RULE 7

PARTS AND CONTENTS OF A PLEADING

Section 1. Caption. — The caption sets forth the name of the court, the title of the action, and the docket 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 stated with
an appropriate indication when there are other parties.

Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated. (1)

NOTES:

The caption of the complaint normally looks like this:

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
7TH Judicial Region
Branch 01
Lapu-Lapu City

RENATO M. GALEON,
Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE No. R-3900

For: Forcible Entry, etc.

JOSEPH RANDI C. TORREGOSA,

WALDEMAR R. GRAVADOR,
DIANA A. VELASCO, and
CHEVROLIE M. ISOTO,
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------------/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, through counsel, respectfully avers that:

1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Take note that the parties must all be named in the complaint. Verily, where there are 50 defendants, all of them must
be named in the title of the complaint. But in the subsequent pleadings, like the answer, reply, or rejoinder, it is enough
that the name of the first party of each side be stated, without naming the others, and that such name be then followed
by the words “et al.”.
“Et al.” is a scholarly abbreviation of the Latin phrase “et alia,” which means “and others.” It is commonly used when you
don't want to name all the people or things in a list, and works in roughly the same way as “etc.”

In fine, it is only in the complaint where the names of all the parties must be stated in the title. But in the following cases,
the names of all the parties need not be stated in the complaint, viz:

1.) Class suit (Rule 3, Section 12);

2.) When the identity or name of the defendant is unknown (Rule 3, Section 14);
3.) When you sue an entity without juridical personality (Rule 3, Section 15); and
4.) If a party is sued in his official capacity. Official designation is sufficient.
Example: Renato M. Galeon vs. City Mayor of Cebu (Unabia vs. City Mayor, 99 Phil. 253).

Section 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.

(a) Paragraphs. — The allegations in the body of a pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so numbered 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.

(b) Headings. — When two or more causes of action are joined, the statement of the first shall be prefaced by the
words "first cause of action,'' of the second by "second cause of action", and so on for the others.

When one or more paragraphs in the answer are addressed to one of several causes of action in the complaint, they
shall be prefaced by the words

"answer to the first cause of action" or "answer to the second cause of action" and so on; and when one or more
paragraphs of the answer are addressed to several causes of action, they shall be prefaced by words to that effect.

(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.

(d) Date. — Every pleading shall be dated. (4)

NOTES:

In the body of the complaint, you should state all your allegations pertinent to your cause or causes of action. In the
body of the answer, you state all your defenses -- your specific denials and your affirmative defenses, if any.

A pleading is divided into paragraphs, sequentially numbered, so that in the subsequent pleadings said paragraphs may
just be alluded to by their respective numbers. In the answer, for example, the defendant may just state:

“1. Paragraph 1 of the complaint, insofar as it recites or narrates the personal circumstances of the
plaintiff, is admitted in its entirety.

2. Paragraph 2 of the complaint, insofar as it relates to the personal circumstances of the defendant is
admitted in its entirety.
 3. Paragraph 3 of the complaint is specifically denied, the truth being that ….”

Where there are two or more causes of actions that are joined together in one complaint, each and every cause of action
should be labelled as “First Cause of Action,” “Second Cause of Action,” “Third cause of action,” so on and so forth,
respectively. So, where the complaint pertains to 3 unpaid promissory notes arising from 3 distinct and separate
contracts of loan involving the same parties, the “first cause of action” must specifically relate to the first promissory
note; the “second cause of action” must relate to the second promissory note; and the “third cause of action” must
pertain to the third promissory note. If you are the party-pleader, do not mix up the allegations pertaining to the 3
promissory notes, so that the court can readily understand your storyline.

Do not also confuse cause(s) of action with the reliefs demanded or prayed for. Cause of action relates to the delict or
wrong done; whereas, the reliefs pertain to what you want the court to grant or award in your favor. Where your action,
for example, is collection for sum of money with prayer for damages, do not label your claim for attorney’s fees as
“second cause of action;” your claim for moral damages as “third cause of action;” and your claim for exemplary
damages as “fourth cause of action.” That is palpably erroneous.

In answering the complaint containing such joinder of causes of action, the defendant should also observe proper
labelling, as by grouping his averments into “Answer to the First Cause of Action,” “Answer to the Second Cause of
Action,” and “Answer to the Third Cause of Action,” as the case may be.

The pleading must also specify the relief prayed for. In a complaint, the plaintiff, would of course, pray that defendant be
made liable for plaintiff’s claims, or that the reliefs he prayed for in the complaint be granted; whereas, the defendant,
would normally pray for the dismissal of the complaint and the award in his favor of all his counterclaims, if any.

The general rule is that a court cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of that being sought. This
is the reason why Section 2(c), Rule 7, requires that the pleading shall specify the relief sought.

Take note, however, that there is such thing as a general prayer to the end that the “(P)laintiff (or defendant) prays for
such other relief as the court may deem just and equitable under the premises.” This is allowed under Section 2(c), Rule
7. And it is because of this “general prayer” that a court can grant the relief warranted by the allegations and the
evidenced adduced in the trial even if it is not specifically sought by the injured party (Prince Transport, Inc. v. Garcia,
639 SCRA 312). So, in a case for collection of sum of money, for example, even if the plaintiff failed to specifically ask in
his complaint for an award of attorney’s fees in his favor, this may still be awarded to him by the court if he stated in his
complaint that he was constrained to hire the services of a lawyer just to prosecute the case and where he presented
evidence during the trial showing that he paid the professional fee of his counsel.

As required under the rules, the pleading should be dated.

Example: “Cebu City (for Mandaue City), Philippines, 1 April 2020.”

Section 3. Signature and address. — (a) Every pleading and other written submissions to the court must be signed
by the party or counsel representing him or her.

(b) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him or her that he or she has read the pleading and
document; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
under the circumstances:

(1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly
increase the cost of litigation;
(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or jurisprudence, or by a non-
frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing jurisprudence;

(3) The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary
support after availment of the modes of discovery under these rules; and

(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably
based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) If the court determines, on motion or motu proprio and after notice and hearing, that this rule has been
violated, it may impose an appropriate sanction or refer such violation to the proper office for disciplinary action,
on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule, or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional
circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly and severally liable for a violation committed by its partner,
associate, or employee. The sanction may include, but shall not be limited to, non-monetary directive or sanction;
an order to pay a penalty in court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order
directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly
resulting from the violation, including attorney’s fees for the filing of the motion for sanction. The lawyer or law
firm cannot pass on the monetary penalty to the client. (3a)

NOTES:

Every pleading must be signed by the plaintiff or counsel representing him or her. An unsigned pleading produces no
legal effect.

Take note that the signature of counsel has this implied certification or representations that:

(i) He or she has read the pleading and document; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and
belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances;

(ii) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly
increase the cost of litigation;

(iii) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or jurisprudence, or by a non-
frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing jurisprudence;

(iv) The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary
support after availment of the modes of discovery under these rules; and

(v) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably
based on belief or a lack of information.

By signing the pleading, a lawyer vouches, in essence, that, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, the
claim/defense is meritorious; that it has basis, in law and in fact; that the complaint/defense is not trumped up; and that
he, in effect, holds true to his oath “not to delay any man for money or malice.”

Take note of the amendments imposing sanctions on the lawyer and even on the firm where be belongs, if it be found
out, either on motion of the opposing party or motu proprio by the court and after due notice and hearing, that the
lawyer has violated the foregoing implied representations.

Such sanctions may include, but are not necessarily limited to: (i) payment of penalty to the court; or (ii) if sanction is
imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of
the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation, including attorney’s fees for the
filing of the motion for sanction; (iii) non-monetary sanctions, like reprimand, suspension, or even disbarment, as the
court may refer the matter to the proper office – Office of the Bar Confidant in the SC or IBP – for appropriate
disciplinary action. Take note that the lawyer or law firm, as the case may be, cannot pass on the monetary penalty to
the client.

Other than the signature of the lawyer, the pleading must also contain the following:

(i) His complete address (it is advisable to include also his email address and contact numbers);
(ii) Attorney’s Roll Number;
(iii) Current Professional Tax Receipt Number; the date and place of its issuance;
(iv) IBP Official Receipt Number, indicating its place and date of issuance;
(v) The number; date of issue; place of issue; and the expiry date of the Certificate of Compliance of
the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, or, perhaps, Certificate of Exemption.

Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under
oath or verified.

A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign said verification. The authorization of the
affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s certificate or a special power of attorney,
should be attached to the pleading, and shall allege the following attestations:

(a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on his or her personal knowledge, or based on
authentic documents;

(b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and

(c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in the
pleading.

A pleading required to be verified that 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. (4a)

NOTES:

A pleading is verified by an affidavit, stating, among others, that:

(i) The affiant (the one who signed the verification) has read the pleading;

(ii) The allegations therein are true and correct BASED ON HIS OR HER PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, OR BASED
 ON AUTHENTIC RECORDS;
(Note: verification based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge, information and belief,” IS
IMPROPER)

(iii) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
and

(iv) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
Note that the certifications anent the things mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 4, Rule 7, [items (iii) and (iv)
of the above enumeration] are new matters, as are now required under the Amended Rules. The same were not required
to be stated in the verification under the old Rules and even under current Rules of Court.

So, under the Amended Rules, a simple verification (without any certification against forum-shopping) would look like
this:

VERIFICATION

I, CARDO B. DALISAY, Filipino, of legal age, married, and resident of Sta. Fe, Bantayan
Island, Cebu, after having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

1) I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2) I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaims;

3) I have read all the allegations contained in such Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims;

4) The allegations therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and/or based on
authentic records;

5) Such Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay,
or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and

6) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support, or will likewise have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature, this 1 ST day of April 2020,
in Cebu City, Philippines.

CARDO B. DALISAY
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me, this 1st day of April 2020, at Cebu City,
Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) License Card
bearing No. 0007, which is valid until September 06, 2020.

Doc. No. ____; Notary Public

Page No. ___;
Book No. ___;
Series of 2020.
The purpose of the verification is to give assurance that the allegations in a pleading are true and correct and not the
product of the imagination or a matter of speculation and that the pleading is filed in good faith (Bank of the Philippine
Islands v. Court of Appeals, 569 SCRA 510).

As stated under Section 4, Rule 7, pleadings need not be under oath or verified, except when otherwise specifically
required by law or rule.

In the following instances, among others, the appropriate pleading(s) are required to be verified:

1) Petition for Relief from Judgment (Section 3, Rule 38)

2) Petition for Review from the Regional Trial Courts (Section 1, Rule 42)
3) Petition for Review from the quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals (Section 5, Rule
43)
4) Appeal by Certiorari from the Court of Tax Appeals (Section 12, RA 9282)
5) Appeal by Certiorari from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court (Section 1, Rule 47)
6) Petition for Annulment of Judgments or final orders and resolutions (Section 1, Rule 47)
7) Complaint for Injunction (Section 4, Rule 58)
8) Application for Appointment of Receiver (Section 1, Rule 59)
9) Application for Support pendente lite (Section 1, Rule 69)
10) Petition for Certiorari against the judgments, final orders or resolutions of constitutional
commissions (Section 2, Rule 64)
11) Petitions for Certiorari (Section 1, Rule 65)
12) Petition for Prohibition (Section 2, Rule 65)
13) Petition for Mandamus (Section 3, Rule 65)
14) Petition for Quo Warranto (Section 1, Rule 66)
15) Complaint for Expropriation (Section 1, Rule 67)
16) Complaint/Answer for forcible entry or unlawful detainer (Section 4, Rule 70)
17) Petition for Indirect Contempt (Section 4, Rule 71)
18) Petition for Appointment of a General Guardian (Section 2, Rule 93)
19) Petition for Leave to Sell or Encumber Property of the Ward by a guardian (Section 1, Rule
95)
20) Petition for the Declaration of Competency of a Ward (Section 1, Rule 97)
21) Petition for Habeas Corpus (Section 3, Rule 102)
22) Petition for Change of Name (Section 2, Rule 103)
23) Petition for Voluntary Judicial Dissolution of a Corporation (Section 1, Rule 104)
24) Petition for Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry (Section 1, Rule 108)
25) Pleading filed in the inferior courts in cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure

While not required to be verified in the manner and form prescribed under Section 4, Rule 7, the following must be
under oath (NOTE: A mere jurat would suffice – e.g. “SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me, this 1st day of April 2020, at
Cebu City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) License Card bearing No.
0007, which is valid until September 06, 2020):”

1) Denial of the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document (Section 8, Rule
8)
2) Motion to Set Aside a Default Order (Section 3[b], Rule 9)
3) Answer to Written Interrogatories (Section 2, Rule 25)
4) Answer to Request for Admission (Section 2, Rule 26)
Under the rules, a pleading required to be verified that 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.

It has, however, been held that the absence of a verification, or the non-compliance with the verification requirement,
does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. It is only a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement. Verily,
the court may order its submission or correction, or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that
strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served (Vda. de Formoso
v. PNB, 650 SCRA 35).

You may have heard of the advice that, in case of doubt, it’s better to have the pleading verified. To some extent, this
advice is sound, but it only shows that the lawyer assisting the litigant does not know the rules or is otherwise indolent
to read the rules if only to determine what pleadings are required to be verified. For another, if it happens that a
statement in a verified pleading is fallacious, then the affiant may be unnecessarily exposed to possible prosecution for
perjury. This is the danger of having the pleading verified even if it is not supposed to be verified.

Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or 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 or she 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 or her 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 present status thereof; and (c) if he or she should thereafter learn that the same or similar action
or claim has been filed or is pending, he or she shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the
court wherein his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s certificate or a
special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading.

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 prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his or her 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. (5a)

NOTES:

The certification against forum-shopping constitutes an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no
other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of action (Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
173186, September 16, 2015).

In a certification against forum-shopping the plaintiff or 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, that:

(a) He or she 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 or her 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 present status
thereof; and

(c) If he or she should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or
is pending, he or she shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the
court wherein his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

A Certification against Forum-Shopping which is integrated in the Verification would normally look like this:

VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, CARDO B. DALISAY, Filipino, of legal age, married, and resident of Sta. Fe, Bantayan
Island, Cebu, after having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

1) I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2) I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition;

3) I have read all the allegations contained in such Petition;

4) The allegations therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and/or based on
authentic records;

5) Such Petition is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation;

6) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support, or will likewise have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery; and

7) I hereby certify that I have not heretofore commenced any petition, nor filed any action
involving the same issues, subject matter, and parties before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to
the best of my personal knowledge, no such other action, petition or claim is pending therein;
If I should hereafter learn of such other similar action, petition or claim, then we shall report
that fact to this Court, within five (5) calendar days from knowledge thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature, this 1 ST day of April 2020,
in Cebu City, Philippines.

CARDO B. DALISAY
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me, this 1st day of April 2020, at Cebu City,
Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) License Card
bearing No. 0007, which is valid until September 06, 2020.

Doc. No. ____; Notary Public

Page No. ___;
Book No. ___;
Series of 2020.
Generally, it is the plaintiff or principal party who executes and signs the certification against forum-shopping, not his
counsel. And where there are several plaintiffs/petitioners or principal parties, all of them must sign the certification
against-forum shopping; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the cases. The exception,
however, is when the plaintiffs/petitioners or principal parties share a common interest and invoke a common cause of
action or defense, wherein the signature of only one of them substantially complies with the Rule (Vda. de Formoso v.
PNB, supra).

If, however, for justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a special power of attorney
designating his counsel of record (or any person knowledgeable about the case) to sign in his behalf (Uy v. Court of
Appeals, supra).

Take note, however, that where the person signing the certification against forum-shopping does it in a representative
capacity, it is required under the rules that the authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the
form of a secretary’s certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading. This secretary’s
certificate (or a board resolution) is what is normally submitted or required if the party-pleader is a corporation or a
juridical person.

It cannot be gainsaid that a corporation can exercise its power to sue only upon authority of its board of directors or
trustees, the latter being the body which exercises corporate powers. Hence, with respect to a corporation, the
certification must be executed by an officer or member of the board of directors or by one who is duly authorized by a
resolution of the board of directors; otherwise, the complaint will have to be dismissed (Cosco Philippines Shipping Lines
v. Kemper Insurance Company, 670 SCRA 343). But this rule, with respect to a corporation, has been relaxed in a catena
of cases, not the least of which is SOUTH COTABATO COMMUNICATIONS CORP. vs. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, 15
December 2010, GR No. 173326, where our Supreme Court succinctly declared:

“In sum, we have held that the following officials or employees of the company can sign the
verification and certification without need of a board resolution: (1) the Chairperson of the Board
of Directors, (2) the President of a corporation, (3) the General Manager or Acting General
Manager, (4) Personnel Officer, and (5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case.

While the above cases do not provide a complete listing of authorized signatories to the verification and
certification required by the rules, the determination of the sufficiency of the authority was done on a
case to case basis. The rationale applied in the foregoing cases is to justify the authority of corporate
officers or representatives of the corporation to sign the verification or certificate against forum
shopping, being in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition.

It must be stressed, however, that the Cagayan ruling qualified that the better procedure is still to
append a board resolution to the complaint or petition to obviate questions regarding the
authority of the signatory of the verification and certification.”

Let it be stressed that certification against forum-shopping is required for every complaint and other initiatory pleadings
asserting a claim for relief. These initiatory pleadings (other than a complaint) are as follows:

(i) Permissive counterclaim;

(ii) Cross-claim;
(iii) Third-party complaint;
(iv) Complaint-in-Intervention, or
 (v) Other petition or any application in which a party asserts his 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, as when the counterclaim is for damages, moral, exemplary or
attorney’s fees, by reason of the alleged malicious and unfounded suit filed against the defendant. It is, therefore, not an
initiatory pleading (Santo Tomas University v. Surla, 294 SCRA 382).

Parenthetically, if the answer with a counterclaim is filed merely to counter petitioner’s complaint, 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 (Spouses Carpio v. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas Batangas, 489 SCRA 492).

Example:

Waldi filed a case against RMG for allegedly causing damages on Waldi’s car on account of RMG’s
negligence in driving his own car. In his Answer with Counterclaim, RMG alleged that the vehicular
collision complained of was rather due to Waldi’s negligence, thereby praying that Waldi be held liable
instead to pay for the damages of RMG’s car, in the amount as, thus, stated and prayed for in the
Answer with Counterclaim, plus attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages.

RMG’s Answer with Counterclaim need not contain a certification against forum-shopping.

To constitute forum shopping, the following must be sufficiently established:

(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as would represent the same interest in both actions;

(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and

(c) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action
will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under
consideration (Sps. Isidro & Lea Cruz vs. Sps. Florencio & Amparo Caraos, 23 April 2007, GR No.
138208).

Take note also that the possible violations under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Amended Rules and the possible consequences
thereof are as follows:

(i) Failure to submit a certification against forum shopping, but the party has not actually committed
forum shopping.

Such omission shall be a cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing. The rule requires, therefore, that the dismissal be upon
motion and that there should be a hearing. As a rule, such dismissal shall be without prejudice,
unless the court provides otherwise – that it is with prejudice. Where the dismissal is silent as to
the character of such dismissal, the dismissal is presumed to be without prejudice. Hence, the
case can be refiled, and, this time, a certification against forum shopping should already be
attached to the appropriate pleading. Take note, however, that such dismissal cannot, as a rule,
be cured by simply amending the pleading.

(i) Submitting a false certification against forum-shopping, in that the party-pleader is actually guilty
of committing forum shopping. There are different ways by which forum-shopping may be
 actually committed, viz:

1) Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the
previous case not having been resolved yet (litis pendentia);

2) Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the
previous case having been finally resolved (res judicata);

3) Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers
(splitting of causes of action).

If the acts of the party or his or her counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal of the case with prejudice and shall constitute direct
contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.

The dismissal of the case may be done summarily, or even without any motion coming from the opposing
party, and it shall be with prejudice – meaning, the case cannot anymore be refiled. Where the
proscription on litis pendentia is consciously violated, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall
be dismissed with prejudice (Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 635 SCRA 140).

And this is without prejudice to imposing an administrative sanction against the party-pleader and/or his
lawyer, such as, but not limited to citing both of them in contempt of the court. The lawyer may even be
suspended or disbarred. The party-pleader may even be prosecuted for perjury, and the lawyer may also
be prosecuted for subornation of perjury, if he consents to the doing of falsehood by his client.

(ii) Failure to comply with the undertaking – that is, if the party-pleader should thereafter learn that the same
or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he or she shall report that fact within five (5)
calendar days therefrom to the court wherein his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
been filed.

It has the same effect as the submission of a false certification against forum shopping. It shall be a ground
for dismissal of action(s). Moreover, it shall constitute indirect contempt of court without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative sanctions.

Section 6. Contents. — Every pleading stating a party’s claims or defenses shall, in addition to those mandated by
Section 2, Rule 7, state the following:

(a) Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove a party’s claim or defense;

(b) Summary of the witnesses’ intended testimonies, provided that the judicial affidavits of said witnesses shall be
attached to the pleading and form an integral part thereof. Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are attached to
the pleading shall be presented by the parties during trial. Except if a party presents meritorious reasons as basis
for the admission of additional witnesses, no other witness or affidavit shall be heard or admitted by the court; and

(c) Documentary and object evidence in support of the allegations contained in the pleading. (n)
 NOTES:

This provision is new and is a substantial departure from the previous and current rules.

Under the old and even in the present rules, the pleading shall only state the ultimate facts constituting the claim or
defense, as the case may. Evidentiary facts need not be stated in the pleading, much less the names of the witnesses for
the party-pleader and the substance of their respective testimonies, as these things are only required to be stated in the
Pre-Trial Brief and are to be taken up only during Pre-Trial.

Under the Amended Rules, however, it is now required that the pleading asserting a party’s claims or defenses shall now
include, among others, the following:

a. Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove a party’s claim or defense;

b. Summary of the witnesses’ intended testimonies; in fact, the judicial affidavits of said
witnesses shall already be attached to the pleading and form an integral part thereof. Only
witnesses whose judicial affidavits are attached to the pleading shall be presented by the
parties during trial. Except if a party presents meritorious reasons as basis for the admission
of additional witnesses, no other witness or affidavit shall be heard or admitted by the court;
and

c. Documentary and object evidence in support of the allegations contained in the pleading.

It is submitted that the foregoing matters are now required to be stated in the appropriate pleadings, so that the court
and the parties can readily determine, even before actual trial could be had, if the complaint or the defense has merit or
not. This requirement is meant to put give more teeth to the implied representations under Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 7 to
the end that the complaint or defense is not trumped up, or concocted, or that it has, indeed, basis in fact and in law.

This requirement is also meant to avoid surprises during the trial.