Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
2018
I. Complaint
A. Cause of Action - Elements, if you have a cause of action, you have a right of action.
Damages is already implied. Damage is not quantified. The definition of cause of action
only applies in Ordinary Civil Actions.
Ex. Declaratory Relief - file it before a breach occurs. Cause of Action is not applicable.
One possible cause of action: Action that arises from breach of contract.
Q: B took a bus (common carrier), it figured in a collision. No relative except the son, the latter
filed an action for damages based on breach of contract. The defendant filed a Demurrer to
Evidence. Rule on the Motion.
Answer: The demurrer should be denied. It is a basic rule in breach of contract, negligence is
not an element in breach of contract. There are only two elements in breach of contract. First,
existence of the contract. Second, breach of the said contract.
1
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
**Same Answer KAHIT PRIVATE CARRIER ANG DEFENDANT. Don’t answer about
presumption of negligence because in remedial law, you should answer about causes of action.
Since, negligence is not a element, breach ang i prove.
2004 Bar
AX, a Makati-bound paying passenger of PBU, a public utility bus, died instantly on
board the bus on account of the fatal head wounds he sustained as a result of the strong impact
of the collision between the bus and a dump truck that happened while the bus was still
travelling on EDSA towards Makati. The foregoing facts, among others, were duly established
on evidence-in-chief by the plaintiff TY, sole heir of AX, in TTs action against the subject
common carrier for breach of contract of carriage. After TY had rested his case, the common
carrier filed a demurrer to evidence, contending that plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient because it
did not show (1) that defendant was negligent and (2) that such negligence was the proximate
cause of the collision. Should the court grant or deny defendant’s demurrer to evidence?
Suggested Answer:
No. The court should not grant defendant’s demurrer to evidence because the case is for
breach of contract of carriage. Proof that the defendant was negligent and that such negligence
was the proximate cause of the collision is not required. (Articles 1170 and 2201, Civil Code;
(Mendoza vs. Phil. Airlines, Inc., 90 Phil. 836 [1952]); Batangas Transportation Co. v.
Caguimbal, 22 SCRA 171 [1968]; Abeto v. PAL, 115 SCRA 489 [1982]; Aboitiz v. Court of
Appeals, 129 SCRA 95 [1984]).
Action must be filed within 1 year from the accrual 1 year from last dispossession. Or 1 year from
of the cause of action. The 1-year period starts last demand if due to stealth or strategy
from the last demand
2
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
AFTER THE LAPSE OF ONE YEAR - File an Accion Publiciana. Ordinary Civil Action. You can
file a motion to declare a defendant in default for failure to file an Answer.
Q: How to determine the jurisdiction for Accion Publiciana? Where is the property located?
A: Look at the assessed value of the real property. 20,000 (MTC/RTC outside MNL); 50,000
(MTC/RTC within MNL)
C. Venue - Rule 4
D. Parties - Rule 3
Bar 1981
Plaintiff has business partner in PH, resides in Australia. He asked for an accounting of
the business, but his requests were ignored. Hired a lawyer to file an action for accounting with
damages. Def filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over
the plaintiff bec he did not appear personally appeared before the court. Rule on the motion
Answer:
The motion should be denied. It is a basic procedural rule, that the jurisdiction over the
person of plaintiff is acquired by filing a complaint in court in his name. It was filed under his
name. Appearing before the court is not required.
G. Amendment - Rule 10
You can avail of the Remedies from Rule 57-61: Provisional Remedies
3
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
b. He can file a Motion to Dismiss - Rule 16
c.2. Filed an Answer but alleges that there is no genuine issue - Rule 36 (Summary
Judgment)
c.5. File a Third Party Complaint - pag hindi impleaded yung co-defendant
Where the evidence does not sustain the cause of Insufficiency of allegation in the pleading
action
Raised in a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 Raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16
after the plaintiff has rested his case before a responsive pleading is filed
Resolved only on the basis of the evidence he Determined only from the allegations of the
presented in support of his claim pleading and not from evidentiary matters
Made after questions of fact have been resolved Can be made at the earliest stages of an action
on the basis of stipulations, admissions, or
evidence presented
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Answer:
a. Civil liability arising from the offense charged - Extinguished
e. Other sources (i.e., Art. 33, civil code, law, contracts) - can still be recovered
⚠️ Remember the Independent Civil Actions, Sec. 3 Rule 111, Criminal Procedure
- Art. 32, 33, 34, 2176 of the Civil Code.
4
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
“x x x It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages
twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.”
Example: Arbitrary Detention with civil liability arising from the offense and an civil
liability/independent civil action based on Art. 32 of the Civil Code
**There is litis pendentia only when there is the same cause of action.
A. If no crime was committed: civil liability is extinguished. But the independent civil action is
not affected despite the acquittal
B. Acquittal, guilt not proven beyond reasonable doubt - there is still civil liability arising from
the crime or offense charged that may be recovered
Premature Actions
“x x x it has become glaringly obvious that when the complaint for a sum of money and
damages was filed with the trial court on 2 February 1999, no cause of action has as yet existed
because the petitioner had not committed any act in violation of the terms of the three
promissory notes as modified by the renegotiation in December 1997. Without a cause of
action, the private respondent had no right to maintain an action in court, and the trial court
should have therefore dismissed his complaint.
xxx
the curing effect under Section 5 is applicable only if a cause of action in fact exists at
the time the complaint is filed, but the complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential
facts. For example, if a complaint failed to allege the fulfillment of a condition precedent upon
which the cause of action depends, evidence showing that such condition had already been
fulfilled when the complaint was filed may be presented during the trial, and the complaint may
accordingly be amended thereafter. Thus, in Roces v. Jalandoni, this Court upheld the trial court
in taking cognizance of an otherwise defective complaint which was later cured by the testimony
of the plaintiff during the trial. In that case, there was in fact a cause of action and the only
problem was the insufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. This ruling was reiterated in
Pascua v. Court of Appeals.
It thus follows that a complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be
cured or remedied by an amended or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of
a cause of action while the case is pending. Such an action is prematurely brought and is,
therefore, a groundless suit, which should be dismissed by the court upon proper motion
seasonably filed by the defendant. The underlying reason for this rule is that a person should
not be summoned before the public tribunals to answer for complaints which are immature.”
5
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
1999 Bar
A sued B to recover P500, 000.00 based on a promissory note due and payable on
December 5,1998. The Complaint was filed on November 30, 1998, and summons was served
on B on December 7, 1998. B interposes a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Complaint
states no cause of action. If you were the judge, how would you rule on the motion?
Suggested Answer:
If I were the judge, I would grant the motion on the ground that the complaint states no
cause of action. When the complaint was filed, the promissory note was not yet due and
payable and hence the complaint was filed prematurely. This defect was not cured by the
service of the summons on the defendant after the date when the promissory note became due
and payable.
JURISDICTION
Action for Specific Performance may be a Real Action, look at the assessed value.
Kung walang facts at nakalagay lang Specific Performance, RTC na yun. Incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
Bar 1997
What courts have jurisdiction over the following cases filed in Metro Manila?
(a) An action for specific performance or In the alternative, for damages In the amount of
P180,000.00
Suggested Answer:
a) An action for specific performance or, in the alternative, for damages in the amount of
180,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila. Although an
action for specific performance is not capable of pecuniary estimation, since the alternative
demand for damages is capable of pecuniary estimation, it is within the Jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila. (Sec. 33 of BP 129 as amended by RA No. 7691;
Cruz vs. Tan 87 Phil. 627).
6
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Application of Ultimate Objective Test
Specific Performance compelling him to deliver the title - it is really recover of ownership. It is a
real action, look at the assessed value to determine th jurisdiction.
⚠️ Material allegations and relief sought determines the nature of the action.
“x x x petitioner stated in her motion that respondents allegations in its complaint show
that it is one for ejectment cognizable, not by the RTC but, by the MTC of Baguio City.
In Herrera, et al. v. Bollos, et al., we emphasized the basic rule that jurisdiction of the
court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at
the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or
some of the claims asserted therein. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature
of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments therein
and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.
5. That the plaintiff has demanded the defendant to pay her overdue account, now amounting to
P971,838.15, the last demand to vacate and payment of arrears having been made in writing on
March 27, 2002 xxx.
This allegation clearly shows that respondent made several demands upon petitioner to
pay her overdue rentals and to vacate the premises; and that the last demand to pay and vacate
in writing was on March 27, 2002. Respondent thus complied with Section 2, Rule 70 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which provides:
Sec. 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after demand. Unless otherwise
stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only after demand to pay or
comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee, or by
serving written notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises, or by
posting such notice on the premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee fails
to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case of land or five (5) days in the case
of buildings.
Indeed, while the complaint is captioned Collection of Sum of Money with Damages, the
allegations therein show that respondents action is for ejectment. All ejectment cases are within
the jurisdiction of the MTC.”
ALWAYS REMEMBER:
A. Kapag ang relief prayed for ay Pay and To Vacate - ejectment case yan
- Mali ang court sa pag render ng judgment, file an MR. Pag alam mo may error and it
has not been rectified, file a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA
B. Kapag ang relief prayed ay Pay OR Vacate - Action for a Sum of money yan
7
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Remember an Action for Specific performance to recover title - Real Action.
LOOK AT THE ASSESSED VALUE.
Example: Pacto de retro sale, Sale with a Right to Repurchase of a parcel of land
Seller wanted to repurchase, buyer refused. Filed an action to enforce his right to repurchase.
⚠️ Jurisdiction before MTC will not be lost if there is a defense of ownership over actions for
UD or FE, provided that the issue on ownership is necessary to resolve the issue on
possession. (Sec. 33 and Sec. 19, BP 129)
1. Damages
2. Interests
3. Litigation expenses
4. Costs
5. Attorney’s fees
⚠️ Remember that the 300k or 400k threshold - is the value of personal property, or gross
estate, or amount of demand
1997 Bar
Suggested Answer:
(c) An action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at 150,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction
of the Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila (Sec. 33 of BP 129. as amended by RA No.
7691).
8
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
⭕️ Actions incapable of pecuniary estimation:
Aug. 5, 2013 Del Castillo case – RTC has jurisdiction. According to the case, based on
the allegations of the complaint, the plaintiff seeks for the declaration of rights, the ultimate relief
is Declaratory Relief.
3. Main Action for Support - Family Court, in the absence of such, go to RTC
Provisional Remedy - Support pendente lite
Thirdly, the MTC dismissed the action because it did not have jurisdiction over the case.
The dismissal was correct. It is fundamental that the allegations of the complaint and the
character of the relief sought by the complaint determine the nature of the action and the court
that has jurisdiction over the action. x x x To vest in the MTC the jurisdiction to effect the
ejectment from the land of the respondents as the occupants in unlawful detainer, therefore, the
complaint should embody such a statement of facts clearly showing the attributes of unlawful
detainer. However, the allegations of the petitioners’ complaint did not show that they had
permitted or tolerated the occupation of the portion of their property by the respondents; or how
the respondents’ entry had been effected, or how and when the dispossession by the
respondents had started. All that the petitioners alleged was the respondents’ “illegal use and
occupation” of the property. As such, the action was not unlawful detainer.”
9
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Jurisdiction in Civil Procedure v. Criminal Procedure
Jurisdiction In Civil Cases Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases
Example: Plaintiff lives in QC, Defendant lives in Manila. Property is located in Makati.
Plaintiff filed an UD Case before the MTC in QC. Motion to Dismiss is filed. Ground relied upon
for motion to dismiss is not correct. Is the dismissal correct?
A: Yes, but erroneous as to the ground relied upon.
⚠️ Remember this question: Is the action real or personal? In determining venue and
jurisdiction.
1997 Bar
(a) In case of non-payment of the loan, can A file his complaint to collect the loan from X
in Angeles City?
(b) Suppose the parties did not stipulate in the loan agreement as to the venue, where
can A file his complaint against X?
(c) Suppose the parties stipulated in their loan agreement that Venue for all suits arising
from this contract shall be the courts in Quezon City," can A file his complaint against X in
Pasay City?
10
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Suggested Answer:
(a) Yes, because the stipulation in the loan agreement that “the parties agree to sue and
be sued in the City of Manila’ does not make Manila the “exclusive venue thereof." (Sec. 4 of
Rule 4, as amended by Circular No. 13-95: Sec. 4 of new Rule 4) Hence, A can file his
complaint in Angeles City where he resides. (Sec. 2 of Rule 4).
(b) If the parties did not stipulate on the venue, A can file his complaint either in Angeles
City where he resides or in Pasay City where X resides. (Id).
(c) Yes, because the wording of the stipulation does not make Quezon City the exclusive
venue. (Philbanking v. Tensuan, 230 SCRA 413; Unimasters Conglomeration. Inc. v. CA. GR-
119657, Feb. 7. 1997).
By the peculiar circumstances under which contracts of adhesion are entered into —
namely, that it is drafted only by one party, usually the corporation, and is sought to be
accepted or adhered to by the other party, in this instance the passengers, private
respondents, who cannot change the same and who are thus made to adhere thereto on the
"take it or leave it" basis — certain guidelines in the determination of their validity and/or
enforceability have been formulated in order to that justice and fan play characterize the
relationship of the contracting parties.
xxx
To the same effect and import, and, in recognition of the character of contracts of this
kind, the protection of the disadvantaged is expressly enjoined by the New Civil Code —
11
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
“In all contractual property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a
disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakness,
tender age and other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection”.
x x x Condition No. 14 printed at the back of the passage tickets should be held as void and
unenforceable for the following reasons first, under circumstances obligation in the inter-island
shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers to the terms of the conditions printed
at the back of the passage tickets, on which Condition No. 14 is Printed in fine letters, and
second, Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of proceedings of this
nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests of innumerable passengers in different
s of the country who, under Condition No. 14, will have to file suits against petitioner only in the
City of Cebu.”
Sec. 15(c) Vessel - first point of entry or where the vessel passed
Sec. 15(d) - Crime committed outside the PH but punishable under Art. 2, RPC
ART. 8,1987 Consti - the SC can change the venue to avoid miscarriage of justice
1. An action against a person who usurps, intrudes intor, or unlawfully holds or exercises a
public office, position or franchise;
2. An action against a public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provisioin of
law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office;
3. An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally
incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.
1. Solicitor General; or
2. Special Prosecutor; or
3. A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfylly
held or exercised by another may bring an action therefor in his own name.
12
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The relevant portion of the Information for libel filed in this case which for convenience
the Court quotes again, to wit:
That on or about the 5th day of July, 1994 in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this court, both the accused as columnists and Editor-Publisher,
respectively, of Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable circulation in the
City of Iloilo and throughout the region, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously with malicious intent of impeaching the virtue, honesty, integrity and
reputation of Dr. Edgar Portigo, a physician and medical practitioner in Iloilo City, and
with the malicious intent of injuring and exposing said Dr. Edgar Portigo to public hatred,
contempt and ridicule, write and publish in the regular issue of said daily publication on
July 5, 1994, a certain article entitled MEET DR. PORTIGO, COMPANY PHYSICIAN....
The allegations in the Information that Panay News, a daily publication with a considerable
circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout the region only showed that Iloilo was the place
where Panay News was in considerable circulation but did not establish that the said
publication was printed and first published in Iloilo City.
xxx
Settled is the rule that jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the
allegations of the complaint or information, and the offense must have been committed or any
one of its essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.[22]
Considering that the Information failed to allege the venue requirements for a libel case under
Article 360, the Court finds that the RTC of Iloilo City had no jurisdiction to hear this case. Thus,
13
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
its decision convicting petitioners of the crime of libel should be set aside for want of jurisdiction
without prejudice to its filing with the court of competent jurisdiction.”
III. Parties
Q: Indispensable party?
A: Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action.
Examples:
1. Defendant’s loans from the Plaintiff are the following:
A. 300k
B. 300k
C. 275k
14
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
5. 1 plaintiff and 1 defendant - kahit ilang loan, pwede ang joinder of causes of action.
As long as all of them are ordinary civil actions.
In a suit against A only, B,C,D are only necessary parties because P cannot accord a
complete relief without impleading all of them.
⚠️ Bar Exam Answer Tip: They can join their cause of action because they are connected by
the same transaction.
- BUT, A and B and X and Y cannot join their causes of action because it arose from
different transactions.
1. Q: To avoid dismissal based on litis pendentia, what advice would you give?
A: Amend the complaint
15
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
2. Unlawful Detainer. Failure to pay rentals, include in the prayer the rentals in arrears.
Don’t separate the demand to vacate and the payment of rentals because you will be splitting a
single cause of action
3. Forcible Entry. Defendant was asked to vacate. 2 months after, plaintiff filed an
action for damages as a result of the forcible entry. There was splitting if a single cause of
action. Damages is ancillary to the dispossession from the property.
CGR Corporation Herein Represented By Its President Alberto Ramos III, et al. v. Ernesto
L. Reyes, JR., G.R. No. 170916, April 27, 2007
- Destroyed the objects, harvested the fish. Action for Forcible entry was filed, and a separate
action for damages. There was no splitting of a single cause of action. Destroying is a
separate act of the defendant, it did not arise from the act of dispossession.
“It bears noting, however, that as reflected in the earlier-quoted allegations in the
complaint for damages of herein petitioners, their claim for damages have no direct relation to
their loss of possession of the premises. It had to do with respondent's alleged harvesting and
carting away several tons of milkfish and other marine products in their fishponds, ransacking
and destroying of a chapel built by petitioner CGR Corporation, and stealing religious icons and
even decapitating the heads of some of them, after the act of dispossession had occurred.
Surely, one of the elements of litis pendentia - that the identity between the pending
actions, with respect to the parties, rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, is such that any
judgment rendered on one action will, regardless of which is successful, amount to res judicata
in the action under consideration - is not present, hence, it may not be invoked to dismiss
petitioners' complaint for damages.
Res judicata may not apply because the court in a forcible entry case has no jurisdiction
over claims for damages other than the use and occupation of the premises and attorney's fees.
Neither may forum-shopping justify a dismissal of the complaint for damages, the
elements of litis pendentia not being present, or where a final judgment in the forcible entry case
will not amount to res judicata in the former.
Petitioners' filing of an independent action for damages other than those sustained as a
result of their dispossession or those caused by the loss of their use and occupation of their
properties could not thus be considered as splitting of a cause of action.”
- Whales has no legal standing. There is already a Citizen Suit in Rules of Procedure in
Environmental Cases
16
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
⚠️ CLASS SUIT - possible Bar Q
Oposa v. Factoran
- to protect the environment
- There is a class suit
- Interest of a person in the environment cannot be separated from others
Kahit ano man ang conclusion mo, dapat laging manggaling sa elements ng Class Suit.
IV. Complaint
Preparation of Complaint
- sec. 5, R7 = Certification Against Forum Shopping. READ THE CODAL
- Failure to comply to attach certification, court dismissed the complaint on its own initiative, the
court is not correct. There should be motion and hearing.
17
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Q: Effect of an unsigned pleading?
A: Sec. 3, Rule 7
“An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect.”
Q: Is it jurisdictional?
A: No. It can be corrected. Sec. 3, Rule 7
“x x x 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”
Rule 6 - PLEADINGS
⚠️ Know the Prohibited Motions and Pleadings in Summary Procedure, Small Claims,
Environmental Case, Amparo, Habeas Data
Summary Procedure
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information except on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply with the preceding
section;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for opening 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; chanrobles virtual law library
(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply;
(k) Third party complaints;
(l) Interventions.
Small Claims
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint;
(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.
Environmental Case
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
18
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
(c) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, except to file Answer,the extension not
to exceed 15 days;
(d) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(e) Reply and rejoinder; and
(f) Third party complaint
Writ of Amparo
1. Motion to dismiss;
2. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position paper and
other pleadings;
3. Dilatory motion for postponement;
4. Motion for a bill of particulars;
5. Counterclaim or cross-claim;
6. Third-party complaint;
7. Reply;
8. Motion to declare respondent in default;
9. Intervention;
10. Memorandum;
11. Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders; and
12. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order.
19
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Q: Convicted by Sandiganbayan. What is the mode of review?
A: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
⚠️ Notice of Appeal to RTC. After payment of fees, the records shall be transmitted to
the Court of Appeals.
Q: What is the mode of appeal from the judgment or final order of the NLRC?
A: There is NO mode of appeal. But a mode of review, Rule 65 to CA. Grave abuse of
discretion...
Example
Nagsimula ang case sa MTC
xxx
x x x the authority of the CTA to take cognizance of petitions for certiorari questioning
interlocutory orders issued by the RTC in a local tax case is included in the powers granted by
the Constitution as well as inherent in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
20
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
xxx
CA's original jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari assailing the DOJ resolution in a
preliminary investigation involving tax and tariff offenses was necessarily transferred to the CTA
pursuant to Section 7 of R.A. No. 9282,40 and that such petition shall be governed by Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, as amended. Accordingly, it is the CTA, not the CA, which has jurisdiction
over the petition for certiorari assailing the DOJ resolution of dismissal of the BOC's complaint-
affidavit against private respondents for violation of the Tarrif and Customs Code of the
Philippines (TCCP).”
From a Resolution or Decision of Sec. of DOJ. from a Resolution of the SOJ to Office of
It can be reviewed, Rule 65 to CA, based on President pursuant to Memo Circular no. 58,
grave abuse of discretion punishment involves reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment.
Go to CA, Rule 43
Appeal to CA, Rule 43 (Fabian v. Desierto) File a petition for certiorari based on Rule 65 to
SC. It is a mode of review.
⚠️ SC CAN DEAL WITH QUESTION OF FACTS sa writ of Amparo, writ of habeas data, writ
of kalikasan, THESE ARE EXCEPTIONS.
21
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
JUNE 6, 2018
Answer: Yes, it could also be filed in Manila. When there are two contracts, the contracts
should be construed together. Complimentary contracts should be construed together,
despite the restrictive stipulation in the principal contract.
⚠️ This is where the problem comes in, when there are Multiple/Several Parties
———————————————————————————————
General Rule: A complaint or information should cover only one offense. Sec. 13, Rule 110.
XPN: If the law provides a single punishment for two or more/various offenses as provided
under Sec. 13, Rule 110
Other exceptions:
1. Art. 48, RPC - The law provides a single penalty
Ex. A shot X, B was also hit. X died - criminal information for Homicide, B almost died
but survived - Frustrated Homicide. There was only 1 bullet used to kill and injure X and B. It
can both be included in one complaint or information.
22
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
2005 Bar
On May 12. 2005, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City for the collection of P250,000.00. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the action since the claimed amount of
P250.000.00 is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City.
Before the court could resolve the motion, the plaintiff, without leave of court, amended his
complaint to allege a new cause of action consisting in the inclusion of an additional amount of
P200,000.00, thereby increasing his total claim to P450,000.00. The plaintiff thereafter filed his
opposition to the motion to dismiss, claiming that the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over
his action. Rule on the motion of the defendant with reasons. (4%)
Suggested Answer:
Follow up Question:
A complaint could still be amended even if the case is dismissed as long as the
dismissal is not yet final.
- Suppose a responsive pleading has already been served, amendment is no longer a matter of
right and if it is a substantial amendment, leave of court is required. If a formal amendment, it
can be summarily be corrected by the court.
Q: The court ruled that the original complaint is for sum of money. A Substantial amendment
was made to change cause of Action to Accion Publiciana. The court denied it for the reason
that the amendment was substantial. Is it correct?
A: No. The reason to deny should be that amendment was made to delay the proceedings, not
because the amendment was substantial.
23
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Sec. 3, Rule 10. Amendments by leave of court
“x x x But such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made
with intent to delay.”
Q: The RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. As counsel for defendant, would you
file a Motion to Dismiss or file an Answer?
A: I will file an Answer so that the plaintiff cannot amend his complaint as a matter of right.
Ground for Motion to Dismiss shall be used as an affirmative defense in the Answer. Sec. 6,
Rule 16.
Follow up Question
Q: Defendant filed an Answer. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave before the RTC, to amend the
complaint and add 250k in his claim. The court allowed the amendment. Is it correct?
A: No, the court is not correct. The court used its discretion to correct an error of jurisdiction.
The only remedy is to dismiss the case because the court originally has no jurisdiction. The
court has no jurisdiction to act on a complaint over which it has no jurisdiction.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
XPN: amendment which downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or excludes any
accused from the complaint or information, can be made only UPON MOTION BY THE
PROSECUTOR, WIITH NOTICE TO THE OFFENDED PARTY AND WITH LEAVE OF COURT.
Q: Collection for a sum of money for 1.5M, evidence presented for 2M. Defendant did not
object. It means he is consenting to the trial for 2M. Can the court render judgment for 2M?
A: Yes, there was an implied amendment of the pleading.
Q: Plaintiff claims 1.5M. Defendant denied. Evidence presented by plaintiff is for 2M. Defendant
objected. What shall the plaintiff do?
A: Plaintiff shall move for leave to amend the pleading to conform with the evidence (Sec. 5,
Rule 10). *Then let the court decide.
24
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
2004 Bar
In a complaint for a sum of money filed before the MM Regional Trial Court, plaintiff did
not mention or even just hint at any demand for payment made on defendant before
commencing suit. During the trial, plaintiff duly offered Exh. “A" in evidence for the stated
purpose of proving the making of extrajudicial demand on defendant to pay P500.000, the
subject of the suit. Exh. “A" was a letter of demand for defendant to pay said sum of money
within 10 days from receipt, addressed to and served on defendant some two months before
suit was begun. Without objection from defendant, the court admitted Exh. “A" in evidence. Was
the court’s admission of Exh. “A” in evidence erroneous or not? Reason. (5%
Suggested Answer:
The court’s admission of Exh. ‘‘A’’ in evidence is not erroneous. It was admitted in
evidence without objection on the part of the defendant. It should be treated as if it had been
raised in the pleadings. The complaint may be amended to conform to the evidence, but if it is
not so amended, it does not affect the result of the trial on this issue. (Sec. 5 of Rule 10).
2. Complaint collects 3M, evidence presented is for 4M. Object. Move to strike out the
evidence because the evidence does not conform to the issues of the case.
- Plaintiff on his own volition, may decide to dismiss his own pleading without leave of court.
Before a responsive pleading is served or before a motion for summary judgment is served.
- When a dismissal by plaintiff is confirmed by the court. The plaintiff can refile the complaint.
“x x x Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except
that a notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once
dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same claim“
Q: Complaint for 500k in the MTC. Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal. Then he refiled it before
the RTC. He filed a notice of dismissal. Then he refiled it again before the RTC. Is the refiling
proper?
25
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
A: Yes. Two dismissal rule does not apply.
1992 Bar
Suggested Answer:
The dismissal of the complaint shall be without prejudice to the prosecution in the same
or separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the answer.
“Where the plaintiff moves for the dismissal of his complaint to which a counterclaim has
been interposed, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. Such dismissal shall be without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to either prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action
or to have the same resolved in the same action. Should he opt for the first alternative, the court
should render the corresponding order granting and reserving his right to prosecute his claim in
a separate action. Should he choose fo have his counterclaim disposed of in the same action
wherein the complaint had been dismissed, he must manifest such preference to the trial court
within 15 days from notice to him of plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. This is available whether the
counterclaim is compulsory or permissive. A similar alternative procedure, with the same
underlying reason therefor, is adopted in Sec. 6, Rule 16 and Sec. 3 of this Rule, wherein the
complaint is dismissed on the motion of the defendant or, in the latter instance, also by the court
motu proprio.”
Lim Teck Chuan v. Serafin Uy, GR No. 155701, Mar 11, 2015
“As can be gleaned from the assailed orders, the RTC erred when it dismissed the case
when the present rules state that the dismissal shall be limited only to the complaint. A
dismissal of an action is different from a mere dismissal of the complaint. For this reason, since
only the complaint and not the action is dismissed, the defendant in spite of said dismissal may
still prosecute his counterclaim in the same action. The case of Pinga v. Heirs of German
Santiago is quite instructive which this Court finds worth reiterating. In Pinga, the Court clearly
stated that the dismissal of the complaint does not necessarily result to the dismissal of the
counterclaim x x x”
“Pag nadismiss ang complaint, walang pakelam ang counterclaim. Tuloy ang
counterclaim.”
26
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
The above rule is applicable to the following:
Sec. 2, Rule 17 Sec. 3, Rule 17 Sec. 6 last par., Rule 16
“x x x a complaint shall not be “If, for no justifiable cause, the “x x x The dismissal of the
dismissed at the plaintiff's plaintiff fails to appear on the complaint under this section shall
instance save upon approval of date of the presentation of his be without prejudice to the
the court and upon such terms evidence in chief on the prosecution in the same or
and conditions as the court complaint, or to prosecute his separate action of a counterclaim
deems proper. If a counterclaim action for an unreasonable pleaded in the answer.”
has been pleaded by a length of time, or to comply with
defendant prior to the service these Rules or any order of the
upon him of the plaintiff's motion court, the complaint may be
for dismissal, the dismissal shall dismissed upon motion of the
be limited to the complaint. The defendant or upon the court's
dismissal shall be without own motion, without prejudice to
prejudice to the right of the the right of the defendant to
defendant to prosecute his prosecute his counterclaim in the
counterclaim in a separate action same or in a separate action. x x
unless within fifteen (15) days x”
from notice of the motion he
manifests his preference to have
his counterclaim resolved in the
same action.
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. - “This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon
the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.”
Sec. 1, Rule 9
Motu proprio grounds for dismissal
“x x x when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same
parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of
limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim”
27
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Thus, the trial court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction may validly order the deposit
of the P10 million down payment in court. The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction in
this case is to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution. Equity jurisdiction aims to do
complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special
circumstances of a case because of the inflexibility of its statutory or legal jurisdiction. Equity is
the principle by which substantial justice may be attained in cases where the prescribed or
customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate.
xxx
The principle that no person may unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another is
embodied in Article 22[38] of the Civil Code. This principle applies not only to substantive rights
but also to procedural remedies. One condition for invoking this principle is that the aggrieved
party has no other action based on contract, quasi-contract, crime, quasi-delict or any other
provision of law. Courts can extend this condition to the hiatus in the Rules of Court where the
aggrieved party, during the pendency of the case, has no other recourse based on the
provisional remedies of the Rules of Court.
Thus, a court may not permit a seller to retain, pendente lite, money paid by a buyer if
the seller himself seeks rescission of the sale because he has subsequently sold the same
property to another buyer.[40] By seeking rescission, a seller necessarily offers to return what
he has received from the buyer. Such a seller may not take back his offer if the court deems it
equitable, to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure restitution, to put the money in judicial
deposit.
There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of
another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental
principles of justice, equity and good conscience. In this case, it was just, equitable and proper
for the trial court to order the deposit of the P10 million down payment to prevent unjust
enrichment by Reyes at the expense of Lim.”
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Criminal Information for Homicide. Accused killed the victim then got the watch of the victim.
Taking of the watch was not included in the information, it cannot be considered by the court
although proven during trial.
28
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Jurisprudence: always indicate the qualifying and aggravating circumstances in the complaint
or information, otherwise, it shall not be considered or appreciated by the court although proven
during trial.
“Both Informations in the present case charged appellant with simple rape which, under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, is punishable with reclusion perpetua. Neither one of
these alleged that the rapes were committed with the use of a deadly weapon.
It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him, and
consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape, on which he was
arraigned, and be convicted of qualified rape punishable by death.
In this case, as contended by both the defense counsel and the OSG, appellant cannot
be convicted of rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon, since that circumstance was not
alleged in the Informations. He cannot be punished for an offense graver than that for which he
was charged.
Moreover, the records and Michelle’s own categorical statement under questioning
indicate that appellant had merely kept the bolo by his side and held it only when he undressed
himself-- naturally, so that he could remove it from his body.”
Q: X charged with Murder using a hand grenade. During trial, the use of explosives was not
proven but there was evidence that the victim was poisoned. The use of poison was not alleged
in the information. No objection regarding the poison. Can he be sentenced to murder?
A: No. He can only be convicted of homicide because the use of poison was not alleged in the
information.
Q: A woman was raped, sought the help of the PNP. The PNP took advantage of the victim.
She charged the PNP officer with rape. Is death penalty the correct punishment?
A: No. Information did not allege that he was an officer of the law.
SUMMONS
“Upon the filing of the complaint and the payment of the requisite legal fees, the clerk of
court shall forthwith issue the corresponding summons to the defendants”
29
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Know the definition and examples of In Personam, In Rem and Quasi In Rem
In Personam In Rem Quasi In Rem
Examples of Actions:
Damages
Unlawful Detainer (Real Action)
Forcible Entry
⚠️ To know the evidence of the other party, use any of the Modes of Discovery.
BILL OF PARTICULARS
Civil Case (Rule 12) Criminal Case (Sec. 9, Rule 116)
Purpose: to enable the movant to prepare his Purpose: to enable the accused to plead and
responsive pleading prepare for trial
2008 Bar
Within the period for filing a responsive pleading, the defendant filed a motion for bill of
particulars that he set for hearing on a certain date. However, the defendant was surprised to
find on the date set for hearing that the trial court had already denied the motion on the day of
its filing, stating that the allegations of the complaint were sufficiently made. Did the judge
gravely abuse his discretion in acting on the motion without waiting for the hearing set for the
motion?
Suggested Answer:
No, the judge did not gravely abuse his discretion when he denied the motion for bill of
particulars without waiting for the hearing set in the motion. Section 2, Rule 12 of the Rules of
Court authorizes the court to either deny or grant said motion outright upon the clerk of court
bringing such motion to the attention of the court. The motion may lack merit.
If the judge grants the motion and orders the plaintiff to file and serve the bill of
particulars, can the trial judge dismiss the case if the plaintiff does not comply with the order?
(3%)
30
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Suggested Answer:
Yes, the trial judge can dismiss the caste if the plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s
order to file and serve the needed bill of particulars. Section 4, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court
authorizes the court to order the striking out of the pleading affected, hence the dismissal of the
complaint. To the same end is the provision of Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules when plaintiff
fails to comply for no justifiable cause with any order of the court or with the Rules.
Sec. 2, Rule 12
“Upon the filing of the motion, the clerk of court must immediately bring it to the attention
of the court which may either deny or grant it outright, or allow the parties the opportunity to be
heard.”
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. - Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or
information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its
supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly
fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest,
or a commitment order when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 6 of this
Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor
to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by
the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.
(b) By the Municipal Trial Court. - When required pursuant to the second paragraph of
section 1 of this Rule, the preliminary investigation of cases falling under the original jurisdiction
of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court or Municipal
Circuit Trial Court SHALL be conducted by the prosecutor. The procedure for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest by the judge shall be governed by paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) When warrant of arrest not necessary. - A warrant of arrest shall not issue if the
accused is already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the municipal trial court in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, or if the complaint or information was filed
pursuant to section 6 of this Rule or is for an offense penalized by fine only. The court shall then
proceed in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
Conducted by the judge to determine probable Conducted by the prosecutor to ascertain whether
cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. the alleged offender should be held for trial.
31
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
It is a judicial function It is an executive function
Conducted to determine probable cause To determine whether the accused should remain
under custody and be charged in court
SECTION 6. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. - When a person is lawfully
arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the
complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation
provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or
unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or by a
peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or
arresting officer or person.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a
preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his
counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be
terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.
After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation,
the accused may within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary
investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule.
SECTION 8. Method of arrest by officer without warrant. - When making an arrest without a
warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause of the
arrest, unless the latter is either engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued
immediately after its commission, has escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before the officer has
opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied
by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to
establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents,
plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any
32
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or
unavailability, before a notary public, each of whom must certify that he personally examined the
affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall
either dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a subpoena to
the respondent attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its supporting affidavits and
document.
The respondent shall have the right to examine the evidence submitted by the
complainant which he may not have been furnished and to copy them at his expense. If the
evidence is voluminous, the complainant may be required to specify those which he intends to
present against the respondent, and these shall be made available for examination or copying
by the respondent at his expense.
Objects as evidence need not be furnished a party but shall be made available for
examination, copying or photographing at the expense of the requesting party.
(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting
affidavits and documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his
witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense. The counter-affidavits
shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, with
copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The respondent shall not be allowed to file a
motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit.
(d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-
affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint
based on the evidence presented by the complainant.
(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are such facts and issues to be
clarified from a party or a witness. The parties can be present at the hearing but without the right
to examine or cross-examine. They may, however, submit to the investigating officer questions
which may be asked to the party or witness concerned.
The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from submission of the counter-affidavits
and other documents or from the expiration of the period for their submission. It shall be
terminated within five (5) days.
(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the investigating officer shall determine
whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Motion to Dismiss is filed before filing an Answer. The period in filing an Answer is interrupted.
33
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Sec. 1, Rule 9
“Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are
deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or
by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.”
Omnibus Motion Rule shall only arise when a Omnibus Motion Rule shall only arise when a
motion to dismiss is filed Motion to Quash is filed
If no motion to dismiss is filed, Sec. 6, Rule 16 Instances when grounds are waived: Sec. 9, R117
shall apply 1. File a motion to quash, but you do not include
all the grounds, those not included are waived
“If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any 2. If you do NOT file a motion to quash, all your
of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this defenses are waived
Rule may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in
the answer and, in the discretion of the court, a EXCEPT the ff grounds:
preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a (a)That the facts charged do not constitute an
motion to dismiss had been filed. x x x” offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged;
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished;
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted
or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
34
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
>>>>>Know the grounds of a Motion to Dismiss<<<<<
- When MR is filed, court should rectify its error. If MR is denied, the remedy is to file a Petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65.
Grounds for a Motion to Dismiss which BARS the refiling of the complaint
(Sec. 5, Rule 16)
1. Bar by prior judgment or Statute of limitations
2. Claim is waived, paid or extinguished
3. Statue of frauds
⚠️ Sec. 1, Rule 41
Matters NOT Appealable
(a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from
judgment;
(b) An interlocutory order;
(c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
(d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or
compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
(e) An order of execution;
(f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate
claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending,
unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
(g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
PRE-TRIAL
How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?
35
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
- If you do not include lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, there is
voluntary appearance
Marcos Manotoc v. CA
Several attempts in two different dates
**The above-mentioned rules are also applicable to actions in rem and quasi in rem as long as
the case is subject to service of summons. But not applicable if the defendant is a non-resident
of the Philippines.
36
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Sec. 16, Rule 14 (XPN to S15) In personam
Residents temporarily out of the In rem
Philippines - refers to a specific Quasi in rem
defendant
Example: Action for a sum of money, then apply for preliminary attachment. If the writ is issued,
the action in personam is converted to quasi in rem. Jurisdiction over the person becomes
immaterial. Only jurisdiction over the res is material.
- Pag ang summons by publication lang, hindi mo masisingil ng 5M na loan kasi over the res
lang yung summons. Dapat summons served on the person of the defendant.
Sec. 11, Rule 14. Service upon domestic private juridical identity
When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the
laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the
a. president,
g. managing partner,
h. general manager,
i. corporate secretary,
j. treasurer, or
k. in-house counsel
Sec. 12, Rule 14 (as amended). Service upon foreign private juridical entity
“If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines or has no resident
agent, service may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the ff
means:
a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with
the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs;
b) By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the
defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by
registered mail at the last known address of the defendant;
37
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
c) By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of service;
or
d) By such other means as the court may in its discretion direct.”
——————————————————————————————————————-
———————————————————————————————————————
“If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court
shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such
failure, declare the defending party in default.” (Sec. 3, Rule 9)
“The defendant shall file his answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days after
service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court.” (Sec. 1, Rule 11)
A judgment rendered against a party in default A similar failure (to appear during pre-trial) on the
shall not exceed the amount or be different in kind part of the defendant shall be cause to allow the
from that prayed for nor award unliquidated plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the
damages court to render judgment on the basis therefor
Judgment is based on the relief prayed for Judgment is based on the evidence
38
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
- It is the duty of a party to file a motion for the court to render a judgment by default, pag
walang motion na finile, the action shall be dismissed, in relation to Sec. 3, Rule 17
“Failure to prosecute his action for an unreasonable time”
Q: Answer of defendant contains an admission. There is no triable issue in the case. There is
no need to present evidence. Remedy?
A: File a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Rule 34. There is no factum probandum.
—————————————————————————————————————————
—————————————————————————————————————————-
39
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
Q: Defendant admits the debt but denies the amount of damages or interest. The issue is not
genuine because there is a denial of material allegations. Remedy?
A: Summary judgment, Rule 35
Generally available only to the plaintiff, unless the Can be invoked by the plaintiff and the defendant
defendant presents a counterclaim.
The answer fails to tender an issue or there is an There is no genuine issue between the parties,
admission of material allegations. there may be issues but these are irrelevant.
ANSWER
Q: What is an Answer?
A: Answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses (Sec. 4, Rule 6).
“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 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.”
40
Arenas. Kapunan. Co. Apepe. 2018
SECTION 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.
- Kapag allegation of usury raised in the Answer, hindi kailangang under oath
- Complaint referred to in Sec. 11, Rule 8 is used in its generic sense, it may be a counterclaim,
cross-claim third party complaint
One which arises out of or is necessarily It does not arise out of nor is it necessarily
connected with the transaction or occurrence that connected with the subject matter of the opposing
is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim party’s claim. There is an absence of a logical
connection with the subject matter of the
complaint.
Dos not require certification against forum Requires certification against forum shopping
shopping
It does not require for its adjudication the presence It may require for its adjudication the presence of
of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire third parties over whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction jurisdiction.
Not set up or invoked in the same proceeding is It can stand as a separate complaint. Although not
waived or barred set up is not barred
Does not have to be answered by the plaintiff It has to be answered. Otherwise, the plaintiff may
be declared in default for failure to answer
Outside its jurisdiction, it will be dismissed as “x x x except that in an original action before the
such. You just file it as a separate complaint RTC, the counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount”
41