketing Corp. v. Bhagis
International Trading Corp., (2012). It bears stressing at
this point then that the rule, which states that the
mistakes of counsel binds the client, may not be strictly
followed where observance of it would result in outright
deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where the
interest of justice so requires.
Where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the
client of due process of law, or when the interests of
justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who
suffered by reason of the lawyer’s gross or palpable
mistake or negligence.
Building Care Corp. v. Macaraeg, (2012). It is, however, an
oft-repeated ruling that the negligence and mistakes of
counsel bind the client. A departure from this rule would
bring about never-ending suits, so long as lawyers could
allege their own fault or negligence to support the client’s
case and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by the
operation of law. The only exception would be, where the
lawyer's gross negligence would result in the grave
injustice of depriving his client of the due process of law.
h. What is Excusable Negligence? When is
Negligence Excusable?
Corpus v. Belmonte, (1963). Negligence is excusable
where it is caused by failure to receive notice of the action
or trial, by a genuine and excusable mistake or
miscalculation, by reliance upon assurance given by those
upon whom the party have a right to depend, as the
adverse party or counsel retained in the case, or a
competent adviser, that would be necessary for him to
take an active part in the case, or that the suit would not
be prosecuted, by relying on another person to attend the
case for him, when such other person promised to do so or
was chargeable with that duty, or by a well-founded belief
that the case would not reach for trial as it was in fact
reached, or by other circumstances not involving fault of
the moving party.
i. Negligence of Counsel Binds the Client;
Exceptions
Panay Railways, Inc. v. Heva Management and Dev.
Corp., (2012). We cannot consider counsel’s failure to
familiarize himself with the Revised Rules of Court as a
persuasive reason to relax the application of the Rules. It is
well-settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client.
This principle is based on the rule that any act performed
by lawyers within the scope of their general or implied
authority is regarded as an act of the client. Consequently,
the mistake or negligence of the counsel of petitioner may
result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against
it.
Phil. Tourism Authority v. Phil. Golf Dev. & Equipment,
Inc., (2012). PTA cannot escape these legal technicalities
by simply invoking the negligence of its counsel. This
practice, if allowed, would defeat the purpose of the Rules
on periods since every party would merely lay the blame
on its counsel to avoid any liability. The rule is that "a
client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in
the realm of procedural technique[,]and unless such acts
involve gross negligence that the claiming party can prove,
the acts of a counsel bind the client as if it had been the
latter’s acts."
6. Contents of Motion for New Trial or
Reconsideration
Rule 37, Sec. 2. Contents of motion for new trial or
reconsideration and notice thereof — The motion shall be
made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefor, a
written notice of which shall be served by the movant on
the adverse party.
A motion for new trial shall be proved in the manner
provided for proof of motion. A motion for the cause
mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding Sec. shall be
supported by affidavits of merits which may be rebutted
by affidavits. A motion for the cause mentioned in
paragraph (b) shall be supported by affidavits of the
witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given,
or by duly authenticated documents which are proposed
to be introduced in evidence.
A motion for reconsideration shall point out a specifically
the findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order
which are not supported by the evidence or which are
contrary to law making express reference to the
testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions
of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or
conclusions.
A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall
not toll the reglementary period of appeal.
a. Mere Reiteration of the Issues Already Passed
Upon Does Not Make the Motion Pro Forma;
Requisites of Pro Forma MR
First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corp. v. Chevron Phil. Inc.,
(2012). The mere fact that a motion for reconsideration
reiterates issues already passed upon by the court does
not, by itself, make it a pro forma motion. Among the ends
to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed is
precisely to convince the court that its ruling is erroneous
and improper, contrary to the law or evidence; the movant
has to dwell of necessity on issues already passed upon.
Gonzales v. COMELEC, (2011). Mere reiteration of issues
already passed upon by the court does not automatically
make a motion for reconsideration pro forma. What is
essential is compliance with the requisites of the Rules.
Indeed, in the cases where a motion for reconsideration
was held to be pro forma, the motion was so held because
(1) it was a second motion for reconsideration, or (2) it did
not comply with the rule that the motion must specify the
findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or
not supported by the evidence, or (3) it failed to
substantiate the alleged errors, or (4) it merely alleged
that the decision in question was contrary to law, or (5)
the adverse party was not given notice thereof.
b. Prohibition on Pro Forma Motion Applies Only
to a Final Order and Not to Interlocutory Order
San Juan, Jr. v. Cruz, (2006). There is no rule which
prohibits the filing of a pro forma motion against an
interlocutory order as the prohibition applies only to a
final resolution or order of the court.
c. Effects of Noncompliance of the MR or New
Trial with Rule 15 on Motions

Anama v. PSB, (2012). 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
MERALCO v. La Compania Food Products, Inc. A motion
that does not met the requirements of Rule 15, Sec. 4 and
5 is a worthless piece of paper which the clerk has no right
to receive and the court has no authority to act upon.
d. What is an Affidavit of Merit?
Miranda v. Legaspi. An affidavit of merit is a sworn written
statement which states (a) nature or character of the
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence on which
the motion for new trial is based; (b) the facts constituting
the movant’s good and substantial defense or valid cause
of action and (c) the evidence which he intends to present
if his motion is granted.
e. What is the Effect of the Filing a Motion for
New Trial or Consideration?
Rule 40, Sec. 2. When to appeal — An appeal may be
taken within fifteen (15) days after notice to the appellant
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 after 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.
7. Actions Upon Motion for New Trial or
Reconsideration
Rule 37, Sec. 3. Action upon motion for new trial or
reconsideration — The trial court may set aside the
judgment or final order and grant a new trial, upon such
terms as may be just, or may deny the motion. If the court
finds that excessive damages have been awarded or that
the judgment or final order is contrary to the evidence or
law, it may amend such judgment or final order
accordingly.
8. Resolution of Motion
Rule 37, Sec. 4. Resolution of motion — A motion for new
trial or reconsideration shall be resolved within thirty (30)
days from the time it is submitted for resolution.
9. Second Motion for New Trial
Rule 37, Sec. 5. Second motion for new trial — 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.
No party shall be allowed a second motion for
reconsideration of a judgment or final order
a. Is an Omnibus Motion Rule Applicable in a
Motion for New Trial?
Yes. By express provision of Rule 37, Sec. 5, “A motion for
new trial shall include all grounds then available and those
not so included shall be deemed waived.”
b. A MR Filed on the Amended Decision is Not a
Second MR; Period to Appeal is From the
Receipt of the Order Denying the MR on the
Amended Decision
Barba v. Liceo de Cagayan University, (2012). Prefatorily,
we first discuss the procedural matter raised by
respondent that the present petition is filed out of time.
Respondent claims that petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration from the Amended Decision is a second
motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading.
Respondent’s assertion, however, is misplaced for it
should be noted that the CA’s Amended Decision totally
reversed and set aside its previous ruling. Section 2, Rule
52 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
provides that no second motion for reconsideration of a
judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be
entertained. This contemplates a situation where a second
motion for reconsideration is filed by the same party
assailing the same judgment or final resolution. Here, the
motion for reconsideration of petitioner was filed after the
appellate court rendered an Amended Decision totally
reversing and setting aside its previous ruling. Hence,
petitioner is not precluded from filing another motion for
reconsideration from the Amended Decision which held
that the labor tribunals lacked jurisdiction over petitioner’s
complaint for constructive dismissal. The period to file an
appeal should be reckoned not from the denial of her
motion for reconsideration of the original decision, but
from the date of petitioner’s receipt of the notice of denial
of her motion for reconsideration from the Amended
Decision. And as petitioner received notice of the denial of
her motion for reconsideration from the Amended
Decision on September 23, 2010 and filed her petition on
November 8, 2010, or within the extension period granted
by the Court to file the petition, her petition was filed on
time.
c. No Second MR in the CA
League of Cities of the Phil. v. COMELEC, (2011). As a rule,
a second MR is a prohibited pursuant to Rule 52, Sec. 2
which provides that “No second motion for
reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the
same party shall be entertained”
Thus, a decision becomes final and executory after 15 days
from receipt of the denial of the first MR. However, when
a motion for leave to file and admit a second MR is
granted by the Court, the Court therefore allows the filing
of the second MR. In such case, the second MR is no
longer a prohibited pleading
d. Exceptions to the Prohibition on the Filing of a
Second MR
UE v. UE Employees Assoc., (2011). A second MR as a rule,
is generally a prohibited pleading. The Court, however,
does not discount instances when it may authorize the
suspension of the rules of procedure so as to allow the
resolution of a second motion for reconsideration, in cases
of extraordinarily persuasive reasons such as when the
decision is a patent nullity.
e. When can a Second MR be Allowed?
Aliviado v. Procter and Gamble Phils. Inc., (2011). Section rest, or stay the enforcement of such judgment or final no reason either to reverse or to modify its judgment or
2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that [n]o order until after the new trial. final order, and leaves the judgment or final order to
motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final stand. The remedy from the denial is to assail the denial in
resolution by the same party shall be entertained. 13. Remedy Against an Order Denying a Motion for the course of an appeal of the judgment or final order
Moreover, Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the New Trial or Reconsideration itself.
Supreme Court[23] decrees viz:
Rule 37, Sec. 9. Remedy against order denying a motion 16. New Trial Under Rule 37 as Distinguished from
SEC. 3. Second motion for reconsideration. - The Court for new trial or reconsideration — An order denying a Rule 53
shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration motion for new trial or reconsideration is not appealed,
and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the the remedy being an appeal from the judgment or final New Trial under Rule 37 New Trial under Rule 53
higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote order. Available only in the trial Available in the appellate
of at least two-thirds of its actual membership. There is courts (RTC/MTC/MCTC) courts (CA)
reconsideration 'in the highest interest of justice' when 14. Amendment on Rule 41, Sec. 1(a) under A.M. Provides for the ground of Grounded on newly
the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous but is No. 07-7-12-SC fraud, accident, mistake discovered evidence
likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing and excusable negligence
unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC (Dec. 27, 2007), deleted from those and newly discovered
parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be judgments or orders which are not appealable under Rule evidence
entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered 41, Sec. 1 “an order denying a motion for new trial or a Shall be resolved within 30 Shall be resolved within 90
becomes final by operation of law or by the Court's motion for reconsideration” days from the time the case days when the court
declaration. is submitted for resolution declares it submitted for
The effect of the amendment will make the order as a final resolution
10. Effects of Granting of Motion for New Trial order and therefore appealable, hence, the remedy is
appeal from the judgment and the order denying the 17. Reconsideration under Rule 37 as Distinguished
Rule 37, Sec. 6. Effect of granting of motion for new trial motion for new trial or reconsideration from Rule 52
— If a new trial is granted in accordance with the
provisions of this Rules the original judgment or final order 15. Remedy Against the Denial of the MR Reconsideration under Reconsideration under
shall be vacated, and the action shall stand for trial de Rule 37 Rule 52
novo; but the recorded evidence taken upon the former Jose v. Javellana, (2012). Indeed, the Court has held that Available only in the trial Available in the appellate
trial, insofar as the same is material and competent to an appeal from an order denying a motion for courts (RTC/MTC/MCTC) courts (CA)
establish the issues, shall be used at the new trial without reconsideration of a final order or judgment is effectively Provides for the following Does not provide for
retaking the same. an appeal from the final order or judgment itself; and has grounds that the damages specific grounds
expressly clarified that the prohibition against appealing awarded are excessive, the
11. Partial New Trial or Reconsideration an order denying a motion for reconsideration referred evidence is insufficient to
only to a denial of a motion for reconsideration of an justify the decision or final
Rule 37, Sec. 7. Partial new trial or reconsideration — If interlocutory order. order or the decision or
the grounds for a motion under this Rule appear to the final order is contrary to
court to affect the issues as to only a part, or less than an Heirs of Sps. Reterta v. Sps. Lopez, (2011). The restriction law
of the matter in controversy, or only one, or less than all, against an appeal of a denial of a motion for
Shall be resolved within 30 Shall be resolved within 90
of the parties to it, the court may order a new trial or grant reconsideration independently of a judgment or final
days from the time the case days when the court
reconsideration as to such issues if severable without order is logical and reasonable. A motion for
is submitted for resolution declares it submitted for
interfering with the judgment or final order upon the rest. reconsideration is not putting forward a new issue, or
resolution
presenting new evidence, or changing the theory of the
12. Effects of Order of Partial New trial Or case, but is only seeking a reconsideration of the judgment
18. Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial of a
Reconsideration or final order based on the same issues, contentions, and
Judgment, A Prohibited Motion Under the Rules
evidence either because: (a) the damages awarded are
on Summary Procedure
Rule 37, Sec. 8. Effect of order for partial new trial — excessive; or (b) the evidence is insufficient to justify the
When less than all of the issues are ordered retried, the decision or final order; or (c) the decision or final order is
court may either enter a judgment or final order as to the contrary to law. By denying a motion for reconsideration,
or by granting it only partially, therefore, a trial court finds
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or for reopening of trial;
a. Are MR or New Trial Allowed under the Rules of
Summary Proceeding?
As a general rule, motion for new trial or reconsideration
are prohibited motions under the Rules on Summary
Procedure if it is against a judgment, but not to
interlocutory orders.
19. Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration
Prohibited under the Rules on Small Claims
Cases
Sec. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions - The following
pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be allowed in
the cases covered by this Rule:
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or for reopening of trial;
As a general rule, motion for new trial or reconsideration
are prohibited motions under the Rules on Small Claims if
it is against a judgment, but not to interlocutory orders.
20. MR under Rule 37 v. MR of an Interlocutory
Order
Jose v. Javellana, (2012). Indeed, the Court has held that
an appeal from an order denying a motion for
reconsideration of a final order or judgment is effectively
an appeal from the final order or judgment itself; and has
expressly clarified that the prohibition against appealing
an order denying a motion for reconsideration referred
only to a denial of a motion for reconsideration of an
interlocutory order.
21. Procedure in the CA on Motion for New Trial or
Reconsideration
Rule 52: Motion for Reconsideration
Sec. 1. Period for filing — A party may file a motion for
reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution within
fifteen (15) days from notice thereof, with proof of service
on the adverse party. (n)
Sec. 2. Second motion for reconsideration — No second
motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final
resolution by the same party shall be entertained. (n)
Sec. 3. Resolution of motion — In the Court of Appeals, a
motion for reconsideration shall be resolved within ninety
(90) days from the date when the court declares it
submitted for resolution. (n)
Sec. 4. Stay of execution — The pendency of a motion for
reconsideration filed on time and by the proper party shall
stay the execution of the judgment or final resolution
sought to be reconsidered unless the court, for good
reasons, shall otherwise direct. (n)
Rule 53: New Trial
Sec. 1. Period for filing; ground — At any time after the
appeal from the lower court has been perfected and
before the Court of Appeals loses jurisdiction over the
case, a party may file a motion for a new trial on the
ground of newly discovered evidence which could not
have been discovered prior to the trial in the court below
by the exercise of due diligence and which is of such a
character as would probably change the result. The motion
shall be accompanied by affidavits showing the facts
constituting the grounds therefor and the newly
discovered evidence. (1a)
Sec. 2. Hearing and order — The Court of Appeals shall
consider the new evidence together with that adduced at
the trial below, and may grant or refuse a new trial, or may
make such order, with notice to both parties, as to the
taking of further testimony, either orally in court, or by
depositions, or render such other judgment as ought to be
rendered upon such terms as it may deem just. (2a)
Sec. 3. Resolution of motion — In the Court of Appeals, a
motion for new trial shall be resolved within ninety (90)
days from the date when the court declares it submitted
for resolution. (n)
Sec. 4. Procedure in new trial — Unless the court
otherwise directs, the procedure in the new trial shall be
the same as that granted by a Regional Trial Court.
II. Appeal in General
A. Basic Concepts on Appeal
1. What is an Appeal?
U.S. v. Tamparong. A civil law procedure whose office is to
remove the entire cause and subjects the transcript to a
scrutiny of fact and law and is in substance a new trial
2. When Can an Appeal be Taken
Rule 41, Sec. 1. Subject of 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.
3. Nature of the Right to Appeal
Sps. Bergonia and Castillo v. CA, (2012). The right to
appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process.
It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised
only in accordance with the law. The party who seeks to
avail of the same must comply with the requirements of
the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.
Julian v. DBP, (2011). It is well-established that "[t]he right
to appeal is a statutory privilege and must be exercised
only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions
of the law." "Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to
appeal must strictly comply with the requirements of the
rules, and failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to
appeal."
Heirs of Olarte v. OP, (2011). The right to appeal is not a
natural right or a part of due process, but merely a
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.
The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply
with the requirements of the rules, failing in which the
right to appeal is lost.
4. Right to Appeal is a Statutory Right; Duty of the
Appellant
Asian Spirit Lines v. Sps. Bautista, (2005). The right to
appeal is a statutory right and the party who seeks to avail
of the same must comply with the requirements of the
Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. More so,
as in this case, where petitioner not only neglected to file
its brief within the stipulated time but also failed to seek
an extension of time for a cogent ground before the
expiration of the time sought to be extended.
Sps. Lebin v. RTC of Iloilo, (2011). The statutory nature of
the right to appeal requires the one who avails himself of
it to strictly comply with the statutes or rules that are
considered indispensable interdictions against needless
delays and for an orderly discharge of judicial business. In
the absence of highly exceptional circumstances
warranting their relaxation, like when the loftier demands
of substantial justice and equity require the relaxation, or
when there are other special and meritorious
circumstances and issues, such statutes or rules should
remain inviolable.
5. Purpose of Appeal
Samson v. Hon. Fiel-Macaraig, (2010). The remedy to
obtain reversal or modification of the judgment on the
merits is appeal. This is true even if the error, or one of the
errors, ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise
of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in
the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision. The
availability of the right to appeal precludes recourse to the
special civil action for certiorari.
6. Right to Appeal Not Part of Due Process
Del Rosario v. CA, (2004). It should be stressed that the
right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due
process. It is merely a procedural remedy of statutory
origin, a remedy that may be exercised only in the manner
prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing such
exercise. Hence, the legal requirements must be strictly
complied with.
It would be incorrect to consider the requirements of the
rules on appeal as merely harmless and trivial
technicalities that can be discarded. Indeed, deviations
from the rules cannot be tolerated. In these times when
court dockets are clogged with numerous litigations, such
rules have to be followed by parties with greater fidelity,
so as to facilitate the orderly disposition of those cases.
7. Administrative Case Against Erring Judge, Not a
Remedy if Appeal is Available
Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche v. Justice Dicdican,
(2009). It also bears reiteration that a party’s remedy, if
prejudiced by the orders of a magistrate lies with the
proper reviewing court, not with the Office of the Court
Administrator by means of an administrative complaint. It
is axiomatic that, where some other judicial means is
available, an administrative complaint is not the
appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed
aberrant or irregular.
Atty. Amante-Descallar v. Judge Ramas, (2009). It is
elementary that not every error or mistake that a judge
commits in the performance of his duties renders him
liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with
deliberate intent to do an injustice. Good faith and
absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper
considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge
charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge. In
Maquiran v. Grageda, the Court held that alleged error
committed by judges in the exercise of their adjudicative
functions cannot be corrected through administrative
proceedings but should instead be assailed through
judicial remedies. Thus:
Now, the established doctrine and policy is that
disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against
Judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a
substitute for, these judicial remedies, whether ordinary
or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial
remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the
corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-requisites for
the taking of other measures against the persons of the
judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or
criminal nature. It is only after the available judicial
remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals
have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into
his criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be said to
have opened, or closed.
Law and logic decree that "administrative" or criminal
remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial
review where such review is available, and must wait on
the result thereof. Indeed, since judges must be free to
judge, without pressure or influence from external forces
or factors, they should not be subject to intimidation, the
fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for acts
they may do and dispositions they may make in the
performance of their duties and functions; and it is sound
rule, which must be recognized independently of statute,
that judges are not generally liable for acts done within
the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith; and that
exceptionally, prosecution of the judge can be had only if
"there be a final declaration by a competent court in some
appropriate proceeding of the manifestly unjust character
of the challenged judgment or order, and ** also evidence
of malice or bad faith, ignorance of inexcusable
negligence, on the part of the judge in rendering said
judgment or order" or under the stringent circumstances
set out in Article 32 of the Civil Code.
8. RTC Has the Power to Deny a Notice of Appeal
Not the CA
Panay Railways, Inc. v. Heva Management and Dev.
Corp., (2012). When this Court accordingly amended Sec.
13 of Rule 41 through A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, the RTC’s
dismissal of the action may be considered to have had the
imprimatur of the Court. Thus, the CA committed no
reversible error when it sustained the dismissal of the
appeal, taking note of its directive on the matter prior to
the promulgation of its Decision.
9. Perfection of Appeal Mandatory and
Jurisdictional
Zamboanga Forest Managers Corp. v. New Pacific Timber
and Supply Co., (2010). The perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only
mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure of a party to
conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the
judgment final and executory. Once a decision attains
finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of
whether the decision is erroneous or not and no court –
not even the Supreme Court – has the power to revise,
review, change or alter the same. The basic rule of finality
of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of
public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of
occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of
quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite
date fixed by law.
Julian v. DBP, (2011). The requirement of an appeal fee is
not a mere technicality of law or procedure but an
essential requirement without which the decision
appealed from would become final and executory as if no
appeal was filed at all.
Meatmasters International Corp. v. Lelis Integrated Dev.
Corp., (2005). Corollarily, the right to appeal is merely a
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the
manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the
provision of the law. The failure to perfect an appeal
within the prescribed period is not only mandatory but
also jurisdictional and failure to do so renders the
questioned decision final and executory, and deprives the
appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment
much less to entertain the appeal.
Manipor v. Ricafort, (2003). The perfection of an appeal in
the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not
only mandatory but jurisdictional as well and failure to
perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment
or resolution final and executory
10. Effects of Failure to Comply with the Rules on
Appeal
Carbonel v. CSC, (2010). Failure to conform to the rules
regarding appeal will render the judgment final and
executory and beyond the power of the Court’s review.
Jurisprudence mandates that when a decision becomes
final and executory, it becomes valid and binding upon the
parties and their successors-in-interest. Such decision or
order can no loner be disturbed or re-opened no matter
how erroneous it may have been.
11. Negligence Not an Excuse to Perfect an Appeal
Insular Life Savings and Trust Co. v. Sps. Runes, (2004).
Otherwise, "all that a defeated party would have to do to
salvage his case," observed by the Court in one case,
would be to "claim neglect or mistake on the part of his
counsel as a ground for reversing the adverse judgment,"
and there would then be "no end to litigation ... as every
shortcoming of counsel could be the subject of challenge
by his client through another counsel who, if he (were)
also found wanting, (could) ... be disowned by the same
client through another counsel, and so on ad infinitum,
thereby rendering the court proceedings indefinite ..."
12. Negligence of the Counsel to Perfect an Appeal
Binds the Client
Ruiz v. Delos Santos, (2009). The failure of petitioners'
counsel to perfect the appeal binds petitioners. It is settled
that clients are bound by the mistakes, negligence and
omission of their counsel. While, exceptionally, the client
may be excused from the failure of counsel, the factual
circumstances in the present case do not give us sufficient
reason to suspend the rules of the most mandatory
character. Petitioners themselves may not be said to be
entirely faultless.
13. Negligence When Excusable
Corpus v. Belmonte, (1963). Negligence is excusable
where it is caused by failure to receive notice of the action
or trial, by a genuine and excusable mistake or
miscalculation, by reliance upon assurance given by those
upon whom the party have a right to depend, as the
adverse party or counsel retained in the case, or a
competent adviser, that would be necessary for him to
take an active part in the case, or that the suit would not
be prosecuted, by relying on another person to attend the
case for him, when such other person promised to do so or
was chargeable with that duty, or by a well-founded belief
that the case would not reach for trial as it was in fact
reached, or by other circumstances not involving fault of
the moving party.
14. Remedy in Case of Failure to Appeal Due to
Mistake or Excusable Negligence
Torres v. China Banking Corp., (2010). Further, the proper
remedy for allegations of mistake or inexcusable
negligence of counsel, which prevented a party from
taking an appeal, is a petition for relief under Rule 38 of
the Rules of Court.42 The petition must be filed within 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.43 It must be filed within the reglementary
period, which is reckoned from the time the party’s
counsel receives notice of the decision for notice to
counsel of the decision is notice to the party.
15. Effect of Absence of the Ground for Petition for
Relief
Ibabao v. IAC, (1987). Such a party is not entitled to relief
under Rule 38, Sec. 2 of the ROC if he was not prevented
fropm giling his notice of appeal by fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence. Such relief will not be
granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the
effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy of
law was due to his own negligence, or a mistaken mode of
procedure for that matter; otherwise, the petition for
relier will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal
which has already been lost either because of inexcusable
negligence or due to a mistake of procedure by counsel.
16. Remedy in Case of Denial of Petition for Relief
Fuzukumi v. Sanritsu Great International Corp., (2004). If
the petition for relief is denied by the trial court, the
remedy of the petitioner is to file a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which
reads:
SECTION 1. Subject of 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.
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
In all the above instances where the judgment or final
order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an
appropriate civil action under Rule 65.
17. Purpose of Limiting the Period to Appeal
Heirs of Crisostomo v. Rudex International Dev. Corp.,
(2011). The purpose in limiting the period of appeal is to
forestall or avoid an unreasonable delay in the
administration of justice and to put an end to
controversies. Where no element of intent to delay the
administration of justice could be attributed to petitioners,
a one-day delay does not justify their petition’s dismissal.
18. Effect of Failure to Appeal
Calipay v. NLRC, (2010). Failure to perfect the appeal
renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Just
as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within
the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the
correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.
DOJ Sec. Gonzales v. Pennisi, (2010). The general rule is
that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within
the period prescribed by law is, not only mandatory, but
jurisdictional, and failure to conform to the rules will
render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and
unappealable.
Torres v. China Banking Corp., (2010). The failure to file an
appeal from the decision rendering it final and executory is
not a denial of due process. The right to appeal is not a
natural right or 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 the law.
Catmon Sales International Corp. v. Atty. Yngson, (2010).
It is well-settled that a party who has not appealed from a
decision cannot seek any relief other than what is
provided in the judgment appealed from. An appellee who
has himself not appealed may not obtain from the
appellate court any affirmative relief other than the ones
granted in the decision of the court below. The appellee
can only advance any argument that he may deem
necessary to defeat the appellant’s claim or to uphold the
decision that is being disputed, and he can assign errors in
his brief if such is required to strengthen the views
expressed by the court a quo. These assigned errors in
turn may be considered by the appellate court solely to
maintain the appealed decision on other grounds, but not
for the purpose of reversing or modifying the judgment in
the appellee’s favor and giving him other reliefs.
Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Del Rosario, (2000). A party
who did not appeal from a decision of a court cannot
obtain affirmative relief other than that granted in the
appealed decision. This applies also to decisions of
administrative or quasi-judicial tribunals.
Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. People, (2004). After a
judgment has become final, vested rights are acquired by
the winning party. If the proper losing party has the right
to file an appeal within the prescribed period, then the
former has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the
resolution of the case.
19. Parties Cannot Change His Theory of the Case
on Appeal
QC v. RCBC, (2010). A party cannot, on appeal, change
fundamentally the nature of the issue in the case. When a
party deliberately adopts a certain theory and the case is
decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not
be permitted to change the same on appeal, because to
permit him to do so would be unfair to the adverse party.
Besana v. Mayor, (2010). Points of law, theories, issues
and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower
court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need
not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be
raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic
considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule.
Any issue raised for the first time on appeal is barred by
estoppel.
CIR v. Eastern Telecommunications, Phil. Inc., (2010). The
general rule is that appeals can only raise questions of law
or fact that (a) were raised in the court below, and (b) are
within the issues framed by the parties therein. An issue
which was neither averred in the pleadings nor raised
during trial in the court below cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal.
Mon v. CA, (2004). We have previously held that "courts
of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a
question not in issue." A judgment that goes outside the
issues and purports to adjudicate something on which the
court did not hear the parties, is not only irregular but also
extra-judicial and invalid. The rule rests on the
fundamental tenets of fair play.
20. Issues Not Raised Before the Lower Court
Cannot be Raised for the First Time on Appeal
Morla v. Belmonte, (2011). A party who deliberately
adopts a certain theory upon which the case was decided
by the lower court will not be permitted to change [it] on
appeal.
Sesbreno v. CBAA, (1997). As a rule, no issue may be
raised on appeal unless it has been brought before the
lower tribunal for its consideration.
DBP v. West Negros College, Inc., (2004). Higher courts
are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in
the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below, but
ventilated for the first time only in a motion for
reconsideration or on appeal.
21. Exceptions
Some instances where the SC reviewed matters raised for
the first time on appeal involved the presence of at least
one (1) of the following circumstances:
(1) PCIB v. CA, (1988). That the issues are closely
related to one properly assigned
(2) Villanueva v. CA, (2004). That the determination
of an issue properly assigned is dependent upon
the one being raised for the first time.
(3) Ramos v. PNB, (2011). It is a settled rule that the
issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any time,
even on appeal, provided that its application
does not result in a mockery of the tenets of fair
play.
(4) Ramos v. PNB, (2011). In the interest of justice
and within the sound discretion of the appellate
court, a party may change his legal theory on
appeal only when the factual bases thereof
would not require presentation of any further
evidence by the adverse party in order to enable
it to properly meet the issue raised in the new
theory.
22. Lack of Jurisdiction May be Raised For the First
Time on Appeal
Republic v. Bantigue Point Dev. Corp., (2012). At the
outset, we rule that petitioner Republic is not estopped
from questioning the jurisdiction of the lower court, even
if the former raised the jurisdictional question only on
appeal. The rule is settled that lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred only by the Constitution or the law. It cannot be
acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of
the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court.
Consequently, questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable
even if raised for the first time on appeal.
23. Limitation on the Power to Review Only to
Errors Assigned and Properly Argued in the
Appeal Brief or Memorandum
Rule 51, Sec. 8. Questions that may be decided — No
error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the
subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed
from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless
stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or
dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in
the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and
clerical errors.
24. Grounds Where the Court Can Review Issues
Not Assigned
Indeed, our rules recognize broad discretionary power of
an appellate court to waive the lack of proper assignment
of errors and to consider errors not assigned.
Thus, an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to
review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors in the
appeal in these instances:
a. Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting
jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are
evidently plain or clerical errors within the
contemplation of law;
c. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
consideration of which is necessary in arriving at
a just decision and complete resolution of the
case or to serve the interests of justice or to
avoid dispensing piece-meal justice
d. Matters not specifically assigned as errors on
appeal but raised in the trial court and are
matters of record having some bearing on the
issue submitted which the parties failed to raise
or which the lower court ignored;
e. Matters no assigned as errors on appeal but
closely related to an error assigned; and
f. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
upon which the determination of a question
properly assigned, is dependent.
People v. Martinez, (2010). The Court has the power to
correct any error, even if unassigned, if such is necessary
in arriving at a just decision, especially when the
transcendental matter of life and liberty is at stake.8 While
it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote
rather than frustrate the ends of justice, they nevertheless
must not be met at the expense of substantial justice.
Time and again, this Court has reiterated the doctrine that
the rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate
the attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it.
Technicalities should never be used to defeat substantive
rights.
25. Factual Findings of the Trial Court Accorded
Respect
Sps. De Leon and Tarrosa v. De Leon, (2009). Thus, the
question of whether petitioners were able to adduce proof
to overthrow the presumption is a factual issue best
addressed by the trial court. As a matter of long and sound
practice, factual determinations of the trial courts,
especially when confirmed by the appellate court, are
accorded great weight by the Court and, as rule, will not
be disturbed on appeal, except for the most compelling
reasons.
26. Instances When Remanding of the Case Cannot
be Made
Dela Pena v. CA, (2009). As a rule, remand is avoided in
the following instances: (a) where the ends of justice
would not be subserved by a remand; or (b) where public
interest demands an early disposition of the case; or (c)
where the trial court had already received all the evidence
presented by both parties, and the Supreme Court is in a
position, based upon said evidence, to decide the case on
its merits.
27. Sanctions for Frivolous Appeals
ALPA-PCM. Inc. v. Bulasao, (2012). Notwithstanding the
rule’s objective and clear mandate, losing litigants and
their lawyers are determined to stall execution by
misusing judicial remedies, putting forth arguments that,
by simple logic, can easily be resolved by a basic reading of
the applicable laws and rules. When judicial remedies are
misused to delay the resolution of cases, the Rules of
Court authorizes the imposition of sanctions. Section 3,
Rule 142 of the Rules of Court states:
Sec. 3. Costs when appeal frivolous.—Where an action or
an appeal is found to be frivolous, double or treble costs
may be imposed on the plaintiff or appellant, which shall
be paid by his attorney, if so ordered by the court.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY the ALPA-PCM,
Inc.’s motion for reconsideration of our Resolution dated
July 6, 2011. For instituting a frivolous appeal manifestly
intended for delay, the Court imposes treble costs against
ALPA-PCM, Inc., to be paid by its counsel, Atty. Guillermo
R. Bandonil, Jr.
III. Modes of Appeal (Rule 40-45)
A. Basic Concepts
1. Modes of Appeal
Cabigas v. Limbaco, (2011). The first mode of appeal, the
ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, is
brought to the CA from the RTC, in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction, and resolves questions of fact or
mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of
appeal, the petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules
of Court, is brought to the CA from the RTC, acting in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and resolves
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The
third mode of appeal, the appeal by certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the Supreme Court
and resolves only questions of law.
2. Wrong or Inappropriate Mode of Appeal Will
Cause a Dismissal
Goco, et. al. v. CA, (2010). An appeal taken to either the
SC or the CA by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be
dismissed.
3. Summary on the Rules Modes of Appeal
Land Bank of the Phil. v. Ramos, (2012). In Macawiwili
Gold Mining and Development Co., Inc. v. CA we
summarized the rule on appeals as follows:
(1) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of
its original jurisdiction, appeal may be made to
the Court of Appeals by mere notice of appeal
where the appellant raises questions of fact or
mixed questions of fact and law;
(2) In all cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of
its original jurisdiction where the appellant raises
only questions of law, the appeal must be taken
to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45.
(3) All appeals from judgments rendered by the RTC
in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction,
regardless of whether the appellant raises
questions of fact, questions of law, or mixed
questions of fact and law, shall be brought to the
Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review
under Rule 42.

A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what
the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a
question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law,
the same must not involve an examination of the
probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants
or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely
on what the law provides on the given set of
circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a
review of the evidence presented, the question posed is
one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of
law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question
by the party raising the same; rather, it 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 is a question of fact.
IV. Appeal from the MeTC/MTC to the RTC (Rule
40)
1. Where to Appeal
Rule 40, Sec. 1. Where to appeal — An appeal from a
judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court may be
taken to the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction
over the area to which the former pertains. The title of the
case shall remain as it was in the court of origin, but the
party appealing the case shall be further referred to as the
appellant and the adverse party as the appellee.
2. When to Appeal
Rule 40, Sec. 2. When to appeal — An appeal may be
taken within fifteen (15) days after notice to the appellant
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 after 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.
a. Motion for Extension of Time to File MR Does
Not Toll the Period to Appeal; Suspension of the
Rules
Winston Garcia v. CA, (2013). The assailed CA resolution
upheld the general rule that the filing of a motion for
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration in
the CA does not toll the fifteen-day period to appeal, citing
Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japson. However, in previous
cases we suspended this rule in order to serve substantial
justice.
In Barnes v. Padilla, we exempted from the operation of
the general rule the petitioner whose motion for extension
of time to file a motion for reconsideration was denied by
the CA. In the Resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration of our Decision dated September 30,
2004, we held that:
A suspension of the Rules is warranted in this case since
the procedural infirmity was not entirely attributable to
the fault or negligence of the petitioner. Petitioner’s
counsel was understandably confused with the absence of
an explicit prohibition in the 2002 Internal Rules of the
Court of Appeals (IRCA) that the period of filing a motion
for reconsideration is non-extendible, which was expressly
stated in the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals
that was in effect prior to the IRCA. The lawyer’s
negligence without any participatory negligence on the
part of the petitioner is a sufficient reason to set aside the
resolution of the CA.
More significantly, a careful study of the merits of the case
and the lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory, dictated the setting aside of
the resolutions of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 69573 and
Branch 215 in Civil Case No. Q-99-37219, as both are
patently erroneous. x x x
Furthermore, the private respondents will not be unjustly
prejudiced by the suspension of the rules. What is subject
of the appeal is only a question of law, involving the issue
of forum-shopping, and not a factual matter involving the
merits of each party’s respective claims and defenses
relating to the enforcement of the MOA, wherein
petitioner was given an option to purchase the subject
property. Litigations should, as much as possible, be
decided on their merits and not on mere technicalities.
Every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest
opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his
cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.
After a conscientious review, we hold that a suspension of
the Rules is warranted in this case since the delay of one
week and two days in the filing of the motion for
reconsideration was not occasioned by negligence on the
part of petitioner’s lawyer in charge of the case, the latter
having a valid excuse to immediately take leave of absence
in view of her fathers’ sudden demise. Additionally, the
merits of the case impel us to adopt a more liberal stance.
There is likewise no showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory.
b. “Neypes Doctrine” or “Fresh Period Rule”
The “Neypes doctrine” or what our current rules of
procedure refer to now as the “Fresh Period Rule” has
stemmed from the 2005 decision of the SC in Neypes v. CA
(G.R. No. 141524) “to standardize the appeal periods
provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair
opportunity to appeal their cases”, the Court has deemed
it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which
to file the notice of appeal, to be counted from receipt of
the order denying the motion for new trial, MR (whether
full or partial) or any final order or resolution.
c. Retroactive Application of the “Fresh Period
Rule”
Jose v. Javellana, (2012). The "fresh period rule" is a
procedural law as it prescribes a fresh period of 15 days
within which an appeal may be made in the event that the
motion for reconsideration is denied by the lower court.
Following the rule on retroactivity of procedural laws, the
"fresh period rule" should be applied to pending actions,
such as the present case.
Also, to deny herein petitioners the benefit of the "fresh
period rule" will amount to injustice, if not absurdity, since
the subject notice of judgment and final order were issued
two years later or in the year 2000, as compared to the
notice of judgment and final order in Neypes which were
issued in 1998. It will be incongruous and illogical that
parties receiving notices of judgment and final orders
issued in the year 1998 will enjoy the benefit of the "fresh
period rule" while those later rulings of the lower courts
such as in the instant case, will not.
d. Reckoning Period in the Application of the
“Fresh Period Rule”
Manaloto, et. al. v. Veloso III, (2010). An ordinary appeal
from the RTC to the Court of Appeals, under Section 3 of
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, shall be taken within fifteen
(15) days either from receipt of the original judgment of
the trial court or from receipt of the final order of the trial
court dismissing or denying the motion for new trial or
motion for reconsideration.
The Court is allowing a fresh period of 15 days within
which to file a notice of appeal in the RTC, counted from
receipt of the order dismissing or denying a motion for
new trial or motion for reconsideration.
e. Application of the “Fresh Period Rule”
Duarte v. Duran, (2011). To standardize the appeal
periods and afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their
cases, we ruled in Neypes v. Court of Appeals that litigants
must be given a fresh period of 15 days within which to
appeal, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a
motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration under
Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the Rules of Court. This
ruling, as we have said in Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v.
Homena-Valencia, retroactively applies even to cases
pending prior to the promulgation of Neypes on
September 14, 2005, there being no vested rights in the
rules of procedure.
Panolino v. Tajala, (2010). The "fresh period rule" shall
apply to Rule 40 (appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts
to the Regional Trial Courts); Rule 41 (appeals from the
Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals or Supreme
Court); Rule 42 (appeals from the Regional Trial Courts to
the Court of Appeals); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial
agencies to the Court of Appeals); and Rule 45 (appeals by
certiorari to the Supreme Court). Obviously, these Rules
cover judicial proceedings under the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
f. Aim of the “Fresh Period Rule”
PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. Milan, (2010). The new
rule aims to regiment or make the appeal period uniform,
to be counted from receipt of the order denying the
motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether
full or partial) or any final order or resolution.
g. Relaxation of the Rule on the Mandatory Period
for Filing an Appeal
Vianzon v. Macaraig, (2012). Indeed, the perfection of an
appeal in the manner and the period prescribed by law is
mandatory and jurisdictional. Necessarily, the failure to
conform to the rules will render the judgment for review
final and unappealable. By way of exception, however,
minor lapses are at times disregarded in order to give due
course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on
the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as serving
the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage
thereof. The period for appeal is set in order to avoid or
prevent undue delay in the administration of justice and to
put an end to controversies. It is there not to hinder the
very ends of justice itself. The Court cannot have purely
technical and procedural imperfections as the basis of its
decisions. In several cases, the Court held that "cases
should be decided only after giving all parties the chance
to argue their causes and defenses."
Considering further that the party who failed to meet the
exacting limits of an appeal by a mere seven days was an
old farmer who was not only unlearned and unskilled in
the ways of the law but was actually an illiterate who only
knew how to affix his signature, certainly, to rule based on
technicality would not only be unwise, but would be
inequitable and unjust.
DOJ Sec. Gonzales v. Pennisi, (2010). A one-day delay
does not justify the appeal’s dismissal where no element
of intent to delay the administration of justice could be
attributed to the petitioner. The Court has ruled:
The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period prescribed by law is, not
only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and failure to conform
to the rules will render the judgment sought to be
reviewed final and unappealable. By way of exception,
unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due course
to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the
basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as serving the
ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof.
The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal
is to avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of
justice and to put an end to controversies.
Rovira v. Heiors of Deleste, (2010). The court has the
discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appellant's
appeal. It is a power conferred on the court, not a duty.
The discretion must be a sound one, to be exercised in
accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having
in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case.
Technicalities, however, must be avoided. The law abhors
technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court's
primary duty is to render or dispense justice.
Siguenza v. CA. In many instances in the past, the Court
allowed appeals filed out of time where the delay was not
due to the fault or negligence of the appellant as long as
the appeals were impressed with merit.
3. How to Appeal
Rule 40, Sec. 3. How to appeal — The appeal is taken by
filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the
judgment or final order appealed from. The notice of
appeal shall indicate the parties to the appeal, the
judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from, and
state the material dates showing the timeliness of the
appeal.
A record on appeal shall be required only in special
proceedings and in other cases of multiple or separate
appeals.
The form and contents of the record on appeal shall be as
provided in Sec. 6, Rule 41.
Copies of the notice of appeal, and the record on appeal
where required, shall be served on the adverse party.
a. Strict Application of the Rules on the Manner of
Appeal
Go v. Sunbanun, (2011). The Court emphasizes that
provisions with respect to the rules on the manner and
periods for perfecting appeals are strictly applied and are
only relaxed in very exceptional circumstances on
equitable considerations.
b. What are the Forms and Contents of a Record
on Appeal?
Rule 41, Sec. 6. Record on appeal; form and contents
thereof — The full names of all the parties to the
proceedings shall be stated in the caption of the record on
appeal and it shall include the judgment or final order
from which the appeal is taken and, in chronological order,
copies of only such pleadings, petitions, motions and all
interlocutory orders as are related to the appealed
judgment or final order for the proper understanding of
the issue involved, together with such data as will show
that the appeal was perfected on time. If an issue of fact is
to be raised on appeal, the record on appeal shall include
by reference all the evidence, testimonial and
documentary, taken upon the issue involved. The
reference shall specify the documentary evidence by the
exhibit numbers or letters by which it was identified when
admitted or offered at the hearing, and the testimonial
evidence by the names of the corresponding witnesses. If
the whole testimonial and documentary evidence in the
case is to be included, a statement to that effect will be
sufficient without mentioning the names of the witnesses
or the numbers or letters of exhibits. Every record on
appeal exceeding twenty (20) pages must contain a subject
index.
c. Designation of the Wrong Court Does Not
Affect the Validity of the Notice of Appeal
Torres v. People, (2011). The designation of the wrong
court does not necessarily affect the validity of the notice
of appeal. However, the designation of the proper court
should be made within the 15-day period to appeal. Once
made within the said period, the designation of the correct
appellate court may be allowed even if the records of the
case are forwarded to the Court of Appeals.
4. Perfection of Appeal; Effect Thereof
Rule 40, Sec. 4. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof — The
perfection of the appeal and the effect thereof shall be
governed by the provisions of Sec. 9, Rule 41.
a. Rule 41, Sec. 9
Rule 41, Sec. 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof — 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.
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.
b. Mere Filing of a Notice of Appeal Does Not
Divest The Trial Court of Its Power to Resolve
Pending Incidents
Valencia v. CA, (2001). As long as any of the parties may
still file his, her, or its appeal, the court does not lose
jurisdiction over the case. The mere filing by one party of a
notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its
jurisdiction over a case and to resolve pending incidents
like a motion for execution pending appeal filed by the
party within the reglementary period for perfecting an
appeal because the court must hear and resolve such
motion for it would become part of the records to be
elevated on appeal.
c. Period for Perfecting an Appeal Must be Strictly
Followed
Prieto v. CA, (2012). On the plea for application for the
liberality rule, it must be stressed that there are certain
procedural rules that must remain inviolable, like those
setting the period for perfecting an appeal. Doctrinally
entrenched is that the right of appeal is a statutory right
and the one who seeks to avail that right must comply
with the statute or rules. The Rules, particularly the
requirements for perfecting an appeal within the
reglementary period specified in the law, must be strictly
followed as they are considered indispensable
interdictions against needless delays and appeal in the
manner and within the period permitted by law is not only
mandatory but also jurisdictional and the failure to perfect
an appeal renders the judgment of the court final and
executory. Just as a losing party has the right to file an
appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party
also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the
resolution of his or her case.
Vianzon v. Macaraeg, (2012). Indeed, the perfection of an
appeal in the manner and the period prescribed by law is
mandatory and jurisdictional. Necessarily, the failure to
conform to the rules will render the judgment for review
final and unappealable. By way of exception, however,
minor lapses are at times disregarded in order to give due
course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on
the basis of strong and compelling reasons, such as serving
the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage
thereof. The period for appeal is set in order to avoid or
prevent undue delay in the administration of justice and to
put an end to controversies. It is there not to hinder the
very ends of justice itself. The Court cannot have purely
technical and procedural imperfections as the basis of its
decisions.
5. Appellate Court and Other Lawful Fees
Rule 40, Sec. 5. Appellate court docket and other lawful
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 thereof shall be transmitted to the
appellate court together with the original record or the
record on appeal, as the case may be.
a. Payment of Appeal Docket Fee – Mandatory
and Jurisdictional
D.M. Wenceslao and Assoc. Inc. v. City of Paranaque,
(2011). Payment of docket and other fees within this
period is mandatory for the perfection of the appeal.
Otherwise, the right to appeal is lost.
Province of Camarines Sur v. Heirs of Pato, (2010).
Payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is
mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such
payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action and the decision
sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.
Meatmasters International Corp. v. Lelis Integrated Dev.
Corp., (2005). It is well-established that the payment of
docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for
the perfection of an appeal. This is so because a court
acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
only upon the payment of the correct amount of docket
fees regardless of the actual date of filing of the case in
court. The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is
a sine qua non requirement for the perfection of an
appeal. The court acquires jurisdiction over the case only
upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees.
b. Mere Filing of Notice of Appeal Not Enough to
Perfect an Appeal – Payment of Docket Fees
Required
Ruiz v. Delos Santos, (2009). It is a well-settled rule that
the mere filing of the notice of appeal is not enough, for it
must be accompanied by the payment of the correct
appellate docket fees. Payment in full of docket fees
within the prescribed period is mandatory. It is an
essential requirement without which the decision
appealed from would become final and executory as if no
appeal has been filed. Failure to perfect an appeal within
the prescribed period is not a mere technicality but
jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal renders the
judgment final and executory.
c. Cases Where SC Relaxed the Rule on Payment
of Appeal Fee
Meatmasters International Corp. v. Lelis Integrated Dev.
Corp., (2005). We recognize that certain peculiar
circumstances attendant in a case may warrant the
relaxation of the strict application of the rules on the
payment of docket fees. Thus, in La Salette College v.
Pilotin, we held that the said rules may be qualified by the
following: first, failure to pay those fees within the
reglementary period allows only discretionary, not
automatic, dismissal; second, such power should be used
by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound
discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair
play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in
consideration of all attendant circumstances. Our
pronouncements on the matter is always influenced by the
peculiar legal and equitable surroundings of each case.
While the Rules of Procedure must be faithfully followed,
same Rules may be relaxed for persuasive and weighty
reasons to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate
with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.
MCIAA v. Mangubat, (1999). The payment of the docket
fees was delayed by six (6) days, but the late payment was
accepted not only because the new Rules took effect only
two (2) weeks prior but also because the party showed
willingness to abide by the Rules by immediately paying
those fees as soon as it became aware thereof.
Yambao v. CA, (2000). The appellate court may extend the
time for the payment of the docket fees if appellant is able
to show that there is a justifiable reason for his failure to
pay the correct amount of docket fees within the
prescribed period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable
negligence, or a similar supervening casualty, without fault
on the part of the appellant.
In that case, the clerk of court erroneously assessed the
amount of the docket fees which, nonetheless, was paid
within the appeal period, although insufficient.
6. Duty of the Clerk of Court
Rule 40, Sec. 6. Duty of the clerk of court — Within fifteen
(15) days from the perfection of the appeal, the clerk of
court or the branch clerk of court of the lower court shall
transmit the original record or the record on appeal,
together with the transcripts and exhibits, which he shall
certify as complete, to the proper Regional Trial Court. A
copy of his letter of transmittal of the records to the
appellate court shall be furnished the parties.
7. Procedure in the RTC
Rule 40, Sec. 7. Procedure in the Regional Trial Court —
(a) Upon receipt of the complete record or the
record on appeal, the clerk of court of the
Regional Trial Court shall notify the parties of
such fact.
(b) Within fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall
be the duty of the appellant to submit a
memorandum which shall briefly discuss the
errors imputed to the lower court, a copy of
which shall be furnished by him to the adverse
party. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
the appellant's memorandum, the appellee may
file his memorandum. Failure of the appellant to
file a memorandum shall be a ground for
dismissal of the appeal.
(c) Upon the filing of the memorandum of the
appellee, or the expiration of the period to do
so, the case shall be considered submitted for
decision. The Regional Trial Court shall decide
the case on the basis of the entire record of the
proceedings had in the court of original and such
memoranda as are filed.
8. Appeal From the Order Dismissing Case
Without Trial; Lack of Jurisdiction
Rule 40, Sec. 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case
without trial; lack of jurisdiction — If an 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. In case of
affirmance and the ground of dismissal 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. 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 Sec., without prejudice to
the admission of amended pleadings and additional
evidence in the interest of justice.
9. Applicability of Rule 41
Rule 40, Sec. 9. Applicability of Rule 41 — The other
provisions of Rule 41 shall apply to appeals provided for
herein insofar as they are not inconsistent with or may
serve to supplement the provisions of this Rule.
V. Appeal From the RTC to the CA (Rule 41)
A. Basic Concepts
1. Modes of Appeals from the RTC
Heirs of Cabigas v. Limbaco, (2011). There are three (3)
modes of appeals under Rule 41, Sec. 2 that may be taken
in assailing a decision rendered by the RTC.
The first mode of appeal, the ordinary appeal under Rule
41 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the CA from the
RTC, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, and resolves
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The
second mode of appeal, the petition for review under Rule
42 of the Rules of Court, is brought to the CA from the
RTC, acting in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and
resolves questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and
law.
Sps. Lebin v. Mirasol and RTC of Iloilo, (2011). The
petition for review must be filed with the Court of Appeals
within 15 days from notice of the judgment, and as already
stated, shall point out the error of fact or law that will
warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or
judgment sought to be reviewed. An ordinary appeal is
taken by merely filing a notice of appeal within 15 days
from notice of the judgment, except in special proceedings
or cases where multiple appeals are allowed in which
event the period of appeal is 30 days and a record on
appeal is necessary.
B. Appeal from the RTC to the CA
1. Subject of Appeal
Rule 41, Sec. 1. Subject of 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.
No appeal may be taken from:
(h) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar
motion seeking relief from judgment;
(i) An interlocutory order;
(j) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(k) 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;
(l) An order of execution;
(m) 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
(n) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
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.
a. Rationale of the Non-Appealable Character of
Interlocutory Order
Korea Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Hon. Lerma, (2008). The
proper remedy in such cases is an ordinary appeal from an
adverse judgment on the merits, incorporating in said
appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory orders.
Allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would result in
the ‘sorry spectacle’ of a case being subject of a
counterproductive ping-pong to and from the appellate
court as often as a trial court is perceived to have made an
error in any of its interlocutory rulings. However, where
the assailed interlocutory order was issued with grave
abuse of discretion or patently erroneous and the remedy
of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious
relief, the Court allows certiorari as a mode of redress.
b. Interlocutory Order as Distinguished from Final
Order
Jose v. Javellana, (2012). 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.
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.
2. Modes of Appeal
Rule 41, Sec. 2. Modes of appeal —
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) Appeal by 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.
a. Mixed Question of Law and Facts; Purely
Question of Law – Remedy
Heirs of Cabigas v. Limbaco, (2011). In both cases, the CA
resolves questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and
law with respect to the said decision of the RTC. Where a
litigant files an appeal that raises only questions of law
with the CA, Rule 50, Sec. 2, expressly mandates that the
CA should dismiss the appeal outright as the appeal is not
reviewable by that court.
Instead, the proper mode should be the third mode of
appeal, or a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45, which is brought directly from the RTC to the SC.
b. Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal Within
Fifteen (15) Days
Gonzales v. Pe, (2011). Just like in appeals from the
judgment of a lower court, in cases of ordinary appeal (or
appeals from the decision of the RTC in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction), Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court provides that the appeal to the CA in cases decided
by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall
be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC (the
court which rendered the judgment or final order
appealed from) and serving a copy thereof upon the
adverse party. Section 3 thereof states that the appeal
shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
judgment or final order appealed from. Concomitant with
the filing of a notice of appeal is the payment of the
required appeal fees within the 15-day reglementary
period set forth in Section 4 of the said Rule.
3. Period of Ordinary Appeal
Rule 41, Sec. 3. Period of ordinary 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.
4. Appellate Court and Other Docket Fees
Rule 41, Sec. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful
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.
a. Payment of Appeal Docket Fee – Mandatory
and Jurisdictional
Province of Camarines Sur v. Heirs of Pato, (2010).
Payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is
mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such
payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action and the decision
sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.
Meatmasters International Corp. v. Lelis Intergrated Dev.
Corp., (2005). It is well-established that the payment of
docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for
the perfection of an appeal. This is so because a court
acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
only upon the payment of the correct amount of docket
fees regardless of the actual date of filing of the case in
court. The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is
a sine qua non requirement for the perfection of an
appeal. The court acquires jurisdiction over the case only
upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees.
b. Mere Filing of Notice of Appeal Not Enough to
Perfect an Appeal – Payment of Docket Fees
Required
Ruiz v. Delos Santos, (2009). It is a well-settled rule that
the mere filing of the notice of appeal is not enough, for it
must be accompanied by the payment of the correct
appellate docket fees. Payment in full of docket fees
within the prescribed period is mandatory. It is an
essential requirement without which the decision
appealed from would become final and executory as if no
appeal has been filed. Failure to perfect an appeal within
the prescribed period is not a mere technicality but
jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal renders the
judgment final and executory.
c. Cases Where the SC Relaxed the Rule on
Payment of Appeal Docket Fee
Meatmasters International Corp. v. Lelis Integrated Dev.
Corp., (2005). We recognize that certain peculiar
circumstances attendant in a case may warrant the
relaxation of the strict application of the rules on the
payment of docket fees. Thus, in La Salette College v.
Pilotin, we held that the said rules may be qualified by the
following: first, failure to pay those fees within the
reglementary period allows only discretionary, not
automatic, dismissal; second, such power should be used
by the court in conjunction with its exercise of sound
discretion in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair
play, as well as with a great deal of circumspection in
consideration of all attendant circumstances. Our
pronouncements on the matter is always influenced by the
peculiar legal and equitable surroundings of each case.
While the Rules of Procedure must be faithfully followed,
same Rules may be relaxed for persuasive and weighty
reasons to relieve a litigant of an injustice commensurate
with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.
MCIAA v. Mangubat, (1999). The payment of the docket
fees was delayed by six (6) days, but the late payment was
accepted not only because the new Rules took effect only
two (2) weeks prior but also because the party showed
willingness to abide by the Rules by immediately paying
those fees as soon as it became aware thereof.
Yambao v. CA, (2000). The appellate court may extend the
time for the payment of the docket fees if appellant is able
to show that there is a justifiable reason for his failure to
pay the correct amount of docket fees within the
prescribed period, like fraud, accident, mistake, excusable
negligence, or a similar supervening casualty, without fault
on the part of the appellant.
In that case, the clerk of court erroneously assessed the
amount of the docket fees which, nonetheless, was paid
within the appeal period, although insufficient.
5. Notice of Appeal
Rule 41, Sec. 5. Notice of appeal — The notice of appeal
shall indicate the parties to the appeal, specify the
judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from,
specify the court to which the appeal is being taken, and
state the material dates showing the timeliness of the
appeal.
6. Record on Appeal
Rule 41, Sec. 6. Record on appeal; form and contents
thereof — The full names of all the parties to the
proceedings shall be stated in the caption of the record on
appeal and it shall include the judgment or final order
from which the appeal is taken and, in chronological order,
copies of only such pleadings, petitions, motions and all
interlocutory orders as are related to the appealed
judgment or final order for the proper understanding of
the issue involved, together with such data as will show
that the appeal was perfected on time. If an issue of fact is
to be raised on appeal, the record on appeal shall include
by reference all the evidence, testimonial and
documentary, taken upon the issue involved. The
reference shall specify the documentary evidence by the
exhibit numbers or letters by which it was identified when
admitted or offered at the hearing, and the testimonial
evidence by the names of the corresponding witnesses. If
the whole testimonial and documentary evidence in the
case is to be included, a statement to that effect will be
sufficient without mentioning the names of the witnesses
or the numbers or letters of exhibits. Every record on
appeal exceeding twenty (20) pages must contain a subject
index.
a. Record on Appeal Not Required in an Action for
Presumptive Death
Republic v. Granada, (2012). In Republic v. Jomoc, the RTC
granted respondent’s Petition for Declaration of
Presumptive Death of her absent husband for the purpose
of remarriage. Petitioner Republic appealed the RTC
Decision by filing a Notice of Appeal. The trial court
disapproved the Notice of Appeal on the ground that,
under the Rules of Court,8 a record on appeal is required
to be filed when appealing special proceedings cases. The
CA affirmed the RTC ruling. In reversing the CA, this Court
clarified that while an action for declaration of death or
absence under Rule 72, Section 1(m), expressly falls under
the category of special proceedings, a petition for
declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the
Family Code is a summary proceeding, as provided for by
Article 238 of the same Code. Since its purpose was to
enable her to contract a subsequent valid marriage,
petitioner’s action was a summary proceeding based on
Article 41 of the Family Code, rather than a special
proceeding under Rule 72 of the Rules of Court.
Considering that this action was not a special proceeding,
petitioner was not required to file a record on appeal
when it appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.
7. Approval of Record on Appeal
Rule 41, Sec. 7. Approval of record on appeal – Upon the
filing of the record on appeal for approval and if no
objection is filed by the appellee within five (5) days from
receipt of a copy thereof, the trial court may approve it as
presented or upon its own motion or at the instance of the
appellee, may direct its amendment by the inclusion of
any omitted matters which are deemed essential to the
determination of the issue of law or fact involved in the
appeal. If the trial court orders the amendment of the
record, the appellant, within the time limited in the order,
or such extension thereof as may be granted, or if no time
is fixed by the order within ten (10) days from receipt
thereof, shall redraft the record by including therein, in
their proper chronological sequence, such additional
matters as the court may have directed him to
incorporate, and shall thereupon submit the redrafted
record for approval, upon notice to the appellee, in like
manner as the original draft.
8. Joint Record on Appeal
Rule 41, Sec. 8. Joint record on appeal — Where both
parties are appellants, they may file a joint record on
appeal within the time fixed by Sec. 3 of this Rule, or that
fixed by the court.
9. Perfection of Appeal
Rule 41, Sec. 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof — 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.
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.
10. Duty of the Clerk of Court of the Lower Court
Upon Perfection of Appeal
Rule 41, Sec. 10. Duty of clerk of court of the lower court
upon perfection of appeal — Within thirty (30) days after
perfection of all the appeals in accordance with the
preceding Sec., it shall be the duty of the clerk of court of
the lower court:
(a) To verify the correctness of the original record or
the record on appeal, as the case may be aid to
make certification of its correctness;
(b) To verify the completeness of the records that
will be, transmitted to the appellate court;
(c) If found to be incomplete, to take such measures
as may be required to complete the records,
availing of the authority that he or the court may
exercise for this purpose; and
(d) To transmit the records to the appellate court.
If the efforts to complete the records fail, he shall indicate
in his letter of transmittal the exhibits or transcripts not
included in the records being transmitted to the appellate
court, the reasons for their non-transmittal, and the steps
taken or that could be taken to have them available.
The clerk of court shall furnish the parties with copies of
his letter of transmittal of the records to the appellate
court.
11. Transcript
Rule 41, Sec. 11. Transcript — Upon the perfection of the
appeal, the clerk shall immediately direct the
stenographers concerned to attach to the record of the
case five (5) copies of the transcripts of the testimonial
evidence referred to in the record on appeal. The
stenographers concerned shall transcribe such testimonial
evidence and shall prepare and affix to their transcripts an
index containing the names of the witnesses and the pages
wherein their testimonies are found, and a list of the
exhibits and the pages wherein each of them appears to
have been offered and admitted or rejected by the trial
court. The transcripts shall be transmitted to the clerk of
the trial court who shall thereupon arrange the same in
the order in which the witnesses testified at the trial, and
shall cause the pages to be numbered consecutively.
12. Transmittal
Rule 41, Sec. 12. Transmittal — The clerk of the trial court
shall transmit to the appellate court the original record or
the approved record on appeal within thirty (30) days from
the perfection of the appeal, together with the proof of
payment of the appellate court docket and other lawful
fees, a certified true copy of the minutes of the
proceedings, the order of approval, the certificate of
correctness, the original documentary evidence referred
to therein, and the original and three (3) copies of the
transcripts. Copies of the transcripts and certified true
copies of the documentary evidence shall remain in the
lower court for the examination of the parties.
13. Dismissal of Appeal
Rule 41 Sec. 13. Dismissal of appeal — Prior to the
transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal
to the appellate court, the trial court may motu propio or
on motion dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of
time or non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees
within the reglementary period.
VI. Procedure in the CA in Ordinary Appealed Cases
(Rule 44)
A. Procedure in the CA in Ordinary Appealed Cases
1. Title of Case
Rule 44, Sec. 1. Title of cases — In all cases appealed to
the Court of Appeals under Rule 41, the title of the case
shall remain as it was in the court of origin, but the party
appealing the case shall be further referred to as the
appellant and the adverse party as the appellee
2. Counsel and Guardians
Rule 44, Sec. 2. Counsel and guardians — The counsel and
guardians ad litem of the parties in the court of origin shall
be respectively considered as their counsel and guardians
ad litem in the Court of Appeals. When others appear or
are appointed, notice thereof shall be served immediately
on the adverse party and filed with the court.
3. Order of Transmittal of Record
Rule 44, Sec. 3. Order of transmittal of record — If the
original record or the record on appeal is not transmitted
to the Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days after the
perfection of the appeal, either party may file a motion
with the trial court, with notice to the other, for the
transmittal of such record or record on appeal.
4. Docketing of Case
Rule 44, Sec. 4. Docketing of case — Upon receiving the
original record or the record on appeal and the
accompanying documents and exhibits transmitted by the
lower court, as well as the proof of payment of the docket
and other lawful fees, the clerk of court of the Court of
Appeals shall docket the case and notify the parties
thereof. (4a, R46)
Within ten (10) days from receipt of said notice, the
appellant, in appeals by record on appeal, shall file with
the clerk of court seven (7) clearly legible copies of the
approved record on appeal, together with the proof of
service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.
Any unauthorized alteration, omission or addition in the
approved record on appeal shall be a ground for dismissal
of the appeal.
a. Non-submission of Copies of Approved Record
on Appeal Not a Ground for Dismissal of Appeal
University of Mindanao v. PDIC, (2011). A plain reading of
Section 4, Rule 44 does not provide that non-submission of
copies of the approved record on appeal is a ground to
dismiss an appeal. Quite plainly, the rule only reads that
should there be "any unauthorized alteration, omission or
addition in the approved record of appeal," the same
should be considered as a ground for dismissal.
5. Completion of Record
Rule 44, Sec. 5. Completion of record — Where the record
of the docketed case is incomplete, the clerk of court of
the Court of Appeals shall so inform said court and
recommend to it measures necessary to complete the
record. It shall be the duty of said court to take
appropriate action towards the completion of the record
within the shortest possible time.
6. Dispensing With Complete Record
Rule 44, Sec. 6. Dispensing with complete record —
Where the completion of the record could not be
accomplished within a sufficient period allotted for said
purpose due to insuperable or extremely difficult causes,
the court, on its own motion or on motion of any of the
parties, may declare that the record and its accompanying
transcripts and exhibits so far available are sufficient to
decide the issues raised in the appeal, and shall issue an
order explaining the reasons for such declaration.
7. Appellant’s Brief
Rule 44, Sec. 7. Appellant's brief — It shall be the duty of
the appellant to file with the court, within forty-five (45)
days from receipt of the notice of the clerk that all the
evidence, oral and documentary, are attached to the
record, seven (7) copies of his legibly typewritten,
mimeographed or printed brief, with proof of service of
two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.
a. Failure to File Appellant’s Brief a Ground for
Dismissal of Appeal
Beatingco v. Bu Gasis, (2011). The failure to file the
Appellant’s Brief, though not jurisdictional, results in the
abandonment of the appeal which may be the cause for its
dismissal. It is true that it is not the ministerial duty of the
CA to dismiss the appeal. The appellate court has the
discretion to do so, and such discretion must be a sound
one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of
justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances
obtaining in each case.
MCA-MBF Countdown Cards Phil. Inc. v. Aguiluz IX,
(2012). Confronted with the necessity to justify their
failure to file their Appellants’ Brief before the Court of
Appeals, all that the petitioners could offer was that the
lawyer who was handling the case resigned from the law
firm shortly after they received the notice to file the Brief,
while other counsels have been handling voluminous
cases, numerous court appearances, and out of town
hearings. Petitioners did not allege that the other lawyers
of the firm were not informed of the appellate court’s
notice to file the Brief. Petitioners did not even ask the
court for an extension. Instead, petitioners claim that the
rules concerning the filing of the Appellant’s Brief are
mere "insignificant and harmless technicalities" and argue
that because of the alleged merits of their case, they do
not have to prove that their failure to file the said brief
was excusable:
In light of the merits of petitioners’ appeal as will be
further discussed below, and in accordance with the
jurisprudence discouraging dismissal of appeals grounded
on pure technicalities, whether or not the inadvertence
resulting in the late filing of the appellant’s brief is
excusable is already beside the point. The focus should
have been on whether or not the appeal deserved full
consideration on the merits, and this can only be
determined if a preliminary consideration of the merits is
made.
This contention, which in effect advances that the
appellate court does not even deserve a valid explanation
for the appellant’s failure to its Brief, cannot be
countenanced. Liberality is given to litigants who are
worthy of the same, and not to ones who flout the rules,
give explanations to the effect that the counsels are busy
with other things, and expect the court to disregard the
procedural lapses on the mere self-serving claim that their
case is meritorious.
Furthermore, petitioners’ characterization of the rules
concerning the filing of the Appellant’s Brief as
"insignificant and harmless technicalities" is downright
improper as it is contrary to established jurisprudence. In
Casim v. Flordeliza, this Court particularly held that:
It would be incorrect to perceive the procedural
requirements of the rules on appeal as being merely
"harmless and trivial technicalities" that can just be
discarded.
8. Appellee’s Brief
Rule 44, Sec. 8. Appellee's brief — Within forty-five (45)
days from receipt of the appellant's brief, the appellee
shall file with the court seven (7) copies of his legibly
typewritten, mimeographed or printed brief, with proof of
service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellant.
9. Appellant’s Reply Brief
Rule 44, Sec. 9. Appellant's reply brief — Within twenty
(20) days from receipt of the appellee's brief, the appellant
may file a reply brief answering points in the appellee's
brief not covered in his main brief.
10. Time for Filing of Memoranda in Special Cases
Rule 44, Sec. 10. Time of filing memoranda in special
cases — In certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto and habeas corpus cases, the parties shall file in
lieu of briefs, their respective memoranda within a non-
extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the
notice issued by the clerk that all the evidence, oral and
documentary, is already attached to the record.
The failure of the appellant to file his memorandum within
the period therefor may be a ground for dismissal of the
appeal.
11. Several Appellants or Appellees or Several
Counsel for Each Party
Rule 44, Sec. 11. Several appellants or appellees or
several counsel for each party — Where there are several
appellants or appellees, each counsel representing one or
more but not all of them shall be served with only one
copy of the briefs. When several counsel represent one
appellant or appellee, copies of the brief may be served
upon any of them.
12. Extension of Time For Filing Briefs
Rule 44, Sec. 12. Extension of time for filing briefs —
Extension of time for the filing of briefs will not be
allowed, except for good and sufficient cause, and only if
the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of
the time sought to be extended.
13. Contents of Appellant’s Brief
Rule 44, Sec. 13. Contents of appellant's brief — The
appellant's brief shall contain, in the order herein
indicated, the following:
(a) A subject index of the matter in the brief with a
digest of the arguments and page references,
and a table of cases alphabetically arranged,
textbooks and statutes cited with references to
the pages where they are cited;
(b) An assignment of errors intended to be urged,
which errors shall be separately, distinctly and
concisely stated without repetition and
numbered consecutively;
(c) Under the heading "Statement of the Case," a
clear and concise statement of the nature of the
action, a summary of the proceedings, the
appealed rulings and orders of the court, the
nature of the judgment and any other matters
necessary to an understanding of the nature of
the controversy with page references to the
record;
(d) Under the heading "Statement of Facts," a clear
and concise statement in a narrative form of the
facts admitted by both parties and of those in
controversy, together with the substance of the
proof relating thereto in sufficient detail to make
it clearly intelligible, with page references to the
record;
(e) A clear and concise statement of the issues of
fact or law to be submitted, to the court for its
judgment;
(f) Under the heading "Argument," the appellant's
arguments on each assignment of error with
page references to the record. The authorities
relied upon shall be cited by the page of the
report at which the case begins and the page of
the report on which the citation is found;
(g) Under the heading "Relief," a specification of the
order or judgment which the appellant seeks;
and
(h) In cases not brought up by record on appeal, the
appellant's brief shall contain, as an appendix, a
copy of the judgment or final order appealed
from.
a. Importance of Subject Index
Go v. Chavez, (2010). The purpose of a subject index in an
appellant’s/appellee’s brief obviates the court to thumb
through a possibly lengthy brief page after page to locate
whatever else needs to be found and considered, such as
arguments and citations. In the case at bar, notably, the
appeal brief submitted to the CA consists only of 17 pages
which the appellate court may easily peruse to apprise it
of what the case is all about and of the relief sought. Thus,
the belated submission of the subject index may be
considered excusable.
b. Statement of Issues v. Assignment of Errors
Mendoza v. UCPB, (2011). The statement of issues is not
to be confused with the assignment of errors, since they
are not one and the same; otherwise, the rules would not
require a separate statement for each.
An assignment of errors is an enumeration by the
appellant of the errors alleged to have been committed by
the trial court for which he/she seeks to obtain a reversal
of the judgment, while the statement of issues puts forth
the questions of fact or law to be resolved by the appellate
court.
14. Contents of Appellee’s Brief

Rule 44, Sec. 14. Contents of appellee's brief — The
appellee's brief shall contain, in the order herein indicated
the following:
(a) A subject index of the matter in the brief with a
digest of the arguments and page references,
and a table of cases alphabetically arranged,
textbooks and statutes cited with references to
the pages where they are cited;
(b) Under the heading "Statement of Facts," the
appellee shall state that he accepts the
statement of facts in the appellant's brief, or
under the heading "Counter-Statement of Facts,"
he shall point out such insufficiencies or
inaccuracies as he believes exist in the
appellant's statement of facts with references to
the pages of the record in support thereof, but
without repetition of matters in the appellant's
statement of facts; and
(c) Under the heading "Argument," the appellee
shall set forth his arguments in the case on each
assignment of error with page references to the
record. The authorities relied on shall be cited by
the page of the report at which the case begins
and the page of the report on which the citation
is found.
15. Questions That May be Raised on Appeal
Rule 44, Sec. 15. Questions that may be raised on appeal
— Whether or not the appellant has filed a motion for new
trial in the court below he may include in his assignment of
errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in
the court below and which is within the issues framed by
the parties.
VII. Petition for Review With the CA (Rule 42)
A. Petition for Review from the Decision of the
RTC in the Exercise of its Appellate Jurisdiction
1. What is a Petition for Review?
Garcia v. Lazatin Consolidated Corp., (1986). It is a mode
of appeal, taken within the period for appeal, from the
decision rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction in cases originating in the municipal
and metropolitan trial courts.
2. Constitutional Mandate in Making a Ruling on
a Petition for Review
Art. VIII, Sec. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a
decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied
without stating the legal basis therefor.
3. How Appeal Taken; Time for Filing
Rule 42, Sec. 1. How appeal taken; time for filing — A
party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional
Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the
Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of
said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees,
depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing
the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy
of the petition. The petition shall be filed and served
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought
to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner's motion for
new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after
judgment. Upon proper motion and the 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 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.
a. Extension of Time – ALLOWED to file Petition
for Review under Rule 42
Pajuyo v. CA, (2004). In Lacsamana v. Second Special Cases
Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court, we declared
that the Court of Appeals could grant extension of time in
appeals by petition for review. In Liboro v. Court of
Appeals, we clarified that the prohibition against granting
an extension of time applies only in a case where ordinary
appeal is perfected by a mere notice of appeal. The
prohibition does not apply in a petition for review where
the pleading needs verification. A petition for review,
unlike an ordinary appeal, requires preparation and
research to present a persuasive position. The drafting of
the petition for review entails more time and effort than
filing a notice of appeal. Hence, the Court of Appeals may
allow an extension of time to file a petition for review.
In the more recent case of Commissioner of Internal
Revenue v. Court of Appeals, we held that Liboro’s
clarification of Lacsamana is consistent with the Revised
Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
Circular No. 1-91. They all allow an extension of time for
filing petitions for review with the Court of Appeals. The
extension, however, should be limited to only fifteen days
save in exceptionally meritorious cases where the Court of
Appeals may grant a longer period.
b. Reckoning Period of Extension
Montajes v. People. (2012). Petitioner assailed, among
others, the resolution issued by the CA dismissing his
petition for review for being filed out of time.
In this case, the original period for filing the petition for
review with the CA was on May 19, 2007, a Saturday.
Petitioner's filing of his motion for extension of time to file
a petition for review on May 21, 2007, the next working
day which followed the last day for filing which fell on a
Saturday, was therefore on time. However, petitioner
prayed in his motion for extension that he be granted 15
days from May 21, 2007 or up to June 5, 2007 within
which to file his petition. He then filed his petition for
review on June 5, 2007.
Petitioner’s filing with the CA is a petition for extension of
time to file petition for review under Rule 42 praying for
an extended period of 15 days from May 21, 2007, or until
June 5, 2007 within which to file his petition (reckoning
the extension from May 21, 2007 (Monday) and not from
May 19, 2007 (Saturday) in is in violation of A.M. No. 00-2-
14-SC dated February 29, 2000
c. Motion for Extension of Time Must be Filed
Before the Expiration of the Original Period: If
the Last Day Falls on a Saturday, Sunday or
Legal Holiday the Last Day Will be the Next
Working Business Day
Montajes v. People. (2012). A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC provides
among others, that if the period to file a pleading or a
motion is extended ipso jure to the next working day
immediately following where the last day of the period is a
Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday and a motion for
extension of time is filed and granted, any extension of
time to file the required pleading or motion should be
counted from the expiration of the period regardless of
the fact that said due date is a Saturday, Sunday or legal
holiday.
Petitioner he should have reckoned the 15-day extension
from May 19, 2007 and not from May 21, 2007.
The CA correctly found that the petition for review was
filed out of time pursuant to A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC that the
15-day extension period prayed by petitioner should be
tacked to the original period and commences immediately
after the expiration of the period which was on May 19,
2007, the petition filed on June 5, 2007 was already two
days late.
d. Substantial Justice and Fair Play an Exception to
the Mandatory
Montajes v. People. (2012). The circumstances obtaining
in this case to merit the liberal application of the rule in
the interest of justice and fair play.
Notably, the petition for review was already filed on June
5, 2007, which was long before the CA issued its
Resolution dated September 21, 2007 dismissing the
petition for review for being filed out of time. There was
no showing that respondent suffered any material injury
or his cause was prejudiced by reason of such delay.
The late filing of the petition for review for few days did
not warrant the automatic dismissal thereof where strong
considerations of substantial justice are manifest in the
petition. In this case, the SC relaxed the stringent
application of technical rules in the exercise of its equity
jurisdiction.
4. Forms and Contents
Rule 42, Sec. 2. Form and contents — The petition shall be
filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy
intended for the court being indicated as such by the
petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the parties
to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges
thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate
the specific material dates showing that it was filed on
time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters
involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of
fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional
Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for
the allowance of the appeal; (d) 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, 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 petitioner shall also submit together with the petition
a certification under oath that he has not theretofore
commenced any other action involving the same issues in
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or 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 Court of Appeals, or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency,
he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and
other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days
therefrom.
a. Amendment as to the Number of Copies of the
Petition to be Filed with the CA under the
“Efficient Use of Paper Rule “ (A.M. No. 11-9-4-
SC, Effective Jan 1, 2013)
Sec. 5. Copies to be Filed – Unless otherwise directed by
the court, the number of court bound papers that a party
is required or desires to file shall be as follows:
b. In the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan,
one original (properly marked) and two copies
with their annexes;
b. Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping Required
Digital Microwave Corp. v. CA, (2000). The reason the
certification against forum shopping is required to be
accomplished by petitioner himself is because only the
petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not
he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different
courts or agencies
Sps. Wee v. Galvez, (2004). However, the rationale does
not apply where it is the attorney-in-fact who instituted
the action.
5. Effect of Failure to Comply with Requirements
Rule 42, Sec. 3. 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.
a. Failure to Serve a Copy of the Petition a Ground
for Dismissal
Munoz v. People, (2008). Clearly, therefore, the timeliness
of a petition depends not only on its seasonable filing but
also on the prompt service of copy thereof on the adverse
party and the RTC. Thus, the petition must be
accompanied by proof of service as prescribed under Rule,
viz:
Section 13. Proof of service. Proof of personal service shall
consist of a written admission of the party served, or the
official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party
serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and
manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof
thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of
facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If
service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by
such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing
office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately
upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the
unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy
of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.
Failure to serve copy of the petition on the adverse party
or to show proof of service thereof is a fatal defect, for
which the petition can be dismissed under Section 3, Rule
42, thus:
Section 3. 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.
b. Non-Payment of Docket Fees a Ground for
Dismissal of the Petition
SLU, Inc. v. Cobarrubias, (2011). Upon the filing of the
petition, the petitioner shall pay to the CA clerk of court
the docketing and other lawful fees; non-compliance with
the procedural requirements shall be a sufficient ground
for the petition’s dismissal. Thus, payment in full of docket
fees within the prescribed period is not only mandatory,
but also jurisdictional. It is an essential requirement,
without which, the decision appealed from would become
final and executory as if no appeal has been filed.
6. Actions on the Petition
Rule 42, Sec. 4. 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
insubstantial to require consideration.
7. Contents of Comment
Rule 42, Sec. 5. Contents of comment — The comment of
the respondent shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies,
accompanied by certified true copies of such material
portions of the record referred to therein together with
other supporting papers and shall (a) state whether or not
he accepts the statement of matters involved in the
petition; (b) point out such insufficiencies or inaccuracies
as he believes exist in petitioner's statement of matters
involved but without repetition; and (c) state the reasons
why the petition should not be given due course. A copy
thereof shall be served on the petitioner.
8. Due Course
Rule 42, Sec. 6. Due course — If upon the filing of the
comment or such other pleadings as the court may allow
or require, or after the expiration of the period for the
filing thereof without such comment or pleading having
been submitted, the Court of Appeals finds prima facie
that the lower court has committed an error of fact or law
that will warrant a reversal or modification of the
appealed decision, it may accordingly give due course to
the petition.
9. Elevation of Record
Rule 42, Sec. 7. Elevation of record — Whenever the
Court of Appeals deems it necessary, it may order the clerk
of court of the Regional Trial Court to elevate the original
record of the case including the oral and documentary
evidence within fifteen (15) days from notice.
10. Perfection of Appeal; Effect Thereof
Rule 42, Sec. 8. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof —
(a) Upon the timely filing of a petition for review
and the payment of the corresponding docket
and other lawful fees, the appeal is deemed
perfected as to the petitioner.
The Regional Trial 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.
However, before the Court of Appeals gives due
course to the petition, the Regional Trial 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 Sec. 2 of Rule 39, and
allow withdrawal of the appeal. (9a, R41)
Except in civil cases decided under the Rule on Summary
Procedure, the appeal shall stay the judgment or final
order unless the Court of Appeals, the law, or these Rules
shall provide otherwise.
a. Decision in Ejectment Cases; Immediate
Execution of the RTC’s Decision on Appeal to CA
or SC
ALPA-PCM, Inc.v. Bulasao, (2012). After affirming the
RTC’s power to allow execution, we now consider ALPA-
PCM’s claim that the RTC must nonetheless cite good
reasons justifying execution, citing as basis Section 2, Rule
39 of the Rules of Court.
The Court reminds ALPA-PCM, particularly its counsel,
Atty. Guillermo R. Bandonil, Jr., that this case originated
from the complaint for unlawful detainer filed by the
Bulasaos against it. Actions for unlawful detainer are
governed primarily by the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure13 and suppletorily by the Rules of Court.14
Section 21 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
states that:
Sec. 21. Appeal. — The judgment or final order shall be
appealable to the appropriate regional trial court which
shall decide the same in accordance with Section 22 of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The decision of the regional trial
court in civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible
entry and unlawful detainer, shall be immediately
executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may
be taken therefrom. Section 10 of Rule 70 shall be deemed
repealed.
The above rule, without any qualification whatsoever, has
decreed the immediately executory nature of decisions of
the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction, involving cases falling under the Revised Rules
on Summary Procedure. It requires no further justification
or even "good reasons" for the RTC to authorize execution,
even if an appeal has already been filed before the CA.
Indeed, the provision does not even require a bond to be
filed by the prevailing party to allow execution to
proceed.15 The rationale for this is the objective of the
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure to achieve an
expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases
governed by it. This objective provides the "good reason"
that justifies immediate execution of the decision, if the
standards of Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on
execution pending appeal, as what ALPA-PCM insists, are
considered.
11. Submission for Decision
Rule 42, Sec. 9. 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 itself.
 a. Resolution or Submission of Memoranda
Subject to the Discretion of the Court
Sps. Fernandez, Sr. v. Sps. Co, (2010). The Court of
Appeals is not obliged to inform the parties that the
petition will be given due course based on the Comment
and Reply of the parties. It has the discretion to resolve
the case after the Comment and Reply have been filed, or
it may still require the parties to submit a Memorandum
before resolution of the case.
12. Appeal from the Decisions of the RTC sitting as
Special Agrarian Courts by way of Petition for
Review under Rule 42
Land Bank of the Phil. v. CA, (2011). Following Land Bank
of the Philippines v. De Leon, the proper mode of appeal
from decisions of Regional Trial Courts sitting as SACs is by
petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court and
not through an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. The Court,
in the immediately cited case of Land Bank, observing that
"before the instant case reached us, Land Bank of the
Philippines had no authoritative guideline on how to
appeal decisions of SACs considering the seemingly
conflicting provisions of Sections 60 and 61 of RA 6657,"
held that "Sec. 60 of RA 665712 clearly and categorically
states that the said mode of appeal (petition for review)
should be adopted."
Far from being in conflict, Section 61 of RA 6657 can easily
be harmonized with Section 60. The reference to the Rules
of Court means that the specific rules for petitions for
review in the Rules of Court and other relevant procedures
in appeals filed before the Court of Appeals shall be
followed in appealed decisions of Special Agrarian Courts.
Considering that RA 6657 cannot and does not provide the
details on how the petition for review shall be conducted,
a suppletory application of the pertinent provisions of the
Rules of Court is necessary. In fact, Section 61 uses the
word "review" to designate the mode by which the appeal
is to be effected. The reference therefore by Section 61 to
the Rules of Court only means that the procedure under
Rule 42 for petitions for review is to be followed for
appeals in agrarian cases.
VIII. Appeal from the Decision of Quasi-Judicial
Bodies to the CA (Rule 43)
1. What is a Quasi-Judicial Power?
Midland Insurance Corp. v. IAC, (1986). A term which
applies to the action discretion, etc., of public
administrative officers or bodies, who are required to
investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold
hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for
their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial
nature.
2. Substantive Basis of the Exercise of Appellate
Jurisdiction of the CA over the Decision of
Quasi-Judicial Bodies
B.P. 129, Sec. 9. Jurisdiction – The Court of Appeals shall
exercise:
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, resolutions, orders or awards of
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commission,
including the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Social Security Commission, the
Employees Compensation Commission and the
Civil Service Commission, Except those falling
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court in accordance with the Constitution, the
Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of
this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third
paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth
paragraph od Sec. 17 of the Judiciary Act of
1948.
4. Scope
Rule 43, Sec. 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.
a. Decision of the Ombudsman in Administrative
Cases is Reviewable by the CA under Rule 43
Office of the Ombudsman v. Liggayu, (2012). As
enunciated by the Court in Fabian v. Desierto (1998),
where Sec. 27 of R.A. 6770 or “The Ombudsman Act of
1989” was declared unconstitutional for being contrary to
Sec. 30, Art. VI of the Constitution, decisions of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are to be
appealed to the CA under Rule 43 as in other quasi-judicial
bodies.
b. Findings of Facts of the Ombudsman in
Administrative Cases are Accorded Respect and
Finality
Villegas v. Hon. Fernandez, (2012). Elementary is the rule
that the findings of fact of the Ombudsman are conclusive
when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded
due respect and weight, especially when they are affirmed
by the CA. It is only when there is grave abuse of discretion
by the Ombudsman that a review of factual findings may
aptly be made. In reviewing administrative decisions, it is
beyond the province of this Court to weigh the conflicting
evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or
otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the
administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of
evidence. It is not the function of this Court to analyze and
weigh the parties’ evidence all over again except when
there is serious ground to believe that a possible
miscarriage of justice would thereby result.
Japson v. CSC, (2011). Factual findings made by quasi-
judicial bodies and administrative agencies when
supported by substantial evidence are accorded great
respect and even finality by the appellate courts. This is
because administrative agencies possess specialized
knowledge and expertise in their respective fields. As such,
their findings of fact are binding upon this Court unless
there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion, or where it
is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in
disregard of the evidence on record.
 c. Jurisdiction of the Housing Land Use and
Regulatory Board (HLURB)
PBCOM v. Pridisons Realty Corp., (2013). Section 1 of PD
No. 957 limits the HLURB’s jurisdiction to three kinds of
cases:
(a) Unsound real estate business practices;
(b) Claims involving refund and any other claims
filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit
buyers against the project owner, developer,
dealer, broker or salesman; and
(c) Cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations filed by
buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units
against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or
salesman.
While paragraphs (b) and (c) limit the HLURB cases to
those between the buyer and the subdivision or
condominium owner, developer, dealer, broker or
salesman, paragraph (a) is broad enough to include third
parties to the sales contract. It appears that the
complaints filed before the HLURB were precisely for the
unsound real estate business practices of Pridisons and/or
Ivory Crest, which not only failed to secure and submit an
affidavit of undertaking by PBComm, but also sold the
same condominium units to more than one buyer.
PBComm was impleaded on the basis of the allegation that
the mortgage failed to meet the requirements of PD No.
957.
Jurisprudence consistently recognizes the rationale behind
the enactment of PD No. 957 – to protect innocent lot
buyers from scheming developers. For this reason, the
Court has broadly construed the jurisdiction of the HLURB
to include complaints for annulment of mortgages of
condominium or subdivision units.19 Indeed, in Manila
Banking Corporation v. Spouses Rabina,20 even if the
mortgagee bank was under receivership/liquidation, the
Court declared that the HLURB retains jurisdiction over an
action for the annulment of the mortgage:
The jurisdiction of the HLURB to regulate the real estate
trade is broad enough to include jurisdiction over
complaints for annulment of mortgage. To disassociate the
issue of nullity of mortgage and lodge it separately with
the liquidation court would only cause inconvenience to
the parties and would not serve the ends of speedy and
inexpensive administration of justice as mandated by the
laws vesting quasi-judicial powers in the agency.
d. Decision of DAR Reviewable under Rule 43
Rom, et. al. v. Roxas & Co. Inc., (2011). Sec. 61 of R.A.
6657 clearly mandates that judicial review of DAR
Secretary decisions, orders, or resolutions are governed by
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
e. CA Has No Jurisdiction to Annul the Decision of
the SEC
Galang v. CA, (2005). CA has no jurisdiction to entertain a
petition to annul a final decision of the SEC under Rule 47.
It applies only to judgment or final orders of the RTC in
civil cases per Sec. 1. MTC judgments and final orders can
be annulled by the RTC as per Sec. 10. CA can reverse or
modify SEC decision under Rule 43
f. Jurisdiction of the CIAC
Manila Insurance Co. Inc. v. Sps. Amurao, (2013). Based
on Sec. 4 of E.O. 1008, in order for the CIAC to acquire
jurisdiction two requisites must concur: "first, the dispute
must be somehow connected to a construction contract;
and second, the parties must have agreed to submit the
dispute to arbitration proceedings.
In William Golangco Construction Corporation v. Ray
Burton Development Corporation, we declared that
monetary claims under a construction contract are
disputes arising from "differences in interpretation of the
contract" because "the matter of ascertaining the duties
and obligations of the parties under their contract all
involve interpretation of the provisions of the contract.
Following our reasoning in that case, we find that the issue
of whether respondent-spouses are entitled to collect on
the performance bond issued by petitioner is a "dispute
arising in the course of the execution and performance of
[the CCA] by reason of difference in the interpretation of
the contract documents.
A careful reading of the Performance Bond reveals that
the "bond is coterminous with the final acceptance of the
project. Thus, the fact that it was issued prior to the
execution of the CCA does not affect its validity or
effectivity.
In fact, in Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. v.
Anscor Land, lnc., we rejected the argument that the
jurisdiction of CIAC is limited to the construction industry,
and thus, cannot extend to surety contracts. In that case,
we declared that "[a]lthough not the construction contract
itself, the performance bond is deemed as an associate of
the main construction contract that it cannot be separated
or severed from its principal. The Performance Bond is
significantly and substantially connected to the
construction contract that there can be no doubt it is the
CIAC, under Section 4 of E.O. No. 1008, which has
jurisdiction over any dispute arising from or connected
with it."
g. Excluded Quasi-Judicial Bodies Under the
Coverage of the Rules
1. CTA
It must be noted however, that by virtue of A.M. No. 05-
11-07-CTA (2005) of R.A. 9282 or the Revised Rules of the
CTA, as amended, under Rule 16, Sec. 1 thereof, 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.
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 (Rule 16, Sec. 2)
The amendment has given exclusive appellate jurisdiction
to the CTA en banc of “Decisions or resolutions on MR or
new trial of the Court in Divisions in the exercise of its
exclusive appellate jurisdiction”
2. Central Board of Assessment Appeals
Furthermore, under Sec. 2(e), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules
of the CTA, the CTA en banc will also exercise exclusive
appellate jurisdiction over “Decisions of the Central Board
of Assessment Appeals (CBAA) in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment
and taxation of real property originally decided by the
provincial or city board of assessment appeals” taking
away the CA jurisdiction over the same
 3. Labor Cases with the NLRC
The procedure in labor cases enunciated by the Court in
the case of St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC (1998) has
remained to be the prevailing rule and authority governing
judicial review of decisions and interlocutory orders of the
NLRC. The peculiar decision was reached by the court
solely for the purpose of “drastically reducing the
workload of the SC without depriving litigants of the
privilege of review by an appellate tribunal”
Hence, the CA still has authority to review decisions of the
NLRC, but not under Rule 43, rather, via a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65, a remedy wherein the SC
exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the CA but as
clarified therein, “all such petitions should henceforth be
initially filed in the CA in strict observance of the doctrine
of hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the
relief desired.
4. Cases Not Covered
Rule 43, Sec. 2. Cases not covered — This Rule shall not
apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor
Code of the Philippines.
5. Where to Appeal
Rule 43, Sec. 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.
6. Period to Appeal
Rule 43, Sec. 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.
7. How Appeal Taken
Rule 43, Sec. 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.
8. Contents of the Petition
Rule 43, Sec. 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 Sec. 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific
material dates showing that it was filed within the period
fixed herein.
9. Effect of Failure to Comply with Requirements
Rule 43, Sec. 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.
10. Action on the Petition
Rule 43, Sec. 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. (6a)
11. Contents of Comment
Rule 43, Sec. 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)
12. Due Course
Rule 43, Sec. 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.
13. Transmittal of Record
Rule 43, Sec. 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)
14. Effect of Appeal
Rule 43, Sec. 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. (10a)
15. Submission for Decision
Rule 43, Sec. 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.
IX. Preliminary Conference (Rule 48)
A. Preliminary Conference Before the CA
Rule 48, Sec. 1. Preliminary conference — At any time
during the pendency of a case, the court may call the
parties and their counsel to a preliminary conference.
(a) To consider the possibility of an amicable
settlement, except when the case is not allowed
by law to be compromised
(b) To define, simplify and clarify the issues for
determination;
(c) To formulate stipulations of facts and admissions
of documentary exhibits, limit the number of
witnesses to be presented in cases falling within
the original jurisdiction of the court, or those
within its appellate jurisdiction where a motion
for new trial is granted on the ground of newly
discovered evidence; and
(d) To take up such other matters which may aid the
court in the prompt disposition of the case. (Rule
7, CA Internal Rules) (n)
2. Record of the Conference
Rule 48, Sec. 2. Record of the conference — The
proceedings at such conference shall be recorded and,
upon the conclusion thereof, a resolution shall be issued
embodying all the actions taken therein, the stipulations
and admissions made and the issues defined. (n)
3. Binding Effect of the Results of the Conference
Rule 48, Sec. 3. Binding effect of the results of the
conference — Subject to such modifications which may be
made to prevent manifest injustice, the resolution in the
preceding Sec. shall control the subsequent proceedings in
the case unless, within five (5) days from notice thereof,
any party shall satisfactorily show valid cause why the
same should not be followed.
X. Oral Argument (Rule 49)
A. Oral Argument
1. When Allowed
Rule 49, Sec. 1. When allowed — At its own instance or
upon motion of a party, the court may hear the parties in
oral argument on the merits of a case, or on any material
incident in connection therewith.
The oral argument shall be limited to such matters as the
court may specify in its order or resolution.
2. Conduct of Oral Argument
Rule 49, Sec. 2. Conduct of oral argument — Unless
authorized by the court, only one counsel may argue for a
party. The duration allowed for each party, the sequence
of the argumentation, and all other related matters shall
be as directed by the court.
3. No Hearing or Oral Argument For Motions
Rule 49, Sec. 3. No hearing or oral argument for motions
— Motions shall not be set for hearing and, unless the
court otherwise directs, no hearing or oral argument shall
be allowed in support thereof. The adverse party may file
objections to the motion within five (5) days from service,
upon the expiration of which such motion shall be deemed
submitted for resolution.
XI. Dismissal of Appeal (Rule 50)
A. Dismissal of Appeal by the CA
1. Grounds for Dismissal
Rule 50, Sec. 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal — An
appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its
own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following
grounds:
(a) Failure of the record on appeal to show on its
face that the appeal was taken within the period
fixed by these Rules;
(b) Failure to file the notice of appeal or the record
on appeal within the period prescribed by these
Rules;
(c) Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and
other lawful fees as provided in Sec. 5, Rule 40
and Sec. 4 of Rule 41; (Bar Matter No. 803, 17
February 1998)
(d) Unauthorized alterations, omissions or additions
in the approved record on appeal as provided in
Sec. 4 of Rule 44;
(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the
required number of copies of his brief or
memorandum within the time provided by these
Rules;
(f) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the
appellant's brief, or of page references to the
record as required in Sec. 13, paragraphs (a), (c),
(d) and (f) of Rule 44;
(g) Failure of the appellant to take the necessary
steps for the correction or completion of the
record within the time limited by the court in its
order;
(h) Failure of the appellant to appear at the
preliminary conference under Rule 48 or to
comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the
court without justifiable cause; and
(i) The fact that the order or judgment appealed
from is not appealable.
a. Dismissal of Appeal Discretionary
Sps. Bergonia v. CA, (2012). In a long line of cases, this
Court has held that the CA’s authority to dismiss an appeal
for failure to file the appellant’s brief is a matter of judicial
discretion. Thus, a dismissal based on this ground is
neither mandatory nor ministerial; the fundamentals of
justice and fairness must be observed, bearing in mind the
background and web of circumstances surrounding the
case.
2. Dismissal of Improper Appeal to the CA
Rule 50, Sec. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court
of Appeals — An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the
Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising only
questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law
not being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by
notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the
appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall be
dismissed.
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall
not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be
dismissed outright.
3. Withdrawal of Appeal
Ruhe 50, Sec. 3. Withdrawal of appeal — An appeal may
be withdrawn as of right at any time before the filing of
the appellee's brief. Thereafter, the withdrawal may be
allowed in the discretion of the court.
XII. Judgment by the CA/SC (Rule 51)
A. Rules on Judgment by the CA and SC
1. When Case Submitted for Judgment
Rule 51, Sec. 1. When case deemed submitted for
judgment — A case shall be deemed submitted for
judgment:
A. In ordinary appeals —
1. Where no hearing on the merits of the main case
is held, upon the filing of the last pleading, brief,
or memorandum required by the Rules or by the
court itself, or the expiration of the period for its
filing.
2. Where such a hearing is held, upon its
termination or upon the filing of the last
pleading or memorandum as may be required or
permitted to be filed by the court, or the
expiration of the period for its filing.
B. In original actions and petitions for review. —
1. Where no comment is filed, upon the expiration
of the period to comment.
2. Where no hearing is held, upon the filing of the
last pleading required or permitted to be filed by
the court, or the expiration of the period for its
filing.
3. Where a hearing on the merits of the main case
is held, upon its termination or upon the filing of
the last pleading or memorandum as may be
required or permitted to be filed by the court, or
the expiration of the period for its filing.
2. By Whom Rendered
Rule 51, Sec. 2. By whom rendered — The judgment shall
be rendered by the members of the court who
participated in the deliberation on the merits of the case
before its assignment to a member for the writing of the
decision.
3. Quorum and Voting in the Court
Rule 51, Sec. 3. Quorum and voting in the court — The
participation of all three Justices of a division shall be
necessary at the deliberation and the unanimous vote of
the three Justices shall be required for the pronouncement
of a judgment or final resolution. If the three justices do
not reach a unanimous vote, the clerk shall enter the votes
of the dissenting Justices in the record. Thereafter, the
Chairman of the division shall refer the case, together with
the minutes of the deliberation, to the Presiding Justice
who shall designate two Justices chosen by raffle from
among all the other members of the court to sit
temporarily with them, forming a special division of five
Justices. The participation of all the five members of the
special division shall be necessary for the deliberation
required in Sec. 2 of this Rule and the concurrence of a
majority of such division shall be required for the
pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution.
4. Disposition of a Case
Rule 51, Sec. 4. Disposition of a case — The Court of
Appeals, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, may
affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment or final order
appealed from, and may direct a new trial or further
proceedings to be had.
5. Form of Decision
Rule 51, Sec. 5. Form of decision — Every decision or final
resolution of the court in appealed cases shall clearly and
distinctly state the findings of fact and the conclusions of
law on which it is based, which may be contained in the
decision or final resolution itself, or adopted from those
set forth in the decision, order, or resolution appealed
from.
6. Harmless Error
Rule 51, Sec. 6. Harmless error — No error in either the
admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or
defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or
omitted by the trial court or by any of the parties is ground
for granting a new trial or for setting aside, modifying, or
otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to
take such action appears to the court inconsistent with
substantial justice. The court at every stage of the
proceeding must disregard any error or defect which does
not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
7. Judgment Where There are Several Parties
Rule 51, Sec. 7. Judgment where there are several parties
— In all actions or proceedings, an appealed judgment
may be affirmed as to some of the appellants, and
reversed as to others, and the case shall thereafter be
proceeded with, so far as necessary, as if separate actions
had been begun and prosecuted, and execution of the
judgment of affirmance may be had accordingly, and costs
may be adjudged in such cases, as the court shall deem
proper.
8. Questions That May be Decided
Rule 51, Sec. 8. Questions that may be decided — No
error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the
subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed
from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless
stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or
dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in
the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and
clerical errors.

9. Promulgation and Notice of Judgment
Rule 51, Sec. 9. Promulgation and notice of judgment —
After the judgment or final resolution and dissenting or
separate opinions, if any, are signed by the Justices taking
part, they shall be delivered for filing to the clerk who shall
indicate thereon the date of promulgation and cause true
copies thereof to be served upon the parties or their
counsel. (n)
10. Entry of Judgments and Final Resolutions
Rule 51, Sec. 10. Entry of judgments and final resolutions
— If no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration
is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the
judgment or final resolution shall forthwith be entered by
the clerk in the book of entries of judgments. The date
when the judgment or final resolution becomes executory
shall be deemed as the date of its entry. The record shall
contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final
resolution and shall be signed by the clerk, with a
certificate that such judgment or final resolution has
become final and executory.
11. Execution of Judgment
Rule 51, Sec. 11. Execution of judgment — Except where
the judgment or final order or resolution, or a portion
thereof, is ordered to be immediately executory, the
motion for its execution may only be filed in the proper
court after its entry.
In original actions in the Court of Appeals, its writ of
execution shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of
the entry of judgment or final resolution and addressed to
any appropriate officer for its enforcement.
In appealed cases, where the motion for execution
pending appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals at a time
that it is in possession of the original record or the record
on appeal, the resolution granting such motion shall be
transmitted to the lower court from which the case
originated, together with a certified true copy of the
judgment or final order to be executed, with a directive for
such court of origin to issue the proper writ for its
enforcement.
XIII. MR Before the CA (Rule 52)
A. Filing of MR Before the CA
1. Period of Filing
Rule 52, Sec. 1. Period for filing — A party may file a
motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final
resolution within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof,
with proof of service on the adverse party.
2. Second MR
Rule 52, Sec. 2. Second motion for reconsideration — No
second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final
resolution by the same party shall be entertained.
Aliviado v. Procter & Gamble Phil. Inc., (2011). Section 2,
Rule 52 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that [n]o
motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final
resolution by the same party shall be entertained.
Moreover, Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the
Supreme Court[23] decrees viz:
SEC. 3. Second motion for reconsideration. - The Court
shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration
and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the
higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote
of at least two-thirds of its actual membership. There is
reconsideration 'in the highest interest of justice' when
the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous but is
likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing
unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the
parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be
entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered
becomes final by operation of law or by the Court's
declaration.
3. Resolution of the Motion
Rule 52, Sec. 3. Resolution of motion — In the Court of
Appeals, a motion for reconsideration shall be resolved
within ninety (90) days from the date when the court
declares it submitted for resolution. (n)
4. Stay of Execution
Rule 52, Sec. 4. Stay of execution — The pendency of a
motion for reconsideration filed on time and by the proper
party shall stay the execution of the judgment or final
resolution sought to be reconsidered unless the court, for
good reasons, shall otherwise direct.
XIV. New Trial Before the CA (Rule 53)
1. Period of Filing
Rule 53, Sec. 1. Period for filing; ground — At any time
after the appeal from the lower court has been perfected
and before the Court of Appeals loses jurisdiction over the
case, a party may file a motion for a new trial on the
ground of newly discovered evidence which could not
have been discovered prior to the trial in the court below
by the exercise of due diligence and which is of such a
character as would probably change the result. The motion
shall be accompanied by affidavits showing the facts
constituting the grounds therefor and the newly
discovered evidence.
2. Hearing and Order
Rule 53, Sec. 2. Hearing and order — The Court of Appeals
shall consider the new evidence together with that
adduced at the trial below, and may grant or refuse a new
trial, or may make such order, with notice to both parties,
as to the taking of further testimony, either orally in court,
or by depositions, or render such other judgment as ought
to be rendered upon such terms as it may deem just. (2a)
3. Resolution of Motion
Rule 53, Sec. 3. Resolution of motion — In the Court of
Appeals, a motion for new trial shall be resolved within
ninety (90) days from the date when the court declares it
submitted for resolution
4. Procedure in New Trial
Rule 53, Sec. 4. Procedure in new trial — Unless the court
otherwise directs, the procedure in the new trial shall be
the same as that granted by a Regional Trial Court.
XV. Internal Business of the CA (Rule 54)
A. Internal Business of the CA
1. Distribution of Cases Among Division
Rule 54, Sec. 1. Distribution of cases among divisions —
All the cases of the Court of Appeals shall be allotted
among the different divisions thereof for hearing and
decision. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, shall make
proper orders or rules to govern the allotment of cases
among the different divisions, the constitution of such
divisions, the regular rotation of Justices among them, the
filing of vacancies occurring therein, and other matters
relating to the business of the court; and such rules shall
continue in force until repealed or altered by the Supreme
Court.
2. Quorum of the Court
Rule 54, Sec. 2. Quorum of the court — A majority of the
actual members of the court shall constitute a quorum for
its sessions en banc. Three members shall constitute a
quorum for the sessions of a division. The affirmative
votes of the majority of the members present shall be
necessary to pass a resolution of the court en banc. The
affirmative votes of three members of a division shall be
necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or final
resolution, which shall be reached in consultation before
the writing of the opinion by any member of the division.
XVI. Publication of Judgments and Final Resolutions
A. Publication of Judgment and Final Resolution
1. Publication
Rule 55, Sec. 1. Publication — The judgments and final
resolutions of the court shall be published in the Official
Gazette and in the Reports officially authorized by the
court in the language in which they have been originally
written, together with the syllabi therefor prepared by the
reporter in consultation with the writers thereof.
Memoranda of all other judgments and final resolutions
not so published shall be made by the reporter and
published in the Official Gazette and the authorized
reports.
2. Preparation of Opinions for Publication
Rule 55, Sec. 2. Preparation of opinions for publication —
The reporter shall prepare and publish with each reported
judgment and final resolution a concise synopsis of the
facts necessary for a clear understanding of the case, the
names of counsel, the material and controverted points
involved, the authorities cited therein, and a syllabus
which shall be confined to points of law. (Sec. 22a, R.A. No.
296) (n)
3. General Make-Up of Volumes
Rule 55, Sec. 3. General make-up of volumes — The
published decisions and final resolutions of the Supreme
Court shall be called "Philippine Reports," while those of
the Court of Appeals shall be known as the "Court of
Appeals Reports." Each volume thereof shall contain a
table of the cases reported and the cases cited in the
opinions, with a complete alphabetical index of the subject
matters of the volume. It shall consist of not less than
seven hundred pages printed upon good paper, well
bound and numbered consecutively in the order of the
volumes published.
XVII. Appeal by Certiorari to the SC (Rule 45)
A. Petition for Review on Certiorari
1. Constitutional Basis of the Power of Review and
Appellate Jurisdiction of the SC
Art. VIII, Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders
of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity
of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in
relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of
law is involved.
2. Constitutional Provision on the Case Decided by
the SC en banc
Art. VIII, Sec. 4(2). All cases involving the constitutionality
of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law,
which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and
all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required
to be heard en banc, including those involving the
constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances,
and other regulations, shall be decided with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon.
3. Filing of Petition with the SC
Rule 45, Sec. 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.
a. Only Question of Law Can be the Subject of a
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
Land Bank of the Phil. v. Heirs of Lopez, (2012). We find
the present issue to be a question of fact that is not
reviewable by this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. Section 1 thereof provides that "[t]he petition x x x
shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly
set forth." To differentiate, a question of fact exists when
the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged
facts while a question of law exists if the doubt centers on
what the law is on a certain set of facts; there is a question
of fact if the issue requires a review of the evidence
presented or requires the re-evaluation of the credibility
of witnesses, and there is a question of law if the issue
raised is capable of being resolved without the need of
reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The issue of
the correctness of the average selling price data used in
this case is clearly a question of fact that can only be
determined by a review of the evidence presented by the
parties.
Claravall v. Lim, (2011). In a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only
questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed
upon by this Court. This restriction of the review to
questions of law has been institutionalized in Section 1,
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the second sentence of
which provides that the petition shall raise only questions
of law which must be distinctly set forth. Indeed, in the
exercise of its power of review, the Court is not a trier of
facts and, subject to certain exceptions
It does not normally undertake the re-examination of the
evidence presented by the contending parties during the
trial. Perforce, the findings of fact by the CA, affirming that
of the RTC, are conclusive and binding on the Court.
b. What is a Question of Law?
Abalos v. Sps. Darapa and Dimakuta, (2011). A question
of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on
a certain state of facts – this is in contradistinction from a
question of fact which arises from doubt as to the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts. A question of law does not
involve an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them and the
resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law
provides on the given set of circumstances.
Cua v. People, (2011). Once the issue invites a review of
the evidence, the question posed is one of fact.
c. What is a Question of Fact?
Viking Industrial Corp. v. CA, (2004). A question of fact
exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts while a question of law exists if the doubt
centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts.
DBP v. Traders Royal Bank, (2010). There is a question of
fact if the issue requires a review of the evidence
presented or requires the re-evaluation of the credibility
of witnesses. However, if the issue raised is capable of
being resolved without need of reviewing the probative
value of the evidence, the question is one of law
d. .Instances When the SC May Pass Upon
Question of Fact
GR: A petition for review should only cover questions of
law (Rule 45, Sec. 1). Questions of fact are not reviewable
Westmont Investment Corp. v. Francia, Jr., (2011). Factual
findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are final and
conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. The
following are well recognized exceptions laid by the court
in recent cases:
1. When the findings are grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises, or conjectures;
2. When the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
3. When there is a grave abuse of discretion;
4. When the judgment is based on misappreciation
of facts;
5. When the findings of fact are conflicting;
6. When in making its findings, the same are
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee;
7. When the findings are contrary to those of the
trial court;
8. When the findings 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 petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent; and
10. When the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted
by the evidence on record.
11. Adverse decision in a petition for writ of amparo
12. Adverse decision in a petition for writ of habeas
data
13. Adverse judgment in a writ of kalikasan
e. Exceptions to the Review of Question of Law
Special People Inc. Foundation v. Canda, (2013). It is a
settled rule, indeed, that in the exercise of our power of
review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not
normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence
presented by the contending parties during the trial of the
case. The Court relies on the findings of fact of the Court
of Appeals or of the trial court, and accepts such findings
as conclusive and binding unless any of the following
exceptions obtains, namely: (a) when the findings are
grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of
discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of facts
are conflicting; (f) when in making its findings the Court of
Appeals or the trial court went beyond the issues of the
case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both
the appellant and the appellee; (g) when the findings are
contrary to the trial court; (h) when the findings are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based; (i) when the facts set forth in the petition
as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent; (j) when the findings of fact
are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record; and (k) when the
Court of Appeals or the trial court manifestly overlooked
certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
However, none of the aforementioned exceptions applies
herein.
Medina v. CA, (2012). As correctly pointed out by
respondent, the assigned errors are factual in character. It
is axiomatic that a question of fact is not appropriate for a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. This rule
provides that the parties may raise only questions of law,
because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
Generally, we are not duty-bound to analyze again and
weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the
tribunals below. When supported by substantial evidence,
the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive
and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this
Court, unless the case falls under any of the following
recognized exceptions: (1) When the conclusion is a
finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and
conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave
abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same
is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and
appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to those of
the trial court; (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; and (10) When the findings
of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record.
f. SC is Not a Trier of Facts
Heirs of Luna v. Afable, (2013). It is well settled that in a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, only questions of law may be raised. This Court,
in numerous instances, has had occasion to explain that it
is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence all over
again. As a rule, the Court respects the factual findings of
the CA and of quasi-judicial agencies like the DAR, giving
them a certain measure of finality. There are, however,
recognized exceptions to this rule, one of which is when
the findings of fact are conflicting.
Catores v. Afidchao, (2009). Verily, as enunciated in
Lorenzana and Misa, it may be reiterated that under Rule
45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, our
jurisdiction over cases brought to us from the CA is limited
to reviewing and correcting errors of law committed by
said court. This Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, it is not
our function to review factual issues and to examine,
evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence
presented by the parties. We are not bound to analyze and
weigh all over again the evidence already considered in
the proceedings below. Necessarily, the jurisprudential
doctrine that findings of the CA are conclusive on the
parties and carry even more weight when they coincide
with the factual findings of the trial court must remain
undisturbed.
Sps. Sioson v. Heirs of Avencena, (2009). In general, only
questions of law are appealable to this Court under Rule
45. However, where the factual findings of the trial court
are in conflict with those of the appellate court and when
the appellate court manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts which, if properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion, this Court has the authority to review
and, if necessary, reverse the factual findings of the lower
courts. This is precisely the situation in this case.
Dela Rosa v. Michaelmar Phil. Inc., (2011). In a petition for
review on certiorari, the scope of the SC’s Judicial Review
is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not a fact.
Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corp. v. Minors Dizon,
(2012). Settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of
facts, and the concurrence of the findings of fact of the
courts below are conclusive. "A petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should
include only questions of law - questions of fact are not
reviewable" save for several exceptions.
g. Weighing of Evidence is a Factual Issue Not
Within the Court’s Functions
Puse v. Santos-Puse, (2010). It is not the Court’s function
to evaluate factual questions all over again. A weighing of
evidence necessarily involves the consideration of factual
issues - an exercise that is not appropriate for the Rule 45
petition filed.
Vda. de Formosa v. PNB, (2011). Once it is clear that the
issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the
question posed is one of fact.
Briones v. Macabagdal, (2010). The Court is not bound to
weigh all over again the evidence adduced by the parties,
particularly where the findings of both the trial court and
the appellate court coincide. The resolution of factual
issues is a function of the trial court whose findings on
these matters are, as a general rule, binding on this Court,
more so where these have been affirmed by the CA.
h. Question of Law vs. Question of Fact
Del Prado v. People, (2012). The distinction between a
question of law and a question of fact is settled. There is a
question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is on a certain state of facts. Such a question
does not involve an examination of the probative value of
the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. On
the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt
arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts or
when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole
evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses,
existence and relevancy of specific surrounding
circumstances, their relation to one another and to the
whole, and the probabilities of the situation.
It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh such
evidence all over again. Our jurisdiction is limited to
reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by
the lower court.
Latorre v. Latorre, (2010). A question of law arises when
there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of
facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt
arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a
question to be one of law, the same must not involve an
examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution
of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on
the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the
issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the
question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a
question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation
given to such question by the party raising the same;
rather, it 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 is a
question of fact.
Cabaron v. People, (2009). A question of law exists when
there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts. On the other hand, a question of fact
exists when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth
or falsity of the alleged facts. The resolution of a question
of fact necessarily involves a calibration of the evidence,
the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and the
relevance of surrounding circumstances, and the
probability of specific situations.
Caina v. People, (1992). The case of Cheesman v. IAC,
distinguishes between question of fact and questions of
law. We quote:
". . . a question of law — which exists ‘when the doubt or
difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of
facts’ — ‘there is a question of fact when the doubt or
difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged
facts,’ or when the ‘query necessarily invites calibration of
the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of
witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding
circumstances, their relation to each other and to the
whole and the probabilities of the situation.’
i. Question of Compliance or Noncompliance of
Notice and Publication a Question of Fact
Metropolitan & Trust Co. v. Sps. Miranda, (2011). The
question of compliance or non-compliance with notice and
publication requirements of an extrajudicial foreclosure
sale is a factual issue, and the resolution thereof by the
trial court is generally binding on this Court. The matter of
sufficiency of posting and publication of a notice of
foreclosure sale need not be resolved
j. Question on the Existence of Implied Trust is a
Question of Fact
Juan v. Yap, (2011). The question of the existence of an
implied trust is factual, hence, ordinarily outside the
purview of a Rule 45 review of purely legal questions.
k. Existence of Tenancy Relationship a Question of
Fact
Estate of Samson v. Susano, (2011). The question of
whether a tenancy relationship exists is basically a
question of fact which, as a general rule, is beyond the
scope of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. The
question of whether there was an implied tenancy and
sharing are basically questions of fact and the findings of
the Court of Appeals and the Boards a quo are, generally,
entitled to respect and nondisturbance, as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence. Such findings of fact
may be reviewed by the Court when the conclusion is a
finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures, or if the findings of fact are conclusions
without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based.
l. Factual Findings of Facts Affirmed by the CA
Binding on the SC
Republic v. Heirs of Bautista and Malabanan, (2013). This
Court is not a trier of facts. Questions of fact may not be
raised in a petition brought under Rule 45, as such petition
may only raise questions of law.
This rule applies in expropriation cases. Moreover, factual
findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are
generally binding on this Court. An evaluation of the case
and the issues presented leads the Court to the conclusion
that it is unnecessary to deviate from the findings of fact
of the trial and appellate courts.
Under Section 8 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the trial
court sitting as an expropriation court may, after hearing,
accept the commissioners’ report and render judgment in
accordance therewith. This is what the trial court did in
this case. The CA affirmed the trial court’s pronouncement
in toto. Given these facts, the trial court and the CA’s
identical findings of fact concerning the issue of just
compensation should be accorded the greatest respect,
and are binding on the Court absent proof that they
committed error in establishing the facts and in drawing
conclusions from them. There being no showing that the
trial court and the CA committed any error, we thus
accord due respect to their findings.
Serra v. Mumar, (2012). A petition for review on certiorari
should raise only questions of law. In resolving a petition
for review, the Court "does not sit as an arbiter of facts for
it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or
weigh all over again the evidence already considered in
the proceedings below."
When supported by substantial evidence, the factual
findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are
final and conclusive on this Court and may not be
reviewed on appeal, unless petitioner can show
compelling or exceptional reasons for this Court to
disregard, overturn or modify such findings.
m. Determination if the Question is One of Fact or
of Law
Magdiwang Realty Corp. v. The Manila Banking Corp.,
(2012). Section 1, Rule 45 then categorically states that a
petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions
of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of
law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact
when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same
must not involve an examination of the probative value of
the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.
The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the
law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is
clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence
presented, the question posed is one of fact.
n. Petition for Review on Certiorari Available in
Labor Cases
Crewlink, Inc. and/or Gulf Marine Services v.
Teringtering, (2012). In a petition for review on certiorari,
our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law in the
absence of any showing that the factual findings
complained of are devoid of support in the records or are
glaringly erroneous. We are not a trier of facts, and this
applies with greater force in labor cases. Findings of fact of
administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which
have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is
confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not
only great respect but even finality. They are binding upon
this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of
discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were
arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence
on record. This case is no different.
o. Remedy in Case of Adverse Judgment in a
Petition for Issuance of Writ of Kalikasan
Part III, Rule 7, Sec. 16. Appeal - Within fifteen (15) days
from the date of notice of the adverse judgment or denial
of motion for reconsideration, any party may appeal to the
Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The
appeal may raise questions of fact.
4. Time for Filing; Extension
Rule 45, Sec. 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.
5. Docket and Other Lawful Fees; Proof of Service
of Petition
Rule 45, Sec. 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.
6. Contents of Petition
Rule 45, Sec. 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 Sec. 2, Rule 42.
a. Requirements in Filing the Petition
F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems, Inc. v. Online Networks
International, (2011). Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of
Court indeed requires the attachment to the petition for
review on certiorari "such material portions of the record
as would support the petition." However, such a
requirement was not meant to be an ironclad rule such
that the failure to follow the same would merit the
outright dismissal of the petition. In accordance with
Section 7 of Rule 45, "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."
More importantly, Section 8 of Rule 45 declares that "[i]f
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." Given that the TSN of the proceedings before the
RTC forms part of the records of the instant case, the
failure of FAT KEE to attach the relevant portions of the
TSN was already cured by the subsequent elevation of the
case records to this Court.
b. Rule 45, Sec. 4 on the Contents of the Petition
Not an Absolute Rule
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Absolute Management
Corp., (2013). The Court significantly pointed out in F.A.T.
Kee that the requirement in Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court is not meant to be an absolute rule whose
violation would automatically lead to the petition’s
dismissal. The Rules of Court has not been intended to be
totally rigid. In fact, the Rules of Court provides that 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 "[i]f 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." These provisions are in keeping with the
overriding standard that procedural rules should be
liberally construed to promote their objective and to assist
the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action or proceeding.
c. Amendment to Rule 45 as to the Number of
Copies of the Petition to be filed with the SC
under the “Efficient Use of Paper Rule” (A.M.
No. 11-9-4-SC, effective Jan. 1, 2013)
Sec. 5. Copies to be Filed – Unless otherwise directed by
the court, the number of court bound papers that a party
is required or desires to file shall be as follows:
a. In the Supreme Court, one original (properly
marked) and four copies, unless the case is
referred to the Court En Bane, in which event,
the parties shall file ten additional copies. For
the En Bane, the parties need to submit only two
sets of annexes, one attached to the original and
an extra copy. For the Division, the parties need
to submit also two sets of annexes, one attached
to the original and an extra copy. All members of
the Court shall share the extra copies of annexes
in the interest of economy of paper.
7. Dismissal or Denial of Petition
Rule 45, Sec. 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.
8. Review Discretionary
Rule 45, Sec. 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.
a. Review Not a Matter of Right but of Sound
Judicial Discretion
PEZA v. Carantes, (2010). Review is not a matter of right,
but of sound judicial discretion, and may be granted only
when there are special and important reasons therefor.
9. Pleadings and Documents That May be
Required; Sanctions
Rule 45, Sec. 7. Pleadings and documents that may be
required; sanctions — For purposes of determining
whether the petition should be dismissed or denied
pursuant to Sec. 5 of this Rule, or where the petition is
given due course under Sec. 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 of law discretion
conditions therefor. Must be made within the May be filed not later than 14. Summary of the Formal and Procedural
reglementary period for 60 days from notice of the Requirements in Filing a Petition for Review on
10. Due Course; Elevation of Records appeal or within fifteen (15) judgment, order or Certiorari
days from the receipt of the resolution sought to be
Rule 45, Sec. 8. Due course; elevation of records — If the assailed judgment assailed a. Verified petition for review on certiorari filed in
petition is given due course, the Supreme Court may Stays the judgment, award Unless a writ of preliminary eighteen (18) legible copies, with the original
require the elevation of the complete record of the case or or order appealed from injunction or a TRO shall copy intended for the court being indicated as
specified parts thereof within fifteen (15) days from have been issued, does not such by the petitioner. The petition shall raise
notice. stay the challenged only questions of law which must be distinctly
proceeding set forth.
11. Rule 45 Applicable to Both Civil and Criminal The petitioner and The parties are the b. Filed within (15) days from notice of the
Cases respondent are the original aggrieved party against the judgment or final order or resolution appealed
parties to the action, and lower court or quasi-judicial from, or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion
Rule 45, Sec. 9. Rule applicable to both civil and criminal the lower court or quasi- agency and the prevailing for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time
cases — The mode of appeal prescribed in this Rule shall judicial agency is not to be parties, who thereby after notice of the judgment
be applicable to both civil and criminal cases, except in impleaded respectively become the c. state the full name of the appealing party as the
criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, petitioner and respondents petitioner and the adverse party as respondent,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. The prior filing of a MR is A MR is a condition without impleading the lower courts or judges
not required precedent thereof either as petitioners or respondents;
12. Distinction Between Rule 45 (Petition for The appellate court is in the The higher court exercises d. Indicate the material dates showing when notice
Review on Certiorari) and Rule 65 (SCA for exercise of its appellate original jurisdiction under of the judgment or final order or resolution
Certiorari) jurisdiction and power of its power of control and subject thereof was received, when a motion for
review supervision over the new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and
Rule 45 (Petition for Rule 65 (Petition for proceedings of the lower when notice of the denial thereof was received;
review on certiorari) Certiorari) court. e. Set forth concisely a statement of the matters
Mode of appeal An original special civil involved, and the reasons or arguments relied on
action 13. Matters to be Considered in Determining the for the allowance of the petition;
The petition is based on The petition raises the issue Proper Remedy f. Be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate
questions of law which the as to whether the lower original, or a certified true copy of the judgment
appellant desires the court acted without or in DOLE v. Maceda, (2010). In determining whether the or final order or resolution certified by the clerk
appellant court to resolve excess of jurisdiction or proper remedy is a special civil action for certiorari or a of court of the court a quo and the requisite
with grave abuse of petition for review, it is not so much the nature of the number of plain copies thereof, and such
discretion (question of question or questions that would be raised that matters. material portions of the record as would support
jurisdiction) With very rare exceptions, what is decisive is whether or the petition; and
Involves the review of the May be directed against an not the challenged order is a final order that disposes of g. Contain verification prescribed in Sec. 4, Rule 7,
judgment, award or final interlocutory order of the the merit of the case. as amended by Cir. No. 48-2000: “that the
order on the merits court prior to appeal from affiant has read the pleading and that the
the judgment or where The Court held in Metropolitan Manila Development allegations therein are true and correct of his
there is no appeal or any Authority v. Jancom Environmental Corp. that the remedy personal knowledge or based on authentic
other plaint, speedy and for seeking the reversal or modification of a judgment records”
adequate remedy rendered on the merits of the case is appeal. This is true h. Contain a sworn certification against forum
A mode of appeal which An original action that even if the error imputed to the officer, body, or tribunal shopping as provided in the last paragraph of
centers on the review on dwells on jurisdictional constitutes alleged lack of jurisdiction over the subject Sec. 2, Rule 42.
the merits of a judgment, errors of whether a lower matter of the case or grave abuse of discretion in making i. Unless he has theretofore done so, the
final order or award court acted without or in its or his findings of fact or of law. The Court cannot petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket
rendered by a lower court excess of its jurisdiction or countenance the blurring of the distinction between a and other lawful fees to the clerk of court of the
involving purely questions with grave abuse of special civil action for certiorari and a petition for review. Supreme Court and deposit the amount of
 P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the
petition.
j. Serve a copy of the petition upon the adverse
party or parties and on the court or agency a
quo, with the required proof of service (Affidavit
of Service) n accordance with Rule 13, Sec. 13
k. Whenever practicable, the service and filing of
pleadings and other papers shall be done
personally. A resort to other modes must be
accompanied by a written explanation
(Explanation of Service) why the service or filing
was not done personally (Rule 13, Sec. 11)
l. If the court decides to give due course to the
petition, it may require or allow the filing of such
pleadings, briefs, memoranda, or documents as
it may deem necessary (Rule 45, Sec. 7)
B. Rules on Appealed Case in the SC (Rule 56-A)
(A) Petition for Review on Certiorari
1. Mode of Appeal
Rule 56, Sec. 3. Mode of appeal — An appeal to the
Supreme Court may be taken only by a petition for review
on certiorari, except in criminal cases where the penalty
imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
2. Procedure
Rule 56, Sec. 4. Procedure — The appeal shall be governed
by and disposed of in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Constitution, laws, Rules 45, 48, Sec.s 1,
2, and 5 to 11 of Rule 51, 52 and this Rule.
3. Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal
Rule 56, Sec. 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal — The
appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of
the respondent on the following grounds:
(a) Failure to take the appeal within the
reglementary period;
(b) Lack of merit in the petition;
(c) Failure to pay the requisite docket fee and other
lawful fees or to make a deposit for costs;
(d) Failure to comply with the requirements
regarding proof of service and contents of and
the documents which should accompany the
petition;
(e) Failure to comply with any circular, directive or
order of the Supreme Court without justifiable
cause;
(f) Error in the choice or mode of appeal; and
(g) The fact that the case is not appealable to the
Supreme Court.
4. Disposition of Improper Appeal
Rule 56, Sec. 6. Disposition of improper appeal — Except
as provided in Sec. 3, Rule 122 regarding appeals in
criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, an appeal taken
to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal shall be
dismissed.
An appeal by certiorari taken to the Supreme Court from
the Regional Trial Court submitting issues of fact may be
referred to the Court of Appeals for decision or
appropriate action. The determination of the Supreme
Court on whether or not issues of fact are involved shall be
final.
5. Procedure if Opinion is Equally Divided
Rule 56, Sec. 7. Procedure if opinion is equally divided —
Where the court en banc is equally divided in opinion, or
the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall again
be deliberated on, and if after such deliberation no
decision is reached, the original action commenced in the
court shall be dismissed, in appealed cases, the judgment
or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all
incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.
Chapter XXVII: Remedies After Finality of Judgment
The remedies available to a party after the judgment has
already become final and executory are as follows:
1. Petition for relief from judgment, orders or other
proceedings (Rule 38)
2. Petition for annulment of judgment (Rule 47)
3. Petition for certiorari (Rule 65)
4. Collateral Attack
I. Petition for Relief from Judgment, Final Orders
or Other Proceedings (Rule 38)
1. What is a Petition for Relief?
Quelnan v. VHF Phil., (2005). It is a legal remedy whereby
a party seeks to set aside a judgment rendered against him
by a court whenever he was unjustly deprived of a hearing
or was prevented from taking an appeal, in either case,
because of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect.
2. Petition for Relief: Nature and Grounds
Samonte v. S.F. Naguiat, Inc., (2009). It is a remedy
provided by law to any person against whom a decision or
order is entered into through fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence. The relief provided for is of
equitable character, allowed only in exceptional cases as
where there is no other available or adequate remedy.
When a party has another remedy available to him, which
may either be a motion for new trial or appeal from an
adverse decision of the lower court, and he was not
prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence from filing such motion or taking the appeal, he
cannot avail himself of the relief provided in Rule 38.
Torres v. China Banking Corp., (2010). The petition must
be filed within 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. It must be filed within the
reglementary period, which is reckoned from the time the
party’s counsel receives notice of the decision for notice to
counsel of the decision is notice to the party.
3. Petition for Relief from Judgment, Order, or
Other Proceedings
Rule 38, Sec. 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order,
or other proceedings — When a judgment or final order is
entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken
against a party in any court through fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in
such court and in the same case praying that the
judgment, order or proceeding be set aside
a. Final and Executory Judgment Can be Annulled
by Petition for Relief or Petition for Annulment
of Judgment

Salting v. Velez, (2011). A final and executory decision can
only be annulled by a petition to annul the same on the
ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, or by a
petition for relief from a final order or judgment under
Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. However, no petition to that
effect was filed. Well-settled is the rule that once a
judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be
disturbed, altered, or modified in any respect except to
correct clerical errors or to make nunc pro tunc entries.
Nothing further can be done to a final judgment except to
execute it.
4. Petition for Relief from Denial of Appeal
Rule 38, Sec. 2. Petition for relief from denial of appeal —
When a judgment or final order is rendered by any court in
a case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an
appeal, he may file a petition in such court and in the same
case praying that the appeal be given due course.
a. Negligence of Counsel as a Ground for Petition
for Relief from Judgment Must be Excusable
Ruiz v. Delos Santos, (2009). Negligence to be excusable
must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could
not have guarded against. Petitioners' counsel filed a
notice of appeal within the reglementary period for filing
the same without, however, paying the appellate docket
fees. Counsel very well knew that under the Rules of
Court, the full amount of appellate docket and other
lawful fees must be paid within the same period that the
notice of appeal was filed, as he even allegedly
communicated to the clerk of court his request for
additional time in order to consolidate the confirmation of
petitioners' desire to appeal.
It bears stressing that the Rules of Court explicitly provides
for the procedure for the perfection of appeal. The counsel
of petitioners should not have relied on the alleged
assurance by the clerk of court of the acceptance of the
late payment of docket fees. As an officer of the court, he
should know that the affirmation of the clerk of court
could not prevail over the specific requirement of the
rules. The rules of procedure are meant to be followed and
not to be subjected to the whims and convenience of the
parties and their counsels or by mere opinions of the clerk
of court.
5. Time for Filing Petition; Contents and
Verification
Rule 38, Sec. 3. Time for filing petition; contents and
verification — A petition provided for in either of the
preceding Sec.s 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, and
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.
6. Order to File an Answer
Rule 38, Sec. 4. Order to file an answer — If the petition is
sufficient in form and substance to justify relief, the court
in which it is filed, shall issue an order requiring the
adverse parties to answer the same within fifteen (15)
days from the receipt thereof. The order shall be served in
such manner as the court may direct, together with copies
of the petition and the accompanying affidavits.
7. Preliminary Injunction Pending Proceedings
Rule 38, Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction pending
proceedings — The court in which the petition is filed may
grant such preliminary injunction as may be necessary for
the preservation of the rights of the parties, upon the filing
by the petitioner of a bond in favor of the adverse party,
conditioned that if the petition is dismissed or the
petitioner fails on the trial of the case upon its merits, he
will pay the adverse party all damages and costs that may
be awarded to him by reason of the issuance of such
injunction or the other proceedings following the petition,
but such injunction shall not operate to discharge or
extinguish any lien which the adverse party may have
acquired upon, the property, of the petitioner.
8. Proceedings After Answer is Filed
Rule 38, Sec. 6. Proceedings after answer is filed — After
the filing of the answer or the expiration of the period
therefor, the court shall hear the petition and if after such
hearing, it finds that the allegations thereof are not true,
the petition shall be dismissed; but if it finds said
allegations to be true, it shall set aside the judgment or
final order or other proceeding complained of upon such
terms as may be just. Thereafter the case shall stand as if
such judgment, final order or other proceeding had never
been rendered, issued or taken. The court shall then
proceed to hear and determine the case as if a timely
motion for a new trial or reconsideration had been
granted by it.
9. Procedure Where the Denial of an Appeal is Set
Aside
Rule 38, Sec. 7. Procedure where the denial of an appeal
is set aside — Where the denial of an appeal is set aside,
the lower court shall be required to give due course to the
appeal and to elevate the record of the appealed case as if
a timely and proper appeal had been made.
10. Remedy in Case of Denial of Petition for Relief
Rule 41, Sec. 1. Subject of 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.
No appeal may be taken from:
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any
similar motion seeking relief from judgment;
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.
11. Petition for Relief a Prohibited Pleading under
the Rules on Summary Procedure
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions — The
following pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be
allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
12. Prohibited Pleading under the Rules on Small
Claims
Sec. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions - The following
pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be allowed in
the cases covered by this Rule:

(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
II. Annulment of Judgment, Final Orders or
Resolutions (Rule 47)
A. Basic Concepts on Annulment of Judgment
1. What is an Action for Annulment of Judgment,
Final Orders or Resolution?
Alaban v. CA, (2005). An action for annulment of judgment
is a remedy in law independent of the case where the
judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. The
purpose of such action is to have the final and executory
judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of
litigation. It is resorted to in cases where the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from
judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no longer
available through no fault of the petitioner, and is based
on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of
jurisdiction or denial of due process.
2. Nature of Petition for Annulment of Judgment
Phil. Tourism Authority v. Phil. Golf Dev. & Equipment,
Inc., (2012). PTA’s appropriate remedy was only to appeal
the RTC decision. "Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47
of the Rules of Court is a recourse equitable in character
and allowed only in exceptional cases where the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no
fault of petitioner."
Dare Adventure Farm Corp. v. Sps. Ng, (2012). 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. The Court has thus instituted safeguards by
limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of
jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing in
Section 1 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the
petitioner should show that the ordinary remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner. A petition for annulment that ignores or
disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper.
3. Substantive Basis of Annulment of Judgment
B.P. 129, Sec. 9. Jurisdiction – The Court of Appeals shall
exercise:
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts;
4. Coverage
Rule 47, Sec. 1. Coverage — This Rule shall govern the
annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final
orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial
Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies
are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
a. Annulment of Judgment Not Available if There
are Other Remedies Available
Sps. Arcenas v. Queen City Dev. Bank, (2010). Section 1,
Rule 47 provides that it does not allow a direct recourse to
a petition for annulment of judgment if other appropriate
remedies are available, such as a petition for new trial,
appeal or a petition for relief. If petitioner fails to avail of
these remedies without sufficient justification, she cannot
resort to the action for annulment of judgment under Rule
47, for otherwise, she would benefit from her inaction or
negligence.
b. Grounds for Annulment: Duty of the Petitioner
to Show that Ordinary Remedies are Not
Available
Antonio v. Register of Deeds of Makati City, (2012). In
Barco v. Court of Appeals, this Court emphasized that only
void judgments, by reason of "extrinsic fraud" or the
court’s lack of jurisdiction, are susceptible to being
annulled.
The law sanctions the annulment of certain judgments
which, though final, are ultimately void. Annulment of
judgment is an equitable principle not because it allows a
party-litigant another opportunity to reopen a judgment
that has long lapsed into finality but because it enables
him to be discharged from the burden of being bound to a
judgment that is an absolute nullity to begin with.
Apart from the requirement that the existence of
"extrinsic fraud" or "lack of jurisdiction" should be amply
demonstrated, one who desires to avail this remedy must
convince that the ordinary and other appropriate
remedies, such as an appeal, are no longer available for
causes not attributable to him. This is clearly provided
under Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
c. Annulment of Judgment an Exception to
Immutability of Judgment
Dare Adventure Farm Corp. v. Sps. Ng, (2012). 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.
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. As to the
first, 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. As to the
latter, controversies cannot drag on indefinitely because
fundamental considerations of public policy and sound
practice demand that the rights and obligations of every
litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period
of time.
d. Action for Annulment of Judgment Not a
Substitute for a Lost Appeal
Sps. Manila v. Sps. Manzo, (2011). An action for
annulment of judgment cannot and is not a substitute for
the lost remedy of appeal.
Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment
refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. In
a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of
jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of
jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction.
Lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no jurisdiction,
that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the
petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction
over the subject matter
e. CA has no Jurisdiction to Annul the Decision of
the SEC
Galang v. CA, (2005). CA has no jurisdiction to entertain a
petition to annul a decision of the SEC under Rule 47. It
applies only to judgment or final orders of the RTC in civil
cases per Sec. 1. MTC judgments and final orders can be
annulled by the RTC per Sec. 10. CA can reverse or modify
SEC decision under Rule 43
5. Grounds for Annulment
Rule 47, Sec. 2. Grounds for annulment — The annulment
may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and
lack of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed
of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial
or petition for relief.
a. Nature of Annulment of Judgment; Grounds;
Meaning of Lack of Jurisdiction
Nudo v. Caguioa, (2009). It is a recourse equitable in
character allowed only in exceptional cases. The reason for
the restriction is to prevent this extraordinary action from
being used by a losing party to make a complete farce of a
duly promulgated decision that has long become final and
executory. Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, the only grounds for annulment of judgment
are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Lack of
jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers
to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.
Galura v. Math-Agro Corp., (2009). When a petition for
annulment of judgment or final order under Rule 47 is
grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, the petitioner does not need to allege that the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, or petition for
relief are no longer available through no fault of his or her
own.
b. What is Extrinsic Fraud?
Phil. Tourism Authority v. Phil. Golf Dev. & Equipment,
Inc., (2012). Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of
the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed
outside of the trial of the case, whereby the unsuccessful
party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by
fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent.
Amihan Bus Lines, Inc. v. Romars International Gases
Corp., (2010). It is doctrinal that the fraud that will justify
annulment of a judgment is extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud
refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in
litigation committed outside of the trial of the case,
whereby the defeated party is prevented from fully
exhibiting his side of the case by fraud or deception
practiced on him by his opponent, such as by keeping him
away from court, by giving him a false promise of a
compromise, or where the defendant never had the
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 instances
show that there was never a real contest in the trial or
hearing of the case so that the judgment should be
annulled and the case set for a new and fair hearing.
c. Meaning of Lack of Jurisdiction
Sps. Manila v. Sps. Manzo, (2011). Lack of jurisdiction as a
ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over
the subject matter of the claim. In a petition for
annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction,
petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional
discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction. Lack of
jurisdiction means absence of or no jurisdiction, that is,
the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition
because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the
subject matter. Jurisdiction over the nature of the action
or subject matter is conferred by law.
d. Absolute Lack of Jurisdiction Required
Republic v. TAFPA, Inc., (2010). It should be stressed that
in a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of
jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely show an
abuse of jurisdictional discretion, but an absolute lack of
jurisdiction.
e. Lack of Due Process an Additional Ground for
Annulment of Judgment
Diona v. Balangue, (2013). 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.
f. Grave Abuse of Discretion Not a Ground for
Annulment of Judgment
Antonio v. Register of Deeds of Makati City, (2012).
"Grave abuse of discretion" is not a ground to annul a final
and executory judgment.
Second, a petition for annulment of judgment can only be
based on "extrinsic fraud" and "lack of jurisdiction" and
cannot prosper on the basis of "grave abuse of discretion".
By anchoring her petition on the alleged grave abuse of
discretion that attended the dismissal of her complaint
and the denial of her two (2) motions for reconsideration,
Antonino, is, in effect, enlarging the concept of "lack of
jurisdiction". 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.
6. Period for Filing the Action
Rule 47, Sec. 3. Period for filing action — If based on
extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4)
years from its discovery; and if based on lack of
jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.
a. Timeliness of the Filing of the Petition
Sps. Manila v. Sps. Manzo, (2011). On the timeliness of
the petition for annulment of judgment filed with the CA,
Section 3, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides that a
petition for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic
fraud must be filed within four years from its discovery;
and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by
laches or estoppel. The principle of laches or "stale
demands" ordains that the failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which by exercising due diligence could or should have
been done earlier—negligence or omission to assert a
right within a reasonable time, warrants a presumption
that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or
declined to assert it. There is no absolute rule as to what
constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to
be determined according to its particular circumstances.
7. Filing and Contents of Petition
Rule 47, Sec. 4. Filing and contents of petition — The
action shall be commenced by filing a verified petition
alleging therein with particularity the facts and the law
relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the
petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or
defense, as the case may be.
The petition shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible
copies, together with sufficient copies corresponding to
the number of respondents. A certified true copy of the
judgment or final order or resolution shall be attached to
the original copy of the petition intended for the court and
indicated as such by the petitioner.
The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition
affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause
of action or defense and a sworn certification that he has
not theretofore commenced any other action involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
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 Court of Appeals,
or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid
courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5)
days therefrom.
8. Action by the Court
Rule 47, Sec. 5. Action by the court — Should the court
find no substantial merit in the petition, the same may be
dismissed outright with specific reasons for such dismissal.
Should prima facie merit be found in the petition, the
same shall be given due course and summons shall be
served on the respondent.
9. Procedure
Rule 47, Sec. 6. Procedure — The procedure in ordinary
civil cases shall be observed. Should trial be necessary, the
reception of the evidence may be referred to a member of
the court or a judge of a Regional Trial Court. (n)
10. Effect of Judgment
Rule 47, Sec. 7. Effect of judgment — 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. (n)
11. Suspension of Prescriptive Period
Rule 47, Sec. 8. Suspension prescriptive period — The
prescriptive period for the refiling of the aforesaid original
action shall be deemed suspended from the filing of such
original action until the finality of the judgment of
annulment. However, the prescriptive period shall not be
suspended where the extrinsic-fraud is attributable to the
plaintiff in the original action. (n)
12. Relief Available
Rule 47, Sec. 9. Relief available.— The judgment of
annulment may include the award of damages, attorney's
fees and other relief.
If the questioned judgment or final order or resolution had
already been executed the court may issue such orders of
restitution or other relief as justice and equity may
warrant under the circumstances. (n)
13. Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders of
MTCs
Rule 47, Sec. 10. Annulment of judgments or final orders
of Municipal Trial Courts — An action to annul a judgment
or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the
Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. It
shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and Sec.s 2, 3, 4,
7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be applicable thereto. (n)
14. Summary of the Formal and Procedural
Requirements
a. Filing a verified petition in seven (7) clearly
legible copies, together with sufficient copies
corresponding to the number of respondents,
alleging therein with particularity the facts and
the law relied upon for annulment, as well as
those supporting the petitioner’s good and
substantial cause of action or defense, as the
case may be. The annulment may be based only
on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction;
b. A certified true copy of the judgment or final
order or resolution shall be attached to the
original copy of the petition intended for the
Court and indicated as such by the petitioner,
and other supporting documents;
c. Indicate the specific material dates to determine
the timeliness of the filing of the petition. If
based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed
within four (4) years from its discovery; and if
based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred
by laches or estoppel;
d. The petition shall specifically allege and explain
and explain why ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no
fault of the petitioner
 e. The petitioner shall also submit together with
the petition affidavits of witnesses or documents
supporting the cause of action or defense
f. Contain a sworn certification against forum
shopping: that he has not therefore commenced
any other action involving the same issues in the
SC, in the CA, or different division 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 learned
that a similar action or proceeding has been filed
or is pending before the SC, CA, or different
division thereof, or any other tribunal or agency,
he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid
courts and other tribunal or agency thereof
within five (5) days therefrom;
g. Contain verification prescribed in Rule 7, Sec. 4
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended
by Circular No. 48-2000: “That the affiant has
read the pleading and that the allegation therein
are true and correct of his personal knowledge
or based on authentic records”
h. Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner
shall pay to the clerk of court of the CA the
docketing and other lawful fees
III. Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65)
A. Basic Concepts on Petition for Certiorari
1. Nature of Certiorari Proceedings
Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, (2011). Certiorari is a writ
issued by a superior court to an inferior court of record, or
other tribunal or officer, exercising a judicial function,
requiring the certification and return to the former of
some proceeding then pending, or the record and
proceedings in some cause already terminated, in cases
where the procedure is not according to the course of the
common law. The remedy is brought against a lower court,
board, or officer rendering a judgment or order and seeks
the annulment or modification of the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or officer, and the granting of such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. It is
available when the following indispensable elements
concur, to wit:
1. That it is directed against a tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions;
2. That such tribunal, board or officer has acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion; and
3. That there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Certiorari being an extraordinary remedy, the party who
seeks to avail of the same must strictly observe the rules
laid down by law. The extraordinary writ of certiorari may
be availed of only upon a showing, in the minimum, that
the respondent tribunal or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of
its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
Vda. De Formoso v. PNB, (2011). Certiorari is an
extraordinary, prerogative remedy and is never issued as a
matter of right. Accordingly, the party who seeks to avail
of it must strictly observe the rules laid down by law.
Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides:
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari.- When any tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or
any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling
or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or
officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require.
2. Requisites for the Grant of the Writ of Certiorari
Vda. De Formoso v. PNB, (2011). The acceptance of a
petition for certiorari as well as the grant of due course
thereto is, in general, addressed to the sound discretion of
the court. Although the Court has absolute discretion to
reject and dismiss a petition for certiorari, it does so only
(1) when the petition fails to demonstrate grave abuse of
discretion by any court, agency, or branch of the
government; or (2) when there are procedural errors, like
violations of the Rules of Court or Supreme Court Circulars.
Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, (2011). As a rule, certiorari lies
when:
(1) A tribunal, board or officer exercises judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;
(2) The tribunal, board or officer has acted without
or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction; and
(3) There is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The writ of certiorari serves to keep an inferior court
within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from
committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction, or to relieve parties from
arbitrary acts of courts – acts which courts have no power
or authority in law to perform.
3. Applicant Must Specify the Acts Committed or
Omitted Constituting Grave Abuse of Discretion
Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, (2011). The allegation that the
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or
his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion will not
alone suffice. Equally imperative is that the petition must
satisfactorily specify the acts committed or omitted by the
tribunal, board or officer that constitute grave abuse of
discretion.
4. Distinction Between Without, Excess, and Grave
Abuse of Discretion
Without jurisdiction means that the court acted with
absolute lack of authority
Excess of jurisdiction when the court transcends its power
or acts without any statutory authority
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack
of excess of jurisdiction; in other words, power is exercised
in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion,
prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so
patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
 5. Formal and Procedural Requirements
a. Verified petition, filed in seven (7) legible copies,
with the original copy intended for the court
being indicated as such by the petitioner;
b. It should be filed not later than sixty (60) days
from notice of the judgment, order or resolution
sought to be assailed. In case a MR or new trial is
timely filed, whether such motion is required or
not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted
from notice of the denial of said motion.
Mallari v. GSIS, (2010). It is worth emphasizing that the
60-day limitation is considered inextendible, because the
limitation has been prescribed to avoid any unreasonable
delay that violates the constitutional rights of parties to a
speedy disposition of their cases.
c. The petition shall contain the full names and
actual addresses of all the petitioners and
respondents, a concise statement of the matters
involved, the factual background of the case, and
the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.
d. The petition must indicate the specific 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.
e. The petition shall be accompanied by a clearly
legible duplicate original or certified true copy of
the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject
thereof, such material portions of the record as
are referred to therein, and other documents
relevant or pertinent thereto.
f. Contain a sworn certification against forum
shopping: that he has not therefore commenced
any other action involving the same issues in the
SC, in the CA, or different division 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 learned
that a similar action or proceeding has been filed
or is pending before the SC, CA, or different
division thereof, or any other tribunal or agency,
he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid
courts and other tribunal or agency thereof
within five (5) days therefrom;
Vda. De Formoso v. PNB, (2011). The petition shall be
accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment,
order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings
and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in
the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
g. Contain verification prescribed in Rule 7, Sec. 4
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended
by Circular No. 48-2000: “That the affiant has
read the pleading and that the allegation therein
are true and correct of his personal knowledge
or based on authentic records”
h. Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner
shall pay to the clerk of the CA the docketing and
other lawful fees and deposit the sum of P500.00
for costs, unless the petitioner has theretofore
done so;
i. Serve a copy of the petition upon the adverse
party or parties and on the court or agency a
quo, with the required proof of service/Affidavit
of Service in accordance with Rule 13, Sec. 13
j. Whenever practicable, the service and filing of
pleadings and other papers shall be done
personally. A resort to other modes must be
accompanied by a written explanation why the
service of filing was not done personally.
6. Effect of Failure to Comply With the Procedural
and Formal Requirements under Rule 46, Sec. 3
NHA v. Hon. Roxas, (2011). Section 3, Rule 46, of the Rules
of Court, supra, expressly provides that: "The failure of the
petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of
the petition." Dismissal of the petition was the recourse of
the CA, because the requirements imposed by the Rules of
Court were not to be lightly treated or disregarded due to
the omitted documents being essential in a special civil
action for certiorari, a proceeding by which a superior
court determines whether the respondent court or judge
acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.
7. Writ of Certiorari to Correct Errors of
Jurisdiction
Land Bank of the Phil. v. CA, (2003). A writ of certiorari
may be issued for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The writ cannot be used for any other
purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior
court within the bounds of its jurisdiction.
8. Essential Requisites of Certiorari
Republic v. Navy Officers’ Village HOA, (2004). For
certiorari to prosper, the following requisites must concur:
(a) the writ is directed against a tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b) such
tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to excess or lack of jurisdiction; and, (c) there is no appeal
or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
Palma v. Hon. Danilo P., (2010). A petition for certiorari is
proper when any tribunal, board or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no
appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.
There is "grave abuse of discretion" when public
respondent acts in a capricious or whimsical manner in the
exercise of its judgment as to be equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction.
9. Grant of Certiorari Discretionary
Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club v. CA, (2010). Certiorari
is an extraordinary, prerogative remedy and is never
issued as a matter of right. Accordingly, the party who
seeks to avail of it must strictly observe the rules laid down
by law.
10. Appeal and Certiorari Distinguished
a. As to the Purpose
Land Bank of the Phil. v. CA, (2003). Certiorari is a remedy
designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not
errors of judgment
Pure Foods Corp. v. NLRC, (1989). When a court exercises
its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does
not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the
error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a
court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every
erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This
cannot be allowed. The administration of justice would not
survive such a rule. Consequently, an error of judgment
that the court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction is not correctible through the original civil
action of certiorari.
Land Bank of the Phil. v. CA, (2003). The supervisory
jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of
certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing
the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower court –
on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of
the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision.
Ala-Martin v. Sultan, (2001). Even if the findings of the
court are incorrect, as long beyond the province of
certiorari.
Sps. Rempson v. Lenjul Realty Corp., (2004). Where the
error is not one of jurisdiction, but an error of law or fact –
mistake of judgment – appeal is the remedy
b. As to the Manner of Filing
Atty. Paa v. CA, (2000). Over an appeal, the CA exercises
its appellate jurisdiction and power of review. Over a
certiorari, the higher court uses its original jurisdiction in
accordance with its power of control and supervision over
the proceedings of lower courts.
Sy v. Commission on Settlement of Land Problems,
(2011). An appeal is thus a continuation of the original
suit, while a petition for certiorari is an original and
independent action that was not part of the trial that had
independent action that was not part of the trial that had
resulted in the rendition of the judgment or order
complained of.
Atty. Paa v. CA, (2000). The parties to an appeal are the
original parties to the action. In contrast, the parties to a
petition for certiorari are the aggrieved party (who
thereby becomes the petitioner) against the lower court or
quasi-judicial agency, and the prevailing parties (the public
and private respondents, respectively)
c. As to the Subject Matter
Only judgments or final orders and those that the ROC so
declare as appealable (Rule 41, Sec. 1)
Since the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for
certiorari may be directed against an interlocutory order
of the lower court prior to an appeal from the judgment;
or where there is no appeal or any plain, speedy or
adequate remedy.
d. As to the Period of Filing
Ordinary appeals should be filed within 15 days from the
notice of judgment or final order appealed from. Where a
record on appeal is required, the appellant must file a
notice of appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days
from the said notice of judgment or final order. (Rule 41,
Sec. 3). A petition for review should be filed and served
within fifteen days from the notice of denial of the
decision, or of the petitioner’s timely filed motion for new
trial or MR (Rule 42, Sec. 1). The same section allows an
additional period of 15 days to file a petition for review.
Further extension may be granted for the most compelling
reason, but not to exceed fifteen (15) days.
In appeal by certiorari, the petition should be filed also
within fifteen (15) days from the notice of judgment or
final order, or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for
new trial or MR (Rule 45, Sec. 2). The SC may grant an
extension of 30 days to file the petition if there are
justifiable reasons.
On the other hand, a petition for certiorari should be filed
not later than 60 days from the notice of judgment, order
or resolution (Rule 65, Sec. 1). If a motion for new trial or
MR was timely filed, the period shall be counted from the
denial of the motion.
e. As to the Need for a MR
Sps. Samson v. Lenjul Realty Corp., (2004). A MR is
generally required prior to the filing of a petition for
certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity to
correct the alleged errors. Note also that this motion is a
plain and adequate remedy expressly available under the
law.
Atty. Paa v. CA, (2004). Such motion is not required before
appealing a judgment or final order
11. Certiorari Not the Proper Remedy if Appeal is
Available
Land Bank of the Phil. v. CA, (2000). Where appeal is
available to the aggrieved party, the action for certiorari
will not be entertained. Remedies of appeal (including
petitions for review) and certiorari are mutually exclusive,
not alternative or successive.
Banco Filipino v. CA. Hence, certiorari is not and cannot be
a sunbstitute for an appeal, especially if one’s own
negligence or error in one’s choice of remedy occasioned
such loss or lapse.
Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corp.,
(2004). One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be
no available appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy (Rule 65, Sec. 1). Where an appeal is available,
certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is
grave abuse of discretion.
Pilipino Telephone Corp. v. Radiomarine Network, Inc.
(2010). The well-settled rule is that certiorari is not
available where the aggrieved party’s remedy of appeal is
plain, speedy and adequate in the ordinary course, the
reason being that certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal
or any other adequate remedy. The existence and
availability of the right of appeal are antithetical to the
availment of the special civil action for certiorari. These
two remedies are mutually exclusive.
12. MR a Condition Sine Qua Non
Pineda v. CA, (2010). The general rule is that a motion for
reconsideration is a condition sine qua non before a
petition for certiorari may lie, its purpose being to grant an
opportunity for the court a quo to correct any error
attributed to it by a re-examination of the legal and factual
circumstances of the case. There are, however, recognized
exceptions permitting a resort to the special civil action for
certiorari without first filing a motion for reconsideration.
Florendo v. Paramount Insurance Corp., (2010). The
general rule is of course that a motion for reconsideration
of the challenged order is a prerequisite to the filing of a
special civil action of certiorari in a higher court to annul
such order. This gives the lower court a chance to correct
the errors imputed to it. But one of the exceptions to such
requirement is where the matter involved is urgent. Here,
the CA correctly dispensed with the requirement since the
RTC had already issued a writ of execution and so its
enforcement was imminent.
13. Exceptions to the Rule on the Filing of MR
Acance v. CA, (2005). The rule is well-settled that the filing
of a MR is an indispensable condition to the filing of a
special civil action for certiorari. However, this rule admits
of exceptions including:
(a) Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the
court a quo has no jurisdiction;
(b) Where the questions raised in the certiorari
proceedings have been duly raised and passed
upon by the lower court, or are the same as
those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
(c) Where there is an urgent necessity for the
resolution of the question and any further delay
would prejudice the interests of the Government
or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the
action is perishable;
(d) Where, under the circumstances, a motion for
reconsideration would be useless;
(e) Where petitioner was deprived of due process
and there is extreme urgency for relief;
(f) Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of
arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by
the trial court is improbable;
(g) Where the proceedings in the lower court are a
nullity for lack of due process;
(h) Where the proceedings was ex parte or in which
the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
(i) Where the issue raised is one purely of law or
public interest is involved.
The procedural requirement that a motion for
reconsideration must first be filed before resorting to the
special civil action of certiorari may be glossed over to
prevent a miscarriage of justice and, among other
recognized instances, when the need for relief is extremely
urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy
remedy available.
Miguel v. JCT Group, Inc. (2005). The requirement of a
motion for reconsideration, as a prerequisite to the filing
of a petition for certiorari, is waived under any of the
following conditions: where the decision is a patent nullity,
where the issue raised is one purely of law, or where the
questions raised are exactly the same as those already
squarely presented to and passed upon by the court a quo.
IV. Collateral Attack
A. Collateral Attack
1. What is Collateral Attack?
Phil. Law Dictionary. An attempt to impeach the judgment
by matters dehors the record, before a court in an action
other than the one in which it was rendered.
Co v. CA, (1991). It 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 the judgment, on its face, is null and void, as where
it is patent that the court which rendered said judgment
has no jurisdiction.
Alviar v. CFI. A proceeding in which the integrity of a
judgment is challenged, except those made in the action
wherein the judgment is rendered or by appeal, and
excepts suits brought to obtain decrees declaring
judgment to be void ab initio.
2. How to Make a Collateral Attack on the
Judgment?
Co v. CA, (1991). It 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 the judgment, on its face, is null and void, as where
it is patent that the court which rendered said judgment
has no jurisdiction.
3. When is Attack of a Judgment Direct? When
Collateral?
Sarmiento v. CA, (2005). The attack is direct when the
object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment,
or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is
indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a
different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless
made as an incident thereof.
4. Validity of Marriage May be Collaterally
Attacked in a Claim for Death Benefits
De Castro v. Assidao-De Castro, (2008). Anent the first
issue, the Court holds that the trial court had jurisdiction
to determine the validity of the marriage between
petitioner and respondent. The validity of a void marriage
may be collaterally attacked. Thus, in Niñal v. Bayadog, we
held:
However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no
judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an
absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not
limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or
illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of
property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the
court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit
not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is
essential to the determination of the case. This is without
prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When
such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity
is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry.
The clause "on the basis of a final judgment declaring such
previous marriage void" in Article 40 of the Family Code
connotes that such final judgment need not be obtained
only for purpose of remarriage.
Likewise, in Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño, the Court ruled
that it is clothed with sufficient authority to pass upon the
validity of two marriages despite the main case being a
claim for death benefits. Reiterating Niñal, we held that
the Court may pass upon the validity of a marriage even in
a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of said
marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of
the case. However, evidence must be adduced, testimonial
or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds
rendering such a marriage an absolute nullity.
Chapter XXVIII: Execution
I. Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgment
(Rule 39)
A. Execution
1. Execution Defined
Cagayan de Oro Coliseum, Inc. v. CA, (1999). 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.
People’s Homesite and Housing Corp. v. Jeremias, (1976).
The fruit and end of the suit, and very aptly called the life
of the law. The suit does not terminate with the judgment,
and all proceedings in the execution are proceedings in the
suit.
Pelejo v. CA, (1982). The remedy provided by law for the
enforcement of a judgment and the only portion of a
decision that becomes the subject of examination is that
ordained or decreed in the dispositive part.
Ipekdjian Merchandising Co. v. CTA. A power incident to
every court from which process issues, when delivered to
the proper officer, to enforce upon such officer a
compliance with his duty, and a due execution of the
process according to its command.
2. Execution Upon Judgments or Final Orders
Rule 39, Sec. 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders
— Execution shall issue as a matter of right, or 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. (1a)
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.
a. GR: Execution as a Matter of Right – Requisites;
Execution Pending Appeal and Exception
Florendo v. Paramount Insurance Corp., (2010). Normally,
execution will issue as a matter of right only (a) when the
judgment has become final and executory; (b) when the
judgment debtor has renounced or waived his right of
appeal; (c) when the period for appeal has lapsed without
an appeal having been filed; or (d) when, having been
filed, the appeal has been resolved and the records of the
case have been returned to the court of origin. Execution
pending appeal is the exception to the general rule.
As such exception, the court’s discretion in allowing it
must be strictly construed and firmly grounded on the
existence of good reasons. "Good reasons," it has been
held, consist of compelling circumstances that justify
immediate execution lest the judgment becomes illusory.
The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the
injury or damages that might result should the losing party
secure a reversal of the judgment. Lesser reasons would
make of execution pending appeal, instead of an
instrument of solicitude and justice, a tool of oppression
and inequity.
“Good reason” as required by Rule 39, Sec. 2 of the ROC
does not necessarily mean unassailable and flawless basis
but at very least, it must be on solid footing. It does not
even stand on its own.
b. Effect of Finality of Judgment
Anama v. PSB, (2012). Just as a losing party has the right
to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning
party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of
the resolution of his case by the execution and satisfaction
of the judgment, which is the "life of the law." To frustrate
it by dilatory schemes on the part of the losing party is to
frustrate all the efforts, time and expenditure of the
courts. It is in the interest of justice that this Court should
write finis to this litigation.
c. Exceptions to the Rule that The Court Cannot
Refuse to Issue Writ of Execution
GR: Once the judgment or order become final and
executory, the court cannot refuse to issue a writ of
execution
XPN:
1. When subsequent facts and circumstances
transpire which render such execution unjust or
impossible, such as a supervening cause like the
act of the Commission of Civil Service finding the
plaintiff administratively guilty and which
constituted a bar to his reinstatement as
ordered by the trial court in a civil case, or where
the defendant bank was placed under
receivership.
2. On equitable grounds, as when there has been a
change in the situation of the parties which
make execution inequitable.
3. When the judgment has been novated by the
parties
4. When a petition for relief or an action to enjoin
judgment is filed and a preliminary injunction is
prayed for and granted
5. Where the judgment has become dormant, the
five (5)-year period under Sec. 6 of this Rule
having expired without the judgment having
been revived
6. Where the judgment turns out to be incomplete
or is conditional since, as a matter of law, such
judgments cannot become final.
d. GR: Injunction Cannot Restrain the Execution of
a Judgment: XPNs
Australian Professional Realty, Inc. v. Municipality of
Padre Garcia, (2012). The general rule is that after a
judgment has gained finality, it becomes the ministerial
duty of the court to order its execution. No court should
interfere, by injunction or otherwise, to restrain such
execution. The rule, however, admits of exceptions, such
as the following: (1) when facts and circumstances later
transpire that would render execution inequitable or
unjust; or (2) when there is a change in the situation of the
parties that may warrant an injunctive relief.
e. Motion for Execution Need Not be Served on
the Defeated Party; Granting of Writ of
Execution a Matter of Right Not a Violation of
Due Process
Anama v. PSB, (2012). 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.
In Pamintuan v. Muñoz, We ruled that once a judgment
becomes final and executory, the prevailing party can have
it executed as a matter of right, and the judgment debtor
need not be given advance notice of the application for
execution.
Also of the same stature is the rule that once a judgment
becomes final and executory, the prevailing party can have
it executed as a matter of right and the granting of
execution becomes a ministerial duty of the court.
Otherwise stated, once sought by the prevailing party,
execution of a final judgment will just follow as a matter of
course. Hence, the judgment debtor need not be given
advance notice of the application for execution nor he
afforded prior hearing.
Absence of such advance notice to the judgment debtor
does not constitute an infringement of the constitutional
guarantee of due process.
f. Issuance of Writ of Execution is Trial Court’s
Ministerial Duty Once Decision is Final
Sps. Golez v. Sps. Navarro, (2013). In the present case, the
Court finds meritorious grounds to admit the petition and
absolve the petitioners from their procedural lapse.
It is undisputed that the CA Decision dated September 29,
2006 is already final and executory. As a rule, once a
judgment becomes final and executory, all that remains is
the execution of the decision which is a matter of right.
The prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution, the
issuance of which is the trial court’s ministerial duty. The
writ of execution, however, must conform substantially to
every essential particular of the judgment promulgated. It
must conform, more particularly, to that ordained or
decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.
g. Mandamus is Available in Case of Execution of
Final and Executory Judgment
FGU Insurance Corp. v. RTC of Makati, Br. 66, (2011). A
writ of mandamus lies to compel a judge to issue a writ of
execution when the judgment had already become final
and executory and the prevailing party is entitled to the
same as a matter of right.
Valenzona v. CA, (1993). Where a judgment or final order
has become final and executory, notwithstanding which
the trial court refuses to issue a writ of execution by
denying the motion for execution without justifiable
reason, the aggrieved party’s remedy is to file a petition
for mandamus.
h. Remedy in Case of Issuance Order of Execution
under Rule 65
Sec. 1. Subject of 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.
No appeal may be taken from:
(e) An order of execution;
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.
3. Discretionary Execution
Rule 39, Sec. 2. Discretionary execution —
(a) Execution of a judgment or 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.
a. Execution Pending Appeal a Matter of
Discretion
Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corp. v. CA, (2010).
When an appeal had been duly perfected, execution of the
judgment, whether wholly or partially, was not a matter of
right, but of discretion provided good reasons therefor
existed. The compelling grounds for the issuance of the
writ must be stated in a special order after due hearing.
Aside from the existence of good reasons, the rules also
require that the motion for partial execution should have
been filed while the trial court still had jurisdiction over
the case.
b. Execution Pending Appeal an Exception to the
General Rule
Florendo v. Paramount Insurance Corp., (2010). Execution
pending appeal is the exception to the general rule.
As such exception, the court’s discretion in allowing it
must be strictly construed and firmly grounded on the
existence of good reasons. "Good reasons," it has been
held, consist of compelling circumstances that justify
immediate execution lest the judgment becomes illusory.
The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the
injury or damages that might result should the losing party
secure a reversal of the judgment. Lesser reasons would
make of execution pending appeal, instead of an
instrument of solicitude and justice, a tool of oppression
and inequity.
Corona International, Inc. v. CA, (2000). The execution of
judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general
rule and must, therefore, be strictly construed. So, too, it
is not to be availed of and applied routinely, but only in
extraordinary circumstances.
c. Meaning of “Good Reasons” to Justify
Immediate Execution
NAPOCOR v. Judge Adiong, (2011). In Florendo v.
Paramount Insurance Corp., the Supreme Court held:
"Good reasons," it has been held, consist of compelling
circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the
judgment becomes illusory. The circumstances must be
superior, outweighing the injury or damages that might
result should the losing party secure a reversal of the
judgment. Lesser reasons would make of execution
pending appeal, instead of an instrument of solicitude and
justice, a tool of oppression and inequity.
"Good reason" as required by Section 2, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court does not necessarily mean unassailable and
flawless basis but at the very least, it must be on solid
footing. Dire financial conditions of the plaintiffs
supported by mere self-serving statements as "good
reason" for the issuance of a writ of execution pending
appeal does not stand on solid footing. It does not even
stand on its own.
d. Requisites for Execution Pending Appeal
Maceda, Jr. v. DBP. Execution pending appeal requires the
observance of the following requisites:
(a) There must be a motion theretofore by the
prevailing party;
(b) There must be a good reason for issuing the writ
of execution; and
(c) The good reason must be stated in a special
order
e. Ground for Discretionary Execution
Villamor v. NAPOCOR, (2004). The prevailing doctrine as
provided for in Section 2, paragraph 3 of Rule 39 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure is that discretionary execution is
permissible only when good reasons exist for immediately
executing the judgment before finality or pending appeal
or even before the expiration of the period to appeal.
Good reasons consist of compelling circumstances
justifying immediate execution lest judgment becomes
illusory, or the prevailing party after the lapse of time be
unable to enjoy it, considering the tactics of the adverse
party who may have apparently no cause but to delay.
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. Were it otherwise, execution pending appeal
may well become a tool of oppression and inequity instead
of an instrument of solicitude and justice.
f. Execution Pending Appeal Not Applicable in
Land Registration Proceeding
Top Management Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, (2011).
Execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land
registration proceeding.
g. Residual Power of the CA, Execution Pending
Appeal under Rule 42
ALPA-PCM, Inc. v. Bulasao, (2012). Rule 42 of the Rules of
Court governs the appeal of a decision of the RTC
rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; the
appeal is made by filing a petition for review with the CA.
Despite the filing of a petition with the CA, however, Rule
42 grants the RTC residual jurisdiction to order execution
pending appeal, so long as (1) the CA has not yet given due
course to the petition, and (2) the requirements of Section
2, Rule 39 are observed.
h. Certiorari an Available Remedy in Case of
Execution of Judgment
Alagar v. PNB, (2011). The execution of a judgment
pending an action in a higher court essentially challenging
its finality cannot be deemed an abandonment of that
action since the rules grant parties the right to question by
special civil actions those orders and rulings that inferior
courts issue with grave abuse of discretion.
That a party complied with the writ of execution after its
several attempts to stop it cannot be deemed a voluntary
abandonment of its action before the CA.
i. Posting of the Bond to Answer for Damages Not
Sufficient Reason for Execution Pending Appeal
B.F. Corp. v. EDSA Shangrila Hotel and Resort, Inc. Posting
a bond to answer for damages is not alone a sufficient
reason, otherwise execution pending appeal could be
obtained through the mere filing of such bond.
4. Stay of Discretionary Execution
Rule 39, Sec. 3. Stay of discretionary execution —
Discretionary execution issued under the preceding Sec.
may be stayed upon approval by the proper court of a
sufficient supersedeas bond filed by the party against
whom it is directed, conditioned upon the performance of
the judgment or order allowed to be executed in case it
shall be finally sustained in whole or in part. The bond thus
given may be proceeded against on motion with notice to
the surety.
5. Judgments Not Stayed by Appeal
Rule 39, Sec. 4. Judgments not stayed by appeal —
Judgments in actions for injunction, receivership,
accounting and support, and such other judgments as are
now or may hereafter be declared to be immediately
executory, shall be enforceable after their rendition and
shall not, be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom, unless
otherwise ordered by the trial court. On appeal therefrom,
the appellate court in its discretion may make an order
suspending, modifying, restoring or granting the
injunction, receivership, accounting, or award of support.
The stay of execution shall be upon such terms as to bond
or otherwise as may be considered proper for the security
or protection of the rights of the adverse party.
a. Moral and Exemplary Damages and Attorney’s
Fees in Intra-Corporate Controversies Not
Immediately Executory
Heirs of Divinagracia v. Hon. Ruiz, (2011). A.M. No. 01-2-
04-SC now provides that awards for moral damages,
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in intra-corporate
controversies are not immediately executory
6. Effect of Reversal of Executed Judgment
Rule 39, Sec. 5. Effect of reversal of executed judgment —
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.
7. Execution by Motion or by Independent Action
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.
a. When Can an Execution be Done as a Matter of
Right?
Villeza v. German Management and Services, Inc., (2010).
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the
prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right
by mere motion within five years from the date of entry of
judgment. If the prevailing party fails to have the decision
enforced by a motion after the lapse of five years, the said
judgment is reduced to a right of action which must be
enforced by the institution of a complaint in a regular
court within ten years from the time the judgment
becomes final.
b. Instances of Execution by Motion After Five (5)
Years; Excluded Period in Computing Time for
Execution
Yau v. Silverio, Sr., (2008). It is clear from the above Rule
that a judgment may be executed on motion within five
years from the date of its entry or from the date it
becomes final and executory. Thereafter, before barred by
the statute of limitations, by action. However, there are
instances where this Court allowed execution by motion
even after the lapse of five years upon meritorious
grounds.
In Francisco Motors Corporation v. Court of Appeals, this
Court held that in computing the time limit for enforcing a
final judgment, the general rule is that there should not be
included the time when execution is stayed, either by
agreement of the parties for a definite time, by injunction,
by the taking of an appeal or writ of error so as to operate
as a supersedeas, by the death of a party or otherwise.
Any interruption or delay occasioned by the debtor will
extend the time within which the writ may be issued
without scire facias. Thus, the time during which execution
is stayed should be excluded, and the said time will be
extended by any delay occasioned by the debtor.
c. The Five (5)-Year Period of Execution May be
Extended
Camacho v. CA, (1998). The 5-year period may be
extended where the delay is through no fault of the
prevailing party but is due to the delay caused or
occasioned by actions of the judgment obligor for his
benefit or advantage.
d. Nature of Action for Revival of Judgment
Saligumba v. Palanog, (2008). 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 is not
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 from
either the recovery of property case or the reconstitution
case, 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. Revival of judgment is
premised on the assumption that the decision to be
revived, either by motion or by independent action, is
already final and executory.
e. Execution by Motion or Independent Action Not
Applicable in a Petition for Writ of Possession
Sps. Topacio v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage
Bank, (2010). The rule on execution by motion or by
independent action under Rule 39, Sec. 6 applies only to
civil actions and not special proceedings such as an ex
parte petition for the issuance of the writ of possession as
it is not the nature of civil action.
8. Execution in Case of Death of Party
Rule 39, Sec. 7. Execution in case of death of party — In
case of the death of a party, execution may issue or be
enforced in the following manner:
(a) In case of the death of the judgment obligee,
upon the application of his executor or
administrator, or successor in interest;
(b) In case of the death of the judgment obligor,
against his executor or administrator or
successor in interest, if the judgment be for the
recovery of real or personal property, or the
enforcement of a lien thereon;
(c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor,
after execution is actually levied upon any of his
property, the same may be sold for the
satisfaction of the judgment obligation, and the
officer making the sale shall account to the
corresponding executor or administrator for any
surplus in his hands.
9. Issuance, Form and Contents of a Writ of
Execution
Rule 39, Sec. 8. Issuance, form and contents of a writ of
execution — The writ of execution shall: (1) issue in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines from the court
which granted the motion; (2) state the name of the court,
the case number and title, the dispositive part of the
subject judgment or order; and (3) require the sheriff or
other proper officer to whom it is directed to enforce the
writ according to its terms, in the manner hereinafter
provided:
(a) If the execution be against the property of the
judgment obligor, to satisfy the judgment, with
interest, out of the real or personal property of
such judgment obligor;
(b) If it be against real or personal property in the
hands of personal representatives, heirs,
devisees, legatees, tenants, or trustees of the
judgment obligor, to satisfy the judgment, with
interest, out of such property;
(c) If it be for the sale of real or personal property to
sell such property describing it, and apply the
proceeds in conformity with the judgment, the
material parts of which shall be recited in the
writ of execution;
(d) If it be for the delivery of the possession of real
or personal property, to deliver the possession
of the same, describing it, to the party entitled
thereto, 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 if sufficient personal property
cannot be found, then out of the real property;
and
(e) In all cases, the writ of execution shall
specifically state the amount of the interest,
costs, damages, rents, or profits due as of the
date of the issuance of the writ, aside from the
principal obligation under the judgment. For this
purpose, the motion for execution shall specify
 the amounts of the foregoing reliefs sought by
the movant.
a. Writ of Execution Must Conform to the
Dispositive Portion of the Decision
Tumibay, et. al. v. Sps. Soro, (2010). As a general rule, the
writ of execution should conform to the dispositive
portion of the decision to be executed; an execution is
void if it is in excess of and beyond the original judgment
or award. The settled general principle is that a writ of
execution must conform strictly to every essential
particular of the judgment promulgated, and may not vary
the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce, nor may it
go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be
executed.
Nonetheless, we have held that a judgment is not confined
to what appears on the face of the decision, but extends
as well to those necessarily included therein or necessary
thereto.
b. Writ of Execution Must Conform to Dispositive
Portion of Judgment; Order of Execution Which
Varies Tenor of Judgment is Void
Sps. Golez v. Sps. Navarro, (2013). Clearly, the RTC
exceeded its authority when it insisted on applying its own
construal of the dispositive portion of the CA Decision
when its terms are explicit and need no further
interpretation. It would also be inequitable for the
petitioners to pay and for the respondents, who did not
appeal the CA decision or questioned the deletion of the
12% per annum interest, to receive more than what was
awarded by the CA. The assailed RTC order of execution
dated December 21, 2009 and the alias writ of execution
dated May 17, 2010 are, therefore, void. Time and again, it
has been ruled that an order of execution which varies the
tenor of the judgment, or for that matter, exceeds the
terms thereof is a nullity.
c. Order of Execution Which Varies the Tenor of
the Judgment is a Nullity
General Milling Corp.-Independent Labor Union v.
General Milling Corp., (2011). An order of execution which
of varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms
thereof is a nullity.
d. Rule 39, Sec. 8 Must be Read in Conjunction
with Rule 51, Sec. 11
Re: Complaint filed by MCTC Judge Garcia Against 18th
Division Clerk of Court, (2012). Complainant argues that
the Writ of Execution issued by Rebotiaco, in her capacity
as the CA 18th Division Clerk of Court, was irregular for
violating Section 11, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court. The
pertinent provision of the Rules of Court reads as follows:
SEC. 11. Execution of judgment. — Except where the
judgment or final order or resolution, or a portion thereof,
is ordered to be immediately executory, the motion for its
execution may only be filed in the proper court after its
entry.
In original actions in the Court of Appeals, its writ of
execution shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of
the entry of judgment or final resolution and addressed to
any appropriate officer for its enforcement.
In appealed cases, where the motion for execution
pending appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals at a time
that it is in possession of the original record or the record
on appeal, the resolution granting such motion shall be
transmitted to the lower court from which the case
originated, together with a certified true copy of the
judgment or final order to be executed, with a directive for
such court of origin to issue the proper writ for its
enforcement.
This aforecited provision must be read in conjunction with
Section 8, Rule 39, viz:
SEC. 8. Issuance, form and contents of a writ of execution.
— The writ of execution shall: (1) issue in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines from the court which granted
the motion; (2) state the name of the court, the case
number and title, the dispositive part of the subject
judgment or order; and (3) require the sheriff or other
proper officer to whom it is directed to enforce the writ
according to its terms, in the manner hereinafter provided.
It is a settled rule that a writ of execution should strictly
conform to every essential particular of the promulgated
judgment – as indicated in the dispositive portion (fallo)
thereof – since it is that portion of the decision that
actually constitutes the resolution of the court.
Consequently, even if there is a conflict between the
dispositive portion and the opinion of a court contained in
the body of the decision, it would be the dispositive
portion that would be controlling, regardless of what was
stated in the opinion. This principle is based on the theory
that the dispositive portion is the final order, while the
opinion is merely a statement ordering nothing. A writ of
execution would be rendered void if it is in excess of and
beyond the original judgment or award spelled out in the
dispositive portion of the decision.
We do not find any "incompetence, inefficiency,
negligence, ignorance of the law, or abuse of authority" on
the part of respondent when she (a) addressed the Writ of
Execution solely to GSIS and (b) did not direct a sheriff to
enforce the writ. She merely issued the Writ of Execution
according to the literal text of the dispositive portion of
the 20 February 2007 CA Decision. Since only the GSIS was
directed to pay the remaining balance of complainant’s life
insurance proceeds, respondent cannot be faulted for
issuing the writ sans an order against GSIS officers.
e. Instances Where a Writ of Execution May be
Appealed
Banaga v. Majaducon, (2006). Instances where a writ of
execution may be appealed are as follows:
1. The writ of execution varies the judgment;
2. There has been a change in the situation of the
parties making execution inequitable or unjust;
3. Execution is sought to be enforced against
property exempt from execution;
4. It appears that the controversy has never been
subject to the judgment of the court;
5. The terms of the judgment are not clear enough
and there remains room for interpretation
thereof; or
6. It appears that the writ of execution has been
improvidently issued, or that it is defective in
substance, or is issued against the wrong party,
or that the judgment debt has been paid or
otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued
without authority;
In these exceptional circumstances, considerations of
justice and equity dictate that there be some mode
available to the party aggrieved of elevating the question
to a higher court. That mode of elevation may be either by
appeal (writ of error or certiorari), or by a special civil
action of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus.
f. Grounds for the Quashal of Writ of Execution
Reburiano v. CA, (1999). The grounds for the quashal of
the writ of execution shall be as follows, to wit:
1. The writ of execution varies the judgment;
2. There has been a change in the situation of the
parties making execution inequitable or unjust;
3. Execution is sought to be enforced against
property exempt from execution;
4. It appears that the controversy has never been
submitted to the judgment of the court;
5. The terms of the judgment are not clear enough
and there remains room for interpretation
thereof; or
6. It appears that the writ of execution has been
improvidently issued, or that it is defective in
substance, or is issued against the wrong party,
or that the judgment debt has been paid or
otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued
without authority;
(b) Satisfaction by levy — If the judgment obligor
10. Execution of Judgments for Money, How
Enforced
Rule 39, 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 any other form of payment
acceptable to the latter, the amount of the
judgment debt under proper receipt directly 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
amounts to a fiduciary account in the nearest
government depository bank of the Regional
Trial Court of the locality.
The clerk of said 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.
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, and 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 garnishee
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) with respect to
delivery of payment to the judgment obligee.
 a. What is Levy?
Balaquig v. Southern Motors, Inc., (1976). Levy is the
essential act by which a property is set apart for the
satisfaction of judgment and taken into custody of the law,
and that after it has been taken from defendant his
interest is limited to its application to the judgment
irrespective of the time when it may be sold.
b. What is Levy on Execution?
Pacific Banking Corp. v. Policarpio, (1981). Levy on
execution is a lien in favor of the judgment creditor over
the right, title and interest of the judgment debtor at the
time of the levy.
c. What is the Importance of Valid Levy? Purpose
of a Valid Levy on Real Property
Valenzuela v. De Aguilar, (1963). A valid levy is essential to
the validity of execution sale, and levy is invalid if the
notice of levy of real property is not filed with the office of
the register of deeds, the purpose of which is to notify
third parties who may be affected in their dealings with
respect to such property.
d. Duties of the Sheriff to Effect Valid Levy on a
Real Property
Delta Motors Corp. v. CA, (1988). To effect a valid levy
upon a real property, the sheriff is required to do two (2)
specific things: file with the register of deeds, a copy of the
order and description of the attached property and notice
of attachment; and leave with the occupant of the
property a copy of the same order, description and notice.
e. What is Garnishment?
Reliance Procoma, Inc. v. Phil-Asia Tabacco Corp., (1974).
Garnishment is a warning to a person in whose hands the
effects of another are attached, not to pay the money or
deliver the property of the defendants in his hands to him,
but to appear and answer the plaintiff’s suit.
f. Effects of Garnishment
De Leon v. Salvador, (1970). The garnishment of property
to satisfy a writ of execution operates as an attachment
and fasten upon the property a lien by which the property
is brought under the jurisdiction of the court issuing the
writ. It is brought into custodial egis under the sole control
of the court.
g. Government Funds Not Subject to Garnishment
or Levy
City of Naga v. Asuncion, (2008). All government funds
deposited in official depositary of the Philippine
Government by any of its agencies or instrumentalities,
whether by general or special deposit, remain government
funds. Hence, they may not be subject to garnishment or
levy, in the absence of corresponding appropriation as
required by law.
h. Demand by the Officer from the Judgment
Obligor Immediate Payment
Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. v. Bellones, (2005). From the
foregoing provisions, it is clear that the officer executing
the writ of execution shall demand from the judgment
obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated
in the writ of execution and all legal fees. The payment
shall be in cash, certified bank check payable to the
judgment obligee, or in any form acceptable to the latter.
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, he 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, it is only then that the sheriff/officer
enforcing the judgment for money can garnish debts due
the judgment obligor and other credits, or levy on the
personal or real property of the latter.
i. Execution of Money Judgment Against the
Property of the Judgment Debtor
Sarmiento v. Mendiola, (2010). It is a basic principle of law
that money judgments are enforceable only against
property unquestionably belonging to the judgment
debtor. In the execution of a money judgment, the sheriff
must first make a demand on the obligor for payment of
the full amount stated in the writ of execution. Property
belonging to third persons cannot be levied upon.6
Moreover, the levy upon the properties of the judgment
obligor may be had by the executing sheriff 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.
j. Sheriff Must Levy Property of the Judgment
Debtor Not Exempt From Execution
Golden Sun Finance Corp. v. Albano, (2011). In
determining properties to be levied upon, the Rules
require the sheriff to levy only on those "properties of the
judgment debtor" which are "not otherwise exempt from
execution." For purposes of the levy, a property is deemed
to belong to the judgment debtor if he holds a beneficial
interest in such property that he can sell or otherwise
dispose of for value. In a contract of mortgage, the debtor
retains beneficial interest over the property
notwithstanding the encumbrance, since the mortgage
only serves to secure the fulfillment of the principal
obligation. Indeed, even if the debtor defaults, this fact
does not operate to vest in the creditor the ownership of
the property; the creditor must still resort to foreclosure
proceedings. Thus, a mortgaged property may still be
levied upon by the sheriff to satisfy the judgment debtor’s
obligations, as what happened in the present case. After
ascertaining the judgment debtor’s (Reyes’) interest over
the car, the respondent properly enforced the levy
thereon — an act that, to our mind, is in accordance with
the Rules of Court.
k. Writ of Execution May Not be Enforced Against
Third Person
Gagoomal v. Sps. Ramon and Villacorta, (2012). It bears
to stress that the court issuing the writ of execution may
enforce its authority only over properties or rights of the
judgment debtor, and the sheriff acts properly only when
he subjects to execution property undeniably belonging to
the judgment debtor. Should the sheriff levy upon the
assets of a third person in which the judgment debtor has
not even the remotest interest, then he is acting beyond
the limits of his authority. A judgment can only be
executed or issued against a party to the action, not
against one who has not yet had his day in court.
11. Execution of Judgments for Specific Acts
Rule 39, Sec. 10. Execution of judgments for specific act
— hearing and after the former has failed to
(a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other specific
acts; vesting title. — If a judgment directs a party
to 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 by 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. (10a)
(b) Sale of real or personal property. — If the
judgment be for the sale of real or personal
property, to sell such property, describing it, and
apply the proceeds in conformity with the
judgment. (8[c]a)
(c) Delivery or restitution of real property. — The
officer shall demand of the person against whom
the judgment for the delivery or restitution of
real property is rendered and all persons
claiming rights under him to peaceably vacate
the property within three (3) working days, and
restore possession thereof to the judgment
obligee, otherwise, the officer shall oust all such
persons therefrom with the assistance, if
necessary, of appropriate peace officers, and
employing such means as may be reasonably
necessary to retake possession, and place the
judgment obligee in possession of such property.
Any costs, damages, rents or profits awarded by
the judgment shall be satisfied in the same
manner as a judgment for money. (13a)
(d) Removal of improvements on property subject
of execution. — When the property subject of
the execution contains improvements
constructed or planted by the judgment obligor
or his agent, the officer shall not destroy,
demolish or remove said improvements except
upon special order of the court, issued upon
motion of the judgment obligee after the
remove the same within a reasonable time fixed
by the court.
(e) Delivery of personal property. — In judgment for
the delivery of personal property, the officer
shall take possession of the same and forthwith
deliver it to the party entitled thereto and satisfy
any judgment for money as therein provided.
a. Order to Surrender the Title of the Defendant
for Issuance of a New Title
Col. Dela Merced v. GSIS, (2011). When a judgment calls
for the issuance of a new title in favor of the winning party
(as in the instant case), 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.
12. Execution of Special Judgments
Rule 39, Sec. 11. Execution of special judgments — When
a judgment requires the performance of any act other
than those mentioned in the two preceding Sec.s, 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.
13. Effect of Levy on Execution as to Third Parties
Rule 39, Sec. 12. Effect of levy on execution as to third
person — 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.
14. Property Exempt from Execution
Rule 39, Sec. 13. Property exempt from execution —
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the
following property, and no other, shall be exempt from
execution:
(a) The judgment obligor's family home as provided
by law, or the homestead in which he resides,
and 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 one hundred thousand 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
three hundred thousand pesos in value;
(h) One fishing boat and accessories not exceeding
the total value of one hundred thousand 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 services
within the four 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;
(m) Properties specially exempted by law.
But no article or species of property mentioned in this Sec.
shall be exempt from execution issued upon a judgment
recovered for its price or upon a judgment of foreclosure
of a mortgage thereon.
a. Nature of Family Home; Duties of the Court to
Observe Procedure to Determine Exemption
Josef v. Santos, (2008). The family home is a real right
which is gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment,
constituted over the dwelling place and the land on which
it is situated, which confers upon a particular family the
right to enjoy such properties, which must remain with the
person constituting it and his heirs. It cannot be seized by
creditors except in certain special cases.
Upon being apprised that the property subject of
execution allegedly constitutes petitioner’s family home,
the trial court should have observed the following
procedure:
1. Determine if petitioner’s obligation to
respondent falls under either of the exceptions
under Article 155 of the Family Code;
2. Make an inquiry into the veracity of petitioner’s
claim that the property was his family home;
conduct an ocular inspection of the premises; an
examination of the title; an interview of
members of the community where the alleged
family home is located, in order to determine if
petitioner actually resided within the premises
of the claimed family home; order a submission
of photographs of the premises, depositions,
and/or affidavits of proper individuals/parties; or
a solemn examination of the petitioner, his
children and other witnesses. At the same time,
the respondent is given the opportunity to cross-
examine and present evidence to the contrary;
3. If the property is accordingly found to constitute
petitioner’s family home, the court should
determine:
a. if the obligation sued upon was contracted or
incurred prior to, or after, the effectivity of the
Family Code;
b. if petitioner’s spouse is still alive, as well as if
there are other beneficiaries of the family home;
c. if the petitioner has more than one residence for
the purpose of determining which of them, if
any, is his family home; and
d. its actual location and value, for the purpose of
applying the provisions of Articles 157 and 160
of the Family Code.
The family home is the dwelling place of a person and his
family, a sacred symbol of family love and repository of
cherished memories that last during one’s lifetime. It is the
sanctuary of that union which the law declares and
protects as a sacred institution; and likewise a shelter for
the fruits of that union. It is where both can seek refuge
and strengthen the tie that binds them together and which
ultimately forms the moral fabric of our nation. The
protection of the family home is just as necessary in the
preservation of the family as a basic social institution, and
since no custom, practice or agreement destructive of the
family shall be recognized or given effect, the trial court’s
failure to observe the proper procedures to determine the
veracity of petitioner’s allegations, is unjustified.
15. Return of Writ of Execution
Rule 39, Sec. 14. Return of writ of execution — The writ of
execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it
immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part
or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within
thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer
shall report to the court and state the reason therefor.
Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within
which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The
officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30)
days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment
is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or
periodic reports shall set forth the whole of the
proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and
copies thereof promptly furnished the parties
a. Return on the Writ Mandatory for the Sheriff
Within 30 Days from Receipt of the Writ
Anico v. Pilipina, (2011). The Rules clearly provide that it is
mandatory for sheriffs to execute and make a return on
the writ of execution within 30 days from receipt of the
writ and every 30 days thereafter until it is satisfied in full
or its effectivity expires. Even if the writs are unsatisfied or
only partially satisfied, sheriffs must still file the reports so
that the court, as well as the litigants, may be informed of
the proceedings undertaken to implement the writ.
Periodic reporting also provides the court insights on the
efficiency of court processes after promulgation of
judgment. Over-all, the purpose of periodic reporting is to
ensure the speedy execution of decisions.
b. Mandatory Duties of the Sheriff After the
Implementation of the Writ; Return of Writ of
Execution
Atty. Gonzales v. Calo, (2012). Section 14 of Rule 39, on
the other hand, requires sheriffs, after implementation of
the writ, to make a return thereon:
SEC. 14. Return of writ of execution. - The writ of
execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it
immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part
or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within
thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer
shall report to the court and state the reason therefor.
Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within
which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The
officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30)
days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment
is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or
periodic reports shall set forth the whole of the
proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and
copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.
The afore-quoted sections of Rule 39 enumerate the
following duties of a sheriff: first, to give notice of the writ
and demand that the judgment obligor and all persons
claiming under him vacate the property within three (3)
days; second, to enforce the writ by removing the
judgment obligor and all persons claiming under the latter;
third, to remove the latter’s personal belongings in the
property as well as destroy, demolish or remove the
improvements constructed thereon upon special court
order; and fourth, to execute and make a return on the
writ within 30 days from receipt of the writ and every
thirty (30) days thereafter until it is satisfied in full or until
its effectivity expires.
These provisions leave no room for any exercise of
discretion on the part of the sheriff on how to perform his
or her duties in implementing the writ. A sheriff’s
compliance with the Rules is not merely directory but
mandatory. Thus, herein respondent evidently
overstepped his authority when he gave the occupants of
the property a grace period of 3 months within which to
vacate the premises. It is well settled that a sheriff’s
functions are purely ministerial, not discretionary. Once a
writ is placed in his hand, it becomes his duty to proceed
with reasonable speed to enforce the writ to the letter,
ensuring at all times that the implementation of the
judgment is not unjustifiably deferred, unless the
execution of which is restrained by the court.
It must be stressed that sheriffs are not allowed to receive
any voluntary payments from parties in the course of the
performance of their duties. Corollary, a sheriff cannot just
unilaterally demand sums of money from a party-litigant
without observing the proper procedural steps. Even
assuming such payments were indeed given and received
in good faith, this fact alone would not dispel the suspicion
that such payments were made for less than noble
purposes. Neither will complainant's acquiescence or
consent to such expenses absolve the sheriff for his failure
to secure the prior approval of the court concerning such
expense.
16. Notice of Sale of Property on Execution
Rule 39, Sec. 15. Notice of sale of property on execution
— Before the sale of property on execution, notice thereof
must be given as follows:
(a) In case of perishable property, by posting
written notice of the time and place of the sale
in three (3) public places, preferably in
conspicuous areas of the municipal or city hall,
post office and public market in the municipality
or city where the sale is to take place, for such
time as may be reasonable, considering the
character and condition of the property;
(b) In case of other personal property, by posting a
similar notice in the three (3) public places
above-mentioned for not less than five (5) days;
(c) In case of real property, by posting for twenty
(20) days in the three (3) public places
abovementioned a similar notice particularly
describing the property and stating where the
property is to be sold, and if the assessed value
of the property exceeds fifty thousand
(P50,000.00) pesos, by publishing a copy of the
notice once a week for two (2) consecutive
weeks in one newspaper selected by raffle,
whether in English, Filipino, or any major
regional language published, edited and
circulated or, in the absence thereof, having
general circulation in the province or city;
(d) In all cases, written notice of the sale shall be
given to the judgment obligor, at least three (3)
days before the sale, except as provided in
paragraph (a) hereof where notice shall be given
the same manner as personal service of
pleadings and other papers as provided by Sec. 6
of Rule 13.
The notice shall specify the place, date and exact time of
the sale which should not be earlier than nine o'clock in
the morning and not later than two o'clock in the
afternoon. The place of the sale may be agreed upon by
the parties. In the absence of such agreement, the sale of
the property or personal property not capable of manual
delivery shall be held in the office of the clerk of court of
the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court which
issued the writ of or which was designated by the
appellate court. In the case of personal property capable
of manual delivery, the sale shall be held in the place
where the property is located.
17. Proceedings Where Property Claimed by Third
Person
Rule 39, Sec. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by
third person — 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 copy thereof, stating the grounds of such right or
tittle, and a 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 indemnity 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.
a. Who May Avail the Remedy of Terceria?
Reynoso IV v. Penta Capital Finance Corp., (2012). The
remedy of terceria is available only to a third person other
than the judgment obligor or the latter’s agent who claims
a property levied on.
b. Who is the Third Person Mentioned Under the
Rules?
Tilson v. CA, (1991). A “stranger” or a third person is any
person other than the judgment debtor or his agent. A
party to the auction sale has no “business filing a third-
party claim over property involved in the action and which
he himself claims to belong to him.
c. Mere Filing of Affidavit of Third-Party Claim
Does Not Stay Execution
Go v. Abrogar, (2003). Under the facts of this case, the
mere filing of a terceria, or an affidavit stating complainant
Go’s alleged title, under Rule 39, Sec. 16, or a motion to
quash a writ of execution does not stay the auction sale
scheduled by the sheriff. Complainants are not “strangers”
or “third persons” within the meaning of Rule 39, Sec. 16.
Hence, they have no requisite standing to file a terceria,
much less a separate complaint to annul execution sale
which they inopportunely instituted before the RTC of
Pasay City.
 d. Remedy of Terceria Not a Speedy Remedy in
Case of a Pending Litigation of Property
Covered by Special Order of Demolition
Fermin v. Hon. Esteves, (2008). The remedy of terceria is
available to a third person other than the judgment obligor
or his agent who claims a property levied on. In this case,
the property was not levied on and put on auction. The
implementation of the Special Order of Demolition would
result in the destruction of petitioners’ property. Further,
terceria is not a speedy and adequate remedy insofar as
petitioners are concerned considering that the Special
Order of Demolition ordered the Deputy Sheriff to cause
the demolition of all the improvements immediately after
the expiration of the 15-day period granted upon the
defendants, their agents, assigns, representatives, or
successors-in-interest to remove their improvements on
the premises.
18. Penalty for Selling Without Notice, or Removing
or Defacing Notice
Rule 39, Sec. 17. Penalty for selling without notice, or
removing or defacing notice — An officer selling without
the notice prescribed by Sec. 15 of this Rule shall be liable
to pay punitive damages in the amount of five thousand
(P5,000.00) pesos to any person injured thereby, in
addition to his actual damages, both to be recovered by
motion in the same action; and a person willfully removing
or defacing the notice posted, if done before the sale, or
before the satisfaction of the judgment if it be satisfied
before the sale, shall be liable to pay five thousand
(P5,000.00) pesos to any person injured by reason thereof,
in addition to his actual damages, to be recovered by
motion in the same action.
19. No Sale if Judgment and Costs Paid
Rule 39, Sec. 18. No sale if judgment and costs paid — At
any time before the sale of property on execution, the
judgment obligor may prevent the sale by paying the
amount required by the execution and the costs that have
been incurred therein.
20. How Will the Property be Sold on Execution?
Who May Direct Manner and Order of Sale?
Rule 39, Sec. 19. How property sold on execution; who
may direct manner and order of sale — All sales of
property under execution must be made at public auction,
to the highest bidder, to start at the exact time fixed in the
notice. After sufficient property has been sold to satisfy
the execution, no more shall be sold and any excess
property or proceeds of the sale shall be promptly
delivered to the judgment obligor or his authorized
representative, unless otherwise directed by the judgment
or order of the court. When the sale is of real property,
consisting of several known lots, they must be sold
separately; or, when a portion of such real property is
claimed by a third person, he may require it to be sold
separately. When the sale is of personal property capable
of manual delivery, it must be sold within view of those
attending the same and in such parcels as are likely to
bring the highest price. The judgment obligor, if present at
the sale, may direct the order in which property, real or
personal shall be sold, when such property consists of
several known lots or parcels which can be sold to
advantage separately. Neither the officer conducting the
execution sale, nor his deputies, can become a purchaser,
nor be interested directly or indirectly in any purchase at
such sale
21. Refusal of Purchaser to Pay
Rule 39, Sec. 20. Refusal of purchaser to pay — If a
purchaser refuses to pay the amount bid by him for
property struck off to him at a sale under execution, the
officer may again sell the property to the highest bidder
and shall not be responsible for any loss occasioned
thereby; but the court may order the refusing purchaser to
pay into the court the amount of such loss, with costs, and
may punish him for contempt if he disobeys the order. The
amount of such payment shall be for the benefit of the
person entitled to the proceeds of the execution, unless
the execution has been fully satisfied, in which event such
proceeds shall be for the benefit of the judgment obligor.
The officer may thereafter reject any subsequent bid of
such purchaser who refuses to pay.
22. Judgment Obligee as Purchaser
Rule 39, Sec. 21. Judgment obligee as purchaser — When
the purchaser is the judgment obligee, and no third-party
claim has been filed, he need not pay the amount of the
bid if it does not exceed the amount of his judgment. If it
does, he shall pay only the excess.
23. Adjournment of Sale
Rule 39, Sec. 22. Adjournment of sale — By written
consent of the judgment obligor and obligee, or their duly
authorized representatives, the officer may adjourn the
sale to any date and time agreed upon by them. Without
such agreement, he may adjourn the sale from day to day
if it becomes necessary to do so for lack of time to
complete the sale on the day fixed in the notice or the day
to which it was adjourned.
24. Conveyance to Purchaser of Personal Property
Capable of Manual Delivery
Rule 39, Sec. 23. Conveyance to purchaser of personal
property capable of manual delivery — When the
purchaser of any personal property, capable of manual
delivery, pays the purchase price, the officer making the
sale must deliver the property to the purchaser and, if
desired, execute and deliver to him a certificate of sale.
The sale conveys to the purchaser all the rights which the
judgment obligor had in such property as of the date of
the levy on execution or preliminary attachment.
25. Conveyance to Purchaser of Personal Property
Not Capable of Manual Delivery
Rule 39, Sec. 24. Conveyance to purchaser of personal
property not capable of manual delivery — When the
purchaser of any personal property, not capable of manual
delivery, pays the purchase price, the officer making the
sale must execute and deliver to the purchaser a
certificate of sale. Such certificate conveys to the
purchaser all the rights which the judgment obligor had in
such property as of the date of the levy on execution or
preliminary attachment.
26. Conveyance of Real Property; Certificate
Thereof Given to Purchaser and Filed with
Registry of Deeds
Rule 39, Sec. 25. Conveyance of real property; certificate
thereof given to purchaser and filed with registry of
deeds — Upon a sale of real property, the officer must
give to the purchaser a certificate of sale containing:
(a) A particular description of the real property sold;
(b) The price paid for each distinct lot or parcel;
(c) The whole price paid by him;
 (d) A statement that the right of redemption expires
one (1) year from the date of the registration of
the certificate of sale.
Such certificate must be registered in the registry of deeds
of the place where the property is situated.
27. Certificate of Sale Where Property Claimed by
Third Person
Rule 39, Sec. 26. Certificate of sale where property
claimed by third person — When a property sold by virtue
of a writ of execution has been claimed by a third person,
the certificate of sale to be issued by the sheriff pursuant
to Sec.s 23, 24 and 25 of this Rule shall make express
mention of the existence of such third-party claim.
28. Who May Redeem Real Property so Sold?
Rule 39, Sec. 27. Who may redeem real property so sold
— Real property sold as provided in the last preceding
Sec., or any part thereof sold separately, may be
redeemed in the manner hereinafter provided, by the
following persons:
(a) The judgment obligor; or his successor in interest
in the whole or any part of the property;
(b) A creditor having a lien by virtue of an
attachment, judgment or mortgage on the
property sold, or on some part thereof,
subsequent to the lien under which the property
was sold. Such redeeming creditor is termed a
redemptioner.
a. Intention to Redeem Must be Accompanied by
Actual or Simultaneous Tender of Payment
China Banking Corp. v. Sps. Martir, (2009). It is not
sufficient that a person offering to redeem manifests his
desire to do so. The statement of intention must be
accompanied by an actual and simultaneous tender of
payment.
29. Time and Manner of, and Amounts Payable on,
Successive Redemptions; Notice to be Given
and Filed
Rule 39, Sec. 28. Time and manner of, and amounts
payable on, successive redemptions; notice to be given
and filed — The judgment obligor, or redemptioner, may
redeem the property from the purchaser, at any time
within one (1) year from the date of the registration of the
certificate of sale, by paying the purchaser the amount of
his purchase, with the per centum per month interest
thereon in addition, up to the time of redemption,
together with the amount of any assessments or taxes
which the purchaser may have paid thereon after
purchase, and interest on such last named amount at the
same rate; and if the purchaser be also a creditor having a
prior lien to that of the redemptioner, other than the
judgment under which such purchase was made, the
amount of such other lien, with interest.
Property so redeemed may again be redeemed within sixty
(60) days after the last redemption upon payment of the
sum paid on the last redemption, with two per centum
thereon in addition and the amount of any assessments or
taxes which the last redemptioner may have paid thereon
after redemption by him, with interest on such last named
amount, and in addition, the amount of any liens held by
said last redemptioner prior to his own, with interest. The
property may be again, and as often as a redemptioner is
so disposed, redeemed from any previous redemptioner
within sixty (60) days after the last redemption, on paying
the sum paid on the last previous redemption, with two
per centum thereon in addition, and the amounts of any
assessments or taxes which the last previous
redemptioner paid after the redemption thereon, with
interest thereon, and the amount of any liens held by the
last redemptioner prior to his own, with interest.
Written notice of any redemption must be given to the
officer who made the sale and a duplicate filed with the
registry of deeds of the place, and if any assessments or
taxes are paid by the redemptioner or if he has or acquires
any lien other than that upon which the redemption was
made, notice thereof must in like manner be given to the
officer and filed with the registry of deeds; if such notice
be not filed, the property may be redeemed without
paying such assessments, taxes, or liens.
30. Effect of Redemption by Judgment Obligor, and
a Certificate to be Delivered and Recorded
Thereupon; To Whom Payments on
Redemption Made
Rule 39, Sec. 29. Effect of redemption by judgment
obligor, and a certificate to be delivered and recorded
thereupon; to whom payments on redemption made —
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 Sec.s
may be made to the purchaser or redemptioner, or for him
to the officer who made the sale.
31. Proof Required of Redemptioner
Rule 39, Sec. 30. Proof required of redemptioner — A
redemptioner must produce to the officer, or person from
whom he seeks to redeem, and serve with his notice to
the officer a copy of the judgment or final order under
which he claims the right to redeem, certified by the clerk
of the court wherein the judgment or final order is
entered, or, if he redeems upon a mortgage or other lien,
a memorandum of the record thereof, certified by the
registrar of deeds, or an original or certified copy of any
assignment necessary to establish his claim; and an
affidavit executed by him or his agent, showing the
amount then actually due on the lien.
32. Manner of Using Premises Pending
Redemption; Waste Restrained
Rule 39, Sec. 31. Manner of using premises pending
redemption; waste restrained — Until the expiration of
the time allowed for redemption, the court may, as in
other proper cases, restrain the commission of waste on
the property by injunction, on the application of the
purchaser or the judgment obligee, with or without notice;
but it is not waste for a person in possession of the
property at the time of the sale, or entitled to possession
afterwards, during the period allowed for redemption, to
continue to use it in the same manner in which it was
previously used, or to use it in the ordinary course of
husbandry; or to make the necessary repairs to buildings
thereon while he occupies the property.
 33. Rents, Earnings and Income of Property Pending
Redemption
Rule 39, Sec. 32. Rents, earnings and income of property
pending redemption — The purchaser or a redemptioner
shall not be entitled to receive the rents, earnings and
income of the property sold on execution, or the value of
the use and occupation thereof when such property is in
the possession of a tenant. All rents, earnings and income
derived from the property pending redemption shall
belong to the judgment obligor until the expiration of his
period of redemption.
34. Deed and Possession to be Given at the
Expiration of Redemption Period; By Whom
Executed or Given
Rule 39, Sec. 33. Deed and possession to be given at
expiration of redemption period; by whom executed or
given — If no redemption be made within one (1) year
from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale,
the purchaser is entitled to a conveyance and possession
of the property; or, if so redeemed whenever sixty (60)
days have elapsed and no other redemption has been
made, and notice thereof given, and the time for
redemption has expired, the last redemptioner is entitled
to the conveyance and possession; but in all cases the
judgment obligor shall have the entire period of one (1)
year from the date of the registration of the sale to
redeem the property. The deed shall be executed by the
officer making the sale or by his successor in office, and in
the latter case shall have the same validity as though the
officer making the sale had continued in office and
executed it.
Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the
purchaser or redemptioner shall be substituted to and
acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the
judgment obligor to the property as of the time of the
levy. The possession of the property shall be given to the
purchaser or last redemptioner by the same officer unless
a third party adversely to the judgment obligor.
a. What is a Writ of Possession? Nature
Autocorp Group and Autographics, Inc. v. CA, (2004). A
writ of possession is generally understood to be an order
whereby a sheriff is commanded to place a person in
possession of a real or personal property, such as, when a
property is extrajudicially foreclosed. It has been
consistently held that during the period of redemption
after the registration of the sale, a writ of possession
issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper
motion and the approval of a bond. A writ of possession
may also be issued after consolidation of ownership of the
property in the name of the purchaser. It is settled that
the buyer in a foreclosure sale, who becomes the absolute
owner of the property if the same is not redeemed during
the one-year redemption period after the registration of
the sale, is entitled to the possession of the property and
can demand it at any time, following the consolidation of
ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new
transfer certificate of title. To underscore the writ’s
ministerial character, we have disallowed injunction to
prohibit its issuance, just as we have held that issuance of
the same may not be stayed by a pending action for
annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure itself.
b. Instances Where Writ of Possession May be
Issued
Mallari v. GSIS, (2010). A writ of possession, which
commands the sheriff to place a person in possession of
real property, may be issued in: (1) land registration
proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. 496; (2) judicial
foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the
mortgaged property, and no third person, not a party to
the foreclosure suit, had intervened; (3) extrajudicial
foreclosure of a real estate mortgage, pending redemption
under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No.
4118; and (4) execution sales, pursuant to the last
paragraph of Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
c. Can the Court Refuse to Issue a Writ of
Possession?
Mallari v. GSIS, (2010). The court can neither halt nor
hesitate to issue the writ of possession. It cannot exercise
any discretion to determine whether or not to issue the
writ, for the issuance of the writ to the purchaser in an
extrajudicial foreclosure sale becomes a ministerial
function
d. Mandamus: Proper Remedy to Compel Issuance
of Writ of Possession
Sps. Edralin v. Phi. Veterans Bank, (2011). We rule that
mandamus is a proper remedy to compel the issuance of a
writ of possession. The purpose of mandamus is to compel
the performance of a ministerial duty. A ministerial act is
"one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state
of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the
mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the
exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or
impropriety of the act done."
e. When Can a Writ of Possession be Issued? What
are the Requirements?
China Banking Corp. v. Abel, (2011). Orders for the
issuance of a writ of possession are issued as a matter of
course upon the filing of the proper motion and approval
of the corresponding bond since no discretion is left to the
court to deny it. The RTC’s issuance of such writ
conformably with the express provisions of law cannot be
regarded as done without jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion. Such issuance being ministerial, its execution
by the sheriff is likewise ministerial.
f. Action for Annulment of Mortgage or
Foreclosure Sale Does Not Stay Issuance of Writ
of Possession
BPI Family Savings Bank v. Golden Power Diesel Sales
Center Inc., (2011). It is settled that a pending action for
annulment of mortgage or foreclosure sale does not stay
the issuance of the writ of possession. The trial court,
where the application for a writ of possession is filed, does
not need to look into the validity of the mortgage or the
manner of its foreclosure. The purchaser is entitled to a
writ of possession without prejudice to the outcome of the
pending annulment case.
g. Nature of the Proceeding for Issuance of Writ of
Possession?
Espinoza v. United Overseas Bank Phil., (2010). The
proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex parte
and summary in nature. It is a judicial proceeding brought
for the benefit of one party only and without notice by the
court to any person adverse of interest. It is a proceeding
wherein relief is granted without giving the person against
whom the relief is sought an opportunity to be heard.
By its very nature, an ex parte petition for issuance of a
writ of possession is a non-litigious proceeding.8 It is a
judicial proceeding for the enforcement of one's right of
possession as purchaser in a foreclosure sale. It is not an
ordinary suit filed in court, by which one party sues
another for the enforcement of a wrong or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
The possession of land becomes an absolute right of the
purchaser as confirmed owner. The purchaser can demand
possession at any time following the consolidation of
ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new
transfer certificate of title. After the consolidation of title
in the buyer’s name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem
the property, the writ of possession becomes a matter of
right.
Mallari v. GSIS, (2010). The proceeding upon an
application for a writ of possession is ex parte and
summary in nature, brought for the benefit of one party
only and without notice being sent by the court to any
person adverse in interest. The relief is granted even
without giving an opportunity to be heard to the person
against whom the relief is sought. Its nature as an ex parte
petition under Act No. 3135, as amended, renders the
application for the issuance of a writ of possession a non-
litigious proceeding.
h. Filing of Original Action Not Necessary to
Acquire Possession in Extrajudicial Foreclosure
of Real Property
PTA of St. Matthew Christian Academy v. The
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. Inc., (2010). It is not
necessary to initiate an original action in order for the
purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property
to acquire possession. Even if the application for the writ
of possession was denominated as a "petition", it was in
substance merely a motion. Indeed, any insignificant lapse
in the certification on non-forum shopping filed by the
MBTC did not render the writ irregular. After all, no
verification and certification on non-forum shopping need
be attached to the motion.
i. Petition for Writ of Possession is Ex Parte and
Summary; Possession of Property in Case of
Extrajudicial Foreclosure Can be Withheld From
the Purchaser if Third Party is in Possession
Adverse to the Mortgagor
Madriaga v. China Banking Corp., (2012). Indeed, the
proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex parte
and summary in nature. It is a judicial proceeding brought
for the benefit of one party only and without notice by the
court to any person adversely interested. It is a proceeding
wherein relief is granted without affording the person
against whom the relief is sought the opportunity to be
heard. No notice is needed to be served upon persons
interested in the subject property. And as held in Carlos v.
Court of Appeals, the ex parte nature of the proceeding
does not deny due process to the petitioners because the
issuance of the writ of possession does not bar a separate
case for annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale.
Hence, the RTC may grant the petition even in the absence
of Madriaga, Sr.’s participation.
A writ of possession of real property may be issued in
cases of extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage
under Section 7 of Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118
The right of the owner to the possession of a property is
an essential attribute of ownership. In extrajudicial
foreclosures, the purchaser becomes the absolute owner
when no redemption is made. Thus, after consolidation of
ownership and issuance of a new transfer certificate of
title in the name of the purchaser, he is entitled to
possession of the property31 as a matter of right under
Section 7, and its issuance by the RTC is a mere ministerial
function.
The rule, however, admits of an exception. Thus, it is
specifically provided in Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court that the possession of the extrajudicially foreclosed
property shall be withheld from the purchaser if a third-
party is actually holding the same adversely to the
mortgagor/debtor.
j. Writ of Possession – May Not be Enforced
Against a Third Person
Gagoomal v. Sps. Ramon and Villacorta, (2012). It bears
to stress that the court issuing the writ of execution may
enforce its authority only over properties or rights of the
judgment debtor, and the sheriff acts properly only when
he subjects to execution property undeniably belonging to
the judgment debtor. Should the sheriff levy upon the
assets of a third person in which the judgment debtor has
not even the remotest interest, then he is acting beyond
the limits of his authority. A judgment can only be
executed or issued against a party to the action, not
against one who has not yet had his day in court.
35. Recovery of Price if Sale Not Effective; Revival
of Judgment
Rule 39, Sec. 34. Recovery of price if sale not effective;
revival of judgment — If the purchaser of real property
sold on execution, or his successor in interest, fails to
recover the possession thereof, or is evicted therefrom, in
consequence of irregularities in the proceedings
concerning the sale, or because the judgment has been
reversed or set aside, or because the property sold was
exempt from execution, or because a third person has
vindicated his claim to the property, he may on motion in
the same action or in a separate action recover from the
judgment obligee the price paid, with interest, or so much
thereof as has not been delivered to the judgment obligor,
or he may, on motion, have the original judgment revived
in his name for the whole price with interest, or so much
thereof as has been delivered to the judgment obligor. The
judgment so revived shall have the same force and effect
as an original judgment would have as of the date of the
revival and no more.
36. Right to Contribution or Reimbursement
Rule 39, Sec. 35. Right to contribution or reimbursement
— When property liable to an execution against several
persons is sold thereon, and more than a due proportion
of the judgment is satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale
of the property of one of them, or one of them pays,
without a sale, more than his proportion, he may compel a
contribution from the others; and when a judgment is
upon an obligation of one of them, as security for another,
and the surety pays the amount, or any part thereof,
either by sale of his property or before sale, he may
compel repayment from the principal.
37. Examination of Judgment Obligor When
Judgment Unsatisfied
Rule 39, 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.
38. Examination of Obligor of Judgment Obligor
Rule 39, 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 remain 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.
39. Enforcement of Attendance and Conduct of
Examination
Rule 39, Sec. 38. Enforcement of attendance and conduct
of examination — A party or other person may be
compelled, by an order or subpoena, to attend before the
court or commissioner to testify as provided in the two
preceding Sec.s, and upon failure to obey such order or
subpoena or to be sworn, or to answer as a witness or to
subscribe his deposition, may be punished for contempt as
in other cases. Examinations shall not be unduly
prolonged, but the proceedings may be adjourned from
time to time, until they are completed. If the examination
is before a commissioner, he must take it in writing and
certify it to the court. All examinations and answers before
a court commissioner must be under oath, and when a
corporation or other juridical entity answers, it must be on
the oath of an authorized officer or agent thereof.
40. Obligor May Pay Execution Against Obligee
Rule 39, Sec. 39. Obligor may pay execution against
obligee — After a writ of execution against property has
been issued, a person indebted to the judgment obligor
may pay to the sheriff holding the writ of execution the
amount of his debt or so much thereof as may be
necessary to satisfy the judgment, in the manner
prescribed in Sec. 9 of this Rule, and the sheriff's receipt
shall be a sufficient discharge for the amount so paid or
directed to be credited by the judgment obligee on the
execution.
41. Order of Application of Property and Income to
the Satisfaction of Judgment
Rule 39, Sec. 40. Order for application of property and
income to satisfaction of judgment — The court may
order any property of the judgment obligor, or money due
him, not exempt from execution, in the hands of either
himself or another person, or of a corporation or other
juridical entity, to be applied to the satisfaction of the
judgment, subject to any prior rights over such property.
If, upon investigation of his current income and expenses,
it appears that the earnings of the judgment obligor for his
personal services are more than necessary for the support
of his family, the court may order that he pay the
judgment in fixed monthly installments, and upon his
failure to pay any such installment when due without good
excuse, may punish him for indirect contempt.
42. Appointment of a Receiver
Rule 39, Sec. 41. Appointment of receiver — The court
may appoint a receiver of the property of the judgment
obligor; and it may also forbid a transfer or other
disposition of, or any interference with, the property of
the judgment obligor not exempt from execution.
43. Sale of Ascertainable Interest of Judgment
Obligor in Real Estate
Rule 39, Sec. 42. Sale of ascertainable interest of
judgment obligor in real estate — If it appears that the
judgment obligor has an interest in real estate in the place
in which proceedings are had, as mortgagor or mortgagee
or other- wise, and his interest therein can be ascertained
without controversy the receiver may be ordered to sell
and convey such real estate or the interest of the obligor
therein; and such sale shall be conducted in all respects in
the same manner as is provided for the sale of real state
upon execution, and the proceedings thereon shall be
approved by the court before the execution of the deed.
44. Proceedings When Indebtedness Denied or
Another Person Claims the Property
Rule 39, Sec. 43. Proceedings when indebtedness denied
or another person claims the property — If it appears that
a person or corporation, alleged to have property of the
judgment obligor or to be indebted to him, claims an
interest in the property adverse to him or denied the debt,
the court may authorize, by an order made to that effect,
the judgment obligee to institute an action against such
person or corporation for the recovery of such interest or
debt, forbid a transfer or other disposition of such interest
or debt within one hundred twenty (120) days from notice
of the order, and may punish disobedience of such order
as for contempt. Such order may be modified or vacated at
any time by the court which issued it, or by the court in
which the action is brought, upon such terms as may be
just.
45. Entry of Satisfaction of Judgment by Clerk of
Court
Rule 39, Sec. 44. Entry of satisfaction of judgment by
clerk of court — Satisfaction of a judgment shall be
entered by the clerk of court in the court docket, and in
the execution book, upon the return of a writ of execution
showing the full satisfaction of the judgment, or upon the
filing of an admission to the satisfaction of the judgment
executed and acknowledged in the same manner as a
conveyance of real property by the judgment obligee or by
his counsel unless a revocation of his authority is filed, or
upon the endorsement of such admission by the judgment
obligee or his counsel, on the face of the record of the
judgment.
46. Entry of Satisfaction With or Without Admission
Rule 39, Sec. 45. Entry of satisfaction with or without
admission — Whenever a judgment is satisfied in fact, or
otherwise than upon an execution on demand of the
judgment obligor, the judgment obligee or his counsel
must execute and acknowledge, or indorse an admission
of the satisfaction as provided in the last preceding Sec.,
and after notice and upon motion the court may order
either the judgment obligee or his counsel to do so, or
may order the entry of satisfaction to be made without
such admission.
face to have been so adjudged, or which was
actually and necessarily included therein or
necessary thereto.
49. Effect of Foreign Judgments or Final Orders

47. When Principal Bound by Judgment Against Rule 39, Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final
Surety orders — The effect of a judgment or final order of a
tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render
Rule 39, Sec. 46. When principal bound by judgment the judgment or final order is as follows:
against surety — When a judgment is rendered against a
party who stands as surety for another, the latter is also (a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a
bound from the time that he has notice of the action or specific thing, the judgment or final order, is
proceeding, and an opportunity at the surety's request to conclusive upon the title to the thing, and
join in the defense. (b) In case of a judgment or final order against a
person, the judgment or final order is
48. Effect of Judgments or Final Orders presumptive evidence of a right as between the
parties and their successors in interest by a
Sec. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders — The effect subsequent title.
of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the
Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled
or final order, may be as follows: by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
(b) 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;
(c) 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
missed 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
(d) 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