Civil Procedures Notes

Civil%Procedures%SY%201342014
November(16,(2013(
The$rules$of$Court$is$promulgated$by$the$Supreme$Court$as$
part$of$its$rule6making$power$pursuant$to$Sec.$5$(5)$Art$VIII$
of$the$1087$Constitution.$
Consti$ itself$ mandated$ that$ the$ Supreme$ Court$
shall$promulgate$
$
Court((is$an$entity$or$body$vested$with$a$portion$of$judicial$
power$
Regular( Court( ( refers$ to$ the$ 4$ courts$ comprising$
the$judicial$part$of$the$government(
o SC,$CA,$RTC,$MTC(
(
Types(of(Municipal(Court((FIRST(LEVEL(COURTS)(
Metropolitan$Trial$Courts($within$Metro$Manila$
Municipal$Trial$Courts$in$Cities$
Municipal$Trial$Courts$$6$if$a$municipality$or$town$is$
so$big,$then$it$only$has$1$court$
Municipal$ Circuit$ Trial$ Courts$ $ in$ small$
towns/municipalities$combined$(usually$2$or$3)$
(
Classification(of(Courts(
Superior$Courts$vs$Inferior(
Original$Courts$vs$Appellate$Courts(
Courts$ of$ General$ Jurisdiction$ vs$ Courts$ of$ Limited$
Jurisdiction(
Constitutional$Courts$vs$Statutory$Courts(
Civil$Courts$vs$Criminal$Courts(
Courts$of$Law$vs$Court$of$Equity(
(
Equity(follows(the(Law(
$
Our$ courts$ can$ apply$ the$ law$ of$ equity$ in$ absence$
of$a$law.$But$if$there$is$a$law,$the$court$should$apply$the$law.$
BEST$ EXAMPLE:$ Ours$ is$ a$ government$ of$ law$ and$ not$ of$
men$
$
Courts$perform$their$function$on$the$basis$of$authority$given$
to$that$court$by$law.$What$do$you$call$that$authority?$
$
Jurisdiction$ $ power$ of$ the$ court$ to$ hear$ try$ and$ decide$ a$
case.$ It$ is$ derived$ from$ the$ words$ JURIS$ which$ means$ law$
and$DICO$which$means$to$speak.$$
I$speak$with$the$authority$of$the$law.$
$
Jurisdiction$ distinguished$ from$ exercise$ of$ jurisdiction.$ An$
error$in$jurisdiction$is$correctible$by$certiorari$while$an$error$
in$ the$ exercise$ of$ jurisdiction$ or$ an$ error$ in$ judgment$ is$
correctible$by$appeal.$
Remedies$available$is$different.$
o Error$ in$ Jurisdiction$ $ File$ motion$ to$
dismiss$ a$ case$ because$ the$ court$ has$ no$
jurisdiction.$
! You$dont$have$to$wait$when$the$
trial$ starts,$ you$ can$ go$
JKB!Rm!405!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
immediately$ to$ the$ higher$ court$

and$file$motion(for(certiorari.(
Error$ in$ the$ exercise$ of$ Jurisdiction$ $ File$
an$appeal$to$the$higher$court.$
$
Motion( for( Certiorari( (Rule( 45)( ( special$ action$ $ original$
action$ $ to$ correct$ the$ action$ of$ the$ court$ below$ $ grave$
abuse$of$discretion$or$no$jurisdiction.$
$
Type(of(Jurisdiction((
General$vs$Special$or$Limited$
Original$vs$Appellate$
Exclusive$vs$Concurrent$
o Exclusive$ $ case$ can$ only$ be$ filed$
exclusively$to$a$certain$court$
o Concurrent$ $ case$ can$ be$ tried/$ filed$ in$
different$courts.$
! Certiorari,$
Madamus,$
Quo$
Warranto$ $ you$ can$ file$ to$ RTC,$
CA$or$even$directly$to$SC$
Delegated$Jurisdiction$of$MTC$
o Delegated$$the$jurisdiction$belong$to$one$
court$ and$ can$ be$ delegated$ to$ another$
court$by$virtue$of$a$law.$
Jurisdiction(distinguished(from(Venue(
Jurisdiction$ is$ the$ authority$ to$ hear$ and$ decide$ a$
case$ while$ Venue$ refers$ to$ the$ place$ where$ the$
case$is$to$be$tried.$
Jurisdiction$ is$ a$ matter$ of$ substantive$ law$ while$
Venue$is$procedural$
Jurisdiction$is$fixed$by$law$and$cannot$be$conferred$
by$ the$ parties$ while$ Venue$ may$ be$ conferred$ by$
agreement$of$the$parties.$
o Contract$ of$ Addition$ $ will$ be$ discussed$
later.$
Jurisdiction$ establishes$ a$ relation$ between$ the$
court$ and$ the$ subject$ matter$ while$ Venue$
establishes$the$relation$between$the$parties.$
$
Elements( of( Jurisdiction( (Requisites( for( exercise( of(
Jurisdiction)(
a.$Jurisdiction$over$the$subject$matter.$
Conferred$ by$ law$ &$ not$ by$ agreement$ of$ parties.$
Neither$ is$ it$ conferred$ by$ silence$ except$ through$
Estoppel$by$Laches$(Tijam$vs$Sibonghanoy).$
Laches$ $ unreasonable$ delay$ to$ bring$ action$ in$ court;$
sleeping$on$our$right.$
$
Jurisdiction$ is$ determined$ by$ allegations$ in$ the$
complaint.$ Exception:$ Forcible$ entry$ &$ Unlawful$
detainer$ case$ where$ the$ allegations$ in$ the$
complaint$ shows$ agricultural$ tenancy$ agreement.$
(Ignacio$vs$CFI$of$Bulacan)$
$
1!
Civil%Procedures%SY%2013%42014!
Where$ the$ action$ turns$ out$ to$ be$ an$ Unfair$ Labor$
Practice$ case,$ the$ RTC$ has$ no$ jurisdiction$
(Mindanao$Rapid$Co.$vs$Omandam)$
$
b.$Jurisdiction$over$the$person$of$the$parties$
Upon$plaintiff$$by$the$filing$of$the$complaint$
Upon$defendant$
o Service$of$summons$
o Voluntary$ appearance$ or$ submission$ to$
the$courts$jurisdiction$
$
c.$ Jurisdiction$ over$ the$ issues$ of$ the$ case$ is$ determined$ by$
the$pleadings.$
$
d.$Jurisdiction$over$the$res$(THING)$is$acquired$by$the$actual$
or$constructive$seizure$by$the$court$of$the$thing$in$question,$
thus,$ placing$ it$ in$ custodial$ egis,$ as$ in$ attachment$ or$
garnishment.$If$the$court$acquires$jurisdiction$over$the$res$it$
can$ acquire$ jurisdiction$ even$ if$ defendant$ has$ not$ received$
the$summons.$
$
Supreme(Court((the$only$court$created(by(the(Constitution(
including$its$powers,$jurisdiction$and$functions.$$
$
This$is$the$reason$why$the$power$of$the$SC$cannot$
be$diminished$or$reduced$by$the$Congress.$
$
2(Powers(of(the(SC(
Judicial(Power((power$to$decide$cases(
Administrative( Power( ( power$ of$ the$ SC$ to$
supervise$and$administer$all$other$courts$below(
$
Jurisdiction(of(the(Supreme(Court$
A.(Original(Jurisdiction:(
The$Supreme$Court$shall$have$the$following$powers:$
1.$ Exercise$ original$ jurisdiction$ over$ cases( affecting(
ambassadors,(other(public(ministers(and(consuls,$and$over$
petitions( for( certiorari,( prohibition,( mandamus,( quo(
warranto,( and( habeas( corpus$ (Art$ VIII$ Sec$ 5$ of$ 1987$
Constitution)$
Can$be$filed$directly$$to$the$SC$as$an$original$action$
or$original$case$
$
B.( Appellate( Jurisdiciton( ( all$ cases$ decide$ by$ the$ CA$ and$
appealable$directly$to$the$SC$
$
Review,$revise,$reverse,$modify$or$affirm$on$appeal$
or$certiorari,$as$the$law$or$the$Rules$of$Court$may$provide,$
final$judgments$and$orders$of$lower$courts$in:$
1. All$cases$in$which$the$constitutionality$or$validity$of$
any$ treaty,$ international$ or$ executive$ agreement,$
law,$ presidential$ decree,$ proclamation,$ order,$
instruction,$ordinance,$or$regulations$is$n$question.$
2. All$ cases$ involving$ the$ legality$ of$ any$ tax,$ impost,$
assessment,$ or$ toll,$ or$ any$ penalty$ imposed$ in$
relation$thereto.$
2! !
!
3.
4.
5.
!!!!!
All$ cases$ in$ which$ the$ jurisdiction$ of$ any$ lower$

court$is$in$issue$
All$ criminal$ cases$ in$ which$ the$ penalty$ imposed$ is$
reclusion$perpetua$or$higher.$
All$ cases$ in$ which$ an$ error$ or$ questions$ of$ law$ is$
involved.$
$
What( is( the( mode( of( appeal?$ Petition$ for$ certiorari$ under$
Rule(45.$
$
Rule(45(vs(Rule(65.(
Rule(65$$a$special(civil(action,$which$is$a$mode$of$
appeal$ based$ on$ grave$ abuse$ of$ discretion$ or$ lack$
of$jurisdiction.(
(
EX:( A$filed$a$case$against$B$in$the$wrong$court$(RTC).$Then$
RTC$ decided$ the$ case$ even$ without$ jurisdiction.$ B$ can$
appeal$to$the$CA$by$way$of$appeal$under$Rule$65$on$grave$
abuse$ of$ discretion$ amounting$ to$ lack$ or$ excess$ of$
jurisdiction.$
(
Rule(45$6$the(former(is(the(mode(of(appeal(to(the(
SC(by(way(of(petition(for(certiorari.((
o NOT$ A$ SPECIAL$ CIVIL$ ACTION$ 6$ This$ is$ a$
mode$of$appeal,$in$fact,$it$is$the$only$mode$
of$appeal$to$the$supreme$court.(
(
What(are(the(decision(that(you(can(go(DIRECTLY(to(the(SC(
for(an(appeal(for(certiorari?(
Decisions$of$CA(
Decisions$of$SandiganBayan$(
There( are( also( decisions( of( the( RTC( that( you( can(
appeal(directly(to(the(SC(without(passing(to(the(SC(
o IN( CIVIL( CASES( ( if$ you$ raise$ a$ pure$
question$of$law(
o IN( CRIMINAL( CASES( ( if$ the$ penalty$
imposed$ is$ death$ or$ life$ imprisonment$ $
AUTOMATIC$APPEAL(
Decisions$of$3$Constitutional$Commissions(
(
Distinguish(a(question(of(law(from(a(question(of(fact.(
GR:( Only$ questions$ of$ law$ can$ be$ entertained$ in$ SC.$
Questions$of$fact$maybe$automatically$denied.$
(
Questions( of( FACT( ( the$ allegations$ of$ the$ parties,$ the$
evidences$presented,$the$determination$of$the$judge$of$the$
facts$presented.$
Who$has$a$better$version$of$facts?$
$
Questions( of( LAW( ( the$ laws$ used,$ the$ interpretation$ of$
law.$
$
The(issue(in(SC(should(be:(
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JKB!Rm!405!
6$ the$ law$ applied$ by$ the$ court$ below$ is$ not$ correct$ in$ the$
given$set$of$fact$
6$the$law$applied$is$correct,$BUT$lower$court$committed$and$
error(in(the(interpretation(of(law($
(
*There( are( some( cases( where( the( SC( tried( facts( a( to( be(
discussed(later.(
(
C.(Other(cases(falling(under(the(jurisdiction(of(the(Supreme(
Court(
1. Review$ decisions$ of$ the$ three( constitutional(
commissions( (COMMISSION( ON( ELECTION,(
COMMISSION( ON( AUDIT,( CIVIL( SERVICE(
COMMISSION)$ by$ way$ of$ petition$ for$ review$ on$
certiorari$(Art.$IX,$Sec.$7,$1987$Constitution)$
a. AMENDED$ by$ RA7902$ on$ appeal$ to$ CA$ of$
decisions$of$CSC$and$CBAA$
That%the%decisions%of%the%CSC%shall%now%be%
appealed%first%to%the%CA%before%to%the%SC.$
*Can$ a$ RA$ amend$ the$ provision$ of$ the$ constitution?$ YES,(
because$of$the$phrase$the$Consti$provides:$the$decisions$of$
3$ Consitutional$ Commissions$ can$ be$ appealed$ to$ the( SC(
UNLESS(OTHERWISE(PROVIDED(BY(THE(LAW(
(
The$Consti$itself$provides$that$a$law$maybe$passed$
that$will$change$the$modes$of$appeal$from$the$decisions$of$
the$court.$
$
2. Shall$ be$ the$ sole$ judge$ of$ all$ contests$ relating$ to$
the$ election,$ returns,$ and$ qualifications$ of$ the$
President$ or$ Vice6President,$ and$ may$ promulgate$
rules$for$the$purpose.$
3. Review$ the$ sufficiency$ of$ the$ factual$ basis$ of$ the$
proclamation$ of$ martial$ law$ or$ the$ suspension$ of$
the$ privilege$ of$ the$ writ$ of$ habeas$ corpus$ or$
extension$ thereof,$ and$ must$ promulgate$ its$
decisions$within$30$days$from$its$filing$(Art.$VII,$Sec.$
18(3)$of$the$1987$Constitution).$
$
D.(Administrative(Powers(of(the(Supreme(Court(
1. Assign$temporarily$Judges$of$lower$courts$to$other$
stations$as$public$interest$may$require.$
2. Order$ change$ of$ venue$ or$ place$ of$ trial$ to$ avoid$ a$
miscarriage$of$justice.$
3. Promulgate$ rules$ concerning$ the$ protection$ and$
enforcement$ of$ constitutional$ rights,$ pleadings,$
practice,$ and$ procedures$ in$ all$ courts,$ the$
admission$ to$ the$ practice$ of$ law,$ the$ Integrated$
Bar,$ and$ legal$ assistance$ to$ the$ underprivileged.$
Such$ rules$ shall$ provide$ a$ simplified$ and$
inexpensive$ procedure$ for$ the$ speedy$ disposition$
of$cases$shall$be$uniform$for$all$courts$of$the$same$
grade,$ and$ shall$ not$ diminish,$ increase$ or$ modify$
substantive$rights.$$
JKB!Rm!405!
!
4.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Appoint$all$officials$and$employees$of$the$Judiciary$
in$ accordance$ with$ the$ Civil$ Service$ Law$ (Art.$ VIII,$
Sec.$5,$par.$3,$4,$5,$&6$of$the$1987$Constitution)$
$
E.(Constitutional(Limitations(involving(Supreme(Court(
Art.$VIII,$Sec.$2$
$
The$ Congress$ shall$ have$ the$ power$ to$ define,$
prescribe,$ and$ apportion$ the$ jurisdiction$ of$ the$ various$
courts$ but$ may$ not$ deprive$ the$ Supreme$ Court$ of$ it$ s$
jurisdiction$over$cases$enumerated$in$Sec.$5$hereof.$
$
Article$VI,$Sec.$30$
$
No$ law$ shall$ be$ passed$ increasing$ the$ appellate$
jurisdiction$ of$ the$ Supreme$ Court$ as$ provided$ in$ this$
Constitution$ without$ its$ advance$ and$ concurrence.$ (Fabian$
vs$Desierto)$
$
Jurisdiction(of(the(Court(of(Appeals(
a(does$not$have$administrative$power$over$lower$courts$
$
History(and(Composition:(
The$ Court$ of$ Appeals$ created$ by$ the$ Judiciary$
Reorganization$ Act$ of$ 1948$ was$ changed$ to$
Intermediate$ Appellate$ Court$ (IAC)$ by$ BP$ 129$ in$
1981.$It$has$49$Justices$and$1$Presiding$Justice$with$
10$Divisions$at$5$members$per$division.$
Amended$ by$ EO$ no.$ 33$ in$ 1986$ with$ 51$ members$
divided$into$17$divisions.$
RA$ 8246$ (1997)$ amended$ EO$ 33$ by$ increasing$ the$
membership$to$69$with$23$divisions.$
(
A.(Original(Jurisdiction:(
1. To$issue$writs$of$mandamus,$prohibition,$certiorari,$
habeas$ corpus,$ and$ quo$ warranto,$ and$ auxiliary$
writs$ or$ processes$ whether$ or$ not$ in$ aid$ of$ its$
appellate$jurisdiction.$(Sec$9$par.$1,$BP$129)$
6$ these$ cases$ are$ also$ Concurrent( Jurisdictions( (
they(can(be(filed(in(RTC(and(SC(directly(
$
B.( Exclusive( Original( Jurisdiction( ( cases$that$you$can$only$
file$in$the$CA:(
1.$ Exclusive$ jurisdiction$ over$ action$ for$ annulment$ of$
judgments$of$RTC.$(Sec.$9,$par.$2,$BP$129)$
$
Remedies(of(Losing(Party(
Motion$for$Reconsideration/$Motion$for$new$trial$$
before$the$decision$of$the$court$becomes$final.$
Petition$of$relief$from$judgment$$if$final$already$
Annulment$of$Judgment$
$
C.(Appellate(Jurisdiction:(
1.$ Exclusive$ appellate$ jurisdiction$ over$ all$ final$ judgments,$
decisions,$ resolutions,$ orders$ or$ awards$ of$ the$ RTCs$ and$
quasi6judicial$ agencies,$ instrumentalities,$ boards$ or$
3!
commissions,$ including$ the$ Securities$ and$ Exchange$

Commission,$the$Social$Security$Commission,$the$Employees$
Compensation$ Commission$ and$ the$ civil$ Service$
Commission,$ except$ those$ falling$ within$ the$ appellate$
jurisdiction$ of$ the$ SC$ in$ accordance$ with$ the$ constitution,$
the$ Labor$ Code$ of$ the$ Philippines$ under$ PD$ 442,$ as$
amended,$ the$ provisions$ of$ this$ Act,$ and$ of$ subparagraph$
(1)$ of$ the$ third$ paragraph$ and$ subparagraph$ (4)$ of$ the$
fourth$paragraph$of$Sec.$17$of$the$Judiciary$Act$of$1948.$
(
Jurisdiction(of(the(RTC((In(Civil(Cases)(
A.(Exclusive(Original(Jurisdiction:(
1. In$ all$ civil$ actions$ in$ which$ the$ subject$ of$ the$
litigation$is$incapable%of%pecuniary%estimation;$
6$that$the$demand$is$not$capable$of$determination$
in$terms$of$money$
6$ this$ are$ cases$ that$ does$ not$ necessarily$ involve$
money,$ eg$ Specific$ Performance,$ Declaratory$
Relief,$$
a( Declaratory( Relief( ( asking$the$court$if$a$specific$
provision$ of$ a$ law$ is$ applicable$ to$ you,$
determination$of$your$rights$thereof$
$
2. In$ all$ civil$ actions$ which$ involve$ the$ title$ to,$ or$
possession$of,$real$property$or$any$interest$therein,$
where$ the$ assessed$ value$ of$ the$ property$ involved$
exceeds$ P20,$ 000.00$ or$ for$ civil$ actions$ in$ Metro$
Manila$ which$ such$ value$ exceeds$ P50,$ 000.00$
except$ actions$ for$ forcible$ entry$ and$ unlawful$
detainer$ of$ lands$ and$ building;$ original$ jurisdiction$
over$which$is$conferred$upon$the$Metropolitan$Trial$
Courts,$Municipal$Trial$Courts$and$Municipal$Circuit$
Trial$Courts;$
6$ Real( actions:$ Accion$ Pauliana,$ Reindivicatoria,$
Quieting$of$Title.$
$
3. In$ all$ civil$ Actions$ in$ admiralty$ and$ maritime$
jurisdiction$ where$ the$ demand$ or$ claim$ exceeds$
Three$ Hundred$ Thousand$ or$ in$ Metro$ Manila,$
where$such$demand$or$claim$exceeds$Four$Hundred$
Thousand$Pesos.$
6$Admiralty(and(Maritime(Cases(can(now(be(tried(
in(MTC(if(the(amount(is(below(above.$
$
4. In$ all$ matters$ of$ probate,$ both$ testate$ and$
intestate,$ where$ the$ gross$ value$ of$ the$ estate%
exceeds%(P300,000)%or,%in$probate$matters$in%Metro%
Manila,% where% such% gross% value% exceeds%
(P400,000);%
$
5. In$all$actions$involving$the$contract$of$marriage$and$
marital$relations;$
J$Annulment,$Legal$Separation$
$
4! !
!
6.
7.
8.
!!!!!
In$ all$ cases$ not$ within$ the$ exclusive$ jurisdiction$ of$

any$ court,$ tribunal,$ person$ or$ body$ exercising$
judicial$or$quasiJjudicial$function;$
6$all$other$cases,$a$catch6all$provision.$
$
In$ all$ civil$ actions$ and$ special$ proceedings$ falling$
within$ the$ exclusive$ original$ jurisdiction$ of$ a$
Juvenile$ and$ Domestic$ Relations$ Court$ and$ of$ the$
Court$ of$ Agrarian$ Relations$ as$ now$ provided$ by$
law;$
$
In$all$other$cases$in$which$the$demand$exclusive$of$
interest,$ damages$ of$ whatever$ kind,$ attorneys$
fees,$ litigation$ expenses$ and$ costs$ or$ the$ value$ of$
the$property$in$controversy$exceeds$P300,000$or,$in$
Metro$Manila$P400,000$
Jprincipal$ amount$ is$ the$ only$ basis$ even$ if$ the$
INCIDENTAL$ DAMAGES$ exceeds$ 300,000$ or$
400,000$
$
RA( 8369$ $ Created$ the$ Family$ Court$ and$ transferred$ the$
jurisdiction$ to$ try$ family( law( cases( from( RTC( to( Family(
Court(
$
RA( 6657$ $ known$ as$ the$ Comprehensive( Agrarian( Reform(
Law( of( 1988$ transferred$ the$ jurisdiction$ of$ the$ RTC$ to$ try$
agrarian$ cases$ to$ the$ DARAB$ (Department$ of$ Agrarian$
Reform$Adjudication$Board)$
EXCEPTIONS:$
o Payment$of$Just$Compensation$
o Prosecution$ of$ Criminal$ Offenses$ under$
CARL$
$
Collection(Case((the$basis$of$amount$for$the$determination$
of$ proper$ jurisdiction$ is$ the$ principal( amount( ( EXCLUDE(
INTEREST,(DAMAGES,(ATTYS(FEES,(LITIGATION(EXPENSES.(
a(THE(BASIS(IS(ONLY(THE(PRINCIPAL(LOAN(
EX:( You$ loan$ 250K,$ unpaid.$ Creditor$ filed$ case$ demanding$
payment$+$interest$of$40K$+$damages$of$50K$+$Attys$fee$50k$
+$ Reimbursement$ 20K.$ Where$ will$ it$ be$ filed?$ MTC!$ $
principal(is(the(only(basis.$250K$$below$300K$so$MTC.$
$
NOTE:$ The$ provision$ excluding$ damages$ in$ the$
determination$of$jurisdiction$applies$only$if$the$damages$are$
INCIDENTAL$ to$ the$ action.$ If( the( main( cause( of( action( is(
purely(for(damages,(you(include(it(in(the(determination(of(
jurisdiction.(
HOWEVER:( ( If$the$case$is$100%$damages,$then$the$amount$
of$ damages$ will$ be$ taken$ into$ consideration$ whether$ the$
court$has$jurisdiction$or$not.$
$
*So( that( rule( that( damages( should( be( excluded( is( only(
applicable( if( the( damages( is( only( incidental( to( the( main(
case.(
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JKB!Rm!405!
*If( purely( damages( =( add( all( =( 300k( below( MTC( /( 300k(

above(RTC(
$
NOTE:( Jurisdiction$ is$ determined( NOT( by( the( title( of( the(
complaint(but(by(its(allegation.$$
EXAMPLE:(Plaintiff$and$Defendant$entered$into$a$contract.$P$
deposited$amount$of$50k$money$to$assure$the$performance$
of$ the$ contract.$ After$ the$ performance$ of$ the$ contract,$ P$
wanted$the$return$of$the$50k$kay$deposit$ra$man$to$for$the$
compliance$of$the$contract.$But$D$will$not$return$the$money.$
So$P$filed$a$case$against$D.$
$
Ps$ lawyer$ on$ the$ other$ hand$ titled$ the$ case$
Collection(of(Sum(of(Money.(BUT(THIS(CASE(IS(NOT(ABOUT(
THE(COLLECTION.(SC$Held$that$what$he$is$asking$the$court$is$
the$ return$ of$ the$ money.$ IT( ISACTUALLY( FOR( SPECIFIC(
PERFORMANCE.$
Thus,$if$the$title$is$for$Collection$of$Sum$of$Money$
amounting$ to$ P50,$ 000$ but$ the$ allegation$ therein$ is$ for$
Specific( Performance$(to$return$the$money$deposited$after$
complying$ with$ the$ condition)$ the$ case$ should$ be$ filed$ not$
in$the$MTC$but$with$the$RTC.$
$
WHY(RTC?(Because(Specific(Performance(is(a(case(
that(is(incapable(of(pecuniary(estimation,(so(RTC.(
(
NOTE:( Decision$ of$ the$ PRC$ not$ in$ the$ exercise$ of$ its$ quasi6
judicial$function$is$appealable$to$the$RTC$
RULE(43:(Decisions%of%quasiHjudicial%bodies%(like%the%PRC)%is%
appealable% directly% to% the% CA% BUT% ONLY% IF% IT% IS% IN% THE%
EXERCISE%OF%ITS%QUASIHJUDICIAL%FUNCTION.%
%
So$ if$ it$ is$ not$ in$ the$ exercise$ of$ its$ quasi6judicial$
power,$dont$go$to$CA.$It$is$cognizable$through$the$RTC.$
$
B.(Concurrent(Original(Jurisdiction(
Sec.( 21$ $ Regional$ Trial$ Court$ shall$ exercise$ original$
jurisdiction:$
1. In$ the$ issuance$ of$ writs$ of$ certiorari,$ prohibition,$
mandamus,$ quo$ warranto,$ habeas$ corpus,$ and$
injunction$ which$ may$ be$ enforced$ in$ any$ part$ of$
their$respective$region$
2. In$ actions$ affecting$ ambassadors$ and$ other$ public$
ministers$and$consuls$
These(cases(can(be(filed(in(the(RTC(and(also(in(the(SC.(
$
C.(Appellate(Jurisdiction(
Sec.( 22$ Appellate$ Jurisdiction$ $ Regional$ Trial$ Courts$ shall$
exercise$ appellate$ jurisdiction$ over$ all$ cases$ decided$ by$
MeTC,$ MTCC,$ MTC$ and$ MCTC$ in$ their$ respective$ territorial$
jurisdictions.$Such$cases$shall$be$decided$on$the$basis$of$the$
entire$ record$ of$ the$ proceedings$ had$ in$ the$ court$ of$ origin$
and$such$memoranda$and/or$briefs.$
$
Jurisdiction(of(the(MTC(
A.(Exclusive(Original(Jurisdiction(a(Sec.(33((
1.$ Exclusive$ original$ jurisdiction$ over$ civil$ actions$ and$
probate$ proceedings,$ testate$ and$ intestate,$ including$ the$
JKB!Rm!405!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
grant$ of$ provisional$ remedies$ in$ proper$ cases,$ where$ the$

value$ of$ the$ personal$ property,$ estate,$ or$ amount$ of$ the$
demand$does$not$exceed$Three$Hundred$Thousand$Pesos$or$
in$ Metro$ Manila$ where$ personal$ property$ does$ no$ exceed$
Four$Hundred$Thousand$Pesos.$
$
Litigation$expenses,$and$costs,$the$amount$of$which$must$be$
specifically$ alleged:$ Provided,$ that( interest,( damages( of(
whatever( kind,( attorneys( fees,( litigation( expenses,( and(
costs( shall( be( included( in( the( determination( of( the( filing(
fees:$ Provided$ further,$ that$ where$ there$ are$ several$ claims$
or$causes$of$actions$between$the$same$or$different$parties,$
embodied$ in$ the$ same$ complaint,$ the$ amount$ of$ the$
demand$shall$be$the$totality$of$the$claims$in$all$the$causes$of$
action,$ irrespective$ of$ whether$ the$ causes$ of$ action$ arose$
out$of$the$same$or$different$transactions.$
*Earlier$ it$ is$ discussed$ that$ for( purposes( of(
determining( jurisdiction,( interest,$ damages$ or$ whatever$
kinds$ shall( be( excluded.( BUT( FOR( DETERMINING( THE(
FILING( FEE,( YOU( MUST( INCLUDE( THESE( INTEREST,(
DAMAGES,(ETC.$$IMPORTANT.(
$
WHY?( For( lawyers( to( be( realistic( and( fair( in( asking( for(
damages.(
$
Filing(Fees(
GR:( Although( interest,( damages( of( whatever( kind,(
litigation(expenses,(and(cost(of(suit(are(not(included(in(the(
determination(of(jurisdiction,(they(are,(however,(included(
in(the(determination(of(Filing(Fee.(
$
Totality(Rule(
Where$ there( are( several( claims( or( causes( of( actions$
between$ the$ same( or( different( parties,$ embodied$ in$ the$
same$ complaint,$ the$ amount$ of$ the$ demand( shall( be( the(
totality(of(the(claims(in(all(the(causes(of(action,$irrespective$
of$ whether$ the$ causes$ of$ action$ arose$ out$ of$ the$ same$ or$
different$transactions.$
These$is$useful$when$there$is$a$joinder(of(actions$
EX:((A$loaned$to$B,$he$did$not$paid.$A$asked$loan$again$to$B,$
latter$still$grants$the$loan.$Then$for$the$third$time,$still$didnt$
pay.$Bogo$na$kaau$kay$nagpautang$pa$jd$ug$ika$upat.$
Q:(How$many$cases$that$I$could$have$filed?$4$cases,$because$
these$are$different$transactions$
$
BUT,(if$A$decide$to$file$now,$then$he$can$join$the$4$
cases.$The(basis(of(jurisdiction(or(which(court(he(should(file(
IS(THE(TOTALITY(OF(THE(CLAIMS.($
$
Joinder( of( action( between( the( same( parties( or( different(
parties(
EX( of( DIFFERENT( PARTIES:( Culpa$ Acquilliana$ Case$ o$ Culpa$
Contractual$Case$
$
Theres$ a$ bus,$ the$ driver$ is$ negligent,$ it$ resulted$
into$ accident.$ Passengers$ died,$ some$ are$ injured.$ Each$
passengers$ may$ file$ a$ case$ against$ the$ operator$ for$ culpa$
5!
contractual.$ But( if( the( passengers( decide( to( hire( only( 1(

lawyer,( then( the( lawyer( decided( to( file( only( 1( case,( a(
joinder(of(causes(of(action/(joinder(of(parties.((
(
To( determine( jurisdiction,( perhaps( party( A( 200k(
damages,( party( B( 200k( damages,( party( C( 100k( damages.(
ADD(ALL(THE(CLAIMS(WHICH(IS(500K(=(THE(JURISDICTION(
IS(IN(THE(RTC.(
$
2.$Exclusive$original$jurisdiction(over(cases(of(forcible(entry(
and( unlawful( detainer:$ Provided,$ that$ when$ in$ such$ cases,$
the$ defendant( raises( the( question( of( ownership$ in$ his$
pleadings$ and$ the$ question$ of$ possession$ cannot$ be$
resolved$without$deciding$the$issue$of$ownership,$the(issue(
of(ownership(shall(be(resolved(only(to(determine(the(issue(
of(possession.(
Ejectment( Cases( ( involves$ only$ an$ issue$ of$
possession.$ Ownership( is( not( included.( Can( the(
MTC( pass( upon( the( issue( of( Ownership( in(
Ejectment(case?(YES(IF(THE(ISSUE(OF(OWNERSHIP(
IS( NECESSARY( IN( ORDER( TO( DETERMINE(
POSSESSION.$
The$ MTC$ here$ does$ not$ determine$ who$ is$ the$
owner,$it$only$determine$who$has$a$better$right$of$
possession.$$
$
3.$ Exclusive$ original$ jurisdiction$ in( all( civil( action( which(
involve(title(to(,(or(possession(of,(real(property(or(interest(
therein( where( the( ASSESSED( VALUE( does( not( exceed(
Twenty( Thousand( Pesos( (P20,000),$ or$ in$ civil$ actions$ in$
Metro( Manila,( where( the( assessed( value( does( not( exceed(
Fifty( Thousand( Pesos( (P50,( 000)$ exclusive$ of$ interest,$
damages$ of$ whatever$ kind,$ attorneys$ fees,$ litigation$
expenses$ and$ costs;$ provided,$ that$ in$ cases$ of$ land$ not$
declared$for$tax$purposes,$the$value$shall$be$determined$by$
the$assessed$value$of$the$adjacent$lots;$
Assessed( Value( =( Determined$ by$ the$ Tax$
Declaration;$if$none,$value$of$the$adjacent$land.$
$
B.(Delegated(Jurisdiction:(
Sec.( 34.$ Delegated$ Jurisdiction$ in$ Cadastral( and( Land(
Registration( Cases$ $ MetTCs,$ MTCs$ and$ MCTCs$ may$ be$
assigned$ by$ the$ Supreme$ Court$ to$ hear$ and$ determine$
cadastral$ or$ land$ registration$ cases$ covering$ lots$ where(
there( is( no( controversy( or( opposition,( OR( contested( lots(
were( the( value( of( which( does( no( exceed( One( Hundred(
Thousand( Pesos( (P100,000),$ such$ value$ to$ be$ ascertained$
by$ the$ affidavit$ of$ claimant$ or$ by$ agreement$ of$ the$
respective$claimants$if$there$are$more$than$one,$or$from$the$
corresponding$ tax$ declaration$ of$ the$ real$ property.$ Their$
decision$ in$ these$ cases$ shall$ be$ appealable$ in$ the$ same$
manner$as$decision$of$the$RTC.$
Normally$in$Land$Registration$Cases,$they$normally$
belong$ to$ the$ RTC.$ BUT$ IF$ THERE$ ARE$ NO$
OPPOSITIONS$TO$THE$APPLICATION,$YOU$CAN$FILE$
IT$IN$THE$MTC.$
6! !
!!!!!
AND( EVEN( IF( THERE( IS( AN( OPPOSITOR( BUT( THE(

VALUE( OF( THE( LOT( IS( LESS( THAN( 100K,( IT( CAN(
ALSO(BE(FILED(IN(MTC.$
In$here,$if$you$dont$like$the$decision,$you(appeal(to(
the(CA,$the$decision$of$delegated$jurisdiction$is$just$
like$the$decision$of$the$RTC$
$
C.(Special(Jurisdiction:(
Sec.(35.(Special$Jurisdiction$in$certain$cases$$In$the$absence$
of$ all$ the$ Regional$ Trial$ Court$ Judges$ in$ a$ province$ or$ city,$
any$ Metropolitan( Trial( Court( Judge,( Municipal( Trial( Court(
Judge,( MCTC( Judge( may( hear( and( decide( petitions( for( a(
writ( of( habeas( corpus( or( applications( for( bail$ in$ criminal$
cases$in$the$province$or$city$where( the( absent( RTC( Judges(
sit.$
(
EX:( Petitions( for( Habeas( Corpus( &( Application( for( Bail( (
Normally$it$is$filed$in$the$RTC.(BUT(if(there(is(only(one(RTC(
court( where( the( judge( is( not( around( or( on( leave,( nay$
gidakop$nga$ganahan$mu$apply$habeas$corpus$or$bail.$Ayaw$
ko$ ingna$ nga$ maghuwat$ pa$ ka$ sa$ judge$ mu.abot$ $ unyag$ 1$
month$ pa$ to$ sya?$ SO( YOU( CAN( FILE( MTC,( THEY( ARE(
AUTHORIZED(BY(LAW(TO(ENTERTAIN(THESE(CASES(IN(THE(
ABSENCE(OF(RTC(JUDGE.((
(
RULES(ON(CIVIL(PROCEDURE(
A.(History(
August$7,$1901$$Code$of$Civil$Procedure$(Act$190)$
In$ here,$ it$ is$ more$ Americanized.$ Patterned$ from$ CP$ of$
America$
$
July$1,$1940$$Old$Rules$of$Court$of$the$Philippines$
Here$ Civil$ Procedures$ is$ incorporated,$ and$ thereby$
amending$rule$190.$
$
January$1,$1964$$Revised$Rules$of$Court$
After$the$end$of$WW$
$
July$1,$1997$ $ New$Rules$of$ Court$ where$ Civil$ Procedure$ is$
amended.$
$
B.(RuleaMaking(Power(of(the(SC(
Article$VIII,$Sec.$5,$paragraph$5.$
$
C.(Limitation(on(the(RuleaMaking(Power(of(the(SC:(
It$ shall$ provide$ a$ simplified$ and$ inexpensive$
procedure$for$the$speedy$disposition$of$cases$
It$shall$be$uniform$for$all$courts$of$the$same$grade;$
and$
It$shall$not$diminish,$modify$or$increase$substantive$
rights$
$
RULE(1(
GENERAL(PROVISIONS(
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JKB!Rm!405!
A.(Title(of(the(Rules:(Rules$of$Court$of$the$Philippines$
B.(In(what(Courts(applicable:(
In$all$Court$except$as$otherwise$provided$by$the$SC.$
6$Rules$of$Court$will$only$apply$suppletorily$to$Special$Courts$
or$even$to$Quasi6Judicial$Bodies$or$Agencies.$
$
Quasi6Judicial$ Bodies$ are$ governed$ by$ the$ law$
creating$ them$ and$ the$ law$ creating$ them$ $ also$ provide$
procedures$ in$ cases$ filed$ before$ that$ body.$ HOWEVER,$ in$
the$ absence$ of$ particular$ provision$ the$ Rules$ of$ Court$
maybe$applied$by$these$bodies$SUPPLETORILY.$
(
C.(In(what(cases(applicable:(
Civil$
Criminal$
Special$Proceedings$
(
D.(Civil(Action((is$one$by$which$a$party$sues$another$for$the$
enforcement$ or$ protection$ of$ a$ right,$ or$ the$ prevention$ or$
redress$of$a$wrong.$A(civil(action(may(either(be(ordinary(or(
special.$
Normally,$ Ordinary$ or$ Special$ Court$ are$ governed$
by$they$ordinary$rules$of$procedure.$
BUT( special( civil( action( has( its( own( rules$ and(
procedures.$In$the$absence$of$rule$in$special$action,$
ordinary( civil( actions( can( be( applied(
SUPPLETORILY.(
$
E.(Classification(of(Civil(Action:(
1.(As(to(NATURE(
Ordinary$Civil$Action$(Rules$1656)$
Special$Civil$Action$(Rules$62671)$
*Rules$57670$$Provisional$Remedies$
*Rules( on( Ordinary( Civil( Actions( can( be( applied(
SUPPLETORILY(to(Special(Civil(Action.(
$
EX:(
Amberti$VS$CA$
$
Plaintiff$ here$ filed$ a$ petition$ for$ certiorari$ under$
Rule$ 65.$ He$ VOLUNTARILY$ withdraws$ the$ appeal$ but$ later$
on$refilled$it.$If$we$look$at$Rule$65,$there$is$no$provision$as$
to$what$will$be$the$effect$if$the$certiorari$is$withdrawn.$
$
SC$ held$ that$ special$ actions$ governed$ by$ special$
rules.$ But$ in$ case$ of$ deficiency$ of$ the$ rules$ of$ the$ special$
actions,$ then$ the$ rules$ on$ civil$ actions$ will$ be$ applied$
suppletorily.$
$
Petition$for$certiorari$is$just$like$an$appeal,$but$it$is$
not$an$appeal.$If$you$file$an$appeal$and$later$on$withdraw$
the$ same,$ the$ withdrawal$ of$ the$ appeal$ does$ not$ stop$ the$
running$ of$ period$ to$ appeal.$ Thus,$ it$ was$ not$ interrupted$
because$you$already$withdraw.$$
$
So( when( you( file( petition( for( certiorari( and( you(
withdraw(it,(it(is(as(if(you(did(not(file(a(petition(at(all(and(
the( prescriptive( period( to( file( the( appeal( will( not( be(
interrupted.(
JKB!Rm!405!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
$
Q:( Is( there( an( instance( that( you( can( still( file( petition( for(
certiorari( that( you( have( withdrawn?( YES,( You$ can$ still$ re6
file$ the$ petition$ certiorari$ provided$ that$ the$ prescriptive$
period$does$not$lapse$yet.$$
$
But(if(it(has(already(prescribed,(then(you(CANNOT(
ANYMORE(file(an(appeal.(a(IMPORTANT(
(
2.(As(to(CAUSE(
Real(Action$$An$action$where$the$issue$involved$is$
title$ to,$ ownership,$ possession$ or$ interest$ over$ a$
real$ property.$ EX:$ Accion( Publiciana,( Quieting( of(
Title,( Ejectment,( Partition,( Foreclosure( of(
Mortgage,(etc.(
o action$involving$title$to/$possession$of$real$
property$$P20,000$is$the$basis$
o Jurisdiction( =( it( depends( on( the( value( of(
the(property$
! 20,( 000( below( MTC;( above( 20,(
000(RTC$
*ALWAYS( REMEMBER( THAT( IF( IT( IS( ONLY( REAL( ACTION,(
THEN(20K(IS(THE(BASIS.(ALL(OTHER(ACTIONS(=(300K.(
(
Before,$Real$Actions$are$always$filed$in$the$RTC,$but$
by$virtue$of$BP$129,$jurisdiction$now$depends$on$the$value$
of$the$Property.$
$
Before,$ in$ a$ case$ decided,$ they$ said$ that$ Quieting$ of$ Title$
should$ be$ with$ RTC$ because$ it$ is$ incapable$ of$ pecuniary$
estimation.$$
$
SC$ held$ that$ if$ you$ file$ quieting$ of$ title,$ it$ still$
involves$ property.$ So$ the$ value$ of$ the$ property$ will$
determine$if$the$court$has$jurisdiction.$6$IMPORTANT(
(
Personal(Action$$An$action$founded(on(the(privity(
of( contract,$ for$ sum$ of$ money,$ quasi6delict,$
recovery$of$personal$property,$damages,$etc.$$
o The$action$is$based$on$a$contract$and$the$
thing$ subject$ to$ the$ action$ is$ a$ personal$
object.$
Mixed( Action$ $ a$ mixture( of( real( and( personal$
actions$such$as$an(action(for(recovery(of(land(with(
damages.$ Mixed$ actions$ are$ such$ as$ pertain$ in$
some$degree$to$both$real$and$personal.$
o EX:$Action$to$recover$property$of$land$and$
you$ ask$ for$ damages.$ Recover$ is$ Real$
Action.$Damages$is$Personal$Action.$
$
3.(As(to(PLACE(OF(FILING(
Local((An$action$which$can$be$instituted$only(in(a(
particular(place$such$as$a$real$action.$
o EX:$ Filing$ an$ action$ involving$ a$ Land$ $ in$
the$place$where$the$land$is$located.$
Transitory( ( an$ action$ that$ follows( the( residence(
of(the(parties$such$as$a$personal$action.$$DEPEND(
ON(THE(PLAINTIFF$
7!
o
EX:( Collection( of( a( sum( of( money$6$place$

where$ the$ plaintiff$ resides$ or$ of$
defendants$at$the$election$of$the$plaintiff$
$
4.( As( to( OBJECT( ( EFFECT( OF( THE( JUDGMENT( OF( THE(
COURT((DOES(IT(BIND(THE(PARTIES(OR(DOES(IT(BIND(THE(
WHOLE(WORLD)(
Action( in( Personam( ( Any$ action$ where$ the$
judgment$of$the$court$bind(only(the(parties(to(the(
action$and$their$privies$or$successors6in6interest$
o EX:$ An$ action$ to$ recover$ a$ property,$
whether$ real$ or$ personal,$ from$ the$
defendant.$ Thus,$ areal$ action$ can$ at$ the$
same$time$be$an$action$in$personam.$
o Specific$Performance$
o It$only$binds$the$parties$to$the$case.$$
Action(in(Rem((Any$action$where$the$judgment$of$
the$court$binds$not$only$the$parties$to$the$case$but$
the(whole(world.$$
o EX:(Annulment$of$Marriage$
o Whatever$ the$ court$ said,$ it$ must$ bind$
everyone.$ It$ must$ be$ respected$ by$
everyone.$$
$
Actions( Quasi( in( Rem( ( is$ actually$ an$ action$ in$
personam$ because$ it$ is$ directed$ only$ against$ a$
particular$ person$ but$ the$ purpose$ of$ the$
proceeding$ $ is$ to$ subject$ his$ property$ to$ the$
obligation$of$lien$burdening$it.$$
o QUASI( a( MURAG$ $ SO$ KANANG$ MGA$
BAYOT$$QUASI$NA!$MURAG$BABAE$PERO$
DILI$BABAE!$
EX1:( Action$ Publiciana$ to$ recover$ a$ parcel$ of$ land.$ A$ real$
action$ because$ it$ involves$ a$ real$ property$ but$ at$ the$ same$
time$an$action$in$personam.$
$
EX2:( Annulment$ of$ Marriage.$ It$ is$ a$ personal$ action$ but$ at$
the$same$time$action$in$rem.$
$
*Action(in(Personam(refers(to(the(cause(of(the(action(while(
action(in(Rem(refers(to(the(object(of(the(action/(effect(of(
the(judgment.(
These(2(Actions$$you$are$actually$referring$to$the$effect$of$
the$decision$of$the$court:$
In(Rem$$Binds$the$Whole$World.$
In(Personam$$Binds$the$Parties$only.$
$
If$Real( and( Personal( action$$refers$to$the$thing/$object$of$
the$case.$
Personal(Action((personal$property$
Real(Action((real$property$
$
EX3:( Forclosure$ of$ Mortgage.$ It$ is$ actually$ action$ in$
personam$because$it$is$directed$to$the$party.$But$when$the$
8! !
!!!!!
mortgage$ is$ foreclosed,$ other$ people$ are$ bound$ to$ respect$

the$effect$of$the$mortgage.$$
$
November(26,(2013$(
F.(Distinguish(Civil(Action(from(Special(Proceedings:(
CA$ sues$ another$ for$ the$ enforcement$ of$ a$ right,$
protection$or$redress$of$a$wrong$while$in$SP(a(party(
seeks(to(establish(a(status,(a(right,(or(a(particular(
fact;$
CA$ there$ are$ generally$ two$ parties$ while$ in$ SP(
there(is(no(definite(adverse(party;(
Period$to$appeal$in$CA$is$generally$15$days$while$in$
SP(the(period(to(appeal(is(30((a(
(
Special(Proceedings((
EX:( Petition$ for$ correction$ of$ entry$ in$ birth$ certificate;$
Action$ for$ the$ settlement$ of$ the$ estate$ of$ the$ deceased;$
Action$for$guardianship;$Adoption$
Here$ there$ are$ wants$ to$ establish$ the$ right$ or$
particular$fact$
(
G.(In(what(cases(not(applicable:(
Election$cases(
Land$registration(
Naturalization(
Insolvency$Proceedings(
And$other$cases$not$herein(
AGAIN,( GENERALLY( ORDINARY( RULES( OF( CIVIL(
PROCEDURES( ARE( NOT( APPLICABPEL( TO( SPECIAL(
PROCEEDINGS( BECAUSE( THE( LATTER( IS( GOVERNED( BY( ITS(
OWN( SPECIAL( RULES.( HOWEVER,( IT( CAN( BE( APPLIED( BY(
ANALOGY(OR(SUPPLETORILY.($
(
*( if( the( rule( in( special( proceedings( is( deficient,( then( rules(
of(court(can(be(applied.(
(
H.(Commencement(of(an(Action:(
A$ civil$ action$ is$ commenced$ by$ the$ filing( of( the( original(
complaint(in(court.((
(
HOW( TO( FILE?( 2( ways( of( filing:( PERSONALLY$ OR$ BY$
REGISTERED$MAIL.$
$
When(is(the(action(deemed(filed?(
Payment( of( docket( fee$ is$ what$ really$ commences$ the$
action.$$
No$payment$$as$if$it$is$not$filed$$case$dismissed$
$
BEFORE,(to(do(away(of(paying(large(amount(of(docket(fee,(
the(lawyers(will(just(put(LEFT(TO(THE(SOUND(DISCRETION(
OF( THE( COURT( ( NO( AMOUNT( IS( SPECIFIED( FOR( THE(
PURPOSE(OF(COMPUTATION.(
6$ This$ led$ to$ these$ pronouncement$ of$ the$ SC$ in$ the$$
following$cases:$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JKB!Rm!405!
(
EFFECTS:(
Effects(of(NonaPayment(of(Filing(Fee(
Manchester(Development(vs(CA(
If$ you$ will$ not$ pay$ the$ correct$ amount$ of$ filing$ fee,$ then$
your$case$will$be$dismissed$as$if$it$is$not$filed$in$the$Court.$
(
a(CRITICIZED(BY(MANY(CIVILIST((
(
Sun(Insurance(vs(CA((superseded(the(Manchester(Case(
$
If$ you$ will$ not$ declare$ and$ not$ paid$ the$ correct$
docket$ fee$ for$ the$ amount$ of$ damages,$ the$ complainant$ is$
allowed$ to$ amend$ the$ complaint$ to$ specify$ the$ amount$ of$
damages$provided$that$the$prescription$does$not$lapse.$
In$this$case,$plaintiff$did$not$specify$the$damages$
The$court$should$call$the$attention$of$the$plaintiff$
To$amend$his$claim$for$damages$
$
Tacay(vs(RTC(of(Tagum((DOCKET(FEE(AS(LIEN(
(
In$ here$ plaintiff$ paid$ docket$ fee$ for$ the$ principal$
action$but$his$claim$of$damages$was$not$specified.$
$
When$ the$ plaintiff$ has$ paid$ the$ docket$ fee$ for$ the$
principal$ action,$ his$ failure$ to$ specify$ damages$ does$ not$
amount$ to$ dismissal$ of$ the$ case.$ The$ plaintiff$ should$ be$
allowed$to$amend$the$complaint$and$pay$the$right$amount$
of$docket$fee.$
(
When$ the$ court$ has$ awarded$ damages$ and$ you$
have$ not$ paid$ the$ docket$ fee,$ the$ award$ of$ damages$ must$
be$deducted$by$the$docket$fee.$Docket(fee(would(serve(as(a(
lien( to( the( damages( awarded( by( the( court( ( to( be(
deducted(from(it.(
$
Ayala(vs(Madayag(
(
The$ damages( that( the( court( may( award( to( the(
plaintiff(are(the(damages(that(accrue(after(the(filing(of(the(
case,( not( those( damages( that( are( already( existing( and(
determinable(at(the(time(of(the(filing(of(the(case.(
$
If$there$are$damages$that$are$already$determinable$
to$ the$ case,$ you$ should$ include$ that$ and$ specify$ that$
amount.$But$there$are$damages$that$accrue$after$the$filing$
of$ the$ case.$ These( damages( that( accrue( after( the( filing( of(
the( case( are( those( damages( that( can( be( awarded( by( the(
court(and(subject(of(a(lien((docket(fee).(
(
DAMAGES(THAT(ACCRUE(AFTER(THE(FILING(OF(THE(CASE(
QUASIaDELIC(CASE((you$are$passenger$of$a$vehicle$$meet$
an$accident$and$you$filed$a$case$against$the$operator.$When$
you$ file$ the$ case,$ you$ are$ still$ undergoing$ medication;$ you$
only$ include$ those$ expenses$ due$ to$ the$ hospital.$ But$ how$
about$ your$ daily$ expenses?$ You$ can$ prove$ that$ during$ the$
trial$of$the$case.$The$court$may$award$that$damages$which$
is$not$specified$in$your$complain$because(they(accrue(after(
the(filing(of(the(complaint.(THESE(ARE(THE(DAMAGES(THAT(
ARE( LIEN( TO( THE( DAMAGES( THAT( THE( COURT( MAY(
AWARD$
$
JKB!Rm!405!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*So(those(damages(that(should(have(been(included(in(the(
complain(because(they(are(already(determinable(are(NOT(
INCLUDED(in(the(lien.(THEY(SHOULD(BE(SPECIFIED.(
EXAMPLE(OF(THESE(DAMAGES:(Moral$damages,$Exemplary$
Damages,$ Sleepless$ Nights,$ Wounded$ Feelings,$ etc$ $ they$
are$ already$ determinable$ during$ the$ filing$ of$ the$ case.$ 6$
IMPORTANT(
(
Suson(vs(CA(
(
Plaintiff$ filed$ a$ civil$ case$ $ then$ it$ was$ dismissed$
because$it$is$filed$in$wrong$venue.$He$refilled$in$the$correct$
venue$ and$ requested$ to$ get$ back$ the$ filing$ fee$ paid$ to$ the$
wrong$venue.$
SC$held$that$filing$a$complaint$in$a$wrong$court$and$
the$ payment$ made$ for$ the$ docket$ fee$ will$ not$ be$
reimbursed$upon$dismissal$of$the$first$case.$
$
I.(Liberal(construction(of(the(Rules:(
(
The$ rules$ shall$ be$ liberally$ construed$ in$ order$ to$
promote$ their$ objective$ of$ securing$ a$ just,$ speedy$ and$
inexpensive$ disposition$ of$ every$ action$ and$ proceedings$
(Sec.$6)$
$
GR:(Interpret$liberally,$in$favor$of$the$party.(
EXP:( Rules( on( Reglementary( period( to( file( pleadings( or(
appeals.(
6$ you$ must$ strictly( construe$ because$ it$ is$ for$ the( speedy(
disposition(of(the(case(
$
RULE(2(
CAUSE(OF(ACTION(
#1.(Every(civil(action(must(be(based(on(a(Cause(of(Action(
A.(Definition(
Cause( of( Action( $ an$ act$ or$ omission$ by$ which$ a$ party$
violates$a$right$of$another.$
$
6$ you$ went$ to$ the$ court$ because$ you$ want$ the$
enforcement$of$your$right$or$the$protection$and$prevention$
of$a$wrong$that$is$committed.$
(
Elements(of(Cause(of(Action:(
A$right$pertaining$to$he$plaintiff(
A$correlative$obligation$of$the$defendant(
Violation$of$plaintiffs$right$by$the$defendant(
Damage$or$injury$$act$of$the$defendant$must$have$
cause$damages(
*If(there(is(no(damage,(there(is(no(injury.(
(
Right(of(Action((the$right$of$the$plaintiff$to$bring$an$action$
and$to$prosecute$that$action$until$final$judgment.$
$
Elements(of(Right(of(Action:(
Plaintiff$must$have$a$good$cause$of$action(
Plaintiff$ must$ have$ performed$ all$ conditions$
precedent$to$the$filing$of$the$action(
9!
o
o
o
Barangay$Conciliation$Certification(
Administrative$Remedies(
Amicable$ Settlements$ $ earnest$ effort$
must$ be$ alleged$ in$ a$ suit$ between$
members$of$a$family(
(
*As(a(Rule:(1(case(:(1(cause(of(action.(You(cannot(split(that(
action(to(2(or(more(cases.(
B.( Splitting( a( Cause( of( Action( ( is$ the$ practice$ of$ dividing$
one$ cause$ of$ action$ into$ different$ parts$ and$ making$ each$
part$a$subject$of$a$different$complaint.$
$
EX:( In$ order$ to$ secure$ that$ loan,$ you$ executed$ a$ real$ state$
mortgage$ covering$ your$ land.$ You$ failed$ to$ pay$ the$
obligation.$
Q:(Do(I(have(cause(of(action?(YES$
Q:( What( is( the( cause( of( action?( NON6PAYMENT$ OF$ THE$
LOAN$$A$SINGLE$ACT$(ONLY(1(CAUSE(OF(ACTION$
*Now$ this$ single$ act$ may$ give$ rise$ to$ 2$ or$ more$ remedies.$
However,$it$does$not$mean$that$the$plaintiff$has$2$or$more$
causes$of$action.$
$
In$here$the$plaintiffs$remedy$are:$file(collection(of(
money( or( foreclosure.( The$ plaintiff$ can$ only$ choose$ 1.$ He$
cannot$have$both$remedies.$
$
Effect( of( Splitting:( Dismissal$ of$ the$ case$ on$ the$ ground$ of$
Litis$Pendentia$or$Res$Judicata$
$
Litis(Pendentia$$case$is$filed$while$same$case$is$still$pending$
Res(Judicata$$case$has$already$been$decided.$
$
GR:(One(case,(one(cause(of(action.($
EX:$ A$ borrowed$ money$ from$ B$ 1M.$ A$ executed$ security$ of$
land.$ A$ did$ not$ pay.$ B$ has$ 2$ remedies:$ Collection$ Case$ or$
Foreclosure$of$Mortgage.$
$
Here$ there$ is$ only$ 1$ cause$ of$ action.$ You$ cannot$
have$ 2$ cases$ here.$ Its$ either$ you$ file$ for$ Collection$ Suit$ or$
Foreclosure$of$Mortgage.$
(
Singleness(of(a(Cause(of(Action(
(
The$ singleness$ of$ a$ cause$ of$ action$ is$ determined(
by(the(singleness(of(the(delict(or(wrong(committed(by(the(
defendant$and$not$by$the$number$of$remedies$that$the$law$
grants$the$injured$party.$
$
C.(Joinder(of(Causes(of(Action(
(
A$ party$ may$ in$ one$ pleading$ assert,( in( the(
alternative( or( otherwise,( as( many( causes( of( action$ as$ he$
may$ have$ against$ an$ opposing$ party,$ subject$ of$ the$
following$conditions:$
The( parties( joining( the( cause( of( action( shall(
comply(with(the(rules(on(joinder(of(parties.(
o The$action$arises(from(the(same(cause(of(
action$
o There$is$common(question(of(law(or(fact$
10! !
!!!!!
EX:( A$ bus$ driver$ is$ driving$ recklessly$ and$ met$ an$ accident.$
The$ 20$ passengers$ have$ a$ cause$ of$ action$ against$ the$
operator$of$the$bus.$These$20$passengers$can$have$a$joinder$
of$cause$of$action$against$the$operator$of$the$bus.$
6$ Here$ there$ is$ one$ transaction,$ one$ issue,$ one$ cause$ of$
action.$
$
The( joinder( shall( no( include( special( civil( action(
governed(by(special(rules;(
EX:( Ejectment$ Case,$ forcible$ Entry,$ Unlawful$ Detainer$ $
special$civil$action$
So$you$cannot$join$an$Ejectment$Case$with$a$case$of$accion$
publician$or$accion$reindivicatoria$
$
Just$ like$ the$ rule$ we$ mentioned$ earlier$ about$
question$of$ownership$in$an$ejectment$case.$The$court$may$
resolve$ ownership$ to$ determine$ who$ is$ the$ rightful$
possession$but$it$cannot$award$who$really$is$the$owner.$This$
is$ because$ there$ can$ be$ no$ joinder$ of$ cause$ of$ action$
between$ordinary$and$civil$case.$
$
Where(the(causes(of(action(are(between(the(same(
parties( but( pertain( to( different( venues( or(
jurisdictions,( the( joinder( may( be( allowed( in( the(
Regional(Trial(Court(provided(one(of(the(causes(of(
action( falls( within( the( jurisdiction( of( said( court(
and(the(venue(lies(therein;$and$
EX1:( A$ borrowed$ from$ B$ 1M$ payable$ by$ MONTHLY$
st
INSTALLMENT.$When$A$failed$to$pay$the$1 $installment,$that$
nd$ $
nd
is$ already$ 1$ cause$ of$ action.$ The$ 2 failure,$ $ 2 $ cause$ of$
action.$ Every$ time$ you$ failed$ to$ pay,$ that$ is$ 1$ cause$ of$
action.$
$
B$ can$ file$ it$ every$ time$ a$ cause$ of$ action$ accrues$
BUT:(
$
B$ can$ wait$ after$ the$ last$ unpaid$ installment$ and$
should$file$1$case$only.$All$cause$of$action$shall$be$combined$
in$1$case.$
$
EX2:( A$ borrowed$ from$ B$ 500k$ payable$ not$ in$ the$ same$
st
nd
amount.$1 $$100k,$2 $400k$
One$ is$ under$ the$ jurisdiction$ of$ the$ MTC,$ the$ other$ to$ the$
RTC.$$
Q:( Where( to( be( filed?( In( RTC.$400k$is$in$the$jurisdiction$of$
RTC,$100k$in$MTC$$RTC$prevails.$
$
Where$ the$ claims$ of$ all$ the$ causes$ of$ action$ are$
principally$ for$ recovery$ of$ money$ the$ aggregate$
amount$ claimed$ shall$ be$ the$ test$ of$ jurisdiction.$ $
TOTALITY(OF(CLAIM((DISCUSSED(ABOVE$
$
D.(Misjoinder(of(Causes(of(Action((wrongfully$joined.$
$
There$is$misjoinder$of$causes$of$action$when$two$or$
more$ causes$ of$ action$ were$ joined$ in$ one$ complaint$ when$
they$ought$not$to$be$joined.$
$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JKB!Rm!405!
EX:( You$ joined$ Accion$ Publiciana$ Case$ and$ Forcible$ Entry$

Case$
$
6$ not$ allowed$ because$ Forcible$ Entry$ case$ is$ a$
special$ civil$ action$ which$ ought$ not$ be$ joined$ with$ an$
ordinary$civil$action.$
Effect:( The( court( will( severe( the( action( and( try( it(
separately.(((
(
RULE(3(
PARTIES(TO(CIVIL(ACTION(
A.(WHO(MAY(BE(PARTIES:(
(
Only$ natural( or( juridical( persons,( or( entities(
authorized( by( law$ may$ be$ parties$ in$ a$ civil$ action.$ The$
parties$may$either$by$a$plaintiff(or(defendant.(
a(IT$CAN$ALSO$BE$CORPORATION$OR$PARTNERSHIP$
EX:(Entities$$Estate$of$a$Person,$Labor$Union$
(
Estate$is$not$a$juridical$person$$but$it$is$allowed$by$
law$to$sue$and$be$sued.$
$
Plaintiff((a$person$who$files$an$action$in$court.$Action$does$
not$merely$include$a$complaint.$Thus,$a$defendant$can$also$
be$a$plaintiff$by$filing$a$counter$claim.$$
Defendant((a$party$who$is$bound$to$answer$the$action$filed$
against$him.$
$
B.(Parties(in(Interest:(
$
Every( action$ must$ be$ prosecuted$ or$ defended$ in$
the$ name( of( the( real( party( in( interest.$ A$ real$ party$ in$
interest$is$one$who$stands$to$be$benefited$or$injured$by$the$
judgment$ in$ the$ suit,$ or$ the$ party$ entitled$ to$ the$ avails$ of$
the$suit.$
$
To$be$a$party$in$interest$you$must$be$benefitted$or$
affected$in$whatever$judgment$rendered$by$the$court.$
$
Classification(of(Parties(in(Interest(
1.( Indispensable( Parties( ( is$ one$ without$ whom$ no$ final$
determination$can$be$had$of$an$action;$important$that$they$
must$be$included$in$the$filing$of$the$complaint.$
(
a( one( who( MUST( be( included( for( the( case( to(
prosper;( if( you( fail( to( implead( him( in( the( case,( that( is( a(
reason( for( the( dismissal( because( the( joinder( of( the(
indispensable(party(is(COMPULSORY(
EX:$You$own$a$parcel$of$land$and$when$you$were$in$US,$your$
cousin$ took$ a$ copy$ of$ your$ title$ and$ forged$ your$ signature.$
He$ executed$ Deed$ of$ Sale$ of$ your$ land$ in$ favor$ of$ another$
person.$When$you$returned,$you$discovered$that$your$land$
is$already$possessed$by$another$who$claims$to$have$own$the$
land$in$good$faith.$
$
Now$ you$ file$ a$ case$ because$ it$ was$ a$ forged$ Deed$
of$ Sale.$ You$ filed$ against$ your$ cousin$ but$ you$ did$ not$
implead$the$other$party.$IN(THIS(INSTANCE,(THE(CASE(WILL(
BE( DISMISSED.( The$ buyer$ is$ an$ indispensable$ party.$ You$
cannot$have$a$complete$determination$of$the$case.$$
$
JKB!Rm!405!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EX2:( Action$ for$ Partition$ $ The$ co6owner$ of$ the$ property$

must$ implead$ all$ co6owners.$ If$ magkasinabot$ mo,$ then$
execute$ extrajudicial$ settlement.$ But$ if$ you$ want$ to$ have$
judicial$settlement$then$you$must$implead$all$co6owners$of$
the$co6ownerships.$
(
2.(Necessary(Parties((Those$who$are$not(indispensable(but(
ought(to(be(parties(if(complete(relief$is$to$be$accorded$as$to$
those$ already$ parties,$ or$ for$ a$ complete$ determination$ or$
settlement$of$the$claim$subject$of$the$action;$
(
He$ may$ or$ may$ not$ be$ included$ in$ the$ case,$ but$ if$
you$ want$ to$ have$ a$ complete( determination( of( the( case,(
you$must$include$him$in$the$case.$
EX:( A$ borrowed$ money$ from$ B,$ C$ as$ guarantor.$ For$ non6
payment,$B$file$case$against$A,$C$the$guarantor$need$not$be$
impleaded.$(
Can(the(case(continue?(Yes(C(is$not$an$indispensable$party,$
he$is$only$liable$if$the$principal$debtor$cannot$pay.$$
$
But$ if$ you$ want$ a$ complete$ determination$ of$ the$
case,$then$you$must$include$him$in$the$case.$E.apil$sya$kay$if$
di$kabayad$si$A,$m.file$na$sd$ug$kaso$basic$si$$B$$impractical$
na.(
$
EX2:(A$contract$of$loan$with$a$surety.$Remember$that$being$
a$ Surety,$ he$ is$ more$ than$ a$ guarantor$ $ he$ is$ principally/$
solidarily$bound.$You$can$file$a$case$directly$to$the$Surety.$
Can( the( case( be( dismissed( because( the( principal( is( not(
impleaded?(NO,(because$here$the$principal$is$not$principally$
bound.$But$if$you$want$to$have$complete$determination$of$
the$case,$might$as$well$include$all$of$them$=$para(safe.(
$
*if$you$will$not$implead$a$necessary$party$$you(must(have(
a( justifiable( reason$ why( you( did( not( include( him.$ If$ the$
court$will$not(believe$your$reason,$the(court(can(order(the(
plaintiff( to( include( the( necessary( party.$ If$ the$ plaintiff(
cannot( comply$ the$ lawful$ order$ of$ the$ court,$ then$ the$
plaintiff(can(no(longer(file(another(case(to(collect(from(the(
party(not(impleaded.(
$
6$in$fact,$the$court$can$even$dismiss$the$case$
$
3.( Representative( Parties( ( those$ who$ prosecuted$ or$
defended$ the$ case$ for$ an$ in$ behalf$ of$ the$ real$ party$ in$
interest$
He$is$only$the$representative$of$the$Principal.$
o EX:$Attorney$in$Fact$
In$ the$ title,$ a$ representative$ must$ disclose$ his$
Principal$$the$Principals$name$must$be$first.$
o EX:$Rei$La,$represented$by$his$Attorney6in6
Fact$Boy$Laki.$
$
4.(Pro(forma(parties((those$who$are$required$to$be$joined$
as$co6parties$in$a$suit$as$provided$by$law.$
EX:(Case$involving$the$Wife,$you$include$the$Husband.$
$
Minors(or(Incompetent(persons(as(parties.(
11!
(
Permissive(Joinder(of(Parties(
(
Two(or(more(persons(may(join(in(one(complaint$as$
plaintiffs$ or$ as$ defendants$ provided$ the$ following(
conditions(are(present:$
There$ is$ a$ right$ to$ relief$ in$ favor$ of$ or$ against$ the$
parties$ joined$ in$ respect$ to$ or$ arising( out( of( the(
same(transaction(or(several(transaction(
There$is$a$question( of( law( or( fact( common( to( the(
party(joined(in(action.(
$
Nona(Joinder(of(necessary(Party:(
If$ not$ impleaded,$ pleader$ must$ set$ forth$ his$ name$
and$state$why$he$was$omitted.(
If$the$court$finds$the$reason$to$be$unmeritorious,$it$
may$order$inclusion$of$the$omitted$party(
Failure$to$comply$without$justifiable$cause$shall$be$
deemed$ as$ a$ waiver$ of$ the$ claim$ against$ said$
person(
The$ non$ inclusion$ of$ a$ necessary$ party$ does$ not$
prevent$ the$ court$ from$ proceeding$ sin$ the$ action,$
and$ the$ judgment$ rendered$ therein$ shall$ be$
without$ prejudice$ to$ the$ rights$ of$ such$ necessary$
party.(
(
Unwilling(CoaPlaintiff((he$is$an$indispensable$party$
$
If$the$consent$of$any$party$who$SHOULD$be$joined$
as$ plaintiff$ cannot$ be$ obtained,$ he$ may$ be$ made$ a$
defendant$to$the$case.$
$
The( unwilling( coaplaintiff( shall( be( impleaded( as( a(
DEFENDANT.(
$
Misjoinder(and(NonaJoinder(of(Parties:(
(
Neither$misjoinder$nor$non6joinder$of$parties$is$not$
a$ground$for$dismissal$of$an$action.$
$
Misjoinder( ( you$ included$ someone$ wrongfully/$ he$ ought$
not$to$be$enjoined.$$
NonaJoinder( ( there$ is$ someone$ who$ should$ be$ included$
but$you$did$not$include$him.$
$
*In( here,( the( court( will( just( order( or( direct( you( in( your(
pleading(to(exclude(the(party(who(is(misjoined(or(include(
the(party(who(is(not(joined.((
$
Class(Suit(
%
When%the%subject%matter%of%the%controversy%is%one%
of% common% or% general% interest% to% many% persons% so%
numerous% that% it% is% impracticable% to% join% all% as% parties% a%
number% of% them% which% the% court% finds% to% be% sufficiently%
numerous% and% representative% as% to% fully% protect% the%
interest%of%all%concerned%may%sue%or%defend%for%the%benefit%
12! !
!!!!!
of%all.%Any%party%in%interest%shall%have%the%right%to%intervene%
to%protect%his%individual%interest.%(Sec.%12)(
$
There$are$so$many$plaintiffs$to$the$case$to$include$
all$ in$ 1$ paper.$ You$ are$ all$ bound$ by$ a$ common$ interest.$ So$
just$ a$ few$ of$ those$ can$ file$ a$ class$ suit$ to( represent( the(
interest(of(all.$
$
EX:(A$tax$suit$$questioning$the$constitutionality$of$a$tax$law$
that$affected$a$group$of$people.$Only$few$can$represent$the$
interest$of$all.$
(
Conditions(for(a(Valid(Class(Suit(
A.$The$subject(matter$of$the$controversy$in$one$of$common(
or( general( interest( to( many$ persons.$ (Sulo( ng( Bayan( vs(
Araneta)(
(
a(When$lands$of$the$farmers$are$found$to$be$owned$
by$ Araneta,$ the$ farmers$ filed$ a$ case$ against$ the$ latter$ as$ a$
class$suit.$
$
SC$ held$ that$ it$ is$ not$ a$ class$ suit,$ they$ are$ not$
bound$ by$ a$ common$ interest.$ There$ interest$ is$ only$ up$ to$
those$ lands$ that$ they$ have$ occupied.$ This$ is$ just$ a$
representative$suit.$
$
B.$ The$ parties( are( so( numerous$ that$ it$ is$ impracticable$ to$
bring$ them$ all$ before$ the$ court.$ (BuligaBulig( Kita( Kamaga
Anak(Asso(vs(Sulpicio(Lines)(
$
6$Can$involving$Doa$Paz$own$by$Sulpicio$lines$that$
collided$with$a$tanker$and$about$1$thousand$people$died.$
$
Plaintiff$ grouped$ together$ and$ claimed$ that$ it$ is$ a$
class$suit.$SC$held$it$is$not.$The$interest$of$1$victim$is$not$the$
same$ as$ the$ other.$ Kung$ ako,$ naa$ koy$ relative$ namatay,$ di$
man$mi$parihag$interest$sa$relative$nga$na$injured$ra.$Akong$
concern$ is$ only$ my$ relative$ who$ died,$ I$ cannot$ speak$ for$
others$relative.$This$is$also$a$representative$suit.$
$
C.$ A$ number( of( them( which( the( court( finds( to( be(
sufficiently(numerous$may$sue$or$defend$for$the$benefit$of$
all.$(Oposa(vs(Factoran)(
$
6$ Here,$ it$ is$ the$ children$ of$ present$ generation$ for$
the$benefit$of$future$generation$in$order$to$stop$the$DENR$
for$issuing$license$to$operate$logging.$$
$
SC$ held$ that$ this$ is$ a$ Class$ Suit.$ Filed$ by$ about$ 30$
children$ representing$ thousands.$ They$ have$ the$ same$
interest$of$intergenerational$responsibility.$
$
Alternative( Defendants( ( filing( a( case( against( two(
defendants(but(only(one(is(to(be(liable$$you$file$a$case$and$
you$do$not$know$who$is$liable$6$if$this$one$is$not$liable,$then$
this$one$is$maybe$liable.$
EX:(A$shipped$good$by$B,$shipping$company.$C$is$the$arastry.$
The$goods$were$damaged.$A$can$filed$case$against$B$and$C$
to$know$who$is$responsible.$
$
So$it$is$either$the$shipping$company$or$the$arastry$
is$responsible.$Nagdanghag$lang$guro$sla,$so$file$ug$kaso$nila.$
May$mong$epakong$duha!$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JKB!Rm!405!
$
Unknown(identity(or(name(of(the(defendant(
EX:(John$Doe$suit$$is$allowed$$and$latter$on$if$the$name$is$
already$known,$you$can$amend$the$complaint.$$
$
Entity(without(Juridical(Personality(
There$ are$ Entities$ that$ have$ no$ Juridical$ Person$ e.g.$ Estate$
of$a$dead$person,$Unions.$
$
Some$Entities,$even$though$the$law$does$not$allow$
them$to$sue,$can(be(sued.$
EX:( You$enter$into$contract$with$XYZ$Enterprises.$There$are$
some$problems$but$latter$on$you$found$out$that$it$does$not$
have$ Juridical$ Personality.$ So$ you$ can$ sue$ in$ the$ Name$ of$
XYZ$Enterprises.$$
$
If$the$names$of$real$owners$of$XYZ$Enterprises$are$
known,$ $ then$ you$ can$ later$ on$ amend$ your$ complaint$ and$
mention$its$owners$
$
December(3,(2013(
Effect(of(Death(of(a(Party(
(
If$a$party$of$the$suit$dies,$the$case$will$depend:$
2(kinds(of(action(
Action( that( SURVIVES( ( goes$ on$ even$ if$ a$ party$
dies(
Action( that( DOES( NO( SURVIVES( ( does$ not$
continue$$strictly$personal$to$the$party(
o EX:$ Annulment$ of$ Marriage,$ Action$ to$
Support(
a$ What$ is$ there$ to$ annul$ or$ to$ support$
when$the$party$is$already$dead?$
(
Remember$ that$ there$ are$ 2$ parties$ in$ the$ case.$ Now$ what$
happens$when$the$plaintiff$dies?$
The$ plaintiff$ shall$ be$ represented$ by$ his$ legal$
representative.$
o Legal( Representative( ( here,$ it$ could$ be$
the$ executor$ or$ the$ administrator,$ or$ his$
legal$heirs$
o BUT:$ Legal( Heirs( are( not( preferred( to(
substitute(the(deceased.$
o The$persons$preferred$to$substitute$is$the(
Legal( Representative( who( is( the(
executor/(administrator(of(his(estate.$
(
RULES(when(a(party(to(the(case(die(
1.( If( the( party( of( a( civil( action( that( survives( dies( in( the(
pendency( of( the( case,( it( is( the( duty( of( the( lawyer( of( the(
party( who( dies( has( the( obligation( to( inform( the( court(
within(30(days(that(his(client(dies.((
He$must$report$because$the$lawyer$no$longer$have$
the$authority$to$continue$representing$his$client$of$
the$ case$ UNLESS( THE( HEIRS/( LEGAL(
REPRESENTATIVE(AGREES(FOR(HIM(TO(CONTINUE.$
JKB!Rm!405!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6$ The( court( then( issue( a( resolution( of( Substitution( of(

Parties( a( that( the( representative( will( be( the( legal(
representative((ADMINISTRATOR(OF(ESTATE.)(
In$ the$ absence$ of$ legal$ representative,$ then$ the$
heirs.(
6$ If$ the$ case$ continues$ without$ the$ court$ knowing$ that$ the$
party$is$dead,$the$decision$and$proceedings$shall$be$void.$
(
Pending( Case( is( for( Recovery( of( Money( ( Collection( of(
Money(
If$plaintiff(dies$$the$administrator$of$estate$of$the$
plaintiff$ can$ continue$ the$ case$ $ he$ will$ substitute$
the$plaintiff$
If$defendant$dies$$the$case$will(also(continue$$by$
the$ legal$ representative$ $ UNTIL( THE( ENTRY( OF(
FINAL(JUDGMENT$
(
UNDER( THE( OLD( RULES( ( if$ the$ defendant$ dies$ in$ a$
collection$of$sum$of$money,$the$case(shall(be(dismissed$and$
the$ representative$ of$ the$ plaintiff$ shall$ reafile( the( case( for(
the(settlement(of(his(estate.$They$will$submit$their$claim$to$
the$administrator$of$the$estate$
$
UNDER( THE( NEW( RULES,$ theres( no( need( to( dismiss$ the$
collection$case$shall$be$continued.$Once$the$court$decides$in$
favor$of$the$plaintiff$and$final.$Can$the$lawyer$of$plaintiff$ask$
for$rite$of$execution?$NO$
$
The$ lawyer$ of$ the$ plaintiff$ shall$ present( the(
decision(to(the(administrator(for(the(Settlement(of(Estate.$
He$will$be$paid$right$away,$NO(NEED(FOR(A(HEARING.$$It$is$
to$do$away$with$the$duplicity$of$suits.$
$
Rule(4(
VENUE(
A.(Jurisdiction(vs(Venue(
Jurisdiction$is$the(authority$exercised$by$the$court$
to$ try$ and$ decide$ a$ case$ $ given$ by$ law.$ $ A(
question(of(What(court?(RTC?(MTC?,(etc.(
o Venue$$the( place$where$the$action$must$
be$ instituted$ and$ tried.$ $ A$ question$ of$
Which( RTC?( RTC( of( Cebu?( RTC( of(
Davao?(
$
Where(to(file?(Here$you$must$establish$what$kind$of$action$
are$you$filing.$$Real(Action(or(Personal(Action(
$
B.(Venue(in(Real(Action:(
(
Actions% affecting% title% to% or% possession% of% real%
property$or$interest$therein,$shall$be$commenced% and% tried%
in%the%PROPER%COURT%which%has%jurisdiction%over%the%area%
wherein%the%real%property%involved,%or%a%portion%thereof,%is%
situated.%
Forcible% entry% and% detainer% actions$ shall$ be$
commenced% and% tried% in% the% MUNICIPAL% TRIAL% COURT% of%
13!
the%municipality%or%city%wherein%the%real%property%involved%
or%a%portion%thereof,%is%situated.%(Sec%1)$
$
Lakas(Atenista:(
Distinguish( whether( Action( Publicican( or( Action(
Reinvidicatoria(or(Forcible(Entry(and(Unlawful(Detainer(
$
Action$ Publiciana$ or$ Action$ Reinvidicatoria$ 6$ affects$ title$ to$
the$property$6$"TRIED(IN(THE(PROPER(COURT"$
$
WHY("TRIED(IN(THE(PROPER(COURT"?(
6$the$jurisdiction$may$be$at$the$RTC$or$MTC$6$depending$on$
the$value$of$the$real$property.$
$
6$20k$or$less$6$MTC$
$
6$over$20k$6$RTC$
(
Forcible( Entry( and( Unlawful( Detainer( ( also( affects( title(
BUT( AN( EXCEPTION( TO( THE( GENERAL( RULE( a( always( tried(
in(MTC(as(provided(in(Sec.(1(
Now$ what$ if$ the$ real$ property$ is$ located$ right$
between$ the$ jurisdiction$ of$ MTC$ of$ Cebu$ and$ MTC$ of$
Mandaue?$ You$ can$ file$ it$ either$ in$ MTC$ of$ Cebu$ City$ or$
Mandaue$City.$
$
C.(Venue(of(Personal(Action:(
(
All$ other$ actions$ may$ be$ commenced$ and$ tried$
where$the$plaintiff$or$any$of$the$principal$plaintiffs$reside,$or$
where$ the$ defendant$ or$ any$ of$ the$ principal$ defendants$
reside,%or%in%the%case%of%a%nonHresident%defendant%where%he%
may%be%found,%at%the%election%of%the%plaintiff.$(Sec.$2)$
$
Personal(Actions:($
Collection$of$Sum$of$Money$
Recovery$of$a$Personal$Property$
Replevin$
Action$for$Breach$of$Contract$with$Damages$
Action$for$Rescission$of$Contract$with$Damages$
$
Where(to(be(filed?(
Place$of$the$Plaintiff;$or(
Place$of$the$defendant$(
a((at(the(option(of(the(PLAINTIFF(
(
NonaResident( Defendant( ( Can( he( be( suit( in( the(
Philippines?$YES.(
D.(Venue(of(action(against(nonaresident(defendant?(
%
The% action% may% be% commenced% and% tried% in% the%
court%of%the%place%where%the%plaintiff%resides,%or%where%the%
property% or% any% portion% thereof% is% situated% or% found.% (Sec.%
3)%
%
When( can( you( sue( a( nonaresident( defendant?$There$are$2$
actions.$
14! !
!!!!!
Actions(that(my(be(filed(against(a(nonaresident(defendant(
who(does(no(reside(and(is(not(found(in(the(Philippines:(
1.(Actions(that(affects(the(personal(status(of(the(plaintiff;(
or(
EX:(Annulment$of$Marriage$$it$affects$the$status,$How(will(
the( court( gain( jurisdiction( when( the( plaintiffs(
whereabouts(were(unknown?(The$court$gain$jurisdiction$by(
giving(public(summons.$
$
2.(Actions(that(affects(the(property,(or(any(portion(thereof,(
of(said(defendant(located(here(in(the(Philippines.(
EX:( This( is( a( Real( Actions$ $ you$ must$ file$ it$ to$ the$ place$
where$the$property$is$situated.$
$
E.( When( rule( not( applicable( (still( on( rule( on( venue( of(
PERSONAL(ACTIONS):(
1.( In( those( cases( where( a( specific( rule( or( law( provides(
otherwise;(or(
6$plaintiff$cannot$file$the$case$at$his$place$or$in$the$place$of$
the$defendant$
EX1:( LIBEL$$filed$to$the$place$where$first$published$or$the$
place$of$the$plaintiff.$
(
2.( Article( VIII,( Sec.( 5(4),( 1987( Constitution( ( the( SC( may(
order( a( change( of( venue( or( place( of( trial( to( avoid( a(
miscarriage(of(justice.(
6$ the$ choice$ of$ the$ plaintiff$ cannot$ prevail$ as$ against$ the$
order$of$the$SC$
$
3.(Where(the(parties(have(validly(agreed(in(writing(before(
the(filing(of(the(action(on(the(exclusive(venue.(
6$ While$ Jurisdiction$ is$ by$ law,$ cannot$ be$ subject$ to$ the$
agreement$of$the$parties$
6$Venue$$can$be$agreed$by$the$parties.$$
HOWEVER,(if$the$parties,$before$the$case$is$filed,$agreed$on$
the$venue$$
EXCLUSIVELY$
6$ that$ it$ should$ be$ filed$ in$ Cebu$ City$ ONLY( AND(
ONLY(IN(THAT(PLACE((NOT(IN(ANY(OTHER(PLACE.$
$
What( if( the( contract( does( not( purport( to( be( exclusive?( It(
does( not( have( QUALIFYING( OR( RESTRICTIVE( WORD?( Can(
the(plaintiff(go(back(to(the(general(rule?(YES(
$
GR:(Polytrade(vs(Blanco$
$
When$ the$ parties$ stipulated$ on$ the$ venue$ of$ the$
action,$ other$ than$ those$ found$ in$ the$ Rule$ of$ Court,$ the$
stipulated$ venue$ is$ considered$ only$ as$ an$ ADDITIONAL$
VENUE$ in$ addition$ to$ where$ the$ parties$ reside.$ Unless$ the$
stipulation$ contains$ RESTRICTIVE$ words$ which$ shows$ the$
intention$ of$ parties$ to$ limit$ the$ place$ stipulated$ as$ the$
exclusive$venue$
$
*If(it(does(not(provide(QUALIFYING(WORDS((That(means(
the(venue(stipulated(is(JUST(AN(ADDITIONAL(VENUE.(
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JKB!Rm!405!
(
EXCEPTION:(Sweet(Lines(vs(Teves(a(IMPORTANT(
$
People$ from$ Cagayan$ de$ Oro$ bought$ a$ ticket$ to$
have$a$trip$to$Cebu,$and$from$Cebu$$another$boat$to$carry$
them$ to$ Tagbilaran.$ They$ were$ not$ allowed$ to$ board$
because$there$is$no$more$space.$
$
When$they$went$back$to$Cagayan,$they$filed$case$in$
CAGAYAN.$ Sweet$ Lines$ moved$ to$ dismissed$ the$ case$
alleging$ that$ the$ contract$ (the$ ticket)$ $ it$ is$ stipulated$ that$
all$actions$that$may$arise$from$the$contract$MUST(BE(FILED(
ONLY(IN(CEBU.$
$
SC$ held$ that$ the$ RTC$ judge$ is$ correct$ in$ NOT$
DISMISSING$ THE$ CASE$ BECAUSE$ THAT( CONTRACT( IS( A(
CONTRACT(OF(ADHESION.$They$are$forced$to$adhere$to$the$
contract,$ no$ choice$ but$ to$ agree$ in$ order$ to$ avail$ the$
contract$of$carriage.$(
(
PRINCIPLE:( If( the( contract( contains( qualifying(
words( as( to( the( exclusivity( of( the( venue,( that( contract( is(
void(if(it(is(a(contract(of(adhesion.(
$
Contract( of( Adhesion( ( Contract$ drafted$ by$ one$ party$ and$
that$contract$is$made$to$be$adhered$by$the$other$party.$
$
EXCEPTION(TO(THE(EXCEPTION:(Arquero(vs(Flojo(
$
In$here,$it$is$just$similar$to$Sweet$Line.$This$involves$
a$ Telegram.$ A$ Mayor$ from$ Ilocos$ sent$ a$ telegram$ to$
Congressman$in$Manila$$at$the$back$of$the$telegram$is$the$
contract$ (the$ same$ as$ to$ the$ ticket).$ When$ he$ visited$ the$
congressman$ to$ follow$ up$ his$ request$ $ payment$ was$
collected$from$the$congressman.$He$was$embarrassed,$etc.$
$
He$ went$ back$ to$ Ilocos,$ filed$ a$ case.$ Telegram$
company$ said$ that$ it$ should$ be$ filed$ in$ Manila.$ Mayor(
invoked((SWEET(LINES.(
SC$held$that$the$contract$is$valid$and$the$case$must$
be$ dismissed.$ This$ case( is( different( with( Sweet( Lines.$ The$
Mayor(is(also(a(Lawyer,(it(is(presumed(that(he(should(read(
every( document( he( sign.( Unlike( Sweet( Line( were( the(
plaintiffs(are(only(ordinary(people.((
(
BOBO( KA( PLA( EH,( BAKIT( KA( NAGSIGN( NG(
CONTRACT(WITHOUT(READING(THE(CONTENT,(LAWYER(KA(
PA(NMAN!(BUTI(PA(ANG(BULALO(MAY(UTAK!((Lakas$
$
Rule(5(
UNIFORM(PROCEDURE(IN(TRIAL(COURTS(
A.$Uniform$Procedure:$
The$procedure$in$MTC$shall$be(the(same$as$in$the$Regional$
Trial$Courts,$except:$
1.$ Where$ a$ particular( provision( expressly( or( impliedly(
applies$only$to$either$of$the$said$courts;$or$
EX:( In$ civil$ cases$ governed$ by$ the$ Rule$ on$ Summary$
Procedure$$In(MTC(only((no$need$for$a$hearing$
10k$below$$Summary$Procedure$
over$10k$$Ordinary$Civil$Action$
JKB!Rm!405!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In( Summary( Procedures,( the( court( may( dispense( of( the(

trial.( It$ wil$ just$ ask$ the$ parties$ to$ file$ memorandums$ and$
decide$right$away.$
$
Ejectment$case$$the$judge$can$even$decide$without$a$trial$$
by$Summary$Proceeding$in$MTC$
Kung$ang$Judge$kamao$lang$jd,$di$na$ni$kinahanglan$
maghearing.$
$
B.$Municipal$Trial$Court$shall$include:$
Metropolitan$Trial$Court$
Municipal$Trial$Court$in$Cities$
Municipal$Trial$Court$
Municipal$Circuit$Trial$Court$
$
By( the( way,( Dec( 13( ba,( Law( Day( Talent( Night,( ang( form(
st
nd
rd
naa(ni(Ron.(Ang(price(1 (place(3k,(2 (place(2k,(3 (place(1k.(
Naay(price(sa(loudest(cheer.(a(Michael(Francis(Hubahib((
by$the$way$pa$haha$
(
PROCEDURE(IN(THE(REGIONAL(TRIAL(COURTS(
RULE(6(
Kinds(of(pleadings(
A.(DEFINITION(OF(PLEADING:(
(
A$pleading$is$a$written$statement$of$the$respective$
claims$ and$ defenses$ of$ the$ parties$ submitted$ to$ the$ court$
for$appropriate$judgment.$$
$
B.(Pleadings(allowed(in(court:(
Complaint(
Answer(
Counterclaim(
Crossaclaim(
Reply(
Third(Party(Complaint((Fourth,(Fifth,(etc.)(
*You$ can$ classify$ them$ into$ 2:$ Initiatory$ Pleading$ &$
Responsive(Pleading$
$
2(Kinds(of(Pleading:(
Initiatory( Pleading( a( sets$ into$ motion$ a$ particular$
action$in$court.(
Responsive(Pleading((your$answer$to$the$pleading$
filed$by$other$party.(
$
C.(Complaint(
$
A$ complaint$ is$ the$ pleading$ alleging$ the$ plaintiffs$
cause$or$causes$of$action.$A$complaint$is$also$known$as$the$
Initiatory(Pleading.(
(
The$ allegations$ in$ the$ complaint$ must$ contain$ the$
four$elements$of$the$cause$of$action$to$wit:$
The$right$
The$obligation$
The$delict$or$wrong$committed$in$violation$of$your$
right;$
15!
Damage$
$
D.(Answer(
%
An% answer% is% a% pleading% in% which% a% defending%
party%sets%forth%his%defenses%(Sec.%4)%
(
There$are$2$kinds$of$DEFENSES:(
Negative( Defenses$ $ defenses$ denying$ the$
material$ averments$ in$ the$ complaint.$ HOW( TO(
DENY?(There(must(be(SPECIFIC(DENIAL.$
o Paragraph$ by$ Paragraph$ must$ be$
specifically$denied.$
EX1:(Specific(denial((I$am$denying$Paragraph$1.$The$truth$
of$ the$ matter$ is$ blah$ blah$ blah.$ $ that$ is$ a$ lie,$ this$ is$ the$
truth$
EX2:(Denying(by(Lack(of(Knowledge((
Paragraph$2$of$the$complaint$is$specifically$denied$for$lack$
of$ knowledge$ sufficient$ to$ form$ a$ belief$ as$ to$ the$ truth$ or$
falsity$of$the$allegations$in$the$affidavit.$$I( DONT( KNOW(
RA(NA$
(
Affirmative( Defenses( $ A$ defense$ of$ confession$
and$ avoidance$ because$ while$ the$ defendant$ may$
admit( the( material( averments( in( the( complaint,$
however,$ he$ will$ plead$ a$ new$ matter$ which$ will$
prevent(recovery(by(the(plaintiff.(
o I$ admit$ what$ you$ are$ saying,$ its$ the$
truth,$but$you$cannot$recover$from$me.(
EX:(Prescription((I$admit$that$I$borrowed$money$from$you$
and$ I$ have$ not$ paid.$ But$ you$ cannot$ anymore$ collect$
because$your$action$has$already$prescribed.$
$
EX2:( Statue( of( Fraud( ( We$ may$ have$ entered$ into$ the$
contract$but$it$is$not$enforceable$in$court$because$it$is$not$in$
writing$$you$cannot$prove$it$in$court.$
(
EX3:( Illegality( ( You$ cannot$ claim$ from$ me$ because$ the$
contract$is$illegal.$
(
EX4:(Estoppel(
(
E.(Counterclaim:(
%
A% counterclaim% is% any% claim% which% a% defending%
party%may%have%against%an%opposing%party%(Sec.%6)%
(
Which$claim$may$arise$out$of$the$same$transaction$which$is$
the$ subject$ matter$ of$ the$ complaint$ or$ it$ may$ arise$ out$ of$
different$transaction.$
$
EX:( You$ ask$ damages$ from$ me$ as$ your$ contractor.$ I$ filed$
counterclaim$ against$ you$ saying$ that$ on$ the$ contrary,$ you$
are$the$one$who$is$negligent$and$I$ask$damages$from$you.$
$
The$ counterclaim$ is$ set( up( in( the( answer,$ I$ will$
include$whatever$claims$I$have$against$you.$This$claim$might$
16! !
!!!!!
arise( out( of( the( same( transaction( or( of( another(

transaction.(
(
2(KINDS(OF(COUNTERCLAIM(
A.(Compulsory(((arises$out$of$the$same$contract$
EX:$ Breach( of( Contract( ( A$ filed$ against$ B$ for$ breach$ of$
contract.$ B$ counterclaimed$ that$ It$ is$ not$ him$ who$ is$
negligent$but$A$of$not$complying$the$terms$in$the$contract.$$
The$counterclaim$arises$out$of$the$same$contract.$
(
B.( Permissive( ( a( counter$ claim$ against$ you$ which$ is$ the$
subject( matter( of( ANOTHER( CONTRACT$ but$ may$
nevertheless$set$up$against$your$complaint$
$
EX:( A$ promise$ to$ pay$ to$ B,$ but$ B$ did$ not$ pay.$ But$ B$
counterclaimed$ that$ A$ also$ have$ a$ debt$ from$ him$ a$ long$
time$ago$=$not$the$same$transaction$
$
Why(do(we(have(to(know?(
Compulsory$ Counterclaim$ MUST$ be$ set$ up$ in$ the$
counterclaim,$otherwise$deemed$barred$while$$
Permissive$ Counterclaim$ may$ be$ set$ up$ in$ the$
answer$or$in$another$case.$
$
Elements(of(Compulsory(Counterclaim:(
1.(It(is(cognizable(by(a(regular(court(of(justice(
If$not$cognizable$by$the$court,$you$cannot$set$it$up$
as$ counterclaim$ as$ it$ was$ maybe$ cognizable$ to$ a$
quasi6judicial$body(
EX:(Collection$case$was$filed$against$A$in$RTC.(In$his$answer,$
he$ set$ up$ a$ counterclaim$ that$ there$ was$ a$ time$ that$ B$
employed$ him$ in$ his$ company$ and$ he$ was$ not$ paid$ of$ his$
benefits.$
$
It$ is$ not$ cognizable$ by$ the$ same$ court$ because$ it$
arises$out$of$EE6ER$relationship$$cognizable$in$NLRC(
$
2.( It( arises( out( of( or( is( connected( with( a( transaction( or(
occurrence( constituting( a( subject( matter( of( the( opposing(
partys(claim;(
EX:( A$ filed$ a$ civil$ case$ against$ B.$ B$ said$ that$ it$ is$ baseless$
case,$ he$ ask$ for$ damages$ because$ of$ the$ sleepless$ nights$
and$wounded$feelings$because$of$the$filing$of$the$case.$=$it(
arises(out(from(the(main(case(
(
3.( It( does( not( acquire( for( its( adjudication( the( presence( of(
third(parties(whom(the(court(cannot(acquire(jurisdiction;(
EX:( The$ counterclaim$ requires$ a$ third$ person$ which$ the$
court$ cannot$ acquire$ jurisdiction,$ it$ will$ only$ move( to( an(
unnecessary(delay(of(the(case.(
$
4.(It(must(be(within(the(jurisdiction(of(the(court,(both(as(to(
the( amount( and( the( nature( thereof,( except( that( in( an(
original( action( before( the( RTC,( the( counterclaim( may( be(
considered(compulsory(regardless(of(the(amount;(and(
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JKB!Rm!405!
EX1:( A$file$as$case$against$B$50k$in$MTC.$B$counterclaim$by$
500k.$ Can$ MTC$ decide$ the$ counterclaim?$ NO$ $ jurisdiction$
of$MTC$is$only$300k$below.$
$
EX2:( A$ file$ case$ against$ B$ 500K$ in$ RTC.$ B$ counterclaim$ by$
50K.$Can$RTC$decide$the$case?$YES$$the$50k$is$maybe$small$
(amount$ cognizable$ by$ the$ MTC)$ $ except% that% in% an%
original% action% before% the% RTC,% the% counterclaim% may% be%
considered%compulsory%regardless%of%the%amount$
(
5.( The( defending( party( has( a( counterclaim( at( the( time( he(
files(his(answer;((
EX:(Counterclaim(in(Criminal(Case(
(
When$ the$ civil$ action$ is$ deemed$ impliedly$
instituted$ in$ the$ criminal$ action,$ the$ accused$ may$ set$ up$ a$
compulsory$ counterclaim$ against$ a$ complainant.$ (Javier$ vs$
IAC)$
$
$
This$ ruling$ was$ later$ on$ abandoned$ when$ the$ SC$
said$ that$ a$ counteraclaim( of( the( accused( cannot( be( tried(
together( with( the( criminal( case( because( it( will(
unnecessarily( and( confuse( the( criminal( proceeding.$
(Cabaero$vs$Cantos)$6$IMPORTANT(
$
F.(Cross((Claim:(
$
Any$claim( by( one( party( against( a( coaparty( arising(
out( of( the( transaction( or( occurrence( that( is( the( subject(
matter$ either$ of$ the$ original$ action$ or$ of$ a$ counterclaim$
therein.$
$
EX:(A$filed$a$case$against$B$and$C.$B$counterclaimed$that$it$is$
not$his$fault$but$of$C.$That$counterclaim$is$the$crossaclaim(
$
G.(Reply:(
(
Is$ a$ pleading,$ the$ office$ or$ function$ of$ which$ is$ to(
deny,(or(allege(facts(in(denial(or(avoidance(of(new(matter(
alleged(by(way(of(defense(in(the(answer(and(thereby(join(
or(make(issue(as(to(such(new(matters.$If$the$party(does(not(
file( such( reply,( all( new( matters( alleged( in( the( answer( are(
deemed(controverted.(
(
(a( THIS( JUST( THE( PLAINTIFFS( ANSWER( TO( THE(
DEFENDANTS(ANSWER(
(
EX:( A$ filed$ case$ against$ B.$ B$ filed$ an$ answer$ with$ some$
claims$or$new$matter$against$A.$A$will$REPLY$to$that$claims$
of$B.$
$
Sequence:(COMPLAINT((ANSWER(a(REPLY(
$
Reply$is$not(mandatory.$$
$
If( no( Reply$ $ those( claims( by( the( other( party( is( deemed(
DENIED(by$the$plaintiff.$
$
JKB!Rm!405!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When$is$reply$mandatory?$
1.(Where(the(answer(alleges(the(defense(of(usury(
$
Laim(Law(vs(Sawmill(
$
If$ you$ file$ a$ complaint$ against$ the$ defendant$ and$
the$ defendant$ sets$ up$ the$ defense$ of$ usury$ (interest$ is$
usurious),$ under$ the( OLD( RULES,$ you$ must$ reply$ $ under(
oath(a$IF$YOU$ARE$ACCUSED$OF$USURIOUS$CONTRACT.$
$
$
IN$ NEW( RULES,$ that$ mandatory$ reply$ is$ needed$
only$if$the$usury$is$contained$in$the$ANSWER,$NO$NEED$TO$
DENY$ IT$ UNDER$ OATH.$ $ If$ in$ Complaint,$ It$ must$ be$
answered$under$oath.$6$NOW(IRRELEVANT(BECAUSE(USURY(
LAW(IS(NOT(APPLICABLE.(
$
2.(When(the(answer(is(based(on(an(actionable(document.(
When$ there$ is$ actionable$ document$ attached$ $ you( must(
file(a(reply.((Discuss(later.(
(
Reply(vs(Answer(to(Counterclaim(
A$reply(is(a(response(to(the(defense(set(up(by(the(
defendant$in(his(answer,$whereas$$
o the$answer(to(counterclaim(is(a(response(
of(the(plaintiff(to(the(counterclaim(of(the(
defendant.$
The$filing$of$a$reply(is(generally(optional$while$$
o the$filing$of$an$answer(to(counter(claim(is(
mandatory(
$
H.(Third((Fourth,(etc)((Party(Complaint:(
This( is$ a$ claim$ that$ a$ defending( party$ may,$ with$
leave( of( court,$ file$ against( a( person( not( a( party( to( the(
action,$ called$ the$ third$ (fourth,$ fifth,$ etc)$ party$ defendant,$
for$contribution,$indemnity,$subrogation,$or$any$other$relief,$
in$respect$of$his$opponents$claim$(Sec.$11)$
(
EX:(A$filed$a$case$against$B.$B$answered$that$it$is$actually$Cs$
fault.$ Its$ the$ fault$ of$ this$ son$ of$ a$ gun$ friend$ of$ mine$ who$
was$not$mentioned$in$the$complaint.$So$B$will$drag$that$C$to$
be$ part$ of$ the$ Case$ $ for$ the$ purpose$ of$ contribution,$
indemnification$and$reimbursement.$
$
$*There( must( be( A( LEAVE( OF( COURT( ( BECAUSE( YOU( ARE(
BRINGING(A(NEW(PARTY(WHICH(IS(NOT(PART(OF(THE(CASE(
IN(THE(FIRST(PLACE.(
(
Fourth( Party( Defendant( ( filed( by( that( third( party$for$the$
purposes$ the$ same$ as$ to$ the$ Third6Party6Complaint$ =$
PASA2(BA!(WA(OI,(DI(AKO.(
(
*Where$the$trial$court$has$jurisdiction$over$the$main$case,$it(
also( has( jurisdiction( over( the( third( party( complaint(
REGARDLESS( OF( THE( AMOUNT$ involved$ as$ a$ third6party$
complaint$is$merely$ancillary$to$and$is$a$continuation$of$the$
main$action.$
17!
$
rd
The(purpose(of(3 (Party(Complaint(
Contribution(
Indemnity(
Subrogation(
Any$other$relief$in$respect$to$opponents$claim(
(
Four(Test(to(determine(propriety(of(thirdaparty(complaint(
1.(Whether(it(arises(out(of(the(same(transaction(on(which(
plaintiffs(claim(is(based;(
2.( Whether( the( thirdapartys( complaint( although( arising(
out(of(another(transaction,(is(connected(with(the(plaintiffs(
claim;(
3.( Whether( thirdaparty( defendant( would( be( liable( to( the(
original( plaintiffs( claim.( Although( the( third( party(
defendants(liability(arises(out(of(another(transaction;(
4.( Whether( the( third( party( defendant( may( assert( any(
defense( which( the( thirdaparty( plaintiff( has( or( may( have(
against(plaintiffs(claim.(
$
Third( ( Party( Complaint( in( Criminal( Cases( ( NOT(
AVAILABLE(ANYMORE(
(
The$ ruling$ in$ Shafer$ vs$ judge$ of$ RTC$ of$ Olongapo$
City,$which$allow$third$party$complaint$in$criminal$case$has$
already$been$ABANDONED$by$the$Cabaero$case.$In$fact,$it$is$
now$ incorporated$ in$ Sec.$ 1$ (a)$ of$ Rule$ 111$ of$ the$ 2000$
Revised$rules$on$Criminal$Procedure$that$No$counterclaim,$
cross6claim$ or$ third6party$ complaint$ may$ be$ filed$ by$ the$
accused$in$a$criminal$case.$The$same$may$be$litigated$in$a$
separate$civil$action.$
$
So( in( Criminal( Case( ( NO( COUNTERCLAIM,( NO( THIRD(
PARTY(COMPLAINT,(NO(CROSSaCLAIM((AGAINST$POSSIBLE$
DELAY$
$
RULE(7(
PARTS(OF(A(PLEADING(
A.(CAPTION:(
Sets$forth$the$name$of$the$court.$The$title$of$the$action,$and$
the$docket$number$if$assigned.$
What$court?$
Who$are$the$plaintiffs$
Who$are$the$defendants?$
What$is$the$case$number?$
Title$of$the$case$
$
B.( Title( of( the( action$ 6$ indicates$ the$ names$ of$ the$ parties.$
They$shall$all$be$named$in$the$original$complaint$or$petition;$
but$in$subsequent$pleadings$it$shall$be$sufficient$if$the$name$
of$ the$ first$ party$ on$ each$ side$ be$ started$ with$ an$
appropriate$indication$when$there$are$other$parties.$
$
Republic$of$the$Philippines$
th
7 $Judicial$Region$
18! !
!!!!!
REGIONAL$TRIAL$COURT$OF$CEBU$
Branch$24$
$
JUAN$DE$LA$CRUZ,$
Plaintiff$ $
$
$
CIVIL$CASE$NO.$12345$
$
$6$versus$6$
$
$
$
FOR:$RECISSION$
OF$
$
$
$
$
CONTRACT$WITH$
DAMAGES$
PEDRO$DE$LOS$REYES,$
DEFENDANT.$
666666666666666666666666666666/$
COMPLAINT(
(
st
nd
1 (and(2 (Paragraph((Introduction$of$the$Complaint$$bio$
of$the$parties$
3rd( Paragraph( ( The$ situations$ or$ the$ causes$ of$ action$ $
here(you(state(the(Elements(of(Cause(of(Action(
Last(Part((Relief$Prayed$For.$
$
C.(Signature(and(Address:(
Signature$ is$ the$ warranty$ of$ the$ lawyer$ that$ he$
prepared$ the$ pleadings$ based$ on$ the$ facts$
disclosed$to$him$by$the$client(
This$means$an$implied$certification$in$genuiness$$of$
the$pleading(
$
*Bar(Matter(No.(287((Sept.(26,(2000)(
$
Counsel$ should$ indicate$ PTR$ &$ IBP$ Official$ Receipt$
No.$or$Lifetime$member$number$
$
*Bar(Matter(No.(1132((April,(2003)(
$
Counsel$ should$ indicate$ his$ Role( of( Attorneys(
number(
(
D.(Verification:(
(
Verification$in$the$pleading$refers$to$that$portion$of$
the$pleading$where$the$pleader(certifies(that(he(caused(the(
preparation( of( the( pleading( and( that( the( allegations(
therein( are( true( and( correct$ of$ his$ own$ knowledge$ and$
belief.$
$
The$ pleaders$ affirmation$ of$ the$ truth$ and$
correctness$of$his$allegations$in$the$pleading$must$be$based$
not$ only$ on$ his$ knowledge$ and$ belief$ BUT$ on$ his$
personal(knowledge(or(based(on(authentic(records(
$
As$ a$ general$ rule,$ pleadings$ need$ not$ be$ verified.$ It$ is$ only$
required$when$the$law$so$provides$as$in$the$following:$
Petition$for$Relief$from$judgment$
Petition$for$Review$under$rule$42$
Petition$for$Review$under$Rule$43$
Appeal$by$Certiorari$under$Rule$45$
Petition$for$annulment$of$judgment$of$RTC$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JKB!Rm!405!
Petition$for$Certiorari,$Prohibition,$Mandamus,$etc$
$
E.(Certification(of(NonaForum(Shopping(
Certification$ is$ required( only( in( INITIATORY(
PLEADING$
o Complaint$
o Counterclaim$$
o Cross6Claim$
Certification$of$Non6Forum$Shopping$applies$ONLY(
TO( PERMISSIVE( COUNTERCLAIM$ and$ not$ to$
compulsory$ counterclaim$ (Sto( Tomas( University(
hospital(vs(Surla)$
It$ is$ mandatory$ that$ the$ certification( be( executed(
by( the( petitioner( himself,$and$not$by$counsel$(Far$
Eastern$Shipping$Co.$vs$CA)$
(
Verification(and(Certification(of(NonaForum(Shopping((to(
avoid(litis(pendencia(
can(be(contained(in(1(document((anyway(it(is(the(
plaintiff(to(sign(it.(
(
Rule(8(
MANNER(OF(MAKING(ALLEGATIONS(IN(PLEADING(
(
A.(What$a$pleading$must$contain:$
$
Every$ pleading$ shall$ contain( in( a( methodical( and(
logical( form,$ a( plain,( concise( and( direct( statement( of( the(
ultimate( facts( on( which( the( party( pleading( relies( for( his(
claim( or( defense,$ as$ the$ case$ maybe,$ omitting( the(
statement(of(mere(evidentiary(facts.$
$
Two(kinds(of(Facts(in(a(pleading(
Ultimate(Facts((allegation$in$the$pleading$that$will$
establish$ your$ cause$ of$ action.$ That$ will$ refer$ the$
rights$ of$ the$ plaintiff$ that$ was$ violated$ by$ the$
defendant$and$damage$suffered$as$a$result.(
Evidentiary( Facts( ( are$ facts$ that$ will$ support$ the$
ultimate$ facts.$ Should$ be$ presented( ONLY( IN( THE(
TRIAL(OF(THE(CASE.(
(
EX:(Recovery(of(Land((It$is$enough$that$you$claim$there$in$
your$complaint$that$you$are$the$owner$of$that$land$and$you$
were$ dispossessed$ by$ the$ defendant$ from$ the$ land.$ You$
have$the$right$to$the$land$and$the$defendant$committed$an$
act$that$violated$your$right$and$it$causes$damage$to$you.$
(
Now( as( to( how( you( acquired( the( rights( over( that(
land,(you(dont(have(to(state(that(your(pleadings.($THAT$IS$
ALREADY$EVIDENTIARY$MATTERS.$$
$
As$ to$ how$ you$ are$ dispossessed$ $ you$ may$ not$
state$ that$ in$ detail$ because$ these$ are$ evidentiary$ matters.$
Do$ that$ in$ the$ trial$ proper$ in$ determining$ the$ issues$ to$
support$the$ultimate$facts$in$your$complaint.$
$
JKB!Rm!405!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ONLY( ULTIMATE( FACTS( SHALL( BE( STATED( IN( THE(

PLEADINGS.(PWEDE(RA(GALI(3(PAGES.(ITS(NOT(GOOD(TO(
LAY(ALL(YOUR(CARDS(IN(THE(TABLE.(
(
B.(Alternative(Causes(of(Action(or(Defenses:(
(
In$ the$ pleading,$ the$ pleader$ may$ set$ up$ an$
alternative$defense.$This$is$my$cause$of$action$and$this$is$my$
alternative$defense.$
EX:( You$ hired$ a$ carrier$ to$ ship$ goods,$ goods$ are$ lost.$ You$
filed$a$case$against$the$carrier.$The$carrier$said$that$they$are$
not$ liable$ but$ the$ arastre.$ So$ file$ complaint$ against$ the$
carrier$and$the$arastre$company$as$an$alternative.$
$
C.(How(allegation(in(a(pleading(are(made:(
Condition$precedent$(Generally)$$enough$that$you$
state$in$your$pleading$that$you$have$availed$of$the$
condition$precedent$and$of$no$avail(
o Barangay$
Conciliation,$
Amicable$
Settlement,$Administrative$Exhaustion(
o Enough$ that$ it$ be$ alleged$ generally.$ No$
need$to$give$the$particulars.$=$1(SENTENCE(
IS(ENOUGH(
Capacity$to$Sue$(Particularity)(
o State$ from$ what$ capacity$ $ SPA?$
Documents?(
Allegation$of$Fraud$or$Mistake$(Particular)(
o Describe$everything:$how$it$is$committed.(
Allegation$of$Judgment$(General)(
Official$documents$or$acts(
(
D.(Actionable(Document((the$basis$for$your$complain.$
How( do( you( plead?( In$ a$ case$ of$ collection$ of$ money,$ the$
contract$ of$ loan$ or$ promissory$ note$ is$ a$ good$ example$ of$
actionable$document.$$
YOU(MAY(JUST(CITE(THE(PERTINENT(PORTION(OF(
THAT(DOCUMENT.(
OR( YOU( MAY( COPY( IT( IN( VERBATIM( IF( YOU(
WANT.(
*BUT:(BETTER(IF(YOU(WILL(JUST(QUOTE(THE(PORTION(
(
How(to(contest(such(document?(The$other$party$must$have$
to$ deny( it( UNDER( OATH( a( SPECIFICALLY( =( THE( ANSWER(
MUST(BE(VERIFIED.(
(
What( if( the( actionable( document( is( attached( to( the(
ANSWER?(
EX:( A$ filed$ a$ case$ against$ B$ to$ recover$ parcel$ of$ land.$ Bs$
defense$is$that$he$is$the$owner$of$the$land,$bought$it$from$
the$ previous$ owner$ $ he$ attached$ the$ deed$ of$ sale.$ The(
deed(of(sale(is(an(actionable(document.($
$
If$ B$ attached$ that$ document$ in$ his$ answer$ then$ A(
MUST( FILE( A( REPLY( DENYING( THE( ACTIONABLE(
DOCUMENT.(
$
19!
E.(EFFECT:(If(the(denial(is(not(verified/(not(under(oath((the$
genuiness( and( due( execution( of$ the$ document$ is$ deemed(
admitted.$
The$ document$ is$ not$ fake,$ the$ signature$ is$ not$
forged$ $ you$ cannot$ present$ any$ evidence$ to$
question$the$document.(
BUT:(The(law(only(said(that(ONLY(THE(GENUINESS(
AND(DUE(EXECUTION(THAT(IS(DEEMED(ADMITTED((
o NOT( THE( CONTENTS( ( they$ are$ still$
rebuttable.(
(
Exceptions:(
When( the( adverse( party( is( not( a( party( to( the(
document;(
EX:( Siblings$ filed$ case$ against$ A$ $ that$ the$ land$ is$ own$ by$
their$ parents.$ Now$ A$ claim$ that$ the$ land$ is$ sold$ by$ their$
parent$to$A$$presented$the$Deed$of$Sale.$The$sibling$did$not$
deny$the$documents$under$oath.$
$
Sibling$ can$ still$ question$ the$ genuiness$ and$ due$
execution$BECAUSE(THEY(ARE(NOT(A(PARTY(OF(THAT(DEED(
OF( SALE.( IT( IS( THERE( PARENTS( WHO( ARE( PARTIES(
THERETO.(
$
When( the( order( for( the( inspection( of( the(
document(was(not(complied(with((Rule(27)(
EX:(A$filed$a$case$against$B$for$recovery$of$land.$B$said$that$A$
already$ sold$ it$ to$ him,$ he$ holds$ the$ deed$ of$ sale.$ But$ what$
he$attached$to$his$answer$is$just$the$copy$(hanap$pa$jd).$A$
filed$motion$to$the$court$to$order$B$to$show$him$the$original$
document$for$him$to$verify.$$
$
When$ the$ court$ grant$ that$ motion$ and$ it$ is$ not$
complied$ with,$ then$ the$ plaintiff$ can$ always$ question$ the$
genuiness$ and$ due$ execution$ of$ the$ document.$ He( is( not(
deemed(to(have(admitted(it(despite(no(denial(under(oath(
on(his(part.(
(
How(to(make(Denial?(
F.(SPECIFIC(DENIAL:(
Two(ways(to(make(a(specific(denial:(
By$ specifically( denying( the( averment$ and,$
whenever$ possible,$ setting$ forth$ the$ substance$ of$
the$matters$relied$upon$for$such$denial;$and(
By$ an$ allegation( of( lack( of( knowledge( or(
information$ sufficient$ to$ form$ a$ belief$ as$ to$ the$
truth$of$the$averment$in$the$opposing$partys(
(
G.(GR:(Allegations(that(are(not(specifically(denied(deemed(
admitted.(
Exceptions:(
Allegations$as$to$amount$of$damages,(
Allegations$ which$ are$ immaterial$ to$ the$ cause$ of$
action(
Allegation$ in$ the$ complaint$ where$ no$ answer$ has$
been$filed$by$the$defendant.(
20! !
!!!!!
(
Negative( Pregnant( ( if$ you$ deny$ and$ quote$ verbatim$ the$
complaint$$that(is(vague(denial.((
It$ is$ considered( as( an( admission( instead( of( a(
denial.(
EX:( PLAINTIFF:( The$ defendant$ committed$ the$ following$
act:$blah$blah$blah$
Then$ the$ defendant$ in$ his$ denial$ said,$ I$ specifically$ deny$
that$I$blah(blah(blah((COPY(PASTE(RA(NIMO(ANG(GIINGON(
SA(PLAINTIFF)(
$
When( you( deny,( you( must( deny( the( allegations( in( good(
faith.(
When$you$deny$the$existence$of$document$which$is$
obviously$ in$ your$ possession,$ with$ sufficient$ evidence$
(receipt,$ hidden$ cameras,$ picture).$ $ Denial( in( Bad( Faith( (
TREATED(AS(ADMISSION(
(
H.(Specific(denial(is(not(sufficient(if(not(under(oath(in(the(
following(instances:(
Allegation$as$to$usury$in$the$complaint;$and(
Authenticity$ and$ due$ execution$ of$ actionable$
document$ properly$ pleaded$ where$ the$ opposing$
party$was$a$party$thereto.(
(
December(4,(2013(
Rule(9(
EFFECT(OF(FAILURE(TO(PLEAD(
EX:$ Case$ filed$ against$ you,$ you$ have$ 15$ days$ to$ file$ an$
answer.$ In$ your$ complaint,$ you$ should$ state$ every$ defense$
available$ for$ you,$ otherwise$ those$ defenses$ you$ did$ not$
include$are$deemed(Waived.$$$
$
THE(OMNIBUS(MOTION(RULE(
$
When$you$file$an$answer$to$the$complaint,$you$put$
all$the$available$defenses$to$your$answer.$Do$not$put$only$1$
defense$and$later$on$set$up$another$defense.$
$
A.( Effect( of( failure( to( plead( defenses( and( objections:(
WAIVED(
Ground(to(move(the(dismissal(of(the(complaint((see$Rule$
16,$will$be$discussed$later$
$
Those$ ground$ are$ also$ what$ we$ call$ Available( Defense( (
must$be$stated$in$the$answer,$otherwise$$deemed$WAIVED.$
(
Aa1.(Defenses(and(Objections(not(deemed(waived:($
Lack(of(jurisdiction(over(the(subject(matter,(
Litis(pendentia(
o Filing$ a$ case$ while$ there$ is$ another$ case$
pending$in$another$court(
Res(Judicata,$and(
o Filing$ a$ case$ while$ the$ case$ has$ already$
been$decided$by$the$court(
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JKB!Rm!405!
o Barred(by(prior(judgment(
Prescription(of(action(
a( even$if$you$did$not$include$these$in$your$answer,$you$can$
still$ raise$ these$ during$ the$ trial$ of$ the$ case;$ you( can( even(
raise(these(during(appeal(
a( the( court( here( can( right( away( dismiss( the( case( motu(
proprio(
(
B.( Compulsory( counterclaim( or( crossaclaim,( not( set( up(
barred:(WAIVED(
Compulsory( Counterclaim$ must$ be$ set$ up$ in$ your$
claim$6$mandatory$
CrossaClaim((must$also$be$set$up$$mandatory$
(
Permissive$$can$be$set$up$in$your$claim$or$you$can$file$it$as$
separate$case.$
$
C.( Declaration( of( Default:( a( only$ the$ RESPONDING( PARTY$
can$be$declared$in$default$
1.(When?(
(
When$the$defendant$fails$to$file$his$answer$within$
the$relementary$period$of$15$days$and$the$plaintiff$has$filed$
the$motion$to$declare$that$defendant$in$default.$
15(days(from$the$time$you$receive(the(summons(to$
file$answer(
If$ you$ cannot$ file$ within$ the$ reglementary$ period,$
you$can$now$be$declared$in$default(
Can( the( court,( motu( proprio( declare( the(
defendant(in(default?(NO(
o Only$upon(the(motion(of(the(plaintiff$that$
the$defendant$is$in$default.(
o It$must$be$initiated(by(the(plaintiff.(
NEW(RULE:(There$can$only$be$a$default$upon$the$motion$of$
the$plaintiff$after$the$lapse$of$the$reglimentary$period$to$file$
an$answer$and$no$answer$was$filed$at$all.$
(
NOTE:(
*Even( if( the( 15( days( period( has( lapsed,( if( the( plaintiff( did(
not( filed( a( motion( to( declare( in( default( ( the( defendant(
can( still( file( an( answer( AND( THE( COURT( IS( DUTY( BOUND(
TO(ACCEPT(IT.((
WHY?$Because$he$is$no$yet$declared$in$default.$He$
can$still$file.$a(IMPORTANT(
(
2.(Effect(
It$ is$ as$ if$ the$ party$ does$ not$ have$ a$ standing$ in$
court.(
(
IN( THE( OLD( RULE( ( As( in( Default( ( if$the$defendant$did(
not(appear(in(the(PREaTRIAL$without$justifiable$reason.$
So$upon$the$motion$of$the$plaintiff,$the$defendant$
will$ be$ declared$ AS$ IN$ DEFAULT.$ The$ court$ will$ now$ allow$
the$plaintiff$to$present$evidence$exaparty.(
$
JKB!Rm!405!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(
IN( THE( ONEW( RULE( ( The$ term$ as( in( default( is$ no$ longer$
used$BUT(THE(PROCEDURE(REMAINS(THE(SAME.(
If$ the$ defendant$ fails$ to$ appear$ in$ the$ PRE6TRIAL$
without$ justifiable$ reason,$ the$ plaintiff( can( present(
evidence( exaparty( ( WITHOUT( NECESSARILY( DECLARING(
THE(DEFENDANT(AS(IN(DEFAULT(
(
According$to$the$SC,$that$is$a$not$a$proper$term$to$
use.$ The$ word$ DEFAULT$ $ should$ only$ be$ used$ if$ the$
defendant$fails(to(answer$within(the(reglementary(period((
NOT(WHEN(HE(DID(NOT(APPEAR(DURING(THE(PREaTRIAL.(
(
(
OLD(RULE(vs(NEW(RULE(
OR(
The$ plaintiff$ can$ file$ motion$ to$ declare$ the$
defendant$in$default$without(furnishing(his(copy(of(
motion( to( the( defendant( because( the( defendant(
already(lost(his(standing(in(court(
NR(
The$ plaintiff$ is$ required$ to$ furnish$ his$ copy$ to$ the$
defendant$ even$ if$ the$ defendant$ is$ already$
considered$ in$ default.$ He$ is$ still$ entitled$ to$
subsequent$ notices$ from$ the$ court$ even$ if$ he$
cannot$participate$in$the$proceedings(
The$purpose$is$to$let$him$be$informed$of$when$the$
plaintiff$presents$his$evidence.$It$is$his$discretion$if$
he$wants$to$attend$of$not.(
He$maybe$free$to$attend$but$he$cannot$speak$or$no$
standing$ in$ the$ court$ $ OBSERVER$ NLANG,$
PUNCHING$BAG(
EXaPARTY( ( only$ the$ party$ can$ present$ evidence$
because( the( defendant( already( loses( his( standing(
in(court(
(
3.(Relief(
Defendant$has$the$right( to( file( motion( to( lift/( set(
aside( the( order$ of$ the$ court$ on( the( ground( of(
FAME( (Fraud,( Accident,( Mistake,( Excusable(
Negligence)(
Defendant$can$file$motion$to$lift$from(the(moment(
he( learned( the( motion( for( default( UNTIL( the(
judgment(of(default(is(rendered(
BUT:( The$ court( can( deny$ your$ motion$ to$ lift$ the$
order$ of$ default$ because$ the$ court$ finds$ your$
reason$ unjustifiable.$ $ that( it( is( just( a( dilatory(
tactic((
(
HOW(TO(FILE(MOTION(TO(LIFT(THE(ORDER(OF(DEFAULT?(
File$ the$ motion$ and$ that$ motion$ must$ be$ verified(
and(under(oath(
The$ motion$ must$ be$ accompanied$ by$ affidavit( of(
merit.(
(
21!
Affidavit( of( Merit( ( an$affidavit$executed$by$the$movant$$

Convincing$the$court$that$he$has$very$good$and$meritorious$
defense$$PATUBAGA$TAWN$KO$$
$
6$no$affidavit$$MOTION$DENIED$
(
*MAGIC2(PART(a(IMPORTANT(
If$ the$ court$ ORDERS( A( DEFAULT( ( you( can( NO(
longer( appeal( that( decision( ( IT( IS( AN(
INTERLOCUTORY( ORDER( ( you$ can$ only$ file$ for$
Certiorari((Rule(65)(
When$the$court$now$decides(the(case$(USUALLY$IN$
FAVOR$OF$THE$DEFENDANT$$OBVIOUSLY$BECAUSE$
THE$ DEFENDANT$ CANNOT$ PRESENT$ CONTRARY$
EVIDENCE)$ or$ the( Judgment( by( Default( (
DEFENDANT$CAN$NOW$APPEAL$
(
SIMPLIFY:(
Order( of( Default$ $ you$ cannot$ appeal$ $ it$ is$ an$
Interlocutory$Decision$
o You$ can$ only$ appeal$ under$ Rule$ 65$
(Certiorari)$ $ that$ the$ court$ is$ guilty$ of$
grave$ abuse$ of$ discretion$ amounting$ to$
lack$or$in$excess$of$jurisdiction$
Judgment((OF(THE(CASE)(by(Default$$Appealable$
$
*So( the( defendant( can( appeal( to( the( CA( from( the(
Judgment(by(Default(and(NOT(from(the(Order(of(Default(
(
*NOW$THERE$IS$THIS$ON$CASE$WHERE$YOU$NEED$NOT$WAIT$
FOR$ THE$ COURT$ TO$ DECLARE$ YOU$ IN$ DEFAULT$ IF$ THE$
REASON$YOU$GAVE$IN$YOUR$MOTION$TO$LIFT$THE$ORDER$IS(
THAT( THE( COURT( HAS( NOT( AQUIRE( JURISDICTION( OVER(
YOU(
(
a( the$ court$ committed$ error$ in$ declaring$ you$ in$
default$
Judge,$di$man$ko$angay$edeclare$nga$in$default$$KAY( WA(
MAN(KO(KADAWAT(SA(SUMMONS((
(
Here$obviously,$the$judge$is$wrong.$
$
*So(if(the(defendant(has(not(received(the(summons,(then(
the(court(has(not(acquired(jurisdiction(over(the(person(of(
the(defendant.(
(
a( But$ if$ the$ Judge$ still$ insist$ with$ that$ order$ and$
presentation$ of$ ex6party$ evidence,$ what( is( your( remedy?(
PETITION(FOR(CERTIORARI((GRAVE(ABUSE(OF(DISCRETION(
(THIS(INVOLVE(LACK(OF(JURISDICTION.(
(
4.(Partial(Default(
When$ there$ are$ many( defendants$ and$ only$ some$
are$ able$ to$ answer,$ some$ did$ not.$ Those$
defendants$ who$ was$ not$ able$ to$ answer$ can$ be$
declared$in$partial$default.$HOWEVER,( the( answer(
of( those( who( were( able( to( file( INURES( to( the(
22! !
!!!!!
benefit( of( the( latter( ( THEY( ARE( IN( COMMON(

INTEREST.(
(
Litam(vs(Ramolite(CASE(
(
Collection$Case,$some$defendants$answered,$some$
did$ not.$ Upon$ motion$ of$ the$ plaintiff,$ some$ are$ in$ partial$
default.$Now$the$lawyer$of$the$plaintiff$now$wants$to$drop$
those$who$answer.$Kato$nlang$mga$w$aka$answer$and$iyang$
gi$ gukod$ $ they( cannot( present( evidence,( they( cannot(
object((the(case(is(easier(DAOG(NA(DAAN,(kung(apilon(to(
nya(ang(mga(naka(answer(ma(pildi(nya(sya.(
(
IS(THAT(ALLOWED?(
$
SC$held$that$the$default$of$some$defendant$would$
not$be$prevented$from$availing$the$benefit$that$may$accrue$
to$ that$ answering$ defendant.$ If$ the$ plaintiff$ wants$ to$ drop$
those$ indispensable( party,( then( it( would( amount( to( the(
dismissal(of(the(case.(
(
PRINCIPLE:( To( drop( the( answering( defendants,( it( is( an(
admission(that(he(has(no(valid(cause(of(action(in(the(case.(
YOU(CANNOT(SEPARATE(THEIR(LIABILITY$
(
5.(Extent(of(Relief(to(be(Awarded(
The$ plaintiff$ will$ be$ required$ to$ present$ evidence$
ex6party.(
Here$ the$ judge$ can$ delegate$ the$ reception$ of$ the$
evidence$ to$ the$ clerk$ of$ court.$ But$ the$ one$ to$
decide$is$the$judge.(
It$ does$ not$ mean$ that$ if$ there$ is$ an$ ex6party$
proceeding,$the$plaintiff$has$already$won$the$case.$
There$ are$ instance$ that$ he$ cannot$ prove$ and$ the$
case$will$be$dismissed.((
(
What(kind(of(relief(are(awarded?(
Only$ those$ what$ you$ have$ prayed( for$ and$ those$
what(is(proven.(
Court( cannot( award( UNLIQUIDATED( DAMAGES(
even(if(it(is(prayed(for((not$determinable$as$to$its$
amount$ at$ the$ time$ the$ case$ is$ filed$ because$ it$ is$
still$subject$to$proof$of$evidence$(moral,$exemplary,$
actual$$subject$to$the$presentation$of$receipts).(
Court( can( only( award( LIQUIDATED( DAMAGES( (
damages$that$are$already$known$and$determinable$
at$the$time$of$the$filing$of$the$case.(
o EX:(Obligation$with$Penal$Clause(
(
UNRESOLVED(MATTER:(
Now$ what$ if$ the$ case$ is$ for$ moral$ damages?$ Then$ the$
defendant$ deliberately$ did$ not$ answer$ so$ that$ he$ will$ be$
declared$in$default.$Now$the$plaintiff$cannot$anymore$prove$
the$moral$damages.$
$
Remember( that( in( Judgment( by( Default( ( THE( COURT(
CANNOT(AWARD(UNLIQUIDATED(DAMAGES.(
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JKB!Rm!405!
(
See?( ( Hope( Civil( Code( will( be( amended( in( this(
matter.(
(
6.(When(no(default(is(allowed(
All$ actions$ involving$ Marriage$ $ This$ action$ is$ not$
compromisable.$(
o If$ there$ is$ Default$ here$ $ then$ it$ will$ be$
subject$ to$ Collusion$ of$ the$ parties$ $
magsabot2$sla$ba.(
o Cge$ Misis,$ file$ kaso$ against$ nako,$ di$ lang$
ko$mu$answer$para$in$default$ko$$present$
dayun$ evidence$ para$ diritso$ ta$ FREE6
AGAIN(
o Remember$if$there$is$Collusion$$the$court$
shall$ order$ the$ Fiscal$ to$ conduct$
investigation$ to$ know$ if$ there$ is$ no$
collusion$ between$ the$ husband$ and$ wife.$
Then$ the$ fiscal$ will$ issue$ a$ report$ that$
there$is$no$collusion$between$the$parties.(
Tuazon(Case(
(
If$ the$ defendant$ answered,$ we$ can$ do$ away$ with$
requirement$of$report(of(no(collusion(from$the$fiscal.$$
$
If$the$court$will$continue$on$the$proceeding$of$the$case$even$
without$the$report,$then$the(trial(is(defective.((
(
(
HOWEVER,$ if$ it$ is$ very$ clear$ that$ there$ was$ no$
collusion$ between$ the$ parties$ the$ defendant$ filed$ his$
answer$and$there$was$a$no6holds$barred$proceeding$during$
the$ hearing$ of$ the$ case.$ $ KLARU$ KAAU$ WAS$ COLLUSION,$
NAGSUMBAGAY$GD$ATUBANGAN$SA$JUDGE.$
(
D.(Rules(to(remember:(
The$ court$ cannot$ declare$ the$ defendant$ in$ default$
motu$proprio(
The$ grant$ or$ denial$ of$ default$ is$ discretionary$ on$
the$court(
Answer$ may$ still$ be$ filed$ if$ there$ is$ yet$ no$
declaration$of$default.(
A$ motion$ to$ lift$ the$ order$ of$ default$ should$ be$
under$ oath$ or$ verified$ and$ accompanied$ by$ an$
affidavit$of$merit.(
An$ order$ of$ default$ is$ not$ appealable$ as$ it$ is$ an$
interlocutory$order.(
(
Rule(10(
AMENDED(AND(SUPPLEMENTAL(PLEADINGS(
Amendment((the$striking$out$or$adding$allegations$in$your$
pleading;$ or$ striking$ out$ parties$ or$ adding$ parties$ in$ your$
pleadings.$
A.(Amendment,(how(made:(
Formal(Amendments((you$can$do$that$anytime(
Substantial( Amendments( ( comply$ with$ the$ rules$
here$in$Rule$10(
JKB!Rm!405!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(
B.(Types(of(Amendment(
1.( Amendment( as( a( matter( of( right$$you$can$amend$your$
pleading$without$asking$permission$of$the$court.$
When(to(file?((if$there$is(no(responsive(pleading(filed(yet(
by$the$other$party.$
(
EX:$If$you$are$a$plaintiff,$before$the$defendant$has$filed$his$
answer$$before$you$receive$the$answer$$you$may$amend$
your$complaint$WITHOUT(NEED(OF(LEAVE(OF(COURT.(
a( You( can( amend( whether( it( is( Substantial( or( Formal(
Amendment(
$
*Amendment$ as$ a$ matter$ of$ right$ can( be( avail( only( once.$
The$ next( amendment( will( need( a( leave( of( court( even$ if$
there$ is$ no$ responsive$ pleading$ yet.$ $ THERE( MUST( BE( A(
LEAVE(OF(COURT((IT(WILL(BE(A(MATTER(OF(RIGHT.$
$
How( about( the( answer( of( the( defendant?( Can( he( also(
amend(his(answer?$YES,$as(a(matter(of(right,(if$the$plaintiff$
has$not$yet$filed$his$reply$or$the$period$to$file$a$reply$has$not$
yet$prescribed.$
$
Now$ remember$ that$ reply$ is$ not$ mandatory.$ The$
plaintiff$have$the$to$file$a$reply$within(10(days.(Within(that(
10(days,(I$can$amend$my$answer.$
$
*But(if(the(plaintiff(already(has(an(answers,(leave(of(court.(
(
How( about( Reply?( Can( ( you( amend?( YES,( within$ 10$ days$
from$the$time$of$the$filing$of$my$reply.$
$
GR:( Amendment( of( a( pleading( as( a( matter( of( right( is(
allowed(if(there(is(yet(no(responsive(pleading(by(the(other(
party.(
(
If(there(is(already(a(RESPONSIVE(PLEADING(FILED,(
then(LEAVE(OF(COURT(is(required.(
$
2.(Amendment(as(matter(of(judicial(discretion((when$the$
defendant$has$already$filed$a$responsive$pleading.$So$when$
there$is$an$answer,$you$must$have$a$leave$of$court.$
$
When$ a$ party$ filed$ a$ motion$ to$ amend$ the$ complaint,$ is$ it$
mandatory$for$the$court$to$accept$it?$NO,(the$acceptance$by$
the$ court$ is$ a$ matter( of( judicial( discretion( even$ if$ the$
amendment$ is$ a$ matter$ of$ right$ or$ matter$ of$ judicial$
discretion.$
(
C.(When(amendment(must(denied:(
When$the$amendment$is$to$delay$the$action$
When$the$amendment$is$for$the$purpose$of$making$
the$complaint$confer(jurisdiction(upon(the(court$
o In$ other$ words,$ klaru$ kaau$ sa$ complaint$
nga$ way$ jurisdiction$ ang$ court.$ You$ just$
amend$ so$ that$ the$ court$ will$ have$ a$
jurisdiction.$
23!
EX:( A$ case$ of$ sum$ of$ money$ in$ RTC.$ In$ his$ allegations$ in$
complaint,$ the$ principal$ amount$ nga$ iyang$ gipangayo$ is$
250k$ ra$ (MTC$ unta).$ Before$ the$ defendant$ filed$ a$ reply,$ he$
realize$ that$ his$ case$ is$ dismissable$ because$ of$ want$ of$
jurisdiction.$ He$ wants$ to$ amend$ the$ pleading$ $ increasing$
250k$to$$350k.$So(obviously(the(amendment(is(intended(to(
confer(jurisdiction(upon(the(court.(
When$the$amendment$is$for$the$purpose$of$curing$
a$pre6mature$or$nonaexisting(cause(of(action.$
EX:( Before$ the$ defendants$ answer$ was$ filed,$ complainant$
found$ out$ that$ he$ does$ not$ have$ cause$ of$ action.$ He$
amended$his$complaint$in$order$to$put$cause$of$action$that$
did$not$exist$in$the$original$complaint$filed$
(
D.( EXCEPTIONS( to( the( Rule( that( Defenses( no( raised(
deemed(WAIVED:(
(
When$ issues( not( raised$ in$ the$ pleadings$ are$ tried(
with( the( express( or( implied( consent$ of$ the$ parties,$ they$
shall$be$treated(in(all(respects(as(if(they(had(been(raised(in(
the(pleadings.$Amendment$may$be$necessary$to$conform$to$
evidence.$
$
EX:( A$claim$that$B$owes$him$certain$amount$of$money$and$
latter$did$not$pay.$Bs$defense$is$that$he$has$no$obligation$to$
A.$But$in$the$course$of$trial,$Bs$defense$changed$$that$he$
has$obligation$but$already$payed.$B$wants$to$prove$that$he$
has$paid.$$
$
The$ issue$ in$ the$ first$ case$ is:$ Whether$ or$ not$ there$ is$ an$
obligation.$
$
In$ the$ Second$ Case:$ Whether$ or$ not$ he$ has$ paid$ the$
obligation.$
$
In$here,$Bs$amendment$should$not$be$allow$if(only(
A(is(vigilant(to(right.(A(should(have(objected(that(it(is(not(
part(of(the(issue.(
(
GR:( HOWEVER,( according( to( the( rules,( if( there( are( issues(
which( were( not( raised( in( the( pleadings( but( presented( in(
the(court(WITHOUT(OBJECTION(FROM(THE(OTHER(PARTY,(
then(that(issue(may(now(be(entertained(by(the(court.(
$
Kay$wa$man$ka$ni$object,$the(court(will(now(order(
the( amendment( of( the( complaint.( ( BOTH( PARTIES(
LITIGATED(ON(IT.(
(
E.(Supplemental(Pleading:(
(
Supplemental$ pleading$ will$ set( forth( transactions,(
occurrences(or(events$which$have$happened(since(the(date(
of( the( pleading( sought( to( be( supplemented.$ It$ must$ be$
done$upon(motion(of(the(party,$with$reasonable(notice(to(
the( other( party.$ Once$ approved$ by$ the$ court,$ the$ adverse$
party$may$plead$thereto$within(10(days(from(notice(of(the(
order$admitting$the$supplemental$pleading.$
(
What$ you$ are$ presenting$ are$ transactions$ that$
transpire$ AFTER( you$ have$ filed$ the$ pleading.$ $ These$ were$
24! !
!!!!!
not$ yet$ in$ existence$ when$ you$ filed$ the$ pleading.$ 6$

GIPAAPAS(RA(NGA(PLEADING.(
(
a( Just$Copy&Paste$the$last$pleading$$and$in$order$
for$ the$ court$ to$ know$ $ pwede$ ra$ nga$ imo$ nang$ e$ Bold,(
Underline,(Italic$ang$mga$additional$allegations.$
(
What(is(the(effect(of(amendment?((
The$amended$complaint$will$substitute$the$original$
complaint.$ The( Original( Complaint( is( deemed(
WITHDRAWN.(
When$ there$ is$ an$ amendment,$ that$ responding$
party$ is$ given$ another$ fresh( period( of( 15( days( to(
file(an(answer(to(that(amended(complaint.((
DANGER( TO( THIS( RULE:( P$ filed$ case$ against$ D.$ D$ receives$
the$complaint$and$within$15$days$he$should$answer.$15$days$
lapsed,$ D$ did$ not$ answer.$ D$ could$ have$ been$ declared$ in$
default.$P$can$now$file$motion$to$declare$D$in$default.$But$P$
discovered$that$there$is$something$wrong$in$his$complaint,$
he$filed$for$amendment$as$a$right.$
$
When(he(filed(for(amendment,(that(15(days(starts(
to(run(again(when(D(receives(the(amended(complaint.((
$
DISTINCTION( BETWEEN( AMENDED( AND( SUPPLEMENTAL(
PLEADING(
Amended$ pleading$ refers$ to$ facts( existing( at( the(
time(of(the(commencement$of$the$action$while$$
o supplemental$ pleading$ refers$ to$ facts(
arising( after( the( filing( of$ the$ original$
pleading;$
$
An$amended$pleading$results(in(the(withdrawal(of(
the(original(pleading$while$$
o a$ supplemental$ pleading$ is$ merely( in(
addition( to,( but( does( not( result( in( the(
withdrawal$of,$the$original$pleading;$
(
An$amended$pleading$can$be$made( as( of( right,( as(
when( no( responsive( pleading( has( yet( been( filed$
while$$
o supplemental$ pleading$ are$ always( with(
leave(of(court;(
(
G.(Effect(of(Amended(Pleading:(
Admission( in( superseded( pleadings( may( be( received( in(
evidence( against( the( pleader;( and( claims( or( defenses(
alleged(therein(not(incorporated(in(the(amended(pleading(
shall(be(deemed(waived(
(
The( reason( why( a( superseded( pleading( may( still( be(
received( as( an( evidence( against( the( pleader( is( because(
such( is( in( the( nature( of( a( judicial( admission.( Despite( its(
being( superseded( and( withdrawn,( the( admissions( therein(
are(still(considered(extrajudicial(admissions(and(may(be(
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!JKB!Rm!405!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
proved( by( the( party( relying( thereon( by( formal( offer( in(
evidence(of(such(original(pleading.(
$
$
When$ you$ amend$ your$ complaint,$ the$ original$
complaint$ is$ deemed$ withdrawn.$ Question:( If( you( are( the(
defendant((Can(you(still(use(that(original(complaint(as(an(
evidence( to( rebut( or( to( destroy( the( case( of( the( plaintiff?(
YES,( because$even$if$it$is$deemed$withdrawn,$it$can$still$be$
used$as$an$evidence$against$the$plaintiff.$
$
*That( original( complaint( is( amount( to( EXTRA( JUDICIAL(
CONFESSION(
(
a(END(a(
JKB!Rm!405!
!
25!

Civil Procedures Notes

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Civil Procedures Notes

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Civil%Procedures%SY%201342014

immediately$ to$ the$ higher$ court$

All$ cases$ in$ which$ the$ jurisdiction$ of$ any$ lower$

commissions,$ including$ the$ Securities$ and$ Exchange$

In$ all$ cases$ not$ within$ the$ exclusive$ jurisdiction$ of$

*If( purely( damages( =( add( all( =( 300k( below( MTC( /( 300k(

grant$ of$ provisional$ remedies$ in$ proper$ cases,$ where$ the$

contractual.$ But( if( the( passengers( decide( to( hire( only( 1(

AND( EVEN( IF( THERE( IS( AN( OPPOSITOR( BUT( THE(

EX:( Collection( of( a( sum( of( money$6$place$

mortgage$ is$ foreclosed,$ other$ people$ are$ bound$ to$ respect$

EX:( You$ joined$ Accion$ Publiciana$ Case$ and$ Forcible$ Entry$

EX2:( Action$ for$ Partition$ $ The$ co6owner$ of$ the$ property$

6$ The( court( then( issue( a( resolution( of( Substitution( of(

In( Summary( Procedures,( the( court( may( dispense( of( the(

arise( out( of( the( same( transaction( or( of( another(

ONLY( ULTIMATE( FACTS( SHALL( BE( STATED( IN( THE(

Affidavit( of( Merit( ( an$affidavit$executed$by$the$movant$$

benefit( of( the( latter( ( THEY( ARE( IN( COMMON(

not$ yet$ in$ existence$ when$ you$ filed$ the$ pleading.$ 6$

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen