GDE Bar Exam Notes 2018
several distinct persons that came from the same
#Riano says these will be
asked #BAREXAMS2018:
CLASS SUIT
I. Law
Section 12. Class suit. — When the subject matter of the
controversy is one of common or general interest to
many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join
all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to
be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully
protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend
for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the
right to intervene to protect his individual interest. (12a)
II. Discussions
The purpose of a class suit is to obtain relief for or
against a large number of persons as a group or integral
entity and not as individuals with rights and liabilities
separate from each other.
These are the requisites:
1.) Many persons have a general or common interest in
the subject matter of the case
2.) The persons are so numerous that it's not practical to
join them all as parties
3.) The parties actually appearing before the court are
sufficiently numerous and represented that their interests
are fully protected
The subject matter must refer to the physical facts,
property, money, etc.; it doesn't refer to the crime or act
of the defendant. It also can't be used to recover real
property from several persons occupying different
portions of it (Sulo ng Bayan vs. Araneta, 72 SCRA
347.)
However, it can refer to the wrongful act, property or
contract directly involved in the suit "concerning which
the wrong has been done and with respect to which the
controversy has arisen." (Meralco vs. Philippine
Consumers Foundation, 374 SCRA 262.) In other words,
it can refer to the bad act that caused the damage.
In a class suit, there is a single right of action pertaining
to numerous persons. In a permissive joinder or persons,
on the other hand, there are multiple rights that belong to
transaction/s and that there are common questions of law
and fact that came out of the transaction/s.
Some Examples
A large group of stockholders filing suit against a
corporation for an illegal act can qualify as a class suit
(Pascual vs. Orozco, 64 Phil 697.)
A suit filed on behalf of plantation laborers against sugar
planters and sugar central to enforce laborer's rights
under RA 809 (the Sugar Act of 1952.)
There can be other causes, provided all 3 requisites are
present.
INTERVENTION
(INVOLVING CORPORATIONS)
I. Law
Intervention
Section 1. Who may intervene. — A person who has a
legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success
of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is
so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution
or other disposition of property in the custody of the
court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be
allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall
consider whether or not the intervention will unduly
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's
rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.
(2[a], [b]a, R12)
Section 2. Time to intervene. — The motion to intervene
may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by
the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention
shall be attached to the motion and served on the original
parties. (n)
Section 3. Pleadings-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. (2[c]a, R12)
Section 4. Answer to complaint-in-intervention. — 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. (2[d]a, R12)
II. Discussions
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION

Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not
originally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a
litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect or
preserve a right or interest which may be affected by
such proceedings. (Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corporation
v. Department of Transportation and Communications,
G.R. Nos. 169914 and 174166, March 24, 2008, 549
SCRA 44, 49).
It is a proceeding in a suit or action by which a third
person is permitted by the court to make himself a party,
either joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the
complaint, or uniting with defendant in resisting the
claims of plaintiff, or demanding something adversely to
both of them; the act or proceeding by which a third
person becomes a party in a suit pending between others;
the admission, by leave of court, of a person not an
original party to pending legal proceedings, by which
such person becomes a party thereto for the protection of
some right of interest alleged by him to be affected by
such proceedings. (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v.
Presiding Judge, RTC Manila, Br. 39, G.R. No. 89909,
September 21, 1990, 189 SCRA 820, 824).
Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court states:
SECTION 1. Who may intervene. — A person who has
a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the
success of either of the parties, or an interest against
both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in the
custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with
leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The
court shall consider whether or not the intervention will
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights
of the original parties, and whether or not the
intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate
proceeding.
Under this Rule, intervention shall be allowed when a
person has
(1) a legal interest in the matter in litigation;
(2) or in the success of any of the parties;
(3) or an interest against the parties;
(4) or when he is so situated as to be adversely
affected by a distribution or disposition of property in
the custody of the court or an officer thereof.
(Alfelor v. Halasan, G.R. No. 165987, March 31, 2006,
486 SCRA 451, 460).
Moreover, the court must take into consideration
whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original
parties, and whether or not the intervenor’s right or
interest can be adequately pursued and protected in a
separate proceeding. (Mactan Cebu International Airport
VS. Heirs of Estanislao Minoza,)
GDE Bar Exam Notes 2018
PRE TRIAL IN
CIVIL CASES VS CRIMINAL CASES
I. Compare pre-trial in civil cases to pre-trial in
criminal cases (Bar 1997)
1. The pre-trial in a civil case is set when the plaintiff
moves ex parte to set the case for pre-trial (Sec. 1, Rule
18, Rules of Court). The pre-trial in a criminal case is
ordered by the court and no motion to set the case for
pre-trial is required from either the prosecution or the
defense (Sec 1, Rule 118, Rules of Court).
2. The motion to set the case for pre-trial in a civil case
is made after the last pleading has been served and
filed (Sec. 1, Rule 18, Rules of Court). In a criminal case,
the pre-trial is ordered by the court after arraignment and
within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused (Sec. 1, Rule
118, Rules of Court).
3. The pre-trial in a civil case considers the possibility of
an amicable settlement as an important objective (Sec.
2[a], Rule 118, Rules of Court). The pre-trial in a
criminal case does not include the considering of the
possibility of amicable settlement of criminal liability as
one of its purposes (Sec. 1, Rule 118, Rules of Court).
4. In a civil case, the agreements and admissions made
in the pre-trial are not required to be signed by the
parties and their counsels. They are to be contained in
the record of pre-trial and the pre-trial order (Sec. 7, Rule
18, Rules of Court). In a criminal case, all agreements or
admissions made or entered during the pretrial
conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used
against the accused (Sec. 2, Rule 118, Rules of Court).
5. The sanctions for non-appearance in a pre-trial are
imposed upon the plaintiff or the defendant in a civil
case (Sec. 4, Rule 18, Rules of Court). The sanctions in a
criminal case are imposed upon the counsel for the
accused or the prosecutor (Sec. 3, Rule 118, Rules of
Court).

DEFENDANT DIES BEFORE ENTRY
OF FINAL JUDGEMENT R3,S20
I. Law
Section 20. Action and contractual money claims. — When
the action is for recovery of money arising from contract,
express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of
final judgment in the court in which the action was pending
at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment.
A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall
be enforced in the manner especially provided in these
Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a
deceased person. (21
FORUM SHOPPING R7,S5
I. Law
Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The
plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the
complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not
theretofore commenced any action 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 therein; (b) if there is such
other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the
present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn
that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not
be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of
the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon
motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of
court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party
or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate
forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary
dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. (n
II. Discussions
How to determine existence of forum shopping
1. 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
GDE Bar Exam Notes 2018
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.
2. Forum-shopping exists when the elements of litis
pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case
will amount to res judicata in another.
Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following
requisites:
(1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those
representing the same interests in both actions;
(2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the
reliefs being founded on the same facts; and
(3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in
the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered
in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful
would amount to res adjudicata in the other case.
3. 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.
4. Where the reliefs sought in the two actions are different,
there is no forum shopping even if the parties in the actions
are the same. Where one action is for a permanent
injunction and the other is a petition for certiorari, there is
no identity of reliefs.
5. Where the reliefs sought in two courts involving the
same parties is to restrain a government official from
implementing the same order, there is forum shopping
because there is identity of reliefs.
6. The filing of six appeals, complaints or petitions to
frustrate the execution of as judgment is a clear case of
forum shopping.
7. The concept of forum shopping applies not only with
respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection
with litigations commenced in the courts while an
administrative proceeding is pending in order to defeat
administrative processes and in anticipation of an
unfavorable administrative ruling.
Who executes the certification against forum shopping
(Bar 2000)
1. It is the plaintiff or principal party who executes the
certification under oath (Sec. 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court).
The certification must be executed by the party, not the
cannot be signed by his counsels. - 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. This is the general rule
and the prevailing rule.

2. Thus, in a fairly recent case, Go vs. Rico, petitioners
admitted that neither of them signed the certification
against forum shopping. Only their counsel did. The Court
in this case emphatically stressed that a certification by
counsel and not by the principal party himself is no
certification at all. The reason for requiring that it must be
signed by the principal party himself is that he has actual
knowledge, or knows better than anyone else, whether he
has initiated similar action/s in other courts, agencies or
tribunals. Their lawyer's explanation that they were out-of-
town at the time their petition was filed with the Court of
Appeals is bereft of basis. That explanation is an
afterthought as it was not alleged by counsel in her
certification against forum shopping.
DEFAULT
Section 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 evidence may be delegated to the clerk of
court. (1a, R18)
(a) Effect of order of default. — A party in default
shall be entitled to notice of subsequent
proceedings but not to take part in the trial. (2a,
R18)
(b) Relief from order of default. — A party
declared in default may at any time after notice
thereof and before judgment file a motion under
oath to set aside the order of default upon proper
showing that his failure to answer was due to
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
and that he has a meritorious defense. In such case,
the order of default may be set aside on such terms
and conditions as the judge may impose in the
interest of justice. (3a, R18)
(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).
(d) Extent of relief to be awarded. — A judgment
rendered against a party in default shall not exceed
the amount or be different in kind from that prayed
for nor award unliquidated damages. (5a, R18).
(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)
GDE Bar Exam Notes 2018
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE
I. Law
Section 7. Substituted service. — If, for justifiable causes,
the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as
provided in the preceding section, service may be effected
(a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion
then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at
defendant's office or regular place of business with some
competent person in charge thereof. (8a)
II.Case Law
The statutory requirements of substituted service must
be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully and any
substituted service other than that authorized by the
Rules is considered ineffective. However, we frown
upon an overly strict application of the Rules. It is the
spirit, rather than the letter of the procedural rules, that
governs.
In his Return, Sheriff Potente declared that he was
refused entry by the security guard in Alabang Hills
twice. The latter informed him that petitioner prohibits
him from allowing anybody to proceed to her residence
whenever she is out. Obviously, it was impossible for
the sheriff to effect personal or substituted service of
summons upon petitioner. We note that she failed to
controvert the sheriff’s declaration. Nor did she deny
having received the summons through the security
guard. Considering her strict instruction to the security
guard, she must bear its consequences. Thus, we agree
with the trial court that summons has been properly
served upon petitioner and that it has acquired
jurisdiction over her. (Remelita Robinson vs. Celita
Miralles, G.R. No. 163584, December 12, 2006)
RULE 25 and 26
I.RULE 25
Interrogatories to Parties
Section 1. Interrogatories to parties; service thereof. —
Under the same conditions specified in section 1 of Rule
23, any party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts
from any adverse parties shall file and serve upon the latter
written interrogatories to be answered by the party served
or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a
partnership or association, by any officer thereof competent
to testify in its behalf. (1a)
Section 2. Answer to interrogatories. — The
interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing and shall
be signed and sworn to by the person making them. The
party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall
file and serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting

the interrogatories within fifteen (15) days after service
thereof unless the court on motion and for good cause
shown, extends or shortens the time. (2a)
Section 3. Objections to interrogatories. — Objections to
any interrogatories may be presented to the court within ten
(10) days after service thereof, with notice as in case of a
motion; and answers shall be deferred until the objections
are resolved, which shall be at as early a time as is
practicable. (3a)
Section 4. Number of interrogatories. — No party may,
without leave of court, serve more than one set of
interrogatories to be answered by the same party. (4)
Section 5. Scope and use of interrogatories. —
Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be
inquired into under section 2 of Rule 23, and the answers
may be used for the same purposes provided in section 4 of
the same Rule. (5a)
Section 6. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories.
— Unless thereafter allowed by the court for good cause
shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served
with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the
adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a
deposition pending appeal. (n)
II.RULE 26
Admission by Adverse Party
Section 1. Request for admission. — At any time after
issues have been joined, a party may file and serve upon
any other party may file and serve upon any other party a
written request for the admission by the latter of the
genuineness of any material and relevant document
described in and exhibited with the request or of the truth
of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the
request. Copies of the documents shall be delivered with
the request unless copy have already been furnished. (1a)
Section 2. Implied admission. — Each of the matters of
which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted
unless, within a period designated in the request, which
shall not be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof,
or within such further time as the court may allow on
motion, the party to whom the request is directed files and
serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn
statement either denying specifically the matters of which
an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the
reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those
matters.
Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted
to the court by the party requested within the period for and
prior to the filing of his sworn statement as contemplated in
the preceding paragraph and his compliance therewith shall
be deferred until such objections are resolved, which
resolution shall be made as early as practicable. (2a)
Section 3. Effect of admission. — Any admission made by
a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the
pending action only and shall not constitute an admission
by him for any other purpose nor may the same be used
against him in any other proceeding. (3)
GDE Bar Exam Notes 2018
Section 4. Withdrawal. — The court may allow the party
making an admission under the Rule, whether express or
implied, to withdraw or amend it upon such terms as may
be just. (4)
Section 5. Effect of failure to file and serve request for
admission. — Unless otherwise allowed by the court for
good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice a party
who fails to file and serve a request for admission on the
adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue which
are, or ought to be, within the personal knowledge of the
latter, shall not be permitted to present evidence on such
facts. (n)
DEMURER TO EVIDENCE IN CIVIL
VS CRIMINAL CASES
I. Law
Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. — After the plaintiff
has completed the presentation of his evidence, the
defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that
upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no
right to relief. If his motion is denied he shall have the
right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on
appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be
deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.
(Rules of Court)
II. Discussions
When can a demurrer to evidence be filed?
It can be filed after plaintiff completed the
presentation of his evidence. This is exactly after
the court ruled on the plaintiff's formal offer of
evidence. (See Cabador vs People, G.R. No.
186001, October 2, 2009)
Is leave of court necessary to file a demurrer to
evidence in civil cases?
In civil cases, there's no need for leave of court.
What is the implication of the denial of the
demurrer to evidence? What is the remedy of the
defendant in case of denial?
From the point of view of the court, the evidence of
plaintiff is sufficient prima facie to support his case.
Hence, the remedy of the defendant is to present his
evidence. The court should set the date for the
reception of the defendant’s evidence-in-
chief (Northwest Airlines vs. CA, G.R. No. 120334.
January 20, 1998)
If the demurrer is denied, can the defendant file
a motion for reconsideration?
Yes.
If the motion for reconsideration is denied, can
defendant appeal the denial of the demurrer? Can he

file a petition for certiorari?
An order denying a demurrer to evidence is interlocutory
and is therefore, not appealable. It can however be the
subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in case
of grave abuse of discretion or an oppressive exercise of
judicial authority.
What is the implication of the grant of the demurrer
to evidence? What is the effect of the grant? What
then is the remedy of the plaintiff?
The grant of the demurrer to evidence is a
pronouncement by the court that the evidence of plaintiff
is not sufficient to prove his case. Hence, the case is
dismissed. The remedy of plaintiff is to appeal the order
of dismissal.
If plaintiff appealed and the appellate court reversed
the order of dismissal, what is the implication of such
reversal?
The implication is that the evidence of plaintiff is
sufficient to prove his case. So, the order of dismissal is
set aside.
What is the effect of the reversal order of dismissal
on the right of defendant to present his evidence?
Defendant cannot present his evidence, because by
electing to file a demurrer to evidence, he, in effect,
submitted the case for decision solely on the basis of the
evidence of the plaintiff.
In the case of reversal, the appellate court shall resolve
the case and render judgment on the merits based on the
available evidence.
It is not correct for the appellate court reversing the
order granting the demurrer to remand the case to the
trial court for further proceedings. The appellate court
should, instead of remanding the case, render judgment
on the basis of the evidence submitted by the
plaintiff (Radiowealth Finance Corp. vs. Del
Rosario, G.R. No. 138739. July 6, 2000).
Demurrer to evidence in civil vs. criminal cases
1. Leave of court. In a civil case, leave of court is not
required before filing a demurrer. In a criminal case,
leave of court may be filed with or without leave of
court.
2. Effect if granted. In a civil case, if the demurrer is
granted the order of dismissal is appealable. In a
criminal case, if the demurrer is granted, the order of
dismissal is not appealable because it will constitute
double jeopardy.
3. Effect if denied. In a civil case, if a demurrer is
denied, the defendant may proceed to present his
evidence. In a criminal case, if the demurrer is denied,
the accused may adduce his evidence only if the
demurrer is field with leave of court.
4. Motu proprio. In a civil case, the court cannot render
a demurrer to evidence motu proprio. In a criminal case,
the court can render a demurrer to evidence
on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the
opportunity to be heard.
GDE Bar Exam Notes 2018
III.Case
● The provision of the Rules governing demurrer to
evidence does not apply to an election case (Gementiza
vs. COMELEC, 353 SCRA 724).
- Rule 111, S3, in relation to Art. 33 & 2176 (remember
that independent civil action need not be)
Filing of a separate civil action
I. Case Law
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure (1985 Rules for brevity), as
amended in 1988, allowed the filing of a separate civil
action independently of the criminal action provided the
offended party reserved the right to file such civil
action. Unless the offended party reserved the civil
action before the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution, all civil actions arising from the same act or
omission were deemed impliedly instituted in the
criminal case. These civil actions referred to the
recovery of civil liability ex-delicto, the recovery of
damages for quasi-delict, and the recovery of damages
for violation of Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code
on Human Relations.
Thus, to file a separate and independent civil action
for quasi-delict under the 1985 Rules, the offended party
had to reserve in the criminal action the right to bring
such action. Otherwise, such civil action was deemed
impliedly instituted in the criminal action. Section 1,
Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules provided as follows:
II.Institution of Criminal and Civil Actions
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. When
a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the
criminal action, unless the offended party waives the
action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under
the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Articles
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
arising from the same act or omission of the accused.
A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the
others. The institution of, or the reservation of the right
to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the
others.
The reservation of the right to institute the separate civil
actions shall be made before the prosecution starts to
present its evidence and under circumstances affording
the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make
such reservation.

In no case may the offended party recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the accused.
x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules was amended
on December 1, 2000 and now provides as follows:
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a)
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action
for the recovery of civil liability arising from the
offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the
criminal action unless the offended party waives the
civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the
civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence and under circumstances
affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to
make such reservation.
xxx
(b) x x x
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial
thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated
with the criminal action upon application with the court
trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the
trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with
section 2 of this rule governing consolidation of the civil
and criminal actions. (Emphasis supplied)
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, what is
deemed instituted with the criminal action is only the
action to recover civil liability arising from the crime
or ex-delicto. All the other civil actions under Articles
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are no longer
deemed instituted, and may be filed separately and
prosecuted independently even without any reservation
in the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation
in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a
separate and independent civil action based on these
articles of the Civil Code. The prescriptive period on the
civil actions based on these articles of the Civil Code
continues to run even with the filing of the criminal
action. Verily, the civil actions based on these articles of
the Civil Code are separate, distinct and independent of
the civil action deemed instituted in the criminal
action.[10]
Under the present Rule 111, the offended party is
still given the option to file a separate civil action to
recover civil liability ex-delicto by reserving such right
in the criminal action before the prosecution presents its
evidence. Also, the offended party is deemed to make
such reservation if he files a separate civil action before
filing the criminal action. If the civil action to recover
civil liability ex-delicto is filed separately but its trial has
not yet commenced, the civil action may be consolidated
with the criminal action. The consolidation under this
Rule does not apply to separate civil actions arising from
the same act or omission filed under Articles 32, 33, 34
and 2176 of the Civil Code.[11]
GDE Bar Exam Notes 2018
III.Suspension of the Separate Civil Action
Under Section 2, Rule 111 of the amended 1985
Rules, a separate civil action, if reserved in the criminal
action, could not be filed until after final judgment was
rendered in the criminal action. If the separate civil
action was filed before the commencement of the
criminal action, the civil action, if still pending, was
suspended upon the filing of the criminal action until
final judgment was rendered in the criminal action. This
rule applied only to the separate civil action filed to
recover liability ex-delicto. The rule did not apply to
independent civil actions based on Articles 32, 33, 34
and 2176 of the Civil Code, which could proceed
independently regardless of the filing of the criminal
action.
The amended provision of Section 2, Rule 111 of
the 2000 Rules continues this procedure, to wit:
SEC. 2. When separate civil action is suspended. After
the criminal action has been commenced, the separate
civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until
final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action
has already been instituted, the latter shall be
suspended in whatever stage it may be found before
judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until
final judgment is rendered in the criminal
action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is
rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion
of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal
action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of
consolidation, the evidence already adduced in the civil
action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the
criminal action without prejudice to the right of the
prosecution to cross-examine the witnesses presented by
the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties
to present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal
and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the running
of the period of prescription of the civil action which
cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has
been suspended shall be tolled.
x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, Section 2, Rule 111 of the present Rules did not
change the rule that the separate civil action, filed to
recover damages ex-delicto, is suspended upon the filing
of the criminal action. Section 2 of the present Rule 111
also prohibits the filing, after commencement of the
criminal action, of a separate civil action to recover
damages ex-delicto.
III. When civil action may proceed independently
The crucial question now is whether Casupanan and
Capitulo, who are not the offended parties in the
criminal case, can file a separate civil action against the
offended party in the criminal case. Section 3, Rule 111
of the 2000 Rules provides as follows:
 GDE Bar Exam Notes 2018
SEC 3. When civil action may proceed independently. -
In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil
action may be brought by the offended party. It shall
proceed independently of the criminal action and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
however, may the offended party recover damages twice
for the same act or omission charged in the criminal
action. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 3 of the present Rule 111, like its

counterpart in the amended 1985 Rules, expressly allows
the offended party to bring an independent civil action
under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. As
stated in Section 3 of the present Rule 111, this civil
action shall proceed independently of the criminal action
and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In
no case, however, may the offended party recover
damages twice for the same act or omission charged in
the criminal action.
There is no question that the offended party in the
criminal action can file an independent civil action for
quasi-delict against the accused. Section 3 of the present
Rule 111 expressly states that the offended party may
bring such an action but the offended party may not
recover damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action. Clearly, Section 3 of Rule
111 refers to the offended party in the criminal action,
not to the accused.
Casupanan and Capitulo, however, invoke the
ruling in Cabaero vs. Cantos[12] where the Court held
that the accused therein could validly institute a separate
civil action for quasi-delict against the private
complainant in the criminal case. In Cabaero, the
accused in the criminal case filed his Answer with
Counterclaim for malicious prosecution.At that time the
Court noted the absence of clear-cut rules governing the
prosecution on impliedly instituted civil actions and
the necessary consequences and implications thereof.
Thus, the Court ruled that the trial court should confine
itself to the criminal aspect of the case and disregard any
counterclaim for civil liability. The Court further ruled
that the accused may file a separate civil case against the
offended party after the criminal case is terminated
and/or in accordance with the new Rules which may be
promulgated. The Court explained that a cross-claim,
counterclaim or third-party complaint on the civil aspect
will only unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and
delay the resolution of the criminal case.
Paragraph 6, Section 1 of the present Rule 111 was
incorporated in the 2000 Rules precisely to address
the lacuna mentioned in Cabaero. Under this provision,
the accused is barred from filing a counterclaim, cross-
claim or third-party complaint in the criminal
case. However, the same provision states that any cause
of action which could have been the subject (of the
counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint) may
be litigated in a separate civil action. The present Rule
111 mandates the accused to file his counterclaim in a
separate civil action which shall proceed independently
of the criminal action, even as the civil action of the
offended party is litigated in the criminal action.