Rule 10

Sec. 1 Amendments in general

Wallem v SR Farms
The settles rule is that the filing of an amended pleading does not retroact to the date of the filing
of the original; hence, the statute of limitation runs until the submission of the amendment. It is
try that, as an exception, this court has held that an amendment which merely supplements
and amplifies facts originally alleged in the complaint relates back to the date of the
commencement of the action and is not barred by the statute of limitations which expired after
the service of the original complaint. The exception, however, would not apply to the party
impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint.
Spouses Dioniso v. Linsangan
An amended complaint that changes the plaintiffs cause of action is technically a new
complaint. Consequently, the action is deemed filed on the date if the filing of such amended
pleading, not on the date of the filing of its original version. Thus, the stature of limitation
resumes its run until it is arrested by the filing of the amended pleading. The court
acknowledges, however, that an amendment which does not alter the cause of action but mere
supplements or amplifies tzdhe facts previously alleged, does not affect the reckoning date of the
filing based on the original complaint. The cause of action, unchanged, is not barred by the
statute of limitations that expired after the filing of the original complaint.
To determine if an amendment introduces a different cause of action, the test is whether such
amendment requires the defendant to answer for a liability or obligation which is completely
different from that stated in the original complaint.

Sec. 2 Amendment as a matter of right

Araneta v. CA
The plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of right, i.e., without leave of court,
before any responsive pleading is filed or served. Responsive pleadings are those which seek
affirmative relief and/or set up defenses, like an answer. A motion to dismiss is not a responsive
pleading for purposes of Sec. 2 of Rule 10.

Santi v. Hon. Claravall

In cases where the claim for damages is the main cause of action, or one of the causes of action,
the amount of such claim shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court. It is
basic jurisprudential principle that an amendment cannot be allowed when the court has no

jurisdiction over the original complaint and the purpose of the amendment is to confer
jurisdiction on the court.

Tui v. PBC
The granting of leave to file amended pleading is a matter particularly addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court; and that discretion is broad, subject only to the limitations that the
amendments should not substantially change the cause of action or alter the theory of the case, or
that it was not made to delay the action.
Amendments to pleadings are generally favored and should be liberally allowed in furtherance of
justice in order that every case, may so far as possible, be determined on its real facts and in
order to speed up the trial of the case or prevent the circuity of action and unnecessary expense.
That is, useless there are circumstances such as inexcusable delay or the taking of the adverse
party by surprise or the like, which might justify a refusal of permission to amend.

PPA v. WGA
The clear import of such amendment in Sec. 3, Rule 10 is that under the new rules, the
amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of action or defense. This should only be
true, however, when despite the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher interest of
substantial justice, and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules
which is to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

Azolla Farms v. CA
Sec 5, Rule 5 envisions two scenarios first, when evidence is introduced on an issue not allege
in the pleadings and no objection was interjected and second, when evidence is offered on an
issue not alleged in the pleadings but this time an objection was interpolated. In case where an
objection is made, the court may nevertheless admit the evidence where the adverse party fails to
satisfy the court that the admission of the evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his
defense upon the merits, and the court may grant him a continuance to enable him to meet the
new situation created by the evidence.

Spouses De La Cruz v. Concepcion

The forgoing provision envision twi scenarios, namely, when evidence is introduced in an issue
not alleged in the pleadings and no objection was interjected; and when evidence is offered on an
issue not alleged in the pleadings nut this time an objection was raised. When the issue is tried
without the objection of the parties, it should be treated in all respects as if it had been raised in

the pleadings. On the other hand, when there is an objection, the evidence may be admitted
where its admission will prejudice him.
Rule 11
Atty. Fernandez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131094, May 16, 2005

Before the Court of Appeals gives due course to a Petition for Review, the RTC retains
jurisdiction for specified instances enumerated therein, to wit:
(1) To issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not
involve any matter litigated by the appeal, such as, the appointment of a receiver, and the
issuance of writs of preliminary attachment or preliminary injunction.
(2)

To approve compromises.

(3)

To permit appeals of indigent litigants.

(4)

To order execution pending appeal in accordance with section 2 of Rule 39.

(5)

To allow withdrawal of the appeal.[40]

The residual jurisdiction of the trial court is available at a stage in which the court is
normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the
appeal. This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the
approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the
records on appeal.

Motions for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may no longer be
filed before all courts, lower than the Supreme Court. The rule in Habaluyas applies even if the
motion is filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended because the fifteen (15)
days period for filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration with said court is non-extendible.
Thus, motions for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed
only in connection with cases pending before the Supreme Court, which may in its sound
discretion either grant or deny the extension requested. No such motion may be filed before any
lower courts.

Rule 13
Garrucho v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143791, January 14, 2005
Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if any party has appeared by
counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel unless served upon the party himself is
ordered by the trial court. Notice or service made upon a party who is represented by counsel is a
nullity. Notice to the client and not to his counsel of record is not notice in law.[12] The rule
admits of exceptions, as when the court or tribunal orders service upon a party or when the
tribunal defendant is waived.
In the absence of a proper and adequate notice to the court of a change of address, the service of
the order or resolution of a court upon the parties must be made at the last address of their
counsel on record. It is the duty of the party and his counsel to device a system for the receipt of
mail intended for them, just as it is the duty of the counsel to inform the court officially of a
change in his address. It is also the responsibility of a party to inform the court of the change of
his address so that in the event the court orders that an order or resolution be served on the said
party to enable him to receive the said resolution or order.\

Phil. Radiant Products v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 163569, December 9, 2005

It was not part of the duties of the Sheriff to serve copies of the assailed Order of the RTC on the
counsel of the respondent unless directed by the said court. Such duty devolved on its process
server. The Sheriff had a copy of the assailed order because it was forwarded to him by the
Branch Clerk of the RTC for the purpose of the implementation of the writ of execution.[67]

We do not believe that a practicing lawyer will simply allow the Sheriff to just leave copies of
the orders of the court especially an order on his motion for reconsideration on the bank manager
and waive his right to be served with copies thereof as required by the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. The least that a lawyer would do is to order the Sheriff to deliver the order to his
office and for the sheriff to serve the writ of execution on the bank manager. Atty. Galicia knew
that he filed a motion for reconsideration only on July 12, 2002 which was the fifteenth day from
his receipt of the assailed decision on June 27, 2002.

Knowledge by Atty. Galicia of the existence of the assailed Order on August 27, 2002 during his
telephone conversation with the Sheriff does not amount to service thereof on the respondent as
contemplated in Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Service on the

respondent of the assailed order on Atty. Galicia took place only on August 30, 2002 when he, in
fact, received the said order through registered mail.

Grand v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142358, January 31, 2006

Ordinarily, until his dismissal or withdrawal is made of record in court, any judicial notice sent to
a counsel of record is binding upon his client even though as between them the professional
relationship may have been terminated.[37] However, under the peculiar circumstances of this
case, Atty. Orias, Jr. was negligent in not adequately protecting petitioners interest, which
necessarily calls for a liberal construction of the Rules. Verily, the negligence of Atty. Orias, Jr.
cannot be deemed as negligence of petitioner itself in the present case. A notice to a lawyer who
appears to have been unconscionably irresponsible cannot be considered as notice to his client.
[38]
Thus, petitioner is deemed to have filed its petition for review on certiorari within the
reglementary period as alleged in its Reply.

Salting v. Velez, G.R. No. 181930, January 10, 2011

If a party to a case has appeared by counsel, service of pleadings and judgments shall be made
upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court.
[10]
Thus, when the MeTC decision was sent to petitioners counsel, such service of judgment
was valid and binding upon petitioner, notwithstanding the death of her counsel. It is not the
duty of the courts to inquire, during the progress of a case, whether the law firm or partnership
continues to exist lawfully, the partners are still alive, or its associates are still connected with the
firm.[11] Litigants, represented by counsel, cannot simply sit back, relax, and await the outcome of
their case.[12] It is the duty of the party-litigant to be in contact with her counsel from time to time
in order to be informed of the progress of her case.[13] It is likewise the duty of the party to inform
the court of the fact of her counsels death. Her failure to do so means that she is negligent in the
protection of her cause, and she cannot pass the blame to the court which is not tasked to monitor
the changes in the circumstances of the parties and their counsels.

Russel v. Austria, G.R. No. 184542, April 23, 2010

Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court [18] provides that if a pleading is filed by registered mail,
then the date of mailing shall be considered as the date of filing. It does not matter when the
court actually receives the mailed pleading. Thus, in this case, as the pleading was filed by
registered mail on July 27, 2007, within the reglementary period, it is inconsequential that the
CA actually received the motion in October of that year.

Heirs of Miranda v. Miranda, G.R. No. 179638, July 8, 2013

It is basic and elementary that a Notice of Appeal should be filed "within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the judgment or final order appealed from."40

Under Section 3,41 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, pleadings may be filed in court either
personally or by registered mail. In the first case, the date of filing is the date of receipt. In the
second case, the date of mailing is the date of receipt.

In this case, however, the counsel for petitioners filed the Notice of Appeal via a private courier,
a mode of filing not provided in the Rules. Though not prohibited by the Rules, we cannot
consider the filing of petitioners Notice of Appeal via LBC timely filed. It is established
jurisprudence that "the date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not
to be considered as the date of filing thereof in court;" instead, "the date of actual receipt by the
court x x x is deemed the date of filing of that pleading."42 Records show that the Notice of
Appeal was mailed on the 15th day and was received by the court on the 16th day or one day
beyond the reglementary period. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that the Notice of Appeal was filed
out of time.

PNB v. CIR, G.R. No. 172458, December 14, 2011

It is a jurisprudential rule that the date [of] delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding
agency is not to be considered as the date of filing thereof in court, and that in such cases, the
date of actual receipt by the court, and not the date of delivery to the private carrier, is deemed
the date of filing of that pleading
Procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing an appellate petition are
generally inviolable. It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional right but a
mere statutory privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail of the privilege must comply with the
statutes or rules allowing it. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary
period specified in the law must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such requirements are
considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays, and are necessary for the orderly
discharge of the judicial business. For sure, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within
the period set by law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional as well. Failure to perfect an
appeal renders the judgment appealed from final and executory.

Aberca v. Ver, G.R. No. 166216, March 14, 2012

Personal service and filing are preferred for obvious reasons. Plainly, such
should expedite action or resolution on a pleading, motion or other paper; and
conversely, minimize, if not eliminate, delays likely to be incurred if service or
filing is done by mail, considering the inefficiency of postal service. Likewise,

personal service will do away with the practice of some lawyers who, wanting to
appear clever, resort to the following less than ethical practices: (1) serving or
filing pleadings by mail to catch opposing counsel off-guard, thus leaving the
latter with little or no time to prepare, for instance, responsive pleadings or an
opposition; or (2) upon receiving notice from the post office that the registered
parcel containing the pleading of or other paper from the adverse party may be
claimed, unduly procrastinating before claiming the parcel, or, worse, not
claiming it at all, thereby causing undue delay in the disposition of such pleading
or other papers.

If only to underscore the mandatory nature of this innovation to our set

of adjective rules requiring personal service whenever practicable, Section 11 of
Rule 13 then gives the court the discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not
filed if the other modes of service or filing were resorted to and no written
explanation was made as to why personal service was not done in the first place.
The exercise of discretion must, necessarily, consider the practicability of
personal service, for Section 11 itself begins with the clause "whenever
practicable."

We thus take this opportunity to clarify that under Section 11, Rule 13 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service and filing is the general rule,
and resort to other modes of service and filing, the exception. Henceforth,
whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in light of the circumstances of
time, place and person, personal service or filing is mandatory. Only when
personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had,
which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal
service or filing was not practicable to begin with. In adjudging the plausibility of
an explanation, a court shall likewise consider the importance of the subject
matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of the
pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11. This Court cannot rule
otherwise, lest we allow circumvention of the innovation introduced by the 1997
Rules in order to obviate delay in the administration of justice.

SEC. 9. Service of judgments, final orders or resolutions. Judgments,

final orders or resolutions shall be served either personally or by registered mail.
When a party summoned by publication has failed to appear in the
action, judgments, final orders or resolutions against him shall be served upon
him also by publication at the expense of the prevailing party. [Emphasis
supplied]

As correctly ruled by the CA:

Its third error was when it authorized service by publication after initially
dismissing the case for failure of plaintiffs-appellees to furnish the current address
of defendants-appellants. There is, however, nothing in the Rules that authorizes
publication of a notice of hearing to file answer. What is authorized to be
published are: (1) summons, and (2) final orders and judgments.
Xxx

xxx

xxx

The above-quoted provision cannot be used to justify the trial courts

action in authorizing service by publication. Firstly, what was published was not a
final order or judgment but a simple order or notice to file answer. Secondly, even
granting that the notice to file answer can be served by publication, it is explicit in
the Rule that publication is allowed only if the defendant-appellant was
summoned by publication. The record is clear that defendants-appellants were not
summoned by publication.

Thermochem v. Naval, G.R. No. 131541, October 20, 2000

Service of notice or other pleadings which are required by the rules to be furnished to the parties
must be made on their last address on record. If they are represented by counsel, such notices
shall be sent instead to the counsel's last given address on record in the absence of a proper and
adequate notice to the court of a change of address,[10] unless service upon the party himself is
ordered by the court.[11] It is the party and his counsel's responsibility to device a system for the
receipt of mail intended for them[12] just as it is the duty of counsel to inform the court of a
change in his address.

Cubar v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 55035, February 23, 1983

We find the petition to be meritorious. That the decision of the trial court was received by the
wife of Atty. Romeo Gonzaga, private respondents' counsel of record at his given address on
November 23, 1979, is not disputed. It is likewise not disputed that said wife has been receiving
prior notices of the case for her husband at the office of the latter, who had always acted as if he
had received said notices himself for he had duly complied therewith. With these facts, no other
ruling can be had but that the service of the decision in question is valid and binding. It is fully
being in accordance with Rule 13, Section 4, on personal service, said wife being of sufficient
discretion to receive notice of final judgment.

Mojar v. Agro Commercial Security, G.R. No. 187188, June 27, 2012
Under Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, if service is made by registered mail, as in this
case, proof shall be made by an affidavit of the person mailing and the registry receipt issued by
the mailing office. Section 3, Rule 46 further provides that the failure to comply with any of the
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Such service to Atty. Espinas, as petitioners counsel of record, was valid despite the fact
he was already deceased at the time. If a party to a case has appeared by counsel, service of
pleadings and judgments shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the
party is specifically ordered by the court. It is not the duty of the courts to inquire, during the
progress of a case, whether the law firm or partnership representing one of the litigants continues
to exist lawfully, whether the partners are still alive, or whether its associates are still connected
with the firm.[20]
It is the duty of party-litigants to be in contact with their counsel from time to time in
order to be informed of the progress of their case. It is likewise the duty of parties to inform the
court of the fact of their counsels death. [21] Their failure to do so means that they have been
negligent in the protection of their cause.[22] They cannot pass the blame to the court, which is not
tasked to monitor the changes in the circumstances of the parties and their counsel.

Bernarte v. PBA, G.R. No. 192084, September 14, 2011

SEC. 10. Completeness of service. Personal service is complete upon actual delivery.
Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after mailing,
unless the court otherwise provides. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual
receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) days from the date he received the first notice of
the postmaster, whichever date is earlier.

The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service the
completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail; and
(2) constructive service the completeness of which is determined upon expiration of five days
from the date the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster.13

Insofar as constructive service is concerned, there must be conclusive proof that a first notice
was duly sent by the postmaster to the addressee. 14 Not only is it required that notice of the
registered mail be issued but that it should also be delivered to and received by the

addressee.15 Notably, the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is not
applicable in this situation. It is incumbent upon a party who relies on constructive service to
prove that the notice was sent to, and received by, the addressee.16

The best evidence to prove that notice was sent would be a certification from the postmaster,
who should certify not only that the notice was issued or sent but also as to how, when and to
whom the delivery and receipt was made. The mailman may also testify that the notice was
actually delivered.

Solar Entertainment v. Ricafort, G.R. No. 132007, August 5, 1998

Personal service and filing are preferred for obvious reasons. Plainly, such should expedite
action or resolution on a pleading, motion or other paper; and conversely, minimize, if not
eliminate, delays likely to be incurred if service or filing is done by mail, considering the
inefficiency of the postal service. Likewise, personal service will do away with the practice of
some lawyers who, wanting to appear clever, resort to the following less than ethical practices:
(1) serving or filing pleadings by mail to catch opposing counsel off-guard, thus leaving the latter
with little or no time to prepare, for instance, responsive pleadings or an opposition; or (2) upon
receiving notice from the post office that the registered parcel containing the pleading of or other
paper from the adverse party may be claimed, unduly procrastinating before claiming the parcel,
or, worse, not claiming it at all, thereby causing undue delay in the disposition of such pleading
or other papers.
If only to underscore the mandatory nature of this innovation to our set of adjective rules
requiring personal service whenever practicable, Section 11 of Rule 13 then gives the court the
discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of service or filing were
resorted to and no written explanation was made as to why personal service was not done in the
first place. The exercise of discretion must, necessarily, consider the practicability of personal
service, for Section 11 itself begins with the clause whenever practicable.
We thus take this opportunity to clarify that under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of
service and filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is practicable,
in light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is
mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be
had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or
filing was not practicable to begin with. In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court

shall likewise consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved
therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section
11. This Court cannot rule otherwise, lest we allow circumvention of the innovation introduced
by the 1997 Rules in order to obviate delay in the administration of justice.

Lim v. NPC, G.R. No. 178789, November 14, 2012

SECTION 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. Whenever practicable, the service and
filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers
emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation,
why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to
consider the paper as not filed.
But the above does not provide for automatic sanction should a party fail to submit the required
explanation. It merely provides for that possibility considering its use of the term "may." The
question is whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion in not going for the sanction of
striking out the erring motion.

Spouses Dela Cruz v. Ramiscal, G.R. No. 137882, February 4, 2005

It is a rule generally accepted that when the service is to be made by registered mail, the service
is deemed complete and effective upon actual receipt by the addressee as shown by the registry
return card.[20] Thus, between the registry return card and said written note, the former commands
more weight. Not only is the former considered as the official record of the court, but also as
such, it is presumed to be accurate unless proven otherwise, unlike a written note or record of a
party, which is often self-serving and easily fabricated. Further, this error on the part of the
secretary of the petitioners former counsel amounts to negligence or incompetence in recordkeeping, which is not an excuse for the delay of filing.

Cunanan v. Jumping Jap, G.R. No. 173834, April 24, 2009

A notice of lis pendens[22] is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real
property is in litigation, serving as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property
does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over the said property.
[23]
The filing of a notice oflis pendens charges all strangers with a notice of the particular
litigation referred to therein and, therefore, any right they may thereafter acquire on the property
is subject to the eventuality of the suit. [24] Such announcement is founded upon public policy and
necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the properties in litigation within the power of the
court until the litigation is terminated and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by
subsequent alienation.[25]

Under Section 77 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, [26] a notice of lis pendens shall
be deemed cancelled only upon the registration of a certificate of the clerk of court in which the
action or proceeding was pending stating the manner of disposal thereof if there was a final
judgment in favor of the defendant or the action was disposed of terminating finally all rights of
the plaintiff over the property in litigation.

Gagoomal v. Spouses Villacorta, G.R. No. 192813, January 18, 2012

Section 14, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 14. Notice of lis pendens. - In an action affecting the title or the right of
possession of real property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when affirmative
relief is claimed in his answer, may record in the office of the registry of deeds of
the province in which the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the
action. Said notice shall contain the names of the parties and the object of the
action or defense, and a description of the property in that province affected
thereby. Only from the time of filing such notice for record shall a purchaser, or
encumbrancer of the property affected thereby, be deemed to have constructive
notice of the pendency of the action, and only of its pendency against the parties
designated by their real names.
The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may be cancelled only
upon order of the court, after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of
molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the
party who caused it to be recorded. [emphasis ours]
The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a dual effect: (1) to keep the property subject matter of
the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment in order to
prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations; and (2) to bind a
purchaser, bona fide or otherwise, of the property subject of the litigation to the judgment that
the court will subsequently promulgate.25

Relative thereto, a notice of lis pendens is proper in the following actions and their concomitant
proceedings:

(a) an action to recover possession of real estate;

(b) an action to quiet title thereto;
(c) an action to remove clouds thereon;
(d) an action for partition; and
(e) any other proceedings of any kind in Court directly affecting the title to the land or the use or
occupation thereof or the buildings thereon.26

Thus, a notice of lis pendens is only valid and effective when it affects title over or right of
possession of a real property.