Remedial Law Pre-Week Pros. Centeno

A PRE-WEEK REVIEWER IN
REMEDIAL LAW
By
ALFREDO R. CENTENO
PROFESSOR OF LAW
ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY
City Prosecutor & Deputized Ombudsman Prosecutor
Professor in Remedial Law Review, Evidence,
Criminal Law,
Criminal Procedure & Labor Law Review
College of Law, t! Louis "niversity
College of Law, "niversity of #aguio
College of Law, Cordillera Career Development
College
Lecturer, Premier #ar Review Center
Lecturer, Power$aus #ar Review Center
#aguio City
Foreword
This is an updated, revised, compiled and codified edition
based on the lectures, notes and comments delivered by
the late Professor Jose E. Cristobal, Professor Emeritus of
the Baguio Colleges Foundation, College of La and
!ean "onorato #. $%uino of the Baguio Colleges
Foundation, College of La. &ome of the materials
incorporated herein ere the products gathered by this
riter from 'urisprudence as printed in the &upreme Court
(eports $nnotated and the &upreme Court $dvance
!ecisions and the treatises and ritings of )non riters
on the sub'ect.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
%race t$e $istory of our Remedial Law in t$e
P$ilippines!
Our remedial law system or laws of procedure were of
Spanis ori!in. Te "mericans later can!ed tis wen
our "merican System of #riminal $rocedure was
introduced %y &irtue of te promul!ation of 'eneral Order
No. () on "pril *+, -.//. On "u!ust 0, -./-, "ct No. -./
1#ode of #i&il $rocedure2 was enacted.
Te #ode of #i&il $rocedure 1"ct No. -./2 repealed all
laws on te matter. Te two laws 3 *eneral +rder ,o. -.
and $ct ,o. /01 constituted our principal remedial laws
until te -.+( $ilippine #onstitution %ecame effecti&e.
Te -.+( #onstitution repealed *eneral +rder ,o. -. and
$ct ,o. /01 as statutes %ut declared te same as te
(ules of Court. Tey were owe&er superseded %y te
Old Rules of #ourt tat too4 effect on 5uly -, -.6/.
Te New Rules of #ourt tat too4 effect on 5uly -, -.76
tereafter superseded te Old Rules of #ourt. 1Nue&as on
Remedial Law2.
Te -.76 Rules of #ourt as under!one se&eral can!es
since ten. On 5anuary -, -.)(, te Rules on #riminal
$rocedure was introduced. In -.)), te Rules of #riminal
$rocedure underwent an amendment. On 5uly -, -.).,
te Re&ised Rules on E&idence %ecame effecti&e and on
5uly -, -..0, te Rules on #i&il $rocedure was li4ewise
introduced and %ecame effecti&e. On 8ecem%er -, *///,
te Rules on #riminal $rocedure underwent a ma9or
re&ision
Define or E&plain t$e concept of Remedial law'
Remedial law is also 4nown as procedural or ad9ecti&e
law. It is tat %ranc of law tat prescri%es te metod of
enforcin! ri!ts or o%tainin! redress for teir in&asion.
($at is ubstantive law)
It is tat law tat creates, defines and re!ulates ri!ts.
(#ustos vs! Lucero, *+ P$il! ,-./
($at are t$e 0inds of remedial law)
:e a&e two !eneral 4inds of remedial law, namely;
public remedial la2 wic affords a remedy in fa&or of te
State a!ainst indi&iduals 1criminal procedure2< in fa&or of
te indi&idual a!ainst te state 1a%eas corpus2< and
private remedial la2 wic affords a remedy in fa&or of an
indi&idual a!ainst anoter indi&idual 1ci&il procedure2
Define Procedure!
It is te metod of conductin! 9udicial proceedin! and
em%races pleadin!s, practice and e&idence.
E&plain t$e concept of Pleadings, Practice and
Evidence.
Pleadings are te written statements of te respecti&e
claims and defenses of te parties su%mitted to te court
for appropriate 9ud!ment 1ec! +, Rule ,/!
Practice refers to tose rules, !o&ernin! te conduct of a
case from its inception to final 9ud!ment and e=ecution.
Evidence is te means sanctioned %y tese rules of
ascertainin! in a 9udicial proceedin!, te trut respectin! a
matter of fact. 1ec! +, Rule +2*/
($at is t$e ob3ect of Procedure)
Te main o%9ect of procedure is to ma4e te powers of te
courts fully and completely a&aila%le for 9ustice. It aims to
facilitate te application of 9ustice to te ri&al claims of
contendin! parties and not to inder or delay te
administration of 9ustice. 14RR vs! 5ttorney 6eneral, 2.
P$il! 728/
($at are t$e bases of t$e promulgation of t$e Rules
of Court)
Te power to promul!ate rules is &ested in te Supreme
#ourt. 1Sec. (172, "rticle VIII, $ilippine #onstitution2
Te said power of te Supreme #ourt includes te
promul!ation of rules concernin!;
-. Te protection and enforcement of constitutional
ri!ts<
*. $leadin!s, practice and procedure in all courts<
+. Te admission to te practice of law<
6. Te Inte!ration of te Bar and le!al assistance to
te underpri&ile!ed.
($at are t$e limitations on t$e rule9ma0ing power of
t$e upreme Court)
Te followin! are te limitations;
-. Te rules sall pro&ides simplified and ine=pensi&e
procedure for te speedy disposition of cases<
*. Te rules sall %e uniform for all courts of te same
!rade, and
+. Te rules sall not diminis, increase or modify
su%stanti&e ri!ts!1ec! 7, 5rticle :;;;, P$ilippine
Constitution/
%o w$at cases are t$e Rules of Court not applicable)
1 Copyright 2009 Alfredo R. Centeno
Te rules sall not apply to te followin!;
a2 Land re!istration cases<
%2 Election cases<
c2 Naturali>ation cases<
d2 Insol&ency proceedin!s<
e2 Oter cases not pro&ided in te rules e=cept in a
suppletory caracter and wene&er practica%le and
con&enient. 1ec! -, Rule + and Rule +-8/
<ow are t$e rules of procedure construed) E&ception
Te rules sall %e construed li%erally in order to promote
teir o%9ecti&e of securin! a 9ust, speedy and ine=pensi&e
disposition of e&ery action and proceedin!. 1ec! ,, Rule
+/
Exception: Rules prescri%in! time witin wic certain
acts must %e done, or certain proceedin!s ta4en, periods
of pleadin!s, are ta4en and considered indispensa%le for
te pre&ention of needless delays and for te orderly and
speedy disposition of 9udicial %usiness? strict
interpretation.
C$aracterize our rules of procedure.
Te rules are procedural in nature, ence, it must not %e
construed to supplant or defeat su%stanti&e ri!ts of te
parties in liti!ation. Its purpose is to put in order te
liti!ation of ri!ts and not to esta%lised new ri!ts were
none e=ists. 1Constitutional limitations on t$e rule9
ma0ing power of t$e upreme Court/
4ay party waive t$e application of t$e rules of court)
Rules are laid down for te con&enience of te parties,
suc as rules on &enue may %e wai&ed, %ut rules adopted
in te interest of speedy administration of 9ustice may not
%e wai&ed.
4ay t$e Rules of procedure be t$e sub3ect of
agreements'
"!reements relatin! to te rules of procedure, wic
in&ol&es anytin!, inconsistent wit te course of 9ustice or
wic o%struct or interfere wit te administration of 9ustice
and contracts, wic tend to di&est or oust courts of teir
9urisdiction are &oid %ein! contrary to pu%lic policy.
4ay t$e upreme Court suspend t$e application of its
own Rules)
Only te Supreme #ourt as te power to suspend te
application of te rules of procedure. It was eld tat
under special circumstances te court may suspend te
application of te rules in order to enance fair trials and
e=peditin! 9ustice.
If te application of te rules would tend to su%&ert and@or
defeat instead of promote and enance it, teir
suspension is 9ustified. 1Republic vs! C5 *8 CR5 -7=>
Republic vs! C5 ept! +., +=*+/
JURISDICTION
Define or e&plain ?urisdiction!
Te term is ta4en from te Latin term A'us dicere3 or Ari!t
to spea4B. It is te power and autority of a court to ear,
try and decide a case. @Aamora vs! C5 +*8 CR5 2B=C It
is te ri!t to act in a case. (Herrera v. !arreto" #$ P%i&.
#'()
Te Cuestion of 9urisdiction is te first tin! to %e
determined %y te 9ud!e in e&ery action %rou!t %efore
im. :ere te court %elie&es tat it as no 9urisdiction
o&er te action, te only &alid determination it can do is to
a&e te case or action dismissed.
Distinguis$ ?urisdiction from Procedure!
Jurisdiction refers to te autority of a court to ear and
decide a class of cases and is conferred %y su%stanti&e
law 1De Leon vs! C5 2-7 CR5 +,,> 4orales vs! C5/4
wile procedure is te means wic puts te power or
autority to ear and decide into action. 1P$arma ;nc! vs!
ecretary 6!R! Do! =2=*+ ?anuary =, +==2/
Distinguis$ ?urisdiction from E&ercise of ?urisdiction'
Jurisdiction refers to te autority to decide a case and not
te decision rendered. It does not depend upon te
re!ularity of te e=ercise of tat power or te ri!tfulness
of te decision rendered.
E5ercise of 'urisdiction refers to te resolution of all oter
Cuestions arisin! in te case! @Palma vs! E & L92.8,,
4ay +=, +=,,C
Distinguis$ ?urisdiction from :enue'
Jurisdiction refers to te power of a court to ear and
decide a case, wereas 6enue refers to te place were
an action is to %e instituted and tried. 1see Rule -, Rules
of Court/
Jurisdiction may not %e wai&ed %ein! %ased in law<
wereas 6enue may %e te su%9ect of wai&er %ein! a
matter of procedure.
;n w$o is 3urisdiction vested)
It is &ested in te court and not on te 9ud!e. " court may
a&e se&eral %rances, %ut eac %ranc is not a court
distinct and separate from te oters. " case filed %efore a
%ranc or any oter %ranc or 9ud!e tereof may%e tried
%y any 9ud!e or %ranc tereof. (%agumpay vs!
4oscoso/
($at are t$e 6eneral classes of ?urisdiction)
5urisdiction may %e classified into;
-. 5urisdiction o&er te Su%9ect Datter
*. 5urisdiction o&er te $ersons of te $arties
+. 5urisdiction o&er te Nature of te "ction
6. 5urisdiction o&er te Res

E&plain briefly t$e concept of t$e 3urisdiction over t$e
sub3ect matter!
5urisdiction o&er te Su%9ect Datter refers to te power of
a court or tri%unal to ear and determine cases of te
!eneral class to wic te proceedin! in Cuestion %elon!s.
Tis 4ind of 9urisdiction %ein! conferred %y law cannot %e
te su%9ect of any a!reement. None of te parties to
liti!ations can enlar!e or diminis it or dictate wen it sall
attac or wen it sall %e remo&ed. Tat power is &ested
in te le!islature. (Aamora vs! C5 +*8 CR5 2B=/
($at is t$e effect of lac0 of 3urisdiction over t$e
sub3ect matter)
:ere te court as no 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect
matter, it as no power to ear te case, muc less,
decide it. Te only &alid act it as is to dismiss te case.
Te dismissal of te case does not &iolate oneEs ri!t of
free access to te courts. *antos vs! Dort$west, 2+.
CR5 27,C
($at is t$e nature of a 3udgment t$at is rendered by a
court w$en it $as no 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect)
:ere a court a&in! no 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect
matter renders a decision, te same is a total nullity. No
ri!t or o%li!ation may arise from suc decision. 1Dava vs!
People 2.2 CR5 ,2/ " &oid 9ud!ment cannot %e te
proper %asis for te issuance of a writ of e=ecution. 15tuel
vs! :aldez, 6!R! Do! +8=7,+, ?une +., 2..8/ Titles
issued pursuant to a &oid 9ud!ment are necessarily &oid.
FRepublic vs! 4arcos 72 CR5 28*)
($at determines 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter+
5urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter is determined on te
%asis of te complaint. It is te complaint tat commences
te action. @armiento vs! C5, 27. CR5 +.*C :ate&er
is filed %y te defendant tereafter as notin! to do wit
te commencement of te action. @5brin vs! Campos,
2.8 CR5 -2.C. Te defenses in te answer or motion to
dismiss are not to %e considered for purposes of
esta%lisin! 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter.
*4ultinational vs! C5 2.8 CR5 +.-C It is determined %y
te alle!ations of te complaint and cannot %e made to
depend on te defenses of te defendant. 1Republic vs!
andiganbayan, 6!R! Do! +-8277, 4arc$ 8., 2..-/
($en must 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter e&ist)
5urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter must e=ist at te
%e!innin! of te action and as suc continues to e=ist up
to te rendition of te 9ud!ment. 5urisdiction of courts o&er
te su%9ect matter is conferred e=clusi&ely %y te
#onstitution and %y law.
4ay a court motu proprio consider t$e issue of lac0
of 3urisdiction even if not c$allenged by any party)
Te answer is YES. Te #ourt 1Supreme #ourt2 may motu
proprio consider te issue of 9urisdiction e&en if not
callen!ed %y any party to te case. It as discretion to
determine weter a particular court &alidly acCuired
9urisdiction o&er a particular case. 5urisdiction o&er te
case is conferred %y law. It may not %e conferred on te
court %y consent or wai&er of te parties were te court
oterwise would a&e no 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect
matter of te action. 15tuel vs! :aldez, 6!R! Do! +8=7,+,
?une +., 2..8/
4ay 3urisdiction be acFuired t$roug$ or waived by,
any act or omission of a party)
Te answer is No. 5urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter
cannot %e acCuired trou!, or wai&ed %y, any act or
omission of te parties. Te acti&e participation of te
parties in te proceedin!s %efore te court or a!ency does
not &est 9urisdiction on te court or a!ency, as 9urisdiction
is conferred only %y law. Te courts or te parties cannot
disre!ard te rule of non?wai&er of 9urisdiction 15tuel vs!
:aldez, 6!R! Do! +8=7,+, ?une +., 2..8/

Does estoppel apply to confer 3urisdiction to a
tribunal, agency board or court)
:e distin!uis. Estoppel does not apply to confer
'urisdiction to a tribunal tat as none o&er a cause of
action. Te failure of te parties to callen!e te
9urisdiction of te court, tri%unal, a!ency or %oard does not
pre&ent te Supreme #ourt from addressin! te issue,
especially so wen te courtEs lac4 of 9urisdiction is
apparent on te face of te complaint. Issues of
9urisdiction are not su%9ect to te wims of te parties.
15tuel vs! :aldez, 6!R! Do! +8=7,+, ?une +., 2..8/
Gowe&er, wen te party participate in te proceedin! and
only raises te Cuestion of lac4 of 9urisdiction after an
unfa&ora%le 9ud!ment as %een issued a!ainst im, $e
may be barred by t$e principle of estoppel to Fuestion
t$e lac0 of 3urisdiction of t$e court t$at rendered t$e
decision! 1#P; vs! 5L, 6!R +7+*2+, 5pril +-, 2..->
#atangas Power Corporation vs! #atangas City,6!R
Do! +72,B7, 5pril 2*, 2..-/

E. ($at law determines t$e 3urisdiction of t$e court
over t$e sub3ect matter)
Te law in force at te time of te commencement of te
action determines te 9urisdiction of te court o&er te
su%9ect matter and not te law at te time te cause of
action accrued.. 75le3e vs! Crystal 2-. CR5 -=7C
E&plain briefly t$e concept of 3urisdiction over t$e
person of t$e parties!
Tis refers to te parties to a case, as eiter plaintiffs or
defendants. 5urisdiction o&er te plaintiff is acCuired %y te
court from te time te complaint is filed.
Te plaintiff may %e estopped from Cuestionin! te
9urisdiction of te court o&er is person. " non?resident
alien wo files a complaint in court su%mits imself to te
9urisdiction of te said court.
5urisdiction o&er te defendant is acCuired %y te court %y;
a2 Gis &oluntary su%mission to te autority of te
court eiter %y is personal appearance or trou!
is counsel< or
%2 Trou! te e=ercise of te coerci&e processes of
te court %y te proper ser&ice of summons upon
te defendant.
Under te new rules a defendant wo files a motion to
dismiss %ased on te said !round may as4 for oter relief
witout considerin! is appearance as &oluntary. @ec!
2., Rule +-C
5urisdiction o&er te person of a party may %e wai&ed. Te
Cuestion of lac4 of 9urisdiction o&er te person of a party
must %e raised at te earliest opportunity and it must %e
raised in a motion to dismiss.
<ow is 3urisdiction over t$e nature of t$e action
determined)
It is determined not %y te title or caption of te pleadin!
%ut rater %y te alle!ations terein tat controls and may
%e made te %asis of a relief !ranted %y te court. In case
of conflict %etween te alle!ations in te %ody of te
complaint and tat of te caption of te pleadin!, te
alle!ations in te %ody of te complaint pre&ail. Folid
<omes vs! C5 2B+ CR5 +7BC
($at is lac0 of 3urisdiction over t$e nature of t$e
action)
It is te situation tat arises wen a court, wic ordinarily
would a&e te autority and competence to try a case is
rendered witout suc autority and competence eiter
%ecause a special law as limited te e=ercise of its
normal 9urisdiction on a particular matter or %ecause te
type of action as %een reposed %y law in certain oter
courts< or Cuasi?9udicial %odies or a!encies. *La Daval vs!
C5 28, CR5 B*H "n e=ample of te situation was durin!
te time tat $8 ./*?" was enacted, or te effects of te
e=panded 9urisdiction of te DT# on B$ ** cases.
E&plain briefly t$e concept of 3urisdiction over t$e
res!
Tis 4ind of 9urisdiction comes into play only in situations
were 9urisdiction o&er te person of te defendant cannot
%e acCuired %ecause e is a non?resident, cannot %e
found in te $ilippines, or cannot %e ser&ed wit
summons. Tese actions refer to %uasi in rem actions.
5urisdiction o&er te res, or property of te defendant or
tin! in contest is o%tained %y te actual or constructi&e
sei>ure of te property %y placin! te same in custodia
legis. (ection +B, Rule +-, Rules of Court,
;s presentation of evidence in support of opposition to
a motion to dismiss on t$e ground of lac0 of
3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter necessary)
'enerally, tere is no need to present any e&idence
%ecause 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter is determined
%y te alle!ations of te complaint.
Te only e=ception to tis rule is in a suit for e9ectment
were a party raises te defense of a!ricultural tenancy. In
suc a situation, te court is called upon to conduct a
preliminary earin! to decide te issue of a!ricultural
tenancy. Te court may reCuire te reception of e&idence
durin! te preliminary earin!. *Concepcion vs! CG;
#ulacan ++= CR5 222C. It must %e remem%ered
owe&er tat te rules on summary procedure do not
apply to cases co&ered %y a!ricultural tenancy laws.
@#ayog vs! Datino 27* CR5 8B*C
($en may t$e issue of lac0 of 3urisdiction over t$e
sub3ect matter be raise)
Iuestion of lac4 of 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter may
%e raised at any sta!e of te proceedin! and e&en for te
first time one appeal.*Lagman vs! C5 -- CR5 22*8 Te
party entitled to te defense of lac4 of 9urisdiction o&er te
su%9ect matter must raise te same %efore it is %arred %y
laces or estoppel. *Lam vs! C$ua, 6!R! Do! +8+2*,,
4arc$ +*, 2..->Lopez vs! Dort$west 228 CR5 -,=,
Davoa vs! C5 27+ CR5 7-7 see also %i3am vs!
ibong$anoy 28 CR5 2= and ec! 8 and +., Rule -BC
($en may t$e court, board, agency or tribunal
e&ercise its power to ad3udicate)
Te rule is well?settled tat for a court to e=ercise its
power of ad9udication tere must %e an actual case or
9usticia%le contro&ersy. 1Republic vs! %an 6!R! Do!
+-7277, 4arc$ 8., 2..-/
($at is meant by an actual case or 3usticiable
controversy)
"n actual case or 9usticia%le contro&ersy is one, wic
in&ol&es a conflict of le!al ri!ts and an assertion of
opposite le!al claims suscepti%le of 9udicial resolution.
:ere te issue as %ecome moot and academic, tere is
no 9usticia%le contro&ersy, and an ad9udication tereon
would %e of no practical use or &alue as courts do not sit
to ad9udicate mere academic Cuestions to satisfy scolarly
interest, owe&er intellectually callen!in!. 1Republic vs!
%an 6!R! Do! +-7277, 4arc$ 8., 2..-/
($at is meant by t$e p$rase H3urisdiction must be
raised in t%e a-e proceedin.I9
:en te rule says tat suc issue %e raised in te a-e
proceedin., it simply means tat it must %e raised in te
proceedin!s of te same case and durin! te appeal of
te same case. It does not mean tat lac4 of 9urisdiction of
a court in a case may %e raised durin! te proceedin!s of
anoter case, in anoter court and e&en %y any%ody.
75ragon vs! C5, 6!R! Do! +2-888, 4arc$ 2,, +==BC
5re t$ere ot$er classes of 3urisdiction)
Te answer is yes, tey are as follows;
-. Residual 9urisdiction
*. 8ele!ated 5urisdiction
+. Special 5urisdiction
($at is meant by residual 3urisdiction)
It is te power of te court to issue suc orders and
perform suc acts after te perfection of an appeal from its
decision %ut prior to te transmittal of te ori!inal record or
te record on appeal to te appellate court.
E=amples of tis 4ind of 9urisdiction are tose found in te
last para!rap of ec! =, Rule -+, to wit'
-. Issue orders for te protection and preser&ation of
te ri!ts of te parties wic do not in&ol&e any
matter liti!ated %y te appeal<
*. "ppro&e compromises<
+. $ermit appeals of indi!ent liti!ants<
6. Order e=ecution pendin! appeal under ec! 2,
Rule 8=/
(. "llow witdrawal of appeals.
($at is t$e Doctrine of Primary ?urisdiction)
It simply means tat te re!ular courts cannot and will not
determine a contro&ersy in&ol&in! a Cuestion, wic is
witin te 9urisdiction of an administrati&e tri%unal. :ere
te Cuestion demands te e=ercise of sound
administrati&e discretion reCuirin! te special 4nowled!e,
e=perience or ser&ices of an administrati&e tri%unal to
determine tecnical and intricate matters of fact and were
a uniformity of rulin! is essential To comply wit te
purposes of te re!ulatory statute administered. @#rett vs!
;5C +=+ CR5 ,*B, see also ;ndustrial Enterprises vs!
C5 +*- CR5 -2,)
tate t$e elements of a valid e&ercise of 3urisdiction'
:e sould ma4e a distinction as to weter te action is a
criminal or a ci&il action. In;
Civil $ctions Criminal $ctions
a2 5urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter a2 5urisdiction o&er te offense
%2 5urisdiction o&er te res %2 5urisdiction o&er te territory
c2 5urisdiction o&er te parties c2 5urisdiction o&er te accused
d2 5urisdiction o&er te issues d2 $ayment of filin! fees
e2 $ayment of filin! fees (5dm! Circular 5ugust +7, 2..-,
($at is t$e rule on payment of filing fees regarding
t$e 3urisdiction of t$e court over t$e sub3ect matter)
Te filin! of te complaint or appropriate initiatory pleadin!
and te payment of te prescri%ed doc4et fee &est a trial
court wit 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter or nature of
te action. 1Rivera vs! Del Rosario, 6!R! Do! +--=8-,
?an! +7, 2..-/
($at is t$e effect in case of deficiency in t$e payment
of filing fees)
If te amount paid %y way of filin! fees is found insufficient
after te payment of te case, considerin! te amount of
claim, te cler4 of court of te lower court in&ol&ed, or is
duly autori>ed deputy, as te responsi%ility of ma4in! a
deficiency assessment. Te party filin! te case will %e
reCuired to pay te deficiency, %ut 9urisdiction is not
automatically lost. 1Rivera vs! Del Rosario, 6!R! Do!
+--=8-, ?an! +7, 2..-/
($at factors are to be considered in determining
w$ic$ court $as 3urisdiction over a particular case)
In determinin! wic court as 9urisdiction o&er a case, te
a&erments of te complaint@counterclaim, ta4en as a
wole, are to %e considered li4e; 1a2 intra?corporate
disputes 1:elarde vs! C5 6!R! Do! +78**,, ?an! +-,
2..-/> 1%2 a!rarian dispute 1Rivera vs! C5, 6!R! Do!
+--=8-, ?an! +7, 2..-/
($at is meant by t$e principle Hcoram non93udiceI
regarding 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter or
nature of t$e action)
Te principle simply means tat te court as no power to
decide Cuestions, e=cept as presented %y te parties in
teir pleadin!s. "ny 9ud!ment rendered %y te court
%eyond tem is considered Hcoram non93udiceI and
terefore &oid. So wen a court renders a 9ud!ment or
awards relief %eyond te prayer of te complaint or scope
of its alle!ations, te e=cessi&e relief is not merely
irre!ular %ut is &oid for want of 9urisdiction. 1Lam vs!
C$ua, 6!R! Do! +8+2*,, 4arc$ +*, 2..-/
J filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage
against K! #efore t$e filing of t$e action J and K $ad a
c$ild! %$e petition for declaration of nullity of t$e
marriage did not contain any prayer for support of t$e
minor c$ild! 4ay t$e court validly include in its
3udgment declaring t$e marriage a nullity an award for
support of t$e minor c$ild)
Te answer is no. Te award of te support for te cild
falls witin te pur&iew of te principle re!ardin! Hcoram
non93udiceI. Tat is, any award made %y te court
outside of te relief prayed for %y a party is &oid for lac4 of
9urisdiction. 1Lam vs! C$ua, 6!R! Do! +8+2*,, 4arc$ +*,
2..-/
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RULES ON THE
VALID EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
%$e reFuisites for t$e e&ercise of 3urisdiction and $ow
t$e court acFuires suc$ 3urisdiction may be
summarized as follows'
a! ?urisdiction over t$e plaintiff or petitioner' Tis is
acCuired %y te filin! of te complaint, petition or initiatory
pleadin! %efore te court %y te plaintiff or petitioner.
b! ?urisdiction over t$e defendant or respondent or
accused' Tis is acCuired %y te &oluntary appearance or
su%mission %y te defendant or respondent to te court or
%y coerci&e process issued %y te court to im, !enerally
%y te ser&ice of summons or warrant of arrest in criminal
cases.
c! ?urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter' Tis is
conferred %y law and, unli4e 9urisdiction o&er te parties,
cannot %e conferred on te court %y te &oluntary act or
a!reement of te parties.
d! ?urisdiction over t$e issues of t$e case' Tis is
determined and conferred %y te pleadin!s filed in te
case %y te parties, or %y teir a!reement in a pre?trial
order or stipulation, or, at times %y teir implied consent as
%y te failure of a party to o%9ect to e&idence on an issue
not co&ered %y te pleadin!s, as pro&ided in Sec. (, Rule
-/.
e! ?urisdiction over t$e res 1or t$e property or t$ing
w$ic$ is t$e sub3ect of t$e litigation/! Tis is acCuired
%y te actual or constructi&e sei>ure %y te court of te
tin! in Cuestion, tus placin! it in custodia le!is, as in
attacment or !arnisment< or %y pro&ision of law wic
reco!ni>es in te court te power to deal wit te property
or su%9ect matter witin its territorial 9urisdiction, as in land
re!istration proceedin!s or suits in&ol&in! ci&il status or
real property in te $ilippines of a non?resident
defendant.

:it re!ard te case of a non?resident defendant, in two
cases, te court acCuires 9urisdiction to try te case, e&en
if it as not acCuired 9urisdiction o&er te person of a non?
resident defendant, as lon! as it as 9urisdiction o&er te
res, as wen te action in&ol&es te personal status of te
plaintiff or property in te $ilippines in wic te
defendant claims an interest. In suc cases, te ser&ice of
summons %y pu%lication and notice to te defendant is
merely to comply wit due process reCuirements.
Dore, under Sec. -++ of te #orporation #ode, wile a
forei!n corporation doin! %usiness in te $ilippines
witout a license cannot sue or inter&ene in any action
ere, it may %e sued or proceeded a!ainst %efore our
courts or administrati&e tri%unals. 1De ?oya vs! 4arFuez,
6!R! Do! +,2-+,, ?an! 8+, 2..,/

COURTS
Concept and 6eneral Principles :
Define Courts!
It is tat entity in te !o&ernment or!ani>ed for te proper
administration of 9ustice at te time and place prescri%ed
%y law. It is an entity in wic a portion of te 9udicial
power is &ested.
($at are t$e functions of courts)
To dispense 9ustice, decide contro&ersies filed %efore it
and to interpret te laws of te state.
($at are t$e in$erent powers of Courts 1ec! 7, Rule
+8,/)
Te inerent powers of courts are;
a2 $reser&e and enforce order in its immediate
presence<
%2 Enforce order in proceedin!s %efore it, or %efore
a person or persons empowered to conduct a
9udicial in&esti!ation under its autority<
c2 #ompel o%edience to its 9ud!ments, orders and
processes, and to te lawful orders of a 9ud!e out of
court, in a case pendin! %efore it<
d2 #ontrol te conduct of its ministerial officers, and
of all oter persons in any manner connected wit a
case %efore it and in e&ery manner appertainin!
tereto<
e2 #ompel attendance of persons to testify in a case
pendin! terein<
f2 "dminister or cause to %e administered oats in a
case pendin! terein, and in all oter cases were
it may %e necessary in te e=ercise of its powers<
!2 "utori>e a copy of a lost or destroyed pleadin!
or oter paper to %e filed and used instead of te
ori!inal and to restore, and supply deficiencies in its
records and proceedin!s.
E&plain t$e Principle of <ierarc$y of Courts!
It is te principle tat autori>es liti!ants to see4 proper
relief from te lower courts %efore ele&atin! te same to
te i!er courts. In tose cases were te Supreme
#ourt as concurrent 9urisdiction wit te #" and te RT#
to issue te e=traordinary writs, a party is o%li!ed to first
see4 relief from te RT#.
Te S# sould not %e %urdened wit te tas4 of dealin!
wit causes in te first instances. Te S# ori!inal
9urisdiction to issue e=traordinary writs sould %e
e=ercised only were a%solutely necessary or were
serious or important reasons terefore e=ist. 1Pearson vs!
;5C 2=7 CR5 2B:
Gollowing t$e principle of $ierarc$y of courts, to w$at
court must an aggrieved party in administrative cases
decided by t$e Ombudsman appeal)
#ases decided %y te Om%udsman in ad-initrative
dicip&inar0 cae must %e appealed to te #" under
Rule 6+, not appeal %y certiorari under Rule 6(. Te
pro&isions of Sec. *0 of R.". 700/ wic autori>es
appeal %y certiorari under Rule 6(, in administrati&e
disciplinary cases as %een declared unconstitutional %y
te S#. 1:illavert vs! Desierto, L9+88B+7, Geb! 28,
2...2.
Does t$e same remedy apply to aggrieved parties in
criminal cases)
In criminal cases, te a!!rie&ed party may Cuestion te
decision of te Om%udsman %y a $etition for #ertiorari
under Rule 7(. Te said petition must %e filed in te
Supreme #ourt and not in te #ourt of "ppeals. $etitions
for certiorari Cuestionin! te Om%udsmanEs orders, or
decisions in criminal cases sould %e filed in te Supreme
#ourt and not te #ourt of "ppeals. ;Perez vs!
Ombudsman, et al!, 6!R! Do! +8+--7, 4ay 2B, 2..->
Luizon vs! Ombudsman> 4endoza 5rce vs!
Ombudsman/
uppose t$e appeal is purely on a Fuestion of law,
w$ere must t$e aggrieved party appeal)
"ppeal on pure Cuestion of law from te Om%udsman may
%e made to te S#, te findin!s of facts %ein! conclusi&e
wen supported %y su%stantial e&idence. ;4orong (ater
District vs! Ombudsman L9++,B7-, 4ar! +B, 2.../
;s t$e rule on $ierarc$y of courts absolute)
Te principle of hierarchy of courts may %e rela=ed wen
te redress desired cannot %e o%tained in te appropriate
courts or were e=ceptional and compellin! circumstances
9ustify te a&ailment of a remedy witin and callin! for te
e=ercise of te S#Es primary 9urisdiction. 1Prov! Of
#atangas vs! Romulo, 6!R! Do! +72BB-, 4ay 2B, 2..-/
<ow are t$e courts classified according to t$e nature
and e&tent of t$eir 3urisdiction)
#ourt may %e classified accordin! to te nature and e=tent
of 9urisdiction as;
a2 #ourt of Ori!inal 5urisdiction<
%2 #ourt of "ppellate 5urisdiction<
c2 #ourt of 'eneral 5urisdiction< or
d2 #ourt of Limited 5urisdiction.
($at is t$e Composition of t$e upreme Court)
Te Supreme #ourt sall %e composed of a #ief 5ustice
and -6 "ssociate 5ustices. It may sit en banc or in its
discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven members.
Fection -1+/ 5rticle :;;;, P$il! Constitution8It is te only
constitutional court, te oter courts are not considered
constitutional courts.
Under tis concept, te Supreme #ourt is a co?eCual
%ranc of te !o&ernment. #on!ress terefore as no
power to alter or modify te composition of te S#. Neiter
can con!ress reduce te 9urisdiction of te Supreme
#ourt. Its 9urisdiction is defined and fi=ed %y te
#onstitution.
($at body $as t$e power to define, prescribe and
apportion t$e 3urisdiction of courts)
Te #on!ress as te power to define, prescri%e and
apportion te 9urisdiction of te &arious courts, %ut it
cannot depri&e te Supreme #ourt of its 9urisdiction as
pro&ided %y te #onstitution.1ections 2 & 7, 5rticle :;;;,
Constitution2 #on!ress may increase te appellate
9urisdiction of te S# only wit te ad&ice and concurrence
of te said #ourt. 1ection 8., 5rticle :;, Constitution2
($at are t$e powers of t$e upreme Court)
Te powers of te Supreme #ourt may %e classified as
follows;
a2 +riginal Jurisdiction o&er cases affectin!
am%assadors, oter pu%lic ministers and consuls,
and o&er petitions for certiorari, proi%ition,
mandamus, Cuo warranto and a%eas corpus<
%2 Re&iew, re&ise, re&erse, modify or affirm on appeal
or certiorari, as te law or Rules of #ourt may
pro&ide final 9ud!ments and orders of lower courts
in;
1.2? "ll cases in wic te constitutionality or
&alidity of any treaty, international or e=ecuti&e
a!reement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order instruction, ordinance or
re!ulation is in Cuestion<
1.#? "ll cases in&ol&in! te le!ality of any ta=,
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation tereto<
1.$3 "ll cases in wic te 9urisdiction of any
lower court is in issue<
1.'3 "ll cases in wic only an error or
Cuestion of law is in&ol&ed.
c2 +riginal and Concurrent Jurisdiction wit te #"
and RT# in cases in&ol&in!;
c.23 $etitions for te issuance of writs of
certiorari, proi%ition, mandamus, Cuo warranto
and a%eas corpus<
c.#3 "ction %rou!t to pre&ent and restrain
&iolations of law concernin! monopolies and
com%inations or restraint of trade.
d2 E5clusive Jurisdiction to re&iew, re&ise, re&erse
modify or affirm on appeal, as te law or te rules
of court may pro&ide, final 9ud!ments or decrees of
all inferior courts, suc as;
d.23 #riminal cases in&ol&in! offenses for
wic te penalty of deat, or life imprisonment
and tose in&ol&in! oter offenses wic,
altou! not punised %y suc penalty, arise
out of te same occurrence or wic may a&e
%een committed %y te accused on te same
occasion, as tat !i&in! rise to te more
serious offense, re!ardless of weter te
accused are car!ed as principals,
accomplices or accessories, or weter tey
a&e %een tried 9ointly or separately<
d.#3 #ases in&ol&in! petitions for naturali>ation
or denaturali>ation 1under e=istin! laws and
circulars, decisions of RT# in said cases are
now appeala%le to te #"2<
d.$3 8ecisions of te #O" ele&ated on
certiorari %y pri&ate persons or entity<
d.'3 #ases were 9urisdiction of any inferior
court is in issue<
d.(3 Oter cases in wic only errors or
Cuestion of law are in&ol&ed.
e2 Poer to decide on constitutional issues2 In te
case of !umlao vs. C+<ELEC, 0- &C($ =1>, te
court ruled tat constitutional Cuestions may only
%e eard %y te S#, if te followin! reCuisites are
present;
e.23 Tat tere %e an actual contro&ersy<
e.#3 Te Cuestion of constitutionality must %e
raised %y te proper party< 1a proper party is
one wo may %e affected %y suc
constitutional Cuestion. 2
e.$?Tat te constitutional Cuestion must %e
raised at te earliest opportunity<
e.'3Tat te determination of te constitutional
Cuestion must %e necessary to te
determination of te case itself.
($at is meant by t$e EFuity 3urisdiction of t$e
upreme Court)
It is te inerent power of te Supreme #ourt to wai&e
tecnical rules of procedure in order to %e a%le to rule on
important su%stanti&e matters. 14agat vs! People 2.+
CR5 2> %ang0i0o vs! Cezar, 6!R! Do! +8+2BB, Geb! 2,
+===> 5guila v! Court of Girst ;nstance of #atangas,
+,. CR5 872, 87=98,., 5pril +7, +=** Pimentel vs!
CO4ELEC, +8, CR5 +*=/
In te case of 4agat vs! People 2.+ CR5 2+, te
Supreme #ourt eld tat in e=ceptional cases, were
trou! ne!li!ence or i!norance of counsel, te
properties, li&es and future of accused persons may
un9ustly %e pre9udiced as wen an innocent person, may
%e railroaded to prison or proof %eyond reasona%le dou%t
was not adduced, te #ourt wai&ed te tecnical rules
under its eCuity 9urisdiction and in te interest of
su%stanti&e 9ustice.

In anoter case ;Pimentel vs! CO4ELEC, +8, CR5
+*=/, te Supreme #ourt ordered te countin! and
can&assin! of &otes in te presence of te ad&erse parties
ri!t in te Supreme #ourt e&en if suc function ri!tfully
%elon!s to te #ODELE# te latter %ein! te sole 9ud!e
of all contest relatin! to election returns. "lso in te case
of %ang0i0o vs! Cezar, 1infra2 te Supreme #ourt ruled
tat; ECuity 9urisdiction is a&aila%le only in te a%sence of
law and not as its replacement. ECuity is descri%ed as
9ustice witout le!ality, wic simply means tat it cannot
supplant te law altou! it may, as often appens,
supplement te law.B @5guila v! Court of Girst ;nstance
of #atangas, +,. CR5 872, 87=98,., 5pril +7, +=**,C!
ECuity can only supplement te law, not supplant it.
F%ang0i0o vs! Cezar, 6!R! Do! +8+2BB, Geb! 2, +===H
;n w$at instances may t$e "PRE4E CO"R%
e&ercise its eFuity 3urisdiction)
Te Supreme #ourt may e=ercise its eCuity 9urisdiction
only in a suit filed %y one wo is a real party in interest.
ECuity is in&o4ed only wen te plaintiff, on te %asis of
te action filed and te relief sou!t, as a clear ri!t tat
e see4s to enforce, or tat would o%&iously %e &iolated if
te action filed were to %e dismissed for lac4 of standin!.
:ere te plaintiff as no clear enforcea%le ri!t, since is
claim in te case is merely incoate and uncertain, eCuity
9urisdiction cannot %e in&o4ed, muc less e=ercised.
tate t$e 3urisdiction of t$e CO"R% OG 5PPE5L!
Te 9urisdiction of te court of appeals may %e di&ided
into;
a2 E=clusi&e Ori!inal 5urisdiction; "ctions for
annulment of 9ud!ment of Re!ional Trial #ourts<
%2 Ori!inal 5urisdiction; Re!ardin! te issuance of
writs of mandamus, certiorari, a%eas corpus or
Cuo warranto and oter ancillary writs or processes
weter in aid of its appellate 9urisdiction or not<
c2 E=clusi&e "ppellate 5urisdiction; O&er all final
9ud!ments, decisions or resolutions, order or
awards of RT# 1ordinary appeals2 and petitions for
re&iew 1RT# decided a case appealed to it2 and
Cuasi?9udicial %odies, a!encies, instrumentalities,
%oards or commissions 1%rou!t on ordinary
appeal2. 3 SE#, SS#, E##, etc. e=cept tose
fallin! witin te e=clusi&e appellate 9urisdiction of
te S#.
tate t$e 3urisdiction of t$e 5DD;65D#5K5D
It is a court created pursuant to te #onstitution %ut is not
considered a constitutional court. It is a trial court a&in!
te same le&el as tat of te #ourt of "ppeals and its
decisions, weter rendered in te e=ercise of its ori!inal
or appellate 9urisdiction, are directly appeala%le to te
Supreme #ourt.
Te Sandi!an%ayan sall also a&e te power ear and
decide cases in&ol&in!;
a2 Violations of R" +/-. as amended %y R" -+0.<
%2 #rimes committed %y pu%lic officers and employees
includin! tose employed in 'O##, weter simple
or comple= wit oter crimes<
c2 Oter crimes or offenses committed %y pu%lic
officers or employees includin! tose in 'O## in
relation to teir official functions.
($at is t$e nature of t$e 3urisdiction of t$e
andiganbayan)
Te 9urisdiction of te Sandi!an%ayan is ori!inal and
e=clusi&e if te offense car!ed is punisa%le %y penalty
i!er tan prision correccional or its eCui&alent. :ere a
pu%lic officer is car!ed wit pri&ate indi&iduals in
wate&er de!ree of participation, te accused sall %e
9ointly tried.
4ay t$e civil liability arising from t$e offense
cognizable by t$e andiganbayan be validly t$e
sub3ect of a separate civil action)
Te answer is no. "ny ci&il action filed aead and
separately from te criminal action sall %e transferred to
te Sandi!an%ayan.
($at is t$e nature 3urisdiction of t$e andiganbayan
over offenses and felonies)
Te Sandi!an%ayan as 9urisdiction o&er all offenses,
weter simple or comple= wit oter crimes, committed
%y pu%lic officers or employees mentioned in Sec. 6, R"
0.0(, as amended %y R" )*6. in relation to teir office,
were te accused olds a position wit salary !rade *0
and i!er under te #ompensation #lassification "ct of
-.).. 1Cuyco vs! 5DD;65D#5K5D L9+8B.B, Geb! +*,
2.../!
By implication pu%lic officers and employees accused of
similar offenses or felonies tat carry a salary !rade lower
tan !rade *0 sall %e tried %y te Re!ional Trial #ourts.
Tis means tat it is te salary !rade and not te actual
salary recei&ed %y te pu%lic officers weter local or
national tat determines te 9urisdiction of te
Sandi!an%ayan. 1Llorente vs! 5DD;65D#5K5D! L9
+222=B ?an! +=, 2...> see also Layus vs! #, Dec!
*,+===/
Does t$e andiganbayan $ave 3urisdiction over civil
and criminal cases involving ill9gotten wealt$)
Te answer is Yes. Te 9urisdiction of te Sandi!an%ayan
includes all ci&il and criminal cases filed pursuant of E.O J
-,*,-6 and -6?" re!ardin! ill?!otten wealt. Te ci&il cases
related to ill?!otten wealt eard, tried and decided %y te
Re!ional Trial #ourts may %e annulled %y te
Sandi!an%ayan. 1PC66 vs! andiganbayan, L9+82B8*,
Geb! 28, 2...> see also 4C vs! #, ept! +-, 2.../
4ay t$e andiganbayan $ave 3urisdiction to issue
writs of pro$ibition, mandamus, in3unction, certiorari
or $abeas corpus)
Te answer is yes. $ursuant to te pro&isions of R" 0.0(,
te Sandi!an%ayan is empowered to issue writs of
mandamus, proi%ition, certiorari, a%eas corpus,
in9unction and oter ancillary writs and processes in aid of
its appellate 9urisdiction. 15bbot vs! 4apayo ?ul! ,, 2...>
5larilla vs! #, 5ugust 22, 2...,
Te case of *arcia vs. &andiganbayan, earlier decided %y
te Supreme #ourt, is deemed a%andoned. In te said
case te S# ruled tat te Sandi!an%ayan did not a&e
suc a 9urisdiction.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
($at is t$e 3urisdiction of t$e Regional %rial Courts in
civil cases9
Te re!ional trial courts sall a&e ori!inal e=clusi&e
9urisdiction o&er all ci&il cases;
a2 Te su%9ect matter in liti!ation is not capa%le of
pecuniary estimation. 1e.!. annulment of or
rescission of contracts, de Leon &s. #", Darc 7,
-..0<
%2 :ic in&ol&e te title to or possession of real
property or any interest terein were te assessed
&alue of te property in&ol&ed e=ceeds */, ///< or
suc 4inds of ci&il actions in Detro?Danila te &alue
must %e o&er (/,///<
c2 "ctions in admiralty and maritime 9urisdiction were
te &alue in contro&ersy e=ceeds +//,/// or in
Detro?Danila 6//,///<
d2 $ro%ate 1testate or intestate2 were te !ross &alue
of te estate e=ceeds +//,/// or in Detro?Danila?
6//,///<
e2 #ases not witin te 9urisdiction of any court,
tri%unal, person or %ody e=ercisin! 9urisdiction of
any court, tri%unal, person or %ody e=ercisin!
9udicial or Cuasi?9udicial functions<
f2 "ll oter cases in wic te demand, e=clusi&e of
interest, dama!es or wate&er 4ind, attorneyEs fees,
liti!ation e=penses and costs or te &alue of te
property in contro&ersy e=ceeds +//,/// or in
metro?manila 6//,///<
Do actions involving contract of marriage and marital
relations fall wit$in t$e 3urisdiction of t$e Regional
%rial Courts)
Te answer would seem to %e in te ne!ati&e. Under te
present rules actions in&ol&in! contract of marria!e and
marital relations now fall witin te 9urisdiction of te
Kamily #ourts. Te rules pro&ide tat ci&il actions and
special proceedin!s fallin! witin te e=clusi&e ori!inal
9urisdiction of te 58R# now fall witin te 9urisdiction of
te Kamily #ourts.
($at ot$er cases fall wit$in t$e 3urisdiction of t$e
regional trial courts)
Te re!ional trial courts may also e=ercise ori!inal
9urisdiction in cases in&ol&in!;
a2 Issuance of writs of certiorari, proi%ition,
mandamus, a%eas corpus and in9unction wic
may %e enforced in any part of teir respecti&e
re!ions<
%2 "ctions affectin! am%assadors and oter pu%lic
ministers and consuls.
($at criminal cases fall wit$in t$e e&clusive original
3urisdiction of t$e regional trial courts)
Te re!ional trial courts sall e=ercise e=clusi&e ori!inal
9urisdiction o&er all #riminal actions not fallin! witin te
e=clusi&e 9urisdiction of any court, tri%unal or %ody, e=cept
tose now fallin! under te e=clusi&e and concurrent
9urisdiction of te Sandi!an%ayan.
($at is t$e appellate 3urisdiction of t$e regional trial
courts)
It sall e=ercise appellate 9urisdiction o&er all cases
decided %y te DT# in teir respecti&e territorial
9urisdiction. Te decision of te RT# sall %e su%9ect to
re&iew %y te #".
($at is t$e so9called Hpecial ?urisdictionI of
regional trial courts)
Te S# may desi!nate certain RT# to andle e=clusi&ely
criminal cases, 9u&enile case, "!rarian cases, ur%an land
reform cases wic do not fall under te 9urisdiction of
Cuasi?9udicial %odies and a!encies and suc oter cases
determined %y te S# in te interest of speedy and
efficient administration of 9ustice.
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
1Kirst Le&el #ourts?<TC, <ET(+<TC,<CTC:
tate t$e 3urisdiction of t$e municipal trial courts or
t$e so9called first level courts!
Te municipal trial courts or first le&el courts e=ercise
9urisdiction o&er te followin! cases, to wit;
a, Cri-ina& action:
a.23 "ll &iolations of city or municipal ordinances
committed witin teir respecti&e territorial
9urisdiction.
a.#3 O&er all offenses punisa%le wit imprisonment
not e=ceedin! 7 years irrespecti&e of te amount of
fine, and re!ardless of oter imposa%le accessory or
oter penalties includin! ci&il lia%ility arisin! from
suc offense.
a.$3 O&er all rec4less imprudence cases irrespecti&e
of te amount of dama!e in&ol&ed.
a.'3 Violations of Batas $am%ansa Bl!. **
re!ardless of te imposa%le fine.
1, Civi& action<
1.23 #i&il actions and pro%ate proceedin!s 1testate
or intestate2 includin! te !rant of pro&isional
remedies were te &alue of te property, estate or
te amount of te dama!e does not e=ceed +//,///
or in metro?Danila 6//,/// e=clusi&e of te interest
or dama!es<
1.#3 #ases of forci%le entry and unlawful detainer<
1.$3 "ll oter ci&il actions wic in&ol&e title to or
possession of, real property or any interest terein
were te assessed &alue of te property or interest
terein does not e=ceed */,/// or in metro?manila
does no e=ceed (/,///.
($at is t$e so9called HDelegated ?urisdictionI of t$e
first level courts)2
Te so?called Adele!ated 9urisdiction of te first le&el
courts refers to teir power to;
a2 Gear and determine cadastral or land re!istration
cases co&erin! lots were tere is no contro&ersy
or opposition<
%2 Gear and determine cadastral or land re!istration
cases concernin! contested lots te &alue of wic
does not e=ceed -//,///. 1Note tat te decisions
rendered in tese cases sall %e appealed to te
RT#
($at is t$e so9called Hpecial ?urisdictionI of t$e first
level courts) 2
Te so?called Aspecial 9urisdictionB refers to teir power to;
a2 Gear and decide petitions for writ of a%eas corpus<
%2 "pplications for %ail. 1Tis can %e e=ercised only in
te a%sence of te RT#2
($at is t$e 3urisdictional test in real actions)
#i&il affectin! title to, or possession, of real property, or
interest terein is %ased on te aeed va&4e of te
property su%9ect matter of te case. If te real property
as not %een assessed ten te &alue sall %e %ased on
te assessed &alue of ad9acent properties. If te ad9acent
properties a&e not %een assessed, te "ssessor sould
%e as4ed to ma4e te proper assessment.
($at is t$e 3urisdictional test in personal actions)
Under te law, only te %asic claim of te plaintiff
furnises te 9urisdictional test. 8ama!es of wate&er
4ind, attorneyEs fees, liti!ation e=penses, interest and
costs are all e=cluded as %asis for determinin! te
9urisdictional amount of te court.
<ow do we determine t$e 3urisdiction of t$e court in
personal actions) ;llustrate!
Te determination is a two?step process. Kirst, tere must
%e a determination of te main cause of action. If te main
cause of action is not for reco&ery of dama!es, ten te
9urisdiction sould %e determined on te %asis of te
su%9ect matter or nature of te action. Te dama!es will
merely %e incidental to or a conseCuence of te main
cause of action. Te total amount of suc dama!es will %e
immaterial. 1RA 5672? states tat dama!es of wate&er
4ind is e=cluded in te determination of te 9urisdiction of
te court were tey are merely incidental to or
conseCuence of te main cause of action.2
Gowe&er, in cases were te claim of dama!es is te
main cause of action, one of te causes of action, te
amount of suc claim sall %e considered in determinin!
te 9urisdiction of te court.
($at $appens w$en t$e main cause of action falls
wit$in t$e 3urisdiction of t$e first level courts)
If te main cause of action falls witin te co!ni>ance of
te first le&el courts, ten all te 9oined causes of action,
assumin! tere is proper 9oinder, sould %e included in
one complaint to %e filed in te first le&el courts.
But, if te main cause of action is co!ni>a%le %y te RT#,
ten te incidental or ancillary causes sould follow te
main cause of action and sould %e filed in te same RT#
to a&oid multiplicity of suits and splittin! sin!le cause of
action.
($at $appens w$en t$ere is a valid 3oinder of causes
of action, some of w$ic$ fall wit$in t$e cognizance of
t$e first level courts and t$e ot$ers fall wit$in t$e
cognizance of t$e regional trial courts)
Te se&eral claims or causes of action tus 9oined,
weter %etween te same or different parties em%odied
in te same complaint, te amount of demand sall %e te
totality of all te claims in all te causes of action,
irrespecti&e of weter te cause of action arose out of te
same or different transactions.1Sec. ++, B$ -*.2 Note
owe&er, tat in cases of 9oinder of causes of action,
tere must %e proper 9oinder of parties.
uppose t$at in a complaint filed wit$ t$e 4%C, t$e
defendant files a motion to dismiss on t$e ground of
lac0 of 3urisdiction over t$e sub3ect matter and t$e
motion is granted! %$e plaintiff appeals t$e order of
dismissal to t$e R%C, can t$e R%C dismiss t$e case
on t$e ground t$at t$e 4%C did not $ave original
3urisdiction over t$e case and t$erefore it cannot
e&ercise appellate 3urisdiction)
It is su%mitted tat te answer is NO! ection *, Rule -.,
mandates tat te RT# sould e=ercise its ori!inal
9urisdiction o&er te case. In suc a case, te RT# sall
try te case on te merits as if te case was ori!inally filed
wit it. It re&erses te order< te case must %e remanded
to te court of ori!in
In instances were te case was tried on te merits %y te
DT# in spite of te fact tat it ad no 9urisdiction, te RT#
may try te case as if it ad ori!inal 9urisdiction o&er te
case. 1ec!*, Rule -.2
;s t$e payment of filing fee a ground for dismissal of
a case based on lac0 of 3urisdiction)
Te answer is !enerally No. $ursuant to decisions of te
S#, te courts may not ta4e any action on a case filed
were te filin! fee as not %een paid. But it does not
mean tat te court lac4s 9urisdiction.1 4egaspi vs!
Ramolete ++7 CR5 +=8> 4anc$ester vs! C5 +-= CR
7,2 and uns ;nsurance vs! 5suncion 1Geb! +8, +=*=/
;s t$e payment of filing fee reFuired wit$ regard to
counterclaims)
$ursuant to new "dm. #ircular of te S# tat too4 effect
"u!ust -(, *//6, te answer would seem to %e yes.
($at are t$e rules to be followed regarding t$e
payment of filing fees)
Kollowin! te rulin!s of te Supreme #ourt in te a%o&e?
cited case and "dm. #ircular, te followin! appear to %e
te applica%le rules, to wit;
a2 :ere te initiatory pleadin! is not accompanied %y
te payment of te doc4et fee, te court may allow
te payment of te fee witin a reasona%le period
%ut in no case %eyond te applica%le prescripti&e
period. 1uns ;nsurance vs! 5suncion 1Geb! +8,
+=*=/
%2 Te rule applies to all 4inds of counter?claims, tird?
party complaints and similar pleadin!s.
c2 :ere te court acCuires 9urisdiction o&er te case
%y te payment of te appropriate filin! fee %ut
su%seCuently te 9ud!ment awards a claim not
specified in te complaint, or te determination of
wic was left to te discretion of te court, te
additional filin! fee must %e paid tereafter or tat
te same may%e considered as a first lien on te
9ud!ment 14aerc0s vs! C5 ?uly 2., +==.:.
THE RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
($at actions fall wit$in t$e coverage of t$e Rules on
ummary Procedure)'
Te followin! actions fall witin te co&era!e of te Rules
on Summary $rocedure, to wit;
2, Civi& Action invo&vin.:
Korci%le entry and unlawful detainer cases,
irrespecti&e of te amount of dama!es or unpaid
rentals, and oter claims related to te main
case. 1%ugot vs! Coliflores, 54 Do! 4%?9..9
+882, Geb! +,, 2..-> LR vs! C5, L9+2.,B, Oct!
+,, 2.../>
Oter ci&il cases, e=cept pro%ate proceedin!s
were te total amount of te plaintiffEs claim
does not e=ceed $p-//,/// e=clusi&e of
interest and costs.
#, Cri-ina& Action:
Violation of traffic laws, rules and re!ulations<
Violation of te Rental Law<
Violation of city or municipal ordinances<
Oter criminal actions were te penalty
prescri%ed %y law does not e=ceed imprisonment
of si= monts or fine of $-,///<
($at are t$e Pleadings allowed by t$e rules on
summary procedure)
Only te followin! &erified pleadin!s are allowed %y te
said rules;
-. #omplaint<
*. #ompulsory counterclaims<
+. #ross claims< and
6. "nswer
($at options does t$e court $ave upon t$e filing of a
complaint covered by t$e rules on summary
procedure)
Upon te filin! of a complaint, te court may opt;
To dismiss te case on any of te !rounds for
dismissin! a ci&il action 1Rule -7 and under oter
rules2< or
Issue te correspondin! summons if none of te
!rounds for motion to dismiss is applica%le.
($at follows after service of summons $as been
validly made)
"fter a &alid ser&ice of summons te defendant must file
is answer witin -/ days from receipt of te summons.
Te answer must em%ody all te defendantEs defenses
1affirmati&e and ne!ati&e2< counterclaims or cross?claims.
Kailure on te part of te defendant to include suc
alle!ations would %e deemed a wai&er on is part.
1Omnibus motion rule2 Te only e=ception to tis rule is
wen te !round not included is lac4 of 9urisdiction o&er
te su%9ect matter wic, cannot %e wai&ed %ut may %e
%arred %y laces or estoppel. 1%i3am vs! ibung$anoy,
supra:."fter te filin! of te answer, te court sall set te
case for preliminary conference or may refer te case for
ar%itration 158R2.
($at is t$e effect if t$e defendant fails to file an
answer wit$in t$e prescribed period)
Kailure on te part of te defendant to file an answer
witin te period prescri%ed %y te rules sall empower
te court motu proprio or upon motion of te plaintiff to
render a 9ud!ment %ased on te complaint 1ec! ,/ and
as warranted %y te facts 1ordan vs! ?udge de
6uzman, Oct! 7, 2.../.
4ay t$e defendant or any party for t$at matter be
allowed to file any motion to e&tend t$e period for
filing t$e answer)
Te rules specifically proi%it te filin! of any motion for
e=tension of te periods prescri%ed or fi=ed in te order of
te court. 1ec! +=> :illanueva vs! EstoFue Dov! 2=,
2.../
($at is t$e effect of a partyMs failure to appear during
t$e preliminary conference)
"fter te last pleadin! as %een filed, te preliminary
conference sall %e set not later tan +/ days from te
filin! of said pleadin!. 1ec! B R2 If te Plaintiff fails to
appear, te court may order te dismissal of te
complaint< and if it is te !efendant wo fails to appear,
te plaintiff may o%tain 9ud!ment as if no answer was filed.
5re t$ere pleadings t$at are not allowed under t$e
rules on summary procedure)
Yes, tere are pleadin!s tat are not allowed under te
rules, tey are te followin!; 1ec! +=/
a2 Dotion to 8ismiss< Dotion to Iuas< 1E&ception'
:en te !round for te motion is lac4 of
9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter or offense< or
failure to comply wit a condition precedent, 1e.!.
R" 0-7/<
%2 Dotion for Bill of $articulars<
c2 $etition for Relief from 5ud!ment<
d2 Dotion for E=tension of time to plead or file
pleadin!s<
e2 Demorandum<
f2 $etitions for certiorari, proi%ition or mandamus<
!2 Dotion for 8eclaration of 8efault<
2 Dotion for $ostponement intended for delay<
i2 Reply<
92 +
rd
$arty, 6
t
party etc. complaint<
42 Inter&entions.
($en are t$e rules on summary procedure not
applicable)
Te said rules do not apply to te followin!;
-. #i&il cases were te plaintiffs cause of action is
pleaded in te complaint wit anoter cause of
action tat is !o&erned %y te ordinary rules of
procedure<
*. #riminal cases were te offense car!ed is
necessarily related to anoter criminal case su%9ect
to ordinary procedure.
Does t$e rule on waiver of defenses and ob3ections
under ec! +, Rule =, +==B Rules of Civil Procedure
apply to cases governed by t$e rules on summary
procedure)
Te answer is no. te Supreme #ourt eld tat te said
rule does not also apply suppletorily or directly to cases
!o&erned %y te rules on summary procedure. :at
!o&erns is ec! - of t$e +==+ Re&ised Rules on Summary
$rocedure were te trial court is at li%erty to ta4e notice
of te !rounds for te dismissal of a ci&il action tat are
apparent from te case alon! wit te e&idence su%mitted
terein. Under tis pro&ision and e=cept for ne!ati&e and
affirmati&e defenses not raised in te answer were an
answer as %een filed, te trial court under summary
procedure is empowered to dismiss te complaint upon
!rounds adduced in te respecti&e position papers of te
parties as was done in te instant case. 1Ong, vs! C 5
6!R! Do! +--7*+, ?uly 7, 2..2/
uppose a complaint asserts a common cause of
action against several defendants, some answer and
t$e ot$ers fail to answer, will ection , apply)
Te answer is no. In instances were tere are se&eral
defendants, some of wo appear or answer and te oters
do not, ec! 8, Rule = of te re!ular rules of procedure
sall apply. In wic case te court sall try te case
a!ainst all upon te answers tus filed and renders
9ud!ment upon te e&idence presented.
%$e plaintiff failed to appear during t$e preliminary
conference, t$e court ordered t$e dismissal of t$e
case on t$e ground of suc$ non9appearance! 4ay t$e
plaintiff validly file a motion for reconsideration of t$e
order of dismissal)
Te answer is yes. Te rule re!ardin! te proi%ition of
te filin! of a motion for reconsideration in cases !o&erned
%y te rules on summary procedure applies only in
circumstances were te court as rendered a 9ud!ment
on te merits of te case. Te Supreme #ourt eld;
?The motion prohibited by this &ection is that hich see)s
reconsideration of the 'udgment rendered by the court
after trial on the merits of the case.? 7Joven v. Court of
$ppeals, >/> &C($ @11, @1@A@1. ;/00>:8 "ere, the order
of dismissal issued by respondent 'udge due to failure of a
party to appear during the preliminary conference is
obviously not a 'udgment on the merits after trial of the
case. "ence, a motion for the reconsideration of such
order is not the prohibited pleading contemplated under
&ection /0 ;c: of the present (ule on &ummary
Procedure.31Lucas vs! Gabros, ?an! 8+, 2.../
($at actions are governed by t$e Rules on Civil
Procedure) 5ctions not governed)
Te rules on ci&il procedure !o&ern te followin!;
Civi& action wic is defined as an action were%y
a party sues anoter for te enforcement or
protection of a ri!t, or te pre&ention or redress of
a wron! FSec. +a Rule -H it may eiter %e ordinary
or special and are !o&erned %y te rules for
ordinary ci&il actions. 1i%id.2
Cri-ina& action are defined as an action %y wic
te state prosecutes a person for an act or
omission punisa%le %y law. FSec. +%, Rule -H
Specia& Proceedin. are defined as remedies %y
wic a party see4s to esta%lis a status, a ri!t or
a particular fact.FSec. +c, Rule -H.
Te followin! cases are not co&ered or !o&erned %y te
rules; ;Rule +-8 and ec! -, Rule +/
a2 Election cases<
%2 Land Re!istration #ases<
c2 #adastral #ases<
d2 Insol&ency proceedin!s<
e2 Oter cases e=cluded from te rules. Note
owe&er, tat were te law !o&ernin! said cases
does not pro&ide for specific rules of procedure te
rules of court sall %e made to apply only in a
suppletory caracter.
ACTIONS IN GENERAL
($at is an action)
"n action is an ordinary suit in a court of 9ustice %y wic
one party prosecutes anoter for te enforcement or
protection of a ri!t, or te pre&ention or redress of a
wron!. (De 6uzman vs! C5, +=2 CR5 7.> Note also
tat tis definition was te definition in Sec. -. Rule *
%efore te amendment of te -.76 Rules of #ourt2
($at is t$e distinction between an 5ction and pecial
Proceeding)
Te terms may %e distin!uised in tis wise; "n action
reCuires te filin! of formal pleadin!s wile in special
proceedin!s relief may %e o%tained %y mere application or
petition.

"n action reCuires two or more definite and particular
ad&erse parties wo are eiter called te plaintiff or
defendant, wereas in special proceedin!s, tere is a
definite petitioner %ut tere is no definite ad&erse party, as
te proceedin! is usually considered a!ainst te wole
world. ;in rem:
Classify Civil 5ctions!
#i&il actions may %e classified as follows;
a2 5s to nature; Under te class, a ci&il action may %e
ordinary or special. E=amples of special ci&il
actions are tose for Bnterpleader,; Rules ,2 to B+2
"ll oter ci&il actions are considered ordinary ci&il
actions.
%2 5s to cause or foundation; Under tis class, a
ci&il action may %e rea&" perona& or -ixed. Rea&
action are tose founded on te pri&ity of real
estate, suc as action affectin! title to or
possession of, or for partition or condemnation of,
or foreclosure on, real property. Personal actions
are tose founded on te pri&ity of contract or on
Cuasi?delict, suc as actions for reco&ery of sum of
money, or dama!es, for te enforcement or
resolution of a contract, or for reco&ery of personal
property. 1Read 5rt! -+7 DCC2 "nd mi&ed actions
are tose pertainin! in some de!ree to %ot real
and personal and, terefore are properly reducti%le
to neiter or te earlier classification, %ein! %rou!t
for te specific reco&ery of land and for dama!es
sustained in respect to suc land.
c2 5s to ob3ect2 "ctions may %e in perona-" in re-
or 84ai in re-. :en te purpose of te suit is to
esta%lis a claim !enerally a!ainst a particular
person wit a 9ud!ment, wic %inds is person or
to %ar some indi&idual claim or o%9ection, so tat
te 9ud!ment will only %indin! a!ainst suc person,
te action is in personam 16omez vs! C5, 6!R!
Do! +2B,=2, 4arc$ +., 2..-/. If te main purpose
of te suit is to %ar indifferently all wo mi!t %e
similarly minded or if any one in te world as, a
ri!t to %e eard on te stren!t of alle!in! facts,
wic, if true, sow an inconsistent interest, te
proceedin!, is in rem. If te main purpose of te
proceedin! is to su%9ect te property of te
defendant to te o%li!ation or lien, te action is
Fuasi in rem.
5re t$ere ot$er classifications t$an t$ose already
discussed)
5ccion $ipotecaria is a real action to foreclose a
lien or mort!a!e on real property.
5ccion ;nterdictal is an action for unlawful
detainer or forci%le entry %rou!t for te purpose of
recoverin. act4a& poeion o9 rea& propert0.
Te term was %rou!t a%out in a S# case? ?4
%uazon vs! :illanueva, ept! 8., +=7*!
5ccion Publiciana is an action to recover t%e
ri.%t o9 poeion over rea& propert0 were
depri&ation of possession as e=ceeded one year.
1?4 %uazon, ept! 8., +=7*/ It is te plenary
action for te reco&ery of possession wen
dispossession was effected %y means oter tan
tose mentioned in Rule 0/. Te plenary action
may %e %rou!t eiter in te DT# or RT#
dependin! on te assessed &alue of te real
property in&ol&ed.
5ccion reinvidicacion is an action to recover
owner%ip o9 rea& propert0 includin! reco&ery of
possession. It may also %e filed in te DT# or RT#
dependin! on te assessed &alue of te property in
liti!ation.
($at determines t$e nature of an action)
Te nature of te action is determined %y te alle!ations
of te complaint and not te relief demanded, in certain
cases, te relief demanded may elp in te determination
of te action.
($at is meant by t$e term Hub3ect matter of t$e
action)
Te prase Hsub3ect matter of t$e actionI means te
pysical facts, te tin!s, real or personal, te money,
land and cattels, and te li4e, in relation to wic a suit is
prosecuted. In sort, it refers to te tin! or o%9ect in
dispute.
tate t$e basis and meaning of a cause of action)
E&ery action must %e %ased on a cause of action or te
act or omission %y wic a party &iolates te ri!ts or
anoter 1ec!+, Rule 2/!
Te term cause of action is te delict or wron! %y wic
te defendant &iolates te ri!t or ri!ts of te plaintiff.
1Davao Lig$t vs! Osabel, et al! 6!R! Do! +-B.7*, 4arc$
+., 2..,, Note; Tis would also answer te Cuestion wat
is te %asis of an action.2
tate t$e basic elements of a cause of actionL
Te tree 1+2 %asic or essential elements of a cause of
action are;
-. ri!t pertainin! to te plaintiff<
*. correlati&e o%li!ation of te defendant to respect or
not to &iolate suc ri!t<
+. &iolation of te said ri!t %y te defendant in
&iolation of is o%li!ation< and
8ama!es suffered %y te plaintiff as a conseCuence of te
&iolation. 14elc$or vs! 4elc$or, 6!R! Do! +7.,88, Dov!
+8, 2..8/
tate t$e basic distinctions between a Cause of
5ction and a Rig$t of 5ction!
Te %asic distinctions are;
1a2 Cause of action refers to te act or omission
committed %y te defendant, wereas rig$t of
action refers to te ri!t of te plaintiff to institute
te action<
1%2 Cause of action is determined %y te pleadin!s,
wereas rig$t of action is determined %y te
su%stanti&e law< and
1c2 Rig$t of action may %e ta4en away %y te runnin!
of te statute of limitations, %y estoppel or oter
circumstances wic do not affect at all te cause
of action.
($at is t$e %est of sufficiency of facts constituting
e&istence of a cause of action)
Te test of te sufficiency of te facts to constitute a cause
of action is weter admittin! te facts alle!ed in te
complaint, te court could render a &alid 9ud!ment in
accordance wit te prayer of te complaint. Te court in
resol&in! te issue must only consider te facts asserted
in te complaint witout modification altou! wit
reasona%le inference tere from!1Davao Lig$t vs!
Osabel, et al! 6!R! Do! +-B.7*, 4arc$ +., 2..,:
($at is splitting a single cause of action)
It is te act of a party di&idin! a sin!le cause of action into
different parts and ma4in! eac part te su%9ect of a
separate complaint.
tate t$e rule on splitting a single cause of action!
tate t$e purpose of t$e rule!
"s a !eneral rule a person may only file one suit from a
sin!le cause of action. 1ec! 8, Rule 2/ It comes from tat
old ma=im??? Anemo de%et %is &e=are pro una et eadem
causaB1no man s$all be twice ve&ed for one and t$e
same cause!/ 1E& parte Lange, +* (all +,8, +,*> 2+
Law Ed *B2> "!! vs! %$roc0morton, =* "!! ,+> 27
Law Ed! =8/. Te rule is on te principles of pu%lic policy
to pre&ent incon&enience and ardsip incident to
repeated and unnecessary liti!ations. 1City of #acolod
vs! an 4iguel #rewery October 8., +=,=/ Te purpose
of te rule a!ainst splittin! a cause of action isM
to pre&ent repeated liti!ation %etween te same
parties in re!ard to te same su%9ect of
contro&ersy< to protect defendant from
unnecessary &e=ation< and
to a&oid te costs and e=penses incident to
numerous suits1+ C!?! ++.B/
tate t$e test for determining w$et$er or not a cause
of action is single or not!
Test for determining hether a cause of action is single;
Te rule a!ainst splittin! cause of action depends upon
weter te wron! for wic redress is sou!t is te same
in %ot actions.

<ow do we apply t$e above test to beac$es of
contracts or agreements)
:ere tere are separate and distinct contracts,
a!reements or transactions %etween te plaintiff and te
defendant, a &iolation of eac contract or transaction
constitutes a separate cause of action.
" sin!le contract pro&idin! for se&eral o%li!ations to %e
performed at different times, !i&es rise to a sin!le and
independent cause of action for eac o%li!ation tat is not
performed at te proper time.
If se&eral o%li!ations a&e already matured all of tem
sall %e considered as inte!ratin! a sin!le cause of action
and must all %e included in te complaint. Tose tat are
not included are %arred fore&er. In fine, were no action is
%rou!t until more tan one is due, all tat are due must
%e included in one action<
If an action is %rou!t to reco&er upon one or more tat
are due %ut not upon all tat are due, a reco&ery in suc
action will %e a %ar to a se&eral or oter actions %rou!t to
reco&er one or more claims of te oter claims tat were
due at te time te first action was %rou!t.1#P; G54;LK
5:;D6 #5DL, ;DC! vs! COCOLL"EL5, 6!R! Do!
+,BB2-, 2.., ?un 2B/

" contract a&in! an acceleration clause, tat is, wen te
failure to comply wit one of se&eral stipulations in a
continuin! contract constitutes a total %reac, a sin!le
cause of action arises from te %reac. 1#lossoms vs!
4anila 6as 77 P$il! =28/
uppose t$e contract of loan is secured by mortgage,
in case of breac$ may t$e creditor9mortgagee file two
simultaneous or cumulatively separate actions of
specific performance and foreclosure of mortgage)
Te answer is NO. In te a%sence of e=press statutory
pro&isions, a mort!a!ee?creditor may institute a!ainst te
mort!a!e de%tor eiter a personal action for de%t or a real
action to foreclose te mort!a!e. In oter words, e may
pursue eiter of te two remedies, %ut not %ot. 1#P;
G54;LK 5:;D6 #5DL, ;DC! vs! COCOLL"EL5,
6!R! Do! +,BB2-, 2.., ?un 2B/
($at is t$e effect of t$e election made by t$e
mortgagee9creditor to pursue a cause of action)
By suc election, is cause of action can %y no means %e
impaired, for eac of te two remedies is complete in
itself. Tus, an election to %rin! a personal action will
lea&e open to im all te properties of te de%tor for
attacment and e=ecution, e&en includin! te mort!a!ed
property itself. "nd, if e wai&es suc personal action and
pursues is remedy a!ainst te mort!a!ed property, an
unsatisfied 9ud!ment tereon would still !i&e im te ri!t
to sue for a deficiency 9ud!ment, in wic case, all te
properties of te defendant, oter tan te mort!a!ed
property, are a!ain open to im for te satisfaction of te
deficiency. In eiter case, is remedy is complete, is
cause of action undiminised, and any ad&anta!es
attendant to te pursuit of one or te oter remedy are
purely accidental and are all under is ri!t of election.
1#P; vs! Coscolluela, 6!R! Do! +,BB2-, 2.., ?un 2B/
($at is t$e effect if a rule would allow t$e plaintiff to
pursue bot$ actions simultaneously or successively)
" rule tat would autori>e te plaintiff to %rin! a personal
action a!ainst te de%tor and simultaneously or
successi&ely anoter action a!ainst te mort!a!ed
property, would result not only in multiplicity of suits so
offensi&e to 9ustice 1Soriano &. EnriCues, *6 $il. ()62 and
o%no=ious to law and eCuity 1Osorio &. San "!ustin, *(
$il. 6/62, %ut also in su%9ectin! te defendant to te
&e=ation of %ein! sued in te place of is residence or of
te residence of te plaintiff, and ten a!ain in te place
were te property lies.1 1#P; vs! Coscolluela, 6!R! Do!
+,BB2-, 2.., ?un 2B/
($at is t$e remedy against splitting a single cause of
action)
Te defendant may mo&e to dismiss te case on te
!round of litis pendencia, if te complaints are still pendin!
1ec! +c, Rule +,: or on te !round of res 'udicata, if te
first case as %een terminated %y final 9ud!ment 1ec! +f,
Rule +,/!
:ere a party mo&es to dismiss on te !round of litis
pendencia, te followin! reCuisites must %e present;
a2 Identity of parties or at least suc as representin!
te same interest in %ot actions<
%2 Identity of ri!ts asserted and relief prayed for,
te relief %ein! founded on te same facts< and
c2 Te identity in te two cases sould %e tat te
9ud!ment rendered in one would, re!ardless of
wic party is successful, amount to res 'udicata
in te oter. 1Dote' %$e 3udgment in one must
$ave become final and e&ecutory as
distinguis$ed from interlocutory, ;nvestment,
;nc! vs! C5 ?une 2B, +=*B:
($at is t$e Doctrine of Nlaw of t$e caseI)
Te doctrine simply means tat wate&er is once
irre&oca%ly esta%lised as te controllin! le!al rule or
decision %etween te same parties in te same case
continues to %e te law !o&ernin! te parties so lon! as
te facts on wic suc decision was predicated continue
to %e te facts of te case %efore te court. 14angoma
vs! C5 L9==8B7, Geb!+, +==7/
($at is t$e HDoctrine of res 3udicataI)
Te rule of res 'udicata, is also 4nown as N%ar %y prior
9ud!mentN. It means tat a final 9ud!ment or order on te
merits, rendered %y a #ourt a&in! 9urisdiction o&er te
su%9ect matter and of te parties, is conclusi&e in a
su%seCuent case %etween te same parties. Te 9ud!ment
also %inds teir successor?in?interest %y title su%seCuent to
te commencement of te action or special proceedin!,
liti!atin! for te same tin! and under te same title and in
te same capacity. Fee also ection -B 1b/ Rule 8=,
Rules of Court!C
($at are t$e reFuisites of res 3udicata)
Te reCuisites essential for te application of te principle
of res 9udicata are;
a2 tere must %e a final 9ud!ment or order<
%2 said 9ud!ment or order must %e on te merits<
c2 te #ourt renderin! te same must a&e
9urisdiction on te su%9ect matter and te parties<
and
d2 tere must %e %etween te two cases identity of
parties, identity of su%9ect matter, and identity of
causes of action. @EFuitable PC;# vs! C5, 6!R!
Do! +-877,, 4arc$ +,, 2..-C
($at is t$e concept of H;dentity of partiesI)
Identity of parties as an indispensa%le condition for te
e=istence of res 'udicata does not mean a%solute or total
identity of all te parties. Te inclusion of a new party in
te second action does not remo&e te case from te
operation of te doctrine if te party a!ainst wom te
9ud!ment is offered in e&idence was also te party in te
first action. Tis rule wards off te possi%ility of renewin!
liti!ation %etween te same parties %y te simple
e=pedient %rin!in! into te second action a new party.
15bines vs! #P;, 6!R! Do! +,B=.., 2.., Geb +8/ Te
doctrines of res 'udicata and litis pendencia are principles
sanctioned %y pu%lic policy in order tat multiplicity of suits
may %e a&oided.
tate t$e concept of ?oinder of causes of action!
5oinder of causes of action simply means tat a party may
assert, in one pleadin!, in te alternati&e or oterwise as
many causes of action as e may a&e a!ainst an
opposin! party su%9ect to te rules on &enue, 9urisdiction
and 9ointer of parties. Tere can %e no 9oinder of causes of
action to include special ci&il actions or actions !o&erned
%y special rules.
($at is t$e concept of Permissive 3oinder of parties)
$ermissi&e 9oinder of parties means tat all persons in
wom or a!ainst wom any ri!t to relief in respect to or
arisin! out of te same transaction or series of
transactions is alle!ed to e=ist, weter 9ointly, se&erally or
in te alternati&e, may, e=cept as oterwise pro&ided in
tese rules, 9oin as plaintiffs or %e 9oined as defendants in
one complaint, were any Cuestion of law or fact common
to all suc plaintiffs or to all suc defendants may arise in
te action, %ut te court may ma4e suc orders as may %e
9ust to pre&ent any plaintiff or defendant from %ein!
em%arrassed or put to e=pense in connection wit any
proceedin!s in wic e may a&e no interest 1Glores vs!
P$illipps, ept! 2-, +=*,/!
;n case of a valid 3oinder of parties w$at s$all be t$e
3urisdictional test)
In case of a &alid 9oinder of parties 1plaintiff or defendant2
te total of all te claims sall furnis te 9urisdictional test.
1Glores vs! P$illipps, ept! 2-, +=*,/!
uppose all t$e causes of action 3oined are principally
for sum of money w$at s$all be t$e 3urisdictional test)
:ere all te causes of action 9oined are principally for te
reco&ery of sum of money, te a!!re!ate amount claimed
sall %e te test of 9urisdiction. Te totality of te demand
in te suits for reco&ery of sums of money %etween te
same parties in te complaint constitutes te %asis of
9urisdiction and determines te 9urisdictional amount in ci&il
cases 1#ulig9#ulig vs! ulpicio Lines 4ay +=, +=*=/
($at is t$e effect if t$e parties decide not to be 3oined
in a single complaint)
If te parties decided not to %e 9oined in a sin!le
complaint, te 9urisdictional %asis sall %e te amounts in
eac of te separate complaints. 1#ulig9#ulig vs!
ulpicio Lines 4ay +=, +=*=/ Te ri!t of a party to
cause te 9oinder of causes of action is merely permissi&e.
It is not an o%li!atory rule. Te ri!t or pri&ile!e is &ested
in te plaintiff.
;s 4is3oinder of causes of action in one complaint a
ground for motion to dismiss)
Te answer is no. It is not a !round for motion to dismiss.
Te court may motu proprio order te separation of te
causes of action or on motion of a party. Tereafter te
court may proceed wit te trial of eac of te causes of
action separately. " mis9oinder nor a non?9oinder of parties
is a !round for dismissal of an action, %ecause parties
may %e dropped or added at any sta!e of te proceedin!s.
1ec! ,, Rule 2, Cabuti$an vs!Landcenter ;nc! 6!R! Do!
+-,7=-, 2..2/
<ow are civil actions commenced) ($at is t$e effect
of a valid commencement of action)
#i&il actions are deemed commenced %y te filin! of te
ori!inal complaint in court. If an additional defendant is
impleaded in a su%seCuent pleadin!, te action is deemed
commenced wit re!ard to te said party as of te date of
filin! of te latter pleadin!, irrespecti&e of weter te
motion is admitted or denied %y te court. ;ec! 7, Rule +/
Te filin! of te complaint interrupts te runnin! of te
period of prescription.
($at is t$e effect of t$e dismissed of t$e complaint
on t$e ground of t$e plaintiffMs failure to prosecute on
t$e running of t$e period of prescription)
Te effect is tat as if no complaint was filed and it would
re&ert %ac4 to tat time wen te complaint as not yet
%een filed.
($en is a complaint deemed filed)
" complaint is deemed filed only upon payment of te full
doc4et fee re!ardless of te actual date of filin! in court.
Te court acCuires 9urisdiction o&er te case only upon
payment of te full doc4et fee. It is not simply te filin! of
te complaint or appropriate initiatory pleadin! %ut te
payment of te prescri%ed fee, tat &est te trial court wit
9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect or nature of te action.
14anc$ester vs! C5 +-= CR5 7*8/ :ere te initiatory
pleadin! is not accompanied %y payment of te reCuired
doc4et fee, te court may, in its discretion, allow te
payment of te fee witin a reasona%le time %ut in no case
%eyond te applica%le prescripti&e or re!lementary period.
Te prescripti&e period sall mean te period of
prescription of te action. 1uns ;nsurance vs! 5suncion
+B. CR5 7,2> Dote also t$at t$e circular of t$e C
dated 5ugust +7, 2..- $as mandated t$e payment of
fees even in compulsory counterclaims/!
Recapitulation of t$e Rules of ?oinder of Causes of
5ction and ?oinder of Parties
In summary, 9oinder of causes of action is te unitin! of
two or more demands or ri!ts of action in one action, te
statement of more tan one cause of action in a
declaration. 1+ C? sec! ,+ p! ++*/!
It is te union of two or more ci&il causes of action, eac of
wic could %e made te %asis of a separate suit, in te
same complaint or petition. It is tat situation were a
plaintiff, under certain circumstances and limitations 9oin
se&eral distinct demands, contro&ersies or ri!ts of action
in one declaration, complaint or petition.
($at is t$en t$e nature of allowing t$e 3oinder of
causes of action)
5oinder of causes of action is merely permissi&e as tere
is no rule or law reCuirin! or compellin! a party to 9oin is
causes of action.
($at is t$e purpose of allowing 3oinder of causes of
action) <ow s$ould it be construed)
Te purpose of allowin! 9oinder of causes of action is to
a&oid multiplicity of suits. Te rule on 9oinder of causes of
action %ein! procedural in nature sould %e li%erally
construed to te end tat related contro&ersies %etween
te same parties may %e ad9udicated at one time.
1Grancisco on t$e Rule of Court/
($at is t$e effect of a Hno9action clauseI embodied in
a contract on t$e rules on 3oinder of causes of action)
" Ano?action clauseB em%odied in a contract cannot
supersede te rules on 9oinder of causes of action or
9oinder of parties wit respect to tird persons wo are not
parties to te contract. 16uingon vs! del 4onte 5ug! +B,
+=,B2
($o may be a party to a civil action)
Sec. -, Rule + pro&ides tat only natural or 9uridical
persons or entities autori>ed %y law may %e parties in a
ci&il action weter as party plaintiff or party defendant.
Datural Persons'
a2 Tose of le!al a!e and a&e capacity to act. 1"rt.
+0 N##2;
%2 Dinor or incompetent persons assisted %y teir
fater, moter, !uardian or if none, !uardian ad
litem<
c2 Dinors wo ad %een emancipated %y marria!e,
or %y &oluntary concession<
d2 Non?resident may sue or %e sued in te
$ilippines if it in&ol&es is personal status as
plaintiff or properties located in te $ilippines
1Sec. +, Rule 6, Sec. -(, Rule -62
?uridical Persons & Entities aut$orized by law
Te most common 9uridical persons reco!ni>ed %y law
and te rules tat may %e parties to ci&il actions are
corporations or!ani>ed under te #orporation #ode and
$artnersips or!ani>ed under te #i&il #ode.
($at entities are included in t$e term 3uridical
persons)
Te !eneral rule is to te effect tat tese 9uridical persons
must %e autori>ed %y law %efore tey can %e parties. Tis
autority emanates from te law autori>in! teir
e=istence. Te term 9uridical person includes te state and
its political su%di&isions includin! !o&ernment owned or
controlled corporations.
Oter 9uridical persons may also refer to;
2. 8uly re!istered la%or or!ani>ations<
#. Estate of 8eceased persons 1Estate of
deceased persons $as legal personality to sue
or be sued for purposes of settlement of t$e
estate and all matter related to suc$
proceedings regarding t$e estate of t$e
deceased!/
$. Korei!n #orporations in cases pro&ided for %y
law<
'. 'o&ernment entities e=ercisin! proprietary
functions<
(. 'o&ernment owned or controlled corporations<
6. Local !o&ernment Units<
5. $artnersips or!ani>ed 15rt! +B,B, +BB2/
Gor legal purposes as a party litigant wit$ w$at
government agency must t$e labor organization be
registered)
Te duly re!istered la%or or!ani>ation may refer to
re!istration wit te SE# and wit te 8OLE. Note
owe&er, tat for purposes of collecti&e %ar!ainin! and
oter matters relatin! to employer?employee relationsips,
te la%or or!ani>ation DUST %e re!istered wit te 8OLE.
4ay foreign corporations sue or be sued in t$e
P$ilippines)
Korei!n #orporations doin! %usiness in te $ilippines
under license or autority %y te proper !o&ernment entity
may sue or %e sued in te $ilippines. Unlicensed or not
duly autori>ed forei!n corporations tat do %usiness in
te $ilippines may %e sued %ut may not sue e=cept in
connection wit some isolated %usiness transactions or to
protect teir intellectual property ri!ts.
($at is t$e limitation on t$e suits against t$e tate)
Te state and its local political su%di&isions may %e parties
to ci&il actions. Note tat te state can only %e sued wit
its consent. Suc consent may %e !i&en impliedly or
e=pressly %y te state.
<ow may a mere association or group of persons sue
or be sued)
" mere association or !roup of persons a&in! no 9uridical
personality may not sue under suc association 1%ut te
mem%ers may sue indi&idually2. Tis rule may admit of
some e=ceptions, tat is, wen tey are sued in a class
suit 1we will discuss later2 or under te common name
tey a&e represented temsel&es.
($o is a real party9in9interest)
" real party in interest is a party wo would %e %enefited
or in9ured %y te 9ud!ment in a suit or is te party entitled
to te a&ails of te suit. It simply means tat te action
must %e %rou!t %y te person wo, %y su%stanti&e law,
possesses te ri!t sou!t to %e enforced. 1%an vs! C5,
6!R! Do! +2BB2+., 5ugust B, 2..8/
J and K are t$e $eirs of JA, w$o operates a restaurant
business in #inondo! JA leased a space in t$e
building of 5#C as evidenced by a contract of leased
signed by 5#C and JA! JA died! E and G, t$e $eirs of
JA continued t$e business of t$e late JA! %$ereafter,
5#C filed a suit for rescission of t$e contract of lease!
5re E and G considered real parties9in9interest
defendants)
Te answer is yes. #onsiderin! tat E and K are te eirs
of OP and tey continued te %usiness after te deat of
teir predecessor ma4es tem real parties in interest
defendants. Te fact tat tey are not si!natories to te
lease contract is not material to te issue. 1ui 4an vs!
C5, 6!R! Do! +-B===, Geb! 2B, 2..-/
($at is meant by H;nterest or Real interestI)
It means a present su%stantial interest or material interest
an interest in issue and to %e affected %y te decree as
distin!uised from a mere e=pectancy or a future,
contin!ent, su%ordinate, incidental or conseCuential
interest. Interest tat is %ased on a mere e=pectancy is not
te interest meant in te rules. 1%an vs! C5, 6!R! Do!
+2BB2+., 5ugust B, 2..8< ?oaFuin, et al! vs! C5, Dov!
2., 2..8/
($at is meant by H4aterial interest)
Daterial Interest is te interest in issue 1alleged in t$e
pleadings9complaint or answer/ and to %e affected %y
te decree, as distin!uised from mere interest in te
Cuestion in&ol&ed, or a mere incidental interest. It is te
interest of te party tat is personal to te liti!ant and not
one %ased on a desire to &indicate te constitutional ri!t
of some tird and unrelated party.1Ortigas & Company
Limited Partners$ip v! :elasco, 28- CR5 -77, ?uly
27, +==-/
($at is meant by t$e term Hpresent substantial
interestI)
Te term :present substantial interestI concretely
means tat interest of a party in te su%9ect matter of te
action so as to entitle im, under su%stanti&e law, to
reco&er if te e&idence is sufficient, or tat e as te
le!al title to demand and te defendant will %e protected in
payin! to or reco&ery from im. 1 ?oaFuin, et al! vs! C5,
Dov! 2., 2..8/
($at is meant by t$e term Hpresent substantial
interestI)
Te term :present substantial interestI concretely
means tat interest of a party in te su%9ect matter of te
action so as to entitle im, under su%stanti&e law, to
reco&er if te e&idence is sufficient, or tat e as te
le!al title to demand and te defendant will %e protected in
payin! to or reco&ery from im. 1 ?oaFuin, et al! vs! C5,
Dov! 2., 2..8/
($o is a real party in interest plaintiff) Defendant)
5 real party in interest9plaintiff is one wo as a le!al
ri!t wile a real party in interest9defendant is one wo
as a correlati&e le!al o%li!ation wose act or omission
&iolates te le!al ri!ts of te former.1Lee, et al! v!
Romillo!, et al! ,6!R! Do! ,.=8B, 4ay 2*, +=**/
($at is included in t$e term real party in interest)
Te term real party in interest may include
representati&es, parents, or !uardians and !uardian ad
litem of minors, or incompetents. " real party in interest is
te party wo stands to %e %enefited or in9ured %y te
9ud!ment in te suit, or te party entitled to te a&ails of
te suit. Unless oterwise autori>ed %y law or tese
Rules, e&ery action must %e prosecuted or defended in te
name of te real party in interest.1Sec. *2
($at are t$e purposes of t$e provision regarding real
parties in interest)
Te purposes of te pro&ision are;
-2 To pre&ent te prosecution of actions %y persons
witout any ri!t, title or interest in te case<
*2 To reCuire tat te actual party entitled to le!al
relief %e te one to prosecute te action<
+2 To a&oid a multiplicity of suits< and
62 To discoura!e liti!ation and 4eep it witin certain
%ounds, pursuant to sound pu%lic policy.
($at is t$e effect w$en a suit is not prosecuted in t$e
name of a real party in interest)
:en te plaintiff is not te real party in interest, te case
is dismissi%le on te !round of lac4 of cause of action.
1#P; G54;LK 5:;D6 #5DL, ;DC! vs!
COCOLL"EL5, 6!R! Do! +,BB2-, 2.., ?un 2B/
One a&in! no material interest to protect cannot in&o4e
te 9urisdiction of te court as te plaintiff in an action.
1Oco vs! Limbaring, 6!r! Do! +,+2=* ?an! 8+, 2..,/
;n suits regarding representative parties, may t$e
person represented be named in t$e pleading)
:it re!ard to representati&e parties, te person1s2
represented may or may not %e 9oined in te suit were
te a!ent acted in is own name or for te %enefit of an
undisclosed principal. Te e=ception to tis rule is wen
te suit in&ol&es tin!s %elon!in! to te principal! 1ec! 8,
Rule 8/
($o is an indispensable party)
"n indispensa%le party is a party wo as suc an interest
in te contro&ersy or su%9ect matter tat a final
ad9udication cannot %e made, in is a%sence, witout
in9urin! or affectin! tat interest.
" party wo as not only an interest in te su%9ect matter
of te contro&ersy, %ut also as an interest of suc nature
tat a final decree cannot %e made witout affectin! is
interest or lea&in! te contro&ersy in suc a condition tat
its final determination may %e wolly inconsistent wit
eCuity and !ood conscience.
"n indispensa%le party is a person in wose a%sence
tere can %e no determination %etween te parties already
%efore te court wic is effecti&e, complete, or eCuita%le.
Ge is one wo must %e included in an action %efore it may
properly !o forward.15rcelona vs! C5, 2*. CR5
2./Dote' %$is would also answer t$e Fuery'
Compulsory 3oinder of indispensable parties! ec! B,
Rule 8!
If is interest in te contro&ersy or su%9ect matter is
separa%le from te interest of te oter parties, so tat it
will not necessarily %e directly or in9uriously affected %y a
decree wic does complete 9ustice %etween tem, e is
NOT an IN8IS$ENS"BLE $"RTY.
($at are t$e reFuisites of a class suit)
In order tat a class suit may prosper, te followin!
reCuisites must %e present;
1-2 Tat te su%9ect matter of te contro&ersy is one of
common or !eneral interest to many persons< and
1*2 Tat te parties are so numerous tat it is
impractica%le to %rin! tem all %efore te court. Te
person wo sues must a&e an interest in te
contro&ersy, common wit tose for wom e sues,
and tere must %e tat unity of interest %etween
im and all suc oter persons wic would entitle
tem to maintain te action if suit was %rou!t %y
tem 9ointly. 1"LO D6 #5K5D, ;DC!, vs!
5R5DE%5, ;DC!, et al! 6!R! Do! L98+.,+ 5ug! +B,
+=B,/
($at constitutes Hcommon interestI)
"s to wat constitutes common interest in te su%9ect
matter of te contro&ersy, it as %een eld as an interest
tat will allow parties to 9oin in a %ill of complaint, or tat
will ena%le te court to dispense wit te presence of all
te parties, wen numerous, e=cept a determinate
num%er, is not only an interest in te Cuestion, %ut one in
common in te su%9ect matter of te suit< a community of
interest !rowin! out of te nature and condition of te ri!t
in dispute. 1"LO D6 #5K5D, ;DC!, vs! 5R5DE%5,
;DC!, et al! 6!R! Do! L98+.,+5ug! +B, +=B,/
tate t$e rules to be followed w$en a party to a suit
dies!
In case a party dies durin! te pendency of a suit, te
followin! rules sall %e o%ser&ed;
a, :en te action is not e=tin!uised %y reason of te
deat;
-. It is te duty of te counsel of te deceased to
notify te court witin a period of +/ days from
4nowled!e tereof and to !i&e te names and
addresses of te le!al representati&es of te
deceased<
*. Te eirs may %e allowed to %e su%stituted
witout reCuirin! te appointment of an e=ecutor
or administrator< were tere are minors left %y
te deceased, tey may %e assisted %y teir
!uardian ad litem<
+. "n order of su%stitution may %e issued %y te
court to te effect.
6. :en 9ud!ment as already %een rendered and
te same as %ecome final and e=ecutory;
(. If te o%li!ee dies; te e=ecutor or administrator
of is estate may apply for a writ of e=ecution of
te 9ud!ment. 1sec. 0a, Rule +.2
7. If it is te o%li!or wo dies; te e=ecution of te
9ud!ment may %e directed a!ainst te e=ecutor or
administrator of is estate 1Sec. 0%,Rule +.2 if te
9ud!ment is for reco&ery of real pr personal
property or te enforcement of a lien<
0. If te deat of te o%li!or occurred after le&y te
auction sale sall proceed<
). If deat occurred %efore te rendition of
9ud!ment, te case sall %e dismissed and te
claim sall %e prosecuted in te estate
proceedin! of te deceased defendant.
1, In case te action does not sur&i&e, te same sall %e
dismissed.
($en do we say t$at t$e action survives t$e deat$ of
t$e party)
"n action is considered to sur&i&e te deat of a party to
an action wen te action can %e pursued a!ainst te
e=ecutor or administrator of te estate of te deceased or
wen it can %e prosecuted a!ainst suc estate.1ec!+,
Rule *B> ec! 7, Rule *7/
($at actions may and may not, be prosecuted against
t$e estate of a deceased)
No action upon a claim for te reco&ery of money or de%t
or interest tereon sall %e commenced a!ainst te
e=ecutor or administrator of te estate of a deceased
person. Gowe&er, %ut actions to reco&er real or personal
property or of an interest terein, from te estate, or to
enforce a lien tereon, and actions to reco&er dama!es for
an in9ury to person or property, real or personal, may %e
commenced a!ainst said e=ecutor or administrator!1ec!
+, Rule *B/
($at actions may be broug$t or defended by t$e
e&ecutor or administrator of t$e estate of a deceased)
Te e=ecutor or administrator may %rin! or defend actions
for te reco&ery or protection of te property or ri!ts of
te deceased, as well as causes tat sur&i&e.
($at is t$e effect of transfer of interest over t$e
property sub3ect of t$e litigation)
If te property in liti!ation is sold pendent elite, te seller
remains to %e te real party in interest. Te action may %e
continued %y or a!ainst te ori!inal party. Gowe&er, te
court, upon motion, directs te transferee to %e instituted
in te action or 9oined wit te ori!inal party. 1ec! +=,
Rule 8> Commodities torage, ;nc! vs! C5 6!R! +27..*,
?une +=, +==B/
P appointed 5 as $is agent to sell a parcel of land! 5
entered into a contract of sale wit$ #! Later t$e
property sub3ect of t$e sale was not delivered to # in
spite of t$e payment! $ould # decide to sue, $ow will
$e do it)
B may institute te action a!ainst $ and " %y 9oinin! tem
as alternati&e defendants. :ere te plaintiff is uncertain
a!ainst wom of se&eral person e is entitled to relief, e
may 9oin any or all of tem as defendants in te
alternati&e, altou! is ri!t to relief a!ainst one may %e
inconsistent wit is ri!t to relief a!ainst te oter. ;&ec.
/=, (ule /=: Te principal and is a!ent may %e sued as
9oint defendants. If te a!ency is pro&ed, te principal sall
%e eld lia%le, if not te a!ent can %e eld lia%le.
($at is meant by venue)
:enue is te place were an action must %e instituted and
tried.
+8*! E! tate t$e venue of real actions!
"ctions affectin! title to or possession of real property, or
interest terein sall %e commenced and tried in te
proper court wic as 9urisdiction o&er te area werein
te real property in&ol&ed or a portion tereof is situated.
Korci%le entry and unlawful detainer cases are to %e
instituted and tried in te municipal trial court of te
municipality or city were te real property in&ol&ed or a
portion tereof is situated. 1ec! +, Rule -/
tate t$e venue of personal actions!
"ctions oter tan real actions sall %e instituted and tried
in te proper court were te plaintiff or any of te
principal plaintiffs reside or were te defendant or any of
te principal defendants reside, at te option of te
plaintiff. 1ec!2, Rule -/
tate t$e venue of actions against non9resident
defendant)
"ctions a!ainst non?resident defendants sall %e instituted
and tried in te proper court of te place were te plaintiff
resides or were te defendant may %e found, at te
option of te plaintiff. 1ec! 2, Rule -/ If any of te
defendants does not reside and is not found in te
$ilippines, and te action affects te personal status of
te plaintiff, or any property of te defendant located in te
$ilippines, te &enue of te action sall %e at te place
were te plaintiff resides or were te property of
defendant is found, at t%e option o9 t%e p&ainti99. 1ec! 8,
Rule -/
;s an agreement as to venue conclusive on t$e
parties)
"n a!reement as to &enue is not conclusi&e and does not
preclude te filin! of an action in te place of te partiesE
residence. Te e=ception to te rule is tat wen it is clear
from te e=press terms of te a!reement tat te parties
a&e stipulated tat te action can %e filed ONLY in te
place a!reed upon.
J and K entered into a contract of real estate
mortgage over a parcel of land located in #aguio City
to secure t$e fulfillment of a loan obligation! %$e real
estate mortgage contained a stipulation t$at t$e
mortgagee may e&tra93udicially foreclose t$e
mortgage in case of breac$! %$e contract of loan
provided t$at any action arising from t$e loan
obligation s$all be e&clusively filed in t$e proper court
of La "nion only! J failed to comply wit$ t$e loan
obligation! K e&tra93udicially foreclosed t$e mortgage
in #aguio City and t$ereafter applied for a writ of
possession wit$ t$e R%C of #aguio! J opposed on t$e
ground of improper venue! Decide!
Te opposition is witout merit. Te e=tra?9udicial
foreclose sale sall %e !o&erned %y Sec. *, "ct +-+( as
amended %y "ct 6--) wic pro&ides tat sale cannot %e
made le!ally outside of te pro&ince in wic te property
sold is situated< and in case te place witin said pro&ince
in wic te sale sall %e made is te su%9ect of
stipulation, suc sale sall %e made in said place or in te
municipal %uildin! of te municipality in wic te property
or part tereof is situated. Gere, te real property su%9ect
of te sale is situated in Ba!uio #ity. Te stipulation as to
&enue in te principal contract of loan cannot o&erride te
pro&ision of "ct +-+( as amended %y "ct 6--). 1upena
vs! Dela Rosa 6!R! Do! R%?9=89+.8+, ?anuary 2*, +==B/
tate t$e guidelines to be observed by t$e court w$en
t$e Fuestion of improper venue is raised based on a
stipulation in a contract!
Te !uidelines are;
1-2 Te a!reement on &enue sall, in te first instance,
%e normally considered as merely permissi&e<
1*2 To %e restricti&e, te lan!ua!e or terminolo!y
employed in te stipulation must %e uneCui&ocal and
admit of no contrary or dou%tful interpretation<
1+2 In case of irreconcila%le dou%t, te &enue pro&ision
sall %e deemed to %e permissi&e< and
162 In ascertainin! te intent in tat pro&ision wic
reasona%ly admits of more tan one meanin!, te
construction sould %e adopted wic most
conduces to te con&enience of te parties!
1"nimasters vs! C5, 6!R! Do! ++=,7B, Gebruary
B,+==B/
%R# ;nc!, a corporation wit$ principal office at 4a0ati
City sold a parcel of land located in #aguio City to
ELP; ;nc!, a corporation wit$ principal office at Davao
City, %$ereafter, ELP; discovered t$at t$e lot was not
$abitable! ELP; filed an action for rescission andOor
annulment of t$e deed of sale before t$e R%C of
Davao City! %R# files a motion to dismiss on t$e
ground of improper venue! Decide t$e motion!
Dotion !ranted. Te &enue of suc action is
unCuestiona%ly witin te territorial 9urisdiction of te
proper court were te real property or part tereof lies.
Te action filed %y te plaintiff is one affectin! title to real
property it sall %e commenced and tried in te proper
court a&in! 9urisdiction o&er te area were te real
property or any part tereof lies.1E4ER6EDCK LO5D
P5(D<OP ;DCORPOR5%ED and D5D;LO R!
D5P5L5 vs! %R5DER ROK5L #5DL 6!R! Do!
+2=+*-, Gebruary 2*,2..- filed %y te plaintiff/
Define pleadings!
$leadin!s are te written statements of te respecti&e
claims FcomplaintH and defenses FanswerH of te parties
su%mitted to te court for appropriate 9ud!ment! @ec! +,
Rule ,C
($at is meant by t$e HLaw of PleadingsI)
Te law of pleadin!s refers to tat %ody of rules and
principles in accordance wit wic te pleadin!s, as
formal alle!ations of te parties, are to %e framed or
drafted. (-+ 5m3ur 2*=,
($at pleadings are allowed under t$e Rules of Court)
Te $leadin!s allowed %y te Rules of #ourt 1re!ular
procedure2 are te complaint, answer, counterclaims
Fcompulsory or permissi&eH, +
rd
. 6
t
. $arty etc. complaints,
complaint in inter&ention, reply and te cross?claim. Under
te Rules on Summary $rocedure only te complaint,
answer, compulsory counterclaim, cross?claim and reply
are allowed pleadin!s.
tate t$e distinction between Pleadings and 4otions!
" pleadin! relates to te cause of action, eiter to support
it or to defeat it 1-+ 54?"R 2**/< wereas a motion does
not relate to te cause of action %ut it is a mere application
for an order not included in te 9ud!ment. 1ec! +, Rule
+7/ 1Dote' Read $owever, Rules 88, 8-, & 87 w$ere t$e
relief soug$t for in t$e said motions may be included
in t$e 3udgment and may finally dispose of t$e case!
%$ese are t$e rules on ummary ?udgment, ?udgment
on t$e Pleadings and Demurrer to Evidence! /
4ay t$e lawyer validly delegate t$e signing of t$e
pleading)
#ounselEs autority and duty to si!n a pleadin! are
personal to im. Ge may not dele!ate it to 9ust any
person. Te preparation and si!nin! of a pleadin!
constitute le!al wor4 in&ol&in! practice of law wic is
reser&ed e=clusi&ely for te mem%ers of te le!al
profession. #ounsel may dele!ate te si!nin! of a
pleadin! to anoter lawyer %ut cannot do so in fa&or of
one wo is not!1Republic vs! Lenric0 Development ;nc!
6!R! Do! +-=7B,, 2.., 5ug *, 2nd Division/
4ust all Pleadings be verified)
'enerally te &erification of a pleadin! is not necessary,
e=cept wen tere is some specific law or rule reCuirin! a
particular pleadin! to %e &erified. Under te Rules on
Summary $rocedure all te allowed pleadin!s must %e
&erified. (ec! -, Rule B2 Te purpose of te &erification of
pleadin!s is to insure !ood fait on te part of te pleader.
Lac4 of &erification is not 9urisdictional %ut merely formal.
4ay t$e court order t$e correction of a pleading t$at
is not verified)
Te answer is yes. Te court may order te correction of
te pleadin! if &erification is lac4in! or act on te pleadin!
altou! it is not &erified, if te attendin! circumstances
are suc tat strict compliance wit te rules may %e
dispensed wit in order tat te ends of 9ustice may
tere%y %e ser&ed.1:aldecantos vs! People, 6!R! Do!
+-**72, 2.., ep 2B, /
tate t$e meaning and concept of Gorum s$opping!
Korum soppin! is te act of a party a!ainst wom an
ad&erse 9ud!ment as %een rendered in one forum, of
see4in! anoter 1and possi%ly2 opinion in anoter forum
oter tan %y appeal or te special ci&il action of certiorari,
or te institution of two or more actions or proceedin!s
!rounded on te same cause on te supposition tat one
or te oter court mi!t loo4 wit fa&or upon te party.
(Repol vs! CO4ELEC, 6!R! Do! +,+-+*, 5pril 2*, 2..-,
-2* CR5 82+/
($at is t$e so9called HCertificationI on Gorum
$opping)
Tis is a certification e=ecuted under oat %y a party filin!
an initiatory pleadin! to certify tat tere is not pendin!
action %etween te same parties and in&ol&in! te same
issues in anoter forum. Te rule applies weter te
cases are pendin! %efore te courts or oter
administrati&e %odies.
($o must e&ecute t$e certificate on non9forum
s$opping)
Kor a certification to %e &alid te same must %e e=ecuted
%y te petitioner imself or te principal parties. " lawyer
for a party may e=ecute te said certificate pro&ided e is
cloted wit a special power of attorney. FEscorpizo vs!
"niversity of #aguio, 6R9+2+=,2, 5pril 8., +===,
Condo %ravel vs! Lalo 6!R! Do! +27,B+, ?an! 2*, 2...C
uppose t$ere are several parties to an initiatory
pleading must all of t$em sign t$e certification)
E&ception)
Te answer is !enerally yes. :ere tere are se&eral
parties to an initiatory pleadin!, all must si!n or e=ecute
te certificate on non?forum soppin!. Tere is no suc
rule a su%stantial compliance.
Te e=ception to tis rule is wen te party e=ecutin! te
certificate on non?forum soppin! is duly autori>ed %y a
special power of attorney! 1LoFuias vs! Ombudsman
6!R! Do! +8=8=,, 5ug! +7, 2...C
;s t$e lac0 of certification regarding forum s$opping
3urisdictional)
Te answer is no. :ile te lac4 of certification a!ainst
forum soppin! is !enerally not cured %y its su%mission
after te filin! of te petition, and te su%mission of a
certificate a!ainst forum soppin! is deemed o%li!atory, it
is not 9urisdictional. Not %ein! 9urisdictional, te
reCuirement can %e rela=ed under 9ustifia%le
circumstances under te rule on su%stantial compliance.
1:aldecantos vs! People, 6!R! Do! +-**72, ept! 2B,
2..,/
4ay t$e court still admit t$e certification on non9
forum s$opping after t$e complaint or petition $as
been ordered dismissed by t$e court)
'enerally te courts may no lon!er accept te certification
owe&er in i!ly e=ceptional cases te court may accept
te same. Te #ourt considered as su%stantial
compliance te filin! of a certification a!ainst forum
soppin! -6 days %efore te dismissal of te petition for
re&iew. 1Roadway E&press vs! C5, 822 P$il! 288>
anc$ez vs! C5, 6!R! +++277, Gebruary B, +==-4
Ga3ardo, ?r! vs! C5, 6!R! ++277*,/
($at is t$e test to determine w$et$er t$ere is forum
s$opping)
Te test to determine weter forum soppin! e=ist in a
case is weter te elements of litis pendencia or res
9udicata are present in te cases. 1P$il! (omenMs
C$ristian College vs! 5biertas, 2=2 CR5 B*7/
($at is t$e effect of failure to comply wit$ t$e rule)
Kailure to comply wit te fore!oin! reCuirements sall not
%e cura%le %y mere amendment of te complaint or oter
initiatory pleadin! %ut sall %e cause for te dismissal of
te case witout pre9udice, unless oterwise pro&ided,
upon motion and after earin!.
($at is t$e effect of t$e E&ecution of false
certification)
Te su%mission of a false certification or non?compliance
wit any of te underta4in!s terein sall constitute
indirect contempt of court, witout pre9udice to te
correspondin! administrati&e and criminal actions.
If te acts of te party or is counsel clearly constitute
willful and deli%erate forum soppin!, te same sall %e
!round for summary dismissal of te case ith pre'udice
and sall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrati&e sanctions. 11P$il! (omenMs C$ristian
College vs! 5biertas, 2=2 CR5 B*7/
Define Complaint and 5nswer!
Te complaint is te pleadin! alle!in! te plaintiffEs cause
or causes of action. :ile te answer is te pleadin! in
wic te defendin! party sets fort is defense1s2
($at are t$e 0inds of defenses t$at may be
interposed by a defending party)
Tese defenses may eiter %e ne!ati&e defense or an
affirmati&e defense. " ne!ati&e defense is te specific
denial of te material fact or facts alle!ed in te pleadin!
of claimant essential to is cause or causes of action<
wile an affirmati&e defense is an alle!ation of a new
matter wic wile ypotetically admittin! te material
alle!ations in te pleadin! of te claimant, would
ne&erteless pre&ent or %at reco&ery %y im. 1ec! 8, & -,
7 Rule ,/
($at are t$e so9called Hultimate factsI to be stated in
t$e complaint)
Cltimate facts are te essential facts constitutin! te
plaintiffEs cause of action. " fact is considered essential if it
cannot %e stric4en out witout lea&in! te statement of te
cause of action insufficient.
($at is t$e test of determining t$e sufficiency of facts
alleged in t$e complaint)
Te test in determinin! te sufficiency of facts alle!ed in a
complaint constitutin! te cause of action is weter upon
suc facts a &alid 9ud!ment may %e rendered a!ainst te
defendant.
<ow may two or more causes of action or defense be
pleaded)
Tey may %e pleaded in te alternati&e or ypotetically.
Te defect of any cause of action or defense would not
render te entire pleadin! insufficient so lon! as any of te
causes of actions or defenses remainin! are still sufficient.
1La 4allorca vs! C5 ?uly 2B, +=,,/
($at are H5ctionable documentsI) <ow are t$ey
pleaded or contested)
"n actiona%le document is one wic is te %asis of te
cause of action or defense of a party and does not refer to
e&identiary facts. It may %e pleaded in eiter of two ways,
to wit; 1-2 settin! fort te su%stance of te document in
te pleadin! and attacin! te ori!inal or a copy tereof<
or 1*2 %y settin! fort said document &er%atim in te
pleadin! (ec! B, Rule *,. Te actiona%le document may
%e contested %y a party %y specifically denyin! under oat
its !enuineness and due e=ecution.
($at is t$e effect w$en a party fails to contest an
actionable document in t$e manner provided by t$e
rules)
In case of suc failure, te followin! specific facts are
deemed admitted;
-. $arty wose si!nature it %ears si!ned it<
*. If si!ned %y anoter, it was si!ned for im and
wit is autority<
+. Te document was deli&ered< and
6. Te formal reCuisites of te law are wai&ed %y
im.
Te followin! defenses are not, owe&er, deemed
admitted;
-. $ayment %y mista4e<
*. #ompromise<
+. Estoppel<
6. :ant or ille!ality of consideration<
(. Statute of Krauds<
7. Kraud, minority im%ecility or duress
tate t$e nature and concept of a Counterclaim!
#ounterclaim is any claim wic a defendin! party may
a&e a!ainst an opposin! party. It may %e compulsory or
permissi&e.
($en is a counterclaim compulsory) ($en is it
permissive)
" counterclaim is considered compulsory wen %ein!
co!ni>a%le %y te re!ular courts of 9ustice, arises out of or
is connected wit te transaction or occurrence
constitutin! te su%9ect matter of te opposin! partyEs
claim and does not reCuire for its ad9udication te
presence of tird parties of wom te court cannot acCuire
9urisdiction. 1This is hat e call in la as t$e principle of
recoupment/
" permissi&e counter?claim is one wic does not arise
out of te opposin! partyEs claim or necessarily connected
wit te transaction or occurrence constitutin! te su%9ect
matter of te opposin! partyEs claim. Tis reCuires te
presence of +
rd
parties o&er wom te court cannot
acCuire 9urisdiction.1This is hat e call in la as t$e
principle of set9off/
;s t$eir difference between compulsory counterclaims
interposed in t$e municipal trial court and in t$e
regional trial court)
It is su%mitted tat te answer is yes. " counterclaim
interposed in te -4nicipa& tria& co4rt must %e wit%in
t%e ;4ridiction o9 t%e aid co4rt 1ot% a to t%e a-o4nt
and a to t%e nat4re t%ereo9 in order tat it may %e
considered as a compulsory counterclaim. " counterclaim
interposed in an ori!inal action filed in te re.iona& tria&
co4rt -a0 1e re.arded a a co-p4&or0 co4nterc&ai-
re.ard&e o9 t%e a-o4nt. 1ec! B, Rule ,/
4ay a compulsory counterclaim be t$e sub3ect of a
separate action)
Te answer is no. " compulsory counterclaim cannot %e
te su%9ect of a separate action %ut it sould instead %e
asserted in te same suit in&ol&in! te same transaction
or occurrence, wic !a&e rise to it. 1Kulienco v! Court of
5ppeals, 6!R! Do! +8+,=2, ?une +., +===! see also
:alencia vs! C5 2,8 CR5 2B7 1+==,: If it is witin te
9urisdiction of te court and it does not reCuire for its
ad9udication te presence of tird parties o&er wom te
court cannot acCuire 9urisdiction, suc compulsory
counterclaim is %arred if it is not set up in te action filed
%y te opposin! party. 1Kulienco v! Court of 5ppeals,
6!R! Do! +8+,=2, ?une +., +===! see also :alencia vs!
C5 2,8 CR5 2B7 1+==,:
;n t$e above Fuestion, suppose t$e compulsory
counterclaim arose only after t$e answer $as been
filed w$at s$ould be done by t$e party)
" counterclaim or cross?claim arisin! or maturin! only
after te filin! of te answer must %e interposed, %y lea&e
of court %y way of supplemental pleadin! at anytime
%efore 9ud!ment is rendered. 1ec! = & +., Rule ++/ In
tis case, te oter party must file is answer to te
supplemental pleadin! containin! te counterclaim or
cross?claim witin -/ days from notice of te order
admittin! te said pleadin! (ec! B, Rule ++,
($at is t$e effect of t$e dismissal of t$e complaint on
a compulsory counterclaim)
Te dismissal of te main action %ars any compulsory
counterclaim. ("% vs! urla 2=- CR5 8*21+==*,Te
reason %ein! tat a compulsory counterclaim arises out of
or is necessarily connected wit te transaction or
occurrence tat is te su%9ect matter of te complaint. It is
au=iliary to te proceedin! in te ori!inal suit and deri&es
its 9urisdictional support terefrom. @4etals Engineering
Resources Corp! v! Court of 5ppeals 2.8 CR5 2B8,
2*2 1+==+/
If tere is no claim a!ainst te counterclaimant te
counterclaim is improper and it must %e dismissed, more
so were te complaint is dismissed at te instance of te
counterclaimant. *;bid!, p! 2*8> ;ntestate Estate of
5mado #! Dalisay v! 4arasigan 27B CR5 7.=, 7+89
7+- 1+==,/
In oter words, if te dismissal of te main action results in
te dismissal of te counterclaim already filed, it stands to
reason tat te filin! of a motion to dismiss te complaint
is an implied wai&er of a compulsory counterclaim
%ecause te !rant of te motion ultimately results in te
dismissal of te counterclaim. Te settin! up of a
compulsory counterclaim and a motion to dismiss are
incompati%le remedies.
;s t$ere an e&ception to t$e above rule)
Te answer is yes. Te defendant may not %e considered
to a&e wai&ed te compulsory counterclaim if e
interposes te !rounds for motion to dismiss in te answer
%y way of affirmati&e defense. Under Sec. 7, Rule -7 of
te -..0 Rules on #i&il $rocedure, if te action is
dismissed as a result of te affirmati&e defense pleaded in
te answer, te counterclaim pleaded in te answer may
continue in te same action. (Ginancial #ldg!
Corporation vs! Gorbes Par0 ;nc! 6!R! +88+=, 5ugust
+B, 2.../
;s payment of doc0et fees reFuired in counterclaims)
Te answer is yes. Under S# circular of "u!ust *//(, a
party interposin! a counterclaim weter compulsory or
permissi&e must pay te reCuisite doc4et fee.
($at is t$e effect of t$e absence of t$e certificate
concerning forum s$opping in t$e counterclaim)
Tere is no need for a certificate of non?forum soppin! in
compulsory counterclaims e=cept were te counterclaim
is permissi&e %ecause te same is considered as an
initiatory pleadin!.
($at is t$e so9called Hcompelling test of
compulsorinessI in counterclaims)
Te Ncompellin! test of compulsorinessN means tat wic
reCuires a lo!ical relationsip %etween te claim and
counterclaim, tat is, were conductin! separate trials of
te respecti&e claims of te parties would entail a
su%stantial duplication of effort and time %y te parties and
te court. (Euintanilla vs! C5 6!R! Do! +.+B-B, +==B
eptember 2-, +==B, see also ;nternational Containers
vs! C5 2+- CR5 -7,, :ere %ot claims are mere
offsoots of te same %asic contro&ersy, te counterclaim
may%e considered compulsory.
tate t$e nature and concept of Cross9claim!
" cross?claim is any claim %y one party a!ainst a co?party
arisin! out of te transaction or occurrence tat is te
su%9ect matter eiter of te ori!inal action or of a
counterclaim terein. It is always compulsory and
terefore must %e interposed in te same proceedin! and
at te same time filed at any time %efore 9ud!ment is
rendered in te main case. 1ec! = & +., Rule ++: "
cross?claim cannot %e te su%9ect of a separate action or
proceedin!. (Compare t$is wit$ Rule +++, ection + on
t$e prosecution of t$e civil action arising from crime!/
tate t$e nature and concept of a Reply!
It is a pleadin! te function of wic is to deny or alle!e
facts in denial or a&oidance of new matters alle!ed %y way
of defense in a responsi&e pleadin! and tere%y 9oin or
ma4e issue as to suc new matters.
($at is t$e effect of t$e failure of a party to ma0e a
reply)
:en a party fails to file a reply, it amounts to a denial of
te new matters alle!ed in te answer. Reply is reCuired
to deny te !enuineness and due e=ecution of an
actiona%le document or wen alle!ations of usury are
interposed in te pleadin! of te ad&erse party.
tate t$e nature and concept of a t$ird9party
complaint!
It is a claim tat a defendin! party may, wit lea&e of
court, file a!ainst a person not a party to te action for
contri%ution, indemnity, su%ro!ation or any oter relief in
respect of is opponentEs claim. Te purpose of a tird
party complaint is to ena%le a defendin! party to o%tain
contri%ution, indemnity, su%ro!ation or oter relief from a
person not a party to te action, it may proceed
independently of te main action.
uppose a 3udgment on t$e pleadings $as been
rendered by t$e court in t$e main action, may t$e t$ird
party complaint still be prosecuted)
Tus, notwitstandin! te 9ud!ment on te pleadin!s in
te main action a party could still proceed wit te
prosecution of its tird party complaint. (Darra v! C5 6!R!
+8B=+7, Dov! +7, 2...,
4ay t$e court, in t$e main action, render 3udgment
based on a motion for summary 3udgment despite t$e
pendency of a t$ird9party complaint)
Te answer is also yes. Te reason %ein! tat te plaintiff
in te main action is not interested in te outcome of te
tird party complaint, te purpose of te latter complaint
%ein! for indemnification, su%ro!ation, etc. (Darra v! C5
6!R! +8B=+7, Dov! +7, 2...,
($at court $as 3urisdiction over t$e t$ird9party
complaint)
Te tird?party complaint is %ut a continuation of te main
action, its purpose %ein! merely to see4 Qcontri%ution,
indemnity, su%ro!ation or any oter relief, in respect of is
opponentQs claim.Q (Rule ,, ec! +2, It is an ancillary suit
wic depends on te 9urisdiction of te court o&er te
main action. Since te trial court ad acCuired 9urisdiction
o&er te complaint, it necessarily follows tat it li4ewise
acCuires 9urisdiction o&er te tird?party complaint wic is
%ut an incident tereof.
<ow may pleadings be amended)
$leadin!s may %e amended %y addin! or stri4in! out an
alle!ation or te name of any party< or %y correctin! a
mista4e in te name of a party or a mista4en or
inadeCuate alle!ation or description in any oter respect.
1ec! +, Rule +8/ "mendment, not dismissal, of te
complaint is proper to a&oid multiplicity of suits 1Eugenio,
r! vs! :elez, +*7 CR5 -27/.
($at is t$e effect of t$e valid amendment of a
pleading)
:en a pleadin! is &alidly amended, te prior or ori!inal
pleadin! is deemed a%andoned and ceases to %e part of
te record and te admissions terein no lon!er a&e te
caracter of a 9udicial admission. 1ec! -, rule +2=/ Te
case stands for trial on te %asis of te amended pleadin!.
"n amended pleadin! supersedes te pleadin! tat it
amends %ut admissions in superseded pleadin!s may %e
pro&ed %y e&idence as e=tra9udicial admissions a!ainst
te pleader.
($at is t$e effect of non9incorporation of allegations
found in t$e original pleading)
#laims and defenses and oter alle!ations included in
ori!inal %ut not incorporated in te amended pleadin! are
deemed wai&ed and a%andoned.
($en may a party amend a pleading as a matter of
rig$t)
"mendments of pleadin!s may %e made once as a matter
of ri!t;
-. "t any time %efore responsi&e pleadin! is ser&ed<
*. In te case of a reply, anytime witin -/ days
after ser&ice of te answer. Te defendant as te
ri!t to amend te answer %efore a reply is served.
15znar vs! #ernard +,+ CR5 2B*/
$laintiff may amend complaint as a matter of ri!t e&en
after defendant files a Dotion to 8ismiss, since te same
is not a Nresponsi&e pleadin!.N1Contec$ vs! C5 2++
CR5 ,=2/
;s leave of court needed before a party may amend $is
pleading under t$e above circumstances)
Te rules and 9urisprudence old tat lea&e of court is not
needed. " party is !i&en te ri!t to file an amended
pleadin! witin te time and upon te conditions specified
and witout te necessity of o%tainin! lea&e of court since
a party may amend is pleadin! once, weter a new
cause of action or can!e in teory is introduced, as a
matter of ri!t at any time %efore a responsi&e pleadin! is
ser&ed. 1;bid!/
tate t$e policy of t$e courts regarding amendment of
pleadings!
"mendment of pleadin!s is fa&ored and sould %e li%erally
allowed in te furterance of 9ustice in order to determine
e&ery case as far as possi%le on its merits witout re!ard
to tecnicalities. Tis principle is !enerally reco!ni>ed in
order tat te real contro&ersies %etween te parties are
presented, teir ri!ts determined and te case decided
on te merits witout unnecessary delay to pre&ent
circuitry of action and needless e=pense!1Dela Rosa vs!
%razo, 6!R! Do! +,77.., 5ug! 8., 2..,/> 5ndres vs!
Cuevas, 6!R! Do! +7.*,=, ?une =, 2..7/
4ay t$e complaint still be amended after a motion to
dismiss $as been granted)
"fter a motion to dismiss as %een !ranted, amendment of
te complaint %y lea&e of court may still %e allowed
provided t%e order o9 di-ia& %a not 0et 1eco-e
9ina&. Te reason for allowin! te amendment on tis
condition is tat, upon finality of te dismissal, te court
loses 9urisdiction and control o&er te complaint. Tus, it
can no lon!er ma4e any disposition on te complaint in a
manner inconsistent wit te dismissal. Rules of
$rocedure, after all, are %ut tools desi!ned to facilitate te
attainment of 9ustice 1:alenzuela vs! Court of 5ppeals,
8,8 CR5 BB=> P#C vs! %razo, 6!R! Do! +,77.. 5ugust
8., 2..,/
($at is t$e remedy of t$e plaintiff if t$e order of
dismissal $as already become final)
"fter te order of dismissal witout pre9udice %ecomes
final, and terefore falls outside te courtEs power to
modify, a party wo wises to reinstate te case as no
remedy oter tan to file a new complaint. 16emabay vs!
#aralia, BB CR5 27*/
5 complaint was dismissed by t$e court for lac0 of
3urisdiction upon a motion to dismiss filed by t$e
defendant! %$e plaintiff filed $is motion for
reconsideration wit$in t$e +79day period! During t$e
pendency of t$e motion for reconsideration, t$e
plaintiff moved to wit$draw t$e motion and filed a
motion to admit amended complaint! 4ay t$e court
admit t$e amended complaint)
Te answer is no. Te witdrawal of te motion for
reconsideration ad te effect of ma4in! te order of
dismissal final. Upon te witdrawal %y respondent of is
Dotion for Reconsideration, it was as if no motion ad
%een filed. Gence, te Order of te trial court dismissin!
te complaint %ecame final and e=ecutory -( days from
notice %y te party concerned. :ile te filin! of te
Dotion for Reconsideration interrupted te runnin! of te
-(?day re!lementary period, its witdrawal left respondent
in e=actly te same position as tou! no motion ad
%een filed at all. Te witdrawal of te Dotion for
Reconsideration effecti&ely erased te tollin! of te
re!lementary period to amend te #omplaint! 1De la
4erced vs! 5guilar, et al!, 6!R! Do! +7=-*2, 5ug! 8.,
2..7/
;n w$at instances may t$e court deny leave to amend
a pleading)
Te court may deny lea&e to amend a pleadin! under any
of te followin! circumstances;
2. Te amendment is for te purpose of delay 1Rule
+./>
#. Te cause of action or defense or te teory of
te case is su%stantially altered 16uiang vs!
4adayag 2+- CR5 87,> see also %orres vs!
%omacruz -= P$il! =+8 />
$. Te amendment see4s to alter a final 9ud!ment
rendered %y te court 1Ocampo vs! 4anlac =2
P$il! *,./>
'. Te amendment see4s to confer 9urisdiction upon
te court 1Rosario vs! Carandang 1=, P$il! *-7/
(. Te amendment see4s to cure a premature or
non?e=istin! cause of action 1(ong vs! Katco ==
P$il B=+> Note in letter 1e2 te cause of action
sou!t to %e amended is a pre?mature or non?
e=istin! cause of action. It does not refer to an
imperfect cause action. Tere is a difference
%etween premature or non?e=istent cause of action
and imperfect cause of action.
Distinctions between Don9e&istent cause of action
and imperfect cause of action!
a2 Non?e=istent or premature cause of
action refers to a situation were no delict or wron!
as yet %een committed %y te defendant.
1Limpangco vs! 4ercado/ "n imperfect cause of
action refers to a situation were a delict or wron!
as already %een committed and alle!ed in te
complaint %ut te cause of action is incomplete
15lto urety vs! 5guilar,
%2 Non?e=istent or premature cause of
action is not cura%le %y amendment (S4ri.ao
<inin. v. Harri 6= P%i&. 22$2< wereas an
imperfect cause of action is cura%le %y a suita%le
amendment after lea&e of court as %een !ranted
(Ra-o v. >i11on" 65 P%i&. $52 and A&to S4ret0
v. A.4i&ar,!
tate t$e effect of amendment of pleadings on t$e
tatute of Limitations!
If te amendment introduces a new and different cause of
action, te statute of limitations is interrupted as to te
new cause of action on te date of te filin! of te
amendment pleadin! (R40-an v. Director 4pra,.

If te amendment merely completes an imperfect cause of
action, te plea of te statute of limitations relates %ac4 to
te date of te filin! of te ori!inal pleadin! 1Pantranco
vs! P$ilGarming *+ P$il 2B8> 4aniago vs! 4allari Oct!
8+, +=7,/
($at is t$e so9called H5mendment to Conform to
EvidenceI)
:en issues not raised in te pleadin!s are tried %y
e=press or implied consent of te parties, tey sall %e
treated, in all respects, as if tey a&e %een raised in te
pleadin!s. In suc a case te court may, upon motion of
any party or at anytime, order te amendment of te
pleadin!s to conform to te e&idence.
Similarly, if e&idence is o%9ected to at te trial on te
!round tat it is not included in te pleadin!s, te court
may, in te e=ercise of its sound discretion, still allow an
amendment to conform to te e&idence wen te
presentation of te merits of te action will %e su%ser&ed
and te o%9ectin! party fails to satisfy te court tat te
admission of suc e&idence will pre9udice im in
maintainin! is cause of action or defense. 1ec! 7> Rule
+.> P5L vs! C5 ept! +7, +==8/
4ay t$e appellate court treat t$e pleading as amended
to conform to t$e evidence alt$oug$ t$e pleadings
were actually not amended in t$e trial court)
Te answer is yes. :ere tere is a &ariance in te
defendantEs pleadin!s and te e&idence adduced %y it at
te trial, te #ourt may treat te pleadin! as amended to
conform wit te e&idence!1Kuseco vs! C5 6! R! Do!
+8*.*7, Dov! ++, 2..-/

B.! ($at are t$e scenarios envisioned by ection 7,
Rule +. on amendment to conform to t$e evidence)
Te two scenarios en&isioned %y te rule are;
1a2 wen e&idence is introduced on an issued not
alle!ed in te pleadin!s and no o%9ection was
inter9ected< and
1%2 wen te e&idence is offered on an issue not
alle!ed in te pleadin!s %ut an o%9ection was timely
inter9ected %y te opposin! party. 14ercader vs!
Development #an0 of t$e P$ils! 1Cebu #ranc$/
In cases were an o%9ection is made, te court may
ne&erteless admit te e&idence were te ad&erse party
fails to satisfy te court tat te admission of te e&idence
would pre9udice im in maintainin! is defense upon te
merits, and te court may !rant im a continuance to
ena%le im to meet te new situation created %y te
e&idence! 1Kuseco vs! C5, 6!R! Do! +8*.*7, Dov! ++,
2..-/
tate t$e nature and concept of upplemental
Pleadings!
Tey are pleadin!s wic a&er facts occurrin! after te
filin! of te ori!inal pleadin!s and wic are material to
te matured claims or defenses. Te matters to %e
included tat tose transactions, occurrences or e&ents
wic too4 place after te filin! of te ori!inal pleadin!.
1Del #ros vs! ;5C +7= CR5 788/
;s a party reFuired to file an answer to a supplemental
pleading)
'enerally, a party must file an answer to te supplemental
pleadin!, oterwise, te party may %e declared in te
default, e=cept wic te answerin! party as already
tra&ersed and 9oined te alle!ations in te answer. 1Del
#ros vs! ;5C +7= CR5 788/ :ere an answer is
reCuired %y te rules, a party may file is answer to te
supplemental complaint witin -/ days from notice of te
order admittin! te same, unless a new period is fi=ed %y
te court. 1ection B, Rule ++/
;s t$e filing of supplemental pleadings a matter of
rig$t or discretion)
Te admission of supplemental pleadin!s, includin!
supplemental complaints, does not arise as a matter of
ri!t on te pleader, %ut remains in te sound discretion of
te court, wic is well witin its ri!t to deny te
admission of te pleadin!. Section 7, Rule -/ of te -..0
Rules of #i&il $rocedure, !o&ernin! supplemental
pleadin!s, is clear tat te court only AmayB admit te
supplemental pleadin!, and is tus not o%li!ed to do so.
($en is t$e original pleading deemed augmented by
t$e supplemental pleading)
It is only upon te admission %y te court of te
supplemental complaint tat it may %e deem to au!ment
te ori!inal complaint. Until suc time, te court acCuires
no 9urisdiction o&er suc new claims as may %e raised in
te supplemental complaint. 1Gar East #an0 vs! C5! 6!R!
Do! +8*=+=, 4ay 2, 2..,/
($at is t$e office or purpose of allowing t$e filing of
supplemental pleadings)
Te purpose or office of te supplemental pleadin! is to
%rin! into te records new facts wic will enlar!e or
can!e te 4ind of relief to wic te plaintiff is entitled<
ence, any supplemental facts wic furter de&elop te
ori!inal ri!t of action, or e=tend to &ary te relief, are
a&aila%le %y way of supplemental complaint e&en tou!
tey temsel&es constitute a ri!t of action.1Koung vs!
y, 6!R! Do! +7BB-7 1C596!R! P Do! B.,+./, ept! 2,,
2..,/
Gowe&er, a party is not allowed to include a different
cause of action from tat of te ori!inal cause of action.
Supplemental pleadin!s only supply deficiencies in aid of
an ori!inal pleadin!, %ut not to introduce new and
independent causes of action.1Leobrera v! Court of
5ppeals, 6R! Do!*...+, Geb! 2B, +=*B, +B. CR5 B++/
($at is t$e so9called Hbroad definition ruleI in
supplemental pleadings)
It refers to tat rule tat wile a matter stated in a
supplemental complaint sould a&e some relation to te
cause of action set fort in te ori!inal pleadin!, te fact
tat te supplemental pleadin! tecnically states a new
cause of action sould not %e a %ar to its allowance %ut
only a factor to %e considered %y te court in te e=ercise
of its discretion. 1Planters Development #an0 v! LAL
<oldings and Development Co, 6!R! Do! +78BB, 5pril
+7, 2..7> +7= CR5 788> Koung vs! y, 6!R! Do!
+7BB-7>C596!R! P Do! B.,+./, ept! 2,, 2..,/
Distinguis$ amended pleadings from supplemental
pleadings!
"mended pleadin!s refer to facts e=istin! at te time of
te commencement of te action< wereas Supplemental
pleadin!s refer to facts arisin! after te filin! of te ori!inal
pleadin!<
"mended pleadin!s will result into te witdrawal of te
ori!inal pleadin!< wereas supplemental pleadin!s will not
affect te e=istence of te ori!inal pleadin!<
"mended pleadin!s may %e done once as a matter of ri!t
or as a matter of discretion wereas in supplemental
pleadin!s, it is always done as matter discretion and wit
lea&e of court.
(it$in w$at time must a party file $is responsive
pleading)
" party must file is responsi&e pleadin! witin te periods
pro&ided for %y law under te followin! circumstances;
-. "nswer to complaint ? 2( days from ser&ice, unless
different period is fi=ed %y te courts<
*. "nswer of a defendant forei!n pri&ate 9uridical entity
? wen ser&ice of summons is made on te
!o&ernment official desi!nated %y law, answer to %e
filed witin $? days from receipt of summons %y
suc entity<
+. "nswer to an "mended complaint ? if amended as a
matter of ri!t, 2( days from %ein! ser&ed wit copy
tereof< if amended not as a matter of ri!t, 2?
days from notice of order admittin! te same<
6. "nswer to #ounterclaim, #rossclaim 3 2? days
from ser&ice of te pleadin!<
(. "nswer to +
rd
party, 6
t
party complaint, etc 3 2(
days from ser&ice of te pleadin!<
7. "nswer to amended counterclaim, crossclaim, +
rd
party or 6
t
party complaints, etc 3 2( days from
receipt of order admittin! te amended pleadin!<
0. "nswer to complaint?in?inter&ention 3 2( days from
receipt of te order admittin! te complaint?in?
inter&ention<
). Reply to a pleadin! wen reCuired? 2? days from
ser&in! of te pleadin! to %e responded to.
5re t$ere instances w$ere no counterclaim,
crossclaim or 8
rd
party complaints are allowed)
Te answer is yes. Suc pleadin!s are not allowed in
e=propriation proceedin!s 1Sec. +, Rule 702 or in te
prosecution of te ci&il action arisin! from te crime 1Sec.
-, Rule ---2.
5re t$ere instances w$ere no counterclaim,
crossclaim or 8
rd
party complaints are allowed)
Te answer is yes. Suc pleadin!s are not allowed in
e=propriation proceedin!s 1Sec. +, Rule 702 or in te
prosecution of te ci&il action arisin! from te crime 1Sec.
-, Rule ---2.
tate t$e concept and nature of #ill of particulars!
It is a more definite statement of any matter wic is not
a&erred wit sufficient definiteness and particularity in a
pleadin! so as to ena%le te opposin! party to prepare is
responsi&e pleadin! or to prepare for trial. It %ecomes part
of te pleadin! wic it supplements and sall %e
!o&erned %y te law on pleadin!s upon its admission.
1ection ,/ It may %e filed eiter in a separate or in
amended pleadin! and ser&ed upon te ad&erse party!
1ection 8/
($at t$e effects of filing a 4otion for #ill of
Particulars)
Te filin! of a motion for %ill of particulars stays te
runnin! of te period for te filin! of te responsi&e
pleadin!. " motion for %ill of particulars may %e filed
%efore respondin! to a pleadin!. :en no responsi&e
pleadin! is reCuired or allowed, te motion for a %ill of
particulars must %e filed witin -/ days from ser&ice of te
pleadin! su%9ect of te motion.
(it$in w$at time must t$e movant for a bill of
particulars file $is responsive pleading)
:en te party ordered to su%mit a %ill of particulars as
ser&ed te %ill of particulars upon te mo&ant, te later
must file is responsi&e pleadin! witin same period
reCuired %y te rules for filin! suc responsi&e pleadin! at
te time of te filin! of te motion for %ill of particulars. te
same rule applies wen te motion for %ill of particulars is
denied %y te court.
(it$in w$at time must a party file t$e bill of
particulars w$en t$e motion is granted by t$e court)
" party ordered to su%mit a %ill of particulars must o%ey
te order of te court witin -/ days after notice of te
order or witin suc time as te court may fi=.
($at is t$e effect of refusal to comply wit$ an order to
submit bill of particulars)
Te court may order te stri4in! out of te pleadin! to
wic te motion was directed or ma4e suc oter order
as it deems 9ust if te order for te fillin! of a %ill of
particulars is diso%eyed.
5re t$e above principles on bill of particulars
applicable to criminal actions)
Te answer is yes. Sec. ., Rule --7 of te Re&ised Rules
on #riminal $rocedure pro&ides; H%$e accused may,
before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to
enable $im to properly plead and prepare for trial!&&&I
tate t$e distinctions between Hfiling of pleadingsI
from Hservice of pleadings and ot$er papersI!
Fi&in. of pleadin!s and oter papers refers to te deli&ery
of te pleadin!s and oter papers to te cler4 of court
wile ervice refers to te deli&ery of te same to te
ad&erse party.1ec! 2, Rule +8/
tate t$e 4odes of filing of pleadings and ot$er
papers!
$leadin!s and oter papers are filed wit te cler4 of court
eiter %y;
1a2 $ersonal deli&ery< or
1%2 By sendin! tem tru re!istered mail
tate t$e 0inds of service of pleadings and ot$er
papers!
$leadin!s and oter papers may%e ser&ed %y;
1a2 $ersonal ser&ice ? to %e done wene&er
practica%le 14ost preferred mode/> or
1%2 Ser&ice %y mail 1ordinary if no re!istered mail2
1c2 Su%stituted ser&ice 1deli&erin! copy to cler4 of
court wit proof of failure to ser&e personally or
ser&ice %y mail2 Gowe&er, if te papers or
documents do not emanate from te court, a
resort to oter modes must %e accompanied %y a
written e=planation wy te ser&ice or filin! was
not done personally. Kailure to ma4e suc
e=planation may %e a cause to consider te
paper as not filed.
<ow are final orders or decisions served)
Tere are tree 1+2 modes of ser&in! final orders or
decisions, namely;
1a2 $ersonal<
1%2 Re!istered Dail
1c2 $u%lication 1if ad&erse party was summoned %y
pu%lication2
($at proofs are admissible to establis$ valid service)
Te proofs admissi%le to esta%lis &alid ser&ice are;
1a2 :ritten admission of party ser&ed< or
1%2 Official return of te ser&er< or
1c2 "ffida&it of party ser&in!, containin! a full
statement of te date, place and manner of
ser&ice.
<ow is service of pleadings, notices or court orders
as well as decisions made w$en a party is
represented by counsel)
:en a party is represented %y counsel, notices sould %e
made upon te co4ne& on record of te party
concerned. It is done %y ser&in! it personally to te
counsel or %y lea&in! a copy of te same at is office wit
is cler4 or a person a&in! car!e tereof. If se&eral
counsels represent a party, ser&ice to one is deemed &alid
ser&ice. 1ec! 2, Rule +8> 4ercenido vs!C5, 8*,
P$il!,2B> 5limboboyug vs! C5, 6!R! Do! +,8,77, ?une
+,, 2..,> DPC vs! %ac9an, --7 P$il! 8+712..8/
Notice to t%e part0 i not conidered va&id ervice and
t%e r4nnin. o9 an0 period does not commence to run.
Gowe&er, if ser&ice to te party as %een ordered %y te
court, suc ser&ice is considered &alid. 15limboboyug vs!
C5, 6!R! Do! +,8,77, ?une +,, 2..,> DPC vs! %ac9an,
--7 P$il! 8+712..8/
($en is service by mail deemed complete)
:e must distin!uis. :en ser&ice is done %y re!istered
mail, te same is deemed complete upon actual receipt %y
te addressee. If e fails to claim te mail from te post
office witin ( days from date o9 9irt notice o9 t%e
pot-ater, ser&ice sall ta4e effect at te e=piration of
te fi&e?day period. 1ec! +., Rule +8> iliman "niv! vs!
DLRC, 2+8 CR5 87=/
:en ser&ice is done %y ordinary mail, ser&ice is deemed
complete upon e=piration of te ten (2?,3da0 period a9ter
it -ai&in." unless te court pro&ides for a different
period!1ec! +., Rule +8/
($at is a notice of lis pendens)
It is simply a notice of te pendency of an action affectin!
title to or ri!t of possession of real property. It is recorded
in te office of te re!istry of deeds of te pro&ince or city
were te property is located. It may only %e cancelled
upon order of te court. 1ec! +-, Rule +8/
Define summons!
Summons is a writ or process issued and ser&ed upon te
defendant in a ci&il action for te purpose of securin! is
appearance terein!1#allantines Law Dictionary2
($en may summons be issued and by w$om)
Upon te filin! of te complaint and payment of te
reCuisite le!al fees te cler4 of court sall issue te
correspondin! summons to te defendant. 1ec! +2
tate t$e modes of serving summons)
Summons may %e ser&ed %y;
a2 $ersonal ser&ice<
%2 Su%stituted Ser&ice< or
c2 $u%lication.
E&plain briefly t$e different modes of serving
summons!
a2 $ersonal ser&ice sall %e done wene&er
practica%le. It is done %y andin! a copy of te
summons to te defendant in person. If e refuses
to accept and si!n a receipt tereof, personal
ser&ice can still %e done %y tenderin! a copy of te
summons to im. 1ec! ,2
%2 Su%stituted ser&ice of summons may %e effected in
eiter of two ways; 1-2 %y lea&in! copies of te
summons at te residence of te defendant wit
some person of suita%le a!e and discretion residin!
tereon< or 1*2 %y lea&in! copies of te summons at
defendantEs office or re!ular place of %usiness wit
some competent person in car!e tereof.
($at is t$e nature and concept of substituted
service)
Su%stituted ser&ice of summons is e=traordinary in
caracter and in dero!ation of te usual metod of
ser&ice. 1<amilton v! Levy, 6!R! Do! +8=2*8, Dovember
+7, 2..., 8-- CR5 *2+/ Gence, it must faitfully and
strictly comply wit te prescri%ed reCuirements and
circumstances autori>ed %y te rules. #ompliance wit
te rules re!ardin! te ser&ice of summons is as muc
important as te issue of due process as of 9urisdiction.
1 5ng Ping v! C5, 6!R! Do! +2,=-B, ?uly +7, +===, 8+.
CR5 8-8/
<ow are 3uridical entities served wit$ summons)
If te defendant is a corporation or!ani>ed under te laws
of te $ilippines or a partnersip duly re!istered, ser&ice
may %e made on te president, mana!in! partner, !eneral
mana!er, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in?ouse
counsel! 1ec! ++/
Ser&ice upon pri&ate forei!n 9uridical entity transactin!
%usiness in te $ilippines and duly autori>ed to do
%usiness is done %y ser&in! te summons to te 1a2
resident a!ent desi!nated in accordance wit law< or 1%2 if
no suc resident a!ent, on !o&ernment official desi!nated
%y law< 1c2 or any of its officers or a!ents witin te
$ilippines. 1Note; IK NO RESI8ENT "'ENT, SERVI#E
OK SUDDONSES "N8 $RO#ESSES ON TGE SE#2
($at mode of service is preferred in actions purely in
personam)
In an action strictly in personam, personal ser&ice on te
defendant is te preferred mode of ser&ice, tat is, %y
andin! a copy of te summons to te defendant in
person. If defendant, for e=cusa%le reasons, cannot %e
ser&ed wit te summons witin a reasona%le period, ten
su%stituted ser&ice can %e resorted to. 1<amilton v! Levy,
6!R! Do! +8=2*8, Dovember +7, 2..., 8-- CR5 *2+/
<ow is service of summons done in actions in rem or
Fuasi in rem)
In actions in rem or Cuasi in rem, 9urisdiction o&er te
person of te defendant is not essential for !i&in! te court
9urisdiction so lon! as te court acCuires 9urisdiction o&er
te res. If te defendant is a non?resident and is not found
in te $ilippines, summons may %e ser&ed %y means of
e=traterritorial ser&ice. 1Sec. -(2
($at is meant by t$e rules regarding leaving a copy
of t$e summons wit$ a Dperson of sufficient age and
discretionI)
" person of suita%le a!e and discretion is one wo as
attained te a!e of full le!al capacity 1-) years old2 and is
considered to a&e enou! discernment to understand te
importance of a summons. A8iscretionB is defined as Ate
a%ility to ma4e decisions wic represent a responsi%le
coice and for wic an understandin! of wat is lawful,
ri!t or wise may %e presupposedB. 14anotoc vs!
%ra3ano, 6!R! Do! 6!R! Do! +8.=B-, 5ug! +,, 2..,/
($en is a person said to be of sufficient discretion)
To %e of sufficient discretion, suc person must 4now ow
to read and understand En!lis to compreend te import
of te summons, and fully reali>e te need to deli&er te
summons and complaint to te defendant at te earliest
possi%le time for te person to ta4e appropriate action. Ge
must a&e te Arelation of confidenceB to te defendant,
ensurin! tat te latter would recei&e or at least %e notified
of te receipt of te summons. B. 14anotoc vs! %ra3ano,
6!R! Do! 6!R! Do! +8.=B-, 5ug! +,, 2..,/
;n w$at instance may summons by publication be
effected)
Summons %y pu%lication may %e effected %y lea&e of
court;
a2 In actions in rem or Cuasi in rem, tat affect te
personal status of te plaintiff< or were te su%9ect
matter is a property located in te $ilippines in
wic te defendant as a claim or interest< or
wen te purpose of te action is to e=clude te
defendant from any interest in te property< and
%2 Tat suc action is a!ainst a un4nown defendant<
or wose werea%outs is un4nown and cannot %e
ascertain %y dili!ent inCuiry< or wen te defendant
is a non?resident wo is not found in te
$ilippines< or a resident of te $ilippines %ut is
temporarily out of te country. 1Sec. -62
($en e&traterritorial service of summons allowed)
E=traterritorial ser&ice of summons may %e allowed wit
lea&e of court in any of te followin! instances;
a2 :en te defendant is a non?resident and is not
found in te $ilippines were te action affects te
personal status of te plaintiff< .1Sec. -(2<
%2 :en te action refers a property witin te
$ilippines in wic te defendant as or claims a
lien or interest tereon< .1Sec. -(2<
c2 :en te relief demanded %y te plaintiff consist,
in wole or in part, in e=cludin! te defendant from
any interest in a property located in te
$ilippines< .1Sec. -(2<
d2 :en te property of te defendant as %een
attaced witin te $ilippines.1Sec. -(2<
e2 :en te defendant is a resident of te
$ilippines %ut is temporarily out of te country.
1Sec. -7
;n Fuestion Do! 82, $ow may suc$ e&traterritorial
service be effected)
E=traterritorial ser&ice of summons may %e effected %y;
a2 $ersonal Ser&ice to te party outside of te
$ilippines<
%2 By $u%lication of te summons in te place
were te party may appen to reside outside of
te country plus sendin! of summons %y re!istered
mail to is last 4nown address<
c2 "ny oter manner as te court may deem
sufficient.
($at is t$e effect of 3udgments rendered w$ere t$ere
is no valid service of summons)
?urisdiction o&er te defendant is acCuired eiter upon a
&alid ser&ice of summons or te defendantEs &oluntary
appearance in court. :en te defendant does not
&oluntarily su%mit to te courtEs 9urisdiction or wen tere
is no &alid ser&ice of summons, Aany 9ud!ment of te court
wic as no 9urisdiction o&er te person of te defendant
is null and &oid.B1Domagas v! ?ensen, 6!R! Do! +7*-.B,
?anuary +B, 2..7, --* CR5 ,,8/
Define motion!
It is an application for relief oter tan %y a pleadin!. It is a
mere application for an order not included in te 9ud!ment.
($at are t$e 0inds of motions)
Tere are two !eneral 4inds of motions namely; liti!ated
and unliti!ated motions. Liti!ated motions are tose
motions tat cannot %e disposed of or resol&ed %y te
court witout a earin!. Unliti!ated motions are tose tat
may %e resol&ed e&en if no earin! is conducted %ecause
it would not in any way pre9udice te ri!ts of te ad&erse
party.
($at is t$e t$ree9day 18/ notice rule regarding
motions)
E&ery written motion tat is reCuired to %e eard must %e
ser&ed upon te ad&erse party at least tree 1+2 days
%efore te earin! unless te court for !ood cause sets
te earin! on a sorter notice. 1ec! -/
($at are t$e reFuirements to be complied regarding
t$e filing of litigated motions)
E&ery liti!ated motion must contain a notice of earin!
addressed to te ad&erse party and sall specify te time
and date of earin! wic must not %e later tan ten 1-/2
days from te filin! of te motion. Te mo&ant must su%mit
proof of ser&ice of te said motion to te court. Te court
may not act on a motion in te a%sence of te proof of
ser&ice. 1ec! ,/
($at is t$e effect if t$e movant fails to comply wit$
t$e reFuirements in t$e preceding Fuestion)
Te motion sall %e considered as a mere scrap of paper
and te cler4 of court may not e&en %e reCuired to accept
te same. Dore, a motion tat does not comply wit te
reCuirements sall not toll te runnin! of any period
prescri%ed %y te rules. In sort, te motion is considered
as a pro forma motion. Tis rule applies to Dotion for New
Trial, Reconsideration, Dotion to 8ismiss
($at is t$e purpose of t$e notice of $earing in a
litigated motion)
Te purpose of a notice of a motion is to a&oid surprises
on te opposite party and to !i&e im time to study and
meet te ar!uments. Te notice of a motion is reCuired
wen te party as te ri!t to resist te relief sou!t %y
te motion and principles of natural 9ustice demand tat
is ri!t %e not affected witout an opportunity to %e
eard.
($at is t$e so9called omnibus motion rule)
E&ceptions)
E&ery motion attac4in! a pleadin!, order, 9ud!ment or
proceedin! sall include all o%9ections a&aila%le to te
mo&ant at te time of te filin! of te motion, any o%9ection
not included in te said motion is deemed wai&ed. Te
rule admits of some e=ceptions. Te followin! are not
deemed wai&ed and co&ered %y te omni%us motion rule,
to wit;
a2 :en te court as no 9urisdiction o&er te
su%9ect matter<
%2 :en tere is a pendin! action %etween te
same parties 1litis pendencia/>
c2 :en te action is %arred %y prior 9ud!ment 1Res
3udicata/>
d2 :en te action is %arred %y te statute of
limitations>1ec! +, Rule =/
($at is t$e effect of filing a motion to dismiss on t$e
ground of lac0 of cause of action)
" motion to dismiss %ased on lac4 of cause of action
ypotetically admits te trut of te alle!ations in te
complaint. Te alle!ations in a complaint are sufficient to
constitute a cause of action a!ainst te defendants if,
ypotetically admittin! te facts alle!ed, te court can
render a &alid 9ud!ment upon te same in accordance wit
te prayer terein.
($en may party file a motion to dismiss)
" motion to dismiss sould %e filed witin te time for filin!
te answer. Tis rule owe&er is not a%solute. E&en after
an answer as %een filed, a defendant can still file a
motion to dismiss on te followin! !rounds; 1-2 lac4 of
9urisdiction, 1*2 litis pendentia 1+2 lac4 of cause of action,
and 162 disco&ery durin! trial of e&idence tat would
constitute a !round for dismissal. 1Panganiban vs!
Pilipinas $ell Corporation respondent!, 6!R! Do!
+8+-B+, ?an! 22, 2..8/
4ay t$e court motu proprio dismiss a case)
'enerally te answer is NO. Te court may only dismiss a
case upon motion filed %y te ad&erse party. 1Sec. -, Rule
-72 Te court may, owe&er, order dismissal of te case
motu proprio wen te !round is eiter; a2 Litis pendentia<
or 1%2 lac4 of 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter< or 1c2
prescription< or res 9udicata.1ec!+, Rule =, Panganiban
vs! Pilipinas $ell Corporation respondent!, 6!R! Do!
+8+-B+, ?an! 22, 2..8/
5t w$at stage of t$e proceeding may party file a
motion to dismiss)
'enerally a motion to dismiss sould %e filed witin te
time for filin! an answer. Te reCuirement owe&er is not
a%solute. E&en after an answer as %een filed, a
defendant can still file a motion to dismiss on te followin!
!rounds; 1-2 lac4 of 9urisdiction, 1*2 litis pendentia 1+2 lac4
of cause of action, and 162 disco&ery durin! trial of
e&idence tat would constitute a !round for dismissal.
1Panganiban vs! Pilipinas $ell Corporation
respondent!, 6!R! Do! +8+-B+, ?an! 22, 2..8/
%$e defendant filed a motion to dismiss but t$e court
denied t$e same for lac0 of merit! Can t$e same
defendant still incorporate t$e same grounds for
motion dismiss as affirmative defenses in $is
answer)
Te answer is yes. It is su%mitted owe&er, tat te
defendant may no lon!er %e allowed to mo&e for a
preliminary earin! on te same !rounds tat ad %een
te su%9ect of te earin! in te motion to dismiss tat was
denied. 1ec! ,, Rule +,> Dacillo, et al! vs! alas & C5,
6!R! Do! +7**=7, Geb! +,, 2..,/
;n t$e above problem suppose t$e ot$er defendants
w$o did not 3oin in t$e motion to dismiss instead filed
t$ere answer and incorporated t$e grounds for motion
to dismiss, may t$ey be allowed to be $eard
preliminarily on t$eir affirmative defenses)
In suc a case, te denial of te motion to dismiss of te
oter defendants does not pre9udice a defendant wo did
not 9oin in te motion to dismiss tat was denied. Tey are
still entitled to %e eard on teir affirmati&e defenses. Te
trial court is li4ewise not proscri%ed from !rantin!, in its
discretion, suc a motion for preliminary earin!. Te only
ca&eat is tat te !round of motion to dismiss tat was
already eard sould already %e e=cluded in te said
earin! %ecause it as %een eard and finally resol&ed.
1Panganiban vs! Pilipinas $ell Corporation
respondent!, 6!R! Do! +8+-B+, ?an! 22, 2..8/
tate t$e grounds for motion to dismiss!
'rounds for motion to dismiss;
a2 #ourt as no 9urisdiction o&er te person of te
defendant? unli4e old rule, inclusion in motion to
dismiss of oter !rounds aside from lac4 of
9urisdiction o&er te person does NOT constitute
a wai&er of te said !round or &oluntary
appearance<
%2 #ourt as no 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter
of te claim<
c2 Venue is improperly laid<
d2 $laintiff as no le!al capacity to sue<
e2 Tere is anoter action pendin! %etween te
same parties for te same cause<
f2 $leadin! assertin! claim states no cause of
action<
!2 #laim or demand in te plaintiffQs pleadin! as
%een paid, wai&ed, a%andoned, e=tin!uised<
2 #laim on wic action is founded is
unenforcea%le under te statute of frauds<
i2 #ondition precedent for filin! as not %een
complied wit 1tis includes prior recourse to
%aran!ay conciliation, or failure to ma4e attempts
to reac a compromise in cases %etween
mem%ers of te same family2
($at is t$e effect of filing a motion to dismiss on t$e
ground of failure to state a cause of action)
" motion to dismiss on te !round of failure to state a
cause of action in te complaint must ypotetically admit
te trut of te facts alle!ed in te complaint. Te
admission, owe&er, is limited only to all material and
rele&ant facts wic are well pleaded in te complaint.
Te motion does not admit te trut of mere epitets
car!in! fraud< nor alle!ations of le!al conclusions< nor an
erroneous statement of law< nor matters of e&idence< nor
to le!ally impossi%le facts

($at is t$e test for determining t$e sufficiency of
facts t$at constitute a cause of action)
Te test of sufficiency of te facts found in a complaint as
constitutin! a cause of action is weter or not, admittin!
te facts alle!ed, te court can render a &alid 9ud!ment
upon te same in accordance wit te prayer in te
complaint. :en a motion to dismiss is !rounded on te
failure to state a cause of action, a rulin! tereon sould
%e %ased only on te facts alle!ed in te complaint. Te
rule is tat only te alle!ations in te complaint may
properly %e considered in ascertainin! te e=istence of a
cause of action. Lac4 of cause of action must appear on
te face of te complaint, and its e=istence may %e
determined only %y te alle!ations of te complaint.
#onsideration of oter facts is out of te Cuestion, and any
attempt to pro&e e=traneous circumstances is not allowed.
1EFuitable PC;#an0 vs! ta! Rosa 4ining, 6!R! Do!
+-877,, 4arc$ +7, 2..-/
tate t$e elements of litis pendentia and res 3udicata
as grounds for motion to dismiss!
Te reCuisites of &iti pendentia are as follows;
a2 Identity of parties@interest<
%2 Identity of ri!ts asserted and prayed for@relief
founded on te same facts<
c2 Identity of te * cases 1suc tat 9ud!ment in one
would amount to res 9udicata in te oter2
ReCuisites of re ;4dicata;
a2 Kinal 9ud!ment or order<
%2 Rendered %y court of competent 9urisdiction
c2 On te merits 1e&en witout trial, suc as cases
decided %y 5ud!ment on te $leadin!s,
Summary 5ud!ment, or dismissed for failure to
prosecute or for refusal to o%ey an order of te
court2
d2 Identity of te parties
5n action for reformation of instrument was filed by 5
against #! %$ereafter # also filed an action for
collection against 5 using t$e same agreement
sub3ect in t$e reformation case as basis for $is claim!
5pplying t$e rule on litis pendentia, w$ic$ of t$e two
cases s$ould be dismissed and w$ic$ s$ould be
tried)
"s a rule, preference is !i&en to te first action filed to %e
retained. Tis is in accordance wit te ma=im Iui prior
est tempore, potior est 9ure 1%$is is t$e Priority in %ime
Rule/. Tere are, owe&er, limitations to tis rule. Gence,
te first action may %e a%ated if it was filed merely to pre?
empt te later action or to anticipate its filin! and lay te
%asis for its dismissal. Tus, te %ona fides or !ood fait
of te parties is a crucial element. " later case sall not
%e a%ated if not %rou!t to arass or &e=< and te first
case can %e a%ated if it is merely an anticipatory action or,
more appropriately, an anticipatory defense a!ainst an
e=pected suit. "noter e=ception to te priority in time rule
is te criterion of te more appropriate action. Tus, an
action, altou! filed later, sall not %e dismissed if it is
te more appropriate &eicle for liti!atin! te issues
%etween te parties.1Compania 6eneral de %abacos vs!
C5, -22 P$il! -.712..+/> 5bines vs! #P;, 6!R! Do!
+,B=.., 2.., Geb +8/
($at is a demurrer to evidence)
It is a motion to dismiss a case filed %y te ad&erse party
after te plaintiff as rested its case on te !round of
insufficiency of e&idence.
($at is t$e nature of an order denying a demurrer to
evidence)
"s a !eneral rule an order denyin! a demurrer to e&idence
or motion to dismiss is interlocutory and is not appeala%le.
#onseCuently, te defendant must !o to trial and adduce
e&idence, and appeal, in due course, from an ad&erse
decision of te trial court. 1#P; vs! Coscolluela, 6!R! Do!
+,BB2- ?une 2B, 2..,/
;s t$ere an e&ception to t$e above rule)
Te answer is yes. Te rule admits of e=ceptions. :ere
te denial %y te trial court is tainted wit !ra&e a%use of
discretion amountin! to e=cess or lac4 of 9urisdiction, te
a!!rie&ed party may assail te order in a petition for
certiorari under Rule 7( of te Rules of #ourt. Te court
as discretion in certiorari proceedin!s in te interest of
su%stantial 9ustice and to pre&ent su%stantial wron!. 1#P;
vs! Coscolluela, 6!R! Do! +,BB2- ?une 2B, 2..,/
4ay a demurrer to evidence be filed even wit$out
leave of court)
Te answer is yes. In ci&il actions as well as criminal
actions, te defendant is allowed to file a demurrer to
e&idence wit or witout lea&e of court.
($at is t$e effect if a demurrer to evidence is denied
by t$e court)
:e a&e to Cualify our answer.
In ci&il actions, if te court resol&es to deny te demurrer
to e&idence, te defendant may still %e allowed to present
is e&idence as a matter of ri!t e&en if te demurrer to
e&idence was filed witout lea&e of court.
In criminal actions, te rule is different. If te demurrer to
e&idence is filed witout lea&e of court and te same is
denied, te accused is no lon!er allowed to adduce
e&idence in is fa&or. Gowe&er, if te demurrer to
e&idence was filed wit lea&e of court and is denied, te
accused may, as a matter ri!t, adduce e&idence in is
defense.
($at is t$e effect if t$e court resolves to grant t$e
demurrer to evidence)
:e also a&e to Cualify our answer.
In ci&il actions, if te court !rants te demurrer to
e&idence, te plaintiff is still entitled to appeal te order of
dismissal. Sould te appellate court re&erse te order of
dismissal, te defendant may not lon!er %e allowed to
adduce e&idence on appeal.
In criminal actions, sould te court order te dismissal of
te case %ased on te demurrer to e&idence, te
prosecution is no lon!er allowed to appeal %ecause te
dismissal sall %e considered as an acCuittal on te
merits.
($o may as0 for a 3udgment on t$e pleadings)
Te $laintiff may as4 for a 9ud!ment on te pleadin!s at
any time after te filin! of an answer %ut %efore trial wen
suc answer fails to tender an issue.
($en is summary 3udgment availed of)
Summary 9ud!ment may %e a&ailed of %y eiter te
plaintiff or te defendant at any sta!e of te proceedin!
%ut %efore 9ud!ment wen tere is no !enuine issue as to
any material fact in te action and te mo&in! party is
entitled to a 9ud!ment as a matter of law.
($at is a genuine issue of fact)
" !enuine issue as %een defined as an issue of fact
wic calls for te presentation of e&idence, as
distin!uised from an issue wic is sam, fictitious,
contri&ed and patently unsu%stantial so as not to constitute
a !enuine issue for trial. 1EFuitable PC; #an0 vs! Ong,
6!R! Do! +7,2.B, ept! +7, 2..,/
tate t$e reFuisites t$at must be complied before a
motion for summary 3udgment can be given due
course!
Under Section +, Rule +(, of te -..0 Rules of #i&il
$rocedure, summary 9ud!ment may %e allowed were,
sa&e for te amount of dama!es, te followin! reCuisites
must concur; 1-2 tere must %e no !enuine issue on any
material fact, e=cept for te amount of dama!es< 1*2 te
mo&in! party must %e entitled to a 9ud!ment as a matter of
law and 1+2 te motion for summary 9ud!ment must %e
ser&ed at least ten 1-/2 days %efore te earin! tereof.
1EFuitable PC; #an0 vs! Ong, 6!R! Do! +7,2.B, ept!
+7, 2..,/ Te party wo mo&es for summary 9ud!ment
as te onus of demonstratin! clearly te a%sence of any
!enuine issue of fact, or tat te issue posed in te
complaint is patently unsu%stantial so as not to constitute
a !enuine issue for trial.1Kuc$engco vs! PC66, 6!R! Do!
+78-7= 2.., ?an 2./
($en can we say t$at t$ere is a genuine issue of a
material fact in an action)
" A!enuine issueB, as differentiated from a fictitious or
contri&ed one, is an issue of fact tat reCuires te
presentation of e&idence. "n issue is !enuine if it reCuires
te presentation of e&idence as distin!uised from a
sam, fictitious, contri&ed or false claim. :en tere is a
!enuine issue of any material fact in an action, summary
9ud!ment is not proper.1Ontimare vs! Elep, 6!R! Do!
+7=22-, ?an! 2., 2..,/.
tate t$e nature and purpose of a summary 3udgment
Summary or accelerated 9ud!ment is a procedural
tecniCue aimed at weedin! out sam claims or defenses
at an early sta!e of te liti!ation, tere%y a&oidin! te
e=pense and loss of time in&ol&ed in a trial. E&en if te
pleadin!s appear, on teir face, to raise issues, summary
9ud!ment may still ensue as a matter of law if te
affida&its, depositions and admissions sow tat suc
issues are not !enuine. 1Ontimare vs! Elep, 6!R! Do!
+7=22-, ?an! 2., 2..,/.
4ay t$e court validly issue a partial ummary
?udgment)
By e=press pro&ision of te rules 1Sec. 6, Rule +(2 Te
court can &alidly issue a partial summary 9ud!ment were
tere are se&eral causes of action incorporated in a
pleadin!.
1D!#!9 ;n fine, "445RK ?"D64ED% ; 5:5;L5#LE
(<ED %<E PREED%5%;OD OG E:;DEDCE ; DO%
DECE5RK %O E%5#L;< ODEM CL5;4! ;G
PREED%5%;OD OG E:;DEDCE ; REE";RED
"445RK ?"D64ED% C5DDO% #E 5:5;LED OG!
%$is remedy is available to bot$ t$e plaintiff and t$e
defendant! %$e difference is t$at t$e defendant can
file a motion for summary 3udgment at any time before
or wit$out filing an answer> w$ile t$e plaintiff can only
move of summary 3udgment after t$e answer $as been
filed9ec! 2, Rule 87/
4ay a complaint be dismissed by t$e plaintiff wit$out
leave of court)
Te answer is yes. Te plaintiff may, at any time %efore a
responsi&e pleadin! or a motion for summary 9ud!ment
as %een ser&ed upon im, file a notice of dismissal of te
complaint. 1Sec. -, Rule -02 "ll tat te court will do is to
confirm te dismissal of te complaint.
;n t$e above situation, w$at is t$e nature of suc$
dismissal) E&ceptions)
"s a !eneral rule, te dismissal sall %e considered
witout pre9udice. Te e=ceptions to te rule are tat wen
te notice of dismissal filed %y te complaint states tat
te dismissal sall %e wit pre9udice< or were te plaintiff
as pre&iously filed a notice of dismissal of te same. Te
second instance is wat we called as te Atwo?dismissal
rule.B1Sec. *, Rule -02
uppose a responsive pleading containing a
counterclaim $as been served upon t$e plaintiff, can
t$e latter still file a notice of dismissal)
Te answer is still yes %ut tis time tere must %e prior
lea&e of court. Te counterclaim interposed %y te
ad&erse party can %e pursued %y te latter in te same
proceedin! or in a separate action.
tate t$e instances w$en a complaint may be ordered
dismissed by t$e court by reason of causes
attributable to t$e plaintiff!
8ismissal due to plaintiffQs fault ? te followin! must %e
witout 9ustifia%le cause;
a2 If plaintiff fails to appear on te date of
presentation of is e&idence in cief<
%2 $laintiff fails to prosecute claim for an
unreasona%le len!t of time
c2 $laintiff fails to comply wit te Rules of #ourt or
any order of te court
d2 Te court may motu proprio order te dismissal
of te #omplaint or upon defendantQs motion.
Unless oterwise declared %y te court, dismissal as
effect of ad9udication upon te merits.
4ay a complaint be dismissed by t$e plaintiff wit$out
leave of court)
Te answer is yes. Te plaintiff may, at any time %efore a
responsi&e pleadin! or a motion for summary 9ud!ment
as %een ser&ed upon im, file a notice of dismissal of te
complaint. 1Sec. -, Rule -02 "ll tat te court will do is to
confirm te dismissal of te complaint.
;n t$e above situation, w$at is t$e nature of suc$
dismissal) E&ceptions)
"s a !eneral rule, te dismissal sall %e considered
witout pre9udice. Te e=ceptions to te rule are tat wen
te notice of dismissal filed %y te complaint states tat
te dismissal sall %e wit pre9udice< or were te plaintiff
as pre&iously filed a notice of dismissal of te same. Te
second instance is wat we called as te Atwo?dismissal
rule.B1Sec. *, Rule -02
uppose a responsive pleading containing a
counterclaim $as been served upon t$e plaintiff, can
t$e latter still file a notice of dismissal)
Te answer is still yes %ut tis time tere must %e prior
lea&e of court. Te counterclaim interposed %y te
ad&erse party can %e pursued %y te latter in te same
proceedin! or in a separate action.
4ay t$e court order t$e dismissal of t$e complaint by
reason of t$e absence of $is counsel at t$e pre9trial>
or allows t$e presentation of evidence by t$e plaintiff
in case of absence of counsel for t$e defendant at t$e
said pre9trial)
Section (, Rule -), pro&ides tat te failure of te plaintiff
or defendant to appear durin! pre?trial autori>es te court
to eiter dismiss te complaint, if te plaintiff were a%sent<
or to allow te plaintiff to present e&idence e= parte, if te
defendant were a%sent. Te rule owe&er does not
contemplate te same in case of te a%sence of counsel.
Simply put, notin! in te Rules of #ourt autori>es a trial
9ud!e to cause te dismissal of a complaint or allow te
plaintiff to present e&idence e= parte on account of te
a%sence durin! pre?trial of te counsel!1ections - & 7,
Rule +*> #aybay, et al vs! :erano, et al, 6!R! Do!
+,-8B7, 2.., Oct +2/

tate t$e nature of a dismissal of a case by reason of
failure to prosecute!
Te orders dismissin! te case for failure to prosecute are
final orders, %ecause suc orders of dismissal operate as
a 9ud!ment on te merits. Tis principle is now an e=press
pro&ision in Section +, Rule -0 of te Rules of #ourt. If,
for no 9ustifia%le cause, te plaintiff fails to appear on te
date of te presentation of is e&idence in cief on te
complaint, or to prosecute is action for an unreasona%le
len!t of time, or to comply wit tese Rules or any order
of te court, te complaint may %e dismissed upon motion
of te defendant or upon te courtEs own motion, witout
pre9udice to te ri!t of te defendant to prosecute is
counterclaim in te same or in a separate action. Tis
dismissal sall a&e te effect of ad9udication upon te
merits, unless oterwise declared %y te court. 1Koung
vs! y, ept!2,, 2..,/
($at is t$e remedy of t$e party aggrieved by t$e
issuance of suc$ order)
It is firmly esta%lised, and wit &ery few e=ceptions, tat
te remedy a!ainst suc final order is appeal and not
certiorari. Te !eneral rule is tat a writ of certiorari will not
issue were te remedy of appeal is a&aila%le to te
a!!rie&ed party. Te remedies of appeal in te ordinary
course of law and tat of certiorari under Rule 7( are
mutually e=clusi&e and not alternati&e or cumulati&e.
Gence, te special ci&il action of certiorari under Rule 7(
cannot %e a su%stitute for an appeal were te latter
remedy is a&aila%le. 11Koung vs! y, ept!2,, 2..,/
($o $as t$e duty to $ave t$e case set for pre9trial
after t$e last pleading $as been filed)
It is te duty of te plaintiff to mo&e e= parte for te settin!
of te case for pre?trial. Gowe&er, if plaintiff answers te
defendantQs counterclaim, it will %e te latterQs duty to set
te pre?trial.
($at is t$e effect of failure of a party to appear at pre9
trial)
Te un9ustified failure of plaintiff to appear sall %e cause
for dismissal of te action. Te un9ustified non?appearance
of defendant is cause to allow plaintiff to present e&idence
e= parte and te court to render 9ud!ment on %asis
tereof. Gowe&er te appearance of a representati&e wo
appears in %ealf of a party fully autori>ed in writin! to
enter into an amica%le settlement, to su%mit to alternati&e
modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations
or admissions of facts and of documents is not considered
failure to appear.1ec! 7, Rule +*, ?onat$an Landoil
;nternational Co! v! 4angudadatu 16!R! Do! +77.+.,
5ug! +,, 2..-, -8, CR5 77=> "nited Coconut
Planters #an0 v! 4agpayo, 6!R! Do! +-==.*, 4ay 2B,
2..-, -2= CR5 ,,=/
Effect of t$e failure of party to file t$e reFuisite pre9
trial brief!
Te purpose of te reCuirement re!ardin! te filin! of a
pre?trial %rief is to ensure tat te oter party recei&es it at
least tree 1+2 days %efore te pre?trial. Te failure to file
te pre?trial %rief as te same effect as failure to appear
at te pre?trial.
%o w$om must t$e notice of pre9trial be sent or
served)
Te notice of pre?trial must %e furnised te parties and
teir counsels. Te rule pro&ides tat separate notices
must %e sent to te party and counsel.. :en notice to a
party is ser&ed trou! is counsel tere must %e an
e=press instruction upon te counsel for te latter to notify
is client. Te client may deli&er to is counsel a written
autority to represent im durin! te pre?trial. Oterwise
te party may %e declared non?suited or te oter party
entitled to present e&idence e=?parte. Note te rule on
declaration of party as in default as %een remo&ed from
te new rules. 16olden Glame vs! C5 5pril 8, +==7/
Does t$e application of ec! 2, Rule +B and ec! 7,
Rule +* contravene t$e rule on due process)
Te operation of te said rules may defeat te cause of
action or te defense of te party wo &iolated te
procedural rule. Yet it could not %e said tat any resultant
ad&erse 9ud!ment would contra&ene te due process
clause. Te parties are presumed to a&e 4nown te
!o&ernin! rules and te conseCuences for te &iolation of
suc rules.1Paredes vs! :erano, 6!R! Do! +,-8B7, 2..,
Oct +2/
4ay t$e court motu proprio dismiss a case on t$e
ground t$at t$e plaintiff failed to prosecute $is claim)
Te answer is yes. Te failure of a plaintiff to prosecute
te action witout any 9ustifia%le cause witin a reasona%le
period of time will !i&e rise to te presumption tat e is
no lon!er interested to o%tain from te court te relief
prayed for in is complaint< ence, te court is autori>ed
to order te dismissal of te complaint on its own motion
or on motion of te defendants. Te presumption is not, %y
any means, conclusi&e %ecause te plaintiff, on a motion
for reconsideration of te order of dismissal, may alle!e
and esta%lis a 9ustifia%le cause for suc failure.14alayan
;nsurance vs! ;pil ;nternational ;nc!, 6!R! Do! +-+*,.,
2.., 5ug 8+, 8rd Division/
($at t$e test to determine w$et$er a plaintiff is guilty
of failing to prosecute a claim to 3ustify dismissal of
t$e complaint)
In determinin! weter tere is failure to prosecute, te
test is weter under te facts and circumstances, te
plaintiff is car!ea%le wit want of due dili!ence in failin!
to proceed wit reasona%le promptitude. ;*oldloop vs. C$
>/> &. E0.:
($at is t$e purpose of a notice in t$e motion to
declare defendant in default)
Te purpose of a notice of in te motion is to a&oid
surprises on te opposite party and to !i&e im time to
study and meet te ar!uments. Te notice of a motion is
reCuired wen te party as te ri!t to resist te relief
sou!t %y te motion and principles of natural 9ustice
demand tat is ri!t %e not affected witout an
opportunity to %e eard.1Delos antos vs! 4etro#an0, et
al!, 6!R! Do! +78,=,,et! ++, 2..,/
($at must t$e court do after t$e termination of t$e
pre9trial conference)
"fter te pre?trial, te court sall issue te pre?trial order.
Tis order sall control te course of action, unless te
same is modified %efore te trial to pre&ent manifest
in9ustice. "t te new pre?trial conference or preliminary
conference %efore te cler4 of court, it is te duties of te
latter to e=ert all efforts to a&e te parties arri&e at a
compromise. Dar4in! of documents as e=i%its may %e
done %efore te cler4 of court durin! te preliminary
conference.
($at is t$e effect if a party is validly declared in
default) Remedy of t$e party declared in default!
" party in default sall %e entitled to notice of su%seCuent
proceedin!s %ut not to ta4e part in te trial.
tate t$e reFuirements before t$e court may declare a
party in default!
1-2 Te claimin! party must file a motion as4in! te
court to declare te defendin! party in default<
1*2 Te defendin! party must %e notified of te motion
to declare im in default<
1+2 Te claimin! party must pro&e tat te defendin!
party as failed to answer witin te period
pro&ided %y te Rule.(De&o Santo v.
<etro!an@" >.R. No. 2($676" Sept. 22" #??6,
Remedy of a party declared in default!
" party declared in default may at any time after notice
tereof and %efore 9ud!ment file a -otion 4nder oat% to
et aide t%e order o9 de9a4&t upon proper sowin! tat
is failure to answer was d4e to 9ra4d" accident" -ita@e
or exc4a1&e ne.&i.ence and t%at %e %a a -eritorio4
de9ene. In suc case, te order of default may %e set
aside on suc terms and conditions as te 9ud!e may
impose in te interest of 9ustice.
;s t$ere suc$ t$ing as partial default)
Te answer is yes. :en a pleadin! assertin! a claim
states a common cause of action a!ainst se&eral
defendin! parties, some of wom answer and te oters
fail to do so, te court sall try te case a!ainst all upon
te answers tus filed and render 9ud!ment upon te
e&idence presented.
;n case of default w$at is t$e e&tent of reliev t$at may
be awarded by t$e court)
" 9ud!ment rendered a!ainst a party in default sall not
e=ceed te amount or %e different in 4ind from tat prayed
for. No unliCuidated dama!es sall %e awarded..
($en is default not allowed)
No default is allowed in;
a2 an action for annulment or declaration of nullity of
marria!e<
%2 or for le!al separation
Te court sall order te prosecutin! attorney to
in&esti!ate weter or nor a collusion %etween te parties
e=ists, and if tere is no collusion, to inter&ene for te
State in order to see to it tat te e&idence su%mitted is
not fa%ricated.
;s t$e party ipso fact entitled to t$e relief prayed for in
$is complaint in case of default)
In 9ud!ments %y default, complainants are not
automatically entitled to te relief prayed for, once te
defendants are declared in default. Ka&ora%le relief can
%e !ranted only after te court as ascertained tat te
relief is warranted %y te e&idence offered and te facts
pro&en %y te presentin! party. In sort te plaintiff must
still present e&idence in order to comply wit te
reCuirement of due process.
8efaults are not to %e interpreted as an admission %y te
said defendant tat te plaintiffEs cause of action find
support in te law or tat plaintiff is entitled to te relief
prayed for. 1Lim %an$u vs! Ramolete/ Not in e&ery case
of default %y te defendant is te complainant entitled to
win automatically. Te plaintiff must still present e&idence
to pro&e its claim in te complaint %y preponderance of
e&idence as reCuired %y te rules. 16a3udo vs! %raders
Royal #an0, 6!R! Do! +7+.=*, 4arc$ 2+, 2..,/
Define subpoena!
It is a process directed to a person reCuirin! im to attend
and to testify at te trial of an action or at any in&esti!ation
conducted under te laws of te $ilippines< or for te
ta4in! of deposition (41poena ad teti9icand4-, It may
refer to 41poena d4ce tec4- wic reCuires te
%rin!in! of %oo4s or documents.
($at is t$e viatory rig$t of person reFuired by a
subpoena)
It simply means tat a witness may not %e %ound %y te
su%poena wen e resides at a place more tan -// 4m.
away from te place of trial< 1ec! +., Rule 2+/ or wen
te person is a detention prisoner ser&in! sentence at te
National Bili%id $rison only te Supreme #ourt may allow
im.
ConseFuences of un3ustified refusal to obey
subpoena!
Te party may %e ordered arrested or reCuire im to post
%ail.
4ay a person be reFuired to testify even if not issued
a subpoena)
Te answer is yes wen te party or person is already in
court.
De9ine Depoition
It is a written testimony of a witness !i&en in te course of
a 9udicial proceedin! in ad&ance of te trial upon oral
e=amination or in response to written interro!atories.
Purpose of t$e rules on depositions and discovery!
Te e&ident purpose is to ena%le te parties, consistent
wit reco!ni>ed pri&ile!es, to o%tain te fullest possi%le
4nowled!e of te issues and facts %efore ci&il trials and
tus pre&ent tat said trials are carried on in te dar4. Te
&arious modes or instruments of disco&ery are meant to
ser&e 1-2 as a de&ice, alon! wit te pre?trial earin!
under Rule */, to narrow and clarify te %asic issues
%etween te parties, and 1*2 as a de&ice for ascertainin!
te facts relati&e to tose issues. 1PC66 :! %5D%OCO
6!R! Do! =.-B*, +==+ Dov 2+, En #anc/
;s leave of court reFuired of a party availing of t$e
rules on deposition and discovery)
In line wit te principle of li%eral treatment to te
deposition?disco&ery mecanism, suc modes of
disco&ery as 1a2 depositions 1weter %y oral e=amination
or written interro!atories2 under Rule *6, 1%2
interro!atories to parties under Rule *(, and 1c2 reCuests
for admissions under Rule *7, may %e a&ailed of witout
lea&e of court, and !enerally, witout court inter&ention.
PC66 :! %5D%OCO 6!R! Do! =.-B*, +==+ Dov 2+, En
#anc/
Te Rules of #ourt e=plicitly pro&ide tat lea&e of court is
not necessary to a&ail of said modes of disco&ery after an
answer to te complaint as %een ser&ed. It is only wen
an answer as not yet %een filed 1%ut after 9urisdiction as
%een o%tained o&er te defendant or property su%9ect of
te action2 tat prior lea&e of court is needed to a&ail of
tese modes of disco&ery, te reason %ein! tat at tat
time te issues are not yet 9oined and te disputed facts
are not clear. 1PC66 :! %5D%OCO 6!R! Do! =.-B*,
+==+ Dov 2+, En #anc/

($en is leave of court necessary)
Lea&e of court is reCuired as re!ards disco&ery %y 1a2
production or inspection of documents or tin!s in
accordance wit Rule *0, or 1%2 pysical and mental
e=amination of persons under Rule *), wic may %e
!ranted upon due application and a sowin! of due cause.
1PC66 :! %5D%OCO 6!R! Do! =.-B*, +==+ Dov 2+, En
#anc/
($at is t$e sanction w$en a party refuses to comply
wit$ t$e reFuest for discovery)
Te law imposes serious sanctions on te party wo
refuses to ma4es disco&ery, suc as dismissin! te action
or proceedin! or part tereof, or renderin! 9ud!ment %y
default a!ainst te diso%edient party< contempt of court, or
arrest of te party or a!ent of te party< payment of te
amount of reasona%le e=penses incurred in o%tainin! a
court order to compel disco&ery< ta4in! te matters
inCuired into as esta%lised in accordance wit te claim
of te party see4in! disco&ery< refusal to allow te
diso%edient party support or oppose desi!nated claims or
defenses< stri4in! out pleadin!s or parts tereof< stayin!
furter proceedin!s. 1PC66 :! %5D%OCO 6!R! Do!
=.-B*, +==+ Dov 2+, En #anc/
tate some limitations to availment of discovery
procedure!
:en it can %e sown tat te e=amination is %ein!
conducted in %ad fait or in suc a manner as to annoy,
em%arrass, or oppress te person su%9ect to te inCuiry.
Dore, wen it is sown tat te inCuiry touces upon te
irrele&ant or encroaces upon te reco!ni>ed domains of
pri&ile!e communication.
($en may ob3ections to t$e admissibility of a
deposition be made)
Tey may %e made at te trial or earin!. Errors or
irre!ularities of any 4inds wic mi!t a&e %een o%&iated
if promptly presented are deemed wai&ed unless tey ad
%een o%9ected to at te time of te deposition ta4in!.
($at is letters rogatory)
It is an instrument were%y a forei!n court is informed of
te pendency of a case and is reCuested to cause te
ta4in! of depositions of persons witin its territory wit
offer on te part of te reCuestin! court to do te same in
a similar situation. @tis is !o&erned %y te principle of
comity.
#efore w$om may t$e deposition be ta0en in foreign
countries)
It may %e ta4en %efore;
a2 secretary of em%assy or le!ation<
%2 consul !eneral, &ice?consul or consular a!ent of
te $ilippines<
c2 any person appointed %y commission or under
letters ro!atory
Depositions ta0en in t$e P$ilippines s$all be made
before'
a2 "ny 9ud!e<
%2 "ny municipal trial court 9ud!e<
c2 " notary pu%lic
tate t$e difference w$en t$e deposition is ta0en
before a person appointed by means of a commission
and by letters rogatory!
:en te deposition is ta4en %efore a person appointed
%y means of a commission, te rules of procedure to %e
followed %y te said person sall %e tat of te appointin!
court< wile in letters ro!atory, te rules of procedure to %e
followed sall %e tat of te forei!n court ta4in! te
deposition.
Difference between written interrogatories 1Rule 27/
and interrogatories to parties in deposition ta0ing
1Rule 2-/
Te main difference is tat te written interro!atories
under Rule *(, are ser&ed directly to te ad&erse party for
im to answer te same< wile te written interro!atories
under Rule *6 in deposition ta4in! are deli&ered to te
officer autori>ed to ta4e te deposition for answer to %e
!i&en %y te deponent wo is not necessarily te ad&erse
party.
($at reFuirements are needed in case of p$ysical or
mental e&amination of persons)
Te pysical or mental condition of a party must %e in
issue<
Tere must %e a motion statin! te reasons terefor<
Tere must %e notice to te party su%9ect of te reCuest for
pysical or mental e=amination.
($at is intervention)
It is a proceedin! in a suit or action %y wic a tird
person is permitted %y te court to ma4e imself as party,
eiter %y 9oinin! te plaintiff in claimin! wat is sou!t %y
te complaint or %y unitin! wit te defendant in resistin!
te claims of te plaintiff, or demand sometin! ad&ersely
to %ot of tem.
($en filed)
It is filed at any time %efore 9ud!ment is rendered %y te
trial court. It must %e always wit lea&e of court and wit
notice to te ori!inal parties of te case.
6rounds for intervention
-. Le!al interest in te matter in liti!ation<
*. In a case settlement of estate were te
administrator of te estate is %elie&ed to a&e
a%use is powers, te eirs may &alidly %e! to
inter&ene %ecause tey a&e a le!al interest in te
ereditary estate<
+. Interest in te success of eiter or %ot parties or
interest a!ainst %ot<
6. In action for sum of money %ased on loan filed %y
te creditor a!ainst a surety, te principal de%tor
may %e! lea&e to inter&ene and 9oin te defendant
surety in opposin! te plaintiff?creditor.
(. In action of reco&ery of real property %etween two
persons, a person wo claims to %e te owner of
te property in dispute may %e! lea&e to inter&ene
%ecause e as an interest a!ainst %ot parties
7. $arty is so situated as to %e ad&ersely affected %y
te distri%ution of te court
Dature of t$e action
#omplaint in inter&ention is merely collateral to te
principal action. Gence, it will %e dismissed if main action
is dismissed.
" complaint in inter&ention tat see4s affirmati&e relief
pre&ents a plaintiff from ta4in! a &oluntary dismissal of te
main action.
Suc a case is not su%9ect to dismissal upon inter&enorQs
petition sowin! im to %e entitled to affirmati&e relief.
Te petition will %e preser&ed and eard re!ardless of te
disposition of te main action.
Inter&ention is not an independent action %ut it is au=iliary
or supplemental to an e=istin! action or liti!ation. 1'arcia
&s. 8a&id 70 $il. *0.2
($en may t$e court deny leave to intervene)
Te court may no lon!er entertain or allow a motion for
inter&ention after 9ud!ment as %een rendered and te
same as %ecome final and e=ecutory. 1Vda de #i &s.
Tanedo --- S -./2 Or were te ri!t or interest of a
party can %e liti!ated. 1Bayer &s. "!ana 7+ S +7(< 'i%son
&s. Re&illa .* S *-.2
($at is t$e remedy of t$e party w$ose motion for
leave to intervene $as been denied)
a2 If te reason for te denial is %ecause 9ud!ment as
%een rendered in main case, te party may file a
separate action a!ainst te proper party. 1:da de
C$i vs! %anedo +++ +=./
%2 If te cause of te denial is not te rendition of
9ud!ment, is remedy is ordinary appeal and not
mandamus e=cept wen tere is !ra&e a%use of
discretion.
;s a party w$ose motion for leave to intervene $as
been denied entitled to notices)
Ge is not entitled to notices %ecause %efore te
inter&ention is admitted te party as no personality in te
case 14acias vs! Cruz -= *./
Define %rial!
It is an e=amination %efore a competent court of te facts
or law put in issue in a case for t e purpose of
determinin! suc issue.
Define ?udgment!
It is te final consideration and determination %y a court of
te ri!ts of te parties as tose ri!ts presently e=ist,
upon matter su%mitted to it in an action or proceedin!.
Essential reFuisites of a valid 3udgment!
Te court renderin! te 9ud!ment after a &alid earin!;
-. must a&e 9urisdiction o&er te su%9ect matter<
*. must 9urisdiction o&er te parties or o&er te res<
+. must 9urisdiction o&er te issues (t%oe raied in
t%e p&eadin.,<
Gormal reFuisites of a valid 3udgment!
-. Te 9ud!ment sall %e in writin!<
*. It sall %e personally and directly prepared %y te
9ud!e<
+. It sall state clearly and distinctly te facts and
te law on wic it is %ased<
6. It sall %e si!ned %y te 9ud!e and filed wit te
cler4 of court.
<ere is a summary of t$e proceeding in a civil action
from t$e filing of t$e complaint up to t$e rendition of
t$e 3udgment' 5 complaint or petition s$ould contain
Ha plain, concise and direct statement of t$e ultimate
facts on w$ic$ t$e party pleading relies for $is claim
or defense! ;t s$ould li0ewise clearly specify t$e relief
soug$t!
$refatorily, te trial court may, motu proprio or upon
motion of te defendant, di-i a complaint 1or
petition, in a special civil action/ tat does not alle!e
te plaintiffEs 1or petitionerEs2 cause or causes of action.
Upon te filin! of te complaint@petition and te payment
of te reCuisite le!al fees, te cler4 of court sall fortwit
issue te correspondin! summons to te defendants or
te respondents, wit a directi&e tat te defendant
answer witin -( days, unless a different period is fi=ed %y
te court.

Te summons sall also contain a notice tat if suc
answer is not filed, te plaintiffs@petitioners sall ta4e a
9ud!ment %y default and may %e !ranted te relief applied
for.
Te court, owe&er, may ?? upon suc terms as may %e
9ust ?? allow an answer to %e filed after te time fi=ed %y
te Rules.
If te answer sets fort a counterclaim or cross?claim, it
must %e answered witin ten 1-/2 days from ser&ice.
" reply may %e filed witin ten 1-/2 days from ser&ice of
te pleadin! responded to.
:en an answer fails to tender an issue or admits te
material alle!ations of te ad&erse partyEs pleadin!, te
court may, on motion of tat party, direct 9ud!ment on te
pleadin!s 1e=cept in actions for declaration of nullity or
annulment of marria!e or for le!al separation2.
Deanwile, a party see4in! to reco&er upon a claim, a
counterclaim or crossclaim ?? or to o%tain a declaratory
relief ?? may, at any time after te answer tereto as %een
ser&ed, mo&e for a summary 9ud!ment in its fa&or.
Similarly, a party a!ainst wom a claim, a counterclaim or
crossclaim is asserted ?? or a declaratory relief sou!t ??
may, at any time, mo&e for a summary 9ud!ment in its
fa&or.
"fter te motion is eard, te 9ud!ment sou!t sall %e
rendered fortwit if tere is a sowin! tat, e=cept as to
te amount of dama!es, tere is no !enuine issue as to
any material fact< and tat te mo&in! party is entitled to a
9ud!ment as a matter of law.
If te motion is denied, te mo&ant may file an answer
witin te %alance of te period ori!inally prescri%ed to file
an answer, %ut not less tan fi&e 1(2 days in any e&ent,
computed from te receipt of te notice of te denial.
If te pleadin! is ordered to %e amended, te defendant
sall file an answer witin fifteen 1-(2 days, counted from
te ser&ice of te amended pleadin!, unless te court
pro&ides a lon!er period.
"fter te last pleadin! as %een ser&ed and filed, te case
sall %e set for pretrial, wic is a mandatory proceedin!.
" plaintiffEs@ petitionerEs 1or its duly autori>ed
representati&eEs2 non?appearance at te pretrial, if witout
&alid cause, sall result in te dismissal of te action wit
pre9udice, unless te court orders oterwise.
" similar failure on te part of te defendant sall %e a
cause for allowin! te plaintiff@petitioner to present
e&idence e= parte, and te court to render 9ud!ment on
te %asis tereof.
Te parties are reCuired to file teir pretrial %riefs< failure
to do so sall a&e te same effect as failure to appear at
te pretrial.
Upon te termination of te pretrial, te court sall issue
te pretrial order wic sall recite, in detail, te followin!;
1a2 te matters ta4en up at te conference< 1%2 te action
ta4en on tem, 1c2 te amendments allowed to te
pleadin!s< and 1d2 te a!reements or admissions, if any,
made %y te parties re!ardin! any of te matters
considered.

Te parties may furter a&ail temsel&es of any of te
modes of disco&ery, if tey so wis.
Tereafter, te case sall %e set for trial, in wic te
parties sall adduce teir respecti&e e&idence in support
of teir claims and@or defenses.
By teir written consent or upon te application of eiter
party, or on its own motion, te court may also order any
or all of te issues to %e referred to a commissioner, wo
is to %e appointed %y it or to %e a!reed upon %y te
parties.
Te trial or earin! %efore te commissioner sall proceed
in all respects as it would if eld %efore te court.
Upon te completion of suc proceedin!s, te
commissioner sall file wit te court; 1a2 a written report
on te matters referred %y te parties< 1%2 te report sall
%e set for earin!< 1c2 after te earin! on te report te
court sall issue an order adoptin!, modifyin! or re9ectin!
it in wole or in part< or recommittin! it wit instructions< or
reCuirin! te parties to present furter e&idence %efore te
commissioner or te court.
Kinally, a 9ud!ment or final order determinin! te merits of
te case sall %e rendered. Te decision sall %e in
writin!, personally and directly prepared %y te 9ud!e,
statin! clearly and distinctly te facts and te law on wic
it is %ased, si!ned %y te issuin! ma!istrate, and filed wit
te cler4 of court.
NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
"fter a 9ud!ment as %een rendered in fa&or of a party
a!ainst te ad&erse party, any of tem may interpose a
motion for consideration or new trial. If te motion for new
trial or reconsideration is 8ENIE8 %y te court, te
remedy of te a!!rie&ed party is to "$$E"L te 9ud!ment
or final order and not te order of 8ENI"L.
(it$in w$at period may motion for new trial or a
motion for reconsideration be filed)
At any time %efore te 9ud!ment %ecomes final. "fter te
9ud!ment as %ecome final, te remedy is no lon!er a
motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Te
filin! of te motion stops te runnin! of te period of
appeal. Gowe&er a pro?forma motion does not stop te
runnin! of te period to appeal.

PRO3FOR<A <OTAON 3 wen it does not comply wit
Rule -( and Rule +0, e.!. it does not point out specifically
te findin!s or conclusions of te 9ud!ment as are contrary
to law, ma4in! e=press reference to te testimonial or
documentary e&idence or to te pro&isions of law alle!ed
to %e contrary to suc findin!s or conclusions, and is
merely intended to delay te proceedin!s or if tere is no
affida&it of merit.
" pro?forma motion is one tat does not comply wit te
form and reCuisites pro&ided for %y te rules.
Distinction between a 4otion Dew %rial and 4otion for
Reconsideration
Te distinction lies on te !round to %e relied on %y te
mo&ant. In a motion for new trial te !rounds are FA<E
(9ra4d (extrinic 9ra4d," accident or exc4a1&e
ne.&ect,/ or NEWLB DASCOCERED ECADENCE/ wile
te !rounds for a motion for reconsideration are; t%at t%e
da-a.e awarded are exceive< or t%at t%e evidence
i in499icient to ;4ti90 t%e deciion or 9ina& order< or
t%at t%e deciion or order i contrar0 to &aw. "noter
distinction is tat in new trial, e&idence may %e adduced
%y te parties wile in a motion for reconsideration, tere
is not need for te presentation of e&idence.
ReFuisites for newly9discovered evidence
a2 must a&e %een disco&ered after trial
%2 could not a&e %een disco&ered and produced at
te trial
c2 if presented would alter te result of te action
oterwise, it is called for!otten e&idence
;f t$e 3udgment $as become final is t$ere anot$er
available remedy for t$e aggrieved party)
Yes. Te a!!rie&ed party may a&ail of Rule +), tat is, %y
filin! a petition for relief from 9ud!ment.
($at must accompany a motion for new trial)
If te !round for te motion is FA<E" te same must %e
accompanied %y an affida&it of merit 1one wic recites
te nature and caracter of te fraud, accident or
e=cusa%le ne!li!ence on wic it is %ased2. If te !round
of te motion is NDE, te motion sall %e supported %y
affida&its of te witnesses %y wom suc e&idence is
e=pected to %e !i&en or %y te duly autenticated
documents wic are proposed to %e introduced.1Sec. *,
Rule +02. Non?compliance wit te said reCuirements is
fatal to te motion for new trial.
($at is t$e effect of t$e grant of t$e motion for new
trial)
Te 9ud!ment already rendered is set aside, as if no
9ud!ment at all was rendered. Te court will conduct a
new trial and may render anoter 9ud!ment after
conductin! te new trial. In decidin! tis case now,
($at now is t$e effect of t$e order granting t$e
motion for new trial on t$e evidence already received)
If te motion for new trial is %ased on FA<E, te rule says,
Dthe evidence affected by the F$<E ill be set aside.B
Tus te e&idence not so affected %y te !round for new
trial sall remain on record.
If te !round for new trial is NDE" a&& t%e evidence
add4ced d4rin. t%e previo4 trial sall %e considered %y
te count plus te so?called newly disco&ered e&idence.
Te rules owe&er allow te reception of additional
e&idence durin! te new trial proceedin!.
4ay a party be allowed to file a second motion for new
trial) 1ec! 7, Rule 8B/
'enerally, a second motion for new trial is not allowed %y
reason of te omni%us motion rule wic states tat a
motion for new trial must include all a&aila%le !rounds at
te time of its filin! and tose not included are wai&ed. "
second motion to new trial may %e allowed if it is %ased on
anoter !round tat was not a&aila%le or e=istin! at te
time of te first motion for new trial.
;s partial new trial allowed by t$e rules)
Te answer is yes. :en te !round for new trial
interposed %y te party appears to te court tat tey only
affect part or less tan all te matters in contro&ersy, te
court may order a new trial or reconsideration only as to
te issues raised in te motion. 1Sec. 0, Rule +02
($at is t$e effect of granting a partial new trial)
Te court may eiter;
1a2 enter a 9ud!ment or final order as to te issues not
tra&ersed %y te motion for new trial< or
1%2 stay te enforcement of te 9ud!ment until after te
new trial. 1Sec. ), Rule +02
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Petition for relief from 3udgment assumes tat te
9ud!ment as already %ecome final< and te fact tat te
9ud!ment or final order as already %een entered. It is
a&aila%le only wen tere is no oter plain, speedy and
adeCuate remedy in fa&or of te petitioner. $etition for
relief is not applica%le in te presence of oter remedies in
law.
($at may be t$e sub3ect of a petition for relief from
3udgment)
Tere are two t%in. t%at can 1e t%e 41;ect o9 petition
9or re&ie9:
a2 " 9ud!ment rendered %y reason of K"DE or a
proceedin! attended %y K"DE< or
%2 " depri&ation of a party of te ri!t to appeal %y
reason of K"DE.
($at court must entertain a petition for relief from
3udgment)
Te petition for relief from 9ud!ment sall %e filed wit te
court wic rendered te 9ud!ment. Te petition must %e
filed witin 6? da0 from te time te a!!rie&ed party
learned of te 9ud!ment and in no e&ent %eyond ix (6,
monts from te entry of te 9ud!ment. T%e period cited
are non3extendi1&e 1eca4e t%e re-ed0 i -ere&0 an
act o9 .race on t%e part o9 t%e tate in 9avor o9 t%e
a..rieved part0.
;s t$ere a need for t$e petitioner to serve a copy of
$is petition for relief from 3udgment to t$e adverse
party)
Te answer is no. Te court in wic te petition is filed
must first ma4e a determination weter or not te petition
is sufficient in form and su%stance. If te court finds te
petition to %e sufficient in form and su%stance, it sall
order te ad&erse party to file is answer witin -( days
from receipt of te order.
($at now is t$e effect of t$e grant of t$e petition on
t$e 3udgment already rendered)
Te 9ud!ment pre&iously rendered is set aside. Te court
sall ten ear te case as if a timely motion for new trial
was filed. Reception of e&idence will ten follow and
tereafter te court may render 9ud!ment tereon.
4ay t$e petitioner avail of t$e provisional remedy of
in3unction in con3unction wit$ t$e petition for relief
from 3udgment)
Te answer is yes. 1Sec. (, Rule +)2 Te reason is to
preser&e te ri!ts of te parties durin! te earin! of te
petition for relief and to stay te e=ecution of te 9ud!ment.
Te petitioner is owe&er, reCuired to post te reCuired
%ond in fa&or of te ad&erse party.
Gor w$at is t$is bond responsible)
Te %ond will %e made lia%le for te dama!es and costs
tat may %e awarded in fa&or of te ad&erse party. It does
not operate to discar!e or e=tin!uis any lien wic te
ad&erse party as acCuired upon te property of t e
petitioner.
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
E=ecution is a remedy pro&ided %y law for te
enforcement of a final 9ud!ment. Once a decision
%ecomes final and e=ecutory, it is remo&ed from te power
of 9urisdiction of te court wic rendered it to furter
amend, muc less re&o4e. 1Repu%lic &s. Reyes -(( S#R"
+-+ 1-.)02
8ecisions wic a&e lon! %ecome final and e=ecutory
cannot %e annulled %y courts. 1United #D# &s. La%or
"r%iter, -6. S#R" 6*61-.)02
#asis of t$e doctrine of Ginality of 3udgments9
Te doctrine of finality of 9ud!ment is !rounded on
fundamental considerations of pu%lic and sound practice
tat at te ris4 of occasional error, te 9ud!ments of te
courts must %ecome final at some definite date set %y law
1Edra &. Intermediate "ppellate #ourt, -0. S#R" +66
F-.).H2.
Reopenin! of a case wic as %ecome final and
e=ecutory is disallowed 1$ilippine Ra%%it Bus Lines, Inc.
&. "rcia!a, -6) S#R",6++ F-.)0H
Te su%seCuent filin! of a motion for reconsideration
cannot distur% te finality of a 9ud!ment and restore
9urisdiction wic ad already %een lost 1$fleider &.
Victorino, .) S#R" 6.- F-.)/H< Geirs of $atriaca &. #",
supra2
It is well?settled tat once a decision %ecomes final and
e=ecutory, it is remo&ed from te power or 9urisdiction of
te #ourt wic rendered it to furter amend, muc less
re&o4e it 1TurCuie>a &. Gernando, .0 S#R" 6)+ F-.)/H
4ay t$e 3udgment t$at $as become final be altered)
"fter te 9ud!ment as %ecome final, no addition can %e
made tereto and notin! can %e done terewit e=cept
its e=ecution< oterwise, tere can %e no end to liti!ation,
tus settin! at nau!t te main role of #ourts of 5ustice,
wic is to assist in te enforcement of te rule of law and
te maintenance of peace and order, %y settlin! 9usticia%le
contro&ersies wit finality. 1IUIB"L &s. UNIVERSITY OK
TGE $GILI$$INES,'.R. No. -6)6(7, *//7 Sep -(.2
($at is meant by final 3udgment) #y final order)
Tere are two concepts of finality of a final order or
9ud!ment, one, it is considered final, wit respect to te
en9orcea1i&it0 of te 9ud!ment or order and final wit
respect to te appea&a1i&it0 of te 9ud!ment or order.
Grom t$e point of view of enforceability, a final order or
a final 9ud!ment is one wic can already %e enforced
%ecause te period for an appeal as e=pired and no
appeal was interposed.

Grom t$e point of view of appealability, tis simply
means weter or not te order is appealla%le or not. ;n
t$e case of interlocutory order" after its issuance, tere
is still sometin! to %e done wit respect to te merits of
te case. So, te order does not put an end to a case. Te
order is not appealla%le. "n order denyin! te motion to
dismiss is an interlocutory order, ence not appealla%le.
But an order !rantin! a motion to dismiss is final ence
appealla%le.
1Dote' Rule 8= spea0s of t$e finality of a final
3udgment or final order from t$e PO;D% OG :;E( OG
EDGORCE5#;L;%K/
($at are t$e modes of e&ecution of a final 3udgment
or final order)
Kinal 9ud!ment or order may %e enforced in eiter of two
ways;? %y te filin! of a -otion for te issuance of a writ
of e=ecution witin KIVE 1(2 YE"RS from te entry of
9ud!ment< or %y an independent action (reviva& o9
;4d.-ent, after te lapse of te fi&e 1(2 years period
pro&ided te action %a not precri1ed.
($ere is t$e venue of t$e action to revived 3udgment)
"n action to re&i&e a 9ud!ment is a personal action. It is
not a real action. Tis %ein! a personal action, it will %e
!o&erned %y Rule 6, te &enue could %e te residence of
te plaintiff or te residence of te defendant at te option
of te plaintiff.
($at is t$e lifetime of a writ of e&ecution issued by
t$e court)
Under te new rule, we now a&e a lon!er lifetime of a
writ of e=ecution. Te lifetime corresponds to te period
witin wic a 9ud!ment may %e e=ecuted %y mere motion.
It means to say furter tat durin! tis 9ive30ear period"
no oter writ of e=ecution is reCuired to %e issued. Te
seriff can enforce tat witin tis fi&e?year period for as
lon! as te 9ud!ment is not satisfied witin te (?year
period. Te effecti&ity of te writ of e=ecution is fi&e 1(2
years.
($at is a dormant 3udgment)
It is one wic as not %een enforced %y motion witin fi&e
1(2 years from its entry. It is reduced to a mere ri!t of
action in fa&or of te 9ud!ment creditor. It may %e enforced
%y action 1re&i&al of 9ud!ment2
4ay t$e court order t$e e&ecution of t$e 3udgment
pending appeal)
Section *, Rule +. pro&ides tat te trial court may, in te
e=ercise of its discretion, order te e=ecution of te
9ud!ment pendin! appeal. Some autorities say tat tere
must %e a special reason for te !rantin! of e=ecution
pendin! appeal. In wic case, te order !rantin!
e=ecution pendin! appeal must state suc reason terein.
($at 3udgments are not stayed by appeal)
5ud!ments in actions for in9unction, recei&ersip
accountin! and support and suc oter 9ud!ment tat are
considered immediately e=ecutory cannot %e stayed %y
appeal. 1Sec. 6, Rule +.2
Effect of reversal of t$e 3udgment t$at was e&ecuted
pending appeal
In case te e=ecuted 9ud!ment is partly or wolly re&ersed
on appeal, te trial court sall issue orders of restitution or
reparation of dama!es as eCuity and 9ustice may warrant.
1Sec. (, Rule +.2
($at $appens w$en a t$ird party is affected by t$e
implementation of a writ of e&ecution)
Te tird party sall e=ecute an affida&it statin! is title or
ri!t to te possession of te property su%9ect of te
e=ecution and ser&e te same upon te seriff and te
9ud!ment creditor. Tis affida&it is wat we call a tird
party claim of terceria. If is tird party claim is denied, te
tird person may file a rein&indicatory action a!ainst te
9ud!ment creditor or purcaser< or an action for dama!es
a!ainst te indemnity %ond posted %y te 9ud!ment
creditor.
Rig$t of redemption in case t$e 3udgment is validly
e&ecuted
Te 9ud!ment de%tor as -* monts from te re!istration
of te certificate of sale to e=ercise is ri!t of redemption.
If redemption is e=ercised %y anoter person, su%seCuent
redemption must %e done witin 7/ days from te last
redemption. Te moment redemption is e=ercised %y te
%y 9ud!ment de%tor no furter redemption is allowed.
Effect of a 3udgment or final order rendered by a court
of t$e P$ilippines, $aving 3urisdiction to pronounce
t$e 3udgment or final order, may be as follows'
Sec. 60 of Rule +. !roups into tree 1+2 te actions
co&ered, tey are;
a2 cases in&ol&in! title to specific property<
%2 cases in&ol&in! pro%ate of a will<
c2 cases in&ol&in! te administration of te estate of
te decedent<
d2 cases in&ol&in! te political, le!al and personal
condition or status of a person< and
e2 cases in&ol&in! te relation of a person to
anoter.
Effect of ?udgment rendered by a Goreign Court
Te effect of a 9ud!ment or final order of a tri%unal of a
forei!n country, a&in! 9urisdiction to render te 9ud!ment
or final order is as follows;
1a2 In a case of 9ud!ment or final order upon a
specific tin!, te 9ud!ment or final order is
conclusi&e upon te title to te tin!< and
1%2 In case of a 9ud!ment or final order a!ainst a
person, te 9ud!ment or final order is
presumpti&e e&idence of a ri!t as %etween te
parties and teir successors in interest %y a
su%seCuent title.
In eiter case, te 9ud!ment or final order may %e repelled
%y e&idence of a want of 9urisdiction, want of notice to te
party, collusion, fraud or clear mista4e of law or fact.
" 9ud!ment rendered %y a forei!n court cannot %e
enforced in te $ilippines e=cept %y action.
($at does t$e rule say wit$ respect to t$e 3udgment
t$at may be rendered in t$ese cases)
Te rule says 1-2 tat if te 9ud!ment is wit respect to te
specific property, it is conclusi&e on te title to te
property< 1*2 te 9ud!ment is conclusi&e on te pro%ate of
te will< 1+2 te 9ud!ment is conclusi&e to te
administration of te estate< 162 te 9ud!ment is conclusi&e
on te personal, political or le!al condition of a person<
and 1(2 te 9ud!ment is conclusi&e on te relation of a
person to anoter.
Te only e=ception to tis rule tat 9ud!ment is not
conclusi&e, is wen it comes to te pro%ate of a will or te
administration of te estate. Te 9ud!ment ere is merely
prima facie e&idence tat te testator or te person wose
estate is under administration, is dead.
Concepts compre$ended under t$e doctrine of res
3udicata'
Te doctrine of res 9udicata em%races to concepts, tey
are;? 1ar 10 prior ;4d.-ent and conc&4ivene o9
;4d.-ent.
Distinctions between bar by prior 3udgment and
conclusiveness of 3udgment'
Tere are two %asic distinctions of te terms.
A to re84iite: Tere is %ar %y prior 9ud!ment if all
tree identities of parties, su%9ect matter and cause of
action are present< and tere is conclusi&eness of
9ud!ment if tere is no identity of cause of action %etween
te two cases %ut tere is identity of parties or su%9ect
matter.
A to e99ect: In %ar %y prior 9ud!ment te first 9ud!ment
constitutes an a%solute %ar to all matters directly
ad9ud!ed, as well as matters tat mi!t a&e %een
ad9ud!ed in te first action< wereas in conclusi&eness of
9ud!ment, te first 9ud!ment is conclusi&e only on matter
actually liti!ated and ad9ud!ed in te first action.
APPEAL
(SEE CHART,
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
;(ules -@AF/2
Provisional remedies, concept of'
Tese are remedies resorted to %y parties to a liti!ation for
te preser&ation or protection of teir ri!ts or interest,
and for no oter purpose, durin! te pendency of te
principal action. Tey are ancillary in nature, suc tat
tey cannot e=ist witout te e=istence of te main or
principal action.
Concept and Dature of'
"ttacment is a pro&isional remedy, incidental or ancillary
to a principal action or proceedin!, were%y a plaintiff or
any proper party may, at te start of te action or e&en at
anytime tereafter 1%ut %efore entry of final 9ud!ment2
a&e te property of te ad&erse party attaced or ta4en
into le!al custody as security for te satisfaction of any
9ud!ment tat plaintiff may reco&er. 1Read ec! +8, Rule
8=/
"n order of "ttacment may %e issued %y te court, if it is
pro&en %y te applicant tat e is entitled to te relief and
tat te application is %ased on any of te !rounds
enumerated under Sec. -, Rule (0. Before an order of
attacment may %e issued %y te court, te applicant must
e=ecute te necessary affida&it in accordance wit te rule
and post te attacment %ond in an amount fi=ed %y te
court. 1ec! 8 and -, Rule 7B/
($at is t$e Lifetime of a (rit of 5ttac$ment)
" writ of attacment duly issued remains in full force and
effect until te de%t is fully paid. Te law or te rules do
not fi= a period for te lifetime of a writ of attacment.
Tus, te property under attacment remains as suc until
te 9ud!ment is satisfied or te attacment is discar!ed
or &acated in te manner pro&ided %y law. 1C$ua uy vs!
C5, 5ug! 2., +==2> C$unaco vs! 5lano, ?an! 28, +=72/
($at is t$e HPR;DC;PLE OG PR;OR OR
COD%E4POR5RK ?"R;D;C%;ODI)
Enforcement of writ of preliminary attacment must %e
preceded %y or simultaneously accompanied %y ser&ice of
summons, copy of complaint, application and affida&its for
te attacment and te %ond upon te ad&erse party.
:ere te plaintiff incorporates in is complaint an
application for te issuance of a writ of attacment, te
same must %e ser&ed upon te defendant simultaneously
wit te summons. Te reason for tis is tat %efore an
order of attacment can %e effected, te court must first
acCuire 9urisdiction o&er te person of te defendant.
1ievert vs! C5, +,* CR5 ,=2> #5C vs! C5, 2.. CR5
+8.> see also #runner vs! 5brogar, Geb! 2+, +==-/
($en is t$e reFuirement of prior or contemporaneous
service of summons not applicable)
It sall not apply were te summons could not %e ser&ed
despite dili!ent efforts, or te defendant is a resident of
te $ilippines temporarily a%sent terefrom, or te
defendant is a non?resident of te $ilippines or te action
is in rem or %uasi in rem. 1ievert vs! C5, +,* CR5
,=2> #5C vs! C5, 2.. CR5 +8.> see also #runner vs!
5brogar, Geb! 2+, +==-/
($at is t$e e&tent of t$e application of t$e remedy of
5ttac$ment)
a2 "&aila%le e&en if te reco&ery of personal
property is only an incidental relief sou!t in te
action<
%2 Day %e resorted to e&en if te personal property
is in te custody of a tird person<
c2 E=tends to all 4inds of property, real or personal
or incorporeal<
d2 To reco&er possession of personal property
un9ustly detained, presupposes tat te same is
%ein! concealed, remo&ed, or disposed of to
pre&ent its %ein! found or ta4en %y te applicant<
e2 #an still %e resorted to e&en if te property is in
custodia legis, as lon! as te property %elon!s to
te defendant, or is one in wic e as proprietary
interests, "N8 wit permission of te court.
tate t$e grounds for t$e issuance of a writ of
attac$ment!
a. Reco&ery of specified amount of money and
dama!es, e5cept moral or e=emplary, were party
is a%out to depart from te $ilippines wit intent to
defraud creditors<
%. "ction for money or property em%e>>led or for
willful &iolation of duty %y pu%lic officers, officers of
corporation, a!ent, or fiduciary<
c. Reco&ery of possession of property 1%ot real
and personal2 un9ustly detained, wen te property
is concealed or disposed of to pre&ent its %ein!
found or ta4en<
d. "ction a!ainst party !uilty of fraud in contractin!
te de%t or incurrin! te o%li!ation or in te
performance tereof<
e. "ction a!ainst party wo is concealin! or
disposin! of property, or is a%out to do so, wit
intent to defraud creditors<
f. "ction a!ainst party wo is not a resident of te
$ilippines and cannot %e found terein or upon
wom ser&ice %y pu%lication can %e made.
($at are t$e 0inds of 5ttac$ment)
a2 $reliminary "ttacment; One tat is !i&en at
te %e!innin! of or durin! te pendency of te
action or %efore entry of 9ud!ment.
%2 'arnisment; One %y wic te plaintiff
su%9ects to is claim te defendantEs property in te
possession of a tird person, or money owed %y
tird persons to te defendant.
c2 Le&y on E=ecution; Tis is also 4nown as
final attacment %ecause tis is !i&en %y te court
to enforce or satisfy a 9ud!ment tat as %ecome
final and e=ecutory 1ec! =, Rule 8=/
4ay a property already in custodia legis by t$e
sub3ect of an order of attac$ment)
Te answer is yes. "ll tat is needed to %e done wen
property su%9ect of te application of a writ of attacment
is in custodia legis is to a&e a copy of te writ of
attacment filed wit te proper court or Cuasi?9udicial
a!ency a&in! custody of te property and notice is
ser&ed upon te custodian of said property. 1Last
paragrap$ ec! B, Rule 7B/
tate t$e remedies of t$e defendant w$ose property
was sub3ect to attac$ment!
a2 Te defendant may mo&e to discar!e te
attacment %y postin! cas deposit or a counter?
%ond to secure te payment of wate&er 9ud!ment
te plaintiff may reco&er in te main or principal
action! 1ec! +2, Rule 7B/ If te attacment to %e
discar!ed is wit respect to a particular property,
counter?%ond or cas deposit sall %e eCual to te
&alue of te property as determined %y te court< in
all oter cases, amount of counter?%ond sould %e
eCual to te amount fi=ed in te order of
attacment.
%2 Te defendant may mo&e to Cuas or
discar!e te attacment on te !round tat te
attacment was improperly or irre!ularly issued.
1posting of deposit or counter9bond is not
necessary/
c2 "pplicantEs %ond is insufficient or sureties fail
to 9ustify<
d2 $roperty attaced is e=empt from e=ecution<
e2 5ud!ment is rendered a!ainst attacin!
party<
f2 "ttacment is e=cessi&e 3 discar!e is wit
respect to te e=cess
tate t$e purpose of t$e cas$ deposit or counter9
bond!
Te #as deposit or counter?%ond sall secure te
payment of any 9ud!ment tat te attacin! party may
reco&er.
tate t$e procedure to be followed in case a t$ird
person lays a claim on t$e property sub3ect of
t$e application!
Te procedure to %e followed sall %e te same as tat of
a terceria in e=ecution of 9ud!ment under Rule +.. "side
from filin! a tird party claim, te tird person may eiter
inter&ene %y 9oinin! te defendant 1Rule +=/ in te main
action, or file a separate ci&il action a!ainst te plaintiff
and te seriff, or file a complaint for dama!es a!ainst te
%ond filed %ut tis action sould %e filed not later tan one
undred twenty 1-*/2 days from filin! of te %ond.
tate t$e ot$er instances w$ere a defendant may
recover from t$e attac$ment bond!
a2 " defendant wo lost in te main case may
still claim for dama!es on te attacment %ond, if it
is sown tat te plaintiff fraudulently o%tained te
writ of attacment or tat te writ was issued not on
any of te !rounds enumerated in Sec. -, Rule (0!
1#aron vs! David, 7+ P$il! +/
%2 " defendant wo lost in te main case
%efore te trial court %ut te 9ud!ment was re&ersed
on appeal, e may claim dama!es durin! te
pendency of te appeal %y filin! an application in
te appellate court wit notice to te party in wose
fa&or te attacment was issued or is surety,
%efore te 9ud!ment of te appellate court %ecomes
e=ecutory. Te appellate court may allow te trial
court to decide te application for dama!es. 1ec!
2., Rule 7B/
($en to apply for damages against t$e attac$ment
bond'
a. Before trial<
%. Before appeal is perfected<
c. Before 9ud!ment %ecomes e=ecutory<
d. In te appellate court for dama!es pendin!
appeal, %efore 9ud!ment %ecomes e=ecutory.
DO%E' 5n action to recover damages against t$e
bond must be commenced before t$e finality of t$e
3udgment> ot$erwise it is barred 1Enrile vs! Capulong
4ay +*, +==./
5pplication for disc$arge, w$ere filed'
"ny application for te discar!e of an attacment may
only %e filed wit te court were te action is pendin!.
($en may an application for disc$arge be filed)
"ny application for discar!e may %e filed e&en %efore
enforcement of te writ so lon! as tere as %een an order
of attacment.
:en 9ud!ment in te main case %ecomes final and
e=ecutory, te sureties, on counter?%ond to lift attacment,
are car!ed and can %e eld lia%le for te amount of
9ud!ment and costs upon notice and summary earin!.
;s t$ere a need to first e&ecute t$e 3udgment in t$e
main case before a proceeding can be $ad against t$e
surety)
Tere is no need to first e=ecute 9ud!ment a!ainst te
9ud!ment o%li!or %efore proceedin! a!ainst sureties. Te
proceedin! a!ainst te surety is independent of te
9ud!ment in te main case.
4ay claims for damages against t$e bond be t$e
sub3ect of a separate action)
#laims for dama!es a!ainst te %ond cannot %e su%9ect of
independent action e5cept;
a2 :en principal case is dismissed %y te trial
court for lac4 of 9urisdiction witout !i&in! te
claimin! party opportunity to pro&e claim for
dama!es<
%2 :en dama!es are sustained %y a tird
person not a party to te action.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
R4&e (=
1Sec. -?.2
tate t$e concept of a preliminary in3unction!
$reliminary in9unction is an order !ranted at any sta!e of
te main action, %ut prior to final 9ud!ment reCuirin! a
person;
a2 To refrain from doin! a particular act
1preliminary proi%itory in9unction2< or
%2 To perform a particular act 1preliminary
mandatory in9unction2< or
c2 :en te court, after trial, en9oins a party
permanently from doin! an act or to perform te act
reCuired. 1Kinal In9unction2
($y is t$e issuance of a writ of preliminary in3unction
also referred to as Htrong 5rm of EFuityI)
"t times it is referred to as te AStron! "rm of ECuity,B
%ecause te e=ercise of wic is more delicate and wic
calls for !reater circumspection. It sould only %e
e=tended in cases of !reat in9ury were courts of law
cannot afford an adeCuate or commensurate remedy in
dama!es. In9unctions must only %e issued in cases of
e=treme ur!ency< were te ri!t is &ery clear< were
considerations of relati&e incon&enience %ear stron!ly in
complainantEs fa&or< were tere is a willful and unlawful
in&asion of plaintiffEs ri!t. 1<ernandez vs! Dational
Power Corporation, et al! 6!R! Do! +-782*, 4arc$ 28,
2..,/
tate t$e purpose of a Preliminary ;n3unction!
Te purpose of a preliminary in9unction is to maintain te
status %uo of te parties wit re!ard te su%9ect matter of
te liti!ation durin! te pendency of te main action. "n
in9uncti&e writ may only %e issued wen te applicant as
pro&en tat e as a clear ri!t and te e=istence of an
impendin! in9ury to %e pre&enti&e %y te writ. 12* 5m! ?ur!
2.+> see also Davarro vs! C5, 6!R! --7+., ?an! 2B,
+==2/
tate t$e reFuisites before a court may issue an
in3unctive writ!
Kor te writ to issue, two reCuisites must %e present,
namely, te e=istence of te ri!t to %e protected, and tat
te facts a!ainst wic te in9unction is to %e directed are
&iolati&e of said ri!t. It is necessary tat one must sow
an unCuestiona%le ri!t o&er te premises!1Pena vs!
Cipres, 6 R! Do! +-7B-2, ?uly +-, 2..7/
($at is meant by t$e term status Fuo)
It refers to tat last peaceful and uncontested sta!e
%etween te parties in te main action tat preceded te
contro&ersy. 1Rodulfa vs! 5lfonso, ,B, P$il! 22+, see
also abalones vs! C5, Geb! +-, +==-> #engzon vs! C5
+,+ CR5 B-7/
;s t$e principle of PR;OR OR COD%E4POR5RK
?"R;D;C%;OD applicable in in3unction cases)
Li4e in $reliminary "ttacments, te so?called principle of
P(B+( +( C+,TE<P+($(# JC(B&!BCTB+, is also
applica%le. Tat is, te notice for te application for a writ
of preliminary in9unction tat is included in te initiatory
pleadin! must %e preceded %y te contemporaneous
ser&ice of summons upon te ad&erse party. 1ec! -,
Rule 7*/
;t t$ere a difference of t$e application of t$e principle
of prior and contemporaneous 3urisdiction in
Preliminary 5ttac$ment from t$at of Preliminary
;n3unction)
Te answer is yes. In attac$ment, te principle applies
only in te implementation of te writ, wile in applications
for in3unction or TRO, tis principle applies %efore te
raffle and issuance of te writs or TRO.
4ay a writ of in3unction be issued e& parte)
Te answer is no. a writ of in9unction may only %e issued
after due notice and earin! is afforded te ad&erse part.
No in9unction can terefore %e issued e= parte. Neiter
may a court issue a status Cuo order in lieu of TRO.
Gowe&er, te court may issue e= parte, a temporary
restrainin! order wic sall %e effecti&e only for an non?
e=tendi%le period of twenty 1*/2 days wen te non?
issuance of te in9unction e= parte would cause !reat and
irrepara%le in9ury to te applicant. 1:alencia vs! C5, Geb!
+=, 2..+, see also P:%5 vs! Delos 5ngeles +,- CR5
7-8< Davarro vs! C5 6!R! Do! --7+., ?an! 2B, +==2/
($at is t$e life time of temporary restraining orders
issued by a court)
:e a&e to Cualify, ordinarily a temporary restrainin! sall
remain effecti&e only for a period of twenty 1*/2 days wen
issued %y a court lower tat te #ourt of "ppeals< tus a
temporary restrainin! order issued %y te #ourt of "ppeals
a&e a lifetime of si=ty 17/2 days from te issuance tereof
wile a restrainin! order issued %y te Supreme #ourt
seems to a&e no fi=ed period. 1upreme Court
Resolution Geb! +B, +==*/ Te said resolution states tat
a temporary restrainin! order issued %y te Supreme
#ourt remains effecti&e until furter orders from te said
court.
;s ;n3unction is applicable to en3oin government
infrastructure pro3ect and t$ose underta0en by t$e
government for development purposes)
Te Supreme #ourt applyin! $residential 8ecree -)-)
declared te in9unction issued %y te lower court in&alid.
Note te decree e=pressly proi%its or en9oins any court or
%ody to issue in9unctions re!ardin! said pro9ects.
14alayan ;ndustries vs! C5 ept! -, +==2/ Te same
rulin! was reiterated %y te #ourt in anoter case were it
eld tat; ANo TRO, preliminary in9unction or preliminary
mandatory in9unction may issue a!ainst te !o&ernment in
cases in&ol&in! implementation of !o&ernment
infrastructure pro9ects.B 16arcia vs! #urgos, reiterated in
5dministrative Circular no! B9==, promulgated ?une
27, +===/
;s t$e term HcourtI in PD +*+* applicable to t$e
upreme Court)
Te answer is no. Te pro&ision of $8 -)-) does not
apply to te Supreme #ourt. In fact, $8 -)-) as %een
amended %y R" ).0(, Section - of te said law pro&ides
tat te Supreme #ourt is empowered to issued a writ of
in9unction e&en wit re!ard to !o&ernment infrastructure
pro9ects. 1Ro&as vs! ;5C, 4ay 2=, +=*=/
($at is t$e e&tent of applicability of an ;n3unction
issued by a courtL
"n in9uncti&e writ issued %y a court lower tan te #ourt of
"ppeals sall only apply witin te 9udicial re!ion.
Gowe&er, a writ of in9unction issued %y te #ourt of
"ppeals or te Supreme #ourt can %e enforced anywere
in te $ilippines.
;s t$e posting of a bond in in3unction cases
mandatory)
Unless e=empted %y te court, e&ery applicant for an
in9uncti&e writ must post te reCuired %ond e=ecuted in
fa&or of te party a!ainst wom te in9uncti&e writ is
issued. 1ec! -b, Rule 7*/! Gowe&er in te case of 5ctive
(ood vs! ;5C, 4arc$ 2,, +==., te court ruled tat an
order !rantin! te issuance of an in9uncti&e writ is
immediately effecti&e e&en %efore te %ond is filed %y te
applicant witin te period fi=ed %y te court.
($at is t$e remedy of an aggrieved party w$en an
in3unctive writ is improvidently issued by reason of
misrepresentation on t$e part of t$e applicant)
Te a!!rie&ed party may file an application for dama!es
a!ainst te in9uncti&e %ond %efore te trial of te main
cause or %efore appeal is perfected or %efore te
9ud!ment %ecomes e=ecutory wit notice to te ad&erse
party and te latterEs surety.
uppose a 3udgment $as been rendered by t$e trial
court but t$e same is reversed by t$e appellate court
in favor of t$e party against w$om t$e writ $as been
issued, is t$e latter entitled to claim for damages
against t$e in3unctive bond)
Te answer is yes. In suc a situation, te party a!ainst
wom an in9uncti&e writ as %een issued may claim for
dama!es a!ainst te %ond %y !i&in! notice to te ad&erse
party and te surety. Te claim for dama!es sustained
durin! te proceedin!s on appeal must %e filed wit te
appellate court %efore te latterEs 9ud!ment %ecomes final
and e=ecutory. Te appellate court may allow te
application %ut it may direct te trial court to ear and
decide te application. 1ec! 2., Rule 7B/
($at is t$e remedy of a party against w$om an
improvident in3unction $as been issued w$en t$e
in3unction bond is insufficient to answer for t$e
damages sustained by $im)
Te party may, in te same action, e=ecute on te
property of te applicant in order to reco&er te dama!es
e sustained as a result of te issuance of an impro&ident
writ. 1ec! 2., Rule 7B/
($at is t$e remedy of an aggrieved party w$en an
in3unctive writ is improvidently issued by reason of
misrepresentation on t$e part of t$e applicant)
Te a!!rie&ed party may file an application for dama!es
a!ainst te in9uncti&e %ond %efore te trial of te main
cause or %efore appeal is perfected or %efore te
9ud!ment %ecomes e=ecutory wit notice to te ad&erse
party and te latterEs surety.
uppose a 3udgment $as been rendered by t$e trial
court but t$e same is reversed by t$e appellate court
in favor of t$e party against w$om t$e writ $as been
issued, is t$e latter entitled to claim for damages
against t$e in3unctive bond)
Te answer is yes. In suc a situation, te party a!ainst
wom an in9uncti&e writ as %een issued may claim for
dama!es a!ainst te %ond %y !i&in! notice to te ad&erse
party and te surety. Te claim for dama!es sustained
durin! te proceedin!s on appeal must %e filed wit te
appellate court %efore te latterEs 9ud!ment %ecomes final
and e=ecutory. Te appellate court may allow te
application %ut it may direct te trial court to ear and
decide te application. 1ec! 2., Rule 7B/
($at is t$e remedy of a party against w$om an
improvident in3unction $as been issued w$en t$e
in3unction bond is insufficient to answer for t$e
damages sustained by $im)
Te party may, in te same action, e=ecute on te
property of te applicant in order to reco&er te dama!es
e sustained as a result of te issuance of an impro&ident
writ. 1ec! 2., Rule 7B/
Concept of Receivers$ip
It is te status of a person appointed %y te #ourt durin!
te tendency of a case in&ol&in! property for all te
parties, to old and recei&e te real and@or personal
properties in liti!ation, durin! suc liti!ation, wit power to
possess, control and dispose te same, su%9ect to te
direction of te court appointin! im. Te recei&er is
usually appointed %y te court were te action is
pendin!, #ourt of "ppeals or te Supreme #ourt or a
mem%er tereof. Te person appointed as recei&er must
%e impartial and disinterested and neiter of te parties to
te liti!ation may %e appointed recei&er. 1"lcantara vs.
$bbas 0 &C($ -E2
;mportant principles to be remembered in
Receivers$ip'
a2 Te order appointin! a recei&er is
interlocutory<
%2 Te appointment of a recei&er is purely
discretionary upon te court<
c2 " recei&er cannot %e appointed in an action
of in9unction<
d2 "ppointment of recei&er must always %e
su%9ect to notice and earin!< 1E5ception2 $rce vs.
&undiam <ar. /1, /0@F:
e2 'enerally, property in custodia le!is cannot
%e te su%9ect of recei&ersip e=cept under special
circumstances. 1!olar vs. &undiam =. &C($ F/F:
f2 " corporation under recei&ersip as no
power to e=ecute a mort!a!e o&er its properties.
"ny mort!a!e e=ecuted %y te corporation is null
and &oid.
!2 Neiter party to a liti!ation in&ol&in! property
sall %e appointed as recei&er.
Replevin, its concept'
It is a pro&isional remedy, consistin! in te deli&ery, %y
order of te court, of personal property %y te defendant to
te plaintiff wile te main action for reco&ery of said
personal property is pendin! liti!ation. Tis remedy, wile
primarily desi!ned for te reco&ery of personal property
may also e=tend to autori>e te settlement of eCuities
%etween liti!atin! parties arisin! from te main
contro&ersy. ;Chiao Liong Tan vs. C$ ,ov. /0, /00=:
Te court may also pass upon te issue of ownersip in
te earin! of te petition for reple&in. 1Bbid.: " property
su%9ect matter of a foreclosure of a cattel mort!a!e may
also %e te proper o%9ect of a petition for reple&in.
;Bachrach <otors vs. &ummers E> Phil. =:
Te person a&ailin! of te remedy must %e te older of
te le!al title o&er te property. 1Sec. *a, Rule 7/2 It would
seem tat te decision of te Supreme #ourt in te case
of #ang vs. 6aldeG /@@ &C($ -6- were it eld tat it is
enou! tat e is entitled to te possession of te same
durin! te pendency of te main action as %een
a%andoned %y te amendment to te rule.
Proceedings in case a t$ird person claims title to t$e
property'
Sould a tird person &alidly lay a claim upon te property
su%9ect of te writ of reple&in, te seriff sall not %e
%ound to old on to te property unless te applicant files
a %ond, in an amount eCui&alent to te &alue of te
property, appro&ed %y te court to indemnify te said tird
person. Te %ond posted %y te applicant sall %e
eCui&alent to te &alue of te property. Te moment a
%ond is filed, te seriff sall not %e lia%le for dama!es.
ome important principles to remember regarding
replevin'
a. "&aila%le only were te principal relief sou!t in
te action is te reco&ery of possession of personal
property<
%. #an %e sou!t only were te defendant is in te
actual or constructi&e possession of te personal
property in&ol&ed.
c. E=tends only to personal property capa%le of
manual deli&ery<
d. "&aila%le to reco&er personal property e&en if te
same is NOT %ein! concealed, remo&ed, or
disposed of<
e. #annot %e a&ailed of if property is in custodia
legis, as were is it under attacment, or was
sei>ed under a searc warrant or distrained for ta=
assessment.
($en is t$e defendant entitled to t$e return of t$e
property sub3ect of replevin'
8efendant entitled to return of property ta4en under writ if;
a. Ge seasona%ly posts redeli&ery %ond
%. $laintiffEs %ond is insufficient or defecti&e
c. $roperty is not deli&ered to plaintiff for any
reason.
SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE
RULE 7-
Concept'
Support is anytin! tat is indispensa%le for te
sustenance, dwellin!, clotin! and medical attendance,
accordin! to te social position of te family. It includes
education of te person entitled to support until e
completes is education or trainin! for some profession,
trade, and &ocation e&en %eyond te a!e of ma9ority.
1Verso>a &s. Verso>a *7 S#R" *)2
Support pendente lite is a pro&isional remedy in a main
action reCuirin! te !i&in! of allowance or support to te
plaintiff or is family durin! te pendency of te main
action.
Effect w$en a person w$o was ordered to give
support pendente lite is found not to be liable to give
support'
a2 Te court sall order te person to wom te
support was !i&en to reim%urse plus interest<
witout pre9udice on te ri!t of recipient to o%tain
reim%ursement from te person o%li!ed to !i&e
support in a separate action<
%2 Sould te recipient fail to reim%urse or
una%le to do te same, te person wo !a&e
support may sue in anoter action te person
le!ally o%li!ed to !i&e support.
upport in criminal cases
W$en applicable'
a2 in criminal actions were te ci&il lia%ility
includes support for te offsprin! as a conseCuence
of te crime< "N8
%2 te ci&il aspect tereof as not %een wai&ed,
reser&ed or instituted prior to its filin!
($o may file' 1in successive order/
a2 offended party<
%2 er parents<
c2 !randparents or
d2 !uardian<
e2 State
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
1Rule 7* to 0-2
ANTERPLEADER
Concept'
It is special ci&il action were%y a person wo as
property in is possession or an o%li!ation to render,
wolly or partly %ut wo claims no interest in te su%9ect or
wose interest is not disputed %y oters !oes to court and
as4s tat te conflictin! claimants to liti!ate amon!
temsel&es in order to determine finally wo is entitled to
te same. Interpleader action may prosper only wen;
a2 Te plaintiff as no claim o&er te property or is
claim o&er te property is not disputed<
%2 Tere are at least two or more conflictin! claimants
o&er te same property<
c2 Te conflictin! claimants must a&e &alid and
effecti&e claims<
d2 Te su%9ect matter must %e one and te same.
"n action to interplead must %e filed %efore te person
wo as possession o&er te property or interest is sued
%y any of te claimants and 9ud!ment as %een rendered
%y te court tereon. ;Tirona vs. +campo *( ,o. /E@./>,
$pril F, >11-4Hac) Hac) vs. Tan and Lee, <arch >F,
/0@F:
" writ of reple&in cannot %e issued %y anoter court
reCuirin! te deli&ery of a property su%9ect matter of an
interpleader action in anoter court. Te reason %ein! tat
te issue of ri!tful possession or ownersip is in dispute
in te interpleader action. 1&anpiro vs. B$C, >>1 &C($
-=@:
" depositary of a personal property wo as !i&en receipt
terefore may file an action of interpleader wen
confronted wit a situation tat se&eral persons demand
from im te deli&ery of te tin! !i&en in deposit. Or in a
lease a!reement were te tenant is informed %y se&eral
persons to a&e te ri!t to collect te rentals. Or after a
seriff as conducted te sale of property on e=ecution is
as4ed %y se&eral persons to deli&er te proceeds to tem
may !o to court and reCuire te claimants to interplead.
Procedure'
Upon te filin! of te complaint, te court reCuires te
parties named to interplead and order tem to file teir
respecti&e answers witin -( days from receipt of te
summons. Te court may, in te interest of 9ustice reCuire
tat te property su%9ect matter of te action %e deposited
in court. Kailure on te part of any claimant to file is
answer witin te period sall %e deemed to a&e wai&ed
any claim and te court may render 9ud!ment %arrin! im
from any claim wit respect to te property.
Te parties notified to interplead may owe&er file a
motion to dismiss instead of an answer witin te period to
file an answer.
DECLARATORY RELIEF
Concept o9 Dec&arator0 Re&ie9 action:
It is a special ci&il action %rou!t %y a person 3
a2 Interested under a deed, will, contract or
oter written instrument<
%2 Or wose ri!ts are affected %y a statute,
e=ecuti&e order, or re!ulation or ordinance,%efore
%reac or &iolation of suc interest or ri!ts comes
to court see4in! determination of any Cuestion of
construction or &alidity arisin! under suc
instrument or statute and see4in! a declaration of
wat are is ri!ts or duties tereunder. ;P,B vs.
Estanislao, ,ov. /F, /00=:
($en may t$e remedy be availed by a party)
Based on case law, an action for declaratory relief is
proper only if adeCuate relief is not a&aila%le trou! oter
e=istin! forms of actions or proceedin!s. " petition for a
declaratory relief cannot %e made a su%stitute for all
e=istin! remedies and sould %e used wit caution. Relief
%y declaratory 9ud!ment is sui !eneris and not strictly le!al
or eCuita%le yet its istorical affinity is eCuita%le. Te
remedy is not desi!ned to supplant e=istin! remedies.
1Dulti?Realty &s. D4ati Tuscany '.R. No. -670*7, *//7
5un -72
" declaratory 9ud!ment does not create or can!e
su%stantial ri!ts or modify any relationsip or alter te
caracter of contro&ersies 1De9ia &s.'a%ayan, '.R. No.
-6.07(, *//( "pr -*2
ReFuisites of t$e action for declaratory relief'
a2 e=istence of a 9usticia%le contro&ersy<
%2 contro&ersy must %e %etween persons wose
interest are ad&erse<
c2 party see4in! declaratory relief must a&e a le!al
ri!t in te contro&ersy<
d2 issue must %e ripe for 9udicial determination<
e2 must %e filed %efore tere is a %reac or &iolation.
($o may be parties to t$e action'
a2 all persons wo a&e a claim or interest<
%2 solicitor !eneral if te action in&ol&es a statute,
etc.
c2 correspondin! prosecutor or le!al officer if
in&ol&es an L'U, re!ardin! ordinances<
4ay t$e court validly refuse cognizance of a
declaratory relief action)
Te answer is yes. Te court can refuse co!ni>ance wen
it would not terminate te uncertainty wic !a&e rise to
te action or wen te declaration or constructions is not
necessary and proper under te circumstances.
" tird party complaint is not a&aila%le in declaratory relief
actions considerin! tat te purpose of te said action is
only to see4 a clarification or construction of te a%o&e
su%9ects and tat no positi&e relief or material relief is
sou!t for %y te party. 1#lori%el &s. #om. Of #ustoms 00
S#R" 6(.2
Kor a petition for declaratory relief to prosper, te followin!
conditions sine Cua non must concur; 1-2 tere must %e a
9usticia%le contro&ersy< 1*2 te contro&ersy must %e
%etween persons wose interests are ad&erse< 1+2 te
party see4in! declaratory relief must a&e a le!al interest
in te contro&ersy< and 162 te issue in&ol&ed must %e ripe
for 9udicial determination.1Dulti?Realty &s. D4ati Tuscany
'.R. No. -670*7, *//7 5un -72
RE:;E( OG ?"D64ED%5DD G;D5L ORDER OR
REOL"%;ODOG %<E CO4ELEC 5DD
%<E CO5
Te entire rule is a new pro&ision. " 9ud!ment or final
order or resolution of te said %odies may %e %rou!t to
te S# directly on certiorari under rule 7( witin +/ days
from notice of te 9ud!ment order or resolution.
Te a!!rie&ed party may owe&er file a motion for
reconsideration wit te said %odies witin te +/?day
period and in case of denial ele&ate te matter directly to
te S# witin te remainin! period %ut in no case %e less
tan ( days.
Note owe&er, tat te filin! of te motion for
reconsideration interrupts te period witin wic to file
te petition. But te filin! of te petition for certiorari itself
does not stay te e=ecution of te 9ud!ment, order or
resolution of te said %odies unless so declared %y te
S#.
Te petition sall %e deemed su%mitted for resolution
upon te filin! of te comments tereon %y te ad&erse
party or upon te e=piration of te period witin wic te
party is allowed to comment.
Te e=ception is wen te parties were allowed to su%mit
memorandum or oral ar!uments. In suc case, te petition
is deemed su%mitted for resolution upon su%mission of te
said memorandum or oral ar!ument.
RULE 65
1#ERTIOR"RI, $ROGIBITION R D"N8"DUS2
;n general;
Certiorari is a writ emanatin! from a superior court
directed a!ainst any lower tri%unal, %oard or officer
e=ercisin! 9udicial functions for te purpose of correctin!
errors of 9urisdiction. Prohibition is a writ issued %y a
superior court directed a!ainst a lower tri%unal,
corporation, %oard or person for te purpose of pre&entin!
te latter from usurpin! a 9urisdiction wit wic it is not
le!ally &ested. <andamus is a command issuin! from a
superior court directed to some lower court, tri%unal,
%oard, corporation or person reCuirin! te performance of
some particular duty terein specified, wic duty results
from te official station of te party to wom te writ is
directed, or from operation of law.
Compare and contrast' certiorari, pro$ibition and
mandamus
#ERTIOR"RI $ROGIBITION
D"N8"DUS
"!ainst wom directed;
Certiorari is directed a!ainst a tri%unal, %oard or officer
exerciin. ;4dicia& or 84ai3;4dicia& 94nction<
Pro$ibition is directed a!ainst proceedin!s %efore a
tri%unal, corporation, %oard officer or person e=ercisin!
;4dicia&" 84ai3;4dicia& or -initeria& 94nction<
4andamus is directed a!ainst a tri%unal, %oard, person or
officer e=ercisin! -initeria& 94nction.
#ertiorari and proi%ition are applied wen suc officer,
tri%unal, %oard or person acted witout 9urisdiction, or in
e=cess of 9urisdiction or wit !ra&e a%use of discretion
amountin! to lac4 of 9urisdiction< wile mandamus is
applied wen suc person, %oard, officer or tri%unal
unlawfully ne!lects te performance of an act or unlawfully
refuses to perform an act reCuired %y law< or unlawfully
e=cludes anoter from te en9oyment of a ri!t to an
office<
In all te remedies, tere is no oter plain, speedy or
adeCuate remedy in law a&aila%le to te a!!rie&ed party.
A to P4rpoe:
#ertiorari ? To annul or modify te proceedin!s<
$roi%ition? To a&e respondent desist from furter
proceedin! wit an act< Dandamus?To a&e respondent to
do te act reCuired %y law and pay dama!es suffered, if
any.
#ertiorari is to correct errors of law or 9urisdiction<
$roi%ition is pre&enti&e in nature< Dandamus is eiter
positi&e or ne!ati&e, tat is as wen a person is directed to
perform a lawful act or wen a person is directed to desist
from usurpin! or e=cludin! anoter from a ri!t to an
office.
Note tat te !rounds for te filin! of a petition for
certiorari and proi%ition are te same, tat is, e=cess of
9urisdiction, witout 9urisdiction or wit !ra&e a%use of
discretion. Tese !rounds must %e properly alle!ed in te
petition. Kailure on te part of te petitioner to do so would
%e fatal to te case. It means tat tere must %e facts
alle!ed in te petition sowin! tat te court committed
said acts. 18EDar4s &s. Buendia, 5uly +-, -.0/2
" petition for certiorari must %e filed witin 7/
days from te receipt of te notice of denial of te motion
for reconsideration, if one is filed. If no suc motion is filed
te 7/?day period commences to run from receipt of te
order su%9ect matter of te petition. 1"dm. Datter No. //?*?
/+?S#, Sept. *///2
Tis period sall %e made to apply to all pendin!
cases. 1San Luis &s. #a Sept. -+, *//-, Repu%lic &s.
8esierto "u!ust *+, *//-2 It must %e noted tat te filin!
of a timely motion for reconsideration stops te runnin! of
te 7/?day period to file a petition for certiorari under Rule
7(. In case of denial, te petitioner is !i&en a new 7/?day
period to file te petition. 1Systems Kactors &s. NLR#,
No&. *0, *///2
DEO WARRANTO
It is a demand made %y te state upon some
indi&idual or corporation to sow %y wat ri!t tey
e=ercise some francise or pri&ile!e appertainin! to te
state wic accordin! to te constitution and law of te
land, tey cannot le!ally e=ercise %y &irtue of a !rant or
autority from te state.
It is %rou!t !enerally in te name of te state
a!ainst a usurper to a pu%lic office or a!ainst a
corporation to callen!e te e=ercise of a francise
1primary francise2 It may also %e %rou!t %y an indi&idual
in is own name a!ainst an indi&idual wo usurps is
pu%lic position or office.
:en te action is commenced %y te State;
Te action for usurpation is commenced a!ainst
an indi&idual wo;
a2 Usurps intrudes into or unlawfully olds or
e=ercises a pu%lic office, position or
francise<
%2 Is a pu%lic officer wo does or suffers an act
wic, %y te pro&ision of law, constitutes a
!round for forfeiture of is office<
c2 Is an association wic acts as a corporation
witin te $ilippines witout %ein! le!ally
incorporated or witout lawful autority to do
so.
Te filin! of Cuo warranto proceedin! is
compulsory wen te OS' is directed %y te $resident to
do so %y reason of te fact tat any of te a%o&e
circumstances are pro&en to e=ist. It is discretionary wen
te OS' or pu%lic prosecutor is allowed to commence te
action %y lea&e of court at te instance of a pri&ate
indi&idual.
"n indi&idual in is pri&ate capacity may also
commence suc action wen e is unlawfully depri&e of
te e=ercise of a lawful office %y anoter wo is a usurper
or a person wo does not a&e any ri!t to e said office.
In any of te a%o&e?circumstances, te
proceedin! may %e filed in te Supreme #ourt, #ourt of
"ppeals or Re!ional Trial #ourt e=ercisin! 9urisdiction o&er
te territorial area were te respondent or any of te
respondents resides. " proceedin! filed %y te OS'
may%e %rou!t in te #ity of Danila, #ourt of "ppeals or
Supreme #ourt.
Time to plead; Tis is !o&erned %y te !eneral
rules on filin! and periods of pleadin!s.
D4o Warranto v. <anda-4
In Iuo :arranto tere is an act of usurpation on
te part of te respondent wereas in Dandamus, tere is
no act of usurpation %ut tere is an unlawful e=clusion
from office<
In Iuo :arranto wat is disputed is te title to or
autority or Cualification or le!ality of any appointment to
an office< wile in Dandamus wat is in issue is te le!al
duty of te person e=cludin! to place te petition to te
use and en9oyment of te ri!t or office.
$etition for 84o warranto must %e commenced wit%in
one 0ear a9ter t%e ca4e o9 t%e o4ter or ri.%t o9 t%e
petitioner to %o&d 4c% o99ice or poition. "ny action
9or da-a.e arisin! from a 9ud!ment in Cuo warranto
-4t 1e intit4ted wit%in one 0ear a9ter t%e entr0 o9
t%e ;4d.-ent esta%lisin! te petitionerEs ri!t to te
office in Cuestion.
E-inent do-ain
It is te ta4in! of pri&ate property for pu%lic use upon
payment of 9ust compensation.
Te power of eminent domain results in te
ta4in! or appropriation of title to, and possession of, te
e=propriated property.

ReCuisites of ta4in! in Eminent 8omain;
1-2 te e=propriator must enter a pri&ate
property<
1*2 te entry must %e for more tan a
momentary period<
1+2 te entry must %e under warrant or
color of le!al autority<
162 te property must %e de&oted to pu%lic
use or oterwise informally appropriated or
in9uriously affected<
1(2 te utili>ation of te property for pu%lic
use must %e in suc a way as to oust te owner
and depri&e im of %eneficial en9oyment of te
property. 18idipio, et al. &s.Ramos, et al., '.R. No.
-(0))*, *//7 Dar +/2
E=propriation of lands consists of two sta!es, to wit;
Te first is concerned wit% t%e deter-ination o9 t%e
a4t%orit0 o9 t%e p&ainti99 to exercie t%e power o9
e-inent do-ain and t%e propriet0 o9 it exercie in te
conte=t of te facts in&ol&ed in te suit. It ends wit an
order, if not of dismissal of te action, Aof condemnation
declarin! tat te plaintiff as a lawful ri!t to ta4e te
property sou!t to %e condemned, for te pu%lic use or
purpose descri%ed in te complaint, upon te payment of
9ust compensation to %e determined as of te date of te
filin! of te complaint.
Te second pase of te eminent domain action is
concerned wit te deter-ination 10 t%e co4rt o9 :t%e
;4t co-penation 9or t%e propert0 o4.%t to 1e
ta@en.
It is only upon te completion of tese two sta!es tat
e=propriation is said to a&e %een completed. Te
process is not completed until payment of 9ust
compensation.1Repu%lic &s. Lim, '.R. No. -7-7(7, *//(
5un *.2
FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE
MORTGAGE
1Rule 7)2
Note; Te ri!t of redemption is not reco!ni>ed in a
9udicial foreclosure under Rule 7). Te ri!t of redemption
in relation to a mort!a!e?understood in te sense of a
prero!ati&e to re?acCuire mort!a!ed property after
re!istration of te foreclosure sale?e=ists only in te case
of te e=tra9udicial foreclosure of te mort!a!e. No suc
ri!t is reco!ni>ed in a 9udicial foreclosure e=cept only
were te mort!a!ee is te $ilippine National %an4 or a
%an4 or a %an4in! institution. Tere ten e=ists only wat
is 4nown as te e84it0 o9 rede-ption.
E84it0 o9 rede-ption is simply te ri!t of te defendant
mort!a!or to e=tin!uis te mort!a!e and retain
ownersip of te property %y payin! te secured de%t
witin te ./?day period after te 9ud!ment %ecomes final,
in accordance wit Rule 7), or e&en after te foreclosure
sale %ut prior to its confirmation.
:ere a mort!a!e is foreclosed e=tra9udicially, "ct +-+(
!rants to te mort!a!or te ri!t of redemption witin one
1-2 year from te re!istration of te seriffEs certificate of
foreclosure sale. :ere te foreclosure is 9udicially
effected, owe&er, no eCui&alent ri!t of redemption
e=ists. Te law declares tat a 9udicial foreclosure sale,
Swen confirmed %y an order of te court, sall operate to
di&est te ri!ts of all te parties to te action and to &est
teir ri!ts in te purcaser, su%9ect to suc ri!ts of
redemption as may %e allowed %y law. Suc ri!ts
e=ceptionally Sallowed %y lawE 1i.e., e&en after te
confirmation %y an order of te court2 are tose !ranted %y
te carter of te $ilippine National Ban4 1"ct Nos. *060
and *.+)2, and te 'eneral Ban4in! "ct 1R.".++02. Tese
laws confer on te mort!a!or, is successors in interest or
any 9ud!ment creditor of te mort!a!or, te ri!t to
redeem te property sold on foreclosure?after confirmation
%y te court of te foreclosure sale?wic ri!t may %e
e=ercised witin a period of one 1-2 year, counted from te
date of re!istration of te certificate of sale in te Re!istry
of $roperty.

Remedial Law Pre-Week Pros. Centeno

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law Pre-Week Pros. Centeno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A PRE-WEEK REVIEWER IN

You might also like