Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings: Rule 8

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 8 - Manner of
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors > Making
Allegations in Pleadings
Rule 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
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.
In so far as pleadings are concerned, it must only state the ultimate facts where you relied your
defense or complaint. You must omit the statement of mere evidentiary facts. The basic question here
is, what do you mean by ultimate facts? What are evidentiary facts? Distinguish ultimate facts from
evidentiary facts.
ULTIMATE FACTS vs. EVIDENTIARY FACTS
Q: What are ultimate facts?

A: Ultimate facts are those which is are essential to one’s cause of action or defense.
Q: How do you determine whether a fact is essential to your cause of action or defense?
A: The test to determine whether the fact is essential to your cause of action is: if the statement in
the pleading cannot be deleted. Because if you delete it, the statement of your cause of action or defense
become incomplete, a certain element of cause of action disappears then it must be a statement of
ultimate fact. Pagtinanggal mo, wala ka ng cause of action. But if you delete it and there is still a cause
of action, then it is not an ultimate fact.
Q: What are the essential elements of a cause of action?

A: The following:
1.) Statement of the right;
2.) Statement of the obligation;
3.) Statement of the violation; and
4.) Statement of damage.
You analyze a complaint from the first to the last paragraph, you find out whether the four are
present. Now, for example a complaint has 20 paragraphs. Yan bang 20 paragraphs, importante ba
lahat? We will shorten it by analyzing sentence by sentence. I will remove paragraph #2. Are the
elements of the cause of action still present out of the remaining paragraph? If the answer is yes, then,
paragraph #2 is not a statement of ultimate fact. We will remove paragraph #5, the story is still
complete, there is still a cause of action, then, the paragraph or the statement that you removed is not a
statement of ultimate facts. Suppose I will remove paragraph #7, kulang na man, the allegation of the
violation of the right is no longer present, then, the paragraph #7 cannot be deleted, otherwise, if you
delete it the statement or the story or the cause of action disappear. Then, that is an ultimate fact.
So if the statement can be deleted and the cause of action is still complete, then it is not a statement
of ultimate fact. It is only a statement of evidentiary fact.
Q: What are evidentiary facts?

A: Evidentiary facts are the facts which will prove the ultimate facts. They should not be stated in
the pleading. They should be brought out during the trial. They are proper during the trial but they
have no place in your pleading.
In the law on Evidence, ultimate facts are called facturn probandum as distinguished from factum
probans (evidentiary facts).
EXAMPLE: In a land dispute, the question is: Who has been in possession of the land for a long
time? I claim I’m the one. So, I will say, “plaintiff has been in possession of this land continuously for the
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 1

past 30 years.” That is a statement of ultimate fact because that shows your right – your right over
the property – that you cannot be driven out. Thirty years na gud iyan.
Suppose the lawyer wants to impress the court that the statement is true, the pleading describing
continues possession for the past 30 years from 1967 to 1997. And therefore, the lawyer will now
prepare the complaint in this manner:
Plaintiff has been in possession of the said property continuously,

openly for the past 30 years from 1967 to 1997 as may be born out by the
following:
He entered the property in 1967. He cleared the property by cutting the
grass. In 1968, he planted 20 coconut trees. In 1969, he planted 50 coconut
trees. In 1970, he planted mango trees. In 1971, he planted guava. He will
recite everything from 1967 to 1997.
That will really prove that he have been there for the past 30 years because continuous eh, - every
year you are reciting your activities including the taxes that you paid, the receipt, “‘yan o, eto and resibo
ko!” Now, if a lawyer will do that, his complaint will reach 100 pages. Do you know why? Because he
violated Section 1. He did not only state the ultimate facts but he also stated the evidentiary facts. So,
what should be the correct pattern? Complaint:
Plaintiff has been in continuous possession of the property for 30 years

from 1967 up to the present.
That is the ultimate fact. You do not have to recite exactly what you did because that is what I
intend to prove. Now, of course, during the trial, how can I convince the court that I have been in
possession of the property for 30 years? Kailangan you have to convince, di ba? Then, during the trial,
you present the plaintiff and you ask the plaintiff: Mr. Plaintiff, when did you occupy the property? –
“1967” – When you first occupied the property, describe it. – “Ah, bagnot! I have to clean it. So I clean it in
1967.” – In 1968, were you still there? – “Oh yes!” – What did you do in 1968? – “I planted coconut trees.”
– Did you pay taxes in 1968? – “Yes!” – Where’s the receipt? – “Eto o!”
Yaan! From 1967, isa-isahin mo yan. Doon na tayo mag-istorya sa court. The evidentiary facts
should be brought out in court not in the pleadings, otherwise your pleading become kilometric. That
is what is meant by the phrase that you only state the ultimate facts omitting the statement of
evidentiary facts.
Another Example:
Collection case. Sabihin mo: “The defendant borrowed money and then it fell due. I
made demands for him to pay, but despite repeated demands he refused to pay.”
Tama na iyon. You do not have to state in your complaint that “when the account fell due last
November 5, I called him up by telephone. He promised to pay in November 7 and called him again and he
promised to pay tomorrow…” Hindi na kailangang sabihin mo iyan! Those are evidentiary facts. But
during the trial, you can narrate that I have been writing, “eto o, andami kong sulat, I have been calling him
by telephone but he kept on promising.” So, mag-istorya ka na ng detail sa husgado. Those are what you
call evidentiary facts. But in your complaint you do not have to recite all those.
Under Section 1, you state the ultimate facts on which you rely your claim or defense. How do you
state the facts? Section 1 says that statement of ultimate facts must be stated in a methodical and logical
form and you must use plain, concise and direct statements or language. The simpler the language, the
better. A pleading is not a vehicle for you to show your mastery of the English language. The judge
might throw away your complaint for not using simple language.
I was reading an article about the use of plain, concise and direct language. I remember- Do not
use this word, rather use this word. For example, do not use the word ‘conflagration,’ use ‘fire.’ The
latter is simpler.
How do you present the facts? Methodical and logical form. It is a matter of writing style. Every
person has his style of writing. Corollary, every person expects you to write in a methodical or logical
form. We have said earlier that a pleading actually tells a story. Plaintiff tells the court his story.
Defendant tells his story, too. How will the court understand your story? Your presentation must be
methodical and logical.
Writing style is a gift, no? Some people tell their story clearly, others don’t understand. Sasabihin
mo, sabog ka mag-storya. Ang labo mo! It is not methodical and logical. Courts expect lawyers to
present case in a methodical and logical form.
What is the first test whether you style is methodical or logical? The best exercise is your own
answer in examinations. In a problem, you answer and you try to argue why. You try to present your
answer in a clear manner. It must be methodical and logical.
In your examinations, you may wonder why you got a different score with your classmates where
in fact the substance of your answers is the same. Precisely because the presentation of the answer also
matters. Siya 80, ikaw 75. Tingnan mo ang kanyang presentation, mas maganda. To know the answer is
not enough, you must know HOW to answer. Especially in the Bar exams where the corrector is
correcting more than 4,000 notebooks, your notebook must project itself as if your notebook is telling
the corrector: Read me! Read me!! That is the formula to pass law school and the Bar.
PRINCIPLE: Only ultimate facts should be alleged and not the evidentiary facts.
Q: Apart from evidentiary facts, what are the other matters that should not be stated in the
pleading?
A: The following:
1.) Facts which are presumed by law;
2.) Conclusions of fact or law;
3.) Matters which are in the domain of judicial notice need not be alleged.
FACTS WHICH ARE PRESUMED BY LAW
Presumptions under the law need not be alleged in a pleading. When a fact is already presumed by
law, there is no need to make that allegation because your cause of action would still be complete.
Example:
Q: In a case of breach of contract against an operator of the common carrier. Do you think it is
necessary for the plaintiff to allege that the driver acted negligently? Is an allegation that the driver of
the carrier acted with negligence required?
A: NOT required. There must be negligence, otherwise, there would be no cause of action.
However there is no need to allege it in the complaint because under the Civil Code, whenever there is
a breach of contract of carriage, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of carrier. It is not for
the passenger to prove that the common carrier is negligent. It is for the common carrier to prove that
it is not negligent.
HOWEVER, In culpa aquilana, or quasi-delict, where there is no pre-existing contract between the
parties, the liability of the defendant hinges on negligence. There must be allegation of negligence. The
defendant must be alleged to have acted negligently to hold him liable. Otherwise, there is no cause of
action. It becomes an ultimate fact which should be alleged in the pleading.
CONCLUSIONS OF FACT OR LAW
Conclusions of law or conclusions of fact must not be stated in the pleading. A statement of fact is
different from a conclusion of fact or law. For EXAMPLE, where plaintiff said that he is entitled to
moral damages or attorney’s fees. That is not a statement of fact but your conclusion.
Statement of fact is to cite the basis why you are entitled – you must state the reason why you are
entitled. The statement of the ultimate fact as distinguished from conclusion was the old case of
MATHAY vs. CONSOLIDATED BANK

58 SCRA 559
HELD: “A bare allegation that one is entitled to something is an allegation of a

conclusion. Such allegation adds nothing to the pleading, it being necessary to plead
specifically the facts upon which such conclusion is founded.”
You must plead the facts upon which your conclusion is founded. To say that you are entitled to
something is not actually a statement of fact but merely a conclusion of the pleader. It adds nothing to
the pleading.
For EXAMPLE: The complaint alleges that the defendants are holding the plaintiff’s property in
Trust for the plaintiff. Trustee ba – you are holding the properties in trust for me without any
explanation of the facts from which the court could conclude whether there is a trust or not. The SC in
the case of MATHAY said that that statement is merely a conclusion of the plaintiff. You must state the
basis of your statement that they are holding your property in trust.
Frankly speaking, there are numerous complaints which are convincing but upon reading them
thoroughly, you will realize that majority of the statements are not statements of facts but conclusions
of law. Tatanggalin yung conclusion. It is bad complaint when you say that you are entitled to this
without stating your basis.
So statement of law is not allowed although there is an exception under the second paragraph of
Section 1 which says that “if a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their
applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely stated.” At least now you can quote the law. Sometimes a
defendant when he files his answer, his answer is purely based on law. He must cite the legal
provision in his answer and explain WHY is it applicable to him.
ALLEGATION OF ALTERNATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION OR DEFENSES
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.
(2)
Q: May a plaintiff in his complaint state two or more claims alternatively or hypothetically?
A: Yes.
Q: What happens if one cause of action is insufficient? Will it cause the dismissal of the complaint?
A: No, the complaint will remain insofar as the sufficient cause of action is stated. The insufficiency
of one will not affect the entire pleading if the other cause of action is insufficient.
EXAMPLE:
I read a case about passenger who was about to board a bus. Of course when you are a
passenger and you get hurt, that is culpa contractual. If you are not a passenger and you get
hurt due to the negligence of the driver, that is culpa aquiliana. So it depends whether there
is a contract of carriage or none.
In that case, the passenger was about to board a bus. As a matter of fact, the left foot had
already stepped on the bus. The bus suddenly sped up. He fell. He was not able to ride
because umandar man bigla. He was injured. What is the basis against the carrier? Is there a
contract or none? There is! Nandoon na nga ang kaliwang paa, eh. Sabi ng iba, wala pang
contract. Well, may mga kaso talaga na malabo. You don’t really know whether your cause
of action is culpa contractual or culpa aquiliana. You want to claim damages but you are not

sure whether your case is based on culpa contractual or culpa aquiliana. It’s either one of the
two. It sometimes happens.
Now, if I am the lawyer for the plaintiff and I am tortured to make my choice, I may allege 2
possible alternative causes of action. I will draft the complaint in such a way that I will show to the
court that my cause of action is either culpa contractual or culpa aquilana. I will make sure that both
allegations are covered. You cannot be wrong because the law does not require you to make a choice.
Q: You are the defendant. You are confronted with the same problem. There is a complaint against
you and you have 3 possible defenses. Am I obliged to make a choice immediately?
A: NO. The law allows the defendant to cite the 3 possible defenses alternatively. Meaning, each is
my defense or not.
Suppose your defenses are inconsistent, takot ka. There is a lawyer I met na takot maging
inconsistent. I told him to look at Section 2, Rule 8 very well. The law allows defendant to plead his
defenses hypothetically or alternatively. He asked, what if they are inconsistent with each other? I said,
you look at SC decisions. The SC said a party may plead 2 or more causes of action or 2 or more
defenses alternatively. They may be inconsistent with each other but what is important is each defense
is consistent in itself. Meaning, each defense, when taken alone, is a good defense. You look at them
separately. Do not compare them.
For EXAMPLE:
Plaintiff files a case against a defendant to collect an unpaid loan. The basic allegation is
that the defendant obtained a sum of money by way of loan and never paid it. Here is
defendant’s answer:
a.) “That is not true. I never borrowed any money from the plaintiff.” That is a defense
of denial.
b.) “Assuming that I received money from the plaintiff, that money was not a loan but
plaintiff’s birthday gift to me.” In other words, it was a donation.
c.) “Assuming that the money I received from the plaintiff was really a loan. However,
such amount was completely paid.” Defense of payment.
So, I have 3 defenses. How can you reconcile these 3 defenses? They are inconsistent with each
other but it should not be taken against the defendant. What is important is that each defense is
consistent in itself. Look at them separately. That is also called a “SHOTGUN ANSWER”. Sabog ba!
In all directions.
However, during that trial, you have to choose among them which you think is true based on
evidence. The problem is that you choose one but it turned out that a different defense would be
correct. Hindi mo na magamit. There is a prejudice because during the trial, I will choose among them
with the evidence I have. Anyway, pleading man lang yon. I can abandon the others. And that is even
better because you might confuse the plaintiff of what really is your defense. Thus, a lawyer should not
be afraid to hypothetically or alternatively plead defenses which are inconsistent with each other.
That is perfectly allowed as it is alternative and during trial the pleader may show the best one
rather than not stating it in the pleading and during the trial you waive the best defense because
according to the next rule, Rule 9, defenses or objections not pleaded in the answer are deemed waived.
Take note that you have to correlate this topic on the related provisions we have already taken up:
For EXAMPLE:
1.) Rule 2, Section 5 – where a party may, in one pleading state in the alternative or otherwise, as
many causes of action;
2.) Rule 3, Section 6 – on permissive joinder of parties. When may 2 persons or more be joined as
plaintiffs or defendants and how are they joined? They are joined jointly, severally, or
alternatively; and
3.) Rule 3, Section 13 – on alternative defendants. When you are uncertain who is the real
defendant, you may join them alternatively although the relief against one may be
inconsistent with the other.
Remember this provisions because they are interrelated. Thus, when you study the Rules, don’t
limit yourself to a particular provision. Look for other related provisions so you may see the entire
picture. That’s called co-relation – “You don’t only see the tree but the entire forest.” This is very
helpful in the bar exam.
HOW ALLEGATIONS IN A PLEADING ARE MADE
Q: How do you make allegations or averments in a pleading? Can you do it in a general manner or
do you need to be specific? How do you allege your ultimate facts? Is it in particular or general terms?
A: It depends on what matters you are alleging in your complaint – whether is a condition
precedent, capacity to sue or be sued, fraud, mistake, malice, judgment, or official document or act.
ALLEGATION OF A CONDITION PRECEDENT
Sec. 3. Conditions Precedent. - In any pleading, a general averment of the

performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient. (3)
Sometimes in a pleading, you have to allege that the conditions precedent have already been
complied with. Can you still remember, one of the elements of a right of action is that before you can
go to court, you must comply with all the conditions precedent?
Q: When you allege compliance with the conditions precedent, is it necessary for you to be specific
what are those conditions precedent?
A: NO. Section 3 says that in every pleading, a general averment for the performance of all
conditions precedent shall be sufficient. A general allegation will suffice.
For EXAMPLE, in Administrative Law, you have the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies. Where a law provide for the exhaustion of administrative remedies, court should not
entertain cases without complying said remedies first. If the rule on exhaustion of administrative
remedies is violated, do you think your case will prosper? NO, it will not.
Specific EXAMPLE: You started with a quarrel over a parcel of land where you applied for
homestead. May kalaban ka. Where will you file first? Bureau of Lands. You may then appeal to
the Secretary of Agriculture. From the Secretary of Agriculture, you may go to the Office of the
Presidential who can reverse the decision of the secretary. Now, talo ka pa rin but you believe there
is a good ground to reverse the decisions in the executive department, you can now go to the court.
That is called the doctrine of judicial review of administrative decision. Yan!
Definitely, from the Bureau of Lands, you cannot directly go to the court because you have not yet
complied with conditions precedent before filing the case. And the condition precedent is that you
must comply with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Q: Now, suppose I have already complied with all these remedies. I will then go to court.
Definitely, I will allege that I have already exhausted remedies in the executive level. Is that allegation
sufficient? “I have already exhausted my remedies in the administrative level.” Do I have to
emphasize - “I started with the Bureau of Lands. From there, I went to Department of Agriculture.
From there, I went to the Office of the President”?
A: According to Section 3, a general averment will be sufficient. You need not specifically allege
compliance of conditions precedent. Therefore, an averment of the performance or occurrence of all
conditions precedent may be made generally and it shall be sufficient.
ALLEGATION OF CAPACITY TO SUE OR BE SUED

Sec. 4. Capacity - Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or to be

sued or the authority of a party to sue or to be sued in a representative
capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons 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.
(4)
When you file a case against somebody you must have capacity to sue and defendant must have
capacity to be sued.
Q: Is it necessary for me to say that plaintiff has capacity to sue? And the defendant has capacity to
be sued?
A: YES because Section 4 says you must show capacity to sue and be sued. It means that capacity to
sue and be sued must be averred with particularity. A general statement of it is not sufficient. As a
matter of fact, that is the first paragraph of a complaint: “Plaintiff, Juan dela Cruz, of legal age, single, a
resident of Davao City…” There is no presumption of capacity or incapacity to sue.
You may say, “I am suing as guardian of the plaintiff.” That is a representative party – to sue and
be sued in a representative capacity. Can you say, “I am suing as a guardian?” NO. Neither can you
say, “I am appointed as the guardian.”
Q: How should it be done?

A: “I am the court’s appointed guardian of the plaintiff minor having been afforded guardian by
the court in this case based on an order.” You have to emphasize that the court appointed you.
Section 4 says, “the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party...” It
means that the defendant is a corporation existing by virtue of the Philippine Corporation Law. There
is no presumption that you are corporation. That is the reason why facts showing capacity to sue and
be sued, etc. must be averred with particularity.
There’s a case which you will study in Corporation Law whether a foreign corporation can sue in
Philippine court. Under the law, it can sue provided it is licensed to do business in the Philippines.
The SC emphasized that if a foreign corporation is suing somebody in Philippine courts, the complaint
must specifically allege that a foreign corporation is doing business in the Philippines with a license to
do. Otherwise, it cannot sue. Yaan!
“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…” (section 4, 2nd sentence)
EXAMPLE: You are the plaintiff corporation with juridical capacity. I am the defendant. Suppose I
will deny your capacity to sue. I will deny that you are a corporation licensed to do business in the
Philippines. Now, the law requires me to deny your legal capacity and I must state the reason or basis
of such denial – why you are not of legal age, why you are not a corporation.
This is so because the law says that when you deny or when you question the legal existence of a
party or the capacity of any party to sue and be sued, you shall do so by specific denial which shall
include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge. You cannot
plead a general statement that you deny. Your denial must be particular. You must be more specific
about what you are denying.
ALLEGATION OF FRAUD OR MISTAKE
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. (5a)

EXAMPLE: In annulment of a contract, fraud is one ground. Suppose the consent was secured
through fraud and plaintiff files a case that the defendant employed fraud in obtaining his consent.
Q: Is this statement sufficient?
A: No, because the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity.
The complaint must state how the fraud was committed. It must be described in detail how the fraud
took place.
Q: In the second sentence, why is it that malice, intent, etc. may be averred generally?
A: A general averment of malice or intent suffices because one cannot describe or particularize
what is in the mind of a party. I cannot describe in detail the malice or the knowledge in your mind. I
can only say it in general terms.
Fraud, on the other hand, is employed openly, by overt acts. How you are deceived is not only in
the mind. Those are manifested by external acts. Therefore, one can describe how a fraud was
committed by the other party.
Sec. 6. Judgment. In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or

foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial 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. (6)
Sometimes a party invokes a judgment of a court or cite a previous case like res adjudicata to
dismiss a case.
Q: Suppose you will ask the court to dismiss the case because there was already judgment rendered
by the court years ago and you simply says, “There was a previous judgment.” Is this sufficient?
A: YES because the law presumes that the judgment is valid. And the presumption is that the court
had jurisdiction. You do not have to say that the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, issues,
etc. when it tried the case years ago. So, it can be averred generally.
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. (9)
One can just plead the existence of a document made by the government. EXAMPLE: official letter
of the President, or official communication by a government agency. It is sufficient to aver that the
document was issued or an act done.
SUMMARY:
Q: What averment or allegations in pleadings may be done GENERALLY?
A: The following:
1.) Rule 8, Section 3– Conditions precedent;
2.) Rule 8, Section 5, 2nd sentence – Conditions of the mind;
3.) Rule 8, Section 6 – Judgment;
4.) Rule 8, Section 9 – Official document or act
Q: What averments must be done with PARTICULARITY?

A: The following:
1.) Rule 8, Section 4, first sentence – Capacity to sue and be sued;
2.) Rule 8, Section 4, 2nd sentence – Legal existence of any party to sue or be sued;
3.) Rule 8, Section 5, first sentence – Fraud or mistake
ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS
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. (7)
Not every document that is needed in trial is actionable document.
Q: What is an actionable document?

A: An ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT is one which is the basis or the foundation of the cause of
action or defense and not merely an evidence of the cause of action or defense. (Araneta, Inc. vs. Lyric
Film Exchange, 58 Phil. 736) It is the very heart and soul of your cause of action or defense, not merely
an evidence thereof.
So a promissory note to collect an unpaid loan is not only an evidence of you cause of action but is
it is the very cause of action or foundation of your cause of action. On the other hand, when I have a
receipt, the receipt is not only evidence of your defense but is the very foundation of your defense. If I
would like to sue you to annul a written contract, the contract to be rescinded or annulled is the very
cause of your action.
But in a collection case, if aside from promissory note I wrote you several letter of demand to pay.
Such letter while they are relevant to the collection case, that is not the foundation of your cause of
action, although they are also important.
Q: What is the purpose of the distinction between actionable and non-actionable document?
A: If the document is not actionable, there is no need to follow Section 7. If it is actionable, it must
be pleaded in the manner mentioned in Section 7. Also in Section 8, it is needed to contest the
genuiness of the document.
Q: And how do you plead an actionable document under Section 7?

A: There are two (2) options:
1.) The substance of such instrument or document, shall be set forth in the pleading and the
original or a copy thereof shall be attached as an exhibit.
2.) The copy of the document may with like effect quoted in the pleading in which case, there is
no need to attach the copy.
In the first one, there is no need to copy it. Just mention the substance or features of he promissory
note. The entire document must be quoted in the pleading.
EXAMPLE:
PROMISSORY NOTE:
December 31, 1997
For value received, I promise to pay “B” P1 million not later than
one year from date with 2 percent per annum.
Signed: “A”
Q: Using the above promissory note, how should the pleading be worded?
A: Two ways of pleading of actionable document:
1.) The substance 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 as part of the pleading. Party
simply cites only important parts of the document, then attached the document.
EXAMPLE:
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff B is xxx of legal age xxx; Defendant A is xxxgayxxxx;

2. Sometime in December 31, 1997, defendant A secured a loan from
plaintiff B for a sum of P1 million payable not later than
December 31, 1998 with 2% interest per annum. Copy of said
Promissory Note hereto attached as EXHIBIT A;
3. The account is now overdue and despite demands of defendant A

still failed to pay B xxx.
So, the main features of the promissory note are recited in your pleading – the date when
the loan was secured, the amount, the interest, etc. But still you have to attach a copy of the
promissory note, either xerox copy or the original.
2.) Said copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading. Document is quoted verbatim.
EXAMPLE:
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff B is xxx of legal age xxx; Defendant A is xxxgayxxxx;

2. On Dec. 31, 1997 def. A secured a loan from plaintiff B which is covered
by a promissory note worded as follows:
PROMISSORY NOTE:
December 31, 1997
For value received, I promise to pay “B” P1 million

not later than one year from date with 2 percent per
annum.
Signed: “A”
3. The account is now overdue and despite demands of defendant A

still failed to pay B xxx.
So, you copy the entire promissory note verbatim. There is no need to attach a copy of the
promissory note. That is the second way.
Now, if the document is not classified as actionable, then there is no need to follow Section 7. Just
imagine if you will apply Section 7 to all documents in your possession. If you intend to present in
evidence 50 documents and only one is actionable, ang 49 hindi, so you will have 49 annexes. So, ang
pleading mo, kakapal. (parang mukha mo!)
Q: Suppose in the first way, the promissory note was not attached. What will happen?
A: The party violates Rule 8, Section 7. The adverse party may move to dismiss the complaint for
violation of the rules, if such document could not be secured.
If an actionable document is properly pleaded in your pleading in the manner mentioned in Section
7, the adverse party is now obliged to follow Section 8 if he wants to contest such document.
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. (8a)
Q: Does every pleading have to be under oath?

A: GENERAL RULE: NO.
EXCEPTION: Except when the law requires it. Example: Section 8, Rule 8.
EXAMPLE: If the plaintiff sues you based on a promissory note which is properly pleaded under
Section 7 and you would like to contest the genuineness and due execution of the note like when the
figure was altered to P20,000 instead of P1,000 only, so there is falsification, then you must deny the

genuiness and due execution in your answer specifically and most importantly your answer must
VERIFIED AND UNDER OATH.
If the denial is not verified and under oath, the genuineness and due execution of the promissory
note is deemed admitted.
Q: When you say “you have admitted the genuiness and due execution of the document,” what are
the specific facts that you have deemed admitted?
A: The answer is found in the landmark case of HIBBERD vs. RHODE (32 Phil. 476):
1.) The party whose signature it bears signed it;
2.) If signed by another, it was signed for him and with his authority;
Q: Pretty Maya told Papa Paul that her housemate Sexy Regina wanted to borrow money
from him. Paul agreed. Maya signed the promissory note: “Regina as principal, signed by Maya.”
But actually, Regina never ordered Maya to use her (Regina’s) name. When the note fell due
without payment, Paul sued Regina. Regina denied agency but failed to verify her answer.
What is the effect?
A: Pretty Maya becomes agent of Sexy Regina. So, the defense of unauthorized signature is
automatically out.
3.) At the time it was signed, it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the
party relying upon it;
Q: Mr. Quiachon sued Mr. Tiamzon to collect a loan of P50,000 on a promissory note. Mr.
Tiamzon admitted liability but only to the amount of P5,000. Mr. Tiamzon used falsification as a
defense but his answer was not verified. What is the effect?
A: Mr. Tiamzon admits the genuiness of the promissory note – that it was really P50,000.
4.) The document was delivered; and
5.) The formal requisites of law, such as seal, acknowledgement (notarization) or revenue stamp
which it lacks, are waived by it.
So kung may konting diperensiya like there is notarial seal, no acknowledgment, no

revenue stamp, all these defects are deemed cured.
The SC said in HIBBERD that if you admit the genuineness and due execution of the actionable
document, defenses which are inconsistent with genuineness and due execution are deemed
automatically waived. Meaning, any defense which denies the genuineness or due execution of the
document is deemed automatically waived.
Q: What are the defenses which are no longer allowed once you admit the genuineness and due
execution of the actionable document?
A: The following:
1.) The signature appearing in the document is a forgery;

2.) In case it was signed by an agent in behalf of the corporation or partnership, or a principal,
the signature was unauthorized;
3.) The corporation was not authorized under its charter to sign the instrument;
4.) The party charged signed it in some other capacity than that alleged in the pleading; and
5.) It was never delivered. (Hibberd vs. Rhode, supra)
Q: Does it mean to say that when you admit impliedly the genuineness and due execution of the
actionable document, you have no more defense?

A: NO. What are no longer available are defenses which are inconsistent with your own admission
of the genuineness and due execution of the actionable document like forgery, because you cannot
admit that the document is genuine and at the same time allege that it is forged. According to the SC in
HIBBERD, you may still invoke defenses provided the defenses are NOT inconsistent with your
admission of the authenticity of the document.
Q: What defenses may be interposed notwithstanding admission of genuiness and due execution of
an actionable document as aforesaid?
A: In the case of HIBBERD, the following:
1.) payment;
2.) want or illegality of consideration;
3.) fraud;
4.) mistake;
5.) compromise;
6.) statute of limitation;
7.) estoppel;
8.) duress;
9.) minority; and
10.)imbecility
Now, if you do not verify you denial, there is already an advantage in my favor. So you cannot
anymore interpose the defense of for example, forgery because that is inconsistent with your own
admission of the genuineness and due execution of the actionable document. But what if the you
presented evidence to prove forgery? Can I waive the benefit of implied admission?
Q: May the benefit of the admission of genuineness and due execution of an actionable document?
If so, in what instances?
A: YES. In the following cases, the implied admission is deemed waived:
1.) Where the pleader presented witnesses to prove genuiness and due execution and the
adversary proved, without objection, the contrary. (Yu Chuck vs. Kong Li Po, 46 Phil. 608);
2.) Where the pleader fails to object to evidence controverting the due execution. (Legarda Koh
vs. Ongsiaco, 36 Phil. 185)
In other words, the lawyer of the defendant does not remember Section 8 and therefore the denial is
improper. But the lawyer of the plaintiff did not also remember Section 8 that when there was evidence
of forgery, he failed to object. So, the incompetence of the both lawyers cancel each other. That is what
happens if the lawyer does not know. Bobo! Maayo pa ang bulalo, naay utok!
WHEN DENIAL NOT UNDER OATH STILL VALID
Q: When may a simple denial suffice? Meaning, what are the instances where the denial of the
genuineness of the document, which is not under oath, is valid?
A: Section 8 says, the requirement of an oath does not apply:
1.) When the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument;
EXAMPLE: Ms. Guadalope filed a case against Ms. Castillo based on a contract entered
by them. But before Ms. Guadalope filed the case, Ms. Castillo died (simba ko!… tok-tok!).
So Ms. Guadalope filed against the heirs. The heirs realized that the signature of Ms. Castillo
in contract as forged. Even if the answer of the heirs is not under oath, they can still prove
forgery because they are not party to the instrument.
2.) When compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused;
3.) When the document to be denied is not classified as an actionable document but merely an
evidentiary matter. This is because when the document if not actionable, there is no need to
follow Section 7.
REPLY; GENERAL RULE: OPTIONAL; EXCEPTION: SECTION 8
Normally, the person who is presenting the actionable document is the plaintiff.
PROBLEM: But suppose it is the defendant who is invoking an actionable document for his
defense. He claims to have paid the loan and have attached a copy of the RECEIPT to his answer. The
plaintiff looks at the document and realizes that his signature in the receipt is forged.
Q: What should the plaintiff do?
A: Based on Section 8, the plaintiff must deny the genuineness of the receipt specifically under oath
Q: In what pleading should the plaintiff file where he will deny under oath the genuiness and due
execution of the receipt?
A: Plaintiff should file a REPLY and it must be under oath. If he will not file a reply, the receipt is
impliedly admitted to be genuine.
Q: But the plaintiff may argue that under Rule 6, Section 10 the filing of a reply is optional. How do
we reconcile it with Section 8?
A: Rule 6 is the general rule. Section 8 should prevail over Rule 6 because the former is a specific
provision that applies only to actionable document. It has been asked in the Bar:
Q: When is the filing of the reply compulsory?

A: When the defendant anchors his defense on an actionable document and plaintiff will deny the
genuineness and due execution of such document.
SPECIFIC DENIAL
We will relate Section 10 with Section 5 of 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.
x x x
In an answer, defenses may either be negative or affirmative.
Q: Define negative defense.

A: Briefly, it is a defense of SPECIFIC DENIAL where the defendant denies the statement in the
complaint by stating the facts and the reason/s on which his denial is based.
Q: How is a specific denial done?

A: Rule 8, Section 10:
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 in the complaint, he shall so
state, and this shall have the effect of a denial. (10a)
Q: So what are the modes of specific denial?

A: Under Section 10, there are three (3) MODES OF SPECIFIC DENIAL:
FIRST MODE: 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

Meaning, you deny the allegation in the complaint but you must state the basis of your denial –
that, that is not true because this is what is true. So you state your own side, your own version. The
purpose there is to lay your cards on the table to make it fair to the other side. Yaan!
Q: What happens if a denial violates this first mode? Meaning, the pleader did not set forth the
substance of the matters relied upon to support his denial.
A: That is know was GENERAL DENIAL and it will have the effect of automatically admitting the
allegations in the complaint.
Q: Suppose the pleader will say, “Defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph
2,4,7…” without any further support for the denial. Is the denial specific?
A: NO. A denial does not become specific simply because he used the word ‘specific.’ (Cortes vs. Co
Bun Kim, 90 Phil. 167) What makes a denial specific is compliance with Section 10.
SECOND MODE: 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.
Sometimes an allegation may consist of 2 or more parts. Therefore the answer may admit part 1 but
part 2 is denied. Or, the substance of the allegation is actually admitted by the qualification there is
denied.
EXAMPLE: Plaintiff alleges that the “Defendant is in possession of the property under litigation in
bad faith.” Now, the defendant may admit that the property is in his possession but he denies the
qualification in bad faith – possession is not in bad faith. Based on that, the defendant should say,
“Defendant admits that portion of paragraph no. 2 that he is in possession of the property in question;
but denies that he is a possessor in bad faith” or something to that effect.
Therefore, when you say “I deny the entire paragraph” when actually you are not denying the
entire paragraph but only the qualification, that is called a NEGATIVE PREGNANT. Actually, in the
legal point of view, what is only denied is the qualification to the averment. The substance of the
allegation is actually admitted.
THIRD MODE: Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient

to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint,
he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial
Meaning, I am not in a position to admit or to deny because I have no knowledge. How can I admit
or deny something which I do not know?
EXAMPLE: Plaintiff claims for moral damages because Defendant destroyed his reputation.
Defendant does not know that Plaintiff had sleepless nights, wounded feelings, serious anxiety, etc.
Here, Defendant cannot admit or deny those.
I have read pleadings where the pleader would say, “Defendant has no knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9… of the complaint and
therefore he denies the same.” Actually, there is something wrong there. How can you deny something
that you have no knowledge of. Just state, “I have no knowledge.” Then period! And is has the
automatic effect of a denial.
However, the SC warned that he third mode of denial should be done in good faith. If the fact
alleged is such that it is within your knowledge, it is impossible that it is not within your knowledge,
you cannot avail of the third mode of denial. Otherwise, if you will avail of the third mode in bad faith,
your denial will be treated as an admission. That is what happened in CAPITOL MOTORS vs. YABUT
(32 SCRA 1).
In CAPITOL MOTORS, suppose I file a case against you, “Defendant borrowed money from
plaintiff in the sum of P10,000 payable one year from said date.” And then you say, “I have no
knowledge or information…” There is something wrong there. What you are trying to say there is “I do
not know whether I borrowed money from you or not.”
How can that be? It is either you borrowed money or you did not! That is why the SC said in
CAPITOL MOTORS, if you borrowed money, you say so. And if you did not, deny it. And then I will
allege there, “The defendant have made partial payments.” Then you will say, “I have no knowledge.”
My golly! You do not even know whether you paid me? In other words, talagang evasive bah! You are
trying to be clever and evasive. And if you do that, all your denials will be treated as admissions. That
is the warning in the third mode.
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. (1a, R9)
While the law says ‘material averment in the complaint,” this rule extends to counterclaims, cross-
claims and third-party complaints. (Valdez vs. Paras, L-11474, May 13, 1959)
The reason for the rule on specific denial is that, if there is a material averment in the complaint and
was not specifically denied, it is deemed admitted. However under Section 11, there are averments in
the complaint which are not deemed admitted even when not specifically denied.
GENERAL RULE: Material averment in a complaint shall be deemed admitted when not
specifically denied.
EXCEPTION: Instances when averments in the complaint are not deemed admitted even when not
specifically denied:
1.) Amount of unliquidated damages;

2.) Immaterial averments (Worcester vs. Lorenzana, 56 O.G. 7932, Dec. 26, 1960)
3.) Evidentiary matters; because a party is only obliged to aver ultimate facts; (Agaton vs.
Perez, L-19548, Dec. 22, 1966)
4.) Conclusions of facts or law.
Let’s discuss the first exception – AMOUNT OF UNLIQUIDATED DAMAGES is not deemed
admitted even if not specifically denied. So if the damages are liquidated, they are deemed admitted.
Examples of unliquidated damages are moral and exemplary damages. Or expenses which I incurred
in the hospital. Those are unliquidated damages. They are always subject to evidence. You have to
prove how much amount you are entitled to. That is why they are not deemed admitted even if not
specifically denied.
So if you are claiming P1 million damages for sleepless nights or besmirched reputation, and I did
not specifically denied such claim, it does not mean that you are automatically entitled to P1 million.
Hindi yan puwede. You have to present evidence that you are really entitled to P1 million. Yaan!
On the other hand, an example of liquidated damages is an obligation with a penal clause. For
example in our contract, it is stipulated that in case you cannot comply with your obligation, you will
pay me P1 million. So if you failed to specifically deny it, then you are deemed to have admitted that I
am entitled to P1 million. There is no need for computation because the amount is already in the
contract beforehand. The contract itself would show how much I am entitled.
Section 11 also says, “Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed
admitted if not denied under oath.” Usury means you charge interest above the legal interest provided
by the usury law. If you want to deny my charge of usury, your answer must be under oath. So, this is
the second instance where a denial should be verified.
NOW, I wonder why this provision is here when as early as 1983 in the case of LIAM LAW vs.
OLYMPIC SAW MILL (129 SCRA 439), that usury is no longer existing and the SC stated in that case

that the provision of the Rules of Court in usury are deemed erased or superseded. Obviously, the SC
forgot what it said in the 1983. (Ulyanin!!)
Sec. 12. Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein. Upon motion
made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is
permitted by these Rules, upon motion made by a party within twenty (20) days
after the service of the pleading upon him, or upon the court's own initiative
at any time, the court may order any pleading to be stricken out or that any
sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be
stricken out therefrom. (5, R9)
Before answering, the defendant can file a motion to strike out a pleading or a portion of a
pleading. Striking a pleading means that the pleading will be deemed erased as if it was never filed. Or
if a portion of the pleading be ordered stricken out or expunged where a pleading or a portion thereof
is sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or a scandalous matter is inserted in the pleading,
is deemed erased. This is related to Rule 7, Section 3, third paragraph:
RULE 7, Sec. 3. Signature and address. x x x x

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 to
promptly report to the court a change of his address, shall be subject to
appropriate disciplinary action.
So, if your pleading contains scandalous or indecent matters, the lawyer who files it may be
subjected to appropriate disciplinary actions.
Q: What if it is the reply is the one which contains scandalous matter?

A: A motion to strike may still be filed by the defendant within 20 days after the reply.

published by
LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 – 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles • Glenda Buhion • Joseph Martin Castillo • Aaron Philip Cruz
Pearly Joan Jayagan • Anderson Lo • Yogie Martirizar • Frecelyn Mejia • Dorothy Montejo • Rowena Panales • Regina Sison •
Ruby Teleron • Marilou Timbol • Maceste Uy • Perla Vicencio • Liberty Wong • Jude Zamora •
Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena
SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong • Emily Aliño • Karen Allones • Joseph Apao • Melody Penelope Batu • Gemma Betonio • Rocky
Cabarroguis • Charina Cabrera • Marlon Cascuejo • Mike Castaños • Karen de Leon • Cherry Frondozo • Jude Fuentes • Maila Ilao •
Ilai Llena • Rocky Malaki • Jenny Namoc • Ines Papaya • Jennifer Ramos • Paisal Tanjili
LAKAS ATENISTA 2001–2002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez • Jessamyn Agustin • Judee Uy • Janice Joanne Torres •
Genie Salvania • Pches Fernandez • Riezl Locsin • Kenneth Lim • Charles Concon • Roy Acelar • Francis Ampig • Karen Cacabelos •
Maying Dadula • Hannah Examen • Thea Guadalope • Myra Montecalvo • Paul Ongkingco • Michael Pito • Rod Quiachon •
Maya Quitain • Rina Sacdalan • Lyle Santos •Joshua Tan • Thaddeus Tuburan • John Vera Cruz • Mortmort

Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings: Rule 8

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

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

Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings: Rule 8

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 8 - Manner of

Sec. 1 In general – Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical

ULTIMATE FACTS vs. EVIDENTIARY FACTS

Q: What are ultimate facts?

Q: What are the essential elements of a cause of action?

Q: What are evidentiary facts?

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 1

Plaintiff has been in possession of the said property continuously,

Plaintiff has been in continuous possession of the property for 30 years

FACTS WHICH ARE PRESUMED BY LAW

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT OR LAW

MATHAY vs. CONSOLIDATED BANK

HELD: “A bare allegation that one is entitled to something is an allegation of a

ALLEGATION OF ALTERNATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION OR DEFENSES

Sec. 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses. - A party may set forth

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 4

HOW ALLEGATIONS IN A PLEADING ARE MADE

ALLEGATION OF A CONDITION PRECEDENT

Sec. 3. Conditions Precedent. - In any pleading, a general averment of the

ALLEGATION OF CAPACITY TO SUE OR BE SUED

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 6

Sec. 4. Capacity - Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or to be

Q: How should it be done?

“A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party

Sec. 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind.- In all averments of fraud or

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 7

Sec. 6. Judgment. In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or

Sec. 9. Official document or act. In pleading an official document or

Q: What averments must be done with PARTICULARITY?

Sec. 7. Action or defense based on document. Whenever an action or defense

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 8

Not every document that is needed in trial is actionable document.

Q: What is an actionable document?

Q: And how do you plead an actionable document under Section 7?

1. Plaintiff B is xxx of legal age xxx; Defendant A is xxxgayxxxx;

3. The account is now overdue and despite demands of defendant A

1. Plaintiff B is xxx of legal age xxx; Defendant A is xxxgayxxxx;

December 31, 1997

For value received, I promise to pay “B” P1 million

3. The account is now overdue and despite demands of defendant A

Sec. 8. How to contest such documents. When an action or defense is founded

Q: Does every pleading have to be under oath?

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 10

1.) The party whose signature it bears signed it;

4.) The document was delivered; and

So kung may konting diperensiya like there is notarial seal, no acknowledgment, no

1.) The signature appearing in the document is a forgery;

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 11

WHEN DENIAL NOT UNDER OATH STILL VALID

REPLY; GENERAL RULE: OPTIONAL; EXCEPTION: SECTION 8

Q: When is the filing of the reply compulsory?

We will relate Section 10 with Section 5 of Rule 6:

Sec. 5. Defenses. - Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.

In an answer, defenses may either be negative or affirmative.

Q: Define negative defense.

Q: How is a specific denial done?

Q: So what are the modes of specific denial?

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 13

SECOND MODE: Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment,

THIRD MODE: Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient

Sec. 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. Material

1.) Amount of unliquidated damages;