c2015 Civpro Midterms Reviewer (Provisional)

civil procedure midterms reviewer c2015 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction .......................................................................... 3
A. Objectives of, and power to promulgate, rules
of pleading, practice and procedure .......................... 3
B. General provisions ....................................................... 4
C. Cause of Action (Rule 2) ............................................. 6
D. Uniform Procedure ...................................................... 8
D. Class suit ( 12) ...........................................................29

E. Joinder of parties .........................................................29
F. Substitution of parties ...............................................31
1. Death of a party ( 16) .........................................31
2. Incompetency or incapacity of a party during
pendency of action ( 18) ........................................31
3. Transfer of interest ( 19) ..................................32
II. Jurisdiction ........................................................................... 9
4. Death or separation of a party who is a public

officer ( 17) ..................................................................32
A. General Concepts .......................................................... 9
G. Alternative and unknown defendants ...............32
1. Jurisdiction in general ............................................ 9
H. Indigent party ( 21) .................................................32
2. Payment of Filing Fees .........................................10
I. Solicitor General ( 22) ..............................................33
3. Estoppel ......................................................................11
J. New/additional parties .............................................33
B. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

different levels of courts in civil cases ....................12
1. Impleader...................................................................33
1. Supreme Court .........................................................12

2. Court of Appeals ......................................................14
3. Regional Trial Courts ............................................15
4. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts ........17
2. Intervention (Rule 19) .........................................34

3. Interpleader (Rule 62) .........................................34
III. Venue (Rule 4) ................................................................36
V. Summons (Rule 14) ........................................................40
A. Issuance and Contents ..............................................40
5. Specialized Courts ..................................................19
B. Service .............................................................................40
C. Other tribunals and agencies .................................20
1. By whom issued (1, 5) .....................................41
1. Securities and Exchange Commission ...........20
2. By whom made ( 3) .............................................41
2. National Labor Relations Commission ..........21
3. Modes of Service .....................................................41
3. Insurance Commission .........................................21
4. Proof of Service; Alias Summons .....................48
4. Energy Regulatory Commission .......................21
5. Return of service (4-5) ....................................48
D. Katarungang Pambarangay ....................................22
C. Voluntary appearance ( 20) ................................48
III. Parties (Rule 3) ...............................................................24
VI. Pleadings............................................................................50
A. Capacity to sue and be sued ...................................24
A. Pleadings in general...................................................50
1. Who may be parties ( 1) ....................................24
B. Complaint .......................................................................50
2. What if plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue?

.............................................................................................25
1. Generally ....................................................................50
3. Who is a plaintiff? ...................................................25
3. Alternative .................................................................51
4. Who is a defendant? ..............................................25
C. Answer .............................................................................51
5. Suits by or against foreign corporations ......25
D. Counterclaim and cross-claim...............................53
5. Suits by or against the State ...............................26
E. Reply .................................................................................55
6. Spouses as parties ..................................................26
F. Formal requirements of pleadings ......................55
B. Real parties-in-interest ............................................26
G. Detail in pleading ........................................................57
1. Determining the real party-in-interest .........27
H. Amended and supplemental pleadings .............60
2. Indispensable parties............................................27
1. Amendments in general.......................................60
3. Necessary parties ...................................................28
2. Amendments as a matter of right ....................60
C. Representative parties ( 3)..................................29
3. Amendments by leave of court .........................61
2. Splitting & joinder of causes of action ...........51
4. Amendments to conform to or authorize

presentation of evidence ..........................................62
5. Supplemental pleadings ......................................63
I. Periods for pleading ....................................................63
1. Periods for responsive pleadings ....................63
2. Period for foreign private juridical entity ....63
3. Periods for answers to counterclaims, crossclaim, supplemental complaint and
amendments by leave of court ..............................64
4. Periods for filing counterclaims and crossclaims................................................................................64
5. Extensions .................................................................64
6. Computation of time .............................................64
J. Filing and service of pleadings and other papers
..................................................................................................65
1. In general ...................................................................65
2. Filing ............................................................................66
3. Service .........................................................................66
Appendix A: Examples on determining the real
party-in-interest....................................................................68
Appendix B: Summary Procedure and Small Claims
Cases...........................................................................................70
Appendix C: Laws governing Katarungang
Pambarangay..........................................................................75
Republic Act 7160 (Local Government Code of
1991) .....................................................................................75
Administrative Circular No. 14-93 ...........................76
Appendix D: Motion to Dismiss (Rule 16)..................78
Grounds for a motion to dismiss ( 1) ....................78
How to use this reviewer:
- if not otherwise noted, quoted sections of ROC provisions
are under the rule stated in the top-level header (ex. all
sections quoted under III. Parties (Rule 3) are under Rule
3, unless the section itself states that it comes from a
different rule.)
- read this reviewer alongside your copy of the ROC. not all
sections and rules will be quoted verbatim to preserve
space and sanity.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Objectives of, and power to
promulgate, rules of pleading, practice
and procedure
CONSTITUTION Art. VIII, Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall
have the following powers:
xxx
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasijudicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.
What rules can the Supreme Court promulgate?

Protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights
Pleading, practice and procedure in all courts
Admission into the practice of law and the
Integrated Bar
Legal assistance for the underprivileged
Limitations to rulemaking power
Shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases
Shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade
Shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights
Shall be subordinate to existing statutes; when
there is conflict between a rule and a statute,
the statute shall prevail (Shioji v Harvey)
SHIOJI v HARVEY (1922)
FACTS: The Supreme Court dismissed a late appeal
and a writ of execution was issued to enforce the
judgment. However, the losing party (PMS) filed an
action with the CFI, the result of which Judge Harvey
issued a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin Shioji
from levying in execution under the judgment, Shioji
asked the SC to issue a writ of preliminary injunction
to prevent Harvey from interfering with the original
judgment. PMS also questioned the SC rules on the
effects of the failure to file an appeal within the
prescribed period.
HELD: WPI granted; made permanent. When a
decision has been issued by the SC, the lower court
cannot vary or review it. It can only execute such
decision.
The Judiciary Law and the Code of Civil Procedure

constituted the legislative authority for the
promulgation of rules by the Supreme Court. The SC
was given the power to make all necessary rules for
orderly procedure in the court, and for regulating the
conduct of business in the court. Such rules were
binding and must be observed.
General limitation: the rules must not be in conflict
with laws of the US or Philippines.
Specific limitation: no judgment shall be reversed
by reason of the failure of the court to comply with
such rules, unless the substantial rights of the party
have been impaired buy such failure. No showing of
either was found in the SC rules on appeal and the
present case.
RE: PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF THE
EXEMPTION OF THE GSIS FROM PAYMENT OF
LEGAL FEES (2010)
FACTS: The Government Service Insurance System
wanted to be exempted from paying legal fees. It based
its argument on GSIS Act of 1997 9, which stated that
the GSIS shall be exempt from all taxes, assessments,
fees, charges or duties of all kinds.
HELD: Exemption not granted. The SC promulgated
Rule 141 on legal fees pursuant to its Constitutional
rule-making power. These rules were procedural; they
did not create, diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights.
The power to promulgate rules for pleading,
practice and procedure used to be shared with
Congress, which could repeal, alter or supplement the
rules; now it is exclusively the SCs.
The exemption would also violate the Courts
independence by denying it its fiscal autonomy.
Substantive law vs Remedial law

Substantive law
Creates, defines and

regulated rights and
duties regarding life
liberty or property which
when violated gives rise
to a cause of action.
Remedial law
Prescribes the methods of
enforcing those rights
and obligations created
by substantive law by
providing a procedural
system for obtaining
redress for the invasion
of rights and violations of
duties and by prescribing
rules as to how suits are
filed, tried and decided by
the courts.
Makes vested rights

possible.
No vested rights.
Cannot be enacted by the

Supreme Court.
SC expressly empowered
to promulgate procedural
rules.
BUSTOS v LUCERO (1948)

FACTS: During a preliminary investigation, counsel for
the accused Lucero moved for the complainant to
present her evidence and witnesses, which were the
basis for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, for
examination and cross-examination. The motion was
denied both by the justice of the peace and Judge
Lucero of the CFI.
HELD: Denial upheld. The accused could not, as a
matter of right, compel the complainant and her
witnesses to repeat what had already been presented
during the preliminary investigation. In fact,
preliminary investigation under Rule 108 11 may be
omitted without infringing the accuseds criminal due
process rights under the Constitution.
Feria, dissenting: The accuseds right to confront
and cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution
was a substantive right. 11 diminished the accuseds
rights in a criminal case, and should be null and void.
Motion for Reconsideration
HELD: 11 is adjective or remedial law, not
substantive law which created substantive rights.
Substantive rights: included those rights which one
enjoyed under the legal system prior to the
disturbance of normal relations.
Substantive law: created, defined and regulated
rights, or which regulated the rights and duties which
gave rise to a cause of action; that part of law which
courts were established to administer.
Adjective or remedial law: prescribed the method
of enforcing rights or obtains redress for their
invasion.
Feria, dissenting: Remedial law and procedural law
are two different things. Remedial statutes provided
remedies for an injury for which the law previously
did not have such a remedy. Most of the SCs rules on
evidence, including 11, were substantive (and
remedial), not merely procedural.
FABIAN v DESIERTO (1998)
FACTS: Fabian filed an administrative case against
Agustin with the Ombudsman, which was resolved in
Agustins favor. Fabian filed an appeal by certiorari
under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court pursuant to
Ombudsman Act 27.
HELD: 27 was unconstitutional. Rule 45 only applied
to regular courts. Appeals from judgments and final
orders of quasi-judicial agencies were required to be
brought to the Court of Appeals. By authorizing a
direct appeal to the SC, 27 violated Art. VI 30 of the
Constitution.
Procedural law: the judicial process for enforcing
rights and duties recognized by substantive law and
for justly administering remedy and redress for a

disregard or infraction of them. If a rule took away a
vested right, it was not procedural. If the rule created a
right, it may be substantive. If it operated as a means
of implementing an existing right, then it dealt merely
with procedure.
27 was merely procedural, as it dealt with the
manner of exercise of the right to appeal. It did not
take away the substantive right to appeal. The SCs
power to transfer appeals to lower courts was
procedural.
B. General provisions
RULE 1
Sec. 1. Title of the Rules. These Rule shall be known
and cited as the Rules of Court.
The Rules of Court have force and effect of law.

They are not penal provisions and cannot be
given retroactive effect, but may be made
applicable to pending and undetermined cases.
The Supreme Court may suspend the
application of the Rules in the interest of just
and expeditious proceedings.
Sec. 2. In what courts applicable. These Rules shall
apply in all the courts, except as otherwise provided by
the Supreme Court.
Sec. 3. Cases governed. These Rules shall govern the
procedure to be observed in actions, civil or criminal and
special proceedings.
(a) A civil action is one by which a party sues another
for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong,
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both
are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions,
subject to the specific rules prescribed for a special civil
action.
(b) A criminal action is one by which the State
prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by
law.
(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.
Action: the legal and formal demand of ones

right from another person made and insisted
upon in a court of justice.
Special civil action: one by which a party sues
another for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong
o Examples: interpleader, declaratory relief,
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, eminent domain, foreclosure,
partition, ejectment, contempt
Sec.4. In what case not applicable. These Rules shall

not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral,
naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other
cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a
suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient.
Sec. 5. Commencement of action. A civil action is
commenced by the filing of the original complaint in
court. If an additional defendant is impleaded in a later
pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on
the dated of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective
of whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is
denied by the court.
The time of commencement of action is

significant especially when prescription in
raised as a defense against the claim of the
plaintiff in the complaint.
Unless otherwise provided by law or required
by public interest, before bringing an action to a
court of justice, all remedies of administrative
character should first be exhausted by the
aggrieved party.
Sec. 6. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of securing
a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action
and proceeding.
While the Rules are liberally construed, the

provisions on reglementary periods are strictly
applied, along with the rules on the manner and
periods for perfecting appeals, and the
requirements as to what should appear on the
face of a record on appeal. These rules have
been relaxed only for substantial justice and
equity jurisdiction.
Courts will look into the merits of the case in
determining strict or liberal construction.
ALONSO v VILLAMOR (1910)
FACTS: A municipal board, including Villamor, took
property from the church, saying that these had been
bought with public funds. Alonso, the parish priest,
filed an action to recover the value of some of the
taken property, and the trial court ruled in his favor.
Villamor et al questioned his standing to file the
action.
HELD: While Alonso was not the real party-in-interest,
it was shown that he was not prosecuting the case for
himself, but for the bishop and/or the Roman Catholic
Church. Only a substitution through amendment was
needed to cure the defect, and would not constitute a
change in the identity of the parties. There was
nothing sacred about processes or pleadings; there

should be no vested rights in technicalities.
BERKENKOTTER v COURT OF APPEALS (1973)
FACTS: After losing in the lower court, Berkenkotter
filed a notice of appeal, an appeal bond and an ex parte
motion for extension of time within which to file the
record on appeal, which was filed two days later.
Climaco, the winning party, moved for the dismissal of
the appeal as it wasnt perfected within the
reglementary period. He contended that the Court of
Appeals neither approved nor disapproved of the ex
parte motion, and so Berkenkotter filed the record on
appeal one day late.
HELD: The appeal was perfected within the
reglementary period. Although there was no denial or
approval of the ex parte motion, the CA did approve of
the notice, bond and record, and so such should be
construed as a ratification or approval of the motion.
Although there was no vested right in technicalities,
in meritorious cases, a liberal interpretation of the
rules became imperative and technicalities should not
be resorted to in derogation of the intent and purpose
of the rulesthe proper and just determination of a
litigation.
GALDO v ROSETE (1978)
FACTS: Upon receiving a copy of the decision in a civil
case, Galdo filed his notice of appeal and deposited a
cash appeal bond. One week before the 30-day period
within which to perfect the appeal expired, he filed a
motion for extension of time. He neither had a clerk
nor typewriter, so he finished typing his record on
appeal on the afternoon of the last day. He couldnt file
it with the clerk of court as it had already closed,
though he managed to furnish the opposing counsel
with a copy. His record on appeal was later
disapproved by Judge Rosete for being filed one day
late, especially as there were stenographers who
couldve received the appeal.
HELD: Disapproval not proper. The notice, bond and
motion were all filed within the reglementary period.
Only the receiving or docket clerk could properly
receive pleadings. In the interest of substantial justice,
Rosete should have approved the record on appeal
and gave due course to the appeal, considering Galdos
substantial compliance with the rules. The Rules of
Court should not be applied in a rigid, technical sense,
but to help secure substantial justice.
ARTISTICA CERAMICA INC v CIUDAD DEL CARMEN

HOMEOWNERS ASSN (2010)
FACTS: The homeowners complained of alleged noise,
air and water pollution produced by Artistica
Ceramica. The parties later entered into two
memoranda of agreement wherein AC agreed into
some undertakings. Later, the homeowners filed a
complaint with the Arbitration Committee alleging
that AC failed to comply with the terms of the
agreement; the Committee found in their favor. Both
parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
deleted damages awarded to the homeowners. They
filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the SC
arguing that the CA acted with grave abuse of
discretion.
HELD: The homeowners didnt use the proper
remedy. As a rule, the remedy from a judgment or final
order was appeal via petition for review under Rule
45. When an appeal was available, certiorari would not
prosper, even if the ground was grave abuse of
discretion. Improper remedy may result in outright
dismissal.
Appeal was still available to the homeowners. They
only failed to file their appeal within the reglementary
period, and so they filed the certiorari under Rule 65
instead. The errors they pointed out were mere errors
of judgment properly cognizable under an appeal.
Rule 45 vs Rule 65
Rule 45
Decisions, final orders or
resolutions of the CA in
any case, i.e., regardless of
the nature of the action or
proceedings involved,
may be appealed to the SC
by filing a petition for
review, which would be
but a continuation of the
appellate process over
the original case.
Rule 65
An independent action
based on the specific
ground therein provided
and, as a general rule,
cannot be availed of as a
substitute for the lost
remedy of an ordinary
appeal, including that to
be taken under Rule 45.
Requisite: there is no
available appeal or any
plain, speedy and
adequate remedy.
C. Cause of Action (Rule 2)

RULE 2
Sec. 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. Every ordinary
civil action must be based on a cause of action.
Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. A cause of action is the
act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another.
Elements of a cause of action

1. Plaintiffs legal right
2. Defendants correlative obligation to respect
plaintiffs right
3. Defendants act/omission violating plaintiffs
right
A cause of action stems from the sources of
obligation under Civil Code Art. 1156 (Sagrada
Orden v National Coconut Corporation):
o Law
o Contract
o Quasi-contract
o Acts and omissions punishable by law
o Quasi-delict
There can be no right of action (or right to
relief) without a cause of action being first
established.
A cause of action is established through the
allegations of the plaintiff in the complaint.
Test of the sufficiency of a cause of action:
whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the
court could render a valid verdict in accordance
with the prayer of the complaint (Danfoss v
Continental Cement).
Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of action. A party may
not institute more than one suit for a single cause of
action.
A single act or omission can violate many rights

at the same time, but when there is one delict,
there is a single cause of action regardless of the
number of rights violated belonging to one
person.
If only one injury resulted from several
wrongful acts, only one cause of action arises.
Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. If two
or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others.
Splitting a cause of action: the act of dividing a

single cause of action, claim or demand into two
or more parts, and bringing suit for one part
only, intending to reserve the rest for another
separate action.
Purpose:
1. to prevent repeated litigation between the
same parties with regard to the same
subject or controversy;
2. to avoid harassment and vexation to the
defendant;
3. to obviate multiplicity of suits.
Basis: a party may not institute more than one

suit for a single cause of action (Rule 2 3)
Remedy of the defendant: motion to dismiss
under Rule 16 on the ground that there is litis
pendentia ( 1 (e)), or if the first action has
finally been terminated, on the ground of res
judicata ( 1 (f)).
Sec.5. Joinder of causes of action. A party may in one
pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many
causes of action as he may have against an opposing
party, subject to the following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply
with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same
parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions,
the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court
provided one of the causes of action falls within the
jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount
claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Joinder of cause of action: the assertion of as

many causes of action as a party may have
against another in one pleading alone. It is also
the process of uniting two or more demands or
rights of action in one action.
Purpose: promotes the policy on avoiding
multiplicity of suits, but this is permissive and
the plaintiff may file separate actions for each
cause of action.
In relation to Rule 3 Sec. 6, it is necessary that
the right of relief from the said cause of action
should arise out of the same or set of
transactions, and a question of law and fact
common to all plaintiffs or defendants may
arise in the action.
Only causes of action in ordinary civil actions
may be joined. Special civil actions or actions
governed by special rules should not be joined
with ordinary civil actions to avoid confusion in
the conduct of proceedings as well as in the
determination of the presence of the requisite
elements of each cause of action.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) determine which court
will have jurisdiction over the action wherein
several causes of action have been joined.
o Totality rule: where the claims in all the
causes of action are principally for recover
of money, the aggregate amount claimed
shall be the test of jurisdiction. This rule
applies primarily to the MTC, as there is no
jurisdictional limit for the RTC.
When the causes of action are between the

same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
RTC, provided that one of the causes of action
falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC and the
venue lies therein.
o Exception: ejectment cases may not be
joined with an action within the RTCs
jurisdiction, as they are under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the MTCs
o For joinder in the MTC, it must have
jurisdiction over all the causes of action and
must have a common venue.
This section presupposed that the different
causes of action which are joined accrue in
favour of the same plaintiffs and against the
same defendants and no misjoinder of parties is
involved.
Sec. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. Misjoinder of
causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or
on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded
with separately.
Causes of action erroneously joined need only

to be separated and dismissed, without
affecting the action with regard to the other
causes of action.
Misjoinder of action, like misjoinder of parties,
is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
No sanction against non-joinder of separate
causes of action, since a plaintiff needs only a
single cause of action to maintain an action.
Rule 1 Sec.5, supra, p. 5
FELIPE v LEUTERIO (1952)

FACTS: Imperial was second place in an oratorical
contest, and filed a complaint with the CFI, alleging
that one of the judges made an error in computing the
scores. CFI Judge Leuterio reversed the board of
judges decision, declaring Imperial the winner.
HELD: The judiciary had no power to reverse the
award of the board of judges in an oratorical contest.
There was no wrong committed against Imperial, only
an error on the part of the judge. A wrong was the
deprivation or violation of a right. A contestant had no
right to the prize until and unless he/she was declared
the winner. This was a case of damnum absque injuria.
The judiciary also should not interfere in the results
of literary contests, beauty contests and similar
competitions.
SAGRADA ORDEN DE PRECADORES v NATIONAL

COCONUT CORPORATION (1952)
FACTS: Sagrada Orden owned land and warehouses.
During World War 2, these were acquired by Taiwan
Tekkosho, a Japanese corporation, to which a title was
issued. After liberation, the United States through the
Alien Property Custodian took possession and control
of the properties. It was later occupied by the Copra
Export Mgmt Co under a custodianship agreement
with the APC, and when Copra vacated, the National
Coconut Corp occupied the same. Sagrada then
undertook to recover rentals from NCC.
HELD: Sagrada had no cause of action. To be held
liable, NCCs obligation must have arisen from any of
the four sources of obligation: law, contract, quasicontract, crime or negligence. NCC committed no
crime and was not negligent. There was also no privity
of contract or obligation between APC and Taiwan
Tekkosho, which secured possession through duress.
APC had control over the properties not as Taiwan
Tekkoshos successor in interest, but by express
provision of law. APC was a trustee of the US
Government, and not of Sagrada Orden. There was also
no agreement between APC and Sagrada for the
former to pay rentals.
MA-AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO v BARRIOS (1947)
FACTS: Barrios et al filed a case for recovery of sums
of money due from Ma-ao Sugar Central before the
war. Ma-ao sought to dismiss the case, saying that they
didnt have the right to demand payment until after
the moratorium in Executive Order No 32 was lifted.
HELD: The complaint by Barrios et al didnt state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Even though
Barrios et al had the legal right to be paid, and Ma-ao
had the duty to pay the debts when they became due
and demandable, there was no cause of action yet as
there had been no omission on Ma-aos part to pay the
debt. While EO 32 was still in force, Ma-ao had no
obligation to pay, and Barrios et al couldnt file a suit
to compel it to recognize its debts. EO 32 not only
suspended execution of judgments that would order
payments of debts, but also suspended the filing of
suits for the enforcement of payment.
DANFOSS INC v CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORP
(2005)
FACTS: C Continental Cement Corp filed a complaint
for damages against Danfoss for failing to deliver a
machine on time. Danfoss said the complaint failed to
state a cause of action, since the period within which it
was to deliver had not yet expired and that CCC
cancelled its own order even before the end of the
period.
HELD: CCCs complaint failed to state a cause of action.

Danfoss could not be held liable for damages when the
period within which it must deliver did not yet expire,
and when CCC made it impossible for Danfoss to
deliver by cancelling its order before the due date.
The insufficiency must be apparent on the face of the
complaint to sustain a dismissal on the ground of lack
of cause of action. The test of sufficiency of the facts
alleged in the complaint is: whether or not, admitting
the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment
thereon in accordance with the prayer of the
complaint. The motion to dismiss must hypothetically
admit the truth of the facts alleged.
DU v JAYOMA (1922)
FACTS: Du was allowed by the Sangguniang Bayan to
operate a cockpit after the winning bidder failed to do
so. Years after the period within which the winning
bidder was allowed to operate expired, the SB ordered
Du to desist from operating the cockpit. He filed a
petition for prohibition with the RTC to prevent the SB
from suspending his cockpit operations, with
damages.
HELD: Du wasnt entitled to damages, as he had no
cause of action. He had no legal right to operate a
cockpit in the municipality, as his operation was only
at the sufferance of the SB. The principle of damnum et
injuria appliedinjury alone didnt give Du the right
to recover damages; he must also have a right of action
for the legal wrong inflicted on him.
D. Uniform Procedure
RULE 5
Sec. 1. Uniform procedure. The procedure in the
Municipal Trial Courts shall be the same as in the
Regional Trial Courts, except (a) where a particular
provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either of
said courts, or (b) in civil cases governed by the Rule on
Summary Procedure.
Sec. 2. Meaning of terms. The term "Municipal Trial
Courts" as used in these Rules shall include Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
Rule 1 Sec.4, supra, p. 5
II. JURISDICTION
A. General Concepts
CONSTI Art. VIII Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be vested
in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Over the defendant: through 1) voluntary

appearance or 2) coercive process (See the
chapter on Summons, infra, p. 40)
Jurisdiction over the res or property in litigation
is acquired by:
o Actual or constructive seizure: by the
court, placing the property in custodia legis
(ex. garnishment or attachment)
o By provision of law: recognizes in the
court the power to deal with the property
or subject-matter within its territorial
jurisdiction (ex. land registration)
Jurisdiction vs Exercise of jurisdiction
CONSTI Art. VIII Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the

power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction
of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section
5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when
it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.
1. Jurisdiction in general
Jurisdiction
The power of a court to hear or entertain an
action or proceeding and to render a judgment
thereon which will bind the parties to such
action or proceeding.
It can pertain either to jurisdiction over a
person, or to jurisdiction over the subjectmatter.
Subject matter jurisdiction
Pertains to the classes or kinds of actions or
proceedings which the court is authorized to
entertain and adjudicate.
Conferred only by the Constitution or law.
This is sometimes confused with the power of
the court to render a judgment on the merits.
For example, a case may sometimes say that a
court lacks jurisdiction when what it really
means is that there is no cause of action, or that
a real party-in-interest has not been impleaded.
Determined by the allegations in the complaint.
The statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action determines the
jurisdiction of the court.
Once attached to a court, it cannot be ousted by
succeeding statute.
o Exception: the statute itself conferring new
jurisdiction provides for retroactive effect.
Jurisdiction over the parties
Over the plaintiff: by the filing the complaint
or petition
Jurisdiction
The authority to hear and
determine a case
Exercise of jurisdiction
The exercise of the
authority to try a case
BPI VS. HONG

FACTS: EYCO filed a petition for suspension of
payments and rehabilitation before the SEC, which
instead ordered its liquidation. While on appeal with
the CA, BPI filed for an extra-judicial foreclosure of
EYCOs mortgage in the RTC of Valenzuela. Hong, an
EYCO creditor, challenged the foreclosure. BPI accused
him of forum shopping for filing petitions in the SEC
and the RTC.
HELD: Hong was not guilty of forum shopping.
Jurisdiction over liquidation proceedings has been
transferred to the RTC by RA 8799. When Hong
commenced the injunction suit, the SEC case had not
yet been transferred to the appropriate RTC
designated as a special commercial court. Given the
urgency of the matter, Hong had to seek relief from the
Valenzuela RTC, which has original jurisdiction over
suits for injunctions and damages.
DECANO VS. EDU
FACTS: Decano, a janitor, was fired by Commissioner
Edu after four years of service in a temporary capacity.
He assailed Edus power of removal, as the latter was
not the one who appointed him. The CFI Pangsinan
issued an injunction against Edu and the Acting
Registrar in Dagupan. Edu asserted his authority and
questioned the CFIs jurisdiction over him, for he held
offices in Quezon City.
HELD: The CFI had jurisdiction to issue the injunction
for what was sought to be prevented was the
corresponding act of Edus provincial agent, though
the legality of his order necessarily had to be
discussed in the same proceeding.
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY VS. ATTORNEY

GENERAL
FACTS: Manila Railroad filed an action in CFI Tarlac
for condemnation of certain lands located in Tarlac.
However, he later motioned to dismiss the action since
he found out that the lands were actually located in
Nueva Ecija.
HELD: The CFI has the power and authority to take
cognizance over actions over lands located in another
province. Venue is not jurisdictional as to subject
matter and that defendant's rights in respect thereto
are such that they may be waived, expressly or by
implication
NOCUM AND PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER VS. TAN
FACTS: Lucio Tan filed a civil case for damages for
alleged malicious and defamatory imputation, but in
his original failed to include his residence and the
place where the libelous article was printed and first
published. The complaint was dismissed, but was
admitted after he amended it.
HELD: The RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case
when the case was filed before it. From its allegations,
Tans cause of action is for damages arising from libel,
the jurisdiction of which is vested with the RTC. The
purpose of the amended complaint was not to vest
jurisdiction but merely to establish the proper venue.
The original complaint thus had a mere procedural
impediment. Still, in civil cases, venue may in fact be
waived.
CHAVEZ VS. CA
FACTS: An Information for libel filed with the Manila
RTC failed to state that the article was printed and first
published in Manila (only that it a magazine of general
circulation in Manila) or that Francisco Chavez
(offended party) was residing in Manila at the time the
offense was committed.
HELD: The Manila RTC did not have jurisdiction over
the case, as the Information was insufficient to sustain
a charge of libel. Before Art. 360, RPC was amended, a
criminal action for libel may be instituted in any
jurisdiction where the libelous article was published
or circulated, irrespective of where it was written or
printed, making it easier for allegedly offended parties
to harass pressmen.
2. Payment of Filing Fees

Generally, a case is deemed filed only upon the
payment of the prescribed docket fee,
regardless of the date of actual filing in court.
Hence, a court does not acquire jurisdiction

upon the filing of the complaint unless the
correct amount of docket fees has been paid.
Still, the court has liberally applied the rules
when complainants prove to be willing to abide
by the rules, and if the error in payment of fees
can be attributed to clerical error, or an honest
difference in opinion as to which fee schedule
applies.
o In some cases, the court would also allow
the recovery of the proper amount of
docket fees as a lien on the judgment award.
A summary of rules on docket fees (Sun Insurance
vs. CA):
1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests
a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action.
o 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
therefor is paid.
o The court may also allow payment of said
fee within a reasonable time but also in no
case beyond its applicable prescriptive or
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 determination by the
court, the additional filing fee therefor shall
constitute a lien on the judgment.
o It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of
Court or his duly authorized deputy to
enforce said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee.
MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CO. VS. CA
FACTS: Manchester only paid P410 as docket fees as it
did not specify any amount of damages in the prayer of
its pleading but only mentioned P78M as the amount it
suffered. When a reassessment became in order, it
reduced the amount of damages to P10M and
contended that it should be assessed based on the
amended complaint citing Magaspi v Ramolete, where
the trial court was held to have acquired jurisdiction

despite held insufficient fees.
HELD: The basis of assessment of docket fees is the
amount of damages sought in the original complaint
and not in the amended complaint. Unlike the Magaspi
case, where there was an honest difference of opinion
as to the nature of the action upon the filing of the
complaint, what is present here is a fraudulent act
designed to confuse the docket clerk.
SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LTD. VS. ASUNCION
FACTS: Chua was claiming damages from Sun
Insurancethe prayer of his complaint did not allege
an amount but the body proved that he was seeking
P50M. He paid P210 as docket fees. After several
reassessments of the docket fees and amendments of
his complaint, he paid P182,824.90 (staggered) in
additional docket fees.
HELD: Unlike Manchester where the court did not
acquire jurisdiction due to the fraud committed
against the government, here, a more liberal
interpretation is called for since Chua demonstrated
his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the
additional docket fees. The Court also laid down rules
re: payment of docket fees.
COLARINA VS. CA
FACTS: Colarina, whose land was placed under CARL
of 1988, sought to be paid with BISUDECO assets. He
filed an action to nullify the sale to BAPCI of such
assets. BAPCI argued that the RTC did not acquire
jurisdiction over the complaint since Colarina failed to
pay the docket fee of P1,350,850.00 which was based
on the value of the disputed property pegged by
Colarina himself at P270M.
HELD: If the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court
should not necessarily dismiss the complaint on
ground of lack of jurisdiction. It may allow payment of
the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond
the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
RUBY SHELTER BUILDERS AND REALTY
DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS. FORMARAN
FACTS: Ruby Shelter filed a complaint for declaration
of nullity of deeds of sale. The clerk of court assessed
docket fees (P13K) based on the rule (Sec. 7 (b) (1),
Rule 141) for complaints incapable of pecuniary
estimation. The defendants argued that the docket fees
should be computed based on Sec. 7 (a) since the
action involved real properties. The reassessed docket
fees turned out to be more than P700K.
HELD: The complaint is a real action, since TCTs were

already issued in favor of Ruby Shelters previous
creditors. The docket fees then would be determined
based on the value of the real property involved. Sec. 7
(a), Rule 141 provides that docket fees must be based
on the fair market value of the property/ies (as stated
in the Tax Declaration or the Zonal Valuation of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, whichever is higher) or, in
the absence thereof, the stated value of the same.
3. Estoppel
General rule: the issue of jurisdiction may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on
appealthe reason being that an error of
jurisdiction renders an order or judgment void
or voidable.
Jurisdiction is also not lost by waiver or
estoppel.
o Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from
asserting the courts absence or lack of
jurisdiction, only supervenes in exceptional
cases similar to the factual milieu of Tijam
vs. Sibonghanoy.
TIJAM VS. SIBONGHANOY
FACTS: A civil case for recovery of money was
commenced in the CFI. 15 years later, the Surety
Company questioned the jurisdiction of the CFI, since
the Judiciary Act of 1948 provided that claims below
P2000.00 are within the jurisdiction of inferior courts.
HELD: Manila Suretys motion to dismiss is barred by
laches. It became a quasi-party way back in 1948, and
in the course of its attaining several affirmative reliefs
it invoked the jurisdiction of the courts where the case
had been pending, and actively participated in the
respective proceedings. Laches, also called the
doctrine of stale demands, is the failure or neglect for
an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do
that which, by exercising due diligence, could or
should have been done earlier.
FIGUEROA VS. PEOPLE
FACTS: After being convicted in the RTC of reckless
imprudence, Figueroa questioned the RTCs
jurisdiction in the CA for the first time.
HELD: The MTC actually has jurisdiction over the case
owing to the imposable penalty. The doctrine of laches
is inapplicable since no considerable period had yet
elapsed for laches to elapse. Delay alone, though
unreasonable, will not sustain the defense of estoppel
by laches unless it further appears that the party,
knowing his rights, has not sought to enforce them
until the condition of the party pleading laches has in

good faith become so changed that he cannot be
restored to his former state.
The general rule is that: the issue of jurisdiction may
be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on
appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.
Estoppel by laches, to bar a litigant from asserting the
courts absence/lack of jurisdiction, only supervenes
in exceptional cases, similar to the factual
circumstances in Tijam.
4. Error of Jurisdiction vs. Error of Judgment

Error of jurisdiction vs error of judgment
Error of jurisdiction
One where the act
complained of was issued
by the court without or in
excess of jurisdiction
Error of judgment
One which the court may
commit in the exercise of
its jurisdiction.
Includes errors of
procedure or mistakes in
the courts findings.
Correctible only by the

extraordinary writ of
certiorari
Correctible by appeal
Renders a judgment void

or voidable
Ground for reversal only

if it is shown that
prejudice has been
caused
FERNANDO VS. VASQUEZ

FACTS: Fernando filed an unlawful detainer complaint
against his daughter and her husband. The city court
ruled for him, but the spouses filed for prohibition in
the CFI saying the city court did not have jurisdiction.
The CFI granted this. Fernando tried to appeal but this
was dismissed for failure to pay the docket fees on
time, so he filed a certiorari instead.
HELD: Whatever error the CFI judge must have
committed in holding that the CC had no jurisdiction, it
is only an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction. Since
there was no grave abuse, Fernandos remedy was
only to file an appeal and not to invoke the special
office of the certiorari. In fact, Fernando tried to appeal
but failed due to his own fault. Certiorari is no
substitute to an appeal.
B. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

of the different levels of courts in civil
cases
(Refer to the table at the end of this reviewer for a
comprehensive enumeration of the subject-matter
jurisdiction of the various civil courts.)
Classifications
As to time of commencement of action
o Original jurisdiction: power of the court to
take judicial cognizance of a case instituted
for judicial action for the first time under
conditions provided by law
o Appellate jurisdiction: the authority of a
court higher in rank to reexamine the final
order or judgment of a lower court which
tried the case now elevated for judicial
review
As to exclusivity of adjudication
o Exclusive jurisdiction: the power to
adjudicate a case or proceeding to the
exclusion of all other courts at that stage
o Concurrent jurisdiction: the power
conferred upon different courts, whether of
the same or different ranks, to take
cognizance at the same stage of the same
case in the same or different judicial
territories
1. Supreme Court
CONSTITUTION Art. VIII Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity
of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed
is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of
law is involved.
xxx
CONSTITUTION Art. VI, Sec. 30. No law shall be passed
increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice
and concurrence.
CONSTITUTION Art. VII, Sec. 4. x x x
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.
CONSTITUTION Art. VII, Section 18. x x x

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
xxx
CONSTITUTION Art. IX-A, Sec. 7. Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision,
order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to
the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
RA 296 (1948) Section 17. Jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. - The Supreme Court shall have original
jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers, and consuls; and original and exclusive
jurisdiction in petitions for the issuance of writs of
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against the Court
of Appeals.
In the following cases, the Supreme Court shall exercise
original and concurrent jurisdiction with Court of First
Instance:
1. In petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus;
2. In actions between the Roman Catholic Church and
the municipalities or towns, or the Filipino Independent
Church for controversy as to title to, or ownership,
administration or possession of hospitals, convents,
cemeteries or other properties used in connection
therewith;
3. In actions brought by the Government of the
Philippines against the Roman Catholic Church or vice
versa for the title to, or ownership of, hospitals, asylums,
charitable institutions, or any other kind of property; and
4. In actions brought to prevent and restrain violations
of law concerning monopolies and combinations in
restraint of trade.
The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to
review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal,
certiorari or writ of error, as the law or rules of court
may provide, final judgment and decrees of inferior
courts as herein provided, in (1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or
regulation is in question;
(2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost,
assessment or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto;
(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior
court is in issue;
(4) All criminal cases involving offenses for which the
penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment; and those
involving other offenses which, although not so punished,
arose out of the same occurrence or which may have
been committed by the accused on the same occasion, as
that giving rise to the more serious offense, regardless of
whether the accused are charged as principals,
accomplices, or accessories, or whether they have been

tried jointly or separately;
(5) All civil cases in which the value in controversy
exceeds fifty thousand pesos, exclusive of interests and
costs, or in which the title or possession of real estate
exceeding in value the sum of fifty thousand pesos to be
ascertained by the oath of a party to the cause or by other
competent evidence, is involved or brought in question.
The Supreme Court shall likewise have exclusive
jurisdiction over all appeals in civil cases, even though
the value in controversy, exclusive of interests and costs,
is fifty thousand pesos or less, when the evidence
involved in said cases is the same as the evidence
submitted in an appealed civil case within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided herein;
(6) All other cases in which only errors or questions
of law are involved.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is unique

is that it is in large part granted by the
Constitution.
o Such jurisdiction enjoys protection in the
form of some limitations on the legislatures
power to define, prescribe and apportion
the jurisdiction of the various courts.
o Congress may not increase the SCs
appellate jurisdiction without the latters
advice and concurrence, nor may it deprive
the SC of its jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Art. VIII 5.
By implication, however, if the Congress
has increased the appellate jurisdiction of
the SC via a statute, it may subsequently
remove such additional appellate
jurisdiction even without the advice and
concurrence of the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts
share the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction
to issue certain writs.
o This concurrence of jurisdiction is not,
however, to be taken as according to parties
an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice
of the court to which application therefore
will be directed.
The principle of hierarchy of courts is
determinative of the venue of appeals, and the
proper forum for petitions for extraordinary
writs.
o A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts
original jurisdiction should be allowed only
when there are special and important
reasons. (See Cruz v Mijares)
CRUZ VS. MIJARES
FACTS: A smart-alecky law student conducting his
litigation personally went up to the SC on certiorari
alleging grave abuse on the part of a trial court judge

whom he irked.
HELD: No grave abuse. While the SC and CA have
concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, this does not grant
unrestrained freedom for a litigant to take his pick
where to file his action. Courts may only disregard the
hierarchy of courts in (1) exceptional circumstances,
and (2) for compelling reasons, or (3) if the nature of
the issues reviewed warrants the SCs taking
cognizance of the case.
FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS VS. CA
FACTS: First Lepanto filed an MR of the decision of SC,
which sustained the CAs jurisdiction over Board of
Investments decisions. It alleged that Circular 1-91
(rules governing appeals to CA) cannot supersede
Article 82 of EO 226 (providing direct appeals to SC).
HELD: Art. 82 of EO 226 enlarged its appellate
jurisdiction without its consent, thereby violating Art.
VI, 30 of the 1987 Constitution, which was already
effective before the promulgation of EO 226.
Therefore, it is the CA which has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over BOIs decisions.
FABIAN VS. DESIERTO, supra, p. 3
2. Court of Appeals
BP 129, Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals shall
exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto,
and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction;
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts; and
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final
judgments, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional
Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commission, including the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security
Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission
and the Civil Service Commission; except those falling
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the
Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph
(1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the
fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of
1948.
The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases
and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any
and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in
cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction,
including the power to grant and conduct new trials or
Appeals must be continuous and must be completed
within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief

Justice. (as amended by R. A. No. 7902)
The Court of Appeals has both original and

appellate jurisdiction.
Its original and exclusive jurisdiction is over
annulment of RTC judgments.
o Under Rule 47, the grounds to annul an RTC
judgment are:
extrinsic fraud: which must be filed
within four years from its discovery
lack of jurisdiction: which must be filed
before it is barred by laches or estoppel
The CAs appellate jurisdiction is exercised as
follows:
o Ordinary appeal: by the mere filing of a
notice of appeal from an RTC judgment
(except cases exclusively appealable to the
Supreme Court) and family courts
o Petition for review: applicable to
judgments or orders by quasi-judicial
agencies, including the Court of Tax
Appeals, and to RTC judgments on cases
appealed to it from lower courts
Appeals from quasi-judicial agencies
A question arises as to when an appeal may be
made from a quasi-judicial agency. The test to
determine where the appeal is to be made is
whether the quasi-judicial agency is considered
to be co-equal with the RTCs in terms of rank
and stature.
Typically only those quasi-judicial agencies
whose decisions are expressly made appealable
to the CA by law will fall under its appellate
jurisdiction.
In any case, in order to invoke the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the CA, there must be a
final order or ruling resulting from proceedings
where the administrative body involved
exercised its quasi-judicial functions.
When what is assailed is a rule or regulation
and not a ruling, the regular courts have
jurisdiction.
RE: CASES APPEALED FROM THE PEOPLES COURT
FACTS: 40 treason cases already decided and
appealed to the SC before the re-creation of the CA,
were certified to the CA when it was formed again.
HELD: The cases should remain with the CA. They are
properly within the jurisdiction of the CA, now recreated, because they are criminal cases where the
imposable penalty is lower than reclusion perpetua to
death, and therefore outside the SCs exclusive
appellate jurisdiction.
ARAGON VS. CA
FACTS: Aragon found favorable judgment in an action
for specific performance against Marenir. However,
Marenir couldnt comply with the judgment until MBC,
Marenirs mortgagee, delivers the title to Aragon.
Aragon obtained another favorable judgment against
MBC, but the CA reversed this, holding that the HLURB
had jurisdiction over the case and not the RTC.
HELD: CA erred in taking cognizance of the
unappealed case against Marenir, instead of the case
against MBC. Although jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a case may be objected to at any stage of the
proceeding even on appeal, this particular rule,
however, means that jurisdictional issues in a case can
be raised only during the proceedings in said case and
during the appeal of said case.
3. Regional Trial Courts

BP 129 Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation;
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved
exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil
actions in Metro Manila, where such the value exceeds
Fifty thousand pesos (50,000.00) except actions for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred
upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
where he demand or claim exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where
such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand
pesos (200,000.00);
(4) In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate,
where the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in
Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two
hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00);
(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and
marital relations;
(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction
or any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of Agrarian
Relations as now provided by law; and
(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property
in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
(100,000.00) or, in such other above-mentioned items
exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00). (As

amended by R. A. No. 7691)
BP 129 Sec. 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases.
Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction
which may be enforced in any part of their respective
regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public
ministers and consuls.
BP 129 Sec. 22. Appellate jurisdiction. Regional Trial
Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their
respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be
decided on the basis of the entire record of the
proceedings had in the court of origin and such
memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the
parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts. The
decision of the Regional Trial Courts in such cases shall
be appealable by petition for review to the
Court of Appeals which may give it due course only when
the petition shows prima facie that the lower court has
committed an error of fact or law that will warrant a
reversal or modification of the decision or judgment
sought to be reviewed.
BP 129 Sec. 23. Special jurisdiction to try special cases.
The Supreme Court may designate certain branches of
the Regional Trial Courts to handle exclusively criminal
cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian
cases, urban land reform cases which do not fall under
the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and agencies,
and/or such other special cases as the Supreme Court
may determine in the interest of a speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
The RTC has a wider scope in terms of its

original jurisdictionfrom the concurrent
jurisdiction with the Supreme Court to issue
certain writs, to certain subject matters
specifically outlined in BP 129.
Its appellate jurisdiction on the other hand, is
over all cases decided by MetCs, MTCs and
MCTCs in their respective territorial
jurisdiction.
The bases for the RTCs jurisdiction are:
o Nature of the action
o Value of the demand
o Value of the property involved
Subject matter jurisdiction may also depend on
the amount of damages claimed.
o The term damages of whatever kind has
been specially defined in Admin Circular
09-94 for purposes of determining the
jurisdictional amount. Such damages are
excluded only in cases where the damages
are merely incidental to or a consequence of

the main cause of action.
o Thus, where the claim for damages is the
main cause of action or one of the causes of
action, the amount of the claim shall be
considered in determining the jurisdiction
of the court.
Incapable of pecuniary estimation: in
determining whether an action is one the
subject matter of which is not capable of
pecuniary estimation, the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought must first be
ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of
a sum of money, the claim is considered capable
of pecuniary estimation, and jurisdiction over
the action will depend on the amount of the
claim. However, where the basic issue is
something other than the right to recover a sum
of money, where the money claim is purely
incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal
relief sought, the action is one where the subject
of the litigation may not be estimated in terms
of money, which is cognizable exclusively by
Regional Trial Courts. (RCIP v CA)
o Examples: expropriation, specific
performance, support, foreclosure of
mortgage, annulment of judgment, actions
questioning the validity of a mortgage and
annulment of deed of conveyance
BP 129 23 also empowers the SC to designate
certain RTC branches to exclusively handle
criminal cases, juvenile and domestic relations
cases, agrarian cases, and urban land reform
cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of
quasi-judicial bodies and agencies, and other
such special cases as the SC may determine.
KATON VS. PALANCA
FACTS: Katon assailed the validity of patents issued
over an island whose reclassification from forest to
agricultural land he himself undertook 21 years
earlier. Katon filed a certiorari in the CA after the
RTCs strange disposition of his complaint. The CA
gave it due course, but also ruled on the merits. Katon
filed an MR, causing the CA to acknowledge its error in
ruling on the merits, so it dismissed the case motu
proprio in the exercise of its residual prerogatives.
HELD: While the CA erred in ruling on the merits, its
application of residual prerogatives was correct (Sec. 1
of Rule 9), since Katons action was barred by laches,
the 10-year prescriptive period already having passed.
Under the said rule, defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer
are deemed waived. However, the court may dismiss
the case motu proprio when it appears from the

pleadings or the evidence on record:
- that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, or
- that there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause, or
- that the action is barred by a prior judgment or
by the statute of limitations.
ENCARNACION VS. AMIGO
FACTS: Nieves took possession of part of
Encarnacions property without his permission.
Encarnacion filed a complaint for ejectment with the
MTC. On appeal, the RTC dismissed the case because
the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction.
HELD: Based on the allegations in the complaint, the
proper action was an accion publicciana. If a case is
tried on the merits by the Municipal Court without
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC on appeal
may no longer dismiss the case if it has original
jurisdiction thereof. (Rule 40 Sec. 8)
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES
VS. CA
FACTS: Dulawon filed with the RTC a complaint for
breach of contract of lease with damages against RCP,
which filed an MTD for lack of jurisdiction. It alleged
that the MTC has jurisdiction since the amount sought
to be collected did not exceed P100,000, the minimum
jurisdictional amount for RTCs.
HELD: Where the basic issue is something other than
the right to recover a sum of money, or where the
money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence
of, the principal relief sought, the action is one where
the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in
terms of money, which is cognizable exclusively by
RTCs. Dulawons action is one for specific
performance, aimed at enforcing their 3-year lease
contract, which would only incidentally entitle him to
monetary awards if the court finds a breach to have
occurred.
BOKINGO VS. CA
FACTS: The Busas and Bokingo were disputing the
ownership of a piece of land. The Busas filed an
injunction in the RTC, but Bokingo filed an MTD
claiming that since the complaint was one for recovery
of land, the jurisdiction of the court depended on the
value of the land, and that here, it was the MTC.
HELD: The complaint is one for the issuance of an
injunction, not a case on possession. The RTC has
jurisdiction since it is one incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
LU VS. LU YM
FACTS: David Lu filed a case for declaration of nullity
of the issuance of 600,000 LLDC stocks.
HELD: Lu paid the correct docket fees since his
complaint is one incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Besides the fact that the issue on incorrect payment of
docket fees was belatedly raised, if the said fees were
truly inadequate, the mistake is imputable to the clerk
of court and not to David. Any deficiency may be
considered a lien on the judgment award.
4. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal

Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts
BP 129 Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
in civil cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and
probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the
grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the
value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the
demand does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where such personal
property, estate, or amount of the demand does not
exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)
exclusive of interest damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount
of which must be specifically alleged: Provided, That
where there are several claims or causes of action
between the same or different parties, embodied in the
same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the claims in all the causes of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of
the same or different transactions;
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible
entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such
cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in
his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the
issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine
the issue of possession.
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions
which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein where the assessed value of the
property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs: Provided, That value of such property
shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent
lots. (As amended by R. A. No. 7691)
BP 129 Sec. 34. Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and
land registration cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

may be assigned by the Supreme Court to hear and
determine cadastral or land registration cases covering
lots where there is no controversy or opposition, or
contested lots the where the value of which does not
exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), such
value to be ascertained by the affidavit of the claimant or
by agreement of the respective claimants if there are
more than one, or from the corresponding tax declaration
of the real property. Their decisions in these cases shall
be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the
Regional Trial Courts. (As amended by R. A. No. 7691)
BP 129 Sec. 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases. In
the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a province
or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial
Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or applications for
bail in criminal cases in the province or city where the
absent Regional Trial Judges sit.
MTCs are our first-level trial courts, which

therefore have only exclusive jurisdiction.
In determining the jurisdictional amount in civil
cases, the totality of the claims must be
considered.
o The test of jurisdiction is the aggregate sum
of all the money demands, exclusive only of
interests and costs, irrespective of whether
or not the separate claims are owed by or
due to different parties.
o If any demand is for damages in a civil
action, the amount thereof must be
specified.
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer
All ejectment suits are under the jurisdiction
of the MTCs.
If the defendant raises the question of
ownership and possession cannot be resolved
if ownership is not decided, the ruling of the
MTC on the question will not bind future
actions.
Summary Procedure
Where remedy sought is granted without delay,
and without the necessity of observing the
procedure fixed for ordinary cases.
Governed by the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure (See Appendix B, p. 70)
Civil cases covered by the Rule on Summary
Procedure
All cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer, irrespective of the amount of
damages or unpaid rentals sought to be
recovered. Where attorney's fees are awarded,
the same shall not exceed twenty thousand

pesos (P20,000.00).
All other cases, except probate proceedings,
where the total amount of the plaintiff's claim
does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) in Metropolitan Manila, exclusive
of interest and costs.
Small Claims Cases
All actions which are: (a) purely civil in nature
where the claim of relief prayed for by the
plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement
or sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of the
criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of
the criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule
111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
where the value of the claim does not exceed
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00),
exclusive of interest and costs.
Governed by the Rules of Procedure in Small
Claims Cases (see Appendix B, p. 70)
that the buildings constructed on the subject lot of the

complaint be forfeited in its favor.
HELD: The complaint involved an issue of ownership
and changed the nature of the complaint. CFIs have
original jurisdiction over cases involving title to real
property. The MTC did not have jurisdiction over the
case filed by Ortigas.
NERA VS. VACANTE
FACTS: Dakudao filed a complaint for detainer against
Nera in the Justice of the Peace Court. Nera filed an
MTD for lack of cause of action, and of jurisdiction of
the Justice over actions for rescission of contracts.
HELD: A justice of the peace court cannot declare and
hold that a contract is resolved or rescinded. It is
beyond its power so to do. Since the illegality of the
possession of realty by a party to a contract to sell is
premised upon the resolution of the contract, it
follows that an allegation and proof of such violation,
cannot be taken cognizance of by a justice of the peace
court.
REYES VS. STA. MARIA

FACTS: The Reyeses filed an action they called one to
quiet title, in order to recover possession from the
Santoses, who claimed that they had a better right to
possess. The CFI dismissed the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction, saying that the action was actually one for
forcible entry/unlawful detainer.
HELD: The case was one for publiciana, if not for
reivindicatoria, and therefore within the jurisdiction of
the CFI.
ORTIGAS & CO., LTD. VS. HERRERA
FACTS: Ortigas was supposed to refund to Samson a
sum of money if Samson finished construction of his
house within 2 years, but it did not. Samson filed
complaint for sum of money and damages with the
City Court, because the subject amount to be refunded
was less than P10,000 and within the CCs jurisdiction.
HELD: Case dismissed. The complaint was actually an
action for specific performance of Ortigas obligation
to refund the money after Samson fulfilled his
obligation. The payment of money is only incidental
and can only be ordered after a determination of
certain facts. The CC therefore did not have
jurisdiction.
ORTIGAS & CO., LTD. VS. CA
FACTS: Ortigas filed a complaint for unlawful detainer
in the MTC. However, in the complaint, Ortigas prayed
VILLOSTAS VS. CA
FACTS: Villostas bought a faulty purifier. She sought to
rescind the sale and stopped payments. Electrolux
filed with the MTC a complaint for recovery of the
unpaid balance. Electrolux later questioned the MTCs
jurisdiction to rescind the sale.
HELD: The MTC has jurisdiction since Electroluxs
complaint was to recover an amount less than the
P20,000 jurisdictional amount of the MTC. Even if
there was mention of rescission (which Villostas was
entitled to), that was part of Villostas defense, and
jurisdiction cannot be made to depend on that.
VDA. DE BARRERA VS. HEIRS OF VICENTE LEGASPI
FACTS: The RTC asserted its jurisdiction over a
complaint for reconveyance of possession, based on
the estimated value of the subject parcel of land.
HELD: The MTC has jurisdiction. RA 7691 amended BP
129, vesting jurisdiction to the MTC over real actions
where the assessed value does not exceed P50K in
Metro Manila and P20K in other provinces. The
assessed value (established by taxing authorities, not
the true or market value) should be the basis of
ascertaining jurisdiction, and not the estimated value.
Also, the RTC had no jurisdiction since the
dispossession involved was for less than a year.
5. Specialized Courts
a. Family Courts
BP 129 19 (7) vested the Regional Trial Court
with jurisdiction over all civil actions and
proceedings falling within the exclusive and
original jurisdiction of the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court.
RA 8369 (The Family Courts Act of 1997) 3
established Family Courts in every province and
city in the country. This resurrected the former
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
Decisions of Family Courts are appealable to
ordinary Regional Trial Courts. (RA 8369 14)
Original jurisdiction of the Family Courts over
civil cases (BP 129 as amended by RA 8369)
1. Petitions for guardianship, custody of children,
habeas corpus in relation to the latter.
2. Petitions for adoption of children and the
revocation thereof.
3. Complaints for annulment of marriage,
declaration of nullity of marriage and those
relating to marital status and property relations
of husband and wife or those living together
under different status and agreements, and
petitions for dissolution of conjugal partnership
of gains.
4. Actions for support and acknowledgment.
5. Summary judicial proceedings brought under
the Family Code of the Philippines (EO 209).
6. Petitions for declaration of status of children as
abandoned, dependent or neglected children,
petitions for voluntary or involuntary
commitment of children; the suspension,
termination or restoration of parental authority
and other cases recognizable under PD 603, EO
56 (Series of 1986), and other related laws.
7. Petitions for the constitution of the family
home.
8. Cases of domestic violence against women and
children (civil and criminal)
9. Petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of
void marriages and annulment of voidable
marriages under the Family Code (AM No. 0211-10-SC)
10. Petitions for legal separation (AM No 02-1111-SC)
11. Provisional and protection orders upon receipt
of a verified petition for declaration of absolute
nullity of void marriage or for annulment of
voidable marriage, or for legal separation: hold
departure order addressed to the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation directing it not

to allow the departure of a child of the parties
to the petition from the Philippines without
the permission of the court, orders of
protection on the childs behalf or provisional
orders appointing the applicant or a third
person as receiver or sole administrator of the
common property when a spouse without just
cause abandons the other or fails to comply
with his or her obligations to the family. (AM
No 02-11-11-SC)
MADRIAN VS. MADRIAN
FACTS: Mrs. M filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus with the CA, praying that Mr. M be ordered to
appear and produce their sons before the court and to
explain why they should not be returned to her
custody. Mr. M questioned the jurisdiction of the CA,
claiming that under RA 8369, Sec. 5(b), family courts
have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide
the petition.
HELD: RA 8369 did not divest the CA of its jurisdiction
to issue writs of habeas corpus. The provisions of RA
8369 must be read in harmony with RA 7029 and BP
129 that family courts have concurrent jurisdiction
with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in
petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of
minors is at issue.
THORNTON VS. THORNTON
FACTS: Mr. T filed a petition for habeas corpus for the
custody of his child in the Family Court of Makati but it
was later found that the child was being brought by
Mrs. T from one place to another. He then filed the
same petition in CA which could issue a writ
enforceable nationwide. The CA denied the petition
and ruled that family courts exclusive original
jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus pursuant
to RA 8369.
HELD: RA 8369 did not divest the CA and SC of their
jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases involving the
custody of minors. Family courts have concurrent
jurisdiction with the CA and SC in petitions for habeas
corpus where the custody of minors is at issue.
b. Commercial Courts
RA 8799 (Securities Regulation Code) 5.2
transferred the Securities and Exchange
Commissions jurisdiction as enumerated in the
PD 902-A 5 to the Regional Trial Courts.
Venue: the RTC in the city or municipality
where the head office is located
All decisions and final orders in cases falling

under the Interim Rules of Corporate
Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of
Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate
Controversies under RA 8799 shall be
appealable to the Court of Appeals through a
petition for review under Rule 43 (AM No 04-907-SC)
Exclusive original jurisdiction of Special
Commercial Courts
1. Devices or schemes employed by or any acts, of
the board of directors, business associates, its
officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation which may be detrimental to
the interest of the public and/or of the
stockholder, partners, members of associations
or organizations registered with the
Commission;
2. Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or
partnership relations, between and among
stockholders, members, or associates; between
any or all of them and the corporation,
partnership or association of which they are
stockholders, members or associates,
respectively; and between such corporation,
partnership or association and the state insofar
as it concerns their individual franchise or right
to exist as such entity; and
3. Controversies in the election or appointments
of directors, trustees, officers or managers of
such corporations, partnerships or associations.
4. Derivative suits (AM No 01-2-04-SC)
5. Inspection of corporate books (AM No 01-2-04SC)
REYES VS. RTC
FACTS: Rodrigo instituted a complaint against Oscar
for an accounting of the funds and assets in the latter's
control and to determine the shares of stocks of their
deceased parents which were supposedly fraudulently
appropriated by Oscar and not taken into account in
partition. Rodrigo's complaint was transferred to the
RTC designated as a special commercial court from the
SEC.
HELD: RTC, as a special commercial court, has no
jurisdiction over the controversy. It is not an intracorporate controversy but, judging from the body of
the complaint, a civil case over the shares of stock left
by Anastacia when she died. The proper court for the
settlement of her estate and the rights of her heirs
would be the probate court.
c. Intellectual Property Courts

An application for the writ of search and seizure
in civil actions for infringement of intellectual
property rights under RA 8293 shall be filed
with any of the Regional Trial Courts of the
judicial region designated to try violations of
intellectual property rights stationed at the
place where the alleged violation occurred or is
to occur. (AM No 02-1-06-SC)
After the designation of Intellectual Property
Courts were revoked, all intellectual property
cases were transferred to designated Special
Commercial Courts. (AM No 03-03-03-SC)
C. Other tribunals and agencies

1. Securities and Exchange Commission
RA 8799, Sec. 5.1 Powers and Functions of the
Commission. The commission shall act with
transparency and shall have the powers and functions
provided by this code, Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the
Corporation Code, the Investment Houses law, the
Financing Company Act and other existing laws. Pursuant
thereto the Commission shall have, among others, the
following powers and functions:
(a) Have jurisdiction and supervision over all
corporations, partnership or associations who are the
grantees of primary franchises and/or a license or a
permit issued by the Government;
(b) Formulate policies and recommendations on issues
concerning the securities market, advise Congress and
other government agencies on all aspect of the securities
market and propose legislation and amendments thereto;
(c) Approve, reject, suspend, revoke or require
amendments to registration statements, and registration
and licensing applications;
(d) Regulate, investigate or supervise the activities of
persons to ensure compliance;
(e) Supervise, monitor, suspend or take over the
activities of exchanges, clearing agencies and other SROs;
(f) Impose sanctions for the violation of laws and rules,
regulations and orders, and issued pursuant thereto;
(g) Prepare, approve, amend or repeal rules,
regulations and orders, and issue opinions and provide
guidance on and supervise compliance with such rules,
regulation and orders;
(h) Enlist the aid and support of and/or deputized any
and all enforcement agencies of the Government, civil or
military as well as any private institution, corporation,
firm, association or person in the implementation of its
powers and function under its Code;
(i) Issue cease and desist orders to prevent fraud or
injury to the investing public;
(j) Punish for the contempt of the Commission, both
direct and indirect, in accordance with the pertinent
provisions of and penalties prescribed by the Rules of
Court;
(k) Compel the officers of any registered corporation or

association to call meetings of stockholders or members
thereof under its supervision;
(l) Issue subpoena duces tecum and summon witnesses
to appear in any proceedings of the Commission and in
appropriate cases, order the examination, search and
seizure of all documents, papers, files and records, tax
returns and books of accounts of any entity or person
under investigation as may be necessary for the proper
disposition of the cases before it, subject to the
provisions of existing laws;
(m) Suspend, or revoke, after proper notice and
hearing the franchise or certificate of registration of
corporations, partnership or associations, upon any of
the grounds provided by law; and
(n) Exercise such other powers as may be provided by
law as well as those which may be implied from, or which
are necessary or incidental to the carrying out of, the
express powers granted the Commission to achieve the
objectives and purposes of these laws.
2. National Labor Relations Commission

Labor Code Art.217. Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters
and the Commission. Except as otherwise provided under
this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty
(30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the
parties for decision without extension, even in the
absence of stenographic notes, the following cases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or nonagricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those
cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay,
hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms
of damages arising from the employer-employee
relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this
Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes
and lockouts; and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social
Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other
claims arising from employer-employee relations,
including those of persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied
with a claim for reinstatement.
The National Labor Relations Commission has

appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
the Labor Arbiter.
Appeals from the NLRC should be filed in the
Court of Appeals in the form of petitions for
certiorari under Rule 65. (St Martins Funeral
Home v NLRC)
3. Insurance Commission
Powers of the Insurance Commissioner
Sole and exclusive authority to regulate the
issuance and sale of variable contracts as
defined in section two hundred thirty-two and
to provide for the licensing of persons selling
such contracts, and to issue such reasonable
rules and regulations governing the same. (PD
612 414)
Impose fines or suspension upon insurance
companies, their directors and/or officers
and/or agents, for any willful failure or refusal
to comply with, or violation of any provision of
this Code, or any order, instruction, regulation,
or ruling of the Insurance Commissioner, or any
commission or irregularities, and/or
conducting business in an unsafe or unsound
manner. (PD 612 415)
Adjudicate claims and complaints involving any
loss, damage or liability for which in insurer
may be answerable under any kind of policy or
contract of insurance, or for which such insurer
may be liable under a contract of suretyship, or
for which a reinsurer may be sued under any
contract of reinsurance it may have entered
into; or for which a mutual benefit association
may be held liable under the membership
certificates it has issued to its members, where
the amount of any such loss, damage or liability,
excluding interest, cost and attorney's fees,
being claimed or sued upon any kind of
insurance, bond, reinsurance contract, or
membership certificate does not exceed in any
single claim one hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000). (PD 612 416)
o Concurrent with civil courts, but the filing of
a complaint with the IC precludes courts
from taking cognizance of the suit.
4. Energy Regulatory Commission

May act on any complaint by or against any
participant or player in the energy sector for
violations of any laws, rules and regulations
governing the same, including the rules on
cross-ownership, anti-competitive practices and
other acts of abuse of market positions by any
participant or player in the energy sector, as
may be provided by law, and require any
person or entity to submit any report or data
relative to any investigation or hearing
conducted in accordance with this law. (RA
9163 43 (s))
Original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases
contesting rates, fees, fines and penalties
imposed by the ERC in the exercise of the

abovementioned powers, functions and
responsibilities and over all cases involving
disputes between and among participants or
players in the energy sector. All notices of
hearings to be conducted by the ERC for the
purpose of fixing rates or fees shall be
published at least twice for two successive
weeks in two (2) newspapers of nationwide
circulation. (RA 9163 43 (v))
Any case which involves question of fact shall
be appealable to the Court of Appeals and those
which involve question of law shall be directly
appealable to the Supreme Court. (RA 9163 46)
D. Katarungang Pambarangay
Barangay conciliation is a precondition to the
filing of an action in court, whenever the
controversy/parties are covered by the rules.
o However, this is not a jurisdictional
requirement. Non-compliance will not
result in automatic dismissal of an action,
but will only make it vulnerable to a Motion
to Dismiss, without prejudice to the refilling
thereof in court, after compliance with the
conciliation requirement.
o Objections to the filing of the complaint
based on the ground of lack of prior
conciliation must be raised at the earliest
opportunityeither in a Motion to Dismiss
or in an Answer. Otherwise, the concerned
party shall be deemed to have waived this
requirement.
May consist of mediation, conciliation or
arbitration.
o Arbitration: a process wherein the third
party from outside the judicial system is
chosen by parties to hear and decide their
dispute (usually resulting in an arbitration
award).
o Conciliation: a process wherein the
Pangkat Tagapagkasundo forgoes the
power to decide or recommend but assist
the parties to isolate issues and options to
reach a settlement by consensus that jointly
satisfies their needs.
o Mediation is a process wherein the Lupong
Tagapamayapa chairperson or barangay
Chairperson assists the disputing parties to
reach a settlement by consensus that jointly
satisfies their needs.
Exceptions to requirement that all disputes be

subjected to barangay conciliation
1. Where one of the parties is the government or
any subdivision or instrumentality thereof.
2. Where one party is a public officer or employee
and the dispute is related to the performance of
official functions.
3. Where the dispute involves real properties
located in different cities or municipalities
unless parties agree to submit difference to
amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon.
4. Where the complaint is against a corporation,
partnership, juridical entities; as only individual
parties may be subjected to barangay
conciliation.
5. Where the parties reside in barangays in
different city municipality except when they
agree to submit their difference to amicable
settlement by an appropriate lupon.
6. Where it involves offenses where the law
prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment
exceeding one year or a fine over P5,000.
7. Where there is no private offended party.
8. Where urgent legal action is necessary to
prevent injustice from being committed:
a. Criminal cases where the accused is under
police custody or detention.
b. Habeas corpus
c. Actions which involve provisional remedies
d. Actions which may be barred by statute of
limitations
9. Where the President may determine in the
interest of justice or upon recommendation of
the Department of Justice.
10.
Disputes arising from the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law.
11.
Labor disputes arising from employer employee relations.
12.
Actions to annul judgment under a
compromise .
UY VS. CONTRERAS
FACTS: Felicidad got into a scuffle with Susie and
Winnie, which prompted the latter two to file
complaints with the barangay captain. On the day of
the scheduled confrontation, the complainants failed
to appear. Later, two informations for slight physical
injuries were filed with the MTC against Fely. She filed
an MTD for non-compliance with the requirement on
prior referral to the lupong tagapamayapa.
HELD: The filing of the criminal complaints here
involved was premature because Susie and Winnie
failed to comply with the requisite conciliation process
at the barangay level based on Sec. 18 of the 1991
Rules of Summary Procedure. The filing of the
complaint with the Lupon also stays the prescriptive

period for 60 days, hence there was no justification for
the filing on the ground of prescription.
conciliation process before filing the since the Certification only pertained to their confrontation regarding
the rental increase.
GONZALES VS. CA
HELD: While it is true that the Certification to file action issued by the Barangay Lupon refers only to
rental increase and not to the ejectment, the submission of the same for conciliation is sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. Given the particular circumstances of
the case, the conciliation proceedings for the amount
of monthly rental should logically and reasonably include the matter of the possession of the property subject of the rental, the lease agreement, and the violation of the terms thereof.
FACTS: Three ejectment suits between a landlord

whose children want to move in and his lessees was
dismissed at the CA level for the lower courts lack of
jurisdiction after failure to go through the lupon.
HELD: Undergoing barangay conciliation proceedings
is not jurisdictional, and will not prevent courts from
taking cognizance of a case. The only consequence is
that the case may become vulnerable to dismissal on
the ground of lack of cause of action or prematurity.
AGBAYANI VS. BELEN
FACTS: The Agbayanis instituted a civil action against
the Sps. Villafuerte for quieting of title and damages.
Judge Belen ordered the dismissal of the civil action
for their failure to comply with the precondition of
appearing first before the Barangay Lupon.
HELD: The Barangay Lupon has no jurisdiction over
disputes involving parties who actually reside in
barangays of different cities or municipalities, except
where such barangays adjoin each other. Hence, the
Agbayanis and Villafuerte were under no obligation to
comply with the precondition.
BLARDONY VS. COSCOLLUELA
FACTS: Ma. Rosario Blardony filed a petition for
dissolution of conjugal partnership in the CFI of Rizal.
Her husband, Mauro filed a motion to dismiss the
petition claiming that it should have been filed first in
the Lupon Tagamayapa pursuant to PD 1508.
HELD: While the referral of a case to the Lupon is a
condition precedent to filing in court, it is not a
jurisdictional requirement. Mauro himself invoked the
jurisdiction of the court when he filed an answer to the
petition instead of a motion to dismiss. The complaint
is also one which involved the issuance of provisional
orders (i.e. support pendente lite, delivery of personal
property), which justifies a direct filing of the
complaint in court.
WEE VS. DE CASTRO
FACTS: Wee rented the De Castro apartment on a
month-to-month basis, but failed to pay after they
agreed on an increase. The Barangay Lupon issued a
Certification to file the action in court after they failed
to settle/agree. The De Castros then filed an ejectment
suit. Wee argued that they failed to comply with the
AQUINO VS. AURE

FACTS: Aure filed a complaint for ejectment against
Aquino. Aquino filed his answer. The MeTC dismissed
the complaint claiming that there was a noncompliance with the barangay conciliation
requirement.
HELD: Again, barangay conciliation is not a
jurisdictional requirement. Non-compliance merely
makes the complaint vulnerable to a motion to
dismiss. But since the defendant failed to assert the
defect in his answer, the defect is deemed to be waived
and the proceedings shall continue.
III. PARTIES (RULE 3)

Party
With reference to judicial proceedings, this
refers to one of two opposing litigants, the
plaintiff or the defendant.
All persons who have a right to control the
proceedings, to make a defense, to adduce
evidence and cross-examine witnesses and to
appeal from the decision
Parties to an action must have legal personality.
o Dead persons, lacking legal personality,
cannot be a party to an action. When the
law requires, their estates take their place.
A. Capacity to sue and be sued

1. Who may be parties ( 1)
a. Natural persons
Every natural person has juridical capacity,
which means that he is fit to be the subject of
legal relations. (CC Art. 37)
Although juridical capacity is inherent in every
natural person, not every natural person has
the legal capacity to sue.
Legal capacity to sue: a party doesnt suffer
from any disability such as minority, insanity,
covertures, incompetence, civil interdiction or
does not have the character or representation
which he claims.
Because of this restriction, minors or
incompetent persons cannot sue and be sued
without the assistance of their parents or
guardians. (Rule 3 5)
b. Juridical persons
Like a natural person, a juridical person also
possesses a personality of its own.
BUT a juridical person exists only in
contemplation of law, is the product of legal
fiction and is merely a legal creation.
Who are juridical persons? (CC Art. 44)
1. The State and its political subdivisions
2. Other corporations, institutions, and
entities for public interest or purpose
created by law; their personality begins as
soon as they have been constituted
according to law
3. Corporations, partnerships and associations
for private interest or purpose to which the
law grants a juridical personality, separate
and distinct from that of each shareholder,
partner or member
c. Entities authorized by law

Examples:
1. 2 or more persons not organized as a
juridical entity who enter into a transaction
Sec. 15. When two or more persons not organized as an
entity with a juridical personality enter into a
transaction, they may be sued under the name by which
they are generally or commonly known.
For an entity to be a party, said entity must

have entered into a transaction with
someone.
Entity can only be a party defendant, not a
party plaintiff it CAN BE SUED, but CANNOT
SUE.
In the answer of such entity, the names and
addresses of the persons comprising said
entity must be revealed.
Service of summons may be effected upon all
the defendants by serving summons upon any
one of them, or upon the person in charge of
the office or place of business maintained in
such name. (Rule 14 8)
2. Corporation or partnership by estoppel
Corporation Code Sec. 21. All persons who assume to
act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to
do so shall be liable as general partners for all debts,
liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result
thereof: Provided, however, That when any such
ostensible corporation is sued on any transaction entered
by it as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as
such, it shall not be allowed to use as a defense its lack of
corporate personality.
On who assumes an obligation to an ostensible
corporation as such, cannot resist performance thereof
on the ground that there was in fact no corporation.
Elements:
a. Persons assume to act as corporation
knowing its not true
b. They engaged in corporate dealings
c. Estoppel
d. Liability as general partners : CC Art. 1816
applies
e. All partners liable pro rata for all the
contracts which may be entered into in the
name and for the account of the
partnership.
3. Partnership with a capital of P3,000 or more
which fails to comply with registration
requirements of SEC: liable to 3rd persons as

a partnership
o Apply CC Arts. 1768 and 1772
4. Estate of a deceased person
o Although not an incorporated entity as
defined in the Corporation Code, it is

considered to be a juridical entity that has a
personality of its own. (Nazareno vs. CA)
5. A legitimate labor organization may sue and
be sued in its registered name (Labor Code

Art.242 (e))
6. As to the properties of the Roman Catholic
Church, the Archbishop or diocese to which

they belong may be a party. (Versoza vs.
Fernandez)
7. A dissolved corporation shall continue to be
a body corporate for 3 years after its

dissolution, for the purpose of prosecuting
and defending suits by or against it and
enabling it to settle and close its affairs, to
dispose of and convey its property and to
distribute its assets, but not for the purpose
of continuing the business for which it is
established (Corporation Code Art. 122)
8. The Roman Catholic Church may maintain
an action although not registered as a

corporation.
Examples of entities NOT authorized by law:

1. A vessel/ship cannot be sued.
2. A political party, which does not have a legal
personality and not registered in accordance

with Corp Law, cannot sue. (Nacionalista Party
vs. Bautista)
3. A civic organization not constituting a juridical
person or entity authorized by law to sue
cannot sue. (Anti-Chinese League vs. Felix)
2. What if plaintiff has no legal capacity to

sue?
Situations
1. Plaintiff is not a natural or juridical person or an
entity authorized by law
o Remedy: file a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground that plaintiff has no legal capacity to
sue (Rule 16 1(d))
2. Plaintiff has capacity to sue but not the real
party-in-interest
o Remedy: file a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground that complaint fails to state a cause of

action (Rule 16 1(g))
3. Who is a plaintiff?
1. Original claimant / plaintiff
2. Defendant who interposes a counterclaim
against the original plaintiff
3. Defendant who files a cross-claim against his
co-defendant
4. Defendant who files a third party complaint
against one who is not yet a party
4. Who is a defendant?
1. Original defending party
2. Original plaintiff against whom a counterclaim
has been filed by the original defendant
3. Original co-defendant against whom a cross-
claim has been filed by the original defendant

4. Person against whom a third party complaint is
filed
5. Suits by or against foreign corporations

A foreign corporation is one that is formed,
organized and existing under laws other than
those of the Philippines. (Corp Code 123)
If a corporation is organized or existing under
Philippine laws, the corporation is said to be
domestic regardless of the nationality of its
incorporators. Otherwise, its foreign.
Situations regarding foreign corporations
Doing
business?
Yes
Has license?
Can sue?
No
No, but may be sued.

Yes:
o to protect its
business
reputation which is
a right in rem
enforceable in any
part of the world;
o for infringement of
trademark and
unfair competition;
o under a single,
isolated business
transaction.
Yes, before Philippine
courts on any
transaction
No
No (actually
no need for
license if not
doing
business)
Yes
Yes
MR HOLDINGS LTD v BAJAR

FACTS: Marcopper loaned from ADB. Placer Dome,
which partially owned Marcopper, promised to help
Marcopper pay for the ADB loan. When Marcopper
defaulted, Placer Dome assigned all its obligations to
its subsidiary corporation, MR Holdings. ADB assigned
to MR Holdings through an Assignment Agreement all
of its rights and obligations under the loan agreement,
while Marcopper executed a Deed of Assignment in
favor of MR Holdings over all its interests in the
mining properties.
Meanwhile, Solidbank obtained a partial judgment
against Marcopper in a separate civil case, where the
lower court issued a writ of execution upon the
properties, which now supposedly belonged to MR
Holdings. MR Holdings filed a reivindication case for
the properties, but Solidbank claimed that MR
Holdings did not have capacity to sue, because of the
rule that if a foreign corporation does business in the
Philippines without a license, it cannot sue before the
Philippine courts.
HELD: The Court ruled that MR Holdings should not
have been considered to be doing business simply by
entering into the assignment contracts with
Marcopper and ADB, and that MR Holdings was indeed
entitled to the properties.
5. Suits by or against the State

The State may not be sued without its consent.
(CONSTI Art. XVI 3)
The immunity from suit may be waived by an
implied consent to be sued, as when, through its
officers and agents, the State enters into a
contract in furtherance of a legitimate aim and
purpose and under the proprietary capacity of
the State. Such contract must not be an
operation which is a necessary incident of the
States prime governmental function.
The State also impliedly consents to be sued
when it files an action against a private
individual. In such a case, the State divests itself
of its sovereign character and sheds its
immunity from suit, descending to the level of
an ordinary litigant.
State immunity extends to complaints filed
against officials of the State for acts allegedly
performed by them in the discharge of their
duties.
When the State consents to be sued, this
consent may be limited only up to the
completion of the proceedings anterior to or
before the stage of execution. The power of the
Court ends when the judgment is rendered.
Government funds may not be seized under
writs of execution to satisfy courts judgments

since disbursement of public funds must be
covered by the corresponding appropriation as
required by law. The execution of a judgment
against the State requires another waiver.
If by the allegations of the complaint, the suit is
clearly against the State, the complaint must
allege that the State had given its consent to be
sued, either expressly or by implication. Failure
to make such allegation is a fatal defect. The
defense against such failure may be invoked by
the courts sua sponte at any stage of the
proceeding.
6. Spouses as parties
Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly
except as provided by law (Rule 3 4)
o Exception: A spouse need not be joined in a
suit involving the other is when the litigation
pertains to an exclusive property of a spouse.
B. Real parties-in-interest
Sec.2. Parties in interest. A real party-in-interest is the
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in
the name of the real party-in-interest.
Real interest
A present substantial interest, as distinguished
from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent,
subordinate or consequential interest
Material interest, an interest in the issue and to
be affected by the decree as distinguished from
mere interest in the question involved or a
mere incidental interest
Real party-in-interest plaintiff: one who has a
legal right
Real party-in-interest defendant: one who
has a correlative legal obligation whose act or
omission violates the legal right of the plaintiff
Prosecution of actions
An action shall be prosecuted in the name of the
party who, by the substantive law, has the right
sought to be enforced.
The rule that every action must be prosecuted
and defended in the name of the real party-ininterest means that the person who, by
substantive law, possesses the right sought to
be enforced and not necessarily the person who
will ultimately benefit from the recovery must
bring the action.
Purpose: to prevent the prosecution of actions

by persons who have no right, title, or interest
in the litigation, to avoid a multiplicity of
actions, and to discourage litigations and keep
them within certain bounds in the interest of
sound public policy.
Remember:
1. Its not enough to be a natural or juridical entity
or an entity authorized by law to qualify one as
a party to a civil action.
2. It is also required that the party be a real partyin-interest.
3. The suit must also be in the name of the real
party-in-interest.
Illustration: If a minor sues, the suit must be
in the name of the minor, he being the real
party-in-interest. The suit cannot be in the
name of his father whose role is merely
confined to assist the minor plaintiff.)
If the suit is not brought against the real
party-in-interest, the suit is vulnerable to a
motion to dismiss on the ground that the
complaint fails to state a cause of action or
states no cause of action. (Rule 16 1(g))
1. Determining the real party-in-interest

To determine who the real party-in-interest is,
go back to the elements of a cause of action.
o Who owns the right violated and who
suffered the injury as a consequence of the
violation? The owner of the right violated
and the one who suffered injury is the real
party-in-interest as plaintiff.
o Who caused the violation of the plaintiffs
right resulting to his injury? The person who
injured the plaintiff because of the
infringement of the latters right is the real
party-in-interest as defendant.
Note: Please see Appendix A, p.68, for examples
and illustrations.
CARLOS v SANDOVAL
FACTS: Teofilo Carlos and Juan De Dios Carlos
inherited 6 parcels of land. Three were transferred to
Teofilo, one was registered in the name of Juan. Teofilo
died and his wife and son registered the last two
parcels in their name. Juan instituted a suit against
them, with the following causes of action: a)
declaration of nullity of marriage; b) status of a child;
c) recovery of property; d) reconveyance; and e) sum
of money and damages.
HELD: SC ruled that an action for nullity of marriage
can only be brought by one of the spouses, unless 1)
the nullity of marriage case commenced before the

effectivity of AM No. 02-11-10-SC; and 2) the marriage
was celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code.
The marriage was celebrated during the effectivity of
the CC however, that does not mean that just anyone
can institute the nullity action. Such person must still
be a party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails
of the suit.
PEOPLES HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORP v
JEREMIAS
FACTS: Capital Insurance issued a performance bond
in favor of the spouses Jeremias-Perecho in their
ejectment case against Peoples Homesite. When
notice of execution was sent to Capital Insurance, it
denied liability on the ground of the expiration of the
bond. The CFI held that Capital Insurance was not a
party to the original case and could therefore not
appeal the decision on the execution of the bond.
HELD: When Capital Insurance issued the
performance bond, when the notice of execution was
served on it, and when the lower court granted the
writ of execution, the surety company necessarily
became a party in the case.
Standing vs Real party-in-interest

Standing
Real party-in-interest
Both are directed towards ensuring that only certain
parties can maintain an action
Requires a partial
Question is only
consideration of the merits,
whether the party is the
as well as broader policy
one who would be
concerns relating to the
benefited or injured by
proper role of the judiciary
the judgment or the
in certain cases (i.e.
party entitled to the
transcendental
avails of the suit
importance)
2. Indispensable parties
Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.
Parties in interest without whom no final determination
can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs
or defendants.
Must first be a real party-in-interest

His interest in the subject matter of the suit and
in the relief sought is so inextricably
intertwined with the other parties that his legal
presence as a party to the proceeding is an
absolute necessity.
Examples of indispensable parties
Vendors: in actions to annul a sale
Lot buyers: in an action for reconveyance of

parcels of land already subdivided
Co-owners: in an action to partition
Possessor of land: in an action for recovery of
possession
Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties
General rule: Joinder of parties is permissive
(Rule 3 6)
o Exception: When an indispensable party is
involved: joinder is COMPULSORY. (Rule 3
7)
An indispensable party must be joined because
the court cannot proceed without him. In his
absence, there cannot be an effective, complete,
or equitable resolution of the dispute between
the parties and a judgment of the court cannot
attain real finality.
Consequence of non-joinder of indispensable
party: Proceedings are null and void.
Non-joinder of indispensable parties
Neither misjoinder or non-joinder of parties is a
ground for dismissal of an action. (Rule 3 11)
o However, this rule did not specify whether
it applies to indispensable or necessary
parties or to both.
Problem: Some court decisions dismissed the
case outright due to non-joinder of
indispensable parties.
o The joinder of all indispensable parties
must be made under any and all conditions,
their presence being a sine qua non for the
exercise of the judicial power. When an
indispensable party is not before the court,
the action should be dismissed. (De Galicia v
Mercado, citing Arcelona v CA)
Remedy:
o Rule 3 11 further provides that parties
may be dropped or added by the court on
motion of any party or on its own initiative
at any stage of the action.
o This provision thus affords a remedy other
than dismissal of an action in case an
indispensable party is not joined.
o If he is not joined, the court may order that
he be added. Any party may also file a
Motion to join indispensable party.
o However, if for no justifiable cause, the
order of the court to implead an
indispensable party is not complied with,
the action may be dismissed upon motion of
the other party or upon the courts own
action. The ground of dismissal would be
the failure to comply with the order of the
court (Rule 17 3).
3. Necessary parties
Sec. 8. Necessary party. A necessary party is one who
is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party
if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already
parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of
the claim subject of the action.
While an indispensable party must be joined

under any and all conditions, a necessary party
should be joined WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
Presence of a necessary party is not mandatory
because his interest is separable from the
interest of the indispensable party and a final
decree can be made in his absence.
A necessary party is to be joined whenever
possible in order to adjudicate the whole
controversy or to accord complete relief to
those who are already parties in order to avoid
multiple litigation.
Examples of necessary parties
Joint debtor: in an action against his co-debtor
(but an indispensable party in a suit against him
personally).
Possessor: in an action to recover ownership of
land (owner is indispensable party)
Owner: in an action to recover possession of
land (possessor is indispensable party)
Sellers of a land subsequently sold by the new
owner to another under an instrument which is
the subject of an action for reformation are no
longer indispensable parties but only necessary
parties where at the time of the filing of the
action, they no longer have an interest in the
property.
In an action for ejectment filed by one of the coowners, the other co-owners, although not
indispensable parties under CC Art. 487, are
nevertheless necessary parties.
Effect of non-joinder of a necessary party (Rule
3 9)
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not
prevent the court from proceeding in the action,
and the judgment rendered therein shall be
without prejudice to the rights of such
necessary party.
Whenever a necessary party is not joined or
impleaded by a party asserting a claim, it is the
duty of the pleader to:
o Set forth the name of the necessary party
who is not joined, if his name is known
o State why said necessary party is omitted in
the pleading
Should the court find the reason for the

omission of the necessary party unmeritorious,
it may issue an order directing the inclusion of
the omitted necessary party provided
jurisdiction over such omitted party may be
obtained.
C. Representative parties ( 3)
A representative may be: (Rule 3 3)
o a trustee of an express (not implied) trust
o a guardian
o executor or administrator
o a party authorized by law or the Rules
o an agent acting in his own name and for the
benefit of an undisclosed principal (except
when the contract involves things belonging
to the principal)
Requirement: Where the action is allowed to be
prosecuted or defended by a representative or
someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the
beneficiary shall be included in the case.
Only the Solicitor General can bring or defend
actions on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines and actions filed in the name if the
Republic, or its agencies and instrumentalities
for that matter, if not initiated by the Solicitor
General will be summarily dismissed.
D. Class suit ( 12)

Class suit
An action where one of more may sue for the
benefit of all, implying that if the parties are so
numerous and it is impracticable to bring all of
them to court, one or more may sue for their
benefit.
Requisites of proper class suit: (Rule 3 12)
1. Subject matter of the action must be of common
or general interest to many persons
2. Persons are so numerous that it is impracticable
to join them all as parties
3. The parties actually before the court are
sufficiently numerous and representative as to
fully protect the interests of all concerned
4. The representatives sue or defend for the
benefit of all
NEWSWEEK VS. IAC
FACTS: A number of planters filed in representation
of all the 8,500 planters a case of libel against
Newsweek for an article it published. The article
described Negros Occidental as a place dominated by
the planters who exploit and kill their workers.
Newsweek filed a Motion to dismiss on the ground

that the complaint failed to state a cause of action but
it was denied. Newsweek filed a certiorari under rule
65 contending that the dismissal of motion to dismiss
was made with grave abuse of discretion.
HELD: The complaint failed to state a cause of action.
In a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be
identifiable. The case at bar is not a class suit. A class
suit is case where one or more may sue for the benefit
of all or where the representation of class interest
affected by the judgment or decree is indispensable to
make each member of the class an actual party. In the
present case, each of the plaintiffs has a separate and
distinct reputation in the community. They do not
have a common or general interest in the subject
matter of the controversy.
MVRS PUBLICATIONS VS. ISLAMIC DAWAH
COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS: Respondents filed a complaint for damages
against petitioners in their own behalf and as a class
suit in behalf of the all Muslims because of the article
published in Bulgar insulting the Muslims and alluding
to the pig as the God of the Muslims.
HELD: SC ruled that respondents do not have the
requisite personality to file the class suit because they
lack the sufficiency of numbers to represent a global
group and they were not able to demonstrate the
identity of their interests with those they seek to
represent.
JUANA COMPLEX VS. FIL-ESTATE
FACTS: Juana Complex Homeowners Association, et al.
filed a complaint for damages against Fil-Estate, et al.
They claimed that Fil-Estate excavated the La Paz
Road, thus preventing them from using such road.
They filed the case as a class suit. Fil-Estate filed a
Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of
action and that it was improperly filed as a class suit.
HELD: It was properly filed as a class suit. It fully
satisfied all the requirements of a class suit under the
Rules of Court.
E. Joinder of parties
Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties. All persons in
whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or
arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally,
or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided
in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants
in one complaint, where any question of law or fact
common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants
may arise in the action; but the court may make such
orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or
defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in
connection with any proceedings in which he may have
no interest.
Unwilling co-plaintiff ( 10)

Situation: Person who is supposed to be one of
the plaintiffs in the action is unwilling to join
the suit.
Remedy: He may be made a defendant and the
reason therefore shall be stated in the
complaint.
In an action for partition where all the coowners are indispensable parties, Section 1,
Rule 69 requires that all persons interested in
the property should be joined as defendants. In
this case, the reason for joining a co-owner as
defendant need not be stated.
Misjoinder or non-joinder of parties ( 11)
Parties may be dropped or added by order of
the court on motion of any party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action on such
terms as are just.
o If a party is misjoined, he may be severed in
the action and proceeded with separately.
o If a party is not joined, he may be added.
Neither a misjoinder nor a non-joinder of a
party is a ground for a motion to dismiss.
Objections to defects in parties should be made
at the earliest opportunity. Objections to
misjoinders cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal.
The rule on misjoinder or non-joinder does not
comprehend whimsical and irrational dropping
or adding of parties in a complaint. What it
really contemplates is erroneous or mistaken
non-joinder or misjoinder of parties.
RELUCIO v LOPEZ
FACTS: Alberto Lopez left his wife, Angelina, and their
4 children. He subsequently arrogated upon himself
full control over the conjugal properties and cohabited
with Imelda Relucio. Alberto and Relucio amassed a lot
of properties during their cohabitation, and Alberto
stashed away such properties, placing them beyond
the reach of Angelina and their children. Angelina filed
a Petition for Appointment as Sole Administratrix of
Conjugal Partnership of Properties against both
Alberto and Relucio. Relucio filed a Motion to Dismiss,
arguing that Angelina had no cause of action against
her. Relucios motion to dismiss was denied by the
RTC. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
HELD: Angelina had no cause of action against Relucio

since the allegations and causes of action in the
petition were all against Alberto. Relucio is not a real
party-in-interest, and because of this, she cannot be an
indispensable party. Court also ruled that Relucio cant
be a necessary party. CA decision reversed.
DE GALICIA v MERCADO
FACTS: De Galicia co-signed a check with Arciaga.
Without his knowledge and consent, Arciaga
rediscounted the check with Mercado. When Mercado
presented the check, it was dishonered. Mercado filed
estafa against De Galicia and Arciaga. De Galicia filed a
counterclaim seeking nullification of the rediscounting
between Mercado and Arciaga buit did not implead
Arciaga. Case filed by De Galicia was dismissed by the
RTC for lack of jurisdiction because an indispensable
party was not made a party to the case.
HELD: The joinder of all indispensable parties must be
made under any and all conditions, their presence
being a sine qua non for the exercise of the judicial
power. When an indispensable party is not before the
court, the action should be dismissed.
NUFABLE v NUFABLE
FACTS: Edras had 4 children. When he died, 1 of his
children mortgaged the property to the DBP, to the
prejudice of the other children. The property was
foreclosed and sold to petitioners herein. Respondents
filed suit to annul the transactions. The procedural
issue is whether the DBP should have been impleaded.
HELD: It was not an indispensable party to the case
and there was no need for it to be impleaded as a
party-defendant.
PUENTEVELLA, JR. ET AL v FAR EASTERN AIR
TRANSPORT
FACTS: Petitioners Puentevella et al. were suing FEATI
for compensation for its use of their land as an airfield.
FEATI argued that it only used the land because of the
Bureau of Aeronautics grant of permission, and it was
the Bureau who was liable to the petitioners for
whatever claims they may have. Lower court ruled
against FEATI.
HELD: SC reversed the lower court saying that the CFI
erred in rendering judgment against FEATI when the
Bureau of Aeronautics was not included as a party
defendant. In order to determine all issues, it was
indispensable that the Bureau be included. It was
iniquitous to exclude the Bureau when it had an
interest in the case and it would stand to lose in case
an adverse decision was rendered against FEATI.
F. Substitution of parties
1. Death of a party ( 16)
Only purely personal actions do not survive the
death of the accused. Such cases will be
dismissed and the deceased cannot be
substituted by a legal representative.
o Examples: action for support, right of the
offended party to institute a criminal action
All other actions survive the death of a party
litigant.
Procedure
1. Duty of counsel of deceased party to inform
the court of the fact of death within 30 days
after such death and give the name and
address of his legal representative/s
o Failure to comply shall be a ground for
disciplinary action
o This is the only act which the counsel is
authorized to perform.
o He can no longer act for his client because
the latters death extinguishes the attorneyclient relationship. A dead client has no
personality and cannot be represented by
an attorney. Counsel does not become
counsel of heirs of the deceased without his
services being engaged by said heirs.
2. Court shall order legal representative/s to
appear and be substituted within 30 days
from notice.
o Purpose: the protection of the right of every
party to due process; to ensure that the
deceased party would continue to be
properly represented in the suit through
the duly appointed legal representative of
the estate
o Formal substitution if heirs must be
effected for them to be bound by a
subsequent judgment.
o It is not the amendment of the pleading that
effects the substitution of the deceased
party by his representative/s. It is effected
by the courts order of substitution. This
order must be served upon the substitute.
(Note: the rule requires service of the order
of substitution to acquire jurisdiction, not
service of summons)
3. If no legal representative is named by the
counsel or if the one so named shall fail to
appear within the specified period, Court
may order the opposing party, within a
specified time, to procure the appointment
of an executor or administrator for the
estate of the deceased. The latter shall
immediately appear for and on behalf of the

deceased.
o Non-compliance with the rule on
substitution of a deceased party renders the
proceedings of the trial court infirm
because the court acquired no jurisdiction
over the person of the legal representatives
or heirs of the deceased (Brioso vs. RiliMariano).
o When no proper substitution of the parties
is effected under Rule 3, the court a quo
acted in excess of jurisdiction because no
man should be affected by a proceeding to
which he is a stranger.
4. In the absence of a formal order of
substitution, the court can still acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the
decedents representative if he voluntarily
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the
court.
Two ways of making a voluntary
appearance:
o Formal: Filing a written notice
requesting the clerk of court to enter the
appearance of the subscribing party
o Informal: File a motion or pleading
which does not question the jurisdiction
of the court over the person of the
pleader
BRIOSO VS. RILI-MARIANO
FACTS: The Marianos filed a complaint for recovery of
possession over a property against Glicerio and the
rest of the Briosos. Glicerio died. The Marianos filed a
motion for substitution, but the Briosos were not
properly informed. The trial went on, and the RTC and
CA found in favor of the Marianos.
HELD: The Trial Court, not having followed the proper
procedure and failing to fulfill the requirements, never
acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the
defendants, and so all the proceedings and judgments
were void as to those who were not notified of the
substitution. However, as to those who personally
appeared, the judgment is binding.
2. Incompetency or incapacity of a party

during pendency of action ( 18)
1. Party becomes incompetent or incapacitated
2. The court, upon motion with notice, may allow
the action to be continued by or against the

incompetent or incapacitated person assisted
by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem
3. Transfer of interest ( 19)

General rule: Allow the continuance of the
action by the original party or against him
o The rule evidently does not consider the
transferee as an indispensable party.
Exception: Discretion of the court
o The court, upon motion, may direct that the
transferee be substituted in the action in
lieu of the original party or;
o that the transferee be joined with the
original party
The substitution or joinder is discretionary on
the part of the court and a party cannot, as a
matter of right, insist on either a substitution or
joinder.
STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC. VS. CA
FACTS: Cheng Ban Yek (CBY) incurred millions of
pesos of obligations with SIHI and other creditors,
including Allied Banking. CBY, SIHI and other creditors
(excluding Allied) entered into an Agreement
restructuring the existing obligations of CBY. As
security for the payment, the parties subsequently
entered into a Mortgage Indenture involving 23
parcels of land. CBY defaulted in payment. SIHI
notified the other creditors of its intention to institute
foreclosure proceedings, and filed an action for
foreclosure of mortgage, impleading other creditors of
CBY, including Allied, allegedly because they hold
inferior or subordinate mortgage rights to the
properties sought to be foreclosed. In its Answer,
Allied denied that its interests were subordinate to
SIHIs and made a permissive counterclaim against
SIHI, alleging that the latter, through securing key
positions in CBY and mismanagement, caused CBY to
lose a lot of money; as such, SIHI should be held liable
for the loss and the damages that should be paid to
Allied. SIHI entered into a Deed of Assignment with
Fil-Nippon in which the latter agreed to assume all of
SIHIs obligations as plaintiff in the Civil Case. Allied
opposed, but RTC allowed the substitution. CA
reversed RTCs decision, and said that SIHI should not
be substituted as plaintiff. SIHI filed a Petition for
Review on Certiorari of CA decision with SC.
HELD: CA was correct in disallowing the substitution
of SIHI and Fil-Nippon. A transferee pendente lite does
not have to be included or impleaded by name in order
to be bound by the judgment because despite being
continued against the original party, it would still be
binding on the transferee. Also, there was a counterclaim by Allied against SIHI. Although Fil-Nippon
assumed all the risks attendant to said civil case, this
does not include liability for purely personal acts of
abuses which SIHI allegedly committed. Because of
this, SIHI should not be discharged as plaintiff under
the counterclaim. Besides, under the rules of novation,

Allied needs to consent to the substitution of the
debtor in order for such substitution to be valid.
4. Death or separation of a party who is a

public officer ( 17)
1. Public officer is a party in an action in his
official capacity
2. Pending action, he dies, resigns or otherwise
ceases to hold office
3. Action may be maintained by or against his
successor, if within 30 days after successor

takes office or such time as may be granted by
court, it is satisfactorily shown that:
o There is substantial need for continuing or
maintaining it
o Successor adopts or continues or threatens
to adopt or continue the action of his
predecessor
Before substitution is made, the party or officer
to be affected, unless expressly assenting
thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the
application therefore and accorded an
opportunity to be heard.
G. Alternative and unknown defendants

Alternative defendants
Rule: Rule 3 13 permits a plaintiff to sue two
or more defendants in the alternative whenever
he is not sure who among them is responsible
for the loss suffered by him.
Purpose: To prevent multiplicity of suits and
should be liberally construed a s a device of
convenience
Example: A passenger in a jeepney who broke
his ribs when the jeepney collided with a bus
may join the drivers of both vehicles as
alternative defendants if he is not certain who
between the two drivers was responsible for his
injuries.
Unknown defendant
Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant.
Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is
unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner heir
devisee, or by such other designation as the case may
require, when his identity or true name is discovered, the
pleading must be amended accordingly.
H. Indigent party ( 21)

Any party may be authorized to litigate as an
indigent if the court is satisfied that the party is
one who has no money or property sufficient

and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities.
The application and the hearing to litigate as an
indigent litigant may be made ex parte.
Authority to litigate as an indigent includes an
exemption from the payment of docket fees, and
of transcripts of stenographic notes, which the
court may order to be furnished by him.
o However, the amount of docket and other
lawful fees, which the indigent was exempt
from paying, shall be a lien on the judgment
rendered in the case favourable to the
indigent.
o A lien on the judgment shall not arise if the
court provides otherwise.
Any adverse party may contest the order of the
court granting the authority to a party to litigate
as an indigent. Party contesting must do so
before trial court renders judgment.
If after hearing, the court should determine that
the party declared as an indigent is in fact a
person with sufficient income or property, the
proper docket and other lawful fees shall be
assessed and collected by the clerk of court.
I. Solicitor General ( 22)

In any action involving the validity of any treaty,
law , ordinance, executive order, presidential
decree, rules and regulations, the court, in its
discretion, may require the appearance of the
Solicitor General who may be heard in person
or through a representative duly designated by
him.
Only the Solicitor General can bring or defend
actions on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines and actions filed in the name if the
Republic, or its agencies and instrumentalities
for that matter, if not initiated by the Solicitor
General will be summarily dismissed.
J. New/additional parties
1. Impleader
Rule 6 Sec. 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)party complaint.
A third (fourth, etc.) party complaint is a claim that a
defending party may, with leave of court, file against a
person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth,
etc.) party defendant for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his
opponent's claim.
Rule 6 Sec.12. Bringing new parties. When the
presence of parties other than those to the original action
is required for the granting of complete relief in the

determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court
shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if
jurisdiction over them can be obtained.
Rule 6 Sec. 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)party
complaint. A third (fourth, etc.) party defendant
may allege in his answer his defenses, counterclaims or
cross-claims, including such defenses that the third
(fourth, etc.) party plaintiff may have against the
original plaintiff's claim. In proper cases, he may also
assert a counterclaim against the original plaintiff in
respect of the latter's claim against the third-party
plaintiff.
Rule 11 Sec. 5. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party
complaint. The time to answer a third (fourth, etc.)
party complaint shall be governed by the same rule as the
answer to the complaint.
Third party complaint (Rule 6 11)

Defendant files a complaint against a person not
a party to the case with leave of court
Purpose: contribution, indemnity, subrogation
or other relief
Claim vs. third party defendant must also be
based upon the plaintiffs claim against the
original defendant/third party plaintiff
FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. VS. TEMPONGKO
FACTS: Defendant filed a third-party complaint in a
case. Judgment was rendered against him and the
third-party defendant. The latter appealed from the
judgment against him. Defendant did not.
HELD: When a third-party complaint is filed in a case,
the judge will render two judgments one in the main
case, and the other in the third-party complaint. One
party appealing from one judgment cannot be said to
inure to the benefit of the other.
BALBASTRO ET AL VS. CA
FACTS: The lessees of several units in an apartment
complex filed an interpleader case against the persons
who are in dispute over the right to collect the rent for
the said units. One of the defendants, Fernandez, filed
a third-party complaint against the other lessees
(Balbastro et al.) who were not involved in the
interpleader case.
HELD: While this is wrong, since Balbastro et al. are
not secondarily liable with respect to any claim by the
persons who filed the interpleader case against
Fernandez, the Court ruled on the basis of equity and
convenience that the joinder is allowable.
2. Intervention (Rule 19)

1. Person who has legal interest in the matter in
litigation, or in the success of either of the

parties, or an interest against both, or is so
situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in
the custody of the court
2. With leave of court
3. Any time before rendition of judgment by trial
court
Court will consider:
o Whether or not the intervention will unduly
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the
rights of the original parties
o Whether or not the intervenors rights may
be fully protected in a separate proceeding
DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS. CA
FACTS: Demetria Sta. Maria filed for a petition for
reconstitution of a TCT covering certain parcels of
land. The Director of Lands opposed the
reconstitution. The trial court denied Demetria's
petition. On appeal, the CA reversed the trial court.
The Director of Lands filed the present petition with
the SC. After the case was submitted for decision, some
parties filed motions to intervene alleging that their
land overlaps with the land in the TCT sought to be
reconstituted.
HELD: Under the Rules, it is already late to file the
motions for intervention. However, since rules of
procedure must not be used to thwart justice, the
motions must be allowed. If the motions for
intervention are not granted, it will lead to multiplicity
of suits.
3. Interpleader (Rule 62)

Interpleader
Special civil action brought by a disinterested
person against conflicting claimants to compel
them to litigate their several claims among
themselves
Purpose: To protect a person against double
vexation in respect to ones liability
Requisites
1. Two or more claimants
2. Adverse claims over the same subject matter
3. Plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter
Jurisdiction
o Depends on subject matter
o Follow general rules under BP 129
Grounds for dismissal

Rule 16
Impropriety, i.e. requisites have not been met
e.g. plaintiff has interest in subject matter
Procedure
1. Complaint for interpleader is filed by the person
against whom conflicting claims are made.
2. Court shall issue an order requiring the
conflicting claimants to interplead with one
another. The order shall be served upon the
conflicting claimants together with the
summons and a copy of the complaint. The
court may include an order directing the subject
matter of the action to be paid or delivered to
the court.
3. Within the time for filing an answer, claimant
may file a motion to dismiss.
4. The period to file an answer is interrupted by
the filing of the motion to dismiss. If the motion
is denied, the movant may file his answer
within the remaining period to answer, but
which shall not be less than 5 days reckoned
from the notice of the denial of the motion.
5. The answer shall be filed by each claimant
within 15 days from the service of summons
upon him. The answer shall set forth the claim
of the claiming party, and shall be served upon
each of the conflicting claimants. If any claimant
fails to file his answer within the period, the
court may, upon motion, declare him in default.
If a party in an interpleader is held in default,
the judgment will bar him from any claim in
respect to the subject matter
6. A reply to the answer of the other may be filed
by each of the conflicting claimants
7. A pre-trial shall be conducted in accordance
with the Rules of Court.
8. The court shall proceed to determine the
respective rights of the parties and adjudicate
their claims.
WACK WACK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUD VS. LEE WON
FACTS: The corporation filed an interpleader against
Lee and Tan, who are both claiming ownership over a
membership certificate issued by the corporation. Lee
anchors his claim on a previous case which awarded
him the certificate. Tan claims ownership by virtue of
an assignment of the certificate made in his favor by a
previous owner of the certificate. The CFI dismissed
the interpleader on the ground of res judicata and
failure to state a cause of action.
HELD: Dismissal is correct. It is too late to invoke the
remedy of interpleader. The corporation has allowed
itself to be sued, and judgment was rendered against

it. Lee has already established his claim against the
corporation. The corporation cannot thereafter file an
interpleader as it would have Lee establish his claim
anew against the corporation.
UCPB vs. IAC
FACTS: Alturia gave Bel-Air a managers check it
bought from UCPB. It was for payment for an office
unit it purchased from Bel-Air. When Alturia learned
that there was a difference between the actual office
area from the agreed one, it requested UPCB to hold
payment on the check. UCPB requested Bel-Air to
refrain from presenting the check for payment, but the
latter refused. UCPB filed a complaint-in-interpleader
against Altiura and Bel-Air. Bel-Air made a counterclaim against the UCPB.
HELD: UCPBs recourse to interpleader was proper
and not a frivolous or malicious maneuver to evade its
obligation to pay to the party lawfully entitled the
funds represented by the manager's check.
Interpleader is a proper remedy where a bank which
had issued a manager's check is subjected to opposing
claims by persons who respectively claim a right to the
funds covered by the manager's check. The Bank is
entitled to take necessary precautions so that it does
not make a mistake as to who is entitled to payment;
the necessary precautions include, precisely, recourse
to an interpleader suit.
PASRICHA ET AL VS. DON LUIS DISON REALTY
FACTS: The Pasrichas leased some properties from
Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc (DLDRI). After some time,
they failed to pay rentals prompting DLDRI to file an
ejectment suit against them. The Pasrichas alleged,
among others, that they were justified in not paying
the stipulated rent because they did not know to
whom between DLDRIs former manager or current
manager they should pay.
HELD: Petitioners are not justified in not paying their
rent. They could have filed an action for interpleader
which is proper when the lessee does not know to
whom payment of rentals should be made due to
conflicting claims on the property (or on the right to
collect).
Venue vs Jurisdiction
III. VENUE (RULE 4)

CONSTITUTION Art. VIII, Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall
xxx
4. Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a
miscarriage of justice.
BP 129 Sec. 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant
to each branch. The Supreme Court shall define the
territory over which a branch of the Regional Trial Court
shall exercise its authority. The territory thus defined
shall be deemed to be the territorial area of the branch
concerned for purposes of determining the venue of all
suits, proceedings or actions, whether civil or criminal, as
well as determining the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
over the said branch may exercise appellate jurisdiction.
The power herein granted shall be exercised with a view
to making the courts readily accessible to the people of
the different parts of the region and making the
attendance of litigants and witnesses as inexpensive as
possible.
RA 9285 (Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004)
Sec. 47. Venue and Jurisdiction. - Proceedings for
recognition and enforcement of an arbitration agreement
or for vacation, setting aside, correction or modification
of an arbitral award, and any application with a court for
arbitration assistance and supervision shall be deemed as
special proceedings and shall be filled with the regional
trial court (i) where arbitration proceedings are
conducted; (ii) where the asset to be attached or levied
upon, or the act to be enjoined is located; (iii) where any
of the parties to the dispute resides or has his place of
business; or (iv) in the National Judicial Capital Region, at
the option of the applicant.
Venue
The place, or the geographical area where an
action is to be filed and tried.
In civil cases, it relates only to the place of the
suit and not to the jurisdiction of the court.
Venue improperly laid is a ground for dismissal
of the complaint through a motion to dismiss.
(Rule 16 1(c))
Courts cannot motu proprio dismiss an action
on the ground of improper venue, except in
summary procedures. (Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure 4)
Although venue is mandatory, it is waivable:
o Express: when parties agree on venue
stipulations (Rule 4 4), or;
o Implied: through the failure to raise
improper venue as an affirmative defense
(Rule 16 6) or in a motion to dismiss.
Venue
Place where the action is
instituted
May be waived
Procedural
May be changed by
written agreement of the
parties
Establishes a relationship
between plaintiff and
defendant, or petitioner
and respondent
Improper venue
generally not a ground
for a motu proprio
dismissal
Jurisdiction
Power of the court to hear
and decide a case
Conferred by law and
cannot be waived
Substantive
Fixed by law and cannot
be the subject of an
agreement by the parties
Establishes a relation
between the court and the
subject-matter
Lack of jurisdiction is a
ground for motu proprio
dismissal
Sec.1. Venue of real actions. Actions affecting title to or

possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be
commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be
commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the
municipality or city wherein the real property involved,
or a portion thereof, is situated.
Real action
Actions affecting title to property, or where
plaintiff seeks recovery of real property, or one
affection title to real property.
Examples:
o Recovery of possession
o Partition or condemnation
o Foreclosure of mortgage
o Annulment or rescission of sale of real
property (considered an action for
recovery)
If the property is located at the boundaries of
two places, file the case in either place, at the
plaintiffs option.
If the case involved two properties located in
two different places:
o If the properties are the object of the same
transaction, file it in any of the two places.
o If they are the objects of two distinct
transactions, separate actions should be
filed in each place unless properly joined.
Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions. All other actions may
be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any
of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a
non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff.
Personal action
One brought for the recovery of personal
property, for the enforcement of some contract
or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the
recovery of damages for the commission of an
injury to the person or property. (Go v UCPB)
Residence: actual residence, or place of abode,
which may not necessarily be his legal
residence or domicile provided he resides
therein with continuity and consistency. Must
be more than temporary.
Non-resident found in the Philippines
Personal actions: where the plaintiff resides
Real actions: where the property is located
At the election of the plaintiff
Comparing real, personal and mixed actions
Real action
Ownership or
possession of
real property is
involved
Personal action
Personal property
is sought to be
recovered or
damages for
breach of contract
or enforcement of
a right is sought
Mixed action
Both real and
personal
properties are
involved
Founded on
privity of real
estate
Founded on
privity of contract
Founded on
both
Filed in the
court where
property is
located
Filed in the
residence of
plaintiff or
defendant, at
plaintiffs option
The rules on
real action
govern
Importance of the distinction: to determine

the venue of the action
Sec. 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. If any of
the defendants does not reside and is not found in the
Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of
the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in
the Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried
in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or
where the property or any portion thereof is situated or
found.
Non-resident not found in the Philippines

Actions may be filed only when the case
involves:
o Personal status of the plaintiff: where
plaintiff resides (ex. recognition of children,
annulment of marriage)
o Any property of defendant located in the
Philippines: where the property or any
portion thereof is situated or found.

CLARIDADES v MERCADER (1966)
FACTS: Claridaded filed an action with the CFI Bulacan
to dissolve a partnership and render an accounting of
its assets, mainly a fishpond in Marinduque. There
were several intervenors, one of which filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground that venue was improperly
laid, as the subject-matter of the case was the
possession of the fishpond. The CFI dismissed the case.
HELD: The case was improperly dismissed. Claridades
complaint was merely for the liquidation of the
partnershipa personal action that may be brought in
the place of residence of either the plaintiff or the
defendants. The prayer for the sale of the partnership
assets did not change the nature of the action, as such
was necessarily an incident to the liquidation. As
Claridades lived in Bulacan, the filing of the action
with the CFI Bulacan was correct.
GO v UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK (2004)
FACTS: Go applied for a loan accommodation with
UCPB, secured by real estate mortgages over two lots
in Mandaluyong. UCPB later cancelled the
accomodation, so Go demanded the return of the titles
of the two lots, but UCPB refused. Instead, it filed for
extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgages.
Go filed a complaint for cancellation of the mortgages
with the Pasig RTC. UCPB filed a motion to dismiss,
partly on the ground that there was improper venue,
as the case should have been filed in Mandaluyong,
where the properties were found. The motion was
denied; the CA reversed the RTCs decision.
HELD: The action is a real one, and so the complaint
must be filed in Mandaluyong. The controlling factor in
determining venue was the primary objective for
which the case was filed. Actions to nullify mortgages
were real actions that affected title to real property.
Real estate mortgages were real rights and real
properties by themselves.
DAVAO ABACA PLANTATION CO INC v DOLE
PHILIPPINES (2000)
FACTS: DOLE refused to pay lease rentals for the
DAPCOs property in Davao due to the implementation
of DARs Comprehensive Agrarian Law. DAPCO filed a
case against DOLE for breach of contract of the lease
agreement. CA held that RTC of Manila did not have
jurisdiction because the property in question is
located in Davao del Norte.
HELD: The nature of the complaint is a personal action
(breach of contract is a cause of action either
for specific performance or rescission). The venue for

personal actions is in the place where the plaintiff or
any of the defendants or any of the defendants resides,
at the election of the plaintiff. As DAPCO had its
principal office in Manila, it could correctly file the
case with the Manila RTC.
INFANTE v ARAN BUILDERS INC (2007)
FACTS: Infante filed a motion to dismiss the action for
revival of judgment on the ground that the Muntinlupa
RTC had no jurisdiction over the persons of the parties
and that venue was improperly laid. She alleged that
the complaint for specific performance and damages
before the Makati RTC was a personal action and,
therefore, the suit to revive the judgment therein was
also personal in nature. Consequently, the venue of the
action for revival of judgment was either Makati
(location of Aran Builders office) or Paraaque (her
residence).
HELD: The sole reason for the action for revival of
judgment was enforcement of Aran Builders adjudged
rights over a piece of realty. It was a real action, and
must be filed with the Muntinlupa RTC.
If the action for revival of judgment affected title to
or possession of real property, or interest therein, then
it is a real action that must be filed with the court of
the place where the real property is located. If such
action did not fall under such category, it was then a
personal action that may be filed with the court of the
place where the plaintiff or defendant resides.
MARCOS-ARANETA v COURT OF APPEALS (2008)
FACTS: Marcos-Araneta filed two complaints for
conveyance of shares of stock against the Benedictos
with the Batac, Ilocos RTC. The Benedictos moved to
dismiss on the ground that venue was improperly laid,
saying that as the cases were personal actions, they
should be filed in the place of residence of the plaintiff,
and that Irene was not a resident of Batac. Irene
responded by amending her complaints to include,
among others, at least one resident of Batac as her
new trustees and co-plaintiffs.
HELD: Venue was improperly laid. The complaints
were personal actions, as they sought to compel
recognition of a trust arrangement, and it didnt
matter if some of the assets included real properties.
Marcos-Araneta was the real party-in-interest and
principal party, notwithstanding her co-plaintiffs, and
Rule 4 2 stated that the residences of the principal
parties were the bases for determining proper venue.
The RTC had previously declared that she was not a
resident of Batac, as her evidence was insufficient, and
so the Batac court was an improper venue.
Sec. 4. When Rule not applicable. This Rule shall not

apply.
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides
otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing
before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue
thereof.
When Rule 4 doesnt apply: provision of law

Example: actions for damages arising from libel
filed by an offended party who is a public
official may only be filed a) where he holds
office) or b) the place where the alleged libelous
materials were printed and first published.
UNIWIDE HOLDINGS INC v CRUZ (2007)
FACTS: Uniwide Holdings and Cruz entered into a
franchise agreement, in which was provided that the
franchisee consented to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Quezon City courts, and waived any other venue.
When Cruz failed to settle his accounts, Uniwide filed a
complaint for collection of sum of money with the
Paranaque RTC. Cruz filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground of venue improperly laid, invoking the
provision in the agreement. The RTC granted the
motion.
HELD: Case remanded to RTC for further proceedings.
Rule 4 4 allowed parties to validly agree in writing
on an exclusive venues, though this didnt preclude
parties from bringing a case to other venues. Where
there is a joinder of causes of action between the same
parties, one of which is not in the contract where the
exclusive venue was stipulated, the complaint may be
brought before other venues provided that such other
cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of the court
and venue lies therein.
Uniwide had four causes of action, two of which
were based on deeds of assignment executed in
Uniwides favor by two of its affiliated companies.
These deeds had no exclusive venue stipulation, so the
general rule on venue applied. Stipulations designating
exclusive venues should be strictly confined to the
specific undertaking or agreement.
SWEET LINE INC v TEVES (1978)
FACTS: Tandog and Tiro sued Sweet Lines for
damages and breach of contract of carriage in the CFI
Misamis Oriental. Sweet Lines moved to dismiss on the
ground of improper venue because it is stated on the
issued tickets that actions arising out of the contract of
carriage shall be filed in the competent courts of Cebu
City. The CFI denied the motion to dismiss.
HELD: The condition that the action shall only be filed
in Cebu was not valid. The tickets were contracts of
adhesion; the buyers were not expected to examine

their tickets prior to accepting them. Also, the
condition subverted the public policy on transfer of
venues. By forcing passengers to pursue their claim
only in Cebu, the condition defeated, instead of
enhanced, the ends of justice. Sweet Line had branches
in the ports of call of its vessels and could afford to
litigate in any of them.
VILLANUEVA v MOSQUEDA (1982)
FACTS: Bonifacio leased his house to Villanueva,
stipulating that once the lessor violates the contract,
he could be sued in Manila (where the house was); and
if the lessee violated the contract, he could sue in
Pampanga (Bonifacios residence). Bonifacio filed an
ejectment suit against Villanueva in the Pampanga
MTC. Villanueva moved to dismiss the suit, based on
lack of jurisdiction since the stipulation in the contract
is void. The MTC denied the motion; the CFI affirmed
the denial.
HELD: The Pampanga MTC had jurisdiction to
entertain ejectment suits. The Rules allowed parties to
agree in writing that the venue of an action be changed
or transferred. An agreement was made between the
parties; this was binding and enforceable.
PHILIPPINE BANKING CORP v TENSUAN (1994)
FACTS: Philippine Banking Corp filed a complaint
against the Brinell Metal Works et al before the Makati
RTC. They filed a motion to dismiss, one of the grounds
for which was that venue was not properly laid as the
parties had earlier stipulated that they would submit
to the jurisdiction of the courts of Manila any legal
action which might arise out of their agreements. The
RTC dismissed the complaint.
HELD: Venue stipulations in a contract, while
considered valid and enforceable, do not as rule
supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4. In the
absence of qualifying or restrictive words, they should
be considered merely as an agreement on additional
forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.
SPS LANTIN v LANTION (2006)
FACTS: The Sps Lantin defaulted in their loan
obligations to Planters Bank, which caused the bank to
foreclose the mortgaged lots. They filed a complaint
for declaration of nullity and/or annulment of sale
and/or mortgage against the bank and its officers with
Lipa, Batangas RTC. This was dismissed on the ground
of improper venue.
HELD: The case was properly dismissed. The loan
document contained a stipulation on exclusive venue
which was Makati or any venue chosen by mortgagee.

The words exclusively and waiving for any purpose
any other venue were restrictive enough to meet the
requirement that venue stipulation employ categorical
language to the effect that the parties agree that the
venue of actions between them should be laid only and
exclusively at a definite place.
EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORP v CUI
(1981)
FACTS: The Sps Pan executed an indemnity agreement
in favor of Eastern Assurance for the latters
undertaking as a surety in a dealership agreement
between the spouses and Transunion Corp.
Transunion filed a complaint before CFI Manila for the
full payment of merchandise, with the surety as one of
the defendants. The surety, invoking its legal right
under the agreement, filed a motion to file a thirdparty complaint against Loreta Pan. Loreta filed a
motion to dismiss the third-party complaint on the
ground that venue was improperly laid. The CFI judge
granted the motion.
HELD: A third-party complaint was ancillary to the
main action and was a procedural device to avoid
multiplicity of suits. Because of its nature, the
prescriptions on jurisdiction and venue applicable to
ordinary suits might not apply. Thus, a third-party
complaint had to yield to the jurisdiction and venue of
the main action.
V. SUMMONS (RULE 14)

Preliminary note:
The filing of complaint enables the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff. This
does not extend to the person of the defendant.
Hence, summons.
Actions in rem, personam and quasi in rem
These refer to the object of the action.
o In personam: action against a person on
the basis of his personal liability, or one
affecting the parties alone, not the whole
world, and the judgment thereon is binding
only against the parties properly
impleaded. (ex. ejectment, damages, specific
performance, recovery of title to or
possession of real property)
o In rem: Action against the res or thing itself,
with the judgment binding the whole world.
(ex. probate, cadastral, personal status of
the plaintiff, insolvency, land registration)
o Quasi in rem: action in personam where a
res is affected by the decision. An individual
is named the defendant, and the purpose of
proceeding is to subject his interest therein
to the obligation or lien burdening the
property. (ex. partition and accounting
under Rule 69)
The distinction is important in the service of
summons.
cf. Real actions or personal actions, which
refer to the cause or foundation of an action,
and determines venue of the action.
Actions in rem vs Actions in personam
Action in rem
Directed against the thing
itself
Jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant
is not required
It is a proceeding to
determine the state or
condition of a thing
Judgment is binding on
the whole world
Summons required only
for due process, not to
acquire jurisdiction over
the res (the thing)
May be instituted even
against a defendant not
Action in personam
Directed against
particular persons
Jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is
required
It is an action to impose
responsibility or liability
upon a person directly
Judgment is binding only
upon parties impleaded
or their successors-ininterest
Summons or voluntary
appearance required to
acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the
defendant
May not be instituted
against a defendant not
found in the Philippines,

so long as the res is in the
Philippines
Summons may be served
through publication, as
the notice brings in the
whole world as a party in
the case and vests the
court with jurisdiction
found in the Philippines,

unless the action pertains
to the personal status of
the plaintiff
Summons may be through
the modes enumerated in
the Rules; mere notice by
publication is insufficient
A. Issuance and Contents

Summons
The writ by which the defendant is notified of
the action against him.
Represents the rule on notice which is an
essential element of constitutional due process.
When issued ( 1)
1. Upon the filing of the complaint and
2. the payment of the requisite legal fees
Contents of summons ( 2)
1. The summons shall be directed to the
defendant, signed by the clerk of court under
seal and shall
2. contain:
a. the name of the court and the
b. names of the parties to the action;
c. a direction that the defendant answer
within the time fixed by these Rules;
d. a notice that unless the defendant so
answers plaintiff will take judgment by
default and may be granted the relief
applied for.
3. A copy of the complaint and order for
appointment of guardian ad litem if any, shall be
attached to the original and each copy of the
summons.
B. Service
Service of summons
Means by which the court acquires jurisdiction
over defendants person through coercive
process.
cf. Voluntary appearance or submission to court
o Absent a voluntary appearance, it is the
service of summons upon the defendant
which enables the court to acquire
jurisdiction over his person and in those
actions called actions in personam. Service
of summons is required even if the
defendant is aware of the filing of action
against him.
1. By whom issued (1, 5)

Who issues
The clerk of court shall forthwith issue the
corresponding summons to the defendants ( 1)
The clerk, on demand of the plaintiff, may issue
an alias summons ( 5):
1. If summons is returned without being
served on any or all of the defendants
o the server shall also serve a copy of the
return on the plaintiff's counsel, stating
the reasons for the failure of service,
within five (5) days therefrom
2. if the summons has been lost
2. By whom made ( 3)
Who may serve summons
1. the sheriff
2. his deputy
3. other proper court officer (e.g. process server)
4. by any suitable person authorized by the court
issuing the summons, for justifiable reasons
5. Any suitable person authorized by the court
6. An officer having management of jail or
institution where a prisoner is detained ( 9)
This list is exclusive.
BELLO v UBO
FACTS: Summons was served by a patrolman on only
one of two defendantsit was served only on the son
and not on the mother.
HELD: Invalid service of summons. Rule 14 5 (now
3) of the Rules of Court, expressly provides who may
serve summons. In the case at bar, the summons was
served by a patrolman, a person who is not included in
the enumeration. Contrary to appellee's contention,
this enumeration is exclusive. Aside from the fact that
the patrolman has no authority to serve summons, he
also did not serve it in person nor did he tender it.
Since a court acquires jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant only by means of a valid service of
summons, trial and judgment without such valid
service are, therefore, null and void
3. Modes of Service
GENERAL RULE: Personal service ( 6)
When
Whenever practicable
How
1. the summons shall be served by handing a copy
thereof to the defendant in person
2. if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by
tendering it to him
EXCEPTIONS: Other modes
A. Substituted service ( 7)
When
If for justifiable causes,
the defendant cannot be served within a
reasonable time as provided,
How
1. by leaving copies of the summons at the
defendant's residence with some person of
suitable age and discretion then residing
therein, or
2. by leaving the copies at defendant's office or
regular place of business with some competent
person in charge thereof
B. Publication (Constructive service)
When: ( 14)
1. In any action where the defendant is designated
as an unknown owner, or the like, or
2. whenever his whereabouts are unknown and
cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry
How:
Service, may by leave of court, be effected
upon him by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation and in such places and for
such time as the court may order.
C. Extraterritorial service ( 15-16)
When:
1. When any action is commenced against a
defendant who ordinarily resides within the
Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it (
16)
2. When the defendant does not reside and is not
found in the Philippines, and ( 15)
a. The action affects the personal status of the
plaintiff, or
b. The action relates to, or the subject of which
is, property within the Philippines, in which
the defendant has or claims a lien or
interest, actual or contingent, or
c. The relief demanded consists, wholly or in
part, in excluding the defendant from any
interest therein, or
d. The property of the defendant has been
attached within the Philippines
How:
By leave of court:
o personal service under 6, or
o by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation and in such places and for such
time as the court may order, in which case a
copy of the summons and order of the court
shall be sent by registered mail to the last
known address of the defendant.
o In any other manner which the Court may
deem sufficient such as registered mail
(Cariaga Jr. v Malaya)
Any order granting such leave shall specify a
reasonable time, which shall not be less than 60
days after notice, within which the defendant
must answer.
Application for leave of court ( 17)
Any application to the court under this Rule for
leave to effect service in any manner for which
leave of court is necessary shall be:
1. made by motion in writing,
2. supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or
some person on his behalf,
3. setting forth the grounds for the
application.
SERVICE UPON PARTICULAR DEFENDANTS
a. Service upon prisoners ( 9)
When the defendant is a prisoner confined in a
jail or institution,
SERVICE SHALL BE EFFECTED: upon him by
the officer having the management of such jail
or institution who is deemed deputized as a
special sheriff for said purpose
b. Service upon minors and incompetents ( 10)
When the defendant is a minor, insane or
otherwise an incompetent,
SERVICE SHALL BE MADE:
1. upon him personally and on his legal
guardian if he has one, or if none his
guardian ad litem whose appointment shall
be applied for by the plaintiff.
2. In the case of a minor, service may also be
made on his father or mother.
c. Service upon public corporations ( 13)
When the defendant is the Republic of the
Philippines or like public corporations
SERVICE MAY BE EFFECTED:

1. on the Solicitor General; in case of a
province, city or municipality, or like public
corporations
2. on its executive head, or on such other
officer or officers as the law or the court
may direct.
d. Service upon domestic private juridical entity
( 11)
When the defendant is a corporation,
partnership or association organized under the
laws of the Philippines with a juridical
personality,
SERVICE MAY BE MADE:
1. on the president,
2. managing partner,
3. general manager,
4. corporate secretary,
5. treasurer, or
6. in-house counsel
e. Service upon an entity without juridical
personality ( 8)
When persons associated in an entity without
juridical personality are sued under the name
by which they are generally or commonly
known,
SERVICE MAY BE EFFECTED:
1. upon all the defendants by serving upon
any one of them, or
2. upon the person in charge of the office or
place of business maintained in such name.
But such service shall not bind individually
any person whose connection with the
entity has, upon due notice, been severed
before the action was brought
f. Service upon foreign private juridical entities
( 12 as amended by A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC)
When the defendant is a foreign private
juridical entity which has transacted business in
the Philippines
SERVICE MAY BE MADE:
1. on its resident agent designated in
accordance with law for that purpose, or,
2. if there be no such agent, on the
government official designated by law to
that effect, or
The Securities and Exchange Commission
3. on any of its officers or agents within the
Philippines.
When the foreign private juridical entity is not
registered in the Philippines OR has no resident
agent,
SERVICE MAY by leave of Court BE EFFECTED

out of the Philippines through any of the ff
means:
o By personal service coursed through the
appropriate court in the foreign country
with the assistance of the Department of
Foreign Affairs;
o By publication once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the country where the
defendant may be found and by serving a
copy of the summons and the court order
by-registered mail at the last known
address of the defendant.
o By facsimile or any recognized electronic
means that could generate proof of service;
or
o By such other means as the court may in
its discretion direct.
LAUS V. CA
ACTION: Collection for a sum of money
MODE OF SERVICE: Substituted service by Deputy
Sheriff to a maid 11y/o on his first and only attempt to
effect a personal service.
Sheriffs return did not a) indicate the possibility of
service of summons within a reasonable time, b)
specify the efforts exerted to locate the petitioners, c)
state that it was served on a person of sufficient age
and discretion residing therein.
HELD: Invalid service.
No earnest efforts were exerted to effect the
personal service of summons. He resorted to
substituted service without making sure that personal
service was an impossibility because either the
petitioners had left for a foreign country or unknown
destination with no definite date of returning within a
reasonable period or had gone into hiding to avoid
service of any court process.
Since substituted service is in derogation of the
common law and is extraordinary in character, it must
be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances
authorized by statute. It is imperative that the one
serving the summons, in the return:
(a) indicate the impossibility of service of
summons within a reasonable time,
(b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the
petitioners and
(c) state that it was served on a person of
sufficient age and discretion residing therein.
KEISTER V. NAVARRO
ACTION: Complaint for a sum of money
MODE OF SERVICE: Substituted service to Chiudan

law office, as stated in complaint of Batjak, which is
neither his residence nor place of business. It was also
alleged in the complaint that the said defendant
secretly and surreptitiously left the Philippines for US,
and up to the present has not returned.
HELD: Invalid service
The terms "dwelling house" or "residence" are
generally held to refer to the time of service, hence it is
not sufficient to leave the copy at defendant's former
dwelling house, residence, or place of abode, as the
case may be, after his removal therefrom. They refer
to the place where the person named in the summons
is living at the time when the service is made, even
though he may be temporarily out of the country at
the time. Similarly, the terms office or regular place
of business refers to the office or place of business of
defendant at time of service.
Impossibility of prompt service should be shown by
stating the efforts made to find the defendant
personally and the fact that such efforts failed. This
statement should be made in the proof of service.
The sheriff should have ascertained the

whereabouts of defendant and the date of his
return. If he is coming the following day, wait
for him and serve it to him in person.
Only resort to substituted service is defendant
is not coming anytime soon and it is apparent
that it is impossible to serve the summons in
person.
SUMMIT TRADING V. AVENDANO
ACTION: Complaint against Ortega and Summit
Trading for the redemption or repurchase of the two
lots.
MODE OF SERVICE: Ortega was duly summoned.
Summit Trading was summoned through the secretary
of the president of the corporation (not the corporate
secretary as stated in the Rule)
HELD: Valid service.
Generally, service on the secretary of a president of
a domestic corporation is improper. The president
himself must be served personally if it is desired to
effect the service on that particular officer. But,
depending on the facts of the case, the presidents
secretary may be regarded as agent within the
meaning of Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, as
in this case, since service upon her of the judgment
itself came to the notice of Summit Trading, the
corporation.
CARIAGA V. MALAYA
ACTION: Annulment of a Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition of Real Property, Cancellation of TCT,
Recovery of Real property with damages
MODE OF SERVICE: Registered Mail abroad since
defendants were both residing abroad
HELD: Valid service.
Case falls under 17, extraterritorial service. In any
of the 4 cases mentioned therein, the service of
summons may, with leave of court, be effected out of
the Philippines in 3 ways: (1) by personal service; (2)
by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
such places and for such time as the court may order,
in which case a copy of the summons and order of the
court should be sent by registered mail to the last
known address of the defendant; and (3) in any other
manner which the court may deem sufficient.
In this case, the third mode of extraterritorial
service of summons was substantially complied with.
REBOLLIDO V. CA
ACTION: Damages against Pepsi Cola (original
defendant) PEPSICO, a private foreign corp (defendant
to be held liable)
MODE OF SERVICE: Summons was served on Miss
Sison, the secretary of the legal department of Pepsi
Cola (Pepsi Cola was already dissolved)
Pepsi Cola was dissolved one day after the accident
and PEPSICO assumed its liabilities. PEPSICO, a foreign
corporation held offices in the PHL (place of business
of Pepsi Cola) for the purposes of settling Pepsi Colas
debts, liabilities and obligations.
HELD: Valid service of summons on a dissolved
corporation (Pepsi Cola) is sufficient service to
PEPSICO
The absence of a provision in the Corporation Code on
how summons are to be served on dissolved
corporation shall not leave plaintiffs without remedy.
Since our laws recognize liability of a dissolved
corporation to an aggrieved creditor, it is but logical
for the law to allow service upon a dissolved
corporation.
The general rule is that service of summons upon a
dissolved corporation may be made through any of the
persons enumerated in Rule 14 13. Service on a
mere employee or clerk of a corporation is not
sufficient. An exception to the rule (liberal
interpretation) is when it appears that the summons
and the complaint were in fact received by a
corporation through a clerk, then there is substantial
compliance with the Rule on the service of summons.
In the case at bar, there was proper service of
summons on Miss Sison, whomsoever she was acting
for there is no question that the notice of the action

was promptly delivered to Pepsi Cola or PEPSICO.
Pepsi Cola is bound by the decision of the lower court.
Since PEPSICO was aware that the liabilities of Pepsi
Cola are enforceable against it upon the dissolution of
the latter, it was incumbent upon it to defend the civil
suit against the corporation whose liabilities it has
assumed.
MAGDALENA ESTATE V. NIETO
ACTION: Collection of sum of money.
MODE OF SERVICE: Publication of summons and copy
of the complaint in a newspaper of general circulation
(Rule 14 16) because according to the plaintiffs,
summons could not be personally served upon
defendants as they concealed themselves to avoid
service upon them.
HELD: Invalid service of summons
In an action in personam, the Court could not validly
acquire jurisdiction on a non-appearing defendant,
absent a personal service of summons within the
forum.
The proper recourse for a creditor is to:
- Locate properties, real or personal, of the
resident defendant debtor with unknown address
- Cause them to be attached under Rule 57 1(f)
in which case, the attachment converts the action into
a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem and the summons
by publication may then accordingly be deemed valid
and effective
UCPB V. ONGPIN
ACTION: Action for specific performance (Complaint
against PAI to enforce his obligation as a surety) + writ
of preliminary attachment
TC issued writ of attachment and notice of
garnishment addressed to president and corporate
secretary of the Dominion Asian Equities garnishing
around 8M shares of stock belonging to respondent
MODE OF SERVICE: Substituted Service through
Morallo in PILTEL office where respondent sits as the
chairman of the board (PILTEL was not a party in the
present action)
PILTEL was not the regular place of business of
respondent. Even if it was, Morallo cannot be
considered a competent person in charge of
respondents office as she was the executive secretary
of the president of PILTEL and not of respondent
(1) A party who makes a special appearance in
court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based
on the ground, e. g., invalidity of the service of
summons, cannot be considered to have submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court; jurisdiction

cannot be acquired over the person of respondent
even if he knows of the case against him unless he is
validly served with summons.
(2) Substituted service may be effected by leaving
the copies at defendant's office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge
thereof. Since PILTEL office is not respondent's
regular place of business, Morallo, the person who
received the service of summons in behalf of
respondent, was therefore unauthorized to receive the
service of process.
i. Judgment has been rendered when default was

discovered but the judgment is not yet final and
executory not yet final and executor
- Motion for new trial under Rule 37 1(a)
ii. Discovery of default after judgment has become
final and executor
- Petition for relief under Rule 38 1 and may
also appeal from the judgment rendered against him
as contrary to the evidence or the law.
- File a petition for certiorari to declare the
nullity of a judgment by default if the TC improperly
declared a party in default or if there was grave abuse
of discretion.
GUIGUINTO CREDIT CORP. V. TORRES

ACTION: Collection of sum of money and damages
MODE OF SERVICE: Substituted service through
secretary of one of the defendants at their given
address
Substituted service may only be availed of when:
Respondents could not be served personally within a
reasonable period of time.
Such impossibility of prompt service must be shown
by stating that
(a) Earnest efforts have been made to find the
respondents personally and that
(b) Such efforts have failed.
(c) If substituted service was availed of in lieu of
personal service, there should be a report stating that
the person who received it was one with whom
defendants had a relationship of trust and confidence
that would ensure that the latter will receive or be
notified of the summons issued in their names and
also that the person who received it is a person of
sufficient age and discretion/ competent as the case
may be.
GUANZON V. ARRANDOZA
ACTION: Complaint for Damages
MODE OF SERVICE: Substituted Service thru Susan
Ador, of suitable age, presently employed where
defendant is working (from SEC document) There was
an attempt to serve the summons in person on
defendant but it failed because she was unknown at
that address(from LTO document)
HELD: Proper substituted service of summons
Remedies available to a party declared in default:
(a) Before judgment, after discovery of default
- Motion under Oath to Set Aside the Order of
Default on the ground that his failure to answer falls
under any of those provided in Rule 9 3 (b)
(b) After judgment
POTENCIANO V. BARNES
ACTION: Complaint for Damages against Barnes
MODE OF SERVICE: A representative of Heiman Law
Office secured from the trial court copies of the
complaint and summons intended for Barnes. That
person indicated that his law office was Barnes
counsel. Deputy Sheriff never made any effort to serve
the summons on Barnes himself. Neither was it served
on his residence or regular place of business.
There was no proper serving of summons since such
was served on a mere representative of an
unauthorized counsel. Summons must be served
personally on the defendant and if not possible, by
means of substituted service.
MANGILA V. CA
FACTS: Summons was not served on defendant before
or simultaneously with the implementation of the writ
of attachment.
Sept 1988 writ of attachment was issued
Oct 1988 writ was implemented
Jan 1989 alias summons was served on defendant
HELD: Improper issuance and service of writ of
attachment
The grant of the provisional remedy of attachment
involves three stages:
first, the court issues the order granting the
application;
second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to
the order granting the writ; and
third, the writ is implemented.
For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first
obtained. However, once the implementation of the
writ commences, the court must have acquired
jurisdiction over the defendant for without such
jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to
act in any manner against the defendant. Any order
issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant.
Rule 14 14 provides that whenever the

defendants "whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave
of court, be effected upon him by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation x x x." Thus, if
petitioners whereabouts could not be ascertained
after the sheriff had served the summons at her given
address, then respondent could have immediately
asked the court for service of summons by publication
on petitioner.
Alias summons belatedly served on petitioner cannot
be deemed to have cured the fatal defect in the
enforcement of the writ. The trial court cannot enforce
such a coercive process on petitioner without first
obtaining jurisdiction over her person. The
preliminary writ of attachment must be served after or
simultaneous with the service of summons on the
defendant whether by personal service, substituted
service or by publication as warranted by the
circumstances of the case. The subsequent service of
summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of
jurisdiction over her person because the law does not
allow for retroactivity of a belated service.
MONTEFALCON V. VAZQUEZ
ACTION: Complaint for acknowledgment and support
against Vasquez
MODE OF SERVICE: Substituted Service on Vasquez
caretaker in his residence in Taguig (previous
attempts to serve the summons on Vasquez in
Camarines Sur, but to no avail)
HELD: Valid and justified service
Respondent Vasquez hails from Camarines Sur but
he has lived in Taguig City when the complaint was
filed. Notice may then be taken that he has established
a residence in either place.
Residence is a place where the person named in the
summons is living at the time when the service was
made, even though he was temporarily abroad at the
time. As an overseas seafarer, Vasquez was a Filipino
resident temporarily out of the country. Hence, service
of summons on him is governed by Rule 14 16 of the
Rules of Court.
Because Rule 14 16 uses the words "may" and
"also," it is not mandatory. Other methods of service of
summons allowed under the Rules may also be availed
of by the serving officer on a defendant-seaman.
In this case, since personal service was not practicable,
substituted service was justified.
The absence in the final sheriff's return of a
statement about the impossibility of personal service
does not conclusively prove that the service is invalid.
PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD V. DAKILA

TRADING
ACTION: Complaint for a sum of money and damages

against Perkin Elmer and PEIP, corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of Singapore
(not considered a foreign corp doing business under
the PHL)
MODE OF SERVICE: Service in person by Dakila
Tradings general manager who was deputized by the
court to serve summons outside PHL to Perkin Elmer
(extraterritorial service)
Extraterritorial service of summons applies only
where the action is IN REM OR QUASI IN REM, but not
if an action is in personam.
In such cases, Philippine courts already have
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court,
provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the
res. Thus, in such instance, extraterritorial service of
summons can be made upon the defendant. It is not
for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction,
but for complying with the requirements of fair play
and due process.
If extraterritorial service of summons produces no
effect (when action is in personam), then the courts
cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.
General rule: Even if the service of summons upon
the defendant or respondent in a civil case is defective,
the court can still acquire jurisdiction over his person
when he voluntary appears in court or submits himself
to its authority
Exception: A party who makes a special appearance
in court to challenge the jurisdiction of said court,
based on the invalidity of the service of summons,
cannot be considered to have voluntarily submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
REGNER V. LOGARTA
ACTION: Declaration of nullity of deed of donation
against 2 defendants who are both residing in
California but frequently visits the PHL
MODE OF SERVICE: Teresa was served with summons
in person but Cynthia was never summoned.
HELD: Case was properly dismissed for failure to
prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of time.
Plaintiff should have asked the court at the earliest
possible time to summon Cynthia and Teresa by
publication.
Defendants who are co-owners of a property that
cannot be divided are both indispensable parties to a
case and must both be served summons in order for
the court to acquire jurisdiction over them.
An unreasonable delay in the service of summons

will cause for the dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint,
especially if it can be gleaned from the facts that the
plaintiff was negligent in ensuring that the summons
has been served.
There are three instances when the complaint may
be dismissed due to the plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails
to appear during a scheduled trial, especially on the
date for the presentation of his evidence in chief; (2) if
he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable
length of time; and (3) if he fails to comply with the
rules or any order of the court. The 2nd instance fits
into the case at bar.
PCIB V. ALEJANDRO
ACTION: Complaint for sum of money with prayer for
issuance of writ of attachment against defendant
It was alleged in the complaint that defendant is a
resident of HongKong but actually, defendant
maintains a permanent residence in QC and office
address in Makati City. Because of allegations in the
complaint, TC initially granted the application and
issued the writ ex parte but subsequently quashed it.
Held: Plaintiff acted in bad faith by resorting to a
deliberate strategy to mislead the court. He was liable
for damages for wrongful garnishment.
In Montalban v. Maximo, the Court held that
substituted service of summons (under the present
Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court) is the normal
mode of service of summons that will confer
jurisdiction on the court over the person of residents
temporarily out of the Philippines. Meaning, service of
summons may be effected by (a) leaving copies of the
summons at the defendant's residence with some
person of suitable discretion residing therein, or (b) by
leaving copies at the defendant's office or regular
place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof. Hence, the court may acquire
jurisdiction over an action in personam by mere
substituted service without need of attaching the
property of the defendant.
Thus, in actions in personam against residents
temporarily out of the Philippines, the court need not
always attach the defendants property in order to
have authority to try the case. Where the plaintiff
seeks to attach the defendants property and to resort
to the concomitant service of summons by publication,
the same must be with prior leave, precisely because,
if the sole purpose of the attachment is for the court to
acquire jurisdiction, the latter must determine
whether from the allegations in the complaint,
substituted service (to persons of suitable discretion
at the defendants residence or to a competent person
in charge of his office or regular place of business) will
suffice, or whether there is a need to attach the
property of the defendant and resort to service of
summons by publication in order for the court to
acquire jurisdiction over the case and to comply with

the requirements of due process.
MASON V. CA MASON V. CA
ACTION: Complaint for rescission of contract with
damages against Columbus Bus Corporation
MODE OF SERVICE: Summons was served on
secretary of corporate president
Rule 14 11enumerates the persons capable of
receiving summons for a domestic corporation,
summons served to anyone outside the list is invalid.
Substantial compliance is not available in new Rules.
Court agrees with the Respondent as the new Rules
changed the person who may receive it from manager
to general manager, secretary to corporate
secretary, and cashier to treasurer. Phrase agent,
or any of its directors was deleted.
MILLENIUM V. TAN
ACTION: Foreclosure of Mortgage
MODE OF SERVICE: Served on a Draftsman
HELD:
General rule: The enumeration in Rule 14, 13 is
exclusive and that service of summons upon one who
is not enumerated therein is invalid.
Exception: Substantial compliance by serving
summons on persons other than those mentioned in
the above rule may be justified. In G & G Trading
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that although
the service of summons was made on a person not
enumerated in Rule 14, 13, if it appears that the
summons and complaint were in fact received by the
corporation, there is substantial compliance with the
rule as its purpose has been attained.
In Porac Trucking, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this Court
enumerated the requisites for the application of the
doctrine of substantial compliance, to wit:
(a) There must be actual receipt of the summons
by the person served, i.e., transferring possession of
the copy of the summons from the Sheriff to 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. This requisite is the
most important for it is through such receipt that the
purpose of the rule on the service of summons is
attained.
In cases applying the substantial compliance rule,
there must be direct evidence, such as the admission
of the corporation's officers, of receipt of summons by
the corporation through the person upon whom it was

actually served. Inference of actual receipt is not
allowed.
This case has been overturned, and is no longer

good law.
4. Proof of Service; Alias Summons

Alias summons ( 5)
The clerk, on demand of the plaintiff, may issue
an alias summons:
o If summons is returned without being
served on any or all of the defendants
the server shall also serve a copy of the
return on the plaintiff's counsel, stating
the reasons for the failure of service,
within five (5) days therefrom
o if the summons has been lost
Proof of service of summons ( 18)
1. made in writing by the server and
2. shall set forth the manner, place, and date of
service;
3. shall specify any papers which have been
served with the process
4. shall specify the name of the person who
received the same; and
5. shall be sworn to when made by a person other
than a sheriff or his deputy.
Proof of service by publication ( 19)
If the service has been made by publication,
service may be proved by
o the affidavit of the printer, his foreman or
principal clerk, or of the editor, business or
advertising manager, to which affidavit, to
which a copy of the publication shall be
attached and by
o an affidavit showing the deposit of a copy of
the summons and order for publication in
the post office, postage prepaid, directed to
the defendant by registered mail to his last
known address.
MECHANICAL APPLIANCE V CASTLEMAN
ACTION: Case to recover for a breach of contract
against Mechanical Appliance in Missouri court.
MODE OF SERVICE: The summons were served by the
sheriff who delivered such writ to Dudley Shaw, an
alleged agent of the corporation.
Mechanical questioned the jurisdiction of the Court
but the overruled the plea on the sole ground that the
facts stated in the return of the sheriff to the summons
were conclusive and could not be controverted.
HELD: Court should have dismissed the case for want

of jurisdiction since Mechanical was a corporation
organized under the laws of Wisconsin and that said
Dudley Shaw was not an agent of the corporation. The
return of the sheriff of the state court was not
conclusive upon the question of service.
HOCK v CA
ACTION: Ejectment suit against Benny King.
Summons was repeatedly not served because no
such person Benny King lived in the given address.
After the second alias summons was served on a
person with an R.S. initial, the City Court issued a writ
of execution and levied on the properties of Pride
Construction Supply, the business of Maria Abad who
is not even a party in the case.
HELD: Subsituted service was not validly complied
with bec the fact remains that Benny King is not the
same as Maria Abad nor the R.S. initial is that of hers
or any member of her households, not to mention that
she denies having received the summons.
The modes of service of summons provided for in
the Rules of Court must be strictly followed in order
that the court trying the case may properly acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
Otherwise, any judgment the court renders is void. In
the present case, summons was not properly served
on Maria Abad.
Therefore, the levy on execution on the properties of
her business is invalid.
5. Return of service (4-5)

When service has been completed ( 4)
Server shall within 5 days:
o serve a copy of the return to plaintiffs
counsel and
personally or
through registered mail
return the summons to the clerk who issued it,
accompanied by proof of service
When service has not been completed ( 5)
If summons is returned without being served on
any or all of the defendants
Server shall serve a copy of the return on
plaintiffs counsel, within 5 days therefrom.
Clerk shall, on demand of plaintiff, issue an
alias summons.
C. Voluntary appearance ( 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.
UCPB v. ONGPIN
HELD: A party who makes a special appearance in
court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based
on the ground of invalid service of summons cannot be
considered to have submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court. Although the respondent had
indeed filed numerous pleadings, these pleadings were
precisely for the purpose of contesting the jurisdiction
of the court over the person of respondent on the
ground that there was no valid service of summons on
him. It would be absurd to hold that respondent, by
making such appearance, thereby submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the court.
OROSA v. CA
ACTION: Complaint for Sum of Money
MODE OF SERVICE: Substituted Service through
Orosa et als employees and not personally without
explanation
Held: Although the sheriff's return dated 8 February
1993 is bereft of any particulars on the impossibility of
personal service on petitioners within a reasonable
time.
However, they are deemed to have waived any flaw
in the court's jurisdiction arising from a defective
service of summons. For, instead of entering a special
appearance questioning the propriety of the service of
summons they filed a motion for additional time to file
answer on 24 February 1993, which was beyond the
VI. PLEADINGS
A. Pleadings in general
Rule 6 Sec. 1. Pleadings defined. Pleadings are the
written statements of the respective claims and defenses
of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate
judgment.
Rule 6 Sec. 2. Pleadings allowed. The claims of a party
are asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim,
third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-inintervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the
pleading asserting a claim against him.
An answer may be responded to by a reply.
Rule 8 Sec. 1. In general. 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.
If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent
provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall be
clearly and concisely stated.
Purpose of pleading
To apprise the court of the rival claims in a
judicial controversy submitted for trial and
decision
To indicate the nature of claims or defences of
both parties
To define issues and form the foundation of
proof to be submitted during the trial as well as
advice a party to what his adversary would rely
on as a cause of action or as defense so that he
would be properly prepared at the trial to meet
the issues
BP 129. Sec. 36. Summary procedures in special cases.

In Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts
with at least two branches, the Supreme Court may
designate one or more branches thereof to try exclusively
forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, those
involving violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations,
violations of the rental law, and such other cases
requiring summary disposition as the Supreme Court
may determine. The Supreme Court shall adopt special
rules or procedures applicable to such cases in order to
achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination
thereof without regard to technical rules. Such simplified
procedures may provide that affidavits and counteraffidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and
that the periods for filing pleadings shall be nonextendible.
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Sec.3. Pleadings
A. Pleadings, allowed. The only pleadings allowed to
be filed are the complaints, compulsory counterclaims
and cross-claims pleaded in the answer, and the answers
thereto.
B. Verification. All pleadings shall be verified
Rules on Summary Procedure:

Allowed pleadings
o Complaint
o Compulsory counterclaim
o Cross-claim pleaded in the answer
o Answers
Prohibited pleadings
o Permissive counterclaims
o Third-party complaints
o Replies
o Pleadings-in-intervention
B. Complaint
1. Generally
Construction of pleadings
All pleadings shall be liberally construed so as
to do substantial justice
Ambiguities in pleadings are construed against
the pleader and that no presumption in his
favor is to be indulged with.
Rule 6 Sec. 3. Complaint. The complaint is the

pleading alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action.
The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant
must be stated in the complaint.
Pleadings allowed under the ROC

Complaint
Answer
Counterclaim
Cross-claim
Third (fourth, etc.) party complaint
Complaint-in-intervention
Reply
Rule 2, Sec. 2., supra, p. 6
Rule 2, Sec. 1., supra, p. 6
Complaint should inform the defendant of all

the material facts on which the plaintiff relies to
support his demand.
It should state the theory of the cause of action
which forms the bases of the claim of liability.
BP 129. Sec. 33 (1)., supra, p. 17
2. Splitting & joinder of causes of action

(See pp. 6-7 for a discussion on splitting and joinder of
causes of action.)
DE LUZURIAGA, SR. V. ADIL (1985)
FACTS: De Luzuriaga filed with the CFI an action to
Quiet title against Young. He later filed another case
for forcible entry with the lower court. In the CFI,
Judge Adil enjoined the Municipal Circuit Court judge
from trying the 2nd Civil Case on Forcible entry on the
ground that the cause of action therein was abated by
the filing of the 1st civil case pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 4,
ROC. Also, the cause of action in the 2nd Civil Case is
necessarily included in the 1st Civil Case and they are
both principally between the same parties. De
Luzuriaga appealed from Judge Adils decision.
HELD: CFI Judge Adil was correct in enjoining the
lower court from trying the 2nd civil case. A party may
institute only 1 suit for a single cause of action. If 2 or
more complaints are brought from different parts of a
single cause of action (i.e. splitting of cause of action),
the filing of the first may be pleaded in abatement of
other or others, and a judgment upon the merits in any
one is available as a bar in the others. The dispute
between Luzuriaga and Young about the possession of
Agho Island arose out of their conflicting claims of
ownership over the island. In the forcible entry case,
the plaintiff anchored his claim for rightful possession
on his alleged ownership over the subject property.
Thus, it is clear that the issue of possession is
connected with that of ownership. The issue of
ownership is, therefore, indispensably involved.
3. Alternative
Rule 8, Sec. 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses.
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. When two or more statements are made in
the alternative and one of them if made independently
would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient
by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative
statements.
C. Answer
Rule 6 Sec. 4. Answer. An answer is a pleading in
which a defending party sets forth his defenses.
Rule 6 Sec. 5. Defenses. Defenses may either be
negative or affirmative.
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the
material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his cause or causes of action.
(b) An affirmative defense is 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. The
affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations,
release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel,
former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other
matter by way of confession and avoidance.
Defense may be negative or affirmative:

o Negative defense
When the material averments alleged in
the pleading of the claimant are
specifically denied
It is stated in the form of a specific denial
o Affirmative defense
Not a denial of an essential ingredient in
the plaintiffs cause of action but one
which, if established, will be a good
defense.
Rule 6 Sec. 10. Specific denial. 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. 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.
Where a defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material
averment made to the complaint, he shall so state, and
this shall have the effect of a denial.
Specific denial
Purpose: To make the defendant disclose the
matters alleged in the complaint which hen
succinctly intends to disprove at the trial. The
parties are compelled to lay their cards on the
table
Types of specific denial
o Absolute denial: defendant specifies each
material allegation of fact the truth of which
he does not admit and, whenever
applicable, sets forth the substance of the
matters upon which he relies to support his
denial
o Partial denial: defendant does not make a
total denial of the material allegations in a
specific paragraph. He denies only a part of
the averment. He specifies that part of the
truth of which he admits and denies only
the remainder
o Denial of disavowal of knowledge:
defendant alleges that he is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as top the truth of a material
averment made in the complaint. Such
denial must be made in good faith.
Instances when specific denial must be coupled

with an oath
o Denial of an actionable document (Rule 8
8)
o A denial of allegations of usury in a
complaint to recover usurious interest (Rule
8 11)
Effect of absence of a specific denial
o Material averments in the complaint not
specifically denied are deemed admitted.
Which means that there is no more triable
issue between the parties and if the
admissions appear in the answer of the
defendant, the plaintiff may file a motion for
judgement on the pleadings under rule 34
General Rule: Material allegation which are not
specifically denied are deemed admitted
o Exceptions:
The amount of unliquidated damages
(Rule 8 11)
Conclusions in a pleading which do not
have to be denied at all because only
ultimate facts need be alleged in a
pleading (Rule 8 1)
Non-material averments or allegations
because only material allegation have to
be denied (Rule 8 11)
Negative pregnant
A negative implying also an affirmative and
which although stated in a negative form really
admits the allegation to which it relates
A form of negative expression which carries
with it in affirmation or at least an implication
of some kind favourable to the adverse party
Does not qualify as a specific denial
Example: Charged with trespassing, the
defendant pleaded, that the plaintiff's daughter
gave him license to do so; and that he entered
by that license. The plaintiff replied that he did
not enter by her license. This was considered as
a negative pregnant and it was held the plaintiff
should have traversed the entry by itself, or the
license by itself, and not both together
Rule 8, Sec. 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed
admitted. Material averment in the complaint, other
than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages,
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied.
Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious
interest are deemed admitted if not denied under oath.
Rule 9, Sec. 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However,
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, that there is another action pending between the

same parties for the same cause, or that the action is
barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations,
the court shall dismiss the claim.
Rule 9, Sec. 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim,
not set up barred. A compulsory counterclaim, or a
cross-claim, not set up shall be barred.
Effect of failure to plead defenses and objections

General Rule: Defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss are
deemed waived
Exceptions:
o Court has no jurisdiction over court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter
o There is another action pending between
the same parties for the same cause, or
o The action is barred by a prior judgment or
by statute of limitations
Compulsory counterclaims are barred if not
raised on time and the party is precluded from
setting up a subsequent litigation on the ground
of res judicata
HOME INS. CO. V. EASTERN SHIPPING LINES (1983)
FACTS: Home Insurance filed separate suits against
carriers for the damage caused to the shipments it
insured. Home Insurance averred that it is a foreign
corporation authorized to do business in the
Philippines, and that it has the capacity to sue. The
carriers filed answers denying the allegation of the
insurance company that it had capacity to sue. The
trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that
the insurance company does not have the capacity to
sue because when it contracted the insurance policies,
it was not licensed to do business in the Philippines as
required by Sec 68 of the Corporation Law.
HELD: The subsequent registration of the company
cured its lack of capacity to sue. Also, the general
denials made by the carriers in their answers are
inadequate to attack the insurance company's capacity
to sue in the light of its positive averment that it is
authorized to do so. Sec 4 Rule 8 requires that "a party
desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of
any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued
in a representative capacity shall do so by specific
denial, which shall include such supporting particulars
as are particularly within the pleader's knowledge.
The carriers should have stated particulars in their
answers upon which a specific denial of the insurance
company's capacity to sue could have been based.
D. Counterclaim and cross-claim

Rule 6 Sec. 6. Counterclaim. A counterclaim is any
claim which a defending party may have against an
opposing party.
Counterclaim
Partakes of the nature of a complaint or cause of
action against plaintiff
Purpose: to avoid multiplicity of suits
Counterclaim may be permissive or compulsory
A lawyer who acts in the name of a client should
not be sued on a counterclaim in the very same
case he has filed as counsel and not as party.
Rule 6 Sec. 7. Compulsory counterclaim. A compulsory
counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the
regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected
with the transaction or occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not
require for its adjudication the presence of third parties
of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a
counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court
both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that
in an original action before the Regional Trial Court, the
counter-claim may be considered compulsory regardless
of the amount.
Compulsory counterclaim
Requisites:
1. It must be cognizable by the regular courts
If claim is cognizable either by Labor
Arbiter (claim arises out of labor dispute)
or SEC (intra-corporate controversy) or
other quasi-judicial body, then it cannot
be compulsory
2. Arises out of or necessarily connected with
the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the opposing partys claim
or co-partys claim
Transaction or occurrence: facts out of
which a cause of action may arise and
probable mean whatever may be done by
one person which affects anothers rights
It is not enough that the claim and the
counterclaim arise out of the same
contract, but should arise out of the same
transaction.
Does not require for its adjudication the
presence of third parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction
Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim
both as to the nature and amount thereof,
except that original actions before RTC, the
counterclaim may be considered compulsory
regardless of amount.
The counterclaim must have matured before

answer
Filing fees do not apply to compulsory
counterclaims
Permissive counterclaim
One which has no logical relation with the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject of
the opposing partys claim; or
Even when there is a logical relation but the
court has no jurisdiction over the claim or it
requires the presence of third persons whom
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction
Filing fees apply to permissive counterclaims
Test to determine whether counterclaim is
compulsory or permissive
Logical relationship test: a counterclaim is
held to be compulsory if there is a logical
relationship between it and the main claim
Claim is logically related if separate trial would
involve substantial duplication of effort and
time by the parties and the courts
Effect on the counterclaim when the complaint
is dismissed
If counterclaim has been pleaded by the
defendant before service upon him of plaintiffs
motion to dismiss was made, then the dismissal
shall be limited to the complaint
Rule 6 Sec. 8. Cross-claim. A cross-claim is 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.
Such cross-claim may include a claim that the party
against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the
cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the
action against the cross-claimant.
Cross-claim
Purpose: to settle in a single proceeding all the
claims of the different parties in the case against
each other in order to avoid multiplicity of suits
Limitations:
o Must arise out of the subject matter of
complaint
o Can be filed only against a co-party
o Proper only where cross claimant stands to
be prejudiced by the filing of the action
against him
Requires that filing fees be paid
Test of propriety of cross-claim: there must
be at least be a necessary relation to the matter
constituting the principal action
Rule 6 Sec. 9. Counter-counterclaims and countercrossclaims. A counter-claim may be asserted against

an original counter-claimant.
Rule 6 Sec. 12. Bringing new parties. When the
presence of parties other than those to the original action
is required for the granting of complete relief in the
determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court
shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if
jurisdiction over them can be obtained.
Rule 9, Sec.2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim,
not set up barred. A compulsory counterclaim, or a
cross-claim, not set up shall be barred.
Rule 11, Sec. 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. A
compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a
defending party has at the time he files his answer shall
be contained therein.
Rule 11, Sec. 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after
answer. A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either
matured or was acquired by a party after serving his
pleading may, with the permission of the court, be
presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by
supplemental pleading before judgment.
Rule 11, Sec. 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim.
When a pleader fails to set up a
counterclaim or a cross-claim through oversight,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice
requires, he may, by leave of court, set up the
counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before
judgment.
INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL

SERVICES, INC V. CA (1992)
FACTS: Sharp filed a complaint for prohibition with
prayer for preliminary injunction to stop the
negotiation and awarding of contract between ITCSI
and Phil. Ports Authority (PPA). ICTSI set up a
compulsory counterclaim against Sharp. The
injunction was granted but was later dissolved by the
SC. PPA moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion
ICTSI joined. The complaint and the counterclaim
were dismissed. ICTSI then questioned the dismissal of
the counterclaim.
HELD: The SC ruled against ICTSI saying that the
compulsory counterclaim was properly dismissed
when, upon ICTSIs own motion, the original complaint
was dismissed. ICTSI is correct in contending that the
claim for damages caused by a wrongful issuance of
preliminary injunction can be made in the form of a
counterclaim, however, it was ICTSI itself that caused
the dismissal of its counterclaim.
SPOUSES MELITON V. CA (1992)

FACTS: Nelia Ziga filed a complaint against Lydia
Meliton for rescission of a lease contract over a parcel
of land. Meliton filed an answer denying the
allegations and setting up 3 counterclaims. RTC, on
motion of Ziga, dismissed the complaint. The
counterclaims were also dismissed for non-payment of
the docket fees. Sps. Melitin filed a complaint against
Ziga for recovery of the same amounts alleged in their
counterclaims in the previous civil case. Ziga filed a
motion to dismiss which was denied by the RTC. CA
set aside RTC order.
HELD: Although the sps. Melitons failed to seek
reconsideration of or to take an appeal from the order
of dismissal of their counterclaims, they are not barred
from asserting the same in another action. In
dismissing Zigas complaint, RTC reserved to the
Melitons, as a condition for such dismissal, the right to
maintain a separate action for damages. Sps. Meliton's
claims for damages in the 3 counterclaims, although in
the nature of compulsory counterclaims but in light of
the aforesaid reservation in the dismissal order, are
consequently independent causes of action which can
be the subject of a separate action against private
respondent. Even assuming arguendo that the bar
under the rule on compulsory counterclaims may be
invoked, the peculiar circumstances of this case
irresistibly and justifiedly warrant the relaxation of
such rule.
ALDAY V. FGU INSURANCE CORP. (2001)
FACTS: FGU Insurance filed a complaint against Alday.
She filed her answer by way of counterclaim. TC found
petitioners counterclaim to be merely permissive in
nature and held that non-payment of docket fees
prevented the court from acquiring jurisdiction. CA
sustained TC.
HELD: The counterclaim is permissive in nature.
Criteria/tests that may be used in determining
whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive:
(1) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the
claim and counterclaim largely the same?
(2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on
defendants claim absent the compulsory counterclaim
rule?
(3) Will substantially the same evidence support
or refute plaintiffs claim as well as defendants
counterclaim?
(4) Is there any logical relation between the claim
and the counterclaim?
In the present case, the counterclaim for
commissions, bonuses, and accumulated premium
reserve is merely permissive. The evidence required
to prove petitioners claims differs from that needed to
establish respondents demands for the recovery of
cash accountabilities from petitioner, such as cash

advances and costs of premiums.
CRUZ-AGANA V. SANTIAGO-LAGMAN (2005)
FACTS: Agana filed a complaint for annulment if title
against B. Serrano. B. Serrano filed its answer with a
compulsory counterclaim. Agana moved to dismiss
the counterclaim for lack of certification against nonforum shopping under SC Administrative Circular No.
04-94. B. Serrano, citing the SCs ruling in Santo
Tomas University Hospital v. Surla, argued that said
certification is not required in a compulsory
counterclaim.
HELD: Compulsory counterclaim cannot be dismissed
on failure to accompany it with a certificate of nonforum shopping. Administrative Circular No. 04-94,
which requires certification of non-forum shopping,
applies only to initiatory and similar pleadings and not
to compulsory counterclaims.
RUIZ, JR. ET AL V. CA (1992)
FACTS: The Crisologos filed a complaint to revoke the
donation made to a cult. Judge Ruiz of the RTC-Ilocos
Sur dismissed the complaint because allegedly the
opposition to the motion to dismiss was not filed on
time by the Crisologos. That being the case, the motion
to dismiss was granted. CA granted petition on
certiorari by Orbetas against orders.
HELD: Judge Ruiz committed grave abuse of discretion
when he dismissed the complaint. The Crisologos did
not have the requisite 3 day notice. As to the Orbetas,
their separate answer should have been considered
another complaint, and so they were also parties in
interest to the orders.
E. Reply
Rule 6 Sec. 10. Reply. A reply is a pleading, the office
or function of 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 the new
matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted.
If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising
out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set
forth in an amended or supplemental complaint.
Reply
Nature:
o The responsive pleading to an answer.
o Not a responsive pleading to a counterclaim
or a cross claim, the proper response to a
counterclaim or cross-claim is an answer
The filing of reply is not mandatory
Effect if a party does not file a reply

o No admission follows from the failure to file
a reply
o New matters alleged in the answer are
deemed controverted or denied
F. Formal requirements of pleadings

Rule 7, Sec. 1. Caption. The caption sets forth the
name of the court, the title of the action, and the 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
stated with an appropriate indication when there are
other parties.
Their respective participation in the case shall be
indicated.
Test of sufficiency of plaintiffs initial

pleading as to form
o Whether it clearly states the nature, basis
and extent of the claim or demand asserted,
so that the defendant and court, may be
fully informed and proceed accordingly
o A complaint is sufficient if it follows a form
furnished by the Rules of Court,
notwithstanding its apparent defect as a
technical pleading, where it has been
adopted to practice and has received the
sanction of the court
It is not the caption but the facts alleged which
gives meaning to the pleading.
Reason: courts are called upon to pierce the
form and go into the substance.
Rule 7, 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.
(a) Paragraphs. The allegations in the body of a
pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so numbered 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.
(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.
When one or more paragraphs in the answer are
addressed to one of several causes of action in the
complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words "answer
to the first cause of action" or "answer to the second
cause of action" and so on; and when one or more
paragraphs of the answer are addressed to several causes
of action, they shall be prefaced by words to that effect.
(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.
(d) Date. Every pleading shall be dated.
Rule 7, Sec. 3. Signature and address. Every pleading
must be signed by the party or counsel representing him,
stating in either case his address which should not be a
post office box.
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by
him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground
to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.
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 this Rule, or alleges
scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails promptly
report to the court a change of his address, shall be
subject to appropriate disciplinary action.
Rule 7, Sec. 4. Verification. Except when otherwise
specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be
under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit.
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 personal knowledge or based on
authentic record.
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.
Signature of counsel constitutes:

o A certificate by him that he has read the
pleadings
o That to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief there is good
support to it
o That it is not interposed for delay
Effect of failure to sign or signing with intent to
defeat purpose of Rules
o Strike out pleading as sham and false
o Action proceeds as if no pleading has been
served
o Attorney may be subjected to disciplinary
action if violation is wilful
Rule 7, Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping.
The plaintiff or 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 commenced 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 present status thereof; and (c) if he

should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or
claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to 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 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.
Forum shopping
Act of party against whom an adverse
judgement has been rendered in one forum, of
seeking another opinion in another forum,
other than appeal or special civil action of
certiorari (res judicata)
The institution of two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause of
action (litis pedentia)
Test of forum shopping
Whether several actions filed involve the same
transactions and the same essential facts and
circumstances
Whether in the 2 or more cases, there are
identity of (a) parties (b) rights or causes of
action, and (c) reliefs sought
Certification on non-forum shopping
General rule: Certification on non-forum
shopping is mandatory
o Exceptions:
Compulsory counterclaims
Motion for extension
Certification is not jurisdictional, substantial
compliance within reglementary period is
sufficient
Certification should be made by plaintiff, not
attorney
o Certification made by attorney is equivalent
to non-compliance.
Effect of forum shopping
If wilful and deliberate, both cases shall be
dismissed with prejudice
If not wilful and deliberate, the subsequent case
shall be dismissed without prejudice
Certification of non-forum shopping for a

corporation
Only individuals vested with authority by a
valid board resolution may sign such
certificate
Certification must be accompanied by proof
of the signatorys authority
Subsequent submission of a Secretarys
certificate is substantial compliance
Effect of non-compliance of the certification
Shall be a cause for the dismissal of the action
Dismissal cannot be done by the court motu
propio.
The rule requires that the dismissal be upon
motion and after hearing.
Dismissal for non-compliance with the rule on
certification is, as a rule, without prejudice
unless the court otherwise provides.
Failure to submit a certification against forum
shopping is a separate and distinct ground for
dismissal from forum shopping
REPUBLIC V. KENRICK (2006)
FACTS: The Republic filed a complaint for revocation,
annulment and cancellation of certificates of title of
Kenrick Development Corporation after discovering
that the said TCTs, which apparently covered premises
within the Villamor Airbase, were not in the records of
the Land Registration Authority. Kenrick filed an
answer purportedly signed by its counsel, Atty.
Garlitos. However, it was later on revealed that the
signature appearing on the pleading above Atty.
Garlitos name was not his and that he did not know
who signed it. Thus, the Republic filed a motion to
declare Kenrick in default arguing that the answer it
filed was effectively an unsigned pleading.
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of the Republic and held
that under Sec. 3, Rule 7 of the ROC, a signed pleading
is one that is signed either by the party himself or his
counsel. Therefore, only the signature of either the
party or his counsel operates to validly convert a
pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is
signed. The SC disagreed with Kenricks assertion that
Atty. Garlitos validly delegated the authority to sign
the pleading to some other person.
DIGITAL MICROWAVE CORPORATION VS. CA
(2000)
FACTS: Petition for certiorari was dismissed by CA for
failure of Digital Microwave, as petitioner, to sign the
certification against forum shopping as the
certification was signed by its counsel, in violation of
Revised Circular No. 28-91 as amended.
HELD: Counsel does not have the authority to sign in

behalf of petitioner. The reason the certification
against forum shopping is required to be
accomplished by petitioner himself is because only the
petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or
not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in
different courts or agencies. It is possible that counsel
may be unaware other actions or proceedings.
KAUNLARAN LENDING INVESTORS, INC. ET AL. V.
UY (2008)
FACTS: Loreta filed a complaint for annulment of real
estate mortgage plus damages against petitioners. RTC
ruled against Loreta and ruled in favor of petitioners.
This was reversed by the CA, ruling in favor of Loreta
and declaring the real estate mortgages she executed
in favor of the petitioners null and void. Petitioners
appealed to the SC. Loreta countered that petitioners
appeal to the SC should be dismissed because their
verification and certification of non-forum shopping
was defective, as KLII failed to present proof that its
president was authorized to sign the verification and
certificate on behalf of KLII.
HELD: The president must be specifically authorized
by KLIIs Board of Directors to sign the verification
and certificate for it to be valid. However, this rule
should be relaxed due to the merits of the petition
.
SPS. VALMONTE V. ALCALA (2008)
FACTS: Sps. Valmonte, who were residing in the US,
filed an ejectment suit against Alcala. They signed the
required Verification/Certification of Non-Forum
Shopping of their complaint before a notary public in
the state of Washington and had this
Verification/Certification authenticated by the
Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco. CA
dismissed the petition of Sps. Valmonte for failure to
strictly follow the verification requirements.
HELD: The Court ruled that variance between the
dates is not fatal to petitioners case because the
variance did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that
no verification was made or that the verification was
false. More importantly, the variance totally lost
significance after the petitioners sent from the US and
submitted to the CA the required
Verification/Certification in compliance with their
previously manifested intent.
G. Detail in pleading
Rule 8, Sec. 1. In general. 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.
If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent
provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall be
clearly and concisely stated.
Pleading should state ultimate facts essential to

right of action
Distinction between ultimate facts and
evidentiary facts
o Ultimate facts: facts essential to a partys
cause of action. A fact is essential if it
cannot be stricken out without leaving the
statement of the cause of action insufficient.
o Evidentiary facts : facts necessary for
determination of the ultimate facts; they are
the premises which conclusions of ultimate
facts are based
Evidentiary facts are omitted in a pleading since
such evidentiary matters are to be presented
during the trial of the case, not in the pleadings
of the parties.
Every pleading, including the complaint, is not
supposed to allege conclusions because
conclusions are for the courts to make.
BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. V. FIRST
FARMERS MILLING CO., INC. (1981)
FACTS: Bacolod sued FFMC and other defendants.
Bacolod then filed an amended and supplemental
complaint to include PNB and NIDC, alleging that PNB
and NIDC extended loans to FFMC, thereby assisting in
the illegal operation. The lower court dismissed the
complaint as against PNB and NIDC for lack of cause of
action.
HELD: The SC affirmed this decision, saying that the
facts stated in the complaint did not constitute a cause
of action. Although a defective complaint may be cured
by the introduction of sufficient evidence to establish
the cause of action, the Court may only grant it if there
is no objection from the defendant. The test of
sufficiency of the facts alleged is whether or not the
Court could render a valid judgment as prayed for
accepting as true the exclusive facts set forth in the
Complaint.
Rule 8, Sec. 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses.
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. When two or more statements are made in
the alternative and one of them if made independently
would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient
by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative
statements.
Rule 8, Sec. 3. Conditions precedent. In any pleading a

general averment of the performance or occurrence of all
conditions precedent shall be sufficient.
Omission of such allegation will make the

complaint insufficient. The case may be
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
Rule 8, Sec. 4. Capacity. Facts showing the capacity of
a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue
or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal
existence of an organized association of person that is
made a party, must be averred. A party desiring to raise
an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the
capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative
capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall
include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly
within the pleader's knowledge.
Rule 8, Sec. 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. In
all averments of fraud or mistake the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with
particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, or other
condition of the mind of a person may be averred
generally.
Circumstances constituting fraud or mistake

must be stated with particularity
Malice, intent, knowledge or the condition of
the mind of a person may be averred generally
Rule 8, Sec. 6. Judgment. In pleading a judgment or
decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasijudicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to
aver the judgment or decision without setting forth
matter showing jurisdiction to render it.
Rule 8, Sec. 7. Action or defense based on document.
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written
instrument or document, the substance of such
instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading,
and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the
pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part
of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set
forth in the pleading.
An actionable document is the written

instrument or upon which the action or defense
is based
Requisite for the rule:
o Substance of such instrument/document
shall be set forth in the pleading
o The original or a copy of the
instrument/document shall be attached as
exhibit, which shall be deemed part of the
pleading or said copy may with like effect
be set forth in the pleading
Rule is not applicable if the document is not the
basis of the complaint or defense
Rule 8, Sec. 8. How to contest such documents. When

an action or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding
pleading as provided in the preceding section, the
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be
deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath
specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to
be the facts, but the requirement of an oath does not
apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a
party to the instrument or when compliance with an
order for an inspection of the original instrument is
refused.
If adverse party desires to deny the

genuineness and due execution of the
document, he must do two things:
o Specifically deny the document, and set
forth what he claims to be the facts
o Deny the document under oath
Rule 8, Sec. 9. Official document or act. In pleading an
official document or official act, it is sufficient to aver that
the document was issued or the act done in compliance
with law.
FILIPINAS TEXTILE MILLS V. CA (2003)

FACTS: SIHI filed a complaint for collection of the
unpaid obligation of the petitioners. Filtex and
Villanueva assailed on appeal the admissibility of
SIHIs evidence which formed the basis of its
complaint.
HELD: SC held that the petitioners failure to
specifically deny under oath such evidence in their
Answer with Counterclaim and Answer gave rise to
their implied admission of the genuineness and due
execution of these documents.
TORIBIO V. BIDIN (1985)
FACTS: While testifying during the trial, one of the
petitioners was asked whether she executed any sale
of her share in the parcel of land in litigation. The
counsel for private respondents objected, raising the
proper mode of contesting the genuineness of an
actionable document pursuant to Sections 7 and 8 ,
Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of Court.
HELD: The Court held that the proper procedure was
for the petitioners to specifically deny under oath the
genuineness and due execution of the questioned
deeds of sale and to set forth what they claim to be the
facts. However, the facts of the case and equitable
considerations constrain the Court to grant the
petition and to set aside the questioned order of the
respondent court.
The remedy of the adverse party on whom a

pleading lacking in definiteness or particularity
is served is to ask for a bill of particulars.
Rule 12, Sec.1. When applied for; purpose.Before
responding to a pleading, a party may move for a definite
statement or for a bill of particulars of any matter which
is not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity
to enable him properly to prepare his responsive
pleading. If the pleading is a reply, the motion must be
filed within ten (10) days from service thereof. Such
motion shall point out the defects complained of, the
paragraphs wherein they are contained, and the details
desired.
A bill of particulars is a more definite statement

of any matter which is not averred with
sufficient definiteness or particularity. Its
purpose is to aid in the preparation of a
responsive pleading.
It is filed within the period granted for the filing
of a responsive pleading as provided in Rule 11.
(see I. Periods for filing)
The motion asking for a bill of particulars shall
point out:
o the defects complained of
o the paragraphs wherein they are contained;
o and the details desired.
FAR EAST MARBLE V. CA (1993)
FACTS: BPI filed a complaint for foreclosure of chattel
mortgage with replevin against Far East. The Trial
Court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of
action and prescription. The Trial Court held that
apart from the fact that the complaint failed to allege
that the period of prescription was interrupted, the
phrase "repeated requests and demands for payment"
was vague and incomplete as to establish in the minds
of the defendant, or to enable the Court to draw a
conclusion, that demands or acknowledgment of debt
were made that could have interrupted the period of
prescription.
HELD: The general allegation of BPI that "despite
repeated requests and demands for payment, Far East
has failed to pay" is sufficient to establish BPI's cause
of action. In addition, prescription is not a cause of
action. It is a defense which, having been raised,
should be supported by competent evidence. A
complaint is sufficient if it contains sufficient notice of
the cause of action even though the allegation may be
vague or indefinite, for in such case, the recourse of
the defendant would be to file a motion for a bill of
particulars.
The court, upon the filing of the motion for a bill

of particulars (Rule 12 2):
o deny
o grant
o or allow the parties an opportunity to be
heard
If granted, whether in whole or in part, the bill
of particulars may be filed either in a separate
pleading or in an amended pleading, serving a
copy thereof to the party asking for such. In
either case, it becomes part of the pleading
sought to be clarified. (Rule 12, 3)
If the plaintiff (from whom the bill of particulars
is being asked from) fails to obey,
o his complaint may be dismissed without
prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the
court (Rule 17, 3) and
o the court may order the striking out of the
pleading or the portions thereof to which
the order was directed, or make such other
order as it deems just (Rule 12, 4).
If it is the defendant (from whom the bill of
particulars is being asked from) fails to comply:
o his answer will be stricken off (Rule 12, 4)
and
o his counterclaim dismissed (Rule 17, 4),
and he can be declared in default upon
motion of the plaintiff (Rule 9, 3).
In general, he has the balance of the
reglementary period to file his response: (Rule
12, 5)
o If the motion is granted, the movant can
wait until the bill of particulars is served on
him and he will have the balance of the
reglementary period within which to file his
responsive pleading.
o If his motion is denied, he will still have the
balance of the reglementary period to file
his responsive pleading, counted from
service of the order denying his motion.
o NB: In any case, he shall have not less than
5 days to file his responsive pleading.
H. Amended and supplemental

pleadings
1. Amendments in general
Rule 10. Sec.1. Amendments in general.Pleadings may
be amended by adding or striking out an allegation or the
name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name
of a party or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or
description in any other respect, so that the actual merits
of the controversy may speedily be determined, without
regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and
inexpensive manner.
Rule 10. Sec. 7. Filing of amended pleadings. When any

pleading is amended, a new copy of the entire pleading,
incorporating the amendments, which shall be indicated
by appropriate marks, shall be filed.
When a pleading is amended, service of new

summons is not necessarily required. Where
the defendants have already appeared before
the trial court by virtue of a summons in the
original complaint, the amended complaint may
be served upon them without need of another
summons, even if new causes of action are
alleged.
Exceptions:
o If the trial court has not yet acquired
jurisdiction over the defendants, a new
summons for the amended complaint is
required.
o Where a new defendant is impleaded,
summons must be served upon him.
2. Amendments as a matter of right

Rule 10, Sec. 2. Amendments as a matter of right.
A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right
at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in
the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after
it is served.
A party, if amending under this rule, has the

absolute right to amend his pleading, regardless
of whether a new cause of action or change in
theory is introduced.
The court cannot refuse such an amendment;
when an amendment is made as a matter of
right, the courts duty to admit it is purely
ministerial.
Even jurisdictional defects can be corrected by
amendment under Rule 10 2. This is because
the amendment under 2 is a matter of right,
thus the argument that the court must first
possess jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the complaint before it can act on any
amendment is unavailing.
o Illustration: When a case for unlawful
detainer is filed with the RTC, and it is later
amended to become accion reivindicatoria
instead.
An amendment may be done as a matter of right
only ONCE. Hence, even if no responsive
pleading has yet been served, if the amendment
is subsequent to a previous amendment made
as a matter of right, the subsequent amendment
must be with leave of court.
This Section refers to an amendment made
BEFORE the TRIAL COURT, not before the Court
of Appeals. The CA is vested with jurisdiction to

admit or deny amended petitions filed before it.
A motion to dismiss is NOT a responsive
pleading. Thus, an amendment after a motion to
dismiss is filed would still be a matter of right.
(Remington Industrial Sales v. CA)
Even if the motion to dismiss is granted by the
court, the plaintiff may still amend his
complaint as a matter of right before the
dismissal becomes final as long as no answer
has yet been served. The dismissal becomes
final in the event of a failure to perfect an
appeal.
REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORP. V. CA
(2002)
FACTS: Petitioner amended its complaint for sum of
money so as to incorporate additional factual
allegations constitutive of its cause of action against
respondent. In view of said amendment, it then sought
to suspend the pending proceeding for its dismissal
filed by respondent before the CA.
HELD: The Court ruled that the complaint can still be
amended as a matter of right before an answer has
been filed, even if there was a pending proceeding for
its dismissal before the higher court. Prior to the filing
of an answer, the plaintiff has the absolute right to
amend the complaint even if a new cause of action or
change in theory is introduced. Such right to amend
the complaint before an answer has been served is not
precluded by the filing of a motion to dismiss or any
other proceeding contesting its sufficiency.
3. Amendments by leave of court

Rule 10. Sec. 3. Amendments by leave of court.Except
as provided in the next preceding section, substantial
amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But
such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that
the motion was made with intent to delay. Orders of the
court upon the matters provided in this section shall be
made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the
adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard.
The only way to effect substantial amendments

is with leave of court after 1) the filing of a
responsive pleading, 2) when an amendment
has already previously been made.
Rationale for leave of court: An amendment
after a responsive pleading is filed will
correspondingly require an alteration in the
defense of the adverse party (embodied in the
responsive pleading). Such amendment is not
only unfair, but will cause unnecessary delay.
Thus, leave of court is required.
Since Rule 10 3 refers to the same

amendments allowed in 2, amendments by
leave of court may include any and all
amendments that may be made under 2;
except that the courts permission is now
required. Thus, an amendment may be allowed
by the court even if it substantially alters the
cause of action or defense.
o An exception to this is jurisdictional defects,
which are allowed to be amended only
under 2 because amendment there is a
matter of right. Under 3, the power to
amend emanates from the courts leave. As
such, when it does not have jurisdiction, it
cannot act.
Rule 10. Sec. 4. Formal amendments.A defect in the
designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or
typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the
court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on
motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the
adverse party.
KERAMIK INDUSTRIES, INC. V. GUERRERO (1974)

FACTS: Keramik sued the GSIS asking for nullification
of a foreclosure sale and praying for payment of
difference between the GSIS bid and their mortgage
debt with the GSIS. Subsequently, Keramik filed a
motion for admission of its amended complaint. It
alleged that it failed to mention in its original
complaint the insurance for the mortgaged buildings
with the GSIS and the circumstance that the typhoon
Yoling totally damaged the insured properties. It
contended that the insurance proceeds paid should be
deducted from its indebtedness. GSIS opposed on the
ground that the amendment altered the plaintiff's
causes of action by supposedly injecting "new, distinct
and entirely foreign causes of action". The Trial Court
sustained the opposition.
HELD: The allegations in the amended complaint
regarding the insurance for the mortgaged properties
did not change at all Keramik's theory of the case and
did not introduce a new cause of action. To deny the
admission of Keramik's amended complaint would
constrain it to bring a separate action for the purpose
of compelling the GSIS to credit the proceeds of the
insurance against its mortgage debt which would be
repugnant to the rule which discourages multiplicity
of suits.
R&B Surety & Insurance Co, Inc. v. Savellano
(1985)
FACTS: Rassagi obtained credit facilities from Citiwide
for the purchase of 14 trucks, secured by surety bonds
issued by R&B and Towers. Upon failure to pay, the
sureties were held liable for the amount due. They

filed their answers to the complaint. However, upon
further investigation, they found out that the 14 trucks
were never sold and delivered to Rassagi. They tried
to file an amended answer which was disallowed by
the TC.
HELD: SC ruled that the TC erred in not admitting the
amended answer. Even though they sought to alter
their original admission, the amendment did not alter
the theory of the defense and should be allowed.
4. Amendments to conform to or authorize

presentation of evidence
Rule 10. Sec. 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize
presentation of evidence.When issues not raised by the
pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of
the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they
had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the
pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform
to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made
upon motion of any party at any time, even after
judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result
of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the
trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made
by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be
amended and shall do so with liberality if the
presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of
substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court
may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be
made.
Rule 11. Sec. 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim.
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a crossclaim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable
neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by leave of
court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by
amendment before judgment.
In general, 5 describes two different

situations:
o when evidence not within the issues raised
in the pleadings is presented by the parties
during the trial without objection.
o when the pleadings are sought to conform
to evidence presented with objection from
the adverse party.
Under Rule 10 5, a complaint that does not
state a cause of action may be cured by
evidence presented without objection at trial;
provided, that a cause of action existed at the
time of the filing of the complaint.
o Illustration: When, at the time the case was
filed, none of the promissory notes subject
of the action was due and demandable, but
two of the notes became due during the
pendency of the action. Can the complaint
be amended?
o Answer: No, the curing effect of Sec. 5 is

applicable only if a cause of action in fact
exists at the time the complaint is filed, but
the complaint is defective for failure to
allege essential facts.
Such amendments may be made at any time,
even after judgment. This is because the issues
tried shall be treated in all respects as if they
had been raised in the pleadings even if not
actually previously raised in the pleadings.
In fact, even if the parties fail to amend the
pleadings, such failure will not affect the trial of
these issues (that have not been objected to)
because such issues are deemed to have been
raised in the pleadings of the parties.
If the adverse party objects, the court may
nevertheless admit the evidence where the
objecting party fails to show that the admission
of the evidence would prejudice him in his
defense. The court must give him a continuance
to enable him to meet the new situation.
LAPRECIOSSISIMA CAGUNGUN, ET AL. V. PLANTERS
DEVELOPMENT BANK (2005)
FACTS: Spouses Cagungun filed suit against bank for
allowing unauthorized withdrawals from their
account. RTC ruled in favour of Cagungun. CA
affirmed the decision but modified it by ruling that the
mortgage loan is not yet extinguished. Cagungun
claims that they were able to prove that the amounts
withdrawn from their accounts were not applied to
their loan. It was found that the complaint filed did
not allege that said amounts were withdrawn and that
the same were not applied for the loan. Cagunguns
also did not ask such in the prayer. Moreover, when
Cagungun tried to prove this allegation, the bank
objected.
HELD: Under Section 5, Rule 10, if evidence is objected
to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the
issues made by the pleadings, the Court may allow the
pleadings to be amended freely when the presentation
of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby
and the admission of such evidence would not
prejudice the objecting party in maintaining his action
or defense upon the merit. Since RTC did not order
the amendment, evidence regarding the amounts
withdrawn which could have been applied for the loan
cannot be considered. Therefore the loan remains
unpaid.
Rule 10. Sec. 8. Effect of amended pleadings. An
amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it
amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings
may be received in evidence against the pleader; and
claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the
amended pleading shall be deemed waived.
By the direct import of this rule, the amended

pleading supersedes the previous one.
However, the Court has held that the original
complaint is deemed superseded and
abandoned only by the amendatory complaint
only if the latter introduces a new or different
cause of action. (Verzosa v. CA).
Admissions made in the original pleadings
cease to be judicial admissions and are
considered extrajudicial admissions. As such, in
order to be utilized, they must be formally
offered in evidence.
5. Supplemental pleadings
Rule 10. Sec. 6. Supplemental pleadings. Upon motion
of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and
upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a
supplemental pleading setting forth transactions,
occurrences or events which have happened since the
date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The
adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10) days
from notice of the order admitting the supplemental
pleading.
Rule 11. Sec. 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after
The permission of the court is required in all

instances. Furthermore, the court may allow the
pleading only upon such terms as are just.
Leave of court is sought by the filing of a motion
with notice to all parties.
The cause of action in the supplemental
pleading cannot be different from the original
pleading. If the cause of action in the
supplemental complaint is different from the
cause of action mentioned in the original
complaint, the court should not admit the
supplemental complaint.
Amended Pleading vs Supplemental Pleading
Amended Pleading
Refers to facts existing at
the time of the
commencement of the
action
Takes the place of the
original pleading
Can be made as a matter
of right or with leave of
court
Supplemental Pleading
Refers to facts arising
after the filing of the
original pleading
Taken together with the
original pleading
Always with leave of
court
A new pleading must be

filed
In general, answer is
mandatory
A new copy of the entire

pleading is not required
Answer is not mandatory
ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST V. CA (2000)

FACTS: Sta. Ines Melale Forest Products Corp. sought
to file a supplemental complaint which alleged facts
and a cause of action distinct from the original
complaint.
HELD: The supplemental complaint should not be
admitted. The supplemental complaint must be based
on matters arising subsequent to the original
complaint related to the claim or defense presented
therein, and founded on the same cause of action. It
cannot be used to try a new matter or a new cause of
action.
Rule 11. Sec. 7. Answer to supplemental complaint.
A supplemental complaint may be answered within ten
(10) days from notice of the order admitting the same,
unless a different period is fixed by the court. The answer
to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the
supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental
answer is filed.
I. Periods for pleading

1. Periods for responsive pleadings
Rule 11. Sec 1. Answer to the complaint.
The defendant shall file his answer to the complaint
within fifteen (15) days after service of summons, unless
a different period is fixed by the court.
Rule 11. Sec. 3. (1) Answer to amended complaint.
Where the plaintiff files an amended complaint as a
matter of right, the defendant shall answer the same
within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy
thereof.
Rule 11. Sec. 5. Answer to third (fourth, etc.)party
complaint.. The time to answer a third (fourth, etc.)
party complaint shall be governed by the same rule as the
answer to the complaint.
2. Period for foreign private juridical entity

Rule 11. Sec. 2. Answer of a defendant foreign private
juridical entity.Where the defendant is a foreign
private juridical entity and service of summons is made
on the government official designated by law to receive
the same, the answer shall be filed within thirty (30) days
after receipt of summons by such entity.
3. Periods for answers to counterclaims,

cross-claim, supplemental complaint and
amendments by leave of court

Rule 11. Sec. 3. (2) Where its filing is not a matter of

right, the defendant shall answer the amended complaint
within ten (10) days from notice of the Order admitting
the same. An answer earlier filed may serve as the
answer to the amended complaint, if no new answer is
filed.
This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended
counterclaim amended cross-claim, amended third
(fourth, etc.) party complaint, and amended complaintin-intervention.
5. Extensions
It in (2) refers to an amended complaint.

Rule 11. Sec. 4. Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim.
A counterclaim or cross-claim must be answered within
ten (10) days from service.
Rule 11. Sec. 6. Reply.A reply may be filed within ten
(10) days from service of the pleading responded to.
Rule 11. Sec. 7. Answer to supplemental complaint.
A supplemental complaint may be answered within ten
(10) days from notice of the order admitting the same,
unless a different period is fixed by the court. The answer
to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the
supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental
answer is filed.
4. Periods for filing counterclaims and

cross-claims.
Rule 11. Sec. 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim.--A
compulsory, counterclaim or a cross-claim that a
defending party has at the time he files his answer shall
be contained therein.
Rule 11. Sec. 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim.
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a crossclaim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable
neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by leave of
court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by
amendment before judgment.
Omitted counterclaims and cross-claims are

counterclaims or cross-claims which should
have been included in the original answer (as
provided in Rule 11 8). They are corrected by
amendment because they pertain to matters
existing at the time of the filing of the complaint
(as opposed to the claims in 9, which arise
after).
Rule 11. Sec. 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after
Rule 11. Sec. 11. Extension of time to plead .

Upon motion and on such terms as may be just, the court
may extend the time to plead provided in these Rules.
The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer
or other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these
Rules.
The requisites are for extension of time to file

are:
o there must be a motion
o with service of such motion to the other
party; and
o on such terms as may be just.
The court can only extend the periods provided,
not shorten them.
6. Computation of time
Rule 22. Sec. 1. How to compute time.In computing any
period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or
by order the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of
the act or event from which the designated period of time
begins to run is to be excluded and the date of
performance included. If the last day of the period, as
thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal
holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall
not run until the next working day.
Rule 22. Sec. 2. Effect of interruption.Should an act be
done which effectively interrupts the running of the
period, the allowable period after such interruption shall
start to run on the day aft notice of the cessation of the
cause thereof.
The day of the act that caused the interruption shall be
excluded in the computation of the period.
ALARILLA V. OCAMPO (2003)

FACTS: When the Alarillas failed to pay a loan, the real
estate mortgage over their house was foreclosed and
the property sold to the Ocampos. The Alarillas filed a
complaint to have the sale be declared null and void.
Meanwhile, the court issued a writ of possession in
favour of the Ocampos. At the CA, the last day of filing
an MR fell on a Saturday, so the Alarillas filed theirs on
the next working day.
HELD: The Supreme Court said they were correct in
doing so (see ROC Rule 22 Sec. 1). However, their
arguments for the substantive issues failed to impress.
Petition to dismiss the writ of possession denied.
Summary of rules on period

15 DAYS (in general, when the person served
has not appeared in court yet)
o Answer to the complaint: 15 days after
service of summons (Rule 11, 1)
o Answer to the amended complaint as a
matter of right: 15 days after service of copy
(Rule 11, 3)
o Answer to third, (4th, etc) party complaint:
15 days after service of summons (Rule 11,
5)
10 DAYS (in general, when the parties have
appeared before the court already)
o Answer to amended complaint by leave of
court: 10 days, if one is to be filed (Rule 11,
3)
o Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim: 10
days from service (Rule 11, 4)
o Reply: 10 days from service of pleading
responded to (Rule 11, 6)
o Answer to supplemental complaint: 10
days, if one is to be filed (Rule 11, 7)
30 DAYS (foreigners)
o Answer to complaint if defendant is foreign
private juridical entity: 30 days from
receipt of summons (Rule 11, Sec. 2)
NO PERIOD (included in other pleadings OR
made during the lifetime of the trial)
o Compulsory, counterclaim or cross-claim
that defendant already has at the time he
files his answer: must be already included
(Rule 11, 8)
o Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after
answer: by supplemental pleading before
judgment (Rule 11, 9)
o Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim: by
amendment before judgment (Rule 11, 10)
EXCEPTIONS TO PERIODS:
o When the court extends the time (Rule 11,
11)
o Interruption (Rule 22, 2)
o Last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal
holiday (Rule 22, 1)
J. Filing and service of pleadings and

other papers
1. In general
Rule 13. Sec. 1. Coverage .This Rule shall govern the
filing of all pleadings and other papers, as well as the
service thereof, except those for which a different mode
of service is prescribed.
Rule 13. Sec. 4. Papers required to be filed and served.
Every judgment, resolution, order, pleading subsequent
to the complaint, written motion, notice, appearance,

demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be filed
with the court, and served upon the parties affected.
Difference between pleadings and papers

Papers subsequent to the complaint must be
filed with the court and served upon parties.
Pleadings subsequent to original complaint and
written motions should first be served on the
parties before they are filed in court.
Illustration: The answer of the defendant
cannot be filed directly with the clerk of court
because a copy thereof must first be served to
the plaintiff and sign by him only then can you
file an answer with proof of service.
Papers required to be filed and served:
1. judgments
2. resolutions
3. orders
4. pleadings subsequent to the complaint
5. written motion
6. notices
7. appearances
8. demands
9. offers of judgment
10. similar papers
Rule 13. Sec. 2. Filing and service, defined.Filing is the
act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk
of court.
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the
pleading or paper concerned. If any party has appeared
by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his
counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party
himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel
appears for several parties, he shall only be entitled to
one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite
side.
The following rules should be followed in

service:
o If he has not appeared by counsel: service
must be made upon him.
o If he has appeared by counsel: then service
shall be made upon counsel
Exception: if service upon the party himself is
ordered by the court
Service on the party himself when he is
represented by counsel is a nullity (exception
above applies). Notice to the client and not to
his counsel of record is not notice in law (Heirs
of Benjamin Mendoza v. CA).
What is the relationship between the party and
his counsel in terms of service? Essentially,
notice to the counsels is notice to the parties,
but not the other way around (same as rule in

agency).
What is the rule when one counsel represents
several parties? The rule is the same, except
that said counsel shall only be entitled to one
copy of any paper served upon him.
2. Filing
Rule 13. Sec. 3. Manner of filing .The filing of
pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders,
judgments and all other papers shall be made by
presenting the original copies thereof, plainly indicated
as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending
them by registered mail. In the first case, the clerk of
court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of
filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of
motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or
deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the
envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as
the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The
envelope shall be attached to the record of the case.
There are two mode of filing:

o by presenting the original copy of the
pleading, notice, appearance, motion, order
or judgment personally to the clerk of court;
The clerk of court shall indicate or
endorse on the pleading or paper filed,
the date and hour of filing.
o by registered mail.
Here, the date of mailing as shown by the post
office stamp on the envelope or registry receipt
shall be considered as the date of filing.
Rule 13. Sec. 12. Proof of filing. The filing of a pleading
or paper shall be proved by its existence in the record of
the case. if it is not in the record, but is claimed to have
been filed personally, the filing shall be proved by the
written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the
clerk of court on a copy of the same; if filed by registered
mail, by the registry receipt and by the affidavit of the
person who did the mailing, containing a full statement of
the date and place of depositing the mail in the post office
in a sealed envelope addressed to the court, with postage
fully prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to
return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if not
delivered.
3. Service
Rule 13. Sec. 5. Modes of service.Service of pleadings,
motions, notices, orders, judgments and other papers
shall be made either personally or by mail.
Rule 13. Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing

Whenever practicable, the service and filing of
pleadings and other papers shall be done personally.
Except with respect to papers emanating from the court,
a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a

written explanation why the service or filing was not
done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to
consider the paper as not filed.
Rule 13. Sec. 10. Completeness of service.Personal
service is complete upon actual delivery. Service by
ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10)
days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides.
Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt
by the addressee, or after five (5) days from the date he
received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever
date is earlier.
In general, the modes of service are: 1) personal

service or 2) service by mail. If neither of the
two can be made, then service shall be done by
3) substituted service
Personal service is preferred. If another mode is
used, the service must be accompanied by a
written explanation why the service was not
done personally.
o Exception: papers emanating from the
court.
A violation of the explanation requirement in
case of non-personal service may be cause for
the paper to be considered as not having been
filed.
The reckoning time for the beginning of the
running of the period for the filing of responsive
pleadings is at the point of completeness of
service.
o Personal service is completed upon actual
delivery following the procedure in Sec. 10,
Rule 13.
o Service by registered mail is complete upon
actual receipt by the addressee, or after 5
days from the date he received the first
notice of the postmaster, whichever is
earlier.
o Service by ordinary mail shall be deemed
complete upon the expiration of 10 days
after mailing, unless the court otherwise
provides.
o Substituted service is complete at the time
of delivery of the copy to the clerk of court.
Rule 13. Sec. 6. Personal service.Service of the papers
may be made by delivering personally a copy to the party
or his counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk
or with a person having charge thereof. If no person is
found in his office, or his office is not known, or he has no
office, then by leaving the copy, between the hours of
eight in the morning and six in the evening, at the partys
or counsels residence, if known, with a person of
sufficient age and discretion then residing therein.
Rule 13. Sec. 7. Service by mail.Service by registered

mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the office, in
a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his
counsel at his office, if known, otherwise at his residence,
if known, with postage fully prepaid, and with
instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. If no registry
service is available in the locality of either the sender or
the addressee, service may be done by ordinary mail.
Service by ordinary mail may be done only if no

registry service is available in the locality of
either the sender or the addressee. Such shall
be deemed complete upon the expiration of 10
days after mailing, unless the court otherwise
provides.
How is substituted service made?
Rule 13. Sec. 8. Substituted service.If service of
pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other
papers cannot be made under the two preceding sections,
the office and place of residence of the party or his
counsel being unknown, service may be made by
delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of
failure of both personal service and service by mail. The
service is complete at the time of such delivery.
Rule 13. Sec. 9. Service of judgments, final orders, or
resolutions.Judgments, final orders or resolutions shall
be served either personally or by registered mail. When a
party summoned by publication has failed to appear in
the action, judgments, final orders or resolutions against
him shall be served upon him also by publication at the
expense of the prevailing party.
Substituted service is availed of only when

there is failure to effect service personally
or by mail. This failure occurs when the
office and residence of the party or counsel
is unknown.
Service of judgments, final orders, or
resolutions by publication can be resorted
to only when the person to be served
absconds and his address is unknown.
Proofs of service: (Rule 13, 13)

For personal service:
1. the written admission of the party served
2. official return of the server
3. affidavit of the party serving containing full
information (date, place, manner of service)
For service by registered mail:
1. affidavit and registry receipt issued by the
mailing office
2. affidavit of mailer showing compliance with
Sec. 7, Rule 13
For service by ordinary mail:

1. affidavit of the mailing person of the facts
showing compliance with Sec.7, Rule 13
Rule 13. Sec. 14. Notice of lis pendens.In an action
affecting the title or the right of possession of real
property, the plaintiff and the defendant, when
affirmative relief is claimed in his answer, may record in
the office of the registry of deeds of the province in which
the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the
action. Said notice shall contain the names of the parties
and the object of the action or defense, and a description
of the property in that province affected thereby. Only
from the time of filing such notice for record shall a
purchaser, or encumbrancer of the property affected
thereby, be deemed to have constructive notice of the
pendency of the action, and only of its pendency against
the parties designated by their real names.
The notice of lis pendens hereinabove mentioned may
be cancelled only upon order of the court, after proper
showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting
the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect
the rights of the party who caused it to be recorded.
Requisites for notice of lis pendens with the

registry of deeds:
1. action affects the title or the right of
possession of the real property;
2. affirmative relief is claimed;
3. notice shall contain the name of the parties
and the object of the action or defense as a
description of the property affected
thereby; and
4. action in rem (AFP Mutual Benefit
Association v. CA)
Notice of lis pendens cannot be cancelled on an
ex parte motion or upon the mere filing of a
bond by the party on whose title the notice is
annotated. Cancellation may be authorized only
upon order of the court after proper showing
that:
1. notice is for the purpose of molesting the
adverse party; or
2. it is not necessary to protect the rights of
the party who caused it to be recorded.
APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES ON
DETERMINING THE REAL PARTY-ININTEREST
1. X is the owner of a house and lot leased to Y.
Through fraud, Z succeeded in having the land
registered in his name.
PROBLEM: Who between X and Y is the real partyin-interest in a suit assailing the validity of the
registration?
ANSWER: X, the owner, is the real party-in-interest.
The issue in the case is one of ownership and not of
possession.
PROBLEM: If Z did not have the land registered in
his name, but instead, deprived Y of possession of
the land and house through strategy or stealth, who
is the real party-in-interest?
ANSWER: Y is the real party-in-interest in an action
for forcible entry against Z.
PROBLEM: If while in the possession of the house
and land, Z caused an extensive damage to the
house through his fault.
ANSWER: X, the owner, is the real party-in-interest
in a suit for damages against Z.
2. The corporate premises were illegally
searched and documents therein illegally
seized.
PROBLEM: May an officer of the corporation
question the constitutional violations in a
proceeding against him?
ANSWER: NO. The right to contest the transactions
belongs to the corporation alone under the theory
of separate personality or principle of corporate
fiction. (Stonehill vs. Diokno)
3. Plaintiffs, the president of a corporation,
together with the corporation, filed a civil action
for malicious prosecution against the defendant.
The defendant had earlier initiated the filing of
criminal charges against the president but the
charge was dismissed. Plaintiff corporation
alleged in its complaint that the criminal
charges against the president caused delay in its
application for license to sell condo units and
plaintiff incurred overruns in development,
marketing, and financial costs and charges,

resulting in actual damages.
PROBLEM: Is the corporation the real party-ininterest in the suit?
Answer: YES. It is true that a crim case can only be
filed against the officers of a corporation and not
against the corporation itself. But it does not follow
that the corporation cannot be a real party-ininterest for the purpose of bringing a civil action for
malicious prosecution.
4. Can a stockholder of a corporation file a suit
in behalf of the corporation?
ANSWER: YES. A stockholder is allowed by law to
institute a suit called a derivative suit in behalf of
the corporation to protect or vindicate corporate
rights, if the corporate officers refuse to sue or
when they are the ones to be sued. In a derivative
suit, the corporation is the real party-in-interest
while the stockholder filing the suit for the
corporation is only a nominal party. (Asset
Privatization Trust vs. CA)
5. Can a third party file a suit to enforce a
compromise agreement?
ANSWER: NO. A third party has no right to enforce
a compromise agreement to which he is not a party,
and which as to its terms, effect, scope and
effectivity is limited to the parties thereto. A
compromise agreement does not apply to parties
who did not sign the same nor avail of its benefits.
(Westmont Bank vs. Shugo Noda & Co. Ltd.)
6. Can the principal sue a third person with
whom the agent contracted in the latters own
name?
ANSWER: NO. If an agent acts in his own name, the
principal has no right of action against the persons
with whom the agent has contracted. Such persons
do not likewise have a cause of action against the
undisclosed principal. Agent is the one directly
bound. EXCEPT (again you know this), contract
involves things belonging to the principal.
7. Can a possessor (not owner) file a complaint
for damages when a writ of possession,
improperly implemented, disturbed his
enjoyment of the thing?
ANSWER: YES. Every possessor has a right to be

respected in his possession, and should he be
disturbed therein, he shall be restored to said
possession.
8. Is the manager of a partnership the real
party-in-interest as defendant in a suit involving
the property registered in the name of the
partnership?
ANSWER: NO. It is the partnership which should be
impleaded, not its officers or agents. A partnership
has a juridical personality separate and distinct
from that of each of the partners.
9. Court of Appeals, in a decision, held that the
Civil Service Commission has no authority to
compel the Mayor of Quezon City to reinstate a
city employee whose appointment was not
renewed. Can the CSC the real party-in-interest
in an appeal seeking the reversal of such
decision?
ANSWER: NO. Where the issue is whether or not an
employee must be reinstated, the employee affected
is the real party-in-interest.
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY
PROCEDURE AND SMALL CLAIMS
CASES
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure
Pursuant to Section 36 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980 (B.P Blg. 129) and to achieve an expeditious and
inexpensive determination of the cases referred to herein,
the Court Resolved to promulgate the following Revised Rule
on Summary Procedure:
I.
Applicability
Sec. 1. Scope. This rule shall govern the summary
procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal
Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling
within their jurisdiction:
A. Civil Cases:
(1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals
sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are awarded,
the same shall not exceed twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00).
(2) All other civil cases, except probate proceedings,
where the total amount of the plaintiff's claim does not
exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00), exclusive of
interest and costs.
B. Criminal Cases:
(1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
(2) Violations of the rental law;
(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
(4) All other criminal cases where the penalty
prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment
not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding
(P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable
penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability
arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal negligence,
this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not
exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
This Rule shall not apply to a civil case where the plaintiffs
cause of action is pleaded in the same complaint with
another cause of action subject to the ordinary procedure;
nor to a criminal case where the offense charged is
necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the
ordinary procedure.
Sec. 2. Determination of applicability. Upon the filing of a
civil or criminal action, the court shall issue an order
declaring whether or not the case shall be governed by this
Rule A patently erroneous determination to avoid the
application of the Rule on Summary Procedure is a ground
for disciplinary action.
II.
Civil Cases
Sec. 3. Pleadings.
A. Pleadings allowed. The only pleadings allowed to be
filed are the complaints, compulsory counterclaims and
cross-claims' pleaded in the answer, and the answers
thereto.
B. Verifications. All pleadings shall be verified.
Sec. 4. Duty of court. After the court determines that the

case falls under summary procedure, it may, from an
examination of the allegations therein and such evidence as
may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on any of
the grounds apparent therefrom for the dismissal of a civil
action. If no ground for dismissal is found it shall forthwith
issue summons which shall state that the summary
procedure under this Rule shall apply. d-c
Sec. 5. Answer. Within ten (10) days from service of
summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the
complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff.
Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded therein shall
be deemed waived, except for lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter.
Cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted in
the answer shall be considered barred. The answer to
counterclaims or cross-claims shall be filed and served
within ten (10) days from service of the answer in which
they are pleaded.
Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. Should the defendant
fail to answer the complaint within the period above
provided, the court, motu proprio, or on motion of the
plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the
facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed
for therein:
Provided, however, that the court may in its discretion
reduce the amount of damages and attorney's fees claimed
for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable. This is
without prejudice to the applicability of Section 4, Rule 15 of
the Rules of Court, if there are two or more defendants.
Sec. 7. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties.
Not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed, a
preliminary conference shall be held. The rules on pre-trial
in ordinary cases shall be applicable to the preliminary
conference unless inconsistent with the provisions of this
Rule. The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary
conference shall be a cause for the dismissal of his
complaint. The defendant who appears in the absence of the
plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his counterclaim in
accordance with Section 6 hereof. All cross-claims shall be
dismissed.
If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall be
entitled to judgment in accordance with Section 6 hereof.
This Rule shall not apply where one of two or more
defendants sued under a common cause of action who had
pleaded a common defense shall appear at the preliminary
conference.
Sec. 8. Record of preliminary conference. Within five (5)
days after the termination of the preliminary conference, the
court shall issue an order stating the matters taken up
therein, including but not limited to:
(a) Whether the parties have arrived at an amicable
settlement, and if so, the terms thereof;
(b) The stipulations or admissions entered into by the
parties;.
(c) Whether, on the basis of the pleadings and the
stipulations and admissions made by the parties, judgment
may be rendered without the need of further proceedings, in
which event the judgment shall be rendered within thirty
(30) days from issuance of the order;
(d) A clear specification of material facts which remain

controverted; and
(e) Such other matters intended to expedite the
disposition of the case.
Sec. 9. Submission of affidavits and position papers.
Within ten (10) days from receipt of the order mentioned in
the next preceding section, the parties shall submit the
affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence on the
factual issues defined in the order, together with their
position papers setting forth the law and the facts relied
upon by them.
Sec. 10. Rendition of judgment. Within thirty (30) days
after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the
expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall
render judgment.
However should the court find it necessary to clarify certain
material facts, it may, during the said period, issue an order
specifying the matters to be clarified, and require the parties
to submit affidavits or other evidence on the said matters
within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment
shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of
the last clarificatory affidavits, or the expiration of the
period for filing the same.
The court shall not resort to the clarificatory procedure to
gain time for the rendition of the judgment.
III.
Criminal Cases
Sec. 11. How commenced. The filing of criminal cases
falling within the scope of this Rule shall be either by
complaint or by information: Provided, however, that in
Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities. such cases shall
be commenced only by information, except when the offense
cannot be prosecuted de oficio.
The complaint or information shall be accompanied by the
affidavits of the compliant and of his witnesses in such
number of copies as there are accused plus two (2) copies
for the court's files.If this requirement is not complied with
within five (5) days from date of filing, the care may be
dismissed.
Sec. 12. Duty of court.
(a) If commenced by compliant. On the basis of the
compliant and the affidavits and other evidence
accompanying the same, the court may dismiss the case
outright for being patently without basis or merit and order
the release of the amused if in custody.
(b) If commenced by information. When the case is
commenced by information, or is not dismissed pursuant to
the next preceding paragraph, the court shall issue an order
which, together with copies of the affidavits and other
evidence submitted by the prosecution, shall require the
accused to submit his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of
his witnesses as well as any evidence in his behalf, serving
copies thereof on the complainant or prosecutor not later
than ten (10) days from receipt of said order. The
prosecution may file reply affidavits within ten (10) days
after receipt of the counter-affidavits of the defense.
Sec. 13. Arraignment and trial. Should the court, upon a
consideration of the complaint or information and the
affidavits submitted by both parties, find no cause or ground
to hold the accused for trial, it shall order the dismissal of
the case; otherwise, the court shall set the case for
arraignment and trial.
If the accused is in custody for the crime charged, he shall
be immediately arraigned and if he enters a plea of guilty, he
shall forthwith be sentenced.
Sec. 14. Preliminary conference. Before conducting the
trial, the court shall call the parties to a preliminary
conference during which a stipulation of facts may be
entered into, or the propriety of allowing the accused to
enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be considered,
or such other matters may be taken up to clarify the issues
and to ensure a speedy disposition of the case. However, no
admission by the accused shall be used against him unless
reduced to writing and signed by the accused and his
counsel. A refusal or failure to stipulate shall not prejudice
the accused.
Sec. 15. Procedure of trial. At the trial, the affidavits
submitted by the parties shall constitute the direct
testimonies of the witnesses who executed the same.
Witnesses who testified may be subjected to crossexamination, redirect or re-cross examination. Should the
affiant fail to testify, his affidavit shall not be considered as
competent evidence for the party presenting the affidavit,
but the adverse party may utilize the same for any
admissible purpose.
Except in rebuttal or surrebuttal, no witness shall be
allowed to testify unless his affidavit was previously
submitted to the court in accordance with Section 12 hereof.
However, should a party desire to present additional
affidavits or counter-affidavits as part of his direct evidence,
he shall so manifest during the preliminary conference,
stating the purpose thereof. If allowed by the court, the
additional affidavits of the prosecution or the counteraffidavits of the defense shall be submitted to the court and
served on the adverse party not later than three (3) days
after the termination of the preliminary conference. If the
additional affidavits are presented by the prosecution, the
accused may file his counter-affidavits and serve the same
on the prosecution within three (3) days from such service.
Sec. 16. Arrest of accused. The court shall not order the
arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever
required. Release of the person arrested shall either be on
bail or on recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable
to the court.
Sec. 17. Judgment. Where a trial has been conducted, the
court shall promulgate the judgment not later than thirty
(30) days after the termination of trial.
IV.
Common Provisions
Sec. 18. Referral to Lupon. Cases requiring referral to
the Lupon for conciliation under the provisions of
Presidential Decree No. 1508 where there is no showing of
compliance with such requirement, shall be dismissed
without prejudice and may be revived only after such
requirement shall have been complied with. This provision
shall not apply to criminal cases where the accused was
arrested without a warrant.
Sec. 19. Prohibited pleadings and motions. The following

pleadings, motions or petitions shall not be allowed in the
cases covered by this Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the
complaint or information except on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply
with the preceding section;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or for opening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits or any other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third party complaints;
(l) Interventions.
Sec. 20. Affidavits. The affidavits required to be
submitted under this Rule shall state only facts of direct
personal knowledge of the affiants which are admissible in
evidence, and shall show their competence to testify to the
matters stated therein.
A violation of this requirement may subject the party or
the counsel who submits the same to disciplinary action, and
shall be cause to expunge the inadmissible affidavit or
portion thereof from the record.
Sec. 21. Appeal. The judgment or final order shall be
appealable to the appropriate regional trial court which shall
decide the same in accordance with Section 22 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129. The decision of the regional trial court in
civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible entry
and unlawful detainer, shall be immediately executory,
without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken
therefrom. Section 10 of Rule 70 shall be deemed repealed.
Sec. 22. Applicability of the regular rules. The regular
procedure prescribed in the Rules of Court shall apply to the
special cases herein provided for in a suppletory capacity
insofar as they are not inconsistent herewith.
Sec. 23. Effectivity. This revised Rule on Summary
Procedure shall be effective on November 15, 1991.
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases

Section 1. Title. - This Rule shall be known as " The Rule of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases."
Section 2. Scope. - This Rule shall govern the procedure in
actions before the Metropolitan trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts for payment of money where the value of the
claim does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.
Section 3. Definiton of Terms. - For purposes of this Rule:
(a) Plaintiff - refers to the party who initiated a small
claims action. The term includes a defendant who has filed a
counterclaim against plainfill;
(b) Defendant - is the party against whom the plaintiff has
filed a small claims action. The term includes a plaintiff
against whom a defendant has filed a claim, or a person who
replies to the claim;
(c) Person - is an individual, corporation, partnership,
limited liability partnership, association, or other juridical
entity endowed with personality by law;
(d) Individual - is a natural person;
(e) Motion - means a party's request, written or oral, to the
court for an orderaction. It shall include an informal written
request to the court, such as a letter;
(f) Good cause - means circumtances sufficient to justify
the requested order or other action, as determined by the
judge; and
(g) Affidavit - means a written statement or declaration of
facts that are shown or affirmed to be true.
Section 4. Applicability - The Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply this Rule in all
actions which are; (a) purely civil in nature where the claim
or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for payment or
reimbursement of sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of
criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the criminal
action in court, pursuant to Rule of 111 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure. These claims or demands may be;
(a) For money owned under any of the following;
1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan;
3. Contract of Services;
4. Contract of Sale; or
5. Contract of Mortgage;
(b) For damages arising from any of the following;
1. Fault or negligence;
2. Quasi-contract; or
3. Contract;
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or
an arbitration award involving a money claim covered by
this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic Act 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.
Section 5. Commencement of Small Claims Action. - A small
claims action is commenced by filing with the court an
accomplished and verified Statement of Claim (Form 1 SCC) in duplicate, accompanied by a Certification of Nonforum Shopping (Form 1-A,SCC), and two (2) duly certified
photocopies of the actionable document/s subjects of the
claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses and other
evidence to support the claim. No evidence shall be allowed
during the hearing which was not attached to or submitted
together with the Claim, unless good cause is shown for the
admission of additional evidence.
No formal pleading, other than the Statement of Claim
described in this Rule, is necessary to initiate a small claims
action.
Section 6. Joinder of Claims - Plaintiff may join in a single
statement of claim one or more separate small claims
against a defendant provided that the total amount claimed,
exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed P100,00.00.
Section 7. Affidavits - The affidavits submitted under this
Rule shall state only facts of direct personal knowledge of
the affiants which are admissible in evidence.
A violation of this requirement shall subject the party, and
the counsel who assisted the party in the preparation of the
affidavits, if any, to appropriate disciplinary action. The
inadmissible affidavit(s) or portion(s) thereof shall be
expunged from the record.
Section 8. Payment of Filing Fees. - The plaintiff shall pay the
docket and other legal fees prescribed under Rule 141 of the
Revised Rules of Court, unless allowed to litigate as an
indigent.
A claim filed with a motion to sue as indigent (Form 6SCC) shall be referred to the Executive Judge for immediate
action in case of multi-sala courts, or to the Presiding Judge
of the court hearing the small claims case. If the motion is
granted by the Executive Judge, the case shall be raffled off
or assigned to the court designated to hear small claims
cases. If the motion is denied, the plaintiff shall be given five
(5) days within which to pay the docket fees, otherwise, the
case shall be dismissed without prejudice. In no case shall a
party, even if declared an indigent, be exempt from the
payment of the P1,000.00 fee for service of summons and
processes in civil cases.
Section 9. Dismissal of the Claim. - After the court
determines that the case falls under this Rule, it may, from
an examination of the allegations of the Statement of Claim
and such evidence attached thereto, by itself, dismiss the
case outright of any of the grounds apparent from the Claim
for the dismissal of a civil action.
Section 10. Summons and Notice of Hearing - If no ground
for dismissal is found, the court shall forthwith issue
Summons (Form 2-SCC) on the day of receipt of the
Statement of Claim, directing the defendant to submit a
verified Response.
The court shall also issue a Notice (Form 4-SCC) to both
parties, directing them to appear before it on a specific date
and time for hearing, with a warning that no unjustified
postponement shall be allowed, as provided in Section 19 of
this Rule.
The summons and notice to be served on the defendant
shall be accompanied by a copy of the Statement of Claim
and documents submitted by plaintiff, and a copy of the
Response (Form 3-SCC) to be accomplished by the
defendant. The Notice shall contain an express prohibition
against the filing of a motion to dismiss or any other motion
under Section 14 of this Rule.
Section 11. Response - The defendant shall file with the
court and serve on the plaintiff a duly accomplished and
verified Response within a non - extendible period of ten
(10) days from receipt of summons. The Response shall be
accompanied by certified photocopies of documents, as well

as affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in support
thereof. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing
which was not attached to or submitted together with the
Response, unless good cause is shown for the admission of
additional evidence.
Section 12. Effect of Failure to File Response - Should the
defendant fail to file his response within the required period,
the court by itself shall render judgement as may be
warranted by the facts alleged in the Statement of claim
limited to what is prayed for. The court however, may, in its
discretion, reduce the amount of damages for being
excessive or unconscionable
Section 13. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of this Rule If at the time the action is commenced, the defendant
possesses a claim against the plaintiff that (a) is within the
coverage of this rule, exclusive of interest and costs; (b)
arises out of the same transaction or event that is the subject
matter of the plaintiff's claim; (c) does not require for its
adjudication the joinder of third parties; and (d) is not the
subject of another pending action, the claim shall be filed as
a counterclaim in the response; otherwise, the defendant
shall be barred from suit on the counterclaim.
The defendant may also elect to the file a counterclaim
against the plaintiff that does not arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence , provided that the amount and
nature thereof are within the coverage of this Rule and the
prescribed docket and the other legal fees are paid.
Section 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions - The following
pleadings, motions, and petitions shall not be allowed in the
cases covered by this Rule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the compliant except on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgement, or for reopening of trial;
(d) Petiton for relief from judgement;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
affidavits, or any other paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third-party complaints; and
(l) Interventions.
Section 15. Availability of Forms; Assistance by Court
Personnel. - The Clerk of Court or other personnel shall
provide such assistance as may be requested by a plaintiff or
a defendant regarding the availability of forms and other
information about the coverage, requirements as well as
procedure for small claims cases.
Section 16. Appearance. - the parties shall appear at the
designated date of hearing personally or through a
representative authorized under a Special Power of
Attorney (Form 5-SCC ) to enter into an amicable settlement,
to submit of Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) and to enter
into stipulations or admissions of facts and of documentary
exhibits
Section 17. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed. - No

attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the
hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant.
If the court determines that a party cannot properly
present his/her claim or defense and needs assistance, the
court may, in its discretion, allow another individual who is
not an attorney to assist that party upon the latter's consent.
Section 18. Non-appearance of Parties. - Failure of the
plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the
claim without prejudice. The defendant who appears shall be
entitled to judgement on a permissive counterclaim.
Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the same effect
as failure to file a Response under Section 12 of this Rule.
This shall not apply where one of two or more defendants
who are sued under a common cause of action and have
pleaded a common defense appears at the hearing.
Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal
with prejudice of both the claim and counterclaim.
Section 19. Postponement When Allowed. - A request for
postponement of a hearing may be granted only upon proof
of the physical inability of the party to appear before the
court on the scheduled date and time. A party may avail of
only one (1) postponement.
Section 20. Duty of the Court. - At the beginning of the court
session, the judge shall read aloud a short statement
explaining the nature, purpose and the rule of procedure of
small claims cases.
Section 21. Judicial Dispute Resolution. - At the hearing, the
judge shall conduct Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR)
through mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation, or
any other mode of JDR. Any settlement (Form 7-SCC) or
resolution (Form 8-SCC) of the dispute shall be reduced into
writing, signed by the parties and submitted to the court for
approval (Form 12-SCC).
Section 22. Failure of JDR. - If JDR fails and the parties agree
in writing (Form 10-SCC) that the hearing of the case shall
be presided over by the judge who conducted the JDR, the
hearing shall so proceed in an informal and expeditious
manner and terminated within one (1) day.
Absent such agreement, (a) in case of a multi-sala court ,
the case shall, on the same day, be transmitted (Form 11SCC) to the Office of the Clerk of Court for immediate referral
by the Executive Judge to the pairing judge for hearing and
decision within five (5) working days from referral; and (b)
in case of single sala court, the pairing judge shall hear and
decide the case in the court of origin within five (5) working
days from referral by the JDR judge.
Section 23. Decision. - After the hearing, the court shall
render its decision on the same day, based on the facts
established by the evidence (Form 13-SCC). The decision
shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the
court docket for civil cases and a copy thereof forthwith
served on the parties.
The decision shall be final and unappealable.
Section 24. Execution. - If the decision is rendered in favor of
the plaintiff, execution shall issue upon motion (Form 9SCC).
Section 25. Applicability. of the Rules of Civil Procedure The Rules of Civil procedure shall apply suppletorily insofar
as they are not inconsistent with this rule.
Section 26. Effectivity. - This Rule shall take effect on
October 01, 2008 for the pilot courts designated to apply the
procedure for small claims cases following its publication in
two newspaper of general circulation.
APPENDIX C: LAWS GOVERNING

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY
Republic Act 7160 (Local Government
Code of 1991)
Chapter VII: Katarungang Pambarangay
Section 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement;
Exception Thereto. - The lupon of each barangay shall have
authority to bring together the parties actually residing in
the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all
disputes except:
(a) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision
or instrumentality thereof;
(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and
the dispute relates to the performance of his official
functions;
(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one
(1) year or a fine exceeding Five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00);
(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in
different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto
agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by
an appropriate lupon;
(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in
barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where
such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties
thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable
settlement by an appropriate lupon;
(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may
determine in the interest of Justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within
the authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may, at
any time before trial motu propio refer the case to the lupon
concerned for amicable settlement.
Section 409. Venue. (a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the
same barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement
before the lupon of said barangay.
(b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays
within the same city or municipality shall be brought in the
barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents
actually resides, at the election of the complaint.
(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest
therein shall be brought in the barangay where the real
property or the larger portion thereof is situated.
(d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending
parties are employed or at the institution where such parties
are enrolled for study, shall be brought in the barangay
where such workplace or institution is located.
Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation
proceedings before the punong barangay; otherwise, the
same shall be deemed waived. Any legal question which may
confront the punong barangay in resolving objections to
venue herein referred to may be submitted to the Secretary
of Justice, or his duly designated representative, whose
ruling thereon shall be binding.
Section 410. Procedure for Amicable Settlement. -
(a) Who may initiate proceeding - Upon payment of the

appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a cause of
action against another individual involving any matter
within the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or in
writing, to the lupon chairman of the barangay.
(b) Mediation by lupon chairman - Upon receipt of the
complaint, the lupon chairman shall within the next working
day summon the respondent(s), with notice to the
complainant(s) for them and their witnesses to appear
before him for a mediation of their conflicting interests. If he
fails in his mediation effort within fifteen (15) days from the
first meeting of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set
a date for the constitution of the pangkat in accordance with
the provisions of this Chapter.
(c) Suspension of prescriptive period of offenses - While
the dispute is under mediation, conciliation, or arbitration,
the prescriptive periods for offenses and cause of action
under existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing the
complaint with the punong barangay. The prescriptive
periods shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the
complainant or the certificate of repudiation or of the
certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat
secretary: Provided, however, That such interruption shall
not exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the complaint
with the punong barangay.
(d) Issuance of summons; hearing; grounds for
disqualification - The pangkat shall convene not later than
three (3) days from its constitution, on the day and hour set
by the lupon chairman, to hear both parties and their
witnesses, simplify issues, and explore all possibilities for
amicable settlement. For this purpose, the pangkat may
issue summons for the personal appearance of parties and
witnesses before it. In the event that a party moves to
disqualify any member of the pangkat by reason of
relationship, bias, interest, or any other similar grounds
discovered after the constitution of the pangkat, the matter
shall be resolved by the affirmative vote of the majority of
the pangkat whose decision shall be final. Should
disqualification be decided upon, the resulting vacancy shall
be filled as herein provided for.
(e) Period to arrive at a settlement - The pangkat shall
arrive at a settlement or resolution of the dispute within
fifteen (15) days from the day it convenes in accordance
with this section. This period shall, at the discretion of the
pangkat, be extendible for another period which shall not
exceed fifteen (15) days, except in clearly meritorious cases.
Section 411. Form of settlement. - All amicable settlements
shall be in writing, in a language or dialect known to the
parties, signed by them, and attested to by the lupon
chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the case may be.
When the parties to the dispute do not use the same
language or dialect, the settlement shall be written in the
language known to them.
Section 412. Conciliation. (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. - No
complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any
matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or
instituted directly in court or any other government office
for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation
between the parties before the lupon chairman or the
pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been
reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat
secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or
unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties

thereto.
(b) Where Parties May Go Directly to Court. - The parties
may go directly to court in the following instances:
(1) Where the accused is under detention;
(2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of
personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings;
(3) Where actions are coupled with provisional
remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment,
delivery of personal property and support pendente lite; and
(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the
statute of limitations.
(c) Conciliation among members of indigenous cultural
communities. - The customs and traditions of indigenous
cultural communities shall be applied in settling disputes
between members of the cultural communities.
Section 413. Arbitration. (a) The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, agree
in writing that they shall abide by the arbitration award of
the lupon chairman or the pangkat. Such agreement to
arbitrate may be repudiated within five (5) days from the
date thereof for the same grounds and in accordance with
the procedure hereinafter prescribed. The arbitration award
shall be made after the lapse of the period for repudiation
and within ten (10) days thereafter.
(b) The arbitration award shall be in writing in a language
or dialect known to the parties. When the parties to the
dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the award
shall be written in the language or dialect known to them.
Section 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration
Award. - The amicable settlement and arbitration award
shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court
upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date thereof,
unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a
petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper
city or municipal court.
However, this provision shall not apply to court cases
settled by the lupon under the last paragraph of Section 408
of this Code, in which case the compromise or the pangkat
chairman shall be submitted to the court and upon approval
thereof, have the force and effect of a judgment of said court.
Section 417. Execution. - The amicable settlement or
arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the
lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement.
After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced
by action in the appropriate city or municipal court.
Section 418. Repudiation. - Any party to the dispute may,
within ten (10) days from the date of the settlement,
repudiate the same by filing with the lupon chairman a
statement to that effect sworn to before him, where the
consent is vitiated by fraud, violence, or intimidation. Such
repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of the
certification for filing a complaint as hereinabove provided.
Section 419. Transmittal of Settlement and Arbitration. Award to the Court. - The secretary of the lupon shall
transmit the settlement or the arbitration award to the
appropriate city or municipal court within five (5) days from
the date of the award or from the lapse of the ten-day period
repudiating the settlement and shall furnish copies thereof
to each of the parties to the settlement and the lupon
chairman.
Administrative Circular No. 14-93

Guidelines on Katarungang Pambarangay
Conciliation Procedure
I. All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant
to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law [formerly P.
D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Secs. 399-422,
Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV,
R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code
of 1991], and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition
before filing a complaint in court or any government offices,
except in the following disputes:
[1] Where one party is the government, or any subdivision
or instrumentality thereof;
[2] Where one party is a public officer or employee and
the dispute relates to the performance of his official
functions;
[3] Where the dispute involves real properties located in
different cities and municipalities, unless the parties thereto
agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an
appropriate Lupon;
[4] Any complaint by or against corporations,
partnerships or juridical entities, since only individuals shall
be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as
complainants or respondents [Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules];
[5] Disputes involving parties who actually reside in
barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where
such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties
thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable
settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
[6] Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum
penalty of imprisonment exceeding one [1] year or a fine of
over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
[7] Offenses where there is no private offended party;
[8] Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to
prevent injustice from being committed or further
continued, specifically the following:
[a] Criminal cases where accused is under police
custody or detention [See Sec. 412 (b) (1), Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law];
[b] Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally
deprived of his rightful custody over another or a person
illegally deprived of or on acting in his behalf;
[c] Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as
preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal
property and support during the pendency of the action;
[d] Actions which may be barred by the Statute of
Limitations.
[9] Any class of disputes which the President may
determine in the interest of justice or upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
[10] Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) [Secs. 46 & 47, R. A. 6657];
[11] Labor disputes or controversies arising from
employer-employee relations [Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171
SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants
original and exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and
mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain
offices of the Department of Labor and Employment];
[12] Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which
may be filed directly in court [See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158
SCRA 459].
II. Under the provisions of R. A. 7160 on Katarungang

Pambarangay conciliation, as implemented by the
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules and Regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of Justice, the certification for
filing a complaint in court or any government office shall be
issued by Barangay authorities only upon compliance with
the following requirements:
[1] Issued by the Lupon Secretary and attested by the
Lupon Chairman (Punong Barangay), certifying that a
confrontation of the parties has taken place and that a
conciliation settlement has been reached, but the same has
been subsequently repudiated (Sec. 412, Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec. 2[h], Rule III,
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
[2] Issued by the Pangkat Secretary and attested by the
Pangkat Chairman certifying that:
[a] a confrontation of the parties took place but no
conciliation/settlement has been reached (Sec. 4[f], Rule III,
Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); or
[b] that no personal confrontation took place before the
Pangkat through no fault of the complainant (Sec. 4[f], Rule
III, Katarungang pambarangay Rules).
[3] Issued by the Punong Barangay as requested by the
proper party on the ground of failure of settlement where
the dispute involves members of the same indigenous
cultural community, which shall be settled in accordance
with the customs and traditions of that particular cultural
community, or where one or more of the parties to the
aforesaid dispute belong to the minority and the parties
mutually agreed to submit their dispute to the indigenous
system of amicable settlement, and there has been no
settlement as certified by the datu or tribal leader or elder to
the Punong Barangay of place of settlement (Secs. 1,4 & 5,
Rule IX, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); and
[4] If mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong
Barangay proved unsuccessful, there having been no
agreement to arbitrate (Sec. 410 [b], Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law; Sec. 1, c. (1), Rule III, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules), or where the respondent fails to
appear at the mediation proceeding before the Punong
Barangay (3rd par. Sec. 8, a, Rule VI, Katarungang
Pambarangay Rules), the Punong Barangay shall not cause
the issuance at this stage of a certification to file action,
because it is now mandatory for him to constitute the
Pangkat before whom mediation, conciliation, or arbitration
proceedings shall be held.
III. All complaints and/or informations filed or raffled to
your sala/branch of the Regional Trial Court shall be
carefully read and scrutinized to determine if there has been
compliance with prior Barangay conciliation procedure
under the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations as a pre-condition to
judicial action, particularly whether the certification to file
action attached to the records of the case comply with the
requirements hereinabove enumerated in Par. II;
IV. A case filed in court without compliance with prior
Barangay conciliation which is a pre-condition for formal
adjudication (Sec. 412 [a] of the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law) may be dismissed upon motion of
defendant/s, not for lack of jurisdiction of the court but for
failure to state a cause of action or prematurity (Royales vs.
IAC, 127 SCRA 470; Gonzales vs. CA, 151 SCRA 289), or the
court may suspend proceedings upon petition of any party

under Sec. 1, Rule 21 of the Rules of Court; and refer the case
motu proprio to the appropriate Barangay authority applying
by analogy Sec. 408 [g], 2nd par., of the Revised Katarungang
Pambarangay Law which reads as follows:
"The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within
the authority of the Lupon under this Code are filed may, at
any time before trial, motu proprio refer case to the Lupon
concerned for amicable settlement.
Strict observance of these guidelines is enjoined.
APPENDIX D: MOTION TO DISMISS

(RULE 16)
General types of motion to dismiss
Motion to dismiss before answer (Rule 16)
Motion to dismiss by plaintiff (Rule 17)
Motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence
after plaintiff has rested his case (Rule 33)
Motion to dismiss appeal
Grounds for a motion to dismiss ( 1)

a. No jurisdiction over the person of the
defending party
b. No jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the
claim
c. Venue is improperly laid
Venue of an action depends on:
o Nature of the action
o Residence of the parties
o Stipulation of the parties
o Law
Test to determine nature of action: the
allegations of the complaint, the character of the
relief, its purpose and prime objective. When
the prime objective is to recover real property,
it is a real action.
d. Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue
e. Another action pending between the same
parties for the same cause
Litis pendentia is a sanction of public policy
against multiplicity of suits.
Requisites:
1. Identity of parties
2. Identity of rights
3. The identity should be such that any
judgment which may be rendered on the
other action will, regardless of which party
is successful, amount to res judicata in the
action under consideration.
f. Cause of action barred by a prior judgment or
by the statute of limitations
Res judicata
Requisites:
1. The former judgment or order must be final
2. It must be a judgment or order on the
merits
3. The court that rendered it had jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties
4. There must be, between the first and
second actions, identity of parties, subject

matter and cause of action.
Two aspects of res judicata:
1. Bar by former judgment: when, between
the first case where the judgment was
rendered, and the second case where the
judgment is invoked, there is identity of
parties, subject matter and cause of action.
2. Conclusiveness of judgment: when there
is identity of parties but not cause of action,
the judgment being conclusive in the
second case only as to matters actually and
directly controverted and determined, and
not as to matters invoked thereon.
g. Statute of limitations
Under the Civil Code:
o 30 years: real actions over immovables
o 10 years: written contract, obligation
arising out of law, judgment, mortgage
action
o 8 years: action for recovery of movables
o 6 years: oral contract, quasi-contract
o 5 years: all other actions whose periods are
not fixed in the Civil Code or in other laws
o 4 years: injury to the rights of the plaintiff,
quasi-delict
o 1 year: forcible entry and detainer,
defamation
o imprescriptible: demand for a right of way,
action for abatement of public or private
nuisance
h. Pleading asserting the claim states no cause of
action
The insufficiency of the cause of action must
appear on the face of the complaint.
i. Claim or demand set forth in plaintiffs
pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned or
otherwise extinguished
j. Claim on which the action is founded is
unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds
k. A condition precedent for filing the claim has
not been complied with
When a condition precedent has not been
complied with, the cause of action has not
accrued.
Examples:
o The case is between or among members of
the same family and there is no allegation
that earnest efforts towards a compromise
has been exerted.
o The claim is referable to the Katarungang
Pambarangay and prior recourse to

barangay conciliation has not been made.
o The case involves a matter which the law
requires that there be exhaustion of
administrative remedies before a litigant is
allowed to resort to court for reliefs.
When a court can dismiss a complaint motu
proprio (Rule 9 1)
1. The court has no jurisdiction over the subjectmatter
2. There is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause
3. Barred by prior judgment
4. Cause of action has prescribed
SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, writs of habeas corpus, amparo, habeas data, kalikasan
Actions affecting ambassadors and

other public ministers and consuls
(Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (1), 1987
Constitution)
Review, revise affirm, modify on

certiorari decisions of the lower
courts involving: 1. All cases in which
the constitutionality/validity of any
treaty, international/executive
agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance or regulation is in
question; 2. All cases involving the
legality of any tax, impost,
assessment or toll, or any related
penalty imposed; 3. All cases in which
the jurisdiction of the lower court is
in issue; 4. All cases in which only an
error or question of law is involved.
(Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (2), 1987
Constitution)
Decisions, orders or rulings of the

Constitutional Commissions, on
certiorari, unless otherwise provided
by the Constitution or by law (Art. IX,
Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution)
All contests relating to the election,

returns and qualifications of the
President and Vice President (Art.
VIII, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution)
Issuance of auxiliary writs and process

whether or not in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction (Sec. 9 (1), BP Blg.
129)
Exclusive jurisdiction over annulment of

Regional Trial Court decisions [Rule 47]
(Sec. 9 (2), BP Blg. 129)
Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over

decisions of the RTC and quasi-judicial
agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commissions, including the SEC, SSC, ECC,
CSC (concurrent with SC); Except those
falling within a.) the SC's appellate
jurisdiction, in accordance with the
constitution, b.) the Labor Code (that is,
until St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC,
1998), c.) provisions of BP 129, d.) Judiciary
Act of 1948 Sec. 17, par. 3 (1) and par. 4 (4)
(Sec. 9 (3), BP Blg. 129)
Review, in an appropriate proceeding

filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of
the fatual bases of the proclamation
of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or the extension thereof (Art.
VII, Sec. 18, 1987 Constitution)
*Amounts increased by virtue of the automatic escalation clause in RA 7691
Actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers

and consuls (Sec. 21 (2), BP Blg. 129)
Original jurisdiction over petitions for injunction (Sec. 21
(1), BP Blg. 129)
All cases where the subject of the litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation (Sec. 19 (1), BP Blg. 129)
All actions involving title to, or possession of, real
property the assessed value of which is P20,000
(P50,000 in Metro Manila) (Sec. 19 (2), BP Blg. 129)
All cases under maritime or admiralty jurisdiction where
the demand or claim exceeds P300,000 (P400,000 in
Metro Manila)* (Sec. 19 (3), BP Blg. 129)
MTC/MeTC/MCTC
Special jurisdiction to hear petitions for writ of habeas corpus in
the absence of RTC judges (Sec. 35, BP Blg. 129)
Original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings
(testate and intestate), where the value of the personal property,
estate or amount of demand does not exceed P300,000
(P400,000 in Metro Manila), exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs (Sec.
31 (1), BP Blg. 129)
Civil actions which involve title to or possession of real property,

or any interest therein where the assessed value does not exceed
P20,000 (P50,000 in Metro Manila) exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses
and costs (Sec. 31 (3), BP Blg. 129)
All matters of probate, testate and intestate, where the

gross value of the estate exceeds P300,000 (P400,000 in
Metro Manila)* (Sec. 19 (4), BP Blg. 129)
Delegated jurisdiction in cadastral or land registration cases

where: 1) there is no controversy or opposition, or 2) the value
of the contested lots does not exceed P100,000 (Secs. 34-35, BP
129)
Marriage contract and marital relations (Sec. 19 (5), BP

Blg. 129)
Probate proceedings where gross value of estate doesn't exceed

P300,000 (P400,000 in Metro Manila)
All cases not under the exclusive jurisdiction of any other

court, tribunal, agency or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions (Sec. 19 (6), BP Blg. 129)
Admiralty and maritime cases where the demand/claim does not

exceed P300,000 (P400,000 in Metro Manila)
In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within

the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of Agrarian
Relations as now provided by law (Sec. 19 (7), BP Blg.
129)
All other cases where the demands (exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, costs) or value of property exceeds P300,000
(P400,000 in Metro Manila)* (Sec. 19 (8), BP Blg. 129)
Appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by lower
courts in their territorial jurisdiction (Sec. 22 (1), BP Blg.
129)
Special jurisdiction to try exclusively the ff. special cases
(as may be designated by the SC): criminal cases, juvenile
and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land
reform cases (Sec. 23, BP Blg. 129)
Application for issuance of writ of search and seizure in

civil actions for infringement of intellectual property
rights (AM 02-1-06-SC)
Issuance of provisional remedies in cases within their

jurisdiction, including writs of preliminary attachment and
preliminary injunction
Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the
defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and
the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding
the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved
only to determine the issue of possession. (Sec. 33 (2), BP Blg.
129) ~ All cases of forcible entry or unlawful detainer,
irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought
to be recovered (Rule on Summary Procedure)
All civil cases where the total amount of the plaintiff's claim does
not exceed P10,000 (exclusive of interests and costs) except for
probate proceedings (Summary Procedure)
Where the claim which does not exceed P100,000 is either: a)
purely civil in nature and for payment of a sum of money or
reimbursement; or b) the civil aspect of a criminal action under
Rule 111 (Rule on Small Claims Cases); The claims may be for
money owed under any of the ff.: contract of lease, loan, services,
sale or mortgage; damages from fault or negligence, quasicontract or contract; or the enforcement of a barangay amicable
settlement or arbitration award. (Rules of Procedure on Small
Claims)

c2015 Civpro Midterms Reviewer (Provisional)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

c2015 Civpro Midterms Reviewer (Provisional)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

civil procedure midterms reviewer c2015 1

D. Class suit ( 12) ...........................................................29

II. Jurisdiction ........................................................................... 9

4. Death or separation of a party who is a public

A. General Concepts .......................................................... 9

G. Alternative and unknown defendants ...............32

1. Jurisdiction in general ............................................ 9

H. Indigent party ( 21) .................................................32

2. Payment of Filing Fees .........................................10

I. Solicitor General ( 22) ..............................................33

J. New/additional parties .............................................33

B. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

1. Supreme Court .........................................................12

2. Intervention (Rule 19) .........................................34

5. Specialized Courts ..................................................19

C. Other tribunals and agencies .................................20

1. By whom issued (1, 5) .....................................41

1. Securities and Exchange Commission ...........20

2. By whom made ( 3) .............................................41

2. National Labor Relations Commission ..........21

3. Modes of Service .....................................................41

3. Insurance Commission .........................................21

4. Proof of Service; Alias Summons .....................48

4. Energy Regulatory Commission .......................21

5. Return of service (4-5) ....................................48

D. Katarungang Pambarangay ....................................22

C. Voluntary appearance ( 20) ................................48

III. Parties (Rule 3) ...............................................................24

A. Capacity to sue and be sued ...................................24

1. Who may be parties ( 1) ....................................24

2. What if plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue?

3. Who is a plaintiff? ...................................................25

4. Who is a defendant? ..............................................25

5. Suits by or against foreign corporations ......25

D. Counterclaim and cross-claim...............................53

5. Suits by or against the State ...............................26

6. Spouses as parties ..................................................26

F. Formal requirements of pleadings ......................55

B. Real parties-in-interest ............................................26

G. Detail in pleading ........................................................57

1. Determining the real party-in-interest .........27

H. Amended and supplemental pleadings .............60

3. Necessary parties ...................................................28

2. Amendments as a matter of right ....................60

C. Representative parties ( 3)..................................29

3. Amendments by leave of court .........................61

2. Splitting & joinder of causes of action ...........51

civil procedure midterms reviewer c2015 2

4. Amendments to conform to or authorize

civil procedure midterms reviewer c2015 3

What rules can the Supreme Court promulgate?

The Judiciary Law and the Code of Civil Procedure

Substantive law vs Remedial law

Creates, defines and

Makes vested rights

Cannot be enacted by the

civil procedure midterms reviewer c2015 4

BUSTOS v LUCERO (1948)

for justly administering remedy and redress for a

The Rules of Court have force and effect of law.

Action: the legal and formal demand of ones

civil procedure midterms reviewer c2015 5

Sec.4. In what case not applicable. These Rules shall