VII. PARTIES TO AN ACTION (ROC, Rule 3, Sec.

1) – Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized

by law may be parties in a civil action

a. Plaintiff and Defendant

Plaintiff – The term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-
claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff. (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 1); Otherwise stated, it is
the original claiming party who files a complaint. It may also apply to a defendant who files a
counterclaim, a cross-claim, or a third-party complaint. (Riano, 2016)

Defendant – The term "defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a
counter-claim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant.
b. What is a Counterclaim?
Counter claim – any claim which a defending party may have against the opposing party.
Nature: It partakes of a complaint by the defendant against the plaintiff. A counterclaim is not
intrinsically part of the answer because it is a separate pleading. It may however be included in
the answer. This inclusion is merely a matter of form and does not have the effect of fusing 2
separate pleadings into a single pleading. (Riano, 2016)
c. Kinds of Counterclaims
1. Compulsory counterclaim – is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice,
arises out of or is 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. Such a counterclaim must be
within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that
in an original action before the Regional Trial Court, the counter-claim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount. (ROC, Rule 6, Sec. 6)

Requisites of a counterclaim: [CATWA]

a. the claim is cognizable by the regular courts of justice;

b. arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim;
c. does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction;
d. must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature
thereof; and
e. already in existence at the time that the defending party files his answer. (ROC, Rule
11, Sec. 8).
2. Permissive counterclaim – one which does not arise out of nor is it necessarily connected with
the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim
3. Effect if failure to answer the counterclaim
i. Compulsory counterclaim – failure to answer is not a cause for a declaration of default;
ii. Permissive counterclaim – must be answered by the party against whom it is interposed
otherwise, he may be declared in default as to the counterclaim.
d. Cross-claims – 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 therein.
Such cross-claim 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.
(ROC, Rule 6, Sec. 8)

Limitations: [CAP]
1. Can only be filed against a Co-party;
2. Must Arise out of the subject matter of the complaint; and
3. Proper only where cross claimant stands to be Prejudiced by the filing of the action against
him.

Effect of failure to file a Cross-claim:

General Rule: A cross-claim which is not set-up in the action is barred (ROC, Rule 9, Sec.
2)
Exceptions:
1. When it is outside the jurisdiction of the court;
2. If the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over 3rd parties whose presence is necessary
for the adjudication of said cross-claim;
3. If through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable negligence, it is not asserted, it may
still be set up with leave or court, by amendment of the pleadings; or
4. Cross-claim that my be mature or may be acquired after service of the answer may,
by permission of the court, be presented by supplemental pleadings before the
judgment. (Riano, 2016)
e. Third-party etc. Complaint – is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against
a person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.) — party defendant for
contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent's claim. (ROC,
Rule 6, Sec. 8)
f. 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. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

A real party-in-interest is one with "a present substantial interest" which means such interest of
a party in the subject matter of the action as will entitle him, under the substantive law, to recover
if the evidence is sufficient, or that he has the legal title to demand. (Rayo vs. Metrobank, G.R.
No. 165142, December 10, 2007)

It is an interest, material and direct, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest. (Dagadag
vs. Tongnawa, G.R. NOS. 161166-67, February 03, 2005)

The purposes of the requirement for the real party in interest prosecuting or defending an action
at law are: (a) to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or interest
in the case; (b) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief be the one to prosecute the
action; (c) to avoid a multiplicity of suits; and (d) to discourage litigation and keep it within certain
bounds, pursuant to sound public policy. (Stronghold Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Cuenca, G.R. No.
173297, March 6, 2013)

What the Rules of Court require is that an action be brought in the name of, but not necessarily
by, the real party in interest. (Section 2, Rule 2.) In fact the practice is for an attorney-at-law to
 bring the action, that is to file the complaint, in the name of the plaintiff. (Tuason vs. Bolanos, G.R.
No. L-4935, May 28, 1954)

1. Unknown real party in interest – Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown,
he may be sued as the unknown owner heir devisee, or by such other designation as the case
may require, when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended
accordingly.
2. Representatives of a real party in interest – Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and
defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall
be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real property in interest. A
representative may be a trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator,
or a party authorized by law or these Rules.

An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or
be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to
the principal. (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 3)

If a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff [by one] who is not authorized to do so,
the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal
effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction
over the complaint and the plaintiff. (Palminiano-Salvador vs. Angeles, G.R. No. 171219
September 3, 2012)
3. Spouses as parties – Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law.
(ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 4)

Exceptions:
a. A spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her
obligation sto the family with respect to the marital, parental, or property relations.
(FAMILY CODE, Arts. 101 & 108);
b. A spouse mortgages, encumbers, alienates or otherwise disposes of his or her exlusive
property; (FAMILY CODE, Art. 111); and
c. The regime of separation of property governs the property relations of the
spouses.(FAMILY CODE, Art. 145).
4. Minor and incompetent – A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued
with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem.
(ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 5)

5. Unwilling plaintiff – If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff cannot be
obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the
complaint. (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 11)
g. Indispensable & Necessary Parties
Indispensable – are those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would
necessarily affect their rights, so that the courts cannot proceed without their presence.17 Joining
indispensable parties into an action is mandatory, being a requirement of due process. Without
their presence, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality. (Valdez-Tallorin vs. Tarona,
G.R. NO. 177429, November 24, 2009)
 The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires, of course, the
joinder of all necessary parties where possible, and the joinder of all indispensable parties under
any and all conditions, their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power. It is
precisely "when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) the action should be
dismissed." The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null
and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those
present. (Bacalso vs. Padigos, G.R. NO. 173192, April 14, 2008)

h. Joinder & Misjoinder of Parties

(1. Effect of non-joinder and 2. Effect of misjoinder)
A party is misjoined when he is made a party to the action although he shouls not be impleaded.

A party is not joined when he is supposed to be joined but is not impleaded in the action. (Riano,
2016)

A claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately.

General Rule: Neither misjoinder nor non joinder of parties is a ground for dismissal of the action.
Exception: Failure to comply with the order for the inclusion of an indispensable party (ROC Rule
3, Sec. 7 in relation to ROC, Rule 17, sec. 13)

The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal. Section 11, Rule 3 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground of non-joinder or
misjoinder of parties and allows the amendment of the complaint at any stage of the proceedings,
through motion or on order of the court on its own initiative. Only if plaintiff refuses to implead
an indispensable party, despite the order of the court, may it dismiss the action. (Valdez-Tallorin
vs. Tarona, G.R. NO. 177429, November 24, 2009)

i. Class Suit – when the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to
many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which
the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of
all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to
intervene to protect his individual interest. (ROC Rule 3, Sec. 12)
The necessary elements for the maintenance of a class suit are:
a. the suit is filed for the benefit of all;
b. the subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons;
c. the parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to court; and
d. the parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and
can fully protect the interests of all concerned. (JUANA COMPLEX I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC., vs. FIL-ESTATE LAND, INC., G.R. No. 152272, March 05, 2012)

Indeed, in MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc.,7cЃa we
observed that an element of a class suit or representative suit is the adequacy of representation.
In determining the question of fair and adequate representation of members of a class, the court
must consider (a) whether the interest of the named party is coextensive with the interest of the
other members of the class; (b) the proportion of those made a party, as it so bears, to the total
 membership of the class; and (c) any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to
speak for the rest of the class.(Banda vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 166620, April 20, 2010)

j. Death or separation of a party &

k. Effect of death on contractual money claims

[Death of Party; duty of counsel]

Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be
the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact
thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure
of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring
the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem
for the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named
shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a
specified time to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the
deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court
charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as
costs.

The rule is intended to protect every party's right to due process.11 The estate of the deceased
party will continue to be properly represented in the suit, through the duly appointed legal
representative. Moreover, no adjudication can be made against the successor of the deceased if
the fundamental right to a day in court is denied. (Regalado vs. Regalado, G.R. No. 196919, June
6, 2011)

If there is no notice of death, the case may continue. Proceedings are valid and judgment is
binding on successors-in-interest. The failure, however, of counsel to comply with this duty shall
be ground for disciplinary action.

Upon receipt of the notice of death, the court shall determine whether or not the claim is
extinguished by such death.

If the claim survives, the court shall order the legal representative or representatives of the
deceased to appear and be substituted for the deceased within thirty (30) days from notice. (ROC,
Rule 3, Sec. 16)

Service of summons is not required to effect a substitution. Nothing in Sec. 16 of Rule 3 mandates
service of summons. Instead of service of summons the court shall, under the authority of the
 same provision, order the legal representative of the deceased to appear and be substituted for
the said deceased within thirty (30) days from notice. (Riano, 2016)
By virtue of the same rule, it is significant to remember that it is not the amendment of the
pleading, but the order of substitution and its service that are the initial steps towards the
substitution of the deceased by his representative or heir. (Riano, 2016)

The heir of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased. In such a case, there
is no more need to require the appointment of an executor or administrator. (Riano, 2016)

Test to determine if the action survives the death of the party:

The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the
damaged sued for. (Cruz vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 173292, September 1, 2010)

Rules in cases where the action survives the death of a party:

1. Contractual Money claims
a. Plaintiff dies – the case will continue and the heirs or legal representatives will
proceed
b. Defendant dies
i. Before entry of final judgment – the case shall not be dismissed but shall
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment (ROC, Rule 3,
Sec. 20); NB: The judgment favorable to the plaintiff shall be filed as
money claim against the estate
ii. After entry of final judgment, but before execution – all claims against
the decedent whether due, not due or contingent must be filed within
the time limited in the notice as a claim against the estate. (ROC, Rule 86,
Sec. 5). The plaintiff cannot move to execute under Rule 39.
iii. After levy or execution but before auction sale – the property actually
levied may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment obligation
2. Non-Contractual Money Claim – apply substitution. These claims are those
mentioned in Rule 86 and 87 of the ROC.

[Separation]
When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies,
resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or
against his successor if, within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may
be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a
substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or
threatens to adopt or continue to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor. Before a
substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall
be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard.
(ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 17)
l. Transfer of Interest – In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against
the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is
transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 19)

Where the transfer was effected before the commencement of the suite, the transferee must
necessarily be the defendant or the plaintiff, but he may file a third-party complaint against and
 implead the transferor in the action whenever the same is necessary and proper for a complete
determination of all the rights of the parties.

General Rule: This rule does not consider the transferee as an indispensable party. Hence, the
action may proceed without the need to implead him.
Exception: When the substitution by or joinder of the transferee is ordered by the court upon
motion

m. Actions involving the validity… In any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance,
executive order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in its discretion, may require
the appearance of the Solicitor General who may be heard in person or a representative duly
designated by him. (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 22)
VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION
a. What is a cause of action? – A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a
right of another. (ROC, Rule 2, Sec. 2)
Elements:
a. The Legal right of the plaintiff;
b. The correlative Obligation of the defendant; and
c. The Act or omission of the defendant in violation of the said legal right (Mercado vs.
Espina, G.R. No. 173987, February 25, 2013)
A single act or omission can be violative of various rights at the same time, as when the act
constitutes juridically a violation of several separate and distinct legal obligations. However where
there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of action regardless of the number of
rights that may have been violated belonging to one person. (Joseph vs. Bautista, G.R. No. L-
41423, February 23, 1989); Nevertheless, if only one injury resulted from several wrongful acts,
only one cause of action arises.

Test of sufficiency of the statement of a cause of action: Whether or not admitting the facts
alleged, the court could render a valid judgment verdict in accordance with the prayer of the
complaint. (Misamis Occidental II Cooperative Inc. vs. David, G.R. No. 129928, August 25, 2005)
b. Splitting a single cause of action – If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground
for the dismissal of the others. (ROC, Rule 2, Sec. 4)

In splitting a cause of action, the pleader divides a single cause of action, claim or demand into
two or more parts and brings a suit for one of such parts with the intent to reserve the rest for
another separate action (Quadra v. Court of Appeals, 497 SCRA 221).

Prohibition against splitting a single cause of action:

Splitting a single cause of action is not allowed by the Rules of Court. “A party may not institute
more than one suit for a single cause of action” (Sec. 3, Rule 2, Rules of Court).

The practice of splitting a single cause of action is discouraged because it breeds multiplicity of
suits, clogs the court dockets, leads to vexatious litigation, operates as an instrument of
harassment, and generates unnecessary expenses to the parties.
 The rule against splitting a single cause of action applies not only to complaints but also to
counterclaims and cross-claims. Thus, it was held, that to interpose a cause of action in a
counterclaim and again invoke it in a complaint against the same person or party would be
splitting a cause of action not sanctioned by the Rules (Mariscal v. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 51,
56).

The three tests to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or

common cause of action:
1. whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of
action (also known as the “same evidence” test);
2. whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other;
3. whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first
complaint (Urn- ale v. Canoga Park Development Corporation, 654 SCRA 155,162, G.R. No.
167246, July 20,2011).

c. Joinder and Misjoinder of Causes of Action

Joinder of causes of action – is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have
against another in one pleading alone (ROC, Rule 2, Sec. 5). It is the process of uniting two or more
demands or rights of action in one action (1 C.J.S., Actions § 61).

When the causes of action accrue in favor of the same plaintiff and against the same defendant,
i.e., there is only one plaintiff and one defendant, it is not necessary to ask whether or not the
causes of actions arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions and that there exists
a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants; joinder of causes of action is
not compulsory. It is merely permissive. The rule uses the word “may,” not “shall”.

When there are two or more defendants, or two or more plaintiffs, the causes of action against
the defendants can only be joined if there is a compliance with the rules on joinder of parties
under Sec. 6 of Rule 3 (Flores v. Mallare- Philipps, 144 SCRA 377, 379). This provision requires that
before there can be a proper joinder of parties, a right to relief exists in favor of or against several
persons whether jointly, severally or in the alternative and that right to relief arises out of the
same transaction or series of transactions and that there exists a question of law or fact common
to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants. This requirement does not apply when there is only
one plaintiff and one defendant because in this case there are no parties to be joined.

When there is a misjoinder of causes of action, the erroneously joined cause of action can be
severed and proceeded with separately upon motion by a party or upon the court’s own initiative.
Misjoinder is not a ground for the dismissal of an action.
d. Requisites of joinder of actions — 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;
(The right to relief from said causes of action should arise out of the same transaction or series
of transactions and a question of law and fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants may
arise in the action)
(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 action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5a)
e. Effects – When there is a misjoinder of causes of action, the erroneously joined cause of action
can be severed and proceeded with separately upon motion by a party or upon the court’s own
initiative. Misjoinder is not a ground for the dismissal of an action.

B.M. No. 1132. April 1, 2003

RE: RESOLUTION NO. 112-2002 OF THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN OF ILOCOS NORTE

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 01 2003.

Bar Matter No. 1132(Re: Resolution No. 112-2002 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte,
Requesting to Require Lawyers to Indicate in their Pleadings their Number in the Roll of Attorneys.)

On 12 November 2002 we granted the request of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Norte to require all lawyers to indicate
their Roll of Attorneys Number in all papers and pleadings filed in judicial or quasi-judicial bodies in
addition to the previously required current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and the IBP Official Receipt
or life Member Number.The requirement was meant to protect the public by making it easier to
detect impostors who represent themselves as members of the Bar.It was likewise intended to help
lawyers keep track of their Roll of Attorneys Number.

On 16 January 2003 Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino, Head, Academic Affairs Office, Philippine Judicial Academy
(PHILJA), filed this Motion for Clarification dated 16 January 2003 asking that aforesaid Resolution
dated 12 November 2002 be clarified so that proper instruction may be conveyed to judges during
seminars, courses, and programs conducted by the PHILJA.

According to Fr. Aquino, two (2) issues needed clarification, to wit:(a) whether or not a judge may dismiss
an action, expunge from the records or refuse inclusion from the records of any pleading wherein
signatory counsel failed to state his roll of Attorneys Number; and (b) whether or not the Resolution
of 12 November 2002 maybe construed as precluding a party who may not be a lawyer from signing
his own pleadings, as presently allowed by the Rules.

With respect to the first issue, it is worth mentioning that in Bar Matter No. 287Re:Requirement that
Official Receipt Number and Date of Payment of Current IBP Membership Dues be Indicated by
Counsel per IBP Resolution NO. XIV-1999-63, we defined on 26 September 2000 the consequences
for non-compliance with the requirement for lawyers to indicate their IBP Official Receipt Number
and Date of Issue in all pleadings, motions and papers filed in court as follows -
All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court, whether personally or by mail, shall bear counsel's current
IBP official receipt number and date of issue, otherwise, such pleadings, motions and papers may not
be acted upon by the court, without prejudice to whatever disciplinary action the court may take
against the erring counsel who shall likewise be required to comply with the requirement within five
(5) days from notice.Failure to comply with such requirement shall be a ground for further disciplinary
sanction and for contempt of court."

Considering that the requirement to state the Roll of Attorneys Number in all pleadings filed in court or
quasi-judicial body, like that of the requirement to indicate the IBP Official Receipt Number and Date
of Issue, pertains to counsel filing the pleading or other paper in behalf of his client, we see no reason
why non-compliance should not be meted the same penalty as in the case of failure to indicate the
IBP Official Receipt Number and Date of Issue.Hence, we adopt by analogy in the present matter what
we have already stated in our Resolution of 26 September 2000 in Bar Matter No. 287.

With respect to the second issue, it is asked whether our Resolution of 12 November 2002 may be
construed as precluding a party who may not be a lawyer from signing his own pleadings, as presently
allowed by the Rules.

We answer the query in the negative.As the requirement is directed against lawyers only and the purpose
for which is to screen bogus lawyers and protect the public from them, the requirement and the
consequent penalties therefore cannot be construed as precluding a party who is not a lawyer from
signing a pleading himself as presently allowed by the Rules.

ACCORDINGLY, our Resolution dated 12 November 2002 is amended for clarification to read as follows-

The Court Resolved, upon recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant, to GRANT the request of
the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Ilocos Norte to require all lawyers to indicate their Roll of Attorneys Number in all papers or pleadings
submitted to the various judicial or quasi-judicial bodies in addition to the requirement of indicating
the current Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and the IBP Official Receipt or Life Member Number.

All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court, whether personally or by mail, which do not bear
counsel's Roll of Attorneys Number as herein required may not be acted upon by the court, without
prejudice to whatever disciplinary action the court may take against the erring counsel who shall
likewise be required to comply with the requirement within five (5) days from notice.Failure to
comply with such requirement shall be a ground for further disciplinary sanction and for contempt
of court.

B.M. No. 287. September 26, 2000

RE: REQUIREMENT FOR PYMT. OF CURRENT IBP DUES

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 26 2000.
B.M. No. 287 (Re: Requirement that Official Receipt Number and Date of Payment of Current IBP
Membership Dues Be Indicated By Counsel Per IBP Resolution No. XIV-1999-63.)

The Resolution dated 9 July 1985 is further amended to read as follows:

All pleadings, motions and papers filed in court, whether personally or by mail, shall bear counsel's current
IBP official receipt number and date of issue, otherwise, such pleadings, motions and papers may not
be acted upon by the court, without prejudice to whatever disciplinary action the court may take
against the erring counsel who shall likewise be required to comply with the requirement within five
(5) days from notice. Failure to comply with such requirement shall be a ground for further
disciplinary sanction and for contempt of court.

The number and date of such official receipt for the current year may continually be indicated thereon
until the end of February of the succeeding year.

This amended Resolution shall take effect on 1 December 2000 and shall be published in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines not later than 20 October 2000.

The Court Administrator is directed to furnish immediately all lower courts and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines with copies of this Resolution.

Local Government Code, Section 139. Professional Tax. -

(a) The province may levy an annual professional tax on each person engaged in the exercise or practice
of his profession requiring government examination at such amount and reasonable classification as
the sangguniang panlalawigan may determine but shall in no case exceed Three hundred pesos
(P300.00).

(b) Every person legally authorized to practice his profession shall pay the professional tax to the province
where he practices his profession or where he maintains his principal office in case he practices his
profession in several places: Provided, however, That such person who has paid the corresponding
professional tax shall be entitled to practice his profession in any part of the Philippines without being
subjected to any other national or local tax, license, or fee for the practice of such profession.

(c) Any individual or corporation employing a person subject to professional tax shall require payment by
that person of the tax on his profession before employment and annually thereafter.

(d) The professional tax shall be payable annually, on or before the thirty-first (31st) day of January. Any
person first beginning to practice a profession after the month of January must, however, pay the full
tax before engaging therein. A line of profession does not become exempt even if conducted with
some other profession for which the tax has been paid. Professionals exclusively employed in the
government shall be exempt from the payment of this tax.

(e) Any person subject to the professional tax shall write in deeds, receipts, prescriptions, reports, books
of account, plans and designs, surveys and maps, as the case may be, the number of the official
receipt issued to him.

A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC