RULE 6 KINDS OF PLEADINGS 4.
4. It must be within the jurisdiction of the court,
Jose Clavano, Inc. v. HLURB. A judgment must
conform to, and be supported by, both the pleadings
and the evidence, and be in accordance with the
theory of the action on which the pleadings are
framed and the case was tried.
Complaint – is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s
cause of action.
Answer – is a pleading in which a defending party (not
necessarily the defendant) sets forth his defenses.
Types of Defenses:
1. negative defense – is the specific denial of
the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading
2. affirmative defense – an allegation of a new
matter which, while hypothetically admitting the
material allegations in the pleading of the claimant,
would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him.
Counterclaim – any claim which a defending party
may have against an opposing party, based on the
capacity of the latter in suing the former. (Deborja v.
Deborja)
Elements of a Compulsory Counterclaim:
1. It is cognizable by the regular courts of
justice;
2. It arises out of, or it is connected with a
transaction or occurrence constituting a subject
matter of the opposing party’s claim;
3. It does not require for its adjudication the
presence of third parties of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction;
• In the latter, the defending party has a choice
both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except
that in an original action before the RTC, the
counterclaim may be considered compulsory
regardless of the amount; and
5. The defending party has a counterclaim at
the time he files his answer (Rule 11, Sec. 8).
Maceda v. CA. A counterclaim beyond the jurisdiction
and limit of the MTC may be pleaded only by way of
defense to weaken the plaintiff’s claim, but not to
obtain affirmative relief.
Casupanan v. Laroya. No counterclaim, cross-claim or
third party complaint may be filed by the accused in
the criminal action, but he may litigate his
counterclaim in a separate civil action.
Yulienco v. CA.
• The compelling test of compulsoriness. There
must be a logical relationship between the claim and
the counterclaim such that separate trials of the
respective claims of the parties will entail a
substantial duplication of effort and time.
• A compulsory counterclaim cannot be the
subject of a separate action, but it should be asserted
in the same suit involving the same transaction or
occurrence which gave rise to it.
Rule 9, Sec. 2. A compulsory counterclaim, or cross-
claim, not set up shall be barred.
Compulsory counterclaim v. Necessary counterclaim
• In the former, the defending party is obliged
to raise it in the action where he is being sued, or else
it shall be barred from being raised forever.
of raising it as a counterclaim in the case filed against
him or he may decide to file another action against
the complainant, raising it as his cause of action.
Lascano v. Universal Steel. Before the trial court may
acquire jurisdiction over permissive counterclaims,
docket fees thereon must first be paid.
Sun Insurance v. Asuncion. Rules on payment of
docket fees:
1. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is
not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the
court may allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive
counterclaims, third-party claims and similar
pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until
and unless the filing fee prescribed therefore is paid.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction
over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading
and payment of the prescribed filing fee but,
subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not
specified in the pleading, or if specified, the same has
been left for the determination by the court, the
additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on
the judgment.
Quintanilla v. CA. A compulsory counterclaim does
not need the payment of docket fees therefore,
except when the trial court ordered the payment of
the docket fee and the counterclaimant failed to
appeal the same.
Financial Building v. Forbes’ Park Association. The
filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting up of a
counterclaim are incompatible remedies. This is
because a compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to the
proceeding in the original suit and derives its
jurisdictional support therefrom.
Cross-claim – any claim by one party against a co-
party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that
is the subject matter either of the original action or of
a counterclaim therein.
Counterclaim v. Cross-claim:
1. The former is a complaint by the defendant
against the plaintiff, while a cross-claim is a claim by a
party against a co-party;
2. A necessary counterclaim survives even if the
main action terminates, while a cross-claim
terminates at the same time with the main action; and
3. A counterclaim may be asserted whether or
not it arises out of the same transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter of the action,
while a cross-claim must always arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter
of the action (Ruiz, Jr. v. CA).
Reply – is a pleading which is to deny or allege facts in
denial or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of
defense in the answer and thereby join or make issue
as to such new matters. If a party does not file such
reply, all new matters alleged in the answer are
deemed controverted.
Reply v. Answer to a Counterclaim:
1. A reply is a response to the defenses
interposed by the defendant in his answer, while an
answer to a counterclaim is a response to a cause of
action by the defendant against the plaintiff;
2. The filing of a reply is generally optional,
while the filing of an answer to a counterclaim is
mandatory because failure to do so places the
plaintiff in default on the counterclaim.
Exception: Sec. 12 Rule 6, if it is necessary to include a
Third – party complaint -- is a claim that a defending third person in a counterclaim or cross-claim in order
party may, with leave of court, file against a person to grant complete relief, if jurisdiction over them can
not a party to the action, for contribution, indemnity, be obtained.
subrogation or any other relief, in respect to his
opponent’s claim.
Cruz-Agana v. Santiago-Lagman. The compulsory
counterclaim is so intertwined with the main case
Capayas v. CFI. There are four tests to determine the that it is incapable of proceeding independently. The
propriety of a third-party complaint: counterclaim will require a re-litigation of the same
evidence if the counterclaim is allowed to proceed in
1. If it arises out of the same transaction on a separate action.
which plaintiff’s cause of action is based;
2. If the third-party complaint is connected with
the plaintiff’s claim, although arising out of another
transaction;
3. The third party defendant would be liable to
the original plaintiff’s claim although the third party
defendant’s liability arises out of another transaction;
and
4. The third party defendant may assert any
defense which the third party plaintiff has or may
have against plaintiff’s claim.
Samala v. Victor. A third-party defendant can answer
the main complaint since he may be held liable to the
plaintiff without the defendant being held liable.
Republic v. Central Surety Co. The third-party
complaint is a continuation and an ancillary to the
principal action. If a court acquires jurisdiction over
the main action, automatically, it acquires jurisdiction
over the third-party complaint. (example: if the main
action is appealed to the CA from the RTC, then even
if the third-party complaint has not yet been judged
by the RTC, the CA acquires jurisdiction over third-
party complaint)
Sapugay v. CA. GR: The defendant cannot by a
counterclaim bring into the action any claim against
persons other than the plaintiff.
Rule 7 PARTS OF A PLEADING
GR: All names of the parties must be included in the
complaint. Exceptions:
1. Rule 3, Sec. 12 Where the parties are so
numerous that it is impracticable to bring them to
court, and the subject matter of the controversy is of
common interest;
2. Rule 3, Sec. 14 Whenever the identity or
name of a defendant is unknown, he is sued as an
unknown designation; and
3. Rule 3, Sec. 15 Where two or more persons
not organized as an entity with juridical personality
enter into a transaction.
GR: Pleadings need not be under oath, verified, or
accompanied by affidavit.
Exception: When otherwise specifically required by
law
• A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the
affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations
therein are true and correct of his knowledge and
belief.
• A pleading required to be verified, which
contains verification based on “information and
belief” or upon “knowledge, information and belief”
or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an
unsigned pleading.
Name as many pleadings which must be verified:
1. Rule 8 – upon denying the due execution of
an actionable document;
2. All Pleadings under Summary Procedure
3. Special Civil Actions
Progressive Development v. CA. There is forum-
shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion
in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in
another. The principle applies with respect to suits
filed in the courts in connection with litigations
commenced in the court in anticipation of an
unfavorable ruling and a favorable case where the
court in which the second suit was brought, has no
jurisdiction.
Melo v. CA.
• The requirement to file a certificate of non-
forum shopping is mandatory. Otherwise, it would
result to an absurd situation where the parties
themselves would be the judge of whether their
actions constitute a violation of AC 04-94, and
compliance therewith would depend on their belief
that they might or might not have violated the
requirement.
• Compliance with the certification against
forum- shopping is separate from the avoidance of
forum- shopping itself. The former is merely a cause
for the dismissal without prejudice, upon motion and
after hearing, while the latter is a ground for
summary dismissal thereof and constitutes direct
contempt.
• Failure to comply with the requirement of
certification shall not be curable by mere amendment
of the initiatory pleading.
Exception to the rule on dismissal without prejudice:
Rule 7, Sec. 5. If the acts of counsel constitute
deliberate forum-shopping, the action shall be
dismissed summarily WITH PREJUDICE and shall
constitute direct contempt as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions.
Santo Tomas v. Surla. A permissive counterclaim
needs a certification against forum shopping while a
compulsory counterclaim, not being an initiatory
pleading, does not need a certification against forum
shopping.
General Milling v. NLRC. There was substantial
compliance even though there was no board
resolution to show that the person who signed the
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was duly
authorized by the Corporation to represent it in the
case, there was still substantial compliance. The
board resolution was attached to the motion for
reconsideration.
Far Eastern Shipping v. CA. The Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping must be executed by the pleader,
and not by counsel.
Robern Development v. Judge Quitain. An in-house
counsel of a corporation may sign for and in behalf of
the corporation in the Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping.
In case of numerous pleaders, all must sign the
certification of non-forum shopping except:
1. If only one person was authorized to
represent the others and sign the certification
(Loquias v. Ombudsman); or
2. Where the original parties are the husband
and wife only, and the property subject of the original
action is conjugal in nature (Docena v. Lapesura).

Rule 8 MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN
PLEADINGS
Sec. 1. Every pleading shall contain in a methodical
and logical form, a plain, concise, and direct
statement of the ultimate facts on which the party
pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case
may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary
facts.
Tantuico v. Republic
• Ultimate facts mean the essential facts
constituting the plaintiff’s cause if action. A fact is
essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving
the statement of the cause of action insufficient.
• Evidentiary facts are those which are
necessary for determination of the ultimate facts.
They are the premises upon which conclusions of
ultimate facts are based.
• In a motion for a bill of particulars, the only
question to be resolved is whether or not the
allegations of the complaint are averred with
sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable the
movant properly to prepare his responsive pleading
and to prepare for trial.
What are the facts which should not be stated in the
pleading?
1. Evidentiary facts – those facts that prove
ultimate facts;
2. Facts which are presumed by law;
3. Conclusions of Fact or Law; or
4. Matters which are in the domain of judifcial
notice.
Sec. 2. A party may set forth two or more statements
of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically,
either in one cause of action or defense or in separate
causes of action or defenses. The pleading is not
made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more New York Marine v. CA.
alternative statements when one of them, if made
independently, would be sufficient. • A foreign corporation not engaged in the
Philippines may exercise the right to file an action in
Philippine courts for an isolated transaction.
1. Rule 2 Sec. 5. a party may, in one pleading, • If a foreign corporation:
state in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes o Is engaged in business in the Philippines, he
of action. must have been duly licensed in order to maintain the
2. Rule 3 Sec 6. in a permissive joinder or suit.
parties, two or more persons as plaintiffs or o Is here in the Philippines for an isolated
defendants may be joined jointly, severally, or transaction, the corporation would not be needing a
alternatively. license in order to sue.
3. Rule 3 Sec. 13. two or more persons may be
joined alternatively, although the relief against one
may be insistent with the other. What averments must be done –
A. GENERALLY:
Sec. 4. Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or
be sued or under the authority of a party to sue or be 1. Rule 8 Sec 3 – Conditions precedent;
sued in a
2. Rule 8 Sec. 5 – Malice, intent, knowledge, or
representative capacity or the legal existence of an other condition of the mind;
organized association of person that is made a party,
must be avered. 3. Rule 8 Sec. 6 – Judgment;
4. Rule 8 Sec. 9 – Official document or act done
Galindo v. Roxas. A deceased person does not have lawfully
such legal entity as is necessary to bring action so
much so that a motion to substitute cannot lie and B. WITH PARTICULARITY:
should be denied by the Court.
1. Rule 8 Sec. 4 – Capacity to sue and be sued;
Aron v. Realindo. 2. Rule 8 Sec. 4 – Legal existence of any party
to sue or be sued;
• The party bringing suit has the burden to
prove the sufficiency of the representative character 3. Rule 8 Sec. 5 – Fraud or mistake
that he claims.
• If a complaint is filed by one who claims to
represent a party as plaintiff but who is not
authorized to do so, such complaint is not deemed
filed and the court does not acquire jurisdiction over
the complaint.
Actionable Document – one which is the basis or the
foundation of the cause of action or defense and not
merely an evidence of the cause of action.
2 ways:
1. Stating a summary of what it says and attach
the original or a copy thereof on the pleading; or
2. Copy it in its entirety and include it in the
pleading.
• If the genuiness and due execution of an
actionable document is not denied specifically in a
verified answer under oath, the actionable document
shall be deemed admitted.
Hibberd v. Rhode
A. The following facts are deemed admitted
when the genuiness and due execution of a
document is admitted:
1. The party, whose signature it bears, signed it;
2. If signed by another, it was signed for him
and with his authority;
3. 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;
4. The document was delivered; and
5. The formal requisites of law, such as seal,
acknowledgment or revenue stamp which it lacks, are
waived by it.
B. The following defenses are no longer allowed
upon admission of the genuiness and due execution
of an actionable document:
1. The signature appearing in the document is a
forgery;
2. In case it was signed by an agent in behalf of
the corporation or partnership, or a principal, the
signature was unauthorized;
3. The corporation was not authorized under its
charter to sign the instrument;
4. The party charged signed it in some other
capacity than that alleged in the pleading; or
5. It was never delivered.
C. Only affirmative defenses are allowed
despite admission of the genuiness and due
execution of an actionable document.
Benguet Exploration v. CA. The object of the rule is to
make a prima facie case, not a conclusive one, and it
cannot preclude defendant from introducing any
defense on the merits which does not contradict the
execution of the instrument introduced as evidence.
• Failure to deny the genuiness and due
execution of the police blotter does not amount to
admission to the truthfulness of all events therein.
GR: A pleading need not be verified. Exceptions:
1. If an actionable document is raised, its
genuiness and due execution is deemed admitted
unless it be denied in the answer
specifically, under oath, and sets forth what he claims
to be the facts;
Except:
a. Where the adverse party does not appear to
be a party to the instrument;
b. When compliance with an order for an
inspection of the original instrument is refused; or
c. When the document is not classified as an
actionable document but merely evidentiary.
2. If an actionable document is based on a
defense in an answer, a reply to rebut it is mandatory
and the reply must be verified, else the genuiness and
due execution of such document shall be deemed
admitted.
• Where a defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of a material averment made in the complaint, he
shall so state and this shall have the effect of a denial.
THREE MODES OF SPECIFIC DENIAL:
1. A defendant must specify each material
allegation of fact, the truth of which he does not
admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the
substance of the matters upon which he relies to
support his denial.
2. Where a defendant desires to deny only a
part of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as
is true and material and shall deny only the remainder.
3. Where a defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of a material averment made in the complaint, he
shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a
denial.
Exception: #3 does not apply to genuine issues
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
• A genuine issue is an issue of fact which calls
for the presentation of evidence, as distinguished
from an issue which is fictitious and contrived, setup
in bad faith or patently lacking in substance so as not
to constitute a genuine issue on trial (the latter issue
can be denied by merely saying that the defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the averment).
• A negative pregnant is where a fact is alleged
with qualifying or modifying language and the words
of the allegation as so qualified or modified are
literally denied. The effect is that the qualifying
circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is
admitted.

Morales v. CA. If an allegation directly and specifically

charges a party with having done, performed or
committed a particular act which the latter did not in
fact do, perform or commit, a categorical and express
denial must be made.

Consolidated Bank v. Del Monte Motor Works. The

defendant must declare under oath that:

1. He did not sign the document; or

2. That it is otherwise false or fabricated.

GR: Material averments in a complaint shall be

deemed admitted when not specifically denied.

Exception:

1. Amount of unliquidated damages (damages

must be proven);
2. Immaterial averments (Worcester v.
Lorenzana);
3. Conclusions of fact or law.

Sec. 12. The court may order any pleading to be

stricken out or that any sham or false, redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be
stricken out therefrom:

1. Upon motion made by a party before

responding to a pleading;
2. If no responsive pleading is permitted, upon
motion made by a party within twenty days after
service of the pleading upon him; or
3. Upon the court motu propio.
Rule 9 EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
Sec. 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived.
The following are the defenses or objections which
can be taken cognizance by the court even though
they are not raised in a motion to dismiss or in the
answer:
1. The court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter;
2. There is another action pending with the
same parties for the same cause;
3. The action is barred by prior judgment; or
4. The action is barred by the statute of
limitations.
Heirs of Gaudiane v. CA. For reasons of public order or
public policy, res judicata cannot be waived by parties
because the time and energy of the State and the
taxpayers’ money are wasted by the relitigation of
issues.
Procedure to declare opposing party in default:
1. File a motion in court;
2. Present proof of failure to file an answer
within the time allowed therefore;
3. Send a copy of the motion to the opposing
party; and
4. The court shall render judgment on the
pleading, or in its discretion, require the claimant to
submit evidence.
Vlason Enterprises v. CA. It is legally impossible to
declare a party-defendant to be in default before he
was validly served summons.
Effect of order of default. A party in default:
1. Shall be entitled to notice of subsequent
proceedings;
2. Shall not be allowed to take part in the trial;
and
3. May still be presented as witness to the same
case.
Procedure to lift the order of default:
1. File a motion to lift or set aside the order of
default. The motion must be verified and under oath;
2. Party in default must explain why he failed to
file an answer due to extrinsic fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence;
3. Party in default must show that he has a
meritorious defense.
Philippine Banking Corporation v. CA.
• As a rule, proceedings already taken should
not be disturbed.
• Where a witness of the plaintiff was
presented while the defendant was declared in
default, and the order of default was subsequently
lifted, it is within the trial court’s decision to reopen
the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and allow the
defendant to challenge the same, by cross-examining
the plaintiff’s witnesses or introducing countervailing
evidence.
Partial Default:
1. A pleading asserting a claim states a common
cause of action against several defending parties;
2. Some of the defending parties answer, and
others fail to do so;
3. The court shall try the case against all upon
the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the
evidence presented. (Again, all party defendants
must have been validly served summonses.
Jurisdiction over the person in an action in personam
is obtained by valid service of summons and NOT by
the filing of an answer.)
Co v. Acosta. Where there is a common cause of
action against two or more defendants, the
termination of the case against one also terminates
the case against the others.
Pinlac v. CA. In case of partial default, there is no
partial judgment. The court shall try the case against
all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment
upon the evidence presented.
Extrinsic Fraud:
Garcia v. CA. Fraud is extrinsic where it prevented a
party from having a trial or presenting his case in
court, and the facts upon which the extrinsic fraud is
based have not been controverted or resolved in the
case where the judgment was rendered.
Bobbis v. CA. The use of forged instruments or
perjured testimonies during trial is not an extrinsic
fraud because such evidence does not preclude the
participation of any party in the proceedings.
Limitations on a default judgment:
1. It should not exceed the amount prayed for
in the complain;
2. It should not be different in kind from that
prayed for in the complaint;
3. It should not award unliquidated damages.

The limitations do not apply If the party in default

filed an answer but failed to appear during trial. The
absent party merely waives his right to cross-
examine.

Presumptions by the Rules in case of default for

failure to file an answer:

1. The defendant hypothetically admits that the

allegations in the complaint are true and correct; and
2. What is claimed in the complaint is
acceptable on the part of the party in default.

Mangelen v. CA.

1. In a judgment against a defendant based on

evidence presented ex-parte due to a default order,
the judgment against the defendant should not
exceed the amount or to be different in kind from
that prayed for.
2. In a judgment against a defendant based on
evidence presented ex-parte and who had filed an
answer but who failed to appear at the hearing, the
award may exceed the amount or be different in kind
from that prayed for.

• In cases of annulment or declaration of

nullity of marriage or for legal separation, the law
requires the State to intervene to avoid collusion
between the parties.
Rule 10 AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
Rule 1, Sec. 5. If an additional defendant is impleaded
in a later pleading, the action is commenced with
regard to him on the date of the filing of such later
pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its
admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.
Types of Amendments:
1. Amendments as a matter of right:
a. once; and
b. in case of a complaint, at any time before an
answer is filed;
c. in case of an answer, at any time before a
reply is filed or before the period for filing a reply
expires;
d. in case of a reply, at any time within 10 days
after it is served; or
e. in case of a formal amendment, at any stage
of the action, at the court’s initiative or upon motion,
for any
number of times, provided no prejudice is caused
thereby to the adverse party; or
f. where issues not raised in the pleadings are
tried with the express or implied consent of the
parties, pleadings may be amended as necessary to
cause them to conform to the evidence, upon motion
of any party at any time even after judgment (Rule 10
Sec. 5); or
g. when evidence is objected to at the trial on
the ground that it is not within the issues made by the
pleadings, and the presentation of the merits of the
action and the ends of substantial justice will be
served, the court may allow the pleadings to be
amended as to include such issues (Rule 10 Sec. 5).
2. Amendments as a matter of judicial
discretion:
a. Only upon leave of court; and either
b. The pleading has been amended even before
a responsive pleading has not yet been filed; or
c. The amendment is made after a responsive
pleading has been filed; furthermore
d. The order of the court must be made only
upon motion is filed in court, after notice has been
filed to the adverse party, and after hearing.
* Amendments as a matter of judicial
discretion cannot be made by the court motu propio,
or without hearing.
Rule 7, Sec. 5. Failure to include a certification of non-
forum shopping cannot be cured even by
amendment.
Valenzuela v. CA
1. The hornbook doctrine – procedural laws
may be applied retroactively since no vested right
may attach to or arise from procedural laws.
2. The substantial amendment should be made
only if it is apropos to forestall further delay in the
resolution of the actual merits of the parties’
respective claims and defenses.
When is an amendment not allowed?
1. When the amendment was intended to delay
the action;
2. When the amendment was intended to make
the complaint confer jurisdiction upon the court;
3. When the amendment was intended to cure
conditions
sine qua non prior to filing; or
4. When the amendment seeks to cure the
defect of failure to include a certification of non-
forum shopping.
Siasoco v. CA.
1. Where some but not all of the defendants
have answered, plaintiffs may amend their complaint
once, as a matter of right, with respect to claims
asserted
solely against the non-answering defendants, but not
as to claims asserted against other defendants.
2. Amendments prior to the filing of a
responsive pleading does not delay the action since
there are no defenses that can be altered.
Cervantes v. CA and PAL. Even though an issue was
omitted in the pleadings, the court still acquires
jurisdiction over the issue if it is litigated upon, with
consent of the parties.
Phil. Export and Foreign Loan v. Phil. Infrastructures.
Even if the complaint be defective, but the parties go
to trial thereon, and the plaintiff without objection,
introduces sufficient evidence to constitute the
particular cause of action which it intended to allege
in the original complaint, and the defendant voluntary
produces witnesses to meet the cause of action thus
established, an issue is joined as fully and as
effectively as if it had been previously joined by the
most perfect pleadings.
Supplemental Pleadings – facts that happen after the Rule 11 WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
original pleading was filed, upon leave of court and
notice to the adverse party

Pleading Period
• Answer must be made within 10 days after
receipt of order admitting the supplemental pleading. 1. Answer 15 days
• The superseded complaint is no longer taken
judicial notice and is treated as no longer part of the 2. Answer of a private foreign corporation
records of the case.
• But, the original complaint or its contents a. with designated Philippine representative 15
may still be introduced as evidence. days

b. no designated Philippine representative 30

Amendment v. Supplement days

1. An amendment contains facts which already 3. Answer to an amended complaint

happened at the time the original pleading was filed
while a supplemental pleading contains facts which a. if as a matter of right 15 days
were not in existence at the time of filing the original
pleading and therefore could not have been raised in b. if as a matter of judicial discretion 10 days
the original pleading.
2. An amended complain supersedes the 4. Answer to counter-claim or cross-claim 10
original complaint while a supplemental pleading days
does not supersede the original complaint;
3. An amendment may either be a matter of 5. Answer to third-party complaint 15 days
right or judicial discretion, while the filing of a
supplemental pleading is always a matter of judicial 6. Reply 10 days
discretion.
7. Answer to supplemental complaint 10
days
Leobrera v. CA. A supplemental complaint must be
based on matters arising subsequent to the original
complaint related to the claim presented therein and
founded on the same cause of action. Motion for extension of time – filed within the
reglementary period

Superclean Services v. CA. If the supervening event

alleged in a supplemental pleading was cited not to Motion to admit belated answer – filed beyond the
reinforce or aid the original demand, in effect reglementary period
changing the relief sought, then the court shall treat
the supplemental pleading as an (substantial)
amendment.
Rule 12 BILL OF PARTICULARS

Bill of Particulars – a more definite statement of any

matter which is not averred with sufficient
definiteness or particularity in a pleading so as to
enable the opposing party to prepare his responsive
pleading.

1. The opposing party has not yet filed a

responsive pleading;
2. For any matter not averred with sufficient
definiteness or particularity;
3. If the pleading is a reply, the motion is filed
within 10 days from receipt of the answer; and
4. The motion shall point out the defects
complained of, the paragraphs wherein they are
contained, and the details desired.
5. The clerk of court must bring the motion
immediately to the court who may either grant or
deny it outright, or allow the parties the opportunity
to be heard.
6. The filing ot the motion for a bill of
particulars interrupts the 15-day period to file an
answer.

Tan v. CA. The bill of particulars is sought to

complement the rule on pleadings in general, that is,
that the complaint should consist of a concise
statement of the ultimate facts.

Remedy in case of non-compliance of filing a bill of

particulars:

• The court may order the striking out of the

pleading, or the portions thereof.

Rule 13 FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS,
JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS
Retoni, Jr. v. CA. Service to the lawyer binds the party.
But service to the party does not bind the lawyer,
unless ordered by the court in the following
circumstances:
1. When it is doubtful who the attorney for
such party is; or
2. When the lawyer cannot be located; or
3. When the party is directed to do something
personally, as when he is ordered to show cause.
Bayog v. Natino. Notice to the lawyer who appears to
have been unconscionably irresponsible cannot be
considered as notice to his client, as it would then be
easy for the lawyer to prejudice the interests of his
client by just alleging that he just forgot every process
of the court affecting his clients, because he was so
busy.
Oano Arrastre v. Peary Alyonar. Since the main and
the branch offices of the law firm operate under one
and the same name and does not appear as separate
firms with separate and distinct personalities and
responsibilities, service to the main office constitutes
as service to the branch offices of the law firm.
Mercury Drug v. CA. The negligence of counsel in
failing to protect the client’s interest was binding
upon her despite counsel’s failure to inform her of the
adverse decision of her case. Relief will not be
granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the
effects of the judgment when the loss of remedy was
due to his own negligence, otherwise the petition for
relief can be used to revive the right to appeal which
had been lost through inexcusable negligence.
GSIS v. Commercial Buildings. What should guide
judicial action is that a party is given the fullest
opportunity to establish the merits of his action or
defense rather than for him to lose life, honor or
property on mere technicalities. The court has the
power to except a particular case from the operation
of the rule whenever the purposes of justice so
requires.
Manner of Filing of Pleadings:
1. Personal filing – presenting the original
copies, plainly indicates as such, personally to the
clerk of court
– proven by the written or stamped acknowledgment
of its filing by the clerk of court
2. By registered mail – the date of filing is the
date of mailing.
– proven by presenting the registry receipt, and the
affidavit of the person who did the mailing
Industrial Timber v. NLRC. Where a pleading is filed by
ordinary mail or by private messengerial service, it is
deemed filed on the day it is actually received by the
court, not on the day it was mailed or delivered to the
messengerial service.
Manner of Service of Pleadings:
1. Personal Service – completed upon actual
delivery
a. By delivering personally a copy to the party
(if he has no counsel) or his counsel;
b. By leaving it in his office with his clerk or with
a person having charge thereof;
c. If service cannot be made in his office, at the
party’s (if he has no counsel) or counsel’s residence, if
known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion
then residing therein.
PLDT v. NLRC. The service of the decision at the
ground floor of a party’s building and not at the
address of record of the party’s counsel at the 9th
floor of the building cannot be considered a valid
service.
Exception:
PCI Bank v. Ortiz. The habit of the process server was,
instead of going to the 5th floor, he would just
approach the receiving station on the ground floor.
And the lawyer here did not question the practice.
Thus, there was valid service.
2. By ordinary mail – completed upon the
expiration of 10 days after mailing, unless the court
otherwise provides
• If no registry service is available in the locality
of either the sender or the addressee, service may be
done by ordinary mail.
3. By registered mail – completed upon actual
receipt by the addressee, or after five days from the
date he received the first notice of the postmaster,
whichever date is earlier
• By depositing the copy in the postal office,
plainly addressed to the party (if he has no counsel)
or his counsel at his office, if known, or at his
residence, if known, and with instructions to the
postmaster to return the mail to the sender after 10
days if undelivered.
4. Substituted Service – completed upon
delivery of the copy to the clerk of court
a. There must be previous attempts of personal
service and mail service (either registered or ordinary
mail);
b. The reason for the failure of the attempts
must be that the party (if he has no counsel) or his
counsel cannot be found, and the office and place of
residence of the party (if he has no counsel) or his
counsel is unknown.
c. The delivery of the copy to the clerk of court
must be accompanied with proof of failure of both
personal service and service by mail.
Manner of service of Judgments, Final Orders or
Resolutions:
1. Personal service;
2. Registered mail;
3. Service by publication – if the parties were
summoned by publication under Rule 14, and they did
not appear, the judgment is also served to them at
the expense of the prevailing party.
Aguilar v. CA Even though the party had a counsel,
but the client knew that his lawyer may not be
physically up to acting on any pleading. Thus, it was
the client’s responsibility to devise a system for the
receipt of intended mail.
Rule 13, Sec. 11.
1. Whenever practicable, the service and filing
of pleadings and other papers shall be done
personally.
2. A resort to other modes must be
accompanied by a written explanation why the
service or filing was not done personally. 3. A
violation of this Rule shall deem the paper as not
filed.
Filcon Manufacturing v. Lakas Manggagawa. - May be cancelled only upon order of the
Although the petition was filed personally with the court and after proper showing that the notice is
CA, service of a copy thereof on the respondent was used to molest the adverse party, or that it is not
effected by registered mail without any explanation necessary to protect the rights of the party who
as to why resort to such mode was made. Thus, there caused it to be recorded.
was improper service.
Exception:
Alfonso v. Spouses Andres. Even though there was no
explanation why personal service was not availed,
petitioners filed the appeal when the Rules of Civil
Procedure were just recently implemented, and that
they were not assisted by counsel.
Proofs of Service:
1. Personal Service – written admission of the
party served, or file the affidavit of the party’s
process server, or the official return of the server.
2. Ordinary Mail – affidavit of the person
mailing showing facts of compliance
3. Registered mail – affidavit of the person
mailing and the registry receipt issued by the post
office. The
registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its
receipt.
Johnson and Johnson v. CA. In case of service by
registered mail, the postmaster should certify not
only that the notice was issued or sent but also as to
how, when and to whom the delivery thereof was
made.
Notice of Lis Pendens
- registration of the notice must be made if
affirmative relief is also claimed.
Rule 14 SUMMONS
Summons is used to acquire the jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired upon his
filing of the complaint.
BAR: If a defendant is served summons and later the
complaint is amended by the plaintiff, is it necessary
that another summons be issued and served based on
the amended complaint? Or is the summons of the
original complaint sufficient?
Ans: If the amendment was made:
1. Before defendant’s appearance in the action,
there must be another summons issued based on the
amended complaint.
2. After the defendant’s appearance in the
action, there is no need of issuing new summons on
the amended complaint.
* So, if the defendant was served summons,
and the complaint was subsequently and substantially
amended, and the defendant appears in court, still it
cannot be said that the court has acquired jurisdiction
over the defendant, simply because he was present
but not for the new allegations to which the
complaint was amended.
Who can serve summons:
1. Sheriff;
2. Deputy Sheriff;
3. Other proper court officer (court
employees);
4. Any suitable person authorized by the court,
for justifiable reasons.
Laus v. CA. The service of summons is ministerial in
nature.
Bello v. Ubo. The list of persons who can serve
summons is exclusive. Thus, where the summons was
served by any person not in the list, the court has not
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.
Ulat-Marrero v. Torio. It is through the process server
that a defendant learns of the action brought against
him by the complainant.
Nery v. Gomolo. It is through the service of summons
by the process server that the trial court acquires
jurisdiction over the defendant. Summons, writs and
other court processes must be served expeditiously,
consonant with the mandate of speedy dispensation
of justice stressed by the Constitution.
In case summons were returned without being
served:
1. The server shall serve a copy of the return to
the plaintiff’s counsel, stating the reasons for the
failure of service; or
2. If the summons has been lost;
3. The plaintiff may demand the clerk of court
to issue alias summons.
Modes of Service of Summons:
1. Service in person – by handing a copy of the
summons to the defendant in person, or if he refuses
to accept and sign for it, by tendering it to him.
2. Substituted Service – resorted to if, for
justifiable reasons, personal service cannot be
resorted to within reasonable time, either:
a. by leaving copies of the summons at the
defendant’s residence with some person of suitable
age and discretion then residing therein; or
b. by leaving the copies at the defendant’s
office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof.
3. Summons by Publication
a. Rule 14, Sec. 14. – by leave of court, where:
i. the defendant is designated as unknown
owner; or
ii. the defendant is known but his whereabouts
are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent
inquiry; and
iii. in either case, the action must be in rem or
quasi in rem.
b. Rule 14, Sec. 15 – extraterritorial service
(refer to
Gomez v. CA and Trocino)
c. Rule 14, Sec. 16 – by leave of court, where:
i. The defendant ordinarily resides within the
Philippines;
ii. The defendant is temporarily out of the
country;
iii. The manner of extraterritorial service,
substituted service or personal service may be had.
Service of Pleadings v. Service of Summons
1. Personal service of pleadings may either be
made by delivering personally a copy to the party (if
he has no counsel) or his counsel, or by leaving a copy
upon his office, or upon his residence with a person of
sufficient age and discretion then residing therein.
Personal service of summons can only be done either
by delivering a copy to the party personally, or if he
refuses to accept and sign for it, by tendering it to
him.
2. Substituted Service of pleadings is made by
serving a copy on the clerk of court. Substituted
Service of summons is by serving a copy upon the
office of the defendant with some competent person
in charge thereof, or his residence with some person
of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.
3. Service of summons cannot be done by
registered mail.
Magdalena Estate v. Nieto
1. Service of publication on resident
defendants, in actions in personam, who are
personally within the state and can be found therein,
is not due process of law and a statute allowing it is
unconstitutional.
2. The proper recourse for a creditor to sue a
debtor in an action in personam where such debtor
cannot be found, is to locate properties, real or
personal, of the resident defendant with unknown
address and cause them to be attached under Rule
57, Sec. 1, in which case the attachment converts the
action into a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem and
the summons by publication may the be accordingly
be deemed valid and effective.
Sahagun v. CA.
1. The law does not require publication in a
specific newspaper; it can be either foreign, national
or local.
2. The extraterritorial service of summons is not
to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, but acquire jurisdiction over the thing by
informing the defendant by publication.
Valmonte v. CA. In case the defendant is outside of
the country, only the mode of extraterritorial service
can be availed of. If the defendant may be found
within the Philippines, then other modes can be
applied, but not extraterritorial service.
Gomez v. CA and Trocino. Summons to a non-
resident:
A. Actions in personam
• Personal service of summons within the
State is essential to acquire jurisdiction over the
defendant’s person. This cannot be done if the
defendant is not physically present in the country and
thus, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his
person and therefore cannot validly try and decide
the case against him.
• Exception: Gemperle v. Schenker. There was
valid service of summons to a non-resident when
summons was made to his wife who was found in the
Philippines and was his representative and attorney-
in-fact.
B. Actions in rem or quasi in rem
Where the defendant is a non-resident who is not
found in the Philippines and:
1. The action affects the personal status of the
plaintiff;
2. The action relates to, or the subject matter of
which is property in the Philippines in which the
defendant has or claims a lien or interest;
3. The action seeks the exclusion of the
defendant from any interest in the property located in
the Philippines; or
4. The property of the defendant has been
attached in the Philippines, summons may be served
extraterritorially by:
a. personal service out of the country with
leave of court;
b. publication, also with leave of court; or
c. any other manner the court may deem
sufficient.
• The fact that the counsel for the defendant
represented all of the respondents without any
exception and filed an answer in their behalf does not
transform the ineffective service of summons into a
valid one. There was no proof showing that
respondents authorized the counsel to appear for
and in their behalf. Only one of them signed the
pleading. Thus, there was no valid waiver or voluntary
submission.
Miranda v. CA. Service to a person in a compound is
not service upon the residence of the defendant.
Substituted service must be made to a person of
suitable age and residing in the same dwelling house
or residence as the defendant.
Montalban v. Maximo. In case the defendant resides
in the Philippines but is temporarily out of the
country, the server may either:
4. wait for the person to return and serve the
summons to him personally;
5. resort to substituted service; or
6. resort to extraterritorial service.
Service of Summons in Exceptional Cases:
1. Upon an Entity without juridical personality –
service upon any one of the defendants, or upon the
person in charge of the office or place of business;
2. Upon a Prisoner – service by the officer
having the management of such jail, who is deemed
deputized as a special sheriff for said purpose;
3. Upon minors and incompetents – upon him
personally and on his legal guardian, or guardian ad
litem upon motion of the plaintiff, or for minors, upon
his father or mother.
4. Upon a Domestic Private Juridical Entity –
upon the:
a. president;
b. managing partner;
c. general manager;
d. corporate secretary;
e. treasurer; or
f. in-house counsel.
5. Upon a Foreign Private Juridical Entity – upon
the resident agent, or on the government official
designated by law for serving summons to foreign
private juridical entities, or any of its officers or
agents within the Philippines.
6. Upon a Public Corporation – in case the
defendant is:
A. Republic of the Philippines – upon the
Solicitor General;
B. Local Government Units – upon its executive
head, or on such other officer or officers as the law or
the court may direct.
E.B. Villarosa v. Benito. Service of summons upon an
agent of the corporation is no longer authorized.
Millenium Industrial v. Tan.
1. The following are the requisites for substntial
compliance in serving summons to a local private
corporation:
a. There must be actual receipt of the summons
by the person served;
b. The person served must sign a receipt or the
sheriff’s return; and
c. There must be actual receipt of the summons
by the corporation through the person on whom the
summons was actually served.
2. There must be evidence showing that the
person receiving the summons forwarded the same
to the corporation’s officers, to comply with the third
requisite of substantial compliance;
Viking Industrial v. CA. Even though summons were
served to Viking Trading Corporation and not to
Viking Industrial Corporation, there was valid service
because the agents of Viking Trading Corporation
who received the summons were the same
employees working for Viking Industrial Corporation.
Spouses Jose v. Spouses Boyon.
1. Where the action is in personam and the
defendant is in the Philippines, the service of
summons may be done by personal or substituted
service.
2. Personal service of summons is preferred to
substituted service. Only if the former cannot be
made promptly can the process server resort to the
latter, and that the proof of service must:
a. Indicate the impossibility of service of
summons within a reasonable time;
b. Specify the efforts exerted to locate the
defendant; and
c. State that the summons were served upon a
person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing
therein, or who is in-charge of the office or regular
place of business of the defendant.
Madrigal v. CA. The impossibility of personal service
justifying availment of substituted service should be
explained in the proof of service. The pertinent facts
and circumstances attendant to the service of
summons must be stated in the proof of service or
Officer’s return, otherwise, the substituted service
cannot be upheld.
Talsan v. Baliwag Transit. Personal service to a
corporation may be effected through service upon
the President at his office or residential address.
Samartino v. Raon. Substituted service is an
extraordinary method since it seeks to bind the
defendant to the consequence of a suit even though
notice of such action is served no upon him but upon
another whom law could only presume would notify
him of pending proceedings.
Agilent Technologies v. Integrated Silicon
Four Principles regarding the Right of a foreign
corporation to bring suit in Philippine courts:
1. If a foreign corporation does business in the
Philippines without a license, it cannot sue before the
Philippine courts;
2. If a foreign corporation is not doing business
in the Philippines, it needs no license to sue before
Philippine courts on an isolated transaction or on a
cause of action entirely dependent of any business
transaction;
3. If a foreign corporation does business in the
Philippines without a license, a Philippine citizen or
entity which has contracted with said corporation
may be estopped from challenging the foreign
corporation’s corporate personality in a suit before
Philippine courts; and
4. If a foreign corporation does business in the
Philippines with the required license, it can sue before
Philippine courts on any transaction.
Signetics Corporation v. CA.
1. There are three modes of effecting services
upon a private foreign corporation:
a. By serving upon the agent designated by law
to accept service of summons;
b. If there be no special agent, by serving on
the government official designated by law to that
effect; and
c. By serving on any officer or agent within the
Philippines.
d. Under any of these instances, the
corporation must be one which is doing business in
the Philippines.
Rule 14, Sec. 20. The defendant’s voluntary
appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service
of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of
other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant shall not be deemed a
voluntary appearance (lack of jurisdiction must be
one of the grounds in the motion to dismiss).
Rule 15 MOTIONS
Requisites of a valid motion:
1. It must be in writing except those made in
open court or in the course of hearing or trial;
2. It shall state the relief sought to be obtained
and the ground upon which it is based;
3. It must be accompanied by supporting
affidavits and other papers, if required by these Rules
or necessary to prove facts alleged therein;
4. There must be a notice of the hearing
attached to the motion and the adverse must receive
the motion at
least 3 days before the date of hearing, unless the
court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter
notice;
5. There must be notice of hearing addressed to
all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and
date of the hearing which must not be later than 10
days after the filing of the motion; and
6. There must be proof of service of the
motion.
Provident International v. CA. A notice of hearing
addressed to the Clerk of Court and not to the parties,
is not notice at all.
Norris v. Parentela. And a motion that does not
contain a notice of hearing is nothing but a mere
scrap of paper and the Clerk of Court does not have
the duty to accept it, much less bring it to the
attention of the judge.
Bacelonia v. CA. A motion which fails to specify the
time and date of the hearing which must not be later
than 10 days after the filing of the motion is pro
formaI and presents no question which merits the
attention and consideration of the court.
Jehan Shipping v. MPA
GR: The notice requirement in a motion is mandatory.
Without the notice of hearing, it is pro forma and
does not affect the reglementary period for appeal or
the filing of the requisite pleading.
Exceptions:
1. Opposing party was able to properly oppose
the motion despite absence of the notice of hearing
or failure to comply the 3-day rule; or
2. After learning of the defect in the motion,
the trial court promptly resets a hearing with due
notice to all parties.
• The requirement of notice of time and
hearing in the pleading filed by a party is necessary
only to apprise the other of the actions of the former.
For so long as the opposing party is apprised, the
purpose of a notice of hearing is served.
Rule 13, Sec. 13. Proof of Service:
1. A written admission of the party served;
2. The official return of the server; OR
3. The affidavit of the party serving containing a
full statement of the date, place and manner of
service.
Sec. 8 Omnibus Motion Rule
A motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or
proceeding shall include all objections then available,
and all objections not so included shall be deemed
waived.
Rule 9, Sec. 1. The following are not deemed waived:
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
2. Litis pendentia;
3. Res judicata; and
4. Prescription.
PH Credit v. CA.
• Only after the sale of his personal properties
and upon the sale of his real properties was
respondent in the position to question the execution
on his real properties. Thus, the opposition in the
motion was necessarily not included in the prior
motions, since such opposition was only available
after the prior motions were filed.
• Objections that could not have been deemed
waived when filing prior motions are those not being
available at that time.
Rule 14 Sec. 9. A motion for leave to file a pleading or
motion shall be accompanied by the pleading or
motion sought to be admitted.
Exception: Rule 119, Sec. 23 Demurrer to Evidence
Rule 16 MOTION TO DISMISS counter-claim, they recognized and expressly invoked 2. Estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction
the jurisdiction of the Provincial Adjudicator. to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action.
Grounds:
Ang Ping v. CA. Despite the appearance of the
A. Lack of jurisdiction over the person. counsel for Ang Ping’s behalf, there was no document Pangilinan v. CA. Estoppel is only brought to court
vesting authority in the lawyer to do so. Since there when not to do so would subvert the ends of justice.
was no voluntary appearance, jurisdiction was not
La Naval Drug v. CA. When a motion to dismiss is filed, acquired over the person.
citing among others lack of jurisdiction over the C. Venue is improperly laid.
person, there is no waiver on the defect of lack of a. Highly waivable;
jurisdiction. Salva v. CA. The court frowns upon the undesirable b. May be subject to stipulation.
practice of a party submitting his case for decision
and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable,
B. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse. D. Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue.
the claim. a. Either the plaintiff is not in the full exercise of
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is his civil right; or
determined by the allegations in the complaint; Gonzaga v. CA. A party’s active participation in all b. The plaintiff does not have the character or
2. When raising this ground, the defendant stages of the case before the trial court, which representation which he claims.
hypothetically admits all allegations in the complaint includes invoking the court’s authority to grant BAR: lack of legal capacity to sue v. lack of legal
to be true; affirmative relief, effectively estops such party from personality to sue
3. Jurisdiction over the subject matter, once later challenging that same court’s jurisdiction.
acquired by the court upon the filing of the Ans: The former refers to the disability of the plaintiff
complaint, is retained by the court until the case is while the latter refers to the fact that the plaintiff is
terminated. Limitations to the rule on estoppel: not a real party in interest.
Exception: when laches will apply (Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy) Calimlim v. Ramirez. The ruling in Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy (estopped from questioning E. That there is another action pending
4. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter jurisdiction) does not apply where the party between the same parties for the same cause;
may be raised: questioning the court’s jurisdiction can hardly be
a. In the answer; presumed to have abandoned or waived such right by Mariscal v. CA. The following are the requisites for litis
b. During the courtse of trial; inaction: pendencia:
c. After the trial;
d. After the judgment; or even 1. within an unreasonable length of time; or a. identity of parties, or at least such as
e. For the first time on appeal. 2. by inexcusable negligence. representing the same interest in both actions;
b. identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
Oca v. CA and Abalos. The active participation of the SEAFDEC-AQD v. NLRC c. the identity in the two cases should be such
party against whom the action was brought, couple that the judgment that may be rendered in the
with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the 1. The subjection of an international pending case would, regardless of which party is
court or administrative body where the action is organization to the authority of the local courts successful, amount to res judicata in the other.
pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that would give a convenient medium thru which the host
jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the government may interfere in their operations or even
resolution of the case and will bar said party from influence or control its policies or decisions. Criteria for Eliminating cases due to Litis Pendencia:
impugning the court or body’s jurisdiction. By filing a
1. When the elements of litis pendentia exist,
the action filed later should be abated, on the maxim,
prius tempure, potior jure (first in time, stronger in
right) (Pacsports v. Niccolo Sports).
2. Between two similar cases, the “more
appropriate action” must be upheld, if such action
has the broader scope of inquiry (Ramos v. Peralta);
3. The case pending in the court which is in a
better position to serve the interests of justice, taking
into accout:
a. the nature of the controversy;
b. the comparative accessibility of the court to
the parties; and
c. other similar factors (Roa-Magsaysay v.
Magsaysay). (example: the one to be dismissed was
filed merely to preempt the later action or to
anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal)
Victronics v. RTC. In any instance, the good faith of
the parties is the crucial element.
Lim v. Lim. In case of two pending actions the case
which can be used as defense to the othe claim of the
other, must be dismissed (the other has broader
scope of inquiry).
Allied Banking v. CA. What is required for litis
pendencia to exist is another pending action, and not
a pending action.
Litis Pendentia v. Forum-Shopping
• In the former, the two cases were initiated
with good faith and, upon learning the pendency of
the other case, the parties report the same to the
court for determination. In Forum-Shopping, the
other case was initiated with bad faith, or knowledge
of the pendency of the other one.
• Litis Pendentia, in effect, upholds one action
and dismisses the others. Forum-shopping, in effect,
is contempt of court and results to the dismissal of
both cases.
F. That the action is barred by res judicata;
A.G. Development v. CA [OMJI]
1. The following are the requisites for res
judicata;
a. The former judgment or order must be final;
b. The judgment must have been rendered on
the merits;
c. The court rendering judgment must have
jurisdiction over the case; and
d. There must be identity of parties, subject
matter, and causes of action.
2. Summary judgment v. Judgment on the
merits:
• Summary judgment is one rendered upon
some preliminary or formal technical point. Judgment
on the merits is rendered after a determination of
which party is right.
3. The doctrine of res judicata applies only to
judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings and not to the
exercise of administrative powers or to legislative,
executive or ministerial determination.
G. That the cause of action is barred by a prior
judgment or by the statute of limitations;
H. That the pleading asserting the claim states
no cause of action;
Heirs of Paez v. Torres. Compliant states no cause of
action v. No cause of action:
• The former may be resolved solely on the
basis of the complaint (the elements of a cause of
action, ROVID, are not properly stipulated as facts).
The latter poses a question of fact and can only be
resolved after hearing (the fact has yet to be proven
in order to cancel one or all of the elements of the
cause of action alleged by plaintiff).
Exception:
Alberto v. CA
1. The test of sufficiency of cause of action is
whether, hypothetically admitting the alleged facts,
the trial court could render a valid judgment upon the
same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.
2. GR: Only averments in the complaint must be
considered in determining the sufficiency to state a
cause of actin.
3. Exception: So long as the attached pleadings
are procedurally responsive to the complaint
(incorporated in the complaint by way of procedure),
they may be considered in evaluating the sufficiency
of the cause of action in the complaint.
Drilon v. CA and Enrile. The hypothetical admission in
the filing of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
cause of action in the complaint is limited to the
“relevant and material facts well pleaded in the
complaint, and inferences deductible therefrom. The
admission does not extend to conclusions or
interpretations of law, nor does it cover allegations of
fact, the falsity of which is subject to judicial notice (it
does not admit allegations of fact which are
subjected to be ruled upon either to be true or false
by the court).
Dabuco v. CA Complaint states no cause of action v.
No cause of action:
1. The former refers to the insufficiency of
allegations in the pleading, while the latter, to the
insufficiency of factual basis for the action;
2. The former may be raised in a Motion to
Dismiss at any time but before the filing the answer to
the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, while the
latter may be raised at any time.
3. Dismissal due to failure to state a cause of
action can be made at the earliest stages of an action
(and without prejudice) while dismissal due to lack of
cause of action is made after questions of fact have
been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions
or evidence presented (and with prejudice).
I. That the claim or demand set forth in the
plaintiff’s pleading has been paid, waived,
abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
J. That the claim on which the action is founded
is unenforceable under the provisions of the Statute
of Frauds; and
Examples of Unenforceable contracts due to the
Statute of Frauds:
1. A contract that, by its terms, is not to be
performed within one year from the making of such
contract;
2. A special promise to answer for the debt,
default, or miscarriage of another;
3. An agreement made in consideration of
marriage, other than a mutual promise to marry;
4. An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels
or things in action, at a price not less than P500;
5. An agreement for the leasing for a longer
period than one year, or for the sale of real property,
or an interest therein;
6. A representation as to the credit of a third
person.
K. That a condition precedent for filing the 2. The defendant can dismiss the complaint but
claim has not been complied with. the counterclaim remains.
• Should the case go to trial, the evidence Rioferio v. CA The holding of a preliminary hearing on
presented during the hearing for the motion to an affirmative defense lies in the discretion of the
dismiss shall automatically be part of the evidence of court.
the party presenting the same.
• The court shall not defer the resolution of
the motion for the reason that the ground relied upon
is not indubitable (unquestionable).
Rule 16 Sec. 4 In case the motion to dismiss is denied,
the movant shall be given the rest of the 15-day
period to file an answer, but not less than 5 days in
any event, computed from the notice of denial.
Rule 16 Sec. 5. Subject to the right of appeal, an order
shall bar the refiling of the same action or claim if the
order grants a motion to dismiss based on the
following grounds:
1. That the cause of action is barred by a prior
judgment or by the statute of limitations;
2. That the claim or demand set forth in the
plaintiff’s pleading has been paid, waived,
abandoned, or otherwise extinguished; or
3. That the claim on which the action is founded
is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute
of frauds.
Rule 16 Sec. 6. In case an answer with affirmative
defenses and with a counterclaim, and the court
dismisses the complaint due to such grounds (res
judicata, litis pendencia, etc..), there are two
possibilities:
1. The defendant can still prosecute his
counterclaim in a separate action; or
Rule 17 DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
Sec. 1. The Plaintiff may dismiss his own complaint by
filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service
of the (1) answer or (2) motion for summary
judgment.
GR: The dismissal is without prejudice. Exceptions:
1. When in the notice of dismissal itself, the
plaintiff himself stated that he is dismissing his own
complaint with prejudice; or
2. When a notice operates as an adjudication
upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has
once dismissed in a competent court an action based
on or including the same claim.
Ortigas and Co. v. Velasco. If an action was dismissed
under Sec. 1, it can be re-filed:
1. If within 15 days from the time it is ordered
dismissed, a motion is filed with the court to set aside
the order of dismissal and revive the case since the
order has not yet been final.
2. If the order of the court dismissing the case
by the plaintiff’s notice has become final, an entirely
new action has to be filed.
Roxas v. CA. The dismissal without prejudice does not
amount to litis pendentia or res judicata.
Sec. 2.
1. The dismissal by plaintiff’s own notice is
discretionary on the part of the court and upon such
terms and conditions as the court deems proper.
2. In case of a counterclaim, the defendant may
either:
a. Within 15 days from notice of the motion, he 1. Although the clerk of court has the duty to
is to prosecute his claim in the same action; or serve summons, this does not relieve the plaintiff of
b. Prosecute his counterclaim in a separate his own duty to prosecute the case diligently. The
action. non- performance of that duty by plaintiff is an
express ground for dismissing an action.
3. A class suit shall not be dismissed or 2. Dismissal of the case due to failure to
compromised without the approval of the court. prosecute shall have the effect of adjudication upon
the merits except if the case was not tried on the
merits and dismissal is due to the negligence of
Sec. 3 Dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff: counsel rather than the plaintiff, in the interest of
justice.
1. The plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the
presentation of his evidence-in-chief on the complaint
for no justifiable reason or cause; Vicoy v. People. The fact that the City Prosecutor’s
2. The plaintiff fails to prosecute his action for Office has not yet entered its appearance is no
an unreasonable length of time for no justifiable justification to the opposing party’s adamant and
reason or cause; continued insistence not to comply with a lawful
3. The plaintiff fails to comply with the Rules of order of the court. Every court has the power to
Court or any order of the court for no justifiable enforce and compel obedience to its orders,
reason or cause. judgments, and processes in all proceedings pending
before it
GR: A court should not dismiss a complaint without
any motion made by either defendant or plaintiff.
Exception:
1. By plaintiff’s fault;
2. When on the face of the complaint, the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
case;
3. When there is litis pendentia, res judicata, or
prescription of the action; or
4. Under summary procedure, the court may
dismiss the case immediately without any motion.
BPI v. CA. Failure of counsel to attend a conference is
not a valid ground to dismiss the case, since it was not
a trial or pre- trial conference.
Producers Bank v. CA.