1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls.

check for errors>

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

Rule 36 JUDGMENTS !"N#$ %RDERS #ND ENTR& T'ERE%! There are three (3) important stages in a civil action. Q: What are these three (3) stages? A: The following: 1.) First stage: "ssue !or(ulat)o* Sta+e It is the stage in which we are trying to fin o!t what are the iss!es we are "!arreling a#o!t. This is one #y filing a complaint$ answer to %now the efenses$ co!nterclaim$ answer to co!nterclaim$ thir party complaint. This is the stage of form!lation of iss!es. After the last plea ing is file $ we go to pre&trial where we will isc!ss the simplification of iss!es a visa#ility of amen ing the plea ings$ etc. Therefore$ !ring pre&trial we are still form!lating iss!es to #e tac%le . When the pre&trial is terminate an there is no settlement$ we procee to stage ': '.) Second stage: Sta+e of ,roof ((!le 3) on Trial) We are now on trial where the parties will now offer their evi ence. It is calle the stage of proof. *laintiff presents evi ence to prove his claim. +efen ant presents evi ence to prove his efense. *arties present re#!tting evi ence. ,o this is the stage where the parties will prove their respective contentions. After the case has #een trie an everything has #een arg!e !n er (!le 3)$ the last stage is-. [sound plis tadadadan!tadan!] 3.) Third stage: Jud+(e*t Sta+e ((!le 3.) This is the stage where the co!rt will now eci e an ren er /! gment. Q: +efine 0! gment. A: 0! gment is the final consi eration an etermination #y a co!rt of the rights of the parties as those rights presently e1ists$ !pon matters s!#mitte to it in an action or procee ing. (2otamco vs. 3han ,eng$ 4. *hil. 54') Q: What are the re"!isites of a vali /! gment? A: There are five (5) re"!isites for a vali /! gment: 1.) the court rendering judgment must have jurisdiction over the subject matter6 '.) the court rendering judgment must have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and in case the defendant is a non-resident, the court rendering judgment must have jurisdiction over the res6 3.) the court rendering judgment must have jurisdiction over the issues, that is, the judgment shall decide onl the issues raised b the parties in their pleadings6 4.) the court rendering judgment must be validl constituted court and the judge thereof, a judge de jure or de facto6 Th!s$ the co!rt has not #een a#olishe 6 the /! ge has #een appointe an has not retire nor separate from service. That is why there is a r!le even in criminal cases that if the /! gment is prom!lgate after the /! ge has alrea y retire $ the /! gment is voi . There m!st #e another prom!lgation.

67

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

!"#$%&!: 0! ge tries a case$ prepares the ecision an signs it. 7efore the ecision is prom!lgate $ the /! ge ie or retire . In this case$ any prom!lgation to #e ma e cannot #e vali . The ne1t /! ge m!st #e the one to prom!lgate it 8 write the ecision again an sign it. What is important is the /! ge who ren ere . #-. D#/#% #UT% SU,,$& vs' .%URT %! #,,E#$S 012 S.R# 031 90an!ary 1.$ 1::;< !#.TS: The case was trie #y a /! ge (Agton) who was temporarily assigne to =ati. >e wrote the ecision an ha it release #!t #y that time$ he was alrea y #ac% in =ati. The losing party conten e that the /! gment was not vali . 'E$D: The /! gment is ?A@I+ #eca!se when the new /! ge enie the motion for reconsi eration$ he effectively a opte in toto the ecision of the =ati /! ge. An #esi es$ the =ati /! ge was still a /! ge when he ren ere his ecision. AThe s!#se"!ent motion for reconsi eration of 0! ge AgtonBs ecision was acte !pon #y 0! ge =arasigan himself an his enial of the sai motion in icates that he s!#scri#e with an a opte in toto 0! ge AgtonBs ecision. Any incipient efect was c!re . 7ranches of the trial co!rt are not istinct an separate tri#!nals from each other. 0!ris iction oes not attach to the /! ge #!t to the co!rt.C 5.) the judgment must be rendered after la(ful hearing, meaning that due process must be observed. (7!sacay vs. 7!enavent!ra$ 5) D.2. 111$ 0an. 1:546 (!e a vs. 0!an$ @&13E.4$ 0an. 3)$ 1:.)6 (o/as vs. ?illan!eva$ 5E D.2. E33:$ Dct. :$ n1:.16 (ayray vs. 3hae Fy!ng @ee$ @&1;1E.$ Dct. '.$ 1:..) There m!st #e a trial where #oth si es are given the chance to #e hear . In case of a efa!lte efen ant$ !e process was o#serve #eca!se he was given the opport!nity to efen himself. 7!t he i not file an answer. The essence of !e process is the fact that yo! are given the opportunit to #e hear . Sec. 3. )endition of judgments and final orders. 4 # 5ud+(e*t or f)*al order deter()*)*+ the (er)ts of the case shall 6e )* 7r)t)*+ perso*ally a*d d)rectly prepared 6y the 5ud+e stat)*+ clearly a*d d)st)*ctly the facts a*d the la7 o* 7h)ch )t )s 6ased s)+*ed 6y h)( a*d f)led 7)th the clerk of the court. 83a9 Q: What are the F*)$#& re"!isites of a vali /! gment? A: There are fo!r (4) formal re"!isites: 1.) The /! gment shall #e in writing6 '.) It shall #e personally an irectly prepare #y the /! ge6 3.) It shall state clearly an istinctly the facts an the law on which it is #ase 6 and 4.) It shall #e signe #y the /! ge an file with the cler% of co!rt. First formal re+uisite: T,! -./0$!1T S,#&& 2! 31 4)3T310 There is no s!ch thing as an oral /! gment. 7A( QGH,TIDI: After the parties presente their evi ence$ the /! ge as%e the lawyers$ 5#re ou going to argue67 The parties sai $ 51o more, 8our honor' 4e are (aiving our right to argue'7 ,o the /! ge ictate the ecision to the cler% of co!rt. The /! gment was against the efen ant. The efen ant appeale ne1t ay. +o yo! co!nt the perio of appeal from that ate when he hear the ecision?

68

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

AI,WH(: ID. Jo! still have to wait for the written ecision. *res!ma#ly$ what is ictate #y the /! ge will #e transcri#e . Krom the time yo! receive it is the rec%oning perio for appeal$ notwithstan ing the hearing of s!ch ecision in open co!rt. That is not yet the formal ecision #eca!se !n er the law$ there is no s!ch thing as oral ecision. The /! gment m!st #e in writing. Dfficially the ecision is %nown to yo! on the ate yo! receive the written /! gment. Iot the ate when he ictate it in yo!r presence. There are /! ges #efore who co!l o that. Hven now those /! ges in =anila who #ecame /!stices to ay o practice s!ch type of /! gment. At present$ /! ges no longer possess s!ch s%ill. They are given :) ays to eci e the iss!e an yet at times$ they co!l not o so within the perio man ate #y law. >ow m!ch more on the spot ecision? Second formal re+uisite: 3T S,#&& 2! %!)S*1#&&8 #1/ /3)!9T&8 %)!%#)!/ 28 T,! -./0! It is pres!me that the /! gment will #e ma e #y the /! ge himself. Altho!gh sometimes it happens otherwise. The /! ge sho!l not elegate the writing to other people. There m!st #e no ghost writer. Third formal re+uisite: 3T S,#&& ST#T! 9&!#)&8 #1/ /3ST319T&8 T,! F#9TS #1/ T,! &#4 *1 4,39, 3T 3S 2#S!/ The most important 8 the decision should state clearl and distinctl , the facts and the la( on (hich it is based. =eaning$ there m!st #e a /!stification for the ispositive portion. The /! ge m!st arg!e why the party won or lost. Iormally in the facts$ either the facts presente #y plaintiff are right an the facts presente #y the efen ant are wrong or vice&versa. If yo! thin% the facts as presente #y the plaintiff are correct or not$ yo! have to state why o yo! #elieve that it is correct or not$ an also with the evi ence of the efen ant. The same thing with legal "!estions #eca!se the plaintiff or the efen ant relies on the provisions of the laws or eci e cases. Jo! have to state why the position of the efen ant is wrong$ why is the law that he cite applica#le. Jo! have to state yo!r facts an concl!sions of law. not

In the ,3(A$ the ,!preme 3o!rt will isc!ss #oth si es$ 5#ccording to the plaintiff li:e this #ccording to the defendant li:e this''and so forth'7 Then the ecision will start #y saying$ 54hile the petitioner is correctC or$ A4hile the defendant is correctC It is calle the isc!ssion of the facts an the law on which the re"!irement in the 3onstit!tion$ Article ?III$ ,ection 14: ecision is #ase . It is a

Sec. 32. No dec)s)o* shall 6e re*dered 6y a*y court 7)thout e:press)*+ there)* clearly a*d d)st)*ctly the facts a*d the la7 o* 7h)ch )t )s 6ased. ::: 8#rt)cle. /""" 3;1< .o*st)tut)o*9 If a /! ge will ren er a ecision li%e this: 5This is a civil action to collect an unpaid loan' #ccording to the plaintiff: ,e borro(ed mone for the sum of %;<,<<<'<< pa able on this date and despite demands, he did not pa ' #ccording to the defendant in his ans(er: the obligation is full paid' 3SS.!: 4hether the loan has been paid or not et paid' %laintiff, to prove his cause of action presented the follo(ing (itnesses and evidence' *n the other hand, the defendant, to prove his defense presented the follo(ing evidence' 4,!)!F*)!, the court renders judgment dismissing the complaint'7

69

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof is no #asis of the isc!ssion on why li%e that. ,o there which violates the

,!ch ecision has no isc!ssion on the fin ings of facts an the law. There ismissal of the complaint. =J 2D@@JL What %in of ecision is that? There is no is the evi ence of the plaintiff #elieva#le an why is the position of the efen ant is is no isc!ssion of the facts an the law on which it is #ase . That is a ecision 3onstit!tion an (!le 3..

#nother 3llustration: In an action for s!m of money$ plaintiff is !npai . +efen ant claims the loan has #een pai . The following is the evi ence of the plaintiff an the following is the evi ence of the efen ant. Then the co!rt now says: 5#fter the meticulous stud and anal sis of the evidence offered b both sides, the court is of the opinion that plaintiff=s evidence is more logical, acceptable, probable and (orth of credit' T,!)!F*)!, judgment is hereb rendered ordering the defendant to pa the loan'7 Q: Is this ecision correct? A: ID. It still violates the law. There are no fin ings of facts or concl!sions of the law. Therefore$ when the co!rt sai , 5plaintiff=s evidence is more logical, acceptable, probable and (orth of credit7 those are concl!sions. They are not fin ings of facts. =eaning yo! have to arg!e 8 why is it logical$ why is it accepta#le$ why is it pro#a#le$ why is it worthy of cre it. Jo! m!st state it an re#!t the other si e. If that is how ecisions are prepare $ yo! /!st recite what the plaintiff sai or what the efen ant sai $ an yo! will concl! e$ 5Therefore, find the plaintiff is logical7$ then every nincompoop person is "!alifie to #e a /! ge 8 every#o y can write a ecision. It is /!st li%e as%ing "!estions in the e1aminations. Jo! will not answer that AA is correct #eca!se his arg!ment is correct (perio L).C Jo! have to state why he is correct. That is also the case in the ecision. Jo! m!st s!pport yo!r answer with etails. Iow$ every ecision of every co!rt m!st state the facts an the law on which it is #ase . It m!st #e in every co!rt$ no e1ceptions$ whether ,3 or an =T3. The 3onstit!tional provision on this re"!irement applies to all co!rts from the highest to the lowest. >owever$ the 0! iciary @aw allows the appellate co!rt to ma%e a =emoran !m +ecision. If yo! are the appellate co!rt (3A)$ yo! either affirm or reverse the ecision of the lower co!rt. If the 3A will reverse the fin ings of the (T3$ efinitely the 3A has to /!stify why the fin ings of the (T3 is wrong. 7!t s!ppose the 3A will affirm$ so there is nothing wrong with the /! gment of the (T3. Iow$ in or er to shorten the perio for waiting for the ecision an in or er to hasten it$ ,ection 4) of 7* 1': allows the appellate co!rt to simply "!ote ver#atim the fin ings an concl!sion of the trial co!rt an a opt it as its own. This is what is calle the $emorandum /ecision' The concept of memoran !m ecision which is fo!n in ,ection 4)$ 7* 1': is now in (!le 51$ ,ection 5 of the 1::E (!les$ to wit: Sec. =. Form of decision.4 E>ery dec)s)o* or f)*al resolut)o* of the court )* appealed cases shall clearly a*d d)st)*ctly state the f)*d)*+s of fact a*d the co*clus)o*s of la7 o* 7h)ch )t )s 6ased 7h)ch (ay 6e co*ta)*ed )* the dec)s)o* or f)*al resolut)o* )tself or adopted fro( those set forth )* the dec)s)o* order or resolut)o* appealed fro(. 8Sec. 2? -, -l+. 30;9 8*9 ,o the appellate co!rt is now a!thoriMe to simply copy or refer the tr!e fin ings of fact an concl!sions at the trial co!rt if it is affirming the latterNs ecision. This is what we call memoran !m

70

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

ecision. The ,3 sai that it is only allowe in simple cases$ not in complicate ones. Dtherwise the 3A will #e very laMy 8 they will /!st affirm an affirm. Affirm para walang tra#aho. (everse$ ma ami. To reverse means to arg!e for the opposite$ re#!t everything that the trial co!rt sai $ it ta%es time to st! y$ etc. >ence the limitation$ which we will isc!ss later. Q: +oes the law re"!ire a partic!lar style of writing a ecision? A: ID$ style is #ase on every in ivi !al$ so long as the facts an the law are istinctively state . That is the minim!m re"!irement. The law oes not care how yo! o it #eca!se the manner of presenting the facts an the law an the isc!ssion is a matter of style. Hvery person has his own style$ an whether it is goo or #a oes not matter as long as yo! comply with the law. As a matter of fact$ there are many instances where the ,3 commente on the writing styles of /! ges. The most vehement critics on sloppy style of ecision writing is retire -ustice Isagani 3r!M$ #eca!se he is a very effective writer. >e is intolerant of poorly written ecisions. Faya from time to time altho!gh not necessary$ he will criticiMe poorly written ecisions. >e ma%es s!#&comments. @i%e in the cases of N".%S "NDUSTR"#$ .%R,. vs' .%URT %! #,,E#$S 0?6 S.R# 30< @3;;0A 'E$D: AFilometric ecisions witho!t m!ch s!#stance m!st #e avoi e $ to #e s!re$ #!t the other e1treme$ where s!#stance is also lost in the wish to #e #rief$ is no less !naccepta#le either.C Too long is #a $ too short is #a either. AThe i eal ecision is that which$ with welcome economy of wor s$ arrives at the fact!al fin ings$ reaches the legal concl!sions$ ren ers its r!ling an $ having one so$ en s.C This means$ #rief #!t comprehensive. ,E%,$E vs. G%NB#$ES 03= S.R# =;0 'E$D: AHvery /! ge has his own writing style$ some te io!s$ some terse$ some pe estrian$ some elegant$ epen ing !pon his training an o!tloo%. Hach is accepta#le as long as the fact!al an legal #ases are clearly an istinctly state therein.C ,E%,$E vs. #M%ND"N# 00? S.R# 6 'E$D: AThe ecision of the trial co!rt is e1cee ingly long$ witho!t any effort to trim the fat an %eep it lean. 0! ges are not stenographers transcri#ing the testimony of the witnesses wor for wor . 0! ges m!st %now how to synthesiMe$ to s!mmariMe$ to simplify. Their fail!re to o so is one of the main reasons for the elay in the a ministration of /!stice. It also e1plains the espair of the p!#lic over the foot& ragging of many co!rts an their ina#ility to get to the point an to get there fast.C There is one =T3 /! ge here$ who is very fon of "!oting the allegations of the parties: 5#n action for collection of mone ' %laintiff filed a complaint +uoted as follo(s'7 Hvery paragraph is "!ote . 5/efendant filed an ans(er +uoted as follo(s !vidence of plaintiff, +uoted as follo(s7 Then his

71

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

ecision is only one paragraph. =y gollyL >ow long will it ta%e yo!r stenographer to type it. 3an it not #e re !ce to 3 pages? This is what we call writing with style. Dne of the #est writers in the ,3 right now is -ustice *angani#an. As a matter of fact$ in one of the latest vol!mes of the @awyers (eview$ he has an article entitle $ A=y ,tyle of +ecision Writing.C ?ery nice. Hvery /! ge m!st rea that. >e is giving tips on how to write elegant ecisions. 7!t of co!rse what applies to ecision writing also applies to answering "!estions in the 7ar. ,ome elegant$ some te io!s. The same answer #!t ifferent styles of presentation. Dther get high scores$ low scores #eca!se of style. ,o yo! m!st also %now ho( to answer. Hspecially in the 7ar e1ams where the corrector is correcting more than 4$))) note#oo%s an he has a ea line$ yo!r note#oo% m!st pro/ect itself as if yo!r note#oo% is telling the corrector: )ead me! )ead me!! Q: >ow o yo! isting!ish a /! gment from a ecision? A: Act!ally$ the ecision is the entire written effort from the first sentence$ 5This is an action for a sum of mone 7 !ntil the en . It contains everything from the fin ings of facts$ isc!ssion of evi ence. The /! gment is !s!ally the last paragraph 8 Oy!ng AW>H(HKD(HC 8 the ispositive portion or the ecretal portion. ,ometimes it is calle the fallo of the case. The fallo is y!ng AW>H(HKD(H-C Iy!ng isc!ssions$ fin ings of facts$ concl!sion of law to /!stify the fallo is calle the ratio decidendi 8 the reasoning. (3ontreras vs. Keli1$ E; *hil. 5E)) Q: In case of conflict #etween /! gment an ecision$ which shall prevail? A: The /! gment shall prevail in case of s!ch conflict$ for it is an elementary r!le of proce !re that the resol!tion of the co!rt in a given iss!e$ as em#o ie in the ispositive part of the ecision$ is the controlling factor that etermines an settles the rights of the parties an the iss!es presente therein. (=analang vs. (ic%ar s$ 55 D.2. 5E;)$ 0!ly 'E$ 1:5:) #S"#N .ENTER vs' N$R. 0;< S.R# <0< 9Dcto#er 1'$ 1::;< !#.TS: A vs. 7. In the ratio decidendi$ A is correct. *ero pag ating sa 4,!)!F*) >judgment?, ANs action is ismisse L An there was no statement in favor of 7. A appeals. 7 conten e that the /! gment prevails. Is 7 correct? 'E$D: AThe general r!le is that where there is a conflict #etween the ispositive portion or the fallo an the #o y of the ecision$ the fallo controls. This r!le rests on the theory that the fallo is the final or er while the opinion in the #o y is merely a statement or ering nothing. ,o(ever$ where the inevita#le concl!sion from the #o y of the ecision is so clear as to show that there was a mista%e in the ispositive portion$ the #o y of the ecision will prevail.C T&,ES %! JUDGMENTSC A.) 7.) 3.) +.) H.) K.) ,in *er/!icio /! gment 3on itional /! gment Incomplete /! gement I!nc pro t!nc /! gment 0! gment !pon a compromise or 0! gment !pon an amica#le settlement 0! gment !pon a confession

72

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>
#.9 SIN PERJUICIO JUDGMENT

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

Q: What is an S31 %!)-.393* /! gment? A: A sin perjuicio is one which contains only the ispositive portion of the ecision an reserves the ma%ing of fin ings of fact an concl!sions of law in a s!#se"!ent /! gment. (+ir. of @an s vs. ,anM$ 45 *hil. 11E) ,o$ there is a 54,!)!F*)!7 witho!t a ratio decidendi' It oes not state how the co!rt arrive at a certain ecision. Q: Is a SIN PERJUICIO /! gment vali ? A: A sin perjuicio /! gment is a ?DI+ /! gment for it violates the constit!tional provision that Ano ecision shall #e ren ere #y any co!rt of recor witho!t e1pressing therein clearly an istinctly the facts an the law on which it is #ase C (,ec. 14$ Art. ?IIII)$ an the provision of the (!les of 3o!rt that the /! gment shall state Aclearly an istinctly the facts an the law on which it is #ase . ((!le 3.$ ,ection 1) -.9 .%ND"T"%N#$ JUDGMENT Q: What is a .%ND"T"%N#$ /! gment? A: A con itional /! gment is one which is s!#/ect to the performance of a con ition prece ent an is not final !ntil the con ition is performe . (0a!cian vs. Q!erol$ 3; *hil. E)E) !"#$%&!: A s!e 7. Then the co!rt sai : 5The # is correct because so and so' ,o(ever, there is another case no( pending before the S9 (here the same issue is being raised' 3n the meantime, # is correct' 2ut in the event that S9 decision comes out and is not favorable to #, then this decision should also be automaticall changed in favor of 2'7 ,o$ this is a con itional /! gment. Is it a vali /! gment? Q: Is a con itional /! gment vali ? A: It is IDT vali . In tr!th$ s!ch /! gment contains no isposition at all an is a mere anticipate statement of what the co!rt shall o in the f!t!re when a partic!lar event sho!l happen. Kor this reason$ as a general r!le$ /! gments of s!ch %in $ con itione !pon a contingency$ are hel to #e IG@@ an ?DI+. (3! Gn/ieng y >i/os vs. =a#alacat ,!gar 3o.$ E) *hil. 3;)) ..9 "N.%M,$ETE JUDGMENT Q: What is an "N.%M,$ETE /! gment? What is its effect? A: An incomplete /! gment is one which leaves certain matters to #e settle in a s!#se"!ent procee ing. (Ignacio vs. >ilario$ E. *hil. .)5) There is a ecision #!t there is still other matters to #e incorporate later in s!ch ecision. *arang interloc!tory /! gment. !"#$%&!: There is /! gment against 7 for a amage s!it$ 54herefore, judgment is hereb rendered ordering defendant to indemnif the plaintiff, moral and e@emplar damages >period!?'7 It oes not state how m!ch. =amaya na natin malaman %!ng mag%ano. ,o %!lang pa ang ecision. =y gollyL What is there to e1ec!te? Jo! o not even %now how m!ch is the awar . It oes not settle any "!estion that may #e the s!#/ect of e1ec!tion. (Araneta$ Inc. vs. T!ason$ 4: D.2. 45) The /! gment can never #ecome final$ it having left certain matters to #e settle for its completion in a s!#se"!ent procee ing. (Ignacio vs. >ilario$ E. *hil. .)5) ,o$ the /! gment is again efective.

73

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>
D.9 NUNC PRO TUNC JUDGMENT

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

Q: (7ar Q!estion) What is a /! gment NUNC PRO TUNC an what is its f!nction? A: A /! gment nunc pro tunc literally means a =judgment no( for then'= Its f!nction is to recor some act of the co!rt one at a former time which was then carrie into the recor . An the power to ma%e s!ch entries is restricte to placing !pon the recor evi ence of /! icial action which has act!ally #een ta%en. It may #e !se to ma%e the recor spea% the tr!th$ #!t not to ma%e it spea% what it i not spea% #!t o!ght to have spo%en. (@icha!co vs. Tan *ho$ 51 *hil. ;.') !@ample: When a /! ge ren ers a ecision$ he m!st #ase his fin ings on what happene on the trial or on the evi ence presente . Iormally$ the /! ge cites facts as #ases for his fin ings. ,!ppose$ the /! ge$ in his h!rry$ ma e some fin ings #!t forgot to incorporate all those other important matters which can s!pport his fin ings. Ia&overloo% #aL >e ren ere his ecision which was lac%ing in something 8 ina vertently omitte . The /! ge may now amen his /! gment #y incl! ing the matters misse 8 s!ch matters that have #een a mitte on recor . Then$ the /! ge now has an improve ecision 8 the /! gment now is 1.19 %)* T.19. What are to #e a e are things which really happene . The /! ge has no power to incl! e something which i not act!ally happen. That wo!l #e irreg!lar. >ow co!l yo! "!ote something which never transpire !ring the trial. ,o it is an amen e /! gment where certain matters which are containe in the recor s an transpire in co!rt were not incorporate . ,o when yo! ma e the ecision$ parang %!lang. ,o in or er to ma%e it clearer$ we will incorporate those matters which sho!l have #een incorporate in the amen e ecision. That is %nown as /! gment nunc pro tunc' 7!t yo! can only place there matters which transpire $ not matters which i not transpire. Q: In what cases is a /! gment nunc pro tunc IDT proper? A: A /! gment nunc pro tunc is not proper in the following instances: 1. It cannot reme y errors or omission in an imperfect or improper /! gment. (@icha!co vs. Tan *ho$ 51 *hil. ;.') '. It cannot change the /! gment in any material respect. (>en erson vs. Tan$ ;E *hil. 4..) and 3. It cannot correct /! icial errors$ however flagrant an glaring they may #e. (>en erson vs. Tan$ ;E *hil. 4..) E.9 JUDGMENT U,%N # .%M,R%M"SE or JUDGMENT U,%N #N #M".#-$E SETT$EMENT Q: What is a JUDGMENT U,%N # .%M,R%M"SE? A: A /! gment !pon a compromise is a /! gment ren ere with the consent of the parties for the p!rpose of effecting a compromise or settlement of an action. (31 Am. 0!r. 1)5&1);) This is the type of /! gment which the law enco!rages #eca!se it is a /! gment with the consent of the parties for the p!rpose of effecting a compromise or settlement. Gs!ally mga collection cases ito 8 tawaran 8 li%e i&con one ang interests$ or half of the amo!nt na lang$ etc. The co!rt will ren er /! gment copying wor for wor what the parties say. ,o the compromise agreement #ecomes the /! gment an for a as long as the agreement is not contrary to law$ the co!rt will approve it. Q: In a compromise /! gment$ is the co!rt re"!ire to ma%e fin ings of fact an concl!sions of law? Why?

74

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

A: In a compromise /! gment$ the co!rt is not re"!ire to ma%e fin ings of fact an concl!sions of law. In contemplation of law$ the co!rt is eeme to have a opte the statement of facts an concl!sions of law ma e an resolve #y the parties themselves in their compromise agreement6 an their consent has ma e it #oth !nnecessary an improper for the co!rt to ma%e a preliminary a /! ication of the matters there!n er covere . (*alarca vs. AnMon$ @&14E;)$ Iov. ':$ 1:.)) Q: >ow o yo! efine a compromise? A: Gn er Article ')'; of the Iew 3ivil 3o e: #rt. 0?01. # co(pro()se )s a co*tract 7here6y the part)es 6y (ak)*+ rec)procal co*cess)o*s a>o)d a l)t)+at)o* or put a* e*d to o*e already co((e*ced. 8.)>)l .ode9 ,o the essence of compromise is reciprocal concessions 8 give an ta%e. It is a m!t!al concession to avoi litigation or$ if there is alrea y$ that which will p!t an en . There are other efinitions given #y the ,3 altho!gh the essence or s!#stance is the same. In the case of SM"T' -E$$ #ND .%. vs' .%URT %! #,,E#$S 3;< S.R# 0?3 'E$D: AA compromise is an agreement #etween two (') or more persons who$ in or er to forestall or p!t an en to a law s!it$ a /!st their ifferences #y m!t!al consent$ an a /!stment which every one of them prefers to the hope of gaining more$ #alance #y the anger of losing more.C If we go to trial$ well$ winner ta%e all 8 either the plaintiff wins or the efen ant wins. If yo! are not s!re of yo!r position$ then yo! might as well get something o!t of it rather than ris% losing everything. HPA=*@H: Jo! s!e me for *1 million. Then I say$ 53 (ould li:e to offer a settlement7' Jo! wo!l say$ 5,o( much do ou offer6 4ell, m complaint is A million, so ou pa me %A million'7 That is not compromise$ that is s!rren er. Faya nga !maareglo a%o para ma%atawa . An if yo! will not receive anything less than a million$ yo! are not as%ing for a compromise$ yo! are eman ing total s!rren er. If that is so then$ let !s go to co!rt an fin o!t if yo! will get yo!r *1 million an let !s fin o!t how many years from now yo! can get yo!r money. Faya in a compromise agreement$ there are no winners an there are no losers. RE,U-$". %! T'E ,'"$",,"NES vs' S#ND"G#N-#&#N 006 S.R# 332 !#.TS: This is a case involving a compromise #etween the government an 7ene icto$ a crony of *resi ent =arcos. >e entere into a compromise with the *322 an the ,!preme 3o!rt approve it. 'E$D: AAny compromise has its very essence reciprocal concessions$ one m!st give an one m!st ta%e. If only one ta%es all$ then one m!st first win. 7!t in a compromise$ all win #y ta%ing some an giving some.C @etNs go #ac% to the law on D#ligations an 3ontracts. There are fo!r (4) types of efective contracts: (a) voi 6 (#) voi a#le6 (3) rescissi#le6 and (4) !nenforcea#le. Gn er the 3ivil 3o e$ if one

75

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

party enters into a contract where he lac%s the re"!isite a!thority$ the contract is !nenforcea#le #!t it is a vali agreement. Q: What is the effect of a compromise agreement entere into #y a lawyer$ witho!t any special a!thority from his client? Is it a n!ll an voi agreement? A: A lawyer cannot$ witho!t special a!thority$ compromise his clientNs litigation. A /! gment !pon a compromise entere #y the co!rt$ not s!#scri#e #y the party so!ght to #e #o!n #y the compromise agreement$ an in the a#sence of a special a!thority to the lawyer to #in his client in the sai agreement$ is GIHIKD(3HA7@H. (+!ngo vs. @opena$ @&1;3EE$ +ec. ':$ 1:.') Q: ,!ppose in the a#ove case$ the client learne a#o!t what his lawyer i an he i not re/ect the agreement$ as a matter of fact he complie with it$ what is now the effect on s!ch agreement? A: The agreement is now perfectly ?A@I+ an HIKD(3HA7@H #eca!se the party himself i not "!estion his lawyerNs a!thority. When it appears that the client$ on #ecoming aware of the compromise an the /! gment$ faile to rep! iate promptly the action of his lawyer$ he will not afterwar s #e hear to contest it. (7anco HspaQol&Kilipino vs. *alanca$ 3E *hil. :'1) Q: What are the legal effects of a /! gment #ase !pon a compromise agreement? A: A /! gment !pon a compromise agreement pro !ces the following legal effects: 1.) The compromise /! gment is not appeala#le an it is imme iately e1ec!tory. ((eyes vs. Ggarte$ E5 *hil. 5)56 ,errano vs. =iave$ @&14.;E$ =arch 31$ 1:.5) '.) It cannot #e ann!lle !nless it is vitiate with error$ eceit$ violence or forgery of oc!ments. (=orales vs. Kontanos$ .4 *hil. 1:6 Article ')3;$ 3ivil 3o e) 3.) It constit!tes res adjudicata. (Art. ')3E$ 3ivil 3o e6 ,a#ino vs. 3!#a$ @&1;3';$ +ec. 1E$ 1:..) =eaning$ the same s!#/ect matter or ca!se of action can no longer #e reopene in the f!t!re in another litigation. Q: ,!ppose yo! enter into a compromise agreement an there is a /! gment. Jo! want to escape from the compromise /! gment on the gro!n that yo!r consent was vitiate #y mista%e$ error$ eceit$ violence. >ow o yo! "!estion it? What is yo!r reme y? A: There are so many conflicting answers here. ,ome say yo! file a motion to set asi e the compromise /! gment #eca!se yo!r consent was vitiate . An if the motion is enie $ yo! appeal from the or er enying yo!r motion to set asi e. 7!t efinitely$ yo! cannot appeal from the compromise /! gment #eca!se it is not appeala#le. Jo! appeal from the or er enying yo!r motion to set asi e the compromise /! gment. >owever$ !n er the new r!les$ yo! cannot anymore appeal an or er enying a motion to set asi e a /! gment #y consent$ confession or compromise on the gro!n of fra! $ mista%e$ or !ress or any other gro!n vitiating consent (,ection 1$ (!le 41) ,o an or er enying a motion to set asi e a /! gment #y compromise on the gro!n of fra! $ mista%e$ or !ress or any other gro!n vitiating consent is not appeala#le. Therefore$ whatever the answers #efore are not anymore tr!e now. ,o what is the (H=H+J now? It wo!l seem that the correct reme y #ase among which was the case of: on the new r!les in relation to some new cases$

D%M"NG% vs. .%URT %! #,,E#$S 0== S.R# 31; @3;;6A

76

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

'E$D: The correct reme y is for the party to file an action for ann!lment of /! gment #efore the 3o!rt of Appeals p!rs!ant to ,ection :$ par. '$ of the 0! iciary @aw. (now incorporate in (!le 4E) AA compromise may however #e ist!r#e an set asi e for vices of consent or forgery. >ence$ where an aggrieve party alleges mista%e$ fra! $ violence$ intimi ation$ !n !e infl!ence$ or falsity in the e1ec!tion of the compromise em#o ie in a /! gment$ an action to ann!l it sho!l #e #ro!ght #efore the 3o!rt of Appeals$ in accor ance with ,ection :(') of 7atas *am#ansa 7ilang 1':$ which gives that co!rt (3A) e1cl!sive original /!ris iction over actions for ann!lment of /! gments of regional trial co!rts.C !.9 JUDGMENT U,%N # .%N!ESS"%N 8.%GN%/"T JUDGMENT9 Q: What is a /! gment !pon a confession? A: A /! gment !pon a confession is a one entere against a person !pon his a mission or confession of lia#ility witho!t the formality$ time an e1pense involve in an or inary procee ing. (Iativi a vs. Iativi a $ 51 *hil. .13) A /! gment !pon a confession is also %nown as AcognovitC /! gment. (*rono!nce as :on uvit? HPA=*@H: Jo! file a case against me. Witho!t filing an answer$ I simply appeare in co!rt an tell the co!rt that I am not contesting the claim. I am a mitting the complaint to #e tr!e an I am willing to have /! gment ren ere against me. Dr$ I can also file my answer %!nwari lang #a$ an then in co!rt I will a mit my lia#ility. That wo!l #e the #asis of the /! gment !pon a confession. As isting!ishe from /! gment on the plea ings ((!le 34)$ in /! gment on the plea ings yo! have to go thro!gh the process of filing an answer #!t act!ally yo!r answer p!ts !p no efense. In /! gment !pon a confession$ I may not even file an answer. >in i talaga a%o magla#an. Gpon receiving the complaint$ I /!st say that I am a mitting lia#ility. ,o there is no nee of a efa!lt or er. In American @aw$ they call it no lo contendere$ meaning no contest. ,a criminal case pa$ I am plea ing Ag!ilty.C -udgment upon a confession, -udgment upon the pleadings, /efault judgment B =ag%ahawig sila. Dnly they vary a little #it. In default judgment$ the efen ant faile to file an answer. ,o$ he is eclare in efa!lt. In judgment upon the pleadings$ efen ant file an answer #!t the answer contains no efense. In judgment upon a confession$ he will not file an answer #!t will tell the co!rt that he is a mitting lia#ility. ,o$ lahat will en !p on the same thing: There will #e a /! gment ren ere against the efen ant. Iow$ !ring the commonwealth era$ there were many American lawyers who practice law in the *hilippines. =any /! ges were Americans$ even 0!stices of the ,!preme 3o!rt 8 many of them were Americans. American lawyers #ro!ght to the *hilippines types of agreements in American contracts. There was one partic!lar agreement %nown as 54arrant of #ttorne to 9onfess -udgment'7 That is a stan ar cla!se in American contracts. HPA=*@H: I am a #an%. Jo! #orrow money from me an yo! sign a promissory note which contains stip!lations normally to the a vantage an in favor of the #an%. They !s!ally insert the American cla!se 54arrant of #ttorne to 9onfess -udgment7 that in the event that the #an% will s!e yo! on this promissory note$ yo! are entering into a confession /! gment imme iately. =eaning$ I am not going to efen myself an I am imme iately confessing /! gment to the co!rt. An who will confess /! gment to the co!rt? The e#tor will say 53 hereb appoint the ban: as m representative to confess judgment to the court in m behalf'7 *arang ,pecial *ower of Attorney #a. The #an% will go to the co!rt

77

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

an say$ 5.nder this paragraph, 3 represent the defendant-debtor because he appointed me as his attorne -in-fact' #nd in behalf of the defendant, 3 am confessing'7 The ,!preme 3o!rt r!le that s!ch stip!lation is n!ll an voi in the ol case of: N#T"%N#$ -#ND vs' M#N"$# %"$ 23 ,h)l 222 'E$D: ,!ch type of cla!se is n!ll an voi for #eing contrary to p!#lic policy #eca!se the efen ant waives his right in a vance to efen himself. That is !nfair #eca!se even #efore yo! are s!e $ yo! have alrea y waive yo!r right to efen yo!rself. 7!t the /! gment of confession is still allowe #!t one has to o it himself$ an m!st not #e one in a vance. =eaning$ it m!st not #e one li%e the a#ove acts of American lawyers as s!ch is against p!#lic policy. Dne m!st #e first #e given a chance for efense which right #e later on waive thro!gh vol!ntary confession. Q: +isting!ish a /! gment !pon a .%M,R%M"SE from a /! gment !pon a .%N!ESS"%N. A: The following are the istinctions: 1.) In a /! gment !pon a 9*$%)*$3S!$ the lia#ility of the efen ant is to #e etermine in accor ance with the terms of the agreement of the parties6 (hereas In a /! gment !pon a 9*1F!SS3*1$ the efen ant confesses the action an consents to the /! gment that the co!rt may ren er in accor ance with the compromise an the prayer therein (31 Am. 0!r. 1);)6 and '.) In a /! gment !pon a 9*$%)*$3S!$ there is give an ta%e6 the parties haggle$ #argain an agree on the terms of the /! gment6 there is m!t!al or reciprocal concessions6 (hereas A /! gment !pon a 9*1F!SS3*1 is !nilateral. It comes from the efen ant who a mits his lia#ility an accepts that /! gment #e ren ere against him. Sec. 0. !ntr of judgments and final orders. 4 "f *o appeal or (ot)o* for *e7 tr)al or reco*s)derat)o* )s f)led 7)th)* the t)(e pro>)ded )* these Rules the 5ud+(e*t or f)*al order shall forth7)th 6e e*tered 6y the clerk )* the 6ook of e*tr)es of 5ud+(e*ts. The date of f)*al)ty of the 5ud+(e*t or f)*al order shall 6e dee(ed to 6e the date of )ts e*try. The record shall co*ta)* the d)spos)t)>e part of the 5ud+(e*t or f)*al order a*d shall 6e s)+*ed 6y the clerk 7)th a cert)f)cate that such 5ud+(e*t or f)*al order has 6eco(e f)*al a*d e:ecutory. 80a 3? R=39 If yo! lose a case$ what are yo!r options? I can either appeal within the time provi e #y the (!les. Dr$ within the same perio $ I will file a motion for a new trial or a motion for reconsi eration. In any case$ the finality of the /! gment will #e stoppe . Q: ,!ppose the prescri#e perio has lapse $ there is no appeal$ no motion for new trial or reconsi eration$ what happens to the /! gment? A: The /! gment now #ecomes final an e1ec!tory. Accor ing to ,ection '$ once the /! gment has #ecome final$ it shall #e entere #y the cler% of co!rt in the 7oo% of Hntries of 0! gments. If yo! go to the office of the (T3$ yo! will fin an official #oo% which contains a chronological arrangement of cases$ #ase on the ate of filing. =ala%ing li#ro yan.

78

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

Iow$ the secon sentence is new an its effects are also significant$ 5the date of the finalit of judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the date of its entr '7 The r!le is$ when oes a /! gment #ecome final? After the lapse of the perio to appeal an no appeal is file . HPA=*@H: To ay$ =arch 4$ the lawyer for the efen ant receive a copy of the /! gment. The last ay to appeal is =arch 1:. ,!ppose there is no appeal$ then =arch ') is the ate of finality. Dn =arch ') or imme iately thereafter$ the cler% of co!rt sho!l %now the /! gment #ecame final on =arch '). ,!ppose the cler% of co!rt place it in the #oo% on =arch 3). ,o$ the ate of finality is =arch ') #!t the ate of entry is =arch 3). ,ometimes the cler% of co!rt forgets to ma%e the ate of entry. That is why !n er the ol r!les$ the ate of finality of /! gment oes not coinci e with the ate of entry of /! gment #eca!se the cler% of co!rt may o that thing months later. This creates a lot of tro!#le. ,o to c!re the iscrepancy$ the secon sentence is now inserte #y the new law: 5the date of finalit of judgment shall be deemed to be the date of its entr '7 =eaning$ the /! gment #ecame final on =arch ') altho!gh the cler% of co!rt note it on =arch 3). Gn er the new r!les$ the ate of entry (=arch 3)) retroacts to =arch '). That is the significance of the secon sentence$ they will a!tomatically coinci e. Fahit i&enter pa yan ne1t month$ everything will retroact to the ate of finality. It is simplier now. Q: When the /! gment #ecomes final an e1ec!tory$ what are the effects? A: The finality of a /! gment pro !ces three (3) effects$ to wit: 1.) The prevailing party is entitle to have the /! gment e1ec!te as a matter of right an the iss!ance of the correspon ing writ of e1ec!tion #ecomes a ministerial !ty of the co!rt ((!le 3:)6 '.) The co!rt ren ering the /! gment loses /!ris iction over the case so that it can no longer correct the /! gment in s!#stance$ e@cept to ma%e corrections of clerical errors an omissions plainly !e to ina vertence or negligence. (@ocsin vs. *are es$ .3 *hil. ;E6 =anaois vs. Iativi a $ @& 13:'E$ Ke#. ';$ 1:.)6 =aram#a vs. @oMano$ @&'1533$ 0!ne ':$ 1:.E) If after the /! gment is ren ere $ yo! file a motion for reconsi eration or new trial$ there is a possi#ility for the co!rt to change its min an its /! gment. 7!t once the /! gment has #ecome final$ the co!rt has no more power to change its /! gment s!#stantially. The error will also #ecome final$ yo! can no longer change anything s!#stantial. EE.E,T"%N: There is one type of /! gment which can #e change s!#stantially even long after it #ecame final as an e1ception to this r!le. In the st! y of *ersons$ 0! gment for ,!pport. The /! gment for s!pport$ which can #e mo ifie at any time #eca!se the o#ligation to give s!pport epen s not only on the reso!rces of the o#ligor$ #!t also on the ever&changing nee s of the o#ligee. (=ala#ana vs. A#eto$ E4 *hil. 13) !"#$%&!: The father ref!ses to s!pport his minor chil . After trial$ the co!rt or ers the father to s!pport the chil at *1$))) per month. Ko!r years later$ the father is alrea y well& off an the chil is alrea y in n!rsery or %in ergarten. ,o the chil tells his lawyer that the amo!nt for s!pport m!st #e increase from *1$))) to *5$))). The father says$ 5the court said %A,<<< and if ou change that to %C,<<<, that (ould be substantial'7 The father is wrong. The amo!nt for s!pport can #e change anytime. In the same manner. The amo!nt can also #e lowere $ as when the father loses his /o#.

79

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

3.) )es #djudicata s!pervenes. (I@G vs. 3I($ @&14:E5$ =ay 15$ 1:.') The same ca!se of action #etween the same parties can never #e the s!#/ect matter of another litigation in the f!t!re. Any s!#se"!ent case is #arre #y prior /! gment. Sec. 3. -udgment for or against one or more of several parties . 4 Jud+(e*t (ay 6e +)>e* for or a+a)*st o*e or (ore of se>eral pla)*t)ffs a*d for or a+a)*st o*e or (ore of se>eral defe*da*ts. Fhe* 5ust)ce so de(a*ds the court (ay reGu)re the part)es o* each s)de to f)le ad>ersary plead)*+s as 6et7ee* the(sel>es a*d deter()*e the)r ult)(ate r)+hts a*d o6l)+at)o*s. 839 Q: ,!ppose there are ' plaintiffs A an 7$ can the co!rt ren er /! gment in favor of plaintiff A an against plaintiff 7? Dr$ is it possi#le that in one case$ one efen ant will win an the other efen ant will lose? A: JH,$ especially when the ca!ses of action or efenses are not the same. Dne may invo%e a efense that is only applica#le to him #!t not applica#le to others. Sec. 2. Several judgments. 4 "* a* act)o* a+a)*st se>eral defe*da*ts the court (ay 7he* a se>eral 5ud+(e*t )s proper re*der 5ud+(e*t a+a)*st o*e or (ore of the( lea>)*+ the act)o* to proceed a+a)*st the others. 829 ,ame concept. When there are ' or more efen ants$ normally the co!rt ren ers /! gment sa#ay& sa#ay. That is possi#le. Q. Is it possi#le that more than one /! gment will arise in a civil action? A. JH,. ThereNs a /! gment in favor of the plaintiff against the efen ant an the trial still contin!es with respect to other efen ants. That wo!l involve more than one ecision. 0! gment in favor of one efen ant is ren ere alrea y #!t the trial will contin!e with respect to other efen ants is possi#le !n er ,ection 4. !"#$%&!: There was a case where the government file a case for e1propriation against several lan owners. The lan s are a /oining each other an the government wo!l li%e to e1propriate all these properties. The government ha to file on complaint against several lan owners. Dne lan owner as%e that his case #e trie ahea of the others. >e was allowe !n er (!le 31 on ,eparate Trial. >is case was trie ahea . After trial$ the co!rt ren ere /! gment against him. >is lan was or ere e1propriate . Iow$ what happene to the other efen ants? The ,!preme 3o!rt sai let the case contin!e against the other lan owners. 7!t there wo!l #e a /! gment in so far as one efen ant is concerne . (=!nicipality of 7iQan vs. 2arcia$ 1); ,3(A 5E.) Sec. =. Separate judgments. 4 Fhe* (ore tha* o*e cla)( for rel)ef )s prese*ted )* a* act)o* the court at a*y sta+e upo* a deter()*at)o* of the )ssues (ater)al to a part)cular cla)( a*d all cou*tercla)(s ar)s)*+ out of the tra*sact)o* or occurre*ce 7h)ch )s the su65ect (atter of the cla)( (ay re*der a separate 5ud+(e*t d)spos)*+ of such cla)(. The 5ud+(e*t shall ter()*ate the act)o* 7)th respect to the cla)( so d)sposed of a*d the act)o* shall proceed as to the re(a)*)*+ cla)(s. "* case a separate 5ud+(e*t )s re*dered the court 6y order (ay stay )ts e*force(e*t u*t)l the re*d)t)o* of a su6seGue*t 5ud+(e*t or 5ud+(e*ts a*d (ay prescr)6e such co*d)t)o*s as (ay 6e *ecessary to secure the 6e*ef)t thereof to the party )* 7hose fa>or the 5ud+(e*t )s re*dered. 8=a9

80

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>
,ection 5 is also similar to ,ection 4.

Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders And Entry Thereof

Q: 3an there #e /! gments at perio s or stages of procee ings? A: JH,. There can #e /! gment insofar as one ca!se of action an the procee ings will contin!e as to other ca!ses of action. @et !s go #ac% to (!le 3) on Dr er of Trial. Jo! will notice that there is or er of trial when there are several claims in one action. !"#$%&!: *laintiff files a complaint against several efen ants. Dne efen ant files a cross&claim against another efen ant. Two efen ants file permissive co!nterclaims against the plaintiff. Dne efen ant will file a thir &party complaint against a thir &party efen ant. The co!rt ren ers /! gment. It may ren er /! gment as far as complaint is concerne $ then the ecision for the cross&claim$ then for the co!nterclaim. The normal proce !re is yo! try the case$ tap!sin mo lahat$ then yo! ren er one /! gment isposing of the complaint$ co!nterclaim$ cross&claim an thir &party complaint. Jet$ separate /! gments is also permissive !n er ,ection 5. If there are separate trials for all these (co!nterclaim$ cross&claim$ etc)$ it is also possi#le that there wo!l #e separate trials. /istinctions: ,ection 3 8 refers to an action #y several parties ,ection 4 8 refers to an action against several efen ants ,ection 5 8 refers to several claims for relief in an action Sec. 6. -udgment against entit (ithout juridical personalit . 4 Fhe* 5ud+(e*t )s re*dered a+a)*st t7o or (ore perso*s sued as a* e*t)ty 7)thout 5ur)d)cal perso*al)ty the 5ud+(e*t shall set out the)r )*d)>)dual or proper *a(es )f k*o7*. 86a9 +oes that so!n familiar? Two or more persons s!e as an entity witho!t /!ri ical personality. @etNs go #ac% to (!le 3 ,ection 15 an (!le 14 ,ection ;. *(D7@H=: Three people are mem#ers of an entity witho!t /!ri ical personality. They transact #!siness with =r. Alama. =r. Alama has no i ea who are really the mem#ers of the sai entity. >e wante to s!e the mem#ers of an entity. Q1: >ow will he o it? A: (!le 3$ ,ection 15 8 =r. Alama will file a case against the efen ants #y !sing the name of the entity they are !sing. Q': >ow sho!l s!mmons serve to these efen ants? A: (!le 14$ ,ection ; 8 ,!mmons may #e serve on anyone of them or to the person in charge of the place of #!siness. Q3: >ow sho!l /! gment #e ren ere against them? A: (!le 3.$ ,ection . 8 when /! gment is ren ere $ the /! gment shall set o!t their in ivi !al an proper names.

81