INTRODUCTION

1. Major divisions in law:

1

a) Substantive law – a part of law which

creates, defines or regulates rights
concerning life, liberty or property, or
the powers of agencies or
instrumentalities for the administration
of public affairs. (Primicias vs.
Ocampo 49 OG 2230)

b) Procedural/Adjective/Remedial Law
– prescribes the method of enforcing
rights or obtaining redress for their
violation. (Bustos v. Lucero 81 Phil.
640,650)

2. Sources of Remedial law:

a) The Constitution

b) Laws creating the judiciary

c) Laws defining and allocating

jurisdiction to different courts

d) Rules promulgated by the SC

e) circulars, administrative orders,

internal rules and SC decisions

3. Scope of Remedial Law:

a) Constitution
 b) Civil Procedure (Rules 1 to 56 and
other related laws);

c) Provisional Remedies (Rules 57 to 61);

d) Special Civil Actions (Rules 62 to 71)

e) Special Proceedings (Rules 72 to 109)

f) Criminal Procedure (Rules 110 to 127)

g) Evidence (Rules 128 to 133)

h) Katarungang Pambarangay Law (RA

7160) and Implementing rules

i) Revised Rules on Summary

Procedure.

j) Rules on Small Claims Case

k) Rules on Environmental Cases

JUDICIAL POWER includes the duty of the courts of

justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. (Sec. 1, Art. VIII,
1987 Constitution)

The power of judicial review is the Supreme Court's

power to declare a law, treaty, international or
executive agreement, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or
regulation unconstitutional. 3
Basic concepts in Remedial Law

1.) Court

Describe it.

There is a table, a gavel, there is someone sitting

there. Then below, there are lawyers sitting down.
But actually, what is described is a courtroom and
not a court.

Similarly, when you are asked to describe a

corporation, you will refer to the building, the office,
the employees etc. But a corporation, as you know
in Persons, is a juridical entity. It is a creature of the
law. It is a person under the law but it has no
physical existence.

A court has no physical existence, only a legal one.

Q: What is a court?

A: A court is an entity or body vested with a portion

of the judicial power. (Lontok vs. Battung, 63 Phil.
1054)

Q: Why ‘portion’ only?

A: This is because the Constitution provides that

“the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court (SC) and in such other lower courts as may
be established by law.” (Art. VIII, Section 1, 1987
Constitution.
The reason that the law creates different courts is to
divide the cases or judicial power among them so
that one court may not be burdened with so many
cases.

So, judicial power is not exercised only by one

court, but by several courts.

There is a division of labor and this division is done

thru delineating jurisdiction among courts.
Jurisdiction will be discussed in the following parts.

2.) Judge

Just as corporations cannot act without its officers,

a court cannot function without a judge. But do not
say that the court and the judge mean the same
thing. The judge is the person or officer who
presides over a court.

Q: Distinguish court from judge.

A: The following are the distinctions:

1.) Court is the entity, body, or tribunal vested

with a portion of the judicial power, while
judge is the person or officer who presides
over a court.

2.) Judges are human beings – they die, they

resign, they retire, they maybe removed.
The court continues to exist even after the
judge presiding over it ceases to do so. In
the Supreme Court, for example, the justices
presiding over it are not the same justices
 who presided it in the early part of this
century yet the Court in some decisions 5
states that “as early 1905, ‘WE’ have already
ruled such as such…” Why do they use
‘WE’? They are talking about the court, they
are not talking about themselves. The court
is continuous. It does not die alongside with
the justices who presided on it.

3.) The two concepts may exist independently

of each other, for there may be a court
without a judge or a judge without a court.
(Pamintuan vs. Llorente, 29 Phil. 342)

3.) Hearing and Trial

Hearing is not synonymous with trial. The words

“hearing” and “trial” have different meanings and
connotations. Trial may refer to the reception of
evidence and other processes. It embraces the
period for the introduction of evidence by both
parties. Hearing, as known in law, is not confined to
trial but embraces the several stages of litigation,
including the pre-trial stage. A hearing does not
necessarily mean presentation of evidence. It does
not necessarily imply the presentation of oral or
documentary evidence in open court but that the
parties are afforded the opportunity to be heard.
(Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 133)
HIERARCHY OF THE COURTS

In the 1996 BAR: One of the questions in Remedial

Law was: State the hierarchy of the Courts in the
Philippines.

a.) Regular courts

SUPREME COURT

COURT OF APPEAL

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

MetTC MTCC MTC MCTC

Note:

MetTC- In Manila

MTCC- cities outside Manila e.g. Cebu, Davao

MTC- municipalities such as Minglanilla, Argao

MCTC- circuitized areas because it is impractical

and expensive to maintain one MTC in every
municipality.
b.) Special courts

There are also Special Courts which are also

7
considered part of the judiciary. These are:

1) Court of Tax Appeals (RA 1125)

2) Sandiganbayan (PD 1486 as amended)

3) Sharia District Courts and the Sharia

Circuit Courts (PD 1083, also known as
the Code of Muslim Personal Law);

4) Family Courts

Policy of Judicial Hierarchy

This policy means that a higher court will not

entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired
cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts.

While it is true for example that the Supreme Court,

Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have
concurrent original jurisdiction to issue writs of
Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandfamus, such
concurrence does not accord litigants unrestrained
freedom of choice of the court to which the
application for the writ may be directed. The
application should be filed with the court of lower
level unless the importance of the issue involved
deserves the action of the court of the higher level.
4.) Classification of courts in general.

A: Generally, courts may be classified as:

1. Constitutional and Statutory Courts;

2. Superior Courts and First-Level courts

(inferior courts);

3. Courts of Original jurisdiction and

Courts of Appellate jurisdiction;

4. Civil Courts and Criminal Courts;

5. Courts of law and Courts of equity;

6. Courts of record; probate Courts; Land

Registration Courts; Ecclesiastical
Courts; Military Courts

CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS vs. STATUTORY COURTS

Q: Distinguish Constitutional Courts from Statutory

Courts.

A: CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS are created directly by

the Constitution itself, while STATUTORY COURTS are
created by law or by the legislature. The first cannot
be abolished by Congress without amending the
Constitution while the second can be so abolished
by just simply repealing the law which created
them.
In our country, there is only one Constitutional court
– the Supreme Court. Even the Sandiganbayan is 9
not considered a Constitutional court because it
was not created by the Constitution directly.

The 1973 Constitution, particularly Art. XIII, Section 5

ordered the then National Assembly to create a
special court to be known as the Sandiganbayan
which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil
cases involving graft and corrupt practices and
such other offenses committed by public officers
and employees, including those in government-
owned or controlled corporations in relation to their
office as may be determined by law.. It was law
that created the Sandiganbayan (PD 1486).

The CA, RTC, and the MTC are created by the

Congress.

So there is only one Constitutional court. All the rest,

from the CA down and all other special courts, are
only creatures of Congress.

In political law, the power to create carries with it

the power to abolish. That is why, BP 129 abolished
all existing courts at that time (CFI, CA, Juvenile and
Domestic courts, etc.) and RTC, IAC, MTC were
created. That was the judicial reorganization of
1980 under BP 129. But there is only one court which
the Batasan Pambansa could not touch – the
Supreme Court.
 SUPERIOR COURTS vs. FIRST-LEVEL COURTS

Q: Distinguish superior courts from inferior courts.

A: SUPERIOR COURTS, otherwise known as courts of

general jurisdiction, are those which take
cognizance of all kinds cases, whether civil or
criminal, and possess supervisory authority over
lower courts. The refer to these courts which have
the power of review or supervision over another
lower court.

INFERIOR COURTS, otherwise known as courts of

special or limited jurisdiction, are those which take
cognizance of certain specified cases only. (14 Am.
Jur. 249) They are those which, in relation to another
are lower in rank and subject to review and
supervision of the latter.

Q: What courts are superior or inferior?

A: It DEPENDS from what viewpoint you are looking

at it. If you are looking from the viewpoint of the
Constitution, there is only one superior court – the
Supreme Court.

From the viewpoint of other laws, the Court of

Appeals (CA) maybe inferior to the SC but it is a
superior court for it exercises supervision over RTC. In
the same manner that the RTC might be inferior to
the SC and the CA but it has also power of
supervision over MTC. The jurisdiction of the RTC is
varied. It is practically a jack of all trade. The RTC
has also the power of supervision over MTC.
A superior court may therefore handle civil, criminal
cases while an inferior court may try specified cases 11
only. The SC, CA including the RTC are considered
as superior courts.

The MTC is a first-level (inferior) court so that its

power is limited to specified cases despite of the
law which expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC. It
does not have any supervisory authority over any
lower court.

ORIGINAL COURT vs. APPELLATE COURT

Q: Distinguish original court from appellate court.

A: ORIGINAL COURTS are those where a case is

originally commenced, while APPELLATE COURTS
are those where a case is reviewed. (Ballentine's
Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 91)

So, if you are filing a case for the first time, that case
is filed in an original court. But the case does not
necessarily end there. You may bring the case to
the appellate court which has the power to
change the decision of the original court.

Q: Is the SC an original or appellate court?

A: The SC is both an original and an appellate

court. The SC has original jurisdiction on cases of
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, etc. There are
certain cases where one may file directly to the SC.

Q: Is the CA an original or appellate court?

A: The same is true with the CA. It is both original
and appellate court. (Section 9, BP 129) When we
study the jurisdiction of the CA, you will see that it is
both an original and an appellate court. There are
cases which are elevated to it from the RTC, but
there are also cases which are filed there for the first
time like an action for annulment of an RTC
judgment.

Q: How about the RTC? Is the RTC an original or

appellate court?

A: The RTC is also both original and appellate court.

You can file certain cases there for the first time,
and there are also decisions of the MTC which are
appealable to the RTC.

Q: How about the MTC? Is the MTC an original or

appellate court?

A: The MTC however, is a 100% original court. It is

the lowest court in the hierarchy. There are no
cases appealed to it. There is no such animal as
barangay court. The barangay captains do not
decide cases, they only conciliate.

CIVIL COURTS vs. CRIMINAL COURTS

Q: Distinguish civil courts from criminal courts.

A: CIVIL COURTS are those which take cognizance

of civil cases only, while CRIMINAL COURTS are
those which take cognizance of criminal cases
only. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Ballentine's Law Dict., 2nd Ed.,
p. 301)
All the courts in the Philippines are both civil and
criminal courts. They can handle both types of 13
cases. The SC decides civil and criminal cases. The
same is true with the CA, RTC and MTC.

So, in the Philippines, there is no such thing as a

100% criminal court or civil court. During the 70's
there was the old Circuit Criminal Court. As the
name implies, it is purely a criminal court. But with
other courts, this was abolished by BP 129.

With the abolition of those special courts, all their

powers were transferred to the present RTC. Right
now, there is no such thing as a 100% civil court or a
100% criminal court. So, all our courts are both civil
and criminal courts at the same time.

COURTS OF LAW vs. COURTS OF EQUITY

Q: Distinguish Courts of Law from Courts of Equity.

A: COURTS OF LAW are tribunals administering only

the law of the land, whereas COURTS OF EQUITY are
tribunals which rule according to the precepts of
equity or justice, and are sometimes called “courts
of conscience.” (Ballentine’s Law Dict., 2nd Ed., p.
303)

Courts Of Law dispose cases according to what the

promulgated law says while Courts Of Equity
adjudicate cases based on the principles of equity.
Principle of equity means principles of justice,
fairness, fair play or of what is right and just without
inquiring into the terms of the statutes.
Q: Are the Philippine courts, courts of law? Or courts
of equity? Do they decide cases based on what the
law says or based on the principle of justice and
fairness?

A: In the Philippines, our courts, original or

appellate, are both courts of law and of equity.
(U.S. vs. Tamparong 31 Phil. 321)

In the case of substantive law, there is a thin line

which divides the principle of law from the principle
of equity because principles of equity are also
found in the principles of law. Equity is what is fair
and what is just and equitable. Generally, what is
legal is fair.

As a matter of fact under the Civil Code, when the

law is silent, you decide it based on what is just and
fair, thus, the saying EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW. In
the Philippines you cannot distinguish sometimes
the principle of law and the principle of equity
because principles of equity are also written in the
law. Example: The principles of estoppel, laches or
solutio indebiti are no longer purely principles of
equity since they are also found in our law. Under
the Civil Code, when there is no applicable law,
courts still have to decide according to customs
and general principles.

ESTOPPEL

Estoppel is an equitable doctrine which means that

it is not fair that you disown your own representation
after misleading somebody. But if you look at the
Civil Code, there is a chapter on estoppel. So if you
apply estoppel, you cannot say that you are 15
applying a principle not found under the law.

LACHES

It is considered to be the half-brother of prescription

because it means if you delay a certain right then
you must have no right. That is more of equity,
rather than of law.

SOLUTIO INDEBITI

No one should enrich himself at the expense of

another. That is a principle of equity. But if you look
at the Civil Code, it's there!

ALONZO vs. IAC - May 28, 1987

HELD: “The question is sometimes asked, in serious

inquiry or in curious conjecture, whether we are a
court of law or a court of justice. Do we apply the
law even if it is unjust or do we administer justice
even against the law? Thus queried, we do not
equivocate. The answer is that we do neither
because we are a court both of law and of justice.
We apply the law with justice for that is our mission
and purpose in the scheme of our Republic.”

COURTS OF RECORD

Those whose proceedings are enrolled and which

are bound to keep a written record of all trials and
proceedings handled by them. RA 6031 mandates
all MTCs to be courts of record.

PROBATE COURTS

Those which have jurisdiction over settlement of

estate of deceased persons.

LAND REGISTRATION COURTS

Those which have jurisdiction over registration of

real properties under the Torrens System.

INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT

Before we leave the concepts of courts, we must

know that the courts of justice have what we call
inherent powers. Just like the State have certain
inherent powers, namely; Police power, power of
taxation, and power of eminent domain.

Their very existence automatically necessitates the

existence of these powers.

Q: What are the inherent powers of the court?

A: Section 5 Rule 135 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Inherent powers of courts. Every court

shall have the power:

a) to preserve and enforce order in its

immediate presence;

b) to enforce order in proceedings before it, or

before a person or persons empowered to
 conduct a judicial investigation under its
authority; 17
c) to compel obedience to its judgments
orders, and processes, and to the lawful
orders of a judge out of court, in a case
therein;

d) to control, in furtherance of justice, the

conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all
other persons in any manner connected
with a case before it, in every manner
appertaining thereto;

e) to compel the attendance of persons to

testify in a case pending therein;

f) to administer or cause to be administered

oaths in a case pending therein, and in all
other cases where it may be necessary in
the existence of its powers;

g) to amend and control its process and orders

so as to make them conformable to law and
justice;

h) to authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed

pleading or other paper to be filed and used
instead of the original, and to restore, and
supply deficiencies in its records and
proceedings.

SITUATION: Suppose I have the power to decide

and I render a decision. I want to enforce the
decision, how do I enforce? Well, usually the law
provides for the procedure.

Q: But suppose the law does not provide for any

manner to enforce? For example a judge has
rendered a decision, and the law is silent on how to
enforce it, do you mean to say that the order is
unenforceable because the law is silent.

A: NO. Section 6 of Rule 135 answers the question.

SEC 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect – When

by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or a
judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and all
other means to carry it into effect maybe employed
by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be
followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not
specifically pointed out by law or these rules, any
suitable process or mode of proceeding may be
adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of
said law or rules.

What Section 6 is trying to say is that when courts

have the power to decide, they have the power to
enforce. And if the law is silent, judges have to think
of how to do it provided they conform to the spirit
of the rule. So they should not make the order
useless simply because there is no rule. That is part
of their power.

ENFORCEABILITY OF COURT WRITS AND PROCESSES

Another provision that should be emphasized is

Section 3 of the Interim Rules.
Question: The court of Cebu issues a writ or a
process. Can that writ or process be enforced in 19
Manila? What is the extent of the enforceability of a
writ issued by a court?

Under Section 3, Interim Rules:

Sec. 3. Writs and Processes. -

a) Writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,

quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction issued by a regional trial court
may be enforced in any part of the
region.

b) All other processes whether issued by the

RTC or MetTC, MCTC, and MTC may be
served anywhere in the Philippines, and,
the last three cases, without a
certification by the judge of the RTC.

A: Under Section 3 of the Interim Rules, you have to

distinguish what kind of writ or process you are
talking about:

a) If it is a writ of certiorari, prohibition,

mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus, injunction, it can be enforced
anywhere within the region. So at least,
RTC can enforce it within the region and
it cannot enforce those writs outside the
region.

EXAMPLE: If you are illegally detained, you can ask

the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Now, a
person is detained in Cagayan de Oro and the
family is here in Cebu City. They filed a petition for
habeas corpus here in Cebu City. Is it proper?

No. Cebu City belongs to the 7th Judicial Region

while Cagayan de Oro is in the 11th or 12th Judicial
Region. The law is very clear: writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus and injunction issued by a trial court may be
enforced in any part of the region.

b) Section 3 further says, all other writs are

enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
Suppose the MTC issues a warrant for the
arrest of the accused in the criminal
case, and he fled to Baguio City, such
warrant can be enforced there. This
includes summons, writs of execution or
search warrants.

ASPECTS OF REMEDIAL LAW

Q: Give the two (2) aspects of Remedial Law. A:

There are 2 aspects of Remedial Law:

1.) PUBLIC ASPECT – one which affords a remedy in

favor of the State against the individual (e.g.
criminal procedure) or in favor of the individual
against the State (e.g. habeas corpus) on the other
hand,

2.) PRIVATE ASPECT – one which affords a remedy in

favor of an individual against another individual,
like the rules on civil procedure. (Gamboa’s
Introduction to Philippine Law, 6th Ed., pp. 97-99) 21
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAW ON CIVIL PROCEDURE IN
THE PHILIPPINES

The origin of our law on procedure is American.

Forget the law on procedure during the Spanish
regime. But the first known ancestor of the law on
Civil Procedure was the old Act 190, otherwise
known as the Code of Civil Procedure, which was
enacted on August 7, 1901 by the United States
and Philippine Commission.

And that was the law until 1940 because on July

01,1940 the SC enacted the Rules of Court which
we now call the Old Rules of Court. That continued
for another 24 years until January 01, 1964 when the
SC enacted the Revised Rules of Court repealing
the Old Rules of Court. And that continued for
another 33 years until July 01,1997 where the SC
enacted and which took effect on that day (July
01, 1997) the New Rules on Civil Procedure.

SUMMARY:

1.) First Law – August 07, 1901 – Act 190 – Code of

Civil Procedure (40 years)

2.) Second Law – July 01, 1940 – Old Rules of Court

(24 years)

3.) Third Law – January 01, 1964 – Revised Rules of

Court (33 years)
4.) Fourth Law – July 01, 1997 – New Rules of Civil
Procedure.

SOURCES OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Well of course the sources are almost the same as

the prior law. The old Rules of Court is also a source.
Many provisions were taken from the 1964 Rules,
substantive law like the Civil Code and
jurisprudence. And of course SC circulars. Many
circulars are now incorporated under the new rule.
So those are the main sources.

SOURCES

1. Previous Rules of Court;

2. Jurisprudence;

3. New Civil Code;

4. SC Circulars

RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Rules of Court (1940, 1964, 1997) have all been

enacted by the SC. It is law, not enacted by
Congress but enacted by the SC.

Q: What is the authority of the SC to enact a law

when actually the role of the judiciary is only to
interpret the law? Is this not a violation of the
separation of powers?

A: The authority of the SC in enacting the prior rules

and the present rules is what you call its rule-making
power which provision was found in the 1935, 1973
and 1987 Constitutions. Based on the present law, 23
the rule-making power of the SC is expressed in
Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph [5] which is
substantially the same as the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions which states that: the SC "shall
promulgate the rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts.”

LIMITATIONS TO THE RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SC

The Constitution has also placed limitations on these

powers. As currently worded, one limitation
provided for by the Article is “the rules of procedure
to be enacted by the SC "shall provide for a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases.” The second one is:
“the rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same
grade.” And the third is: “the rules shall not diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights.”

LIMITATIONS

1. The Rules of Court shall provide a

simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases;

2. The Rules of Court shall be

uniform for all courts of the same
grade; and
 3. The Rules of Court shall not
diminish, modify or increase
substantive rights.

Substantive rights are created by substantive law so

the Rules of Procedure should not increase, diminish
or modify them. In effect, the Rules of Court should
not amend the substantive law. It can only interpret
substantive law but should not change it
completely. Those are the limitations. With that we
are now ready to tackle the 1997 rules on civil
procedure.

JURISDICTION IN GENERAL

The word JURISDICTION is derived from 2 Latin

words: 1.) JURIS – law; 2.) DICO – to speak, or to say.
So, in effect, when you say jurisdiction, literally
translated, it means, “I speak by the law.” It means
that you are saying “I speak with authority”
because when you invoke the law, then your act is
authorized.

So when you say, “I speak by the law” you mean I

will do it in the name of the law. It connotes
authority or power.

So jurisdiction implies authority or power to act.

But what act or acts is/are authorized?

If we relate jurisdiction to courts, it means authority

or the power to hear, try and decide a case. So
jurisdiction means the power or authority of the
court to hear, try and decide a case. In its
complete aspect, jurisdiction includes not only the
powers to hear and decide a case, but also the 25
power to enforce the judgment (14 Am. Jur. 363-
364) as the judgment or decree is the end for which
jurisdiction is exercised, and it is only through the
judgment and its execution that the power of the
court is made efficacious and its jurisdiction
complete (21 CJS, Courts, S 9). The power to control
the execution of its decision is an essential aspect
of jurisdiction. It cannot be the subject of substantial
subtraction and the most important part of the
litigation is the process of execution of decisions
(Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice, 301 SCRA 96).

Test of Jurisdiction

Since jurisdiction refers to power or authority to

hear, try and decide a case, it cannot depend on
the correctness or rightfulness of the decision made.
(Century Insurance Co. v. Fuentes, 2 SCRA 1168
[1961]) Correctness or rightfulness of the decision
relates to the exercise of and not to the authority
itself.

The test of jurisdiction is whether the court has the

power to enter into the inquiry and not whether the
decision is right or wrong. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25
Phil. 245)

Duty of the court to determine its jurisdiction

It is the duty of the court to consider the question of

jurisdiction before it looks at other matters involved
in the case. It may, and must, do this on its own
motion without waiting for the question of
jurisdiction being raised by any of the parties
involved in the proceeding (20 Am Jur 2d, Courts, S
92). Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of
their authority and they may act accordingly by
dismissing the action even thought the issue of
jurisdiction is not raised or not even suggested by
counsel (Ace Publicatiions vs. Commissioner of
Customs, 11 SCRA 147)

Q: What is the effect if the court has no jurisdiction

or of absence or lack of jurisdiction?

A: If a court has no jurisdiction, it has no power or

authority to try a case and because it has no
authority it must not exercise it. Exercise of absent
authority or power is necessarily nothing. Thus,
without jurisdiction, the entire proceedings would
be null and void.

The only recourse for the court, absent jurisdiction, is

to dismiss the case motu proprio or on motion for
without authority it cannot act.

Q: What about if it has jurisdiction?

A: It is the duty of the court to exercise the

jurisdiction conferred upon it by law and to render a
decision in a case properly submitted to it. Failure
to do so may be enforced by way of a mandamus
proceeding (20 Am Jur. 2d, S 93).

Constitutional Guarantee of Access to Courts and

Jurisdiction
The Constitutional guarantee of access to courts
refers to courts with appropriate jurisdiction as 27
defined by law. It does not mean that a person can
go to any court for redress of grievances regardless
of the nature or value of his claim. (Santos III v.
Northwest Airlines, 210 SCRA 256 [1992])

JURISDICTION vs. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Q: Distinguish jurisdiction from exercise of

jurisdiction.

A: Jurisdiction pertains to the authority to hear and

decide a case. Any act of the court pursuant to
such authority, including the decision and its
consequences is exercise of jurisdiction.

The authority to decide a case, not the decision

rendered, is what makes up jurisdiction. It does not
depend upon the regularity of the exercise of that
power or upon the rightfulness of the decision
made. Where there is jurisdiction over the person
and subject matter, the resolution of all other
questions arising in the case is but an exercise of
jurisdiction. (Herrera vs. Barreto, 25 Phil. 245)

Q: Why is it important to distinguish jurisdiction from

exercise of jurisdiction?

A: Definitely, a court acting as such may commit

errors or mistakes and questioned later before a
higher court. The procedure or remedy in case of a
mistake or error would be dependent on whether it
is an error of jurisdiction or an error in the exercise
of jurisdiction also known as error of judgment.
EXAMPLE: A case of murder was filed in the MTC.
The accused, Ken Sur, files a motion to quash
because MTC has no jurisdiction over cases of
murder. But the court denied the motion to quash.
Meaning, the judge has decided to assume
jurisdiction. What is the error committed?

When the court without authority assumes authority

over the case that is called ERROR OF JURISDICTION
– the court committed an error of jurisdiction.

EXAMPLE: Suppose the case for murder is filed in the

RTC where the court has jurisdiction. But in the
course of the trial, it committed mistakes like the
court misinterpreted or misapplied the provision of
the RPC or the Indeterminate Sentence Law. What
error is committed?

Obviously the RTC has the authority to hear and

decide the case and therefore acted with authority
or jurisdiction. There is no error of jurisdiction.

However, in the exercise of such authority it

committed a mistake, thus, the error committed is
error in the exercise of jurisdiction, also known as
error of judgment.

Q: Is the proceeding null and void?

A: NO. What is committed is an error in the exercise

of jurisdiction and if not corrected the error can
become final and executory. In other words, if not
objected to, it will stay.
 ERROR OF JURISDICTION vs. ERROR OF JUDGMENT

Distinguish ERROR OF JURISDICTION from ERROR OF

29
JUDGMENT.

A: The following are the distinctions:

1.) When a court acquires jurisdiction over the

subject matter, the decision or order on all
other questions arising in the case is but an
exercise of jurisdiction; Errors which the court
may commit in the exercise of such
jurisdiction, like errors of procedure or
mistakes in the court's findings, are merely
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT; whereas,

When a court takes cognizance of a case over the

subject matter of which it has no jurisdiction, or acts
in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the
court commits an ERROR OF JURISDICTION.(GSIS vs.
Oliza 304 SCRA 421).

2.) When the court acts without authority (error

of jurisdiction) such act would be null and
void or at least voidable, but if the court has
authority but commits a mistake in the
exercise of such authority (error of
judgment) such mistake will bind unless
corrected

3.) ERRORS OF JURISDICTION are reviewable by

the extraordinary writ of certiorari; whereas,
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT are reviewable by
appeal.
An error of judgment should be raised on ordinary
appeal, not by certiorari because certiorari is only
confined to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion. The governing rule is that the
remedy of certiorari is not available when the
remedy of appeal is available or even if available,
when it will not be a speedy and adequate
remedy. And when the remedy of appeal is lost,
you cannot revive it by resorting to certiorari
because certiorari is not a substitute for the lost
remedy of appeal.

Lack of jurisdiction and excess of jurisdiction

They are distinguished thus: the respondent court or

tribunal acts without jurisdiction if it does not have
the legal power to determine the case; where the
respondent, being clothed with the power to
determine the case, oversteps its authority as
determined by law, it is performing a function in
excess of its jurisdiction (Vette Industrial Sales
Company Inc. vs. Cheng, 509 SCRA 532).

Example of excess of jurisdiction:

When the court does not conduct a pre-trial

conference which is mandatory under the rules.

Q: In whom is jurisdiction vested?

A: Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the

judge. A court may be a single sala or may have
several branches (multiple sala). If the latter, each is
not a court distinct and separate from the others.
So, when a case is filed before a branch, the trial
may be had or proceedings may continue before
another branch or judge. (Tagumpay vs. Moscoso, 31
L-14723, May 29, 1959)

EXAMPLE: The RTC of Cebu City is composed of

several branches – 22 all in all. But technically, there
is only one court – the RTC of Cebu City.

Q: Now, if the case is filed and is assigned to Branch

8, can that case later be transferred and continued
in Branch 9?

A: YES, because you never left the same court. You

are still in the same court. This is because jurisdiction
is not with the judge. It is with the court itself.

But there is only one branch of RTC-Bogo, can RTC-

Cebu City take jurisdiction over its cases?

No because they are different courts and

jurisdiction is attached to the court.

TYPES OF JURISDICTION:

Types of jurisdiction:

1.) Based on cases tried: General Jurisdiction

and Special or Limited Jurisdiction;

2.) Based on the nature of the cause: Original

Jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction; and

3.) Based on the nature and extent of exercise:

Exclusive Jurisdiction and Concurrent or
Coordinate Jurisdiction;
 4.) Based on situs; Territorial jurisdiction and
extra- territorial jurisdiction.

1. GENERAL JURISDICTION and SPECIAL OR LIMITED

JURISDICTION

a.) GENERAL JURISDICTION is the authority of

the court to hear and determine all actions
and suits, whether civil, criminal,
administrative, real, personal or mixed. It is
very broad – to hear and try practically all
types of cases. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs.
Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)

b.) SPECIAL or LIMITED JURISDICTION is the

authority of the court to hear and
determine particular cases only. Its power is
limited. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34
Cal. 391)

Example: In criminal cases, the MTC has jurisdiction

over offenses where the penalty imposable does
not exceed 6 years while beyond 6 years they are
triable before the RTC.

If you examine the jurisdiction of the MTC, it has a

limit but none for the RTC.

The same applies in civil cases as we shall learn.

2. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION and APPELLATE

JURISDICTION

a.) ORIGINAL JURISDICTION is the power

of the court to take cognizance of a
 case at its inception or
commencement. (Ballentine’s Law 33
Dict., 2nd Ed., pp. 91 and 917)

b.) APPELLATE JURISDICTION is the power

vested in a superior court to review
and revise the judicial action of a
lower court. (Ballentine’s Law Dict.,
2nd Ed., pp. 91 and 917) If one court
has the power to correct the decision
of a lower court, the power of this
court is appellate. This is because it is
commenced somewhere else and it is
just reviewing the decision of the said
lower court.

Note that in certiorari petition, the action of the

superior court is not to correct but to annul. The
power exercised by the superior court is the power
of control and supervision over an inferior court, not
appellate, that is, to limit the inferior court within its
jurisdiction, its authority.

3. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION and CONCURRENT OR

COORDINATE JURISDICTION

a) EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION is that possessed

by a court to the exclusion of all others.

b) CONCURRENT or COORDINATE
JURISDICTION is that possessed by the court
together with another or other courts over
the same subject matter, the court
obtaining jurisdiction first retaining it to the
 exclusion of the others, but the choice of
court is lodged in those persons duly
authorized to file the action. (Villanueva vs.
Ortiz, 58 O.G. 1318, Feb. 12, 1962)

Q: Are there certain types of cases or petitions

where I can file it directly with the SC or file with the
CA or file it with the RTC?

A: YES and the best example is a petition for

HABEAS CORPUS. The SC, CA and RTC share
concurrent jurisdiction to entertain petitions for
habeas corpus.

In effect, these are the instances when the SC, CA

and RTC exercise concurrent jurisdiction. There can
also be concurrent jurisdiction among branches of
a multiple sala court.

Exclusionary Principle, The court first acquiring

jurisdiction excludes all others.

Another principle that may be relevant is the policy

of judicial hierarchy.

4. TERRITORIAL AND EXTRA-TERRITORIAL

Territorial jurisdiction - exercised within the limits of

the place where the court is located.

Extra-territorial jurisdiction - exercised beyond the

confines of the territory where the court is located.

Examples: Writs of certiorari, prohibition and

mandamus are enforceable only within the region
where the issuing court is located; while a writ of
execution can be enforced even outside said 35
territory.

ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES

The word jurisdiction as applied to the faculty of

exercising judicial power is used in different but
related senses which are:

The authority of the court to entertain a particular

kind of action, or

a.) Administer a particular kind of relief

depending on the issues raised;

b.) It may refer to the power of the court

over or to bind the parties, or

c.) Over or to bind the property which is

the subject of the litigation.

In your study of criminal procedure where you also

studied the law on jurisdiction, we studied the
authority of the court over the cases as determined
by the imposable penalty; its authority to bind the
accused and the prosecution; its authority to grant
the relief which is either acquittal or conviction and
over the place where the offense charged is
alleged to have been committed.

So there are what we call elements of jurisdiction in

criminal cases, otherwise, the proceeding will be
illegal. These elements are:
 1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter;

2. Jurisdiction over the person of the

accused; and

3. Territorial jurisdiction, i.e. the case should

be filed in the place where the crime
was committed.

Q: What are the elements of jurisdiction in civil

cases?

A: The following:

a.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter ;

b.) Jurisdiction over the person of the parties to the

case;

c.) Jurisdiction over the res; and

d.) Jurisdiction over the issues.

Q: Now, what happens if in a particular case one of

these is missing?

A: The proceedings become questionable. The

proceedings become void. The judgment is not
binding. That is the effect of lack of jurisdiction. The
proceedings are tainted with illegality and
irregularity.

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Q: Define jurisdiction over the subject matter.

A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power
of the court to hear and determine cases of the 37
general class to which the proceedings in question
belong. (Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil.
291)

In other words, it is the jurisdiction over the nature of

the action. In criminal cases you have light, less
grave and grave offenses. In civil cases we have
such actions as actions for sum of money, actions
not capable of pecuniary estimation, real and
personal actions, action in rem, action in personam
etc. This is what we call the NATURE or classification
OF THE ACTION.

When a complaint is filed in court, the basic

questions that ipso facto are to be immediately
resolved by the court on its own are:

What is the nature of the action filed?

a) Does the court have authority to try and

determine that class of actions to which
the one before it belongs?

Jurisdiction over the “subject matter” is not to be

confused with the term “subject matter of the
action”.

Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is the

proper ground for a motion to dismiss. This is broad
enough to include the “nature of the action.” The
term should not be confused with the terms
“subject or subject matter of the action” which refer
to the physical facts, the things real or personal, the
money, lands or chattels and the like, in relation to
which the suit is prosecuted and not the delict or
wrong committed by the defendant.

So if you talk about declaration of nullity of

marriage the subject matter of the action is the
marriage of the parties involved not any other
contract but the nature of the action is that it is not
capable of pecuniary estimation; if it is for
foreclosure of mortgage, the thing or subject of the
action is the property mortgaged, in specific
performance or rescission of contract, it is the
contract involved that is the subject matter of the
action.

Q: How is jurisdiction over the subject matter or

nature of the action acquired?

A: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred

by law, which may be either the Constitution or a
statute(Tyson’s Super Concrete, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 461 SCRA 435; de la Cruz vs. CA, 510 SCRA
103; Guy vs. CA, December 10, 2007), and is never
acquired by consent or submission of the parties or
by their laches. This is a matter of legislative
enactment which none but the legislature can
change. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523; Otibar
vs. Vinson, L-18023, May 30, 1962) It cannot be
acquired by an agreement of the parties, waiver, or
failure to object (silence).

So Congress plays an important role in the exercise

of judicial power, namely:
 1. It creates the rights which are sought to
be protected or enforced; 39
2. It defines jurisdiction over the subject
matter. Both are of course in the form of
substantive laws.

The law that confers jurisdiction refers to substantive

law, not a procedural law. It likewise does not refer
to an administrative order or circular (Malaloan vs.
CA, 232 SCRA 249).

Q: Suppose I will file a case against you in a wrong

court. Actually what you should do is file a motion
to dismiss (or in criminal cases a motion to quash.)
but you did not. Since you did not object, you did
not file a motion to dismiss, you did not file a motion
to quash, did the ‘wrong’ court acquire jurisdiction
over the case?

A: NO. Jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot

be conferred by silence of the parties or by waiver.
Estoppel or waiver or silence or failure to object
cannot vest jurisdiction in the wrong court because
jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
law. And when the court has no jurisdiction, the
court by itself or motu propio has the power to
dismiss.

Q: How is the subject matter or nature (class) of the

action determined?

A: It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject

matter is determined by the allegations in the
complaint (Baltazar vs. Ombudsman, 510 SCRA 74)
regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to
his claims asserted therein (Gocotano vs. Gocotano
469 SCRA 328; Cadimas vs. Carrion GR No. 180394,
Sept. 29, 2008).

It does not depend upon the pleas or defenses of

the defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss.
(Cardenas vs. Camus, L-19191, July 30, 1962;
Edward J. Nell Co. vs. Cubacub, L-20842, June 23,
1965; Serrano vs. Muñoz Motors, L-25547, Nov. 27,
1967)

How do you determine then jurisdiction over the

subject matter?

It is determined by facts alleged in the complaint

and the law in force at the time of the
commencement of the action. (Mercado

v. Ubay 187 SCRA 719)

This is true in criminal and civil cases.

Examples:

A case of Serious Physical Injuries was alleged in the

information filed with the CFI which was then vested
with jurisdiction over this type of cases, even if the
medical certificate attached to the records shows
that the injuries are only slight which falls under the
jurisdiction of the municipal court. The CFI may
convict for slight physical injuries. Jurisdiction was
determined from the allegations in the information.
(People v. Ocaya, 83 SCRA 218[1978])
In a civil case for collection of sum of money where
the complaint alleges that the totality of the 41
demand is P350,000.00, the case is properly filed
with the RTC even if the defendant is able to prove
that it is only P50,000.00 for jurisdiction over the
subject matter is determined by the allegations in
the complaint not the defense or evidence
presented.

Exception to the rule that jurisdiction is determined

by the allegations of the complaint

The general rule is not applied with rigidity in

ejectment cases in which the defendant averred
the defense of the existence of tenancy relationship
between the parties.

In Ignacio vs. CFI of Bulacan (42 SCRA 89), it was

held, ”that while the allegations in the complaint
make out a case of forcible entry, where tenancy is
averred by way of defense and is proved to be the
real issue, the case should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction as the case should properly be filed with
the then Court of Agrarian Reform (now DARAB)
(De la Cruz vs. CA 510 SCRA 103). In Ignacio and
other ejectment cases (Salandanan vs. Tizon 62
SCRA 388; Concepcion vs. CFI of Bulacan 119 SCRA
222), where tenancy was the defense, the court
went beyond the allegations of the complaint in
determining jurisdiction over the subject matter and
required the presentation of evidence to prove or
disprove the defense of tenancy. After finding the
real issue to be tenancy, the cases were dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.
 Salmorin vs. Zaldivar,
GR No. 169691, July 23, 2008,

The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the

defendant designating him as administrator of a lot
with a monthly salary of P150. The defendant
allegedly did not comply with the terms of the
agreement when he failed to till the vacant areas
as agreed. This compelled the plaintiff to terminate
his services and eject him from the lot. When the
defendant refused to vacate the property, the
plaintiff filed a complaint for unlawful detainer
against him in the MCTC.

In his Answer, the defendant alleged the existence

of a tenancy relationship between him and the
plaintiff. Thus, he claimed that the case was an
agrarian matter over which the MCTC had no
jurisdiction.

The Court found that the plaintiff alleged the

following:

(1) That he possessed the subject lot;

(2) That he instituted the defendant as
administrator thereof;
(3) That the defendant failed to administer
the subject lot by not having the vacant
areas thereof planted;
(4) That for the defendant’s failure to
administer the subject lot, his services as
administrator was terminated;
(5) That he advised defendant through
registered mail to leave or vacate the
subject lot; and
(6) That the defendant refused to vacate
the subject lot without justification.
The Court ruled that from its material allegations,
43
the complaint concerned the unlawful detainer by
the defendant of the subject lot, a matter which is
properly within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
The allegation of tenancy in the defendant’s
answer did not automatically deprive the MCTC of
its jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the court
over the nature of the action and the subject
matter thereof cannot be made to depend upon
the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to
dismiss. Otherwise, the Court ruled, the question of
jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the
defendant. Accordingly, the MCTC does not lose its
jurisdiction over an ejectment case by the simple
expedient of a party raising as defense therein the
alleged existence of a tenancy relationship
between the parties. It is however, the duty of the
court to receive evidence to determine the
allegations of tenancy. If after hearing, tenancy had
in fact been shown to be the real issue, the court
should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court further stressed that a tenancy

relationship cannot be presumed. There must be
evidence to prove the tenancy relations such that
all its indispensable elements must be established,
to wit:

(1) The parties are the landowner and

tenant;

(2) The subject is agricultural land;

(3) There is consent by the landowner;

 (4) The purpose is agricultural production;

(5) There is personal cultivation; and

(6) There is sharing of the harvests.

All these requisites are necessary to create tenancy

relationship, and the absence of one or more
requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de
facto tenant. All these elements must concur. It is
not enough that they are alleged.

The statement that jurisdiction is conferred by

substantive law is not accurate because only
jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
substantive law. Jurisdiction over the parties, issues
and res is governed by procedural laws.

No Retroactive Effect of Law on Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the

established rule is that statute in force at the time of
the commencement of the action determines
jurisdiction – RA 7691 has no retroactive
application. (Yu Oh v. CA GR No. 125297, June 6,
2003)

This follows the general rule on application of laws.

Q: Why is jurisdiction substantive not procedural?

A: Because the law vests, defines, regulates,

authority or power.
Doctrine of Continuity of jurisdiction (Adherence of
Jurisdiction) 45
Under this rule, jurisdiction, once it attaches cannot
be ousted by the happening of subsequent events
although of such a character which should have
prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first
instance (Ramos vs. Central Bank of the Phil. 41
SCRA 586 [1971]).

The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired,

retains that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the
case (De La Rosa vs. Roldan, 501 SCRA 34).

As a consequence of this principle, jurisdiction is not

affected by a new law placing a proceeding under
the jurisdiction of another tribunal except when
otherwise provided in the statute or if the statute is
clearly intended to apply to actions pending even
before its enactment (People vs. Cawaling, 293
SCRA 267)

Thus, when RA No. 7691 expanded the jurisdiction of

the first level courts, said courts acquired jurisdiction
over cases that under BP 129 were originally within
the jurisdiction of the RTC. But cases pending
already with the RTC at the time of the effectivity of
the law were not affected by such new law unless
the parties by agreement, pursuant to Sec. 7
therein, agreed to transfer the pending cases from
the RTC to the lower courts especially those which
have reached the pre-trial stage.
In an action for ejectment, if the defendant
voluntarily surrenders the premises subject of the
action to the plaintiff, the surrender of the property
does not divest the court of jurisdiction (Pamintuan
vs. Tiglao 53 Phil. 1)

If the court has jurisdiction to act on a motion at the

time it was filed, that jurisdiction to resolve the
motion continues until the matter is resolved and is
not lost by the subsequent filing of a notice of
appeal. (Asmala vs. Comelec, 289 SCRA 746)

The trial court did not lose jurisdiction over the case
involving a public official by the mere fact that said
official ceased to be in office during the pendency
of the case (Flores vs. Sumaljag, 290 SCRA 568).
Also, the jurisdiction that the court had at the time
of the filing of the complaint is not lost by the mere
fact that the respondent judge ceased to be in
office during the pendency of the case (Victory
Liner vs. Bellosillo, 425 SCRA 79).

Even the finality of the judgment does not totally

deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. What
the court loses if the power to amend, modify or
alter the judgment. Even after the judgment has
become final, the court retains jurisdiction to
enforce and execute it (Echegaray vs. Sec. of
Justice, 301 SCRA 96; Republic vs. Atlas Farms, 345
SCRA 296).
 Exception to the Rule of Adherence/Continuity of
Jurisdiction: 47
1. When there is an express provision in the
statute on retroactive application; or

2. The statute is clearly intended to apply to

actions pending before its enactment; or

3. The statute is curative. This means that

even if originally there was no
jurisdiction, the lack of jurisdiction may
be cured by the issuance of the
amendatory decree which is in the
nature of a curative statute with
retrospective application to a pending
proceeding and cures that lack of
jurisdiction. Thus, in a case, while the CFI
has no jurisdiction over a complaint for
damages arising from the dismissal of a
radio station manager which was filed on
August 2, 1976, PD 1367 vesting the court
with jurisdiction over such type of cases
cured the lack of jurisdiction of the trial
court at the time the instant claim was
filed before it. (Garcia vs. Martinez 90
SCRA 331 [1979])

Read also Atlas Fertilizer vs. Hon. Exaltacion

Navarro, 149 SCRA 432)
How Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter is
Acquired By the Court

1. It is conferred by law applicable at the

time of the commencement of the
action; and

2. Jurisdiction must be properly invoked by

filing the complaint or information.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Statement of the Doctrine

Under this doctrine, courts will not resolve a

controversy involving a question which is within its
jurisdiction and also of an administrative tribunal,
especially where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring
the special knowledge and experience of said
tribunal in determining technical and intricate
matters of fact. (Villaflor vs. CA, GR No. 95694, Oct.
8, 1997).

Where a case is such that its determination requires

the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of
the proper administrative bodies because technical
matters or intricate questions of fact are involved,
then relief must be obtained in an administrative
proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by
the courts even though the matter is within the
proper jurisdiction of a court. This is the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction. It applies “where a claim is
originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into
play whenever enforcement of the claim requires 49
the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory
scheme, have been placed within the special
competence of an administrative body, in such
case, the judicial process is suspended pending
referral of such issues to the administrative body for
its view.” (US v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 352 US
59; Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, 184 SCRA 426)

Example: Damages is claimed arising from the

collision between the claimant's vessel and that of
another. Such claim can of course be determined
by the courts. But in order to enforce such claim
before the courts, there must be a determination of
which vessel is at fault. This is issue is placed within
the special competence of the Maritime Industry
Authority or Philippine Coast Guard which
administrative body regulates sea travel. Under this
situation courts should defer to the jurisdiction of
such administrative body for it has the competence
to determine which vessel is at fault. Its finding then
can serve as basis or premise for the legal
consequences to be then defined by the court.

In Far East Conference v. US 342 US 570 (1952) the

Court defined the primary jurisdiction doctrine as:
A principle, now firmly established, that in cases
raising issues of fact not within the conventional
expertise of judges or cases requiring the exercise
of administrative discretion, agencies created by
Congress for regulating the subject matter should
not be passed over. This is even though the facts
after they have been appraised by specialized
competence serve as a premise for legal
consequences to be judicially defined. Uniformity
and consistency in the regulation of business
entrusted to a particular agency are secured, and
the limited functions of review by the judiciary are
more rationally exercised, by preliminary resort for
ascertaining and interpreting the circumstances
underlying legal issues to agencies that are better
equipped than courts by specialization, by insight
gained through experience, and by more flexible
procedure.

Since the inception of the doctrine courts have

resisted creating any fixed rules or formulas for its
application, “in every case the question is whether
the reasons for the existence of the doctrine are
present and whether the purposes it serves will be
aided by its application in the particular litigation.”
As the origin and evolution of the primary
jurisdiction doctrine demonstrate, the reasons for
the existence and the purposes it serves are two-
fold: the desire for the uniformity and the reliance
on administrative expertise. Thus, in determining
whether to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine,
we must examine whether doing so would serve
either of these purposes.

These same tests were applied by our courts in the

determination of whether or not to apply the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Spouses Jose Abejo
and Aurora Abejo, et a., v. Hon. Rafael de la Cruz,
etc. et al., 149 SCRA 654, citing Pambujan Sur
United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., In., 94
Phil. 932, 941 [1954]) 51
See GMA Network, Inc., v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corporation, G.R. No. 160703, September 23, 2005.

In Paat v. CA, 266 SCRA 167 the Court said that

enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations
and the protection, development and
management of forest lands fall within the primary
and special responsibilities of the DENR. By the very
nature of the functions, the DENR should be given a
free hand unperturbed by judicial intrusion to
determine a controversy which is well within its
jurisdiction. The assumption therefore of the replevin
suit by the trial court filed by the private
respondents constitutes an unjustified
encroachment into the domain of the
administrative agency’s prerogative.

Quasi-judicial bodies like the CSC are better

equipped in handling cases involving the
employment status of employees of those in the
civil service since it is within the field of its expertise.
(Paloma v. Mora GR No. 157783, Sept. 23, 2005)

Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction

It involves the inherent or implied power of the court

to determine issues incidental to the exercise of its
primary jurisdiction.
Under its ancillary jurisdiction, a court may
determine all questions relative to the matters
brought before it, regulate the manner in which a
trial shall be conducted, determine the hours at
which the witnesses and lawyers may be heard,
direct the disposition of money deposited incourt in
the course of the proceedings, appoint a receiver
an grant an injunction, attachment or garnishment.

Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-Interference

GR: No court has the authority to interfere by

injunction with the judgment of another court of
coordinate jurisdiction or to pass upon or scrutinize
and much less declare as unjust a judgment of
another court. (Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. CA GR
No. 88550, April 18, 1990)

Except: The doctrine of judicial stability does not

apply where a third party claimant is involved.
(Santos vs. Bayhon, GR No. 88643, July 23, 1991).

Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter

The court may on its own initiative object to an

erroneous jurisdiction and may ex mero motu take
cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the
case and has a clearly recognized right to
determine its own jurisdiction (Fabian vs. Desierto,
295 SCRA 470). “When it appears from the
pleadings or evidence on record that the court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter,…the court
shall dismiss the same” (Sec. 1, Rule 9, Rules of
Court)
The earliest opportunity of a party to raise the issue
of jurisdiction is in a motion to dismiss filed before 53
the filing or service of an answer. Lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter is a ground for a motion to
dismiss (Sec. 1(b), Rule 16, Rules of Court). If no
motion is filed, the defense of lack of jurisdiction
may be raised as an affirmative defense in the
answer (Sec. 6, Rule 16)

Under the Omnibus Motion rule, a motion attacking

a pleading like a motion to dismiss, shall include all
grounds then available, and all objections not so
included shall be deemed waived (Sec. 8 Rule 15).
The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter is however, a defense not barred by the
failure to invoke the same in a motion to dismiss
already filed. Even if a motion to dismiss was filed
and the issue of jurisdiction was not raised therein, a
party may, when he files an answer, raise the lack
of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense because
this defense is not barred under the omnibus motion
rule

Thus, the prevailing rule is that jurisdiction over the

subject matter may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, even for the first time on appeal
(Calimlim vs. Ramirez, 118 SCRA 399; Francel Realty
Corporation vs. Sycip 469 SCRA 424).

The issue is so basic that it may be raised at any

stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. In fact,
courts may take cognizance of the issue even if not
raised by the parties. There is thus no reason to
preclude the Court of Appeals, for example, from
ruling on this issue even if the same has not yet
been resolved by the trial court below (Asia
International Auctioneers, Inc. vs. GR No. 163445,
Dec. 18, 2007).

Lack of jurisdiction is one of those excepted

grounds where the court may dismiss a claim or a
case at any time when it appears from the
pleadings or the evidence on record that any of
those ground exists, even if they were not raised in
the answer or in a motion to dismiss. That the issue
of lack of jurisdiction was raised only by the
defendants in their memorandum filed before the
trial court did not render them in estoppel (Vda. De
Barrera vs. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi GR No. 174346
Sept. 12, 2008).

When the court dismisses the complaint for lack of

jurisdiction over the subject matter, should it refer or
forward the case to another court with the proper
jurisdiction? It is submitted that the court should not
do so. Its only authority is to dismiss the complaint
and not to make any other order.

Objections to Jurisdiction and Estoppel by Laches

Estoppel means you cannot disown your act by

which you have misled another while laches means
abandonment of a right for failure to assert it for a
long time.

GR: You can raise your objection on jurisdiction over

the subject matter even for the first time on appeal.
The ONLY exception is when there is estoppel by
laches, as laid down in TIJAM vs. SIBONGHANOY ( 55
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy 23 SCRA 29, April 15, 1968).

In this case, a complaint for collection cognizable

by the inferior court was filed in the CFI. The
jurisdiction was not questioned. The CFI issued a writ
of preliminary attachment but was dissolved when
the defendant filed a counterbond thru a surety.
After trial, the court rendered a judgment against
the defendants. That decision became final and a
motion for execution was filed and granted. When
implemented, the writ of execution was unsatisfied
so the plaintiff moved that the writ be executed
against the counterbond. The surety filed an
opposition and sought to be relieved from liability.
The motion was denied on ground that the surety
was not notified. Plaintiff then filed a second motion
for execution against the counterbond notifying the
surety this time. Since the surety failed to oppose
the motion was granted. The surety moved to
quash the writ against the counterbond but was
denied. The surety went to the Court of Appeals
which affirmed the order. The surety filed a motion
for extension of time to file a motion to for
reconsideration which the CA granted. However,
instead of filing a motion for reconsideration the
surety filed this time a motion to dismiss on ground
that the CFI did not have jurisdiction over the
subject matter. Instead of deciding the CA certified
the case to the Supreme Court because the issue
raised is purely legal.
The Court emphatically declared: “The facts of the
case show that from the time the Surety became a
quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised
the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court
of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the
present action by reason of the sum of money
involved which, according to the law then in force,
was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of
inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several
stages of the proceedings, in the court a quo as
well as in the CA, it invoked the jurisdiction of said
courts to obtain affirmative reliefs and submitted its
case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was
only after an adverse decision was rendered by the
CA that it finally woke up to raise the question of
jurisdiction. Were we to sanction such conduct on
its part we would in effect be declaring as useless
all the proceedings had in the present case since it
was commenced on July 19, 1948 and compel the
judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once
more. The inequity and unfairness of this is not only
patent but revolting.”

In other words, while jurisdiction as a rule, may be

raised at any stage of the proceedings
(Panganiban vs. CA, 321SCRA 51, 59 [1999]), a
party may be stopped from raising such questions if
he has actively taken part in the very proceedings
which he questions, belatedly objecting to the
court’s jurisdiction in the event that the judgment or
order subsequently rendered is adverse to him.
(Alday vs. FGU Insurance Corporation, 350 SCRA
113, 120 [2001]).
In general sense, estoppel by laches is failure or
neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained 57
length of time to do what ought to have been
done earlier. The failure to act warrants the
presumption that one has abandoned his right or
that he had acquiesced to the correctness and
fairness of what has been resolved. The doctrine of
estoppel is based on public policy intended to
discourage stale claims. Estoppel is not a question
of time unlike the statute of limitations. It is rather
based on the inequity or unfairness of permitting a
claim to be asserted at a time such claim is
presumed to have been abandoned. (Sps.
Guillermo Agbada and Maxima Agbada v. Inter-
Urban Developers, Inc. GR 144029, Sept. 19, 2002)

The fact pattern common among those cases

wherein the Court invoked estoppel to prevent a
party from questioning jurisdiction is a party’s active
participation in all stages of a case, including
invoking the authority of the court in seeking
affirmative relief and questioning the court’s
jurisdiction only after receiving a ruling or decision
adverse to his case for the purpose of annulling
everything done in the trial in which he has actively
participated. As clearly pointed out in Lao vs.
Republic 479 SCRA 439: “A party who has invoked
the jurisdiction of the court over a particular matter
to secure affirmative relief cannot be permitted to
afterwards deny the same jurisdiction to escape
liability.”
The Supreme Court frowns upon the undesirable
practice of submitting one’s case for decision, and
then accepting the judgment only if favorable, but
attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if it is not (Bank of
the Philippine Islands vs. ALS Management and
Development Corporation, 427 SCRA 564).

Bar by Estoppel Is An Exception and Not the

General Rule

The doctrine laid down in Tijam is the exception to,

and not the general rule (Pangilinan v. CA, 321
SCRA 51, 59 [1999]).

Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue

of jurisdiction only in cases in which the factual
milieu is analogous to that of Tijam.

In Tijam, the defense of lack of jurisdiction was

raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed by
the Surety almost fifteen (15) years after the
questioned ruling had been rendered. At several
stages of the proceedings, in the court a quo as
well as in the Court of Appeals, the Surety invoked
the jurisdiction of the said courts to obtain
affirmative relief and submitted its case for final
adjudication on the merits. It was only when the
adverse decision was rendered by the Court of
Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question
of jurisdiction (Regalado vs. Go, GR No. 167988,
February6, 2007)

Inspite of Tijam and subsequent cases which

invoked it, the rule that the lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter may be raised at any stage of
the proceedings, even on appeal, still remains the 59
prevailing rule and Tijam should be confined only to
situations prevailing in a particular case viewed in
the light of the special circumstances surrounding it.

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON (PARTIES)

Q: Define jurisdiction over the person.

A: Jurisdiction over the person is the power to

render a personal judgment against a party to an
action or proceeding through the service of process
or by voluntary appearance of a party during the
progress of a cause. (Banco Español-Filipino vs.
Palanca, 37 Phil. 291)

It is the power of the court to bring before it persons

to be affected by the judgment so as to give him an
opportunity to be heard, and to render a judgment
binding upon his person. (21C.J.S., Courts, Sec. 11,
1990)

Q: In criminal cases, how does the court acquire

jurisdiction over the person of the accused?

A: By having him

(1) arrested;

(2) by service of the warrant of arrest; or

(3) by his voluntary surrender.

Q: Even if he is not arrested, can the court try an
accused?

A: Of course not, because the court has not

acquired jurisdiction over his person. There must first
be an arrest or surrender. The accused can post
bail and be released but if he jumps bail there can
be trial in absentia. There will be a valid decision
because the court has already acquired
jurisdiction. Of course we cannot enforce the
decision until we catch him.

How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the

person?

In civil cases, it is also a must that the court acquires

jurisdiction over the person of the parties. The
manner by which the court acquires jurisdiction
over the parties depends on whether the party is the
plaintiff or the defendant.

As to Plaintiff

Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is

acquired by his/her filing of the complaint or
petition. By doing so, he submits himself/herself to
the jurisdiction of the court. (Davao Light & Power
Co. Inc. v. CA, 204 SCRA 343, 348 [1991])

Example: X, a resident of Melbourne, Australia,

presented a complaint against Y, a resident of
Manila, before the CFI of Manila for accounting
and damages. X never came to the Philippines to
file the suit and is only represented in this case by
counsel. Y files a motion to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that the court acquired no jurisdiction
over the person of X. 61
Q: Should the complaint be dismissed on said
ground? Why?

A: No. It is a recognized procedural rule that

jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by his/her
filing of the complaint in court. By filing the
complaint through his/her counsel, X invoked the
jurisdiction of the court over his person.

As to Defendant

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is

required only in action in personam (Asiavest
Limited vs. CA, 296 SCRA 539). Jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite in an
action in rem and quasi in rem (Gomez vs. CA 425
SCRA 98; Biaco vs. Phil. Countryside Rural Bank 515
SCRA 106.

Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Defendant in

Actions in Personam, How Acquired

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is

obtained either by a valid service of summons
upon him or by his/her voluntary submission to the
court’s authority. (Ang Ping vs. CA, 310 SCRA 343,
349 [1999]; Davao Light vs. CA)

The service of summons is intended to give official

notice to the defendant or respondent that an
action has been commenced against him. He is
thus put on guard as to the demands of the plaintiff
as stated in the complaint. The service of summons
is an important element in the operation of a court’s
jurisdiction upon a party to a suit because it is the
means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over
his person. Without service of summons, or when the
service is improper, the trial and the judgment
being in violation of due process, are both null and
void. (Avon Insurance PLC v. CA, 278 SCRA 312, 325
[1997])

The mode of acquisition of jurisdiction over the

plaintiff and the defendant applies to both ordinary
and special civil actions like mandamus or unlawful
detainer cases (Bar 1994).

First Instance:

UPON SERVICE ON HIM OF COERCIVE PROCESS IN

THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW

The first instance when a court acquires jurisdiction

over the person of the defendant is through a
service upon him of the appropriate court process
which in civil law is called service of summons. This is
the counterpart of warrant of arrest in criminal
procedure.

So if the defendant was never served with

summons, any judgment rendered by the court will
not bind him. Even if he is the loser in the case,
judgment cannot be enforced because the court
did not acquire jurisdiction over his person.

The same principle holds true in criminal cases. A

court cannot try and convict an accused over
whose person the court never acquired jurisdiction.
In criminal cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over 63
the person through the issuance and service of a
warrant of arrest. The warrant cannot have its effect
even if it was issued, if the same had not been
served, i.e. by effecting the arrest of the accused
by virtue of a warrant.

Q: In criminal cases, how can the warrant of arrest

be effected?

A: Once an information has been filed in court, the

court issues a warrant. Then, the arresting officer will
arrest the accused. The court acquires jurisdiction
by ENFORCEMENT OF SERVICE for effective arrest of
the accused pursuant to the warrant of arrest.

Second Instance:

BY HIS VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO THE

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

Another way to acquire jurisdiction over the person

of the accused even if the accused is not arrested
is through VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. Since there is no
more need for the warrant, the court will recall the
same.

In civil cases, it is the voluntary submission of the

defendant to the jurisdiction of the court.

Q: Defendant was served with summons improperly

or irregularly therefore, he could question the
jurisdiction of the court over his person. But instead,
he did not question the jurisdiction of the court
despite the defective service of court process. Did
the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant?

A: YES, because jurisdiction over the person can be

acquired by:

a.) waiver;

b.) consent; or

c.) lack of objection by the defendant.

(MRR Co. vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)

This is unlike the jurisdiction over subject matter

wherein the case could be dismissed upon filing in
the wrong court. The SC said that when you
remained silent despite the defects, your silence
has cured the defect. Meaning, the jurisdiction over
your person was acquired by waiver, or consent, or
lack of objection.

Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter

from jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?

A: Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the

defendant may be cured by waiver, consent,
silence or failure to object, whereas jurisdiction over
the subject matter cannot be cured by failure to
object or by silence, waiver or consent. (MRR Co.
vs. Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)
Voluntary Appearance as Voluntary Submission To
Court’s Jurisdiction 65
Voluntary appearance must be the kind that
constitutes voluntary submission to the court’s
jurisdiction. Voluntary submission to the court’s
jurisdiction cannot be inferred from the defendant’s
mere knowledge or existence of a case against
him/her. In general, the form of appearance that
would be construed as a voluntary submission to
the court’s jurisdiction is an appearance that seeks
affirmative relief except when the relief is for the
purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court
over the person of the defendant.

Certain actions which could be construed as

voluntary appearance are:

1.) when the defendant’s counsel files the

corresponding pleading thereon;

2.) when the defendant files a motion for

reconsideration of the judgment by default;

3.) when the defendant files a petition to set

aside the judgment of default;

4.) when the defendant and plaintiff jointly

submit a compromise agreement for the
approval of the court;

5.) when the defendant files an answer to the

contempt charge;
 6.) when the defendant files a petition for
certiorari without questioning the court’s
jurisdiction over his person (Navale v. CA,
253 SCRA 705, 709, 710, 709-712 [1996])

Objections to jurisdiction over the person of the

defendant

An objection to the jurisdiction over the person of

the defendant may be raised as a ground for a
motion to dismiss (Sec. 1(a) Rule 16). If no motion to
dismiss has been filed, the objection may be
pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer
(Sec. 6 Rule 16).

If a motion to dismiss has been filed, the objection

to the lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant must be pleaded in the same motion
where such ground is available at the time the
motion is filed, otherwise it is deemed waived
pursuant to the omnibus motion rule. The defense of
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
is not one of those defenses which are not deemed
waived if not raised in the motion to dismiss. Only
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis
pendentia, res judicata and prescription are not
waived (Sec. 1 Rule 9 in relation to Sec. 8 Rule 15).

Effect of pleading additional defenses aside from

lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant

Under the former procedure, if the defendant raises

the objection of lack of jurisdiction over his person in
a motion to dismiss, the motion must rely only on
that particular ground. If the defendant appears in
court, objects to its jurisdiction over his person and 67
at the same time alleges other grounds, the
appearance would be deemed a general
appearance which was in effect a voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court (Republic
vs. Kerr 18 SCRA 207; WANG Laboratories VS.
Mendoza 156 SCRA 44).

The above rule was re-examined in La Naval Drug

Corporation vs. CA 236 SCRA 78). The
pronouncements in said case are now embodied in
Sec. 20 of Rule 14 which provides: ****The inclusion
in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

RES is the Latin word for “thing.” It is applied to an

object, subject matter (not nature of the action),
status, considered as the defendant in the action or
as the object against which, directly, proceedings
are taken. (Black’s 5th Ed., 1172)

Q: Define jurisdiction over the res.

A: Jurisdiction over the res is the power or authority

of the court over the thing or property under
litigation. (Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil. 186, 190 [1939])

It is the power to bind the “thing”.

How is it acquired?

It is acquired either by the (a) the seizure of the

property under legal process whereby it is brought
into actual or constructive custody of the court’ or
(b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings,
in which the power of the court is recognized and
made effective. (Macahilig vs. Heirs of Grace M.
Magalit, GR No. 141423, Nov. 15, 2000)

Q: A files a case for recovery of ownership against B

over a piece of land. What is the res of the case?

A: The piece of land is the res of the case.

What is the nature of the action?

To recover ownership of real property or real action.

Q: However, res may not be tangible. For example,

X is an illegitimate child. She wants to be
acknowledged by her father. Thus, she filed a case
against her father for compulsory recognition.

What is the res?

A: The res is the status of the child because it is the

object of the litigation.

Q: Why is jurisdiction over the res important?

A: Sometimes it is a substitute for jurisdiction over

the person. There are instances when the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant like
when he is abroad. But if the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res, the case may go on. Even if
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant, jurisdiction over the res 69
becomes a substitute over the person.

In the example of action for compulsory

recognition, even if the defendant is a non-resident
who is out of the country the object of litigation is
status here in the Philippines, then acquisition of
jurisdiction over the res confers jurisdiction to the
court even if the defendant is abroad. The res here
is the thing or object or status against which or in
relation to which the judgment can be enforced.

Acquisition of jurisdiction over the res by actual

seizure is exemplified by an attachment
proceeding where the property is seized at the
commencement of the action or at some
subsequent stage in the action. It is also acquired
through a legal provision which authorizes the court
to exercise authority over a property or subject
matter such as suits involving a person’s status or
property located in the Philippines in actions in rem
or quasi in rem. (Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca
37 Phil. 921, 927 [1918]; Perkins v. Dizon; Sec. 15, Rule
14, Rules of Court.)

In Land Registration cases or probate proceedings,

jurisdiction is acquired by compliance with
procedural requisites, such as publication.

In a petition for change of name, the title of the

petition must be complete by including the name
sought to be adopted; otherwise, the court acquires
no jurisdiction over the proceedings. (Telmo vs.
Republic, 73 SCRA 29 (1976).

JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

Meaning of Issue

An issue is a disputed point or question to which

parties to an action have narrowed down their
several allegations and upon which they are
desirous of obtaining a decision. (Black’s 5th Ed., 745
citing Muller v. Muller, 235 Cal App. 2nd 341, 45 Cal.
Rptr 182, 184)

How Jurisdiction Over The Issues Is Conferred and

Determined

In order to determine whether or not a court has

jurisdiction over the issue or issues of the case, one
must examine the pleadings.

Q: Define jurisdiction over the issues.

A: Jurisdiction over the issue is the authority to try

and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the
parties. (Reyes vs. Diaz, 73 Phil. 484)

Q: What are pleadings?

A: Rule 6, Section 1 - Pleadings are the written

allegation of the parties of their respective claims
and defenses submitted to the court for trial and
judgment.

In a civil case, pleadings are written statements of

the respective positions of the parties, namely, the
claims for the plaintiff and defenses for the
defendant. 71
EXAMPLE: X files a case for collection of sum of
money against Y. The pleading that X will file will
contain the written statements of his claim. He will
narrate there for instance that Y borrowed money
from him promising to pay it on a day certain but
when it became due no payment was made
despite demands so he suffered actual loss or
damage aside from moral damage.

By way of response, X will file his position in writing

stating his defenses like denying the loan; the
promissory note is a forgery or admitting the loan
but claiming that it had already been paid or the
action has prescribed. This written statement of his
position containing his defense or defenses is a
pleading called an answer. In the answer Y can
also allege claims, if he has any against the plaintiff
like the case is merely intended to harass him for
which reason he suffered damages. This is called a
counterclaim, another pleading and X can in turn
file an answer to the counterclaim where he will
state his defense/s as regards the claim contained
in the counterclaim.

Based on their allegations and counter-allegations

the court will know what issues are to be resolved.

Q: So, if X says that Y borrowed money, and never

paid him, while Y, in answer states that he did
borrow but already paid it, what issue is being
presented to be resolved by the court?
A: The issue is, whether the obligation is still existing
or is it already extinguished by payment. So that is
how the court will know what it will try in this case.

Q: Let us suppose that after the trial, the court said

in its decision that the obligation has been
extinguished by condonation. Will that bind?

A: No, because the parties did not raise

condonation as the issue. So the court decided
that issue over which it never acquired jurisdiction.

In other words, the court should only rule on what

the parties raised in their pleadings. That is what we
call jurisdiction over the issue.

Jurisdiction over the issue is, therefore, conferred

and determined by the pleadings of the parties.

Jurisdiction over the issues may also be determined

and conferred by stipulation of the parties as when
in the pre-trial, the parties enter into stipulation of
facts and documents or enter into an agreement
simplifying the issues of the case (Sec. 2 Rule 18)

Jurisdiction over the issues may also be conferred

by waiver or failure to object to the presentation of
evidence on a matter not raised in the pleadings.
Here the parties try with their express or implied
consent issues not raised by the pleadings. The
issues tried shall be treated in all respects as if they
had been raised in the pleadings (Sec. 5 Rule 10).
Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter Distinguished
from Jurisdiction Over the Issues 73
Jurisdiction over the issues is conferred by the
pleadings and by the express (stipulation) or
implied (failure to object to evidence) consent of
the parties because an issue not duly pleaded may
be validly tried and decided by the court as long as
there is no objection from the parties. Jurisdiction
over the subject matter is conferred by law and
cannot be subject to the agreement of the parties.
(Vda de Victoria v. CA, GR No. 147550, Jan. 26,
2005)

A: The following are the distinctions:

1.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power

to hear and try a particular case, while

Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court

to resolve legal questions involved in the case;

2.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired

upon filing of the complaint, while

Jurisdiction over the issues of the case is

acquiredupon filing of the answer which joins the
issues involved in the case.

When An Issue Arises Even If Not Raised In the

Pleadings

Although it is a rule that jurisdiction over the issue is

to be determined by the pleadings of the parties,
an issue may arise in a case without it being raised
in the pleadings. This happens when the parties try
an issue with their consent. Under Sec. 5, Rule 10 of
the Rules of Court, when issues not raised by the
pleadings are tried with the express or the implied
consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all
respects, as if they had been raised in the
pleadings. Thus, if evidence on a claim for salary
differential is not objected to, the Labor Arbiter
correctly considered the evidence even if the claim
is not mentioned in the complaint. (Cindy and Lynsy
Garment v. NLRC, 284 SCRA 38, 45 [1998])

Take note that jurisdiction over the issues in civil

cases is acquired after defendant has filed an
answer. In criminal cases, jurisdiction over the issues
is acquired when the accused enters a plea of not
guilty or pleads guilty but seeks to prove a
mitigating circumstance.

For a decision to be effective, the court must

acquire the jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
person, the res in case the defendant is not around,
and the last is jurisdiction over the issue.

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER BY THE

SUPREME COURT

The highest court of the land is the Supreme Court.

It was not affected by the Judiciary Law (BP 129)
which reorganized the judiciary in 1983. Being a
constitutional court, its jurisdiction is found in the
fundamental law itself. The SC is both an original
and appellate court.
Composition

It is composed of the Chief Justice and 14 Associate

75
Justices.

The Constitution ordains that the President appoints

the members of the SC and judges of lower courts
from a list of at least three nominees prepared by
the JBC for every vacancy and requires the
President to issue appointments, for lower courts,
within 90 days from submission of the list (Art. VIII,
Sec. 9) and to fill the vacancy of the SC within 90
days from its occurrence. (Art. VIII Sec. 4(1). All such
appointments need no confirmation. (Sec. 9)

Divisions and En Banc

The SC sits either en banc or in divisions of 3, 5 or 7

members. At present, it has 3 divisions of 5 members
each.

A decision or resolution of a division, when

concurred in by a majority of its members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues
in a case and voted thereon, and in no case
without the concurrence of at least 3 of such
members, is a decision or resolution of the SC. (Sec.
4(3) Art. VIII Constitution).

The Court en banc is not an appellate court to

which decisions or resolutions of a division may be
appealed. (Circular No. 2-89)

No doctrine or principle of law laid down by the

court in a decision rendered en banc or in division
may be modified or reversed except by the court
sitting en banc. (Sec. 4(3))

How a Case Before a Division is Referred to the

Court en banc

At any time after a Division takes cognizance of a

case and before a judgment or resolution therein
rendered becomes final and executor, the Division
may refer the case en consulta to the court en
banc which, after consideration of the reasons of
the division for such referral, may return the case to
the Division or accept the case for decision or
resolution.

Cases assigned to a Division including motions for

reconsideration which in the opinion of at least 3
members merit the attention of the court en banc
and are accepted by the majority vote of the
actual members of the court en banc may be
considered as en banc cases.

A resolution of the Division denying a party’s motion

for referral to the Court en banc of any division shall
be final and not appealable to the Court en banc.

When a decision or resolution is referred by a

division to the Court en banc, the latter may in the
absence of sufficiently important reasons decline to
take cognizance of the same, in which case, the
decision or resolution shall be returned to the
referring Division. (Circular No. 2-89 effective March
1, 1989)
En Banc Cases

In a resolution dated February 23, 1984, the

77
following are considered en banc cases:

a.) Cases in which the constitutionality or

validity of any treaty, executive agreement,
law, ordinance or executive order or
regulation is in question;

b.) Criminal cases in which the decision

imposes the death penalty;

c.) Cases raising novel questions of law;

d.) Cases affecting ambassadors, public

ministers and consuls;

e.) Cases where a doctrine or principle laid

down by the court en banc or in division
may be modified or reversed;

f.) Cases assigned to a division including

motions for reconsideration which in the
opinion of at least 3 members merit the
attention of the Court en banc and are
acceptable to a majority vote of the actual
membership of the Court en banc;

g.) All other cases as the Court en banc by a

majority of its actual membership may
deem of sufficient importance to merit its
attention;
 h.) Cases where the penalty to be imposed is
the dismissal of a judge, officer, or
employee of the SC, disbarment of a
lawyer, or suspension of any of them for a
period of more than one year or a fine of
P10,000.00, or both;

i.) Cases involving decisions, resolutions or

orders of the Sandiganbayan, Comelec,
COA, or Military Tribunals;

j.) Habeas corpus against government or

military officials;

Principal Functions of the Supreme Court

a. Adjudication (Judicial Power)

b. Administration or Disciplinary power

c. Rule-making (Rule-making Power)

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Article VIII, Section 5, paragraph 1 of the 1987

Constitution enumerates the ORIGINAL jurisdiction
of the SC:

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the

following powers:

[1] Exercise original jurisdiction over cases

affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
Note that the foregoing provision does not define
the original jurisdiction of the SC as exclusive, 79
hence it can be concurrent or exclusive.

When is it exclusive and when concurrent?

Original Exclusive

The ORIGINAL EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the SC refers

to petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus as defined in Rule 65
against the following:

a) the CA (Judiciary Act of 1948);

b) the COMELEC (Art. IX Sec. 7, 1987

Constitution);

c) COA (Art. IX Sec. 7 1987 Constitution; and

d) Sandiganbayan (PD No. 1606);

e) Court of Tax Appeals because it has now

the same rank as the CA by virtue of RA
9282.

Original Concurrent

A. With CA – T he cases where its original

jurisdiction is CONCURRENT with the CA are:
petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus against the following:

a. the CSC (RA No. 7902);

 b. Central Board of Assessment Appeals (PD
No. 464; BP Blg. 129; RA No. 7902);

c. NLRC (St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC

295 SCRA 494; RA No. 7902) or the
Secretary of Labor under the Labor Code.

d. Quasi-judicial agencies (BP Blg. 129; RA No.

7902; Heirs of Hinog vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA
460)

e. Also, issuance of writ of certiorari,

prohibition and mandamus against the
RTC.

B. CONCURRENT with the RTC – are those

actions affecting ambassadors and other
public ministers and consuls (Sec. 21[2] BP Blg
129; Art. VIII Sec. 5 1987 Constitution).

C. CONCURRENT with the CA and RTC – are

those involving habeas corpus, quo
warranto, and writs of certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus against inferior courts and
bodies (Secs. 9[1], 21[2]2, BP Blg. 129; Art. VIII
Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution).

For example, a petition for mandamus against the

MTC of Cebu City can be filed with the SC, CA, or
RTC although the policy of the Supreme Court is
that it should be filed with the RTC based on the
hierarchy of the courts. (Vergara vs. Suelto, 156
SCRA 758)
 D. CONCURRENT WITH CA, SANDIGANBAYAN
and RTC – are petitions for issuance of writ of 81
Amparo and petitions for Habeas Data,
where the action involves public data or
government office.

E. Finally, with the advent of the new law (RA

8249), there is now a CONCURRENCE
between the SC and the Sandiganbayan in
so far as petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, habeas corpus, injunction and
other ancillary writs in aid of the
Sandiganbayan's APPELLATE JURISDICTION

i.e. only in connection with a case appealed to

the Sandiganbayan.

This concurrent jurisdiction is subject to the doctrine

of hierarchy of courts (Liga ng mga Barangay
National vs. Atienza 420 SCRA 562; Lacson
Hermanas Inc. vs. Heirs of Ignacio 462 SCRA 290).

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The appellate jurisdiction is found in Section 5,

Paragraph (2), Article VIII 1987 Constitution:

a. 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:

i. All cases in which the

constitutionality or validity of
 any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law,
presidential decree,
proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.

ii. All cases involving the

legality of any tax, impost,
assessment, or toll, or any
penalty imposed in relation
thereto.

iii. All cases in which the

jurisdiction of any lower court
is in issue.

iv. All criminal cases in which

the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or higher.

v. All cases in which an error or

question of law is involved.

If (a), (b), and (c) also involve questions of facts or

mixed questions of fact and of law, the aggrieved
party shall appeal to the Court of Appeals; and its
final judgment may be appealed to the Supreme
Court. (Subpar 4, Third Par. Sec. 17, Judiciary Act or
RA 544)

a) All cases in which the constitutionality or

validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential
 decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question. 83
So if the RTC, which has the power, declares the
law as unconstitutional, the same has to be
appealed directly to the SC. It cannot pass through
the CA because the SC has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction regarding the matter.

b) All cases involving the legality of any tax,

impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.

This is related to the legality of tax cases – whether

a tax or tax penalty is legal or not. However,
whatever decision the lower court gives, it has to
be appealed directly to the SC.

c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any

lower court is in issue

EXAMPLE: The RTC or the MTC says it has jurisdiction

or it has no jurisdiction over a case. The aggrieved
party, it if wants to raise that issue, it must go to the
SC. When the issue is purely jurisdiction, the SC shall
have exclusive appellate jurisdiction.

Now, when the law says all cases in which the

jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue, the cases
involve 100% pure jurisdiction as an issue. There are
no factual issues involved. If the issue of jurisdiction
is mixed with a factual issue, the appeal should be
in the CA without prejudice to the filing of the same
with the SC later. So, this is 100% issue of jurisdiction.
No factual issue is involved.
 d) All criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

We discussed this in Criminal Procedure.

e) All cases in which only an error or question of

law is involved.

Take note that ONLY an error or question of law is

involved. So, if there is a mixed question of law and
a question of fact, appeal must be filed with the
CA. You only go to the SC if the appeal is 100%
legal. That applies to both criminal and civil cases.

QUESTIONS OF LAW and QUESTIONS OF FACT

There is a question of law when the doubt or

difference arises as to what the law is on a certain
set of facts. There is a question of fact when the
doubt or difference arises as to the truth or
falsehood of the alleged facts (Sps. Santos vs. CA
337 SCRA 67).

Example: Where the question is whether or not the

debtor has paid the debt, the issue is one of fact.
Where the question is whether or not the manner of
payment is of the type which produces the legal
effect of extinguishing the obligation, the issue
becomes one of law. Also, when under the set of
facts the issue is whether or not the law on double
sales applies, there is a question of law.

When the issue involves a review of the evidence, it

involves a question of fact because evidence, as
defined, is the means, sanctioned by the rules, of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact. (Sec. 1 Rule 128) 85
In an action for declaration of nullity of marriage
the basis is psychological incapacity. The
RTC/Family Court dismissed the case finding that
there was no psychological incapacity. If the
plaintiff wants to appeal from that judgment, can
she appeal directly to the SC? Is it a question of
fact or law?

No. The appeal should be to the CA. The issue

raised is a question of fact because there is need to
review the evidence to resolve it.

Suppose the court nullified the marriage on ground

of impotence and the defendant wants to appeal
because he wants to raise the issue whether or not
impotence is a ground for declaration of nullity of
marriage this would be a question of law because
there is no need for review of the evidence to
resolve it. So appeal is to the SC.

OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH

THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Article IX, Section 7, paragraph (a), 1987

Constitution:

“Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote

x x x. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution
or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court
on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty
days from receipt of a copy thereof.”
The COMELEC, COA and the CSC act also as courts
of justice. They have powers to decide certain
cases within their jurisdiction. Election cases are
covered by the COMELEC, claims against the
government, by COA and eligibility or removal from
government service of an appointive employee, by
CSC.

Now, according to Section 7, any decision, order or

ruling of these commissions may be brought to the
SC on certiorari, etc. So you will see that the
decisions of the constitutional commissions are
reviewable by the SC.

However, Congress amended the Judiciary Law

particularly Section 9 on the jurisdiction of the CA
by now making decisions of the CSC no longer
appealable to the SC directly but appealable to
the CA. So based on the present law, out of the
three constitutional commissions, the only ones
whose decisions are appealable directly to the SC
are those of the COMELEC and the COA

What is the basis for Congress to pass such a law

where a decision of a constitutional body (CSC) is
reviewable by a non-constitutional body?

Under the Constitution, decisions of the

constitutional commissions are appealable to the
SC. Does Congress have the power to change that
by making it appealable to the CA?

Yes because the provision, it says: “Unless otherwise

provided by this Constitution or by law..” Meaning,
the decisions are appealable to the SC unless
otherwise provided by law. The Constitution itself 87
gave Congress the power to change it.

SC as Presidential Electoral Tribunal

Article VII, Section 4, last paragraph, 1987

Constitution:

“The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the

sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-
President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.”

If there’s an electoral protest for the President and

Vice-President, the matter is not to be decided by
the COMELEC but by the SC acting as the
Presidential Electoral Tribunal.

Judicial Review of Presidential Proclamation of

Martial or Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus

Article VII, Section 18 (3), 1987 Constitution –

Commander-in-Chief Clause

“The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate

proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of
the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law
or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or
extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing.”
So, the SC, in an appropriate proceeding filed by
any citizen review the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law. Meaning,
the SC can inquire into the basis on why martial law
is declared.

This is intended to prevent the Supreme Court from

invoking the Political Question doctrine laid down in
many earlier cases that it is the prerogative of the
President to determine, at his discretion, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation
of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of
the writ or the extension thereof.

Congress and Jurisdiction of the SC

1.) Article VIII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution:

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 its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
Section 5 hereof.

Congress may change or even remove the

jurisdiction of the RTC or CA. The law can change
them because jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law. However, Congress does not
have the power to lessen or deprive the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction under Section 5, Article VIII.

2.) However Article VI, Section 30 states:

“No law shall be passed increasing the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this 89
Constitution without its advice and concurrence.”

Thus , Congress cannot lessen but it can increase

the SC’s powers and jurisdiction, PROVIDED it is with
the latter's advice and concurrence. So more or
less, these are the scattered provisions of the
Constitution dealing with the SC’s jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts

There are important principles worthy of note in

relation to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The SC is not a trier of facts which means that

passing upon a factual issue is not within the
province of the Court (Romy’s Freight Service vs.
Castro, 490 SCRA 160). The findings of facts of the
Court of Appeals are not generally reviewable by
the SC (Sarmiento vs. Yu 497 SCRA 513). Also,
factual findings of the trial court, particularly when
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally
binding on the Court (Tan vs. GVT Engineering
Services 498 SCRA 93; Office of the Ombudsman vs.
Lazar0-Baldazo GR No. 170815 February 2, 2007).

It is not the function of the SC to determine the

weight of the evidence supporting the assailed
decision (JR Blanco vs. Quasha 318 SCRA 373).
However, factual issues may be delved into and
resolved where the findings and conclusions of the
trial court or the quasi-judicial bodies are frontally
inconsistent with the findings of the CA (Office of the
Ombudsman vs. Tongson 499 SCRA 567).

Exceptions

While it is settled rule that the SC in the exercise of

its power of review is not a trier of facts,
jurisprudence has, however, recognized several
exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved
by the SC, namely:

a.) when the findings are grounded entirely on

speculation, surmises or conjectures;

b.) when the inference made is manifestly

mistaken, absurd or impossible;

c.) when there is grave abuse of discretion;

d.) when the judgment is based on a

misapprehension of facts;

e.) when the findings of facts are conflicting;

f.) when in making its findings the CA went

beyond the issues of the case, or its findings
are contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee;

g.) when the findings are contrary to the trial

court;

h.) when the findings are conclusions without

citation of specific evidence on which they
are based;
 i.) when the facts set forth in the petition, as
well as in the petitioner’s main and reply 91
briefs, are not disputed by the respondent;

j.) when the findings of fact are premised on

the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record;
and

k.) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain

relevant facts not disputed by the parties,
which, if properly considered, could justify a
different conclusion (Cristobal Cruz vs.
Cristobal 498 SCRA 37; Heirs of Dicman vs.
Carino 490 SCRA 240; Safeguard Security
Agency Inc. vs. Tangco 511 SCRA 67; De Los
Santos vs. Elizalde 514 SCRA 14; NPC vs. De
la Cruz GR No. 156093 Feb. 2, 2007; Spouses
Yu vs. Ngo Yet Te GR No. 155868 Feb. 6,
2007).

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BRIEF

HISTORY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

The jurisdiction of the CA is now governed by BP 129

or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. BP 129
was passed in 1983 by the former Batasang
Pambansa which practically abolished all the
regular courts at that time, and also the special
courts except the SC which cannot be abolished
by Congress. What was also spared was the Court
of Tax Appeals which was likewise not affected.
In lieu of these, other courts were created. The
constitutionality of BP 129 was challenged as
violative of the security of tenure of the judges. But
its constitutionality was sustained in the case of
DELA LLANA vs. ALBA, 112 SCRA 294.

The CA is composed of over 69 justices after new

divisions were created, one based in Cebu City and
the other in Cagayan de Oro City pursuant to RA
8246.

They decide cases by a division of three. They sit en

banc only for administrative matters not to decide
a case as it would be impractical considering their
number.

Before BP 129, the court was also called the “Court

of Appeals,” the counterpart of the present CA,
though the CA now is different and more powerful
than the old one. BP 129 abolished the old CA and
created another court which was called the
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (IAC).

So, from the 1983 to 1986, it was called the IAC.

After the EDSA Revolution, President Aquino,
pursuant to her law-making powers, issued E.O. #33
amending the Judiciary Law and changed the
name of IAC to CA (referring to the jurisdiction of
the IAC).

Many people thought that the CA of President

Aquino under E.O. #33 is actually the IAC under
another name only, but in a case decided by the
SC, reported in
IN RE: LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
93
REYNATO S. PUNO – 210 SCRA 589 [1992]

HELD: “It is the holding of the Court that the

present Court of Appeals is a new entity,
different and distinct from the Court of
Appeals or the Intermediate Appellate
Court existing prior to Executive Order No.
33, for it was created in the wake of the
massive reorganization launched by the
revolutionary government of Corazon C.
Aquino in the aftermath of the people
power (EDSA) revolution in 1986.”

Section 5 of EO 33 also amended Sec. 9 of

BP 129 to read as follows:
“The Court of Appeals shall have the power
to receive evidence and perform any and
all acts necessary to resolve factual issues
raised in (a) cases falling within its original
jurisdiction, such as actions for annulment of
judgments of regional trial courts, as
provided in paragraph (2) hereof; and in

(b) cases falling within its appellate

jurisdiction wherein a motion for
new trial based only on the
ground of newly discovered
evidence is granted by it.”

So, Section 9 of BP 129, which defines the

second highest court of the land, has been
amended by E.O. #33. In February 1995, it
was amended again by RA 7902, known as
“The Act expanding the jurisdiction of the
CA.”
RA 7902 restored the power of the CA to try
cases and conduct hearings, receive
evidence, and perform any and all acts
necessary to resolve factual issues raised in
cases falling within the original and
appellate jurisdiction, including the power
to grant new trials or further proceedings
(without limiting the motion for new trial
based on newly discovered evidence). Trials
or hearings in the CA must be continuous
and completed within 3 months unless
extended by the Chief Justice.

The essential features of the CA’s jurisdiction are as

follows: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS

Original Concurrent

[1] Section 9, paragraph 1, BP 129

Section 9 – Jurisdiction – The Court of Appeals shall

exercise:

(1) Original jurisdiction 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.

Note: Refer to discussion the original concurrent

jurisdiction of the SC with the CA; with the CA and
RTC etc.
The cases where its original jurisdiction is
CONCURRENT with the SC are: petitions for the 95
issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus against the following:

 the CSC (RA No. 7902);

 Central Board of Assessment Appeals (PD

No. 464; BP Blg. 129; RA No. 7902);

 NLRC (St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC

295 SCRA 494; RA No. 7902) or the
Secretary of Labor under the Labor Code.

 Quasi-judicial agencies (BP Blg. 129; RA No.

7902; Heirs of Hinog vs. Melicor, 455 SCRA
460)

 Also, issuance of writ of certiorari,

prohibition and mandamus against the
RTC.

CONCURRENT with the SC and RTC are those

involving habeas corpus, quo warranto, and writs of
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against
inferior courts and bodies (Secs. 9[1], 21[2]2, BP Blg.
129; Art. VIII Sec. 5, 1987 Constitution).

For example, a petition for mandamus against the

MTC of Cebu City can be filed with the SC, CA, or
RTC although the policy of the Supreme Court is
that it should be filed with the RTC based on the
hierarchy of the courts. (Vergara vs. Suelto, 156
SCRA 758)
Q: Being concurrent, what will happen if such a
case is filed simultaneously in the CA and SC?

A: The consequence is found in Section 17 of the

Interim Rules. In other words, the Interim Rules are
still intact.

Interim Rules, Sec. 17. Petitions for writs of certiorari,

etc. - No petition for certiorari, mandamus,
prohibition, habeas corpus or quo warranto may be
filed in the IAC if another similar petition has been
filed or is still pending in the SC. Nor may such
petition be filed in the SC if a similar petition has
been filed or is still pending in the IAC, unless it is to
review the action taken by the IAC on the petition
filed with it. A violation of this rule shall constitute
contempt of court and shall be a cause for the
summary dismissal of both petitions, without
prejudice to the taking of appropriate action
against the counsel or party concerned.

Original Exclusive

[2] Section 9, paragraph 2, BP 129

(2) “Exclusive” jurisdiction over actions for

annulment of judgments of Regional Trial
Courts;

Q: Actions for annulment of judgments of RTC’s, is

this similar to an appeal? Is this the same as
appealing the decision of the RTC to the CA?
A: No, because in appeal, you are invoking the
appellate jurisdiction of the CA. Here in paragraph 97
2, it is not appellate but original jurisdiction.
Meaning, you are filing an action before the CA for
the first time. And the nature of the action is to
annul a judgment of the RTC.

The implementation is found in Rule 47 of the Rules.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Paragraph 3, Sec. 9 of BP 129 defines the appellate

jurisdiction of the CA.

[3] Section 9, paragraph 3, BP 129

(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all

final judgments, decisions, resolutions,
orders or awards of the RTCs and quasi-
judicial agencies, instrumentalities,
boards or 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.

Take note, the appellate jurisdiction of the CA is

EXCLUSIVE. Now, if you will analyze paragraph 3,
you will notice that the CA is a powerful court
because it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
all final judgments, decisions, resolution, orders or
awards of RTC’s. So as a general rule, if the RTC,
anywhere in the country renders a decision and
you want to appeal, whether civil or criminal,
chances are it will go the to CA. It is a powerful
court, because it covers all RTC’s and the appellate
jurisdiction is exclusive.

And not only RTC’s. The law says “and quasi-judicial

agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
commissions…” Not only decisions of the RTC but
also of quasi-judicial agencies or bodies, also
called administrative bodies.

Administrative bodies are actually part of the

executive branch but they act just like courts of
justice. They can decide cases and there are
hundreds of administrative agencies in the
Philippines. And therefore, if you lose a case before
anyone of these bodies, or tribunals, you appeal
the decision not with the SC, but to the CA.

The amendments by RA 7902 is even more specific

by adding this phrase, “including the SEC, SSS, the
Employees Compensation commission and the Civil
Service Commission (CSC).”
That is the addition.

CSC – Before this law was passed, under the

99
Constitution, decisions of the CSC are appealed to
the SC together with the COMELEC and the COA.
But with the passage of RA 7902, the appeal from
the CSC has been transferred to the CA, so what is
left behind in the Constitution are the COMELEC
and the COA.

Obviously, the purpose of this statute is to unburden

the SC with so many cases.

The phrase “except those falling within the

appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court…”means all cases should be appealed to the
CA except those which belong to the SC under the
Constitution. We know that already.

And also “except those falling under the Labor

Code of the Philippines.”

A labor case is not supposed to be filed in court but

with a quasi- judicial agency known as the NLRC
and you start in the local level – from the Labor
Arbiter, then the decisions of the Labor Arbiter are
appealable to the NLRC and then from there,
where will you go?

Q: Is the decision of the NLRC appealable before

the CA because it is also a quasi-judicial agency
and under the law, all decisions of quasi-judicial
agencies are supposed to be appealed to the CA.
A: NO. The decision of the NLRC is an exception –
except those under the appellate jurisdiction of the
SC under the Constitution and in accordance with
the Labor Code (PD 422).

NLRC decisions cannot be appealed to the CA and

the only way to elevate it is to the SC by what we
call certiorari, not appeal.(This is already modified
in the St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC case.) Also,
decisions of the Secretary of Labor, under the Labor
Code are not reviewable by the CA, but they are
reviewable directly by the SC.

And then there is the phrase, "the provisions of this

Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph
and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of
Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.”

So, the new Judiciary Law still makes some

reference to the old law. This shows that the entire
1948 Judiciary Law has not been totally repealed.
Some provisions are still intact because of the
reference.

Now what is this subparagraph 1 of the third

paragraph?

It only applies to criminal cases. EXAMPLE: A person

is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, his co-accused
is sentenced to reclusion temporal or prison mayor,
and all of them will appeal, all of them should go to
the SC. Otherwise, you will be splitting the appeal
into two parts. (Modified in the People vs Mateo
case as discussed in Criminal Procedure.)
Subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section
17 refers to appeal from the RTC on pure legal 101
question which should be filed with the SC.

Q: Suppose there are questions of fact, or it is an

appeal on questions of fact and questions of law?

A: Under the 1948 Judiciary Law, you cannot

appeal directly to the SC. You must appeal to the
CA.

The same thing when the issue is on the

constitutionality of a treaty, law, legality of tax,
when the jurisdiction of the lower court is in issue, as
explained here in this paragraph of the Judiciary
Act of 1948, if the appeal is 100% constitutional
issue, jurisdictional or legality issue – appeal is to the
SC under the Constitution. But if it is mixed with
questions of fact, do not go to the SC. You go first
to the CA. That is what the paragraph is all about.

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of ordinary

appeal from the RTC and the Family Courts (Sec.
9[3] BP Blg. 129).

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for

review from the RTC rendered by the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction (Sec. 22 BP Blg.
129; Rule 43, Rules of Court; Sec. 9 BP Blg. 129)

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for

review from the decisions, resolutions or orders or
awards of the CSC, Central Board of Assessment
Appeals and other bodies mentioned in Rule 43
(Sec. 9[3]), BP Blg. 129) and of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases
(Enemecio vs. Office of the Ombudsman 419 SCRA
82; Gonzales vs. Rosas 423 SCRA 488).

Note that under RA No. 9282, the judgments AND

FINAL ORDERS OF THE Court of Tax Appeals are no
longer appealable by way of petition for review to
the CA. Judgments of the CTA rendered en banc
are appealable to the SC by way of Rule 45 (Sec.
11 RA No. 9282)

Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of

MTCs in cadastral or land registration cases
pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction (Sec. 34 BP Blg.
129 as amended by RA No. 7691). This is because
decisions of MTCs in these cases cases are
appealable in the same manner as decisions of
RTCs (Sec. 34 BP Blg. 129).

Power to try and conduct hearings

[4] Section 9, last paragraph, BP 129:

The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try

cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve
factual issues raised in cases falling within its
original and appellate jurisdiction, including the
power to grant and conduct new trials or further
proceedings. Trials or hearings in the CA must be
continuous and must be completed within three (3)
months unless extended by the Chief Justice. (As
amended by RA 7902) 103
Even if the CA is not a trial court, under the law it
has the power to try cases and conduct hearings,
receive evidence and perform any and all acts
necessary to resolve factual issues in cases falling
within its original and appellate jurisdiction,
including the power to grant and conduct new
trials or further proceedings (Sec. 9 [3], BP 129 as
amended by RA 7902). The CA may pass upon
factual issues as when a petition for certiorari is filed
before it (Alcazaren vs. Univet Agricultural Products,
Inc. 475 SCRA 636).

This paragraph shows that the present CA is a more

powerful court than before. It is a unique court.
Aside from being an appellate court, it also acts as
a trial court. It may receive evidence but only those
evidence which were overlooked by the trial court.
It can order a new trial or conduct a new trial itself.

The CA may pass upon factual issues as when a

petition for certiorari is filed before it(Alcazaren vs.
Univet Agricultural Products, Inc. 475 SCRA 636) or in
petitions for writ of amparo or habeas corpus data
or in case of actions to annul judgment of the RTC
over which the CA has original jurisdiction (Bar
2008).

Q: If an issue of fact is tried before the RTC, can I

always ask the CA to allow me to present
evidence? Does it mean to say now that since the
CA is a very powerful court, it can take the place of
the RTC? A: That is already interpreted in the case
of

LINGER AND FISHER vs. INTERMEDIATE

APPELLATE COURT – 125 SCRA 522 [1983]

HELD: The power of the CA to receive

evidence refers only to incidental facts
which were not 100 percent touched upon,
or matters which were simply overlooked by
the trial court. You cannot opt not to
present evidence before the RTC. It only
refers to incidental facts.

“Evidence necessary in regards to factual

issues raised in cases falling within the
Appellate Court’s original and appellate
jurisdiction contemplates ‘incidental’ facts
which were not touched upon, or fully
heard by the trial or respondent Court. The
law could not have intended that the
Appellate Court would hold an original and
full trial of a main factual issue in a case,
which properly pertains to Trial Courts.”

JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

Q: How many RTC’s are there in the Philippines?

BP 129 Section 13 (1) Creation of Regional Trial

Courts – There are hereby created thirteen (13)
Regional Trial Courts, one for each of the following
regions: x x
So the Judiciary law has divided the country into 13
areas called JUDICIAL REGIONS. From the 1st to the 105
12th, the 13th is actually in the National Capital
Region (NCR), Metro Manila. Every division is
divided into branches.

Every RTC judge is appointed to a region which

shall be his permanent station, and his appointment
states the branch of the court and seat to which he
shall be originally assigned. However, the SC may
assign temporarily an RTC judge to another region
as public interest may require, provided that such
temporary assignment shall not last longer than 6
months without the consent of the RTC judge
concerned.

The SC shall define the territory over which a branch

of the RTC shall exercise his authority. The law
provides:

BP 129, Section 18. Authority to define territory

appurtenant to each branch – The Supreme Court
shall define the territory over which a branch of the
Regional Trial Court shall exercise its authority. The
territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the
territorial area of the branch concerned for
purposes of determining the venue of all suits,
proceedings or actions, whether civil or criminal, as
well as determining the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts over which the said branch may exercise
appellate jurisdiction. The power herein granted
shall be exercised with a view to making the courts
readily accessible to the people of the different
parts of the region and making the attendance of
litigants and witness as inexpensive as possible.

Though RTC Cebu City is found in the 7th Judicial

Region, which includes Cebu, Bohol, Negros
Oriental and Siquijor province, its territorial area is
not the entire region, (7th Judicial Region), where it
belongs or even the entire province of Cebu or
limited to Cebu City only because it depends on
the territory as defined by the SC.

Now, the law says, the SC has the power to define

the area of its branch for purposes of supervising
that area and the MTC there. Now, as early as 1983,
the SC has already come out with the
administrative order defining the area of
responsibility of each branch throughout the
Philippines.

Interim Rules, Sec. 2. Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts.

-

a) MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs shall exercise

their jurisdiction in the city, municipality
or circuit for which the judge thereof is
appointed or designated.

b) A Regional Trial Court shall exercise its

jurisdiction within the area defined by the
SC as the territory over which the
particular branch concerned shall
exercise its authority, in accordance with
Sec. 18 of BP 129.
 Jurisdiction of the RTC

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION– Note Section

107
19 was amended by RA 7691, effective April 15,
1994 and entitled “An Act Expanding the
Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts”.

CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION with other

courts – Section 21

APPELLATE JURISDICTION – Section 22

EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC

Sec. 19 Jurisdiction in civil cases – Regional Trial

Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

[1] In all civil actions in which the subject of

the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
estimation.

What does incapable of pecuniary estimation

mean?

In an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, the

basic issue is one other than the recovery of a sum
of money. If ever there is a claim for money, it
should only be incidental to the main issue.

Where the action is principally the recovery of a

sum of money, the action is one capable of
pecuniary estimation and jurisdiction would then
depend on the amount of the claim exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees,
litigation expenses and costs. (Raymundo vs. CA,
213 SCRA 457 [1992]; Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill,
88 SCRA 623 [1979])

The basic issue in an action incapable of pecuniary

estimation is one other than the recovery of money.
In this kind of action the money claim is merely
incidental (ibid)

How to determine whether the action is capable or

incapable of pecuniary estimation-

“In determining whether an action is one the

subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary
estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of
first ascertaining the nature of the principal action
or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of
a sum of money, the claim is considered capable
of pecuniary estimation and whether jurisdiction is
in the MTCs or the CFIs would depend on the
amount of the claim. However, where the basic
issue is something other than the right to recover a
sum of money, where the money claim is purely
incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal
relief sought, this Court has considered such actions
as cases where the subject of the litigation may not
be estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by the CFI.”

Examples: of actions incapable of pecuniary

estimation are those for specific performance,
support, or foreclosure of mortgage or annulment
of judgment, also actions questioning the validity of
a mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or
conveyance and to recover the price paid and for 109
rescission which is a counterpart of specific
performance. (Russel vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA, 739, 744-
745 [1999])

Such ruling was, however, modified in Go vs. UCPB,

GR No. 156182 Nov. 11, 2004 where the court
declared the following as real actions:

1) judicial foreclosure of real estate

mortgage;

2) actions to annul real estate mortgage;

for the reason that a real estate mortgage is a real

right as well as a real property. So an action to
cancel or annul a real estate mortgage necessarily
affects title to the real property, hence a real
action and jurisdiction is determined by the
assessed value of the property.

A complaint for expropriation is incapable of

pecuniary estimation (Barangay San Roque vs. Heirs
of Pastor, 334 SCRA 127).

An action seeking to annul a resolution of a

government-owned and controlled corporation is
an action incapable of pecuniary estimation
(Polomolok Water District vs. Polomolok General
Consumers Association GR No. 162124, October 19,
2007).

An action to annul a Deed of Declaration of Heirs

and for a partition of land with an assessed value of
P5,000.00 is an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation where the partition aspect is only
incidental to the action for annulment (Russel vs.
Vestil 304 SCRA 739).

An action for partition of a real property located in

Taytay Rizal and with an assessed value of
P20,000.00, the resolution of which involves the
determination of hereditary rights, is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation and thus, should
be filed in the RTC (Suggested answer UP Law
Center Bar 2000) Note: This answer could also be
subject to an alternative answer, when it is argued
that an action for partition is one which involves
interest in real property. Hence, jurisdiction would
be dependent on the assessed value of the
property.

An action for specific performance to compel the

defendant to execute a deed of conveyance
covering a parcel of land with an assessed value of
P19,000.00 is an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation because the main issue is whether or not
there is a right to compel specific performance
(Suggested answer, UP Law Center Bar 2000). Note:
This answer is subject to an alternative answer
which asserts that where the primary purpose of the
action is to recover or obtain ownership of the real
property, the action is one affecting title to real
property and is, therefore, a real action. In a real
action, jurisdiction is determined by the assessed
value of the property.
An action for specific performance is one generally
considered incapable of pecuniary estimation 111
(Russel vs. Vestil, supra).

The amount of damages that may be claimed in

addition to the prayer for specific performance is
not determinative of jurisdiction. Thus, an action for
specific performance and damages of P200,000.00
is cognizable by the RTC even if the amount of
damages sought to be recovered is within the
jurisdiction of the MTC.

Where, however, the demand is in the alternative,

as in an action to compel the defendant to deliver
the house by completing its construction or to pay
the sum of P644.31, the action is one that is
capable of pecuniary estimation (Cruz vs. Tan 87
Phil. 627). Thus an action for specific performance
or in a the alternative, for damages in the amount
of P180,000.00 is one capable of pecuniary
estimation. Here, the amount of damages is
determinative of jurisdiction (Bar 1997).

If as gleaned from the complaint, the principal relief

sought by the complaint is for the court to issue an
injunction against the adverse party and his
representatives to permanently enjoin them from
preventing the survey of the subject land, the
complaint is not a possessory action but one for
injunction. As such, the subject matter of litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and properly
cognizable exclusively by the RTC under Sec. 19(1)
of BP Blg. 129, as amended by RA No. 7691
(Bokingo vs. CA 489 SCRA 521).
An action for injunction is within the jurisdiction of
the RTC being an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation. (Bar 1997).

An action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at

P150,000.00 is capable of pecuniary estimation. The
basis of jurisdiction is the value of the personal
property sought to be recovered. The amount of
P150,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
(Bar 1997).

An action for interpleader is capable of pecuniary

estimation. If the subject of interpleader is real
property, then the jurisdictional amount is
determined by the assessed value of the land. If it
be personal property, then the value of the
property.

Hence, an action of interpleader to determine who

between the defendants is entitled to receive the
amount of P190,000.00 from the plaintiff is within the
jurisdiction of the MTC (Bar 1997; Makati
Development Corporation vs. Tanjuatco 27 SCRA
401).

[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
or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where
such value exceeds P50,000 except
actions for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands and buildings;
original jurisdiction over which is
 conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; 113
So in all real actions outside of forcible entry and
unlawful detainer, jurisdiction is determined by the
assessed value of the real property subject thereof.

What is a real action?

It is one affecting title to or possession of real

property, or interest therein. (Sec. 1, Rule 4)

Examples: would be accion publiciana (an action

to recover possession of real property), accion
reinvidicatoria (action to recover ownership of real
property), quieting of title, provided the assessed
value of the property exceeds P20,000.00.

So, for a lesser value, MTC has jurisdiction. This is why

MTCs now have jurisdiction over accion publiciana
when the value of the property is P20,000 or less.

In forcible entry and unlawful detainer, jurisdiction

lies with the MTC regardless of the assessed value.

Now, if in Metro Manila, the value is P50,000.

In all civil actions in admiralty and maritime

jurisdiction where the demand or claim exceeds
One Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,00.00) [now
PhP 300,000.00] or, in Metro Manila, where such
demand or claim exceeds Two Hundred Thousand
pesos (P200,000.00)[now, PhP 400,000].
EXAMPLE: The shipper will ship to you goods
involving a common carrier and while in transit, the
goods are lost or they are totally damaged. You
would like to file a claim or a case against the
carrier, what kind of a case is it? That is an admiralty
or maritime case.

Q: In which court will you file it?

A: It depends on how much is your claim. If your

claim of the damaged or lost cargo exceeds
P300,000, then, RTC; if it is P300,000 or less, MTC. In
Metro Manila, the jurisdictional amount is higher – it
should be over P400,000.

RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years from the

effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts
mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1)
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this
Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such
jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to
Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00):
Provided, however, That in the case of Metro
Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts
shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the
effectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000,00).

[3] In all matters of probate, both testate and

intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds One Hundred Thousand
pesos (P100,000.00) [now php300,000] or,
in probate matters in Metro Manila,
 where such gross value exceeds Two
Hundred Thousand pesos (P200,000.00) 115
[now P400,000].

In the subject of Wills and Succession, when a

person dies, his estate, his property will be settled for
the benefit of his creditors and heirs. That is what
you call either as testate or intestate proceedings
depending on whether the deceased left a will or
none.

If there are debts due the decedent, thus, payable

by his/her estate, settlement would mean
liquidation, which includes inventory of all the assets
and obligations payable, payment of the debts,
then distribution of the residue to the heirs. This is
done by the court thru an administrator appointed
by it or thru the executor appointed by the
decedent.

Q: Where should the estate of the deceased person

be settled, RTC or MTC?

A: It depends on how much is the gross value of his

estate. If it exceeds P300,000, RTC. If it is P300,000 or
less, it should be with the MTC. In Metro Manila
again, the gross should be more than P400,000.

The jurisdiction of the court as a probate or

intestate court relates only to matters having to do
with the settlement of the estate and probate of
the will of the decedent but does not extend to the
determination of questions of ownership that arise
during the proceedings.
In all actions involving the contract of marriage and
marital relations.

Most of these cases are under the Family Code and

now fall under the jurisdiction of family courts (RA
8369, The Family Courts Act of 1997). But because
family courts have not yet been constituted, the SC
has designated RTCs to take cognizance of such
cases.

Q: What are the possible actions which you can

imagine involving the contract of marriage and
marital relations?

A: Annulment of marriage, legal separation,

declaration of nullity, dissolution of the absolute
community of husband and wife, and action for
support.

RA 8369, SECTION 5.Jurisdiction of Family Courts. —

The Family Courts shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:

xxxxxx

d) Complaints for annulment of marriage,

declaration of nullity of marriage and those relating
to marital status and property relations of husband
and wife or those living together under different
status and agreements, and petitions for dissolution
of conjugal partnership of gains;

xxxxxx
What were the cases which were usually falling
within the original jurisdiction of the former JDRC? 117
Usually, those involving family and children, like
support filed by the child against his father,
compulsory recognition, custody of children,
adoption proceedings.

Under BP 129, all of these are now within the

jurisdiction of RTC.

HOWEVER, this has been amended again by RA

8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) and these cases
are now under the jurisdiction of the FAMILY
COURTS: (See Sections 5 [b], [c], [e], [g])

RA 8369, SECTION 5.Jurisdiction of Family Courts. —

The Family Courts shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:

xxxx

b) Petitions for guardianship, custody of

children, habeas corpus in relation to the
latter;

c) Petitions for adoption of children and the

revocation thereof;

xxxx

g) Petitions for declaration of status of children as

abandoned, dependent or neglected children,
petitions for voluntary or involuntary commitment of
children; the suspension, termination, or restoration
of parental authority and other cases cognizable
under Presidential Decree No. 603, Executive Order
No. 56, (Series of 1986), and other related laws;

No. 6 will be discussed later.

[7] 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;

Before BP 129 or before 1980, there were special

courts existing. Among these courts were the so
called Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts
(JDRC). Then you have the Court of Agrarian
Relations (CAR) which tried cases involving
tenancy, agricultural lessor, agricultural lessee,
agricultural lands. When BP 129 was enacted, the
CAR and the JDRCs were abolished together with
the other courts created by law. Cases which they
used to handle were automatically transferred to
the RTC. That was after BP 129 took effect.

xxxxx

As regards the law transferring the jurisdiction of the

CAR to the RTC, it became partially obsolete with
the enactment of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL) or RA 6657 (June 15, 1988).
Under the CARL, all agrarian disputes between
landlord and tenant, lessor and lessee were
transferred to the DAR particularly the DAR
Adjudication Board (DARAB), making them quasi-
judicial cases. So, from CAR to RTC, from RTC to 119
DARAB

So the RTC has NO jurisdiction, EXCEPT in the

following 2 cases

QUISMUNDO vs. COURT OF APPEALS - 201 SCRA 609

[1991]

HELD: “Wth the enactment of Executive Order No.

229, which took effect on August 29, 1987, the
Regional Trial Courts were divested of their general
jurisdiction to try agrarian reform matters. The said
jurisdiction is now vested in the Department of
Agrarian Reform. Said provisions thus delimit the
jurisdiction of the regional trial courts in agrarian
cases only to two instances:

1. petitions for the determination of just

compensation to landowners; and

2. prosecution of criminal offenses under

said Act.

EXAMPLE: If you are a landowner and your

agricultural land is placed under the CARP
coverage, the government will fix the payment for
you. The trouble is that you did not agree on the
amount of payment. You want to contest the
amount of compensation payable, in which court
will you file your action?
A: RTC and you ask for higher compensation.

[8] In all cases in which the demand,

exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and costs or the value of the
property in controversy exceeds One
Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
[now P300,000] or, in such other cases in
Metro Manila, where the demand,
exclusive of the above-mentioned items
exceeds Two Hundred Thousand pesos
(P200,000.00)[now P400,000]

The best example is money claim. Most cases which

go to court now are money claims – an action to
collect sum of money.

Q: Unpaid loan – you would like to collect an

unpaid loan of your debtor. Where will you file your
case?

A: It depends on how much are you collecting. If it

is over P300,000 outside Metro Manila – RTC, in
Metro Manila, – P400,000. If the amount that you
are collecting is only P300,000 or less obviously, you
file your case in the MTC.

If the value of the claim is > P300,000 – RTC

If the value of the claim is = or < P300,000 – MTC

Q: Suppose the principal amount that you

borrowed from me is P300,000, the interest is
P30,000. And you are collecting P10,000 for moral
damages, another P10,000 for expense of litigation,
etc. So my total claim is P350,000. Where will I file 121
the case?

A: MTC. In determining the jurisdictional limit of

P300,000, do not include the interest, damages,
attorney’s fees, etc. So you deduct those from the
principal claim even if you put them in your
complaint because the law says, “xxx exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses, and costs xxx.”

Q: What are litigation expenses and costs?

A: Costs are not the same as attorney’s fees and

litigation expenses. Actually, attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses are part of damages. Costs are
governed by Rule 141, while attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses are governed by the Civil Code.

ACTIONS PURELY FOR DAMAGES

SITUATION: Suppose the action is purely for

damages, like breach of contract of carriage.
Instead of bringing you to your destination, you
ended up in the hospital. You now sue the common
carrier for damages and your claim is P1 million for
injuries, moral, exemplary, etc. Where will you file
the case?

This question has been clarified by SC Circular No.

09-94: “Guidelines in the Implementation of RA 7691
Extending the Jurisdiction of the MTCs” where the
SC said that the provision excluding damages
applies only if the damages are INCIDENTAL to the
action. If the main cause of action is 100%
damages, you include it in determining tire
P300,000 jurisdictional limit of the MTC.

EXAMPLE: Ms. Pastor rode on a PAL fight. The plane

crashed but she survived. She claims for damages
for breach of contract of carriage amounting to P1
million.

Q: Where will she file her case?

A: RTC because the amount of the claim for

damages exceeded P300,000. Since the case is
purely for damages, it is included in determining the
jurisdiction of the court.

The rule is, you only exclude the damages if it is a

secondary claim. But if damages is the primary or
only claim, you determine whether the total claim
for damages is above P300,000, or equal to or less
than P300,000.

The SC said in this Circular, “the exclusive damages

of whatever kind” in determining the jurisdiction
under Section 19 paragraph

[8] applies to cases where the damages are merely

incidental to or a consequence of the main
cause of action. However, if the claim for
damages is the main cause of action, the
amount of such claim should be considered in
determining the jurisdiction.
EXAMPLE: P will file a case against D to recover a
piece of land worth P20,000.00 only. But her claim 123
for damages exceeds P300,000.

Q: In what court will P file a civil case where she

wants to recover a piece of land with value of only
P20,000?

A: MTC because of paragraph [2]. As regards the

damages of P300,000.00, MTC still has jurisdiction
because such damages, being incidental, is not
included in determining the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Now, the law says, “exclusive of interest, damages

of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and costs or THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
IN CONTROVERSY exceeds P300,000….”

Q: What is the property in controversy?

A: Obviously here, the property is PERSONAL

PROPERTY not real. If the property sought to be
recovered is real, apply paragraph [2] of Section 19
on recovery of real property.

Q: You want to recover your car which your friend

borrowed but did not return, which court has
jurisdiction?

A: MTC if the value is P300,000.00 or less, and RTC, if

over.

Q: Who shall determine the value or how should the

value be determined?
A: In determining the jurisdiction of the court, over
the subject matter, the allegations in the complaint
governs.

Let us go to some interesting cases on this provision.

SANDOVAL vs. CANEBA - 190 SCRA 77 [1990]

FACTS: The quarrel in this case involves the

owner of the subdivision and the buyer.
Later on, the buyer refused to pay the
unpaid installments. The subdivision
developer filed a case for the collection of
unpaid installments over the subdivision lots.

HELD: The regular courts have no jurisdiction.

That should be decided by the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) formerly
known as NHA. Under PD 957, it is the HLURB
not the RTC or MTC which has the jurisdiction
to hear a case involving non-payment of
installments over subdivision lots.

The counterpart of this case was the case of

CT TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. HIBIONADA

– 191 SCRA 268 [1990]

FACTS: This is also the case between the

buyers of a subdivision lot against the
subdivision developer. Only this time it is the
subdivision lot buyers who are suing the
developer of the subdivision. The subdivision
lot owners filed against the subdivision
developer for not maintaining properly the
125
roads of the subdivision. So they filed a case
for specific performance with damages to
compel the developer to comply with the
contract to maintain the roads.

HELD: The jurisdiction is with the HLURB and

not with the regular courts. But according to
the plaintiff “But I’m also claiming for
damages so that it should be filed before
the regular courts. How can the HLURB
award damages? Only the regular courts
can award the damages.” Can the HLURB
award damages? According to the SC:

“The argument that only courts of justice

can adjudicate claims resoluble under the
provisions of the Civil Code is out of step
with the fast-changing times. There are
hundreds of administrative bodies now
performing this function by virtue of a valid
authorization from the legislature. This quasi-
judicial function, as it is called, is exercised
by them as an incident of the principal
power entrusted to them of regulating
certain activities falling under their particular
expertise.”

So quasi-judicial bodies are now authorized

to award damages.

As a matter of fact in Labor Relations, the

question is asked whether the NLRC is
authorized to grant damages also to an
employee, moral and exemplary, which
normally is only awarded by courts. The
Labor Code says yes. In other words, even
damages now can be awarded by
administrative bodies such as NLRC.

FAJARDO vs. BAUTISTA – 232 SCRA 291 [1994]

FACTS: Isabelo and Marita Jareno are the

owners and developers of a subdivision.
Fajardo and others, as buyers, signed
separate contracts each designated a
contract to sell under which for
consideration therein stated, the Jarenos
bound themselves to sell to Fajardo et al the
lot subject thereof, and after the latter shall
have paid the purchase price and interest
shall execute in favor of Fajardo et al the
corresponding deeds of sale.

When these contracts to sell are still ongoing

the Jarenos sold these lots to other buyers
and the title was transferred to the second
buyer. So when Fajardo et al learned about
it, they filed separate complaints with the
RTC for annulment of the sale to the other
buyers.

Now, according to Fajardo, the jurisdiction

of the case belongs to the RTC and not with
the HLURB because the titles of the lots are
transferred to the other buyers. It is no longer
under the name of Jareno. Secondly, their
action is for the annulment of title to a third
person. Thirdly, these third persons are not
the developers; fourthly, under the Judiciary
Law, actions involving title to a real property
are to be tried by the RTC.
HELD: The RTC still has NO jurisdiction
127
because the case involved unsound real
estate business practice on the part of the
subdivision owners and developers.

Under the law, unsound real estate business

practice is under the HLURB. The practice in
the case is not a sound real estate business –
I am a developer, I enter into a contract
with you and then later on I sold the
contract to a third person, that is unsound!

“By virtue of P.D. 1344, the HLURB has the

exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the
matter. In addition to involving unsound real
estate business practices, the complaints
also involve specific performance of the
contractual and statutory obligations of the
owners or developers of the subdivision.” So
it is still with the HLURB and not with the
regular courts.

BENGUET CORPORATION vs. LEVISTE – 204

SCRA 99 [1991]

FACTS: A mining company entered into an

operations agreement for management
with another mining company. Then later
on, one wants to file a case for rescission of
the agreement for one reason or another.
So it was filed with the RTC.

HELD: The RTC has NO jurisdiction again

because PD 1281 vested with the Bureau of
Mines with jurisdictional supervision and
control over all issues on mining claims and
that the Bureau of Mines shall have the
original exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases involving the cancellation
and enforcement of mining contracts.

The trend is to make the adjudication of

mining cases a purely administrative matter.
Another case is the case of

MACHETE vs. COURT OF APPEALS - 250 SCRA

176 [1995]

FACTS: This case involves the collection by

the landowner of unpaid back rentals from
his leasehold tenants. The landowner filed
the money claims before the RTC.

HELD: The RTC has no jurisdiction over cases

for collection of back rentals for the
leasehold tenants. This is an agrarian dispute
which exclusively cognizable by the DARAB.

“The failure of petitioners to pay back

rentals pursuant to the leasehold contract
with landowner is an issue which is clearly
beyond the legal competence of the trial
court to resolve. The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction does not warrant a court to
arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is
initially lodged with an administrative body
of special competence.”
Let’s go to Professional Regulation Commission
129
(PRC). That is the government body which
administers all government examination for
professionals except members of the law profession.
Now, this is what happened in the case of

LUPANGCO ET AL vs. COURT OF APPEALS -

160 SCRA 848 [1988]

FACTS: Lupangco et al were BS Accounting

graduates and reviewing to take the CPA
exams in 1985.

There were some anomalies (leakages) in

the 1985 CPA Board Examination. By next
year, the PRC passed a resolution
prohibiting CPA examinees to attend review
classes or conferences because of
leakages. They are prohibited from
receiving any handouts, review materials or
any tip from any school, college or
university. That was Resolution No. 105 of the
PRC.

So petitioners Lupangco et al, all CPA

reviewers filed an injunction suit against the
PRC and to declare the resolution
unconstitutional. They filed it with the RTC.
The PRC moved to dismiss alleging that the
RTC has no jurisdiction over the case
because the one which has the jurisdiction is
the CA – exclusive jurisdiction to review any
decision, order, ruling or- resolution of any
quasi-judicial body. And the PRC is a quasi-
judicial body. So their resolution can only be
questioned before the CA and not with the
RTC.

HELD: The PRC is WRONG because PRC is

not only a quasi- judicial body, it is also a
quasi-legislative body. It also acts as
legislative body by issuing rules and
regulations.

Now, what kind of resolution is being

questioned here? It is a resolution pursuant
to its purely administrative function. It is a
measure to preserve the integrity of
licensure examination. Therefore, it does not
belong to the CA. It is not the type of
resolution contemplated by Section 9.

“The authority of the CA to review all

resolutions of all quasi- judicial bodies
pursuant to the law does not cover rules
and regulations of general applicability
issued by the administrative body to
implement its purely administrative policies
and functions like Resolution No. 105 which
was adopted by the PRC as a measure to
preserve the integrity of licensure
examinations.” So that is not the resolution
reviewable by the CA.

Now, under what provision under Section 19

can we justify the jurisdiction of the RTC in
the case. The SC said: It is under paragraph
1 where the case is incapable of pecuniary
estimation or, it may fall under paragraph 6
where the case is not within the exclusive
jurisdiction by any court, tribunal or- body
exercising Judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
So, if it is not reviewable by the CA, in what
131
court can you question the resolution?
Definitely, not the CA, definitely not the SC. I
don’t think it’s with the NLRC. So it will fall
under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Or, it can
also fall under paragraph [1,] where the
subject matter of the suit is not capable of
pecuniary estimation because what is the
nature of the demands is to declare
unconstitutional this resolution. So it belongs
to the jurisdiction of the RTC.

BERNARDO vs. CALTEX PHIL. INC. - 216 SCRA

170 [1992]

FACTS: Under E.O. No. 172, when there is a

dispute between an operator or dealer and
an Oil company regarding dealership
agreement, the case shall be under the
jurisdiction of the Energy Regulatory Board
(ERB). So any dispute regarding their
relationship agreement except disputes
arising out of the relationship as debtor and
creditor. So if the dispute arose out of the
relationship as debtor and creditor, it should
be filed with the RTC.

Now what happened here is that on

December 5, 1990, Bernardo, a dealer of
Caltex, ordered gasoline from Caltex. So he
ordered in the morning. At 6:00 at night on
the same day, there was a price increase.
So when the gasoline was delivered the
following day, Caltex charged Bernardo for
the increased price. Bernardo refused to
pay and he filed a case before the RTC.
Caltex argued that the case should be filed
with the ERB.

HELD: The RTC has jurisdiction because “a

contract of sale of petroleum products was
here perfected between Caltex and its
operator/dealer Bernardo; that in virtue of
the payment admittedly made by Bernardo,
Caltex became a “debtor” to him in the
sense that it was obligated to make delivery
to Bernardo of the petroleum products
ordered by him; and that the only issue is
the manner by which Caltex shall perform its
commitment in Bernardo’s favor. It is rather
one cognizable by the Regional Trial Court,
as a dispute indeed ‘arising out of their
relationship as debtor and creditor.’”

“What the controversy is all about, to

repeat, is simply the prices at which the
petroleum products shall be deemed to
have been purchased from Caltex by
Bernardo in December 5, 1990. This is
obviously a civil law question, one
determinable according to the provisions of
the Civil Code and hence, beyond the
cognizance of the Energy Regulatory
Board.”

Lack of Jurisdiction by RTC on Customs Matters

The RTC is devoid of any competence to pass upon

the validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture
proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs,
and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with the said 133
proceedings even if the seizure was illegal. Such act
does not deprive the Bureau of Customs of
jurisdiction thereon. (RV Marzan Freight, Inc. v. CA,
424 SCRA 596)

The Court held that the Trial court was incompetent

to pass upon and nullify: (1) the seizure of the cargo
in the abandonment proceedings, and (2) the
declaration made by the District Collector of
Customs that the cargo was abandoned and ipso
facto owned by the government. It, likewise, has no
jurisdiction to resolve the issue of whether or not the
private respondent was the owner of the cargo
before it was gutted by fire. The trial court should
have rendered judgment dismissing the complaint,
without prejudice to the right of the private
respondent to ventilate the issue before the
Commissioner of Customs and/or to the CTA as
provided for in the Tariff and Customs Code.

Disputed Assessments

The CTA has jurisdiction over disputed assessments,

and the ordinary courts over non-disputed ones.
Failure of a taxpayer to appeal to the CTA makes
the assessment final and executory. Thereafter, if a
collection suit is filed in the court, there can no
longer be any inquiry on the merits of the original
case. (Republic v. Dy Chay 1 SCRA 975; Olivares v.
Marquez, 438 SCRA 679)
Non-Disputed Assessments

As provided in RA 9262, the CTA has:

“(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection

cases involving final and executory assessments for
taxes, fees, charges and penalties; Provided,
however, that collection cases where the principal
amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and
penalties, claimed is less than P1M shall be tried by
the proper MTC, MetTC and RTC.

The tax collection case would fall under the

jurisdiction of the first level courts where the amount
does not exceed P300,000.00 or in MM where it
does not exceed P400,000.00.

Where, however, what is being questioned is the

very authority and power of the assessor, acting
solely and independently, to impose the assessment
and of the treasurer to collect the tax, and not
merely the amounts of the increase in the tax,
jurisdiction over the case was properly with the trial
courts. (Olivares v. Marquez 438 SCRA 679)

Special jurisdiction to try special cases

Certain branches of the RTC may be designated by

the SC to handle exclusively criminal cases, juvenile
and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases,
urban and land reform cases which do not fall
under the jurisdiction of quasi-judicial bodies and
agencies, and/or such other special cases as the
SC may determine in the interest of a speedy and
efficient administration of justice (Sec. 233 BP Blg.
129) 135
Jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies

Sec. 5.2 of the Securities Regulation Code (RA No

8799) provides that the RTCs shall exercise original
and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the
following cases:

a.) Cases involving devises or schemes

employed by or any act, of the board of
directors, business associates, its officers or
partnership, amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation which may be
detrimental to the interest of the public
and/or of the stockholders, partners,
members of associations or organizations
registered with the Commission.

b.) Controversies arising out of inter-corporate

or partnership relations, between and
among stockholders, members or
associates; between any or all of them and
the corporation, partnership or association
of which they are stockholders, members or
associates, respectively, and between such
corporation, partnership or association and
the state insofar as it concerns their
individual franchise or right to exist as such
entity.

c.) Controversies in the election or

appointments of directors, trustees, officers
 or managers of such corporations,
partnerships or associations; and

d.) Petitions of corporations, partnerships or

associations to be declared in the state of
suspension of payments in cases where the
corporation, partnership or association
possesses sufficient property to cover all its
debts but foresees the impossibility of
meeting them when they respectively fall
due or in cases where the corporation,
partnership or association has no sufficient
assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the
management of a Rehabilitation Receiver
or Management Committee.

CONCURRENT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE RTC

Sec. 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. -

Regional Trial Courts 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 regions;

Q: What is the difference between the original

jurisdiction of the RTC in Section 21 and the original
jurisdiction of the RTC in Section 19?

A: In Section 19, you have the EXCLUSIVE original

jurisdiction, whereas in Section 21 you have the
original jurisdiction but CONCURRENT with other
courts. 137
Thus “original” jurisdiction stated in Section 21 is also
shared with the SC and CA. Therefore , the SC, CA,
and RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction under
Section 21. Like issuance of writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas
corpus, etc. This is concurrent with the CA and the
SC. Such writs may be issued by (a) the RTC under
Section 19; (b) CA under Section 9; and

(c) SC under Article VIII Section 5 of the

Constitution. The 3 courts share
concurrent jurisdiction over these cases.

However the only difference is that writs issued by

an RTC can only be enforced in the same region
where the RTC belongs. Unlike writs issued by the SC
and CA, they can be enforced anywhere in the
Philippines.

In actions affecting ambassadors and other public

ministers and consuls.

The SC and RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction

in actions affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls. Section 21 paragraph 2 states
only of the concurrent original jurisdiction of the SC
and RTC. Section 19 on the jurisdiction of CA does
not include the action stated in section 21
paragraph 2 as part of its (CA’s) jurisdiction.
 APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE RTC

Sec. 22. Appellate jurisdiction. - Regional Trial

Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all
cases decided by MetTCs, MTCs and MCTCs 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 as may be submitted by
the parties or required by the RTCs. The decision of
the RTCs in such cases shall be appealable by
petition for review to the CA which may give it due
course only when the petition show prima facie that
the lower court has committed an error of fact or
law that will warrant a reversal or modification of
the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.

Now take note that the RTC also has appellate

jurisdiction under Section 22. These are cases
decided by the MTC. So they act as a sort of ‘court
of appeals.’ The RTC exercises appellate jurisdiction
over all cases decided by the MTC in their
respective territorial jurisdiction.

Q: How will the RTC decide on the appeal?

A: It shall be decided on the basis of the entire

record of the proceedings had in the court of origin
(MTC) such as memoranda and/or briefs as may be
submitted. This means that witnesses will not be
made to appear again in the appeal. It is only a
matter of reviewing the testimony, stenographic
notes, evidence presented, memoranda and briefs
by the RTC judge.
Q: What are memoranda and briefs?
139

A: It is where the appealing party will argue that the

decision is wrong and try to convince the judge
that the decision is wrong, and the other party to
counter act that the decision is correct.

Q: Assuming that the case is originated in the MTC

and subsequently dismissed by the RTC on appeal,
is the decision by the RTC rendered pursuant to its
appellate jurisdiction appealable to the CA?

A: YES, but the mode of appeal is now different. The

decision of the RTC in such cases shall be
appealable by petition to review to the CA. The CA
may or may not give it due course.

Q: What is the difference between an appeal

made from the RTC to CA and appeal from the
MTC to RTC, which is dismissed by the latter and
subsequently appealed to the CA?

A: The former (RTC – CA) is in pursuance to the

original jurisdiction of the RTC. The latter (MTC-RTC-
CA) is in pursuance to the appellate jurisdiction of
the RTC. (They are governed by different rules)
To illustrate:

Pursuant to original Pursuant to appellate

jurisdiction of the RTC: jurisdiction of the RTC:

COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS

Ordinary appeal Petition for Review

(Rule 41) (Rule 42)

RTC RTC

Ordinary Appeal

(Rule 40)

MTC
Unlike in a case under the original jurisdiction of the
RTC, where an appeal to the CA is a matter of 141
course. Meaning, for as long as your appeal is on
time and properly made, the CA will entertain it.

It is different, however, in a case under the

appellate jurisdiction of the RTC, even if your
appeal is on time and properly made, there is no
assurance that the CA will entertain the appeal.
The CA may give it due course only when your
petition for review shows prima facie evidence that
the lower court has committed an error of fact or
law that will warrant a reversal or modification of
the decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.

Summary of RTC jurisdiction:

1.) As to the EXCLUSIVE original jurisdiction –

Section 19 (BP 129);

2.) As to its original CONCURRENT jurisdiction –

Section 21 (BP 129);

3.) As to its APPELLATE jurisdiction – Section 22 (BP

129)

JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURTS

Under RA 8369, the Family Courts shall have

exclusive jurisdiction over the following civil cases:
 1. Petitions for guardianship, custody of
children and habeas corpus involving
children;

2. Petitions for adoption of children and the

revocation thereof;

3. Complaints for annulment of marriage,

declaration of nullity of marriage and
those relating to status and property
relations of husband and wife or those
living together under different status and
agreements, and petitions for dissolution
of conjugal partnership of gains;

4. Petitions for support and/or

acknowledgment;

5. Summary judicial proceedings brought

under the provisions of Executive Order
No. 209, otherwise known as the “Family
Code of the Philippines”;

6. Petitions for declaration of status of

children as abandoned, dependent, or
neglected children, petition for voluntary
of involuntary commitment of children,
the suspension, termination or restoration
of parental authority and other cases
cognizable under PD No. 603,

E.O. No. 56 (series of 1986) and other related laws;

7. Petitions for the constitution of the family

home (Sec. 5 RA 8369).
In areas where there are no Family Courts, the
above enumerated cases shall be adjudicated by 143
the Regional Trial Court (Sec. 17, RA No. 8369).

JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

Actually, when you know the jurisdiction of the RTC,

automatically you know the jurisdiction of the MTC.
In criminal cases for example, RTC has jurisdiction
when the penalty imposable is imprisonment of
more than 6 years until death penalty. So,
necessarily, if it is 6 years or below, the MTC has
jurisdiction. Same with civil cases.

Summary of jurisdiction of MTC:

a) As to original jurisdiction – Section 33

b) As to delegated jurisdiction – Section 34

c) As to special jurisdiction – Section 35

A.) EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE MTC

Sec. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts in civil cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts shall exercise:

1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over

civil actions and probate
proceedings, testate and intestate,
including the grant of provisional
 remedies in proper cases, where the
value of the personal property,
estate, or amount of the demand
does not exceed One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in
Metro Manila where such personal
property, estate, or amount of the
demand does not exceed two
hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00), exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and costs,
the amount of which must be
specifically alleged: Provided, That
interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's 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.

RA 7691, Sec. 5. After five (5) years from the

effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts
mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1)
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this
Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such 145
jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to
Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00):
Provided, however, That in the case of Metro
Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts
shall be adjusted after five (5) years from the
effectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000,00).

Well if you know the jurisdiction of the RTC on

money claims and probate cases, automatically
you will also know that of the MTC.

Under the law, it is only the principal claim or the

main claim which is computed. Interest, damages
of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses
and cost are not included in determining the
jurisdiction when they are merely incidental to or a
consequence of the main cause of action.
However, in cases where the claim for damages is
the main cause of action, or one of the causes of
action, the amount of such claim shall be
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the
court.

Jurisdiction and Payment of Docket Fees

Even if the amount of damages and attorney’s fees

do not determine jurisdiction, they must still be
specifically alleged in the complaint for the
purpose of payment of docket fees. Thus, the
higher the amount one is claiming the higher the
filing fee.
Why pay the docket fee?

Because it is not simply the filing of the complaint or

appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of
the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of
the action. (Sun Insurance Office Ltd. [SIOLI] v.
Asuncion 170 SCRA 274, 285 [1989])

Let us review what we learned in criminal

procedure.

SECTION 1. Xxxxxx

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil

liability against the accused by way of moral,
nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages
without specifying the amount thereof in the
complaint or information, the filing fees therefore
shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding
such damages.

Where the amount of damages, other than actual,

is specified in the complaint or information, the
corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the
offended party upon the filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no

filing fees shall be required for actual damages.

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas

Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil action. No reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil
actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing 147
fees based on the amount of the check involved,
which shall be considered as the actual damages
claimed. Where the complaint or information also
seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal,
temperate or exemplary damages, the offended
party shall pay additional filing fees based on the
amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so
alleged but any of these damages are
subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees
based on the amount awarded shall constitute a
first lien on the judgment.

EMNACE vs CA (2001) GR 126334

Payment of Filing fees In Case Civil Aspect Is

Deemed Impliedly Instituted In the Criminal Action:
In any event, the Court now makes that intent
plainer, and in the interest of clarity and certainty,
categorically declares for guidance of all
concerned that when the civil action is deemed
impliedly instituted with the criminal in accordance
with Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court –
because the offended party has not waived the
civil action, or reserved the right to institute it
separately, or instituted the civil action prior to the
criminal action – the rule is as follows: (1) when the
amount of the damages, other than actual, is
alleged in the complaint or information filed in
court, then the corresponding filing fees shall be
paid by the offended party upon filing thereof in
court for trial; (2) in any other case, however, -- i.e.
when the amount of damages is not so alleged in
the complaint or information filed in court the
corresponding filing fees need not be paid and
shall simply constitute a first lien on the judgment,
except in an award for actual damages. (General
vs. Hon. Claravall, et al., 195 SCRA 623)

Q: Suppose there was no mention of any claim for

moral or exemplary damages, by not stating the
amount claimed, can he still prove them during the
trial? YES

But he did not pay docket fee?

A: Never mind, once it is awarded, there is now a

lien in the judgment for the payment of the docket
fee.

For Independent Civil Actions

In the case of Sun Insurance if the damages was

not mentioned in the complaint in the civil case
they are deemed waived. If it is mentioned, and
the amount is fixed you must pay the docket fee at
the start of the case though if it is not complete,
you are given the chance to complete the
payment or amend the complaint within
reasonable time.

In criminal cases, even if there is no mention of

damages in the information, you can still prove and
claim them as long as there is no waiver or
reservation.
When docket fee is due for actual damage:

So in criminal cases, if the claim for moral or

149
exemplary damages is mentioned in the
information, you must pay the docket fee upon
filing of the information. But whether alleged in the
information or not, you can claim for actual
damages and there is no docket fee for actual
damages except in cases under BP 22. That is the
exception which is now embodied in Section 1
paragraph [b] which was taken from SC circular 57-
97 – there is no payment of docket fee for actual
damages except in criminal cases for violation of
BP 22 because paragraph [b] says:

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil

actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing
fees based on the amount of the check involved,
which shall be considered as the actual damages
claimed.

OTHER CASES ON FILING FEE IN CIVIL CASES:

In the case of

MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. CA – 149

SCRA 562

FACTS: The plaintiff files a complaint and paid the

docket fee but he did not specify the amount of
the damages he was claiming. He contended that
he is claiming for moral damages in such amount
as the court will grant. Respondent contended, on
the other hand, that it cannot be done, there is a
necessity to state the exact amount of the
damages in order to determine the correct amount
of the docket fee. So the plaintiff amended the
complaint and paid the balance of the docket
fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent amendment

cures the defect?

HELD: No, the defect is incurable. Thus, the action

has to be dismissed. The court acquires no
jurisdiction over the case. The remedy is to re-file
the complaint and pay again the complete
amount of the docket fee. The prior payment
made is forfeited in as much as the defect in the
first complaint is incurable.
So based on the MANCHESTER ruling, you cannot
cure the defect by merely amending the
complaint.
However, the SC, after reflecting on what it said in
the case of MANCHESTER, realized the harshness of
their decision. This Manchester ruling was relaxed in
the subsequent case of SUN INSURANCE OFFICE
which is now the governing law:

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LTD. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

– 170 SCRA 274 [1989]

HELD: Thus, the Court rules as follows:

1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint
or appropriate initiatory pleading, but
the payment of the prescribed docket
fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction
over the subject matter or nature of the
 action. Where the filing of the initiatory
pleading is not accompanied by
151
payment of the docket fee, the court
may allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable time but in no case beyond
the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.

2. The same rule applies to permissive

counterclaims, third party claims and
similar pleadings, which shall not be
considered filed until and unless the filing
fee prescribed therefore is paid. The
court may also allow payment of said
fee within a reasonable time but also in
no case beyond its applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period.

3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction

over a claim by the filing of the
appropriate pleading and payment of
the prescribed filing fee but,
subsequently, the judgment awards a
claim not specified in the pleading, or if
specified the same has been left for
determination by the court, the
additional filing fee therefor shall
constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall
be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court
or his duly authorized deputy to enforce
said lien and assess and collect the
additional fee.
Payment of docket fee and counterclaims

“The same rule applies to permissive

counterclaims…”

Re Compulsory Counterclaim

Rule 141 on Legal Fees was revised effective August

26, 2004 by AM No. 04-2-04-SC and the revision
includes the payment of docket fees not only for
permissive counterclaim but also for compulsory
counterclaims. But the SC suspended the
enforcement of the new rates of legal fees under
Rule 141 effective September 21, 2004, with respect
to compulsory counterclaims, among others. It did
not suspend the imposition of legal fees.

However, in Korea Technologies Co. Ltd. Vs. Lerma,

542 SCRA 1, January 7, 2008, the Court said:

“On July 17, 1998, at the time PGSMC filed its

Answer incorporating its counterclaims against
KOGIES, it was not liable to pay filing fees for said
counterclaim being compulsory in nature. We stress,
however, that effective August 16, 2004, under Sec.
7 of Rule 141, as amended by AM No. 04-2-04-SC,
docket fees are now required to be paid in
compulsory counterclaim or cross claims.”

And the third rule laid down in Sun Insurance:

If the judgment awards a claim not specified in the

pleadings, the filing fee therefor shall be a lien in
the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the
clerk of Court or his duly-authorized deputy to
enforce the lien, assess and collect the additional
fee. 153
Q: When can this possibly happen?

A: That can happen for example if I ask for

damages. A man was hospitalized because of
physical injuries. While still in the hospital he filed an
action for damages and based the amount of
damages on the current billing but alleged that he
continues to incur expenses as may be determined
in the course of trial. He paid the docket fee
corresponding to the amount mentioned. After trial
he was able to establish expenses in the sum of
P50,000.00.

Q: Can the court award the P 50,000?

A: Yes, because the additional expenses came only

after the filing of the case. The additional docket
fee will constitute a lien on the award.

The Sun Insurance is a leading case on docket fee.

It was followed with a third case in December 1989
which further clarified the SUN INSURANCE ruling.
This is the case of

TACAY vs. RTC OF TAGUM, DAVAO DEL NORTE - 180

SCRA 433 [1989]

Second rule:

FACTS: The case was for recovery of land with

damages. So it is not purely for damages. So the
amount of filing fee is assessed based on the
assessed value of the land because it is a real
action, which the plaintiff paid.

Defendant moved to dismiss based on

MANCHESTER because the plaintiff did not specify
in the complaint how much damages he was
claiming. Now the RTC of Tagum denies the motion
to dismiss. The defendant goes to the SC citing
MANCHESTER.

Of course the SC said that the Manchester ruling

was no longer controlling because of Sun
Insurance.

But it enunciated another rule.

HELD: “Where the action involves real property and

a related claim for damages as well, the legal fees
shall be assessed on the basis of both:

a) the value of the property and

b) the total amount of related damages

sought.

The court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the

filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by
the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are
not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading, as
of the time of full payment of the fees within such
reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of
course, prescription has set in the meantime.”

In other words, the total docket fee must be based

on the assessed value of the land and for the
damages. Thus:

1. If the docket fee for the recovery of land

 is paid but none for the damages, do not
dismiss the entire case! Just do not
155
consider the claim for the damages. Or,

2. second option, citing SUN INSURANCE,

give him reasonable time to pay the
balance.

While Sun Insurance relaxed the rule (as to how or

when to complete the payment), it did not
however, effect any change in the rule that it is not
only the filing of the complaint but also the
payment of the docket fee that is necessary for the
acquisition of the jurisdiction of the court over the
complaint filed. (Gensoli & Co. v. NLRC, 289 SCRA
407, 413 [1998]). If the filing of the initiatory pleading
is not accompanied by payment of the docket
fees, the court may allow payment of the fee within
a reasonable time but in no case beyond the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
(Colarina v. CA, 303 SCRA 647, 654 [1999])
Other interesting cases on docket fees.

No “file now, pay later” policy

NOTE: When this case was filed, there was no SUN

INSURANCE decision yet. The guiding rule was still
MANCHESTER. But while this was pending the SUN
INSURANCE was already out.

FILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORP vs. COURT OF

APPEALS – 171 SCRA 674 [1989]

FACTS: Adrian dela Paz sued all oil companies

(Shell, Caltex, Mobil, etc.) of the Philippines for
infringement of patent with prayer for the payment
of reasonable compensation for damages.
According to him, these companies used in their
operation a certain type of machine which he
claimed he invented. His patent was infringed. Thus,
all these companies are all liable to him for
royalties. The estimated yearly royalty due him is
P236,572. Since the violation has been for many
years already, his claims reached millions. The trial
court ordered him to pay P945,636.90 as docket
fee. He had no money so he questioned it. The trial
court ruled:

“We will allow you to file the case and the docket
fee is deductible from whatever judgment of
damages shall be awarded by the court.”

HELD: There is no such thing as file now pay later. No

justification can be found to convert such payment
to something akin to a contingent fee which would
depend on the result of the case.

“Filing fees are intended to take care of court

expenses in the handling of cases in terms of cost of
supplies, use of equipments, salaries and fringe
benefits of personnel, etc., computed as to man
hours used in handling of each case. The payment
of said fees therefore, cannot be made dependent
on the result of the action taken, without entailing
tremendous losses to the government and to the
judiciary in particular.”

Q: What is the remedy of the plaintiff if he/she

cannot really pay the filing fee?
A: Have himself declared by the court as a pauper
litigant. 157

LACSON vs. REYES - 182 SCRA 729

FACTS: There was a case filed and then the lawyer

filed a motion to direct the plaintiff to pay him his
attorney’s fees – a motion for payment of attorney’s
fees.

Issue: Is the lawyer required to pay a filing fee?

HELD: Yes. “It may be true that the claim for

attorney's fees was but an incident in the main
case, still, it is not an escape valve from the
payment of docket fees because as in all actions,
whether separate or as an offshoot of a pending
proceeding, the payment of docket fees is
mandatory. The docket fee should be paid before
the court would validly act on the motion.”

SUSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS - 278 SCRA 284

[August 21, 1997)

FACTS: Mortz filed a case against Charles in Leyte.

After filing, the court dismissed the case because it
should be filed in Cebu. Mortz wrote a letter to the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) asking that
the docket fee paid in Leyte be considered
applicable to Cebu. OCA granted his request.

Charles questioned it because of the rule that the

payment of docket fee is jurisdictional.
HELD: “The OCA has neither the power nor the
authority to exempt any party not otherwise
exempt under the law or under the Rules of Court in
the payment of the prescribed docket fees. It may
be noteworthy to mention here that even in the
Supreme Court, there are numerous instances when
a litigant has had to re-file a petition previously
dismissed by the Court due to a technicality
(violation of a pertinent Circular), and in these
instances, the litigant is required to pay the
prescribed docket fee and not apply to the re-filed
case the docket fees paid in the earlier dismissed
case.”

“In the case at bar, in the strict sense, Mortz’s

complaint cannot be deemed to have been ‘re-
filed’ in Cebu City because it was not originally filed
in the same court but in the RTC Leyte. Thus, when
Mortz’s complaint was docketed by the clerk of
court of the RTC Cebu City, it became an entirely
separate case from that dismissed by the RTC of
Leyte due to improper venue. As far as the case in
Cebu is concerned, while undoubtedly the order of
dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits of the
case, the order, nevertheless, is a final order. This
means that when private respondent did not
appeal therefrom, the order became final and
executory for all legal intents and purposes.”

DE LEON vs. COURT OF APPEALS – 287 SCRA 94

[March 6, 1998]

FACTS: The question for decision is whether in

assessing the docket fees to be paid for the filing of
an action for annulment or rescission of a contract
of sale, the value of the real property, subject
matter of the contract, should be used as basis, or
159
whether the action should be considered as one
which is not capable of pecuniary estimation and
therefore the fee charged should be a flat rate of
P400.00 as provided in Rule 141, Section 7(b)(1) of
the Rules of Court.

Defendant argued that an action for annulment or

rescission of a contract of sale of real property is a
real action and, therefore, the amount of the
docket fees to be paid by Plaintiff should be based
either on the assessed value of the property,
subject matter of the action, or its estimated value
as alleged in the complaint.

Since Plaintiff alleged that the land, in which they

claimed an interest as heirs, had been sold for
P4,378,000.00 to defendant, this amount should be
considered the estimated value of the land for the
purpose of determining the docket fees.

Plaintiff countered that an action for annulment or

rescission of a contract of sale of real property is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and, so, the
docket fees should be the fixed amount of P400.00
in Rule 141, Section 7(b).

HELD: Plaintiff is correct. “In determining whether an

action is one the subject matter of which is not
capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature
of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is
primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the
claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the
municipal courts or in the courts of first instance
would depend on the amount of the claim. “
However, where the basic issue is something other
than the right to recover a sum of money, or where
the money claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought, like in
suits to have the defendant perform his part of the
contract (specific performance) and in actions for
support, or for annulment of a judgment or to
foreclose a mortgage, this Court has considered
such actions as cases where the subject of the
litigation may not be estimated in terms of money,
and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first
instance.”

“The rationale of the rule is plainly that the second

class cases, besides the determination of
damages, demand an inquiry into other factors
which the law has deemed to be more within the
competence of courts of first instance, which were
the lowest courts of record at the time that the first
organic laws of the Judiciary were enacted
allocating jurisdiction.”

“Actions for specific performance of contracts

have been expressly pronounced to be exclusively
cognizable by courts of first instance and no
cogent reason appears, and none is here
advanced by the parties, why an action for
rescission (or resolution) should be differently
treated, a "rescission" being a counterpart, so to
speak, of ‘specific performance’.”

“In both cases, the court would certainly have to

undertake an investigation into facts that would
justify one act or the other. No award for damages
may be had in an action for rescission without first 161
conducting an inquiry into matters which would
justify the setting aside of a contract. Issues of the
same nature may be raised by a party against
whom an action for rescission has been brought, or
by the plaintiff himself.”

“It is, therefore, difficult to see why a prayer for

damages in an action for rescission should be taken
as the basis for concluding such action as one
capable of pecuniary estimation

— a prayer which must be included in the main

action if plaintiff is to be compensated for what he
may have suffered as a result of the breach
committed by defendant, and not later on
precluded from recovering damages by the rule
against splitting a cause of action and
discouraging multiplicity of suits.”

“Thus, although eventually the result may be the

recovery of land, it is the nature of the action as
one for rescission of contract which is controlling.”

“Since the action of Plaintiff against Defendant is

solely for annulment or rescission which is not
susceptible of pecuniary estimation, the action
should not be confused and equated with the
‘value of the property’ subject of the transaction;
that by the very nature of the case, the allegations,
and specific prayer in the complaint, sans any
prayer for recovery of money and/or value of the
transaction, or for actual or compensatory
damages, the assessment and collection of the
legal fees should not be intertwined with the merits
of the case and/or what may be its end result.”

In Go vs. UCPB, GR No. 156182 Nov. 11, 2004 the

court declared the following as real actions:

3) judicial foreclosure of real estate

mortgage;

4) actions to annul real estate mortgage;

for the reason that a real estate mortgage is a real

right as well as a real property. So an action to
cancel or annul a real estate mortgage necessarily
affects title to the real property, hence a real
action and jurisdiction is determined by the
assessed value of the property.

EMNACE vs CA (2001) GR 126334

Issue: Whether or not respondent Judge acted

without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
in taking cognizance of a case despite the failure
to pay the required docket fee;

On August 8, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered

the assailed decision, 12 dismissing the petition for
certiorari, upon a finding that no grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
was committed by the trial court in issuing the
questioned orders denying petitioner's motions to
dismiss.

Not satisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for

review, raising the same issues resolved by the
Court of Appeals, namely:
163
I. Failure to pay the proper docket fee;
Xxxx xxxx xxxx

It can be readily seen that respondents' primary

and ultimate objective in instituting the action
below was to recover the decedent's 1/3 share in
the partnership's assets. While they ask for an
accounting of the partnership's assets and finances,
what they are actually asking is for the trial court to
compel petitioner to pay and turn over their share,
or the equivalent value thereof, from the proceeds
of the sale of the partnership assets. They also assert
that until and unless a proper accounting is done,
the exact value of the partnership's assets, as well
as their corresponding share therein, cannot be
ascertained. Consequently, they feel justified in not
having paid the commensurate docket fee as
required by the Rules of Court.

We do not agree. The trial court does not have to

employ guesswork in ascertaining the estimated
value of the partnership's assets, for respondents
themselves voluntarily pegged the worth thereof at
Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00). Hence, this case
is one which is really not beyond pecuniary
estimation, but rather partakes of the nature of a
simple collection case where the value of the
subject assets or amount demanded is pecuniarily
determinable. While it is true that the exact value of
the partnership's total assets cannot be shown with
certainty at the time of filing, respondents can and
must ascertain, through informed and practical
estimation, the amount they expect to collect from
the partnership, particularly from petitioner, in order
to determine the proper amount of docket and
other fees. 14 It is thus imperative for respondents to
pay the corresponding docket fees in order that
the trial court may acquire jurisdiction over the
action.

Nevertheless, unlike in the case of Manchester

Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 16 where
there was clearly an effort to defraud the
government in avoiding to pay the correct docket
fees, we see no attempt to cheat the courts on the
part of respondents. In fact, the lower courts have
noted their expressed desire to remit to the court
"any payable balance or lien on whatever award
which the Honorable Court may grant them in this
case should there be any deficiency in the
payment of the docket fees to be computed by
the Clerk of Court." 17 There is evident willingness to
pay, and the fact that the docket fee paid so far is
inadequate is not an indication that they are trying
to avoid paying the required amount, but may
simply be due to an inability to pay at the time of
filing. This consideration may have moved the trial
court and the Court of Appeals to declare that the
unpaid docket fees shall be considered a lien on
the judgment award.

Petitioner, however, argues that the trial court and

the Court of Appeals erred in condoning the non-
payment of the proper legal fees and in allowing
the same to become a lien on the monetary or
property judgment that may be rendered in favor
of respondents. There is merit in petitioner's
assertion. The third paragraph of Section 16, Rule
141 of the Rules of Court states that:

The legal fees shall be a lien on the monetary or

property judgment in favor of the pauper-litigant.
Respondents cannot invoke the above provision in
their favor because it specifically applies to pauper-
165
litigants. Nowhere in the records does it appear that
respondents are litigating as paupers, and as such
are exempted from the payment of court fees.

The rule applicable to the case at bar is Section

5(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which defines
the two kinds of claims as:

1) those which are immediately

ascertainable; and

2) those which cannot be immediately

ascertained as to the exact amount.

This second class of claims, where the exact

amount still has to be finally determined by the
courts based on evidence presented, falls squarely
under the third paragraph of said Section 5(a),
which provides:

In case the value of the property or estate or the

sum claimed is less or more in accordance with the
appraisal of the court, the difference of fee shall be
refunded or paid as the case may be. (Emphasis
ours)

In Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Court of

Appeals, 19 this Court pronounced that the above-
quoted provision "clearly contemplates an initial
payment of the filing fees corresponding to the
estimated amount of the claim subject to
adjustment as to what later may be proved." 20
Moreover, we reiterated therein the principle that
the payment of filing fees cannot be made
contingent or dependent on the result of the case.
Thus, an initial payment of the docket fees based
on an estimated amount must be paid
simultaneous with the filing of the complaint.
Otherwise, the court would stand to lose the filing
fees should the judgment later turn out to be
adverse to any claim of the respondent heirs.

The matter of payment of docket fees is not a mere

triviality. These fees are necessary to defray court
expenses in the handling of cases. Consequently, in
order to avoid tremendous losses to the judiciary,
and to the government as well, the payment of
docket fees cannot be made dependent on the
outcome of the case, except when the claimant is
a pauper-litigant.

Applied to the instant case, respondents have a

specific claim — 1/3 of the value of all the
partnership assets — but they did not allege a
specific amount. They did, however, estimate the
partnership's total assets to be worth Thirty Million
Pesos (P30,000,000.00), in a letter addressed to
petitioner. Respondents cannot now say that they
are unable to make an estimate, for the said letter
and the admissions therein form part of the records
of this case. They cannot avoid paying the initial
docket fees by conveniently omitting the said
amount in their amended complaint. This estimate
can be made the basis for the initial docket fees
that respondents should pay. Even if it were later
established that the amount proved was less or
more than the amount alleged or estimated, Rule
141, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court specifically
provides that the court may refund the excess or
exact additional fees should the initial payment be
insufficient. It is clear that it is only the difference
between the amount finally awarded and the fees
paid upon filing of this complaint that is subject to
adjustment and which may be subjected to a lien.
In the oft-quoted case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd.
v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion, this Court held that
167
when the specific claim "has been left for the
determination by the court, the additional filing fee
therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment and
it shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or
his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and
assess and collect the additional fee." Clearly, the
rules and jurisprudence contemplate the initial
payment of filing and docket fees based on the
estimated claims of the plaintiff, and it is only when
there is a deficiency that a lien may be constituted
on the judgment award until such additional fee is
collected.

Based on the foregoing, the trial court erred in not

dismissing the complaint outright despite their
failure to pay the proper docket fees. Nevertheless,
as in other procedural rules, it may be liberally
construed in certain cases if only to secure a just
and speedy disposition of an action. While the rule
is that the payment of the docket fee in the proper
amount should be adhered to, there are certain
exceptions which must be strictly construed.

In recent rulings, this Court has relaxed the strict

adherence to the Manchester doctrine, allowing
the plaintiff to pay the proper docket fees within a
reasonable time before the expiration of the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

In the recent case of National Steel Corp. v. Court

of Appeals, 25 this Court held that:
The court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the
filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by
the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are
not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading, as
of the time of full payment of the fees within such
reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of
course, prescription has set in the meantime.

It does not follow, however, that the trial court

should have dismissed the complaint for failure of
private respondent to pay the correct amount of
docket fees. Although the payment of the proper
docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial
court may allow the plaintiff in an action to pay the
same within a reasonable time before the
expiration of the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period. If the plaintiff fails to comply
within this requirement, the defendant should timely
raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be
considered in estoppel. In the latter case, the
balance between the appropriate docket fees and
the amount actually paid by the plaintiff will be
considered a lien or any award he may obtain in his
favor. (Emphasis ours)

Accordingly, the trial court in the case at bar should

determine the proper docket fee based on the
estimated amount that respondents seek to collect
from petitioner, and direct them to pay the same
within a reasonable time, provided the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period has not yet
expired. Failure to comply therewith, and upon
motion by petitioner, the immediate dismissal of the
complaint shall issue on jurisdictional grounds. 169
TOTALITY RULE

Now, continuing with Section 33, it says there in

paragraph [1]:

“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.”

Under This 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 (Sec. 33 as amended by RA
No. 7691; PANTRANCO North Express Inc. vs.
Standard Insurance Company Inc., 453 SCRA 482).

ILLUSTRATION of joinder of causes of action:

The defendant secured from me two loans covered

by 2 promissory notes and all of them are due and
he has not paid me any. Let's say each note covers
a principal amount of P175,000.00.

I decided to file one complaint embodying 2

causes of action against him although I have the
option also to file 2 separate complaints. If you will
look at the value of each claim which is P175,000
that is triable by the MTC but if you will add the
claims that will be P350,000.00.

Q: Which court will have jurisdiction?

A: The RTC because the jurisdictional amount is the

total amount.

Never mind that there are 2 separate loans

because the law says “irrespective of whether the
cause of action arose out of the same or different
transactions.”

In the example, there are two causes of action

arising from two separate transactions. Illustrate a
joinder of causes of action arising from only one
transaction.

Suppose the loan is payable in installments on

separate dates. Each failure is a cause of action.

Now in the examples, there is only one plaintiff and

one defendant.

What about when there are several plaintiffs or

defendants?

EXAMPLE: There are four (4) passengers riding on a

public vehicle. They were all injured when the bus
met an accident and all of them were hospitalized.
So after they were discharged, the four of them
wanted to sue the bus company for damages
arising from contract of carriage or culpa
contractual. They decided to file only one
complaint and, in effect, joined the 4 causes of 171
action.

Q: What will be now the basis of jurisdiction the

claim of each plaintiff or the totality of the claims of
the 4 plaintiffs?

A: The totality of the claims. You apply the totality

rule because the law says “where there are several
claims or cause of action between the same or
different parties.”

So whether the parties are the same or the parties

are different embodied in the same complaint the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the
claims the totality rule applies in both situations.

Totality Rule subject to rule on joinder of parties

Where two or more plaintiffs, having separate

causes of action, sue one defendant or a plaintiff
sues one or more defendants in a single complaint,
based on several causes of action for or against
each other, respectively, the totality rule applies
only where there is a common question of fact or
law among them as provided in Section 6 of Rule 3.

When there are several parties-plaintiffs or

defendants and there are several causes of action,
as in the last example given, when you join the
causes of action there will necessarily be a joinder
of parties. In such a case there can only be a
proper joinder of causes of action when there is a
proper joinder of parties and the totality rule applies
only when the joinder is proper.

Q: When is a joinder of parties proper?

A: It is proper when there is a common question of

fact and law. Note also that joinder of parties is
permissive (Sec. 6, R3)

Jurisdiction of the MTC in Forcible Entry and Unlawful

Detainer Sec. 33[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. x x x x”

These are called accion interdictal and the only

issue is physical possession of the property. The two
cases should not be confused with accion
publiciana which is also the recovery of possession.

In unlawful detainer, the plaintiff prays not only to

eject the defendant but also to claim for back
rentals or the reasonable amount of the use and
occupation of the property in case of forcible entry.

Q: Suppose the unpaid rentals already amount to

almost half a million pesos, where should the case
be filed?
A: The case should still be filed with the MTC. What
determines jurisdiction is the nature of the action, 173
and not the amount of recoverable rentals.

Q: In an action for forcible entry or unlawful

detainer, can the party present evidence of
ownership?

A: The general rule is NO because the MTC cannot

adjudicate ownership. That has to be threshed out
in the proper civil action in the RTC. But if evidence
of ownership is presented in the forcible entry or
unlawful detainer case, it is only incidental and it is
only resolved to determine the issue of possession.
Such declaration of ownership is not final. The
question of ownership must be litigated in a
separate action in the RTC.

Let us now proceed to the third paragraph of

Section 33 as amended by R.A. 7691:

Real Actions other then Forcible Entry and Unlawful

Detainer

[2] Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil

actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property or any
interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does
not exceed Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such assessed value does
not exceed Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
 damages of whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, That in cases of land not
declared for tax purposes, the value of
such property shall be determined by
the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
(As amended by RA 7691)

Aside from forcible entry and unlawful detainer,

MTCs now have jurisdiction over other real actions
or actions involving title to or possession, or any
interest therein, like accion publiciana and accion
reinvidicatoria cases where the assessed value of
the land should not exceed P20,000. In Metro
Manila, it is not exceeding P50,000 In cases of land
not declared for taxation purposes, the value of
such property shall be determined by the assessed
value of the adjacent lots.. That is the amendment
brought about by RA 7691 which expanded the
jurisdiction of the MTC.

An accion reivindicatoria is a suit which has for its

object the recovery of possession over the real
property as owner. It involves recovery of ownership
and possession based on said ownership.

An accion publiciana is one for the recovery of

possession or the right to possess. It is also referred to
as an ejectment suit after the expiration of one year
after the occurrence of the cause of action or from
the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.
It is considered a plenary action to recover the right
of possession when dispossession is effected by
means other than unlawful detainer or forcible
entry. 175
Q: What is the Assessed value?

A: The assessed value of real property can have

reference only to the tax rolls in the municipality
where the property is located, and is contained in
the tax declaration. It is elementary that the tax
declaration indicating the assessed value of the
property enjoys the presumption of regularity as it
has been issued by the proper government agency
(Hilario vs. Salvador, 457 SCRA 815).

In Vda. De Barrera vs. Heirs of Legaspi, GR No.

174346, Sept. 12, 2008, the facts point to a
complaint for reconveyance of possession of real
property with preliminary injunction and damages
filed in the RTC of Tangub City. One of the defenses
raised by the defendants was the court’s lack of
jurisdiction over the complaint, the assessed value
of the subject property as reflected in the
uncontroverted tax declaration is only P11,160.00.
The trial court, in its decision, rejected the
contention of the defendant holding that since the
complaint alleged the estimated value of the land
as P50,000.00, such allegation must prevail over the
assessed value of P11,160.00 relied upon by the
defense. What determines the nature of the action
and the jurisdiction over the complaint, said the trial
court, are the facts alleged in the complaint and
not those alleged in the answer of the defendants.

The CA affirmed.
On appeal by certiorari the SC held:

“The subject land has an assessed value of

P11,160.00 as reflected in the Tax Declaration No.
7565, a common exhibit of the parties. The bare
claim of respondents that it has a value of
P50,000.00 thus fails. The case, therefore, falls within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal
trial court.

It was error then for the RTC to take cognizance of

the complaint based on the allegation that “the
present estimated value of the land is
P50,000.00”…The estimated value, commonly
referred to as the fair market value of the property.”

B.) DELEGATED JURISDICTION OF THE MTC

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 where the value of
which does not exceed One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00), such value to be ascertained
by the affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of
the respective claimants if there are more than one,
or from the corresponding tax declarations of the
real property. Their decisions in these cases shall be
appealable in the same manner as decisions of the
RTCs. (As amended by RA 7691)
As a rule cadastral and land registration cases fall
under the jurisdiction of the RTC. 177
Q: What is the difference between a land
registration proceeding and a cadastral
proceeding?

A: Cadastral is compulsory registration.

This is related to your study of Land, Titles and Deeds

(The Property Registration Decree). When you file a
petition for land registration, the object is to have
your property registered and fall under the Torrens
System of the Land Registration.

Q: Now, what is this delegated jurisdiction all

about?

A: It refers only to cadastral and land registration

cases which involve the titling of property under the
Torrens system or cadastral land registration.

Under the Property Registration Decree, only the

RTC has authority to entertain land registration and
cadastral cases. But now, Section 34 gives the
Supreme Court the authority to DELEGATE to MTCs
to hear and decide land registration and cadastral
cases under the following conditions:

1) when there is no controversy or nobody is

contesting your petition; or

2) even if the petition is contested where the

value of the land to be titled does not
exceed P100,000.
In which case, these MTCs can decide and their
decisions are appealable directly to the CA
because in exercise of delegated jurisdiction it is
acting as an RTC.

The value of the lot shall be ascertained by the

affidavit of the claimant or by agreement of the
respective claimants if there are more than one, or
from the corresponding tax declaration of the real
property.

Now do not confuse this P100,000 (Section 34) with

the P20,000 under Section 33. Section 34 deals with
cadastral and land registration cases. Section 33
involves civil cases (accion publiciana, etc.)

C.) SPECIAL JURISDICTION OF MTC

Sec. 35. Special jurisdiction in certain cases.

- In the absence of all the Regional Trial Judges in a

province or city, any Metropolitan Trial Judge,
Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial 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 Regional Trial
Judges sit.

This is what we call special jurisdiction. It only applies

to two (2) types of cases: (1) Habeas corpus and (2)
hearing of petitions for bail.

Remember that habeas corpus is not within the

jurisdiction of the MTC. It is with the RTC. In an
application for bail the RTC also has jurisdiction
because the offense may be a heinous one, but
under the law on criminal procedure you can file a 179
petition for bail to have your temporary freedom
while the case is going on. That’s supposed to be in
the RTC.

But suppose there is no available RTC judge, all of

them are sick or all of them are attending a
convention (this actually happened in Davao in
1990) Section 35 provides that the MTC, in the
absence of RTC judges, can hear and decide on
habeas corpus case petitions and applications or
petitions for bail in criminal cases.

That is allowed because of the urgency of the

situation. There is no need for a SC authorization.
However, this is only allowed in the absence of the
RTC judges. But if the RTC judge comes back, he
has to take over the petition.

REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE

as amended by A.M. 02-11-09-SC, effective

November 25, 2002 Cases subject to summary
procedure

(a) Forcible entry and unlawful detainer

cases; and

(b) All other claims where the total claim

does not exceed P100,000.00 (outside
Metro Manila), or does not exceed
P200,000.00 (Metro Manila) exclusive of
 interests and costs. Probate proceedings
are not covered by the rule on summary
procedure even if the gross value of the
estate does not exceed P100,000.00 or
P200,000.00.

Some basic principles to be remembered in civil

cases subject to a summary procedure:

(a) Not all pleadings in an ordinary civil

action are allowed in a summary
procedure. The only pleadings allowed
are

(1) complaint; (2) compulsory counterclaim;

(3) cross- claim pleaded in the answer,
(4) answers to these pleadings (Sec. 3)

(b) The court in a summary procedure may

dismiss the case outright on any of the
grounds for the dismissal of a civil action
(Sec. 4)

(c) Should the defendant fail to answer the

complaint within the period of ten (10)
days from service of summons, the court
may motu proprio, or on motion of the
plaintiff, render judgment (not an order
declaring the defendant in default) as
may be warranted by the facts alleged
and limited to what is prayed for (Sec. 6)

(d) There shall be preliminary conference

held but there shall be no trial. Instead
 the parties shall submit affidavits and
position papers (Secs ,8,9) 181
(e) Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of
the last affidavits and positions papers, or
the expiration of the period for filing the
same, the court shall render judgment
(Sec. 10)

(f) As a rule a motion to dismiss is not

allowed except on either of two grounds
(1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter, or (2) failure to comply with the
barangay conciliation proceedings (Sec.
19(a))

(g) Although a petition for certiorari is

prohibited in cases subject to summary
procedure, the Court in one case
allowed the petition because the trial
court gravely abused its discretion by
indefinitely suspending the proceedings
in ejectment cases thus, acting contrary
to the purposes of the Rules on Summary
Procedure. The SC recognized that
because the order of the trial court
cannot be appealed from it being an
interlocutory and since the proceedings
are covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, a ‘procedural void’ exists.
Invoking its power to suspend the rules to
promote substantial justice, the SC gave
due course to the petition pro hac vice
because of the extraordinary
 circumstances of the case. The Court
observed that allowing the petition
would avoid the mischiefs sought to be
curbed by the Rules and would give spirit
and life to the Rules on Summary
Procedure (Go vs. CA 297 SCRA 574). It
must be emphasized that in a civil case
governed by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, no hearing is conducted.
Instead, the parties are required to
submit their respective position papers
(Five Star Marketing Corporation vs.
Booc, 535 SCRA 28).

Q: Now, what are the PROHIBITED documents,

motions, or pleadings under the Summary Rules?

A: The following (Under Section 19):

1.) Motion to quash except when your ground

is

a.) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; or

b.) failure to comply with the Barangay

Conciliation;

2.) Motion for bill of particulars;

3.) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a

judgment, or for reopening of trial; your remedy
here is appeal;
4.) Petition for relief from judgement;

5.) Motion for extension of time to file an

183
affidavit; 6.) Memoranda;

7.) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition

against any interlocutory orders issued by the court;

8.) Motion to declare the defendant in default;

9.) Dilatory motions postponements;

10.) Reply;

11.) Third-party complaints;

12.) Interventions;

Jurisdiction Over Small Claims Cases

Introduction of the Concept of Small Claims Court in

the Philippines

The idea of establishing Small Claims Courts in the

Philippines was first proposed to the Supreme Court
through a study conducted in 1999 by Justice Josue
N. Bellosillo, former Senior Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court. After observing small claims courts
and interviewing judges of such courts in Dallas,
Texas, United States in 1999, Justice Bellosillo
proposed in a Report that courts can be
established in the Philippines to handle exclusively
small claims without the participation of lawyers
and where ordinary litigants can prosecute and
defend a small claims action through ready- made
forms. He envisioned the small claims courts as
another positive approach, in addition to
mandatory pre-trial, for solving court congestion
and delay.

The study and report was subsequently endorsed

for legislative action to Senator Franklin Drilon who
later funded a project for this purpose. At the
regular session of the Fourteenth Congress, House
Bill No. 2921 entitled “An Act Establishing Small
Claims Courts” was introduced by Congressman
Jose V. Yap. Thereafter, on July 3, 2007, Senate Bill
No. 800 entitled “Philippine Small Claims Court Act”
was filed by Senator Ramon A. Revilla, Jr. and, on
September 3, 2007, the bill passed First Reading and
was referred to the Committee(s) on Justice and
Human Rights and Finance. The same is still pending
with these committees at present. In 2007, the
United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) awarded a two-year grant to
the American Bar Association-Rule of Law Initiative
(ABA-ROLI) to pursue judicial reform activities in the
Philippines for the fiscal period October 2007 to
September 30, 2009 . In a letter to Chief Justice
Reynato S. Puno dated October 10, 2007, ABA-ROLI
proposed the establishment of small claims pilot
courts among first level courts in different regions of
the Philippines.

The small claims pilot court project was proposed

by ABA to USAID after consultation with various
Supreme Court officials in conjunction with the 2000
Action Plan for Judicial Reform. Among the critical
issues being addressed by the APJR are case
congestion and delay. The congestion of case 185
dockets is central to a multitude of problems, either
as cause or effect; it is either the 34 A.M. No. 08-8-7-
SC manifestation or the source of other difficulties.
Addressing this concern is thus an imperative8
which is why present reforms in judicial systems and
procedures have included the following:

1. streamlining procedural rules to

eliminate provisions that cause delay
and permit dilatory tactics;

2. re-engineering the jurisdictional

structure of the courts to ensure easy
geographical access to the courts
particularly by the poor litigants;

3. improving the case management

system toward more transparency,
accountability and integrity of the
judicial process and for better
efficiency; and

4. strengthening of the mediation

mechanism to promote early dispute
resolution nationwide.

This involves the institutionalization of court-annexed

mediation, and the establishment of a Mediation
Center to continually monitor and assess the
performance of the system and provide training
and research.
Notwithstanding the absence of a law at the
present time creating small claims courts in our
country, the Supreme Court through a program in
partnership with ABA-ROLI and USAID, can
promulgate and implement a simplified rule of
procedure exclusively for small claims and assign a
certain number of existing first level courts to take
cognizance of small claims. This does not need
legislative action as the Court can designate
several first level courts all over the country to jump-
start the pilot project.

Thus, pursuant to its rule-making power, the Court

under the present Constitution can adopt a special
rule of procedure to govern small claims cases and
select pilot courts that would empower the people
to bring suits before them pro se to resolve legal
disputes involving simple issues of law and
procedure without the need for legal
representation and extensive judicial intervention.
This system will enhance access to justice especially
by those who cannot afford the high costs of
litigation even in cases of relatively small value. It is
envisioned that by facilitating the traffic of cases
through simple and expeditious rules and means,
our Court can improve the perception of justice in
this country, thus giving citizens a renewed “stake”
in preserving peace in the land. This is a hopeful
message to our people that

Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases “there is

no need to despair for there is deliverance in law;
that is a promise that has been fulfilled by law in the
past; it is a promise law will again fulfill in the future.”
In December 2007, the Supreme Court established 187
a Technical Working Group composed of the Court
Administrator, the Program Management Office
Administrator, selected judges and other officials of
the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines to undertake the following activities:

The development of Rules and Procedures to

Implement Pilot Small Claims Courts;

1) The establishment of Criteria to Select

Appropriate Regions/Judges for Pilot
Small Claims Courts and set Peso Limits
for the Small Claims Courts

2) Through the Philippine Judicial Academy,

the conduct of training programs for
Judges and their personnel participating
in the Pilot Small Claims Courts project;
and

3) The employment of “Justice on Wheels”

buses to launch pilot small claims
tribunals.
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases:

A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC RULE OF PROCEDUREFOR SMALL

CLAIMS CASES

EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2008 MANILA, PHILIPPINES

SEPTEMBER 2008

RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES

SECTION 1. Title.—This Rule shall be known as “The

Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.”

SEC. 2. Scope.—This Rule shall govern the

procedure in actions before the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts for
payment of money where the value of the claim
does not exceed One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00) exclusive of interest and costs.

Explanatory Note: The purpose of a small claims

process is to provide an inexpensive and
expeditious means to settle disputes over small
amounts. For purposes of the project, the amount
has been set for claims involving amounts of not
more than P100,000.00. The theory behind the small
claims system is that ordinary litigation fails to bring
practical justice to the parties when the disputed
claim is small, because the time and expense
required by the ordinary litigation process is so
disproportionate to the amount involved that it
discourages a just resolution of the dispute. The
small claims process is designed to function quickly
and informally. There are no attorneys, no formal 189
pleadings and no strict legal rules of evidence. The
small claims court system is not a “typical inferior
court.” Parties are encouraged to file small claims
court actions to resolve their minor disputes as
opposed to resorting to self-help or forcible means
to seek their remedy. (Pace

v. Hillcrest Motor Co., 161 Cal. Rptr. 663, 664 Ct.

App. 1980)

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.—For purposes of this

Rule:

(a) Plaintiff refers to the party who initiated a

small claims action. The term includes a
defendant who has filed a counterclaim
against plaintiff;

(b) Defendant is the party against whom the

plaintiff has filed a small claims action.
The term includes a plaintiff against
whom a defendant has filed a claim, or a
person who replies to the claim;

(c) Person is an individual, corporation,

partnership,limited liability partnership,
association, or other juridical entity
endowed with personality by law;

(d) Individual is a natural person;

(e) Motion means a party’s request, written

or oral, to the court for an order or other
 action. It shall include an informal written
request to the court, such as a letter;

(f) Good cause means circumstances

sufficient to justifythe requested order or
other action, as determined by the
judge; and

(g) Affidavit means a written statement or

declaration of facts that are sworn or
affirmed to be true.

SEC. 4. Applicability.—The Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall apply
this Rule in all actions which are: (a) purely civil in
nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the
plaintiff is solely for payment or reimbursement of
sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of criminal
actions, either filed before the institution of the
criminal action, or reserved upon the filing of the
criminal action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of the
Revised Rules Of Criminal Procedure. These claims
or demands may be:

(a) For money owed under any of the

following:

1. Contract of Lease;

2. Contract of Loan;

3. Contract of Services;

4. Contract of Sale; or
 5. Contract of Mortgage;

(b) For damages arising from any of the

191
following:

1. Faultor negligence; Quasi-

contract; or

2. Contract;

(c) The enforcement of a barangay

amicable settlement or an arbitration
award involving a money claim covered
by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of
Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as
the Local Government Code of 1991.

Explanatory Note: The kinds of cases that can be

filed in Small Claims Court vary, but the case must
seek money only. For example, a suit cannot be
brought in Small Claims Court to force a person or
business to fix a damaged good; or to demand
fulfillment of a promised obligation which is not
purely for money, or to seek money to compensate
for pain and suffering. Some of the kinds of cases
which are allowed as small claims include the
following:

1. Actual damage caused to vehicles,

other personal property, real property or
person;

2. Payment or reimbursement for property,

deposit, or money loaned;
 3. Payment for services rendered, insurance
claim, rent, commissions, or for goods
sold and delivered;

4. Money claim pursuant to a contract,

warranty or agreement; and

5. Purely civil action for payment of money

covered bybounced or stopped check.

SEC. 5. Commencement of Small Claims Action.—A

small claims action is commenced by filing with the
court an accomplished and verified Statement of
Claim (Form 1-SCC) in duplicate, accompanied by
a Certification of Non-forum Shopping (Form 1-A,
SCC), and two (2) duly certified photocopies of the
actionable document/s subject of the claim, as well
as the affidavits of witnesses and other evidence to
support the claim. No evidence shall be allowed
during the hearing which was not attached to or
submitted together with the Claim, unless good
cause is shown for the admission of additional
evidence.

No formal pleading, other than the Statement of

Claim described in this Rule, is necessary to initiate
a small claims action.

SEC. 6. Joinder of Claims.—Plaintiff may join in a

single statement of claim one or more separate
small claims against a defendant provided that the
total amount claimed, exclusive of interest and
costs, does not exceed P100,000.00.
SEC. 7. Affidavits.—The affidavits submitted under
this Rule shall state only facts of direct personal 193
knowledge of the affiants which are admissible in
evidence.

A violation of this requirement shall subject the

party, and the counsel who assisted the party in the
preparation of the affidavits, if any, to appropriate
disciplinary action. The inadmissible affidavit(s) or
portion(s) thereof shall be expunged from the
record.

SEC. 8. Payment of Filing Fees.—The plaintiff shall

pay the docket and other legal fees prescribed
under Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, unless
allowed to litigate as an indigent.

A claim filed with a motion to sue as indigent (Form

6-SCC) shall be referred to the Executive Judge for
immediate action in case of multi-sala courts, or to
the Presiding Judge of the court hearing the small
claims case. If the motion is granted by the
Executive Judge, the case shall be raffled off or
assigned to the court designated to hear small
claims cases. If the motion is denied, the plaintiff
shall be given five (5) days within which to pay the
docket fees, otherwise, the case shall be dismissed
without prejudice. In no case shall a party, even if
declared an indigent, be exempt from the payment
of the P1,000.00 fee for service of summons and
processes in civil cases.

Explanatory Note: A plaintiff may commence an

action in the small claims court by filing a Statement
of Claim under oath with the Clerk of the first level
court in person or by mail. The claim form shall be a
simple nontechnical form approved or adopted by
the Supreme Court. The claim form shall set forth

1) the name and address of the defendant,

if known;

2) the amount and the basis of the claim;

3) that the plaintiff, where possible, has

demanded payment and, in applicable
cases, possession of the property;

4) that the defendant has failed or refused

to pay, and where applicable, has
refused to surrender the property; and

5) that the plaintiff understands that the

judgment on his or her claim will be
conclusive and without a right of appeal.

The plaintiff should attach to the claim all

documents necessary to prove his/her right to reliefs
prayed for. The form or accompanying instructions
shall include information that the plaintiff

1. may not be represented by an attorney;

2. has no right of appeal; and

3. may ask the court to waive fees for filing

and serving the claim on the ground that
the plaintiff is indigent unable to pay
 them, using the forms approved by the
Supreme Court for that purpose. 195
SEC. 9. Dismissal of the Claim.—After the court
determines that the case falls under this Rule, it
may, from an examination of the allegations of the
Statement of Claim and such evidence attached
thereto, by itself, dismiss the case outright on any of
the grounds apparent from the Claim for the
dismissal of a civil action.

Explanatory Note: Jurisdiction and venue

requirements in small claims actions shall be the
same as in other civil actions provided in the Rules
of Civil Procedure. A defendant may challenge
jurisdiction or venue or court location by including
these defenses in his Response before appearing in
the scheduled hearing. In all cases, even if the
defendant does not ask for dismissal of the case in
the Response or appear at the hearing, the court
shall inquire into the facts sufficiently to determine
whether jurisdiction and authority of the court over
the action are proper, and shall make its
determination accordingly.

SEC. 10. Summons and Notice of Hearing.—If no

ground for dismissal is found, the court shall
forthwith issue Summons (Form 2-SCC) on the day of
receipt of the Statement of Claim, directing the
defendant to submit a verified Response.

The court shall also issue a Notice (Form 4-SCC) to

both parties, directing them to appear before it on a
specific date and time for hearing, with a warning
that no unjustified postponement shall be allowed,
as provided in Section 19 of this Rule. The summons
and notice to be served on the defendant shall be
accompanied by a copy of the Statement of Claim
and documents submitted by plaintiff, and a copy
of the Response (Form 3-SCC) to be accomplished
by the defendant. The Notice shall contain an
express prohibition against the filing of a motion to
dismiss or any other motion under Section 14 of this
Rule.

SEC. 11. Response.—The defendant shall file with the

court and serve on the plaintiff a duly
accomplished and verified Response within a non-
extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of
summons. The Response shall be accompanied by
certified photocopies of documents, as well as
affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in
support thereof. No evidence shall be allowed
during the hearing which was not attached to or
submitted together with the Response, unless good
cause is shown for the admission of additional
evidence.

SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Response.—Should

the defendant fail to file his Response within the
required period, the court by itself shall render
judgment as may be warranted by the facts
alleged in the Statement of Claim limited to what is
prayed for.

The court however, may, in its discretion, reduce the

amount of damages for being excessive or
unconscionable.
SEC. 13. Counterclaims Within the Coverage of this
Rule.— If at the time the action is commenced, the 197
defendant possesses a claim against the plaintiff
that

(a) is within the coverage of this Rule,

exclusive of interest and costs; (b) arises
out of the same transaction or event that
is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s
claim; (c) does not require for its
adjudication the joinder of third parties;
and (d) is not the subject of another
pending action, the claim shall be filed
as a counterclaim in the Response;
otherwise, the defendant shall be barred
from suit on the counterclaim.

The defendant may also elect to file a counterclaim

against the plaintiff that does not arise out of the
same transaction or occurrence, provided that the
amount and nature thereof are within the coverage
of this Rule and the prescribed docket and other
legal fees are paid.

Explanatory Note: If a defendant has a claim

against a plaintiff that exceeds the limits stated in
Section 2 of this Rule, and the claim relates to the
contract, transaction, matter, or event which is the
subject of the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant may
commence an action against the plaintiff in a court
of competent jurisdiction. If said claim which is
beyond the limit of money claim provided in this
Rule is filed with the Response before the Small
Claims Court, the latter shall dismiss the
counterclaim.

SEC. 14. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions.—The

following pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not
be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:

(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint

except on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction;

(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;

(c) Motion for new trial, or for

reconsideration of a judgment, or for
reopening of trial;

(d) Petition for relief from judgment;

(e) Motion for extension of time to file

pleadings, affidavits, or any other
paper;

(f) Memoranda;

(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or

prohibition against any interlocutory
order issued by the court;

(h) Motion to declare the defendant in

default;

(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;

(j) Reply;
 (k) Third-party complaints; and

(l) Interventions.
199

SEC. 15. Availability of Forms; Assistance by Court

Personnel.—The Clerk of Court or other court
personnel shall provide such assistance as may be
requested by a plaintiff or a defendant regarding
the availability of forms and other information about
the coverage, requirements as well as procedure
for small claims cases.

SEC. 16. Appearance.—The parties shall appear at

the designated date of hearing personally or
through a representative authorized under a
Special Power of Attorney (Form 5-SCC) to enter
into an amicable settlement, to submit to Judicial
Dispute Resolution (JDR) and to enter into
stipulations or admissions of facts and of
documentary exhibits.

SEC. 17. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed.—

No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a
party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the
plaintiff or defendant.

If the court determines that a party cannot properly

present his/ her claim or defense and needs
assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow
another individual who is not an attorney to assist
that party upon the latter’s consent.

Explanatory Note: Except as permitted by this

section, no attorney shall appear in a small claims
action except when the latter shall maintain or
defend an action in any of the following capacities:

(1) By or against himself or herself;

(2) By or against a partnership in which he or

she is a general partner and in which all
the partners are attorneys; or

(3) By or against a professional corporation

of which he or she is an officer or director
and of which all other officers and
directors are attorneys.

Nothing in this section shall prevent an attorney

from doing any of the following:

1) Providing advice to a party to a small

claims action, either before or after the
commencement of the action; or

2) Submitting an affidavit as a witness for a

party in order to state facts of which he
or she has personal knowledge and
about which he or she is competent to
do so.

If the court determines that a party does not speak

or understand

English or Filipino sufficiently to comprehend the

proceedings or give testimony, to the questions of
the court, if any, and needs assistance in so doing,
the court may permit another individual (other than
an attorney) to assist that party. If the court
interpreter or other competent interpreter of the
language or dialect known to the party is not 201
available to aid that party in a small claims action,
at the first hearing of the case the court shall
postpone the hearing one time only to allow the
party the opportunity to obtain another individual
(other than an attorney) to assist that party. Any
additional continuances shall be at the sound
discretion of the court.

SEC. 18. Non-appearance of Parties.—Failure of the

plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of
the claim without prejudice. The defendant who
appears shall be entitled to judgment on a
permissive counterclaim.

Failure of the defendant to appear shall have the

same effectas failure to file a Response under
Section 12 of this Rule. This shall not apply where
one of two or more defendants who are sued under
a common cause of action and have pleaded a
common defense appears at the hearing. Failure of
both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal with
prejudice of both the claim and counterclaim.

SEC. 19. Postponement When Allowed.—A request

for postponement of a hearing may be granted
only upon proof of the physical inability of the party
to appear before the court on the scheduled date
and time. A party may avail of only one (1)
postponement.
Explanatory Note: A party may submit an oral or
written request to postpone a hearing date for
good cause, as follows:

1) If the written request is in writing, it may

be made either by letter or on a form
adopted or approved by the Supreme
Court;

2) The request shall be filed before the

hearing date and accompanied by
proof of physical inability, unless the
court determines that the requesting
party has good cause to file the request
on the date of hearing itself; and

3) If the court finds that the interests of

justice would be served by postponing
the hearing, the court shall do so and
shall notify all parties by mail on the same
day of the new hearing date, time and
place.

This Section does not limit the inherent power of the

court to order postponements of hearings in strictly
appropriate circumstances. The postponement fee
of One Hundred Pesos (or as provided in Rule 141,
Revised Rules of Court, as amended on Legal Fees)
shall be charged and collected before the filing of
a request for postponement and rescheduling of a
hearing date.
SEC. 20. Duty of the Court.—At the beginning of the
court session, the judge shall read aloud a short 203
statement explaining the nature, purpose and the
rule of procedure of small claims cases.

SEC. 21. Judicial Dispute Resolution.—At the

hearing, the judge shall conduct Judicial Dispute
Resolution (JDR) through mediation, conciliation,
early neutral evaluation, or any other mode of JDR.
Any settlement (Form 7-SCC) or resolution (Form 8-
SCC) of the dispute shall be reduced into writing,
signed by the parties and submitted to the court for
approval (Form 12-SCC).

SEC. 22. Failure of JDR.—If JDR fails and the parties

agree in writing (Form 10-SCC) that the hearing of
the case shall be presided over by the judge who
conducted the JDR, the hearing shall so proceed in
an informal and expeditious manner and
terminated within one (1) day.

Absent such agreement, (a) in case of a multi-sala

court, the case shall, on the same day, be
transmitted (Form 11-SCC) to the Office of the Clerk
of Court for immediate referral by the Executive
Judge to the pairing judge for hearing and decision
within five (5) working days from referral; and (b) in
case of a single sala court, the pairing judge shall
hear and decide the case in the court of origin
within five (5) working days from referral by the JDR
judge.

Explanatory Note: In hearings before the small

claims court, witnesses shall still be sworn in. The
judge shall conduct the hearing in an informal
manner so as to do substantial justice between the
parties. The judge shall have the discretion to admit
all evidence which may be of probative value
although not in accordance with formal rules of
practice, procedure, pleading or evidence
provided in the Rules of Court, except that
privileged communications shall not be admissible.
The object of such hearings shall be to determine
the rights of the litigants on the merits and to
dispense expeditious justice between the parties.

An interventionist role by judges in such hearings is

effective in eliciting evidence from litigants in
person. It is seen by unrepresented parties as a
“helping hand” which they appreciate, provided
that judges avoid the danger of appearing to be
partial. By discussing the facts of the case, judges
find what common ground does exist between the
parties. This tends to narrow the differences
between the parties and make the final judicial
decision easier – whereas traditional open court
trials, with the presence of lawyers and the use of
cross-examination tend to polarize the parties,
increase antagonism and heighten the differences.

In this regard, Lord Woolf, Great Britain’s case

management expert, has observed:

“The role of the judge in small claims is not only that

of an adjudicator. It is a key safeguard of the rights
of both parties. In most cases, the judge is
effectively a substitute for a legal representative. His
duty is to ascertain the main matters at issue, to
elicit the evidence, to reach a view on the facts of
the matter and to give a decision. 205
In some cases he may encourage the parties to
settle. In doing so he should ensure that both parties
have presented the evidence and called the
witnesses germane to their case and that he has
identified and considered any issue of law which is
pertinent to the case in hand. He must also hold the
ring and ensure that each party has a fair chance
to present his own case and to challenge that of his
opponent.”

SEC. 23. Decision.—After the hearing, the court shall

render its decision on the same day, based on the
facts established by the evidence (Form 13-SCC).
The decision shall immediately be entered by the
Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and
a copy thereof forthwith served on the parties. The
decision shall be final and unappealable.

Explanatory Note: Despite the relative informality of

the procedure, judgments are based upon a strict
application of the substantive law and an objective
judicial analysis of the facts. The judge is duty-
bound to give the legal basis for the findings. The
prohibition against appeals assures immediate and
swift justice.

The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part

due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and a
procedural remedy of statutory origin, a remedy
that may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of the law
authorizing such exercise.

The applicable provisions of the law allowing

appeals from decisions of the first level courts are
Sections 36 and 38 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended,
also known as “The Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980.” The procedure on appeal is subject to the
limitations and restrictions provided by this Act and
any such rules as the Supreme Court may hereafter
prescribe. Sec. 36 of B.P. Blg. 129 provides an
instance wherein the Supreme Court may adopt
special procedures, including cases where appeal
may not be allowed, to achieve an expeditious
and inexpensive determination of particular cases
requiring summary disposition.

SEC. 24. Execution.—If the decision is rendered in

favor of the plaintiff, execution shall issue upon
motion (Form 9-SCC).

SEC. 25. Applicability of the Rules of Civil

Procedure.— The Rules of Civil Procedure shall
apply suppletorily insofar as they are not
inconsistent with this Rule.

SEC. 26. Effectivity.—This Rule shall take effect on

October 1, 2008 for the pilot courts designated to
apply the procedure for small claims cases
following its publication in two newspapers of
general circulation.
RATIONALE of the Proposed Rule of Procedure for
Small Claims Cases 207
A. Introduction

The most significant recurring theme of every

program for judicial reform of the Supreme Court is
the pressing need for a more accessible, much
swifter and less expensive delivery of justice.

Undeniably, the slow grind of the wheels of justice is

the result of a variety of factors, foremost of which is
the perennial congestion of court dockets which
has transformed court litigation into a protracted
battle, that invariably exhausts the time, effort and
resources of party-litigants, especially the poor.
Many strategies have been devised to unclog
heavy court dockets, and one such approach is
the use of mandatory Pre-trial and Alternative
Dispute Resolution mechanisms such as mediation,
arbitration and conciliation. Another scheme that
has been widely used in many claims courts have
provided a form of alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) in the United States.

Originating around 1912 or 1913, these courts were

established primarily as a means for small businesses
to collect money from borrowers through a process
that was faster, less formal, and less expensive than
traditional civil litigation. Following the lead of the
establishment of the initial small claims court in
Kansas, USA in 1912 or 1913, every state in the
United States has created some form of a small
claims court system.
Although the financial claims limits, methods of
procedure, and overall structure vary from state to
state, the concept is essentially the same, i.e., that
relatively minor disputes, involving dollar amounts
that are insufficient to warrant processing the case
through the normal court procedure, justify
expeditious and simplified handling.

The consumer justice reform movements of the

1960s and 1970s brought renewed research and
interest in the small claims courts. This movement
emphasized the need for reform of small claims
courts to facilitate the adjudication of consumer
grievances.

Although “consumer justice reformers” were

concerned that businesses and corporations were
more likely to use attorneys in small claims courts
thereby placing inexperienced individual
defendants at a disadvantage, studies showed that
defendants with an attorney were more likely to win
against plaintiffs than unrepresented defendants,
whereas plaintiffs without attorneys did just as well
as represented plaintiffs against unrepresented
defendants.

The result was an appraisal of the need to bar

attorneys and collection agencies from the small
claims courts.

Small claims courts in the United States are often

considered courts of equity and are not necessarily
bound by the letter of the law. These courts have
flexibility to use more holistic approaches to
problem solving and dispute resolution than what is
typical. Most judges act according to what makes 209
sense to them, even if this means setting aside legal
formalities. Moreover, traditional rules of evidence
and court processes do not apply.

The rules of small claims courts emphasize

conciliation and pragmatism over winning, and
rules of evidence and civil procedure have been
simplified to allow maximum access to the courts by
individuals unable to afford an attorney.

1. Small Claims Courts in Canada – All

provinces in Canada have procedures
for small claims. In general, there are two
different models. In most provinces, as in
British Columbia, Alberta, and new
Brunswick, small claims courts operate
independently of the superior courts. In
other jurisdictions, the small claims courts
are either branches or divisions of the
superior courts

The small claims courts are meant to be an easier

and less expensive way to resolve disputes than in
the superior courts. Small Claims Court procedure is
regulated both by provincial legislation and rules in
most provinces. It is simplified and less costly with no
strict pleading requirements and formal discovery
process.

2. Small Claims Courts in England and

Wales – From early times, England had a
tradition of local courts where ordinary
 men could pursue justice in the form of
civil claims without the aid of lawyers.
Some were set up by local statutes,
others by custom. These local courts
could not keep pace with the changes
in society brought about by the Industrial
Revolution. By the 1830s, the decade of
great liberal reform, there was a great
public awakening to the urgent need for
constitutional reform in the administration
of justice. The result was the County
Courts Act of 1846, described in its
preamble as an “Act For The More Easy
Recovery of Small Debts and Demands in
England.” It was initially a poor man’s
court. Andrew Amos, the first judge at
Marylebone County, described regular
litigants as being “a great proportion of
the poorer classes, gaining their
livelihoods by bricklaying, gardening or
other out of door occupations and who
subsist upon credit in the winter months,
and complaints against whom are
usually issued in the summer months.” The
county court’s jurisdiction for claims
brought in contract and tort gradually
increased from £50 in 1888 to £5,000 in
1984.

The purpose and structure of the county court

system has in many ways remained the same since
1846. The aim is still to make civil justice available
locally – there are now 223 county courts in England
and Wales. They have continued to be responsive
to the needs of smaller cases which, although small 211
in terms of their financial value, are important to the
litigants involved. However, recent decades have
seen two major changes in relation to small claims –
first, the introduction of a dedicated small claims
procedure in 1973 and secondly, the introduction of
the Civil Procedure Rules reforms of 1998 with
emphasis on proportionality.

Since January 1996, when the small claims limit in

England and Wales was trebled overnight to £3,000,
district judges have been expected to play the role
of “interventionist” and assist litigants in presenting
their own cases personally at small claims hearings.
Like adjudicators in other parts of the world, district
judges in these countries have been encouraged
to intervene to an increasing extent at small claims
hearings. Such interventionism is, indeed, vital and
although there may be wide variations between
jurisdictions in the methods that are adopted to
deal with small claims, the idea of the adjudicator
freely entering the arena of the dispute to assist
unrepresented litigants is fundamental in almost all
matters about small claims.

3. Small Claims Tribunals in Singapore – The

Small Claims Tribunals in Singapore have
been in operation since 1 February 1985.
The Tribunals have fulfilled an integral role
in providing the community with
accessible justice for civil claims involving
small amounts. Various features and
programs have been put in place to
enhance access to justice for the
community, by removing barriers such as
cost, delay, distance, time and
inconvenience. The Tribunals, constituted
as part of the Subordinate Courts of
Singapore, were established for the
primary purpose of providing a quick and
inexpensive avenue for the resolution of
small claims arising from disputes
between consumers and suppliers. There
was a need for a less expensive and less
formal forum to deal with such small
claims. Hence, in 1985, the Small Claims
Tribunals Act was passed, which
authorized the setting up of one or more
Tribunals to help consumers who have
claims of up to $2,000 relating to disputes
arising from contracts for the sale of
goods or the provision of services.
Rule 01
213
GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. Title of the Rules. These Rules shall be

known and cited as the Rules of Court.

The Rules of Court do not have retroactive effect.

They can, however, be made applicable to cases
pending at the time of their passage and therefore
are retroactive in that sense.

The rule-making power of the SC has the following

limitations:

1) Simplified and inexpensive procedure for

the speedy disposition of cases;

2) Uniform for all courts of the same grade; and

3) Shall not diminish, increase or modify

substantive rights (Art. VIII Sec. 5[5], 1987
Constitution.

In the interest of just and expeditious proceedings,

the Supreme Court may suspend the application of
the Rules of Court and except a case from its
operation because the Rules were precisely
adopted with the primary objective of enhancing
fair trial and expeditious justice.

SEC. 2. In what courts applicable. These Rules shall

apply in all the courts, except as otherwise
provided by the Supreme Court.
Section 2, states in what court or courts the rules
apply as it says “these rules shall apply in all the
courts except as otherwise provided by the
Supreme Court.” Meaning, applicable to all courts
except when the SC say otherwise.

For example: The SUMMARY RULES on procedure

which is applicable to some cases in the MTC.

Another example of when the SC says otherwise is

Section 4, that the rules shall not apply to election
cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization,
insolvency proceedings and other cases not herein
provided for except by analogy. This is actually not
a new provision. It used to be in Rule 143, now it is in
Rule 1.

Sec. 3. Cases governed. These Rules shall govern

the procedure to be observed in actions, civil or
criminal, and special proceedings.

xxxxxx

NO, Rule 1 is the general provision for the entire

Rules of Court. You look at the title, “These rules shall
be known as the ‘Rules of Court.’” This is the
common denominator from the first to the last Rule.
That’s why it says there ‘special proceedings,’ ‘civil
cases’ and ‘criminal cases.’

xxxxx

(a) A 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. 215
A civil action may either be ordinary or special.
Both are governed by the rules for ordinary civil
actions, subject to the specific rules prescribed for a
special civil action.

xxxxx

What is an action?

An action is the legal and formal demand of one’s

right from another person made and insisted upon
in a court of justice. (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)

One party prosecutes another for the enforcement

or protection of a right or the prevention or redress
of a wrong.

What is a claim?

It is a right possessed by one against another.

The moment said claim is filed before a court, the

claim is converted into an action or suit.

Action and suit

In this jurisdiction, it is settled that the terms “action”

and “suit” are synonymous. (Lopez v. Compania de
Seguros, 16 SCRA 855).

Civil Action and Criminal Action

A 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. (Sec.
3[a] Rule 1). So the purpose of a civil suit is to
enforce or protect your right or to prevent or redress
a wrong.

A criminal action “is one by which the State

prosecutes a person for an act or omission
punishable by law” (Sec. 3[b] Rule 1)

It has been ruled that …”proceedings are to be

regarded as criminal when the purpose is primarily
punishment, and civil when the purpose is primarily
compensatory…” (People vs. Godoy @$# SCRA
64).

CLASSIFICATION OF CIVIL ACTION

1. As to NATURE (Section 3 [a])

(a) Ordinary Civil Actions

(b) Special Civil Actions

2. As to CAUSE or FOUNDATION:

(a) Real Actions

(b) Personal Actions
(c) Mixed Actions

3. As to PLACE OF FILING

(a) Local Actions

(b) Transitory Actions
4. As to OBJECT

(a) Action In Personam

217
(b) Action In Rem
(c) Action Quasi In Rem

CLASSIFICATION AS TO NATURE

ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS and SPECIAL CIVIL

ACTIONS

The special civil actions are governed by Rules 62 to

71. Any action not among those mentioned is
automatically ordinary.

What are the special civil actions? Rules 62 to 71:

 Interpleader,

 Declaratory Relief,

 Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus,

 Quo Warranto,

 Expropriation,

 Foreclosure of Mortgage,

 Partition,

 Forcible Entry, Unlawful Detainer and

 Contempt.

There is a new one – Review of Final Decisions or

Resolutions of the COMELEC and COA under Rule
64, but actually it says there, it is governed by Rule
65 which governs Certiorari.

Q: What is so important in distinguishing a special

civil action from an ordinary civil action?

A: What makes an action special is simply because

of the fact that there are some specific rules
prescribed for them which are not found in other
rules. But to say that the rules on ordinary civil
actions do not apply to special civil actions is false.
The law is very clear. Both are governed by the rules
on ordinary civil actions subject to the specific rules.

Therefore, in case of conflict between the specific

rule governing a particular type of civil action and
the ordinary, then you follow the specific provision.
But if the rules on special civil actions are silent,
apply the ordinary rules.

Give an example of a case where in the absence

of a special provision in the rules on special civil
actions the court had to apply the rules on ordinary
civil actions by analogy. The case of

AMBERTI vs CA - 195 SCRA 659 [1991]

FACTS: This case involved a petition for certiorari

(special civil action under Rule 65) and then before
the respondent could answer the petition, he
withdrew the petition. Later on he changed his
mind and re-filed the petition. The question that was
asked by the SC is when you file a special civil
action for certiorari and then before the other party
could answer you withdraw it, is the withdrawal with
or without prejudice? Can you re-file it?
219
There is no rule in Rule 65 answering that question so
the SC had to resort to the ordinary rules by
analogy.

HELD: Certiorari is similar to appeal although it is not

really an appeal. And the SC looked at the law on
appeal. What happens when you perfect your
appeal and then later on you withdraw your
appeal? What will happen to the order or
judgment? Rule 50 says that if you withdraw the
appeal, the judgment appealed from will now
become final and executory. Therefore, since it is
now final and executory, you cannot change it
anymore.

“Applying the foregoing rules in a supplementary

manner (or by analogy), upon the withdrawal of a
petition in a special civil action before the answer
or comment thereto has been filed, the case shall
stand as though no appeal has been taken, so that
the judgment or order of the lower court being
questioned becomes immediately final and
executory. Thus, a resolution granting the
withdrawal of such a petition is with prejudice and
petitioner is precluded from bringing a second
action based on the same subject matter.”

Now, there are other classifications of civil actions

which are not expressly stated in Section 3. The only
one stated there is ordinary and special.
 CLASSIFICATION AS TO CAUSE OR FOUNDATION:

REAL, PERSONAL or MIXED ACTIONS

Real Action

A REAL ACTION is briefly described as an action

where the issue or the subject involved is title to,
ownership, possession of or interest over a real
property like accion publiciana, forcible entry,
unlawful detainer, foreclosure of mortgage or real
property, partition of real property. (Sec. 1, R 4) (c.f.
Section 19, BP 129 – controversy relates to real
property)

It is founded on privity of real estate and filed in the

court of the place where the property or any part
thereof is situated.

Personal action

All other actions or, when the issue is not one of

those – meaning, it is founded on privity of contract,
or on quasi-delict, such as actions for a sum of
money, or damages arising from breach of a
contract, or for the enforcement or resolution of a
contract, or for recovery of personal property, these
are the PERSONAL ACTIONS. (Casilan vs. Tomassi, 90
Phil. 765; Cachero vs. Manila Yellow Taxicab, 101
Phil. 523; Bautista vs. Piguing, L-10006, Oct. 31, 1957)

It is filed in the court where the plaintiff or any of the

defendants resides, at the option of the plainitff.
Mixed Action

Some textwriters give a third classification: the

221
MIXED ACTIONS where there is a mixture of real and
personal actions. Mixed actions are such as pertain
in some degree to both real and personal and,
therefore, are properly reducible to neither of them,
being brought for the specific recovery of land and
for damages sustained in respect of such land.
(Dela Cruz vs. Seminary of Manila, 18 P{hil. 330)

Like an action for recovery of a piece of land with

damages it is a mixed action. However, it is more of
real rather than personal. If the damage is only
incidental, then it is more of a real action rather
than a personal action like the case of TACAY.

In a real action realty or an interest therein is the

subject matter of the action.

However, not every action involving a real property

is a real action because the realty may only be
incidental to the subject matter of the suit. To be a
“real” action, it is not enough that the action must
deal with real property. It is important that the
matter in litigation must also involve any of the
following issues: title to, ownership, possession,
partition, foreclosure of mortgage or any interest in
real property.

Examples:

 An action for damages to real property,

while involving a real property, does not
involve any of the issues mentioned.
  An action to recover possession of real
property plus damages is a real action
because possession of the real property
is involved. The aspect of damages is
merely an incidental part of the main
action, i.e., recovery of possession of real
property. However, an action to recover
possession of a personal property is a
personal action.

 Where the allegations as well as of the

complaint do not claim ownership of the
lots in question or ask for possession of
the same but instead seeks for the
execution of a deed of sale by the
defendants in favor of the plaintiff, the
action is a personal action. (Adamos v. J.

M. Tuazon & Co., Inc. 25 SCRA 529)

 An action for specific performance is a

personal action as long as it does not
involve a claim of or recovery of
ownership of real property. (Siosoco v.
CA, 303 SCRA 186 citing La Tondena
Distillers v. Ponferrada, 264 SCRA 540)

However, where a complaint is denominated as

one of specific performance but nonetheless prays
for the issuance of a deed of sale for a parcel of
land for the plaintiff to acquire ownership of the
land, its primary objective and nature is one to
recover the parcel of land itself and thus, is
deemed a real action. (Gochan v. Gochan, 372
SCRA 356) 223
 If the action is denominated as one for
specific performance, but the plaintiff
actually seeks for the issuance of a deed
of assignment in his favor of certain shares
of stocks to regain ownership and
possession of said shares, the action is not
one for specific performance but a
personal action for the recovery or
property. The docket fee therefore, should
be computed based on the value of the
property and not based on the docket fee
for specific performance (National Steel
Corporation vs. CA 302 SCRA 522).

 Where it is alleged in the complaint that

the defendant breached the contract so
that the plaintiff prays that the contract be
rescinded and that the defendant be
ordered to return possession of the
hacienda to the plaintiff, the ultimate
purpose or end of the action is to recover
possession of real property and not a mere
breach of contract (De Jesus vs. Coloso 1
SCRA 272)

 Where the action to annul or rescind a sale

of real property has as its fundamental and
prime objective the recovery of real
property, the action is real (Emergency
Loan Pawnshop Inc. vs. CA 353 SCRA 89).
 Where an award of a house and lot to the
plaintiff was unilaterally cancelled, an
action that seeks to annul the cancellation
of the award over the said house and lot is
a personal action. The action does not
involve title to ownership or possession of
real property. The nature of the action is
one to compel the recognition of the
validity of the previous award by seeking a
declaration that the cancellation is null
and void. (Hernandez v. DBP, 71 SCRA 290)

 An action to foreclose a real estate

mortgage is a real action, but an action to
compel the mortgagee to accept
payment of the mortgage debt and to
release the mortgage is a personal action.
(Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc. 81
SCRA 75)

 An action to annul a contract of loan and

its accessory real estate mortgage is a
personal action. In a personal action, the
plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal
property, the enforcement of a contract or
the recovery of damages. In contrast, in a
real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery
of real property, or, as indicated in Section
2(a), Rule 4 of the then Rules of Court, a
real action is an action affecting title to
real property or for the recovery of
possession, or for partition or
condemnation of, or foreclosure of
 mortgage on, real property (Chua vs. Total
Office Products and Services [Topros], 225
Inc.,471 SCRA 500).

 Although the main relief sought in the

action is the delivery of the certificate of
title, said relief, in turn depends upon who,
between the parties, has a better right to
the lot in question. It is not possible for the
court to decide the main relief without
passing upon the claim of the parties with
respect to the title to and possession of the
lot in question. The action is a real action
(Espineli vs. Santiago 107 Phil 830).

 Where the sale is fictitious, with absolutely

no consideration, it should be regarded as
a non-existent contract. There being no
contract between the parties, there is
nothing in truth to annul by action. The
action, therefore, cannot be an action for
annulment but one for recovery of a
fishpond, a real action (Pascual vs.
PASCUAL 73 Phil. 561).

Significance of the distinction

LOCAL ACTIONS and TRANSITORY ACTIONS

LOCAL ACTION is an action which can only be

instituted in a particular place.

Good examples of local actions are real actions.

Real actions are also automatically local actions.
They can only be instituted in the place where the
property is situated. This is already provided by law
(e.g. accion publiciana, forcible entry, unlawful
detainer – can only be filed where the land is
situated.)

TRANSITORY ACTIONS are those which follow the

party wherever he may reside. (1 Am. Jur. 430)
Personal actions are transitory – its filing is based on
where the plaintiff or where the defendant resides
at the option or election of the plaintiff. It is based
on the residence of the parties.

CLASSIFICATION AS TO OBJECT OR PURPOSE

The distinction between a real action and a

personal action is important for the purpose of
determining the venue of the action. Questions
involving the propriety or impropriety of a particular
venue are resolved by initially determining the
nature of the action, i.e., if the action is personal or
real.

A real action is “local”, i.e., its venue depends upon

the location of the property involved in the
location. “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 apportion thereof is situated.”
(Sec. 1 Rule 4)

A personal action is ‘transitory,’i.e., its venue

depends upon the residence of the plaintiff or the
defendant at the option of the plaintiff. A personal
action “may be commenced and tried where the
plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides or 227
where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident
defendant, where he may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff.” (Sec. 2 Rule 4).

Hence, if the question involves the venue of an

action, the analysis will necessarily involve the
following steps:

(a) A determination whether the action is

real or personal

(b) An application of the rules on venue

under Rules 4.

Thus, an action for a sum of money, instituted by a

resident of Manila against a resident of Quezon
City, shall be filed either in Manila or Quezon City at
the election of the plaintiff because the action is
personal.

An action to annul a sale of a land located in

Baguio City where recovery of ownership is
essentially the material issue in the case, must be
filed in Baguio City. The action is a real action and
must be filed in the place where the property is
situated regardless of the residence of the parties
(Emergency Loan Pawnshop Inc. vs. CA 353 SCRA
89).

CLASSIFICATION AS TO THE PLACE OF FILING:

ACTIONS IN PERSONAM, IN REM and QUASI IN REM

ACTIONS IN PERSONAM vs. ACTIONS IN REM

Definition

In personam action

“If the technical object of the suit is to establish a

claim generally against some particular persons,
with a judgment which, in theory, at least, binds his
body or to bar some individual claim or objection,
so that only certain persons are entitled to be
heard, the action is IN PERSONAM.” (Grey Alba vs.
Dela Cruz, 17 Phil. 49; Sandejas vs. Robles, 81 Phil.
421)

An example is an action for specific performance;

action for breach of contract

In rem action

But, “if the object of the suit is to bar indifferently all

who might be minded to make an objection of any
sort against the rights sought to be established, and
if anyone in the world has a right to be heard on the
strength of alleging facts which, if true, show an
inconsistent interest, the action is IN REM.” (Grey
Alba vs. Dela Cruz, 17 Phil. 49; Sandejas vs. Robles,
81 Phil. 421)

An example is a probate proceeding, cadastral

proceeding.

The purpose of a proceeding in personam is to

impose through the judgment of a court, some
responsibility or liability directly upon the person of
the defendant (Domagas vs. Jensen 448 SCRA 663) 229
Examples:

A) An action for sum of money;

B) An action for damages.

C) In an action in personam, no other than

the defendant is sought to be held liable,
not the whole world.

To simplify the definition:

ACTION IN PERSONAM is one where the purpose is

to bind the parties or where any judgment that the
court will render in that case binds only the parties
to the action and their privies or their successors-in-
interest.

ACTION IN REM is one where the purpose is to bind

any and everyone or where the judgment which
the court will render in the case binds not only the
parties to the case but the whole world, then the
action is in rem.

To follow the language of the SC in the case of:

CHING vs. CA – 181 SCRA 9

HELD: “Actions in personam and actions in rem

differ in that the former are directed against
specific persons and seek personal judgments,
while the latter are directed against the thing or
property or status of a person and seek judgments
with respect thereto as against the whole world.”

Action in personam

EXAMPLE:

An action for the Recovery of land or accion

publiciana.

The case is filed by P against D and after trial the

court rendered judgment in favor of P ordering D to
deliver the land to P. But here comes X claiming the
same property. Is X barred from making his claim
because the court, in the case of P vs. D already
declared that P is entitled to the property? Is X
bound by that judgment?

A: NO, because X is not a party to that case. She

cannot be bound by a judgment where she is not a
party. Hence, the action between P and D is an
action in personam.

Action in Rem

1) Action for annulment of marriage or

declaration of nullity of marriage. Suppose
the husband (H) files a case against his
wife (W) to annul their marriage. After trial,
the court rendered judgment annulling the
marriage and it became final. So the
parties are now both SINGLE.
H meets another girl, A, and courted her and
proposed marriage. 231
Can A say the she I cannot marry H because I know
you are married and as far as I am concerned I am
not bound by the judgment of annulment in the
case between P and D because she was a not a
party therein? When the court ruled in the case
between H and W that the marriage is annulled is
that judgment binding only on H and W, the parties
therein

A: No it binds the whole world or anybody.

2) When an illegitimate child files a case

against the father, for compulsory
recognition and got a favorable judgment
his/her status as a recognized child is not
only binding on his/her father but is binding
on the whole world.

Take note that an action in rem and in personam

have often been confused with the classification of
real and personal action, that an action in
personam is also a personal action, or, when an
action is in rem it is also a real action.

It is wrong. The basis of the classification is different.

An action could be as to cause or basis a real
action. As to object, it could be in personam. In the
same manner, it could be a personal action but an
action in rem.

3) E files a case against C to recover the

possession of a piece of land. It is a REAL
 action because the subject is possession or
ownership of real property. But because
the purpose is to bind only E and C it is also
an action IN PERSONAM. It is a real action
as to cause, but as to object, it is in
personam.

4) P filed a case to annul his marriage with his

wife D. It is a PERSONAL action because it
does not involve title to, ownership etc., of
his real property. It is about status. But it is
also IN REM because the judgment therein
is binding against the whole world.

5) An action for ejectment is a real action

because it involves the issue of possession
of real property. It is also, however, an
action in personam because the action is
directed against a particular person who is
sought to be held liable (Sec. 1 Rule 4;
Domagas vs. Jensen 448 SCRA 663)

6) An action for delaration of nullity of a

marriage is a personal action (Tamano vs.
Ortiz 291 SCRA 584; Romualdez-Licaros vs.
Licaros 401 SCRA 762) because it is not
founded on real estate. It is also in rem
action because the issue of the status of a
person is one directed against the whole
world. One’s status is a matter that can be
set up against anyone in the world. On the
other hand, an action for damages is both
a personal and in personam action.
 7) An action for specific performance is an
action in personam (Jose vs. Boyon 414 233
SCRA 217). An action for specific
performance and/or rescission is not an
action in rem (Gomez vs. CA 425 SCRA 98).

8) A cadastral proceeding is an action in rem

(In Re Estate of Johnson 39 Phil. 156).

9) A land registration proceeding is an action

in rem. Hence, the failure to give a
personal notice to the owners or claimants
of the land is not a jurisdictional defect. It is
the publication of such notice that brings in
the whole world as a party in the case and
vests the court with jurisdiction (Adez
Realty Inc. vs. CA 212 SCRA 623; Ting vs.
Heirs of Diego Lirio 518 SCRA 263).

10) An action to recover real property is a real

action. It is however, also an action in
personam for it binds only a particular
individual (Republic vs. CA 315 SCRA 600).

QUASI IN REM

Text writers gave a sort of third classification as to

object. This is called action quasi in rem. “QUASI”
means almost. So, ‘quasi in rem’ is almost in rem.
Actually, it is in personam but almost in rem.

Q: Define an action quasi in rem.

A proceeding to subject the interest of a named

defendant over a particular property to an
obligation or lien burdening it. Judgment is binding
upon particular persons.

An action quasi in rem is actually in personam

because it is directed only against a particular
individual but the purpose of the proceeding is to
subject his property to the obligation or lien
burdening it. The object of the case is the sale or
other disposition of property of the defendant over
which you have a right or lien over the property.

An action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual

is named as defendant and the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his interest thereof to the
obligation or lien burdening thje property (Asiavest
Limited vs. CA 296 SCRA 539).

The object of an action quasi in rem is the sale or

disposition of the property whether by attachment,
foreclosure or any other form of remedy (Banco
Espanol-Filipino vs. Palanca 37 Phil. 921).

Examples of actions quasi in rem:

(a) Action for partition;

(b) Action for accounting.

(c) Such actions are essentially for the

purpose of affecting the defendant’s
interest in the property and not to render
a judgment against him (Valmonte vs.
CA 252 SCRA 92);

(d) attachment;
 (e) foreclosure of mortgage (Banco Espanol
Filipino vs. Palanca 37 Phil. 921; Sahagun 235
vs. CA 198 SCRA 44).

ILLUSTRATION: An action to foreclose a mortgage is

the best example of a civil action quasi in rem
because there is a defendant (mortgagor) and the
object of the case is to have the property
mortgaged sold or disposed of in order to satisfy the
mortgage lien of the mortgagee. It is in personam
because it is directed only against the person who
mortgaged to you but once the property is
foreclosed, practically everybody has to respect it.
That’s why it is called quasi in rem.

Or, to borrow the language of the SC in simplifying

the term quasi in rem, quasi in rem means ‘against
the person in respect to the res, against the
mortgagor in respect to the thing mortgaged.’

Importance of the distinction

It determines whether the court must acquire

jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and
thus determine the mode of serving summons.

If the action is in personam the court must acquire

jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, thru
personal service of summons. Service of summons
by publication is not allowed.

But if it is in rem jurisdiction over the person of the

defendant is not required hence service of
summons by publication is sufficient.
Such is also true to quasi in rem action. What is
important is that the court acquires jurisdiction over
the res.

CIVIL ACTIONS vs. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Q: Define a special proceeding.

A: Rule 1, Section 3 [c]:

c) A special proceeding is a remedy by

which a party seeks to establish a status,
a right, or a particular fact. (2a, R2)

Special proceedings should not be confused with a

civil action. Special Proceedings are governed by
Rules 72-109 of the Rules of Court.

Distinguish a civil action from a special proceeding.

A: The following:

1.) A 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,
whereas,

A SPECIAL PROCEEDING is a remedy by which a

party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact;

2.) In a civil action, there are two (2) definite and

particular adverse parties, the party who demands
a right, called a plaintiff, and the other whom the
right is sought, called a defendant, whereas,
In a SPECIAL PROCEEDING, while there is a definite
party petitioner, there is no definite adverse party 237
as the proceeding is usually considered to be
against the whole world;

3.) A CIVIL ACTION requires the filing of formal

pleadings, whereas

In a SPECIAL PROCEEDING, relief may be obtained

by mere application or petition;

4.) The period to appeal in CIVIL ACTIONS is

generally 15 days and the requirement is the filing
of a notice of appeal, whereas In SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS the period to appeal is 30 days and
aside from notice of appeal, the law requires the
filing of a record on appeal.

Of course the basic distinction is found in Section 3 –

a 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. Whereas, a
special proceeding is a remedy by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular
fact.

The object of a civil action is to enforce or protect a

right or to prevent or redress a wrong. But the
object of a special proceeding is only to establish a
status, a right or a particular fact.

If a creditor sues the debtor to collect an unpaid

loan, is that a civil action or a special proceeding?
That is a civil action because the creditor wants to
enforce or protect his right to collect. The creditor is
compelling the debtor to pay. It is adversarial.

A good example of a special proceeding is a

petition for ADOPTION. It is a special proceeding
because the purpose is to establish a status of
paternity and filiation between the adopter and
adopted who may not be related to each other.

What is adoption?

This is how an author describes it.

“Adoption is one of the sacred mysteries of the law.

It concerns the making of a natural person as a
legitimate child of another person without the
intervention of sex. A man becomes a father of the
child he did not sire. A woman becomes the
mother of a child she did not bear. It is through the
magic or fiction of the law that adopters become
parents of children unrelated to them by blood, or if
related, the relationship is one of illegitimacy.”

So you can adopt you own illegitimate child for the

purpose of improving his status. So, when you file a
petition for adoption, you are not suing somebody
to enforce or protect a right or prevent or redress a
wrong. The purpose is to create a status of parent
and child between 2 people who are not related to
each other.

And when you file a petition for adoption, you are

not filing a case against anybody. The case is not a
fight between two parties. There is a petitioner, the
one who files, but there is no definite defending
party. But it is directed against the whole world
because once the adoption is granted, then, as far 239
as the whole world is concerned, they have to
respect the status of the adopted as a child of the
adopter. It is in rem. Generally, special proceedings
are in rem.

But since it is directed against the whole world,

anyone in the world can come forward and
oppose the petition, hence, publication is required.
There is no particular person as defendant but in
reality, anybody in the world can come forward
and oppose it. That's the difference between a
special proceeding and a civil action.

Sec. 4. In what cases not applicable. - These Rules

shall not apply to election cases, land registration,
cadastral, naturalization and insolvency
proceedings, and other cases not herein provided
for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character
and whenever practicable and convenient. (R143a)

The Rules of Court do not apply to certain

proceedings in court.

Q: What court proceedings where the Rules of

Court are not applicable?

A: Election cases, land registration cases, cadastral

cases, naturalization cases, insolvency proceedings,
and other cases not herein provided for except by
analogy of for suppletory purposes.

In these cases, the Rules of Court are suppletory in

character. In case of conflict between election law
and the Rules of Court, forget the Rules of Court.
But when the Election Code is silent, you apply the
Rules of Court by analogy or for suppletory
purposes.

There are some election cases which fall within the

jurisdiction of the courts, not necessarily COMELEC.
For example, violation of election code where the
party may be adjudged to go to jail. That is a
criminal case. That is governed by the rules on
criminal procedure. It is more on imprisonment.

Sec. 5. Commencement of an action. - A civil

action is commenced by the filing of the original
complaint in court. If an additional defendant is
impleaded in a later pleading, the action is
commenced with regard to him on the date of the
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether
the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied
by the court. (6a)

Q: When is a court action deemed commenced?

A: A civil action is commenced by the filing of the

original complaint in court. Of course this is not
really complete. The filing of the original complaint
in court must be accompanied by the payment of
the correct docket fee. A complaint is not deemed
filed until the docket fee is paid. This is important to
determine the exact date that the action has
commenced because it is from that moment that
the running of the prescriptive period is interrupted.
Civil actions are deemed commenced from the
date of the filing and docketing of the complaint, 241
without taking into account the issuance and
service of summons (Cabrera vs. Tiano, GR No. L-
17299, July 31, 1963).

If the complete amount of the docket fee is not

paid, the prescriptive period continues to run as the
complaint is deemed not filed (Feria, 2001, p. 208)

An action can be commenced by filing the

complaint by registered mail, in which case, it is the
date of mailing that is considered as the date of
filing and not the date of the receipt thereof by the
clerk of court.

The second sentence of Section 5 states that, “If an

additional defendant is impleaded in a later
pleading, the action is commenced with regard to
him on the date of the filing of such later
pleading…”

Example: Today (November 19, 1997), I filed a

complaint against A. So, the action is commenced
on Nov. 19, 1997. However next month, say,
December 19, if there is an additional defendant,
the date of the commencement of the action with
regards to the additional defendant is not the date
when the original action is filed, but on the date
when he was included in the amended pleading.

How do you interpret or construe the Rules of

Court?
Sec. 6. Construction. - These Rules shall be liberally
construed in order to promote their objective of
securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition
of every action and proceeding. (2a)

The purpose of Procedural Law is to hasten

litigation. So you do not interpret it to prolong a
case. That is based on the principle of liberal
construction.

Cases should, as much as possible, be determined

on the merits after the parties have been given full
opportunity to ventilate their causes and defences,
rather than on technicality or some procedural
imperfection. After all, technical rules of procedure
are not ends in themselves but are primarily devised
to help in the proper and expedient dispensation of
justice. In appropriate cases, therefore, the rules
may be construed liberally in order to meet and
advance the cause of substantial justice (Land
Bank vs. Celad, GR No. 164876, Jan. 23, 2006)

DE GUZMAN vs SANDIGANBAYAN - 256 SCRA 171

HELD: “The Rules of Court was conceived and

promulgated to set forth guidelines in the
dispensation of justice but not to bind and chain
the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will
be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn
of judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts in
rendering real justice have always been, as they in
fact ought to be, conscientiously guided by the
norm that when on the balance, technicalities take
a backseat against substantive rights, and not the
other way around. Truly then, technicalities, should
give way to the realities of the situation.”
243

So, the purpose of procedure is to help the hand

that dispenses justice and not to tie these hands.
Otherwise, the courts will become mere robots.
And, as much as possible, courts should avoid
technicalities to give way to the realities of the
situation.

In one case, “Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be

won by a rapier’s thrust.” (Alonzo vs. Villamor, 16
Phil. 315)

That’s why the SC said in another case:

SANTOS vs. CA – 198 SCRA 806

HELD: Procedural “rules are not intended to hamper

litigants or complicate litigation but, indeed, to
provide for a system under which suitors may be
heard in the correct form and manner and at the
prescribed time in a peaceful confrontation before
a judge whose authority they acknowledge. The
other alternative is the settlement of their conflict
through the barrel of a gun.”

Meaning, the purpose of the rules is for people to

fight each other in a civilized way. If you cannot
accept the judicial system, what is your alternative?
The only alternative is to shoot your opponent. We
will settle our conflict through the barrel of a gun.
For all its shortcomings and its defects, the judicial
system is still the civilized way of dealing with your
opponent.

BAR QUESTION: When may lapses in the literal

observance in the Rules of Court be excused?

A: In the case of

ETHEL CASE, ET AL vs. FERNANDO JUGO, ET AL – 77

Phil. 523

HELD: Lapses in the literal observance of a rule of

procedure will be overlooked:

1) when they do not involve public policy;

2) when they arose from an honest mistake

or unforeseen accident;

3) when they have not prejudiced the

adverse party;

and

4) when they have not deprived the court

of its authority.

One final note, while it is true that the Rules of Court

should be liberally construed as a general rule,
there are certain provisions which according to the
SC, should be strictly construed because they were
intended precisely to minimize delay. These are
provisions on:

1) reglementary periods;
 2) rule on forum shopping;

3) service of summons
245

A good example would be provisions which

prescribe the time during which certain acts are
going to be done, like the filing of an answer,
because if you will disregard this, it will promote
more delay rather than expedite litigations.

Another example is the filing of a notice of appeal.

These are the provisions which are to be strictly
construed because while it is true that the Rules of
Procedure are to be liberally construed, it is not a
license to completely ignore these rules. Even the
SC made the warning. Like in the cases of

ANTONIO vs. CA – 167 SCRA 127

HELD: “It is the common practice of litigants who

have no excuse for not observing the procedural
rules to minimize the same as mere technicalities.
Then they cry for due process. These procedural
rules are in fact intended to ensure an orderly
administration of justice precisely to guarantee the
enjoyment of substantive rights.”

LIMPOT vs. CA– 170 SCRA 367

HELD: “Procedural rules are not to be belittled or

dismissed simply because their non-observance
may have resulted in prejudice to a party's
substantive rights, as in this case. Like all rules, they
are required to be followed except only when for
the most persuasive of reasons they may be relaxed
to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness in not complying with the
procedure prescribed.

While it is true that a litigation is not a game of

technicalities, this does not mean that the Rules of
Court may be ignored at will and at random to the
prejudice of the orderly presentation and
assessment of the issues and their just resolution.”

This reminds me of a lawyer who did not comply

with the rules and he was arguing that the rules
should be liberally construed. And then the judge
says: “There is a thin line between liberal
construction of the rules and gross ignorance of the
rules!” It is either you did not follow the rules strictly
or you do not really know the rules.

The power of the SC to promulgate rules

concerning pleadings, practice, and procedure
includes the power to suspend the effectivity of
such rules to provide an exception from the
operation of said rules.

It is within the inherent power of the Supreme Court

to suspend its own rules in a particular case in order
to do justice (De Guia vs. De Guia, GR No. 135384,
April 4, 2001).
Reasons which would warrant the suspension of the
Rules: 247
1) the existence of special or compelling
circumstances;

2) the merits of the case;

3) a cause not entirely attributable to the

faault or negligence of a party favored by
the suspension of the rules;

4) a lack of any showing that the review

sought is merely frivolous and dilatory and

5) the other party will not be unjustly

prejudiced thereby (Sarmiento vs. Zaratan,
GR No. 167471, Feb. 5, 2007)
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS

Rule 02

CAUSE OF ACTION

SECTION 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. - Every

ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of
action. (n)

Section 1 of Rule 1 is entitled cause of action.

Section 1 expresses the principle that every ordinary
civil action must be based on a cause of action. In
other words, there cannot be a case unless you
have a cause of action.

Under Rule 16, one of the grounds for a motion to

dismiss is that your pleading states no cause of
action.

Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of

action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another. (n)

Q: Define cause of action.

A: CAUSE OF ACTION is an act or omission by which

a party violates a right of another.

ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION

There are 3 main elements:

1) Existence of legal right in favor of the

plaintiff by whatever means and under
whatever law it arises or is created;
 2) a correlative obligation on the part of
the named defendant to respect and 249
not to violate such right; and

3) an act or omission on the part of such

defendant in violation of the right of the
plaintiff or constituting a breach of the
obligation of the defendant to the
plaintiff for which the latter may maintain
action for recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief.

Briefly stated, it is the reason why the litigation has

come about, it is the act or omission of defendant
resulting in the violation of someone’s right. (Phil.
National Construction v CA, 514 SCRA 569; Agrarian
Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas GR No.
168394, Oct. 6, 2008)

There is a fourth element added by some cases

and commentators

– the element of damage suffered by the plaintiff.

Even if there is violation, if there is no damage, then

what relief are you asking for? There can be no
action where no damage is sustained.

As a matter of fact, in a recent case, the SC

remarked that wrong or injury without damage or
damage without wrong does not
Cause of Action not an issue in administrative cases

While the existence of a cause of action is one that

is essential to the existence of a civil action, in
administrative cases however, the issue is not
whether the complainant has a cause of action
against the respondent, but whether the
respondent has breached the norms and standards
of the office. (Mutia v. Purisima, 494 SCRA 448)

Cause of Action in Specific Cases

In breach of contract cases, a cause of action

does not require an allegation of the negligence of
the defendant but merely the following elements:

(a) The existence of a contract, and

(b) The breach of the contract. (Calalas v. CA

SCRA 356; FGU Insurance Corp. v. GP
Sarmeinto Trucking Corp. 386 SCRA 312)

Thus, if a carrier is sued based on a breach of

contract of carriage, negligence need not be
proved by the plaintiff, negligence not being an
element of the cause of action of a suit predicated
on a breach of contract. This is true whether or not
the defendant is a public or a private carrier.
However, where the defendant is a common
carrier there is an additional reason for dispensing
with proof of negligence, i.e., negligence of the
common carrier is presumed. (Art. 1735 & Art. 1756
CC)
In quasi delict, negligence, as an element, must be
alleged and proved. (Art. 2176 CC) but the 251
negligence of those persons described under Art.
2180 of the Civil Code, although based on quasi
delict is presumed.

Under Art. 2180, following the well-recognized

doctrine of vicarious liability, certain persons like the
father, mother, guardian, owners and managers of
an establishment or enterprise, employee, the
State, and teachers or heads of establishments of
arts and trades are, under specified conditions,
liable for acts of persons for whom they are
responsible.

Thus, an employer for instance, is liable for the

damage caused by his employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
tasks. The employer’s negligence in the selection
and supervision of his employee is presumed and
his liability shall only cease if he successfully proves
his observance of the diligence required of a good
father of a family to prevent damage.

When an injury is caused to another by the

negligence of the employee there instantly arises
the juris tantum presumption of law that there was
negligence on the part of the employer either in
the selection or in the supervision, or both of the
employee. The liability of the employer is direct and
immediate and is not conditioned upon a prior
recourse against the negligent employee and a
prior showing of the insolvency of such employee.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the employer to
prove his exercise of diligence of a good father of
a family in the selection and supervision of the
employee (Manliclic vs. Calaunan GR No. 150157
January 25, 2007)

Where the cause of action rests on a promissory

note, filing the action before the due date of the
obligation would be premature because the
obligation is one with a period. Whenever a period
is designated in an obligation, the obligation
becomes demandable only when the period
arrives. Such period is presumed to be for the
benefit of both parties and of course, also of the
debtor. He cannot be charged before the due
date (Art. 1196, Civil Code) unless he loses the right
to make use of the period (Art. 1198, Civil Code).

In an unlawful detainer case, the cause of action

does not accrue unless there is a demand to
vacate and is not complied with. If, however, the
suit is based on expiration of the lease, notice and
demand are not required. (Labastida v. CA, 287
SCRA 662)

EXAMPLE of Cause of Action:

A borrows money from B promising to pay on a

date certain. Upon due date, A did not pay. Does B
have a cause of action? Let us examine whether
the elements are present.

 RIGHT – the right of the creditor to get back

his money;
  OBLIGATION – The defendant has the
obligation to pay back the loan under the 253
law on contracts;

 VIOLATION or delict or wrong – the

account fell due and the debtor is
supposed to pay the creditor, but the
former did not pay the latter;

 DAMAGE – the creditor cannot get back his

money.

So, the 4 elements are there. Of course, when you

file a complaint against somebody, you do not
prepare the complaint by enumerating the
elements. In other words, you just narrate the facts.
It is up for the defendant to analyze. It is the duty of
the lawyer to analyze the complaint whether the 4
elements are present.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Damages arising from culpa

aquiliana. You are crossing the street and you are
bumped by X who was driving a car causing you
injuries and being hospitalized. You also failed to
report for work.

 RIGHT – it is the right of every person not

to be molested. You have the right to
walk peacefully and not to be harmed;

 OBLIGATION – it is the obligation of every

person driving to be careful so that he
will not bump other people. You do not
have to enter into a contract with a
person saying you will not bump him;
  DELICT or wrong – because of your
recklessness, you violated his right by
injuring him;

 DAMAGE – I have to spend money in the

hospital and I lost my income.

The 4 elements are present. So there is a cause of

action. In other words, you cannot imagine a civil
case where the 4 elements are not present.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: D borrowed money from you

last year payable in January2010 but because you
are in dire need of money you demanded
payment. Suppose D does not pay can you file an
action to collect the amount from him? Do you
have a cause of action?

 RIGHT – the creditor has the right to

collect;

 OBLIGATION – every debtor has the

obligation to pay;

 DAMAGE – I have not recovered the

money;

 DELICT or wrong – there is NO delict yet.

Why? There is no delict yet because the account is

payable next year. So, it is still premature to file a
collection case now because one element is
missing. It is not based on a cause of action and is
dismissible under Rule 16.
Cause of action must be unmistakably stated

The mere existence of a cause of action is not

255
sufficient for a complaint to prosper. Even if in reality
the plaintiff has a cause of action against the
defendant, the complaint may be dismissed if the
complaint or the pleading asserting the claim
“states no cause of action”. (Sec. 1[g], Rule 16).

This means that the cause of action must

unmistakably be stated or alleged in the complaint
or that all the elements of the cause of action
required by substantive law must clearly appear
from the mere reading of the complaint. To avoid
an early dismissal of the complaint, the simple
dictum to be followed is: “If you have a cause of
action, then by all means, state it! State all of its
elements in your pleading!”

Where there is a defect or an insufficiency in the

statement of the cause of action, a complaint may
be dismissed not because of the absence or a lack
of a cause of action but because the complaint
“states no cause of action”. The dismissal will
therefore, be anchored on a “failure to state a
cause of action.”

The failure to state a cause of action does not

mean that the plaintiff has “no cause of action.” It
only means that the plaintiff’s allegations are
insufficient for the court to know that the rights of
the plaintiff were violated by the defendant. Thus,
even if indeed the plaintiff suffered injury, if the
same is not set forth in the complaint, the pleading
will state no cause of action even if factually or in
reality the plaintiff has a cause of action against the
defendant.

Action distinguished from Cause of Action

An action is the suit filed in court for the

enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong. (Sec. 3[a]. Rule 2,
Rules of Court. A cause of action is the basis of the
action filed. Under the Rules of Court “every
ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of
action.” (Sec. 1, R 2).

CAUSE OF ACTION vs. RIGHT OF ACTION

Another important subject in procedure is

distinguishing a cause of action from a right of
action.

Q: Define right of action.

A: Right of action is the right of the plaintiff to bring

an action and to prosecute that action to final
judgment. (Marquez vs. Varela, 92 Phil. 373)

It is the right of a person to commence and

prosecute an action to obtain the relief sought.

Q: What are the ELEMENTS of a right of action?

A: There are three elements:

1.) the plaintiff must have a good cause of action;

2.) must be instituted by the proper party; and,
3.) he/she must have performed all conditions
precedent to the filing of the action. 257
So, you cannot have a right of action unless you first
have a cause of action. That is why the SC said in
the case of

DE GUZMAN, JR. vs. CA – 192 SCRA 507

HELD: “The right of action springs from the cause of

action, but does not accrue until all the facts which
constitute the cause of action have occurred.
When there is an invasion of primary rights, then
and not until then does the adjective or remedial
law become operative, and under it arise rights of
action. There can be no right of action until there
has been a wrong – a violation of a legal right –
and it is then given by the adjective law.”

So, there can be no right of action until there has

been a wrong, a violation of a legal right. There
can be no right of action unless there is first a cause
of action.

And you must comply with the conditions

precedent. You cannot file a case unless you
comply with certain conditions and the best
illustration of this element is the case of

PHILAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. vs. SWEETLINES -

212 SCRA 194

FACTS: This involves shipped cargoes from Manila to

Davao but the goods were damaged while in
transit. Based on the damaged cargoes, the
consignee filed a case against the carrier. Actually,
in the bill of lading, there is a stipulation that if the
consignee wants to file a case arising from the
contract of carriage against the carrier, the
consignee must first send a notice of loss to the
carrier and then if the carrier will not honor it, that is
the time the consignee can file a case before the
court. Now, he went to court directly without filing a
notice of loss to the carrier.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a right of action.

HELD: There is NO right of action because the

consignee did not comply with the conditions
precedent.

“The right of action does not arise until the

performance of all conditions precedent to the
action. Performance or fulfillment of all conditions
precedent upon which a right of action depends
must be sufficiently alleged, considering that the
burden of proof to show that a party has a right of
action is upon the person initiating the suit.”

“More particularly, where the contract of shipment

contains a reasonable requirement of giving notice
of loss of or injury to the goods, the giving of such
notice is a condition precedent to the action for
loss or injury or the right to enforce the carrier’s
liability.”
BAR QUESTION: Distinguish a CAUSE OF ACTION from
a RIGHT OF ACTION. 259
A: The following are the distinctions:

1) Cause of action is the delict or wrong

committed by the defendant, whereas

Right of action refers to the right of the plaintiff to

institute the action;

2) Cause of action is created by substantive

law (e.g. rights under the Civil Code),
whereas

Right of action is regulated by procedural law;

“Right of action is a remedial right belonging to
some persons, while cause of action is a formal
statement of the operative facts that give rise to
such remedial right.” (De Guzman vs. CA, supra)

3) Right of action may be taken away by

the running of the statute of limitations,
by estoppel or other circumstances
which do not affect at all the cause of
action.

EXAMPLE: When a debtor borrows money and he

does not pay. His failure to pay is the cause of
action. After 10 years, the right to collect has
prescribed and you cannot recover anything.
Actually, what is barred is his right of action, not the
cause of action because the moment he does not
pay, there is already a wrong and you cannot
erase a wrong. The cause of action is not affected
by prescription. In fact, the Civil Code provides that
the obligation is converted into natural obligation,
which is based on equity rather than a right.

When we say that the action has prescribed we

should mean that what has prescribed is the right of
action not the cause of action.

Relief, Remedy and Subject Matter

Relief is the redress, protection, award or coercive

measure which the plaintiff prays the court to
render in his favor as consequence of the delict
committed by the defendant while remedy is the
procedure or appropriate legal form of relief of
action which may be availed of by the plaintiff as
the means to obtain the desired relief.

Subject matter is the thing, wrongful act, contract

or property which is directly involved in the action,
concerning which the wrong has been done and
with respect to which the controversy has arisen.

SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION

Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of action. - A

party may not institute more than one suit for a
single cause of action. (3a)

Section 3 is known as the rule against splitting the

cause of action.
Purpose:

To avoid the following:

261

1) Multiplicity of suits;

2) Conflicting decisions; and

3) Unnecessary vexation and harassment of

defendants.

This applies not only to complaints but also to

counterclaims and cross-claims.

Q: What is splitting a single cause of action?

A: Splitting a cause of action is the act of instituting

two or more suits for the same cause of action.

It is the practice of dividing one cause of action

into different parts and making each part a subject
of a different complaint. (Bachrach vs. Icariñgal, 68
Phil. 287)

In splitting a cause of action, the pleader divides a

single cause of action, claim or demand into two or
more parts, brings a suit for one of such parts with
the intent to reserve the rest for another separate
action. (Quadra v. CA 497 SCRA 221)

EXAMPLE: In a suit under a promissory note, you file

a case to collect the principal; another action to
collect the interest; another action to collect
attorney’s fees. So, there is only one note and you
sue me three times but there is only one cause of
action. Now, under the law, you have split your
cause of action. You should file only one case to
recover the principal and the interest as well as the
attorney’s fees.

EXAMPLE: Damage (injury) suit: X, while walking was

bumped by a vehicle. He filed one case against
the owner of the vehicle for reimbursement of
hospital expenses; one case to recover his
expenses for medicine; another one for doctor’s
fees; then another case for the lost income.

A single act may sometimes violate several rights of

a person. Nevertheless the plaintiff has only one
cause of action regardless of the number of rights
violated. If a car owner sustains injuries to his person
and damage to his car as a result of the negligent
driving of the defendant, two rights of the plaintiff
have been violated, namely, his personal right to
be safe in his person and his property right to have
his car intact and free from any damage. Under the
circumstances, the plaintiff can only file a single
action for the recovery of damages for both types
of injuries.

Filing an action to recover damages to his person

and later for damages to his car would be splitting
a single cause of action. This is because there is one
act of violation. If, however, a passenger in the
same car was also injured, the injuries to the
passenger gives rise to a cause of action separate
and distinct from those sustained by the car owner
because distinct rights belonging to different
persons have been violated. The injured passenger
may file a suit against the defendant separate from
the suit filed by the car owner. 263
A cause of action for the reconveyance of title
over property does not include a cause of action
for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. They are
distinct causes of action. What is involved in an
ejectment case is possession de facto or material
possession. In an action for reconveyance, the issue
is ownership. (Tecson v. Gutierez, 452 SCRA 781; de
la Cruz v. CA, 133 SCRA 520).

Application of the rule against splitting a single

cause of action

This rule applies not only to complaints but also to

counterclaims and cross-claims. (Mariscal v. CA,
311 SCRA 51)

Example: The act of a defendant in taking

possession of the plaintiff’s land by means of force
and intimidation constitutes a single act of
dispossession but gives rise to two reliefs to the
plaintiff:

a) recovery of possession, and

b) damages arising from the loss of

possession. Both of these reliefs result
from a single wrong hence, constitute
but a single cause of action. Each of
them cannot be the subject of two
separate actions. IT is procedurally
erroneous for the plaintiff to file an action
to recover possession and another action
 for damages. Both remedies must be
alleged and claimed in only one
complaint. To file a separate action for
each relief is to split a single cause of
action.

Now if the defendant denies plaintiff’s allegations

and avers that the action is just plain harassment
and claims for damages, attorney’s fees and
litigation" expenses, he cannot file 3 counterclaims.

The action for forcible entry should include not only

the plea for restoration of possession but also claims
for damages arising out of the forcible entry. The
claim for damages cannot be filed separately
(Progressive Development Corporation, Inc. vs. CA
301 SCRA 637).

The same principle applies to an action to recover

the possession of a land. The action must also
include the recovery of the fruits already taken from
the land and appropriated by the defendant. A suit
for recovery of the land and a separate suit to
recover the fruits will not be sustained. Also, when
one files a complaint for unlawful detainer on the
ground of non-payment of rentals, the complaint
must include the recovery of the rentals in arrears,
such recovery being an integral part of the cause
of action for unlawful detainer.

A tenant illegally ejected from the land is entitled to

two reliefs – one for reinstatement and another for
damages. Since both reliefs arose from the same
cause of action, they should be alleged in one
complaint (Gozon vs. Vda. De Barrameda 11 SCRA
376). 265
An action for the recovery of taxes should also
include the demand for surcharges resulting from
the delinquency in the payment of said taxes. The
non-payment of taxes gave rise to two reliefs: (a)
the recovery of the unpaid taxes; and (b) the
recovery of the surcharges resulting from non-
payment of the taxes. These two reliefs are results of
a single cause of action and which should be
pursued in a single complaint (City of Bacolod vs.
San Miguel Brewery, Inc. 29 SCRA 819).

A bank cannot file a civil action against the debtor

for the collection of the debt and then
subsequently file an action to foreclose the
mortgage. This would be splitting a single cause of
action (Danao vs. CA 154 SCRA 446; Industrial
Finance Corp. vs. Apostol 177 SCRA 521).

It has been held however, that an action to collect

the amount of the loan will not preclude a
subsequent action for the rescission of the
mortgage based on violation of the conditions of
the mortgage (Enriquez vs. Ramos 7 SCRA 26).

Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. -

If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the
same cause of action, the filing of one or a
judgment upon the merits in any one is available
as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (4a)
The remedy of the defendant is a motion to dismiss
or if such motion is not filed, to allege it in the
answer as an affirmative defense.

Q: What are the effects of splitting a cause of

action?

A: Under Section 4, the following are the effects:

1.) The filing of one is available as a ground for the

dismissal of the other. This assumes a situation
where there is already another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause. This
is one ground for dismissal of a case, LITIS
PENDENTIA. (Rule 16 – Motion to Dismiss, Section 1
[e])

2.) a judgment upon the merits in any one is

available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
This refers to a judgment that is final and executor.
That is what you call barred by prior judgment or
RES ADJUDICATA, which is also a ground for
dismissal under Rule 16, Section 1 [f].

EXAMPLE: A collection case was already decided a

long time ago dismissing it because the court found
that the promissory note was a forgery. Now, you
are reviving the same case – you are filing again.
Under Section 4, the judgment in the first case years
ago would be cited as a basis for the dismissal of
the second case.

Note: if the ground is pendency of another action,

the phraseology of the rule (Sec. 4 R 2) no longer
confines the dismissal to the second action. As to
which action should be dismissed would depend
upon judicial discretion and the prevailing 267
circumstances of the case.

SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION

Q: How do you determine the singleness of a cause

of action?

A: 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.
Meaning, a single delict may give rise to two or
more possible remedies but it does not mean to say
the injured party can avail of all those remedies
simultaneously or one after another. (Bachrach vs.
Icariñgal, supra; David vs. De la Cruz, L-11656, April
18, 1958)

EXAMPLE: Obligations and Contracts: A violation or

a breach of contract could give rise to a civil
action for specific performance or a civil action for
rescission of contract. However, it does not mean to
say that the injured party can file both or one after
the other. Otherwise, he will be splitting his cause of
action.

EXAMPLE: There is the Recto Law (on Sales) which

provides for 3 remedies of an unpaid seller of
personal properties: (1) rescind the contract of sale;
(2) exact fulfillment of obligation; and (3)
foreclosure of mortgage. But even the law on Sales
is very clear: the choice of one automatically bars
resort to the other because it will be against splitting
the cause of action.

EXAMPLE: Credit Transactions: A bank has two (2)

possible remedies against a debtor for non-
payment of a loan secured by a mortgaged say,
piece of land: (1) foreclose the mortgage on the
land; or (2) file an action to collect the loan. Here,
the bank cannot file a case against the debtor to
collect the loan and at the same time file an action
to foreclose the mortgage for it will be splitting the
cause of action. So it is either you enforce the
principal contract of loan, or, you enforce the
accessory contract of mortgage. This is what
happened in the case of

DANAO vs. CA – 154 SCRA 446

FACTS: The Danao spouses borrowed money from

the bank, mortgaged their property and then they
failed to pay. The bank filed a civil action to collect
the loan. After filing a civil action to collect the
loan, the bank instituted an action to foreclose the
mortgage.

HELD: “Anent real properties in particular, the Court

has laid down the rule that a mortgage creditor
may institute against the mortgage debtor either a
personal action for debt or a real action to
foreclose the mortgage. In other words, he may
pursue either of the two remedies, but not both.”

“Evidently, the prior recourse of the creditor bank in

filing a civil action against the Danao spouses and
subsequently resorting to the complaint of
foreclosure proceedings, are not only a
demonstration of the prohibited splitting up of a
269
cause of action but also of the resulting vexation
and oppression to the debtor.”

RULES IN DETERMINING THE SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE

OF ACTION

IN CONTRACTS WITH SEVERAL STIPULATIONS

RULE #1 (General Rule):

A contract embraces only one cause of action

because it may be violated only once, even if it
contains several stipulations. (Quioque vs. Bautista,
L-13159, Feb. 28, 1962)

EXAMPLE: P enters into a contract with N which

contains 3 stipulations: (#1) that next month, P will
deliver to N 100 sacks of rice; (#2) on the same
date, P will also deliver to N 100 sacks of corn; and
(#3) on the same date, P will also deliver to N 100
sacks of sugar. When the day arrived, nothing was
delivered. So three stipulations were violated.

Q: How many causes of action does N have

against P?

A: ONE. The contract is only one cause of action

even if it contains several stipulations. The cause of
action is not based on the number of paragraphs
violated but on the contract itself.
RULE #2 (Exception to the General Rule):

A contract which provides for several stipulations to

be performed at different times gives rise to as
many causes of action as there are violations.
(Larena vs. Villanueva, 53 Phil. 923)

EXAMPLE: A loan with a promissory note where the

principal amount is payable in installment. The first
installment is payable in 2008, the second
installment in this year, and the third installment is
payable in 2010 without any acceleration clause.
So, there is only one contract of loan but the
principal is payable in three installments at different
times.

For non- payment of the first installment, the

creditor has a cause of action and can file one
case.

Q: Next year, he did not pay the second

installment, can the creditor file another case?

A: YES, because this time it is the exception. Every

installment is one cause of action even if there is
only one note. Remember that they are to be
performed at different times.

RULE #3 (Exception to the exception):

All obligations which have matured at the time of

the suit must be integrated as one cause of action
in one complaint, and those not so included would
be barred. (Larena vs. Villanueva, 53 Phil. 923)
EXAMPLE: In 2008, the debtor did not pay but the
creditor did not file any case. Then this year, the 271
second installment was not also paid.

Q: Is the creditor correct if he files two separate

actions?

A: He is wrong. When all the installment are already

due and the creditor has not filed any case for the
collection of the first installment, this time, when he
files for collection of the unpaid second installment,
everything must be integrated. If you do not file a
claim for one, it is deemed barred.

So for example, if you will wait for the entire note to

mature, you cannot apply rule 2. You should only
file one action and you go back to the general rule.

Doctrine of Anticipatory Breach

RULE #4 (Exception to Rule #2)

An unqualified and positive refusal to perform a

contract, though the performance thereof is not yet
due, may, if the renunciation goes into the whole
contract, be treated as a complete breach which
will entitle the injured party to bring the action at
once. (Blossom & Co. vs. Manila Gas Corp., 55 Phil.
226)

EXAMPLE: Let us suppose that in the preceding

problems when the first installment fell due the
creditor demanded payment for the first installment
from the debtor but the latter refused to pay
claiming that there was no loan and the promissory
note is a forgery how many causes of action are
there?

Now, in that kind of statement, he is not only

repudiating the first installment. He is repudiating
the entire note. So under rule #4, the creditor can
file a case for the entire loan of because it has
been repudiated. If you only file only one for the first
installment which fell due, then another for the
others, it will be useless because he will still maintain
the same position.

So you do not wait anymore for the 2nd and 3rd

installments to fall due. You file only one case for
the entire breach. There is a total breach for a
continuing obligation and there is now only one
cause of action for the entire promissory note.
(Blossoms & Co. v. Manila Gas Corporation, 55 Phil.
226) The anticipatory breach committed by the
defendant entitles the plaintiff to only one cause of
action.

JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION

SEC. 5. 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 to the following
conditions:

xxxxx
Q: What do you mean by joinder of causes of
action? 273
A: Joinder of causes of action is the provision of the
Rules which allows a party to join in one pleading
two or more causes of actions against the opposing
party.

It is the assertion of as many causes of action as a

party may have against another in one pleading. It
is the process of uniting two or more demands or
rights in one action.

Example: D is the debtor of C for P350,000.00 due

on January 5, 2008. D likewise owes C P350,000.00
due on February 13, 2008. Both debts are
evidenced by distinct promissory notes. D did not
pay both debts despite demand.

How many causes of action are there? There are

two because there are two contracts and therefore
two violations. So C can file two separate actions
for collection without violating the prohibition
against splitting a single cause of action.

But can C file only one action by joining the two

causes of action? Yes under this Section 5.

C may file a single suit against D for the collection

of both debts, despite the claims being actually
separate causes of actions and having arisen out of
different transactions.

THE PRINCIPLE: You cannot file more than one case

when you have only one cause of action but the
law allows you to file one case for more than one
cause of action.

Q: Under Section 5, is the creditor obliged to file

one complaint for the 2 promissory notes?

A: NO, because joinder of causes of action is

permissive. He may or may not.

When the causes of action accrue in favor of the

same plaintiff and against the same defendant, i.e.,
there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, it is
not necessary to ask whether or not the causes of
action arose out of the same transaction or series of
transactions. This question is only relevant when
there are multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants.
In the hypothetical just discussed in the example, is
C obliged to join the causes of action against D?

No. He may file a single suit for each of the claims if

he desires because each debt is a separate cause
of action. Joinder of causes of action is not
compulsory. It is merely permissive.

ALTERNATIVE and CUMULATIVE Joinder of Causes of

Action

Q: How may causes of action be joined?

A: Causes of action may be joined either: (a)

alternatively or (b) cumulatively.

An ALTERNATIVE JOINDER exists when your cause of

action is either one or the other. You are not
seeking relief from both but from either one.
A CUMULATIVE JOINDER exists when you are seeking
relief for all your causes of action. 275
ALTERNATIVE joinder; Example:

A is the importer of the goods that were shipped on

board a carrier. Upon reaching Cebu City, they
were unloaded by the arrastre or stevedoring
operator. But when the goods were delivered to A
they were already in a damaged condition. A
complained to the arrastre which denied liability
claiming that the goods were damaged already
before unloading. Then when A went to the carrier,
it passed the blame to the arrastre.

A here has two (2) possible causes of action: (1) an

action against the stevedoring operator under the
contract of depositary under the law on Credit
Transaction; Or, (2) an action against the carrier
under the Law on Transportation. So there are 2
possible causes of action.

Q: Can A file a complaint incorporating the two

(arrastre and the carrier) both as defendants?

A: YES, that is allowed. This is alternative joinder

because A is not claiming from both of them, but
either one or the other.

Another Example: C is a passenger riding on a

public utility vehicle which collided with another
vehicle and she is not sure who is at fault. If the fault
lies with the other vehicle, and the driver of the bus
where C was riding is not at fault, then her cause of
action against the other vehicle is quasi-delict. But if
the fault lies with the driver of the bus where she
was riding, her cause of action is culpa contractual.
So she has 2 possible causes of action.

Q: Is it possible for C to file one complaint naming

both the drivers or both operators as defendants?

A: YES. Either of them is liable to her. That is

alternative joinder of causes of action.

CUMULATIVE JOINDER

Examples: Refer to prior illustrations

That is why the manner of joining the defendants

alternatively or otherwise should be correlated with
Rule 3, Section 13 and Rule 8, Section 2:

RULE 3, SEC. 13. Alternative defendants. - Where the

plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons
he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them
as defendants in the alternative, although a right to
relief against one may be inconsistent with a right of
relief against the other. (13a)

RULE 8, SEC. 2. Alternative causes of action or

defenses. - A party may set forth two or more
statements of a claim or defense alternatively or
hypothetically, either in one cause of action or
defense or in separate causes of action or
defenses. When two or more statements are made
in the alternative and one of them if made
independently would be sufficient, the pleading is 277
not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or
more of the alternative statements. (2)

Requisites for proper joinder of causes of action

Q: When is joinder of causes of action allowed?

A: Under Section 5, joinder of causes of action is

allowed under the following conditions:

a) The party joining the causes of action shall

comply with the rules on joinder of parties;

b) The joinder shall not include special civil

actions or actions governed by special
rules;

c) 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

d) Where the claims in all the causes of

action are principally for recovery of
money, the aggregate amount claimed
shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5a)
a.) The party joining the causes of action shall
comply with the rules on joinder of parties

The rule on joinder of parties is Rule 3, Section 6

which provides that two (2) or more persons can
join as plaintiffs in one complaint or can be joined
as defendants in one complaint, provided there is a
common question of fact or law involved in that
case. In other words, before there can be a proper
joinder of causes of action there must must be a
proper joinder of parties. Proper joinder of parties
requires that the right to relief should arise out of the
same transaction or series of transactions and that
there exists a common question of law or fact.

When the causes of action accrue in favor of the

same plaintiff and against the same defendant, i.e.,
there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, it is
not necessary to ask whether or not the causes of
actions arose of the same transaction or series of
transactions as stated beforehand. This question is
only relevant when there are multiple plaintiffs or
multiple defendants.

So in our hypothetical case where D borrowed from

C two separate amounts of P350,000.00 each
covered by two separate promissory notes, C can
opt to file one complaint joining together the two
causes of action arising from the violations of the
promissory notes.
EXAMPLE: Two or more passengers riding on the
same bus, met an accident. All of them were 279
injured. Every passenger who gets injured has a
cause of action separate and distinct from each
other because there are separate contracts of
carriage violated. So they decided to file a
damage suit.

Q: Can they be joined in one complaint?

A: YES because there is a common question of fact

or law. They are riding on the same bus, meeting
the same accident, against the same operator. So
there is a joinder of parties under Rule 3. And if the
joinder of parties under Rule 3 is proper, then their
causes of action can also be joined under Rule 2
because the condition is: “shall comply with the
rules on joinder of parties.”

Q: Suppose these passengers were riding on

different buses owned by the same operator. All of
them met an accident. Well of course the same
kind of case: damage suit, breach of contract
against the same operator. Now, can their causes
of action be joined?

A: NO. They cannot be joined because there is no

common question of fact or law. The defense of the
operator here is different from his defense there.
Meaning, passenger A has nothing to do with the
complaint of passenger B because there is no
common denominator between them. So if you
cannot join them under Rule 3, the joinder of
causes of action under Rule 2 is also improper.

Distinguish joinder of causes of actions from joinder

of parties.

Joinder of causes of action refers to the procedural

device whereby a party who asserts various claims
against the same or several parties, files all his
claims against them in a single complaint. The
joinder will not involve a joinder of parties when the
causes of action joined accrued in favor of the
same plaintiff against the same defendant, i.e.,
there is only one plaintiff against the same
defendant. This means that a joinder of causes of
action will not necessarily involve a joinder of
parties.

Joinder of parties is a procedural device that may

be employed when there are various causes of
actions that accrue in favor of one or more plaintiffs
against one or more defendants, i.e., there is a
plurality of parties. A joinder of parties requires that
before parties can be joined under a single
complaint the right to relief must arise out of the
same transaction or series of transactions and there
must be a common question of law or fact. A
joinder of parties may or may not be involved in a
joinder of causes of action.
b.) The joinder shall not include special civil actions
or actions governed by special rules 281

Assume that aside from the above claims of C

against D, C who happens to be the lessor of D
wants to eject D from the apartment occupied by
D as lessee. May the action be joined with the
claims for money?

No. An action for ejectment is a special action

which cannot be joined with ordinary action. The
joinder does not include special civil actions or
those governed by special rules. The reason is
confusion in the application of procedural rules
would certainly arise from the joinder of ordinary
and special civil actions in a single complaint.

Assume that C has the following causes of action

against D: (a) P1M based on a PN; (b) P1M based
on torts; and (c) foreclosure of real estate
mortgage. May the causes of action be joined?

Yes, except the foreclosure of real estate

mortgage, which is a special civil action.

UNION GLASS AND CONTAINER CORP vs. SEC - 126

SCRA 31

FACTS: (This is still a good ruling) A stockholder of a

corporation who is also the creditor of the
corporation decided to file one complaint against
the corporation asserting several causes of action,
among them is his right as a stockholder under the
Corporation Code and also his right as a creditor
under the Civil Code.

HELD: The joinder is improper. In the first place, one

is governed by a quasi-judicial body (SEC). So how
can the RTC try a case when the cause of action is
pertaining to the SEC and it is governed by the
special rules of the SEC? So you cannot join that.

c.) 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

PROBLEM: M encroached on two parcels of land

belonging to me both located IN Cebu City. In one
parcel of land, the assessed value is only P20,000. In
another parcel of land, the assessed value is P1
million. I would like to file a case of action
publiciana against him. The first accion publiciana is
triable by the MTC (P20,000). The other accion
publiciana is triable by the RTC.

Q: Can I join them?

A: YES, and it must be filed it in the RTC. The
jurisdiction of the RTC will prevail. Venue, of course, 283
is Cebu City.

Examples of “but pertain to different venues or

jurisdiction”

PROBLEM: M encroached on my land in Lapulapu

with an assessed value of P20,000. And then he
encroached in another land of mine in Cebu City
with an assessed value of P1 million. You will notice
that in the Lapulapu land, the jurisdiction is in the
MTC for the case accion publiciana and the venue
is Lapulapu because the property is situated there.
In the other case, the jurisdiction is in the RTC and
the venue is Cebu City.

Q: Can I file a case against M joining the 2 cases?

A: YES.

Q: Where is now the governing venue?

A: The venue of the RTC case prevails. Therefore,

the case must be filed in Cebu City.

PROBLEM: M encroached on my land in Lapulapu

with an assessed value of P1 million. And then he
encroached in another land of mine in Cebu City
with an assessed value of P1 million also. You will
notice that in the Lapulapu land, the jurisdiction is
RTC for the case accion publiciana. In the other
case, the jurisdiction is also in the RTC of Cebu City.
So both actions, RTC.
Q: In which RTC will you file the case joining the
causes of action?

A: Either Lapulapu or Cebu City because both are

RTCs.

PROBLEM: M encroached on my land in Lapulapu

with an assessed value of P20,000. And then he
encroached in another land of mine in Cebu City
with an assessed value of P20,000 also. In the
Lapulapu land, the jurisdiction is MTC for the case
accion publiciana. In the other case, the jurisdiction
is also in the MTC. So both actions, MTC.

Q: Can I join in one complaint the 2 actions?

A: NO, because the law says provided one of the

causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said
court and the venue lies therein. One of them
belongs to the RTC. In the example, both belong to
the MTC.

PROBLEM: M encroached on my land more than

one year ago and the land has an assessed value
of only P20,000. So if I will file an accion publiciana,
it has to be filed with the MTC. On the other hand, A
encroached my other parcel of land more than
one year ago and the assessed value of the land is
P1 million. So my cause of action there is also
accion publiciana but triable by the RTC. So I
decided to file a case naming both of them as
defendants.

Q: Can they be joined under Section 5?

A: NO. The law allows only if it is between the same
parties. This time the parties are not the same. Plus 285
the fact that you might violate paragraph [a] –
there is no common question of fact and law
between them.

PROBLEM: M encroached on my land in Cebu City

one month ago and then he encroached on
another land of mine (assessed value of P1 million)
also located in Cebu City two years ago. Therefore,
one case is forcible entry triable by the MTC and
the latter is accion publiciana triable by the RTC.

Q: Can I join them under paragraph [c] although

they belong to MTC and RTC?

A: NO, you cannot join them because of

paragraph [b] – a forcible entry is special civil
action which is also governed by the Summary
Procedure. You cannot join a special civil action. So
what is violated here is not paragraph [c] but
paragraph [b].

d.) where the claims in all the causes of action are

principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction

The last is only a repetition of the old rule: TOTALITY

RULE. There is nothing new here. So judiciary law,
totality rule, basta sums of money.
As can be gleaned from Sec. 6(a) and (c) of the
Truth in Lending Act, the violation of the said Act
gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. Rule 2,
Section 5 of the Rules of Court allows these actions
to be joined in one petition. (UCPB vs. Sps. Samuel
and Odette Beluso, GR No. 159912, Aug. 17, 2007).

Splitting a cause of action and joinder of causes of

action of action may, on motion of a party or on the
initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded
with separately. (n)

There is misjoinder when two (2) or more causes of

action were joined in one complaint when they
should no be joined.

EXAMPLE: A case joining an accion publiciana case

and a forcible entry case which is not proper
because a special civil action (forcible entry)
cannot be joined. In this case there is misjoinder of
causes of action.

Example: If an action for forcible entry is joined in

one complaint with the causes of actions based on
several promissory notes, the complaint should not
be dismissed based on the misjoinder of the forcible
entry case. Instead, the cause of action predicated
on forcible entry may be severed from the
complaint upon motion of a party or by the court
motu proprio and proceeded with separately in
another action.
Under Section 6, if there is misjoinder, you do not
dismiss the case. The remedy is to ask the court that 287
the misjoined case be severed and tried separately.
Now, the counterpart, which is still present is
misjoinder of parties under Rule 3, Section 11:

RULE 3, Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of

parties. - Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of
parties ground for dismissal of an action. Parties
may be dropped or added by order of the court on
motion of any party or on its own initiative at any
stage of the action and on such terms as are just. A
claim against a misjoined party may be severed
and proceeded with separately. (11a)

So misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of

action are not grounds for dismissal of an action.
Just remove the misjoined cause of action or the
misjoined party.
Splitting is prohibited because it causes multiplicity
of suits and double vexation on the part of the
defendant while joinder is encouraged because it
minimizes multiplicity of suits and inceonvenience
on the part of the parties.

SEC. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. - Misjoinder

of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of
an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on
motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be
severed and proceeded with separately.
Rule 03

PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

CLASSES OF PARTIES:

1) Real Parties in Interest

2) Representative Parties
3) Permissive Parties
4) Indispensable Parties
5) Necessary Parties

Sec. 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and

defendant. - Only natural or juridical persons, or
entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil
action. The term "plaintiff" may refer to the original
claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-
claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff. The
term "defendant" may refer to the original
defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim,
the cross-defendant, or other third (fourth, etc.)-
party defendant. (1a)

Notes:

There are two main categories of parties in a civil

action namely, the plaintiff and the defendant.

The plaintiff is the claiming party or more

appropriately, the original claiming party and is the
one who files the complaint. The term however,
does not exclusively apply to the original plaintiff. It
may also apply to a defendant who files a
counterclaim, a cross-claim or third party
complaint. Hence Section 1 defines “plaintiff” as
the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-
claimant or the third-party plaintiff, etc. 101
The defendant does not only refer to the original
defending party. If a counterclaim is filed against
the original plaintiff, the latter becomes a
defendant and the former, a plaintiff in the
counterclaim. Hence, in Sec. 1, the term
“defendant” refers also to a defendant in a
counterclaim, the cross-defendant or the third-
party defendant, etc.

Q: Who may be parties to a civil case?

A: Only the following may be parties to a civil

action:

1) He must be either:

a. natural or

b. juridical persons or

c. entities authorized by law.

2) he must have the legal capacity to sue;

and

3) he must be a real party-in-interest.

So, you cannot sue or be sued unless you are either

a person or an entity authorized by law.

A dead man cannot sue and he cannot be sued

because he has no more personality.
Situation: B sued “Rama Eatery.” So, it is “B vs. Rama
Eatery.” It is wrong. Rama Eatery is not a person nor
an entity authorized by law. The correct procedure
is you sue the owner because he is the real person.
But the defect is not really substantial. It is only a
formal defect that can easily be corrected.

Juridical person as parties

The juridical persons who may be parties are those

enumerated in Art. 44 of the Civil Code, namely:

1.) The State and its political subdivisions;

2.) Other corporations, institutions and entities for

public interest or purpose, created by law; and

3.) Corporations, partnerships, and associations for

private interest or purpose to which the law grants a
juridical personality, separate and distinct from that
of each shareholder, partner or member.

“ENTITIES AUTHORIZED BY LAW”

The best example is Section 15 of this rule.

Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as

defendant.- When two or more persons not
organized as an entity with juridical personality
enter into a transaction, they may be sued under
the name by which they are generally or
commonly known.
In the answer of such defendant the names and
addresses of the persons composing said entity 103
must all be revealed.

Thus, if A, B, C, D and E without incorporating

themselves or without registering as a partnership,
enter into transactions using the common name
“Ocean Quest Corporation”, they may be sued as
such. When the defendant “corporation” answers,
the names of A, B, C, D and E and their addresses
must be revealed. Note however, that the authority
to be a party under this section is confined only to
being a defendant and not as a plaintiff. This is
evident from the words, “they may be sued”.

Another example of an entity authorized by law

which may not be a natural or juridical person is a
labor union or organization under the Labor Code.
It is an entity authorized by law to file a case in
behalf of its members. Although it may not have
been incorporated under the Corporation Law but
registered under the Labor Code. A legitimate
labor organization may sue and be sued in its
registered name (Art. 242 [e], Labor Code of the
Philippines).

What are the others?

1) An estate of a deceased person may be

a party to an action. (Limjoco v. Intestate
Estate of Fragante, 8 Phil. 776; Nazareno
v. CA 343 SCRA 637)
2) The Roman Catholic Church may be a
party and as to its properties, the
archbishop or diocese to which they
belong may be a party. (Barlin v. Ramirez
7 Phil 47; Verzosa v. Fernandez 49 Phil.
627)

3) A dissolved corporation may prosecute

and defend suits by or against it
provided that the suits occur within 3
years after its dissolution, and the suits are
in connection with the settlement and
closure of its affairs. (Sec. 122,
Corporation Code)

4) Under Sec. 21 of the Corporation Code

of the Philippines, a corporation by
estoppel is precluded from denying its
existence and the members thereof can
be sued and be held liable as general
partners.

5) A contract of partnership having a

capital of three thousand pesos or more
but which fails to comply with the
registration requirements is nevertheless
liable as a partnership to third
persons(Art. 1772 in relation to Art. 1768
Civil Code).

6) A political party incorporated under Act

1459 (now BP 68, Corporation Code)
Remedy when a party impleaded is not authorized
to be a party- 105
As to plaintiff:

Where the plaintiff is not a natural or a juridical

person or an entity authorized by law, a motion to
dismiss may be filed on the ground that “the
plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue.” (Sec. 1[d] R
16)

When plaintiff is not the real party in interest:

Also, if the plaintiff has capacity to sue but he is not

the ‘real party in interest’, the ground for dismissal is
a ‘failure to state a cause of action (Aguila vs. CA
319 SCRA 246; Balagtas vs. CA 317 SCRA 69) not
lack of legal capacity to sue.’

As to defendant:

Where it is the defendant who is not any of the

above, the complaint may be dismissed on the
ground that the “pleading asserting the claim
states no cause of action” or “failure to state a
cause of action” (Sec. 1[g], R 16) because there
cannot be a cause of action against one who
cannot be a party to a civil action.
REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST

Sec 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is

the party who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law
or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party in interest.
(2a)

Q: Who is a real party in interest?

A: A real party in interest is the party who stands to

be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit
or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. (Section
2)

That definition is taken from the leading case of

SALONGA VS. WARNER BARNES & CO. (88 Phil. 125).
That is exactly how it is defined and that definition
has been repeated through the years.

To be a real party- in- interest, the interest must be

“real”, which is present substantial interest as
distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future,
contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.
(Rayo v. Metrobank, 539 SCRA 571; Fortich v.
Corona 289 SCRA 624; Figuracion v. Libi 539 SCRA
50. It is an interest that is material and direct, as
distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the
question. (Samaniego v. Aguila 334 SCRA 438;
Mayor Rhustom Dagadag v. Tongnawa 450 SCRA
437).
The determination of who the real party-in-interest is
requires going back to the elements of a cause of 107
action. Evidently the owner of the right violated
stands to be the real party-in-interest as plaintiff
and the person responsible for the violation is the
real party-in-interest as defendant.(Lee v. Romillo
161 SCRA 589). Thus, in a suit for violation of a
contract, the parties-in-interest would be those
covered by the operation of the doctrine of
relativity of contracts under Art. 1311 of the Civil
Code, namely, the parties, their assignees and heirs.
Likewise in a suit for annulment of a contract, the
real parties in interest would be those who are
principally or subsidiarily bound by the contract.
(Art. 1397 Civil Code)

“every action must be prosecuted or defended in

the name of the real party in interest”

So a complaint is dismissible if it is not made in the

name of the real party in interest.

In an action to recover ownership over or title to a

piece of land , you do not file a case against the
tenant. He is not the real party in interest. You must
file the case against the owner of the land.

Neither can your boyfriend file the case.

When you are riding in a common carrier which

collided and you were injured, do not file a case
against the driver for damages. Your contract is not
with the driver. Your contract is with the operator.
So you file a case of culpa contractual against the
owner or operator.

GENERAL RULE: In a breach of contract, the real

parties in interest are the parties to the contract. So
strangers, as a rule, have no business suing in a
contract because they are not real parties in
interest.

BALIWAG TRANSIT vs. CA - 169 SCRA 649 [1989 BAR]

FACTS: A student who was riding in one of the

Baliwag buses met an accident. So, an action was
filed where the parents and the injured boy were
the co-plaintiffs against Baliwag Transit. While the
case was going on, the boy entered into amicable
settlement with the bus company. Based on the
settlement, Baliwag moved to dismiss the case. The
parents objected, “We are objecting because we
are also plaintiffs. We didn’t know about the
settlement. We were the ones who spent money,
therefore it should not be dismissed simply because
our son is withdrawing the case.”

HELD: The parents are not the real party in interest.

They were not the passengers. The real parties in a
contract of carriage are the parties to the contract
itself. “In the absence of any contract of carriage
between the transportation company and the
parents of the injured party, the parents are not real
parties in interest in an action for breach of
contract.”
Of course, if the child is a minor the parents can file
as representatives but not as principal party. 109
EXCEPTION: When there is a stipulation in the
contract favorable to a third person (stipulation
pour autrui – Art. 1311, NCC)

Example: Third-Party Liability (TPL) in insurance. A

insured his car with B for TPL. A bumped C. C can
file a case against A and B to recover from the
insurance contract. In other words, while only A and
B are the parties to the insurance contract yet the
third party liability stipulation is intended to benefit a
third party who may be damaged by A while
driving his car.

Also parties who have not taken part in a contract

may show that they have a real interest affected
by its performance or annulment. In other words,
those who are not principally or subsidiarily
obligated in a contract, in which they had no
intervention, may show their detriment that could
result from it. Thus, Article 1313 of the Civil Code
provides that “creditors are protected in cases of
contracts intended to defraud them.” Further,
Article 1381 of the Civil Code provides that
contracts entered into in fraud of creditors may be
rescinded when the creditors cannot in any manner
collect the claims due them. Thus, a creditor who is
not a party to a contract can sue to rescind the
contract to redress the fraud committed upon him.

A mere agent, who is not an assignee of the

principal cannot bring suit under a deed of sale
entered into in behalf of his principal because it is
the principal, not the agent who is the real party in
interest (Uy vs. CA 314 SCRA 69). In case the action
is brought against the agent, the action must be
brought against an agent acting in his own name
and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal
without joining the principal, except when the
contract involves things belonging to the principal.
The real party-in-interest

is the party who would be benefited or injured by

the judgment or is the party entitled to the avails of
the suit. An attorney-in-fact is not a real party-in-
interest and that there is no law permitting an
action to be brought by and against an attorney-in-
fact (Carillo vs. CA 503 SCRA 66).

SALONGA vs. WARNER BARNES – 88 Phil. 125 [Bar

Problem]

FACTS: A decided to go abroad but she has

properties in the Philippines. So she executed a
special power of attorney in favor of K giving the
latter “full power to administer, to collect all my
money; to withdraw my money in the bank; with full
power to sue these people who owe me; with the
authority to hire a lawyer; and enter into a contract.
Practically, you are my alter ego.” And then A went
abroad.

K started to manage the property. One of the

tenants failed to pay rentals. So in accordance with
the authority, he hired a lawyer. In preparation of
the complaint, it was stated in the caption, “K,
plaintiff vs. L, defendant.”
111
ISSUE: Is the action properly filed?

HELD: NO. The real property in interest is the

principal, the owner of the property. K is only an
attorney-in-fact. An attorney-in-fact cannot use in
his own name because he is not the real party in
interest. K is given the authority to sue, to manage,
hire a lawyer but not as the plaintiff because the
real party in interest is A. The complaint should be
captioned as “A, plaintiff vs. L, defendant.”

Q: Suppose the caption will read: “K, as attorney-in-

fact of A, plaintiff vs. L, defendant” is the complaint
properly filed?

A: NO. This is even worse because K is admitting

that he is only an attorney-in-fact so it becomes
more obvious that he is not the real party in interest.
If K wants to include his name, it should read: “A,
plaintiff, represented by K, his attorney-in-fact vs. L,
defendant.”

Q: Does the law require A to come here to file the

case?

A: NO. Take note that the law does not require the
principal (A) to come back to file the case
because the plaintiff can invoke the jurisdiction of
the court by filing the complaint and paying the
docket fee.
Should a lawful possessor be disturbed in his
possession, it is the possessor, not necessarily the
owner of the property, who can bring the action to
recover the possession. The argument that the
complaint states no cause of action because the
suit was filed by a mere possessor and not by the
owner is not correct (Phil. Trust Company vs. CA 320
SCRA 719).

Suits for corporations:

When the corporate offices have been illegally

searched, the corporate officer is not the real party
in interest to question the search. The right to
contest the transgression belongs to the
corporation alone which has a personality of its
own separate and distinct from that of an officer or
a stockholder. The objection to an unlawful search
and seizure is purely personal and cannot be
availed of by third persons (Stonehill vs. Diokno 20
SCRA 383).

Derivative suit:

However, even if the cause of action belongs to the

corporation, if the board refuses to sue despite
demand by the stockholders to sue and protect or
vindicate corporate rights, a stockholder is allowed
by law to file a derivative suit in the corporate
name. In such a suit, the real party-in-interest is
actually the corporation and the stockholder filing
the action is a mere nominal party (Asset
Privatization Trust vs. CA 300 SCRA 579)
Partnerships:

Under Art. 1768 of the Civil Code a partnership has

113
a juridical personality separate and distinct from
that of each of the partners. Hence, if the contract
was entered into by the partnership in its name, it is
the partnership, not its officers or agents which
should be impleaded in any litigation involving
property registered in its name. A violation of this
rule will result in dismissal of the complaint for failure
to state a cause of action (Aguila vs. CA 319 SCRA
345).

Failure to include the name of a party in the

pleading

The mere failure to include the name of a party in

the title of the complaint is not fatal because the
Rules of Court requires the courts to pierce the form
and go into the substance and not be misled by a
false or wrong name in the pleadings. The
averments are controlling and not the title. Hence,
if the body indicates the defendant as a party to
the action, his omission in the title is not fatal
(Vlasons Enterprises vs. CA 310 SCRA 26).

Rule on ‘standing’ as distinguished from the

concept or ‘real party-in-interest’

Locus standi is defined as a right of appearance in

a court of justice on a given question. IN private
suits, standing is governed by the ‘real party-in-
interest’ rule found in Section 2 Rule 3 of the Rules of
Court which provides that ‘every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party-in-interest’(Baltazar vs. Ombudsman GR No.
136433 December 6, 2006)

However, the concept of ‘standing’ because of its

constitutional underpinnings is very different from
questions relating to whether or not a particular
party is a real party-in-interest. Although both are
directed towards ensuring that only certain parties
can maintain an action, the concept of standing
requires an analysis of broader policy concerns.
The question as to who the real party- in-interest is
involves only a question on whether a person would
be benefitted or injured by the judgment or whether
or not he is entitled to the avails of the suit
(Kilosbayan Inc. vs. Morato 246 SCRA 540).

REPRESENTATIVE PARTY

Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the

action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by
a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary
capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the
title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real
party in interest. A representative may be a trustee
of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these
Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the
benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be
sued without joining the principal except when the
contract involves things belonging to the principal.
(3a)
Section 3 is consistent with Section 2 because under
Section 2, you cannot sue and be sued if you are 115
not the real party in interest.

Section 3 allows one who is not a real party in

interest to sue and be sued in behalf of somebody
else but requires the beneficiary to be named in the
Complaint being the real party in interest.

Example: GUARDIAN. Suppose J, a minor was

injured, a case for damages can be filed in behalf
of the minor. A minor cannot sue and be sued but
she is the real party in interest. The law allows the
parents to come in and also be the plaintiff. The
parents are what we the representative party. The
law still requires for the minor to be included in the
case. The law states that “the beneficiary shall be
included in the title of the case and shall be
deemed to be the real party in interest.”

In Oposa vs. Factoran GR No. 101083, 1993, minors

represented by their parents were held as real
parties in interest to file an action to annul timber
license agreements issued by the state under the
following principles:

1. inter-generational responsibility;

2. inter-generational justice;

3. the right of the Filipinos to a balnced and

healthful ecology; and

4. minors repersent themselves and the

generation to come.
Example: TRUSTEE; EXECUTOR; ADMINISTRATOR.
Another example is a trustee of an express trust, or
executor or administrator of the estate of a
deceased person. When a person dies, what
survives after him is his estate which represents
everything that is left behind. This later on will be
given to his heirs. But for the meantime under the
law on succession, the executor or administrator will
take charge of his property.

Q: If the estate of the deceased has some

collectibles, who will file the case?

A: The administrator or executor as the

representative party. If you want to sue the estate,
you should sue the estate through the administrator
or executor.

CHING vs. CA– 181 SCRA 9

FACTS: A wanted to sue D, who owes her a sum of

money. The problem is, she cannot locate D’s
whereabouts. Also, A is not certain whether D is
dead or alive. So, to play it safe, what A did was to
file a case against the “defendant and/or the
estate of defendant.” A obtained a judgment
against the ‘defendant and/or the estate of
defendant.’

Later on when the judgment was enforced, it

turned out that D was already dead but he has
properties left behind. So, they started to take hold
of his properties. Now, the heirs of D challenged the
decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid judgment
against the ‘defendant/or the estate of the
117
defendant.”

HELD: The decision is void. “The decision of the

lower court insofar as the deceased is concerned, is
void for lack of jurisdiction over his person. He was
not, and he could not have been validly served
with summons. He had no more civil personality. His
juridical personality, that is fitness to be subject of
legal relations, was lost through death (Arts. 37 and
42 Civil Code).”

“The same conclusion would still inevitably be

reached notwithstanding joinder of B’s estate as
co-defendant. It is a well-settled rule that an estate
can sue or be sued through an executor or
administrator in his representative capacity.”

So, the Court cited Section 3. In order to bind the

estate, you should sue the executor or the
administrator of his estate. So, either way, the case
cannot prosper.

The last sentence of Section 3:

An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit

of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued
without joining the principal except when the
contract involves things belonging to the principal.

The agent cannot sue because the principal is the

real party in interest. But when an agent acts in his
own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed
principal, he may sue and be sued, EXCEPT when
the contract involves things belonging to the
principal. Under the exception, the principal has
really to be included. The agent cannot file a case
where the principal will lose his property without
being named as part to the case.

Sec 4. Spouses as parties. - Husband and wife shall

sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law.
(4a)

Normally, the husband and the wife should sue and

be sued together. Even if the wife borrowed money
alone and you want to sue the woman, still the
husband should be included. Why? In the property
relationship between the husband and wife, they
are governed by absolute community or conjugal
partnership. Whether you like it or not, the
implication of the wife is also the implication of the
husband because of the property relationship.

In the same manner, if the wife wants to collect,

even if the husband does not know anything about
it, the husband should still be named as party
plaintiff, on the ground again that the income that
she can get redounds to the benefit of the
conjugal partnership.

And there were decided cases in the past where

even if for example, a wife sues without the
husband, the defect is not fatal but merely formal.
The complaint should not be dismissed. All that is to
be done is to amend the complaint impleading the
husband. (Cuyugan vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 80)

Q: Give an exception to that general rule that

husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly.
A: The EXCEPTIONS are:

1) in case of Complete Separation of

119
Property (Article 145, Family Code), and

2) under Article 111, Family Code:

Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, alienate,

encumber or otherwise dispose of his or her
exclusive property without the consent of the other
spouse and appear alone in court to litigate with
regard to the same. (Family Code)

3) Another is when a spouse without just

cause abandons the other or fails to
comply with his or her obligations to the
family with respect to the marital,
parental or property relations.

Sec 5. Minor or incompetent persons. - A minor or a

person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be
sued, with the assistance of his father, mother,
guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem.
(5a)

Section 5 is related to Section 3. The minor or

incompetent person must be assisted by the
parents and considered as representative party.
Incompetent persons include insane people or
mentally retarded people. They are supposed to be
under the custody of other persons, the guardians.
If no guardian, the court has to appoint a guardian
called the guardian ad litem.
A person need not be judicially declared
incompetent it being sufficient that his
incompetency be alleged in the corresponding
pleading.

PERMISSIVE PARTY

Sec 6. Permissive joinder of parties. - All persons in

whom or against whom any right to relief in respect
to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, may, except as
otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs
or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where
any question of law or fact common to all such
plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the
action; but the court may make such orders as may
be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from
being embarrassed or put to expense in connection
with any proceedings in which he may have no
interest. (6)

Section 6 is known as permissive joinder of parties.

This is related to Section 5 [a] of Rule 2 on joinder of
causes of action.

Q: May two or more persons join in one complaint

as plaintiffs? Or can two or more persons be joined
together as defendants?

A: YES, under two conditions, to wit:

1.) 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 series of transactions; and
2.) There is a question of law or fact common to the
parties joined in the action. 121
An additional condition is that the such joinder is
not otherwise proscribed by the provision of the
rules on jurisdiction and venue.

Series of Transactions

This pertains to transactions connected with the

same subject matter of the suit.

PROBLEM: Suppose some passengers riding a

particular common carrier are injured because of
an accident. All of them want to sue the operator
of the carrier for damages arising out of the breach
of contract of carriage. Under the Law on
Transportation, it is possible for each passenger to
file his own case because their causes of action are
different from each other. But can they be joined
together in one complaint against the common
carrier?

A: YES because there is a common question of law

or fact in the causes of actions of the injured
passengers: the evidence is identical; the issues
whether the carrier is at fault are the came; the
witnesses for both parties will be the same; the
report will be the same; the defense of the operator
against one party will be the same defense as
against the other passenger. So, since there is a
common denominator on their causes of action,
they can be joined.
It would be different if the passengers were riding
on different buses belonging to the same
company, and all of them met an accident. What
happened to Passenger No. 1 does not concern
Passenger No. 2. The evidence will not be the same.
So, there is no common denominator – no common
question of fact. Therefore, they cannot be joined.

PROBLEM: Suppose a story appeared in the Inquirer

where 5 people were called as jueteng kings. They
were allegedly involved in jueteng. Now, the five of
them want to sue the Inquirer for damages arising
from libel. Is it possible for the five (5) people named
in the article to file only one complaint against the
editor and publisher of the Inquirer?

A: YES because it is of the same story. Their names

appeared in the same story. It is not a different
issue. So there is a common question of fact and
law in their cause of action.

PROBLEM: M, while driving a car, bumped another

vehicle, injuring the driver and causing injury to
other passengers. So, there are three offended
parties : the owner of the vehicle, the driver of the
vehicle , and the passenger. There are three(3)
causes of action. Can they join in one complaint
against Myra, the owner of the car which bumped
them?

A: YES because there is a common question of fact

and law. There is only one accident.
Q: But suppose the three of them will file 3 separate
cases against M, can it be done? 123
A: yes, because it is a permissive joinder of parties,
not mandatory.

Q: Why does the law encourage joinder of parties?

A: The following are the reasons:

1) to promote convenience in trial;

2) to prevent multiplicity of suits;

3) to expedite the termination of the litigation;

and

4) to attain economy of procedure under

which several demands arising out of the
same occurrence may be tried together thus
avoiding the repetition of evidence relating
to facts common to the general demands.

Now, take note that when there is joinder of parties,

there is automatically a joinder of causes of action.
That is why one of the conditions or limitations in
joinder of causes of action is you must observe the
rule on joinder of parties. If joinder of parties is
improper under Rule 3, the joinder of causes of
action is also proper under Rule 2, Section 5
Principle: WHEN THERE IS JOINDER OF PARTIES, THERE
IS ALSO A JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION. BUT
THERE CAN BE A JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
WITHOUT A JOINDER OF PARTIES.

EXAMPLE: When there is only one plaintiff and one

defendant: Suppose Melissa will secure three (3)
loans from me.

Q: How many causes of action do I have if M will

not pay me?

A: Three

Q: Now, can I join them in one complaint?

A: Yes.

Q: Is there joinder of causes of action?

A: Yes.

Q: Is there joinder of parties?

A: NONE, because there is only one plaintiff and

one defendant.

So, there can be joinder of causes of action without

joinder of parties because there is only one plaintiff
and one defendant. But if you join parties in Rule 3,
automatically, there is joinder of causes of action.
This is the relationship of these two provisions.

Finally, the last two types of parties to the action are

the so-called indispensable parties and necessary
parties. (Section 7 and Section 8, respectively)
INDISPENSABLE PARTY and NECESSARY PARTIES

Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.

125
Parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be
joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. (7)

Sec. 8. Necessary party. A necessary party is one

who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined
as a party 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. (8a)

Notes:

An indispensable party is a real party in interest

without whom no final determination can be had of
an action. (Sec. 7) Without the presence of this
party, the judgment cannot attain real finality.
(Servicewide Specialists, Inc.

v. CA 318 SCRA 493; De Castro v. CA 384 SCRA

607)

(See also Lucman vs. Malawi GR No. 159794

December 19, 2006)

A person is not an indispensable party, however, if

his interest in the controversy or subject matter is
separable from the interest of the other parties, so
that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously
affected by a decree which does complete justice
between them. Also, a person is not an
indispensable party if his presence would merely
permit complete relief between him and those
already parties to the action, or if he has no interest
in the subject matter of the action. It is not a
sufficient reason to declare a person to be an
indispensable party that his presence will avoid

multiple litigation. In a joint obligation for instance,

the interest of one debtor is separate and distinct
from that of his co-debtor and a suit against one
debtor does not make the other an indispensable
party to the suit.

Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties

Although normally, a joinder of parties is permissive

(Sec. 6 Rule 3), the joinder of a party becomes
compulsory when the one involved is an
indispensable party. Clearly, the rule directs a
compulsory joinder of indispensable parties (Sec. 7,
Rule 3).

The presence of all indispensable parties is a

condition sine qua non for the existence of judicial
power. It is precisely when an indispensable party is
not before the court that the action should be
dismissed. Thus, the plaintiff is mandated to implead
all the indispensable parties considering that the
absence of one such party renders all subsequent
actions of the court null and void for want of
authority to act, not only as to their absent parties
but even as to those present. One who is not a
party to a case is not bound by the decision of the
court; otherwise, he will be deprived of his right to
due process (Sepulveda, Sr. vs. Pelaez 450 SCRA 127
302).

Dismissal for failure to implead an indispensable

party

It has been ruled on various occasions that since

the joinder of indispensable parties is compulsory,
the action should be dismissed when indispensable
parties are not impleaded or are not before the
court. The absence of indispensable parties renders
all subsequent actions of the trial court null and void
for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent
parties but even as to those present (MWSS vs. CA
297 SCRA 287).

Need of an order to implead an indispensable party

It is noteworthy that the Court in its rulings did not

hold that the failure to join an indispensable party
results in the outright dismissal of the action. An
outright dismissal is not the immediate remedy
authorized by the Rules because under the Rules a
non- joinder (or misjoinder) of parties is not a
ground for dismissal of an action. Instead, parties
may be dropped or added by the court on motion
of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of
the action and on such terms as are just (Sec. 11
Rule 3).

It is when the order of the court to implead an

indispensable party goes unheeded may the case
be dismissed. The court is fully clothed with the
authority to dismiss a complaint due to the fault of
the plaintiff as when, among others, he does not
comply with any order of the court (Sec. 3 Rule 17;
Plasabas vs. CA GR No. 166519, March 31, 2009).
(See also Pamplona Plantation Co. vs. Tinghil 450
SCRA 421).

Effect of absence of indispensable party

In a relatively recent case, the Court held that

whenever it appears to the court in the course of a
proceeding that an indispensable party has not
been joined, it is the duty of the court to stop the
trial and to order the inclusion of such party. The
absence of an indispensable party renders all
subsequent actuations of the court null and void,
for want of authority to act not only as to the
absent parties, but even as to those present.
Accordingly, the responsibility of impleading all the
indispensable parties rests on the plaintiff. The
defendant does not have the right to compel the
plaintiff to prosecute the action against a party if
he does not wish to do so, but the plaintiff will have
to suffer the consequences of any error he might
commit in exercising his option (Uy vs. CA 494 SCRA
535).

Q: Distinguish indispensable from necessary party.

A: An INDISPENSABLE PARTY must be joined under

any and all conditions, his presence being a sine
qua non of the exercise of judicial power, for
without him, no final determination can be had of
the action. (Borlasa vs. Polistico, 47 Phil. 345) Stated 129
otherwise, an indispensable party must be joined
because the court cannot proceed without him.
Hence, his presence is mandatory.

A NECESSARY PARTY ought to be joined whenever

possible in order to adjudicate the whole
controversy and avoid multiplicity of suits, but if for
some reason or another he cannot be joined, the
court may proceed without him and the judgment
shall not prejudice his rights. (Ibid.) His presence is
not mandatory because his interest is separable
from that of the indispensable party. He has to be
joined whenever possible to afford complete relief
to those who are already parties.

Q: Give examples of indispensable party.

A: In an action for partition of land, all the co-

owners thereof are indispensable parties. (De Lara
vs. De Lara, 2 Phil. 294) In an action for annulment
of partition, all of the heirs must be made parties.
(Caram vs. CA, 101 Phil. 315) In an action for
recovery of ownership of land, the person who
claims to be the owner of the land is the
indispensable party defendant and not the one in
possession as tenant. (Sanidad vs. Cabotaje, 5 Phil.
204; Manza vs. Santiago, 96 Phil. 938)

Joint debtor

He is an indispensable party in a suit against him but

a necessary party in a suit against his co-debtor.
Solidary debtor

In a suit brought by a creditor against one solidary

debtor, the other solidary debtor is neither
indispensable nor a necessary party.

Q: Give examples of necessary party.

A: In an action for collection of debt instituted by

the creditor against the surety, the principal debtor
is merely a necessary party. (Vaño vs. Alo, 95 Phil.
495) In an action for recovery of debt instituted by
the creditor against the debtor, the guarantor or
surety is merely a necessary property. (Ibid.) In an
action for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage
instituted by the first mortgagee, the second
mortgagee is merely a necessary party. (Somes vs.
Gov’t of Phil., 62 Phil. 432)

REVIEW: What is the difference between a surety

and a guarantor? The liability of guarantor to the
creditor is only secondary. Meaning, the guarantor
is only liable to the creditor if the principal debtor
cannot pay like when the debtor is insolvent. On
the other hand, a surety is principally liable to the
creditor whether or not the debtor can pay.

PROBLEM: In credit transactions, there is a creditor,

debtor and surety. Debtor borrowed money from
the creditor, then another acted as the surety. Now,
suppose the debtor will not pay, the creditor files
now a case against the surety without the debtor.
The debtor was not included in the case.
Q: Can the case proceed even without the debtor
being sued? 131
A: YES, the case may proceed.

Now, the surety may be ordered to pay who can

sue the principal debtor for reimbursement.
Meaning, there is still a future case. Thus, there
could be no complete relief between those who
are parties. So, the debtor is a necessary party, and
not indispensable. But it is advisable to join the
debtor in one case, so that when the creditor
claims from the surety, the latter can automatically
claim from the debtor. Multiplicity of suits is then,
avoided.

A and B are the signatories in a PN which reads:

“We promise to pay to the order of C P1M on
February 27, 2009. On due date the debtors failed
to pay.

(a) May C sue A alone?

Yes. The cause of action against A is separate and

distinct from the cause of action against B. The
tenor of the note discloses merely a joint obligation.
In a joint obligation the credit or debt shall be
divided into as many equal shares as there are
creditors and debtors, the credits or debts being
considered distinct from each other. (Art. 1208 CC).
Being debtors in a joint obligation, the debtors then
are liable separately for P500,000.00 each.

(b) Is A in a suit against him by C a necessary

or an indispensable party? He is an
 indispensable party. Without him being
impleaded as defendant, C cannot
collect the P500,000.00 share of A.
Without A there cannot be a final
determination of the case against him.

(c) In the suit by C against A is B a necessary

or an indispensable party? B is not an
indispensable party. C can collect from
A P500,000.00 without impleading B. He is
only a necessary party. Without B being
made a party to the action, C cannot
have a complete relief, i.e., he cannot
collect his entire credit of P1M. If he
desires a complete recovery, B must be
impleaded.

(3) In the above example, assuming that the

debtors bound themselves to pay the P1M
solidarily, would B an indispensable or necessary
party to a suit by C against A? He would not be
a necessary party. Complete relief could be had
by C without joining B because the obligation is
solidary. A could be ordered to pay the entire
obligation of P1M. Neither is B an indispensable
party. There could be a complete and final
determination of the action for a sum of money
without B being joined.

Solidarity does not make a solidary debtor an

indispensable party in a suit filed by the creditor
against another solidary debtor. (Republic v.
Sandiganbayan 173 SCRA 72; Operators Inc. v.
American Biscuit Company 154 SCRA 738)
(4) B Bought a car from S on an installment basis. A
chattel mortgage was executed on the car in 133
favor of S to secure the obligation. Before the
payment was completed, B sold the car to D. It
was agreed between B and D that D would be
responsible for the monthly installments. D failed
to pay three installments.

May S sue D alone in the foreclosure or replevin

suit? He cannot. B must be made defendant. B is an
indispensable party in relation to

S. The foreclosure or replevin is premised on the

default of B, the debtor. S would have no right to
foreclose the mortgage or repossess the car
without establishing the default of B unless the
obligation of B to S was assigned to D with the
consent of S thereby novating the obligation.

PROBLEM: K borrowed money from D. A is the

guarantor. D filed a case against K. She did not
include the guarantor.

Q: Can the case proceed even without the

guarantor?

A: YES because the guarantor is merely a necessary

party. And if the debtor turns out to be insolvent,
the creditor will now file another case against the
guarantor.
REVIEW: What is the difference between joint
debtors and solidary debtors? In solidary, the
creditor can collect the whole obligation from any
of the debtors without prejudice to the right of the
latter for reimbursement of his share in the
obligation from his co- debtors. On the other hand,
in joint obligation, the creditor can only get from a
debtor the latter’s share in the whole obligation.
Meaning, the creditor cannot compel the debtor to
pay the share of his co-debtor. Kanya-kanya tayo.

PROBLEM: M and C are JOINT debtors of P100,000

(50-50 sharing). D is the creditor. Both did not pay D.

Q: If D files a case against M only, can the case

proceed without C?

A: YES but D can only collect from M up to P50,000

because of their joint obligation. C is only necessary
insofar as M’s share is concern. But M is
indispensable party insofar as his share is concern.

Q: But if D wants to collect the entire P100,000, what

should she do?

A: She should file a case against both M and C.

PROBLEM: M and C are SOLIDARY debtors of

P100,000 (50-50 sharing). D is the creditor. Both did
not pay D.
Q: If D files a case against M only, can the case
proceed without C? 135
A: YES and M is required to pay D the whole
amount of the debt because of solidary obligation.
Then M can proceed against C for reimbursement.
Be is merely necessary party.

Sec. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be

pleaded. Whenever in any pleading in which a
claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined,
the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and
shall state why he is omitted. Should the court find
the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may
order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if
jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.

The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion,

without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver
of the claim against such party.

The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not

prevent the court from proceeding in the action,
and the judgment rendered therein shall be without
prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. (8a,
9a)

Duty of Pleader When a Necessary Party is not

joined

While a necessary party is not indispensable to the

final determination of the action, said party ought
to be joined whenever possible. If a pleader has no
intent to implead a necessary party, the pleader is
under obligation to: (a) set forth the name of said
necessary party, if known, and (b) state the reason
why the necessary party is omitted. A reason
justifying the non- joinder of a necessary party is
when said party is outside the jurisdiction of the
court.

Effect of justified failure to implead a necessary

party

Assuming that a necessary party cannot be

impleaded, his non-inclusion does not prevent the
court from proceeding with the action. The
judgment rendered shall be without prejudice to
the rights of such necessary party.

When court may order joinder of a necessary party

and effect of failure to comply

However, if the court finds no valid reason for not

impleading a party, the court may order the
inclusion of the necessary party under Section 9.
And take note that under the new rules, the failure
to comply with the order of inclusion without
justifiable cause shall be deemed a waiver of the
claim against such (necessary) party.

Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. If the consent of any

party who should be joined as plaintiff cannot be
obtained, he may be made a defendant and the
reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint.
(10)
This is particularly true with INDISPENSABLE parties
because the case cannot proceed without 137
him/her.

EXAMPLE: There are 4 brothers and 1 sister. They

have to file a case against somebody to recover
property which they believe was owned by their
parents. Then, brother 4 say to sister 1, “Let us file a
case.” But sabi ni sister 1, “Pilitin mo muna ako.”
Then she says, “Ayoko nga, hindi mo ako pinilit eh!”
Meaning, all of them will suffer because ayaw ni
sister 1 mag-file ng kaso.

Q: Now, what is the remedy of the 4 brothers?

A: Under Section 10, include the one who refused

as one of the defendants. If there is unwilling
plaintiff, name him as defendant whether he likes it
or not.

MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES

Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.

Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is
ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be
dropped or added by order of the court on motion
of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of
the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim
against a misjoined party may be severed and
proceeded with separately. (11a)

This is similar to Section 6 of Rule 2 – misjoinder of

causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an
action. Misjoinder or non-joinder at parties is not a
ground for a motion to dismiss because at any
stage of the case, the court can order a misjoined
party to be removed or a party not joined to be
included.

Q: Do you know what ‘MISJOINDER of parties’

mean?

A: It means that two or more parties should not be

joined but they are improperly joined. A good
example is, if there is no common question of fact
or law. Meaning, you do not have any business to
be here but you are joined or misjoined. That is
what we call misjoinder of parties. It is also known as
“spurious class suit.”

Well, ‘NON-JOINDER’ is different. A party who should

be joined was not joined such as a necessary party.

Q: What happens if a party is misjoined or if there is

a non-joinder, should the case be dismissed?

A: No, that is not a ground for dismissal.

Q: So what is the remedy then?

A: The remedy is to order the removal of the party

who is misjoined, or to order the inclusion of the
party who should be joined. And that is not a
defect which should cause the dismissal of the case
because the court can always issue an order
ordering the removal of a misjoined party or the
inclusion of joinder of a party who should be
included.
Effect of failure to obey order of the court to add or
drop a party 139
Even if neither misjoinder nor non-joinder is a ground
of dismissal of the action, the failure to obey the
order of the court to drop or add a party is a
ground for the dismissal of the complaint under Sec.
3, R 17.

Q: Does it mean to say therefore, that the plaintiff

has the license to include anybody in an action?
Like for example, I have a case against somebody
in the class, the trouble is in the meantime, I cannot
identify who among you who did the wrong to me.
So I will file a case against all of you. Anyway later
on, I can dump you. Now, is this allowed?

A: NO. That is not a license. What the law

contemplates, according to the SC, the party was
joined in good faith believing that he was a
defendant but actually it turned out to be wrong.
So, you have no right to sue anybody just like that.
That is not an excuse for suing any party left and
right. In the case of

REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN – 173 SCRA 72 [1989]

HELD: Section 11 of Rule 3 “does not comprehend
whimsical and irrational dropping or adding of
parties in a complaint. What it really contemplates
is erroneous or mistaken non- joinder and misjoinder
of parties. No one is free to join anybody in a
complaint in court only to drop him
unceremoniously later at the pleasure of the
plaintiff. The rule presupposes that the original
inclusion had been made in the honest conviction
that it was proper and the subsequent dropping is
requested because it turned out that such inclusion
was a mistake. And this is the reason why the rule
ordains that the dropping is ‘on such terms as are
just’” (also Lim Tan Hu vs. Ramolete 66 SCRA 425).

Note: that objections to defects in parties should be

made at the earliest opportunity, i.e. the moment
such defet becomes apparent, by a Motion to
Strike the Names of the Parties impleaded.
Objections to misjoinder cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal.

CLASS SUIT

SEC. 12. 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 interests of all
concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all.
Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene
to protect his individual interest. (12a)

GENERAL RULE: if there are several real parties in

interest, they shall be included in the case whether
indispensable or necessary. Example: There are 30
of us. The general rule is that all parties in interest,
indispensable or necessary shall be included
because under Sec. 2 “every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party-in-interest.” 141
EXCEPTION: to the General Rule: Class Suit.

A class suit is an action where one or more may sue

for the benefit of all implying that the parties are so
numerous and it is impracticble to bring them all to
court.

The requisites for said class action must also be

complied with.

Meaning, some of you will sue to represent the rest.

That is also known as the “doctrine of virtual
representation.” The concept of a class suit was first
enunciated in the old case of

BORLAZA vs. POLISTICO – 47 Phil. 345

FACTS: This case has something to do with raffle. A
group of people decided to form an association
which they called “Turnuhang Polistico.” You
become a member of this association by
contributing a certain sum of money. And then
every Sunday after mass, half of the collection will
go to the treasurer of the association. The other half
will be raffled off. This has been going on for months
and years. The time came when the funds of the
association became very big. Some of the
members, in behalf of all the members, decided to
file a case against the officers to render an
accounting of all the amounts. The real parties in
interest would be the members.
ISSUE: Is the suit filed by some members in behalf of
some members proper?
HELD: YES, because if We will require all the
members to appear, it will be quite impossible.
Therefore, some members must be made to sue but
only in behalf of all the members who are not
around and it is impracticable to bring them all to
the court. A number of them may sue for the
benefit of all.
An action does not become a class suit merely
because it is designated as such in the pleadings.
Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends
upon the attendant facts. (Mathay v.
Consolidatred Bank & Trust Company, 58 SCRA 559;
Borlasa v. Polistico 47 Phil. 345)

Q: What are the CONDITIONS FOR A VALID CLASS

SUIT?

A: Under Section 12, the following are the

conditions of a valid class suit:

1) The subject matter of the controversy

is one of common or general interest
to many persons (such as the funds of
the association in the case of
POLISTICO); and

2) The parties are so numerous that it is

impracticable to bring them all
before the court;

3) The parties actually before the court

are sufficiently numerous and
representatives as to fully protect the
interests of all concerned; and
 4) The representatives sue or defend for
the benefit of all. Berses v. Villanueva 143
25 Phil. 473; Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. v.
Araneta 72 SCRA 347)

A class suit does not require a commonality of

interest in the questions involved in the suit. What is
required by the Rules is a common or general
interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The
‘subject matter’ of the action is meant the physical,
the things real or personal, the money, lands,
chattels, and the like, in relation to the suit which is
prosecuted and not the delict or wrong committed
by the defendant. It is not also a common question
of law that sustains a class suit but a common
interest in the subject matter of the controversy.
(Mathay v. Consolidated & Trust Bank 58 SCRA 559)

There is no class suit in an action filed by 400

residents initiated through a former mayor, to
recover damages sustained due to their exposure
to toxic wastes and fumes emitted by the cooking
gas plant of a corporation located in the town.
Each of the plaintiffs has a separate and distinct
injury not shared by other members of the class.
Each supposed plaintiff has to prove his own injury.
There is no common or general interest in the injuries
allegedly suffered by the members of the class.

There is no class suit in an action for damages filed

by the relatives of the fatalities in a plane crash.
There is no common or general interest in the injuries
or death of all passengers in the plane. Each has a
distinct and separate interest which must be proven
individually.

Example is a taxpayer’s suit – filed in behalf of all

the taxpayers in the Philippines. And there is no
specific number of persons that is provided by law.

Another example is a stckholder's derivative suit,

though both are subject to the other requisites of
the corresponding governing law especially on the
issue of locus standi. (Regalado, p. 97)

Now, we will go to some interesting cases on class

suit decided by the Supreme Court:

SULO NG BAYAN vs. ARANETA, INC – 72 SCRA 347

[1976]

FACTS: This concerns the big property of the

Araneta’s in Quezon City. It has been the subject
matter of litigation for the past years – 3 or 4
decades. It is a big track of land in Quezon City
occupied by so many people who want to acquire
it. They are questioning the title of the Araneta’sSo,
Sulo (torch) ng Bayan is the association of squatters.
Since the properties of the Araneta is very big, they
subdivided it. Then a case was filed by Sulo ng
Bayan Association against Araneta to annul the title
of the latter.

ISSUE #1: Whether or not the action was filed in the

name of the real in interest.

HELD: Sulo ng Bayan is not the real party in interest.

It violates Section 2 – “the action must be
prosecuted and defended in the name of the real
parties in interest.” The members occupying the
land are the plaintiffs. The association is not the
145
one occupying the lot. So, the first question is, who
should be the plaintiff? It should be the members.

ISSUE #2: Whether or not the action was properly

pleaded as a class suit

HELD: NO. This is the more important reason why

they cannot qualify as a class suit: In a class suit, the
subject matter is of common interest to all.

To illustrate:

You are Occupant No. 1, and occupies a particular

lot over which he/she has interest in but he/she
does not have interest over the other lots which
he/she does not occupy. If that is so, then the
subject matter is not of common interest. The
interest of one occupant is only on the lot he
occupies.

What should be done is for all of them to sue

together to cover the entire property, for each one
has a lot. So, in that case, Section 6 should be
applied – permissive joinder of parties because
there is a common question of fact. This is more of
permissive joinder of Parties rather than a class suit.
That’s why you can confuse Section 6 with Section
12. But the permissive joinder of parties requires that
all should be impleaded. Unlike in a class suit, the
subject matter is of interest to everybody and we
cannot all be joined because we are so numerous.

BULIG-BULIG KITA KAMAGANAK ASSOCIATION, ET

AL vs. SULPICIO LINES – May 19, 1989

RE: Doña Paz Tragedy

FACTS: There we so many relatives who filed a case

against Sulpicio Lines and there was an attempt to
file a class suit in behalf of everyone who were
drowned including those who were not identified.

HELD: That cannot be. The survivors have no interest

in the death of other passengers. The interest in this
case is individual. What would have been proper is
permissive joinder of parties because of common
question of tact or law, but not class suit.

OPOSA vs. FACTORAN – 224 SCRA 12 [1993]

FACTS: Oposa et al were all minors. Some were

small boys duly represented by their parents. They
filed a case against then DENR Secretary Factoran.
The prayer in the case is to order the DENR to
cancel all existing Timber License Agreements
(TLA’s), to cease and desist from proceeding,
accepting, processing, renewing all accruing new
TLA’s. So, in effect, it prays for a total log ban in the
country to preserve the remaining forest all over the
Philippines.

These young boys sue with their parents. They are

suing in their behalf, in behalf of the other citizens
who are of their age because they stand to suffer if
147
the environment will be deteriorated. They say that
they are entitled to the full benefit, use and
enjoyment of the natural resources of our country’s
rich tropical rainforests. They say, the case was filed
for themselves and others for the preservation of our
rainforest and we are so numerous that it is
impracticable to bring all plaintiffs to court. They say
that they represent their generations and
generations yet unborn.

HELD: The civil case is indeed a class suit. The case

however has a special and novel element. The
personality of the minors to sue for the succeeding
generations is based on the concept of inter-
generational responsibility insofar as a balanced
and healthful ecology is concerned. Every
generation has a responsibility to preserve the
ecology. The minors’ right to a healthful
environment constitute at the same time the
performance of the obligation to ensure the
protection of the rights or the generations to come.

Q: In case of doubt, should a class suit be allowed?

A: NO. When the issue is not so clear, a class suit

should not be allowed because class suit is an
exception to the general rule that all parties should
be included.

CADALIN vs. POEA ADMINISTRATOR – 238 SCRA 721

[1995]
HELD: While it is true that class suit is allowed, it
should be allowed with caution because the fact
that you represent others is only a fiction of law. For
all you know, those others may not want to be
represented. That is why the court is extra- cautious
in allowing class suits because they are the
exceptions to the condition sine qua non requiring
joinder of all indispensable parties.

In an improperly instituted class suit, there would be

no problem it the decision secured is favorable to
the plaintiffs. The problem arises where the decision
is adverse to them. In which case, the parties who
are impleaded through their self- appointed
representatives would surely plead denial of due
process.

Q: Distinguish a representative suit from a class suit.

A: In the case of

LIANA’S SUPERMARKET vs. NLRC – 257 SCRA 186

[May 31, 1996]

FACTS: A labor union filed a case against the

employer in behalf of hundreds of employees. Is this
a representative suit or a class suit?

HELD: “What makes the situation a proper case for a

class suit is the circumstance that there is only one
right or cause of action pertaining or belonging in
common to many persons, not separately or
severally to distinct individuals. The object of the
suit is to obtain relief for or against numerous
persons as a group or as an integral entity, and not
149
as separate, distinct individuals whose rights or
liabilities are separate from and independent of
those affecting the others.”

In a representative suit, there are different causes of

action pertaining different persons.

“In the present case, there are multiple rights or

causes of action pertaining separately to several,
distinct employees who are members of
respondent Union. Therefore, the applicable rule is
that provided in Rule 3 on Representative Parties.
Nonetheless, as provided for in the Labor Code, a
legitimate labor organization has the right to sue
and be sued in its registered name. This authorizes a
union to file a representative suit for the benefit of
its members in the interest of avoiding an otherwise
cumbersome procedure of joining all union
members in the complaint, even if they number by
the hundreds.” For convenience, the Labor Code
allows a union to file a representative suit.

It is important to note the following:

1) CLASS SUIT

2) REPRESENTATIVE SUIT

3) DERIVATIVE SUIT – only peculiar to the

corporation law where the minority files a
suit in behalf of the entire corporation
 because an intra-corporate remedy is
useless or because of the failure of the
board of directors, deliberate or
otherwise, to act in protection of the
corporation (Black’s 5th Ed. 399; Lim vs.
Lim-Yu 352 SCRA 216).

In a derivative, suit, the cause of action belongs to

the corporation and not to the stockholder who
initiates the suit. In a class suit, the cause of action
belongs to the members of the class.

Class suit and permissive joinder of parties

In a class suit there is one single cause of action

pertaining to numerous persons while in permissive
joinder there are multiple causes of action
separately belonging to several persons.

ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS

Sec. 13. Alternative defendants. Where the plaintiff

is uncertain against who of several persons he is
entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as
defendants in the alternative, although a right to
relief against one may be inconsistent with a right of
relief against the other. (13a)

Alternative defendants is also related to alternative

causes of ac- tion – even if your right against one is
inconsistent with your right to relief against the other
party, you may file a suit against the alternative
defendant. (c.f. Rule 2, Section 5 – Joinder of
Causes of Action)
You filed a case against the operators of two
vehicles. In effect, your cause of action is either 151
culpa aquiliana or culpa contractual. Is that not
inconsistent? The law says, “although a right to relief
against one may be inconsistent with a right against
the other.” In other words, even if the two causes of
action are inconsistent with each other, it is
allowed.

As a matter of fact, this is the best policy because

the plaintiff is a sure winner. The only question is,
who among the two will be held liable.

Although the law is silent, if there is such a thing as

“alternative defendants,” there is no reason why
the grounds for “alternative plaintiffs” should not be
allowed.

Q: May plaintiffs join in the alternative?

A: YES, plaintiffs may join in the alternative under

the same principle as alternative joinder of
defendants. When several persons are uncertain as
to who among them is entitled to relief from a
certain defendant, they may join as plaintiffs in the
alternative. This is also sanctioned by the rule on
permissive joinder of parties (Pajota vs. Jante, L-
6014, Feb. 8, 1955). Thus, the principal and his agent
may join as plaintiffs in the alternative against a
defendant. If the agency is proved, the relief is
awarded to the principal. If not, award is then
made to the agent.
Just as the rule allows a suit against defendants in
the alternative, the rule also allows alternative
causes of action and alternative defenses (Sec. 2
Rule 8; Sec.5[b] Rule 6; Sec. 20, Rule 14)

Assume that X, a pedestrian, was injured in the

collision of two vehicles. He suffered injuries but
does not know with certainty which vehicle caused
the mishap. What should X do if he wants to sue?

He should sue the vehicle drivers/owners in the

alternative.

P sent some goods to D pursuant to a contract. The

goods were delivered to E, the known agent of D. D
did not pay P. D contends that he has not received
the goods. P claims otherwise and insists that D had
received the goods. Should P sue D or should he
sue E? P should sue both but in the alternative.

Plaintiff may sue the shipping company and the

arrastre operator alternatively for the recovery of
damages to goods shipped through a maritime
vessel (Rizal Surety & Insurance Company vs. Manila
70 SCRA 187).

Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant.

Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is
unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner,
heir, devisee, or by such other designation as the
case may require; when his identity or true name is
discovered, the pleading must be amended
accordingly. (14)
Requisites:

1) there is a defendant;
153

2) his/her identity is unknown;

3) fictitious name may be used because of

ignorance of defendant's true name and
said ignorance is alleged in the complaint;

4) identifying description may be used; sued

as unknown owner, heir, deviseee or other
designation;

5) amendment to the pleading when true

name is discovered; and

6) defendant is the defendant being sued,

not a mere additional defendant.

Service of summons upon a defendant whose

identity is unknown may be made by publication in
a newspaper of general circulation in accordance
with Sec. 14 of Rule 14.

Q: Can you sue somebody who is unknown? A: YES,

under Section 14.

BAR PROBLEM: While L was walking on the street. He

was bumped by a car, say a Toyota Altis, 2001
model, color blue. Now, so far, he could not
determine who is the owner. If you are the lawyer of
L, how would you sue the defendant?

A: Under Section, I will sue the owner of that car as

an unknown defendant. I can place in my
complaint, “L’, plaintiff, vs. the registered owner of
Honda motor vehicle with plate number so and so.”
And later if you discover the true identity of the
owner, we can amend the complaint to place the
name of the defendant.

Section 14 is similar with Rule 110 in Criminal

Procedure – a case may be filed against an
unknown accused.

RULE 110, SEC. 7. Name of the accused. – The

complaint or information must state the name and
surname of the accused or any appellation or
nickname by which he has been or is known. If his
name cannot be ascertained, he must be
described under a fictitious name with a statement
that his true name is unknown.

If the true name of the accused is thereafter

disclosed by him or appears in some other manner
to the court, such true name shall be inserted in the
complaint or information and record. (7a)

ENTITY WITHOUT JURIDICAL PERSONALITY AS

DEFENDANT

Sec. 15. Entity without juridical personality as

defendant. When two or more persons not
organized as an entity with juridical personality
enter into a transaction, they may be sued under
the name by which they are generally or
commonly known. 155
In the answer of such defendant, the names and
addresses of the persons composing said entity
must all be revealed.

Requisites:

1) there are two or more persons not

organized as a juridical entity;

2) they enter into a transaction;

3) a wrong or delict is committed against a

third person in the course of such
transactions.

Rule 1, Section 1 provides that only natural of

juridical persons may be sued.

Entity without juridical personality as defendant.

Under the old law, this was known as suing two or
more persons involved in a business under a
common name. When two or more persons
transact in a business under a common name, they
may be sued under their common name.

Q: Who are really the defendants here?

A: The persons involved.

Now, it is worded in this manner: “When two or

more persons not organized as an entity with
juridical personality,” instead of a ‘common name.’
You cannot sue the entity because it has no
juridical personality. But you do not also know the
members of that entity, so the law allows you to file
a case against the entity.

Under the second paragraph of Section 15, when

the defendants file an answer, they must file under
their names as they are really the real parties in
interest. When the lawyer answers the complaint,
he is duty-bound to provide the names of all the
defendants.

Q: How do you summon this kind of defendant?

A: Rule 14, Section 8:

RULE 14, Sec. 8. Service upon entity without juridical

personality. When persons associated in an entity
without juridical personality are sued under the
name by which they are generally or commonly
known, service may be effected upon all the
defendants by serving upon any one of them, or
upon the person in charge of the office or place of
business maintained in such name. But such service
shall not bind individually any person whose
connection with the entity has, upon due notice,
been severed before the action was brought. (9a)

Correlate this with Rule 36, Section 6:

Sec. 6. Judgment against entity without juridical

personality. When judgment is rendered against two
or more persons sued as an entity without juridical
personality, the judgment shall set out their
individual or proper names, if known. (6a) 157

GENERAL RULE: actions must be filed against real

parties in interest.

EXCEPTIONS: (When may an action be filed without

naming all the parties in involved?)

1. Class suit (Section 12, Rule 3);

2. Entity without juridical personality

(Section 15, Rule 3);

3. Any co--owner may bring an action

for ejectment (Article 487, New Civil
Code)

Instances where substitution of parties is proper

EFFECT OF DEATH OF A PARTY

Sec. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever

a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is
not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his
counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days
after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the
name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with
this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be

substituted for the deceased, without requiring the
appointment of an executor or administrator and
the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the
minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal

representative or representatives to appear and be
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from
notice.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel

for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall
fail to appear within the specified period, the court
may order the opposing party, within a specified
time, to procure the appointment of an executor or
administrator for the estate of the deceased and
the latter shall immediately appear for and on
behalf of the deceased. The court charges in
procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the
opposing party, may be recovered as costs. (16,
17a)

First of all, there are cases when a party to a

pending action dies and the claim is not thereby
extinguished (this is what they called an action
which survives as we will explain later) and there
are certain actions where if a party dies, the claim is
automatically extinguished. Meaning, the death of
a party causes death of the action. But these are
very few. In majority of cases when the party dies,
the case or the cause of action continues.

Examples of actions which survive the death of a

party:
 Actions and obligations arising from delicts
survive (Aguas v. Llamas 5 SCRA 959) 159
 Actions based on the tortious conduct of
the defendant survive the death of the
latter. (Melgar v. Benviaje 179 SCRA 196)

 Actions to recover real and personal

property, actions to enforce a lien thereon,
and actions to recover damages for an
injury to person or property and suits based
on the alleged tortious acts of the
defendant survive. (Board of Liquidators v.
Kalaw 20 SCRA 987). An action for quieting
of title with damages is an action involving
real property. It survives and the claim is
not extinguished by the death of a party.
(Saligumba v. Calanog GRT+ 143365 Dec.
4, 2008)

 An action of ejectment survives the death

of a party. It continues until judgment
because the issue concerning the illegality
of the defendant’s possession is still alive,
and upon its resolution depends the
corollary issue of whether and how much
damages may be recovered. (Tanhueco
v. Aguilar 33 SCRA 236; Vda de Salazar v.
CA; Florendo jr. v.Coloma 129 SCERA 304)

 Actions for the recovery of money, arising

from a contract express or implied are not
extinguished by the death of the
defendant. (Sec. 20 R 3)
Duty of lawyer of the deceased

It is the duty of the lawyer of the deceased to inform

the court within 30 days after the death of the party
thereof. He must inform the court and give the
name and address of his legal representative/s
(e.g. administrator or executor of the estate)

In legal ethics, the lawyer- client relationship is

automatically terminated by the death of the client
because the lawyer-client relationship is personal.
Neither does he become the counsel of the heirs of
the deceased unless his services are engaged by
said heirs (Lawas vs. CA 146 SCRA 173). But
procedurally, he must tell the court and give the
name of the legal representative. The latter may re-
hire the lawyer but under a new contract.

The purpose there is for substitution so that the legal

representative will be ordered substituted. And
there is a new provision under the new rules. That is,
failure of the counsel to comply with his duty shall
be a ground for disciplinary action. That is not found
in the prior rule. So, the lawyer can be subjected to
disciplinary action.

Upon receipt of the notice of death, the court shall

determine whether or not the claim is extinguished
by such death. If the claim survives, the court shall
order the legal representative or representatives of
the deceased to appear and be substituted for the
deceased within 30 days from notice (Sec. 16 Rule
3). The substitution of the deceased would not be
ordered by the court in cases where the death of
the party would extinguish the action because
substitution is proper only when the action survives 161
(Aguas vs. Llamas 5 SCRA 959)

So the provision continues, “the heirs of the

deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the
deceased without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator. And the court may
appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

So, other than the legal representative, which refers

to the executor or administrator, the alternative will
be to substitute the heirs, such as the surviving
children, wife or spouse.

Although there was a case decided by the SC way

back in 1986 in the case of

LAWAS vs. CA – 146 SCRA 173

HELD: “The priority of substitution would be the

executor or administrator not the heirs. The heirs
would only be allowed to be substituted if there is:

1) An unreasonable delay in the

appointment of administrator or
executor, or

2) when the heirs resort to extrajudicial

partition

But outside of those two reason, the law always

gives priority to the administrator or executor.”
Under the rule, priority is given to the legal
representative of the deceased. That is, the
executor or the administrator of his estate. Many
courts do not enforce it strictly. Normally, patay na,
“O! Ito ang heirs o!” “OK! Substitute!” Actually, that
is wrong based on LAWAS case. The priority is given
to the administrator or executor. It is only when
there is unreasonable delay in the appointment, or
when the heirs resort to extrajudicial partition
because there is no more administrator or executor
in extrajudicial settlement.

Lawas ruling is no longer applicable

Under the second paragraph of Sec. 16 of Rule 3

states: “ … The heirs of the deceased may be
allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without
requiring the appointment of an executor or
administrator…”

The second paragraph of the rule is plain and

explicit. The heirs may be allowed to be substituted
for the deceased without requiring the
appointment of an administrator or executor.
However, if within the specified period a legal
representative fails to appear, the court may order
the opposing counsel, within a specified period, to
process the appointment of an administrator or
executor who shall immediately appear for the
estate of the deceased. The previous
pronouncement of the Court in Lawas v. CA xxxxx is
no longer true. Thus, the heirs do not need to first
secure the appointment of an administrator of the
estate of the deceased because the very moment
of death, they stepped into the shoes of the
deceased and acquired the rights as 163
devisee/legatee. Said heirs may designate one or
some of them as their representative before the trial
court. (San Juan v. Cruz GR No. 167321, July 31,
2006)

Purpose and Importance of substitution of the

deceased

The purpose behind the rule on substitution of

parties is the protection of the right of every party to
due process. It is to ensure that the deceased
would continue to be properly represented in the
suit through the duly appointed legal representative
of the estate. (Torres v. CA 278 SCRA 793; Vda de
Salazar v. CA 250 SCRA 305)

Non-compliance with the rules on substitution of a

deceased party renders the proceedings of the trial
court infirm because the court acquired no
jurisdiction over the person of the legal
representative of heirs of the deceased (Brioso v.
Rili-Mariano 396 SCRA 549) because no man should
be affected by a proceeding to which he is a
stranger. A party to be affected by a personal
judgment must have a day in court and an
opportunity to be heard. (Vda. De Haberer v. CA
104 SCRA 534; Fereira v. Vda de Gonzales 104 Phil.
143; Torres v. CA 278 SCRA 793)

Note this portion in the case of:

 VDA. DE SALAZAR vs. CA– 250 SCRA 303;
[November 23, 1995]

FACTS: This is an ejectment case. The defendant

died while the case is going on. What is the
procedure? There should be substitution. But there
was no substitution in the case for ten years, until it
was decided. The court was not informed of the
death of the defendant. Until finally, there was a
decision.

ISSUE: When there is failure to effectuate the

substitution of heirs before the rendition of
judgment, is the judgment jurisdictionally defective?

HELD: NO, “the judgment is valid where the heirs

themselves appeared before the trial court and
participated in the proceedings. Therein, they
presented evidence in defense of the deceased
defendant. It is undeniably evident that the heirs
themselves sought their day in court and exercised
their right to due process.”

In other words, when there was a defect the heirs

however cannot use that because they themselves
appeared and continued the case. So, in effect,
there was estoppel.

No requirement for service of summons

Service of summons is not required to effect a
substitution. Nothing in Sec. 16 of this Rule 165
mandates service of summons. Instead of service of
summons the court shall, under the authority of the
same provision, order the legal representative of
the deceased to appear and be substituted for the
said deceased within 30 days from notice.

By virtue of the same rule, it is significant to know

that it is not the amendment of the pleading, but the
order of substitution and its service that effects the
substitution of the deceased by his representative or
heir.

Note: If the action does not survive (like the purely

personal actions of support, annulment of marriage,
and legal separation), the court shall simply dismiss
the case. It follows then that substitution will not be
required.

EFFECT OF DEATH OF A PARTY ON MONEY CLAIMS

Now, one of the radical changes again introduced

by the new rules is the effect of the death of the
defendant in a money claim – action to collect a
sum of money.

Sec. 17. Death or separation of a party who is a

public officer. When a public officer is a party in an
action in his official capacity and during its
pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold
office, the action may be continued and
maintained by or against his successor if, within
thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or
such time as may be granted by the court, it is
satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that
there is a substantial need for continuing or
maintaining it and that the successor adopts or
continues or threatens to adopt or continue the
action of his predecessor. Before a substitution is
made, the party or officer to be affected, unless
expressly assenting thereto, shall be given
reasonable notice of the application therefor and
accorded an opportunity to be heard. (18a)

Requisites:

1) public officer is a party to an action in his

official capacity;

2) during the pendency of the action he

either dies, resigns, or other wise ceases
to hold office;

3) it is satisfactorily shown to the court by

any party, within 30 days after the
successor takes office, that there is a
substantial need for continuing or
maintaining the action;

4) that the successor adopts or continues or

threatens to adopt or continue the
action of his predecessor; and

5) the party or officer affected has been

given reasonable notice of the
 application therefor and accorded an
opportunity to be heard. 167
Q: What will happen to the case?

A: The following:

1) If the successor intends to continue with

the policy.

EXAMPLE: Mayor Pascua threatened to demolish

the building of Mr. Nuere as a hazard. If Mayor
Pascua dies, Vice-Mayor Angeles becomes the
mayor. If Vice-Mayor Angeles who is now the mayor
says that he will continue with the demolition, he will
be substituted and he is given 30 days to comment.

2) If the successor does not adopt the

policy, the case will be dismissed.

Sec. 18. Incompetency or incapacity. If a party

becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court,
upon motion with notice, may allow the action to
be continued by or against the incompetent or
incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian
or guardian ad litem. (19a)

EXAMPLE: F files a case against K. While the case is

pending, K becomes insane. The case will continue
but K has to be assisted by his guardian ad litem.

This is related to Rule 3, Section 3 on representative

party but in Section 3, K should be already insane
before the case is filed.
Sec. 19. Transfer of interest. In case of any transfer of
interest, the action may be continued by or against
the original party, unless the court upon motion
directs the person to whom the interest is transferred
to be substituted in the action or joined with the
original party. (20)

General Rule: The rule does not consider the

transferee an indispensable party. Hence, the
action may proceed without the need to imp lead
him.

Exception: When the substitution by or joinder of the

transferee is ordered by the court.

A transferee pendent lite:

1) stands in exactly the same position as its

predecessor-in- interest, th original
defendant; and

2) bound by the proceedings had in the

case before the property was transferred
to it, even if not formally included as
defendant. (Herrera, vol. 1 p. 405)

The case will be dismissed if the interest of plaintiff is

transferred to defendant unless there are several
plaintiffs, in which case, the remaining plaintiffs can
proceed with their own cause of action.

EXAMPLE: R files a case against L to recover a piece

of land. While the case is pending, L sold the land to
E. E now assumes the risk and takes the property
subject to the outcome of the case.
Q: Can the case continue against L?

A: YES.
169

1) If L loses and cannot pay, E is subsidiarily

liable;

2) L can be removed and E will be

substituted; or

3) L can stay and E will be added.

In all 3 cases, E will be bound by the judgment.

Sec. 20. Action on contractual money claims. When

the action is for recovery of money arising from
contract, express or implied, and the defendant
dies before entry of final judgment in the court in
which the action was pending at the time of such
death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be
allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein
shall be enforced in the manner especially
provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims
against the estate of a deceased person. (21a)

Requisites:

1) the action must primarily be for recovery

of money, debt, or interest therein;

2) the claim, subject of the action, arose

from contract, express of implied; and
 3) defendant dies before the entry of final
judgment of the court in which the
action was pending.

Under this section, the death of the defendant will

not result in the dismissal of the action. The
deceased shall be substituted by his legal
representatives in the manner provided for in Sec.
16 of this Rule 3 and the action continues until the
entry of final judgment.

However, execution shall not issue in favor of the

winning party. The final judgment should be filed as
a claim against the estate of the decedent without
need of proving the claim.

The best example here is an action to collect an

unpaid loan. And while the case is pending the
defendant died. What will happen to the case? The
law says: If the defendant dies before the entry of
the final judgment in the court at the time of death,
it shall not be dismissed but it shall instead be
allowed to continue until entry of final judgment.

Under the OLD RULES, the case shall be dismissed.

So, the civil case is not suspended but it will be
dismissed and the creditor can file a case against
the estate of the deceased under the Rules on
Special Proceedings. But definitely the civil case
dies when the defendant dies.

Now, under the NEW RULE, the case will not be

dismissed but rather, the case will now continue
until entry of final judgment. Meaning, until it
becomes final and executory. 171
Q: But of course, if the judgment is favorable to you
(the plaintiff), can you move to execute? Can you
move to execute the decision against the property
of the defendant?

A: NO, because the law provides, “xxx a favorable

judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be
enforced in the manner specially provided in these
Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a
deceased person.”

Q: And what is that procedure?

A: YOU FILE A CLAIM against the estate under

Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court, but there
will be no execution.

[Note: SEE OUTLINE AT THE LAST PART OF THIS RULE.]

Q: We are talking of death of a party in a pending

civil action. While there is a case and a party dies,
what will happen to the case?

A: I will distinguish Is that an ACTION WHICH DOES

NOT SURVIVE or an ACTION WHICH SURVIVES?

ACTION WHICH DOES NOT SURVIVE

An action which does not survive is an action which

is abated upon the death of a party. The case
cannot go on once a party dies. And normally, that
refers to actions which are purely personal in
character like an action for annulment of
marriages, an action for declaration of the nullity of
marriage or, an action for legal separation, or an
action for support. These are the cases arising from
the Family Code.

Example: The husband files a case against the wife

for annulment of marriage or legal separation. One
of them dies. When one of the parties dies, the
marriage is dissolved. There is nothing to annul
because the marriage is already dissolved. So,
these are the actions which are purely personal .

Q: So, what is the effect of the death of the party in

actions which does not survived?

A: The case is dismissed!

1) ACTIONS WHICH SURVIVE –

2a.) CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIMS:

2a1.) If it is the plaintiff who dies, the case will

continue. The heirs or legal representatives will
proceed. So, there is substitution.

2a2.) If it is the defendant who dies, the question is

when did he die? Before entry of final judgment or
after entry? This is where Section 20 will come in.

2a2a.) If the defendant died before entry of final

judgment, you apply Section 20 of Rule 3. Meaning,
the case shall not be dismissed but shall be allowed
to continue until entry of final judgment. And the
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff
therein shall be enforced in the manner especially
provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims 173
against the estate of a deceased person, and that
is Section 5 of Rule 86.

2a2b.) If the defendant died after the entry of the

final judgment but before execution (after the
judgment became final but before there could be
levy or execution) you cannot move to execute.
Again, you apply Section 5 of Rule 86 which is the
governing rule – you file your judgment as a claim
against the estate of the deceased defendant.
[Section 5, Rule 86] The purpose there is, so that the
creditor will share with the other creditors pro-rata in
the distribution of the estate.

2a2c) If the defendant died after levy or execution

but before the auction sale, we will now apply
Section 7[c] of Rule 39:

Rule 39, Sec. 7. Execution in case of death of party.

In case of the death of party, execution may issue
or be enforced in the following manner:

xxxxxx

(c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor,

after execution is actually levied upon any of his
property, the same may be sold for the satisfaction
of the judgment obligation, and the officer making
the sale shall account to the corresponding
executor or administrator for any surplus in his
hands. (7a)
Meaning, if death occurs after the levy, auction
sale proceeds as scheduled. And if there is an
excess, the excess shall be delivered to the
administrator or executor.

2b.) NON-CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIMS:

EXAMPLE: an action for recovery of property, real or

personal like replevin, forcible entry, unlawful
detainer, action publiciana, action reinvidicatoria,
or action for damages, (damages that is not the
same for transaction of money because damages
arising from culpa aquiliana is one not arising from
contract.)

If a party dies in an action which survives which is a

non- contractual money claim, obviously, there is
substitution of parties. So, what are these non-
contractual money claims which survive? These are
those mentioned in Section 7 of Rule 86 and Section
1 of Rule 87. That is in the study of Special
Proceedings on settlement of the estate of a
deceased person.

Note: What Section 20 says is that: before the case

can be decided and the defendant dies (in actions
involving money claims) the case shall not be
dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue
until entry of final judgment. BUT CONTINUE AGAINST
WHOM? Against the deceased? Now, to my mind,
you correlate this with Section 16

--- there should still be substitution.

But assuming, there was no substitution and the
heirs fought in the case; there is waiver because the 175
defect is procedural. Just like what happened in
the case of VDA. DE SALAZAR vs CA 250 SCRA 305).
Actually, what Section 20 emphasized is that, the
action shall not be dismissed but shall continue – to
emphasize that it is now different compared with
the prior RULE. But obviously, there will always be a
substitution

Sec. 21. Indigent party. A party may be authorized

to litigate his action, claim or defense as an
indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application
and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who
has no money or property sufficient and available
for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
and his family.

Such authority shall include an exemption from

payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of
transcripts of stenographic notes which the court
may order to be furnished him. The amount of the
docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was
exempted from paying shall be a lien on any
judgment rendered in the case favorable to the
indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.

Any adverse party may contest the grant of such

authority at any time before judgment is rendered
by the trial court. If the court should determine after
hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in
fact a person with sufficient income or property, the
proper docket and other lawful fees shall be
assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If
payment is not made within the time fixed by the
court, execution shall issue for the payment thereof,
without prejudice to such other sanctions as the
court may impose. (22a)

In criminal cases, the court assigns a counsel de

officio. Under the Constitution on Bill of Rights, no
person shall be denied access to courts by reason
of poverty.

In civil cases, a plaintiff need not pay docket fee if

he is an indigent if he files an application (ex-parte
application) to allow him to litigate as an indigent
litigant. But if the indigent wins, he has to pay the
fees – file now, pay later) – the amount shall be a
lien on any favorable judgment.

The third paragraph is new. The other party may

contest the claim of the indigent if he is really an
indigent or not.

Sec. 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. In any

action involving the validity of any treaty, law,
ordinance, executive order, presidential decree,
rules or regulations, the court, in its discretion, may
require the appearance of the Solicitor General
who may be heard in person or through a
representative duly designated by him. (23a)

The rule is that only the Solicitor General can bring

and defend actions on behalf of the Republic of
the Philippines and that actions filed in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines or its agencies and
instrumentalities, if not initiated by the Solicitor 177
General will be summarily dismissed. The authority
of the Solicitor General is embodied in Sec. 35(1)
Chapter 12, Title III and Book IV of the Administrative
Code of 1987 (Cooperative Development Authority
vs. Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Cooperative 382 SCRA 552).

EXAMPLE: M files a case against K for declaration of

nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity. K
alleges that Article 38 of the Family Code is
unconstitutional. So the court will rule on the validity
of the law in which case, the Solicitor General has
to be involved in the case to defend the validity of
the law.

REASON: The Solicitor General is the legal counsel of

the Republic of the Philippines whose duty is to
defend all the official acts of the Government.
 Rule 4

VENUE OF ACTIONS

Q: Define venue. How venue is determined

As said before, in order to know the venue of a

particular action,

the court may do so without need of waiting for the

filing of a motion to dismiss. (Sec. 4, Rules on
Summary Procedure)
A: VENUE is the place, or the geographical area
where an action is 179
to be filed and tried. In civil cases, it relates only to
the place of the suit and not to the jurisdiction of
the court. (Manila Railroad Company vs. Attoryney
General, 20 Phil. 523)

Venue not a matter of substantive law

Venue is procedural and not substantive. In civil

cases, venue is not a matter of jurisdiction. (Heirs of
Pedro Lopez vs. de Castro, 324 SCRA 591 [2000]).
Venue becomes jurisdictional only in a criminal
case. In the latter case, where the information is
filed in a place where the offense was not
committed, the information may be quashed for
lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. (Sec.
3, R

117) This is not so in a civil case where improper

venue is not equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Because it is merely procedural, the parties can
waive the venue of a case.

Means of waiving venue:

1. failure to object via motion to dismiss;

2. affirmative relief sought in the court

where the case is filed even if venue is
improper;

3. affirmative defense in an answer;

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 4. voluntary submission to the court where
the case is filed;

5. laches

Dismissal based on improper venue

1) The trial court cannot motu proprio

dismiss a case on the ground of improper
venue. The court may motu proprio
dismiss an action in case of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis
pendencia, res judicata and prescription,
but not for improper venue. (Rudolf Lietz
Holdings, Inc. v. Register of Deeds of
Paranaque City, 344 SCRA 68; Universal
Robina Corp. v. Lim GR 154338, Oct. 5,
2007)

2) Unless and until the defendant objects to

the venue in a motion to dismiss, the
venue cannot be truly said to be
improperly laid, because the venue
although technically wrong may be
acceptable to the parties for whose
convenience the rules on venue have
been devised. The trial court cannot
preempt the defendant’s prerogative to
object to the improper laying of the
venue by motu proprio dismissing the
case. (Dacuycoy v. IAC 195 SCRA 641)

When court may motu proprio dismiss based on

improper venue
The court may dismiss on improper venue, at its
instance, in an action covered by the rules on 181
summary procedure. Under these rules, the court
may motu proprio dismiss a case from an
examination of the allegations of the complaint
and such evidence as may be attached thereto on
any of the grounds apparent therefrom. The
dismissal may be made outright, which means that
the initial step is to determine if the action is
personal or real. If it is personal, the venue is
transitory hence, the venue is the residence of the
plaintiff or the defendant at the option of the
plaintiff. If the defendant is a non-resident, the
venue is the residence of the plaintiff or where the
non-resident defendant may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff.(Sec. 3)

If the action is real, the venue is local hence, the

venue is the place where the real property
involved, or any portion thereof, is situated. (Sec. 1).
However, when the defendant is a non-resident
and is not found in the Philippines, and the action
affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any
property of the defendant located in the
Philippines, the venue is the residence of the
plaintiff or where the property or any portion
thereof is situated. (Sec. 3)

VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS

Section 1. Venue of real actions. Actions affecting

title to or possession of real property, or interest

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
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
the municipality or city wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (1[a],
2[a]a)

Q: Why does the law say “tried in the proper

court?”

A: It is because proper court will now be the MTC or

the RTC, depending on the assessed value of the
property.

The venue is the placed where the real property or

any portion thereof is located.

If a property is located at the boundaries of two

places: file the case in either place at the option of
the plaintiff.

When the case involves two properties located in

two different places:

1) if the properties are the object of the

same transaction, file it in any of the two
places; and

2) if they are the subjects of two distinct

transactions, separate actions whould be
 filed in each place unless properly
joined. 183
VENUE OF PERSONAL ACTIONS

Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions. All other actions

may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or
any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the
defendant or any of the principal defendants
resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant
where he may be found, at the election of the
plaintiff. (2[b]a)

Venue of personal actions:

1) Where the plaintiff or any of the principa

plaintiffs resides;

2) where the defendant or any of the

principal defendants resides; or

3) in case of a non-resident defendant but

found in the Philippines, in the place
where he may be found.

Note: All at the election of the plaintiff.

Situation: suppose, there are four (4) plaintiffs and 4

defendants and the 4 plaintiffs reside in 4 different
cities or municipalities. So there are 8 choices for
venue because the law says, “where the plaintiff or
any of the principal plaintiffs or where the
defendant or any of the principal defendants
reside…”

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
NOTE: PRINCIPAL PLAINTIFF, PRINCIPAL DEFENDANT.
Because there is such a thing as nominal defendant
and nominal plaintiff..

EXAMPLE of a nominal party: When a party wants to

file a case to annul an execution sale or to annul a
levy, normally it impleads the sheriff as party. But the
sheriff is not the principal party but is only a
NOMINAL PARTY. So, the residence of the sheriff is
not considered the sheriff being a nominal party
only.

This is the original concept of forum shopping which

is legitimate but had later been abused. That is why
there is a SC case where Justice Panganiban cited
the history of forum shopping entitled FIRST
PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK vs. CA (252 SCRA
259), January 24, 1996)

How to distinguish real from personal action

There are instances when it is easy to distinguish

whether the action is real or personal and there are
also instances when it is difficult.

EXAMPLE: An action for annulment of a contract of

sale or rescission of contract of sale of real property.
Generally, an action for annulment or rescission is a
personal action. But suppose, I will file a complaint
to annul or rescind a contract or a deed of sale
over a parcel of land which we made one year
ago which land is situated in Mandaue City and the
purpose of my action is to recover the ownership of
that land is this a real or personal action? 185
It is a real action because the primary object of the
suit is to recover the ownership of real property. It
seems to be personal but in reality it is a real action.
So the venue is governed by Section 2.

But there are also actions which appear to be real

but in reality, are personal actions. Like what
happened in the case of

LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS INC vs. PONFERRADA

264 SCRA 540 [1996]

FACTS: A entered into a contract where she

committed herself to sell her land to B. A even
placed a lis pendens on the property but later she
backed out. So B will file a case against A for
specific performance to compel her to sign the
deed of sale.

ISSUE: Is this real or personal action?

HELD: It is a PERSONAL ACTION because you are not

questioning my ownership. Here, the plaintiff
recognizes that the defendant is still the owner,
which is the reason why he is still filing the case to
compel him to sell.

Thus, it should be filed at the residence of the

parties. “The complaint is one for specific
performance with damages. Private respondents
do not claim ownership of the lot but in fact
recognized title of defendants by annotating a
notice of lis pendens. In one case, a similar

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
complaint for specific performance with damages
involving real property, was held to be a personal
action, which may be filed in the proper court
where the party resides. Not being an action
involving title to or ownership of real property,
venue, in this case, was not improperly laid before
the RTC of Bacolod City.” (Adamos vs. Tuazon 25
SCRA 30 [1968])

Q: Where several or alternative reliefs are sought in

an action, and the reliefs prayed for are real and
personal, how is venue determined?

A: Where several or alternative reliefs are prayed for

in the complaint, the nature of the action as real or
personal is determined by the primary object of the
suit or by the nature of the principal claim. Thus,
where the purpose is to nullify the title to real
property, the venue of the action is in the province
where the property lies, notwithstanding the
alternative relief sought, recovery of damages,
which is predicated upon a declaration of nullity of
the title. (Navarro vs. Lucero, 100 Phil. 146)

Where a lessee seeks to establish his right to the

hacienda, which was subsequently sold, for the
purpose of gathering the crops thereon, it is
unnecessary to decide whether the crops are real
or personal property, because the principal claim is
recovery of possession of land so that he may
gather the fruits thereof. (LTC vs. Macadaeg, 57
O.G. 3317)
Now, going back to Section 2.
187

RESIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

Where is the residence of the parties? Because

residence in law could mean DOMICILE OR LEGAL
RESIDENCE, it could be ACTUAL OR PHYSICAL
RESIDENCE.

With the exception of only one case, the word

‘residence’ and ‘venue’ has been uniformly
interpreted by the SC to mean ACTUAL or PHYSICAL
RESIDENCE not legal domicile. Alright, there are so
many casesalready: CO vs. CA (70 SCRA 296); FULE
vs. CA (14 SCRA 189); HERNANDEZ vs. RURAL BANK
OF THE PHIL (81 SCRA 75); RAYMOND vs. CA (166
SCRA 50); ESCUERTE vs. CA (193 3CRA 54).

EXCEPT for one case decided way back in 1956 –

the case of

CORRE vs. CORRE – 100 Phil 221

FACTS: An American who resides in San Francisco

who came to the Philippines rented an apartment
in Manila to sue his wife who is a Filipina. The wife is
from Mindanao. And then the American husband
filed the case in Manila because he rented an
apartment in Manila.

HELD: You are not a resident of Manila. Your

residence is in San Francisco – that is your domicile.
So that is to compel the American to file the case in

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
the residence of the wife rather than the wife going
to Manila.

So the case of CORRE is the only exception where

the SC said, “residence means domicile.” All the
rest, physical! In the case of CORRE, maybe the SC
there was just trying to help the Filipina. If we will
interpret the rule on venue as physical, it is the
Filipina who will be inconvenienced.

RESIDENCE OF A CORPORATION

Under Rule 1, a corporation can sue and be sued.

But what is the residence of a corporation? Under
the corporation law, the residence of a corporation
is the place where its head or main office is
situated.

CLAVECILLA RADIO SYSTEM vs. ANTILLON

19 SCRA 39 [1967]

FACTS: Clavecilla was sued in Cagayan de Oro

City. Clavecilla questioned the venue because its
head office is in Manila. The plaintiff argued that it
can be sued because it has a branch in Cagayan.

ISSUE: Is a corporation resident of any city or

province wherein it has an office or branch?

HELD: NO. Any person, whether natural or juridical,

can only have one residence. Therefore, a
corporation cannot be allowed to file personal
actions in a place other than its principal place of
business unless such a place is also the residence of
a co-plaintiff or defendant.
189

The ruling in the case of ANTILLON was reiterated in

the 1993 case of YOUNG AUTO SUPPLY CO. vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (223 SCRA 670)

Because the law said “where the plaintiff or any of

the principal plaintiffs..” So if the corporation is suing
with someone from Cebu City, even if its head
office is in Manila, the corporation can file in Cebu
City because of the residence of my co-plaintiff or
the residence of the defendant. But outside of that,
a corporation cannot sue outside of its head office
because its residence is there. That is the case of
YOUNG AUTO SUPPLY.

“OR IN THE CASE OF A NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT

WHERE HE MAY BE FOUND”

Suppose the defendant is not residing here in the

Philippines but is just on vacation and you want to
sue him. What is now the point of reference?

Did you notice the phrase “or in the case of a non-

resident defendants where he may be found.” Now
what does that mean? It means to say that the
defendant is not actually residing in the Philippines
but he is temporarily around because he is found in
the Philippines. Example is a balikbayan who is still
on vacation.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
PROBLEM: Suppose a Filipino who is already residing
abroad decided to come back this Christmas for a
vacation. When he landed at the Manila Domestic
Airport, you met him as your friend and the first
thing he requested you is if he could borrow some
pesos because his money is in dollars. He borrowed
from you P15,000.00 promising to pay in a week’s
time.. One week later, still he has not paid you and
obviously it seems he will not pay you. So you
decided to sue him while he is around to collect,
where is the venue of the action?

A: The law says, generally where the plaintiff resides

or where the defendant resides. The trouble is, the
defendant has no residence here because he is
already residing abroad. But he is temporarily here
in the Philippines.

You can sue him where he may be found. If he

decides to stay in Cebu, that is where the proper
venue rather his permanent residence. So where he
may be found is the alternative venue. The phrase
“where he may be found” means where he may be
found here in the Philippines for a non-resident
defendant but temporarily staying in the Philippines.

Q: Suppose a defendant is a non-resident and he is

not even here. Like for example, your neighbor
borrowed money from you and the nest thing you
heard is that he left the country. He has already
migrated to the states. Of course you know his
address there. Can you sue him in the Philippine
court, a defendant who is no longer residing here
and is not found in the Philippines?
A: NO, you cannot. Charge it to experience.

Q: Why can you not sue a person not residing here

191
in the Philippines and is not found here in the first
place?

A: There is no way for Philippine courts to acquire

jurisdiction over his person. Otherwise, he will not be
bound by the decision.

But in our discussion on the element of jurisdiction:

subject matter, person, res and issues, I told you that
the res or the thing in dispute is important because
sometimes it takes the place of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant. So even if the Philippine
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant but the subject of the controversy
(res) is in the Philippines, then the non-resident
defendant can also be sued in the Philippines. The
court can now acquire jurisdiction over the res,
subject and since the res is here, the judgment can
be enforced. It is not a useless judgement anymore.

EXAMPLE: He is there but he is the owner of a piece

of land here. I want to file a case to recover
ownership over the land here in the Philippines.

Q: Can I sue the non-resident defendant?

A: YES under Section 3. Even if the person is abroad,

the res of the property in dispute is here and if he
loses the case the judgment can be enforced –
transfer the property to you. So it is not a useless
judgment. That is what Section 3 is all about.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Sec. 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents.

- If any of the defendants does not reside and is not

found in the Philippines, and the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of
said defendant located in the Philippines, 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,
(2[c]a)

Q: What is the difference between the non-resident

defendant in Section 2 and the non-resident
defendant in Section 3?

A: In Section 2, the non-resident defendant may be

found in the Philippines. But in Section 3, he does
not reside and is not found in the Philippines. So,
physically, he is not around.

Venue of ordinary civil actions against non-

residents:

1) Non-resident but found in the Philippines;

a) for personal actions, where the

plaintiff resides or where he may be
found at the election of the plaintiff;

b) for real actions, where the property is

located.

2) Non-resident not found in the Philippines

An action may be filed only when:

1) The action affects the personal status of

193
the plaintiff and venue is the place where
the plaiantiff resides; or

2) The action affects the property or any

portion thereof of said defendants is
located here in the Philippines, and venue is
the place where the property or any portion
thereof is located.

ACTION THAT AFFECTS THE PERSONAL STATUS OF THE

PLAINTIFF

EXAMPLE: A young child was abandoned by his

illegitimate father. The illegitimate father left the
Philippines for good. The son wants to file a case
against the father for compulsory recognition, at
least to improve his status.

Q: Can the child file a case for compulsory

acknowledgment here in the Philippines against the
father for compulsory acknowledgment?

A: YES because the action involves the person

status of the plaintiff. The res is the status of the
plaintiff who happens to be in the Philippines.

THE ACTION AFFECTS THE PROPERTY OR ANY

PORTION THEREOF OF SAID DEFENDANTS LOCATED
HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES

Example: The defendant who is already abroad

owns a piece of land located here in the Philippines

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
and I want to recover the ownership of the piece of
land.

Q: What is the res?

A: The res is the land which is situated here in the

Philippines. Therefore I can sue that defendant
even if he is there because the court can acquire
jurisdiction over the res.

In order to validly sue in the Philippine court, a

defendant who is no longer residing here and is no
longer found here, the action must be:

1) action in rem; or

2) at least quasi-in rem.

In the examples given, if the action is for

compulsory recognition, that is actually an action in
rem. In the suit which involves a property here in the
Philippines, at least that is an action quasi-in rem.

But if the action is purely in personam, then there is

no way by which you can sue him. Example is an
action to collect an unpaid loan.

Q: Where is now the proper venue of the action

against the non- residents?

A: The law says where the plaintiff resides – action

which affects the personal status of defendants,
where the property of the defendant located here
in the Philippines
Sec. 4. When rule not applicable. - This rule shall not
apply - 195
a) Inthose cases where a specific rule or law
provides otherwise; or

b) Where the parties have validly agreed in

writing before the filing of the action on the
exclusive venue thereof. (3a, 5a)

A.) IN THOSE CASES WHERE A SPECIFIC RULE OR LAW

PROVIDES OTHERWISE;

Q: What cases provide for venue of the action

which may be different from what Rule 4 says?

A: The following:

1.) A civil action arising from LIBEL under Article 360

of the Revised Penal Code.

Libel could give rise to a civil action for damages. It

is considered under the RPC as one of the
independent civil actions. The criminal action for
libel shall be filed simultaneously or separately in the
RTC of the:

a.) province or city where the libelous

article is printed and first published;
or
b.) where any of the offended parties
actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense.
If one of the offended party is a public officer,
whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of
the commission of the offense, the action shall be

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
filed (a) in the RTC of Manila, or (b) in the RTC of the
province where he held office at the time of the
commission of the offense.

2.) Section 5 (4), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution – The

SC may order a change of venue or place of trial
to avoid a miscarriage of justice as what happened
in the case of Mayor Sanchez.

B.) WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE VALIDLY AGREED IN

WRITING BEFORE THE FILING OF THE ACTION ON THE
EXCLUSIVE VENUE THEREOF.

The parties may agree on a specific venue which

could be in a place where neither of them resides.
Take note that the stipulation must be:

1) in writing;

2) made before the filing of the action and

3) exclusive as to the venue.

While the first two rarely pose a problem, the third

has been a source of controversy in the past.

A stipulation that “any suit arising from this contract

shall be filed only in Quezon City” is exclusive in
character and is clear enough to preclude the filing
of the case in any other place. In this case, the
residences of the parties are not to be considered
in determining the venue of the action.

How about a stipulation that the “parties agree to

sue and be sued in the courts of Manila?”
 POLYTRADE CORP. vs. BLANCO
197
30 SCRA 187

FACTS: C and J are both residing here in Cebu City.

J borrowed money from C, and executed a
promissory note in favor of the latter which says, “I
promise to pay C the sum of P200,000 one year
from today. In case of a suit arising from this
promissory note, the parties agree to sue and be
sued in the City of Manila.”

When the note matured, J did not pay so C filed a

case to collect the unpaid loan here in Cebu City
but J challenged the venue on ground that the
venue is agreed upon which is Manila. According
to C, the venue is correct because both of us are
residing here in Cebu City and under Rule 4, the
venue is where I reside or you reside, at my option.

ISSUE: Who is correct in this case?

HELD: Plaintiff is correct notwithstanding the

stipulation. Why? When. the parties stipulated on
the venue of the civil action, other than those
found in the Rule of Court, the stipulated venue is
considered merely as an ADDITION to where the
parties reside. Unless the stipulation contains
RESTRICTIVE words which shows the intention of the
parties to limit the place stipulated as the exclusive
venue.

So in the second exception where there is an

agreement in writing on the exclusive venue, the
word exclusive is very important as taken in the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
ruling in POLYTRADE vs. BLANCO. So if the venue is
not exclusive, Rule 4 still applies and the stipulated
venue is just an additional one.

Of course, there are stipulations where you can see

clearly the intention of the parties to limit the venue.
But sometimes, there are stipulations in which it is
difficult to decipher the real intention of the parties
whether exclusive or not. Examples of clear
stipulations which calls for the application of the
POLYTRADE ruling: in the City of Manila only or the
suit shall be filed in the City of Manila and in no
other place.

The Polytrade doctrine was further applied in the

case of Unimasters Conglomeration Inc. v. CA 267
SCRA 759. In this case, it was ruled that a stipulation
stating that “all suits arising out of this Agreement
shall be filed with/in the proper courts of Quezon
City,”

It is only permissive and does not limit the venue to

the Quezon City courts. As explained the said case:

In other words, unless the parties made very clear,

by employing categorical and suitably limiting
language, that they wish the venue of the actions
between them to be laid only and exclusively at a
definite place, and to disregard the prescriptions of
Rule 4, agreements on venue are not to be
regarded as mandatory or restrictive, but merely
permissive, or complementary of said rule.xxxThere
must be, to repeat, accompanying language
clearly and categorically expressing their purpose
and design that actions between them be litigated
only at the place named by them, regardless of the 199
general precepts of Rule 4; and any doubt or
uncertainty as to the parties’ intentions must be
resolved against giving their agreement a restrictive
or mandatory aspect. Any other rule would permit
of individual, subjective judicial interpretations
without stable standards, which could well result in
precedents in hopeless inconsistency.”

However, there are cases in which you cannot find

the word exclusive or the word only, and yet the SC
said it seems the intention of the parties to limit the
venue as exclusive as what happened in the 1994
case of

GESMUNDO vs. JRB REALTY CORP

234 SCRA 153

FACTS: This involves a lease contract which contain

a stipulation on venue. Here is the language of the
lease contract: “venue for all suits, whether for
breach hereof or damages or any cause between
the LESSOR and the LESSEE, and persons claiming
under each, being the courts of appropriate
jurisdiction in Pasay City…”

In other words, if there is a case, they agreed to file

it in the court of Pasay City.

ISSUE: Is this intention of the parties to make Pasay

City an exclusive venue?

HELD: Pasay City is the exclusive venue. “It is true

that in Polytrade Corporation v. Blanco, a

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
stipulation that ‘The parties agree to sue and be
sued in the City of Manila’ was held to merely
provide an additional forum in the absence of any
qualifying or restrictive words. But here, by laying in
Pasay City the venue for all suits, the parties made it
plain that in no other place may they bring suit
against each other for breach contract or
damages or any other cause between them and
persons claiming under each of them.” In other
words, the intention of the parties is to make Pasay
City the exclusive venue.

The following stipulations were likewise treated as

merely permissive and did not limit the venue:

a. xxxThe agreed venue for such action is

Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines
(Mangila v. CA 435 Phil. 870). “In case of
litigation hereunder, venue shall be in the
City Court or Court of First Instance of
Manila as the case may be for
determination of any and all questions
arising thereunder.” (Phil. Bank of
Communications v. Trazo, GR 165500,
Sug. 30, 2006)

b. “It is hereby agreed that in case of

foreclosure of this mortgage under ACT
3135, as amended, and Presidential
Decree No. 385, the auction sale shall be
held at the capital of the province, if the
property is within the territorial jurisdiction
of the province concerned, or shall be
 held in the city, if the property is within
the territorial jurisdiction of the city 201
concerned”(Langkaan Realty
Development, Inc. v. UCPB GR 139427,
Dec. 8, 2000)

c. “All court litigation procedures shall be

conducted in the appropriate courts of
Valenzuela City, Metro Manila” (Auction
in Malinta, inc. v. Luyaben GR 173979,
Feb. 12, 2007)

Examples of words with restrictive meanings are: xxx

“only”, “solely”, “exclusively in this court”, “in no
other court save –“, “particularly”, “nowhere else
but/except --, or words of equal import xxx” (Pacific
Consultants International Asia, Inc. v. Schonfeld, GR
166920 Feb. 19, 2007)

Cases like Hoechst, Inc. v. Torres, 83 SCRA 297 and

Bautista v. de Borja 18 SCRA 474 and other rulings
contrary to the Polytrade doctrine are deemed
superseded by current decisions on venue.

In Supena v. de la Rosa 334 Phil. 671, it was ruled

that Hoechst had been rendered obsolete by
recent jurisprudence applying the doctrine
enunciated in Polytrade (Auction in Malinta Inc. v.
Luyaben)

This conflict was resolved in the case of PHIL.

BANKING vs. TENSUAN (228 SCRA 385) where the SC
ruled that the ruling in BAUTISTA vs. DE BORJA and
HOECHST PHILS. vs. TORRES has been

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
rendered obsolete by the POLYTRADE ruling and
subsequent cases reiterated it. So the ruling in
POLYTRADE is the correct ruling. Forget what the SC
said in the abovementioned two cases.

When stipulation would be contrary to public policy

of making courts accessible to all who may have
need of their service

SWEET LINES vs. TEVES – 83 SCRA 361

FACTS: This is a Cagayan de Oro case which

involves Sweet Lines, a shipping company with the
head office in Cebu. The respondent Teves is the
former City Fiscal of Davao City, former Mayor and
became judge of CFI of Cagayan de Oro City.

There was a group of passenger who rode on the

Sweet Lines bound for Cebu City. During the trip,
they were given a crude treatment by the officers
of the vessel. When they came back in Cagayan
de Oro City, they filed a suit for damages against
Sweet Lines. They file the case in the former CFI,
now RTC, of Cagayan de Oro City because the
plaintiffs are residents of Cagayan de Oro City.

Sweet Lines filed a motion to dismiss questioning the

venue of the action because in the ticket issued by
Sweet Lines, it is stipulated that “…in case of a civil
action arising from the contract of carriage, the
venue of the action shall be the City of Cebu ONLY
and in no other place.” So there is a restrictive
word. Obviously the lawyers of Sweet Lines knew
about Polytrade because they moved to dismiss
the case citing this case.
Judge Teves denied the motion to dismiss the case
despite the stipulation. According to him, it is unfair.
203
If I will dismiss the case based on this stipulation, the
aggrieved parties will be discouraged in going to
Cebu. It is very expensive and they will be
inconvenienced. But, if the case will go on in
Cagayan de Oro, it will not inconvenienced Sweet
Lines because they have their branch office, their
manager and their own lawyer.

ISSUE: Whether or not Cagayan de Oro is the

proper venue.

HELD: YES. Judge Teves was correct in not dismissing

the case.

First of all, the stipulation is placed in the ticket.

These people never even bothered to read this.
Nakalagay na iyan diyan eh. So either you take it or
you leave it. Therefore, the passengers did not have
a hand in preparing that stipulation. So the
contract is a contract of adhesion.

Second, again for the sake of equity, to be fair that

these poor people will be compelled to go to Cebu
to file a case there. They will be discouraged. It is
very expensive to go back and forth to Cebu.
Whereas, Sweet Lines has the resources, the means,
the lawyers here in Cagayan to litigate. Therefore, it
would be inequitable to compel them or to apply
the stipulation there.

The ruling in SWEET LINES is an exception to

POLYTRADE despite the exclusive stipulation. The SC
said that the refusal of the court to apply it is

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
correct. There is no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of Judge Teves.

ARQUERO vs. FLOJO

168 SCRA 54

FACTS: Arquero here is lawyer and the municipal

mayor of the municipality of Sta. Teresita, Cagayan
Valley. He sent a telegram through the RCPI branch
in Cagayan addressed to a Congressman in
stating: I will go there to Manila, I will see you in
your office on this particular date. When he went to
the office of the congressman after a few days,
who was mad at him telling him “So you are here to
ask for a favor for your own but your telegram was
charged collect! Arquero was stunned and
embarrassed because he paid for the telegram.

Upon his return to Cagayan, he filed an action for

damages against RCPI. But in the RCPI telegraph
form, there is a stipulation that “venue of any action
shall be the court of Quezon City alone and in no
other courts.” So the venue is restrictive and RCPI
filed a motion to dismiss citing as ground improper
venue.

The trial court granted the motion. Arquero went to

the SC citing the case of SWEET LINES where despite
the fact of a restrictive stipulation, SC refused to
apply the POLYTRADE ruling.

HELD: The ruling in Sweet Lines vs. Teves does not

apply. You are bound by the stipulation. Why? You
are a lawyer so you know the implication of the
stipulation signed.
Q: Distinguish JURISDICTION from VENUE.

A: The following are the distinctions:

205

1) JURISDICTION refers to the authority of the

court to hear the case, whereas

VENUE refers only to the place where the

action is to be heard or tried;

2) JURISDICTION over the subject matter

cannot he waived; whereas

VENUE is waivable and can be subject of

agreement;

3) JURISDICTION is governed by substantive

law – Judiciary Law, BP 129; whereas

VENUE is governed by procedural law – Rule

4 of the Rules of Court;

4) JURISDICTION establishes a relation between

the court and the subject matter; whereas

VENUE creates a relation between the

plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and
respondent; and

5) JURISDICTION or lack of it over the subject

matter is a ground for a motu proprio
dismissal; whereas

VENUE is not except in cases subject to

summary procedure.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
BAR QUESTION: State in what instance the
jurisdiction and venue coincide.

A: In CRIMINAL CASES because in criminal cases,

venue is territorial jurisdiction. But in civil cases,
jurisdiction and venue are two different things. They
do not coincide.
Rule 5

UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS

207

SECTION 1. Uniform Procedure – The procedure in

Municipal Trial Courts shall be the same as in the
Regional Trial Courts, except (a) where a particular
provision expressly or impliedly applies only to
either of said courts, or (b) in civil cases governed
by the Rule on Summary Procedure. (n)

The Rules on Procedure starting with Rule 6, the title

of the subject matter is procedure in Regional Trial
Courts. However, by express provisions in Section 1,
the procedure in the Regional Trial Court and the
procedure in the Municipal Trial Court is the same.

The Rules on Civil Procedure which applies to RTC

are also applicable to the MTC except when a
particular provision expressly applies only to either
of said courts.

There are provisions where it is very clear and

intended only to apply to RTC or MTC. A good
example of this is paragraph (a) is Rule 40 which
governs appeals from MTC to RTC. It is only
applicable to MTC. It does not apply to appeals
from RTC to Court of Appeals.

The second example would be in civil cases

governed by Rules on Summary Procedure. That
would be the last law that we will take up. Rules on

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Summary Procedure applied only to MTC. They do
not apply to RTC.

Sec. 2 Meaning of Terms. – The term “Municipal Trial

Courts” as used in these Rules shall include
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts. (1a)

In our structure, we already illustrated the hierarchy

of courts. Metropolitan Trial Courts are only in
Manila. Municipal Trial Courts are in cities and
municipalities. When the Rule says ‘Municipal Trial
Court’, it already includes Metropolitan Trial Courts,
MTCC, MCTC. So that we will not be repetitious.
PROCEDURE IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

Rule 6
209

KINDS OF PLEADINGS

SECTION 1. Pleadings Defined. Pleadings are the

written statements of the respective claims and
defenses of the parties submitted to the court for
appropriate judgment. (1a)

Q: Define pleadings

A: PLEADINGS are the written statements of the

respective claims and defenses of the parties
submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
(Section 1) Under the Rules, “pleadings” cannot be
oral because they are clearly described as
“written” statements.

This is the document where a party will state his

claim against the defendant; or where the
defendant will state also his defense. Pleadings
merely tell a story. You tell your story there, the other
party will tell his story.

Necessity and purpose of pleadings

1) Pleadings are necessary to invoke the

jurisdiction of the court (71 C.J.S.
Pleadings). It is necessary, in order to
confer jurisdiction on a court, that the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 subject matter be presented for its
consideration in a mode sanctioned by
law and this is done by the filing of the
complaint or other pleading. Unless a
complaint or other pleading is filed, the
judgment of a court of record is void and
subject to collateral attack even though
it may be a court which has jurisdiction
over the subject matter referred to in the
judgment.

2) Pleadings are intended to secure a

method by which the issues may be
properly laid before the court. (Santiago
v. de los Santos 61 SCRA 146).

3) Pleadings are designed to present,

define and narrow the issues, to limit the
proof to be submitted in the trial, to
advise the court and the adverse party
of the issues and what are relied upon as
the causes of action or defense. (71 CJS)

The counterpart of pleadings in criminal procedure

is information, or the criminal complaint where a
prosecutor will tell what crime you are being
accused – what you did, time, the victim, etc.

Construction of pleadings

In this jurisdiction, all pleadings shall be liberally

construed so as to do substantial justice (Concrete
Aggregate Corp. v. CA 266 SCRA 88). Pleadings
should receive a fair and reasonable construction
in accordance with the natural intendment of the
words and language used and the subject matter 211
involved. The intendment of the pleader is the
controlling factor in construing a pleading and
should be read in accordance with its substance,
not its form.

While it is the rule that pleadings should be liberally

construed, it has also been ruled that a party is
strictly bound by the allegations, statements or
admissions made in his pleading and cannot be
permitted to take a contradictory position.
(Santiago v. de los Santos 61 SCRA 146)

Construction of ambiguous allegations in pleadings

In case there are ambiguities in the pleadings, the

same must be construed most strongly against the
pleader and that no presumptions in his favor are to
be indulged in. This rule proceeds from the theory
that it is the pleader who selects the language used
and if his pleading is open to different constructions,
such ambiguities must be at the pleader’s peril. (61
Am Jur, Pleading)

System of pleading in the Philippines

The system is the Code Pleading following the

system observed in some states of the US like
California and New York. This system is based on
codified rules or written set of procedure as
distinguished from common laws procedure.
(Marquez and Gutierrez Lora v. Varela, 92 Phil. 373)

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Sec. 2 – Pleadings allowed – The claims of a party
are asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-
claim, third (fourth, etc.) – party complaint, or
complaint-in- intervention.

The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to

the pleading asserting a claim against him.

An answer may be responded to by a reply. (n)

Section 2 tells us what pleadings are allowed by the

Rules of Court. In a civil case, there are actually two
(2) contending parties:

1) the person suing or filing a claim; and

2) the person being sued or defending.

Q: If you are the claimant or the plaintiff, in what

pleading do you assert your claim?

A: Complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party

complaint or fourth-party complaint, etc.

On the other hand, if you are the party sued, you

also have to file your pleading or your defense. It is
known as the ANSWER. The defenses of a party are
alleged in the answer to the pleading asserting a
claim against him. If I file a complaint against you,
in response, you will file an answer.

In the last paragraph, an answer may be

responded by a REPLY. I file a complaint. You file an
answer invoking your defenses. If I want to respond
to your defenses, I will file a REPLY. 213
COMPLAINT ANSWER REPLY

That is the pattern.

Q: Summarizing all of them, what are the known

pleadings recognized by the law on Civil
Procedure?

A: There are seven (7) types of pleadings:

1) Complaint;

2) Answer;

3) Counterclaim;

4) Cross-claim;

5) Reply

6) Third (Fourth, Fifth, etc.) – Party

Complaint;

7) Complaint-in-Intervention.

Pleadings allowed under the Rules on Summary

Procedure

Note however, that when a case falls under the

Rules on Summary Procedure, the only pleadings
allowed to be filed are:

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 1) Complaint;

2) Compulsory Counterclaim;

3) Cross-claim pleaded in the Answer; and

4) Answers thereto (Sec. 3 [A]II, Rules on

Summary Procedure)

Permissive Counterclaims, third-party complaints,

reply and pleadings-in-intervention are prohibited.
(Sec. 9, IV)

Pleading and motion

1.) the purpose of a pleading is to submit a

claim or defense for appropriate judgment
while the purpose of a motion is to apply for
an order not included in the judgment;

2.) a pleading may be initiatory like a

complaint while a motion can never be
such as it is filed in a case that is already
pending in court;

3.) A pleading is always filed before judgment

while a motion may be filed after
judgment;

4.) There are only 9 kinds of pleadings while any

application for a relief other a judgment
can be made in a motion' however, there
are only three motions which actually seek
judgment namely:
 a) a motion for judgment on the
pleadings (R 34); 215
b) a motion for summary judgment (R
35);

c) Demurrer to Evidence

5.) a pleading must be written while a motion

may be oral when made in open court or in
the course of a hearing or trial.

A.) COMPLAINT

Sec. 3. Complaint – The complaint is the pleading

alleging the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action.
The names and residences of the plaintiff and
defendant must be stated in the complaint.

Q: Define complaint

A: COMPLAINT is the pleading where the plaintiff will

allege his cause or causes of action. A complaint is
also called the INITIATORY PLEADING because it is
actually the first pleading filed in court. It is the
pleading that initiates the civil action.

Rule 8 requires that it should contain a concise

statement of the ultimate facts constituting the
plaintiff's cause of action not evidentiary facts or
legal conclusions.

Ultimate facts refer to the essential facts constituting

the plaintiff's cause of action.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
The fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out
without leaving the statement of the cause of
action insufficient.

Test of sufficiency of the facts alleged in the

complaint:

Determine whether upon the averment of facts, a

valid judgment may be properly rendered.

What are not ultimate facts:

1) evidentiary or immaterial facts;

2) legal conclusions, conclusions or

inferences of facts from facts not stated,
or incorrect inferences or conclusions
from facts stated;

3) the details of probative matter or

particulars of evidence, statements of
law, inferences and arguments;

4) an allegation that a contract is valid or

void is a mere conclusion of law.

For EXAMPLE: Mr. P wants to sue Mr. R to collect an

unpaid loan. Mr. R borrowed money from Mr. P and
refused to pay. Normally, it starts with an
introduction: “Plaintiff, through counsel, respectfully
alleges that…” Then it is followed by paragraphs
which are numbered. For instance:
Illustration:

1) Plaintiff Mr. P, of legal age, is a resident of

217
79 P. del Rosario St., Cebu City; whereas
defendant Mr. R also of legal age, is a
resident of 29 Pelaez St. Cebu City where
summons and other processes of this
court may be served;

2) On Nov. 7, 2008, defendant secured a

loan from plaintiff in the sum of
P30,000.00 payable within one (1) year
form said date with legal interest;

3) The account is already due and despite

repeated demands, defendant failed
and refused to pay;

PRAYER:

“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment

be rendered against the defendant ordering him to
pay the loan of P30,000.00 and interest in favor of
the plaintiff.

Plaintiff further prays for such other reliefs as may be

just and equitable under the premises.”

Your allegations must contain the four (4) elements

of a Cause of Action – the Right, the Obligation, the
Delict or Wrong or Violation of Your Right, and the
Damage.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
B.) ANSWER

Sec. 4 – Answer – An answer is a pleading in which

a defending party sets forth his defenses. (4a)

Q: What is the pleading where you respond?

A: It is called the ANSWER. That is where you will

state your defenses. That is why an ANSWER is
called a Responsive Pleading.

Q: Why is it called “Responsive Pleading”?

A: Because it is the pleading which is filed in

response to the complaint or a pleading containing
a claim. It is where you respond to the cause of
action. That is where you state your defenses.

So you can file an answer to the complaint; answer

to the counterclaim, answer to the cross-claim, etc.

It is something which is not found in Criminal

Procedure.

Q: If you are charged with a crime, how do you

answer?

A: By pleading guilty or not guilty. That is the

answer. When you plead guilty, and the offense is
not punishable by reclusion perpetua to death it is
the end.
There is no writing of defenses, no written answer in
criminal cases. It (pleadings) only applies to civil 219
cases where you allege your defenses.

Q: What are the defenses under the Rules?

A: That is Section 5.

Sec. 5 – Defenses – Defenses may either be

negative or affirmative.

(a) A NEGATIVE DEFENSE – is the specific denial

of the material fact or facts alleged in the
pleading of the claimant essential to his
cause or causes of action.

(b) An AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – is an allegation

of a new matter which, while hypothetically
admitting the material allegations in the
pleading of the claimant, would
nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by
him.

The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of

limitations, release payment, illegality, statute of
frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in
bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of
confession and avoidance.

Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.

b.) Answer; NEGATIVE DEFENSES;

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Q: Define a NEGATIVE defense.

A: Paragraph [a]: Briefly, it is a defense of specific

denial where you deny the statement in the
complaint and you state the facts and the reason/s
on which your denial is based. In a negative
defense, the defendant specifically denies a
material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his cause of action.

EXAMPLE: The complaint says in paragraph 2, “On

November 6, 2008, defendant secured a loan from
plaintiff in the amount of P30,000.00 payable one
(1) year from November 6,2008.

The defendant will say in his answer:

“Defendant specifically denies the allegation in

Paragraph 2 of the complaint. The truth of the
matter being that he never secured any loan from
plaintiff because he does not even know the
plaintiff and he did not see his face before.”

That is a negative defense. You said I borrowed

money from you. “No, I don’t even know you. I
have not seen you before.” He denies the
existence of the loan. That is known as the negative
defense. It is a denial of a material fact which
constitutes the plaintiff’s cause of action. That’s why
it is briefly called a “Defense of Specific Denial”.
Insufficient denial or denial amounting to
admissions: 221
1. General denial; and

2. denial in the form of negative pregnant

Negative pregnant is a denial in such form as to

imply or express an admission of the substantial fact
which apparently is controverted. It is form of denial
which really admits the important facts contained
in the allegations to which it relates.

While it is a denial in form, its substance actually has

the effect of an admission because of a too literal
denial of the allegations sought to be denied. This
arises when the pleader merely repeats the
allegations in a negative form.

In the example above, when the answer states:

"The defendant did not secure a loan from the

plaintiff on Nov. 6, 2008 in the amount of P30,000.00
payable within one year."

b.) Answer; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Q: Define an AFFIRMATIVE defense.

A: In paragraph (b), it is briefly called a defense of

confession and avoidance because, while the
defendant may admit the material allegation in the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
complaint, however, he will plead a new matter
which will prevent a recovery by the plaintiff. I
admit what you are saying in the complaint but still
you are not entitled to recover from me.

EXAMPLE: Defendant may say: Defendant admits

the allegation in par. 2 of the Complaint, but
alleges that the action has prescribed.

He confesses to having borrowed money but

avoids liability by asserting prescription.

Examples of affirmative defenses are: fraud, statute

of limitations, release, payment, illegality, statute of
frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in
bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of
confession and avoidance.

Suppose, you sue me for damages arising from

breach of contract. I admit I entered into a contract
but I have no obligation to comply because the
contract is null and void. Or, the contract is illegal.
Or, the stipulation is contrary to public policy,
therefore, I am not bound. I admit what you say but
I am not liable because of the illegality of the
subject matter of the contract.

Or, you sue me because according to you, I

entered into a contract and I refused to comply.
So, you file a case against me for specific
performance or for damages. Then I say: “It’s true
that I entered into a contract with you. It’s true I did
not comply. But there is nothing you can do
because the contract is oral and the contract is
covered by the statute of frauds. In order to be 223
enforceable, we should have reduced it into
writing. Since we never reduced it into writing, I am
not bound to comply.”

c.) COUNTERCLAIMS

Sec. 6. Counterclaim. - A counterclaim is any claim

which a defending party may have against an
opposing party. (6a)

EXAMPLE: You file a case against me for damage to

your car. According to you in your complaint, while
you were driving your car along the highway
carefully, I came along driving recklessly and
bumped your car causing damages amounting to
P50,000.00 for repair. Your allegation is based on
negligence on my part.

My answer is denial: “That is not true! I deny that! I

was the one driving carefully and you were driving
carelessly and negligently. Therefore, if you are the
proximate cause of the accident, I’m not liable for
the damage of your car.” That’s my answer – I’m
not liable because you are negligent. Because you
were the one negligent, my car was also
damaged. I am not liable for the damage on your
car. As a matter of fact, you are the one that
should be held liable to pay for the damage of my
car. I am now claiming for the damage of
P50,000.00. That is called COUNTERCLAIM.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Nature of a counterclaim

A counterclaim is in the nature of a cross-

complaint. Although it may be alleged in the
answer, it is not part of the answer. Upon its filing,
the same proceedings are had as in the original
complaint. For this this reason it is to be answered
within ten (10) days from service.

According to a lawyer who is fluent in Cebuano, he

called it balos. He was explaining to his client that
they have counterclaim.

Therefore, there is one civil case but there are two

(2) causes involved – the main cause of action in
the complaint and that in the counterclaim. There
are two (2) issues to be resolved by the court.

Q: If your complaint against me is to recover a sum

of money, should my counterclaim also involve
recovery of sum of money?

A: NO. There is no such rule that these two (2) cases

should be similar in nature. (De Borja vs. De Borja,
101 Phil. 911) It is possible for you to file case for
recovery of a piece of land and my counterclaim is
recovery of damages arising from a vehicular
accident.

Q: Suppose your claim against me is One (1) Million,

is it possible that my counterclaim against you is
Two (2) Million?
A: YES. There is no rule which limits my counterclaim
to the same amount you are claiming. A 225
counterclaim need not diminish or defeat the
recovery sought by the opposing party, but may
claim relief exceeding in amount or different in kind
from that sought by the opposing party. (De Borja
vs. De Borja, 101 Phil. 911)

Q: You file a case against me for recovery of

unpaid loan. My counterclaim is, rescission of
partnership contract. Is the counterclaim proper?

A: Yes although there is no connection between

what you are asking and what my answer is. But
what is important is that we are the same parties. If
you will not allow me to file my counterclaim
against you, that will be another case in the future.
So to avoid multiplying suits, clogging the dockets
of the court and making the proceedings more
expensive, violating the purpose of the rules, the
parties are allowed to include all their claims
against each other in one case.

Same capacity rule

DE BORJA vs. DE BORJA

101 Phil 911

FACTS: A died, of course, what survives after that is

the estate. X was appointed as administrator or
legal representative. W owes a sum of money to
the estate of A and X filed a case against W to
collect the unpaid loan. X is called the
REPRESENTATIVE PARTY under Rule 3, Section 3. W

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
filed an answer and stated that W has a claim
against X. W filed a counterclaim against X in the
case.

HELD: The counterclaim is improper. When X sued

W, X is not suing in his own personal capacity. He is
acting as administrator of the estate of A. The real
plaintiff is the estate of A. X is just the legal
representative. Therefore, you cannot file a
counterclaim against X in the latter’s personal
capacity when X is suing W in a representative
capacity.

The SC said that the plaintiff should be sued in a

counterclaim in the SAME CAPACITY that he is suing
the defendant. That’s a principle to remember.

PERMISSIVE & COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS

Sec. 7 – Compulsory counterclaim – A compulsory

counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the
regular courts of justice, arises out of or is
connected with the transaction or occurrence
constituting the subject matter of the opposing
party’s claim and does not require for its
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a
counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the
court both as to the amount and the nature thereof,
except that in the original action before the
Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be
considered compulsory.
Under the Rules, there are two types of
counterclaim: 227
1) COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM and,

2) PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM.

Q: How do you distinguish one from the other?

When is a counterclaim compulsory and when is it
permissive?

A: The ELEMENTS of a COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

are found in Section 7. If we will outline Section 7,
we will see that a counterclaim is compulsory if the
following requisites are present:

1) It is cognizable by the regular courts of

justice;

2) It arises out of or it is connected with a

transaction or occurrence constituting a
subject matter of the opposing party’s
claim;

3) It does not require for its adjudication the

presence of third parties of whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction;

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

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 may be considered compulsory
regardless of the amount; and

5) The defending party has a counterclaim

at the time he files his answer.

The fifth requisite is not found in Section 7 but in Rule

11, Section 8:

Rule 11, Sec. 8. Existing counterclaim or cross- claim.

- A compulsory counterclaim or a cross- claim that
a defending party has at the time he files his answer
shall be contained therein. (8a, R6)

Another way of saying it is, the counterclaim has

already matured at the time he files his answer. That
is the fifth requisite.

Q: What happens if one of these requisites is

missing?

A: If one of the five requisites is missing, the

counterclaim is permissive in nature.

Discussion of the elements

First Element: A COUNTERCLAIM TO BE COMPULSORY

MUST BE COGNIZABLE BY THE REGULAR COURTS.

In other words, if you file a complaint against me

and I have a counterclaim against you in the Labor
Code, then it cannot be classified as a compulsory
claim because how can I invoke against you a
claim which is cognizable by the NLRC before the
RTC? 229

Second Element: IT ARISES OUT OF OR IT IS

CONNECTED WITH A TRANSACTION OR
OCCURRENCE CONSTITUTING A SUBJECT MATTER OF
THE OPPOSING PARTY’S CLAIM

The second requisite is the most important. A

counterclaim, to be compulsory, must arise out of
or connected with the transaction or occurrence
constituting a subject matter of the opposing party
concerned. It must arise out of or is connected with
a transaction or occurrence constituting a subject
matter of the opposing party’s claim. It must be
logically related to the subject matter of the main
action.

So the rule is, if the counterclaim did not arise out of

or is not connected with the transaction or
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the
opposing party’s concern, the counterclaim must
be permissive in nature.

PROBLEM: Emily filed a case against Regina for

damages arising from a vehicle collision. According
to Emily, the case of the accident is the negligence
of the defendant in driving her car. Her car
bumped the car of Emily and was damaged. So,
Emily is holding Regina liable for the damage on her
car. Regina denied that she was negligent.
According to Regina, “No, I am not negligent. As a

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
matter of fact, you (Emily) were the one negligent,
and because of that negligence, my car was also
damaged. So you should be the one to pay
damages.”

Q: Is the counterclaim of Regina arising out of or is

connected with the transaction or occurrence
constituting the subject matter of the opposing
party?

A: YES because we are talking of the same

bumping. You bumped my car, you say I bumped
your car. So we are talking of the same event or
transaction.

PROBLEM: T files a case against me for recovery of a

piece of land. According to her, she is the owner of
the land which I’m occupying. Now, I file my
answer, and then I said, “T, I spent a lot of money
for necessary expenses to preserve the land. You
are also liable to reimburse me for the expenses for
the necessary improvements I introduced on the
land.” Under the law on Property, a defendant or
possessor is entitled to reimbursement for necessary
improvements and expenses. So she is trying to
recover the piece of land, I am now asking her to
reimburse me for all necessary expenses that I spent
on the land.

Q: Is my counterclaim arising out of or connected

with the subject matter of your claim or not?

A: YES. We are talking of the same subject matter.

Thus, the counterclaim is compulsory.
PROBLEM: T files a case against me for recovery of a
piece of land. My counterclaim against her is 231
damages arising from a vehicular collision.

Q: Is my counterclaim arising out of a subject

matter of your action?

A: NO. It is completely different. Thus, that is a

permissive counterclaim.

MELITON vs. CA – 216 SCRA 485

HELD: “It has been postulated that while a number

of criteria have been advanced for the
determination of whether the counterclaim is
compulsory or permissive, the one compelling test
of compulsoriness is the logical relationship
between the claim alleged in the complaint and
that in the counterclaim, that is, where conducting
separate trials of the respective claims of the parties
would entail a substantial duplication of effort and
time, as where they involve many of the same
factual and/or legal issues.”

Logical Relationship Test

The logical relationship test between the claim and

the counterclaim has been called: The one
compelling test of “compulsoriness.” Under this test,
any claim a party has against an opposing party
that is logically related to the claim being asserted
by the opposing party, and that it is not within the
exception to the rule is a compulsory counterclaim.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Its outstanding quality is flexibility. (Tan v. Kaakbay
Finance Corporation 404 SCRA 518)

Q: What is the importance of determining whether

the claim is compulsory or permissive?

A: A compulsory counterclaim must be invoked in

the same action. It cannot be the subject matter of
a separate action. Unlike in permissive counterclaim
where you have the choice of invoking it in the
same case, or in a separate action, compulsory
counterclaim must be invoked in the same action
otherwise it will be barred. That is found in Rule 9,
Section 2:

Rule 9, Sec. 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-

claim, not set up barred. - A compulsory counter-
claim or a cross-claim, not set up shall be barred.
(4a)

Let us try to apply that principle to the case cited.

PROBLEM: V files a case against me for damages

arising from vehicular collision. Her car is damaged,
my car is damaged. In my answer, I denied
negligence but I did not claim from her the
damage to my vehicle. After the trial, court found
the plaintiff at fault. So, the complaint of V. This time
I will file a case against her to recover damages for
the damage to my car since I was able to prove
that she was negligent and not me.
Q: What will happen to my case now?

A: My case will be dismissed because I did not raise

233
that cause of action as a counterclaim as it is
compulsory.

PROBLEM: A files a case against me for recovery of

a piece of land. After trial, the decision is against
me. The court said that I should return the land to
her. I will file a case against her. She moved to
dismiss – barred, because I should have raised that
as a counterclaim. I cannot file another case
involving that cause of action. That is the effect of
failure to raise the compulsory counterclaim in the
case filed against you.

PROBLEM: Now, suppose the counterclaim is

PERMISSIVE. My cause of action against her is
damages arising against a vehicular collision.

Q: Is the counterclaim allowed?

A: Yes, allowed.

Q: My decision is not to file a counterclaim but to

file another case against her. Is that allowed?

A: Yes, that is allowed. Meaning, I may or may not

raise it as a counterclaim because it is permissive. I
am permitted to raise it as a counterclaim but I am
not obliged. I may decide to file another action
against you. That is the importance between a

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
compulsory counterclaim and a permissive
counterclaim.

Third Requisite: IT DOES NOT REQUIRE FOR ITS

ADJUDICATION PRESENCE OF THIRD PARTIES OF
WHOM THE COURT CANNOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION.

Meaning, if my counterclaim against you will

involve the presence of an indispensable party who
is, let’s say, abroad, and therefore, the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction over him, if I don’t allege
it as counterclaim in my answer, I will not be barred
from filing a separate action.

Fourth Element: THAT THE COUNTERCLAIM MUST BE

WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT BOTH AS TO
THE AMOUNT AND NATURE THEREOF

Rules:

1) A counterclaim before the MTC must be

within the jurisdiction of the said court,
both as to the amount and nature
thereof.

2) In an original action before the RTC, the

counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount.
 3) However, the nature of the action is
always material such that unlawful 235
detainer cannot be set up in the RTC.

4) If a counterclaim is filed in the MTC in

excess of its jurisdictional amount, the
excess is considered waived (Agustin v.
Bacalan GR No. 46000, March 18, 1985)

In Calo v. Ajax In'tl GR No. 22485, March 16, 1968,

the remedy where a counterclaim is beyond the
jurisdiction of the MTC is to set off the claims and file
a separate action to collect the balance.

Q: I will file a case against you for forcible entry. I

want to recover a piece of land. Where is the
jurisdiction of that case?

A: MTC.

Review: In the Law on Property, even if you are a

possessor in bad faith, you are entitled to
reimbursement for necessary expenses. The theory
there is, even if he is a possessor in bad faith, the
expenses redounded to the benefit of the land
owner. Anyway, you will spend them just the same
as the land owner will have to spend for them. So it
will not be fair if he is not reimbursed. That’s our
premise.

PROBLEM: Now, the defendant would like to claim

for reimbursement for the necessary expenses that
he spent in my lot. The case I filed against you is

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
forcible entry in the MTC. Your necessary expenses
amount to P350,000.

Q: Should you raise it as a compulsory counterclaim

in the forcible entry case?

A: NO.

Q: Does it arise out of or connected with the

transaction which is the subject matter of the main
action? Why not compulsory?

A: Because the MTC has no jurisdiction over the

P350,000 amount for the necessary expenses. This
time, that is the missing element.

Q: How will the defendant claim reimbursement?

A: He has to file with the RTC a case for

reimbursement. He cannot use that as a
counterclaim for the forcible entry case because
the MTC has no jurisdiction on a counterclaim
where the amount is over P300,000.00.

I will reverse the problem:

PROBLEM: The plaintiff filed against the defendant

an action for accion publiciana – recovery for a
piece of land where the value of the property is P1
million. So the case should be filed in the RTC. Now,
the defendant is claiming for the reimbursement of
the improvements thereon (necessary expenses)
amounting to P50,000.
Q: Should the defendant raise that as a
counterclaim in the accion publiciana case? 237
A: YES.

In the first example, the counterclaim is above the

jurisdiction of the MTC. This time, the amount for the
counterclaim is below the jurisdiction of the RTC. So
the RTC can claim jurisdiction.

Q: How can the RTC try a counterclaim when the

claim is only P50,000?

A: It is in accordance with the exception under

Section 7: “except that in an original action before
the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount.” This means
that the main action is accion publiciana—RTC. The
counterclaim is reimbursement for necessary
expenses with arose out of the same land. Normally,
the RTC cannot try that but the answer to this
question is YES.

The RTC can award a claim for damages even

though the claim is below its jurisdiction. The
principle is: Since the counterclaim is compulsory,
jurisdiction over the main action automatically
carries with it jurisdiction over the compulsory
counterclaim. The compulsory counterclaim is
merely incidental to the main action. Jurisdiction of
the RTC over the main action necessarily carries
with it jurisdiction over the compulsory counterclaim
which is merely ancillary.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
If the main action is with the MTC, it cannot try the
counterclaim with the RTC. It is beyond its
jurisdiction. It is not covered by the exception. But if
it is the main action which is within the jurisdiction of
the RTC, it can try a counterclaim which is below its
jurisdiction provided it arose out or is connected
with the transaction.

That exception is not written in the prior rules but it is

a recognized exception laid down by the SC which
is now written down in the law. In the case of

MACEDA vs. CA – 176 SCRA 440

HELD: “The jurisdiction of the MTC in a civil action for

sum of money is limited to a demand that does not
exceed P100,000 (now P300,000) exclusive of
interest and costs. A counterclaim beyond its
jurisdiction and limit may be pleaded only by way
of defense to weaken the plaintiff’s claim, but not
to obtain affirmative relief.”

Fifth Requisite: THE DEFENDING PARTY HAS A

COUNTERCLAIM AT THE TIME HE FILES HIS ANSWER

How can I make a claim against you which is not

yet existing? Even if all the other requisites are
present, the counterclaim would still not be
compulsory because how can one invoke
something now which he can acquire in the future?
So, those are the five essential elements. You
remove one, the counterclaim becomes 239
permissive.

Q: Again. What is the importance of distinguishing

whether the counterclaim is compulsory or
permissive?

A: If the counterclaim is compulsory, the defendant

is obliged under the law to raise it as a
counterclaim in the action where he is being sued.
If he fails to invoke it, it is barred forever (Rule 9
Section 2).

If the counterclaim is permissive, the defendant has

a choice of raising it as a counterclaim in the case
filed against him or he may decide to file another
action against the plaintiff, raising it as his cause of
action. It is permitted but not obliged.

Compulsory and Permissive Counterclaim

compared:

1) A compulsory counterclaim arises out of

or is necessarily connected with the
transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the other party's claim,
while a permissive counterclaim is not;

2) A compulsory counterclaim does not

require for its adjudication the presence

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 of third parties of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction while a permissive
counterclaim may require such;

3) A compulsory counterclaim is barred it

not set up in the action, while a
permissive counterclaim is not;

4) A compulsory counterclaim need not be

answered, no default, while a permissive
counterclaim must be answered
otherwise the defendant can be
declared in default.

A plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a

compulsory counterclaim may not be declared in
default, principally because the issues raised in the
counterclaim are deemed automatically joined by
the allegations of the complaint (Gojo v. Goyala,
GR No. 26768, Oct. 30, 1970)

General Rule: A compulsory counterclaim not set

up in the answer is deemed barred.

Exceptions:

1. if it is a counterclaim which either

matured or was acquired by a party
after serving his answer. In this case it
may be pleaded by filing a
supplemental answer or pleading before
judgment (Sec. 9 R 11);

2. When a pleader fails to set-up a

counterclaim through oversight,
 inadvertence, excusable negligence, or
when justice requires, he may, by leave 241
of court, set up the counterclaim by
amendment of the pleading before
judgment (Sec. 10, R 11).

The filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting up of

a compulsory counterclaim are incompatible
remedies. In the event that a defending party has a
ground for dismissal and a compulsory
counterclaim, he must choose only one remedy. If
he decides to file a motion to dismiss, he cannot set
up his counterclaim. But if he opts to set up his
counterclaim, he may still plead his ground for
dismissal as an affirmative defense in his answer.

COUNTERCLAIMS IN CRIMINAL CASES JAVIER vs. IAC

– 171 SCRA 605

FACTS: The Javier spouses filed a criminal case

against Leon Gutierrez Jr, under BP 22 or the
Bouncing Check Law, for issuing a bad check. The
criminal case was filed before the RTC of Makati.
The complainants did not reserve the civil action.
The implication is that the claim for civil liability is
deemed instituted with the criminal case.

Gutierrez in turn filed a civil action for damages

against the Javier spouses in the RTC of Catarman,
Northern Samar, where he accused the spouses of
having tricked him into signing the check.

What happened now is that he was being

criminally sued in Makati but defending himself in
Catarman, Northern Samar. He is explaining in the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Samar court what he should be doing in the Makati
court.

HELD: The civil case in Samar should be dismissed. It

must be in the Makati court that Gutierrez, as
accused in the criminal charge of violation of BP 22,
should explain why he issued the bouncing check.
He should explain that story in Makati and not in
Samar.

This should have been done in the form of a

counterclaim for damages for the alleged
deception by the Javier spouses. In fact, the
counterclaim was compulsory and should have
been filed by Gutierrez upon the implied institution
of the civil action for damages in the criminal case.

What the SC is saying is, since the civil action for

damages is impliedly instituted in the criminal case,
and he wants to hold you liable for filing this case,
he should file a counterclaim against you in the
criminal case. What is unique was that for the first
time in the Philippine Procedural Law, SC laid down
the rule that there is such thing as a counterclaim in
a criminal case, because, normally, counterclaims
are only recognized in civil cases. But since the civil
action is deemed instituted in the criminal case, the
accused can file a counterclaim against the
offended party in the criminal action.

The trouble in this ruling is that, it has been

subjected to a lot of criticisms by academicians –
professors of Remedial Law, authors – they criticized
the ruling. It provokes more problems than answers.
A justice of the SC remarked, “I think we made a 243
mistake (privately ba) in the Javier ruling. Kaya it
was never repeated.

The SC, in 1997, had another chance to comment

on Javier in the case of —

CABAERO vs. CANTOS - 271 SCRA 392

NOTE: Here, the Javier ruling was set aside.

HELD: “The logic and cogency of Javier

notwithstanding, some reservations and concerns
were voiced out by members of the Court during
the deliberations on the present case. These were
engendered by the obvious lacuna in the Rules of
Court, which contains no express provision for the
adjudication of a counterclaim in a civil action
impliedly instituted in a criminal case.”

“By the foregoing discussion, we do not imply any

fault in Javier. The real problem lies in the absence
of clear-cut rules governing the prosecution of
impliedly instituted civil actions and the necessary
consequences and implications thereof. For this
reason, the counter-claim of the accused cannot
be tried together with the criminal case because,
as already discussed, it will unnecessarily
complicate and confuse the criminal proceedings.
Thus, the trial court should confine itself to the
criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
accused arising out of the crime. The counter-claim
(and cross-claim or third party complaint, if any)
should be set aside or refused cognizance without
prejudice to their filing in separate proceedings at
the proper time.”

“At balance, until there are definitive rules of

procedure to govern the institution, prosecution and
resolution of the civil aspect and the consequences
and implications thereof impliedly instituted in a
criminal case, trial courts should limit their
jurisdiction to the civil liability of the accused arising
from the criminal case.”

This means SC admitted that the Javier doctrine put

more problems and confusions in the absence of
specific rules. The counterclaim should not be tried
together in a criminal case. The trial court should
confine itself in the criminal action and that the
counterclaim should be set aside without prejudice
to its right in setting up actions in the civil action.

NOTE: The ruling in the case of CABAERO is now

incorporated in the last paragraph of Section 1,
paragraph [a], Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised
Criminal Procedure:

“No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party

complaint may be filed by the accused in the
criminal case, but any cause of action which could
have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a
separate civil action.”
D.) CROSS-CLAIMS

Sec. 8. Cross-claim. A cross-claim is any claim by

245
one party against a co-party arising out of the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter
either of the original action or of a counterclaim
therein. Such cross-claim may include a claim that
the party against whom it is asserted is or may be
liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim
asserted in the action against the cross-
claimant.(7)

A cross claim is a claim by one party against a co-

party. It may be a claim by defendant against his
co-defendant arising out of the subject matter of
the main action.

Examples:

 In an action for damages against the

judgment creditor and the Sheriff for
having sold real property of the plaintiff,
the Sheriff may file a cross-claim against
the judgment creditor for whatever
amount he may be adjudged to pay the
plaintiff.

 In an action against a co-signer of a

promissory note one of whom is merely
an accommodation party, the latter may
file a cross-claim against the party
accommodated for whatever amount
he may be adjudged to pay the plaintiff.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
  J and P are solidary debtors for the sum
of P100,000.00 because they signed a
promissory note in favor of D to collect
the sum of P100,000.00. However,
although J signed the promissory note,
he did not get a single centavo.
Everything went to P. Both of them are
now sued. According to J, “Actually
there is a possibility that I will pay the
P100,000 to Dean when actually I did not
even get a single centavo out of it.
Everything went to P!” Therefore, J will
now file a case against P where he will
allege that if J will be held liable to D, P
will reimburse him (J). So, J will also file a
claim in the same action against P.

Now, the claim filed by J against his co-defendant

P is called a CROSS-CLAIM where J is called
defendant in the case filed by D and a cross-
claimant against P. P is also the defendant in the
case filed by D and a cross- defendant with respect
to the cross-claim filed by J. So that is another case
which a defendant is filing against another
defendant.

Limitations on Cross-Claim

1. Must arise out of the subject matter of

the complaint or counterclaim;

2. Can be filed only against a co-party;

and
 3. Is proper only when the cross claimant
stands to be prejudiced by the filing of 247
the action against him.

Purpose: To settle in a single proceeding all the

claims of the different parties in the case against
each other in order to avoid multiplicity of suits
(Republic vs. Paredes, GR No. L-12548, May 20,
1960).

Take note that the cross-claim of J against P is

merely an off-shoot of the case filed by D against J
and P. Meaning, it arises out of the same
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter
of the case filed by D against them.

PROBLEM: Suppose D files a case against J and P to

collect a promissory note signed by J and P and J
alleges in his cross claim, “Well, since we are
already here, I also have a claim against P for
damages arising from a vehicular collision.”

Q: Is the cross-claim allowed in the problem?

A: NO. The cross-claim is improper. It has no

connection with the complaint of D against J and
P. A counter-claim must always arise out of a
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter
of the main action.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
BAR QUESTION:

Distinguish a COUNTERCLAIM from a CROSS- CLAIM.

A: The following are the distinctions:

1) A COUNTERCLAIM is a complaint by
the defendant against the plaintiff,
whereas,

A CROSS-CLAIM is a claim by a defendant against

a co-defendant;

2) The life of the CROSS-CLAIM depends

on the life of the main action. A
cross-claim is merely a consequence
of the case filed by the plaintiff
against the defendants. No main
action, no cross- claim (RUIZ, JR. vs.
CA, infra). Whereas,

In a COUNTERCLAIM, you can kill the main action,

still the counterclaim survives.

3) A COUNTERCLAIM may be asserted

whether or not it arises out of the
same transaction or occurrence that
is the subject matter of the action,
whereas,

A CROSS-CLAIM must always arise out of the same

transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter
of the action.
Example: P case filed against J to collect a loan. J
files a COUNTERCLAIM against P to recover a piece 249
of land. That is allowed and that is a permissive
counterclaim. But suppose D files a case to collect
a loan against J and P. J files a CROSS-CLAIM
against P to recover a piece of land.

Q: Will it be allowed?

A: Not allowed! It has no connection with the

subject matter of the main action.

Take note that a cross-claim is any claim by one

party against a co- party arising out of the
transaction of occurrence that is the subject matter
of the original action or of a counterclaim therein.
So, a cross-claim may arise either out of the original
action or counter- claim therein.

EXAMPLE: J and P file a case against D. D files his

answer with a counterclaim against the plaintiffs J
and P. So J and P will now become defendants with
respect to the counterclaim filed by D. So J now
can file a cross-claim against P arising out of the
counterclaim.

HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE:

1.) Mortz and Charles, plaintiffs, filed a case against

Jet and Pao, defendants. There are two plaintiffs
suing two different defendants on a promissory
note. Both Jet and Pao signed the promissory note
in favor of Mortz and Charles:

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
COMPLAINT (Collection case – Main Action)

MORTZ and CHARLES, plaintiffs

-versus-

JET and PAO, defendants

2.) Now, according to Jet, every centavo of the

loan went to Pao. So Jet files a cross-claim against
Pao:

CROSS-CLAIM ON THE MAIN ACTION

Defendant JET, now cross-claimant

-versus-

Defendant PAO, now cross-defendant

3.) Jet also says, “Actually I have a case against

Mortz and Charles because they entered my land
and gathered some of its product”. So, he filed a
counterclaim against both Mortz and Charles. In
the counter-claim of Jet, the defendants are Mortz
and Charles for the accounting of the
improvements on the land:

COUNTERCLAIM OF JET

Defendant JET, now plaintiff

-versus-

Plaintiffs MORTZ and CHARLES, now co-defendants

4.) Mortz now will answer the counterclaim of Jet,
“Actually, the damages on land was not caused by 251
me but Charles. So Mortz files a cross-claim against
co-plaintiff Charles arising out to the counterclaim
of Jet:

CROSS-CLAIM ARISING FROM THE COUNTERCLAIM

OF JET

Plaintiff MORTZ, now cross-claimant

-versus-

Plaintiff CHARLES, now cross-defendant

5.) Now, according to Pao, “Actually last month, a

car owned by both of you (Mortz and Charles)
bumped my car and that my car was damaged.”
So, P filed a counterclaim against Mortz and
Charles for the damage of the car.

COUNTERCLAIM OF PAO

Defendant PAO, now plaintiff

-versus-

Plaintiffs MORTZ and CHARLES, now defendants

6.) But Charles says, “I’m not the owner of the car
but Mortz. So he files a cross-claim against Mortz:

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
CROSS-CLAIM ARISING FROM THE COUNTERCLAIM
OF PAO

Plaintiff CHARLES, now cross-claimant

-versus-

Plaintiff MORTZ, now cross-defendant

There are six (6) cases which are to be decided in

the same action. This rarely happens, but it is
possible under the rules. The obvious PURPOSE of
these is to avoid multiplicity of suits and toward
these ends. According to the SC, the rules allow in a
certain case and even compel a petitioner to
combine in one litigation these conflicting claims
most particularly when they arise out of the same
transaction. The rule does not only allow a
permissive counterclaim but the parties are even
compelled to raise them in a compulsory counter-
claim.

RUIZ, JR. vs. CA – 212 SCRA 660

FACTS: Dean files a case against Jet and Pao. Jet

files a cross- claim against Pao. After a while, the
case against Jet and Pao was dismissed.

ISSUE: What happens to the cross-claim of Jet

against Pao?

HELD: When the main action was dismissed, the

cross-action must also be dismissed. The life of a
cross-claim depends on the life of the main action.
If the main action is dismissed, the cross-claim will
253
have to be automatically dismissed.

“A cross-claim could not be the subject of

independent adjudication once it lost the nexus
upon which its life depended. The cross-claimants
cannot claim more rights than the plaintiffs
themselves, on whose cause of action the cross-
claim depended. The dismissal of the complaint
divested the cross-claimants of whatever
appealable interest they might have had before
and also made the cross-claim itself no longer
viable”

Whereas, the counterclaim can exist alone without

the complaint.

EXAMPLE: Pao filed a case against Jet for the

recovery of a piece of land. Jet’s counterclaim is
damages arising from a vehicular accident. If the
complaint is dismissed the counterclaim of Jet can
still remain alive even if the main action is dead. But
in a cross-claim, once the main action is dead, the
cross-claim is also automatically dead too. What is
there to reimburse when the complaint has been
dismissed?

There is an opinion to the effect that the dismissal of

the complaint carries with it the dismissal of a cross-
claim which is purely defensive but not a cross
claim seeking an affirmative relief.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
If a cross-claim is not set up, it is barred: except

1) when it is outside the jurisdiction of the

court;

2) if the court cannot acquire jurisdiction

over third parties whose presence is
necessary for the adjudication of said
cross-claim. In which case, the cross-
claim is considered permissive;

3) cross-claim that may mature or may be

acquired after service of the answer
(Riano 2007, p. 285)

COUNTER COUNTERCLAIM and COUNTER CROSS-

CLAIM

Sec. 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter- cross-

claims. A counterclaim may be asserted against an
original counter-claimant.

A cross-claim may also be filed against an original

cross-claimant.(n)

Section 9 is a new provision. There is such a thing as

counter- counterclaim and counter-cross-claim. The
concept of counter- counter-claim is not new. As a
matter of fact, that was asked in the bar years ago.

EXAMPLE: C filed against you an action to collect a

loan. You filed a counterclaim against her to
recover a piece of land. Of course, she has to
answer your counterclaim. But she will say, “Actually 255
you have been molesting me with your claim when
actually you have no right over my land.” So, she
files an injunction to stop you from molesting her. In
other words, based on your counter-claim against
her to recover my land, she will file a counterclaim
to stop you from molesting her. In effect, there is
counterclaim to a counterclaim.

COUNTER-CROSS-CLAIM

E.) REPLY

Sec. 10. Reply. A reply is a pleading, the office or

function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial
or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of
defense in the answer and thereby join or make
issue as to such new matters. If a party does not file
such reply, all the new matters alleged in the
answer are deemed controverted.

If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising

out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall
be set forth in an amended or supplemental
complaint.(11)

ILLUSTRATION: Plaintiff files a complaint against a

defendant to collect an unpaid loan. D files his
answer and raises a new matter, affirmative
defense. According to the defendant, the
obligation is already paid. Plaintiff said that you
have paid the other loan. In other words, the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
plaintiff would like to deny or dispute the
defendant’s affirmative defense of payment.

Q: Can I file a pleading to dispute your defense?

A: Yes, that pleading is called a REPLY.

Q: How do you classify a reply?

A: It is a responsive pleading because it is the

response of the plaintiff to the affirmative defense
raised in the defendant’s answer.

An answer is a response to the complaint and the

reply is a response to the answer.

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

1. Complaint

2. a.) Answer
b.) Counterclaim
3. a.) Reply to answer
b.) Answer to
counterclaim
4. Reply to answer to
counterclaim

Q: Assuming that you would like to answer my reply,

what pleading would you file?

A: None. That is the last pleading. So, reply is

considered as the last pleading.
Effect of failure to file a reply

Q: Suppose I filed a complaint, you filed an answer

257
invoking payment. I failed to reply. What is the
effect if the plaintiff fails to reply? Is he admitting
the correctness of the defense?

A: No. As a general rule, the failure to file a reply

has no effect. Section 10 says that if a party does
not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the
answer are deemed controverted. Meaning, all the
affirmative defenses raised in the answers are
automatically denied.

So, whether you file a reply or not, the defenses are

deemed automatically disputed. The filing of a
reply is OPTIONAL.

Exceptions:

1) Where the answer is based on an

actionable document (Sec. 8 R 8); and

2) To set up affirmative defenses in the

counterclaim ((Rosario vs. Martinez, GR
No. L-4473, Sept. 30, 1952)

Note: Only allegations of usury in a Complaint to

recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if
not denied under oath. Hence, if the allegation of
usury is contained in an answer it is not necessary
for the plaintiff to file a reply thereto in order to
deny that allegation under oath. (Regalado, p. 146)

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
A reply should not be confused with the answer to
a counterclaim which is also filed by the plaintiff.

Q: Give the distinctions between ANSWER TO

COUNTER-CLAIM and REPLY.

A: The following:

1) A REPLY is a response to the defenses

interposed by the defendant in his
answer, whereas

An ANSWER TO A COUNTERCLAIM is a response to a

cause of action by the defendant against the
plaintiff;

2) The filing of a REPLY is generally optional,

whereas

The filing of an ANSWER TO A COUNTERCLAIM is

generally mandatory under Rule 11 because if the
plaintiff fails to file an answer to the counterclaim,
he will be declared in default on the counterclaim.

F. THIRD (FOURTH, ETC.) – PARTY COMPLAINT

Sec. 11. Third, (fourth, etc.) - party complaint. A

third (fourth, etc.) party complaint 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, etc.) party defendant, for
contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other
relief, in respect of his opponent's claim. (12a)
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT is the procedure for
bringing into a case a third person who is not a 259
party to the case.

It is a procedural device whereby a “third party”

who is neither a party nor privy to the act or deed
complained of by the plaintiff, may be brought into
the case with leave of court, by the defendant,
who acts as third-party plaintiff to enforce against
such third-party defendant a right for contribution,
indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect
of the plaintiff’s claim. The third-party complaint is
actually independent of and separate and distinct
from the plaintiff’s complaint. Were it not for this
provision of the Rules, it would have to be filed
independently and separately from the original
complaint by the defendant against the third party.

The purpose of a third-party complaint is to enable

a defending party to obtain contribution,
indemnity, subrogation or other relief from a person
not a party to the action.

EXAMPLE: A plaintiff files a case against a

defendant to collect a loan when there are two
solidary debtors and one of them is compelled to
pay everything so that defendant will drag into the
picture the co-debtor for contribution or indemnity.
If the two of them were sued as defendants, all one
has to do is to file a cross- claim against his co-
defendant. BUT since only one is sued, the remedy
is to avail of Section 11.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Take note that filing a third-party complaint is not a
matter of right. THERE MUST BE LEAVE OF COURT,
unlike counterclaim or cross-claim, where you do
not need any motion or leave of court.

There is a close relationship between a cross-claim

and a third- party complaint because a cross-claim
must arise out of the subject matter of the main
action. A third-party complaint must be also related
to the main action. It cannot be a cause of action
which has no relation to the main action.

EXAMPLE: The plaintiff files a case against the surety

and the principal debtor, so both of them are
defendants, and the surety seeks reimbursement for
whatever amount he may be compelled to pay
the plaintiff. What kind of pleading would he file
against his co-defendant (the principal debtor)?
CROSS-CLAIM.

BUT if the plaintiff files a case ONLY against the

surety, because anyway the principal debtor is not
an indispensable party and the surety would like to
seek reimbursement from the person who benefited
from the loan, he cannot file a cross-claim against
anybody because he is the lone defendant. It is
possible for him to just file an answer. If he loses and
pays the plaintiff, then he will file another case
against the principal debtor for reimbursement.

But if he wants everything to be resolved in the

same case, what kind of pleading will he file? He
must resort a THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT and implead
the principal debtor.
The PURPOSE of a third-party complaint is for the
third party plaintiff to ask the third party defendant 261
for:

1.) Contribution;
2.) Indemnity;
3.) Subrogation; or
4.) any other relief in respect to the
opponent’s claim.

CONTRIBUTION

Example #1: Two debtors borrowed P100,000 from

Janis (creditor) and they shared the money 50-50.
When the debt fell due, the creditor filed a case
against one of them. So, one of them is being
made to pay the P100,000. Not only his share but
also his co- solidary debtor. So if I am the one liable
when actually my real liability is only 50,000. What
will I do? I will file a third party complaint against my
co-debtor for contribution.

Example #2: If Andrew and Carlo are guilty of a

quasi-delict and the injured party files an action for
damages against Andrew only, Andrew may file a
third-party complaint against Carlo for contribution,
their liability being solidary (Article 2194, New Civil
Code)

INDEMNIFICATION

Example #1: Two people signed a promissory note

in favor of the creditor. But actually the entire
amount went to you and none for me. When the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
note fell due, I was the one sued. So I will file a third-
party complaint against you for indemnity. You
have to return to me every centavo that I will pay
the creditor.

Example #2: A surety sued for recovery of debt by

the creditor may file a third-party complaint against
the principal debtor for indemnity. (Article 2047,
New Civil Code)

SUBROGATION

Subrogation - You step into the shoes of someone

else. Your obligation is transferred to me.

EXAMPLE: Where a house is leased by a lessee and

he subleased the property to a third person who is
now occupying the property. In effect, the sub-
lessee stepped into the shoes of the original lessee.
If the property is damaged and the lessor sues the
lessee for damages to his leased property, the
lessee or sub-lessor can file a third-party complaint
and have the sub-lessee for subrogation because
actually, you stepped into the shoes when you
occupied the leased property. (Articles 1651 and
1654, New Civil Code)

For ANY OTHER RELIEF IN RESPECT TO THE OPPONENTS

CLAIM

EXAMPLE: When I buy the property of Mr. Cruz and

after a while, here comes Mr. Dee filing a case
against me to claim ownership of the land. But I
bought it from Mr. Cruz who warranted that he is 263
the real owner. So I will now file third-party
complaint against Mr. Cruz to enforce his warranty –
warranty against eviction. (Article 1548, New Civil
Code)

Take note that there is always a connection

between the main complaint and the third-party
complaint because the condition is “contribution,
indemnification, subrogation and any other relief in
respect to your opponents claim.” There is always a
relation between the third party-complaint and the
main complaint against you. Here is a bar
question...

BAR QUESTION: Janis files a case against Nudj to

recover an unpaid loan. Now the reason is that
Carlo also owes Nudj. Nudj says, “I cannot pay you
because there is a person who has also utang to
me. What I will pay you depends on his payment to
me.” File agad si Nudj ng third-party complaint
against Carlo. Is the third-party complaint proper?

A: NO. There is no connection between the main

action and the 3rd-party complaint – the loan of
Nudj to Janis and the loan of Andrew to Nudj.
Walang connection. Anong pakialam ni Janis sa
utang ni Andrew kay Nudj? Not in respect to his
opponent’s claim.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
BAR QUESTION: How do you determine whether a
3rd-party complaint is proper or improper? What
are the tests to determine its propriety?

A: Case of

CAPAYAS vs. CFI – 77 PHIL. 181

HELD: There are four (4) possible tests to determine

the propriety of a third-party complaint. In order for
it to be allowed, it must pass one of them. That is
the reason when you file it, you need the permission
of the court to determine whether it is proper or not
and the original plaintiff may object to the propriety
of the third-party complaint.

There are the FOUR TESTS (any one will do):

1. A third-party complaint is proper if it

arises out of the same transaction on
which plaintiff is based, or although
arising out of another or different
transaction, is connected with the
plaintiff's claim.

EXAMPLE: A creditor sued only one solidary debtor.

So you can file a third-party complaint for
contribution. Anyway, there is only one loan and
our liability arises out of the same promissory note.

(A third-party complaint is proper if the third- party’s

complaint, although arising out of another
transaction, is connected with the plaintiff’s claim.)
EXAMPLE: The car owner is sued for culpa aquiliana
for damages arising from vehicular collision and he 265
files a third-party complaint against the insurance
company for indemnity based on the contract of
insurance. So it is connected with plaintiff’s claim,
and that is precisely the purpose of my insurance
coverage.

2. Whether the third party defendant

would be liable to the original plaintiff
or to the defendant for all or part of
the plaintiff's claim against the
original defendant. Although the third
party defendant's liability arises out of
another transaction.

EXAMPLE: Sublease. Roy leased his property to Eric.

Eric subleased it to Rudolph. If Roy’s property is
damaged, Roy will sue Eric. But Eric will also sue
Rudolph. The sub-lessor has the right to file a third-
party complaint against the sub-lessee for the
damaged leased property which is now occupied
by the sub-lessee. The third-party defendant
Rudolph would be liable

to plaintiff’s (Roy’s) claim. Rudolph will be liable to

Roy for Roy’s claim against Eric although the liability
of Rudolph arises out of another transaction (Sub-
lease contract)

3. Whether the third party defendant

may assert any defense which the
third party plaintiff has or may have
against plaintiff’s claim.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
EXAMPLE: Tato is a registered owner of a car and
then sold it to Philip. Philip is the actual owner.
However, Philip did not register the sale to the LTO.
The registered owner is si Tato lang gihapon
although he is no longer the real owner. While Philip
was driving that car it bumped the car of Lewee
Tanduay. Lewee researched the owner of the car
at LTO and ang lumabas ay si Tato. So ang ginawa
ni Lewee, ang kinasuhan nya ay si Tato na walang
malay...under the law, the registered owner is
liable. Of course, when Tato got the complaint,
“Wala akong alam sa sinasabi nyo, that car is no
longer mine. I sold that two years ago, I have no
idea what happened.”

So obviously, Tato arrived at the conclusion that si

Philip and nakabangga. Tato filed a third-party
complaint against Philip because he is the real
owner. When Philip got the third-party complaint,
and because he knows the story, in fact he was the
one driving, ang ginawa niya, nilabanan niya ng
diretso si Lewee. Meaning, instead of Tato fighting
Lewee, Philip fought Lewee directly. Frontal na ba.
Sabi ni Philip, “I was not at fault, you (Lewee) are at
fault.” So here is a situation where Lewee sues Tato,
Tato sues Philip but Philip fights Lewee, as if he is the
real defendant, then the third party complaint must
be proper. It must be related.

Take note that there is a close similarity between a

third-party complaint and a cross-claim because as
we have learned, a cross- claim must also be
related to the same action.
SAMALA vs. VICTOR – 170 SCRA 453
267
FACTS: This case involves a vehicular accident.
Philip, while riding on a passenger jeep owned by
Tato, the jeep was bumped by the truck of Lewee,
injuring Philip. Philip filed a case for damages arising
from breach of contract against Tato. Tato filed a
third-party complaint against Lewee. After trial, the
court found that Tato has not at fault. The fault is
entirely against Lewee . So the action against Tato
was dismissed, but the court held that Lewee be
directly liable to Philip.

It was questioned by Lewee. Lewee claims that is

should be Tato who is liable to Philip because Philip
did not sue me (Lewee), “Bakit ako ang ma-liable
hindi naman ako ang dinemanda ni Philip? So
procedurally, I am liable to Tato, Tato is liable to
Philip.”

ISSUE #1: Can Lewee, a third-party defendant, be

held liable directly to Philip, the original plaintiff?

HELD: YES, that is possible. In a third-party

complaint, normally Lewee is liable to Tato. But
Lewee can be made liable to Philip, or Lewee can
be made liable to both Philip and Tato because
that is covered by the phrase “OR ANY OTHER
RELIEF” – so broad that it cover a direct liability of a
third party defendant to the original plaintiff.

ISSUE #2: How can the court award damages to

Philip based on the theory of culpa aquiliana when
his complaint is based on culpa contractual? Can
Lewee be held liable for culpa- contractual?

HELD: YES. That is also possible because “the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
primary purpose of this rule is to avoid circuitry of
action and to dispose of in one litigation, the entire
subject matter arising from a particular set of fact it
is immaterial that the third-party plaintiff asserts a
cause of action against the third party defendant
on a theory different from that asserted by the
plaintiff against the defendant. It has likewise been
held that a defendant in a contract action may join
as third-party defendants those liable to him in tort
for the plaintiff’s claim against him or directly to the
plaintiff.”

Another interesting case which is to be compared

with the abovementioned case is the 1989 case of

SHEAFER vs. JUDGE OF RTC OF OLONGAPO – 167

SCRA 386

FACTS: Shafer while driving his car covered by TPL,

bumped another car driven by T. T filed a criminal
case against S for physical injuries arising from
reckless imprudence. T did not make any
reservation to file a separate civil action. So
obviously, the claim for civil liability is deemed
instituted.

Shafer was covered by the insurance, so he filed a

third-party complaint against the insurance
company insofar as the civil liability is concerned.
The insurance company questioned the propriety of
d third-party complaint in a criminal case, because
according to the insurance company, the third-
party complaint is entirely different from the criminal
liability.
ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of a third-party
complaint in a criminal case is procedurally correct.
269
HELD: Yes, it is proper. There could be a third party
complaint in a criminal case because an offense
causes two classes of injuries – the SOCIAL and the
PERSONAL injury. In this case, the civil aspect of the
criminal case is deemed impliedly instituted in the
criminal case. Shafer may raise all defenses
available to him in so far as the criminal and civil
aspects are concerned. Shafer’s claim of indemnity
against the insurance company are also the claim
by the victim in the criminal claim. Therefore
Shafer’s claim against the insurance company is
related to the criminal case. So similar to Javier that
an accused may also file a compulsory
counterclaim in a criminal case when there is no
reservation.

NOTE: This case although it refers to third-party

complaint is related to criminal procedure. This is
similar to the case of JAVIER where the issue is, is
there such a thing as a counterclaim in a criminal
case where the offended party did not make a
reservation. In SHAFER, is there such a thing as a
third-party complaint in a criminal case?

BUT in the light of the ruling in the case of

CABAERO vs. CANTOS, supra

HELD: “The trial court should confine itself to the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of the
accused arising out of the crime. The counter-claim
(and cross-claim or third party complaint, if any)
should be set aside or refused cognizance without
prejudice to their filing in separate proceedings at
the proper time.”

The SHAFER ruling has to be set aside for the

meantime because there is no such thing as third-
party complaint in criminal cases now. In other
words, forget it in the meantime. Also, forget
counterclaims in criminal cases even if they arose
out of the main action.

This case refers to JAVIER on whether or not there is

such a thing as a compulsory counterclaim in
criminal cases. SC said, “Huwag muna samok!” If
we will allow it in criminal cases it will only
complicate and confuse the case. The attention
might be divested to counterclaims or cross-claims
or third- party complaints, etc.

We will go to the old case of

REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL SURETY CO – 25 SCRA 641

[1968]

FACTS: Hannah filed a case against Rina for a

liability amounting to P350,000. So it was filed in RTC.
Rina filed a third-party complaint against ConCon
Insurance Company for indemnity insurance but
271
the maximum insurance is only P50,000. The
insurance company moved to dismiss on the
ground that the court has no jurisdiction because
third-party complaint is only for P50,000 which is
supposed to be within the competence of the MTC.

ISSUE: Is the insurance company correct?

HELD: NO. The insurance company is wrong. The

third-party complaint is only incidental. The third-
party complaint need not be within the jurisdiction
of the RTC where the principal action is pending
because the third-party complaint is really a
continuation and an ancillary to the principal
action. If the court acquires jurisdiction over the
main action, automatically, it acquires jurisdiction
over the third-party complain which is mainly a
continuation of the principal action.

Now, the same situation happened in another

case. The case of

EASTERN ASSURANCE vs. CUI

105 SCRA 642

FACTS: Carol is a resident of Davao City. Cathy is a

resident of Cebu City. Carol filed a case before the
RTC of Davao City against Cathy. Cathy files a
third-party complaint against Joy, a resident of
Manila. Is the venue proper?

HELD: The venue is proper because the venue of

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
the main action is proper. So automatically third-
party complaint is also proper. The third-party has to
yield to the jurisdiction and venue of the main
action.

Now of course, if there’s such a thing as 3rd party

complaint, there is also a 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th
complaint. That is possible but everything is with
respect to his opponent’s claim.

EXAMPLE:

A B C D E

A files a B files a 3rd C files a 4th D files a 5th

complaint
against B party party party
complaint complaint complaint

against C against D against E

A’s car was bumped by B. But B contented that the

reason that he bumped A’s car was because he
was bumped by C and the same goes to C, D, E. B
then files a 3rd party complaint against C. C files a
4th party complaint against D. D files a 5th party
complaint against E, Meaning, pasahan, ba. They
will throw the liability to the one who did it. That is a
good hypothetical example of how a fourth, fifth,
sixth party complaint can come into play.
Rule on Venue and Jurisdiction Inapplicable

Jurisdiction over the third-party complaint is but a

273
continuation of the main action and is a procedural
device to avoid multiplicity of suits. Because of its
nature, the proscription on jurisdiction and venue
applicable to ordinary suits may not apply. (Eastern
Assurance vs. Cui, 105 SCRA 622 [1981])

Grounds for Denial of Third-Party Complaint

a. When allowance would delay resolution

of the original case or when the third-
party defendant could not be located;
and

b. When extraneous matters to issue of

possession would unnecessarily clutter a
case of forcible entry.(del Rosario v.
Jimenez 8 SCRA 549)

Summons on third, fourth, etc. party defendant

must be served for the court to acquire jurisdiction
over his person, since he is not an original party.

A third-party complaint is not proper in an ction for

declaratory relief (Comm. of Customs vs. Cloribel,
GR No. L - 21036, June 30, 1977)

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
third-party complaint is merely auxiliary to an is a
continuation of the main action (Rep. vs. Central

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Surety and Insurance Co. GR No. L 27802, Oct. 26,
1968)

Sec. 12. Bringing new parties. - When the presence

of parties other than those to the original action is
required for the granting of complete relief in the
determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the
court shall order them to be brought in as
defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be
obtained.

Distinguished from a Third-Party Complaint

A third party complaint is proper when not one of

the third-party defendants therein is a party to the
main action. If one or more of the defendants in a
counterclaim or cross-claim is already a party to the
action, then the other necessary parties may be
brought in under this section.

The best example of Section 12 is the case of:

SAPUGAY vs. CA – 183 SCRA 464

FACTS: Mobil Philippines filed a case against

Sapugay, its gasoline dealer. Sapugay filed an
answer and interposed a counterclaim for
damages against Mobil and included Cardenas
(the manager of Mobil) who is not a plaintiff.

ISSUE: Whether or not the inclusion of Cardenas in

the counterclaim is proper where he is not a plaintiff
in the Mobil case.
HELD: The inclusion of Cardenas is proper. The
275
general rule that the defendant cannot by a
counterclaim bring into the action any claim
against persons other than the plaintiff, admits of an
exception under this provision (Section 12) –
meaning, if it is necessary to include a 3rd person in
a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court can order
him to be brought in as defendants. In effect, the
bringing of Cardenas in the case is sanctioned by
the Rules.

The case of SAPUGAY should not be confused with

the case of:

CHAVEZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN – 198 SCRA 282

FACTS: Petitioner Francisco Chavez (former solicitor

general) represented the government for PCGG.
The case arose out of PCGG cases wherein Enrile
was sued for accumulation of his ill-gotten wealth.
Enrile filed an answer to the complaint. Enrile
contends that the case is harassment suit whose
mastermind was the Solicitor General himself. Enrile
files a counterclaim against Chavez. (Enrile’s lawyer
maybe well aware of the Sapugay case the one
sued is the lawyer.) Chavez questioned such
counterclaim contending that he was not a
plaintiff. Sandiganbayan denied such contention.

HELD: The inclusion of plaintiff’s lawyer is improper.

“To allow a counterclaim against a lawyer who files

a complaint for his clients, who is merely their

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
representative in court and not a plaintiff or
complainant in the case would lead to mischievous
consequences. A lawyer owes his client entire
devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights and the
exertion of his utmost learning and ability. A lawyer
cannot properly attend to his duties towards his
client if, in the same case, he is kept busy
defending himself.”

Q: Is the SC suggesting that a lawyer who sued in a

harassment case can get away with it? Does that
mean to say that the lawyer is immune from suit?

A: NO, the SC does not say a lawyer enjoys a

special immunity from damage suits. However,
when he acts in the name of the client, he should
not be sued in a counterclaim in the very same
case where he has filed only as a counsel and not
as party. Only claims for alleged damages or other
causes of action should be filed in a separate case.
Thus, if you feel that the lawyer is acting maliciously,
you file a complaint but in a separate case. That’s
why the case of Sapugay should not be confused
with Chavez.

Sec. 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.) party

complaint. - A third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant
may allege in his answer his defenses,
counterclaims or cross-claims, including such
defenses that the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff
may have against the original plaintiff in respect of
the latter's claim against the third-party plaintiff. (n)
ILLUSTRATIONS:
277

A files a case against B

B files a 3rd party complaint against C

A vs. B; B vs. C. Normally, B will defend himself

against the complaint of A and C will defend
himself in the complaint of B. That is supposed to be
the pattern. Normally, C does not file a direct claim
against A. But the law allows C in defending himself,
to answer the claim of A. The law allows him to file a
direct counterclaim against A.

If C has the right to frontally meet the action filed

by A – meaning, C will fight A directly – if C has the
right to assert any defense which B has against A
and even for C to litigate against A, then it must be
a proper third party complaint. That has happened
several times.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
EXAMPLE: B owns a car which was already sold to
C. The trouble is that B never registered the
transaction. On the record, B is still the registered
owner. Then C, while driving the car, meets an
accident and injures A. When A looked at the
record, the owner is B. So A files a case against B. So
B will file a third party complaint against the real
owner (C). Now, C can frontally meet the
complaint filed by

A. That is the best example where you have the

right against the original plaintiff or even assert a
counterclaim against him. As a matter of fact,
that last test is now incorporated as a new
provision (Section 13).

In the case of:

SINGAPORE AIRLINES vs. CA – 243 SCRA 143 [1995]

FACTS: Aying filed a case against Bugoy. Bugoy

filed a third party complaint against and Cyle who
wants to frontally meet the main complaint filed by
Aying

HELD: If that is your purpose, you have to file two (2)

answers - you file an answer to the third party
complaint and you file a second answer to the
main complaint filed by Aying.

“A third-party complaint involves an action

separate and distinct from, although related to, the
main complaint. A third-party defendant who feels
aggrieved by some allegations in the main
complaint should, aside from answering the third-
279
party complaint, also answer the main complaint.”

Normally, Cyle answers the 3rd party complaint of

Bugoy and does not answer to the complaint of
Aying. But according to SINGAPORE case, if Cyle
feels aggrieved by the allegations of Aying, he
should also answer the main complaint of Aying.
Practically, he shall answer the 3rd party complaint
and the main complaint.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 Rule 7

PARTS OF A PLEADING

ILLUSTRATION:

CAPTION contains the following:

Republic of the
Philippines 11th Judicial
1) the name of the court; Region
2) the title of the action and
3) the docket number if Regional Trial Court of
assigned. Davao

Branch 12
Juan dela Cruz,
Civil Case #12345
Plaintiff
For: Annulment of
-versus- Contract
Osama bin Laden

Defendant

COMPLAINT

BODY sets forth: Plaintiff, through counsel respectfully alleges

that:
1) its designation;
1. x x x x x x;
2) the allegation of the party's claims and
defenses;
3) the relief prayed for; and 2. x x x x x x;
3. xxxxxx
4) the date of the pleading
Sec. 1 – Caption. The caption sets forth the name of
the court. The title of the action, and docket 281
number if assigned.

The title of the action 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.

Their respective participation in the case shall be

indicated.

Q: What are the instances where the law does

not require the name of the parties to be stated
even in the complaint or pleading?
A: In the complaint, YES. They shall all be named.
It is possible that the title alone will reach 3 or
more pages.

BUT in subsequent pleadings like the answer,

reply, it is not necessary to write the name of
everybody. What the law requires is to write the
name of the first plaintiff followed by the term ‘ET
AL”. Example: Ms. Quitain, et al, plaintiffs vs. Ms.
Pastor, et al, defendants.

So the rule is, it is only in the complaint where the

name of all the parties are required to be stated,
but in subsequent pleadings, no need. But there is
an EXCEPTION to this rule. There are instances

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
where the law does not require the name of the
parties to be stated even in the complaint.

TITLE
So, there must be a caption, title. Take note, the
title of the action indicates the names of the
parties. They shall all be named in the original
complaint or petition; but in the subsequent
pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the
first party of each side be stated without the others.
You only write the first name of plaintiff and
defendant and followed by the word ‘ET AL”.

Q: Suppose there are 20 plaintiffs and 20

defendants in the concept of permissive joinder of
parties. Now is it necessary that they shall be
named?

A: These are the following:

1) Subsequent Pleading (e.g. answer, reply,

etc.) (Section 1);

2) Class suit (Rule 3, Section 12);

3) When the identity or name of the

defendant is unknown (Rule 3, Section
14);

4) When you sue an entity without judicial

personality (Rule 3, Section 15);
5) If a party is sued in his official capacity.
Official designation is sufficient. [e.g. Mr.
Acelar vs. City Mayor of Davao.] (Unabia vs.
City Mayor, 99 Phil. 253)
Variance between caption and allegations in the
283
pleading

It is not the caption of the pleading but the

allegations therein which determine the nature of
the action and the court shall grant relief
warranted by the allegations and proof even if no
such relief is prayed for (Solid Homes Inc. vs. CA,
271 SCRA 157; Banco Filipino vs. CA, 332 SCRA 241;
Lorbes vs. CA 351 SCRA 716).

Thus, a complaint captioned as unlawful detainer is

actually an action for forcible entry where the
allegations show that the possessor of the land was
deprived of the same by force, intimidation,
strategy, threat or stealth. Likewise, a complaint for
unlawful detainer is actually an action for
collection of a sum of money where the allegations
of the complaint do not disclose that the plaintiff
demanded upon the defendant to vacate the
property but merely demanded to pay the rentals
in arrears.

In one case, while the complaint was denominated

as one for specific performance, the allegations of
the complaint and the relief prayed for actually
and ultimately sought for the execution of a deed
of conveyance to effect a transfer of ownership of
the property in question. The action therefore, is a
real action (Gochan vs. Gochan, 372 SCRA 256).
Also although the complaint was denominated as
one for reformation of the instrument, the
allegations of the complaint did not preclude the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
court from passing upon the real issue of whether
or not the transfer between the parties was a sale
or an equitable mortgage as the said issue has
been squarely raised in the complaint and had
been the subject of arguments and evidence of
the parties. (Lorbes vs. CA 351 SCRA 716).

If the petitioner filed before the SC a petition

captioned “Petition for Certiorari” based on Rule 65
but the allegations show that the issues raised are
pure questions of law, the cause of action is not
one based on Rule 65 which raises issues of
jurisdiction, but on Rule 45 which raises pure
questions of law. The allegations of the pleading
determine the cause of action and not the title of
the pleading (De Castro vs. Fernandez, Jr. GR No.
155041, Feb. 14, 2007)

Sec. 2. The body. - The body of the pleading sets

forth its designation, the allegations of the party's
claims or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the
date of the pleading. (n)

(a) Paragraphs - the allegations in the body of

a pleading shall be divided into paragraphs
so numbered as to be readily identified,
each of which shall contain a statement of a
single set of circumstances so far as that
can be done with convenience. A
paragraph may be referred to by its number
in all succeeding pleadings. (3a)
 (b) Headings - When two or more causes of
action are joined, the statement of the first 285
shall be prefaced by the words "First cause
of action", of the second by "second cause
of action," and so on for the others.

(c) Relief - The pleading shall specify the relief

sought, but it may add a general prayer for
such further or other relief as may be
deemed just or equitable. (3a, R6)

(d) Date - Every pleading shall be dated. (n)

In the body, you state your allegations or defenses.

Then at the end, you state the relief which we call
PRAYER – what you are asking the court:
“Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that judgment
be rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff his
loan of P1 million with interest of 10% p.a. from this
date until fully paid.” Then, you end up with the
date of the pleading: “Davao City, Philippines,
December 10, 1997.”

A pleading is divided into paragraphs so numbered

as to be readily identified. Normally, a complaint
starts: “Plaintiff, thru counsel, respectfully alleges
that x x x.” Then first paragraph, second paragraph
and so on. The first paragraph is normally the
statement of the parties and their addresses which
is required under Rule 6 where a complaint must
state the names:

1. Plaintiff Juan dela Cruz is of legal

age, a resident of Davao City whereas
defendant Pedro Bautista, is also of

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 legal age and a resident of Davao
City.

2. On such and such a date,

defendant secured a loan from
plaintiff in the amount of so much
payable on this date.

3. Theloan is now overdue but

defendant still refused to pay.

So every paragraph is numbered so that it can

easily be identified in the subsequent pleadings.
So in his Answer, the defendant will just refer to
the #, “I admit the allegations in paragraph #5)

Paragraph [b] is related to Rule 2 on joinder of

causes of action. Can you file one complaint
embodying two or more causes of action? YES.

EXAMPLE: Angelo wants to file a case against Ina

to collect three unpaid promissory notes. So,
there are three causes of action. The lawyer of
Angelo decided to file only one complaint
collecting the three promissory notes. Now, how
should he prepare the complaint containing the
three promissory notes?

Plaintiff respectfully alleges:

1. that he is of legal age x x x.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: In 1995,

there was a loan secured amounting
to so much and it is not paid until
 now;
287
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: In 1995,
there was a second loan…became
payable and is not paid.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: x x x x.

So, you indicate your different causes of action.

That is how you prepare your complaint. On the
other hand, the defendant will answer:

ANSWER:

ANSWER TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION x x x,

ANSWER TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION x x x,

ANSWER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION x x x.

Do not combine them together in one paragraph.

Even in trial when you present your exhibits, you
might get confused because you combined all the
three causes of action in one paragraph. But with
this one, the presentation is clearer, the outline is
clearer and it is more scientifically arranged than
joining them in one story.

Under paragraph [c], the pleading must state the

relief sought. But it may add a general prayer for
such further other relief as may be just and
equitable like yung mga pahabol na “Plaintiff prays
for such further or other relief which the court may
deem just or equitable.”

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
The relief or prayer, although part of the complaint,
does not constitute a part of the statement of the
cause of action. It does not also serve to limit or
narrow the issues presented (UBS vs. CA 332 SCRA
534)

It is the material allegations of the complaint, not

the legal consequences made therein or the
prayer that determines the relief to which the
plaintiff is entitled. (Banco Filipino vs. CA 332 SCRA
241).

It is important to remember that the court may

grant a relief not prayed for as long as the relief is
warranted by the allegations of the complaint and
the proof. (Lorbes vs. CA).

Q: Is the prayer or relief part of the main action?

A: NO, it is part of the complaint or answer but it

may indicate what is the nature of the cause of
action. Cause of actions are mere allegations.
Prayer is not part of the action but it is important
because it might enlighten us on the nature of the
cause of action. That is the purpose of relief or
prayer.

EXAMPLE: Angelo filed a case against Ina for

annulment of a contract of sale. If you look at the
caption, it is a personal action
which should be instituted in the place where the
parties reside. But if you look at the prayer: 289
“Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that after trial,
the deed of sale shall be annulled on the ground of
intimidation, and the ownership of the land sold to
the defendant in Digos be ordered returned.”
Actually, you are trying to recover the ownership of
the land. So in other words, it is not a personal
action but a real action.

Sec. 3. Signature and Address.- Every pleading

must be signed by the party or counsel representing
him, stating in either case his address which should
not be a post office box.

xxxxx

Signature and address – every pleading must be

signed by the party or the counsel representing
him.

A signed pleading is one that is signed either by

the party himself or his counsel. Section 3, Rule 7
is clear on this matter. It requires that a pleading
must be signed by the party or counsel
representing him. Therefore, only the signature of
either the party himself or his counsel operates to
validly convert a pleading from one that is
unsigned to one that is signed. (Republic vs.
Kenrick Development Corp. 351 SCRA 716)

“It has been held that counsel’s authority and

duty to sign a pleading are personal to him.” He

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
may not delegate it to just any person because
the signature of counsel constitutes an
assurance by him that:

1. he has read the pleading;

2. that to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief, there is a good
ground to support it; and
3. that it is not interposed for delay.

Under the Rules of Court, it is counsel alone, by

affixing his signature, who can certify to these
matters.

“The preparation and signing of a pleading

constitute legal work involving practice of law
which is reserved exclusively for the members
of the legal profession. Accordingly however,
counsel may delegate the signing of a
pleading to another lawyer but cannot do so
in favor of one who is not. In so ruling the Court
cites The Code of Professional Responsibility,
the pertinent provision on which provides:

Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any

unqualified person the performance of any
task which by law may only be performed by
a member of the Bar in good standing.

“A signature by agents of a lawyer amounts to

signing by unqualified persons, something the
law strongly proscribes. Therefore, the blanket
authority entrusted to just anyone is void. Any
act taken pursuant to that authority is likewise
 void. Hence, there is no way it could be cured
or ratified by counsel.” (Republic vs. Kenrick 291
Development Corp.)
Not Post Office Address, why?

Take note of the prohibition now: You must state

your address which should not be a post office
box because one difficulty is that the exact
date when you claim your mail cannot be
determined if it is a P.O. box. But if it is served to
his office, the exact date can easily be
determined.

IMPLIED CERTIFICATION IN A PLEADING

Section 3, second paragraph:

“The signature of counsel

constitutes a certification by him
that he has read the pleading;
that to the best to his knowledge,
information, and belief there is
good ground to support it; and
that it is not interposed for delay.”

Q: When a lawyer signs a pleading, what is he

certifying?

A: Second paragraph says, he is certifying that he

has read the pleading, that to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief, there is a good
ground to support it, and it is not interposed for
delay. That is called as an IMPLIED CERTIFICATION

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
IN A PLEADING (Arambulo vs. Perez, 78 Phil. 387).
That was already asked in the bar once.

BAR QUESTION: What is the meaning of the phrase

“Implied Certification in a Pleading”?

A: “Implied Certification in a Pleading” means that

when a lawyer signs a pleading he is certifying that
he has read it, to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief there is a good ground to
support it, and it is not interposed for delay.

Section 3, last paragraph:

An unsigned pleading produces

no legal effect. However, the
court may, in its discretion, allow
such deficiency to be remedied
if it shall appear that the same
was due to mere inadvertence
and not intended for delay.
Counsel who deliberately files an
unsigned pleading, or signs a
pleading in violation of this Rule,
or alleges scandalous or
indecent matter therein, or fails to
promptly report to the court a
change of his address, shall be
subject to appropriate
disciplinary action. (5a)

So, when a pleading is not signed it produces

no legal effect. It is as if no pleading has been
filed.
Q: Now, suppose it was just an inadvertent
omission, it was not intentional maybe because he 293
was hurrying to file the pleading, the lawyer had it
filed when actually he has not signed it yet.

A: Well, actually if that is in good faith, the court

may forgive the counsel because the law says,
“however, the court, may in its discretion, allow
such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear
that the same was due to mere inadvertence and
not intended for delay.” Maybe, alright, you sign it
now in order that it will produce a legal effect.

However, if the lawyer files a pleading which is

UNSIGNED DELIBERATELY, then, according to the
rules, he shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary
action. That is practically unethical ‘no? Not only
that, he is also subject to disciplinary action if he
signs a pleading in violation of this Rule or alleges
scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to
promptly report to the court a change of his
address..

Now, this ground – fails to promptly report to the

court a change of his address has been inserted in
1997 Rules, this was not found in the prior Rules
perhaps to prevent delays.

Q: What do you mean by this?

A: A lawyer will file a pleading in court, he will say

this is his address, and then he moves his office
without telling the court or the opposing counsel of

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
his new address. So, the court will be sending
notices and orders to his old address and it is
returned to sender because the lawyer already
moved to another place. So, it causes delay.

So, in order to penalize the lawyer, subject to

disciplinary action, it is his obligation to inform the
court and even the opposing counsel about his
new address so that all court orders, decisions and
all pleadings will be served on his address. I think
what prompted the SC to insert this is the fact that it
has been the cause of delays in many cases.

Disciplinary action on counsel in the following

cases:

1. deliberately filing an unsigned pleading;

2. deliberately signing a pleading in
violation of the Rules;
3. alleging scandalous or indecent
matter in the pleading; or
4. failing to promptly report a change of
his/her address.

Signature of a disjoined party

The Court rules that the absence of the signature

of the person misjoined as a party-plaintiff in
either the verifification page or certification
against forum shopping is not a ground for the
dismissal of the action. There is no judicial
precedent affirming or rejecting such a view, but
we are comfortable with making such a
pronouncement. A disjoined party plaintiff has no
business participating in the case as a plaintiff in
the first place, and it would make little sense to
require the disjoined party in complying with all 295
the requirements expected of plaintiffs (Chua v.
Torres GR No. 151900, Aug 30, 2005).

VERIFICATION

Sec. 4. Verification - Except when otherwise

specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need
not be under oath, verified or accompanied by
affidavit. (5)

A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant

has read the pleading and that the allegations
therein are true and correct of his knowledge and
belief.

A pleading required to be verified which contains a

verification based on "information and belief," or
upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks
a proper verification, shall be treated as an
unsigned pleading. (6a)

Q: What do you understand by verification in a

pleading?

A: It means that there is an affidavit accompanying

the pleading that the pleader will certify that he
prepared the pleading, that all allegations therein
are true and correct.

For example: In the pleading the plaintiff will say:

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 I, Juan de la Cruz of legal age, after being
sworn in accordance with law, hereby say that:
I am the plaintiff in the above entitled case. I
caused the preparation of this complaint; I read
the allegations therein;
And they are true and correct of my own
knowledge.

Signed Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 2nd

day of October 2001, in the City of Cebu,
Philippines.

Panfilo Corpuz
Notary Public

That is what you call verification of a pleading. That

the pleader, whether plaintiff or defendant, will
attest that the allegations in his complaint or in his
answer are true and correct of his own knowledge.
And then, he will sign it, and then below that, there
will be the so-called “JURAT” - Subscribed and
sworn to before me on this day of December 1997,
in the City of Cebu, Philippines. Then, signed by
the notary public. Meaning, statements, in the
pleading are confirmed to be correct, under oath,
by the defendant. That is called, the verification of
a pleading.
 How is a Pleading Verified
297
A pleading is verified by an affidavit. This
affidavit declares that: the affiant has read the
pleading, and

a) that the allegations therein are true and

correct of his personal knowledge or
based on authentic records (Sec. 4 as
amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10, May 1,
2000)

Significance of Verification

The purpose of verification is to insure good faith in

the averments of a pleading or are true and
correct, not merely speculative. (Sarmiento vs.
Zaratan GR No. 167471, February 5, 2007).

Effect of lack of Verification

Lack of verification in a pleading is a formal defect,

not jurisdictional defect, and can be cured by
amendment. (Phil. Bank of Commerce vs.
Macadaeg, L-14174, Oct. 31, 1960)

The absence of a verification may be corrected by

requiring an oath. The rule is in keeping with the
principle that rules of procedure are established to
secure substantial justice and that technical
requirements may be dispensed with in meritorious
cases. (Pampanga Sugar Development Company,
Inc. vs. NLRC 272 SCRA 737) The court may order
the correction of the pleading or act on an
unverified pleading if the attending circumstances

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
are such that strict compliance would not fully serve
substantial justice, which after all, is the basic aim
for the rules of procedure. (Robert Development
Corp. vs. Quitain 315 SCRA 150; Joson vs. Torres 290
SCRA 279)

Q: What do you think will happen if a pleading is

verified by a party and it turns out that the
allegations are false? And that he deliberately
made those allegations false and under oath.

A: Well, you know your Criminal Law. That will be a

ground for the prosecution for the crime of perjury,
because that is a false affidavit. But if the pleading
is not verified, even if they are false, there is no
perjury, because perjury requires a sworn statement
by the accused.

Q: Does the law require every pleading to be

verified?

A: NO. The GENERAL RULE is, pleadings need not be

under oath, EXCEPT when otherwise specifically
required by law or this rule. When the law or rules
require a pleading to be verified, then it must be
verified, otherwise it is formally detective. If the law
is silent, verification is not necessary and the
pleading is filed properly.

Litigants not required to read the very same

document to be filed in court

Generally, a pleading is not required to be verified

unless required by law or by the Rules of Court.
Verification, when required, is intended to secure
an assurance that the allegations of a pleading are 299
true and correct; are not speculative or merely
imagined; and have been made in good faith. To
achieve this purpose, the verification of a pleading
is made through an affidavit or sworn statement
confirming that the affiant has read the pleading
whose allegations are true and correct of the
affiant's personal knowledge or based on authentic
records.

However, the Rules do not require the litigants to

read the very same document that is to be filed
before the courts; what the Rules require is for a
party to read the contents of a pleading without
any specific requirement on the form or manner in
which the reading is to be done. That a client may
read the contents of a pleading without seeing the
same pleading to be actually filed with the court is,
in these days of e-mails and other technological
advances in communication not an explanation
that is hard to believe. The variance between the
dates of the Petition and the Verification does not
necessarily lead to the conclusion that no
verification was made, or that the verification was
false. (Sps. Valmonte v. Alcala, GR No. 168667, July
23, 2008)

BAR QUESTION: Name as many pleadings as you

can which must be verified.

A: The following:

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
1) Rule 8 – when you deny the due
execution of an actionable document;

2) Summary Rules – all pleadings under

summary rules should be verified;

3) Special Civil Actions – petitions for

certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

4) Statement of Claim for Small Claims

cases as well as the response thereto
(Secs. 5 & 11, Procedure for Small Claims
Cases)

5) Complaint for Injunction (Sec. 4 R 58)

6) Application for Appointment of Receiver

(Sec. 1 R 59)

7) Application for Support Pendente Lite

(Sec. 1 R 69)

8) Petition for Forcible Entry or Unlawful

Detainer, the answers thereto, and the
answers to any compulsory counterclaim
and cross-claim pleaded in the answer
(Sec. 4 R 70)

9) Petition for Indirect Contempt (Sec. 4 R

71)

10) Petition for Relief from Judgment or

Order (Sec. 3 R 38)

11) Petition for Review from the RTC to the

SC (Sec. 2(c) R 41)

12) Petition for Review from RTC to SC (Sec.

 1 R 42)
301
13) Petition for Review from CTA and other
quasi-judicial agencies to the CA (Sec. 5
R 43)

14) Appeal by Certiorari Under R 45 from CA

to SC (Sec. 1 R 45)

15) Petition for Appointment of a Guardian

(Sec. 2 R 93)

16) Petition for Leave filed by Guardian to

Sell or Encumber Property of an Estate
(Sec. 1 R 95)

17) Petition for Declaration of Competency

of a Ward (Sec. 1 R 97)

18) Petition for Habeas Corpus (Sec. 3 R 102)

19) Petition for Change of Name (Sec. 2 R

103)

20) Petition for Voluntary Judicial Dissolution

of a Corporation (Sec. 1 R 105)

21) Petition for Cancellation or Correction of

Entries in the Civil Registrar (Sec. 1 R 108)

Q: Now, on the other hand, suppose a pleading

does not require verification but the lawyer had it
verified. What is the effect?

A: There is no effect, just surplusage! A pleading in

general is not required to be verified. But I will verify
it. Is there something wrong with it? Technically,
none. But if it is required to be verified and you omit

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
the verification, it is formally defective.

CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping.-- The

plaintiff or the principal party shall certify under
oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading
asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:

(a) that he has not theretofore commenced any

action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi- judicial
agency and, to the best of his knowledge,
no such other action or claim is pending
therein;

(b) if there is such other pending action or

claim, a complete statement of the status
thereof; and

(c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or

similar action or claim has been filed or
pending, he shall report that fact within (5)
days therefrom the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading
has been filed.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements

shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be
cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion
and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein, shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without the prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. 303
If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as
well as a cause for administrative sanctions. (n)

The certification is mandatory under Sec. 5 of Rule 7

but not jurisdictional. (Robert Development Corp.
vs. Quitain)

This rule applies as well to special civil actions since

a special civil action is governed by the rules for
ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific rules
prescribed for a special civil action. Such specific
rule appears under Rule 46, Sec. 3 which requires
that every petition for certiorari to be
accompanied by a sworn certification of non-
forum shopping. (Wacnang vs. Comelec, GR No.
178024 Oct. 17, 2008)

Meaning of Forum Shopping

There is forum shopping when, as a result of an

adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
favorable opinion, other than by appeal or
certiorari, in another. There can also be forum
shopping when a party institutes two or more suits
in different courts, either simultaneously or
successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on
the same or related causes and/or to grant the
same or substantially the same reliefs on the same

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
supposition that one or the other court would make
a favorable disposition or increase a party’s
chances of obtaining a favorable decision or
action. (Huibonhoa vs. Concepcion GR 153785,
August 3, 2006; Heirs of Cesar Marasigan vs.
Marasigan, GR 156078 March 14, 2008)

It is an act of a party against whom an adverse

judgment has been rendered in one forum of
seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in
another forum, other than by appeal or the special
civil action of certiorari, or the institution of two or
more actions or proceedings grounded on the
same cause on the supposition that one or the
other court would make a favorable disposition.
(Sps. Carpio vs. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas Batangas
GR 153171 May 4, 2006)

Rationale against forum shopping

The rationale against forum shopping is that a party

should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous
remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple
petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court
processes, which tends to degrade the
administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon
orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the
congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the
court. Thus, the rule proscribing forum shopping
seeks to promote candor and transparency before
the courts to promote the orderly administration of
justice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the
other party, and save the precious time of the
courts. It also aims to prevent the embarrassing
situation of two or more courts or agencies 305
rendering conflicting resolutions or decisions upon
the same issue (Huibonhoa vs. Concepcion, supra).

How to determine existence of forum shopping

To determine whether a party violated the rule

against forum shopping, the most important
question to ask is whether the elements of litis
pendentia are present or whether a final judgment
in one case will result to res judicata in another.
Otherwise stated, to determine forum shopping,
the test is to see whether in the two or more cases
pending, there is (a) identity of parties, (b) identity
of rights or causes of action, and (c) identity of
reliefs sought (Huibonhoa vs. Concepcion)

What is pivotal in determining whether forum

shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the
courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks
different courts and/or administrative agencies to
rule on the same or related causes and/or grant
the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the
process creating possibility of conflicting decisions
being rendered by the different courts and/or
administrative agencies upon the same issues (Lim
vs. Vianzon GR 137187, August 3, 2006).

Who executes the certification?

It is the plaintiff or principal party who executes the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
certification under oath. (Sec. 5). The certification
must be executed by the party, not the attorney
(Damasco vs. NLRC 346 SCRA 714).

It is the petitioner and not the counsel who is in the

best position to know whether he or it actually filed
or caused the filing of a petition. A Certification
signed by counsel is a defective certification and is
a valid cause for dismissal (Far Eastern Shipping
Company vs. CA 297 SCRA 30). This is the general
and prevailing rule.

Liberal interpretation of the rule

It has also been held that the rules on forum

shopping, which were precisely designed to
promote and facilitate the orderly administration of
justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute
literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and
legitimate objective which is the goal of all rules of
procedure – that is, to achieve substantial justice as
expeditiously as possible (Great Southern Maritime
Services Corp. vs. Acuna 452 SCRA 422). Hence, the
rule is subject to the power of the SC to suspend
procedural rules and to lay down exceptions to the
same.

Examples:

 While a petition for certiorari is flawed where

the certification of non-forum shopping was
signed only by counsel and not by the party,
this procedural lapse was overlooked by the
Court in the interest of justice (Sy Chin vs. CA
 345 SCRA 673). In another case, the fact that
the parties were abroad at a time when the
307
petition was filed, was considered a
reasonable cause to exempt the parties
from compliance with the requirement that
they personally execute the certification
against forum shopping (Hamilton vs. Levy
344 SCRA 821). In De Guia vs. De Guia 356
SCRA 287, the SC went to the extent of
invoking its power to suspend the Rules by
disregarding the absence of the certification
against forum shopping in the interest of
justice.

 In Dar vs. Alonzo-Legato (339 SCRA 306) the

Court ruled that where the petitioners were
sued jointly as “Mr. and Mrs.” over a property
in which they were alleged to have common
interest, the signing of the certification by
one of the petitioners was held to be a
substantial compliance of the rule. In a
subsequent ruling in the case of Docena vs.
Lapesura (355 SCRA 658), where only the
husband signed the certificate against forum
shopping in a petition involving the conjugal
residence of the spouses, the SC considered
the certification as having substantially
complied with the requirements.

 In Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile (400 SCRA

255), a similar ruling was made where the
Court held that there was substantial
compliance with the Rules where only one
petitioner signed the certification against
forum shopping in behalf of all the other
petitioners being all relatives and co-owners
of the properties in dispute, and who shared
a common interest in them, had a common

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 defense in the complaint for partition, filed
the petition collectively, and raised only one
argument to defend their rights over the
properties in question.

 In Bases Conversion Development Authority

GR No. 144062, November 2, 2006, while only
one petitioner signed the verification and
certification, it was held that such fact is not
fatal to the petition. The Court ruled that the
signature of a principal party satisfies the
requirement because under the Rules it is
clear that the certification may be signed by
a principal party.

 In HLC Construction and Development

Corp. vs. Emily Homes Subdivision
Homeowners Association 411 SCRA 504, the
Court ruled that the signature of only one
petitioner substantially complied with the
rules because all the petitioners shared a
common interest and invoked a common
cause of action or defense.

Lack of certification not cured by subsequent

submission

In appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court, the

lack of certification is generally not curable by the
submission thereof after the filing of the petition.
Sec. 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules provides that
failure of the petitioner to submit the required
documents that should accompany the petition,
including the certification, required in Sec. 4, Rule
45, shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
thereof.
Exceptions
309
In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the
Court has allowed the belated filing of the
certification. In all these cases, there were special
circumstances or compelling reasons that justified
the relaxation of the rule.

Lack of authority to sign certification

The same liberal construction applies to

certifications against forum shopping signed by the
person on behalf of a corporation which are
unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is
authorized to file a petition on behalf of the
corporation. A liberal interpretation is given to the
rule more so where the petitioner did submit a
certification against forum shopping, but he failed
only to show proof that the signatory was
authorized to do so. In several cases, (Shipside
Incorporated vs. CA 404 SCRA 981; Ateneo de
Naga University vs. Manalo 458 SCRA 325, etc) the
Court permitted the subsequent submission of proof
of authority to sign the certification against forum
shopping.

Signing the Certification when the plaintiff is a

juridical person

A juridical entity, unlike a natural person, can only

perform physical acts through properly delegated
individuals. The certification against forum shopping
where the plaintiff or a principal party is a juridical
entity, like a corporation, may be executed by

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
properly authorized persons. This person may be the
lawyer of the corporation. As long as he is duly
authorized by the corporation and has personal
knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in
the certification against forum shopping, the
certification may be signed by the authorized
lawyer (National Steel Corporation vs. CA 388 SCRA
85).

Authority to sign Certification of Non Forum

Shopping

A board resolution purporting to authorize a person

to sign documents on behalf of the corporation
must explicitly vest such authority. The signing of
verifications and certifications against forum
shopping is not integral to the act of filing; this may
not be deemed as necessarily included in an
authorization merely to file cases. (MCWD vs.
Margarita A. Adala, GR No. 168914, July 4, 2007)

Pleadings requiring a certification

The certification against forum shopping is

mandatory in filing a complaint and other initiatory
pleadings asserting a claim (Sec.5) This initiatory
pleadings include not only the 1. original complaint
but also 2.permissive counterclaim, 3. cross-claim, 4.
third (fourth)- party complaint, 5. complaint in
intervention, 6. petition or any application in which
a party asserts a claim for relief. The rule does not
require a certification against forum shopping for a
compulsory counterclaim because it cannot be the
subject of a separate and independent
adjudication. It is therefore, not an initiatory
pleading (UST vs. Surla, 294 SCRA 382) 311
It bears stressing that the Rule distinctly provides
that the required certification against forum
shopping is intended to cover an initiatory
pleading, meaning an incipient application of a
party asserting a claim for relief. The answer with a
counterclaim is a responsive pleading, filed merely
to counter petitioner’s complaint that initiates the
civil action and is a claim for relief that is derived
only from, or is necessarily connected with, the
main action or complaint. It is not an initiatory
pleading (Sps. Carpio vs. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas
Batangas, supra)

UST HOSPITAL vs. SURLA

294 SCRA 382 [Aug. 17, 1998]

HELD: The certification of non-forum shopping

applies only to permissive counterclaims because
there is no possibility of forum shopping in
compulsory counterclaims.

“The proviso in the second paragraph of Section 5,

Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, i.e., that
the violation of the anti-forum shopping rule ‘shall
not be curable by mere amendment . . . but shall
be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice,’ being predicated on the applicability of
the need for a certification against forum shopping,
obviously does not include a claim which cannot
be independently set up.”

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Effect of non-compliance

The failure to comply with the required certification

is “not curable by a mere amendment” and shall
be a cause for the dismissal of the action (Sec. 5).

The dismissal is not to be done by the court motu

proprio as the rule requires that it shall be done
upon motion and after hearing (Sec. 5)

The dismissal is, as a rule, “without prejudice” unless

the order provides otherwise (Sec. 5)

Q: What is the effect if a complaint or a third-party

complaint is filed in court without the certification
on non-forum shopping?

A: That is a ground by itself for an automatic

dismissal of the complaint.

Now let’s go to the second paragraph.

Again, what is the possibility if the complaint is filed

without the certification against forum shopping?
That is a ground by itself for the dismissal of the
complaint.

Q: Now, suppose I will amend the complaint

because at first there was no certification of non-
forum shopping, therefore, automatically the
defect is cured. Now, is it automatic?

A: Look at the 2nd paragraph, it says, “failure to

comply with the foregoing requirements shall not
be curable by mere amendment of the complaint 313
or other initiatory pleading, but shall be cause for
the dismissal of the case without prejudice.” In other
words, the complaint will be dismissed but you can
still re-file the case with the inclusion of the
certification against forum shopping.

“Unless otherwise provided, upon the motion after

hearing” – meaning, it is now discretionary on the
court to determine whether to dismiss or not to
dismiss. Of course, it is a ground for dismissal, but the
court may say, “Okay, we will just amend it. We will
not dismiss.” But definitely, you cannot insist that
because I already amended, everything is cured.
That is for the court to determine whether to dismiss
or not to dismiss. So, mere amendment does not
cure automatically the missing certification. (I don’t
agree because the unless otherwise provided
appears to qualify the dismissal without prejudice.
In other words, the court can order the dismissal
with prejudice.)

I think this provision that mere amendment does not

cure automatically the missing certification for non-
forum shopping was taken by the SC from its ruling
in the 1995 case of

KAVINTA vs. CASTILLO, JR. – 249 SCRA 604

HELD: “The mere submission of a certification

under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 after
the filing of a motion to dismiss on the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 ground of non-compliance thereof does not
ipso facto operate as a substantial
compliance; otherwise the Circular would
lose its value or efficacy.”

As a matter of fact, if the certification is

deliberately false there are many other sanctions –
contempt, possible administrative actions against
the lawyer or criminal case for perjury.
Failure to submit certification against forum
shopping and forum shopping are two separate
grounds for dismissal--

The failure to submit a certification

against forum shopping is a ground for
dismissal, separate and distinct from
forum shopping as a ground for dismissal.
A complaint may be dismissed for forum
shopping even if there is a certification
attached and conversely, a complaint
may be dismissed for lack of the required
certification even if the party has not
committed forum shopping. Compliance
with the certification against forum
shopping is separate from, and
independent of, the avoidance of forum
shopping itself. (Juaban vs. Espina 548
SCRA 588, March 14, 2008).

No appeal from an order of dismissal

If a complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with

required certification, the plaintiff cannot appeal
from such order. This is because an order dismissing 315
an action without prejudice is not appealable. The
remedy provided for under Sec. 1 of Rule 41 is to
avail of the appropriate special civil action under
Rule 65 (Sec. 1[g], Rule 41 as amended, Rules of
Court.

Effect of willful and deliberate forum shopping –

Pursuant to Sec. 5, it will result to a summary

dismissal, that is, without need of a motion to dismiss
and hearing and the dismissal is with prejudice.

Effect of submission of a false certification

It shall constitute:

1) indirect contempt
2) without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and
criminal sanctions (Sec.5)

Effect of non-compliance with the undertakings

It has the same effect as the submission of a

false certification (Sec.5), hence shall
constitute indirect contempt without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative
and criminal sanctions (Sec. 5).

OTHER REQUIREMENTS

All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court by

counsel shall bear in addition to counsel’s current

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Professional Tax Receipt Number (PTR), counsel’s
current IBP official receipt number indicating its
date of issue. Pleadings motions and papers which
do not comply with this requirement may not be
acted upon by the court, without prejudice to
whatever disciplinary action the court may take
against the erring counsel who shall likewise be
required to comply with the requirement within 5
days from notice. Failure to comply with such
requirement shall be a ground for further
disciplinaryaction and for contempt of court
(Circular No. 10, July 24, 1985; Bar Matter No. 287,
September 26, 2000.

On November 12, 2002, the SC granted the request

of the Board of Governors of the IBP and the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte to
require all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys
Number in all papers and pleadings filed in judicial
and quasi-judicial bodies in addition to the
previously required current PTR and IBP OR. The
requirement is meant to protect the public by
making it easier to detect impostors who represent
themselves as members of the Bar. Non-
compliance has the same effect as failure to
indicate counsel’s IBP Receipt Number. This
requirement is directed only to lawyers and is not to
be construed as precluding a party who is not a
lawyer from signing a pleading himself (Bar Matter
No. 1132, April 1, 2003)

All practicing lawyers are required to indicate in all

pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial
bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE
Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of 317
Exemption. Failure to disclose the information would
cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction
of the pleading from the records (Bar Matter No.
1922 En Banc Resolution, June 3, 2008). Per En Banc
Resolution of the Supre Court dated September 2,
2008, the effectivity date of the implementation
was moved from August 25, 2008 to January 1,
2009.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 Rule 8

MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN

PLEADINGS

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

methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and
direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the
party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the
case may be, omitting the statement of mere
evidentiary facts.

If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent

provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall
be clearly and concisely stated.

Pleadings must only state the ultimate facts where

one relies on his defense or complaint. You must
omit the statement of mere evidentiary facts.

The ultimate facts refer to the essential facts of the

claim. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out
without leaving the statement of the cause of
action insufficient (Ceroferr Realty Corporation vs.
CA 376 SCRA 144). The ultimate facts are the
important and substantial facts which form the
basis of the primary right of the plaintiff and which
make up the wrongful act or omission of the
defendant. The ultimate facts do not refer to the
details of probative matter or to the particulars of
evidence by which the material elements are to be
established. They are the principal, determinate,
constitutive facts, upon the existence of which, the
entire cause of action rests. (Tantuico, Jr. vs.
Republic, 204 SCRA 428) 319
Distinguish ultimate facts from evidentiary facts

ULTIMATE FACTS vs. EVIDENTIARY FACTS

Q: What are ultimate facts?

A: Ultimate facts are those which are essential

to one’s cause of action or defense.

Ultimate facts refer to those which directly form

the basis of the right sought to be enforced or
the defense relied upon. If the ultimate facts are
not alleged, the cause of action will be
insufficient.

Q: How do you determine whether a fact is

essential to your cause of action or defense?

A: The test to determine whether the fact is

essential to your cause of action is: if the
statement in the pleading cannot be deleted
because if you delete it, the statement of your
cause of action or defense become
incomplete, a certain element of cause of
action disappears then it must be a statement
of ultimate fact.

Q: What are the essential elements of a cause of

action?

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 A: The following:

1.) Statement of the right;

2.) Statement of the
obligation; 3.)
Statement of the
violation; and 4.)
Statement of damage.

You analyze a complaint from the first to the last

paragraph, you find out whether the four are
present.

So if the statement can be deleted and the cause

of action is still complete, then it is not a statement
of ultimate fact. It is only a statement of evidentiary
fact.

Evidentiary Facts

Q: What are evidentiary facts?

A: Evidentiary facts are the facts which will prove

the ultimate facts. They should not be stated in the
pleading. They should be brought out during the
trial. They are proper during the trial but they have
no place in your pleading.

Evidentiary facts refer to those which are necessary

to prove the ultimate fact or which furnish evidence
of the existence of some other facts.

In the law on Evidence, ultimate facts are called

factum probandum as distinguished from factum
probans (evidentiary facts).
 EXAMPLE: In a land dispute, the question is:
321
Who has been in possession of the land for a
long time? I claim I’m the one. So, I will say,
“plaintiff has been in possession of this land
continuously for the past 30 years.” That is a
statement of ultimate fact because that
shows your right – your right over the property
– that you cannot be driven out.

Suppose the lawyer wants to impress the court

that the statement is true, the pleading
describing continuous possession for the past
30 years from 1967 to 1997. And therefore, the
lawyer will now prepare the complaint in this
manner:

Plaintiff has been in possession of

the said property continuously,
openly for the past 30 years from
1967 to 1997 as may be borne out
by the following:

He entered the property in 1967. He

cleared the property by cutting the
grass. In 1968, he planted 20
coconut trees. In 1969, he planted
50 coconut trees. In 1970, he
planted mango trees. In 1971, he
planted guava. He will recite
everything from 1967 to 1997.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
The form is wrong because you are stating
evidentiary facts. So, what should be the correct
pattern?

Plaintiff has been in continuous

possession of the property for 30
years from 1967 up to the present.

That is the ultimate fact.

Then, during the trial, you present the plaintiff and

you ask the plaintiff: Mr. Plaintiff, when did you
occupy the property? – “1967”
– When you first occupied the property, describe
it. – “Ah, bagnot! I have to clean it. So I clean it in
1967.” – In 1968, were you still there? – “Oh yes!” –
What did you do in 1968? – “I planted coconut
trees.” – Did you pay taxes in 1968? – “Yes!” –
Where’s the receipt?

– “Eto o!”

The evidentiary facts should be brought out in

court not in the pleadings, otherwise your pleading
become kilometric. That is what is meant by the
phrase that you only state the ultimate facts
omitting the statement of evidentiary facts.

Another Example:

In a collection case you can just allege:

“The defendant borrowed money and then it

fell due. I made demands for him to pay, but
despite repeated demands he refused to pay.”
You do not have to state in your complaint that
“when the account fell due last November 5, I 323
called him up by telephone. He promised to pay in
November 7 and called him again and he
promised to pay tomorrow…” Those are evidentiary
facts which can be brought forward during the
trial.

Under Section 1, you state the ultimate facts on

which you base your claim or defense. How do you
state the facts? Section 1 says that statement of
ultimate facts must be stated in a methodical and
logical form and you must use plain, concise and
direct statements or language. The simpler the
language, the better. A pleading is not a vehicle
for you to show your mastery of the English
language. The judge might throw away your
complaint for not using simple language.

How do you present the facts? In a methodical

and logical form. It is a matter of writing style. Every
person has his style of writing. Corollarily, every
person expects you to write in a methodical or
logical form. We have said earlier that a pleading
actually tells a story. Plaintiff tells the court his story.
Defendant tells his story, too. Each presentation
must be methodical and logical.

What is the first test whether you style is methodical

or logical? The best exercise is your own answer in
examinations. In a
problem, you answer and you try to argue why.
You try to present your answer in a clear manner.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
It must be methodical and logical.

PRINCIPLE: Only ultimate facts should be alleged

and not the evidentiary facts.

Q: Apart from evidentiary facts, what are the

other matters that should not be stated in the
pleading?

A: The following:

a. Facts which are

presumed by law;
b. Conclusions of fact or
law;
c. Matters which are in the domain
of judicial notice need not be
alleged.

FACTS WHICH ARE PRESUMED BY LAW

Presumptions under the law need not be alleged

in a pleading. When a fact is already presumed
by law, there is no need to make that allegation
because your cause of action would still be
complete.

Example: Negligence in culpa contractual

Q: In a case of breach of contract against an

operator of the common carrier. Do you think it is
necessary for the plaintiff to allege that the driver
acted negligently? Is an allegation that the driver
of the carrier acted with negligence required?
A: NO. There must be negligence, otherwise,
there would be no cause of action. However 325
there is no need to allege it in the complaint
because under the Civil Code, whenever there is
a breach of contract of carriage, there is a
presumption of negligence on the part of carrier.
It is not for the passenger to prove that the
common carrier is negligent. It is for the common
carrier to prove that it is not negligent.

HOWEVER, In culpa aquilana, or quasi-delict,

where there is no pre- existing contract between
the parties, the liability of the defendant hinges
on negligence. There must be allegation of
negligence. The defendant must be alleged to
have acted negligently to hold him liable
otherwise, there is no cause of action. It becomes
an ultimate fact which should be alleged in the
pleading.

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT OR LAW

Conclusions of law or conclusions of fact must not

be stated in the pleading. A statement of fact is
different from a conclusion of fact or law.

For EXAMPLE, where plaintiff said that he is

entitled to moral damages or attorney’s fees.
That is not a statement of fact but your
conclusion.

Statement of fact is to cite the basis why you are

entitled – you must state the reason why you are

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
entitled. The statement of the ultimate fact as
distinguished from conclusion is explained in the
old case of

MATHAY vs. CONSOLIDATED BANK – 58 SCRA 559

HELD: “A bare allegation that one is entitled to

something is an allegation of a conclusion.
Such allegation adds nothing to the pleading, it
being necessary to plead specifically the facts
upon which such conclusion is founded.”

You must plead the facts upon which your

conclusion is founded. To say that you are entitled
to something is not actually a statement of fact but
merely a conclusion of the pleader. It adds nothing
to the pleading.

For EXAMPLE:

The complaint alleges that the defendants are

holding the plaintiff’s property in Trust for the
plaintiff without any explanation of the facts from
which the court could conclude whether there is a
trust or not. The SC in the case of MATHAY said that
that statement is merely a conclusion of the
plaintiff. You must state the basis of your statement
that they are holding your property in trust.

So a statement of law is not allowed although there

is an exception under the second paragraph of
Section 1 which says that “if a defense relied on is
based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and
their applicability to him shall be clearly and 327
concisely stated.” Sometimes a defendant when
he files his answer, it is purely based on law. He
must cite the legal provision in his answer and
explain WHY it is applicable to him.

Test to Distinguish Conclusions of Law from

Statement of Facts

If from the facts in evidence the result can be

reached by the process of natural reasoning
adopted in the investigation of truth, it becomes an
ultimate fact to be found as such.

If on the other hand resort must be had to artificial

process of the law in order to reach a final
determination, the result is a Conclusion of Law
(herrera Vol. I)

ALLEGATION OF ALTERNATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION

OR DEFENSES

Sec. 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses. - A

party may set forth two or more statements of a
claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically,
either in one cause of action or defense or in
separate causes of action or defenses. When two or
more statements are made in the alternative and
one of them if made independently would be
sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by
the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative
statements. (2)
The provision recognizes that the liability of the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
defendant may possibly be based on either one
of two possible causes of action. The plaintiff,
may for example, believe that the liability of the
carrier may be based either on a breach of
contract of carriage or on a quasi-delict, but he
may not be certain which of the causes of action
would squarely fit the set of facts alleged in the
complaint, although he is certain that he is
entitled to relief. He may therefore, state his
causes of action in the alternative. This provision
in effect, also relieves a party from being
compelled to choose only one cause of action.

Q: What happens if one cause of action is

insufficient? Will it cause the dismissal of the
complaint?

A: No, the complaint will remain insofar as the

sufficient cause of action is stated. The
insufficiency of one will not affect the entire
pleading if the other cause of action is
insufficient.

EXAMPLE:

I read a case about a passenger who was

about to board a bus. Of course when you are
a passenger and you get hurt, that is culpa
contractual. If you are not a passenger and
you get hurt due to the negligence of the
driver, that is culpa aquiliana. So it depends
whether there is a contract of carriage or none.

In that case, the passenger was about to board

a bus. As a matter of fact, the left foot had
already stepped on the bus. The bus suddenly 329
sped up. He fell. He was injured. What is the
basis against the carrier? Is there a contract or
none? There is because one foot was already
on it but others say there was no contract yet.
You don’t really know whether your cause of
action is culpa contractual or culpa aquiliana.
You want to claim damages but you are not
sure whether your case is based on culpa
contractual or culpa aquiliana. It’s either one of
the two. It sometimes happens.

Now, if I am the lawyer for the plaintiff and I am

tortured to make my choice, I may allege 2
possible alternative causes of action. I will draft
the complaint in such a way that I will show to the
court that my cause of action is either culpa
contractual or culpa aquilana. I will make sure
that both allegations are covered. You cannot
be wrong because the law does not require you
to make a choice.

Pleading alternative causes of action normally

leads to inconsistent claims. For instance, the
elements of a cause of action based on a
contractual theory are inconsistent with those of
a cause of action based on a quasi-delict. As
previously discussed, a suit based on a breach of
contract of carriage for example, does not
require an allegation and proof of negligence
because it is not an element of a

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
breach of contract suit (Calalas vs. CA 332
SCRA356; FGU Insurance Corp. vs. GP Sarmiento
Trucking Corp. 386 SCRA 312). On the other hand,
negligence as a rule, is an essential element of a
suit based on a quasi-delict (Art. 2176, Civil Code).

Under Sec. 2, this situation is permissible as long as

the allegations pleaded within a particular cause
of action are consistent with the cause of action
relied upon as an alternative. Thus, if the alternative
cause of action is a breach of contract, the
allegations therein must support the facts
constituting the breach of the contract.

Alternative Defenses

Q: You are the defendant. You are confronted with

the same problem. There is a complaint against
you and you have 3 possible defenses. Am I
obliged to make a choice immediately?

A: NO. The law allows the defendant to cite the 3

possible defenses alternatively. Meaning, each is
my defense or not.

No matter if your defenses are inconsistent Section

2, Rule 8 allows the defendant to plead his
defenses hypothetically or alternatively. They may
be inconsistent with each other but what is
important is each defense is consistent in itself.
Meaning, each defense, when taken alone, is a
good defense. You look at them separately. Do
not compare them.
For EXAMPLE:
331
Plaintiff files a case against a defendant to
collect an unpaid loan. The basic allegation is
that the defendant obtained a sum of money
by way of loan and never paid it. Here is
defendant’s answer:

(a) “That is not true. I never borrowed any

money from the plaintiff.” That is a
defense of denial.

(b) “Assuming that I received money from

the plaintiff, that money was not a loan
but plaintiff’s birthday gift to me.” In
other words, it was a donation.

(c) “Assuming that the money I received

from the plaintiff was really a loan.
However, such amount was completely
paid.” Defense of payment.

So, I have 3 defenses. How can you reconcile these

3 defenses? They are inconsistent with each other
but it should not be taken against the defendant.
What is important is that each defense is consistent
in itself. Look at them separately. That is also called
a “SHOTGUN ANSWER”.

The rule allowing alternative defenses is consistent

with the omnibus motion rule which requires that all
motions attacking a pleading shall include all
objections then available, and all objections not so
included shall be deemed waived (Sec. 8, Rule 15)

However, during that trial, you have to choose

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
among them which you think is true based on
evidence. The problem is that you choose one
but it turned out that a different defense would be
correct. You cannot use that defense anymore.
There is a prejudice because during the trial, I will
choose among them with the evidence I have. I
can abandon the others. And that is even better
because you might confuse the plaintiff of what
really is your defense. Thus, a lawyer should not be
afraid to hypothetically or alternatively plead
defenses which are inconsistent with each other.

That is perfectly allowed as it is alternative and

during trial the pleader may show the best one
rather than not stating it in the pleading and during
the trial you waive the best defense because
according to the next rule, Rule 9, defenses or
objections not pleaded in the answer are deemed
waived.

Take note that you have to correlate this topic on

the related provisions we have already taken up:

For EXAMPLE:

1.) Rule 2, Section 5 – where a party may, in

one pleading state in the alternative
or otherwise, as many causes of
action;

2.) Rule 3, Section 6 – on permissive joinder

of parties. When may 2 persons or
more be joined as plaintiffs or
defendants and how are they
joined? They are joined jointly,
 severally, or alternatively; and
333
3.) Rule 3, Section 13 – on alternative
defendants. When you are
uncertain who is the real
defendant, you may join them
alternatively although the relief
against one may be inconsistent
with the other.

Remember these provisions because they are

interrelated. Thus, when you study the Rules,
don’t limit yourself to a particular provision. Look
for other related provisions so you may see the
entire picture. That’s called co-relation – “You
don’t only see the tree but the entire forest.” This
is very helpful in the bar exam.

HOW ALLEGATIONS IN A PLEADING ARE MADE

Q: How do you make allegations or averments in

a pleading? Can you do it in a general manner
or do you need to be specific? How do you
allege your ultimate facts? Is it in particular or
general terms?

A: It depends on what matters you are alleging in

your complaint – whether it is a condition
precedent, capacity to sue or be sued, fraud,
mistake, malice, judgment, or official document
or act.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
ALLEGATION OF A CONDITION PRECEDENT

Sec. 3. Conditions Precedent. - In any pleading, a

general averment of the performance or
occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be
sufficient. (3)

Common usage refers to conditions precedent as

matters which must be complied with before a
cause of action arises. When a claim is subject to a
condition precedent, the compliance of the same
must be alleged in the pleading.

Remember, that one of the elements of a right of

action is that before you can go to court, you must
comply with all the conditions precedent.

Q: When you allege compliance with the

conditions precedent, is it necessary for you to be
specific what are those conditions precedent?

A: NO. Section 3 says that in every pleading, a

general averment for the performance of all
conditions precedent shall be sufficient. A general
allegation will suffice.

Examples of conditions precedent:

(a) A tender of payment is required before

making a consignation (Art. 1256 Civil
Code);

(b) Exhaustion of administrative remedies is

required in certain cases before resorting
 to judicial action (Lopez vs. City of
Manila, 303 SCRA 448; Dy vs. CA 304
335
SCRA 331);

(c) Prior resort to barangay conciliation

proceedings is necessary in certain
cases (Book III, Title I, Chapter 7, Local
Government Code of 1991);

(d) Earnest efforts toward a compromise

must be undertaken when the suit is
between members of the same family
and if no efforts were in fact made, the
case must be dismissed (Art. 151 Family
Code);

(e) Arbitration may be a condition

precedent when the contract between
the parties provides for arbitration first
before recourse to judicial remedies.

The failure to comply with a condition precedent is

an independent ground for a motion to dismiss:
that a condition precedent for filing the claim has
not been complied with (Sec. 1[j], Rule 16)

A: According to Section 3, a general averment will

be sufficient. You need not specifically allege
compliance of conditions precedent. Therefore, an
averment of the performance or occurrence of all
conditions precedent may be made generally and
it shall be sufficient.

ALLEGATION OF CAPACITY TO SUE OR BE SUED

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Sec. 4. Capacity - Facts showing the capacity of a
party to sue or to be sued or the authority of a
party to sue or to be sued in a representative
capacity or the legal existence of an organized
association of persons that is made a party, must
be averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to
the legal existence of any party or the capacity of
any party to sue or be sued in a representative
capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which
shall include such supporting particulars as are
peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge. (4)

When you file a case against somebody you

must have capacity to sue and defendant must
have capacity to be sued.

Q: Is it necessary for me to say that plaintiff has

capacity to sue? And the defendant has
capacity to be sued?

A: YES because Section 4 says you must show

capacity to sue and be sued. It means that
capacity to sue and be sued must be averred
with particularity. A general statement of it is not
sufficient. As a matter of fact, that is the first
paragraph of a complaint: “Plaintiff, Juan dela
Cruz, of legal age, single, a resident of Davao
City…” There is no presumption of capacity or
incapacity to sue.

You may say, “I am suing as guardian of the

plaintiff.” That is a representative party – to sue and
be sued in a representative capacity. Can you say,
“I am suing as a guardian?” NO. Neither can you 337
say, “I am appointed as the guardian.”

Q: How should it be done?

A: “I am the court’s appointed guardian of the

plaintiff minor having been appointed guardian by
the court in this case based on an order.” You have
to emphasize that the court appointed you.

Section 4 says, “the legal existence of an organized

association of persons that is made a party...” It
means that the defendant is a corporation existing
by virtue of the Philippine Corporation Law. There is
no presumption that you are corporation. That is the
reason why facts showing capacity to sue and be
sued, etc. must be averred with particularity.

There’s a case which you will study in Corporation

Law whether a foreign corporation can sue in
Philippine court. Under the law, it can sue provided
it is licensed to do business in the Philippines. The SC
emphasized that if a foreign corporation is suing
somebody in Philippine courts, the complaint must
specifically allege that a foreign corporation is
doing business in the Philippines with a license to
do. Otherwise, it cannot sue.

“A party desiring to raise an issue as

to the legal existence of any party or
the capacity of any party to sue or be
sued in a representative capacity,
shall do so by specific denial, which

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 shall include such supporting
particulars as are peculiarly within the
pleader's knowledge…” (section 4,
2nd sentence)

EXAMPLE: You are the plaintiff corporation with

juridical capacity. I am the defendant. Suppose I
will deny your capacity to sue. I will deny that you
are a corporation licensed to do business in the
Philippines. Now, the law requires me to deny your
legal capacity and I must state the reason or basis
of such denial – why you are not of legal age, why
you are not a corporation.

This is so because the law says that when you deny

or when you question the legal existence of a party
or the capacity of any party to sue and be sued,
you shall do so by specific denial which shall
include such supporting particulars as are
peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge. You
cannot plead a general statement that you deny.
Your denial must be particular. You must be more
specific about what you are denying.

ALLEGATION OF FRAUD OR MISTAKE

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

averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with
particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge or other
condition of the mind of a person may be averred
generally. (5a)
Fraud and mistake
339
EXAMPLE: In annulment of a contract, fraud is one
ground. Suppose the consent was secured through
fraud and plaintiff files a case that the defendant
employed fraud in obtaining his consent.

Q: Is this statement sufficient?

A: No, because the circumstances constituting

fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity.
The complaint must state how the fraud was
committed. It must be described in detail how the
fraud took place.

Malice, Intent, knowledge or conditions of the mind

Q: In the second sentence, why is it that malice,

intent, etc. may be averred generally?

A: A general averment of malice or intent suffices

because one cannot describe or particularize what
is in the mind of a party. I cannot describe in detail
the malice or the knowledge in your mind. I can
only say it in general terms. This is borne out of
human experience.

Fraud, on the other hand, is employed openly, by

overt acts. How you are deceived is not only in the
mind. Those are manifested by external acts.
Therefore, one can describe how a fraud was
committed by the other party.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Sec. 6. Judgment. In pleading a judgment or
decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or
quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is
sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without
setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it.
(6)

Sometimes a party invokes a judgment of a court

or cite a previous case like res adjudicata to
dismiss a case.

Q: Suppose you will ask the court to dismiss the

case because there was already judgment
rendered by the court years ago and you simply
say, “There was a previous judgment.” Is this
sufficient?

A: YES because the law presumes that the

judgment is valid. And the presumption is that the
court had jurisdiction. You do not have to say
that the court had jurisdiction over the subject
matter, issues, etc. when it tried the case years
ago. So, it can be averred generally.

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

official document or official act, it is sufficient to
aver that the document was issued or the act done
in compliance with law. (9)

One can just plead the existence of a document

made by the government. EXAMPLE: official letter
of the President, or official communication by a
government agency. It is sufficient to aver that
the document was issued or an act done.
341
SUMMARY:

Q: What averment or allegations in pleadings

may be done GENERALLY?

A: The following:

1) Rule 8, Section 3– Conditions precedent;

2) Rule 8, Section 5, 2nd sentence – Conditions
of the mind;
3) Rule 8, Section 6 – Judgment;
4) Rule 8, Section 9 – Official document or act

Q: What averments must be done with PARTICULARITY?

A: The following:

(a) Rule 8, Section 4, first sentence –

Capacity to sue and be sued;

(b) Rule 8, Section 4, 2nd sentence – Legal

existence of any party to sue or be sued;

(c) Rule 8, Section 5, first sentence – Fraud or

mistake

ACTIONABLE DOCUMENTS

Sec. 7. Action or defense based on document.

Whenever an action or defense is based upon a
written instrument or document, the substance of
such instrument or document shall be set forth in the
pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which
shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or
said copy may with like effect be set forth in the
pleading. (7)
Not every document that is needed in trial is
actionable document.

Q: What is an actionable document?

A: An ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT is one which is the

basis or the foundation of the cause of action or
defense and not merely an evidence of the cause
of action or defense. (Araneta, Inc. vs. Lyric Film
Exchange, 58 Phil. 736) It is the very heart and soul
of your cause of action or defense, not merely an
evidence thereof.

So a promissory note to collect an unpaid loan is

not only an evidence of your cause of action but is
it is the very cause of action or foundation of your
cause of action. On the other hand, when I have a
receipt, the receipt is not only evidence of your
defense but is the very foundation of your defense.
If I would like to sue you to annul a written contract,
the contract to be rescinded or annulled is the very
cause of your action.

But in a collection case, if aside from promissory

note I wrote you several letters of demand to pay,
such letters, while they are relevant to the
collection case, do not serve as the foundation of
your cause of action, although they are also
important.
 Q: What is the purpose of the distinction between
343
actionable and non-actionable document?

A: If the document is not actionable, there is no

need to follow Section 7. If it is actionable, it must
be pleaded in the manner mentioned in Section 7.
Also in Section 8, it is needed to know how to
contest the genuineness of the document.

Q: And how do you plead an actionable

document under Section 7?

A: There are two (2) options:

1) The substance of such instrument or

document, shall be set forth in the
pleading and the original or a copy thereof
shall be attached as an exhibit; or

2) The copy of the document may with like

effect be quoted in the pleading, in which
case, there is no need to attach the copy.

Q: Using the above promissory note, how should the

pleading be worded?

A: Two ways of pleading of actionable document:

1.) The substance shall be set forth in the pleading

and the original or a copy thereof shall be
attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which
shall be deemed as part of the pleading. Party
simply cites only important parts of the
document, then attached the document.

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 EXAMPLE:

COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff B is xxx of legal

age xxx; Defendant A is
xxxgayxxxx;

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

3. The account is now

overdue and despite
demands of defendant
A still failed to pay B
xxx.

So, the main features of the promissory note are

recited in your pleading – the date when the
loan was secured, the amount, the interest, etc.
But still you have to attach a copy of the
promissory note, either xerox copy or the original.

2.) Said copy may with like effect be set forth in

the pleading. Document is quoted verbatim.

EXAMPLE:
 COMPLAINT

1. Plaintiff B is xxx of legal 345

age xxx; Defendant A is
xxxxxxx;

2. On Dec. 31, 1997 def. A

secured a loan from
plaintiff B which is
covered by a
promissory note worded
as follows:

In the first one, there is no need to copy it. Just

mention the substance or features of the
promissory note. In the second case, the entire
document must be quoted in the pleading.

EXAMPLE:

PROMISSORY NOTE:

December 31, 1997

For value received, I promise to

pay “B” P1 million not later than
one year from date with 2
percent per annum.

Signed: “A”

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 PROMISSORY NOTE:

December 31, 1997

For value received, I promise to pay “B”

P1 million not later than one year from
date with 2 percent per annum.

Signed:
“A”

3. The account is now

overdue and despite
demands of defendant
A still failed to pay B
xxx.

So, you copy the entire promissory note verbatim.

There is no need to attach a copy of the promissory
note. That is the second way.

Q: Suppose in the first way, the promissory note was

not attached. What will happen?

A: The party violates Rule 8, Section 7. The adverse

party may move to dismiss the complaint for
violation of the rules, if such document could not
be secured.

If an actionable document is properly pleaded in

your pleading in the manner mentioned in Section
7, the adverse party is now obliged to follow
Section 8 if he wants to contest such document.
347
Sec. 8. How to contest such documents. When an
action or defense is founded upon a written
instrument, copied in or attached to the
corresponding pleading as provided in the
preceding section, the genuineness and due
execution of the instrument shall be deemed
admitted unless the adverse party, under oath,
specifically denies them, and sets forth what he
claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an
oath does not apply when the adverse party does
not appear to be a party to the instrument or when
compliance with an order for an inspection of the
original instrument is refused. (8a)

Q: Does every pleading have to be under oath?

A: GENERAL RULE: NO.

EXCEPTION: Except when the law requires it.

Example: Section 8, Rule 8.

EXAMPLE: If the plaintiff sues you based on a

promissory note which is properly pleaded under
Section 7 and you would like to contest the
genuineness and due execution of the note like
when the figure was altered to P20,000 instead of
P1,000 only, so there is falsification, then you must
deny the genuiness and due execution in your
answer specifically and most importantly your
answer must be VERIFIED AND UNDER OATH.

To contest:

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
 (a) You must specifically deny the
genuineness and due execution of the
document under oath; and
(b) You set forth what you claim to be the
facts.

If the denial is not verified and under oath, the

genuineness and due execution of the promissory
note is deemed admitted.

Q: When you say “you have admitted the

genuiness and due execution of the document,”
what are the specific facts that you have deemed
admitted?

A: The answer is found in the landmark case of

HIBBERD vs. RHODE (32 Phil. 476):

1.) The party whose signature it bears signed

it;
2.) If signed by another, it was signed for
him and with his authority;

Q: Pretty Maya told Papa Paul that her

housemate Sexy Regina wanted to borrow
money from him. Paul agreed. Maya signed the
promissory note: “Regina as principal, signed by
Maya.” But actually, Regina never ordered Maya
to use her (Regina’s) name. When the note fell
due without payment, Paul sued Regina. Regina
denied agency but failed to verify her answer.
What is the effect?

A: Pretty Maya becomes agent of Sexy Regina.

So, the defense of unauthorized signature is
automatically out. 349
3.) At the time it was signed, it was in words and
figures exactly as set out in the pleading of the
party relying upon it;

Q: Mr. Quiachon sued Mr. Tiamzon to collect a

loan of P50,000 on a promissory note. Mr. Tiamzon
admitted liability but only to the amount of
P5,000. Mr. Tiamzon used falsification as a
defense but his answer was not verified. What is
the effect?

A: Mr. Tiamzon admits the genuiness of the

promissory note – that it was really P50,000.

4.) The document was delivered; and

5.) The formal requisites of law, such as seal,

acknowledgement (notarization) or revenue
stamp which it lacks, are waived by it.

The SC said in HIBBERD that if you admit the

genuineness and due execution of the
actionable document, defenses which are
inconsistent with genuineness and due execution
are deemed automatically waived. Meaning,
any defense which denies the genuineness or
due execution of the document is deemed
automatically waived.
Q: What are the defenses which are no longer
allowed once you admit the genuineness and
due execution of the actionable document?

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
A: The following:

1) The signature appearing in the document is

a forgery;

2) In case it was signed by an agent in behalf

of the corporation or partnership, or a
principal, the signature was unauthorized;

3) The corporation was not authorized under

its charter to sign the instrument;

4) The party charged signed it in some other

capacity than that alleged in the pleading;
and5.) It was never delivered. (Hibberd vs.
Rhode, supra) 6.) The document was not in
words and figures as set out in the pleadings
(Imperial Textile Mills vs. CA 183 SCRA 584)

Q: Does it mean to say that when you admit

impliedly the genuineness and due execution of the
actionable document, you have no more defense?

A: NO. What are no longer available are defenses

which are inconsistent with your own admission of
the genuineness and due execution of the
actionable document like forgery, because you
cannot admit that the document is genuine and at
the same time allege that it is forged. According to
the SC in HIBBERD, you may still invoke defenses
provided the defenses are NOT inconsistent with
your admission of the authenticity of the document.
Q: What defenses may be interposed
notwithstanding admission of genuiness and due 351
execution of an actionable document as
aforesaid?

A: In the case of HIBBERD, the following:

1.) payment;

2.) want or illegality of consideration;

3.) fraud;

4.) mistake;

5.) compromise;

6.) statute of limitation; 7.) estoppel;

8.) duress;

9.) minority; and

10.) imbecility

11.) usury

12.) statute of frauds

13.) prescription

14.) release

15.) waiver

16.) former discharge in bankruptcy

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
Q: May the benefit of the admission of genuineness
and due execution of an actionable document be
waived? If so, in what instances?

A: YES. In the following cases, the implied admission

is deemed waived:

WHEN DENIAL NOT UNDER OATH STILL VALID

Q: When may a simple denial suffice? Meaning,

what are the instances where the denial of the
genuineness of the document, though not under
oath, is valid?

A: Section 8 says, the requirement of an oath does

not apply:

1.) When the adverse party does not appear to

be a party to the instrument;

EXAMPLE: Ms. Guadalope filed a case against

Ms. Castillo based on a contract entered by
them. But before Ms. Guadalope filed the case,
Ms. Castillo died. So Ms. Guadalope filed against
the heirs. The heirs realized that the signature of
Ms. Castillo in contract as forged. Even if the
answer of the heirs is not under oath, they can still
prove forgery because they are not party to the
instrument.

2.) When compliance with an order for an

inspection of the original instrument is refused;

3.) When the document to be denied is not

classified as an actionable document but merely
an evidentiary matter. This is because when the
document if not actionable, there is no need to
353
follow Section 7.

REPLY; GENERAL RULE: OPTIONAL;

EXCEPTION: SECTION 8

Normally, the person who is presenting the

actionable document is the plaintiff.

PROBLEM: But suppose it is the defendant who is

invoking an actionable document for his defense.
He claims to have paid the loan and have
attached a copy of the RECEIPT to his answer. The
plaintiff looks at the document and realizes that his
signature in the receipt is forged.

Q: What should the plaintiff do?

1) Where the pleader presented witnesses to
prove genuiness and due execution and
the adversary proved, without objection,
the contrary. (Yu Chuck vs. Kong Li Po, 46
Phil. 608);

2) Where the pleader fails to object to

evidence controverting the due execution.
(Legarda Koh vs. Ongsiaco, 36 Phil. 185)

In other words, the lawyer of the defendant does

not remember Section 8 and therefore the denial is
improper. But the lawyer of the plaintiff did not also
remember Section 8 that when there was evidence
of forgery, he failed to object. So, the
incompetence of the both lawyers cancel each
other. That is what happens if the lawyer does not

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
know.

A: Based on Section 8, the plaintiff must deny the

genuineness of the receipt specifically under
oath

Q: In what pleading should the plaintiff file where

he will deny under oath the genuiness and due
execution of the receipt?

A: Plaintiff should file a REPLY and it must be

under oath. If he will not file a reply, the receipt is
impliedly admitted to be genuine.

Q: But the plaintiff may argue that under Rule 6,

Section 10 the filing of a reply is optional. How do
we reconcile it with Section 8?

A: Rule 6 is the general rule. Section 8 should

prevail over Rule 6 because the former is a
specific provision that applies only to actionable
document. It has been asked in the Bar:

Q: When is the filing of the reply compulsory?

A: When the defendant anchors his defense on an

actionable document and plaintiff will deny the
genuineness and due execution of such
document.
 SPECIFIC DENIAL
355
We will relate Section 10 with Section 5 of Rule 6:

Sec. 5. Defenses. - Defenses may either be

negative or affirmative.

a. A negative defense is the

specific denial of the material
fact or facts alleged in the
pleading of the claimant
essential to his cause or
causes of action.
xxx

In an answer, defenses may either be negative or

affirmative.

Q: Define negative defense.

A: Briefly, it is a defense of SPECIFIC DENIAL where

the defendant denies the statement in the
complaint by stating the facts and the reason/s on
which his denial is based.

Q: How is a specific denial done?

A: Rule 8, Section 10:

Sec. 10. Specific denial. A defendant must specify

each material allegation of fact the truth of which
he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall
set forth the substance of the matters upon which
he relies to support his denial. Where a defendant
desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
specify so much of it as is true and material and
shall deny only the remainder. Where a defendant
is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of a material averment
made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this
shall have the effect of a denial. (10a)

Purpose of specific denial

The purpose is to make the defendant disclose the

matters alleged in the complaint which he
succinctly intends to disprove at the trial, together
with the matter which he relied upon to support the
denial. The parties are compelled to lay their cards
on the table (Aquintey vs. Tibong, GR No. 166704,
December 20, 2006)

Q: So what are the modes of specific denial?

A: Under Section 10, there are three (3) MODES OF

SPECIFIC DENIAL:
FIRST MODE: A defendant must specify each
material allegation of fact the truth of which he
does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall
set forth the substance of the matters upon which
he relies to support his denial

Meaning, you deny the allegation in the

complaint but you must state the basis of your
denial – that it is not true because this is what is
true. So you state your own side, your own
version. The purpose there is to lay your cards on
the table to make it fair to the other side.
Q: What happens if a denial violates this first
357
mode? Meaning, the pleader did not set forth
the substance of the matters relied upon to
support his denial.

A: That is known as GENERAL DENIAL and it will

have the effect of automatically admitting the
allegations in the complaint.

Q: Suppose the pleader will say, “Defendant

specifically denies the allegations in paragraph
2,4,7…” without any further support for the denial.
Is the denial specific?

A: NO. A denial does not become specific simply

because he used the word ‘specific.’ (Cortes vs.
Co Bun Kim, 90 Phil. 167) What makes a denial
specific is compliance with Section 10.

SECOND MODE: Where a defendant desires to

deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify
so much of it as is true and material and shall
deny only the remainder.

Sometimes an allegation may consist of 2 or more

parts. Therefore the answer may admit part 1 but
part 2 is denied. Or, the substance of the
allegation is actually admitted by the
qualification there is denied.

EXAMPLE: Plaintiff alleges that the “Defendant is

in possession of the property under litigation in
bad faith.” Now, the defendant may admit that

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
the property is in his possession but he denies the
qualification in bad faith – possession is not in bad
faith. Based on that, the defendant should say,
“Defendant admits that portion of paragraph no.
2 that he is in possession of the property in
question; but denies that he is a possessor in bad
faith” or something to that effect.

THIRD MODE: Where a defendant is without

knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of a material averment
made in the complaint, he shall so state, and
this shall have the effect of a denial

Meaning, I am not in a position to admit or to

deny because I have no knowledge. How can I
admit or deny something which I do not know?

EXAMPLE: Plaintiff claims for moral damages

because Defendant destroyed his reputation.
Defendant does not know that Plaintiff had
sleepless nights, wounded feelings, serious
anxiety, etc. Here, Defendant cannot admit or
deny those.

I have read pleadings where the pleader would

say, “Defendant has no knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegation in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9… of the
complaint and therefore he denies the same.”
Actually, there is something wrong there. How can
you deny something that you have no knowledge
of. Just state, “I have no knowledge.” Then period!
And is has the automatic effect of a denial.
359
However, the SC warned that he third mode of
denial should be done in good faith. If the fact
alleged is such that it is within your knowledge, it is
impossible that it is not within your knowledge, you
cannot avail of the third mode of denial.
Otherwise, if you will avail of the third mode in bad
faith, your denial will be treated as an admission.
That is what happened in CAPITOL MOTORS vs.
YABUT (32 SCRA 1).

In CAPITOL MOTORS, suppose I file a case against

you, “Defendant borrowed money from plaintiff in
the sum of P10,000 payable one year from said
date.” And then you say, “I have no knowledge or
information…” There is something wrong there.
What you are trying to say there is “I do not know
whether I borrowed money from you or not.”

How can that be? It is either you borrowed money

or you did not! That is why the SC said in CAPITOL
MOTORS, if you borrowed money, you say so. And if
you did not, deny it. And then I will allege there,
“The defendant have made partial payments.”
Then you will say, “I have no knowledge.” My golly!
You do not even know whether you paid me? In
other words, talagang evasive bah! You are trying
to be clever and evasive. And if you do that, all
your denials will be treated as admissions. That is
the warning in the third mode.

Negative Pregnant

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
A negative pregnant does not qualify as a specific
denial. It is conceded to be actually an admission.

In a pleading, it is a negative implying also an

affirmative and which although is stated in a
negative form really admits the allegations to
which it relates.

Example:

A complaint alleges:

“Plaintiff extended a loan to Defendant in the

amount of P500,000.00 on July 27, 2006 in Cebu
City.”

The defendant in his Answer states:

“Defendant specifically denies that Plaintiff

extended a loan to Defendant in the amount of
P500,000.00 on July 27, 2006 in Cebu City.”

The answer is a mere repetition of the allegations

made in the complaint. The answer is vague as to
what it really denies. Is it the existence of the loan
that is denied? Is it the amount? The date? The
place?

The effect of this kind of denial is an admission.

When a specific denial must be coupled with an

oath:

(a) A denial of an actionable document

 (Sec. 8); and

(b) A denial of allegations of usury in a 361

complaint to recover usurious interest
(Sec. 11)

The allegations of usury which requires a

specific denial under oath are:

(a) Allegations of usury in a complaint (not

allegations of usury in the answer), and
(b) The complaint is filed to recover
usurious interests (Sec. 11, R 8)

Matters not deemed admitted by the failure to

make a specific denial:

a) The amount of unliquidated damages

(Sec.11);
b) Conclusions in a pleading which do
not have to be denied at all because
only ultimate facts need be alleged in
a pleading (Sec. 1 R 8);
c) Non-material averments or allegations
are not deemed admitted because
only material allegations have to be
denied. (Sec. 11)

Sec. 11. Allegations not specifically denied

deemed admitted. Material averment in the
complaint, other than those as to the amount of
unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted
when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury in
a complaint to recover usurious interest are
deemed admitted if not denied under oath. (1a, R9)
While the law says ‘material averment in the

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
complaint,” this rule extends to counterclaims,
cross-claims and third-party complaints. (Valdez
vs. Paras, L-11474, May 13, 1959)

The reason for the rule on specific denial is that, if

there is a material averment in the complaint and
was not specifically denied, it is deemed
admitted. However under Section 11, there are
averments in the complaint which are not
deemed admitted even when not specifically
denied.

GENERAL RULE: Material averment in a complaint

shall be deemed admitted when not specifically
denied.

EXCEPTION: Instances when averments in the

complaint are not deemed admitted even when
not specifically denied:

1) Amount of unliquidated damages;

2) Immaterial averments (Worcester vs.

Lorenzana, 56 O.G. 7932, Dec. 26, 1960)

3) Evidentiary matters; because a party is

only obliged to aver ultimate facts;
(Agaton vs. Perez, L- 19548, Dec. 22, 1966)

4) Conclusions of facts or law.

Let’s discuss the first exception – AMOUNT OF

UNLIQUIDATED DAMAGES is not deemed admitted
even if not specifically denied. So if the damages
are liquidated, they are deemed admitted.
Examples of unliquidated damages are moral and 363
exemplary damages. Or expenses which I incurred
in the hospital. Those are unliquidated damages.
They are always subject to evidence. You have to
prove how much amount you are entitled to. That
is why they are not deemed admitted even if not
specifically denied.

So if you are claiming P1 million damages for

sleepless nights or besmirched reputation, and I did
not specifically denied such claim, it does not
mean that you are automatically entitled to P1
million. Hindi yan puwede. You have to present
evidence that you are really entitled to P1 million.
Yaan!

On the other hand, an example of liquidated

damages is an obligation with a penal clause. For
example in our contract, it is stipulated that in case
you cannot comply with your obligation, you will
pay me P1 million. So if you failed to specifically
deny it, then you are deemed to have admitted
that I am entitled to P1 million. There is no need for
computation because the amount is already in the
contract beforehand. The contract itself would
show how much I am entitled.

Section 11 also says, “Allegations of usury in a

complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed
admitted if not denied under oath.” Usury means
you charge interest above the legal interest
provided by the usury law. If you want to deny my

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
charge of usury, your answer must be under oath.
So, this is the second instance where a denial
should be verified.

NOW, I wonder why this provision is here when as

early as 1983 in the case of LIAM LAW vs. OLYMPIC
SAW MILL (129 SCRA 439), that usury is no longer
existing and the SC stated in that case that the
provision of the Rules of Court in usury are deemed
erased or superseded. Obviously, the SC forgot
what it said in the 1983. (Ulyanin!!)

Sec. 12. Striking out of pleading or matter

contained therein. Upon motion made by a party
before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive
pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon motion
made by a party within twenty (20) days after the
service of the pleading upon him, or upon the
court's own initiative at any time, the court may
order any pleading to be stricken out or that any
sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
or scandalous matter be stricken out therefrom. (5,
R9)

Before answering, the defendant can file a motion

to strike out a pleading or a portion of a pleading.
Striking a pleading means that the pleading will be
deemed erased as if it was never filed. Or if a
portion of the pleading be ordered stricken out or
expunged where
a pleading or a portion thereof is sham or false,
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or a 365
scandalous matter is inserted in the pleading, is
deemed erased. This is related to Rule 7, Section
3, third paragraph:

RULE 7, Sec. 3. Signature and address. x x

xx

An unsigned pleading
produces no legal effect.
However, the court may, in its
discretion, allow such
deficiency to be remedied if it
shall appear that the same was
due to mere inadvertence and
not intended for delay. Counsel
who deliberately files an
unsigned pleading, or signs a
pleading in violation of this
Rule, or alleges scandalous or
indecent matter therein, or fails
to promptly report to the court
a change of his address, shall
be subject to appropriate
disciplinary action.

So, if your pleading contains scandalous or

indecent matters, the lawyer who files it may be
subjected to appropriate disciplinary actions.

Q: What if it is the reply is the one which contains

scandalous matter?

Failure does not define us, it is the courage to get up and move on that
defines who you are….
A: A motion to strike may still be filed by the
defendant within 20 days after the reply.