Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Outline: Rule 12 Bill of Particulars

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Lesson for September 16, 2014,

Motion for bill of particulars - Rule 12

a) Purpose and when applied for - Sec. 1


-

Go Occo v. De la Costa, G.R. No. 45116, September 17, 1936

Virata v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 106527, April 6, 1993

b) Actions of the court - Sec. 2


c) Compliance with the order and effect of noncompliance - Secs. 3 & 4
-

Santos v. Liwag, G.R. No. 24238, November 28, 1980

d) Effect on the period to file a responsive pleading - Secs. 5 & 6


-

Filipinas Fabricators v. Magsino, G.R. No. L-47574, January 29, 1988

meikimouse

Case Digest: Rule 12 Bill of Particulars


Purpose and when applied for - Sec. 1
GO OCCO vs DE LA COSTA
G.R. No. 45116, September 17, 1936
Facts:
Go Occo & Co. filed an action with the justice of
the peace court of Cebu to recover the amount of
P467.25 against People's Bazar representing the purchase
price of goods taken on credit.
A writ of preliminary attachment was issued on
the same against the defendant, and same was levied
upon merchandise belonging to the defendant and taken
possession of by the provincial sheriff of Cebu.
The estate of Laureana Antonio, through its
administrator Alejandro S. Reyes, filed an intervention
complaint claiming the sum of P1,380 representing unpaid
rent of a house occupied by the defendant's in Cebu.
Over the verbal objection of the plaintiff to the
admission of the intervenor's intervention complaint on
the ground that intervention complaint cannot be led in
the justice of the peace of court and that intervenor's
intervention complaint the amount of P1,380 which was
beyond the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court of
Cebu tried the case and rendered judgment declaring
plaintiff's claim preferred to that of intervenor's.
The defendant judge entered an order declaring
the plaintiff Go Occo & Co., in default on the intervenor's
intervention complaint that the said defendant judge
entered a judgment declaring that the said defendant
People's Bazar was in debt to the said intervenor's estate
in the amount of P1,380 and that the said intervenor
estate's claim was superior to any other credit.
Upon being notified of the order of default and
of the judgment, plaintiff Go Occo & Co. filed a motion
asking for the reinstatement of the case and for the
dismissal of the intervenor's appeal.
That, the defendant judge entered an order
denying the motion for reconsideration and ordering the
execution of the judgment.
That, there is no appeal nor any other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy for the plaintiff.
Issue:
Whether or not the petition is vague and
indefinite so as for the Court to take cognizance of it.

Held:
YES. The court below issued various orders in the
civil case entitled "Go Occo & Co., plaintiff, vs. People's
Bazar, defendant, versus Alejandro S. Reyes,
administrator of the estate of the deceased, Laureana
Antonio, intervenor."

CIVIL PROCEDURE
The petition does not state which of these orders
is assailed or was issued by the inferior court in excess or
extra imitation of its jurisdiction or with manifest abuse of
its discretion. That, the petition does not even contain a
general averment that the Court of First Instance of Cebu
in taking cognizance of the civil case aforementioned
acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. It simply
alleges that "there is no appeal nor any other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy for the plaintiff."
The petition in this case is vague and indefinite.
While pleadings should be liberally construed with a view
to substantial justice between the parties, courts should
not be left to conjectures in the determination of issues
submitted by the parties litigant or their attorneys.
Where, therefore, the pleading is, as in the case, vague,
and uncertain, courts will not allow themselves to be led
to the commission of error or injustice by exploring in the
midst of uncertainty and divining the intention of the
parties of their counsel.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed with
costs against the petitioner.

Purpose and when applied for - Sec. 1


VIRATA vs SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 106527, April 6, 1993
Facts:
Petitioner is among the forty-four (44) codefendants of Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez in a
complaint filed by the Republic of the Philippines with the
respondent Sandiganbayan.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the said case, insofar
as he is concerned, on various grounds including the
failure of the expanded Second Amended Complaint to
state a cause of action. The motion was denied and so
was his bid to have such denial reconsidered. He then
came to this Court via a special civil action for certiorari
imputing upon the respondent Sandiganbayan the
commission of grave abuse 'of discretion in finding that
the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action against
him. In Our Decision of 15 October 1991, We overruled
the said contention. However, the Court found a maze of
unnecessary literary embellishments may indeed raise
some doubts on the sufficiency of the statement of
material operative facts to flesh out the causes of action.
meikimouse

Case Digest: Rule 12 Bill of Particulars


Petitioner was thus compelled to go back to the
Sandiganbayan. However, insisting that he "could not
prepare an intelligent and adequate pleading in view of
the general and sweeping allegations against him in the
Second Amended Complaint as expanded,"
Then, Petitioner filed a Motion For a Bill of
Particulars. He alleges therein that on the basis of the
general and sweeping allegations in the Second Amended
Complaint.
Petitioner claims, however, that insofar as he is
concerned, the allegations and the purported illegal acts
imputed to them as well as the alleged causes of actions
are vague and ambiguous. They are not averred with
sufficient definiteness or particularity as would enable
defendant Virata to properly prepare his answer or
responsive pleading." He therefore prays that "in
accordance with Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, plaintiff be
directed to submit a more definite statement or a bill of
particulars on the matters which are not averred with
sufficient definiteness or particularity."
In its Comment, the plaintiff Republic of the
Philippines opposed the motion.
In its Resolution , the respondent Sandiganbayan
(Second Division) partially granted the Motion for a Bill of
Particulars. Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ordered to
submit to the Court and furnish defendant-movant with a
bill of particulars of the facts prayed for by the latter,
pertaining some paragraphs of the Expanded Complaint,
within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof. That, of the
four (4) actionable wrongs enumerated in the Motion for
a Bill of Particulars, the Sandiganbayan favorably acted
only with respect to the fourth.
Not satisfied with the partial grant of the motion,
petitioner filed the instant petition under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court contending that the
Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of its discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not totally
granting his Motion for a Bill of Particulars.

CIVIL PROCEDURE
more definite statement or for a bill of particulars of any
matter which is not averred with sufficient definiteness or
particularity to enable him properly to prepare his
responsive pleading or to prepare for trial. Such motion
shall point out the defects complained of and the details,
desired."
It is the office or function, as well as the object or
purpose, of a bill of particulars to amplify or limit a
pleading, specify more minutely and particularly a claim
or defense set up and pleaded in general terms, give
information, not contained in the pleading, to the
opposite party and the court as to the precise nature,
character, scope, and extent of the cause of action or
defense relied on by the pleader, and apprise the
opposite party of the case which he has to meet, to the
end that the proof at the trial may be limited to the
matters specified, and in order that surprise at, and
needless preparation for, the trial may be avoided, and
that the opposite party may be aided in framing his
answering pleading and preparing for trial.
It is the function or purpose of a bill of
particulars to define, clarify, particularize, and limit or
circumscribe the issues in the case, to expedite the trial,
and assist the court. It is to prevent injustice or do justice
in the case when that cannot be accomplished without the
aid of such a bill.
It is not the office of a bill of particulars to supply
material allegations necessary to the validity of a
pleading, or to change a cause of action or defense stated
in the pleading, or to state a cause of action or defense
other than the one stated. Also it is not the office or
function, or a proper object, of a bill of particulars to set
forth the pleader's theory of his cause of action or a rule
of evidence on which he intends to rely, or to furnish
evidential information whether such information consists
of evidence which the pleader proposes to introduce or of
facts which constitute a defense or offset for the other
party or which will enable the opposite party to establish
an affirmative defense not yet pleaded.

Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in not
totally granting petitioners Motion for Bill of Particulars.
Held:
YES. We have carefully, scrutinized the
paragraphs of the expanded Second Amended Complaint
subject of the petitioner's motion for a bill of particulars
and find the same to be couched in general terms and
wanting in definiteness or particularity.
"SEC. 1. Motion for bill of particulars. Before
responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is
permitted by these rules, within ten (10) days after
service of the pleading upon him, a party may move for a

meikimouse

Case Digest: Rule 12 Bill of Particulars


Compliance with the order and effect of
noncompliance - Secs. 3 & 4
SANTOS vs LIWAG
G.R. No. 24238, November 28, 1980
Facts:
Appellant -Jose Santos filed a complaint against
Lorenzo J. Liwag with the Court of First Instance of Manila
seeking the annulment of certain documents, attached to
the complaint as having been executed by means of
misrepresentations, machination, false pretenses, threats,
and other fraudulent means, as well as for damages and
costs.
Claiming that the allegations in the complaint are
indefinite and uncertain, as well as conflicting, the
defendant filed a motion asking the trial court that the
plaintiff be ordered to submit a more definite statement
or bill of particulars on certain allegations of the
complaint, as well as the facts constituting the
misrepresentations, machinations, and frauds employed
by the defendant in the execution of the documents in
question in order that he could be well informed of the
charges filed against him, for him to prepare an intelligent
and proper pleading necessary and appropriate in the
premises.
The plaintiff opposed the motion saying that the
allegations in his complaint are sufficient and contain
ultimate facts con- constituting his causes of action and
that the subject of the defendant's motion is evidentiary
in nature.
The trial court, however, granted the motion and
directed the plaintiff to submit a bill of particulars.
When the plaintiff failed to comply with the
order, the court dismissed the complaint with costs
against the plaintiff.
Issue:
Whether or not the lower court erred in
dismissing the complaint on the ground of failure of the
plaintiff to file a Bill of Particular.
Held:
NO. The allowance of a motion for a more
definite statement or bill of particulars rests within the
sound judicial discretion of the court and, as usual in
matters of a discretionary nature, the ruling of the trial
court in that regard will not be reversed unless there has
been a palpable abuse of discretion or a clearly erroneous
order.
In the instant case, the complaint is without
doubt imperfectly drawn and suffers from vagueness and
generalization to enable the defendant properly to
prepare a responsive pleading and to clarify issues and aid

CIVIL PROCEDURE
the court in an orderly and expeditious disposition of the
case.
The present action is one for the annulment of
documents which have been allegedly executed by reason
of
deceit,
machination,
false
pretenses,
misrepresentation, threats, and other fraudulent means.
Deceit, machination, false pretenses, misrepresentation,
and threats, however, are largely conclusions of law and
mere allegations thereof without a statement of the facts
to which such terms have reference are not sufficient.
In his complaint, the appellant merely averred
that all the documents sought to be annulled were all
executed through the use of deceits, machination, false
pretenses, misrepresentations, threats, and other
fraudulent means without the particular-facts on which
alleged fraud, deceit, machination, or misrepresentations
are predicated.
Hence, it was proper for the trial court to grant
the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars, and when
the plaintiff failed to comply with the order.

Effect on the period to file a responsive pleading


- Secs. 5 & 6
FILIPINAS FABRICATORS vs MAGSINO
G.R. No. L-47574, January 29, 1988
Background:
Filipinas had a dealership agreement with Atlas,
to which they purchased several products on credit, which
accumulated to P620,266.70. To settle that account,
Filipinas, with Pestano and Unchuan as sureties, entered
into an agreement with Atlas, assigning with recourse in
favor of the latter, some of its accounts receivables from
personal debtors amounting to P361,745.98, to be
deducted from their outstanding balance. They further
agreed to settle the balance in equal monthly instalments
and the total outstanding balance will earn 14% interest
per annum, plus attorneys fees, expenses and costs in
case of litigation.
Facts:
Atlas commenced a collection suit against
Filipinas and its sureties for failure to pay the outstanding
balance of P139,295.95.
Filipinas and Pestano were duly served with
summons WHILE that issued to Unchuan were returned
UNSERVED.
meikimouse

Case Digest: Rule 12 Bill of Particulars


Counsel for Filipinas, et al. requested a 10-day
extension to file Answer. However, before the CFI could
act on said motion, the petitioners filed a motion for bill
of particulars alleging insufficiency of the complaint and
requested for a more precise statement of the matters
alleged therein.
On March 15, 1977, the lower court issued an
order granting the 10-day extension period to file answer
(until March 14, 1977).
Another order was issued on April 6, 1977,
requiring the petitioners to set the motion for bill of
particulars for hearing with notice to adverse party,
otherwise said motion will be treated as a mere scrap of
paper.
On April 21, 1977, summons was served to
Unchuan, and on the same day, Atlas filed an ex-parte
motion to declare Filipinas and Pestano in default, with
prayer to present its evidence ex-parte.
The petitioners filed a Manifestation in
compliance with the order, setting the hearing of the
motion for bill of particulars on May 15, 1977 (a Sunday).
The court held in abeyance the resolution of
Atas ex-parte motion pending expiration of Unchuans
period to file answer.
Another ex-parte motion was filed by Atlas to
declare all defendants in default since Unchuans period
had already expired.
The trial court issued an omnibus order denying
the motion for bill of particulars for lack of merit,
considering that the matters sought to be alleged in the
complaint are evidentiary in nature which may be
presented in the trial; and declaring all petitioners in
default, authorizing Atlas to present evidence ex-parte.
The petitioners subsequent motion to set aside
the omnibus order was denied by the trial court, holding
that when the defendants (Filipinas, et al) attempted to
cure their motion for bill of particulars by setting said
motion for hearing, Atlas had already filed a motion to
declare them in default, and the period granted to them
to file their responsive pleading had already expired on
March 14, 1977 without them having filed any
responsive pleading, the court denies the aforesaid
motion to set aside the order of default for lack of merit.
Hence, the present petition seeking to set aside
and annul both orders.
Issue:
Whether or not the filing of the motion for bill of
particulars suspended the period within which to file their
answer

CIVIL PROCEDURE
Held:
YES. Section 1 (b) Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of
Court provides: Stay of period to file responsive pleading.After service of the bill of particulars or of a more definite
pleading, or after notice of denial of his motion, the
moving party shall have the same time to serve his
responsive pleading, if any is permitted by these rules, as
that to which he was entitled at the time of serving his
motion, but not less than five (5) days in any event.
We agree with the petitioners' premise that a
filed motion for bill of particulars renders the running of
the reglementary period to answer, suspended. This
statement is, of course, accurate only if the filed motion
is sufficient in form and substance, meaning, it complies
with the general requirements of motions under Sections
4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, which
explicitly require a motion to accompanied by a notice of
hearing, to be served by the movant on the adverse
parties concerned at least three (3) days before the
hearing, and to state therein the exact time and place of
hearing. Section 6 of the same Rule further commands
that "no motion shall be acted upon by the court, without
proof of service of the notice thereof except when the
court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party or
parties are not affected." These requirements under Rule
15, as we have often held, are mandatory, and the failure
of the movant to comply with them renders his motion
fatal.
Significantly, the fact that the court had taken
cognizance of the defective motion first, by requiring the
parties to set it for hearing and second, when it denied
the same for lack of merit in its omnibus motion, did not
cure the defect nor alter the nature of the defective
motion. In Andrada v. Court of Appeals (60 SCRA 379,
382), we held: "[T]he subsequent action of the court
hereon does not cure the flaw, for a motion with a notice
fatally defective is a "useless piece of paper."
Even on the assumption that the respondent
court's omnibus order was irregular for denying the
petitioners' defective motion and at the same time
declaring them in default, still, we find the default order
valid. The petitioners, who admit in paragraph 6 of their
petition that a copy of the omnibus order denying the
motion for bill of particulars was received on August 30,
1977, again failed to file their answer within five (5) days
from receipt thereof.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for
certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The
questioned orders are AFFIRMED.

meikimouse

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen