PLEADINGS IN CIVIL CASES position (Santiago vs.

De los Santos, 61 SCRA

146).
Nature of pleadings
Pleadings are the written statements of the respective
Construction of ambiguous allegations in pleadings
claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court In case there are ambiguities in the pleadings, the same
for appropriate judgment (Sec. 1, Rule 6, Rules of Court). must be construed most strongly against the pleader and
Under the Rules of Court, pleadings cannot be oral that no presumptions in his favor are to be indulged in.
because they are clearly described as "written" This rule proceeds from the theory that it is the pleader
statements. who selects the language used and if his pleading is open
Necessity and purpose of pleadings to different constructions, such ambiguities must be at
1. Pleadings are necessary to invoke the the pleader's peril (61 Am Jur, Pleading, 57).
jurisdiction of the court (71 C.J.S. Pleading, 1,
1951). It is necessary, in order to confer System of pleading in the Philippines
jurisdiction on a court, that the subject matter be The system of pleading used in the Philippines is the
presented for its consideration in a mode Code Pleading following the system observed in some
sanctioned by law and this is done by the filing of states of the United States like California and New York.
a complaint or other pleading. Unless a This system is based on codified rules or written set of
complaint or other pleading is filed, the procedure as distinguished from common law procedure
judgment of a court of record is void and subject (Marquez and Gutierrez Lora us. Varela, 92 Phil. 373).
to collateral attack even though it may be a court
Pleadings allowed by the Rules of Court (Bar 1996)
which has jurisdiction over the subject matter
The following are the pleadings allowed by the Rules of
referred to in the judgment (61 Am Jur 2d,
Court: (a) complaint; (b) answer; (c) counterclaim; (d)
Pleading, 2).
crossclaim; (e) third (fourth, etc.) -party complaint; (f)
2. Pleadings are intended to secure a method by
complaint-in-intervention; and (g) reply (Sec. 2, Rule 6,
which the issues may be properly laid before the
Rules of Court)
court (Santiago vs. De los Santos, 61 SCRA 146).
Pleadings are designed to present, define and
Pleadings allowed under the Rules on Summary
narrow the issues, to limit the proof to be
Procedure
submitted in the trial, to advise the court and the
Note however, that when a case falls under the Rules on
adverse party of the issues and what are relied
Summary Procedure, the only pleadings allowed to be
upon as the causes of action or defense (71
filed are: (a) complaint; (b) compulsory counterclaim; (c)
C.J.S., Pleading, 1). The pleadings of the parties
cross-claim pleaded in the answer; and (d) answers
present the issue to be tried and determine
thereto (Sec. 3[A] II, Rules on Summary Procedure).
whether such issue is of law or of fact (61 Am Jur
Permissive counterclaims, third-party complaints, replies
2d, Pleading, 1, 1981).
and pleadings-in-intervention are prohibited under the
Rules on Summary Procedure (Sec. 9, TV, Rules on
Construction of pleadings
Summary Procedure).
1. In this jurisdiction, all pleadings shall be liberally
construed so as to do substantial justice
Pleadings not allowed in a petition for a writ of
(Concrete Aggregate Corporation vs. Court of
amparo or habeas data
Appeals, 266 SCRA 88). Pleadings should receive
In a petition for a writ of amparo or habeas data, in
a fair and reasonable construction in accordance
addition to certain prohibited motions, the following
with the natural intendment of the words and
pleadings are not allowed:
language used and the subject matter involved.
(a) Counterclaim;
The intention of the pleader is the controlling
(b) Cross-claim;
factor in construing a pleading and should be
(c) Third-party complaint;
read in accordance with its substance, not its
(d) Reply; and
form (71 C.J.S., Pleading, 53).
(e) Pleadings in intervention (Sec. 11, The Rule on the
2. While it is the rule that pleadings should be
Writ of Amparo; October 24, 2007; Sec. 13, The Rule on
liberally construed, it has also been ruled that a
Habeas Data, February 2, 2008). The same provisions
party is strictly bound by the allegations,
prohibit the filing of a petition for certiorari, mandamus
statements or admissions made in his pleadings
or prohibition against any interlocutory order.
and cannot be permitted to take a contradictory
 Caption of the pleading
The caption contains the following: (a) the name of the
court; (b) the title of the action; and (c) the docket
number, if assigned (Sec. 1, Rule 7, Rules of Court).
Title of the action
The title of the action contains the names of the parties
whose participation in the case shall be indicated. This
means the parties shall be indicated as either plaintiff or
defendant. 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 whether
there are other parties. Example: Pedro Reyes, et al. (Sec.
1, Rule 7, Rules of Court).
Variance between caption and allegations in the
pleading
1. 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.
Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 157; Banco Filipino
Savings & Mortgage Bank vs. Court of Appeals,
332 SCRA 241; Lorbes vs. Court of Appeals, 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.
2. 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
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. Court of
Appeals, 351 SCRA 716).
3. If the petitioner filed before the Supreme Court
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., G.R. No. 155041, February 14,
2007).
Body of the pleading
1. 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 (Sec. 2, Rule 7, Rules of Court).
2. The allegations in the body of the pleading shall
be divided into paragraphs and shall be so
numbered for ready identification. This
numbering scheme is significant because in
subsequent pleadings, a paragraph may be
referred to only by its number without need for
repeating the entire allegations in the
paragraph. Each paragraph shall contain a
statement of a single set of circumstances so far
as that can be done with convenience (Sec. 2,
Rule 7, Rules of Court).
Designation of causes of actions joined in one
complaint
When two or more causes of action are joined, the first
cause of action shall be prefaced with the words, "first
cause of action," or the second cause of action by the
words, "second cause of action," and so on for the others
(Sec. 2, Rule 7, Rules of Court).
Allegations of ultimate facts
1. Every pleading, including the complaint, is not
supposed to allege conclusions. A pleading must
only aver facts because conclusions are for the
courts to make.
2. Not all facts may be allowed as averments in a
pleading. Under Sec. 1 of Rule 6, every pleading
shall omit from its allegations statements of
mere evidentiary facts. The rule prohibiting
allegations of evidentiary facts in a pleading is
not difficult to understand. Evidentiary matters
are to be presented during the trial of the case,
not in the pleadings of the parties. The
 conclusions and evidentiary matters contained
in a pleading may be the subject of a motion to
strike.
3. The rule requires that a pleading should contain
only allegations of "ultimate facts," i.e., the facts
essential to a party's cause of action or defense
(Sec. 1, Rule 6, Rules of Court) or such facts as
are so essential that they cannot be stricken out
without leaving the statement of the cause of
action inadequate (Canete vs. Genuino Ice
Company, Inc. G.R. No. 154080, January 22,
2008). These ultimate facts are to be stated in a
logical form and in a plain and concise manner
(Sec. 1, Rule 6, Rules of Court).
Relief
1. Following the averments of the cause of action
of the plaintiff, the complaint must contain a
statement of the relief sought from the court
and to which he believes he is entitled. This
portion of the complaint is oftentimes referred
to as the "prayer" or sometimes loosely called
the "Wherefore" clause. The Rules of Court (Sec.
2[c], Rule 7) requires that the relief sought be
specified, although the statement may include a
"general prayer for such further or other relief as
may be deemed just or equitable."
2. 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 us. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 534). It is
the material allegations of the complaint, not the
legal conclusions made therein or the prayer that
determines the relief to which the plaintiff is
entitled (Banco Filipino Sauings and Mortgage
Bank us. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 241).
3. 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. Court of Appeals, 351
SCRA 716).
Signature and address
1. The complaint must be signed by the plaintiff or
counsel representing him indicating his address.
This address should not be a post office box (Sec.
3, Rule 7).
2. In the absence of a proper notice to the court of
a change of address, service upon the parties
must be made at the last address of their counsel
of record (Garrucho vs. Court of Appeals, 448
SCRA 165).
3. 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 Corporation, 351 SCRA
716).
Effect of an unsigned pleading
The signature in a pleading is important for it to have a
legal effect. Under the Rules of Court (Sec. 3, Rule 7), "an
unsigned pleading produces no legal effect." The court
however, is authorized to allow the pleader to correct
the deficiency if the pleader shows to the satisfaction of
the court, that the failure to sign the pleading was due to
mere inadvertence and not to delay the proceedings
(Sec. 3, Rule 7, Rules of Court).
Significance of the signature of counsel (Bar 1996)
1. The signature of a counsel in a pleading is
significant. His signature constitutes a certificate
by him that (a) he has read the pleading, (b) that
to the best of his knowledge, information and
belief there is good ground to support it, and (c)
that it is not interposed for delay (Sec. 3, Rule 7,
Rules of Court). XXX
When counsel is subject to disciplinary action in
connection with pleadings
A counsel shall be subject to disciplinary action in the
following cases: (a) when he deliberately files an
unsigned pleading; (b) when he signs a pleading in
violation of the Rules; (c) when he alleges in the pleading
scandalous or indecent matter; or (d) when he fails to
promptly report to the court a change of his address (Sec.
3, Rule 7, Rules of Court).
Verification in a pleading
The pleading need not be under oath. This means that a
pleading need not be verified. This is the general rule. A
pleading will be verified only when a verification is
required by a law or by a rule (Sec. 4, Rule 7, Rules of
Court).
How a pleading is verified
A pleading is verified by an affidavit. This affidavit
declares that: (a) the affiant has read the pleading, and
(b) that the allegations therein are true and correct of his
personal knowledge or based on authentic records (Sec.
4, Rule 7, Rules of Court as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-
10, May 1, 2000).
Significance of a verification
The verification requirement is significant, as it is
intended to secure an 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. The absence of a proper
verification is cause to treat the pleading as unsigned and
dismissible (Chua vs. Torres, 468 SCRA 358; Sarmiento vs.
Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471, February 5,2007). The purpose
of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that
the allegations of the petition have been made in good
faith, or are true and correct, not merely speculative
(Sarmiento vs. Zaratan, Ibid).
Effect of lack of a verification
1. A pleading required to be verified but lacks the
proper verification shall be treated as an
unsigned pleading (Sec. 4, Rule 7, Rules of Court).
Hence, it produces no legal effect (Sec. 3, Rule 7,
Rules of Court).
2. 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 defective. It is only a formal
and not a jurisdictional requirement. The
requirement is a condition affecting only the
form of the pleading (Benguet Corporation vs.
Cordillera Caraballo Mission, Inc., 469 SCRA 381;
Micro Sales Operation Network vs. NLRC, 472
SCRA 328) and non-compliance therewith does
not necessarily render it fatally defective
(Sarmiento vs. Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471,
February 5, 2007).
The Court has consistently held that the
requirement regarding verification of a pleading
is formal, not jurisdictional. Such requirement is
simply a condition affecting the form of the
pleading, non-compliance with which does not
necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.
Verification is simply intended to secure an
assurance that the allegations in the 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 vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
170625, October 17, 2008).
3. 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 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
Corporation vs. Quitain, 315 SCRA 150; Joson vs.
Torres, 290 SCRA 279).
Other requirements
1. All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court
by counsel shall bear in addition to counsel's
current 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 five (5) days from
notice. Failure to comply with such requirement
shall be a ground for further disciplinary sanction
and for contempt of court (Circular No. 10, July
24, 1985; Bar Matter No. 287, September 26,
2000).
2. On November 12, 2002 the Supreme Court
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 injudicial and quasi-judicial
bodies in addition to the previously required
current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and the
IBP Official Receipt Number. The requirement
was meant to protect the public by making it
easier to detect impostors who represent
themselves as members of the bar. Non-
compliance with this requirement has the same
effect as the 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 1132,
April 1, 2003).
3. All practicing members of the bar are required to
indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or
quasijudicial bodies, the number and date of
issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or
Certificate of Exemption. Failure to disclose the
 required information would cause the dismissal
of the case and the expunction of the pleadings
from the records (Bar Matter No. 1922 En Banc
Resolution, June 3, 2008). Per En Banc
Resolution of the Supreme Court dated
September 2, 2008, the effectivity date of the
implementation of this rule was moved from
August 25, 2008 to January 1, 2009.
VII. MOTIONS IN CIVIL CASES
Definition of a motion
A motion is an application for relief other than by a
pleading (Sec. 1, Rule 15, Rules of Court).
Form of motions
1. All motions must be in writing. Excepted from
this written requirement are those motions (a)
made in open court, and (b) motions made in the
course of a hearing or trial (Sec. 2, Rule 15, Rules
of Court).
2. The rules that apply to pleadings shall also apply
to written motions so far as concerns caption,
designation, signature, and other matters of
form (Sec. 10, Rule 15, Rules of Court).
Contents of a motion
Motions are to contain the following: (a) a statement of
the relief sought to be obtained; (b) the grounds upon
which the motion is based; and (c) the supporting
affidavits and other papers. The last requirement applies
only when so mandated by the Rules or when necessary
to prove facts stated in the motion (Sec. 3, Rule 15, Rules
of Court).
Hearing of the motion
1. As a rule, every written motion shall be set for
hearing by the applicant (Sec. 4, Rule 15, Rules of
Court). This provision therefore, establishes the
general rule that every written motion is
deemed a litigated motion, i.e., one which
requires the parties to be heard before a ruling
on the motion is made by the court. An ex parte
motion, on the contrary, is one which does not
require that the parties be heard and which the
court may act upon without prejudicing the
rights of the other party. This kind of motion is
not covered by the hearing requirement of the
Rules (Sec. 2, Rule 15, Rules of Court).
The Court has consistently held that a motion
which does not meet the requirements of
Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court
on hearing and notice of the hearing, is a mere
scrap of paper, which the clerk of court has no
right to receive and the trial court has no
authority to act upon. Service of a copy of a
motion containing a notice of the time and the
place of hearing of that motion is a mandatory
requirement, and the failure of movants to
comply with these requirements renders their
motions fatally defective (Vette Industrial Sales
Co., Inc. vs. Cheng, G.R. Nos. 170232-170301,
December 5,2006).
2. An ex parte motion, on the contrary, is one which
does not require that the parties be heard and
which the court may act upon without
prejudicing the rights of the other party.
This kind of motion is not covered by the hearing
requirement of the Rules (Sec. 2, Rule 15, Rules
of Court). An example of an ex parte motion is
that one filed by the plaintiff pursuant to Sec. 1
of Rule 18 in which he moves promptly that the
case be set for pre-trial. On the other hand, a
motion to dismiss (Rule 16), a motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Rule 34) and a
summary judgment (Rule 35), on the other hand,
are litigated motions.
3. A motion for extension of time is not a litigated
motion where notice to the adverse party is
necessary to afford the latter an opportunity to
resist the application, but an ex parte motion
made to the court in behalf of one or the other
of the parties to the action, in the absence and
usually without the knowledge of the other party
or parties. It has been said that "ex parte
motions are frequently permissible in procedural
matters, and also in situations and under
circumstances of emergency; and an exception
to a rule requiring notice is sometimes made
where notice or the resulting delay might tend to
defeat the objective of the motion" (Sarmiento
vs. Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471, February 5, 2007).
Notice of the motion
1. The motion which contains the notice of hearing
shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its
receipt by the other party at least three (3) days
before the date of hearing, unless the court for
good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice
(Sec. 4, Rule 15, Rules of Court).
 2. The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all that the action is barred by the statute of
the parties concerned (Sec. 5, Rule 15, Rules of limitations or prescription (Sec. 1, 2nd sentence,
Court). Rule 9, Rules of Court).
3. The notice of hearing shall specify the time and 2. A motion to dismiss is a typical example of a
date of the hearing which shall not be later than motion subject to the omnibus motion rule,
ten (10) days after the filing of the motion (Sec. since a motion to dismiss attacks a complaint
5, Rule 15, Rules of Court). which is a pleading. Following the omnibus
motion rule, if a motion to dismiss is filed, then
Service of the motion the motion must invoke all objections which are
The motion must be served upon the other party. A available at the time of the filing of said motion.
motion set for hearing shall not be acted upon by the If the objection which is available at the time is
court without proof of service thereof (Sec. 6, Rule 15, not included in the motion, that ground is
Rules of Court). deemed waived. It can no longer be invoked as
an affirmative defense in the answer which the
Motion day movant may file following the denial of his
All hearings shall be scheduled for hearing on Friday motion to dismiss.
afternoons, or if Friday is a non-working holiday, in the
To illustrate: In a case filed with the RTC, the defendant
afternoon of the next working day. This rule does not
filed a motion to dismiss invoking the following as
apply to motions requiring immediate attention (Sec. 7,
objections: (a) the complaint's failure to state a cause of
Rule 15, Rules of Court).
action, (b) lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, and (c) that the contract violates the statute
Effect of failure to set the motion for hearing, to
of frauds. Two objections available at the time the
include a notice of hearing and to serve the motion
motion is filed, namely, improper venue and prescription
(Sees. 4, 5, 6 of Rule 15)
were not included in the motion. The motion to dismiss
The well-settled rule is that a motion which fails to
was denied. May the defendant in his answer, filed after
comply with the requirements under Sees. 4, 5 and 6 of
the denial of his motion to dismiss, invoke the affirmative
Rule 15, is a useless piece of paper (Neri vs. De la Pena,
defenses of improper venue and prescription? Answer:
457 SCRA 438). It is pro forma presenting no question
Improper venue is deemed waived. It was available as a
which the court could decide (Boiser vs. Aguirre, Jr., 458
defense at the time the motion was filed and should have
SCRA 430). If filed, such motion is not entitled to judicial
been invoked. Failure to so include the same in the
cognizance and does not stop the running of the period
motion is to be construed as waiver of the objection.
for filing the requisite pleading (Cruz vs. Court of Appeals,
Prescription, on the other hand, is not waived and can
388 SCRA 72). A motion which does not comply with the
still be interposed as an affirmative defense in the
rules on motion is considered pro forma and thus, will be
answer. It is a defense that is not deemed waived under
treated as one filed merely to delay the proceedings
the explicit provisions of Sec. 1 of Rule 9.
(Marikina Development Corporation vs. Flojo, 251 SCRA
87).

The omnibus motion rule

1. The rule is a procedural principle which requires
that every motion that attacks a pleading,
judgment, order or proceeding shall include all
grounds then available, and all objections not so
included shall be deemed waived (Sec. 8, Rule
15, Rules of Court). Since the rule is subject to
the provisions of Sec. 1 of Rule 9, the objections
mentioned therein are not deemed waived even
if not included in the motion. These objections
are: (a) that the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter; (b) that there is another action
pending between the same parties for the same
cause (litis pendentia); (c) that the action is
barred by a prior judgment (res judicata); and (d)