RULE 1

Purpose of Rules
Alonzo v. Villamor, 16 Phil 315, 321-322
Facts: Defendant members of the Municipal Board took over certain church &
personal properties on the ground that the buildings were erected on the land
owned by the municipality & therefore the municipality can administer & collect
the revenues. The CFI granted recovery of the properties. One of the arguments
posed by the defendants was that Fr. Alonso, the parish priest, was not the real
party-in-interest but rather the Bishop of the diocese.
Held: The property in question at the time it was taken was Church property. It is
undoubted that the Bishop is the real party. But by Code of Civil Procedure §10,
cts. are authorized & directed to allow a party to amend any pleading or
proceeding at any stage of the action, in furtherance of justice. § 503 prohibits
the reversal of any judgment on merely formal or technical grounds or for such
error as has not prejudiced the rights of the excepting party, The error in CAB is
purely technical. The plaintiff has asserted all throughout that he is prosecuting
the case not for himself but for the Bishop. Substantially, no one is deceived.
Substitution is not substantial but formal & mere defect in form cannot possibly
prejudice so long as the substantial is clearly evident.

ALONZO V VILLAMOR. misjoinder/non-joinder of parties not ground for

dismissal. Must allege lack of cause of action

Amendment allowed for matters of form; therefore, if parties acquiesce during

trial, there may be no need for formal lesson.

Lesson in ALONZO: If rules are clear, apply; if there is ambiguity, constr5uct so

that there is justice for all

Jurisdiction
BP Blg. 128

RA No. 7691

RA No. 8369

Javier v. CA, 214 SCRA 572 (1992)

Facts: Javier filed a case vs. Jebsens Maritime, Inc. in RTC Makati to avail of
death benefits when her husband drowned off the coast of Spain. JMI’s new
counsel instead of continuing the trial filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) on the
ground that it is the POEA that has jurisdiction. RTC denied. JMI failed to appear
at the hearing & RTC declared them as having waived right to cross-examine.
Motion for Reconsideration was denied. JMI successfully appealed to CA.
Javier’s MFR was denied.
Held: EO 247 §3 (d) provides that the POEA shall have exclusive & original
jurisdiction to hear & decide all claims arising out of an EE-ER relation or by virtue
of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas employment.
Javier’s’ contention that JMI is estopped fr. assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC
considering that the latter had actively participated in the proceedings before
said ct. is unavailing since JMI had raised the question of jurisdiction in the RTC.
The doctrine of estoppel cannot be properly invoked by Javier despite the
participation of JMI at the initial stages of the trial proceedings as the issue of
jurisdiction may be raised at any time & at any stage of the action.
JAVIER V CA. Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction: file original and
exclusive jurisdiction of administrative tribunal, even if possible to lead jurisdiction
in both. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is to give a chance for
administrative functions to work.
 Santos v. NW, 210 SCRA 256 (1992)
Facts: Santos was bumped off his flight back to the USA despite confirmation.
He sued in the Makati RTC for damages. NWOA filed a MTD for on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction citing the Warsaw Convention Art. 28(1) w/c states that the
complaint could be instituted only in the territory of one of the High Contracting
Parties, before: (1) the ct. of the domicile of the carrier; (2) the ct. of the
principal place of business; (3) the ct. where it has a place of business thru w/c
the contract had been made; & (4) the ct. of the place of destination. The suit
was not filed in any of these places.
Held: The Warsaw Convention applies to all international transportation cases. A
number of reasons tends to support the characterization of Art. 28 (1) as a
jurisdiction & not a venue provision. First, the wording of Art. 32, w/c indicate the
places where the actin for damages must be brought underscores the
mandatory nature of Art. 28 (1). Second, this characterization is consistent wit
one of the objectives of the Convention w/c is to regulate in a uniform manner
the condition of international transportation by air. Third, the Convention does
not contain any provision prescribing rules on jurisdiction other than Art. 28 (1)
w/c means that the phrase “rules of jurisdiction” used in Art. 32 must refer only to
Art. 28 (1). In fact, the last sentence of Art. 32 specifically deals w/ the exclusive
enumeration in Art. 28 (1) as jurisdictions w/c as such cannot be left to the will of
the parties regardless of the time when the damage occurred. The
Constitutional right on free access to cts. refers to cts. w/ jurisdiction over the suit.
The place of destination as determined by the contract is the ultimate
destination w/c is San Francisco, not Manila. Domicile is where NWOA is
incorporated. Important is the distinction between the country where the
principal place of business is located & the country in w/c it has a place of
business thru w/c the particular contract in question was made.
SANTOS V NORTHWEST.

Jurisdiction. 2 meanings: a) place of filing and b) level of court. Can’t be

changed, set by law.

Venue. Place of filing. Can be changed by consent of parties subject to

pertinent rules.

In the case at bar, the source of law is treaty, not contract. Therefore,
jurisdiction set by law.

Venue prescribed by process or Rules of Court (what does this mean?)

The difference between jurisdiction and venue. Look at a) consequence and b)

source of law.

Lopez v. NW, 223 SCRA 469

Facts: Lopez was bumped off her flight to New York by Northwest. She filed a
complaint for breach of contract of carriage w/ damages, alleging bad faith
on the part of the airline. NW filed MTD on the ground that the RTC had no
jurisdiction under the Warsaw Convention. RTC & CA denied: Art. 28 (1)
prescribes venue for actions under Arts. 17-19 & does not cover carrier’s bad
faith in absolutely refusing to comply w/ contract of carriage; off-loading, &
bumping off is not covered under the Warsaw Convention. Appeal in the SC
failed. After trial on the merits, RTC directed parties to submit their respective
memoranda for decision 30 days & it expired Feb. 14, 1992. On July, NW filed
MTD after SC ruling on Santos vs. NW. RTC granted.
Held: RTC had jurisdiction. It is not clear whether the complaint contains the
allegation w/c may fall w/in Art. 28 (1). What is clear is that NW did not object to
RTC’s order to submit evidence & declare case submitted for decision pursuant
to 1987 Consti, Art. 8, Sec. 15, Nos. 1 & 2. TC had 90 days fr. Feb. 15 to decide
w/c was the only thing left for it to do. BY virtue of the SC’s resolution, RTC
had prima facie jurisdiction. It was also not established that the facts
in Santos were substantially the same. Besides, posterior changes in SC doctrines
cannot be retroactively applied to nullify a prior SC ruling. Jurisdiction continues
until termination. While jurisdiction over subject matter may be raised at any
time, party may be barred on ground of laches/estoppel.

Bulao v. CA, 218 SCRA 321 (1992)

Facts: Santiago Belleza sued Honorio Bulao for damages in MuTC for having built
a dam on an irrigation canal, causing the waterflow to divert to Belleza’s
land, resulting into crop damage. Bulao filed a MTD on the ground that RTC
had jurisdiction – denied. He then argued that it was the National Water
Resources Council that had jurisdiction – denied. MuTC declared Bulao in
default & ruled for Belleza. Bulao appealed to the RTC -denied.
Held: MuTC had jurisdiction. But to resolve this, determine first the nature of the
action. This can be ascertained fr. the ultimate facts averred in the complaint
constituting the COA. Allegations in the complaint determine the nature of the
action & consequently the jurisdiction of the cts.. It is clear fr. a reading of the
complaint that it is an action for damages predicated on quasi-delict Although
the title of the complaint (“Damages”) is not necessarily determinative of the
nature of the action, it would nevertheless indicate that what was
contemplated was an action for damages. Allegations of the facts set forth in
the complaint & not the prayer for relief determine the nature of the action.
BULAO V CA. The wonderful thing about the servient’s estate’s complaint was
the allegation that the dominant estate “maliciously put a dam” and this phrase
placed it within the court’s jurisdiction. To place the case within the National
Water Resources Council (NWRC)’s jurisdiction, allege that dominant estate set
up dam without a permit in violation of PD 1067 and took control of the water, in
effect appropriated water illegally.

Name game: Jurisdiction is prescribed by law and acquired by court.

Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA

Facts: The Tijams filed a civil case against the Sibonghanoys for recovery of
P1,900 + interest. The Sibonghanoys filed an answer w/ counterclaim, to w/c the
Tijams filed a reply. The CFI Cebu ruled in the Tijam’s favor. A writ of execution
was returned unsatisfied so the Tijams filed a motion for execution against
the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., w/c was denied due to lack of demand. A
demand later made was unsatisfied, so the ct., upon motion, issued a writ of
execution. Appeal w/ the CA failed. MFR filed, alleging that the CFI had no
jurisdiction bec. 1 month before the case was filed, RA 926, or the Judicial
Reorganization Act of 1948, took effect, Sec. 88 of w/c places original &
exclusive jurisdiction in inferior cts. over all civil actions where the value of the
subject matter is £P2T. CA set aside decision by certifying the case to the
SC, w/c has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases in w/c the jurisdiction
of inferior cts. is at issue.
Held: Although objections to jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings, in the CAB, it took almost 15 years before the Surety filed its MTD
(1963), raising lack of jurisdiction for the first time. It is now barred by laches.
From the time it became a quasi-party upon filing of a counter bond in 1948, it
could have raised the objection. Instead, at several stages of the action, it
invoked the jurisdiction of said cts. to obtain an affirmative relief. It was only
when the CA ruled adversely that it finally raised the question of jurisdiction. SC
frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision
& then accepting the judgment only if it is favorable & attacking it for lack of
jurisdiction when adverse.
TIJAM V SIBONGHANOY. The trial court, after 15 years, can act motu proprio
and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Estoppel by laches does not apply
to judge.

Abalos v. CA, 30 April 1991

Facts: Abalos spouses sued to recover possession of a lot in Quezon City
registered in their name. The squatters, against whom the action was filed, lost
the case in the QC RTC so they appealed to the CA on the ground that the RTC
erred in not dismissing the case for failure to comply w/ the Katarungang
Barangay conciliation procedure. CA granted.
Held: RTC had jurisdiction. When the Abalos spouses filed their complaint, they
placed QC as their address. But they were able to change it to Caloocan upon
leave of ct. w/o the respondents objecting. The requirement of conciliation
cannot be enforced since the property is in QC, where the respondents reside,
while the Abalos spouses live in Caloocan (PD 1508 Sec. 20). Respondents
effectively waived their right when they failed to object to the correction of the
Abalos’ residence fr. QC to Caloocan participated in the trial on the merits. The
fact that they argued their case & adduced their evidence amounts to a
waiver of this defense. Once a party submits to the jurisdiction of the ct. &
participates in the trial on the merits, he cannot thereafter, after an unfavorable
judgment, take a total turnabout & say that compliance w/ PD 1508 was not
made.
ABALOS V CA. Ruling (acc. to L): Amendment already happens implicitly when
parties acquiesce

Q: Is failure to undergo Katarunggang Pambaranggay a ground for dismissal

for failure to comply with condition precedent?
L: Abalos fails to clarify this. Formerly, grounds for MTD in ROC Rule 16
provided “failure to state a cause of action”. Now clarified by Revised ROC
Rule 16 (j) which now states “failure to comply with condition precedent”

NOTE: In this class, L is synonymous with A in Q & A; but more often, he prefers
to be Q. All Qs are Ls unless otherwise indicated
Galuba v. Laureta, 157 SCRA 627

LECTURE ON JURISDICTION
RA 8369: Changes jurisdiction for cases

Jurisdiction, remedy, relief, cause of action, subject matter (what is this?)

Place: Rules prescribing place to file may not necessarily refer to venue but to
jurisdiction as well

P20T/P50T — subject matter

P100T/P200T — relief

If allegations not coMplete, vulnerable to MTD

Judicial power: sum total of all courts comprising the judiciary power of judicary
of make decisions on actual controversies.

Jurisdiction: a particular court exercising power over a specific controversy

Flores v. Mallare Philipps, 144 SCRA

Facts: Abalos spouses sued to recover possession of a lot in Quezon City
registered in their name. The squatters, against whom the action was filed, lost
the case in the QC RTC so they appealed to the CA on the ground that the RTC
erred in not dismissing the case for failure to comply w/ the Katarungang
Barangay conciliation procedure. CA granted.
Held: RTC had jurisdiction. When the Abalos spouses filed their complaint, they
placed QC as their address. But they were able to change it to Caloocan upon
leave of ct. w/o the respondents objecting. The requirement of conciliation
cannot be enforced since the property is in QC, where the respondents reside,
while the Abalos spouses live in Caloocan (PD 1508 Sec. 20). Respondents
effectively waived their right when they failed to object to the correction of the
Abalos’ residence fr. QC to Caloocan participated in the trial on the merits. The
fact that they argued their case & adduced their evidence amounts to a
waiver of this defense. Once a party submits to the jurisdiction of the ct. &
participates in the trial on the merits, he cannot thereafter, after an unfavorable
judgment, take a total turnabout & say that compliance w/ PD 1508 was not
made.
FLORES V MALLARE-PHILIPPS: Example where it is possible to allege facts in
pleading that gives rise to 2 causes of action: misjoinder of parties

L: lack cause of action a separate case (WIT?)

Strategy: file answer for 1st cause of action; file MTD for 2nd cause of action

CALIMLIM V RAMIREZ. Res judicata: bar by prior judgment (diff. From estoppel)
L: General Rule: Jurisdiction is conferred by law and thus it can be raised at any
point in the proceedings even on appeal
TIJAM rule: Estoppel by laches occurs when 2 requisites concur

a. passage of an unreasonable length of time

a. party sleep on its rights to make other party believe that the former has
abandoned his rights
Therefore, party can’t raise question of jurisdiction if he is guilty of estoppel by
laches

CALIMLIM rule: W/N party asked for affirmative relief irrelevant; what matters is
whether party was led to believe that the other party slept on his rights. A rule
on equity.

General Rule: Court can dismiss case for lack of jurisdiction motu proprio

Ortigas & Co. v. CA 106 SCRA

Facts: Ortigas & Co. sold to Maximo Belmonte a piece of land. Terms: Belmonte
would be considered a lessee until full payment & in case of default he would
be ejected as trespasser or unlawful detainer. Belmonte failed to pay so an
action for unlawful detainer was field in the San Juan MuTC, where Ortigas
prayed that the residential building constructed by Belmonte be forfeited in its
favor. Belmonte lost so he appealed to the CFI Rizal by filing an MTD under ROC
40 Sec. 11 w/c, if granted, would in effect dismiss the case & render
judgment by MuTC invalid for lack of jurisdiction. It was denied but an appeal
to the CA set aside the MuTC & CFI rulings. On appeal, the SC ruled that the
issues were purely legal & should have been brought directly to the SC, but it
proceeded to adjudicate the case anyway as if brought for the first time.

Held: MuTC had jurisdiction according to the ruling in Fuentes & Goter vs.
Muñoz-Palma. An action for unlawful detainer, w/c is a summary proceeding to
wrest possession fr. one who has no right thereto, is applicable only when the
issue is that of possession. According to the Judiciary Act Sec. 44 (b), the CFI has
original jurisdiction in all civil actions w/c involve title to or possession of real
property, except actions of forcible entry & detainer over lands or buildings
where original jurisdiction is conferred upon city or municipal cts.. This case
involves not merely right of possession but also rights of ownership over the
improvements as indicated in the prayer. CFI should have dismissed the case
when its was brought on appeal bec. it could only have entertained the same if
the parties did not object to nor raised the question of jurisdiction.

Dy v. CA, 195 SCRA

Facts: Ramon Roxas filed an ejectment suit in the MeTC Makati vs. Andres &
Gloria Dy where he won. Dys appealed to the RTC, but failed. MeTC granted
immediate execution, so the next day, the Sheriff & some policemen ejected
the Dys by throwing their belongings to the street. They filed a motion to
quash/recall of the writ of execution on the ground that they had not received
a copy of the RTC decision. MeTC denied. CA appeal failed.
Held: There must first be copy of the RTC decision served on the losing party
before judgment is executed. Refer to ROC 39 Sec. 1, Rules on Summary
Procedure Sec. 12 & BP 129 Sec. 22. Proof of service of copy of judgment
determines whether or not the appeal period has lapsed. If no appeal was filed
after the copy is served, then the decision is immediately executory as a matter
of right. A petition for review by CA of RTC judgment may be filed only after
notice of RTC judgment has been served on the losing party. If no notice was
served, the losing party has no legal remedy against an illegal judgment nor
does the CA have the power to prevent the execution of an illegal order.
However, the Dys cannot have the relief prayed for since they failed to appeal
after they were served notice. Nothing is more settled than the rule that in every
litigation, the parties thereto are entitled to due process, & if there is a denial
thereof, then the validity of the proceedings is open to question.

Manchester Dev. Co. v. CA, 149 SCRA

Facts: MDC filed a complaint for damages & specific performance against City
Land to compel the latter to push through w/ the sale of the land. The amount
of damages was not specified in the prayer but was alleged in the body of the
complaint. Thus, a docket fee of only P410 was paid on the presumption
that the amount involved was not capable of pecuniary estimation, when in
fact it was. MDC’s second counsel deleted all mention of damages. SC ordered
the reassessment of docket fees. Reduced damages were still not specified in
the prayer. CA ruled that docket fees should be based on the orig. comp.
Held: A case is deemed filed only upon payment of docket fees regardless of
the actual date of filing in ct.. Thus, the TC did not acquire jurisdiction w/ the
payment of the P410 docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar
pleading will not vest jurisdiction, much less payment of the docket fee, based
on the amount averred in the amended pleading. The design to avoid payment
is obvious since it misled the docket clerk. All complaints, petitions, answers, &
similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not
only in the pleading but also in the prayer & said damages should be
considered in the assessment of the filing of fees in any case. Any pleading that
fails to comply w/ this requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, & shall
be expunged fr. the record.

Sun Insurance v. Asuncion, 170 SCRA

Facts: Sun Insurance filed a complaint in the RTC for consignation of a premium
fund on a private fire insurance policy against Manuel Uy Po Tiong. Manuel filed
for a refund of the premium but the amount of damages was not specified in
the prayer, although it could be inferred in the body. Thus, only P210 docket fee
was paid. SC ordered reassessment of the docket fees. The amended complaint
stated a claim of not less than P10M in the prayer but a second amendment
raised the amount to P44M+ w/c was admitted in ct.. Sun questions this order.
Held: Petition dismissed for lack of merit. The contention that Manchester ruling
cannot apply retroactively to this case is untenable. Statutes regulating the
procedure of the cts. will be construed to apply to actions pending &
undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in
that sense & to that extent. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or pleading
but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests the trial ct. w/
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the TC
acquires jurisdiction over a claim w/ the filing of the appropriate pleading &
payment of the prescribed filing fee, but subsequently the an award of an
amount not specified in the pleading, or if specified, the same has been left for
determination by the ct., the additional filing fee shall constitute a lien on the
judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized
deputy to enforce said lien & assess the additional fee.
Katarungang Pambarangay

See RA 7160 provisions

Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444

Facts: This was a case for the recovery of a sum of money plus damages =
P49,400.00. AA MTD was filed bec. of failure to undergo conciliation proceeding
in the brgy. The MTD was opposed on the ground that the law on KP covers
only to those cases falling w/in the exclusive juris. of the MTCs.
Held: There is no distinction whatsoever w/ respect to the classes of civil dispute
that should be compromised at the brgy level as contradistinguished w/ that of
the criminal cases.

Royales v. IAC, 127 SCRA 470

Facts: This is an ejectment case again in the MTC. R, the lessee, participated in
the trial & even cross-examined the petitioner. R, then, filed a certiorari &
prohibition w/ preliminary injunction when the decision was adverse to him.
Held: Petition denied. A party who has affirmed & invoked the jurisdiction of a
ct. in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief cannot, afterwards, deny
the same jurisdiction to escape a penalty.

LECTURE ON KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY

General Rule. All civil actions, regardless of amount of relief, between parties of
the same baranggay, should undergo Katarunggang Pambaranggay

Remedy: a) Don’t arrive at a settlement

b) File case v. Lupon to compel them to dismiss objectinable Lupon member

(This case need not undergo KP re sec. 408 (b) and sec. 406 (a)) (WIT?)

MANCHESTER rule: full payment of docket fees necessary for court to acquire
jurisdiction

All prayers must be in the complaint, not just in the body

Overruled LEGASPI re: installment payments no longer allowed

SUN INSURANCE: bar problem. If there is an honest difference of opinion as to

amount of docket fees and P is in good faith, court can grant period of time to
allow payment. Qualifies MANCHESTER only to that extent
MANCHESTER: if award to judgment creditor is greater than the amount prayed
form, difference in docket fees constitutes first lien.
NOTE: but no payback of excess fees even if awarded less
L: Remember to bill your client for “incidental” or “out of pocket” costs for
sheriff’s transportation, food and vitamins

JURISDICTION (power to hear, try and decide cases)

Conferred by law. Law can only be changed by passing through

Congress. Party can’t amend rules on jurisdiction by agreement or voluntary
act Jurisdiction can be raised at any time even on appeal, after termination of
case of decision becomes final and executory, subject to rules on
prescription. Raise issues of jurisdiction via a MTD (Rule 16) but court can act
motu proprio. Rule on place not necessarily a rule on venue.

TIJAM. Bar problem. Qualifies who can raise matters of jurisdiction. If estopped
by laches, can’t file MTD in equity
JURISDICTION. May be subject to nature of

1. Cause of action – eg. Admiralty cases, domestic violence

1. Relief

1. Subject matter (thing over which the rights and duties occur – eg. rights or title
to real property > P50 T; claims incapable of pecuniary estimation

1. Remedy – eg. forcible entry and unlawful detainer, review by certiorari;

BULAO v CA

Jurisdiction, once acquired, is never lost.

Exception: DY V CA. Court violates constitution; ousted from jurisdiction.

NOTE: judgment still valid, no jurisdiction only for purposes of issuing writ of
execution due to lack of notice to party

WORD GAME:
Conferment of Jurisdiction: law prescribes jurisdiction

Acquisition of Jurisdiction: Rule 1 Section 5: Filing of complaint vests court with

jurisdiction over res. Summons vests court with jurisdiction over the corpus.

NOTE: filing of complaint happens upon full payment of docket fees

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

NOTE: Failure to undergo Katarunggang Pambarangay not issue of jurisdiction

Sec. 412 Loc. Government Code; neither a defect in jurisdiction but vulnerable
to a MTD (Rule 16 sec. J) for failure to undergo condition precedent.

Failure to undergo condition precedent can only be raised in a MTD or as an

affirmative defense

Summary Procedure

Rules on Summary Procedure (Oct. ’91)

Del Rosario v. CA, 241 SCRA 519 (’95)

Held: The presence of an action for quieting of title does not divest the MeTC of
original jurisdiction over the ejectment case. An ejectment case (possession de
facto) is independent of any claim of ownership (possession de jure). Under the
revised Summary Procedure (Nov. 15, 1991) all types of ejectment cases are
now covered by it regardless of whether or not the issue of ownership of subject
property is pleaded by a party. No hearings are required in this procedure. The
adjudication of cases here are done on the basis of affidavits & position papers.
SUMMARY PROCEDURE

Remedy for forcible entry, unlawful detainer, < P10,000

Katarunggang Pambaranggay condition precedent before parties can obtain
judicial relief

Not apply to ordinary civil actions in RTC

Summary Procedure

Ordinary Civil Action

Pleadings Allowed

Verified complaint

Compulsory counterclaim

Answer to complaint

Crossclaim v existing defendant

Complaint

Counterclaim

a. Compulsory(relates to transaction)

a. Permissive (not related)

Crossclaim

Third party claim

Intervention

Answer

Reply
Answer

File answer w/in 10 days of service of summons

File answer w/in 15 days of service of summons

Can court act motu proprio in dismissing the case?

YES. Court can act motu proprio and dismiss

NO. Court cannot dismiss action motu proprio but must wait for MTD

Effect of other party’s failure to file an answer

Get judgment. No need for motion for default or order for default

File a motion to declare the other party in default

Preliminary Conference not later than 30 days

Effect of P’s failure to appear

Cause for dismissal

Counterclaim barred

Main Action dismissed but Compulsory Counterclaim not dismissed. D gets

judgment

Cause for dismissal with prejudice

Main action dismissed and Compulsory counterclaim also dismissed

Process

Submit position papers and affidavits 10 days from receipt of pre-trail order
L: on those affidavits hinge your entire case so pray (Angel of God, hindi
motion) that the court ask for clarificatory affidavits (motu proprio)

Extension of time not allowed

You figure it out.

Contents of Affidavits

State facts

Show competence to testify

Show admissibility of witness

Absent these: affidavits excluded and lawyer may be subject to disciplinary

action

Prohibited Motions

MTD on sec. 16 except lack of jurisdiction

Bill of particulars

New judgment

Periods

No time period from beginning to end but mandatory periods in between.