Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Rule 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
COMPLAINT
ANSWER
REPLY
prohibition
against
any
COMPLAINT
Sec. 3. Complaint The complaint is the pleading
alleging the plaintiffs cause or causes of action. The
names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant
must be stated in the complaint.
Q: Define complaint.
4
A: COMPLAINT is the pleading where the plaintiff will allege his cause or
causes of action. A complaint is also called the INITIATORY PLEADING
because it is actually the first pleading filed in court. It is the pleading that
initiates the civil action.
Test of sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaintDetermine whether upon the averment of facts, a valid judgment may be
properly rendered.
What to allegeRule 8 requires that it should contain a concise statement of the ultimate
facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action not evidentiary facts
or legal conclusions.
Ultimate facts refer to the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's
cause of action.
The fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving
the statement of the cause of action insufficient.
What are not ultimate facts:
1. evidentiary or immaterial facts;
2. legal conclusions, conclusions or inferences of facts from facts not
stated, or incorrect inferences or conclusions from facts stated;
3. the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence, statements of
law, inferences and arguments;
4. an allegation that a contract is valid or void is a mere conclusion of law.
Mr. P wants to sue Mr. R to collect an unpaid loan. Mr. R borrowed money
from Mr. P and refused to pay. Normally, it starts with an introduction:
Plaintiff, through counsel, respectfully alleges that Then it is followed by
paragraphs which are numbered. For instance:
Illustration:
1 Plaintiff Mr. P, of legal age, is a resident of 79 P. del Rosario St., Cebu
City; whereas defendant Mr. R also of legal age, is a resident of 29
Pelaez St. Cebu City where summons and other processes of this
court may be served;
2 On Nov. 7, 2008, defendant secured a loan from plaintiff in the sum
of P30,000.00 payable within one (1) year form said date with legal
interest;
3 The account is already due and despite repeated demands,
defendant failed and refused to pay;
5
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be
rendered against the defendant ordering him to pay the loan
of P30,000.00 and interest in favor of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff further prays for such other reliefs as may be just
and equitable under the premises.
Your allegations must contain the four (4) elements of a Cause of Action
the Right, the Obligation, the Delict or Wrong or Violation of Your Right, and
the Damage.
Filing of the complaint and its significanceTo file a complaint or an initiatory pleading means presenting the
same to the clerk of court (Sec. 2, Rule 13).
It signals the commencement of the civil action (Sec. 5, Rule 1) and
the submission by the plaintiff to the jurisdiction of the court over
his person.
It likewise interrupts the running of the prescriptive period of the
action (Art. 1155 of NCC).
How jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquiredHowever, for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter or the
action, filing is not sufficient, there must also be payment of the required
docket fee (Proton Pilipinas Corporation v. Banque Nacional de Paris, 460
SCRA 260, 276).
Payment of docket fee for supplemental complaintIn Do-All Metals Industries, Inc., v. Security Bank Corporation, 639 SCRA 39,
45, the Court ruled that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the plaintiffs
action from the moment they filed their original complaint accompanied by
the payment of the filing fees due on the same. The plaintiffs nonpayment of the additional filing fees due on their additional claims
did not divest the RTC of the jurisdiction it already had over the
case.
ANSWER
Partial denial- the defendant does not make a total denial of the
material allegations in a specific paragraph. In this type, he denies
only a part of the averment. He specifies the part the truth of which
he admits and denies only the remainder.
In the above Example he can say:
Defendant admits the part of the allegation in paragraph 2
which states that he secured a loan from the plaintiff but specifically
denies the remaining part for the truth of the matter being that the
amount is only P10,000.00 payable two (2) years from November 6,
2008.
According to
the highway
car causing
is based on
My answer is denial: That is not true! I deny that! I was the one driving
carefully and you were driving carelessly and negligently. Therefore, if you
are
10
the proximate cause of the accident, Im not liable for the damage of your
car. Thats my answer Im not liable because you are negligent. Because
you were the one negligent, my car was also damaged. I am not liable for the
damage on your car. As a matter of fact, you are the one that should be held
liable to pay for the damage of my car. I am now claiming for the damage of
P50,000.00. That is called COUNTERCLAIM.
Nature of a counterclaim
A counterclaim is in the nature of a cross-complaint. Although it
may be alleged in the answer, it is not part of the answer. Upon its
filing, the same proceedings are had as in the original complaint. For
this reason it is to be answered within ten (10) days from service.
Q: If your complaint against me is to recover a sum of money, should my
counterclaim also involve recovery of sum of money?
A: NO. There is no such rule that these two (2) cases should be similar in
nature. (De Borja vs. De Borja, 101 Phil. 911) It is possible for you to file case
for recovery of a piece of land and my counterclaim is recovery of damages
arising from a vehicular accident.
Q: Suppose your claim against me is One (1) Million, is it possible that my
counterclaim against you is Two (2) Million?
A: YES. There is no rule which limits my counterclaim to the same amount
you are claiming. A counterclaim need not diminish or defeat the recovery
sought by the opposing party, but may claim relief exceeding in amount or
different in kind from that sought by the opposing party. (De Borja vs. De
Borja, 101 Phil. 911)
Q: You file a case against me for recovery of unpaid loan.
My
counterclaim is, rescission of partnership contract. Is the counterclaim
proper?
A: Yes although there is no connection between what you are asking and
what my answer is. But what is important is that we are the same
parties. If you will not allow me to file my counterclaim against you, that will
be another case in the future. So to avoid multiplying suits, clogging the
dockets of the court and making the proceedings more expensive, violating
the purpose of the rules, the parties are allowed to include all their claims
against each other in one case.
Same capacity rule
The SC said that the plaintiff should be sued in a counterclaim in the
SAME CAPACITY that he is suing the defendant. Thats a principle to
remember.
11
12
3 It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of
whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction;
4 It 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 RTC,
the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the
amount; and
5 The defending party has a counterclaim at the time he files his answer.
The fifth requisite is not found in Section 7 but in Rule 11, Section 8:
Rule
claim.
that a
answer
Another way of saying it is, the counterclaim has already matured at the
time he files his answer. That is the fifth requisite.
If one of the five requisites is missing, the counterclaim is
permissive in nature.
Discussion of the elements
First Element: A COUNTERCLAIM TO BE COMPULSORY MUST BE
COGNIZABLE BY THE REGULAR COURTS.
In other words, if you file a complaint against me and I have a counterclaim
against you under the Labor Code, then it cannot be classified as a
compulsory claim because how can I invoke against you a claim which is
cognizable by the NLRC before the RTC?
Second Element: IT ARISES OUT OF OR IT IS CONNECTED
WITH A TRANSACTION OR OCCURRENCE CONSTITUTING A
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE OPPOSING PARTYS CLAIM
The second requisite is the most important. A counterclaim, to be
compulsory, must arise out of or connected with the transaction or
occurrence constituting a subject matter of the opposing party concerned. It
must arise out of or is connected with a transaction or occurrence
constituting a subject matter of the opposing partys claim. It must be
logically related to the subject matter of the main action.
Logical Relationship Test
13
The logical relationship test between the claim and the counterclaim has
been called: The one compelling test of compulsoriness. Under this test,
any claim a party has against an opposing party that is logically related
to the claim being asserted by the opposing party, and that it is not
within the exception to the rule is a compulsory counterclaim. Its
outstanding quality is flexibility. (Tan v. Kaakbay Finance Corporation
404 SCRA 518)
MELITON vs. COURT OF APPEALS
216 SCRA 485
HELD: It has been postulated that while a number of criteria
have been advanced for the determination of whether the
counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, the one compelling
test of compulsoriness is the logical relationship between
the claim alleged in the complaint and that in the
counterclaim, that is, where conducting separate trials of the
respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial
duplication of effort and time, as where they involve many
of the same factual and/or legal issues.
PROBLEM: Emily filed a case against Regina for damages arising from a
vehicle collision. According to Emily, the case of the accident is the
negligence of the defendant in driving her car. Her car bumped the car of
Emily and was damaged. So, Emily is holding Regina liable for the damage
on her car. Regina denied that she was negligent. According to Regina, No, I
am not negligent. As a matter of fact, you (Emily) were the one negligent,
and because of that negligence, my car was also damaged. So you should be
the one to pay damages.
Q: Is the counterclaim of Regina arising out of or is connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing
party?
A: YES because we are talking of the same bumping. You bumped my car,
you say I bumped your car. So we are talking of the same event or
transaction.
PROBLEM: T files a case against me for recovery of a piece of land.
According to her, she is the owner of the land which Im occupying. Now, I
file my answer, and then I said, T, I spent a lot of money for necessary
expenses to preserve the land. You are also liable to reimburse me for the
expenses for the necessary improvements I introduced on the land. Under
the law on Property, a defendant or possessor is entitled to reimbursement
for necessary improvements and expenses. So she is trying to recover the
piece of land, I am now asking her to reimburse me for all necessary
expenses that I spent on the land.
14
15
land owner will have to spend for them. So it will not be fair if he is not
reimbursed. Thats our premise.
PROBLEM: The defendant would like to claim for reimbursement for the
necessary expenses that he spent in my lot. The case I filed against you is
forcible entry in the MTC. Your necessary expenses amount to P350,000.
Q: Should you raise it as a compulsory counterclaim in the forcible entry
case?
A: NO.
Q: Does it arise out of or connected with the transaction which is the
subject matter of the main action? Why not compulsory?
A: Because the MTC has no jurisdiction over the P350,000 amount for the
necessary expenses. This time, that is the missing element.
Q: How will the defendant claim reimbursement?
A: He has to file with the RTC a case for reimbursement. He cannot use that
as a counterclaim for the forcible entry case because the MTC has no
jurisdiction on a counterclaim where the amount is over P300,000.00.
I will reverse the problem:
PROBLEM: The plaintiff filed against the defendant an action for accion
publiciana recovery for a piece of land where the value of the property is P1
million. So the case should be filed in the RTC. Now, the defendant is
claiming for the reimbursement of the improvements thereon (necessary
expenses) amounting to P50,000.
Q: Should the defendant raise that as a counterclaim in the accion
publiciana case?
A: YES.
In the first example, the counterclaim is above the jurisdiction of the MTC.
This time, the amount for the counterclaim is below the jurisdiction of the
RTC. So the RTC can claim jurisdiction.
Q: How can the RTC try a counterclaim when the claim is only P50,000?
A: It is in accordance with the exception under Section 7: except that in
an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount. This means that the main action is
accion publicianaRTC. The counterclaim is reimbursement for necessary
expenses with arose out of the same land. Normally, the RTC cannot try that
but the answer to this question is YES.
The RTC can award a claim for damages even though the claim is below
its jurisdiction. The principle is: Since the counterclaim is compulsory,
jurisdiction over the main action automatically carries with it jurisdiction over
17
18
dismiss
and
compulsory
counterclaim
incompatible
CROSS-CLAIM
Sec. 8. Cross-claim. A cross-claim is 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.(7)
A cross claim is a claim by one party against a co-party. It may be a claim
by defendant against his co-defendant arising out of the subject matter of
the main action.
Limitations on Cross-Claim
1 Must arise out of the subject matter of the complaint or counterclaim;
2 Can be filed only against a co-party; and
3 Is proper only when the cross claimant stands to be prejudiced by the
filing of the action against him.
Purpose
To settle in a single proceeding all the claims of the different parties in the
case against each other in order to avoid multiplicity of suits (Republic vs.
Paredes, GR No. L-12548, May 20, 1960).
Examples:
In an action for damages against the judgment creditor and the Sheriff for
having sold real property of the plaintiff, the Sheriff may file a cross-claim
against the judgment creditor for whatever amount he may be adjudged to
pay the plaintiff.
In an action against a co-signer of a promissory note one of whom is
merely an accommodation party, the latter may file a cross-claim against the
party accommodated for whatever amount he may be adjudged to pay the
plaintiff.
J and P are solidary debtors for the sum of P100,000.00 because they signed
a promissory note in favor of D to collect the sum of P100,000.00. However,
although J signed the promissory note, he did not get a single centavo.
Everything went to P. Both of them are now sued. According to J, Actually
there is a possibility that I will pay the P100,000.00 to Dean when actually I
20
did not even get a single centavo out of it. Everything went to P! Therefore,
J will now file a case against P where he will allege that if J will be held liable
to D, P will reimburse him (J). So, J will also file a claim in the same action
against P.
Now, the claim filed by J against his co-defendant P is called a CROSSCLAIM where J is called defendant in the case filed by D and a cross-claimant
against P. P is also the defendant in the case filed by D and a cross-defendant
with respect to the cross-claim filed by J. So that is another case, which a
defendant is filing against another defendant.
Take note that the cross-claim of J against P is merely an off-shoot of the
case filed by D against J and P. Meaning, it arises out of the same transaction
or occurrence that is the subject matter of the case filed by D against them.
PROBLEM: Suppose D files a case against J and P to collect a promissory
note signed by J and P and J alleges in his cross claim, Well, since we are
already here, I also have a claim against P for damages arising from a
vehicular collision.
Q: Is the cross-claim allowed in the problem?
A: NO. The cross-claim is improper. It has no connection with the
complaint of D against J and P. A counter-claim must always arise out of a
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the main action.
Distinctions between a COUNTERCLAIM and a CROSS-CLAIM.
A: The following are the distinctions:
1 A COUNTERCLAIM is a complaint by the defendant against the
plaintiff, whereas, A CROSS-CLAIM is a claim by a defendant
against a co-defendant;
2.) The life of the CROSS-CLAIM depends on the life of the main
action. A cross-claim is merely a consequence of the case filed by
the plaintiff against the defendants. No main action, no cross-claim
(RUIZ, JR. vs. CA, infraA cross-claim could not be the subject of
independent adjudication once it lost the nexus upon which its life
depended. The cross-claimants cannot claim more rights than the
plaintiffs themselves, on whose cause of action the cross-claim
depended. The dismissal of the complaint divested the crossclaimants of whatever appealable interest they might have had
before and also made the cross-claim itself no longer viable)
Whereas, In a COUNTERCLAIM, you can kill the main action, still the
counterclaim survives.
3.)A COUNTERCLAIM may be asserted whether or not it arises out of
the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
21
Complaint
3.
DEFENDANT
a.) Answer
b.) Counterclaim
to
4.
Reply
to
answer
counterclaim
to
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT is the procedure for bringing into a case a third
person who is not a party to the case to enforce against such 3 rd party a
right for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in
respect of the plaintiff-s claim.
The third-party complaint is actually independent of and separate and
distinct from the plaintiffs complaint. Were it not for this provision of the
Rules, it would have to be filed independently and separately from the
original complaint by the defendant against the third party.
The purpose of a third-party complaint is to enable a defending
party to obtain contribution, indemnity, subrogation or other relief
from a person not a party to the action.
EXAMPLE : A plaintiff files a case against a defendant to collect a loan
when there are two solidary debtors and one of them is compelled to pay
everything so that defendant will drag into the picture the co-debtor for
contribution or indemnity. If the two of them were sued as defendants, all
one has to do is to file a cross-claim against his co-defendant. BUT since
only one is sued, the remedy is to avail of Section 11.
Take note that filing a third-party complaint is not a matter of right.
THERE MUST BE LEAVE OF COURT, unlike counterclaim or
cross-claim, where you do not need any motion or leave of court.
Similarity between a cross-claim and 3rd party complaint
There is a close relationship between a cross-claim and a third-party
complaint because a cross-claim must arise out of the subject matter of the
main action. A third-party complaint must be also related to the main action.
It cannot be a cause of action, which has no relation to the main action.
There is always a connection between the main complaint and the
third-party complaint because the condition is contribution,
indemnification, subrogation and any other relief in respect to your
opponents claim. There is always a relation between the third partycomplaint and the main complaint against you.
EXAMPLE: The plaintiff files a case against the surety and the principal
debtor, so both of them are defendants, and the surety seeks reimbursement
for whatever amount he may be compelled to pay the plaintiff. What kind of
pleading would he file against his co-defendant (the principal debtor)?
CROSS-CLAIM.
25
BUT if the plaintiff files a case ONLY against the surety, because anyway
the principal debtor is not an indispensable party and the surety would like to
seek reimbursement from the person who benefited from the loan, he cannot
file a cross-claim against anybody because he is the lone defendant. It is
possible for him to just file an answer. If he loses and pays the plaintiff, then
he will file another case against the principal debtor for reimbursement.
But if he wants everything to be resolved in the same case, what kind of
pleading will he file? He must resort a THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT and implead
the principal debtor.
CONTRIBUTION:
Example #1: Two debtors borrowed P100,000 from Janis (creditor) and
they shared the money 50-50. When the debt fell due, the creditor filed a
case against one of them. So, one of them is being made to pay the
P100,000. Not only his share but also his co-solidary debtor. So if I am the
one liable when actually my real liability is only 50,000. What will I do? I will
file a third party complaint against my co-debtor for contribution.
Example #2: If Andrew and Carlo are guilty of a quasi-delict and the
injured party files an action for damages against Andrew only, Andrew may
file a third-party complaint against Carlo for contribution, their liability being
solidary (Article 2194, New Civil Code)
INDEMNIFICATION:
Example #1: Two people signed a promissory note in favor of the creditor.
But actually the entire amount went to you and none for me. When the note
fell due, I was the one sued. So I will file a third-party complaint against you
for indemnity. You have to return to me every centavo that I will pay the
creditor.
26
Example #2: A surety sued for recovery of debt by the creditor may file a
third-party complaint against the principal debtor for indemnity. (Article
2047, New Civil Code)
SUBROGATION:
Subrogation - You step into the shoes of someone else. Your obligation is
transferred to me.
EXAMPLE: Where a house is leased by a lessee and he subleased the
property to a third person who is now occupying the property. In effect, the
sub-lessee stepped into the shoes of the original lessee. If the property is
damaged and the lessor sues the lessee for damages to his leased property,
the lessee or sub-lessor can file a third-party complaint and have the sublessee for subrogation because actually, you stepped into the shoes when
you occupied the leased property. (Articles 1651 and 1654, New Civil Code)
For ANY OTHER RELIEF IN RESPECT TO THE OPPONENTS CLAIM
EXAMPLE: When I buy the property of Mr. Cruz and after a while, here
comes Mr. Dee filing a case against me to claim ownership of the land. But I
bought it from Mr. Cruz who warranted that he is the real owner. So I will now
file third-party complaint against Mr. Cruz to enforce his warranty warranty
against eviction. (Article 1548, New Civil Code)
Why leave of court? Tests for the court to determine propriety of a
3rd-party complaint:
CAPAYAS vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
77 PHIL. 181
HELD: There are four (4) possible tests to determine the propriety of
a third-party complaint. In order for it to be allowed, it must pass
one of them. That is the reason when you file it, you need the
permission of the court to determine whether it is proper or not and
the original plaintiff may object to the propriety of the third-party
complaint.
There are the FOUR TESTS (any one will do):
1 A third-party complaint is proper if it arises out of the same
transaction on which plaintiffs complaint is based, or although
arising out of another or different transaction, is connected with the
plaintiff's claim.
27
action may join as third-party defendants those liable to him in tort for the
plaintiffs claim against him or directly to the plaintiff.
Another interesting case, which is
abovementioned case, is the 1989 case of
to
be
compared
with
the
The SHAFER ruling has to be set aside for the meantime because
there is no such thing as third-party complaint in criminal cases
now.
In other words, forget it in the meantime. Also, forget
counterclaims in criminal cases even if they arose out of the main
action.
This case refers to JAVIER on whether or not there is such a thing
as a compulsory counterclaim in criminal cases. SC said, Huwag
muna samok! If we will allow it in criminal cases it will only
complicate and confuse the case. The attention might be divested
to counterclaims or cross-claims or third-party complaints, etc.
HELD: The trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect
and the possible civil liability of the accused arising out of the
crime. The counter-claim (and cross-claim or third party complaint,
if any) should be set aside or refused cognizance without prejudice
to their filing in separate proceedings at the proper time.
We will go to the old case of
REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL SURETY CO.
25 SCRA 641 [1968]
FACTS : Hannah filed a case against Rina for a liability amounting
to P350,000. So it was filed in RTC. Rina filed a third-party complaint
against ConCon Insurance Company for indemnity insurance but the
maximum insurance is only P50,000. The insurance company
moved to dismiss on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction
because third-party complaint is only for P50,000 which is supposed
to be within the competence of the MTC.
ISSUE: Is the insurance company correct?
HELD: NO. The insurance company is wrong. The third-party
complaint is only incidental. The third-party complaint need not be
within the jurisdiction of the RTC where the principal action is
pending because the third-party complaint is really a continuation
and an ancillary to the principal action. If the court acquires
jurisdiction over the main action, automatically, it acquires
jurisdiction over the third-party complain which is mainly a
continuation of the principal action.
Now, the same situation happened in another case. The case of
31
B
B files a 3rd
party
complaint
against C
C
C files a 4th
party
complaint
against D
D
E
D files a 5th party
complaint against E
35
HELD: If that is your purpose, you have to file two (2) answers you
file an answer to the third party complaint and you file a second answer to
the main complaint filed by A.
A third-party complaint involves an action separate and distinct
from, although related to, the main complaint. A third-party
defendant who feels aggrieved by some allegations in the main
complaint should, aside from answering the third-party complaint,
also answer the main complaint.
Normally, C answers the 3rd party complaint of B and does not answer to
the complaint of A. But according to SINGAPORE case, if C feels aggrieved by
the allegations of A, he should also answer the main complaint of A.
Practically, he shall answer the 3rd party complaint and the main complaint.
Reviewer
1. Kinds of Pleadings (Rule 6)
What is a pleading?
Written statements of the respective CLAIMS and DEFENSES of the parties submitted to
the court for appropriate judgment.
Pleadings allowed under the Rules of Court
a. Complaint
b. Answer
c. Counterclaim
d. Cross-claim
e. Reply
f. Third party (fourth party, etc.) complaint (Rule 2, Sec. 6)
g. Complaint in intervention, answer in intervention (Rule 19. Sec. 3)
a. Complaint
Rule 6, Sec. 3. Complaint.
The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The names
and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.
b. Answer
1. What is an answer?
An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his defenses (Rule 6, Sec. 4). It
may be an answer to the complaint, third party (fourth party, etc.) complaint, counterclaim, or
cross-claim.
Time to Plead
36
a. Answer to Complaint and Third-Party (Fourth-Party, etc.) Complaint fifteen (15) days
after service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court (Rule 11, Sec. 1)
However, under Rule 16, Section 4, if a motion to dismiss is denied, the movant shall file
his answer within the balance of he period provided by Rule 11 to which he was entitled at the
time of serving his motion, but not less than five (5) days in any event, computed from his
receipt of the notice of the denial. .
b. Answer of a defendant foreign private juridical entity
(1) when summons is served upon a resident agent fifteen (15) days after service of
summons;
(2) when summons is served on the government official designated to receive the same
thirty (30) days from receipt by the latter of the summons.
c. Answer to Amended Complaint, Amended Counterclaim, Amended
Cross-Claim and Amended Third-Party (Fourth-Party, etc.) Complaint:
(1) amended complaint was filed as a matter of right (Rule 10, Section 2) fifteen (15) days
after being served with a copy thereof; and
(2) amended complaint was filed with leave of court (Rule 10, Section 3) ten (10) days from
notice of order admitting the amended complaint.
Strict Observance of the Period
While the rules are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are
strictly applied for they are deemed indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and
necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.
Strict compliance with said periods is mandatory and imperative.
(1) Negative defenses
SPECIFIC DENIAL of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading or the claimant
essential to his cause of action. (Rule 6, Section 5)
(2) Negative pregnant
A negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it in affirmation or at
least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. It is a denial pregnant with an
admission of the substantial facts alleged in the pleading. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying
or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally
denied, it has been held that the qualifying circumstances alone are denied while the fact itself is
admitted. (Guevarra vs. Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007)
A negative pregnant (sometimes called a pregnant denial) refers to a denial which
implies its affirmative opposite by seeming to deny only a qualification of the allegation
and not the allegation itself. For example, "I have never consumed shabu while on duty"
might imply that the person making the statement had consumed shabu on other
occasions, and was only denying that he had done so while on duty.
(3) Affirmative Defenses
Allegation of a NEW MATTER which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in
37
the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless PREVENT OR BAR RECOVERY by him.
The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality,
statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other matter by
way of confession and avoidance. (Rule 6, Sec. 5).
Note that some of these grounds are also grounds for motion to dismiss.
What are the two kinds of defenses that may be set forth in the answer?
1. Affirmative defenses allegation of a new matter which while hypothetically admitting the
material allegations in the pleading would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by the claiming
party. It is in the nature of confession and avoidance
2. Negative defenses specific denial of the material facts or facts alleged in the pleading
essential to establish the plaintiffs cause of action (Rule 6, Sec. 5).
c. Counterclaims
A counterclaim is any claim which a DEFENDING PARTY may have against an opposing party.
(Rule 6, Sec. 6)
(1) Compulsory counterclaim
What is a compulsory counterclaim?
(1) One which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice,
(2) ARISES OUT OF or is CONNECTED WITH the transaction or occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing partys claim and
(3) does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction.
(4) Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount
and the nature thereof,
(5) except that in an original action before the Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be
considered compulsory regardless of the amount (Rule 6, Sec. 7), meaning its amount need not
be under RTC jurisdiction.
Examples: (1) damages claimed to have been suffered as a consequence of the action; (2)
a claim for attorneys fees; (3) in a possessory action, the defendants claim
of ownership
(2) Permissive counterclaim
What is a permissive counterclaim?
a. One which is not barred even if not set up and which has NO LOGICAL RELATION with
the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing
partys claim, or
b. even when there is such a connection, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim or it
requires for its adjudication the presence of third persons of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction (National Marketing Corp. vs. Federation of United Namarco
Distributors, Inc., 49 SCRA 248 [1973]).
What is the difference between permissive and compulsory counterclaims?
38
a. In a permissive counterclaim, the docket and other lawful fees should be paid and the
same should be accompanied by a certificate against forum shopping and certificate to
file action issued by the proper Lupon Tagapamayapa. It should also be answered by
the claiming party. It is NOT BARRED even if not set up in the action.
b. In a compulsory counterclaim, no docket fee is paid and the certificates mentioned
above are not required. If it is not raised in the answer, it shall be BARRED.(Rule 9,
Sec. 2)
Examples of compulsory and permissive counterclaims:
A filed a suit for collection of P350,000 against B in the RTC of Cebu City. Aside from alleging
payment as a defense, B in his answer, set up counterclaims for P120,000 as damages and
P25,000 as attorneys fees as a result of the baseless filing of the complainant, as well as
for P230,000 as the balance of the purchase price of the 28 units of refrigerators he sold to A.
The RTC has jurisdiction over the compulsory counterclaims in the total amount of
P145,000 because in an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered
COMPULSORY regardless of amount (Rule 6, Sec. 7, 2nd sentence). This means that even a
compulsory counterclaim not exceeding P300,000 or P400,000 may be filed in the RTC.
But the RTC has no jurisdiction over the permissive counterclaim of P230,000 because it
does not exceed P300,000.
In an action for recovery of land, the counterclaim for reimbursement of the value of the
improvements is in the nature of a compulsory counterclaim in . Thus, the failure by private
respondents to set it up bars their right to raise it in a subsequent litigation. The rule on
compulsory counterclaim is designed to achieve resolution of the whole controversy at one time
and in one action to avoid multiplicity of suits (Baclayon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89132,
February 26, 1990)
N.B.: (1) A compulsory counterclaim that merely reiterates special defenses which
are deemed controverted even without a reply, or raises issues which are deemed
automatically joined by the allegations of the complaint need not be answered.
However, a compulsory counterclaim which raises issues not covered by the complaint
should be answered.
(2) If the defendant has a compulsory counterclaim, he should not file a motion to
dismiss but an answer with a counterclaim, with the ground for the motion to dismiss
being asserted as an affirmative defense pursuant to Rule 16, Sec. 6. The compulsory
counterclaim is deemed waived when defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint instead of answering the same (Financial Building Corp. vs. Forbes Park
Association, Inc., G.R. No. 133119, August. 17, 2000).
(3) If the counterclaim is based on an ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT attached to or
copied in the counterclaim, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall
be DEEMED ADMITTED unless the adverse party through a reply specifically DENIES
UNDER OATH its genuineness and due execution (Rule 8, Sec. 8)
39
(3) In an action before the first level court (MTC, MeTC, MTCC, MCTC) the
amounts demanded in the counterclaim, cross-claim, third party complaint must fall
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION of said court, which should not exceed P300,000.00
(outside Metro Manila) and P400,000.00 (within Metro Manila),
(3) Effect on the Counterclaim when the complaint is dismissed
1. If no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal under Rule
16 may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer, and in the discretion of the
court, a preliminary hearing may be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss has been filed
The dismissal is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or separate action (Rule 16, Sec. 6). .
2. When the plaintiff himself files a motion to dismiss his complaint after the defendant
has pleaded his answer with a counterclaim. If the court grants the motion, the dismissal
shall be limited to the complaint. It shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action unless within 15 days from notice of the motion,
manifests his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action (Rule 17, Sec. 2).
3. When the complaint is dismissed through the fault of the plaintiff and at a time when
a counterclaim has already been set up , the dismissal is without prejudice to the right of
the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or separate action (Rule 17,
Sec. 3)
d. Cross-claims (Rule 6, Sec. 8)
What is a cross-claim?
a. Any claim by any party against a co-party
b. arising out of the transaction or occurrence
c. that is the subject matter of either 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 or a claim asserted in the action
against the cross-claimant (Rule 6, Sec. 8).
A cross-claim is allowed to be interposed by a party against a co-party to enable the
former to RECOVER from the latter whatever he might be made liable to pay the
plaintiff.
Ex. If ABC Bank sues X and Y to collect a loan, Y, who merely acted as an
accommodation party, may file a cross-claim against X by claiming that X is the actual
debtor and should be liable for the payment of the loan (Bar 1997 ).
The dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal of the cross-claim which is
purely defensive, but NOT a cross-claim seeking affirmative relief (Torres vs. CA, 49
SCRA 67 [1973]).
A cross-claim that a party has at the time the answer is filed shall be contained in
said answer (Rule 11, Sec. 8). If not set up, it shall be barred (Rule 9, Sec. 2). Hence,
40
a cross-claim cannot be set up for the first time on appeal (Loadmasters Customs
Services, Inc. vs. Glodel Brokerage Corporation, 639 SCRA 69)
A cross-claim that shall be barred if not asserted is one already existing at the time
the answer is filed, but not a cross-claim that may mature or may be acquired after
service of the answer. Such cross-claim may, with permission of the court, be
presented by supplemental pleading before judgment (Rule 11, Sec. 9)
A cross-claim omitted through oversight, inadvertence or excusable neglect, or when
justice requires, may, by leave of court, be set up by amendment before judgment
(Rule 11, Sec. 10)
Distinguish a cross-claim from a counterclaim.
a. A cross-claim is a claim against a co-party while a counterclaim is a claim against an
opposing party.
b. A cross-claim requires that filing fee be paid and that there be certification against
forum shopping while only permissive counterclaim requires the same.
c. A cross-claim must be answered, otherwise there might be default while a
compulsory counterclaim need not be answered.
e. Third (fourth, etc.) party complaints
Rule 6, Sec. 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)-party complaint .
A third (fourth, etc.)-party 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.
Ex . If the passenger of a bus sues the operator for breach of contract of carriage because
of injuries sustained by him in an accident, the operator may file a third-party complainant
against the driver for reimbursement
M assembles an owner-type jeep for O, who in turn rents it to P. Due to faulty brakes, P
meets a vehicular accident, causing him injuries. P files an action for damages against O
and M. O cannot file a third-party complaint against M because both are already parties.
Instead, O should file a cross-claim against M (Bar 1996 )
Tests to determine whether the third-party complaint is in respect of
plaintiffs claim:
1. Whether it arises out of the same transaction on which the plaintiffs claim
is ba sed, or, although arising out of another or different transaction, is
connected with the plaintiffs claim;
2. Whether the third-party defendant would be liable to the plaintiff or to the defendant
for all or part of the plaintiffs claim against the original defendant; and
41
3. Whether the third-party defendant may assert any defenses which the third-party
plaintiff has or may have to the plaintiffs claim. (Capayas vs. CFI of Albay, 77 Phil
181).
. Leave of court is necessary in filing a third (fourth, etc.) party complaint in order to
obviate delay in the resolution of the complaint, such as when the third-party
defendant cannot be located, or when unnecessary issues may be introduced, or
when a new and separate controversy is introduced. Leave of court is not required in
filing a counterclaim or cross-claim because the parties involved are already parties
to the case.
Where the trial court has jurisdiction over the main case, it also has jurisdiction over
the third party complaint, regardless of the amount involved as a third-party complaint
is merely auxiliary to and is a continuation of the main action. (Republic v. Central
Surety & Insurance Co., G.R. No. L-27802, Oct. 26, 1968)
f. Complaint-in-intervention
INTERVENTION - a legal proceeding by which a person who is not a party to the action is
permitted by the court to become a party by intervening in a pending action after meeting the
conditions and requirements of the Rules of Court.
If the purpose of the motion for intervention is to assert a claim against either or all of the
original parties, the pleading shall be called a COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
The intervenor shall file a complaint-in-intervention if he asserts a claim against either or all of
the original parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he unites with the defending party in
resisting a claim against the latter. (Rule 19, Sec. 3)
. The answer to the complaint-in-intervention shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. (Rule 19,
Sec. 4)
g. Reply Rule 6, Sec. 10.
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or
avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in the answer and thereby join or make
issue as to such new matters. If a party does not file such reply, ALL the new matters alleged in
the answer are deemed controverted.
If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such
claims shall be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint.
N.B . The filing of a reply is not necessary , because even if a party does not file a repy, all the
new matters that were alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. ( Rule 6, Sec. 10)
Exception :
1.. Where the defense in the answer is based on an actionable document , a reply under
42
oath must be made, otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the document
shall be deemed admitted (Rule 8, Sec. 8) (Veluz vs. Court of Appeals , G.R. No.
139951, November 23, 2000)
2. Where the plaintiff files an action to recover a loan with interest and the defendant in his
answer alleges that the interest charged by the plaintiff in is usurious, there is no need
to file a reply to deny such allegation. It is necessary to deny allegations of usury only if
such allegations are made in a complaint to recover usurious interest. (Rule 8, Sec. 11)
2. Pleadings allowed in small claims cases and cases covered by the rule on
summary procedure
Small Claims
Pleadings allowed
1. Statement of Claims (complaint)
2. Response (answer) - Secs 5 and 11, Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
3. Permissive counterclaim - The defendant may also elect to file a counterclaim
against the plaintiff that does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence,
provided that the amount and nature thereof are within the coverage of this Rule
and the prescribed docket and other legal fees are paid. (Sec. 13, RPSCC)
b. Prohibited pleadings, motions and petitions
1. Motion to dismiss
2. Motion for a bill of particulars.
3. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial.
4. Petition for relief from judgment.
5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper.
6. Memoranda.
7. Petition for certiorari , mandamus , or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the
court.
8. Motion to declare the defendant in default.
9. Dilatory motions for postponement.
10. Reply.
11. Third-party complaints.
12. Interventions ( Sec. 14, RPSCC).
Summary Procedure
a . Pleadings allowed.
1. Complaint
2. Compulsory counterclaim
3. Cross-claims pleaded in the answer
4. Answer to these pleadings ( Sec. 3, Rule on Summary Procedure)
b. Prohibited pleadings, motions and petitions
Same as in Small Claims Cases, except that motion to dismiss is allowed on the ground of
- lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or
- failure to comply with barangay conciliation (Sec. 19, RSP).
43
Rule 7
PARTS OF A PLEADING
ILLUSTRATION:
CAPTION
TITLE
44
COMPLAINT
47
In the body, you state your allegations or defenses. Then at the end, you
state the relief which we call PRAYER what you are asking the court:
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered ordering
defendant to pay plaintiff his loan of P1 million with interest of 10% p.a. from
this date until fully paid. Then, you end up with the date of the pleading:
Davao City, Philippines, December 10, 1997.
Under paragraph [c], the pleading must state the relief sought. But it may
add a general prayer for such further other relief as may be just and
equitable like, Plaintiff prays for such further or other relief which the court
may deem just or equitable.
The relief or prayer, although part of the complaint, does not constitute
a part of the statement of the cause of action. It does not also serve
to limit or narrow the issues presented (UBS vs. CA 332 SCRA 534)
It is the material allegations of the complaint, not the legal consequences
made therein or the prayer that determines the relief to which the plaintiff is
entitled. (Banco Filipino vs. CA 332 SCRA 241).
It is important to remember that the court may grant a relief not prayed
for as long as the relief is warranted by the allegations of the
complaint and the proof. (Lorbes vs. CA).
Q: Is the prayer or relief part of the main action?
A: NO, it is part of the complaint or answer but it may indicate what is the
nature of the cause of action. Causes of action are mere allegations. Prayer is
not part of the cause action but it is important because it might enlighten us
on the nature of the cause of action. That is the purpose of relief or prayer.
EXAMPLE : Angelo filed a case against Ina for annulment of a contract of
sale. If you look at the caption, it is a personal action which should be
instituted in the place where the parties reside. But if you look at the prayer:
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that after trial, the deed of sale shall be
annulled on the ground of intimidation, and the ownership of the land sold to
the defendant in Digos be ordered returned. Actually, you are trying to
recover the ownership of the land. So in other words, it is not a personal
action but a real action.
Relief/s that a court can grantLeticia Diona, represented by her Attorney-in-fact, Marcelina Diona v. Romeo
Balangue, Sonny Balangue, Reynaldo Balangue, and Esteban Balangue, Jr.; G.R.
No. 173559. January 7, 2013
48
Pleadings; relief. It is settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the
pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by the party. They cannot also
grant a relief without first ascertaining the evidence presented in court.
In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Tecson, this Court expounded that:
Due process considerations justify this requirement, it is improper to enter an order
which exceeds the scope of relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice, which affords
the opposing party an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposed relief. The
fundamental purpose of the requirement that allegations of the complaint must provide
the measure of recovery is to prevent surprise to the defendant.
Notably, the Rules is even more strict in safeguarding the right to due process of a
defendant who was declared in default than of a defendant who participated in trial. For
instance, amendment to conform to the evidence presented during trial is allowed the
parties under the Rules. But the same is not feasible when the defendant is declared in
default because Section 3(d), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court comes into play and limits
the relief that may be granted by the courts to what has been prayed for in the
complaint. xxx The raison detre in limiting the extent of relief that may be granted is that
it cannot be presumed that the defendant would not file an Answer and allow himself to
be declared in default had he know that the plaintiff will be accorded a relief greater than
or different in kind from that sought in the Complaint. No doubt, the reason behind
Section 3(d), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court is to safeguard defendants right to due
process against unforeseen and arbitrarily issued judgment. This, to the mind of the
Court, is akin to the very essence of due process. It embodies the sporting idea of fair
play and forbids the grant of relief on matters where the defendant was not given the
opportunity to be heard thereon.
In Prince Transport, Inc. v. Garcia, 639 SCRA 312, 330, the Court ruled that a court
can grant the relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if it is not
specifically sought by the injured party; the inclusion of a general prayer may justify the
grant of a remedy different from or together with the specific remedy sought, if the facts
alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant.
Sec. 3. Signature and Address.- Every pleading must be
signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in
either case his address which should not be a post office
box.
x x x x x
Signature and address every pleading must be signed by the party or
the counsel representing him.
A signed pleading is one that is signed either by the party himself or his
counsel. Section 3, Rule 7 is clear on this matter. It requires that a pleading
must be signed by the party or counsel representing him. Therefore, only the
signature of either the party himself or his counsel operates to validly
49
convert a pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is signed. (Republic
vs. Kenrick Development Corp. 351 SCRA 716)
Counsels authority to sign personal to him/herIt has been held that counsels authority and duty to sign a pleading are
personal to him. He may not delegate it to just any person because the
signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by him that:
1. he has read the pleading;
2. that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is a
good ground to support it; and
3. that it is not interposed for delay.
Under the Rules of Court, it is counsel alone, by affixing his signature, who
can certify to these matters.
The preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving
practice of law which is reserved exclusively for the members of the legal
profession. Accordingly however, counsel may delegate the signing of a
pleading to another lawyer but cannot do so in favor of one who is not. In so
ruling the Court cites The Code of Professional Responsibility, the pertinent
provision on which provides:
Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member
of the Bar in good standing.
A signature by agents of a lawyer amounts to signing by unqualified
persons, something the law strongly proscribes. Therefore, the blanket
authority entrusted to just anyone is void. Any act taken pursuant to that
authority is likewise void. Hence, there is no way it could be cured or ratified
by counsel. (Republic vs. Kenrick Development Corp.)
Not Post Office Address, why?
Take note of the prohibition now: You must state your address which
should not be a post office box because one difficulty is that the exact date
when you claim your mail cannot be determined if it is a P.O. box. But if it is
served to his office, the exact date of receipt can easily be
determined.
IMPLIED CERTIFICATION IN A PLEADING
Section 3, second paragraph:
50
The
signature
of
counsel
constitutes
a
certification by him that he has read the pleading;
that to the best to his knowledge, information, and
belief there is good ground to support it; and that it
is not interposed for delay.
BAR QUESTION: What is the meaning of the phrase Implied Certification
in a Pleading?
A: Implied Certification in a Pleading means that when a lawyer signs a
pleading he is certifying that he has read it, to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief there is a good ground to support it, and it is not
interposed for delay.
Effect of an unsigned pleadingSection 3, last paragraph:
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect.
However, the court may, in its discretion, allow such
deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the
same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for
delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned
pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this
Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein,
or fails to promptly report to the court a change of
his
address,
shall
be
subject
to
appropriate
disciplinary action. (5a)
So, when a pleading is not signed it produces no legal effect. It is as if no
pleading has been filed.
Q: Now, suppose it was just an inadvertent omission, it was not intentional
maybe because he was hurrying to file the pleading, the lawyer had it filed
when actually he has not signed it yet.
A: Well, actually if that is in good faith, the court may forgive the counsel
because the law says, however, the court, may in its discretion, allow such
deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
inadvertence and not intended for delay.
However, if the lawyer files a pleading, which is UNSIGNED DELIBERATELY,
then, according to the rules, he shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary
action. That is practically unethical no? Not only that, he is also subject to
disciplinary action if he signs a pleading in violation of this Rule or alleges
scandalous or indecent matter therein, or fails to promptly report to the court
a change of his address..
51
52
A: Well, you know your Criminal Law. That will be a ground for the
prosecution for the crime of perjury, because that is a false affidavit. But if
the pleading is not verified, even if they are false, there is no perjury,
because perjury requires a sworn statement by the accused.
Effect of lack of a verificationLack of verification in a pleading is a formal defect, not jurisdictional
defect, and can be cured by amendment. (Phil. Bank of Commerce vs.
Macadaeg, L-14174, Oct. 31, 1960)
The absence of a verification may be corrected by requiring an oath. The rule
is in keeping with the principle that rules of procedure are established to
secure substantial justice and that technical requirements may be dispensed
with in meritorious cases. (Pampanga Sugar Development Company, Inc. vs.
NLRC 272 SCRA 737) The court may order the correction of the pleading or
act on an unverified pleading if the attending circumstances are such that
strict compliance would not fully serve substantial justice, which after all, is
the basic aim for the rules of procedure. (Robert Development Corp. vs.
Quitain 315 SCRA 150; Joson vs. Torres 290 SCRA 279)
What pleading needs to be verifiedQ: Does the law require every pleading to be verified?
A: NO. The GENERAL RULE is, pleadings need not be under oath, EXCEPT
when otherwise specifically required by law or this rule. When the law or
rules require a pleading to be verified, then it must be verified, otherwise it is
formally detective. If the law is silent, verification is not necessary and the
pleading is filed properly.
Litigants not required to read the very same document to be filed in
courtGenerally, a pleading is not required to be verified unless required by law
or by the Rules of Court. Verification, when required, is intended to secure an
assurance that the allegations of a pleading are true and correct; are not
speculative or merely imagined; and have been made in good faith. To
achieve this purpose, the verification of a pleading is made through an
affidavit or sworn statement confirming that the affiant has read the pleading
whose allegations are true and correct of the affiant's personal knowledge or
based on authentic records.
However, the Rules do not require the litigants to read the very
same document that is to be filed before the courts; what the Rules
require is for a party to read the contents of a pleading without any
specific requirement on the form or manner in which the reading is
to be done. That a client may read the contents of a pleading without
seeing the same pleading to be actually filed with the court is, in these days
54
prescribed for a special civil action. Such specific rule appears under Rule 46,
Sec. 3, which requires that every petition for certiorari to be accompanied by
a sworn certification of non-forum shopping. (Wacnang vs. Comelec, GR No.
178024 Oct. 17, 2008)
Failure to submit certification against forum shopping and forum
shopping are two separate grounds for dismissal-The failure to submit a certification against forum shopping is a ground for
dismissal, separate and distinct from forum shopping as a ground for
dismissal. A complaint may be dismissed for forum shopping even if there
is a certification attached and conversely, a complaint may be dismissed
for lack of the required certification even if the party has not committed
forum shopping. Compliance with the certification against forum shopping
is separate from, and independent of, the avoidance of forum shopping
itself. (Juaban vs. Espina 548 SCRA 588, March 14, 2008).
Benedicto v. Lacson, et al., G.R. No. 141508, May 5, 2010
There is no need to state that a case was filed and dismissed in the certificate of nonforum shopping if dismissal is without prejudice.
Foundation of the rule is res judicata.
Pleadings requiring a certificationThe certification against forum shopping is mandatory in filing a
complaint and other initiatory pleadings asserting a claim (Sec.5)
This initiatory pleadings include not only the 1. original complaint
but also 2.permissive counterclaim, 3. cross-claim, 4. third (fourth)party complaint, 5. complaint in intervention, 6. petition or any
application in which a party asserts a claim for relief. The rule does
not require a certification against forum shopping for a compulsory
counterclaim because it cannot be the subject of a separate and
independent adjudication. It is therefore, not an initiatory pleading (UST vs.
Surla, 294 SCRA 382)
It bears stressing that the Rule distinctly provides that the required
certification against forum shopping is intended to cover an initiatory
pleading, meaning an incipient application of a party asserting a claim for
relief. The answer with a counterclaim is a responsive pleading, filed merely
to counter petitioners complaint that initiates the civil action and is a claim
for relief that is derived only from, or is necessarily connected with, the main
action or complaint. It is not an initiatory pleading (Sps. Carpio vs. Rural Bank
of Sto. Tomas Batangas, supra)
57
cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable decision. x
x x It is expressly prohibited xxx because:
a it trifles with and abuses court processes,
b degrades the administration of justice, and
c congest our court dockets. A willful and deliberate violation of the rule against
forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case, and may also
constitute indirect contempt.
d
e How to determine existence of forum shopping
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 to res judicata in another. Otherwise stated, to determine forum
shopping, the test is to see whether in the two or more cases pending, there
is (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of rights or causes of action,
and (c) identity of reliefs sought (Huibonhoa vs. Concepcion)
What is pivotal in determining whether forum shopping exists or not is the
vexation caused the courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different
courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related causes
and/or grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process
creating possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different
courts and/or administrative agencies upon the same issues (Lim vs. Vianzon
GR 137187, August 3, 2006).
Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia concur.
ELSA D. MEDADO vs. HEIRS OF THE LATE ANTONIO CONSING, as represented
by DR.SOLEDAD CONSING,
G.R. No. 186720, February 8, 2012
On the third issue, there is forum shopping when the elements of litis pendentia are
present, i.e., between actions pending before courts, there exist:
(1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in
both actions,
(2)
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on
the same facts, and
(3) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment
rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the action under consideration; said requisites
are also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis
pendens
Applying the foregoing, there was clearly a violation of the rule against
forum shopping when Spouses Medado instituted Civil Case No. 797
59
60
Case. A single issue cannot be litigated in more than one forum. As held in Mendiola
vs. Court of Appeals:
The similarity between the two causes of action is only too glaring. The test of
identity of causes of action lies not in the form of an action but on whether the
same evidence would support and establish the former and the present
causes of action. The difference of actions in the aforesaid cases is of no
moment. In Civil Case No. 58713, the action is to enjoin PNB from foreclosing
petitioner's properties, while in Civil Case No. 60012, the action is one to annul
the auction sale over the foreclosed properties of petitioner based on the same
grounds. Notwithstanding a difference in the forms of the two actions, the
doctrine of res judicata still applies considering that the parties were litigating
for the same thing, i.e. lands covered by TCT No. 27307, and more
importantly, the same contentions and evidence as advanced by herein
petitioner in this case were in fact used to support the former cause of action.
The CA was then correct in ordering the dismissal of the complaint in Civil
Case No. 797-C for violation of the rule against forum shopping. The issue on
the validity of the subject deeds of absolute sale can best be addressed in the
action for rescission, as against the case for injunction filed by Spouses
Medado. In a line of cases, we have set the relevant factors that courts
must consider when they have to determine which case should be
dismissed, given the pendency of two actions, to wit:
(1) the date of filing, with preference generally given to the first action
filed to be retained;
(2)
to
the
(3)
the
appropriate
vehicle
for
litigating
We emphasize that the rules on forum shopping are meant to prevent such
eventualities as conflicting final decisions. This Court has consistently held that the
costly consequence of forum shopping should remind the parties to ever be mindful
against abusing court processes. In addition, the principle of res judicata requires that
stability be accorded to judgments. Controversies once decided on the merits shall
remain in repose for there should be an end to litigation which, without the doctrine,
would be endless.
Three ways of committing forum shopping-
61
1 filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the
same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where
the ground is litis pendentia);
2 filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same
prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the
ground for dismissal is res judicata); and
3 filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with
different prayers (splitting of causes of action where the ground for
dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judiciata) (Chua v.
MetroBank, 596 SCRA 524, 535-536)
Rationale against forum shoppingThe rationale against forum shopping is that a party should not be
allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two different fora. Filing multiple
petitions or complaints constitutes abuse of court processes, which tends to
degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial
procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of
the court. Thus, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote
candor and transparency before the courts to promote the orderly
administration of justice, prevent undue inconvenience upon the other party,
and save the precious time of the courts. It also aims to prevent the
embarrassing situation of two or more courts or agencies rendering
conflicting resolutions or decisions upon the same issue (Huibonhoa vs.
Concepcion, supra).
Certification against forum shopping and Verification; requirements not
jurisdictional.
Sps. Eugene L. Lim and Constancia Lim v. The Court of Appeals-Mindanao
Station, et al.; G.R. No. 192615, January 30, 2013
In any case, it is settled that the requirements of verification and certification against
forum shopping are not jurisdictional. Verification is required to secure an assurance
that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and
correct, and not merely speculative. Non-compliance with the verification
requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective, and is
substantially complied with when signed by one who has ample knowledge of the
truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition, and when matters alleged in
the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.
On the other hand, the certification against forum shopping is required based on
the principle that a party litigant should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous
remedies in different fora. While the certification requirement is obligatory, noncompliance or a defect in the certificate could be cured by its subsequent
62
63
In Vda. De Formoso v. Philippine National Bank, the Court reiterated the guidelines
respecting non-compliance with or submission of a defective certificate of nonforum shopping, the relevant portions of which are as follows:
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith
or a defect therein, xxx, is generally not curable by its subsequent
submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the
Rule on the ground of substantial compliance or presence of special
circumstances or compelling reasons.
xxxx
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by
the party pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or
justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute
a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign
on his behalf.
The requirement that it is the petitioner, not her counsel, who should sign the
certificate of non-forum shopping is due to the fact that a certification is a
peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party, an assurance
given to the court or other tribunal that there are no pending cases involving
basically the same parties, issues and causes of action. Obviously, it is the
petitioner, and not always the counsel whose professional services have been
retained for a particular case, who is in the best position to know whether [she]
actually filed or caused the filing of a petition in that case. Per the above
guidelines, however, if a petitioner is unable to sign a certification for reasonable or
justifiable reasons, she must execute an SPA designating her counsel of record to sign
on her behalf. A certification which had been signed by counsel without the proper
authorization is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition.
Who executes the certification?
It is the plaintiff or principal party who executes the certification under
oath. (Sec. 5). The certification must be executed by the party, not the
attorney (Damasco vs. NLRC 346 SCRA 714).
It is the petitioner and not the counsel who is in the best position to know
whether he or it actually filed or caused the filing of a petition. A Certification
signed by counsel is a defective certification and is a valid cause for
dismissal (Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. CA 297 SCRA 30). This is the
general and prevailing rule.
Issues:
I.
Whether or not the CA correctly admitted the petition for
certiorari filed
before it, notwithstanding alleged deficiencies
in its verification and
certification against forum shopping;
II.
Whether or not the CA correctly admitted the petition for
certiorari filed
before it even if no motion for reconsideration
of the RTCs Order dated March
9, 2007 was filed with the
lower court; and
III. Whether or not the CA correctly held that the rule against forum shopping
was violated by the filing of the complaint for injunction during the pendency of
the action for rescission and
damages.
In their comment on the petition, the respondents also raise as an issue the
failure of the petitioner to join her husband as a party to the petition, considering that the
action affects conjugal property.
Ruling:
As we ratiocinated in Heirs of Olarte v. Office of the President:
The general rule is that the certificate of nonforum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a
case and the signature of only one of them is
insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed that the
rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and
facilitate the orderly administration of justice and thus should
not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to
subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of
substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the
contents of the certification. This is because the requirement
of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the
certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its
mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be
altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely
disregarded. Thus, under justifiable circumstances, the
65
its own ultimate and legitimate objective which is the goal of all rules of
procedure that is, to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible
(Great Southern Maritime Services Corp. vs. Acuna 452 SCRA 422). Hence,
the rule is subject to the power of the SC to suspend procedural rules and to
lay down exceptions to the same.
Examples:
While a petition for certiorari is flawed where the certification of nonforum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party, this
procedural lapse was overlooked by the Court in the interest of justice (Sy
Chin vs. CA 345 SCRA 673). In another case, the fact that the parties were
abroad at a time when the petition was filed, was considered a
reasonable cause to exempt the parties from compliance with the
requirement that they personally execute the certification against forum
shopping (Hamilton vs. Levy 344 SCRA 821). In De Guia vs. De Guia 356
SCRA 287, the SC went to the extent of invoking its power to suspend
the Rules by disregarding the absence of the certification against
forum shopping in the interest of justice.
In Dar vs. Alonzo-Legato (339 SCRA 306) the Court ruled that where the
petitioners were sued jointly as Mr. and Mrs. over a property in
which they were alleged to have common interest, the signing of
the certification by one of the petitioners was held to be a
substantial compliance of the rule. In a subsequent ruling in the case of
Docena vs. Lapesura (355 SCRA 658), where only the husband signed the
certificate against forum shopping in a petition involving the conjugal
residence of the spouses, the SC considered the certification as having
substantially complied with the requirements.
In Cavile vs. Heirs of Clarita Cavile (400 SCRA 255), a similar ruling was
made where the Court held that there was substantial compliance with the
Rules where only one petitioner signed the certification against forum
shopping in behalf of all the other petitioners being all relatives and coowners of the properties in dispute, and who shared a common interest in
them, had a common defense in the complaint for partition, filed the petition
collectively, and raised only one argument to defend their rights over the
properties in question.
In Bases Conversion Development Authority GR No. 144062, November 2,
2006, while only one petitioner signed the verification and certification, it
was held that such fact is not fatal to the petition. The Court ruled that
the signature of a principal party satisfies the requirement because
under the Rules it is clear that the certification may be signed by a
principal party.
67
69
successively, in order to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the
same or substantially the same reliefs on the supposition that one or the other court would make
a favorable disposition or increase a partys chances of obtaining a favorable
decision or action. (Huibonhoa v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 153785, August 3, 2006)
Test to determine forum-shopping:
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 to res judicata in another.Thus, the test is
whether in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of:
1. Parties
2. Rights or causes of action
3. Reliefs sought (Huibonhoa v. Concepcion, supra)
Who executes certification against forum-shopping?
It is the plaintiff or principal party who executes the certification under oath ( Rule 7, Sec. 5).. It
must be signed by the party himself and cannot be signed by his counsels. The reason the
certification against forum shopping is required to be accomplished by petitioner himself is
because only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated
similar actions or proceedings in different courts or agencies. (Digital Microwave Corp. vs. CA,
G.R. No. 128550, March 16, 2000).
What are the undertakings of a party under the certification against forum shopping?
1. That the party has not commenced or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim
is pending;
2. That if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof;
3. That if he should therefore learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed ( Rule 7, Sec. 5)
In what ways may forum shopping be committed?
1. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous
case not having been resolved yet (litis pendentia)
2. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case
having been finally resolved (res judicata )
3. Filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting
causes of action ) where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).
Effect of forum shopping
1. If the forum shopping is NOT considered WILFUL and DELIBERATE, the subsequent cases
shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on one of the two grounds mentioned above
Non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum shopping is not curable by mere
amendment and shall be a cause for the dismissal of action without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing (Rule 7, Sec.5)
73
2. If the forum shopping is WILFUL and DELIBERATE, both (or all, if there are more than two
actions) shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Ao-As vs. CA, 491 SCRA 353 [2006])
Willfull and deliberate forum shopping of the party or his counsel shall be a ground for summary
dismissal . This dismissal is with prejudice and shall constitute DIRECT CONTEMPT as well as
cause for administrative sanctions on the part of counsel. (Rule 7, Sec. 5)
What are the requirements of forum shopping certificate for a corporation?
Only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the certificate of
non-forum shopping in behalf of a corporation. In addition, the Court has required that proof of
said authority must be attached. Failure to provide a certificate of non-forum shopping is
sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. Likewise, the petition is subject to dismissal if a
certification was submitted unaccompanied by proof of the signatory's authority. (Philippine
Airlines, Inc. vs. Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), G.R.
No. 143088. January 24, 2006)
*** Under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, a pleading
must be accompanied by a verification as well as certification against forum shopping as signed
by the plaintiff or principal party. As a general rule, a person signing in behalf of a corporation
must be authorized by a board resolution. However, as exceptions, the following persons can
sign the verification and certification without a board resolution:
(1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors,
(2) the President of a corporation,
(3) the General Manager or Acting General Manager,
(4) Personnel Officer, and
(5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case.
Nevertheless, the better procedure is still to append a board resolution to the complaint or
petition so as to not invite questions as to the authority of the signatory to sign the verification
and certification. (South Cotabato Communications Corporation vs. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No.
173326, December 15, 2010 [TDC]) - TDC
However, subsequent submission of Secretarys Certificate is
substantial compliance with
the requirement that a Board Resolution must authorize the officer executing the non-forum
certification on behalf of the corporation. (Vicar International Construction, Inc. vs. Feb
Leasing and Financing Corp., G.R. No. 157195, April 22, 2005)
d. Effect of the signature of counsel in a pleading
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that
1. he has read the pleading;
2. that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it;
and
3. that it is not interposed for delay. (par. 2, Rule,7 Sec. 3.)
74
Rule 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
Sec. 1 In general 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.
If a defense relied on is based on law, the
pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to
him shall be clearly and concisely stated.
Ultimate not evidentiary facts must be allegedPleadings must only state the ultimate facts where one relies on for his/her
defense or claim. You must omit the statement of evidentiary facts.
Ultimate factsQ: What are ultimate facts?
A: Ultimate facts are those, which are essential to ones cause of action or
defense. Ultimate facts refer to those, which directly form the basis of the
right sought to be enforced or the defense relied upon. If the ultimate facts
are not alleged, the cause of action will be insufficient.
The ultimate facts refer to the essential facts of the claim. A fact is
essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement
of the cause of action insufficient (Ceroferr Realty Corporation vs. CA
376 SCRA 144).
The ultimate facts are the important and substantial facts which form the
basis of the primary right of the plaintiff and which make up the wrongful act
or omission of the defendant. The ultimate facts do not refer to the details of
probative matter or to the particulars of evidence by which the material
elements are to be established. They are the principal, determinate,
constitutive facts, upon the existence of which, the entire cause of action
rests. (Tantuico, Jr. vs. Republic, 204 SCRA 428)
75
effect, also relieves a party from being compelled to choose only one cause
of action.
Q: What happens if one cause of action is insufficient? Will it cause the
dismissal of the complaint?
A: No, the complaint will remain insofar as the sufficient cause of action is
stated. The insufficiency of one will not affect the entire pleading if the other
cause of action is insufficient.
EXAMPLE:
I read a case about a passenger who was about to board a bus. Of
course when you are a passenger and you get hurt, that is culpa
contractual. If you are not a passenger but you get hurt due to the
negligence of the driver, that is culpa aquiliana. So it depends
whether there is a contract of carriage or none.
In that case, the passenger was about to board a bus. As a matter
of fact, the left foot had already stepped on the bus. The bus
suddenly sped off. He fell.
He was injured. What is the basis
against the carrier? Is there a contract or none? There is because one
foot was already on it but others say there was no contract yet. You
dont really know whether your cause of action is culpa contractual or
culpa aquiliana. You want to claim damages but you are not sure
whether your case is based on culpa contractual or culpa aquiliana.
Its either one of the two. It sometimes happens.
Now, if I am the lawyer for the plaintiff and I am tortured to make my
choice, I may allege 2 possible alternative causes of action. I will draft the
complaint in such a way that I will show to the court that my cause of action
is either culpa contractual or culpa aquilana. I will make sure that both
allegations are covered. You cannot be wrong because the law does not
require you to make a choice.
Pleading alternative causes of action normally leads to inconsistent
claims. For instance, the elements of a cause of action based on a
contractual theory are inconsistent with those of a cause of action based on
a quasi-delict. As previously discussed, a suit based on a breach of contract
of carriage for example, does not require an allegation and proof of
negligence because it is not an element of a breach of contract suit (Calalas
vs. CA 332 SCRA356; FGU Insurance Corp. vs. GP Sarmiento Trucking Corp.
386 SCRA 312). On the other hand, negligence as a rule, is an essential
element of a suit based on a quasi-delict (Art. 2176, Civil Code).
Under Sec. 2, this situation is permissible as long as the allegations
pleaded within a particular cause of action are consistent with the cause of
79
Rule is consistent with the omnibus motion ruleThe rule allowing alternative defenses is consistent with the omnibus
motion rule which requires that all motions attacking a pleading shall include
all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be
deemed waived (Sec. 8, Rule 15)
During trial only one can be proven80
However, during that trial, you have to choose among them, which you
think is true based on evidence. The problem is that you choose one but it
turned out that a different defense would be correct. You cannot use that
defense anymore. There is a prejudice because during the trial, I will choose
among them with the evidence I have. I can abandon the others. And that
is even better because you might confuse the plaintiff of what really is your
defense. Thus, a lawyer should not be afraid to hypothetically or alternatively
plead defenses, which are inconsistent with each other.
That is perfectly allowed as it is alternative and during trial the pleader
may show the best one rather than not stating it in the pleading and during
the trial you waive the best defense because according to the next rule, Rule
9, defenses or objections not pleaded in the answer are deemed waived.
Take note that you have to correlate this topic on the related provisions
we have already taken up: For EXAMPLE:
1.) Rule 2, Section 5 where a party may, in one pleading state in the
alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action;
2.) Rule 3, Section 6 on permissive joinder of parties. When may 2
persons or more be joined as plaintiffs or defendants and how are
they joined? They are joined jointly, severally, or alternatively; and
3.) Rule 3, Section 13 on alternative defendants. When you are
uncertain who is the real defendant, you may join them
alternatively although the relief against one may be inconsistent
with the other.
HOW ALLEGATIONS IN A PLEADING ARE MADE
SUMMARY:
Q: What averment or allegations in pleadings may be done GENERALLY?
A: The following:
1.) Rule 8, Section 3 Conditions precedent;
2.) Rule 8, Section 5, 2nd sentence Conditions of the mind;
3.) Rule 8, Section 6 Judgment;
4.) Rule 8, Section 9 Official document or act
Q: What averments must be done with PARTICULARITY?
A: The following:
1.) Rule 8, Section 4, first sentence Capacity to sue and be sued;
2.) Rule 8, Section 4, 2nd sentence Legal existence of any party to
sue or be sued;
3.) Rule 8, Section 5, first sentence Fraud or mistake
81
85
86
Q: What are the defenses which are no longer allowed once you
admit the genuineness and due execution of the actionable
document?
A: The following:
1.) The signature appearing in the document is a forgery;
2.) In case it was signed by an agent in behalf of the corporation or
partnership, or a principal, the signature was unauthorized;
3.) The corporation was not authorized under its charter to sign the
instrument;
4.) The party charged signed it in some other capacity than that
alleged in the pleading; and
5.) It was never delivered. (Hibberd vs. Rhode, supra)
6.) The document was not in words and figures as set out in the
pleadings (Imperial Textile Mills vs. CA 183 SCRA 584)
Q: What defenses may be interposed notwithstanding admission
of genuineness and due execution of an actionable document as
aforesaid?
A: In the case of HIBBERD, the following:
1.) payment;
2.) want or illegality of consideration;
3.) fraud;
4.) mistake;
5.) compromise;
6.) statute of limitation;
7.) estoppel;
8.) duress;
9.) minority; and
10.) imbecility
11.) usury
12.) statute of frauds
13.) prescription
14.) release
15.) waiver
16.) former discharge in bankruptcy
Q: May the benefit of the admission of genuineness and due execution of an
actionable document be waived? If so, in what instances?
A: YES. In the following cases, the implied admission is deemed waived:
1.) Where the pleader presented witnesses to prove genuineness and
due execution and the adversary proved, without objection, the
contrary. (Yu Chuck vs. Kong Li Po, 46 Phil. 608);
87
2.) Where the pleader fails to object to evidence controverting the due
execution. (Legarda Koh vs. Ongsiaco, 36 Phil. 185)
When mere specific denial though not under oath still validQ: When may a simple denial suffice? Meaning, what are the instances
where the denial of the genuineness of the document, though not under
oath, is valid?
A: Section 8 says, the requirement of an oath does not apply:
1.) When the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the
instrument;
EXAMPLE: Ms. Guadalope filed a case against Ms. Castillo based
on a contract entered by them. But before Ms. Guadalope filed the
case, Ms. Castillo died. So Ms. Guadalope filed against the heirs. The
heirs realized that the signature of Ms. Castillo in contract as forged.
Even if the answer of the heirs is not under oath, they can still prove
forgery because they are not party to the instrument.
2.) When compliance with an order for an inspection of the original
instrument is refused;
3.) When the document to be denied is not classified as an actionable
document but merely an evidentiary matter. This is because when
the document if not actionable, there is no need to follow Section 7.
REPLY;
General rule: Reply is optional; Exception- Section 8
Normally, the person who is presenting the actionable document is the
plaintiff.
PROBLEM: But suppose it is the defendant who is invoking an actionable
document for his defense. He claims to have paid the loan and have
attached a copy of the RECEIPT to his answer. The plaintiff looks at the
document and realizes that his signature in the receipt is forged.
Q: What should the plaintiff do?
A: Based on Section 8, the plaintiff must deny the genuineness of the
receipt specifically under oath
Q: In what pleading should the plaintiff file where he will deny under oath
the genuineness and due execution of the receipt?
88
A: Plaintiff should file a REPLY and it must be under oath. If he will not file
a reply, the receipt is impliedly admitted to be genuine.
Q: But the plaintiff may argue that under Rule 6, Section 10 the filing of a
reply is optional. How do we reconcile it with Section 8?
A: Rule 6 is the general rule. Section 8 should prevail over Rule 6 because
the former is a specific provision that applies only to actionable document. It
has been asked in the Bar:
Q: When is the filing of the reply compulsory?
A: When the defendant anchors his defense on an actionable document
and plaintiff will deny the genuineness and due execution of such document.
SPECIFIC DENIAL
Section 10 of Rule 8 relates with Section 5 of Rule 6:
Sec. 5. Defenses. - Defenses may either be negative or
affirmative.
a.
A negative defense is the specific denial of the
material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his cause or causes of action.
x x x
In an answer, according to Sec. 5 of Rule 6, defenses may either be
negative or affirmative.
Q: Define negative defense.
A: Briefly, it is a defense of SPECIFIC DENIAL where the defendant denies the
statement in the complaint by stating the facts and the reason/s on which his
denial is based.
Q: How is a specific denial done?
A: Rule 8, Section 10:
Sec. 10. Specific denial. A defendant must specify each
material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not
admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the
substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his
denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an
averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and
material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a
defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in
89
90
however, if it is coupled with assertion that the defendant was denying the
allegations regarding those actionable documents, stating that she never applied
for membership with the card company, these reasons cannot be ignored and
they form part of the answer.
Negative Pregnant
A negative pregnant does not qualify as a specific denial. It is conceded to
be actually an admission.
In a pleading, it is a negative implying also an affirmative and which
although is stated in a negative form really admits the allegations to which it
relates.
Example:
A complaint alleges:
Plaintiff extended a loan to Defendant in the amount of P500,000.00 on
July 27, 2006 in Cebu City.
The defendant in his Answer states:
Defendant specifically denies that Plaintiff extended a loan to Defendant
in the amount of P500,000.00 on July 27, 2006 in Cebu City.
The answer is a mere repetition of the allegations made in the complaint.
The answer is vague as to what it really denies. Is it the existence of the loan
that is denied? Is it the amount? The date? The place?
The effect of this kind of denial is an admission.
When a specific denial must be coupled with an oath:
(a) A denial of an actionable document (Sec. 8); and
(b)A denial of allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious
interest (Sec. 11)
The allegations of usury which requires a specific denial under oath are:
(a) Allegations of usury in a complaint (not allegations of usury in the
answer), and
(b)The complaint is filed to recover usurious interests (Sec. 11, R 8)
92
NOW, I wonder why this provision is here when as early as 1983 in the
case of LIAM LAW vs. OLYMPIC SAW MILL (129 SCRA 439), that usury is no
longer existing and the SC stated in that case that the provision of the Rules
of Court in usury are deemed erased or superseded. Obviously, the SC forgot
what it said in the 1983.
Sec. 12. Striking out of pleading or matter
contained therein. Upon motion made by a party before
responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading
is permitted by these Rules, upon motion made by a
party within twenty (20) days after the service of the
pleading upon him, or upon the court's own initiative
at any time, the court may order any pleading to be
stricken out or that any sham or false, redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter be
stricken out therefrom. (5, R9)
When to file a Motion to Strike Out a Pleading or Part of a PleadingBefore answering, the defendant can file a motion to strike out a pleading or
a portion of a pleading.
RULE 7, Sec. 3. Signature and address. x x x x
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect.
However, the court may, in its discretion, allow such
deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the
same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for
delay. Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned
pleading, or signs a pleading in violation of this
Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter therein,
or fails to promptly report to the court a change of
his
address,
shall
be
subject
to
appropriate
disciplinary action.
So, if your pleading contains scandalous or indecent matters, the lawyer
who files it may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary actions.
Q: What if it is the reply is the one which contains scandalous matter?
A: A motion to strike may still be filed by the defendant within 20 days
after the reply.
Reviewer
Allegations in a pleading (Rule 8)
a. Manner of making allegations
Rule 8, Sec. 1. In general . Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a
94
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.
(1) Condition precedent
In any pleading a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent
shall be sufficient. (Rule 8, Sec. 3.)
(2) Fraud, mistake, malice, intent, knowledge and other condition of the mind,
judgments, official documents or acts
Rule 8, Sec. 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind.
In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be
stated with PARTICULARITY. Malice, intent, knowledge or other condition of the mind of a
person may be averred GENERALLY.
b. Pleading an actionable document
Rule, 8, Sec. 7. Action or defense based on document .
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the actionable
document shall be pleaded by setting forth:
1. The substance of such document in the pleading and attaching the original or copy thereof as
an exhibit
2. Said document verbatim in the pleading (Sec. 7, Rule 8).
c. Specific denials
Rule 8, Sec. 10. Specific denial.
A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit
and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he relies to
support his denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he shall specify
so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder.
Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of a material averment made in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a
denial.
(1) Effect of failure to make specific denials
Rule 8, Sec. 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted.
Material averments in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages,
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a complaint to
recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if not denied under oath.
N.B. If the allegations are deemed admitted, there is no more triable issue between the parties
and if the admissions appear in the answer of the defendant, the plaintiff may file a motion for
judgment on the pleadings under Rule 34
(2) When a specific denial requires an oath
Rule 8, Sec. 8. How to contest such documents .
When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument (like a promissory note which is
the basis of a complaint for collection of sum of money), copied in or attached to the
corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the GENUINENESS AND DUE
95
EXECUTION of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under
oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement
of an oath does not apply (a) when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the
instrument or (b) when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
refused.
Rule 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
Take note that the exceptions can be raised at any time during or after the
trial, or even for the first time on appeal. In other words, the court shall
dismiss the claim if any of the foregoing grounds appears from the
pleadings or the evidence on record.
PNB vs. PEREZ (16 SCRA 279)
PEPSI COLA vs. GUANZON (172 SCRA 571)
HELD: The rule on waiver of defenses by failure to plead in the
answer or in a motion to dismiss does not apply when the plaintiffs
own allegations in the complaint show clearly that the action has
prescribed in such a case the court may motu propio dismiss the
case on the ground of prescription.
Under the 1964 Rules, one of the grounds that you can raise at any stage of
the proceeding before judgment is failure to state a cause of action, but it
disappeared under the new rules. Does it mean to say that you cannot raise
it anymore?
NO. It can still be raised because it can be taken care of by another rule
Rule 33 on Demurrer.(This is doubtful because in a demurrer to evidence the
ground is insufficiency of evidence or lack of cause of action not failure to
state a cause of action).
Sec. 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not
set up barred. A compulsory counterclaim, or a crossclaim, not set up shall be barred. (4a)
See discussions on Rule 6, Sections 7 and 8 on counterclaim and crossclaims, respectively.
RULE ON DEFAULT
Sec. 3. Default; declaration of. If the defending
party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor,
the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with
notice to the defending party, and proof of such
failure, declare the defending party in default.
Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment
granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may
warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires
the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of
97
Default judgment disfavoredIn Paramount Insurance Corp., v. A.C. Ordonez Corp., 561 SCRA 327, 334) the
Court held that the hornbook rule is that default judgments are generally
disfavored.
Effect of pendency of a Motion to Dismiss or for Bill of Particulars on
period to file an AnswerQ: May a defendant be declared in default while a motion to dismiss (Rule
16) or a motion for bill of particulars (Rule 12) remains pending and
undisposed of?
A: NO, because under the filing of a motion to dismiss or motion for bill of
particulars interrupts the running of the period to answer. It will run again
from the moment he receives the order denying his motion to dismiss or for
bill of particulars. (Hernandez vs. Clapis, 87 Phil. 437)
But said motions must follow the requirements otherwise they will be
treated as mere scraps of paper and will not toll the running of the period to
answer.
In the case of
DEL CASTILLO vs. AGUINALDO
212 SCRA 169 [1992]
FACTS: The defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 but
his motion to dismiss did not contain notice of time and place of
hearing and the motion was denied. Can he file an answer after
filing the motion to dismiss?
HELD: NO. He can be ordered in default. The motion is a useless
piece of paper with no legal effect.
Any motion that does not comply with Rule 16 should not be
accepted for filing and if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance
and does not affect any reglementary period. Not having complied
with the rules, the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant did not
stay the running of the reglementary period to file an answer.
GOLDEN COUNTRY FARM, INC. vs. SANVAR DEVT CORP.
214 SCRA 295 [1992]
FACTS: Because the filing of the motion to dismiss is 15 days, the
defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the 8th day. It was denied. So
there is still 7 days to file an answer. On the 15th day, instead of
filing an answer, he filed a motion for reconsideration but such
motion was also denied. Can he still file an answer?
101
party and exactly according to the tenor of his prayer. This is not contemplated
by the Rules nor is it sanctioned by the due process clause. (Heirs of Pedro de
Guzman v. Angelina Perona, et al., G.R. No. 152266, July 2, 2010, citing Pascua v.
Florendo, 220 Phil. 588; Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, 485 SCRA 108 (2005)).
Effect of filing of an amended complaint upon defaulted defendant
If the defendant was declared in default upon an original complaint, the filing
of the amended complaint results in the withdrawal of the original complaint,
hence, the defendant is entitled to file an answer to the amended complaint
as to which he was not in default.
Judicial discretion to admit answer filed out of time
It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to permit the defendant
to file his answer and to be heard on the merits after the reglementary
period for filing the answer expires. The Rules of Court provides for discretion
on the part of the trial court not only to extend the time for filing an answer
but also to allow an answer to be filed after the reglementary period. It is not
correct to say that a trial court has no recourse but to declare a defending
party in default when he fails to file an answer within the required period. In
fact, the rule is that the answer should be admitted where it is filed
before a defending party is declared in default and no prejudice is
caused to the other party and that there is no showing that the
defendant intends to delay the case (Sablas vs. Sablas GR 144568, July
3, 2007) The hornbook rule is that default judgments are generally
disfavored (Paramount Insurance Corp., vs. A.C. Ordonez Corporation, GR No.
175109, August 6, 2008).
Current Judicial Trend on Default
The current judicial trend is to avoid defaults and thus, courts are
enjoined to be liberal in setting aside orders of default. (Ampeloquio
vs. CA 333 SCRA 465
The issuance of orders of default should be the exception rather than the
rule and to be allowed only in clear cases of obstinate refusal by the
defendant to comply with the orders of the trial court (Lorbes vs. CA
GR 139884 February 15, 2001) because suits should as much as
possible, be decided on the merits and not on technicalities
(Samartino vs. Raon GR 131482 July 3, 2002). Thus, in practice, an answer
under oath containing the defenses of the defendant, may under the rules on
liberal interpretation, be deemed as equivalent of an affidavit of merit.
The policy of the law is to have every litigants case tried on the merits as
much as possible. Hence, judgments by default are frowned upon. A case is
104
best decided when all contending parties are able to ventilate their
respective claims, present their arguments and adduce evidence in support
thereof. (Sablas vs. Sablas GR 144568 July 3, 2007).
HOW TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT
(b)
While it is true that there was no positive act on the part of the court to lift
the default order because there was no motion nor order to that effect, the
anti-graft courts act of granting respondent the opportunity to file a
responsive pleading meant the lifting of the default order on terms the
court deemed proper in the interest of justice. It was the operative act
lifting the default order and thereby reinstating the position of the
original defendant whom respondent is representing, founded on the courts
discretionary power to set aside orders of default.
PARTIAL DEFAULT
(c) Effect of partial default. - When a pleading
asserting a claim states a common cause of action
against several defending parties, some of whom answer
and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the
case against all upon the answers thus filed and render
judgment upon the evidence presented. (4a, R18)
The principle here is that, the answer filed by the answering defendant
will automatically benefit the non-answering defendant.
Effect of partial defaultIn all instances where a common cause of action is alleged against
several defendants, some of whom answer and the others do not, the
latter or those in default acquire a vested right not only to own the
defenses interposed in the answer of their co-defendant or codefendants not in default but also to expect a result of the litigation
totally common with them in kind and in amount whether favorable
or unfavorable (Remigia Grageda, et al., vs. Hon. Nimfa Gomez and
Haudiny Grageda, GR No. 169536, Sept. 21, 2007).
The best example would be a promissory note signed by both B and C
and they bound themselves solidarily. Both of them were sued. B answered
while C did not, hence he is in default. Can there be a default judgment
against C? NO, there will still be a trial based on the answer of B. In effect, B
will defend not only himself but also C.
Q: Suppose during the trial, B proved that the obligation has been
extinguished, which is also applicable to C, and the complaint is dismissed,
what is the effect?
A: Both will win the case. So C will be benefited by the answer of his codefendant B. Hence, there is still a possibility that a defaulted defendant can
win based on our example.
107
On the other hand it is absurd if the answer of B will not benefit the
defaulting defendant. EXAMPLE: Gary filed a case against B and C based on a
promissory note on a loan secured by both, and C defaulted. B answered
alleging payment. Suppose, B proved such defense, the effect is both B are
absolved. If you say that C should lose because the answer of B will not
benefit C, there will be two conflicting decisions: C is in default and thus,
should pay the loan; and there is no more loan as far as B is concerned. Do
you mean a loan is paid and at the same time unpaid? Thats absurd!
But take NOTE that to apply the principle, there must be a common
cause of action. If there is no common cause of action, while there may be
a trial, the answer of B is only for him. After the trial, B might be absolved
from liability but the defaulting defendant C will be held liable because Bs
answer does not cover C. That is when there is no common cause of action.
In the case of
CO vs. ACOSTA (134 SCRA 185 [1985])
reiterating the case of
LIM TANHU vs. RAMOLETE (66 SCRA 425)
FACTS: B and C were (solidary debtors) sued by Gary for a loan
evidenced by a promissory note. B filed an answer but C defaulted.
The case was tried based on Bs answer. Gary moved to drop B from
the case but retained C, the defaulted defendant so that Gary can
secure an immediate judgment.
ISSUE: Is the motion of Gary proper?
HELD: NO. When there is a common cause against two or more
defendants, if you drop the case against one, you drop the case
against all. Selection is not allowed. To drop B means that the cause
of action against him is weak. Why should one drop somebody if a
case against such person is meritorious? If such is the fact,
necessarily the cause of action against the other is also weak the
fact there is actually a common cause of action.
However, the ruling in ACOSTA should not be confused with the ruling in
IMSON vs. COURT OF APPEALS [1996 BAR]
239 SCRA 58 [1994]
FACTS: Imson was driving a Toyota Corolla when he was bumped
by a Hino Truck causing injury to Imson and totally wreaking his car.
So he filed an action for damages against several defendants. He
impleaded all of them the driver, the bus company owner and the
108
P10,000 for every day of delay. The amount is already fixed based on the
contract price and the penalty provided and such other circumstances as
stipulated.
So, in an action for unliquidated damages, let the defendant be declared in
default anyway the court can never award those damages. Because if I will
answer, damages can be awarded. In other words, I will win the case simply
because there is no way for the court to award the damages. And most
damages are usually those unliquidated damages.
(e)
Where no defaults allowed. - If the defending
party in an action for annulment or declaration of
nullity of marriage or for legal separation fails to
answer, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney
to investigate whether or not a collusion between the
parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to
intervene for the State in order to see to it that the
evidence submitted is not fabricated. (6a, R18)
Where no defaults are allowed:
1. Annulment of marriage;
2. Declaration of nullity of marriage;
3. Legal Separation;
4. Special Civil Actions of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus where
comment instead of an answer is required to be filed; and
5. Summary Procedure.
Relate this provision of the rule to Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code:
Family Code, Art. 48. In all cases of annulment or
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the court
shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned
to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to
prevent collusion between the parties and to take care
that the evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph,
no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts
or confession of judgment.
Family Code, Art. 60. No decree of legal separation
shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or a
confession of judgment.
In any case, the court shall order the prosecuting
attorney or fiscal assigned to it to take steps to
112
Reviewer
Effect of failure to plead (Rule 9)
1. Failure to plead defenses and objections (implied admissions)
Defenses not pleaded in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed WAIVED.
Exceptions:
These defenses may be raised at any stage of the proceedings even for the first time on appeal::
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (Note: This may, however, be barred by
laches - Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968)
2. Litis pendentia
3. Res judicata
4. Prescription (LLRP) (Rule 9, Sec. 1) Relate to omnibus motion rule (Rule 15, Sec. 8)
***Laches need not be specifically pleaded and may be considered by the court on its own
initiative in determining the rights of the parties. (Heirs of Valientes v. Ramas, G.R. No. 157852;
December 15, 2010) TDC
2. Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim
Rule 9, Sec. 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up barred.
A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall be barred.
6. Default (Rule 9, Sec. 3)
a. When a declaration of default is proper
113
114
116