Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
GE NE RA L P R I N C I P LE S
1.
Philippines:
a. Courts
of general jurisdiction:
Those
competent to
decide their own jurisdiction and to take cognizance of all
kinds of cases, unless otherwise provided by the law or
Rules. Example: Regional Trial Courts.
Courts of special or limited jurisdiction:
Those
which have no power to decide their own jurisdiction and
can only tr y ca se s pe r m i t t e d by s t a t u t e . E xam pl e :
Municipal Trial Courts.
The J uve ni le and Domestic Relations Courts had
the rank of Courts of First Instance but were courts of
special jurisdiction. Under B.P. Blg. 129, they have been
integrated into the Regional Trial Courts as branches
thereof.
b. Courts of original jurisdiction: Those courts in which, un de
r th e law, ac ti ons or procee dings may originally be
commenced.
Courts of appellate jurisdiction: Courts which have
the power to review on appeal the decisions or orders of
a lower court.
c. Superior courts: Courts which have the power of review or
supervision over another and lower court.
Inferior courts: Those which, in relation to another
court, are lower in rank and subject to review and super
vision by the latter.
While, in a generic sense, a court is considered an
inferior court in relation to the powers of another tribunal
higher in rank, in its technical sense and unless otherwise
i nte nde d, i t was formerl y provided tha t the phra s e
1
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
GENE RA L P RI NCIP LE S
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
GENERA L PRINCIPLE S
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
and
a. Jurisdiction over
the plaintiff or petitioner:
This is
acquired by the filing of the complaint, petition or
initiatory pleading before the court by the plaintiff or
petitioner.
b. Jurisdiction over the defendant or respondent: Thi s i s
a c q ui r e d by th e v o l u n t a r y a p p e a r a n c e or su bm i s si o n
by th e d e f e n da n t or r e s p o n d e n t to th e court or by
coercive proc ess issued by the court to him, generally
by the service of summons (Sharuff vs. Bubla, L-17029,
Sept. 30, 1964; Aban vs. Enage, L-30666, Feb. 25,
1983).
c. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter: This is con ferred by law
and, unlike jurisdiction over the parties, cannot be
conferred on the court by the voluntary act or agre eme nt of
the parties.
GENERA L PRINCIPLE S
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
L-28518, Jan. 29, 1968; People vs. Mariano, et al., L40527, June 30, 1976; Lee, et al. vs. Presiding Judge, etc.,
et al, G.R. No. 68789, Nov. 10, 1986), unless such stat ute
provides for its retroactive application, as where it is a
curative legislation (Atlas Fertilizer Corp. vs. Navarro,
etc., et al., G.R. No. 72074, April 30, 1987).
12.
The settled rule is that the jurisdiction of the
court over the subject-matter is determined by the alle
gat ions of the com plai nt (Edward J. Nell & Co. vs.
Cubacub, L-20843, June 23, 1965; Time, Inc. vs. Reyes,
et al., L-28882, May 31, 1971; Ganadin vs. Ramos, et
al., L-23547, Sept. 11, 1980), but this rule is not without
exceptions. Thus, i t was held tha t while the alle gations
in the complaint make out a case for forcible entry, where
tenanc y is averred by way of defense and is proved to be
the real issue, the case should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction as the case should properly be filed with the
then Court of Agra ri a n Relations (Ignacio vs. CFI of
Bulacan, L-27897, Oct. 29, 1971). However, with
the
integration of the courts of agrarian relations as branches
of the Regional Trial Courts under B.P. Blg. 129, the
case was re quire d to be filed with the corre spondi n g
Regional Trial Court if i t was within the juri sdicti on
thereof, for a ssi gnme nt to the appropriate branch. Also,
although the allegations in the complaint make out a case
cognizable by a Regional Trial Court, where, however,
the acts com plai ned of are shown at the tria l to be
interwoven with an unfair labor practice case, the action
should be dismissed since jurisdiction is vested in the
National Labor Relations Commission. This is so since
the Rules now permit a motion to dismiss based upon
facts not alleged in the complaint (Mindanao Rapid Co.,
Inc. vs. Omandam, et al., L-23058, Nov. 27, 1971, jointly
de cidi ng t h e re i n L-23473, 23871, 24232, 24718 and
24956).
13.
Where the complaint is for actual da ma ge s of
P978, but the other claims for da ma ge s and att orne y' s
10
GENERA L PRINCIPLE S
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
this case, the Judiciary Act and B.P. Blg. 129, both as
a me nde d, and of which j uri sdic t i on is only a pa rt .
Jurisdic tion cannot be fixed by the a gre em e nt of the
parties; it cannot be acquired through, or waived, en
larged or diminished by, any act or omission of the
parties; neither can it be conferred by the acquiescence
of the court (De Jesus, et al. vs. Garcia, et al., L-26816,
Feb. 28, 1967; Calimlim, et al. vs. Ramirez, et al., L34363, Nov. 19, 1982). Jurisdiction must exist as a ma tt e
r of law (People vs. Casiano, L-15309, Feb. 16, 1961).
Consequentl y, questions of jurisdiction may be raised for
the first time on appeal even if such issue was not
ra i se d in the lower court (Government vs. American Surety
Co., 11 Phil. 203; Vda. de Roxas vs. Rafferty, 37 Phil. 957;
People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640). A court can motu
proprio dismiss a case which is outside its jurisdiction
(Sec. 1, Rule 9).
17.
Ne ve rt hel e ss, in some cases, the principle of
estoppel by laches has been availed of by our appellate
courts to bar atta cks on jurisdiction and this principle
has been applied to both civil and criminal cases, thus :
a. In the early case of Santiago, et al. vs. Valenzuela (78 Phil.
397), it was held that if a motion to dismiss the appeal, on
the ground that said appeal was perfected out of time, is
filed for the first time with the appellate court after the
appellant had paid the docket fee and the cost of
printing the record on appeal, and after the filing of
appellant ' s brief, the appellate court should deny the
motion as the appellee may be considered in estoppel by
his failure to object on time.
Thi s doc t ri n e wa s s u b s e q u e n t l y a b a n d o n e d i n
Miranda vs. Guanzon (92 Phil. 168) since the "require
ment re garding the perfection of an appeal within the
re glem enta ry period is not only m a nda t or y but juris
dictional," a ruling subsequentl y reiterated in Garganta
vs. CA (105 Phil. 412), Valdez vs. Ocumen (106 Phil.
12
GENERA L PRINCIPLE S
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
14
GENERA L PRINCIPLE S
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
i. The doctrine laid down in Tijam vs. Sibong- hanoy, supra, has
been reiterated in many succeeding cases and is still
good case law. The rule up to now is that a part y' s active
participation in all sta ges of a case before the trial court,
which includes invoking the court's authorit y to grant
affirmative relief, effectively estops such pa rt y from late r
challenging the jurisdict ion of the
said court
(Gonzaga, et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 144025, Dec.
27, 2002).
j. See, moreover, the summary in Figueroa vs. People of the
Philippines (G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008) which apparentl y
presents the prevailing position of the Supreme Court on
the issue of when a litigant is estopped by laches from
assailing the jurisdiction of a court, in light of its other
and subsequent holdings on the matter.
18.
Jurisdic tion over a person may also be acquired
even if he was never impleaded nor summ one d in the
action as a de f e n d a n t i f he t h e r e a f t e r v o l u n t a r i l y
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Thus,
where the spouses voluntaril y signed the compromise
a gre e m e n t to gu a r a nt e e the pa ym e n t by th e original
impleaded defendants, and tha t compromise a gre e m e nt
wa s appro ve d and mad e th e basi s of th e j u d g m e n t
rende red by the court, said spouses are bound by the
judgme nt as they are in estoppel to deny the very autho
rity which they invoked. By voluntaril y ent e ri n g into
the compromise agreement, they effectively submi tted
themsel ves to the jurisdiction of the court (Rodriguez,
et al. vs. Alikpala, et al., L 38314, June 25, 1974).
19.
Sinc e a Cour t of Fi r s t I n s t a n c e (now, th e
Re gional Trial Court) is a court of ge ne ra l ori gi na l
juri sdi ct i on, w h e t h e r a pa r t i c u l a r m a t t e r shoul d be
resolved by it in the exercise of its general jurisdiction,
or in its li mi t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n as a p r o ba t e or lan d
re gi st rat ion court, is not a juri sdicti onal question but
a p r o c e d u ra l que st i o n invol ving a mode of pra c ti c e
GENERA L PRINCIPLE S
17
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
Coron vs. Carino, et al., G.R. No. 65896, Sept. 24, 1987;
Sarmiento vs. Gatmaitan, et al., L-38173, Nov. 12, 1987).
However, new court rules apply to pending cases
only with reference to proceedings therein which take
place after the date of their effectivity. They do not
apply to the extent that in the opinion of the court their
application would not be feasible or would work injustice,
in which event the former procedure shall apply. Thus,
where the application of the Rule on Summar y Procedure
will mean the dismissal of the appeal of the part y, the
same should not apply since, after all, the procedure
they availed of was also allowed unde r th e Rules of
Court (Laguio, et al. vs. Garnet, et al., G.R. No. 74903,
Mar. 21, 1980).
22. Substanti ve law is that part of the law which
creates ri ghts concerning life, liberty or propert y, or the
powers of i n st ru m e nt a l i t i e s for the a dm i ni s t r a t i o n of
public affairs (Primicias vs. Ocampo, 81 Phil. 650).
Procedural law refers to the adjective laws which prescribe
rules and forms of procedure in order tha t courts may be
able to admini st er justice (Lopez vs. Gloria, 40 Phil. 33).
Substa nti ve law creates, defines and re gul ate s rights,
as opposed to "adjective or remedial law" which prescribes
the method of enforcing the ri ghts or obtaining redress
for thei r invasion (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.,
p. 1429; citations omitted).
Procedure is the mode of proceeding by which a legal
right is enforced, as di st ingui shed from the law which
gives or defines the right, and which, by means of the
proceeding, the court is to administer. This term is com
monly opposed to the sum of legal principles constit uti ng
the substance of the law, and denotes the body of rules,
wh e t h e r of practi ce or plea ding, whereb y ri ght s are
effectuated t hroug h the successful application of the
proper remedies (op. cit., pp. 1367-1368; id.).
GENERA L PRINCIPLE S
In de t e rm i ni n g wh e t h e r a rule prescribe d by th e
S u p r e m e C our t a b r i d ge s , e n l a r ge s o r modifies an y
substa nti ve ri ght, th e tes t i s w he t he r the rule reall y
re gul at e s pr oc e du re , tha t is, the judicial process for
enforcing rights and duties recognized by the substantive
law and for justl y a dmi ni st e ri n g remedy and re dress for
a disre gard or infraction of them. If the rule take s awa y
a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creat es a
right, such as the ri ght to appeal, i t may be classified as
a substa nti ve matt er ; but if it operates as a means of
implementing an existing right, then the rule deals
merely with procedure (Fabian vs. Desierto, etc., et al.,
G.R. No. 129742, Sept. 16, 1998).
I t is, therefore, the na t ur e and the purpose of the
law whic h d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r i t i s s u b s t a n t i v e or
procedural, and not its place in the sta t ute or its inclusion
in a code. T hus, for inst ance , Art s. 539 and 1674 of the
Civil Code and Sec. 85, R.A. 296 provided injunctive rules
in ejectment cases in the trial and appellate sta ges, but
these have been properl y incorporated with modifications
as Secs. 8 and 9, respe cti ve l y, of Rule 70 of the 1964
Rules of Court (now, Sec. 15 of revised Rule 70). These
subseque nt am e nda t or y provisions on injunctions were
proper since the mere fact tha t those provisions on in
junctions were formerly included in a substanti ve st a t ut e
or code does not convert the m into or det ract from the
fact tha t they are proce dural laws, contrary to common
misimpressi on. In fact, ther e are many such procedural
rules found in the Civil Code or, for tha t matter, in other
codes or ba si call y s u b s t a n t i v e laws bu t the y do not
thereby lose their c ha ra c te r as procedural laws.
This ma tt e r is being clarified and emphasized here
in view of the Co ns t i t ut i o na l provision tha t the rules
which the Suprem e Court is authorized to promul gat e
shall not diminish, increase or modify subst ant i ve ri ghts
(Sec. 5 [5], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution). The
improbable
position tha t a clearly procedural provision becomes a
19
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
I.
A.
CIVIL P RO CE DUR E
P RE LI M I N A R Y C O N S I D E R ATI O N S
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
22
P RE L I MI NA R Y C O N S I D E R AT I O N S
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
c.
4. In Yu vs. Pacleb, etc. (G.R. No. 172172, Feb. 24, 2009), the
Supreme
Court cited
this extended discussion on
classification of civil action: The settled rule is that the aim
and object of an action de te rm i ne its cha rac t e r. Whether a
proceeding is rem, or in personam, or quasi in rem is
determined by its nature^ind purpose, and by these only. A
proceeding in personam is a proceeding enforce personal
rights and obligations brought against the person and is
based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may
involve his right to, or the exercise of ownership of, specific
property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in
accordance with the mandate of the court. The purpose of a
proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment
of a court, some responsibility or liability to compel a
defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to
fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An action in
personam is said to be one which has for its object a jud gm e nt
agai nst the person, as disti nguishe d from a judgment
against the property to determine its state. It
P RE L I MI NA R Y C O N S I D E R AT I O N S
B.
J U R I S D I C T I O N O F TH E S U P R E M E C O U R T
U N D E R T H E 198 7 C O N S T I T U T I O N
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
28
J U R I S D I C T I O N O F TH E S U P R E M E C O U R T
U N D E R T H E 198 7 C O N S T I T U T I O N
C.
30
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N AC T O F 198 0
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
32
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N AC T O F 198 0
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
of
Appeals
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z AT I O N AC T O F 198 0
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N AC T O F 198 0
While th e
Intermediat e
Appe l la t e Court was
authorized to receive evidence on factual issues on appeal,
this evidentiary hearing contem plat es "incidental facts"
which were not touched upon or fully heard by the trial
court, and not an ori gi na l and full tria l of the main
factual issue which properly pe rta i ns to the trial court
(Lingner & Fisher GMBH vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 63557,
Oct. 28, 1983). This powe r to conduc t new tri al s or
further proceedings is not obligatory on the appellate
court and i t may re m a n d th e case to the tria l court
for tha t purpose (De la Cruz, etc. vs. IAC, et al., G.R.
No. 72981, Jan. 29, 1988).
37
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N AC T O F 198 0
39
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
19. Jurisdiction
in
civil cases.
Re gional
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N AC T O F 198 0
41
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N AC T O F 198 0
43
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N AC T O F 198 0
5.
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N AC T O F 198 0
47
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
of
childre n
an d th e
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A TI O N AC T O F 198 0
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
50
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A T I O N AC T O F 198 0
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
J U D I C I A R Y R E O R G A N I Z A TI O N AC T O F 198 0
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SUP RE ME COURT
A. Original
1. Exclusive
a . Pet i ti on s for ce rti ora ri , prohi bi ti on or
mandamus against:
(1)
Court of Appeals;
(2) Court of Tax Appeals;
(3 ) Sa ndi ga n ba ya n ;
(4) Commission on Elections; and
(5) Commission on Audit. 2.
Concurrent
a. With the Court of Appeals
(1) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or
m a nda m us against:
(a) Regional Trial Courts;
(b) Civil Service Commission;
( c ) C e n t r a l Boa r d of A s s e s s m e n t
Appeals;
(d) Nati onal Labor Relations Com
mission; and
(e) Other quasi-judicial agencies.
b. With the Court of Appeals and Regional
Trial Courts
(1) Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or
m a nda m us against courts of the first
level and other bodies; and
(2) Petitions for habeas corpus and quo
wa rra nt o.
c. With Regional Trial Courts
(1) Actions agai nst am ba ssa dors, other
public ministers and consuls.
J U R I S D I C T I O N I N CIVI L C A S E S
B. Appellate
1. Petitions for review on certiorari against:
a. Court of Appeals;
b. Court of Tax Appeals;
c. Sa ndi ga n ba ya n ; and
d. Regional Trial Courts in cases involving
(1) C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y or va l i di t y of a
t r e a t y , i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r exe c ut i ve
agreement, law, presidenti al decree,
p r o c l a m a t i o n , orde r , i n s t r u c t i o n ,
ordinance, or re gulation;
(2) Legality of a tax, impost, assessment,
toll or a penalt y in relation thereto;
(3) Jurisdic tion of a lower court; and
(4) Only errors or questions of law.
II.
COUR T OF APPE A L S
A. Original
1.
Exclusive
a.
2.
. Concurrent
a. With the Supreme Court (see Par. 2, subpar, a. on the original jurisdiction of the
Suprem e Court); and
b. With the Supreme Court and the Regional
Trial Courts (see Par. 2, sub-par, b., loc.
cit.).
B. Appellate
1.
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
b. Family Courts.
2. Appeal by petition for review from:
a.
Civil Service Commission;
b. Central Board of Assessment Appeals; c.
Securities and Exchange Commission; d.
Land Registration Authority;
e. Social Security Commission;
f. Office of the President;
g. Civil Aeronautics Board;
h. Bureaus under the Intellectual Property
Office;
i. National Electrification Administration; j .
Energy Regulatory Board;
k. National Telecommunications Commission;
1. D e pa r t m e n t of Agra ri a n Reform unde r
R.A. 6657;
m. Government Service Insurance System;
n. Employees Compensation Commission;
o. Agricultural Inventions Board;
p. Insurance Commission;
q. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission;
r. Board of Inve st ment s;
s. Construction Industry Arbitration Commis
sion;
t. Office of the Ombudsman, in administra
tive disciplinary cases; and
u. Any other quasi-judicial agency, instru
m e nt a li t y, board or commission in th e
exercise of its qua si -j udic ial functions,
such as voluntary arbit rat ors.
3. Petitions for review from the Regional Trial
Courts in cases appeal ed the ret o from the
lower courts.
J U R I S D I C T I O N I N CIVI L C A S E S
III.
A. Original
1. Exclusive
a. Actions the subject matters whereof are not
capable of pecuniary estimation;
b. Actions involving title to or possession of
real propert y or an interest therein, where
the assessed value of such property exceeds
P20.000 or, in Metr o Ma ni la , P50.000 ,
exc e p t forc ible e n t r y an d u n l a w f u l
detainer;
c. Actions in admiralt y and maritime juris
diction where the demand or claim exceeds
PIOO.OOO or, in Metro Manila, P200.000;
d. Mat t e rs of probate, te stat e or intestate,
where the gross value of the estate exceeds
P100,000 or, in Metro Manila, P200.000;
e. Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction
of any court, tribunal, person or body exer
cising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
f. Actions and special proceedings within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court
of Agra ri an Relations as now provided by
law; and
g. Other cases where the demand, exclusive
of i n t e r e s t , da m a ge s , a t t o r n e y ' s fees,
litigation expenses and costs, or the value
of the propert y exceeds P 100,000 or, in
Metro Manila, P200,000.
2. Concurrent
a. With the Supreme Court:
(1) Actions affecting amba ssadors, other
public ministers and consuls.
b. With the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals:
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
J U R I S D I C T I O N I N CI VI L C A S E S
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
f.
Delegated
a. .
C a d a s t r a l or lan d r e g i s t r a t i o n
c a se s covering lots where there is no
controversy or opposition, or contested
lots the value of which does not exceed P
100,000, as may be assigned by the
Supreme Court.
3.
Special
a. Petitions for habeas corpus in the absence of
all the Re gional Trial Jud ge s in the
province or city.
4. Summa ry Procedure
a. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases
irrespective of the amount of da ma ge s or
unpaid rentals sought to be recovered; and
b. All other court cases, except probate pro
ceedings, where the total claim does not
exceed P 10,000, exclusive of intere st and
costs.
R UL E
GENERA L
PROVISION S
SE C . 1
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2
RUL E
GENERA L
PROVISION S
SE C . 3
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 4
RUL E
GENERA L
PROVISION S
SE C . 6
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . S
(b)
RUL E
GENERA L
PROVISION S
SE C . 5
NOTE
1.
C'
r'\
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 5
RUL E
GENERA L
PROVISION S
SE C . 5
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 6
R UL E
GENERA L
PROVISION S
SE C . 6
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 6
RUL E
GENERA L
PROVISION S
SE C . 6
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 6
CIVIL ACTIO N S
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS
RULE 2
CAUSE OF ACTION
S e c t i o n 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of.
Eve ry o r d i n a r y civi l ac t i o n mus t be ba se d on a
cause of ac ti on, (n)
Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. A c a u s e of
ac ti o n i s th e ac t o r o m i s s i o n b y w h i c h a par t y
vi ol ate s a righ t of an othe r , (n)
NOTES
1. See Note 2 of the Preliminary Considerations and Notes 2
and 5 under Sec. 47, Rule 39.
2. A cause of action is the delict or wrongful act or omission
committed by the defendant in violation of the primary
right of the plaintiff. A single act or omission can be
violative of various rights at the same time but where
there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single
cause of action regardless of the number of rights violated
belonging to one person. Nevertheless, if only one injury
resulted from several wrongful acts, only one cause of
action arises. The singleness of a cause of action lies in the
singleness of the delict or wrong violating the rights of one
person (Joseph vs. Bautista, et al., L-41423, Feb. 23, 1989).
Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of action. A
party ma y not i n st i t ut e more tha n on e suit for a
single c aus e of ac ti on. (3a)
76
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 4
76
R UL E
CAUS E
O F ACTI O N
SE C . 4
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 5
A party ma y
alternativ e o r
n a s h e ma y hav
to th e f ol l ow i n g
78
RUL E
CAUS E
O F ACTIO N
SE C . 5
4.
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 5
In a c o m pl a i n t filed in th e S e c u r i t i e s an d
Exchange Commission by a stockholder of a corporation,
one of the causes of action therein sought the a nnulm e nt of
a dacion en pago agreement, whereby said corporation ceded
all its assets to the mortgagee bank in settlement of its
account, and to recover said propert y from the third- pa rt y
p u r c h a s e r t o whom th e m o r t ga ge e ba n k ha d
subsequentl y sold the property and who was impleaded as a
co-defendant. It was held that such cause of action could
not be joined in said complaint since jurisdiction
thereover lies in the re gular courts. While, ordinaril y, the
purc ha se r corporation should be included as a party
defendant since it has an interest in the subject matter,
i n thi s case said p u r c h a s e r ha s no i n t r a - c o r p o r a t e
relationship with the complainant, hence, the Commission
has no jurisdiction over it under P.D. 902-A. The rule on
permissive joinder of causes of action is subject to the
rules regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties
(Union Glass & Container Corp., et al. vs. SEC, et al.,
G.R. No. 64013, Nov. 28, 1983), as clarified in this revised
Rule.
80
R UL E
CAUS E
O F ACTIO N
SE C . 5
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 6
R UL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 6
83
RULE 3
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
Se c ti o n 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defen
dant. O nl y n a t u r a l or j u r i d i c a l p e r s o n s , or
e nti tie s author iz e d by law ma y be par ti e s in a civil
a c t i o n . Th e t e r m " p l a i n t i f f ma y re fe r t o th e
c l ai mi n g party, th e c o u n t e r - c l a i ma n t , th e c r os s c l ai mant, or the thir d (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff.
Th e te r m " de f e n da n t " ma y refer t o th e or i gi na l
d e f e n di n g party, th e de fe n da n t in a c ou nt e r cl ai m ,
th e c r os s - d e f e n d a n t , o r th e thi r d (f ou r t h , e tc .) party de fe n dant, (a)
NOTES
1. As to who are juridical persons with capacity to sue, see
Art. 44, Civil Code. The entities authorized by law to be
parties to a suit include the estate of a deceased person
(Limjoco vs. Intestate Estate of Fragante, 8 Phil. 776;
Estate
of Mota
vs.
Concepcion,
56 Phil.
712), a
political pa rt y inc orporat e d unde r Act 1459 (now,
B.P. Blg. 68, Corporation Code) and a registered labor
uni on , u n d e r Sec. 24(d), R.A. 875 (now, Sec. 243,
P.D. 442, Labor Code), with respect to its propert y. The
Roman Catholic Church has a juridical per sonali ty
(Barlin vs. Ramirez, 7 Phil. 47).
2..
Although
the
action was brought
against the
"Broadway Thea tre " which is not a juridical person, but
the lessee thereof filed an answer and later entered into a
compromise agreement admitting liability and pursua nt to
which judgm ent was rendered, the procedural defect was
cured. The writ of execution cannot be enforced a ga i n s
t th e t h e a t r e bu t a ga i n s t th e
le sse e
(Oscar
Ventanilla Enterprises Corp. vs. Lazaro, G.R. No. 53856,
Aug. 21, 1980).
RUL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 2
<
(85
c 1
* '
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 3
3.
RUL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 3
in interest may be
a.
no final
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 3
Representative parties:
Rule.
d. Pro forma parties: Those who are required to be joined as coparties in suits by or against another party as may be
provided
by
the
applicable
substa nti ve
law or
procedural rule (Sec. 4).
e.
5.
R UL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 4
not because they have any real inte rest in the subject
ma tt e r or because any relief is de ma nde d as a ga i nst
them, but merely because the technical rules of pleadings
require their presence on the record. This would roughly
corre spond to our conce pt of and rule on pro forma
parties wherein the joinder of spouses is required, or in
certi orari actions whe re i n th e court or agency whose
adjudication is challenged is im plea ded as the public
re sponde nt , with th e pre va il i n g part y as the pri va te
respondent.
6. In the pre se nt definition of a necessary part y, the additi on of
th e a l t e r n a t i v e clause "or for a complete de term inat ion or
settle ment of the claim subject of the action" is intended to
make
the
definition
of necessary
parties
more
comprehensive and complete. Thus, if the plaintiff creditor
sues only one of the two joint debtors, the j udgm e n t
t he re i n would accord complete relief as between him and
said defendant. However, the co-debtor who was not
impleaded is definitely a necessary party since a judgme nt
in tha t action with respect to his own joint liability is
necessary for a complete set tleme nt of the debt in favor
of the plaintiff. Without such alterna tive c l a us e , th e
u n i m p l e a d e d de bt o r woul d not b e considered as a
necessary part y and the procedure and sanctions in Sec. 9 of
this Rule could not be applied to him.
7. .
Partie s
who wer e
not ini ti a ll y and formall y
impleaded as original parties to the case, but later bound
themselves to comply with the te rms of a judgme nt on
compromise rendered therein may also be considered as
quasi parties in said case (Rodriguez, et al. vs. Alikpala,
L-38314, June 25, 1974).
Sec. 4. Spouses as parties. H us ba n d an d wife
shall su e o* be sue d joi ntl y, e xc e p t as pr ovi de d by
law. (4a)
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 5
NOTE
1. The provision hereon in the 1964 Rules of Court
was merely a reproduction of Art. 113 of the Civil Code.
This is an ill ustra tion of joinder of pro forma pa rt ie s
required by the Rules. The propriety of suits by or against
the spouses should now take into account the pe rti nent
provisions of the Family Code.
Sec. 5. Minors or incompetent persons. A mi n o r
or a pe r s o n al le ge d to be i nc o mp e t e n t , ma y su e or
b e sue d wit h th e a ss i s ta n c e o f hi s father, mot he r ,
guar di an , or if he ha s none , a g ua r di a n ad litem.
(5a)
r
NOTES
-
r -
90
R UL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 6
his i n c o m p e t e n c y be al le ge d i n th e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
pleadings and the trial court may pass upon the trut h and
effects thereof.
Sec . 6. Permissive joinder of parties.All pe r son s
i n w ho m o r a g a i n s t w h o m an y ri gh t t o reli e f i n
res pe c t t o o r a r i s i n g ou t o f th e sam e t r a n s a c t i o
n or ser i e s of t r a n s a c t i o n s i s al l e ge d to e xist w he t he
r jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as
ot he r w i s e pr ovi de d in the s e Rule s, join as plaintiffs
or be joi ne d as d e f e n da n t s in on e c ompl ai nt , w he r e
any q u e s t i o n o f la w o r fact c o m m o n t o all suc h
plaintiffs or to all suc h d e f e n da n t s ma y ari se in the
acti on; but th e cour t ma y mak e suc h or de r s a s may
be jus t to pr ev e n t an y plainti ff or d e f e n da n t from
be i n g e mba r r a s s e d or put to e xpe n se in connecti on
wit h an y p r oc e e di n g s i n w h i c h h e ma y hav e n o
interest. (6)
NO TES
1. In the case of indispensable parties and necessary parties,
their joinder in the action is compulsory (Secs. 7 and 8).
This section enunciates the rule on permissive joinder of
parties, tha t is, they can either he joined in one single
complaint or may themselves maintain or be sued in
se pa ra t e suit s. This rule is also applicable to
counterclaims (Go, et al. vs. Go, et al., 95 Phil. 378).
2. Permissive joinder of parties requires that:
a. The right to relief arises out of the same trans action or
series of transact ions;
b. There is a question of law or fact common to all the
plaintiffs or defendants; and
c. Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions
of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue.
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 7
Sec.
92
7.
Compulsory joinder of
indispensable parties.
P a r t i e s i n i n t e r e s t w i t h o u t w h o m n o fi na
l
93
RUL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L AC T I O N S
SE C S . 7- 8
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 9
95
R UL E
PAR T I E S T O CI VI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 9
therein and thereby avoid multiplicity of suits. The noninclusion of the necessary part y may be excused only on
meritorious grounds, absent which the court shall order
him to be impleaded if jurisdiction over his person can
be obtained, subject to the sanction in the second para
graph of this section. If his inclusion cannot, however,
be effected for valid reasons, under the third pa ra gra ph
of this section the action may proceed but the judgme nt
therein shall not prejudice the rights of tha t necessary
part y. Logically considered, therefore, neither shall his
rights be prejudiced if his non-inclusion in the action in
the first place was due to a valid cause.
2. Under the circumstances contemplated in the first pa ra gra ph
, the court shall order the inclusion of the necessary part y,
tha t is, the plaintiff shall be ordered to file an am e nde d
com plai nt im ple a di ng the nece ssar y party the rein as a
co-defendant. Where the plaintiff un- justifiedly fails or
refuses to do so, the sanction in the second pa ra gra ph
comes into play and the plaintiff shall be deemed to have
waived his claim against said part y. The same rule applies
to any pleading asserting a claim against a necessary
part y.
3. It is true tha t under Sec. 3 of Rule 17, where the plaintiff fails
without justifiable cause to comply with an order of th e
court, his com pla i nt may be dismi ssed. However, such
dismissal shall not be ordered where the plaintiff fails to
comply with the order of the court for the joinder of the
necessary part y under this Rule, in line with Sec. 11 thereof
which provides tha t non-joinder of parties should not be a
ground for dismissal of an action. Thus, the rule merely
declaring the waiver
of plaintiffs claim against the
necessary part y whose non-inclusion was unjustified, as
provided in the second pa ra gra ph of this section, is in
effect an exception to the provision on penalties imposed
on a disobedient part y under Sec. 3 of Rule 17 which
would have entailed the dismissal of the complaint itself.
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S . 10-11
97
RUL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 12
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 12
2.. The complaint must specially state tha t the same is being
brou gh t in behalf of ot he r s with whom th e parties
share a common interest (Borlasa vs. Polistico,
47 Phil. 345; Claudio vs. Zandueta, 64 Phil. 819). If
there is a conflict of interest between those sought to be
re pre se nt e d and those who filed the action, th e class
suit will not prosper (Ibahez vs. Roman Catholic Church,
12 Phil. 227). The part y bringing the class suit must
have the legal capacity to do so (Chinese Flour Importers
Association vs. Price Stabilization Board, 9 Phil. 461; AntiChinese League vs. Felix, 77 Phil. 1012; Recreation &
Amusement Association vs. City of Manila, 100 Phil. 950).
However, wrongs suffered by some stockholders do not
ne ce ssa ri l y c o ns t i t ut e th e sam e wrongs to ot he r
stoc khol ders as would creat e tha t common or general
intere st in the subje ct -matte r (Mathay, et al. vs. Con
solidated Bank & Trust Co., et al., L-23136, Aug. 26,
1974). See also Newsweek, Inc. vs. IAC, et al. (G.R. No.
63559, May 30, 1986) regarding a supposed class suit for
libel against sugar pl ante rs in Negros which was denied
since each plaintiff has a se parate and distinct re putati on
in the communit y.
3. Formerly, when the courts had jurisdiction in labor cases, it
was held that a class suit to recover wages due to 23
labore rs is not proper as the pa rt ie s sought to be
r e p r e s e n t e d ar e no t s o n u m e r o u s a s t o ma k e i t
impracticable to include them individually in the com
plaint (Diaz vs. De la Rama, 73 Phil. 104). The principle
would apply to ot he r simila r si t uat i ons not involving
labor relations.
4. One plaintiff was held qualified to bring a class suit in behalf
of the members of the Methodist Episcopal re li gi ous
a ssoci ation, i t a p p e a r i n g tha t he had been chosen by said
association to look after their intere st s (De la Cruz vs.
Seminary of Manila, 18 Phil. 334).
98
R UL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 12
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 13
100
R UL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S
S E C S . 14-1 5
NOTE
1. Thus, where the owner of the goods is not sure
whether the same was lost in transit or while it was on
deposit in the warehouse of the a rr a s t r e operator, he
may sue the shipper or the operator in the alte rnati ve ,
although the ri ght a ga i nst the former is on admira lt y
while that a ga i n s t the ope ra t o r i s on c on t ra c t (see
Insurance Company of North America vs. United States
Lines Co., L-21839, April 30, 1968).
Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant.
W he ne ve r th e i de n ti t y or nam e of a d e f e n da n t i s
u n kn ow n , h e ma y b e sue d a s th e u n kn ow n ow ne r ,
heir, de v i s e e , or by suc h othe r de s i g na ti o n as the
case ma y re qui re; w he n hi s i de nti ty o r true nam e
i s d i s c o v e r e d , th e p l e a d i n g mu s t b e a m e n d e d
ac c or di ngl y. (14)
NO TES
1. A related provision in Rule 14 reads as follows:
"Sec.
14.
Service
upon defendant
whose
identity
or whereabouts are unknown. In any
action,
whenever the defendant is designated as an unknown
owner, or the like or whenever his whereabouts are
u n k n o w n an d c a nno t be a sc e rt a i ne d by dili gent
inquiry, 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."
2. This presupposes that the plaintiff really does not know the
identity and/or address of the defendant or is not in a
position to ascertain such identity or whereabouts.
personality
as
p e r s o n s no t
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 15
RUL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 16
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 16
RUL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 16
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 16
.
The actions that survive against
the decedent' s
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s are : (a) ac ti ons to re cover rea l and
personal property against the estate; (b) actions to enforce
liens thereon; and (c) actions to recover for an injury to
person or property by reason of tort or delict committed by
the deceased (Board of Liquidators,
etc. vs. Heirs of
Maxima M. Kalaw, et al, L-18805, Aug. 14, 1967).
See
Rule 87 and notes the reunde r. See also Sec. 20 of this
Rule whic h ha s been a m e n d e d an d provi de s a new
procedure for contractual money claims.
R UL E
PAR T I E S T O CI VI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 16
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S . 17-1 8
RUL E
PAR T I E S T O CI VI L A C T I O N S
S E C S . 17-19
109
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2 0
RUL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 2 0
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2 0
R UL E
PAR T I E S T O CI VI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 2 0
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 21
RUL E
PAR T I E S T O CIVI L A C T I O N S
SE C . 2 2
N OT E S
1. . The ter m "indigent part y" has been substituted for
what used to be called a "pftoper litigant." For purposes of a
suit in forma pauperis,-* pa upe r litigant is not really a
pa upe r but a person who is indigent although not a public
c ha rge , i.e., that he has no prope rt y or incomesufficient for his support aside from his labor, even if he is
self-supporting when able to work and in employment
(see Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., pp. 913, 1284, citing
People vs. Schoharie County, 121 N.Y., 345, 24N.E. 830).
This same concept was adopted for purposes of criminal
cases in applying the provisions of R.A. 6033, R.A. 6034
and R.A. 6035 .
2.. The pre se n t concept of an indi gent liti gant is believed
to be more realistic
in light of the contemporar y
situation. The proof of pa upe ri sm required under the
former Rule consisted merely of affidavits or certificates of
the corre spondi ng t r e a s u r e r s tha t the part y had no
re gistered propert y. I t was considered inaccurate and
misleading since a party may be financially sound although
he ha s no t a c qui re d or r e gi s t e r e d any p ro pe r t y for
reasons of his own, hence the pre se nt revision opted for
judicial i nte r ve nti on with sanc tions as set out in this
section.
3. Section 21 , Rule 3 of the present Rules has not been
affected by the incorporation of Rule 141 on Legal Fees
and the two am e ndm e nt s thereto, now constituting Section
19 thereof. It is to be noted that said Section 21 of Rule 3
could have been repealed when the present
Rule
141 was adopted, or also amended when the latter was
then amended. The fact is tha t the two provisions can be
harmonized and can stand together.
Thus, when an application to litigate as an indigent
litigant is filed and the court finds that it complies with
Section 19 of Rule 141, the authorit y to litigate as such is
115
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 2 2
RULE
VENU E OF ACTIONS
S e c t i o n 1. Venue of real actions. A c t i o n s
affe c ti ng title to or p o s s e s s i o n of real pr ope r ty, or
i nte res t th e r ei n , shal l b e c o m me n c e d an d trie d i
n th e p r op e r c our t w hi c h ha s j u r i s di c t i o n ove r th
e are a w h e r e i n th e rea l p r o p e r t y i n v o l v e d , o r a
por ti o n the reof, i s si tu at e d .
F o r c r b r e ^ n t r y an d d e t a i n e r a c t i on s shal l b e
c o mme n c e d an d trie d i n th e mu n i c i pa l trial cour
t o f th e m u n i c i p a l i t y o r c i t y w h e r e i n th e r ea l
pr ope r ty i n v ol v e d , or a por ti o n thereof, i s si tu at e d .
(l[a],2[a]a)
Sec . 2. Venue of personal actions. All o t h e r a c t i on
s ma y b e c o m m e n c e d an d tr ie d w he r e th e pl ai ntiff
or an y of th e pr i nc i pa l plainti ffs resi de s , o r w h e r
e th e d e f e n d a n t o r an y o f th e p r i n c i pa l d e f e n da n t s
resi de s , or in th e cas e of a n on r e s i d e n t d e f e n da n t
w he r e h e ma y b e found, a t th e e l e c t i o n of th e
plaintiff. (2[b]a)
NO TES
1. Rule 4 formerly provided different rules of venue in the socalled inferior courts and the Regional Trial Courts, both in
real and personal actions, although the lower courts have
long assumed the stat us of courts of record. Such varia nt
rules of venue sometimes resulted in conflicting views
requiring clarification. Furthermore, Par. 9 of the Int erim
or Transiti onal Rules and Guidelines provided, as early as
1981, tha t "(t)he procedure to be observed in metropolitan
trial courts, municipal trial courts and m u n i c i p a l ci rc ui t
t ria l court s , i n all cases an d proceedings, whet he r civil
or criminal, shall be the same
117
R UL E
REMEDIA L
LA W C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S 1-2
RUL E
VENU E
O F ACTION S
SECS .
1-2
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 1-2
120
RUL E
VENU E
O F ACT I ON S
SE C . 3
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 3
W he r e th e pl a i nt i f f is a n o n r e s i d e n t of th e
Philippines but is permitted to sue here (as in the case
of a foreign corporation with the requisite license under
Sec. 123 of the Corporation Code), then the venue is the
place where the defendant resides, or, in real actions,
where the real propert y or par t thereof is situated. This
is proper since the alternative venue granted to plaintiffs
R UL E
VENU E
O F ACT I ON S
SE C . 4
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 4
124
RUL E
VENU E
O F ACTION S
SE C . 4
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 4
R UL E
VENU E
O F ACT I ON S
SE C . 4
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 4
RULE 5
UN IF O RM P RO CED URE IN TRIAL COURTS
Se c ti o n 1. Uniform procedure. The pr oc e du r e
in th e M un i c i pa l Trial Courts shall be the sam e as
in th e R e g i o n a l Tria l Cour t , e xc e p t (a) w h e r e a
par ti c u l ar-pr ov i si on e x pr e s s l y o r i mpl i e dl y appl ie s
onl y t o e i t h e r o f sai d c our ts , o r (b) i n civi l case s
g ov e r ne d b y th e Rul e o n S u m ma r y P r oc e du r e , (n)
Sec . 2. Meaning of terms. The ter m "M unici pal
Trial Cour ts" as use d in the s e Rule s shall i nc l ud e
Me tr opol i tan Trial Courts, M unic i pal Trial Courts
in Ci ti e s , M u n i c i pa l Trial C our ts , an d M u ni c i pa l
Circuit Trial Cour ts, (l a )
NOTES
1. The former Rule 6 of these Rules was expressly repealed by
the Int erim or Tra nsitional Rules and Guide lines
promul gated by the Supreme Court effective upon the
implementation of B.P. Blg. 129. Par. 9 of said interim rules
further provided that "(t)he procedure to be observed in
metropolita n trial courts, municipal trial courts and
municipal circuit trial courts, in all cases and proceedings,
whether civil or criminal, shall be the same as that to be
observed in the regional trial courts." This is now provided
in Sec. 1, with exceptions.
2. It has been held tha t interplea der (Rule 62) is available in
inferior courts although they are not bound to follow
strictly the procedure therefor as set out for the the n Court
s of Fi rs t I n s t a n c e (Makati Dev. Co. vs. Tanjuatco, L-26443,
Mar. 25, 1969). It is submitted that since the procedure in
the present Regional Trial Courts is now applicable to
the inferior courts, while the latter
129
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2
RUL E
U N I F O R M P R O C E D U R E I N TRIA L C OU RT S
SE C . 2
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2
II.
Civil Cases
SEC. 3. Pleadings.
A.
RUL E
U N I F O R M P R O C E D U R E I N TR I A L C O U R T S
SE C . 2
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2
into by the
134
R UL E
U N I F O R M P R O C E D U R E I N T RI A L C O U R T S
intended
to
expedite
the
IV.
Common Provisions
SEC. 18. Referral to Lupon. Cases requiring
referral to the Lupon for conciliation under the pro
visions of Preside ntia l Decree No. 1508 where there
is no showing of compliance with such requirement,
shall be dismissed wit hout prejudice, and may be
re vi ved only after such r e q u i r e m e n t shall have
been complied with, x x x.
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2
the
dis
the
the
136
R UL E
U N I F O R M P R O C E D U R E I N T RI A L C O U R T S
SE C . 2
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
(n)
NOTE
1. In a broad sense, the term "pleadings" includes
all papers filed, excluding evidentiary matte rs, from the
complaint down to the judgme nt. Documents attached to
the pleadings and made a par t thereof are considered
evidence and also par t of the pleadings (Asia Banking
Corporation vs. Olsen & Co., 48 Phil. 529). A bill of
p a r t i c u l a r s c o n s t i t u t e s pa r t of th e pl e a di n g t ha t i t
suppleme nts (Sec. 6, Rule 12). A covering letter for a
pleading is not par t of the latter (Clorox Co. vs. Director
of Patents, L-19531, Aug. 10, 1967).
Sec. 3 . Complaint. Th e c o m p l a i n t i s th e
pl e adi n g al l e gi n g th e p l a i n t i f f s c aus e o r c a u se s o f
ac ti on. The na me s an d r e s i de n c e s of the plaintiff
and de fe n dant mus t be stated in the c ompl ai nt. (3a)
139
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 4- 5
NOTES
1. The provisions of this section with re gard to a complaint are
also true with and are applicable to other initiatory
pleadings, as well as to petitions filed in the trial or
appellate courts, except that, in the latter case, it is the
act of the lower court which is complained of that has to
be alleged, instead of a cause of action as technically
understood.
2. The jurisdiction of the court and the nat ure of the action are
determined by the a ve rme nt s in the complaint. The pra yer
for relief is not controlling on the court and is merely
advisory as to the nat ure of the action, as it is the
a ve rme nt s in the complaint which control. See notes under
Sec. 2, Rule 7.
Sec . 4. Answer. An a n s w e r is a p l e a di n g in
w hi c h a d e f e n di n g par t y set s for th hi s de f e n s e s .
(4a)
Sec. 5 . Defenses. D e f e n s e s ma y e i t h e r be
n e g ati v e or affir mati ve .
(a) A ne ga ti v e de f e n s e i s th e s pe c i fic de ni a l of th e
mate r i a l fact or facts al l e ge d in th e p l e a di n g of th e
c l a i ma n t e s s e n t i a l t o hi s c a u s e o r c a u s e s o f a c t i on .
(b) An affir mative de fe n s e is an al l e g ati o n of a ne w
matte r w hi c h , whil e h y p ot h e t i c a l l y a d mi t t i n g th e
m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s i n th e p l e a d i n g o f th e
c l a i m a n t , w o u l d n e v e r t h e l e s s p r e v e n t o r ba r
re c ov e r y by hi m. Th e affir mative de f e n s e s i nc l ud e
fr au d , s t a t u t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s , r e l e a s e , p a y m e n t ,
i l l e g a l i t y , s t a t u t e o f f r a u d s , e s t o p p e l , f or me r
re c ov e r y , d i s c h a r g e i n ba n kr u pt c y , and an y othe r
matte r by wa y of c on f e s s i o n an d a v oi da n c e . (5a)
RUL E
KI ND S
O F PLEADIN G
SE C S . 4- 5
NOTE S
1. Section 5(a) defines a "negative defense" as the specific
denial of the material allegations in the complaint. A denial
is not specific jus t because it is so qualified (Agton vs. CA,
et al., L-37309, Mar. 30, 1982), and this is especially true where
a bla nket denial is made of all the averments of the
complaint instead of dealing particularl y with each. Such a
ge ne ra l de nial will be deeme d an admission of the
a ve rme nt s in the complaint.
2. To be considered a specific denial, Rule 8 provides:
"Sec. 10. Specific denial. The defendant must
specify each m at e ria l allegation of fact the trut h of
which he does not admit and, whenever practicable,
shall set forth th e subst anc e of the m at t e r s upon
whic h he re lies to s up po r t his de nia l . Where a
defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment,
he shall specify so much of it as is true and material
an d sh a l l de n y onl y th e r e m a i n d e r . W he r e a
d e f e n da n t i s w i t h o u t knowle d ge or inform at i on
sufficient to form a belief as to the trut h of a material
a ve rme nt made in the complaint, he shall so state,
and this shall have the effect of a denial."
3. Sec. 5(b) defines and illustrates the so-called affirmative
defenses. The enume rati on is not exclusive. Thus, tea
judicata (Fernandez vs. De Castro, 48 Phil. 123), ultra Mroa
aoto of a oorporation, or lack of authorit y of a person
assuming to act for the corporation (Ramirez vs. Orientalist
Co., 38 Phil. 634), laches (Gov't of the P.I. vs. Wagner, et al., 49
Phil. 944), and
unc onst i t ut i onal i t y (Santiago vs. Far
Eastern Broadcasting Co., 73 Phil. 408) are affirmati ve
defenses
which
should
be
specifically
pleaded.
Fu rt he rm ore , if no motion to dismiss had been filed, any of
the ground s there for may be rai se d as affirmative
defenses in the answer (Sec. 6, Rule 16).
141
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S . 6- 7
Sec . 6. Counterclaim. A c o u n t e r c l a i m is an y
cl ai m w hi c h a d e f e n di n g party ma y hav e ag ai n s t
an o pp os i n g party. (6a)
Sec . 7. Compulsory counterclaim.A c o mpu l s or y
c ou n t e r c l ai m i s on e w hic h , bei n g c og n i z a bl e by th e
r e g u l a r c o u r t s o f j u s t i c e , a r i s e s ^ o u t ofj o r i s
c o n n e c t e d w i t h th e t r a n s a c t i o n o r o c c u r r e n c e
c o n s t i t u t i n g th e su bje c t ma t te r o f th e o p p o s i n g
p a r t y ' s c l a i m an d d o e s no t r e q u i r e fo r it s
a dju di c a ti o n th e pr e s e n c e o f thir d par ti e s o f w ho m
th e c o u r t c a n n o t a c q u i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n . Su c h a
c ou n t e r c l ai m mus t b e w ithi n th e j ur i s di c ti o n o f th e
cour t both as to th e a moun t and th e natur e thereof,
e x c e p t t h a t i n a n o r i g i n a l a c t i o n b e f o r e th e
R e g i o n a l Tria l C our t , th e c o u n t e r c l a i m ma y b e
c on s i de re d c omp ul s or y regar dl e ss of th e amount , (n)
NOTES
1. In American law from which we have derived the concept of
a counterclaim, it is considered as in effect a new suit in
which the part y named as the defendant is the plaintiff
and th e plaintiff becomes th e de fe nda nt (Roberts Min. &
Mill Co. vs. Schroder, CCA. Nev., 95 F. 2d 522). It is but
anothe r name for a cross-petition (Clark vs. Duncanson, 79
Okl. 180, 192 P. 806, 16 A.L.R. 450) or is a subst itute for a
cross-bill in equit y (Vidal vs. South American Securities Co.,
CCA. N.Y., 276 F. 855). The term is broader in meaning
tha n set-off or recoupment, and includes them both
(Williams vs. Williams, 192 N.C. 405, 135 S.E. 39; Aetna
Life Insurance Co. vs. Griffin, 200 N.C 251, 156 S.E.
515).
2. . A cl a ri fi ca t i on ha s been i n c o rp ora t e d
in th e
definition of a compulsory count e rc l ai m by re ason of
di ve rge nt views in the pas t as to w he t he r or not the
amount involved in the counterclaim should be take n into
R UL E
KIND S O F
PLEADING S
S E C S . 6- 7
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S . 6- 7
R UL E
KIND S O F
PLEADING S
SE C S . 6- 7
145
a compul sory
default on such
for consolidation
expired and the
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 9-1 0
R UL E
KIND S O F
PLEADING S
SE C S . 9-1 0
147
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 9-1 0
RUL E
KI N D S
O F PLEADING S
SE C S . 9-1 0
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 11
..
----
'
J.'.y
...
wj
NOTES
1.A third-part y complaint is similar to a cross-claim in tha t the
t hi rd-pa rt y plaintiff seeks to recover from a not he r person
some relief in re spect to the opposing part y' s claim, but it
differs therefrom in tha t in a cross- claim, the third part y is
already impleaded in the action while in a thi rd-pa rt y
complaint,
said third part y
is not yet impleaded.
Consequently,- in the filing of a third- part y complaint,
leave of court is required as thereafter, if granted,
summ ons will have to be served on the third- part y
defendant.
2.A third-part y complaint need not arise out of or be entirel y
de pe nde nt on the main action as i t suffices tha t the
former be only "in respect of the claim of the thi rd-pa rt y
pl aint iffs opponent. Consequentl y, the judg ment on a
third-part y complaint may become final and executory
without waiting for the final de te rm i na t i on of the main
case (Pascual vs. Bautista, L 21644, May 29, 1970).
3.A third-part y complaint is similar to a complaint
in
intervention (Rule 19) in tha t both result in bringing
RUL E
KIND S O F P LEADI NG S
SE C . 11
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 11
152
R UL E
KIND S O F
PLEADING S
SE C S . 12 , 13
12 of this
of th e prope
pa rtie s not
Mariano, et
RULE 7
PARTS OF A PLEADING
S e c t i o n 1. Caption. The ca pti o n set s forth th e
nam e o f th e court, th e title o f th e ac ti on , and th e
doc ke t n u mbe r i f as si gn e d .
Th e ti tle o f th e ac ti o n i n di c a t e s th e na me s o f
th e par ti e s . The y shall all be na me d in th e or i gi nal
c o m p l a i n t o r p e t i t i o n ; bu t i n al l s u b s e q u e n t
p l e a di n g s , i t shall be suffi cient i f th e nam e of th e
fi r s t p a r t y o n e a c h s i d e b e s t a t e d w i t h a n
a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i c a t i o n w h e n t h e r e ar e o t h e r
par ti e s.
Their r e s pe c t i v e par ti c i pat i o n i n th e cas e shall
be i n di c at e d , (l a , 2a)
NOTES
1. As revised, the caption of a pleading in civil cases is no
longer re qui re d to sta t e th e de si gna t i on of the pleading,
since the designation of the pleading
is prop erly
contained in the body thereof (Sec. 2) preceding the
allegations. In criminal cases, i t is required that, when
ever possible, the complaint or information should state
the desi gnation of the offense or the section or subsection
of the st a t ut e punishi ng it (see Sec. 8, Rule 110 and notes
t h e re un de r ) .
2..
I t i s not th e ca pti on of th e pl ea di n g bu t th e
allegations therein that determine the na ture of the action,
and the court shall gra n t the relief w a r ra n t e d by the
allegations and the proof even if no such relief is pra yed for
(Ras vs. Sua, L-23302, Sept. 25, 1968).
154
RUL E
PART S
OF A P L E A D I N G S
SE C . 2
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 3
NOT E S
1. The pra yer in a pleading does not constitute an e sse nt i al par
t of the allegations de te rm i na t i ve of the j u ri sd i c t i o n of a
court . The que st i o n of j u ri sd i c t i o n depends largely upon
the determination of the true nature of the action filed by a
part y which, in turn, involves the consideration of the
ultimate facts alleged as constituti ve of the cause of
action therei n (Bautista vs. Fernandez, L-24062, April 30,
1971). The pra yer for relief, although par t of the
complaint, cannot create a cause of action; hence, it cannot
be considered as a par t of the alle gations on the na ture of
the cause of action (Rosales vs. Reyes, 25 Phil. 495; Cabigao
vs. Lim, 50 Phil. 844).
2. The same rule obtains in a majority of the states in the
American jurisdiction which hold tha t the pra yer or
demand for relief is not part of the st a te m e nt of the cause
of action (Salmons vs. Sun & Bradstreet, 162 S.W. 2d 245;
Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation Dist. vs.
Watson, et al., 299 N.W. 609; Durham vs. Rasco, 227 P.
599). The pra yer for relief cannot be considered as adding
to the alle ga tions of the compla int or petit ion (Speizman vs.
Guill, 25 S.E. 2d 731; Coke, et al. vs. Sharks, et al., 291 S.W.
862). The pra yer does not enlarge the cause of action
stated nor does it change the legal effects of what is
alleged (Sandgren vs. West et ux., 115 P. 2d, 724; State vs.
Bonham, et al., 193 S.E. 340). A good pra yer does not
aid a defective pleading (Somers vs. Bank of America, et al.,
187 P. 2d 433; Villani vs. National City Bank of New York,
256 N.Y.S., 602).
Sec . 3. Signature and address. E ve r y p l e a d i n g
m u s t b e s i gn e d b y th e p a r t y o r c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t i n g
hi m , s t a t i n g i n e i t h e r ca s e hi s a d d r e s s w h i c h s h o u l d
no t be a pos t office box.
R UL E
PART S OF A P L E A D I N G
SEC . 3
Th e s i g n a t u r e o f c o u n s e l c o n s t i t u t e s a
certificate by hi m tha t he ha s read th e pl eadi ng, that
to the be st of hi s kn ow l e dg e , i nf or mati on, and belief
the re i s goo d groun d to su ppor t it, and tha t i t i s not
i nte r pose d for del ay.
A n u n s i g n e d p l e a di n g pr od uc e s n o legal effect.
H ow eve r, th e cour t may, in its di sc reti on, allow such
de fi c ie nc y to be r e me di e d i f i t shall appea r tha t the
same wa s du e to me re i na dve r te nce and not inten de d
for d e l a y . C o u n s e l w h o d e l i b e r a t e l y fi l e s a n
un s i g ne d pl e a di n g , or si gn s a pl e a di n g in vi ol ati on
o f thi s R ul e , o r a l l e g e s s c a n d a l o u s o r i n d e c e n t
matte r t he re i n , o r fails t o pr ompt l y report t o th e
court a c h a n g e of hi s a ddr ess , shall be su bje c t to
a ppr opr i a t e d i s c i pl i n a r y ac ti on . (5a)
NOTES
1. The Suprem e Court has further resolved that, in addition to
the re quirem ent that counsel should indicate in all
pleadings, motions and papers submitted by him to judicial
or quasi-judicial bodies his current
Professional Tax
Receipt (PTR) and IBP official receipt or Lifetime Member
Number (Bar Matter No. 287, Sept. 26, 2000), he should further
indicate his Roll of Attorneys Number.
All pl e a di n gs, motions and pa pe rs filed in court,
whether personally or by mail, which do not bear counsel's
Roll of Attorne ys Number may not be acted upon by the
court, without prejudice to whatever disciplinary action
the court may take against the erring counsel who shall
likewise be required to comply with the requirement within
5 da y s from not i ce . F a i l u r e to compl y wit h suc h
re quirem ent shall be a ground for further disciplinary
sanction and for contempt of court (Bar Matter No. 1132,
April 1, 2003).
2. It will be noted that this amended section further
specificall y re q u i r e s , unde r pai n of a d m i n i s t r a t i v
e
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 4
di s c i p l i n a r y ac ti o n or eve n a c i t a t i o n for i nd i re c t
contempt, tha t counsel should promptl y report to the
court where he is appearing in a case any change of his
address. I t is elementary that the requirement to make
of record in the court his address or any change thereof is
to ensure his prompt receipt of judicial orders or processes;
yet, a number of lawyers fail to report such changes in
both the trial and appellate courts resulting in unnecessary
delay in judicial admi nistration. This situation is further
aggravated where even the address of the part y is not
sta t e d in th e pl e a di n gs or i t i s merel y a ve rre d t ha t
processes to said part y may be served on his counsel.
3 . No s u b s t i t u t i o n of a t t o r n e y s will be allowed
unless (a) there is a writ ten request for such substit uti on,
(b)
filed wit h th e wr i t t e n c onse nt of th e clie nt , and
(c) with the written consent of the attorney to be substituted, or
with proof of service of notice of said motion to the att orne y
to be substit ute d. Unless these are complied with, no
subst itution will be permitted and the attorne y who last
appeared in the case before such application will be
responsible for the conduct of the case (Bacarro vs. CA, et
al, L-28203, Jan. 22, 1971, citing U.S. vs. Borromeo,
20 Phil. 189; see Magpayo, et al. vs. CA, et al, L-35966,
Nov. 19, 1974; Sumadchat vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 52197,
Jan. 30, 1982; Aban vs. Enage, L-30666, Feb. 26, 1983;
Yu, et al. vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 56766, Feb. 28, 1985).
Sec . 4 . Verification. Exc e p t w he n o t h e r w i s e
s pe c i fic al ly pr ovi de d by law or r ule , p l e a di n g s nee d
no t b e u n de r oat h , v e r i f i e d o r a c c o m p a n i e d b y
affidavit.
A pl e a di n g i s ve ri fi e d by an affi davit tha t the
a f f i a n t ha s r e a d th e p l e a d i n g an d t h a t th e
a l l e g a t i o n s t h e r e i n ar e tr u e an d c o r r e c t o f hi s
pe r s on a l kn ow l e dg e o r base d o n a u t h e n t i c
rec or ds.
RUL E
PART S O F A P L E A D I N G
SE C . 4
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 4
38);
to the
and
59);
RUL E
i.
PART S OF A P L E A D I N G
SE C . 4
69);
1.
(Sec.
3, Rule 65);
n.
o.
161
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 4
or
affidavits
of
merits are
a. Motion to po st po n e for a bs e n c e of e vi de nc e
(Sec. 3, Rule 30);
b. Motion to postpone for illness of a pa rt y or counsel
(Sec. 4, Rule 30);
c. Motion for s u m m a r y j u d gm e n t or opposit i on theret o (Secs.
1, 2, 3 and 5, Rule 35);
d. Motion for new tria l on th e groun d of fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence or opposition
the reto (Sec. 2, Rule 37);
e. Petition for relief from jud gm e nt or order (Sec. 3, Rule
f.
38);
39);
57);
of preliminary injunction
RUL E
PAR T S
OF A P L E A D I N G
SE C . 5
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2
t h e r e f r o m t o th e c o u r t w h e r e i n hi s a f o r e s a i d
c ompl ai n t or i nitiatory pl e a di n g ha s bee n filed.
F ail ure t o c ompl y wit h th e f oregoi ng requi re
me n t s shall not be cur abl e by mer e a me n d me n t of
the c ompl ai n t or ot he r i ni ti ator y pl e a di n g but shall
b e c a u s e for th e d i s m i s s a l o f th e c as e w i t h o u t
prej udi ce , unl e s s o t h e r w i s e pr ovi de d , upo n moti o n
an d afte r h e a r i n g . Th e s u b m i s s i o n o f a fal s e
c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r n o n - c o m p l i a n c e w i t h an y o f th e
u n d e r t a k i n g s t h e r e i n shal l c o n s t i t u t e i n d i r e c t
c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t , w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o th e
c or r e s p o n di n g a d mi n i s tr ati v e and cr i mi nal ac ti ons .
I f th e ac t s o f th e par t y o r hi s c o u n s e l c l e a r l y
c o n s t i t u t e w ill ful an d de l i be r at e for u m s h o p p i n g ,
the same shall be groun d for su mmar y di s mi ssal wit h
pr e j u di c e an d shall c on s t i t u t e di rec t c on t e mp t , a s
wel l as a cau s e for a d mi n i s t r a t i v e s a n c t i on s , (n)
NO TES
1. . The Supre m e Court has explained tha t the re is forum
shopping when, as a result of an adverse decision in one
forum, or in anticipation thereof, a part y seeks a favorable
opinion in a not he r forum through mea ns other tha n
appeal or certiorari by raising identical causes of
action, subject -matt er and issues. 'Tor u m shopping exists
when two or more actions involve the same transact ions,
e sse nt ia l facts and c i rc um st a nc e s, and raise identical
causes of action, s ub j e c t -m a t t e r and i ssue s. Anot he r
indication is whe n the e le m e nt s of litis pendentia are
p r e s e n t or whe r e a final j u d g m e n t in one case will
a m oun t to res judicata in the other case. The test is
whe t he r in the two or more pending cases there is identit y
of parties, rights or causes of action and reliefs sought
(Ligon vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 127683, Aug. 7, 1998; cf.
Melo, et al. vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 123686, Nov. 16, 1999).
R UL E
PAR T S
OF A P L E A D I N G
SE C . 5
Fo ru m s ho pp i n g i s c o n d e m ne d be c a u s e i t duly
burdens courts with heavy caseloads, undul y taxes the
manpower and financial resources of the judiciary, and
trifles with and mocks judicial processes. The primary evil
sought to be prescribed by the prohibition against forum
shopping, however, is the possibility of conflicting decisions
being rende red by the different courts upon the same
issues (Guy vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 165849, Dec. 10, 2007,
and companion cases).
2. This
section,
with
modifications,
is ta ken
from
Administrati ve Circular No. 04-94 issued by the Supreme
Court on Fe brua r y 8, 1994 for the purpose explained
therein:
"Revised Circular No. 28-91, dated February 8,
1994 applies to and governs the filing of petitions in
the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals and is
intended to pre vent the multiple filing of petitions or
c o m p l a i n t s i n vo l vi n g th e sam e i ssue s i n ot he r
tribunal s or agencies as a form of forum shopping.
"C omplementary thereto and for the same pur
pose, the following requi reme nts, in addition to those
in pe r t i ne n t provisions of the Rules of Court and
existing circulars, shall be strictly complied with in
the filing of complaints, petitions, applications or
other initiatory pleadings in all courts and agencies
ot he r tha n the Suprem e Court and the Court of
Appeals and shall be subject to the sanctions provided
hereunder."
The provisions of Revised Circular No. 28-91 have
been adopted and incorporated in Rules 42, 43, 45, 46,
47, 64 and 65.
3..
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 5
R UL E
PART S OF A P L E A D I N G
SE C . 5
not be
CA, et
Mining
1998;
Homes,
R UL E
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C .
R UL E
PARTS OF A PLEADING
SEC .
R UL E
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C .
have
also
to
dismiss
or a simila r
from
or
to
select
precluded
from
tria l c ourt.
171
held
tha t a
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 5
RU L E 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS
IN P L EA D I N G S
S e c t i o n 1. In general. E ve r y pl e a di n g shal l
c ontai n in a me t h odi c a l and l ogic al form, a plain,
c onc i se and di r e ot- e te te tn e n t of the ul ti mat e facts
on wh i c h the party pl e a di n g re l ie s for hi s cl ai m or
de f e n se , a s the cas e may be, omi tti n g th e s ta te me n t
of me r e e vi de n ti ar y facts. (1)
h i a d e f e n s e r e l i e d o n i s ba se d o n law , th e
pe r ti ne n t pr ov i si on s t he re o f an d their a ppl i c abi l i ty
to hi m s ha l l be< cl e ar l y and c on c i s e l y state d, (n)
NOTES
1. . As al rea d y s t a t e d , a nn e xe s to..pleadings, -are
considered part of the pleadings, but the said pleadings
mus t c o n t a i n - a s u m m a r y s t a t e m e n t o f th e m a t t e r s
contained in the annex and cannot just refer to the same
(Rubios, et al. vs. Reolo, 96 Phil. 984fUnrep.J; La Mallorca
vs. CA, et al, 100 Phil. 1048; see Sec. 7 of this Rule).
2."Ultimate facte" are the important and substan tial facts
which ei t he r directly form the basis of the plaintiff's
primary right and duty or directly make up the
wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant (Alsua us.
Johnson, 21 Phil. 308). A fact is essential if it cannot be
st ric ken out wit hout leaving the st a t e m e n t of the cause
of action or defense insufficient (Toribio, et al. vs. Bid in,
etc., et al, G.R. No. 57821, Jan. 17, 1985). Hence, conclusions,
inferences, pre sum pti ons, and details of probative
matte rs should not be alleged.
. <t\-
3.
RUL E
REMEDIA L
LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 2- 3
174
RULE 8
RULE 8
SECS. 6. 7-8
176
RULE 8
SECS. 7-
a d mi t t e d n U M , t a ad^CTuu pai t y + - w d e r - ^ t h ,
s pe c i fi c al l y de-mee-tfcero, an d uviv furUi w4mt he
clai ms to Ofi-the ~faets;^but the r e qu i r e me n t of an
oath doe s not apply whe n the adver se party doe s
not a ppe a r to be a party to the i n st r u me n t or w he n
c o mpl i an c e wit h an or der for an i n s pe c ti o n of the
or iginal i n s t r u me n t i s refuse d. (8a)
NOT E S
1. These two sections constitute the rule on action able
d o c u m e n t s , as d i s t i n gu i s h e d from e vi d e nt i a r y
documents. There are two permissible ways of pleading
an actionable doc ume nt, i.e., (a) by set t i ng forth the
s u b s t a n c e of suc h d o c u m e n t i n th e p l e a d i n g an d
attaching the document the reto as an annex, or (b) by
setting forth said document verbatim in the pleading.
Unless alleged in any of these modes, the rule on implied
admission in Sec. 8 will not apply.
2. A variance in the substance of the document set forth in
pleading and the document annexed thereto does
w a r ra n t the dismissal of the action (Convets, Inc.
National Deuelopment Co., 103 Phil 46). However,
contents of the document annexed are controlling.
the
not
us.
the
3. . Whe r e th e a c t i on a bl e d oc u m e n t i s prope rl y
alleged, the failure to deny the same re sul t s in the
admission of the "genuineness and due execution" of said
document, except (a) when the adverse party was not a
party to the instrument, and (b) when an order for the
inspection of the document (see Rule 27) was not complied
with.
4. By "genuiwcncoo" is meant that the document is not
spurious, counterfeit, or of different import on its face
from the one execut ed hy the part y (Bough us. Cantiveros, 40
Phil. 208), or that the party whose sig nature it bears has
signed it and that at the time it was
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
S E C S . 7- 8
178
RUL E
M A N N E R OF MA KI N G A L L E G A TI O N S
9 I N PLEADING S
SE C
RUL E
REMEDIA L
LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 10
180
R UL E
M A N N E R O F MA KI N G A L L E G ATI O N S
1 I N PLEADING S
SE C 1
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 11
182
RULE 8
SEC
d
t
a
d
NOTES
1. The following a ve rme nt s in the complaint are not
deemed a dmi t te d even if not specifically denied: (rj
allegations as to the amount of damages, (b) allegations
which are immaterial to the cause of action (Worcester
vs. Lorenzana, 104 Phil. 134), which includes conclusions
of fact and law, inferences, etc., and (c)'all allegations in
the complaint where no answer has been filed by the
defendant (Lopez vs. Mendezona, 11 Phil. 209; Worcester
vs. Lorenzana, supra).
2. The following a ve rme nt s in the complaint are deemed
admitted even if specifically denied: (a) allegations as to
usury, and (b) the authenticit y and due execution of
acti onable doc um e nt s properl y pleaded where the
opposing part y was a party thereto. Mere specific denial
is insufficient as the Rules require that such denial must
be under oath.
3. . Howe ver, i t has been held tha t the rule tha t
allegations of usury are deemed admitted if not denied
specifically and under oath is a procedural rule and the
lack of an oath in a pleading is a defect which is subject to
waiver just as a defective or imperfect verification may be
waived. Besides, the reglementary admission
of the
allegation of usury arising from failure to make a denial
under oath may, like any other admission in court, be
wi t hd ra w n with leave of court unde r Secs. 2 and 3, Rule
10 which permit substantial amendment of pleadings once
as a matter of right when the action has not been placed
on the trial calendar or, after the case is set for
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 12
hearing, upon leave of court (Dionisio vs. Puerto, et al., L39452, Oct. 31, 1974).
See, in this connection, the case of Liam Law vs.
Olympic Sawmill, et al., supra, cited under Note 3 of
Sec. 10, Rule 6 and the discussion thereon.
4. Where the defendant relied solely on his defense
of res
judicata and submi tted the case for decision on that
issue, he is deemed to have admitted all the mate rial
a l l e g a t i o n s i n th e c o m p l a i n t and j u d g m e n t can b e
rendered accordingly (Dominguez vs. Filipinos Integrated
Services Corp., et al., G.R. No. 58820, Sept. 30, 1982).
Sec . 12. Striking out
of
pleading
or
matter
contained therein. Upo n m o t i o n m a d e by a p a r t y
be for e r e s p o n d i n g t o a p l e a d i n g or, i f no r e s p o n s i v e
p l e a d i n g i s p e r m i t t e d b y t h e s e Rul e s , up o n m o t i o n
m a d e b y a p a r t y w i t h i n t w e n t y (20) da y s aft e r th e
se r vi c e o f th e p l e a d i n g upo n him , o r upo n th e c o u r t ' s
ow n i n i t i a t i v e a t an y t im e , th e c o u r t ma y o r d e r an y
p l e a d i n g t o b e s t r i c k e n ou t o r t h a t an y s h a m o r
false , r e d u n d a n t , i m m a t e r i a l , i m p e r t i n e n t , o r
s c a n d a l o u s m a t t e r b e s t r i c k e n ou t t h e r e f r o m .
(5 , R9 )
184
RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
S e c t i o n 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.
D e f e n s e ^ 4 ^ d o b j e c t i o n s no Impleaded e i the r in a
mot i o n t o d i s m i s s - o r i n th e a n s w e r are d e e me d
w a i v e d . H o w e v e r , w h e n i t a p p e a r s fr o m th e
pl e a di ng s or th e e vi de n c e on recor d that the c our t
has n o j u r i s di c t i o n ove r th e subjec t ma tte r, tha t
the re i s a n oth e r ac ti o n pe n di n g be tw e e n the same
par ti e s for th e sam e c ause , or tha t the ac ti o n i s
b a r r e d b y a pr i o r j u d g m e n t o r b y s t a t u t e o f
l i mi tati ons, the cour t shall di s mi s s the clai m. (2a)
NOTES
1.. Unde r this a me nde d provision, the following defenses
are not waived even if not raised in a motion to dismiss or in
the answer: (a") lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter; (b~) litis pendentia; (c) res judicata; and
(d) prescription of the action.
2. The omnibus motion rule in the former Sec. 2 of this Rule
also provided, as an exception thereto, "the failure to state
a cause of action which may be alleged in a later
pleading, if one is permitted, or by motion for judgment on
the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits; but in the last
instance, the motion shall be disposed of as provided in
Section 5, Rule 10 in the light of any evidence which may
have been received."
That ground and the alternati ve bases for consider
ing it, in the event it was not alleged in either a motion
to dismi ss or in the answer, has been deleted as an
exception to the omnibus motion rule. The alternative
ways for posing this ground for consi de rati on of the
court in other pleadings, that is, in a later pleading if
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RULE 9
SEC. 1
187
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 1
6. . The p r e s e n c e of an y of t he s e four g r o u n d s
authorizes the court to motu proprio dismiss the claim,
that is, the claims asserted in a complaint, counter claim,
cros s-c la im , t hi r d (fourt h, e t c .) -pa rt y c o m pl a i n t or
complaint-in-intervention (see Sec. 2, Rule 6). In order tha t
it may do so, it is necessary that the constitutive facts of
such grounds, if not in the answer with evidence dul y
a dd uc e d t h e re fo r , shoul d a p p e a r i n th e ot he r
pleadings filed or in the evidence of record in the case.
7. Specifically with respect to the defense of pre scription, the
pre se n t provision is sim ilar to the rule adopte d in civil
cases, but dissimila r to the rule and rationale in criminal
cases. In civil cases, it has been held tha t the defense of
prescription
may be considered only if the same is
invoked
in the
answer,
except where the fact of
prescription appears in the alle gations in the compla int or
the evidence p re s e n t e d by the plaintiff, i n whi c h case
suc h de fe ns e i s not de e m e d wa i ve d (Ferrer vs. Ericta,
et al., L 41761, Aug. 23, 1978; Garcia vs. Mathis, et al.,
L-48577, Sept. 30, 1980). It would thu s a ppea r tha t the
non-wai ver i s de p e n de n t on the time line ss of invocation of
the defense, or where such defense is a m at t e r of record
or evidence.
8. In criminal cases, the same general rule on waiver of any
ground for a motion to quash also obtains where the
accused fails to a ssert the same either because he did
not file such motion before he pleaded or failed to allege
such ground the rei n. Except ed from this rule, howe ve r, is
th e groun d of p re s c r i pt i o n ei t he r of the offense or the
penalt y, that is, that the criminal action or liability has been
extingui shed (Sec. 9, Rule 117). This provision does not
require the qualifications of season abl e i n vo c a t i o n or
r e c o r de d fact of th e gr o u n d of prescription as discussed
above for civil actions. Instead, said provision is evidentl y
based on the rulings of the S u p r e m e
C ou r t t h a t
o bj e c t i o n o n th e g r o u n d o f
RUL E
E F F E C T O F FAI L U R E T O P L E A D
SE C . 2
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 3
190
R UL E
(d)
E F F E C T O F FAI L U R E T O P L E A D
SE C . 3
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 3
RULE 9
SEC.
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 3
RUL E
E F F E C T O F FAI L U R E T O P L E A D
SEC . 3
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 3
RUL E
E F F E C T O F FAI L U R E T O P L E A D
SE C . 3
RUL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 3
69243,
16. A petition for relief from the order of default may be filed
at any time after discovery of the default order and
before judgm ent (Turqueza vs. Hernando, etc., et al., G.R.
No. 51626, April 30, 1980). Said order of default, however,
is not appeal able as the same is an int e rl oc ut or y order
(Vda. de Hoyo-a, et al. vs. Virata, et al., G.R. No. 71171,
July 23, 1985) and the same is true with an order denying
a motion for the re conside rati on of the default order.
17. I t ha s also been held, howe ve r, t ha t while a default order,
being interlocutory, is not appealable, an order denying a
petition for relief, seeking to set aside an orde r of
de fa ul t , i s not me rel y i n t e rl o c u t o r y bu t final and,
t he re fore , a ppe a la bl e (Rodriguez, et al. vs. IAC, et al,
G.R. No. 74816, Mar. 17, 1987).
18. It should not be overlooked tha t par. (c) of this section,
which e n un c i a t e s the rule on pa rt i a l default, does not
apply where the defending pa rti e s are jointly sued or
impleaded unde r se pa rat e causes of action. I t
c onte m pla t e s a claim or suit upon a common cause of
action a ga inst several defending pa rt ie s at least one of
whom files an answer while the others are in default.
19. If the ans we ri n g defendant succeeds in
plaintiff s claim, such result inures also to
the defaulting defendants (Velez vs. Ramos,
Bringas vs. Hernando, G.R. No. 51933, Sept.
defeating the
the benefit of
10 Phil. 788;
24, 1986).
198
RUL E
E F F E C T O F FAI L U R E T O P L E A D
SE C . 3
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 3
200
R UL E
E F F E C T O F FAI L U R E T O P L E A D
SEC . 3
RULE 10
AM E NDE D AN D SUP P LEM ENTA L P LE A DI N G S
Se c ti o n 1. Amendments in general. P l e a di n g s
ma y b e a me n d e d b y a d d i n g o r s t r i k i n g ou t a n
a l l e g a t i o n o r th e n a m e o f an y p a r t y , o r b y
c or r e c t i n g a mi s ta k e in th e nam e of a party or a
mi s t a ke n o r i n a de qu a t e al l e g ati o n o r d e s c r i pt i o n
in an y othe r res pe c t , so tha t th e ac tua l me r i t s of
th e c o n t r o v e r s y ma y s p e e d i l y b e d e t e r m i n e d ,
w i t h ou t regar d t o t e c h n i c al i t i e s , an d i n th e mos t
e x p e d i t i o u s and i n e x p e n s i v e ma n ne r . (1)
Sec. 7. Filing of amended pleadings. Whe n an y
p l e a d i n g i s a m e n d e d , a ne w c op y o f th e e n t i r e
p l e a di n g , i n c o r p o r a t i n g th e a m e n d m e n t s , w h i c h
shall be i n di c at e d by a p pr opr i at e mar ks , shal l be
filed. (7a)
NOTES
1. Am e ndm e nt s to a pleading should be indicated
in the
amended pleading, as by underscoring, enclosing them in
quotation marks, putti ng them in capital letters, and so
forth, as would make them readily evident.
2. .
The
amended pleading superse des the original
pl e a di n g which i s de e me d w i t h d r a w n and no longer
constitutes part of the record. However, the filing of the
am e nde d pleading does not re troact to the date of the
filing of the original, hence, the st a t ut e of limitations
runs until the filing of the am e ndm e n t (Ruymann, et al. vs.
Director of Lands, 34 Phil. 429). But an am e ndm e n t which
merely suppleme nts and amplifies facts originally alleged
in the complaint
relates
back to the date of the
com me nc em e nt of the action and is not ba rred by the
R UL E
10
A M E N D E D AN D
S U P P L E M E N TA L PLEA DIN G S
202
SE C S . 1, 7
203
RUL E
10
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2
NOTES
1. Am e ndm e nt for the first time is a m at t e r of right before a
responsive pleading is filed or, in the case of a repl y, wit hi
n 10 da ys after i t was se rve d. Howe ve r, a m e n d m e n t for th
e second or subsequent tim e mus t always be with leave of
court even before a responsive pleading is filed or before the
case is set in the cale ndar of the court.
Where some but not all the defendants have filed their
answers, the plaintiff may amend his complaint, once as
a ma tt e r of right, in respect to the claims a ssert ed only
agai nst the non-answe ring defendants, but not as to the
claims a ssert ed a ga inst the other defendants who have
answe red (Siasoco, et al., vs. CA, et al., 362 Phil. 525,
Republic vs. Africa, et al, G.R. No. 172315, Aug 28, 2007).
2. Even after a motion to dismiss has been filed by de fe nda nt
(Paeste vs. Jaurigue, 94 Phil. 179) or such motion has been
submitte d for decision (Republic vs. Ilao, L-16667, Jan. 30, 1962),
the plaintiff can still ame nd his complaint as a ma tt e r of
right, since a motion to dismiss is not a responsive
pleading within this rule. An error of the court in
refusing such a m e n dm e n t is controllable by m a n da m u s
(Breslin, et al. vs. Luzon Stevedoring Co., et al, 84 Phil.
618; Ong Peng vs. Custodio, L-14911,
R UL E
10
A M E ND E D AN D
S U P P L E M E N TA L PLEA DIN G S
204
SE C . 2
205
RUL E
10
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
S E C S . 3- 4
AN D S U P P L E M E N T A L
PLEADING S
S E C S . 3- 4
R UL E
10
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 5
4.
10
A M E ND E D AN D
S UPPLEM ENTA L PLEADING S
SEC . 5
R UL E
10
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 6
10
A M E N D E D AN D
S U PP L EM E N TA L PLEADI NG S
210
SE C . 8
211
RUL E
10
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC .
212
RULE 11
WHEN TO FILE RESPO NSIVE PLEADINGS
Sec ti o n 1. Answer to the complaint.
Th e
de f e n d a n t shall file his an sw e r to the c o m pl a i n t
w ithi n fifteen (15) day s after ser vice of s u mmo n s
unl e s s a diffe rent peri od is fixed by the court, (la )
Sec. 2. Answer of a defendant foreign private
juridical entity. Where the de fe n da n t is a foreign
pri vate juri di c al e nti ty and ser vice of s u mmo n s i s
made on the g ov e r n me n t official de si gnate d by law
to rec ei v e the same , the answ e r shall be filed w ithi n
thirty (30) days after rece i pt of su mmon s by suc h
entity. (2a)
NOTES
1. In the case of a nonresident defendant on whom
ext rate rrit orial service of summons is made, the period to
answer must be at least 60 days (Sec. 15, Rule 14).
2. The granting of additional time to the defendant wit hi n
which to file an a nswe r is a m a t t e r large l y addressed to
the sound discretion of the trial court (Naga Dev. Corp. vs.
CA, et al., L-28173, Sept. 30, 1971). Foreign authorities are to
the effect that while courts can extend the time for filing of
responsive pleadings, they can not shorten the time to do so
(1 Martin 344, citing Aaron vs. Anderson, 18 Ark. 268, 49 C.J.
200). This seems to be the inte ndm ent of our rules, as the
present Rule provides for discretion on the part of the
court to extend the time or allow pleadings filed after the
re glementary period, thus
"Sec. 11. Extension of time to plead. Upon
motion and on such terms as may be just, the court
213
RUL E
11
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 3
11
W H E N T O FIL E
RESPONSIV E PLEADING S
214
SE C . 3
NOTE
1. This amended section, while adopting the period
provided by the former Rule for the filing of an answer to
an amended complaint, now makes clear the date from which
such period shall be reckoned. Thus, if the filing of an
amended complaint is a matter of right, as where no
answer has yet been filed to the original complaint, no
motion for leave or court order granting such leave to
file an amended complaint being involved, the 15-day period
to answer is counted from service of the amended complaint.
If the filing of the amended complaint is not a matter of
right, then leave of court is required, hence the 10-day
period to answer runs from notice of the court order granting
the same. This simplified
procedure
has been made
possible by the new provisions in Rule 15, that is, Sec. 9
thereof which provides that a motion for leave to file such
pleading shall be accompanied by that pleading sought to be
admitted, hence the defendant has advance knowledge of
that proposed amended complaint. See notes under said
Sec. 9.
The alternative practice under the old Rule was for
the pleader to file a motion for leave to amend his com
plaint, attaching thereto the proposed amended pleading,
with copies of both furnished to the other party. In such
a case, the period to file an answer to tha t amended
complaint commences after receipt of the order of the
court allowing the filing of such a me nde d plea ding.
Where, however, a motion for leave to amend was first
filed and then, after the order granting the same, the
amended pleading was filed and served on the opposing
party, the reglementary period started to run from service
of such amended pleading. Thus, Sec. 3 was understood
to mean tha t the period shall "run from notice of the
order admitting the amended complaint" or the service of
the latter, whichever is later. That procedure has been
215
RUL E
11
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
S E C S . 4-6 , 6
d wit h
he also
as the
original
W HE N T O FIL E
RESPONSIV E PLEADING S
SE C . 6
R UL E
11
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 7
11
WHE N T O FIL E
RESPONSIV E PLEADING S
218
S E C S . 8-11
219
RUL E
11
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S .
8-11
NOTES
1. Sec. 11 is c omm e nt e d on in the notes unde r Sec. 2 of
this Rule.
2. See the discussion in the notes under Secs. 6 and 7 of
Rule 6 which point out that an after-acquired counte rclai m
or cross-claim may be set up by filing a supple ment al
pleading, while an omitted counterclaim or c ross -cl ai m
may be ra ised in an a m e nde d pl ea di n g pursua n t to and
under the conditions in Secs. 9 and 10 of this Rule.
It is also noted therein that a counterclaim or crossclaim need not be a n s w e r e d if i t is ba se d on or is
inseparable from the defenses raised by the opposing party,
or merely allege the opposite of the facts in the complaint.
Also, where the counterclaim or cross-claim is only for
damages or attorne y' s fees arising from the filing of the
complaint, it need not be answered. These doctrines also
apply to after-acquired or omitted counterclaims and crossclaims subsequentl y allowed by the court to be filed in the
action.
220
RULE 12
BILL OF PARTICULARS
S e c t i o n 1. When applied for; purpose. Before
r e s p on di n g to a pl e adi ng, a party may move for a
more de fi ni te s t a t e me n t or for a bill of par ti cular s
of an y ma tte r w hic h i s not ave r red with sufficient
de f i n i t e n e s s or par ti c ul ar i ty to enabl e hi m properly
to pr e pare his r es pon s i v e pl e a di ng. I f the pl e adi n g
is a reply, th e moti o n mus t be filed within ten (10)
days from ser vi ce thereof. Suc h moti on shall point
ou t th e d e f e c t s c o m p l a i n e d of, th e p a r a g r a p h s
w he rei n the y are c on ta i n e d , and the detai ls de sired,
(la)
NOTES
1. Under this revised Rule, the purpose of a bill of particulars
is to enable the defending party to properly p re p a r e his
re sp on s i v e pl e a di n g . Unde r the former f o r m ul a t i o n , th
e ot he r pu rp os e wa s su pp os e d l y t o enable him "to
pre pa re for trial," but tha t s t a t e m e n t has been
eliminated for being inaccurate. Besides, there are other
and more proper remedies or modes of discovery whereby a
party may chart his course of action for the prospective trial.
2. . W ha t may be c o ns i d e re d as a ra t i o na l e for
requiring a bill of pa rtic ula rs in proper cases is that,
while plea dings should be liberally construed with a
view to substantial justice, courts should not be left to
conjecture in the determination of the issues submitted by
the l i t i ga n t s . Where the pl ea di ng is va gue and
uncertain, courts should not be led to the commission of
error or injustice by exploring in the midst of uncertainty
and di vi ni n g the i n t e nt i o n of the pa r t i e s from the
R UL E
12
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S . 2- 4
RULE 12
BILL OF PARTICULARS
SECS. 5-
6 NOTES
1.
These new or amended provisions spell out the
mechanics involved in the obtention of a bill of particulars
and the sanctions for non-compliance therewith. Judicial
experience shows tha t resort to a motion for a bill of
particulars is sometimes actually intended for delay or,
even if not so inte nde d, nonethe less result s in delay
since the re gl e m e nt a r y period for filing a responsi ve
pl eadi ng is suspe nded and the subse que nt exchanges
are likewise set back in the meantime.
2. Sec. 3 is a new provision which is intended to clarify how a
bill of pa rti c ula rs may be filed, tha t is, through either a
sepa rate or an amended pleading. Thus, the former
provision in Sec. 1(b) of the old Rule that a bill of
pa rt i c ul a r s "shall be governed by the rules of pleading and
the original shall be filed with the clerk of court" has been
eliminated in the reproduction of that former provision as
Sec. 6 of the present Rule.
Said Sec. 3 further makes it clear that the motion for
a bill of particulars may be granted in whole or in part
as not all the allegations questioned by the movant are
necessarily so ambiguous as to require clarification.
Sec. 5. Stay of period to file responsive pleading.
After s e r vi c e of th e bill of p a r t i c u l a r s or of a mor e
de f i ni t e p l e a d i n g , o r afte r not i c e o f d e n i a l o f hi s
m ot i on , th e m o vi n g p a r t y ma y file hi s r e s p o n s i v e
p l e a d i n g w i t h i n th e pe ri o d t o whi c h h e wa s e n t i t l e
d a t th e t im e o f filing hi s m ot i on , whic h shal l no t b
e less t ha n five (5) da y s in an y e ve nt . (l[b ]a)
Sec . 6. Bill a part of pleading. A bil l of
p a r t i c u l a r s be c om e s pa r t o f th e p l e a d i n g for whic
h i t i s i n t e n d e d . (l [a]a)
223
R UL E
12
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 5-6
NOTES
1. As understood under Sec. 1 of this Rule, a motion for a bill
of p a r t i c u l a r s mus t be filed w i t h i n th e r e gl e m e n t a r y
period for the filing of a r e s p o n s i v e plea ding to the
pl eadi ng sought to be clarified. This contemplates
pleadings which are required by the Rules to be a nswe re
d unde r pain of pr oc e du ra l sa nc t i on s , such as default or
implied admission of the facts not responded to. A special
provision regarding a vague reply is included in Sec. 1, that
is, that a motion for a bill of pa rtic ula rs directed to a reply
must be filed within 10 days, since a responsive pleading
is not required for a reply as, in fact, the filing of the
reply itself is optional or permissive (see Sec. 6, Rule 11
and notes thereon).
2. This specification of a reply took the place of the former
provision which merely provided for tha t 10-day period if
the pleading sought to be clarified is one to which "no
re sponsi ve plea di ng is pe r m i t t e d by these rules." That is
in itself correct but may be susceptible of mi sunde rst a ndi n g
since there are other pleadings evolved and sa nc t i one d by
practi ce as re spon si ve pl ea di n gs, which are of American
vintage but not expressly provided for in our Rules.
Thus, after the reply, there can be a rejoinder with
a sur-rejoinder and then a rebutte r with a sur-rebutte r.
If these subsequent pleadings are allowed by the court,
as responsive pleadings which are not required but at
least authorized, then it would be logical for it to fix a
period for the filing of a motion for a bill of particulars
whenever the same is necessary to make more definite
the allegations in said pleadings.
3. . Judicial experience, however, reveals that resort to the
filing of rejoinders and sur-rejoi nders
or
other
subsequent pleadings were often resorted to for dilatory
purposes, with the parties intentionally leaving incomplete
R UL E
12
B IL L O F PAR T I C U L A R S
S E C S . 5-6
RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEA DIN GS,
JUD GM EN T S AND OTHER PAPERS
Sec ti o n 1. Coverage. This Rule shall g ove r n
the filing of all pl e a di n g s and other pa pe r s, as well
as th e s e r v i c e the reof, e xc e p t thos e for w hi c h a
di fferent mod e of se r vic e i s prescr i be d, (n)
Sec. 2. Filing and service, defined. Fili ng is the
act of pr e s e n t i n g the pl e a di n g or other pape r to the
cler k of court.
Ser vi c e is the act of pr ov i di n g a party wit h a
cop y of th e p l e a di n g or pape r c o n c e r n e d . I f an y
party ha s a ppe are d by c ounse l , se r vic e upo n hi m
shal l b e mad e upo n hi s c o u n s e l o r on e o f the m ,
unl e s s ser vi ce upo n the party hi mse l f i s or de re d by
the court. Where on e c ounse l a ppe ar s for se ve r al
par ti e s, he shall only be e nti tl e d to on e cop y of any
pape r ser ve d upo n hi m by the opposi t e side. (2a)
NOTES
1. It is the duty of counsel to adopt and strictl y maintain a
system that efficiently takes into account all court notices
sent to him. His failure to do so cannot excuse him from
the consequences of his non-receipt of court notices
(Babala vs. CA, et al., L-23065, Feb. 16, 1970; Republic vs.
Arro, et al., L-48241, June 11, 1987; Antonio, et al. vs. CA, et
al., G.R. No. 77656, Aug. 31, 1987). An attorne y of record
must notify the court of his change of address. The fact that
counsel used a different address in later pleadings does not
constitute the notice re qui re d for i ndic a ti n g his change of
a dd re s s (Phil. Suburban Dev. Corp. vs. CA, et al., L-33448,
Sept. 17, 1980).
See also Sec. 3, Rule 7 and the notes
the reunde r.
226
RULE
13
SECS 1-
RUL E
13
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 3
228
RULE 13
R UL E
13
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C 7
RUL E 1 3
FILIN G AN D SE RVI C E O F P L E A DI N GS ,
9 J U D G M E N T S A N D OT HE R PAP E R S
SE C S 8-
NOTE
1.
R UL E
13
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 9
RUL E
IS
FI LI N G AN D SE RVI C E O F P L E A D I N G S
J U D G M E N T S A N D O T HE R PA P E R S
233
RUL E
13
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 10
RUL E
13
FILIN G AN D SE RVI C E O F P L E A DI N G S
J U D G M E N T S A N D OT HE R PAP E R S
SE C S
11-1 2
89 Phil. 279).
4. When the post office certifies to the delivery of registered
mail, such certification should include data as to w he n ,
how and to whom del ivery wa s made (Hernandez, et al.
vs. Navarro, et al, L-28296, Nov 24 1972).
5. For failure of petitioners to claim a copy of the resolution
denying due course to their petition within
5 days from notice, service became effective after the fiveday period and the finality of said resolution is reckoned
therefrom, pursuant to Sec. 8 (now, Sec. 10), Rule 18
which is applicable to said resolution of the appellate
court (Aportadera, et al. vs. CA, et al, L-41358, Mar. 16,
1988).
Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing.
W h e n e v e r p r a c t i c a b l e , th e s e r v i c e an d fi l i n g o f
pl e a di ng s and othe r pa per s shall be done personally.
E xce pt wit h r es pe c t t o pa pe r s e ma n a t i n g from the
court, a resor t to othe r mode s mus t be ac c ompa ni e d
by a w r i tt e n e xp l a n a t i o n wh y the ser vi ce or filing wa
s not don e pe r sonal ly. A vi ol ati on of thi s rule may
be cau s e to c on si de r the pa per as not filed, (n)
Sec . 12. Proof of filing. The filing of a pl e adi n g
or pa pe r shal l be pr ov e d by its e xi s t e n c e in th e
recor d of th e case . If i t i s not in th e rec ord, but i s
c l ai me d t o hav e be e n filed pe r s on a l l y , th e fi l i n g
s h a l l b e p r o v e d b y th e w r i t t e n o r s t a m p e d
a c k n ow l e d g me n t of its filing by the clerk of court
on a cop y of th e same; i f filed by regi ste re d mail, by
th e r e g i s t r y r e c e i p t an d b y th e affi davi t o f th e
p e r s o n wh o di d th e m a i l i n g , c o n t a i n i n g a full
st at e me n t of th e date and place of de pos i t i n g the
mail in the post office in a seale d e nve l ope addresse d
to the court, wit h pos tage fully pre-pai d, and wit h
236
RUL E
13
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
S E C S . 11-1 2
RUL E 1 3
FILIN G AN D SE RVI C E O F P L E A DI N GS ,
3 J U D G M E N T S A N D O T HE R PAP E R S
SE C . 1
RUL E
13
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 14
RUL E 1 3
F IL IN G A N D S E R V I C E O F P L E A D I N G S ,
4 J U D G M E N T S A N D OT HE R PAP E R S
SE C . 1
RUL E
13
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 14
240
R UL E
13
F I L I N G AN D S E R V I C E O F P L E A D I N G S ,
4 J U D G M E N T S AN D OT HE R PAP E R S
SE C
RULE 14
S UM M O N
S
Sec ti o n 1. Clerk to issue summons. Upo n th
fi li n g o f th e c o m p l a i n t an d th e p a y me n t o f th
r e q u i s i t e l e g a l f e e s , th e c l e r k o f c o u r t s h a l
f or thw ith i ssu e th e c or r e s p o n di n g s u m mo n s t o th
de fe n da nt s , (la )
e
e
l
e
Sec. 2 . Contents. Th e s u m m o n s s h a l l be
di re c t e d t o th e de f e n dan t , si gne d b y th e cler k o f
c our t un de r seal, an d c ontai n: (a) th e nam e of th e
c our t an d th e na me s of th e par ti e s to th e ac ti on; (b)
a di r ec ti o n tha t th e de fe n da n t a nsw e r w i thi n th e
ti me fixed by thes e Rules; and (c) a notic e that unl e s s
th e d e f e n d a n t s o a n s w e r s , p l a i n t i f f w i l l t a k e
j u dg me n t by de faul t an d ma y be gr ante d th e relief
a ppl i e d for.
A c o p y o f th e c o m p l a i n t an d o r d e r for
a p p o i n t me n t of gu ar di a n ad litem, if any, shall be
a t t a c h e d t o th e o r i g i n a l an d e a c h c op y o f th e
s u mm o n s . (3a)
NOTES
1. Jurisdic tion cannot be acquired over the defen dant wit hout
service of summons, even if he knows of the case
against him, unless he voluntaril y submits to the
jurisdiction of the court by appearing therei n as through
his counsel filing the corresponding pleading in the case
(Habana vs. Vamenta, et al., L-27091, June 30, 1970).
Even if jurisdiction over him was not originally acquired
due to defective service of summons, the court acquires
jurisdict ion over his person by his act of subseque ntl y
filing a motion for reconsideration (Soriano vs. Palacio, L17469, Nov. 28, 1964), or by joi ntl y s u b m i t t i n g a
242
R UL E
14
SUMMON
S E C S . 1-2
4. .
F u r t h e r m o r e , i f th e de f e n d a n t ha d not yet
appeared by filing adversary pleadings and an amended
complaint introducing new causes of action is filed, a
243
R UL E
14
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S . 3- 5
n
s
y
d
d
R UL E
14
SUMMON
S E C S . 6- 7
NOTES
1. The e nume ra ti on in Sec. 3 of the persons who may validly
serve summ ons is exclusive. Thus, where summons was
served, without authority granted by the court, by a police
sergeant (Sequito vs. Letrondo, 105 Phil. 1139), by a
postm aster (Olar vs. Cuna, L-47935, May 5, 1978), or by a
pat rolm an (Bello vs. Ubo, et al., L-30353, Sept. 30, 1982),
such service was invalid and the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the defendant.
2. Proof of service is requi red to be given to the plaintiffs
counsel in order to enable him to move for a default order
should the defendant fail to answer on time or, in case of
non-service, so tha t alias summons may be sought. In
either case, under this amended section, the server mus t
serve a copy of the re t ur n on pl a i nt i ff s counsel within 5
days from completion or failure of the service, which
re qu i re m e n t was absent in the former Rules.
Sec . 6. Service in person on defendant. Whe n
eve r pr ac tic a bl e , the su mmon s shall be ser ve d by
ha n di n g a cop y the reo f to th e de fe n da n t in pe r son,
or, i f h e r e f u s e s t o r e c e i v e an d si g n for it, b y
te n de r i n g i t to hi m. (7a)
Sec. 7. Substituted service. If, for justi fi a bl e
c a u se s , th e d e f e n da n t c an n o t be se r ve d w i thi n a
r e a s o n a b l e ti m e a s p r o v i d e d i n th e p r e c e d i n g
secti on, ser vi ce may be effecte d (a) by le avi ng copi es
of the su mmon s at the de fe ndant' s re si de nc e wit h
som e pe r s o n o f sui tabl e age and d i s c r e t i o n the n
r e s i di n g t h e r e i n , or (b) by l e avi n g th e c opi e s at
de fe ndant' s office or regul ar place of busi ne s s wit h
some c o m pe t e n t pe r s o n in c har ge thereof. (8a)
RUL E
14
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S . 6- 7
NOT E S
1. T hese two sec tions provi de for two modes of service of
summons. The third mode is service of summons by
publication (Secs. 14, 15 and 16). The court may also provide
for any other manner as it may deem sufficient (Sec. 15).
2. .
S u m m o n s c a nno t be served by mail . Whe r e
service of summ ons is made by publication, "a copy of
the sum m on s and order of the court shall be sent by
registered mail to the last known address of the defen
dant " (Sec. 15).
That resort to re gistered mail is only
complementary to service of summons by publication, but i
t does not mean tha t service by re gistered mail alone
would suffice.
Thus, Sec. 22 of the former Rule
entitled "Proof of service by registered mail," which created
that m i si m pre ss i o n, a lt hou g h i t ac t ua l l y re fe rre d only to
the re gi st e re d mail as a c om pl em e nt in summ on s by
pu bl i c a t i o n , ha s been e l i m i n a t e d an d ha s not bee n
reproduced in this revised Rule. For tha t ma tt e r, the
purpose it intended to serve is attende d to by Sec. 13,
Rule 13.
3. In ejectment cases, being in personam, personal service of
summons on the defendant within the state of the forum is
esse ntial to acquire juri sdicti on over his person, hence
summons by publication is null and void (Ilaya Textile
Market, Inc. vs. Ocampo, et al, L-27823, Mar. 20, 1970).
4. Where the action is in personam and the defen dan t i s in
th e P hi l i p pi ne s , service mus t be mad e in accordance
with Sec. 7. Substit ute d service should be availed of only
where the defendant cannot be promptly se r ve d in pe rs o
n (Litonjua vs. CA, et al, L-46265, Oct. 28, 1977).
246
RUL E
14
SUMMON
SE C . 8
RUL E
14
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 8
RUL E
14
SUMMON
SE C S . 9-1 0
RUL E
14
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 11
250
R UL E
14
SUMMON
SE C . 11
RUL E
14
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 11
R UL E
14
SUMMON
SE C . 11
253
RUL E
14
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 12
Sec.
12. Service upon foreign private juridical entity.
When th e de f e n dan t is a foreign pr i vate juri di c al
e n t i t y w h i c h ha s t r a n s a c t e d b u s i n e s s i n th e
P hi l i p p i n e s , se r vic e ma y be mad e on its r es i de n t
age n t de s i g n a t e d in ac c or da nc e wit h law for tha t
p u r p o s e , or, i f t h e r e b e n o suc h a g e n t , o n th e
g ov e r n me n t official de s i g na te d by law to that effect,
o r o n an y o f it s o f f i c e r s o r a g e n t s w i t h i n th e
P hi l i ppi ne s . (14a)
NOTES
1. This section has been amended to substitute the phrase
"foreign private juridical entit y which has tran sacted
business in the Philippines," being more embracing and
accurate, for the provision in the former Section 14 of
this Rule which referred to a "foreign corporation, or a
joint non-stock company or association, doing business in
the Philippines."
2. . Formerly, where the foreign private corporation had no
resident agent in the Philippines or officers or other agents
here, service of summ ons was made on the gove rnm e nt
officials desi gnate d by law, to wit: (a)
for banking,
savings and loan or trust corporations,
upon the
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of Ba nk s (Sec. 17, R.A. 337); (b) for
insurance corporations, on the Insura nce Commissioner
(Sec. 177, Insurance Act, as amended by Act 3152); and
(c) in the case of other corporations, on the Secretary of
Commerce (Sec. 72, Act 1259, as amended by CA. 287,
R.A. 337 an d R.A. 1055). Howe ver, Sec. 123 of th e
C orpora t i on Code now provi de s t ha t whe n a foreign
pri vate corporation applies for a license to do business
in th e Phi l i ppi ne s, i t shal l be gra nte d subject to the
condition, inter alia, tha t if it ha s no re si de nt agent,
summons and processes intended for it shall be served
on the Securities and Exchange Commission.
R UL E
14
SUMMON
SE C . 13
265
RUL E
14
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 14-1 6
R UL E
14
SUMMON
S E C S . 14-1 5
NOTES
1. Sec. 15 provides for the four instances wherein
extrat erritorial service of summons is proper. In any of
such four instances, service of summons may, by leave
of court, be effected by personal service, by publication
with a copy of the summ ons and the court order sent
by re gistered mail, or in any other ma nne r which the
court may deem sufficient. Where summonses were sent
to defendants who were residing abroad, by registered
mail which they duly received and even filed a pleading
questioning such mode of service, the third mode of service
was substantiall y complied with and such service is valid,
especially where the court thereafter granted them 90 days
wi t hi n which to file t hei r a n s we r (De Midgely vs.
Ferandos, L-34313, May 13, 1975; Carioga, et al. vs.
Malaya, et al., L 48375, Aug. 13, 1986).
2. Where the husband is a nonresident, but his wife is a
resident and is his attorne y-in-fact who even com menced
an action in his behalf, in a complaint against said
nonre si de nt defendant, summ ons may validly be served on
his wife and the court has jurisdiction over said nonre si de n
t (Gemperle vs. Schenker, et al., L-18164, Jan. 23,
1967).
3. . Unde r Sec. 15 of thi s Rule, e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l
service of summons is proper only in four instances, viz.:
(a) when the action affects the personal sta t u s of the
plaintiff; (b) when the action relates to, or the subject of
which is propert y within the Philippines in which the
de fe nda nt ha s or claims a lien or int e re st , act ual or
contingent; (c) when the relief demanded in such action
consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant
from any interest in property located in the Philippines;
and (d) whe n th e de f e n da n t no nre si de nt ' s prope rt y
has been at ta c he d in the Philippines (De Midgely vs.
Ferandos,
supra).
RUL E 1 4
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S . 14-1 5
RUL E
14
SUMMON
SE C S . 14-15
In Asiavest Limited vs. CA, et al. (G.R. No. 128803, Sept. 25,
1998), an action was filed in Hongkong against a
Philippine re si de nt for a sum of money. Summ ons therein
was served directly through plaintiffs Philippine counsel
upon an occupant of defendant ' s residence in Quezon City.
Thereafter, the judgment of the Hongkong court was
re nde re d and sought to be executed in the Philippines, but
it was resisted for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant.
Matte rs of procedure, such as service of summons, are
governed by the lex loci, in this case, those of Hong
kong. There being no proof on this score, under the rule
on processual presumption the same are deemed to be
the same as Philippine law. In the present case, such
s u m m o n s se rve d on a n o n re s i d e n t de f e n da n t in an
action in personam is not valid since e xt ra t e rri t or i a l
service of summons on nonresidents is allowed only in
the instances provided under Sec. 17, Rule 14. Service of
s u m m o n s in thi s case being inva lid, th e Ho ngkon g
jud gm e nt cannot be given effect here, no jurisdict ion
having been acquired over the defendant.
RUL E
14
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 16-17
R UL E
14
SUMMON
SE C S . 16-17
d. Whe r e th e d e f e n d a n t is a r e s i d e n t of th e Philippines
but is temporaril y out of the country.
2.
3. .
261
RUL E
14
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 18-2 0
Comm. Co., Inc. vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 70661, April 9,
1987).
Sec. 18. Proof of service. The proof of se r vic e
of a su mmon s shall be mad e in w riti n g by th e server
and shall set forth th e man ne r , place and date of
ser vice ; shall speci fy an y pa pe r s w hic h hav e bee n
ser ve d wit h th e pr oc e s s and the nam e o f th e pe r s o n
wh o rec ei ve d th e same ; and shall b e sw or n t o w he n
mad e by a pe r s o n othe r tha n a sheri ff or his de puty .
(20)
Sec. 19. Proof of service by publication. If th e
ser vi ce ha s bee n mad e b y pu bl i c a ti on , ser vi c e ma y
be pr ove d by the affidavit of th e pr inte r, hi s fore man
o r pr i n c i pa l c le r k , o r o f th e e di t or , b u s i n e s s o r
a d v e r t i s i n g ma nage r , to w hi c h affidavit a cop y of
the pu bl i c ati on shall be attac he d, and by an affidavit
s h ow i n g th e de p osi t of a cop y of th e s u m m o n s and
or de r for p u b l i c a t i o n i n th e pos t offic e , p o s t a g e
prepai d, di rec te d to th e de fe n dant by regi ste red mail
to hi s last kn ow n a ddr ess . (21)
Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance. Th e de f e n d a n t ' s
v o l u n t a r y a p p e a r a n c e i n th e a c t i o n s h a l l b e
e q u i v al e n t t o ser vi c e o f s u mm o n s . Th e i n c l u s i o n
in a moti o n to di s mi s s of othe r gr ou n d s asi d e from
lac k o f ju r i s di c t i o n ove r th e pe r s o n o f th e de f e n d a n
t shall no t be de e me d a v ol u n ta r y a p pe a r a n c e .
(23a)
NOTE
1 . Any form of a p p e a r a n c e in c ou rt , by th e
defendant, by his agent authorized to do so, or by attorney,
is equivalent to service except where such appea rance is
precisely to object to the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the defendant (Carballo vs. Encarnacion, 92
Phil. 974). See Notes 4 and 5 under Sec. 1, Rule 16.
RULE 15
MO TIO N
S
S e c t i o n 1. Motion defined. A m o t i o n is an
a p pl i c at i o n for relie f othe r tha n by a pl eadi ng, (la )
NOTE
1. T hi s a m e n d e d de fi ni t i o n of a m oti o n is a
consequence of the provisions of Sec. 1, Rule 6 which limit
the meaning of a pleading to the written sta teme nt of the
respective claims and defenses submitted by the parties
for appropriate judgment, and Sec. 2 of the same Rule
which enum e ra t e s the pleadings allowed. However, as
explained in the notes thereunder, a motion may also be
considered in a broad sense as in the nature of a pleading
since it is among the papers filed in court. Hence, Sec. 10
of this Rule requires a qualified application to motions of
the rules applicable to pleadings.
Sec. 2. Motions must be in writing. All moti on s
shall be in w ri ti n g e xc e p t thos e mad e in ope n court
or in th e c our s e of a he ar i n g or trial. (2a)
Sec. 3. Contents. A m o t i o n shal l stat e th e
relief s oug h t to be obtai ne d and the gr ou n d s upo n
w hic h i t i s base d, and i f re qui re d by thes e Rul es or
n e c e ss ar y to pr ove facts al l e ge d the rei n , shall be
a c c o m p a n i e d b y s u p p o r t i n g affi davits and othe r
pa per s. (3a)
Sec. 4. Hearing of motion. Except for moti on s
w hic h th e court ma y act upo n w i thou t pr eju di c i ng
the rights of the a dve r se party, every written motion
shall be se t for h e ar i n g by the appl ic ant. Eve ry
w ri tte n moti o n requi re d to be he ar d and the notice
263
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
R UL E
15
MOTI ON
SE C S . 5- 6
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S . 5-6
2. Any motion tha t does not comply with Secs. 4, 5 and 6 of this
Rule is a mere scrap of paper, should not be accepted for
filing and, if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance and
does not affect any re glem enta ry period involved for the
filing of the requisite pleading. Thus, where the motion
is (a) directed to the clerk of court, not to the pa rti e s, and
(b) merel y sta tes tha t the same is submitted "for the
resolution of the court upon receipt thereof," said motion is
fatally defective (Cledera, et al. vs. Sarmiento, et al., L32450-51, June 10, 1971). This rul e ha s bee n a pp l i e d t o
m ot i on s for new t ri a l o r reconsideration where no date for
hea ring the motion is i n d i c a t e d (Manila Surety & Fidelity
Co. vs. Bath Construction & Co., supra; Fulton Insurance
Co. vs. Manila Railroad Co., L-24263, Nov. 18, 1967; Magno
vs. Ortiz, L-22670, Jan. 31, 1969; In the Matter of
Proceedings for Disciplinary Action Against Vicente Almacen,
L-27654, Feb. 18, 1970; Sebastian vs. Cabal, supra; Vda.
deAzarias vs. Maddela, et al., L-25932, Mar. 19, 1971; Phil.
Advertising Counselors, Inc. vs. Revilla, et al., L-31869,
Aug. 8, 1973; Sacdalan vs. Bautista, L-38014, Mar. 27,
1974; New Japan Motors, Inc. vs. Perucho, L-44387,
Nov. 5, 1976; Firme, et al. vs. Reyes, et al., L-35858,
Aug. 21, 1979).
Where the motion to dismiss, with such defective notice
of hearing, was grounded on lack of cause of action and
improper venue, which grounds are resolvable on the basis
of the compla int an d the anne xe s t he re t o , such erro r
al t houg h not wholly exc usable was gra nt e d a libe ral
consideration and given due course by the Supreme Court
(Azajor vs. CA, et al., L-40945, Nov. 10, 1986).
3. In Andrada, et al. vs. CA, et al. ( L- 3 1 7 9 1 , Oct. 30, 1974),
it was held tha t a "Ma ni fe st at i on and Motion" addre ssed to
the clerk of court asking him to submit the same to the court
"immediatel y upon receipt t h e r e o f did not comply with
the re qui rem e nt s of Sec. 5,
RUL E
15
MOTI ON
SE C S . 8, 9
R UL E
15
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S . 8- 9
e
g
l
l
.
NOTES
1. The omnibus motion rule in Sec. 8 yields to other specific
provisions. T hus, for inst ance , in a motion to dismiss, the
failure to object to the lack of jurisdiction over the case does
not const i t ut e waiver of this objection. See Sec. 1, Rule
9, as amended, and the discussion therein.
2. Regarding evidence on motions, see Sec. 7, Rule
133 and notes the re unde r.
Sec. 9. Motion for leave. A moti o n for le av e to
file a pl e a di n g or moti o n shal l be a c c o m p a n i e d by
th e p l e a di n g or moti o n s oug h t to be a d mi tt e d , (n)
NOTES
1. The evident purpose of this new provision is to provide the
court with the basis for determining the merits of the
motion for leave of court to file the desired pleading or
motion. Such pleading or motion sought to be admitted is
now required to be attac hed to the motion for leave of court,
otherwise the latter may be denied. Indeed, it is too
demanding, if not unfair to the court and the adverse part y,
to seek a ruling and the admission of a pleading sight
unsee n, so to speak, since the court will have to fathom the
content s of the projected pleading and the o pp os i n g pa r t
y c a n n o t i n t e l l i g e n t l y f o r m u l a t e his
RUL E
15
MOTI ON
SEC . 10
RULE 16
MOTION TO DISM I S
S
S e c t i o n 1. Grounds. Withi n th e ti m e for but b e f or
e f i l i n g th e a n s w e r t o th e c o m p l a i n t o r pl e a di n g
a s s e r ti n g a clai m, a moti o n to di s mi s s ma y be mad e
on an y of th e f ol l ow i n g groun ds :
(a) That th e cour t ha s n o j ur i s di c ti o n ove r th e pe r s o n
of th e d e f e n di n g party;
(b) That th e court ha s no j ur i s di c ti o n ove r th e su bje c t
matte r of th e clai m;
(c) That ve n u e i s i mpr ope r l y laid;
(d) That th e plainti ff ha s no legal c apac i t y to
sue;
(e) Tha t ther e i s a n o t h e r ac t i o n p e n d i n g
b e tw e e n th e sam e par ti e s for th e sam e c ause ;
(f) Tha t th e cau s e of ac ti o n is bar re d by a prior j u d g me n t
or by th e statut e of l i mi t at i on s ;
(g) Tha t th e pl e a di n g a s s e r t i n g th e cl ai m state s n o
cau s e o f ac ti on;
(h) Tha t th e cl ai m or de ma n d se t forth in th e p l a i n t i f f s
p l e a d i n g ha s be e n p a i d , w a i v e d , a b a n d o n e d , o r
o t h e r w i s e e xt i n g u i s h e d ;
( i ) T h a t th e c l a i m o n w h i c h th e a c t i o n i s f ou n de d i s
u n e n f or c e a bl e un de r th e p r ov i s i o n s o f th e statut e
of frauds; an d
(j) T ha t a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t for fi li n g th e c l ai m ha s
not bee n c ompl i e d w ith , (la)
NOTES
1.
R UL E
16
M OT I O N
T O DISMIS S
SE C . 1
R UL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RUL E
16
M OT I O N
T O DI SMI S S
SEC . 1
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RUL E
16
M OT I O N T O D I S M I S S
SE C . 1
excl usi ve l y ve st e d i n th e Se c ur i t i e s an d E x c ha n g e
Commission, or to special courts such as tax suits which
were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Tax
Appeals. If so, this would properly constitute lack of
jurisdiction over the subject -matter if such cases are filed
in the regular trial courts. Within their respective levels,
the regular trial courts have uniform jurisdiction with
regard to the na ture of the actions they may entertain,
hence if the objection is as to the subject or object involved,
it would necessarily be on either subject-matter jurisdiction
or on venue considerations.
8. The jurisdictional grounds which may be invoked under the
present Rule are, therefore, confined to lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defending part y and the subject matt er of the claim. The first has already been
discussed, but it must not be overlooked that the term now
used is not limited to the defendant but applies to all
defending pa rt i e s a ga i ns t whom claims are a sse rt e d
through other initiatory pleadings, such as counterclaims,
cross-claims and third-part y complaints. Jurisdiction is
obt ai ne d over th e ori gi na l de f e n d a n t by se rvi ce of
summons and over the other defending parties by service
of th e pl ea di n g cont ai ni n g the claim. Also, as now
amended, this Rule refers to the subject-matter of each
particular claim and not only to that of the suit, as it was
under the former Rule, which thereby applied only to the
complaint.
a. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is determined by the
allegations in the complaint regardless of whether or not
the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the
claims asserted therein. The defenses asserted in the
answer or motion to dismiss are not to be considered for
this purpose, otherwise the question would depend
e nti re l y upon th e de fe nda nt (Magay vs. Estandian, L28975, Feb. 27, 1976).
275
R UL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RUL E
16
M OT I O N
T O DISMIS S
SE C . 1
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RUL E
16
M OT I O N T O D I S M I S S
SE C . 1
de f e n d a n t de al t wit h th e former as a pa rt y in th e
proceedings below (University of Pangasinan Faculty
Union vs. University of Pangasinan, et al., G.R. No. 63122
Feb. 21, 1984).
13. The pendency of another action, or litis pen dentia, as a
ground for a motion to dismiss, requires that the pa rti e s
to the action are the same; tha t ther e i s subst ant ial
identit y in the causes of action and reliefs s o u g h t ; an d t h a
t th e re s u l t o f th e first a ct i o n i s dete rmi nati ve of the
second in any event (Northcott & Co. vs. Villa- Abrille, 41
Phil. 462) and regardless of which part y is successful
(Arceo vs. Oliveros, et al., L-38251, Jan. 31, 1985). The motion
to dismiss may be filed in eithe r suit, not necessaril y in
the one instit ute d first (Teodoro vs. Mirasol, 99 Phil. 150;
Magsaysay vs. Magsaysay, et al., L-49847,
July
17,
1980).
The Supreme Court has repeatedl y held, however,
that when the elements of litis pendentia exist, the action
filed later should be abated, based on the maxim that qui
prior est tempore, potior est jure (he who is before in time
is the better in right). This is especially true where in the
action first filed, th e court ha s a l re a d y commenced
proceedings (Pacsports, Phils., Inc. vs. Niccolo Sports,
Inc., G.R. No. 141602, Nov. 22, 2001).
The pendency of an administrative case between the
parties does not generally constitute litis pendentia in
another civil or criminal case between them (Solandro
vs. Ramos, et al., L-20408, April 27, 1967). There can be
litis pendentia if the same cause of action is the subject of
a complaint in one case and of a counterclaim in another
as long as the other requisites are pre se nt (Arceo vs.
Oliveros, et al., supra). This ground is also referred to in
some decisions as lis pendens or outer action pendant
(see Buan, et al. vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 75349, Oct. 13, 1986).
14. Res judicata, as a
ground for dismissal, requires a
previous final judgment in a case prosecuted between
279
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RUL E
16
M OT I O N T O D I S M I S S
281
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RUL E
16
M OT I O N S T O D I S M I S S
SE C . 1
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RUL E
16
M OT I O N
T O DISMIS S
SEC . 1
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RUL E
16
M OT I O N
T O DI SMI S S
SE C . 1
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 3
288
R UL E
16
M OT I O N T O D I S M I S S
SE C . 1
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2
290
RUL E
16
M OT I O N T O D I S M I S S
SE C . 3
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 3
Wher e a he a ri n g wa s held an d d o c u m e n t a r y
evidence wa s pre se nt e d by the de fe nda nt, not on his
motion to dismiss but against the plaintiffs application
for a writ of pre limi nar y injunction, but said evidence wa s
a d m i t t e d by th e plaintiff, such e vi de nce can be
considered in resolving the motion to dismiss (Santiago
us. Pioneer Savings & Loan Bank, et al., G.R. No. 77502,
Jan. 15, 1988).
An or de r d e n yi n g a
m o t i o n to d i s m i s s i s
i nte rl oc ut or y
an d
not
a pp e a l a bl e
(Harrison
Foundry & Machinery, et al. vs. Harrison
Foundry
Workers Association, et al., L-18432, June 19, 1963), but an
order gr a n t i n g a motion to di sm i ss is final an d appe al a ble
(Monares vs. CNS Enterprises, 105 Phil. 1333 fUnrep.J).
However, if the order of dismissal is not an adjudication
RUL E
16
M OT I O N
T O DISMIS S
SEC . 3
7.
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 4
RUL E
16
M OT I O N
T O DI SMI S S
SE C . 6
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 6
Sec. 6.
Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses.
I f no moti o n to di s mi s s ha s bee n filed, an y of th e
g r ou n d s for di s mi s sa l pr ovi de d for in thi s Rule ma y
be pl e ade d as an affir mative de fe ns e in th e a nsw e r
and, in th e di s c r et i o n of th e court, a pr el i mi na r y
h e ar i n g ma y be had the re o n as i f a moti o n to di s mi s s
had bee n filed. (5a)
Th e d i s m i s s a l o f th e c o m p l a i n t u n de r th i s
s e c t i o n s h a l l b e w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o th e
p r o s e c u t i o n in th e sa m e or s e p a r a t e ac t i o n of a
c ou n t e r c l ai m pl e a de d in th e an sw e r , (n)
NOTES
1. .
Unde r the
practi ce before
1964,
whe r e the
defendant filed a motion to dismiss and the same was
unconditionally denied, the grounds raised by him in said
motion could no longer be pleaded as affirmative defenses as
the resolution thereof had already been concluded by the
denial of his motion.
If he did not file a motion to
dismiss, then he could raise any of the grounds therefor as
a ffi rm a t i v e de f e n s e s i n hi s a n s w e r an d ha v e a
preliminary hea ring the reon as if a motion to dismiss had
been filed.
Despite the change of phraseology unde r the 1964
Rules, i t appe a rs tha t the same procedure applied, and
where the defendant did not move to dismiss he could
allege any of the grounds therefor, except improper venue,
as affirmative defenses in his answer. On the other hand,
where a motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata
and litis pendentia were unc ondit i onal l y denied,
said
grounds could no longer be raised as affirmative defenses
in the answer, as well as the other grounds to dismiss
available at the time the motion was filed, except those of
failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction
which were not deemed waived (Heirs of Juliana Clavano
vs. Genato, et al. L-45837, Oct. 28, 1977).
RUL E
16
M OT I O N T O D I S M I S S
SE C . 6
297
RUL E
16
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 6
RULE 17
DISM ISSAL OF ACTIONS
Se c ti o n 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. A
c o mp l a i n t ma y be d i s mi s s e d by th e pl ai nt i f f by
fi l i n g a n o t i c e of d i s mi s s a l at an y ti m e be for e
ser vice of the answ e r or of a moti on for su mmar y
ju dg me nt . Upon suc h notic e bein g filed, the court
shal l i s s u e a n or de r c o n f i r m i n g th e d i s mi s s a l .
Unle ss ot h e rw i s e state d in the notice , the di s mi ssal
is w i t h ou t prejudi ce, e xce p t that a notice ope r ate s
as an adju di c ati on upo n the me r its whe n filed by a
pl ai nti ff wh o ha s onc e di s mi s se d in a c o m pe t e n t
cour t a n ac ti o n base d o n o r i nc l u di n g th e sam e
clai m, (la )
NOTES
1. The procedure under the former Sec. 1 of this Rule has
been maintained, but with the clarification that when the
notice of dismissal is filed by the plaintiff, the court shall
issue the corresponding order confirming the dismissal.
This set tles the former m i s un de rs t a n di n g regarding the
date when such dismissal became execu tory since there
was then no such provision for a court order which, being
final in na t ure , would require the corresponding entry.
2. Under this section, dismissal is effected not by motion but
by mere notice of dismissal which is a matter of right
before the defendant has answered or moved for a
sum ma r y j udgm e nt . Such dismissal is without prejudice,
except: (a) where the notice of dismissal so provides, (b)
where the plaintiff has previously dismissed the same case
in a court of competent jurisdiction, and
(c) even where the notice of dismissal does not provide
that it is with prejudice but it is premised on the fact of
299
RUL E
17
REMEDIA L
LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2
300
RULE 17
DISMISSA L
O F ACTION S
SE C . 2
RUL E
17
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2
RUL E
17
D I S M I S S A L O F AC T I O N S
SE C . 3
RUL E
17
REMEDIA L
LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC. 3
c o m pl a i n t ma y b e di s mi s s e d upo n mo t i o n o f th e
de f e n d a n t o r upo n th e court' s ow n moti on , w i t h ou t
pr eju di c e to th e right of the d e f e n da n t to pr os e c u t e
hi s c o u n t e r c l a i m i n th e sa m e o r i n a s e p a r a t e
ac ti on. This di s mi s sa l shall hav e th e effect of an
a d j u d i c a t i o n upo n th e me r i t s , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e
de c l are d by th e court. (3a)
NO TES
1. Two im portant changes have been introduced by
this section. The dismissal of the case for failure of the
plaintiff to appear at the trial, to be valid, now requires
that (1) his non-appeara nce is without justifiable cause,
and (2) such prejudicious absence is limited to the date
or dates when the presentati on of his evidence in chief on
the complaint was scheduled or expected. The provision
in the former section referring to pl a i nt i ff s failure to
appear "at the time of the trial" could result in unfair if
not absurd results, considering the length of the period
of the trial and the different sta ges thereof whe rei n the
presence of the defendant and the other parties are not
even re qu i re d . Since th e p l a i n t i ff s pre se nc e i s now
required only during the presentati on of his evidence in
chief, his absence during the pre se ntat ion of the evidence
of the de fe nda nt or the ot he r pa rti e s , or even at the
re but ta l or subse quent sta ges of the trial, is not a ground
for dismissal.
2 . Th e sec on d s u b s t a n t i a l a m e n d m e n t t o thi s
section is with respect to the disposition of the defendant' s
counte rclai m in the e ve nt the pl a i nt i ff s compla int i s
dismissed. As already observed, he is here gra nte d the
choice to prosecute tha t counterclaim in either the same
or a se pa rat e action, just like the grant of tha t remedy in
Sec. 6 of Rule 16. It may be noted tha t in the pre se nt
i ns t a nc e , as well as unde r th e a fo re st a t e d Sec. 6 of
Rule 16, the defendant is not required to manifest his
RUL E
17
SE C . 3
RUL E 1 7
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 3
306
RUL E
17
DI SMI SS A L O F ACTION S
SE C . 3
RUL E
17
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 3
p re -t r i a l s an d a p pe a l s t o th e former Cour t of Fi rs t
Instance (Racimo vs. Diho, L-27804, Feb. 27, 1976) and
th e case may be di sm i sse d for a pp e l l a nt ' s failure to
prosecute his appeal for an unre asonable length of time
(Republic vs. Guarin, et al, L-26367, Jan. 31, 1978).
In
a case appealed to the then Court of Fi rst Instance, the
appellant (whether plaintiff or defendant) sta nds in the
same position as the plaintiff in a case originally filed in
said court, hence the provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 17 also
apply to said appellant (Capitol Rural Bank of Quezon
City, Inc. vs. Meridian Assurance Corp., G.R. No. 54416,
Oct. 17, 1980).
8. . It is plai nti ffs failure
th e a b s e n c e o f hi
di sm i ssa l (Dayo, et al.
Marahay vs. Melicor, etc.,
to
s
vs.
et
RUL E
17
SE C . 4
309
RULE 18
P RE-T RIAL
S e c t i o n 1. When conducted. Afte r th e las t
pl e a di n g ha s bee n ser ve d and file d, i t shall be th e
dut y of th e pl ai nti ff to pr omptl y mov e ex parte tha t
th e cas e be set for pre-trial. (5a, R20)
NO TES
1. . To obvi ate the conflicting views and decisions under
the former Rule, Sec. 1 now imposes upon the plain tiff the
duty to promptl y move ex parte tha t the case be set for pre trial, and this he must do upon the service and filing of
the last pleading required in the case by the Rules or, in
appropriat e circ umstances, by the court itself.
This
clarifies an d cha n ge s the proc e dure prescribe d in the
former Sec. 5 of Rule 20 which imposed tha t duty on the
clerk of court "upon the submission" of the last pleading.
The tra nsfe r of responsibilit y to the plaintiff himself, as
has been followed in other provisions of the revised Rules,
is based on the policy tha t whosoever is the proponent of
the pa rt ic ul a r stage of the proceeding should himself ini
tiate the corresponding steps to have judicial action take n
there on since he is presum ed to be the one inte reste d in
the speedy disposition thereof.
2. . Pre -trial under the former Rules was required only in
C ourt s of Fi r s t In st a nc e (now, th e Re gi ona l Tria l
Courts) and not in inferior courts, but the latter could
con duct pre-trial if they so desired. However, Par. 9
of the Int erim Rules required the inferior courts to
observe the same proce dure as tha t followed in the
Regional Trial Courts and Rule 5 now provides for tha t
uniform proce dure, albeit with qualifications.
RUL E
18
P RE - TRI A
SE C . 2
is
RUL E
18
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 3
R UL E
18
P RE - TRI A
SE C . 4
et al. vs. Macandog, etc., et al. supra), and the same may
be served directly to him or through his counsel (Lim,
et al. vs. Animas, etc., et al., L-39094, April 18, 1975),
otherwise the proceedings will be null and void (Sagarino
vs. Pelayo, L-27927, June 20, 1977; Patalinjug vs. Peralta,
et al., L-43324, May 5, 1979). It was the duty of counsel
upon whom such notice is served to see to it that his client
receives such notice and attends the pre-trial, otherwise
he will be liable for grave admi nistrati ve disciplinary
action (Taroma, et al. vs. Sayo, et al., L-37296, Oct. 30,
1975).
The proc edure has been simplified in this revised
section in the sense that the notice of pre-trial shall be
served on counsel, and service shall be made on the party
only if he has no counsel. However, the duty of counsel
served with such notice to duly notify his client thereof
remains substantiall y the same.
Sec. 4. Appearance of parties. It shall be the
duty of th e par ti e s and their counse l to appear at
the pre-trial. The n on- a p pe a r a nc e of a party may
be e xc u se d only i f a valid caus e is show n the refor
or if a r e pre s e n ta ti v e shall appear in his behalf fully
a u t h o r i z e d i n w r i t i n g t o e nte r into a n a mi c a bl e
s e t t l e m e n t , t o s u b mi t t o a l t e r n a t i v e m o d e s o f
di s pu t e re s ol u ti on , and to e nte r into sti pul ati ons
or a d mi s s i o n s of facts and of doc u me nts, (n)
NOTES
1.
313
RUL E
18
REMEDIA L
LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 5
the counsel for the plaintiff asserted that he had been given
authorit y by his client to compromise but the court was
not satisfied tha t said a ut ho ri t y existed, the court i s
authorized to dismiss the case for non-appea rance of the
plaintiff (Home Insurance Co. vs. U.S. Lines Co., et al., L25593, Nov. 15, 1967). A spec ial a u t h o ri t y for an a t t o r n e
y t o c o m p rom i s e i s r e q u i re d u nde r Sec. 23 , Rule 138.
Under Art. 1878(c) of the Civil Code, a special power of
attorne y is required (see Servicewide Specialists, Inc. vs.
Sheriff of Manila, et al.,
G.R.
No.
74586, Oct. 17,
1986). However, it has also been held tha t the authorit y need
not be in writing and may be established by com pete nt
evidence or subseque ntl y
ratified
by
the
pa rt y
c o n c e r ne d (Lim Pin vs. Tan, et al., L-47740, July 20,
1982). If th e pa rt y is a c or po ra t i on , suc h authorit y must
be made with an appropriate resolution of its board of
directors (Republic vs. Plan, et al., G.R. No. 56962, Aug.
21, 1982).
2. .
R UL E
18
PRE-TRI A
SE C . 5
315
RUL E
18
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 6
RULE 18
P RE - TRI A
SECS. 6, 7
facts
and
pr opose d
317
RUL E
18
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 7
RUL E
18
PRE -T RI A L
SE C . 7
319
RULE 19
INTERVENTION
Se c ti o n 1. Who may intervene. A pe r so n wh o
ha s a legal i nte res t in the matte r in liti gati on, or in
the suc c e s s of e i the r of the par ti e s, or an i nte res t
a gai n s t both, or i s so si tuate d as to be a dve r se l y
affec te d by a di st r i bu ti o n or othe r d i s p os i t i o n of
pr ope r ty in th e c ust od y of th e c our t or of an officer
t h e r e o f may , wit h l e av e o f c our t , b e a l l ow e d t o
i nte r ve n e in th e ac ti on. The c our t shall c on si de r
w he t he r or not the i nte r ve nt i o n will un dul y del ay
o r p r e j u d i c e th e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f th e r i g h t s o f
the or i gi nal par ti e s, and w h e t h e r or not th e inter
ve ne r' s ri ghts ma y be fully pr ot e c te d in a se par at e
pr oc e e di ng . (2[2], [b]a, R12)
NOTES
1. This right to intervene is not an absolute right. The
procedure to secure the right to intervene is fixed by the
sta t ute or rule, and intervention can be secured only in
accordance with the terms of the applicable provision.
U n d e r ou r rul e o n i n t e r v e n t i o n , th e a l l o w a nc e o r
disallowance of a motion to intervene is addressed to the
sound discretion of the court (Big Country Ranch Corp.
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 102927, Oct. 12, 1993).
2. Int ervent ion is not intended to change the nat ure and
cha racte r of the action itself (Garcia, etc., et al. vs. David, et
al., 67 Phil. 279). In general, an independent controversy
cannot be injected into a suit by inte rve nti on (67A C.J.S.
805), hence such intervention will not be allowed where it
would enlarge the issues in the action and expa n d th e
scope of th e re me di e s (Big Country Ranch Corp. vs. CA,
et al., supra).
R UL E
19
INTERVENTIO
SE C . 1
RUL E
19
RE ME DI A L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C .
RUL E
19
INTERVENTIO
SEC . 1
RUL E
19
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 1
R UL E
19
INTERVENTIO
SE C . 2
RUL E
19
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SECS . 3 4
Th e a n s w e r t o th e c o m p l a i n t - i n - i n t e r v e n t i o n
shall be filed w i thi n fifteen (15) day s from notice
of th e or de r a d mi t t i n g th e same , unl e s s a di fferent
peri od i s fixed by th e court. (2 [d]a, R12 )
NOTES
1. Where the intervenor unites with the defendant,
i nte r ve ne s by filing an a nswe r-i n-int e rve nt i on.
If
he
R UL E
19
INTERVENTIO
SE C S . 3- 4
he unites with the plaintiff, he may file a complaint-inintervention a ga inst the defendant. If he does not ally
hi mself wit h e i t he r pa rt y he may file a com plai nt - inintervention against both.
2. Sec. 4 of this Rule, as amended, now requires an answer to the
complaint-in-intervention within 15 days from notice of the
order admit ting the same, unless a different period is fixed
by the court. This changes the procedure under the former
Rule wherein it was optional to file an answer to the
complaint-in-intervention,
and also sets aside
the
doctrine in Luna vs. Abaya, et al. (86 Phil. 472) which
held that there would be no default since under the then
existing rule the filing of the answer was permissive. This
change of procedure does not, of course, affect th e rule
enuncia ted in Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Co. (95
Phil. 905) that if an answer is validl y filed to th e
c om pl a i nt -i n -i nt e r ve nt i on , the answering part y may
assert a counterclaim therein against the intervenor.
327
RULE 20
CALENDAR OF CASES
S e c t i o n 1. Calendar of cases. Th e c le r k of
court, un de r th e di rect s u pe r v i s i o n o f th e ju dge ,
shall kee p a cal e nda r of case s for pre-trial, thos e
w h os e tr i al s w er e a dj ou r n e d o r p o s t p o n e d , an d
thos e wit h moti on s to set for he ar i ng. P r efe re nc e
shall be gi ve n to habeas corpus case s, el ec ti o n cases,
spe ci al civil ac ti ons, and thos e so re qui re d by law.
(la , R22 )
NOTE
1. To ensure a more efficient monitoring of cases for
both supervision and reportorial purposes, the clerk of
court is now re qui re d to keep at least four se pa ra t e
calendars reflecting the cases for pre-trial, for trial, those
whose trials were adjourned and postponed, and those
requested to be set for hearing. The so-called preferen
tial cases must also be taken into account. This section
furt he r m a ke s i t th e dut y of th e p re s i d i n g judge to
exercise direct supervision over those ma tt e rs.
Sec . 2. Assignment of cases. Th e a s s i g n me n t
of case s to th e diffe rent br a nc he s of a c our t shall
b e don e e x c l u s i v e l y b y raffle . Th e a s s i g n m e n t
shal l b e don e i n ope n s e s s i o n o f w hi c h a de qu a t e
n oti c e shal l b e gi ve n s o a s t o affor d i n t e r e s t e d
par ti e s op por t u ni t y to be pr ese nt . (7a, R22 )
NOTE
1. The assi gnment of cases is required to be done
exclusively by raffle, and this sets aside the contra ry
rul i n g
in
Commissioner of Immigration
vs.
Reyes
R UL E
20
CALENDA R
O F C A SE S
SE C . 2
329
RULE 21
SU BP O E N
A
Se c ti o n 1. Subpoena and subpoena duces tecum.
S u b poe n a i s a pr oc e s s di rec te d t o a per so n
r e q u i r i n g hi m t o a t t e n d an d t o t e s t i f y a t th e
h e ar i n g or the trial of an ac ti on, or at any i nve sti
gati on c on d u c t e d by c o mpe t e n t author i ty, or for the
ta ki n g of his de pos i t i on . I t ma y also requi re hi m
t o b r i n g w i t h hi m an y b o o k s , d o c u m e n t s , o r
other thi ng s un de r his c ontrol, in w hi c h cas e i t i s
called a s u b poe n a duces tecum,
(la , R23)
NOTE
1. The subpoena referred to in the first sentence
of this secti on is di st i nc t i ve l y called a subpoe n a ad
testificandum. This is the
technical
and descripti ve
term for the ordinary subpoena (Catty vs. Brobelbank,
124 N.J. Law 360, 12 A. 2d 128).
Sec. 2. By whom issued. The s u b poe n a ma y
be i ssue d by:
a ) Th e c o u r t b e f o r e w h o m th e w i t n e s s i s
requi re d to atten d ;
b) The c our t of the place w he r e th e de p o s i t i o n i s to
be take n;
c) The officer or body a ut h or i z e d by law to do so in
c on n e c t i o n wit h i nve st i g at i on s c o n du c t e d by said
officer or body; or
d ) An y J u s t i c e o f th e S u p r e m e Cour t o r o f
the Court of A ppe al s in an y cas e or i nve st i g at i o n
pe n d i n g w ithi n th e P hi l i p pi n e s .
R UL E
21
SUBPOEN
SE C . 3
Th e e n u m e r a t i o n of th e pe r s o n s who ar e
authorized to issue subpoenas has been expanded by the
inclusion of the officer or body aut horized by law in
connection with investigations conducted by them. Also, a
municipal trial court may now issue a subpoena for the
atte ndance before it of a prisoner even if he is not
confined in a municipal jail, unless such prisoner has
been se nt e nc e d to
de a t h , reclusion perpetua or
life i m p r i s o n m e n t an d his de si re d a p p e a r a n c e ha s
not been authorized by the Supreme Court.
2..
331
R UL E 2 1
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 4 , 5
R UL E
21
SUBPOEN
SE C S . 6- 8
s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i z a t i o n for th e i s s u a n c e o f
s u b p o e n a s for th e p e r s o n s na me d i n said notic e
by the cler k of the court of the place in w hic h the
d e p o s i t i o n i s t o b e t a ke n . Th e cle r k shal l not,
how e ve r , i ssu e a s u b poe n a duces tecum to any suc h
per son w i th ou t an or der of the court. (5a, R23)
Sec . 6 . Service. S e r v i c e of a s u b p o e n a
shall be mad e in th e same man ne r as pe r s on al or
s u b s t i t u t e d s e r v i c e o f s u m m o n s . Th e or i g i n a l
shal l be e x h i b i t e d an d a cop y t h e r e o f d e l i ve r e d
to th e pe r so n on w ho m i t i s ser ve d, t e n de r i n g to
hi m th e fee s for on e day ' s a t t e n d a n c e an d th e
ki l o me t r a g e al l ow e d b y the s e Rul es, e xc e p t that,
whe n a s u b p oe n a i s issue d b y o r o n behal f o f
the R e p u bl i c of th e P h i l i p p i n e s or an office r or
age nc y thereof, the te n de r nee d not be ma de. The
se r vic e mus t be mad e so as to all ow the w i t ne s s
a r e a s o n a b l e ti m e for p r e p a r a ti o n and tr ave l to the
pl ac e of a tte n da nc e . If the su bpoe n a is duces tecum,
the re as on a bl e cost of pr od uc i n g the books,
d o c u m e n t s o r t h i n g s d e m a n d e d s h a l l al s o b e
te n de re d. (6a, R23)
Sec. 7. Personal appearance in court. A per son
p r e s e n t i n c ou r t be f or e a j u d i c i a l off i c e r ma y
be requi re d to testi fy as i f he were in a tte n da nc e
u p o n a s u b p o e n a i s s u e d b y s uc h c o u r t o r
officer. (10, R23)
Sec. 8. Compelling attendance. In cas e of
failure of a w i t ne s s to atte n d, the court or judge
i s su i n g th e s u b p o e n a , upo n proof o f the ser vi c e
t h e r e o f an d o f th e fai l ur e o f th e w i t n e s s , ma y
i ssu e a w a r r a n t to th e she r i f f of th e p r ov i n c e ,
o r hi s d e p u t y , t o ar re s t th e w i t n e s s an d br i n g
him before the court or officer where his atte n danc e
333
R UL E
21
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
S E C S . 9 , 10
i s r e q u i r e d , an d th e cos t o f suc h w a r r a n t an d
s e i z u r e o f s u c h w i t n e s s s h a l l b e pai d b y th e
w i t n e s s i f th e c our t i s s u i n g i t shal l d e t e r mi n e
th a t hi s f a i l u r e t o a n s w e r th e s u b p o e n a wa s
willful and w i t h ou t just e xc use . (11 , R23)
Sec. 9 . Contempt. F a i l u r e by an y p e r s o n
w i th ou t a de quat e caus e to obey a su bp oe n a serve d
upo n hi m shall be de e me d a c on te mp t of the court
from w hi c h the su bpoe n a i s i ssue d. I f the su bpoe n a
wa s not i ssue d by a court, the d i s o be di e n c e the ret o
shall be pu ni s h e d in ac c or dan c e wit h th e appl icable
law or Rule. (12a, R23)
NOTE
1. See Sec . 3, et seq., Rule 71 on i n d i r e c t or c o n s t r u c t i v e
c o n t e m p t . Whil e, unde r t h a t se c ti on, indirect contem pt
is to be punished only after writ ten charge and he a ri n g, i
t i s also provided tha t "nothing in this section shall be
so construed as to pre ve nt the court from issuing process
to bring the accused pa rt y into court , or from hol di ng
him in c ust od y pe ndi n g such proceedings."
Sec. 10. Exceptions. The pr ov i si on s of sec ti on s
8 and 9 of thi s Rule shall not apply to a w i t ne s s wh o
r e s i de s mor e tha n on e h u n d r e d (100) ki l o me t e r s
fro m hi s r e s i d e n c e t o th e pl ac e w h e r e h e i s t o
te s ti f y by th e or di n a r y c ou r s e of tr avel , or to a
de t e n t i o n pr i s one r i f no pe r mi s s i o n of th e court in
w hi c h hi s cas e i s p e n di n g wa s obt ai ne d .
(9a,
R23)
NOTES
1. The right not to be compelled to attend upon a
subpoena by reason of the distance from the residence of
the witness to the place where he is to testify is sometimes
RUL E
21
SUBPOEN A
SE C . 10
RULE 22
COMPUTATION OF TIME
Sec ti o n 1. How to compute time. In c o mp u t i n g
any pe ri od of ti me pre scr i be d or al l ow e d by the s e
Rul es, or by or de r of th e court, or by an y a ppl i c abl e
statute , th e day of th e act or e ve n t from w hic h the
d e s i g n a t e d pe r i o d o f ti m e be gi n s t o ru n i s t o b e
e xc l u de d an d th e dat e o f p e r f or ma n c e i n c l u de d
. I f th e las t da y o f th e pe r i od , a s thu s c o m p u t e d ,
falls on a S at ur day , a Su n day , or a le gal h ol i da y
i n th e pl ac e w he r e th e c our t si ts , th e ti m e shal l
not run unti l th e ne x t w or ki n g day. (n)
NOTES
1. The pertine nt provisions of the Civil Code state:
"Art. 13. When the laws speak of years, months,
days or nights, i t shall be understood that years are
of thre e hundre d sixty-five days each; mont hs, of
thirt y days; days, of twenty-four hours; and nights
from sunset to sunrise.
If mont hs are desi gnate d by their na me, the y
shall be computed by the number of days which they
respectivel y have.
In c om put i ng a period, the first day shall be
excluded, and the last day included."
2. This Rule refers to the computation of a period of time and
not to a specific date fixed for the performance of an act.
It applies only when the period of time is prescribed by
these Rules, by order of the court or by any applicable
statute. It adopts the rule on pretermission of holida ys, tha
t is, the exclusion of such holida ys in the computati on
of the period, whe ne ve r the first two conditions stated in
this section are present.
336
R UL E
22
C O M P U T AT I O N O F T IM E
R UL E
22
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RUL E
22
C O M P U TATI O N
O F TIM E
SE C . 2
R UL E
22
RE ME DI A L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC .
RUL E
22
C O M P U T AT I O N
O F T IM E
SE C . 1
the Spa nish Civil Code, but with the addition of "years,"
which wa s orda i ne d to mea n 365 da ys. The pre se n t
provisions of E.O. 292 again adopts tha t concept of a
calendar month, with the modification of how many shall
compose a year.
11. . As earlier observed, the method of computation under
this Rule does not in general apply to prescriptive periods
provided therei n by the Revised Penal Code for fe l oni e s
suc h a s i n Ar t s . 9 0 an d 9 1 the re of. The Yapdiangco case,
supra, e xpa nds on this edict on the a u t h o ri t y of local
an d foreign doc t ri ne s. I t is ther e d e m o n s t r a t e d t ha t
a m i s t a k e i s s om e t i m e s mad e in applying st a t ut e s of
limitations in criminal cases and civil suits. The two classes
of sta tute s are essentially different.
I n civil su i t s , th e s t a t u t e i s i n t e r p o s e d b y th e
legislature as an impa rtial arbiter. In the construction of
the penal sta t ute , there is no intendme nt to be made in
favor of either part y. In criminal cases, the State is the
gra nt o r s u r r e n de r i n g by an act of grace the ri ght to
prosecute and declaring an offense to be no longer the
subject of prosecution, hence such sta tute s of limitations
are liberally construed in favor of the accused.
Also, the rule on pretermission of holidays in civil suits
provides tha t in construing its stat ute of limitations, the
first day is excluded and the last day included, unless that
last day is dies non in which case the act may be done on
the succeeding business day. In criminal cases, such a
si t ua t i o n cannot l e ngt he n the period fixed by law to
prosecute such offender. The waiver or loss of the right to
prosecute is automatic and by operation of law. Where
the last day to file an information falls on a Sunda y or
legal holiday, the period cannot be extended up to the
next working day since prescription has already set in.
The que st i on of the applic abil it y of this Rule in
computing periods provided by an "applicable statute," as
RUL E
22
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2
RULE 23
D E P O S I T I O N S P E N DI N G ACTION
Sectio n
1.
Depositions pending
action,
when
may be taken. By le av e of court after ju r i s di c t i o n
ha s be e n o b t a i n e d ove r an y d e f e n d a n t o r ove r
p r o p e r t y w h i c h i s th e s u bj e c t o f th e a c t i o n , o r
w i t h ou t suc h leav e after a n answ e r has bee n se r ve d,
the te s t i mo n y of an y pe r s on , w he t he r a party or not,
ma y b e t a ke n , a t th e i n s t a n c e o f an y par ty , b y
d e p o s i t i o n u p o n or a l e x a m i n a t i o n o r w r i t t e n
i n te r r og a t or i e s . Th e a t t e n da n c e o f w i t ne s s e s ma y
be c o mp e l l e d by th e us e of a su bp oe n a as pr ovi de d
i n Rul e 21 . D e p o s i t i o n s shal l b e t a ke n onl y i n
ac c or d a n c e wit h the s e Rul es. The de pos i t i o n of a
pe r s o n c o n f i n e d i n pr i s o n ma y b e ta ke n onl y b y
leave of c our t on suc h te r m s as th e c our t pr esc r i be s,
(la , R24)
NOTES
1. Rules 23 to 28 provide for the different modes of discovery tha
t may be resorted to by a part y to an action, viz.:
a. Depositions pending action (Rule 23);
b. De po si t i o n s before action or pe ndi n g appe a l
(Rule
24);
343
R UL E
23
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
344
RUL E
23
DEPOSITION S
P E N DI N G ACTIO N
SE C . 1
R UL E
23
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 2
RUL E
23
DEPOSITI ON S
P E N D I N G AC T I O N
SECS . 3 , 4
E xa mi n a t i o n an d c r os s - e xa mi n a t i o n o f d e p on e n t s
may pr oc e e d as pe r mi tte d at the trial unde r sec ti ons
3 to 18 of Rule 132. (3a, R24)
NOTE
1. The officer before whom the deposition is taken
does not have the power to rule upon objections to the
questions. He should merely have such objections noted
in the deposition (see Sec. 17).
Sec. 4. Use of depositions. At the trial or upo n
th e h e a r i n g o f a m o t i o n o r a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y
pr oc e e di n g , an y part or all of a de pos i t i on , so far
as a d mi s si bl e un de r the rul es of e vi de n c e , ma y be
u s e d a g a i n s t an y p a r t y wh o wa s p r e s e n t o r
re pr e se nt e d at th e ta ki n g of th e de p osi ti o n or wh o
had du e notic e thereof, in ac c or da nc e wit h an y on e
of th e f ol l ow i n g pr ovi si ons :
(a) Any de p o s i t i o n ma y be use d by an y party for the
pu r pos e of c on tr a di c t i n g or i mp e a c h i n g th e
te s t i mo n y of de p o n e n t as a w itne ss ;
(b) Th e de p osi ti o n of a party or of an y on e wh o at the
ti m e of ta ki n g th e de pos i t i o n wa s an officer, di rector,
or ma n a g i n g agen t of a publ ic or pri vate c or por at i on
, par t ne r s hi p , or as s oc i ati o n w hic h i s a party ma y
be use d by an adver s e party for an y pu r pose ;
(c) The de pos i t i o n of a w i tne ss , w he th e r or not a party,
ma y be use d by any party for any pur pos e i f the
c our t finds: (1) that the w itne s s i s dead; or
(2) that the w i t ne s s resi de s at a di stanc e more tha n
one h u n dr e d (100) ki l ome te r s from the place of trial
or he ar i ng , or i s ou t of th e P hi l i p pi n e s , unl e s s i t
appe ar s tha t his a bse nc e wa s pr oc ured by th e party
offe r i n g th e d e p o s i t i o n ; o r (3) tha t th e w i t n e s s ,
R UL E
23
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 4
i s u n a b l e t o a t t e n d o r t e s t i f y b e c a u s e o f age ,
si c kne ss , infir mity, or i mpr i son me nt; or (4) that the
party offer i ng th e d e p os i t i o n ha s bee n una bl e t o
pr oc ure th e a t t e n da n c e of the w i t n e s s by su bpoe na ;
o r (5) u po n a p p l i c a t i o n an d n o t i c e , t ha t suc h
e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s e xi s t a s t o ma k e i t
de s i r a bl e , in th e i nte res t o f justi c e an d wit h due
r e g a r d t o th e i m p o r t a n c e o f p r e s e n t i n g th e
t e s t i m o n y o f w i t n e s s e s or al l y i n o pe n c our t , t o
al l ow th e de p o s i t i o n to be use d; and
(d) If onl y par t of a d e p o s i t i o n is offe re d in e v i de n c e by
a party, th e a dve r s e party ma y requi re hi m to
i nt r odu c e all of i t w hi c h i s rel e van t to the part
i nt r odu c e d , an d an y party ma y i nt r odu c e any othe r
parts. (4a, R24)
NOT E S
1. . Where the wit ne ss is avail able to testify and the
situation is not one of those excepted under Sec. 4 of this
Rule, his deposition theretofore take n is inadmissible in
evidence and he should in lieu there of be made to
testify (Vda. de Sy-Quia vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 62283,
Nov. 25, 1983).
2. A de posi ti on may be used for i m pe a c hi n g or contradicting
any witness, but it can be used as evidence by a pa r t y
("for an y p u r p o s e " ) u n d e r th e specific conditions set out
in Sec. 4. If the deposition is tha t of a part y or of an
employee of a corporation which is a party, it can be used
by the adverse part y for im peac hment of the deponent or
as direct evidence of his case, whet he r the de pone n t i s
avail able or not; but said deposition cannot be used by the
deponent -pa rt y as evidence of his case, unless he or the
corporate employee cannot testify for any reason stated in
Par. (c). If the deponent is only a witness and is available
at the trial, his deposition cannot be used as evidence but
may be used only to impeach him.
348
R UL E
23
DEPOSITION S
P E N D I N G A C TI O N
SE C . 5
RUL E
23
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 6- 9
350
RUL E
23
D E P O S I T I O N S P E N D I N G A CT I O N SE C S . 10- 11 , 1 2
R UL E 2 3
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S . 13-14
No
d e p os i t i o n shall be ta ke n before a pe r s o n wh o is a
rel ati v e w i thi n th e si xt h de gre e o f c o n s a n g u i n i t y
or affinity, or e mp l oy e e or c o u n s e l of an y of th e
par ti e s; or wh o i s a rel ati ve w i thi n th e sam e de gree ,
or e mpl oy e e of suc h c ou nse l , or wh o i s fi na nci al ly
i nte re st e d in th e ac ti on . (13a, R24)
Sec. 14. Stipulations regarding taking of deposi
tions. I f th e p a r t i e s so s t i p u l a t e in w r i t i n g ,
d e p os i t i on s ma y b e ta ke n before an y pe r s o n autho
352
RUL E
23
D E P O S I T I O N S P E N D I N G A CT I O N
S E C S . 15-1 6
R UL E
23
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 17
RUL E
23
DEPOSITI ON S
P E N D I N G A C TI O N
S E C S . 18-1 9
R UL E 2 3
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 20- 2 3
R UL E
23
D E P O S I T I O N S P E N D I N G A C TI O N
SE C S . 24- 2 6
R UL E
23
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S . 27-2 9
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s serve d shal l b e d e l i v e re d b y
th e par t y t a ki n g th e d e p o s i t i o n t o th e off i c e r
d e s i g n a t e d i n th e n o t i c e , wh o s h a l l p r o c e e d
pr omptly, in th e ma nne r pr ovi de d by sec ti on s 17,
19 and 20 of thi s Rule, to take th e te s ti mon y of the
w i t ne s s in r es pon s e to the i n te r r oga t or i e s and to
pr e par e , cer tify, an d file or mail th e d e p o s i t i o n ,
a t t a c h i n g t h e r e t o th e cop y o f th e n oti c e an d the
i nte r r og at or i e s rec ei ve d by him. (26, R24)
Sec. 27. Notice of filing and furnishing copies.
Whe n a de pos i t i o n upo n i n te r r oga t or i e s i s filed, the
officer ta ki n g i t shall pr omptl y give notice the reo f
to all th e par ti e s, and ma y fur ni sh c opi e s to the m
o r t o th e d e p o n e n t upo n p a y me n t o f r e a s o n a b l e
c har ge s the ref or. (27, R24)
Sec. 28. Orders for the protection of parties and
deponents. After th e se r vic e of th e i n te r r oga t or i e s
an d pr i o r t o th e t a ki n g o f th e t e s t i m o n y o f th e
d e p o n e n t , th e c o u r t i n w h i c h th e a c t i o n i s
pe n di ng , on moti o n pr omptl y mad e by a par ty or a
d e p on e n t , and for good cau s e sh ow n , ma y mak e an y
or de r s pe c i f i e d in s e c t i o n s 15, 16 an d 18 of thi s
Rule w hi c h i s a p pr opr i at e an d jus t or an or de r tha t
th e de p o s i t i o n shall not be ta ke n before th e officer
d e s i g n a t e d in th e n oti c e or tha t i t shall not be ta ke n
e xce p t upo n oral e xa mi n a t i o n . (28a, R24)
Sec. 29. Effect
depositions.
of
errors
and
irregularities
in
358
R UL E
23
DEPOSITI ON S
P E NDI N G ACTIO N
SE C . 2 9
RUL E
24
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2 9
360
RU L E 2 4
D E P O S I T I O N S BE FO R E ACT IO N
O R P E N D I N G AP PE A L
S e c t i o n 1. Depositions before action; petition. A
p e r s o n wh o d e s i r e s t o p e r p e t u a t e hi s ow n t e s t i m o n
y o r t ha t o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n r e g a r d i n g an y m a t t e r t h a
t ma y b e c o g n i z a b l e i n an y c o u r t o f th e P h i l i p p i n e s
, ma y file a ve ri fi e d pe t i t i o n in th e c o u r t of th e pl a c
e o f th e r e s i d e n c e o f an y e x p e c t e d a d v e r s e p a r t y
, (la , R134 )
Sec . 2. Contents of petition. Th e p e t i t i o n shal l
b e e n t i t l e d i n th e n a m e o f th e p e t i t i o n e r an d
shal l show : (a) t h a t th e p e t i t i o n e r e x p e c t s t o b e a
pa r t y t o a n a c t i o n i n a c o u r t o f th e P h i l i p p i n e s
bu t i s p r e s e n t l y u n a b l e t o b r i n g i t o r c a u s e i t t o b e
b r o u g h t ; (b) th e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f th e e x p e c t e d
ac ti o n an d hi s i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n ; (c) th e facts whi c h
h e d e s i r e s t o e st a b l i s h b y th e p r o p o s e d t e s t i m o n y
an d hi s r e a s o n s fo r d e s i r i n g t o p e r p e t u a t e it
;
(d) th e n a m e s o r a d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e p e r s o n s h e e x p e c t s
will b e a d ve r s e p a r t i e s an d t he i r a d d r e s s e s s o far a
s k n o w n ; an d (e) th e na m e s an d a d d r e s s e s o f th e
p e r s o n s t o b e e x a m i n e d an d th e s u b s t a n c e o f th e
t e s t i m o n y w h i c h h e e x p e c t s t o e l i c i t fro m e ac h ,
an d shal l as k for a n o r de r a u t h o r i z i n g th e pe t i t i o n e
r t o t a k e th e d e p o s i t i o n s o f th e p e r s o n s t o b e e x a m i n e
d n a m e d i n th e pe t i t i o n for th e p u r p o s e o f
p e r p e t u a t i n g t h e i r t e s t i m o n y . (2, R134)
Sec. 3. Notice and service. Th e p e t i t i o n e r shal l
s e r v e a n o t i c e u p o n e a c h p e r s o n n a m e d i n th e
pe t i t i o n a s a n e xp e c t e d a d ve r s e pa rt y , t o ge t h e r wit
h a copy of th e p e t i t i o n , s t a t i n g t ha t th e p e t i t i o n e r
will a ppl y t o th e c o ur t , a t a tim e an d plac e na m e
d
361
R UL E
24
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 4-7
t h e r e i n , for th e or de r d e s c r i be d i n th e pe t i t i on .
A t le as t tw e n t y (20) day s before th e dat e o f th e
h e a r i n g , th e c our t shal l c au s e n oti c e t h e r e o f t o
be ser ve d on th e par ti e s and pr os pe c ti v e d e p on e n t s
i n th e ma n n e r pr ov i de d for s e r v i c e o f s u m mo n s .
(3a, R134)
Sec. 4. Order and examination. If th e c our t is
sati sfie d tha t th e pe r pe t u at i o n of the t e s t i mon y ma y
pr ev e n t a fail ure or de la y of justi c e , i t shal l ma k e
a n or de r d e s i g n a t i n g o r d e s c r i b i n g th e p e r s o n s
w hos e d e p os i t i o n ma y b e ta ke n an d s pe c i fy i n g the
su bje c t ma tte r o f th e e xa mi n a t i on , an d w h e t h e r the
de p o s i t i o n s shall b e ta ke n upo n oral e xa mi n a t i o n
o r w r i t t e n i n te r r og a t or i e s . Th e d e p o s i t i o n s ma y
the n be ta ke n in ac c or d a n c e wit h Rul e 23 before
th e he ar i ng . (4a, R134)
Sec. 5. Reference to court. For th e pu r p os e of
a p p l y i n g Rul e 23 to d e p o s i t i o n s for p e r pe t u a t i n g
te s t i mo n y , eac h re fe re nc e th e r ei n t o th e c our t i n
w hi c h th e ac ti o n i s p e n d i n g shal l b e d e e m e d t o
refe r t o th e c our t i n w hi c h th e pe ti ti o n for suc h
de p o s i t i o n wa s filed. (5a, R134)
Sec. 6. Use of deposition. If a de p osi ti o n to per
pe t u at e t e s t i mon y i s ta ke n un de r thi s Rul e, or if,
al t h ou g h no t so ta ke n , i t w oul d be a d mi s s i bl e in
e v i de n c e , i t ma y b e use d in an y ac ti o n i n v ol v i n g
th e sam e su bje c t matte r s u b s e q u e n t l y br ou g h t i n
ac c or d a n c e wit h th e pr ovi s i on s of se c ti on s 4 an d 5
of Rule 23. (6a, R134)
Sec.
7. Depositions pending appeal. If
an
appe a l ha s bee n ta ke n from a j u dg me n t of a court,
i nc l u di n g th e Court of A ppe al s in prope r c ase s , or
be f or e th e t a ki n g o f d e p o s i t i o n s o f w i t n e s s e s t
o
362
RUL E 2 4
D E P O S I T I O N S B E F O R E A C TI O N
O R PEN DIN G APPEA L
SE C S .
1-7
RUL E
24
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 1-7
RULE 25
INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
Se c ti o n 1. Interrogatories to parties; service thereof.
Un de r the same c on di t i on s speci fie d in sec ti o n 1 of
Rule 23, an y party de si r i n g to elicit ma te ri al and
rele van t facts from an y adver s e par ti e s shall file
and serve upo n th e latter w ritte n i nte r r og at or i e s
to be an sw e r e d by th e party serve d or, i f th e party
s e r v e d i s a pu b l i c or p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o n or a
par t ne r s hi p or a ss oc i a ti on , by any officer the reo f
c o mp e t e n t to te stify in its behalf, (la )
Sec. 2. Answer to interrogatories. Th e i nte r
rogator i e s shall be an sw e r e d fully in w riti n g and
shall be si gne d an d sw or n to by the pe rson ma ki n g
the m . The party upo n w ho m th e i nte r r og at or i e s
have bee n ser ve d shall file and serve a copy of the
an sw e r s on th e party su b mi t ti n g the i nte r rogato
ries w ithi n fifteen (15) days after ser vice thereof,
un l e s s th e c our t , o n moti o n an d for goo d c aus e
show n , e xte n d s or shor te n s the time. (2a)
Sec. 3.
Objections to interrogatories. O bjecti ons
t o an y i n t e r r og a t or i e s ma y b e p r e s e n t e d t o th e
court w i thi n ten (10) days after ser vice thereof, with
notice as in case of a moti on; and a nsw e r s shall be
de fe rred unti l the obje c ti ons are resol ve d, w hic h
shall be at as early a ti me as is pr ac tic abl e. (3a)
Sec. 4. Number of interrogatories. No par t y
may, w ith ou t leave of court, serve more tha n one
set of i nte r r og at or i e s to be answ e re d by the same
party. (4)
365
RUL E
25
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 5
RULE 25
I N T E R R O G AT OR I E S
T O PAR T I E S
SE C . 6
R UL E
25
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 6
368
RU L E 26
AD M IS S I O N BY ADVE R S E PARTY
S e c t i o n 1. Request for admission. At an y tim e
afte r i s su e s ha v e bee n j oi ne d , a pa r t y ma y file an d
se rv e upo n an y o t h e r pa r t y a w r i t t e n r e q u e s t for
th e a d m i s s i o n b y th e l a t t e r o f th e g e n u i n e n e s s o f
an y m a t e r i a l an d r e l e v a n t d o c u m e n t d e s c r i be d i n
an d e x h i b i t e d wi t h th e r e q u e s t o r o f th e t r u t h o f
an y m a t e r i a l a n d r e l e v a n t m a t t e r o f fa c t se t
fo rt h i n th e r e q u e s t . C o pi e s o f th e d o c u m e n t s
shal l b e de l i ve r e d wit h th e r e q u e s t u n l e s s copi e s
ha v e a l r e a d y bee n f u r ni s h e d , (la )
Sec. 2. Implied admission. E ac h of th e m a t t e r s
o f wh i c h a n a d m i s s i o n i s r e q u e s t e d shal l b e de e m e d
a d m i t t e d u nl e s s , w i t h i n a pe ri o d d e s i g n a t e d i n th e
r e q u e s t , w h i c h shal l no t b e less t h a n fifteen (15)
da y s afte r se r vi c e there of, o r wi t hi n suc h f u r t h e r
tim e a s th e c o u r t ma y allow o n m o t i o n , th e pa r t y t o
who m th e r e q u e s t i s di r e c t e d files an d se r ve s upo n
th e pa r t y r e q u e s t i n g th e a d m i s s i o n a swor n s t a t e
m e n t e i t h e r d e n y i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y th e m a t t e r s o f
whic h a n a d m i s s i o n i s r e q u e s t e d o r s e t t i n g fort h i n
de t ai l th e r e a s o n s wh y h e c a n n o t t r u t h f ul l y e i t he r
a dm i t o r de n y t hos e m a t t e r s .
Ob j e c t i o n t o an y r e q u e s t for a d m i s s i o n shal l b e
s u b m i t t e d t o th e c o u r t b y th e p a r t y r e q u e s t e d
wi t hi n th e pe r i o d for an d pri o r t o th e filing o f hi s
sw or n s t a t e m e n t a s c o n t e m p l a t e d i n th e p r e c e d i n g
p a r a g r a p h an d hi s c o m p l i a n c e t h e r e w i t h shal l b e
de f e r re d unt i l suc h obj e c t i on s ar e re so l ve d , whi c h
r e s o l u t i o n shal l b e m a d e a s ea rl y a s p r a c t i c a b l e .
(2a)
RUL E
26
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
S E C S . 1-3
RUL E
26
ADMI SSIO N
B Y A D V E R S E PART Y
SE C . 4
RUL E 2 6
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 5
372
RULE 27
PRO DUCTIO N OR INSPECTION
OF DO CUM ENT S OR THINGS
S e c t i o n 1. Motion for production or inspection;
order. Upo n moti o n of an y party s h ow i n g good
c a u s e t h e r e f or , th e c our t i n w hi c h a n ac t i o n i s
p e n di n g ma y (a) or de r an y party to pr oduc e and
p e r mi t th e i n s p e c t i o n an d c o p y i n g o r p h o t o
g r a p h i n g , b y o r o n be h al f o f th e m o v i n g
par ty , o f an y d e s i g n a t e d d o c u m e n t s , p a p e r s ,
b o o k s , ac c ou n t s , le tter s, ph ot ogr a ph s , objec ts or
tangi bl e thi ngs, not pr i vi le ge d, w hi c h c onsti tut e or
c ontai n e v i de n c e ma t e r i a l t o an y ma tte r i nv ol ve d i
n th e ac ti o n an d w hi c h are i n hi s p o s s e s s i o n ,
c us t od y or control; or (b) or der an y party to per mit
e ntry u po n d e s i g n a t e d lan d o r ot he r p r ope r t y i n hi
s pos s e s si o n or c ontr ol for the pur pose of i nspe c ti ng ,
m e a s u r i n g , s u r v e y i n g , o r p h o t o g r a p h i n g th e
p r op e r t y o r an y d e s i g n a t e d r e l e v a n t o bje c t o r
o p e r a t i o n t h e r e o n . Th e or de r shal l s pe c i f y th e
ti me, pl ac e and man ne r of ma ki n g the i ns pe c ti o n
an d t a ki n g c o p i e s an d p h o t o g r a p h s , an d ma y
pre scr i b e suc h te r m s and c on di t i on s a s are just,
(la)
NOTES
1. .
The p r o d u c t i o n
of d oc u m e nt s
affords more
opportunit y for discovery than a subpoena duces tecum as,
in the latter, the documents are brought to the court for the
first time on the date of the scheduled trial wherein
such documents are required
to
be produced. The
inspection of land and other real propert y for the
purposes authorized by this Rule also avoids the need for
ocular inspection thereof by the court.
R UL E
2. .
27
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
In c rim i na l
ca se s, m oti ons for produc t i on or
inspection of documents are governed by Sec. 10, Rule
116, and may be availed of only by the accused generally
during the pendenc y of the case for trial.
3. This mode of discovery does not aut horize the opposing part y
or the clerk or other functionaries of the court to distrain
the articles or deprive the person who produced the same of
their possession, even temporaril y (Tanda vs. Aldaya, 89
Phil. 497).
4. In motions for production of documents under this Rule, it has
been held tha t " a part y is ordinarily entitled to the
production of books, documents and papers which are
material and relevant to the e sta blishm ent of his cause of
action or defense" [General Electric Co. vs. Superior Court
in and for Almeda County, 45 C 2d 879, cited in Martin,
Rules of Court, 3rd edition, Vol. 2, p. 104]. "The test to be
applied by the trial judge in dete rmi ning the re l e va nc y of
d o c u m e n t s an d th e sufficienc y of t hei r description is one
of re asonable ne ss and practicability" [Line Corp. of the
Philippines vs. Moran, 59 Phil. 176, 180). "On the ground of
public policy, the rules providing for production and
inspection of books and papers do not a u t h o ri z e th e
p ro duc t i o n or i nspe ct i on of pri vi le ge d matt er, tha t is,
books and papers which because of their confidential and
privileged character could not be received in evidence" [27
CJS 224]. "In passing on a motion for discovery of document s,
the court should be liberal in de term ini ng whe t he r or not
documents are relevant to the subject matte r of the action"
[Hercules Powder Co. vs. Haas Co., U.S. Dist. Crt., Oct. 26,
1944; 9 Fed. Rules Service, 659, cited in Moran, Comments
on the Rules of Court, 1979 Ed., Vol. 2, p. 102). Likewise, "any
st a t ut e declaring in general term s tha t official records are
confidential should be liberally construed, to have an
implied exception for disclosure when needed in a court of
justice" [Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. VIII, p. 801, citing the
case oiMarbury vs.
R UL E 2 7
P R O D U C T I O N OR I N S P E C T I O N
1 O F D O C U M E N T S O R T HI N G S
SE C .
375
RULE 28
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION
OF P ERSO NS
Se c ti o n 1. When examination may be ordered. In
an ac ti o n in w hi c h the me n ta l or phy si c a l c on di ti o n
of a party i s in c on tr ove r sy , th e court in w hic h th e
ac ti o n i s pe n d i n g ma y in its di sc re ti o n or de r hi m to
su b mi t to a ph y s i c a l or me n ta l e xa mi n a t i o n by a
ph y s i c i an . (1)
NO TES
1. The mental condition of a part y is in controversy in
proceedings for guardia nshi p over an imbecile or insane
person, while the physical condition of a part y is generally
involved in physical injuries cases.
2. . A blood g r o u p i n g t e s t ma y be o r d e r e d an d
conducted under this Rule on a child subject of a paternit y
suit. While the Rule speaks of an examination of a part y,
such child is considered a part y for purposes thereof as the
action is brought for its benefit (Beach vs.
Beach,
U.S.C.A., D.C., June 28,
1940, 3 Fed. Rules Service,
p. 397).
3. . Since the results of the examination are intended to be
mad e publ ic, th e sam e ar e not covered by th e
physic ian-patie nt privilege. Furt he rm ore , such exami
nation is not necessary to treat or cure the patie nt but to
assess the extent of injury or to evaluate his physical or
mental condition.
Sec . 2. Order for examination. Th e or de r for
e x a mi n a t i o n ma y be mad e only on moti o n for good
c a u s e s h ow n an d u po n notic e t o th e par t y t o b e
e xa mi n e d an d t o all othe r par ti e s, an d shall speci fy
376
R UL E
28
P H Y S I C A L A N D M E N TA L
E X A M I N ATI O N O F P E R S O N S
SE C S . 3- 4
R UL E
28
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S . 3- 4
RULE 29
RE FU S A L TO COMP LY
WIT H MODE S OF DISCOVERY
S e c t i o n 1. Refusal to answer. If a pa rt y or ot he r
d e p o n e n t re fu se s t o a n s w e r an y q u e s t i o n upo n ora l
e x a m i n a t i o n , th e e x a m i n a t i o n ma y b e c o m p l e t e d o n
o t h e r m a t t e r s o r a d j o u r n e d a s th e p r o p o n e n t o f th e
q u e s t i o n ma y p re f e r . Th e p r o p o n e n t ma y t h e r e
afte r appl y t o th e p r o p e r c o ur t o f th e pl ac e w h e r
e th e d e p o s i t i o n i s be i n g t a k e n for a n o r de r t o
c om pe l a n a n s w e r . Th e sa m e p r o c e d u r e ma y b e
a va i l e d o f whe n a p a r t y or a w i t n e s s re fuse s t o a n s w e
r an y i n t e r r o g a t o r y s u b m i t t e d u n d e r Rul e s 2 3 o r
25.
I f th e a p p l i c a t i o n i s g r a n t e d , th e c o u r t shal l
r e q u i r e th e r e f u s i n g pa r t y o r d e p o n e n t t o a n s w e r
th e q u e s t i o n o r i n t e r r o g a t o r y an d i f i t als o fi nd s
tha t th e re fusa l t o a n s w e r wa s w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l
j u s t i f i c a t i o n , i t ma y r e q u i r e th e re f us i n g p a r t y o r
d e p o n e n t o r th e c o u n s e l a d v i s i n g th e re f us a l , o r
bot h o f t he m , t o pa y th e p r o p o n e n t th e a m o u n t o
f th e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d i n o b t a i n i n g th e
or de r , i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y ' s fees.
I f th e a p p l i c a t i o n i s de n i e d an d th e c o ur t finds
t h a t i t wa s filed w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i fi c a t i o n ,
th e c o ur t ma y r e q u i r e th e p r o p o n e n t o r th e c o u n s e l
a d v i s i n g th e fili ng o f th e a p p l i c a t i o n , o r bot h o f
t hem , t o pa y t o th e re f us i n g pa r t y o r d e p o n e n t th e
a m o u n t o f th e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d i n
o p p o s i n g th e a p p l i c a t i o n i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y ' s
fees, (la )
Sec. 2. Contempt of court. If a pa r t y or o t h e r
w i t n e s s re fuse s t o b e sw or n o r re fuse s t o a n s w e r
an y q u e s t i o n afte r be i n g d i r e c t e d t o d o s o b y th e
379
RUL E
29
REMEDIA L
LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C .
RUL E
29
R E F U S A L T O C OMP L Y
WIT H M O D E S O F D I S C O V E R
Y
SE C S . 4- 6
RUL E
29
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
S E C S . 4- 6
RULE 30
TRIAL
Se c ti o n 1. Notice of trial. Upon entry of a case
i n th e tri a l c a l e n d a r , th e cler k shal l notify th e
par ti e s of th e date of its trial in suc h man ne r as
shall e nsur e his rec ei pt of that notice at least five
(5) day s before suc h date. (2a, R22)
NOTES
1. The words "trial" and "hearing" have different me a ni n gs
and c onnota t i ons. Trial may refer to th e reception of
evidence and other processes. It embraces the period for
the introduction of evidence by both parties. Hearing, as
known in law, is not confined to trial but embraces the
several stages of litigation, including the pre-trial sta ge. A
he ari ng does not necessaril y mean presentation of
evidence. It does not necessarily imply the p re s e n t a t i o n
of oral or doc um e nt a r y evidence in open court but that
the parties are afforded the opportunity to
be
he a r d
(Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 152154,
Nov. 18, 2003).
2. As a matter of procedural due process, it is now required
that the parties should receive notice of the trial at least 5
days before the scheduled date. This is intended to avoid
the usual misunderstandings and failure of the parties to
appear for trial as the previous rule did not spell out these
mechanics of service.
Sec. 2. Adjournments and postponements. A
court may adjourn a trial from day to day, and to
any state d ti me, as the e xpe di ti ou s and c onv e n i e n t
tr an sac ti on of bu si ne s s may require, but shall have
no pow e r to adjour n a trial for a longer period tha n
383
R UL E
30
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 3- 4
on e m o n t h fo r e a c h a d j o u r n m e n t , no r mor e
tha n thre e mo n th s i n all, e xc e p t w he n a ut h or i z e
d i n w r i t i n g b y th e Cour t A d mi n i s t r a t or , S u p r e m e
Court. (3a, R22)
Sec. 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial
for absence of evidence. A mo t i o n to p o s t p o n e a
tr i a l o n th e g r ou n d o f a b s e n c e o f e v i d e n c e ca
n b e g r a n t e d on l y u p o n a f f i d a v i t s h o w i n g th e
m a t e r i a l i t y an d r e l e v a n c y o f suc h e v i de n c e , and
tha t du e di l i g e n c e ha s bee n use d t o pr oc ur e it. But
i f th e a dve r s e par ty a dmi t s th e facts to be gi ve n in
e v i de n c e , eve n i f h e obje c ts o r re se r ve s th e ri ght t o
obje ct to thei r a d mi ss i bi l i ty , th e tr ial shal l no t be
p o s t p o n e d . (4a, R22) (As corrected by Resolution of the
Supreme Court, dated July 21, 1998)
Sec . 4. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for
illness of party or counsel. A moti o n to pos t pon e a
trial on th e groun d of i ll ne s s of a party or c ou ns e l
ma y be gr ante d i f i t a ppe ar s upo n affi davit or sw or m
c e r t i f i c a t i o n tha t th e p r e s e n c e o f suc h par t y o r
c ou n s e l a t th e trial i s i n di s p e n s a bl e an d tha t the
c h ar a c t e r o f hi s il l ne s s i s suc h a s t o ren de r hi s nona t t e n d a n c e e xc u s a bl e . (5a, R22)
NOTE S
1. . P o s t p o n e m e n t s ar e a d d r e s s e d to th e soun d
discretion of the court and, in the absence of grave abuse of
discretion, cannot be controlled by ma ndam u s (Olsen vs.
Fressel & Co., 37 Phil. 121).
2. The provisions of Sec. 3 of thi s Rule are not applicable to
criminal cases as the rule on postpone ment s in criminal
cases is governed by Sec. 2, Rule 119 (People vs. Catolico,
L-31261-65, April 20, 1971).
R UL E
30
TRIA L
SE C . 5
s a g a i n s t w ho m an y c ou n te r clai m or
ha s been ple ade d, shall adduc e e vi de nc e
of their de fe nse ,
in the or de r to be
by the court;
385
RUL E
30
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 5
RUL E
30
TRI AL
SEC . 6
387
R UL E
30
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 7, 8
th e he ar i n g
th e judg e wit
f th e par ti e s,
rec or d in th e
NOT E
1. This provision differs some wha t from tha t of
Sec. 17, Rule 136, the last pa ra gra p h whereof reads as
follows:
"Whenever requested by a party, any statement made
by a judge of first instance, or by a commissioner, with
reference to a case being tried by him, or to any of the
pa rtie s thereto, or to any witness or attorne y, during the
he a ri n g of such case, shall be mad e of record in the
stenographic notes."
Sec. 8. Suspension of actions. Th e s u s pe n s i o n
of a c t i on s shal l be g ov e r n e d by th e pr ov i s i on s of
th e Civil Code, (n)
R UL E
30
TRIA L
SE C . 9
NOTES
1. Rule 21 of the former Rules, providing for the suspension of
action, has been eliminated in these revised Rules and,
instead, these provisions of the Civil Code have been
adopted for that purpose:
"Art. 2030. Every civil action or proceeding shall
be suspended:
(1) If willingness to discuss a possible compromise is
expressed by one or both parties; or
(2) If it appears that one of the parties, before the
commencement of the action or proceeding, offered to
discuss a possible compromise but the other part y
refused the offer.
The duration and terms of the suspension of the
civil action or proceeding and similar matt ers shall
be governed by such provisions of the rules of court
as the Supreme Court shall promul gate. Said rules
of court shall likewise provide for the appointment
and duties of amicable compounders."
Sec. 9. Judge to receive evidence; delegation to clerk
of court. The judg e of the court w her e the case is
pe n di n g shall pe r s on all y rec e i ve the e vi de nc e to be
a d duc e d by th e par ti es. H ow eve r , in de fa ul ts or
ex parte he ar i ng s , and in any case whe r e the partie s
a g r e e i n w r i t i n g , th e c ou r t ma y d e l e g a t e th e
rec e pti on of evi de nc e to its cler k of court wh o is a
me mbe r of the bar. The clerk of court shall have
no pow e r to rule on obje cti ons to any qu e sti o n or
to the a d mi s si o n of e xhi bits, w hic h objec ti ons shall
be res ol ve d by th e court upo n s u b mi s s i o n of his
report and the tr anscri pts within ten (10) days from
te r mi nati on of the hear ing, (n)
389
R UL E
30
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 0
NOT E S
1. Under the 1964 Rules, where the defendant is in default,
some courts referred the matte r of the reception of the
evidence for the plaintiff to a commissioner, usually the
clerk of court or his deput y. In Laluan, et al. vs. Malpaya, et
al. (L-21231, July 30, 1975), it was held that the clerk of
court may be authorized to receive evidence subject to the
condition tha t if such proceedings and the decision the reon
prejudice the substa ntial rights of the aggrieved part y, the
latter should be given an opportunit y to thresh out his case
in court. However, the Suprem e Court subse que nt l y ruled
such practice as wrong and without basis in any rule, and
has required that, where the defendant had been declared
in default, the trial judge himself should take down the
evidence (Lim Tanhu vs. Ramolete, et al., L-40098, Aug. 29, 1975).
However, in Continental Bank vs. Tiangco, et al. (G.R. No.
50480, Dec. 14, 1979), it was held tha t the jud gm e nt based
on e vi d e nc e re c e i ve d b y th e d e p u t y c le r k o f c our t a s
com mi ssi one r i s valid whe r e i t wa s not i m pa i re d by
extrinsic fraud or lack of due process and the judgme nt
de bt ors had made pa rti a l pa ym e n t to satisfy it. The
Laluan case was adverted to and the doctrine the rein was
re iterated in National Housing Authority vs. CA, et al. (L50877, April 28, 1983), wherein the pa rtie s had agreed to
the appointm ent of a commissioner, and in Gochangco, et
al. vs. CFIofNegros Occ, et al. (L-49396, Jan . 15, 1988).
2. The p re s e n t provision is int e nde d to effect a
ra pproc hem e nt between the conflicting practices, having
in mind the need to relieve the judge of some of his judicial
functions whene ver the same can be safely e nt ruste d to a
responsible officer and with the necessary safeguards for
the int e re st s of the pa rti e s. The basic rule, of course,
remai ns tha t the judge must himself personally receive
and resolve the evidence of the pa rtie s.
R UL E
SO
TRI A L
SE C . 9
391
RULE 31
CO NSO LI DATIO N OR SE VERA NCE
S e c t i o n 1 . Consolidation. W he n a c t i o n s
i n v o l v i n g a c o m m o n q u e s t i o n of law or fact are
p e n d i n g be f or e th e c ou r t , i t ma y or de r a j oi n t
h e a r i n g or trial of an y or all th e ma tt e r s in i ssu e in
th e a c t i o n s ; i t ma y or de r al l th e a c t i o n s c on
s ol i date d ; an d i t ma y mak e suc h or de r s c o n c e r n i n g
p r o c e e d i n g s t h e r e i n a s ma y t e n d t o a v oi d
u n n e c e s s a r y c ost s or del ay. (1)
NOTES
1. The objects of consolidation, or the rationale of a joi n t
h e a r i n g a u t h o r i z e d b y Rule 31 , ar e t o a void multiplicity
of suits, guard against oppression or abuse, pre ve nt delay,
clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial
court and save unnecessary costs and expenses.
Consolidation seeks to attain justice with the least expense
and vexation to the litigants. The pre se nt tendenc y is to
permit consolidation whe ne ve r possible and irrespective
of th e di ve r si t y of th e i ssue s invol ved (Palanca vs.
Querubin, et al., L-29510-31, Nov. 29, 1969; Raymundo,
et al. vs. Felipe, L-30887, Dec. 24, 1971).
2..
R UL E
31
C O N S O L I D A TI O N
O R SEVERANC E
SE C . 1
the case which was appealed later and bearing the higher
docket number is consolidated with the case having the
lower docket number.
3. As a rule, the consolidation of se veral cases i n vol vi n g th
e sam e p a r t i e s an d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r i s discretionary with
the trial court. However, consolidation of these cases
becomes a matter of duty if two or more cases are tried
before the same judge, or, if filed with different branches of
the same Court of First Instance, one of such cases has
not been partially tried (Raymundo, et al. vs. Felipe,
supra). Subject to the qualification in the latter case, it
would seem that the former doctrine that there is no time
beyond which no consolidation of cases can be effected
is still valid (see Sideco vs. Paredes,
74 Phil. 6).
4. The three ways of consolidating cases are (a) by recasting
the cases already instituted, conducting only one h e a r i n g
an d r e n d e r i n g onl y one de c i si on, (b) by consolidating
the existing cases and holding only one he a ri n g and
re nd e ri n g only one decision, and (c) by he a ri n g only the
principa l case and suspe ndi n g the hearing on the others
until judgment has been rendered in the principal case
(Salazar vs. CFI of Laguna, et al., 64 Phil.785).
5. Cases can be consolidated for purposes of a single appeal
therefrom and a single decision can be rendered thereon
(Sideco vs. Paredes, supra).
6. On considerations of judicial economy and for the
convenience of the parties, the Supreme Court can also
order the consolidation of cases involving substantially the
same parties and issues but which have been filed in
different courts of equal jurisdiction. Thus, where as a
consequence of a vehicular collision, a bus company filed
an action for damages against the other bus company in
the proper court in Quezon and the heirs of the deceased
393
RUL E
31
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 2
RULE 32
TRIAL BY COM MISSIONER
S e c t i o n 1. Reference by consent. By w r i t t e n
c on se n t of both par ti e s, the court may or de r an y or
all of th e i s s u e s in a cas e to be r e f e r r e d to a
c o mmi s si on e r to be agree d upo n by the par ti e s or
to be a p p o i n t e d by th e court. As use d in the s e
Rules, th e word "c ommi ssi one r " i ncl u de s a refe ree ,
an au di t or and an e xa mi ne r, (la , R33)
Sec. 2. Reference ordered on motion. When the par ti e
s d o no t c on se nt , th e c our t may, upo n th e a ppl i c ati on
of e i the r or of its ow n moti on, direct a refe renc e to a
c o mmi s si on e r in the foll ow ing cases:
(a) When th e trial of an issue of fact re qui re s the
e xa mi n at i o n of a long acc oun t on ei ther side, in
w hi c h case th e c o mmi s si on e r may be di rec te d to hear
and report upon the whole issue or any specific
qu e sti o n i nvol ve d the rei n;
(b) When the ta ki n g of an ac c oun t i s ne c e s sa r y for the
i nfor mati on of the court before j u dg me n t , or for
c arr yi ng a ju dg me n t or order into effect;
(c) When a qu e sti o n of fact, other tha n upon the
pl e adi ngs , ari se s upon moti on or ot herw i se , in any
stage of a case , or for c arr yi ng a ju dg me n t or or der
into effect. (2a, R33)
Sec. 3. Order of reference; powers of the commissioner.
Whe n a r e f e r e n c e i s ma d e , th e c l e r k s h a l l
for thw ith furnish the c ommi s si one r with a copy of
the or de r of reference. The order may specify or
limit the pow ers of the commi ssi oner, and may direct
him to report only upo n particular i ssue s, or to do
or per for m par ti cular acts, or to receive and report
395
R UL E
32
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 4
I n th e p r o c e e d i n g s u n de r thi s se c ti on , th e
commissioner may rule upon the admissibility of evidence,
unless otherwise provided in the order of reference.
In
re cept ion of evidence before th e clerk of court unde r
the provisions of Sec. 9, Rule 30, the clerk does not have
tha t power and he shall just receive the evidence subject
to the objections interposed the reto and such questions or
objections shall be resolved by the court after the clerk has
submitte d his report to it.
396
RUL E
32
T RI A L B Y C O M M I S S I O N E R
SE C S . 5- 9
t o a f ai t h f u l an d h o n e s t p e r f o r m a n c e t he re of .
(14, R33)
Sec. 5. Proceedings before commissioner.
Upon
r e c e i p t o f th e or de r o f r e f e r e n c e an d u n l e s s
ot he r w i s e pr ovi de d the rei n , the c o mmi s si on e r shall
for thw ith set a ti me and place for the first me e ti n g
of the par ti e s or thei r c ounse l to be held w i thi n ten
(10) day s after the date of the or der of refe rence and shall
notify th e par ti e s or their c ou nse l . (5a, R33)
Sec.
6. Failure of parties to appear before
commissioner. If a party fails to appe ar at the ti me
and place appoi nte d, the c ommi ssi one r may pr oce e d
ex parte or , in hi s d i s c r e t i o n , a d j o u r n th e
pr oc e e di n g s to a future day, gi vi n g notice to th e
abse n t part y o r hi s c ou n s e l o f th e a dj ou r n me nt .
(6a, R33)
Sec. 7. Refusal of witness. Th e refusa l of a
w i t n e s s t o o be y a s u b p o e n a i s s u e d b y th e
c o mmi s si on e r or to give evi de nc e before hi m, shall
be de e me d a c onte mp t of the court whic h appoi nte d
the c o mmi s si on e r . (7a, R33)
Sec. 8. Commissioner shall avoid delays. It is
the duty of the c o mmi s si on e r to pr oc e e d with all
r ea s on a bl e di l i ge nc e . Eithe r party, on notic e to
the par ti e s and c o mmi s s i o n e r , ma y apply t o th e
court for an or der requi r i ng the c ommi s si one r to
e xpe di te the pr oc e e di n g s and to make his report.
(8a, R33)
Sec. 9. Report of commissioner. U po n th e
c o mpl e ti o n of the trial or he ar i n g or pr oc e e di n g
before the c ommi ssi one r, he shall file with the court
his report in w ri ti ng upo n the matte rs submi tte d to
R UL E
32
R E M E D I A L LA W
COMPENDIU M
SE C S . 10-1 3
RUL E
32
TRIA L B Y C O M M I S S I O N E R
SE C . 13
399
RULE 33
DEMURRER TO EV IDEN CE
Sec. 1. Demurrer to evidence.After the plaintiff
ha s c o mp l e t e d th e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f hi s e v i de n c e , the
d e f e n da n t ma y mov e for di s mi ss a l o n th e groun d
tha t upo n th e fac ts an d th e law th e pl ai nti ff ha s
s h ow n no right to relief. I f hi s moti o n i s de nie d , he
shal l hav e th e r i gh t t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e . I f hi s
m o t i o n i s g r a n t e d bu t o n a p p e a l th e or de r o f
d i s mi s s a l i s r ev e r s e d h e shal l b e de e me d t o hav e
w ai ve d th e ri ght t o pr e s e n t e v i de n c e , (la , R35)
NO TES
1. A de m urre r to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground
of insufficiency of evidence and is presented after the
plaintiff rests his case. It thu s differs from a motion to
dismiss under Rule 16 which is grounded on preliminary
objections and is pre se nte d at the outset of the case, i.e.,
generall y, before a responsive pleading is filed by the
movant and within the period for the filing thereof.
See
Note 1 under Sec. 1, Rule 16.
2. . In th e l a n g u a g e of th e S u p r e m e C ou rt , a
de m u r r e r to evidence may be issued where , upon the
facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.
W he r e th e p l a i n t i f f s e vi d e nc e t o ge t h e r wit h suc h
inferences and conclusions as may reasonably be drawn
t h e r e f r o m doe s no t w a r r a n t r e c o ve r y a ga i n s t
th e defendant, a de m ur re r to evidence should be
sustained. A de m u rre r to evidence is likewise sust ai na bl
e when, admit ting every proven fact favorable to the
plaintiff and i n d u l g i n g i n hi s fa vo r al l c o n c l u s i o n s
fa i rl y an d re asonabl y inferable therefrom, the plaintiff
has failed to make out one or more of the ma te ri al
eleme nts of his case, or when there is no evidence to
support an allegation
400
RUL E
33
DE M URR E R T O E VI DE NC E
SE C . 1
RUL E 3 3
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
6. . For the
c ounte rpa rt bu t contrary features in
cri mi na l cases, see Sec. 23 , Rule 119 and th e notes
the reunde r.
RULE 34
JUDGM E NT ON THE PLEADINGS
Sec ti o n 1. Judgment on the pleadings. Where
a n a n sw e r fails t o te n de r a n i ssue , o r ot h e r w i s e
a d mi t s th e m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s o f th e a d v e r s e
party' s pl e adi ng, the c our t may, on moti on of that
party, direct ju dg me n t on suc h ple adi ng. H ow eve r,
in ac ti ons for de c l ar ati on of nulli ty or a n n u l me n t
of mar r i ag e or for le gal s e par ati on , th e ma te ri al
fac t s a l l e g e d i n th e c o m p l a i n t shal l a l w a y s b e
prove d, (la , R19)
NOTES
1. A judgment on the pleadings presupposes that there is no
controverted issue whatsoever between the pa rti e s , hence
th e plaintiff i s also a ssume d to have a d m i t t e d all th e
r e l e v a n t a l l e g a t i o n s of fact of the defendant in his
answer (Evangelista vs. De la Rosa,
76 Phil. 115; Mercy's, Inc. vs. Verde, L-21571, Sept. 29,
1966). The judgment is, therefore, based exclusively upon
the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties
and the annexes thereto, if any, without consideration
of any evidence aliunde (see Rodriguez vs. Llorente,
49 Phil. 823).
2. The plaintiff, by moving for judgm ent on the pleadings, is
not deemed to have admit ted irrelevant allegations in the
defendant's answer (Araneta vs. Perez, L-20787-8, June 29,
1965); ne i t he r
is
the
defendant deemed to have
a dmi t te d alle gati ons of da m a ge s in the complaint
(Abubakar Tan vs. Tian Ho, L-18820, Dec. 29, 1962;
Delfin vs. CAR, L-23348, Mar. 14, 1967),
hence there can be no award of damages in said judgment
in the absence of proof (Lichauco vs. Guash, 76 Phil. 5).
403
RUL E
34
REMEDIA L
LA W C O M P E N D I U M
8EC. 1
RUL E
34
JUDGMEN T O N
TH E P L E A D I N G S
SE C . 1
6. .
J u d g m e n t s on th e pl e a di n g s and s u m m a r y
judgments are also to be distinguished from judgments by
default. It will be observed tha t in default judgm ent
(a) ge nui n e i ssue s of fact and/or law are norm a ll y
involved; (b) evidence must be introduced on the material
allegations, albeit ex parte, except in cases covered by the
rule on summary procedure; (c) all cases may be subject
to judgments by default, except those for annulment or
declaration of nullity of marriage or legal separation; and
(d) motions for default judgments may be filed ex parte,
except under the rule on summa ry procedure wherein
upon failure of defendant to answer, the court, motu
proprio or on p l a i n t i f f s mot i on, sha l l r e n d e r th e
corresponding judgment.
7. As provided in Sec. 1 of this Rule, a judgment on the
pleadings is not allowed in actions for declaration of nullity
or annulme nt of marriage or for legal separation. The same
prohibition applies to a summar y judgment (see Note 2
under Secs. 1 and 2, Rule 35). For that matter, an orde r of
de fa ul t an d a j u d gm e n t by de fa ult ar e proscribed in
actions for declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal
separation (Sec. 3[eJ, Rule 9). The foregoing prohibitions are
based on and expressive of the concern and p rot e c t i o n
e xte nde d by th e St a t e to the social institution of
marriage.
This protective policy on the marital vinculum is now
further enhanced by special procedural rules on actions
involving the validity of marriage or for legal separation
of th e s p o u s e s . On Ma rc h 4 , 2003 , an d effecti ve
Marc h 15, 2003 , th e Su pr e m e Court a pprove d and
p r o m u l ga t e d in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC th e Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages (Appendix AA) and, in
A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC, the Rule on Legal Sepa rati on
(Appendix BB).
405
RU L E 3 5
SU M M AR Y J U D G M E N T S
S e c t i o n 1. Summary judgment for claimant. A
part y se e k i n g t o rec o ve r upo n a claim ,
count e rc l ai m , o r cross-clai m o r t o obtai n a
d e c l a r a t o r y re l i e f ma y , a t an y ti m e a fte r th e
p l e a d i n g i n a n s w e r t h e r e t o ha s be e n s e r ve d , mov e
wit h s u p p o r t i n g a ffi da vi t s , d e p o s i t i o n s o r
a d m i s s i o n s for a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n hi s fa vo r
up o n al l o r an y pa r t the re of , (l a , R34 )
Sec . 2. Summary judgment for defending party.
A pa rt y a ga i n s t who m a claim , c o u n t e r c l a i m , o r
c r o s s - c l a i m i s a s s e r t e d o r a d e c l a r a t o r y re l i e f i s
s o u g h t m a y , a t an y t i m e , m o v e w i t h s u p p o r t i n g
a ffi da vi t s , d e p o s i t i o n s o r a d m i s s i o n s for a s u m m a r y
j u d g m e n t i n hi s fa vo r a s t o al l o r an y p a r t t he re of .
(2a, R34 )
N OT E S
1. . For di s t i nc t i on s be t wee n a j u d gm e n t on the
pleadings and a sum ma r y judgme nt, see the notes under
Sec. 1, Rule 34.
2. While the Rule does not specifically so provide, a s um m a r y
j u d gm e n t is not proper in an action for the a n nu l m e n t or
declaration of nullity of a marria ge (and also in legal
sepa rati on), just as in the case of a judgme nt on th e
pl eadi ngs, as this Rule refers to an action "to recover upon
a claim," etc., tha t is, to recover a debt or a liquidated
de mand for money
(Roque vs. Encarnacion, et al., 95
Phil. 43). Summ a r y judgm ent s,
however, are made
specifically applicable to the special civil action for
declaratory relief (Rule 63).
RUL E
35
SUMMAR Y
JUDGMENT S
SEC . 3
RUL E
36
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 4
408
RUL E
35
SUMMAR Y
JUDGMENT S
SE C . 4
RUL E
35
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 5-6
j u s t . Th e f ac t s s o s p e c i f i e d s h a l l b e d e e m e d
e s t a bl i s h e d , an d th e trial shal l b e c on d u c t e d o n the
c o n t r ov e r t e d facts ac c or di ngl y. (4a, R34)
NOT E
1. While Sec. 4 of this Rule authorizes the rendition
of a p a r t i a l s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , suc h j u d g m e n t i s
interlocutory in na ture and is not a final and appealable
jud gm e nt . The appeal from the pa rt ia l and appealable
jud gm e nt should be ta ken together with the judgm ent in
the entire case after the trial shall have been conducted
on the m at e ria l facts on which a subst ant ial controversy
exi st s (Guevarra, et al. vs. CA, et al., L-49017 and L49024, Aug. 30, 1983).
Sec . 5. Form of affidavits and supporting papers.
S u p p or t i n g an d o pp os i n g affi davi ts shall be mad e o n
pe r s on a l k n o w l e d g e , shall set forth suc h facts a s
w oul d b e a d mi s s i bl e i n e v i de n c e , an d shal l sho w
affi r mati ve ly tha t th e affiant i s c o m pe t e n t t o te stify
t o th e ma tt e r s state d th e r ei n . Certifie d tru e c opi e
s o f all pa p e r s o r par t s t h e r e o f re fe r re d t o i n th e
af fi dav i t shal l b e a t t a c h e d t h e re t o o r serve d
t h e r ew i t h . (5a, R34)
Sec . 6. Affidavits in bad faith. Sh oul d it appe a r
t o it s s a t i s f a c t i o n a t an y ti m e t h a t an y o f th e
a f f i d a v i t s p r e s e n t e d p u r s u a n t t o thi s Rul e ar e
pr e s e n t e d in bad faith, or sol e l y for th e pu r p os e of
de l ay , th e cour t shal l f or t hw i t h or der th e off e n di n g
par t y o r c o u n s e l t o pa y t o th e o t h e r par t y th e
a mou n t o f th e r e a s on a b l e e x p e n s e s w hi c h th e
filing o f th e a f fi da v i t s c a u s e d hi m t o i nc ur , i n c l u d i n
g a t t o r n e y ' s fe e s . I t may , afte r h e a r i n g , f u r t h e r
a dju dg e th e of f e n di n g part y o r c o u n s e l guil t y o f
c on t e mp t . (6a, R34 )
410
RUL E
35
S E C S . 5- 6
NOT E
1. The sanctions for violations of the provisions of
these sections shall be imposed not only on the offending
party but also upon his counsel. The contumacious conduct
contem plat ed herein are in the na t ur e of indirect or
constructive contempt, hence the same shall be punished
only after hearing, pursuant to Sec. 3 of Rule 71 .
RULE 36
J U D G M E N T S , FINAL ORDERS
AN D ENTRY TH EREO F
S e c t i o n 1. Rendition of judgments and final
orders. A j u d g m e n t or final or de r d e t e r mi n i n g
th e me r i t s of th e cas e shall be in w r i ti n g pe r s on al l y
an d di rec tl y pre pare d b y th e ju dge , st at i n g cle arly
an d d i s t i n c t l y th e fac ts an d th e law o n w hi c h i t
i s base d , si gn e d b y hi m , an d filed wit h th e cler k
of court, (la )
NOTES
1. The decision of the court is the entire document p r e p a r e d
an d p r o m u l g a t e d b y it, a d j u d i c a t i n g an d de t e rm i n i n g
th e ri ght s of th e pa rti e s to th e case. I t contains the
findings of fact and law, the rea sons and evidence to support
such findings, as well as the discussion of issues leading up
to its de te rm i na t i on. The dispositive or decretal portion
or the fallo is what actually constitutes the jud gm e nt or
resolution of the court and which can be the subject of
execution, although the other pa rt s of the decision may be
resorted to in order to de term ine the ratio decidendi for such
jud gm e nt or resolution.
2. Where the re is a conflict between the dispositive portion of
the decision and the body thereof, the dispositive portion
controls irrespective of what appe a rs in the body of the
decision. However, an exception is recognized where the
inevitable conclusion from the findings of fact in the
opinion is so indubitable and clear as to show that there was
a mistake in the dispositive portion (Aguirre, et al. vs.
Aguirre, et al., L-33080, Aug. 15, 1974), or where explicit
discussion and set tleme nt of the issue is found in the body
of the decision (Millare vs. Millare, 106 Phil.
412
R UL E 3 6
J U D GM E N T S , FINA L ORDE R S
1 AN D E N T R Y T HE R E O F
SEC .
j.
k.
RUL E
36
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RUL E 3 6
J U D G M E NT S , FINA L ORDE R S
1 AN D ENTR Y THE RE O F
SE C .
RUL E
36
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RUL E 3 6
J U D GM E N T S , FINA L ORDE R S
1 AN D ENTR Y T HE RE O F
SE C
417
RUL E
36
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
R UL E 3 6
J U D G M E N T S , F I N A L OR D E R S
1 AN D E N T R Y T HE R E O F
SE C
court should state clearly the reasons for its issuance, with
specific references to the facts and law relied upon,
necessary for the full underst anding thereof; otherwise,
th e a p p e l l a t e cour t would be at a loss or at lea s t
unnecessaril y inconvenienced in ascertaining the definite
basis of the order (Amunategue vs. CA, et at., L-30340,
June 30, 1979).
19. Every court having juri sdicti on to re nde r a particular
judgment has inherent power and authority to enforce it
and to exercise equitable control over such enforcement.
The court has authorit y to inquire whether its j u d g m e n t
ha s been e xe c ut e d , and will re m ov e obstructions to the
enforcement thereof. Such authorit y extends not only to
such orders and such writs as may be necessary to carry out
the judgment into effect and render
it binding and
operative, but also to such orders as may be necessary to
prevent an improper enforcement of the judgment. If a
judgment is sought to be perverted and made the medium
of consummating a wrong, the court on proper application
can prevent it [31 Am. JUT., Judgments, Sec. 882, pp. 363
364] (Cabrias vs. Adil, L-49648, Mar. 18, 1985).
20. The requirement in Sec. 1 of this Rule that a decision
should state the facts and law on which it is based (see Sec.
9, Art. X, 1973 Constitution) formerly applied only to
decisions of courts of record, and not those of inferior
courts, pursua nt to Sec. 12, Art. VII of the 1935
Constitution. Thus, formerly, decisions of an inferior court
were not required to contain findings of fact and law (then
Sec. 14, Rule 5), unless it sits as a court of record in a
criminal case appealable to the Court of Appeals or the
S u p r e m e C our t (Sec. 87, R.A. 296, as amended).
However, under R.A. 6031, inferior courts became courts
of record and the facts and law must appear in their
decisions. Also, Rule 5 has been expressly repealed and
the procedure in inferior courts is now the same as that in
419
RUL E
36
R E M E D I A L LA W
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 2
R UL E 3 6
J U D G M E N T S , F I N A L OR D E R S
2 A N D EN T R Y T H E R E O F
SE C .
RUL E 3 6
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 6
36
J U D GM E N T S , FINA L ORDE R S
AN D E N TR Y T H E R E O F
SE C S . 3- 5
R UL E
36
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 6
J U D G M E N T S , FINA L
ORDE R S AN D ENTR Y
T HE R E O F
SE C . 6
425
RUL E
37
R E M E D I A L LA W
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 1
RULE 37
NEW TRIAL OR RE CO N S ID E RATI O N
Se c ti on 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for
new trial or reconsideration. W i t h i n th e p e r i o d
for t a k i n g a n a p p e a l , th e a g g r i e v e d par t y ma y
mov e th e trial c our t t o set asi d e th e j u dg me n t o r
final or de r an d gran t a ne w trial for on e or more
o f th e f o l l ow i n g c a u s e s m a t e r i a l l y a f fe c t i n g th e
s u b s t a n t i a l r i ght s of said party:
(a) F r a u d , a c c i d e n t , m i s t a k e o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l i g e n c e
w h i c h o r d i n a r y p r u d e n c e c ou l d no t hav e gu ar de d
a gai n s t an d b y reas o n o f w hi c h suc h a g gr i e ve d
party ha s pr oba bly bee n i mpai r e d i n his r i ghts; or
( b) New l y di s c ov e r e d e v i de n c e , w hic h h e coul d not, wit h
r e a s o n a bl e di l i g e n c e , hav e di s c ov e r e d and p r od u c e d
a t th e trial, an d w hi c h i f pr e s e n t e d w oul d pr oba bl y
alte r th e res ul t.
Withi n th e sa m e pe r i od , th e a g g r i e v e d part y
ma y a l s o m o v e fo r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n u p o n th e
g r ou n d s tha t th e da ma g e s aw ar de d are e xc e s s i ve ,
tha t th e e v i d e n c e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y th e
de c i s i o n or final or der, or tha t th e d e c i s i o n or final
or de r i s c on tr ar y t o law. (la )
NOTE S
1.
426
RULE 37
NE W T R I A L O R R E C O N S I D E R A T I O N
SE C . 1
RUL E
37
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 1
RUL E
37
NE W TR I A L O R R E C O N S I D E R A T I O N
SE C . 1
429
R UL E
37
RE ME DI A L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC .
R UL E
37
NE W T RI A L O R R E C O N S I D E R A T I O N
SE C . 1
431
RUL E
37
R E M E D I A L LA W
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 1
RUL E
37
NE W TR I A L O R R E C O N S I D E R A T I O N
SE C . 2
R UL E 3 7
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 2
R UL E
37
NE W TR I A L O R R E C O N S I D E R A T I O N
SECS.3- 5
435
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C .
H.U LW
NOTES
1. Although the recorded evidence at the former trial need not
be taken anew, the court, in the interest of justice, may recall
the witnesses who testified therein for further e x a m i n a t i o
n o r c r o s s - e xa m i na t i o n , unl e s s the y ar e no longer
available (Castillo vs. Sebullina, et al., 31 Phil. 518).
2. . Unde r th e former Rules, thi s proc e dure wa s
observed: An order denying a motion for new trial was
not appealable since the judgm ent in the case wherein
such order is rendered is not yet final. The remedy of the
mo va n t in such a s i t u a t i o n was to appe a l from th e
judgme nt and assign as an error in said appeal the fact of
denial of his motion for new trial. This was different
from the order denying a petition for relief under Rule 38
wherein the remedy was to appeal from such order, and
not from the judgme nt in tha t case since said judgment had
already become final and was not appealable (Samia vs.
Medina, 56 Phil. 618; Bernabe vs. CA, et al., supra), and in
the appeal from said order, the appellant may also assail
the j u d gm e n t (Sec. 2, Rule 41
which has been
repealed,).
Unde r th e p r e s e n t re vised Rules, i t i s like wi se
specifically provided that an order denying a motion for
new trial or reconsideration is not appealable, the remedy
being an appeal from the judgment or final order in due
time (see Sec. 9 of this Rule). This is reiterated in Sec. 1,
Rule 41 which provides that no appeal may be taken from,
inter alia, an order denying a petition for relief or any
similar motion seeking relief from judgment. Instead,
according to said Rule, the aggrieved party may file an
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
Sec. 7. Partial new trial or reconsideration. If
the gr ou n d s for a moti on un de r thi s Rule appe ar
to the court to affect the i ssue s as to only a part,
R UL E
37
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 8
R UL E 3 7
NE W T RI A L O R R E C O N S I D E R A T I O N
SE C . 8
RUL E
37
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 9
RULE 38
RELIEF FROM J UD G M E N TS , O RDERS,
OR OTHER P RO CEEDI NG S
Secti on 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order,
or other proceedings. When a ju dg me n t or final or der
i s e n te r e d , or an y othe r p r oc e e di n g i s th e r ea ft e r
take n agai ns t a party in an y court thr oug h fraud,
ac ci de nt, mi sta ke , or e xc u sa bl e n e gl i ge nc e , he ma y
file a pe ti ti o n in suc h court and in the sam e cas e
pr ay i n g that the ju dg me nt , or der or p r oc e e di n g be
set asi de. (2a)
Sec. 2. Petition for relief from denial of appeal.
When a ju dg me n t or final or der is ren de re d by an y
c our t in a c as e , an d a par t y t h e r e t o , by fr au d ,
a c c i de n t , mi s t a ke , o r e xc u s a b l e n e g l i g e n c e , ha s
been pr ev e n te d from ta ki n g an appeal, he ma y file
a pe ti ti on in suc h court and in the same case pr ay i ng
that the appea l be give n du e course, (la )
NOTES
1. Secs. 1 and 2, although now in transposed order, are
substantiall y the same as their antecedents but with a
subst a nt ia l proce dural difference. While under
the
former Rule petitions for relief from a judgment, final order
or ot he r proc e e di n g re n de re d or ta ke n in th e the n
municipal courts had to be filed and decided in the former
Courts of First Instance, such petition should now be filed
in and resolved by the court in the same case from which
the petition arose. Thus, the petition for relief from a
judgment, final order or proceeding involved in a case tried
by a municipal trial court shall be filed in and decided by
the same court in the same case just like the procedure
followed in the present Regional Trial Court.
441
R UL E
38
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC .
RUL E 3 8
R E L I E F FR O M J U D G M E N T S ,
3 O R D E R S O R O T HE R P R O C E E D I N G S
SE C .
5. A petition for relief under Sec. 1 of this Rule has bee n held
to be a p p l i c a b l e to all ki nd s of spe c ia l proceedings,
such as land registration (Elvira vs. Filamor,
56 Phil. 305), intestate settlement (Reyes vs. Gonzales,
47 Phil. 339; Onas vs. Javilo, 54 Phil. 602) an d
gua rdianship proceedings (Panis vs. Yangco, 52 Phil.
498).
Sec . 3. Time for filing
petition;
contents
and
verification. A p e t i t i o n p r o v i d e d for i n e i t h e r of th e
p r e c e d i n g sec t i on s of thi s Rul e mus t be verified, filed
w i t h i n si xt y (60) da y s afte r th e p e t i t i o n e r l e a r n s o
f th e j u d g m e n t , final o r de r , o r o t h e r p r o c e e d i n g t
o b e se t a si d e , an d no t mor e t h a n six (6) m o n t h s afte
r suc h j u d g m e n t o r final o r d e r wa s e n t e r e d , o r suc h
p r o c e e d i n g wa s t a k e n , an d m u s t b e a c c o m p a n i e d
wit h affi da vi ts s h o w i n g th e fra ud, a c c i d e nt , m i s t a k e ,
o r e x c u s a bl e n e gl i ge n c e re l ie d u po n , an d th e fa cts
c o n s t i t u t i n g th e p e t i t i o n e r ' s good an d s u b s t a n t i a l
c a us e o f a c t i o n o r de fe ns e , a s th e cas e ma y be .
(3)
NOT E S
1. The two periods for the filing of a petition for relief are not
extendible and never inte rrupt ed (Quijano vs. Tameta, L16473, April 20, 1961). Thus, a petition for certiorari does
not suspend the periods prescribed by this section
(Palomares vs. Jimenez, 90 Phil. 773), and n e i t h e r does a
mot i o n for r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of th e order subject of the
petition for relief (Cruz vs. Oppen, Inc., L-23861, Feb. 17,
1968), especially if filed in the wrong court. These periods
cannot be subject to a condition or a contingency as they
are devised to meet a condition or a contingency (Vda.
de Salvatierra vs. Garlitos, etc., et al., 103 Phil. 157). Both
periods must be complied with (see Phil. Rabbit Bus
Lines, Inc. vs. Arciaga, et al., L-29701, Mar. 16, 1987).
443
R UL E
38
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 3
RUL E 3 8
RELIE F FRO M J U D GM E N T S ,
3 O R D E R S O R O T HE R P R O C E E D I N G S
SE C .
An a ffida vit of m e ri t s
mus t a c c om pa n y th e
petition and the petition itself must be verified. As in
motions for new trial, the absence of an affidavit of merits
is a fatal defect and w a r r a n t s denial of the pe titi on
(Fernandez vs. Tan Tiong Tick, L-15877, April 28, 1961;
Concepcion vs. Presiding Judge, etc., et al., L-35489, Dec.
15, 1982), unless the facts required to be set out in the
affidavit of merits also appear in the verified petition
(Fabar, Inc. vs. Rodelas, L-46394, Oct. 26, 1977).
Also,
like motions for new trial, such affidavits are not required
when the judgment or order is void for want of jurisdiction
(Republic vs. De Leon, 101 Phil. 773), or was obtained by
fraud or mistake (Lupisan vs. Alfonso, et al., 78 Phil. 842), or
with denial of due process (Valerio vs. Tan, etc., et al., 97
Phil. 558).
RUL E
38
REMEDIA L
LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 4- 5
44 6
RUL E 3 8
RE L IE F FR O M J U D G M E N T S ,
6 O R D E R S O R O T HE R P R O C E E D I N G S
SE C .
RUL E
38
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 7
448
RULE 39
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND
EF FECTS OF JUDGMENTS
S e c t i o n 1. Execution upon judgments or final
orders. E xe c ut i o n shall issue as a matter of right,
on moti on, upo n a j u dg me n t or or der that di spose s
of the acti on or pr oc e e di n g upo n the e xpi r ati on of
the peri od to appeal the refr om i f no appeal has been
duly per fec te d, (la )
I f th e a p pe a l ha s be e n dul y p e r f e c t e d an d
finally r e s ol v e d , th e e xe c u t i o n ma y f or t hw i t h be
a ppl i e d for in the court of ori gi n, on moti on of the
j u dg me n t obl i ge e , s u b mi t t i n g t h e r ew i t h ce r ti fi e d
true c opi e s of the ju dg me n t or j u dg me n t s or final
or de r or or de rs s oug h t to be e nf orce d and of the
e ntry thereof, wit h notic e to the a dve r se party.
The a ppe l l ate court may, on moti on in the same
case w he n , the i nte res t of justi c e so requires, direct
the court of origin to issue the writ of e xec uti on,
(n)
NOTES
1.
R UL E
39
REMEDIA L
LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C .
vs. Zulueta, 106 Phil. 264; cf. Denso [Phil.], Inc. vs.
IAC, et al., G.R. No. 75000, Feb. 27, 1987; Montilla vs.
CA, et al., L-47968, May 9, 1988).
2. On the aspect of appealability, these revised Rules use th e
adjective "final" with re spe c t to orde r s and resolutions
since, to terminate a case, the trial courts issue orders, while
the appellate courts and most of the quasi- judicial agencies
issue resolutions. Jud gme nt s are not so qualified since the
use of th e so-called i nte rl oc ut or y judgm ent s is not favored
in this jurisdiction, while such categorization of an order or
a resolution for purposes of de noti n g tha t i t is appeal able
is to di st i ngui sh them from interlocutory orders or
resolutions. However, by force of extended usage, the
phrase "final and executory jud gm e nt " i s sometime s used
and tole rate d, although th e use of "e xe c ut or y" alone
would suffice. T hes e o bs e r va t i on s also apply to th e
se ve ra l and s e pa ra t e judgme nts contemplated in Rule 36,
or pa rtia l judgments which totally dispose of a particular
claim or severable part of the case, subject to the power of
the court to suspend or defer action on an appeal from or any
further proceeding
in such special judgment, or
as
provided by Rule 35 on the m at t e r of partial summar y
judgme nts which are not c o n s i d e re d as a p p e a l a b l e (see
Sec. 4, Rule 35 an d explanation therein).
The second pa ra gra ph of this section is an innovation
in response to complaints over the delay caused by the
former procedure in obtaining a writ of execution of a
judgme nt, which has already been affirmed on appeal,
with notice to the parties. As things then stood, after the
entry of judgm ent in the appellate court, the prevailing
party had to wait for the records of the case to be remanded
to the court of origin when and where he could then move
for the issuance of a writ of execution. The intervening
time could sometimes be substantial, especially if the court
a quo is in a remote province, and could also be availed of
by the losing part y to delay or thwa rt actual execution.
450
RUL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N AN D
1 EFFECT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C
R UL E
39
REMEDIA L
LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C .
the period to appeal, tha t is, even before the judgm ent or
order has become executory.
When execution is a matt er of right, the judgment
debtor need not be given advance notice or prior hearing
of such motion for execution (Pamintuan, et al. vs. Muhoz,
et al., L-26331, Mar. 15, 1968; Far Eastern Surety &
Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Vda. de Hernandez, et al., supra;
Development Bank of Rizal vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 75964,
Dec. 1, 1987). An ex parte motion for the issuance of the
writ would suffice since the trial court may take judicial
notice of the record of the case to determine the propriety
of the issuance thereof. However, where the losing party
shows tha t subsequent facts had take n place which would
render execution unjust, a hearing on the motion should
be held
(Luzon Surety Co. vs. Beson, L-26865-66,
Jan. 30, 1976).
4 . W h e r e th e j u d g m e n t o r o rde r ha s be come
executory, the court cannot refuse to issue a writ of
execution, except:
(a ) Whe n s u b s e q u e n t facts an d c i r c u m s t a n c e s t r a n s p i r e
whi c h r e n d e r suc h e x e c u t i o n u nj u s t o r impossible,
such as a supervening cause like the act of the
C om m i ss i o ne r of Civil Service findi ng th e pl aint iff
administrativel y guilty and which constituted a bar to his
re i nsta t em e nt as ordered by the trial court in a civil case
(Butuan City vs. Ortiz, et al, L-18054, Dec. 22, 1961), or
where the defendant bank was placed under receivership
(Lipan vs. Development Bank of Rizal, G.R. No. 73884,
Sept. 24, 1987);
(b) On equitable grounds, as when there has been a c h a n g
e in th e s i t u a t i o n of th e p a r t i e s whic h ma ke s
exe c ut i on i n e q ui t a bl e (Albar vs. Carandang, L-18003, Sept.
29, 1962; Heirs of Pedro Guminpin vs. CA, et al, L34220, Feb. 21, 1983; Luna vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No.
68374, June 18, 1985);
RUL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
1 AN D E F F E C T S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C
(c) Where the judgment has been novated by the pa rtie s (Fua
Cam Lu vs. Yap Fauco, 74 Phil. 287; cf. Zapanta vs. De
Rotaeche, 21 Phil. 154; Salvante vs. Cruz,
88 Phil. 236; Dormitorio vs. Fernandez, et al., L-25889
Aug. 21, 1976);
(d) When a petition for relief or an action to enjoin the
j udgm e nt is filed and a preliminary injunction is prayed
for and granted (see Sec. 5, Rule 38);
(e) When the judgm ent has become dormant, the 5-year period
under Sec. 6 of this Rule having expired without the
judgment having been revived (Cunanan vs.
CA, et al., L-25511, Sept. 28, 1968); or
(f)Where the judgment turns out to be incomplete (Del Rosario
vs. Villegas, 49 Phil. 634; Ignacio, et al. vs. Hilario, et al., 76
Phil. 605) or is conditional (Cu Unjieng, etc. vs. Mabalacat
Sugar Co., 70 Phil. 380) since, as a matter of law, such
judgment cannot become final.
5.
Quashal of a writ of execution is proper when
(a) it was improvidently issued; (b) it was defective in
substance; (c) it is issued against the wrong party; (d) the
judgment was already satisfied; (e) it was issued without
authorit y; (f) a change in the situation of the parties
renders execution inequitable; and (g) the controversy was
never validly submitted to the court (Cobb Perez vs. Lantin, L22320, May 22, 1968; Sandico, et al. vs. Piguing, et al.,
L-26115, Nov. 29, 1971). The same remedy is also available
where the writ of execution varies the terms of the
judgment, or where it is sought to be enforced against
p ro pe r t y exe m p t from execut ion or wher e t he r e i s
ambiguity in the terms of the judgment. Ultimately, these
defects may also be challenged on appeal or in certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus actions (Limpin, et al. vs. IAC,
et al., G.R. No. 70987, Jan. 30, 1987).
Where there is substa ntial variance between the
judgment and the writ of execution issued to enforce the
453
R UL E
39
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C .
R UL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
1 AN D E F F E C T S O F J U D G M E N T S
SEC .
455
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W
COMPENDIU M
SE C .
RUL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D GM E N T
S
SE C . 2
2.
Discretionary execution.
RUL E
39
REMEDIA L
LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C .
R U L E 39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
4 AN D E FF ECT S O F J U D G M E NT S
SE C .
459
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C 4
RUL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
AN D E F F E C T S O F J U D G M E N T
S
SEC . 4
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 4
39
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N A N
D EFFECT S O F J U D G M E NT S
SEC . 4
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 4
In People's Bank & Trust Co. vs. San Jose, et al. (96
Phil. 895), immediate execution was allowed for the
pa ym e nt of support of an heir of the e state under
admi nistration, and his urgent need therefor, not the
filing of the bond, was the pa ra m ount consideration
for such order. To consider the mere posting of a bond
as a "good re a s o n " for i m m e d i a t e e x e c ut i o n of
judgme nts pending appeal would become routinary,
o r th e rul e r a t h e r t ha n th e exc e pt i on, and this
situation is not contemplated or intended in the Rules.
5. . While insol ve nc y of th e j u d g m e n t de bt o r or
i mm i ne n t da n ge r there of has been considered a good
reason for discretionary execution, that rule does not apply
whe re, a ssumi n g tha t one of th e j udgm e n t debtors is
insolvent, the other judgme nt co-debtor is not and, under
the te rms of the judgm ent , the liability of the latter is
either subsidiary to or solidary with the former (Philippine
National Bank
vs.
Puno, et al., G.R. No.
76018,
Feb. 10, 1989).
6. Certiorari lies against an order granting execution pending
appeal where the same is not founded upon good reasons.
The fact tha t the losing part y had also appealed from the
j udgm e nt does not bar the certiorari proceed ings as the
appeal could not be an adequate remedy from such p re m a t ur
e execution (Jaca vs. Davao Lumber Co., L-25771, Mar. 29,
1982).
The dismissal of the special civil action for certiorari
assai ling the order a quo directi ng execution pendi ng
appeal of a specific portion of the j ud gm e n t does.not
preclude either the appellant from appealing the entiret y
of the judgme nt or the same appellate court from passing
upo n th e m e r i t s o f th e e n t i r e a p p e a l e d j u d g m e n t
(Silverio vs. CA, et al., L-39861, Mar. 17, 1986).
7. To pre vent execution pending appeal, the losing part y must
post a supersedeas bond to answer for such
R UL E 39
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
4 AN D E F F E C T S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C
466
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 4
vs. CA, et al. (G.R. No. 64931, Aug. 31 , 1984) holding that
as long as such motion is filed before th e appeal is
perfected, the writ may issue after the period for appeal.
In Yabut vs. IAC, et al. (G.R.
No.
69208 ,
May 28, 1986), respondents received a copy of the decision
on July 23, 1984, and the y appealed the following day.
Petitioner, on the other hand, received his copy of said
decision on Jul y 20, 1984 and filed a motion for execution
pe nd i n g a ppea l on Jul y 25 , 1984. Said motion was
seasonably filed as the appeal of the respondent was not
perfected on the day they filed their notice of appeal but
on the expiration of the last day to appeal, which was
Au gus t 7, 1984 (cf. Montelibano vs. Bacolod-Murcia
Milling Co., Inc., G.R. No. 69800, May 7, 1985; Belgado
vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 74975, Jan. 12, 1987).
See,
howe ve r , th e a m e n d e d Sec. 9 of Rul e 41 wit h th e
m odifi ca t i ons an d c l a ri f i c a t i on s o n thi s m a t t e r , as
explained therein.
9. . Whe r e from th e decision of an d the evidence
presented before the trial court, the judgme nt creditor is
clearly entitled to actual dama ges, the same can be the
subject of execution pe nding appeal, but not the other
awards for moral and exemplary da ma ge s and attorne y' s
fees (RCPI vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 59311, Jan. 31, 1985;
Engineering
Construction,
Inc.
vs.
NFC,
L-34589,
June 29, 1988).
10. The surety is charged under the supersedeas bond upon the
te rmination of the case on appeal and the bond may be
executed on motion, unlike the proc edure for recovery of
da ma ge s from bonds in a t t a c hm e n t or in junction which is
governed by Sec. 20, Rule 58 (Apacheche, et al. vs. Rovira,
et al., L-28454, May 18, 1978).
11. . An order for execution of a j udgm e nt pending appeal
can be enforced on a counte r-bond which was posted to
lift the writ of preliminary at ta c hme nt issued by
R UL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E NT
S
SEC . 5
467
RUL E
39
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC .
RUL E 39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
6 AN D E F F E C T S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C .
469
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 6
RUL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
6 AN D E F F E C T S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C .
RUL E
39
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC .
RUL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D E FF ECT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C . 6
10. In Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs. IAC, et al. (G.R. No. 72645,
Jun e 30, 1987), the question was raised as to whether a
judgm ent creditor who failed to enforce the original
judgment is entitled to revive said judgment only once, in
view of the provisions of Sec. 6 of this Rule in relation to
Art. 1144(3) of the Civil Code which requires that actions
upon judgments "must be brought within ten years from the
time the right of action accrues." The Supreme Court took
note of its earlier ruling in PNB vs. Bondoc (L-20236, July 30,
1965) where it answered the question in the negative,
holding that Sec. 6 of this Rule makes no distinction as to
the kind of judgment which may be re vi ve d by ordi na r y
i n de pe n de n t action. It, therefore, ruled therein that a
judgment rendered in an action for the revival of a
previous unsatisfied judgment is a new judgment in itself;
hence if it could not be enforced within the first five years
from its finality, a second revival action may be resorted to
within the succeeding five years to revive said second
judgment.
However, it decided to abandon said doctrine and
adopt as the better view that in the subsequent case of
PNB vs. Deloso, supra, which held that the ten-year period
is to be reckoned from the finality of the original judgment;
hence, if within tha t period a j udgm e nt reviving the
original j ud gm e n t was obtained but again re m ai ne d
unsatisfied, a second revival action beyond the prescriptive
ten-year period is not allowed. The effect of the judgment
in such first revival action is only to grant the judgment
creditor another period of five years to execute the said
judgment by mere motion, failing which a second revival
action can no longer be instituted.
With the adoption of the last sentence in this amended
Sec. 6, the foregoing seesawing decisions have been laid
to rest. Jus t like the rule on an original judgment, the
revived judgment may now also be enforced by motion
within 5 years from the date of its entry and, thereafter,
by filing another revival action should it again become
473
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 7
d o r m a nt , pro vi de d i t i s filed wi t hi n th e s t a t u t e of
limitations. That second revived judgment can also be
enforced in the same ma nne r as the original judgme nt
and in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 6.
Sec. 7. Execution in case of death of party. In
cas e of th e de at h of a party, e xe c u t i o n ma y issu e or
be e nf orce d in th e f ol l ow i n g man ne r :
(a) I n c a s e o f th e d e a t h o f th e j u d g m e n t o bl i g e e , upo n
th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f hi s e x e c u t o r o r a d mi n i s tr at or ,
or s u c c e s s o r in i nte rest;
(b) I n c as e o f th e d e a t h o f th e j u d g m e n t obl i gor, a g ai n s t
hi s e xe c u t o r o r a d mi n i s t r a t o r o r s u c c e s s o r in
i n te r e s t , i f th e j u d g me n t be for th e r e c o v e r y o f rea l
o r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , o r th e e n f or c e me n t of a lien
the reon ;
(c) I n c as e o f th e d e a t h o f th e j u d g m e n t obli gor, after
e xe c u t i o n i s ac tual l y levie d upo n any o f hi s
p r o p e r t y , th e s a m e ma y b e sol d for th e s a t i s f a c t i o n
o f th e j u d g m e n t o b l i g a t i on , an d th e o f f i c e r m a k i n
g th e s al e s h a l l a c c o u n t t o th e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
e xe c u t o r o r a d mi n i s t r a t o r for an y sur pl u s in hi s
han ds . (7a)
NO TES
1. Par. (b) applies where the judgme nt obligor dies after th e e nt r
y of th e j u d g m e n t or orde r which, of course, has become
final and executory. If he dies before such entry in the court
where in the action is pending, and the action is for a
c on t ra c t ua l money claim, the ame nde d rule is tha t it will
not be dismissed but shall continue until entry of final
judgment. If it is a favorable j ud gm e nt , i t may be enforced
as a claim a ga i ns t the debtor' s estate (Sec. 20, Rule 3).
R UL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D E F F E CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C . 8
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 8
RUL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D E F F E C T S O F J U D G M E N T S
SEC . 8
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 8
5. While the general rule is that the portion of the decision that
becomes subject of execution is that ordained
R UL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D GM E N T S
SE C . 8
479
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 9
R UL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C . 9
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 9
RUL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D GM E N T S
SE C . 10
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W
COMPENDIU M
SE C .
11
P h i l i p p i n e s , th e c o u r t i n lie u o f d i r e c t i n g a
c o n v e ya n c e t h e r e o f ma y b y a n o r d e r di ve s t th e
title o f an y pa r t y an d ve s t i t i n o t h e r s , wh i c h sha l l
ha v e th e force an d effect of a c o n v e ya n c e e x e c u t e d in
du e for m of law. (10a)
(b)Sale of real or personal property. If th e j u d g m e n t b e fo r
th e s a l e o f r e a l o r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , t o sell suc h
p r o p e r t y , d e s c r i b i n g it, an d a p p l y th e p r o c e e d s i n
c o n f o r m i t y w i t h th e j u d g m e n t . (8[c]a)
(c)Delivery or restitution of real property. Th e officer sha l l
d e m a n d o f th e p e r s o n a ga i n s t who m th e j u d g m e n
t for th e d e l i ve r y o r r e s t i t u t i o n o f rea l p r o p e r t y i s
r e n d e r e d an d all p e r s o n s c l a i m i n g ri ght s u n d e r hi m t
o p e a c e a b l y va c a t e th e p r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h r e e (3)
w o r k i n g d a ys , an d r e s t o r e p o s s e s s i o n t h e r e o f t o th
e j u d g m e n t o b l i g e e , o t h e r w i s e , th e officer sha l l ous
t all suc h p e r s o n s t h e r e f r o m wit h th e a s s i s t a n c e , i f
n e c e s s a r y , o f a p p r o p r i a t e pe a c e o ffi c e r s , an d
e m p l o y i n g s u c h m e a n s a s ma y b e r e a s o n a b l y
n e c e s s a r y t o r e t a k e p o s s e s s i o n , an d pl a c e th e
j u d g m e n t obl i ge e i n p o s s e s s i o n o f suc h p r o p e r t y .
An y c o s t s , d a m a g e s , r e n t s o r p r o f i t s a w a r d e d b y th e
j u d g m e n t shal l b e sa t i s fi e d i n th e sam e m a n n e r a s
a j u d g m e n t for m on e y . (13a)
(d) Delivery of personal property. In j u d g m e n t s for th e
d e l i ve r y o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , th e officer s ha l l t a k
e p o s s e s s i o n o f th e sa m e an d f o r t h w i t h d e l i v e r i t t o
th e p a r t y e n t i t l e d an d s a t i s f y an y j u d g m e n t for
m o n e y a s t h e r e i n p r o vi d e d . (8a)
NOT E S
1. The provisions on j u d gm e nt s for specific acts (Sec. 10) have
been clarified by the qualification that the specific acts
contemplated therein are those in connection with the
directive to a part y to execute a conveyance of
RUL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D GM E N T
S
SE C .
11
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 12
NOTE
1. The special judgm ent in this section is one which
re qui re s the performa nce of any act, ot he r tha n the
pa yment of money or the sale or delivery of real or personal
propert y, which a part y must personall y do because his
personal qualifications and circumstances have been taken
into consideration. Refusal to comply is punishable by
cont em p t (see Chinese Commercial Property Co.
vs.
Martinez, L-18565, Nov. 30, 1962).
A judgment for specific acts under Sec. 10, on the other
hand, directs a part y to execute conveyance of land, or to
deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform any other
specific acts in connection the rewith but which acts can
be performed by persons other tha n said part y. Hence,
on refusal to comply, the court can appoint some other
person to perform the act directed to be done at the expense
of the disobedient part y and the act when so done shall
have the same effect as if performed by the part y himself.
The disobedient pa rt y incurs no liability for contempt
(see Caluag vs. Pecson, et al., 82 Phil. 8; Francisco, et al.
vs. National Urban Planning Commission, 100 Phil. 984
[Unrep.J; Sandico, et al. vs. Piguing, et al., L-26115,
Nov. 29, 1971).
Sec. 12. Effect of levy on execution as to third
persons. Th e lev y on e x e c u t i o n shal l c reat e a
lie n i n fav o r o f th e j u d g m e n t o b l i g e e ove r th e
r i ght , titl e an d i n te r e s t o f th e j u d g me n t obl i go
r i n suc h pr ope r t y a t th e ti m e o f th e levy, su bje c
t t o lien s an d e n c u m b r a n c e s the n e xi sti ng. (16a).
NOTES
1. Levy means the act or acts by which an officer sets apa r t or
a ppropria t e s a par t or the whole of the prope rt y of the
j u d gm e n t debtor for purpose s of the
R UL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D E FF ECT S O F J U D G M E NT
S
SE C . 12
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 13
R UL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C . 13
ot h e r p r o fe s s i o na l s no t e x c e e d i n g t h r e e h u n d r e d
t h o u s a n d pe so s i n va l ue ;
(h) On e f i s h i n g b o a t a n d a c c e s s o r i e s no t e x c e e d i n g th
e tot a l va l u e o f on e h u n d r e d t h o u s a n d pe so s owne d
by a fi s h e r m a n an d by th e lawful us e o f whic h h e
e a r n s hi s li vel i hood;
(i) So muc h of th e s a l a r i e s , wa ge s , or e a r n i n g s o f th e
j u d g m e n t obl i go r for hi s p e r s o n a l s e r vi c e s wi t hi n th
e four m o n t h s p r e c e d i n g th e levy a s ar e ne c e s s a r y for
th e s u p p o r t of hi s famil y;
( j ) L e t t e r e d g r a ve s t o n e s ;
( k ) M o n i e s , be n e f i t s , p r i v i l e g e s , o r a n n u i t i e s a c c r u i n g
o r i n an y m a n n e r g r o w i n g ou t o f an y life i n s u r a n c e ;
(1) Th e ri gh t to re ce i v e legal s u p p o r t , or m o ne y o r p r o p e r t
y o b t a i n e d a s s uc h s u p p o r t , o r an y p e n s i o n o r
g r a t u i t y from th e G o ve r n m e n t ;
(m) P r o p e r t i e s spec i al l y e x e m p t e d by law.
Bu t n o a rt i c l e o r spec i e s o f p r o p e r t y m e n t i o n e
d i n t h i s s e c t i o n s ha l l b e e x e m p t fro m e x e c u t i o n
i ssue d upo n a j u d g m e n t r e c o ve r e d for its pric e or
u p o n a j u d g m e n t of f o r e c l o s u r e of a m o r t g a g e
t h e re o n . (12a)
NOT E S
1. Economic,
legal
and
technological
changes
or
de ve lopme nts over time since these exemptions were
provided for in the 1964 Rules of Court have necessitated
corresponding amendments.
a. The substantive concept of a family home and the p r o c e d u ra
l or r e gu l a t o r y provi si ons t h e re o n were introduced by
the Civil Code on August 30, 1950. The "family home" and
"homestead" provided for in the Family Code
which
repealed and replaced the provisions of the
489
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 13
RUL E
b.
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D E FF ECT S O F J U D G M E N T
S
SE C . 13
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 13
5..
O t he r
propertie s
s pe c i a l l y
e x e m p t e d from
execution, as contemplated in the above section, are:
(a)
458);
( b ) P r o p e r t y t a k e n over by th e Ali en P ro pe rt y
Admi ni st rati on (Sec. 9[f], U.S. Trading With the Enemy
Act);
(c) Savings of national prisoners deposited with the Postal
Savings Bank (Act 2489);
(d) Backpay of pre-war civilian employees (R.A. 304);
(e ) P hi l i p pi n e Go ve r n m e n t ba c kpa y to gue ril l a s
(R.A. 897);
R UL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C . 14
as
G) C o p yr i g h t s an d ot he r ri ght s in i n t e l l e c t ua l
property under the former copyright law, P.D. 49 (cf. Sec.
239.3, R.A. 8293); and
(k) Bonds issued under R.A. 1000 (NASSCO vs. CIR, L17874, Aug. 31, 1963).
6. .
Sa l a ri e s ,
as
di st i n gui she d from wa ges, were
formerly not exempt from execution. The term "wage"
de note s c om pe n sa t i o n for m a nua l labor, skil led or
unskilled, while the term "salary" denotes a higher degree
of employment or superior grade or service and implies a
position or office (Gaa vs. CA, et al., L-44169, Dec. 31,
1985). This distinction has been eliminated by Par. (i).
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 13
R UL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N . S A TI S FAC T I O N
5 AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D GM E N T S
SE C . 1
495
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 16
b y th e a p pe l l a t e c our t . I n th e cas e o f pe r s on a l
pr ope r ty c apa bl e of man ua l de l i ver y, the sale shall
be held in the pl ac e w he r e the pr ope rty i s located.
(18a)
NOTE
1. This is an amended version of the former Sec. 18
of this Rule, with more specifications and details on the
places where notices of the sale should be posted, the
publication thereof, furnishing copies of the same, and, in
the last para graph, the details on where and how the sale
of real or personal property shall be conducted.
Sec . 16. Proceedings where property claimed by
third person. If th e pr ope r ty levie d on is cl ai me d
by any pe r so n ot he r tha n th e j u dg me n t obli gor or
his age nt , an d suc h pe r so n ma ke s an affi davit of
his title t he re t o or right to the p os s e s s i o n thereof,
stati n g the g r ou n d s of suc h ri ght or title, and ser ve s
th e sam e upo n th e officer ma ki n g th e levy and a
copy t he re o f upo n th e j u d g me n t obl i gee , the officer
shall not be boun d to kee p th e proper ty, unl e s s such
j u d g me n t obl i gee , on de ma n d of th e officer, files a
bon d a p p r o v e d b y th e c o u r t t o i n d e m n i f y th e
thir d-party c l ai man t in a su m not less tha n the value
of the pr ope r ty l e vi e d on. In cas e of di sa gr ee me n t
as to suc h val ue , th e sam e shall be de te r mi ne d by
the cour t i ss ui n g th e writ of e xe c ut i on . No clai m
for d a m a g e s for th e t a k i n g o r k e e p i n g o f th e
pr ope r ty ma y be e nf orce d agai ns t the bond unl e s s
th e ac ti o n t h e r e f o r i s file d w i t hi n on e h u n dr e d
tw e nt y (120) day s from th e date of th e filing of the
bond.
Th e offic e r shal l no t b e li a bl e for da ma g e s ,
for th e ta ki n g or ke e pi n g of th e proper ty, to any
thir d-party c l ai man t i f suc h bond" is filed. Nothi n g
RUL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
6 AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D GM E N T S
SEC . 1
RUL E
2.
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 16
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D E F F E CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
498
SE C . 16
Jan. 22, 1976; Bayer Phil., Inc. vs. Agana, supra). Said
t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m a n t ca nno t a ppea l nor a va i l of
certiorari as a remedy (Sierra vs. Rodriguez, et al., L-25546,
April 23, 1974; Northern Motors, Inc. vs. Coquia, et al., L40018, Mar. 21, 1975) since he is not a part y to the
original action.
5. The rights of third-part y claimants should not be decided in
the action where the third-part y claims are presented, but in
a separate action which the court should direct
the
claimants to file (San Francisco Oil & Paint Co. vs. Bayer
Phil, Inc., L-38801, April 8, 1975). The re ason for this is tha
t "no man shall be affected by proceedings to which he is a
stranger" (Polaris Marketing Corp. vs. Plan, et al., supra), and
said separate action may be tried by a different branch of the
same court or by another court (Lorenzana vs. Cayetano, et
al., L-37051, Aug. 31, 1977).
6.In the action for damages upon the bond filed by the j udgm e nt
creditor, the suret y must be impleaded, otherwise the
judgment therein cannot be enforced against the
bond
(Montojo vs. Hilario, 58 Phil. 372). But an action against
the surety is binding upon the principal if the latter had
knowledge thereof and an opportunity to participate in the
defense (Sec. 46, Rule 39).
7.
499
RUL E
8.
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 16
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D E F F E C T S O F J U D G M E N T S
500
SE C . 16
501
RUL E 3 9
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S . 17 , 1 8
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C . 19
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 19
2.The judgm ent creditor can bid and purchase at the public
auction (see Sec. 21), but the officer conducting
the
execution sale or his deputy are disqualified. Other
persons disqualified from participating in said public sale
are enum e ra t e d in Art. 1491 of the Civil Code, viz.:
"Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire
by purc ha se , even at a public or judicial auction,
either in person or through the mediation of another:
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons
who may be under his guardia nshi p;
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may
have been int rust e d to them, unless the consent of the
principal has been given;
(3) Executors and admi nistrators,
estate under admini st rati on;
the
property of the
R UL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
0 AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C . 2
505
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SECS .
21 22
NOTE
1. The mea sure of dama ges to which the judgment
creditor is entitled against the unlawful intervenor is the
difference between the amount which would have been
realized were it not for the illegal intervention (but not to
exceed the judgme nt account) and the total amount which
he actually recovered on the judgm ent from all sources,
including the amount actually realized at the auction sale,
plus the expenses incurred as a consequence of the illegal
inte rve nti on (see Mata vs. Lichauco, 36 Phil. 809).
Sec. 21 . Judgment obligee as purchaser. Whe n
th e p u r c h a s e r i s th e j u d g m e n t o b l i g e e , an d n o
thir d- par ty cl ai m ha s bee n filed, h e nee d not pay
th e a m o u n t o f th e bid i f i t doe s no t e x c e e d th e
a mou n t of hi s j u dg me n t . I f i t doe s , he shal l pay only
the e xc e s s . (23a)
Sec. 22. Adjournment of sale. By w ritte n c on se n t
of th e j u d g me n t obl i g or an d obl i ge e , or thei r duly
a ut h or i z e d r e pr e s e n t a t i v e s , th e officer ma y adjour n
th e sale t o an y dat e an d ti m e agree d upo n b y the m .
Withou t suc h a g r e e me n t , h e ma y adjour n th e sale
from da y to da y i f i t b e c o me s n e c e s s a r y to do so for
lack of ti m e to c ompl e t e th e sale on th e da y fixed in
the notice or the day to w hic h i t wa s adjourne d. (24a)
NO TES
1. The officer may adjourn the sale from day to day if it is
necessary to do so for lack of time to complete the sale on
the date fixed in the notice. He may not, however, adjourn
the sale to anothe r date unless with the written consent of
the parties, otherwise the sale thus conducted will be null
and void (Abrozar, et al. vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 67970,
Jan. 15, 1988).
R UL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
5 AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C S . 23- 2
507
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 26
RUL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N . S A TI S FAC T I O N
8 AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C S . 27- 2
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 29
RUL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
0 AN D E F F E C T S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C S . 29- 3
511
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 29-3 0
RUL E 3 9
5.
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
0 AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C S . 29- 3
513
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 29- 3 0
RUL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N . S ATI S FAC T I O N
2 AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
S E C S . 31-3
o f a tenant .
d
All re n t s , e a r n i n g s an d inc om e de r i ve
516
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 33
R UL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SEC . 3 3
from the date of the registr ati on of the certi fic ate of
sale, the pur chase r is entitle d to a c onv e y an c e and
p o s s e s s i o n o f th e p r ope r t y ; or, i f s o r e d e e m e d
w he ne ve r sixty (60) days have el a pse d and no other
r e d e m p t i o n ha s bee n ma de , and n oti c e t he re f o r
given, and the ti me for re de mpti on has e xpi re d, the
last r e de mpti on e r i s entitle d to the c onv e y an c e and
pos s e s si on , but in all case s the j u dg me n t obl igor
shall hav e the entire period of one (1) year from the
date of the regi str ati on of the sale to re de e m the
property. The dee d shall be e xe c ute d by the officer
ma ki n g the sale or by his suc c e ss or in office, and in
th e latte r cas e shal l hav e th e sam e v al i di t y a s
thoug h the officer ma ki n g the sale had c ont i n u e d
in office and e xec ute d it.
Upon the e xpi r ati on of the right of rede mpti on ,
the pu r ch a se r or rede mpti one r shall be su bs ti tute d
to and ac qu i r e all th e r i ghts , ti tle , i nte re s t and
clai m of the judg me n t obligor to the property as of
the ti me of the levy. The pos se s si on of the property
shall be gi ve n to the pu rcha se r or last rede mpti one r
by the same officer unle ss a third party is actually
h ol di n g th e pr ope r t y a dve r se l y t o th e j u dg me n t
obligor. (35a)
NOTES
1. This section was taken from the former Sec. 35 of this Rule
but contains two important differences there from. The
re vi se d rule i s tha t th e p u r c h a s e r or redemptioner shall
now be substituted for the judgment obligor upon the
expiration of the right of redemption. Consequently, he shall
acquire all the rights, title, interests and claims of the
judgment obligor to the property as of the time of the
levy.
Unde r th e former Sec. 35 , th e p u r c h a s e r or
redemptioner is substituted for the judgment obligor only
518
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 3 3
R UL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C . 3 3
520
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 3 4
RUL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
6 AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C S . 35-3
522
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 37
NOTE
1. Formerly, the examination of a judgm ent obligor may be
authorized by "an order from the judge of the Court of
Firs t In sta nc e of the province in which the j ugm e n t was
re nde re d or of the province from which the execution
was returned." The alternative mode was considered
unwieldy since a petition, and not a mere m oti on, ha d to be
filed in th e ot he r cour t for tha t purpose, aside from the
fact tha t to a certain extent the case may be undermined or
interfered with. This amended section now provides tha t
the order for examination of the jud gm e nt obligor shall
be issued only by the court which rendered the judgm ent .
Sec. 37.
Examination of obligor of judgment obligor.
Whe n th e retur n of a writ of e xe c u t i o n agai ns t the
pr ope r t y of a j u dg me n t obl i g or sh ow s tha t the
j u d g me n t r e ma i n s u n sa ti sf i e d , in w hol e or in part,
and upo n proof t o th e cour t w hi c h i ssue d th e writ,
tha t a pe r s on , c or p or a ti on , or othe r ju r i di c a l e nti ty,
ha s p r o p e r t y o f s u c h j u d g m e n t o b l i g o r o r i s
i nde bte d to hi m , th e c our t may, by an or der, require
suc h pe r s on , c or por at i on , or ot he r jur i di c al entity,
or an y officer or me mbe r thereof, to appe a r before
th e c our t or a c o m mi s s i o n e r a p p oi n t e d by it, at a
ti m e an d pl ac e w i t hi n th e pr ovi nc e o r city w her e
suc h de bto r re si de s or i s found, an d be e xa mi n e d
c o n c e r n i n g th e sa me . The ser vi c e of th e or de r shall
bi nd all c r e di t s du e th e j u d g me n t obl i gor and all
mone y an d pr ope r t y o f th e j u dg me n t obl i g or in the
p o s s e s s i o n o r i n th e c o n t r o l o f s u c h p e r s o n ,
c o r p o r a t i o n , o r j u r i di c a l e nti t y from th e ti m e o f
ser vi ce ; an d th e cour t ma y als o requi r e notic e o f
suc h p r oc e e d i n g s to be gi ve n to an y party to the
ac ti o n in suc h ma n ne r as i t ma y de e m prope r. (39a)
RUL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
9 AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D GM E N T S
SE C S . 38-3
NOTE
1. As a matter of consideration to the obligor of a
judgme nt obligor who is sought to be examined, such
examination is now required to be conducted by the court
which issued the writ of execution, or by a commissioner
appointed by it, within the province or city where such
debtor resides or is found. Under the former rule, such
examination was allowed in any place "within the province
in which the order is served" and this could be used to
ha ra s s or undul y inconvenience such debtor wit hout
su bs e r vi n g th e purpos e thereof, especiall y wher e a
juridical entity is involved and the papers needed for the
examination are at its home office.
Sec. 38. Enforcement of attendance and conduct of
examination. A part y or othe r pe r s o n ma y be
c o m p e l l e d , b y a n or de r o r s u b p o e n a , t o at te n d
be for e th e c our t o r c o m m i s s i o n e r t o te s ti f y a s
pr ovi de d in the tw o pr e c e di n g sec ti ons, and upon
fail ure to obe y suc h or de r or su bp oe n a or to be
sw orn, or to answ e r as a w itne s s or to su bsc ri be his
d e p os i t i on , ma y be pu n i s he d for c ont e mp t as in
othe r c as e s . E xa mi n a t i o n s shall not b e un dul y
pr ol onge d, but the pr oc e e di ngs may be adjour ne d
from ti me to ti me, until they are c ompl ete d. If the
e xa mi na ti o n is before a c ommi ssi one r, he must take
i t i n w r i t i n g an d c e r t i f y i t t o th e c ou r t . All
e x a m i n a t i o n s an d a n s w e r s be f or e a c o u r t o r
c o m mi s s i o n e r mus t be un de r oath , an d w he n a
c or p or a ti o n or othe r jur i di c al entity a nsw e r s , i t
mus t be on th e oat h of an au th or iz e d officer or
agent thereof. (40a)
Sec. 39. Obligor may pay execution against obligee.
After a writ of e xe c ut i o n against property has
been i ssue d , a pe r so n i nde bte d to the ju dg me n t
RUL E
39
RE ME DI A L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S . 40-4 2
R UL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C . 4 3
R UL E 3 9
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 4 3
526
RUL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
5 AN D E F F E C T S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C S . 44-4
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S . 46 , 47
528
RUL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
7 AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SE C . 4
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 47
(a)
39
E X E C U T I O N . S A TI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D GM E N T S
530
SE C . 4 7
531
R UL E
39
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 47
RUL E
39
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SEC . 4 7
RUL E
39
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 48
RUL E 3 9
E X E C U T I O N , S ATI S FAC T I O N
8 AN D EF FE CT S O F J U D G M E N T S
SEC . 4
535
RUL E 3 9
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 4 8
RULE 40
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
Section 1. Where to appeal. An appeal from a
ju dg me n t or final or de r of a Munici pal Trial Court
may be take n to the Regi onal Trial Court e xe r ci si n g
j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r th e are a t o w hi c h th e f or me r
pe r tai ns. The title of the case shall remain as i t
was in the court of ori gi n, but the party a p pe a l i n g
the case shall be further referred to as the a ppe l l ant
and the adver se party as the appe llee , (n)
NOTE
1. The former Sec. 1 of Rule 40 provided that an
appeal from an inferior court should be taken "to the Court
of First Instance of the province where the judgment was
rendered." However, Sec. 18 of B.P. Blg. 129 thereafter
provided that 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,
inter alia, determine the lower courts over which the said
branch may exercise appellate jurisdiction. Sec. 21 of
the Interim Rules later implemented said provision on
appeals to the Regional Trial Court from cases decided
by the lower c ourt s, including the basic proc e dure
therefor. Starting with Administrative Order No. 3, dated
J a n u a r y 19, 1983, the S up re m e Court defined the
territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts and
specifically that of the branches thereof.
Sec. 2. When to appeal. An appeal may be taken
within fifteen (15) days after notice to the appe llant
of the judgme nt or final order appealed from. Where
a record on appeal is required, the appe llant shall
537
R UL E
40
R E M E D I A L LA W
COMPENDIU M
SEC .
R UL E 4 0 A P P E A L FRO M TH E M U N I C I PA L TRI A L C O U R T S S E C S . 4 ,
5 T O T H E R E G I O N A L TRIA L C O U RT S
RUL E
40
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC .
the ori gi nal rec ord or the rec ord on appe al , as the
case may be. (n)
NOT E S
1. Prior to B.P. Blg. 129, there were holdings that the failure
to pay the docket fee within the reglementary period was
fatal to an appeal (Dacudao vs. Duenas, et al.,
108 Phil. 95; Lanting vs. Guevarra, et al., L-22799,
April 25, 1969). If the docket fee paid was insufficient
due to an error of the trea sure r, the appeal should not be
dismissed (Barnido, et al. vs. Balana, et al., L-26275,
July 26, 1966). Thereafter, in NAWASA vs. Secretary of
Public Works and Communications (L-20928,
Mar.
31,
1966) and Favis, et al. vs. Municipality of Sabangan (L26522, Feb. 27, 1969), it was held that non-pa yment of
the docket fees does not automatically result in dismissal of
the appeal or affect the appellate jurisdiction of the Court
of First Instance, the dismissal being discretionary in the
appellate court if there are justifications for its non
pa yment (see Fontanar, et al. vs. Bonsubre, et al., G.R.
No. 56315, Nov. 25, 1986).
2. It is true that this section requires the pa yment of the full
amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees
within the period for taking an appeal. It is suggested,
however, that the foregoing rulings that non pa ym ent or
incomplete pa yme nt of the fees required on appeal do not
automaticall y result in the dismissal of the appeal should
be maintained.
The failure to pay the docket and other lawful fees is
also a ground for the dismissal of the appeal in the Court
of Appeals (Sec. l[c], Rule 50) and in the Supreme Court
(Sec. 5[c], Rule 56). However, it has heretofore been held
that even in said appellate courts, with the exception of
failure to file the notice of appeal or record on appeal
within the reglementary period, it is not the ministerial
duty of the court to dismiss the appeal where one
of the
R UL E 4 0
541
542
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
40
SEC . 7
7.
RUL E 4 0
A P P E A L FR O M T H E M U N I C I PA L TRI A L C OU RT S SE C . 8 T
O T H E R E G I O N A L TRIA L C O U RT S
544
R UL E
40
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 8
R UL E 4 0
A P P E A L FR O M TH E M U N I C I PA L TRI A L C OU RT S SEC . 9 T
O T H E R E G I O N A L TRI A L C OU RT S
16,
in
the
Intermediate
X XX
545
R UL E
40
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 9
R UL E 4 0
A P P E A L FR O M TH E M U N I C I PA L TRIA L C O U RT S SE C . 9 T
O TH E R E G I O N A L TRIA L C O U RT S
2)
R UL E
R E M E D I A L LAW
40
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 9
RUL E 4 0
A P P E A L FR O M TH E M U N I C I PA L TRIA L C O U RT S SE C . 9 T
O TH E R E G I O N A L TRI A L C OU RT S
RULE 41
APPEAL FROM THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
Secti on 1. Subject of appeal. An appe al may be
t a k e n fro m a j u d g m e n t o r fi na l o r d e r tha t
c ompl e t e l y di s pos e s of th e case , or of a partic ul ar
ma tte r t he re i n w he n de c l are d by the s e Rules to be
a p pe a l a bl e .
No appe a l ma y be ta ke n from:
(a) An or de r d e n y i n g a pe t i t i o n for relie f or
an y s i mi l a r m o t i o n s e e k i n g r el i e f from
ju dg me nt ;
(b) An i n te r l oc u t or y or der;
(c)
A n or de r d i s w a l l o w i n g o r d i s mi s s i n g a n
appeal ;
(g) A n or de r d i s m i s s i n g a n a c t i o n w i t h o u t
prejudice .
I n an y o f th e f o r e g o i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , th e
aggr i e ve d party may file an appr opr iate special civil
acti on as pr ovi de d in Rule 66. (As amended in A.M.
No. 07-7-12-SC, effective Dec. 27, 2007)
550
RUL E
41
A P P E A L FRO M TH E
R E G I O N A L TRI A L C O U R T S
SE C . 1
NOTE S
1. This new provision in the Rules clarifies and reiterates the
judgment or final order that may be appealed from, and
specifies the interlocutory or other orders from which no
appeal can be taken. In the latter instance, the aggrieved
part y may resort to a special civil action under Rule 65, that
is, a petition for certiorari or prohibition and, in the case of
an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal, a petition
for ma ndam us.
Par. (g) refers to the several or separate judgments
provided for in Rule 36, and appeals therefrom are not
absolutely prohibited but depend upon the circumstances
of the case and the sound discretion of the court.
2. An order is considered interlocutory if it does not dispose of
the case but leaves something else to be done by the trial
court on the merits of the case. An order is final, for
purposes of appeal, if it disposes of the entire case (see
Note 1 under Sec. 1, Rule 39; Investments, Inc. vs. CA, et
al., G.R. No. 60036, Jan. 27, 1987).
3. Where the order is interlocutory, the movant has to wait
for th e j u d gm e n t and the a ppea l from th e judgment, in
the course of which appeal he can assign as error the said
interlocutory order. The interlocutory order cannot be
appealed from separatel y from the judgment (Mapua vs.
Suburban Theaters, Inc., 81 Phil. 311). The general rule is
that where the interlocutory order was rendered without or
in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion,
the remedy is certiorari, prohibition or mandamus
depending on the facts of the case.
4. Where the order appealed from is
interlocutory, the
appellate court can dismiss the appeal even if no objection
thereto was filed by the appellee in either the trial or
appellate court (Sec. l[ij, Rule 50; Abesames vs. Garcia, 98
Phil. 769).
552
R UL E
41
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 1
RUL E
41
A P P E A L FROM TH E
R E G I O N A L TRIA L C O U R T
S
SEC .
Modes of appeal.
R UL E
41
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 2
s w he r e only q u e s t i on s of
the appeal shall be to th e
for review on ce r ti or ari in
(n)
NOTES
1. This new section provides for the different modes of appeal
from judgme nts or final orders of the Regional Trial Court
to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
The first mode is the ordinar y appeal, sometimes
referred to as an a ppea l by wri t of erro r due to the
requi reme nt tha t the brief filed for tha t purpose must
contain an a ssi gnme nt of errors. This presupposes that
the Regional Trial Court rendered the judgm ent or final
order in the civil action or special proceeding in the exercise
of its original jurisdiction and the appeal is take n to the
Court of Appeals on questions of fact or mixed questions
of fact and law. The appeal is taken by notice of appeal
or by record on appe al . This is th e mode of appeal
governed by Rule 41 .
The second mode of appeal has to be observed where
the questioned judgm ent or final order was rendered by
the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction over a judgm ent or final order in a civil action
or special proceeding originally commenced in and decided
by a lower court. The appeal is ta ken by a petition for
review filed with the Court of Appeals on questions of fact,
of law, or on mixed questi ons of fact and law, and is
governed by Rule 42.
RUL E
41
A P P E A L FRO M TH E
R E G I O N A L TRIA L C O U R T S
SE C . 2
R UL E
41
RE ME DI A L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C .
(n)
RUL E
41
A P P E A L FR O M TH E
R E G I O N A L TRI A L C OU RT S
SEC . 3
558
R UL E
41
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC .
RUL E
41
A P P E A L FRO M TH E
R E G I O N A L TRI A L C OU RT
S
SE C . 3
Makati Irs. Co Inc. vs. Reyes etc. et al., G.R. No. 167903,
Aug. 6, 2008).
559
RUL E
41
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 3
R UL E
41
A P P E A L FRO M TH E
R E G I O N A L TRI A L C O U R T
S
SE C S . 4- 5
RUL E
41
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 6
41
A P P E A L FRO M TH E
R E G I O N A L TRIA L C O U R T S
SE C . 6
NOTES
1. The requirement that the record on appeal must show on its
face that the appeal was perfected on time is mandatory and
jurisdictional and, if not complied with, the appellate
court acquires no jurisdiction and the appeal must be
dismissed (Araneta vs. Madrigal & Co., Inc., L-26227-28, Oct.
25, 1966; DBP vs. Santos, L-26387,
Sept. 27, 1966; Sec. lfaj, Rule 50).
2. Where, however, the motion to dismiss the appeal
on this ground was filed more than 6 years after the filing
of appellee's brief, without justification for such delay, the
motion was properly denied (Sarmiento vs. Salud, et al.,
[Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration],
L-25221,
Aug. 18, 1972).
3. The date when the original t ypewritten record on appeal
was filed in the trial court appears on the date of the
receipt thereof as stamped thereon upon its receipt. Hence,
the filing of the original t ypewritten record on appeal in the
lower court, being a posterior act to its preparation, the
date of the filing thereof is not required to be stated
therein and, consequently, will not appear in the printed
record on appeal filed in the appellate court. The only
exception wherein the date of filing in the trial court of the
original record on appeal is required to be stated therein is
when an amended record on appeal is subsequently
permitted to be filed, for then the date of the filing of the
original record on appeal within the reglementary period
will show whether the appeal was seasonably perfected
(Valera vs. CA, et al., L-29416, Jan. 28, 1971).
4. Sec. 6, Rule 41 obviously refers to the record on appeal filed
with the trial court, not to the printed record on appeal
filed in the appellate court. At any rate, the appellate court
is in a position to determine the date aforementioned, by
examining the original record on
RUL E
41
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 6
RULE 41
SE C . 7
A P P E A L FROM TH E
R E G I O N A L TRI AL C OU RT S
R UL E
41
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC .
a t th e i n s t a n c e o f th e a p p e l l e e , ma y di r e c t its
a me n d me n t by the i nc l u si o n of an y omi tte d matte rs
whic h are de e me d e s se nt i a l to th e de te r mi na ti o n of
the issu e of law or fact i nvol ve d in the appeal. If
the trial court or der s the a me n d me n t of the record,
the appe ll ant, w ithi n th e ti me l i mi te d in th e order,
or suc h e xt e n s i o n the reo f as ma y be gr ante d , or i f
no ti me i s fixed by the or de r w ithi n te n (10) days
from re c e i p t thereof, shal l redr aft th e rec or d by
i n c l u d i n g t h e r e i n , i n thei r pr ope r c h r on ol og i c a l
s e q u e n c e , suc h a ddi ti on a l matte r s a s th e court may
h a v e d i r e c t e d hi m t o i n c o r p o r a t e , an d s ha l l
t h e r e u p o n submi t the redrafted recor d for approval,
upo n notic e to th e a ppe l l e e , in li ke ma n n e r as the
or i gi nal draft. (7a)
Sec. 8. Joint record on appeal. W he r e bot h
par ti e s are a ppe l l a nt s , the y ma y file a join t rec ord
on appe a l w ithi n th e ti m e fixed by se c ti o n 3 of this
Rule, or tha t fixed by th e court. (8a)
NOTES
1. A record on appeal does not have to be set for hearing in the
trial court by the appellant, as it is deemed submitted for
approval upon its filing and the rule merely requires the
adverse part y to file any objection thereto within 5 days
(Olvido vs. Ferraris, 90 Phil. 555; Toribio, et al. vs. Montejo,
etc., et al., L-28453, Mar. 21, 1975). Consequently, nonappearance of counsel for the appellant at the hearing for the
approval of the record on appeal does not wa rra n t
dismissal of the appeal (Heirs of Manuel Olango vs. CFIof
Misamis Oriental, et al, G.R. No. 55864, April 12, 1982).
2. The court has jurisdiction to extend the period for the
filing of a record on appeal (Moya vs. Barton, 76 Phil
831).
R UL E
41
A P P E A L FRO M TH E
R E G I O N A L TRIA L C O U R T
S
SE C . 9
3,
RUL E
41
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC. 9
RUL E
41
A P P E A L FRO M TH E
R E G I O N A L TRI A L C OU RT
S
SE C . 9
570
RUL E
41
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 10
RUL E
41
A P P E A L FROM TH E
R E G I O N A L TRIAL C O U R T S
SEC . 10
5.
574
R UL E 4 1
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 10-11
41
A P P E A L FRO M TH E
R E G I O N A L TRIA L C O U R T S
SE C . 12
tr a n s c r i b e suc h t e s t i m o n i a l e v i d e n c e an d shal l
pr e par e an d affix t o thei r tr a n s c r i pt s a n i n de x
c ontai ni n g the na me s of the w i t ne s se s and the page
w he rei n their te s ti mon i e s are found, and a list of the
e xhi bi ts and the page s w he rei n eac h of the m a p p e a r
s t o hav e be e n offe re d an d a d mi t t e d o r rejecte d by
the trial court. The transcr i pts shall be tr ans mi tte d
to the clerk of the trial court wh o shall t he re u p o n
arr ange the same in the or der in whic h the w i t ne s s e s
testified at the trial, and shall cause the pages to be
nu mbered c onse cuti vely. (12a)
Sec. 12. Transmittal. The cler k of th e tri al
cour t shal l t r a n s mi t t o th e a p p e l l a t e c our t th e
original recor d or the approve d recor d on appeal
w i t h i n th i r t y (30 ) day s from th e p e r f e c t i o n o f
the appeal, toge the r with the proof of pay me nt of the
appe ll ate c our t doc ket and other lawful fees, a
c e r t i f i e d tr u e c op y o f th e m i n u t e s o f th e
pr oc e e di ng s, the or der of approval, the certificate
of c or rec tne s s, the original doc u me ntary e vi de nc e
refer re d t o t h e r e i n , an d th e or i gi na l an d thre
e
(3) ) c o p i e s o f th e t r a n s c r i p t s .
C o p i e s o f th e
t r a n s c r i p t s an d c e r t i f i e d tr u e c o p i e s o f th e
d oc u me n ta r y evi de nc e shall remain in the lower
court for the e xa mi nati on of the parties. (11a)
NOTE
1.
The former rule was that although the clerk of the lower
court has the duty to elevate the records to the
appellate court, the appellant must see to it that such duty
is complied with, otherwise the appeal can be dismissed
for failure to prosecute (Sarmiento vs. IAC, et al., G.R. Nos.
75409-10, Aug. 17, 1987). This was often criticized since it in
effect penalized the appellant for the failure of the clerk to
comply with his official duties.
RUL E
41
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 13
RUL E
41
A P P E A L FRO M TH E
R E G I O N A L TRIAL C O U R T S
SE C . 13
576
R UL E
42
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 13
c e r t i o r a r i , p r o h i b i t i o n , m a n d a m u s , quo w a r r a n t o ,
employers' liability cases (then Sec. 17) and in habeas
corpus cases (then Secs. 18 to 21) were discarded and no
longer applied to appeals in the aforesaid cases. However,
Sec. 3 of Rule 41 was subsequentl y amended, effective
July 15, 2001, to restore the rule tha t appeals in habeas
corpus cases shall be take n within 48 hours from notice of
the judgm ent or order appealed from.
RULE 42
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURTS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. A
par ty d e s i r i n g to a ppe a l from a d e c i s i o n of th e
Re gi onal Trial Court ren de re d in the e xe rcise of its
appellate juris di cti on may file a verified petiti on for
review wit h the Court of Appe al s, payi n g at th e
sa m e ti m e t o th e c l e r k o f sai d c o u r t th e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g d o c ke t an d ot h e r l aw f u l fe e s ,
de p o s i t i n g th e a moun t of P500.00 for c ost s , an d
furnishi ng the Regi onal Trial Court and the adverse
party with a copy of the petition. The petiti on shall
be filed and ser ve d w ithi n fifteen (15) days from
notice of the de c i si on sought to be revi ew e d or of
the de ni al of petitioner' s moti on for new trial or
re c on s i de r a ti on filed in due ti me after judgme nt.
Upon prope r moti on and the pay me nt of the full
amount of the doc ket and other lawful fees and the
d e p o s i t for c ost s be f or e th e e x p i r a t i o n o f th e
r e g l e me n t a r y pe r i od, th e Court of A ppe al s ma y
grant an addi ti onal period of fifteen (15) days only
w ithi n w hic h to file the pe ti ti on for review. No
further e xt e n si o n shall be granted except for the
most c ompe l l i ng reason and in no case to e xcee d
fifteen (15) days, (n)
NOTES
1.
RUL E
42
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC .
42
P E T I T I O N FOR R E VI E W
FRO M TH E RTC T O TH E C A
578
SEC . 2
rec or d a s w oul d su pp or t th e a l l e g a t i o n s o f th e
pe ti ti on.
The pe ti ti one r shall also submit toge the r with
the pe ti ti on a certi fic ati on unde r oath that he has no
t t h e r e t o f o r e c o m m e n c e d an y ot h e r a c t i o n
invol vi ng the same issues in the Su pre me Court, the
Court of Appe al s or different di vi si ons thereof, or any
other tri bunal or agency; i f there i s suc h othe r acti on
or pr oc e e di ng, he mus t state the status of the
same, and i f he shoul d thereafter learn that a si mi lar
acti on or pr oc e e di n g has been filed or i s pe n di n g
before the Su pre m e Court, the Court of Appe al s, or
different divisi ons thereof, or any other tr i bu na l o r
a ge n c y , h e u n d e r t a ke s t o pr ompt l y infor m the
aforesaid courts and other tri bunal or agency the re of
within five (5 ) days therefrom, (n)
NOTES
1. The first para graph details the form and contents required
for the sufficiency in form and substance of the petition. As
now provided herein, the appeal under this Rule may be on
either questions of fact or of law or on mixed questions of
fact and law. It further specifically states that the lower
courts or judges that rendered the judgme nt or final order
complained of should not be impleaded as pa rt ie s. The
same prohibition is now provided in petit ions for review
on ce rtiora ri unde r Rule 45, since these are petitions for
purposes of appeal and not p e t i t i o n s in ori gi na l a ct i ons .
The ot he r requirements, which will also be found in the
subsequent Rules, are taken from Revised Circular No. 188 which was adopted by the Supreme Court purposely for
dispatch in appellate proceedings.
2. The second paragraph, herein referred to as the certification
against forum shopping, is also incorporated in the
subsequent Rules by way of detailed implementation
579
RUL E
42
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S . 3 , 4-5
42
P E T I T I O N FO R RE V I E W
FRO M TH E RTC T O TH E C A
580
SE C S . 6- 7
581
RUL E
42
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC .
R UL E
42
P E T I T I O N FOR R E VI E W
FRO M TH E RTC T O TH E C A
SE C . 9
583
RUL E 43
A P P E A L S FRO M TH E [COURT O F TAX AP PE A L S
AND] Q U AS I- J UD IC I A L A GE NC IE S TO
TH E COUR T O F APPE A LS *
S e c t i o n 1 . Scope. T hi s Rul e shal l a pp l y to
a p p e a l s [from j u d g m e n t s o r final o r d e r s o f th e Cour
t o f Ta x A p p e a l s and ] fro m a w a r d s , j u d g m e n t s , final
o r d e r s o r r e s o l u t i o n s o f o r a u t h o r i z e d b y an y qua si j u d i c i a l a ge n c y i n th e e x e rc i s e o f it s q u a s i - j u di c i a l
f u n c t i o n s . A m o n g t h e s e a g e n c i e s ar e th e Ci vi l
S e r vi c e C o m m i s s i o n , C e n t r a l Bo a r d o f A s s e s s m e n t
A p p e a l s , S e c u r i t i e s an d E x c h a n g e C o m m i s s i o n ,
O f fi c e o f t h e P r e s i d e n t , L a n d R e g i s t r a t i o n
A u t h o r i t y , S o c i a l S e c u r i t y C o m m i s s i o n , Ci vi l
A e r o n a u t i c s Bo a r d , B u r e a u o f P a t e n t s , T r a d e m a r k
an d Te c h n o l o g y Transfer,** N a t i o na l E l e c t r i fi c a t i o n
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , E n e r g y R e g u l a t o r y Bo a r d , Na t i o na l
Tel e c om m uni c a t i on s Commission , De pa r t m e n t o f
A g r a r i a n R e f o r m u n d e r R e p u b l i c Ac t 6657 ,
G o v e r n m e n t S e r v i c e I n s u r a n c e S ys t e m , E m p l o ye e s
C o m p e n s a t i o n C om m i ssi o n , Ph i l i p p i n e Atomi c
Energ y C ommi ssio n , Boar d o f I n ve st me n t s ,
C o n s t r u c t i o n I n d u s t r y A r b i t r a t i o n C om m i s s i o n , an d
v o l u n t a r y a r b i t r a t o r s a u t h o r i z e d b y law . (n)
N OT E S
1.This Rule was originally embodied in Supreme Cour t Ci rc ul a
r No. 1-91 an d e ve n t ua l l y becam e its Revised
Ad m i ni st ra t i ve Circula r No. 1-95 which took effect on
J un e 1, 1995, with modifications caused by
'Se e N ot e 2 of S e c ti o n 1 of thi s R ule .
"S e e r e or g a ni z e d b u r e a u s a s p r ov i de d i n R.A. 8 29 3 ( I n t e l l e c t u a l
P r op e r t y C ode ) .
RUL E 4 3
A P P E A L S FRO M Q U A S I - J U D I C I A L A G E N C I E S
T O TH E C OU R T O F A P P E A L S
SE C . 1
RUL E
43
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 2
July 14, 2006 cf. Alcaraz vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 164715
Sept. 20, 2006).
Sec. 2. Cases not covered. This Rule shall not
apply to j u d g me n t s or final or de r s i ssue d un de r the
Labor Code of th e P hi l i p pi n e s , (n)
NOTES
1. J u d gm e nt s and final orders or resolutions of the
National Labor Relations Commission are now reviewable,
in the first instance, by the Court of Appeals on certiorari
unde r Rule 65 (see Note 2 under Sec. 4 thereof), but those
of the Employees Compensati on Commission should be
brought to the Court of Appeals through a petition for
review under this Rule. Also, appeals from the Office of
the Om budsm a n in admi nistrati ve disciplinary cases are
now covered by this Rule (Fabian vs. Desierto, etc., et al.,
G.R. No. 129742, Sept. 16, 1998).
2. Special rules of procedure have also been adopted
for cases formerly within the jurisdiction and adjudicatory
processes of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
I n A.M . No. 0 1 - 2 - 0 4 - S C , th e S u p r e m e Cour t
p r o m u l g a t e d I n t e r i m Rule s of P r o c e d u r e for Int ra
c o r p o r a t e C o n t r o v e r s i e s , e ffecti ve Ap ri l 1 , 2001
(Appendix
W).
In A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, in its Resolution promulgated
on Sept embe r 4, 2001 , the Suprem e Court clarified the
legal fees to be collected and the applicable period of appeal
in ca se s form e rl y co gni za bl e by th e S e c u r i t i e s and
E x c h a n g e C o m m i s s i o n , effec ti ve Oc t ob e r 1 , 2001
(Appendix X). This was further amended in an en banc
resolution, effective December 10, 2002.
Subse que nt l y, for the re asons sta ted the rein, the
Supreme Court in its resolution of September 14, 2004 in
A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC clarified the proper mode of appeal
586
RUL E 4 3
A P P E A L S FR O M Q U A S I - J U D I C I A L A G E N C I E S
3 T O TH E C OU R T O F A P P E A L S
SE C .
R UL E
43
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
S E C S . 4-5
R UL E 4 3
A P P E A L S FRO M Q U A S I - J U D I C I A L A G E N C I E S
6 T O TH E C OU R T O F A P P E A L S
SE C .
NOTE
1. .
In view of th e n a t u r e , s u b j e c t - m a t t e r an d
procedure in cases before the quasi -judicial agencies
unde r thei r different governi ng laws, the a p pe l l a t e
procedure and re quirem ent s in this Rule are somewhat
different from those in re gul a r appe al s . Thus , th e
periods and requirements for the appeal are more stringent
an d specific p r o vi s i o n s ar e mad e for m o t i o n s for
reconsideration and extensions of time.
RUL E
43
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S . 7-8
690
R UL E 4 3 A P P E A L S FRO M Q U A S I - J U D I C I A L A G E N C I E S S E C S . 9-10
T O T H E C OU R T O F A P P E A L S
RUL E
44
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S 11-12
R UL E 4 3
A P P E A L S FR O M Q U A S I - J U D I C I A L A G E N C I E S
3 T O TH E C OU R T O F A P P E A L S
SE C . 1
R UL E
44
OR D I N A R Y A P P E A L E D C A SE S
SE C S . 3, 4
RUL E
44
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S . 5-7
R UL E
44
SE C . 8
RUL E
44
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 10
period for filing the appellant ' s brief as the same would
be unnecessary should the motion be granted (Alonso vs.
Rosario, 105 Phil. 654).
3. The failure to file the appellee's brief does not affect
the appeal. The filing of the reply brief is optional on the
par t of the appellant.
4. The number of copies of the briefs to be filed and
served ha s been reduce d and the same are no longer
required to alwa ys be pri nte d but may either be type
writte n or mimeogra phed.
Sec. 10. Time for filing memoranda in special
cases. In c er ti or ar i , pr oh i bi t i on , ma n da mu s , quo
w ar r a nt o an d habeas corpus c ase s , th e par ti e s shall
file, in lieu of br ie fs, the i r r e s pe c t i v e me mor a n d a
w ithi n a n o n - e xt e n di bl e per i od of thirty (30) days
from r ec e i p t of th e n oti c e i ssue d by th e cler k that
all th e e v i de n c e , oral and d oc u me n t a r y , i s already
at tac he d to th e rec or d. (13a, R46)
Th e f a i l u r e o f th e a p p e l l a n t t o fil e hi s
me m o r a n d u m w i t hi n th e pe ri od the ref or ma y be a
groun d for di s mi s s a l of th e a ppe al , (n)
NOTES
1. The first pa ra gra p h of this section, amendatory of th e
form e r p r a c t i c e , r e q u i r e s th e s u b m i s s i o n of
memoranda, instead of briefs, and the period for the filing
thereof is non-extendible but cannot be shortened by the
court.
2. The failure of the appellant to seasonabl y file his
m em ora ndum is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal
i n t he s e s pe c i a l c a se s , an d Sec. 1(e), Rule 50 ha s
correspondingly been amended.
598
R UL E
44
OR D I N A R Y A P P E A L E D C A SE S
SE C S . 11-13
RUL E
44
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 13
600
R UL E
44
SE C . 13
RUL E
(1)
44
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C
14
R UL E
44
OR D I N A R Y A P P E A L E D C A S E S
SE C . 15
R UL E
44
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SE C . 15
604
R UL E
44
O R D I N A R Y A P P E A L E D C A SE S
SEC . 15
RUL E
44
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 15
606
R UL E
44
SEC . 15
RU L E 4 5
AP P E A L B Y C E RTI O R AR I
T O TH E S U P R E M E COUR
T
S e c t i o n 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.
A p a r t y d e s i r i n g t o a p p e a l b y c e r t i o r a r i fro m a
j u d g m e n t , final o r d e r o r r e s o l u t i o n o f th e Cour t o f
Ta x A p p e a l s , th e R e g i o n a l Tri a l C o u r t s , o r ot h e r
c o u r t s , w h e n e v e r a u t h o r i z e d b y law, ma y file wit h
th e S u p r e m e C o u r t a ve ri fie d pe t i t i o n for re vi e w o n
c e r t i o r a r i . Th e p e t i t i o n ma y i n c l u d e a n a p p l i c a t i o n
fo r a w r i t o f p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n o r o t h e r
p r o v i s i o n a l r e m e d i e s an d sha l l ra i s e onl y q ue s t i o n
s o f la w , w h i c h m u s t b e d i s t i n c t l y se t f ort h . Th e
p e t i t i o n e r ma y see k th e sa m e p r o v i s i o n a l r e m e d i e
s b y v e r i f i e d m o t i o n fi le d i n th e s a m e a c t i o n o r
p r o c e e d i n g s a t a n y t i m e d u r i n g it s p e n d e n c y .
(AsJamended
in
A.M.
No.
07-7-12-SC,
effective
Dec. 27, 2007)
NO T E S
1.
AP PE A L
B Y CE RTI OR A RI T O TH E
S U P R E M E C OU R T
SE C . 1
609
608
RUL E
45
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 1
Whe n th e C our t of Ap p e a l s , in
went beyond the issues of the case
c on t ra r y to th e a d m i s s i o n s of
appellee (Evangelista vs. Alto Surety
RUL E
45
m a ki n g its findings,
and the same
i s
both a p pe l l a n t and
& Insurance Co., 103
A P P E A L B Y CE RTI OR A RI T
O TH E S U P R E M E C OU R T
610
SEC . 1
Phil. 401; Roque vs. Buan, G.R. No. 22459, Oct. 31, 1967; Leonardo
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 51263, Feb. 28, 1983; Republic vs. CA,
et al., G.R. No. 61647, Oct. 12, 1984; Moran vs. CA, et al,
G.R. No. 59956, Oct. 13, 1984;Nakpil & Sons, et al. vs. CA,
et al, G.R. No. 47851, Oct. 3, 1986);
(g) When the Court of Appeals manifestly over looked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion
(Abellana vs. Dosdos, LI9498, Feb. 26, 1965; Uytiepo vs.
Aggabao, L-28671, Sept. 30, 1970; Carolina Industries,
Inc.
vs. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., L-46908,
May 17, 1980); or
(h) Where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
cont rar y to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions
without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set
forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent,
or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
premised on absence of evidence but are contradicted by the
evidence of record (Manero vs. CA, et al, L-49542, Sept.
12, 1980; Ducusin vs. CA, et al,
G.R. No. 58286, May 16, 1983; Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan,
et al, G.R. Nos. 54719-50, Jan. 17, 1985; Sacay vs. Sandiganbayan,
et al, G.R. Nos. 66497-98, July 10, 1986; Manlapaz vs.
CA, et al, G.R. No. 56589, Jan. 12, 1987).
6.
a.
611
RUL E
45
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 2
In a p p e a l by c e r t i o r a r i , th e p e t i t i o n e r and
re sponde nt are the original parties to the action, and the
lower court or quasi-judicial agency is not to be impleaded.
In ce rtiora ri as an ori ginal action, the pa rtie s are the
aggrieved pa rt y a ga inst the lower court or quasi-judicial
a ge nc y an d th e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t i e s , who t h e re b y
respectivel y become the petitioner and respondents.
R UL E
45
AP P E A L BY C E RTI ORA R I
2 T O TH E S U P R E M E COUR T
SEC .
(G.R. No. 12560, Dec. 4, 1997); see also San Miguel Corp.,
et al. vs. Layos, Jr., et al, (G.R. No. 149640, Oct. 19, 2007).
7. The Supre m e Court can trea t a petition filed erroneously
under Rule 65 as one filed under Rule 45 if the petitioner
had alleged grave abuse of discretion in said petition under
the following circumtances: (1) If the petition was filed
within 15 days of notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution appealed from; or (2) If the petition is meritorious
(Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. vs.
CA, et al, G.R. No. 167938, Feb. 19, 2009).
Sec. 2. Time for filing; extension. Th e pe t i t i o n
shal l be filed wi t hi n fifteen (15) da y s from not ic e of
th e j u d g m e n t o r final o rde r o r r e s o l u t i o n a p p e a l e d
from, or of th e de ni a l of th e pe t i t i o n e r ' s mot i o n for
ne w t ria l o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n filed i n du e tim e after
not i c e o f th e j u d gm e n t . O n m oti o n dul y filed an d
se rve d , wit h full p a ym e n t o f th e doc ke t an d ot h e r
la wfu l fees an d th e d e p o s i t for cost s be for e th e
e x p i r a t i o n o f th e r e g l e m e n t a r y pe ri od , th e S u p r e m e
C o u r t ma y fo r j u s t i f i a b l e r e a s o n s g r a n t a n
e x t e n s i o n of t h i r t y (30) da y s onl y wit hi n whi c h t o
file th e pe t i t i o n , (la , 5a)
NOT E
1. The reglementary period to appeal is 15 days from
service of th e j u d gm e n t , final orde r or re sol uti on.
However, within that period, the aggrieved party may file
a motion for new trial or reconsideration and, if denied,
he shall have the entire 15 days all over again from notice
of such denial within which to file his petition for review
on certiorari in the Supreme Court.
In either case, within such 15-day period, he may for
good cause file a motion with the Supreme Court for
613
614
RUL E
45
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
8E C . 3
R UL E
45
A P P E A L BY C E RTI ORA R I
T O TH E S U P R E M E COUR T
SEC .
( e ) c o n t a i n a s w o r n c e r t i f i c a t i o n a ga i n s t foru m
s h o p p i n g a s p r o v i d e d i n th e las t p a r a g r a p h o f
se c ti on 2 , Rul e 42. (2a)
617
RUL E
45
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
S E C S . 5-6
NOT E S
1. The contents of the petition required in this section have also
ta ken into account and included the provisions of revised
Circulars Nos. 1-88 and 28-91 of the Supreme Court.
2. It is specifically stated that the petition shall state the full
names of the parties, "without impleading the lower courts or
judges thereof." This re suscitat es the former hol di n g of th e
S u p r e m e C our t t ha t in an appeal by certi orari unde r this
Rule, the court or the judge who re ndere d the decision
appealed from is not required to be joined as a part y
respondent. The only parties
thereto should be
the
appellant, as petitioner, and the appellee, as respondent.
It is in the special civil action of certiorari unde r Rule 65
where the court or judge is required to be joined as a
part y respondent (Metropolitan Waterworks & Sewerage
System vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 54526, Aug. 26, 1986;
Phil. Global Communications, Inc. vs. Relova, etc., et al,
G.R. No. 60548, Nov. 10, 1986).
Sec. 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. Th e
fa i l ur e o f th e p e t i t i o n e r t o c o m pl y wi t h an y o f th e
f o r e go i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g th e p a y m e n t o f
th e d o c k e t an d o t h e r l a wfu l fees, d e p o s i t for c ost s ,
proo f o f s e r vi c e o f th e p e t i t i o n , an d th e c o n t e n t s o f
an d th e d o c u m e n t s w h i c h s h o u l d a c c o m p a n y th e
p e t i t i o n sha l l b e su ffi c i e n t g r o u n d for th e d i s m i s s a l
t he re o f .
Th e S u p r e m e C o u r t ma y o n it s ow n i n i t i a t i v e
d e n y th e p e t i t i o n o n th e g r o u n d t h a t th e a p p e a
l i s w i t h o u t m e r i t , o r i s p r o s e c u t e d m a n i f e s t l y for
de l a y , o r t h a t th e q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d t h e r e i n ar e too
u n s u b s t a n t i a l t o r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . (3a)
Sec. 6. Review discretionary. A re vi e w is no t a
m a t t e r o f ri ght , bu t o f s o u n d j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n ,
RUL E
45
A P P E A L B Y C E RTI ORA R I
T O TH E S U P R E M E C OU R
T
S E C S . 7-8
d
e
s
s
( a ) W h e n t h e c o u r t a quo ha s d e c i d e d a q ue s t i o n o f
s u b s t a n c e , no t t h e r e t o f o r e d e t e r m i n e d by th e
S u p r e m e C ou rt , or ha s de c i de d i t i n a wa y p r o b a b l y
no t i n a c c o r d w i t h la w o r w i t h th e a p p l i c a b l e
de c i s i o n s o f th e S u p r e m e Court ; o r
(b) Whe n th e c ou r t a quo ha s so far d e p a r t e d fro m th e
a c c e p t e d an d u s u a l c o u r s e o f j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s ,
o r s o far s a n c t i o n e d suc h d e p a r t u r e by a lowe r c ourt
, as to call for an exe rci s e of th e powe r of
s u p e r vi s i o n . (4a)
Sec. 7. Pleadings and documents that may be
required; sanctions. Fo r p u r p o s e s of d e t e r m i n i n g
w h e t h e r th e pe t i t i o n shoul d b e di sm i s se d o r de ni e d
p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 5 o f t hi s Rule , o r w h e r e th e
pe t i t i o n i s gi ve n du e c ou rs e u n d e r se c ti on 8 hereof,
th e S u p r e m e Cour t ma y r e q u i r e o r allow th e filing
o f su c h p l e a d i n g s , b r i e f s , m e m o r a n d a o r d o c u
m e nt s a s i t ma y de e m ne c e s s a r y wi t hi n suc h pe r i o d s
an d u n d e r s u c h c o n d i t i o n s a s i t ma y c o n s i d e r
a p p r o p r i a t e , an d i m p o s e th e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
s a n c t i o n s i n c a s e o f n o n -f i l i n g o r u n a u t h o r i z e d
fili ng o f suc h p l e a d i n g s an d d o c u m e n t s o r non
c o m p l i a n c e wit h th e c o n d i t i o n s t h e re fo r , (n)
Sec. 8. Due course; elevation of records. If th e
pe ti t i o n i s given du e course , th e S u p r e m e Cour t ma y
r e q u i r e th e e l e va t i o n o f th e c om pl e t e re c or d o f th e
case or speci fied pa rt s t h e re o f wi t hi n fifteen (15)
da y s from not i ce . (2a)
RUL E
46
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C . 9
NOT E S
1. The first pa ra gra ph of Sec. 5, as has already been observed
in connection with the other petitions filed in the
appellate courts, adopted the provisions of revised
Ci rc ular No. 1-88 and re late d circulars issued by the
Suprem e Court.
The second pa ra gra ph is related to and is a conse
quence of the provisions of Sec. 6 which underscores the
fact tha t appellate review under this Rule is discretionary
and can be gra nt e d only whe n the r e are special and
im porta nt reasons therefor.
2. . P u r s u a n t to Sec. 7 , th e S up re m e Court may
re qui re th e filing of a comment , repl y, rejoinder and
surrej oi nde r when necessary, as well as briefs, memo
ra nda or such other documents as it may deem necessary for
a full discussion and consideration of the issues on appeal.
See, however, the resolution of the Court in A.M. No. 99-204-SC (Appendix R) limiting the pleadings that may be filed
after the repl y, and the procedure
to
be followed
thereafter.
Sec. 9. Rule applicable to both civil and criminal
cases. T h e m o d e o f a p p e a l p r e s c r i b e d i n t h i s
R ul e sha l l b e a p p l i c a b l e t o bot h civil an d c r i m i n a l
c a se s , e x c e p t i n c r i m i n a l c a se s w h e r e th e p e n a l t y
i m p o s e d i s d e a t h , reclusion perpetua or life im
p r i s o n m e n t , (n)
NOT E
1. See Note 1 under Sec. 1 of this Rule, and Note 11
under Secs. 1 to 3, Rule 122.
618
RULE 46
ORIGINAL CASES
Section 1. Title of cases. In all case s or iginally
filed in the Court of Appe al s, the party i ns ti tu ti n g
the ac ti o n shall be called the pe ti ti one r and th e
opposi n g party the responde nt, (la)
Sec. 2. To what actions applicable. Thi s Rul e
shal l a ppl y t o o r i g i n a l a c t i o n s for c e r t i o r a r i ,
prohi bi ti on, man da mu s and quo warranto.
E xc e p t a s o t h e r w i s e p r ov i de d , th e a c t i o n s
for a n n u l me n t of ju dg me nt - s ha l l be gove r ne d by
Rule 47, for certiorari, prohi bi ti on and ma n da mu s
by Rule 65, and for quo w arranto by Rule 66. (n)
NOTES
1. This rule formerly governed the cases which were within the
original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, i.e., petitions
for m a nda m us , prohibition, injunction, certiorari, habeas
corpus and other writs and processes in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction (Sec. 30, R.A. 296).
2. Under B.P. Blg. 129, the Intermediate Appellate Court
(now, the Court of Appeals) has original jurisdic tion to
issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes,
whether or not they are in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;
and it has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for
annulme nt of judgments of Regional Trial Courts (Sec. 9;
cf. Pars. 14 and 15, Interim or Transitional Rules
and
Guidelines).
Petitions for habeas corpus have been excluded from
the coverage of the present revised Rule since they are
actuall y special proceedings and the corre spondi n g
619
RUL E
46
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 3
R UL E
46
OR I GI N A L
C A SE S
SEC . 3
t h e r e t o f o r e c o m m e n c e d an y ot he r ac ti o n i n vo l vi n g
th e sam e i ssue s i n th e S u p r e m e Court , th e C ou r t o f
Ap pe a l s o r di ffe re n t di vi s i o n s there of, o r an y o t h e r
t r i b u n a l o r a ge nc y ; i f t he r e i s suc h ot h e r a c t i o n o r
p r o c e e d i n g , h e m us t sta t e th e st a t u s o f th e sa m e ;
an d i f h e s h o u l d t h e r e a f t e r l e a r n t h a t a s i m i l a r
ac ti o n o r p r o c e e d i n g ha s bee n filed o r i s p e n d i n g
before th e S u p r e m e Court , th e Cour t o f Ap p e a l s , o r
di ffe re nt d i vi s i o n s there of, o r an y ot h e r t r i b u n a l o r
a g e n c y , h e u n d e r t a k e s t o p r o m p t l y i n f o r m th e
a f o r e s a i d c o u r t s an d o t h e r t r i b u n a l o r a g e n c y
t h e r e o f wi t hi n five (5) da y s t h e re f r o m .
Th e p e t i t i o n e r sha l l pa y th e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
doc ke t an d ot h e r lawful fees t o th e Cl er k o f Cour t
an d de p o s i t th e a m o u n t o f P500.00 for cost s a t th e
tim e of th e filing of th e pe t i t i o n .
Th e fa il ure of th e p e t i t i o ne r t o com pl y wit h an y
o f th e f o re go i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s shal l b e suffi c ie nt
g r o u n d for t h e d i s m i s s a l o f th e p e t i t i o n , (n )
(As amended by Resolution of the Supreme Court, dated
July 21, 1998)
NOTE S
1.
RUL E
46
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 6
622
RUL E
46
ORIGINA L
C A SE S
SE C . 3
RUL E
46
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 7
W he r e th e re a l p a r t y in i n t e r e s t i s a body
corporate, just like in other pleadings earlier discussed, an
officer of the corporation can sign the certificate against
forum shopping, bu t he must be duly aut horized by a
resolution of the board of directors (Eslaban, Jr., etc. vs.
Vda. de Onorio, G.R. No. 146062, June 28, 2001).
624
RULE 46
ORIGINAL CASES
SEC. 7
i s s u e s , th e c o u r t
n o r d e l e g a t e th e
i s s u e s t o an y o f
cou rt , a g e n c y o r
NOTE S
1.
RUL E
46
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 7
626
RUL E 4 6
O R I G I N A L C A SE S
SE C . 7
RULE 47
A N N U L M E N T OF J UD G M E N T S OR
FINAL O RDERS AN D RESO LUTIO N S
Sec ti on 1. Coverage. This Rule shall govern
the a n n u l me n t by th e Court of A ppe al s of j u dg me n t s
or final or de r s an d r e s ol u t i on s in ci vil ac ti on s of
R e g i o n a l Tri a l C o u r t s for w h i c h th e o r d i n a r y
r e me d i e s of ne w trial, appe al , pe ti ti o n for relief or
othe r a p pr op r i a t e r e me di e s are n o l onger available
t h r ou g h no fault of th e pe ti ti one r , (n)
NOTES
1 . A n n u l m e n t of a j u d gm e n t is a reme dy in law indepe nde nt
of the case where the judgme nt sought to be annulled was
re ndere d. The judgm ent may be annulled on the ground
of extrinsic or collateral fraud. A person who is not a pa rt
y to th e j u d gm e n t may sue for its a n n u l m e n t provi de d he
can prove tha t the same was obtained throu gh fraud or
collusion and tha t he would be adversel y affected thereby.
An action for annul me nt of j udgm e nt may be availed of even
if the judgm ent to be annulled had already been fully
executed or implemented (Islamic Da'Wah Council of the
Phil. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 80892, Sept. 29, 1989).
I t should also be observed tha t , as has been the
accepted doctrine and now expressly stated in Sec. 2 of
thi s Rule, lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n i s th e second ground
authorized for a n nu l m e n t of judgme nts or final orders and
resolutions.
2. Although this is a new Rule, actually the annul men t of
j u d gm e nt s is a reme dy long a u t h ori ze d and sanctioned in
our jurisdiction. See the discussion in Note
8 unde r Sec. 1, Rule 39 on the j uri sprude nt i al doctrines
628
R UL E 4 7
ANNULMEN T O F JUDGMENT S O R
2 F I N A L OR D E R S AN D R E S O L U T I O N S
SEC .
R UL E
47
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC.
630
RUL E 47
A N N U L M E N T OF J U D G M E N T S OR
3 FINA L ORDE R S AN D RE SOL UT I ON S
SEC .
If ba se d on
filed within four
based on lack of
laches or estoppel,
RUL E
47
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 4
NOTE S
1. The period for the filing of the action on the ground of
extrinsic fraud corresponds to the same period for
annulment of contracts on that ground (Art. 1371, Civil
Code), as well as the time when the period starts to run.
2. The defense of lack of jurisdiction may be barred by laches
or estoppel. While there are several definitions of laches,
a simple expression of its concept is that it is such
inexcusable delay in the assertion of rights or a failure to
prosecute a claim, within a reasonable and proper period,
which wa rra nt s the presumption that a party has waived
his right (see Winget vs. Rockwood, 69 F. 2d 326, 332; Burton
vs. Ryan, 88 Ind. App. 549, 165 N.E. 260; Harrison vs.
Miller, 124 W. Va. 550, 21 S.E. 2d 674).
For procedural purposes, the estoppel referred to
here is actually estoppel by laches, which is that failure
to do somet hing which should be done or to claim or
enforce a right at a proper time [Hutchinson vs. Kenny,
27 F. 2d 254] or a neglect to do something which one should
do or to seek or enforce a right at a proper time /Jett vs.
Jett, 171 Ky. 548, 188 S.W. 669] (Black's Law Dictionary,
4th ed., 1017). See Note 17, et seq. in the
Ge ne ral
Principles of this volume discussing the cases decided by
the Supreme Court barri ng attacks raised against the
jurisdiction of lower courts where the complaining party
was guilty of estoppel by laches.
Sec. 4. Filing and contents of petition. Th e a ct i o n
sha l l be c o m m e n c e d by filing a ve ri fie d p e t i t i o n
a l l e gi n g t h e r e i n wit h p a r t i c u l a r i t y th e facts an d th
e la w re l i e d up o n for a n n u l m e n t , a s well a s t ho s e
s u p p o r t i n g th e p e t i t i o n e r ' s good an d s u b s t a n t i a l
c a us e o f a ct i o n o r de fe nse , a s th e cas e ma y be.
Th e pe t i t i o n shal l be filed in se ve n (7) c le a rl y
l e gi b l e c o p i e s , t o g e t h e r wi t h s u f f i c i e n t c o p i e
s
R UL E 4 7
A N N U L M E N T OF J U D G M E N T S OR
4 F I N A L O R D E R S AN D R E S O L U T I O N S
SE C .
c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o th e n u m b e r o f r e s p o n d e n t s . A
c e rt i fie d tru e cop y o f th e j u d g m e n t o r final o r de r o r
r e s o l u t i o n shal l b e a t t a c h e d t o th e o ri gi na l copy o
f th e p e t i t i o n i n t e n d e d for th e cour t an d i n d i c a t e d a s
suc h b y th e p e t i t i o n e r .
Th e p e t i t i o n e r shal l also su bm i t t o g e t h e r wit h
th e pe t i t i o n a ffi da vi t s o f w i t n e s s e s o r d o c u m e n t s
s u p p o r t i n g th e c a u s e o f a c t i o n o r de fe ns e an d a
s w o r n c e r t i f i c a t i o n t h a t h e ha s no t t h e r e t o f o r e
c o m m e n c e d an y ot h e r a c t i o n i n vo l vi n g th e sa m e
i ssue s i n th e S u p r e m e Court , th e Cour t o f Ap p e a l
s o r di ffe re n t di vi si on s there of, o r an y ot he r
tribuna l o r a g e n c y ; i f th e r e i s suc h o t h e r ac ti o n o r
p r o c e e d i n g , h e m us t sta t e th e st a t u s o f th e sam e ,
an d i f h e s h o u l d t h e r e a f t e r l e a r n t h a t a s i m i l a r
a ct i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g ha s bee n filed o r i s p e n d i n g
before th e S u p r e m e Court , th e Cour t o f Appe a l s , o r
di ffe re nt di vi si on s the reof, o r an y ot he r t r i b u n a l o r
a ge n c y , h e u n d e r t a k e s t o p r o m p t l y i n f o r m th e
a f o r e s a i d c o u r t s an d o t h e r t r i b u n a l o r a g e n c y
t h e re o f w i t h i n five (5 ) da y s t h e re fr om , (n)
NOTE S
1.
Just like motions for new trial and petitions for relief from
judgment, the verified petition for annulment under this
section must state with particularity the facts and law
su st a i n i n g the ground therefor, and those supporting the
petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or
de fe nse . The first i s the f u n da m e nt a l requirement, but
the second is just as important in order to convince the
court that something may indeed be achieved should the
petition be given due course. This second r e q u i re m e n t
must furt he r be s up po rt e d by affidavits or documents
showing, at least prima facie, the validity of petitioner's
claim.
633
RUL E
2.
47
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S .
56
RUL E 4 7
ANNULMEN T O F JUDGMENT S O R
7 FINA L ORDE R S AN D RE SOL UT I ON S
SE C .
R UL E
47
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S . 8-9
ma y i ssu e suc h o r de r s o f r e s t i t u t i o n o r ot he r
relief
RULE 47
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR
10 FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS
SEC.
a s j u s t i c e an d e q u i t y ma y w a r r a n t u n d e r th e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , (n)
NOT E
1. Orders of restitution or reparation of damages are
authorized to be issued by the trial court where an executed
judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled on
appeal or otherwise (Sec. 5, Rule 39). If restitution can
no longer be effected, the relief may be in the form of
com pe nsat i on unde r the same formula sugge ste d in
Po Pauco vs. Tan Juco (49 Phil. 349), cited under
the
aforesaid section of Rule 39.
Sec. 10. Annulment of judgments or final orders of
Municipal Trial Courts. An a c t i o n to a n n u l a
j u d g m e n t or final or de r of a M u n i c i pa l Tria l Cour t
shal l b e filed i n th e Re gi on a l Tria l Cour t h a vi n g
j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r th e form e r. I t shal l b e t r e a t e d a s
an o r d i n a r y civil a ct i o n an d se c ti on s 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 an d
9 of thi s Rul e shal l be a p p l i c a b l e t h e re t o , (n)
NOT E
1. Sec. 19(6), in relation to Sec. 9(2), both of B.P. Blg. 129, is consider
power of the Regional Trial Courts to annul the judgments
or final orders of the lower courts.
RU LE 48
P R E LI M IN AR Y C O N FE R E N C E
Sec t i on 1. Preliminary conference. At an y time
d u r i n g th e p e n d e n c y of a case , th e c ou r t ma y call
th e p a r t i e s an d t h e i r c o u n s e l t o a p r e l i m i n a r y
conference :
(a) To c o n s i d e r th e p os si bi l i t y o f an a m i c a bl e s e t t l e m e n t
, e xce p t whe n th e cas e i s no t a ll owe d b y law t o b e
compromised ;
(b) To de fi ne , sim pli fy
determination ;
an d
clarify
th e issues for
(c)T o f o r m u l a t e s t i p u l a t i o n s o f fa c t s an d a d m i s s i o n s o
f d o c u m e n t a r y e x h i b i t s , l i m i t th e n u m b e r o f
w i t n e s s e s t o b e p r e s e n t e d i n c a se s falling w i t h i n th e
o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o f th e c o u r t , o r t h o s e w i t h i n
it s a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n w h e r e a m ot i o n for ne w
t ria l i s g r a n t e d o n th e g r o u n d o f newl y d i s c o v e r e d
e vi d e n c e ; an d
(d) T o t a k e u p suc h ot h e r m a t t e r s whi c h ma y aid th e
c ou r t i n th e p r o m p t d i s p o s i t i o n o f th e case. (Rul e 7 ,
CA I n t e r n a l Rul e s ) (n)
Sec. 2. Record of the conference. Th e p r o c e e d i n g s
a t suc h c o n f e re n c e shal l b e r e c o r d e d an d upo n th e
c o n c l u s i o n t he re o f , a r e s o l u t i o n shal l b e i ss ue d
e m b o d y i n g al l t h e a c t i o n s t a k e n t h e r e i n , th e
s t i p u l a t i o n s an d a d m i s s i o n s m a de , an d th e issues
de fi ne d, (n)
Sec. 3. Binding effect of the results of the conference- Su bj e c t to suc h m od i fi c a t i o n whic h ma y be ma d e
t o p r e v e n t m a ni fe s t i nj us t i c e , th e r e s o l u t i o n i n th e
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s ha l l c o n t r o l th e s u b s e q u e n
t
639
R UL E
48
PRELIMINAR Y CO NF ERE NC E
SE C . 3
RU L E 49
ORAL AR GU ME N T
Se c ti on 1. When allowed. At its ow n i ns t a nc e
o r upo n m ot i o n o f a pa r t y , th e c o ur t ma y he a r th e
p a r t i e s in ora l a r g u m e n t on th e m e r i t s of a case , or
o n an y m a t e r i a l i n c i d e n t i n c o n n e c t i o n t h e r e
wit h , (n)
Th e ora l a r g u m e n t shal l b e l i m i t e d t o suc h
m a t t e r s a s th e c o u r t ma y spe c i f y i n it s o r d e r o r
re s o l u t i o n , (la , R48)
Sec. 2. Conduct of oral argument.
Unles s
a u t h o r i z e d b y th e c o u r t , onl y on e c o u n s e l ma y
a rgu e for a pa rt y . Th e d u r a t i o n a ll owe d for eac h
pa r t y , th e s e q u e n c e o f th e a r g u m e n t a t i o n , an d all
ot h e r r e l a t e d m a t t e r s shal l b e a s d i r e c t e d b y th e
court , (n)
NOT E S
1. This Rule was taken from a section each of former Rules 48
and 49. The regulatory details for oral argument as
provided for in the former Rule 48 have been eliminated as i
t was deemed bette r to leave such m at t e r s to the discretion
of the court on a case to case basis as the circumstances and
nature of the issues may require.
2. While Sec. 4 of then Rule 48, which provided that a
memorandum may be submitted by a party in lieu of
participating at the hearing, has been eliminated in this
new rule, the court may still allow the submission of
memoranda in lieu of or in addition to the a rgum ent s
adduced at the hearing. However, Sec. 8 of that former
Rule with its exceptional requirement for the presence of
the detained person in habeas corpus cases on appeal, both
641
RUL E
49
ORA L A R G U M E N T
RULE 50
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. An
appeal may be di s mi s se d by the Court of Appeals,
on its ow n moti on or on that of the appe llee , on the
fol l ow i ng groun ds:
(a) Fail ure of the rec ord on appe al to show on its face
that the appeal wa s ta ke n w ithi n the period fixed by
thes e Rules;
(b) Failure to file the notice of appeal or the rec ord on
appeal w ithi n the period prescr i be d by the s e Rules;
(c ) Failure of the appe ll ant to pay the doc ket and other
lawful fees as provi de d in sec ti on 5 of Rule
40 and sec ti o n 4 of Rule 41 (As amended by Resolution
of the Supreme Court, dated February 17, 1998);
(d) U n a u t h o r i z e d a l t e r a t i o n s , o mi s s i o n s or a d d i t i o n s i n
th e a p p r ov e d rec or d o n a ppe a l a s pr ovi de d in
se c ti o n 4 of Rule 44;
(e ) Failure of the appe ll ant to serve and file th e
r e q u i r e d n u m b e r o f c o p i e s o f hi s br i e f o r
m e m o r a n d u m w ithi n th e ti m e pr ovi de d b y thes e
Rules;
(f) A bse nc e of spe cific a ss i g n me n t of errors in the
appell ant' s brief, or of page refe renc e s to the rec ord
as re qui re d in sec ti on 13, par agr aphs (a), (c),
(d) and (f) of Rule 44;
( g ) F a i l u r e o f th e a p p e l l a n t t o ta k e th e ne c e s sa r y
ste ps for the c or rec ti on or c ompl e ti on of the rec ord
w ithi n the ti me li mite d by the court in its order;
R UL E
50
SEC . 1
RUL E
50
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 1
R UL E
50
SEC . 1
RUL E 5 0
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 2
646
RUL E
50
SE C . 2
R UL E 50
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SEC. 3
RULE 51
J UD GMEN
T
Secti on 1. When case deemed submitted for judgment.
A cas e shal l be de e m e d s u b m i t t e d for j u d gm e n t :
A. In o r d i n a r y a p p e a l s .
1) ) W he r e no h e a r i n g on th e m e ri t s of th e mai n cas
e i s he ld , upo n th e fi l i n g o f th e las t pl e a di n g ,
brief, or m e m o r a n d u m r e q u i re d by th e Rule s or
by th e c o ur t itself, or th e e x p i r a t i o n of th e pe ri o d
for its fili ng.
2) ) W h e r e s uc h a h e a r i n g i s he l d , u p o n it s
t e r m i n a t i o n o r upo n th e fi l i n g o f th e last p l e a d i n
g o r m e m o r a n d u m a s ma y b e r e q u i re d o r p e r m i t t e d t
o be filed by th e c ourt , or th e e x p i r a t i o n of th e
pe ri o d for its filing.
B . I n o r i g i n a l a c t i o n s an d p e t i t i o n s for
view.
1) ) W h e r e no c o m m e n t i s filed, upo n
p i r a t i o n o f th e pe ri o d t o c o m m e nt .
re
th e ex
649
RUL E
51
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 1
(3)
(4)
650
RUL E
51
JUDGMEN
SEC . 2
3.
4.
The law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered
on a former appeal. It means that whatever is once
irrevocably established, as the controlling legal rule or
decision between the same parties in the same case,
continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on
general principles or not, so long as the facts on which
such decision was predicated continue to be the facts before
the court. Unde r such c i rc um s t a nc e s , no que st i on
necessarily involved and decided on that appeal will be
considered on a second appeal or writ of error in the same
case. The rule on the law of the case does not apply to
resolutions re ndere d in connection with the case but
wherein no rationale has been expounded on the merits
of that action (Jarantilla vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 80194,
Mar. 21, 1989).
Sec. 2. By whom rendered. The j u d gm e n t
b e r e n d e r e d b y th e m e m b e r s o f th e c o u r t
p a r t i c i p a t e d i n th e d e l i b e r a t i o n o n th e m e ri t s
e cas e be for e it s a s s i g n m e n t t o a m e m b e r for
w r i t i n g of th e de ci si on, (n)
shall
wh o
o f th
th e
R UL E
51
RE ME DI A L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C
NOT E
1. This new Sec. 2 of the Rule simplifies the procedure
under the former Sec. 1 thereof which had provided rules
on who of the Justices may take part in the adjudication
of the case. Now, the only determinant is who of them
participated in the deliberations on the merits of the case,
which deliberation takes place before the assignment to
the ponente for the writing of the decision.
This procedure, in effect, adopts the Constitutional
provision on which of the Justices of the Supreme Court
may participate in the decision of cases therein. It is
provided that cases or matters heard by the Supreme Court
en banc or by a division "shall be decided with the
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case
and voted thereon" (Sec. 4[2] and [3], Art. VIII).
Sec. 3. Quorum and voting in the court. Th e
p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f al l t h r e e J u s t i c e s o f a d i vi s i o n
s h a l l b e n e c e s s a r y a t th e d e l i b e r a t i o n an d th e
u n a n i m o u s vo t e o f th e t h r e e J u s t i c e s s h a l l b e
r e q u i r e d for th e p r o n o u n c e m e n t o f a j u d g m e n t
o r fi nal r e s o l u t i o n . I f th e t h r e e J u s t i c e s d o no t
r e a c h a u n a n i m o u s v o t e , th e c l e r k s h a l l e n t e r
th e v o t e s o f th e d i s s e n t i n g J u s t i c e i n th e
re c o r d . T h e r e a f t e r , th e C h a i r m a n o f th e di vi si on
sh a l l re fe r th e c a s e , t o g e t h e r wit h th e m i n u t e
s o f th e d e l i b e r a t i o n , t o th e P r e s i d i n g J u s t i c e wh o
s h a l l d e s i g n a t e t w o J u s t i c e s c h o s e n b y ra ffl e
fro m a m o n g al l th e o t h e r m e m b e r s o f th e c o u r
t t o si t t e m p o r a r i l y wi t h t h e m , f o r m i n g a s p e c i a l
d i v i s i o n o f five J u s t i c e s . Th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f
all th e five m e m b e r s o f th e s pe c i a l di vi s i o n shal l
b e n e c e s s a r y fo r th e d e l i b e r a t i o n r e q u i r e d
i n S e c t i o n 2 o f t h i s Rul e an d th e c o n c u r r e n c e
of a m a j o r i t y of suc h d i vi s i o n shal l be r e q u i r e d
652
R UL E
51
JUDGMEN
SE C . 3
for th e p r o n o u n c e m e n t of a j u d g me n t or final
resol uti on. (2a)
NOTE S
1. This section, which is an amendment of the former Sec. 2 of
this Rule, sets out more in detail the requirements for a
quorum, the voting in a regular division of the court, and the
creation of a special division of five Justices under the
circumstances contemplated therefor.
2. This was taken, with modifications, from Sec. 6 of Executive Order
No. 33 which amended Sec. 11 of B.P. Blg. 129, effective
"Sec. 11. Quorum. - A majority of the actual
members of the court shall constitute a quorum for
its session en banc.
Three members shall constitute
a quorum for the session of a division. The unanimous
vote of the three mem bers of a division shall be
necessary for the pronouncement of a decision or final
resolution, which shall be reached in consultation
before the writing of the opinion by any member of
the division. In the event that the three members do
not reach a unanimous vote, the Presiding Justice
shall request the Raffle Committee of the court for
the desi gnation of two additional Justice s to sit
temporarily with them, forming a special division of
five members and the concurrence of a majority of
such division shall be necessary for the pronounce
ment of a decision or final resolution. The designation
of such additional Justices shall be made strictly by
raffle."
RUL E
51
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE C S . 4 , 5
654
R UL E
51
JUDGMEN
SE C . 6
forth i n th e de c i si on , orde r , o r re s o l u t i o n a p p e a l e d
from. (Sec. 40, BP Blg. 129) (n)
NOT E S
1. As indicated after this provision, this section was actually
taken from Sec. 40 of B.P. Blg. 129. Art. VIII of the
Constitution contains a more comprehensive mandate on
this matter, thus:
"Sec. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based.
No pe titi on for review or motion for recon
sideration of a decision of the court shall be refused
due course or denied without stating the legal basis
therefor."
2. It will be noted tha t the requi reme nt for the statement of
the facts and the law, as provided by the Constitution, B.P.
Blg. 129 and the foregoing section, refers to a decision or, for
that matter, a final resolution. The same does not apply
to minute resolutions since these usuall y dispose of the
case not on its merits but on procedural or technical
considerations, although the court may, if it deems it
necessary, briefly discuss the matter on the merits in an
extended resolution.
With respect to petitions for review (and this may be
considered broad enough to apply to the ordinary petition
for review, petition for review on certiorari, or petition for
c e rt i o r a ri ) and mot i ons for re c o n s i d e ra t i o n , th e
Constitution merely requires a statement of the legal basis
for the denial thereof or refusal of due course thereto.
Again, as already stated, the court may opt, but it is not
required, to issue an extended resolution thereon.
RUL E
51
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S .
7-8
RUL E
51
JUDGMEN
SE C . 9
The pr oc e du r e
in the Su pr e m e
Court being
generally the same as that in the Court of Appeals, unless
otherwise indicated (see Secs. 2 and 4, Rule 56), it has
been held that the latter is clothed with ample authority to
review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors on
appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in
a rri vi n g at a jus t decision of the case. Also, an
unassi gned error closely related to an error properly
assigned (PCIB vs. CA, et al, L 34931, Mar. 18, 1988), or upon
which the determination of the question raised by error
properly assigned is dependent, will be considered by the
appellate court notwitstanding the failure to assign it as
error (Ortigas, Jr. vs. Lufthansa German Airlines, L-28773,
June 30, 1975; Soco vs. Militante,
et
al, G.R. No.
58961, June 28, 1983).
It may also be observed that under Sec. 8 of this Rule,
the appellate court is authorized to consider a plain error,
although it was not specifically assigned by the appellant
(Dilag vs. Heirs of Fortunato Resurreccion, 76 Phil. 650),
o t h e r w i s e i t would be sacrific ing s u b s t a nc e for
technicalities.
Sec. 9. Promulgation and notice of judgment.
Afte r th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l r e s o l u t i o n an d
di sse nti ng or separate opini ons, if any, are signe d
by the Justi ce s taki ng part, they shall be delivered
RUL E
51
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 11
658
R UL E
51
JUDGMEN
SEC . 11
RUL E
51
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 11
e x c e pt i o n be i n g w he r e th e sam e i s o rde re d t o be
immediately executory. In fact, such order is not necessary
where , by provision of thes e Rules or unde r settled
jurisprudence , the judgm ent is immediatel y executory.
See, for i n s t a n c e , Sec. 4 of Rule 39 and th e notes
thereunder.
2 . Th e sam e p a r a g r a p h f u rt h e r de c l a r e s the
f u n d a m e n t a l r e q u i r e m e n t t ha t the motion for such
execution may be filed only in the proper court, and the
general rule is that the writ therefor may be sought in
and issued by the court from which the action originated,
that is, the court of origin or a quo.
Thus, in actions originally commenced in the Court
of Appeals, the writ of execution shall be issued by it and
addressed to any appropriate officer for its enforcement.
To obviate any possible que st i ons, the writ shall be
accompanied by a certified tru e copy of the ent ry of
judgment, final order or resolution.
3.. In ca se s pe nd i n g on appe a l in th e Court of
Appeals, a motion for di sc re ti ona r y execution of the
judgment of the trial court may be filed in the Court
of Appeals provided it is in possession of the original
record or the record on appeal. If it grants the motion, it will
not issue a writ of execution but shall order the
resolution granting the motion therefor. A copy of such
resolution and a certified true copy of the judgment or final
order to be executed shall forthwith be transmitted to
said trial court.
4. Where the appealed case has been finally resolved and the
judgment has become executory, the situation is
governed by the amended and amplified provisions of Sec.
1, Rule 39.
660
RULE 52
MOT ION FOR RE CO NSIDE R ATIO N
Se c ti on 1. Period for filing. A pa rt y ma y file a
m o t i o n for r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a j u d g m e n t or fi na
l r e s o l u t i o n w i t h i n fi ft e e n (16 ) d a y s fro m not i c e
the reof, wit h proo f of se rvi c e on th e a d ve r s e pa rt y ,
(n)
Sec. 2. Second motion for reconsideration. No
sec on d m o t i o n for r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a j u d g m e n t
o r fi na l r e s o l u t i o n b y th e s a m e p a r t y sh a l l b e
e n t e r t a i n e d , (n)
Sec. 3. Resolution of motion. In th e Co ur t of
A p p e a l s , a m o t i o n for r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ha l l b e
re sol ve d w i t h i n ni net y (90) da y s from th e dat e whe n
th e c o ur t de c l a r e s i t s u b m i t t e d for re so l u t i o n , (n)
Sec. 4. Stay of execution. Th e p e n d e n c y of a
mot i o n for r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n filed on tim e an d by th e
p r o p e r p a r t y s h a l l s t a y th e e x e c u t i o n o f th e
j u d g m e n t o r fi na l r e s o l u t i o n s o u g h t t o b e
r e c o n s i d e r e d u n l e s s th e court , for good r e a s o n s ,
shall o t h e r w i s e di rec t , (n)
NOT ES
1.
The present Rule, which now bears the title of "Motion for
Reconsideration," contains new provisions substantially
different from and abandoning the previous practice in the
former Rule 52 which was entitled "Re hearing." Thus, for
instance, a copy of the motion for reconsideration must be
served on the adverse party, thereby eliminating the
Rule
which
R UL E
62
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S .
14
R UL E
52
M OTI O N
FOR R E C O N S I D E R A TI O N
S E C S . 1-4
RULE 63
NEW TRIAL
Se c ti o n 1. Period for filing; ground. At any
ti m e after th e a p pe a l from th e l ow e r c our t has
bee n p e r f e c t e d an d before th e Court o f Appe al s
lose s ju r i s di c t i o n ove r th e case , a party may file
a moti o n for a ne w trial on the groun d of new l y
d i s c o v e r e d e v i de n c e w hi c h c oul d not hav e been
di sc ove re d prior to the trial in the court bel ow by
the e xe rci s e of du e di l i ge nc e and w hic h i s of such a
c har ac te r as w oul d probably c hang e the result. The
moti on shall be ac c ompa ni e d by affidavits sh ow i n g
the facts c on s t i t u t i n g the groun d s therefor and the
newl y di sc ove re d e vi de n c e , (la )
NOTES
1. Sec. 1 of the former Rule has been amended here to make
more specific the period for the filing of a motion for new
trial, i.e., at any time after the perfection of the appeal from
the judgm ent or final order of the lower court and before the
Court of Appeals loses jurisdiction over the case. The
former provision reading "(b)efore a final order or jud gm e n
t re nde re d by the Court of Appeals be come s e xec ut or y,"
wa s c onsi de re d im prec i se and susceptible
of
misinterpretation, hence the amendment.
2. Rules 52 and 53 regarding motions for reconsider ation and
new trial, in relation to Rule 45 on appeals by certiorari
from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, may now
be recapitulated as follows:
a. A motion for reconsideration may be filed within 15 days
from notice of the judgment or final resolution of the
Court of Appeals.
665
R UL E
53
NE W
TRIA L
SEC . 1
R UL E
53
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE C S
2-4
R UL E
53
NE W
TRIA L
SE C S . 2- 4
the time the first motion for new trial was filed, e.g., where
the first motion was based on fraud and the second is based
on newly discovered evidence the requisites for which
concurred only after the filing of the first motion. This
would not be possible in the Court of Appeals where the
only ground for a motion for new trial is newly discovered
evidence.
667
RULE 54
INTERNAL B U S I N E S S
Secti on 1. Distribution of cases among divisions.
All the case s of the Court of Appe al s shall be allotted
a mon g th e di fferent di vi si on s the reo f for he ari ng
and de c i si on. The Court of Appeals, si tti ng en banc,
shall ma k e pr ope r or de r s or r ule s to g ove r n the
al l ot me nt of case s a mon g the different di vi si ons, the
c on st i t ut i o n of suc h di vi si ons , the regul ar rotation
o f J u s t i c e s a mon g the m , th e filli ng o f vac an c i e s
oc c ur r i n g the rei n , and othe r matte r s rel ati ng to the
busi ne s s of the court; and suc h r ule s shall c onti n ue
in force unti l r e pe al e d or al te re d by i t or by the
Su pre m e Court, (la )
Sec. 2. Quorum of the court. A majority of the
ac t ua l me m b e r s o f th e c our t shal l c o n s t i t u t e a
qu or u m for its s e s si on s en banc. Three me mbe rs
shal l c o n s t i t u t e a q u o r u m for th e s e s s i o n s of a
divisi on. The affir mative vote s of the majority of
the me mbe r s pre se n t shall be n e c e ss ar y to pass a
re s ol u ti o n of th e c our t en banc. The affir mative
v ot e s o f t h r e e m e m b e r s o f a d i v i s i o n shal l b e
ne c e s sa r y for the p r on o u n c e me n t of a judg me n t of
fi na l r e s o l u t i o n , w h i c h s h a l l b e r e a c h e d i n
c on s ul ta ti o n before the w ri ti n g of the opi ni on by
any me mbe r of the di vi si on. (Sec. 11, first par. of
BP Blg. 129, as a me n de d by Sec. 6 of EO 33). (3a)
NOTES
1.
R UL E
54
INTERNA L
BUSINES S
S E C S . 1-2
RULE 56
PUBLICATION OF JUDGM E NT S
AN D FINAL RESO LUTIO NS
Sec ti o n 1. Publication. Th e j u dg me n t s and
final re s ol u ti on s of the c our t shall be pu bl i s he d in
the Official Gaz e tt e and in th e Re por t s officially
a ut h or i z e d by th e court in th e lang uag e in w hich
they hav e bee n ori gi nally w ritte n, toge the r with the
s y l l a b i t h e r e f o r p r e p a r e d b y th e r e p o r t e r i n
c on su l t at i o n wit h th e w rite r s thereof. Me moranda
of all othe r j u d g me n t s and final r es ol ut i on s not so
p u b l i s h e d s h a l l b e ma d e b y th e r e p o r t e r an d
pu bl i s he d in the Official Gaz e tte and the authoriz e d
reports, (la )
NOTE
1. Sec. 1, CA . 638 provides for the publication in
the Official Gazette of only such decisions or abstracts of
decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals
as may be deemed by said courts of sufficient importance
to be so published.
Sec. 2. Preparation of opinions for publication.
The re por te r shall prepare and pu bl i s h wit h each
re por te d j u dg me n t and final re s ol u ti o n a c onc i se
s y n o p s i s o f th e f ac t s n e c e s s a r y for a c l e a r
u n de r s t a n di n g of th e case , the na me s of c ounse l ,
the materi al and c ontr ove r te d poi nts i nvolve d, the
a u t h o r i t i e s c i te d t h e r e i n , an d a sy l l a bu s w hi c h
s ha l l b e c o n f i n e d t o p o i n t s o f law .
(Sec .
22a,
R.A. No. 296). (n)
670
RUL E 5 5
P U B L I C A TI O N O F J U D G M E N T S
2 AN D F I N A L R E S O L U T I O N S
SE C
NOTE S
1. The syllabus is an abstract, a headnote, or a note prefixed to
the report of an adjudged case, containing an epitome or
brief statement of the rulings of the court upon the points
decided in the case (Kuhn vs. Coal Co., 215
U.S. 356, 30 S. Ct. 140, 54 L.Ed. 228). The weight of its
authorit y in the different states depends on whether the
syllabus should contain also findings of fact or, like our
practice, shall be confined to points of law. The better
rule, in our experience, should be that ordinarily where a
headnote, even though prepared by the court, is given no
special force by statute or rule of court, the opinion is to
be looked to for the original and authentic statement on
the grounds of decision (Burbank vs. Ernst, 232 U.S. 162,
34 S. Ct. 299, 58 L. Ed. 551).
2. Thus, for instance and by way of illustration, in Libi, et al.
vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. (G.R. No. 70890,
Sept. 18, 1992), a controversy arose as to whether the
liability of parents for the civil liability arising from a felony
committed by their minor son is primary or subsidiar y. The
re sponde nt court declared i t to be subsidiary, relying on
the supposed holding to that effect in Fuellas vs. Cadano, et
al. (L-14409, Oct. 31 , 1961). Rejecting such holding, and
after discussing contrary doctrines in other cases, the
Suprem e Court further pointedly observed:
"Also, coming back to respondent court's reliance
on Fuellas in its decision in the present case, it is not
exactly accurate to say that Fuellas provided for
subsidiary liability of the parents therein. A careful
scrutiny shows that what respondent court quoted
verbatim in its decision now on appeal in the present
case, and which it attributed to Fuellas, was the
syllabus on the law report of said case which spoke of
'subsidiary' liability. However, such categorization
does not specifically appear in the text of the decision
R UL E
56
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 3
in Fuellas. x x x"
Sec. 3. General make-up of volumes. The
pub
lishe d de c i si on s and final resol uti ons of the Supreme
Court shall be calle d "P hil i ppi ne Re ports," while
thos e of th e Court of Appe al s shall be kn ow n as the
"Court of A ppe al s Re ports." Each vol um e thereof
shall c ontai n a table of the case s re por te d and the
c a s e s c i t e d i n th e o p i n i o n s , w i t h a c o m p l e t e
a l p h a b e t i c a l i n de x o f th e su bje c t ma t te r s o f the
v ol u me . I t shal l c o n s i s t o f no t les s tha n se ve n
hun dre d page s pri nte d upo n good paper, well bound
an d n u mb e r e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y in th e or de r o f the
vol u m e pu bl i s he d . (Sec. 23a, R.A. No. 296) (n)
NOTES
1. The official reports of court decisions which are published
by the Government and, therefore, constitute primary
authorit y thereon, are those in the Philippine Reports,
Official Gazette and Court of Appeals Reports, all of
which are authorized by law.
2. There are a number of privately published reports of
decisions and resolutions of our appellate courts which,
a l t ho u g h not s t a t ut o r i l y sa nc t i one d, ha ve acquire d
general acceptance with at least one duly endorsed by the
Supreme Court and recognized by being indicated as the
source of citations of cases in its decisions.
While such publications render the service which the
go ve r nm e n t pri nt i n g office cannot cope with, being
unofficial publications the authorit y thereof would best
be subserved by further indicating the case number and
date of promulgation of the case when cited in a decision.
Of course, in case of conflict or doubt, the official copy as
reported in the government publications or on file with
the Office of the Court Reporter should be consulted and
would prevail.
672
R UL E
66
REMEDIA L
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 2
RUL E
56
ORIGINA L
CASE S
SEC . 2
RUL E
56
APPEALE D
C A SE S
SE C . 5
the
NOTES
1. Among the sources of the foregoing grounds for
di sm issa l of appeal in the Court of Appeals are Revised
Circular No. 1-88, Circular No. 2-90 and Circular No. 19-91
of the Supreme Court.
2. Unlike the former practice where deposit for costs shall be
made pursuant to a resolution therefor upon the appeal
being given due course, costs are now required to
677
R UL E
56
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 7
R UL E
56
AP PE ALE D
C A SE S
SEC . 7
RUL E
56
R E M E D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC . 7
(3)
R UL E
56
APPEALE D
C A SE S
SE C . 7
(3)
RUL E
56
R E M E D I A L LA W C O M P E N D I U M
SEC . 7
RUL E
56
AP PE ALE D
C A SE S
SE C . 7
5.
683
subsequently
new doctrine
not apply to
and acted on
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
1. . The re vi se d Rule s of Cour t pro vi de for the
provisional reme die s of prelim ina ry a tt a c hm e nt , pre
liminary injunction, receivership, replevin and support
pendente lite. Contempt, which under the old Rules was
also considered a provisional remedy, is now classified as a
special civil action.
2. Provisional remedies, also known as ancillary or auxiliary
re medi es, are writs and processes available during the
pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a
litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests
therein pending rendition, and for purposes
of the
ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case. They ar e
p ro vi s i o na l be c a u s e the y c o n s t i t u t e t e m p o ra r y
measures availed of during the pendency of the action,
and they are ancillary because they are mere incidents in
and are dependent upon the result of the main action.
3. Prior to the operational effectivity of B.P. Blg. 129, inferior
courts had jurisdiction to issue writs of preliminary
attac hment and replevin (Sec. 88, R.A. 296) where the
main case was within their jurisdiction, but the same could
be enforced outside the province only with the approval
of the former Court of First Instance (Sec. 4, Rule 133),
except those issued by the then City Courts wherein such
certification was not required (Sec. 4, R.A. 5967). Inferior
courts could also issue writs of preliminary injunction in
forcible entry cases (Sec. 88, R.A. 296; Sec. 3, Rule 70;
Art. 539, Civil Code). In other cases, only the then City
Courts and municipal courts of the capitals of provinces
and sub -provi nc e s could i ssue wri t s of p re l i m i na r y
injunction but only in the absence of the District Judge
(Sec. 88, R.A. 296). Also, Rule 61 (support pendente lite)
was made applicable to inferior courts (Sec. 19, Rule 5).
684
RUL E
56
PROVISIONA L
RE ME DI E S
SE C . 5
R E M E D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
In prelim ina ry a t t a c hm e n t
and in preliminary
injunction, the amount of the bond to be posted by the
applicant is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.
In recei vership, the bond as fixed by the court is now
alwa ys requi red of the petitioner, whet he r or not the
appointment of a receiver has been applied for ex parte. In
replevin, the bond to be posted by the applicant is in an
amount double the value of the personal property to be
seized. In applications for support pendente lite, no bond is
generally required from the applicant.
RUL E
56
PROVISIONA L
REMEDIE S
SE C . 6
687
RULE 57
PRE LIMINARY ATTACHMENT
Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may
issue. At the c o m m e nc e m e n t of th e action or at
any time before entr y of j u d gm e nt , a plaintiff or any
prope r part y may have th e prope rt y of th e adve rse
part y at ta c he d as sec uri t y for th e sat isfact ion of
any j u d gm e n t tha t may be re c o ve re d in the follow
ing cases:
(a)
RUL E
57
PREL IMINAR Y
AT TAC H M E N T
SEC .
(e)
In an a c t i o n a g a i n s t a par t y wh o ha s remove d or
di spose d of his property, or is about to do so, with
intent to defraud his creditor s;
(f)
RULE
67
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC. 1
690
RUL E
57
PREL IMINAR Y
ATTAC HM E N T
SEC . 1
RULE
57
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC. 1
R UL E
57
PRELIMI NAR Y
ATTAC H M E N T
SE C .
RULE
57
REME DIAL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC.
the
the
the
as
R UL E
57
PRELIMI NAR Y
AT TAC H M E N T
SE C . 4
The
rule
is
RULE
57
REME DIAL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC. 5
RUL E
57
PRELIMI NAR Y
ATTAC HM E N T
SEC .
r e a s o n a b l e di l i ge nc e a t t a c h , t o a wa i t j u d g m e n t an d
e x e c u t i o n i n th e a c t i o n , onl y s o m u c h o f th e
p r o p e r t y i n th e P h i l i p p i n e s o f th e p a r t y a ga i n s t
who m th e wri t i s i ssue d, no t e xem p t from e xe c ut i on
, a s ma y b e s u f f i c i e n t t o sa t i s f y th e a p p l i c a n t ' s
d e m a n d , unl e s s th e forme r m a ke s a de posi t wit h th e
c o u r t fro m w h i c h th e wri t i s i s s u e d , o r gi ve s a
c o u n t e r - b o n d e x e c u t e d t o th e a p p l i c a n t , i n a n
a m o u n t e qua l t o th e bond fixed b y th e c our t i n th e
orde r o f a t t a c h m e n t o r t o th e va lu e o f th e p r o p e r t
y t o b e a t t a c h e d , e x c l u s i v e o f c o s t s . N o lev y o n
a t t a c h m e n t p u r s u a n t t o th e wri t i s s u e d u n d e r
s e c t i o n 2 h e r e o f s ha l l b e e n f o r c e d u n l e s s i t i s
p r e c e d e d , o r c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y a c c o m p a ni e d , b y
s e r vi c e of s u m m o n s , t o g e t h e r wit h a copy of th e
c o m p l a i n t , th e a p p l i c a t i o n for a t t a c h m e n t , th e
a p p l i c a nt ' s affi da vi t an d bond, an d th e o rde r an d
wri t o f a t t a c h m e n t , o n th e d e f e n d a n t wi t hi n th e
Philippines .
Th e r e q u i r e m e n t o f pri o r o r c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s
s e r vi c e o f s u m m o n s s ha l l no t a p p l y w h e r e th e
s u m m o n s coul d no t b e s e r ve d p e r s o n a l l y o r b y
s u b s t i t u t e d se rvi c e de s pi t e di li ge n t efforts, o r th e
de f e n d a n t i s a re s i d e n t of th e P h i l i p p i ne s t e m p o ra
ril y a b se n t t h e re f r o m , or th e d e f e n da n t i s a non
re s i d e n t of th e P h i l i p p i ne s , or th e ac ti o n i s on e in
rem or quasi in rem. (6a)
Sec. 6. Sheriff's return. After e n f o r c i n g th e
writ, th e sheriff mus t li kewise w i t h ou t de la y mak e
a r e t u r n t h e r e o n t o th e cour t from whic h th e wri t
i s su e d , wit h a full s t a t e m e n t of hi s p r o c e e d i n g s
u n d e r th e wri t an d a c o m pl e t e i n ve n t o r y o f th
p r o p e r t y a t t a c h e d , t o g e t h e r wi t h an y c o u n t e r
bon d gi ve n b y th e p a r t y a g a i n s t wh o m a t t a c h
m e n t i s i ss ue d , an d se r v e copi e s t h e r e o f o n th
applicant .
RULE
57
REME DIAL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC.
NOTES
1. Sec. 5 now complements the prohibition against excessive
attachment on the adverse party's property by providing
that levy on attachment shall be limited only to so much of
the property as may be sufficient to satisfy the applicant's
demand.
More importantly, in view of controversies in previous
rulings on whether levy on attachment may be made
although jurisdiction over the affected party has not been
obtained, it is now required that such levy shall not be
made unless preceded or contemporaneously accompanied
by service of summons toge the r with a copy of the
complaint, application for attachment, affidavit and bond
of the applicant, and the writ of attachment.
The exception from such requirement of prior or
contemporaneous service of summons are stated in the
second paragraph of the section, and the reasons therefor
are obvious.
2. The attaching officer must serve a copy of the applicant's
affidavit, so that the adverse party may contest the grounds
for the attachment, and there must also be service of a
copy of the applicant's bond, so that the other party may
except to the sufficiency thereof. This duty is imposed on
said officer even if such adverse party is not found within
the province, unlike the condition to that effect in the
former Rule in view of such a provision in Sec. 5 thereof
which has been eliminated in the present revision.
3. The deposit or bond required of the attaching party shall be
in the amount fixed by the court in the order of attachment,
or equal to the value of the property to be attached. The
latter alternative may be resorted to where the attaching
party shows to the court that he was only able to locate
RUL E
57
PRELIMI NAR Y
ATTAC H M E N T
SEC . 7
R e g i s t r a t i o n D e c r e e , th e n ot i c e shal l cont ai n a
re f e re nc e to th e n um b e r of th e ce rti fi ca t e
700
RULE
57
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC. 7
(d) Debts and cre dit s, inc l udi n g ban k deposit s, financial
i nte re st , ro yalt ies, c omm i ssi ons an d other pe rsona l
p ro pe r t y not c a pa bl e of m a n ua l delivery, by l ea vi ng
wit h th e pe rso n owi n g suc h de bt s , or ha vi n g in his
posse ssi on or unde r his c ont rol , such c r e d i t s o r ot h e
r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , o r wit h his agent, a copy of th e
writ, an d notice tha t th e debts owing by hi m to th e
pa rt y a ga i ns t who m a t t a c hm e n t i s i s s u e d , an d th e
c r e d i t s an d o t h e r p e r s o n a l p ro pe r t y in his
posse s si on, or unde r his cont rol , bel onging to said
pa rt y, ar e a t t a c he d in p u r s u a nc e of such writ;
RULE 57
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SEC.
RUL E
57
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC. 7
R UL E
57
PRELIMI NAR Y
ATTAC H M E N T
SE C . 7
RULE
57
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC. 8
1. Ga r ni sh m e n t is a species of a t t a c hm e n t for
reaching property or credits pertaining or payable to a
judgment debtor. It results in a forced novation by the
substitution of creditors, that is, the judgment debtor who
is the original creditor of the garnishee is, through service
of the writ of garnishment, substituted by the judgment
creditor who thereby becomes the creditor of the garnishee.
Garnishment has also been described as a warning to a
person, who has in his possession property or credits of
the judgment debtor, not to pay the money or deliver the
property to the latter but to instead appear and answer
the plaintiffs suit.
It is not necessary to serve summons upon the
garnishee in order that the trial court may acquire
RUL E
57
PRELIMI NAR Y
AT TAC H M E N T
S E C S . 9-10
r e s p e c t i n g hi s p r o p e r t y , an d ma y b e e x a m i n e d o n
oa th. Th e cour t ma y, after such e x a m i n a t i o n , orde r
705
RUL E 57
REME DIAL
LAW C OMP E ND I U M
SEC. 11
RUL E
57
P R E L I M I N A R Y ATTAC H M E N T
SE C . 1 2
708
RULE
57
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC
13
is
RUL E
57
P R E L I M I N A R Y ATTAC H M E N T
SEC . 1 3
RULE
57
REME DIAL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC. 14
711
RUL E
57
P R E L I M I N A R Y ATTAC H M E N T
SE C . 1 4
RULE
57
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC S.
151 6
R UL E
57
P R E L I M I N A R Y ATT AC H M E N T
SE C . 17
RULE
57
REME DIAL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SE CS. 18-19
714
RUL E
57
P R E L I M I N A R Y ATTAC H M E N T
SE C . 2 0
RULE
57
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
8EC. 20
R UL E
57
P R E L I M I N A R Y AT TAC H M E N T
SE C . 2 0
lack
RUL E
57
RE MEDI AL
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC. 20
RULE 58
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Secti on 1.
Preliminary injunction defined; classes.
A prel i mi nary injunc ti on is an or der gr ante d at any
stage of an acti on or proc ee ding prior to the j u dg me n
t or final or der, re qu i r i n g a party or a c o u r t , a g e n c
y or a p e r s o n to r e f r a i n fro m a pa r t i c u l a r act or
ac ts . I t may als o requi r e th e per for manc e of a
particular act or acts, in w hic h case it shall be
know n as a preli minary mandatory injunc ti on, (la)
Sec. 9. When final injunction granted. If after
the trial of the acti on i t appe ar s that the applic ant
i s e nti tl e d to hav e the act or acts c ompl ai ne d of
pe r mane ntl y enjoi ne d, the court shall grant a final
i n j u n c t i o n p e r pe t u a l l y r e s t r a i n i n g the party o r
p e r s o n e n j o i n e d from th e c o m m i s s i o n o r c on
t i n u a n c e o f th e ac t o r act s o r c o n f i r m i n g th e
prel i mi nary man datory injuncti on. (10a)
NOTES
1.
RULE
68
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM P E N D I U M
SEC S 1. 9
721
RUL E
58
PRELIMI NAR Y
INJUNCTIO N
SE C S . 1, 9
RULE
58
SE CS. 1. 9
RUL E
58
PREL IMINAR Y
INJUNCTIO N
SE C S . 1, 9
RUL E
58
REME DIAL
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC. 2
R UL E
58
PRELIMI NAR Y
I NJUNCT I O N
SEC . 2
RUL E
68
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC. 2
R UL E
58
PRELIMI NAR Y
I NJUNCT I O N
SEC . 2
RULE
58
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM P E N D I U M
SEC.
R UL E
58
PREL IMINAR Y
INJUNCTIO N
SE C . 2
c o m pl e t i o n of g o ve r n m e n t i n f r a s t r u c t u r e proj ec t s
(Appendix V).
7. The Court of First Instance of a judicial district can enjoin
the sheriff from selling properties levied upon to satisfy
the judgment of a Court of First Instance of anot her
judicial district. Thus, where the properties involved were
those of a stranger to the action, the Court of Fi rst
Insta nce of Rizal can validly issue a writ of injunction to
prevent the sale thereof which was intended to satisfy the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila (said
courts belonging then to different judicial districts). This
does not constitute an interference with the proce sses of a
court of coordinate and co-equal jurisdiction as the sheriff
was improperly implementing the writ of execution
(Abiera vs. CA, et al., L-26294, May 31, 1972; Arabay, Inc.
vs. Salvador, et al., L-31077, Mar. 17, 1978; Santos vs.
Sibug, L 26815, May 26, 1981).
8. Jurisdiction over all sequestration cases of ill- gotten
wealth under the Marcos regime falls within the exclusive
and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, subject to
review exclusively by the Supreme Court. Executive
Order No. 1 effectively withholds jurisdiction over the
Presidential Commission on Good Government from all
lower courts, including the Court of Appeals. This is also to
give due recognition to the related doctrines of primary
administrati ve
jurisdiction
and
exhaustion
of
administrative remedies as pointed out in the resolution
in Reyes, etc., et al. vs. Caneba, etc., et al. (G.R. No. 82218,
Mar. 17, 1988) which enjoins courts to allow administrative
agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their
re spon si bi l it e s within their respective competence.
Regional Trial Courts may not interfere with and restrain
or set aside orders and actions of said Commission as the
acts of an administrative agency must not be casually
overturned by a court, and a court should generally not
substitute its judgment for that of said agency acting
RUL E
58
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 4
R UL E
58
PREL IMINAR Y
INJUNCTIO N
SEC . 4
RULE
58
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC
e n j o i n e d . I n a n y e v e n t , s u c h n o t i c e shal l b e
p reced e d o r c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y a c c o m p a n i e d b y
s e r v i c e o f s u m m o n s , t o g e t h e r w i t h a c o p y o f th e
c o m p l a i n t o r i n i t i a t o r y p l e a d i n g an d t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s
a f f i d a v i t s an d b o n d , u p o n t h e a d v e r s e p a rt y i n th e
Philippines .
H o w e v e r , w h e r e th e s u m m o n s c o u l d no t b e
se rve d pe rs on a ll y o r b y s u b s t i t ut e d servic e despit e
d i l i g e n t e f f o r t s , o r th e a d v e r s e p a r t y i s a r e s i d e n t o f
th e P h i l i p p i n e s t e m p o r a r i l y a b s e n t t h e r e f r o m o r i s
a n o n r e s i d e n t t h e re o f , th e r e q u i r e m e n t o f p ri o r o r
c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s s e r v i c e o f s u m m o n s s h a l l no t
apply .
(d) Th e a p p l i c a t i o n fo r a t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n
in g o r d e r s h a l l t h e r e a f t e r b e a c t e d u p o n o n l y af t e r
al l p a r t i e s ar e h e a r d i n a s u m m a r y h e a r i n g w h i c h
s h a l l b e c o n d u c t e d w i t h i n t w e n t y - f o u r (24 ) h o u r s
a f t e r th e s h e r i f f s r e t u r n o f s e r v i c e a n d / o r th e
r e c o r d s ar e r e c e i v e d b y th e b r a n c h s e l e c t e d b y raffl e
an d t o w h i c h t h e r e c o r d s s h a l l b e t r a n s m i t t e d
i m m e d i a t e l y , (n )
NOTE S
RUL E
58
PRELIMI NAR Y
INJUNCTIO N
SE C . 4
RULE
88
REME DIAL
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC
735
RUL E
58
PREL IMINAR Y
INJUNCTIO N
SEC . 4
RULE
58
RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 6
R UL E
58
PREL IMINAR Y
I NJUNCT I O N
SE C . 5
RULE
58
REME DIAL
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC
NOTES
1. Formerly, if an ex parte injunction was not proper, a
restraining order may be availed of in the meantime.
While the Rules then made no specific provisions for
restraining orders, the same were deemed to be within
the inherent powers of the court (see Sec. 5, Rule 135).
As amended by B.P. Blg. 224, Sec. 5 also provided for and
regulated the issuance of restraining orders to maintain
the status quo until the hearing of the application for
temporary injunction. No bond was required for the
issuance of a restraining order to maintain the status quo
until the he a ri n g of the applic ation for tempora ry
injunction. No bond was required for the issuance of a
restraining order (BF Homes, Inc. vs. CA, et al., L-30690,
Nov. 19, 1982). See the discussion thereon in Dionisio,
et al. vs. CFI, et al. (G.R. No. 61048, Aug. 17, 1983), and
Par. 8 of the Interim Rules which incorporated such
amendment in toto (cf. Ortigas & Co. vs. Ruiz, et al., L33952, Mar. 9, 1987). The 20-day period of efficacy of a
temporary restraining order was non-extendible; the order
automatically terminated at the end of such period without
the need of any judicial declaration to that effect and the
courts had no discretion to extend the same (Golden Gate
Realty Corp. vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 74289, July 31,
1987).
2. This amended section retains most of the foregoing features
but with some modifications and exceptions to the
general provisions of Sec. 4. The limited period of the
effectivity of the restraining order in the trial courts
remains the same but the period for such orders issued by
the Court of Appeals has been increased to 60 days. It
had formerly been held tha t the 20-day limit also
applied to said appellate court (Delbros Hotel Corp. vs.
IAC, et al., G.R. No. 72566, April 12, 1988; Laviha, et al.
vs. CA.etal, G.R. Nos. 78285 una 79917, April 10, 1989).
Such limited period did not and does not apply to the
RUL E
58
PREL IMINAR Y
INJUNCTIO N
SE C . 5
RUL E
68
R E ME D I A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC
RUL E
58
PRELIMI NAR Y
INJUNCTIO N
SE C S . 6-7
RULE
08
R E ME D I A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 8
or
R UL E
58
PREL IMINAR Y
INJUNCTIO N
SE C . 8
743
RULE 59
RECEIVERSHIP
Sec ti on 1. Appointment of receiver. Upon
a
verified applicati on, one or more receivers of the
pr ope r ty w hi c h i s the su bje c t of the ac ti o n or
p r oc e e d i n g may be a p p o i n t e d by the Court of
Appe al s or by the Su pre me Court, or a me mber
thereof, in the following cases:
(a) When it appears from the verified appli cati on , and
suc h othe r proof as the cour t may require, that the
party applying for the appointment of a receiver has
an interest in the property or fund which is the
subject of the action or procee ding, and that suc h
pr ope r ty or fund is in
danger
of being lost,
remove d, or materially injured unless a receiver be
appointed to administer and preserve it;
(b) Whe n i t a p p e a r s in an a c t i o n by th e mortgagee for
foreclosure of a mortgage that the p r ope r t y i s i n
d a n g e r o f be i n g d i s s i p a t e d o r materially injured,
and that its value is probably insufficient to
discharge the mortgage debt, or that the parties have
so sti pulate d in the contract of mortgage;
(c) After judgme nt, to preserve the property during the
pe ndency of an appeal, or to di spose of it acc ordi ng
to the judgment, or to aid
execution when the
execution has been returned unsatisfied o r th e
j u d g me n t o bl i g o r r e f u s e s t o a ppl y his p r o p e r t y i
n s a t i s f a c t i o n o f th e j u d g me n t , o r otherwise to
carry the judg me nt into effect;
( d ) W h e n e v e r in ot h e r c a s e s i t a p p e a r s that the
a p p o i n t me n t of a rec ei ve r is the most c o n v e n i e n t
and fe as i bl e me a n s o f p r e s e r v i n g ,
744
RUL E
59
RE CE IVE RSHI
SEC .
a d m i n i s t e r i n g , o r d i s p o s i n g o f th e pr ope r t y in
liti gati on.
D u r i n g th e p e n d e n c y o f a n a p p e a l , th e
a ppe l l ate court may allow an applic ati on for the
a ppoi nt me nt of a receiver to be filed in and de ci de d
by the court of origin and the recei ve r appoi nte d to
be subject to the control of said court, (la)
NOT ES
1. The former Par. (a) of Sec. 1 of this Rule, which referred to
receivership when a corporation has been dissolved or is
insolvent and so forth, has been deleted from this
amended section as such situations are now governed by
the Corporation Code. For the same reason, the former
Sec. 2 of this Rule regarding an application by a creditor
or stockholder for receivership over a corporation has not
been reproduced here.
2. Receivership, like injunction, may be the principal action
itself (see Sec. 4, Rule 39) or just an ancillary remedy if a
principal action is indicated under the circumstances of
the case since, generally, the courts and quasi-judicial
agencies may appoint receivers in cases pending before
them.
3. A receiver is a person appointed by the court in behalf of all
the parties to an action for the purpose of preserving the
property involved in the suit and to pro tect the rights of
all the parties under the direction of the court (see Cia.
General de Tabacos vs. Guanzon, 20 Phil. 216; Normandy
vs. Duque, L-25407, Aug. 29, 1969; Mallari vs. CA, et al,
L-26467, July 15, 1981). As a rule, a party to a litigation
should not be appointed as a receiver without the consent of
the other parties thereto (Alcantara vs. Abbas, L-14890, Sept.
30, 1963). A clerk of court should not be appointed as a
receiver as he is already burdened with his official
duties (Abrigo vs. Kayanan, L-28601, Mar. 28, 1983).
745
RULE
09
RE M E DI A L LAW
C OM P E N D I U M
SEC.
R UL E
59
RE CE IVE RSHI
SEC . 1
747
RULE
69
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM P E N D I U M
SEC S
3-4
RUL E
59
RE CE IVE RSHI
SE C S . 5, 6
RUL E
59
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC.
RUL E
59
RE CE IVE RSHI
SE C S . 7, 8
afte r du e n ot i c e t o all i n t e r e s t e d pa r t i e s an d
hearing, settle the acc ounts of the receiver, direct
751
RULE
59
REME DIAL
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC
RULE 60
RE P LE V I
N
Se c ti on 1. Application. A pa r t y p r a yi n g for
th e r e c o v e r y o f p o s s e s s i o n o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y
ma y , a t th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e a ct i o n o r a t an y
ti m e be fo r e a n s w e r , a p p l y for a n o r d e r for th e
de l i ve r y o f suc h p r o p e r t y t o him , i n th e m a n n e r
h e r e i n a f t e r p r o vi d e d , (la )
NOTE S
1. This provisional remedy of replevin is available where the
principal purpose of the action is to recover the possession
of personal property. Where proper, replevin must be
applied for before the answer; a t t a c hm e n t , injunction and
support pendente lite, at any time before final judgment;
and receivership, at any stage of the action and even after
final judgment.
2. Under Sec. 1(c), Rule 57, the writ of preliminary a t t a c h m e n
t is available in an action to recover the possession of
personal property unjustly detained, which would make it
similar to a replevin proceeding. However, the
two
remedies are distinguishable as follows:
a. Replevin is available only where the principal relief sought
in the action is the recovery of possession of personal
property, the other reliefs, like damages, being merely
incidental thereto; attachment is available even if the
recovery of personal property is only an incidental relief
sought in the action.
b. Replevin can be sought only where the defendant is in the
actual or constructive possession of the personalty
753
RUL E
60
RE M E DI A L LAW
C OM P E N D I U M
SEC.
RUL E
60
REPL EVI N
SEC . 3
th e r e o f a c c or di n g t o the be st o f hi s kn ow l e dg e ,
i nfor mati on, and belief;
(c) That the property has not been di strai ne d or take n
for a tax asse s s me nt or a fine pur s uant to law, or sei z e
d unde r a writ of e xe c u t i o n or pre li mi nary
at tac h me n t , or ot h e rw i s e pl ac e d unde r custodia legis,
or if so seize d, that it is e xe mpt or shoul d be release d
from such seizure or custody; and
(d) The actual mar ket value of the property.
The appl icant must also give a bond, e xe c ute d
to th e a d v e r s e party in dou bl e th e valu e of th e
property as state d in the affidavit afore me nti one d,
for the return of the property to the adver se party
i f th e re tu r n t h e r e o f b e a d j u dg e d , an d for th e
pay me nt to the adverse party of such sum as he may
rec ove r from the appl icant in the acti on. (2a)
NOTE
1. In replevin, the bond to be posted by the applicant
must be double the value of the property sought to be
recovered; in attachment, the bond is in such amount as
may be fixed by the court, not exceeding the applicant's
claim or equal to the value of the property to be attached;
in injunction, the amount of the bond must also be fixed
by the court; while in receivership, a bond is now always
required of the applicant and shall be in the sum fixed by
the court in its discretion.
Sec. 3. Order. Upon the filing of such affidavit
and approval of the bond, the court shall issue an
or de r an d th e c o r r e s p o n d i n g wri t o f r e pl e v i n
d e s c r i b i n g th e pe r s on a l pr ope r t y al l e ge d to be
w r on g f u l l y d e t a i n e d , and r e qu i r i n g th e she ri ff
forthw ith to take such property into his custody.
(3a)
RUL E
60
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SE CS. 4-6
R UL E
60
REPLE VI N
SEC . 7
sufficienc y of th e bond, or of th e su re t y or s ur e t i e s
t h e r e o n ; o r i f th e a d ve r s e pa rt y s o obj ects, an d th e
cour t affi rms its a p p r o va l of th e a p p l i c a n t ' s bond
or a p p r o v e s a ne w bond , or i f th e a d ve r s e p a r t y
r e q u i r e s th e r e t u r n o f th e p r o p e r t y bu t hi s bon d i s
obj e ct e d t o an d found insuffici ent an d h e doe s no t
f o rt h w i t h file a n a p p r o ve d bond, th e p r o p e r t y shal l
be d e l i ve r e d t o th e a p p l i c a n t . I f for an y re a so n th e
p r o pe r t y i s no t de l i ve re d t o th e a ppli c a nt , th e sheriff
mus t r e t u r n i t t o th e a d ve r s e pa rt y . (6a)
NOTE S
1. In order to recover the possession of the personal property
which was taken under a writ of replevin, the defendant
must post a redelivery bond as required by Sec. 5 and serve
a copy of such bond on the plaintiff within 5 days from the
taking by the officer. Both requirements are mandatory
and must be complied with within the 5-day period (Case,
et al. vs. Jugo, et al., 77 Phil. 517).
2. The defendant is entitled to the return of the property
taken under a writ of replevin, if:
(a)
to
the
ri gh t t o th e posse s si on thereof, s t a t i n g th e gr o u n d s
t h e re fo r , an d serve s such affidavit upo n th e sheriff
757
RUL E
60
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 7
RUL E
60
REPLE VI N
SE C S . 8-10
NOTE
1. The provisions of this section are virtually the
same as the rule for third-part y claims in execution
(Sec. 16, Rule 39) and in attachment (Sec. 14, Rule 57).
Sec. 8. Return of papers. The sheriff must file
the or der, with his pr oce e di ngs indor sed the re on,
with the court w ithi n ten (10) days after taki ng the
property me n ti one d the rein. (8a)
Sec. 9. Judgment. After trial of the i ssue s,
th e c our t shal l d e t e r mi n e wh o ha s th e righ t o f
pos se s si on to and the value of the property and shall
render ju dg me n t in the alternative for the del ivery
the reof to the party e nti tle d to the same, or for its
val ue in cas e de l i ver y c ann o t be made, and also
for such da mage s as either party may prove, with
costs. (9a)
Sec. 10. Judgment to include recovery against sureties.
The amount, if any, to be aw ar de d to any party
u po n an y bon d file d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h th e
pr ov i s i on s of thi s Rule, shall be c l ai me d, asce r
tai ne d, and granted under the same procedure as
prescribe d in sec ti on 20 of Rule 67. (10a)
NOTES
1. Sec. 8 has been amended to reduce from 20 days to 10
days the period within which the sheriff must file with the
court the papers stated therein.
2. The plaintiff who obt ains possession of the personal
property by a writ of replevin does not acquire absolute title
thereto, nor does the defendant acquire such title by rebonding the property, as they only hold the propert y
subject to the final judgment in the action.
759
RUL E 60
RE MEDI AL LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC S . 8-10
RUL E
60
REPLE VI N
S E C S . 8-10
RULE
60
SECS. S-io
RULE 61
SU PPOR T
PENDENTE LITE
Secti on 1. Application. At th e c o m m e n c e m e n t
o f th e p r o pe r ac ti o n o r p r oc e e di n g , o r a t an y tim e
p ri o r t o th e j u d g m e n t o r fi nal o r d e r , a ve ri fie d
a p p l i c a t i o n for s u p p o r t pendente lite ma y be filed
b y an y pa rt y s t a t i n g th e g r o u n d s for th e clai m an
d th e f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n s o f bot h p a r t i e s , an d
a c c o m p a n i e d b y a ffi da vi t s , d e p o s i t i o n s o r o t h e r
a u t h e n t i c d o c u m e n t s i n s u p p o r t thereof, (la )
Sec. 2. Comment. A copy of th e a p p l i c a t i o n
an d al l s u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t s sh a l l b e s e r v e d
upo n th e a d ve r s e pa rt y , wh o shall ha v e five (5) da y s
to c o m m e n t on th e sam e , unl e s s a differe nt pe ri o d
i s fixed by th e c ou r t upo n hi s m oti on . Th e com
me n t shal l b e ve ri fie d an d shal l b e a c c o m p a n i e d
b y a ffida vit s, de p o s i t i o n s o r ot he r a u t h e n t i c doc u
me nt s in s u p p o r t thereof. (2a, 3a)
Sec. 3. Hearing. After th e c o m m e n t is filed, or
after th e e x p i r a t i o n of th e tim e for its filing, th e
a p p l i c a t i o n shall b e set for h e a r i n g not mor e t ha n
t hre e (3) da y s t h e re a f t e r . Th e facts in issue shall
be prove d in th e sam e m a n n e r as i s p ro vi d e d for
e vi de nc e on m oti ons . (4a)
NOTES
1.
763
RULE 61
RE M E DI A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE CS. 4-5
765
RUL E
61
SUP P OR T P E N DE N T E
LITE
SE C S . 4-5
Whe n th e p e r s o n or de r e d t o giv e s u p p o r t
pendente lite refuse s or fails to do so, any third
person wh o furnishe s support to the applic ant may,
after due notice and he ari ng in the same case, obtain
a w ri t o f e x e c u t i o n t o e n f o r c e hi s r i g h t o f
r e i m b u r s e m e n t a g a i n s t th e pe r s o n or de r e d t o
provi de such support, (n)
NOT ES
1. Since support does not consist merely of giving money to
the beneficiary, the amended Sec. 4 of this Rule makes
mention of "other forms of support" and the "mode for
providing the support." Sec. 5, as amended, retains the
sanctions of both execution pendente lite and contempt
against the disobedient party. It also considers the
possibility that a third person may have furnished suppor t
to th e a pp l i c a nt , in which case a righ t of reimbursement
is recognized in favor of that third person who may obtain a
writ of execution, on motion in the same case, against the
party who should legally provide such support.
2. While an order for suppor t pendente lite is interlocutory,
the same, however, is subject to execution. Being an
interlocutory order and one for support, the same may be
modified at any stage of the proceedings. The remedy, if the
order is with grave abuse of discretion, is certiorari with
preliminary injunction.
3. The support granted under this Rule is provisional in nature
and the actual amount and terms of its pay ment shall be
determined in the final judgment. If the judgment is in
favor of the defendant,
the support pendente lite is
discontinued (Saavedravs. Ybahez Estrada, 56 Phil.
33) and the court should make findings and provisions
for the restitution of the amounts unjustifiedly received
as support pendente lite. Sec. 7 now provides therefor.
RUL E 6 1
RE M E DI A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SEC S.
45
767
RUL E
61
LITE
SE C . 6
RULE
61
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 7
769
RUL E
61
SUP P OR T P E NDE NT E
LITE
SEC . 7
771
P R E L I M I N A R Y C O N S I D E R A TI O N S
therein cited). Under B.P. Blg. 129, such writs issued by the
Regional Trial Courts are now enforceable within their
respective regions (Sec. 21[1]J).
5. There are three special civil actions which can be filed in or
are within the jurisdiction of the so-called inferior courts,
or courts of the first level, viz.:
(a ) Inte rple ade r, provided the amount involved is within its
jurisdiction (Makati Development Corp. vs. Tanjuatco, et al,
L-26443, Mar. 25, 1969);
(b) Ejectment suits (Sec. 88, R.A. 296; Rule 70); and
(c) Contempt (Secs. 1 and 4, Rule 71).
6. By virtue of Sec. 3 of Rule 1, the provisions of Rule 16 on
motion to dismiss are applicable in special civil actions
(see National Power Corporation vs. Valera, L-15295, Nov.
30, 1961).
7. Under Sec. 9, B.P. Blg. 129, the then Intermediate
Appellate Court had original jurisdiction to issue writs of
ce rtiora ri, prohibition, ma ndam us and quo wa rra nt o
whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Such
original jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the Supreme
Court (Sec. 17[2], R.A. 296) and the Regional Trial Courts
(Sec. 2111], B.P. Blg. 129). The confluent ori ginal
jurisdiction of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now, the
Court of Appeals) and the Supreme Court in these cases
is, however, subject to the restriction in the Interim Rules
which provides:
"17. Petition for writs of certiorari, etc. No
petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas
corpus or quo w a r r a n t o may be filed in the
Int e rme di at e Appellate Court if anot her similar
petition has been filed or is still pending in the
Supreme Court. Nor may such petition be filed in
PR EL I MI N A RY
C O N S I D E R ATI O N S
773
RULE 62
IN T E R P LE A D E
R
Secti on 1. Interpleader when proper. W h e ne ve r
c onfli c ti n g cl ai m s upo n th e sam e subje c t m a t t e r ar
e o r ma y b e ma d e a g a i n s t a pe r s o n wh o cl ai m s n o
i n t e r e s t w h a t e v e r i n th e s u b j e c t m a t t e r , o r a n
i n t e r e s t whic h i n whol e o r i n pa r t i s no t d i s p u t e
d b y th e c l a i m a n t s , h e ma y bri n g a n ac ti o n a ga i n s
t th e c o n f l i c t i n g c l a i m a n t s t o c o m p e l t h e m t o
i n t e r p l e a d an d l it i ga t e t he i r se ve ra l c la i m s a m on g
t h e m s e l ve s , (la , R63)
Sec. 2 . Order. Upo n th e fi ling of th e com
pl ai nt , th e c ou r t shal l issue a n orde r r e q u i r i n g th
c o n f l i c t i n g c l a i m a n t s t o i n t e r p l e a d w i t h on
a n o t h e r . I f th e i n t e r e s t s o f j u st i c e s o r e q u i r e , th
c o u r t ma y d i r e c t i n suc h o r de r t ha t th e s u b j e c
m a t t e r be pai d or de l i ve r e d t o th e c ourt . (2a, R63)
e
e
e
t
RULE
62
R E ME D I A L LAW C OMP E ND I U M
SEC S. 5-7
and
RULE
62
INTERPLEADER
SECS. 5-7
RULE
82
R E ME D I A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC 8
5-7
R UL E
62
INT E RP LE ADE R
S E C S . 5-7
RULE 63
DECLARATORY RELIEF
AND SIMILAR REMEDIES
Section 1. Who may file petition. Any person
i nte reste d unde r a de e d, will, c ontr ac t or other
written instrument, or whose rights are affected by
a statute, e xecuti ve order or regulati on, or dinance,
or any other gover nme ntal regulati on may, before
breach or vi olation thereof, bring an acti on in the
appropriate Regi onal Trial Court to deter mi ne any
questi on of c onstructi on or validity arising, and for
a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.
An acti on for the ref or mati on of an instru
ment, to quiet title to real property or remove clouds
therefrom, or to consolidate ow nershi p under Article
1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this
Rule, (la , R64) (As amended by Resolution of the
Supreme Court, dated Feb. 17, 1998)
NOTES
1. The first paragraph refers to declaratory relief. The second
paragraph refers to the action to quiet title, authorized by
Arts. 476 to 481 of the Civil Code; the action for the
reformation of an instrument authorized under Arts. 1359
to 1369 of the Civil Code; and the action to consolidate
ownership required by Art. 1607 of the Civil Code in a sale
with right to repurchase. These three remedies are
considered similar to declaratory relief because they also
result in the adjudication of the legal rights of the litigants,
often without the need of execution to carry the judgment
into effect.
2. In declaratory relief, the subject-matter is a deed, will,
contract or other wri t te n i n st ru m e nt , st a t ut e ,
R UL E
63
D E C L A R ATOR Y RE L IE
F A N D SIMI LAR
778
RE ME DI
ES
SEC . 1
785
RUL E
63
R E ME D I A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC S. 2-3
R UL E
63
D E C L A R ATOR Y R E LI E
F AN D SIMI LAR
RE MEDIE S
SE C S . 4- 6
(3a, R64)
781
780
RUL E
63
R E ME D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE CS . 4-6
782
63
D E C L A R ATOR Y R E LI E
F A N D SIMI LAR
RE ME DI E S
SE C S . 4- 6
784
RUL E
63
R E ME D I A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC S . 4-6
RULE 64
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS
OR RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Section 1. Scope. This Rule shall govern the
review of j u dg me n t s and final or ders or resol uti ons
of the Commi ssi on on Elections and the Commi ssi on
on Audit, (n)
Sec. 2. Mode of review. A ju dg me n t or final order
or resol uti on of the Commission on Elec ti ons and the
Commi ssi on on Audit may be brought by th e
a g g r i e v e d par t y t o th e S u p r e m e Cour t o n
c e r ti or ar i un de r Rule 65, e xc e p t as h e r ei na ft e r
provi de d, (n) (As amended by Resolution of the Supreme
Court, dated Feb. 17, 1998)
Sec. 3. Time to file petition. The petiti on shall
be filed w ithi n thirty (30) days from notice of the
ju dg me n t or final order or resoluti on sought to be
revi ew e d. The filing of a motion for new trial or
r ec on si de r at i on of said judgme nt or final order or
resol uti on, i f all ow e d under the proce dural rules of
th e C o m mi s s i o n c o n c e r n e d , shall i nte r r u p t the
period herei n fixed. If the motion is de nie d, the
aggr ie ve d party may file the petiti on w ithi n the
re mai ni ng period, but which shall not be less than
five (5) days in any event, rec kone d from notice of
denial, (n)
Sec. 4. Docket and other lawful fees. Upon the
filing of the petiti on, the petitioner shall pay to the
clerk of court the doc ket and other lawful fees and
de posi t the amount of P500.00 for costs, (n)
785
RUL E 64
RE M E DI A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SE CS. 1-4
NOTES
1. This new Rule is based on the provisions of Art. IX-A
of the 1987 Constitution regarding the three constitutional
commissions provided for therein, one of the common
provisions therefor being as follows:
"SEC. 7. Each commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its members any case or matter
brought before it within sixty days from the date of
its submission for decision or resolution. A case or
matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution
upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memo
randum required by the rules of the commission or
by the commission itself. Unless otherwise provided
by the 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."
2. The remedy of certiorari in this Rule against
adjudications of the constitutional commissions is now
applicable only to the Commission on Elections and the
Commission on Audit. Pursuant to authority granted in
the aforequoted provision, and as explained in the early
part of this volume, Congress enacted R.A. 7902 amending
Sec. 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, effective Marc h 18, 1995,
eliminating such recourse to the Supreme Court and
transferring the revising power to the Court of Appeals
over all adjudications of the Civil Service Commission. For
that matter, the same amendment was made with respect
to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals.
3. As a consequence, the Supreme Court issued Revised
Administrative Circular No. 1-95
implementing the
foregoing a m e n d m e n t and inc l udi n g the Civil Service
Commission among the quasi-judicial agencies whose
786
787
R UL E
64
R E VI E W OF J U D G M E N T S , ETC.
5 OF C OME L E C AN D COA
SEC .
RUL E
64
RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 5
RUL E 6 4
R E VI E W OF J U D G M E N T S , ETC.
7 OF C OM EL E C AN D COA
SE C . 6-
No ot he r pl e a di n g may be filed by an y pa rt y
unl e s s r e q u i re d or all owed by th e Court, (n)
RUL E
64
RE M E DI A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SEC S. 8-9
NOTES
1. Sec. 6 of this Rule is similar to the provisions of the first
paragraph of Sec. 6, and the second paragraph of Sec. 8,
both of Rule 65. The reason therefor is obviously to prevent
resort to the petitions under both Rules for dilatory
purposes.
2. Sec. 7 contains specific re quirem ent s on what should
accompany and be contained in the comment of the
respondents, with the further caveat that no other
pleadings shall be filed by the parties without prior leave
of the Supreme Court.
Sec. 8. Effect of filing. Th e filing of a pe t it i on
for c e r t i o r a r i shal l no t sta y th e e x e c ut i o n of the
j u d g m e n t , final o r d e r o r r e s o l u t i o n sough t t o b e
re vi e w e d , unl e s s th e S u p r e m e C ou r t shal l di re c t
o t h e r w i s e upo n suc h t e rm s a s i t ma y dee m just, (n)
Sec. 9. Submission for decision. U n l e s s th e
C our t sets th e case for ora l a r gu m e n t , o r re qu i re s
th e p a r t i e s t o s u b m i t m e m o r a n d a , th e case shall
be de e m e d s u b m i t t e d for de c i si o n upo n th e filing of
th e c o m m e n t s o n th e p e t i t i o n , an d suc h o t h e r
p l e a d i n g s o r p a p e r s a s ma y b e r e q u i re d o r
allowed, or th e e x p i r a t i o n of th e pe ri o d to do so.
(n)
NOTE
1. Sec. 8 emphasizes the basic rule that the mere
filing of the petition shall not be a bar to execution where
proper under the circumstances, unless otherwise directed
by the Supreme Court such as through a temporary
restraining order. Sec. 9, just like similar provisions in
the other Rules, is based on the provisions of Sec. 15(2),
Art. VIII of the Constitution.
RULE 65
C E RT IO R A R I , P R O H I B I T I O N
AND MAND AMUS
Se c ti on 1. Petition for certiorari. W he n an y
t r i b u n a l , b oa r d o r offi cer e x e r c i s i n g j u d i c i a l o r
q u a s i - j u d i c i a l f u nc t i o n s ha s ac te d w i t h o u t o r i n
e xce s s o f its o r hi s j u r i s d i c t i o n , o r wit h gra v e abus e
of d i s c r e t i o n a m o u n t i n g to lack or exce ss of its or
his j u r i s d i c t i o n , an d the r e i s n o a pp e a l , o r an y plai n,
spe e d y, an d a d e q u a t e re me d y i n th e o r d i n a r y cours e
of law, a pe rso n a ggri e ve d t he re b y ma y file a verified
pe t i t i o n i n th e p r o p e r court , al le gi n g th e facts wit h
c e rt a i nt y an d p r a yi n g t ha t j u d gm e n t b e r e n d e r e d
a n n u l l i n g o r m o d i f yi n g th e p r o c e e d i n g s o f suc h
t r i b u n a l , b o a r d o r offi c e r , an d g r a n t i n g s u c h
i n c i d e n t a l relie fs a s law an d j ust ic e ma y r e q u i re .
Th e p e t i t i o n shal l b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a
c e rt i fie d tru e copy o f th e j u d gm e nt , orde r o r reso
l uti o n subj e c t thereof, copies of all pl e a di n g s an d
d o c u m e n t s r e l e va n t an d p e r t i n e n t t h e r e t o , an d a
swor n c e rt i f ic a ti o n o f no n -fo ru m s h o p p i n g a s
p ro vi d e d in th e t hi r d p a r a gr a p h of sec t i on 3 , Rule
46. (la )
NOTES
1.This amended section now expressly includes a respondent
exercising quasi-judicial functions. The second paragraph
has also been amended to additionally requi re a
certification of non-forum shopping which assumes
added importance by reason of the fact that, under the
present procedural laws, the Supreme Court, Court of
Appe a l s and Regional Trial Court s have concurrent
jurisdiction in actions for certiorari, prohibition and
m a n da m u s , hence forum shopping or multiple
791
RUL E
65
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. l
793
R UL E 65
CE RTIORARI , P R OHI B I T I O N
1 AN D M A N D A M U S
SE C
RUL E
66
R E ME D I A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 1
and
m a n da m u s are
RUL E 65
CE RTI OR A RI , P R O HI B I T I O N
1 AN D M A N D A M U S
SEC .
RUL E
66
RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 1
RUL E 65
SEC .
RUL E
65
RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 1
65
CE RTI OR A RI , P R OHI B I T I O
N AN D M A N D A M U S
SEC . 1
RULE
65
REME DIAL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC. 2
65
SEC . 2
CE RTI OR A RI ,
P R OHI B I T I O N AN D
MANDAMU S
r e l e v a n t an d p e r t i n e n t t h e r e t o , an d a sw or n
certi fic ati on of non-forum shop pi ng as provi de d in
the third paragr aph of secti on 3 , Rule 46. (2a)
NOTE S
1. Prohibition is a preventive remedy. However, to prevent
the respondent from performing the act sought to be
prevented during the pendency of the proceedings for
the writ, the petitioner should obtain a restraining order
and/or a writ of preliminary injunction.
2. Prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial
functions, but not to legislative functions (Ruperto,
etc. vs. Torres, etc., et al., 100 Phil. 1098 fUnrep.J). It is
available against public officers who were appointed under
an unconstitutional executive order (Mun. of San Joaquin
vs. Siva, et al., L-19870, Mar. 18, 1967).
3. In order tha t prohibition will lie against an executive
officer,
the petitioner must first exhaust all
a dm i ni s t r a t i v e reme die s, as prohibition is available
only whe n t he r e ar e no ot he r pl ain, speed y and
a d e q u a t e re m e di e s in th e ordi na r y course of law
(Cabedo, et al. vs. Director of Lands, et al., L-12777,
May 23, 1961).
4. Certiorari, prohibition and ma ndam us do not generally
lie, subject to well-settled exceptions, against the
legislative and executive branches or the members
thereof acting in the exercise of their official functions,
basically in consideration of the respect due from the
judiciary to said departments of co-equal and coordinate
ranks under the principle of separation of powers. Also,
the acts sought to be impugned may be essentially poli
801
800
RULE
66
SEC. 2
65
C E RTI ORA R I ,
P R O HI B I T I O N AN D
MANDAMU S
SEC . 3
RULE
65
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC. 3
65
CE RTI OR A RI .
P R OHI B I T I O N AN D
MANDA
MU S
SEC . 3
6.
RULE
65
REME DIAL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC.
7. Formerly, when there was no period fixed for the filing of the
petition for mandamus, the time was variable as the ends
of justice may demand (Reparations Commis sion vs.
Macadaeg, L-20619, July 29, 1968), but the petition must
be filed within a reasonable time and the petitioner must
not be guilty of laches (Contreras vs. Villaraza, et al., G.R.
No. 53372, Aug. 21, 1980). The policy of the Supreme
Court is not to deny the writ if the result would be to
deprive a party of his substantive rights and leave him
without remedy (Centenera vs. Yatco, 106 Phil. 1064; Phil.
Merchant Marine Academy vs. CA, et al, L-38212, Feb.
27, 1976). Now, under the next section, the petition
must be filed not later than 60 days after notice of the
judgment, order or resolution.
8. Where a municipality fails without justifiable cause to pay
a final money judgment against it, the claimant may avail
of mandamus to compel the enactment and the
corresponding disbursement of municipal funds therefor.
Aside from the fact that it is a ministerial and mandatory
duty to obey a final judgment, this remedy is further
justified by the fact that public funds or property necessary
for public use are generally exempt from a tt a c hm e nt or
execution, hence the claimant would ot he rwi se be st uck
with an empt y j ud gm e n t (see Municipality of Makati vs.
CA, et al, G.R. Nos. 89889- 99, Oct. 1, 1990).
9.Mandamus does not lie to compel the perfor mance of a
contractual duty (Quiogue vs. Del Rosario, 46 Phil. 337),
especially if the contract is disputed, and such mandamus
suit cannot be converted into an ordinary action for breach
of contract (NAMARCO vs. Cloribel, L-27260, April 29,
1968). Sec. 3 refers to acts enjoined by law to be done,
hence, contractual duties are outside the scope of the writ
(Prov. ofPangasinan vs. Reparations Commission, et al, L27448, Nov. 29, 1977). Furthermore, there are other
available remedies in the ordinary
R UL E 65
C E RTI ORA R I , P R O HI B I T I O N
3 AN D M A N D A M U S
SE C .
RUL E
65
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC. 4
R UL E 65
CE RTI OR A RI , P R O HI B I T I O N
4 AN D M A N D A M U S
SE C
RULE
65
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC. 4
65
CE RTI OR A RI .
P R O HI B I T I O N AN D
MANDAMU S
SE C . 4
810
RULE
65
R E ME D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SEC. 5
813
RUL E
65
CE RTI OR A RI , P R O HI B I T I O N
5 AN D M A N D A M U S
SE C .
RUL E
66
R E ME D I A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC.
R UL E
65
CE RTIORARI , P R O HI B I T I O N
AN D M A N D A M U S
SE C . 6
816
RUL E
65
R E ME D I A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SE CS . 7-8
R UL E 65
CE RTI OR A RI , P R OHI B I T I O N
9 AN D M A N D A M U S
SE C
RULE
65
R E ME D I A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 9
RULE 66
QUO WARRANTO
S e c t i o n 1.
Action
by
Government
against
individuals. An ac ti o n for the us u r pat i o n of a
pu bli c office, pos i ti on or franc hi se may be com
me nce d by a verified petition brought in the name
of the Re publi c of the P hili ppines against:
(a) A person wh o usur ps, i ntr ude s into, or un lawfully
hol ds or e xerci se s a public office, position or
franchise;
(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by
pr ovi si on of law, c onstitutes a ground for the
forfeiture of his office; or
(c) An assoc iati on whic h acts as a corporation w i t h i n th
e P h i l i p p i n e s w i t h o u t be i n g l e g a l l y inc or por ate d
or without lawful authority so to act. (la)
NOTES
1. This amended Rule is now limited to quo warranto
proceedings involving a public office, position or franchise.
Par. (c) of Sec. 1 refers to an association which exercises
corporate functions or powers although it has not been
legally incorporated. In the case of a legally incorporated
entity, the quo warranto action is now governed by the
Corporation Code. For that reason, the former Sec. 2 of
this Rule, which provided for quo warranto against a
corporati on, has not been reproduced here, and all
references to proceedings in quo wa rra nt o involving
corporations as provided in the former Rule have been
eliminated.
2. Quo warranto is the remedy to try disputes with respect to
the title to a public office. Where, however,
819
RULE
66
RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 1
RUL E
66
QU O
WAR R A N T O
SE C S . 2- 4
RULE
66
RE M E DI A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SEC S. 5. 6
R UL E
66
QU O
WAR R A N T O
SE C S . 7 , 8- 9
r e s p o n d e n t i s un l aw fu l l y in p o s s e s s i o n thereof.
All pe r s on s wh o cl ai m to be entitle d to the public
office, positi on or franchise may be made parties,
and their res pe c ti ve rights, to such public office,
p o s i t i o n o r fr a n c h i s e d e t e r mi n e d , i n th e sam e
action. (7a)
Sec. 7. Venue. A n acti on under the prec e di ng
six se c ti on s can be br ought only in the Su pre m e
Court, th e Court of A ppe al s , or in the Re gi ona l
Trial Court e xe rci si ng juri sdic ti on over the terri
tor ial are a w he r e th e r e s p o n de n t or an y of th e
res pon de nts resi de s, but when the Solicitor General
c o m m e n c e s th e ac t i on , i t ma y be br ou g h t in a
Re gi onal Trial Court in the City of Manila, in the
Court of Appe al s, or in the Supreme Court. (8a)
NOTE
1. Sec. 7 has been amended to include the Court
of Appeals, consonant with the provision of Sec. 9, B.P. Blg. 129
grantin actions, concurrently with the Supreme Court and the
Regional Trial Court.
RULE
66
REME DIAL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SE CS. 10-11
RUL E
66
QU O
WAR R A N T O
SE C . 12
825
RULE
66
SEC. 12
RUL E
66
QU O
WAR R A N T O
SE C . 12
RULE 67
EXPROPRIATION
Section 1. The complaint. The right of eminent
domain shall be e xercised by the filing of a verified
complaint which shall state with certainty the right
and pur pose of expropriation, describe the real or
personal property sought to be expropriated, and
join as defendants all persons ow ning or claiming
to own, or occupying, any part thereof or interest
therein, showing, so far as practicable, the separate
i nte res t of eac h de f e n dan t . I f th e title to any
property sought to be expropriated appears to be
i n th e R e p u b l i c o f th e P h i l i p p i n e s , a l t h o u g h
occupied by private indivi dual s, or if the title is
otherw ise obsc ure or doubtful so that the plaintiff
cannot with accuracy or certainty specify who are
the real ow ner s, aver ment to that effect shall be
made in the complaint, (la)
NOTES
1. Eminent domain, which is properly a concept of political or
constitutional law, is the right of the State to acquire
private property for public use upon the payment of just
compensation. That right extends to private property
partly or entirely personal and the process of acquisition is
substantially the same (see Act 204). The requirement of
due process calls for a rule of procedure to be observed in
the exercise of the right of eminent domain which is more
familiarly known in our jurisdiction as expropriation but,
in the American jurisdiction, is often referred to as
condemnation.
Since our Rule on the matter is of American origin,
the term "condemnation" has heretofore also been used.
It was felt, however, that expropriation should be the more
828
R UL E
67
E X P R OP R I ATI O
SEC .
830
RUL E
67
RE M E DI A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SEC
RUL E
67
E X P R O P R I ATI O N
SE C . 2
NOTES
1. Under P.D. 42, what was required to be deposited was an
amount equivalent to the assessed value of the land and
the deposit should be made with the Philippine National
Bank or any of its branches or agencies (see San Diego
vs. Valdellon, L-45673, Nov. 22, 1977). However, under
P.D. 1533, effective June 1, 1978, the deposit required was
changed to ten per cent (10%) of the amount of
compensation as provided therein (see Note 2 under Sec. 9 of
this Rule). This section now provides for the amount of
the preliminary deposit, i.e., the assessed value of the
property for purposes of taxation. Also, mere notice to the
landowner,
without
prior
hearing,
suffices for
immediate entry on the land (Haguisan vs. Emilia, et
al., L-40108, Aug. 31, 1984).
2. . The p r e l i m i na r y de posi t unde r this secti on
c o n s t i t u t e s a d va nc e pa ym e n t i n th e e ve n t th e
expropriat ion proceeds, and sta nds as indemnit y for
damages should the proceedings not succeed
(Visayan
Refining Co. vs. Camus, 40 Phil. 550).
3. The preliminary deposit is only necessary if the plaintiff
desires entry on the land upon its institution of the action;
otherwise, it could always wait until the order
of
expropriation is issued before it enters upon the land.
4. Owners of expropriated lands are entitled to legal interest
on the compensation eventually adjudged from the date
the condemnor takes possession of the land until the full
compensation is paid to them or deposited in court (Digran
vs. Auditor General, L 21593, April 29, 1966; Valdehueza vs.
Republic, L 31032, May 19, 1966; Republic vs. Tayengco,
L-23766, April 29, 1967).
5. Some modifications have been made in this section to
addre ss contem pora ry changes and practice. For
i n s t a n c e , thi s secti on spea k s of such a u t h o r i z e d
831
RUL E
67
RE M E DI A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC.
R UL E
67
E X P R O P R I AT I O N
SE C . 2
I t wa s th e G o v e r n m e n t ' s c o nt e nt i o n t h a t th e
expropriation action should be governed by Rule 67, and
not R.A. 8974 as was later held and followed by the judge
presiding over the expropriation court. On review by
certiorari, the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Trial
Court's position that, in this particular case, R.A. 8974
had superseded Rule 67.
Prima ril y, the Suprem e Court noted two crucial
differences in the respective procedures involved under
th e s t a t u t e an d th e Rul e. Unde r R.A. 8974 , th e
Government is required to make an immediate direct
pa yme nt to the propert y owner upon the filing of the
complaint to be entitled to a writ of possession; whereas in
Rule 67, the Government has only to make an initial
deposit with an aut hori ze d go ve rnm e nt de posi tar y.
Furt he r, R.A. 8974 provides, as a standard for initial
compensation, the market value of the property as stated
in the tax declaration or the relevant zonal valuation,
whereas Rule 67 prescribes that the initial deposit be
merely equivalent to the assessed value of the property
for purposes of taxation.
As borne out by the deliberations in Congress, the
plain intent of R.A. 8974 is to supersede the system of
deposit under Rule 67 with the scheme of "immediate
p a ym e n t " i n cases i nvol vi ng na ti ona l go ve r nm e n t
infrastructure projects. The appropriate standard of just
compensation is a substanti ve matter well within the
province of the legislature to fix. Such payment is based
on the zonal valuation of the land, the value of the
improvements under the replacement cost method, or if
no such valuation is immediately available, the proffered
value of the propert y. Nonetheless, it recognizes the
continued applicability of Rule 67 on procedural aspects.
833
834
RUL E
67
RE M E DI A L LAW
COMPENDIU M
SEC.
R UL E
67
E X P R OP R I ATI O N
SEC . 3
RUL E
67
RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 4
R UL E
67
E X P R O P R I ATI O N
Afte r th e r e n d i t i o n o f suc h a n
pl a i n t i f f shal l no t b e p e r mi t t e d t o
di sc on ti nu e the pr oc e e di ng e xce pt on
as the court dee m s just and equitable.
SEC . 5
or de r , th e
d i s mi s s o r
such ter ms
(4a)
NOTES
1. The order of expropriation forecloses any further objections
to the right to expropriate, including the public purpose of
the same. The only substantial issue thereafter is the
matter of just compensation.
2. Being determinative of the question of the right to
expropriate, such order of condemnation is a final order on
that issue and is appealable (see Uriarte us. Teodoro, 86
Phil. 196).
3. The special civil action of expropriation is, as a
consequence of the foregoing provisions of Sec. 4, one
wherein multiple appeals are permitted. An appeal may
be t a k e n from th e a fore sai d orde r a u t h o r i z i n g
expropriation and, thereafter, another appeal lies against
the judgment on the just compensation to be paid (see
Secs. 10 and 11). The significance of this fact is that, just
as in special proceedings, the reglementary period to appeal
shall be 30 days and a record on appeal shall be required
for each of the permissible appeals.
Sec. 5. Ascertainment of compensation. Upon
the r en di ti o n of the or de r of e xpr opr i a ti on , the
c our t sh al l a p p o i n t no t mor e tha n t h r e e (3 )
c o m p e t e n t an d d i s i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s a s com
mi ssi one rs to ascertain and report to the court the
just c o mpe n sa ti o n for the property sought to be
taken. The order of appointme nt shall de si gnate
the time and place of the first sessi on of the he ari ng
to be held by the commi ssi oner s and specify the time
838
RUL E
67
R E ME D I A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SEC. 5
R UL E
67
E X P R O P R I ATI O N
SE C S . 6 -
RUL E
67
REME DIAL
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE CS. 8-9
R UL E
67
E X P R OP R I ATI O N
SE C S . 8- 9
RUL E
67
RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SE CS . 8-9
R UL E
67
E X P R O P R I A TI O N
S E C S . 8- 9
RULE
67
RE M E DI A L LAW C O M P E N D I U M
SEC. 10-11
RUL E
67
E X P R O P R I ATI O N
SE C S . 12-14
RULE
67
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC. 12-14
846
R UL E
67
E X P R OP R I ATI O
SE C . 12-14
RULE
67
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC. 12-14
RUL E
67
E X P R O P R I ATI O N
SEC . 12-14
850
RULE 68
FORECLOSURE OF
REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE
Secti on 1. Complaint in action for foreclosure. In
an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage or other
encumbrance upon real estate, the complaint shall
set forth the date and due e xecuti on of the mortgage;
its assignme nts, if any; the names and resi dences of
the mortgagor and the mortgagee; a descripti on of
the mortgaged property; a state ment of th e dat e of
th e not e or othe r d oc u me n t a r y evi dence of the
obligation secured by the mortgage, the amount
claimed to be unpaid thereon; and the na me s and
r e s i de n c e s of all pe r s on s havi n g or clai mi ng an
interest in the property subor di nate in right to that
of the holder of the mortgage, all of whom shall be
made defendants in the actions,
(la)
NOTES
1. This section is a virtual copy of the former Sec. 1 of this
Rule.
2. A foreclosure action must be brought in the Court of First
Instance of the province where the land or any part
thereof is situated. If a mortgage contract covers several
distinct parcels of land situated in different provinces,
the action may be brought in the Court of First Instance of
any of the provinces and the judgment will be enforceable
against any of the parcels of land involved (Monte de Piedad
vs. Rodrigo, 56 Phil. 301; El Hogar Filipino vs. Seva, 57 Phil.
537; B.P.I, vs. Green, 57 Phil. 712). Now, for Court of First
Instance, read Regional Trial Court; and, for province,
read region, but subject to the territorial allocation made
by the Supreme Court of
RUL E
68
FORE CL OSUR E O F
REA L E STAT E M ORTAG E
SE C . 1
REME DIAL
LAW C OMP E ND I U M
SEC. 2
68
FORE CL OSUR E O F
REA L E STAT E M ORTAG
E
SEC . 2
RULE
68
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC. 3
RUL E
68
FORE CL OSUR E O F
REA L E STAT E M ORTAG E
SEC . 3
p e r s o n s h ol di n g pr i o r e n c u m b r a n c e s upo n th e
property or a part thereof, and whe n confir me d by
an or der of th e court, also upon moti on, i t shall
ope rate to di ve st the rights in the property of all
the par ti es to the action and to vest their rights in
the purchase r, subject to such rights of rede mpti on
as may be al l ow e d by law.
Upon the finality of the order of c onfir mati on
or upon the e xpi rati on of the period of rede mpti on
whe n al l ow e d by law, the purchaser at the aucti on
sale or last rede mpti one r, if any, shall be entitle d
to the p o s s e s s i o n of the proper ty unl e s s a thir d
party i s ac tual ly hol ding the same adversely to the
j u d g m e n t o bl i g or . Th e sai d p u r c h a s e r o r las t
re de mpti one r may secure a writ of posse ssi on, upon
m o t i o n , fro m th e c ou r t w h i c h o r d e r e d th e
forecl osure. (3a)
NOTES
1. To the first paragraph of this amended section, which is the
same as tha t a ppea ri ng in the former provision, has been
added a second paragraph regulating the issuance of a writ
of possession. As a general rule, the purchaser is entitled
to possession of the property sold to him upon the finality
of the order of confirmation of the sale; and the same is
true with respect to the last re de m pt i oner, upon the
expi rati on of the period of redemption. The second
paragraph, however, provides for exceptions as evolved
in our jurisprudence.
2. Where, after extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate
mortgage, the mortgagee purchased the same at the
foreclosure sale, he shall be entitled to a writ of possession
despite the fact that the premises are in the possession of a
lessee whose lease has not yet terminated, unless the lease
has been previously registered in the Registry of Property
or the mortgagee had prior actual
856
RULE
68
REME DIAL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC.
RUL E
68
F ORE CL OSUR E O F
RE A L E STAT E
M ORTAG E
SE C . 4
1963).
RULE
68
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SE CS. 5-6
r e s i d u e , a f t e r p a y i n g of f t h e m o r t g a g e d e b t d u e , th e
s a m e s h a l l b e p a i d t o j u n i o r e n c u m b r a n c e r s i n th e
o r d e r o f t h e i r p r i o r i t y , t o b e a s c e r t a i n e d b y th e
c o u rt , o r i f t h e r e b e n o s u c h e n c u m b r a n c e r s o r t h e r
e b e a b a l a n c e o r re s i d u e afte r p a y m e n t t o t h e m , the
n t o th e m o r t g a g o r o r h i s d u l y a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t ,
o r t o th e p e r s o n e n t i t l e d t o it. (4a )
858
U R E O F REAL E STAT E
M ORTGA G E
SE C S . 5-6
NOTES
1. Sec. 6 provides for a deficiency judgment which shall be
rendered, on motion, when the foreclosure sale did not
produce proceeds sufficient to satisfy the judgment. Such a
deficiency judgment is immediately executory if the
balance is all due.
Where, however, the mortgage was executed by a
third person to secure the obligation of a debtor, such third
person not ha ving assumed personal liability for the
payment of the debt, the extent of recovery in the
judgment of foreclosure shall be limited to the purchase
price at the foreclosure sale and no deficiency jud gm e nt
can be recovered against said person (Phil. Trust Co. vs.
Tan Suisa, 52 Phil. 852). The reason for this is the fact
that the mortgage contract itself delimits the extent of the
relief against the third party mortgagor. The remedy of the
mortgagee is to proceed against the debtor in an ordinary
action for a sum of money to recover the balance of the
debt due.
2. In extrajudical foreclosure, the mortgagee can also recover
by action any deficiency in the mortgage account which
was not realized in the foreclosure sale (DBP vs. Mirang, L29130, Aug. 8, 1975; DBP vs. Zaragosa, L-23493, Aug.
23, 1978; PNB vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 121739, June 14,
1999). There can be no deficiency judgme nt as there
was no judicial proceeding in the foreclosure of the
mortgage itself.
3. A different rule applies in the case of a mortgage debt due
from the estate of a deceased mortgagor. Under Sec. 7,
Rule 86, there are three alternative remedies available
to the mortgage creditor who, however, can avail of only
one of them. If he avails of the third mode, that is, by
relying upon his mortgage alone and foreclosing the same
858
RULE
68
REME DIAL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SE CS. 7-8
RUL E
68
F ORE CL OSUR E O F
RE A L E STAT E
M ORTGA G E
SE C S . 7-8
NOTES
1. Sec. 7 has been supplemented by the provisions of Sec.
61 of P.D. 1529 on land registration, with some
modifications, to provide more specificity to the
procedure for registration relative to foreclosure sales.
2. The former Sec. 8 of this Rule providing for judicial
foreclosure of chattel mortgages has been eliminated
as the subject is more properly addressed to the
provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law and the pertinent
prescriptions thereon of the Civil Code.
3. For special provisions on foreclosure of mortgages by
go ve rn m e n t financial inst i t ut i ons, see P.D. 385 ,
effective J anua r y 31 , 1974, with the purpose thereof and
the limi tati ons the reon being explained in Filipinos
Marble Corp. vs. IAC, et al. (G.R. No. 68010, May 30,
1986).
4. . In A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, the Suprem e Court
a dopte d th e a dd i t i o na l Rules on the Pr oc e du r e
in Ext rajudici al or Judicial Foreclosure of Real
E state Mortgages, effective March 10, 2007, as follow:
(1) No temporary restraining order or writ of
pre l im i na r y injunction agai nst the extraj udicial
foreclosure of real estate mortgage shall be issued
on the allegation that the loan secured by the
mortgage has been paid or is not deliquent unless the
application is verified and supported by evidence of
payment.
(2) No temporary restraining order or writ of
pre limi nar y injunction agai nst the extrajudicial
foreclosure of real estate mortgage shall be issued
on the a ll e ga t i on tha t the i nte re s t on the loan i s
unconscionable, unless the debtor pays the
mortgage at least twelve percent per annum interest
861
RUL E 68
SE CS.
7-8
RULE 69
PARTITION
Se c ti on 1. Complaint in action for partition of real
estate. A pe rson havi n g the right to compel the
par ti ti on of real e state may do so as provi de d in this
Rule, se tti n g forth in his c ompl ai nt the nature and
e xtent of his title and an ade quate descri pti on of
the real e state of w hic h partition i s de ma n de d and
joi ni ng as de fe n dant s all other per sons inte reste d
in the property, (la)
Sec. 2. Order for partition, and partition by agree
ment thereunder. If after the trial the court finds
that the plaintiff has the right thereto, i t shall order
the partiti on of the real estate a mong all the parties
in i nte rest. The reu pon the parties may, i f they are
able to agree, make the partition amon g t he mse l v e s
by proper i nstr u me nts of conveyanc e, and the court
shall confirm the partition so agree d upon by all
the partie s, and such partiti on, toge ther with the
or de r of the c our t c onfi r mi ng the same, shall be
rec or de d in the registry of dee d s of the place in
w hich the property is situate d. (2a)
A fi na l or de r d e c r e e i n g p a r t i t i o n an d/ o r
ac c ou nti n g may be appeale d by any party aggrieved
thereby, (n)
NOTES
1.
863
RULE
69
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC. 3
RULE 69
PARTITION
SECS. 4-6
RULE
69
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SE CS. 7-8
RUL E
69
PARTIT I O
SE C S . 9-11
(8a)
RULE 69
SECS. 12-13
RUL E
69
PARTIT I O N
SE C S . 12-13
RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Sec ti on 1. Who may institute proceedings, and
when. Su bje c t to the p r ov i s i o n s of th e next
s u c c e e d i n g s e c t i on , a pe r s o n de pr i v e d of the
p o s s e s s i o n o f an y lan d o r b u i l di n g b y force ,
i n ti mi d a t i o n , threat , st r a te gy , or ste al th , or a
lessor, ve n dor, ve n de e , or other pe rson against
who m the pos s e s si o n of any land or bui l di ng is
u n l a w f u l l y w i t h h e l d afte r th e e x p i r a t i o n o r
te r mi n at i o n of the right to hold p os se s s i on , by
virtue of any contract, e xpress or implied, or the
legal represe ntatives or assigns of any such lessor,
vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time
within one (1) year after such unlawful de privati on
or w ithhol di ng of posse ssi on, bring an action in the
proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or
pe r s on s unl aw ful ly w i th h ol di n g or de pr i vi ng of
p os s e s s i o n , or any pe r s o n or pe r s on s c l ai mi n g
under the m, for the restituti on of such posse ssi on,
together with da mages and costs, (la)
Sec. 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after
demand. Unless otherw ise sti pulate d, such action
by the lessor shall be comme nced only after demand
to pay or comply with the conditi ons of the lease
and to vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving
written notice of such de man d upon the person
found on the premises, or by posting such notice
on the premises if no person be found thereon, and
the lessee fails to comply therew ith after fifteen (15)
days in the case of land or five (5) days in the case
of buildings. (2a)
870
RUL E
70
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN D
U N L AWF U L D E TAI N E R
SEC . 2
NOTES
1. The provisions of the former Sec. 1 of this Rule have been
maintained in this amended Sec. 1, except that the
requirement for the verification of the complaint has been
included in the provisions of the present Sec. 4 since, as a
consequence of the adoption of the summary rule for
ejectment cases, all the pleadings authorized therein are
required to be verified.
The reference to the Agricultural Tenancy Act in said
former Sec. 1 has also been transposed to the new Sec. 3,
under the general denomination of all agricultural tenancy
laws, due to the developments in the coverage of social
legislation since 1964.
The pre se n t Sec. 2 re ta i ns the subst a nc e of its
predecessor, the text of which was merely rephrased for
simplicity and clarity.
2. Ejectment suits can be maintained with respect to all kinds
of land (Robles vs. Zambales Chromite Mining Co., 104 Phil.
688), but agricultural lands under tenancy are now subject
to the land reform laws, and cases arising thereunder were
within the jurisdiction of the agrarian courts. Said
agrarian courts, however, have now been integrated with
the Regional Trial Court, as branches thereof, under B.P.
Blg. 129. See the subsequent changes as explained in
Note 2 under Sec. 2 of Rule 1.
The inferior court has no jurisdiction over an agrarian
dispute even if the action obstensibly appears to be one
for forcible entry (Arevalo vs. Benedicto, et al., L-27895,
July 31, 1974).
3. The three kinds of action for the recovery of possession of
real property are:
871
872
RULE
70
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC. 2
R UL E
70
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN D
U N L A WF U L D E TAI N E R
SE C . 2
RUL E
70
R E ME D I A L LAW C OMP E ND I U M
SEC. 2
70
FOR C IB L E E N TR Y AN
D U N L AWF U L
D E TAI N E
R
SE C . 3
RUL E
70
REME DIAL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC
70
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN
D U N L AWF U L
D E TAI N E R
SEC . 2
et al, L-48419, Oct. 27, 1983; Santos, vs. CA, et al., G.R.
No. 60310, Mar. 27, 1984; Dionio vs. IAC, et
al.,
G.R. No. 63698, Jan. 12, 1987). This applies to verbal
contracts on a month-to-month basis (Zablan vs. CA,
et al, G.R. No. 57844, Sept. 30, 1987; Miranda vs. Ortiz,
et al, G.R. No. 59783, Dec. 1, 1987).
9. Where forcible entry was made through stealth, the oneyear period should be counted from the time the
plaintiff learned thereof (Vda. de Prieto vs. Reyes, L-21470,
June 23, 1965; City of Manila vs. Garcia, et al, L26053, Feb. 21, 1967; Elane vs. CA, et al, G.R. No.
80638, April 26, 1989).
Where defendant ' s entry upon the land was with
pl a i nt i ffs tole rance right from the date and fact of
entry, unlawful detainer proceedings may be instituted
within one year from the demand on him to vacate as there
is an implied promise on his part to vacate upon demand
(Yu vs. De Lara, L-10684, Nov. 30, 1962). The status of
such a defendant is analogous to that of a tenant or
lessee, the term of whose lease has expired but whose
occupancy is continued by the tolerance of the lessor
(Vda. de Cachuela vs. Francisco, L-31985, June 25, 1980).
The same rule applies where the defendant purchased
the house of the former lessee, who was already in arrears
in the pa ym e nt of rentals, and thereafter occupied the
premises without a new lease contract with the landowner
(Dakudao, et al. vs. Consolacion, et al, G.R. No. 54753,
June 24, 1973; Peran vs. Presiding Judge, etc.,
G.R. No. 57259, Oct. 13, 1983).
10. Where the complaint fails to specifically aver facts
constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer as where
it does not state how entry was effected or how and when
877
878
RULE
70
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC. 2
70
FOR C IB L E E N TR Y AN
D U N L A WF U L
D E TAI N
ER
SEC . 2
RULE
70
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC. 3
other civil cases where the plaintiffs claim does not exceed
P 10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Excluded from this pre se nt amended Rule are
ejectment cases covered by the agricultural tenancy laws
RUL E
70
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN
D U N L A WF U L
D E TAI N E R
SE C S . 4-7
RULE
70
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC S. 8-9
R UL E
70
F OR CI BL E ENTR Y AN D
U N L A WF U L D E TAI N E R
SE C S . 10-11
1. . W h e t h e r th e par ti e s hav e ar r i ve d at an
amicable settle me nt, and i f so, the ter ms thereof;
2. . The sti pul ati ons
the parties;
entered into by
the
RUL E
70
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC S.
12-13
o f th e la s t a f f i d a v i t o r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f th e p e ri o
d fo r f i l i n g th e s a m e .
Th e c o u r t sh a l l no t r e s o r t t o th e f o r e g o i n g
p r o c e d u r e j u s t t o g a i n t i m e fo r t h e r e n d i t i o n o f th e
j u d g m e n t , (n )
Sec .
12 .
Referral
for
conciliation.
C a s es
r e q u i r i n g r e f e r r a l fo r c o n c i l i a t i o n , w h e r e t h e r e i s
n o s h o w i n g o f c o m p l i a n c e wit h su c h r e q u i r e m e n t ,
s h a l l b e d i s m i s s e d w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e , an d ma y b e
rev i v e d onl y afte r th a t r e q u i r e m e n t sha l l h a v e bee n
c o m p l i e d w i t h . ( 1 8a , R S P )
Re p ly ;
11 . T h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t s ;
F OR CI BL E
EN TR Y AN D
U N L A WF U L D E TAI N E
R
SE C S . 12-14
RULE
70
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC S . 12- U
889
RUL E 7 0
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN D
U N L AWF U L D E TAI N E R
SE C S . 12-14
RULE
70
SECS. 12-14
R UL E 7 0
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN D
U N L AWF U L DE TAI N E R
SE C S .
12-14
RULE
70
SEC S. 15. 20
70
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN
D U N L AWF U L
D E TAI N E R
SE C S . 15, 2 0
RULE
70
SEC. 16
R UL E
70
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN D
U N L A WF U L D E TAI N E R
SEC . 16
894
RULE
70
REME DIAL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC S.
17-18
RUL E
70
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN
D U N L AWF U L
D E TAI N E R
SE C S . 17-18
RULE
70
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SE CS. 17-18
RUL E
70
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN
D U N L AWF U L
D E TAI N E R
SE C S . 17-18
897
RULE
70
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM P E N D I U M
SE C8 . 17-18
70
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y
AN D U N L AWF U L
D E TAI N E R
SE C . 19
&
the
the
the
the
RULE
70
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OMP E ND I U M
SEC. 19
RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY
AND UNLAWFUL
DETAINER
SE C . 19
NOTES
1. This section is a copy of Sec. 8 of the former Rule, except
for the updated nomenclature of the courts and the
amendment that rentals paid during the pendency of the
appeal in the Regional Trial Court shall be deposited in
the same court, or in an authori ze d governm ent
depository bank and not in the provincial or city
treasury.
2. Execution pending appeal in ejectment cases is governed
by Sec. 8 (now, Sec. 18) of Rule 70, not by Sec. 2 of Rule
39. The latter provision requires good reasons before a
writ of execution can be issued in favor of the prevailing
party and is subject to the sound discretion of the court.
Its counterpart under this Rule does not require the
showing of good reasons as it is a matter of right (San
Miguel Wood Products, Inc. vs. Tupas, et al., A.M.
No. MTJ-93-892, Oct. 25, 1995).
3. The order for the issuance of a writ of execution to
immediately enforce the judgment of the inferior court
is interlocutory and not appealable
(De Po vs.
Moscoso,
93 Phil. 427). The same rule applies in both types of
ejectment suits. Also, the fact that the decision of the
court a quo in ejectment cases is immediately executory
does not mean that notice of the motion to the adverse
party is unnecessary. A party would not be in a
position to stay execution unless he is notified of the filing
of that motion for execution (Kaw vs. Anunciacion, Jr.,
etc., et al, A.M. No. MTJ-93-811, Mar. 1, 1995).
4. Immediate execution is proper if the judgment is in
favor of the plaintiff. If the judgment is in favor of the
d e f e n da n t with an awa rd for da ma ge s unde r his
counterclaims, such judgment is not immediately
executory and can be executed only after the lapse of the
903
900
RULE
70
SEC . 19
70
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN
D U N L AWF U L
D E TAI N E R
SE C . 19
RUL E
70
COMPENDIU M
SEC. 19
70
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN
D U N L AWF U L
D E TAI N E R
SEC . 21
RULE
70
RE MEDI AL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SEC. 21
RUL E
70
FOR C IB L E EN TR Y AN D
U N L A WF U L D E TAI N E R
SEC . 21
RULE 71
CONTEMPT
Sec ti on 1. Direct contempt punished summarily.
A person guilty of misbehavi or in the presence
of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the
procee dings before the same, including disrespect
tow ar d the court, offensive pe r sonal i tie s toward
others, or refusal to be sw orn or to answ e r as a
witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or de position
when lawfully required to do so, may be summarily
adjudged in conte mpt by such court and punished
by a fine not e xc e e di n g tw o th ou s a n d pe so s or
i mpri son me nt not e xcee ding ten (10) days, or both,
if it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of equi
valent or higher rank, or by a fine not exceeding
two hundred pesos or i mpri son me nt not e xcee ding
one (1) day, or both, if it be a lower court, (la)
NOTES
1. This is an exact copy of the former Sec. 1 of this same Rule,
except for the increased penalties and the specification
that the "superior court" referred to therein is the
"Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher
rank," and "lower court" is used instead of "inferior court."
2. The increased penaltie s for direct contempt under this
section and for indirect contempt in Sec. 3 of this Rule
were already imposed by the Supreme Court in its
Adm i ni st rat i ve Circular No. 22-95, effective November
16, 1995. It took judicial notice of the fact that the
penalties for contempt in the 1964 Rules of Court were the
same penalties imposed in Secs. 1 and 6, Rule 64 of the
1940 Rules of Court, or more than 55 years ago. It also
took cognizance of the fact that the amount of the
908
RULE
71
CONTEMPT
SEC.
RUL E
71
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM P E N D I U M
SEC.
RUL E
71
CONT E MP T
SEC . 3
NOTES
1. This amended provision substantially changes the
procedure under the former Rules. The present remedy
from a judgment holding a person in direct contempt by
any court is the special civil action of certi orari or
prohibition under Rule 65.
This change has to be emphasized since under the
former Rules, judgments of municipal courts holding a
person guilty of direct or indirect contempt were appealable
to the Court of First Instance, while judgments of the
superior courts on direct contempt were not appealable
(Cornejo vs. Tan, etc., 85 Phil. 772). The present uniform
rule has made the procedure
more simple and realistic.
2. It was formerly held that a person adjudged by a Court of
First Instance as guilty of direct contempt may instit ute an
original action for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court
(Tinagan vs. Perlas, L-23965, Jan. 30, 1968). This was a
justifiable remedy if the penalt y imposed was
im pri sonme nt , and not merely a fine, especially since at
that time, judgments of superior courts on direct contempt
were also not appealable. With the change effected by this
amended section, the remedy of habeas corpus may possibly
be availed of in extreme cases in view of the fact tha t
the re is a judicial order of commitment and certiorari may
lie. Ordinarily, however, both remedies may not be
simultaneously availed of since certiorari and prohibition
presuppose that there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, and that is not true
where habeas corpus can and has been invoked as
another remedy.
Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge
and hearing. After a charge in writing has been
filed, and an opportunity given to the responde nt
to c omme n t the reon within such period as may be
911
RULE
71
REME DIAL
LAW
C OM PE N D IU M
SE CS. 6-7
RUL E
71
C ON T E M P T
SEC . 3
NOTES
1. With some minor changes in the phraseology, this provision
is a reproduction of the former Sec. 3 of this Rule. It is
now specified that the respondent should
(a) be given an opportunity to comment on the charge
within such period fixed by the court, and (b) be heard
thereon by himself or counsel.
Thus, the procedural requisites for indirect con
tempt proceedings are (a) a charge in writing or an
order of the court to appear and explain, and (b) an
opportunity for the respondent to comment on the charge
and to appear and explain his conduct.
2. A contempt case is a special civil action governed by Rule 71
and by the rules on ordinary civil actions but only insofar
as they are not inconsistent with the rules on this special
civil action. A respondent in a contempt charge is not
required to file a formal answer similar to that in ordinary
civil actions. Instead, the court must set the contempt
charge for hearing on a fixed date on which the respondent
must make his appearance to answer the charge (Sec. 4). If
he shall fail to appear on that date without justifiable
reason, the court may order his arrest (Sec. 9), just like the
accused in a criminal case who fails to appear when so
required. The court does not declare the respondent in a
contempt charge in default since this proceeding partakes of
the nature of a criminal prosecution and should follow a
procedure similar thereto (Fuentes, et al. Leviste, et al.,
supra).
3. A pe rso n ca nnot be puni she d for alle ge d disobedience
of an order of the court, such as a writ of execution
directing the sheriff to place the plaintiff in possession of
the property held by said person. Said writ is addressed
to the sheriff, not to that person, and it is the sheriff who
must perform his duty under Sec. 8, Rule 39 and in
accordance with the directives contained in the writ
913
RUL E
71
RE M E DI A L LAW
C OM P E N D I U M
SEC.
RUL E
71
CONTEMP T
SE C . 4
RULE
71
RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 5
R UL E
71
People vs.
CONT E MP T
Orpilla-Molina,
SE C S . 6-7
RULE
71
REME DIAL
LAW
COMPENDIU M
SE CS. 8-9
R UL E
71
CONTEMP
SE C S . 10-11
105 Phil. 944; cf. Quinio vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 113867,
July 13, 2000).
RULE 71
SECS. 10-11
920
RUL E
71
CONT E MP T
SE C . 12
RUL E
71
RE M E DI A L LAW C OM P E N D I U M
SEC. 12