Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Civil Procedure
RULE 30
TRIAL
Trial
It is the judicial process of determining legal controversies,
beginning with the production of evidence by the plainitff,
and ending with his closing arguments.
Hearing vs. Trial
Hearing is a broader term because it covers several stages
in the litigation, including pre-trial or denial of motions.
When trial is unnecessary
1. Where the pleadings of the parties tender no issue at
all, a judgment of the pleadings may be directed by the
court (Rule 34)
2. Where from the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and
other papers, there is actually no genuine issue, the
court may render a summary judgment (Rule 35)
3. Where the parties have entered into a compromise or
an amicable settlement either during the pre-trial or
while the trial is in progress (Rule 18)
4. Where the complaint has been dismissed with
prejudice (Sec 5, Rule 16; Sec 3, Rule 17; Sec 5, Rule
7)
5. Where the case falls under the operation of the Rules
on Summary Procedure
6. Where, the parties agree in writing, upon the facts
involved in the litigation, and submit the case for
judgment on the facts agreed upon, without the
introduction of evidence. If however, there is no
agreement as to all the facts in the case, trial may be
held only as to the disputed facts (Sec 6, Rule 30)
Calendaring of cases
Clerk of court shall give preference to habeas corpus cases,
election cases, special civil actions, and those required by
law to be preferred (Sec 1, Rule 20)
Session Hours
RULE 132
8:30 am to 12:00 nn; 2 pm to 4:30 pm (Admin Circ. No 339, January 15, 1999)
Yu vs. Magpayo
FACTS
Yu sold an engine to Magpayo. Magpayo failed to pay the
balance of P2,800. The total amount was P6,800.
Subsequently, Yu sued Magpayo in the City Court of
Davao. Magpayo answered, admitting said complaint,
admitting the fact that there was a transaction, but said that
that there was a defect on the engine, which caused him to
have it repaired, and that Yu agree to waive said balance.
During the hearing, Magpayo and his counsel failed to
appear. The court directed ex-parte proceeding the same
day. The judge insisted that Yu present his evidence, but
Yu repeatedly answered that he reserves his right to
present evidence until Magpayo presents his, and when
Magpayo does, he will present rebuttal evidence.
However, the judge took this as Yus refusal to present
evidence when the court asks him to. On motion for
reconsideration, the judge again denied. The Case was
dismissed for lack of prosecution.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that it was erroneous for the case
to be dismissed.
Plaintiff had every right to insist that defendant come
forward with evidence in support of his special
RULE 2
Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action.
A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or
otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have
against an opposing party, subject to the following
conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply
with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties
but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder
may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of
the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said
court and the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are
principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount
claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
RULE 3
Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties.
All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in
respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series
of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise
provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as
defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or
CONSOLIDATION
Filing of Initiatory or
Responsive Pleading
(May in one pleading)
Pendency of Actions
CONSOLIDATION
Active vs. CA
FACTS
Active Wood mortgaged parcels of land in favour of State
Investment House in order to secure its indebtedness.
Subsequently, it led to a foreclosure and the lands
auctioned off, and State Investment became the highest
bidder.
State Investment filed a civil case to declare the foreclosure
null and void. And during its pendency, State Investment
House filed a case for writ of possession of the lands.
In this LRC case, Active moved to consolidate the said
cases. The judge in the LRC cases granted said motion for
consolidation. However, the judge in the Civil Case
opposed to the objection of the consolidation, returning the
LRC case to its original branch.
HELD
The consolidation is proper.
The rationale for consolidation is to have all cases, which
are intimately related, acted upon by one branch of the
court to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions being
rendered that will not serve the orderly administration of
justice.
State Investment argues that the rules mention only
actions, which means an ordinary suit in a court of justice
by which one party prosecutes another for the enforcement
or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a
wrong. Civil Case No. 6518-M is such an action. On the
other hand, LRC Case No. P-39-84 involving the Petition
for a Writ of Possession is an ex parte proceedings and does
not require notice to be given to the other parties. The two,
action and proceedings, being different, can not be
consolidated.
Consolidation on Appeal
Even in the Supreme Court which sits en banc or in three
divisions, the consolidation of cases with issues of fact or
law intimately or substantially related pending in the same
division or in different divisions, and en banc, be they
assigned to the same ponente or to different ponentes is
practically given or conceded to the ponente assigned to the
case with the lower number, i.e., the one filed earlier.
RULE 32
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER
Section 1. Reference by consent.
By written consent of both parties, the court may order any
or all of the issues in a case to be referred to a
commissioner to be agreed upon by the parties or to be
appointed by the court. As used in these Rules, the word
"commissioner" includes a referee, an auditor and an
examiner.
Sec. 2. Reference ordered on motion.
When the parties do not consent, the court may, upon the
application of either or of its own motion, direct a reference
RULE 33
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Section 1. Demurrer to evidence.
After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his
evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the
ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has
shown no right to relief.
NOTE:
The defendant may sincerely feel that the plaintiff has not
lived up to his burden of proving the material allegations of
his claim.
The demurrer, therefore, is an aid or instrument for the
expeditious termination of an action, similar to a motion
to dismiss.
Section 1. (Continued)
Effect of denial or grant of demurrer to evidence
If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present
evidence.
NOTE:
1.
2.
NOTES:
NOTE:
The provision governing demurrer to evidence does not
apply to an election case. (Gementiza vs. COMELEC)
Rule 16
10 grounds
By way of motion
By way of motion
No LOC required
With LOC
If granted, accused is
acquitted
Judgment of dismissal is
appealable
RULE 34
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings.
Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise
admits the material allegations of the adverse partys
pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct
judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for
legal separation, the material facts alleged in the
complaint shall always be proved.
Manufacturers v. Diversfied
FACTS
Diversified was granted a loan, and having failed to pay
when it became due and demandable, Manufacturers Bank
& Trust Co. sued Diversified.
Manufacturers Bank moved for judgment on the
pleadings. It adverted to the Diversified's admissions of
the parties' personal circumstances and the fact that
they were granted a loan. The Agreement for Credit in
Current Account which the defendants had expressly
admitted clearly stated that the loan would automatically
be due and payable on February 26, 1965 and that
attorney's fees would be payable at the rate of 10% of
amount due.
And by letter, Diversified wrote the bank requesting
that they be allowed to pay the obligation by
installments.
Diversified filed an opposition to the bank's motion for
judgment on the pleadings. They theorized that since
there was no allegation that they had in fact made
drawings against the overdraft account, no obligation to
pay a sum of money had been pleaded and therefore,
the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
Diversifed filed a motion for leave to amend their answer,
but was denied, and the Court rendered judgment on the
pleadings. It opined that the original answer failed to tender
any issue, the defendants' asserted lack of knowledge or
information regarding matters principally and necessarily
within their knowledge could not be considered a specific
denial.
HELD
The correctness, therefore, of the Trial Court's denial of the
motion to amend answer and the propriety of the assailed
judgment on the pleadings are beyond civil. Amendment in
the circumstances was clearly subject to said Court's
discretion the exercise of which cannot be faulted; and the
defendants' original answer in truth tendered no issue,
or otherwise admitted the allegations of the complaint
material and necessary to a valid decision.
Their motion merely declared that they had failed to
include certain allegations and defenses in their original
answer, but gave no explanation for their failure to do so at
the time they drew up that pleading or within a reasonable
time thereafter, and why they had not essayed such
amendment until after 2 years and only after their receipt of
RULE 35
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
NOTES: (from Natalia vs. Vallez)
1. It is a device for 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.
2. Summary judgment should not be granted where it
fairly appears that there is a triable issue to be tried.
3. The test, therefore, of a motion for summary judgment
is whether the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits
in support of the motions are sufficient to overcome
the opposing papers and to justify a finding as a
matter of law that there is no defense to the action
or the claim is clearly meritorious.
4. In proceedings for summary judgment, the burden of
proof is upon the plaintiff to prove the cause of
action and to show that the defense is interposed
solely for the purpose of delay.
5. After plaintiffs burden has been discharged, defendant
has the burden to show facts sufficient to entitle him to
defend.
6. To resolve whether or not there is a factual
controversy, the pleadings and documents on file and
an analysis are both indispensable and decisive.
10
11
12