The 1997 Rules of Cwil Procedure Rule +74 Judge Emmanuel E. Escatron # SY. 209-2020 RULE GENERAL PROVISIONS CPI 4, Megaspi, et.al, vs. Ramolete, 115 SCRA 193 (July 20. 1998) useunl 2. Batatanvs, cA, 304 SCRA 34 LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION WA ULsOS. Redena vs. CA, GR. No. 4661, Feb, 6, 2007 WAR OTNG. Sy V5, CA-GR. No. 100313, Au, 51, 1968 STRICT CONSTRUCTION dea PNB vs. CA, 246 SCRA 304 (1995) RuLE2 REQUISITES OF & CAUSE OF ACTION BRERA &. Navao vs. CA, 251 SCRA 545 (Dec. 25, 1995) (qseheHf0 7. De Guzman vs. Ca, 192 SCRA 507 SPLITTING SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION PEAD 8. Progressive Dev. Corp. vs. CA, GAR. No, 122555, Jon. 22, 1969 JOINDER OF CAUSE OF ACTION seg? 9- Floress. Mallare Pips, 144 SCRA 377 (1986) = RULES REQUISITES TO QUALIFY AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT ISOLATED TRANSACTION RULE | 31. Comm. of customs vs. KM Gani Indrapal and Co. 182 SCRA (Feb. 26, 1990) PRINCIPLE OF INTERCENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY ‘Oposavs. Factoran ,G.R. No. 701083, July 3, 1903 E PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES | Hon. Cariio vs. CA, G.A. No, 12165, Sep. 5, 2008 fig, Ramos vs, Peps! Cola Botting Co, 195 Sc Bay Club Corp. vs. CA, July, 1995 EFFECT OF MISJOINDER OR NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES Dev. Co. vs. CA, 21 SCRA 422 (July 10,1992) Lass surt s2t.al. vs. Dumaguete City 5 SCRA 1098, (Aug. 31,1962) Center, inc. s. Roxas, GAR. No, 125509, Jon. 30, 2007 INDIGENT paRTY lof NAGA, G.A. No. 150135, Oct. 30, 2006 Scanned by CamScannerRute » VENUE Exceptions to the Rules an Verne in Civit Cases + seuwdeJ6P 20, Auction in Manila Ine, vs. Luyaben, GN. No 1/399, eh. 9, 2009 egBHERAA 1. Phil. Banking vs. Hon. Tesuan, 203 SCRA ary DOUBEHA 22. Khe ttory, Cheng, vs. CA, 335 5 RULES KINDS OF PLEADING. COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM ‘ein quasones, Egardo Peniga vs, Hers of Santiago, G.R. No. 17036, June $0, 2004 PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAINE eA ViCTERIA24. Gagare vs. CA,, 297 SCRA $89, Oct. 8,908 RULE? PARTS OF & PLEADING FORUM SHOPPING YeLMA 25. Beneco Inc. vs. NEA 193 SCRA 250 HEEL 26, LCIVS. Bachelor Express, inc, Dec. 8, 2005, (GUERRERO 27. Manuaril vs. CSC, G.R, No, 164929, April 10, 2006 ‘PROAD 28. Uy ws. Landbank, July 24, 2000 RULES MANNER IN MAKING ALLEGATION IN PLEADING sent 29. Tantulco, Jr. vs. Republic, GR. No. 89119, Dec. 2, 1991 30. Imperial Textile Mil inc. vs. CA.G.R. No. 86566, Mar. 22, 1980 OBALI 31. Morales vs. CA, et.al, 197 SCRA 391 (May 33,1901) ULES EGATIVE PREGHANT RULE QBN 32. Galofa vs. Nice Bon Sing, C.R. No. 22008, Jan. 17,1568 J ___ REQUIREMENTS FoR DECLARATION OF OFFAULTIREMEDIES/PRINICIPLES BE: Delos Santos vs. Hon. Carpio, G.A. No. #53696, ep. 1%, 2008 ute vs. CA, 85 SCRA 41 m GAL No. 96999, une 10,1997 amgcad vs. Justice of the CA, 208 SCRA 71 (1992) WS. CA, 201 Phil. 680 (1983) 2 vs. CA 187 SCRA 153 (1090) Florendo, 154 SCRA Gi0 5, Ay 209 SCRA 732 RULE 10 AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS -Ortega, Aus 25, 996 GR. no. 154330, Feb. 5, 2007 Corps. AC, April 22,1968 ine ¥, Payawo, 17 SCRA (1985) Scanned by CamScannerBILL OF PARTICULAR: anbayan. GAL NG. TA5At, > Sch 6G 45, VIRATA ws Sar RULE te summons BERD. 46, Samarting vs. Raon, 383 SCRA 664, Guteseese- Miranda vs. CA, 2365CRA 276 RIGOROUS REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSTANTIAL SERVICES OF SUMMONS PREAD AS, Ling Ong v5.8.7. Go, GR. No. 206653 (20:5) _SE9CERED. Milex Construct vs. Cty Insurance Corp. Gi. No. 149670 (2006) gususjo0 39-EB. Vilarosa vs, Bento, 312 SCRA 65 PRIOR OR CONTAMPORANEOUS JURISDICTION STEP 5%, PNB ys. Pabalan, GR. No, L331, Jane 1, 1978 CL 52. Millenium ine Comm Corp. vs. Tan Feb. 38, 2000 RULES marion MIK® s-doy Notice Rule ‘SMES "53, Camarines Sur IV Elec. Corp vs. & Aquino, G.R. No 16765}, Sep. 23,2008 MARK. 54. Chua va. CA, G.R, No. 12948, Apel 8, 1967 RULES ‘MOTION TO Dismiss ‘pieSA, 55, Alamayri vs. Pabale,G.R. No. 151243, Api 30,2008 {wi9D56- Garda ws. PAL, C.RNG. 162868, July 14,2008 RULE DISMISSAL OF ACTION PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE FOR UNREASONABLE LENGHT OF TIME 1ER CHALLENGE PETROLEUM Phi. Ltd. etal vs, CA Apil20, 1998 evs. Logarta, 537 SCRA 277 RULE PRETRIAL 0 Sales Corp, .R. No. 16917, June 30,2006 SCRA 162 " ULES 42008, 156052, Mr. 07,2007 Scanned by CamScanner