Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 162

I.

Civil Procedure
Noli Alfonso, et al. vs. Sps. Henry and Liwanag Andres, G.R. No. 139611, October 4, 2002 Mariano L. Gumabon, et al. vs. Aquilino T. Larin, G.R. No. 142523, November 27, 2001 Tung Chin Hui vs. Rufus B. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 137571, September 21, 2000 William P. Chan vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 138758, July 6, 2000 Perla S. Zulueta vs. Asia Brewery, G.R. No. 138137, March 8, 2001

General Provisions — Jurisdiction of Courts The rule is that where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal. The exception to the rule is where the statute expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending before its enactment. Where a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of the statute.
Lourdes E. Bengzon vs. Amado G. Inciong, G.R. No. L-48706, June 29, 1979 Latchme Motoomull, et al. vs. Joffre dela Paz, et al., G.R. No. L-45302, July 24, 1990 PNB vs. Cayetano A. Tejano, Jr., G.R. No. 173615, October 16, 2009

A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness.
Renald F. Vilando vs. HRET, et al., G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, August 23, 2011

The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts from resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: (1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) there is an exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; (3) the constitutional issue raised requires formation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
Rodolfo G. Navarro, et al. vs. Eduardo Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 180050, April 12, 2011

Copyright 2012

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012

1

Courts will decide a question, otherwise moot and academic, if it is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." The question on Limkaichong's citizenship is likely to recur if she would run again, as she did run, for public office, hence, capable of repetition.
Renald F. Vilando vs. HRET, et al., G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, August 23, 2011

It may also be pertinently stressed that "jurisdiction" is different from the "exercise of jurisdiction." Jurisdiction refers to the authority to decide a case, not the orders or the decision rendered therein. Accordingly, where a court has jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants and the subject matter, as in the case of the courts a quo, the decision on all questions arising therefrom is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. Any error that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is merely an error of judgment, which does not affect its authority to decide the case, much less divest the court of the jurisdiction over the case.
Bernabe L. Navida, et al. vs. Teodoro A. Dizon, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 125078, 125598, 126654,127856 & 128398, May 30, 2011

The rule is that the active participation of the party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or administrative body where the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party from later on impugning the court or body's jurisdiction.
Megan Sugar Corp. vs. RTC of Iloilo, Branch 68, et al., G.R. No. 170352, June 1, 2011, citing Marquez v. Secretary of Labor, 253 Phil. 329, 336 (1989)

The law governing jurisdiction is Section 19 (2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 . . . Conformably with the provision, because an action for reconveyance or to remove a cloud on one's title involves the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, exclusive original jurisdiction over such action pertained to the RTC, unless the assessed value of the property did not exceed P20,000.00 (in which instance the MTC having territorial jurisdiction would have exclusive original jurisdiction). Determinative of which regular court had jurisdiction would be the allegations of the complaint (on the assessed value of the property) and the principal relief thereby sought.
Heirs of Sps. Teofilo and Elisa Reterta vs. Sps. Lorenzo and Virginia Mores, G.R. No. 159941, August 17, 2011

Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts must refrain from determining a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to its resolution by the latter, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
Rosito Bagunu vs. Sps. Francisco & Rosenda Aggabao, G.R. No. 186487, August 15, 2011

It may not be amiss to reiterate the prevailing rule that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies
Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 2

where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special competence of an administrative agency. In such a case, the court in which the claim is sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial process pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view or, if the parties would not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice.
Samar II Electric Coop., Inc., et al. vs. Ananias D. Seludo, Jr., G.R. No. 173840, April 25, 2012

Corollary to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court, in a long line of cases, has held that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the courts, it is a pre-condition that he avail himself of all administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can be resorted to by giving the administrative officer every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy must be exhausted first before the court's power of judicial review can be sought. The premature resort to the court is fatal to one's cause of action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the case may be dismissed for lack of cause of action.
Samar II Electric Coop., Inc., et al. vs. Ananias D. Seludo, Jr., G.R. No. 173840, April 25, 2012

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case.
Samar II Electric Coop., Inc., et al. vs. Ananias D. Seludo, Jr., G.R. No. 173840, April 25, 2012

True, the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies are subject to certain exceptions, to wit: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) where strong public interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings.
Samar II Electric Coop., Inc., et al. vs. Ananias D. Seludo, Jr., G.R. No. 173840, April 25, 2012

The resolution of conflicting claims of ownership over real property is within the regular courts' area of competence and, concededly, this issue is judicial in character. However, regular courts would have no power to conclusively resolve this issue of ownership given the public character of
Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 3

In effect.Cases governed Section 3. October 2. 2011 Rule 1. Rosito Bagunu vs. 2002 Rule 1. Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the rules of civil procedure apply to all actions. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 4 . 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. subject to review by the DENR Secretary. The term "special proceeding" may be defined as an application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party. 141. 133000. Inc. De Manguerra. the remedy is granted generally upon an application or motion. et al. Concepcion Cuenco Vda. and special proceedings. No. It is the method of applying legal remedies according to definite established rules. 152643. No.. in relation to Executive Order No. 3 . G. 2 . and Accesslaw. No.A. it is likewise true that the criminal proceedings are primarily governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. it says that the rules of civil procedure have suppletory application to criminal cases. Raul Risos. Sps. the respondents' complaint-in-intervention does not simply raise the issue of possession — whether de jure or de facto — but likewise raised the issue of ownership as basis to recover possession. Sec.R.R. In special proceedings. even in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction.R. Regional Trial Courts are not precluded from conducting hearings on matters on which the parties need to be heard. October 29. G. 138855. vs. in special proceedings. Considering that Rule 119 adequately and squarely covers the situation in the instant case. Patricia Natcher vs. No. et al. civil or criminal. August 15. G. No. or a particular fact. 192. since under C. August 28. 186487. Court of Appeals. However.the land. we find no cogent reason to apply Rule 23 suppletorily or otherwise. cdasia Lamberto Casalla vs. to alienate and dispose of public land do not divest regular courts of jurisdiction over possessory actions instituted by occupants or applicants (to protect their respective possessions and occupations).In what courts applicable The Rules of Court apply to all courts. Francisco & Rosenda Aggabao. except as otherwise provided by the Supreme Court.R. G. People of the Philippines. 2008 An action is a formal demand of one's right in a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court or by the law. While the powers given to the DENR.. Inc. et al. Usually. through the Bureau of Lands. the disposition and management of public lands fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Director of Lands. Sec. no formal pleadings are required unless the statute expressly so provides.

vs. which are cognizable by courts of general jurisdiction. and Accesslaw. Inc. Del Rosario. which is now Section 4. August 1. promulgated by authority of law. 2010 It should be underscored that the nature of an election protest case differs from an ordinary civil action. Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. or a particular fact. 172110 & 181804." Gelacio P. suppletory character It is true that Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides that the rules can be applied in a "suppletory character..R. Roy S." It means that the provisions in the Rules of Court will be made to apply only where there is an insufficiency in the applicable rule. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. execution of judgment pending appeal under Section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court are permissible pursuant to Rule 143 of the Rules of Court. are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.. Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. vs. No. More importantly." Suppletory is defined as "supplying deficiencies. et al. 180291.R. 2001 The failure of the extant election laws to reproduce Section 218 of the Election Code of 1971 does not mean that execution of judgment pending appeal is no longer available in election cases. Comelec. Only strong considerations of equity will lead us to allow an exception to the procedural rule in the interest of substantial justice. GSIS.. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 5 . Nos.In what cases not applicable. Sec. In election contests involving elective municipal officials. No. March 6. 140884. March 2. G. a civil action is defined as "one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right. Inc. G. the Rules of Civil Procedure on demurrer to evidence cannot apply to election cases even "by analogy or in a suppletory character. Minda Villamor vs. 4 . No. Strict compliance with such rules is mandatory and imperative. et al. July 27. G.. rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done. et al. 124320. a right. 1999 It is axiomatic that the Rules of Court. et al. Because of this difference. Heirs of Guido Yaptinchay. et al. have the force and effect of law. Dinnah Villaviza." It is then decisively clear that the declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right.R. or the prevention or redress of a wrong" while a special proceeding is "a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status. Gementiza vs." especially because the application of said Rules would not be "practicable and convenient. or certain proceedings taken. G. People of the Phil. Under Section 3.The trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. which are cognizable by courts of limited jurisdiction. and those involving elective barangay officials.R. 2011 Rule 1.

such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons. Labao vs. Inc. (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default. indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays.. there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules. Sec. (d) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory.. February 10. 2010 However. 1998 Rule 1. 2010 Saint Louis University. vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 6 . and Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. (c) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules. No. Evangeline C. (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules. the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied. accident.R. G. Comelec. (5) the merits of the case. (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances. our judicial system. and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. No. Lolito N. (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play. there are recognized exceptions to the strict observance of procedural rules. G.Construction Time and again. (9) fraud. G. and enhance the efficiency of. August 3. Cobarrubias. November 15. we have stressed that procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants. (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. Thus. (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory. mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault. Flores. procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights. Lolito N. (12) importance of the issues involved. Inc. Francisco A. and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. (b) the merits of the case. Ramas. No. they are required to be followed. The timeliness of filing a pleading is a jurisdictional caveat that even this Court cannot trifle with. Flores. and Accesslaw. 130831. November 15. (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case. While procedural rules are liberally construed. the other elements that should be considered are the following: (a) the existence of special or compelling circumstances. Francisco A. et al. Viewed in this light. Whether a case involves an exceptionally meritorious circumstance can be tested under the following guidelines: Aside from matters of life. like all rules. G.R. Inc. liberty. Labao vs. et al.. No. 6 . et al. 187984.R. 187984. vs. 187104. honor or property which would warrant the suspension of the Rules of the most mandatory character and an examination and review by the appellate court of the lower court's findings of fact.Roberto D. 2010 The strict enforcement of the rules of procedure may be relaxed in exceptionally meritorious cases. et al. the rules were established primarily to provide order to.R.

October 22. their aim would be defeated. Escueta. 2003 Susan Fronda-Baggao vs. No.R. June 20. Inc. Inc. No.R. 147575. 133542. No. August 13. ..R.. vs. Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just. Court of Appeals. G. Marcelo R. August 19. Helen Bautista Ricafort.R. not frustrate justice. technical sense and are used only to help secure substantial justice. December 4. Court of Appeals. 2004 Ma. Soriano vs. G. the same can not be used as a vehicle to ignore the Rules at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. December 10. honor or property on technicalities.R. No. Nissan Lease Phils. Emelinda Papiona. No. "(w)hat should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose life. et al. 2008 Dee Hwa Liong Electronics Corp. G.. Asayo. 2007 Virginia Real vs.R. G.. People of the Phil. G.. . No.R. Belo. 173127. December 10. 2004 Section 6.R. Ma. NLRC. G. v. G. G. Aneco Realty and Development Corp. Sisenando H. 146559. Inc.R. No. Teresa O.. 1998 While Section 6. January 29. 2003 As expressed in Alberto vs. November 27. 165952. 2004 Systems Factors Corp. 132426. 128004. Jose J. 1999 Marcelino Tan. G. Landex Development Corp. 1998 Solar Team Entertainment. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 7 . 143789.R. vs. Locsin vs. Indeed. 146224. Teresa Vidal vs.R. vs. Beth David. No. 2007 Francisco Dee vs. G. August 5. No. No. et al. 151785. 152766.R. 2010. 154243. G.. 132007. and Accesslaw.R. No. G. Court of Appeals.. 2003 The rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid. et al. (T)he rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. No. liberty. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. January 26. et al. Inc. et al.R. No. et al. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Sps. September 29. Mendoza vs. No.R. 156295. vs. . Caoibes. 2007 Prudential Guarantee and Assurance. Arsenio Z. 156228. et al. They should be liberally construed so that litigants can have ample opportunity to prove their claims and thus prevent a denial of justice due to technicalities. Jose Renato Lim. rules of procedure should be used to promote.(e) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. 2000 Public Estates Authority vs. citing Sanchez v. October 17. September 23. No. Inc. Jose F. October 20. G. No. Ricardo and Rosalina Galit.R. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made. July 28. vs. 185567. G. Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides for a liberal construction of the rules in order to promote their objective of securing a just. 2007 Teresita B. Court of Appeals. vs. G. Roberto Lastimoso. Their strict Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.

March 8. Sandiganbayan. May 6. Liberal Party vs. Thus. 174238 July 7. G. we have recognized exceptions to the threshold issues of ripeness and mootness of the petitions before us. these rules have sometimes been relaxed on equitable considerations. Inc. Baldado. Teodora Buenaflor. we have relaxed the procedural technicalities introduced under A. No. 140713. 2003 Rules of procedures are intended to promote. 2000 Unity Fishing Development Corp.M.. et al. G. no vested right may attach to. The exception is that. as well as questions on locus standi. Court of Appeals.. As an exception to the exception.R. February 2. therefore. We have also brushed aside procedural technicalities where the issues raised. 2001 It is now settled that rules of procedure apply even to cases already pending at the time of their promulgation. No. novelty or weight as precedents deserve the Court's attention and active intervention. et al. nor arise from.R. It is a well-settled principle that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. vs. No. which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. Anita Cheng vs. the provisions with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals are strictly applied.R.and rigid application. The reason for this is that.R. Ismael O. 2009 We have indicated many times in the past that a primary factor in considering technical and procedural objections is the nature of the issues involved. G. et al. G. It is axiomatic that the retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected. while the Rules are liberally construed. No. COMELEC.R. G. G. not to defeat." Rosa Yap Paras. in some cases the Supreme Court has given due course to an appeal perfected out of time where a stringent application of the rules would have denied it. We have been strict when the issues are solely confined to the parties' private interests and carry no massive ripple effects directly affecting the public. . must always be eschewed. but only when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. et al.R. No. Inc. substantial justice and. vs. 07-7-12-SC in order to serve substantial justice and safeguard strong public interest. November 29. 142021. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 8 . No. No. 2001 Medina Investigation vs. 191771. 152154. 145415. 144074. 2001 Republic of the Phil. Our liberality has even gone beyond the purely technical and procedural where Court intervention has become imperative. but have viewed with liberality the technical and procedural threshold issues raised when grave public interests are involved.R. . 2010 Indeed. Sps. they should not be applied in a very rigid and technical sense. and Accesslaw. as a general rule. William and Tessie Sy.. Also. July 15. vs. because of the paramount public interest involved and their gravity. nor is it constitutionally objectionable. March 20. Court of Appeals. G. procedural laws. The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights does not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. vs. Court of Appeals. et al. No.

G. et al. de Mendez vs. G. Their strict and rigid application. No.. June 13. The law and jurisprudence grant to courts — in the exercise of their discretion along the lines laid down by this Court — the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character. we recognize nonetheless that the right to appeal is an essential part of our system of judicial processes. Both parties have a right to a speedy resolution of their case. rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties. free from the constraints of technicalities. No.R. taking into account the circumstances of the case. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 9 . February 26. mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard. 2010 While the court has the power to relax procedural rules "for persuasive and weighty reasons. Inc. must always be eschewed. with the objective of securing for the parties a just. and Accesslaw." Just like any other rule. 168111. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding.R. In deciding a case. This line of rulings is based." Jovina Dabon Vda. Mid-Islands Power Generation Corp. Gubat vs. which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. G. No. No. July 4. et al. 167415.R. Inc. G. Sps. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. February 29. Noli Alfonso. 166236. 2012 citing Tan v. It is a far better and more prudent cause of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case to attain the ends of justice. Mangontawar M. No.R. Norberto and Desideria Dulpina. Sps. 2012 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 189191. G. CA. the appellate court has the discretion whether or not to dismiss the same.. 2010 But while we have so ruled. Ballena. 2010 Poverty cannot be used as an excuse to justify petitioners' complacency in allowing months to pass by before exerting the required effort to find a replacement lawyer. This ratiocination is in keeping with the policy to secure a just." this does not mean that "[they] are to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights. 174937. G. on the Rules of Court which itself calls for a liberal construction of its provisions. No. "[procedural rules] are required to be followed except for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed. vs. which discretion must be exercised soundly and in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play. Sps. if not a miscarriage of justice.R.attainment of justice. In this line of rulings. Heber and Charlita Edillo vs. we have repeatedly stressed that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. 2008 We cannot allow a patently wrong judgment to be implemented because of technical lapses. CA. vs. et al. no less. giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay. July 29. Poverty is not a justification for delaying a case.R. We invariably made this recognition due to our overriding concern that every party-litigant be given the amplest opportunity to ventilate and secure the resolution of his cause. and courts should proceed with caution in order not to deprive a party of the right to appeal. NAPOCOR. Henry and Liwanag Andres. 188360. January 21.

to file a demurrer to evidence. The correlative obligation of the defendant.. and Accesslaw. and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. et al.Rule 2 .Cause of Action Conrado Pineda. 1 . Sps. failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading. by timely objection to its deficiency. basis of A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential elements of a cause of action. G. if such motion is warranted. Sec. On the other hand. Dolores Adora Macaslang vs. 156375.Ordinary civil actions.R. it is not the lack or absence of a cause of action that is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint but the fact that the complaint states no cause of action. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2011 Failure to state a cause of action is different from failure to prove a cause of action. Santiago. while the remedy in the second is to demur to the evidence. or. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 10 . lack of cause action refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading. at the trial. April 13. No. Pedro T. The procedure would consequently be to require the pleading to state a cause of action. Failure to state a cause of action may be raised at the earliest stages of an action through a motion to dismiss. May 30. Sps. No. Evidently. May 30. G. namely: (a) (b) (c) The legal right of the plaintiff. Inc. the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. 156375. and The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. Dolores Adora Macaslang vs. No. admissions. 2007 Rule 2. et al. The remedy in the first is to move for dismissal of the pleading. hence reference to Sec. Renato and Melba Zamora.R. Inc. vs. but lack of cause of action may be raised at any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of the stipulations. 5 of Rule 10 has been eliminated in this section. Renato and Melba Zamora. If the allegations of the complaint do not aver the concurrence of these elements.R. G. On the one hand. or evidence presented. 2011 Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are really different from each other. 143482.

2010 DBP vs. No. Sec. Philip Turner.. Nos. Renato and Melba Zamora. perhaps no exception. if otherwise. the former recovery is a bar. vs. and (c) an act or omission by such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff with a resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of relief from the defendant. 195546 & 195561. The fact that the cause of action accrues after the action is commenced and while the case is pending is of no moment. 2010. March 14. November 24. 157479. p. Inc. 157479. an action commenced before the cause of action has accrued is prematurely brought and should be dismissed. 2011 With respect to identity of cause of action. Harris. Although the first two elements may exist. Lorenzo Shipping Corp. Rule 2 of the Rules of Court as the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. G. No. 2012 Subject to certain qualification. defined A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. Sps.. No. vs. and except as otherwise provided by law. and Accesslaw.Dolores Adora Macaslang vs..R. Lorenzo Shipping Corp. There are reasons of public policy why there should be no needless haste in bringing up litigation. No. It is a rule of law to which there is. Asia United Bank. November 24.R. a cause of action arises only upon the occurrence of the last element. Remedial Law Compendium. Ninth Revised Ed. Inc. et al. Inc. and why people who are in no default and against whom there is as yet no cause of action should not be summoned before the public tribunals to answer complaints which are groundless. a cause of action is defined in Section 2. 163827. and a supplemental complaint or an amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of action is not permissible. Castillo. et al. v. et al. citing Surigao Mine Exploration Co. 2 . (b) a correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such right.. G. Philip Turner.R. This Court has laid down the test in determining whether or not the causes of action in the first and second cases are identical. et al. it does not stand in the way of the former action. 68 Phil 113 (1939) Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia..R. the defect cannot be cured or remedied by the acquisition or accrual of one while the action is pending. giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. 156375. 2011. G. G. that to recover at all there must be some cause of action at the commencement of the suit. either in law or in equity. citing Regalado. vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 11 .. (2005). Volume 1. Inc. Unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of action at the time his action is commenced. Silverio Q. The essential elements of a cause of action are: (a) the existence of a legal right in favor of the plaintiff.R. Goodland Co. May 30. to wit: would the same evidence support and establish both the present and former cause of action? If so.Cause of action. 182 Rule 2. G. An action prematurely brought is a groundless suit. August 17.

Corp. there would only be one cause of action. Far East Bank and Trust Company. Antonio D. Rule 2 of the Rules of Court. or if the single primary right should be violated by two distinct and separate legal wrongs.R. G. January 22. 154830. G.. defines a cause of action as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. Todaro. 157616. A single cause of action or entire claim or demand cannot be split up or divided so as to be made the subject of two or more different actions. transaction or state of fact may be sued separately. However.R. 1999 Rule 2. No. recovery on one being no bar to subsequent actions on the others. No. 149627. 123555. if two separate and distinct primary rights are violated by one and the same wrong. The violation of each of these rights is a cause of action in itself. A single act or omission may be violative of various rights at the same time. 2007 Splitting a single cause of action consists in dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and instituting two or more actions therein. G. July 22. and. in either case. Pioneer Concrete Phil. A cause of action exists if the following elements are present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created. if only one right may be violated by several acts or omissions. June 8. Del Rosario. Isidro Perez vs. 4 . (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages..Splitting a single cause of action. The rule was aimed at preventing repeated litigations between the same parties in regard to the same subject of the controversy and to protect the defendant from Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. such as when the act constitutes a violation of separate and distinct legal obligations. Court of Appeals. vs. No. 150134.Section 2. No. although arising out of the same contract. Nadela vs. Causes of action which are distinct and independent. 2003 Progressive Devt.. effect of (Section 4 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court) proscribes a party from dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and instituting two or more actions based on it. City of Cebu.R. G. et al. Inc. Court of Appeals. vs. et al. as amended. Inc. G. or when the two primary rights are each broken by a separate and distinct wrongs.R. 2007 Kenneth O. et al. Otherwise stated. vs. two causes of action would result. in another. and Accesslaw. 2005 A claim cannot be divided in such a way that a part of the amount of damages may be recovered in one case and the rest. Ernesto C. September 18. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 12 . (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right. Sec. Inc. October 31. No.R.

Dasmariñas Village Assn.Joinder of causes of action United Coconut Planters Bank vs. 159912. 129 which states. 140746. Corp." Pantranco vs. vs. 1999 If a party-litigant splits his single cause of action. to comply with its duty. therefore. among others. 2005 The above provision presupposes that the different causes of action which are joined accrue in favor of the same plaintiff/s and against the same defendant/s and that no misjoinder of parties is involved. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 13 . the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action. 123555. No.R. The issue of whether respondents' claims shall be lumped together is determined by paragraph (d) of the above provision.R. Sps. August 17. 133876. 2007 Well-settled is the rule that since a cause of action requires. 1(e). G.unnecessary vexation. Inc. pursuant to Sec. January 22. It bears stressing that it is only when the last element occurs that a cause of action arises. American Realty Corp. March 16. that "where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties. G. as essential elements.. Accordingly. and Accesslaw. not only a legal right of the plaintiff and a correlative duty of the defendant but also "an act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. 2005 Multiplicity of suits should be avoided if the filing of a separate and independent action to recover a claim would entail proving exactly the same claim in an existing action. vs.R. Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 2 which provides for the cause and effect of this practice. December 3. 127276. As a general rule. the second case filed should be abated under the priority and time rule. Standard Insurance. Inc. G. a cause of action on a written contract accrues only when an actual breach or violation thereof occurs. 1998 Rule 2.R. G. CA. Court of Appeals. 153267. It can not Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 5 . 1999 Bank of America vs. G." the cause of action does not accrue until the party obligated refuses.R. Progressive Devt. embodied in the same complaint. Blg. Samuel and Odette Beluso. No. This is in relation to Section 4. No. Court of Appeals.R. No. the other action or actions filed may be dismissed by invoking litis pendentia. G. China Banking Corp vs. June 23. No. expressly or impliedly. for this is a declaration of public policy against multiplicity of suits. irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions. Sec.P. December 29. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa. No. This paragraph embodies the "totality rule" as exemplified by Section 33 (1) of B.

the court can acquire no jurisdiction for the purpose of trial or judgment until a party defendant who actually or legally exists and is legally capable of being sued. et al. Court of Appeals. No. 2 . plaintiff and defendant Gloria Santos Dueñas vs. Cesar Tomas Lopez. Court of Appeals. G. 2000 Rule 3. 2004 Marcopper Mining Corp. Sec. 81024. vs. the plaintiff must be the real party in interest.R. 2004 The afore-quoted rule (Section 2. is brought before it.. No. vs. Solidbank Corp. It is incumbent upon a plaintiff. when he institutes a judicial proceeding. No. Necessarily. 134049. June 4. Sulpicia Ventura vs. February 3.. G. No. No. 2011 Rule 3.R. Sec. be avoided when the cause of action in the two complaints are distinct and separate from each other.R. The plaintiff in an action is the party complaining. 111715 & 112876. she or it must be a person in law and possessed of a legal entity as either a natural or an artificial person. to name the proper party defendant to his cause of action. and Accesslaw. and a proper party plaintiff is essential to confer jurisdiction on the court.however. No. the purposes of this provision are 1) to prevent the prosecution of Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 149417. et al. Militante. In order to maintain an action in a court of justice. It has even been held that the question of the legal personality of a party defendant is a question of substance going to the jurisdiction of the court and not one of procedure. Santos Subdivision Homeowners Asso. March 17. 2000 Manuel Silvestre Bernardo vs.. he. 1999 There can be no legal duel in court when the one who demands satisfaction from the alleged offender is not even the offended party. G. and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. that is. October 5. G. 05plpe The rule is no different as regards party defendants.Parties in interest Speed Distributing Corp. Nos. and no suit can be lawfully prosecuted save in the name of such a person.R. Inc. In a suit or proceeding in personam of an adversary character. Inc. Asset Privatization Trust vs. June 8. Rule 3) has two requirements: 1) to institute an action. 170914. 149351. 2004 Parties may be either plaintiffs or defendants. Court of Appeals..R. 63145. G. April 13. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 14 . G. the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence. June 17. 1 . Stefan Tito Miñoza vs.Who may be parties. G.R. Francis J.R.

G. and Accesslaw.actions by persons without any right or title to or interest in the case. Ma. 161298.R. and 2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action.R. October 4. San Miguel Corporation. Celestial Nickel Mining Exploration Corp. 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits. the purposes of this provision are 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right. G.R. Rural Bankers Association of the Phil. G. The word "interest". Necessarily. Nos. 2007 Rule 3." Every action. contingent. December 19. Eduardo L. et al. as contemplated by the Rules.. 165142. can only be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-interest. 151983-84.. No. Jose Max S. the plaintiff must be the real party in interest. 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits.R. the rule refers to a real or present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future. of the Rules of Court provides explicitly that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. G. Interest within the meaning of the Rules means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case. therefore. Nos. G. July 31. one who has no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an action. Anthony and Percita Oco vs. No. Victor Limbaring. Rayo vs. 2008 Sps.. 2007 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2007 In Re: Reversion / Recall of Reconstituted Titles in Tarlac Registry of Deeds. Jose Max Ortiz vs. No. 171304. Macroasia Corp. December 10. and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds. as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved. 2007 This provision has two requirements: 1) to institute an action. Metropolitan Bank. or consequential interest. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 15 . or one entitled to the avails of the suit.R. January 31. 151983-84. No. vs. means material interest or an interest in issue and to be affected by the judgment. G. Inc. Section 2. 169080. Stated differently.R. July 31. pursuant to sound public policy. 172936. pursuant to sound public policy. title or interest in the case. subordinate. San Miguel Corp. Rosario Tanghal-Salvana. 2008 The rules of court define a real party-in-interest as "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.R. Nos. October 10. and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds. 2006 The established rule is that a real party in interest is one who would be benefited or injured by the judgment. vs. 176226 & 176319. G. As a general rule. Inc. the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved or a mere incidental interest. 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest. 175020. Ortiz vs.

R. contingent. et al. 156228. Tongnawa. April 11. vs. 2005 Jurisprudence defines interest as "material interest. No. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. one who has no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an action. City of Dumaguete. G. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. Mosquera.R.R. or a mere incidental interest. et al. 2003 According to Sec. 2007 The established rule is that a real party in interest is one who would be benefited or injured by the judgment. Stated differently. A real party in interest is one who has a legal right. as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future.R. or consequential interest. "Interest" within the meaning of the rules means material interest.. subordinate. Inc. 161166-67. No. January 31. or consequential interest. G. G. March 22. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved or a mere incidental interest. Nazareno. 152430. 170914. subordinate. December 10. The word "interest. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree. 2006 Real party-in-interest is a concept in civil procedure and is expressly defined in the Rules of Court. February 3. Teresa Vidal. Since a contract may be violated only by the parties thereto as against each other. 143540. Victor Limbaring." Stefan Tito Miñoza vs.. the rule refers to a real or present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy. April 13. 168484. in an action upon that contract. or a mere incidental interest. Teresa O. Cesar Tomas Lopez.. 2003 "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest. possesses the right sought to be enforced. G. G. No. Inc. a real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. the real parties-in-interest. et al. by substantive Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Leah M. and Accesslaw. Carreon. et al. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved." "To qualify a person to be a real party-in-interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted. Mayor Dagadag vs. This means that the action must be brought by the person who. Ma. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 16 .R." as contemplated by the Rules. Ma.R. July 12. 2011 The party-in-interest applies not only to the plaintiff but also to the defendant. et al. Antonio C. No.R. The action must be brought by the person who. Anthony and Percita Oco vs. G. he must appear to be the present real owner of the right sought to be enforced. contingent. 161298. As a general rule. or a future. or one entitled to the avails of the suit. by substantive law. 2007 Joel G. Miranda vs. 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. No. means material interest or an interest in issue and to be affected by the judgment. either as plaintiff or as defendant. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree. or a mere incidental interest. No. must be parties to the said contract. G. By real interest is meant a present substantial interest. Wilfredo G. Samahang Magsasasaka ng 53 Hektarya vs.Sps. vs. No. Escueta.

or a mere incidental interest.law. 2) For voters. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree. It bears stressing that "a taxpayer's suit refers to a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds from taxation. 192791. G. thus allowing non-traditional plaintiffs. However. Court of Appeals. to sue in the public interest. by a Government act. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 17 . 2012 The Court laid out the bare minimum norm before the so-called "non-traditional suitors" may be extended standing to sue. Funa vs. therefore. the Court has time and again acted liberally on the locus standi requirements and has accorded certain individuals. Reynaldo A. possesses the right sought to be enforced. et al. or have a "material interest" in the issue affected by the challenged official act. 2006 Under Rule 3. as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. April 24. Antonio C. Macapagal-Arroyo. No. and 4) For legislators. The interest of the party must also be personal and not one based on a Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia." Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify to challenge the legality of official acts done by the government. standing to sue provided a constitutional issue of critical significance is at stake. a real party in interest is defined as "the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. Alvin Tan vs. thusly: 1) For taxpayers. 171489 & 171424. No. Villar. G.R. a suitor must show that he has sustained or will sustain a "direct injury" as a result of a government action.R." "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest. 171483. 2012 citing David v. April 24. 2003 Even as a taxpayer.R. G. Inc. Nos. Funa vs. there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional. August 7. B. taxpayers. 171485. not otherwise directly injured.R..R. albeit they may not have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government act. petitioner does not stand "to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit. Dennis A. G. or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Dennis A. No. in a catena of cases involving a subject of transcendental import. 143540. or with material interest affected. Miranda vs. there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question. 127210. voters or legislators. Carreon. Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court." Joel G. April 11. there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes their prerogatives as legislators. there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early. May 3. such as concerned citizens. Inc. 3) For concerned citizens. The rule on locus standi is after all a mere procedural technicality in relation to which the Court. 171396. and Accesslaw. Villar. Reynaldo A. or relaxed. 171400. G. has waived. B. 171409. 192791. 2003 To have legal standing.

R. Patricia Lim-Yu. Court of Appeals. et. a suit filed by a person who is not a party in interest must be dismissed. No.R. Comelec. No. February 20. 1999 By real interest is meant a present substantial interest. contingent. No. 2001 Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. No.. G. et al. Eduardo Balagtas vs. Shipside Incorporated vs.R. June 15. vs. 1999 If the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest. No. a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the Complaint states no cause of action (Sec. February 2. 131277. or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Gilda C. or a future. Court of Appeals.R. G. G. 124658. 127347.R. Tankiko.R. Alfredo N. Catotal. 1(g).R. Court of Appeals. No. G. No. possesses the right sought to be enforced and not necessarily the person who will ultimately benefit from the recovery. VSC Commercial Enterprises vs. 121159. contingent.desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party. Justiniano Cezar. G.R. February 19. G. G. 2001 Rule 3. Presentacion B. 2000 Eliseo Fajardo.R. No. or consequential interest. a complaint filed against such a person should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. October 20. 143377. Court of Appeals. December 15. 2000 Philippine Trust Co. 1999 Any decision rendered against a person who is not a real party in interest in the case cannot be executed. Aguila vs. 1999 The purposes of this provision are: 1) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. subordinate or consequential interest. Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every action "must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest. Real interest. as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future. G. subordinate. vs. Angela C. December 16. 1999 Clearly. 109073. G. No. Universal International Group of Taiwan. by substantive law. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 18 . Court of Appeals. No. Rule 16). Inc." This means that the action must be brought by the person who. G. September 14. as distinguished from a mere expectancy. subordinate.R. 134692. 2000 Teofista Babiera vs. Jr. on the other hand. November 25. al. August 1. 131680. vs. September 30. 2002 A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. 138343. means a present substantial interest.. Hence. And by real interest is meant a present substantial interest. Lim vs. "Boy" Caruncho III vs. et al. Inc. 138493. G. as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future. contingent.R. 135996. and Accesslaw. Freedom to Build. Emiliano R. or consequential interest.

G.R. February 16. Edgar R. Manuel N. "the rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained.R. asserts a "public right" in assailing an allegedly illegal official action. A person suing as a taxpayer. The plaintiff may be a person who is affected no differently from any other person. representing the general public. COMELEC. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action. 171396. G. 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the action. the plaintiff. and 4) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds. 165109. In other words. a taxpayer need not be a party to the contract to challenge its validity.R. 164703." In public suits. for a taxpayer's suit to prosper. et al. the plaintiff's standing is based on his own right to the relief sought. Go vs. Mortimer F. Cordero. or that the public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. Mortimer F. vs. it is apparent that contrary to the view of the RTC. December 14. G. Go vs. No. No. No. This states that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. Macapagal-Arroyo." Thus. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 19 . a law is violated or some irregularity is committed and (2) the petitioner is directly affected by the alleged act. or that there is wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Jose L. title or interest in the case. 2010 A case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest. As long as taxes are involved. pursuant to sound public policy Allan C." or as a "citizen" or "taxpayer. Lara. et al. 3) to avoid a multiplicity of suits. No. et al. G. however. May 4. or will sustained. Mamba. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges "such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. May 4. and Accesslaw. or that Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2010 A taxpayer is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed. 164703. Atienza. 2009 [L]egal standing in suits is governed by the "real parties-in-interest" rule under Section 2.R.. May 3. must show that the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. G. Cordero. 2006 Anent locus standi." And "real party-in-interest" is one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. In light of the foregoing. No. taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose.any right. 2010 citing David v. direct injury as a result of its enforcement. Allan C. In other words. Inc. He must also prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that he will sustain a direct injury because of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. Inc. and could be suing as a "stranger. et al. 188920.R. vs.. two requisites must be met: (1) public funds derived from taxation are disbursed by a political subdivision or instrumentality and in doing so. people have a right to question contracts entered into by the government.

public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. G.R. Teodora A. Court of Appeals. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. In fact.Permissive joinder of parties Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. No. No. 164987.. Sec. Rule 3 and Section 2. Young. G. and Accesslaw. 3 . January 13. 110 Phil. G. G.R. 2012 In the determination of the degree of interest essential to give the requisite standing to attack the constitutionality of a statute. Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. 2012 citing Pascual v. Sec. 129008. March 12. 2001 Rule 3. No.Representatives as parties Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced. Lawyers against Monopoly and Poverty vs. 342-343 (1960) Rule 3.R. the heirs may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed. in the case of Gochan vs. Secretary of Budget and Management. No. Inc. even when there is already an administrator appointed by the court. This is the proper modality despite the total lack of advertence to the heirs in the rules on party representation. Inc. April 24. November 19.R. G. this Court has in previous instances recognized the heirs as proper representatives of the decedent. April 24. et al. 331. 2004 For the protection of the interests of the decedent. namely Section 3.. 148560. this Court recognized the legal standing of the heirs to represent the rights and properties of the decedent under administration pending the appointment of an administrator. but also taxpayers have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditures of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public moneys. No. et al. Secretary of Public Works. 164987. Rioferio vs. Virginia O.R. 6 . Young. Gochan vs. Lawyers against Monopoly and Poverty vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 20 . Secretary of Budget and Management. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Richard G. 131889. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and People of the Philippines. the general rule is that not only persons individually affected.

R. Lourdes Manliquez. Cynthia R. or if the final determination of the controversy in his absence will be inconsistent with equity and good conscience. National Tobacco Administration. Victoria Regner vs. No. 2007 Section 7. August 5. 2004 Andrea D. 152845. vs. 2004 Drianita Bagaoisan. the joinder of all necessary parties where possible. their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power. G. if the decree will have an injurious effect upon his interest. Court of Appeals. No.. 155785. G. As such. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. 1997 An indispensable party has been defined as one: [who] must have a direct interest in the litigation. Sandiganbayan. et al. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. Herbert Markus Emil Scheer. this can only be determined in the context and by the facts of the particular suit or litigation. No. July 15. 154745. Court of Appeals. et al.R. July 20. No. defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. 2001 Rule 3.R. and Accesslaw. no fixed formula for determining who is an indispensable party. Court of Appeals. October 2. 102900. The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires. January 29. October 19. et al. and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions. and if this interest is such that it cannot be separated from that of the parties to the suit. 168747. 2003 Republic of the Phil. Domingo vs.Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties Ma.R. G. No. vs. April 13.R. 120176. Speed Distributing Corp. The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires the joinder of all necessary parties where possible and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions..Rule 3. G. et al. et al.R. of course. 2003 A person who is not a party to an action may be impleaded by the defendant either on the basis of liability to himself or on the ground of direct liability to the plaintiff. G. 2007 Marcelino Arcelona vs. Section 7 of the Rules of Court.R.. they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants. G. Sec. vs. Valentina Santana-Cruz vs. they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants. however. There are two essential tests of an indispensable party: (1) can relief be afforded the plaintiff without the presence of the other party? and (2) can the case be decided on its merits without prejudicing the rights of the other party? There is. 7 . Inc. Simplicio Galicia. G. G. Logarta.R. March 17. if the court cannot render justice between the parties in his absence. defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. As such. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 21 . No. Inc. their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power. No. 152154. vs. 149351.

Inc. G. A party is indispensable if his interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought is inextricably intertwined with the other parties' interest. March 3. January 23. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 22 . September 10. Catalino U. Rene B. Landcenter Construction & Development Corp. so that the courts cannot proceed without their presence.China Banking Corporation vs. CA-01-32.R. Demetria. Inc. Leonis Navigation Co.. June 10.. 141970. 9 . If petitioner refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court. G. October 3. Cabutihan vs. and Accesslaw. Inc. not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. G. They are those parties who possess such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights. Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or at such times as are just. Villamater.R. Pascual vs." The absence of indispensable parties renders all subsequent actuations of the court null and void. G. Section 7 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as those who are parties in interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. 2002 Rule 3. December 15.R. 2002 Metropolitan Bank vs. et al. G. 179169. Floro T. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Oliver. 2002 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al. the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the plaintiff's/petitioner's failure to comply therewith. vs. G. 2010 Rule 3.R.Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded The rule is settled that the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. 146594. No. Jaime M. 182645. No. 135796. No. Reyes vs. which is "the authority to hear and determine a cause. No..Necessary party Rebecca T.. Mercedes M.L. Cabutihan vs.R. because of that court's want of authority to act. No. Alejo. Landcenter Construction & Development Corp. 2001 Rule 3. June 10. 8 . 2002 It is clear that the presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction. A.R.M. No. Robles. 2010 Heirs of Jose B. 146594. the right to act in a case. 05plpe Rebecca T. Sec. Sec. Justice Demetrio G..

G. July 15. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion.R. Tinghel. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. may order the inclusion of the indispensable party or give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint in order to include indispensable parties.R. 2002 Republic of the Phil. Section 11 of the Rules of Court. either motu proprio or upon the motion of a party. 2002 Mabayo Farms vs. G. Mercedes M. Ignacio Arcega. Sr. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 23 . et al. et al.R. 146594. G. June 10. No.R. 1998 Sps. thus: The proper remedy is to implead the indispensable party at any stage of the action. neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action. G. 152154. Inc. G. February 3. Court of Appeals. No.Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties Union Bank vs.R. that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the order. The court. 2002 Rule 3. No.R. parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. Sandiganbayan. August 1. No. G. 10 . and Accesslaw. Pamplona Plantation Co. Eligio and Marcelina Mallari vs. 110067. Heirs of Honorio Ramos. No. Sec. No.. vs. Only upon unjustified failure or refusal to obey the order to include or to amend is the action dismissed. No. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just. 2002 Rebecca T. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court.. G. 131729. May 19. Linda T.R. Oliver. March 20.Unwilling co-plaintiff Ramon Ramos vs. 140848. Almendras vs. Cabutihan vs. 140058. vs. Court of Appeals..R. 2002 China Banking Corporation vs. No. If the plaintiff ordered to include the indispensable party refuses to comply with the order of the court. G. 135796.The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Inc.R. 106615. October 3. No. Landcenter Construction & Development Corp. 1998 Ma.. August 3. 11 . 2005 Rule 3. 2003 Under Rule 3. Court of Appeals. 159121. Sec. April 25. G.

Mamindiara P. Littie Sarah a.R. 2010 Failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action.. Andrade. et al. and Accesslaw. 139284. March 3. No. et al. November 16. 152643. Villamater. March 27. and (3) that the action be maintained by parties who will fairly and adequately represent the class. July 7. AM RTJ-99-1504. Gonzales vs. No.. No.. the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the petitioner's/plaintiff's failure to comply. January 28. G. Sec. vs. Catalino U. Alfaro Fortunado. (2) that the parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court. Agdeppa. vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 24 . Risos. 80390.R. duty of counsel Ramon A. Parties may be added by order of the court. In such a case. 135306. Mariano Lim. on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just. 2000 The purpose behind this rule is the protection of the right to due process of every party to the litigation who may be affected by the intervening death. et al. August 28. Nos.Leonis Navigation Co. G. 2003 Rule 3. G.Class suit In order that a class suit may prosper. 12 . No. 2008 Rule 3. G.. namely: (1) that the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons. August 29. MVRS Publications vs.. G. If the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court. 2010. et al. Heirs of Ignacio Bonete.R. Gabriel Leyson. G. et al. Mangotara. et al. 164436. Phil. 179169. Inc. et al. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court requires the concurrence of three (3) essential elements.R. the remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.R. 173401.R. et al. Section 12.R. Inc.R. G. 2004 City Sheriff. vs. No. No. 16 . 1998 Ang Kek Chen vs. The deceased litigant is herself or himself Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. vs. 173563-64. 2004 Asuncion Macias..R. Amalia R. Sec. Republic of the Phil. June 4. No.. 170505. No... G. vs. 2010 Misjoinder of parties does not warrant the dismissal of the action. 144891. Islamic Da'wah Council. G. et al. 178779 & 178894. 1999 Maria Mercedes Nery. De Manguerra v.Death of party. et al. 139306. January 15. Amusement and Gaming Corp. vs. May 27. 173355-56. et al. Inc. citing Vda. 170375.

Diosdidit and Menendez M. citing Bonilla v. April 4. Severino Landicho. in cases where the widow is not a real party in interest. the property and rights of property affected being incidental. It can be gleaned from the citation of this rule that movant/intervenor seeks to appear before this Tribunal as the legal representative/substitute of the late protestant prescribed by said Section 16. In Vda. No. Norberto and Susan Dingco.R. Inc. Thus.protected as he/she continues to be properly represented in the suit through the duly appointed legal representative of his estate. we have every time ruled that a public office is personal to the public officer and not a property transmissible to the heirs upon death. in the later case of De la Victoria v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. we denied substitution by the wife or heirs.E. Ronald Allan Poe vs. August 29. Domingo Carabeo vs. the wrong complained [of] affects primarily and principally property and property rights. we struck down the claim of the surviving spouse and children of the protestee to the contested office for the same reason. 190823. 2007 Rule 3.R. However. No. 170015. No. Section 16 is the rule on substitution in the Rules of Court. Even in analogous cases before other electoral tribunals. Commission on Elections. Sps. 2011. No. Sps. March 29. petitioner's counsel of record had no personality to act on behalf of the already deceased client who. Inc. Similarly. P. et al. Thus. involving substitution by the widow of a deceased protestant. we recognized substitution upon the death of the protestee but denied substitution by the widow or heirs since they are not the real parties in interest. while in the causes of action which do not survive. 190823. de De Mesa v. 2005 The death of a client immediately divests the counsel of authority. G. 1976 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. The trial court's decision had thereby become final and executory. G. 002. 149787. Sumaljag vs. Domingo vs. the injury complained of is to the person.R. Antonio C. in our application of this rule to an election contest. 2011 The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive. June 18. had not been substituted as a party after his death. Norberto and Susan Dingco. April 4. Domingo Carabeo vs. 2008 Failure of a counsel to comply with the Section 16 of Rule 3 is a ground for disciplinary action. Case No.R. L-41715. in filing a Notice of Appeal. Barcena. the injuries to the person being merely incidental.T. it bears reiteration. we consistently rejected substitution by the widow or the heirs in election contests where the protestant dies during the pendency of the protest.. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 25 . No. June 18. G. Mencias. Crisologo C. no appeal having been perfected. Literato. G. This rule allows substitution by a legal representative.. et al. G.R. and Accesslaw. Sps.

No. La Suerte Cigar. Ruiz. Court of Appeals. G. Inc. 2000 Natalia Realty vs. 146989. People of the Phil.. June 17. 150107 & 150108. G. November 16. Jorge Valdez. 2002 Melencio Gabriel vs. G. February 25.R.Venue of Actions Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.Indigent party Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co. Solidbank Corp.. 2001 Rule 4 .. Court of Appeals. Sec. Philippine National Bank. 106795. and Accesslaw. G. 19 . 2007 Rule 3. 116909. et al. January 28. G.Notice to the Solicitor General Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs.R. June 28.Transfer of interest State Investment House vs. Court of Appeals. Nelson Bilon.R.R. 134100. Inc. No. No. Court of Appeals. 20 .. Sec. January 31.Action on contractual money claims Vivencio M. G. No. 126462. No. No. September 29. vs. 132852. vs. No.R. 144942. No. Nos. 168882. Sec.. G. et al. et al.. 21 . February 7. No. May 31. 2000 Rule 3. 2007 Rule 3. et al.R. 2008 Teofilo Martinez vs.R.R. 2004 Section 19 of Rule 3 of Rules of Court uses the word "may" to denote that the substitution of parties on account of transfer of interest from the original party to another is discretionary. Intestate Estate of the Late Nimfa Sian vs. November 12. G. 1999 Purita Alipio vs. vs. 134049.R. 1999 Marcopper Mining Corp.R.Rule 3. G. Inc. Sec. 22 . Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 26 . G.

But where the exclusivity clause does not make it necessarily all encompassing. Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide an answer to the issue of venue. No.R. the restriction should be strictly construed as relating solely to the agreement for which the exclusive venue stipulation is embodied. Actions affecting title to or possession of real property or an interest therein (real actions) shall be commenced and tried in the proper court that has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property is situated. supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. Balindong. Klaus K. G.R. 2010 citing Orbeta v. Thus. and Accesslaw. Restrictive stipulations are in derogation of the general policy of making it more convenient for the parties to institute actions arising from or in relation to their agreements.R. 2006 Exclusive venue stipulation embodied in a contract restricts or confines parties thereto when the suit relates to breach of the said contract. All other actions are personal and may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides. Rasad G. February 19. or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found. March 29. 1 . No. is situated. Inc. No. venue stipulations in a contract do not. Inc. all other actions (personal actions) shall be commenced and tried in the proper courts where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides.While stipulations regarding venue are considered valid and enforceable. Expanding the scope of such limitation on a contracting party will create unwarranted restrictions which the parties might find unintended or worse. Generosa Almeda Latorre vs. G. No. Pacific Consultants International Asia. Orbeta.. or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. or an interest therein. 2007 Rule 4. et al. On the other hand. as a rule. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 27 . 166920. the basic principles of freedom to contract might work to the great disadvantage of a weak party-suitor who ought to be allowed free access to courts of justice. Otherwise. et al. 2010 A real action. 182434. at the election of the plaintiff. November 27. Schonfeld. is one that affects title to or possession of real property. G. vs. 1. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Yahya M. G. arbitrary and oppressive. such that even those not related to the enforcement of the contract should be subject to the exclusive venue.Venue of real actions Sections 1 and 2.R. March 5. the stipulation designating exclusive venues should be strictly confined to the specific undertaking or agreement. Sec. 183926. or a portion thereof. Such actions should be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved. 166837. Rule 4 of the Rules of Court. under Sec. Luis Esteban Latorre. Tomawis vs. Inc.

156228. Cabutihan vs. between the contending parties. No.R. G. 2003 Real actions. No. all other actions (personal actions) shall be commenced and tried in the proper courts where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. is one that affects title to or possession of real property. Larin. 2 . the case can only be but a real action. hence. The venue for such actions is governed by Rule 4. Aquilino T. No. 2010 A real action. June 30. Teresa O. would have a better right to the property. 146594. Mariano L. as so opposed to personal actions. as amended. is Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. as amended. No. Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide an answer to the issue of venue. as provided for in Section 1. 1. November 27. Generosa Almeda Latorre vs.. Rule 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This is regardless of the nature of the complaint before the Lupon. Ma. the rules mandated by the Rules of Court should govern. 183926. Sec. more specifically so as to who. SMC vs. Gumabon. and the relief prayed for therein. G. Landcenter Construction & Development Corp. No. 148568.R.R. the rules on regular procedure shall apply. 2003 Rule 4. Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On the other hand. Luis Esteban Latorre.Moreover. et al. March 29. March 20. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 28 . Contrawise. and Accesslaw. An action for the enforcement of a settlement is not one of those covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure in civil cases.R. an action for the enforcement of the settlement should be instituted in the proper municipal or city court. G. or a portion thereof. Where a contrary claim to ownership is made by an adverse party. G. vs. and where the relief prayed for cannot be granted without the court deciding on the merits the issue of ownership and title. 2005 By express provision of Section 417 of the LGC. 2001 Rebecca T. No. Herbal Cove. 2002 Atlantic Erectors vs. G. under Sec. or an interest therein. 151037. Actions affecting title to or possession of real property or an interest therein (real actions) shall be commenced and tried in the proper court that has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the real property is situated. June 10.Venue of personal actions Sections 1 and 2. Rule 4 of the Rules of Court. are those which affect the title to or possession of real property.R. venue stipulation should be deemed merely permissive. Monasterio. Teresa Vidal. Inc. December 10. G. Escueta. Inc. since convenience is the raison d'etre of the rules on venue. 142523. Such actions should be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved. and that interpretation should be adopted which most serves the parties' convenience. et al.R. vs. Ma.

166837. August 9.R. The rule on venue. like other procedural rules. vs. Rasad G. No. G. Warren Embes Luyaben.R. 182434. or the impartial and evenhanded determination of every action and proceeding. 111685. venue is determined pursuant to Rule 4. February 12. et al. G. at the election of the plaintiff.R. No. 2006 The general rule on the venue of personal actions. or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found.R. Inc. Yahya M. finds no application where the parties. vs. G. Inc.situated. Davao Light vs. No. No. November 27. 2001 Mariano L. If plaintiff opts for the latter. Rule 4 of the Rules of Court… The rule. 2002 Atlantic Erectors vs. as in a case for damages.R. before the filing of the action. 148568. Aquilino T. No. No. Sec. Court of Appeals. 2006 An action for damages being a personal action. Cruz. 125027. 2003 Rule 4. Balindong. G.November 27. vs. Cruz. August 20.R. 146594.R. 142523. qualified by Section 4 of the same rule which allows parties. is embodied in Section 2. Orbeta. Uniwide Holdings. he is limited to that place. 2002 Anita Mangila vs. vs. Larin. April 19. American Express Int'l Inc. No. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 29 . Alexander M. Cabutihan vs. 171456. March 20. Court of Appeals. Tomawis vs. Aniceto Saludo. 2007 The Rules of Court provide that parties to an action may agree in writing on the venue on which Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. All other actions are personal and may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides. 159507.R. The option of plaintiff in personal actions cognizable by the RTC is either the place where defendant resides or may be found. Inc. Alexander M. 4 . 173979. however. No. section 2 of the Rules of Court. is designed to insure a just and orderly administration of justice. Jr. vs. March 5.R. before the filing of the action.When Rule not applicable Section 2 of Rule 4 is. to validly agree in writing on an exclusive venue. No. Landcenter Construction & Development Corp. have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. G. June 10. 171456. Herbal Cove. G. Auction in Malinta. and Accesslaw.. Inc. G. 2010 citing Orbeta v. August 9. et al.R.. G. Gumabon. G. August 12. et al. No. or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. or the place where plaintiff resides. G. G.R. 2001 Rebecca T. however. Inc. 2007 The choice of venue for personal actions cognizable by the RTC is given to plaintiff but not to plaintiff's caprice because the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court. 2007 Uniwide Holdings.

and The physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. However. while considered valid and enforceable. et al. The parties must be able to show that such stipulation is exclusive. Sec. His presence at another place at the time of the commission of the crime. do not as a rule supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. Moreover. 5 . Inc. August 24. 146845. 2011 This Court has ruled consistently that alibi is an inherently weak defense and should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution. et al. Cleofe V. 2002 Rule 5 . Court of Appeals.. G. Michaelangelo and Grace Mesina vs.Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts Sps. No. Meer. this is true only if the accused's alibi strictly meets the following requisites: 1. Escueta. and Accesslaw. No.an action should be brought. People of the Phil. a mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. vs. July 2. 2002 Rule 5. Venue stipulations in a contract.R. Humberto D. G. courts will allow the filing of a case in any venue. No. not as limiting venue to the specified place. Teresa O. G. vs. Sec.R. 2003 Rule 6. absent words that show the parties' intention to restrict the filing of a suit in a particular place. Baroquillo. 1999 Alibi is indeed a good defense and could certainly exculpate a person accused of a crime. Anita Mangila vs. January 21. 1 . 125027. the defense must successfully prove the element of physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the crime scene at the time of the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Inc. Court of Appeals.Defenses Reynaldo T. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 30 . 184960. August 12. for alibi to overcome the prosecution's evidence. G. December 10. et al. No.R. 2. 156228. Thus. Teresa Vidal. Ma..Uniform procedure Ma. However. G. Cometa vs. 124062. they should be considered merely as an agreement on additional forum. as long as jurisdictional requirements are followed. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words.R. No.R.

citing People vs. G.R. No. being inherently weak. Two. but also that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. like alibi. It is settled in this jurisdiction that the defense of alibi. 396 Phil. Molina. alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of witnesses. vs. the accessibility between these points. et al.R. G.R. G. One. 2011. G. Physical impossibility in relation to alibi takes into consideration not only the geographical distance between the scene of the crime and the place where accused maintains he was. 193188. and Hilot. is negative and Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 289 (2000) Jurisprudential rules and precepts guide this Court in assessing the proffered defense. 2011. 184173. Three. Victor Rondina vs. People of the Phil. the accused must prove not only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed. it cannot prevail over and is worthless in the face of the positive identification by a credible witness that an accused perpetrated the crime. cannot prevail over the clear and positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. . 153538. August 24. Juanito Apattad. they cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime. 2012 citing People v. Alfredo. 184960. No. Jr. May 19. 2009 It is elementary that the defense of denial is outweighed by a positive identification that is categorical. 2010 In light of the positive identification of appellant by the prosecution witnesses and since no ill motive on their part or on that of their families was shown that could have made either of them institute the case against the appellant and falsely implicate him in a serious crime he did not commit. G.. August 24.R. Denial. August 10. vs. G. and Accesslaw. 289 (2000) It is well-settled that since alibi is a weak defense for being easily fabricated. Francisca Talaro. Fourth. alibis and denials are generally disfavored by the courts for being weak. No. December 15.. People of the Phil. By physical impossibility. consistent and untainted by any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter. Cleofe V. G. No..R. citing People vs. March 13. Cleofe V.perpetration of the offense. for alibi to prosper. March 20. 188560. and the assessment made by the trial court — unless patently and clearly inconsistent — must be accepted.R. 179059. Jr. People of the Phil. alibi assumes significance or strength only when it is amply corroborated by credible and disinterested witnesses. 184960. Bihag. citing People vs. 175781.R. Estoya. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 31 . we refer to the distance and the facility of access between the situs criminis and the place where he says he was when the crime was committed.R. if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. No. and comrades-in-arms and not by credible persons. 2011. . 2004 Alibi becomes more unworthy of merit where it is established mainly by the accused himself and his or her relatives. Inc. 2012 citing People vs. et al. No. et al. . No. G. 396 Phil. People of the Phil. vs. appellant's defense of alibi must necessarily fail. friends. Baroquillo. and Hilot. June 13. Baroquillo. People of the Phil. Bihag. but more importantly. Inc. Fifth.. vs. No.

April 11. Flores.R. No. et al. the compulsory counterclaim is a reaction or response. 6 . G. mandatory upon pain of waiver. we have devised the following tests: (1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same? (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs claim as well as the defendant's counterclaim? and (4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia... 131692. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 32 . vs. vs. Johnny K.R. The circular applies to initiatory and similar pleadings. No. Sec. which gave rise to it. 7 . February 29. G. June 10. 2008 Administrative Circular No. Court of Appeals. The initiatory pleading is the plaintiff's complaint. Lima. 1999 Rule 6. Antonio L. respondent waives the compulsory counterclaim. Estherlita Cruz-Agana vs. People of the Phil. 2012 Rule 6. and Accesslaw.R. A compulsory counterclaim set up in the answer is not an "initiatory" or similar pleading. Alfredo C. 1999 A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing party. Inc. et al. No. et al. to an initiatory pleading which is the complaint. et al. G.R. 04-94 does not apply to compulsory counterclaims. Transway Sales Corp. Otherwise. To determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not. G. 197043. It is an independent action.. It partakes of the nature of a complaint or cause of action against the plaintiff. separate and distinct from the original complaint. Premiere Development Bank vs. Baldomar.Counterclaim Felipe Yulienco vs.R. No. 106770. 175339.Compulsory counterclaim A counterclaim is compulsory when its object "arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction". G.self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. A respondent has no choice but to raise a compulsory counterclaim the moment the plaintiff files the complaint. 2005 A compulsory counterclaim cannot be the subject of a separate action but it should instead be asserted in the same suit involving the same transaction or occurrence. Aurora Santiago-Lagman. No. October 22. Inc. In short. 139018. December 16. Sec.

G. until the principal issue between the plaintiff and the defendant cross-claimant shall have been heard and determined.Cross-claim The Rules of Court defines a cross-claim as any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim. 131692. A counterclaim is compulsory if (a) it arises out of. June 10. A counterclaim presupposes the existence of a claim against the party filing the counterclaim. Court of Appeals. he must choose only one remedy. A compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to the proceeding in the original suit and derives its jurisdictional support therefrom.R. more so where the complaint is dismissed at the instance of the counterclaimant. he may still plead his ground for dismissal as an affirmative defense in his answer. If he decides to file a motion to dismiss. the counterclaim is improper and it must dismissed. August 7. Sec. it stands to reason that the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint is an implied waiver of the compulsory counterclaim because the grant of the motion ultimately results in the dismissal of the counterclaim. Thus. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 33 . No. if the dismissal of the main action results in the dismissal of the counterclaim already filed. But if he opts to set up his compulsory counterclaim. G. 133119. In other words. G. August 17. or is necessarily connected with. 127683. The answer then to the cross-claim is meant to join the subsidiary issues between the co-parties in relation to the opposing party's claim against the cross-claimant. It may include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant. Hence. the filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting up of a compulsory counterclaim are incompatible remedies. a compulsory counterclaim cannot be made the subject of a separate action but should be asserted in the same suit involving the same transaction or occurrence giving rise to it.Affirmative answers to the above queries indicate the existence of a compulsory counterclaim. the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. where there is no claim against the counterclaimant. Inc. Needless to state. No. and Accesslaw. 8 . Court of Appeals. and (c) the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. it would be premature to decide the cross-claim . 1998 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. Ligon vs. cdasia Felipe Yulienco vs. Leticia P. In the event that a defending party has a ground for dismissal and a compulsory counterclaim at the same time. Financial Building Corp. No. 1999 Rule 6. (b) it does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. In other words. vs. Forbes Park Association. 2000 A counterclaim is defined as any claim for money or other relief which a defending party may have against an opposing party. Inc. he will lose his compulsory counterclaim.R.

the claim of the original defendant against the third-party defendant must be based upon the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant. G. The trial court is vested with discretion whether or not to allow the defendant to file a third-party complaint. file against a person not a party to the action.Reply Under Section 10.Third (fourth. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 34 . the defendant has no vested right to file a third-party complaint. 2000 Rule 6. July 30. As such. and. or is based on an actionable document in which case a verified reply is necessary otherwise the genuineness and due execution of said actionable document is generally deemed admitted. Court of Appeals. for contribution. et al. and separate and distinct from the plaintiff's complaint. April 12. October 17. Inc. indemnity. that the claim against the third-party defendant must belong to the original defendant. Sec. Seaoil Petroleum Corp. 2003 Rule 6. firstly. Sec. the filing of a reply is merely optional as the new matters raised in the answer are deemed controverted even without a reply. No.R. Rosa D. Section 11 of the Rules of Court. 11 . 2008 A third-party complaint is actually a complaint independent of. No. Were it not for Rule 6.R..)-party complaint A third-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may.R. thirdly. vs.China Airlines vs. with leave of court. such third-party complaint would have to be filed independently and separately from the original complaint by the defendant against the third-party defendant. G.R. and Accesslaw. Inc. fourthly. that the party to be impleaded must not yet be a party to the action.. 162733. No. Erasmo Tayao vs. etc. 164326. Veluz vs. 10 . G. Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. the defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability asserted against him by Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Autocorp Group. November 23. subrogation or any other relief. the requisites for a third-party action are. Daniel Chiok. Ramon M. No. 2005 Accordingly. any new matter alleged by way of defense in the answer (or comment as in this case) is deemed controverted should a party fail to file a reply thereto. in respect of his opponent's claim. Mendoza. The purpose is to avoid circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of law suits and of disposing expeditiously in one litigation all the matters arising from one particular set of facts. G. secondly. Except in cases where the answer alleges the defense of usury in which case a reply under oath is required otherwise the allegation of usury is deemed admitted. 152122. 139951. called the third-party defendant. et al.

2000 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2012 Rule 7. G. 125567. Inc. 163147.. G. Alex A.. vs. 161909. et al. No. vs. Vic Alvarez Aguila. or even directly to the plaintiff. October 10. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 35 . June 27. April 25.. and technically does not come into existence until the original defendant's liability has been established. No. Inc. As the foregoing indicates. et al. Inc. et al. Impleader also is proper even though the third party's liability is contingent.. Inc. G. 161909. et al.R. Sec. supra.Caption Rule 7. Section 1 of the Rules of Court states that the names of the parties shall be indicated in the title of the original complaint or petition. commenting on the provision of the Federal Rules of Procedure of the United States from which Section 12.R.Signature and address Antonio (Antonino) Samaniego. 1 . vs. April 25. et al. 2012 Paras' cause of action against Inland (breach of contract of carriage) did not need to be the same as the cause of action of Inland against Philtranco and its driver (tort or quasi-delict) in the impleader. the claim that the third-party complaint asserts against the third-party defendant must be predicated on substantive law. was derived. Wright. vs. there need not be any legal relationship between the third-party defendant and any of the other parties to the action. Inc. Felix Paras. et al. For example. Linton Commercial Co.R. Sec. No. and Accesslaw... Philtranco Service Enterprises. 3 . Hellera. Philtranco Service Enterprises. to wit: The third-party claim need not be based on the same theory as the main claim. Felix Paras. It is settled that a defendant in a contract action may join as third-party defendants those who may be liable to him in tort for the plaintiff's claim against him. the substantive law on which the right of Inland to seek such other relief through its third-party complaint rested were Article 2176 and Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Here.R. No. G. 2007 Rule 7. Prof.the original plaintiff. there are cases in which the third-party claim is based on an express indemnity contract and the original complaint is framed in terms of negligence. et al.. the words 'is or may be liable' in Rule 14(a) make it clear that impleader is proper even though the third-party defendant's liability is not automatically established once the third-party plaintiff's liability to the original plaintiff has been determined. observed so. Indeed. Similarly. In addition.

and to be affected by the decree. et al. a nominal or pro forma party is one who is joined as a plaintiff or defendant. G. 4 . 2009 It is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that are controlling. application or other proceedings.. Jr. resulting in the violation of the rules against a multiplicity of suits and even forum-shopping.[I]n a derivative suit. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 36 . Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. so that the court cannot proceed without their presence. Inc. any ruling in one of the derivative suits should already bind the corporation as res judicata in the other. This is specially true before the HLURB where the proceedings are summary in nature without regard to legal technicalities obtaining in the courts of law and where the pertinent concern is to promote public interest and to assist the parties in obtaining just." within the meaning of this rule. provided there is a statement in the body of the complaint indicating that such complainant/s was/were made party to such action. Indispensable parties are those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights. vs. an indispensable party is a party-in-interest. Miguel Ocampo Tan. vs. Allowing two different minority stockholders to institute separate derivative suits arising from the same factual background. et al. No. et al. December 4. and Accesslaw.R. 181455-56 & 182008. Santiago Cua.Verification Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. is not fatal to the case. 2009 With the corporation as the real party-in-interest and the indispensable party. speedy and inexpensive determination of every action. Santiago Cua. Sec. et al. Nos. Section 3 of the Rules of Court.. directly in issue. Nos.. However. but merely because the technical rules of pleadings require the presence of such party on the record. it is the corporation that is the indispensable party. December 4. Under Rule 7. 2010 Rule 7. Sps. the rules of pleadings require courts to pierce the form and go into the substance. while the suing stockholder is just a nominal party. because it is to look beyond the corporation and to give recognition to the different identities of the stockholders instituting the derivative suits. The non-inclusion of one or some of the names of all the complainants in the title of a complaint. the real party-in-interest. 169706. should be material. February 5. to file the same suit twice.R. Jr. alleging the same causes of action. Rita Viola. On the other hand.. is tantamount to allowing the corporation. William and Rebecca Genato vs. G. The inclusion of the names of all the parties in the title of a complaint is a formal requirement under Section 3. as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question involved. G. Miguel Ocampo Tan. Inc. and praying for the same reliefs.R. without whom no final determination can be had of an action without that party being impleaded. not because such party has any real interest in the subject matter or because any relief is demanded. 181455-56 & 182008. It is also in disregard of the separate-corporate-entity principle. "Interest.

(8) application for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order under Rule 58. Section 2. 173181. Section 1. No. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Inc. 2004 A pleading is verified by an affidavit that an affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct as to his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. (9) application for appointment of a receiver under Rule 59. A party's representative. Section 5. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 37 . J.R.V. Section 4. (10) application for support pendente lite under Rule 61. It is intended simply to secure an assurance that what are alleged in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation. Jocelyn Catubig. 2004 As a general rule. 2010 A party's failure to sign the certification against forum shopping is different from the party's failure to sign personally the verification. all from the 1997 Rules of Court. The certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by the party. May 30. Section 1. (5) petition for review before the Supreme Court under Rule 45. or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. Section 1. and mandamus under Rule 65. The party need not sign the verification. Section 1.. (4) petition for review from quasi-judicial bodies to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. The party does not need to sign the verification. unless there is a law or rule specifically requiring the same. a pleading need not be verified. Examples of pleadings that require verification are: (1) all pleadings filed in civil cases under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. (12) petition for certiorari. (17) complaint or petition for rehabilitation and suspension of payment under the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation. final orders or resolutions of constitutional commissions under Rule 64. and (18) petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages as well as petition for summary proceedings under the Family Code. G. Corp. 146364. G.R. Section 4. (15) petition for indirect contempt under Rule 71. 149634. Section 4.. citing Pajuyo v. Section 1. vs. (3) petition for review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals under Rule 42. (16) all complaints or petitions involving intra-corporate controversies under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra-Corporate Controversies.Loreta Torres vs. Inc. (14) complaint for expropriation under Rule 67. Section 4. (11) petition for certiorari against the judgments. Inc. G. (6) petition for annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions under Rule 47. (7) complaint for injunction under Rule 58. No. vs.R. and that the pleading is filed in good faith. July 6.. Vallacar Transit.R. March 3. Section 1. G. (2) petition for review from the Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court raising only questions of law under Rule 41. KCD Builders Corp. 2011. No. The certification of counsel renders the petition defective. 175512. No. and Accesslaw. A party's representative. Sections 1 to 3. lawyer or any person who personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. prohibition. On the other hand. the requirement on verification of a pleading is a formal and not a jurisdictional requisite. lawyer. Court of Appeals. Specialized Packaging Dev't. Section 2. June 3. (13) petition for quo warranto under Rule 66. and not by counsel. Hutama-RSEA/Supermax Phils.

As to certification against forum shopping. however. 174224. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification. October 17. No. Inc. No.. Nellie Vda. 2011. the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting non-compliance with the requirements on. vs. et al. G. May 30. September 3.. non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. and Accesslaw. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances. G. as it is intended to secure an assurance that the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No.R. he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 38 .. Jocelyn Catubig. et al. J.R. Marketing Corp. or submission of defective. as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense. If. Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative. 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 thereby. and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.R. citing Oldarico S. verification and certification against forum shopping: 1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification. Finally. 164205. et al. the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule. 154704. unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons. G. 175512. for reasonable or justifiable reasons. the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader. As to verification.R. the party-pleader is unable to sign. Marcial Aparece vs. 2009 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) As worded. 2011 For the guidance of the bench and bar. PNB. is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof. G. unlike in verification. those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. otherwise. Inc. June 1. Inc. the Rule dictates that a pleading may be verified under either of the two given modes or under both.Vallacar Transit. de Formoso. not by his counsel. non-compliance therewith or a defect therein. however." The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case. Traveno v. and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping. No. vs. 2008 The verification requirement is significant.

158789 & 158798-99.R. August 30. if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation. No. et al. 149634. Nos. 146923. Non-compliance with such requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. 2001 Under Section 4. Nos..R. 159653. Fernando Go vs. 158786. 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. 2000 The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal. Toyota Motor Phil. vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 39 . 2007 LDP Marketing. September 14. May 12. G. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Court of Appeals.. January 25. Corp. G. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation. Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading. et al. February 20. vs. G. G. 2003 Shipside Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals.R. Inc. October 19.R. et al. No. 165496. 2007 Franklin P. G. 148852. a pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. the court may order its correction if verification is lacking. Board of Airlines Representatives. July 6. 151900. The use of the preposition "or" connotes that either source qualifies as a sufficient basis for verification and. Sandiganbayan. not jurisdictional. February 12.R. Bautista vs. and Accesslaw. Inc.R. No. 136082. Monter. The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified. 2006 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. Court of Appeals. the concurrence of both sources is more than sufficient.. G. Hun Hyung Park vs. National Labor Relations Commission. Eun Won Choi. No. 2007 Christine Chua vs. 193247 & 194276. vs. 2004 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Sergio I. People of the Phil. No. Carbonilla. the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. No. needless to state.R. 2005 Loreta Torres vs. Inc. Workers Assn. No. No. not merely speculative. The veracity of the allegations in a pleading may be affirmed based on either one's own personal knowledge or on authentic records. and that the pleading is filed in good faith.R. or both. G.. G. Jorge Torres. September 27. G. et al. 2011 Marilyn Valdecantos vs. hence. G.R. April 30. 143377.. or act on the pleading although it Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2006 Section 4 of Rule 7 indicates that a pleading may be verified under either of the two given modes or under both. No.R. 163745.R. as warranted. G. August 24.

October 23. vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). 5 . lack of verification is merely a formal defect that is neither jurisdictional nor fatal. Inc. Purto J. G. Antonio I. April 10. No. Evangelista. Willie and Julie L. et al. not mere speculations. G. May 25. G. G." Jesus Dela Rosa. Mamaril vs..R. Galan. However. et al. Raymond S. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 40 . March 28. No. Estrella. G. 2003 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs.R.. G. G. 147549. 164929. et al. the Court has relaxed. et al. Therefore. although it is Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that. 141307. et al.R. as in the present case. as this practice is detrimental to an orderly judicial procedure. Erneliza Z.is not verified if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served.R. 2001 Rule 7. CSC. The court may order the correction of the pleading or act on the unverified pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order to serve the ends of justice.. April 30. 146923. Court of Appeals. Verification is merely a formal and not a jurisdictional requisite which does not affect the validity or efficacy of the pleading. 2001 Pfizer Inc. or the jurisdiction of the court. 2002 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs.R. August 31. and that the pleading is filed in good faith. Inc. 146553. 2003 Verification is intended to assure that the allegations in the pleading have been prepared in good faith or are true and correct. No. and Accesslaw. under justifiable circumstances. December 5. et al. does not render the pleading or the petition invalid and the Court of Appeals did not err in giving due course to the petition. vs.R.Certification against forum shopping Basis for the Requirement of Certification of Non-Forum Shopping The requirement of the certification of non-forum shopping is rooted in the principle that a party-litigant shall not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora. 2006 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. 2001 Verification based on the affiant's own knowledge and information is sufficient under the circumstances. G. a defective verification. Santiago Carlos. Sps. No.R. No. November 27. Edwin V. Court of Appeals. 153947. No. 2002 City Warden of the Manila City Jail vs. No. 141211. 143389. Navarro vs. Rodriguez vs.R.. No. Sec. Generally.

Court of Appeals. 2007 Failure to comply with the non-forum shopping requirements in Section 5. vs. Tomas. 2011 What is truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. Inc. November 17. et al. August 8. Failure to comply with the requirement shall be cause for dismissal of the case. 167715. does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the case with prejudice. G. 04-94. a complete statement of its status should be given. petitions. Phil Pharmawealth. G. No. which took effect on April 1. 175512. No. Not being jurisdictional. No. Rufa C. 149909. Jocelyn Catubig. 159919.R. December 15. October 11. tribunal or quasi-judicial agency. Rule 7. et al.C. G. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Collantes vs.R. 6377. et al. Inc. In Sy Chin v.. Nelson P. 2007 Section 5. first prescribed by Administrative Circular No.. A. Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requires that. No. 173326. G. G. G.R. South Cotabato Communications Corp. 169604. Inc.R. 2007 Regarding the certification against forum shopping. Court of Appeals. vs. 125509. a liberal application of the rules is proper where the higher interest of justice would be served. et al. Suan vs. Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Court. et al. should there be any pending action or claim before any court. et al. 1994. Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court.obligatory. Vallacar Transit.. Gonzalez. Inc.. vs. Composite Enterprises. applications. Inc. Patricia A. However.. Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides that the certification of non-forum shopping should be executed by the plaintiff or the principal party. March 6. Court of Appeals. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 41 . Roxas.. Teresa Gabriel. G.R. et al. Pfizer. in the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issue. 2010 All complaints. it is not jurisdictional. then later on by Rule 7. 2007 Rule 7. vs. Caparoso.R. Inc. May 30. March 12. it can be relaxed under the rule of substantial compliance. 2007 This circumstance — of being surprised by the discovery of another pending claim with another court or quasi-judicial agency — is the very situation contemplated by letter (c) in the first paragraph of Section 5. Inc. Ricardo D. et al. Vicente Q. January 31. No. the Rules of Court provides that the plaintiff or the principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading the requirements as mandated under Section 5. Sto.R. and Accesslaw. vs. 2010 Public Interest Center. No.. No. No. we ruled that while a Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.. and other initiatory pleadings must be accompanied by a certificate against forum shopping. Emilio M. vs. et al.

R. Gordon. G. July 27. Public School Teachers Ass'n. the physical act of signing may be performed. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. 1998 Forum shopping exists when two or more actions involve the same transactions.petition may have been flawed where the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party. et al vs. another case (offering a similar remedy) would still be open. No. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 163707. Inc.R. vs. November 18. Inc." or (3) where a party attempts to obtain a preliminary injunction in another court after failing to obtain the same from the original court. after he has filed a petition before the Supreme Court. 2006 Forum-shopping consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action. 171562. Heirs of Carolina P. there is an identity of (a) parties (or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions). and Accesslaw. G. Executive Secretary. it has been held that there is forum-shopping — (1) whenever as a result of an adverse decision in one forum. a party seeks a favorable decision (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. et al. No. et al. this procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of substantial justice. essential facts and circumstances. the Rule requires the parties themselves to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping. and issues. In the case of natural persons. CA. or (2) if.R. a party files another before the Court of Appeals since in such case he deliberately splits appeals "in the hope that even as one case in which a particular remedy is sought is dismissed.. G. Phil. on behalf of the corporate entity. in the case of the corporations. Iligan. for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. cannot personally do the task themselves.. et al. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 42 .. 2006 The requirement that the certification of non-forum shopping should be executed and signed by the plaintiff or principal means that counsel cannot sign said certification unless clothed with special authority to do so. a certification signed by counsel alone is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition. only by specifically authorized individuals for the simple reason that corporations. and raise identical causes of action. 134171. However. September 15. Hence. Still another test of forum shopping is when the elements of litis pendencia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another — whether in the two or more pending cases. Thus. as artificial persons. So it is in the present controversy where the merits of the case and the absence of an intention to violate the rules with impunity should be considered as compelling reasons to temper the strict application of the rules. either simultaneously or successively. Guy vs. Richard J. The reason for this is that the plaintiff or principal knows better than anyone else whether a petition has previously been filed involving the same case or substantially the same issues. Michael C. et al. No. subject matter. It cannot be gainsaid that obedience to the requirements of procedural rules is needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom.

Election contests are subject to the Comelec Rules of Procedure. G. The reason for this is that the plaintiff or principal knows better than anyone else whether a petition has previously been filed involving the same case or substantially the same issues. 1999 Section 5. vs. Loquias. Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. November 15. Clarita Vda. et al. Rule 35 does not require that the petition contesting the election of any municipal official be accompanied by a certification or any statement against forum shopping. G. Court of Appeals. Metrobank vs.R. No. 110914. Santiago Eslaban vs. Nos. No.R. Claudius G. and Accesslaw. August 15. NLRC. vs. 2000 Apolinario vs. Efren O. March 17.R. 2000 Alexander T. Rule 35 thereof governs election contests involving elective municipal officials before the Regional Trial Courts. The language of the Supreme Court circular (now the above-quoted Section 5. 139495. Inc. The most important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the "vexation caused the courts and Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 123686. Barroso vs. June 28. 2001 Forum shopping is an act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another forum. Hence. Court of Appeals. 146062. 2001 The requirement in Rule 7. 176008 & 176131. G. G.R. 2000 Allen Leroy Hamilton vs. Court of Appeals.R. They apply only by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. 2011 The Rules of Civil Procedure generally do not apply to election cases. 112872 & 114672. 138218.R. 2000 MCIAA vs. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) distinctly suggests that it is primarily intended to cover an initiatory pleading or an incipient application of a party asserting a claim for relief. November 27. International Exchange Bank.R. 2001 Alfredo Canuto.R. G. G. August 10. and (c) reliefs sought. Rule 7. April 19. etc. Ampig. No. a certification signed by counsel alone is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition.R.. The attestation contained in the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. June 28. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 43 . other than by appeal or the special civil action of certiorari.(b) rights or causes of action. 139396. Rule 7 expressly provides that it is the plaintiff or principal party who shall certify under oath that he has not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court. et al. et al. No. § 5 that the certification should be executed by the plaintiff or the principal means that counsel cannot sign the certificate against forum-shopping. G. et al. David Levy.. Jr. No. November 16. G. G. No. Office of the Ombudsman. 139283.. Nos. No. Petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. De Onorio. Ty vs. Francisco S. Inc. or the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.

R. G.. Ong vs. No. 49. John Keng Seng. Leonidas vs. Reyes. April 30. No.R. Galvez. Carmel Development. Inc. vs. 2002 Antonio I. Teresita C. 2003 Sps." Since a party resorts to forum shopping in order to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action. it has been held that a party cannot be said to have sought to improve his chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action where no unfavorable decision has ever been rendered against him in any of the cases he has brought before the courts. AM MTJ-02-1433. 3640. August 15. 2003. Court of Appeals. 153947. et al. A. 2003 Jimmy L. No. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. June 10.R. No.R. Barcelona vs. G. Ma. G. 144581.R.R. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 44 . G. G.R. Roxas vs. 2003 Prudencio Bantolino. 00-7-299-RTC. Inc.R. San Jose.R. February 20. Barnes vs. 143464. Kris Security Systems. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendencia are present. 45. Rosario D. Inc. R-1692 RTC BR.parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs. 146923. December 5. G. No. 130087. and Accesslaw. 2003 Diana M. RTC-BR. regardless of whether they are indispensable parties or not. and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Rodriguez vs. Cabanatuan City.M. et al. No. Occidental Mindoro with Civil Case No. Young vs. Garamay Ong. Francisco G. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). No.R. This is so. Manuel and Rosemarie Wee vs. 142572. The issue of whether the additional parties are indispensable parties or not acquires real significance only when considering the validity of the judgment that will be rendered in the earlier case. August 31.. and this will foreclose the application of res judicata which requires the existence of a final judgment. Paxton Development Corp. Carminia C. 2003 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. No. 144533. No. 2003 Agapito Cruz Fiel vs. 2001 Republic vs.R. September 23. September 24. 147394. G.R. No. September 11. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. 139337. No. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G. 2001 Request for Consolidation of Civil Case No. February 21. August 11. 2002 Spouses Elanio C. Supnet. April 3. July 5. G. Court of Appeals and Emma A. because if the additional parties are indispensable parties. 2002 Tomas R. G. 153660. 151081. 155875. then no valid judgment can be rendered against them in the earlier case in which they did not participate. G.. No.. Top Rate Construction vs. 2004 Origin of the Concept of Forum Shopping The determination of whether there is identity of parties rests on the commonality of the parties' interest. No. March 5. 2003 Emilio S.

G. A passenger of a public utility vehicle involved in a vehicular accident may sue on culpa contractual. 'forum-shopping' had acquired a different concept — which is unethical professional legal practice. forum shopping has acquired a connotation encompassing not only a choice of venues. 151016. or invoke all relevant remedies simultaneously. This was the original concept of the term forum shopping. Social Security Commission. but also to a choice of remedies. July 31. the principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby a court. et al. "Thus. Court of Appeals. simultaneously or successively. arising from the same set of facts. vs. As to the first (choice of venues). To combat these less than honorable excuses. 2008 Forum shopping originated as a concept in private international law. 159323. August 6. It had created extreme inconvenience to some of the parties to the action. the litigant actually shops for a forum of his action. Inc. Inc. Sec. the Rules of Court. in conflicts of law cases. where non-resident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for various reasons or excuses. 1996 Forum Shopping Construed Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who "repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different courts." What therefore started both in conflicts of laws and in our domestic law as a legitimate device for solving problems has been abused and misused to assure scheming litigants of dubious reliefs. as it was originally understood in conflicts of laws.R. vs. however. "Eventually. for example. are given a choice of pursuing civil liabilities independently of the criminal. and all raising substantially the same issues either Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. As to remedies. G. G. or to select a more friendly venue. litigants. "In either of these situations (choice of venue or choice of remedy). all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances. And this necessitated or had given rise to the formulation of rules and canons discouraging or altogether prohibiting the practice. including to secure procedural advantages. No.). or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides. 2008 First Philippine International Bank v. 2[b]). instead of actually making a choice of the forum of their actions. file their actions in all available courts. January 24. culpa aquiliana or culpa criminal — each remedy being available independently of the others — although he cannot recover more than once. Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.R. to avoid overcrowded dockets. through the encouragement of their lawyers.Sps. at the election of the plaintiff" (Rule 4. aggrieved parties.. et al. for example. No. to annoy and harass the defendant. Heirs of Dominga Lustre. No. allow a plaintiff to commence personal actions "where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found. In the Philippines. and Accesslaw. Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 45 . may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. This practice had not only resulted to (sic) conflicting adjudications among different courts and consequent confusion enimical (sic) to an orderly administration of justice. 115849. Sofronio and Natividad Santos.

amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. Inc. for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. No.R. 2002 There is forum shopping when the following elements are present: "(a) identity of parties. No. or already resolved adversely by some other court . et al. vs. 2012 Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. 2008 It is "the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action.R. so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. Inc. No. 4766. G. . United Coconut Planters Bank. It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits. Asia United Bank. et al. No. then in another. Jorge Valdez. vs. and adds to Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.. et al. Litis pendentia is a Latin term.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 46 .R." The essence of forum shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action. 195546 & 195561. Inc. G. (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. vs. Nephtali Solilapsi. v. regardless of which party is successful. et al.pending in. March 14. the relief being founded on the same facts[. 2004 T'Boli Agro-Industrial Development. to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court.. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties. 2012 Rationale for Rule Against Forum Shopping The rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different courts as it constitutes abuse of court processes." Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co. January 28. the reliefs being founded on the same facts. January 28. 150107. ." Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co. said requisites [are] also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens. 2008 Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corp. and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases. G. G. through means other than by appeal or certiorari. 154187. Goodland Co. for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. Inc. such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case.] (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for.. Jorge Valdez. Inc. Asia United Bank. Inc. it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action. which tends to degrade the administration of justice. either simultaneously or successively. A.] such that any judgment rendered in the other action will. regardless of which party is successful. March 14. As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action. G.. would amount to res judicata in the other case.. or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions[. 195546 & 195561. either simultaneously or successively.R. April 14. vs. which literally means "a pending suit" and is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant. Nos... wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure. Nos. vs. or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions. December 27. Goodland Co. Inc.C..] and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars[. and Accesslaw. 150107.

No. Henson-Cruz. Manuel and Rosemarie Wee vs. 2008 Coca-Bottler (Phils. No. or at least. Elmor and Rosario J. the relief being founded on the same facts. Bance. Roberto S. It relates to some question that is collateral to the main object of the action and is connected with and dependent upon the principal remedy. No. vs. et al. Inc.R. Galvez. G. Rosario D.R. as amended. Metrobank vs. What distinguishes a motion from a petition or other pleading is not its form or the title given by the party executing it. Inc. 2008 Sps. An application for a writ of possession is a mere incident in the registration proceeding. Briones vs. Benedicto. regardless of which party is successful.. 147394. July 31. Inc. G. is not a complaint or an initiatory pleading. and Accesslaw.. No. May 5. April 30. et al." it was in substance merely a motion.R. Sps. Jorge Valdez.. No. August 11. Nos. et al. and a petition or motion for the issuance of the writ under Section 7 of Act No. vs. Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co.. (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for.. Manuel Lacson. G. but is confined to incidental matters in the progress of a cause. G. G. such that judgment in one. vs. vs. 141508. The office of a motion is not to initiate new litigation. et al. a motion. 141508. 159130.R. vs. 159323. 2010 The test to determine identity of causes of action is to ascertain whether the same evidence Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2010 The underlying principle of litis pendentia is the theory that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action. December 15. G. 167280.. Salvador Abad Santos. Jorge Valdez. May 5. 2008 Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co. 2004 George S. No.R.. Inc.). would amount to res judicata in the other..the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. G. 157867.R. This theory is founded on the public policy that the same subject matter should not be the subject of controversy in courts more than once. et al. Lilia J. although it was denominated as a "petition. such as representing the same interests in both actions. Social Security Commission..R. et al. No. 3135. January 28. et al. et al. Benedicto. nonetheless. 150107. 2008 The certification against forum shopping is required only in a complaint or other initiatory pleading. vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 47 .R.R. but to bring a material but incidental matter arising in the progress of the case in which the motion is filed. G. but rather its purpose. Inc. No. and (c) the identity of the two cases. 2008 A certificate of non-forum shopping is required only in complaints or other initiatory pleadings. Manuel Lacson. G. Although the private respondent denominated its pleading as a petition. it is. 2009 The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties. in order that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the stability of the rights and status of persons. Hence. August 22. et al. The ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by the respondent is not an initiatory pleading. et al. 150107 & 150108. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. January 28.. Roberto S. A motion is not an independent right or remedy.

If. G. tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and. As to certification against forum shopping. no such other action or claim is pending therein. a complete statement of the present status thereof. and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct. Inc. or submission of defective. As to verification.R.R. Manuel Lacson. it is not. 2010 For the guidance of the bench and bar. asserting a claim for relief. (b) if there is such other pending action or claim. 2010 [A] certification of non-forum shopping is a certification under oath by the plaintiff or principal party in the complaint or other initiatory pleading. Roberto S. G. non-compliance therewith or a defect therein. J. March 3. the one signing on his behalf must have been duly authorized. the two (2) actions are considered the same within the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action. et al. or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith. and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping. and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending. 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 thereby.necessary to sustain the second cause of action is sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first. This method has been considered the most accurate test as to whether a former judgment is a bar in subsequent proceedings between the same parties. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both. 173181.. he shall report that fact within five days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. 141508.. Court of Appeals. vs. unlike in verification. et al. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification. No. is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction CD Technologies Asia. non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. the principal party cannot sign the petition. March 18. et al. 2010 It is. even if the forms or the nature of the two (2) actions are different from each other.R. No. verification and certification against forum shopping: 1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification. KCD Builders Corp. for any reason. and Accesslaw. otherwise. vs. to the best of his knowledge.. that (a) he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 48 2) 3) 4) Copyright 2012 . G.V. thus. Hutama-RSEA/Supermax Phils.. Inc. It has even been designated as infallible. May 5. clear that the counsel is not the proper person to sign the certification against forum shopping. 178989. Benedicto. Eagle Ridge Golf and Country Club vs. No. the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting non-compliance with the requirements on.

2009 6) The lack of certification against forum shopping is not curable by mere amendment of a complaint. 156605. Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative. G.. June 1. et al. citing Oldarico S. 168208. No. on the matter of capacity to sue. G.Capacity Clearly. 1999 The Rules of Court require every pleading to "contain in a methodical and logical form. 154704. Inc. Indeed. Traveno v. he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf. et al. Court of Appeals. et al. et al..R. however. Sandiganbayan. not by his counsel. the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader. No. G. concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense". The Heirs of Carolina P. Iligan. 4 . June 13. Inc. PNB. Finally. and Accesslaw. 1197 (2006) Rule 8. July 22. Nellie Vda.R. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances. de Formoso. Ramirez..R. the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule. No. G.. Edward T. Mar Fishing Co. a plain. for reasonable or justifiable reasons. et al. September 3. If. 2012 citing Philippine Public School Teachers Association v. unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons. as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense. the general rule is that subsequent compliance with the requirements will not excuse a party's failure to comply in the first instance." 5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case. otherwise. those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. vs. Marcelo. vs. the party-pleader is unable to sign. Sec. August 28. 122947. Vivian T.In general Timoteo Baluyot vs. 2011. 164205. G. 1 . Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 49 . et al. No. Inc. 2007 Rule 8. Sec.. a foreign arbitral award should be respected not because Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. but shall be a cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice. however. 528 Phil. No. vs.thereof.R.R.

161957 & 167994. et al.Fraud. 1999 Claro Ponciano. the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity. August 17. Rule 8 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that in all averments of fraud. Inc. February 29. 2012 Rule 8. July 2. 134090. G... 8 .R. 2003 Filipinas Textile Mills vs. 152154. 5. November 12. 2000 Felix Uy Chua vs. et al. G. G. Sandiganbayan.it is favored over domestic laws and procedures.. 9285 has certainly erased any conflict of law question. No. This is to enable the opposing party to controvert the particular facts allegedly constituting the same. 185582.R...R. but because Republic Act No. No. condition of the mind Sto. vs. setting forth the substance of the matters which he will rely upon to support his denial. the truth of which the defendant does not admit. 2007 Rule 8. Court of Appeals. Nos. Tomas University Hospital vs. G. Sec. No. vs. et al. and Accesslaw. Court of Appeals. October 23. 136423.How to contest such documents Sps. Cruz vs. Court of Appeals.R. January 22. 119800.R. G. 2003 Rule 8.R. Inc. August 20. Cesar Antonio Y. 129718. 10 . 2000 Sec. 1998 Ernesto R. Court of Appeals. Sec. 5 . Inc. 2002 Republic of the Phil. G. Jose J. 133284. 124062. Sec. Surla. Climax Mining Ltd. No. Parentela. Inc. G. et al. G.Specific denial Three (3) modes of specific denial are contemplated by the above provision.. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 50 . (2) by specifying so much of an averment in the complaint as is true Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Jorge Gonzales. No. Cometa vs. vs.R. Efren and Zosima Rigor vs. 121438. 1999 Reynaldo T.R. No. G. December 29. No. et al. July 15. G.R. Philippine Kingford. vs. mistake. Tuna Processing. Consolidated Orix Leasing and Finance Corp.R. May 9. No. and whenever practicable. No. namely: 1) by specifying each material allegation of the fact in the complaint.

Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied. No. Wilson Cham vs. et al. A general denial does not become specific by the use of the word "specifically. Inc. Thus. A. Sec.. Felicidad and Rico Tibong.. Sandiganbayan. are plainly and necessarily within the defendant's knowledge. 166704. et al. and Accesslaw.R. Ramon J. et al. et al. G. G. It is a denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. No. an alleged "ignorance or lack of information" will not be considered as a specific denial. Sandiganbayan. 2008 Agrifina Aquintey vs. 11 . vs. and what is covered by denials of knowledge as sufficient to form a belief. 2003 A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. Sps. Lim. Section 11. Republic of the Phil. No. G. Ramon J. July 15. No. No. 152154.R. PNB vs. 126153.. G. his alleged ignorance or lack of information will not be considered as a specific denial. Court of Appeals. vs." When matters of whether the defendant alleges having no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief are plainly and necessarily within the defendant's knowledge. 2006 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. January 16. 126863. vs. No. No. vs. 7494. what is denied. June 27. January 16. 152154. G.C.and material and denying only the remainder. et al. which has the effect of a denial.. Napoleon and Evelyn Gaza. 2003 A denial is not specific simply because it is so qualified by the defendant.R. 126863. 2003 A denial is not made specific simply because it is so qualified by the defendant. the answer should be so definite and certain in its allegations that the pleader's adversary should not be left in doubt as to what is admitted. Napoleon and Evelyn Gaza." When the matters of whether the defendant alleges having no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief. it has been held that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is admitted. Sps. 2003 Republic of the Phil. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 51 . 2004 Rule 8. (3) by stating that the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in the complaint. July 15. Eva Paita-Moya. Lim. Rule 8 of the Rules also provides that material averments in the complaint other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. et al.R. G. December 20.R.R. A general denial does not become specific by the use of the word "specifically.Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted Sps. Inc. January 14.

). March 19. Logronio vs.R.R.R. February 18. G. Jr. Young vs. Inc. No. 143990. 157852. Inc. 2001 Rudolf Lietz Holdings vs.R. February 18.R. and basic is the rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity. Aure. 113564. Ramas. No.. John Keng Seng. Rule 9 of the Revised Rules of Court that failure to raise defenses and objections in a motion to dismiss or in an answer is deemed a waiver thereof. 153567. Aure. March 9. 143286. Librada M. No.R. G.R. Ernest S.R. 2008 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Court of Appeals. 115758. Inc. et al. March 17. and (4) prescription — provided that the ground for dismissal is apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on record. No. 142523. 2008 Failure to raise defenses and objections in a motion to dismiss or in an answer is deemed a waiver thereof. 2010 Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils. Inc. No. G. December 15. February 15.R. Larin.R. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. G. G. October 17. No. 157594. Court of Appeals and Emma A. No. Filomeno Negado and The Honorable Court of Appeals. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. November 15. there is no room for construction or interpretation.R. July 5. Anido vs.R. G. Ernest S. there is no room for construction or interpretation. 134602. vs. Aquino vs. 144581. G. November 27. August 6. 133240. 1999 Citibank vs. 2002 Mariano L. Aquino vs. et al. G. 2010 Procopio Villanueva vs. (2) litis pendentia. G. 2004 Emilio S. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 52 .. G. No. vs. and Accesslaw. No. 2002 Elidad C. G. No.R. G. 141238. Roberto Taleseo. 1 . June 20. and basic is the rule in statutory construction that when the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity. (3) res judicata. No. 2000 Ramona T. Kho vs. March 5. et al. Gumabon. G. 153567. No. 2002 Saturnino Salera. 61508. it also allows courts to dismiss cases motu proprio on any of the enumerated grounds — (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. vs. Heirs of Domingo Valientes vs. 2001 Maria L.R. Librada M. Garamay Ong. 143464. 1999 It is clear and categorical in Section 1. Aquilino T. April 14.Rule 9. G. No. Register of Deeds. Sec. 2003 Spouses Elanio C. Reinerio (Abraham) B. 2001 Inocencia Yu Dino vs. Ong vs. A-1 Investors. G.R. Court of Appeals..Defenses and objections not pleaded The second sentence of this provision does not only supply exceptions to the rule that defenses not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. No.

Aznar. G.R. G. Guillerma and Pascual Lumanas vs.R. Sabilas. Canoza... The prospect of a protracted litigation between the parties annuls the very rationale of every litigation to attain justice.. it is best that both parties be given every chance to fight their case fairly and in the open. G. The rule is a wise and tested one. indeed. without resort to technicality. Register of Deeds of Quezon City. because the dissatisfied litigant may simply raise "new" or additional issues in order to prevent. Without the rule. and unless it clearly appears that the reopening of the case is intended for delay.R. 2007 Three requirements must be complied with before the court can declare the defending party in default: (1) the claiming party must file a motion asking the court to declare the defending party in default. 2010 Rule 9. 172651. 144568. or even if the defense has not been asserted at all. either in the averments of the plaintiffs complaint. March 29. 2010 We have ruled that trial courts have authority and discretion to dismiss an action on the ground of prescription when the parties' pleadings or other facts on record show it to be indeed time-barred . 171805 & 172021. et al. No. May 30. et al. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Verily. 153142. as in a motion for reconsideration. or an answer which sets up such ground as an affirmative defense. No. or even if the ground is alleged after judgment on the merits. Catalina Balais-Mabanag vs. declaration of United Overseas Bank of the Phils. be otherwise sufficiently and satisfactorily apparent on the record. September 1. or delay the implementation of an already final and executory judgment. The endlessness of litigation can give rise to added costs for the parties.In every action. PNB vs. Inc.. (2) the defending party must be notified of the motion to declare him in default and (3) the claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within the period provided by the Rules of Court. G. . et al. No. 2007 Well settled is the rule that the court should be liberal in setting aside orders of default for judgment by default is frowned upon. to repeat. 3 . the parties and their counsel are enjoined to present all available defenses and objections in order that the matter in issue can finally be laid to rest in an appropriate contest before the court. Sec. and Accesslaw.. Inc. July 3. October 2.R. or where a defendant has been declared in default. is that the facts demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period. Sps. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 53 . No. et al. or otherwise established by the evidence.Default.R. Rosemoor Mining and Development Corp. there must be an end to litigation. 161746. as where no statement thereof is found in the pleadings. there will be no end to a litigation. and it may do so on the basis of a motion to dismiss.. Esterlita S. G. What is essential only. Merelo B. and can surely contribute to the unwarranted clogging of court dockets. . 2011. citing Feliciano v. borne by necessity. defeat. Nos. vs.

G.R. 170325. Carpio. 2004 Section 3 (d) Rule 9. G.. G. No. Macias vs.R. and Accesslaw.R. Inc. 100812. Ancheta vs. Note that petitioner admits that she was "properly declared in default. there is no question of any improvident or improper declaration of default by the trial court. June 25. only so much as has been alleged and proved.R. et al. No. and the remedy of filing a special civil action for certiorari has been effectively foreclosed on petitioner. Inc. 149617. 1999 Heirs of Fabela vs. vs. G. Ancheta. (3) the claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within the period provided by the Rule. G. Rodolfo S. January 15. G. Court of Appeals. Section 3 (d) of the Rules of Court defines the extent of the relief that may be awarded in a judgment by default. No. March 29. G.. et al. et al. G. Court of Appeals. there are three requirements which must be complied with by the claiming party before the court may declare the defending party in default. 2007 Section 3 (e) Marietta B. October 4. Efren and Digna Mason. October 13." Thus.R. 144662. September 3. i.R. G.e. No. 113150. 2003 Section 3 (b) Phil.R.Henry Tanchan vs. 127469. 2008 Clearly. Vicente A. Petitioner still has the available remedy of filing with the Regional Trial Court a motion for new trial or an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals from the trial court's default judgment. Court of Appeals. Sps. March 4. Margie Corpus Macias. Court of Appeals. 2003 Sps. Republic of the Philippines vs. 2001 Mariano Joaquin S. or even if the trial court properly declared a party in default. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 54 . Erlando and Norma Rodriguez. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Sps. 2004 Failure to file an answer is a ground for a declaration that defendant is in default. No.R. if grave abuse of discretion attended such declaration. 145370. Humberto and Carmencita DeLos Santos vs. vs. September 26. Banking Corp. Hidalgo. No. et al. to wit: (1) the claiming party must file a motion asking the court to declare the defending party in default. August 9. Court of Appeals. 161657.. September 11. 153696.R. No.. No. The filing of the present petition is clearly not the proper remedy to assail the default judgment rendered by the trial court. No. 1999 Francisco Motors Corp. 2006 A petition for certiorari to declare the nullity of a judgment by default is also available if the trial court improperly declared a party in default. Emmanuel C. (2) the defending party must be notified of the motion to declare him in default. vs. No.R. G. Philippine National Bank vs. 142546.

G. Adelina Calderon-Bargas. G. G. and thereafter. vs. 2007 It is clear from Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 10 that once a case has already been set for hearing. August 28. December 10. No. Inc. as amended. May 9. et al. 2005 Rule 10. may only be made upon leave of court. No. only upon leave of court. and Accesslaw. 131175. Sps. substantial amendments . Crisologo vs.Her only recourse then is to file an ordinary appeal with the Court of Appeals under Section 2(a).Amendments in general Jovito Valenzuela vs. or would be inconsistent with the allegations in the original complaint. G. March 30. G. 2001 The Court has invariably held that amendments are not proper and should be denied when delay would arise. Josephine B.R. Africa. a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. No. Andres L. 157232. G. No. the plaintiff has the absolute right to amend the complaint whether a new Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. Globe Telecom. 2007 Section 2. she came directly to this Court via petition for review on certiorari.. 2 . No. 2007 Under Section 2 of Rule 10. without setting forth substantial reasons why the ordinary remedies under the law should be disregarded and the petition entertained. No.R.R. Alicia C. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 55 . . Sec.R. NAMAWU vs. Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court explicitly states that a pleading may be amended as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served. Court of Appeals. This only means that prior to the filing of an answer. Instead. at any time within ten (10) days after it is served. August 28. 167631. 172315. . Republic of the Philippines vs. December 16. regardless of whether a responsive pleading has been served. 1 . 149132. 164398. Sec.. or when amendments would result in a change of cause of action or theory of the case. Maranan vs. a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Ng. Manila Banking Corp.R. 2002 Rule 10. Inc. or in the case of a reply. et al. Marcelo and Maria Fe Soco.Amendments as a matter of right Under the Rules of Court. et al..

2001 Remington Industrial Sales Corp. The right granted to the plaintiff under procedural law to amend the complaint before an answer has been served is not precluded by the filing of a motion to dismiss or any other proceeding contesting its sufficiency. No. Remington Industrial Sales Corp. G. 131175. substantial amendment of the complaint is not allowed without leave of court after an answer has been served.R. and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a "just. May 29. because any material change in the allegations contained in the complaint could prejudice the rights of the defendant who has already set up his defense in the answer. Inc. The reason for this rule is implied in the subsequent Section 3 of Rule 10. Rule 10 is that under the new rules. the right to amend a pleading under Section 2. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 56 . The defendant still retains the unqualified opportunity to address the allegations against him by properly setting up his defense in the answer. Rule 10 will be rendered nugatory and ineffectual. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Moreover." This should only be true. "the amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of action or defense. when despite a substantial change or alteration in the cause of action or defense.cause of action or change in theory is introduced. vs." Jovito Valenzuela vs. so that a full hearing on the merits of every case may be had and multiplicity of suits avoided. Conversely. No. as a matter of right. Court of Appeals. 2002 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. August 28. Sec. however. G. Were we to conclude otherwise. the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of substantial justice. No. Court of Appeals. In such an event.R. Considerable leeway is thus given to the plaintiff to amend his complaint once. 2002 Rule 10. Under this provision. it cannot be said that the defendant's rights have been violated by changes made in the complaint if he has yet to file an answer thereto. prior to the filing of an answer by the defendant. This principle is generally recognized to speed up trial and save party litigants from incurring unnecessary expense.Amendments by leave of court The clear import of such amendment in Section 3. amendment of pleadings is favored and should be liberally allowed in the furtherance of justice in order to determine every case as far as possible on its merits without regard to technicalities. May 29. Inc. the defendant has not presented any defense that can be altered or affected by the amendment of the complaint in accordance with Section 2 of Rule 10. vs. G. 133657. and Accesslaw. Court of Appeals. since all that a defendant has to do to foreclose this remedial right is to challenge the adequacy of the complaint before he files an answer.R. 3 . 133657.

August 28. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 57 ..R. Rule 10 is that under the new rules. G. Section 3. Sec. Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. No.R.Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Ligaya Biglang-Awa. Inc. Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure amended the former rule in such manner that the phrase "or that the cause of action or defense is substantially altered" was stricken-off and not retained in the new rules. G. 4 . 158998. No. 2010 Rule 10. Rita Viola. "the amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of action or defense. Inc. Sps. The clear import of such amendment in Section 3. 131175. 158401. February 5. "the amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of action or defense.Amendment of pleadings may now substantially alter the cause of action or defense Interestingly. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. G. Rule 10 is that under the new rules. No. January 28. William and Rebecca Genato vs. G. William Gothong & Aboitiz Inc.R. No. however when despite a substantial change or alteration in the cause of action or defense.. William Gothong & Aboitiz. Ports Authority vs. Inc. The clear import of such amendment in Section 3. the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of substantial justice.Formal amendments The error or defect is merely formal and not substantial and an amendment to cure such defect is expressly authorized by Sec. G. the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of substantial justice.R." This should only be true. 5 ." Phil. and Accesslaw. January 28.." This should only be true. 2008 Rule 10. and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a "just. vs. and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a "just. 4. Court of Appeals. however. 169706. 158401.R. speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding". Philippine Trust Co. Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure amended the former rule in such manner that the phrase "or that the cause of action or defense is substantially altered" was stricken-off and not retained in the new rules. when despite a substantial change or alteration in the cause of action or defense. et al. Ports Authority vs. 2008 Jovito Valenzuela vs. Sec. 2001 Section 3. 2008 Phil. No. March 28.

et al. March 9. 114942. et al. 2004 Phil. G. No. 109840. DBP. Marina Enriquez Vda.R. 120384. 2010 Rule 10. American Realty Corp. Sec. January 13. 175687.R. 2007 Lolita R.R. January 21. No. 1999 Nicholas Y. G. 108369. January 7. Infrastructures. BPI Agricultural Dev't. 2004 Maunlad Savings and Loan Assn. or by their agreement in a pre-trial order or stipulation or. Court of Appeals. G. 6 . No. G.R. No. No. Bank. any objection to the admissibility of evidence should be made at the time such evidence is offered or as soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility becomes apparent. et al. No.. otherwise the objection will be considered waived and such evidence will form part of the records of the case as competent and admissible evidence. Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. G.R. 123498. Ayson vs. Lim vs. June 17.R. September 23. vs. G. Inc. Eugene L. vs. Inc. 2000 Bank of America vs. the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. 130699.Materrco.R.. December 29. G. Asean Pacific Planners. November 23. No. Rule 10. 1999 Cindy & Lynsy Garment vs.R. Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows the amendment of the pleadings in order to make them conform to the evidence in the record. G. G. 125138. March 2. a supplemental pleading is meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original pleading and not to dispense with or substitute the latter. G.R. Inc. November 27. City of Urdaneta. Phil. May 12. 179230. November 28. 2000 Bernardo Mercader vs. Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. 1999 It need not be underlined that jurisdiction over an issue in a case is determined and conferred by the pleadings filed by the parties. vs. Amado Franco.. 152438. vs. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Chua vs. NLRC. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. 1998 If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues raised by the pleadings. Jose L. 2008 Indeed. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 58 . No. No. 2007 BPI Family Bank vs.R.Supplemental pleadings The rule is a useful device which enables the court to award complete relief in one action and to avoid the cost of delay and waste of separate action. Thus.R. 133876. Cervantes vs.. De Carpio. No. as provided in Section 5. First Landlink Asia Development Corp. G. and Accesslaw.R. G. No. No. 162525. at times by their implied consent as by the failure of a party to object to evidence on an issue not covered by the pleadings.

Inc.. Far East Bank and Trust Co. 2007 Shoemart. Its usual office is to set up new facts which justify. vs. Presiding Judge. a supplemental pleading must state transactions. the court should not admit the supplemental complaint. A supplemental pleading is meant to supply Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. enlarge or change the kind of relief with respect to the same subject matter as the controversy referred to in the original complaint. G. a broad definition of causes of action should be applied. 2000 The admission of supplemental pleadings. which is well within its right to deny the admission of the pleading. 169551.. G. and it is discretionary upon the court or tribunal to allow the same or not. the Court ruled that when the cause of action stated in the supplemental complaint is different from the causes of action mentioned in the original complaint. 81024 February 3. 86956. including supplemental complaints. et al. et al. May 5.Sps. May 2. No... Court of Appeals. but not to introduce new and independent causes of action.R. April 15. Lambino vs. LZK Holdings and Dev't Corp. 2003 A supplemental pleading states the transactions. Secondly. 131136. Inc. De Rama vs. occurrences or events which took place since the time the pleading sought to be supplemented was filed. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. January 24. A supplement exists side by side with the original. G. February 28. and Accesslaw. G. Planters Dev't Bank vs.R. No. any supplemental facts which further develop the original right of action. Conrado L. 2006 As its very name denotes. G.R. G. a supplemental pleading only serves to bolster or adds something to the primary pleading. Court of Appeals. 138919. 152576.. 1990 Asset Privatization Trust vs. No. are available by way of supplemental complaint even though they themselves constitute a right of action. but remains in the sound discretion of the court. Orlando and Carmelita C. vs. Court of Appeals. It is but a continuation of the complaint.R. a supplemental pleading assumes that the original pleading is to stand and that the issues joined with the original pleading remained an issue to be tried in the action. Moreover. et al. and is thus not obliged to do so. 2005 Supplemental pleadings must be with reasonable notice. In Leobrera v. October 1.R. No. G. No. 2001 Intramuros Administration vs. No. Section 6. does not arise as a matter of right on the petitioner. Court of Appeals. 153777. et al. It does not replace that which it supplements. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 59 . The purpose of the supplemental pleading is to bring into the records new facts which will enlarge or change the kind of relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. hence. governing supplemental pleadings. The parties may file supplemental pleadings only to supply deficiencies in aid of an original pleading.R. Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. occurrences or events which took place since the time the pleading sought to be supplemented was filed. Yvette Contacto. or extend to vary the relief. is clear that the court only "may" admit the supplemental pleading. No.R. However. Inc.

Jr. Mahinay. vs. Pentacapital Investment Corp. events and occurrences which have accrued after the filing of the original pleading. 2009 As a general rule. No. 171736 & 181482. G. Natividad Figuracion. 147937. 164886. Nos.R. Rules of Court. Sec. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 60 .Effect of amended pleadings Under Section 8. 1999 Wilfredo P. No. Court of Appeals. It is the policy of the law to grant relief as far as possible for wrongs complained of. vs. vs. growing out of the same transaction and thus put an end to litigation. avoid unnecessary repetition of effort and unwarranted expense of litigants. No.. The original complaint is deemed withdrawn and no longer considered part of the record. and founded on the same cause of action. 8 . The application of the rule would ensure that the entire controversy might be settled in one action. 2010 The supplemental pleading must be based on matters arising subsequent to the filing of the original pleading related to the claim or defense presented therein. Mahinay. Makilito B. SMCEU-PTGWO. G. Makilito B. Jose Feliciano Loy. Breva. vs. and Accesslaw. Inc. China Banking Corp. Court of Appeals. an amended complaint supersedes an original one. G. G. occurrences or events which took place since the time the pleading sought to be supplemented was filed. July 5. et al.. but assumes that the original pleading is to stand. 121662-64. November 28. No. 3G. Inc. 2007 The Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company vs. Nos. et al. such being the office of a supplemental pleading. 171736 & 181482.R. vs.R. leave will be granted to a party who desires to file a supplemental pleading that alleges any material fact which happened or came within the party's knowledge after the original pleading was filed. 2004 Vlason Enterprises Corporation vs.. 2010 Rule 10. Nos.deficiencies in aid of the original pleading and not to dispense with or substitute the latter. July 6. November 24. Sps. G. Pentacapital Investment Corp. July 5.R.R. It does not supersede the original.R. Nos. 1998 Section 8. November 24. Verzosa vs. Cresenciano and Amelita Libi. Rule 10 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that an amended complaint supersedes the complaint that it amends. 150918. Negros Merchants Enterprises. G. November 11. and bring into record the facts enlarging or charging the kind of relief to which plaintiff is entitled. et al. G. Supplemental pleadings must state transactions.R. 119511-13. Rule 10. broaden the scope of the issues in an action owing to the light thrown on it by facts. 2007 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 155688. August 17.R. Inc.

No. Court of Appeals. No. No. Inc. 124243.R. Sec. Inc.R. 2000 Rule 11. 142023. 11 . Rosita Ku. July 19. G. Nimfa Divina Mercader.. 152576. Guillerma and Pascual Lumanas vs.R.R. 142950. 2001 Rule 13. 2001 Sps. No.Filing and service. G.. 2002 PCI Bank vs.R. 114951.Extension of time to plead Sps.. 8 . Sec. 9 . Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 61 . G. G. 143783. et al. 2004 The Rules of Court provides for discretion on the part of the trial court not only to extend the time for filing an answer but also to allow an answer to be filed after the reglementary period. purpose Jose Baritua. No. 126640.R. March 26.R. 144568. G. Sunrise Manning Agency. November 23. G. 2003 Rule 11. No. December 9. No. Sarraga vs. January 23. 144576. No. vs. G. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G.R.R. Sec. 2 . Court of Appeals. Sec. 2001 Ginete vs. Court of Appeals. Payongayong vs. June 15. G. 2007 Rule 12.Existing counterclaim or cross-claim Sps. Court of Appeals. 2000 Sps.Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer Intramuros Administration vs. Sps. May 28. No. G. Esterlita S. July 3. 136048. Sec.Rule 11. Yvette Contacto. June 21. et al. Marcelo and Anita Arenas vs. defined Equitable PCI Bank vs.When applied for. No. Sabilas. Ampelquio vs.R. Banco Filipino. May 5. 1 . and Accesslaw. et al. et al.

. Adala. Notice or service made upon a party who is represented by counsel is a nullity.R. 2005 Rule 13. the former commands more weight. 2010 Norma Santos vs. 137882. AM P-02-1556. Sargasso Construction & Dev't. however. This presupposes. No. between the registry return card and said written note. November 17. Sps. 170247. August 12.Phil. September 17. Inc. et al. et al. Sec. February 4.R. 2002 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. NLRC.. Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) vs. Inc. this may not be deemed as necessarily included in an authorization merely to file cases. Airlines. July 4. and Accesslaw. De la Cruz vs. Hernandez. et al. No. that the envelope or registry receipt and the dates appearing thereon are duly authenticated before the tribunal where they are presented. 2007 It is a rule generally accepted that when the service is to be made by registered mail. Inc. February 22. which is not an excuse for the delay of filing. Heirs of Benjamin Mendoza.R.R.. but also as such. G. this error on the part of the secretary of the petitioners' former counsel amounts to negligence or incompetence in record-keeping. Corp. Notice to the client and not to his counsel of record is not notice in law. Jr." Since the signing of verifications and certifications against forum shopping is not integral to the act of filing. vs. Ramiscal. 146478. No. which is often self-serving and easily fabricated. P-04-1767. G.Manner of filing The date of filing is determinable from two sources: from the post office stamp on the envelope or from the registry receipt. No. Balubar.. Not only is the former considered as the official record of the court. G. 2008 Rule 13 Section 2 of the Rules of Court merely defines filing as "the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court. G. either of which may suffice to prove the timeliness of the filing of the pleadings. 2004 If any party has appeared by counsel.R. vs. 3 . July 30. service upon him shall be made upon his counsel unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. the service is deemed complete and effective upon actual receipt by the addressee as shown by the registry return card. none applies in this case. G. No. 180045. it is presumed to be accurate unless proven otherwise. A. 168914. No. Court of Appeals. 2004 Phil.M. If the date stamped on one is earlier than the other. the former may be accepted as the date of filing. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 62 . Margarita A. such as when the court or tribunal orders service upon the party or when the technical defect is waived. GSIS vs. Ports Authority vs. Joyce Trinidad A. Further. While this rule admits of exceptions. Thus. unlike a written note or record of a party.

A. G. Fidel M. vs. 132007. Cabrera II. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 63 . No.R. G.Service by mail Petition for Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Vergara. and Accesslaw. No.R. et al. 2000 Rule 13. Afdal. 138518. Sec. Nos.Modes of service Solar Team Entertainment. 2010 Luthgarda F. vs. final orders or resolutions Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. 8 .R.. December 15. strictly. July 8. 5623. February 13. Inc. 154037. Fernandez vs. 2004 Rule 13.R. April 30. No. Venancia Baroro. 2003 Marcelina Gacutana-Fraile vs. No. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank. Angel T. G.R. et al. Sec. Domingo. Sec.. December 11. Helen Bautista Ricafort. No. 173379. and fully comply with the statutory requirements of substituted service renders such service ineffective. 7 . Sec.Papers required to be filed and served Teodora and Rodolfo Capacete vs.Rule 13. Ty vs. 2003 Nancy L. Inc. Abubakar A.Substituted service The requirements for substituted service are indispensable because substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service.Service of judgments. 4 . Romeo Carlos. 149797-98.. 154184. Sec. Failure to faithfully. 5 . Inc.C.. 2003 Rule 13. 9 . G. August 5. December 1. et al. et al. G.R. It is an extraordinary method since it seeks to bind the defendant to the consequences of a suit even though notice of such action is served not upon him but upon another whom the law could only presume would notify him of the pending proceedings. G. et al. 1998 Rule 13.

who should certify not only that the notice was issued or sent but also as to how. It is incumbent upon a party who relies on constructive service to prove that the notice was sent to. Rosita Ku. 2001 Service by registered mail is deemed completed upon actual receipt by the addressee or after five (5) days from the date the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster. PBA. 2000 Section 9 in relation to Section 10 The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service. 192084. Sec. and received by. 2006 Umbra M. March 13. No. No. 157040. The best evidence to prove that notice was sent would be a certification from the postmaster. Inc. Inc. 120787. Jerryco C.. et al. the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is not applicable in this situation.R. 2000 Carmelita G. G. G. No. March 13. Bañares II. Rodriguez. G. 142950. Bañares II.R. No. Jose Mel Bernarte vs. Notably. G. the completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail. 120972. Jose and Evangeline Aguilar vs. vs.R. September 14. G. et al. G. the addressee. No. which is deemed complete upon expiration of five (5) days from the date the addressee received the first notice from the postmaster. when and to whom the delivery and receipt was made. 2008 The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service the completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail. Court of Appeals. Tomawis vs. The mailman may also testify that the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. March 26. No. Nora M. vs. 2000 Equitable PCI Bank vs.. and (2) constructive service the completeness of which is determined upon expiration of five days from the date the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster.R.R. whichever date is earlier. et al. 166547. G.Completeness of service Sps. Elizabeth Balising. 152616. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 64 .. March 31. No. et al. No. and (2) constructive service. G. 132624. No. vs.. Court of Appeals. et al. Elizabeth Balising. 2007 Rule 13. Inc. 1999 Fidel M. Court of Appeals. September 12.R. there must be conclusive proof that a first notice was duly sent by the postmaster to the addressee. Rivera vs.Fidel M. 2011 Insofar as constructive service is concerned.R.R.R. Philemploy Services and Resources. G. 10 . 132624. et al. Tabao-Caudang. Not only is it required that notice of the registered mail be issued but that it should also be delivered to and received by the addressee. Abrajano vs. October 13. July 19. February 12. and Accesslaw.

notice was actually delivered.
Jose Mel Bernarte vs. PBA, et al., G.R. No. 192084, September 14, 2011

The Postmaster's Certification does not sufficiently prove that the three notices were delivered to and received by respondents; it only indicates that the post office issued the three notices. Simply put, the issuance of the notices by the post office is not equivalent to delivery to and receipt by the addressee of the registered mail. Thus, there is no proof of completed constructive service of the Labor Arbiter's decision on respondents.
Jose Mel Bernarte vs. PBA, et al., G.R. No. 192084, September 14, 2011

Rule 13, Sec. 11 - Priorities in modes of service and filing
E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co. vs. Herminio I. Benito, et al., G.R. No. 136426, August 6, 1999 Public Estates Authority vs. Jose F. Caoibes, et al., G.R. No. 132426, August 19, 1999 Castilex Industrial Corp. vs. Vicente Vasquez, G.R. No. 132266, December 21, 1999 Engrace Niñal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000 Security Bank and Trust Company vs. Rodolfo M. Cuenca, G.R. No. 138544, October 3, 2000 Marcelina Gacutana-Fraile vs. Angel T. Domingo, et al., G.R. No. 138518, December 15, 2000 Perla S. Zulueta vs. Asia Brewery, G.R. No. 138137, March 8, 2001 Pfizer Inc. et al. vs. Edwin V. Galan, G.R. No. 143389, May 25, 2001 MC Engineering vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 142314, June 28, 2001 Deogracias Musa, et al. vs. Sylvia Amor, G.R. No. 141396, April 9, 2002 Jimmy L. Barnes vs. Teresita C. Reyes, et al., G.R. No. 144533, September 23, 2003 Aquilina Estrella, et al. vs. Nila Espiridion, G.R. No. 134460, November 27, 2003 Sps. Payongayong vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144576, May 28, 2004

The rule that a pleading must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally is mandatory.
Martin Penoso, et al. vs. Macrosman Dona, G.R. No. 154018, April 3, 2007 Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Helen Bautista Ricafort, et al., G.R. No. 132007, August 5, 1998

The requirement under Section 11 is mandatory. Any violation of this Rule may be cause for the
Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 65

court to consider the paper as not filed. However, such discretionary power of the court must be exercised properly and reasonably, taking into account the following factors: (1) "the practicability of personal service;" (2) "the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein;" and (3) "the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11". The affidavit of service is a substantial compliance with the requirement under Section 11. It bears stressing that petitioners' procedural lapse in not appending such affidavit to their petition did not in any way thwart the laudable objective of Section 11 as stated in Solar, i.e., to quell the lawyers' unethical practice of deliberately resorting to delays in the filing and service of pleadings, motions and other papers. Indeed, the evil sought to be prevented by the new rule is absent here. Also, there is absolutely no indication from petitioners' omission that they demonstrated their contempt for the Rules and our directive in Solar, as claimed by respondents.
Luciano Ello vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141255, June 21, 2005

Personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service and filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with.
Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Helen Bautista Ricafort, et al., G.R. No. 132007, August 5, 1998 Charles N. Uy vs. Nelida S. Medina, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1247, October 10, 2000 Roberto Fulgencio, et al., vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 141600, September 12, 2003

Pursuant . . . to Section 11 of Rule 13, service and filing of pleadings and other papers must, whenever practicable, be done personally; and if made through other modes, the party concerned must provide a written explanation as to why the service or filing was not done personally. . . . Personal service and filing are preferred for obvious reasons. Plainly, such should expedite action or resolution on a pleading, motion or other paper; and conversely, minimize, if not eliminate, delays likely to be incurred if service or filing is done by mail, considering the inefficiency of postal service. Likewise, personal service will do away with the practice of some lawyers who, wanting to appear clever, resort to the following less than ethical practices: (1) serving or filing pleadings by mail to catch opposing counsel off-guard, thus leaving the latter with little or no time to prepare, for instance, responsive pleadings or an opposition; or (2) upon receiving notice from the post office that the registered parcel containing the pleading of or other paper from the adverse party may be claimed, unduly procrastinating before claiming the parcel, or, worse, not claiming it at all, thereby causing undue delay in the disposition of such pleading or other papers.

Copyright 2012

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012

66

If only to underscore the mandatory nature of this innovation to our set of adjective rules requiring personal service whenever practicable, Section 11 of Rule 13 then gives the court the discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if the other modes of service or filing were resorted to and no written explanation was made as to why personal service was not done in the first place. The exercise of discretion must, necessarily, consider the practicability of personal service, for Section 11 itself begins with the clause "whenever practicable." We thus take this opportunity to clarify that under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service and filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with. In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11. This Court cannot rule otherwise, lest we allow circumvention of the innovation introduced by the 1997 Rules in order to obviate delay in the administration of justice.
Marcelino Domingo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 169122, February 2, 2010 citing Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Judge Ricafort, 355 Phil. 404 (1998) City of Dumaguete vs. Phil. Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011

Rule 13, Sec. 13 - Proof of service
Public Estates Authority vs. Jose F. Caoibes, et al., G.R. No. 132426, August 19, 1999 Ace Navigation Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140364, August 15, 2000 MC Engineering vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 142314, June 28, 2001 Lutgarda Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123340, August 29, 2002 Betty T. Chua vs. Absolute Mngt. Corp., et al., G.R. No. 144881, October 16, 2003 Republic of the Phil. vs. Josefina B. Vda. De Neri, G.R. No. 139588, March 4, 2004

Rule 13, Sec. 14 - Notice of lis pendens

Copyright 2012

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012

67

3 . et al. bona fide or not. 2000 Christopher V. October 13. No. Inc.. 2000 Noel G.R. December 30. A. Nos. vs. vs. Rolando Sy.. 1999 Joel R. 2003 Rule 14. Jose L..As provided in Section 14.Return Harry Ang Ping vs. 2009 The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold effect: (1) to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment in order to prevent the final judgment from being defeated by successive alienations. No. Ayupan.M.R. Sec.Clerk to issue summons Producers Bank vs. 126947. et al. How. P-01-1529. 114217 & 150797. G. 140244. Wabe vs. 125468. October 13. G. Umandap vs. A. July 15.. No. Rolando Sy. et al. No. Bionson.M.R. G. a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled on two grounds: (1) when the annotation was for the purpose of molesting the title of the adverse party. Court of Appeals.By whom served Giselle G. October 9. No. et al.R. 2002 Rule 14. 4 . G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 68 . Jr. January 23. Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. AM P-03-1760. Heirs of Jose Sy Bang. and Accesslaw. Court of Appeals. Sabio. G. Esteban P. 114217 & 150797. Sec. et al. et al. Luisita P. Nos. 2009 Rule 14.. Aguilar vs. July 31. Heirs of Jose Sy Bang. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Talion vs. 1 . Rolando C.R. Inc. RTJ-03-1783. August 29. of the land subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate subsequently. Sec. and (2) to bind a purchaser. or (2) when the annotation is not necessary to protect the title of the party who caused it to be recorded.

1999 Joel R. Madrigal vs..R. No. et al. No. November 26.R. Inc. October 8. How. Ma. 147369. Court of Appeals. No. 2003 Sps. 131482. No. Gutierrez. 5 . November 15. Jr. No.. Inc. 2002 Cipriano M.. Theresa Chaves Biaco vs. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan). of the defendant. August 15. 152776. G. February 8. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 69 . Pablito M. 2000 Allen Leroy Hamilton vs. Herminio A. Raon. G.. 129955. Rolando C. 129955. 149380. G. et al. 139895.M. The failure to comply faithfully. 139283.R. Madrigal vs. Phil. 140244. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.R. 6. G. November 26. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. the proof of service of summons must (a) indicate the impossibility of service of summons within a reasonable time. Sec. 2003 A resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court. et al. October 2. 2003 Rule 14. Moreover.. Sabio. Patrick and Rafaela Jose vs. G.. 2007 Section 6 in relation to Section 7 Personal service of summons is preferred over substituted service.R. Sec. Leonor B. Aguilar vs.. 2000 Maria Victoria Cano-Gutierrez vs. No. Umandap vs. such as petitioner in this case. A. RTJ-03-1783. G. David Levy. Samartino vs. 2000 Federico S. Lazaro vs.R.R. 2003 Henry S. Court of Appeals. Countryside Rural Bank.R.Issuance of alias summons Sps. July 3. October 23. 6 . Helen and Romeo Boyon. July 3. August 29. No.R. G. No.Rule 14. et al. and (c) state that the summons was served upon a person of sufficient age and discretion who is residing in the address. G. or who is in charge of the office or regular place of business. G. must be personally served with summons as provided under Sec. Inc.Service in person on defendant Sps. G.R. Only if the former cannot be made promptly may the process server resort to the latter. strictly and fully with all the foregoing requirements of substituted service renders the service of summons ineffective. 1999 Christopher V. et al. Castillo. 2002 Regalado P. No. (b) specify the efforts exerted to locate the defendant. No. 161417. July 31. Jose L. Oaminal vs. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. It is likewise required that the pertinent facts proving these circumstances be stated in the proof of service or in the officer's return. Sps. Sandoval II vs. No. G.R. No. 138584. and Accesslaw.

. 2000 Allen Leroy Hamilton vs. Inc. 168747. 149380. Orion Security Corp. et al. Castillo. 2002 Cipriano M. Roberto V. Manay. et al.. G. Lazaro vs. No. G. G. Pascual vs. 175338. Oaminal vs.R. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan). if this is not possible and he cannot be personally served. et al. 2002 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs.. Lourdes S. substituted service.R. G. Gutierrez.R. G. Sec. G. 2004 As a rule. Inc. No.R. 2009 Rule 14. G. August 15. vs. et al. 140244. 146553.R. G.. Luvin S.R. No. 2003 Fortunato Gomez vs. October 9. Jr. No. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. October 2. October 26... July 3. No. No. as provided in Section 7. 7 . October 8. 2007 In an action in personam. Pablito M. Ongpin.R.Air Materiel Wing Savings. and it is only when the said summons cannot be served within a reasonable time can the process server resort to substituted service. 2000 United Coconut Planters Bank vs. summons should be personally served on the defendant.R.R. 2007 [P]ersonal service of summons should and always be the first option. 171916. 146593.. Pascual. No. et al. No. 152776. vs. No. et al. Willie and Julie L. Sps. and Accesslaw. Inc. August 29. 2007 If a resident defendant cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time.. December 4. Cynthia R. November 15. is essential for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of a defendant who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court. No.Substituted service Joel R. 139283. Victoria Regner vs. Logarta. Evangelista. Court of Appeals.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 70 . Jose L. G. March 10. substituted service may be effected (1) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. 2000 Maria Victoria Cano-Gutierrez vs. Herminio A.R. G. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. It is only when summons cannot be served personally within a reasonable period of time that substituted service may be resorted to.R. April 27. 138584. et al. 127692. Sabio. Inc. or (2) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. No. G. 139895. G. Umandap vs. November 27. et al. 163287. Constantino A. October 19. Sandoval II vs..R. personal service of summons or. David Levy. No. 2001 Federico S. Kalfam Enterprises. G. 2003 Henry S..

168362. the substituted service cannot be upheld.thereof in accordance with Sec. Manotoc vs. it is a practice for the branch clerk of court to require the sheriff to submit a return of the summons assigned to the sheriff for service. faithfully and fully observed. Failure to comply with this rule renders absolutely void the substituted service along with the proceedings taken thereafter. et al. why efforts exerted towards personal service failed.] to the other party. which the clerk uses in the Monthly Report of Cases to be submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator within the first ten (10) days of the succeeding month. when the court. to whom the orders. this Court held that the impossibility of personal service justifying availment of substituted service should be explained in the proof of service. is essential for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. What then is a reasonable time for the sheriff to effect a personal service in order to demonstrate impossibility of prompt service? To the plaintiff. especially for actions in personam. Court of Appeals. Rule 14 provides that the plaintiff or the sheriff is given a "reasonable time" to serve the summons to the defendant in person. G. 2006 In a long line of cases. Ma. what the contract or duty requires that should be done. G." Under the Rules. Section 8. notices or summons are addressed. 2007 Substituted service derogates the regular method of personal service. conveniently. then the validity of the summons lapses. Countryside Rural Bank. 7. vs. Inc. To the sheriff. FEU-NRMF. The pertinent facts and circumstances attendant to the service of summons must be stated in the proof of service or Officer's Return. Thus. clerk of court. October 16. but upon another whom the law could only presume would notify such party of the pending proceedings. August 16. not upon the party concerned. the resort to a substituted service must be duly justified. "reasonable time" means 15 to 30 days because at the end of the month. but no specific time frame is mentioned. FEU-NRMFEA-AFW. or the plaintiff asks the sheriff to make the return of the summons and the latter submits the return of summons. Phil. otherwise. 161417. Ma. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. "reasonable time" means no more than seven (7) days since an expeditious processing of a complaint is what a plaintiff wants. Theresa Chaves Biaco vs. It is therefore required that statutory restrictions for effecting substituted service must be strictly. "Reasonable time" is defined as "so much time as is necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to do. Inc. Imelda M. The plaintiff may then ask for an alias summons if the service of summons has failed. No. and Accesslaw. et al.R.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 71 .R. However. Failure to do so would invalidate all subsequent proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. having a regard for the rights and possibility of loss. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. It bears stressing that since service of summons. No. G. is made to answer for the consequences of the suit even though notice of such action is made. 2006 The party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt service. The underlying principle of this rigid requirement is that the person. The Sheriff's Return provides data to the Clerk of Court. February 8. if any[. one month from the issuance of summons can be considered "reasonable time" with regard to personal service on the defendant. No.. the service of summons has no set period. 130974.

59 was precisely issued by this Court to stress the importance of strict compliance with the requisites for a valid substituted service. or the plaintiff asks the sheriff to make the return of the summons and the latter submits the return of summons. what the contract or duty requires that should be done. it is a practice for the branch clerk of court to require the sheriff to submit a return of the summons assigned to the sheriff for service. Raon. Inc. 2002 Sps.R. However. 131482. Sps. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 72 . The plaintiff may then ask for an alias summons if the service of summons has failed. In addition. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. the service of summons has no set period. Thus. Inc. then the validity of the summons lapses. What then is a reasonable time for the sheriff to effect a personal service in order to demonstrate impossibility of prompt service? To the plaintiff. Madrigal vs. one month from the issuance of summons can be considered "reasonable time" with regard to personal service on the defendant. Helen and Romeo Boyon. It is only then that impossibility of service can be confirmed or accepted." Under the Rules. having a regard for the rights and possibility of loss. Samartino vs. when the court. and reasonable promptness and speed so as not to prejudice the expeditious dispensation of justice. to the other party.Administrative Circular No. "reasonable time" means no more than seven (7) days since an expeditious processing of a complaint is what a plaintiff wants. persevering. clerk of court. utmost diligence. "Reasonable time" is defined as "so much time as is necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to do. which the clerk uses in the Monthly Report of Cases to be submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator within the first ten (10) days of the succeeding month. G. November 26. 1999 Regalado P. July 3. and Accesslaw. and diligent in serving the process on the defendant. G. October 23. G. Section 8. if any. Sheriffs are asked to discharge their duties on the service of summons with due care. but no specific time range is mentioned. To the sheriff. No. No. preferably on at least two different dates. 2003 [R]equirements to effect a valid substituted service: (1) Impossibility of Prompt Personal Service The party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt service. the sheriff must cite why such efforts were unsuccessful. The Sheriff's Return provides data to the Clerk of Court.R. Thus. since the defendant is expected to try to avoid and evade service of summons. they are enjoined to try their best efforts to accomplish personal service on defendant. "reasonable time" means 15 to 30 days because at the end of the month. there must be several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve the summons within a reasonable period [of one month] which eventually resulted in failure to prove impossibility of prompt service. On the other hand. For substituted service of summons to be available. the sheriff must be resourceful. Rule 14 provides that the plaintiff or the sheriff is given a "reasonable time" to serve the summons to the defendant in person. canny. Leonor B. "Several attempts" means at least three (3) tries.R. No. Patrick and Rafaela Jose vs. 147369. conveniently. 129955. Court of Appeals.

right or wise may be presupposed". These matters must be clearly and specifically described in the Return of Summons. the inquiries made to locate the defendant.R. "Discretion" is defined as "the ability to make decisions which represent a responsible choice and for which an understanding of what is lawful. such person must know how to read and understand English to comprehend the import of the summons. Pascual vs. the person must have the "relation of confidence" to the defendant. Thus.(2) Specific Details in the Return The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service. Constantino A. and Accesslaw. 171916. such as the president or manager. though futile. Lourdes S. (3) A Person of Suitable Age and Discretion If the substituted service will be effected at defendant's house or residence. The efforts made to find the defendant and the reasons behind the failure must be clearly narrated in detail in the Return. 5 dated November 9. (4) A Competent Person in Charge If the substituted service will be done at defendant's office or regular place of business. December 4. its importance. The date and time of the attempts on personal service. then it should be served on a competent person in charge of the place. Inc." which should be made in the proof of service. these details must be contained in the Return. and fully realize the need to deliver the summons and complaint to the defendant at the earliest possible time for the person to take appropriate action. Inc. Thus. Pascual. The sheriff must therefore determine if the person found in the alleged dwelling or residence of defendant is of legal age. to serve the summons on defendant must be specified in the Return to justify substituted service. The form on Sheriff's Return of Summons on Substituted Service prescribed in the Handbook for Sheriffs published by the Philippine Judicial Academy requires a narration of the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the fact of failure. it should be left with a person of "suitable age and discretion then residing therein. 1989 requires that "impossibility of prompt service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant personally and the failure of such efforts. and such individual must have sufficient knowledge to understand the obligation of the defendant in the summons. what the recipient's relationship with the defendant is. Again. No. G. Thus." A person of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to understand the importance of a summons. the name/s of the occupants of the alleged residence or house of defendant and all other acts done. and the prejudicial effects arising from inaction on the summons. the person on whom the substituted service will be made must be the one managing the office or business of defendant. and whether said person comprehends the significance of the receipt of the summons and his duty to immediately deliver it to the defendant or at least notify the defendant of said receipt of summons. to be of sufficient discretion. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2009 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. ensuring that the latter would receive or at least be notified of the receipt of the summons. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 73 .

R. 1968 Section 7 also designates the persons with whom copies of the process may be left.R. 165273. G. March 28. No. 165273.. Sec. Inc. No. No. Considering that private respondent was temporarily out of the country. Islands vs. the summons and complaint may be validly served on her through substituted service under Section 7. 2010 citing Montalban v. 2007 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al. Danilo P. The rule presupposes that such a relation of confidence exists between the person with whom the copy is left and the defendant and. L-22997. March 10. 2010 Rule 14.. . Leah Palma vs. No. . we held that substituted service of summons under the present Section 7. he leaves his affairs in the hands of one who may be reasonably expected to act in his place and stead.. a dwelling where he lives. No. G. assumes that such person will deliver the process to defendant or in some way give him notice thereof. vs. 165273. .R. Galvez. March 15. March 10. Leah Palma vs. G. . to which any inquiry about him may be directed and where he is bound to return.In Montalban v.R. Sps. and to communicate with him from time to time any incident of importance that may affect him or his business or his affairs. et al. Maximo (G. 163287.R.. 1968). Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 74 . G. he cannot just raise his voice and say that he is not subject to the processes of our courts. 11 . It is usual for such a man to leave at his home or with his business associates information as to where he may be contacted in the event a question that affects him crops up. A man temporarily absent from this country leaves a definite place of residence. Galvez. and a case comes up in court against him. Maximo.Service upon domestic private juridical entity Orion Security Corp. He cannot stop a suit from being filed against him upon a claim that he cannot be summoned at his dwelling house or residence or his office or regular place of business. Not that he cannot be reached within a reasonable time to enable him to contest a suit against him. a local base. 169116. Long distance telephone calls and cablegrams make it easy for one he left behind to communicate with him. Where one temporarily absents himself. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court in a suit in personam against residents of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom is the normal method of service of summons that will confer jurisdiction on the court over such defendant.. If he does not do what is expected of him. G. Danilo P. No. March 10. L-22997. 2007 Bank of the Phil. There are now advanced facilities of communication.R. and Accesslaw. 2010 . et al. to do all that is necessary to protect his interests. No. Inc. et al. April 27. Kalfam Enterprises. Inc. . Danilo P. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court . Ireneo and Liwanag Santiago. Galvez. Leah Palma vs. therefore. so to speak. March 15.

144024. NLRC. Benito.R. except when: a) on the face of the affidavit of service. G. July 27. it is patent that personal service and filing is impractical. Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.R. Cadornigara vs. following the rule in Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 144662. 158073. while a resort to other modes of service and filing is the exception. the latter may unduly procrastinate before claiming said parcel . limited and exclusive to the persons enumerated in Section 11. and to forestall the deplorable practice among some lawyers of serving or filing pleadings by mail to catch their opposing counsel off-guard.. 2002 E. Pedro Tagabi vs. upon receiving notice from the post office of the registered parcel containing the pleading or other papers from the adverse party. G. 2003 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. G. Court of Appeals. Sr. BPI. et al. et al. G. October 11. Under said rule. so that they may be acted upon expeditiously.. worse. or. such exercise of discretion by the court will not be overruled on appeal. not claim it at all . Willie and Julie L. we did not intend it to be just some silly rule the parties can ignore when convenient. such as when the parties or their counsels live in different provinces. there must be attached to the pleading or paper. 149909. Julian. Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. G. and c) the issue raised therein is of substantial importance.. 126625. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 75 . especially when the peculiar circumstances of the case — such as the proximity of the office of a party's counsel to the court or to the office of the opposing party's counsel — make such mode practicable.R. August 6. National Labor Relations Commission. 2007 When we crafted Section 11. vs. No. Alex M. 2008 Service of summons on a domestic corporation is restricted. No. Margarito Tanque. We designed it to serve a very real purpose: to ensure that pleadings. Evangelista.. 163749. And ordinarily. a written explanation of such recourse. Efren and Digna Mason. September 18. et al. 2006 Teresa Gabriel. If another mode is employed. and Accesslaw. No. b) there is prima facie merit in the pleading or paper expunged. No.R.R. No.Sps. Omission of a written explanation will give the court cause to expunge the pleading or paper not personally served or filed. G. 2007 Sps. Inc. motions and other papers reach the courts directly and promptly. Under these exceptional circumstances the lack of written explanation may be excused and the pleading or paper served or filed. No. et al. vs.. vs. 136426. 1997 The Rules of Court provides that personal service of petitions and other pleadings is the general rule.R. these lawyers leave the opposing counsel with little or no time to respond accordingly. et al. No. November 27. Sps. G.R. Herminio I. G.B. accepted. et al. Inc. 146553. Thus. and Leonila Santiago. and the courts disregard when expedient. et al. Villarosa & Partner Co.R. September 26. et al. personal service and filing of pleadings and other papers is a mandatory mode.and thereby cause undue delay in the disposition of such pleading or other papers.or. Court of Appeals. November 23. October 13. 1999 Kanlaon Construction vs. vs. No.

said provision of the Rules of Court now reads: SEC. DOLE Phil. No. service may.. 3. Atiko Trans. (G.. Inc. 156848. or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. or d) By facsimile or any recognized electronic means that could generate proof of By such other means as the court may in its discretion direct. or. v. No. G. 12 . 168723. Quilala. et al. 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. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. if there be no such agent. or. No.statutory construction that expressio unios est exclusio alterius. 12. If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines or has no resident agent. et al. July 9. Reinato G. No. Inc.M. c) service. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance. 11-3-6-SC]. et al. August 17. Inc. Its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose.Service upon foreign private juridical entity Elucidating on the above provision of the Rules of Court. G.R. service of summons may be made upon: 1. this Court declared in Pioneer International. G. August 17.R. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance. (Tropifresh Division) vs. and Accesslaw. Service upon foreign private juridical entity.. — When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines. 2008 Rule 14.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 76 . with leave of court. on the government official designated by law to that effect. Jr. Sec. Inc. October 11.R. Inc. 2007) that when the defendant is a foreign juridical entity.. 167545. Inc. vs.. 2. be effected out of the Philippines through any of the following means: a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs. service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose. The government official designated by law to receive summons if the corporation does not have a resident agent. 2011 As amended [by A. Ltd. Atiko Trans. 167545.. No. Any of the corporation's officers or agents within the Philippines. Inc. Guadiz. vs.

et al. October 26. Raymond and Maria Hedy Velayo. or (3) in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient. NLRC.. Efren and Digna Mason. No. Cynthia R. Such service.R.2011 Rule 14. 155488. 2007 Extrajudicial service of summons apply only where the action is in rem. August 12. et al. an action against the thing itself instead of against the person. jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.Service upon public corporations EDI-Staffbuilders International. 2002 Rule 14. must be made outside the Philippines. 145587.R. Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. Sec. G. 13 . Victoria Regner vs. Erlinda R. Sec. 125027. to be effective outside the Philippines. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. G. Velayo-Fong vs. Sec. 2006 As a rule. 2007 Sps. when the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 77 . or in an action quasi in rem. in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. October 19. Court of Appeals. No.R. vs. October 13. 144662. Inc.Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown Anita Mangila vs. No.. Sps. like the first two. et al. 168747. 15 . Logarta. (2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order. G.Extraterritorial service Service of summons on a non-resident defendant must be in accordance with Section 15. Inc. The rationale for this is that in in rem and quasi in rem actions. Inc. The third mode. et al.. December 6. G. 2003 Rule 14. where an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interest therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. such as through the Philippine Embassy in the foreign country where defendant resides.R. No. 14 . and Accesslaw. No. must be made either (1) by personal service. that is. vs. Court of Appeals.

No. G. et al.B. March 3. G. But when the case is one of actions in rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15. July 15. No. MTJ-00-1283. and Accesslaw. 2008). 2002 In Montefalcon v. Danilo P.person unless he voluntarily appears in court. 20 . Diaz. 2003 Octavio Alvarez vs. and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential.Voluntary appearance E.. G. Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. Inc. 2004 Rule 14.R. Other methods of service of summons allowed under the Rules may also be availed of by the serving officer on a defendant-resident who is temporarily out of the Philippines. March 10.R. No. et al.R. Inc.Proof of service Harry Ang Ping vs. Margarita Romualdez-Licaros vs.R. we said that because Section 16 of Rule 14 uses the words "may" and "also. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 78 . 136426. April 29.. Augustus C. Sec. Herminio I. Vasquez (G. Villarosa & Partner Co. 16 . vs. No. 150656. et al. Rule 14. also with leave of court. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.. Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the res.R. G. No. 1999 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 1999 Rule 14. if a resident defendant is temporarily out of the country. (3) service by publication. 165273. Benito. any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (1) substituted service set forth in section 7 (formerly Section 8). Thus. Sec. Court of Appeals.M. August 6. or (4) in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Sec. Court of Appeals. 165016. 18 .Residents temporarily out of the Philippines Anita Mangila vs." it is not mandatory. On the other hand. In such instances. with leave of court. (2) personal service outside the country. actions in rem or quasi in rem are directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world. A. G. June 17. Galvez. Leah Palma vs.R. LAbelardo icaros. et al. Actions in personam and actions in rem or quasi in rem differ in that actions in personam are directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments. No.. 2010 Rule 14. No. 126947. 125027. August 12.

Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd vs. Dakila Trading Corp., G.R. No. 172242, August 14, 2007

A defendant's voluntary appearance in the action is equivalent to service of summons.
DOLE Phil., Inc. (Tropifresh Division) vs. Reinato G. Quilala, et al., G.R. No. 168723, July 9, 2008

Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, while jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through the service of summons upon them in the manner required by law or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority. A party who makes a special appearance in court challenging the jurisdiction of said court based on the ground of invalid service of summons is not deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court
Allan C. Go vs. Mortimer F. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703, May 4, 2010

[A] defendant who files a motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court over his person, together with other grounds raised therein, is not deemed to have appeared voluntarily before the court. What the rule on voluntary appearance — the first sentence of the above-quoted rule — means is that the voluntary appearance of the defendant in court is without qualification, in which case he is deemed to have waived his defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of summons.
Edna Diago Lhuillier vs. British Airways, G.R. No. 171092, March 15, 2010, citing Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 170122, October 12, 2009

It is settled that if there is no valid service of summons, the court can still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by virtue of the latter's voluntary appearance.
Rapid City Realty and Development Corp. vs. Sps. Orlando and Lourdes Villa, G.R. No. 184197, February 11, 2010

Rule 15, Sec. 4 - Hearing of motion
Clodualdo C. De jesus vs. Rodolfo D. Obnamia Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1314, September 7, 2000 Antonio M. Bangayan vs. Jimmy R. Butacan, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1320, November 22, 2000 Dolores Fajardo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140356, March 20, 2001 Re: Release by Judge Muro, A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ, October 17, 2001 Mahid M. Mutilan vs. Judge Santos B. Adiong, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1581, July 2, 2002 Winnie Bajet vs. Judge Vivencio S. Baclig, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1598, July 30, 2002 Republic of the Phil. vs. Marilyn A. Peralta, et al., G.R. No. 150327, June 18, 2003
Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 79

Teodora and Rodolfo Capacete vs. Venancia Baroro, et al., G.R. No. 154184, July 8, 2003

A motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is considered a worthless piece of paper, which the Clerk of Court has no right to receive and the trial court has no authority to act upon.
Federico Pallada v. Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Br. 1, G.R. No. 129442, March 10, 1999 KKK Foundation, Inc. vs. Adelina Calderon-Bargas, et al., G.R. No. 163785, December 27, 2007

The requirements in Sections 4 and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court on notice of hearing and proof of service thereof to the adverse party, far from being merely technical and procedural, are necessary elements of procedural due process.
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Augustine A. Vestil, A.M. Nos. RTJ-06-2030 & RTJ-07-2032, October 5, 2007

As may be gleaned (from Section 14 of Rule 15) and as held time and again, the notice requirement in a motion is mandatory. As a rule, a motion without a Notice of Hearing is considered pro forma and does not affect the reglementary period for the appeal or the filing of the requisite pleading.
Gliceria Sarmiento vs. Emerita Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471, February 5, 2007 Annie Tan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130314, September 22, 1998

Rule 15, Sec. 5 - Notice of hearing
Octavio Alvarez vs. Augustus C. Diaz, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1283, March 3, 2004 Republic of the Phil. vs. Marilyn A. Peralta, et al., G.R. No. 150327, June 18, 2003 Serena T. Bacelonia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 143440, February 11, 2003 Dolores Fajardo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140356, March 20, 2001

A motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is considered a worthless piece of paper, which the Clerk of Court has no right to receive and the trial court has no authority to act upon.
Federico Pallada v. Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Br. 1, G.R. No. 129442, March 10, 1999 KKK Foundation, Inc. vs. Adelina Calderon-Bargas, et al., G.R. No. 163785, December 27, 2007 Aneco Realty and Development Corp. vs. Landex Development Corp., G.R. No. 165952, July 28, 2008

Jurisprudence confirms that the requirements laid down in Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15 of the
Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 80

Rules of Court that the notice of hearing shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion, are mandatory. If not religiously complied with, they render the motion pro forma. As such, the motion is a useless piece of paper that will not toll the running of the prescriptive period. Yet, again, there were previous cases with peculiar circumstances that had compelled us to liberally apply the rules on notice of hearing and recognize substantial compliance with the same. Once such case is Philippine National Bank v. Paneda, (G.R. No. 149236, February 14, 2007) where we adjudged: Thus, even if the Motion may be defective for failure to address the notice of hearing of said motion to the parties concerned, the defect was cured by the court's taking cognizance thereof and the fact that the adverse party was otherwise notified of the existence of said pleading. There is substantial compliance with the foregoing rules if a copy of the said motion for reconsideration was furnished to the counsel of herein private respondents. In the present case, records reveal that the notices in the Motion were addressed to the respective counsels of the private respondents and they were duly furnished with copies of the same as shown by the receipts signed by their staff or agents. Consequently, the Court finds that the petitioner substantially complied with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and existing jurisprudence on the requirements of motions and pleadings.
City of Dumaguete vs. Phil. Ports Authority, G.R. No. 168973, August 24, 2011

Rule 15, Sec. 6 - Proof of service necessary
Republic of the Phil. vs. Marilyn A. Peralta, et al., G.R. No. 150327, June 18, 2003 Lutgarda Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123340, August 29, 2002 Mahid M. Mutilan vs. Santos B. Adiong, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1581, July 2, 2002

The requirements in Sections 4 and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court on notice of hearing and proof of service thereof to the adverse party, far from being merely technical and procedural, are necessary elements of procedural due process.
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Augustine A. Vestil, A.M. Nos. RTJ-06-2030 & RTJ-07-2032, October 5, 2007

Rule 15, Sec. 8 - Omnibus motion

Rationale for Rule
Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 81

John Keng Seng. Ernest S. No. Inc. G. 143464. This proceeds from the court's inherent power to control its processes and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. No. 1 . It is always under the control of the court and may be modified or rescinded upon sufficient grounds shown at any time before final judgment. and Accesslaw. Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include it as a ground. February 18.R. Bernabe. G. 2001 Emilio S. 153567.R.The spirit that surrounds the foregoing statutory norm is to require the party filing a pleading or motion to raise all available exceptions for relief during the single opportunity so that single or multiple objections may be avoided. PH Credit Corporation vs. Librada M. 148174.R. No.R. No. Aure. November 22. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 82 . 153567. but leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits. Bonifacio Construction Management vs. February 18. 109648. Inc. Aquino vs. Aure.Grounds In General Forum non conveniens is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because Section 1. An interlocutory order does not terminate nor finally dispose of the case. Librada M. March 5. Sec. 2005 Rule 16. the objections must have been available to the party at the time the Motion was filed. G.Motion to Dismiss The Order of the trial court denying the motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory. Aquino vs.R. June 30. G. G. Young vs. 2003 The spirit that surrounds the foregoing statutory norm is to require the party filing a pleading or motion to raise all available exceptions for relief during the single opportunity so that single or multiple objections may be avoided. Farrales. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. But to apply that statutory norm. No. the Omnibus Motion Rule requires the movant to raise all available exceptions in a single opportunity to avoid multiple piecemeal objections. Court of Appeals and Carlos M. Ernest S. 2008 True. 2008 Rule 16 .

Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court requires that.R. September 23. If a particular ground for dismissal is not raised or if no motion to dismiss is filed at all within the reglementary period. vs.R..R. No. No. 134854. Justiniano. abandoned. 166383. waived. a motion to dismiss alleging improper venue cannot be entertained unless made within that period. Section 1 of the Rules of Court does not consider as grounds for a motion to dismiss the allotment of the disputed land for another public purpose or the petition for a mere easement of right-of-way in the complaint for expropriation. March 19. (3) lack of cause of action. the Court has allowed a defendant to file a motion to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction. G.Kazuhiro Hasegawa. or otherwise extinguished. Eduardo F. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 83 . and an action can be dismissed only on a ground authorized by this provision. or to file a motion to dismiss raising any of the grounds set forth in Section 1. Court of Appeals. G. (2) litis pendentia. No. Sr. Felizardo S. Sps. Court of Appeals. Rule 9 of the Rules. Associated Bank vs. Minoru Kitamura. Inc. Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the trial court may dismiss a complaint on the ground that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's complaint has been paid. 2002 The period to file a motion to dismiss depends upon the circumstances of the case. Obando.. October 16. a motion to dismiss should be filed within the reglementary period for filing a responsive pleading. 149177.R. No. November 23. No. Jesus V. G. G. Rule 16. Thus. Petitioners should have filed an answer to the complaint. Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. and (4) discovery during trial of evidence that would constitute a ground for dismissal. 2009 Section 1. The grounds for dismissal are exclusive to those specifically mentioned in Section 1. 135042. Kho vs. This ground essentially admits the obligation Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Robern Development Corp. G. and Ligaya Montano. vs. in general. Figueras. Inc. 2003 A motion to dismiss shall be filed within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim. Bank of America vs. vs. Elidad C. 1999 The option of whether to set the case for preliminary hearing after the filing of an answer which raises affirmative defenses. 115758. Except for lack of cause of action or lack of jurisdiction. 120135.R. January 18. However. et al. proceed to trial and await judgment before making an appeal. Quitain. et al. March 31. et al. No. the grounds under Section 1 of Rule 16 may be waived. Rule 16 of the Rules are procedural options which are not mutually exclusive of each other. it is generally considered waived under Section 1.R. G. et al. and Accesslaw. even after an answer has been filed. 2000 Accordingly. 2007 It is a well-settled rule that the order denying the motion to dismiss cannot be the subject of petition for certiorari.

Inc. the identity should be such that any judgment that may be rendered in one case. Cristina D. Dotmatrix Trading vs. Court of Appeals. No. what is required merely is that there be another pending action. March 26. 138567.R. 2010 (e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause Progressive Devt. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Alejo as Presiding Judge. Doña Rosana Realty and Dev't.. G. DBP vs. and (3) that the result of the first action is determinative of the second in any event and regardless of which party is successful. 129313. No. No. vs. To constitute litis pendentia. Dotmatrix Trading vs.R. Tirona and Oscar Tirona vs.R. and Accesslaw. the more appropriate action is the one where the real issues raised can be fully and completely settled. October 26. Corp. not the receipt of summons. Gatal. et al. Sps. 2005 Litis pendentia is a Latin term. not only must the parties in the two actions be the same. Legaspi. It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits. which literally means "a pending suit" and is variously referred to in some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant. Legaspi. No. G. G. 1999 Spouses Ma. Rommel B. 180523. it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action. would amount to res judicata in the other. This situation is not present here. No. 155622. G. regardless of which party is successful.R. Floro P. 2001 For litis pendentia to lie as a ground for a motion to dismiss.. Neither is it required that the party be served with summons before lis pendens can apply. Corp. 155622. Rommel B. 2009 The "more appropriate action test" considers the real issue raised by the pleadings and the ultimate objective of the parties. the following requisites must be present: (1) that the parties to the action are the same. As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action.R. Corp. October 10. 123555. there must as well be substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought. Hon. in this case apparently by abandonment after respondent received partial reimbursement from [the seller] as a consequence of the cancellation of contract to sell between them. March 4. Molave Dev't. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 84 . vs. it is the filing of the action. not a prior pending action. which determines priority in date. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. Further. G.set out in the complaint but points out that such obligation has been extinguished. so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. 2009 The rule on litis pendentia does not require that the case later in time should yield to the earlier case. No. October 26. (2) that there is substantial identity in the causes of action and reliefs sought. January 22. G. Inc.

Dotmatrix Trading vs. Rommel B. Legaspi, G.R. No. 155622, October 26, 2009

In the "anticipatory test", the bona fides or good faith of the parties is the critical element. If the first suit is filed merely to preempt the later action or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal, then the first suit should be dismissed.
Dotmatrix Trading vs. Rommel B. Legaspi, G.R. No. 155622, October 26, 2009

Under this established jurisprudence on litis pendentia, the following considerations predominate in the ascending order of importance in determining which action should prevail: (1) the date of filing, with preference generally given to the first action filed to be retained; (2) whether the action sought to be dismissed was filed merely to preempt the later action or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal; and (3) whether the action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties.
Dotmatrix Trading vs. Rommel B. Legaspi, G.R. No. 155622, October 26, 2009

(f), (h) and (i) Under Section 5 of Rule 16, dismissals under paragraphs (f), (h), and (i) of Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court constitute res judicata.
Sps. Isidro and Lea Cruz vs. Sps. Florencio and Amparo Caraos, et al., G.R. no. 138208, April 23, 2007

(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action There is a distinction between a motion to dismiss for failure of the complainant to state a cause of action and a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action. The first is governed by Rule 16, Section 1 (g), while the second by Rule 33 of the Rules of Court.
Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. vs. Dakila Trading Corp., G.R. No. 172242, August 14, 2007 Manila Banking Corp. vs. University of Baguio, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 159189, February 21, 2007 Republic of the Philippines vs. Juan C. Tuvera, et al., G.R. No. 148246, February 16, 2007 Melissa Domondon vs. Percival Mandap Lopez, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1696, June 20, 2002

A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action is filed by the defendant after the plaintiff has presented his evidence on the ground that the latter has shown no right to the relief sought. While a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 is based on preliminary objections which can be ventilated before the beginning of the trial, a motion to dismiss under Rule 33 is in the nature of a demurrer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented only after the plaintiff has rested his case.
Melissa Domondon vs. Judge Percival Mandap Lopez, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1696, June 20, 2002

In a motion to dismiss due to failure to state a cause of action, the trial court can consider all the
Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 85

pleadings filed, including annexes, motions and the evidence on record. However in so doing, the trial court does not rule on the truth or falsity of such documents. It merely includes such documents in the hypothetical admission. Any review of a finding of lack of cause of action based on these documents would not involve a calibration of the probative value of such pieces of evidence but would only limit itself to the inquiry of whether the law was properly applied given the facts and these supporting documents. Therefore, what would inevitably arise from such a review are pure questions of law, and not questions of fact.
China Road and Bridge Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 137898, December 15, 2000

(j)

That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
Pilar S. Vda. De Manalo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129242, January 16, 2001

It is a settled rule that an Order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable, nor can it be subject of a petition for review on certiorari. Such order may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. The ordinary procedure to be followed in that event is to file an answer, go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment.
Roberto S. Benedicto, et al. vs. Manuel Lacson, et al., G.R. No. 141508, May 5, 2010

Rule 16, Sec. 2 - Hearing of motion
Francisca L. Marquez vs. Simeon Baldoz, G.R. No. 143779, April 4, 2003 Spouses Horacio and Felisa Benito vs. Agapita Saquitan-Ruiz, G.R. No. 149906, December 26, 2002 Republic vs. Carmel Development, Inc., G.R. No. 142572, February 20, 2002 William Alain Miailhe vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108991, March 20, 2001 Heirs of Nepomucena Paez vs. Ramon Am. Torres, et al., G.R. No. 104314, February 2, 2000

Rule 16, Sec. 3 - Resolution of motion
United Overseas Bank Phils. vs. Rosemoor Mining & Development Corp., et al., G.R. Nos. 159669 & 163521, March 12, 2007 Douglas Lu Ym vs. Gertrudes Nabua, G.R. No. 161309, February 23, 2005

Copyright 2012

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012

86

Wolfgang O. Roehr vs. Maria Carmen D. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 142820, June 20, 2003 Intramuros Administration vs. Yvette Contacto, et al., G.R. No. 152576, May 5, 2003 Richard Teh vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147038, April 24, 2003 Francisca L. Marquez vs. Simeon Baldoz, G.R. No. 143779, April 4, 2003 Republic vs. Carmel Development, Inc., G.R. No. 142572, February 20, 2002 William Alain Miailhe vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108991, March 20, 2001 California and Hawaiian Sugar vs. Pioneer Insurance, G.R. No. 139273, November 28, 2000 Erlinda C. Pefianco vs. Maria Luisa C. Moral, G.R. No. 132248, January 19, 2000

Rule 16, Sec. 5 - Effect of dismissal
246 Corp. vs. Reynaldo B. Daway, G.R. No. 157216, November 20, 2003

Rule 16, Sec. 6 - Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses
246 Corp. vs. Reynaldo B. Daway, G.R. No. 157216, November 20, 2003 Mariano L. Gumabon, et al. vs. Aquilino T. Larin, G.R. No. 142523, November 27, 2001 Tourist Duty Free Shops vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 107395, January 26, 2000

True, Section 6, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules, specifically provides that a preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses may be allowed only when no motion to dismiss has been filed. Section 6, however, must be viewed in the light of Section 3 of the same Rule, which requires courts to resolve a motion to dismiss and prohibits them from deferring its resolution on the ground of indubitability. Clearly then, Section 6 disallows a preliminary hearing of affirmative defenses once a motion to dismiss has been filed because such defense should have already been resolved.
California and Hawaiian Sugar vs. Pioneer Insurance, G.R. No. 139273, November 28, 2000

The rule is based on practicality. Both the parties and the court can conveniently save time and expenses necessarily involved in a case preparation and in a trial at large, when the issues involved in a particular case can otherwise be disposed of in a preliminary hearing.
Associated Bank vs. Sps. Justiniano, Sr. and Ligaya Montano, et al., G.R. No. 166383, October 16, 2009
Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 87

Rule 17 - Dismissal of Actions There are two ways by which an action may be dismissed upon the instance of the plaintiff. First, dismissal is a matter of right when a notice of dismissal is filed by the plaintiff before an answer or a motion for summary judgment has been served on him by the defendant. Second, dismissal is discretionary on the court when the motion for the dismissal of the action is filed by the plaintiff at any stage of the proceedings other than before service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. While the dismissal in the first mode takes effect upon the mere notice of plaintiff without need of a judicial order, the second mode requires the authority of the court before dismissal of the case may be effected. This is so because in the dismissal of an action, the effect of the dismissal upon the rights of the defendant should always be taken into consideration.
Limaco vs. Shonan Gakuen Children's House Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 158245, June 30, 2005

Rule 17, Sec. 1 - Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff
Susie Chan-Tan vs. Jesse C. Tan, G.R. No. 167139, February 25, 2010 Ma. Carminia C. Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139337, August 15, 2001

It is mandatory that the trial court issue an order confirming such dismissal (upon notice of plaintiff) and, unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice and could be accomplished by the plaintiff through mere notice of dismissal, and not through motion subject to approval by the court. Dismissal is ipso facto upon notice, and without prejudice unless otherwise stated in the notice.
Frederick Dael vs. Sps. Benedicto and Vilma Beltran, G.R. No. 156470, April 30, 2008

Rule 17, Sec. 2 - Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff
Susie Chan-Tan vs. Jesse C. Tan, G.R. No. 167139, February 25, 2010 Mariano L. Gumabon, et al. vs. Aquilino T. Larin, G.R. No. 142523, November 27, 2001

Copyright 2012

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012

88

Rule 36 of the Rules of Court on the writing of valid judgments and final orders. Gumabon. People of the Philippines. vs. et al. (3) if he fails to comply with the rules or any order of the court. Samuel A. December 27. G. 2003 dismissal order shows that it is an unqualified order and. January 30. 170026. that the pleading of undisputed facts is equivalent to a prohibited appeal. Aquilino T. 2002 Mariano L.R. Paguio. or.. Jardin. A.R. (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time. G. July 3. 6323.R. July 30.Rule 17. Villalon. "Dismissals of actions (under Section 3) which do not expressly state whether they are with or without prejudice are held to be with prejudice[. 1999 Dismissals of actions for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute is authorized under Section 3. et al. Judge Orlando C. 2003 dismissal order is also deemed to be a judgment on the merits so that the petitioner's complaint in Civil Case No. 2005 resolution — i. As an adjudication on the merits.R. Pablo C. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 89 . Fiel-Macaraig. No.R. 2010 Eduardo M. (4) where the plaintiff fails to appear when so required at the pre-trial. 257 (1953)] is misplaced as it is based on the conclusion the appellate court made in its April 8. et al. is deemed to be a dismissal with prejudice. 141834. November 27. 2001 Emma Gallardo-Corro. the dismissal of a case for lack of interest to prosecute had the effect of an adjudication on the merits. Samson. G. 117385. No. BPI vs. A plain examination of the December 16. Inc. 142523. et al. No.. Navarro. February 2. Rodriguez. Larin. Sec. 2007 Under Rule 17. G. et al. as such. 93 Phil. 3 . Inc. vs. Gallardo. and Accesslaw.R. G.. the December 16. et al. Martinez vs.M. the dismissal has the effect of an adjudication on the merits. G. April 13. 02-488 can no longer be refiled on the principle of res judicata. Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Leticia B. vs. 2002 Lilia J. especially on the date for the presentation of his evidence in chief. et al. Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. Shimizu Phil. A.. 2007 The rules contemplate certain instances where the complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiff's fault: (1) if he fails to appear during a scheduled trial. when a complaint is dismissed for failure to prosecute and the dismissal is unqualified.R. June 20. Rufus B. et al. No. The reliance is inattentive to both the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 136228. Olivares. No. Efren Don L. No. Rule 3 of the Rules of Court is a ground for the dismissal of an action. February 11.Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff Benedicta M. No. Inc. vs.. it is imperative that the dismissal order conform with Section 1. Magsalin. 138203.e. vs. Procedurally. No. vs. Court of Appeals. No. Geraldine C.C. Arsenio C. MTJ 02-1419. 166356. 2001 Failure to make a substitution pursuant to Section 17. Jr. Contractors.]"As a prejudicial dismissal. Vicoy vs. 2012 The reliance on Joaquin [Joaquin vs. G.

vs.R. vs. Hence.. the question is one of law which [is properly subject to the review of this Court. 2010 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Geraldine C. as already pointed out above..]" In this case. 170026. Magsalin. This defeats the application of Joaquin. et al. . No. or (d) Failure of the plaintiff to obey any order of the court. Sec. There must be unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute. June 20. to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief. Leticia B. G. et al.R. No.When conducted Benedicta M. or where all the facts are stated in the judgment and the issue is the correctness of the conclusions drawn therefrom. Shimizu Phil. June 20. vs. dismissals of actions should be made with care. 2012 The fundamental test for non prosequitur is whether. the facts supposedly supporting the trial court's conclusion of non prosequitur were not stated in the judgment. Leticia B. February 2. G. While it is discretionary on the trial court to dismiss cases. Shimizu Phil. (b) Failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time. Inc. Shimizu Phil. Rule 17 of the Rules of Court for the motu proprio dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute. Contractors. G. et al. Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 90 . a ruling of dismissal may forever bar a litigant from pursuing judicial relief under the same cause of action.averments of the subject appeal and to the text of the cited case. Inc. The operative legal principle in Joaquin is this: "[W]here a case is submitted upon an agreement of facts. No. Contractors. vs. G. sound discretion demands vigilance in duly recognizing the circumstances surrounding the case to the end that technicality shall not prevail over substantial justice..R. et al. Contractors. the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. . 170026. 170026. Inc. are as follows: (a) Failure of the plaintiff. 1 . The repressive or restraining effect of the rule amounting to adjudication upon the merits may cut short a case even before it is fully litigated. Magsalin. 166356. Inc. Fiel-Macaraig. 2012 Rule 18.. Magsalin. Samson.R. (c) Failure of the plaintiff to comply with the Rules of Court. No. and Accesslaw. et al. June 20. without justifiable reasons. Leticia B. under the circumstances. 2012 The grounds specified by Section 3.

3 .).Nature and purpose Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils. 135384.R. G. 1999 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2004 Under Rule 18. 126947. No.Notice of pre-trial Under the pre-1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. July 15. Nora E. 5854. given its mandatory character. Harry Ang Ping vs. Ciriaco de Guia. may cause her to be non-suited or considered as in default. and Accesslaw. 2003 The rules require that the party-litigant himself must appear for pre-trial but if he chooses to be represented thereat. No. No. it is obligatory upon both a party and her counsel to appear at a pre-trial conference. Inc. Medina. Sec. 2010 Rule 18. he should grant a special power of attorney to his counsel or representative. Inc. March 9. Miwa vs. 157594. a notice of pretrial must be served separately on the counsel and the client. Mariano de Guia vs.C. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. A. If served only on the counsel. No. 2001 Rule 18. G. Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Court is a new provision. Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Sec. 4 .R.R. 2 . September 30. G. Court of Appeals. G. and to enter into stipulations of facts and of documents. Rene O. The absence of such notice renders the proceedings void. Miguel "Mike" Magpayo. Inc. vs. and requires nothing less than that the representative should appear in a party’s behalf fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 91 . and the judgment rendered therein cannot acquire finality and may be attacked directly or collaterally.Appearance of parties Noteworthy is the fact that Section 4. United Coconut Planters Bank vs. May 27.Rule 18. April 4. No. The failure of a party to appear at pre-trial.R. Sec. to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution. the notice must expressly direct the counsel to inform the client of the date. the time and the place of the pretrial conference. 149908.

Justice Regalado. BPI vs. February 11. As the rule now stands.Rule 18. September 15. 182075. a default order is no longer issued. G. A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference may be non-suited or considered as in default. Deferment of proceedings may be tolerated so that cases may be adjudged only after a full and free presentation of all the evidence by both parties. Sec. vs. the trial court may allow the plaintiff to proceed with his evidence ex parte and the court can decide the case based on the evidence presented by plaintiff. No.Effect of failure to appear Indeed the dismissal of a case whether for failure to appear during trial or prosecute an action for an unreasonable length of time rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. No. It was however amended in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Inc. 1999 Prior to the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. and which read as follows: Sec. G. Inc. and must be exercised soundly. This is a substantial reproduction of Section 2 of the former Rule 20 with the change that. in his book REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM. Joseph Enario. not appearance in court. is the sole ground for an order of default. thus: Failure to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period. The propriety of dismissing a case must be determined by the circumstances surrounding each particular case. if the defendant fails to appear for pre-trial. its effects were retained. in the same book. and not failure to appear at the hearing. 117385. nay gravely abused. Court of Appeals. the purpose is one of semantical propriety or terminological accuracy as there were criticisms on the use of the word "default" in the former provision since that term is identified with the failure to file a required answer. that is. this section now spells out that the procedure will be to allow the ex parte presentation of plaintiff's evidence and the rendition of judgment on the basis thereof. Still. and Accesslaw. instead of defendant being declared "as in default" by reason of his non-appearance.R. Justice Regalado clarified that while the order of default no longer obtains. 2. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 92 . But this discretion must not be abused. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Instead. the plaintiff shall be allowed to present evidence ex parte and a judgment based thereon may be rendered against defendant. There must be sufficient reason to justify the dismissal of a complaint. except the failure to appear at a pre-trial conference wherein the effects of a default on the part of the defendant are followed. the phrase "as in default" was initially included in Rule 20 of the old rules. to wit: 1. explained the rationale for the deletion of the phrase "as in default" in the amended provision. 5 .R. Philippine American Life & General Insurance Co. While actually the procedure remains the same.

July 15. vs. 2007 Hermogenes Datuin vs. Sec. vs. 6 . 2002 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Republic of the Philippines vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 93 . No. It is a devise essential to the speedy disposition of disputes.R.. October 28. Like all rules. the failure of the defendant to file a pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.R. Andres B. Rodriguez. Roberta L. RTJ-01-1640. Sandiganbayan. Oleta. Court of Appeals. G. Rule 18 of the Rules of Court mandates that parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party their pre-trial briefs at least three days before the scheduled pre-trial. Planters Development Bank. 150611. 170606..R. the plaintiff may present his evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis thereof. June 10. No. 170540. i. No. 156606. abbreviate and expedite the trial if not to dispense with it. G.e. et al. November 23. Sec. pre-trial rules are not to be belittled or dismissed.R.R. and Accesslaw. A.M. mistake or excusable neglect. The Rules also provide that failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial. August 17. de Agatep vs. Ildefonso T. In addition. No. Soriano.2010 Rule 18. No. Inc. October 15. Eufemia Balatico vda. 152154.. accident. 7 .Pre-trial brief The pre-trial brief serves as a guide during the pre-trial conference so as to simplify. 2003 Rule 18. because their non-observance may result in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. et al..Record of pre-trial LCK Industries Inc. Inc. G. and parties cannot brush it aside as a mere technicality. G. G. Jacinto Saguid vs. 2007 Under Section 6. No. 2003 Republic of the Phil. et al. they should be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thought[less]ness in not complying with the procedure. 2009 Section 6. The motion need not really stress the fact that the defendant has a valid and meritorious defense because his answer which contains his defenses is already on record. The remedy of the defendant is to file a motion for reconsideration showing that his failure to file a pre-trial brief was due to fraud.

Nos. Nocom. Sison. et al. February 4. which is the subject matter of the litigation. G. International Exchange Bank. 176008 & 176131. February 16. 1 . G. 166984. Metrobank vs. No. without becoming a formal plaintiff or defendant. Mariano A. G. G. 2011 CSMC's intervention should be treated as one pro interesse suo which is a mode of intervention in equity wherein a stranger desires to intervene for the purpose of asserting a property right in the res. and (2) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties.R. which is conceded to the main actors therein. vs. No.Rule 19 . Manuel H.Intervention Rule 19 of the Rules of Court allows a person to intervene in a civil case. 175989. nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding.R.Who may intervene The legal interest which entitles a person to intervene must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of judgment. GSIS vs. 2007 To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 94 . No. Office of the Ombudsman vs. two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has a legal interest on the matter in litigation. Jr. To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. 2011 Rule 19. or thing. August 17. 176008 & 176131. Court of Appeals. International Exchange Bank. 2008 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Inc.R. Metrobank vs. Intervention is allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits more than on due process considerations. 185954. two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. The interest. August 10. Nieto. Nos. Sec.R. Inc. G. 2010 The purpose of intervention is to enable a stranger to an action to become a party in order for him to protect his interest and for the court to settle all conflicting claims.. and without acquiring control over the course of a litigation. which entitles one to intervene.R. Maximo D. and (2) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties. and Accesslaw. August 10.

State Investment House. nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. Firestone Ceramics vs. Union Bank of the Philippines vs. G. (4) or when is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. (2) or in the success of either of the parties. 127022 & 127245. 162580. et al. and Accesslaw. Notably. Court of Appeals. October 6. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 95 . California Bus Lines. No. Nos. (3) or an interest against both.R. or when he is situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. G. this Court has ruled that such interest must be of direct and immediate character not merely contingent or expectant so that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment. or in the success of either of the parties. June 26.R. or an interest against both. Court of Appeals and Paic Savings And Mortgage Bank. 141297. Section 1 of the Rules of Court. No.. Inc. G. Rule 12 of the then 1988 Revised Rules of Procedure uses the word 'may' in defining the right to intervene. 147950. G. two requisites must concur: (a) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. Nocom. G. 2003 Intervention is not a matter of right but may be permitted by the courts only when the statutory conditions for the right to intervene is shown. Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. February 4. Concepcion. No. Section 2. 1999 Fort Bonifacio Development Corp. G.R. 2008 [A] motion for intervention shall be entertained when the following requisites are satisfied: (1) the would-be intervenor shows that he has a substantial right or interest in the case. Inc. In determining the propriety of letting a party intervene in a case. No. Inc. Yllas Lending Corp. September 2. Court of Appeals. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. and (b) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties. vs. January 27." Domingo R. As regards the legal interest as qualifying factor. the tribunal should not limit itself to inquiring whether "a person (1) has a legal interest in the matter in litigation..R. Mariano A. No. and (2) such right or interest cannot be adequately pursued and protected in another proceeding. 2008 GSIS vs.. what qualifies a person to intervene is his possession of a legal interest in the matter in litigation. Danilo L. vs. Thus.Elmar O. December 11. 2006 To warrant intervention under Rule 19. 175989. 2007 Intervention is not mandatory. G. 158997.R. but only optional and permissive. The present rules maintain the permissive nature of intervention in Section 1. the allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Perez v. Inc.R. Under Section 1 Rule 19 of the Revised Rules of Court. 2001 Intervention is not a matter of right but may be permitted by the Courts when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing intervention. No. 160727. October 8.R. Manalo vs.

However. It is designed as the means best adopted to obtain that thing. COMELEC. and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory. January 22. the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court. is simply a rule of procedure. 107764. like all other Rules therein promulgated. interventions have been allowed even beyond the prescribed period in the Rule in the higher interest of justice. et al. vs. vs. et al. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. the whole purpose and object of which is to make the powers of the Court fully and completely available for justice... The purpose of procedure is not to thwart justice. It was created not to hinder and delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice." with one decision holding that said Motion may be filed up to the day the case is submitted for decision..R.Eleazar P. Thus. Its proper aim is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties.R. Sec. ." as Section 2. 2 . It does not constitute the thing itself which courts are always striving to secure to litigants." Edna Collado. Interventions have been granted to afford indispensable parties. But Rule 12 of the Rules of Court. 134440 & 144518. and Accesslaw. February 22. Florita A. when even the Court of Appeals had rendered its own Decision on appeal. Nos. Inc. intervention is allowed "before rendition of judgment by the trial court. G. No. Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice. Quinto. 165416. Inc.R. 2010 We have ruled however that allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances. Rule 12. 189698. Rule 19 by clearly stating that the same may be filed "at any time before rendition of the judgment by the trial court. which then provided that the motion to intervene may be filed "before or during a trial. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 96 . July 7. G. Court of Appeals and Republic of the Philippines. This ambiguity was eliminated by the present Section 2. when the petition for review of the judgment was already submitted for decision before the Supreme Court. who have not been impleaded. et al." in line with the second doctrine above-stated. et al. while another stating that it may be filed at any time before the rendition of the final judgment." Said former phraseology gave rise to ambiguous doctrines on the interpretation of the word "trial. Its purpose is not to hinder or delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. Rule 19 expressly provides. 2010 Rule 19.. Office of the Ombudsman vs. No. the Court has recognized exceptions to this rule in the interest of substantial justice . Inc. In other words. et al. G. and much less. vs. .Time to intervene This section is derived from the former Section 2. 134269. No. Learning Child. Ayala Alabang Village Association. The clear import of the amended provision is that intervention cannot be allowed when the trial court has already rendered its Decision. 2008 As a rule. Masing. it is a means to an end. et al.R.

R. intervention may be granted only where its allowance will not unduly delay or prejudice the rights of the original parties to a case. Reggie Christi Limpo vs. et al. G. The intervention unduly delayed and disrupted the smooth operation of the trial and prejudiced the adjudication of the rights of the principal parties.R. 2001 Alberto Looyuko. vs. Boncodin vs. 130757. §2 expressly provides. No. G. PCGG. et al. May 19. 124582. 141297.. Francisco I. Court of Appeals. Inc. No. there is no pending proceeding wherein the intervention may be based. Emilia T. Certainly it cannot be allowed on appeal without unduly delaying the disposition of the case and prejudicing the interest of the parties. No.R. intervention can no longer be permitted. it is an interlocutory proceeding dependent on or subsidiary to the case between the original parties. when the petition for review of the judgment was already submitted for decision before the Supreme Court. No.. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2002 Intervention is merely collateral or accessory or ancillary to the principal action. 2000 Intervention can no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by final judgment. No. Delizo. Its purpose is not to hinder or delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice.R. G. October 8. Crisostomo Magat. Albert M. G. Chavez vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 97 .. et al. interventions have been allowed even beyond the prescribed period in the Rule in the higher interest of justice.. 1999 Henry C. July 12. 1999 [A]llowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances. January 18. After trial and decision in a case.October 4. G. No.. Inc.R. especially so since the intervenor's rights could be fully protected in a separate proceeding. Court of Appeals and Paic Savings And Mortgage Bank.R. Interventions have been granted to afford indispensable parties. Court of Appeals. June 16. the motion for intervention should have been denied it appearing clearly and succinctly that a Compromise Agreement had already been entered into. Seveses vs. Thus. vs. and not an independent proceeding. et al. Court of Appeals. No. and Accesslaw. July 5. 2001 It was error for the trial court to entertain the motion for intervention when it was filed after the case had not only been submitted for decision but was in fact partially executed. G. et al. 102675. Such right to intervene has lapsed. it will be allowed "before rendition of judgment by the trial court". the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court. et al. 135199.R. Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice. 102696. October 13. et al. More so. Manalo vs. Generally. 130716. Where the main action ceases to exist. Court of Appeals. 2002 It is not appropriate for petitioner to intervene at the execution stage of the decision. G. who have not been impleaded. as Rule 19. Domingo R. 2001 Thus.

and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory. 2 . Pacquing (310 Phil. August 6. Quinto. a raffle must be conducted so that all branches of the court in that station or grouping shall receive more or less the same number of civil. G. Rivera. Bayani S. RTJ-07-2074. vs. Nos. September 29. Sec. the sala shall be assigned such number of cases as will equalize its caseload equitably with the rest of the other branches in the same station".. Thus. 3 .. when demanded by the higher interest of justice. G. Jr. operates Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. 178158 & 180428. 134100. when the petition for review of the judgment has already been submitted for decision before the Supreme Court. No. No. We have set rules in raffling. et al. A. 2008 Rule 21. 2003 Office of the Court Administrator vs. A.and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory.R. Court of Appeals. 2000 Under the Rules of Court.Form and contents Purita Alipio vs. Hence. Radstock Securities Limited. Eleazar P. Fineza vs. February 22. the motion for intervention filed by the Republic of the Philippines was allowed by this Court to avoid grave injustice and injury and to settle once and for all the substantive issues raised by the parties. In the event that there are inequalities. which inevitably occur due to vacancies or absences. the issuance of subpoenas. Antonio J. No. 2009 Interventions have been allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule. who have not been impleaded. RTJ-00-1545. et al. 722 (1995)]. 189698. Inc. Strategic Alliance Development Corp. Inc. the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court. Sec. precisely to provide a uniform method of assignment of cases for more equitable distribution of cases. vs. the assignment to the branch with the least number of cases will still have to be through a raffle and not on the basis of the preference of any judge.Assignment of cases The raffle of cases is vital to the administration of justice because it is intended to ensure impartial adjudication of cases and obviates public suspicion regarding assignment of cases to predetermined judges. No. criminal and other kinds of cases. December 4. COMELEC. including a subpoena duces tecum. Interventions have also been granted to afford indispensable parties. October 24. Ireneo Lee Gako. In Lim v.M.M.R. G. et al. 2010 Rule 20. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 98 . "once the vacancy is filled or the absent judge has returned.. and Accesslaw.

2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. operates under the requirements of reasonableness and relevance.R. the matter under inquiry should. University of Southeastern Phils. G. G. Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum of Acting Director Aleu A. Sr. For the production of documents to be reasonable and for the documents themselves to be relevant. 10-1-13-SC. The purpose is to bring the witness before the court where his attendance is required. Samuel D. Serrano vs. Vilma S. No. 2010 Rule 21. Inc. No. Labad vs. vs. 1999 Rule 22. No. Pagdilao vs. PIAB-C.under the requirements of reasonableness and relevance. Court of Appeals. G. Thru the DPWH vs. Sec. No. et al. August 15. Ocampo..How to compute time Rodolfo Alarilla. 139420. and Accesslaw. No.R. August 5. A. Angeles. No. 144697.M.R. Amante. Sec. 4 . 2001 Ma. Office of the Ombudsman.M. 10-1-13-SC. including a subpoena duces tecum. A. 139665.Compelling attendance A judge may issue a warrant of arrest against a witness simply upon proof that the subpoena had been served upon him but he failed to attend the hearing. Reynaldo C. G. investigate and rule upon. in the first place. A. in the first place. Amante. 8 . be one that the Ombudsman can legitimately entertain. 116463. 2003 Republic of the Phil. G. the issuance of subpoenas. PIAB-C.R.Quashing a subpoena Under the Rules of Court. June 10. Court of Appeals. not to punish him for contempt which requires a previous hearing. No. investigate and rule upon. Sec. be one that the Ombudsman can legitimately entertain. Office of the Ombudsman. RTJ-99-1467. 2001 Medina Investigation vs. Inc. For the production of documents to be reasonable and for the documents themselves to be relevant. 1 . Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum of Acting Director Aleu A.R. 2010 Rule 21. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 99 . March 2. Adoracion G. December 10. March 20. Court of Appeals.. the matter under inquiry should. 144074. 2003 Roberto R.M. March 2. August 9. No.

110495. No. Court of Appeals. 2 . Webb.R. G. Hubert Jeffrey P. To disallow petitioner to avail of the specific remedies provided under the Rules would deny him the opportunity to adequately defend himself against the criminal charge of rape with homicide now pending before the public respondent and. G. Court of Appeals. Sandiganbayan. August 17. 1998 Rule 24 .R. 1 .Depositions Pending Action While the taking of depositions pending trial is not expressly provided [for] under the Rules on Criminal Procedure. January 29. August 17. vs. Sec. No. 1999 Rule 23. Inc. October 29. G. 132577. 112710.R.R.Effect of interruption PDIC vs. when may be taken People of the Phil. 1999 Producers Bank vs. No. and Accesslaw. 2001 Rule 22. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. vs. vs. 132577. Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb.Depositions Before Action or Pending Appeal Republic vs. People of the Phil. G. No. No. 139998. G. 2002 Rule 23 .Unity Fishing Development Corp. May 30. further. 145415. [it] loses sight of the object of procedure which is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. February 2. Court of Appeals.R.Depositions pending action.R. we find no reason for public respondent to disallow the taking of the same in the manner provided for under Section 1 of Rule 23 under the circumstances of the case. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 100 . Inc. No. Sec. G.

Court of Appeals. 1998 Rule 24. 2 . No. 118438.R. 132577.. December 4. Inc. 125383. Court of Appeals.Implied admission Fortunata N. August 17. et al. and Accesslaw.R. No.R. No. 1 . Florentino M. G. Sec. Duque vs. G. July 2. In the same vein. 7 . et al. Webb. G. G. No. G. No. Inc. Sec. Allied Agri-Business Dev. However. G. Court of Appeals. January 29. July 2.R. the determination of the sanction to be imposed upon a party who fails to comply with the modes of discovery rests on the same sound judicial discretion. Sec. 2002 Rule 26.R. Court of Appeals. 1998 The application of the rules on modes of discovery rests upon the sound discretion of the court. Co. Sec. if the request for admission only serves to delay the proceeding by abetting redundancy in the pleadings. No.R. 1 .Request for admission The purpose of the rule governing requests for admission of facts and genuineness of documents is to expedite trial and to relieve parties of the costs of proving facts which will not be disputed on trial and the truth of which can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry. Duque vs. 131466. November 27. vs. It is the duty of the courts to examine thoroughly the circumstances of each case and to determine the applicability of the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. vs.Rule 24. Fortunata N.Depositions pending appeal People of the Phil. 1998 This particular Rule seeks to obtain admissions from the adverse party regarding the genuineness of relevant documents or relevant matters of fact through requests for admissions to enable a party to discover the evidence of the adverse side thereby facilitating an amicable settlement of the case or expediting the trial of the same. 1999 Rule 26. 2002 Cristina Diman. Alumbres. Hubert Jeffrey P. 110495. vs.Depositions before action petition Producers Bank of the Phils vs. the intended purpose for the rule will certainly be defeated. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 101 . 125383.

vs. G. G. Court of Appeals.R. or within such further time as the court may allow on motion. in which case. Court of Appeals. (b) he may admit the truth of the matters of which admission is requested by serving upon the party requesting a written admission of such matters within the period stated in the request. Rey Lañada vs. sought to be produced are not privileged. which must not be less than ten (10) day after service. No. January 25.. 1999 A more than cursory glance at the above text would show that the production or inspection of Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. papers. Santos. 2000 Roberto S.. G. or. G. he need not file an answers. vs.R. Co. Inc. 102390 & 102404. No.R. December 4. Sec. Upon service of request for admission.Motion for production or inspection. 2002 Security Bank Corporation vs. Solidbank Corp. 164805.Production or Inspection of Documents or Things Rule 27 of the Revised Rules of Court permits "fishing" for evidence.R. 1998 Rule 27 . February 1. 2002 Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless within a period designated in the request which shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof. G. Comelec. April 30. Inc.. 135874. that they are in the possession of the party ordered to produce them and that they are material to any matter involved in the action. vs. Alberto vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 102 . Court of Appeals. G. PNB.R. (d) he may file a sworn statement setting forth in the detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny the matters of which an admission is requested. the only limitation being that the documents. the party served may do any of the following acts: (a) he may admit each of the matters of which an admission is requested. 1 . Allied Agri-Business Dev. Nos. July 27. the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters. No. et al. No. et al. or within such further time as the court may allow on motion and notice. 2008 Rule 27.modes of discovery. et al.R. 148218. and Accesslaw. (c) he may file a sworn statement denying specifically the matter of which an admission is requested. bearing always in mind the aim to attain an expeditious administration of justice. Gateway Electronics Corp. 132242.. April 29. etc. order Carmelita S. No. 118438.

Sec. 98-8-262-RTC. accounts. No. 172835. 2007 Secretary of National Defense. March 21. or..documents or things as a mode of discovery sanctioned by the Rules of Court may be availed of by any party upon a showing of good cause therefor before the court in which an action is pending. vs. Grave abuse of discretion goes beyond the bare and Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. The obvious rationale of the requirement is to avoid injurious surprises to the other party and the consequent delay in the administration of justice. which are not privileged. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 103 . Inc. vs." For a reviewing court to properly interfere with the lower court's exercise of discretion. Corp. Inc. The court may order any party: a) to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any designated documents. December 13. G. to a virtual refusal to perform the mandated duty. 1998 Rule 30. or to act at all in contemplation of the law.R.M. 5 .. Sandiganbayan. photographs. which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action. No. G. at the first instance. et al. surveying. on whether the evidence would qualify as a "good reason" and be in furtherance of "the interest of justice.. equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. a party who has the burden of proof must introduce. or photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation thereon. Matias vs. books. No. Republic of the Phil. prejudice. Air Phil. 2000 Leticia G.M. December 16. No. et al. 2011 Section 5(f) The exercise of the court's discretion under the exception of Section 5 (f). A. or personal hostility. Pennswell. and which are in his possession.e. A. Plan. MTJ-98-1159.Order of trial Under this rule. objects or tangible things. August 3.Adjournments and postponements Report on the Judicial Audit. Inc. all the evidence he relies upon and such evidence cannot be given piecemeal. 152375. 2008 Rule 30. and Accesslaw.R. Raymond Manalo. October 7. Sergio A.R. or b) to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his possession or control for the purpose of inspecting. 2 . papers. so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty.. G. vs. letters. Settled jurisprudence has defined this term as the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. Sec. et al. 180906. No. custody or control. the petitioner must show that the lower court's action was attended by grave abuse of discretion. the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion. Rule 30 of the Rules of Court depends on the attendant facts — i. measuring.

delegation to clerk of court Vernette Umali-Paco. Inc. 130907. Inc. December 16. and Accesslaw.. No. 9 . Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 104 . 152375.M. vs. Republic of the Phil. RTJ-02-1699. and beyond allegations that merely constitute errors of judgment or mere abuse of discretion.. Estela Perlas-Bernabe. simplify the work of the trial court and save unnecessary costs and expense. No. August 21.Consolidation It is well recognized that consolidation of cases avoids multiplicity of suits.R. People of the Phil. whimsicality or arbitrariness. prevents delay. consolidation of cases is proper when the actions involve the same reliefs or the same parties and basically the same issues. Sandiganbayan. Cesar A. Mangrobang. guards against oppression and abuse. October 15. No. 2010 The consolidation of cases is addressed to the sound discretion of judges. et al. simplifies the work of the courts and seeks to attain justice with the least expense and vexation to litigants. November 27.Judgment to receive evidence. Hon. Sandiganbayan. cases pending in different branches of the court or in different courts may be consolidated.unsupported imputation of caprice. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Quilala. G. provided that the measure will not give one party an undue advantage over the other.R. clear congested dockets..R. vs.. et al. et al. Yet in appropriate instances and in the interest of justice. Bank of Commerce vs. Generally. G. No. or when there is real need to forestall the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered in the cases. A. et al. G. Sec. or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.. October 20. clears congested court dockets. 172393. Sec. et al. 2011 Rule 30. consistent with the rule in our jurisdiction that leans towards permitting consolidation of cases whenever possible and irrespective of the diversity of the issues for resolution. guard against oppression or abuse. 149495. consolidation applies only to cases pending before the same judge and not to cases pending in different branches of the same court or in different courts. No. 2003 The main object of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits. vs. et al.R. Reinato G. G. Republic of the Phil. vs. prevent delay. Hence. 2003 Rule 31. 1 .

Inc. Court of Appeals. 54 while the second by Rule 33 of the Rules of Court. Tuvera. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 105 .R. Section 1 (g). a court may. powers of the commissioner Aljem's Corp. March 28. vs. 2007 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. direct a reference to a commissioner when a question of fact. in any stage of a case. February 16. Sec. No. vs. vs. G. No. University of Baguio. 5 .Reference ordered on motion Under Section 2. No. 2007 Manila Banking Corp. 2 .Proceedings before commissioner Aljem's Corp. Inc. The first is governed by Rule 16.Demurrer to Evidence There is a distinction between a motion to dismiss for failure of the complainant to state a cause of action and a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action. G. G. and the commissioner may likewise rule upon the admissibility of evidence.R. Melissa Domondon vs. December 14.. 159189. 122216. No.. 2007 Rule 32. Inc. et al.Rule 32. or for carrying a judgment or order into effect. and Accesslaw. 123346 & 134385.. 122216.. The order of reference can be limited exclusively to receive and report evidence only.M. et al. RTJ-02-1696. 2001 Rule 33 . Juan C. February 21.R. G. No. June 20. 2001 Rule 32.R. Sec. Inc. 148246. Sec. A. CLT Realty Development Corp. vs. Percival Mandap Lopez. G. March 28. et al. 3 .Order of reference. Court of Appeals. Manotok Realty. arises upon motion or otherwise. other than upon the pleadings.. Rule 32 of the Rules of Court. The commissioner is likewise mandated to submit a report in writing to the court upon the matters submitted to him by the order of reference. Nos. 2002 Republic of the Philippines vs. motu proprio.R.

No. No. G. G. 2007 While a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 is based on preliminary objections which can be ventilated before the beginning of the trial. Melissa Domondon vs. 148246. Judge Percival Mandap Lopez. if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings by admitting the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all. the defendant loses the right to present his evidence and the appellate court shall then proceed to render judgment on the merits on the basis of plaintiff's evidence. June 20. Inc. Tuvera. Jr. RTJ-02-1696. Comelec. No. G." Gelacio P. 2000 Rule 34.R. they having waived their right to present evidence in their behalf. vs. 148246. Inc. Bascug vs.. Because of this difference. . A. 2001 When a demurrer to evidence granted by a trial court is reversed on appeal. Del Rosario. it should render judgment on the basis of the evidence proffered by the plaintiff. . A. duly taking into account the evidence presented by the Republic. et al.R. 2002 Simply stated. Sec. 2007 Republic of the Philippines vs. 138739. vs. the Rules of Civil Procedure on demurrer to evidence cannot apply to election cases even "by analogy or in a suppletory character. April 11. .R..Rule 33.M.R. RTJ-00-1591. Arinday. It thus becomes the Court's duty to rule on the merits of the complaint. February 16. When the Answer fails to tender any issue. Juan C." especially because the application of said Rules would not be " practicable and convenient. No. Republic of the Phil. 2002 It should be underscored that the nature of an election protest case differs from an ordinary civil action. a motion to dismiss under Rule 33 is in the nature of a demurrer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented only after the plaintiff has rested his case. March 6. G. Sec.Judgment on the pleadings Laurentino D. et al.M. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 106 . February 16. No. Gementiza vs. Radiowealth Finance Co.Demurrer to evidence The general rule is that upon the dismissal of the demurrer in the appellate court. et al. July 6. 1 . that is. 1 . what distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a summary judgment is the presence of issues in the Answer to the Complaint. when the Answer specifically Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Juan C. and without need to consider whatever evidence the Tuveras have. the reviewing court cannot remand the case for further proceedings. No. a judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. Tuvera. Judge Graciano H. 140884... and Accesslaw. Sps. On the other hand. Rather.

172660. Inc. The answer would fail to tender an issue . Romeo C. August 24. No. .denies the material averments of the complaint or asserts affirmative defenses. G. 2007 Pesane Animas Mongao. August 16. G." Eugenio Basbas. G. counterclaim or cross-claim. et al.R. February 2. 163280. Polido vs. . A judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded. Court of Appeals. Doris U. G. et al. No. as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does not constitute a genuine issue for trial. or in other words raises an issue. Velasquez vs. Pryce Properties Corp. No. 154127. a judgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer fails to render an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. et al. would nevertheless bar recovery by the plaintiff) . 1999 The trial court has the discretion to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by a party if there is no controverted matter in the case after the answer is filed. G.R. "A 'genuine issue' means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence. 2003 While this rule [our ruling in Viajar vs.. Court of Appeals.R. and/or asserts affirmative defenses (allegations of new matter which. . or to obtain a declaratory relief. 156474.. Llamas. 2011 . A different rationale operates in the latter for it arises out of facts already established or admitted during the pre-trial held beforehand. The essential question is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings. if it does not comply with the requirements for a specific denial set out in Section 10 (or Section 8) of Rule 8. 2010 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Rule 34 pertains to a judgment on the pleadings while Rule 35 relates to a summary judgment which was the holding in this case. a judgment on the pleadings would naturally not be proper.R. Aurora B. G. Eugenia D. Now.R. . Garcia vs. and it would admit the material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings not only where it expressly confesses the truthfulness thereof but also if it omits to deal with them at all. Estenzo] is true in the summary proceedings under Rule 34 of the Revised Rules of Court. 170632. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 107 . July 10. June 30. December 8. . 124049. Beata Sayson. 2005 Under Section 1 of Rule 34 of the Rules of Court. it does not apply to summary proceedings under Rule 35. and Accesslaw. a summary judgment is proper provided that the issue raised is not genuine. vs. Dionisio V. Rodolfo P.. Sunbanun vs. and is based exclusively upon the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the accompanying annexes. who is the party seeking to recover upon a claim. if an answer does in fact specifically deny the material averments of the complaint in the manner indicated by said Section 10 of Rule 8. Inc. unlike in the former where the judge merely relies on the merits of the movant's allegations. Go. . while admitting the material allegations of the complaint expressly or impliedly.. et al. No.R. No. vs. No. A judgment on the pleadings may be sought only by a claimant.

a party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact. The proper inquiry in this regard would be whether the affirmative defenses offered by petitioners constitute genuine issues of fact requiring a full-blown trial. The adverse party must be notified of the motion for summary judgment and furnished with supporting affidavits. Republic of the Phil. Upon a motion for summary judgment the court's sole function is to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried. a summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and a moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. No. No. Heirs of Eliseo Guevara.R. the court should take that view of the evidence most favorable to the party against whom it is directed. G. Nos. In a summary judgment. must invoke the rule on summary judgment by filing a motion. 2011 A summary judgment is granted to settle expeditiously a case if.. vs. et al. depositions. Florentino Pineda vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division). and any doubt as to the existence of such an issue is resolved against the movant.. contrived. More importantly. except the amount of damages. vs. and all doubts as to the existence of an issue of fact must be resolved against the moving party. Wood Technology Corp. et al. Inc. and Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G. 178925. vs. the defending party or the claimant. set up in bad faith. April 12. Equitable Banking Corp. there appears from the pleadings. 153867. Thus. 2005 The term genuine issue has been defined as an issue of fact that calls for the presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue that is sham. on motion of either party. 166859. admissions.R. giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences. in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. No. 2011 Under the applicable provisions of Rule 35. fictitious. Ester Tanco-Gabaldon. It is a method intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings. and affidavits on record. Inc. 143188.Rule 35 . depositions or admissions before hearing is conducted.. 2007 Summary judgment is a procedure aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation. G. June 1.R. and affidavits that no important issues of fact are involved. February 14. February 17.. et al.Summary Judgments A summary judgment under Rule 35 of the Rules of Court is a procedural technique that is proper only when there is no genuine issue as to the existence of a material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.R. depositions. et al. Manuel Ybiernas. G. 169203 & 180702. admissions. In other words. as the case may be. an issue that does not constitute a genuine issue for trial. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 108 . and Accesslaw. the crucial question is: are the issues raised by petitioners not genuine so as to justify a summary judgment? A "genuine issue" means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence. as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived.

2001 Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended. vs. G. Where the motion is made by a claimant. the language used by courts in making a determination in particular cases may serve to indicate the manner in which a court should approach the question to be determined. Nevertheless. and counter-affidavits submitted by the parties to the court. On the other hand. Antero and Virginia Soriano. when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. No. 166859. if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings by admitting the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all. except as to the amount of damages. Under the rules. what distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a summary judgment is the presence of issues in the Answer to the Complaint. April 20. Court of Appeals. G. The law itself determines when a summary judgment is proper.. The determination will depend upon the particular circumstances of each case.R. Velasco. et al.. is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial.patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. admissions. Inc.R. that is. Ray U. the court is not authorized to decide an issue of fact but to determine whether the pleadings and records before the court create an issue of fact to be tried. and Accesslaw. 144291. vs. a judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. April 12. G. depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine. 169203 & 180702. summary judgment may be allowed. summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of fact which call for the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. 2011 Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. et al. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 109 . which gives authority to trial courts to grant relief by summary judgment is intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings. No. This rule does not vest in the court summary jurisdiction to try the issues on pleadings and affidavits but gives the court limited authority to enter summary judgment only if it clearly appears that there is no genuine issue of material fact. On a motion for summary judgment.R. documents. when the affidavits. vs. Sandiganbayan (First Division). 121517. It is repeated often enough that the court is not authorized to try the issue of fact but to determine whether there is an issue to be tried. admissions and affidavits. et al. then summary judgment as prescribed by the rules must ensue as a matter of law. therefore. the defending party must show that he has a plausible ground of defense. When the Answer fails to tender any issue. something fairly arguable and of a substantial character. Inc. affidavits. Republic of the Phil. Nos. March 31. Where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested. Evadel Realty and Development Corp. 2000 Simply stated. when the Answer specifically Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issues. proceedings for a summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial. It is impossible to state a general rule for determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists in a particular case. What is crucial for determination. The court can determine this on the basis of the pleadings.

R." Eugenio Basbas. G. 175176... February 17. Inc. No. Azucena Garcia.. vs. Inc. the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the law to the material facts. et al. National Power Corp. 2004 Republic of the Phil. and (b) the party presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 178899. vs. vs. 2010 Eland Phil. 2008 Summary judgment may be allowed where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and where the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. G. Business Bank vs. Where. the movant must establish two requisites: (a) there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact. a summary judgment is proper provided that the issue raised is not genuine. et al. on the basis of the pleadings of a moving party. or for weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation to avoid the expense and loss of time involved in a trial. 2010 Cotabato Timberland Co. for a summary judgment to be proper.R. admissions and affidavits on record. G. "A 'genuine issue' means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence. et al. 2003 Korea Exchange Bank vs. Sandiganbayan. No. 172660. G. 133801.R. including documents appended thereto. 173526. August 28.R.. G. Union Bank.R. the Court has previously discussed the importance of summary judgment in weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation in order to avoid the expense Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. except for the amount of damages. No. and Accesslaw. 145469. No. Phil.R. Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 110 . no genuine issue as to a material fact exists. Filkor Business Integrated. No. 2000 Under the afore-quoted procedural rules. No. Sandiganbayan (515 Phil. or in other words raises an issue.. 173289. the burden to produce a genuine issue shifts to the opposing party.Summary judgment for claimant A summary judgment. or accelerated judgment. vs.R. 1 . August 24. Felipe Chua. is a procedural technique to promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings. that is. Pyramid Construction Engineering Corp. G. October 17. When the pleadings on file show that there are no genuine issues of fact to be tried. If the opposing party fails. Beata Sayson. G. vs. November 15. the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment. Sec. the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment.R. as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does not constitute a genuine issue for trial. 2011 Rule 35.R. May 28. No. when the facts are not in dispute. 12 (2006)). Alcantara and Sons. April 10. et al. G. 152154. In Yuchengco v. Santa Loro Vda. 2008 Benjamin Bitanga vs.denies the material averments of the complaint or asserts affirmative defenses. Inc. June 27. Inc. C. 1. et al. July 15.. 2002 Ley Construction vs. G.. No.. De Capin. 138292. depositions.

depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine. as differentiated from a fictitious or contrived one. viz. What is crucial to a determination. Marcos. A "genuine issue". the Court ruled that a hearing is not de riguer. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 111 . not to receive evidence of the issues set up in the pleadings. may also call for a hearing so that both the movant and the adverse party may justify their positions. Republic of the Phil.: Even if the pleadings appear. the hearing contemplated (with 10-day notice) is for the purpose of determining whether the issues are genuine or not.Summary judgment for defending party Republic of the Phil. or admissions demonstrate that those issues are not genuine but sham or fictitious. or that the issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. or accelerated judgment as it is sometimes known. In Carcon Development Corporation v. then summary judgment as prescribed by the rules must ensue as a matter of law. Inc. is an issue of fact that requires the presentation of evidence. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. April 25. 189434 & 189505. depositions. However. summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of fact that call for the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. To the party who moves for summary judgment rests the onus of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact. depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine. when the affidavits. July 15. Ferdinand R. Ferdinand R. the propriety of summary judgment. therefore. 189434 & 189505. the Court is justified in dispensing with the trial and rendering summary judgment for plaintiff. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed. It is the law itself that determines when a summary judgment is proper. Sandiganbayan. 2012 Summary judgment. is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. then summary judgment is called for. vs. to raise issues. Inc. Under the rules. summary judgment may still ensue as a matter of law if the affidavits. at bottom. Sec. vs. Republic of the Phil. Jr. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise issues. The presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact determines.R. vs. Nos. yet when the relevant affidavits. Jr. Even if in the Answer itself there appears to be a tender of issues requiring trial.. G. Court of Appeals. No. only that the court is empowered to determine its necessity. Nos. April 25. The matter may be resolved. This does not mean that the hearing is superfluous.R. depositions. and Accesslaw. G. on their face.and loss of time involved in a trial. 2012 Rule 35. and admissions.. et al. and usually is. 2 . G. 152154..R. on the basis of affidavits. Marcos.

Santa Loro Vda. Yuchengco. on the basis of the pleadings of a moving party. Inc. for a summary judgment to be proper. vs.. summary judgment may still ensue as a matter of law if the affidavits. 152154. Even if the pleadings appear. 154127. To the party who moves for summary judgment rests the onus of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact. thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial.R. summary judgment may be allowed where.R. Elvira Castillo. 2008 A summary judgment is allowed only if. depositions and admissions show no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. G. et al.R. June 27. et al. vs. No.R. 133801. Dionisio V.. Union Bank. 175176. as differentiated from a fictitious or contrived one. depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine. No.. 2007 Under the afore-quoted procedural rules. depositions. after hearing. Sandiganbayan.Motion and proceedings thereon Eland Phil. June 16. et al vs. Inc. G. October 17. January 20. et al. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 112 . 153126. Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation. Rule 35..R. there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 2006 Edward T. Victorino E. G.. De Capin. on their face. except for the amount of damages. the propriety of summary judgment. the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment. December 8. September 11. 136803. G. 2003 Monterey Foods Corp. the burden to produce a genuine issue shifts to the opposing party.R.. including documents appended thereto. to raise issues. Eserjose. is an issue of fact that requires the presentation of evidence. Sec. pleadings. vs. vs.Rule 35. August 28. July 15. the court finds that except as to the amount of damages. 2000 Under Section 3. No. No. G. Llamas. et al. Such judgment is generally based on the facts proven summarily by affidavits. No. Where. A "genuine issue". G. affidavits. 2010 Romeo C. at bottom. 173289. No. 3 . Azucena Garcia. no genuine issue as to a material fact exists. or admissions of the parties. save for the amount of damages.R. G. 2000 Eustaquio Mallilin vs. of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. No. G. Marcelo. Sandiganbayan.R. Sandiganbayan. Inc. et al.. and Accesslaw. Alfonso T. the movant must establish two requisites: (a) there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact. If the opposing party fails. the pleadings. et al. For a full-blown trial Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. 2003 Republic of the Phil. National Power Corp. G.R. Garcia vs. and (b) the party presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The purpose of a summary judgment is to avoid drawn out litigations and useless delays because the facts appear undisputed to the mind of the court. February 17. 156065. 2003 Ley Construction vs. or that the issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. et al.The presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact determines. Ma. 149802. No. vs.

2010 A genuine issue of fact is that which requires the presentation of evidence. G. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed." as it does not "[put] an end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either has or has not entitled himself to recover the remedy he sues for. After this sifting process. No. 15 November 2010) we had occasion to rule that a careful reading of its Section 4 reveals that a partial summary judgment was never intended to be considered a "final judgment. Gubat vs. an interlocutory order. which specifies the disputed facts that have to be settled in the course of trial. and Accesslaw. In this way. Pilipino Telephone Corp. November 15. the RTC was correct in skipping trial and deciding the case through a summary judgment based on the undisputed facts. both Piltel and Smartnet admit that they entered into a contract to sell covering the Valgoson Property. 4 .Case not fully adjudicated on motion This is what is referred to as a partial summary judgment.. Inc. Phil. G. Mangontawar M. and that Smartnet failed to pay the balance of the purchase price on or about April 30. 160322. considering as established those facts which are not in dispute.R. rather than a final judgment. . it is clear that there are no genuine issues of fact as to the existence and nature of the contract to sell as well as Smartnet's failure to pay the balance of the purchase price within the agreed period. "Genuine issue" means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived. 178899. however. 2011 Rule 35. August 24." as it does not "[put] an end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either has or Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. or that the issue posed is patently insubstantial as to constitute a genuine issue. Business Bank vs." The Rules provide for a partial summary judgment as a means to simplify the trial process by allowing the court to focus the trial only on the assailed facts. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 113 . Summary judgment is proper in such a case. (G. as distinguished from a sham. 2010 Rule 35 on summary judgments.R. A careful reading of this section reveals that a partial summary judgment was never intended to be considered a "final judgment. the party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of genuine issues of fact. Notably. Chua. Inc. Thus. Inc. With these common admissions. 1997. Sec. the partial summary judgment is more akin to a record of pre-trial. . 178899. that Smartnet agreed to pay Piltel P560 million for it. No.R. 167415. fictitious. contrived or false issue. then there is no real or genuine issue. G. the partial summary judgment. No. admits of a situation in which a case is not fully adjudicated on motion. and judgment is not rendered upon all of the reliefs sought. Radiomarine Network (Smartnet) Phil.to be dispensed with. with a down payment of P180 million. February 26. . vs. NAPOCOR. The partial summary judgment envisioned by the Rules is an interlocutory order that was never meant to be treated separately from the main case.. Felipe Chua.R. No. the court is instructed to issue an order. In Philippine Business Bank v.

April 25. as the Sandiganbayan's partial summary judgment in the Swiss Deposits Decision made no mention of the Arelma account. which is authorized under Section 5 of Rule 36. vs.. A.Rendition of judgments and final orders Ubaldino A. January 24. the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. 0141. Inc. April 3. Lacurom vs. RTJ-07-2075. Freddie Lizada. No. A. 2007 The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 114 . 2009 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Jr. signed by him. No. and filed with the clerk of court. at the risk of occasional errors. which is precisely why courts exist. G. Dandoy vs. 189434 & 189505. 143468-71. vs. Marcos." In this case. October 9. Thus. No. Court of Appeals. Juanita C. Apo Fruits Corp. August 28. G. Ferdinand R. Nos. However. G. Respondent's 2004 Motion is in the nature of a separate judgment. G. The rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time. the Swiss Deposits Decision has finally and thoroughly disposed of the forfeiture case only as to the five Swiss accounts. Erlinda B. There is no legal basis for petitioners' contention that a judgment over the Swiss accounts bars a motion for summary judgment over the Arelma account. but a matter of public policy as well as a time-honored principle of procedural law. Social Justice Society. 150089. 1 . there is nothing in this provision or in the Rules that prohibits a subsequent separate judgment after a partial summary judgment on an entirely different subject matter had earlier been rendered. to make orderly the discharge of judicial business and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies. et al. Section 4 of Rule 35 pertains to a situation in which separate judgments were necessary because some facts existed without controversy. 159357.. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached. 2007 Mariano "Mike" Z. April 28. while others were controverted. MTJ-02-1436. Jose S." This requirement is an assurance to the parties that. Jacinto. 2003 People of the Phil. Velarde vs. No. Inc. Tienzo. and Accesslaw. 2003 Section 1.R. vs.R. et al. 164195.R. Republic of the Phil.M.has not entitled himself to recover the remedy he sues for. procedurally. 2004 Jaime C. Court of Appeals.R. No.R. personally and directly prepared by the judge. stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.M. The doctrine is not a mere technicality to be easily brushed aside. in reaching judgment. there was never any final or complete adjudication of Civil Case No.. Rule 36 of the Rules of Court also requires that a judgment or final order determining the merits of the case "shall be in writing. December 4. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. Sec. Nos. G. Taran vs. 2012 Rule 36.

an 'interlocutory' order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case. to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes 'final' or. is 'interlocutory. Lorenzo and Virginia Mores. L-60036. G.R. although the questions are not expressly treated in the opinion of the court. as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned.R. Teofilo and Elisa Reterta vs. 159941. Jose Pulido.: The concept of 'final' judgment. etc. Once rendered.. Heirs of Sps. EPZA vs. for instance. et al. Conversely. and questions necessarily involved and dealt with in a former appeal will be regarded as the law of the case in a subsequent appeal.g. of res judicata or prescription. and an interlocutory order. 188995.. may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. on one hand. Inc. is definite and settled. an adjudication on the merits which. January 27. e. (G.' e.R. It simply states its conclusion that the case should be dismissed for non prosequitur. Court of Appeals. It applies in a situation where an appellate court has made a ruling on a question on appeal and thereafter remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings. or granting or denying applications for postponement. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 115 . No. the task of the Court is ended. as above pointed out. leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto. August 24. but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court. of course. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties' next move (which among others. on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right. . Inc. or production or inspection of documents or things.The doctrine of the law of the case means that whatever is irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule between the same parties in the same case. but does not state the facts on which Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. which is appealable. the question then settled by the appellate court becomes the law of the case binding the lower court and any subsequent appeal. No. continues to be the law of the case for as long as the facts on which the legal rule was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.g. or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground. a legal conclusion. or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately. v. 2011 The nullity of the dismissal order is patent on its face. G. has been outlined in Investments. 2011 The fundamental distinction between a final judgment or order. and Accesslaw. 'final and executory. Inc. to use the established and more distinctive term. and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other. . Unlike a 'final' judgment or order. an order denying a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules.. Sps. A 'final' judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case. August 17. or authorizing amendment thereof. on the other hand. inasmuch as the presumption is that all the facts in the case bearing on the point decided have received due consideration whether all or none of them are mentioned in the opinion. No. or granting a motion for extension of time to file a pleading. . as distinguished from one which has 'become final' (or 'executory' as of right [final and executory]). 1987) viz. an order that does not finally dispose of the case. whether correct on general principles or not.

Lolito N. As distinguished therefrom. vs. Francisco A. and this will set to naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality. 2012 Rule 36. 163186. the entry of judgment. No. Magsalin. Carmen R. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al. leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court. Flores. In effect. the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case. . G. Aguila. execution of the decision proceeds as a matter of right as vested rights are acquired by the winning party. 187984. 2001 A "final order" issued by a court has been defined as one which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action.R. 2010 Under Section 2. People of the Phil... G. Chavez. even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 116 . June 20. vs. et al. G. foreclosed petitioner's right to appeal the adverse decision of the Court of Appeals to this Court.. Shimizu Phil. a judgment or final order becomes final and executory if no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed within the period provided by the Rules. et al. and the People whom petitioner represents. vs. a denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits. Emerlito F.R.R. After all. 2007 The precipitate entry of judgment worked injustice against petitioner. November 15. 170026. No. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period. Contractors. Sec. the reviewing court can readily determine the prima facie justification for the dismissal. . February 23. June 19. but leaves something more to be adjudicated upon. 2 . No. done in haste. and Accesslaw. Otherwise. Labao vs.R. . A trial court should always specify the reasons for a complaint's dismissal so that on appeal. Rule 36 of the Rules of Court. No. et al. Inc. Leticia B. Nazar U. Inc. G. an "interlocutory order" is one which does not dispose of a case completely. Baldovizo. Inc. 140690.Entry of judgments and final orders A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect. there will be no end to litigation. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark and is especially prejudicial to the losing party who is unable to point the assigned error in seeking a review by a higher tribunal.this conclusion is based. All the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a judgment becomes final and executory.

vs. There is no legal basis for petitioners' contention that a judgment over the Swiss accounts bars a motion for summary judgment over the Arelma account. March 13. 189434 & 189505. 178899. However. and 3) it is material.R. not merely cumulative. the requisites for "newly discovered evidence" are: 1) the evidence was discovered after trial (in this case. Jr. there is nothing in this provision or in the Rules that prohibits a subsequent separate judgment after a partial summary judgment on an entirely different subject matter had earlier been rendered. Chua. Inc. as the Sandiganbayan's partial summary judgment in the Swiss Deposits Decision made no mention of the Arelma account. and judgment is not rendered upon all of the reliefs sought. 2000 Rule 36. which is authorized under Section 5 of Rule 36.. Section 4 of Rule 35 pertains to a situation in which separate judgments were necessary because some facts existed without controversy. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 117 .R. if Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2012 Rule 37. et al. 1 . and is of such weight that. Nos. In Philippine Business Bank v.Separate judgments The Sandiganbayan rightly characterized their ruling on the 2004 Motion as a separate judgment. admits of a situation in which a case is not fully adjudicated on motion. or impeaching. April 25. 0141. the Swiss Deposits Decision has finally and thoroughly disposed of the forfeiture case only as to the five Swiss accounts. . Marcos.This Court has previously held that an order dismissing a case without prejudice is a final order if no motion for reconsideration or appeal therefrom is timely filed. Respondent's 2004 Motion is in the nature of a separate judgment. Inc. Sec. Bañares II. 2) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced during the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence. Ferdinand R. while others were controverted. No." In this case. (G. G. corroborative. 15 November 2010) we had occasion to rule that a careful reading of its Section 4 reveals that a partial summary judgment was never intended to be considered a "final judgment. Rule 35 on summary judgments. . Sec.R. 132624. et al. after investigation). Republic of the Phil. No. 5 . Thus.Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration Requisites for Newly Discovered Evidence Under the Rules of Court. G. there was never any final or complete adjudication of Civil Case No. vs. which is allowed by the Rules of Court under Section 5 of Rule 36 .. Elizabeth Balising. and Accesslaw. Fidel M." as it does not "[put] an end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either has or has not entitled himself to recover the remedy he sues for.

2010 The question of whether the pieces of evidence are newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one. will probably change the judgment. Eugene Ong. 2010 When Evidence Is Deemed Newly Discovered In order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly appreciated as newly discovered. G. December 15.. as where the court a quo had no jurisdiction. What is essential is that the offering party had exercised reasonable diligence in trying to locate such evidence before or during trial (or investigation)..admitted. relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable. when the evidence was discovered. Michael Syiaco vs. Nos. 2007 Sps. (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable. Vicente A. circumscribed by well-defined exceptions. in light of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him. Eugene Ong. G. or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court. and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. 142974. It contemplates a situation where the party acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain evidence..R. Shem G. 179282-83. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Beatriz Siok Ping Tang vs. December 1. The rule is. however. in a criminal case. October 4. Sps. December 1. No.R. or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object. (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court. Nos. et al. when should or could it have been discovered. (d) where. G. 2010 The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 118 . i. (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief. Inc. Inc. and Accesslaw. 2010 Republic of the Philippines vs. Hidalgo. Inc. under the circumstances. a motion for reconsideration would be useless. It is often equated with "reasonable promptness to avoid prejudice to the defendant. (h) where the proceedings were ex parte. Michael Syiaco vs. G. No. such as (a) where the order is a patent nullity.. G. Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case.R. Nos.R. Petra and Sancho Sevilla.R.e. what is essential is not so much the time when the evidence first came into existence or the time when it first came to the knowledge of the party now submitting it. 161657. (f) where. but had nonetheless failed to secure it. December 1. i.e. G. Subic Bay Distribution. 162575. Eugene Ong. (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process. Michael Syiaco vs." It has both a time component and a good faith component. The Rules does not contain an exact definition of due diligence. No. 179282-83. 179282-83. Alfarero and Aurelia Tagalog vs. September 22. and a predictive one.

June 1. Garfin. No.R. et al. Sec. G. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corp. No. vs. vs. Manuel Ybiernas. 128516. August 9. 142546.Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof People of the Phil.R. No. the "negligence" must be excusable and generally imputable to the party because if it is imputable to the counsel. et al. generally speaking.. 2005 New trial is a remedy that seeks to "temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice. Zeida Aurora B. Sec. Inc. No. 150327. or when there exists newly discovered evidence. June 18. No. To follow a contrary rule and allow a party to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite..R. 178925.R. 1998 Rule 37.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 119 . Benigno and Erlinda Que vs. Court of Appeals.R.R. August 18. November 28. 125447. vs. and subject to re-opening by the mere subterfuge of replacing the counsel.R. et al. G. 2011 Rule 37. March 29. and Accesslaw. addressed to the sound discretion of the court which cannot be interfered with unless a clear abuse thereof is shown.R. G. The grant or denial of a new trial is. 142820. June 8. June 20. No. G. G. G. vs. tentative. Nos. 125799. August 21. Court of Appeals.R. 2001 Under Section 1. vs. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. People of the Philippines. 3 . January 31. 2 . Maria Carmen D. 153176. G. August 14.Danilo Cansino vs. 150739. Ester Tanco-Gabaldon. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. 2002 Marina Properties Corp. 2001 Anastacio Fabela vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. No. 2004 Republic of the Phil. No. G. October 29.Action upon motion for new trial or reconsideration Wolfgang O. G. Marilyn A. No. G. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 138855. Inc. 2007 Sps. 124267.R." Thus.R. Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court.. 2003 Lamberto Casalla vs. 2003 National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia vs. What the aggrieved litigant should do is seek administrative sanctions against the erring counsel and not ask for the reversal of the court's ruling. No. G. the Rules allows the courts to grant a new trial when there are errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused committed during the trial. it is binding on the client. Roehr vs. Rodriguez. et al. No. Peralta. G. 141104 & 148763. 2003 Dulos Realty vs.

We have held that in order that a particular piece of evidence may be properly regarded as newly discovered to justify new trial. December 8. i. 172316. 5 . June 1. it has been observed that the phrase is often equated with "reasonable promptness to avoid prejudice to the defendant. 178925. Custodio vs. 2011. October 29. Sec. No.R.e. 2002 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al. No. Nonetheless. Sec. Sps. Inc.R. i. April 30. Sandiganbayan Rule 37. when should or could it have been discovered. Jesus V. Due diligence contemplates that the defendant acts reasonably and in good faith to obtain the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to him. et al.Rule 37. Manuel Ybiernas. what is essential is that the offering party had exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it. No. and a predictive one. and whether the movant has exercised due diligence depends upon the particular circumstances of each case.M. Quitain. 138855. et al. 2010 Jose B. the challenged decision. RTJ 03-1761.. he must act reasonably and in good faith as well. vs. citing Custodio v. No..R. what is essential is not so much the time when the evidence offered first sprang into existence nor the time when it first came to the knowledge of the party now submitting it. People of the Philippines. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 120 . Manuel Ybiernas. Inc. Ester Tanco-Gabaldon. A.. It is to the latter that the requirement of due diligence has relevance. are deemed sustained. and Accesslaw. when was the evidence discovered. 2011. Sandiganbayan The Rules do not give an exact definition of due diligence. June 1. Ester Tanco-Gabaldon." In other words. the concept of due diligence has both a time component and a good faith component.Second motion for new trial Lamberto Casalla vs.Resolution of motion It is settled that when a minute resolution denies or dismisses a petition for failure to comply with formal and substantive requirements.e. vs. G. 2003 The threshold question in resolving a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is whether the [proffered] evidence is in fact a "newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by due diligence. G. together with its findings of fact and legal conclusions. G.. et al. 178925. Pedro Gutierrez." The question of whether evidence is newly discovered has two aspects: a temporal one. G. 4 . et al. The movant for a new trial must not only act in a timely fashion in gathering evidence in support of the motion. Jose and Margarita Chua vs.R. No. citing Custodio v..

et al.Section 5. No. 152375. 2011 Rule 37.Effect of granting of motion for new trial New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice. 7 . Sandiganbayan. Let it be underscored that the December 22. Maria Carmen D. vs. 2003 Decision of Judge Español was effectively set aside by the December 15. 163340. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. 142820. Republic of the Phil.R." Although a second motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order can be denied on the ground that it is a mere "rehash" of the arguments already passed upon and resolved by the court.R. Inc. 2187-00. 2012 Rule 37. Hermenegilda dela Cruz Loyola vs. the proscription against a second motion for reconsideration is directed against "a judgment or final order. G. Sps. G. taking into consideration the evidence to be presented during the second trial. 2004 Omnibus Order of Judge Mangrobang. in the case at bench. Rodriguez. Nemia Castro vs. Anastacio Mendoza. A motion for new trial is only available when relief is sought against a judgment and the judgment is not yet final. November 23. Sec. it cannot be rejected on the ground that it is forbidden by the law or by the rules as a prohibited motion. Rule 37 of the Rules of Court clearly provides. Consequently. 2007 Section 5.. No. Sec. there is technically no judgment which can be the subject of a motion for new trial. Hence. the filing by Spouses Guevarra of a motion for new trial was premature and uncalled for because a decision has yet to be rendered by the trial court in Civil Case No. 192737. Roehr vs. Inc. 6 . The effect of an order granting a new trial is to wipe out the previous adjudication so that the case may be tried de novo for the purpose of rendering a judgment in accordance with law. Jamir and Rosalyn Guevarra.R. G. Verily. December 16. No. June 20.Partial new trial or reconsideration Wolfgang O. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 121 . a motion for new trial is proper only after the rendition or promulgation of a judgment or issuance of a final order. April 25. G. and Accesslaw. Rule 37 of the Rules of Court is explicit that a second motion for reconsideration shall not be allowed.R.

R. September 10. 9 .Relief from Judgments. 125290. 2004 Jimmy L. or by granting it only partially.Remedy against order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration Bienvenido P. Inc. and leaves the judgment or final order to stand. contentions. 2007 A judicial compromise may be rescinded or set aside on the ground of fraud in accordance with Rule 38 of the Rules on Civil Procedure on petition for relief from judgment. No. Inc. No. et al. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. February 16. 144533. Alvin Garcia. Alejo. G. February 19.. 119118. The restriction against an appeal of a denial of a motion for reconsideration independently of a judgment or final order is logical and reasonable. et al vs. G. September 23. Court of Appeals. No. Court of Appeals. G. et al. Barnes vs. Court of Appeals. or presenting new evidence. 159941. No. Heirs of Sps.R. 2000 Section 9 of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court indicates that the proper remedy against the denial of the petitioners' motion for reconsideration was an appeal from the final order dismissing the action upon the respondents' motion to dismiss. Jaban. 141970. No. a trial court finds no reason either to reverse or to modify its judgment or final order. The remedy from the denial is to assail the denial in the course of an appeal of the judgment or final order itself..Rule 37. Reyes.. 2003 Republic of the Phil. G. August 9. By denying a motion for reconsideration.R. and Accesslaw. G. 146611. Sec. 2001 Philadelphia Agan vs. 138336-37. or changing the theory of the case. et al. December 11. No. No. Tancredo Redena vs. August 17. Sps..R.R.. 2001 Metropolitan Bank vs. or (c) the decision or final order is contrary to law. G. 2011 Rule 38 . Lorenzo and Virginia Mores. Orders or Other Proceedings Mario Basco vs. Heirs of Sps.R. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 122 . 129846. Court of Appeals. 2003 A petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court is of equitable character. 2000 Rufino Valencia vs. A motion for reconsideration is not putting forward a new issue. January 18.R. No. or (b) the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order. February 6. 155018.R. Teofilo and Elisa Reterta vs. vs. therefore. and evidence either because: (a) the damages awarded are excessive.R. G. G. et al. Floro T. but is only seeking a reconsideration of the judgment or final order based on the same issues. et al. Andres and Diosdado Nueva. allowed only in exceptional cases as when there is no other available or adequate remedy. Teresita C. G.

G. final order. No. or excusable negligence is present. Michaelangelo and Grace Mesina vs. Sec.. or excusable negligence relied upon. and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered.R. judgment or proceedings and not from the date he actually read the same. Inc. final order or other proceeding to be set aside and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud. accident. 165544. S. 137162. G. he cannot avail himself of this petition. It is also incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the said petition was filed within the reglementary period specified in Section 3.Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corp. Humberto D. No. not of law. March 5. Court of Appeals. 2009 Rule 38.R. G. No. or other proceeding to be set aside. Meer. which relates to the case. order or other proceedings Eleuterio Lopez vs. In order for a petition for relief to be entertained by the court. it should be filed with the same court which rendered the decision. Corazon L.R. accident. Romeo Samonte vs. No. Where the defendant has other available or adequate remedy such as a motion for new trial or appeal from the adverse decision. 169914 and 174166. the petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment. Inc. 2007 Relief from judgment is an equitable remedy and is allowed only under exceptional circumstances and only if fraud. does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial. DOTC. Most importantly. The word "mistake" which grants relief from judgment. as the case may be. Rule 38 (within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment. 2008 The mistake contemplated by Rule 38 of the Rules of Court pertains generally to mistake of fact. G. G. accident.Petition for relief from judgment. et al. which may be either a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court. and Accesslaw.. Escueta. he cannot avail himself of this remedy. 2002 A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy that is allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy. vs. Naguiat. April 18. and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense. Rufina Lim. January 24. Nos. mistake. When a party has another remedy available to him. or such proceeding was taken). 2003 The 60-day period is reckoned from the time the party acquired knowledge of the order. and he was not prevented by fraud. And the rule is that the reglementary period is reckoned Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. the petitioner must satisfactorily show that he has faithfully and strictly complied with the provisions of Rule 38.R. mistake or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking such appeal. Under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 123 . 146845. vs. Inc. 1 . July 2.F. 127827. October 2. mistake. Sps.R. et al. Such error may be corrected by means of an appeal.

may file in the same court and in the same case a petition for relief praying that his appeal be given due course.R. 141970. Inc. 2003 Sps. Naguiat. 127827. 165544. 140630. that no appeal was taken precisely because of any of the aforestated reasons which prevented him from appealing his case. does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial. No. October 2. Humberto D. August 12. mistake or excusable negligence. Runes. It must be filed within the reglementary period. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 124 . Sps. 146611. vs. petitions for relief from a judgment. not of law. S. of the Rules of Court. 152530. For sure. Court of Appeals. final order or other proceeding rendered or taken should be filed in and resolved by the court in the same case from which the petition arose. Thus. 138571. No.. G. G. 2004 Eleuterio Lopez vs. and Accesslaw. G. 2001 Under Section 2 of Rule 38. September 10.R. No. is a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. or other proceeding to be set aside. et al. February 6. The petition must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment. and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered.R. August 12. Inc. Sanritsu Great International Corp. a party prevented from taking an appeal from a judgment or final order of a court by reason of fraud.. Tancredo Redena vs. No. just like the procedure followed in the present Regional Trial Court. Court of Appeals.R. Meer. of course. Mercury Drug Corp. 2009 Rule 38. July 2. which relates to the case. which is reckoned from the time the party's counsel receives notice of the decision for notice to counsel of the decision is notice to the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Sec. the latter being a court of appellate jurisdiction. vs. Alejo.from the time the party's counsel receives notice of the decision for notice to counsel of the decision is notice to the party for purposes of Section 3 of Rule 38. G.R. July 13. final order. 2000 The mistake contemplated by Rule 38 of the Rules of Court pertains generally to mistake of fact. Floro T. accident. 2 . This presupposes. No. G.. which prevented a party from taking an appeal. 2007 [T]he proper remedy for allegations of mistake or inexcusable negligence of counsel. 2004 Fukuzumi vs.R. Romeo Samonte vs. No. Such error may be corrected by means of an appeal. G.Petition for relief from denial or appeal Insular Life Savings and Trust Co. 146845. under the present Rules. 2002 Metropolitan Bank vs. a petition for relief under Rule 38 cannot be availed of in the CA. No.R.F. March 5. petition for relief from a judgment. Hence. Michaelangelo and Grace Mesina vs. G.R. G. The word "mistake" which grants relief from judgment. final order or proceeding involved in a case tried by a municipal trial court shall be filed in and decided by the same court in the same case. Court of Appeals. Inc. No.

August 15. a petition for relief is actually the "last chance" given by law to litigants to question a final judgment or order. 140486. Heirs of the Late Faustina Borres. relief is allowed only in exceptional cases as when there is no other available or adequate remedy. G. G. Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. 2003 Under Section 3. G.R. G.. No. 131482. 3 . July 13. et al. Jaime T. G. a verified petition for relief must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment. final order. No. 2001 Regalado P. 131023. 2003 Teresita Villareal Manipor. Court of Appeals. 2007 Clear it is from the above that a petition for relief from judgment must be filed within: (a) sixty (60) days from knowledge of judgment. G. Pablo and Antonia Ricafort. January 15. 150722. Court of Appeals.R. 2001 Gold Line Transit vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 125 . China Banking Corp. and (b) six (6) months from entry of such judgment. No. which is reckoned from the time the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. 138571. which prevented a party from taking an appeal. As it were. Both periods are also not extendible and never interrupted.party. VHF Philippines. Raon. Yujuico. July 25. Inc. 138500.R. 127827. or other proceeding to be set aside. 150159. is a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. No. Sps.R. final order. Strict compliance with these periods stems from the equitable character and nature of the petition for relief. 131505 and 131768.. G. 165408. G. Sec. Court of Appeals.R. vs. vs. et al. Nos. 92328. Julius L. No. The petition must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment. And failure to avail of such "last chance" within the grace period fixed by the Rules is fatal. et al. Luisa Ramos. 2002 Eleuterio Lopez vs. and Accesslaw.R. 2007 Quelnan vs. Inc. Court of Appeals. Torres vs. September 16. and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered. It must be filed within the reglementary period. These two periods must concur. Samartino vs.. 2001 DAP Mining Assn. 2000 Public Estates Authority vs.. G. contents and verification Mercury Drug Corp. Sps. G. August 17. No. March 5. vs. 2010 Rule 38. and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered or such proceeding was taken. vs. et al. Abela. No. February 6. Jesus S. July 3. order or other proceedings to be set aside. et al.R. July 17. G.R. June 6. No.R. 144813. or other proceeding to be set aside. Eugenio and Vicenta Reyes vs.Time for filing petition. No. order or other proceeding. Leonor B. 2005 [T]he proper remedy for allegations of mistake or inexcusable negligence of counsel.R. No. Indeed.

et al. March 23. G. Court of Appeals. Judge Jose F. No.. July 6. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 126 . No. G. et al. Inc. G. November 23. No. vs. August 4.. G.R. 116092.R.party's counsel receives notice of the decision for notice to counsel of the decision is notice to the party.R. Plata. Jr. its object being to obtain satisfaction of the judgment on which the writ is issued. 2000 Teresita Jason vs. A. Rtc of Kalibo. De Cochingyan vs. Court of Appeals. Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments Execution under Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court is a remedy afforded by law for the enforcement of a judgment. upon finality of a judgment or order sought to be enforced.R. January 15. 1 . Put differently. a judgment or final order that has become final and executory mandatorily requires a specific motion to execute the same. MTJ-02-1458. Ygaña. Cagayan de Oro Coliseum vs. Court of Appeals. Bergonia vs. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 1999 Arsenia T. China Banking Corp. RTJ-99-1505. Marcelino L. No. Caoibes. 129442. Inc. Vianzon. vs. March 10. October 29. 2002 Sps.M. RTJ-01-1620. Jaime T. and is directed to an officer authorizing and requiring him to execute the judgment of the court. 2001 Sy Chin vs. Sayo.. et al. Court of Appeals. July 9.R.M. December 15. Court of Appeals. A. No. 136368. Sec. June 29. No.M. Benjamin T. Jr. No. No. A.M. A. Gonzalez-Decano. 165408.. vs. No.R. and Accesslaw. Alicia B. January 16. 2002 Vda. 129918.R. RTJ-00-1543. 2000 Vlason Enterprises vs. 1999 PNB vs. Adriano and Hilda Monterola vs. A.. 1999 Federico Pallada. No. No. 129713. March 18.M. 1999 Rule 39. on motion of the judgment obligee. Torres vs. Briccio C. RTJ-02-1682. 2010 Rule 39 . et al. 121662-64.R. 2004 Socorro R. 2002 Jaime Tan. No. G. et al. No. G. Jr. 136233. October 10.. Hoehne vs. 1998 The execution of a judgment or final order that has attained finality and another pending appeal require different motions from the prevailing party. G.Execution.Execution upon judgments or final orders Eliza Mina. G. It issues by order of the court a quo. Judge Ruben R.

No. No. No. No.R. special. important. 148090. October 24. on motion... 141008. Inc. 2003 City of Iligan vs.R. G. G. 162922. April 3. 2004 Thelma C. No. 2001 Corona International vs. Good reasons consist of exceptional circumstances of such urgency as to outweigh the injury or damage that the losing party may suffer should the appealed judgment be reversed later. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. et al. et al. No. Alan G. No. Batul vs. Inc." Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Delta Motors. G. G. 2003 Mortimer F. 2007 It has been opined that Section 1 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court now requires that the motion for execution "must be with notice to the adverse party.R. G.M. Eddie R. upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected. Bugtas. A. 127851. Zacate vs. Amalik P. G. to enable him to file any objection thereto or bring to the attention of said court matters which may have transpired during the pendency of the appeal and which may have a bearing on the execution sought to enforce the judgment. Nemesio S. October 18..R.R. Court of Appeals. instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice. Sec. execution pending appeal is permissible only when good reasons exist for immediately executing the judgment before finality or pending appeal or even before the expiration of the period to appeal. 2001 Marawi Marantao Gen. A. Comelec. Arnulfo O. G. 144444. et al. G. 2000 As a discretionary execution. Lucilo Bayron. otherwise. 2007 Rule 39. 166558. vs. No. 144678. with a hearing when the circumstances so require. Cordero vs. 144230. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 127 . RTJ-00-1586. January 31. Nos. Baldado vs. No. 2002 Javier E.M. Rojas. July 31. et al.R.. No. March 28. pressing reasons must exist to justify execution pending appeal. 2003 State Investment Trust vs. 2 . Espinosa. 145260. Angeles.R. 2006 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. March 1. it may well become a tool of oppression and inequality. Janda. February 26. et al. 2003 Arturo G. 1. January 16. Hospital vs. execution shall issue as a matter of right. Nora Bueno Pasion vs. Mackay vs. 149754. No. Court of Appeals. September 17.R. August 23. Felix...Discretionary execution Fernando U. Good reasons. et al. 2007 Under Sec. et al. G. RTJ-07-2054.R. vs..Odel S.R. Go. G. G. Principal Management Group.R. and Accesslaw. Stronghold Insurance Co. Adoracion G.R. G. No. 157687 & 158959. Melegrito. Jr. Simplicio R. September 30. No. November 28.

October 22. and Accesslaw. G. April 12.. for "courts look with disfavor upon any attempt to execute a judgment which has not acquired a final character. Good reasons consist of compelling circumstances justifying the immediate execution lest judgment becomes illusory. it should be interpreted only so far as the language thereof fairly warrants. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 128 . Court of Appeals.The prevailing doctrine and principle then — which continues to be the same as provided in Paragraph 2. the rule rather than the exception.. considering the tactics of the adverse party who may apparently have no case except to delay. vs. 2000 PBCom vs. Court of Appeals. the Court has held that such execution "is usually not favored because it affects the rights of the parties which are yet to be ascertained on appeal.R. The rule on execution pending appeal must be strictly construed being an exception to the general rule. and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general rule rather than the exceptions. Section 2 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — is that discretionary execution is permissible only when good reasons exist for immediately executing the judgment before finality or pending appeal or even before the expiration of the time to appeal. mere issuance of a bond to answer for damages is no longer considered a good reason for execution pending appeal." Marcopper Mining Corp. DBP. Planters Products vs. G. 1999 The execution of a judgment before its finality must be founded upon good reasons.R. No. vs. August 16. June 17.R.R. Inc. 1997 This rule is strictly construed against the movant. Good reason imports a superior circumstance that will outweigh injury or damage to the adverse party. The yardstick remains the presence or the absence of good reasons consisting of exceptional circumstances of such urgency as to outweigh the injury or damage that the losing party may suffer. February 14. et al. or the prevailing party may after the lapse of time become unable to enjoy it. vs.R. January 28. 2000 Shuhei Yasuda vs. 112569. 136805. No. Nails & Wires Corp. G." In the same vein. No. G. Phil. Court of Appeals.. No. Solidbank Corp. 126158. Inc. G.R. G. 134049. 2003 Diesel Construction Co. 143933. September 23. should the appealed judgment be reversed later. No. 135128. Jollibee Foods Corp.R. 2004 Bonifacio Sanz Maceda vs.R. 135180-81. 106052. Jose B. 2000 A valid exercise of the discretion to allow execution pending appeal requires that it should be Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No. Reyes vs. G.. August 26. L. 1999 So also. Court of Appeals. et al. Applying the rule on statutory construction. To consider the mere posting of a bond as a "good reason" would precisely make immediate execution of judgment pending appeal routinary. No. G. No. Malayan Insurance.

Rojas.. Odel S. August 23. Inc. the penultimate sentence of Section 3 states: "[T]he bond thus given may be proceeded against on motion with notice to the surety. Court of Appeals. a judgment or final order that has become final and executory mandatorily requires a specific motion to execute the same. G. No." Roque Fermo vs. September 26. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 129 . it finds no application in election protest cases where judgments invariably include orders which are not capable of pecuniary estimation such as the right to hold office and perform its functions. 145527. Section 3 finds application in ordinary civil actions where the interest of the prevailing party is capable of pecuniary estimation. Gan vs. the remedy of execution pending appeal requires only a "final" judgment or order (as distinguished from an "interlocutory" order) and not a "final and executory" judgment or order. 2000 Section 2 (a) The execution of a judgment or final order that has attained finality and another pending appeal require different motions from the prevailing party.. No." Consequently.R. G. G. Comelec. Sec. et al. May 28. Thus. of protection. 3 . 2007 Rule 39. Hon.R. Inc. Antonio C. and consequently. January 28. Comelec. 2000 By its provisional nature.R. 171820.Judgments not stayed by appeal Diamond Builders Conglomeration.R. No. 2002 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 106052. March 13. 2007 Augustus Caezar R. No.based "upon good reasons to be stated in a special order. Sec. Intramuros Tennis Club vs. PTA. October 22. and Accesslaw.M. September 18. et al. RTJ-07-2054. G. 1999 Diesel Construction Co. No. 140179.Stay of discretionary execution Planters Products vs.R. December 13. vs. G. Janda.R. No.. through the filing of a supersedeas bond. Eddie R. Put differently. et al. A. 2003 Rule 39. No. 2000 A supersedeas bond secures the performance of the judgment or order appealed from in case of its affirmation. G.R. G. G. No. vs.R. Reyes. 135630. 157957. 4 . Country Bankers Insurance Corp. Charito Navarosa vs. No. vs. Jollibee Foods Corp. 136805.

G. 2002 Sps. 5 . 120176. Thereafter. September 3. Court of Appeals. PTA. Valentina Santana-Cruz vs. before barred by the statute of limitations. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G. December 14. No. Ocampo. et al. G. September 19. Pablo V.Effect of reversal of executed judgment Jimmy T. 2001 Jon and Marissa De Ysasi vs.. Court of Appeals. et al. February 27.M. RTJ-00-1598. September 26. 2004 Oliverio Laperal vs. No. proof of the death of some of the parties is not required because the judgment call still be enforced by the executor. Court of Appeals. Go. Court of Appeals. 2003 Sps. by action. Baclig. Inter-Urban Developers. et al.Execution by motion or by independent action Asuncion Macias. 2000 Rule 39. Inc. A. No. 144029. Leoncio & Enriqueta Barrera vs. No. Juan Enriquez vs. July 20. there are instances where this Court allowed execution by motion even after the lapse of five years upon meritorious grounds. A.R. 2002 BF Corp. August 11. G. June 4. December 14. While the action is still subject to defenses and counterclaims which arose after the judgment became effective. and Accesslaw. No. G.R.R. 123935. 132655. Sec. 2001 Sec. However.R.. No. No.R. No. 140652. 2003 Winnie Bajet vs. February 20. Nowhere does the rule require proof that the judgment is still enforceable by and against the original parties who have died. G. RTJ-03-1759. vs. G. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 130 . 2001 A judgment may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory.R. vs.R.Intramuros Tennis Club vs. 6 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states that an action to revive judgment only requires proof of a final judgment which has not prescribed and has remained unexecuted after the lapse of five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years from its finality. et al. 2001 Shipside Incorporated vs. Inc. Mariano Lim. July 30. Sec. 136586.R. No. 6 . vs. 1998 Rule 39. administrator or successor-in-interest of the judgment creditor against the judgment debtor. Vivencio S. 2001 Ma. 137391. No. 135630. November 22. No. Abrogar. Guillermo Agbada and Maxima Agbada vs. 143377. G.R. 139284. Zeus C. EDSA Shangri-La Hotel. No. Arturo and Estela Arceo.R. G.M.

Inc. A. Court of Appeals. 8 . 2008 Rule 39. Amalik P. P-01-1473. No. 2003 Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation vs. damages.. 2002 Sps. 2002 Judge Gregorio R..Esteban Yau vs. A.. aside from the principal obligation under the judgment. A. P-00-1446. February 15. February 4.M. 2002 GSIS vs. August 12. costs. 9 ." Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Inc.R. vs. Airlines. Jr. Bonifacio V. January 23. G. January 31. Acosta. Balanag vs. Ricardo C. P-01-1454.M. Benitez vs. rents.M. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al.M.R. 2007 Rule 39. Silverio. Jr. G. Jr. March 27..R. and Accesslaw. Section 8 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (to) "specifically state the amount of the interest. September 12. Espinosa. P-04-1767. Sec. or profits due as of the date of the issuance of the writ. 2000 Rule 39. No. Plantilla vs. 7 . A.R. Ruben S. Bengson Commercial Buildings. 140613. No. Alonzo B. form and contents of a writ of execution Paterno R. Osita. 158848 & 171994. 2004 Luzita Alpeche vs. P-00-1371. Oriental Assurance Corporation.Issuance. G. 162922. Balubar. No.R.. Bato. No. October 15. Nequinto. G. Felipe and Roselyn Biglete vs. No. Nos. No. Sec. 2002 DBP vs.M. Maputi. 137448 & 141454. how enforced Phil. 2002 Gloria O. Inc. 2001 Section 8 (e) A writ of execution is required under paragraph (e). A. No. No.R. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 131 . June 6. April 30. January 31. Nos. Sr. Baliwag. April 12. 154037. P-02-1592. No. P-00-1407.M. G.Execution in case of death of party Heirs of Lorilla vs. Rodrigo G. 2003 Petition for Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Guevarra. G. 118655. A. Sec.Execution of judgments for money. A. Medel P. Expedito B.M. October 16.

No. No. Domingo Peña.. G. A. March 28. Any excess in the proceeds shall be delivered to the judgment debtor unless otherwise directed by the judgment or order of the court. July 24. 153142.R. However.R. in executing a money judgment against the property of the judgment debtor. Regalado II. No. 2002 Winnie Bajet vs. Rendon. 2007 Garnishment is proper only when the judgment to be enforced is one for payment of a sum of money. No. No. et al. Inc. Register of Deeds of Quezon City. RTJ-01-1615. October 2. A. 152672. Jose and Daisy Escalante.R.R. MTJ-02-1395. Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. G. Go vs. 154200.Execution of judgments for specific act Catalina Balais-Mabanag vs.M. Jacobus Bernhard Hulst vs. 10 . 156364. and Accesslaw. Inc..R. No. P-10-2772. G. Jacobus Bernhard Hulst vs. Areola. the sheriff is authorized to receive it. vs. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court lays down the procedure to be followed by the sheriff in implementing money judgments. G. vs. No. March 29. PR Builders.. No. June 19. When the judgment obligee is not present at the time the judgment obligor makes the payment. National Electrification Administration. Judge Aurelio D. the sheriff shall levy on all property belonging to the judgment debtor as is amply sufficient to satisfy the judgment and costs. if not practicable. 156364. 2007 Rule 39. A. Achilles Andrew V. et al.Under Rule 39. the sheriff or other authorized officer must execute the same pursuant to the provisions of Section 9. G.M. 2003 Leody Manuel vs. No. et al. 2007 If the judgment is for money. deposited in a fiduciary account with the nearest government depository bank. et al. Sec. Inc. the money received must be remitted to the clerk of court within the same day or. Danilo Morales. G. September 3. PR Builders. Zeus Abrogar. Jr. February 16. 2007 Section 9. September 3. sheriffs are not permitted to retain the money in their possession beyond the day when the payment was made or to deliver the money collected directly to the judgment obligee.R. Pedro M. Inc.. Evidently. 2010 Section 9 (b) Jimmy T. 134141.. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 132 . 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. and sell the same paying to the judgment creditor so much of the proceeds as will satisfy the amount of the judgment debt and costs. 2010 Baikong Akang Camsa vs.M. August 13.

No.R. MTJ-00-1283. Diaz. adjudication of ownership would include the delivery of possession if the defeated party has not shown any right to possess the land independently of his claim of ownership which was rejected. Bernardo de Leon vs. Sr. The removal of the improvements on the land under these circumstances is deemed read into the decision. the delivery of the possession of the land should be considered included in the decision. A. 136221. the officer shall not destroy. et al. May 12. RTJ 00-1593. vs. October 16. et al. and Accesslaw.Delivery or Restitution of Real Property A writ of possession is defined as "a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land. had intervened.M.. No express order to this effect needs to be stated in the decision. Nos. Salvador Abad Santos. G.Jaime Morta. Metrobank vs. 2010 A judgment for the delivery or restitution of property is essentially an order to place the prevailing party in possession of the property. G. 3135. August 3. 4118. 496. subject only to the issuance of a special order by the court for the removal of the improvements. et al. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 133 . Augustus C. it appearing that the defeated party's claim to the possession thereof is based on his claim of ownership. Furthermore. Sañez.. 2004 When the property subject of the execution contains improvements constructed or planted by the judgment obligor or his agent. provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and no third person. the sheriff or other proper officer should oust him. 157867. Jose S. If the defendant refuses to surrender possession of the property to the prevailing party. 2010 Section 10 (d) . 2000 Equatorial Realty Devt." There are three instances when a writ of possession may be issued: (a) in land registration proceedings under Section 17 of Act No. et al.. Mayfair Theater. March 3. Public Estates Authority. Nos. Bernardo de Leon vs. G. Inc. (b) in judicial foreclosure. and (c) in extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 181970 & 182678. It bears stressing that a judgment is not confined to what appears upon the face of the decision. No. 2000 Section 10 (c) . as amended by Act No.Removal of Improvements on Property Subject of Execution Octavio Alvarez vs. 2009 Possession is an essential attribute of ownership. G.. No. Where the ownership of a parcel of land was decreed in the judgment. Inc.R. et al. but also those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. No. vs. Public Estates Authority. demolish or remove said improvements Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. December 15.R. not a party to the foreclosure suit..M. A. 181970 & 182678. August 3. nor is a categorical statement needed in the decision that in such event the sheriff or other proper officer shall have the authority to remove the improvements on the property if the defendant fails to do so within a reasonable period of time.R. It commands the sheriff to enter the land and give its possession to the person entitled under the judgment.

except upon special order of the court. 14 . August 6. Sec. MTJ-07-1680. Sec. No. Inc. G. July 4. vs. the levy does not make the judgment creditor the owner of the property levied upon. vs. et al. Danilo Morales. Inc. August 17.Execution of special judgments Petition for Habeas Corpus of Benjamin Guevarra. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 134 . A. 2010 Rule 39. He merely obtains a lien. No. Ernesto G. Sec. No. Dela Serna.R. No.. Katipunan ng Tinig sa Adhikain. 166536. 154200. A. Flor Martinez vs. Sangalang. G. G. Garcia. 2001 The implementation of a judgment for the performance of an act other than the payment of money is governed by Section 11. Maceren. G. Sr. et al.M. 139370. National Electrification Administration. No.Effect of levy on execution as to third persons Clearly. 86963.R. G. February 6. 12 . 1999 Rule 39. No. United Cigarette Corp. No. et al. Inc. 11 . and Accesslaw. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.R. Such levy on execution is subject and subordinate to all valid claims and liens existing against the property at the time the execution lien attached. issued upon motion of the judgment obligee after due hearing and after the former has failed to remove the same within a reasonable time fixed by the court.Property exempt from execution Batong Bahay Gold Mines vs. vs. July 24.. 154037. P-00-1437. Sec. April 30. 2003 Knecht vs. 2002 Julian B.M.Return of writ of execution Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Ariel S. 2007 Rule 39. San Juan. Luis Zenon O. such as real estate mortgages. 13 .R. February 4.. 2007 Rule 39.R.

No. A. Esteban P. No. April 30. Winston T. Leticia T. A. A. et al. 2001 Gloria O. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 135 . the officers shall report to the court and state the reason or reasons therefor. March 20.M. 2002 Giselle G. January 23.M. July 11.. August 9. Conejero. 2002 DBP vs.. May 25. March 28. Benitez vs.M. the sheriff is mandated to make periodic reports on partially satisfied or unsatisfied writs every 30 days. et al. 2002 Esmeraldo D. P-03-1742. Bernabe vs. Jose R.M. 2002 Concerned Citizen vs. September 18. A. 2001 Accordingly. The over-all purpose of the requirement is to ensure the speedy execution of decisions. Rubio. A. A. 2003 Winnie Bajet vs. The reason for this requirement is to update the court on the status of the execution and to explain to it why the judgment has not been satisfied. A. No.M. P-03-1703. If the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. vs. Expedito B. Flora. No. No. Eguia. Bernabe vs. 2003 Edna Fe F. 2003 Vedasto Tolarba vs. Baclig.. A. Eguia. Bato. P-01-1495. et al. 2004 Luzita Alpeche vs. No. P-03-1742. Martin. P-02-1592.M. Zaragoza. P-01-1473. Malana. 2002 Sps. Añonuevo vs. Loria. P-00-1407. September 18. July 17. Aquino vs. February 11. Yared. A. A. Garcia vs. A. No. Nequinto.M. No. Crisanto T. No. A. Talion vs.Serafin A. A. A. Visitacion vs. No. Judge Vivencio S.. and Accesslaw. P-00-1371.M. Medel P. Torio. January 23. Winston T.M.M. P-04-1768. P-01-1492. Jr. Edgardo S. No. P-01-1490. Angel C. Albert S. A. Urbanozo vs. No. Pershing T. Jr.M.M.M. March 27. Silvino R. 2003 Renato Miguel D. P-07-2290.M. 2003 Dominador Arevalo.M. March 28. A. Felipe and Roselyn Biglete vs. Bonifacio V.M. P-02-1576. No. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that the writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full.M. No. A. Acosta. Ediza. A. P-02-1535.M. July 30. No. Viven M. Inc. No. Rogelio V. It also enables the court to determine how efficiently court processes are carried out after the promulgation of judgment. Ruben S. 2003 Sheriffs are obliged to make a return of the writ of execution to the clerk or judge issuing it. 2004 Salvador L. Inc. RTJ-00-1598. July 30. Rodolfo V. No. October 16. until the judgment is satisfied or its effectivity expires. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after their receipt of the writ. February 15. A. P-01-1529. P-04-1782. 2003 Salvador L. P-06-2169. Quitalig. 2003 Fernando Fajardo vs. 2007 Section 14. 2008 Filomena Meneses vs. P-02-1600. Ayupan.M. Gredam P. Malsi vs. The officers are likewise tasked to make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until judgment is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires. Maputi. Jose Noel R. September 18. No.

M. Proserpina V. P-02-1640. G. 2003 Ofelia J. Pilipiña. Emerson B. sheriffs must still file the reports so that the court. Even if the writs are unsatisfied or only partially satisfied. July 14. August 2. P-08-2430. and Accesslaw.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 136 . 2004 Saad Anjum vs. 2011 Rule 39. A. to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate. it is his duty. Co. Arthur R. A. Alejandro A. Lacambra. the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefor.M. Sec.R.M. Gatlabayan. February 20. February 14. Over-all. No. When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff. a sheriff must comply with his mandated ministerial duty as speedily as possible. Villavicencio vs.Notice of sale of property on execution Aurora Guiang vs. No. P-11-2896. A. No. the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefor. Christopher T. Emerson B. Periodic reporting also provides the court insights on the efficiency of court processes after promulgation of judgment. There is even no need for the litigants to "follow up" a writ's implementation. Inc.. et al. He has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. Leopoldo C. Cesar L. 2007 The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court immediately after the judgment had been satisfied in part or in full. Perez. Anico vs. Eva T. He is likewise required to make a report to the court every 30 days until judgment is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires. may be informed of the proceedings undertaken to implement the writ. October 13. or its effectivity expires. A. The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full. A. P-11-2896. Cabigon. 2011 We will reiterate that a sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial. No. July 30. No. he is to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. A. 2003 David de Guzman vs. Accordingly. No. No. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within 30 days after his receipt of the writ. Paulo M. Abacahin. G. P-06-2107. as well as the litigants. Inc. P-99-1323. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. vs. Cebu International Finance Corp. 146996. et al. 2008 The Rules clearly provide that it is mandatory for sheriffs to execute and make a return on the writ of execution within 30 days from receipt of the writ and every 30 days thereafter until it is satisfied in full or its effectivity expires. August 2. Jr.M. He is mandated to uphold the majesty of the law as embodied in the decision. Mojares. vs.M. Proserpina V.M. 15 . February 27. 142648. Anico vs. No. in the absence of any instructions to the contrary. Pilipiña. the purpose of periodic reporting is to ensure the speedy execution of decisions..judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty days after his receipt of the writ.

2007 Jimmy T. Sps. appeal from the order denying his claim. Court of Appeals. G. A. No.R. 2003 Jurisprudence is likewise replete with rulings that since the third-party claimant is not one of the parties to the action. Sheriff Carlos P. Go. If a "separate action" is the recourse. Ltd. like respondents herein.Section 15 (d) Rule 39 of the Rules of Court unequivocally provides the time in which the auction sale is to be conducted as well as the procedure to be followed in the redemption of the properties. A. Ordinario. Allan D.R. Glorioso. as well as damages arising from wrongful seizure and detention of the property despite the third-party claim. Inc. 2003 Arthur R. P-07-2342.M. A third-party claimant may also resort to an independent "separate action. August 31.M. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 137 . Castro. Bajar. February 27. vs. Roela D. Camarote vs. March 24. Allan D. Co vs. Both remedies are cumulative and may be availed of independently of or separately from the other. Sillador. Inc. 138104. Sillador. but should file a separate reinvindicatory action against the execution creditor or the purchaser of the property after the sale of public auction. Jacinto vs.M. 2002 MR Holdings. P-07-2342. 2003 Sps. 16 . 2007 Under the above Rule. RTJ-03-1759. the third-party claimant must institute in a forum of competent jurisdiction an action. and Accesslaw. No. can opt to file a remedy known as terceria against the sheriff or officer effecting the writ by serving on him an affidavit of his title and a copy thereof upon the judgment creditor. Roela D. strictly speaking. he could not. G.M. AM P-02-1611. February 24. P-04-1907." China Banking Corp. 118830. Sec. 2002 Section 16. Ching vs. No. vs. vs. a third-party claimant or a stranger to the foreclosure suit. A. G. et al. Bernabe M.Proceedings where property claimed by third person Ildefonso P. 121943. July 3.R. the officer shall not be bound to keep the property and could be answerable for damages. No. No. No. Availment of the terceria is not a condition sine qua non to the institution of a "separate action. By the terceria." the object of which is the recovery of ownership or possession of the property seized by the sheriff. April 11. Abrogar. Pablo R. August 31. A. 2007 Rule 39. Co vs. July 31. or a complaint for damages against the bond filed by the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. even before or without need of filing a claim in the court that issued the writ. explicitly mandates that the indemnity bond shall be in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on. distinct and separate from the action in which the judgment is being enforced. Zeus C. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. No.

Antonio M. 170215. Sec. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which states that "all sales of property under execution must be made at public auction. 21 . Domingo Arcega.R. G. Villavicencio vs. Carlos Bague. Eva T. Castro vs. August 28. 147977. P-99-1346.R.R. 2002 Annie Fermin. Yupangco Cotton Mills vs.Judgment obligee as purchaser LCK Industries Inc. No.judgment creditor in favor of the sheriff. et al.. William and Rebecca Genato vs. Rita Viola. G. G. otherwise. No. A.Who may redeem real property so sold Restituto L. Sec. vs. 142648. 2008 Rule 39. G. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 138 . Inc. 19 . January 16. 2004 Ofelia J. No. February 20. G. 170606. G.How property sold on execution. who may direct manner and order of sale David de Guzman vs..M. Philippine National Bank. 2008 Ma. June 20. 2001 Drawing from Section 19. Court of Appeals. No. 2007 Rule 39. P-99-1323. et al. et al. Paulo M. and Accesslaw. November 23. No. July 30. Fe Bacos vs.R. March 26. Esmeraldo and Elizabeth Suico vs. 2007 Aurora Guiang vs. February 5. vs. et al. Gatlabayan. there is no need to pay the amount in cash. Co. Inc. G. January 18. Alejandro A. 2003 Conspicuously emphasized under Section 21 of Rule 39 is that if the amount of the loan is equal to the amount of the bid. Esteves. 169706. 2010 Rule 39.R." it naturally follows that the highest bid submitted is the amount that should be credited to the account of the judgment debtor. Sec. G. No. Same provision mandates that in the absence of a third-party claim. Planters Development Bank.. Sps.. February 27. No.M. he shall pay only the excess. 152343.R. No. A.R. the purchaser in an execution sale need not pay his bid if it does not exceed the amount of the judgment. 126322. et al. 2001 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Sps. to the highest bidder. No. Mojares. 146996.R. 27 .

Court of Appeals. . et al. Court of Appeals.R.. 1997) the . et al.M. G. Sec. 3135. National Bank. Castro vs. . January 25. P-07-2342.Deed and possession to be given at expiration of redemption period. the Court has incorporated in Section 28 of Rule 39 of the current Rules of Court (effective on July 1. G. Mallari vs. No. No.R. July 31. Inc. Allan D. successive redemptions. G. No. No. 2002 Vicente P. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 139 . GSIS. and a certificate to be delivered and recorded upon. .. 29 . 143687. Co vs. . . 2001 Sps. April 12. and amounts payable on. G. 157659. 134330.R. No. Tambago. Villanueva. Sec. and Accesslaw. No. September 17. RTJ 99-1498. on the other hand. Lim vs.Erlinda M. Sec. to whom payments on redemption made Restituto L. 33 . vs. 94617. 2001 Rule 39. notice to be given and filed Hi-Yield Realty vs. 2001 Enrique M. September 12. Roela D. judicial construction of reckoning the redemption period from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale. and the jurisprudence clarifying the reckoning of the redemption period in judicial sales of real property. 2000 Rule 39. Judge Jacinta B.R. 28 . Inc. June 20. August 31.M. on one hand. No. A. Angel S. P-99-1346. Phil. Carlos Bague. Belo vs. 2007 Desiring to avoid any confusion arising from the conflict between the texts of the Rules of Court (1940 and 1964) and Act No. No. by whom executed or given Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.Time and manner of. 2010 Rule 39. March 1. A.R. G. 2001 Paragraph 2 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court unequivocally provides the time in which the auction sale is to be conducted as well as the procedure to be followed in the redemption of the properties. 138978. Sillador. Estanislao vs.. et al. Malaya et al. A. Eligio P.Effect of redemption by judgment obligor.M.

R. 2001 Bryan U..R. Ordinario. 2001 The Malayan Bank vs. June 26. Villanueva vs. 135219. 2003 State Investment Trust vs. 130845. Montenegro.Isaac Villegas vs. No. Inc. No. Sec. March 24. Pelagia Dimatulac. Corp. 2003 PNB vs. Shell Chemical Co. & Devt. G. Sec. R&R Metal Casting. Ma. 144444.Examination of judgment obligor when judgment unsatisfied Ramon D.R. G. (Phils. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 140 . 2003 Jose Clavano vs. No. Mutya B. G. G. 2004 Rule 39. G. June 29. 143781.Effect of judgments or final orders Leonardo Chua vs.. Agustin Lagrama. April 3. HLURB.De Leon vs.R. Sps. No.). 47 . No.R. G. G. 36 . G. No. 132245. G. 157568. February 27. 142015. Victor Lingan. 156542.R. December 5. 38 .R. No. Court of Appeals. 156829. et al.R.R. 2004 Rural Bank of Sta. Inc. Sec. Montenegro vs. 144884. 2004 Rule 39. et al. May 18. 2007 Candelaria Q. No. vs. 2002 Alma G.C.. G. Tirso D. No. 127182. 121943. June 8.R. and Accesslaw. No. Delta Motors.Examination of obligor of judgment obligor PNB Mgt. Inc. 156829.R. Ma. Velasco. Dayot vs. G. G. 2000 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2007 China Banking Corp. No. 153839. Court of Appeals.Enforcement of attendance and conduct of examination Ramon D. January 17. 37 .. June 8. G. No. January 2. 2002 Rule 39. No. et. April 27. al. Sec. Victorio. G. Teresa L. 2002 Rule 39.R. No. April 29. November 27.R. Teresa L. Ignacia vs.R. Montenegro vs. Montenegro. vs..

129713. vs. et al. G. This is what is termed conclusiveness of judgment. 1999 Maria G. G. but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose. It is final as to the claim or demand in controversy. In the present case.R.. the judgment on the merits rendered in the first constitutes an absolute bar to the subsequent action. No. 2000 Rodolfo Barretto vs. September 28. But where between the first case wherein judgment is rendered and the second case wherein such judgment is invoked. 114508..R. 2000 Cagayan De Oro Coliseum vs. 15.R. G. 126699. et al. No.. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 141 . Dec.R. 119707. Inc. G. Far East Bank and Trust Company. Court of Appeals. 150134. subject matter and cause of action. Mirpuri vs. October 31. It refers to a situation where the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to the matters actually determined or which were necessarily included therein. 2007 Bar by prior judgment exists when.R. Gabriel Leyson. only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined. there is no identity of cause of action. No. there is identity of parties. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. et al. Section 47. 2001 The doctrine of res judicata actually embraces two (2) concepts: the first is "bar by prior judgment" under paragraph (b) of Rule 39. No. Ernesto C. Section 49 (b) enunciates the first rule of res judicata known as "bar by prior judgment" or "estoppel by judgment. No. and not as to matters merely involved therein. 1999 Ayala Corp. 1999 Pribhdas J. vs. 1998 The above-quoted provision lays down two main rules. Ray Burton Devt.R. et al. November 19.R. April 21. purpose. and the second is "conclusiveness of judgment" under paragraph (c) thereof. fact. August 29. not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand. No. Rule 39 is "conclusiveness of judgment. et al. No." which states that the judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the parties and their privies to the litigation and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action either before the same or any other tribunal… The second rule of res judicata embodied in Section 47 (c). Inc. vs. and the second case where such judgment is invoked. Court of Appeals." This rule provides that any right.R. When the three (3) identities are present. the second concept — conclusiveness of Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. August 7. et al. 1999 Ricardo T. the judgment is conclusive in the second case. Del Rosario. 139306.Maria Mercedes Nery. between the first case where the judgment was rendered. 110259. No. 131012. and Accesslaw. G. or subject matter of the two suits is the same. November 29. G. Gloria vs. including the parties and those in privity with them. Baluyut. G.R. vs. Veronica Padillo vs.. 136294. No. or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which a judgment or decree is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claim or demand. G. Court of Appeals. Rodolfo Guiao. February 3. Corp.

118328. Ramon D. July 20. In other words. and (2) the hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause — nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. Fidel Benolirao. 1999 The fundamental principle upon which the doctrine of res judicata rests is that parties ought not be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once. between the first case where judgment was rendered and the second case where such judgment is invoked.R. No.R. should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate. Court of Appeals. 100789. G. Court of Appeals..Nazareno vs. The requisites of res judicata are: (1) there must be a final judgment or order. Camara vs. and Accesslaw. The judgment is conclusive in the second case. Marciana Serdoncillo vs. November 18. not of causes of action. and (4) there must be. October 8. February 23. 103476. No. G. 131641. 137908. but also to those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. when. only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined. and not as to matters merely involved therein. Inc. 2000 Codidi Mata vs. November 22. G. Court of Appeals. No. the judgment of the court. Court of Appeals. G. so long as it remains unreversed. 1999 It is clear that a judgment is not confined to what appears on the face of the decision. 131099. subject matter and causes of action.R. Domingo Celendro vs. petitioner is barred from challenging the pronouncement of the trial court that his alleged lot is within the property of respondents.R. (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. that when the right or fact has been judicially determined. Bernardino Calos. to wit: (1) the effect of a judgment as a bar to the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 1998 The doctrine of res judicata is a rule which pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of the common law. The doctrine of res judicata has two aspects. July 20. (3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 142 . G. namely: (1) public policy and necessity which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation — republicae ut sit litium.judgment — applies.R. Natividad P. No. No. G.R. Augusto A. 2000 Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment. 1999 There is "Conclusiveness of judgment"." issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action. there is identity of parties. A contrary doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer gratification of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility and happiness. No. Ocho vs. Inc. identity of parties. which is also known as "preclusion of issues" or "collateral estoppel. between the two cases. et al.

R.R. The only recognized exceptions are the correction of clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries in which case there is no prejudice to any party. 2009 Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. et al. to make orderly the discharge of judicial business and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies.. for the immediate enforcement of the parties' rights. Linzag vs.. at the risk of occasional errors. No. et al. 153736. Nos. No. December 18. confirmed by final judgment. Legaspi. the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law. at the risk of occasional errors. 175393 & 177731. it becomes immutable and unalterable. 175393 & 177731. August 4. et al. December 18. et al. the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. 2010 It is settled that when a final judgment is executory. and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 143 . otherwise.R. G. December 4.R. which is precisely why courts exist.. It may no longer be modified in any respect. Nos. is a major Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Apolonia G. The enforcement of such judgment should not be hampered or evaded. vs.. Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals. procedurally. thus setting to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by setting justiciable controversies with finality. GSIS vs. Jose A. RTC-Branch 71 of Pasig City. and Accesslaw. GSIS vs. No. 2009 Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period. G. 2009 The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus. 164195. Apo Fruits Corp. June 26. RTC-Branch 71 of Pasig City. judgments must become final at some definite point in time. and where the judgment is void. and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest Court of the land. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect. but a matter of public policy as well as a time-honored principle of procedural law. The rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time. demand or cause of action. and (2) preclude relitigation of a particular fact or issue in another action between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. and that. at the risk of occasional errors. 1998 Sps. even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. 122181. G.R.prosecution of a second action upon the same claim.. Inc. Inc. The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice. The doctrine is not a mere technicality to be easily brushed aside. Nicanor and Rosario Tumbokon vs. G. there would be no end to litigations. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that. G. et al.

Sandiganbayan. Register of Deeds of Quezon City.R.component of the ideal administration of justice. 174599-609. Any such remedy allowed in violation of established rules and guidelines connotes but a capricious exercise of discretion that must be struck down in order that the prevailing party is not deprived of the fruits of victory. 47 (d) It is fundamental that the judgment or final order is. Nos. February 12. Inc. there must be identity of issues but not necessarily identity in causes of action. regardless of whether the claims. the second as "conclusiveness of judgment. G. or enjoin the enforcement of a final judgment must be granted with caution and upon a strict observance of the requirements under existing laws and jurisprudence. purposes or subject matters of the two suits are the same.. G. G. August 17. No.R.. conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding. et al. and Accesslaw. et al. Thus. This is the reason why we abhor any delay in the full execution of final and executory decisions.R. litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity. Catalina Balais-Mabanag vs. 2011 Rule 39. Conclusiveness of judgment or auter action pendent ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot be raised anew in any future case involving the same parties although for a different cause of action. Tortogo. 48 . and (b) any right.Effect of foreign judgments Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al. The first is commonly referred to as "bar by former judgment". suspend. Pacifico R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 144 . Section 47 (b) and (c) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court establishes two rules: (a) a judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars the parties and their privies from bringing a new action or suit involving the same cause of action before either the same or any other tribunal. 2010 Rule 39.. 153142. fact or matter directly adjudged or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court that renders judgment on the merits is conclusively settled and cannot be litigated again between the parties and their privies. 156358. 2010 Rule 39. Eliza M. Inc. with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto. Where the rule applies. Sec. Sec. 47 (b) and (c) The res judicata rule bars the re-litigation of facts or issues that have once been settled by a court of law upon a final judgment on the merits. No. Sec. March 29. a remedy intended to frustrate." It is the second that is relevant to this case. Angelina Pahila-Garrido vs. Cruz vs.

g. vs. Aluminum Wheels vs. Chan. on custody. such as the award of custody to petitioner by the German court. Puyat vs. Section 50 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 39. divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction.R. In this jurisdiction. must still be determined by our courts. Jr. October 12. August 24. Inc.As a general rule. 141536. February 26. Rodriguez. Section 48.R. G. G.R. Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment. Ron Zabarte. 153791. on the basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). No. and Accesslaw. a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and. 2007 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.Where to appeal Under the Rules of Court. as such. as distinguished from actions in rem.. Mariano M. that trial upon regular proceedings has been conducted. it must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39. our Rules of Court clearly provide that with respect to actions in personam. care and support of the children. Inc. No. a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction. 137378. final orders or resolutions of an MTC should be appealed to the RTC exercising territorial jurisdiction over the former. 1 . A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes. and that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and in the system of laws under which it is sitting or fraud in procuring the judgment. until a contrary showing. G. Go Ke Chong. but the legal effects thereof. Sec. a judgment in an action in personam rendered by a foreign tribunal clothed with jurisdiction is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title. Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment. No. Maria Carmen D. Phil. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 145 . e. Roehr vs.R. Gil Miguel T. 142820. 2003 Under Section 48. 2001 In this jurisdiction. in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy. G. is subject to proof to the contrary. following due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice. No. June 20. Wolfgang O. 2000 Rule 40. Fasgi Ent.

Book III. therefore. 5 . August 31. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 165025. G. provided there is no bad faith or intent to defraud the Government on the part of the plaintiff. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 146 . 165025.R. No. Fedman Development Corp. In an action where the reliefs sought are purely for sums of money and damages. Imelda Argel vs. August 31. 2011 The filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading and the payment of the prescribed docket fee are the acts that vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the claim. vs.When to appeal Ma. where the plaintiff has paid the amount of filing fees assessed by the clerk of court. the trial court still acquires jurisdiction over the case. the principal law on prescription of actions. Federico Agcaoili. Title V. the trial court still acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a reasonable time as the court may grant. G. and the plaintiff will be required to pay the deficiency. subject to the payment by the plaintiff of the deficiency assessment. August 31. as provided in the applicable laws. Yet. vs.Rule 40. 2 .R. Sec. the docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount being claimed. Fedman Development Corp. Fedman Development Corp.R. and the amount paid turns out to be deficient. Federico Agcaoili. the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy has the responsibility of making a deficiency assessment. October 12. so that in every case the docket fees must be paid before the lapse of the prescriptive period. 2011 The prevailing rule is that if the correct amount of docket fees are not paid at the time of filing. 2011 If the amount of docket fees paid is insufficient in relation to the amounts being sought. Federico Agcaoili. and Accesslaw. barring prescription. 1999 Rule 40. 165025. Ideally. vs. of the Civil Code. Inc.R. particularly Chapter 3. Sec. No. the complaint or similar pleading must specify the sums of money to be recovered and the damages being sought in order that the clerk of court may be put in a position to compute the correct amount of docket fees. The non-specification of the amounts of damages does not immediately divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case. No. 128805. The "prescriptive period" that bars the payment of the docket fees refers to the period in which a specific action must be filed.Appellate court docket and other lawful fees The non-payment of the prescribed filing fees at the time of the filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading fails to vest jurisdiction over the case in the trial court. G. Court of Appeals. No. Inc.

Lorna Villa vs. His failure to comply with this mandate or to perform said duty will compel the RTC to dismiss his appeal. or of the essence of the proceedings.Procedure in the Regional Trial Court The appellant is duty-bound to submit his memorandum on appeal. Court of Appeals. G. The use of the word "shall" in a statute or rule expresses what is mandatory and compulsory. commission. vs. 162028. the Rule imposes upon an appellant the "duty" to submit his memorandum. in appeals from inferior courts to the RTC. No.R. G. This is because on appeal only errors specifically assigned and properly argued in the brief or memorandum will be considered. 2011 Rule 40. July 14. responsibility. In other words. Heirs of Enrique Altavas. Inc. Thus. Section 7 (b) provides that. charge. an act which is jurisdictional. 2008 Melba Moncal Enriquez vs. mandatory act. the appellant's brief is mandatory for the assignment of errors is vital to the decision of the appeal on the merits. Court of Appeals. Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 147 . Melba Moncal Enriquez vs. January 28. an appellate court has no power to resolve an unassigned error. A duty is a "legal or moral obligation. and Accesslaw. G. August 31. which does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter. the appellant is duty-bound to submit his memorandum on appeal. except those affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter as well as plain and clerical errors. This the petitioner failed to do when she did not submit her memorandum of appeal in Civil Case No. liability. an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. 165025. under the express mandate of said Rule. Federico Agcaoili. requirement. 2003 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 140473. office. Further.Fedman Development Corp. function. Filing of Memorandum Mandatory Rule 40. That she lost her case is not the trial court's fault but her own. save for a plain or clerical error. His failure to comply with this mandate or to perform said duty will compel the RTC to dismiss his appeal. Sec. chore. G. 12044 as required by Rule 40. he who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must play by the rules. dictate.R. But it is equally true that an appeal being a purely statutory right. (and) engagement". Inc. role. No. assignment. As private respondent points out. It is true that the Rules should be interpreted so as to give litigants ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and that a possible denial of substantial justice due to legal technicalities should be avoided. debt. No.R. 7 . January 28. No. pledge. Such submission is not a matter of discretion on his part. trust. 140473. In rules of procedure. or is prescribed for the protection or benefit of the party affected is mandatory. Otherwise stated. Such submission is not a matter of discretion on his part. "it shall be the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum" and failure to do so "shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal". 2003 Section 7 (b).R.

G. July 10. First Bancorp. parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. among others. Hence. Rule 41. 2006 Herminia Cando vs. 140894. or of a particular matter therein when declared by the Revised Rules of Court to be appealable. After the lapse of the fifteen-day period. Court of Appeals. 2007 There are two modes of appeal from a final order of the trial court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction — (1) by writ of error under Section 2 (a).Appeal from the Regional Trial Courts Rosario Yambao vs. 2005 It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional right. Francisco Magestrado vs. Otherwise. Inc. 136207. the CA may grant an extension to file the petition for review. G. The Rules of Civil Procedure provide. No. No. there would be no end to litigation and would set to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by setting justiciable controversies with finality. G. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 148 . 2000 Under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The court loses jurisdiction over the case and not even an appellate court would have the power to review a judgment that has acquired finality. Inc. 168088.R. The law grants an aggrieved party a period of fifteen (15) days from his receipt of the court's decision or order disposing of the action or proceeding to appeal or move to reconsider the same. there must be a proof of Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G.R. No. June 22. No.R. Moreover. Court of Appeals. Inc. 160741. that the appeal should be taken within fifteen (15) days from the notice of judgment or from the denial of the motion for reconsideration.. and that. vs. CA. People of the Philippines. and Accesslaw.. No. San Fernando Rural Bank. 148072. in relation to Rule 45.R. G. or (2) appeal by certiorari under Section 2 (c). an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case. but a mere statutory privilege. where only questions of law are raised or involved. No. an order becomes final and executory and is beyond the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further amend or revoke. Spouses Aurora and Claudio Olazo. Heirs of Tungpala vs. G. November 27.R. 151132. June 21.Rule 41 .R. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court if questions of fact or questions of fact and law are raised or involved. et al. 2007 Failure to interpose an appeal within the reglementary period renders an order or decision final and executory unless a party files a motion for reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period. Inc. April 4. Pampanga Omnibus Development Corp. upon motion and payment of the docket fees before the expiration of the reglementary period. vs. March 22. 2007 The remedy to question a final order is appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

Every party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause. citing Zamboanga Forest Managers Corp. and the CA may dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-payment of docket and other lawful fees.R. 2011. New Pacific Timber and Supply Co. Land Bank of the Phil. free from the constraints of technicalities. the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law. to enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Undisputedly. it has been held. April 11. an appellant may take an appeal to the CA by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC and paying the required docket and other lawful fees with the RTC Branch Clerk of Court. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that. 2005 Starting March 20.R. that is. vs. v. at the risk of occasional error. No. and a written explanation why service was not done personally. sitting as a special agrarian court. The rules require that from the date of receipt of the assailed RTC order denying one's motion for reconsideration. vs. the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory. G. Augustus Gonzales. review. Rosario Dalton-Reyes vs. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. not a notice of appeal under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. et al. Once a decision attains finality. August 8.R.R. Quirico Pe. change or alter the same. et al. it has been held that the rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of justice. March 16. 190660. it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not and no court — not even the Supreme Court — has the power to revise. one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly comply with the requirements of the rules. 2008 Although appeal is an essential part of our judicial process. the assailed RTC decision shall become final and executory and. G. in case the service is made through registered mail or other modes of service. As a consequence. Hermin Arceo. July 21.R. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules... rather than frustrate it. and Accesslaw.. Thus. Court of Appeals. in a petition for determination of just compensation is a petition for review under Rule 43. 143275 To recapitulate. Inc. G. Land Bank of the Phil. therefore. 167398. Time and again. G. 149580. No. vs. time and again. the prevailing parties can move for the issuance of a writ of execution.. and failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to appeal. et al. the proper mode of appeal from a decision of the RTC. Otherwise. No. et al. No. CA. 2003. within the 15-day reglementary period for the perfection of an appeal. 2011 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. the petitioner failed to meet these requirements. G. Inc. the appellant's appeal is not perfected.service of a copy of the petition on the adverse party and the court a quo. 158270. No. that the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 149 .

2002 MMDA vs. People of the Phil. 2008 The first mode of appeal. G. 2002 Anastacio Fabela vs.R. No. 140974. et al. Court of Appeals. No.. G..Subject of appeal Bienvenido P. 136294. October 29. July 6. 2003 Lamberto Casalla vs. Santos vs. No. 174373. governed by Rule 41.R. Said provision. 2001 William P. A & C Minimart Corp. 112569. G. 141863. G. or mixed questions of fact and law. July 11. vs. 142546. No. an appeal may be taken only from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case or of a matter therein when declared by the Rules to be appealable. such order may be challenged by the aggrieved party via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Patricia S. February 16. 2000 Maria G. No. Emelinda V. February 21. and Accesslaw. G. October 15. et al. G. January 30. G. et al. G.R. Villareal.R. et al. Constancio Benemerito. No. is taken to the Court of Appeals on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. G. No.R.R. provided for by Rule 45. Court of Appeals. Jancom Environmental Corp. Bengson Commercial Buildings. of law. 2007 Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 172268.R. 138336-37. April 12. 2004 Basilio Rivera vs. No.R. No.R. Court of Appeals. Gerardo D. Jaban. covered by Rule 42. is elevated to the Supreme Court only on questions of law.. No. 147465. Court of Appeals.R. the aggrieved party can no longer appeal from the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. 2007 Section 1.. Alvin Garcia. thus. Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano vs. G. 138855. October 10. vs.R. September 28.R. 137448. People of the Philippines. 2007 It is explicit from (Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court) that no appeal may be taken from an order of execution. Judy Anne L. Diaz. Sec. instead. G. 2000 Shuhei Yasuda vs..R. No. No. The second mode of appeal. 2002 GSIS vs. governing appeals from the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) to the Court of Appeals. et al. Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court. G. et al. G. Chan vs. 138758. Court of Appeals.. Inc.. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 150 . G. Inc. 174247. explicitly states that no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order. Rodolfo Guiao.. Baluyut. August 9. Abedes vs. The third mode of appeal. 1 . et al vs. No.. No.Rule 41.R. et al. June 26. 1999 According to Section 1. 2001 Ramon Oro vs. 173176. et al. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that no appeal may be taken from an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. is brought to the Court of Appeals on questions of fact. January 31. August 26.

2007 Douglas Lu Ym vs. as distinguished from one which has 'become final' (or 'executory' as of right [final and executory]).. et al. or granting a motion for extension of time to file a pleading. . or authorizing amendment thereof. etc. and Accesslaw. of course. February 23. 152375. on the other hand. Felicidad Navarro.. the task of the Court is ended. Gertrudes Nabua. Inc. e. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable. (G. L-60036. et al. No. Unlike a 'final' judgment or order.R. June 29. the petition must be filed within sixty days from notice of the assailed judgment. or denial of a motion for reconsideration. No. resolution.g.R. 161309. order. 152575. an 'interlocutory' order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. G. Conversely. . on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right. Domingo Realty. and an interlocutory order. No. 1987) viz. an adjudication on the merits which. Court of Appeals. 126236. 'final and executory. et al. which is appealable. Inc.order denying the petition since this is proscribed under Section 1 of Rule 41. Fil-Estate Golf and Development. vs. No. or the taking of an appeal) and ultimately. as above pointed out. 2005 The fundamental distinction between a final judgment or order.R. to use the established and more distinctive term. or production or inspection of documents or things. The remedy of the party is to file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 from the order rejecting the petition for relief from judgment. Inc. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties' next move (which among others. vs. Inc.. v.. Court of Appeals. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 151 . 2011 Section 1 (c) Under Section 1 (c). January 27. or granting or denying applications for postponement. leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto. is definite and settled. the aggrieved party is afforded the chance to question an interlocutory order through a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.' e. Sandiganbayan. on one hand. an order that does not finally dispose of the case. vs. . G. as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants is concerned. 2007 While this provision prohibits an appeal from an interlocutory order. Republic of the Phil. an interlocutory order is not appealable. No.R. may consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. an order denying a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules. or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground. G. is 'interlocutory.R. and does not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other.g. Inc..: The concept of 'final' judgment. for instance. has been outlined in Investments. December 16. G. of res judicata or prescription. January 26. Once rendered. to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes 'final' or. but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court. A 'final' judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case.

Jacob M. Teofilo and Elisa Reterta vs. No. 165273. unless the court allows an appeal therefrom. August 25. De Suarez. November 28. Republic of the Phil. In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable.R. 159941. et al. Sandiganbayan (Second Division). et al. mistake or duress. 2009 Section 1. G. (d) an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. et al. that no appeal may be taken from (a) an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration. (e) an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent. 2010 Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. 179328. counterclaims.R. the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Inc. Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court on the subject of appeal.may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case. for there is no unequivocal determination of the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the cause of action and subject matter thereof. No. 2011 The December 20. Gertrudes Nabua. 159275. or (h) an order dismissing an action without prejudice. 2008 Section 1 (h) A dismissal without prejudice does not operate as a judgment on the merits.R. and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous.. Heirs of Sps. Danilo P. while the main case is pending. (c) an interlocutory order. No. Chua. cross-claims and third-party complaints.R. December 16.. Inc. Lorenzo and Virginia Mores. confession or compromise on the ground of fraud. August 17. 176141.R. 149017. (f) an order of execution. G. No. Leah Palma vs. and Accesslaw. or any other ground vitiating consent. G. Positos vs. and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. No. Galvez. Douglas Lu Ym. G. Rizalina P. Teofista Isagon vda. December 23. G. 2007 amendment to the Rules of Civil Procedure has deleted Section 1 (a) of Rule 41 which contains the express provision that no appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration. (b) an order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment. Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that an appeal may be taken only from a final order that completely disposes of the case. vs. No. vs. Recourse to a petition for certiorari to assail an interlocutory order is now expressly recognized in the ultimate paragraph of Section 1. (g) a judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims. March 10. et al. 2010 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Valente Raymundo vs.. 2008 The appropriate remedy to be taken from an interlocutory order is a special civil action under Rule 65. Sps. G.R. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 152 .

and Accesslaw. Inc. or an equally beneficial. A remedy is plain. to reverse the CA on that basis would not be right and proper.R. (d) where an appeal would be slow. No. October 23. inadequate. Nos. such as: (a) when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party. Sps. effective December 27. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court — the version in force at the time when the CA rendered its assailed decision on May 15. and that such a revision of a procedural rule may be retroactively applied. or any plain speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law admits of exceptions. the Court has considered certiorari as the proper remedy despite the availability of appeal. 2002 — included an order denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration . (e) where the issue raised is one purely of law. or resolution of the lower court or agency. order. In Francisco Motors Corporation v. (b) where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment. and insufficient. On occasion. It is inadequacy. G. . It is true that Administrative Matter No. August 17. 2011 The settled rule precluding certiorari as a remedy against the final order when appeal is available notwithstanding. 07-7-12-SC. the Court has held that the availability of appeal as a remedy does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent or preclude a party from making use of certiorari if appeal is not an adequate remedy. speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment. Rule 41. . that must usually determine the propriety of certiorari. Lorenzo and Virginia Mores. (f) where public interest is involved. (c) where there may be danger of a failure of justice. Teofilo and Elisa Reterta vs. 159941. 2006) the Court has declared that the requirement that there must be no appeal. or other remedy in the ordinary course of law. and (b) the order of the RTC granting the motion to dismiss on ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter evidently constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. Specifically. the Court rules that the CA should have given due course to and granted the petition for certiorari for two exceptional reasons. then. not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of justice without the writ. 2007. However. and (g) in case of urgency. Court of Appeals. It is understood. namely: (a) the broader interest of justice demanded that certiorari be given due course to avoid the undeserved grossly unjust result that would befall the petitioners otherwise. (G. 117622-23. or speedy remedy. because it is better on balance to look beyond procedural requirements and to overcome the ordinary disinclination to exercise supervisory powers in order Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. simply because the CA correctly applied the rule of procedure in force at the time when it issued its assailed final order. has since amended Section 1. supra. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 153 . Inc.The enumeration of the orders that were not appealable made in the 1997 version of Section 1. that a litigant need not mark time by resorting to the less speedy remedy of appeal in order to have an order annulled and set aside for being patently void for failure of the trial court to comply with the Rules of Court. Nor should the petitioner be denied the recourse despite certiorari not being available as a proper remedy against an assailed order. Heirs of Sps.R. by deleting an order denying a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration from the enumeration of non-appealable orders.

September 10. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Verily. Inc. Court of Appeals. G. July 10. No.R. 156067. 1998 Macawiwili Gold Mining vs.. Teofilo and Elisa Reterta vs. August 17.R. People of the Phil. G. G. No. Pilotin. Inc. 2000 Asset Privatization Trust vs..R. G. no doubt. Lapanday Holdings Corp. et al. 121171. No." Thus. an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case. No. or a petition for review under Rule 42 if the case was decided under the RTC's appellate jurisdiction.Modes of appeal Madrigal Transport. the above-quoted rule requires the filing of a record on appeal in "other cases of multiple or separate appeal. 2002 Napocor vs.R.. Sps. G. Sec. 137785. No. et al.R. the instances in which certiorari will issue cannot be defined. and Accesslaw. Arlene and Bernardo de Leon. Court of Appeals. Victor C. September 4. Lorenzo and Virginia Mores. 2011 Rule 41. or of a particular matter therein when declared by the Revised Rules of Court to be appealable. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 154 . Aguirre-Paderanga. recognizes the existence of multiple appeals in a complaint for expropriation. No. if the case was originally decided by the RTC. and that in the exercise of superintending control over inferior courts. a superior court is to be guided by all the circumstances of each particular case "as the ends of justice may require. Vine Development Corp. August 11. No. Inc. 2 . final orders or resolutions meanwhile are appealable to the CA either through an ordinary appeal. G. 115104. December 29. 2003 Land Bank of the Phil.R.R." Jurisprudential law. The wide breadth and range of the discretion of the court are such that authority is not wanting to show that certiorari is more discretionary than either prohibition or mandamus. 2007 Section 2 (a) RTC judgments. 2005 Under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. because to do so is to destroy the comprehensiveness and usefulness of the extraordinary writ. the writ will be granted whenever necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice. December 11. G. G.that a void order of a lower court may be controlled to make it conformable to law and justice. October 12.R.. G. 2004 La Salette College. vs. et al. No. 143275. 159941.R. 155065. No. vs. 148072. Francisco Magestrado vs. 149227. Heirs of Sps. vs. 1998 While admittedly a complaint for expropriation is not a special proceeding. July 27. NPC vs.

the appeal shall be to this Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. vs. 2007 Under Section 2 (c). appeal to the Court of Appeals is by a petition for review under Rule 42. No. No. we have held that the failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed reglementary period is not a mere technicality. February 6. 2007 Republic of the Philippines vs. without rules governing practice. it is merely a statutory privilege. Marilyn B. and intolerable delays would result. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 155 . in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Section 1.R. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirement of the rules. Failure to meet the requirements of an appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain any appeal. appeal to the Court of Appeals is taken by filing a notice of appeal. Public policy and sound practice demand that judgments of courts should become final and irrevocable at some definite date fixed by law. G. vs. 2008 This Court has invariably ruled that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. Inc.R. et al. No. the appeal from a decision or order of the RTC shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. 153791. G.R.R. Gerardo Mendoza. No. 173351.Go Ke Chong. and Accesslaw. The failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. The reason for rules of this nature is because the dispatch of business by courts would be impossible. Ericsson Telecommunications. Inc. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that in all cases where questions of law are raised or involved. 159589. November 22. The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process. No. Mariano M. Jr. Otake. 2010 Section 2 (c) Section 2 (c). 2007 Section 2 (b) The Rule is clear. unfortunately respondents did not present any circumstances that would justify the relaxation of said rule. December 23. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. In cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Chan. Soledad Salinas. G. Such rules are a necessary incident to the proper. 152827. Inc. the right to appeal is lost. 176667. August 24. July 29. Thus. G. vs. Heirs of Juan Faber. and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision. BF Citiland Corp. but jurisdictional. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period.R. City of Pasig. Failing to do so. There are exceptions to this rule. G. On the other hand. it is provided that in all cases where only questions of law are raised. efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions. vs.

No. appeal in habeas corpus cases La Salette College. 128805. No. De Mangubat. Socorro V. 2003 Manila Memorial Park vs. and Accesslaw. Victor C. Reyes. No. CA. 137571. G. Wilfredo D. 2010 Rule 41. or it may be an order or judgment that dismisses an action.R. G. leaving nothing more for the court to do with respect to it. G. 149508.. August 6. et al. November 15. et al. 2005 Makati Insurance Co. December 11. Inc. Inc. Inc.. Heirs of Jose c. et al. Rovira vs. No. 137122. It is an adjudication on the merits which. Sec.R. No. No. 2009 Multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings. Ma. 3 ... March 26. Vda. 2007 The fifteen (15)-day period (mentioned in Section 3 of Rule 41) begins to run upon receipt of notice of the decision or final order appealed from. 141810 & 141812. G. G. Court of Appeals.R. G. in actions for partition of property with accounting.R. considering the evidence presented at the trial. 149227. 2000 Tung Chin Hui vs. Sps.R. G.R. In such a case.R. which is considered notice to the parties. 160825. October 10. Fred Elizalde. Deleste. declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are.R. G. 141524. December 4.. in the special civil actions of eminent domain and foreclosure of mortgage. September 21. Rufus B.Period of ordinary appeal. 167403. Ricardo and Leonila delos Santos vs. Rodriguez.. 182645. Such period has been considered to begin upon receipt of notice by the counsel of record. October 12. Vicente delos Santos. et al. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 156 . counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration. vs. Voltaire I. No.In Re: Heirship of the Late Hermogenes Rodriguez. 2007 Based on the foregoing. No. Court of Appeals. et al. vs. the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court. et al. 1999 To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases. vs. The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal in the same case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be final. 2000 Ma. September 14. Domingo Neypes vs.R. 2008 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al. G. No. No. the filing of a record on appeal becomes indispensable since only a particular incident of the case is brought to the appellate court for resolution with the rest of the proceedings remaining within the jurisdiction of the trial court.R. February 2. Imelda Argel vs. A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case. G. Pilotin. an appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of judgment or final order appealed from.

November 29. G. et al. and Accesslaw.M. G. 2003 Noli Alfonso. No. et al.R. 2002 Teodora Buenaflor. G. 2000 William P.R.R. et al. 167398. It is also not part of due process. No. Henry and Liwanag Andres. G. 136121. G. Inc. Sec. 170728. 2000 Ayala Land vs. 2000 Gabriel Lazaro vs.. G. et al. 1999 The payment of docket fees is a requirement in filing an ordinary appeal from the decision or final order of the RTC. Inc. 2011 The right to appeal is not a natural right. No.R. 138758. 2000 Mactan Cebu International Airport vs. Solidbank. vs.R. Section 2. Augustus Gonzales. Sps. 139611. 137761. Inc. Sps. et al. Otherwise. 2011 It bears stressing that payment of docket and other fees within this period is mandatory for the perfection of the appeal. Court of Appeals. vs.R. Court of Appeals. D. Manuel “Guy” Link.R. Tereso Tan. 142021. G.R. 139882. No.. G. Concomitant with the filing of a notice of appeal is the payment of the required appeal fees within the 15-day reglementary period set forth in Section 4 of the said Rule. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that the appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC (the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from) and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. G. December 11. No. City of Parañaque. vs. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 157 .. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. July 6. Morris and Socorro Carpo. et al. No. August 16.R. Section 3 thereof states that the appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. April 6.R.Appellate court docket and other lawful fees La Salette College. Victor C. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. November 22. 4 . This is so because a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action only upon the payment of the correct amount of docket fees regardless of the actual date of filing of the case in court. G. August 8. without which the decision or final order appealed from becomes final and executory as if no appeal was filed. vs. No. 2008 In cases of ordinary appeal. No. Chan vs. August 16. Pilotin. 149227. Cuizon Mangubat. vs. vs. No. No. 172849. the right to appeal is lost. Court of Appeals. et al. December 10. vs. 140162.Rule 41. October 4.R. et al. No. Wenceslao and Associates. Quirico Pe. It is an essential requirement. G. The payment of appellate docket fees is not a mere technicality of law or procedure.. et al. August 31. 2000 Oriental Assurance Corp.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 158 .M. the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory. and third. City of Parañaque.. Inc. Herbal Cove Realty Corp. It should be noted that full payment of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory. Furthermore. December 11. as a rule. Inc. and Accesslaw. so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. et al. Sec.R. 2011 Rule 41. La Salette College. et al. parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. A. Agustin S.M. No. The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in law must. even jurisdictional. et al.Notice of appeal Aquilina Estrella. D. the appellate court would not be able to act on the subject matter of the action. second.R. Wenceslao and Associates.R. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Dizon. March 18. but a mere statutory privilege. be strictly followed. No. and the decision or final order sought to be appealed from would become final and executory. No. March 20. 148568.Thus. the full amount of appellate court docket and other legal fees must be paid to the clerk of the court that rendered the judgment or final order. Victor C. Otherwise. Hence. vs. G. August 31. 5 .. effect thereof Eusebio Osorio vs. Nila Espiridion. No. within 15 days. et al. vs.. vs. It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional right. 9 . 2003 Procedural rules setting the period for perfecting an appeal or filing a petition for review are generally inviolable. 2003 Accordingly. G. but also jurisdictional. 2004 Atlantic Erectors vs. within the same 15-day period. for the perfection of the appeal. 2003 Rule 41. G. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. Sec. the following requirements must be complied with. November 27. 170728. RTJ-04-1838. in order to perfect an appeal from a decision rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. a notice of appeal must be filed with the court that rendered the judgment or final order sought to be appealed. 149227. such notice must be served on the adverse party. Inc. No.Perfection of appeal. First. 134460. Pilotin. one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules.R. G.

M.. et al. et al. vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Sec. A.finality of the decision. It raises jurisdictional problem. 2004 Eusebio Osorio vs. In his comment. and Accesslaw. as in this case. Jr. the issuance of the writ of execution because the respondent's appeal was not perfected. Augustus Gonzales.M. A. A. 167398. et al. 2011 Rule 41. free from the constraints of technicalities. Danilo S. 2010 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. Ricafort. vs. Inc. G.R. March 18. MTJ-04-1545. RTJ-04-1838. August 3.R. At any rate. Luminza Delos Reyes vs. prior to the transmittal of the original records of the case to the CA. the reasons for their non-transmittal. Withal. 166411. No. 2011 While every litigant must be given the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause. 167398.R. Clerk of Court made no mention of any steps taken to complete the records. however. No. the failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is not a mere technicality. 2004 Section 10. Augustus Gonzales. Armando R. After a decision is declared final and executory. vs. Dizon. Agustin S. No. 2010 Section 9. Under the Rules. No. Rule 41 of the Rules explains that the court of origin loses jurisdiction over the case only upon the perfection of the appeal filed in due time by the appellant and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties. No.Duty of clerk of court of the lower court upon perfection of appeal Saturnino Obañana. RTJ-08-2152. 10 . et al. Quirico Pe. August 8. G. Quirico Pe. January 18. August 8. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period. Elpidio Calipay vs. measures should be taken to complete the records.M. the failure to complete the records does not justify its non-transmittal. et al. May 27. as it deprives the appellate court of its jurisdiction over the appeal. the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision on the case. when the records cannot be completed. G. Cruz. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 159 . the RTC may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the prevailing party. NLRC. and the steps taken or that could be taken to have them available". Inc.. respondent should "indicate in his letter of transmittal the exhibits or transcripts not included in the records being transmitted to the appellate court. vs.. No. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that if the records are found to be incomplete.

G. The purpose behind the limitation of the period of appeal is to avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. 149692.R. vs. to wit: The general rule is that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is. 2007 The reason why it is permissible to adopt a petition for review when appealing cases decided by the Special Agrarian Courts in eminent domain cases is the need for absolute dispatch in the determination of just compensation. et al. No. Pennisi (G. et al. 176129. unintended lapses are disregarded so as to give due course to appeals filed beyond the reglementary period on the basis of strong and compelling reasons. Inc..How appeal taken. March 5. Heirs of Rodolfo Crisostomo vs. 146769. 2010). G. 1 (2001). compensation cannot be considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss. we said: The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Maximo and Engracia C. Where no element of intent to delay the administration of justice could be attributed to petitioners. Rudex International Development Corp. time for filing Heirs of Sps. Virginia Hofilena-Europa. Such objective is more in keeping with the nature of a petition for review. which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. Without prompt payment. Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. July 30. Abadilla. but jurisdictional. when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy. 1 .Rule 42. this Court elucidated on the rules on reglementary periods. Even the Revised Rules of Court envision this liberality..R. not only mandatory. 169958. Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 160 . August 24. Sps. Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides that a party who desires to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals. By way of exception. August 17. 2011 Section 1. Heirs of Quintos. Their strict and rigid application especially on technical matters. In Department of Justice Secretary Raul M. Court of Appeals (416 Phil. Dela Cruz vs. must be avoided. and Accesslaw. and failure to conform to the rules will render the judgment sought to be reviewed final and unappealable. Technicality. No. such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage thereof. No. G. Just compensation means not only paying the correct amount but also paying for the land within a reasonable time from its acquisition. deserves scant consideration from the courts. 2002 This Court has explained that the purpose in limiting the period of appeal is to forestall or avoid an unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. Sec. Gonzalez v. No. In Samala v. a one-day delay does not justify their petition's dismissal.R.

an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties. Rosario Tanghal-Salvana. 2007 Non-compliance with these requirements is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the Petition. January 21. No. 2001 Nelia Atillo vs. Inc.R.R. 148892. G. De Onorio. 2001 Cornelia P. G. Clarita Vda. 2010 Rule 42. issues and causes of action. Court of Appeals. 2 . . G. Anton and Eileen Lim vs. 2005 The requirements as to form and content of a petition for review of a decision of the RTC are laid down in Section 2 of Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court. G. No. January 26. LBP vs. July 18. Virginia Real vs. Ma. a petition for review dispenses with the filing of a notice of appeal or completion of records as requisites before any pleading is submitted.R. 130068. Cusi-Hernandez vs. . No. No.Unlike an ordinary appeal. Court of Appeals. 146062. 133542. 152392. Luz L. Hence. No. 146224. G. May 6. pursuant to Section 3 of the same Rule.R. 2000 Far Eastern Shipping vs. No.R. Uni-Tan Marketing Corp. Court of Appeals. Sps.R. May 26. 143397. an end not foreseeable in an ordinary appeal.R.R. G. the certification must be accomplished by the party himself because he has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or tribunals. Eduardo Diaz. G. 188360. No. No.Form and contents Francisco Dee vs. Rural Bankers Association of the Phil. 2010 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia. No.. February 20. and Accesslaw. v. No. 2007 Expertravel & Tours. Norberto and Desideria Dulpina. 1998 The requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory. . Sisenando H. . G.R. 175020. No. January 29.R. October 4. August 6. Heber and Charlita Edillo vs. 136096. vs. G. 2002 Sps. February 7. G. Sec. . G. and failure to comply therewith cannot be excused. June 28. Inc.R. Rodriguez. Inc. Sps. A petition for review hastens the award of fair recompense to deprived landowners for the government-acquired property. 147328. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 161 . October 1. 2004 Santiago Alcantara vs. Buenaventura Bombay. . G.. No. et al.R. The certification is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party. Belo. 2002 Santiago Eslaban vs. 140436. Court of Appeals and The Peninsula Manila. .

requires that. No. 183467. G.. Evelyn Barredo vs.R. 2010 Rule 42.Effect of failure to comply with requirements Nelia Atillo vs. No. Inc. March 29. the petition shall "be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts. 3 . as amended. 140436. Buenaventura Bombay.R. G. Sec. 2 (d) While Rule 42.. and Accesslaw. inter alia. G. 136096.Rule 42. which is the subject of her appeal.. Eduardo Diaz." the cited deficiency in petitioner's petition does not make it insufficient in form and substance since it is the decision of the RTC. Cusi-Hernandez vs. July 18. February 7. People of the Phil. 2001 Cornelia P. Section 2 (d) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. No. Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2012 162 . 2000 Copyright 2012 CD Technologies Asia.R. et al. not that of the MTCC. et al. Inc. Sec.