CIVIL PROCEDURE

Course Outline
1. Introduction
1.1. Batas Pambansa 129 as amended
1.2. Courts and their jurisdiction
La Naval Drug Corp v CA 236 S 78

Atwel v Concepcion Progressive Asso Inc GR 169370 April 14, 2008

Figueroa v People GR 147406 July 14, 2008

1.3. How jurisdiction is obtained and exercised:

over persons
over subject matter
over res
1.4. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction
Samar II Electric Cooperative Inc v Seludo Jr 671 S 78

2. General Provisions for Ordinary Civil Actions

2.1. Must be based on a cause of action
What is cause of action

Belle Corporation v De Leon-Banks 681 S 351

No splitting of cause of action

Read: City of Bacolod v San Miguel, 29 S 819

Jalandoni v Martir-Guanzon, 102 P 859

Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action

Test of single cause of action

Read: Joseph v Bautista, 170 S 540

2.2. Parties to civil actions

 Who are parties in interest

Competency of parties
Indispensable and necessary parties
o PNB v Heirs of Estanislao Militar etal 467 S 377
o Republic vs Marcos-Manotoc 665 S 367
Joinder and misjoinder of parties
Death of party
consequence of death of party
o Sarsaba vs Vda dela Torre 594 SCRA 410
o Gonzales vs Pagcor 429 SCRA 533, 540
what counsel should do on death of party
2.3. Venue of actions
Real and personal actions

Read: United Overseas Bank Phils. V Rosemoore Mining & Development

Corp. 518 S 123 (2007)

Actions against non-residents

Agreement on venue
2.4. Commencement of actions
How and when deemed commenced

Read: Magaspi v Ramolete, 115 S 193

Manchester Dev Corp v CA, 149 S 562

Sun Insurance v Asuncion, 170 S 274

Heirs of the late Ruben Reinoso Jr versus CA, GR No.

116121, July 18, 2011
When does court acquire jurisdiction over a case?
Effect of underpayment of docket fees
Rule is payment may be allowed within reasonable time but within
reglementary period
but in several cases, both CA and SC have caused the dismissal of
cases for non-payment of docket fees.

3. Procedure in Regional Trial Courts

3.1. Applicable also to Municipal Trial Courts
2

3.2. Pleadings in general

Kinds of pleadings
Formal requirements of pleadings
Parts of a pleading
Verification when required
Formal, not jurisdictional

Kilusan-Olalia v CA 528 S 45 (2007)

Verification by Counsel

In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v Schwani Inc. 575 S 535

(2008)
Certification against forum-shopping in initiatory pleadings
Definition of Forum Shopping

Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Compnay Inc.

et.al v Valdez GR No. 150107 28Jan2008
Negros Slashers v Teng 666 S 629
Counsel cannot sign certification; exception

Digital Microwave Corp. v CA GR 128550

16Mar2000
Guy v Court of Appeals GR 163707, September
15, 2006
Sy Chin v Court of Appeals GR 136233, November
23, 2000
Co-owner or Co-party may sign in behalf of co-owners or coparties
Cavila v Heirs of Clarita Cavile 400 S 255 (2003)

Distinction between non-compliance of verification and certification

against non-forum shopping requirement
Sari-sari Group of Companies, Inc. v Piglas Kamao
561 S 569 (2008)
Median Container Corp. v Metropolitan Bank &
Trust Co. 561 S 622 (2008)
Substantial requirements of pleadings
Sufficiency of allegations
Ultimate facts only

Remitere v Yulo 16 S 251

Philippine Stock Exchange v Manila Banking

Corp. 559 S 352 (2008)
Tests of sufficiency of complaint:
Can judgment be rendered if admitted?
Always reckon against grounds for dismissal
Is bill of particulars applicable?

Read Philippine Bank of Communications v Trazo

500 S 242 (2006)
Test of sufficiency of responsive pleading
Not susceptible to summary judgment
Does not amount to confession of judgment
MUST tender an issue
Must specifically deny material allegations lest
they be deemed admitted
o Gaza et al vs Lim GR 126863 Jan 16, 2003

Defenses and objections MUST be pleaded either

in motion to dismiss or answer, else waived
Alternative causes of action or defenses may be pleaded even
if inconsistent with each other
Purpose of rule is to allow for complete
adjudication of any controversy

Counterclaims
Rule on permissive and compulsory counterclaims
Test to determine nature of counterclaim

Read: Namarco v Federation of United Namarco

Distributors Inc., 49 S 238
Bungcayao Sr v Fort Ilocandia 618 S 381

Calibre Traders Inc v Bayer Philippines 633 S 34

Judicial Affidavit Rule A.M. 12-8-8-SC

-what will be filed
-judicial affidavits of witnesses
-documentary or object evidence, attached to the affidavit
-when to file
-not later than 5 days before trial or hearing of motion

-what should be contained

-matters to be testified on
-questions and answers
-attestation
-grounds for objection
-disqualify the witness
-admissibility grounds
-where applicable
-all actions, proceedings, incidents requiring presentation of
evidence before all courts except SC
-civil cases
-criminal cases
-penalty not more than 6 years
-where accused agrees, regardless of penalty
3.3. Effect of failure to plead
Order of default
by motion only, court cannot motu proprio declare party in default
Consequences of order of default
judgment by default, extent thereof limited by relief prayed for
need for presentation of evidence
Rationale for order of default
3.4. Amended/Supplemental Pleadings
Amendment a matter of right before responsive pleading filed
No limitation on extent of amendment, even changing cause of action
set out in original pleading
Right to amend not affected by motion to dismiss or motion for
summary judgment or even motion for judgment on the pleadings
which are not considered responsive pleading
Rule when some but not all defendants filed responsive pleading
When issues joined, substantial amendments discretionary and subject to
therule that the cause of action is not substantially changed or the theory
altered
Planters Development Bank v LZK Holdings & Development
Co. 456 S 366
Young v Sy 503 S 151 (2006)

PPA v WG&A GR 158401 January 28, 2008

Amendment of the pleadings to conform to evidence presented during trial is

allowed:
when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the consent of
the parties
when, even if objected to, the court is satisfied no prejudice will
befall the objecting party
Supplemental pleadings not a matter of right

Leobrera v CA 170 S 711 (1989)

Quirao v Quirao GR 148120, October 24, 2003

Effect of amended pleadings

supersedes original pleading
as a consequence, judicial admissions made in original pleadings need
to be offered in evidence.
Read Director of Lands v CA, 196 S 94

Dionisio v Linsangan GR 178159 March 2, 2011

3.5. Responsive pleadings

What is responsive pleading
Answer Judicial admissions binding on party

Read Santos v Lumbao 519 S 408 (2007)

Answer Judicial admissions NOT binding on party

Read Gardner v CA 131 S 585

When to file?
o San Pedro Cineplex v Heirs of Enano GR 190754 November
17, 2010
Bill of particulars, motion to dismiss interrupt period to file responsive
pleading
Compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim should be set up in responsive
pleading. However, it may be set up anytime thereafter (but before
judgment) if omitted through oversight, inadvertence or excusable
negligence
Remedies of party declared in default
o Otero v Tan 678 S 583
3.6. Filing and service of pleadings and judicial papers

 Service on counsel is mandatory unless otherwise ordered by court

Improper service is ineffectual and does not bind party

Read: Cabili v Badelles, 6 S 190

Service of pleadings and court papers (other than judgments, final orders and
resolutions) may be done by substituted service if personal service and
service by mail not successful
Service of judgments, final orders and resolutions must be personal or by
registered mail only (or by publication where summons is served by
publication)
Service must be on counsel as service on party not permitted
Where final order or judgment not served on party or lawyer, said
judgment cannot become final or executory.
3.7. Summons
Rules on service is strictly construed, hence:
For actions in personam
against residents, service must be personal first then
substituted if unsuccessful or publication if whereabouts
unknown or temporarily outside the country
against non-residents, only personal service within the state
can confer jurisdiction over the defendant
For actions in rem or quasi in rem
against residents, same as above
against non-residents, personal service outside the country,
with leave of court, or publication with leave of court
For actions against domestic juridical persons, service only on those
enumerated in the statute is allowed
For actions against foreign juridical entity, service must be on
resident agent, government regulator, or any of officers, agents
within the country

Venturanza v CA 156 S 305

Samartino v Raon 383 S 664

Valmonte v CA 252 S 92

Asiavest v CA 296 S 539

Philam Gen vs Breva 442 S 217

BPI v Santiago 519 S 389

San Pedro v Willy Ong and Normita Caballes GR 177598

October 17, 2008
Santos v PNOC Exploration GR 170943 September 23, 2008

Kawasaki Port Services vs Amores GR 58340 July 16, 1991

Sansio Phils v Mogol GR 177007, July 14, 2009

Guiguinto Credit v Torres GR 170926, September 15, 2006

Potenciano v Barnes GR 159421, August 20, 2008

3.8. Dismissal of action (Rule 16)

Grounds
lack of jurisdiction over person

Read Amigo v CA, 253 S 382

lack of jurisdiction over subject matter

Read La Naval v CA, 236 S 78

Ilocos Sur Electric v NLRC 241 S 36

Andaya v Abadia 228 S 705

Republic v Bantigue Point Development Corp 668 S

158

pendentia litis

Read Andersons Group v CA. 266 S 423

Ramos v Peralta, 203 S 412

Yap v Chua 672 S 411

res judicata

Read Vda de Cruzo v Cariaga, 174 S 330

Hacienda Bigaa Inc v Chavez 618 S 559

no cause of action

Read San Lorenzo v CA, 288 S 115

Calalang v IAC, 194 S 514

Perpetual v Fajardo, 233 S 720

City of Cebu v CA, 258 S 175

Remedy in case of granting/denial of motion to dismiss

Order denying motion to dismiss is interlocutory, hence proper
remedy is to appeal after a decision has been rendered
Read: Indiana Aerospace University v Commission On
Higher Education, 356 S 367
8

Bangko Silangan v CA, 360 S 322

Yutingco v CA, 386 S 85

Order granting motion to dismiss disposes of the case hence, appeal

under Rule 41 is applicable.
3.9. Dismissal of Action (Rule 17)
Pinga v Heirs of Santiago GR 170354 June 30, 2006
Filinvest v CA GR 142439 December 6, 2006
Heirs of Gaudiane v CA GR 119879 March 11, 2004
Cruz v CA GR 164797 February 13, 2006
Dael v Sps Beltran GR 156470 April 30, 2008
Mendoza v Paule GR 175885 February 31, 2009
Benedicto v Lacson GR 142508 May 5, 2010
3.10. Pre-trial
Definition

Anson Trade Center v Pacific Banking, GR No. 179999 17 Mar 2009

Interlining Corp. v Philippine Trust Co. 428 S 583 (2002)

Setting for Pre-Trial

Espiritu v Lazaro, GR. No.181020 20 Nov 2009

Polanco v Cruz, GR. No. 182426 13 Feb 2009

A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC

Failure to have Pre-trial

Madrid v Spouses Mapoy, GR. 150887 14 Aug 2009

Failure of defendant to appear

Will result in plaintiff presenting his evidence ex parte and for the
court to render judgment thereon.
This is dissimilar to default from failure to plead where the sanction is
for the court to render judgment based on the complaint
Summary judgment or judgment on pleadings possible if facts are
discovered in pre-trial to warrant such action
Effect of Pre-trial Order

3.11.

General Rule: Binding on all parties, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC

Exception: Read Heirs of Reyes v CA, 519 S 250 (2007)

Intervention (Rule 19)

9

Nordic Asia v CA 403 S 390

Salandanan v Sps Mendoza GR 160280 (2009)
Mactan Cebu Intl Airpot v Heirs of Minoza GR 186045 February 2,
2011
GSIS v Nocom GR 175989 February 4, 2008
Ombudsman v Maximo Sison GR 185954 February 16, 2010
3.12.

Discovery
Compulsory process wherein litigants are forced, by court rules or orders,
to disgorge private information to adverse party
Purpose of discovery is to obtain knowledge of material facts within the
knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties; obtain admissions from
adverse parties and to inspect relevant documents, objects and property.
What are discoverable?
Limitations on discoverability
Modes of discovery
Deposition
function
when may be availed of
Pajarilla v CA 570 S 347 (2008)
de bene esse (pending action)
perpetuam rei memoriam (prior to action)
who do you depose
Interrogatories to parties
effect of failure to serve written interrogatories
Requests for admission

Sime Darby Employees Association v NLRC 510 S 204

Production and inspection of things

Examination of persons

Republic v Sandiganbayan, 204 S 212

Dasmarinas Garments v Reyes 225 S 622

Ayala Land vs Tagle 466 S 521

Hyatt Industrial v Ley Construction GR 147143 Mar 10, 2006

Sime Darby v CA 510 S 204

Security Bank v CA 323 S 330

10

Solidbank v Gateway GR 164805 April 30, 2008

Rosete v Lim GR 136051 June 8, 2006

Jowel Sales v Sabin GR 133154 December 9, 2005

Sanctions for refusal to make discovery (Rule 29)

3.13.

Trial
Order of trial
Reverse trial when complaint is admitted

Read Yu v Magpayo 44 S 163

Reverse trial also in criminal cases

When trial dispensed with; Absence of Party
o Republic v Vda de Neri GR 139588 March 4, 2008
o Sps Calo v Sps Tan GR 151266 November 29, 2005
3.14.

Consolidation
Test is common questions of fact or of law

Active v CA, 181 S 774

Superlines v Victor, 124 S 939

Steel Corporation of the Philippines v Equitable PCI Bank 635 S

403
Deutsche Bank AG vs Court of Appeals 667 S 82

Producers Bank of the Philippines v Excelsa Industries 669 S 470

Teston v DBP GR 144374 November 11, 2005

Gregorio Espinoza v UOB GR 175380 March 22, 2010

consolidation of civil and criminal cases

consolidation of cases on appeal
3.15.

Demurrer to Evidence
Concept of demurrer
Effect of denial or grant of demurrer to evidence

Nepomuceno v Comelec, 126 S 472

Radiowealth v Sps Del Rosario GR 138739 July 6, 2000

Casent Realty v Phil Banking GR 150731 September 14, 2007

11

3.16.

Judgment on the pleadings

Generally applicable when there is no tender of issue
Denial in answer may not amount to tender of issue

3.17.

Manufacturers v Diversified, 173 S 357

Pacific Rehouse Corporation v EIB Securities 633 S 214

Reilo v San Jose GR 166393 June 18, 2009

Sps Song v Roban Lending GR 172592 July 9, 2008

Doris Sunbanum v Aurora Go GR 163280 February 2, 2010

Summary Judgments
Distinguished from judgment on the pleadings

Vergara v Suelto 156 S 753

Diman v Alumbres, 299 S 459

Nocom v Camerino GR 182984 February 10, 2009

Evangelista v Mercator Finance 409 S 410

Monterey Foods Corp v Eserjose 410 S 627

How motion for summary judgment is considered

Hearing on motion is only for determining whether issues are genuine
or not, not to receive evidence on the issues set up in the pleadings
motion is proven through affidavits, depositions and admissions
submitted by movant
Propriety of summary judgment

Natalia v Vallez, 173 S 536

Grand Farms v CA, 193 S 748

Monterey Foods Corp v Eserjose 410 S 627

Evangelista v Mercator Finance 409 S 410

Movant may be either party

3.18.

Judgments
Requirements
written and signed by judge
must contain findings of facts and law applied
must contain a dispositive portion
filed with the clerk of court
rendition reckoned from filing with clerk

12

 must be served on parties

may be amended before finality upon motion or motu proprio
entry upon finality
entry determines prescriptive periods
final judgment not subject to amendment
separability of judgments
Velarde v SJS GR 159357 April 28, 2004
Miranda v CA 71 S 295
Republic v Nolasco 457 S 400
Briones-Vasquez v CA GR 144882 february 4, 2005
Navarro v Metropolitan Bank GR 165697/166484 August 4, 2009
3.19.

Remedies from judgments (same court, same case)

New Trial or Reconsideration
FAMEN
Fraud as a ground must be extrinsic, not intrinsic. It is intrinsic
when done by a party during trial (use of forged documents
etc), extrinsic when employed outside the court (concealing a
witness or colluding with a party)
accident and mistake as ground must be based on wellengendered belief ordinary prudence could not guard against
excusable negligence as ground will depend on circumstance
Newly discovered evidence
must be material and not discoverable during trial

Banco Filipino v Campos 63 S 180

Bernaldez v Francia 398 S 488

Capuz v CA 233 S 471

Libudan v Gil 45 S 17

Delos Santos v Elizalde GR 141810, 141812, February 2,

2007
Motion for reconsideration
NT distinguished from reconsideration
grounds
results when granted
remedy when denied (appeal from the judgment)
13

 Relief from judgment

not available for lost remedy

Tuazon v CA, 256 S 158

Sps Que v CA GR 1507397 August 18, 2005

Monzon v Sps Relova GR 171827 September 17, 2008

available only versus final judgment

distinguished from NT or reconsideration
grounds
when/how invoked
result when granted
remedy when denied (no more appeal)
Annulment of Judgment (not same court, not same case)
Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v Court of Appeals 681 S
580
Sps Arenas v Quezon City Development Bank GR 166819
June 16, 2010

3.20.

Execution of judgments
Only a final judgment that disposes of the action is subject to execution
Final judgment versus final and executory judgment

Investment v CA 147 S 334

Test of a final judgment: Does it leave something for the court to do with
respect to the merits of the case?
Execution a matter of right when judgment final and executory, but only
upon motion
judgment becomes final by operation of law, i.e., when no appeal has
been taken within the period provided by law
enforcement of judgment (execution) is ministerial and mandatory once it
becomes final, subject to certain exceptions
execution before finality of judgment, only upon good reasons

BF Corp v Edsa Shangrila, 294 S 109

discretionary executions, when stayed

City of Manila v CA, 72 S 98

Valencia v CA, 184 S 561

14

 execution before or after death of judgment obligor will depend on the

nature of the judgment, i.e. recovery of property v money judgments
Session Delights Ice Cream v CA GR 172149, February 8,
2010
Cayana v CA GR 125607, March 18, 2004

Stronghold v Felix GR 148090, November 28, 2006

Yau v Silverio GR 158848, February 4, 2008

Jerome Solco v Provido GR 138978, February 11, 2008

Hi Yield Realty v CA GR 138978, February 12, 2002

Honrado v CA GR 166333, November 25, 2005

Repubic v Antonio GR 166866, March 27, 2008

Corpuz v Sto tomas and OSG GR 186571, August 11, 2010

Republic v Gingoyon GR 166429, February 1, 2006

4. APPEALS
4.1. Nature of appeal as a remedy
guard against judgments of unskilled and unfair judges
prevention as much as correction of mistakes
not a right but a mere privilege, thus may be lost
Dacuital v LM Engineering Corporation 629 S 702
4.2. Who may appeal

4.3. What are appealable

what are final judgments
when does a judgment or order become final
final judgments vs judgments that are final and executory
what are not appealable and why are they not?
test of final nature is when it completely disposes of the case
Exception Sec 1, Rule 41 (a-g) in which cases remedy is by Rule 65
D.M. Ferrer & Associates v UST GR 189496 February 1, 2012

15

4.4. Modes of appeal

ordinary appeal (by mere notice of appeal with court rendering judgment)
MTC to RTC
RTC to CA
no extension of period to file notice of appeal
interrupted by motion for NT or recon
if NT or recon denied, fresh period to appeal
Neypes vs CA GR 141524 Sept 14, 2005
payment of docket fees must accompany notice of appeal
petition for review (by filing petition with CA under rule 42)
second level of review
review of judgment in exercise of appellate jurisdiction
RTC (appellate jurisdiction) to CA
not a matter of right; discretionary on part of CA

Ong v Tating. 149 SCRA 265

appeal by certiorari (filing petition with SC)

appeal to the SC
from RTC on questions of law only (Rule 41)

UMC v Velasco 98 S 545

may be remanded to CA if involving questionof

fact (rule 56, sec 6), not dismissed
from final order or resolution of CA or SB (rule 45) but
only on questions of law
appeal to SC not a matter of right (Rule 45, sec 6)

Cheesman v IAC, 193 S 93

Sumbingco v CA, 155 S 24

What is a question of law?

See Macawiwili and Land Bank cases below

petition for review on certiorari vs petition for certiorari

New York Marine v CA, 249 S 416

Ybanez v CA, 253 S 540

Rule on appeals summarized
Macawiwili Gold Mining and Devt Co v CA 297 S 602
Land Bank of the Philippines v Ramos 685 S 540
4.5. When does court lose jurisdiction relative to filing of notice of appeal
16

 May notice of appeal be contested? Dismissed by court?

duty of court when notice of appeal filed
dilatory appeals
4.6. Improper appeals
to CA from RTC on questions of law
to SC via notice of appeal
to CA on notice of appeal from RTC decision rendered in appellate
jurisdiction
the above modes will merit dismissal; no transfer to correct court will be
allowed
(Exception is when appeal to SC on questions of law and fact in which
case, the case will be remanded to CA)

5. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
5.1. Preliminary Attachment
Kinds of attachment
preliminary
garnishment
levy on execution
At what stage is preliminary attachment granted?
grounds for attachment exclusive
may be granted ex parte

Onate v Abrogar, 241 S 659

Davao Light & Water v CA, 204 S 343

Sievert v CA, 168 S 692

Carlos v Sandoval 471 S 266

Spouses Yu v Ngo Yee Te GR 155868

5.2. Preliminary Injunction

preceded by a 72-hour TRO, 20-day TRO (RTC) or a 60-day TRO (CA)
within TRO, hearing must be conducted
may be granted at any stage of the proceeding
requirements for issuance

17

 coordinate body may not be enjoined

may be a provisional remedy and the principal remedy itself
Bacolod City Water District v Labayen 446 S 110
China Banking Corp v Co GR 174569
Estares v CA GR 144755
Buyco v Baraquia GR 177486 (December 21, 2009)
Heirs of the late JBL Reyes v CA 338 S 282
Brocka v Enrile 192 S 182
Medina v Greenfield Development GR 140228
5.3. Receivership
When is receiver appointed?
object is preservation of property subject matter of litigation
powers of a receiver
National Investment and Development Corp v Judge Aquino 163 S 153
Traders Royal Bank v IAC 273 S 521
5.4. Replevin
nature of a replevin suit
question involved is one of possession but ownership may be resolved if
raised
plaintiff (claim) and defendant (counterclaim) can petition for replevin
Yang v Valdez 177 S 141
Adoma v Gatcheco 448 S 299
Paat v CA 266 S 167
Citibank v CA 304 S 679
Smart Communications v Regina Astorga GR 148132 January 28, 2008
5.5. Support pendete lite
concept of support is that the applicant is entitled to it by reason of some
relationship (say, marital or filial) with the adverse party
judgment of support is never final, it can be amended at any time as long
as the obligation to support subsists
Arts 194, 195, 201, 202 of Family Code

18

Reyes v Ines-Luciano GR 48219

Lam v Chua GR 131286

19