DOCTRINESRULE 10 DOCTRINESjmhr (b 2015)Civil Procedure Doctrines Judge Dela RosaPRELIMINARY STUFF*Neypes v. CA 496 SCRA 633 (2005) (See case of PCI Leasing & Finance v. Milan @ p 32 for a better discussion) Fresh Period Rule: it is practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file a Notice of Appeal counted from the receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance to law. It should be taken within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from. A final order or judgment is one that finally disposes of a case; an adjudication on the merits.

*Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago 494 SCRA 393 (2006) The constitutional faculty of the SC to promulgate rules of practice & procedure necessarily carries with it the power to overturn judicial precedents regarding remedial law. If a complainant is dismissed due to his/her own fault, the dismissal is without prejudice to the defendants right to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or separate action. But if it were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the counterclaim must also be dismissed as it is merely ancillary to the main action. Dismissal of the compulsory counterclaim is automatic upon the dismissal of the complaint whether upon initiative of the plaintiff or defendant. OWEHOWasdHOWEVER, 2 & 3 of Rule 17 ordains a more equitable disposition of the counterclaims by ensuring that any judgment thereon is based on the merit of the counterclaim itself and not because of the survival of the main complaint.

Baritua v. Mercader 350 SCRA 86 (2001) Jurisdiction of the a court is determined by the statute in force at the commencement of the action unless such statute provides for its retroactive application. Once jurisdiction attaches, it continues until the case is finally terminated. The court having acquired it cannot be ousted therefrom by subsequent happenings or events, although of a character that would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. A Motion for Bill of Particulars becomes moot & academic where, prior to filing, the defendant has already filed his Answer and several other pleadings.

Abrenica v. Law Firm of Abrenica, Tungol, & Tibayan 502 SCRA 614 (2006) Public interest demands an end to every litigation and a belated effort to reopen a case that has attained finality will serve no purpose other than to delay the administration of justice. Procedural rules will only be relaxed upon showing of any compelling reason for not resorting to the proper remedy. *Liberal Construction is allowed when: Rigid application will result in failure or miscarriage of justice; In the interest of substantial justice; Where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the discretion of the court; or Injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of thoughtfulness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.

Paloma v. Mora 470 SCRA 711 (2005) Mandamus lies to compel performance when refused of a ministerial duty but not to compel the performance of a discretionary one. *If a law is silent as to the retroactivity of the law to pending cases and must therefor be taken to be of prospective application.

Quesada v. DOJ 500 SCRA 454 (2006) A direct recourse to the SC is warranted only where there are special & compelling reasons specifically alleged in the petition to justify such action. Where the issuances of an extraordinary writ is also within the competence of the CA or RTC, it is in either that the action must be presented. [Rule on Hierarchy of Courts] *Concurrence of jurisdiction is not, to be taken as an absolute & an unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which one will seek recourse from.

Ngo Bun Tiong v. Sayo 163 SCRA 614 (1988) *Policy of Judicial Stability/Doctrine of Non-Interference: the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be interfered by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. A court cannot refuse to issue a writ of execution upon a final & executor judgment except when certain facts & circumstances transpired after the finality which would render the execution of the judgment unjust. The filing of several cases against the same party over the same issue after the appellate court has decided adversely against them constitutes a contumacious defiance of the authority of courts and impedes the speedy administration of justice.

*Ella v. Salonga 35 SCRA 86 (1970) Jurisdiction is vested on the court, not the judges. When a case is filed in one branch, jurisdiction over the case does not attach to the branch or the judge alone to the exclusion of other branches. Trial may be held or proceedings continued by and before another judge or branch. The apportionment or raffle of cases does not involve a grant or limitation of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction attaches and continues to be vested in the court of the province or city. Coordinate and co-equal branches cannot unduly interfere with the processes and proceedings of another branch or judge.

Villamor v. Salas 203 SCRA 540 (2006) Judges of co-equal branches may not interfere with each others judgments. A judge is not liable for an erroneous decision in the absence of malice or wrongful conduct in rendering it.

Dela Rosa v. Roldan 501 SCRA 34 (2006) What determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought, whether or not plaintiff is entitled to any and all reliefs prayed for. *Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties. Cannot be waived, enlarged, or diminished by the parties act or omission. It cannot be conferred through the acquiescence of the court.

*Tijam v. Sibonghanoy 23 SCRA 29 (1968) General Rule: Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time in the proceedings because lack thereof affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case. Exception: A party may be barred by laches from invoking this plea for the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active participation of said party invoking it. Laches: Failure or neglect for an unreasonable & unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. Negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. A party cannot invoke the courts jurisdiction and then deny it to escape a penalty.

Calimlim v. Ramirez 118 SCRA 399 (1982) The ruling in Tijam is to be considered as a mere exception rather than the general rule. When a party erroneously files a suit in a court without jurisdiction, such act cannot be a sufficient basis for estoppel in raising the question of jurisdiction.

Dela Cruz v. CA 510 SCRA 103 (2006) *Jurisdiction is the power or capacity given by law to a court/tribunal to entertain, hear, and determine certain controversies. Rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict & rigid application which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. SCs power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling that as to alter even that which this court itself has already declared to be final. In its rule-making power, it can suspend its rules with respect to a particular case (pro hac vice)

Sta. Clara Homeonwers Association v. Gaston 374 SCRA 396 (2002) A defendant moving to dismiss a complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action is regarded as having hypothetically admitted the factual averments in the complaint. *test of sufficiency of allegations constituting the cause of action is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment on the prayers. It implies the issue must be passed upon based on the bare allegations in the complaint. *Elements of Causes of Action: Legal right of the plaintiff exists. Correlative obligation of defendant to respect the plaintiffs rights. Act/omission of defendant violating such right.

*Sun Insurance v. Asuncion 170 SCRA 274 (1989) Statutes regulating court procedures are applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent. It is not only the filing of the complaint but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the fee, the court may allow payment within a reasonable time but not beyond the prescriptive or reglementary period. This rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims, and the like. When the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, the additional filing fee constitutes a lien on the judgment.

*Ballatan v. CA 304 SCRA 34 (1999) In Real Actions, the docket & filing fees are based on the value of the property & amount of damages claimed, if any. If a complaint is filed but not paid during filing, the court acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a reasonable time as the court may grant, barring prescription. Where the prescribed fees for the real action have been paid but fees for damages have not, the court, although having jurisdiction over the real action, may not have acquired jurisdiction over the claim for damages. The court may expunge those claims or allow, on motion, a reasonable time for amendment of the complaint to allege the precise amount of damages & accept payment of the requisite legal fees.

Yuchengco v. Republic 333 SCRA 368 (2000) Timely filing of correct docket fees is jurisdictional but the SC, in various decisions, applied considerations of law & equity on a case-to-case basis. *Sandiganbayan now tries civil cases. Parties filing such cases are liable to pay the required docket fees.

Vda. De Murga v. Chan 25 SCRA 441 (1968) *Notice giving the lessee the alternative of either paying or vacating the land is not the demand contemplated by the Rules in Unlawful Detainer cases. Without a definite demand to vacate, the lessee is not considered to be in default which would give rise to a right on the part of the lessor to bring an action for Unlawful Detainer. *Where it is clearly shown in the pleadings that the controversy is on the correct interpretation of a clause in a lease contract, the action is not for Unlawful Detainer but one not capable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, beyond the competence of the MTC. [RTC has jurisdiction]

Heirs of Concha v. Sps. Lumocso 540 SCRA 1 (2007) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear & determine cases of the general class to which the proceeding in question belong. It is conferred by law. *To determine if a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is important to determine the nature of the cause of action & the relief sought.

Agustin v. Bacalan 135 SCRA 340 (1985) A judgment may be attacked directly or collaterally on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or by petition for relief. A defendant in an Ejectment action may setup a counterclaim for moral damages and may be awarded to the defendant. A counterclaim beyond the courts jurisdiction (ie. beyond P 10k in Ejectment) may only be pleaded by way of defense to weaken the plaintiffs claim, but not to obtain affirmative relief. The court has no jurisdiction to hear & determine a set-off or counterclaim in excess of its jurisdiction. *Only the award by a court of an amount in excess of its jurisdiction is void and of no effect. Thus, it can be attacked even if the decision has become final & executor. Nullity of a portion of a decision that has become final & executor cannot affect its conclusion over the main action for Ejectment.

Mangaliag v. Catubig-Pastoral 474 SCRA 153 (2005) Generally, a direct recourse to the SC is highly improper for it violates the established policy of strict observance to the judicial hierarchy of courts. Hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule. It generally applies to cases with different factual allegations. As such, it does not involve when cases do not involve factual questions. Where the amount of the demand in a civil case exceeds P 100k, RTC has jurisdiction. In 1999, it was increased to P 200k.

Bejer v. CA 169 SCRA 566 (1989) *Failure to avail of the conciliation process (PD 1508) does not warrant jurisdictional objection. It merely renders the complaint vulnerable to a timely Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause of action or prematurity. For purposes of venue, the residence of a person is his personal, actual, or physical habitation, or his actual residence, or place of abode, such residence being more than temporary. [characteried by continuity & consistency] Primary Purpose of PD 1508: provide the conciliation mechanism as an alternative to litigations in dispute settlement to members of corresponding barangays who are actually residing therein.

Zamora v. Heirs of Carmen 443 SCRA 24 (2004) Purpose of PD 1508 is to reduce court litigations & prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice brought about by the indiscriminate filing of cases in courts. As a precondition to filing a complaint in court, parties shall go through the conciliation proceedings either before the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat *Motion to Dismiss an action for Unlawful Detainer may be filed if based on: (1) lack of jurisdiction; or (2) failure to comply with PD 1508.

Aquino v. Aure 546 SCRA 71 (2008) Non-compliance with the barangay conciliation process is not a jurisdictional requirement. It cannot affect the jurisdiction which the court has otherwise acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant. For this reason, the court cannot motu propio dismiss the case. *Failure to object to the deficiency in the complaint (ie. failure to resort to barangay conciliation) in the defendants answer is deemed a waiver or acquiescence to such defect.

Banares II v. Balising 328 SCRA 36 (2000) Final Order: one which disposes the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court. Interlocutory Order: one which does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be adjudicated upon. An order dismissing a case without prejudice is a final order if no MR or appeal is timely filed. After finality, the court has no power to amend & modify it. A party wishing to reinstate the case has no other remedy but to file a new complaint. This rule applies to Civil, Criminal, & Summary Proceedings.

RULE 1: General ProvisionsYu v. Placeb 580 SCRA 197 (2009) The aim and object of an action determine its character. Whether it is in rem, in personam, or quasi in rem, is determined by its nature and purpose and by these only. *In Personam: enforce personal rights & obligations brought against the person and is based on the jurisdiction over the person. Its purpose is to impose, through court action, some responsibility or liability on the defendant. A judgment in personam binds only the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. *Quasi in Rem: one brought against persons seeking to subject the property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. Judgments herein only bind the parties in the action. *An action for specific performance is an action in personam. *Class Notes: Personal/Real Actions: important for purposes of venue (ie. where to properly file the action) In Personam/In Rem: important for purposes of knowing whether summons or publication is required to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant or the subject matter of the action. Quasi in Rem: initially in personam but evolves into in rem (usually when property of the defendant is attached)Domagas v. Jensen 448 SCRA 663 (2005) *Actions for recovery of real property are in personam. Unlawful Detainer/Forcible Entry is a real action & in personam. *In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person is needed for the court to validly try and decide the case. Defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be served with Summons. If Summons cannot be served within a reasonable time, substituted service may be made pursuant to 8 Rule 14. Service of summons on a person at a place where he was a visitor is not considered to have been left at the residence or place of abode where he has another place which he ordinarily stays.

Republic v. CA 315 SCRA 600 (1999) A judgment may be annulled on the following grounds: Void for want of jurisdiction or lack of due process; or Obtained through extrinsic fraud *In Rem: directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments thereto against the whole world.

Tamano v. Ortiz 291 SCRA 584 (1998) *Personal actions, such as Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, may be commenced & tried where the plaintiff or any principal plaintiff resides or where defendant/s resides at the election of the plaintiff. *Courts jurisdiction cannot be made to depend upon defenses set up in the answer, motion to dismiss, or MR, but only in the allegations of the complaint. Where the complaint alleges that the marriage was pursuant to the Civil Code, said Code is applicable not the Muslim Code. Sharia courts are not vested with original jurisdiction when it comes to marriages under Civil & Muslim laws.

La Tondena Distillers v. Ponferrada 264 SCRA 540 (1996) *An order denying a motion to dismiss is only interlocutory and thus is neither appealable until final judgment nor assailable via certiorari. The remedy is to file an answer pursuant to 4 Rule 16, interpose as defences the objections in the motion to dismiss, go to trial, and, in case of an adverse decision, appeal. However, certiorari can be availed of if the denial of the motion to dismiss amounts to grave abuse of discretion.

Cabutihan v. Landcenter Construction & Development 383 SCRA 353 (2002) *Actions affecting title or possession of Real Property or any interest therein shall be commenced & tried in the court that has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the property lies. ( 1 & 2 Rule 4) Misjoinder/Non-joinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal because parties may be dropped or added by order of the court, on motion of any party or through the courts own initiative at any stage of the proceeding. Non-inclusion of a Necessary Party does not prevent the court from proceeding & judgment shall be without prejudice to the rights of such party. Specific Performance: classified as an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.Go v. UCPB 442 SCRA 264 (2004) In real actions, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property or that which is provided under 1 Rule 4. *Cancellation of Real Estate Mortgage is a real action considering that the mortgaged property is a real right and a real property by itself. It also affects title to the property. Therefore, it should be commenced where the property is situated.

*Manchester Development Corp. v. CA 149 SCRA 562 (1987) When the allegations in the complaint, designation, & prayer clearly show that the action is for damages & specific performance, the docket fee should be assessed by considering the amount of damages as alleged in the original complaint. Case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fees regardless of the actual date of filing in court. The basis of the fee should be the original complaint and not the amended complaint. The practice of omitting the amount of damages in the prayer although it is actually indicated in the body of the original complaint is frowned upon it shows an intention of thwarting payment of the correct fees and is unethical. Henceforth, all complaints, petitions, answers, and other pleadings should specify the amount of damages prayed for in the Body & in the Prayer and that damages should be considered in the assessment of filing fees. Failure to comply will make the pleading inadmissible.

*Sun Insurance v. Asuncion 170 SCRA 274 (1989) See page 3.

Negros Oriental Planters v. Presiding Judge 575 SCRA 575 (2008) *Verification: a partys knowledge must be specifically alleged under oath to be either personal knowledge or at least based on authentic records. One cannot now merely state that he believes the statements made in the pleading nor merely has knowledge that they are true and correct. Failure to properly verify will amount to regard the pleading as unsigned. Improper verification subjects the pleading to the courts discretion to allow the defect to be remedied. *Where the party does not deliberately intend to defraud the court in paying docket fees, the liberal doctrine in Sun Insurance and not the strict rule in Manchester will apply.

Ayala Corp. v. Madayag 181 SCRA 687 (1990) Amount of docket fees is computed based on amount of damages in the complaint. Amount of any claim for damages arising on/before the filing the complaint or any pleading should be specified. Determination of exemplary or correlative damages is left to the discretion of the court. But the party has the duty to specify the amount sought so the court may make a proper determination & proper assessment of the fees. *Exception: if damages arise after filing of the complaint or subsequent pleadings. A complaint failing to specify the amount of damages suffers from a material defect.

Tacay v. RTC of Tagum 180 SCRA 433 (1989) A certification made by petitioners counsel & not by the proper clerk of court or his representatives is not allowed. *Damages arising after filing the complaint or similar pleading will constitute as a lien on the judgment to the extent of the additional filing fees therefor. *Where the action is purely for recovery of money/damages docket fees are assessed based on the aggregate amount claimed, exclusive of interests & costs. Where the action involves real property & claim for damages, fees shall be based on both. If the fee based on the assessed value of the real property is paid but the fee corresponding to the damages is not, the court will still have jurisdiction with respect to the real property. *2 situations: Claim for money/damages without precise statement of amount: (1) Not be accepted/admitted; or (2) Expunged; or (3) Sun Insurance doctrine. Pleading specifies amount but payment is insufficient: (1) Apply Sun Insurance doctrine (defect is cured upon full payment)

Citizens Surety v. Melencio-Herrera 38 SCRA 369 (1971) In Personam: personal service of summons is essential to acquire jurisdiction over the person who does not submit himself voluntarily. Due process requires personal service to support a personal judgment. Prescription period is tolled as long as debtor remains in hiding. His absence would be a matter of court record.

RULE 2: Cause of ActionJoseph v. Bautista 170 SCRA 540 (1989) *Cause of Action: the delict or wrongful act/omission committed by the defendant in violation of the rights of the plaintiff. When there is only 1 delict or wrong, there is only 1 cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated belonging to one person. The singleness of a Cause of Action lies in the singleness of the delict violating the rights of 1 person. *If only 1 injury resulted from several wrong acts, only 1 cause of action arises.

Monzon v. Sps. Relova v. Addio Properties 565 SCRA 514 (2008) *Elements of Cause of Action Right in favor of plaintiff arises or is created. Obligation on the part of defendant to respect or not violate such right. Act/omission on the part of defendant in violation of plaintiffs right. *Where prescription, lack of jurisdiction, or failure to state cause of action clearly appears on the complaint filed, the action may be dismissed by the court motu proprio, even if the case has been elevated for review on different grounds. Failure to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period and failure to appear at the hearing is the sole ground for an order of default. *This should be an exception rather than the general rule and should only be allowed in clear cases of obstinate refusal or inordinate neglect to comply with the order of the court.

PNCC v. CA 514 SCRA 569 (2007) *Cause of Action is the fact or combination of facts which affords a party a right to judicial interference in his behalf. It is the reason why the litigation has come about, it is the act or omission of the defendant resulting in the violation of someones rights.

*Viewmaster Construction Corp. v. Roxas 335 SCRA 540 (2000) In determining the existence of a cause of action, only the statements in the complaint may be properly considered. Lack thereof must appear on the face of the complaint and its existence may be determined only by the allegations of the complaint. The consideration of other facts is proscribed and any attempt to prove extraneous circumstances is not allowed. Test of Sufficiency of Facts constituting a Cause of Action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer thereof.

*San Lorenzo Village Association v. CA 288 SCRA 115 (1998) A complaint states a cause of action where it contains the 3 essential elements of a cause of action. If the allegations are vague, indefinite, or in the form of conclusions, the different recourse is not a motion to dismiss but a bill of particulars. A motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action in the complaint hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged therein. Admission does not, however, extend to conclusions of law nor does it cover allegations of fact the falsity of which is subjected to judicial notice. *Class Notes: Failure to state cause of action before evidence Lack of cause of action after evidence

Zepeda v. China Banking Corp. 504 SCRA 126 (2006) A cause of action is a formal statement of operative facts that give rise to a remedial right. It is determined by its averments regarding the acts committed by the defendant.

Sea Land Service Inc. v. CA 327 SCRA 135 (2000) *In determining if the complaint states a cause of action, the annexes attached to the complaint may be considered since they are deemed to be parts of the complaint. A party is barred from taking judicial action against another if by clear terms of their agreement, arbitration is the mode provided by which damages and/or indemnity may be recoverd.

Lorbes v. CA 351 SCRA 716 (2001) Courts should be more liberal in setting aside Orders of Default because judgments of default are frowned upon unless it clearly appears that reopening it is for purposes of delay. That the complaint filed to the court was categorized as Reformation of an Instrument should not preclude the court from passing upon the issues which were raised in the body of the complaint.

Progressive Development Co. v. CA 301 SCRA 637 (1999) Filing a Motion for Reconsideration before availing of certiorari is not a condition sine qua non to hear the issue raised as one purely of law. The pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause is a ground for dismissal of an action (litis pendentia) *A claim cannot be divided in such a way that a part of the amount of damages may be recovered in one case and the rest in another (ie. splitting causes of action) Forum Shopping: whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another.

*Flores v. Mallare-Philipps 144 SCRA 377 (1986) Where 2 or more plaintiffs sue a defendant in a single complaint or one plaintiff sues several defendants in a single complaint based on several causes of action, the Totality Rule applies only where: Causes of action arose from the same series of transaction; or Theres a common question of fact or law among them as provided in 6 Rule 3. Where the plaintiff sues a defendant, the total demand furnishes the jurisdictional test irrespective of whether several causes of action arose out of different transactions, although, their joinder would only be permissive not mandatory.

RULE 3: Parties to Civil Actions 1-11Rayo v. Metrobank 539 SCRA 571 (2007) *Real Party in Interest: one with a present substantial interest or such interest in the subject matter of the action as will entitle him, under substantive law, to recover if the evidence is sufficient or that he has the legal title to demand.

PNB v. Megaprime Realty 567 SCRA 633 (2008) Under the Rules, it is presumed that a person is innocent of crime or wrong and that private transactions have been fair & regular. While disputable, these presumptions can be overcome only by clear & convincing preponderant evidence. In determining actual damages, the courts cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures, or guesswork but must depend on competent proof or the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount of the loss. In granting exemplary damages, the act of the offender must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, or malevolent manner. Attorneys fees may be awarded only when a party is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his interest.

Aguila v. CA 319 SCRA 246 (1999) *A complaint filed against a party who is not a real party in interest should be dismissed for Failure to State Cause of Action.

Vlason Enterprises v. CA 310 SCRA 26 (1999) *Mere failure to include the name of a party in the title of a complaint is not fatal by itself if it is found in the body. A Compromise Agreement is immediately final & executory. A Notice of Hearing is conceptualized as an integral component of procedural due process intended to afford the adverse parties a chance to be heard before a motion is resolved by the court. A summons addressed to a corporation & served on the secretary of its president binds the corporation. Although an amended pleading supersedes the original one, which is thus deemed withdrawn and no longer considered part of the record, it does not follow ipso facto that the service of a new summons for the amended petitions/complaints is required. When defendants have not yet appeared in court & no summons has been validly served, new summons for the amended complaint must be served on them. A declaration of default is not an admission of truth or the validity of the plaintiffs claims. Plaintiff cannot be granted an award greater than or different in kind from that specified in the complaint.

*Agro Conglomerates v. CA 348 SCRA 450 (2000) Non-Inclusion of a Necessary Party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. Class Notes: Indispensible Party: must be joined under any and all conditions; court cannot proceed without this party. Necessary Party: should be joined only whenever possible to complete relief; has separate interest from that of the indispensible party.

Co v. Acosta 134 SCRA 185 (1985) *Where 2 defendants are sued under a common cause of action, plaintiffs agreement to drop & release one of the defendants should extend to the other even if both defendants have not yet filed any answer. *It is to be assumed that when any defendant allows himself to be in default knowing that his co-defendant had already answered, he does so trusting in the assurance that his default is, in essence, a mere formality that deprives him no more than the right to take part in the trial and that the court would deem anything done by or for the answering defendant as by or for him.

*Samaniego v. Aguila 334 SCRA 438 (2000) Indispensible Party: a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action without that party being impleaded. Those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights, so that the court cannot proceed without their presence. Interest: material, directly in issue and to be affected by the decree as distinguished from mere incidental interest. Nominal/Pro Forma Party: one joined as a plaintiff/defendant, not because such has any real interest in the subject matter or because any relief is demanded but merely because technical rules of pleadings require the presence of such party on the record. (ex. Office of the President, Court of Appeals in special civil actions for certiorari) *Class Notes: Necessary Party: failure to comply with the order for the partys inclusion will be deemed a waiver to claim against such party Court is not prevent from proceeding with the action. Judgment rendered therein will not prejudice such necessary party. Failure to implead such party will not amount to dismissal of the action. Indispensible Party: failure to comply with the order for the partys inclusion will be a cause for dismissal for Failure to Comply with an Order of the Court and not because of misjoinder/non-joinder. (See 11 Rule 3)

Domingo v. Scheer 421 SCRA 468 (2004) *Absence of an indispensible party renders all subsequent actions of the court null & void. Joinder of indispensible parties is mandatory, Without the presence of such party to the suit, the judgment cannot attain a real finality. Strangers to the case are not bound by the judgment. *Non Joinder of Indispensible Parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action since parties may be added by order of the court or on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage and/or such times as are just.

*Plasabas v. CA 582 SCRA 686 (2009) Any one of the Co-Owners may bring an action for ejectment. Any judgment of the court in favor of plaintiff benefits other co-owners. However, if the judgment is adverse, the same cannot prejudice rights of the unimpleaded co-ownership. The only exception to the rule that a party does not have to implead his co-owners in an action for Recovery of Property is when the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and thus, entitled to possession thereof.

Erna Casals v. Tayud Golf & Country Club 593 SCRA 468 (2009) Indispensible Parties: parties without whom there can be no final determination of an action. Things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them.

Pimentel v. Senate Committee of the Whole 644 SCRA 741 (2011) Test to Determine if Party is Indispensible A party who has not only an interest in the subject matter but also an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his interest or leaving the controversy.

12-22*Mathay v. Consolidated Bank 58 SCRA 559 (1974) Requisites of a Class Suit: Subject matter of the controversy be one of common/general interest to many persons; and Such persons be so numerous to make it impracticable to bring them all to court. Parties are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class & can fully protect the interests of all concerned. The existence of a class suit depends upon attending facts and not upon the designation in the complaint. Complaint should allege the existence of necessary facts (ie. requisites) to contrast the number appearing on the record with the number in the class and to determine if claimants on record adequately represent the class and subject matter. Subject Matter physical facts (things, money, lands, chattels) in relation to which the suit is prosecuted and not the delict committed. Class suit will not prosper when brought by stockholders who have determinable, though undivided interest, in the property in question. The wrongs committed to each individual would not create a community of interest in the subject matter. Spurious Class Action: merely a permissive joinder device and cannot be regarded as a class suit. The existence of a common question of law would not suffice to maintain a class action. There must be a showing that sufficient representative parties have been joined. Allegation that one is entitled to something is a conclusion of law. The allegation that an act was unlawful or wrongful is a mere conclusion of law.

Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Ruiz 148 SCRA 326 (1987) A class suit is not proper where the plaintiffs are individually claiming a specific portion of the hacienda in dispute. No common/general interest in the subject matter.Newsweek v. IAC 142 SCRA 171 (1986) *Defamatory remarks against a group of persons is not actionable unless statements are all-embracing or sufficiently specific for the victim to be indentifiable. An action for libel allegedly directed at a group of sugar planter cannot be done by resort to filing a class suit as each victim of libel has his specific reputation to protect.

Sulo ng Bayan Inc. v. Araneta 72 SCRA 347 (1976) Venue of action is not left to the caprice of plaintiff who must follow the Rules. The mere fact that the Secretary of Justice approved the transfer of a case to another court branch does not divest the court originally taking cognizance of the case of its jurisdiction. *Absent any showing of interest, a corporation has no personality to bring an action to recover property belonging to its members or stockholders in their personal capacities. *A class suit does not lie in actions for recovery of property portions of which are being claimed by several persons.

*Aguas v. Llemos 5 SCRA 959 (1962) (But see 20 Rule 3) Actions Abated by Death: Claims for funeral expenses or last sickness. Judgment for money. Claims for money against decedent from a contract. Actions that Survive against the decedents executor/administrator: Recovery of Real or Personal property from the estate. Actions enforcing a lien on the estate. Recover of damages from injury to person or property. (Tort or Delict)

Board of Liquidators v. Heirs of Kalaw 20 SCRA 987 (1967) A suit to recover damages based on an alleged tort committed by the manager of a corporation survives. It is not a mere money claim extinguished upon the death of the party.

*Sps. Algura v. City of Naga 506 SCRA 81 (2006) The rule on pauper litigants was inserted in Rule 141 without revoking or amending 21 Rule 3 which provides for the exemption of such litigants from paying filing fees. Both are still valid & enforceable rules. If trial courts find that the application to litigate as a pauper litigant meets the income & property requirements, authority to litigate as such is automatically granted as a matter of right. If it is found that one or both requirements have not been met, it should set a hearing to enable the applicant to prove that he has no money or property sufficient & available for food, shelter, and basic necessities for himself and his family. Class Notes: Indigent civil actions Pauper criminal actions Class Notes: If a judgment has been rendered and it is found that the party is not an indigent, judgment can be nullified for having acquired no jurisdiction for failure to pay proper docket fees.

*White Light Corp. v. City of Manila 576 SCRA 416 (2009) Standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to & harm from the law or action challenged to support that partys participation in the case. [direct personal interest] Exceptions to Locus Standi: Third Party Standing: right to bring actions on behalf of third parties provided (1) litigants suffer an injury-in-fact which gives rise to a sufficient concrete interest; (2) close relationship to the third party; and (3) third party is hindered from protecting his own interests. Overbreadth Doctrine: applies when a government act needlessly restrains even constitutionally granted rights (ie. free speech); rights of third parties can be raised.

*Province of North Cotobato v. GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain 568 SCRA 402 (2008) Ripe: something that had already been performed before a court may come into the picture Petitioner must allege the presence of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a result of the challenged action. Concrete acts are not necessary to render a controversy ripe. That the law or act in question is not yet effective does not negate ripeness. To have locus standi, one must allege a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. When the issue concerns a public right, it is enough that petitioner is citizen and has an interest in the execution of the laws. Judicial review is limited to actual cases/controversies. An actual case involves a conflict of legal rights & an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from hypothetical/abstract difference or disputes.

Kilosbayan v. Guingona 232 SCRA 110 (1994) *A partys standing before the court is a procedural technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. The Court has brushed aside this technicality because of the Transcendental Importance to the public of the issues which demand that they be settled promptly. Objections to Taxpayer suits for lack of sufficient personality are procedural matters.

Velarde v. Social Justice Society 428 SCRA 282 (2004) An action for Declaratory Relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument and those whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order, regulation or ordinance. *Requisites: Existence of a justiciable controversy; Controversy is between persons with adverse interests; The party seeking relief has a legal interest; and It is ripe for adjudication. *Parties challenging the constitutionality of a law or act must show now only that the law is invalid but also that they have sustained or are in immediate/imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result.

RULE 4: Venue of Actions*United Overseas Bank Philippines v. Rosemoore Mining 518 SCRA 123 (2007) The essence of Forum Shopping is the filing of the multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of actions, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. Identity of parties or parties representing the same interests Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts Identity is such that any judgment rendered would amount to res judicata Venue of Real Actions affecting properties found in different provinces is determined by the singularity or plurality of transactions involving said land. Where said parcels of land are the object of one transaction, the venue is in the court of any of the provinces the land is situated.

*Nocum v. Tan 470 SCRA 639 (2005)JurisdictionVenue

Substantive LawProcedural Law

Authority to hear & determine a case.Place where the case is to be heard or tried.

Establishes a relation between the court & subject matter.Establishes a relation between the parties (plaintiff-defendant)

Fixed by law & cannot be conferred by the parties.May be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties.

Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any time in the proceedings.Objections to venue may be waived because they do not involve a question of jurisdiction.

Rules on Venue of Civil & Criminal Actions in Written Defamations

General RuleWhere first published & printed or where any of the offended parties actually reside during the commission.

Public Officer (Manila)Manila courts or where it was first published & printed.

Public Officer (outside)Court where he holds office or where it was first published & printed.

Private PersonSame as the general rule.

Polytrade Corp. v. Blanco 30 SCRA 187 (1969) *Stipulation that Parties agree to sue & be sued in the courts of Manila does not preclude filing in the residence of the plaintiff/defendant pursuant to the Rules because there is an absence of Qualifying or Restrictive Words indicating that Manila alone is the venue. The stipulation is simply permissive.

Mangila v. CA 387 SCRA 162 (2002) A mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude the parties from bringing a case in other venues parties should show that such stipulation is exclusive. Venue stipulations in a contract, while valid & enforceable, do not supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4. **It is the residence of the proprietor that should be considered as one of the proper venues and not the business address of the sole proprietorship. If the plaintiff is given unrestricted freedom to choose where to file, the objective of the rules to ensure a just & orderly administration of justice or impartial & even-handed determination of every action and proceeding will not be attained.

Sps. Lantin v. Judge Lantion 499 SCRA 718 (2006) In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation on venue should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum and not as limiting the venue to a specified place.

Unimasters Conglomeration Inc. v. CA 262 SCRA 759 (1997) *Parties may, by stipulation, waive the legal venue & such waiver is valid & effective being merely a personal privilege, which is not contrary to public policy or prejudicial to third persons. Venue has nothing to do with jurisdiction except in criminal cases.

Pacific Consultants International Asia v. Schonfeld 516 SCRA 209 (2009) Venue stipulations do not, as a rule, supersede the rule set forth in Rule 4. Under 9 of B.P. 129 as amended by RA 7902, the CA is empowered to pass upon the evidence if and, when necessary, to resolve factual issues.

Dacoycoy v. IAC 195 SCRA 641 (1991) Jurisdiction treats of the power of the court to decide a case on the merits while venue deals on the locality, the place where the suit may be had. *Where a defendant fails to challenge the venue timely in a Motion to Dismiss and allows the trial to be held and a decision to be rendered, he cannot appeal or belatedly challenge the wrong venue. Objection thereto is deemed to have been waived.

*Hyatt Elevetors & Escalors v. Goldstar Elevators 473 SCRA 705 (2005) Residence is the permanent home or the place to which, whenever absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return. It is vital when dealing with venue. A Corporation, however, has no residence in the same manner as applied to a natural person. Its residence is the Principal Office as stated in its articles of incorporation. The residence or domicile of a juridical person is fixed by the law creating or recognizing it. The fact that Hyatt relocated to Mandaluyong after closing in Makati does not matter since it is not the principal place of business in its articles of incorporation. Residence for purposes of venue is synonymous with domicile. Venue of Personal Actions are fixed for the convenience of the plaintiff and their witnesses subject to regulation by the Rules of Court.

RULE 5: Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts 1 & 2RULE 6: Kinds of Pleadings 1-13*International Container Terminal Services v. CA 214 SCRA 456 (1992) A Counterclaim is Compulsory where: It arises out of, or necessarily connected with, the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing partys claim. It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. The court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The dismissal of the complaint operated also to dismiss the counterclaim questioning the complaint. (But see Pinga at page 1) Class Notes: In the Pinga case, dismissal of the main case does not affect the counterclaim (permissive or compulsory) The only time it is dismissed is if there is no cause of action. A Counterclaim is Permissive if it does not arise out of nor is it necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing partys claim. A claim for damages caused by wrongful issuance of a preliminary injunction can be made in the form of a counterclaim.

*Metals Engineering Resources Corp. v. CA 203 SCRA 273 (1991) If the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the main action of the case and dismisses the same, the compulsory counterclaim must likewise be dismissed. No need to pay docket fees for a compulsory counterclaim.

Cojuanco v. Villegas 184 SCRA 138 (1990) No court has the power to interfere by injunction with judgments of a court having concurrent jurisdiction. A claim for compensation should be presented as a counterclaim in the ejectment suit rather than in a separate civil action. *The rule on compulsory counterclaim was designed to enable the disposition of the entire conflict at one time & in one action [avoid multiplicity of suits]

Chan v. CA 230 SCRA 685 (1994) A counterclaim is in itself a distinct & independent cause of action. *It is any claim for money or other relief which a defending party may have against an opposing party. A counterclaim for ejectment may be set up in a complaint for consignation. However, consignation is not proper where the refusal of the creditor to accept is with just cause.

*Financial Building Corp. v. Forbes Park 338 SCRA 346 (2000) A compulsory counterclaim is one which arises out of, or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurnce that is the subject matter of the opposing partys claim. Tests used to Determine if counterclaim is compulsory: Are the issues of fact/law raised largely the same? Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on the defendants claim without the compulsory counterclaim rule? Will the same evidence support or refute the plaintiffs claim as well as the defendants counter claim? Is there any logical relation between the claim & counterclaim? Filing a Motion to Dismiss the complaint is an implied waiver of the compulsory counterclaim because the grant of the motion ultimately results in the dismissal of the counter claim. Filing an MTD & setting up a compulsory counterclaim are incompatible remedies. But see Pinga case at page 1.

Anaya v. Palaran 36 SCRA 97 (1970) *If in a Reply, a party-plaintiff is not permitted to amend/change the cause of action set forth in his complaint, there is more reason not to allow such party to allege a new & additional cause of action in the Reply. Otherwise, pleadings would become interminable.

Balbastro v. CA 48 SCRA 231 (1972) * 12 Rule 6 does not compel the defendant to bring third parties into litigation, rather it simply permits the inclusion of anyone who meets the standard set forth in the rule. The secondary or derivative liability of the third party is central whether for indemnity, subrogation, contribution, warranty, or other theories. The impleader of new parties is proper only when a right to relief exists under substantive law. Secondary liability of a third party is necessary for availability of recourse against said third party. A third party defendant should not be a party to the action. *A claim against the third party defendant must be based on plaintiffs claim against the original defendant. Test: Whether the plaintiffs claim arises out of the same transaction on which the plaintiffs claim is based or the third partys claim, though arising out of another contract, is connected to the plaintiffs claim.

Rubio v. Mariano 52 SCRA 338 (1973) Respondents denials of the petitioners claims in his amended & supplemental answer and third party complaint can best be ventilated at a full-blown trial.

*Mercader v. Development Bank of the Philippines 332 SRA 82 (2000) A Supplemental Pleading was meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original pleading and not to dispense with the latter. It serves to aver supervening facts not originally ripe for relief.

RULE 7: Parts of PleadingsBanco Filipino v. CA 332 SCRA 241 (2000) *It is the Material Allegations in the complaint, not the legal conclusions made therein or the prayer that determines the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. The allegations determine the nature of the action and the court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations & proof even if no relief is prayed for.

Gochan v. Gochan 372 SCRA 256 (2001) *The nature of the action is determined in the body of the pleading/complaint itself rather than by its title or heading. Although denominated as Specific Performance and Damages but the relief sought is the conveyance or transfer of real property or execution of deeds of conveyance, the action is a real action.

*Republic v. Kenrick Development Corp. 498 SCRA 220 (2006) 3 Rule 7 requires that a pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him. Only the signature of either the party himself or his counsel operates to validly convert a pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is signed. Counsels duty & authority to sign a pleading is personal. Ergo, he may not delegate it to just any person. Signature by lawyers agents amounts to signing by an unqualified person. Signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by him that he has read the pleadings and that, to the best of his knowledge, information, & belief that there is good ground to support it.

*Argallon-Jocson v. CA 594 SCRA 343 (2009) Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him. Otherwise, the pleading produces no legal effect. Lack of certification Against Forum Shopping or a defective certification is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction unless there is a need to relax the Rules under special circumstances or for compelling reasons.

Vicar International v. FEB 456 SCRA 588 (2005) Failure to attach a Resolution authorizing a corporate officer to represent the corporation is, under certain circumstances, excusable. Immediate correction is deemed sufficient compliance with the rules.

Robern Development Corp. v. Quitain 315 SCRA 150 (1999) *Lack of verification is merely a formal defect that is neither jurisdictional nor fatal. Its absence does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction.

Maranaw Hotels & Resort Corp. v. CA 576 SCRA 463 (2009) *The very purpose for which Certificate Against Forum Shopping is required is to inform the court of the pendency of any other cases representing similar issues & involving similar parties.

*Huibonhoa v. Concepcion 497 SCRA 562 (2006) Rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different forums. To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important question to ask is: Whether the elements of Litis Pendentia are present; or Whether a final judgment in one case will result in Res Judicata in another.

*San Miguel Corp. v. Aballa 461 SCRA 392 (2005) General Rule: certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by ALL the plaintiffs/petitioners in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient. Strict compliance with provisions regarding the certificate merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certificate cannot be altogether dispensed with or requirements disregarded. Class Notes: Permissive counterclaims require a certificate of non-forum shopping.

*National Steel Corp. v. CA 388 SCRA 85 (2002) The certificate of non-forum shopping may be signed, and on behalf of a corporation, by a specifically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of facts required to be disclosed.

*Vallacar Transit Inc. v. Catubig 649 SCRA 281 (2011) Verification is a formal requirement merely intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are done in good faith or are true & correct and not of mere speculation. When circumstances warrant, the court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on it and waive strict compliance with the rules to serve the ends of justice. A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on information & belief or upon knowledge, information, and belief shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. A pleading verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations are true & correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. General Rule: a pleading need not be verified unless there is a law or rule specifically requiring it. **Examples of Pleadings that Need Verification:1. All pleadings filed in civil cases under 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure;2. Petition for Review from the RTC to the SC raising only questions of law (Rule 41, 2);3. Petition for Review of decision of the RTC to CA (Rule 42, 1);4. Petition for Review from quasi-judicial bodies to CA (Rule 43, 5);5. Petition for Review before the SC (Rule 45, 1);6. Petition for Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions (Rule 47, 4);7. Complaint for Injunction (Rule 58, 4);8. Application for Preliminary Injunction or TRO (Rule 58, 4);9. Application for Appointment of Receiver (Rule 59, 1);10. Application for Support Pendente Lite (Rule 61, 1);11. Petition for Certiorari against judgments, final orders, or resolutions of constitutional commissions (Rule 64, 2);12. Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, & Mandamus (Rule 65, 1-3);13. Petition for Quo Warranto (Rule 66, 1);14. Complaint for Expropriation (Rule 67, 1);15. Petition for Indirect Contempt (Rule 71, 4);16. All complaints or petitions involving Intra-Corporate Controversies (Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra-Corporate Controversies);17. Complaint or petition for Rehabilitation & Suspension of Payment (Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation); and18. Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, Annulment of Voidable Marriages, & Petition for Summary Proceedings (Family Code). All Complaints, Petitions, Applications, & other Initiatory Pleadings must be accompanied by a certificate against forum shopping (certificate of non-forum shopping).

RULE 8: Manner of Making Allegations in PleadingsCanete v. Genuino Ice Co. 542 SCRA 206 (2008) The basic rules of proper pleading and procedure require that every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts. All averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity. *Ultimate Facts means the essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action, or such facts as are so essential that they cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate.

La Mallorca v. CA 17 SCRA 739 (1996) *The inclusion of the averment of quasi-delict, while incompatible with the other claim under the contract of carriage, is permissible under Sec 2 of Rule 8, which allows a plaintiff to allege cause of action in the alternative, be they compatible with each other or not, to the end that the real matter in controversy may be resolved and determined.

*Toribio v. Bidin 134 SCRA 162 (1985) The Actionable Document Rule covers both action and defense based on documents. Where the defense is anchored on a deed of sale, the plaintiff must deny its due execution under oath if the plaintiffs theory is he has never disposed his property.

*Hibberd v. Rhode 32 Phil. 476 (1915) By the admission of the genuiness and due execution of an instrument is meant that the party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for him with his authority; That the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly set out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; That the document was delivered and that the formal requisites required by law such as a seal, an acknowledgement, or revenue stamp, which it lacks, are waived by him.

*Imperial Textile Mills v. CA 183 SCRA 584 (1990) In an action based on an instrument, if the defendant fails to specifically deny under oath the genuiness and due execution of the instrument, the same is deemed admitted. Defenses which are inconsistent with the due execution and genuiness of the written instrument are cut-off by such admission

*Central Surety & Insurance Co. v. Hodge If there is any ambiguity in the surety bond, it should be interpreted against the surety company that prepared it and that the action could be filed within the statutory period of prescription. Where a case has been tried in complete disregard of the rule and the plaintiff laying pleaded a document by copy, presents oral evidence to prove the due execution of the document as well as the agents authority and no objections are made to the defendants evidence in refutation, the rule will be considered waived. *Failure to specifically deny under oath the genuiness and due execution of an actionable document generally implies an admission of the same by the other party. However, such implied admission is deemed waived if the party asserting the same has allowed the adverse party to present evidence contrary to the contents of such document without objection.

*Guevara v. Eala 529 SCRA 1 (2007) Negative Pregnant Denial: a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It was in effect an admission of the averments it was directed at. A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it in affirmation, or at least an implication of some kind favourable to the adverse party.

*Philippine American General Insurance Co. v. Sweet Lines Bills of lading can be categorized as actionable documents which under the rules must be properly pleaded either as causes of action or defenses. The genuiness and due execution of which are deemed admitted unless specifically denied under oath by the adverse party Judicial admissions, verbal or written, made by the parties in the pleadings or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no evidence being required to prove the same, and cannot be contradicted unless shown to have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. Negative Pregnant is a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. Non-inclusion of the controverted bills of lading in the formal offer of evidence cannot be considered a fatal procedural lapse as would bar respondent carrier from raising the defense of prescription

RULE 9: Effect of Failure to Plead*Ferrer v. Ericta 84 SCRA 705 (1978) Defense of prescription not deemed waived for failure to allege the same in an answer or in a motion to dismiss. **The court shall dismiss the claim if prescription can be ascertained on the face of the pleadings or evidence on the record.

Garcia v. Mathis 100 SCRA 250 (1980) *Rule that an action does not prescribe if prescription is not expressly invoked does not apply where the allegations in the complaint clearly show that the action had already long prescribed.

*Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago 494 SCRA 393 (2006) Dismissal of plaintiffs complaint is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or separate action. If the court dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the compulsory counterclaim must also be dismissed as it is merely ancillary to the main action and no jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under the counterclaim. Counterclaim bears the same integral characteristics as a complaint: namely a cause of action constituting an act or omission by which a party violates the right of another Allegation that form the counterclaim are rooted in an act or omission of the plaintiff other than the plaintiffs very act of filing the complaint. ** 2 & 3 of Rule 17 ordains a more equitable disposition of the counterclaims by ensuring that any judgment thereon is based on the merit of the counterclaim itself and not because of the survival of the main complaint.

Gojo v. Goyala 35 SCRA 557 (1970) *Compulsory counterclaim does not call for an independent answer. It is now settled that a plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a compulsory counterclaim may not be declared in default, principally because the issues raised in the counterclaim are deemed automatically joined by the allegations of the complaint. Failure to comply with a void order of a court will not justify the dismissal of complaint.

*Meliton v. CA 216 SCRA 485 (1992) One compelling test of compulsoriness is the logical relationship between the claim alleged in the complaint and that in the counterclaim. Where a compulsory counterclaim is made the subject of a separate suit, it may be abated upon a plea of auter action pendant or litis pendentia and/or dismissed on the ground of res judicata, depending on the stage of the other suit. **Dismissal of the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action as though the dismissal had not been commenced. An action shall not be dismissed at the request of the plaintiff after the service of the answer except by order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.

**Korea Technologies Co Ltd v. Lerma 542 SCRA 1 (2008) Effective August 16, 2004 under 7 Rule 141amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, docket fees are now required to be paid in compulsory counterclaims and cross claims.

*Cavili v. Flrorendo 154 SCRA 610 (1987) Loss of standing in court is the consequence of an order of default. Thus a party declared in default is considered out of court and cannot appear therein, adduce evidence, and be heard and for that reason he is not entitled to notice. However, loss of standing must be understood to mean only the forfeiture of ones rights as a party litigant, contestant or legal adversary. A party in default loses his right present his defense, control the proceedings, and examine or cross-examine witnesses. No right to expect that his pleadings be acted upon by the court nor may he object to or refute evidence or motions filed against him.

Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank 485 SCRA 108 (2006) 3 Rule 9 governs procedure which the trial court is directed to take when defendant fails to file an answer Sec 3 Rule 9 and Sec 1 Rule 133 are not incompatible. *Complainants are not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for once the defendants are declared in default favourable relief can be granted only after the court has ascertained that the relief is warranted by the evidence offered and the facts proven by the presenting party.

Pascua v. Florendo 136 SCRA 208 (1985) Where a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription was not denied on the merits, the court is not precluded from dismissing the complaint based on prescription after evidence is adduced. The rules on default do not dictate that judgment by default should always be in favor of the plaintiff Favorable relief can only be granted after the court has ascertained that the evidence offered and the facts proven by the presenting party warrant the grant of the same. Fact that defendant was declared in default does not warrant receipt by court of incompetent or illegal evidence.

*Laus v. CA 219 SCRA 6988 (1993) Generally, summons must be served personally and if it cannot be effected within a reasonable time, substituted service may be resorted to. Statutes prescribing modes other than personal service of summons must be strictly complied with to give the court jurisdiction and such compliance must appear affirmatively in the return. Within a Reasonable Time contemplates a period of time longer than that demarcated by the word prompt, and presupposes that a prior attempt at personal service within a justifiable time frame as would be necessary to bring the defendant within the jurisdiction of the court had failed. If a defendant had not been properly summoned, the period to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over his person does not commence until he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court.

Philippine British Co v. De Los Angeles 63 SCRA 50 (1975) *In view of the omission to accompany their Motion to Lift Order of Default with any affidavit of merit, the trial court had no authority to consider it. Motion must be made under oath. Party in default is not entitled to notice of motion to declare him in default. A party who, by inaction or negligence, allows himself to be declared in default offends the rule requiring him to answer the summons without unnecessary delay to the end that the issues may be duly joined and the litigation be expeditiously terminated. It is but proper that he must justify his failure to comply with the rule before he is relieved from the adverse consequences of his omission.

De Guia v. De Guia 356 SCRA 287 (2001) Absence of the notice of pre-trial upon the counsel and his client renders the proceedings void, and the judgment rendered therein cannot acquire finality and may be attacked directly or collaterally. *No need to attach an Affidavit of Merit to the Motion to Lift Order of Default where the defenses of the party had been set out in his Answer.

**Lina v. CA 135 SCRA 637 (1985) Granting of additional time within which to file an answer to a complaint is a matter largely addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Remedies available to defaulted defendants: File a motion at any time before judgment, under oath, to Set Aside the Order of Default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to FAME, and that he has a meritorious defense After judgment, when the defendant discovered the default, but before having become final & executory, a Motion for New Trial under Sec 1 Rule 37. If discovery of default after judgment has become final, Petition for Relief under Sec 2 Rule 38. Appeal from judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him.

Torres v. CA 49 SCRA 67 (1973) *Where a cross-claim is defensive in nature, it cannot stand after the complaint in same action is dismissed with prejudice. Cross-claim seeking affirmative relief can stand upon dismissal of the main complaint.

Lorbes v. CA It is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that determine the nature of the action and relief will be granted based on the allegations and the proof even if no such relief is prayed for.

RULE 10: Amended & Supplemental Pleadings*Paeste v. Jaurigue 94 Phil. 179 (1954) Amendments to pleadings are favored and should be liberally allowed in the furtherance of justice. A party may amend his pleading without leave of court at any time before a responsive pleading is served. A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. Where the complaint alleges that plaintiff have executed certain documents through force or intimidation, prescription does not begin to run until the party affected is perfectly free to go to court as he wishes. *Bautista v. Maya-Maya Cottages Inc. 476 SCRA 416 (2005) Before filing of any responsive pleading, a party has the absolute right to amend his pleading; regardless of whether a new cause of action or change in theory is introduced. Since a motion to dismiss is not the responsive pleading contemplated, a plaintiff may file an amended complaint even after the original complaint was ordered dismissed provided that the dismissal has not become final.

Alpine Lending Investors v. Corpuz 508 SCRA 45 (2008) A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. *When amendment is a matter of right, it is the correlative duty of the trial court to accept the amended complaint. Otherwise, mandamus would lie against it. It has always been a policy of the Supreme Court to be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings in order that the real controversies between or among the parties may be presented and cases be decided on the merits without delay.

*Siasoco v. CA 303 SCRA 186 (1999) Where the questioned CA decision is a disposition on the merits, and where said court has no remaining issue to resolve, the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is a Petition for Review under Rule 45, not Rule 65. Under Rule 65, petitioner must show that the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion AND that there is no appeal, or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Where some but not all the defendants have answered, plaintiffs may amend their complaint once, as a matter of right, in respect to claims asserted solely against the non-answering defendants, but not as to claims asserted against the other defendants. After the filing of a responsive pleading, an amendment may be rejected when the defense is substantially altered since such amendment does not only prejudice the rights of the defendant but also delays the action.

*PPA v. William Gothong & Aboitiz Inc 542 SCRA 514 (2008) Rule 10, 3: amendments may now substantially alter the cause of action or defense. This should only be true when, despite a substantial alteration, the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of substantial justice and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a just, speedy, and expensive disposition of cases.

*Swagman Hotels & Travel Inc v. CA 455 SCRA175 (2005) [doctrine still stands Judge Jolo] The curing effect of Rule 10 5 applies only if a cause of action in fact exists at the time the complaint is filed but the complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential facts. Example: if a complaint failed to allege the fulfillment of a condition precedent upon which the cause of action depends, evidence showing that such condition had already been fulfilled when the complaint was filed may be presented during trial, and the complaint may accordingly be amended thereafter. A complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured or remedied by an amended complaint.

*Campos Rueda Corp v. Bautista 6 SCRA 240 (1962) An amendment of a complaint to confer jurisdiction on the court is not allowed. [Rule applicable if leave of court is required]

Gumabay v. Baralin 77 SCRA 258 (1977) No issuance of summons is necessary for service to defendant of the amended complaint as jurisdiction over the defendants person was already acquired after receipt of the first summons on the original complaint. No new trial will be granted defendants were given ample time to answer the complaint and there is no probability that the defendants evidence would justify a reversal.

*Azolla Farms v. CA 442 SCRA 133 (2004) Rule 10 5 envisions 2 scenarios:1. When evidence is introduced on an issue not alleged in the pleadings and no objection was interjected.2. When evidence is offered on an issue not alleged in the pleadings but an objection was interpolated.a. Court may admit evidence if adverse party fails to satisfy the court that admission thereof would prejudice him in maintaining his defense. Courts are given the discretion to allow amendments of pleadings to conform to the evidence presented during trial.

**Versoza v. CA 299 SCRA 100 (1998) For purposes of determining the commencement of the suit, the original complaint is deemed abandoned and superseded by the amendment complaint only if the amended complaint introduces a new or different cause of action or demand. Equivalent to a fresh suit upon a new cause of action Statute of limitations continues to run until the amendment is filed. Case at bar: Complaint for injunction was amended to include a larger tract of land. The suit will be deemed to have been commenced upon the date of the amendment, in determining whether or not prescription had set in. When the amended complaint does not introduce new cause/s of action, the suit is deemed to have been commenced on the date the original complaint was filed. An amendment which merely supplements or amplifies the facts originally alleged relates back to the date of the commencement. It is the actual filing in court that controls and not the date of the formal admission of the amended pleading.

*Magaspi v. Ramolete 115 SCRA 193 (1982) A case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee regardless of the actual date of its filing in court. Court may proceed to take to take cognizance of the case even if docket fee paid is insufficient. Payment of docket fee shall be measured based upon the amended complaint because the original pleading is superseded.

Mercader v. DBP (Cebu Branch) 332 SCRA 82 (2000) *A supplemental pleading (rule 10, 6) was meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original pleading, and not to dispense with the latter. It serves to aver supervening facts which were then not ripe for judicial relief when the original pleading was filed. Departure from procedure may be forgiven where they do not appear to prejudice or impair the substantial rights of the parties.

Young v. Sps. Sy 503 SCRA 151 (2006) A supplemental pleading only serves to bolster or add something to the primary pleading it exists side by side with the original and does not replace that which it supplements. Purpose: bring into the records new facts which will enlarge or change the kind of relief to which the plaintiff is entitled.

RULE 11/12: When to File Responsive Pleadings/Bill of ParticularsNaga Development Corp v. CA 41 SCRA 105 (1971) The granting of additional time within which to file an answer to a complaint is a matter largely addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Substantial grounds must be shown by the party declared in default in order that the questioned order of trial court may be reversed. *Essential purpose of a responsive pleading is to secure a joinder of the issues and not to lay down evidentiary matter.

*Amante v. Sunga 64 SCRA 192 (1975) The motion for an extension of time within which a party may plead is not a litigated motion were notice to the adverse party is necessary to afford the latter the opportunity to resist the application. As a general rule, notice of motion is required where a party has a right to resist the relief sought by the motion and principles of natural justice demand that its rights be not affected without an opportunity to be heard. Ex parte motions are frequently permissible in procedural matters, and also in situations and under circumstances of emergency. *Pendency of a Motion for Bill of Particulars interrupts the period within which to file a responsive pleading. A default judgment does not pretend to be based on the merits of the controversy Its exercise is justified by expediency When no real injury would result to the interests of the plaintiff by the reopening of the case, the only objection to such action would be solely on technicality. It would be a grievous error to sacrifice substantial rights of a litigant. Rules should be liberally construed

Sarmiento v. Juan 120 SCRA 403 (1983) The last permissible pleading that a party may file would be the reply to the answer to the last pleading of claim that had been filed in the case, which may either be a complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third party complaint. The requirement that the last pleading must have been filed should mean not only if the last pleading had been actually filed but also if the period for filing has expired. While it is true that the motion for postponement was not accompanied by a medical certificate, it must be considered that not every ailment is attended to by a physician, or if so, a medical certificate under oath as required by the Rules. Default judgments and proceedings with emphasis on procedural niceties are frowned upon. Declaration of default against petitioner who did not appear at the pre-trial is not proper where respondent himself was equally guilty for his non-appearance.Barraza v. Campos Jr. 120 SCRA 881 (1983) A Motion to Dismiss is the usual, proper, and ordinary method of testing the legal sufficiency of a complaint. If the motion to dismiss is denied or if the termination thereof is deferred, the movant shall file his answer within the time prescribed by Rule 11, computed from the time he received notice of the denial or deferment, unless the court provides a different period. 1 of Rule 11 in relation to 4 of Rule 16 allows the defendant to file his answer not only within the original 15 day period but also within a different period fixed by the court. The court after hearing may deny or grant the motion to dismiss or allow amendment of pleading, or may defer the hearing and determination of the motion until the trial if the ground alleged therein does not appear to be indubitable.

Luna v. Mirafuente 471 SCRA 1 (2005) *For forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases involve perturbation of social order, which must be restored as promptly as possible, such that technicalities or details of procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should carefully be avoided. That explains why the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure which governs ejectment, among other cases, lays down procedural safeguards to guarantee expediency and speedy resolution. Liberality in the interpretation and application of Rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. *The court may order the correction of the pleading if the verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order that the end of justice may thereby be served.

Go Occo & Co. v. Dela Costa and Reyes 63 Phil. 446 (1936) While pleadings should be liberally construed with a view to substantial justice between the parties, courts should not be left to conjectures in the determination of issues submitted by the parties litigant or their attorneys. *Where the pleading is vague and uncertain, courts will not allow themselves to be led to the commission of error or injustice by exploring in the midst of uncertainty and divining the intention of the parties or their counsel.

*Santos v. Liwag 101 SCRA 327 (1980) Allowance of bill of particulars is discretionary upon the court. Failure of plaintiff to comply with a court order to file a bill of particulars results in dismissal of complaint.

*Filipinas Fabricators & Sales v. Magsino 157 SCRA 469 (1988) A filed motion for bill of particulars which is sufficient in form and substance renders the running of the reglementary period to answer suspended. Failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of motions in the motion for bill of particulars is fatal to the motion. Where the motion for bill of particulars did not contain the notice of hearing and proof of service required by the Rules, the motion is nothing but a mere scrap of paper. A defective motion does not interrupt the running of the period within which to file answer Fact that the court had taken cognizance of the defective motion did not cure the defect nor alter the nature of the defective motion.

Dumanon v. Butuan Rural Bank 119 SCRA 193 (1982) *Filing of motion for bill of particulars suspends time for filing motion to dismiss and answer. The time to file a motion to dismiss is coterminous with the period to answer Hence, as long as the time to file the answer has not lapsed, a motion to dismiss may be filed within such time, instead of an answer.

Baritua v. Mecader 350 SCRA 86 (2001) A motion for bill of particulars becomes moot and academic where, prior to its filing, the defendant has already filed his answer and several other pleadings.

RULE 13: Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other PapersDelos Santos v. Elizalde 514 SCRA 14 (2007) The 15-day period begins to run upon receipt of notice of decision or final order by the counsel of record which is considered notice to the parties. *Service upon the parties counsels of record is tantamount to service upon the parties themselves but service upon the parties themselves is not considered service upon their lawyers. Parties, generally, have no formal education or knowledge of the rules of procedure, specifically, the mechanics of an appeal or availment of legal remedies. Thus, they may also be unaware of the rights and duties of a litigant relative to the receipt of a decision. It is best for the courts to deal only with one person in the interest of orderly procedure either the lawyer retained by the party or the party him/herself ifs/he does not intend to hire a lawyer. Unless the change of attorneys is carried out properly [rule 138, 26] the counsel of record shall still be considered as the partys counsel and the notice sent to such counsel shall be considered as notice to the party represented. Late filing of notices of appeal are seldom condoned and only in very exceptional instances to better serve the ends of justice. *Equitable grounds cannot be sought when the party is guilty of negligence. Litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax, and await the outcome of their case. They should give necessary assistance to their counsel for what is at stake is their interest in the case. The general rule is that motions for extension of time to file an appellants brief shall not be granted except for a good cause.

*De Leon v. CA 383 SCRA 216 (2007) A several judgment is proper only when the liability of each party is clearly separable and distinct from that of his co-parties, such that the claims against each of them could have been the subject of separate suits, and judgment for or against one of them will not necessarily affect the other. Where a common cause of action exists against the defendants, as in actions against solidary debtors, a several judgment is not proper. Between 2 judgments rendered by a trial court, there could only be one judgment that finally disposes of the case on the merits, and it is receipt of notice of said final judgment that marks the point when the reglementary period is to begin running. Where the spouses have been jointly sued under a common cause of action, an appeal made by the husband inures to the benefit of the wife.

*Duque v. CA 383 SCRA 520 (2002) The general rule under Rule 13, 2 of the Rules of Court is that all notices must be served upon counsel and not upon the party. This is so because the attorney of a party is the agent of the party and is the one responsible for the conduct of the case in all its procedural aspects; hence, notice to counsel is notice to party. Exception: where the law expressly provides that notice must be served upon a definite person. In such cases, service must be made directly upon the person mentioned in the law and upon no other in order that the notice be valid.

Peoples Homesite & Housing Corp. v. Tiongco 12 SCRA 471 (1964) A petition for relief from judgment presented outside the reglementary period of sixty days may nevertheless, due to very peculiar circumstances obtaining in the premises, be considered as having substantially complied with the rule and therefore seasonably filed. Procedural technicality should not be made a bar to the vindication of a legitimate grievance. When such technicality deserts from being an aid to justice, courts are justified in excepting from its operation a particular case. Period to file may be computed from date of receipt of writ of execution.

Marinduque Mining & Industrial Corp v. CA 567 SCRA 483 (2008) *Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with. In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of 11.

United Pulp & Paper Co. v. United Pulp & Paper Workers 426 SCRA 329 (2004) Where no explanation is offered to justify the service of pleadings by other modes, the discretionary power of the court to expunge the pleading becomes mandatory. [rule 13, 11]

*MC Engineering Inc. v. NLRC 360 SCRA 183 (2001) While a certification of non-forum shopping not attached to the complaint or petition or one belatedly filed or one signed by counsel and not the party himself constitutes a violation of the requirement which can result in the dism