Rule 7

PARTS OF A PLEADING

This is more on Legal Forms, a third year subject. That is a bar subject. That is the last subject given on the
fourth Sunday. The last subject in the bar is Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises where an examinee will be
asked to prepare pleadings like answer, complaint, information.

Sec. 1 – Caption. The caption sets forth the name of the court. The title of the action,
and docket number if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be named in the
original complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings it shall be sufficient if the name
of the first party on each side be started with an appropriate indication when there are
other parties.
Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.

ILLUSTRATION:
Republic of the Philippines
11th Judicial Region
CAPTION Regional Trial Court of Davao
Branch 12

Juan dela Cruz,

Plaintiff Civil Case #12345
For: Annulment of Contract
TITLE -versus-

Osama bin Laden

Defendant

COMPLAINT

BODY Plaintiff, through counsel respectfully alleges that:

1. x x x x x x;
2. x x x x x x;
3. x x x x x x

So, there must be a caption, title. Take note, the title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They
shall all be named in the original complaint or petition; but in the subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if
the name of the first party of each side be stated without the others. You only write the first name of plaintiff
and defendant and followed by the word ‘ET AL”.

Q: Suppose there are 20 plaintiffs and 20 defendants in the concept of permissive joinder of parties. Now is
it necessary that they shall be named?
A: In the complaint, YES. They shall all be named. It is possible that the title alone will reach 3 or more
pages.
BUT in subsequent pleadings like the answer, reply, it is not necessary to write the name of everybody.
What the law requires is to write the name of the first plaintiff followed by the term ‘ET AL”. Example: Ms.
Quitain, et al, plaintiffs vs. Ms. Pastor, et al, defendants.

So the rule is, it is only in the complaint where the name of all the parties are required to be stated, but in
subsequent pleadings, no need. But there is an EXCEPTION to this rule. There are instances where the law does
not require the name of the parties to be stated even in the complaint.

Q: What are the instances where the law does not require the name of the parties to be stated even in the
complaint?
A: These are the following:
1.) Subsequent Pleading (e.g. answer, reply, etc.) (Section 1);
2.) Class suit (Rule 3, Section 12);
3.) When the identity or name of the defendant is unknown (Rule 3, Section 14);
4.) When you sue an entity without judicial personality (Rule 3, Section 15);
5.) If a party is sued in his official capacity. Official designation is sufficient. [e.g. Mr. Acelar vs. City
Mayor of Davao.] (Unabia vs. City Mayor, 99 Phil. 253)
 Sec. 2. The body. - The body of the pleading sets forth its designation, the allegations of
the party's claims or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the pleading. (n)
a) Paragraphs - the allegations in the body of a pleading shall be divided into
paragraphs so numbered as to be readily identified, each of which shall contain a statement
of a single set of circumstances so far as that can be done with convenience. A paragraph
may be referred to by its number in all succeeding pleadings. (3a)
(b) Headings - When two or more causes of action are joined, the statement of the first
shall be prefaced by the words "First cause of action", of the second by "second cause of
action," and so on for the others.
(c) Relief - The pleading shall specify the relief sought, but it may add a general prayer
for such further or other relief as may be deemed just or equitable. (3a, R6)
(d) Date - Every pleading shall be dated. (n)

In the body, you state your allegations or defenses. Then at the end, you state the relief which we call
PRAYER – what you are asking the court: “Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered
ordering defendant to pay plaintiff his loan of P1 million with interest of 10% p.a. from this date until fully
paid.” Then, you end up with the date of the pleading: “Davao City, Philippines, December 10, 1997.”

A pleading is divided into paragraphs so numbered as to be readily identified. Normally, a complaint starts:
“Plaintiff, thru counsel, respectfully alleges that x x x.” Then first paragraph, second paragraph and so on. The
first paragraph is normally the statement of the parties and their addresses which is required under Rule 6 where
a complaint must state the names:

1. Plaintiff Juan dela Cruz is of legal age, a resident of Davao City whereas defendant Pedro
Bautista, is also of legal age and a resident of Davao City.
2. On such and such a date, defendant secured a loan from plaintiff in the amount of so much
payable on this date.
3. The loan is now overdue but defendant still refused to pay.

So every paragraph is numbered so that it can easily be identified in the subsequent pleadings. Pag-sagot ng
Answer, he will just refer to the #, “I admit the allegations in paragraph #5)

Paragraph [b] is related to Rule 2 on joinder of causes of action. Can you file one complaint embodying two
or more causes of action? YES.

EXAMPLE: Angelo wants to file a case against Ina to collect three unpaid promissory notes. So, there are
three causes of action. The lawyer of Angelo decided to file only one complaint collecting the three promissory
notes. Now, how should he prepare the complaint containing the three promissory notes?

Plaintiff respectfully alleges: 1. that he is of legal age x x x.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: In 1995, there was a loan secured amounting to so much and it is
not paid until now;
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: In 1995, there was a second loan…became payable and is not
paid.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: x x x x.

In other words, hiwa-hiwalayin mo. You indicate your different causes of action. That is how you prepare
your complaint. On the other hand, the defendant will answer:

ANSWER:
ANSWER TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION x x x,
ANSWER TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION x x x,
ANSWER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION x x x.

Do not combine them together in one paragraph. Even in trial when you present your exhibits, you might get
confused because you combined all the three causes of action in one paragraph. But with this one, the
presentation is clearer, the outline is clearer and it is more scientifically arranged than joining them in one story.

Under paragraph [c], the pleading must state the relief sought. But it may add a general prayer for such
further other relief as may be just and equitable like yung mga pahabol na “Plaintiff prays for such further or
other relief which the court may be deemed just or equitable.” Meaning, aside from the relief sought, Kung
meron ka pang gustong ibigay, okay lang. That is the general prayer.

Q: Is the prayer or relief part of the main action?

 A: NO, it is part of the complaint or answer but it may indicate what is the nature of the cause of action.
Cause of actions are mere allegations. Prayer is not part of the action but it is important because it might
enlighten us on the nature of the cause of action. That is the purpose of relief or prayer.

EXAMPLE : Angelo filed a case against Ina for annulment of a contract of sale. If you look at the caption, it
is a personal action which should be instituted in the place where the parties reside. But if you look at the
prayer: “Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that after trial, the deed of sale shall be annulled on the ground of
intimidation, and the ownership of the land sold to the defendant in Digos be ordered returned.” Actually, you
are trying to recover the ownership of the land. So in other words, it is not a personal action but a real action.

Sec. 3. Signature and Address.- Every pleading must be designed by the party or counsel
representing him, stating in either case his address which should not be a post office box.
xxxxx

Signature and address – every pleading must be signed by the party or the counsel representing him. Take
note of the prohibition now: You must state your address which should not be a post office box because one
difficulty is that the exact date when you claim your mail cannot be determined if it is a P.O. box. But if it is
served to his office, the exact date can easily be determined.

Before, I met a situation where the lawyer filed a motion or a pleading stating only his telephone number.
My golly! that is worse! How will I send my reply? Through telephone also? (sa text kaya?)

IMPLIED CERTIFICATION IN A PLEADING

Section 3, second paragraph:

“The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading;
that to the best to his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it;
and that it is not interposed for delay.”

Q: When a lawyer signs a pleading, what is he certifying?

A: Second paragraph says, he is certifying that he has read the pleading, that to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief, there is a good ground to support it, and it is not interposed for delay. That is called
as and IMPLIED CERTIFICATION IN A PLEADING (Arambulo vs. Perez, 78 Phil. 387). That was already
asked in the bar once.

BAR QUESTION: What is the meaning of the phrase “Implied Certification in a Pleading”?
A: “Implied Certification in a Pleading” means that when a lawyer signs a pleading he is certifying that he
has read it, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief there is a good ground to support it, and it is not
interposed for delay.

Section 3, last paragraph:

An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its discretion,
allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
inadvertence and not intended for delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned
pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of his Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent
matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be
subject to appropriate disciplinary action. (5a)

So, when a pleading is not signed it produces no legal effect. It is as if no pleading has been filed.

Q: Now, suppose it was just an inadvertent omission, it was not intentional maybe because he was hurrying
to file the pleading, the lawyer had it filed when actually he has not signed it yet.
A: Well, actually if that is in good faith, the court may forgive the counsel because the law says, “however,
the court, may in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to
mere inadvertence and not intended for delay.” Maybe, alright, you sign it now in order that it will produce a
legal effect.

However, if the lawyer files a pleading which is UNSIGNED DELIBERATELY, sinadya, then, according to
the rules, he shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. That is practically unethical ‘no? Not only that,
he is also subject to disciplinary action if he signs a pleading in violation of this Rule or alleges scandalous or
indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address. These are the grounds
no.
 Now, this ground – fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address has been inserted in 1997
Rules, this was not found in the prior Rules. Siguro, the SC has discovered that this has been the cause of delay
in litigation.

Q: What do you mean by this?

A: A lawyer will file a pleading in court, he will say this is his address, and then he moves his office without
telling the court or the opposing counsel of his new address. So, the court will be sending notices and orders to
his old address and it is returned to sender because the lawyer already moved to another place. So, it causes
delay ba.

So, in order to penalize the lawyer, subject to disciplinary action, it is his obligation to inform the court and
even the opposing counsel about his new address so that all court orders, decisions and all pleadings will be
served on his address. I think what prompted the SC to insert this is the fact that it has been the cause of delays
in many cases.

VERIFICATION

Sec. 4. Verification.- Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule,

pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. (5)
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the
allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information
and belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification,
shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. (6a)

Q: What do you understand by verification in a pleading?

A: It means that there is an affidavit accompanying the pleading that the pleader will certify that he prepared
the pleading, that all allegations therein are true and correct. For example: In the pleading the plaintiff will say:

I, Juan de la Cruz of legal age, after being sworn in accordance with law, hereby say
that:

I am the plaintiff in the above entitled case.

I caused the preparation of this complaint;
I read the allegations therein;
And they are true and correct of my own knowledge.

Signed
Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 2nd day of October 2001, in the City of
Davao, Philippines.

Panfilo Corpuz
Notary Public

That is what you call verification of a pleading. That the pleader, whether plaintiff or defendant, will attest
that the allegations in his complaint or in his answer are true and correct of his own knowledge. And then, he
will sign it, and then below that, there will be the so-called “JURAT” - Subscribed and sworn to before me on
this ___ day of December 1997, in the City of Davao, Philippines. Then, signed by the notary public. Meaning,
statements, in the pleading are confirmed to be correct, under oath, by the defendant. That is called, the
verification of a pleading.

The purpose of verification is to insure good faith in the averments of a pleading. Although lack of
verification in a pleading is a formal defect, not jurisdictional defect, and can be cured by amendment. (Phil.
Bank of Commerce vs. Macadaeg, L-14174, Oct. 31, 1960)

Q: What do you think will happen if a pleading is verified by a party and it turns out that the allegations are
false? And that he deliberately made those allegations false and under oath.
A: Well, you know your Criminal Law. That will be a ground for the prosecution for the crime of perjury,
because that is a false affidavit. But if the pleading is not verified, even if they are false, there is no perjury,
because perjury requires a sworn statement by the accused.

Q: How is a pleading verified?

A: The law says, a pleading is verified by affidavit, that the affiant has read the pleading and that the
allegations therein are, true and correct of his knowledge and belief.
 Q: Suppose I will say, “the allegations there are true and correct based on my ‘information’ and ‘belief’.”
A: According to the paragraph 3, verification is not sufficient, because you can always claim na “Ganoon
pala, hindi pala totoo. Sorry ha? That is my information eh.” Meron kang lusot ba. So, you must say ‘they are
true and correct based on my own knowledge.’ ‘Information’ will not suffice.

Under the prior rule, a proper verification must be based on “knowledge” – the allegations therein are true
and correct of my own knowledge. Now, “knowledge and belief”, and yet the third paragraph says, “based on
knowledge, information and belief” is bawal. So, “knowledge, information and belief” is improper, but
“knowledge and belief” only is proper. So tanggalin mo lang yung ‘information’ to make it proper.

Q: What happens if a pleading is not verified when the law requires it to be verified? Is that a fatal defect?
A: The pleading is defective but it is only a formal defect. The court still has jurisdiction over the case. If the
defect is formal, it can be cured by amending the pleading and verifying. So, it is a defective pleading but the
defect is formal, it is not substantial or jurisdictional. Therefore, the case should not be dismissed. The pleading
can be amended to include verification.

Q: Does the law require every pleading to be verified?

A: NO. The GENERAL RULE is, pleadings need not be under oath, EXCEPT when otherwise specifically
required by law or this rule. When the law or rules require a pleading to be verified, then it must be verified,
otherwise it is formally detective. If the law is silent, verification is not necessary and the pleading is filed
properly.

Now, if you ask me, what are the pleadings which the law or the Rules of Court require to be verified, there
are many. They are scattered throughout the Rules and we will meet some in the course of going over the Rules.
I think that question has already been asked 3 times in the BAR. The last time was in 1995. Meaning, the
examiner was asking for the exceptions. You cannot find one rule or one section where you will get all the
answers in that section because they are scattered, sabog eh. So, practically, it requires the Bar candidate to have
a grasp of the entire Rules so that he will be able to recall as many pleadings as there are, which require. From
time to time we will go on, we will meet them.

BAR QUESTION: Name as many pleadings as you can which must be verified.
A: The following: (taken from the 4th year Remedial Law transcription)
1.) Rule 8 – when you deny the due execution of an actionable document;
2.) Summary Rules – all pleadings under summary rules should be verified;
3.) Special Civil Actions – petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

I remember that years ago, there was a student who asked me this question:
Q: Now, on the other hand, suppose a pleading does not require verification but the lawyer had it verified.
What is the effect?
A: There is no effect, just surplusage! A pleading in general is not required to be verified. But I will verify it.
Is there something wrong with it? Technically, none. But if it is required to be verified and you omit the
verification, it is formally defective.

So he said, “In other words Sir, it is better pala that you will verify every pleading para sigurado. No harm
man kaya? At least, even if there is a verification, when it is not required, no harm.” That’s true, no harm but if a
lawyer does that, that only shows he does not know the rules. He cannot identify which pleading requires to be
verified because he will automatically verify everything.

And the second effect, if a pleading is not verified, and the statement is false, there is no perjury. Now I
verify it, and it turns out to be deliberately false, you are courting a criminal prosecution for your client for
perjury. In other words, you create a crime of perjury when actually there should be none in the first place. The
policy may be playing it safe but it produces other effects. Ignorance of the rules!

CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping.-- The plaintiff or the principal party shall
certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief,
or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
a)that he has not theretofore commence any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
b)if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the status
thereof; and
c)if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or
pending, he shall report that fact within (5) days therefrom the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
 Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after
hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein, shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without the prejudice to
the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his
counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground
for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a
cause for administrative sanctions. (n)

You know what is forum shopping? I think you have an idea about that, no? Forum Shopping is an unethical
practice when a lawyer or a party files identical cases in two or more tribunals hoping that if he may fail in one
case, he will succeed in another forum. Now, maybe this practice has become rampant before, not so much in
Davao City but maybe in Metro Manila because most of the abuses in the bar happen in Metro Manila not in the
provinces.

Maybe because of these abuses, the SC has decided to put down this provision in order to assure good faith.
So everytime you file a complaint you must certify under oath that you have not filed any other case of this
nature in any other court. More or less, you will follow the language found in the first paragraph. And this
requirement was originally found in a Circular 04-94 of the SC. It is now incorporated in the new rules in
Section 5.

Q: What is the effect if a complaint or a third-party complaint is filed in court without the certification on
non-forum shopping?
A: That is a ground by itself for an automatic dismissal of the complaint.

Now take note that the certification of non-forum Shopping is not only required in the complaint but the law
says: “Complaint or other initiatory pleadings” such as counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party complaints.
Therefore, all these pleadings require certification against forum shopping.

Now let’s go to the second paragraph.

Again, what is the possibility if the complaint is filed without the certification against forum shopping? That
is a ground by itself for the dismissal of the complaint.

Q: Now, suppose I will amend the complaint because at first there was no certification of non-forum
shopping, therefore, automatically the defect is cured. Now, is it automatic?
A: Look at the 2nd paragraph, it says, “failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be
curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading, but shall be cause for the dismissal of
the case without prejudice.” Meaning, you can still re-file the case with the inclusion of the certification against
forum shopping. Pwede mong ulitin, you re-file the same complaint. That is the meaning of ‘without prejudice.’

“Unless otherwise provided, upon the motion after hearing” – meaning, it is now discretionary on the court
to determine whether to dismiss or not to dismiss. Of course, it is a ground for dismissal, but the court may say,
“Okay, we will just amend it. We will not dismiss.” But definitely, you cannot insist that because I already
amended, everything is cured. That is for the court to determine whether to dismiss or not to dismiss. So, mere
amendment does not cure automatically the missing certification.

I think this provision that mere amendment does not cure automatically the missing certification for non-
forum shopping was taken by the SC from its ruling in the 1995 case of

KAVINTA vs. CASTILLO, JR.

249 SCRA 604

HELD: “The mere submission of a certification under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 after
the filing of a motion to dismiss on the ground of non-compliance thereof does not ipso facto operate
as a substantial compliance; otherwise the Circular would lose its value or efficacy.”

As a matter of fact, if the certification is deliberately false there are many other sanctions – contempt,
possible administrative actions against the lawyer or criminal case for perjury.

Now, in permissive counterclaims, there must be a certification of non-forum shopping, otherwise the case
will be dismissed. Some lawyers argue that the certification is not required in compulsory counterclaims. It is
only required in permissive counterclaims because in permissive counterclaims, the claimant has two choices:
(1.) to file a counterclaim in the same case, or (2.) to file a separate case. Another view is that, since Section 5
does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.
However, that issue is now resolved in the 1998 case of

SANTO TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL vs. SURLA

294 SCRA 382 [Aug. 17, 1998]

HELD: The certification of non-forum shopping applies only to permissive counterclaims

because there is no possibility of forum shopping in compulsory counterclaims.
“The proviso in the second paragraph of Section 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
i.e., that the violation of the anti-forum shopping rule ‘shall not be curable by mere amendment . . .
but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice,’ being predicated on the
applicability of the need for a certification against forum shopping, obviously does not include a
claim which cannot be independently set up.”