RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

TRANSCRIBED BY:
COMPILED AND EDITED BY:JANUARY 29, 2017 DISCUSSION

SIR: If the action for example is to annul a dead of sale what is then your actionable document? Dead of sale. Thats your actionable
document you cannot sustain a cause of action for annulment of dead of sale if you dont attach or set forth the body of the substance of
the document in your pleading. Ok now.. because the rule says it shall be attached, if your defense now is based on an amended of that
dead of sale, then you must attach the substance in that amended dead of sale or set forth the entire amended dead of sale in your
pleading.

What will happen now if there is an actionable document?

If theres an actionable document in the complaint it is the obligation of the defendant to specifically deny under oath the genuineness or
due execution otherwise if you don't do that and then it is admitted..thats why there is an instance when an answer has to be verified
when there is actionable document attached to the complaint. If there is an actionable document attached to an answer or to the counter-
claim, thats the time that the plaintiff-complainant is obligated to file a reply or if in the case of compulsory counter-claim to file an answer
to the counter-claim and it must be under oath otherwise if you miss doing that, imong ma admit ang due execution and genuiness. So
careful mo (Sometimes mga new lawyers, they..we forgot that) So to be safe tanawa jud basaha jud ang answer kun naa actionable
document because you must file a reply under oath.

Now.. What happen in Ledda vs BPI

STUDENT: This is a case filed by BPI for collection of sum of money from his valued client, So Ledda was issued a pre- approved BPI
acredit card in 2005 but then she failed to pay her obligation with the credit card so that is why BPI filed an action for a collection of money.
So the RTC ruled against Ledda and in favour of BPI. Ledda appealed to CA that the document containing terms and condition governing
the issue of the BPI credit card is an actionable document as contemplated in Section 7 Rule 8 of Rules of Court .

SIR: What is the cause of action of BPI?

STUDENT: For collection of sum of money to Ledda for the failure to pay his obligation

SIR: What was then her obligation?

STUDENT: To pay her credit card obligation of five hundred thousand.

SIR: So how do you establish your cause of action against Ledda?

These are things necessary to prove the action against Ledda as BPI;

1. Acceptance of the BPI card

2. Usage of the BPI credit card to purchase goods, avail services and secure cash advances
3. non-payment of the amount due for such credit card transactions, despite demands

These are the things thay you must establish your cause of action against Ledda. So question the terms and condition for a credit card,
is that an actionable document.

STUDENT: In this case Sir. Its not.

SIR: Its not. Why not? (See ha, naay nigamit ug credit card sige ug cash advance kun tawagan magpa bungolbungol gekolektahan na
and then Aha! wa ninyo ge attach ang terms and condition. Ok now.. The terms and conditions in the credit card is that an actionable
document?

No, because the cause of action is.. you defendant receive the credit card, you use it you do not pay. Are you required to set forth the
substance and attach the copy or the entire body in the complaint? No. So if the complainant does that.( kato ako example nag pa
masahe ka you were harass and you want damages and then nag attached ka ug resibo nga nag pa massage ka and then wala ge deny
under oath sa defendant. ( Ah! Yes daog nako. No the cause of action is not based on that receipt.)

Ok if you dont contest an actionable document, what is the effect?

The genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted.
So in short you can say (Ahh! ge himo-himo) nya wa nimo ge-deny under oath. It means the genuineness and due execution (nipirma
ka ana! and then you will say hala wala ko nipirma ana) You have the opportunity to deny under oath but you did not. It means you agreed
to have admitted the genuineness and due execution of the document.

Section 8 Rule 8 says, When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the (So lahi Guys
hah ang copied in, ang copied in is set forth the entire body or attached to the corresponding pleading. How do you do attachment? By
setting forth the substance and attaching a copy or you copy the entire document in the body. Is that enough? Yes, basta entire.

The genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath
specifically denies them,( you specifically denies the document and set forth the facts) and sets forth what he claims to be the facts,
but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when
compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused. (8a) Therefore kun ikaw defendant ge attached sa
complaint ang isa ka document of which you are not what? does not appear to be a party to the instrument you need not deny under oath
or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument(document) is refused by whom? By? The party presenting
the document. Asa mana siya ang order for an inspection of the original instrument well discuss this in (not audible). If we have this
motion and you want to inspect the original document and there is no compliance you need not deny under oath the instrument attached
to the complaint or answer whether or not it is an actionable document because there was an order allowing to inspect but the order was
not complied with, then you need not deny under oath. If you are not made party to that instrument, you need not specifically deny.
Now, this provision is applicable to both the plaintiff and the defendant. In this case reply is mandatory. If defendant raises an actionable
document in the answer so theres one instance where reply is necessary. If the defendant raises and present an actionable document
exception if you are not a party or if theres an order for an inspection of the original instrument and it was not complied with.

The case of Hibberd v. Rhode, the court said by the admission of the genuineness and due execution a party admits the following; so
kun mo ingon gani ta nga hala wala nimo ge specifically deny under oath ang actionable document to which you are a party. What are
the things that you have admitted number one (not audible) (you can no longer say wa ko ni pirma ana, wa ka ni pirma under oath. It was
signed by another for him with his authority. Ni ingon nga wa ko nipirma ana pero ni ingon man nga nihatag daw ka ug SPA allowing that
person to sign on your behalf or you can say forgery ge forged ang akong pirma because you already admitted the genuineness or due
execution of that document or that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the party
relying upon it. You can no longer say Yes nipirma ko, lahi man to Bai, lahi man to. Dili na. You did not deny it under oath so you have
admitted that the document presented as an actionable document was in the words and circumstances narrated in the document. You
can no longer(not audible) because you already have admitted the due execution and the genuineness of that document.

For example the document was what? Delivered; and that any formal requisites required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or
revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by him katong due execution. So it is as if is really a good document you can no longer contest
it but as to its effectivity and as to its relevance you can contest it, but you cannot say that this document is non-existing.

For example, imohang ge admit Guys kay due execution and genuineness but as to no consideration, fraud, duress, mistake, compromise,
estoppel, or illegality of the consideration. These are the things that you do not admit because when we say genuineness and due
execution katong lima lamang you sign it, it was signed by another for you with your authority; that at the time it was signed it was in words
and figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; the document was delivered; any formal requisites required by
law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by you. These are the things that you admit as
discuss in Hibberd. But kanang ingon nga tinuod ako ng pirma. Yes tinuod nga ingon ana pero kay gitutokan man ko ug kutsilyo diri naa
ba na sa document nga ako getotokan ug kutsilyo ni pirma gehapon ko. Wala di ba. Thats duress. But you don't do that. Dont allow an
actionable document to pass without contesting it. Now what do you mean by requirement of an oath . What you are excuse of is doing
that under oath but you are also required to specifically deny because the requirement the genuineness and due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them. You are excuse if you are not a party
to a document, you are excuse from oath requirement but you are supposed to deny.

What happen in the case of Equitable Card v. Capistrano?

STUDENT: In the case of Equitable, the equitable, the petitioner filed a complaint alleging that a certain Josefa Capistrano.