Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G E N E R A L
LAW
1. Classification
a. Courts
of
P R I N C I P L E S
o f court s
general
in
th e Philippines :
jurisdiction:
Thos e
competen t
of
special
or
limited
jurisdiction:
Thos
e
which hav e n o powe r t o decid e thei r own jurisdictio n an d
can onl y t r y case s p e r m i t t e d b y s t a t u t e . Examp
le :
Municipa l Tria l Courts .
Th e Juvenil e an d Domesti c Relation s Court s ha d
th e ran k o f Court s o f Firs t Instanc e bu t wer e court s o f
special jurisdiction . Unde r B.P . Big . 129 , the y hav e been
integrate d int o th e Regiona l Tria l Court s a s branche s
thereof .
b . Courts
of
original
in
which ,
u n d e r t h e law ,
y
originally b e commenced .
jurisdiction:
Thos e
action s
proceeding s
o r
court s
ma
Courts
of appellate jurisdiction:
Court s
which
hav
e
th e powe r t o revie w on appea l th e decision s or order s o f
a lower court .
c. Superior courts:
Court s which hav e th e power o f
review o r supervisio n over anothe r an d lower court .
Inferior courts:
Thos e which , in relatio n t o anothe r
court , ar e lower i n ran k an d subject t o review an d super vision b y th e latter .
While , in a generi c sense , a cour t i s considere d an
inferior cour t in relatio n t o th e power s o f anothe r tribuna l
higher in rank , in it s technica l sens e an d unles s otherwis e
intended ,
i t wa s formerl y provide d t h a t th e p h r a s
e
1
----------------------- Page 2----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"inferior court " referre d t o th e the n municipa l o r city
court s
(former Sec.
1, Rule 5, in relatio n to R.A.
20
an d R.A. 3828), now calle d Metropolitan , Municipal , an d
38
revise d
Rule s
include s
al l
o t h e r
court s
o f th e
sam e rank .
I n lega l circles , the y ar e als o calle d "court
s
of th e first level. " In som e official issuances , th e Suprem e
Court refer s t o the m a s "first leve l courts. "
However , th e "inferior courts " whos e decision s ar e
subject t o th e
appellat e jurisdictio n o f t h e
S u p
r e m e
Court
(Sec.
17, R.A. 296)
refer t o al l th e court s lo
wer
t h a n th e Suprem e Court . Th e ter m "lower courts " i s now
use d for tha t purpos e in th e 1987 Constitutio n (Sec. 512],
Art.
VIII), in lieu o f "inferior courts " use d in th e
193 5
an d 197 3 Constitutions .
d .
Courts
of
record:
Thos e
whos e
proceeding s
ar e
(se e
recor d
o r
t r a n s c r i p t o f proceedin
courts:
Thos e
whic h
ow e
creation an d existenc e t o
cannot b e legislate d ou t
of th e jurisdictio n an d
them b y th e Constitution .
Sandiganbayan ar e th e only
for in th e Constitution .
e
b e t t e r vie w i s t h a
y a
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y
it s
existence i s provide d for
wa s b y statutor y enactment
i s onl
since , althoug h
in th e Constitution , it s creation
.
Statutory
courts:
Thos e
created ,
organize d
an d
wit h j u r i s d i c t i o n e x c l u s i v e l y d e t e r m i n e d b y
law .
Accordingly ,
al l o t h e r court s i n th e Philippine s ar
e
statutory courts .
2 . Th e Cour t
ha s bee n hel d t o b
with specia l jurisdictio
p e r s o n s a d v e r s
o r
assessment law s
).
o
e
n
e
vs.
CTA,
et al.,
101 Phil.
209
or
th e
powe r
t o
adjudicat
e
all controversie s excep t thos e expressl y
p l e n a r y power s
o f th e court ;
ed
jurisdiction , whic h restrict s th e court' s
t o particula r case s an d subjec t t o suc
b e provide d by th e governin g law .
withhel d from th e
an d
special
o r limit
jurisdictio n only
h limitation s a s ma y
t o
;
a cou
t
for
tha t
stage ;
an d
concurrent
jurisdiction ,
sometime s
which
o f
t th e
different
e Regiona l Tria l
e Regiona l Tria l
e inferior courts ;
action s affectin g
d consuls .
5. Also ,
unde r B.P .
Big .
129 ,
delegated jurisdictio
n
i s provide d for , i.e. , th e gran t o f authorit y t o infer
io r
c o u r t s t o h e a r an d
d e t e r m i n e c a d a s t r a l a n d
lan d
registratio n case s unde r certai n condition s (se e Sec. 34,
infra);
an d special jurisdiction ,
whic h
i s th e powe
r o f
inferior court s t o hea r an d decid e petition s for a wri t o f
habeas corpus or application s for bai l in th e absenc e o f
all th e Regiona l Tria l Judge s i n th e provinc e o r city (se e
Sec.
35,
infra).
Thi s
l a t t e r typ e o f jurisdictio n
wa s
formerly included , wit h variations , i n wha t wa s know n
a s th e interlocutor y jurisdictio n o f inferior court s unde r
th e Judiciar y Act .
6 . Mentio n
m u s t
ritorial
jurisdictio n o f a court , whic
a r e a withi n whic h it s
A s
already stated , thi s assume s
wherei n consideration s o f th e
o f th e crim e determin e no
als o
b e
mad e
o f
t h e ter
h refer s t o th e geographica l
power s ca n b e exercised .
importanc e i n crimina l case s
territor y vis-a-vis th e locus
t only th e venu e o f th e
cas e
I n al l cases , th e Supr
hav e nationa l jurisdiction ;
regiona l jurisdiction ; an d
territoria l jurisdictio n a s
Cour t p u r s u a n t t o Sees ,
.
d i s t i n g u i
a . J u r i s d i c t i o n i s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o h e a
r a n d
determin e a case ; venu e i s th e plac e wher e th e cas e i s t o
b e hear d o r tried .
b . Jurisdictio n i s a m a t t e r o f substantiv e law ; venue ,
of procedura l law .
c. Jurisdictio n establishe s a relatio n betwee n th e
court an d th e subject-matter ; venue , a relatio n betwee n
plaintif f an d defendant , o r petitione r an d respondent .
d . J u r i s d i c t i o n i s fixe
n o t b e
conferred b y th e parties ; venu e ma y
act or a g r e e m e n t o f th e partie
vs.
Attorney-General,
20
Phil.
b y
la w
a n d
c a n
b e conferre d b y th e
s
(Manila Railroad Co.
523).
Moir,
vs.
Ramolete,
a
court ma y
36
Phil.
L-23527,
hav e
213;
Mar.
jurisdictio n
Associated
31,
ove r
Labor
1965).
th e
cas e
Union
Consequently ,
bu t
a t
th e
i n
th
.
actio n
b y
Phil.
Ma
r.
3,
1967;
Bulan
vs.
Masakayan,
L-24428,
June
26,
1968;
Palma vs. Q & S, Inc.,
L-20366, May
19, 1986).
Error s
o f j u r i s d i c t i o n r e n d e r a j u d g m e n t voi d or , a
t l e a s t
voidabl e
(se e Sec. lfa] an d fb], Rule 16; Rule 65),
whil e
error s o f judgmen t ar e ground s for reversa l only i f it i s
shown tha t prejudic e ha s bee n cause d thereb y
(Banco
Espahol-Filipino
vs.
Palanca,
37
Phil.
821;
Bimeda
vs.
Perez, et al.,
93 Phil.
636).
10. Requisite s for th e exercis e o f jurisdictio n
how th e cour t acquire s suc h jurisdiction :
an d
a. Jurisdiction
over
the
plaintiff or petitioner:
Thi s
i s acquire d b y th e filin g o f th e complaint , petitio n o
r
initiatory pleadin g befor e th e cour t b y th e plaintif f o r
petitioner .
b . Jurisdiction
ndent:
T h i s i s a c q u i r e
c e o r
s u b m i s s i o n b y t
t o t h e
cour t o r b y coerciv
r t t o
him , generall y by th
ff vs.
Bubla,
L-17029,
Enage,
L-30666,
Feb.
25,
over
the
d b y
h e
t h e
defendant
respo
v o l u n t a r y a p p e a r a n
d e f e n d a n t o r r e s p o n d e n t
proces s
or
servic e
Sept.
issue d
b y
th e
o f summon s
30,
1964;
cou
(Sharu
Aban
vs.
1983).
c. Jurisdiction
over
the subject-matter:
Thi s
s con ferred b y law and , unlik e jurisdictio n over th e parties ,
cannot b e conferre d on th e cour t by th e voluntar y act or
agreemen t o f th e parties .
8
----------------------- Page 9----------------------GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
d. Jurisdiction
over
the
i s
is
determine d an d conferre d b y th e
case b y th e parties , o r b y thei
order o r stipulation , or , a t times
a s by th e failur e o f a part y t
issue no t covere d b y th e pleadings
issues
r
,
o
,
of
the case:
pleading s filed i n th e
agreemen t i n a pre-tria l
b y thei r implie d consen t
object t o evidenc e on an
a s provide d i n Sec . 5 ,
Th
Rule
ce
Co.,
10
(se e
Inc.,
Lazo,
al. vs.
Jan.
30,
L-27365,
et
Republic
Surety
&
Insuran
1970).
nonresiden t
defendant .
In tw o instances , th
try th e case , eve n i f i t
th e perso n o f a nonresiden
jurisdictio n ove r th e res,
persona l s t a t u s o f th e
il ippine s i n whic h th e
Sec. 15, Rule
b y publicatio n
t o compl y
(Banco
Espanol-Filipino
Midgely
vs. Ferandos,
U n d e r
Sec .
13 3 o
oreig n
corporation doin
license canno t
claim s
a n
interes t
(se e
14).
In suc h cases , th e servic e o f summon s
an d notic e t o th e defendan t i s merel y
w i t h d u e
p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s
vs.
et
f t h e
Palanca,
al.,
37
L-34314,
Phil.
May
921;
13,
C o r p o r a t i o n Code ,
De
1975).
w h i l e a
b e sue d
o r p r o c e e d e d a g a i n s t befor e
r t s o r
administrativ e tribunals .
o u r
c o u
Jan.
29,
1968;
People
vs.
Mariano,
et
al.,
L-40527,
etc.,
June
et al,
30,
G.R.
1976;
No.
Lee,
68789,
et al.
Nov.
10,
vs.
Presiding
1986),
Judge,
unles s
suc
h
statut e provide s for it s retroactiv e application , a s wher e
it i s a curativ e
legislatio n
(Atlas
Fertilizer
Corp.
vs.
Navarro,
etc., et al., G.R. No.
72074, April 30,
1987).
12. Th e settle d rul e i s tha t th e jurisdictio n o f t
h e
court over th e subject-matte r i s determine d b y th e alle gation s
of th e complain t
(Edward
J. Nell
&
Co.
vs.
Cubacub,
L-20843,
June
23,
1965;
Time,
Inc.
vs. Rey
es,
et al., L-28882,
May
31,
1971;
Ganadin
vs. Ramos,
et
al., L-23547, Sept.
11, 1980), bu t thi s rul e i s no t withou
t
exceptions .
Thus , i t wa s hel d t h a t whil e th e allegation s
in th e complain t mak e ou t a cas e for forcibl e entry , wher e
tenanc y i s averre d by wa y o f defens e an d i s prove d t o b e
th e rea l issue , th e cas e shoul d b e dismisse d for lack o f
jurisdictio n a s th e cas e shoul d properl y b e filed wit h th e
the n Cour t o f Agraria n
Relation s
(Ignacio
vs. CFI
of
Bulacan,
L-27897,
Oct.
29,
1971).
However ,
wit h
th e
integration o f th e court s o f agraria n relation s a s branche s
o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court s unde r B.P . Big .
129 ,
th e
cas e wa s require d t o b e file d wit h th e correspondin g
Regiona l Tria l Cour t i f i t wa s withi n th e jurisdictio n
thereof , for assignmen t t o th e appropriat e branch .
Al
so ,
although th e allegation s i n th e complain t mak e ou t a cas e
cognizable by a Regiona l Tria l Court , where , however ,
th e act s complaine d o f ar e show n a t th e t r i a l t o
b e
interwoven wit h a n unfai r labo r practic e case , th e actio n
should b e dismisse d sinc e jurisdictio n i s veste d in th e
Nationa l Labo r Relation s Commission .
Thi s i s s o si
nc e
th e Rule s now permi t a motio n t o dismis s base d upo n
facts not allege d in th e complain t (Mindanao Rapid Co.,
Inc.
vs. Omandam, et al., L-23058, Nov.
27,
1971, joint
l y
decidin g
t h e r e i n L-23473,
23871,
24232,
24718
an d
24956).
P978 ,
13. Wher e
bu t th e
GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
mor e
t h a n P 10,00 0
withi n
th e jurisdictio n
o f th e
the n
Cour t
o f Firs t
Instanc e
an d t h e t r i a l cour t e r r e d i n dismissin g
th e
complaint upo n it s mer e impressio n t h a t th e othe r claim s
wer e "bloated " for th e purpos e o f invokin g it s jurisdiction ,
w i t h o u t h e a r i n g a n d
proo f o f s u c h
fac t
(Ener
io
vs.
Alampay,
L-40010,
May
26,
1975;
Ratila
vs.
T
apucar,
L-45018, Jan. 24, 1977).
Thi s doctrin e i s stil l applicab
l e
subject t o
th e increase d jurisdictiona l
a m o u n t
u n d e r
B.P . Big . 129 an d subsequen t legislation .
14. Th e jurisdictio n o f a court , w h e t h e r in crimina l
or civi l cases ,
onc e
i t a t t a c h e s c a n n o t b e
ouste d b y
subsequent happening s o r event s althoug h o f a charac te r w h i c h w o u l d
h a v e p r e v e n t e d j u r i s d i c t i
o n fro m
attachin g in th e firs t instanc e (Ramos, e t al.
vs.
Central
Bank,
L-29352,
Oct.
4,
1971,
an d
case s
t h e r e i
n cited ;
Dioquino
vs. Cruz,
et al., L-38579,
Sept.
9,
1982)
an d
it
retain s jurisdictio n unti l i t finally dispose s o f th e cas e
(Republic
uly
21,
1986).
vs.
Pielago,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
72218,
opportunity ,
excep t
i n
crim
Th e
Inc.
16. Basi c i n
t
th e jurisdictio n o f
action i s conferre d
and t h a t th e Rule
Big .
129 , bot h a s
i s onl y a
agreemen t o f th e
o r waived , en o r omissio n o f th e
vs.
Valenzuela
t fee an d th e cost
afte r th e filin g o f
cour t shoul d den y th
d i n estoppe l b y
T h i s d o c t r i n e w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y a b a n d o n
e d i n
Miranda
vs. Guanzon (92 Phil .
168) sinc e th e "requi
re men t regardin g th e perfectio n o f a n appea l withi n th e
reglementar y perio d i s no t only mandator y bu t juris dictional, " a rulin g subsequentl y reiterate d in Garganta
vs. CA
(10 5 Phil . 412) ,
Valdez vs.
Ocumen
(10 6
Phil .
12
----------------------- Page 13----------------------GENERAL
929),
Galima vs.
CA
ntique
Sawmills, Inc. vs. Zayco
Roque
vs. Vdo. de Del Rosario
an d
Arellano, et al. vs.
CA,
1972) .
PRINCIPLES
(L-21046 ,
J a n .
(L-20051 ,
Ma y
(L-24873 ,
et al.
31 ,
1966) ,
30 ,
Sept .
(L-31856 ,
1966) ,
23 ,
Nov .
1966)
24 ,
b .
In th e late r case , however , o f Tijam
vs.
Sibonghanoy, e t al. (L-21450 , Apri l 15 ,
1968) , th e co-defendan
t
surety compan y neve r raise d th e issu e o f jurisdictio n i n
th e Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e despit e severa l opportunitie s
t o d o s o and , althoug h th e clai m bein g for only 1*1,908,
th e cas e wa s withi n th e exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n
o f th e municipa l court .
I t wa s only afte r th e cou
r t o f
Appeal s ha d affirme d th e decisio n o f th e tria l cour t i
n
favor
o f t h e plaintif f b u t
befor e
t h e finalit y
o f t h i s
decision o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s t h a t th e co-defendan t
surety compan y filed it s motio n t o dismis s o n th e groun d
of lack o f origina l jurisdictio n o f th e tria l court .
De
nyin g
said motion , t h e S u p r e m e Cour t s t a t e d : "Wer e w e
t o
sanction suc h conduc t o n it s part , w e woul d i n effect b e
declaring a s useles s al l th e proceeding s ha d i n th e presen t
case sinc e i t wa s commence d o n Jul y 19 , 194 8 an d compe l
th e j ud gm e n t creditor s t o g o u p thei r Calvar y onc e more .
The inequit y
n t
bu t revolting.
y
submittin g a
on th e merits
e
jurisdictio n o
for
an d
"
unfairnes s
o f thi s
i s
no t
only
p a t e
cour t . . .
i t i s
no t righ t
et
vs.
al.
(L-4890 7
Manila
&
Banking
L-49035 ,
Dec
Corp.
(L-30
13
----------------------- Page 14----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
Sept . 2,
1983) , Florendo, et al.
(G.R .
No .
60544 ,
Ma y
19 ,
1984) ,
atcho
(L-30310, Oct . 23 , 1984) .
vs.
an d
Coloma,
Medijia
et
al.
vs.
vs.
14
----------------------- Page 15----------------------GENERAL PRINCIPLES
o f facts . Thes e ruling s woul d stil l appl y i n case s wherei n
a recor d o n appea l i s required , a s wher e multipl e appeal s
ar e allowe d o r i n specia l proceedings .
f.
In Vera vs. People (L-31218 , Feb .
18 , 1970
) , it
wa s hel d t h a t whil e a j u d g m e n t i s nul l an d voi d wher e
i t
wa s promulgate d whe n th e presidin g judg e ha d alread y
ceased t o hol d office , sinc e th e accuse d faile d t o rais e t h
a t
issu e i n th e tria l cour t an d only di d s o afte r th e Cour t
o f
Appeal s ha d r e n d e r e d a j u d g m e n t advers e t o him ,
i t
woul d b e a n injustic e i f al l th e proceeding s ha d i n th
e
case woul d b e se t asid e since , afte r all , th e cour t
t h a t
rendere d sentenc e w a s on e
o f competen t jurisdiction .
The
cas e
of Carillo
vs. Allied
Workers' Association
of the
Philippines (L-23689 , Jul y 31 , 1968) wa s cite d i n suppor t
of thi s ruling .
g . In People vs.
Casuga
(L-37642 , Oct . 22 ,
1973) ,
th e accuse d
w a s c o n v i c t e d o f g r a v e s l a n d e r
, w h i c h
offense
wa s
withi n th e
c o n c u r r e n t jurisdictio n o f
th e
the n Court s o f Firs t Instanc e an d th e municipa l court s
ma y als o b e acquire d
no r summone d i n th e
h e t h e r e a f t e r v o l
o f th e court .
compromis e
y m e n t b y
agreemen t
s i s o f
t h e
b y
t h e
boun d
j
th e
judgmen t a s the y ar e i n estoppe l t o den y th e ver y autho rit y whic h the y invoked . B y voluntaril y enterin g int o
th e compromis e
agreement ,
the y effectively submitte
d
themselve s
t o th e jurisdictio n
o f th e cour t
(Ro
driguez,
et al.
vs. Alikpala,
et al., L 38314,
June
25,
1974
).
19. Sinc e
a C o u r t o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e (now
,
t h e
Regiona l Tria l
Court )
i s a cour t o f g e n e r a l o
rigina l
jurisdiction ,
w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r m a t t e r sh
oul d b e
resolve d by i t in th e exercis e o f it s genera l jurisdiction ,
or i n it s l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n a s a p r o b a t e
o r l a n d
registratio n court , i s no t a jurisdictiona l questio n bu t
a p r o c e d u r a l q u e s t i o n involvin g a
mod e
o f p
r a c t i c e
16
----------------------- Page 17----------------------GENERAL PRINCIPLES
which ,
therefore ,
ma y b e
waive d
(Manalo
vs. Mari
ano,
et
al., L-33850,
Jan.
22,
1976;
Santos
vs.
Ban
ayo,
L-31854,
Sept.
9,
1982).
P a r e n t h e t i c a l l y , Sec .
2 of
P.D . 152 9 ha s eliminate d th e distinctio n betwee n th e
genera l jurisdictio n o f a Regiona l Tria l Cour t an d th e
limited jurisdictio n conferre d upo n i t b y th e forme r law
whe n actin g a s a c a d a s t r a l cour t (Ligon vs. CA,
e
t al.,
G.R.
No.
107751,
June
1, 1995).
However ,
th e hold
in g
tha t suc h situation s p r e s e n t only procedural ,
an d
no t
jurisdictional , question s stil l applies .
20 . Question s involvin g ownershi p o f o r titl
propert y shoul d b e litigate d i n a n ordinar y
or i n th e proceedin g wher e th e inciden t properl y
befor e a cour t o f genera l jurisdictio n an d no
lan d
r e g i s t r a t i o n cour t (Santos
vs.
949,
Nov.
28,
1980).
e t o rea l
civi l actio n
belongs ,
t befor e a
Aquino,
L-32
action s pendin g an d
passage , bu t no t t o
Mar.
sens e
and
to t h a t exten t
(People
vs. Sumilang,
7 7 Phil.
764;
Liam
Law
vs.
Olympic
Sawmill
Co.,
et al.,
L-30
771,
May
26,
1984;
Yakult
Philippines,
et al. vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
No. 91856,
Oct.
5, 1990).
Thus , th e provisio n
of
B.P . Big . 129 whic h eliminate d th e nee d for a recor d on
appeal wa s given retroactiv e effect t o authoriz e th e givin g
o f du e cours e
t o a n a p p e a l , whic h shoul d hav e b
ee n
perfecte d i n 1982 wit h th e require d recor d o n appeal , b y
relievin g th e
appellan t o f th e nee d therefo r i n lin e wit h
th e chang e o f procedur e unde r B.P . Big . 12 9
(Alday
vs.
Camilon,
G.R.
No.
60316,
Jan.
31,
1983; Ouano
vs.
CA,
et al., L-44823,
June
27,
1985;
De
Guzman,
et al.
vs.
CA,
et al, G.R.
No.
52733,
July
23,
1985; Lagunzad
vs.
CA, et al, G.R. No.
52007,
Sept.
24, 1987; Mun.
Gov'
t of
17
----------------------- Page 18----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
Coron
vs.
Sarmiento
Carino,
vs.
et al.,
Gatmaitan,
G.R.
No.
65896,
et al., L-38173,
Sept.
24,
1987;
Nov.
12,
1987)
.
However ,
new cour
only wit h referenc e t o
plac e afte r th e dat e
t
apply t o th e exten t tha t
the y
o f
Court
,
Mar.
availe d
o f wa s
(Laguio,
21,
22 .
als o
et al.
vs.
allowe d
Garnet,
u n d e r
et al.,
t h e
G.R.
Rule s
No.
74903
1980).
Substantiv e
law
i s
tha t par t o f th e
law
whic h
Ed
remedie s
(op.
cit.,
applicatio n
pp. 1367-1368;
o f th e
id.).
a substantiv e
m a t t e r ; bu t if it operates
as a me
ans
of
implementing
an
existing
right,
then
the
rule
deals
merely
with
procedure
(Fabian
vs.
Desierto,
etc.,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
129742,
Sept.
16,
1998).
It is ,
o f th e
law
w h i c h
n t i v e o r
procedural , an d
n
in a code .
therefore ,
th e
n a t u r e
d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r
an d
i t
th e
purpos e
i s s u b s t a
1674 o f th e
m a k i n g
powe r o f th e Suprem e Court .
20
----------------------- Page 21----------------------I .
A .
CIVI L
P R O C E D U R E
P R E L I M I N A R Y
C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
1.
Th e stud y o f civi l procedur e include s ordinar y
civi l a c t i o n s , s p e c i a l civi l
a c t i o n s a n d p r o
v i s i o n a l
remedies .
Specia l civi l action s ar e governe d b y specifi c
an d
i n d i v i d u a l r u l e s s u p p l e m e n t e d
b y t h e
g e n e r a l
provision s o n civi l actions .
2 . Definitio n o f t e r m s :
a . Cause of action:
Th e
delic t or wrongfu l a
c t or
omission c o m m i t t e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t i n violatio
n o f
th e primar y right s o f th e plaintif f
(Racoma
vs
. Fortich,
et al,
L-29380,
June
10,
1971).
b . Right of action:
Th e remedia l righ t or
t o
relie f grante d b y la w t o a p a r t y t o institut e
actio n
against a perso n wh o ha s committe d a delic t o r wron g
against him .
Th e
il e
th e
caus e
o f actio n
i s
t h e
delic t
o f t h a t delict .
o r
righ t
a n
wrong ,
wh
a s a consequenc e
r e m e d i a l
lega l
righ t
affordin g
redr
o f t h e
s t a t u t e o f l i m
2 1
----------------------- Page 22----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
throug h a n estoppel , o r b
no t affect th e caus e o f
a l
right s o f actio n an d on e
accrue at different time s from
Sec. 2, p.
541).
sever
c.
Relief:
Th e redress , protection , awar d or coerciv e
measur e whic h th e plaintif f pray s th e cour t t o rende r i n
hi s favor a s a consequenc e o f th e delict committe d by th e
defendant .
d . Remedy:
Th e procedur e or typ e o f actio n whic h
may b e availe d o f by th e plaintif f a s th e mean s t o obtai n
th e relie f desired .
e .
con trac t o r
concernin g
respec t t
et
al.
Subject-matter:
Th e
thing ,
wrongfu l
act ,
vs.
Ong
Ring
Lian,
L-26523,
Dec.
24,
1971).
t al.,
G.R.
No.
3 .
92481,
Nov.
9,
1990).
Classificatio n o f actions :
a . Real action:
On e brough t for th e protectio n o
f
rea l rights , land , t e n e m e n t s o r h e r e d i t a m e n t s
o r on e
founded on privit y o f estat e only
(Paper Industries Co
rp.
22
----------------------- Page 23----------------------PRELIMINARY
of the Phil.
975).
Example:
vs.
Accion
Samson,
CONSIDERATIONS
et al.,
L-80175,
Nov.
28,
reivindicatoria.
Personal action:
On e whic h i s no t founde d upo n th e
privit y o f rea l right s or rea l property .
Example: Action
for a su m o f money .
Mixed action:
On e brough t for protectio n or recover y
o f rea l p r o p e r t y a n d als o for a n a w a r d for d a m
a g e s
sustained .
Example: Accion publiciana wit h
a clai m
for
damages .
Fo r purpose s o f venue , a mixe d actio n
b y th e rule s o f venu e i n rea l actions .
i s governe d
b . Action in rem:
On e whic h i s no t directe d on
ly
against particula r person s bu t agains t th e thin g itsel f
and th e object o f whic h i s t o b a r indifferentl y al l w
h o
migh t b e minde d t o m a k e an y objectio n agains t th e righ t
sought t o b e enforced , henc e t h e j u d g m e n t t h e r e i
n i s
bindin g theoreticall y upo n th e whol e world .
Examp
le:
Expropriation .
Action in personam:
On
t
particula r person s o n th e basi s
t o establis h
a clai m a g a i
g m e n t
wherei n i s bindin g only upo n th
thei r successor s in interest .
of contract .
whic h
i s
directe d
agains
Transitory action:
On e
th e
venu e
o f whic h
s
dependent generall y upo n th e residenc e o f th e
regardles s o f wher e th e caus e o f action arose .
partie s
Example:
Persona l action .
Local action:
On e which i s require d by th e Rule s t o
b e institute d in a particula r plac e in th e absenc e o f an
agreemen t t o th e contrary .
Example: Rea l action .
Th e classificatio n o f action s int o r e a l ,
p e r s o
n a l
or mixe d i s base d o n th e subject-matte r thereof .
Wit
h
respec t t o th e bindin g effect o f th e relie f sough t o r th e
judgmen t therein , action s ar e classifie d int o action s i n
rem, quasi in rem or in personam.
Hence , a rea l action
ma y b e in personam, or a persona l actio n ma y b e in rem
(see
Hernandez,
et al. vs.
Rural Bank
of Lucena,
In
c.,
L-29791, Jan. 10, 1978).
Transitor y or loca l action s ar e
so denominate d o n th e basi s o f th e permissibl e venue s
thereof .
4 . In Yu vs. Pacleb, etc. (G.R . No . 172172 , Feb . 24 ,
2009) , th e Suprem e Cour t cite d thi s extende d discussio n
on classification o f civil action : Th e settle d rul e i s tha t th e
aim
an d
objec t
o f a n
actio n
determin e
it s
character
.
Whethe r a proceedin g is rem, or in personam, or quasi in
rem i s determine d by it s nature^in d purpose , an d by thes e
only . A proceedin g in personam i s a proceedin g
enforc
e
persona l right s an d obligation s brough t agains t th e perso n
and i s base d on th e jurisdictio n o f th e person , althoug h it
may involv e hi s righ t to , or th e exercis e o f ownershi p of,
CONSIDERATIONS
JURISDICTIO N
U N D E R
Articl e V I
O F TH E SUPREM E
TH E
198 7
CONSTITUTIO N
COUR T
(Legislativ e Department )
"Sec .
30 . N o la w shal l b e passe d increasin g t h e
a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r
t a s
provide d i n thi s Constitutio n withou t it s advic e an d
concurrence. "
Articl e VI I
"Sec. 4 .
(Executiv e Department )
(las t par. )
Th e Suprem e
Court ,
sittin g e n
banc,
shal l b e
"Sec .
18 . (thir d par. )
Th e S u p r e m e C o u r t
ma y
review , in an appropriat e proceedin g filed by an y citizen ,
th e sufficiency o f th e factua l basi s o f th e proclamatio n o f
martia l law o r th e suspensio n o f th e privileg e o f th e wri t
or th e extensio n thereof , an d mus t promulgat e it s decision
thereo n withi n thirt y day s from it s filing. "
Articl e VII I
(Judicia l Department )
"Sec. 2 .
prescribe , an d
court s bu t ma
it s
jurisdictio n over
aff
mand
a y
provide ,
s
in :
(a) Al l
c a s e s i n w h i c h
t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n
a l i t y o r
v a l i d i t y o f a n y t r e a t y , i n t e r n a t i o n a
l o r exe cutiv e
a g r e e m e n t , law ,
p r e s i d e n t i a l
d e c r e e ,
proclamation , order , instruction ,
regulatio n i s i n question .
ordinance ,
o r
o r
an y penalt y
impose d
i n
a n erro r o r questio n o f
(3)
(5)
P r o m u l g a t e r u l e s concernin g
th e protectio n
an d
e n f o r c e m e n t o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ,
p l e a d i n g ,
practice , an d procedur e i n al l courts , th e admissio n
t o th e practic e o f law , th e Integrate d Bar , an d lega l
assistanc e t o th e underprivileged .
Suc h rule s
shal l
provid e
a simplifie d
an d inexpensiv e procedur e
for
27
----------------------- Page 28----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
th e speed y disposition o f cases , shal l b e unifor m for
all court s o f th e sam e grade , an d shal l no t diminish ,
increase , o r modify s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s . Rule
s
(6)
o f
procedur e o f specia l court s an d quasi-judicia l bodie s
shal l remai n effectiv e unles s disapprove d b y th e
Supreme Court .
Appoin t al l official s an d employee s o f th e Judiciar y
in accordanc e wit h th e Civi l Servic e Law. "
Articl e IX
A .
(Constitutiona l Commissions )
Commo n Provision s
"Sec. 7 .
e
x c h
i s s
Sec.
2 8
----------------------- Page 29----------------------JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
R.A. 296,
as amende d
by R.A. 5440;
Santos, et al. vs.
CA, et al., G.R. No. 56614, July 28, 1987).
Moreover , as
hereafte r explained , Sec . 9 o f B.P . Big . 12 9 wa s amende d
b y R.A . 790 2 t o furthe r ves t appellat e jurisdictio n i n th e
Court o f Appeal s ove r judgments , fina l orders , award s o r
resolution s o f t h e Civi l Servic e
Commissio n an d
th e
Centra l Boar d o f Assessmen t Appeals .
29
----------------------- Page 30----------------------C.
TH E
JUDICIAR Y
REORGANIZATIO N AC T
OF
198 0
ORGANIZATION
visio n
(Sec.
44)
declare d
t h a t it s p r o v i s i o n s
"shal l
i m m e d i a t e l y b e c a r r i e d ou t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t
h a n
Executiv e Orde r t o b e issue d b y th e
P r e s i d e n t
. Th e
Cour t o f Appeals ,
th e Court s o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e
, t h e
Circuit Crimina l Courts ,
th e J u v e n i l e an d Domesti
c
Relation s Courts , th e Court s o f Agraria n Relations , th e
City Courts , th e Municipa l Court s an d th e Municipa l
Circuit Court s shal l continu e t o functio n a s presentl y
constitute d an d organize d unti l th e completio n o f th e
reorganizatio n provide d i n thi s Act a s declare d b y th e
President .
Upo n suc h declaration , th e sai d court s shal l
b e deeme d automaticall y abolishe d an d th e incumbent s
thereo f shal l ceas e t o hol d office .
Th e case s pendin g i
n
th e old Court s shal l b e transferre d t o th e appropriat e
Court s constitute d p u r s u a n t t o thi s Act , togethe r wit h
th e pertinen t functions ,
records , equipment ,
proper
t y
an d th e necessar y personnel. "
Th e constitutionalit y o f
thi s Act wa s
uphel d b y
th e S u p r e m e
banc,
wit h on e dissent ,
in De la Liana, et al.
t al.
(G.R . No . 57883 , Mar . 12 , 1982) .
Cour t
vs.
e n
Alba,
2 . T h e
C o u r t o f A p p e a l s w a s r e p l a c e d b y
t h e
Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t consistin g o f a Presidin g
Justic e an d 4 9 Associat e Appellat e Justices , whic h shal l
sit in 1 0 division s eac h compose d o f
5 members , excep t
only
for t h e p u r p o s e o f e x e r c i s i n g a d m i n i s t
r a t i v e ,
ceremonia l o r othe r non-adjudicator y function s i n whic h
instance s it ma y si t en banc (Sees. 3 an d 4).
30
----------------------- Page 31----------------------JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980
However , unde r Executiv e Orde r No . 3 3 (July 28,1986) ,
a m e n d i n g B.P . Big .
129 ,
t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a
l s w a s
r e - c r e a t e d , consistin g o f a P r e s i d i n g J u s t i c e
a n d 5 0
Associat e J u s t i c e s ,
whic h s h a l l exercis e
it s
p o w e r s ,
functions an d dutie s throug h 1 7 divisions , eac h compose d
of 3 m e m b e r s . It ma y si t e n banc for th e purpos e
o f
exercisin g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ,
c e r e m o n i a l o r o t
h e r non -
adjudicatory function s
(Sees.
3 an d
4,
a s amended) .
3 1
----------------------- Page 32----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
a Presidin g Justic e an d 6 8
b e compose d o f 2 3 division s
first 1 7 division s statione d
division s in Cebu City , an d
Cagayan d e Or o City .
Associat e Justices ,
o f 3 member s each
in Manila , th e
th e 21st t o 23r d
an d shal l
, wit h th e
18th t o 20t h
division s in
e Circui t Crimina l
s Court s an d
bee n integrate d
f th e 1 3 Judicia l
i n
e
Suprem
co g
from
th e
coverag e
C o u r t a n d t h e
o f th e
Act
ar e
th e
S a n d i g a n b a y a n , b u t t
32
1980
jurisdictiona l change s
o f th e Judiciar y Act
5179 , a s amended ,
h e r s t a t u t e s , l e
r d e r s o r p a r t s the
s Act ar e repeale d
revise d Rules .
See , however , th e mor e recen t change s i n
R.A.
928 2
(Appendix
CC).
JURISDICTIO N
I .
Intermediat e
o f
Appeals) :
Appellat e
"Sec.
9 . Jurisdiction.
Court shal l exercise :
Cour t
Th e
(now ,
Intermediat e
th e
Cour t
Appellat e
damus,
quo
whethe r
(2) Exclusiv e
origina l jurisdictio n ove r action s
for annulmen t o f judgment s o f Regiona l Tria l Courts ;
a n d
(3) Exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n over al l fina l
judgments , decisions , resolutions , order s o r award s
o f Regiona l Tria l Court s an d quasi-judicia l agencies ,
instrumentalities , boards , o r commissions , excep t
thos e fallin g withi n th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e
Supreme Cour t i n accordanc e wit h th e Constitution ,
33
----------------------- Page 34----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
th e provision s o f thi s Act , an d o f subparagrap h (1) o f
th e thir d p a r a g r a p h an d s u b p a r a g r a p h (4)
o f th e
fourth paragrap h o f Section 1 7 o f th e Judiciar y Act
of 1948 .
Th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t shal l hav e th e
powe r t o tr y case s an d conduc t hearings , receiv e
evidence an d perform an y an d al l act s necessar y t o
resolv e factua l issue s raise d in case s fallin g withi n
it s origina l an d appellat e jurisdiction , includin g th e
powe r t o gran t an d conduc t new trial s an d furthe r
proceedings .
Thes e provision s shal l no t appl y t o decision s an d
interlocutory order s issue d unde r th e Labo r Cod e
o f t h e Philippine s an d b y t h e
C e n t r a l Boar
d
o f
Assessmen t Appeals. "
9 . Jurisdiction.
Th e
Cour t
o f Appeal s
shall exercise :
"(1) Origina l jurisdictio n
damus, prohibition , certiorari,
t o
quo
warranto, an d auxiliar y writ s or processes ,
or not in ai d o f it s appellat e jurisdiction ;
whethe r
34
----------------------- Page 35----------------------JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF
1980
hearing s
i n
th e
Cour t
o f Appeal s
mus t
b e
con
t i n u o u s a n d m u s t
b e complete d
w i t h i n
t h r e e
(3)
month s unles s extende d b y th e Chie f Justice. "
NOTE S
1.
Unlik e th e provision s o f Sec . 3 0 o f th e Judiciar y
Act , B.P . Big .
12 9 veste d th e I n t e r m e d i a t e Appel
lat e
Court wit h origina l jurisdictio n t o issu e writ s o f man damus , prohibition , certiorari , habeas corpus, an d al l othe r
auxiliary writ s an d processe s whethe r o r not i n ai d o f it s
appellat e jurisdictio n an d adde d th e specia l civil actio n o f
quo warrant o t o suc h origina l jurisdiction .
Furthermore ,
th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t ha d exclusiv e origina l
35
----------------------- Page 36----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
jurisdictio n over action s for th e annulmen t o f judgment s
of th e Regiona l Tria l Courts .
Th e latter , however , retai n
thei r jurisdictio n ove r action s
for t h e a n n u l m e n
t o f
j u d g m e n t s o f t h e inferio r c o u r t s (Sec. 19),
i.e. ,
t h e
Metropolitan ,
Municipa l an d Municipa l Circui t Tria l
Court s (Sec. 25).
2 . Amendator y o f previou s legislation , th e appellat e
jurisdictio n o f th e the n Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t over
quasi-judicial agencies , o r th e so-calle d administrativ e
tribunals , wa s extende d t o an d include d th e Securitie s
an d Exchang e
Commissio n
an d t h e differen t board
s
whic h too k th e plac e o f th e q u o n d a m Publi c Servic e
Commission , i.e. , th e Board s o f Transportation , Commu nications , an d Powe r an d Waterworks , whos e decision s
wer e theretofor e appealabl e t o th e Suprem e Court .
ase s
involving petition s for naturalizatio n an d denaturalizatio n
ar e now exclusively appealabl e t o th e Cour t o f Appeals .
excluded from th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e Interme diat e Appellat e Cour t wer e decision s an d interlocutor y
order s unde r th e Labo r Code , suc h a s thos e promulgate d
b y th e S e c r e t a r y o f Labo r an d E m p l o y m e n t an d
th e
Nationa l Labor Relation s Commission , thos e o f th e Centra l
Boar d o f Assessmen t Appeals , an d th e 5 type s o f case s
which fall withi n th e exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n o f
th e Suprem e Cour t unde r th e 197 3 Constitutio n (Sec. 5[2],
Art.
X)
a n d r e p r o d u c e d i n t h e 198 7
C o n s t i t
u t i o n
(Sec. 5[2J, Art. VIII), a s amplifie d in th e provision s o f th e
Judiciary Act specifie d by sai d Sec . 9 .
36
----------------------- Page 37----------------------JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF
1980
4 . Whil e
t h e I n t e r m e d i a t e Appellat e
Cour t
wa s
authorize d t o receiv e evidenc e o n factua l issue s o n appeal ,
thi s evidentiar y hearin g contemplate s "incidenta l facts "
which wer e no t touche d upo n o r fully hear d b y th e tria l
court ,
an d
no t a n origina l an d
ful l t r i a l o f t
h e mai n
factual issu e whic h properl y pertain s t o th e tria l cour t
(Lingner & Fisher GMBH vs. IAC,
et al., G.R.
No.
63557,
Oct.
28,
1983).
Thi s
powe r
t o conduc t
ne w
t r
i a l s o r
further proceeding s i s no t obligator y o n th e appellat e
court an d i t ma y r e m a n d t h e cas e t o th e
t r i a
l cour t
for t h a t purpos e
., G.R.
No.
72981,
Jan.
5 .
of Appeal s
final order
board s or
proceeding s
exercise d
l
(De
29,
la
Cruz,
etc.
vs.
IAC,
et
al
1988).
from
quasi -
t h a t
th e
38
----------------------- Page 39----------------------JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF
judicia l bodies ,
Sec .
1980
thereo f provide s
appea l
n).
However , a s earlie r stated , Sec . 9 o f B.P . Big . 129 which
originally containe d th e sam e jurisdictiona l rul e wa s
subsequently amende d by R.A . 7902 , effectiv e Marc h 18 ,
39
----------------------- Page 40----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
1995, t o provid e t h a t appeal s from th e Civi l
Commission shoul d b e take n t o th e Cour t o f Appeals .
Servic e
th e
S u p r e m e
(G.R . No .
fro m
12
t h e Offic e
shoul d
verifie d petitio n for
19 .
Jurisdiction
in
civil
cases.
Regiona
l
40
----------------------- Page 41----------------------JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980
Trial Court s shal l exercis e exclusiv e origina l jurisdiction :
(1)
h e
litigation i s incapabl e o f pecuniar y estimation ;
(2)
I n
al l
civi l
action s
whic h
involv e
th e
titl e
to ,
o r possessio n
of,
rea l property ,
o r
an y
interes
t
therein , wher e th e assesse d valu e o f th e propert y
involved exceed s Twent y thousan d peso s (P20.000.00 )
or, for civi l action s in Metr o Manila , wher e suc h valu e
exceed s Fift y t h o u s a n d peso s
(P50.000.00 ) excep
t
action s for forcibl e entr y int o an d unlawfu l detaine r
o f land s o r buildings , origina l jurisdictio n ove r whic h
i s conferre d upo n t h e Metropolita n Tria l Courts ,
Municipa l Tria l Court s an d Municipa l Circui t Tria l
Courts ;
(3) I n al l action s i n a d
r i t i m e
jurisdictio n wher e th e deman d o r clai
hundre d thousan d peso s (F100.000.00 ) or
Manila , wher e suc h deman d o r clai
hundre d thousan d peso s (P200.000.00) ;
(4)
I n
al l
matter s
m i r a l t y
an d m a
m exceed s On e
, i n Metr o
m exceed s Tw o
o f probate ,
bot h testat e
n d
i n t e s t a t e , w h e r e t
e s t a t e
exceed s On e hundre d thousan
or, i n probat e matter s i n
gros s valu e
exceed s
peso s
(P200,000.00) ;
a c t
h e g r o s s v a l u e o f
d peso s (P 100,000.00)
Metr o Manila , wher e suc h
Tw o
hundre d
thousan d
(5) I n al l a c t i o n s involvin g
o f
marriag e an d marita l relations ;
(6)
I n
al l case s
t h e
t h e
no t withi n th e
c o n t r
exclusiv e juris
d i c t i o n o f a n y c o u
o r bod y
exercising [jurisdiction o f an
o r bod y
e x e r c i s i n
j u d i c i a l
functions; *
(7) I n al l civi l
i n g s *
r t , t r i b u n a l , p e r s o n
y court , tribunal , perso n
g ] j u d i c i a l o r q u a s i action s
specia l
p r o c e e d
I n
al l
othe r
case s
i n
whic h
t h e
d e m
a n d ,
exclusiv e
o f interest ,
damage s
o f w h a t e v e r
kind ,
by
R.A.
7691)
X
"Sec.
2 1 . Original
jurisdiction
in
other
cases.
In
th e
issuanc e
o f writ s
o f certiorari,
pr
ohi bition ,
mandamus,
quo
warranto,
habeas
corpus,
an d
injunction whic h ma y b e enforce d in an y p a r t o f thei r
respectiv e regions ; an d
(2) I n action s affectin g
publi c minister s an d consuls. "
ambassador s
an d
othe r
"Sec. 22 .
Appellate
jurisdiction.
Regiona l
Tr
ia l
Court s shal l exercis e appellat e jurisdictio n ove r al l case s
decided b y Metropolita n Tria l Courts , Municipa l Tria l
Courts , an d Municipa l Circui t Tria l Court s i n thei r re spective territoria l jurisdictions .
Suc h case s shal l
b e
decide d o n th e basi s o f th e entir e m e m o r a n d a and/
o r
brief s a s ma y b e submitte d b y th e partie s o r require d b y
th e Regiona l Tria l Courts .
Th e decision s o f th e Regiona l
1980
s.
The
th e
cases
e s
tiona l
a m o u n t
u n d e r
Sectio n
19(8)
an d
Sectio n
33(1 )
o f
B.P . Big . 129 , a s amende d b y R.A . No . 7691 , applie s
t o case s wher e th e damage s ar e merel y incidenta l
t o o r a consequenc e o f t h e m a i n caus e o f actio
n .
However , i n case s wher e th e clai m for damage s i s th e
mai n caus e o f action , or on e o f th e cause s o f action ,
th e
a m o u n t
o f suc h
clai m
shal l
b e
n
determinin g th e jurisdictio n o f th e court. "
considere d
Thi s
j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r u l e w a s a p p l i e d i n Ouano
vs.
International
Investment
Corp.
(G.R .
No .
1
PGTT
34230 ,
July 17 ,
2002) .
On th e
m a t t e r o f th e jurisdictiona l amoun t
i n civil
thi s
Sec .
a t a s
Pambans a
Big .
shal l
b e
a d j u s t e d t o Tw o
h u n d r e d
t h o u s a n d
p e s o s
(P200.000.00) .
Fiv e (5) year s thereafter , suc h juris dictional amount s shal l b e adjuste d furthe r t o Thre e
hundre d thousan d peso s (P300,000.00) : Provided ,
however , T h a t i n th e cas e o f Metr o Manila , th e
abovementione d
l
jurisdictiona l
a m o u n t s
shal
b e
adjuste d
afte r
five
(5)
year s
from
th e
effecti
vit y
o f t h i s Ac t
p e s o s
(P400.000.00). "
t o F o u r
2 .
Th e jurisdictio n
differs from tha t o f th e
in th e following respects :
h u n d r e d
t h o u s a n d
o f th e Regiona l Tria l
former Court s o f Firs t
Court s
Instanc e
or
intestat e
(Sec.
44[e]).
in
44
----------------------- Page 45----------------------JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980
legislation ,
b y t h e J u v e n i l e a n d Domesti c
R e l
a t i o n s
Courts .
Th e Juvenil e an d Domesti c Relation s Court s an d
th e Court s o f Agraria n Refor m
havin g bee n integrate
d
int o th e Regiona l Tria l
av e
exclusiv e
o r i g i n a l
s e s a n d
proceeding s bu t the y shal l
rule s o f procedur e unde r
domestic relation s case s an
same ar e subsequentl y amende
court a s ma y b e promulgate
Courts ,
t h e
l a t t e r
shal l
j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r s a i d c a
continu e t o appl y th e specia l
th e presen t law s provide d for
d agraria n cases , unles s th e
d b y suc h law o r rule s o f
d (Sec. 24).
cancellatio n o r
incapabl e
o f pecuniar y
estimatio n
hav e
invariabl y
m o f mone y
plaintif f ha d
th e contrac t
t o th e awar d
s on e for speci
fi c
performanc e
an d
no t for a s u m o f money ,
t h e
relie f sough t wa s incapabl e o f pecuniar y estimatio n
wa s withi n th e jurisdictio n o f th e the n Cour t
Instanc e
8,
Jan.
21,
(Ortigas
&
Co.
vp.
Herrera,
et
henc e
an d
o f Firs t
al.,
L-3609
1983).
(Good
Development
Corp.
vs.
Tutaan,
Sept. 30,1976).
Jurisdictio n wa s likewis e veste d
Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e wher e non e o f th e claim s
p a r t n e r s h i p ' s creditor s exceede d P2.00 0 bu t
o sough t th e nullificatio n o f a contrac t execute d
betwee n th e forme r partners , a s th e latte r caus e
n i s no t capabl e o f pecuniar y estimatio n (Singson,
vs.
Isabela
Sawmill
Co.,
et al., L-27343,
Feb.
d . Wher e th e cas e hinge s upo n th e correc t inter pretatio n o f th e renewa l claus e o f a leas e contract , th e
action i s no t for unlawfu l detaine r bu t on e whic h i s no t
capable o f pecuniar y estimatio n an d is , therefore , outsid e
th e jurisdictio n o f th e inferior cour t (Vda.
de Murga
vs.
Chan, L-24680, Oct.
7, 1968).
Bu t wher e th e ejectmen
t
case wa s decide d agains t th e defendant s becaus e o f non -
o f th e
o involve d
f th e in of
Commerce
47
----------------------- Page 48----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
III .
Famil y Courts :
1. On
October
28 ,
1997 ,
Congres s enacte d
R.A .
8369
(Famil y
C o u r t s Ac t
o f 1997 ;
se e
Appendix
P)
establishin g a Famil y Cour t in every provinc e an d city
and , i n cas e th e city i s th e provincia l capital , th e Famil y
Court shal l b e establishe d i n th e municipalit y wit h th e
highes t population .
Pendin g th e establishmen t o f suc h
Family Courts , th e Suprem e Cour t shal l designat e th e
sam e from amon g th e branche s o f th e Regiona l Tria l
Court s enumerate d i n th e Act ; an d i n area s wher e ther e
ar e n o Famil y Courts , th e case s whic h a r e withi n it s
exclusive origina l jurisdictio n shal l b e adjudicate d b y th e
Regiona l Tria l Court .
2 . Furthe r
amendator y
o f th e provision s
o
f B.P .
Big .
129 , a s amended , th e Famil y Court s shal l hav e
exclusive origina l jurisdictio n in th e followin g civi l case s
or proceedings :
habeas
b .
d t h e
revocation
o f children ,
P e t i t i o n s for a d o p t i o n o f c h i l d r e n a n
thereof ;
s
abandoned , dependen t o r neglecte d
for voluntar y or involuntar y commitmen
s u s p e n s i o n , t e r m i n a t i o n
p a r e n t a l
authority unde r P.D . 603 , Executiv e
children , petition s
t o f children ; th e
, o r r e s t o r a t i o n o f
Orde r No . 5 6 (Serie s
4 8
----------------------- Page 49----------------------JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF
1980
an d
h . Case s o f domesti c violenc e agains t wome n an d
children , a s define d therein , bu t whic h d o no t constitut e
crimina l offense s subjec t t o crimina l proceeding s an d
penalties .
3 . I m p l e m e
t h e
Supreme Cour t approve d
D e c l a r a t i o n o f
r i a g e s
a n d A n n u l m e n t
A.M .
No .
02-11-10-S C
e
on
L e g a l S e p a r a t i
(se e
Appendix
BB).
n t i n g
t h e foregoin g
p r o v i s i o n s
IV .
V o i d a b l e
(se e
AA)
A.M .
No .
o n i n
Appendix
"SEC .
ourts,
Municipal
Trial
Courts
in
s ,
Municipa l T r
Tria l
Court s shal l
33 .
Jurisdiction
Trial
Civil
Courts
Cases.
i a l
of
and
M a r r i a g e s
an d
i n
t h e
Rul
0 2 - 1 1 - 1 1 - S C
Tria l
Metropolitan
Municipal
Court s
Trial
Circuit
M e t r o p o l i t a n Tria l
C o u r t s a n d Municipa l
Court
Circui t
exercise :
(1)
Exclusiv e
origina l j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r
civi l
action s an d probat e proceedings , testat e an d inte state , includin g th e gran t o f provisiona l remedie s i n
p r o p e r c a s e s , w h e r e t h e v a l u e o f t h e p e r
s o n a l
property , estate , o r amoun t o f th e deman d doe s no t
exceed On e hundre d thousan d peso s (P 100,000.00)
or, i n Metr o Manil a wher e suc h persona l property ,
estat e o r amoun t o f th e deman d doe s no t excee d Tw o
hundre d thousan d peso s (P200.000.00) , exclusiv e o f
interest ,
litigation
mus t b e
damage s o
n d
cost s
o f
th e
s h a l l b e
filin g
e ar e severa l
th e sam e o r
sam e complaint
th e totalit y o
i n c l u d e d i
fees :
Provided
claim s o r cause s o f
differen t partie s em , th e amoun t o f th e
f th e claim s in al l th e
cause s
o r d i f
(2)
Exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n over case s o f
forcible entr y an d unlawfu l detainer : Provided, Tha t
when , i n suc h cases , th e defendan t raise s th e questio n
of ownershi p in hi s pleading s an d th e questio n o f
possessio n
canno t b e
resolve d
withou t decidin g t
h e
issu e o f ownership , th e issu e o f ownershi p shal l b e
resolve d only t o determin e th e issu e o f possession ; an d
(3)
Exclusiv e
origina l jurisdictio n
i n
al l
civi l
ts ,
Municipa l Tria l Courts ,
Court s
ma y b e
assigne d b y th e
jurisdiction
in
Metropolita n
an d
Municipa l
Suprem e
cadastral
Tria l
Circui t
Cour t t o
Cour
Tria l
hea r
a n d d e t e r m i n e c a d a s t r a l o r lan d r e g i s t r a t i o
n case s
covering lot s wher e ther e i s n o controvers y o r opposition ,
or conteste d lot s wher e th e valu e o f whic h doe s no t excee d
50
----------------------- Page 51----------------------JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF
1980
NOTE S
1. Th e jurisdictiona l
lusiv e
origina l j u r i s d i c t i o n
s bee n
increase d t o PIOO.OOO, o r
exclusive o f interests , damages
expense s an d costs , bu t wit
thereo f mus t b e specifically
amoun t
o f t h e inferio r
withi n
th e exc
c o u r t s
h a
could
m e n t
forcibl e entr y
Civil Code).
mai n
actio n
case s
Unde r
i s withi n
foregoin g provisiona l
t a receive r an d it
f preliminar y injunctio n
detaine r cases .
4 . Th e inferior
court s
now
hav e
probat e jurisdi
c tion wher e th e gros s valu e o f th e estate , whethe r testat e
or intestate , doe s no t excee d P 100,000 , or i f in Metr o
Manila , P200.000 .
However , i t ha s bee n hel d unde r th e
former provisio n wher e th e jurisdictiona l amoun t wa s
only u p t o P20.000 , tha t wher e th e propert y wa s th e only
one wherei n th e deceden t ha d an y proprietar y rights , i s
conjugal in nature , it i s th e tota l valu e o f suc h conjuga l
property ,
an d no t only th e valu e o f th e s h a r e o
f th e
decedent therein , whic h shoul d furnis h th e jurisdictiona l
test .
Thi s i s becaus e th e settlemen t proceeding s wil l
necessarily entai l th e dissolutio n an d settlemen t o f th e
conjugal partnershi p an d th e propert y thereo f (Fernandez,
etc., et al. vs. Maravilla,
L-18799, Mar.
31, 1964).
Thus ,
unde r th e presen t jurisdictiona l rule , i f th e only propert y
o f th e conjuga l partnershi p locate d outsid e Metr o Manil a
ha s a gros s valu e of P 150,000 , whil e sai d decedent' s shar e
therei n whic h constitute s hi s estat e i s normall y P75.00 0
in value , th e proceeding s wil l hav e t o b e institute d i n th e
Regiona l Tria l Cour t sinc e th e tota l valu e o f sai d propert y
exceed s th e probat e jurisdictio n o f th e inferior court .
5 . T h e r e g l e m e n t a r y p e r i o d s for a p p e a l s
fro m
judgment s o r fina l order s o f th e differen t tria l court s
hav e bee
except i
appeal s
Fo r a
detaile d
appea l
ana,
et al.
of the
The
Hon.
Second
Special
Cases
Division
52
----------------------- Page 53----------------------JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980
Intermediate Appellate
Court,
et al. (G.R .
Nos .
73146
-53 ,
Aug . 26 , 1986) , se t ou t afte r Sec . 8 , Rul e 4 0 in thi s volume .
Not e als
b y r e a
Civi l
Procedur e
a s the y
work .
for now .
However ,
working s
h
o f th e
w o u l d
shoul d
Rul e
r e q u i r e
Pro
a m e n d m e n t
SUPREM E
I N
CIVI L
CASE S
COUR T
A . Origina l
1. Exclusiv e
a . P e t i t i o n s
for
certiorari ,
mandamu s against :
(1) Cour t o f Appeals ;
(2) Cour t o f Ta x Appeals ;
(3)
Sandiganbayan ;
(4) Commissio n on Elections ; an d
(5) Commissio n on Audit .
prohibitio n
o r
2 . Concurren t
a . Wit h th e Cour t o f Appeal s
(1)
Petition s for certiorari , prohibitio n or
mandamu s
against :
(a)
Regiona l Tria l Courts ;
(b)
Civi l Servic e Commission ;
(c)
C e n t r a l B o a r d o f A s s e s s m
e n t
Appeals ;
Nationa l Labo r Relation s
mission ; an d
Othe r quasi-judicia l agencies .
(d)
(e)
Com -
othe r
54
----------------------- Page 55----------------------JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES
B .
Appellat e
1.
i t y o f
Cour t o f Appeals ;
b .
c.
Cour t o f Ta x Appeals ;
Sandiganbayan ;
an d
d .
a
t r e a t y , i n t e r n a t i o n a l
o r e
xecutiv e
agreement , law , presidentia l decree ,
p r o c l a m a t i o n , o r d e r , i n s t r
u c t i o n ,
(2)
(3)
(4)
II .
C O U R T
A .
ordinance , o r regulation ;
Legalit y o f a tax , impost , assessment ,
tol l or a penalt y in relatio n thereto ;
Jurisdictio n o f a lower court ; an d
Only error s or question s o f law .
O F A P P E A L S
Origina l
1.
Exclusiv e
a .
o f judgment s
o f
Regiona l Tria l Courts .
2 .
Concurren t
a . Wit h th e Suprem e Cour t (se e Par . 2 , sub par , a . o n th e origina l jurisdictio n o f t
h e
b .
Suprem e Court) ; an d
Wit h th e Suprem e Cour t an d th e Regiona l
Tria l Court s (se e Par . 2 , sub-par , b. ,
loc.
cit.).
B .
Appellat e
1.
excep t
i n
cas
e s
exclusively
appealabl e
t o
th e S u p
r e m e
Court ,
supra;
an d
55
Famil y Courts .
u n d e r
u .
Tria l
from th e
56
----------------------- Page 57----------------------JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES
III . REGIONA L
A .
TRIA L
COURT S
Origina l
1.
Exclusiv e
a . Action s th e subject matter s whereo f ar e not
capabl e o f pecuniar y estimation ;
b . Action s involvin g titl e t o or possessio n o f
rea l propert y o r a n interes t therein , wher e
th e assesse d valu e o f suc h propert y exceed s
P20.00 0 or , i n M e t r o Manila ,
P50.000
,
e x c e p t
forcibl e
e n t r y a n d
u n l a w
f u l
detainer ;
c.
d . Matter s
o f probate , testat e
o r intestate
,
wher e th e gros s valu e o f th e estat e exceed s
P100,00 0 or , i n Metr o Manila , P200.000 ;
e . Case s no t withi n th e exclusiv e jurisdictio n
of an y court , tribunal , perso n or body exer cising judicia l o r quasi-judicia l functions ;
f . Action s an d specia l proceeding s withi n th e
exclusive origina l jurisdictio n o f th e Cour t
of Agraria n Relation s a s now provide d by
law ; an d
g . Othe r case s wher e th e demand , exclusiv e
o f i n t e r e s t , d a m a g e s , a t t o r n e y '
s fees ,
litigation expense s an d costs , o r th e valu e
of th e propert y exceed s P 100,00 0 or , in
Metr o Manila , P200,000 .
2 . Concurren t
a . Wit h th e Suprem e Court :
(1)
e
(2)
Supreme Court .
Petition s
for
habeas
corpus
an d
qu o
warranto .
B .
Appellat e
Al l case s
decide d
b y
lowe r
court s
i n
t h
e i r
respectiv e territoria l jurisdictions .
IV .
FAMILY
A .
COURT S
Origina l
1.
od y
Exclusiv e
a . P e t i t i o n s
for
g u a r d i a n s h i p , cust
o f
children ,
habeas
corpus
in
relatio n
t o
th
e
latter ;
b . Petition s for adoptio n o f childre n an d th e
revocation
thereof ;
c.
Complaint s
for a n n u l m e n t o f m a r
r i a g e ,
declaration o f nullit y o f marriag e an d thos e
relatin g t o m a r i t a l s t a t u s an d pr
opert y
relation s
o f h u s b a n d
an d
wif e
o r
th
os e
living togethe r unde r different statu s an d
agreements , an d petition s for dissolutio n
of conjuga l partnershi p o f gains ;
d . P e t i t i o n s for s u p p o r t a n d / o r ackno
wl edgment ;
e . S u m m a r y
judicia l
proceeding s
b r
o u g h t
unde r th e provision s o f Executiv e Orde r
No . 20 9 (Family Cod e o f th e Philippines) ;
f . P e t i t i o n s for d e c l a r a t i o n o f
s t
a t u s o f
c h i l d r e n a s a b a n d o n e d , d e p e n d e
n t
o r
neglecte d
children ,
for
th e
voluntar y
o r
o f p a r e n t a l
authorit y
u n d
e r
P.D . 603 , Executiv e Orde r No . 56 , s . 1986 ,
an d othe r relate d laws ;
g . Petition s for th e constitutio n o f th e family
home ; an d
h . Case s o f domesti c violenc e
an d children , a s define d
do no t constitut e crimina l
t o crimina l prosecutio n an
V .
-
M E T R O P O L I T A N ,
C I P A L
A .
C I R C U I T
agains t wome n
therein , bu t whic h
offense s subjec t
d penalties .
M U N I C I P A L ,
T R I A L
A N D
M U N I
C O U R T S
Origina l
1.
Exclusiv e
a . Action s involvin g persona l propert y value d
at no t mor e t h a n P 100,00 0 or , i n
Met
r o
Manila , =P200,000 ;
b . Action s
d e m a n d i n g
s u m s
o f mone y
o t
c.
i l a ,
P200,000 , exclusiv e o f interest , damages ,
attorney' s fees , litigatio n expenses , an d
costs ;
d . Probat e proceedings , testat e o r intestate ,
wher e th e gros s valu e o f th e estat e doe
s
no t excee d P 100,00 0 or , in Metr o Manila ,
P200.000 ;
e . Forcibl e
e n t r y a n d unlawfu l
d e t a i
n e r
cases ;
59
SE
h e r e i n ,
g .
2 .
Delegate d
a .
C a d a s t r a l
o r l a n d r e g i s t r a t i o
n c a s e s
covering lot s
or opposition
of whic h doe
b e assigne d
3 .
Specia l
a .
Petition s for habeas corpus in th e absenc e
o f al l th e Regiona l Tria l J u d g e s i n
th e
provinc e or city .
4 . Summar y
Procedur e
a .
GENERAL
D .
TH E
REVISE D
PROVISIONS
RULE S
O F
COURT *
P u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i
5(5 ) o f
Articl e VII I o f t h e
Constitution ,
Cour t
hereb y
a d o p t s a n d p r o m u l g a t
r u l e s
c o n c e r n i n g
t h e
p r o t e c t i o n
n t
o f
constitutiona l rights , pleading , practic e an
all c o u r t s , t h e admissio n t o t h
t h e
o n s o f
th e
s e c t i o n
e s t h e
S u p r e m e
a n d
followin g
e n f o r c e m e
d procedur e i n
e practic e o f law ,
I n t e g r a t e d B a r , a n d
u n d e r privileged :
lega l
a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e
RUL E
GENERA L
1
PROVISION S
sha
NOTE S
1. Th e Rule s o f Cour t hav e th e force an d effect
o f
law
(Shioji
vs.
Harvey,
etc., et al., 43 Phil.
333;
Alvero
vs. De la Rosa,
etc., et al., 76 Phil.
428; Conlu
vs. CA,
et al., 106 Phil.
940).
The y ar e no t pena l statute s
an d
cannot be
given retroactiv e
effect (Rilloraza
vs.
Arciaga,
L 23848,
Oct.
31,
1967;
Bermejo
vs.
Barrios,
L
-23614,
Feb. 27,
1970). However , statute s regulatin g th e proce dur e o f court s ma y b e mad e applicabl e t o case s pendin g
at th e tim e o f thei r passag e an d ar e retroactiv e i n tha t
sense
(se e
n.
31,
1983).
Alday
vs.
Camilon,
G.R.
No.
60316,
Ja
2 . "Whe n b y la w j u r i s d i c t i o n i s conferre d
o n a
court o r judicia l officer , al l auxiliar y writs , processe s an d
*Theae revise d Rule s of Civil Procedure were approved by the
Supreme Court in it s Resolution in Bar Matter No. 803, dated April
8,
1997, to take effect on July 1, 1997.
6 1
----------------------- Page 62----------------------RULE 1
SEC.
2
other
mean s
necessar y
t o
carr y
i t
int o
effect
ma y
b e
It wil l b e
observe d
t h a t thi s
only
auxiliary
Rul e
13 5 refer s
d
o t h e r necessar y
t o
m e a n s
t o
relevan t provisio n o f
writs ,
carr y ou t
processe s
t h e
an
jurisdictio n
"Sec .
42 .
Exceptions
in
Favor
of
Persons
under
real property
or an
interest
therein)
is , at
th e tim
e
th e caus e o f actio n accrues , withi n th e ag e o f minor ity , o f unsoun d min d or in prison , suc h perso n may ,
after th e expiratio n o f te n year s from th e tim e th e
caus e o f actio n accrues , brin g suc h actio n withi n
thre e year s afte r suc h disabilit y i s removed. "
"Sec.
45 .
perso n entitle d
eithe r o f th e
3.
Actions
Sec.
other
than
for
recovery
of
real
at th e
property;
tim e
th
e
caus e o f actio n accrues , withi n th e
ag e o f minority ,
62
----------------------- Page 63----------------------RULE 1
SEC. 3
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
e n
name
whic
such
:
a
If, w h
agains t a person ,
h e
i s ou t
o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e I s l a n d s , o r h a s a b s c o
n d e d o r
conceale d
himself ,
a n d h a s n o know n o r vis
ibl e
propert y withi n th e Island s th e perio d limite d for
th e commencemen t o f th e actio n shal l no t begi n t o
ru n unti l h e come s int o th e Island s o r whil e h e i s
s o
absconde d o r concealed , o r unti l h e ha s know n o r
visibl e propert y withi n th e Islands ; an d if, afte r th e
caus e o f actio n accrues , h e depart s from th e Philip pin e Islands , o r abscond s o r conceal s himself , th e
tim e o f hi s absenc e o r concealmen t shal l no t b e
compute d a s an y p a r t o f th e perio d withi n whic h
tim e th e caus e o f actio n shoul d b e brought. "
It shoul d b e note d t h
e
repeal s only th e provision s o
on prescriptio n a s far a s th
wit h th e former , an d Arts .
SE
justic e
978).
(Republic
vs.
CA,
et al,
L-3130304, May
Sec .
2 . In what
courts applicable.
s
shal l appl y i n al l t h e courts , e x c e p t
w i s e
provide d b y th e S u p r e m e Court , (n )
31,
T h e s e
a s
Rule
o t h e r
NOTE S
1.
that :
"Sec .
5 . Th e
e t h e
following powers :
S u p r e m e
C o u r t
s h a l l h a v
Court. "
64
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
Th e
Special Agraria n Court s shal l hav e origina l an d exclusiv e
jurisdictio n ove r al l petition s for th e determinatio n o f
jus t compensatio n t o landowner s an d th e prosecutio n o f
all crimina l offense s unde r sai d Act (Sees.
5 6 a
n d 57).
On th e othe r hand , th e Departmen t o f Agraria n Reform
i s veste d wit h p r i m a r y jurisdictio n an d quasi-judicia l
power s t o determin e an d adjudicat e al l othe r agraria n
reform matters .
I t shal l no t b e boun d b y th e technic
a l
rule s o f procedur e
an d evidenc e b u t ma y emplo y al
l
reasonabl e mean s t o ascertai n th e fact s i n accordanc e
with justice , equit y an d th e merit s o f th e cas e
(Sec
. 50).
Sec .
3 . Cases
governed.
T h e s e
R u l e s
s h a l l
g o v e r n t h e p r o c e d u r e t o b e o b s e r v e d i n a
c t i o n s ,
civil o r criminal , an d s p e c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s .
(a)
A civi l a c t i o n i s o n e b y w h i c h a part y s
u e s
a n o t h e r fo r t h e e n f o r c e m e n t
o r p r o t e c t i o
n o f a
right ,
o r t h e p r e v e n t i o n
o r r e d r e s s o f a w
r o n g ,
(la , R2 )
A civi l a c t i o n m a y e i t h e r b e o r d i n a r y o r s
pecial .
Bot h ar e g o v e r n e d b y th e rule s fo r ordinar y civi
l
actions , subjec t t o t h e specifi c rule s prescribe d fo r
a specia l civi l action , (n )
65
----------------------- Page 66----------------------RULE 1
SEC. S
d
equity
(se e Lopez
vs. Filipinos
Cia.
de
Seguros,
L-19613,
April 30,
1966).
Likewise ,
in America n law , th e
term s
"action "
a n d "suit "
a r e no w
n e a r l y , i f no t e
n t i r e l y ,
synonymou s
(Elmos
vs. James,
Tex.
Civ.
App.,
2
82 S.W.
835; Coleman
vs. Los Angeles
County,
180 Cal.
71
4,
182
P . 440), or i f ther e b e a distinction , it i s t h a t th e
ter m
"action" i s generall y confine d t o proceeding s in a cour t
of law , whil e "suit " i s equall y applie d t o prosecution s at
law or in equit y (Black's Law Dictionary,
6th Ed., p.
1434).
2 . Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s inheren t jurisdictio n tha t
it ca n alway s exercis e i n setting s attende d b y unusua l
circumstance s t o preven t manifes t injustic e t h a t coul d
resul t t o bar e technica l adherenc e t o th e law an d impre cise jurisprudenc e (Co vs. PNB, G.R. No.
51767, Ju
ne 29,
1982).
3 .
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
NOT E
1.
C' r'\
S e c . 5 . Commencement of action.
A
civi l
a
c t i o n
i s c o m m e n c e d b y t h e filin g o f t h e origina l c o m p l a i
n t
i n court .
I f a n a d d i t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t i s i m p l
e a d e d i n
l a t e r
w i t h
regar d t o
r
pleading , i
it s
admission ^ i
p l e a d i n g ,
t h e a c t i o n i s c o m m e n c e d
h i m o n t h e d a t e o f t h e filin g o f s u c h late
r r e s p e c t i v e o f w h e t h e r t h e m o t i o n fo r
f n e c e s s a r y , i s d e n i e d b y th e court . (6a )
NOTE S
1. Thi s
provisio n
assume s
significanc e
espe
cially
wher e prescriptio n i s raise d a s a defens e agains t th e
claim o f th e plaintif f i n th e complaint .
Thus , a s lo
n g a s
th e complain t whic h commence s th e actio n i s filed withi n
th e prescriptiv e period , th e clai m allege d therei n i s no t
barre d eve n i f summon s wa s serve d o n th e defendan t after
th e prescriptiv e perio d (Sotelo vs. Dizon,
et al.,
5 7 Phil.
573; Cabrera,
et al. vs. Tiano,
L-17299,
July
31,
1963).
2 . Suc h actio n ma y b e commence d b y filin g t h e
complaint b y registere d mail . Hence , i f th e complain t wa s
duly sen t t o th e prope r cour t b y registere d mai l withi n
th e p r e s c r i p t i v e perio d
a n d i n accordanc e
w i
t h t h e
requirement s o f Sec . 3 , Rul e 13 , th e fact tha t sai d com plaint , a s mailed , wa s actuall y receive d by th e cler k o f
said cour t afte r th e laps e o f th e prescriptiv e perio d i
s
immateria l a s th e dat e o f mailin g i s considere d th e dat e
of th e filing o f sai d complaint .
However , i f th e requisit
e
docket fee wa s actuall y paid , eithe r personall y or als o by
mail , subsequen t t o th e mailin g o f sai d complaint , th e
dat e o f suc h paymen t o r th e mailin g o f sai d a m o u n t
therefor shal l b e considere d a s th e dat e o f th e filin g o f
th e complain t
(Ago Timber Corp. vs. Ruiz, et al., L-23887,
Dec. 26,
o f
1967).
Wher e ther e wa s an u n d e r a s s e s s m e n t
du e
t o
a n
natur e o f th e
initiall y
hone
action ,
th e
amoun t
bod y o f th e
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
by th e cler k of cour t
(Sun Insurance
et al.
vs. Asuncion, et al.,
G.R.
Nos.
79937-38,
1989).
Office,
Feb.
Ltd.,
13,
t
all complaint s shoul d specify th e amoun t o f th e damage s
praye d for no t only in th e body o f th e complain t bu t als o
in th e prayer .
T h a t rule , however , ha s bee n relaxed
.
Thus , whil e th e body o f th e complain t i n thi s cas e i s silen
t
a s t o th e exac t amoun t o f damages , th e praye r di d specify
th e amount .
Thes e amount s wer e definit e enoug h an d
enable d th e cler k o f cour t t o comput e th e docke t fee
s
payable .
Furthermore , th e amount s claime d nee d no t b e
initially state d wit h mathematica l precision .
Section
5(a) ,
Rule 14 1 allow s an appraisa l "mor e or less, " tha t is , a fina l
determination i s stil l t o b e mad e an d th e fee s ultimatel y
found t o b e payabl e wil l eithe r b e additionall y pai d by or
refunde d t o th e part y concerned , a s th e cas e ma y be .
Th e
part y is , therefore , allowe d t o mak e a n initia l paymen t o f
th e filin g fee s correspondin g t o th e estimate d amoun t
o f th e clai m subjec t t o adjustmen t a s t o wha t ma y late r
be
prove d
(Ng
Soon
vs. Alday,
et al., G.R.
No.
85879,
Sept.
29,
1989).
5 . Wher e th e actio n involve s rea l propert y (such a s
an accion publiciana) an d relate d claim s for damages , th e
lega l fee s s h a l l b e assesse d o n bot h th e valu e o f
t h e
propert y an d th e tota l a m o u n t o f th e damage s sought .
Wher e th e fee s prescribe d for a n actio n involvin g rea l
propert y hav e bee n pai d bu t th e amount s for th e relate d
damage s bein g demande d therei n ar e
unspecified ,
th e
actio n
m a y
no t b e d i s m i s s e d . Th e
c o u r t a c
q u i r e d
jurisdictio n ove r th e actio n involvin g rea l propert y upo n
th e filin g o f t h e c o m p l a i n t an d
t h e p a y m e n t
o f t h e
prescribe d fee therefor .
It i s no t diveste d o f tha t author
it y
b y th e fact t h a t i t ma y no t hav e acquire d jurisdictio n over
th e accompanyin g claim s for damage s becaus e o f lack o f
specification thereof .
Sai d claim s for damage s a s t o which
n o amount s ar e state d ma y simply b e expunge d o r th e
69
----------------------- Page 70----------------------RULE 1
SEC. 6
no t
becom e time-barre d
(Tacay, et al.
t
ofTagum,
1989).
6 .
etc.,
Th e
et
al,
G.R.
Nos.
88075-77,
Dec.
20,
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 6
This Title doe s no t apply an d ha s been disregarde d
when :
(1) th e issu e i s purel y a lega l one , an d nothin g
o f
an administrativ e natur e i s t o b e an d ca n b e don e
(
Dauan
vs.
Secretary
of Agriculture
and
Natural
Resources,
et al.,
L-19547,
Jan.
31,
1967;
Aguilar
vs.
Valencia,
L30396,
July
30,
1971;
Commissioner
of Immigration
vs.
Vam
enta,
L-34030,
May 31,
1972; Del Mar vs.
Phil.
Veterans
Adm.,
L-27299,
June
27,
1973; Bagatsing
vs. Ramirez,
L41631,
Dec.
17, 1976);
(2) insistenc e on it s observanc e woul d
r e s u l t i n n u l l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e clai m b e i n g a s
s e r t e d
(Gravador
vs. Mamigo,
L-24989,
July
21,
1967);
(3
) th e
controverte d ac t i s p a t e n t l y illega l o r wa s performe
d
withou t jurisdictio n or in exces s o f jurisdictio n
(Indu
strial
Power
Sales,
Inc.
vs. Sinsuat,
L-29171,
April
15,
1988);
(4) th e responden t i s a departmen t secretary , whos e act s
a s a n a l t e r eg o o f t h e P r e s i d e n t b e a r th e
implie d o r
assume d approva l o f th e latter , unles s actually disapprove d
by hi m (Demaisip vs.
CA, et al,
106 Phil. 237); (5) th
er e
ar e c i r c u m s t a n c e s indicatin g t h e
urgenc y o f judici
a l
intervention
(Gonzales
vs. Hechanova,
L-21897,
Oct
.
22,
1963; Abaya
vs. Villegas,
L-25641,
Dec.
17,
1966;
Mitra
vs. Subido, L-21691, Sept. 15,
1967); (6) th e rul e doe s
not
provid e a plain , speed y an d adequat e remed y
(Cip
riano
vs.
Marcelino,
L-27793,
Feb.
28,
1972);
(7)
t h e r
e is a
violation
of du e
proces s
(Quisumbing
vs. Gumban,
G.R.
No.
85156,
Feb.
5,
1991;
Salinas
vs.
NLRC,
et
al,
G.R. No.
114671, Nov. 24,
1999); (8) ther e is estoppe l
on
th e par t o f th e administrativ e agenc y concerne d
(Vd
a. d e
Tan
vs.
Veterans
Backpay
Commission,
105
Phil
377);
(9) ther e i s irreparabl e injur y
(De Lara vs. Cloribel,
121
Phil.
1062); (10) t o requir e exhaustio n o f administrativ e
remedie s woul d b e unreasonabl e
(Cipriano vs. Marceli
no,
et al, 150 Phil. 336); (11) th e subject matte r i s a privat e
land in
lan d cas e proceeding s
(Soto vs. Jareno, L-38
962,
Sept.
15,
1986);
a n d (12 )
t h e i s s u e o f e x h a u
s t i o n
o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s h a s b e e n r e n
d e r e d
moo t
(Carale,
etc.,
et
al.
vs. Abarintos,
etc.,
e
t al.,
G.R.
No.
120704, Mar.
3, 1997).
7 1
----------------------- Page 72----------------------RULE 1
SEC. 6
Sec .
6 . Construction.
T h e s
l b e
l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d i n o r d e r
t h e i r
objectiv e o f s e c u r i n g a just , s p e e d y
v e
dispositio n o f ever y actio n an d proceeding .
R u l e s
t o
s h a l
p r o m o t e
an d i n e x p e n s i
(2a )
NOTE S
1.
ha s
lai d
dow n
th e
rang e
o f reason s
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
SEC
June
3,
Mar.
27,
1975; Bagalamon,
31,
et
al. vs.
CA,
et
al, L-4304
1977).
All t h i n g s
d
attention t o th e fact
purpose, an d t o disregar
construction woul d b e t
considered ,
t h e
S u p r e m e
Cour t
calle
The y
a party .
f o r c e m e n
an d
speed
intende d
Bu t the y he
s may b e
73
----------------------- Page 74----------------------RULE 1
C. 6
hear d i
tim e in
a judg e
li c
order an
SE
ou r
syste m
conscientiou s
e d u r e ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y
i e s "
(Kowloon House/Willy
24,
June
18,
2003,
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
United
G.R.
No.
141117, Mar.
o f justic e
observanc e
ar e
wel l
o f t h e
serve d
r u l e s
b y
vs.
CA,
quote d
in
Pulp
and
24,
et al.,
United
G.R.
Pulp
Paper
o f p r o c
b y g o v e r n m e n t official s a n d
Ng
Pub
No.
and
Chapter,
a g e n c
1400
Paper
etc.,
2004).
74
ACTION S
CIVI L
ACTION S
RUL E
CAUSE
S e c t i o n
1.
O F
Ordinary
ACTIO N
civil
actions,
basis
of.
Ever y o r d i n a r y
o n a
caus e o f action ,
c i v i l a c t i o n m u s t
b e b a s e d
(n )
Sec .
2 . Cause
of
action, defined.
of
a c t i o n i s t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n b y
a r t y
violate s a r i g h t o f a n o t h e r ,
(n )
c a u s e
w h i c h
a p
NOTE S
1. Se e Not e 2 o f th e Preliminar y Consideration s an d
Note s 2 an d 5 unde r Sec . 47 , Rul e 39 .
2 . A caus e o f actio n i s th e delict or wrongfu l ac t or
omission committe d by th e defendan t in violation o f th e
primar y righ t o f th e plaintiff .
A singl e ac t o r omissio n
can b e violativ e o f
wher e ther e i s only
single caus e o f actio
violate d belongin g t o
Sec .
4 . Splitting
a single
cause
of
action;
effect
of.
I f t w o o r m o r e s u i t s a r e i n s t i t u t e d o n t h e b
a s i s o f
t h e s a m e
c a u s e o f a c t i o n , t h e f i l i n g o f
o n e o r a
j u d g m e n t u p o n t h e m e r i t s i n a n y o n e i s a
v a i l a b l e
a s a g r o u n d fo r t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e o t h e r s .
(4a )
N O T E S
1.
a
single caus e o f action , clai m o r deman d int o tw o o r mor e
p a r t s , a n d b r i n g i n g sui t for on e o f s u c h p a r
t s only ,
intendin g t o reserv e th e res t for anothe r separat e action .
Th e purpose s o f th e rul e ar e t o avoi d h a r a s s m e n t
an d
vexation t o th e defendan t an d t o obviat e multiplicit y o f
suits .
'. 2 .
Wher e
singl e
o dismis s unde r
r e
i s a n o t h
e sam e
i f th e
groun d
cause ,
first
ac
o f res
n
th e produc e o f sai d lan d i s barred ,
a s a singl e
caus e o
f
action wa s split int o tw o suit s
(Jalandoni, e t al. vs.
MartirGuanzon,
et al., 102 Phil.
859; cf.
Pascua
vs. S
ideco,
24
Phil. 26).
Th e sam e doctrin e applie s where , in th e action
t o recove r th e land , th e plaintif f sough t t o recove r
th e
fruit s alread y appropriate d b y th e
defendan t bu
t
no t
th e futur e fruit s whic h ma y b e realize d thereo n unti l th e
possessio n o f th e land , wa s restore d t o him .
H e coul d
hav e don e s o by supplementa l complain t in sai d action ,
failing whic h h e canno t institut e anothe r action for tha t
purpos e
in violation of th e rul e of res judicata
(Bayang
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 53564, Feb. 27,
1987).
76
----------------------- Page 77----------------------RULE 2
. 4
CAUSE OF ACTION
SEC
included
hil.
923).
wil l
be
barre d
(Larena
vs.
Villanueva,
53
divisibl e
s
ar
hi s
"th e
ther e
i n
e no t
refusa l
con ca n only
into
other
for
foreclosur e
o f th e
mortgage ,
a s
ther e
i s
one
caus e
of actio n
(Quiogue,
et al. vs. Bautista,
al.,
L-13159, Feb.
28, 1962); bu t an actio n for collection
th e
only
et
of a
single
caus e
constitute
d th e
order o f
dismis s
appearin g
th e tim
o f actio n
only
on e
sinc e
act ,
th e
allege d
forcibl e
nevertheles s
entr y
s u s t a i n e
th e
firs t (Tarnate
Dec.
29,
1972).
S e c .
a
i
a
o
y
a
f
c
y
n
t
t
h
g
o
o
i
h
a
a
l
n
o
v
e
v
i
l
d
n
e
r
e
n
o
i
us.
5 . Joinder of
Garcia,
causes
et
of
action.
al.,
L-26266,
p a r t y
p l e a d i n g
a s s e r t ,
i n t h e
a l t e r n
o r
w i s e , a s m a n y c a u s e s o f a c t i o n a s h e m a
s t a n o p p o s i n g p a r t y ,
w i n g
t i o n s :
s u b j e c t t o t h e
(a)
T h e p a r t y j o i n i n g t h e c a u s e s o f a c t
i o n s h a l l
c o m p l y w i t h t h e r u l e s o n j o i n d e r o f p a r t i e
s ;
(b)
T h e j o i n d e r s h a l l n o t i n c l u d e
e c i a l civi l
a c t i o n s g o v e r n e d
b y s p e c i a l r u l e s ;
s p
(c)
W h e r e t h e c a u s e s o f a c t i o n a r e b e t w e
e n t h e
s a m e
p a r t i e s b u t
p e r t a i n t o d i f f e r e n t v
e n u e s
o r
j u r i s d i c t i o n s , t h e j o i n d e r m a y
b e
a l l o w
e d
i n t h e
R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t p r o v i d e d o n e o f t h e c
a u s e s o f
a c t i o n fall s
w i t h i n
t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f s
a i d c o u r t
a n d t h e v e n u e lie s t h e r e i n ; a n d
- 1
(d)
W h e r e
t h e
c l a i m s
i n
a l l t h e
c
a u s e s
o f
a c t i o n a r e p r i n c i p a l l y fo r r e c o v e r y
o f m
o n e y
t h e
a g g r e g a t e ^ a m o u n t
c l a i m e d
s h a l l b e
t h
e
t e s t o f
j u r i s d i c t i o n . (5a )
N O T E S
1.
Th e joinde r o f cause s o f actio n in on e complain t
promote s th e policy o n avoidin g multiplicit y o f suits .
Th e rul e i n Sec . 5 , however , i s purel y permissiv e an d th e
78
----------------------- Page 79----------------------RULE 2
SEC. 5
CAUSE OF ACTION
2 . Par .
o r
body
provid e
otherwise ,
th e
CAUSE OF ACTION
di
a
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p a r
o f Rul e 3 ,
jurisdictio n shal l b e determine d
of th e demand s
(Liberty
CFI of
Bulacan,
et al., L-35252,
of thi s
natur e ar e now governe d b y th e
t y
p u r s u a n t
t o
Sec .
b y th e aggregat e amoun t
Mfg.
Workers
Union
Nov.
29,
1972).
vs.
Case s
Labo r Code .
unde r Sec .
1 9 o f B.P .
Big .
129 th e
i c t i o n a l
amoun t i n bot h
cause s
o f actio n
bein g
th e
same ,
sai d
a l t y
a n d
e r e l y
129 by Sec . 1
no t affect thi s
m a r i t i m e
c o n s i s t e d
c a s e s
o f
s i n
i n c r e a s i
PIOO.OOO,
o r i n M e t r o M a n i l a , exceedin g P200.00
0 ,
exclusive o f interest , damage s o f whateve r kind , attorney' s
fees, litigatio n expenses , an d costs .
Sec .
6 . Misjoinder of causes of action. Misjoinde r
f c a u s e s o f a c t i o n i s n o t a g r o u n d fo r d i s m i
s a l o f
n a c t i o n . A m i s j o i n e d c a u s e
o f a c t i o n m a
,
o n
m o t i o n o f a part y o r o n t h e initiativ e o f t h e cour
t ,
b e s e v e r e d an d p r o c e e d e d w i t h separately , (n )
o
s
a
y
NOTE S
1. I n cas e o f misjoinde r o f cause
o f actio n erroneousl y joine d nee d only
dismissed , withou t affectin g th e actio n
other caus e or cause s o action .
o f
action , lik e misjoinde r o f parties ,
dismissa l o f
e
droppe d by
motion ,
a n d an y
e d a n d
proceede d wit
2 .
a n action .
o f th e
clai m
a g a i n s t
cour t
sua
no t
sponte
(Sec.
cas e
or
p a r t y ma y
h separatel y
th e
i s
groun d
for
orde r
Unlik e
s o f action , th e caus e
b e separate d an d
wit h regar d t o th e
Misjoinde r o f cause s
11,
on
b e
s e v e r
Rule 3).
o f non-joinde r o f partie s
whic h
T O
CIVI L
3
ACTION S
S e c t i o n 1.
Who
may
be parties; plaintiff and de
fendant.
O n l y
n a t u r a l o r j u r i d i c a l p e r s o n s
, o r
e n t i t i e s a u t h o r i z e d b y la w m a y b e p a r t i e s i n
a civi l
a c t i o n . T h e
t e r m
" p l a i n t i f f m a y
r e f e r t
o t h e
c l a i m i n g party ,
t h e c o u n t e r - c l a i m a n t , t h e
c r o s s claimant , o r th e thir d (fourth , etc.)-part y plaintiff .
T h e t e r m " d e f e n d a n t " m a y
refe r t o t h e
o r
i g i n a l
d e f e n d i n g party , t h e d e f e n d a n t i n a c o u n t e
r c l a i m ,
t h e c r o s s - d e f e n d a n t , o r t h e t h i r d ( f o u r t h ,
e t c . ) part y defendant , (a )
NOTE S
1. A s t o wh o ar e juridica l person s wit h capacit y t o
sue , se e Art . 44 , Civi l Code .
Th e entitie s authorize d by
law t o b e partie s t o a sui t includ e th e estat e o f a decease d
perso n
(Limjoco
vs.
Intestate
Estate
of Fragante,
8 Phil.
776;
Estate
of Mota
vs.
Concepcion,
56
Phil.
712),
a politica l p a r t y
incorporate d
u n d e r Ac t 145 9
(now ,
B.P.
Big.
68,
Corporation
Code)
an d a registere d
labo r
u n i o n , u n d e r Sec .
24(d) ,
R .A .
87 5
(now ,
Sec.
243,
P.D. 442, Labor Code), wit h respec t t o it s property .
Th e
Roma n Catholi c Churc h ha s a juridica l personalit y
(Barlin
vs.
Ramirez,
7 Phil.
47).
2 . Althoug h
th e
actio n wa s brough t
agains t
th e
"Broadway Theatre " whic h i s no t a juridica l person , bu t
th e lesse e thereo f filed a n answe r an d late r entere d int o
a compromis e agreemen t admittin g liability an d pursuan t
t o whic h judgmen t wa s rendered , th e procedura l defect
wa s cured .
Th e wri t o f executio n canno t b e enforce d
a g a i n s t t h e t h e a t r e b u t a g a i n s t t h e l e s s e e
(Oscar
Ventanilla
Enterprises
Corp.
vs. Lazaro,
G.R.
No.
53856,
Aug.
21,
1980).
----------------------- Page 85----------------------RULE 3
Sec .
S e c . 2 . Parties
i n interest.
A **e *L p a r t
i n
i n t e r e s t i * t k e p a r t y w h o s t a n d s t o b e benefite d
o r
injure d b y - t h e j u d g m e n t i n t h e suit , o r t h e pa
rt y
y
e
t
a
o
b
n
h
u
n
e
t i t l e d t o t h e a v a i l s o f t h e suit .
U n l e s s o
e r w i s e
t h o r i z e d b y la w o r t h e s e R u l e s , e v e r y a c t i
m u s t
p r o s e c u t e d o r d e f e n d e d i n t h e n a m e o f
t h e r e a l
p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . (2a )
N O T E S
1.
A rea l part y in interes t i s th e part y wh o stand s
t o
b e benefite d o r injure d b y th e judgmen t i n th e suit , o r
th e
part y entitle d
vs.
t o
th e
-ire *
avail s
r
<
o f th e
c * '
sui t
(Salonga
(85
Warner,
Barnes
&
Co.,
Ltd.,
88 Phil.
125).
Th e
ter m
"party" include s a surety who , althoug h not initially a
party t o th e case , i s sough t t o b e hel d liabl e o n
it s
performance bond, hence , a s suc h party , i t ca n appea l
from
th e
orde r rendere d
thereo n
(PHHC
vs. J
eremias,
et al., L-43252,
Sept.
30,
1976).
2 . I f th e sui t i s not brough t in th e nam e o f or again
s t
th e
rea l part y
i n
interest ,
motio n
t o dismis s
may-b e
as
parties.
W h e r e
r o s e c u t e d o r d e f e n d e d
e o n e
l
b e
a c t i n g
i n a
f i
i n c l u d e d
b e d e e m e d t o b e t h e rea
part y i n interest .
A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e m a y b e a t
r u s t e e
o f a n
e x p r e s s t r u s t , a g u a r d i a n , a n e x e c u
t o r o r
administrator , o r a part y a u t h o r i z e d b y la w o r t h e s e
Rules .
A n a g e
n d fo r
t h e benefi t o f a n
u e o r
b e s u e d w i t h o u
p t w h e n
t h e c o n t r a c t
t o
t h e
principal .
(3a )
n t
a c t i n g i n
u n d i s c l o s e d
h i s
n a m e
p r i n c i p a l m a y
t j o i n i n g t h e
i n v o l v e s
o w n
p r i n c i p a l e x c e
t h i n g s
b e l o n g i n g
NOTE S
1.
Th e impleadin g o f th e beneficiary a s a part y in
th e sui t i s now a mandator y requirement , an d not a dis cretionary procedur e a s i t wa s i n th e forme r sectio n o f
thi s Rule .
Thi s amende d section enumerate s th e sam e
exception s t o th e rul e t h a t th e actio n shal l b e brough t i
n
86
----------------------- Page 87----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 3
th e nam e o f th
rt y
a u t h o r i z e d
e s t h e
representativ e o
(Sec.
1, Rule
d th e
assigne e o f a
Th e
judgmen t credito r
if th e forme r
e 39).
Other instance s
Arts . 487 , 1311
Code .
la w
f th e
70),
debto r
o r
Th e phras e "pa
t h e s e R u l e s , " i n c l u d
insolvenc y
an
proceedings .
Rul
c.
7,
1963).
Thi s representativ e capacit y o f labo r union s i s
recognize d unde r th e Labo r Cod e (Sec. 243) but , generally ,
labor case s ar e no t originall y cognizabl e b y th e regula r
courts .
3 . A*corporatio n canno t maintai n a n actio n
recover property belongin g t o it s stockholder s a s i t
no interes t therein , it havin g a separat e personality
th e propertie s no t havin g bee n transferre d t o
ng Bayan, Inc.
vs.
Gregorio Araneta,
Inc.,
-31061,
Aug.
17,
1976).
t o
ha s
an d
i t (Sulo
et al., L
who m
7
b . Necessary parties:
Thos e wh o ar e
no t indi
spen sable bu t ough t t o b e partie s i f complet e relie f i s t o b e
87
----------------------- Page 88----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 3
or for a complet e
subjec t o f th e
Thos e
referre d
to
in
whos e
(Sec.
behal f a
clas s
17).
part y
s own
o f
alterna -
tiv e
c l a u s e , t h e u n i m p l e a d e d d e b t o r woul d
no
t b e
considered a s a necessar y part y an d th e procedur e an d
sanction s in Sec . 9 o f thi s Rul e coul d no t b e applie d t
o
him .
7 . P a r t i e s wh o w e r e no t initiall y
an d
forma
ll y
impleade d a s origina l partie s t o th e case , bu t late r boun d
themselve s t o comply wit h th e term s o f a judgmen t on
compromise rendere d therei n ma y als o b e considere d a s
quasi partie s in sai d cas e
(Rodriguez,
et al. vs. Ali
kpala,
L-38314,
June
25,
1974).
Sec . 4 . Spouses
as parties.
H u s b a n d
a n d w
if e
shal l s u e o * b e s u e d jointly , e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d
b y
law . (4a )
89
----------------------- Page 90----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 5
1.
Th e provision hereo n in th e 1964 Rule s o f Cour t
wa s merel y a reproductio n o f Art . 113 o f th e Civi l Code .
Thi s
i s an
illustratio n o f joinde r o f pro forma partie
s
require d by th e Rules . Th e propriet y o f suit s by or agains t
th e spouse s shoul d now tak e int o accoun t th e pertinen t
provision s o f th e Famil y Code .
m i n
o r a
u e o
b e s
m o t h
g u a r
a d
(5a)
S
o
p
r
u
e
d
e c . 5 . Minors
or
incompetent persons.
A
r
e r s o n a l l e g e d t o b e i n c o m p e t e n t , m a y s
e d w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f h i s father ,
r ,
i a n ,
o r i f h e h a s
n o n e , a
g u a r d i a n
litem.
r
N O T E S
T
-
1.
Unde r th e
1964 Rules , a distinctio n wa s
mad e
betwee n unemancipate d an d emancipate d minors . A n
unemancipate d mino r coul d su e o r t o b e sue d "through "
hi s p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n , t h a t is , th e actio n
ha d t o b e
b r o u g h t
i n t h e n a m e
o f o r a g a i n s t s u c h
p a r e n t o r
g u a r d i a n w i t h t h e designatio n t h a t h e
w a s
b r i n g i n g
th e actio n o r bein g sue d i n t h a t capacity .
I n t
h e cas e o f
emancipate d minors , the y coul d su e o r b e sue d "wit h th e
assistance " o f th e paren t o r guardian .
Th e actio
n wa s i n
th e nam e o f o r agains t th e minor , wit h a n indicatio n tha t
h e wa s bein g assiste d therei n b y hi s paren t o r guardian .
Not e t h a t 1 8 year s i s now th e ag e o f majorit y (R.A. 6809)
an d for contractin g
Code).
2 .
Also ,
marriag e
unde r th e
(Art.
forme r
5,
Rules ,
i t wa s
Family
necessar y
hi s i n c o m p e t e n c y
b e a l l e g e d i n t h e c o r r e
s p o n d i n g
pleading s an d th e tria l cour t ma y pas s upo n th e t r u t h an
d
effects
thereof .
S e c .
6 .
Permissive joinder
of parties.All
p
e r s o n s
i n w h o m o r a g a i n s t w h o m a n y
r i g h t t o
r e l i e f i n
r e s p e c t t o o r a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e s a m e t r a
n s a c t i o n
o r s e r i e s o f t r a n s a c t i o n s i s a l l e g e d t o e x i s
t w h e t h e r
jointly , severally , o r
i n th e alternative , may ,
excep t a s
o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n t h e s e Rules , j o i n a s plai
ntiff s
o r b e j o i n e d a s d e f e n d a n t s i n o n e c o m p l a i n t ,
w h e r e
any
q u e s t i o n o f l a w o r
fac t
c o m m o n
t o
al l s u c h
plaintiff s o r t o al l s u c h d e f e n d a n t s m a y aris e i n t
h e
action ; bu t t h e c o u r t m a y m a k e s u c h o r d e r s a s ma
y
b e j u s t t o p r e v e n t a n y plaintif f o r d e f e n d a n t
fro m
b e i n g e m b a r r a s s e d o r pu t t o expens e i n connectio n
w i t h a n y p r o c e e d i n g s
i n w h i c h
h e
m a y
h a v e
n o
interest .
(6 )
NOTE S
1. I n th e cas e
parties , thei r joinde r in
(Sees. 7
and 8).
Thi s sectio n
joinde r o f parties , t h
i n
one singl e complain t or
sued i n s e p a r a t e
l e t o
counterclaim s
(Go,
).
2 .
vs.
Go,
et al.,
applicab
95 Phil.
378
tran
Suc h joinde r i s
no t otherwis e
proscribe d
by
th e
i n
thi s
section ,
on e
o f whic h
i s
t h a t
of
t r a n s a c t i o n s (Flores
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
66620,
Sept.
24,
y Sec .
rties.
7.
P a r t i e s
f i n a l
Compulsory
i n
vs.
Mallare-Philipps,
1986).
joinder
of
i n t e r e s t w i t h o u t
indispensable
w h o m
pa
n o
92
----------------------- Page 93----------------------RULE 3
ECS. 7-8
Sec .
i s
w h o
8 .
i s
Necessary
party.
no t i n d i s p e n s a b l e
n e c e s s a r y
bu t w h o o u g h t
part
t o b e
joine d a s a part y i f c o m p l e t e relie f i s t o b e a c c o r d
e d
a s t o t h o s e a l r e a d y
p a r t i e s , o r fo r a c o m
p l e t e
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o r s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m subje
c t o f
th e a c t i o n . (8a )
NOTE S
1. I n th e cas
n
canno t
p r o c e e d
sa
vs.
Polistico,
47 Phil.
705),
wherea s th e actio n ca
some necessar y parties .
ot
impleaded ,
an y ju
dg m e n t
woul d
hav e
whereas ,
necessar y
part y
i s
eve n
i f a
o f indispensabl e
u n l e s s t h e y
parties ,
345;
Cortez
a r e
vs.
th e
joine d
actio
Avila,
(Borla
101
Phil.
effectiveness ;
no t
include d
i n
p a r t i e s
t h a t
ar e thos e wit h
fina l
decre e
woul d
(Wyoga
292,
Gas
cite d in
&
Oil
1 Moran
Corp.
191,
vs.
19
9 .
i n
a n y
p l e a d i n g
to
i n
be pleade
w h i c h
n e c e s s a r y p a r t y i s n o t j o i n e d , t h
f o r t h h i s n a m e , i f k n o w n , a n d
e
m i t t e d .
S h o u l d t h e c o u r t fin d t h
i s s i o n
o f
o n
u n m e r i t o r i o u s ,
t h e
o m i t t e d
o v e r h i s
p e r s o n
i t
m a y
n e c e s s a r y
m a y
b e
o b t a i
T h e
f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y
w i t h t h e o r d e
fo r
h i s
c l u s i o n , w i t h o u t j u s t i f i a b l e c a u s e , s h a l
e d e e m e d
w a i v e r o f t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t s u c h p a r t y .
T h e n o n - i n c l u s i o n o f a n e c e s s a r y p a r t y d
o e s n o t
p r e v e n t t h e
c o u r t f r o m p r o c e e d i n g
i n t
h e a c t i o n ,
a n d t h e j u d g m e n t r e n d e r e d t h e r e i n
s h a l
l b e
w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e r i g h t s o f s u c h n e c e s s a
r y p a r t y .
(8a , 9a )
N O T E S
1.
Thi s
revise d
provisio n
r e i t e r a t e s
th e
nee
for
impleadin g al l necessar y partie s i n orde r tha t th e claim s
involve d i n th e actio n ma y b e completel y determine d
94
SEC
SECS.
Sec .
10 .
Unwilling co-plaintiff.
s e n t
o f an y part y w h o shoul d b e j o i n e d
no t b e
obtained ,
h e m a y
I f t h e
a s
c o n
plaintif f ca n
b e m a d e a d e f e n d a n t an d
N e i t h e r m i s j o i n d e r no r n o n - j o i n d e r
t i e e i s
g r o u n d fo r d i s m i s s a l o f a n action .
P a r
a y b e
droppe d o r a d d e d b y orde r o f th e cour t o n m o t
a n y part y
e o f
th e a c t i o
l a i m
a g a i n s t
a n d
p r o c e e d e
o r
o n
it s
o w n
initiativ e
a t
m i s j o i n e d
p a r t y
m a y
b e
partie
o f p a r
t i e s m
i o n o f
a n y
n an d o n s u c h t e r m s a s ar e just .
a
of
s t a g
An y c
s e v e r e d
d w i t h separately . (11a )
NOTE S
1. Objection s
t o defect s
in th e partie s
implea
de d
should b e mad e a t th e earlies t opportunity , th e momen t
such defect s becom e apparent , by a motio n t o strik e th e
name s o f th e partie s impleaded .
I f ther e i s misjoinder
, a
s e p a r a t e actio n shoul d b e
b r o u g h t a g a i n s t th
e p a r t y
misjoined .
Objection t o misjoinde r canno t b e raise d for
th e first tim e on appea l (Garcia vs.
Chua, [CA],
5
0 O.G.
No.
2, 653).
2 . Non-joinde r doe s not warran t dismissa l bu t th e
court shoul d orde r th e inclusio n o f th e necessary part y
(see Sanchez vs.
CFI,
4 0 Phil.
155).
Bu t if th e c
as e i s
erroneously dismisse d o n thi s groun d withou t statin g tha t
it i s withou t prejudice, an d plaintif f did not appeal , suc h
dismissal bar s th e filin g o f anothe r actio n o n th e sam e
cause
(Rivera
vs.
Luciano,
L-20844,
Aug.
14,
1965).
cause s
stan d o n
ther e
i f
S e c . 12 .
Class suit. W h e n t h e
s u b j e c t
m a t t e r
o f t h e
c o n t r o v e r s y
i s o n e
o f c o m m o n
o r
g e n e r a l
i n t e r e s t t o m a n y
p e r s o n s
s o n u m e r o u s
t
h a t i t i s
i m p r a c t i c a b l e t o j o i n a l l a s p a r t i e s , a n u
m b e r
o f
t h e m
w h i c h
t h e
c o u r t
f i n d s t o b e
s u f
f i c i e n t l y
n u m e r o u s a n d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a s t o full y p r o t e
c t t h e
i n t e r e s t s o f al l c o n c e r n e d
m a y
s u e o r d e
f e n d
fo r
t h e b e n e f i t o f all . A n y p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t s h
a l l h a v e
t h e r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e t o p r o t e c t h i s i n
d i v i d u a l
i n t e r e s t . (12a )
N O T E S
1.
Th e requisite s o f a clas s sui t
ativ e
suit) are :
(or represent
--a.
Th e subject-matte r o f th e controvers y i s on e o f
common o r genera l interes t t o man y persons ;
--b .
Th e partie s affecte d ar e s o numerou s tha t
s
impracticabl e t o brin g the m al l befor e th e court ; an d
i t i
SE
5 . Th e p a r t i e s wh o b r o u g h t t h e clas s sui
hav e
control over th e cas e wit h th e righ t t o compromis e o r eve n
discontinu e th e same .
Bu t a clas s sui t canno t b e co
m promise d o r dismisse d withou t th e approva l o f th e cour t
(Sec. 2, Rule 17).
A membe r o f th e clas s i s boun d by th
e
judgmen t i n th e clas s suit , henc e thi s section give s hi m
th e righ t t o interven e i f h e desire s t o protec t hi s o
w n
individua l interests .
I n th e interes t o f justice , th e ab
sen t
member s shoul d b e notifie d o f th e filin g o f th e clas s sui t
wheneve r practicable .
t
th e
llanueva,
15 Phil.
531; Berses
vs.
Villanueva,
25 Phil.
473; S
ulo ng
Bayan,
Inc.
vs.
Gregorio
Araneta,
Inc.,
et al.,
supra).
However , i f th e r i g h t t o relie f aros e ou t o f th e
sam e
t r a n s a c t i o n o r s e r i e s o f t r a n s a c t i o n s an d
t h e r e i s a
common questio n o f law or fact , the y ma y b e joine d in
one sui t a s plaintiff s o r defendant s i n accordanc e wit h
Sec. 6 o f thi s Rul e on permissiv e joinde r o f parties .
9 . An
actio n doe s
no t becom e
clas s
sui t
merel y
becaus e
i t i s d e s i g n a t e d a s suc h i n t h e p l e
a d i n g s .
Whethe r th e sui t i s or i s no t a clas s sui t depend s upo n
99
----------------------- Page 100----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 13
suffici
U n d
for
signific
hav e
e
defenda
th e
g r o u n d t h a t t h e plaintiff s
h a v e
n o c a p a c i t y
t o su e
(Sec.
lfdj, Rule
16), t h a t is , t h a t the y d o no t
hav e th e
representatio n tha t the y clai m
(se e Lunsod vs.
Ortega,
46
Phil
664).
S e c .
13 .
Alternative
t h e
plaintif f i s u n c e r t a i n a g a
n s
h e i s e n t i t l e d t o relief ,
f t h e m
a s d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e
g h a righ t
t o r e l i e f a g a i n s t o n e
w i t h a
righ t o f relie f a g a i n s t t h
defendants.
W h e r e
i n s t w h o o f severa l p e r s o
h e m a y j o i n an y o r al l o
a l t e r n a t i v e ,
m a y b e
e
a l t h o u
i n c o n s i s t e n t
other .
(13a )
100
----------------------- Page 101----------------------RULE 3
. 14-15
SECS
N O T E
1.
Thus ,
W h e n e v e r t h e
d a n t i s
u n k n o w n , h e m
w n e r ,
heir , d e v i s e e ,
n a s t h e
cas e m a y r e q u i
u e n a m e
i s d i s c o v e r e d
n d e d
a c c o r d i n g l y .
Unknown
identity
or
b e
o r
b y
r e ;
,
s u e d
s u c h
w h e n
t h e
a s
alternative ,
o n admiralt y
i s o n c o n t
vs.
of
o f a
t h e
o t h e r
h i s
operator ,
name
i d e n t i t y o r n a m e
a y
t r e
defendant.
d e f e n
u n k n o w n
d e s i g n a t i o
i d e n t i t y
p l e a d i n g
United
m u s t
o r
b e
t r
a m e
(14 )
N O T E S
1.
14 read s a s follows :
"Sec.
14 .
Service
upon
defendant
whose
identity
or
whereabouts
are
unknown.
In
an y
a
ction ,
wheneve r th e defendan t i s designate d a s a n unknow n
owner , o r th e lik e o r wheneve r hi s whereabout s ar e
u n k n o w n
a n d c a n n o t b e a s c e r t a i n e d b y
diligen t
inquiry , servic e may , by leav e o f court , b e effecte
d
upo n hi m by publicatio n in a newspape r o f genera l
circulation an d i n suc h place s an d for suc h tim e a s
th e cour t ma y order. "
2 . Thi s presuppose s tha t th e plaintif f really doe s not
know th e identit y and/o r addres s o f th e defendan t or i s
not in a positio n t o ascertai n suc h identit y or whereabouts .
S e c .
as
defendant.
n o t
15 .
Entity
W h e n
without
t w o
juridical
o r
m o r e
personality
p e r s o n s
101
----------------------- Page 102----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 15
o r g a n i z e d
n a l i t y
ente r int o a
th e n a m e b y
n l y
k n o w n .
I n t h e
n a m e s
a n d a d d r e s
s a i d
entit y m u s t al
a s
a n
e n t i t y
w i t h
juridica l
p e r s o
transaction , the y m a y b e s u e d u n d e r
w h i c h t h e y ar e g e n e r a l l y o r c o m m o
a n s w e r
s e s
o f
o f s u c h
t h e
d e f e n d a n t ,
p e r s o n s
t h e
c o m p o s i n g
l b e revealed . (15a )
N O T E S
1.
"Sec .
8 .
Service
upon
entity
without
j
uridical
personality.
Whe n person s associate d in an entit y
withou t juridica l personalit y ar e sue d unde r th e nam e
b y whic h the y ar e generall y o r commonl y known ,
service ma y b e effecte d upo n al l th e defendant s b y
serving upo n an y on e o f them , o r upo n th e perso n i n
charg e o f th e
office or plac e o f busines s maintaine d
i n suc h n a m e .
B u t s u c h servic e
s h a l l n
o t bin d
individually an y perso n
whos e connectio n wit h th e
entity has , upo n du e notice , bee n severe d befor e th e
Th e
predecesso r o f thi s
sectio n
referre d
only
t o
16 .
Death
of party;
duty
of
counsel.
t o a p e n d i n g a c t i o n dies , an d t h e c l a
r e b y e x t i n g u i s h e d , i t shal l b e th e d u
e l
t o
infor m t h e
cour t
w i t h i n
thirt y
th e n a m e a n d a d d r e s s o f hi s lega l r e p r e s e n t a t i v
e o r
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . Failur e o f c o u n s e l t o c o m p l
y w i t h
thi s d u t y shal l b e a g r o u n d fo r disciplinar y action .
Th e h e i r s o
o b e
s u b s t i t u t e d fo
r i n g th e
a p p o i n t m e n t o
t o r an d
th e c o u r t m a y
r th e
mino r h e i r s .
d
T h e
c o u r t
l e g a l
f t h e d e c e a s e d m a y b e a l l o w e d t
r t h e d e c e a s e d , w i t h o u t r e q u i
f a n
e x e c u t o r
a p p o i n t
s h a l l
o r
a d m i n i s t r a
g u a r d i a n
f o r t h w i t h
a d
litem
o r d e r
fo
s a i
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o
a r an d
b e s u b s t i t u t e d w i t h i n a perio d o f thirt y
day s
fro m notice .
a p p e
(30)
I f n o l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
i s n a m e d
b y
t h e
c o u n s e l fo r t h e d e c e a s e d
party ,
o r i f t h e
o n e s o
n a m e d
s h a l l fai l t o a p p e a r
w i t h i n t h e s p
e c i f i e d
period , t h e
c o u r t m a y o r d e r t h e
o p p o s i n g
party ,
withi n a specifie d time , t o procur e th e a p p o i n t m e n t
o f a n e x e c u t o r o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r fo r t h e estat e
o f th e
d e c e a s e d , a n d t h e latte r shal l i m m e d i a t e l y app
ea r
for an d o n behal f o f th e deceased .
Th e cour t char
ge s
i n p r o c u r i n g s u c h a p p o i n t m e n t , i f defraye d b y
th e
o p p o s i n g party , m a y b e recovere d a s costs . (16a , 17a)
N O T E S
1.
Thi s sectio n is a consolidation of Sees . 16 an d 17
of th e former Rule , wit h th e following amendments :
103
----------------------- Page 104----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 16
h
o f th e
hi s
substitutio n b y
hi s
lega
l
representativ e t o b e ordere d b y th e
case i s pending , o r eve n th e appointmen t
or administrato r but , thi s time , by a
jurisdiction .
In th e cas e o f incapacit
cour
o f
cour
y or
t wherei n th e
a n executo r
t o f probat e
incompetenc y o f
hi
action ,
(Lawas
r th e amendmen t o f th e complain t
th e decedent' s lega l representative .
amendmen t o f th e complain t befor e
decease d part y
i s voi d (Casenas
28,
ha s
1967).
Upo n th e
n o furthe r authorit y
t o
deat h of
appear ,
bein g incidental .
e decease d plaintif f in
over th e lan d i n litigatio
propert y an d propert y
survive s eve n after he r
vs. Barcena,
et al.,
th e
deced
e s e n t a t i v e s a r e : (a ) action s t o recove r r e a
d
l propert y agains t th e estate ; (b) action s t o enforc e
thereon ; an d (c> action s t o recove r for an injur y t o
or propert y by reaso n o f tor t or delic t committe d
by
th e decease d
(Board
of Liquidators,
etc.
vs. He
irs
of
Maxima M.
Kalaw,
et al, L-18805, Aug.
14,
1967).
Se e
Rul e 8 7 an d note s thereunder .
Se e als o Sec . 2 0 o
f thi s
Rul e
whic h h a s
bee n
a m e n d e d
a n d p r o v i d e s
a ne w
procedur e for contractua l money claims .
6 .
Wher e
durin g
th e guardia n i n
d
th e forme r wa s
f
th e estat e o f th
a
representativ e part y
Solas,
et al., L-49311,
th e
pendenc y
o f action s
behal f o f hi s ward ,
thereafte r
e
appointe d
decedent ,
h e
th e
file d
latte r die d
27,
an
a d m i n i s t r a t o r
ma y b e
substitute d
in th e pendin g action s
May
b y
a s
(Ypil vs.
1979).
decisio n
i s
bindin g upo n
(Sec.
47lb].
Rule
39;
et al
G.R.
No.
60544, May
In
die d
whil e
th e
th e
Florendo
cas e
hi s
Florendo,
19,
successo r
et
al.
i n
interes t
vs.
Coloma,
case ,
th e
defendan t
1984).
wa s pendin g o n
however ,
appea l i n th e
Cour t o f
W h e r e
t h e plaintif f
f a t h e r
b r o u g h t a n
thir d
party ,
th e
subsequen t
deat h
o f sai d
Wh
action ,
of th e deat h o f th e plaintif f shoul d b e mad e s o tha t sub stitution by a lega l representativ e o f th e part y may b e
effected.
Wher e th e counse l o f plaintif f file d suc h motion
107
----------------------- Page 108----------------------RULE 3
CS. 17-18
SE
ha d
die d
al.
vs.
Palanog,
4,
G.R.
19
No.
Sec .
17 .
Death
or
separation
of
a party
w
ho
is a
public
officer. W h e n a
publi c office r i s a
pa
rt y i n
a n a c t i o n i n h i s officia l c a p a c i t y a n d d u r i
n g it s
p e n d e n c y d i e s , r e s i g n s , o r o t h e r w i s e c e a s e
s t o hol d
office , t h e a c t i o n m a y b e c o n t i n u e d an d m a i n t a
i n e d
b y o r a g a i n s t hi s s u c c e s s o r if, w i t h i n thirt y (3
0 ) d a y s
afte r t h e s u c c e s s o r t a k e s offic e o r s u c h t i m e a
s m a y
b e g r a n t e d b y t h e court , i t i s satisfactoril y s h
o w n
t o t h e c o u r t b y a n y part y t h a t t h e r e i s a s u b s
t a n t i a l
n e e d fo r c o n t i n u i n g o r m a i n t a i n i n g i t a n d t
h a t t h e
s u c c e s s o r a d o p t s o r c o n t i n u e s o r t h r e a t e n s
t o a d o p t
o r c o n t i n u e t h e a c t i o n o f h i s p r e d e c e s s o r .
Befor e a
s u b s t i t u t i o n i s m a d e , t h e
p a r t y o r o f f i c
e r t o b e
affected ,
u n l e s s e x p r e s s l y a s s e n t i n g t h e r e
t o , shal l
b e g i v e n
r e a s o n a b l e
n o t i c e
o f t h e a p p l
i c a t i o n
t h e r e f o r an d a c c o r d e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e he
ard .
(18a)
Sec .
18 .
Incompetency
part y
b e c o m e s
i n c o m p e t e n t
h e court ,
u p o n m o t i o n w i t h n o t
t i o n t o
b e c o n t i n u e d
b y
o r
e n t
o r
i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n
a r d i a n
or
o r
incapacity.
i c e ,
i n c a p a c i t a t e d ,
If a
m a y
a g a i n s t
allo w
t h e
t h e
t
a c
i n c o m p e t
a s s i s t e d b y hi s lega l g u
or
g u a r d i a n
ad
litem.
(19a )
108
S e c . 19 .
Transfer
a n y
transfe r o f i n t e r e s t ,
t i n u e d
b y o r a g a i n s t t h e
cour t
upo n m o t i o n direct s th e
i s t r a n s f e r r e d t o
c t i o n o r
joine d w i t h t h e origina l
of
interest.
SECS.
t h e
a c t i o n
origina l
party ,
I n
m a y
c a s e
b e
u n l e s s
o f
c o n
t h e
perso n t o w h o m th e interes t
b e s u b s t i t u t e d i n t h e
party .
(20 )
N O T E S
1. Thes e section s provid e
for
th e othe r
inst
ance s
wherei n substitutio n o f partie s i s proper , subject t o th e
condition s therei n an d wheneve r th e court , upo n motion
and notice , find s justifiabl e reaso n therefor .
Sec.
tion
Sec .
It i s
believe d tha t n o suc h delimitatio n wa s intende d unde r th e
old Rul e whic h authorize d suc h substitutio n a s lon g a s
109
----------------------- Page 110----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 20
W h e n
t h e a c t i o n i s fo r r e c o v e r y o f m o n e y
a r i s i n g
fro m
c o n t r a c t ,
e x p r e s s
o r
i m p l i e d ,
a n
d
t h e
defendan t die s befor e e n t r y o f fina l j u d g m e n t i n
t h e
c o u r
t
o f s
u t s
t i n whic h t h e actio n w a s p e n d i n g a t t h e
i m e
u c h d e a t h , i t s h a l l n o t b e d i s m i s s e d b
h a l l
110
unti l
m e n t
entr y o f fina l
obtaine d b y
enforce d
i n
e s e Rule s
fo r
decease d
person .
th e
p r o s
(21a )
N O T E S
1. Thi s wa s th e forme r Sec . 2 1 o f th e old Rul e whic
h
ha s bee n amende d t o provid e a ne w procedur e specially
for th e dispositio n o f contractua l mone y claim s wher e
th e defendan t die s befor e th e terminatio n o f th e action
thereon .
Tw o importan t aspect s thereo f mus t inceptively
b e t a k e n not e of: (1) t h e actio n m u s t primaril y b e
for
recover y o f money , deb t o r i n t e r e s t thereon ,
an
d no t
wher e th e subjec t m a t t e r i s primaril y for som e othe r
relie f an d th e collection o f a n amoun t o f
therei n i s merel y incidenta l thereto , suc h a s
damages ; an d (2) th e clai m subjec t o f th e
from a contract , expres s or implied , entere d int
decedent i n hi s lifetim e o r th e liabilit y
d
been assume d b y o r i s imputabl e t o him .
mone y sough t
b y wa y o f
actio n aros e
o by th e
for whic h ha
Th e
presen t
revise d procedur e
i s believe d
t o b e
112
----------------------- Page 113----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 20
i s eliminated .
b e filed in th e
an d
executory judgmen t o
th e forme r doe s
revie w
i s
th e
no t involve d sinc e
for
j u d g m e n t
reviva l
th e
s o
action i s
thereo f ma y
t h a t
b e
th e
merel y t o keep
sum s
presente d
awarde d
a s
claim s
i n
113
----------------------- Page 114----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 21
p a r t y
m a
action ,
c l a i m o r
c o u r t ,
d e f
u p o n
a n
i s satisfie d t h a t t h e
p r o p e r t y sufficien t
a n d basi c n e c e s s i t i
S u c h
a u t h o r i t y
s h a l l i n c l u d e
a n
m p t i o n
fro m p a y m e n t o f d o c k e t an d o t h e r lawfu l fees ,
e x e
an d
o f t r a n s c r i p t s o f s t e n o g r a p h i c
n o t e s
w h
i c h
t h e
cour t m a y orde r t o b e f u r n i s h e d h i m .
T h e
a m o u n t
o f t h e d o c k e t
a n d
o t h e r l a w f u l
f e e s w h i
c h
t h e
i n d i g e n t w a s e x e m p t e d fro m p a y i n g shal l b e a l
ie n
o n an y j u d g m e n t r e n d e r e d i n t h e c a s e favorabl e t
o
th e i n d i g e n t , u n l e s s t h e c o u r t o t h e r w i s e p r
o v i d e s .
A n y
a
r a n t
o f
s u c h
a u t h
e n t
i s
r e n d e r e d
t s h o u l d
d e t e r m i n e
a s
d v e r s e
o r i t y
b y
t h e
p a r t y
a t
a n y
tria l
m a y
t i m e
c our t .
c o n t e s t
t h e g
b e f o r e
j u d g m
I f t h e
c o u r
afte r h e a r i n g t h a t t h e part y d e c l a r e d
a n
i n d i g e n t
i s i n f a c t a
f f i c i e n t
i n c o m e o r property , t h e p r o p
h e r
l a w f u l
f e e s s h a l l b e
a s s
c t e d b y
th e cler k o f court .
I f p a y
w i t h i n
th e t i m e
fixe d b y t h e court ,
i s s u e
for t h e p a y m e n t thereof , w i t h o
p e r s o n
e r
w i t h
d o c k e t
e s s e d
a n d
a n d
m e n t
i s
o t
c o l l e
no t m a d e
e x e c u t i o n
u t prejudic e
o t h e r s a n c t i o n s a s t h e c o u r t m a y
a )
s u
s h a l l
t o s u c h
i m p o s e .
(22
114
----------------------- Page 115----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 22
Th e
p r e s e n t
concep t
o f a n
indigen t
litigan t
I t wa s
considere d
inaccurat e
an d
Section 1 9 thereof .
o f
Rule 3 coul d hav e
141 wa s adopted ,
the n amended .
n b e
harmonize d an d ca n
However ,
i f bot h
requirement s
hearin g shal l b e
o n th e evidenc e
e part y ma y late r stil
g m e n t
a n d
p r o
f sai d Sectio n 2 1
et al., G.R. No.
Sec .
22 .
Notice to the Solicitor General. In
an y
a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f a n y t r e
y , l a w ,
o r d i n a n c e , e x e c u t i v e o r d e r , p r e s i d e n t i a
d e c r e e ,
r u le s o r r e g u l a t i o n s , th e court , i n it s discretion
m a y
requir e th e a p p e a r a n c e o f th e Solicito r Genera l w h o
m a y b e hear d i n p e r s o n o r t h r o u g h a r e p r e s e n
t i v e
dul y d e s i g n a t e d b y him . (23a )
a t
l
,
t a
116
----------------------- Page 117----------------------RUL E
V E N U E
O F
ACTION S
S e c t i o n
1 .
Venue
of
real
actions.
A
c t i o n s
affectin g titl e t o o r p o s s e s s i o n o f rea l property ,
o r
i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , s h a l l b e c o m m e n c e d a n d t
r i e d i n
h e p r o p e r c o u r t w h i c h
h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n
v e r t h e
r e a
w h e r e i n
t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y
i n v o l v e
,
o r a
o r t i o n thereof , i s s i t u a t e d .
t
o
a
d
p
F o r c r b
s h a l l b e
c o m m e n c e d
c o u r t
o f t h e
m u
h e r e a l
propert y i n v o
e d .
(l[a],2[a]a )
r e ^ n t r y
a n d
a n d t r i e d
d e t a i n e r
i n
n i c i p a l i t y
t h e
a c t i o n s
o r
m u n i c i p a l tria l
c i t y
w h e r e i n
l v e d , o r a p o r t i o n thereof , i s s i t u a t
S e c . 2 . Venue
of
o t h e r
a c t i o n s m a y
b e
c o m m
e r e
t h e
plaintif f o r a n y o f t h e
r e s i d e s ,
o r w h e r e
t h e d e f e n d
r i n c i p a l
d e f e n d a n t s r e s i d e s , o
e s i d e n t
d e f e n d a n t w h e r e h e m
c t i o n
o f t h e plaintiff .
(2[b]a )
personal
actions.
e n c e d
a n d
p r i n c i p a l
a n t
o r
a n y
Al l
t r i e d w h
plaintiff s
o f t h e
r i n t h e c a s e o f a n o n r
a y
b e
found ,
a t t h e
e l e
NOTE S
in
1.
Rul e 4 formerl y provide d differen t rule s o f venu e
th e so-calle d inferio r court s an d th e Regiona l Tria l
bein g
determine d b y th e plac e wher e th e rea l propert y i s situate d
and , for persona l actions , by th e residenc e o f th e parties ,
wit h specia l provision s for nonresiden t defendants .
2 .
Th e
venu e
o f th e
rea l
action s
contemplate d
i n
, dependin g
c o n t r o v e r s
rea l
actio n
inv
l propert y o r an
118
----------------------- Page 119----------------------RULE 4
S.
1-2
VENUE OF ACTIONS
SEC
of th e p u r c h a s e pric e
o f th e lan d
(Lizares
vs.
Caluag,
et al., L-17699, Mar. 30,
1962), or to compe l th e vendo r
to
deliver th e certificat e o f titl e t o th e lan d (Espineli, e t
al.
vs. Santiago,
et al., 107 Phil.
830) ar e
rea l action s
an d
th e locatio n o f th e lan d determine s th e venu e o f th e action .
Bu t action s only t o recove r th e purchas e pric e o f th e lan d
(Garcia vs.
Velasco,
72 Phil.
248) or for recover y agains
t
th e Assuranc e
Fun d
(Hodges
vs.
Treasurer
of
th
e Phil.,
50 Phil.
16) ar e persona l actions .
5 . A n actio n for th e annulmen t o f th e cancellatio n
of th e awar d o f a lot in favor o f th e plaintiff , whic h
h e
wa s p r e p a r e d t o pa y for p u r s u a n t t o sai d award
, doe s
not involv e th e issu e o f possessio n o r titl e t o th e property ,
henc e it i s a persona l actio n
al.,
L-31095,
June
15,
1976).
(Hernandez
vs.
DBP,
et
t o
a
rea l
mortgage e
i s i n
th e plaint
y i s in
of Lucena,
Inc.,
L-29791, Jan.
10,
cts,
etc. Inc., G.R. No.
, it
is a rea l action .
1978;
152808,
cf.
Chua
Sept.
vs.
30,
Total
2005),
Office Produ
otherwise
119
----------------------- Page 120----------------------RULE 4
1-2
SECS
8. An^ actio n by th e landowne r agains t th e subdivi sion develope r for th e rescission an d terminatio n o f thei r
contract an d th e retur n t o th e plaintif f o f al l document s
an d titles , wit h damage s b y reaso n o f th e defendant' s
contractua l breach , i s a rea l action a s th e relie f sough t
wil l necessaril y entai l th e recover y b y th e plaintif f o
f
possessio n o f th e lan d or suc h unsol d portion s thereof ,
henc e th e venu e o f th e action i s determine d by th e location
of th e rea l propert y
(Tenorio
vs. Paho,
et al, L-4
8117,
Nov.
27,
1986).
9 . An action filed by th e husban d for damages , base d
on th e wife' s adulterou s acts , an d for hi s shar e i n th
e
fruit s o f th e conjuga l partnership , wit h a praye r for pre liminar y
injunctio n t o r e s t r a i n h e r fro m sellin g
r e a l
p r o p e r t y belongin g t o th e conjuga l p a r t n e r s h i p ,
i s a
persona l actio n a s h e doe s no t thereb y as k t o b e declare d
th e owne r thereof , no r for possessio n or partitio n o f th e
same , bu t merel y seek s t o exercis e hi s righ t a s adminis trato r of th e conjuga l partnershi p (De Guzman, et al.
vs.
Genato,
et al., L-42260,
April
10,
1979).
10. Th e venu e in ejectmen t case s unde r Sec . 1 o f thi s
Rul e
m a y
b e c h a n g e d b y a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p
a r t i e s
p u r s u a n t t o Sec .
4 thereo f
(Villanueva
vs.
Mosqu
eda,
et al., G.R. No. 58287, Aug. 19, 1982), bu t it mus t now be
mad e i n writin g an d befor e th e filin g o f th e action .
11. Th e rule s o f venu e for persona l action s i n th
e
inferior c o u r t s a n d i n th e Regiona l Tria l C o u r t s
a r e
generally mad e t o depen d o n th e residenc e o f th e parties .
Th e residenc e referre d t o i s th e plac e wher e th e part
y
actually reside s a t th e tim e th e actio n i s institute d
(De l a
Rosa vs. De Borja, 53 Phil. 998), no t hi s permanen t hom e
or domicil e
(Koh vs. CA, et al, L-40428, Dec. 17,
5; cf.
Arevalo
vs.
Quilatan,
G.R.
No.
57892,
Sept.
1982,
regardin g servic e o f summon s a t defendant' s residence) .
197
21,
120
----------------------- Page 121----------------------RULE 4
SEC. 3
12.
VENUE OF ACTIONS
Th e residenc e o f th e perso n i s hi s personal , actua l
N O T E S
1.
Wher e a persona l actio n i s agains t a residen t
defendant an d a nonresiden t defendan t bu t wh o i s i n th e
Philippines , bot h o f who m ar e principa l defendants , th e
venu e ma y b e lai d eithe r wher e th e residen t defendan t
reside s
o r w h e r e t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n
t ma y b e
found, a s authorize d by Sec . 2 o f thi s Rule , bu t wit h an
additiona l alternativ e venue , i.e. , th e residenc e o f an y o f
th e principa l plaintiffs , p u r s u a n t t o Sees . 2 an d 3 .
It wil l b e observe d t h a t whe n ther e i s mor e t h a n
on e
defendant o r plaintif f i n th e
case ,
th e
residence s
o f th e
for failur e
t o d o so .
I t i s entirel y possibl e
objectio n
w a s
no t i m m e d i a t e l y discernibl e
b u t
becam e apparen t only a t th e tim e th e defendan t prepare d
hi s answe r o r that , for an y othe r reason , h e wa s no t the n
in a positio n t o file a motio n t o dismiss .
Unde r
improper venu
ground s for
Rul e 1 6 an
if it i s
b e
allege d
a
preliminar
likewis e
subject t
therefore , th e groun d o f
sam e footin g a s th e othe r
enumerate d in Sec . 1 o f
e sam e consideration s i n that ,
a n
affirmativ e
y hearin g thereon .
defens e
i n
th e
a n s w e r
for
A t al l events , i t i s
1 ,
Rul e 9
t h a t i f i t i s no t pleade d a s a n objection eithe r i n a mot
io n
t o dismis s o r i n th e answer , i t i s deeme d waived .
3 . W h e r e
t h e
n t o f t h e
Philippine s bu t i s permitte
of a foreign corporatio n wit
Sec. 12 3 o f th e Corporatio
plac e wher e th e defendan
p l a i n t i f f
d
h
n
t
t o su e her
th e requisit
Code) , the n
resides , or
i s a n o n r e s i d e
e (a s i n
e licens e
th e venu e
, i n rea
th e cas e
unde r
i s th e
l actions ,
VENUE OF ACTIONS
hand ,
i t
i s
Time,
a
th e
sui t
defenda
foun d in th e Philippines ,
th e actio n affect s th e
l a i n t i f f o r p r o p e r
determine s th e venue .
g servic e o f s u m m o n s
Rule
not
applicable.
T h i s
I n t h o s e c a s e s w h e r e a specifi c rul e o r la
w
p r o v i d e s o t h e r w i s e ; o r
(b) W h e r e t h e
p a r t i e s h a v e v a l i d l y a g
r e e d i n
w r i t i n g
b e f o r e t h e
f i l i n g o f t h e a c t i o n
o n
t h e
e x c l u s i v e v e n u e thereof . (3a , 5a )
NOTE S
1.
Sec .
4(b)
ha s bee n eliminated .
T o b e binding , th e partie s mus t hav e agree d o n th e
exclusive natur e o f th e venu e o f an y prospectiv e actio n
betwee n them .
Thi s adopt s th e doctrine s lai d dow n b y
th e Suprem e Cour t requirin g that , t o avoi d th e genera l
rule s o n venue , th e agreemen t o f th e partie s thereo n mus t
b e restrictiv e an d no t permissive .
Thos e decision s ar e
se t
out hereunde r by wa y o f illustrations , asid e from othe r
decisional rule s o n venue .
2 . It i s fundamenta l in th e law governin g venu e o f
action s t h a t t h e s i t u s i s fixe d t o a t t a i n t h
e g r e a t e s t
convenienc e
possibl e
t o t h e l i t i g a n t s b y t a
k i n g int o
consideration th e maximu m accessibility t o the m o f th e
court s of justic e
(Koh
vs.
CA,
et al, L-40428,
D
ec.
17,
1975).
V e n u e
i n p e r s o n a l a c t i o n s i s fixe d
fo r t h e
convenienc e o f th e plaintif f an d hi s witnesse s an d t o
promot e th e end s o f justice .
Wher e th e contract , subjec
t
o f th e suit , wa s execute d a t th e tim e whe n bot h plaintif f
an d defendan t ha d thei r busines s addresse s i n th e City o f
Manil a an d containe d a provis o t h a t al l action s o n sai d
c o n t r a c t "ma y
b e b r o u g h t i n a n d s u b m i t t e d
t o t h e
jurisdictio n o f th e prope r court s in th e City o f Manila, "
bu t a t th e tim e o f sui t thereo n al l th e partie s ha d thei
r
respectiv e offices or residence s withi n th e jurisdictio n o f
th e Provinc e o f Rizal , th e actio n thu s institute d i n
th e
Court o f Firs t Instanc e o f Riza l shoul d no t b e dismisse d
o n t h e g r o u n d o f i m p r o p e r v e n u e a s , u n d e
r
s u c h
circumstances , th e end s o f justic e ca n no t b e serve d o
r
promote d b y confinin g th e situ s o f th e actio n i n Manil a
(Nicolas
vs.
Reparations
Commission,
L-28649,
M
ay
21,
1975;
se e
als o
Capati
vs.
Ocampo,
L-22742,
Ap
ril
30,
1982).
3 .
c o n t r a
njustl y
denie s a
d e s i g n
k e int o
a s
u
VENUE OF ACTIONS
(see
National Dev.
Corp.,
G.R.
No.
148332,
Co.
Sept.
vs.
Madrigal
30,
Wan
Hai
Lines
2003).
T h u s , i n c o n t r a c t s i n vo l v i n g p a s s a g e t
i c k e t s , a
condition p r i n t e d a t t h e bac k thereo f t h a t al l act
ion s
arising ou t o f t h a t contrac t o f carriag e ca n b e filed only in
a particula r provinc e or city , t o th e exclusio n o f al l others ,
wa s declare d voi d an d
th e shippin g industry .
acut e
shortage o f inter-islan d
accommodation s
th e venu e
indicated , asid e from
unenforceabl e du e t o th e stat e o f
Th e Cour t note d t h a t th e
vessel s coul d no t provid e enoug h
for plaintiff s
t o t r a v e l
th e
fact
t h a t
th e
t o
passenger s
no t h a v e
t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x a m i n e
n e p r i n t
providin g
for suc h
venu e
(Sweet
Lines,
s.
Teves,
etc., et al., L-37750, May
19,
1978).
di d
t h e
fi
Inc.
In a
s u b s e q u e n t c a s e in vo l v i n g
6 s u b s
c r i p t i o n
c o n t r a c t s for c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e s eac h covere
d b y
a
mobilin e servic e agreement ,
th e subscribe r challeng
e d
th e provision s i n sai d a g r e e m e n t s providin g t h a t
th e
venu e for al l s u i t s a r i s i n g therefro m shal l b e
i n th e
prope r cour t o f Makati , wit h th e subscribe r waivin g an y
125
----------------------- Page 126----------------------RULE 4
SEC. 4
other venue .
Th e Suprem e Cour t sustaine d th e validit y
o f tha t venu e stipulation , considerin g t h a t th e subscribe r
ha s sufficien t opportunit y t o g o ove r suc h stipulatio n
durin g eac h tim e h e signe d thos e agreements , a s wel l a s
i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t s u b s c r i p t i o n s h e a c q u i r
e d whil e
r e m a i n i n g a s a s u b s c r i b e r for som e
t i m e (
Pilipino
Telephone
Corp.
vs.
Tecson,
G.R.
No.
156966,
M
ay
7,
2004;
cf. DBP
vs. National
Merchandising
Corp.,
L-22957
&
L-23737,
Aug.
31,
1971).
5.
27033,
Oct.
n wa s impose d
convenienc e
Cui,
et
31,
b y
al., infra).
corporatio
o n t r o l l i n g
state d
i n
it
or plac e o f
126
----------------------- Page 127----------------------RULE 4
SEC. 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS
busines s
thereo f
(Hyatt
Elevators
Corp.
vs.
Goldstar
Elevators
Phils.,
Inc.,
61026
Oct.
24,
2005).
and
G.R.
Escalators
No.
bu t th e mortgage e stil l sen t a telegra m demandin g pay men t from th e mortgagor , th e venu e for th e latter' s action
for damage s i s no t governe d by th e venu e stipulatio n in
th e chatte l mortgag e sinc e th e sui t i s no t base d o n sai d
contract bu t o n defendant' s ac t o f sendin g th e telegra m
(Zoleta
vs. Romillo,
G.R.
No.
58080, Feb.
15,
1982).
9 .
SEC. 4
b e done .
However , sinc e th e defendan t di d no t timel y
rais e tha t issu e bu t filed tw o motion s t o lift th e wri t o f
preliminar y
a t t a c h m e n t an
befor e it eventuall y filed a motion
o f imprope r venue , suc h objection
th e tria l cour t erre d i n grantin
th e
cas e
(Phil.
International
Zileena,
et
102904,
d a counterbon d
therefor ,
t o dismis s on th e groun d
ha s bee n waive d an d
g th e motion an d dismissin g
Trading
Corp.
vs. M.V.
Oct.
30,
1992).
Becaus e
o f th e
superventio n
o f R.A .
No .
769 1
(Appendix N)
which ,
inter alia, amende d th e jurisdictio n
o f th e regula r tria l court s i n rea l actions , pendin g fina l
action o n th e presen t revise d Rules , th e Suprem e Cour t
approve d i n advanc e an d promulgate d th e presen t Rul e 4
t o t a k e effect o n Augus t 1 , 1995 , issuin g therefo r
Administrativ e Circula r No .
13-9 5 o n J u n e 20 ,
it s
1995 .
128
----------------------- Page 129----------------------RUL E
UNIFOR M
PROCEDUR E
5
I N
TRIA L
COURT S
S e c t i o n 1 . Uniform procedure.
Th e
p r o c
e d u r e
i n t h e M u n i c i p a l Tria l Court s shal l b e th e s a m e a s
i n t h e R e g i o n a l T r i a l
e r e a
particula r p r o v i e i o n e x p r e
l i e s
o n l y t o e i t h e r o f s a i d
v i l c a s e s
g o v e r n e d b y t h e R u l e o n
(n )
C o u r t ,
e x c e p t
(a )
w h
s s l y o r i m p l i e d l y a p p
c o u r t s ,
o r
(b ) i n
c i
S u m m a r y P r o c e d u r e ,
f
th e Interi m Rule s an d Guidelines , al l case s decide d b y
th e inferior court s ma y b e appeale d t o th e Regiona l Tria l
Courts .
I t ha s bee n hel d tha t suc h provision s ar e broa d
e n o u g h t o cove r
j u d g m e n t s
b y d e f a u l t , s u m
m a r y
j u d g m e n t s an d j u d g m e n t s o n th e pleading s r e n d
e r e d
b y inferio r courts .
Th e
c o n t r a r y doctrine s
i n
Luzon
Rubber
& Manufacturing
Co.
vs. Estaris,
et al. [L-314
39 ,
Aug .
31 , 1973] an d reiterate d in Stratchan, e t al.
v
s. CA,
et al. [L-23455 , J a n . 27 , 1985] ar e thereb y deeme d over rule d
(Guanson
vs. Montesclaros,
et al., G.R.
No.
59330,
June
28,
1983).
Th e
controvers y
in th e p a s t o
n thi s
poin t (se e
Vda.
de Hoyo-a,
et al. vs. Virata,
et al.
, G.R.
No.
71171,
July
23,
1985),
whic h
ha s
now
bee n
se t at
rest , wa s du e t o th e fact t h a t , formerly , onl y def
aul t
judgment s o f th e Court s o f Firs t Instanc e wer e appealabl e
unde r th e the n Sec . 2 o f Rul e 41 .
4 .
Wher e
th e
lower cour t
ha d
n o jurisdictio n
ove r
t h e case , t h e Regiona l T r i a l C o u r t
q u i r e
appellat e jurisdiction .
However , whil e
a n t
ma y assai l suc h jurisdictio n o n appeal , th e
submit t o th e origina l jurisdictio n o f th e
Court an d sai d cour t ca n procee d t o tr
Alvir
vs.
Vera,
L-39338,
July
16,
1984).
e s e n t
procedura l rule , se e Sec . 8 , Rul e 40 .
doe s
th e
no t
a c
a p p e l l
partie s ma y
Regiona l Tria l
y th e cas e (
Fo r
t h e
p r
s from a decision
th e exercis e o f it s
t o th e Cour t o f
.
Thus , S
ec . 2
o f Rul e
review
t o th e
Cour t o f Appeal s
mus t se t forth ,
inter alia,
Wit h respec t
t o
th e
syste m
o f amicabl y
or
both
settlin g
Civi l Cases :
(1) Al l
c a s e s o f forcibl e
e n t r y a n d u n l
a w f u l
detaine r irrespectiv e o f th e amoun t o f damage s o r
unpai d rental s sough t t o b e recovered .
Wher e at
tor ney' s fee s ar e awarded , th e sam e shal l no t excee
d
twent y thousan d peso s (P20,000.00) .
(2) Al l othe r civil cases , excep t probat e proceed ings , wher e th e tota l amoun t o f th e plaintiff s clai m
doe s no t excee d te n t h o u s a n d peso s (P10.000.00) ,
exclusive o f interes t an d costs .
X
X
II .
Civil
SEC .
3 .
Pleadings.
A .
Pleadings
d i n g s
allowed t o b e filed
Case s
allowed.
ar e
complaints ,
th e
Th e
onl y
p l e a
compulsor y
132
----------------------- Page 133----------------------RULE 5
SEC. 2
Duty
of
court.
After
th e
cour t
deter
SEC .
5 . Answer.
Withi n
te n
(10)
day s
from
servic e o f s u m m o n s ,
th e defendan t shal l file
hi s
answer t o th e complain t an d serv e a copy thereo f o n
th e plaintiff .
Affirmativ e an d negativ e defense s not
pleade d therei n shal l b e deeme d waived , excep t for
lack o f jurisdictio n ove r th e subjec t matter .
C
ross claim s an d compulsor y counterclaim s not asserte d i n
th e answe r shal l b e considere d barred .
Th e ans
we r
t o counterclaim s or cross-claim s shal l b e filed an d
served withi n te n (10) day s from servic e o f th e answe r
in whic h the y ar e pleaded .
SEC .
6 . Effect of failure to answer. Shoul d th e
defendant fai l t o answe r th e complain t withi n th e
perio d abov e provided , th e court , motu proprio, or on
motion o f th e plaintiff , shal l rende r judgmen t a s ma y
b e warrante d b y th e fact s allege d i n th e complain t
an d limite d t o wha t i s praye d for therein : Provided ,
however , t h a t th e cour t ma y i n it s discretio n reduc e
th e amoun t o f damage s an d attorney' s fee s claime d
for bein g excessiv e or otherwis e unconscionable . Thi s
i s withou t prejudic e t o th e applicability o f Section 4 ,
Rul e 1 8 o f th e Rule s o f Court , i f ther e ar e tw o or mo
r e
defendants .
133
----------------------- Page 134----------------------RULE 5
SEC. 2
SEC .
7 . Preliminary
conference;
appearance
of
parties.
Not late r tha n thirt y (30) day s after th e
last answe r i s filed , a preliminar y conferenc e shal l b e
held .
Th e rule s o n pre-tria l i n ordinar y case s shal l
b e applicabl e t o th e preliminar y conferenc e unles s
inconsistent wit h th e provision s o f thi s Rule .
Th e
Withi n five (5) day s afte r th e terminatio n o f th e pre liminary conference , th e cour t shal l issu e a n orde r
statin g th e matter s take n u p therein ,
no t limite d to :
includin g bu t
(a)
Whethe r th e partie s hav e arrive d a t a n ami cable settlement , an d i f so , th e term s thereof ;
(b)
Th e stipulation s o r admission s entere d
b y th e parties ;
(c)
Whether , o n th e basi s o
th e stipulation s an d admission s mad e
j u d g m e n t m a y b e r e n d e r e
ee d o f
further proceedings ,
i n whic
e n t
s h a l l b e r e n d e r e d w i t h i n
fro m
issuanc e o f th e order ;
int o
f th e pleading s an d
b y th e parties ,
d w i t h o u t t h e n
h
even t
th e j u d g m
t h i r t y (30 ) d a y s
(d)
A clea r specification o f materia l fact s whic h
remai n controverted ; an d
134
----------------------- Page 135----------------------RULE 5
(e)
Suc h othe r matter s intende d t o expedit e th e
disposition o f th e case .
SEC .
9 .
Submission
papers.
Withi n te
order mentione d i n
partie s shal l submi t
an d othe r evidenc e
of
affidavits and
position
10 .
Rendition
of
judgment.
W i t h i n
o r th e
expiratio n
o f th e
perio d
for
cour t
shal l
no t
resor t
t o
clarificator y
pro
IV .
Common
Provision s
SEC .
18 .
Referral to Lupon. Case s requirin g
referra l t o th e Lupo n for conciliation unde r th e pro vision s o f Presidentia l Decre e No . 150 8 wher e ther e
i s n o showin g o f complianc e wit h suc h requirement ,
shal l b e dismisse d withou t prejudice , an d ma y b e
revive d
onl y afte r suc h r e q u i r e m e n t shal l hav e
bee n complie d with ,
x x x .
135
19 .
Prohibited
SEC
pleadings
and
motions.
Affidavits.
Th e
affidavit s
require d
a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e , a n d s h a l l s h o w t h
e i r
competenc e t o testify t o th e matter s state d therein .
A violatio n o f thi s requiremen t ma y subjec t th e
part y o r th e counse l wh o submit s th e sam e t o dis ciplinary action , an d shal l b e caus e t o expung e th e
inadmissibl e
affidavi t o r portio n
thereo f from
th e
record .
SEC .
2 1 . Appeal.
shall b e appealabl e t o th e
court whic h shal l decid e th
Section 2 2 of Bata s Pambans a
n
of th e regiona l tria l cour t in civil case s governe d by
t h i s Rule , includin g
forcibl e
e n t r y an d unlawfu
l
136
----------------------- Page 137----------------------RULE 5
SEC. 2
detainer ,
prejudic e
e n
therefrom .
Sectio n
1 0 o f Rul e
7 0 shal l b e
deeme
d
repealed .
SEC .
es.
Th e
22 .
r e g u l a r
Applicability
procedur e
of
prescribe d
the
i n
regular
th e
Rule s
rul
o
f
Court shal l appl y t o th e specia l case s herei n provide d
for in a suppletor y capacit y insofar a s the y ar e no t
inconsistent herewith .
SEC .
2 3 .
Effectivity.
Thi s
o n
S u m m a ry Procedur e shal l b e effectiv e
be r 15 , 1991. "
revise d
o n
Rul e
Novem -
8 . Ne w
cour t
rule s
appl y
t o pendin g
case s
only
wit h referenc e t o proceeding s therei n whic h tak e plac e
after th e dat e o f thei r effectivity .
The y d o no t appl y
t o
th e exten t t h a t i n th e opinio n o f th e cour t thei r applica
tion woul d no t b e feasibl e o r woul d wor k injustice ,
i n
whic h even t th e forme r procedur e shal l apply .
Thus ,
wher e th e applicatio n o f th e Rul e o n Summar y Procedur e
will mea n th e dismissa l o f th e appea l o f th e party , th e
I N
REGIONA L
TRIA L
COURT
RUL E
K I N D S
S e c t
h e
w r i t t e n
m s a n d
d e f e n s e s
c o u r t fo
a p p r o p r i
i o n 1 .
O F
6
P L E A D I N G S
Pleadings defined. P l e a d i n g s ar e t
s t a t e m e n t s
o f t h e
r e s p e c t i v e c l a i
o f t h e p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d
r
a t e j u d g m e n t , ( l a )
t o
t h e
S e c . 2 .
Pleadings allowed. Th e claim s o f a part y
ar e a s s e r t e d i n a c o m p l a i n t , c o u n t e r c l a i m
, c r o s s c l a i m , t h i r d
( f o u r t h , e t c . ) - p a r t y c o m p l a i
n t
o r
c o m p l a i n t - i n - i n t e r v e n t i o n .
Th e d e f e n s e s o f a part y ar e allege d i n th e a n s w
e r
t o t h e p l e a d i n g a s s e r t i n g a c l a i m a g a i n s t hi
m .
A n a n s w e r m a y b e r e s p o n d e d t o b y a reply ,
n )
NOT E
1.
In a broa d sense , th e t e r m "pleadings " include s
all paper s filed , excludin g evidentiar y matters , from th e
complaint dow n t o th e judgment .
Document s attache d t
o
th e pleading s an d mad e a p a r t thereo f ar e considere d
evidence
an d
als o
p a r t o f th e pleading s
(Asia
Banking
Corporation
vs.
Olsen
&
Co.,
48 Phil.
529).
A
bil l of
p a r t i c u l a r s c o n s t i t u t e s p a r t o f t h e p l e a d i
n g t h a t i t
supplement s (Sec.
6, Rule
12).
A coverin g lette r f
or a
pleadin g i s no t p a r t o f th e latte r (Clorox Co.
vs.
Director
of Patents,
L-19531,
Aug.
10,
1967).
Sec .
t h e
p l e a d i n g
a u s e s o f
action .
intif f
an d defendan
3 .
Complaint.
T h e
c o m p l a i n t
a l l e g i n g t h e
Th e
n a m e s
a n d
p l a i n t i f f s c a u s e o r c
r e s i d e n c e s
o f th e
pla
SECS. 4-5
NOTE S
1. Th e provision s o f thi s section wit h regar d t o
a
complaint ar e als o tru e wit h an d ar e applicabl e t o othe r
initiatory pleadings , a s wel l a s t o petition s filed i n th e
tria l o r appellat e courts , excep t that , i n th e latte r case ,
i t
i s th e ac t o f th e lower cour t whic h i s complaine d o f tha t
ha s t o b e alleged , instea d o f a caus e o f action a s technically
understood .
2 . Th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t an d th e natur e o f th
e
action ar e determine d b y th e averment s i n th e complaint .
Th e praye r for relie f i s no t controllin g o n th e cour t an d
i s merel y advisor y a s t o th e natur e o f th e action , a s i t
i s
th e averment s i n th e complain t whic h control .
Se e note s
unde r Sec . 2 , Rul e 7 .
S e c . 4 . Answer.
d i n g i n
w h i c h a d e f e n d i n g
e f e n s e s .
(4a)
Sec . 5 .
t h e r
b e
n e g a t i v e o r
A n
p a r t y
Defenses.
a n s w e r
s e t s
i s
fort h
D e f e n s e s
h i s
p l e a
m a y
e i
affirmative .
(a)
A n e g a t i v e d e f e n s e i s t h e specifi c d e n
i a l o f
t h e m a t e r i a l fac t o r fact s a l l e g e d i n t h e p l e a d
i n g o f
t h e c l a i m a n t e s s e n t i a l t o h i s c a u s e
o r c
a u s e s
o f
a c t i o n .
(b)
A n affirmativ e d e f e n s e i s a n a l l e g a t i o n
o f a
n e w m a t t e r w h i c h , w h i l e h y p o t h e t i c a l l y a
d m i t t i n g
t h e
m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s
i n t h e p l e a d i n
g
o f t h e
c l a i m a n t ,
w o u l d
n e v e r t h e l e s s
p r e v e n t
o r
b a r
r e c o v e r y b y him .
T h e affirmativ e d e f e n s e s i n c l
u d e
f r a u d ,
s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , r e l e a s e , p
a y m e n t ,
i l l e g a l i t y , s t a t u t e o f
f r a u d s , e s t o p p e l ,
f o r m e r
r e c o v e r y , d i s c h a r g e i n b a n k r u p t c y , an d a n
y o t h e r
m a t t e r
(5a )
b y w a y o f c o n f e s s i o n a n d
a v o i d a n c e .
140
----------------------- Page 141----------------------RULE 6
. 4-5
KINDS OF PLEADING
SECS
N O T E S
1.
Sectio n 5(a )
t e r s
Wher e
,
materia
l
a n d
e
s h a l l d e n y onl y
t h e r e m a i n d e r . W h e r
d e f e n d a n t i s w i t h o u t knowledg e
o r i n f o r m
a t i o n
sufficient t o form a belie f a s t o th e t r u t h o f a mater
ia l
avermen t mad e i n th e complaint , h e shal l s o state ,
an d thi s shal l hav e th e effect o f a denial. "
3 . Sec .
5(b)
define s
an d
illustrate s
th e so-ca
lle d
affirmative defenses .
Th e enumeratio n i s not exclusive .
Thus ,
res judicata (Fernandez vs.
De Castro,
48 Phil.
123),
ultra Mrofl aoto of a oorporation , or lack of authorit y of a
person assumin g t o ac t for th e corporatio n (Ramirez vs.
Orientalist
Co.,
38 Phil.
634),
lache s (Gov't of the P.I.
vs.
Wagner,
et al., 49
Phil.
944),
an d
unconstitutionalit y
(Santiago
vs. Far Eastern
Broadcasting
Co.,
73 Phil.
408)
ar e affirmativ e
defense s whic h shoul d b e
specifical
ly
pleaded .
Furthermore , i f n o motion t o dismis s ha d bee n
filed, an y o f th e
g r o u n d s therefo r ma y b e
raise d
a s
affirmative defense s in th e answe r (Sec. 6, Rule 16).
141
----------------------- Page 142----------------------RULE 6
SECS. 6-7
S e
i s an y
c l a i m
a g a i n s
a n o p p
Counterclaim.
w h i c h a d e f e n d i n g
t
o s i n g party . (6a )
A
part y
c o u n t e r c l a i m
m a y
h a v e
S e c .
7 .
Compulsory counterclaim.A c o m p u l s o r y
c o u n t e r c l a i m i s o n e w h i c h , b e i n g c o g n i z a b l
e b y t h e
r e g u l a r
c o u r t s
o f j u s t i c e , a r i s e s ^ o u t
o
f j o r i s
c o n n e c t e d
w i t h t h e
t r a n s a c t i o n o r
o c c u
r r e n c e
c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r
o f t h e o p
p o s i n g
p a r t y ' s
c l a i m
a n d
d o e s
n o t
r e q u i r e
f o r i t s
a d j u d i c a t i o n t h e p r e s e n c e o f thir d p a r t i e s o f
w h o m
t h e c o u r t c a n n o t
a c q u i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n .
S u c h
a
c o u n t e r c l a i m m u s t b e w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i
o n o f t h e
c o u r t bot h a s t o t h e a m o u n t an d t h e n a t u r e there
of ,
e x c e p t
t h a t i n
a n
o r i g i n a l a c t i o n
b e f o
r e
t h e
R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t , t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m
m a y
b e
c o n s i d e r e d c o m p u l s o r y regardles s o f t h e a m o u n t ,
(n )
NOTE S
1. In America n law from whic h w e hav e derive d th e
concept o f a counterclaim , it i s considere d a s in effect a
new sui t i n whic h th e part y name d a s th e defendan t i s
th e
plaintif f an d
t h e plaintif f become s
t h e de
fendan t
(Roberts Min.
& Mill Co.
vs. Schroder,
CCA.
Nev.
,
95 F.
2d 522).
It i s bu t anothe r nam e for a cross-petitio n
(Clark
vs. Duncanson,
79 Okl.
180,
192 P.
806,
16 A.L.R.
450) or
is a substitut e for a cross-bil l in equit y (Vidal vs.
South
American
Securities
Co.,
CCA.
N.Y.,
276 F.
855).
Th e
ter m i s broade r i n meanin g t h a n set-of f o r recoupment ,
an d include s the m bot h
(Williams vs.
Williams,
192 N.C.
405,
135
S.E.
39; Aetna
Life
Insurance
Co.
vs.
Griffin,
200 N.C.
251,
156 S.E.
515).
2 . A
clarificatio n
h a s bee n
i n c o
d i n t h e
definition o f a compulsor y counterclai m by reaso n
divergen t view s i n th e p a s t a s t o w h e t h
o t th e
amoun t involve d i n th e counterclai m shoul d b e take n
r p o r a t e
o f
e r
o r
int o
142
----------------------- Page 143----------------------RULE 6
CS. 6-7
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
SE
account whe n suc h a counterclai m i s pleade d i n th e Re gional Tria l Court , i n th e sam e m a n n e r a s th e rul e
o n
jurisdictiona l a m o u n t
r e q u i r e d for a complain t
file d
therein .
Th e p r e s e n t formulatio n make s i t clea r t
h a t
such a counterclai m ma y b e entertaine d by th e Regiona l
Trial Cour t regardles s o f th e amoun t involve d provide d
that , i n additio n t o th e othe r requirements , i t i s cognizabl e
by th e regula r court s o f justice .
Thus , for instance
, a
claim arisin g from a labo r dispute , althoug h withi n th e
jurisdictiona l amoun t provide d for Regiona l Tria l Courts ,
may no t b e raise d a s a counterclai m therei n as , unde r th e
law presentl y in force , th e sam e shoul d b e filed in th e labor
tribunal s o r agencies .
Th e sam e i s tru e wit h respec t
t o
other claim s jurisdictio n ove r whic h i s veste d exclusively
in th e quasi-judicia l agencies .
3 .
distinguishe d a s follows :
A compulsory counterclaim - i s on e whic h arise s ou t
o f o r i s necessaril y connecte d wit h th e transactio n o r
occurrenc e t h a t i s t h e subject-matte r o f th e opposin g
party' s claim .
I f it i s withi n th e jurisdictio n o f a regul
a r
court o f justic e an d i t doe s no t requir e for it s adju
di cation th e presenc e o f thir d partie s over who m th e cour t
cannot acquir e jurisdiction , i t i s barre d i f no t se t up in
th e actio n
(se e Sec. 2, Rule 9).
Thi s i s als o know n
a s a
"recoupment "
(Lopez vs . Glories
40 Phil,
26).
A
i s i t
opposing
se t up
in th e
s.
Gloria,
supra).
SECS
jurisdiction , it i s considere d a s only a permissiv e counter claim an d i s not barre d eve n i f no t se t up i n th e actio
n
(see als o Sec. 2, Rule 9).
5. A counterclai m is , therefore , compulsor y i f (a) it
arise s ou t of, or i s necessaril y connecte d with , th e trans action o r occurrenc e whic h i s th e subject-matte r o f th e
opposin g party' s claim ; (b) i t doe s no t requir e for it
s
adjudication th e presenc e o f thir d partie s o f who m th e
court canno t acquir e jurisdiction ; an d (c) subjec t t o th e
qualification o n th e jurisdictiona l amoun t wit h regar d t o
counterclaim s raise d i n th e Regiona l Tria l Courts , th e
court ha s jurisdictio n t o e n t e r t a i n th e claim .
Whi
l e a
numbe r o f criteri a hav e bee n advance d for th e determi natio n o f w h e t h e r th e
counterclai m i s compulsor y
o r
permissive , th e "on e compellin g tes t o f compulsoriness "
i s th e logica l relationshi p betwee n th e clai m allege d i n
th e complain t an d t h a t i n th e counterclaim , i.e. , wher e
s e p a r a t e trial s o f eac h o f th e respectiv e claim s wou
l d
involv e
a s u b s t a n t i a l duplicatio n o f effor t o r ti
m e
b y
th e partie s an d th e courts , a s wher e the y involv e man y
of th e
sam e
factua l
and/o r
lega l
issue s
(Quintanilla
vs.
CA, et al., G.R.
No.
101747,
Sept. 24,
1997).
In Alday
vs. FGU Insurance Corp.
(G.R .
No .
13
8822 ,
J a n . 23 , 2001) , th e Suprem e Cour t reiterate d th e criteri a
in determinin g whethe r a counterclai m i s compulsor y or
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
6.
An after-acquire d counterclai m
if th e sam e arise s
ou t o f or i
h
th e clai m allege d i n th e complain t
bu t wa s no t se t up therein , sinc e Sec
tha t a compulsor y counterclai m "tha t
ha s
at the
time
he files his
ne d
therein "
(Tiu
Po
vs. Bautista,
17,
1981).
SEC
No.
cas e
provide s
y
be
contai
55514,
Mar.
7 . Wher e th e counterclaim ,
an d th e sam e i s
tru e
wit h a cross-claim , wa s alread y i n existenc e a t th e tim e
th e defendan t filed hi s answe r bu t wa s not se t u p therei n
throug h oversight , inadvertence , o r excusabl e neglect ,
or whe n justic e s o requires , th e sam e ma y b e se t up b y
filing an amende d answe r (Sec. 10, Rule 11).
Wher e
sai d
counterclaim o r cross-clai m mature d afte r th e filing o f th e
answer , th e defendin g p a r t y ca n se t i t u p b y filin
g a
supplementa l a n s w e r or pleadin g (Sec.
9, Rule
1
1). In
either case , leav e o f cour t i s require d an d suc h pleading s
mus t b e filed befor e th e renditio n o f th e judgment .
8 . A
c o u n t e r c l a i m
o t b e
answere d i f i t i s base d on an d
defense raise d b y th e opposin g
resul t i n sai d opposin g p a r
s
o r c r o s s - c l a i m n e e d n
inseparabl e from th e very
part y a s i t wil l merel y
t y pleadin g th e sam e fact
SEC
n o n th e groun d tha t th e
a m o r t g a g e , t h e i n c o n
stan d a s a n answe r t o
Goyola, L-26768,
Oct.
th e
30,
it
canno t
properl y atten d t o hi s dutie s if, i n th e sam e case , h e
i s
kep t bus y defendin g himself .
Wher e th e lawye r act s
i n
th e n a m e o f a client , th e cour t shoul d no t p e r m i
t hi s
bein g impleade d a s a n additiona l part y defendan t i n th e
counterclaim i n th e ver y sam e cas e wher e h e i s actin g
only a s a counsel .
An y clai m for allege d damage s or othe r
cause s o f actio n agains t hi m shoul d b e filed i n a n entirel y
s e p a r a t e a n d d i s t i n c t civi l a c t i o n (Chavez,
e
tc.
vs.
Sandiganbayan,
et al., G.R.
No.
91391,
Jan.
24,
1991).
S e c . 8 .
i m
b y o n e part y
f t h e
Cross-claim. A c r o s s - c l a i m i s a n y c l a
a g a i n s t
co-part y
a r i s i n g o u t
146
----------------------- Page 147----------------------RULE 6
SECS. 9-10
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
t r a n s a c t i o n o r o c c u r r e n c e t h a t i s th e subjec t
m a t t e r
e i t h e r o f t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n o r o f a c o u
n t e r c l a i m
t h e r e i n . S u c h c r o s s - c l a i m m a y i n c l u d e a c l
a i m t h a t
th e part y a g a i n s t w h o m i t i s a s s e r t e d i s o r m a
y b e
liabl e t o t h e c r o s s - c l a i m a n t fo r al l o r par t o f a
c l a i m
a s s e r t e d i n t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e cross-clai
mant .
(7)
NOTE S
th e
a permissiv e cross-claim .
2 .
m a y
a l s o
and
count
b e
a s s e r t e d
file d
a g a
(n )
Sec .
10 .
Reply. A repl y i s
r f u n c t i o n o f w h i c h i s t o
s i n
e n i a l o r a v o i d a n c e o f n e w
y w a y
o f d e f e n s e i n t h e a n s w e r an
m a k e
issu e a s t o s u c h n e w matters .
o e s no t
a pleading , t h e offic e
d e n y , o r alleg e fa
o
ct
d
b
m a t t e r s a l l e g e d
d t h e r e b y joi n o r
I f a
part y
147
----------------------- Page 148----------------------RULE 6
CS. 9-10
SE
fil e s u c h reply , al l th e n e w m a t t e r s
i n th e
a n s w e r ar e d e e m e d controverted , '-h
I f t
c l a i m s
a r i s i n g
, s u c h
c l a i m s
d
o r
s u p p l e m
h e
plaintif f w i s h e s
o u t
s h a l l
o f t h e n e w
t o
b e
s e t
e n t a l complaint .
^ p P
i n t e r p o s e
m a t t e r s
f o r t h
a l l e g e d
i n
an y
s o
a l l e g e d
a n
a m e n d e
(11 )
NOTE S
1.
wit h ne w matter s raise d i n th e answe r an d thereb y au thoriz e th e pleade r o f th e repl y t o introduc e evidenc e o n
said ne w issues .
2 . Th e filin g o f th e repl y i s optiona l a s th e
ne w
matter s raise d i n th e answe r ar e deeme d controverte d
even withou t a reply . Wher e th e part y desire s t o file a
from
i n
o n
a n
actio
s necessary ,
executio n o f
deeme d
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
SE
a s t o th e pleading s
Law
vs.
Olympic
hel d t h a t p u r s u a
abovecite d instanc e
unde r oat h doe s
th e defendant , no t t
Accordingly , Sec .
1 1 o f Rul e 8 now expresse s t
h a t
specific requiremen t an d provide s tha t "(a)llegation s o f
usur y i n a complain t t o recove r usuriou s interes t ar e
deeme d admitte d i f no t denie d unde r oath. "
Hence ,
i f th e
a l l e g a t i o n o f u s u r y i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e d e f
e n d a n t ' s
answer , for instance , by wa y o f defens e t o a complain t
for a su m o f money , it i s no t necessar y for plaintif f t o file
repl y
r
oath .
It
theret o
i n
mad e by
it woul d
th e same
e
answer t o
in th e
i s believed ,
orde r t o
however ,
den y
t h a t
tha t
allegatio n
i f suc h
unde
allegatio n wa s
t
see
s
So.
How
Suy
5 .
Ching,
91
Phil.
456).
action
(Calvo
vs. Roldan,
7 6 Phil.
roduc e
therei n
ne w
or additiona l cause s
a
vs.
Palaroan,
L-27930,
Nov.
26,
1970).
Sec .
11 .
Third,
(fourth,
445)
no r
o f actio n
etc.) - part y
int
(Anay
complaint .
A thir d
i m
t h a t a
, fil e
a g a i n
, calle
(fourth ,
etc. ) -
part y
c o m p l a i n t
i s
c l a
d e f e n d i n g part y may , w i t h l e a v e o f c o u r t
s t
d
p e r s o n
no t
part y
t o
t h e
a c t i o n
t h e
t h i r d ( f o u r t h , e t c . ) - p a r t y
d e f e n d a n
t ,
fo r
c o n t r i b u t i o n , i n d e m n i t y , s u b r o g a t i o n o r a
n y o t h e r
relief, i n r e s p e c t o f h i s o p p o n e n t ' s claim . (12a )
- ..
----
'
J.'.y
... w j
NOTE S
1. A third-part y complain t i s simila r t o a cross-clai m
in t h a t th e third-part y plaintif f seek s t o recove r from
a n o t h e r perso n som e relie f i n respec t t o th e opposin
g
party' s claim , bu t i t differ s therefro m i n t h a t i n a cross
claim , th e thir d part y i s alread y impleade d i n th e actio n
whil e i n a third-part y complaint , sai d thir d part y i s no t
ye t impleaded .
Consequently, - in th e filin g o f a thir
d part y complaint , leav e o f cour t i s require d a s thereafter ,
i f granted , summon s wil l hav e t o b e serve d o n th e third part y
defendant .
2 . A third-part y complain t nee d no t aris e ou t o f or
b e entirel y dependen t o n th e mai n actio n a s i t suffice
s
t h a t th e forme r b e only "in respec t o f
th e clai m
o f th e
third-part y plaintiff s opponent .
Consequently , th e judg
men t o n a third-part y complain t ma y becom e fina l an d
executory withou t waitin g for th e fina l determinatio n o f
th e
mai n
cas e
(Pascual
vs.
Bautista,
L 21644,
May
29,
1970).
in
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
3255
Nov.
29,
1972).
Wher e
i t arise s ou t o f th e
sam e
third-part y
transactio n o n
which th e plaintiff s clai m i s based ; o r whethe r th e third part y claim , althoug h arisin g ou t o f anothe r o r different
contract o r transaction , i s connecte d wit h th e plaintiff s
claim ;
b . Whethe r th e third-part y defendan t woul d b e liabl e
t o th e plaintif f or t o th e defendan t for al l or par t o f th
e
plaintiff' s clai m agains t th e origina l defendant , althoug h
th e third-part y defendant' s liability arise s ou t o f anothe r
transaction ; an d
c. Whethe r th e third-part y defendan t ma y asser t an y
defense s whic h th e third-part y plaintif f ha s o r ma y hav e
to th e plaintiff s claim "
(se e Capayas
vs. CFI of
Albay,
et al. 77 Phil.
181).
Consequently ,
complaint i n th
in th e origina l
part y complain t
i s sue d unde r
5 .
defendan t
ma y
file
third-part y
Wher e
tion
of th e
mai n
action
(Republic
vs. Central Surety
&
Insurance
Co.,
et
al., L-27802,
Oct.
26,
1968;
Eastern
Assurance & Surety Corp.
vs. Cui, et al.,
G.R. No.
54452,
July
20, 1981).
Fo r th e sam e
reason ,
w h a t i s
deter minativ e o f venu e ar e th e operativ e fact s i n th e mai n case ,
an d not thos e allege d i n th e third-part y complaint .
6 . An orde r disallowin g a
third-part y complain t
i s
appealabl e
(Dtr&ioo uai
1967)
since
i t woul d finall y
h t t o
implea d th e thir d party .
Malagat,
dispos e
L-2413,
Aug.
10,
o f defendant' s
rig
7 . Wher e a
third-part y defendan t appeale d t o th e
the n Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e bu t th e third-part y plaintif f
(defendant) di d no t appea l from th e j ud g m e n t agains t
hi m in favor o f th e plaintiff , suc h judgmen t becam e exe cutory , withou t prejudic e t o th e third-part y defendant' s
appea l bein g given du e cours e a s i t pertain s only t o th e
third-part y complain t
(Firestone
Tire
&
Rubber Co.
vs.
Tempongko,
L-24399, Mar.
28,
1969)
an d suc h judgme
n t
on th e third-part y complain t i s separat e an d severabl e
from t h a t i n th e mai n case .
8 . Wher e th e tria l
cour t
dismisse d th e
compl
ain t
an d th e defendants ' third-part y complain t an d only th e
plaintif f appealed , th e Cour t o f Appeals , i n reversin g th e
judgmen t dismissin g plaintiff s complaint , canno t mak e
a findin g o f liabilit y o n
t h e p a r t o f t h e t h i r
d - p a r t y
defendant s sinc e th e defendants , a s third-part y plaintiffs ,
did no t appea l from th e dismissa l o f thei r third-part y
c o m p l a i n t a n d t h e t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s w
e r e no t
partie s in th e cas e on appea l (Go,
e t al. vs. CA,
e t al,
L-25393,
Oct.
30,
1980).
9 . A
t h i r d - p a r t y complain t canno t b e
file
in a
special civil actio n for declarator y relie f a s n o materia l
relie f i s sough t in thi s actio n
(Comm. of Customs,
e t al.
vs. Cloribel,
et al., L-21036,
June
30,
1977).
d
152
----------------------- Page 153----------------------RULE 6
CS. 12, 13
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
S e c . 12 .
Bringing
new
t h e
p r e s e n c e o f p a r t i e s o t h e r t h
rigina l
actio n i s r e q u i r e d fo r th e g r a n
relie f
i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a
r c r o s s claim , t h e c o u r t shal l orde r t h e m
n
a s d e f e n d a n t s ,
i f j u r i s d i c
c a n
b e
SE
parties.
W h e n
a n t h o s e t o th e o
t i n g o f c o m p l e t e
c o u n t e r c l a i m
t o
b e
b r o u g h t i
t i o n o v e r
t h e m
o b t a i n e d . (14 )
NOTE S
1. Fo r purpose s o f Sec .
1 2 o f thi s Rule , th
cour t
m a y
a u t h o r i z e t h e filin g
o f t h e p r o p e r t h i
r d - p a r t y
complaint t o implea d th e othe r partie s no t include d i n
th e origina l complain t
(Rubio vs. Mariano, et al., L-3
0403,
Jan.
31,
1973).
e
plaintif f m a y
n t i f f s
a
claim .
I n
c o u n t e r c l a i m
f th e
(n )
latter' s clai m
153
----------------------- Page 154----------------------RUL E
PART S
h
n
an
d
O F
7
A
PLEADIN G
S e c t i o n 1 .
Caption. Th e c a p t i o n s e t s fort h t
e
a m e o f t h e court , t h e titl e o f t h e a c t i o n ,
d t h e
o c k e t n u m b e r i f a s s i g n e d .
T h e titl e o f t h e a c t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h e
n a m e s o f
t h e p a r t i e s . T h e y shal l al l b e n a m e d i n t h e origi
na l
c o m p l a i n t
o r
p e t i t i o n ;
b u t
i n a l l s u b
s
p
o
f
e
l
f
i
q u e n t
e a d i n g s , i t shal l b e sufficien t i f t h e n a m e
t h e
r s t p a r t y
o n
e a c h
s i d e
b e
s t a t e d
w i t h
a n
a p p r o p r i a t e
i n d i c a t i o n
w h e n
t h e r e
a r
e
o t h e r
parties .
T h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e c
a s e shal l
b e i n d i c a t e d , ( l a , 2a )
NOTE S
1.
s
i s n o longe r r e q u i r e d t o s t a t e t h e designatio n
o f th e
pleading , sinc e th e designatio n o f th e pleadin g i s prop erly containe d in th e body thereo f (Sec. 2) precedin g th e
allegations .
I n crimina l cases , i t i s require d that , whe
n ever possible , th e complain t o r informatio n shoul d stat e
th e designatio n o f th e offens e o r th e sectio n o r subsectio n
of th e statut e punishin g it (se e Sec. 8, Rule 110 an d note s
t h e r e u n d e r ) .
2 .
g b u t
allegation s
an d th e
b y th e
allegation s
for (Ras
3 .
I t i s no t t h e c a p t i o n o f t h e p l e a d i n
t h e
therei n tha t determin e th e natur e o f th e action ,
cour t shal l g r a n t th e relie f w a r r a n t e d
an d th e proo f eve n i f n o suc h relie f i s praye d
vs. Sua,
L-23302,
Sept.
25,
1968).
Th e abbreviatio n "et al. " for e t alii ("an d others" )
PARTS
OF A PLEADINGS
SEC. 2
the perso n first mentioned , wher e ther e ar e more tha n
one party to th e action on eithe r sid e
(see In re Mc-Go
vern's
Estate,
77 Mont.
182,
250 P.
812; Lyman
vs.
Milton,
44
Cal.
630).
Sec .
2 .
The body.The bod y o f th e p l e a d i n g set s
fort h it s d e s i g n a t i o n , t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e
party' s
claim s o r defenses , t h e relie f praye d for , an d t h e dat e
o f t h e p l e a d i n g , (n )
(a)
Paragraphs.
Th e
a l l e g a t i o n s i n t
bod y
a p l e a d i n g shal l b e d i v i d e d int o p a r a g r a
s s o
m b e r e d a s t o b e readil y identified , e a c h o f w h i c h
a l l
c o n t a i n
a
s t a t e m e n t
o f a
s i n g l
s e t
o f
i r c u m s t a n c e s
s o fa r
a s t h a t c a n
b e
d o
n e
w i t h
c o n v e n i e n c e .
A p a r a g r a p h m a y b e referre d t o b
y a
n u m b e r i n al l s u c c e e d i n g p l e a d i n g s . (3a )
h
o
p
n
s
e
c
e
f
h
u
h
(b)
Headings.
W h e n
t w o
o r
m o r e
c a
u s e s
o f
actio n ar e j o i n e d , t h e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e firs t shal
l b e
preface d b y t h e w o r d s "firs t c a u s e o f action, " o f t h e
s e c o n d b y "secon d
r
th e o t h e r s .
c a u s e
o f action, "
an d
s o
o n
fo
W h e n o n e o r m o r e
p a r a g r a p h s i n t h e
a n s w e r
ar e a d d r e s s e d t o o n e o f s e v e r a l c a u s e s o f a
c t i o n i n
th e c o m p l a i n t , t h e y shal l b e preface d b y t h e w o r d
s
"answer
t o t h e firs t c a u s e o f action " o r "answe r t
o
th e s e c o n d c a u s e o f action " an d s o on ; an d w h
e n
on e o r m o r e p a r a g r a p h s o f th e a n s w e r ar e add r e s
s e d
t o severa l c a u s e s o f action , t h e y shal i b e preface d
b y w o r d s t o t h a t effect . (4)
(c)
sought , bu t i t m a y ad d a g e n e r a l praye r fo r s u
c h
furthe r o r o t h e r r e l i e f a s m a y
b e d e e m e d
j u s t o r
equitable . (3a , R6) .
(d)
Date. Ever y p l e a d i n g shal l b e dated , (n )
155
----------------------- Page 156----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 3
i s d i c t i o n
depend s largel y upo n th e determinatio n o f th e tru e natur e
of th e actio n filed by a part y which , in turn , involve s th e
consideration o f th e ultimat e fact s allege d a s constitutiv e
of th e
caus e
o f actio n
therei n
(Bautista
vs.
Fer
nandez,
L-24062, April 30,
1971).
Th e praye r for relief , althou
g h
p a r t o f th e complaint , canno t creat e a caus e o f action
;
hence , i t canno t b e considere d a s a p a r t o f th e allegation s
on th e natur e o f th e caus e o f actio n
s, 2 5
Phil.
495; Cabigao
vs. Lim,
50
(Rosales vs.
Phil.
Reye
844).
Signature
and
address.
E v e r y
p l e
d b y t h e part y o r c o u n s e l r e p r e s e
i n e i t h e r c a s e h i s a d d r e s s w h i c
offic e
box .
156
PARTS OF A PLEADING
T h e
s i g n a t u r e
o f c o u n s e l
c o n s t i t
u t e s
a
certificat e b y h i m t h a t h e h a s rea d t h e pleading , tha t
t o th e bes t o f h i s k n o w l e d g e , information , an d belie f
ther e i s g o o d g r o u n d t o s u p p o r t it , an d t h a t i t
i s no t
i n t e r p o s e d fo r delay .
A n u n s i g n e d p l e a d i n g p r o d u c e s n o lega l effe
ct .
However , t h e c o u r t may , i n it s discretion , allo w suc h
deficienc y t o b e r e m e d i e d i f i t shal l a p p e a r t h a t t
h e
sam e w a s d u e t o mer e inadvertenc e an d no t intende d
fo r
d e l a y .
C o u n s e l
w h o
d e l i b e r a t e l y f
i l e s a n
u n s i g n e d p l e a d i n g , o r s i g n s a p l e a d i n g i n v i
o l a t i o n
o f t h i s R u l e , o r a l l e g e s s c a n d a l o u s
o r i n
d e c e n t
matte r t h e r e i n , o r fail s t o p r o m p t l y repor t t o
t h e
cour t a c h a n g e o f h i s a d d r e s s , shal l b e subjec
t t o
a p p r o p r i a t e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n . (5a )
NOTE S
1. Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s furthe r resolve d that , i n
addition t o th e requiremen t tha t counse l shoul d indicat e
in al l pleadings , motion s an d paper s submitte d by hi m t o
judicia l o r quasi-judicia l bodie s hi s curren t Professiona l
Tax Receip t (PTR ) an d IB P official receip t or Lifetim e
Member Numbe r (Bar Matter No. 287, Sept. 26, 2000), he
should furthe r indicat e hi s Rol l o f Attorney s Number .
Al l pleadings ,
motion s an d paper s filed i n cour
t ,
whethe r personall y or by mail , which d o not bea r counsel' s
Roll o f Attorney s Numbe r ma y no t b e acte d upo n by th e
court , withou t prejudic e t o whateve r disciplinar y action
th e cour t ma y tak e agains t th e errin g counse l wh o shal l
likewise b e require d t o comply wit h th e requiremen t withi n
5 d a y s fro m
n o t i c e . F a i l u r e t o compl y
w i
t h s u c h
requiremen t shal l b e a groun d for furthe r disciplinar y
sanction an d for contemp t of cour t
(Bar Matter No.
1132,
April
1, 2003).
2 .
section furthe
r
specifically
s t r a t i v e
r e q u i r e s , u n d e r p a i n o f
157
a d m i n i
RULE 7
SEC. 4
d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n o r e v e n a c i t a t i o n for
i n d i r e c t
contempt , t h a t counse l shoul d promptl y repor t t o th e
court wher e h e i s appearin g in a cas e an y chang e o f hi s
address .
I t i s elementar y tha t th e requiremen t t o mak e
of recor d in th e cour t hi s addres s or an y chang e thereo f i s
t o ensur e hi s promp t receip t o f judicia l order s or processes ;
yet , a numbe r o f lawyer s fail t o repor t suc h change s in
bot h th e tria l an d appellat e court s resultin g i n unnecessar y
delay i n judicia l administration .
Thi s situatio n i s
furthe r
aggravate d wher e eve n th e addres s o f th e part y i s no
t
s t a t e d i n t h e pleading s o r i t i s merel y
a v e r
r e d t h a t
processe s t o sai d part y ma y b e serve d o n hi s counsel .
3 .
N o s u b s t i t u t i o n o f a t t o r n e y s wil l
b e allowe d
unles s (a) ther e i s a writte n reques t for suc h substitution ,
(b) file d w i t h t h e w r i t t e n consen t o f t h e
clie
nt ,
an d
(c) wit h th e writte n consen t o f th e attorne y t o b e substituted ,
or wit h proo f o f
servic e
o f notic e
o f sai d motio n
t o th e
attorney t o b e substituted .
Unles s thes e ar e compl
ie d
with , n o substitutio n wil l b e permitte d an d th e attorne y
wh o las t appeare d i n th e cas e befor e suc h applicatio n wil l
b e responsibl e for th e conduc t o f th e cas e (Bacarro vs. CA,
et al, L-28203,
Jan.
22,
1971,
citin g
U.S.
vs.
Borromeo,
20 Phil.
189; se e Magpayo,
et al. vs. CA,
et al.,
L-35966,
Nov.
19,
1974; Sumadchat
vs.
CA,
et al, G.R.
No
.
52197,
Jan.
30,
1982; Aban
vs. Enage,
L-30666,
Feb.
26,
1983;
Yu, et al. vs. CA, et al,
G.R. No. 56766, Feb. 28,
1985).
S e c . 4 .
Verification.
E x c e p t
w h e n
o t h
e r w i s e
specificall y p r o v i d e d b y la w o r rule , p l e a d i n g s n e e
d
n o t
b e u n d e r
o a t h , v e r i f i e d o r a c c o m p a n i
e d
b y
affidavit .
A p l e a d i n g i s verifie d b y a n affidavi
th e
a f f i a n t h a s
r e a d
t h e
p l e a d i n g
h a t
t h e
a l l e g a t i o n s t h e r e i n a r e
t r u e a n d
t o f h i s
p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o r base d o n a u t h e n t
r d s .
t h a t
a n d
c o r r e c
i c r e c o
158
----------------------- Page 159----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 4
PARTS OF A PLEADING
A
p l e a d i n g r e q u i r e d
t o b e v e r i f i e d w
h i c h
c o n t a i n s a verificatio n base d o n "informatio n an d
belief, " o r u p o n "knowledge , informatio n an d belief, "
o r l a c k s prope r verification , s h a l l b e t r e a t e d a
s
an
u n s i g n e d - p l e a d i n g .
(4a )
(As
amended
in
A.M.
No.
00-2-10SC,
effective May
1,
2000)
NOTE S
1. Th e
secon d paragrap h o f thi s
section
ha s
bee n
further amende d s o tha t th e pleader' s affirmation o f th e
trut h an d correctnes s o f th e allegation s i n hi s pleadin g
shall b e base d no t only o n hi s "knowledg e an d belie f bu t
specifically o n
hi s "persona l knowledg e
o r base
d
o n
authenti c records. "
In th e 1964 Rule s o f Court , Sec . 6 o
f
Rule 7 require d persona l knowledg e o f th e fact s averred ,
whic h w a s c o n s i d e r e d to o s t r i c t sinc e a p e r s
o n ca n
reasonabl y affirm a fact base d on hi s belie f in it s t r u
t h
whe n ther e i s o r ha s bee n n o othe r fact o r reaso n contrar y
thereto .
However , t h a t liberalize d versio n i s bette r regulate d
b y th e presen t amende d provision s tha t fact s shoul d b e
atteste d t o o n th e basi s o f one' s persona l knowledg e or ,
especially wit h regar d t o old or vintag e fact s or events ,
b y th e recital s thereo f i n authenti c records .
Verificat
ion
i s intende d t o forestal l allegation s whic h ar e perjure d o r
hearsay , an d thi s purpos e i s reasonabl y subserve d b y
th e requiremen t for authenti c document s suc h a s official
record s whic h ar e exception s t o th e hearsa y evidenc e
rule .
Fo r th e sam e reason , a verification canno t b e mad e
on fact s obtaine d or arisin g in whol e or in par t from mer e
information an d belief .
2 . Verificatio n
m a y b e
m a d e b y t h e p a r t
y , hi s
representative ,
lawye r o r an y perso n wh o personall y
know s th e trut h o f th e fact s allege d in th e pleading .
W
her e
th e verification i s mad e by th e attorne y wh o als o signe d
159
pleadings ,
th e court s ar e
incline d t o b e
libera l an d
A s
require d
a
b y
rule ,
th e
pleading s
Rule s
nee d
no t b e
an d jurisprudence ,
verified unle
a s
i n
th e
following instances :
Rule
3,
(Sec.
4,
Rule
58);
h .
1,
Rule
Applicatio n
for
appointmen t
o f receive r
(Sec.
59);
160
PARTS OF A PLEADING
i.
Applicatio n
for
s u p p o r t
pendente
lite (Sec.
1,
Rule
69);
j .
Petitio n for certiorar i a g a i n s t th e j u d g m e
n t s ,
final order s or resolution s o f constitutiona l commission s
(Sec.
2, Rule 64);
k .
1.
(Sec.
1, Rule 65);
m .
Petitio n for m a n d a m u s
n .
1, Rule 66);
o.
1, Rule 67);
(Sec.
3, Rule 65);
(Sec.
o f a
4, Rule
genera l
71);
guardia n
t.
Petitio n for th e declaratio n o f competenc y
(Sec.
1, Rule 97);
u .
3,
v .
Rule
2,
o f a
102);
Rule 103);
11, Rule 8
);
161
----------------------- Page 162----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 4
c.
3[bJ,
Rule
Motio n
t o
se t
asid e
defaul t
orde r
(Sec.
9).
d.
e.
a n d
5. Supporting
affidavits
ar e
require d i n th e following :
or
a . Motio n
t o p o s t p o n e
v i d e n c e
(Sec. 3, Rule 30);
b .
(Sec.
4,
affidavits
for
of
a b s e n c e
merits
o f
c. Motio n
tio n
theret o (Sees.
for
1, 2,
s u m m a r y
j u d g m e n t
o r opposi
3 an d 5, Rule 35);
d . Motio n for ne w t r i a l o n t h e
g r o u n d
f fraud ,
accident , mistak e o r excusabl e negligenc e o r oppositio n
theret o (Sec. 2, Rule 37);
e .
Rule
f.
Third-part y clai m
(See.
ec.
Rule
g . P r o o f r e q u i r e d
30,
39);
(Sec.
Rule
h . M o t i o n
3,
57);
for
16,
o f a
Rule
3,
39);
r e d e m p t i o n e r
(S
p r e l i m i n a r y a t t a c h m e n t
i.
Motio n for dissolutio n
nctio n
(Sec.
6, Rule
58);
j .
Rule
o f preliminar y
inju
k .
Clai m agains t
9,
86);
an d
th e
estat e
o f a
deceden t
(Sec.
1.
Motio n for ne w
tria l
ewly discovered evidenc e in crimina l case s
121).
th e
f
on
th e
groun d
(Sec.
o f n
4, Rule
PARTS OF A PLEADING
Th e
r oat h
o r y p l
i n
m u l t a n
e o u s l y
file d
t h e r e w i t h : (a ) t h a t h e h a s n o t t h e r e
t o f o r e
c o m m e n c e d an y a c t i o n o r file d a n y clai m i n v o l v i
n g
t h e s a m e
i s s u e s i n a n y c o u r t , t r i b u n a l o
r q u a s i judicia l a g e n c y a n d , t o th e bes t o f hi s k n o w l e
d g e ,
n o s u c h o t h e r a c t i o n o r c l a i m i s p e n d i n g
therein ;
(b) i f t h e r e i s s u c h othe r p e n d i n g actio n o r claim ,
a
c o m p l e t e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e p r e s e n t statu s ther
eof ;
an d (c ) i f h e s h o u l d thereafte r lear n tha t th e sam e
o r s i m i l a r a c t i o n o r c l a i m h a s b e e n file d
o r i s
pending , h e shal l repor t tha t fac t withi n fiv e (5) day s
163
----------------------- Page 164----------------------RULE 5
SEC. 2
t h e r e f r o m
t o t h e
c o u r t
w h e r e i n
h i s a
f o r e s a i d
c o m p l a i n t o r initiator y p l e a d i n g h a s b e e n filed .
Failur e t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e f o r e g o i n g req
uire m e n t s shal l no t b e c u r a b l e b y m e r e a m e n d m e n
t o f
th e c o m p l a i n t o r o t h e r initiator y p l e a d i n g bu t sh
al l
b e c a u s e
fo r t h e
d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c a s e
w i t h o u t
prejudice , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d , u p o n m o t
i o n
a n d
a f t e r h e a r i n g .
T h e
s u b m i s s i o n
o
f a f a l s e
c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r n o n - c o m p l i a n c e
w i t h
a n
y o f t h e
u n d e r t a k i n g s
t h e r e i n
s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e
i n d i r e c t
c o n t e m p t
o f c o u r t ,
w i t h o u t
p r e j u d i c e
t o
t h e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e an d crimina l a c t
i o n s .
I f t h e a c t s
o f t h e p a r t y
o r h i s c o u n s e l
c l e a r l y
c o n s t i t u t e willfu l a n d
d e l i b e r a t e f o r u m s
h o p p i n g ,
th e sam e shal l b e groun d fo r s u m m a r y dismissa l wit h
p r e j u d i c e a n d shal l c o n s t i t u t e d i r e c t c o n
t e m p t , a s
w e l l a s a c a u s e fo r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s a n c t i o n
s ,
(n )
NOTE S
1.
Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s explaine
forum shoppin g when , a s a resul t o f a n
in on e forum , or in anticipatio n thereof ,
favorable opinio n i n anothe r foru m throug h
t h a n appea l o r certiorar i b y raisin g
d t h a t ther e i s
advers e decisio n
a part y seek s a
mean s othe r
identica l cause s o f
CA,
vs.
et
al,
CA, et al,
G.R.
G.R.
No.
No.
127683,
Aug.
7,
123686, Nov.
164
----------------------- Page 165----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 5
PARTS OF A PLEADING
F o r u m
s h o p p i n g i s c o n d e m n e d b e c a u s e i
t dul y
burden s court s wit h heav y caseloads , undul y taxe s th e
manpowe r an d financia l resource s o f th e judiciary , an d
trifle s wit h an d mock s judicia l processes . Th e primar y evi l
sought t o b e prescribe d b y th e prohibitio n agains t forum
shopping, however , i s th e possibility o f conflicting decision s
bein g rendere d b y th e differen t court s upo n th e sam e
issue s (Guy vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 165849, Dec. 10, 2007,
and
companion
cases).
2 . Thi s section , wit h modifications , i s take n from
Administrativ e Circula r No . 04-94 issue d b y th e Suprem e
Court o n F e b r u a r y 8 , 199 4 for th e purpos e explaine d
therein :
"Revised
1994 applie s
th e Suprem e
intende d t o
c o m p l a i n
o t h e r
o f
Appeal s an d shal l b e subject t o th e sanction s provide d
hereunder. "
for reconsi ,
excep
e view t h a t be
a
substantia l
Wit h r e s p e c t t o t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e cert
ificatio n
whic h th e pleade r ma y prepare , th e rul e o f substantia l
complianc e ma y b e availe d of.
Whil e thi s sectio n requir
e s
t h a t i t b e strictl y complie d with , i t merel y underscore
s
it s m a n d a t o r y n a t u r e i n t h a t i t c a n n o t b e
a l t o g e t h e r
dispense d wit h o r it s requirement s completel y disregarde d
bu t i t doe s no t thereb y preven t substantia l complianc e o n
thi s aspec t o f it s provision s unde r justifiabl e circumstance s
(see
Gabionza
vs. CA,
et al, G.R.
No.
112547,
J
uly
18,
1994).
T h i s c e r t i f i c a t i o n o n n o n - f o r u m s h
o p p i n g
w a s d e s i g n e d t o p r o m o t e a n d facilitat e
t h e o
r d e r l y
166
----------------------- Page 167----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 5
PARTS OF A PLEADING
th e
require d t o b e allege d in
allegation s on th e caus e o
quire men t for admissio n o f th e
court , henc e th e absenc e
amendment .
In
applyin g
th e
forerunne r o f thi s
section ,
S u p r e m e
C o u r t , in
t h e cas e
o f Fil-Estate
and
Development,
Inc.
us.
CA,
et al.
(G.R .
No .
958 ,
Dec . 16 , 1996) , rule d a s follows :
th e
Golf
120
167
----------------------- Page 168----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 5
r u l e a g a i n s t f o r u m - s h o p p i n g i s
g t h e n e d b y th e
No .
04-94 .
issuanc e
Sai d
o f S u p r e m e
circula r
formall y
es
t o
obtai n
favorabl e
actio n
c o n s
forum-shopping an d shal l b e a
dismissa l thereof. "
130068,
an d Manila
Pilots Association
vs. Phil.
Ports
Authority,
et
al., G.R.
No.
130150,
jointl y
decide
d
on
Oct.
1,
1998;
cf.
Commissioner
of
Internal
Revenue
vs.
S.C.
Johnson
&
Son,
Inc.,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
127105,
June
25,
1999;
Mendigorin
vs.
Cabantog,
etc.,
G.R.
No.
136449,
Aug.
22,
2002).
168
----------------------- Page 169----------------------RULE 7
PARTS OF A PLEADING
SEC. 5
8. This
requirement is intended to apply to both
natural and juridical persons. Where the petitioner is a
corporation, the certification against forum shopping
should be signed by its duly authorized director or
representative .
The same is true with respect to any
juridica l entity since it has of necessity the proper
officer to represent it in its other transactions (Digital
Microwave Corp.
vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 128550, Mar. 16,
2000).
In National
Steel Corp.
vs. CA,
et al. (G.R .
No . 134468, Aug . 29, 2002), the rule was liberally
applied pro hoc vice "in view of the peculiar circumstances
of the case and in the interest of substantial justice."
However,
in BA Savings Bank
vs. Sia, et al. (G.R .
No . 131214, July 27, 2000),
it was held that the
certification of non-forum shopping may be signed, for and
on behalf of a corporation, by a specifically authorized
lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required
to be disclosed in such document.
This does not mean,
169
----------------------- Page 170----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 5
al.
1 , Rul e
y
th e sam e part y will not requir e a certification o f non-forum
shopping settin g forth suc h anteceden t facts .
A s alread y stated , forum shoppin g i s resorte d t o by a
part y wit h a cas e in on e forum in orde r t o possibly secur e
a favorabl e judgmen t i n anothe r forum , othe r t h a n b y
appea l o r certiorari , o r th e institutio n o f tw o o r mo
r e
a c t i o n s o r p r o c e e d i n g s o n t h e s a m e
c a u s e ,
o n t h e
supposition t h a t on e o r th e othe r cour t woul d
m
ak e a
favorabl e disposition .
Sinc e a p a r t y resort s t o
foru m
shopping t o improv e hi s chance s o f obtainin g a favorabl e
decision , tha t prohibitio n coul d no t appl y t o a situatio n
contemplate d in Sec .
1 , Rul e 17 .
Ther e i s n o ad
vers e
decision agains t th e plaintif f an d th e orde r o f dismissa l
merel y confirm s th e dismissa l o f th e complain t withou t
prejudice .
Th e apprehensio n tha t th e cas e wa s dismisse d
in orde r t o b e transferre d t o th e sal a o f anothe r ju
dg e
supposedly mor e sympatheti c t o th e plaintif f i s baseles s
an d
speculativ e
(Roxas
vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No.
139337,
Aug.
15,
2001).
10. Thi s sectio n provide s for th e matter s tha t shoul d
b e containe d i n th e certificatio n agains t forum shoppin g
in th e c o m p l a i n t o r i n i t i a t o r y p l e a d i n g s f
ile d i n th e
Regiona l Tria l Court .
Sec . 3 , Rul e 4 6 prescribe s
th e
170
----------------------- Page 171----------------------requirement s for a certification agains t forum shoppin g
in petition s filed in th e Cour t o f Appeals , which hav e als o
been adopte d for petition s filed in th e Suprem e Court ,
pursuan t t o Sec . 2 , Rul e 56 .
11. A s a
goneraLjttle- , t h e violatio n o f th e
rule-o n
f o r u m H6hofHHi g
ohoulabe - r a i s e d
a t t h e e a * l
i e s t
opportunity^ eueh- *a-a-motion t o dismis s or a simila r
pleading .
It shoul d b e note d tha t Sec . 1, Rul e 9 provide
s
tha t defense s an d objection s not pleade d in a motion t o
dismis s or in an answe r ar e deeme d waived .
Also , Se
c . 8 ,
Rul e
1 5 s t a t e s t h a t , subjec t t o th e provision s
o f sai d
Sec.
1 , Rul e 9 , a motio n a t t a c k i n g a pleading , o
rder ,
judgmen t o r proceedin g shal l includ e al l objection s the n
available , an d al l objection s no t s o include d ar e deeme d
waived .
Thus , -belatedl y raising , an.objectio n du e t o forum
shopping a t the-appellat e stag e wil l no t caus e th e dismissa l
o f th e appeal , excep t w h e r e th e cour t ha s n o jurisdictio n
over
th e subjec t
m a t t e r , or wher e
litis pendentia,
res
judicata or ba r by statut e o f limitation s ar e presen t (Young
vs. Seng, etc.,
G.R. No.
143464, Mar.
5, 2003).
12. Th e
erall y
doctrin e
of
forum
non
conveniens
lit
most
or dismisse d
fact s o f th e
in fact , Rul e
ground .
I n an y event ,
suc h a
clai m o f globa l f
oru m
s h o p p i n g s h o u l d r e q u i r e t h a t al l e l e m e n t s
o f litis
pendentia
ar e
presen t an d a
fina l judgmen t in on e c
as e
will amoun t to
res judicata
in th e othe r (Bank of Am
erica
NT
&
SA,
et. al.
vs.
CA,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
120435,
Mar. 31, 2003).
Apropo s thereto , thi s equitabl e doctrin e
presuppose s a t leas t tw o forum s i n whic h th e defendan t i s
a m e n a b l e t o proces s an d
furnishe s criteri a
for
choic e
betwee n
Co.,
D.C.Pa.,
suc h
78
F.
forum s
Supp.
(Wilson
vs.
Seas
Shipping
464).
172
O F MAKIN G
ALLEGATION S
I N P L E A D I N G S
1 . I n
a
general.
m e t h o d i c a l
E v e r y
a n d logica l
p l e a d i n g s h
form ,
pl
direot^etatemen t o f th e u l t i m a t e fact s
part y p l e a d i n g r e l i e s fo r h i s c
th e c a s e m a y be , o m i t t i n g t h e s t a
d e n t i a r y facts .
(1)
hi a
d e f e n s e r e l i e d o n i s b a s e d o n l a w ,
t h e
p e r t i n e n t p r o v i s i o n s t h e r e o f a n d thei r applicabil
it y
t o h i m s h a l l - b e c l e a r l y an d c o n c i s e l y stated , (
n )
NOTE S
1. A s already stated , an ^nexes to--pleadings , -ar e
considered par t o f th e pleadings , bu t th e sai d pleading s
m u s t c o n t a i n - a s u m m a r y s t a t e m e n t of t h e matt
er s
contained in th e anne x an d canno t jus t refer t o the same
(Rubios, et al.
vs. Reolo, 96 Phil. 984fUnrep.J;
La Mallor
ca
vs. CA, et al., 100 Phil. 1048; see Sec. 7 of this Rule) .
2. "Ultimat e facte" are the important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the
plaintiff's primary right and duty or directly make up
the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant
(A
lsua
us. Johnson, 21 Phil. 308).
A fact is essential if it cannot
be stricken out without leaving the statement of the
cause of action or defense insufficient
(Toribio, et al. vs
.
Bid in, etc., et al, G.R. No. 57821, Jan. 17, 1985). Hence,
conclusions, inferences, presumptions, and details of
probative matters should not be alleged.
. <t\3. "Evidentiary facts" are those which are necessary
to prove the ultimate fact or which furnish evidence of
the existence of some other facts. They are not proper as
173
----------------------- Page 174----------------------RULE 8
2-3
REMEDIAL LAW
COMPENDIUM
SECS.
result in
or the
and their
must be
n
l
c
i
p
t
a
a
t
i
a
s
i
l
h
n
r t
o
m
l y
e r
Alternative
causes
of
action
or
defenses.
s e p a r a
e n t w o
o r m o r e
v e a n d
o n e
o f
b e
s u f f i c
f f i c i e
t h e i n s
t e r n a t
s t a t e m
y m a y s e t f o r t h t w o o r m o r e s t a t e m
f a
o r d e f e n s e a l t e r n a t i v e l y o r h y p o t h e t
,
i n o n e c a u s e o f a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e o
t e
c a u s e s
o f a c t i o n
o r
d e f e n s e s . W h
s t a t e m e n t s a r e m a d e i n t h e a l t e r n a t i
t h e m
i
n
u
i
e
e
t
f
v
n
n t
b
f i
e
t s
i f m a d e
i n d e p e n d e n t l y
, t h e p l e a d i n g i s n o t
y
c i e n c y o f o n e o r m o r e
.
w o u l d
m a d e i n s u
o f t h e
a l
(2 )
S e c . 3 .
Conditions precedent.
I n a n y p l e a d
i n g
a g e n e r a l a v e r m e n t o f t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o r o c
c u r r e n c e o f al l c o n d i t i o n s p r e c e d e n t s h a l l b e suf
ficient .
(3)
174
----------------------- Page 175-----------------------
RULE 8
4 5
SEC S
PLEADING S
peculiarl y w i t h i n th e
NOT E
1.
Wher e
th e plaintiff s
,
th e specific circumstanc e tha t the y ar
busines s i n th e Philippines , o r tha t
upon i s singula r an d isolated , i s an
element o f th e plaintiff' s capacit y
ar e
foreign
e duly license d
th e transactio n
essentia l par t
t o su e an d
corporations
t o
sue
o f
mus
o f thi s
Cebu
d o
d
th e
t b e
Rul e
Stevedor
Sec .
5. Fraud,
mistake,
condition of the
mind.
In
all a v e r m e n t s o f fraud-o r mistake , th e circumstance s
c o n s t i t u t i n g frau d o r mistak e m u s t b e stage d wit
h
p a r t i e u l a n t y . Malice ,
intent ,
k n o w l e d g e o r o
t h e r
c o n d i t i o n o f th e min d o f a perso n ma y b e a v e r r
e d
generally .
(5a )
NOT E
1. Fact s c o n s t i t u t i n g conditio n o f th e min d
ar e
permitte d t o b e averre d generall y a s it woul d b e difficult
to d o s o wit h particularity .
However , fraud an d mistak e
are require d t o b e averre d wit h particularit y i n order t o
enable th e opposin g party t o controvert th e particula r
facta allegedly constitutin g th e same .
Thi s requiremen t
175
----------------------- Page 176----------------------RULE 8
CS. 6. 7-8
REMEDIAL
LAW
COMPENDIUM
SE
Judgment.
a
I n
d o m e s t i c
p l e a d i n g a j u d g m e n t
o r
f o r e i g n
c o u r t ,
a l t r i b u n a l , o r o f a b o a r d o r off
o a v e r t h e j u d g m e n t o r d e c i s i o n
h
m a t t e r s h o w i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n
NOT E
1. This provision is a necessary consequence of the
disputable presumption that a court, or judge acting as
such, whether in the Philippine s or elsewhere , was
acting in the lawful exercise of his jurisdiction (Sec. 3(n],
Rule 131).
Such judicial record may be impeached by
evidence of want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
officer (Sec. 29, Rule 132).
S e c . 7 .
Action
or
defense
based
on
docume
nt.
W h e n e v e r
a n a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e
i s b a s e d
u p o n
a
w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t o r d o c u m e n t , t h e s u b s
t a n c e o f
s u c h i n s t r u m e n t o r d o c u m e n t s h a l l b e s e t
f o r t h i n
t h e p l e a d i n g , a n d t h e o r i g i n a l o r a c o p y t h e
r e o f s h a l l
b e a t t a c h e d t o t h e p l e a d i n g a s a n e x h i b i
t , w h i c h
s h a l l b e d e e m e d t o b e a p a r t o f t h e p l e a d i n g ,
o r s a i d
c o p y m a y w i t h lik e effec t b e s e t fort h i n t h e p l e a
d i n g .
(7)
S e c . 8 .
How
to contest
such
documents.
W h e r e
a n
a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e
i s f o u n d e d
u p o n
a
w r i t t e n
i n s t r u m e n t ,
c o p i e d
i n
o r
a t t a c h e d
t o
t h e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g
p l e a d i n g
a s
p r o v i d e d
i n
t h e
p r e c e d i n g
n d
d u e
e x e c u t i o n
d e e m e d
s e c t i o n ,
o f
t h e
t h e
g e n u i n e n e s s
i n s t r u m e n t
s h a l l
a
b e
176
----------------------- Page 177----------------------RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING
ALLEGATION S
SECS .
7-
8
IN PLEADING S
a d m i t t e d nwleag . t h e
a d ^ w u e
p a i i y
-w^der-^ath ,
4
w i t h
a n
orde r
t r u m e n t i s refused .
fo r
a n
i n s p e c t i o n
(8a )
NOTE S
1. These two sections constitute the rule on actionable documents, as distinguished from evidentiary
documents. There are two permissible ways of pleading
an actionable document, i.e., (a) by setting forth the
substance of such document in the pleading and
attaching the document thereto as an annex, or (b) by
setting forth said document verbatim in the pleading.
Unless alleged in any of these modes, the rule on implied
admission in Sec. 8 will not apply.
2. A variance in the substance of the document set
forth in the pleading and the document annexed thereto
does not warrant the dismissal of the action (Convets,
Inc. us. National Deuelopment Co., 103 Phil 46).
the contents of the document annexed are controlling.
3. Where the actionable document is properly
alleged, the failure to deny the same results in the
admission of the "genuineness and due execution" of said
document, except (a) when the adverse party was not a
party to the instrument, and (b) when an order for the
inspection of the document (see Rule 27) was not complied
with.
However,
4. By "geHuiwencoc " is
not spurious, counterfeit, or
face from the one executed
Cantiveros, 40 Phil. 208), or
nature it bears has signed it
SEC
n
th e
pleading s
(Hibberd
vs.
Rhode,
32 Phil.
476).
6 . B y th e admissio n o f th e genuinenes s an d du e
execution o f a document , suc h defense s a s tha t th e sig natur e wa s a forgery ; o r tha t i t wa s unauthorize d i n th e
case o f an agen t signin g in behal f o f a partnershi p or o f
a corporation ; o r t h a t ,
i n th e cas e o f t h e l a t
t e r , th e
corporation wa s no t authorize d unde r it s charte r t o sign
th e i n s t r u m e n t ; o r t h a t th e part y charge d signe
d
th e
instrumen t i n som e othe r capacit y t h a n tha t allege d i n
th e pleadin g settin g i t out ; o r tha t i t wa s neve r delivered
,
ar e deeme d cu t off.
Bu t th e failur e t o den y th e genuine
nes s an d du e executio n o f th e documen t doe s no t estop
a part y from controvertin g it by evidenc e o f fraud , mistake ,
compromise , payment , statut e o f limitations , estoppel , an d
wan t
of consideratio n
( 1 Martin
301,
citin g
Hibber
d
vs.
Rhode,
supra,
an d
Bough
vs.
Cantiveros,
supra).
7 . Eve n wher e
th e opposin g part y faile d t o d
en y
u n d e r oat h
th e a u t h e n t i c i t y an d du e executio n
o f a n
actionabl e documen t properl y alleged , h e ca n stil l rais e
th e defens e
i n hi s a n s w e r an d prov e a t th e tria
l t h a t
ther e i s a mistak e o r imperfectio n i n th e writing , o r t h a t
it doe s not expres s th e tru e agreemen t o f th e parties , o r
tha t th e agreemen t i s invali d o r tha t ther e i s a n intrinsi c
ambiguity i n th e writing ,
evidenc e rul e (Sec.
sinc e
the y ar e no t inconsisten
th e authenticit y an d du e
178
----------------------- Page 179----------------------RULE 8
SEC 9
8.
In an actio n for th e
claime d b y plaintiff s
a s t h e i r h e r e d i t a r y s h
a r e s , de fendant s in thei r answe r attached , by way o f defense ,
copie s
o f t h e d e e d s o f s a l e a l l e g e d l y e x e c u
t e d b y
plaintiff s in favor o f thei r brothe r over thei r share s in sai d
parce l o f land , an d a copy o f th e dee d o f sal e thereafte r
executed by sai d vende e in favor o f th e defendants .
Sai d
original deed s o f sal e an d th e subsequen t dee d o f sal e in
favor o f th e defendant s ar e actionabl e document s a s the y
constitut e thei r defens e t o th e action .
Pursuan t t o Sees
. 7
an d 8 o f Rul e 8 , the-ewjthenticity an d du e executio n o f
said deed s o f sal e a r e impliedly admitte d by plaintiff s for
failure on thei r p a r t t o file a repl y unde r oat h specifically
denying th e same .
Thi s implie d admission , however , doe s
not appl y t o th e othe r plaintiff s wh o ar e th e heir s o f on e
of th e (deceased ) origina l
partie s t o th e documents .
t o
179
----------------------- Page 180----------------------RULE 8
10
REMEDIAL
LAW
COMPENDIUM
ave r t h a t th e d o c u m e n t w a s i s s u e d
d o n e
i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h law . (9)
SEC.
o r th e
ac t
Sec .
10 .
Specific
denial.
A
d e f e n d a n t m u s
t
specif y
e a c h m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n o f fac t t h e
t r u t h
o f w h i c h h e d o e s no t a d m i t a n d , w h e n e v e r pra
c ticable , shal l se t fort h t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e m a t t
e r s
u p o n w h i c h h e relie s t o s u p p o r t hi s denial .
Wher
e
a d e f e n d a n t d e s i r e s t o d e n y o n l y a p a r t o f
a n
a v e r m e n t , h e shal l specif y s o m u c h o f i t a s
i s tru e
an d m a t e r i a l an d shal l d e n y t h e r e m a i n d e r . Wher
e
a d e f e n d a n t i s w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e o r i n f o r m a
t i o n
sufficien t t o for m a belie f a s t o th e trut h o f a materia l
a v e r m e n t m a d e i n t h e c o m p l a i n t , h e shal l s o
state ,
an d t h i s shal l h a v e th e effec t o f a denial . (10a )
NOTE S
1. There are two ways of making a specific denial,
i.e., (a ) by specifically denying the averment and,
whenever possible, setting forth the substance of the
matters relied upon for such denial ; and (b) by an
allegation of lack of knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in the
opposing party's pleading.
2. Where
the averments
in the
opposing
part
y's
pleading are based on documents which are in the possession of the defendant, or are presumed to be known by
him, or are readily ascertainable by him, a general
allegation of lack of knowledge or information thereof on
his part will not be considered a specific denial but an
admission
(see
Warner,
Barnes and
Co., Ltd.
vs. Re
yes,
et al.,
103
Phil.
662;
Capitol
Motors
Corp.
vs.
Ya
but,
L-28140,
Mar.
19,
1970;
New
Japan
Motors,
Inc.
vs.
Perucho,
L-44387,
Nov.
5,
1976; Gutierrez,
et al. vs.
CA,
et al., L-31611, Nov. 29, 1976).
The defendant must aver
or state positively how it is that he is ignorant of the facts
180
----------------------- Page 181----------------------RULE 8
SEC
11
REMEDIAL
LAW
COMPENDIUM
SEC. 11
specifically denied
deemed
i n t h e c o m p l a i n t ,
182
----------------------- Page 183----------------------RULE 8
SEC 1 1
othe r thon - t h o s e e t o t h e - a m o u n t o f u n l i q u i d a
t e d
d a m a g e s , s h a l l b e d e e m e d a d m i t t e d w h e n n o t
s p e c i f i c a l l y d e n i e d . A l l e g a t i o n s o f u s u r y
i n a
c o m p l a i n t t o r e c o v e r u s u r i o u s interes t ar e d e e
m e d
admitte d i f no t d e n i e d u n d e r oath , ( l a , R9)
NOTE S
1. The following averments in the complaint are
not deemed admitted even if not specifically denied :
(sf) allegations as to the amount of damages, (b) allegations
which are immaterial to the cause of action
(Worcester
leav e
31,
of cour t
(Dionisio
vs.
Puerto,
1974).
See,
in thi s connection ,
th e cas e
o f Liam
Law
vs.
Olympic
Sawmill,
et
al., supra,
cite d
unde r
Not e
3
of
Sec. 10, Rul e 6 an d th e discussio n thereon .
4 .
Wher e th e defendan t relie d solely on hi s defens e
of res judicata
an d
submitte d
th e cas e
for decisio
n
on
tha t issue , h e i s deeme d t o hav e admitte d al l th e materia l
a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e c o m p l a i n t an d j u d g m e n t
ca n
b e
rendere d
accordingly
(Dominguez
vs.
Filipinos Inte
grated
Services
Corp.,
et al., G.R.
No.
58820,
Sept.
30,
1
982).
Sec .
matter
contained
part y
12 .
therein.
Striking
out
U p o n
of
m o t i o n
pleading
m a d e
or
by
befor e r e s p o n d i n g t o a p l e a d i n g or , i f n o r e s p o
n s i v e
p l e a d i n g i s p e r m i t t e d b y t h e s e Rules , u p o n m
o t i o n
m a d e b y a part y w i t h i n t w e n t y (20 ) d a y s afte
r th e
servic e o f th e p l e a d i n g u p o n him , o r u p o n th e court'
s
o w n i n i t i a t i v e a t an y time , th e c o u r t m a y o r d e r
an y
p l e a d i n g t o b e s t r i c k e n o u t o r t h a t a n y s h
a m o r
f a l s e , r e d u n d a n t ,
i m m a t e r i a l ,
i m p e r t i n e
n t , o r
s c a n d a l o u s
m a t t e r
b e
s t r i c k e n o u t t h e r
e f r o m .
(5, R9 )
184
----------------------- Page 185----------------------RUL E
EFFEC T
O F
FAILUR E
9
T O
PLEA D
S e c t i o n 1 . Defenses
and objections
not pleaded.
D e f e n s e ^ - a ^ u l - o b j e c t i o n e - n o t - p l e a d e d e i t
h e r i n a
m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s - o r i n t h e a n s w e r a r e d e e
m e d
w a i v e d . H o w e v e r , w h e n
i t a p p e a r s f r o m t h
e
p l e a d i n g s o r t h e e v i d e n c e o n recor d tha t th e cour
t
ha s n o j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s u b j e c t matter ,
t h a t
ther e i s a n o t h e r a c t i o n p e n d i n g b e t w e e n th e
sam e
p a r t i e s fo r t h e s a m e c a u s e , o r t h a t th e a c t
i o n i s
b a r r e d b y a p r i o r j u d g m e n t o r b y s t a t u t e o
f
limitations , th e c o u r t shal l d i s m i s s th e claim . (2a )
NOTE S
1. Under this amended provision, the following
defenses are not waived even if not raised in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer : (a") lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter;
(p~) litis pendentia; (c) res judicata; and
(d) prescription of the action.
2. The omnibus motion rule in the former Sec. 2 of
this Rule also provided, as an exception thereto, "the
failure to state a cause of action which may be alleged in
a later pleading, if one is permitted, or by motion for
judgmen t on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits;
but in the last instance, the motion shall be disposed of
as provided in Section 5, Rule 10 in the light of any
h a t
,
defect .
th e
I f th e
plaintif f ca n
complain t
i s
refil e
dismisse
hi s
complai
Th e
foregoin g observation s
s i t u a t i o n
wher e th e complain t o r othe r initiator y
alleg e fact s constitutiv e o f a caus e
W h a t i s
contemplated , therefore ,
i s a
eaus e of
action whic h i s provide d in Sec . 1(g) o f
T-hie-is a
m a t t e r o f insufficiency o f th e pleading.
ul e 10,
whic h
w a s als o include d a s th e
sin g
th e issu e t o th e court , refer s t o t
e
evidence does not prove a caus e o f action .
refe r
t o
th e
pleadin g fail s t o
o f action .
failure
to
state
Rul e 16 .
Sec . 5 o f R
l a s t
mod e
for -rai
h e situatio n wher e th
Thisis , the
refore ,
a m a t t e r o f insufficiency o f th e evidence.
Failur e
t o stat e
a caus e o f actio n i s differen t from failur e t o prov e a caus e
of action .
th e secon d i s t e d e m u
Sec . 5 o f Rule-1-0 ha s
Th e procedur e w
g t o stat e a caus e
deficiency ; or , at th e
e evidence , i f suc h motio
186
----------------------- Page 187----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 1
187
----------------------- Page 188----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 1
6 . Th e
p r e s e n c e o f a n y o f t h e s e fou r
g r o u n d s
authorize s
th e cour t t o motu proprio dismis s th e clai
m ,
tha t is , th e claim s asserte d i n a complaint , counte r claim ,
cross-claim ,
t h i r d (fourth ,
e t c . ) - p a r t y c o m
p l a i n t o r
complaint-in-intervention (se e Sec. 2, Rule 6).
In orde r
t h a t i t ma y d o so , i t i s necessar y tha t th e consti
tutiv e
facts o f suc h grounds , i f not in th e answe r wit h evidenc e
dul y
a d d u c e d
t h e r e f o r , sh o u l d a p p e a r i n t
h e o t h e r
pleading s filed or in th e evidenc e o f recor d in th e case .
7 . Specifically wit h respec t t o th e defens e o f pre
scription ,
th e p r e s e n t provisio n i s simila r t o th
e rul e
adopte d i n civi l cases , bu t dissimila r t o th e rul e a
n d
rational e i n crimina l cases .
I n civi l cases , i t
ha s bee n
hel d t h a t th e defens e o f prescriptio n ma y b e considere d
only i f th e sam e i s invoke d i n th e answer , excep t wher e
th e fact o f prescriptio n appear s i n th e allegation s i n th e
complain t o r th e
evidenc e
p r e s e n t e d b y th e
plaintiff ,
i n w h i c h
cas e
s u c h
d e f e n s e i s no t d e e m e d
w a i v e d
(Ferrer
vs. Ericta,
et al., L
41761, Aug.
23,
1978;
Garcia
vs.
Mathis,
et
al., L-48577,
Sept.
30,
1980).
It woul d
t h u s a p p e a r t h a t th e non-waive r i s d e p e n d e n t
o n th e
timelines s o f invocatio n o f th e defense , o r wher e suc h
defens e i s a
m a t t e r o f recor d or evidence .
8 . I n crimina l cases , th e sam e genera l rul e o n waive r
of an y groun d for a motio n t o quas
th e accuse d fail s t o asser t th e
e
did no t file suc h motio n befor e h
t o
alleg e suc h groun d
therein .
rule ,
however ,
i s t h e g r o u n d o f
t h e r o f th e
pleade d
Excepte d
or
from
faile d
thi s
p r e s c r i p t i o n
e i
Rule
117
season t h e g r
o f th
t h e
g r
188
----------------------- Page 189----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 2
p r e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e crim e
i s no t waive d
eve n
i f no t
raise d befor e th e plea , sinc e prescriptio n i s a substantiv e
r i g h t w h i c h c a n n o t b e d e f e a t e d b y p r o v i s i
o n s o f a
procedura l
law
(People
vs. Moran,
44 Phil.
387;
People
vs. Castro, 95 Phil. 462).
Fo r tha t matter , suc h objectio
n
may eve n b e raise d for th e first tim e on appea l (People
vs. Balagtas,
105
Phil.
1362 fUnrep.J;
al.
vs.
Geronimo,
[CA],
60
O.G.
8497).
Escano,
et
S e c . 2 .
Compulsory counterclaim,
or cross-claim,
not
set
up
barred.
A
c o m p u l s o r y
c o u n t e r c l a i m
, or a
c r o s s - c l a i m , n o t s e t u p s h a l l b e b a r r e d . (
4a )
N O T E S
1.
th e
d
g b e e
u n q u a
oe s
no
constitut
i s m i s s a l o f
sai d
c o u n t e r c l a i m h a v i n
n
l i f i e d , h e n c e w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e , i t d
t
e a n adjudicatio n o n th e merit s sinc e thi s rul e
in Sec .
2 ,
Rul e
1 7
applie s
no t only t o a complain t bu
t
also t o a counterclai m which partake s o f th e natur e o f a
complaint .
Thi s i s asid e from th e consideratio n that
,
since th e dismissa l o f th e counterclai m wa s premise d on
th e postulat e tha t for non-paymen t o f th e docket fee th e
court di d not acquir e jurisdictio n thereover , the n wit h
muc h
mor e
reaso n ca n ther e b e n o invocatio n o f r
es
judicata,
no t t o spea k o f th e
fact tha t it wa s err
o r for
th e
t r i a l c o u r t t o o r d e r s u c h d i s m i s s a l sin
c e
t h e
paymen t o f docke t fee s i s require d only for permissive ,
189
----------------------- Page 190----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
not
compulsory ,
et al.,
G.R. No.
101883,
(Meliton
vs.
CA
Dec.
11,
1992).
Sec .
3 .
Default; declaration of. I f th e d e f e n d i
n g
p a r t y
f a i l s t o a n s w e r
w i t h i n
t h e
t i m e
a l l o w e d
t h e r e f o r , t h e
c o u r t
s h a l l , u p o n
m o t i o n
o f t h e
c l a i m i n g part y w i t h notic e t o th e d e f e n d i n g pa
rty ,
an d
p r o o f o f s u c h failure ,
d e c l a r e t h e d e
f e n d i n g
part y i n default .
T h e r e u p o n , th e cour t shal l pr o
ce e d
t o r e n d e r j u d g m e n t
g r a n t i n g t h e
c l a i m a
n t
s u c h
relie f a s hi s p l e a d i n g m a y w a r r a n t , u n l e s s th e
cour t
i n it s d i s c r e t i o n r e q u i r e s t h e c l a i m a n t t o
s u b m i t
e v i d e n c e .
S u c h
r e c e p t i o n
o f e v i d e n c e
m a y
b e
d e l e g a t e d t o th e cler k o f court , ( l a , R18 )
d e
shal
d i
bu t
(a)
Effect of order of default.
A part y
in
f a u l t
l b e e n t i t l e d t o notic e o f s u b s e q u e n t p r o c e e
n g s
n o t t o t a k e par t i n t h e trial . (2a , R18 )
(b)
Relief from
order of default. A part y
d
e c l a r e d
i n d e f a u l t m a y a t a n y t i m e afte r n o t i c e t h e r e
o f a n d
befor e j u d g m e n t fil e a motio n u n d e r o a t h t o se t asid
e
t h e o r d e r o f d e f a u l t u p o n p r o p e r s h o w i n g
t h a t hi s
f a i l u r e t o a n s w e r
w a s
d u e
t o f r a u d , a
c c i d e n t ,
m i s t a k e o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l i g e n c e an d t h a t h
e h a s a
m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e .
I n
s u c h c a s e , t h e
o r d e r o f
d e f a u l t
m a y
b e
s e t a s i d e
o n
s u c h
t e r
m s
a n d
c o n d i t i o n s a s t h e j u d g e m a y i m p o s e i n th e i
n t e r e s t
o f j u s t i c e . (3a , R18 )
(c)
Effect
of partial
default.
l e a d i n g
a s s e r t i n g a c l a i m s t a t e s a
f a c t i o n
a g a i n s t s e v e r a l d e f e n d i n g
o f w h o m
a n s w e r an d th e o t h e r s fai l t o
shal l
tr y t h e c a s e a g a i n s t al l u p o n
s file d
an d r e n d e r j u d g m e n t u p o n th e
n t e d .
(4a, R18 )
W h e n
c o m m o n
c a u s e
p
o
p a r t i e s , s o m e
d o so , t h e c o u r t
t h e a n s w e r s t h u
e v i d e n c e
p r e s e
190
----------------------- Page 191----------------------RULE 9
SEC.
3
(d)
Extent
of
relief to be
awarded.
j u d g m e n t
allowed.
If th e
d e f e n d i
n u l m e n t o r d e c l a r a t i o n
fo r
lega l
separatio n
fail s
a l l o r d e r t h e p r o s e c u t i
e
w h e t h e r
o r
e x i s t s , a n d i f
no t
c o l
t h e r e i
collusion , t o i n t e r v e n e fo r th e Stat e
i n orde r t o se
e
t o i t t h a t th e e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d
ated .
(6a, R18 )
^
^ O
i s no t fabric
file
responsiv e
pleadin g withi n
th e
motu
proprio
vs.
Estenzo,
declar e
L-18457,
a
June
1962;
Trajano,
et al. vs.
Cruz,
et al, L-47070,
Dec.
29,
1977).
T h e r e m u s t b e a motio n t o t h a t effect b
y th e
plaintif f wit h
proo f o f failur e b y
th e defendan t t o
file
hi s responsiv e pleadin g despit e du e notic e
(Soberano
vs.
MRR
Co.,
L-19407,
Nov.
23,
1966;
Sarmiento
vs.
Juan,
G.R. No. 56605, Jan. 28,
1983).
Formerly , th e defendan
t
did no t hav e t o b e serve d wit h notic e o f th e motio n
t o
hav e
hi m declare d
in defaul t
(Pielago
vs. Generosa,
7 3
Phil.
634, base d on Sec.
9, Rule 2 7 of th e old Rule s
an d
reproduce d substantiall y in Sec.
9, Rule
13; De
G
uzman
vs.
Santos,
et al, L-22636,
June
11,
1970,
citin g
Duran
vs. Arboleda,
20 Phil.
253; Inchausti
&
Co.
vs. De
Leon,
24
Phil.
224;
Monteverde
vs.
Jaranilla,
49
Phil.
297;
Manila
Motor
Co.
vs. Endencia,
72
Phil.
130;
The
Phil.
British
Co.,
Inc.,
et
al
vs.
Delos
Angeles,
etc.,
et
al,
L-33720-21,
Mar.
10,
1975).
An
i m p o r t a n t chang e
ha s
bee n effecte d b y th e presen t a m e n d m e n t s i n th e s
ens e
t h a t a n orde r o f defaul t ca n b e mad e only upo n motio n o f
th e claimin g part y an d wit h
th e defendin g party .
th e correspondin g
notic e
t o
O n
t h e o t h e r h a n d , u n d e r th e rul e o n s u m
m a r y
procedure , n o defaul t orde r i s rendere d or require d a s a
motion t o declar e th e defendan t i n defaul t i s prohibited ;
192
----------------------- Page 193----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
Th e
defendan t wh o
file s
hi s
answe r in
cour t
in
l., 51
Phil.
786).
6 . Th e
fac t t h a t th e defendan t wa s
declare d
i n
default i s o f n o momen t whe n th e plaintif f woul d
no t
hav e bee n entitle d t o relie f sinc e hi s complain t di d not
state a caus e o f action , henc e th e sam e shoul d b e dismisse d
(Reyes
vs. Tolentino,
et al., L-29142,
Nov.
29,
1971).
7 . It i s withi n th e discretio n o f th e tria l cour t t o
se t
asid e
a n o r d e r o f d e f a u l t an d p e r m i t th e filin
g
o f
d e f e n d a n t ' s a n s w e r eve n
beyon d
th e r e g l e m e
n t a r y
period , or t o refus e t o se t asid e th e defaul t orde r wher e i
t
finds n o justificatio n for th e dela y in th e filin g o f t
h e
a n s w e r
(Malipod
vs.
Tan,
L-27730,
Jan.
21,
1974).
However , defendant' s answe r shoul d b e admitte d wher e
it wa s filed befor e h e ha d bee n declare d in defaul t an d
n o prejudic e
coul d
hav e bee n cause d
t o plaintiff
,
a s
default
j u d g m e n t s ar e
generall y
disfavore d
(Tra
jano,
et al. vs. Cruz, et al., supra). Wher e th e answe r is filed
beyon d th e reglementar y perio d bu t befor e th e defendan t
wa s declare d i n default , an d ther e i s n o showin g tha
t
defendant intende d t o delay th e case , th e answe r shoul d
be
admitte d
(Cathay
Pacific
Airways,
Ltd.
vs.
Rom
illo,
etc., et al, G.R. No. 64276, Mar. 4,
1986).
Also , wh
er e
th e failur e o f defendan t t o seasonabl y file he r answe r
is excusabl e an d th e liftin g o f th e defaul t orde r will not
in any way prejudic e plaintiff' s substantia l rights , th e
court shoul d apply th e Rule s liberally an d se t asid e th e
default
orde r
(Santos
vs.
De
la Fuente
Samson,
e
t al,
L-46371,
Dec.
14,
1981; cf. Akut
vs.
CA,
et al, L-45
472,
Aug.
30,
1982;
Azul,
et
al.
vs.
Castro,
et
al,
G.R.
No.
52241, Nov.
19, 1984).
193
----------------------- Page 194----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
SEC
p l e a d i n g s an d o r d e r s file d an d issu
h e ha d no t don e so , h e wa s stil l entitle d
copie s o f substantiall y amende d or sup , a s wel l a s final order s o r judgments .
wer e rationalize d a s follows :
re
pa
o
n
action .
However ,
proceeding s alread y
take n
ar e
not t o
195
----------------------- Page 196----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
be disturbe d
101 Phil.
828), althoug
h
it i s withi n th e discretio n o f th e cour t t o re-ope n
th e
evidenc e
s u b m i t t e d b y t h e plaintif f a n d
e n a b l
e t h e
defendant t o challeng e th e same , a s b y cross-examinatio n
o f plaintiff' s
witnesse s
o r introducin g countervailin g
evidenc e
(se e Denso
[Phil.],
Inc.
vs. IAC,
et al.,
G.R.
No. 75000, Feb. 27, 1987).
Th e lifting of an orde r of defaul
t
doe s no t rever t th e cas e t o it s pre-tria l stage , muc h les s
rende r a secon d pre-tria l mandator y
et al.,
L-49410,
Jan.
26,
1989).
(DBP vs.
CA,
hol d
n a t i
o p e r
declare
were :
h e
order
o f defaul t
a t
an y
tim e
afte r
discovery
thereo f an d
129
d t o appea l
in habeas corpus
maintained ,
e r e i n
mult
ipl e
appeal s ar e permitte d an d i n which case s th e reglementar y
perio d i s stil l 3 0 days . Considerin g th e fact tha t th e perio d
for filing a motio n for new tria l i s coterminou s wit h th e
reglementar y perio d for appeal , th e 30-day period s for th e
secon d
a n d t h i r d r e m e d i e s abov e
s t a t e d woul d
no w
196
----------------------- Page 197----------------------RULE 9
. 3
SEC
b e
availe d o f by
th e
aggrieve d part y
a s
thi s
i s
an
exception t o sai d genera l rule .
th e aggrieve d
y t o adduc e
, only th e selfth e ex parte
(Continental
L
197
----------------------- Page 198----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
Tobacco
[Phil.],
69243,
Nov.
22,
1985).
Inc.
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
h a s
als o
bee n
held ,
however ,
t h a t
whi
No.
i s
no t
m e r e l y i n t e r l o c u
appealabl e
74816,
Mar.
(Rodriguez,
17,
1987).
, whic h e n u n
,
no t appl y wher
o r impleade d u
I t
contemplate s a clai m
action agains t severa l
c i a t e s
th e
rul e
e t
o n
(c) o f
p a r t i a l
19.
I f th e answerin g defendan t succeed s i n defeatin g
th e plaintif f s claim , suc h resul t inure s als o t o th e benefi t
of th e
defaultin g defendant s
1 0 Phil.
788;
Bringas
vs.
Hernando,
ept.
24,
1986).
(Velez
vs.
G.R.
No.
Ramos,
51933,
20 .
W h e r e
a c o - d e f e n d a n t wh o
file d h i s
a n s w e r
died an d th e cas e wa s dismisse d a s t o him , th e answe r h e
filed doe s no t inur e t o th e benefi t o f th e defendan t wh o
did no t file hi s ow n answer .
Neithe r wil l th e rul e
appl y
w h e r e
t h e d e f e n s e s a l l e g e d b y t h e d e f e n d a
n t w h o
198
----------------------- Page 199----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
Th e
defendan t
in defaul t an d
wh o
i s
deprive d
30,
t o
1976).
answe r
o f th e
shal l
b e
righ t t o tak e
th e
defaultin g party' s
right s a s
part y
litigan t an d
not
i n
solidum,
us. Ramolete,
p r o v i s i o n s o f
t h e Civ
b e
p r o m u l g a t e d upo n
stipulatio n
o f fact s
or
by
confession
o f judgment .
101 .
e
p r o m u l g a t e d
u p o n
s o r b y
confession o f judgment .
In cas
court shal l
whethe r o r
I f ther e i
s t i p u l a t i o n o f
fact
o f non-appearanc e o f th e defendant , th e
orde r th e prosecutin g attorne y t o inquir e
no t a collusion betwee n th e partie s exists .
s n o collusion , th e prosecutin g attorne y shal l
wa s void
an d of no effect (Art.
Th e
therefore ,
not answe r
personall y
thi s
221).
tha t
I n t h e c a s e s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e p r e c
e d i n g
p a r a g r a p h , n o j u d g m e n t shal l b e base d
up
o n
a
stipulation o f fact s or confession o f judgment. "
A N D
1 0
S U P P L E M E N T A L
P L E A D
S e c t i o n 1 .
Amendments
in general.
P l
e a d i n g s
m a y
b e a m e n d e d
b y
a d d i n g o r
s t r i k i n g
o u t a n
a l l e g a t i o n
o r
t h e
n a m e
o f a n y
p a r t y ,
o r
b y
c o r r e c t i n g a m i s t a k e i n t h e n a m e o f a part
y o r a
m i s t a k e n o r
i n a d e q u a t e a l l e g a t i o n o r d e s
c r i p t i o n
i n an y o t h e r r e s p e c t , s o t h a t t h e a c t u a l
m e r i t s o f
t h e
c o n t r o v e r s y
m a y
s p e e d i l y
b e
d e t e
r m i n e d ,
w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t e c h n i c a l i t i e s , a n d i n
t h e m o s t
e x p e d i t i o u s an d i n e x p e n s i v e m a n n e r . (1)
Sec .
7 .
Filing
a n y
p l e a d i n g
i s a m e n
e e n t i r e
p l e a d i n g ,
i n c o r p
w h i c h
shal l
b e i n d i c a t e
shal l b e
filed . (7a )
of
amended
d e d ,
pleadings.
a
o r a t i n g
d
b y
n e w
t h e
c o p y
o f
W h e n
t h
a m e n d m e n t s ,
a p p r o p r i a t e
m a r k s ,
NOTE S
1.
Amendment s t o a pleadin g shoul d b e indicate d in
th e amende d pleading , a s b y underscoring , enclosin g the m
in quotatio n marks , puttin g the m i n capita l letters , an d
so forth , a s woul d mak e the m readil y evident .
2 . Th e
amende d
pleadin g supersede s
th e
origina l
p l e a d i n g whic h
i s d e e m e d
w i t h d r a w n
an d
n
o
longe r
constitute s par t o f th e record .
However , th e filin g
o f th e
amende d pleadin g doe s no t retroac t t o th e dat e o f th e
filing o f th e original ,
hence ,
limitation s
run s
unti l th e
filin g o f th e a
e t al.
vs. Director of Lands,
34 Phil.
e n d m e n t
whic h merel y supplement s an d amplifie s
alleged i n th e complain t relate s bac k
e
commencemen t o f th e actio n an d i s
th e
s t a t u t e
m e n d m e n t
429).
o f
(Ruymann,
Bu t
an
a m
fact s originall y
t o th e dat e
o f th
no t
th e
barre d
by
202
----------------------- Page 203----------------------RULE 10
. 1, 7
AMENDED AND
SUPPLEMENTAL
SECS
PLEADINGS
is
onl y
a
forma l
a m e n d m e n t
(Juasing
vs.
Mendoza,
et al., G.R.
No.
55687,
July 30,
Thes e
ar e authorize d a s forma l a m e n d m e n t s unde r
o f
thi s Rule .
S e c
part y
m a y
a m
e r
o f
r i g h t a
e a d i n g
i s s e r v
y t i m e
w i t h i n
2.
e n d
Amendments
h i s
as a
matter of
p l e a d i n g
t a n y
t i m e
e d or ,
i n
b e f o r e
t h e c a s e
1982).
Sec .
right.A
o n c e
a
Hardware
a s
m a t t
r e s p o n s i v e
o f a
p l
r e p l y , a t a n
righ
a
How
i m
e m u s t
alway s b e
wit h
leav e
o f cour t
eve n befor e
responsiv e
thi s
rule .
(Breslin,
Phil.
618;
et
al.
Ong
vs.
Peng
i s
Luzon
vs.
controllabl
Stevedoring
Custodio,
204
----------------------- Page 205----------------------RULE 10
C. 2
AMENDED AND
SUPPLEMENTAL
Mar.
25,
1961;
les
L-27010,
April
SE
PLEADINGS
cf.
Dauden-Hernandez
30,
1969).
vs.
De
los
Ange
G.R.
No. 59582, Aug.
26,
1982; cf.
Sec.
3 of thi s Rule) .
of,
becaus e
it doe s
not raise d
defens e in
for th e first
n woul d not b e
th e
genera l
Th e effect of t
205
----------------------- Page 206----------------------RULE 10
ECS. 3-4
filing
amende d
answe r
i s
S
th e
withdrawa l
b y
th e
for
plaintif f an d
hearing ,
th e
th e
o f th e
reply ,
cas e
defendan t
ha
ha
al.
vs.
3 .
Amendments
i d e d
i n
Bemad,
t i a l
by
t h e
et
leave
n e x t
Bu t
t o
th e
s u c h
court.
No.
E x
p r e c e d i n g
b e
leav e
s e
m a d e
ma y
cour t tha t th e
wit h i n t e n t t o delay .
Order s o f
e
matter s provide d i n thi s sectio n shal l b
motio n file d i n court , an d afte r notic e
party , an d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e
al., G.R.
of
a m e n d m e n t s ma y
court .
r s
etc.,
motio n
b e
onl y
refuse d
w a s
mad e
th e cour t u p o n th
e m a d e u p o n
t o th e advers e
heard . (3a )
Sec .
4 .
Formal
amendments.
A
d e f e c t i
n t h e
d e s i g n a t i o n o f t h e partie s an d othe r clearl y clerica l
o r typographica l error s ma y b e summaril y correcte d
b y
t h e c o u r t a t a n y
s t a g e o f t h e a c t i o n ,
a t i t s
i n i t i a t i v e o r o n m o t i o n , p r o v i d e d n o p r e j
u d i c e i s
c a u s e d t h e r e b y t o th e a d v e r s e party . (4a )
NOTE S
1.
Sec .
eliminatin g th e
Th e
clea r
impor
t h e
ne w
Rul e
caus e o f
true , however ,
AMENDED AND
SEC
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
preven t dela y an d t h u s equall y promot e
th e laud
abl e
objective o f th e Rule s which i s t o secur e a "just , speedy
an d
i n e x p e n s i v e d i s p o s i t i o n o f ever y
a c t i o
n a n d
p r o c e e d i n g " (se e
Valenzuela,
et al.
vs.
CA,
e
t
al.,
G.R.
No.
131175,
Aug.
28,
2001).
Philippine
Ports
Authority
vs. William
Gothong, etc., Inc.,
G.R. No.
1
58401,
Jan.
28,
2008).
2 .
a . Wher e th e cour t ha
h e
original complain t an d th e purpos
t o confe r j u r i s d i c t i o n
n a t i n g
th e objectionabl e portio n
ang,
et al.,
9 6 Phil.
845),
or
actio n
originally pleade d
i n th
th e
jurisdictio n of th e
cour t
5609,
Nov.
27,
1968;
Campos
utista,
et al., L-18453,
Sept.
29,
mus t
first hav e jurisdictio n over th
such
amendmen t
(Caspar
n o jurisdictio n
ove r
e o f th e amendmen t i s
o n t h e c o u r t b y e l i m i
(Rosario,
et
w h e r e
t h e
complain t
al.
Versoza,
Corporation
1982),
cas e
vs.
outsid e
vs.
Rueda
Carand
c a u s e o f
wa s
(Versoza
vs.
vs.
sinc e
th e
befor e
it can
Dorado,
L-2
Ba
cour t
orde r
L-17884,
Nov.
29,
1965);
b . If it woul d resul t in delay
al.,
103 Phil.
1027; Sec. 3 of thi s Rule) ;
c.
(Lerma vs.
Reyes, et
n
or
defens e
or chang e
th e
theor y
o f th e
cas e
(Torres
vs
.
Tomacruz,
49
Phil.
914;
Sec.
3 of thi s Rule) ,
o
ar e
i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e o r
i g i n a l
complaint
(Castillo, et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 52
008,
Mar.
25,
1988),
unles s justic e an d equit y warran t such
a m e n d m e n t whic h woul d
negat e
defendant' s
liab
ilit y
(R&B Insurance
Co.,
et al. vs. Savellano,
et al., L-4
5234,
May 8,
1985),
or wil l not resul t in substantia l injur
y
to th e advers e
part y
(Marini-Gonzales
vs. Lood,
et al.,
L-35098,
Mar.
16,
1987); an d
r
a subsequently-accrue d caus e o f
Exploration
Co.
vs. Harris,
bu
o
tria l o f t h e s e i s s u e s . I f e v i d e n c e i s objecte d
t o a t
t h e tria l o n t h e g r o u n d
t h a t i t i s no t w i t
h i n t h e
i s s u e s m a d e b y th e p l e a d i n g s , th e cour t ma y a
llo w
th e p l e a d i n g s t o b e a m e n d e d an d shal l d o s
o wi t h
liberalit y
i f th e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f th e
m e r i t s
o f th e
a c t i o n an d th e e n d s o f s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c
e wil l b e
208
----------------------- Page 209----------------------RULE 10
C. 5
AMENDED AND
SE
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
subserve d thereby . Th e cour t ma y gran t a continuanc e
t o e n a b l e th e a m e n d m e n t t o b e made . (5a )
NOTE S
1. Thi s i s a n instanc e wherei n th e cour t acquire
s
jurisdictio n ove r th e issue s eve n i f th e sam e ar e no t
alleged in th e origina l pleading s o f th e parties , i.e. , wher e
th e tria l o f sai d issue s i s wit h th e expres s o r imp
lie d
consent o f th e parties .
Also , thi s rul e i s premise d on th
e
fact tha t evidenc e ha d bee n introduce d on an issu e not
raise d b y th e pleading s withou t an y objectio n b y th e
advers e party .
It , therefore , doe s no t appl y whe n th
e
cas e
wa s decide d o n a
s t i p u l a t i o n o f fact s i n
whic h
case th e pleading s ar e no t deeme d amende d t o conform t o
th e
evidenc e
(MWSS
us.
CA,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
54
526,
Aug.
25,
1986).
2 . On e lin e o f case s hold s tha t wher e th e evidenc e
s u s t a i n s a n a w a r d i n exces s o f t h a t claime d
i n
th e
complaint , bu t th e plaintif f failed t o amen d th e praye r
of it s complain t a s t o th e amoun t o f damage s t o conform
t o th e evidence , th e amoun t demande d i n th e complain t
should b e th e measur e o f damage s [Malayan Insuranc e
Co. , Inc . vs . M a n i l a P o r t Service ,
e t al. , L-23128
,
Sept . 30 , 1978 ; J.M . Tuaso n & Co . vs . Santiago , 9 9 Phil .
615] .
Ther e have , however , als o been case s wher e th e
S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s hel d
t h a t eve n
w i t h o u t s
u c h
amendment t o conform t o th e evidence , th e amoun t prove d
U p o n
m o
t i o n
o f a part y t h e cour t may ,
u p o n r e a s o n a b l e
notic e
an d u p o n s u c h term s a s ar e just , permi t h i m t o serv e
a s u p p l e m e n t a l p l e a d i n g s e t t i n g fort h t r a n s a
c t i o n s ,
o c c u r r e n c e s o r e v e n t s w h i c h h a v e h a p p e n e d
sinc e
th e d a t e o f th e p l e a d i n g s o u g h t t o b e s u p p l e m e
n t e d .
Th e a d v e r s e part y m a y plea d t h e r e t o w i t h i n t e n (
10)
d a y s
f r o m
n o t i c e
o f t h e
o r d e r a d m i t t i n g
t h e
s u p p l e m e n t a l
pleading .
(6a )
NOTE S
1.
pleadings :
tim e
AMENDED AND
SUPPLEMENTAL
pleading s refe r t o
h e
original pleading .
fact s
PLEADING S
arisin g
afte r
th e
filin g
o f t
th e
former provision
r e t h e
wherei n
a d v e r s e p a r t y
th e
t o p l e a d
o f thi s
Rul e
ha s
Sec .
8.
Effect, of amended pleading. An a m e n d e d
p l e a d i n g s u p e r s e d e s th e p l e a d i n g tha t i t a
m e n d s .
However , a d m i s s i o n s i n s u p e r s e d e d pleading s ma y
b e r e c e i v e d i n e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t th e pleader ;
an d
claim s o r d e f e n s e s allege d therei n no t incorporate d
i n th e a m e n d e d p l e a d i n g shal l b e d e e m e d waived
,
(n)
N O T E S
1.
th e
of a
2
and
and
states , in general ,
2 . Althoug h th e
supersedur e o f th e origina l plead ing, upon th e admission o f th e amende d pleading , amount s
21 1
----------------------- Page 212----------------------RULE 10
SEC. 8
t o th e
withdrawa l o f th e
former ,
expunge d
from
i n
bu t
remain s
Referenc e ca n thereb y b
t o wit h
r e g a r d t o t h e effect
h a t is ,
(a) admission s i n th e
receive d
in evidenc e
s
or defense s
allege d
o r
reiterate d i n th e amende d
it
th e
i s
recor d
readil y
o f
nevertheles s
o f th e
not
mad e
case .
t h e r e
t h e a m e n d m e n t ,
bu t no t
incorporate d
T O
S e c t i o n 1.
T h e
FIL E
Answer
1 1
RESPONSIV E
to
PLEADING S
the
complaint.
d
a
w
o
u
e
i
i
n
n
f
n
t
s
l
e n d a n t shal l
fil e hi s
t
h i n fiftee n
(15)
d a y s
a n s w e r
afte r
t o
th e c o m p l
servic e
o f s u m m
Sec .
2.
Answer
of
a
defendant
rivate
juridical
entity.
Wher e
th e
d e f e n d
n
privat e juridica l entit y an d servic e o f s u
mad e o n th e g o v e r n m e n t officia l designate
t o r e c e i v e th e same , th e a n s w e r shal l
n
thirt y (30) day s afte r receip t o f s u m m o
entity .
foreign
a n t i s a foreig
m m o n s i s
d b y la w
b e file d withi
n s
b y
s u c h
(2a )
NOTE S
pleading s
"Sec .
filed
11.
after
th e
Extension
of
reglementar y
time
to
period ,
plead.
Up
o n
motion an d on such term s a s may b e just , th e cour t
213
----------------------- Page 214----------------------RULE 11
SEC. 3
ma y
exten d
th e
tim e
t o
plea d
upo n
lik e
provide d
i n
th
es e
Rules .
Th e
cour t ma y
also ,
terms ,
allow
n
answer or othe r pleadin g t o b e
filed
after
th e
tim e
4 .
An orde r allowin g
th e
filing o f a
lat e
answe r
s
i n t e r l o c u t o r y a n d
no t
a p p e a l a b l e (De
us.
Republic,
L-19533,
Oct.
31,
1963).
Ocampo
Sec .
3.
Answer
to amended
complaint.
W
h e r e
th e plaintif f file s a n a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t a s a matte r
o f right , th e d e f e n d a n t shal l a n s w e r th e sam e w i t h
i n
fiftee n
(15 )
d a y s afte r
b e i n g s e r v e d w i t h
a c o p y
thereof .
,
W h e r e
it s filin g i s
t h e
f e n d a n t
s h a l l a n s w e
a i n t
t h i n
t e n (10 )
d a y s
r d e r
m i t t i n g th e same .
A
d e
p l
w i
o
a d
ma y
serv e a s th e a n s w e r t o th e
n o
n e w a n s w e r i s filed .
n o t
T h i s
R u l e
s h a l l
t o a n
a m e n d e d
c o u n t e r c l a
c l a i m ,
a m e n d e d
thir d
(fourth ,
d
a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t - i n
m a t t e r
t h e
a m e n d e d
f r o m
n
o f right
n o t i c e
c o m
a n s w e r
o f
earlie r
t h e
file d
a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t i f
a p p l y
i m ,
t o
t h e
a n s w e r
a m e n d e d
etc.)-part y
c r o s s -
c o m p l a i n t ,
- i n t e r v e n t i o n .
an
(3a )
214
----------------------- Page 215----------------------RULE 11
. 3
WHEN TO FILE
RESPONSIVE
PLEADINGS
NOT E
SEC
SECS
6 .
(10)
d a y s
p o n d e d
to . (6)
e n d a n t
i s
s e r v e
, henc e h e als o
o f summons , a s th e
jus t lik e th e origi
s e r v i c e
o f th e
p l e a d i n g
r e s
N O T E S
1.
th e
ne w
m a t t e r s
allege d
i n
th e
a n t
216
----------------------- Page 217----------------------RULE 1 1
SEC. 6
WHEN TO FILE
RESPONSIVE
PLEADINGS
busines s day .
Althoug h pleading s may als o b e serve d
and filed by mai l (Sec. 3, Rule 13), it ha s been hel d tha t
even i f th e Burea u o f Post s an d it s branche s ar e open
on a holiday which i s th e las t day for filing a pleading ,
such pleadin g may stil l b e filed on th e nex t day (Galang
us. WCC, et al., L-33928, Mar. 29,
1972).
3 . In th e computatio n o f th e reglementar y period ,
especially i f it i s interrupte d by th e filing o f a pleading ,
th e d a t e whe n
t h e pleadin g i s filed an d
th e dat
e
o f
receip t o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r orde r t h e r e o n ar e
t o b e
excluded .
Thus , whe n th e motion for reconsideratio n o f
a judgmen t i s filed on th e 15th or las t day withi n which
t o perfec t th e appeal , tha t day shoul d b e exclude d an d
th e part y stil l ha s on e da y t o perfec t a n appeal .
Th e
filing o f sai d motion an d th e pendenc y thereo f suspend s
th e r u n n i n g o f th e r e g l e m e n t a r y period , unles s
sai d
motio n
i s pro forma.
Where ,
thereafter ,
an
orde
r
i s
receive d denyin g sai d
motio n for reconsideration ,
th e
dat e o f suc h receip t i s als o no t considere d in th e com
putation .
Thus , excludin g suc h dat e o f receip t an d ther e
bein g a balanc e o f on e day o f th e reglementar y period ,
th e appea l ca n b e perfecte d on th e workin g day following
th e da y
o f receip t o f th e
denia l order .
Thi s
r
ulin g
clarifies
an d
set s asid e
th e doctrine s
in Federal Fi
lms,
Inc.
us. Judge of First
Instance of Manila
[78
Phil .
472]
and Taroma us. Cruz, et al. [6 8 Phil . 281] (Lloren us. De
Veyra,
L-13929,
Mar.
28,
1962).
Th e aforesai d doctrin e in
declare d
applicabl e
w h e t
deration i s filed day s befor e
e
reglementar y period .
Wher
y ,
Lloren wa s reiterate d an d
h e r th e motio n for reconsi
or on
e suc h
th e
motion
las t day
i s
o f th
filed ,
sa
217
----------------------- Page 218----------------------RULE 11
SEC. 7
r e g l e m e n t a r y perio d
u n l e s s i t fail s t o satisf y
t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Rul e
3 7 (Sec.
2).
I f t h e motio
n
i s
thereafte r denied , th e 3 remainin g day s o f th e perio d shal l
start t o ru n agai n on th e day after th e receip t o f th e orde
r
denyin g th e
motio n (De las Alas,
et al. vs. CA,
et al.,
L-38006,
May
16,
1978;
Mayor
vs.
IAC,
et
al.
,
G.R.
No.
74410, May
4, 1988).
Sec .
7.
Answer
to
supplemental
complaint.
A
s u p p l e m e n t a l c o m p l a i n t ma y
b e a n s w e r e d
w i t h i n
t e n (10 ) d a y s fro m notic e o f th e orde r a d m i t t i n g th e
same ,
T h e
a s t
a n s w
e w o
s u p p
u n l e s s a differen
a n s w e r t o t h
h e
e r t o th e s u p p
r
l e m e n t a l a n s w
1.
Thi s i s a new provision whic h remedie s th e over sight in th e old Rul e which di d no t provid e for an answe r
t o a supplementa l complain t althoug h th e allegation s
t h e r e i n ma y
ver y
wel l
n e c e s s i t a t e t h e a p p r
o p r i a t e
response , clarificatio n or denial .
Sinc e th e filin
g o f a
s u p p l e m e n t a l complain t
r e q u i r e s leav e o f court
,
th e
procedur e for filing an answe r theret o i s simila r t o th e
case o f an amende d complain t th e filing o f whic h i s not
a m a t t e r o f right , henc e
likewis e
r e q u i r i n g
leav e o f
court therefo r (se e 2nd par., Sec. 3 of th e Rule) .
Howe
ver ,
unlik e th e latter ,
th e cour t ma y fix a differen t per
io d
for answerin g th e supplementa l complain t in lieu o f th e
r e g l e m e n t a r y 10-da y period .
Th e
differenc e
m
a y b e
ascribed t o th e fact tha t i n a n amende d complaint , th e
fact s sough t
lread y
t o
b e
incorporate d
therei n
wer e
218
----------------------- Page 219----------------------RULE 11
. 8-11
WHEN TO FILE
RESPONSIVE
PLEADINGS
SECS
A
c o m p u l s o r y c o u n t e r c l a i m o r a c r o s s - c l a i m
t h a t a
d e f e n d i n g part y ha s a t th e tim e h e file s hi s a n s w e
r
shall b e c o n t a i n e d therein . (8a , R6)
Sec .
after
answer.
9.
A
Counterclaim
or
c o u n t e r c l a i m
o r
cross-claim
a
arising
cross-clai m
e i t h e r m a t u r e d o r w a s a c q u i r e d b y a
afte r
servin g hi s p l e a d i n g may , wit h th e
p e
i o n o f
t h e court , b e p r e s e n t e d a s a c o u n t e r c l a i
cross clai m
b y s u p p l e m e n t a l p l e a d i n g befor e
e n t .
(9, R6)
Sec .
10 .
im.
Whe n a pleade r fail s
c r o s s - c l a i m t h
c e , o r
excusabl e neglect , o r
b y leav e o f court ,
clai m b y a m e n d m e
Sec .
p o n
motio
may
t h e
Rules
11 .
Omitted
counterclaim
or
w h i c h
part y
r m i s s
m o r a
j u d g m
cross-cla
t o se t u p a c o u n t e r c l a i m o r a
r o u g h o v e r s i g h t , i n a d v e r t e n
w h e n justic e requires , h e may ,
se t u p th e c o u n t e r c l a i m o r cross
n t befor e judgment . (3a , R9)
Extension
n an d o n s u c h term s
e x t e n d
t h e t i m
s e
.
Th e cour t ma y also ,
answe r o r othe r p l e a d i n
fixed b y t h e s e Rules . (7)
of
time
to
plead.
a s ma y b e just , th e cour t
t o plea d
p r o v i d e d i n
SECS
NOTE S
1. Sec .
1 1 i s
e r
Sec. 2 o f thi s Rule .
commente d
o n
i n
th e
note s
u n d
i o n
1.
O F
When
1 2
PARTICULAR S
applied
for;
purpose.
t o properl y
g . U n d e r th e
w a s
bu t
s u p p o s e
t h a t
s t
Besides ,
o f discovery
action for th e
2 . W h a t
ma y
b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a
r a t i o
n a l e for
requirin g a bil l o f particular s in prope r case s i s that ,
whil e pleading s shoul d b e
liberall y construe d wit h
a
view t o substantia l justice , court s shoul d not b e left t o
conjecture in th e determinatio n o f th e issue s submitte d
b y th e
l i t i g a n t s . Wher e
th e pleadin g i s vagu e
an d
uncertain , court s shoul d not b e led t o th e commission o f
error or injustic e by explorin g in th e mids t o f uncertaint y
an d
d i v i n i n g th e i n t e n t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s fr
om
th e
221
----------------------- Page 222----------------------RULE 12
ECS. 2-4
Occo
S
&
Co.
vs.
De
la
3.
Th e grantin g o f a motion for a bil l o f particular s
withi n th e
soun d discretio n o f th e cour t an d
it s
rulin g wil l no t b e reverse d unles s ther e wa s palpabl e
abus e o f discretio n or it wa s a clearly erroneou s order .
Thus , th e Suprem e Cour t refuse d t o distur b th e orde r o f
th e tria l cour t dismissin g th e complain t wher e plaintif f
refuse d t o submi t a bill o f particular s despit e th e court' s
order therefor , i t appearin g tha t th e allegation s o n th e
caus e o f actio n wer e in th e natur e o f lega l conclusion s
lie s
whic h
shoul d
hav e
bee n
t e fact s
(Santos
vs. Liwag,
L-24238,
clarifie d
Nov.
b y
28,
u l t i m a
1980).
Sec . 2 .
Action by the court. Upo n th e
fil
in g o f
th e
m o t i o n , t h e cler k o f c o u r t m u s t
i m m e d
i a t e l y
b r i n g i t t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e c o u r t w h i
c h m a y
3 .
Compliance
(n )
with order.
I f th e
m o t i o n
t e d , e i t h e r i n w h o l e o r i n part , th e c o m p l
e
e w i t h m u s t b e effecte d w i t h i n te n (10) day s fro
o f th e order ,
e c o u r t .
e
s t a t e m e n
r i n a s e
g ,
n g a cop y t
h
r
e
e
n
i
Sec .
4 . Effect of
s
no t o b e y e d , o r
i n
n c e
t h e r e w i t h , th e cour t
o f
th e
p l e a d i n g o r th e
c h th e
orde r w a s directe d o r m a
th e
a d v e r s e
non-compliance.
I f th e
c a s e o f insufficien t
ma y orde r th e
por t i o n s
k e
s u c h
party ,
orde r
c o m p l i a
s t r i k i n g ou t
t h e r e o f t o
o t h e r orde r a s
w h i
i t
d e e m s just . (l[c]a )
222
----------------------- Page 223----------------------RULE 12
CS. 5-6
BILL OF PARTICULAR S
SE
NOTE S
1. Thes e new or amende d provision s spel l ou t th e
mechanic s involve d in th e obtentio n o f a bill o f particular s
and th e sanction s for non-complianc e therewith .
Ju
dicia l
experienc e show s t h a t resor t t o a motio n for a bil l
o f
particular s i s sometime s actuall y intende d for delay or ,
even i f no t s o intended ,
nonetheles s result s i n dela
y
since th e r e g l e m e n t a r y perio d for filin g a responsiv
e
pleadin g i s suspende d
an d
th e subsequen t exchange s
ar e likewis e se t bac k i n th e meantime .
2 . Sec . 3 i s a new provisio n whic h i s intende d t
o
clarify how a bil l o f particular s ma y b e filed , t h a t
is ,
throug h eithe r a separat e o r a n amende d pleading .
Thus ,
Rul e
by
tha t
th e
rul
e clerk o f
n o f tha t
Sec .
Afte r servic
definit e
o f hi s
motion , th e
s i v e
p l e a d i n g
d
at th e tim e
les s t h a n
5 .
Stay
of period
to
file
responsive pleading.
part y
ma y
fil e
hi s
r e s p o n
w i t h i n th e perio d t o w h i c h h e w a s entitle
o f filin g hi s motion , w h i c h shal l
fiv e (5 ) day s i n an y event . (l[b]a )
no t b e
Sec .
6 . Bill
a
part
of pleading.
A
bil l
of
particular s b e c o m e s par t o f th e pleadin g fo r w h i c h
i t i s intended . (l[a]a )
223
----------------------- Page 224----------------------RULE 12
CS. 5-6
SE
NOTE S
1. A s understoo d unde r Sec . 1 o f thi s Rule , a motion
for a bil l o f p a r t i c u l a r s m u s t b e file d
w i t h
i n t h e
r e g l e m e n t a r y perio d
for
th e filin g
o f a r e s p
o n s i v e
pleadin g t o th e pleadin g sough t t o b e clarified . Thi s
contemplate s pleading s which ar e require d b y th e Rule s
t o b e a n s w e r e d u n d e r pai n o f p r o c e d u r a l s a
n c t i o n s ,
such a s defaul t o r implie d
admissio n o f th e
fact
s
no t
responde d to .
A specia l provision regardin g a vagu e reply
is include d in Sec . 1 , tha t is , tha t a motion for a bil l o
f
particular s directe d t o a reply mus t b e filed withi n 1 0
days , sinc e a responsiv e pleadin g i s no t require d for a
reply as , in fact , th e filing o f th e reply itsel f i s optiona
l
or permissiv e (se e Sec. 6, Rule 1 1 an d note s thereon) .
afte r th e
reply ,
a sur-rebutter .
b y th e court ,
require d bu t a t
l for it t o fix a
3 .
th e
BILL OF PARTICULARS
reproduce d
i n
Regardin g th e availabilit y
an d
th e
wai
e
e s
cas
rol e o f a bill
1 3
SERVIC E O F PLEADINGS ,
AN D
OTHE R
PAPER S
S e c t i o n 1 . Coverage. Thi s
Rul e
shal l g o
v e r n
th e filin g o f al l p l e a d i n g s an d othe r papers , a s wel l
a s t h e s e r v i c e thereof ,
e x c e p t t h o s e fo r
i c h
a
differen t m o d e o f servic e i s prescribed , (n )
w h
Sec .
2 .
Filing and service, defined. Filin g i s th e
ac t o f p r e s e n t i n g th e p l e a d i n g o r othe r pape r t o
th e
cler k o f court .
S e r v i c e i s th e ac t o f p r o v i d i n g a part y
w i t h a
c o p y o f t h e p l e a d i n g o r p a p e r c o n c e r n e d .
I f a n y
part y h a s a p p e a r e d
b y c o u n s e l , s e r v i c e u p
o n h i m
s h a l l b e m a d e
u p o n
h i s c o u n s e l o r o n e o f
t h e m ,
u n l e s s servic e u p o n th e part y h i m s e l f i s o r d e r e d
b y
th e court .
Wher e o n e c o u n s e l a p p e a r s fo r sev
era l
parties , h e shal l onl y b e e n t i t l e d t o o n e c o p y o f a
n y
pape r serve d u p o n h i m b y th e o p p o s i t e side . (2a )
NOTE S
1.
I t i s th e dut y o f counse l t o adop t an
trictl y
maintai n a syste m tha t efficiently take s int o accoun t al
court notice s sen t t o him .
Hi s failur e t o d o s
anno t
excuse hi m from th e consequence s o f hi s non-receip t o f
court
notice s
(Babala
vs.
CA,
et al.,
L-23065,
b.
16,
1970;
Republic
vs. Arro,
et al., L-48241,
June
1987;
Antonio,
et al. vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No.
77656,
g.
31,
1987).
An attorne y o f recor d mus t notify th e cour t o f
chang e o f address .
l
o
c
Fe
11,
Au
hi s
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
L-33448,
Sep
SECS
statio n
notic e
a t
o f th e
th e
decision wa s
groun d
floor
serve d
o f th e
on
th e
defendant' s
G.
da y
28,
in
cour t
(PHHC
vs.
Tiongco,
et
al.,
L-18891
5 . I n
1964).
crimina l
cases ,
notic e
t o
th e
prosecutio n
s
mad e on th e fiscal an d th e privat e prosecuto r i s deeme d
constructively
notifie d thereo f (Buro
vs. Montesa,
et
al.,
8 7 Phil. 245).
Th e court , of course , coul d als o caus e
a
copy thereo f t o b e serve d on sai d privat e prosecutor .
227
----------------------- Page 228----------------------RULE 13
SEC. 3
Sec .
3 .
Manner of filing.
Th e
filin g
o f
plead i n g s , a p p e a r a n c e s ,
m o t i o n s ,
n o t i c e s ,
o r d e r s ,
j u d g m e n t s an d al l othe r paper s shal l b e m a d e b
y
p r e s e n t i n g
t h e o r i g i n a l c o p i e s t h e r e o f ,
p l a i n l y
indicate d a s such , personall y t o th e cler k o f cour t
o r b y s e n d i n g t h e m b y registere d mail .
I n
th e firs t
case , th e cler k o f cour t shal l endors e o n th e pleadin g
th e dat e an d h o u r o f filing .
I n th e s e c o n d cas
e , th e
dat e o f th e m a i l i n g o f m o t i o n s , p l e a d i n g s ,
o r an y
othe r paper s o r p a y m e n t s o r d e p o s i t s , a s s h o w n
b y
th e pos t offic e s t a m p o n th e e n v e l o p e o r th e registr
y
r e c e i p t , s h a l l b e c o n s i d e r e d
a s t h e d a t e
o f t
filing
n v e l
shal l
h e i r
, p a y m e n t , o r d e p o s i t i n court .
o p e
b e a t t a c h e d t o th e recor d o f th e case ,
Th e
( l a )
NOTE S
1.
Th e
of whic h shal l
all th e entrie s
l
cases , numbere d
wer e receive d
a complet e titl
r
issued , o f eac
other ste p take
a
single pag e th e
Rule
ma y b e
see n (Sec.
8,
136).
2 . U n d e r t h i s section ,
filin g b y
mai l
sh
oul d
b e
throug h th e registr y servic e whic h i s mad e by deposi t o f
th e pleadin g i n th e pos t office , an d no t throug h othe
r
mean s o f transmission .
Thus , th e dat e o f delivery o f
th e
p l e a d i n g s t o a p r i v a t e l e t t e r - f o r w a r d i n g a
genc y
o r
p r i v a t e c a r r i e r , eve n i f license d
t o ac t a s s
uc h wit h
respec t t o othe r articles , i s no t a recognize d mod e o
f
filing pleading s
whic h ca n only b e
don e
t h r
o u g h th e
Philippin e Governmen t Pos t Office or it s posta l agencies .
If a privat e carrie r i s availe d o f by th e party , th e dat e o f
22 8
----------------------- Page 229----------------------RULE 13
4-5 6
SEC S
Sec .
4.
Papers
required
to
be filed
and
serve
d.
E v e r y
j u d g m e n t ,
r e s o l u t i o n , o r d e r ,
p l e
a d i n g
s u b s e q u e n t t o th e complaint , writte n motion , notice ,
a p p e a r a n c e , d e m a n d , offe r o f j u d g m e n t o r si
mila r
p a p e r s s h a l l b e file d w i t h th e c o u r t s an d
s
e r v e d
upo n t h e partie s affected . (2a )
Sec .
5 . Modes of service. Servic e o f pleadings ,
m o t i o n s , n o t i c e s , o r d e r s , j u d g m e n t s a n d
o t h e r
paper s shal l b e m a d e e i t h e r personall y o r b y mail .
(3a)
NOT E
1. Asid e from persona l servic e or by mail , servic e o f
pleading s ma y als o b e effecte d b y substitute d servic e
(Sec. 8) an d judgments , fina l order s or resolution s may
b e serve d by publicatio n (Sec. 9), bu t th e las t mod e
i s
prope r only wher e th e summon s o n th e defendan t ha d
also bee n serve d by publication .
Sec .
6 . Personal service.
Servic e o f th e paper s
may b e mad e b y d e l i v e r i n g personall y a cop y t o th e
part y o r hi s c o u n s e l , o r b y leavin g i t i n hi s
offic e
w i t h h i s c l e r k o r w i t h a p e r s o n h a v i n g c h
a r g e
thereof .
I f n o perso n i s foun d i n hi s office , o r
hi s
offic e
i s no t k n o w n , o r h e ha s n o office , t h e
n b y
l e a v i n g t h e copy ,
b e t w e e n th e
h o u r s o f e i g
h t i n
th e m o r n i n g an d si x i n th e evening , a t th e party' s
o r counsel' s r e s i d e n c e ,
o f
i f k n o w n ,
wit h
perso n
229
----------------------- Page 230----------------------RULE 13
SEC 7
Thi s
sectio n
ha s
bee n
amende d
t o
includ e
th e
thereof .
Unde r suc h circumstances , servic e ma y b e mad e
not only a t th e residenc e o f th e part y h e represent s but ,
now , als o a t counsel' s residence , i t bein g assume d tha t
hi s residenc e i s als o use d by hi m a s hi s office .
In
an y o f
said cases , thi s section now require s tha t i f not serve d
o n e i t h e r t h e p a r t y o r counse l
p e r s o n a l l y t
h e r e i n ,
service shoul d b e mad e not only on a perso n o f sufficient
discretion bu t likewis e o f sufficient ag e an d wh o mus t
further b e actuall y residin g therein .
Th e additiona l
ag e
requiremen t i s intende d t o mak e i t easie r t o ascertai n
whethe r th e perso n t o who m th e pleadin g wa s entruste d
i s on e wit h sufficient discretion .
Also , th e requireme
n t
t h a t h e shoul d b e a residen t therei n i s t o obviat e
th e
possibility or th e pretex t tha t servic e wa s mad e only on a
visitor or an y perso n wh o happene d t o b e in th e residenc e
for a transien t or temporar y purpose .
S e c . 7 . Service by mail. S e r v i c e
by r e g i s
t e r e d
mai l shal l
b e m a d e
b y d e p o s i t i n g th e c o p y
i n th e
pos t office , i n a s e a l e d e n v e l o p e , plainl y a d d r e s
s e d
t o th e part y o r hi s c o u n s e l a t hi s office , i f
k n o w n ,
o t h e r w i s e a t hi s r e s i d e n c e , i f k n o w n , w i t h
p o s t a g e
f u l l y p r e - p a i d , a n d
w i t h
i n s t r u c t i o n s
t o t h e
p o s t m a s t e r t o r e t u r n th e mai l t o th e s e n d e
r afte r
t e n (10 ) d a y s i f u n d e l i v e r e d . I f n o registr y servic e
i s
availabl e i n th e localit y o f e i t h e r th e s e n d e r o r th
e
a d d r e s s e e , servic e ma y b e d o n e
b y ordinar y ma
il .
(5a)
(As
amended
by
Resolution
of the
Supreme
Court,
dated Feb.
17,
1998)
230
----------------------- Page 231----------------------RULE 13
CS
8-9
SE
Substituted
service.
11 .
I f
s e r v i c e
o f
p l e a d i n g s , m o t i o n s , notices , r e s o l u t i o n s , order
s an d
o t h e r
p a p e r s
c a n n o t
b e
m a d e
u n d e r
t h e
t w o
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s , th e offic e an d plac e o f r e s i d
e n c e
o f t h e part y o r h i s c o u n s e l b e i n g u n k n o w n , servi
c e
ma y b e m a d e b y d e l i v e r i n g t h e cop y t o th e cler k o
f
court , w i t h proo f o f failur e o f bot h p e r s o n a l servic e
an d s e r v i c e b y mail .
Th e servic e i s c o m p l e t e a t
th e
tim e o f s u c h delivery . (6a )
NOTE S
1. Wher e th e counse l o f recor d ha s not withdraw n
a s such , servic e o f th e j u d g m e n t o n hi s wif e a t
thei r
residenc e
i s vali d persona l servic e
(Cubar
vs. Men
doza,
G.R.
No.
55035, Feb. 23,
1983).
2 . "Substitute d service " a s applie d t o pleading s i n
th e abov e sectio n ha s a different meanin g from "substi tute d service " a s applie d t o summons , Rul e 1 4 providin g
as follows :
"Sec .
7 . Substituted
service.
If,
for justifiab
l e
c a u s e s , t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t b e s e r v e d w i t
h i n a
reasonabl e tim e a s provide d i n th e precedin g section ,
servic e
ma y b e effecte d
(a ) b y leavin g copie s o f
th e
summon s a t th e defendant' s dwellin g hous e o r residenc e
wit h som e perso n o f suitabl e ag e an d discretio n the n
r e s i d i n g t h e r e i n , o r (b ) b y l e a v i n g t h e copie
s
a t
defendant 's office or regula r plac e o f busines s wit h som e
competent perso n in charg e thereof . (8a) "
Sec .
9.
Service
of judgments,
final orders
or
resolutions. J u d g m e n t s , fina l order s o r r e s o l u t i o n s shal
l
231
----------------------- Page 232----------------------RULE 13
. 9
SEC
r
r e s o l u t i o n s a g a i n s t h i m shal l b e serve d u p o
h i m
als o b y publicatio n a t th e e x p e n s e o f t h e p r e v a i l i
n g
party . (7a )
n
NOTE S
1. A judgmen
does not becom e
defectiv e
(Vda.
al.,
L-30486,
Oct.
uc h
judgmen t upo n th e
is not permitted .
served on a
charge o f th
th e decisio n
et al. vs.
).
1972).
Persona l
servic e
of
Cuach
of
decision wa s sen
but th e sam e
another addres s
such omissio n o r
decision
(Magno,
July
31,
1987).
availe d of.
Th e
logical
233
----------------------- Page 234----------------------RULE 13
SEC. 10
10 .
Completeness
c o m p l e t e
u p o n
of
actua l
service.
delivery .
P e r s
S
b y ordinar y mai l i s c
t i o n
o f t e n (10 )
d a y s a
c o u r t
o t h e r w i s e provides .
mai l i s
c o m p l e t e u p o n a c t
s s e e , o r
afte r fiv e (5 ) d a y s
d t h e
firs t n o t i c e o f t h e
a t e i s
earlier . (8a )
o m p l e t e
f t e r
u p o n
t h e
e x p i r a
m a i l i n g , u n l e s s t h e
S e r v i c e
b y r e g i s t e r e d
u a l r e c e i p t b y t h e
fro m
t h e
d a t e
h e
a d d r e
r e c e i v e
p o s t m a s t e r , w h i c h e v e r
NOTE S
1. Thi s section , a s
days , instea d o f th e forme
service b y ordinar y mail .
l ,
th e completenes s thereo f i s
o f actua l receip t o f th e
,
unles s th e registere d mai l wa
mai l
an
d
may , therefore , be rebutte d
(Cabuang vs. Bello,
105 Phil.
1135).
Fo r th e rul e t o apply , servic e m u s t hav e
bee n
mad e on th e counse l de parte
(Fojas vs. Navarro, L-26
365,
April 30,
1970) an d i f it wa s sen t t o hi s addres s o f recor
d
an d h e fail s t o receiv e i t for cause s imputabl e t o
him ,
th e servic e become s fina l an d i t i s no t necessar y t o effect
further servic e
(Magno,
et al. vs. CA,
upo n
et al.,
3 . Servic e
th e
p a r t y h e r e p r e s e n t s
supra).
o f notic e
b y
registere d
avoide d
b y counsel' s
refusa l t o
afte r
notificatio n
thereof ,
a n d notic e
plet e
regardles s o f suc h refusa l t o accep t
endoza,
mai l
accep t
canno t
b e
deliver y
i s d e e m e d
(Isaac
com
vs.
234
----------------------- Page 235----------------------RULE 13
11-12
SECS
89
Phil.
279).
4.
Whe n
registered mail,
t o w h e n ,
mad e
(Hernandez,
v
24
1972).
al.
vs.
Navarro,
et
al,
L-28296,
No
12 .
g
o r p a p e r s h a l l b e p r o v e d b y it s e x i s t e n c e
i n t h e
recor d o f t h e c a s e .
I f i t i s no t i n t h e record , b
u t i s
c l a i m e d t o h a v e b e e n file d
p e r s o n a l l y , t h
e filin g
s h a l l b e
p r o v e d
b y
t h e
w r i t t e n
o r
s t
a m p e d
a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f it s filin g b y th e cler k o f co
ur t
o n a c o p y o f t h e same ; i f file d b y registere d mail , b y
t h e r e g i s t r y r e c e i p t a n d
b y t h e affidavi t
o f t h e
p e r s o n
w h o
d i d t h e m a i l i n g , c o n t a i n i n g
a ful l
s t a t e m e n t o f t h e dat e an d plac e o f d e p o s i t i n
g th e
mail i n th e pos t offic e i n a seale d envelop e addresse d
t o th e court , w i t h postag e full y pre-paid , an d wi t h
236
----------------------- Page 236----------------------RULE 13
11-12
SECS.
i n s t r u c t i o n s t o th e p o s t m a s t e r t o r e t u r n
t h e mai l
t o th e s e n d e r afte r t e n (10) d a y s i f no t delivered , (n
)
NOTE S
1. Sec .
11 ,
g
standin g nee d t o cur
of a pleadin g by a
o f servin g th e sam
whic h i s a ne w provision ,
fill s a
lon
n
e x a m p l
w i t h a
requeste d
wit h th e
part y afte
e woul d
b e
i n
t h e m a t t e r
o f m o t i o n s
h duplicity , bu t a s
disciplinar y actio n
Se e als o relate d provision
Sec . 3 , Rul e 7 an d
141117,
Mar.
25,
2004).
236
it s
p r e d e c e s s o r , ha d
o f pleadings ,
bu t
ha d
no t
mad e
a n e q u i v a l e n t provisio n
for proo f o f t h e
filin g
thereof .
Yet , simila r controversie s als o aris e regardin g
th e validity , timelines s an d sufficiency o f th e filin g o f
th e pleadin g jus t lik e th e matte r o f th e servic e
,
henc e thes e complementar y provision s o f Sec . 12 .
Sec .
13
s o n a l
servic e
shal
n o f th e
part y s e r v e d
th e affidavi t o
.
l
Proof
of
service.
c o n s i s t
o f a
P r o o f
w r i t t e n
thereof
o f p e r
a d m i s s i o
i n
lie u
t h e r e o f th e
t h e certifie d
o r
u n c l a i m e
s w o r n
c o p y
o f t h e
notic e
g i v e n
r e s s e e .
(10a)
b y
t h e
p o s t m a s t e r
t o
th e
a d d
NOT E
1. Th e provisio n o f thi s section on proo f o f servic e
of pleading s by registere d mai l i s als o applicabl e t o th e
237
----------------------- Page 238----------------------RULE 13
SEC. 14
I n a n
a c t i o n
affectin g th e titl e o r th e righ t o f p o s s e s s i o n o f rea
l
p r o p e r t y , t h e
p l a i n t i f f a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t
, w h e n
a f f i r m a t i v e r e l i e f i s c l a i m e d i n h i s a n s w e
r ,
m a y
recor d i n th e offic e o f t h e registr y o f d e e d s o f
th e
p r o v i n c e i n w h i c h t h e propert y i s s i t u a t e d a not
ic e
o f t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e
a c t i o n .
Sai d
n o t i
c e s h a l l
c o n t a i n t h e n a m e s o f t h e p a r t i e s an d t h e
objec t o f
t h e
a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e , a n d
a d e s c r i p t i o
n o f t h e
p r o p e r t y i n t h a t p r o v i n c e affecte d t h e r e b y .
Onl y
fro m t h e t i m e o f filin g s u c h n o t i c e fo r r e c o r d
shal l
a
p u r c h a s e r ,
o r e n c u m b r a n c e r
o f t h e p
r o p e r t y
affecte d t h e r e b y ,
b e d e e m e d t o h a v e
c o n s
t r u c t i v e
notic e o f t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e action , an d onl y o f it s
p e n d e n c y a g a i n s t
b y t h e i r
rea l n a m e s .
t h e
p a r t i e s
d e s i g n a t e d
T h e
n o t i c e
o f
lis
pendens
h e r e i
n a b o v e
m e n t i o n e d m a y b e c a n c e l l e d onl y u p o n orde r o f t
h e
court , afte r p r o p e r s h o w i n g t h a
i s fo r
t h e
p u r p o s e
o f m o l e s t i n g t
r t y , o r
t h a t i t i s n o t
n e c e s s a r y t o
i g h t s o f
t h e part y w h o c a u s e d i t t o b e r e
)
t h e
h e
notic e
a d v e r s e
p r o t e c t
p a
t h e r
c o r d e d . (24a , R14
NOTE S
1.
A notic e o f lis pendens, unde
and th e condition s provide d in thi s section ,
at th e instanc e o f th e intereste d part y a
th e pendenc y o f th e actio n an d no t
tim e o f th e
part y
r th e circumstance s
ma y b e recorde d
t an y tim e durin g
necessaril y a t th e
filing o f th e complain t or th e
answe r o f th e
concerned .
238
2 . A notic e
o f lis pendens i s
intende d t o protec t th
e
rea l right s o f th e part y wh o cause d th e registratio n thereo f
(Natano
vs.
Esteban,
L-22034,
Oct.
28,
1966).
It
serve s a s a w a r n i n g t o prospectiv e encumbrancer s o r
p u r c h a s e r s t h a t the y shoul d kee p
thei r hand s of
f th e
propert y unles s the y wis h t o gambl e o n th e resul t o f th e
litigation
involvin g
th e
sam e
(Bisaya
Land
Trans.
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Cuenco,
L-18173, April 22,
1968;
Laroza,
et al.
vs. Guia,
L-45252, Jan.
31,
1985; cf.
Tanchoco,
et
al. vs.
Aquino,
et al., L-30670,
Sept.
15, 1987).
Th e part y
wh o
ha d th e notic e a n n o t a t e d an d wh o wo n th e litigati
o n
over th e propert y ha s th e bette r righ t a s agains t on e
wh o
bough t
i t wit h
Maria
Marasigan vs. IAC, et al.,
1987).
suc h
a n n o t a t i o n (Heirs
G.R.
No.
69303,
July
of
23,
u n d i v i d e d pro
indiviso
Viardo,
L-14127,
Aug.
21,
1962).
s h a r e
(Mercado
vs.
However ,
n
orde r
unde r exceptiona l
t h e
cancellatio n
e s p e c i a l l y w h e r e
circumstances , th
o f th e
s u c h
notic e
c i r c u m s t a n c
6.
Lis pendens i s a Lati n ter m whic h literall y mean s
a pendin g sui t or litigation , whil e a notic e o f lis pendens
i s a n announcemen t t o th e whol e worl d t h a t a particula r
rea l propert y i s i n litigation , servin g a s a warnin g tha t
on e
wh o
acquire s
a n i n t e r e s t ove r t h e sai d
p r o p e r t y
doe s s o a t hi s ow n risk .
I t i s a rul e founde d upo n rea
son s
of publi c policy an d necessity .
A s
such ,
notic e
o f lis pendens
canno t
conceivably
whil e
lien s
w i t h i n
of Manila,
t h e c o n t e m p l a t i o
etc.,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
transfe r or sal e
(Re
353).
240
----------------------- Page 241----------------------RULE 13
SEC
14
8. In Alberto
vs.
CA,
e t al.
088 ,
Jun e 30 , 2000) , i t wa s furthe r clarifie
o f
lis pendens likewis e applie s t o al l suit s
directly affect no t only th e titl e t o rea l
(G.R .
No .
d tha t th e
119
rul e
or action s which
property , bu t als o
interes t o r righ t
i n
specifi c
rea l propert y
any
lien ,
c h a r g e o r e n c u m b r
a r i s i n g
durin g t h e progres s o f th e suit .
ope r i n
proceeding s t o declar e an absolut e dee d
t o redee m from a foreclosur e sale , or t
o r t o s u i t s for
t h e s e t t l e m
n t o f
partnershi p interest s i n rea l property .
o r t o enforc e
a n c e a g a i n s t i t
I t
i s
als o
pr
o f mortgage , or
o establis h a trust ,
e n t a n d a d j u s t m e
Er
1
se e Romero
vs.
24 1
----------------------- Page 242----------------------RUL E
1 4
S U M M O N S
S e c t i o n 1 . Clerk
to
issue
summons.
n
t h e
f i l i n g o f t h e c o m p l a i n t a n d
t h e p a y
o f t h e
r e q u i s i t e
l e g a l f e e s , t h e
c l e r k o f
t
s h a l l
forthwit h i s s u e t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s u m m o n
U p o
m e n t
c o u r
s t o t
h e
d e f e n d a n t s ,
( l a )
Sec .
2 . Contents.
T h e
s u m m o n s
s h
a l l
b e
d i r e c t e d t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , s i g n e d b y t h e
cler k o f
c o u r t u n d e r seal , a n d contain : (a ) t h e n a m e o f
t h e
c o u r t a n d t h e n a m e s o f t h e partie s t o t h e action ;
(b)
a d i r e c t i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t a n s w e r w i
t h i n t h e
tim e fixe d b y t h e s e Rules ; an d (c) a notic e tha t u n l e s
s
t h e d e f e n d a n t
s o a n s w e r s ,
p l a i n t i f f w
i l l t a k e
j u d g m e n t b y defaul t a n d m a y b e g r a n t e d t h e relie f
a p p l i e d for .
A
c o p y
o f
t h e
c o m p l a i n t
a n d
o r
fo r
i n t m e n t o f g u a r d i a n
a d litem,
i f any ,
b e
c h e d
t o t h e o r i g i n a l a n d
e a c h
c o p y
t h e
o n s . (3a )
d e r
a p p o
shal l
a t t a
o f
s u m m
NOTE S
1.
Jurisdictio n canno t b e acquire d ove r th e defen dan t withou t servic e o f summons , eve n i f h e know s o f
th e cas e agains t him , unles s h e voluntaril y submit s t o th
jurisdictio n o f th e cour t b y appearin g therei n a s throug h
hi s counse l filin g th e correspondin g pleadin g i n th e cas e
(Habana
vs.
Vamenta,
et al.,
L-27091,
June
,
1970).
Even i f jurisdictio n over hi m wa s no t originall y acquire d
du e t o defectiv e servic e o f summons , th e cour t acquire s
jurisdictio n ove r hi s perso n b y hi s ac t o f subsequentl y
filing
a motio n for reconsideratio n
(Soriano
Palacio,
L-17469,
Nov.
28,
1964),
or
by
jointl y
s u b
t t i n g a
e
30
vs.
m i
242
----------------------- Page 243----------------------RULE 14
CS. 1-2
compromis e
(Algrabe
),
or
wher e h e
th e paymen
an d sai d
of th e j
SUMMONS
agreemen t
vs.
CA,
for
et
approva l o f th e
al., L-24458-64,
SE
tria l cour t
July
31,
1969
al. vs.
Alikpala,
et
th e
d e f e n d a n t
o n a n d
s u m m o n s w
cour t
neve r acquire d
a s t o hi m i
al,
die d
L-38314,
a s
June
befor e
serve d
o n
25,
1974).
t h e filin g
hi s
o f
co-defendant ,
Bu t
wher e
t h e a c t i
t h e
p e r s o n a l i t y a n d e v e n t h e v o l u n t a r y a p p e a r a
n c e o f
counsel
for hi m wil l be
ineffectiv e
(Dumlao
vs.
Quality
Plastic
Products,
Inc.,
L-27956,
April
30,
1976).
2 . Th e failur e t o attac h a copy o f th e complain t t o
summon s
(Pagalaran
vs. Ball
at an, et al., 13
Phil.
135) or a copy o f th e orde r appointin g a guardia n ad litem
(Castaho
vs. Castano,
9 6 Phil. 533)
ar e mer e
tech
nica l
defects an d th e servic e o f summon s vest s jurisdictio n i n
t h e c o u r t ove r t h e
d e f e n d a n t wh o
ma y
t h e r e
b y b e
declare d in defaul t for failur e t o file an answer .
th e
243
----------------------- Page 244----------------------RULE 14
SECS. 3-5
S e c .
d
b
r
r t o f
a n y
t a b l e
g th e
m o n s .
t h e
nee d
us.
for
Custodio,
ne w
s u m m o n s
supra).
3 .
By whom served. Th e s u m m o n s m a y b e
th e sheriff , hi s d e p u t y , o r o t h e r
f i c e r s , o r fo r
j u s t i f i a b l e r e a s o n s
p e r s o n a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e c o u r t i s s
(5a )
Sec . 4 .
Return.
W h e
s
b e e n
c o m p l e t e d , t h e
s e r v e r
(5 ) d a y s
t h e r e f r o m , serv e a c o p y o f
l y o r
b y r e g i s t e r e d mail , t o th
e l , a n d
shal l r e t u r n t h e s u m m o n s
s u e d
it , a c c o m p a n i e d b y proo f o
t h e
shall ,
s e r v i c e
w i t h i n
h a
fiv e
t h e r e t u r n p e r s o n a l
e
p l a i n t i f f s
t o
t h e
f service .
cler k
c o u n s
w h o
i s
(6a )
Sec .
5.
Issuance
of
alias
summons.
If
a
s u m m o n s
i s r e t u r n e d
w i t h o u t
b e i n g
r v e d
o n
a n y
o r
a l l o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s ,
t h e s e
r
s h a l l
a l s o s e r v e a c o p y o f t h e
r e t u r n o n t h e
a i n t i f f s
c o u n s e l , s t a t i n g t h e
r e a s o n s
fo r
t h e
i l u r e o f
s e r v i c e , w i t h i n fiv e (5) d a y s t h e r e f r o m .
n s u c h a
c a s e , o r i f t h e s u m m o n s
h a s
b e e n lost ,
e
clerk ,
o n
d e m a n d
o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , m a y i s s u
n
a l i a s
s u m m o n s . (4a )
s e
r v e
p l
f a
I
t h
e
244
----------------------- Page 245----------------------RULE 14
ECS. 6-7
SUMMONS
NOTE S
in
person
on
defendant.
W h
s u m m o n s shal l b e serve d b y
r e o f t o t h e d e f e n d a n t i n pe
t o
r e c e i v e a n d
s i g n
fo r
. (7a )
Sec .
7 . Substituted
service.
If, fo r justifiab
l e
c a u s e s , t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t b e s e r v e d w i
t h i n a
r e a s o n a b l e
t i m e
a s p r o v i d e d
i n t h e p r e c
e d i n g
section , servic e ma y b e effecte d (a) b y leavin g copie s
o f th e s u m m o n s a t th e defendant' s r e s i d e n c e w it
h
s o m e p e r s o n o f s u i t a b l e ag e an d
d i s c r e t i
o n t h e n
r e s i d i n g t h e r e i n , o r (b ) b y l e a v i n g t h e c
o p i e s a t
defendant' s offic e o r regula r plac e o f b u s i n e s s w i t h
som e c o m p e t e n t p e r s o n i n charg e thereof . (8a )
245
----------------------- Page 246----------------------RULE 14
CS. 6-7
SE
N O T E S
1. Thes e tw o
service o f summons .
.
f
e
sen t
defen l i s o
l
alon e
woul d suffice .
Thus , Sec . 2 2 o f th e forme r Rul e entitle
d
"Proof of service
by registered
mail,"
whic h create d
tha t
m i s i m p r e s s i o n , a l t h o u g h i t actuall y referre d onl
y
t o
th e registere d mai l a s a complemen t i n s u m m o n s b y
p u b l i c a t i o n , h a s bee n e l i m i n a t e d a n d h a s no t
b e e n
reproduce d i n thi s revise d Rule .
Fo r t h a t matter
, th e
purpos e i t intende d t o serv e i s attende d t o b y Sec .
13 ,
Rul e 13 .
3 . In ejectmen t cases ,
bein g i n personam,
rsona l
service o f summon s o n th e defendan t withi n th e stat e o f
th e foru m i s essentia l t o acquir e jurisdictio n ove r
pe
hi s
Wher e
th e
actio n
i s
i n personam
an d
th e
defen
d a n t i s i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , servic e m u s t b e
m a d e i n
accordanc e wit h Sec . 7 .
Substitute d servic e shoul d b e
availe d o f only wher e th e defendan t canno t b e promptl y
s e r v e d in
p e r s o n
(Litonjua
vs.
CA,
e t al,
-46265,
Oct. 28,
1977).
246
----------------------- Page 247-----------------------
RULE 14
SEC. 8
SUMMONS
5 . Th e
explaine d i n
th e
8.
Service
W h e n
upon
p e r s o n s
entity
associate d
without
i n
a n
ju
entit y
247
----------------------- Page 248----------------------RULE 14
SEC. 8
w i t h o u t juridica l
p e r s o n a l i t y ar e s u e d u n d
e r th e
n a m e
b y w h i c h t h e y ar e
g e n e r a l l y o r c o m
m o n l y
k n o w n ,
s e r v i c e m a y
b e
e f f e c t e d u p o n
a l l t h e
d e f e n d a n t s b y s e r v i n g u p o n a n y o n e o f t h
e m , o r
u p o n t h e p e r s o n i n charg e o f th e offic e o r plac e
o f
b u s i n e s s m a i n t a i n e d
i n s u c h
n a m e .
B u
t
s u c h
servic e shal l no t bin d individuall y an y perso n w h o s e
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e e n t i t y h a s , u p o n d u e
n o t i c e ,
b e e n s e v e r e d befor e t h e actio n w a s brought . (9a )
N O T E S
1.
o f
9 o f thi s
Rul e
SUMMONS
SEC
9 .
t
Service
i s a
i o n ,
upon
p r i s o n e r
s e r v i c e
w h o
sai d purpose .
i s
W h e n
c o n f i n e d
shal l
h a v i n g t h e
i o n
prisoners.
b e
m a n a g e m e n t
d e e m e d
u p o n
effecte d
i n a
o f s u c h jai l
d e p u t i z e d
a s
(12a )
Sec .
10 .
Service
Whe n t h e d e f e n d a n t i s
i s e
a n i n c o m p e t e n t , s e r
h i m
personall y an d o n h i s lega l
o r
i f n o n e , u p o n
h
w h o s e
a p p o i n t m e n t shal l b e
.
I n th e c a s e o f a minor
upon
minors
and
incompetents.
a minor , i n s a n e o r o t h e r w
v i c e shal l
b e
m a d e
u p o n
g u a r d i a n i f h e h a s one ,
i s g u a r d i a n
a d
litem
applie d
,
servic e
fo r
b y
m a y
th e
als o
plaintiff
b e
mad e
11a)
NOTE S
1.
10 ,
th e change s consis t o f
L-41667,
April
30,
1976,
citin g Reader
vs.
District
Court,
94 Pac.
2nd 8581, holdin g t h a t servic e o f summon s on th e wife o f
th e corporat e secretar y wa s no t bindin g o n th e corporation ;
cf.
AM
Trucking,
Inc.
vs.
Buencamino,
et
al.
,
G.R.
No.
62445,
Aug.
31,
1983).
Bu t
in Summit
Trad
ing
&
Dev. Corp. vs. Avendano, et al. (G.R . No . 60038 , Mar .
18 ,
1985), summon s for th e corporatio n serve d on th e secretar y
o f th e presiden t thereo f wa s hel d t o b e bindin g o n sai d
250
----------------------- Page 251----------------------RULE 14
SUMMONS
SEC. 11
corporatio n
et al.,
G.R.
(Far
No.
Corp.,
57218, Dec.
12,
et
al. vs.
Francisco,
1986).
27,
3 .
lawyer wh
in behal
validit y
1983).
Alon g th e sam e
o ha d mad e tw
f o f a defendan
o f servic e o f
on
of
th
GMBH
or an y o f it s directors. "
o f t h e
corporatio n
wh o
precisel y
a p p e a r e d
t o
revise d
terminology .
s e
necessitate d th
th e in-hous e
an employe e
an independen t
sectio n
Thus ,
wit h
th e
limite d
absur d
scop e
an d
specifi c
resul t i n th e Filoil ca
i t w a s
hel d
t h a t a l t h o u g h s u m m o n s
SUMMONS
t h a t
unde r
t h e doctrin e
th e
o f s u b s t a n t i a l
comp
wa s
reiterate d
in Mason,
e t
al.
i s on e wh o ha s
in interest-defendan t
lega l right s o f
stil l existe d a s
, summon s
a s
contemplate d
in
Sec .
122
Sec .
12 .
Service
.
Whe n t h e d e f e n d a n t i
e n t i t y w h i c h
h a s
n t h e
P h i l i p p i n e s , s e r v i
r e s i d e n t
a g e n t d e s i g n a t e d i
r t h a t
p u r p o s e , or , i f t h e
n t h e
g o v e r n m e n t officia l d e
ect ,
o r o n a n y
o f i t s o
n t h e
P h i l i p p i n e s . (14a )
entity
m a y
b e
m a d e
o n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h
r e b e
n o
s u c h
it s
la w fo
a g e n t ,
s i g n a t e d b y la w t o tha t eff
f f i c e r s o r a g e n t s
w i t h i
NOTE S
1. Thi s sectio n ha s bee n amende d t o substitut e th e
phras e "foreign privat e juridica l entit y whic h ha s tran sacted busines s i n th e Philippines, " bein g mor e embracin g
an d accurate , for th e provisio n in th e forme r Sectio n 1 4
of thi s Rul e whic h referre d t o a "foreign corporation , or
a join t non-stoc k compan y or association , doin g busines s
in th e Philippines. "
2 . Formerly , wher e th e foreign privat e corporatio n
ha d n o residen t agen t i n th e Philippine s o r officer s o
r
other agent s here , servic e o f summon s wa s mad e o n th e
governmen t official s designate d by law , t o wit : (a) for
banking , saving s an d loa n o r trus t corporations , upo n th e
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f B a n k s (Sec.
17,
R.A.
337);
(b)
for
insuranc e corporations , o n th e Insuranc e Commissione r
(Sec.
177,
Insurance Act,
a s amende d
by Act
3152);
an d
SUMMONS
It has ,
i f it i s
for act s
rational e
als o
t a foreign corporation ,
th e Philippines , ma y b e
n thi s countr y unde r
no t doin g busines s here ,
court s
(Facilities
Management
Corp.
vs.
De
la
Osa,
supra;
Wang Laboratories,
Inc.
vs. Mendoza,
et al.,
G.R.
No. 72147, Dec. 1, 1987).
Not e tha t Sec . 12 now merel y
require s
t h a t
sacted
busines s here .
th e
foreig n
corporatio n
has
tran
Sec .
13 .
Service upon public corporations. Whe n
th e d e f e n d a n t i s t h e R e p u b l i c o f th e P h i l i
p p i n e s ,
servic e ma y b e effecte d o n th e Solicito r General ; i n
c a s e o f a p r o v i n c e , cit y o r m u n i c i p a l i t y ,
o r lik e
publi c corporations , servic e ma y b e effecte d o n it s
265
----------------------- Page 256----------------------RULE 14
SECS. 14-16
Sec .
16 .
Extraterritorial
t h e
e n d a n t d o e s no t r e s i d
t h e
l i p p i n e s , a n d
t h e
a
r s o n a l
t u s o f t h e plaintif f o r r e l
o f
c h is , p r o p e r t y w i t h i n
h i c h
d e f e n d a n t h a s o r c l a i
a l
c o n t i n g e n t ,
o r
i n w
service.
e
a n d
c t i o n
i s
no t
W h e
a f f e c t s
foun d
t h e
a t e s to , o r t h e s ub j
t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , i
m s a lie n o r interest , a
h i c h
t h e
r e l i e f
d e m a n d e d
c o n s i s t s ,
w h o l l y
o r
i n p a r t ,
i n e x c l u d
i n g
t h e
d e f e n d a n t fro m an y i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , o r t h e pr
opert y
o f t h e d e f e n d a n t
h a s
b e e n
a t t a c h e d
w i
t h i n
t h e
P h i l i p p i n e s ,
s e r v i c e m a y ,
b y
l e a v e o f c
o u r t ,
b e
effecte d o u t o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s b y p e r s o n a l
s e r v i c e
a s u n d e r s e c t i o n 6 ; o r b y p u b l i c a t i o n i n a n e
w s p a p e r
o f g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n i n s u c h p l a c e s a n d
fo r s u c h
t i m e a s t h e c o u r t m a y order , i n w h i c h c a s e a
c o p y
o f t h e s u m m o n s an d o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t shal l b e s
e n t
b y r e g i s t e r e d mai l t o t h e las t k n o w n a d d r e s s o
f t h e
d e f e n d a n t , o r i n a n y o t h e r m a n n e r t h e c o
u r t m a y
d e e m s u f f i c i e n t .
A n y
o r d e r g r a n t i n g s u
c h
l e a v e
shal l specif y a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , w h i c h shal l no t
b e
l e s s t h a n sixt y (60 ) d a y s afte r notice , w i t h i n w h i
c h
t h e d e f e n d a n t m u s t a n s w e r . (17a )
256
----------------------- Page 257----------------------RULE 14
14-15
SUMMONS
SECS.
NOTE S
1. Sec . 1 5 provide s for th e four instance s wherei n
extraterritoria l servic e o f summon s i s proper .
In a
n y o f
such four instances , servic e o f summon s may , by leav e
of court , b e effecte d by persona l service , by publicatio n
wit h a copy o f th e summon s an d th e cour t orde r sen t
b y registere d mail , o r i n an y othe r m a n n e r whic h th
e
court ma y dee m sufficient .
Wher e summonse s wer e sen t
t o defendant s wh o wer e residin g abroad , b y registere d
mai l whic h the y dul y receive d an d eve n filed a pleadin g
questioning suc h mod e o f service , th e thir d mod e o f servic e
wa s substantiall y complie d wit h an d suc h servic e i s valid ,
especially wher e th e cour t thereafte r grante d the m 9 0 day s
w i t h i n whic h
t o fil e t h e i r a n s w e r
(De
Midgely
vs.
Ferandos,
L-34313,
May
13,
1975;
Carioga,
et al
.
vs.
Malaya,
et al., L 48375, Aug.
13,
1986).
actio n
for
injunctio n
S
t o
restrai n
defendant s
Sinc e
t h e
defendan t
i s
n o n r e s i d e n t
an
d th e
suit als o involve s rea l propert y i n th e Philippine s wherei n
said defendan t ha s a n interest , servic e o f summon s o n
hi m by publicatio n in a loca l newspape r i s authorize d by
Sec. 1 7 (now , Sec. 15) o f thi s Rule .
Whil e it ma y
b e tru e
t h a t servic e o f summon s b y publicatio n doe s no t involv e
any absolut e assuranc e t h a t sai d nonresiden t defendan t
s h a l l t h e r e b y receiv e
a c t u a l notice ,
s u c h se
rvic e
o f
s u m m o n s
i s r e q u i r e d no t
for p u r p o s e s o f ph
ysicall y
a c q u i r i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r
h i s p e r s o n b u
t s i m p l y
in p u r s u a n c e o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f fai r pla
y .
I t i s
necessary , however , t h a t copie s o f th e summon s an d th e
c o m p l a i n t b e dul y
serve d
a t d e f e n d a n t ' s l
a s t k n o w n
a d d r e s s b y r e g i s t e r e d mai l a s
a c o m p l e m e n
t
t o t h e
publication .
Th e failur e t o strictl y an d correctl y comply
w i t h
d i n g
mailin g
aforesaid
vs.
et al,
t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s
o f t h e r u l e s r e g a r
t h e
o f sai d copie s wil l constitut e a fata l defect in th e
mod e o f servic e o f summon s (Sahagun
CA,
G.R.
No.
78328,
June
3,
1991).
6
o l v e
p e r s o
y i n
. W h e r e
t h e c o m p l a i n t
t h e
n a l s t a t u s o f plaintif f o r
t h e
d o e s
a n y
n o t
i n v
p r o p e r t
25 8
----------------------- Page 259----------------------RULE 14
14-15
SUMMONS
SECS.
P h i l i p p i n e s i n w h i c h d e f e n d a n t s h a v e o r clai
m
a n
i n t e r e s t o r whic h t h e plaintif f h a s
a t t a c h e d ,
i t i s a
persona l actio n in personam.
Consequently , persona l or
s u b s t i t u t e d servic e o f s u m m o n s
o n d e f e n d a n t
s , no t
extraterritoria l service , i s necessar y t o confer jurisdictio n
on th e court .
In a persona l action for injunction , therefore ,
extraterritoria l servic e o f th e summon s an d complain t
on th e
n o n r e s i d e n t defendant s canno t confe r o n th
e
court jurisdictio n o r powe r t o compe l the m t o obey it s
order s
(Kawasaki
Port
Service
Corp.,
et al.
vs. A
mores,
etc., et al., G.R. No.
58340, July
16,
1991).
7.
128803 ,
SEC
S.
d for o r devote d
person s (Basa vs.
th e provision s of
n e w s p a p e r
tw o
year s
th e
m u s
befor e
S e c .
the
16 .
Residents
temporarily
out
Philippines.
W h e n
c e d
a g a i n s t a d e f e n d a n t
i t h i n
t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , bu t
u t o f it ,
s e r v i c e may , b y l e a v e
u t
o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , a
s e c t i o n .
(18a)
a n y
a c t i o n
w h o ordinaril y
w h o
i s
i s
c o m m e n
r e s i d e s
o f court ,
t e m p o r a r i l y
b e als o effecte d o
s u n d e r t h e
p r e c e d i n g
S e c . 17 .
Leave of court. An y a p p l i c a t i o n
h e
cour t u n d e r t h i s Rul e fo r leav e t o effec t s e r v i
i n
a n y m a n n e r fo r w h i c h l e a v e o f c o u r t i s
c e s s a r y
shal l b e m a d e b y m o t i o n i n w r i t i n g , s u p p
t e d b y
a f f i d a v i t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f o r s o m e p e r s o
o n
h i s
behalf ,
s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e
g r o u n d s
fo r t
a p p l i c a t i o n . (19 )
t o t
c e
n e
o r
n
h e
N O T E S
1.
Unde r thes e provisions , servic e o f summon s by
publicatio n i s authorized , wit h prio r leav e o f court :
a .
b .
known ;
c.
Wher e th e defendan t doe s no t resid e an d i s no t
found i n th e Philippine s b u t th e sui t ca n properl y b
e
maintaine d agains t hi m here ,
bein g in rem or qua
si
in
rem;
an d
260
----------------------- Page 261----------------------RULE 14
16-17
SUMMONS
SECS
d . W h e r e
t h e d e f e n d a n t i s a r e s i d e n t
o f t h e
Philippine s bu t i s temporaril y ou t o f th e country .
2 . S u m m o n s
in
a
s u i t i n
i n s t a
residen t o f th e Philippine s temporaril y absen t
ma y b e validl y effecte d b y s u b s t i t u
d e r
Sec. 7 o f thi s Rule .
I t i s immateria l
t
personam
therefro m
t e d servic e
a g a
u n
tha t th e defendan
Plaintiff' s
recourse ,
w h e r e
persona l
Sec .
Co.,
Inc.
18 .
vs.
Proof of
IAC,
et al.,
service.
S
G.R.
Th e
No.
70661,
proo f o f ser
vic e
o f a s u m m o n s shal l b e m a d e i n w r i t i n g b y t h e ser
ve r
an d shal l se t fort h t h e m a n n e r , plac e an d dat e
o f
service ; shal l specif y an y p a p e r s w h i c h h a v e b e
e n
serve d w i t h t h e p r o c e s s an d th e n a m e o f t h e p e r s
o n
w h o r e c e i v e d t h e same ; an d shal l b e s w o r n t o w h e
n
m a d e b y a p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n a sherif f o r hi s d e p
u t y .
(20)
Sec .
19 .
Proof of service
by publication.
If t h e
s e r v i c e h a s b e e n m a d e b y p u b l i c a t i o n , s e r
c e m a y
b e prove d b y th e affidavi t o f t h e printer , h i s forema n
o r p r i n c i p a l c l e r k , o r o f t h e e d i t o r , b u
n e s s o r
a d v e r t i s i n g m a n a g e r , t o w h i c h affidavi t a
p y o f
th e publicatio n shal l b e attached , an d b y a n affidavi t
s h o w i n g t h e d e p o s i t o f a c o p y o f t h e s u m m
s an d
o r d e r
fo r p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e p o s t office ,
p o s t a g e
prepaid , directe d t o t h e defendan t b y registere d mai l
t o h i s las t k n o w n a d d r e s s . (21 )
Sec .
20 .
Voluntary
appearance.
T h e
v i
s i
c o
o n
d e f e n d a n t '
s
v o l u n t a r y
a p p e a r a
h a l l b e
e q u i v a l e n t t o s e r v
c l u s i o n
i n a m o t i o n t o d i s m i
e fro m
lac k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n
f e n d a n t
shal l n o t b e d e e m e d a
23a )
n c e
i c e
i n
t h e
a c t i o n
o f s u m m o n s .
T h e
s
i n
s s o f o t h e r g r o u n d s a s i d
o v e r t h e p e r s o n o f t h e d e
v o l u n t a r y a p p e a r a n c e .
NOT E
1.
An
, b y
t h e
defendant , by
i s equivalen t
precisel y t o
for m
o f a p p e a r a n c e
i n
c o u r t
perso n
of th e
defendan t
(Carballo
vs.
n,
92
Phil. 974). Se e Note s 4 an d 5 unde r Sec . 1 , Rul e
262
----------------------- Page 263-----------------------
Encarnacio
16 .
RUL E
1 5
M O T I O N S
S e c t i o n
1 . Motion
defined.
A
m o t i o n
i
s a n
a p p l i c a t i o n fo r relie f o t h e r t h a n b y a pleading , ( l
a )
NOT E
1. T h i s a m e n d e d
d e f i n i t i o n o f a m o t i o
n i s a
consequenc e o f th e provision s o f Sec . 1 , Rul e 6 which limi t
th e meanin g o f a pleadin g t o th e writte n statemen t o f th e
respectiv e claim s an d defense s submitte d b y th e partie s
for appropriat e judgment , an d Sec . 2 o f th e sam e Rul e
which enumerate s th e pleading s allowed .
However ,
a s
explained in th e note s thereunder , a motion ma y als o b e
considered in a broa d sens e a s in th e natur e o f a pleadin g
since it i s amon g th e paper s filed in court . Hence , Sec . 1 0
of thi s Rul e require s a qualifie d applicatio n t o motion s o f
th e rule s applicabl e t o pleadings .
Sec .
2.
Motions
must
be in
writing.
Al l
m o t i o n s
shal l b e i n w r i t i n g e x c e p t t h o s e m a d e i n o p e n
cour t
o r i n t h e c o u r s e o f a h e a r i n g o r trial . (2a )
Sec . 3 .
Contents.
t h e
relie f s o u g h t t o b e obtaine
w h i c h i t i s based , an d i f
n e c e s s a r y t o prov e fact
b e
a c c o m p a n i e d
b y s u p p
o t h e r
papers . (3a )
Sec .
w h i c h t h
th e right s
shal l b e
Ever y
writte n m o
m o t i o n
s h a l l s t a t e
d an d th e g r o u n d s u p o n
require d b y t h e s e Rule s o r
s allege d t h e r e i n , shal l
o r t i n g
affidavit s
an d
4 .
Hearing of motion. Excep t fo r motion s
e cour t m a y ac t u p o n w i t h o u t prejudicin g
o f th e advers e party , ever y writte n motio n
s e t fo r h e a r i n g b y th e applicant .
t i o n require d t o b e hear d an d th e notic e
263
r i n g ,
u n l e s s th e cour t fo r goo d c a u s e s e t s t h e h e a r i n
g o n
shorte r notice . (4a )
N O T E S
1. Th e
exception s
t o
th e
three-da y
notic e
rul e
n
Sec .
4 a r e : (a ) ex parte motions ,
(b) u r g e n t m
otion s
(Bautista
vs.
Mun.
Council
of Mandaluyong,
Riza
l,
98
Phil.
409;
Supreme
Investment
Corp.
vs.
Engin
eering
Equipment,
Inc.,
L-25755,
April
11,
1972),
(c)
m
otion s
agree d upo n b y th e partie s t o b e hear d o n shorte r notic e
(Tuazon
&
Co.
vs. Magdangal,
L-15047,
Jan.
30,
1962)
or jointl y submitte d b y th e parties , an d (d) motion s for
summary judgmen t whic h mus t b e serve d a t leas t 1 0 day s
befor e it s hearin g (Sec. 3, Rule 35).
2 . Thi s amende d sectio n enunciate s th e genera l rul e
tha t al l writte n motion s shal l b e se t for hearing , eve n if,
a s jus t stated , t h a t hearin g ma y b e conducte d o n les s t h
a n
3 day s advanc e notice .
Excepte d from suc h requiremen t
for hearin g ar e th e so-calle d non-litigabl e o r non-litigate d
motions , meanin g thos e whic h ma y b e acte d upo n b y th e
court withou t prejudicin g th e right s o f th e advers e party .
Whil e
motio n
ma y b e
allowe d
t o b e
filed
ex part
e
an d i s a n exceptio n t o th e 3-day notic e rule , i t doe s no
t
necessaril y mea n t h a t th e hearin g thereo f shal l b e dis pense d with .
Th e cour t ma y stil l hea r th e sam e ex parte,
t h a t is , i n th e absenc e o f th e opposin g party , sinc e
th e
court ca n ver y wel l se e t o i t t h a t th e latter' s interest s
wil l
b e dul y protected .
An ex parte proceedin g merel y mean s
t h a t i t i s take n o r grante d a t th e instanc e an d f
or th e
benefi t o f on e party , an d withou t notic e t o o r contestatio n
b y
a n y
p a r t y a d v e r s e l y affecte d
(Janin
vs.
Logan,
209
Ky.
811,
273
S.W.
531;
Stella
vs. Mosele,
2
09 III.
App.
53,
19 N.E.
2d 433).
264
----------------------- Page 265----------------------RULE 15
MOTIONS
SECS. 5
-6
3 . It i s n o longe r sufficient t o jus t mai l a copy o f t
h e
motion a t leas t 3 day s befor e th e schedule d hearing , a s
thi s mod e o f servic e ha s often bee n abuse d t o resul t i n th e
advers e party' s receip t o f suc h copy afte r th e schedule d
hearin g du e t o th e dela y i n th e mails .
Servic e o f tha
t
copy, u n d e r thi s ne w section , shoul d b e mad e i n suc h
manne r a s shal l ensur e receipt o f tha t copy a t leas t 3 day s
befor e th e hearing .
Thi s objectiv e ca n ver y easil y b e
achieved b y persona l servic e wheneve r feasible .
Fo r t
hi s
reason , Sec .
1 1 o f Rul e 1 3 provide s t h a t , w h e n e
v e r
practicable , servic e o f pleading s an d othe r paper s shal l b e
done personally , subjec t t o th e exception s an d sanction s
specified therein .
Sec
shall b e
specify t
t
no t b e
e
motion .
Sec .
e n
motio n
cour t
6 .
Proof of
service
se t fo r h e a r i n g shal l
necessary.
b e
acte d
No
u p o n
w r i t t
b y th e
(6a )
NOTE S
1.
In th e Court s o f Firs t Instanc e
Tria l Courts ) an d th e lower courts , a motion
not contai n a notic e o f tim e an d plac e o f hearin
piec e o f pape r an d o f n o lega l effect , e.g.
f a
motion for reconsideratio n o f a judgmen t or fina
does not interrup t th e reglementar y perio d
(now , Regiona l
which doe s
g i s a useles s
, in th e cas e o
l order , it
(Manila Surety
SEC
parties ,
"for
th e
an d
(b)
resolutio n
merel y
s t a t e s
o f th e
cour t
t h a t th e
upo n
receip t
3. In
Andrada,
et al.
vs.
CA,
et al.
( L 3 1 7 9 1 ,
Oct . 30 , 1974) , i t wa s hel d t h a t a "Manifestatio n a
n d
Motion " addresse d t o th e cler k o f cour t askin g hi m t o
submit th e sam e t o th e cour t "immediatel y upo n receip t
t h e r e o f di d no t comply wit h th e requirement s o f Sec .
5 ,
266
----------------------- Page 267----------------------RULE 15
S. 8, 9
MOTIONS
SEC
Sec . 7 .
Motion
day.
E x c e p t
fo r
m o
o n s
r e q u i r i n g i m m e d i a t e a c t i o n , al l m o t i o n s
hal l b e
s c h e d u l e d fo r h e a r i n g o n Frida y afternoons , o r
f
Frida y i s a n o n - w o r k i n g day , i n th e afternoo n o
th e n e x t w o r k i n g day . (7a )
NOT E
1.
Thi s amende d section wa s take n from B.P . Big .
129 whic h provides :
t i
s
i
f
"Sec.
16 . Time and duration of sessions. Th e
and duratio n o f daily session s o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court
shall b e
determine d
b y th e Suprem e
Court :
ded,
however,
T h a t
al l m o t i o n s , excep t
t h o s e
u i r i n g
immediat e action , shal l b e hear d in th e afternoon o f every
Friday , unles s it fall s on a holiday , in whic h cas e
h e a r i n g
nex t
succeeding
t th e
s h a l l
b e hel d
busines s
o n
day :
t h e
afternoo n
Provided,
tim e
s
Provi
r e q
th e
o f t h e
further,
T h a
267
----------------------- Page 268----------------------RULE 15
ECS. 8-9
8 .
Omnibus
reasons ,
motion.
S
fix
differen t
S u b j e c t
t o
n s o f s e c t i o n 1 o f Rul e 9 , a m o t i o n a t
n g , order ,
j u d g m e n t ,
a l l o b j e c t i o n s
t h e n
o r
p r o c e e d i n g
a v a i l a b l e , a
n s no t s o i n c l u d e d shal l b e d e e m e d w a
NOTE S
1.
specific
dismiss ,
r
th e cas
See Sec .
2 .
133 an d
Sec . 9 .
Motion for leave. A m o t i o n fo r l e a v e
t o
fil e a p l e a d i n g o r m o t i o n shal l b e a c c o m p a n i
e d b y
t h e p l e a d i n g o r m o t i o n s o u g h t t o b e a d m i t t e d
, (n )
NOTE S
1.
Th e eviden t purpos e o f thi s ne w provisio n i s t o
provid e th e cour t wit h th e basi s for determinin g th e merit s
b e admitte d
for leav e o f
Indeed ,
th e advers e
f a pleadin g
t wil l hav e
g an d th e
n t l y f o r m u
268
----------------------- Page 269----------------------RULE 15
SEC. 10
MOTIONS
10 .
i n g s
Form.
T h e
R u l e s
shal l appl y t o w r i t t e n
a p p l i c a b l e
m o t i o n s
s o
r n s c a p t i o n , d e s i g n a t i o n , signature , an d o
o f form .
(9a )
269
1 .
T O
Grounds.
1 6
D I S M I S S
Withi n
t h e
t i m e
fo r bu t
b e f o r e
f i l i n g t h e
a n s w e r
t o
t h e c o m p l a
i n t
o r
p l e a d i n g a s s e r t i n g a claim , a m o t i o n t o d i s m i
s s m a y
b e m a d e o n an y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g g r o u n d s :
(a)
Tha t t h e c o u r t h a s n o j u r i s d i c t i o n o v
e r t h e
p e r s o n o f t h e d e f e n d i n g party ;
(b)
Tha t t h e cour t h a s n o j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e
r t h e
subjec t m a t t e r o f t h e claim ;
(c)
Tha t v e n u e i s i m p r o p e r l y laid ;
(d)
Tha t
c i t y
sue ;
t h e
plaintif f h a s
n o
lega l
c a p a
t o
(e)
T h a t
t h e r e
i s a n o t h e r
p e n d i n g
b e t w e e n t h e s a m e p a r t i e s fo r t h e
e ;
a c t i o n
s a m e c a u s
(f)
T h a t t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n i s barre d b y a
prio r
j u d g m e n t o r b y t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s ;
(g)
T h a t t h e p l e a d i n g a s s e r t i n g t h e c l a
i m s t a t e s
n o c a u s e
o f action ;
(h)
T h a t t h e c l a i m o r d e m a n d s e t fort h
t h e
p l a i n t i f f s
p l e a d i n g
h a s
b e e n
p a i d ,
w a i v e d ,
a b a n d o n e d , o r o t h e r w i s e e x t i n g u i s h e d ;
(i)
c t i o n
f o u n d e
s i o n s
t h e s t
T h a t
t h e
c l a i m
o n
w h i c h
t h e
a
i s
d
i s u n e n f o r c e a b l e u n d e r t h e p r o v i
o f
a t u t e o f frauds ; a n d
(j) T h a t a c o n d i t i o n
p r e c e d e n t
i l i n g t h e
c l a i m h a s no t b e e n c o m p l i e d w i t h , (la )
fo r
NOTE S
1.
MOTION TO DISMISS
SEC
. 1
motion t o dismis s unde r Rul e 3 3 on demurre r t o evidenc e
in th e following particulars :
a . Th e
motio n
u n d e r t h i s Rul e i s g r o u n d e
d o n
preliminar y objection s whil e tha t unde r Rul e 3 3 i s base d
on insufficiency o f evidence .
part y
bee n
stil l
e b y
by a
answe r
reproduce d i n thi s
th e sam e a s Sec . 1
providin g tha t suc h
part y "(w)ithin th e
t o th e complain t or
3 . A motion
t o dismis s hypotheticall y
th e
trut h of th e
fact s allege d in th e
complaint .
admit s
Such admis -
not
challeng e
makin g a
base d o
o f
summons ,
b e deeme
RULE 16
C. 1
MOTION TO DISMISS
th e court .
However , i f th e sam e
g r o u n d s o r i n v o k e d som e
hic h
necessarily involve s th e exercis e o f
court , suc h specia l appearanc e wil l
SE
th e jurisdictio n o f th e
b e o f n o avai l an d th e
from
lac k
o f jurisdictio n
ove r
t h e
perso n
o f th
e
defendant shal l
on hi s part .
no t
b e
deeme d
voluntar y
appearanc e
6 . Wher e s u m m o n s wa s no t serve d o n tw o o f
th e
defendant s an d a lawye r filed , i n thei r behal f bu t withou t
thei r authority , a motio n for extensio n o f tim e t o answer ,
th e cour t doe s not acquir e jurisdictio n over sai d defendants .
N e i t h e r wa s suc h jurisdictiona l defec t cure d b y thei r
subsequent filin g o f a motio n for ne w tria l a s th e sam e
wa s base d precisel y o n suc h defect an d t o secur e t o sai d
defendant s th e opportunit y t o b e hear d
(Cavili, e t
al. vs.
Vamenta,
Jr., etc., et al., G.R.
No.
57771, May
31,
1982).
Fo r obviou s
r e a s o n s , t h e consideration s discusse d i
n
D e
Midgely
an d
L a Naval
hav e
n o applicatio n
t o thi s
cas e unde r th e circumstance s obtainin g therein .
7 . Th e controvers y regardin g th e groun d o f lac k o f
jurisdictio n ove r th e natur e o f th e action , separatel y from
th e subjec t thereof , le d t o th e eliminatio n i n thi s Rul e o f
th e forme r whic h wa s supposedl y
in th e 1964 Rule s o f Court .
a n innovativ e groun d
Wha t ma y hav e bee n intende d
t h e r e i n wer e case s
assigne d b y la w
t o quasi-judi
cia l
a g e n c i e s , s u c h a s i n t r a - c o r p o r a t e s u i t s w h
i c h w e r e
274
----------------------- Page 275-----------------------
RULE 16
SEC. 1
exclusivel y
h a n g e
Commission , o r t
wer e withi n th e
Appeals .
I f
MOTION TO DISMISS
v e s t e d i n t h e S e c u r i t i e s a n d E x c
o specia l court s suc h a s ta x suit s which
exclusiv e jurisdictio n o f th e Cour t o f Ta x
so , thi s woul d properl y constitut e lack o f
SEC. 1
b . Wher e a part y invoke s th e jurisdictio n o f a cour t
t o obtai n affirmativ e relie f an d fails , h e canno t thereafte r
repudiat e suc h jurisdiction . Whil e th e issu e o f jurisdictio n
ma y b e
r a i s e d a t a n y t i m e , h e i s e s t o p p e d
a s i t i s
t a n t a m o u n t t o speculatin g o n th e fortune s o f litigatio
n
(Crisostomo, et al.
vs. CA, et al., L-27166, Mar. 26,
1970).
c. Wher e th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t i s challenge d
an d th e cour t defer s resolutio n o f th e motio n o r denie s th e
same , certiorar i and/o r prohibitio n wil l li e a s i t woul d b e
futile
o n
over th
s
improper
s
out t o
for th e
e case .
venue ,
cour t t o
g o ahea d i f it ha s
n o jurisdicti
i f th e petitio n t u r n
(San
Beda
College
vs.
CIR,
97 Phil.
787;
Univers
ity
of
Sto.
Tomas
vs. Villanueva,
etc., et al, 106 Phil
439
; Time,
Inc.
vs. Reyes,
etc., et al, L-8882,
May
31,
1971).
Thi s
rulin g i s stil l good bu t wit h th e modification that , pursuan t
t o amende d Sec . 3 o f thi s Rule , th e cour t ca n n o longe r
defer resolutio n o f th e motion .
d . I t ha s bee n hel d t h a t eve n i f th e clai m
i n th e
complaint wa s below th e jurisdictiona l limi t for th e the n
Court s o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e , i f th e defendant , i n s t
e a d o f
movin g t o dismiss , filed a counterclai m for P12,00 0 whic h
wa s the n withi n th e exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n o f sai d
Court s o f Firs t Instance , suc h counterclai m cure d th e defect
in th e complain t
(Zulueta, et al.
vs. Pan American
World
Airways,
Inc.,
L-28589,
Resolution
on
Motion
for
Reconsideration, Jan.
8, 1973).
It i s submitted , howeve
r ,
t h a t sai d resolution , unde r th e fact s therein , wa s mor e
properl y sustainabl e unde r
lache s o n th e p a r t o f
e
preliminar y chapte r o f thi s
als o relie d o n b y th
resai d
resolutio n i n t h a t case .
th e principl e
th e defendant ,
o f estoppe l b y
a s discusse d i n th
afo
sold
ion
e . Wher e
a uni t
of
MOTION TO DISMISS
ownership
unti l th e pric e
i s fully paid ,
an d th e b
uye r
defaults , th e courts , an d no t th e Securitie s an d Exchang e
Commission, hav e jurisdictio n over th e natur e o f th e action
becaus e th e owne r remain s a s a stockholde r for th e uni t
sold, henc e n o intra-corporat e issu e i s involve d (Sunset
View
Condominium
Corp.
vs. Campos,
Jr.,
etc., et
al.,
G.R. No. 52361, April 27, 1981).
Also , an action to compe l
a corporation t o issu e share s o f it s capita l stock in paymen t
of it s contractua l obligation an d undertakin g in favor o f
th e plaintif f wil l no t b e dismisse d o n th e groun d tha t th e
court ha s n o jurisdictio n over th e natur e o f th e action sinc e
such a situatio n doe s not involv e an intra-corporat e matte r
c o n t e m p l a t e d i n P . D . 902- A a n d
i s no t w i t h i
n t h e
jurisdictio n o f th e Securitie s an d Exchang e Commission
(DMRC Enterprises
vs. Este del
Sol Mountain Reserve,
Inc.,
G.R. No.
57936,
Sept. 28,
1984).
Likewise , an action t
o
compel th e corporatio n t o registe r th e share s o f stoc k
allegedly sol d t o plaintiff s doe s no t involv e an intra-corpo rat e matte r a s plaintiff s ar e no t ye t stockholder s bu t ar e
only seekin g to b e registere d a s suc h (Rivera, e t al.
vs.
Florendo, et al, G.R. No. 57586, Oct. 6, 1986).
However
,
an actio n t o compe l th e defendan t corporatio n t o rende r
an accountin g an d distributio n o f th e share s o f stock , wit h
th e dividend s du e thereon , o f plaintiffs ' predecessor-in interest i s a n intra-corporat e conflict an d i s not withi n
th e jurisdictio n o f th e court s bu t o f th e Securitie s an
d
Exchang e
Commissio n
(Malayan
Integrated
Indust
ries
Corp.
vs. Mendoza,
etc., et al, G.R. No.
75238,
Sept.
30,
1987).
See, in thi s connection , th e Interi m Rule s o f Procedur e
for Intra-Corporat e Controversie s
(AM. No. 01-2-04-SC)
,
i m p l e m e n t i n g
A . 879 9
(Appendix
W).
t h e
p r o c e d u r a l
c h a n g e s
i n R.
f
improper venu e an d thereafte r submitte d t o it s jurisdiction ,
th e issu e o f venu e wa s thereb y waive d an d the y ar e i n
estoppel t o repudiat e o r questio n th e proceeding s i n sai d
cour t
(Vda.
de
Suan,
et al.
vs. Cusi,
et al., L
-35336,
Oct. 27,
1983).
11.
Objection t o venu e i s als o impliedly waive d wher e
th e part y enter s int o trial , cross-examine s th e witnesse s
o f t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y a n d
a d d u c e s e v i d e n c e
(Paper
Industries
Corp.
of the
Phil.
vs. Samson,
et al., L
-30175,
Nov.
28,
1975).
12.
(Aetna
L-26809,
Casualty
Dec.
&
Surety
29,
1977;
Co.,
Inc.
Hathibhai
vs.
Bul
akhidas
vs. Navarro,
et al., L-49695,
April
7,
1986).
Bu t
if th e
said foreign corporatio n i s sue d i n ou r courts , i t may , b y
w r i t o f prohibition ,
see k
relie f a g a i n s t t h e wro
ngfu l
assumption o f jurisdictio n an d it s petitio n therefo r nee d
no t ave r it s lega l capacit y t o institut e sai d proceedin g
(Time,
Inc.
vs.
Reyes,
etc.,
et
al., supra).
c.
Th e issu e o f plaintiff s lack o f lega l capacit y t o su
e
cannot b e raise d for th e first tim e o n appea l wher e th e
27 8
----------------------- Page 279----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
MOTION TO DISMISS
d e f e n d a n t d e a l t w i t h t h e forme r a s a p a r t y
i n t h e
proceeding s
below
(University
of
Pangasinan
Faculty
Union
vs. University of Pangasinan, et al.,
G.R. No.
63122
Feb.
21,
1984).
13.
tis pendentia, a s
th e p a r
t h e r e i
substantia l
Th e
pendenc y o f
anothe r
action ,
or
li
s o u g h t ; a n d t h a t t h e r e s u l t o f t h e firs t a c t
i o n i s
determinativ e
o f th e secon d in an y even t (Northcott
&
Co. vs. Villa- Abrille, 4 1 Phil. 462) an d regardles s of which
part y
is successfu l
(Arceo
vs. Oliveros,
et al.,
L
-38251,
Jan. 31,
1985).
Th e motio n t o dismis s may b e filed i
n
eithe r suit , no t necessaril y i n th e on e institute d firs
t
(Teodoro
vs.
Mirasol,
99
Phil.
150;
Magsaysay
vs.
Magsaysay,
et al., L-49847,
July
17,
1980).
Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s repeatedl y
tha t whe n th e element s of litis pendentia
filed late r shoul d b e abated , base d on th
prior est tempore, potior est jure (h e wh o
i s th e bette r i n right) .
held , however ,
exist , th e action
e maxi m tha t qui
is befor e in tim e
e
action
firs t
filed ,
t h e cour t
h a s alread y
commence
d
proceeding s
Sports,
Inc., G.R.
(Pacsports,
No.
141602,
Phils.,
Nov.
22,
Inc.
vs.
Niccolo
2001).
o r th e
evidence presented , clearly indicat e t h a t th e actio n ha s
p r e s c r i b e d , o r w h e r e t h e r e i s n o issu e i n
fac t a s t o
prescription , th e defens e o f prescriptio n i s no t deeme d
waive d by defendant' s failur e t o alleg e th e sam e
(Chua
Lamko
vs. Dioso,
97 Phil.
821; Garcia
vs. Mathis,
supra).
Generally , estoppe l an d prescriptio n canno t b e invoke d
a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e (Republic
vs.
CA,
e t al.,
L
-45202,
Sept.
11, 1980).
En contra, not e t h a t th e rul e in crimi
na l
case s i s different , a s discusse d in Sec . 9 , Rul e 117 .
16.
A motio n t o dismis s on th e groun d o f prescriptio n
wil l b e give n du e cours e only i f th e complain t show s o n it s
face
t h a t th e actio n
h a s alread y
prescribe d
(Sis
on
vs.
McQuaid,
94 Phil.
201; Francisco,
et al. vs. Robles,
et al,
94
Phil.
1035; Aznar
III, et al. vs.
Bemad,
etc.,
et al.,
G.R. No. 81190, May 9,
1988).
If it doe s no t so a
ppear ,
th e determinatio n o f th e motion t o dismis s mus t b e deferre d
unti l tria l
(Cordova vs.
Cordova,
102 Phil.
1182; Seno
, et
al.
vs.
Mangubat,
et
al.,
L-44339,
Dec.
2,
1987).
See, however ,
Sec . 3 o f thi s Rul e whic h now prohibit s
deferment o f th e resolutio n o f th e motion .
280
----------------------- Page 281----------------------RULE 16
MOTION TO DISMISS
17.
W h e n t h e
g r o u n d for d i s m i s s a l i s
t h a t t h e
complaint s t a t e s n o caus e o f action , suc h fact ca n
b e
determine d only from th e fact s allege d in th e complain t
(Mindanao
Realty
Corp.
vs.
Kintanar,
et
al.,
L17152,
Nov.
30,
1962) an d from no othe r
(Marabilles vs.
Quito,
100 Phil.
64; Boncato vs.
Siason,
et al., L-29094,
Se
pt.
5,
1985), an d th e cour t canno t consider othe r matter s aliunde
(Salvador vs. Frio, L-25352, May 29,
1970).
Thi s imp
lie s
tha t th e issu e mus t b e passe d upo n o n th e basi s o f th e
allegation s assumin g the m t o b e tru e an d th e cour t canno t
inquir e int o th e t r u t h o f th e allegation s an d declar e the m
b e a procedura l erro r an d
t o t h e plaintif f (Ventura
1971;
Galeon
vs.
Galeon
Th e exception wa s provide d
i.e. , wher e th e motio n t o
doe s
no t alleg e
a sufficien t caus e o f actio n an d
t h a t
wherein , a t th e trial , th e evidenc e doe s no t sustai n th e
caus e o f actio n alleged , ha s bee n clarifie d by incorporatin g
said Sec . 2 in an amende d form a s th e presen t Sec . 1 o f
Rul e
9 . Refe r t o s a i d ne w
p r o v i s i o n a n d t h
e n o t e s
thereunder .
a . C o u r t s
s h o u l d
e x e r c i s e u t m o s t
c a r
a n d
c i r c u m s p e c t i o n i n p a s s i n g u p o n m o t i o n s t o
d i s m i s s
base d on thi s groun d
(Militante vs. Antero, et al., L-27
940,
June
10,
1971).
T h e
t e s t i s w h e t h e r , a s s u m i
n g
t h e
allegation s o f fact i n th e complaint , a vali d j u d g m e n
t
could b e rendere d i n accordanc e wit h th e praye r i n th e
complaint .
Wher e th e allegation s ar e sufficient bu t th e
veracit y o f th e fact s ar e assailed , th e motio n t o dismis s
shoul d
be
denie d
(Suyom,
et al.
vs.
Collantes,
et
al.,
L-40337,
Feb.
27,
1976).
e
b .
dismiss .
However , i f th e defendan t permit s
t o b e i n t r o d u c e d , w i t h o u t objection ,
t h e n e c e s s a r y a l l e g a t i o n i n s u c h de
s evidenc e cure s th e defect s o f suc h complain t
o longe r b e dismisse d o n t h a t accoun t an d
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
eve n i f th e absenc e o f
p e a r o n th e fac e o
b e
prove d
d u r i n g
sai d groun d
th
G.R.
(Yu
No.
55048,
May
for
p r e m a t u r i t y ,
despit e
th e
dubiet y
o f s
conciliatio n
parties ,
th e
o r
cas e
settlemen t
shoul d
ha d
b e
bee n
reache d
dismisse d
o n
b y
motion .
th e
Thi s
Court s
(Morata
vs.
Go,
e t a
1983).
S u b s e q u e n t l y , in
Royales,
et
al.
vs.
Inter
mediate
Appellate
1984) ,
Court,
e t
al. (G.R .
No .
65072 ,
J a n . 3 ,
284
----------------------- Page 285----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
MOTION TO DISMISS
th e tria l
150 8 an d
c u t o r y , b u
decision
denie d unde r
d in Tijam
Non-complianc e
vs.
Sagampang,
et
c. Th e
al,
fact
G.R.
t h a t
No.
th e
69334,
sui t
July
i s
28,
exclusivel y
1986).
betwee
n
member s o f th e sam e family i s a groun d for dismissa l i f n o
earnest effort s at compromis e ha d been mad e (Art. 222,
Civil
Code;
Art.
151,
Family
Code).
Thi s
groun d
is ,
285
----------------------- Page 286----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
therefore ,
no t availabl e
w h e r e a compromis e
o
f t h e
controversy i s no t permitte d b y law , a s wher e i t involve s
civil
status ,
validit y
o f marriag e
or lega l separatio
n ,
ground s for lega l separation , futur e support , jurisdictio n
an d futur e legitim e
(Art. 2035,
Civil Code).
Th e
sam e
rul e applie s eve n i f th e complain t ask s for suppor t i
n
arrears , whic h i s permitte d t o b e compromised , bu t i t als o
seek s
futur e
suppor t
(Mendoza
vs. CA,
et al., L23102,
April 24,
1967).
A s t o wh o ar e considere d member s o f a
"family, " A r t .
217 ,
Civi l Code ,
provide d t h a t fam
il y
relation s shal l includ e thos e (1) betwee n husban d an d wife ;
(2) betwee n paren t an d child ; (3) amon g othe r ascendant s
an d thei r descendants ; an d (4) amon g brother s an d sister s
(Gayon
vs. Gayon,
L-28394,
Nov.
26,
1970).
Art .
1
50
of
th e Famil y
Cod e
amende d t h e
foregoin g e n u m e r a
t i o n
regardin g siblings , t o specify "whethe r o f th e full or halfblood. "
Failur e t o alleg e i n th e complain t t h a t earnes t effort
s
at compromis e ha d bee
th e actio n i s no t a
o f
th e partie s i s a
44903,
April 25,
1977) or
ra l
relative s wh o ar e no
no t
member s
o f
onson,
L-32159
Oct.
28,
20 .
no t a
g r o u n d
Th e
fo r
sui t
Gonong,
i s
betwee n
Lcollate
doctrin e
a
th e
vs.
m o t i o n
o f forum
t o
non
conveniens
d i s m i s s u n d e r
i s
t h i s
R u l e .
Conceptually , thi s mean s t h a t a court , usuall y i n conflicts of-law cases , ma y refus e imposition s o n it s jurisdictio n
wher e i t i s no t th e mos t convenien t o r availabl e foru m
an d th e partie s ar e no t preclude d from seekin g remedie s
elsewher e
(Bank of America,
etc. vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No.
120135,
Mar.
31,
2003).
Moreover ,
t h e p r o p r i
e t y o f
dismissin g a cas e o n thi s principl e require s a factua l
determination , henc e i t i s mor e properl y considere d a s a
m a t t e r o f defense .
Th e tria l court , consequently , ha s th e
discretion t o abstai n from assumin g jurisdictio n ove r th e
286
----------------------- Page 287----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
MOTION TO DISMISS
th e cas e on thi s
groun d
(Raytheon
c.
vs.
Rouzie,
Jr., G.R.
No.
162894,
Feb.
International,
26,
In
2008).
commence d
(Ker &
L-12396,
b .
Jan.
31,
vs.
Court
of
Tax Appeals,
1962).
t h r e e o t h e r
ded ,
exception s
hav e
bee n
expressl y
ad
c.
Wher e an y o f th e four defense s ar e presen t i
n
th e case , Sectio n 1 direct s t h a t th e cour t shal l dismis s th
e
claim .
If, despit e suc h directive , th e cour t shal l fail t o
d o
so, th e logica l an d speed y remed y o f th e defendan t i s t o
mov e t o dismis s th e clai m regardles s o f th e statu s o f th e
initiatory o f responsiv e statu s o f th e pleading s vis-a-vi s
each other .
M a n d a m u s t o compe l suc h dismissa l ma
y
thereafte r b e availe d o f a s th e successiv e remed y shoul d
t h e c o u r t b e r e c a l c i t r a n t d e s p i t e t h e fac t
t h a t suc h
dismissa l i s it s mandator y duty .
Thi s i s asid e from
suc h
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e sanction s a s ma y b e w a r r a n t e d
b y it s
nonfeasanc e in a ministeria l function .
d.
In Matela vs. Chua Tay (L-16796 , Ma y 30 , 1962) ,
petitione r challenge d th e propriet y o f a motio n t o dismis s
on th e groun d o f litis pendentia whic h wa s presente d afte r
th e movant' s answe r t o th e complain t ha d alread y bee n
filed, henc e th e dismissa l o f th e cas e obtaine d thereb y
should b e se t aside .
Th e Suprem e Cour t disregarde d t h a t
contention sinc e bot h th e answe r (whic h wa s filed earlier )
an d th e motio n t o dismis s "containe d th e defens e and/o r
g r o u n d o f p e n d e n c y o f a n o t h e r action, "
a n d
al l t h e
r e q u i s i t e s o f res judicata
w e r e
p r e s e n t .
W i
t h
t h e
aforementione d amendmen t o f Section 1 o f thi s Rul e whic h
now
consider s
litis pendentia
a s a n exceptio n
t o t h e
omnibu s motio n rule , thi s controvers y nee d n o longe r
arise .
e.
Sept .
Quiaoit
vs.
Consolacion,
et
al.
(L-41824 ,
MOTION TO DISMISS
reiterate d in Ruiz , Jr .
101566,
Mar.
26,
1993).
vs .
CA,
et al .
(G.R.
No.
f .
T h e
a m e n d m e n t o f S e c t i o n 1 o f t h i
s Rul e
providin g tha t th e exception s t o th e omnibu s motion rul e
ma y b e
gleane d from th e evidenc e o n recor d
(whic h
include s th e cas e wher e tria l ha s begun ) forestall s an y
challenge on tha t score .
Also , th e liberalizatio n o f othe
r
former holding s on belate d motion s t o dismis s thu s affirm
tha t procedura l rules , a s essentia l tool s for th e obtentio n
of justice , shoul d no t b e literall y constricte d by petrifie d
logic i n thei r application .
I n an y event , wher e th e moti
on
t o dismis s fall s outsid e th e genera l rul e o n allowabl e
ground s
du e t o
i s t o
n
may b e
mod e
Feb.
of
discover y
28,
1973).
(Galeon
vs.
Caleon,
Sec . 2 .
Hearing of motion.
A t t h e
h e a r i
n g o f
t h e motion , th e partie s shal l submi t thei r a r g u m e n t s
o n t h e q u e s t i o n s o f la w an d t h e i r e v i d e n c e
o n t h e
q u e s t i o n s o f fac t involve d e x c e p t t h o s e no t availabl
e
a t t h a t t i m e .
S h o u l d
t h e c a s e g o t o t r i
a l , t h e
e v i d e n c e
p r e s e n t e d
d u r i n g
t h e
h e a r i n g
s h a l l
a u t o m a t i c a l l y b e par t o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f t
h e part y
p r e s e n t i n g t h e s a m e , (n )
NOTE S
1. Thi s ne w provisio n o f th e Rul e introduce s tw o
importan t changes , i.e. , (1) a t th e hearin g o f th e motion ,
th e partie s shal l submi t al l argument s an d evidenc e the n
a v a i l a b l e , a n d
(2 )
t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e
d
s h a l l
automatically constitut e p a r t o f th e evidenc e a t th e tria l
o f th e p a r t y wh o p r e s en t e d th e same .
I t wil l
als o b e
recalle d tha t i n accordanc e wit h Rul e 15 , suc h motio n shal l
b e in writin g
(Sec. 2) an d t h a t ther e mus t b e a hea
rin g
thereo n (Sec.
4).
Th e
obviou s p
i s t o
avoid unnecessar y dela y
sufficient
fram e
l court' s
disposition o f th e motio
u r p o s e
o f t h e s e
a m e n d m e n t s
2 . Unde r
th e forme r
Rule ,
i t wa s hel d t h a
t
th e
absenc e o f a forma l hearin g on a motio n t o dismis s whic h
wa s grante d doe s no t constitut e reversibl e erro r wher e th e
(Castillo, e t al.
290
MOTION TO DISMISS
SEC.
3
et al.,
G.R. No.
1988).
It is believe d tha t
y
16
e
o
o f th
, ther
tria l
grant ,
e previou s
e ar e now
cour t whe n
t o deny ,
provision on
only thre e
a motion t
or t o allow
thes e
course s o f
o dismis s i s
amendmen t o f
for th e
unti l th e
trial .
Th e
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s resolv e an d se t asid e th e
rul e
in Antam
Consolidated,
Inc.,
et
29 1
----------------------- Page 292----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 3
2 . W h e r e a h e a r i n g w a s hel d
a n d d o c u m
e n t a r y
evidenc e w a s p r e s e n t e d b y th e defendant ,
no t
o n hi s
motion t o dismis s bu t agains t th e plaintiff s applicatio n
for a wri t o f preliminar y injunction , bu t sai d evidenc e
w a s a d m i t t e d b y t h e plaintiff ,
suc h evidenc e
ca n b e
considere d
in resolvin g th e
motio n t o dismis s (Sant
iago
us. Pioneer Sauings & Loan Bank,
et al., G.R.
No.
77502,
Jan.
15,
1988).
3 . Adoptin g previou s doctrina l injunctions , suc h a s
t h a t in
Continental
Bank
us.
Tiangco
(G.R.
No.
50480,
Dec. 14, 1979), it i s now specifically require d by thi s section
t h a t t h e r e s o l u t i o n o n t h e motio n s h a l l clear
l y a n d
distinctly stat e th e reason s therefor .
Thi s proscribe s
th e
common practic e o f perfunctoril y dismissin g th e motio n
"for lac k o f merit. "
Suc h cavalie r disposition s ca n often
pos e difficulty an d misunderstandin g o n th e p a r t o f th e
aggrieve d part y i n takin g recours e therefro m an d likewis e
on th e h i g h e r cour t
a m e ,
usuall y o n certiorari .
calle d
upo n
t o
resolv e
t h e
4 . A n
o r d e r d e n y i n g a
m o t i o n
t o d i s
m i s s i s
i n t e r l o c u t o r y a n d no t
a p p e a l a b l e (Harrison
Foundry
&
Machinery,
et
al.
us.
Harrison
Foundry
Workers
Association,
et al., L-18432,
June
19,
1963),
bu t an
orde r
g r a n t i n g a motio n t o dismis s i s fina l a n d ap pe a
l a b l e
(Monares
us.
CNS
Enterprises,
105
Phil.
1333
f
Unrep.J).
However , i f th e orde r o f dismissa l i s no t a n adjudicatio n
292
----------------------- Page 293----------------------RULE 16
. 3
MOTION TO DISMISS
SEC
us.
IAC,
Florendo,
et
et al,
al, G.R.
G.R.
No.
No.
63559,
62082,
May
Feb.
30,
26,
1986; PNB
1992).
196 4 Rule s
wher e
f i s
th e
o f Court ,
Sec .
motio n t o dismis s
deferred ,
th e
4 o f thi s
i s
denie d
defendan t
order ,
MOTION TO DISMISS
a n d
(d) unenforceabilit y unde r th e Statut e o f Frauds .
2 . On th e matte r o f prescription , i f wha t i s referre d
t o i s t h a t th e caus e o f actio n i s barre d b y th e s
tatut e
o f limitations , t h a t is , t h a t th e actio n ha s prescrib
e d
(Arts. 1139 to
1155,
Civil Code),
th e motion to dismis
s
shall b e grounde d on par . (f) o f Sec . 1 .
I f wha t i s inv
olve d
i s th e fact tha t th e ownershi p o r othe r rea l right s claime d
hav e prescribed ,
involved
(Arts.
for th e motion t
par . (h) o f Sec .
been
extinguished
Sec .
6.
Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses.
I f n o m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s h a s b e e n filed , a
y o f t h e
g r o u n d s fo r d i s m i s s a l p r o v i d e d fo r i n t h i s
l e m a y
b e p l e a d e d a s a n affirmativ e d e f e n s e i n t h e a n s
e r
and , i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e court , a p r e
i m i n a r y
h e a r i n g m a y b e ha d t h e r e o n a s i f a m o t i o n t o
i s m i s s
ha d b e e n filed . (5a )
T h e
d i s m i s s a l
o f t h e
e r
t h i s
s e c t i o n
s h a l l
b e
w i t h o u
t o
t h e
p r o s e c u t i o n
i n t h e s a m e
o
i o n o f a
c o u n t e r c l a i m p l e a d e d i n t h e
c o m p l a i n t
t
r
n
Ru
w
l
d
u n d
p r e j u d i c e
s e p a r a t e
a n s w e r ,
a c t
(n )
NOTE S
1.
U n d e r th e
practic e befor e
1964 ,
w
h e r e th e
defendant filed a motio n t o dismis s an d th e sam e wa s
unconditionall y denied , th e ground s raise d b y hi m i n sai d
motion coul d n o longe r b e pleade d a s affirmativ e defense s
a s th e resolutio n thereo f ha d alread y bee n conclude d b y
th e denia l o f hi s motion .
I f h e di d no t file a m
otio n t o
dismiss , the n h e coul d rais e an y o f th e ground s therefo r
a s
a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s i n h i s a n s w e r
a n d
h a v e a
preliminar y hearin g thereo n a s i f a motio n t o dismis s ha d
bee n filed .
Despit e th e
1964
Rules , i t appear s
wher e
th e
chang e
o f phraseolog y
t h a t th e
defendan t
di d
sam e
no t
mov e
u n d e r th e
procedur e
t o
applied ,
dismis s
h e
an d
coul d
MOTION TO DISMISS
SEC.
bu t
b e
exceptio n
wa s
base d
o n
th e
forme r provision s
o f
dismiss , rendere d
wa s duly reporte d t o
e decease d by hi s
, i s invalid .
Th
297
----------------------- Page 298----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 6
6 .
Unde r thi s amende d section , an y o f th e ground s
for dismissa l provide d for in thi s Rule , ma y b e allege d a s
affirmative defense s an d a preliminar y hearin g ma y b e
ha d thereo n i f n o motio n t o dismis s on an y o f sai d ground s
ha d bee n filed an d resolved .
Sec . 5(b) o f Rul e 6 enumerate
s
some affirmativ e defense s suc h a s fraud ,
illegalit
y an d
estoppel , an d jurisprudenc e ha s als o provide d ultra vires
act s an d unconstitutionalit y o f th e s t a t u t e involve d a
s
additiona l affirmativ e defenses .
Sinc e thes e defense s
an d
other s b y wa y o f confession an d avoidanc e ar e no t amon g
th e ground s for a motio n t o dismis s unde r Rul e 16 , whil e
th e sam e ma y b e allege d a s affirmativ e defense s t o b e
prove d a s suc h durin g th e trial ,
i t woul d no t b e prop
e r t o
h a v e
a
p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g
t h e r e o n u n d e
r
t h e
circumstance s
section .
an d
for th e purpos e
contemplate d
i n thi s
T h e
f u r t h e r a m e n d m e n t
e m p h a s i z e s
t h
a t t h e
preliminar y hearin g authorize d therei n i s no t mandatory ,
since
th e gran t thereo f may b e
ha d
in the discret
ion of
the
court
(246
Corporation,
etc.
vs.
Daway,
etc.,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
157216,
Nov.
20,
2003).
29 8
----------------------- Page 299----------------------RULE
1 7
DISMISSA L
S e c t i o n 1.
Dismissal
O F
upon
ACTION S
notice
by plaintiff.
c o m p l a i n t m a y
b e d i s m i s s e d b y t h e p l a i
i f f b y
f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f d i s m i s s a l a t a n y t i m e
e f o r e
servic e o f th e a n s w e r o r o f a motio n fo r s u m m
y
j u d g m e n t .
Upo n s u c h notic e bein g filed , th e cour t
s h a l l i s s u e a n o r d e r c o n f i r m i n g t h e d i s
s s a l .
Unles s o t h e r w i s e state d i n th e notice , th e dismissa l
i s w i t h o u t prejudice , e x c e p t tha t a notic e o p e r a t
n t
b
a r
m i
e s
i s effected not
which i s a matte r
answere d o r move d
h dismissa l i s withou
e th e notic e o f dismissa l s o
plaintif f ha s previously dismisse d
o f competen t jurisdiction , an d
o f dismissa l doe s not provid e
bu t it i s premise d on th e fact o
299
p a y m e n t b y th e defendan t o f th e clai m
(se e
Serrano
vs. Cabrera,
93 Phil.
774).
involve d
b e
mor e
precise ,
however ,
w h a t cause s
th e
th e
sam e
ar e effecte d b y
motion ,
an d no t b y mer e
notice , t o th e court .
5 . Wher e
t h e firs t complain t for foreclosur e o f
a
chatte l mortgag e for non-paymen t o f certai n installment s
du e t h e r e u n d e r wa s dismisse d wit h prejudice ,
a t th e
i n s t a n c e o f t h e plaintif f u n d e r t h i s section ,
a
n o t h e r
complaint late r filed by hi m for non-paymen t o f install m e n t s s u b s e q u e n t t o thos e involve d i n t h e
firs
t cas e
should
no t b e dismisse d
on
th e groun d
o f res
judicata
since sai d secon d cas e involve d differen t
cause s o f
actio n
(Filinvest
Credit
Corp.
vs.
Salas,
et al,
G.R.
No.
63326,
July
31,
1984).
S e c .
2 .
Dismissal
iff.
E x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n
i o n , a
upon
t h e
motion
of
plaint
p r e c e d i n g
s e c t
300
----------------------- Page 301----------------------RULE 17
SEC. 2
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
c o m p l a i n t shal l no t b e d i s m i s s e d a t th e p l a
i n t i f f s
i n s t a n c e sav e u p o n approva l o f th e cour t an d upo n
s u c h t e r m s
a n d
c o n d i t i o n s a s t h e c o u r t
d e e m s
proper .
I f a c o u n t e r c l a i m h a s bee n
p l e a d e
d b y a
d e f e n d a n t p r i o r t o t h e s e r v i c e u p o n
h i m
o f t h e
p l a i n t i f f s m o t i o n fo r dismissal , th e dismissa l shal l
b e limite d t o th e complaint .
Th e dismissa l shal l b
e
w i t h o u t prejudic e t o th e righ t o f th e d e f e n d a n t
t o
p r o s e c u t e h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m i n a s e p a r a t e
a c t i o n
u n l e s s w i t h i n fiftee n (16 ) day s fro m notic e o f th
e
m o t i o n
h e m a n i f e s t s h i s p r e f e r e n c e t o h a v
e
h i s
c o u n t e r c l a i m r e s o l v e d i n th e sam e action .
Unles s
o t h e r w i s e specifie d i n th e order , a dismissa l unde r
thi s p a r a g r a p h shal l b e w i t h o u t prejudice .
A
clas s
sui t shal l no t b e d i s m i s s e d o r compromise d w i t h o u t
th e approva l o f th e court . (2a )
NOTE S
1.
Prio r t o thi s amendator y Sec . 2 , th e rul e wa s tha
t
th e plaintif f coul d no t mov e for th e dismissa l o f hi s com plain t if, befor e th e servic e o f hi s motion therefo r upon
th e defendant , th e latte r ha d filed a counterclai m which
could not remai n pendin g for independen t adjudication
by th e tria l court , henc e th e defendan t coul d object t o th e
dismissal o f th e action .
Applyin g tha t provision , it wa
s
hi s
claim s
al.,
L-30602,
in
hi s
June
complain t
30,
(Sta.
Mar
1972).
wher e
th e
c o m p l a i n t
shal l b e
l shal l b e withou
eithe r prosecut e
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
on
motio n
o f th e
als o by th e
defendant
or ,
in
th e
3.
Sees . 1 an d 2 o f thi s Rul e refer to th e dismissal
of
the entire case at th e instanc e o f th e plaintiff , provide
d
that , unde r Sec . 1 , ther e ha s been n o servic e o f an answe r
of a motion for summar y judgment ; and , unde r Sec . 2 , th e
defendan t ha s no t filed a counterclai m an d th e cour t
deem s th e dismissa l proper .
Absen t suc h contingen
t
considerations , th e plaintif f ha s th e virtua l freedom
desist from furthe r prosecutin g an y defendan t by causin g
th e dismissa l o f th e complaint .
Thi s
i s t o b e
t u a t i o n
contemplate d in Sec . 11 ,
dropped or adde d by orde r
proprio a t an y stag e o f
ar e just .
Thi s refer s
all parties , excep t tha t
excluded . I t doe s not ,
or irrationa l droppin g o
situation wher e ther e ha
or misjoinde r o f parties .
l
inclusion o f a defendan t wa
t h a t i t w a s p r o p e
d i s t i n g u i s h e d fro m
t o
t h e s i
mor e defendant s ma y b e
, comprehen d whimsica l
s bu t contemplate s th e
a n erroneou s inclusion
t presuppose s tha t th e origina
p i n g i s
requeste d becaus e i t ha s turne d ou t t o b e incorrect .
I t
does not mea n tha t a plaintif f i s free t o join or implea d
a n y b o d y
a s a d e f e n d a n t i n a c o m p l a i n t on
l y
t o
unceremoniously drop hi m late r a t th e plaintiff s pleasure ;
hence , th e requiremen t tha t th e droppin g b e "on suc h
term s a s ar e just " - jus t t o al l th e othe r partie s
(Lim
Tanhu,
et al. vs. Ramolete,
et al, supra).
S e c . 3.
Dismissal
due
to fault
of plaintiff.
If,
for n o justifiabl e cause , th e plaintif f fail s t o appea r
o n th e dat e o f th e presentatio n o f hi s evidenc e i n
chie f o n th e complaint , o r t o prosecut e hi s actio n
for a n u n r e a s o n a b l e lengt h o f time , o r t o compl
y
w i t h t h e s e R u l e s o r an y o r d e r o f t h e court ,
t h e
303
----------------------- Page 304----------------------RULE 17
SEC. 3
c o m p l a i n t m a y
b e d i s m i s s e
o f t h e
d e f e n d a n t o r u p o n t h e court' s o
o u t
prejudic e t o t h e righ t o f th e d e f e n
t e
h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m
i n t h e
s
e p a r a t e
action .
Thi s d i s m i s s a l shal l
o f a n
a d j u d i c a t i o n
u p o n
t h e m e r
h e r w i s e
d e c l a r e d b y t h e court . (3a )
u p o n
m o t i o n
w n m o t i o n , w i t h
d a n t t o p r o s e c u
a m e
h a v e
i t s ,
o r
t h e
i n
effec t
u n l e s s
o t
NOTE S
1.
Tw o importan t change s hav e bee n introduce d by
thi s section .
Th e dismissa l o f th e cas e for failur e o f
th e
plaintif f t o appea r a t th e trial , t o b e valid , now require s
tha t (1) hi s non-appearanc e i s withou t justifiabl e
cause ,
an d
(2)
suc h prejudiciou s absenc e
i s limite d t o
th e dat e
or date s whe n th e presentatio n o f hi s evidenc e i n chie f o n
th e complain t wa s schedule d o r expected .
Th e p
rovisio n
in th e forme r sectio n referrin g t o p l a i n t i f f s failur
e t o
appea r "a t th e tim e o f th e trial " coul d resul t i n unfai r i
f
no t absur d results , considerin g th e lengt h o f th e perio d
o f th e tria l an d th e differen t stage s thereo f wherei n th
e
presenc e o f th e defendan t an d th e othe r partie s ar e no t
even r e q u i r e d .
Sinc e t h e p l a i n t i f f s p r e s e n
c e i s no w
require d only durin g th e presentatio n o f hi s evidenc e i n
chief, hi s absenc e durin g th e presentatio n o f th e evidenc e
o f th e
d e f e n d a n t o r th e o t h e r p a r t i e s , o r
eve n a t th e
rebutta l o r subsequen t stage s o f th e trial , i s no t a groun d
for dismissal .
2 . T h e
s e c o n d s u b s t a n t i a l a m e n d m e n t
t o t h i s
section i s wit h respec t t o th e dispositio n o f th e defendant' s
counterclai m i n th e
even t th e plaintiff' s complain t
i s
dismissed . A s alread y observed , h e i s her e grante d th e
choice t o prosecut e t h a t counterclai m i n eithe r th e sam e
or a separat e action , jus t lik e th e gran t o f t h a t remed y i
n
Sec. 6 o f Rul e 16 .
I t ma y b e note d t h a t in th e p
resen t
i n s t a n c e , a s wel l a s u n d e r t h e a f o r e s t a t e d
Sec . 6 o f
Rul e
16 , th e defendan t i s no t require d t o manifes t
hi s
304
----------------------- Page 305----------------------RULE 17
EC. 3
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
i n
doctrin e
(G.R .
No .
th e
dismisse d
in
BA
actions ,
105751 , J u n e
Finance
30 ,
Corporation
1993) ha s
bee
tter
s
u s t i c e t o d e f e n d a n t b u t w o u l d b e
t h e r
provisio n
int o
Sectio n
a n d
r e a
w r e s
proved , wit h o r
s part , unles s
h e ha s virtuall y
o f hi s coun -
4 .
I t h a s b e e n hel d t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n
c e s se t
out i n thi s sectio n ar e th e only instance s wherei n th e cour t
ma y dismis s a cas e on it s ow n motio n
(Malig vs.
Bush,
L-22761, May 31,
1969).
Nevertheless , it shoul d als o
be
recalle d t h a t i f th e cour t find s t h a t i t ha s n o jurisdict
io n
306
----------------------- Page 307----------------------RULE 17
C. 3
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
over th e subject-matte r o f th
action pendin g betwee n th e
cause , or tha t th e action i
b y statut e o f limitations , th
sua sponte (Sec.
1, Rule
SE
e suit , tha t
sam e partie s
s barre d by a
e cour t shal l
9).
ther e i s anothe r
for th e sam e
prio r judgmen t or
dismis s th e cas e
L-46641,
Oct.
28,
1977),
suc h
if f
failed t o amen d hi s pleadin g a s
(Dizon vs. Garcia,
110 Phil.
l
an d voi d a s where ,
upo n
a s
wher e
ordere d
th e
b y
th e
plaint
cour t
deat h
o f th e
defendant ,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
7 . Unjustifiabl e
hav e th e
or
failur e
0,
Jan.
31,
vs.
Republic,
cas e
t o
se t
71388,
Sept.
inaction on
for
th e
23,
1986).
tria l i s
par t
groun d
p r o s e c u t e (Ventura
1962;
L-26794,
Insurance
Nov.
for
vs.
Company
15,
o f plaintif f t o
dismissa l
Bayan,
L-1296
America
Th e
"unreasonabl e
1967).
of North
p r e - t r i a l s a n d a p p e a l s t o t h e forme r C o u r
f F i r s t
Instanc e
(Racimo
vs.
Diho,
L-27804,
Feb.
27,
an d
t h e cas e ma y b e
dismisse d for a p p e l l a n t ' s
r e
t o
prosecut e hi s appea l for a n unreasonabl e lengt h o f tim e
(Republic
vs.
Guarin,
et al, L-26367,
Jan.
31,
.
In
a cas e appeale d t o th e the n Cour t o f Firs t Instance ,
o
1976)
failu
1978)
th e
apply
to
Quezon
City, Inc.
54416,
Oct.
17,
sai d
vs.
appellan t
Meridian
(Capitol
Rural
Assurance
Bank
Corp.,
G.R.
of
No.
1980).
i s m i s s a l
u n d e r
S e e s . 1 ,
a n d
1965,
an d
case s
therei n
cited) .
adduce d
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
2 , Rul e
17
vs.
CA, et al.,
12. Wher e
counse l
th e
1998).
e v i d e n c e for hi s
client ,
hi s
a r a t a
subsequent hearin g canno t b e considere d
prosecut e bu t only a waive r o f th e righ t
th e
witnesse s for th e defendan t an d
admissibilit y
o f
over
vs.
Ytoriaga,
L-35989,
evidenc e
Oct.
failur e
a s failur e t o
t o cross-examin e
t o object t o th e
for
28,
t o a p p e
th e
l a t t e r (Jal
1977).
T h e
p r o v i s i o
f t h i s
R u l e s h a l l a p p l y t o t h e d i s m i s s a l o f
c o u n t e r c l a i m , c r o s s - c l a i m , o r t h i r d - p a r t y c o m
i n t . A
v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l b y t h e c l a i m a n t b y n
c e a s i n
s e c t i o n 1
o f t h i s R u l e , s h a l l b e m a d e
f o r e a
r e s p o n s i v e
p l e a d i n g o r
a m o t i o n
fo r
m m a r y
j u d g m e n t i s s e r v e d or , i f t h e r e i s n o n
befor e t h e
i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e a t t h e t r i a l o r
r i n g . (4a )
cro
n s
a n y
p l a
o t i
b e
s u
e ,
h e a
309
----------------------- Page 310----------------------RULE
1 8
PRE-TRIA L
S e c
s t
e a d i n
t h e
t y o f
h a t
t h e c a s e
l
p
b
d
a
l
e
u
t
t i o n
g h a s
1 .
t h e
When
b e e n
conducted.
s e r v e d
plaintif f t o
an d
A f t e r
filed ,
p r o m p t l y m o v e
b e se t fo r pre-trial .
NOTE S
(5a , R20 )
t h e
i t shal l
ex parte
1. T o obviat e
th e conflictin g
ion s
unde r th e forme r Rule , Sec . 1 now impose
tiff th e dut y t o promptl y mov e ex parte
t
for pre-trial , an d thi s h e mus t d o
d
filing o f th e las t pleadin g require d i n
s
or, i n appropriat e circumstances , b y th e
Thi s
clarifie s a n d change s th e procedur e
former Sec . 5 o f Rul e 2 0 whic h impose d
clerk o f cour t "upo n th e submission " o f
Th e transfe r o f responsibilit y t o th e
view s
an d
decis
servic e
an
th e cas e b y th e Rule
cour t itself .
prescribe d i n th e
t h a t dut y o n th e
th e las t pleading .
plaintif f himself , a s
PRE-TRIAL
3 . Th e pre-tria l an d tria l o n th e
mus t b e
hel d on
es,
et al. vs. Macandog,
978).
4 . A pre-tria
pleadin g ha s bee n
plaintiff s repl y
t al.
vs.
Hontanosas,
cep t
wher e th e perio d
Th e
pre-tria l ma y b e
separat e
date s
merit s o f th e cas e
etc., et
(Heirs
al, L-45445,
of
Jose
June
Fuent
16,
al,
L-35951,
Aug.
31,
1977),
ex
ha d no t ye t filed hi s answe r t o th e defendant' s compul sory counterclai m sinc e n o answe r i s require d t o b e filed
theret o
(Sarmiento
vs.
Juan,
G.R.
No.
56605,
Jan.
28,
1983; se e Koh vs. IAC, G.R. No.
71388, Sept. 23,
198
6).
Sec .
i s
mandatory .
2 .
Nature
and
purpose.
T h e
pre-tria l
Th e
(c)
Th e n e c e s s i t y o r desirabilit y o f a m e n d m e n t s
t o th e
simplicatio n
o f th e
issues ;
pleadings ;
Th e
limitatio n o f th e
numbe r o f witnesses ;
(0
Th e advisabilit y o f a preliminar y referenc e
o f i s s u e s t o a commissioner ;
(g)
Th e propriet y o f renderin g judgmen
pleadings , o r summ a r y judgment , o r o f d
th e actio n shoul d a vali d groun d therefo r
t o exist ;
(h)
Th e advisabilit y o r necessit y o f
th e proceedings ; an d
t o n th e
i s m i s s i n g
b e foun d
s u s p e n d i n g
31 1
----------------------- Page 312----------------------RULE 18
SEC. 3
(i) S u c h o t h e r m a t t e r s a s m a y ai d i n t h e pr
omp t
d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e action ,
( l a , R20 )
NOTE S
1.
o f j u d g m e n t
o n
th e
p l e a d i n g s , s
o f th e
2 . W i t h r e g a r d t o s u b m i s s i o n t o a r
a t i o n , se e
R.A . 87 6 an d Arts . 202 8 t o 204 1 o f th e Civi l
o n
compromise s an d a r b i t r a t i o n s .
Fo r recen t
tio n
providin g for a broade r scop e o f a l t e r n a t i v e
o f
disput e resolution , se e R.A . 928 5 whic h institutionalize d
th e us e o f a n alternativ e disput e resolutio n syste m
establishe d th e Office for Alternativ e Disput e Resolutio n
(Appendix
DD).
b i t r
Cod e
legisla
mode s
an d
Notice
of
pre-trial.
T h e
n o t i
l l b e s e r v e d o n c o u n s e l , o r o n t h e
c o u n s e l .
c h a r g e d
T h e c o u n s e l s e r v e d w i t
w i t h
t h e
s e n t e d b y him .
d u t y
o f
n o t i f y
(n )
N O T E
1.
Unde r th e forme r procedure , th e Suprem e Cour t
hel d t h a t a notic e o f pre-tria l mus t b e serve d o n th e part
y
affected separatel y from hi s counse l (Heirs of Jose Fuentes,
312
----------------------- Page 313----------------------RULE 18
SEC. 4
PRE-TRIAL
an d th e sam e
hi s
counse l
(Lim,
al.
vs. Animas,
etc., et al., L-39094,
April
18,
1975),
otherwis e th e proceeding s wil l b e nul l an d void (Sagarino
vs. Pelayo,
L-27927,
June 20,
1977; Patalinjug vs.
Peralta,
et al., L-43324, May 5, 1979).
It wa s th e dut y of coun
se l
upon who m suc h notic e i s serve d t o se e t o i t tha t hi s clien
t
receive s suc h notic e an d attend s th e pre-trial , otherwis e
grav e
vs.
administrativ e disciplinar y
Sayo, et al., L-37296,
Oc
co
non-appearanc e o f th e
vs.
U.S.
Lines
Co.,
specia l
a u t h o r i t
a t t o r n e y t o c o m p r o m i s e i s r e q u i r e d u n d e r
Sec . 2 3 ,
Rul e 138 .
Unde r Art . 1878(c) o f th e Civi l Code , a specia l
powe r o f attorne y i s require d
(se e Servicewide Specia
lists,
Inc.
vs.
Sheriff
of Manila,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
74586,
Oct. 17,
1986).
However , it ha s als o bee n hel d t h a t t
h e
authority nee d no t b e i n writin g an d ma y b e establishe d
b y competen t evidenc e o r subsequentl y ratifie d b y th e
p a r t y c o n c e r n e d (Lim
Pin
vs.
Tan,
et
al.,
L-47740,
July
20,
1982).
I f t h e p a r t y i s a c o r p o r a t i
o n , s u c h
authority mus t b e mad e wit h a n appropriat e resolutio n
of it s boar d of director s
(Republic
vs. Plan,
et a
l., G.R.
No.
56962,
Aug.
21,
1982).
2 . I t mus t furthe r b e note d t h a t th e specia l authorit
y
should confer o n th e party' s representativ e no t only th e
powe r t o e n t e r int o a compromise , a s i t wa s unde r th
e
former provision , bu t als o t o submi t t o alternativ e mode s
o f disput e settlement , an d t o e n t e r int o stipulation s o
r
a d m i s s i o n s o f fact s a n d d o c u m e n t s . Also ,
t h
e m e r e
presentatio n o f suc h writte n authorit y i s no t sufficient ,
bu t m u s t b e complemente d b y a showin g o f vali d caus e
for th e non-appearanc e o f th e part y himself .
3 . Wher e nobody appeare d a t th e pre-tria l excep t th e
counse l for th e plaintif f bu t sai d counse l ha d n o specia
l
authorit y t o represen t th e plaintif f therein , th e plaintif f
ma y properl y b e declare d non-suited .
Th e plaintif f
ma y
b e s o declare d non-suite d an d th e cas e dismisse d withou t
motion by th e defendan t (Sec. 3, Rule 17).
S e c . 5 .
t h e plaintif f t o
s u a n t
a p p e a r
w h e n
s o
T h e
failur e
r e q u i r e d
p u r
of
314
----------------------- Page 315----------------------RULE 18
SEC. 5
PRE-TRIAL
u n l e s s
o t h e r w i s e
ordere d
b y
th e
court .
(2a , R20 )
NOTE S
negligenc e
(Lucero
vs. Dacayo,
L-23718, May
13,
1968),
obviously becaus e th e defense s o f th e defendan t ar e se t
out in hi s answer .
I f denie d wit h grav e abus e o f discretion
,
c e r t i o r a r i i s t h e r e m e d y a s suc h o r d e r o f
defaul t i s
interlocutory .
Th e remed y o f th e plaintif f wh o i s n
on suited , o n th e othe r hand , i s t o appea l from th e orde r o f
dismissal , th e sam e bein g a fina l order .
I f ha s als
o bee n
hel d
t h a t s a i d m o t i o n o f t h e p l a i n t i f f n e e
d no t b e
a c c o m p a n i e d b y affidavit s
o f m e r i t s sinc e
t
h e suf ficiency o f th e caus e o f actio n ca n b e determine d from
th e allegation s
e t al.,
L-46182,
Feb.
4 .
in
28,
th e
complain t
(Gapoy
vs.
Adil,
1978).
PRE-TRIAL
. 6 . Pre-trial brief.
t an d serv e o n th e
a s shal l insur e thei r
day s befor e th e dat e
t i v e p r e - t r i a l b
SEC
others :
(a)
A s t a t e m e n t o f t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s t
t e r
a m i c a b l e
s e t t l e m e n t o r alternativ e m o d e s
o e n
int o
o f
d i s p
t e r
thereof
u t e r e s o l u t i o n , i n d i c a t i n g
m s
;
(b)
A s u m m a r y o f admitte d
stipulatio n o f facts ;
(c)
fact s an d
t h e d e s i r e d
propose d
Th e i s s u e s t o b e trie d o r resolved ;
(d)
Th e d o c u m e n t s o r exhibit s t o b e presented ,
statin g t h e p u r p o s e thereof ;
(e)
A m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f thei r h a v i n g availe d
o r
t h e i r i n t e n t i o n t o a v a i l t h e m s e l v e s o f d i s c
o v e r y
p r o c e d u r e s o r referra l t o commissioners ; an d
(f)
e s s e s ,
an d th e
Th e
n u m b e r
s u b s t a n c e
an d
n a m e s
o f th e
w i t n
Sec . 7 .
Record of pre-trial. Th e proceeding s in
pre-tria l shal l b e recorded . Upo n th e termina 317
RULE 18
SEC. 7
t i o n thereof , t h e c o u r t shal l i s s u e a n o r d e r
w h i c h
shal l r e c i t e i n d e t a i l t h e m a t t e r s t a k e n
u p i n t h e
c o n f e r e n c e , t h e a c t i o n t a k e n t h e r e o n , t h
e a m e n d m e n t s a l l o w e d t o t h e p l e a d i n g s , a n d t h e a g r
e e m e n t s
o r a d m i s s i o n s m a d e b y t h e p a r t i e s a s t o a n y
o f th e
m a t t e r s c o n s i d e r e d . S h o u l d th e a c t i o n p r o
c e e d t o
trial , t h e o r d e r shal l e x p l i c i t l y d e f i n e a n d li
mi t th e
i s s u e s t o b e tried .
Th e c o n t e n t s o f t h e o r d
e r shal l
c o n t r o l t h e s u b s e q u e n t c o u r s e o f t h e a c t i o
n , u n l e s s
m o d i f i e d befor e tria l t o p r e v e n t m a n i f e s t injusti
ce .
(5a, R20 )
NOTE S
1. T h i s p r o v i s i o n o n t h e p r o c e d u r e i n
p r e - t r i a l
proceeding s i n civi l case s i s differen t from t h a t obtainin g
in crimina l case s wherein , a s provide d in Sec . 2 o f Rul e
118, a n agreemen t o r admissio n o f a part y i n th e pre-tria l
conferenc e shal l b e admissibl e agains t hi m only i f reduce d
t o writin g an d signe d b y hi m an d hi s counsel .
However ,
th e bindin g effect o f th e pre-tria l orde r issue d unde r thi s
section i s substantiall y th e sam e a s a pre-tria l orde r i n
crimina l cases , a s provide d in Sec . 4 o f sai d Rule .
2 . Th e a m e n d m e n t o f a pre-tria l orde r i s addresse
d
t o t h e soun d
discretio n
o f t h e cour t
(Gotico
vs.
Leyte
Chinese
Chamber
of Commerce,
L-39379,
April
3
0,
1985).
3 .
no t
m e a n t t o
b e
deta
PRE-TRIAL
t a k e n u p durin g th e trial .
Issue
l y
included therei n b y necessar y implication
integra l p a r t s o f th e pre-tria l orde
ar e
expressly
stipulate d
(Velasco,
et
al.,
L-44588,
May
9,
1989).
SE
s
t h a t
ar e
implied
ar e a s muc h
a s thos e t h a t
al.
vs. Apostol,
et
5 .
I n A.M . No . 03-1-09-SC , th e Suprem e Cour t
issued a Rul e on Guideline s t o b e Observe d by Tria l Cour t
Judge s an d Clerk s o f Cour t in th e Conduc t o f Pre-tria l
an d
Us e o f Deposition-Discover y Measures ,
effect
iv e
Augus t 16 , 2004 .
319
----------------------- Page 320----------------------RULE
1 9
INTERVENTIO N
S e c t i o n 1
w h o
h a s a lega l i n t
i n
th e s u c c e s s o
n t e r e s t
a g a i n s t both ,
a d v e r s e l y
affecte d
b y a
s i t i o n o f
propert y i n t h e c
Who
may
intervene.
p e r s o n
e r e s t i n th e matte r i n litigation , o r
f e i t h e r
o r
i s
o f th e
s o
parties ,
s i t u a t e d
d i s t r i b u t i o n
o r
o r
a s
o t h e r
t o
a n
b e
d i s p o
u s t o d y o f t h e cour t o r o f a n office r
t h e r e o f m a y ,
w i t h
l e a v e o f c o u r t , b e a l l o
w e d t o
i n t e r v e n e i n t h e action .
Th e cour t shal l c o n s
i d e r
w h e t h e r o r no t th e i n t e r v e n t i o n wil l u n d u l y
dela y
o r
p r e j u d i c e t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n
o f t h e r i
g h t s o f
th e origina l parties , an d w h e t h e r o r no t t h e inter vener' s right s m a y b e full y p r o t e c t e d i n a s e p a r a t
e
p r o c e e d i n g . (2[2] , [b]a , R12 )
NOTE S
1.
right .
320
----------------------- Page 321----------------------RULE 19
SEC. 1
(Rule
3 . Interventio n i s
62) as follows :
INTERVENTION
distinguishe d
from
interpleade r
whil e
inter -
b . I n t e r v e n t i o n i s p r o p e r i n a n y o f t h
e fou r
situation s mentione d i n thi s Rule , whil e interpleade r
presuppose s t h a t th e plaintif f ha s
n o interes t i n
th e
subject-matter o f th e actio n o r ha s a n interes t therei n
which , in whol e or in part , i s not dispute d by th e othe r
partie s t o th e action ; an d
c.
In a complain t in intervention , th e defendant s
ar e alread y origina l partie s t o th e pendin g suit , whil e i n
interpleader th e defendant s ar e bein g sue d precisely t o
implead them .
4 . A n
i n t e r e s t i n
u p o n
a c o m p l a i n t - i n - i n t e r
o f th e
principa l actio n wherei n suc h
Th e
confusio n herei n seem s
th e
g q u e s t i o n i s t h e effec t
v e n t i o n
interventio n
t o hav e
b y
wa s
th e dismissa l
sought .
arise n from
decision s
o f th e Suprem e
Cour t
in Barangay
Mat
ictic,
etc. vs. Elbinias, etc., et al. (L-48769 , Feb . 27 ,
1987)
an d
Metropolitan
Bank
and
Trust
Co.
vs.
Presiding
Judge,
etc., e t al. (G.R . No . 89909 , Sept . 21 , 1990) .
Whil
e in
Matictic it wa s hel d tha t th e dismissa l o f th e mai n cas e
barre d furthe r action on th e intervention ,
in Metrop
olitan
th e complaint-in-interventio n
survive d
an d
wa s
allowed t o procee d despit e th e dismissa l o f th e mai n
action .
Th e tw o case s actually res t on different fact s an d
th e seemingl y opposin g decision s
t h e r e i n ar e
easil y
reconcilable .
In Matictic, th e mai n action , an expropriatio n case ,
wa s file d b y th e Municipalit y o f Norzagara y agains t
privat e respondent s wh o wer e chargin g an d collectin g toll
fees on feeder road s in Baranga y Matictic .
Later ,
th e
municipa l mayo r evince d hi s desir e t o withdra w th e
expropriation case , whereupo n petitione r baranga y filed
a motion for intervention , contendin g tha t th e resul t o f
32 1
----------------------- Page 322----------------------RULE 19
SEC. 1
t r i a l c o u r t d i s m i s s e
prejudice , o n th e singula r
wa s file d withou t th e
requ
O n certiorari , th e Suprem e
itself.
In Metropolitan,
petitione r
brough t
a replevi n
sui t
for recover y o f a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g u n i t s , i n s t a l
l e d i n a
buildin g acquire d b y privat e respondents , whic h wer e
obtaine d from Rayco r Ai r Contro l System , Inc . o n a n
arrangemen t finance d b y loan s obtaine d from petitioner .
Said airconditionin g corporatio n wa s allowed by the trial
court
to
intervene
and ,
afte r it s complaint-in-interventi
on
was admitted an d th e answer s theret o wer e filed , th e cas e
wa s se t for trial .
Prio r thereto , petitione r ban k an d th e
buildin g owner s entere d int o a compromis e agreemen t
and , o n thei r join t motion , th e complain t wa s dismisse d
wit h prejudice .
However , on motio n o f intervenor , sai d
order wa s reconsidere d an d se t aside .
Thereafter , th e t
ria l
cour t allowe d th e filin g o f a n a m e n d e d complaint-in intervention an d petitione r wen t t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s
on certiorar i t o challeng e th e correspondin g order s o f th e
lower cour t which ,
however ,
w e r e s u s t a i n e d
b y t h e
Court o f Appeals .
Th e Suprem e Court , o n appeal , rejecte d petitioner' s
c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t allowin g
t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n
s u i t t o
322
----------------------- Page 323----------------------RULE 19
SEC. 1
INTERVENTION
t o waiv e o r
intervenor .
plaintif f
th e prejudic e
e o f i n t e r v e n t i o n
whic h
i s t o
d e t e r m i
5.
While , a s a rule , interventio n i s optiona l (Cruzcosa,
et al.
vs.
Concepcion,
et al.,
101
Phil.
146)
and whethe r th e failur e t o interven e may b e deeme d a s
323
----------------------- Page 324----------------------RULE 19
SEC. 1
waiver or
et al.,
r e t h e
i n t e r v
e n d i n g
case an d
vs. CA,
t h a t w h e
e n e r ' s r i g h t s a r e i n t e r w o v e n i n t h e p
h e
ha d du e
notic e o f th e proceedings ,
th e
h e wil l
dec
Dec.
24,
1968; Macias,
et al. vs.
Cruz,
et al., L28947,
Jan.
17,
1973,
jointl y
decidin g
t h e r e i n L 29235
an d
L-30935).
On th e othe r hand , an imprope r grantin g o f a
motion for interventio n ma y b e controlle d by certiorar i an d
prohibition .
Whe n th e right s o f th e p a r t y seekin g
t o
interven e wil l no t b e prejudice d b y th e judgmen t i n th e
m a i n cas e a n d ca n b e fully p r o t e c t e d i n a s e
p a r a t e
proceeding , th e cour t ma y den y th e interventio n sough t
(Pflieder
vs.
De Britanica,
L-19077,
Oct.
20,
1964).
7 . Fo r a n enumeratio n o f case s wherei n interventio n
wa s
hel d
t o b e proper ,
se e Batama Farmer's
Cooper
ative
Marketing Association,
et al. vs.
Rosal,
et al. (L-30
526 ,
Nov . 29 , 1971) .
8 . T o w a r r a n t intervention ,
given a s t o whethe r o r no t th e
o f th e origina l partie s ma y b e
e thos e o f th e interveno r ma y
proceeding .
Bot h requirement
INTERVENTION
T h e
m o t i o n
t o
interven e ma y b e file d a t an y tim e befor e renditio n
o f j u d g m e n t
b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . A c o p y
o
f t h e
p l e a d i n g - i n - i n t e r v e n t i o n shal l b e
t o th e
motio n an d serve d o n th e origina l parties , (n )
a t t a c h e d
NOTE S
1.
Th e forme r rul e a s t o whe n interventio n ma y
b e allowe d wa s expresse d in Sec . 2 , Rul e 12 a s "before
or durin g a trial, " an d thi s ambiguit y als o gav e ris e
t o indecisiv e doctrines .
Thus , inceptivel y i t wa s hel
d
tha t a motion for leav e t o interven e may b e filed "before
or durin g a trial " eve n o n th e da y whe n th e cas e
i s
bein g submitte d
for decision (Bool,
et al. vs. Mend
oza,
et al, 92 Phil. 892), a s lon g a s it will not undul y delay
th e disposition o f th e case . Th e ter m "trial " wa s use d in it s
restricte d sense , i.e. , th e perio d for th e introductio n o f
evidenc e
b y bot h p a r t i e s . Hence ,
i f t h e motio n
for
intervention wa s filed after th e cas e ha d alread y bee n
submitte d for decision ,
th e denia l thereo f wa s prope
r
(Vigan
Electric
Light
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Arciaga,
L29207
an d
L-29222,
July
31,
1974).
However ,
it wa s
late r
hel d
t h a t i n t e r v e n t i o n ma y b e allowe d a t an y
tim e
before th e renditio n of final judgmen t (Lichauco vs.
CA,
et al, L-23842, Mar.
13, 1975).
Further , in th e exc
ep tiona l cas e of Director of Lands vs.
CA, et al. (L-451
63 ,
Sept. 25 , 1979) , th e Suprem e Cour t permitte d interven tion in a cas e pendin g befor e it on appea l in order t o avoi d
325
----------------------- Page 326----------------------RULE 19
ECS. 3 4
libera l
interpretatio n
o f th e
perio d
for
Also ,
sinc e
n o j u d g m e n t h a s ye t bee n
e d , th e
m a t t e r subjec t o f th e interventio n ma y stil l
readil y
resolve d an d integrate d i n th e judgmen t disposin g o f
claim s i n th e case ,
an d woul d no t requir e
al l
reassessmen t o f sai d claim s a s woul d b e th e cas e
judgmen t ha d alread y bee n rendere d
Looyuko,
et al. vs. CA, et al,
G.R. No.
01).
(se e
102696,
trial .
r e n d e r
b e
al l
a n over
i f th e
als o
July
12,
20
Sec .
3 .
Pleadings-in-intervention.
T h e
i n
t e r v e n o r s h a l l fil e
a c o m p l a i n t - i n - i n t e r v e n t i o
n i f h e
a s s e r t s a c l a i m a g a i n s t e i t h e r o r al l o f t h e
origina l
p a r t i e s , o r a n a n s w e r - i n - i n t e r v e n t i o n i f
h e u n i t e s
w i t h th e d e f e n d i n g part y i n r e s i s t i n g a c l a i m a
g a i n s t
t h e latter .
(2 [c]a, R12 )
Sec .
4 .
Answer
to
complaint-in-intervention.
T h e
a n s w e r
t o
t h e c o m p l a i n t - i n - i n t e r v e
n t i o n
shal l b e file d w i t h i n fiftee n (15 ) d a y s fro m noti
c e
o f t h e orde r a d m i t t i n g t h e s a m e , u n l e s s a diff
eren t
perio d i s fixe d b y t h e court .
(2 [d]a, R12 )
NOTE S
h e
1.
Wher e th e interveno r unite s wit h th e defendant ,
intervene s b y filin g a n answer-in-intervention .
I f
326
INTERVENTION
SECS. 3-4
h e unite s wit h th e plaintiff , h e may file a complaint-in intervention agains t th e defendant . I f h e doe s no t ally
himsel f w i t h e i t h e r p a r t y h e ma y fil e a complaint in-intervention agains t both .
2 . Sec . 4 o f thi s Rule , a s amended , now require s an
answer t o th e complaint-in-interventio n withi n 1 5 day s
s a
th e
d
e t al.
1 .
2 0
O F
CASE S
Calendar
t h e
of
d i r e c t
c a l e n d a r
s w e r e
cases.
T h e
s u p e r v i s i o n
o f c a s e s
a d j o u r n e d
fo r
o r
c l e
o f t h
pre-trial ,
p o s t p o n e d
o t i o n s t o se t fo r hearing .
P r e f
o f case s for
cler k o f
leas t fou r s
S e c .
n m e n t
o f c a s e s
shal l
b e d o n e
T h e
2 .
t o
Assignment
t h e
of
differen t
e x c l u s i v e l y b y
cases.
trial , thos e
an d thos e
so-calle d prefere
Thi s
p r e s i d i n g
a s s i g
b r a n c h e s
o f a
c o u r t
raffle .
T h e
a s s i g
n m e n t
shal l b e
d o n e i n o p e n s e s s i o n o f w h i c h a d
e q u a t e
n o t i c e s h a l l b e g i v e n s o a s t o affor d
i n t e
r e s t e d
p a r t i e s o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e p r e s e n t . (7a , R22 )
NOT E
1. Th e assignmen t o f case s i s require d t o b e don e
exclusively b y raffle , an d thi s set s asid e th e contrar y
r u l i n g
Reyes
in
Commissioner
of
Immigration
vs.
328
----------------------- Page 329----------------------RULE 20
CALENDAR OF CASES
SEC. 2
th e
e
in
d
329
----------------------- Page 330----------------------RULE
2 1
S U B P O E N A
S e c t i o n 1.
Subpoena
ecum.
S u b p o e n a
i s a
p r o
p e r s o n
r e q u i r i n g
h i m
t o a
a t t h e
h e a r i n g o r th e tria l o f
gatio n c o n d u c t e d b y c o m
t a k i n g o f hi
h i m
t o
b r i n g w
s ,
o r
othe r t h i n g s
i s
calle d
a s u
and
c e s s
subpoena
d i r e c t e d
t t e n d
a n d
h i m
t o
a n y
I t m a y
t e s t i f y
duces
tecum,
als o
b o o k s ,
u n d e r hi s control , i n
b p o e n a
t o
d e p o s i t i o n .
i t h
duces
requir e
d o c u m e n t
w h i c h c a s e
i t
( l a , R23 )
NOT E
1.
Th e subpoen a referre d t o i n th e firs t sentenc
e
of thi s sectio n i s distinctivel y calle d a s u b p o e n a a
d
testificandum.
Thi s
i s th e
technica l
an d
desc
riptiv e
ter m
for
th e
ordinar y
obelbank,
124 N.J.
Law 360,
12 A.
Sec .
2 .
By
a m a y
b e i s s u e d by :
whom
subpoen a
2d
vs.
Br
128).
issued.
a ) T h e
c o u r t
n e s s
i s
r e q u i r e d t o attend ;
(Catty
Th e
b e f o r e
w h o m
s u b p o e n
t h e
w i t
b ) Th e c o u r t o f th e plac e w h e r e t h e d e p o s i t
i o n
i s t o b e taken ;
c)
Th e office r o r bod y a u t h o r i z e d b y la w t o
d o
s o i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h i n v e s t i g a t i o n s c o n d u
c t e d b y
sai d office r o r body ; o r
d ) A n y
J u s t i c e o f t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t
o r o f
th e Cour t o f A p p e a l s i n an y c a s e o r i n v e s t i
g a t i o n
p e n d i n g w i t h i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s .
330
----------------------- Page 331----------------------RULE 21
SEC. 3
SUBPOENA
s o n e r
e
s e n t e n c e d
i m p r i s o n m e n t
i n s t i t u t i o n
e n a l
i n
.
t o
an d
shal l
w h o
b e
i n s t i t u t i o n fo r
an y
cour t
u n l e s s
d e a t h ,
i s
brough t
co
o u
a p p e a r a n
authorize d
b y
(2a , R23 )
NOTE S
1. T h e
e n u m e r a t i o n
o f t h e p e r s o n s
o
a r e
authorize d t o issu e subpoena s ha s bee n expande d b y th e
inclusion o f th e officer or body authorize d by la w in
connection wit h investigation s conducte d by them .
Also ,
wh
s t
tw o
p a r a g r a p h s o f t h i s sectio
Sec . 3 . Form
shal l
s t a t e t h e n a m e
o f t h e
a c t i o n o r i n v e
e d t o t h e
p e r s o n w h o s e a
t h e
c a s e
o f a
s u b
l a l s o
c o n t a i n a r e a s
b o o k s ,
d o c u m e n t s o r t h
r
t o th e cour t prima
and
contents.
o f t h e
c o u r t
s u b p o e n a
a n d
t h e
s t i g a t i o n , s h a l l
t t e n d a n c e
i s
b e
titl e
d i r e c t
required ,
an d
tecum,
i t s h a l
p o e n a
duces
o n a b l e
d e s c r i p t i o n
i n
o f t h e
i n g s d e m a n d e d w h i c h m u s t appea
facie
relevant .
(3a ,
R23)
33 1
----------------------- Page 332----------------------RULE 21
ECS. 4, 5
Sec . 4 .
m a y
q u a s h
a
m o t i o n
promptl y m a d e
t i m e s p e c i
l e
a n d
o p p r e s s i v e
b o o k s ,
d o c u m e n t s
r i f t h e
p e r s o n
i n
i s s u e d
f a i l s t o
a
o f t h e
p r o d u c t i o n
subpoena.
T h e
c o u r
s u b p o e n a
duces
tecum
u p o n
and , i n an y e v e n t , a t o r befor e th e
f i e d t h e r e i n i f i t i s u n r e a s o n a b
,
o r
o r
t h e
t h i n g s
r e l e v a n c y
w h o s e
d v a n c e
d o e s
n o t
b e h a l f t h e
t h e
o f
t h e
a p p e a r ,
s u b p o e n a
r e a s o n a b l e
i s
c o s t
thereof .
Th e
cour t m a y q u a s h
testificandum o n th e
g r o u n d t h a t
boun d
a
th e
s u b p o e n a
w i t n e s s
a d
i s no t
t h e r e b y .
I n e i t h e r c a s e ,
m a y
b e
q u a s h e d o n th e g r o u n d t h a t
e s an d
k i l o m e t r a g e
a l l o w e d
b y
t
r e
n o t
t e n d e r e d w h e n th e s u b p o e n a w a
a , R23 )
t h e s u b p o e n a
t h e
w i t n e s s
h e s e
R u l e s
fe
w e
s served .
(4
NOT E
1.
A subpoen a duces tecum ma y
proo f tha t (a) i t i s unreasonabl e an d
article s sough t t o b e produce d d o no t
t o b e relevan t t o th e issues , an d
g
for t h e s u b p o e n a
doe s
no t a
for t h e
productio n o f th e article s desired .
b e quashe d upo n
oppressive , (b) th e
appea r prima facie
(c) th e perso n askin
d v a n c e
t h e
cos t
v
i
s
t
S e c .
6 .
Subpoena
for
depositions.
P r o
o f
i c e o f a n o t i c e t o tak e a d e p o s i t i o n , a s p
d e d
e c t i o n s 1 5 an d 2 5 o f Rul e 23 , s h a l l c o n
u t e
332
SUBPOENA
s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i z a t i o n
fo r
a n c e
o f
s u b p o e n a s
fo r t h e p e r s o n s
n a m
n o t i c e
b y th e cler k o f th e cour t o f th e plac e
e
d e p o s i t i o n
i s t o b e t a k e n .
T h
a l l not ,
h o w e v e r , i s s u e a s u b p o e n a duces
s u c h
perso n w i t h o u t a n orde r o f th e court .
t h e
e d
i s s u
i n
sai d
i n w h i c h th
e
c l e r k
tecum
t o
s h
an y
(5a ,
R23 )
S e c .
6 .
Service.
S e r v i c e
o f a
s u b
p o e n a
shal l b e m a d e i n t h e sam e m a n n e r a s persona l o
r
s u b s t i t u t e d
s e r v i c e o f s u m m o n s .
T h e
o r i g i n a l
s h a l l b e
e x h i b i t e d a n d
a c o p y t h e r e o f d e
l i v e r e d
t o t h e p e r s o n o n w h o m i t i s s e r v e d , t e n d
e r i n g t o
h i m
t h e
f e e s fo r
o n e
d a y ' s a t t e n d a n c e
a n d
t h e
k i l o m e t r a g e a l l o w e d
b y t h e s e Rules , e x c e p t
that ,
w h e n
a
s u b p o e n a
i s i s s u e d
b y
o r o n
b
e h a l f o f
th e
R e p u b l i c o f t h e
P h i l i p p i n e s o r a n
off
ice r o r
a g e n c y thereof , th e t e n d e r n e e d no t b e made .
Th e
s e r v i c e m u s t b e m a d e s o a s t o allo w th e w i
t n e s s
a r e a s o n a b l e
t i m e fo r p r e p a r a t i o n
an d
t
r a v e l t o
th e plac e o f a t t e n d a n c e .
I f th e s u b p o e n a
i s duces
tecum, th e r e a s o n a b l e cos t o f p r o d u c i n g th e
books ,
d o c u m e n t s
o r
t h i n g s
d e m a n d e d
s h a l l
a l s o
b e
t e n d e r e d . (6a , R23 )
Sec .
7.
Personal appearance in court.
e s e n t
i n c o u r t
b e f o r e
a j u d i c
r m a y
require d t o testif y a s i f h e wer e i n
e
o n
a
s u b p o e n a
i s s u e d
b y
u r t
o r
officer .
(10 , R23 )
A perso n
i a l o f f i
Sec .
8
a s e
o f
failur e o f a
e
i s s u i n g t
s e r v i c e
t h e r e o f a
s , m a y
i s s u e a
w
o v i n c e ,
o r h i s d e
b r i n g
hi m befor e th
p
c
b
n
u
r
e
e
c
p
Compelling
w i t n e s s
attendance.
t o
attend ,
h e s u b p o e n a ,
n d
o f
t h e
a r r a n t
p u t y ,
u p o n
t h e
t h e
o r judg
t h e
w i t n e s
o f t h e p r
w i t n e s s
c o
I n
cour t
s h e r i f f
a r r e s t
s u c h
proo f o f th e
f a i l u r e o f
t o
t o
th e
a t t e n d a
a n d
RULE 21
ECS. 9, 10
i s r e q u i r e d ,
n t
a n d
s e i z u r e o f s
b y t h e
w i t n e s s i f t
e r m i n e
t h a t h i s f a i
a
w a s
willfu l an d w i t h
a n d
u c h
t h e
c o s t o f
w i t n e s s
h e c o u r t
l u r e
t o
s u c h
s h a l l
i s s u i n g
w a r r a
b e
p a i d
a n s w e r
i t s h a l l d e t
t h e
o u t jus t e x c u s e .
s u b p o e n
(11 , R23 )
Sec . 9 .
Contempt.
F a i l u r e
b y
a n y
p e r s o n
w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e c a u s e t o obe y a s u b p o e n a serve
d
u p o n h i m shal l b e d e e m e d a c o n t e m p t o f th e cour
t
fro m w h i c h th e s u b p o e n a i s issued .
I f th e s u
b p o e n a
w a s no t i s s u e d b y a court , th e d i s o b e d i e n c e t h e
r e t o
shal l b e p u n i s h e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e applica
bl e
la w o r Rule .
(12a , R23 )
NOT E
1.
Se e
S e c . 3 , e t seq., Rul e
7 1 o n i n d
i r e c t o r
c o n s t r u c t i v e c o n t e m p t .
While ,
u n d e r t h a t
section ,
indirect contemp t i s t o b e punishe d only afte r writte n
charg e an d hearing , i t i s als o provide d t h a t "nothin g
in thi s
sectio n shal l b e
s o construe d
t o brin g
holdin g
Sec . 10 .
Exceptions. Th e
o n s
8 an d 9 o f t h i s Rul e shal l no t
o
r e s i d e s m o r e t h a n o n e
o m e t e r s
f r o m h i s
r e s i d e n c e
t o
h e i s t o
t e s t i f y b y t h e o r d i n a r y
o r t o a
d e t e n t i o n p r i s o n e r i f n o
our t i n
w h i c h h i s c a s e i s p e n d i n g
, R23 )
a s
th e
hi m
t o preven t th e
accuse d part y
i n custod y
p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i
appl y t o a w i t n e s s w h
h u n d r e d
(100 )
t h e p l a c e
c o u r s e
k i l
w h e r e
o f t r a v e l ,
p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e
NOTE S
w a s obtained .
c
(9a
1.
upo n a
SUBPOENA
SEC.
O F
2 2
TIM E
fall s o n a S a t u r d a y , a S u n d a y , o r a lega l h
o l i d a y
i n t h e p l a c e w h e r e t h e c o u r t s i t s , t h e t i
m e shal l
no t ru n unti l t h e n e x t w o r k i n g day .
(n )
NOTE S
1.
h u n d r e d
sixty-fiv e
day s
each ;
months ,
o f
thirt y days ; days , o f twenty-fou r hours ;
from sunse t t o sunrise .
an d
night s
In computin g a period ,
th e
b e
excluded , an d th e las t da y included. "
2 .
firs t
da y
COMPUTATION OF TIME
explaine d
hereafte r
i n
Rul e
39 ,
th e
perio d
Labad
e t al.
vs.
(G.R .
The
No .
University
139665 ,
of Southwestern
Aug .
9 , 2001) ,
s
337
----------------------- Page 338----------------------RULE 22
SEC. 1
perio
s
Accordin
A p p e a
28 ,
8 .
O n th e c o m p l e m e n t a r y decisiona l rul e i n
th e
computation o f period s a s applie d t o pleadings , se e th e
note s unde r Sec . 6 , Rul e 11 .
338
----------------------- Page 339----------------------RULE 22
EC. 2
COMPUTATION OF TIME
9.
Th e muc h late r cas e o f Commissioner of Internal
Revenue,
et
al.
vs.
Primetown
Property
Group,
Inc.
(G.R. No . 162155 , Aug . 28 , 2007) call s for a revisitin g o f
th e foregoin g comment s an d holding s o n th e computatio n
of period s o f tim e allowe d or prescribe d by th e Rules , a
court orde r o r a n applicabl e statute . I t shal l b e note d her e
tha t th e perio d o f tim e in disput e involve s Sec . 22 9 o f th e
Nationa l Interna l Revenu e Cod e which provide s for th e
two-year prescriptiv e perio d for filing a judicia l clai m for
ta x refun d or credi t reckone d from th e paymen t o f sai d
ta x o r penalty .
Ther e wa s n o questio n tha t th e taxpayer' s
righ t t o clai m a refun d or credi t aros e on Apri l 14, 199 8
Th e controverte d
t t o
s claime d b
73 1
beyon d
th e
3 1 .
Legal
Periods.
"Year "
s h a l
l b e
understoo d t o b e twelv e calenda r months ; "month " o f
thirt y day s unles s it refer s t o a specific mont h in which
case it shal l b e compute d accordin g t o th e numbe r o f
day s th e specific mont h contains ; "day " t o a day o f
twenty-four hours ; an d "night " from sunris e t o sunset .
339
----------------------- Page 340----------------------RULE 22
1
It
t h a t
calenda r
SEC.
m o n t h
i s
" a mont h
1 ,
, bu
nex t
day s
t da
n t h
1 ,
t
in
y o f
from
200 8
u a r y 31 ,
29 ,
declare d tha t th
th e mor e recen
periods .
Sinc e
facts o f thi s
COMPUTATION OF TIME
civi l
s u i t s , t h e s t a t u t e i s i n t e r p o s e
d b y t h e
legislatur e a s a n impartia l arbiter .
n o f
th e pena l statute , ther e i s n o intendmen
favor o f eithe r party .
I n crimina l
th e
g r a n t o r s u r r e n d e r i n g b y a n
righ t t o
prosecut e an d declarin g a n offens e t o
I n th e constructio
t t o b e mad e i n
cases , th e Stat e i s
ac t
b e
o f grac e
n o
th e
longe r th e
questio n
o f th e
applicabilit y
o f thi s
Rul e
i n
generically referre d to ,
relevan t critiqu e base d
bibliography .
Sec .
ac t
b e d
n i n g
o f t
s u c
i n t e
afte r
notic e
o n e
2 .
Effect
w h i c h
interruption.
effectivel y
S h o u l d
i n t e r r u p t s
t h e
a n
r u n
h e p e r i o d , t h e a l l o w a b l e p e r i o d a f t e r
h
r r u p t i o n s h a l l s t a r t t o r u n o n t h e d a y
o f t h e
c e s s a t i o n
o f t h e
c a u s e
thereof .
Th e d a y o f t h e ac t t h a t c a u s e d t h e i n t e r r u
p t i o n
shal l b e e x c l u d e d i n t h e c o m p u t a t i o n o f t h e peri
od ,
(n)
NOT E
1.
interrupt s th e runnin g o f
d i n th e precedin g section .
t o woul d
includ e
force
.
Th e question , o f cours
th e even t occurre d an d wa s
affecte d woul d kno w o r b e
o f suc h interruption .
ca n b e given b y th e cour t t o
2 3
P E N D I N G
ACTIO N
S e c t i o n
1 .
Depositions
pending
action
,
when
may b e taken. By l e a v e o f cour t afte r j u r i s d i c t i
o n
h a s
b e e n
o b t a i n e d
o v e r
a n y
d e f e n d a n t
o r o v e r
p r o p e r t y
w h i c h
i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e
a c
t i o n , o r
w i t h o u t s u c h l e a v e afte r a n a n s w e r ha s b e e n serv
ed ,
th e t e s t i m o n y o f a n y p e r s o n , w h e t h e r a part y o r
not ,
m a y
b e t a k e n ,
a t t h e i n s t a n c e
o f a n y p
a r t y , b y
d e p o s i t i o n
u p o n
o r a l
e x a m i n a t i o n
o r
w r i t t e n
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . T h e a t t e n d a n c e o f w i t n e s s
e s m a y
b e c o m p e l l e d b y t h e u s e o f a s u b p o e n a a s p r o v
i d e d
i n R u l e 2 1 .
D e p o s i t i o n s
s h a l l b e t a k e n
o n l
a c c o
i o n
p e r s
n l y
leav e
y
i n
r d a n c e w i t h t h e s e Rules .
Th e d e p o s i t
o f a
o n c o n f i n e d
i n p r i s o n m a y b e t a k e n o
b y
o f c o u r t o n s u c h t e r m s a s t h e cour t prescribes ,
( l a , R24 )
NOTE S
1.
Deposition s
pendin g
actio n
(Rule
b . D e p o s i t i o n s befor e
g a p p e a l
(Rule
24);
c.
Interrogatorie s to partie s
d .
Admissio n by advers e
23);
actio n
(Rule
part y
o r
p e n d i n
25);
(Rule 26);
e .
343
----------------------- Page 344----------------------RULE 23
SEC. 1
esse
a n d
d e p o s i t
et al.,
L-27263,
Mar.
17,
1975).
Sept. 23,
1986).
Thi s impass e
l y
remedie d b y th e revise d Rules .
i s
sough t t o b e
6 .
I t i s th e dut y o f eac h contendin g
lay
befor e
t h e cour t al l t h e
m a t e r i a l an d
n t fact s
know n t o him , suppressin g o r concealin g nothing ,
p r e v e n t i n g
a n o t h e r p a r t y , b y
c l e v
a d r o i t
manipulatio n o f th e technica l rule s o f evidence ,
also presentin g al l th e fact s withi n hi s knowledge .
partial
part y
t o
r e l e v a
no r
e r a n d
from
pleadings .
A bil l o f particular s
ma y b e ordere d by
th e
h pre-tria l
s h o r t e n t h e perio
j u d i c a t i o n (Republ
90478,
Nov.
21,
Examination
and
cross-examination.
E x a m i n a t i o n
a n d
c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o f d e
p o n e n t s
may pr o c ee d a s permitte d a t th e tria l u n d e r s e c t i o n
s
3 t o 1 8 o f Rul e 132 .
(3a , R24 )
NOT E
1.
Th e
does no t hav e
questions .
in th e depositio
Sec .
4 .
t h e
h e a r i n g
o f a m o t i o n
o r
a n
i n t e r l
o c u t o r y
p r o c e e d i n g , a n y par t o r al l o f a d e p o s i t i o n
, s o fa r
a s a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r th e r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e
, m a y b e
u s e d
a g a i n s t
a n y
p a r t y
w h o
w a s
p r e
s e n t
o r
r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e t a k i n g o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n
o r w h o
ha d d u e n o t i c e thereof , i n a c c o r d a n c e wit h an y o n
e
o f t h e f o l l o w i n g provisions :
(a)
An y d e p o s i t i o n m a y b e use d b y a n y
part y
for th e p u r p o s e o f c o n t r a d i c t i n g o r i m p e a c h i
n g t h e
t e s t i m o n y o f d e p o n e n t a s a w i t n e s s ;
(b)
T h e d e p o s i t i o n o f a part y o r o f an
w h o
a t th e t i m e o f t a k i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n w a
ficer ,
director , o r m a n a g i n g a g e n t o f a publi c o r
c o r p o r a t i o n , p a r t n e r s h i p , o r a s s o c i
w h i c h i s
a part y m a y b e u s e d b y a n a d v e r s e part
an y
purpose ;
y o n e
s a n of
privat e
a t i o n
y
fo r
(c)
Th e d e p o s i t i o n o f a w i t n e s s , w h e t h e r
o r no t
a party , m a y b e u s e d b y an y part y fo r an y p u r p o s e
i f th e cour t finds : (1) tha t th e w i t n e s s i s dead ;
o r
(2) tha t th e w i t n e s s r e s i d e s a t a distanc e mor e t h a
n
on e h u n d r e d (100 ) k i l o m e t e r s fro m th e plac e o f tria
l
o r h e a r i n g , o r i s o u t o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s ,
u n l e s s i t
appear s t h a t hi s a b s e n c e w a s procure d b y t h e part y
o f f e r i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n ; o r (3 ) t h a t t h e
w i t n e s s ,
347
i s u n a b l e
t o a t t e n d
o r t e s t i f y b e c a u s e
o f a g e ,
s i c k n e s s , infirmity , o r imprisonment ; o r (4) tha t th e
part y offerin g t h e
d e p o s i t i o n h a s b e e n
u
n a b l e t o
procur e t h e a t t e n d a n c e o f th e w i t n e s s b y s u bp o e
na ;
o r (5 )
u p o n
a p p l i c a t i o n
a n d
n o t i c e , t h
a t s u c h
e x c e p t i o n a l
c i r c u m s t a n c e s
e x i s t a s t o
m a k e
i t
d e s i r a b l e , i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e a n
d w i t h du e
r e g a r d
t o t h e
i m p o r t a n c e
o f p r e s e n t i
n g
t h e
t e s t i m o n y
o f w i t n e s s e s o r a l l y i n o p e n
c
o u r t , t o
allo w t h e d e p o s i t i o n t o b e used ; an d
(d)
I f o n l y p a r t o f a d e p o s i t i o n i s of
fere d
i n
e v i d e n c e b y a party , t h e a d v e r s e part y m a y requir e
h i m
n t
par t
n y
o t h
t o i n t r o d u c e al l o f i t w h i c h i s r e l e v a
t o th e
i n t r o d u c e d , a n d a n y part y m a y i n t r o d u c e a
e r parts . (4a , R24 )
N O T E S
1.
Wher e th e wi tn e s s i s availabl e t o testif y
an d
th e situatio n i s no t on e o f thos e excepte d unde r Sec . 4 o f
thi s Rule , hi s depositio n theretofor e take n i s inadmissibl e
in evidenc e an d h e shoul d i n lie u thereo f b e
mad e t o
testify
(Vda.
de
Sy-Quia
vs.
CA,
et al.,
G.R.
o.
62283,
Nov.
25,
1983).
2 . A depositio n
ma y b e
use d for i m p e a c
h i n g o r
contradictin g an y witness , bu t i t ca n b e use d a s evidenc e
b y
a p a r t y ("for
a n y
p u r p o s e " ) u n d e r
t h e
specifi c
condition s se t ou t in Sec . 4 .
I f th e depositio n i s t
h a t o f a
part y or o f an employe e o f a corporatio n whic h i s a party ,
it ca n b e use d by th e advers e part y for impeachmen t o f
th e deponen t o r a s direc t evidenc e o f hi s case , whethe r
th e d e p o n e n t i s availabl e o r not ; bu t sai d deposit
io n
cannot b e use d by th e deponent-part y a s evidenc e o f hi s
t h e
forme r
Sec .
4(c)(2) ,
t h e d i
4 . Deposition s
a r e chiefl y
a mod e
o f discov
ery .
They ar e intende d a s a mean s t o compe l disclosur e o f fact s
restin g in th e knowledg e o f a part y or othe r person s whic h
ar e relevan t in a sui t or proceedin g in court .
Depositi
on s
and th e othe r mode s o f discovery ar e mean t t o enabl e a
part y t o lear n al l th e materia l an d relevan t facts , no t only
known t o hi m an d hi s witnesse s bu t als o thos e know n t o
th e advers e part y an d th e latter' s own witnesses .
Deposition s ar e no t generall y mean t t o b e a substitut e
for th e actua l testimon y in open cour t o f a part y or witness .
Th e d e p o n e n t must ,
a s a rule , b e p r e s e n t e d
for ora l
e x a m i n a t i o n i n ope n cour t a t th e trial . Indeed ,
an y
deposition offere d t o prov e th e fact s therei n a t th e tria l o
f
th e case , in lieu o f th e actua l testimon y o f th e deponen t in
court , ma y b e oppose d an d exclude d for bein g hearsay ,
except in thos e specifi c instance s authorize d by th e Rule s
u n d e r p a r t i c u l a r condition s
an d
for
c e r t a i n
limite d
purpose s
(Dasmarinas
Garments,
Inc.
vs. Reyes,
e
tc., et
al., G.R. No.
108229,
Aug. 24,
1993).
Sec .
5 .
Effect
of substitution
of
ti t u t i o n o f p a r t i e s d o e s no t affec t
u s e
parties.
th e
righ t
Subs
t o
d e p o s i t i
o n
ha s b e e n
o l v i n g
th e sam e
sam e partie s
o r s
i n interest ,
o n s p r e v i o u s l y taken ;
d i s m i s s e d
an d
and , w h e n a n acti
a n o t h e r
actio n
i n v
to
i o n
admissibility.
2 9
o f thi s
Subjec
Rule ,
obj
o r h e a r i n g t o r e c e i v i
i o n
o r
par t
r e q u i r e
t h e r e o f f
i t n e s s
t h e
w e r e
e x c l u
t h e n
p r e
Sec .
7.
Effect
of taking
depositions.
A
p a r t y
s h a l l n o t
b e d e e m e d
t o m a k e
a p e r s o n
h i s o w n
w i t n e s s fo r a n y p u r p o s e b y t a k i n g hi s d e p o
s i t i o n .
(7, R24 )
Sec .
intro d u c t i o n
o r
a n y
p a r t t h e
t h a t o f
c o n t r a d i
m a k e s
t h e d e p o
d u c i n g
t h e d e p o
h e us e
b y a n a d v
e d i n
p a r a g r a p
R24 )
Sec .
8 .
i n
Effect
of
e v i d e n c e
r e o f
c t i n g
fo r
a n y
o r
n e n t t h e
s i t i o n ,
using
o f
depositions.
t h e
w i t n e s s
bu t t h i s
o t h e r
t h e
o f t h e
shal l
T h e
d e p o s i t i o n
p u r p o s e
i m p e a c h i n g
t h a n
d e p o n e n t
part y
n o t appl y
i n t r o
t o
e r s e part y o f a d e p o s i t i o n a s d e s c r i b
h (b ) o f s e c t i o n 4 o f t h i s Rule .
9 .
Rebutting
deposition.
A t
(8 ,
t h e
r i a l o r
e a r i n g , a n y part y m a y r e b u t a n y r e l e v a n t e v i
e n c e
o n t a i n e d i n a d e p o s i t i o n w h e t h e r i n t r o d
c e d
b y
i m o r b y a n y o t h e r party .
(9 , R24 )
h
d
c
u
h
NOT E
1.
Th e introductio
wh o introduce s it , sinc e
hi s witness , excep t (a)
contradict th e witness , or
opposing party .
n o f th e depositio n
h e thereb y make s
i f it i s introduce
(b) i f it i s th e
bind s th e part y
th e deponen t
d t o impeac h or
depositio n o f an
350
----------------------- Page 351----------------------RULE 23
Sec .
10 .
Persons
before
whom
deposition
m
ay
be
taken
within
the
Philippines.
W i t h i n
t h e
P h
i l i p p i n e s , d e p o s i t i o n s
m a y
b e
t a k e n
b e f o r
e
a n y
judge , notar y public , o r th e p e r s o n referre d t o i n
s e c t i o n 1 4 hereof .
(10a , R24 )
Sec .
11 .
Persons
may
taken
in foreign countries.
or
n t r y , d e p o s i t i o n s
i c e
o r e
a
s e c r e t a r y
o n ,
s u l g e n e r a l , c o n s u
l a r
n t o f t h e R e p u b l i c o
before
whom
depositions
be
In
a
foreig n
stat
e
c o u
m a y b e t a k e n (a ) o n
n o t
b e f
o f e m b a s s y
o r
l e g
a t i
c o n
l , v i c e - c o n s u l , o r c o
n s u
a g e
f t h e Philippines ;
(b) b
efor e
s u c h p e r s o n
o r o f f i c e r a s m a y
b e a p p o i n t
e d
b y
c o m m i s s i o n o r u n d e r l e t t e r s rogatory ; o r (c )
t h e
p e r s o n referre d t o i n s e c t i o n 1 4 hereof .
(11a ,
R24 )
NOT E
1.
among th e
any perso n
stipulate d
Sec .
12 .
Commission
or
letters
rogatory.
A
c o m m i s s i o n o r letter s rogator y shal l b e i s s u e d onl y
w h e n n e c e s s a r y o r c o n v e n i e n t , o n applicatio n an
d
notice , an d o n s u c h t e r m s an d w i t h suc h directio n
a s a r e j u s t a n d
a p p r o p r i a t e .
O f f i c e r s m a
y
b e
d e s i g n a t e d i n n o t i c e s o r c o m m i s s i o n s
e i t
h e r b y
nam e o r d e s c r i p t i v e titl e an d letter s rogator y ma y
b e a d d r e s s e d t o t h e appropriat e judicia l authorit y
i n th e foreig n country . (12a , R24 )
NOTE S
1.
A commissio n i s addresse d t o an y authorit y in
a foreig n c o u n t r y
a u t h o r i z e d t h e r e i n t o t a k
e dow n
deposition s an d th e takin g o f suc h deposition i s subject t o
35 1
----------------------- Page 352----------------------RULE 23
13-14
SECS.
N o
d e p o s i t i o n shal l b e t a k e n befor e a p e r s o n w h o i
s
r
g
o
a
e l a t i v e w i t
u i n i t y
r affinity , o r
o f t h e
parties ; o r w h o
g r e e ,
o r e m p l o y e e
ciall y
i n t e r e s t e d i
h i n
t h e s i x t h d e g r e e
e m p l o y e e
o r
o f c o n s a n
c o u n s e l
o f a n y
i s a r e l a t i v e w i t h i n t h e s a m e d e
o f s u c h
c o u n s e l ,
o r w h o
i s
finan
n t h e a c t i o n . (13a , R24 )
Sec .
14 .
Stipulations
regarding
taking
of
depositions.
I f t h e p a r t i e s s o s t i p u l a t e i n w r
i t i n g ,
d e p o s i t i o n s m a y b e t a k e n befor e a n y p e r s o n a u t
h o 352
----------------------- Page 353----------------------RULE 23
S. 15-16
SEC
e d ,
i f
k n o w n , a n d i f
e n e r a l
descriptio n sufficien t
la r clas s o r g r o u
o t i o n
o f an y part y u p o
cour t ma y fo r c a u
t h e
n a m e
i s
no t
k n o w n ,
O n m
n w h o m th e notic e i s served , th e
s e s h o w n enlarg e o r s h o r t e n th e
Orders
for
the
n o t i c e
o r a l
protection
i s s e r v e d
e x a m i n a t i o n ,
of
part
fo r
t a k
u p o n
an y part y o r b y th e p e r s o n t o
d fo r goo d c a u s e s h o w n , th e
a c t i o n
i s
p e n d i n g
m a y
m a
o y a n c e ,
e m b a r r a s s m e n t , o r o p p r e s s i o n .
(16a , R24 )
Sec .
17 .
Record
of examination; oath; objections
.
t h e
ora l
e x a m i
o f t a k i n g
t e r r o g a t o r i e s
h e m
t o
t h e
(17 ,
R24 )
354
----------------------- Page 355----------------------RULE 23
SECS. 18-19
Sec .
18 .
Motion
to
xamination.
A t an y t i m e d u r i n g t h e
t i o n ,
o n
m o t i o n
o r
p e t i t i o n
r
o f t h e
d e p o n e n t a n d
u p o n a s h
a m i n a t i o n i s b e i n g c o n d u c t e d
i n
s u c h
m a n n e r a s u n r e a s o n a b l y
s s , o r
terminate
or
limit
t a k i n g o f th e d e p o s i
o f
a n y
o w i n g
i n
t o
p a r t y
t h a t
ba d
t h e
f a i t h
a n n o y ,
o
e x
o r
e m b a r r a
o p p r e s s th e d e p o n e n t o r party , t h e cour t i n w h i c
h
th e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g o r t h e Regiona l Tria l Cour
t
o f th e plac e w h e r e th e d e p o s i t i o n i s bein g t a k e n
ma y
o r d e r t h e
office r c o n d u c t i n g t h e
e x a m i n a
t i o n
t o
c e a s e forthwit h fro m t a k i n g th e d e p o s i t i o n , o r m a
y
limi t t h e
s c o p e a n d m a n n e r o f t h e
t a k i n
g o f t h e
d e p o s i t i o n , a s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 1 6 o f
t h i s Rule .
I f t h e o r d e r m a d e t e r m i n a t e s t h e e x a m i n a t
i o n , i t
shal l b e r e s u m e d thereafte r onl y u p o n th e orde r o f
th e cour t i n w h i c h t h e actio n i s p e n d i n g .
U p o n de m a n d
o f t h e
o b j e c t i n g
p a r t y
o r
d e p o n e
n t ,
t h e
t a k i n g o f th e d e p o s i t i o n shal l b e s u s p e n d e d fo
r th e
tim e n e c e s s a r y t o m a k e a notic e fo r a n order .
I n
g r a n t i n g o r r e f u s i n g
s u c h
o r d e r , t h e c o
u r t m a y
i m p o s e u p o n e i t h e r part y o r u p o n th e w i t n e s s
th e
r e q u i r e m e n t t o pa y s u c h cost s o r e x p e n s e s
a s th e
cour t m a y d e e m r e a s o n a b l e .
(18a , R24 )
Sec .
19 .
Submission to witness; changes; signing.
W h e n
t h e t e s t i m o n y
i s f u l l y t r a n s c r i b
e d ,
t h e
d e p o s i t i o n s h a l l b e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e
w i t
n e s s
fo r
e x a m i n a t i o n an d shal l b e rea d t o o r b y him , u n l e s
s
s u c h e x a m i n a t i o n an d r e a d i n g ar e w a i v e d
b y th e
w i t n e s s an d b y th e parties .
An y c h a n g e s i
n for m
o r
s u b s t a n c e
w h i c h t h e
w i t n e s s d e s i r e s
t o m a k e
shal l b e e n t e r e d u p o n th e d e p o s i t i o n b y th e offi
ce r
w i t h
a s t a t e m e n t
o f t h e r e a s o n s
g i v e n
b y
t h e
w i t n e s s fo r m a k i n g t h e m .
T h e
d e p o s i t i
o n
s h a l l
t h e n b e s i g n e d b y th e w i t n e s s , u n l e s s th e
partie s
b y
s t i p u l a t i o n w a i v e
t h e s i g n i n g o r t h e
w i t n e s s
i s il l o r c a n n o t b e foun d o r refuse s t o sign .
I f th e
355
SE
d e p o s i t i o n i s no t s i g n e d b y t h e w
office r
shal l sig n i t a n d stat e o n th e recor d t h
w a i v e r o r o f t h e i l l n e s s o r a b s e n
t n e s s o r
t h e fac t o f t h e r e f u s a l t o s i g n
i t h t h e
r e a s o n g i v e n therefor ,
i f any , a
o s i t i o n
m a y t h e n b e u s e d a s full y a s t h o u g h
l e s s
o n a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s u n d e r s e c
f th i s
R u l e , t h e c o u r t h o l d s t h a t t h e
v e n
fo r
t h e refusa l t o sig n requir e rejectio n o f
t i o n i n w h o l e o r i n part .
(19a , R24
i t n e s s , t h e
e fac t o f th e
c e o f t h e w i
t o g e t h e r
n d
t h e
d e p
s i g n e d , u n
t i o n 2 9 (f) o
r e a s o n s g i
t h e
)
deposi -
Sec .
20 .
Certification
and filing
by
officer.
Th e
o f f i c e r s h a l l c e r t i f y o n
t h e
d e p o s i t i o n t
h a t t h e
w i t n e s s
w a s d u l y
s w o r n t o
b y
h i m a n d
t h a t t h e
d e p o s i t i o n i s a t r u e recor d o f th e t e s t i m o n
y g i v e n
b y t h e
w i t n e s s .
H e
s h a l l t h e n s e c u r e l y
s e a l t h e
d e p o s i t i o n i n a n e n v e l o p e i n d o r s e d w i t h t h e
titl e o f
t h e a c t i o n an d m a r k e d "Depositio n o f (her e inser t
t h e n a m e o f w i t n e s s ) " a n d shal l p r o m p t l y fil e i
t w i t h
t h e c o u r t i n w h i c h t h e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g o r s
e n d i t
b y r e g i s t e r e d mai l t o t h e cler k t h e r e o f fo r filing
.
(20 ,
R24)
Sec
e
d e p o s i
filin g t
all t h e
21 .
t i o n shal l g i v e p r o m p t
o
p a r t i es .
(21 , R24 )
n o t i c e
o f it s
Sec . 22 .
Furnishing
copies.
U p o n
p a y m
e n t
o f
r e a s o n a b l e
c h a r g e s
t h e r e f o r , t h e
o f f i c
e r s h a l l
furnis h a c o p y o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n t o a n y part y o r
t o
t h e d e p o n e n t .
(22 , R24 )
Sec .
23 .
Failure
to
attend
of party
giving
notice.
I f t h e part y g i v i
e p o s i t i o n fail s t o
t h
a n d
a n o t h e r a t t e n d
u r s u a n t
t o t h e n o t i c e ,
n g
n g t h e notic e o f t h e t a k i n g o f a d
a t t e n d
s
i n
a n d
p e r s o n
p r o c e e d
o r
b y
t h e r e w i
c o u n s e l
SE
a
e
n
n
n
)
r
n
c
d
c
t
s
u
i
l
y
e
r
n
u
t h e
a m o u n t
o f t h e r e a s o n a b l e
e x
s
r e d b y h i m an d hi s c o u n s e l i n s o a t t
g ,
d i n g r e a s o n a b l e attorney' s fees .
(24a , R
Sec .
25 .
gatories;
service
of
notice
p a r t y
d e s i r i n g t o t a k
n u p o n
w r i t t e n i n t e r r
u p o n
ever y o t h e r part y
n a m e
an d a d d r e s s o f
r t h e m
an d th e n a m e o r d
Deposition
and
upon
of
written
interrogatories.
interro
e t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f an y p e r s o
o g a t o r i e s
w i t h
t h e
s h a l l
notic e
p e r s o n
s e r v e
t h e m
s t a t i n g th e
w h o
i s
t o
a n s w e
e s c r i p t i v e titl e an d a d d r e s s o
f th e
office r befor e w h o m th e d e p o s i t i o n i s t o b e tak
en .
Withi n t e n (10 ) d a y s thereafter , a part y s o serve d
m a y
s e r v e c r o s s - i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s u p o n
t h
e p a r t y
p r o p o s i n g t o tak e th e deposition .
Withi n fiv
e (5)
d a y s t h e r e a f t e r , t h e
l a t t e r m a y
s e r v e r e
- d i r e c t
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s u p o n
a
p a r t y
w h o
h a s
s e r v e d
cross-interrogatories .
Withi n thre e (3) day s afte
r
b e i n g s e r v e d
w i t h
r e - d i r e c t i n t e r r o g a t o
r i e s , a
part y m a y serv e recross-interrogatorie s u p o n th e
part y p r o p o s i n g t o tak e th e deposition .
(26 ,
R24 )
Sec .
prepare
record.
o f al l
26 .
A
Officers
c o p y
to
take
o f t h e
responses
and
n o t i c e a n d
c o p i e s
357
----------------------- Page 358----------------------RULE 23
ECS. 27-29
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s
s e r v e d
s h a l l b e
d e l i v e
r e d
b y
t h e p a r t y
t a k i n g
t h e d e p o s i t i o n
t o t h e
o f f i c e r
d e s i g n a t e d
i n
t h e
n o t i c e , w h o
s h a l l
p r o c e e d
promptly , i n t h e m a n n e r provide d b y s e c t i o n s 17
,
19 an d 2 0 o f t h i s Rule , t o tak e t h e t e s t i m o n y o f
th e
w i t n e s s i n r e s p o n s e t o th e i n t e r r o g a t o r i
e s an d t o
p r e p a r e , certify , a n d
fil e o r m a i l t h e d e p
o s i t i o n ,
a t t a c h i n g t h e r e t o t h e c o p y o f t h e
n o t i c e
a n d
th e
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s r e c e i v e d b y him .
(26 , R24 )
Sec
copies.
W h e n a
led , th e
office r t
27 .
Notice
of
filing
and
furnishing
d e p o s i t i o n u p o n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s i s fi
a k i n g i t shal l promptl y
t o al l t h e
e m
o r t o t h e
o n a b l e
parties ,
an d
d e p o n e n t
m a y
giv e
u p o n
furnis h
notic e
t h e r e o f
c o p i e s
p a y m e n t
t o t h
o f r e a s
c h a r g e s therefor .
(27 , R24 )
Sec .
28 .
Orders
for
the
protection
of pa
rties
and
deponents. Afte r t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e i n t e r r o g a t o
r i e s
a n d
p r i o r t o t h e
t a k i n g o f t h e
t e s t i m o n
y
o f t h e
d e p o n e n t ,
t h e
c o u r t
i n
w h i c h
t h e
a c
t i o n
i s
p e n d i n g , o n m o t i o n p r o m p t l y m a d e b y a part y o r
a
d e p o n e n t , an d fo r goo d c a u s e s h o w n , m a y m a k e an
y
o r d e r s p e c i f i e d i n s e c t i o n s 15 ,
1 6 a n d
1
8 o f t h i s
Rul e w h i c h i s a p p r o p r i a t e a n d j u s t o r a n o r d e
r t h a t
t h e d e p o s i t i o n shal l no t b e t a k e n befor e t h e office
r
d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e n o t i c e o r t h a t i t shal l no t b
e t a k e n
e x c e p t u p o n ora l e x a m i n a t i o n .
(28a , R24 )
Sec .
ties
in
depositions.
29 .
Effect
of
errors
and
irregulari
(a)
As t o
i e s
i n t h e n o t i c
w a i v e d
u n l e s s w r i t t
v e d u p o n
th e part y g i v i
notice. Al l
e fo r
e n
error s
t a k i n g
o b j e c t i o n
n g t h e
an d
i r r e g u l a r i t
d e p o s i t i o n
i s
p r o m p t l y
ar e
s e r
notice .
358
(b)
As
to
disqualification
tio n
t o t a k i n g a d e p o s i t i o n b
o n
o f th e office r befor e w h o m i t i s
v e d
u n l e s s m a d e
befor e
t h e
o s i t i o n
begin s o r a s soo n thereafte r a s th
b e c o m e s
k n o w n
o r c o u
d
w i t h
r e a s o n a b l e diligence .
(c) As
nce.
Objection s t o
t h e
to
t h e
of
officer.
e c a u s e
Objec
o f disqualificati
t o b e t a k e n i s w a i
t a k i n g
o f t h e
d e p
competency
e disqualificatio n
l d
b e
d i s c o v e r e
c o m p e t e n c y
or
relevancy
o f a
of
w i t n e s s
evide
o r
c o m p e t e n c
o n y
ar e no t w a
o r
d u r i n g t h
e s s t h e
g r o u n d o f
t h a v e
bee n obviate d
.
y , r e l e v a n c y , o r materialit y o f t e s t i m
i v e d
e
b y
t a k i n g
failur e
t h e
t o m a k e
o f t h e
ob j e c t io n
t h e m
befor e
d e p o s i t i o n , u n l
i s
o n e
w h i c h
m i g h
o r r e m o v e d i f p r e s e n t e d a t t h a t time
(d) As
to
oral
examination
and
other particular
s.
E r r o r s
a n d
i r r e g u l a r i t i e s
o c c u r r i n g
a t
t h e
o r a l e x a m i n a t i o n
i n t h e m a n n e r
o f t a k
i n g t h e
d e p o s i t i o n , i n t h e for m o f th e q u e s t i o n s o r a n
s w e r s ,
i n t h e o a t h o r a f f i r m a t i o n , o r i n t h e c o n
d u c t o f
th e partie s an d error s o f an y kin d w h i c h m i g h t b e
obviated , removed , o r cure d i f promptl y prosecuted ,
ar e w a i v e d u n l e s s r e a s o n a b l e objectio n t h e r e
t o i s
mad e
a t t h e t a k i n g o f th e deposition .
(e)
As
to form
of written
interrogatories.
Objec t i o n s
t o t h e
f o r m
o f w r i t t e n
i n t e r r o g
a t o r i e s
s u b m i t t e d u n d e r s e c t i o n s 2 6 an d 2 6 o f t h i
s
Rul e
ar e w a i v e d u n l e s s serve d i n writin g upo n th e part y
p r o p o u n d i n g t h e m
w i t h i n t h e t i m e
a l l o
w e d
fo r
servin g s u c c e e d i n g cros s o r othe r interrogatorie s
an d w i t h i n thre e (3) d a y s afte r servic e o f th e la
s t
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s authorized .
(f)
As
to
manner
of preparation.
Error s
an d
irregularitie s i n th e m a n n e r i n w h i c h th e t e s t i m o n
y
i s transcribe d o r th e d e p o s i t i o n i s prepared , signed ,
certified ,
s e a l e d , i n d o r s e d , t r a n s m i t t e d ,
filed , o r
o t h e r w i s e deal t w i t h b y th e office r unde r s e c t i
o n s
359
----------------------- Page 360----------------------RULE 24
SEC. 29
17, 19 , 2 0 t o 2 6 o f t h i s Rul e ar e w a i v e d u n l e s s a
mo -
tio n t o s u p p r e s s th e d e p o s i t i o n o r s o m e par t t h
e r e o f
i s m a d e
w i t h r e a s o n a b l e p r o m p t n e s s
afte r
s u c h
defec t is , o r w i t h d u e d i l i g e n c e m i g h t h a v e b e e
n , as certained .
(29a , R24 )
360
----------------------- Page 361----------------------R U L E
2 4
D E P O S I T I O N S
B E F O R E
A C T I O N
O R
P E N D I N G
A P P E A L
S e c t i o n
1 .
Depositions
n.
A
p e r s o n w h o d e s i r e s t o p e r p
t i m o n y
o r t h a t o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n r
e r t h a t
m a y b e c o g n i z a b l e i n a n y
i p p i n e s ,
m a y fil e a v e r i f i e d p e t i t i o
h e p l a c e
o f t h e
r e s i d e n c e
o f a n y
s e
p a r t y ,
( l a , R134 )
before
action; petitio
e t u a t e h i s o w n t e s
e g a r d i n g a n y m a t t
c o u r t o f t h e
P h i l
n i n t h e c o u r t o f t
e x p e c t e d
a d v e r
S e c . 2 .
Contents of petition. T h e p e t i t i o n s
h a l l
b e
e n t i t l e d
i n t h e
n a m e
o f t h e
p e t i t i
o n e r
a n d
s h a l l s h o w :
(a ) t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r e x p e c
t s t o b e a
p a r t y t o a n a c t i o n i n a c o u r t o f t h e P h i l i p
p i n e s b u t
i s p r e s e n t l y u n a b l e
t o b r i n g i t o r c a u s e
i t t o b e
b r o u g h t ;
(b )
t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e
e x p e c t e d
a c t i o n a n d h i s i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n ;
(c ) t h e fact
s w h i c h
h e d e s i r e s t o e s t a b l i s h b y t h e p r o p o s e d
t e s t i m o n y
a n d
h i s r e a s o n s
f o r d e s i r i n g
t o p e r p e
t u a t e
it ;
(d)
t h e n a m e s o r a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e
p
e r s o n s h e
e x p e c t s wil l b e a d v e r s e p a r t i e s a n d t h e i r a d d
r e s s e s
s o fa r a s k n o w n ; a n d (e ) t h e n a m e s a n d a d d r e s s
e s o f
t h e p e r s o n s t o b e e x a m i n e d a n d t h e
s u b
s t a n c e o f
t h e
t e s t i m o n y
w h i c h
h e
e x p e c t s
t o e l
i c i t f r o m
e a c h , a n d s h a l l a s k fo r a n o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g
t h e p e
i t i o n
n s t o
x a m i n
o s e o
e r p e t
t
o
e
p
p
e
b
e
f
u
r t o t a k e t h e d e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e p e r s
e
d n a m e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n fo r t h e p u r
a t i n g t h e i r t e s t i m o n y .
Sec .
3
h a l l
s e r v e a
n
i n t h e
p e t i t i o n a
t h e r w i t h
a cop y
o f
p e t i t i o n e
wil l a p p l y
e n a m e d
(2 , R134 )
o t i c e
u p o n
e a c h
p e r s o n
n a m e d
s a n e x p e c t e d a d v e r s e p a r t y , t o g e
t h e p e t i t i o n , s t a t i n g t h a t t h e
r
t o t h e c o u r t , a t a t i m e a n d p l a c
36 1
t h e r e i n , fo r t h e o r d e r d e s c r i b e d
i n t h e
p e t i t i o n .
A t l e a s t t w e n t y
(20 )
d a y s
befor e t h e
d a
t e o f t h e
h e a r i n g ,
t h e c o u r t s h a l l c a u s e
n o t i c e t
h e r e o f t o
b e s e r v e d o n t h e partie s an d p r o s p e c t i v e d e p o n e
n t s
i n t h e m a n n e r p r o v i d e d
fo r s e r v i c e o f s
u m m o n s .
(3a, R134 )
Sec .
4 .
Order and examination.
I f t h e
cour t i s
satisfie d t h a t t h e p e r p e t u a t i o n o f th e t e s t i m o n y
m a y
p r e v e n t a failur e o r d e l a y o f j u s t i c e , i t shal
l m a k e
a n
o r d e r
d e s i g n a t i n g o r
d e s c r i b i n g t h e
p e r s o n s
w h o s e d e p o s i t i o n m a y b e t a k e n a n d s p e c i f y
i n g th e
subjec t m a t t e r o f t h e e x a m i n a t i o n , a n d w h e t h e r
th e
d e p o s i t i o n s shal l
b e t a k e n u p o n ora l e x a m i
n a t i o n
o r w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s .
T h e d e p o s i t i
o n s m a y
t h e n b e t a k e n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 2 3
befor e
t h e h e a r i n g .
(4a , R134 )
Sec . 5 .
Reference t o court.
Fo r t h e p u r
p o s e o f
a p p l y i n g R u l e
2 3 t o d e p o s i t i o n s fo r p e r p
e t u a t i n g
t e s t i m o n y , e a c h r e f e r e n c e t
c o u r t i n
w h i c h
t h e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n
e e m e d
t o
refe r t o t h e
c o u r t i n w h i c h
fo r s u c h
d e p o s i t i o n w a s filed .
(5a , R134
Sec .
6 .
n t o per p e t u a t e t e s
, o r if,
a l t h o u g h n o
s i b l e
i n
e v i d e n c e , i
n v o l v i n g
t h e s a m e
s
o u g h t
i n
a c c o r d a n c e
4 a n d 5
o f Rul e 23 .
Sec
If
a p p e a l
t ,
i n c l u d
s e s , o
b e f o r e
e s s e s
h e r e i n
g
s o
m a y
i s
t h e
b e
u b j e c t
p e t i t i o n
u n d e r
i t
u s e d
w o u l d
i n
m a t t e r
w i t h t h e
b e
I f a d e p o s i t i o
t a k e n
t a k e n ,
t h e
s h a l l
Use of deposition.
t i m o n y
t o
t h i s
b e
a n y
Rule
a d m i s
a c t i o n
s u b s e q u e n t l y
i
b r
p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n s
(6a , R134 )
.
7 .
Depositions
pending
appeal.
an
h a s b e e n t a k e n fro m a j u d g m e n t o f a
cour
i n g t h e Cour t o f A p p e a l s i n p r o p e r c a
r
t h e
t a k i n g
o f d e p o s i t i o n s
o f w i t n
t o
362
p e r p e t u a t e thei r t e s t i m o n y fo r us e
n t o f
furthe r p r o c e e d i n g s i n th e sai d court .
c h cas e
th e part y w h o d e s i r e s t o p e r p e t u a t
m o n y
ma y m a k e a m o t i o n i n th e sai d cour
t o
t a k e t h e d e p o s i t i o n s , u p o n t h e
c e a n d
servic e t h e r e o f a s i f th e actio n w a s p e n
Th e motio n shal l stat e (a) th e n a m
o f th e p e r s o n s t o b e e x a m
t a n c e
o f th e
t e s t i m o n y w h i c h
h
c i t fro m
e a c h ; a n d
(b ) t h e r e a s o n
g t h e i r
testimony .
I f th e cour t find s
i n th e e v e
I n s u
e th e t e s t i
t
fo r
s a m e
leav e
n o t i
d i n g therein .
e s an d a d d r e s s e s
i n e d an d th e s u b s
e
e x p e c t s
fo r
t o
e l i
p e r p e t u a t i n
t h a t th e p e r p e t u a t
i o n
o f t h e t e s t i m o n y
i s p r o p e r t o a v o i d a f a i
l u r e o r
d e l a y o f j u s t i c e , i t m a y m a k e
a n o r d e r a l
l o w i n g
t h e d e p o s i t i o n s t o b e t a k e n , a n d
t h e r e u p
o n t h e
d e p o s i t i o n s m a y b e t a k e n a n d u s e d
i n t h
e s a m e
m a n n e r
a n d
u n d e r
t h e s a m e
c o n d i t i o n s
a s a r e
prescribe d i n t h e s e Rule s fo r d e p o s i t i o n s t a k e n
i n
p e n d i n g actions .
(7a , R134 )
NOTE S
1. Thi s wa s formerly Rul e 134 an d ha s bee n trans pose d here . A s distinguishe d from deposition s de bene esse
which ar e governe d b y Rul e 23 , thi s Rul e regulate s th e
takin g of deposition s in perpetuam rei memoriam, th e pur pos e o f which i s t o perpetuat e th e testimon y o f witnesse s
for probabl e us e in a futur e cas e or in th e even t o f furthe r
proceeding s in th e sam e case .
For othe r way s o f perpetu
ating testimon y in crimina l cases , se e Sees . 12, 1 3 an d 1 5
of Rul e 119 an d th e note s thereunder .
2 . Sec . 1 i s th e procedur e for perpetuatin g testimon y
of witnesse s prio r t o th e filing o f th e cas e an d in anticipa tion thereof .
Sec . 7 i s th e procedur e in perpetuatin g
testimony after judgmen t i n th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t an d
befor e i t ha s becom e executory o r durin g th e pendenc y
of an appea l therefrom .
363
----------------------- Page 364----------------------RULE 24
S. 1-7
SEC
ther e i s
o submitte d
thi s Rule ,
conditionall y
n o
tha
jus
an
loca l jurisprudenc e on th e
t deposition s i n perpetuam
t lik e an y othe r deposi d t o b e use d a t th e tria l
th e
deponen t
Rul e d o no t prov e
th e testimon y t h e r e i
e proof , eithe r o f th e
th e fact s t o whic h the y
PARTIE S
S e c t i o n 1.
Interrogatories
to parties; service
thereof.
e r
o
a r
h e
o m
v
r
t
r
p
e d
i s a p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o
a
n e r s h i p o r a s s o c i a t i o n , b y an y office r
e o f
e t e n t t o testif y i n it s behalf ,
( l a )
Sec .
2 .
Answer
to
interrogatories.
T h e
i n t e r rogatorie s shal l b e a n s w e r e d full y i n w r i t i n g an
d
shal l b e s i g n e d a n d s w o r n t o b y th e perso n m a k i n g
t h e m .
Th e
part y u p o n w h o m t h e
i n t e r r o g
a t o r i e s
hav e b e e n s e r v e d shal l fil e an d serv e a cop y o f th e
a n s w e r s o n t h e part y s u b m i t t i n g th e
interroga
to rie s w i t h i n fiftee n (15) day s afte r servic e thereof ,
u n l e s s t h e c o u r t , o n m o t i o n
a n d fo r g o o d
c a u s e
s h o w n , e x t e n d s o r s h o r t e n s th e time .
(2a )
Sec .
3 .
Objections to
n s
t o a n y i n t e r r o g a t o r i
t o t h e
cour t w i t h i n t e n (10) day s
notic e a s i n cas e o f a motion
deferre d unti l th e objection s
shal l b e a t a s earl y a tim e
(3a )
Sec .
4 .
p a r t y
may , w i t h o u t
interrogatories.
e s m a y
afte r
; an d
ar e
a s i
Number
of
leav e
o f court ,
set o f interrogatorie s
party .
(4)
t o
b e
Objectio
p r e s e n t e d
interrogatories.
b e
serv e
mor e
a n s w e r e d
N o
t h a n
b y th e
on e
sam e
365
----------------------- Page 366----------------------RULE 25
SEC. 5
Sec .
nter r o g a t o r
c a n b e
i n q u i r e
an d th e
a n s w e r s
s pro v i d e d i n
Scope
i e s
d
m a y
relat e
i n t o
m a y
and
u n d e r
b e
u s e d
use
t o
of
interrogatories.
a n y
m a t t e r s
s e c t i o n
fo r
t h e
t h a t
o f Rul e
s a m e
s e c t i o n 4 o f th e s a m e Rule .
23 ,
p u r p o s e
(5a )
NOTE S
1. J u s t lik e depositions , a part y ma y serv e writte n
interrogatorie s t o th e othe r part y withou t leav e o f cour t
only afte r answe r ha s bee n served .
Befor e that , leav
e o f
court mus t b e obtained .
Unde r th e sam e considerations ,
interrogatorie s ma y embrac e an y relevan t matte r unles s
th e sam e i s (a) privilege d or (b) prohibite d by cour t order .
2 . A
p a r t y
r i t t e n
interrogatorie
ec.
28,
1962; se e
s
Sec.
(Cason
3[c],
Rule
vs.
San
Pedro,
L-18928,
29).
July
15,
1975).
t o
366
----------------------- Page 367----------------------RULE 25
SEC. 6
INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
g i v e
6.
U n l e s s
Effect
c a u s e
of failure
to
serue
written
t h e r e a f t e r a l l o w e d
s h o w n
an d
t o
interroga
b y
p r e v e n t
t h e
a
i n
o p e n
c o u r t , o r
failur
part y
t o
i v e a
d e p o s i t i o n p e n d i n g appeal ,
(n )
N O T E
1.
T o
benefit s o f
cases , thi s
interrogatorie s
th e part y wh
interrogatorie s
n
ha s bee n incorporate d i n th e succeedin g Rul e 2 6 for
non-availmen t o f request s for admissio n by th e opposin g
party .
Thes e tw o provision s ar e directe d t o th e part y
wh o fail s or refuse s t o resort to
therein , an d shoul d no t b e confuse
o f Rul e
2 9 w h i c h p r o v i d
o t h e r
consequence s upon a part y wh o refuse
with
discover y
p r o c e d u r e
y hi s
opponent .
th e discovery procedure s
d wit h th e provision s
e s for s a n c t i o n s o r
s or fail s t o comply
s dul y
a v a i l e d o f
367
----------------------- Page 368----------------------RULE 25
6
Wher e
part y
unjustifiedl y
SEC.
refuse s
t o
elici t
fact s
1 .
B Y
Request
for
2 6
A D V E R S E
admission.
PART Y
At
a n
y
t i m e
a f t e r i s s u e s
fil e a n d
s e r v e
u p o n
e q u e s t fo r
t h e a d m i s s i o
i n e n e s s o f
a n y m a t e r i a l
r i b e d
i n
a n d e x h i b i t e
t r u t h o f
a n y
m a t e r i a
f f a c t
s e t
f o r t h i n t h e
o c u m e n t s
s h a l l b e d e l
s s c o p i e s
h a v e a l r e a d y
Sec .
h a v e
a n y
b e e n j o i n e d ,
o t h e r
b y
t h e
a n d
d
p a r t y
t h e
a n d
2 .
o f t h e
o r
t h e
d e s c
o f t h e
m a t t e r
C o p i e s
w i t h
g e n u
d o c u m e n t
r e l e v a n t
i v e r e d
p a r t y m a y
w r i t t e n
r e q u e s t
r e q u e s t .
b e e n
l a t t e r
r e l e v a n t
w i t h
o f t h e
r e q u e s t
f u r n i s h e d ,
u n l e
( l a )
Implied admission. E a c h o f t h e m a t t e r
s
o f w h i c h a n a d m i s s i o n i s r e q u e s t e d s h a l l b e d
e e m e d
a d m i t t e d u n l e s s , w i t h i n a p e r i o d d e s i g n a t e
d i n t h e
r e q u e s t , w h i c h
s h a l l n o t b e les s t h a n
fi
ftee n
(15 )
d a y s
a f t e r s e r v i c e thereof ,
o r w i t h i n
s u
c h
f u r t h e r
t i m e a s t h e c o u r t m a y allo w o n m o t i o n , t h e p a r
t y t o
w h o m t h e r e q u e s t i s d i r e c t e d file s a n d s e r v e
s u p o n
t h e p a r t y r e q u e s t i n g t h e a d m i s s i o n a s w o r
n s t a t e m e n t
e i t h e r d e n y i n g
s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e m
a t t e r s
o f
w h i c h a n a d m i s s i o n i s r e q u e s t e d o r s e t t i n g f
o r t h i n
d e t a i l t h e r e a s o n s w h y h e c a n n o t t r u t h f u l
l y e i t h e r
a d m i t o r d e n y t h o s e m a t t e r s .
O b j e c t i
h a l l b e
s u b m i t t e d
r e q u e s t e d
w i t h i n t h e
n g o f h i s
s w o r n s t a t e
e c e d i n g
p a r a g r a p h
s h a l l b e
d e f e r r e d u n
v e d , w h i c h
r e s o l u t i o n
a c t i c a b l e .
(2a)
o n t o a n y r e q u e s t fo r a d m i s s i o n s
t o
t h e
c o u r t
p e r i o d
fo r
p a r t y
t o t h e
fili
c o n t e m p l a t e d
i n t h e
p r
a n d
h i s
t i l
s u c h
b e
a n d
t h e
p r i o r
m e n t a s
s h a l l
b y
c o m p l i a n c e
o b j e c t i o n s
t h e r e w i t h
m a d e
a s
369
a r e
e a r l y
r e s o l
a s
p r
Effect
of
admission.
A n y
a d m i
a part y p u r s u a n t t o s u c h r e q u e s t i s fo
o f t h e
u t e a n
p e n d i n g
a c t i o n
a d m i s s i o n
no r m a y t h e
s a m e
r p r o c e e d i n g .
b y
b e
onl y
h i m
u s e d
an d
fo r
shal
a n y
a g a i n s t h
(3)
NOTE S
(Po
CA,
vs.
et al.,
CA,
G.R.
et al.,
No.
L-34341, Aug.
101682,
Dec.
22,
14
2 . Sec .
1 o f t h i s Rule , a s a m e n d e d , speci
ficall y
r e q u i r e s t h a t th e fact s sough t t o b e a d m i t t e
d b y th e
advers e part y mus t b e bot h materia l an d relevan t t o th e
i s s u e s i n t h e case .
Th e s a m e r e q u i r e m e n t s
o f bot h
materialit y an d relevanc y hav e likewis e bee n specifie d i n
th e precedin g Rul e 2 5 o n request s for admission .
Thi s
mus t b e s o sinc e th e fact in questio n ma y b e relevan t i f i
t
ha s a logica l tendenc y t o prov e a factua l matte r in th
e
cas e bu t i t ma y b e immateria l i f t h a t factua l matte r i s n
o
wi
370
----------------------- Page 371----------------------RULE 26
SEC. 4
th e reques t
o f th e part y
s insufficient
tha t notice s
se t
d
View H
31,
for admissio n wa s
s o requested ,
complianc e wit h
shal l b e serve d o
n
th e
counse l
o f a
p a r t y
canno t
appl y
wher e
th e
Rule
s
expressly provid e tha t it shoul d b e serve d upo n a definit e
person .
Sec . 1 o f thi s Rul e provide s tha t th e reques t fo
r
admission shoul d b e serve d o n th e part y t o who m th e
reques t i s directed .
Hence , th e reques t for admissio n
wa s no t validly serve d an d tha t part y canno t b e deeme d
t o hav e a d m i t t e d t h e t r u t h o f th e m a t t e r s
o f whic h
admission s wer e
requeste d (Duque
vs.
CA,
e t a
l. an d
Valenzuela,
etc., et al. vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No.
125383,
July
2,
2002).
6 . However , an answe r t o a reques t for admissio n
served, whic h wa s signe d an d swor n t o by
properly
th e
p
R
w
i
a
u
h
t
Sec .
r t y m
l e ,
e t h e r
u p o n
4 .
Withdrawal. Th e cour t ma y allo w th e
a k i n g
a n
a d m i s s i o n
u n d e r
t h i s
e x p r e s s o r implied , t o withdra w o r a m e n d
s u c h t e r m s a s ma y b e just .
(4)
37 1
Sec .
6.
Effect of failure to file and serve request
for
admission. U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e a l l o w e d b y th e cou
r t
for goo d c a u s e s h o w n an d t o p r e v e n t a failur e
o f
j u s t i c e , a part y w h o fail s t o fil e an d serv e a r e q u
e s t
fo r a d m i s s i o n
o n t h e a d v e r s e
p a r t y o f m
a t e r i a l
an d r e l e v a n t fact s a t i s s u e w h i c h are , o r o
u g h t t o
be , w i t h i n t h e p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e
o f t h e
latter ,
s h a l l n o t b e
p e r m i t t e d t o p r e s e n t
e v i d e
n c e
o n
s u c h facts ,
(n )
N O T E
1.
interrogatorie s a s
mod e
o f
sanction s
wil l
RUL E
PRODUCTIO N
OF DOCUMENT S
O R
2 7
O R
THING S
INSPECTIO N
S e c t i o n
1.
Motion
for
production
or
in
spection;
order.
U p o n m o t i o n o f an y
part y
s h o w i n g
goo d
c a u s e t h e r e f o r , t h e c o u r t i n w h i c h
a n a c t
i o n i s
p e n d i n g m a y (a ) orde r an y part y t o p r o d u c e an
d
p e r m i t
t h e
i n s p e c t i o n
a n d
c o p y i n g
o r
p h o t o g r a p h i n g , b y
o r o n b e h a l f o f t h e m o v i n g
p a r t y ,
o f a n y
d e s i g n a t e d
d o c u m e n t s ,
p a p e r s ,
b o o k s ,
a c c o u n t s , letters , p h o t o g r a p h s , object s o r tangibl
e
things , no t privileged , w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e o r c o n t a i
n
e v i d e n c e m a t e r i a l t o a n y m a t t e r i n v o l v e d
i n t h e
a c t i o n a n d
w h i c h ar e i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n , c
u s t o d y
o r control ; o r (b) orde r an y part y t o permi t entr y
u p o n
d e s i g n a t e d
l a n d o r o t h e r p r o p e r t y
i n h i s
p o s s e s s i o n o r contro l fo r th e purpos e o f inspecting ,
m e a s u r i n g ,
s u r v e y i n g ,
o r
p h o t o g r a p h i n g
t h e
p r o p e r t y
o r a n y
d e s i g n a t e d
r e l e v a n t o b j
e c t o r
o p e r a t i o n t h e r e o n .
T h e
o r d e r s h a l l s p e c
i f y t h e
time , plac e an d m a n n e r o f m a k i n g th e
i n s
p e c t i o n
a n d
t a k i n g
c o p i e s a n d
p h o t o g r a p h s ,
a n d
m a y
prescrib e
s u c h t e r m s an d c o n d i t i o n s a s ar e
just ,
(la )
NOTE S
1.
Th e
p r o d u c t i o n o f d o c u m e n t s afford s
mor e
opportunity for discovery tha n a subpoen a duces
tecum
as , i n th e latter , th e document s ar e brough t t o th e cour t
for th e firs t tim e o n th e dat e o f th e schedule d tria
l
wherei n suc h document s ar e require d t o b e produced .
Th e inspectio n o f lan d an d othe r rea l propert y for th e
purpose s authorize d by thi s Rul e als o avoid s th e nee d for
ocular inspection thereo f by th e court .
373
c r i m i n a l
cases , motion s
for
pr o d u c t i o
3 .
o f document s ar e
governe d by
Sec .
10 ,
mod e
o f discover y
doe s
no t
authoriz e
th e
374
----------------------- Page 375----------------------RULE 27
PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION
SEC. 1
OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
Madison,
1 Cr.
137,
143]
(Banco
Board, et al.,
G.R. No.
70054, July
5 . I n a n America n
can compe l th e plaintiff ,
th e exhumatio n o f th e
involving th e "accidenta l
polic y
(Zalatuka
U.S.C.C.A.,
Service,
Dec.
p.
22,
Filipino
vs.
8, 1986).
Monetary
1939,
108 F.
[2d]
405,
2 Fed.
Rules
37).
It i s believe
e
applicable her e in a
considering tha t Sec .
or tangibl e things "
cadaver .
O n th e
cannot b e invoke d
and i s limite d
living person .
th e exhumatio n or
an d necessar y for
t h a t th e
civil
1 o f
whic h
othe r
aforestate d
rulin g coul d
e issue ,
o f "object s
includ e a
revise d Rule s
AN D
MENTA L
EXAMINATIO N
OF
S e c
a n a c t i
n d i t i o n
o f a part
h t h e
a c t i o n
2 8
PERSON S
t i o n 1.
When examination may be ordered. In
o n i n w h i c h th e m e n t a l o r p h y s i c a l c o
y i s i n c o n t r o v e r s y , t h e cour t i n w h i c
i s p e n d i n g m a y i n it s d i s c r e t i o n orde r
h
s
o
p
i m t o
u b m i t t o a p h y s i c a l
n b y a
h y s i c i a n . (1)
o r
m e n t a l
e x a m i n a t i
NOTE S
1. Th e menta l conditio n o f a part y i s in controvers y
in proceeding s for guardianshi p over an imbecil e or insan e
person , whil e th e physica l conditio n o f a part y i s generall y
involved i n physica l injurie s cases .
2 . A
bloo d
g r o u p i n g t e s t m a y b e o r d e r
e d a n d
conducte d unde r thi s Rul e on a chil d subjec t o f a paternit y
suit . Whil e th e Rul e speak s o f an examinatio n o f a party ,
such chil d i s considere d a part y for purpose s thereo f a s
th e actio n
i s brough t
for it s benefi t
(Beach
vs.
Beach,
U.S.C.A.,
D.C.,
June
28,
1940,
3
Fed.
Rules
Service,
p.
397).
3 . Sinc e th e result s o f th e examinatio n ar e intende d
b e m a d e public , t h e s a m e a r e no t covere d b
y t h e
physician-patien t privilege .
Furthermore , suc h exami t o
examination.
T h e
o r d e
a d e onl y o n m o t i o n
n
n o t i c e
t o
t h e
fo r goo
p a r t y
y
376
----------------------- Page 377----------------------RULE 2 8
SECS. 3-4
y e x a m i n a t i o n , previousl y o r thereafte r
e sam e m e n t a l o r physica l condition .
x a m i n e d refuse s t o delive r s u c h report ,
n m o t i o n an d notic e ma y mak e a n orde r
g deliver y o n s u c h term s a s ar e just , an d i f
p h y s i c i a n
th e
cour t ma y e x c l u d e
a t
th e trial .
(3a )
Sec .
4 .
Waiver
hi s
s u c h a repor t
t e s t i m o n y
of privilege.
By
i f offere d
r e q u e s t i n g
an
d
o b t a i n i n g a repor t o f th e e x a m i n a t i o n s o orde
re d
o r b y t a k i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f th e e x a m i n e
r , t h e
part y e x a m i n e d w a i v e s an y privileg e h e ma y hav e
i n t h a t a c t i o n o r a n y
o t h e r
i n v o l v i n g t
h e s a m e
c o n t r o v e r s y ,
r e g a r d i n g
t h e t e s t i m o n y
o
f e v e r y
othe r p e r s o n w h o h a s e x a m i n e d o r ma y thereafte r
e x a m i n e
h i m
i n r e s p e c t o f t h e
s a m e
m e
n t a l
o r
physica l e x a m i n a t i o n .
(4)
N O T E
1.
Wher e th
a r e p o r t o n
o n ,
t h e
consequence s ar e tha
a copy o f th e
q u e n t
an d menta l
may hav e i n
controversy
n wh o ha s
SECS. 3-4
condition ,
tha t actio n
regardin g
s o examine d
Fo r th e physician 13 0 an d Not e 4
Rul e
thereunder .
378
----------------------- Page 379----------------------RUL E
WIT H
R E F U S A L
MODE S O F
T O
DISCOVER Y
2 9
COMPL Y
S e c t i on 1 .
Refusal t o answer. I f a p a r t y or o
t h e r
d e p o n e n t r e f u s e s t o a n s w e r a n y q u e s t i o n u p o
n o r a l
e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e e x a m i n a t i o n m a y b e c o m p l e
t e d
o n
o t h e r m a t t e r s o r a d j o u r n e d a s t h e p r o p o n e n
t o f t h e
q u e s t i o n
m a y
p r e f e r .
T h e
p r o p o n e n t m
a y
t h e r e a f t e r a p p l y t o t h e p r o p e r c o u r t o f t h e p
l a c e w h e r e
t h e d e p o s i t i o n i s b e i n g t a k e n fo r a n o r d e r t
o c o m p e l
a n a n s w e r .
T h e s a m e p r o c e d u r e m a y b e a v a i
l e d o f
w h e n
a p a r t y o r a
w i t n e s s r e f u s e s t o a
n s w e r a n y
i n t e r r o g a t o r y s u b m i t t e d u n d e r R u l e s 2 3 o r 2
5 .
I f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n
i s g r a n t e d ,
t h e
c o u r t
s h a l l
r e q u i r e t h e r e f u s i n g p a r t y o r d e p o n e n t t
o a n s w e r
t h e
q u e s t i o n o r i n t e r r o g a t o r y a n d
i f i t
a l s o f i n d s
t h a t t h e r e f u s a l t o a n s w e r w a s w i t h o u t s u
b s t a n t i a l
j u s t i f i c a t i o n , i t m a y r e q u i r e t h e r e f u s i
n g p a r t y o r
d e p o n e n t
o r t h e
c o u n s e l a d v i s i n g t h e
r e f u s a l , o r
b o t h o f t h e m , t o p a y t h e p r o p o n e n t t h e a m
o u n t o f
t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d i n o b t a
i n i n g t h e
o r d e r , i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y ' s fees .
u
t
t
t
o
a
r
h
i
h
u
d
t
a
f
e
n
v
I f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s d e n i e d a n d t h e c o
find s
t i t w a s
file d
w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l j u s
i c a t i o n ,
c o u r t m a y r e q u i r e t h e p r o p o n e n t o r t h e c
s e l
i s i n g t h e
filin g o f t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n ,
o
t
n
a
r b o t h
o f
h e m , t o p a y t o t h e r e f u s i n g p a r t y o r d e p o
e n t t h e
m o u n t
o f t h e
r e a s o n a b l e
e x p e n s e s
i
n c u r r e d
i n
o p p o s i n g
t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n
i n c l u d i n g
a t t o r n e y ' s
fees ,
( l a )
Sec . 2 .
Contempt of court. I f a p a r t y or
o t h e r
w i t n e s s r e f u s e s t o b e
s w o r n o r r e f u s e s
t o a n s w e r
a n y q u e s t i o n a f t e r b e i n g d i r e c t e d t o d o
s o b y t h e
379
----------------------- Page 380----------------------RULE 29
SEC. 3
cour t o f th e plac e i n w h i c h t h e d e p o s i t i o n i s b
e i n g
t a k e n , th e refusa l m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d a c o n t e m p
t o f
t h a t court .
(2a )
Sec .
3 .
Other consequences. I f an y
part y
o r
a n
office r o r m a n a g i n g a g e n t o f a part y r e f u s e s t o o
be y
a n
o r d e r
m a d e
u n d e r
s e c t i o n
1
o f t h
i s
R u l e
r e q u i r i n g h i m t o a n s w e r d e s i g n a t e d q u e s t i
o n s , o r
a n o r d e r u n d e r Rul e 2 7 t o p r o d u c e a n y d o c
u m e n t
o r
o t h e r
t h i n g
f o r
i n s p e c t i o n ,
c o p y
i n g ,
o r
p h o t o g r a p h i n g o r t o p e r m i t i t t o b e
d o n
e , o r t o
p e r m i t e n t r y u p o n l a n d o r o t h e r p r o p e r t y
, o r a n
o r d e r m a d e u n d e r Rul e 2 6 r e q u i r i n g h i m t o subm
i t
t o a p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e c o u
r t ma y
m a k e
s u c h o r d e r s
i n r e g a r d t o t h e r e f u s
a l a s ar e
just , a n d a m o n g o t h e r s t h e following :
(a)
A n o r d e r t h a t t h e
w h i c h
t h e
q u e s t i o n s
w e r e
a s
c t e r
o r
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e t h i n g
n t s o f
t h e paper , o r t h e p h y s i c a
m a t t e r s r e g a r d i n g
k e d ,
o r
t h e
c h a r a
o r land , o r t h e c o n t e
l
o r
m e n t a l
c o n d i
t i o n o f
t h e party , o r a n y o t h e r d e s i g n a t e d
fact s
s h a l l b e
t a k e n t o b e e s t a b l i s h e d fo r t h e p u r p o s e o f t h
e a c t i o n
i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e c l a i m o f t h e part y o b t a
i n i n g
t h e order ;
(b)
A n o r d e r r e f u s i n g
d i e n t
t y t o s u p p o r t o r o p p o
s
o r
e n s e s
o r p r o h i b i t i n g
i n g i n
e v i d e n c e d e s i g n a t e d d o c u
r i t e m s
o f t e s t i m o n y ,
o r
f r o m
d e n c e
o f
p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l c o n d i
o
p
a
d
b
a
i
e
e
r
m
f
(c)
A n
o r
p a r t s
thereof ,
o r
u n t i l t h e
o r d e r
i s o
c t i o n
o r
p r o c e e d i n g
e r i n g
a
j u d g m e n t b y
party ;
a n d
o r d e r
s e
b e y e d ,
fro m
a n y
d i s
c l
i n t r o d u c
m e n t s o r t h i n g s
i n t r o d u c i n g
e v i
t i o n ;
o u t
f u r t h e r
o r
t h e
d e s i g n a t e d
h i m
s t r i k i n g
s t a y i n g
o r
t o a l l o w
p l e a d i n g s
p r o c e e d i n g s
d i s m i s s i n g
p a r t
t h e
t h e r e o f , o r
r e n d
d e f a u l t a g a i n s t t h e d i s o b e d i e n t
380
----------------------- Page 381----------------------RULE 29
SECS. 4-6
REFUSAL TO COMPLY
WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY
(d)
additio n t h e r
any part y o r a
f
suc h o r d e r s
o r m e n t a l e
Sec . 4.
after b e i n g
admi t th e g e
h
o f an y m a t t
a n d
i f t
s s i o n s
t h e r e a f t e
f
s u c h
d o c u m e n t
act ,
p r o v e s
o r t h e
t r u t h
t h e
g e n u i n e n e s s
o f an y
s u c h
matte r o f f
6.
Expenses
E x p e n s e s
against
an d
attorney' s
the
Republic
fee s
ar e
no t
38 1
----------------------- Page 382----------------------RULE 29
4-6
SECS.
t o b e i m p o s e d u p o n th e R e p u b l i c o f th e P h i l i p p
i n e s
u n d e r t h i s Rule .
(6)
N O T E S
1. Wher e th e plaintif f faile d t o answe
interrogatorie s for unexplaine d reasons , dismissa l
complaint i s warrante d unde r Sec . 5 , Rul e 2 9
omission ma y als o b e considere d a s failur e t o
th e actio n
(Arellano
vs. CFI of Sorsogon,
897,
July
15,
1975).
r th e writte n
o f th e
an d suc h
prosecut e
et al.,
L-34
3 0
TRIAL
S e c t i o n 1 . Notice of trial. Upo n entr y o f a cas e
t h e t r i a l c a l e n d a r , t h e c l e r k s h a l l notif y
t h e
partie s o f t h e dat e o f it s tria l i n s u c h m a n n e r
a s
shal l e n s u r e hi s receip t o f tha t notic e a t leas t fiv e
(5) d a y s befor e s u c h date .
(2a , R22 )
i n
NOTE S
1. Th e word s "trial "
m e a n i n g s an d connotations .
t h e
reception o f evidenc e an d othe
e s
th e perio d for th e introductio n
Hearing , a s know n i n law ,
t
embrace s th e severa l stage s
pre-tria l stage .
A hearin g
presentatio n o f evidence .
an d
"hearing "
Tria l
hav e differen t
ma y refe r t o
r processes .
I t embrac
th e
it i s now
o f th e tria l
Thi s i s intende
o f th e
di d not spel l
and
postponements.
da y t o day , an d t o
d i t i o u s an d c o n v e n i e n
require , bu t shal l hav e
fo r a longe r perio d t h a n
383
o n e
m o n t h
f o r e a c h
a d j o u r n m e n t ,
n o
m o r e
t h a n t h r e e m o n t h s i n all , e x c e p t w h e n a u t
h o r i z e d
i n w r i t i n g b y t h e Cour t A d m i n i s t r a t o r ,
S
u p r e m e
Court .
(3a , R22 )
Sec .
3.
Requisites
of
motion
to
postpon
e
trial
for
absence
of evidence.
A
m o t i o n
to
p o s t
p o n e
a
t r i a l o n t h e g r o u n d
o f a b s e n c e
o f e v i d e
n c e
c a n
b e
g r a n t e d
o n l y
u p o n
a f f i d a v i t s h o w i
n g
t h e
m a t e r i a l i t y a n d
r e l e v a n c y o f s u c h
e v i d e n
c e , an d
t h a t d u e d i l i g e n c e h a s b e e n u s e d t o p r o c u r e
it .
Bu t
i f t h e a d v e r s e part y a d m i t s t h e fact s t o b e g i v
e n i n
e v i d e n c e , e v e n i f h e o b j e c t s o r r e s e r v e s t h e
righ t t o
objec t t o t h e i r a d m i s s i b i l i t y , t h e tria l shal
l n o t b e
p o s t p o n e d .
(4a , R22 )
(As corrected by Resolution of
the
Supreme
Court,
dated
July
21,
1998)
S e c . 4.
Requisites
of motion
to
postpone
trial
for
illness
of party or counsel.
A m o t i o n
to p o s t
p o n e
a
tria l o n t h e g r o u n d o f i l l n e s s o f a part y o r
c o u n s e l
m a y b e g r a n t e d i f i t a p p e a r s u p o n affidavi t o r s
w o r m
c e r t i f i c a t i o n t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e
o f s u c h
p a r t y o r
c o u n s e l a t t h e tria l i s i n d i s p e n s a b l e a n d
t h a t th e
c h a r a c t e r o f h i s i l l n e s s i s s u c h a s t o r e n d e
r h i s non a t t e n d a n c e e x c u s a b l e .
(5a , R22 )
N O T E S
1. P o s t p o n e m e n t s
a r e a d d r e s s e d t o t
h e s o u n d
discretion o f th e cour t and , i n th e absenc e o f grav e abus e
of discretion , canno t b e controlle d by m a n d a m u s (Olsen
vs. Fressel &
Co.,
37 Phil.
121).
2 . Th e provision s o f Sec .
3 o f t h i s Rul
ar e no t
applicabl e t o crimina l case s a s th e rul e o n postponement s
in crimina l case s i s governe d by Sec . 2 , Rul e 119 (People
vs.
Catolico,
L-31261-65,
April
20,
1971).
384
----------------------- Page 385----------------------RULE 30
SEC. 5
TRIAL
e c t
t o t h e
u n l e s s th e
th e tria l shal
pre-tria l orde r
p l a i n t i f f
s h a l l a d d u c e e v i d e n
complaint ;
(b)
Th e d e f e n d a n t shal l t h e n adduc e e v i d e n c
e
i n suppor t o f h i s defense , counterclaim , cross-clai m
an d third-part y complaint ;
(c)
s h a l l
a d d u c e
l a i m ,
cross-clai m
(d)
a d d u c e
b y
them ;
T h e
t h i r d - p a r t y
e v i d e n c e
an d
o f
fourth-part y
d e f e n d a n t , i f any ,
h i s d e f e n s e , c o u n t e r c
complaint ;
(e)
T h e
p a r t i e s a g a i n s t w h o m an y
c o
u n t e r clai m o r cross-clai m h a s bee n pleaded , shal l adduc e
e v i d e n c e i n suppor t o f thei r defense , i n th e orde r t o
b e prescribe d b y th e court ;
(f) Th e partie s ma y th e n respectivel y adduc e
r e b u t t i n g e v i d e n c e o n l y , u n l e s s t h e
t , fo r
c o u r
goo d
r e a s o n s a n d
u s t i c e ,
p e r m i t s
t h e m
t o
t h e i r
origina l case ; an d
i n
t h e
f u r t h e r a n c e o f j
a d d u c e
e v i d e n c e
u p o n
385
----------------------- Page 386----------------------RULE 30
SEC. 5
(g)
U p o n
h e cas e
shal l b e d e e m e d
s th e
cour t d i r e c t s t
i r
r e s p e c t i v e m e
.
a d m i s s i o n
o f t h e
e v i d e n c e , t
s u b m i t t e d fo r d e c i s i o n , u n l e s
h e partie s t o argu e o r t o s u b m i t the
m o r a n d a o r an y
furthe r p l e a d i n g s
o f s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e cas e
for
decisio n vis-a-vi s
t h e
constitutiona l perio d for decidin g th e same , t h a t i t shal l
b e upo n t h e admissio n o f th e evidenc e o f th e parties .
However ,
i f t h e t r i a l cour t allow s ora l a r g u m e
n t o r
s u b m i s s i o n
o f m e m o r a n d a ,
t h e p e r i o d
s
h a l l b e
correspondingly extende d
afte r suc h proceeding s
hav e
bee n conducte d o r suc h m e m o r a n d a submitted .
Sinc e
t h e r e i s a possibilit y t h a t th e m e m o r a n d a ma y
no t b e
receive d i n th e cour t simultaneously , th e cour t shoul d
specify in advanc e or declar e afte r actua l submissio n o f
dat e
whe n th e
TRIAL
29,
1972).
in chie f
Sec . 6 . Agreed
statement
of facts. Th e
partie
s
t o an y actio n m a y agree , i n writing , upo n th e fact s
involve d i n th e litigation , an d submi t th e cas e fo r
j u d g m e n t o n t h e fact s a g r e e d u p o n , w i t h o u t
t h e
introductio n o f e v i d e n c e .
I f t h e
partie s
agre e onl y o n
som e
o f th e
fact s
Thi s
c o u r t . S u c h s t
e s s relie f
therefro m i s permitte d
such a s erro r or frau
. 809).
Bu t counse l canno t
evidence consist s o f
on th e basi s o f suc h
1 5
Phil.
77).
i p u l a t i o n s a r e
S
b i n d i n g
u n l
2 .
S t i p u l a t i o n s o f fact s a r e n o t p e r m i
t t e d i n
action s for annulmen t of marriag e
(Art.
88, Civi
l Code;
now ,
Art.
4 8 Family
Code)
a n d for
lega l
s e p
a r a t i o n
(Art.
101,
Civil
Code;
now ,
Art.
60,
Family
Code).
Formerly , i n crimina l cases , stipulation s o f fact s wer e not
permitte d (U.S. vs. Donato, 9 Phil.
701; People vs. Ord
onio,
[CA], 6 7 O.G. 4224).
See , however , Rul e 11 8 whic h now
permit s suc h stipulation s a t th e pre-tria l conference .
Sec . 7 . Statement of
judge. D
r i n g
o r tria l o f a c a s e a n y s t a t e m e n t
u d g e
w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c a s e , o r
parties ,
w i t n e s s e s o r c o u n s e l , shal l b e m
i n t h e
s t e n o g r a p h i c n o t e s . (3a , R30 )
u r i n g
m a d e
t h e
h e a
b y t h e j
t o a n y o f t h e
a d e o f r e c o r d
N O T E
o f
Sec.
1.
Thi s
17 ,
Rul e
provisio n
136 ,
th e
differ s
s o m e w h a t
from
t h a t
s a s
follows :
"Whenever
requested
by
a party,
any
statement
made
by
a judge
of first instance,
or
by
a commissioner,
wit h
referenc e t o a cas e bein g trie d by him , or t o an y o f th
e
partie s thereto , o r t o an y witnes s o r attorney , durin g th e
h e a r i n g o f suc h case ,
shal l b e
m a d e o f recor d
i n th e
stenographi c notes. "
Sec .
8 . Suspension of actions.
T h e
s u s p e
n s i o n
o f a c t i o n s s h a l l b e g o v e r n e d b y t h e p r o v i
s i o n s o f
t h e Civi l Code ,
(n )
388
----------------------- Page 389----------------------RULE 30
EC. 9
TRIAL
NOTE S
1.
Rul e
2 1
o f th e
forme r Rules ,
providin g for th e
(1)
I f willingnes s to discus s a possibl e compromis e
i s expresse d by on e or both parties ; or
(2)
befor
e
th e commencemen t o f th e action or proceeding , offered
t o discus s a possibl e compromis e bu t th e othe r part y
refuse d th e offer .
Th e duratio n
civil action o r
b e governe d by
a s th e Suprem e
an d term s o f th e suspensio n o f th e
proceedin g an d simila r matter s shal l
suc h provision s o f th e rule s o f cour t
Cour t shal l promulgate .
Sai d r
ule s
of cour t shal l likewis e provid e for th e appointmen t
an d dutie s o f amicabl e compounders. "
of
p e
a d
o
Sec
court.
n d i n
d u c e
r
.
9 . Judge to receive evidence;
Th e j u d g e o f th e cour t w h
g shal l personall y receiv e th e e
d b y t h e parties .
H o w e
delegation
e r e th e
v i d e n c
v e r , i
to clerk
cas e i s
e t o b e
n default s
2 . Th e p r e s e n t provisio n i s i n t e n d e d t o
effect a
rapprochemen t betwee n th e conflictin g practices , havin g
in min d th e nee d t o reliev e th e judg e o f som e o f hi s judicia
l
function s wheneve r th e sam e ca n b e safely entruste d t o a
responsibl e officer an d wit h th e necessar y safeguard s for
th e interest s o f th e parties .
Th e basi c rule , o f co
urse ,
remain s t h a t th e judg e mus t himsel f personall y receiv e
an d resolv e th e evidenc e o f th e parties .
390
----------------------- Page 391----------------------RULE SO
9
TRIAL
SEC.
3 1
CONSOLIDATIO N
S e c t i o n
i o n s
i n v o l v i n g a c
t ar e
p e n d i n g
b e f o
j o i n t
h e a r i n g o r tria
s s u e i n
t h e a c t i o n s ;
s c o n s o l i d a t e d ; a n
e r n i n g
p r o c e e d i n g s
a v o i d
u n n e c e s s a r y c
O R
1 .
SEVERANC E
Consolidation.
o m m o n
q u e s t i o n
r e t h e
c o u r t , i t
W h e n
o f
la w
m a y
a c t
o r
fac
o r d e r
l o f a n y o r al l t h e m a t t e r s i n i
i t m a y
o r d e r
a l l t h e
a c t i o n
d i t m a y m a k e s u c h o r d e r s c o n c
t h e r e i n
a s
o s t s o r delay .
NOTE S
m a y
(1)
t e n d
t o
1.
j o i n t h e a r i n g a u t h o r i z e d b y Rul e 3 1 , a r e t o
avoi d
multiplicit y o f suits , guar d agains t oppressio n o r abuse ,
preven t delay , clea r congeste d dockets , simplify th e wor k
o f th e tria l cour t an d sav e unnecessar y cost s an d expenses .
Consolidation seek s t o attai n justic e wit h th e leas t expens e
an d vexatio n t o th e litigants .
Th e presen t tendenc y i s
t o
permi t consolidatio n wheneve r possibl e an d irrespectiv e
o f t h e d i v e r s i t y o f t h e i s s u e s involve d
(Palanc
a
vs.
Querubin,
et al.,
L-29510-31,
Nov.
29,
1969;
Ray
mundo,
et al. vs. Felipe,
L-30887,
Dec.
24, 1971).
2 . Th e
rul e o n consolidatio n o f case s
gene
rall y
applie s only t o case s pendin g befor e th e sam e judge , no t
t o case s pendin g i n differen t branche s o f th e sam e cour t
or
in differen t
court s
(PAL,
et al.
vs.
Teodoro,
et al.,
9 7 Phil.
461),
an d
als o applie s
t o specia l proceeding
s
(Salazar
vs.
CFI
of Laguna,
infra);
b u t
w h e
n e v e r
appropriate , an d in th e interes t o f justice , consolidatio n o f
case s in different branche s o f th e sam e cour t or in different
court s ca n b e effected .
Consolidatio n o f case s o n appea l
an d assigne d t o differen t division s o f th e Suprem e Cour t
or th e Cour t o f Appeal s i s als o authorized , an d generall y
392
----------------------- Page 393----------------------RULE 31
SEC. 1
CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE
rule ,
th e
consolidatio n
o f severa l
case s
i n v o l v i n g t h e s a m e
p a r t i e s a n d s u b j e c t - m a t
t e r i s
discretionary wit h th e tria l court .
However , consolidation
of thes e case s become s a matte r o f dut y i f tw o or mor e
case s ar e trie d befor e th e sam e judge , or , i f filed wit
h
different branche s o f th e sam e Cour t o f Firs t Instance ,
one o f suc h case s ha s no t bee n partiall y trie d (Raymundo,
et al. vs. Felipe, supra).
Subject to th e qualification in
th e latte r case , i t woul d see m tha t th e former doctrin e tha t
ther e i s n o tim e beyon d which n o consolidation o f case s
can
b e effecte d
redes,
74 Phil.
6).
i s stil l
vali d
(se e
Sideco
vs.
Pa
i n
ordere d th
f
Agusa n de l
cas e filed
other actio
et al.,
G.R.
No.
consolidatio n
o f bot h
case s
i n
th e
cour t o
Dec.
29,
1983).
Sec . 2 .
Separate
trials.
T h e
c o u r t
,
i n
f u r t h e r a n c e o f c o n v e n i e n c e o r t o a v o i d pr
ejudice ,
m a y o r d e r a s e p a r a t e tria l o f a n y claim , cross-claim ,
c o u n
r o f
s e p a
c r o
c l a i
i n t s
i s s u
t e r
an y
r a t
s s m s ,
o r
e s .
c l a i m , o r
e i s s u e o r
t h i r d - p a r t y
o f a n y
c o m p l a i n t , o
n u m b e r
o f c l a i m s ,
c o u n t e r c l a i m s , t h i r d - p a r t y
c o m p l a
(2a )
NOTE S
T h i s p r o v i s i o n p e r m i t t i n g
s
o s e s t h a t t h e claim s
involve d
o f th e court .
s e p a r a t
a r e withi
Whe n on e o f th e claim s i s
B Y
3 2
COMMISSIONE R
S e c t i o n 1 . Reference
by
consent.
By
t t e n
c o n s e n t o f bot h parties , th e cour t ma y orde r an y o r
al l o f t h e i s s u e s i n a c a s e t o b e
r e f e r
t o a
c o m m i s s i o n e r t o b e agree d u p o n b y th e partie
r
t o b e a p p o i n t e d b y t h e court .
A s u s e d
t h e s e
Rules , t h e wor d "commissioner " include s a referee ,
a n audito r an d a n examiner ,
( l a , R33)
Sec .
p a r t i e s
t h e
2 .
d o
w r i
r e d
s o
i n
Whe n
d i n g
o f a
effect
a questio n o f
s , arise s upo n
case , o r fo r
.
(2a , R33
commissioner.
t h e c l e r k
o f
ma y
specif y
s
o
direc t
o r t o d o
d repor t
395
----------------------- Page 396----------------------RULE 32
SEC. 4
e v i d e n c e only , an d m a y fi x t h e d a t e fo r b e g
i n n i n g
an d c l o s i n g t h e h e a r i n g s an d
fo r t h e filin g
o f hi s
report .
Subjec t t o t h e specification s an d limitation s
state d i n t h e order , th e c o m m i s s i o n e r h a s a n d shal
l
e x e r c i s e t h e p o w e r t o r e g u l a t e t h e p r o c e
e d i n g s i n
e v e r y h e a r i n g befor e h i m an d t o d o al l a c t s a n d
tak e
all m e a s u r e s n e c e s s a r y o r p r o p e r fo r t h e ef
ficien t
p e r f o r m a n c e o f h i s d u t i e s u n d e r t h e order .
H e m a y
i s s u e s u b p o e n a s an d
s u b p o e n a s duces tecum,
s w e a r
w i t n e s s e s , a n d
u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d
i n t h e
o r d e r
o f
r e f e r e n c e ,
h e
m a y
r u l e
u p
o n
t h e
a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e .
T h e
t r i a l o r
h e a r i n g
befor e h i m shal l p r o c e e d i n al l r e s p e c t s a s i t w o
u l d
i f h e l d befor e t h e court .
(3a , R33 )
NOTE S
1. I n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s
t i o n , t h e
commissioner ma y rul e upo n th e admissibilit
unles s otherwis e provide d i n th e orde r o
I n
receptio n o f evidenc e befor e t h e cler
th e provision s o f
e
t h a t powe r an d
t o th e objection s
objection s shal l b
ha s submitte d hi s
2 .
u n d e r
t h i s s e c
y o f evidence ,
f reference .
k
o f cour t
u n d e r
e
o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s befor e
t h e commissioner ,
no t th e
modalit y thereof .
Th e orde r o f referenc e ma y direc t th
e
commissioner t o perfor m different act s i n an d for purpose s
o f th e proceeding s but , whateve r ma y b e th e case , th e
requiremen t for hi m t o hol d a hearin g canno t b e dispense d
wit h a s thi s i s th e essenc e o f du e proces s (Aljem's Co
rp.,
etc. vs.
CA, et al.,
G.R. No.
122216, Mar. 28, 2001).
Sec .
n t e r i n g
u p o n h i s
e
s w o r n
4 .
Oath
d u t i e s
of
t h e
commissioner.
c o m m i s s i o n e r
Befor e
s h a l l
e
b
396
----------------------- Page 397----------------------RULE 32
ECS. 5-9
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER
t o a
f a i t h f u l a n d
h e r e o f .
(14, R33 )
h o n e s t
p e r f o r m a n c e
S
t
Sec .
5.
Proceedings
before
commissioner.
Upo n
r e c e i p t o f t h e
o r d e r
o f r e f e r e n c e
a n d
u n l e s s
o t h e r w i s e provide d t h e r e i n , th e c o m m i s s i o n e r sh
al l
forthwit h se t a tim e an d plac e fo r th e firs t m e e t i n g
o f th e partie s o r thei r c o u n s e l t o b e hel d w i t h i n t
e n
7 . Refusal
t o
o b e y
of
a
witness.
T h e
s u b p o e n a
r e f u s a
i s s u e d
Sec .
8.
Commissioner
shall
avoid
delays.
It is
th e dut y o f th e c o m m i s s i o n e r t o procee d wit h al
l
r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e . E i t h e r party , o n notic e
t o
th e
p a r t i e s an d
c o m m i s s i o n e r , m a y appl y t o
t h e
cour t fo r a n orde r requirin g th e c o m m i s s i o n e r t o
expedit e
th e
p r o c e e d i n g s
an d
t o
mak e
hi s
report .
U p o n
(8a, R33 )
Sec
t h e
c o m p l e
e e d i n g
befor e th
hi s repor
9.
t i o n
Report
of
o f th e
tria l
commissioner.
o r
h e a r i n g
o r
p r o c
h i m b y t h e orde r o f reference .
p o w e r s
ar e no t specifie d o r limited , h e
W h e n
h i
fort h
hi s
shal l
se t
a f f i d a v i t s ,
d e p o s i t i o n s , p a p e r s an d t h e transcript , i f any , o f
th e
testimonia l e v i d e n c e presente d befor e him .
(9a , R33)
Sec .
10 .
Notice
to parties of the filing of
report.
Sec .
e n
th
p a r t i e s
i n d i n g s
f a c t s h a
l a w
s h
t h e r e a f t
report.
g r
s
d
o n
u
(10 ) d a y s referre
r e p o r t shal l b e
s h a l l i s s u e a n
e j e c t i n g
t h e
e c o m m i t t i n g
t h e
e
p a r t i e s
c o m m i s s i o n e
12 .
Stipulations as
to findings.
W h
e
s t i p u l a t e t h a t a c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s f
o f
l l
b e
f i n a l , o n l y
q u e s t i o n s
o f
a l l
e r b e c o n s i d e r e d .
(12a , R33 )
S e c . 13 .
Compensation
of
commissioner.
T h e
C o u r t
s h a l l
a l l o w
t h e
c o m m i s s i o n e
r
s u c h
r e a s o n a b l e c o m p e n s a t i o n a s t h e c i r c u m s t a
n c e s
o f
398
----------------------- Page 399----------------------RULE 32
13
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER
SEC.
3 3
T O
EVIDENC E
Sec .
1 .
Demurrer to evidence.After th e plaintif f
h a s c o m p l e t e d t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f h i s e v i d e
n c e , th e
d e f e n d a n t m a y m o v e
fo r d i s m i s s a l o n t h e
g r o u n d
t h a t u p o n t h e
fact s a n d
t h e la w
t h e plainti
f f h a s
s h o w n n o righ t t o relief .
I f h i s m o t i o n i s d e
n i e d , h e
s h a l l h a v e t h e
r i g h t t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e
.
I f h i s
m o t i o n
i s g r a n t e d
b u t
o n
a p p e a l
t h e o
r d e r
o f
d i s m i s s a l i s r e v e r s e d h e s h a l l b e d e e m e d
t o h a v e
w a i v e d t h e righ t t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e ,
( l a
, R35 )
NOTE S
1.
s on
th e
after
r s
motio
groun
th e
from
n t o
an d
i s presente d
I t t h u s diffe
1 6 whic h i s
grounde
d on
preliminar y objection s an d i s presente d
th e case , i.e. , generally , befor e a
filed b y th e movan t an d withi n th e
thereof .
Se e Not e 1 unde r Sec . 1 ,
a t th e outse t o f
responsiv e pleadin g i s
perio d for th e filing
Rul e 16 .
2 . I n t h e l a n g u a g e
o f t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t , a
d e m u r r e r t o evidenc e ma y b e issue d where ,
upo n th e
facts an d th e law , th e plaintif f ha s show n n o righ t t o relie
f .
W h e r e
t h e p l a i n t i f f s e v i d e n c e t o g e t h e r w
i t h s u c h
inference s an d conclusion s a s ma y reasonabl y b e draw n
t h e r e f r o m
d o e s n o t
w a r r a n t
r e c o v e r y a g a
i n s t t h e
defendant , a d e m u r r e r t o evidenc e shoul d b e sustained .
A d e m u r r e r t o evidenc e i s likewis e s u s t a i n a b l e
when ,
admittin g ever y prove n fact favorabl e t o th e plaintif f an d
i n d u l g i n g i n
h i s f a v o r a l l c o n c l u s i o n s f a
i r l y a n d
reasonabl y inferabl e therefrom ,
th e plaintif f ha s
faile d
t o mak e ou t on e o r mor e o f th e materia l element s o f hi s
case , o r whe n ther e i s n o evidenc e t o suppor t a n allegatio n
400
----------------------- Page 401----------------------RULE 33
SEC. 1
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
necessar y t o hi
e
p l a i n t i f f s
for
a
recovery
(
Emilio
Calma,
G.R.
s claim .
evidenc e
Heirs
No.
of
160832,
facie
Santioque
Oct.
27,
insufficien t
vs.
Heirs
of
2006).
3 . D e f e n d a n t s wh o p r e s e n t a d e m u r r e r
t o t h e
plaintiff s evidenc e retai n th e righ t t o presen t thei r own
evidence , i f th e tria l cour t disagree s wit h them ; i f th e tria l
court agree s wit h them , bu t o n appeal , th e appellat e cour t
disagree s wit h bot h o f the m an d reverse s th e dismissa l
order , th e defendant s los e th e righ t t o presen t thei r own
evidence .
Th e appellat e cour t shall , i n addition , resolv e
th e cas e an d rende r judgmen t o n th e merits , inasmuc h
a s a demurre r aim s t o discourag e prolonge d litigations .
I t c a n n o t r e m a n d
t h e cas e
for
f u r t h e r p r o c e
e d i n g s
(Radiowealth
Finance
Co.
vs. Del
Rosario,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
138739,
July
6, 2000).
4 .
L-2
SEC. 1
6 . Fo r th e
counterpar t b u t contrar y feature s i n
c r i m i n a l cases , se e Sec . 23 , Rul e 11 9 an d t h e
ote s
thereunder .
402
----------------------- Page 403----------------------RUL E
JUDGMEN T
O N
TH E
3 4
PLEADING S
S e c t i o n 1. Judgment
on
the pleadings.
Wher
e
a n a n s w e r fail s t o t e n d e r a n i s s u e , o r o t h
e r w i s e
a d m i t s
t h e m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e a d
v e r s e
party' s pleading , th e cour t may , o n motio n o f tha t
party , direc t j u d g m e n t o n s u c h pleading .
However
,
i n a c t i o n s fo r declaratio n o f nullit y o r a n n u l m e
n t
o f m a r r i a g e o r fo r lega l s e p a r a t i o n , t h e mat
eria l
f a c t s a l l e g e d i n t h e
s b e
proved ,
( l a , R19 )
c o m p l a i n t
s h a l l a l w a y
NOTE S
1. A judgmen t on th e pleading s presuppose s tha t
ther e i s n o controverte d issu e whatsoeve r betwee n th e
p a r t i e s , henc e t h e plaintif f i s als o assume d t o hav
e
a d m i t t e d al l t h e r e l e v a n t a l l e g a t i o n s o f fa
c t o f
th e defendan t in hi s answe r (Evangelista vs. De la Rosa,
76 Phil.
115; Mercy's,
Inc.
vs.
Verde,
L-21571,
Sept
.
29,
1966).
Th e judgmen t is , therefore , base d exclusively upon
th e allegation s appearin g i n th e pleading s o f th e partie s
an d th e annexe s thereto , i f any , withou t consideratio n
of
an y
evidenc e
aliunde
(see
Rodriguez
vs.
Llo
rente,
49 Phil.
823).
2 . Th e plaintiff , by movin g for judgmen t on th e
pleadings ,
i s no t deeme d
t o hav e
admitte d
irre
levant
allegation s in th e defendant' s answe r (Araneta vs. Perez,
L-20787-8,
June
29,
1965);
n e i t h e r i s th e defenda
n t
deeme d t o hav e a d m i t t e d allegation s o f d a m a g e s i
n
th e
complain t
(Abubakar
Tan
vs.
Tian
Ho,
L-1
8820,
Dec.
29,
1962; Delfin vs.
CAR,
L-23348, Mar.
14,
1967),
henc e ther e can b e n o awar d o f damage s in sai d judgmen t
in th e absenc e of proo f
(Lichauco vs. Guash,
7 6 Phi
l. 5).
403
----------------------- Page 404----------------------RULE 34
C. 1
8E
i t ma y
4 . Th e
Rule
r e n d e r suc h
j u d g m e n t motu
prop
18).
tria l
cour t
ma y
pre-trial ,
rende r
vs.
th e
Sec.
a judgmen t
fact s
of
o n th e
w a r r a n t
Public
Works
&
Communications,
an d
L-24281,
May
19,
1967).
J u d g m e n t o n th e
i s base d exclusively
o f evidence ; a
th e pleading s bu t
admission s o f th e
amoun t o f damages ,
pleading s
i s
availabl e
i n
6 . J u d g m e n t s o n t h e p l e a d i n g s an d s u m m
a r y
judgment s ar e als o t o b e distinguishe d from judgment s by
default .
I t wil l b e observe d t h a t i n defaul t judgmen
t
(a) g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f fac t and/o r la w
ar e normall
y
involved ; (b) evidenc e mus t b e introduce d on th e materia l
allegations , albei t ex parte, except in case s covere d by th e
rul e on summar y procedure ; (c) al l case s may b e subject
t o judgment s by default , except thos e for annulmen t or
declaration o f nullit y o f marriag e or lega l separation ; an d
ex parte,
wherei n
th e court ,
a l l r e n d e
i n
A.M . No .
02-11-10-S C
approve d
t h e
an d
Rul e
o f Void Marriage s an d
(Appendix AA) and ,
o n
i
n
A.M . No .
(Appendix
02-11-11-SC ,
BB).
th e
Rul e
o n Lega l
Separatio n
405
----------------------- Page 406----------------------R U L E
S U M M A RY
3 5
J U D G M E N T S
S e c t i o n
1 .
Summary judgment
for
claiman
t.
A
p a r t y
s e e k i n g
t o
r e c o v e r
u p o n
a
c l a i m ,
c o u n t e r c l a i m ,
o r
c r o s s - c l a i m
o r
t o
o b t a i n
a
d e c l a r a t o r y
r e l i e f m a y ,
a t a n y
t i m e
a f t e r t h e
p l e a d i n g i n a n s w e r t h e r e t o h a s b e e n s e r v
e d , m o v e
w i t h
s u p p o r t i n g
a f f i d a v i t s ,
d e p o s i t
i o n s
o r
a d m i s s i o n s
fo r
a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t
i n
h i s f a v o r
u p o n a l l o r a n y p a r t t h e r e o f ,
S e c .
2 .
Summary
party.
A
p a r t y a g a i n s t w h o
l a i m ,
o r
c r o s s - c l a i m i s a s s e r
r e l i e f i s
s o u g h t
m a y ,
a t a n y
p p o r t i n g
a f f i d a v i t s , d e p o s i t i
s u m m a r y
j u d g m e n t i n h i s f a v o
t t h e r e o f .
(2a , R34 )
( l a ,
judgment
m
for
R34 )
defending
t e d
c l a i m , c o u n t e r c
o r a
t i m e ,
d e c l a r a t o r y
m o v e
w i t h
s u
o n s o r a d m i s s i o n s fo r a
r a s t o
a l l o r a n y
p a r
N O T E S
1.
Fo r d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n a j u d g m e
n t o n
th e
pleading s an d a summar y judgment , se e th e note s unde r
Sec. 1 , Rul e 34 .
2 .
a
s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s no t prope r i n a n actio n f
or th e
a n n u l m e n t or declaratio n o f nullit y o f a marriag e
(an d
also i n lega l separation) , jus t a s i n th e cas e o f a judgmen
t
on t h e pleadings , a s thi s Rul e refer s t o a n actio n
"t o
recove r upo n a claim, " etc. , t h a t is , t o recove r a deb t or
a
liquidate d
deman d
for
mone y
(Roque
vs.
E
ncarnacion,
et al., 95 Phil.
43).
Summar y judgments , however , ar e
mad e specifically applicabl e t o th e specia l civil actio n for
declaratory
relie f (Rule
3).
406
----------------------- Page 407----------------------RULE 35
SEC. 3
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Sec .
3 . Motion
and
proceedings
thereon.
h e
i o n s h a l l b e s e r v e d a t l e a s t t e n (10) d a y s
e
t i m e s p e c i f i e d fo r t h e h e a r i n g .
T h e a
r s e
p a r t y m a
i t i o n s ,
o r a d m i s
r e t h e
h e a r i n g .
s o u g h t
s h a l l b e
d i n g s ,
s u p p o r t i
s i o n s
o n
file ,
n t
o f
d a m a g e s ,
t o a n y
m a t e r i a l
e n t i t l e d
t o a j u d g
s e r v e
s i o n s
o p p o s i n g
a t
Afte r
l e a s t
t h e
s h o w
t h e
t h e r e
i f
t h e p l e a
d e p o s i t i o n s ,
t h a t , e x c e p t
i s
n o
b e f o
j u d g m e n t
f o r t h w i t h
affidavits ,
d e p o s
t h r e e (3 ) d a y s
h e a r i n g ,
r e n d e r e d
n g
affidavits ,
a s
a n d
t o
g e n u i n e
a d m i s
t h e a m o u
a s
m o v i n g p a r t y
i s
fac t a n d t h a t t h e
i s s u e
m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f law .
(3a , R34 )
N O T E S
1. Summar y judgmen t i s prope r only whe n ther e i s
n o genuin e issu e a s t o an y materia l fact in th e
clearly
action , an d
any questio n
(Agcanas
dbank
Corp.
vs.
et al,
G.R.
No.
120010,
Oct.
3,
2002).
e crucia l
pleading s ar e
affidavits ,
.
issu e
vs.
for
tria l
Guerrero,
(Manufact
G.R.
No.
407
----------------------- Page 408----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 4
3 . S u m m a
e r e th e
defendant presente d
issue s
whic h cal l
for
anueva
vs. NAMARCO,
et al.
vs. CA,
et al,
j u d g m e n t
defense s
th e
i s
L-49017 an d
June
p r o p e r
tenderin g
presentatio n
L-27441,
no t
w h
factua l
o f evidenc e
30,
L-49024,
1969;
Aug.
(Vill
Guevarra,
30,
1983;
R&B
Surety & Insurance Co., et al
vs. Savellano, et al,
L45234,
May 8,
1985), a s wher e th e defendan t specifically denie d
t h e m a t e r i a l allegation s
i n t h e c o m p l a i n t (Tam
o
vs.
Gironella, et al,
L-41714,
Oct.
29,
1976).
Furthermore
,
t h e r e m u s t b e a motio n for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t
an d a
h e a r i n g o f sai d motion , t h e non-observanc e o f whic h
procedura l requirement s w a r r a n t s th e settin g asid e o f th e
summary judgmen t
(Cadirao,
et al
vs. Estenzo,
L
-42408,
Sept.
21,
1984).
4 . Th e tes t for th e propriet y o f a motion for summar y
judgmen t i s whethe r th e pleadings , affidavit s an d exhibit s
in suppor t o f th e motio n ar e sufficient t o overcom e th e
opposing paper s an d
of law , ther e i s
i s
clearl y
m e r i t
et
al,
L-40948,
June
vs.
Consolacion,
1976).
o f thi s
Rule ,
(T
s u m m a r y judgmen t
attorney' s
fee s
in a
40 8
----------------------- Page 409----------------------RULE 35
SEC. 4
summary j u d g m e n t
e
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
i n
th e
absenc e
o f proo f a s
t o
th
Barnes
&
Co.
vs.
Luzon
4.
Case
not
fully
adjudicated
on
motion.
I f o n m o t i o n
n o t
rendere d u p o n th
s o u g h t an d a
t th e
h e a r i n g o f th
an d
t h e e v i
t i n g
c o u n s e l shal l
x i s t
w i t h o u t
s u b
ar e
actually an d i n
shal l
t h e r e u p o n mak
appea r w i t h o u
t h e
e x t e n t
g e s
o r othe r relie f
s u c h f u r t h e
ar e
u n d e r
t h i s R u l e ,
j u d g m e n t
i s
e w h o l e cas e o r fo r al l th e relief s
tria l i s n e c e s s a r y , th e cour t
e motion , b y e x a m i n i n g th e pleading s
d e n c e befor e i t an d b y i n t e r r o g a
a s c e r t a i n
w h a t
materia l
s t a n t i a l c o n t r o v e r s y a n d
goo d
fait h
controverted .
fact s
w h a t
I t
RULE 35
SECS. 5-6
j u s t .
T h e
f a c t s s o s p e c i f i e d
s h a l l b e
d e e m e d
e s t a b l i s h e d , a n d t h e tria l shal l b e c o n d u c t e d
o n th e
c o n t r o v e r t e d fact s a c c o r d i n g l y .
(4a , R34 )
N O T E
1.
o f a p a r t i a l s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t ,
s u c h j u d
g m e n t
i s
interlocutory i n natur e an d i s no t a fina l an d appealabl e
judgment .
Th e appea l from th e partia l an d appealabl e
judgmen t shoul d b e take n togethe r wit h th e judgmen t i n
th e entir e cas e afte r th e tria l shal l hav e bee n conducte d
on th e materia l fact s o n whic h a substantia l controvers y
e x i s t s (Guevarra,
et
al.
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
L-49
017
an d
L-49024,
Aug.
30,
1983).
S e c . 5.
Form
of
affidavits
and
supporting
papers.
S u p p o r t i n g a n d o p p o s i n g affidavit s shal l b e m a d e
o n p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e ,
shal l
se t fort h
s
u c h
fact s
a s w o u l d b e a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e , a n d shal l
s h o w
affirmativel y t h a t t h e affian t i s c o m p e t e n t t o testif y
t o t h e m a
c o p i e s
o f al l p a
t o i n t h e
a f f i d a v i
s e r v e d
t h e r e w i t
t t e r s s t a t e d t h e r e i n .
p e r s
o r
t s h a l l
h .
p a r t s
b e
Certifie d t r u e
t h e r e o f r e f e r r e d
a t t a c h e d
t h e r e t o
o r
(5a , R34 )
f u r t h
a d j u d g
g u i l t y
c o n t e m
e r
e
t h e o f f e n d i n g
o f
p t .
(6a , R34 )
p a r t y
o r
c o u n s e l
410
----------------------- Page 411----------------------RULE 35
SECS. 5-6
N O T E
1. Th
thes e section
part y bu t als
contemplate d
3 6
J U D G M E N T S ,
A N D
ENTR Y
S e c t i o n
final
orders.
A j u
i n i n g
t h e m e r i t s o f
o n a l l y
a n d d i r e c t l y
g clearl y
a n d d i s t i n c t
i c h i t
i s b a s e d , s i
e cler k
o f court , ( l a )
1.
FINA L
THEREO F
Rendition
ORDER S
d g m e n t
of
o r
fina l
judgments
o r d e r
and
d e t e r m
t h e c a s e shal l b e i n w r i t i n g p e r s
p r e p a r e d
l y
b y t h e j u d g e , s t a t i n
t h e fact s
g n e d
b y
a n d
h i m ,
t h e
a n d
la w
file d
o n
w i t h
w h
t h
NOTE S
1.
p r e p
i n g
d e t e
t h e
contain
a r e d a n d p r o m u l g a t e d b y it , a d j u d i c a t
a n d
r m i n i n g t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s t o
case . I t
s th e finding s o f fact an d law , th e reason s an d
evidence t o suppor
o f issue s leadin g
itiv e
or decreta l portio
th e judgmen t o r
th e subjec t o f execution ,
althoug h th e othe r p a r t s o f th e
SEC. 1
whe n
th e
dispositiv e
etc.,
par t o f a
Corp.,
fina l orde r or
et
al.
vs.
CA,
et al.,
3 .
Th e specia l form s o f judgment s unde r th e Rule s
and jurisprudenc e are :
a. Judgmen t by defaul t (Sec.
3,
b. Judgmen t on th e pleading s
c.
Summar y
judgmen t
Rule
(Rule
(Rule
34);
35);
9);
4,
5,
Rule
Rule 36);
upo n
confession ;
36);
11,
39);
G.R.
i . J u d g m e n t
agreement ;
j .
k .
upo n
compromise ,
or on consen t
or
4 .
Judgment s upon confession or upon compromis e
stand o n th e sam e footing i n th e sens e tha t the y canno t
b e entere d int o b y counse l withou t th e knowledg e an d
special
authorit y
of th e client
(Manufacturers
Bank
&
Trust Co.
vs. Woodworks,
Inc., L-29453,
Dec. 28,
1970).
Both
ar e immediatel y
executor y
(Samonte,
e t al. vs.
Samonte,
et al.,
L-40683,
June 27,
1975),
unles s otherwis e
413
----------------------- Page 414----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 1
.
Co.,
Inc.,
et
al,
31490,
Jan.
6,
1978).
5 . A s a r u l e , a j u d g m e n t u p o n c o m p r o
m i s e i s
immediatel y
executor y
(Pamintuan
vs.
Munos,
et
al,
L-26331,
Mar.
15,
1968;
Central
Bank
vs.
CA,
et
al,
L-38224, Dec.
10,
1974; Pasay City Gov't, et al.
vs.
CFI of
Manila, et al,
L 32162,
Sept. 28,
1984) in th e absenc
e of
a motio n t o se t th e sam e asid e on th e groun d o f fr
aud ,
mistake , etc .
(Cadano vs. Cadano, L-34998, Jan.
11
,
1973;
Zagala,
et al. vs. Jimenez, et al,
L
33050, July 23,
1987),
an d i f suc h motio n i s mad e an d denied , appea l ma y
b e
take n from t h a t orde r o f denia l
(De los Reyes vs.
Ugarte,
75
Phil.
505;
Enriquez
vs.
Padilla,
7 7 Phil.
373)
.
In
414
----------------------- Page 415----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 1
agreement
itself.
j u d g m e n
t
rendere d p u r s u a n t t o a
(Montejo vs.
Urotia, L-27187,
compromis e
July 22,
i s no t appealabl e
1971) an d ha s th e
partie s
j u d g m e n t upo n confessio n
ma y
b e
i s
judgmen t
rendere d
nunc pro
t o ente r o r
tunc
recor d
(literally ,
suc h judgmen t
"now
a s
SEC
o f
28,
1966).
et
al.
vs.
CA,
et
al,
L-44001,
June
10,
1988)
.
15. Th e validity o f a judgmen t or orde r o f a cour t
cannot b e collaterally attacke d except on th e groun d o f
(a) lack o f jurisdiction , or (b) irregularit y o f it s entr y
apparen t from th e face o f th e record .
I f th e suppose
d
nullity i s base d on th e party' s allege d lack o f consen t t o
th e compromis e agreement , th e remed y i s t o mov e for it s
reconsideration an d t o appea l from th e th e judgmen t i f
th e motion i s denied ; or i f th e judgmen t i s alread y fina l
and executory , t o file a petitio n for relie f unde r Rul e 3 8
(Cadano
vs. Cadano,
L-34998,
Jan.
11, 1973).
16. Wher e th e judgmen t i s ambiguou s an d difficult
t o compl y with , th e remed y i s t o file a motio n for
a
so-called
"clarificatory "
judgmen t
(Almendras
vs.
Del
Rosario, L-20158, Oct. 14, 1968).
Th e court may correct
417
----------------------- Page 418----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 1
a m
n am
d
i s
l
decision .
A supplementa l decision doe s no t tak e th e plac e
o f o r extinguis h th e original ; i t only serve s t o bolste r o r
ad d somethin g t o
e t al.
vs. Alegre,
etc.,
989).
18.
th e
et
primar y
decision
al, G.R.
No.
(Esquivel,
79425,
April
17,
y
a r e
b a s e d
L-27402,
July 25, 1981).
(Yuson
de
Pua
vs.
San
Agustin,
it s j u d g m e n t h a s bee n
e x e c u t e d , an d wil l
r e
m o v e
obstruction s t o th e enforcemen t thereof .
Such authorit
y
extend s not only t o such order s an d suc h writ s a s ma y b e
necessary t o carr y ou t th e judgmen t int o effect an d rende r
it bindin g an d operative , bu t als o t o such order s a s may
b e necessar y t o preven t an imprope r enforcemen t o f th e
judgment .
I f a judgmen t i s sough t t o b e perverte d an d
mad e th e mediu m o f consummatin g a wrong , th e cour t on
prope r application can preven t it
[31 Am.
JUT., Judgment
s,
Sec.
882,
pp.
363
364]
(Cabrias
vs.
Adil,
L-49
648,
Mar.
18,
1985).
20 . Th e requiremen t in Sec .
1 o f thi s Rul e tha
t a
decision shoul d stat e th e fact s an d law on which it i s base d
(see
Sec. 9, Art. X,
1973 Constitution) formerly
appl
ie d
only t o decision s o f court s o f record , an d no t thos e o
f
inferior courts , pursuan t t o Sec . 12, Art . VII o f th e 193 5
Constitution .
Thus , formerly , decision s o f an inferior court
wer e not require d t o contai n finding s o f fact an d law (then
Sec. 14, Rule 5), unles s it sit s a s a cour t of recor d in a
criminal cas e appealabl e t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s or th e
S u p r e m e
C o u r t
(Sec.
87,
R.A.
296,
as
amende
d).
However , unde r R.A . 6031 , inferior court s becam e court s
o f recor d an d th e fact s an d law mus t appea r i n thei
r
decisions .
Also , Rul e 5 ha s been expressly repeale d an d
th e procedur e in inferior court s i s now th e sam e a s tha t in
419
----------------------- Page 420----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 2
Sec .
40 ,
B.P .
Big .
12 9 ha s authorize d
memo -
th e constitutiona l
Gas
Commission vs. CA, et al,
1999).
However ,
t o
b e
m a n d a t e
G.R.
valid ,
No.
(Oil
suc h
114323,
and
Sept.
m e m o r a n d u m
Natural
28,
decisio
n
shoul d actuall y embod y th e factua l finding s an d
lega l
conclusion s i n a n anne x attache d t o an d mad e a n integra l
p a r t o f t h e decision .
Also ,
suc h decision s shoul d
b e
420
----------------------- Page 421----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 2
132428,
b e
t h e
t h e
d a t e
o f it s
d i s p o s i t i v e
entry .
par t
T h e
o f t h e
r a n d shal l b e s i g n e d b y t h e clerk , w
a t
s u c h j u d g m e n t o r
a n d e x e c u t o r y .
(2a ,
fina l orde r h a
10 , R51 )
NOTE S
1.
Th e a m e n d m e n t s unde r thi s section , t o th e e
ffect
t h a t th e dat e o f finality o f th e judgmen t o r fina l
orde r
shall b e deeme d t o b e th e dat e o f it s entry , change s th e
former rul e an d abandon s th e jurisprudenc e o n wha t wa s
CA,
et
t h a t th e finality o f th
s entr y an d th e delay
effectivity o f th e forme
o f th e perio d t o appea l
al., L-46040,
July
23,
n d
not
th e
e
i s delaye d
422
----------------------- Page 423----------------------JUDGMENTS,
AND
book
usua l pro
b y neglec t o r sloth .
RULE 36
SECS. 3-5
e l i m i
FINAL ORDERS
ENTRY THEREOF
2.
Entry of the judgment or final order assumes
importance in reckoning some reglementary periods,
such as the 5-year period for execution by motion (Sec. 6,
Rule 39) or the 6-month period for a petition for relief
(Sec. 3, Rule 38). For this reason and to serve as official
records, Rule 136 requires that the clerk of court shall
keep a judgment book containing a copy of each judgment
rendered by the court in the order of its date, and a book
J u d g m e n t
m a y
b e
g i v e n
fo r
o r
a g a i n s t o n e o r m o r e o f s e v e r a l plaintiffs , a n d f
o r o r
a g a i n s t o n e o r m o r e o f s e v e r a l d e f e n d a n t
s . W h e n
j u s t i c e s o d e m a n d s ,
t h e c o u r t m a y
r e q u
i r e t h e
p a r t i e s o n e a c h sid e t o fil e a d v e r s a r y p l e
a d i n g s a s
b e t w e e n t h e m s e l v e s
a n d d e t e r m i n e t h e i r
u l t i m a t e
r i g h t s a n d o b l i g a t i o n s . (3)
Sec . 4 .
Several
a c t i o n
a g a i n s t s e v e r a l d e
, w h e n a
s e v e r a l j u d g m e n t
d g m e n t
a g a i n s t o n e o r m o r
a c t i o n t o
p r o c e e d a g a i n s t t h e
judgments.
f e n d a n t s , t h e
I n
i s
e
p r o p e r ,
o f t h e m ,
o t h e r s .
a n
c o u r t m a y
r e n d e r
j u
l e a v i n g t h e
(4)
Sec .
5 .
Separate judgments.
W h e n
t h a n
o n e c l a i m fo r relie f i s p r e s e n t e d i n a n
i o n , t h e
c o u r t , a t a n y s t a g e , u p o n a
d e t e r m i n a t
o f t h e
i s s u e s m a t e r i a l
t o a
p a r t i c u l a r c l a i
a n d
a l l
c o u n t e r c l a i m s
a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e t r a n
t i o n o r
o c c u r r e n c e w h i c h i s t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o
e claim ,
m a y r e n d e r a s e p a r a t e j u d g m e n t d i s p o s i
o f s u c h
c l a i m .
T h e j u d g m e n t s h a l l t e r m i n a t e
a c t i o n
w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e c l a i m s o d i s p o s e d
a n d t h e
a c t i o n s h a l l p r o c e e d a s t o t h e r e m a i n i n g
a i m s . I n
m o r e
a c t
i o n
m
s a c
f t h
n g
t h e
o f
c l
423
----------------------- Page 424----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 6
c a s e a s e p a r a t e j u d g m e n t i s r e n d e r e d , t h e c
o u r t b y
orde r m a y sta y
o n
o f a s u b s e q
n d
m a y
prescrib e s u c h
r y t o
s e c u r e t h e
n w h o s e
favo r t h e j u d
it s e n f o r c e m e n t unti l t h e r e n d i t i
u e n t j u d g m e n t
c o n d i t i o n s
o r
b e n e f i t
a s
j u d g m e n t s
m a y
t h e r e o f t o
b e
n e c e s s a
g m e n t i s r e n d e r e d .
t h e part y
(5a )
Sec .
6.
Judgment
against
entity
juridical
personality.
W h e n
j u d g m e n t
i s r e
a g a i n s t
t w o o r m o r e
p e r s o n s
s u e d a s a n
w i t h o u t
j u r i d i c a l p e r s o n a l i t y , t h e j u d g m e n
s e t o u t
t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l o r p r o p e r n a m e s , i
(6a )
without
n d e r e d
e n t i t y
t
s h a l l
f k n o w n .
NOTE S
1.
Sec .
give s th e
meanin g o f a
severa l judgmen t
A
an d
decisio n
t h a t
h a s
unalterable .
acquire d
A
15
finalit y
fina l j u d g m e n t
highes t cour t o f th e
lan d
(Collantes
vs.
CA,
e t a
G.R.
No.
169604,
Mar.
6,
2007).
424
SEC.
6
AND ENTRY THEREOF
Th e
ma y n o
e
correction
entrie s
judgments ,
after th
th
vs.
GSIS,
G.R.
No.
159520,
Sept.
19,
20,
2006).
425
----------------------- Page 426----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 1
NE W
TRIA L
O R
3 7
RECONSIDERATIO N
Sectio n
1.
Grounds of and period for
or
new
trial
o r
reconsideration.
W i t
p e r i o d
fo r
t a k i n g a n
a p p e a l , t h e
a g g r
t y m a y
m o v e t h e tria l c o u r t t o se t a s i d e
m e n t o r
fina l o r d e r a n d g r a n t a n e w tria l
m o r e
o f t h e
f o l l o w i n g c a u s e s m a t e r i a
t i n g t h e
s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f sai d party :
(a)
F r a u d ,
a c c i d e n
c u s a b l e
n e g l i g e n c e
w h i c h
o r d i
u l d
n o t
h a v e g u a r d e d a g a i n s t a n
h s u c h
a g g r i e v e d part y h a s probabl y
s
rights ; o r
(b)
t ,
motion f
h i n
t h e
i e v e d
p a r
t h e
fo r
j u d g
l l y
o n e
o r
a f f e c
m i s t a k e
n a r y
d
filing
o r
p r u d e n c e
e x
c o
b y r e a s o n o f w h i c
b e e n i m p a i r e d
i n hi
N e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , w h i c h h e
c o u l d
not , w i t h r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e , h a v e d i s c o v e
r e d an d
p r o d u c e d a t t h e trial , a n d w h i c h i f p r e s e n t e d w
o u l d
p r o b a b l y a l t e r t h e result .
W i t h i n
t h e s a m e
p a r t y
m a y
a l s o
m o v e
f o
o n
t h e
g r o u n d s t h a t t h e d a
s s i v e ,
t h a t t h e
e v i d e n c e
t i f y t h e
d e c i s i o n o r fina l order ,
fina l
o r d e r i s c o n t r a r y t o
p e r i o d , t h e
a g g r i e v e
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n
m a g e s
i s
a w a r d e d
u p
ar e
e x c e
i n s u f f i c i e n t t o
j u s
o r t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o r
law .
( l a )
N O T E S
1.
th e
former Sec
"
Unde r th e
a notic e
h e
expiration
Th e
.
wor d
1
"perfecting "
ha s
bee n
in
th e
correctl y
firs t claus e
change d
t o
o f
"taking.
Tu
I t
i s
base d
on
th e groun d
o f insufficienc y
f
evidenc e
o r
t h a t
th e judgmen t
i s
contrar y
t o
law
bu
t
427
----------------------- Page 428----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 1
I t
i s
base d
o n
t h e
groun d
o f fraud ,
acc
mistak
facts
by an
e tha
frau d
y
(Sec.
e o r excusabl e negligenc e
constitutin g thes e ground s
affidavit o f merit s (Sec.
t
an d
m i s t a k e m u s
5,
Rule
bu t doe s no t specify th e
and/o r i s no t accompanie d
2 o f thi s Rule) .
t
b e allege d
wit h
Not
particularit
8).
F u r t h e r m o r e , sai d motio n
m u s t compl y
w
i t h th e
provision s o f Rul e 15 , otherwis e it wil l no t b e accepte d for
filin g
a n d / o r wil l
n o t s u s p e n d t h e r u n n i n g
o f t h e
reglementar y period .
Se e note s an d case s unde r Sec .
6 ,
Rul e 15 .
It shoul d als o b e observe d t h a t heretofore , unde r Sec .
4 o f th e Interi m Rules , n o part y shal l b e allowe d t o file
a
secon d
motio n
de r
or
j u dg me n t o f th
n
for
new
trial
e r
t h e
circumstance s se t
sectio n
ha s now expressl
t h e I n t e r i m
s for
reconsideration.
for
reconsideration
e tria l courts .
w o u l d
o f
However ,
fina l
or
a secon d motio
s t i l l b e a v a i l a b l e u n d
Thi s
i n
motion
4 .
I t ha s bee n held , however , t h a t eve n i f th e mo
tio n
for reconsideratio n i s base d o n substantiall y th e sam e
ground s
a s movant' s
memorandum
whe n
th e cas
e
wa s
submitte d for decision , it i s no t pro forma i f it specifically
point s ou t th e conclusion s allegedl y no t s u p p o r t e d b
y
th e evidenc e
(Maturan
vs. Araula,
et al, G.R.
No.
57392,
Jan.
30,
1982),
asid e
fro m
s t a t i n g a d d i t i o n a
l specifi c
reason s
for sai d
ground s
(Vina
vs.
CA,
et al,
L-39498,
Dec.
23,
1983).
42 8
----------------------- Page 429----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 1
groun d
g e s , w i
sai d
doe s
al., L-4922
5.
Furthermore , th e concept oipro forma motion s for
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s properl y directe d
a g a i n s t a
fina l
judgmen t o r order , an d not thos e agains t a n interlocutor y
order .
In th e former , a repetitio n o f th e groun d alread y
disposed o f ma y b e categorize d a s merel y for purpose s o f
delay ,
henc e
suc h
motio n
i s pro forma; bu t suc h
rul e
does no t appl y t o motion s directe d agains t interlocutor y
o r d e r s
(BA
Finance
Corp.
vs.
Pineda,
et al.,
G.R.
No. 61628, Dec. 29, 1982).
Se e als o Not e 1 1 unde r Sec .
1 ,
Rul e 65 .
6 .
On
th e pro forma
doctrine ,
it
i s
wort h
recallin g
w h a t
t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t r e i t e r a t e d i n Dacanay
vs.
Alvendia, e t al. (L-22633 ,
Oct .
31 , 1969) tha t wher e
a
motion for reconsideratio n i s bu t a reiteratio n o f reason s
an d a r g u m e n t s previousl y se t fort h i n th e
movant
' s
m e m o r a n d u m
an d whic h th e
t r i a l cour t ha d alr
ead y
considered ,
weighe d an d resolve d adversel y befor e i t
rendere d it s decision now sough t t o b e considered , tha t
motion is pro forma.
Th e sai d cas e law rest s upo n th e principl e tha t suc h a
motion ha s n o othe r purpos e tha n t o gain tim e b y delayin g
or impedin g th e progres s o f th e action .
Thi s i s th e l
ogica l
deduction tha t ca n b e draw n from a motion whic h merely
reiterate s an d repleads , an d add s nothin g mor e to , th e
argument s which ha d previously bee n submitte d t o th e
same cour t an d whic h argument s i t ha d duly considere d
and resolved .
429
----------------------- Page 430----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 1
,
But ,
Inc.
ou t
in
Guerra
Enterprises
Co.
vs.
such
an d
ha d
lapsed .
Carretero, 99
70443, Sept.
e mistake s o f
54169, Nov.
genera l rul e
theret o
la
Cruz,
431
----------------------- Page 432----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 1
10.
l y
m u s t
b e excusabl e
an d
general
Newl y
discovere d
evidence ,
t o
w a r r a n t
new
trial , (a) mus t hav e bee n discovere d afte r trial , (b) could
no t hav e bee n discovere d an d produce d a t th e tria l despit e
reasonabl e diligence , an d (c) i f presented , woul d probably
alter th e
resul t o f th e
actio n
(National Shipyards
and
Steel Corp. vs. Asuncion, et al., 103 Phil. 67).
Mer e ini
tia l
hostility o f a witnes s at th e tria l doe s no t constitut e hi s
testimon y int o newly discovere d evidenc e (Arce vs. Arce,
106 Phil.
630).
12. Generally , a clien t wil l suffer th e consequence s
of th e negligence , mistak e or lack o f competenc e o f counsel ;
however , i n th e interes t o f justic e an d equity , exception s
may b e mad e i n instance s wher e th e part y ma y b e unjustly
deprived o f hi s property . Thus , th e cour t wil l no t disregar d
th e verifie d defens e i n th e answe r t h a t th e transactio
n
betwee n th e partie s wa s reall y a n equitabl e mortgag e an d
not a pacto de retro sale , especially wher e ther e i s evidenc e
to suppor t suc h defens e
(Escudero, et al. vs. Dulay, et al
.,
G.R. No. 60578, Feb. 23, 1988; se e als o Amil vs. CA, et al.,
G.R. No.
125272,
Oct.
7, 1999).
13. A motio n for reopenin g th e trial , unlik e a motion
for new trial , i s not specifically mentione d in th e Rule s
bu t i s nevertheles s a recognize d procedura l recours e or
devic e
d e r i v i n g v a l i d i t y a n d a c c e p t a n c e fro m
lon g
establishe d usage .
It differ s from a motio n for new trial ,
432
----------------------- Page 433----------------------RULE 37
T h e
m o t i
o n
s h a l l
b e m a d e i n w r i t i n g s t a t i n g t h e g r o u n d o r
g r o u n d s
t h e r e f o r , a w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f w h i c h s h a l l
b e s e r v e d
b y t h e m o v a n t o n t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y .
A m o t i o n fo r n e w t r i a l s h a l l
b e p r o v
e d
i n t h e
m a n n e r p r o v i d e d
fo r p r o o f o f m o t i o n s .
A m o t i o n
for
t h e c a u s e
m e n t i o n e d
i n p a r a g r a p h
(a )
o f t h e
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s h a l l b e
s u p p o r t e d
b y
a f f i d a v i t s
o f m e r i t s
w h i c h
m a y
b e
r e b u t t e d
b y
a f f i d a v i t s .
A
m o t i o n
fo r
t h e c a u s e
m e n t i o n e d
i n
p a r a g r a p h
(b) s h a l l b e s u p p o r t e d b y affidavit s o f t h e w i t n e s
s e s
b y w h o m s u c h e v i d e n c e i s e x p e c t e d t o b e g i v
e n , o r
b y
d u l y
a u t h e n t i c a t e d
d o c u m e n t s
w
h i c h
a r e
p r o p o s e d t o b e i n t r o d u c e d i n e v i d e n c e .
A m o t i o n
fo r
p o i n t o u t
s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e
s
o f t h e
j u d g m e n t o r
f i n a
s u p p o r t e d
b y
t h e e v i d e n c e
y
t o l a w ,
m a k i n g
e x p r e s s
m o n i a l
o r
d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e
o n s o f la w
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n
f i n d i n g s
l o r d e r
o r
o r
r e f e r e n c e
n c e
o r
c o n c l u s i o n
w h i c h
w h i c h
t o
a r e
a r e
t o
t h e
s h a l l
n o t
c o n t r a r
t h e
t e s t i
p r o v i s i
a l l e g e d
t o
b e
n d i n g s
o r
c o n c l u s i o n s .
c o n t r a r y
t o
s u c h
f i
433
----------------------- Page 434----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 2
A pro
forma
m o t i o n fo r
n e w
t r i a l o r r
e c o n sideratio n shal l no t tol l t h e r e g l e m e n t a r y perio d o f
appeal .
(2a )
N O T E S
1.
only
i f th e g r o u n d s relie d
ent ,
mistak e o r excusabl e negligence .
3 . Affidavit s o f merit s ma y
th e judgmen t i s nul l an d void a s
jurisdictio n ove r th e
defendan
r
(Republic
vs. De Leon,
etc.,
or is
upo n
a r e
fraud ,
accid
al,
101
Phil.
773),
434
----------------------- Page 435----------------------RULE 37
CS.3-5
SE
Resolution of
motion.
A motio n
fo r
ne
w
tria l o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n shal l b e r e s o l v e d w
i t h i n
thirt y (30 ) d a y s fro m th e tim e i t i s s u b m i t t e d
fo r
resolution ,
(n )
Sec .
r
ne w
an
e d
A
n d
no
tria l
5.
shal l
includ e
al l
g r o u n d s
A motio n fo
t h e n
availabl e
d t h o s e no t s o i n c l u d e d shal l b e d e e m e d w a i v
.
s e c o n d m o t i o n fo r n e w trial , base d o n a grou
t e x i s t i n g no r availabl e w h e n th e firs t motio n w a s
s e c o n d
o r
fina l
NOTE S
1. Sec . 4 i s a ne w provisio n intende d t o obviat
e
u n n e c e s s a r y prolongatio n o f t h e
t r i a l s t a g e
. Whil e
reform s hav e bee n initiate d t o limi t th e perio d o f tria
l
throug h continuou s hearings , an d th e Constitutio n itsel f
prescribe s th e perio d for renditio n o f th e judgment , th e
sam e ca n b e se t a t naugh t b y th e usua l motion s for new
tria l o r reconsideratio n wit h open-ende d period s for thei r
r e s o l u t i o n a n d whic h
i n effec t
freez e
t h e j u
d g m e n t
correspondingly .
2 . Th e
firs t s e n t e n c e o f Sec . 5 i m p l e m e n
t s th e
"omnibus motion " rul e unde r Sec . 8 , Rul e 15 , wit h th e
second sentenc e providin g for th e exception .
3 . A secon d motio n for new tria l ma y b e entertaine d
wher e th e groun d therefo r wa s no t availabl e o r existin g
at th e tim e whe n th e first motio n wa s filed .
Thus ,
i f th e
first motio n wa s base d on frau d an d wa s denied , a secon d
motion on th e groun d o f newly discovere d evidenc e can
still b e entertaine d i f suc h evidenc e wa s discovere d an d
becam e availabl e only afte r th e firs t motio n ha d bee n
filed.
Sec . 6 .
Effect of granting of motion for
I f a n e w tria l i s
g r a n t e d i n a c c o
t h t h e
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s Rule , t h e origina l
o r
fina l o r d e r shal l b e v a c a t e d , an d t
shal l
stan d fo r tria l d e novo; bu t th e recorde d
t a k e
i s
m a t e
i s s u
shal l
th e
same .
new
trial.
r d a n c e
w i
j u d g m e n t
h e
a c t i o n
e v i d e n c e
2 . U n
u r e w a s
observed : An
no t appealabl
such orde r i
f th e
m o v a n t i
ro m t h e
judgmen t an d
d e r
t h e
forme r
Rules ,
t h i s
p r o c e d
suc h
s i t u a t i o n
wa s
t o a p p e a l
t h e p r e s e n t
revise d
Rules ,
i t
i s l
ikewis e
specifically provide d tha t an orde r denyin g a motion for
new tria l o r reconsideratio n i s no t appealable , th e remed y
bein g a n appea l from th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r i n du e
tim e (se e Sec. 9 o f thi s Rule) .
Thi s i s reiterate d in Sec
. 1 ,
Rul e 4 1 whic h provide s tha t n o appea l may b e take n from ,
inter alia, an orde r denyin g a petitio n for relie f or an
y
similar motio n seekin g relie f from judgment .
In
stead ,
according t o sai d Rule , th e aggrieve d part y may file an
appropriat e specia l civil action unde r Rul e 65 .
th e
Sec .
7.
If
g r o u n d s
t o th e
part ,
Partial
fo r
new
cour t t o
trial
motio n
affec t th e
or
unde r
reconsideration.
t h i s
i s s u e s
a s
Rul e
t o
appea r
onl y
437
----------------------- Page 438----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 8
les s t
, th e
cour t m
a s
t o t h
s u c h
j u d g m
trial .
(7a)
Whe n
retried
a y e i t h e r e n t e r a j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r
e
r e s t , o r
e n t
o r
s t a y t h e
fina l
orde r
e n f o r c e m e n t
u n t i l
afte r
t h e
o f
n e w
NOTE S
1. Thi s procedur e
i s permissibl e w h e r e e i t h
e r a
several or a separat e judgmen t i s prope r (se e Sees. 4 an d
5, Rule
36).
2 . Wher e on e
r
reconsideratio n an d th
appea l from th e sai d
action o n th e appea l
part y
e
file s a
motio n for
new
tria l o
r
reconsideratio n
vs.
Belmonte,
L-25388,
shal l
Aug.
hav e
bee n
31,
resolve d
(Simsion
1970).
SEC.
"1.)
Beginnin g on e mont h after th e promulgatio n o f
thi s Resolution , th e rul e shal l b e strictl y enforce d t h a t n
o
motion for extensio n o f tim e t o file a motion for new tria l
or reconsideratio n ma y b e filed wit h th e (lower courts) .
Such
a motion
may
be filed only
in cases pending
w
ith
the Supreme Court a s th e cour t o f las t resort , which ma y
in it s soun d discretio n eithe r gran t o r den y th e extensio n
requested .
2.)
In appeal s in specia l proceeding s unde r Rul e 109
of th e Rule s o f Cour t an d in othe r case s wherei n multipl e
appeal s ar e allowed , a motion for extension of time to file
the record on appeal may be filed withi n th e reglementar y
perio d o f thirt y (30) day s [Moya vs . Barton , 7 6 Phil . 831 ;
Heir s o f Nante s vs . Cour t o f Appeals , Jul y 25 , 1983 , 123
SCRA 753] .
I f th e cour t denie s th e motion for extension ,
th e appea l mus t b e take n withi n th e origina l perio d [Bello
439
----------------------- Page 440----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 9
fro m th e j u d g m e n t
N O T E
1.
3 8
FRO M J U D G M E N T S ,
OTHE R
PROCEEDING S
Sectio n
1.
Petition for
relief
order,
or other proceedings. Whe n a j u d g m e n t o r
orde r
i s e n t e r e d , o r an y o t h e r p r o c e
e r e a f t e r
t a k e n a g a i n s t a part y i n an y cour t
,
accident , m i s t a k e , o r e x c u s a b l e n e g
m a y
fil e a p e t i t i o n i n s u c h cour t an d
e c a s e
p r a y i n g tha t th e j u d g m e n t , orde r o r
b e
se t aside .
(2a )
ORDERS ,
from judgment,
final
e d i n g
i s
t h
t h r o u g h
fraud
l i g e n c e , h e
i n
th e
s a m
p r o c e e d i n g
Sec . 2.
Petition
for relief from
denial
of appe
al.
u r t i n a c a s e , a n d a p a r t y t h e r e t o , b y
a u d ,
c i d e n t , m i s t a k e , o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l i g e n c
h a s
n p r e v e n t e d fro m t a k i n g a n appeal , h e m a y fil e
Thi s p r o c e d u r a l chang e
i s a
f th e
uniform procedur e adopte d for tria l court s (Rule
consideration o f th e fact tha t municipa l tria l
a l r e a d y c o u r t s o f recor d
a n d , for
, wit h
expande d jurisdictio n (se e R.A.
7691;
al. vs.
Meer,
G.R.
No.
146845,
July 2,
2002).
2 .
consequenc e
5) an d in
court s ar e
t h a t m a t t e r
Mesina,
et
th e p a r t y wa s o f limite d intelligence )
sufficient
t o justif y a petitio n
for
vs.
Mesagal,
100
Phil.
360).
wa s considere d
relie f
(Vasquez
442
----------------------- Page 443----------------------RULE 38
SEC. 3
5.
1 o f thi s Rul e ha
s
b e e n hel
s p e c i a
proceedings ,
56 Phil.
Gonzales,
4 7
Phil.
)
a n d
guardianship
52 Phil.
498).
d
l
t o b e
a p p l i c a b l e t o al l k i n d s
o f
Onas
proceeding s
vs.
Javilo,
(Panis
54
vs.
Phil.
602
Yangco,
S e c .
3.
Time
for
filing
petition;
contents
and
verification. A p e t i t i o n p r o v i d e d fo r i n e i t h e r o f
t h e
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s o f t h i s R u l e m u s t b e verified
, file d
w i t h i n sixt y (60 ) d a y s a f t e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r l e
a r n s o f
t h e j u d g m e n t , fina l
o r d e r , o r o t h e r p r o c e e
d i n g t o
b e s e t a s i d e , a n d n o t m o r e t h a n si x (6) m o n t h s
a f t e r
s u c h j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r w a s e n t e r e d , o
r s u c h
p r o c e e d i n g w a s
t a k e n , a n d m u s t b e
a c c o m
p a n i e d
w i t h affidavit s s h o w i n g t h e fraud , a c c i d e n t , m i s t a
k e ,
o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l i g e n c e r e l i e d u p o n , a n d
t h e fact s
c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s goo d a n d s u b s
t a n t i a l
c a u s e o f a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e , a s t h e c a s e m a y b
e .
(3)
N O T E S
1.
Th e tw o period s for th e filing of a petitio n for relie f
ar e
no t extendibl e
an d
neve r
interrupte d
(Quija
no
vs.
Tameta,
L-16473,
April
20,
1961).
Thus ,
a petiti
o n
for
certiorar i doe s no t suspen d th e period s prescribe d b y
thi s
section
(Palomares
vs. Jimenez,
9 0 Phil.
77
3),
an d
n e i t h e r doe s
a m o t i o n
for
r e c o n s i d e r a
n o f t h e
order subject of th e petitio n for relie f (Cruz vs.
Oppen,
Inc.,
L-23861,
Feb.
17,
1968),
especiall y
if
in th e
wron g court .
Thes e period s cannot b e subject t o a condition
or a contingency a s the y ar e devise d t o mee t a condition
or a contingency
(Vda. de Salvatierra vs. Garlitos,
et
al., 103 Phil. 157).
Bot h period s mus t b e complie d
(see
Phil.
Rabbit
et
al.,
L-29701,
Mar.
16,
Bus
Lines,
Inc.
vs.
t i o
filed
etc.,
wit h
Arciaga,
1987).
443
In on e
cas e
(Balite
vs.
Cabangon,
et al.,
L
-24105,
May 18,
1967), it wa s hel d t h a t a petitio n for relie f fi
led
on th e 65t h da y from notic e o f th e order , bu t withi n
6
month s from th e takin g o f suc h proceeding , coul d b e given
du e cours e
unde r
th e
authorit y
o f Prudential
Ba
nk
vs.
Macadaeg (10 5 Phil .
791) an d Angola vs.
Tan (10 6
Phil .
1164 fUnrep.J).
I t shoul d b e noted ,
however ,
t
h a t th e
Balite cas e involve d a proceedin g in th e the n Cour t o f
Agraria n Relation s whic h wa s no
r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e a n
r e , n o
judgmen t ha d bee n rendere d a s
a defaul t orde r only .
I
tha t
Rul e 3 8 shoul d not apply t o a
t boun d b y th e technica l
d e v i d e n c e . F u r t h e r m o
th e proceedin g aros e from
t wa s likewis e pointe d ou t
n interlocutor y order .
sai d petitio n
not from th e
vs. Araneta,
n
defined in Sec . 2 , Rul e 36 , wa s from th e recordin g o f th e
judgmen t or orde r in th e book o f entrie s o f judgment s an d
not from th e dat e o f th e orde r o f defaul t or th e renditio n
of th e judgmen t or th e finality o f th e judgment .
Howe
ver ,
a s now amended , th e dat e o f th e finality o f th e judgmen t
or fina l orde r i s deeme d t o b e th e dat e o f it s entry .
Wit h
respec t t o th e "proceedings " i n th e Regiona l Tria l Courts ,
which ca n b e th e subjec t o f petition s for relief , th e dat e
whe n th e proceeding s wer e taken control s (se e Dirige vs.
Biranya,
L-22033,
July
30,
1966).
Also ,
in judgme
nt s
u p o n c o m p r o m i s e ,
b e i n g i m m e d i a t e l y e x e c
u t o r y ,
prescriptio n run s from th e dat e o f it s rendition , henc e th e
6-month s
perio d
als o
r u n s therefro m
(Bodiogran
vs.
Ceniza,
et al., 102 Phil.
750; Dirige
vs. Biranya,
supra).
3 . A n
affidavi t
o f
m e r i t s m u s t
a c c o m p a n
y t h e
petitio n an d th e petitio n itsel f mus t b e verified .
A s i n
motion s for new trial , th e absenc e o f an affidavit o f merit s
i s a fata l defec t an d w a r r a n t s denia l o f th e pet
itio n
(Fernandez
vs.
Tan
Tiong
Tick,
L-15877,
April
28,
1961;
Concepcion
vs.
Presiding
Judge,
etc.,
et
al.,
L35489,
Dec. 15, 1982), unles s th e fact s require d t o b e se t ou t in
th e affidavit o f merit s als o appea r in th e verifie d petitio n
(Fabar,
Inc.
vs. Rodelas,
L-46394,
Oct.
26,
1977).
Also ,
like motion s for new trial , suc h affidavit s ar e not require d
whe n th e judgmen t or orde r i s void for wan t o f jurisdictio n
(Republic vs. De Leon,
101 Phil.
773), or wa s obtaine d
by
fraud or mistak e (Lupisan vs. Alfonso, et al.,
78 Phil.
842),
or wit h denia l of du e proces s (Valerio vs. Tan, etc., et al.,
97 Phil.
558).
445
----------------------- Page 446----------------------RULE 38
SECS. 4-5
Sec . 4 .
Order to file an answer. If th e petitio n i s
sufficien t i n for m an d s u b s t a n c e t o justif y th e relief ,
th e cour t i n w h i c h i t i s filed , shal l i s s u e a n o
rde r
r e q u i r i n g t h e a d v e r s e partie s t o a n s w e r t h e
sam e
w i t h i n
fiftee n
(15 )
d a y s fro m t h e r e c e i p t
thereof .
Th e orde r shal l b e s e r v e d i n s u c h m a n n e r a s
th e
c o u r t
m a y
d i r e c t , t o g e t h e r
w i t h
c o p i e s
o f t h e
p e t i t i o n an d th e a c c o m p a n y i n g affidavits .
(4a )
Sec .
ngs.
Th e c o u r t i
an t
s u c h p r e l i m
e c e s s a r y
fo r t h e
p r e
p a r t i e s ,
u p o n t h e filin
vo r
o f th e a d v e r s
o n
i s d i s m i s s e
5.
Preliminary
injunction
pending
proceedi
n w h i c h t h e p e t i t i o n i s file d m a y gr
i n a r y
i n j u n c t i o n
s e r v a t i o n
o f t h e
a s
m a y
r i g h t s
b e
o f t h e
g b y t h e p e t i t i o n e r o f a bon d i n fa
e party , c o n d i t i o n e d tha t i f th e petiti
d
o r t h e
p e t i t i o n e r
fail s
o n
th e
tria l o f
th e c a s e
advers e
part y al l d
d t o
h i m b y
unctio n
o r t h e o t
; bu t
s u c h i n j
a r g e o r
e x t i n g u i
t y ma y
h a v e a c q
u p o n
it s
m e r i t s ,
h e
wil l
pa y
t h e
a m a g e s a n d c o s t s t h a t m a y b e a w a r d e
r e a s o n
o f t h e
i s s u a n c e
o f s u c h
inj
h e r p r o c e e d i n g s f o l l o w i n g t h e petition
u n c t i o n
s h
an y
shal l
u i r e d
lie n
no t
o p e r a t e
w h i c h
t h e
t o
d i s c h
a d v e r s e
u p o n t h e propert y o f th e
par
petitioner .
(5a)
NOTE S
1.
Wher e a wri t o f executio n wa s alread y issue d an d
levy wa s mad e befor e th e petitio n for relie f wa s filed , th e
lien t h a t ma y hav e bee n acquire d over th e propert y i s not
d i s c h a r g e d b y t h e s u b s e q u e n t i s s u a n c e o f a
wri t o f
preliminar y injunction .
Thereafter , i f th e petitio
n i s
denied , th e cour t ha s th e powe r t o reinstat e th e wri t o f
execution
(Ayson
vs. Ayson,
101
Phil.
1223 (Unre
p.J).
2 .
issued ,
446
----------------------- Page 447----------------------RULE 38
SEC. 6
th e
orde r
denyin g th e
petitio n
for
relie f i s
pendin g
n
appeal .
r
appellat e
Sheriff
of Manila,
Sec.
Afte r
th e
o f
perio d
a n d
a t t
a l l e
shal l
b e d
b e
Sai d wri t ma y b e
court s
(Servicewide
et al.,
6.
filin g o f
th e
therefor ,
i f a f t e
h e
g a t i o n s
G.R.
Specialists,
No.
Proceedings
74586,
t h e
after
a n s w e r
Oct.
o r
i s m i s s e d ;
bu t i f i t
is
t h e
1986).
filed.
e x p i r a t i o n
th e
i t
no t true ,
find s
vs.
17,
answer
Inc.
sai d
petitio n
f i n d s
th e
t h
petitio n
allegation s
t o
277).
p e t i t i o n for
O n
th e
re
othe r
g a petitio n for
th e cours e thereof ,
merit s (Sec. 2,
AA1
----------------------- Page 448----------------------RULE 38
SEC. 7
a p p e a l e d c a s e a s i f a t i m e l y a n d prope r a p p e a l
ha d
b e e n m a d e .
(7a )
448
----------------------- Page 449----------------------RUL E 3 9
EXECUTION , SATISFACTIO N AN D
EFFECT S O F JUDGMENT S
S e c t i o n
1.
Execution
upon
judgments
or
final
orders. E x e c u t i o n shal l issu e a s a matte r o f right ,
o n motion , u p o n a j u d g m e n t o r orde r tha t d i s p o s e s
o f th e
actio n o r p r o c e e d i n g u p o n th e expiratio n o f
t h e a p p e a l h a s
e s o l v e d ,
t h e
b e e n
d u l y
e x e c u t i o n
p e r f e c t e
m a y
f o r t h w
o f th e j u d g m e n t
order s
s o u g h t
entr y thereof , w i t h
t o
o r j u d g m e n t s
b e
enforce d
notic e t o th e advers e
an d
o r
o f th e
party .
cour t
o f origi n
t o
issu e
th e
wri t
o f execution ,
NOTE S
1.
Th e t e r m "fina l order " i s use d i n tw o se
nse s
dependin g on whethe r it i s use d on th e issu e o f appeal ability or on th e issu e o f bindin g effect .
For purpose s
o f
appeal , an orde r i s "final " i f it dispose s o f th e action , a
s
distinguishe d from a n interlocutor y orde r which leave s
something t o b e don e in th e tria l cour t wit h respec t t o th e
merit s of th
al.,
L-41053, Feb.
or whethe r it
or executor y
appeal an d n
cas e
(De
la
Cruz,
et
al.
vs.
Paras,
27,
1976).
For purpose s of bindin g effect
ca n b e subject o f execution , an orde r i s "final "
after th e laps e o f th e reglementar y perio d t o
o appea l ha s bee n perfecte d (se e Perez, e t al.
et
449
----------------------- Page 450----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 1
vs.
Zulueta,
106
Phil.
264;
c.
vs.
IAC,
et al., G.R.
No.
75000,
vs.
CA, et al., L-47968, May 9,
cf.
Feb.
Denso
27,
[Phil.],
1987;
In
Montilla
1988).
or an y furthe r proceedin g
provide d by Rul e 3 5 on
y judgment s whic h ar e not
l e (se e Sec.
4, Rule
On thes e considerations ,
Circula r No . 24-94 , date d
g
an d promulgatin g i n advanc
1
o f Rul e
3 9 a n d d e c l
a s o f
J u n e 1 , 1994 .
thi s
a r i n g
amende d
approvin
Sectio n
t h e s a m e effectiv e
L-30359,
Oct.
16, 1975).
Unde r Sec . 2 , executio n ma
y
issue in th e discretio n o f th e cour t even befor e th e laps e o f
45 1
----------------------- Page 452----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 1
W h e r e
th e
t h e j u d g m e n t
cour t canno t
o r
refus e
o r d e r h a s
t o
issu e
bec
a
wr
except :
(a)
W h e n
s u b s e q u e n t fact s
a n d c i r c u m s t
a n c e s
t r a n s p i r e w h i c h r e n d e r s u c h e x e c u t i o n u n j u
s t o r
impossible , suc h a s a supervenin g caus e lik e th e ac t o f th e
C o m m i s s i o n e r o f Civi l Servic e
findin g
t h e plai
ntif f
administratively guilt y an d whic h constitute d a ba r t o hi s
reinstatemen t a s ordere d by th e tria l cour t in a civil cas e
(Butuan
City vs.
Ortiz, et al, L-18054,
Dec.
22,
1961
),
or
wher e th e defendan t ban k wa s place d unde r receivershi p
(Lipan
vs.
Development
Bank
of Rizal,
G.R.
No.
73884,
Sept.
24,
1987);
(b)
O n equitabl e
grounds ,
a s whe n ther e
ha s been
a
c h a n g e i n t h e
w h i c h
m a k e s
executio n
ang,
L-18003,
Sept.
29,
vs.
CA,
et al, L-34220,
et al,
G.R.
No.
68374,
June
s i t u a t i o n o f t h e
i n e q u i t a b l e (Albar
1962;
Heirs
Feb.
21,
18,
of
1983;
p a r t i e s
vs.
Pedro
Carand
Luna
Guminpin
vs.
IAC,
1985);
452
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SEC
1
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
(c) Wher e th e judgmen t ha s been novate d by th e
partie s
(Fua
Cam
Lu
vs. Yap Fauco,
74 Phil. 287; c
f.
Zapanta
vs. De Rotaeche,
21 Phil.
154; Salvante vs.
Cruz
,
88 Phil. 236; Dormitorio
vs. Fernandez,
et al., L-25889
Aug. 21,
1976);
(d) Whe n a petitio n for relie f or an action t o enjoin
th e judgmen t i s filed an d a preliminar y injunctio n i s
praye d for an d grante d
(se e Sec. 5, Rule 38);
(e) Whe n th e judgmen t ha s becom e dormant , th e
5-year perio d unde r Sec . 6 o f thi s Rul e havin g expire d
withou t th e judgmen t havin g been revive d
(Cunanan vs.
CA,
et
al.,
L-25511,
Sept.
28,
1968); or
as
5.
Quasha l o f a wri t o f executio n i s prope r whe n
(a) it wa s improvidentl y issued ; (b) it wa s defectiv e in
substance ; (c) it i s issue d agains t th e wron g party ; (d) th e
judgmen t wa s alread y satisfied ; (e) it wa s issue d withou t
authority ; (f) a chang e in th e situatio n o f th e partie s
render s execution inequitable ; an d (g) th e controversy wa s
never validly submitte d to th e court
(Cobb Perez vs. Lantin,
L-22320,
May
22,
1968;
Sandico,
et al. vs. Piguing,
e
t
al., L-26115, Nov.
29, 1971).
Th e sam e remed y is als o
available wher e th e wri t o f execution varie s th e term s o f
th e judgment , or wher e it i s sough t t o b e enforce d agains t
p r o p e r t y e x e m p t from executio n
o r w h e r e t h e r e
i s
No.
51042,
Sept.
30,
th e cour t
63 Phil.
87),
I n
us.
if th e
j u d g m e n t s
Nocos,
for
et
support ,
partie s
al.,
G.R.
acquiesce d
whic h
No.
ca n
alway
s
b e amende d from tim e t o time , i n ligh t o f th e circum
stance s of th e partie s
(Florendo us. Organo, 9 0 Phil. 48
3;
cf.
Canonizado
us.
Benitez,
etc.,
et al.,
L-49315
an d
G.R. No.
60966,
Feb.
20, 1984).
7 .
ha s becom
Rul e 38 ,
collatera l
a .
direc t
a t t a c k
agains t
th e j u d g m e n t
i s
mad e
throug h a n actio n o r proceedin g th e mai n object o f which
i s t o annul , se t aside , or enjoin th e enforcemen t o f suc h
judgment , i f no t ye t carrie d int o effect ; or i f th e propert y
ha s
bee n
dispose d
of,
th e
aggrieve d
part y
ma y
su e
for
it s recovery
(Banco Espanol-Filipino
us. Palanca,
3 7
Phil.
921).
Suc h judgmen t ma y b e annulle d on th e groun d o f
lack o f jurisdiction , frau d or tha t it i s contrar y t o law , in
an actio n brough t for sai d purpos e an d on an y o f thes e
g r o u n d s (Panlilio,
et
al.
us.
Garcia,
et al., L-29
038,
454
----------------------- Page 455----------------------RULE 39
EC. 1
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
L-46
1985).
Thi s i s necessar y wher e a judgmen t doe s
it s face , revea l th e nullity or th e fact tha t it i
by frau d
(Cadano
vs.
Cadano,
L-34998,
Jan.
t o
annu l
19[
c. A n
a c t i o n t o a n n u l a j u d g m e n t t h e r
e t o f o r e
rendere d by a Regiona l Tria l Court , an d reverse d by th e
Court o f Appeal s whos e decision ha s becom e final , i s withi n
th e exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n o f th e Cour t o f Appeals ,
p u r s u a n t t o Sec . 9 , B.P . Big . 129 . Whil e th e judgmen
t
b e i n g c h a l l e n g e d ma y
h a v e bee n
t h a t o f t h e
C o u r t
o f A p p e a l s , i t w a s a c t u a l l y a n a p p e l l a t e j u
d g m e n t
rendere d on a revie w o f th e tria l court' s decision .
Sai d
action for annulmen t coul d no t b e filed in th e Suprem e
Court sinc e factua l issue s o f allege d extrinsi c fraud , relie d
on for th e annulmen t sought , ar e not withi n it s jurisdictio n
to resolv e
(Conde,
et al. vs. IAC,
et al, G.R.
No.
70443,
Sept.
15,
1986).
d . An actio n t o annu l a judgmen t i s not necessaril y
l i m i t e d t o t h o s e p r i n c i p a l l y o r s e c o n d a r i l y
b o u n d
thereunder .
Any perso n adversel y affecte d thereb y can
enjoin it s enforcemen t an d hav e it declare d a nullit y on
456
----------------------- Page 457----------------------RULE 39
EC. 2
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
2.
Discretionary
use d
Edrosola
execution.
(a)
Execution
of
a judgment
or
final
order
ding
appeal. O n motio n
o f th e prevailin g part y
t h
notic e t o th e advers e part y file d i n th e tria l cour t
w h i l e i t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c a s
an d i s i n
possessio n o f eithe r th e origina l recor d o r th e recor d
o n appeal , a s t h e cas e ma y be , a t th e tim e o
h e
f i l i n g o f s u c h m o t i o n , s a i d c o u r t m a y ,
i t s
discretion , orde r e x e c u t i o n o f a j u d g m e n t o r
a l
pen
wi
e
f t
i n
fin
orde r e v e n
appeal .
befor e
th e
expiratio n
o f th e
perio d
t o
appellat e
Discretionar y
p o n
goo d
r
du e
court .
e x e c u t i o n
r e a s o n s t o
b e
ma y
state d
i n
onl y
a
issu e
specia l
orde r
afte
or
pa
hearing .
(b)
rtial
judgments.
m a y
b
a n d
condition s
p e n d i n
Execution
of
several,
separate
1.
Thi s section wa s amende d t o mak e it clear tha t
discretionary execution may b e grante d by th e tria l court
whil e i t ha s jurisdictio n over th e cas e an d i s stil l
i n
possession o f th e origina l recor d thereo f or th e recor d on
appeal in thos e instance s wher e th e latte r i s required .
Th e
latter aspec t follows th e former rul e tha t th e motion for
discretionary execution an d th e specia l order grantin g th e
same shal l b e include d in th e recor d on appeal .
457
----------------------- Page 458----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 3
I f th e tria l cour
y
reaso n o f th e perfection
therein , th e motio n for
filed in th e appropriat e
recor d o r th e recor d
bee n elevated .
judgmen t
may b e
e origina l
consequentl y
i t i s
regula
, separat e
p r o c e d u r e
reason s
for
Se e
3 . Th e
Cour t o f Appeals ,
ha s n o authorit y t o issu e
D i s c r e t i o n a r y e x e c u t i o n i s s u e d u n d e r t h e p r e
c e d i n g
s e c t i o n m a y b e s t a y e d u p o n approva l b y t h e prope r
cour t o f a sufficien t s u p e r s e d e a s bon d file d b y t
h e
part y a g a i n s t w h o m i t i s directed , c o n d i t i o n e d upo
n
t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f th e j u d g m e n t o r orde r a l l o
w e d
45 8
----------------------- Page 459----------------------RULE 39
C. 4
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SE
finall y
sustaine d
Th e bon d t h u s give n ma y b e
o n m o t i o n w i t h n o t i c e t
NOTE S
1. Thi s
i s v i r t u a l l y t h e sam e a s i n th e f
orme r
procedur e except that , wit h th e clarification earlie r note d
regardin g th e powe r o f eithe r th e cour t a quo or th e
th e
d
t
o th e
3
e ter m
306,
P.
Co
123).
4 .
Judgments
not
stayed
by
appeal.
J u d g m e n t s i n action s fo
a c c o u n t i n g an d support ,
a s ar e
n o w o r m a y h
t o b e
immediatel y executory , shal l
r injunction , receivership ,
an d suc h othe r judgment s
e r e a f t e r b e d e c l a r e d
b e
enforceabl e
afte r
459
----------------------- Page 460----------------------RULE 39
SEC 4
e f r o m ,
u n l e s s
o t h e r w i s e
o r d e r
.
O n a p p e a l therefrom , t h e appellat e
i t s d i s c r e t i o n
m a y
m a k e
a n
, modifying ,
,
r e s t o r i n g
r e c e i v e r s h i p ,
o r
g r a n t i n g
a c c o u n t i n g ,
o r
rope r
for th e
s e c u r i t y o r
t s o f th e
a d v e r s e party .
(4a )
p r o t e c t i o n
o f th e
r i g h
NOTE S
1. Generally ,
only j u d g m e n t s
an d final orde
r s
or
resolution s ma y b e executed .
Th e exception s ar e order
s
grantin g suppor t pendente lite whic h ca n b e execute d even
if th e mai n cas e i s stil l pendin g
(Sec.
4, Rule 61
), an d
order s i n injunction , receivershi p an d accountin g cases .
With respec t t o th e latter , however , thi s amende d Sec . 4
c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t suc h directive s ar e p u r s u a n t
t o a
judgment , unlik e th e former sectio n whic h referre d t o " a
judgmen t o r order directin g a n accountin g i n a n action. "
Fo r
t h a t m a t t e r , s u p p o r t pendente
lite i s cont
aine d
generally
in an
interlocutory orde r an d
no t a jud
gment .
T h i s i m p r e c i s i o n i n t e r m i n o l o g y may ,
h o w e v
e r , b e
disregarded , th e importan t consideratio n bein g tha t thes e
reliefs , a s wel l a s other s a s ma y hereafte r b e s o provided
,
shall b e enforceabl e upo n thei r renditio n an d shal l no t b e
stayed b y a n appea l take n therefrom , unles s otherwis e
ordere d b y th e court .
2 . Also , a s a rule ,
e
judgmen t ha s becom e executory ,
tria l o r reconsideratio n ha s
or certiorar i proceedin g bee
Som e
j u d g m e n t s , however ,
b y
provisio n o f th e Rules , eve n
executor y
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SE
y th
L-236
f
Clori
SE
(b)
Wher e th e appea l i s clearly dilator y (Rodriguez,
et al vs. CA,
et al., 105 Phil.
777; De
Vera
vs.
ntos,
L-24351,
Sept.
22,
1977);
(c)
n d th e
beneficiary
al.,
94 Phil.
W h e r e
t h e
i s in nee d
634);
j u d g m e n t
i s for
thereo f (Javier
s u p p o r t
vs.
Lucero,
Sa
a
et
(d)
Wher e
th e
article s
subjec t
o f th e
cas e
woul d
deteriorat e
(Federation,
etc.
vs. NAMARCO,
L-17819 a
n d
L-17768, Mar. 31,
1962), hence , unde r Sec .
15(a) of
thi s
Rule , th e cour t ca n jus t fix th e tim e for notic e o f executio n
sale o f perishabl e property ;
(e)
Wher e defendant s ar e exhaustin g thei r incom e
an d hav e n o othe r propert y asid e from th e proceed s from
th e subdivisio n lot s subjec t o f th e actio n
(Lao vs. Menci
as,
L-23554,
Nov.
25,
1967);
(f)
Wher e th e judgmen t debto r i s in imminen t dange r
of insolvency
(Santos
vs. Mojica, L-24266, Jan.
24,
1969)
or is actuall y
insolven t
(Padilla,
et al. vs. CA,
t al.,
L-31569,
Sept.
28,
1973);
(g)
Wher e th e prevailin g part y i s o f advance d ag e
an d i n a precariou s stat e o f health , an d th e obligatio n i n
th e judgmen t i s non-transmissible , bein g for suppor t
(De
Leon,
et al. vs. Soriano,
et al., 95 Phil.
806; cf. Far E
ast
Bank,
etc. vs. Toh,
Sr., et al, G.R.
No.
144018,
June
23,
2003);
(h)
Wher e ther e i s uncontradicte d evidenc e showin g
that , i n orde r t o hous e machinerie s whic h the y wer e forced
t o plac e on a publi c street , movant s wer e in extrem e nee d
o f th e premise s subjec t o f th e sui t an d th e possessio n
whereo f wa s adjudge d t o the m i n th e tria l court' s decision ,
an d th e correspondin g bon d t o answe r for damage s i n cas e
of reversa l on appea l ha d bee n poste d by the m (Lu
vs.
Valeriano,
G.R.
No.
51001,
Jan.
18,
1982);
or
(i)
prevailin g
r for
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION
o f
th e
65 Phil.
j u d g m e
536; cf.
vs.
Lucero,
et al.,
(1)
L-32550,
Oct.
However ,
in
27,
1983).
Belfast
Surety
&
Insu
rance
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Solidum,
et
al.
(CA-G.R .
No .
40304-R ,
3 ,
J u l y 26 , 1976) , th e Cit y o f Manil a ha d obtaine d
judgmen t for recovery o f a parce l o f lan d it ha d len t
t o th e Metropolita n
Theater .
Sinc e sai d defendan
t
d
h
t
e
part y obtainin g a favorabl e judgmen t in th e civil cas e
therein , an d th e postin g o f a bon d for delivery o f sai d
proceed s secure s suc h receipt by th e prevailin g party .
463
----------------------- Page 464----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 4
In People's Bank
(96
&
Trust
Co.
vs.
San Jose,
et
al.
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
SEC
1967;
City
of
Ma
Hence , wher e th e
Th e motion
e cour t
th e appea
upo n suc
In
Yabut
vs.
IAC,
e t al.
(G.R .
No .
6
9 2 0 8 ,
May 28 , 1986) , respondent s receive d a copy o f th e decision
on Jul y 23 ,
1984 , an d the y appeale d th e following day .
Petitioner , on th e othe r hand , receive d hi s copy o f sai d
decision on Jul y 20 , 1984 an d filed a motio n for executio n
p e n d i n g a p p e a l o n J u l y 25 , 1984 .
Sai d motio n
wa s
seasonably filed a s th e appea l o f th e responden t wa s not
perfecte d on th e da y the y filed thei r notic e o f appea l bu t
on th e expiratio n o f th e las t da y t o appeal , whic h wa
s
A u g u s t
7 ,
198 4
(cf . Montelibano
vs.
Bacolod-Murc
ia
Milling
Co.,
Inc., G.R.
No.
69800,
May
7, 1985; Bel
gado
vs. IAC,
et al., G.R.
No.
74975,
Jan.
12,
1987).
See ,
h o w e v e r , t h e a m e n d e d
Sec .
9 o f R u l e 4 1 w i t
h t h e
modification s
a n d c l a r i f i c a t i o n s o n t h i s m a
t t e r , a s
explaine d
therein .
9 . W h e r e fro m t h e decisio n o f a n d th e
enc e
presente d befor e th e tria l court , th e judgmen t credito r
clearly entitle d t o actua l damages , th e sam e ca n b e
subject o f executio n pendin g appeal , bu t no t th e
award s for mora l an d exemplar y damage s an d attorney' s
fees
(RCPI vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.
59311, Jan.
1985;
Engineering
Construction,
Inc.
vs.
NFC,
34589,
June
29,
1988).
10. Th e suret y i s charge d unde
upo n th e terminatio n o f th e cas e o n
ma y b e execute d o n motion , unlik
recover y o f damage s from bond s i n
n junctio n whic h i s governe d by Sec . 20
et al. vs. Rovira,
et al., L-28454,
evid
i s
th e
othe r
31,
r th e supersedea s bon d
appea l an d th e bon d
e th e procedur e for
a t t a c h m e n t o r
L-
, Rul e 5 8 (Apacheche,
May
18,
1978).
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SE
Sees . 5 an d
al.,
Sec .
5.
Effect
of
reversal of executed judgment.
s section ha s
th e situatio n
bu t actually
b y wa y o f
bee n
wherei
annulle
relief
amende d t o includ e
n th e judgmen t wa s
d (see Rule 47) an d
,
for e i t h e r
withi n
not
t o
r e s t i t u
I f th e
purchase r a t th e
publi c
auctio n wa s
th e
c.
I f th e judgmen t awar d wa s reduce d o n appeal ,
th e judgmen t credito r mus t retur n t o th e judgmen t debtor
only th e exces s whic h h e receive d over an d abov e tha t t o
which h e i s entitle d unde r th e fina l judgment , wit h interes t
on suc h exces s (Po Pauco vs.
Tan Juco,
49 Phil.
349).
Sec .
pendent
action.
6 .
fina l
Execution
an d
by
motion
or
e x e c u t o r y j u d g m e n t
by
inde
o r
orde r
m a y b e
e x e c u t
y e a r s
fro m t h e d a t e o
suc h
t i m e , a n d
b e f
t u t e o f
l i m i t a t i o n s , a
.
T h e
r e v i v e d j
c e d b y
m o t i o n w i t h i n
entr y
an d t h e r e a f t e r
th e
s ta t u t e o f l i m i
e d
o n
f it s
m o t i o n
entry .
w i t h i n
(5 )
laps e
o f
o r e i t i s
Afte r t h e
fiv e
b a r r e d
b y
t h e
s t a
j u d g m e n t m a y b e enforce d b y action
u d g m e n t
(5 )
m a y
y e a r s
a l s o b e
fro m t h e
b y a c t i o n
befor e
e n f o r
dat e
i t i s
o f it s
barre d
b y
t a t i o n s . (6a )
NOTE S
dat e
o f th e
s h a l l b e d e e m e d t o b e t
y , " t h u s
abandonin g th e
doctrin e in
et al.
(L-46040, Jul y 23 , 1987) an d simila
(2) Th e
last sentenc e o f thi s sectio n als o
Luzon
Surety
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
s
shal l
hereafte r b e discussed .
2 .
Th e
5-year perio d
h e d a t e
o f it s
Munez,
et
e n t r
al. vs.
CA,
r holdings .
set s asid e th e rulin g i n
IAC,
et al.,
infra.,
a
i s t o b e counte d
not from th e
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SEC.
Mapalo,
et
al,
L-21933,
Feb.
22,
1971),
i.e. , f
th e dat e o f it s entry .
3 . Withi n 5 year s from entr y o f th e
prevailin g part y can secur e it s execution by
motion s for suc h writ s o f execution a s may
to enforc e th e judgment .
I f a wri t o f
judgment , th e
merely filing
b e necessary
execution wa s issue d
suspende d
et al, L-26754,
o d
ma y be proportionatel y extende d
(Bien, et al. vs.
Sunga,
et al., L-39644, Sept. 30,
1982).
Hence , wher e th e de
lay
in th e executio n o f th e judgmen t for mor e t h a n 8 year s
wa s du e t o th e act s o f th e judgmen t debtor , th e Suprem e
Court hel d t h a t th e motio n for alia s writ s o f executio n an d
for demolitio n c o n s t i t u t e
f th e
judgmen t unde r Sec . 6 of Rul e
, e t
al, L-41334, June
18,
1976;
andez,
etc., et al, L-46127, April
,
Sr.,
G.R.
No.
158848,
Feb.
4,
i n
3 9
t , t h e S u p r e m e
reviva l
se e
(David vs.
18,
De
la
1980);
Ejercito
Rosa
vs.
Fern
Yau
vs.
Silverio
2008).
effect ,
Cour t
ha d complie d wit h
n piecemea l fashion
paymen t t o the m b y
accoun t bu t whic h
s from finality o f th e
hel d
t h a t
sai d
Villaroya,
from
et
al,
Republic
G.R.
vs.
No.
CA,
64037,
et
Aug
al. (L-43
y
th e takin g o f an appea l or wri t o f erro r s o a s t o oper
at e
a s a s u p e r s e d e a s , b y t h e d e a t h o f t h e p
o r
otherwise .
Any
interruption
or
delay
occasioned
by
the debtor
will extend
the time
within
which
th
writ
may
be
issued
without
scire facias."
a r t y
470
----------------------- Page 471-----------------------
RULE 39
. 6
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SEC
year s
mer e
part y
(PNB
from
righ
ca n
vs.
Bank
entr y o f
t o f
file an
Perez,
et
vs.
Tiangc
13,
Civil
Code);
1981).
a s
henc e
For
consistin g
i f leap
year s
thi s purpose ,
o f 36 5
ar e
day s
involved ,
an d
;
Donelly
).
vs.
CFI of Manila,
et
al,
L-31209, April
11,
1972
),
except thos e for suppor t in arrear s beyon d te n year s from
th e dat e the y becom e du e (Florendo vs. Organo, 9 0 Phil.
483; Velayo vs.
Velayo, L-23538, July 21,
1967).
It
oe s
47 1
----------------------- Page 472----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 6
no t appl y
reentr y on
s vs.
Blanco,
i t s o f
possessio n
Phil.
90),
foreclosur e
or
case s
for
th e
withi n
issuanc e
th e
(Azote
o f
w r
s t a t u t e
o f
limitation s
(Ramos
vs.
Mahalac,
89 Phil.
270).
Ne
ithe r
i s thi s sectio n applicabl e t o specia l proceedings , suc h a s
lan d registratio n cases , henc e th e righ t t o as k for a wri t
of possessio n therei n neve r prescribe s (Rodil, e t al.
vs.
Benedicto,
et al., L-28616,
Jan.
22,
1980;
cf.
Hei
rs
of
Cristobal
Marcos
vs.
De
Banuvar,
et
al.,
L22110,
Sept.
28,
1968;
Sta.
Ana
vs.
Menla,
L-15564,
Apri
l
28,
1961); Republic vs. Nillas, G.R. No.
159395, Jan. 23, 20
07).
9 . I t ha s bee n hel d t h a t Art . 115 5 o f th e Civi l Co
de ,
w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n o f a c
t i o n s i s
interrupte d whe n the y ar e filed wit h th e cour t o r whe n
ther e i s a writte n extrajudicia l deman d by th e creditor s or
a writte n acknowledgmen t o f th e deb t by th e debtors , doe s
no t appl y t o action s t o reviv e a dorman t judgmen t (PNB
vs. Deloso, supra), bu t only to action s to collect not base d
upo n a judgment .
However , it wa s late r hel d t h a t th e filin g o f a f
irst
reviva l actio n withi n th e 10-year perio d unde r Sec . 6 o f
thi s Rul e toll s th e runnin g thereo f an d suc h interruptio n
last s durin g th e pendenc y o f sai d action .
Whe n suc h acti
on
wa s dismisse d for failur e o f summon s an d a secon d reviva l
action wa s agai n filed withi n th e balanc e o f sai d period ,
after deductin g th e perio d o f interruption ,
th e
secon d
action wa s stil l seasonabl y filed .
Art . 115 5 o f th e
Civil
Code, whic h provide s tha t th e prescriptio n o f action s i s
interrupte d whe n the y ar e filed i n court , i s unqualified .
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION
SEC.
6
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
10.
In
Luzon
Surety
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
IAC,
et
al. (G.R
.
No . 72645 , J u n e 30 ,
o
whethe r a judgmen t credito r wh o faile d t o enforc e th e
original judgmen t i s entitle d t o reviv e sai d judgmen t only
once, in view o f th e provision s o f Sec . 6 o f thi s Rul e in
relatio n t o Art . 1144(3) o f th e Civil Cod e which require s
tha t action s upo n judgment s "mus t b e brough t withi n te n
year s from th e tim e th e righ t o f actio n accrues. "
Th
e
Supreme Cour t took not e o f it s earlie r rulin g in PNB vs.
Bondoc
(L-20236 , Jul y 30 , 1965) wher e it answere d th e
question in th e negative , holdin g tha t Sec . 6 o f thi s Rul e
make s n o distinctio n a s t o th e kin d o f judgmen t which
ma y b e revive d b y ordinar y i n d e p e n d e n t action .
I
t ,
therefore , rule d therei n tha t a judgmen t rendere d i n a n
action for th e reviva l o f a previou s unsatisfie d judgmen t
is a new judgmen t in itself ; henc e i f it could not b e enforce d
within th e first five year s from it s finality , a secon d reviva l
action ma y b e resorte d t o withi n th e succeedin g five year s
t o reviv e sai d secon d judgment .
However , i t decide d t o abando n sai d doctrin e an d
adopt a s th e bette r view tha t i n th e subsequen t cas e o f
PNB vs. Deloso, supra, which hel d tha t th e ten-yea r perio d
is t o b e reckone d from th e finality o f th e origina l judgment ;
hence ,
i f withi n t h a t perio d a judgmen t revivin g th e
origina l j u d g m e n t wa s obtaine d
bu t agai n
remaine d
unsatisfied , a secon d reviva l action beyon d th e prescriptiv e
ten-yea r perio d i s not allowed .
Th e effect o f th e judgmen t
in suc h first reviva l action i s only t o gran t th e judgmen t
creditor anothe r perio d o f fiv e year s t o execut e th e sai d
judgmen t by mer e motion , failin g which a secon d reviva l
action can n o longer b e instituted .
With th e adoption o f th e las t sentenc e in thi s amende d
Sec. 6 , th e foregoin g seesawin g decision s hav e been laid
t o rest . J u s t lik e th e rul e o n a n origina l judgment , th e
d o r m a n t , p r o v i d e d i t i s file d withi n th e
s t
a t u t e o f
limitations .
Tha t secon d revive d judgmen t ca n als o b e
enforced i n th e sam e manne r a s th e origina l judgmen t
an d in accordanc e wit h th e provision s o f Sec . 6 .
Sec .
7.
Execution
in
case
of death
of party
In
c a s e o f t h e d e a t h o f a party , e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s
u e o r
b e e n f o r c e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g m a n n e r :
.
d
o
u
a
g
b
t
d
m
l
o
m
(a)
I n
c a s e
o f t h e d e a t h
o f t h e j u
e n t
i g e e , u p o n
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f h i s e x e c
r o r
i n i s t r a t o r , o r s u c c e s s o r i n interest ;
d g m e
obligor
t o r
s u c c
fo r
r e c o
o r
e n f o
d g m e
obligor
n y
o f h
fo r
s a t i
a n d
o f f i
t o
c o r r
fo r
s u r p
(b)
t
n
,
o
e
t
v
t
r
I n
c a s e
a g a i n s t
r
s
h
e
h
c
o f
h i s
t h e
d e a t h
e x e c u t o r
o r
o f
t h e
j u
a d m i n i s t r a
s o r i n i n t e r e s t , i f t h e j u d g m e n t b e
e
r y
o f r e a l o r
p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y ,
e
e m e n t o f a lie n t h e r e o n ;
(c)
I n
c a s e
o f t h e d e a t h
o f t h e j u
n t
, afte r e x e c u t i o n i s a c t u a l l y levie d u p o n a
i s p r o p e r t
t h e
s f a c t i o n o
t h e
c e r m a k i n g
t h e
e s p o n d i n g
an y
l u s i n h i s
y ,
t h e
f t h e
s a m e
m a y
t h e
j u d g m e n t
s a l e
e x e c u t o r
h a n d s .
o r
b e
s o l d
o b l i g a t i o n ,
s h a l l
a c c o u n t
a d m i n i s t r a t o r
(7a )
NOTE S
1.
Par . (b) applie s wher e th e judgmen t obligor die s
afte r
t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r w
hich ,
o f
course , ha s becom e fina l an d executory .
I f h e di
e s befor e
such entr y
i n
th e
cour t wherei n
th e
actio n
i s pending ,
an d
claim
bu t
i s a
a i n
474
----------------------- Page 475----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 8
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION
afte r th e
entr y o f
I f t h e e x e c u t i o n b e agains t th e propert y o
f
th e j u d g m e n t obligor , t o satisf y th e judgment , wit h
interest , ou t o f th e rea l o r persona l propert y o f suc h
j u d g m e n t
obligor ;
(b)
I f i t
b e
agains t
rea l
o r
persona l
propert y
i n t h e h a n d s o f p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ,
h e i r s ,
d e v i s e e s , l e g a t e e s , t e n a n t s , o r t r u s t e e s o
f t h e
j u d g m e n t obligor ,
t o satisf y
th e j u d g m e n t ,
w i t h
interest , ou t o f suc h property ;
(c)
I f i t b e fo r t h e sal e
o f rea l o r p e r
s o n a l
property , t o sel l suc h property , describin g it , an d
apply th e proceed s i n conformit y wit h th e judgment ,
th e materia l part s o f w h i c h shal l b e recite d i n th e
wri t o f execution ;
475
----------------------- Page 476----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 8
(d)
s s i o n o
rea l o r p
n
o f t h e
e n t i t l e
t h e r e t o
o r
profit s c o
l
p r o p e r t
i t w a s
r e n d e r e
b e found ,
an d
o n
s p e
n t e
c o s
s o
d a t
ro m
p r i
Fo r
p u r
s p
t h e
u g h
t h e
I f i t b e fo r t h e d e l i v e r y o f t h e p o s s e
f
e r s o n a l property , t o delive r t h e p o s s e s s i o
s a m e , d e s c r i b i n g it , t o t h e p a r t y
d
, a n d t o satisf y a n y costs , d a m a g e s , rents ,
v e r e d b y t h e j u d g m e n t o u t o f t h e persona
y
o f
t h e
p e r s o n
a g a i n s t
w h o m
(e)
I n
al l c a s e s
shal l
c i f i c a l l y s t a t e t
r e s t ,
t s , d a m a g e s ,
r e n
f t h e
e o f t h e
i s s u a n c e
th e
n c i p a l o b l i g a t i o n
thi s
p o s e ,
t h e m o t i o n
e c i f y
a m o u n t s
o f t h e
t
b y
m o v a n t .
(8a )
t h e w r i t
h e
o f e x e c u t i
a m o u n t
t s , o r
o f
t h e
p r o f i t s d u e
o f t h e
w r i t ,
a s i d e
u n d e r t h e j u d g m e n t .
fo r
e x e c u t i o n
f o r e g o i n g
s h a l l
r e l i e f s s o
N O T E S
1.
leavin g
th e
computatio n
o f sai d
amount s
t o
th e
o f mischie f an d controversy .
2 . Also ,
w h i l e
t h e f o r m e r
r u l e w a s
t h a t t h e
satisfaction o f th e j u d g m e n t mus t b e carrie d ou t firs
t
throug h th e persona l property , an d the n th e rea l property ,
476
----------------------- Page 477----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 8
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION
t
l
y
or
forme r
sectio n
provide d
t h a t
th e
wri t
4 . A
w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n m u s t confor m
w i
e
m e n t a n d i f i t i s differen t fro m o r exceed s
e
o f th e judgment , it i s a nullit y (Villoria us. Piccio,
et al., 9 5 Phil.
otio n
(Vda.
de Dimayuga
802)
an d
us.
ma y
Raymundo,
b e
q u a s h e d
et
al.,
76
on
Phil.
143),
an d appea l ma y b e take n from a denia l o f sai d motion
(Romero, et al. us. CA, et al., L-39659, July 30, 1971, wher e
it wa s hel d tha t certiorar i coul d eve n b e availe d o f a s th
e
court a quo ha d issue d a wri t o f possessio n in exces s o f
it s jurisdiction) .
A wri t o f executio n i s void whe n issue d
for a greate r su m t h a n i s warrante d by th e judgmen t or
i s for th e origina l amoun t o f th e judgmen t despit e partia l
paymen t thereof .
Th e exac t amoun t du e canno t b e left
to
th e determinatio n
o f th e sherif f (Windor
Steel
Mfg.
Co., Inc.
us. CA, et al., L-34332, Jan. 27,
1981).
5 . Whil e th e genera l rul e i s tha t th e portio n o f th
e
decision tha t become s subject o f execution i s tha t ordaine d
478
----------------------- Page 479----------------------RULE 39
C. 8
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SE
th e
dispositiv e
p a r t
thereof ,
t h e r e
viz.: (a ) w h e r e t h e r e i s a m b i g u i t
body o f th e opinion may b e referre d t o
construin g th e judgmen t becaus e
f a decision mus t find suppor t from th e
decidendi;
an d
(b) wher e
extensiv e
an d settlemen t o f th e issu e i s foun d in
decision
(Ong Ching Kian Chung, et al.
vs. China
National
Cereal
Oil and Foodstuffs
Import
and
Export
Corp.,
et al., G.R.
No.
131502,
June
8, 2
000;
Intramuros
Tennis
Club,
Inc.,
et al. vs.
Phil.
Tour
ism
Authority,
et al, G.R.
No.
135630,
Sept.
26, 2000).
6 . A wri t o f possessio n ma y b e issue d only in th e
following cases :
(a) lan d registratio n proceedings , which
ar e in rem;
(b)
extrajudicia l foreclosur e of a rea l estat e
mortgage ; (c) judicia l foreclosur e of a rea l estat e mortgage ;
which i s a quasi in rem proceeding , provide d th e mortgagor
i s in possession o f th e mortgage d propert y an d n o thir d
person , not a part y t o th e foreclosur e suit , ha d intervened ;
and (d) in execution sale s
(Mabale vs. Apalisok, L-46942,
Feb.
6, 1979).
W h e r e suc h
t h i r d p a r t i e s wer e
no t
impleaded in th e cas e which resulte d in th e execution sal e
29,
1984).
Tuazon
479
----------------------- Page 480----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 9
Co., Inc.
vs.
Estabillo, L-20610, Jan.
10,
1975), or whe
re ,
bein g vague , th e cour t render s wha t i s believe d t o b e a
wron g interpretatio n o f th e judgmen t (Castro vs.
S
urtida,
87 Phil.
166; Corpus vs. Alikpala, L-23707, Jan.
17,
1970;
Uytiepo, et al.
vs. Aggabao, et al, L-28671, Sept. 30,
1970;
Heirs
of
Juan
Francisco
vs.
Muhoz-Palma,
e
t
al,
L-28746, Feb.
27,
1971; De Guzman, et al.
vs. CA,
et al,
G.R.
No.
52733,
July
23,
1985).
A
p a r t y wh o
h a s
voluntaril y execute d a judgment , partiall y or in toto, or
wh o voluntaril y acquiesce s i n o r ratifies , eithe r partiall y
or in toto, th e executio n o f suc h judgment , i s not permitte d
to appea l from it
(PVTA vs. De los Angeles, et al, L-3008587,
Dec.
26,
1974).
A s a wri t of executio n canno t b
e
appealed ,
n e i t h e r ca n th e orde r o f demolitio n issue
d
pursuan t theret o be appealabl e
(David vs. Ejercito, e
t al,
L-41334,
June
18,
1976).
8 . Injunctio n wil l li e t o sto p th e auctio n sal e
o f
p r o p e r t y o f a s t r a n g e r t o t h e cas e a n d i t
i s no t a n
interferenc e wit h th e wri t
c o u r t sinc e
t h e w r i
legall y
implemente d b y th e sherif
authority
(Arabay
vs.
1978;
cf. Santos
vs.
Sibug,
th e
bound s
L-31077,
May
26,
o f hi s
Mar.
17,
1981).
9 . W h e n
t h e j u d g m e n t d e b t o r h a s s i m u l
a t e d a
transfe r o f hi s propert y t o evad e execution , sai d propert y
may b e levie d upo n for th e satisfactio n o f th e judgmen t
withou t th e nee d o f an independen t actio n t o rescin d or
a n n u l t h e t r a n s f e r sinc e a n abolutel y
s i m u l a
t e d o r
fictitious contrac t i s void an d non-existen t (De Belen vs.
Collector
of Customs,
46 Phil.
241).
Sec .
9 .
Execution
of judgments
for
money,
how
enforced.
(a ) Immediate payment
on
demand.
Th e
office r shal l enforc e a n e x e c u t i o n o f a j u d g m e n t fo r
m o n e y b y d e m a n d i n g fro m th e j u d g m e n t obligo r th e
i m m e d i a t e p a y m e n t o f th e ful l a m o u n t state d i n th
e
480
----------------------- Page 481----------------------RULE 39
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION
SEC. 9
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n a n d al l lawfu l fees .
T h e
j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r s h a l l p a y
i n c a s h ,
c e r t i f i e d b
a n k
c h e c k
p a y a b l e t o t h e j u d g m e n t obligee , o r a n y o t h e r f
o r m
o f p a y m e n t a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e l a t t e r , t h e a m
o u n t o f
t h e j u d g m e n t d e b t u n d e r p r o p e r r e c e i p t d i r e
c t l y t o
t h e
o b l i g e e
o r
h i s a u t h o r i z e d
r e p r e s e n
t a t i v e
i f
p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e o f p a y m e n t .
T h e
lawfu l fee s
s h a l l
b e
h a n d e d
u n d e r
p r o p e r
r e c e i
p t
t o
t h e
e x e c u t i n g
s h e r i f f w h o
s h a l l t u r n
o v e r
t h e
s a i d
a m o u n t w i t h i n t h e s a m e d a y t o t h e c l e r k o f c o
u r t o f
t h e c o u r t t h a t i s s u e d t h e w r i t .
I f t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g e e
o r
h i s a
u t h o r i z e d
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i s n o t p r e s e n t t o r e c e i v e
p a y m e n t ,
t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r s h a l l d e l i v e r t h e
a f o r e s a i d
p a y m e n t t o t h e e x e c u t i n g sheriff .
T h e l
a t t e r s h a l l
t u r n
o v e r
a l l
t h e
a m o u n t s
c o m i n g
i n t o
h i s
p o s s e s s i o n w i t h i n t h e s a m e d a y t o t h e c l e r k
o f c o u r t
o f t h e c o u r t t h a t i s s u e d t h e w r i t , o r i f t
h e s a m e i s
n o t p r a c t i c a b l e , d e p o s i t sai d a m o u n t t o a f i
d u c i a r y
a c c o u n t i n t h e n e a r e s t g o v e r n m e n t d e p o s i t o r
y b a n k
o f t h e R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t o f t h e locality .
T h e c l e r k o f s a i d c o u r t s h a l l t h e r e a f t e
r a r r a n g e
for t h e r e m i t t a n c e o f t h e d e p o s i t t o t h e a c
c o u n t o f
t h e c o u r t t h a t i s s u e d t h e w r i t w h o s e c l e r k
o f c o u r t
s h a l l t h e n
d e l i v e r s a i d p a y m e n t t o
t h e
j u d g m e n t
oblige e i n s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t .
T
h e excess ,
i f a n y , s h a l l b e d e l i v e r e d t o t h e j u d g m e
n t obligo r
w h i l e t h e lawfu l fee s s h a l l b e r e t a i n e d b y t h e
c l e r k
o f c o u r t fo r d i s p o s i t i o n a s p r o v i d e d b y law
.
I n n o
c a s e s h a l l t h e e x e c u t i n g sherif f d e m a n d
t h a t a n y
p a y m e n t b y c h e c k b e m a d e p a y a b l e t o him .
(b)
Satisfaction
u d g m e n t
obligo r c a n n o t p a y
t i o n i n
c a s h , certifie d b a n k
e n t
a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e
hal l
levy u p o n t h e p r o p e
o f
by
al l
levy.
o r
I f
p a r t o f t h e
t h e
o b l i g a
c h e c k o r o t h e r m o d e o f p a y m
j u d g m e n t obligee , t h e office r s
r t i e s o f t h e j u d g m e n t obligo r
48 1
kin d
n a t u r e
w h a t s o e v e r
w h i c h
ma y
s u f f i c i e n t
t o
s a
t obligo r d o e s no t exerc
lev y o n th e persona l
e n o n th e rea l propert
insufficien t t o a n s w e r
i s
m o r e
o f t h e
t o
satisf y
i s sufficien t
propert y
h e
l
t h e j u d g m e n t an d
m u s t
sel l
propert y a s
onl y
i s
s o
j u d g m
t h e
m u c h
j u
o f t
sufficien t t o satisf y
lawfu l fees .
R e a l p r o p e r t y , s t o c k s , s h a r e s , d e b t s
, c r e d i t s ,
a n d
o t h e r p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y ,
o r a n y
i n
t e r e s t i n
e i t h e r rea l o r p e r s o n a l property , m a y b e levie d upo n
i n lik e m a n n e r an d w i t h lik e effec t a s u n d e r a wri t
o f
a t t a c h m e n t .
(c)
Garnishment of debts and credits.
Th e
office r
m a y
lev y o n
d e b t s d u e t h e j u d g m e n t obligo
r an d
o t h e r
c r e d i t s , i n c l u d i n g
b a n k d e p o s i t s ,
f i n a n c i a l
interests , royalties , c o m m i s s i o n s an d othe r persona l
p r o p e r t y
n o t c a p a b l e
o f m a n u a l
d e l i v e
r y i n t h e
p o s s e s s i o n o r contro l o f thir d parties .
L
ev y shal l
b e m a d e b y s e r v i n g notic e u p o n t h e p e r s o n o
w i n g
s u c h d e b t s o r h a v i n g i n hi s p o s s e s s i o n o r
contro l
s u c h
c r e d i t s t o w h i c h
t h e
j u d g m e n t
o
b l i g o r
i s
e n t i t l e d . T h e
g a r n i s h m e n t shal l c o v e r onl y
s u c h
a m o u n t a s wil l satisf y t h e j u d g m e n t an d al l lawfu
l
fees .
482
----------------------- Page 483----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 10
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
Th e
th e
cour t
g a r n i s h e e
w i t h i n
shal l
fiv e
mak e
(5)
day s
writte n
fro m
repor t
servic e
t o
o f th
e
notic e o f g a r n i s h m e n t statin g w h e t h e r o r no t
th e
j u d g m e n t obligo r h a s sufficien t fund s o r credit s t o
satisfy t h e a m o u n t o f t h e j u d g m e n t .
I f no
t , t h e
repor t shal l stat e ho w m u c h fund s o r credit s th e
g a r n i s h e e h o l d s fo r t h e j u d g m e n t obligor .
T h e
garnishe d a m o u n t i n cash , o r certifie d ban k chec k
issue d i n th e n a m e o f th e j u d g m e n t obligee , shal l
b e delivere d directl y t o th
t e n (10 )
w o r k i n g d a
i c e o n
sai d g a r n i s h e e requirin
lawfu l fee s w h i c h shal l b
o f n o t
I n th e e v e n t ther e ar e t w o o r mor e g a r n i s h e e
s
h o l d i n g d e p o s i t s o r credit s sufficien t t o satisf y th e
j u d g m e nt , th e j u d g m e n t
h a v e
t h e
r i g h t t o i
e e
o r
g a r n i s h e e s w h o s h a l l
v e r t h e
a m o u n t due , o t h e r w i s e
e
b y th e j u d g m e n t obligee .
sam
p r o
e c t
d e l
l i g
(8a,
r e q u i r e d
th e
choic e
t o
shal l
d e l i
b e
mad
Th e
e x e c u t i n g sherif f shal l observ e th e
e
c e d u r e u n d e r
p a r a g r a p h
(a ) w i t h r e s p
t o
i v e r y o f p a y m e n t
t o t h e j u d g m e n t
o b
e e .
15a)
Sec .
10.
Execution of judgments for specific acts.
(a)
Conveyance,
delivery
of deeds,
or other
specific
acts;
vesting
title.
I f a j u d g m e n t
d i r e c t s a part y
t o
e x e c u t e a c o n v e y a n c e o f lan d o r persona l property ,
h i l i p p i n e s ,
t h e
c o u r t
i n
c t i n g
a
o n v e y a n c e t h e r e o f m a y b y a n o r
titl e
f a n y p a r t y a n d v e s t i t i n o t h e
l h a v e
h e forc e a n d effec t o f a c o n v e y a n c
d u e
f o r m o f law .
(10a )
l i e u
o f
d i r
d e r d i v e s t t h
r s , w h i c h s h a
e e x e c u t e d i n
(b)
Sale
of
real
or
personal
property.
If
t h e
j u d g m e n t
b e
f o r t h e
s a l e
o f r e a l
o r
p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y , t o sel l s u c h p r o p e r t y , d e s c r i b i
n g it , a n d
a p p l y
t h e
p r o c e e d s
i n
c o n f o r m i t y
w i t h
t h e
j u d g m e n t .
(8[c]a )
(c)
Delivery
or
restitution
of
real property.
T h e
officer
s h a l l d e m a n d
o f t h e
p e r s o n
a g a i
n s t w h o m
t h e j u d g m e n t fo r t h e d e l i v e r y o r r e s t i t u t i
o n o f r e a l
p r o p e r t y i s r e n d e r e d a n d al l p e r s o n s c l a i m i
n g r i g h t s
u n d e r h i m t o p e a c e a b l y v a c a t e t h e p r o p e r t y
w i t h i n
t h r e e (3 )
w o r k i n g
d a y s , a n d
r e s t o r e p
o s s e s s i o n
t h e r e o f t o t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g e e , o t h e r
w i s e ,
t h e
officer
s h a l l o u s t al l s u c h p e r s o n s t h e r e
f r o m w i t h
t h e a s s i s t a n c e , i f n e c e s s a r y , o f a p p r o p r i a
t e
p e a c e
o f f i c e r s , a n d
e m p l o y i n g
s u c h
m e a n s
a
s
m a y
b e
r e a s o n a b l y
n e c e s s a r y
t o
r e t a k e
p o s s e s
s i o n ,
a n d
p l a c e
t h e j u d g m e n t o b l i g
n o f s u c h
p r o p e r t y .
A n y
c o s t s , d
o r
p r o f i t s
a w a r d e d
b y t h e j u d g m e n t
i e d i n t h e
s a m e m a n n e r a s a j u d g m e n t
(13a )
(d)
Delivery
of personal
d g m e n t s
for
t h e d e l i v e r y o f p e r
h e office r
s h a l l t a k e
p o s s e s s i o n
f o r t h w i t h
d e l i v e r i t t o t h e
p a r t
t i s f y a n y
j u d g m e n t fo r m o n e y a s t h e
(8a )
e e
i n
p o s s e s s i o
a m a g e s ,
s h a l l
r e n t s
b e
s a t i s f
fo r m o n e y .
property.
s o n a l
j u
p r o p e r t y ,
o f t h e
y
In
s a m e
e n t i t l e d
a n d
a n d
s a
r e i n p r o v i d e d .
N O T E S
1.
Th e provision s o n
ct s
(Sec. 10) hav e bee n clarifie d
specific act s contemplate d therei
with th e directiv e t o a part y
j u d g m e n t s
for
specifi c
by th e qualification tha t th e
n ar e thos e i n connection
t o execut e a conveyanc e o f
484
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SEC
part y
refuse s
t o
hereo f wer e
formerl
yiel d
possessio n
execution , contemp t
mus t ous t sai d part
involved , ther e mus t
for th e issuanc e o
Sec. 10(dJ) o f thi s
o f a
i s
y from
b e a
f a
Rul e
(Fuentes, et al.
vs. Leviste, et al., L 47363, Oct.
1982;
Atal Moslem,
et al. vs. Soriano,
et al., L-36837,
17,
1983).
28,
Aug.
National
Urban
984
[Unrep.J;
Sandico,
-26115,
Nov.
29,
1971).
Planning
Commission,
100
Phil
Sec .
third
persons.
a t e a
l i e n i n
r t h e
r i g h t , t
o b l i g o r
i n s u c h
u b j e c t
t o l i e n s
12 .
et
al.
Effect
T h e
of
vs.
levy
on
l e v y o n
f a v o r o f
t h e
Piguing,
a t
j u d g m e n t
t h e
al.,
execution
e x e c u t i o n
i t l e a n d i n t e r e s t
p r o p e r t y
et
to
s h a l l c r e
o b l i g e e o v e
o f t h e
t i m e
as
j u d g m e n t
o f t h e levy , s
a n d e n c u m b r a n c e s t h e n existing .
(16a) .
NOTE S
1.
Levy
mean s
th e
ac t or act s
by
whic h
an
office
r
set s a p a r t o r appropriate s a p a r t o r th e whol e o
f th e
p r o p e r t y o f th e j u d g m e n t debto r for p u r p o s e s
o f th e
486
----------------------- Page 487----------------------RULE 39
C. 12
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SE
109 Phil.
331,
Mar.
15,
981;Pamintuan,
et
al.
vs.
Munoz,
et al.,
L-26
1968).
Ort
not
487
----------------------- Page 488----------------------RULE 39
th e auctio n
th e levy wa s
1 an d 5 2 o f
operativ e ac t t
o
convey
o r
affect
th e
lan d
insofa r
a s
thir d
person s
ar
e
concerned ,
an d
o f whic h
constructive notic e
Inc.,
G.R.
No.
156580,
Sec .
a s
13 .
act s
(Du
June
the y
vs.
14,
ar e
deeme d
t o
Stronghold Insurance
hav e
Co.,
2004).
execution.
E x c e p t
o t h e r w i s e
e x p r e s s l y
p r o v i d e d
b y
l a w ,
t h e
f o l l o w i n g p r o p e r t y , a n d
n o o t h e r s h a l l
b e
e x e m p t
f r o m
e x e c u t i o n :
(a)
T h e
j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r ' s f a m i l y
h o m e
a s
p r o v i d e d
b y
l a w ,
o r t h e h o m e s t e a d
i n
w h i c h
h e
r e s i d e s , a n d
l a n d
n e c e s s a r i l y u s e d
i n
c o n n e c t i o n
t h e r e w i t h ;
(b)
O r d i n a r y t o o l s a n d
i m p l e m e n t s p
e r s o n a l l y
u s e d b y h i m i n h i s t r a d e , e m p l o y m e n t , o r livel
ihood ;
(c)
o r t h
c a r a b a o
u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r
h i m i n
o r d i n a r
T h r e e
h o r s e s ,
o r t h r e e
c o w s ,
r e e
s , o r b e a s t s o f b u r d e n , s u c h a s t h e j
m a y s e l e c t , n e c e s s a r i l y
h i s
y
o c c u p a t i o n ;
(d)
H i s
n e c e s s a r y
r t i c l e s
fo r
o r d i n a r y p e r s o n a l u s e ,
;
(e)
H o
n e c e s s a r y
for h o u s e k e
b y t h e
j u d g m e n t
c h
a s
t h
j u d g m e n t
v a l u e
n o
e x c e e d i n g
u s e h o l d
c l o t h i n g
e p i n g , a n d u s e d
a n d
b y
a n d
e x c l u d i n g j e w e l r y
f u r n i t u r e a n d
o b l i g o r
u s e d
u t e n s i l s
fo r t h a t p u r p o s e
h i s
f a m i l y ,
s u
e
o b l i g o r
m a y
s e l e c t ,
o f
t
o n e h u n d r e d t h o u s a n d p e s o s ;
(f)
P r o v i s i o n s
f a m i l y
u s e
s u f f i c i e n t fo r f o u r
f o r
i n d i v i d u a l
o r
m o n t h s ;
(g)
T h e p r o f e s s i o n a l l i b r a r i e s a n d e q u
i p m e n t o f
j u d g e s , l a w y e r s , p h y s i c i a n s , p h a r m a c i s t s
, d e n t i s t s ,
e n g i n e e r s ,
s u r v e y o r s ,
c l e r g y m e n ,
t e a
c h e r s
a n d
48 8
----------------------- Page 489----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 13
EXECUTION,
AND
SATISFACTION
EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l s n o t e x c e e d i n g
h u n d r e d
t h o u s a n d p e s o s i n v a l u e ;
t h r e e
(h)
O n e
f i s h i n g b o a t
a n d
e s
n o t
e x c e e d i n g t h e t o t a l v a l u e o f o n e
o u s a n d
p e s o s o w n e d b y a f i s h e r m a n a n d
l u s e
o f w h i c h h e e a r n s h i s livelihood ;
(i)
S o m u c h o f t h e s a l a r
a r n i n g s
o f t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r fo
s e r v i c e s
w i t h i n t h e fou r m o n t h s
p r
a s
a r e
n e c e s s a r y fo r t h e s u p p o r t o
(j)
L e t t e r e d
a c c e s s o r i
h u n d r e d t h
b y t h e
lawfu
i e s , w a g e s , o r e
r
h i s
p e r s o n a l
e c e d i n g
f h i s
t h e lev y
family ;
g r a v e s t o n e s ;
(k)
M o n i e s ,
b e n e f i t s , p r i v i l e g e s , o r
a n n u i t i e s
a c c r u i n g o r i n a n y m a n n e r g r o w i n g o u t o f a n
y lif e
i n s u r a n c e ;
(1)
T h e r i g h t t o r e c e i v e lega l s u p p o r t , o
r m o n e y
o r p r o p e r t y
o b t a i n e d
a s
s u c h
s u p p o r t ,
o r a n y
p e n s i o n o r g r a t u i t y fro m t h e G o v e r n m e n t ;
(m)
P r o p e r t i e s s p e c i a l l y e x e m p t e d
b y la
w .
B u t n
t i o n e d
n t h i s
c u t i o n
s s u e d u
r i c e o r
u p o n
a
r t g a g e
t h e r e o n .
n
i
e
i
o a r t i c l e o r s p e c i e s o f p r o p e r t y m e
s e c t i o n
p o n
s h a l l b e
a j u d g m e n t
j u d g m e n t
o f
e x e m p t
r e c o v e r e d
f o r e c l o s u r e
(12a )
N O T E S
f r o m
fo r
o f
e x
it s
a
p
m o
RULE 39
SEC. 13
(Art.
157).
A g a i n s t s u c h a c o n t e n t i o u s b a c k g r o u n d
a n d t o
f o r e s t a l l c o m p l i c a t e d s o l u t i o n s , o n p r a g m a
t i c con sideration s o f th e perennia l housin g problem s an d th e
s e n t i m e n t a l a t t a c h m e n t o f Filipino s
t o t h e i r
famil y
residences , th e S u p r e m e Cour t decide d t o g r a n t tota
l
exemption t o th e family hom e withou t regar d t o it s value ,
subject only t o specifi c unavoidabl e exceptions .
Thi s
amendmen t i n th e first paragrap h o f thi s section doe s not
diminish , increas e or modify substantiv e rights , bu t merely
operate s a s a mean s o f implementin g an existin g right ,
henc e
i t deal s
merel y wit h procedur e
(se e Fabia
n
vs.
Desierto, etc., et al.,
G.R. No.
129742,
Sept.
16,
19
98).
490
----------------------- Page 491----------------------RULE 39
. 13
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SEC
furnitur e an d
l librarie s an d
(not only a
increas e ha s als
o
bee n mad e on th e amoun t o f provision s for individua l or
family us e an d salaries, wages or earning s necessar y for
th e suppor t o f th e judgmen t obligor' s family ; an d th e latte r
item s ar e
now s o specified in view o f previou s holding s
which distinguishe d salarie s from wages .
U n d e r t h e s a m e r a t i o n a l e t h a t t h e ceilin g
o n
exemption s for th e family home , homestea d or necessar y
lan d therefo r i s n o longe r specifically state d i n thi s
amende d
section ,
al l
monies ,
benefits ,
491
privilege s
o r
RULE 39
SEC. 13
exemption s
e n u m e r a t e d
herei n
canno t
b e
exemption s
waive d
no t
articl
m u s t b e claimed , otherwis e
(Herrera vs. McMicking,
t h e d u t y
o f th e sherif f t o
1
se t
s own initiative .
30,
1982),
an d amende d by Art .
226 ,
Famil y
Code .
5 . O t h e r p r o p e r t i e s s p e c i a l l y e x e m p t e d
fro m
execution , a s contemplate d i n th e abov e section , are :
(a) Propert y mortgage d to th e DB P (Sec. 26, CA. 458);
(b) P r o p e r t y t a k e n ove r
b y t h e Alie n
o p e r t y
Administratio n
(Sec.
9[f],
U.S.
Trading
With
Enemy
Act);
Posta l
the
304);
P r
(R.A.
(e) P h i l i p p i n e G o v e r n m e n t b a c k p a y t o
illa s
(R.A.
guer
897);
492
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
(f) Produce ,
wor k
t s
of agricultura l lessees ,
21,
R.A.
6389);
animal s
an d
subjec t
t o
far m
implemen
limitatio n
(Sec.
(g) B e n e f i t s fro m
p r i v a t e r e t i r e m e n t s y
s t e m s
o f c o m p a n i e s an d
e s t a b l i s h m e n t s , w i t h l i m i
t a t i o n s
(R.A.
4917);
(h) Laborer' s wages , excep t for debt s
food, shelter , clothin g an d medica l attendanc e
1708,
Civil
Code);
incurre d
SS S
from
24,
th e
65 and
for
(Art.
(Sec.
177);
G )
C o p y r i g h t s a n d o t h e r r i g h t s i n
t e l l e c t u a l
propert y unde r th e former copyright law , P.D . 4 9 (cf. Sec.
239.3,
R.A.
8293); and
(k)
L-17874,
16
i n
CIR,
6 . S a l a r i e s , a s distinguishe d
from wages ,
wer e
formerly not exemp t from execution .
Th e ter m "w
age "
d e n o t e s c o m p e n s a t i o n for m a n u a l
labor ,
skille
d
o r
unskilled , whil e th e ter m "salary " denote s a highe r degre e
of employmen t or superio r grad e or servic e an d implie s a
position or office (Gaa vs.
CA, et al., L-44169, Dec.
31,
1985).
Thi s distinctio n ha s been eliminate d by Par . (i) .
7 .
14 .
Return of
writ of
execution.
T h e
w r i t of
e x e c u t i o n s h a l l b e r e t u r n a b l e t o t h e c o u
r t i s s u i n g
i t i m m e d i a t e l y afte r t h e j u d g m e n t h a s bee n satis
fie d
i n p a r t o r i n full . I f t h e j u d g m e n t c a n n o t b e sa
tisfie d
i n ful l w i t h i n t h i r t y (30) d a y s afte r h i s r e c e i p
t o f t h e
writ , t h e office r shal l r e p o r t t o t h e c o u r t a n d s
t a t e
t h e r e a s o n t h e r e f o r . S u c h w r i t shal l c o n t i
n u e i n
493
----------------------- Page 494----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 13
effec t d u r i n g t h e perio d w i t h i n w h i c h t h e j u d g m e
n t
m a y b e enforce d b y m o t i o n .
Th e office r shal l ma
k e
a repor t t o t h e c o u r t ever y thirt y (30) d a y s o n th e
p r o c e e d i n g s t a k e n
m e n t
i s
s a t i s f i e d i n full ,
e s . T h e
r e t u r n s o r p e r i o d i
e
o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s
h th e
c o u r t a n d
c o p i e s
h e d th e
parties .
(11a )
t h e r e o n
o r
u n t i l
t h e
i t s e f f e c t i v i t y
j u d g
e x p i r
f u r n i s
NOT E
1.
Thi s amende d provisio n change s th e procedur e i n
th e forme r Sec . 1 1 o f thi s Rul e wherei n th e lifetim e o f a
wri t o f executio n wa s 6 0 day s from it s receip t by th e officer
require d t o
become s
h e r e a f t e
p u r s u a n t
15 .
Notice
of
sale
of
property
t h e s a l e o f p r o p e r t y
o n
c e
f m u s t b e g i v e n a s follows :
(a)
n g
t e n
I n
c a s e
notic e
(3)
o f t h e
o f p e r i s h a b l e
publi c
o f t h e
tim e
p l a c e s ,
an d
property ,
i n
m u n i c i p a l o r cit y hall ,
i c m a r k e t
e r e
i n
t h e
execu
e x e c u t i o n
plac e
preferabl y
on
b y
o f th e
p
sal e
c o n s p i c u
pos t offic e
m u n i c i p a l i t y
o r
cit y
494
----------------------- Page 495----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 15
EXECUTION. SATISFACTION
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
th e
s a l e i s t o t a k e p l a c e , fo r s u c h t i m e a s
m a y
b e
r e a s o n a b l e , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r
a n d
conditio n o f
th e property ;
(b)
I n c a s e o f o t h e r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t
y , b y
p o s t i n g a s i m i l a r n o t i c e i n t h e t h r e e (3) p
u b l i c
place s above-mentioned , fo r no t les s t h a n fiv e (5)
days ;
(c)
I n c a s e o f r e a l p r o p e r t y , b y p o s t i n
g fo r
twent y (20) day s i n th e thre e (3) publi c place s above mentioned , a simila r notic e particularl y d e s c r i b i n g
th e propert y an d statin g wher e th e propert y i s t o
b e sold , an d i f th e a s s e s s e d valu e o f th e propert
y
e x c e e d s
fift y
t h o u s a n d
( P 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) p e s o
s , b y
publishin g a cop y o f th e notic e onc e a w e e k fo r t w o
(2) c o n s e c u t i v e w e e k s i n on e newpape r selecte d b y
raffle, w h e t h e r i n English , Filipino , o r an y majo r
regiona l languag e published , edite d an d circulate d
or ,
i n
t h e
a b s e n c e
t h e r e o f , h a v i n g
g e n
e r a l
circulatio n i n th e provinc e o r city ;
(d)
I n al l cases , writte n notic e o f th e sal e shal l
b e give n t o th e j u d g m e n t obligor , a t leas t thre e (3)
d a y s
b e f o r e
d
i n
paragrap h
(a)
at an y tim e befor e
persona l servic e o
provide d by sectio n
t h e
s a l e , e x c e p t
hereo f w
th e sale
f pleading
6 o f Rul
h
,
s
e
a s
p r o v i d e
Th e
n o t i c e shal l
specif y th e
place , dat e
an d
exac t tim e o f th e sal e whic h shoul d no t b e earlie r
tha n nin e o'cloc k i n th e mornin g an d no t late r tha n
tw o o'cloc k i n th e afternoon .
Th e plac e o f th e sal
e
may b e agree d upo n b y th e parties .
I n th e absen
c e
o f s u c h a g r e e m e n t , t h e sal e
o f rea l
propert y
o r
persona l propert y no t capabl e o f manua l deliver y
shall b e hel d i n th e offic e o f th e cler k o f cour t o f th e
Regiona l Tria l Cour t o r th e Municipa l Tria l Cour t
w h i c h i s s u e d t h e wri t o r w h i c h
w a s d e s i g n
a t e d
495
----------------------- Page 496----------------------RULE 39
b y t h e
a p p e l l a t e
c o u r t .
I n t h e c a s e o f
p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y c a p a b l e o f m a n u a l d e l i v e r y , t h e sa
l e s h a l l
b e h e l d i n t h e p l a c e w h e r e t h e p r o p e r t y i s
l o c a t e d .
(18a)
N O T E
1.
Proceedings
h e
where
s u c h
e t o
o r
th
and , in
th e sal e
property
p r o p e r t y
o t h e r t h a n
on th e
posted ,
l e v i e d
o n
t h e j u d g m e n t
p e r s o n
r i g h t
m a k e s
t o
t h e
o b l
a n
af
p o s s e s
u n d s o f s u c h r i g h t o r t i t l e ,
a n d s e r v e s
t h e s a m e
u p o n
t h e
office r
m a k i n g t h e
l
ev y
a n d
a
c o p y t h e r e o f u p o n t h e j u d g m e n t o b l i g e e , t h e
office r
s h a l l n o t b e b o u n d t o k e e p t h e p r o p e r t y , u n l
e s s s u c h
j u d g m e n t o b l i g e e , o n d e m a n d o f t h e officer ,
file s a
b o n d
a p p r o v e d
b y
t h e
c o u r t
t o i n d e m
n i f y
t h e
t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m a n t i n a s u m n o t les s t h a n t
h e v a l u e
o f t h e p r o p e r t y l e v i e d o n . I n c a s e o f d i s
a g r e e m e n t
a s t o s u c h v a l u e , t h e s a m e s h a l l b e d e t e
r m i n e d b y
t h e c o u r t i s s u i n g t h e w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n .
N o c l a i m
f o r d a m a g e s
f o r
t h e
t a k i n g
o r
k e e p i n
g
o f t h e
p r o p e r t y m a y b e e n f o r c e d a g a i n s t t h e b o n
d u n l e s s
t h e a c t i o n
t h e r e f o r i s file d
w i t h i n
o n e
h u n d r e d
t w e n t y (120 ) d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e filin
g o f t h e
b o n d .
T h e
o f f i c e r s h a l l n o t
b e
l i a b l e fo r
d a m a g e s ,
for t h e
t a k i n g o r
k e e p i n g o f t h e
p r o p e r t
y , t o a n y
t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m a n t i f s u c h bond " i s filed .
N o t h i n g
496
----------------------- Page 497----------------------RULE 39
. 16
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SEC
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION
Bayer
Phil.,
Inc.
vs.
Agana,
t y c l a i m a n t c a n n o t a p p e a l no r
a
remed y
(Sierra
1975) sinc e
vs.
Inc.
Rodriguez,
vs.
he is no t a part y
cour t or by
et al.,
L-
SEC
an
independen t
reivindicator y
action ,
ar e
cumulativ
e
remedie s an d ma y b e resorte d t o by a third-part y claiman t
independently o f or separatel y from an d withou t nee d o f
availing o f th e others .
I f h e opte d t o file a prope r ac
tion
t o vindicat e hi s clai m o f ownership , h e mus t institut e a n
action ,
distinc t an d s e p a r a t e from t h a t i n whic h
th e
judgmen t i s bein g enforced , wit h a competen t cour t even
befor e or withou t filin g a clai m in th e cour t which issue d
th e writ , th e latte r no t bein g a conditio n sine qua non for
th e former .
Thi s prope r actio n woul d hav e for it s object
th e recovery o f ownershi p or possessio n o f th e propert y
seized by th e sheriff , a s wel l a s damage s agains t th e sherif
f
an d othe r person s responsibl e for th e illega l seizur e o r
detention o f th e property .
Th e validit y o f th e titl e o f
th e
third-part y claiman t shal l b e resolve d in sai d actio n an d a
wri t o f preliminar y injunctio n ma y b e issue d agains t th e
sheriff (Sy,
et al. vs. Discaya,
et al., G.R.
No.
8
6301,
Jan.
23,
1990).
500
----------------------- Page 501----------------------RULE 39
6
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION
SEC. 1
7,
Rule
60)
ma y
involved
i s tha
already
action s
or in a separat e suit
t th e judgmen t in
fina l an d executory ,
stil l pendin g i n
11. A s show n in
case , distinc t from tha
i s prope r i f institute
On th e othe r hand ,
e
execution proceeding s i s
not a strange r thereto ,
b e
litigate d
in
th e
sam e
actio n
.
Th e reason for th e difference
th e cas e subject o f thi s section i s
whil e Rule s 5 7 an d 6 0 involv e
th e tria l court .
No.
Feb.
24,
SECS
2003).
S e c .
17 .
Penalty
for
selling
without
no
tice,
or
removing
or
defacing
notice.
A n
o f f i c e r s
e l l i n g
w i t h o u t t h e n o t i c e prescribe d b y s e c t i o n 1 5 o f th
i s
Rul e shal l b e liabl e t o pa y p u n i t i v e d a m a g e s i n th
e
a m o u n t o f fiv e t h o u s a n d p e s o s
(F5,000.00 ) t o
an y
p e r s o n i n j u r e d t h e r e b y , i n a d d i t i o n t o h
i s actua l
d a m a g e s , b o t h t o b e r e c o v e r e d b y m o t i o n
i n th e
s a m e
a c t i o n , a n d a p e r s o n
w i l l f u l l y r e m
o v i n g o r
d e f a c i n g t h e n o t i c e p o s t e d , i f d o n e befor e t
h e sale ,
o r befor e t h e
s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t
i f i t b e
satisfie d befor e t h e sale , shal l b e liabl e t o pa y fiv e
t h o u s a n d p e s o s (P5,000.00 ) t o a n y p e r s o n injure
d
b y r e a s o n thereof , i n a d d i t i o n t o hi s actua l d a m a g
e s ,
t o b e
r e c o v e r e d
b y m o t i o n
i n t h e s a m e
a c t i o n .
(19a)
NOTE S
1.
(Ago vs.
bject s
th e officer
r wh o
induce d th e
liable
as
et al.,
38
Phil.
CA,
et al.,
t o
L-17898,
liabilit y
for
Oct.
31,
1962),
damages .
an d su
Th e
credito
(se e
12,
Prov.
Sheriff of
Rizal
vs.
CA,
1975).
Sec .
18 .
No
sale
if
At
a n y t i m e befor e t h e sal e o
o n ,
t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r
s a l e b y
p a y i n g t h e a m o u n t r e q u i
o n an d
judgment
and
costs
paid.
f propert y
m a y
r e d
o n
e x e c u t i
p r e v e n t
b y
t h e
t h e
e x e c u t i
502
----------------------- Page 503----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 19
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION
How property
sold
on
(2
execution;
who
star t a t th e exac t t i m e
fixe
d t o advantag e separately .
u c t i n g th e
e x e c u t i o n
Nei
sale ,
no r
a purchaser , no r b e intereste d
y i n an y purchas e a t suc h sale .
NOTE S
1.
Thi s
i s a reproductio n of th e former Sec . 2 1 of
Rule , wit h th e amendmen t tha t th e sal e a t publi c
thi s
503
----------------------- Page 504----------------------RULE 39
EC. 19
"Art. 1491 .
Th e followin g person s canno t acquir e
purchase , eve n a t a publi c o r judicia l auction ,
sale
(2)
Agents , th e propert y whos e administratio n o r
ma y hav e bee n intruste d t o them , unles s th e
th e
propert y
an y
g o v e r n m
t i o n o r
institution ,
intruste d t
a n d g o v
a n n e r
whatsoever ,
e n t
owne d
a n
controlle d
c o r p o r a
o r
executio n
befor e
th e
cour t
withi n
who
s e
jurisdictio n
f u n c t i o
e ac t o f
acquirin g b
wit h respec
th e object
p a r t b y
(6)
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
I t h
If a
purchase r refuse s t o pa y th e a m o u n t bi d b y h i m fo r
propert y struc k of f t o h i m a t a sal e unde r execution ,
t h e o f f i c e r m a y
a g a i n s e l l t h e p r o p e r t y t
o t h e
h i g h e s t bidde r an d shal l no t b e responsibl e fo r an y
los s o c c a s i o n e d thereby , bu t th e cour t ma y orde r
th e r e f u s i n g p u r c h a s e r t o pa y int o th e cour t
th e
a m o u n t o f s u c h loss , wi t h costs , an d ma y p u n i
s h
h i m fo r c o n t e m p t i f h e d i s o b e y s th e order .
Th e
a m o u n t o f suc h paymen t shal l b e fo r th e benefi t o f
th e perso n entitle d t o th e proceed s o f th e execution ,
u n l e s s t h e e x e c u t i o n ha s b e e n full y satisfied ,
i n
w h i c h e v e n t suc h proceed s shal l b e fo r th e benefi t
o f th e judgmen t obligor .
Th e office r ma y thereafte r
reject an y s u b s e q u e n t bi d o f suc h purchase r w h o
refuse s t o pay .
(22a )
505
----------------------- Page 506----------------------RULE 39
. 21 22
SECS
NOT E
1.
Th e measur e o f damage s t o whic h th e judgmen t
creditor i s entitle d agains t th e unlawfu l interveno r i s th e
difference betwee n th e amoun t whic h woul d hav e bee n
realize d wer e i t no t for th e illega l interventio n (bu t no t t
o
exceed th e judgmen t account ) an d th e tota l amoun t which
h e actuall y recovere d o n th e judgmen t from al l sources ,
includin g th e amoun t actuall y realize d a t th e auctio n sale ,
plu s th e expense s incurre d a s a consequenc e o f th e illega l
intervention (se e Mata
vs.
Lichauco,
3 6 Phil.
809)
.
Sec .
21 . Judgment
obligee
W h e n
t h e p u r c h a s e r
i s t h e j u d g
n d
n o
third-part y c l a i m h a s b e e n filed
y
t h e a m o u n t
o f t h e bi d
i f
e e d t h e
a m o u n t o f h i s j u d g m e n t .
I f i
y onl y
th e e x c e s s .
(23a )
Sec .
22 .
as
purchaser.
m e n t
,
i t
h e
o b l i g e e , a
n e e d
d o e s n o t
no t
pa
e x c
t d o e s , h e shal l pa
Adjournment of sale. By w r i t t e n
c o n s e n
t
o f t h e j u d g m e n t obligo r a n d o b l i g e e , o r t h e i r
dul y
a u t h o r i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , t h e office r m a y ad
jour n
t h e sal e t o a n y d a t e a n d t i m e a g r e e d u p o n b y th
em .
W i t h o u t s u c h a g r e e m e n t , h e m a y a d j o u r n t
h e sal e
fro m d a y t o d a y i f i t b e c o m e s n e c e s s a r y t o d o
s o fo r
lac k o f t i m e t o c o m p l e t e t h e sal e o n t h e da y fixe d
i n
th e notic e o r th e da y t o w h i c h i t w a s adjourned . (24a)
NOTE S
1.
Th e officer ma y adjour n th e sal e from da y t o day
if it i s necessar y t o d o s o for lack o f tim e t o complet e th
e
sale o n th e dat e fixed i n th e notice .
H e ma y not , howe
ver ,
adjourn th e sal e t o anothe r dat e unles s wit h th e writte n
consent o f th e parties , otherwis e th e sal e thu s conducte d
wil l be nul l an d void (Abrozar, et al. vs. IAC, et al., G.R
.
No.
67970,
Jan.
15,
1988).
506
----------------------- Page 507----------------------RULE 39
3-25
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SECS. 2
e o f
h a s e r
a d i n
t i o n o r
(25a )
of
personal property
th e
purchase r
capabl e o f m a n u a
n
t
office r makin g
r t o th e purchase r
certificat e c o n v e y s
w h i c h
o f th e
t h e j u d g m
dat e
o f th e
(2
Sec.
25 .
Conveyance of real property; certificate thereof
given
to purchaser
and
filed
with
registry
of deeds.
sold;
(b)
(c)
(d)
A s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e righ t o f r e d e m
p t i o n
e x p i r e s
o n e
(1 )
y e a r
f r o m
t h e d a t e
o f
t h e
r e g i s t r a t i o n o f t h e certificat e o f sale .
S u c h
c e r t i f i c a t e m u s t b e
r e g i s t e r e d
i n t h e
registr y o f d e e d s o f t h e plac e w h e r e th e propert y i s
s i t u a t e d . (27a )
Sec .
26 . Certificate of sale
where property claimed
by
third person. W h e n a propert y sol d
by virtu e
o f a
w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n h a s
b e e n c l a i m e d
b y
a
t h i r d
p e r s o n , t h e certificat e o f sal e t o b e
i s s u e d
b y th e
sherif f p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n s 23 , 2 4 an d 2 5 o f thi s
Rul e
shal l m a k e e x p r e s s m e n t i o n o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o
f suc h
third-part y claim .
(28a )
NOTE S
1. Ther e i s n o righ t o f redemptio n wher e th e propert y
sold a t judicia l sal e i s persona l property .
Wher
e th e
propert y sol d i s rea l property , th e perio d o f redemptio n i s
one yea r from an d afte r th e registratio n o f th e certificat e
of sal e
mentione d
in Sec .
25
(Rosario
vs. Tayug
Rural
Bank,
L-26538,
Mar.
21,
1968; Reyes
vs. Manas,
L-27755,
Oct. 4, 1969).
I f sai d certificat e o f sal e i s not registere
d ,
th e perio d for redemptio n doe s no t ru n (Garcia vs. Ocampo,
et al., 105 Phil.
1102).
Bu t wher e th e partie s agree d on
th e dat e o f redemption , th e statutor y perio
r e d e m p t i o n w a s c o n v e r t e d int o
on
e n t i o n a l
redemptio n an d th e perio d bindin g o n the m i s
upo n
(Lazo
vs.
Republic
Surety
&
.,
Inc.,
L-27365,
Jan.
30,
1970).
d
e
for lega l
o f c o n v
tha t agree d
Insurance
Co
EXECUTION. SATISFACTION
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
SECS. 2
al
Sec . 27 .
Who may
redeem
real property so sold.
m a n n e r
hereinafte r
provided ,
(a) Th e j u d g m e n t obligor , o r hi s s u c c e s s o r
i n
interes t i n th e w h o l e o r an y par t o f th e property ;
(b) A c r e d i t o r h a v i n g a lie n b y v i r t u e o
f a n
attachment , j u d g m e n t o r mortgag e o n th e propert y
sold , o r o n s o m e
par t thereof ,
s u b s e q u e n t t o
th e
l i e n u n d e r w h i c h t h e p r o p e r t y w a s sold .
S
u c h
r e d e e m i n g credito r i s terme d a redemptioner .
(
29a )
Sec .
28 .
Time
and
manner
of,
and
amounts
payable
on,
successive
redemptions;
notice
to be given
and
filed.
T h e j u d g m e n t o b l i g o r , o r r e d e m p t i o n e r , m
a y
redee m th e propert y fro m th e purchaser , a t an y tim e
withi n on e (1) yea r fro m th e dat e o f th e registratio n
o f th e certificat e o f sale , b y payin g th e purchase r
th e
a m o u n t
o f hi s purchase ,
wit h
on e per
cen
tum
pe r m o n t h interes t thereo n i n addition , u p t o th e
tim e o f redemption , togethe r wit h th e amoun t o f an y
a s s e s s m e n t s o r taxe s whic h th e purchase r ma y hav e
pai d t h e r e o n afte r purchase , an d interes t o n suc h
las t n a m e d a m o u n t a t t h e sam e rate ; an d
i f
th e
purchase r b e als o a credito r havin g a prio r lie n t o
tha t o f th e redemptioner , othe r tha n th e judgmen t
509
----------------------- Page 510----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 29
u n d e r w h i c h s u c h p u r c h a s e w a s made , th e
o f s u c h o t h e r lien , w i t h interest .
P r o p e r t y
s o r e d e e m e d m a y a g a i n
amoun t
b e
redeeme
d
w
p
p
w
i
a
t
i
o r liens .
(30a)
Sec .
29 .
Effect
obligor,
and
a
certificate
to
thereupon;
to
whom
payments
If
t h e
of
be
on
redemption
delivered
redemption
by
and
judgment
recorded
made.
510
----------------------- Page 511----------------------RULE 39
29-30
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SECS.
A
redemptione r mus t produc e t o th e officer , o r perso n
fro m w h o m h e s e e k s t o redeem , an d serv e wit h hi s
notic e t o th e office r a cop y o f th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l
orde r u n d e r w h i c h h e claim s th e righ t t o redeem ,
c e r t i f i e d b y t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t w h e r e i
n t h e
j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r i s entered , or , i f h e r e d e e m
s
upo n a mortgag e o r othe r lien , a m e m o r a n d u m o f
th e recor d thereof , certifie d b y th e registra r o f deeds ,
o r a n origina l o r certifie d cop y o f an y a s s i g n m e n t
necessar y t o establis h hi s claim , an d a n affidavi t
e x e c u t e d b y h i m o r hi s agent , s h o w i n g th e amoun t
the n actuall y du e o n th e lien .
(32a)
NOTE S
1.
Th e "successo r i n i n t e r e s t " o f th e j u d g
m e n t
debtor , the n referre d t o in Sec . 29(a) (now , Sec. 27[aJ),
include s a perso n t o whom h e ha s transferre d hi s righ t
51 1
----------------------- Page 512----------------------RULE 39
. 29-30
SECS
o f r e d e m p t i o n , o r on e t o who m h e h a s conveye d
hi s
interest s in th e propert y for purpose s o f redemption , or
one wh o succeed s t o hi s propert y b y operatio n o f law ,
or a perso n wit h a join t interes t in th e property , or hi s
spouse or heir s (Magno vs.
Viola, et al., 6 1 Phil. 80)
2 . Whil e th e forme r Sec . 3 0 (now , Sec. 28) provide d
t h a t th e perio d o f redemptio n wa s 1 2 month s "after th e
sale, " sai d perio d i s actuall y t o b e reckone d from th e dat e
of registration o f th e certificat e
o f sal e
an d th e perio d ha s
"redemptioner "
subscribin g witnes s
merel y
i s
regardin g
define d
in
thereto .
th e
Sec .
amoun t
27(b )
a s
th e propert y wa s
therefore , ca n no t
be
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
SECS. 29-30
Gonzales
Dies
vs. Delgado,
3 7 Phil.
389).
sold at publi c
ma y redee m
a t whic h the y
redemptio n i s
sol d a t an
n o longe r th e
513
----------------------- Page 514----------------------RULE 39
29-30
SECS.
1999).
514
----------------------- Page 515----------------------RULE 39
SECS. 31-32
EXECUTION. SATISFACTION
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
I t ha s
Unti l
t h e
e x
p i r a t i o n
o f t h e t i m e a l l o w e d fo r r e d e m p t i o n , t h e c o u
r t m a y ,
a s i n o t h e r p r o p e r c a s e s , r e s t r a i n t h e c
o m m i s s i o n
o f w a s t e o n t h e p r o p e r t y b y i n j u n c t i o n , o n t h
e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e
p u r c h a s e r o r t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g e e ,
w i t h
o r w i t h o u t n o t i c e ; b u t i t i s n o t w a
s t e fo r a
p e r s o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y a t t h e
t i m e o f
t h e sale , o r e n t i t l e d t o p o s s e s s i o n a f t e r w a r d
s , d u r i n g
t h e p e r i o d a l l o w e d
fo r r e d e m p t i o n , t o c o
n t i n u e t o
u s e i t i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r i n w h i c h i t w a s p r e
v i o u s l y
u s e d , o r t o u s e
i t i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s
e o f h u s b a n d r y ;
o r
t o m a k e
t h e
n e c e s s a r y
r e
p a i r s
t o
b u i l d i n g s t h e r e o n w h i l e h e o c c u p i e s t h e
p r o p e r t y .
(33a)
Sec . 32 .
Rents,
earnings
of property
pending
redemption.
T
o r
a
r e d e m p t i o n e r s h a l l n o t b e
c e i v e t h e
r e n t s , e a r n i n g s a n d i n c o m e
sol d o n
e x e c u t i o n , o r t h e v a l u e o
c c u p a t i o n
t h e r e o f w h e n s u c h p r o p e r t y
s s i o n o f
a t e n a n t .
Al l r e n t s , e a r n
d e r i v e d
and
h e
income
p u r c h a s e r
e n t i t l e d
t o
r e
o f t h e p r o p e r t y
f t h e
i s
u s e
i n t h e
a n d
i n g s
a n d
p o s s e
i n c o m e
515
----------------------- Page 516----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 33
suc h
theor y
an d
lega l
rationale ,
sinc e
th e
3 4
t h i n g s a r
an d incom e
r e d e m p t i
n o f hi s
h e p u r c h
Sec .
33 .
Deed
and
possession
to
be
gi
ven
at
expiration
of redemption
period;
by
whom
execut
ed
or
given. I f n o r e d e m p t i o n b e m a d e withi n o n e (1) yea r
516
----------------------- Page 517----------------------RULE 39
33
EXECUTION,
AND
SATISFACTION
SEC.
EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
j u d g
NOTE S
1. This section was taken from the former Sec. 35
of this Rule but contains two important differences therefrom.
The revised rule is that the purchaser or
redemptioner shall now be substituted for the judgment
obligor
upon
the
expiration
of
the right
of
n.
Consequently, he shall acquire all the rights, title, interests
and claims of the judgment obligor to the property as of
the time of the levy.
redemptio
execute d
Futhermore
claim o f
o f th e
executio n
an d
b y th e officer wh o
, h e shal l acquir e
th e judgmen t debto r t
levy , "excep t a s
deliver y
o f (the )
deed "
t o b e
e x e c u t i o n o r
p r e l
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
lie n i n favo r o f t h i r d p e r s o n s c r e
ac t s o f
th e debto r after th e levy on rea l propert y shal
e
bindin g agains t th e purchase r t o who m a fina l dee
sale
wa s subsequentl y issue d
(Guerrero
n,
et
al., L-18117,
April
27,
1963).
4 .
e
vende e
Afte r
therei n
th e
i s
dee d
entitle d
o f sal e
t o
ha s
wri t
bee n
a t e d
l
no t
b y
b
d o f
vs. Agusti
executed ,
o f possessio n
th
bu t
i t i s th e judgmen t debto r
wh o ar e i n possessio n o f
lan d i s occupie d b y a thir
hearin g t o determin e th e
possessio n
(Guevarra,
vs.
Ramos,
et al., L-24358,
Mar.
31,
1971;
Unchuan
vs.
CA, et al.,
G.R.
78715, May 31,
1988).
Th e wri t
shal l
issue wher e th e perio d o f redemptio n ha s expire d
(
Banco
Filipino vs. IAC, et al.,
G.R. No.
68878, April 8,
19
86).
5.
A wri t o f possession may be issue d only in a lan d
registratio n proceeding , in extrajudicia l foreclosur e o f a
rea l estat e mortgag e an d i n judicia l foreclosur e i f th e
debtor i s in possession an d n o thir d person , not a part y t o
th e suit , ha d intervene d
(Gatchalian vs. Arlegui, L-41360,
Feb.
17,
1977).
It ha s been held ,
519
----------------------- Page 520----------------------RULE 39
SECS. 34
Nov.
No.
8,
1988; cf.
G.R.
121943,
Mar.
China
Banking
24,
2003).
Corp.
vs.
Ordinario,
Sec . 34 . Recovery of
price if
sale not effective;
revival
of judgment. I f t h e p u r c h a s e r o f rea l propert y sol d
o n e x e c u t i o n , o r h i s s u c c e s s o r i n interest ,
fail s t o
r e c o v e r
t h e p o s s e s s i o n
t h e r e o f , o r i s
e v i c t e d
t h e r e f r o m , i n c o n s e q u e n c e o f irregularitie s i n
th e
p r o c e e d i n g s
c o n c e r n i n g t h e
s a l e , o r b e c a
u s e th e
j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n r e v e r s e d o r se t aside , o r b e c
a u s e
t h e part y h a s v i n d i c a t e d h i s c l a i m t o th e propert
y ,
h e m a y o n m o t i o n i n t h e s a m e actio n o r i n a separat
e
a c t i o n r e c o v e r fro m t h e j u d g m e n t oblige e t h e pri
c e
paid , w i t h i n t e r e s t , o r s o m u c h t h e r e o f a s
ha s no t
b e e n d e l i v e r e d t o t h e j u d g m e n t obligor ; o r h e ma
y ,
o n m o t i o n h a v e t h e
o r i g i n a l j u d g m e n t r e v
i v e d i n
h i s n a m e fo r t h e w h o l e pric e w i t h interest , o
r s o
m u c h t h e r e o f a s h a s b e e n d e l i v e r e d t o th e j u d
g m e n t
obligor .
T h e j u d g m e n t s o r e v i v e d
shal l h a
v e th e
s a m e
f o r c e a n d
e f f e c t a s a n
o r i g i n a l j u
d g m e n t
w o u l d h a v e a s o f t h e dat e o f t h e reviva l an d n o more
.
(36a)
N O T E
1.
Whe n th e sal e wa s no t effectiv e unde r th e ci
r cumstance s i n thi s section , i t wa s hel d tha t th e purchase r
ma y (a) brin g a n actio n agains t th e judgmen t credito r
for t h e a m o u n t pai d
b y hi m
a t t h e judicia l s
ale ,
o r
(b) file a motio n in th e sam e actio n wher e executio n wa s
issue d for th e reviva l o f th e judgmen t i n hi s nam e agains t
th e j u d g m e n t debtor , o r (c) brin g a n actio n t o re
cove r
possessio n o f th e propert y sol d t o hi m a t publi c auctio n
(Belleza
vs.
Zandaga,
98 Phil.
702).
Th e first alternativ e ha s bee n modifie d b y th e presen t
amende d sectio n i n th e sens e tha t th e purchase r ma y now
also file a motio n in th e sam e action , asid e from hi s righ t
520
----------------------- Page 521----------------------RULE 39
. 35-36
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SECS
35 .
Right
to
contribution
or
reimbursement.
W h e n
p r o p e r t y
l i a b l e t o a n
e x e c u t i o n a g
a i n s t
severa l p e r s o n s i s sol d t h e r e o n , an d mor e t h a
n a
du e proportio n o f th e j u d g m e n t i s satisfie d ou t o f
th e
proceed s
o f th e
sal e
o f th e
propert y
o f on e
o f
n o f t h e
j u d g m e n t . B u t
n o
th e
j u d g
(38a)
521
----------------------- Page 522----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 37
ma y
Cour t
1.
b e
o f Firs t
Instanc e
o f th e
j u g m e n t wa s rendere d o r
th e executio n wa s returned. "
provinc e
o f th e
i n
whic h
th e
a s
considere d unwield y sinc e a petition , an d no t a mer e
motion ,
h a d
t o b e file d
i n t h e o t h e r c o u r
t for t h a t
purpose , asid e from th e fact t h a t t o a certai n exten t th e
case ma y b e undermine d o r interfere d with .
Thi s
amende d
section now provide s t h a t th e orde r for examinatio n o f
th e judgmen t obligor shal l b e issue d only b y th e cour t
whic h rendere d th e judgment .
Sec .
37 .
Examination
of obligor
of judgment
obligor.
W h e n t h e r e t u r n o f a wri t o f e x e c u t i o n again
s t
th e p r o p e r t y o f a j u d g m e n t obligo r s h o w s t h a t
th e
j u d g m e n t r e m a i n s u n s a t i s f i e d , i n w h o l e o r i
n part ,
an d u p o n proo f t o t h e c o u r t w h i c h i s s u e d t h e
writ ,
t h a t a p e r s o n , c o r p o r a t i o n , o r o t h e r j u r i d i c
a l entity ,
h a s
p r o p e r t y
o f s u c h
j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o
r
o r
i s
i n d e b t e d t o h i m , t h e c o u r t may , b y a n order , requ
ir e
s u c h p e r s o n , c o r p o r a t i o n , o r o t h e r juridica l e
ntity ,
o r a n y office r o r m e m b e r thereof , t o a p p e a r befor e
t h e c o u r t o r a c o m m i s s i o n e r a p p o i n t e d b y
it , a t a
t i m e a n d p l a c e w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e o r cit
y w h e r e
s u c h d e b t o r r e s i d e s o r i s found , a n d b e e x
a m i n e d
c o n c e r n i n g t h e s a m e .
Th e s e r v i c e o f t h e orde
r shal l
bin d al l c r e d i t s d u e t h e j u d g m e n t obligo r an d
al l
m o n e y a n d p r o p e r t y o f t h e j u d g m e n t obligo r i n t
h e
p o s s e s s i o n
o r
i n t h e
c o n t r o l
o f s u c h
p e r s o n ,
c o r p o r a t i o n , o r j u r i d i c a l e n t i t y fro m t h e
t i m e o f
service ; a n d t h e c o u r t m a y a l s o r e q u i r e n o t
i c e o f
s u c h p r o c e e d i n g s t o b e g i v e n t o a n y part y
t o th e
a c t i o n i n s u c h m a n n e r a s i t m a y d e e m proper .
(39a )
522
----------------------- Page 523----------------------RULE 39
38-39
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
SECS.
NOT E
1.
A s a matte r o f consideratio n to th e obligor o f a
judgmen t obligor wh o i s sough t t o b e examined , suc h
examination i s now require d t o b e conducte d by th e cour t
which issue d th e wri t o f execution , or by a commissione r
appointed by it , withi n th e provinc e or city wher e suc h
debtor reside s or i s found .
Unde r th e former rule , suc
h
examination wa s allowe d in any plac e "within th e provinc e
in which th e orde r i s served " an d thi s coul d b e use d t o
h a r a s s o r undul y inconvenienc e suc h debto r withou t
s u b s e r v i n g t h e p u r p o s e thereof ,
especiall y
w h
e r e a
juridica l entit y i s involve d an d th e paper s neede d for th e
examination ar e a t it s hom e office .
Sec.
38 .
Enforcement
of
attendance
and
conduct
of
examination.
A
p a r t y
o r o t h e r p e r s o n
m a y
b e
c o m p e l l e d , b y a n o r d e r o r s u b p o e n a , t o a
t t e n d
b e f o r e t h e c o u r t o r c o m m i s s i o n e r
t o t e s t
i f y a s
provide d i n th e t w o p r e c e d i n g sections , an d upo n
failur e t o o b e y s u c h orde r o r s u b p o e n a o r t o
b e
sworn , o r t o a n s w e r a s a w i t n e s s o r t o subscrib e hi
s
d e p o s i t i o n , m a y b e p u n i s h e d fo r c o n t e m p t
a s i n
o t h e r c a s e s . E x a m i n a t i o n s shal l
no t b e
u
n d u l y
prolonged , bu t th e proceeding s ma y b e adjourne d
fro m tim e t o time , unti l the y ar e completed .
I f th e
e x a m i n a t i o n i s befor e a commissioner , h e mus t tak e
i t i n w r i t i n g a n d
c e r t i f y i t t o t h e c o u r t
.
Al l
e x a m i n a t i o n s
a n d
a n s w e r s
b e f o r e a c o u
r t
o r
c o m m i s s i o n e r
m u s t
b e u n d e r o a t h , a n d
w h
e n
a
c o r p o r a t i o n o r o t h e r juridica l entit y a n s w e r s ,
i t
m u s t b e o n t h e o a t h o f a n a u t h o r i z e d office
r o r
agen t thereof .
(40a )
Sec.
39 .
Obligor may pay execution against obligee.
Afte r a wri t o f e x e c u t i o n agains t propert y ha s
bee n
i s s u e d , a p e r s o n i n d e b t e d t o th e j u
d g m e n t
523
----------------------- Page 524-----------------------
RULE 39
. 40-42
obligo r
ma y
pa y t o
th e
SECS
sherif f h o l d i n g th e
wri t
f
e x e c u t i o n th e a m o u n t o f hi s deb t o r s o m u c h there
o f
a s ma y b e n e c e s s a r y t o satisf y th e j u d g m e n t , i n
th e
m a n n e r prescribe d i n sectio n 9 o f thi s Rule , an d th e
sheriff' s receip t shal l b e a sufficien t d i s c h a r g e fo r
th e a m o u n t s o pai d o r directe d t o b e credite d b y th e
j u d g m e n t oblige e o n th e e x e c u t i o n .
(41a )
Sec .
and
40 .
Order
for
application
of
property
income
to
satisfaction
of judgment.
Th e
cour t
ma y
o r d e r
a n y p r o p e r t y
o f t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i
g o r , o r
m o n e y d u e him , no t e x e m p t fro m e x e c u t i o n , i n t
h e
h a n d s o f e i t h e r h i m s e l f o r a n o t h e r person , o
r o f a
corporatio n o r o t h e r juridica l entity , t o b e applie d
t o th e satisfactio n o f th e j u d g m e n t , subjec t t o an y
prio r right s o v e r s u c h
property .
If, u p o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f hi s c u r r e n t incom
e an d
e x p e n s e s ,
i t a p p e a r s
t h a t t h e
e a r n i n g s
o f t h e
j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r fo r
h i s p e r s o n a l
s e r v i
c e s ar e
mor e t h a n n e c e s s a r y fo r t h e s u p p o r t o f hi s f
amily ,
t h e c o u r t
m a y
o r d e r
t h a t h e p a y
t h e j u
d g m e n t
i n fixe d m o n t h l y i n s t a l l m e n t s , an d u p o n hi s fail
ur e
t o p a y
a n y
s u c h
i n s t a l l m e n t w h e n
d u e
w
i t h o u t
goo d e x c u s e , m a y p u n i s h h i m fo r indirec t contempt .
(42a)
Sec .
41 .
Appointment
appoin t a receive r o f th e
obligor , an d i t m a y als o
d i s p o s i t i o n of , o r
h , t h e
propert y o f th e j u d g m e n
e x e c u t i o n . (3a )
of receiver. Th
propert y o f th e
forbi d a transfe
a n y
i n t e r f
t obligo r
e
j
r
e
cour
u d g
o r
r e n
t ma y
m e n t
othe r
c e
w i t
no t e x e m p t
fro m
Sec.
42 .
Sale
of
ascertainable
interest
of
judgment
obligor in real estate.
I f it appear s tha t th e judgmen t
obligo r ha s a n interes t i n rea l estat e i n th e plac e i n
w h i c h
p r o c e e d i n g s
a r e h a d ,
a s m o r t g a g
o r
o r
524
----------------------- Page 525----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 43
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION
t h e r w i s e ,
a i n e d
an d
hi s
r d e r e d
w i t h o u t
t o
sel l
t h e i n t e r e s t
i n t e r e s t
c o n t r o v e r s y
an d
c o n v e y
o f th e
obligo r
s u
t h
l b e c o n d u c t e d i n al l r e s p e c t
s i s provide d fo r th e sal e o f rea l
t i o n , an d th e proceeding s t h e r e o n
th e cour t befor e th e e x e c u t i o n
)
Sec . 43 .
Proceedings
when
indebtedness
deni
ed
or
another person claims
the property. If it appear s tha t
a p e r s o n o r corporation , allege d t o hav e propert y
o f th e j u d g m e n t obligo r o r t o b e indebte d t o h i
m
claim s a n interes t i n th e propert y advers e t o h i m
o r d e n i e s th e debt , th e cour t ma y authorize , b y a n
orde r m a d e t o tha t effect , th e j u d g m e n t oblige e t o
i n s t i t u t e a n
a c t i o n
a g a i n s t
s u c h
p e r s o
n
o r
c o r p o r a t i o n fo r t h e r e c o v e r y o f s u c h i n t e r
e s t o r
debt , forbi d a transfe r o r othe r dispositio n o f suc h
interes t o r deb t withi n on e hundre d t w e n t y (120)
d a y s
fro m
n o t i c e o f t h e o r d e r , an d
m a y
p
u n i s h
d i s o b e d i e n c e o f suc h orde r a s fo r contempt .
Suc h
orde r ma y b e modifie d o r vacate d a t an y tim e b y
th e cour t w h i c h issue d it , o r b y th e cour t i n w h i c h
th e actio n i s brought , upo n suc h term s a s ma y b e
just .
(45a )
NOTE S
1.
Th e foregoin g provision s provid e th e remedie
wher e th e wri t o f executio n i s returne d unsatisfie
wher e th e thir d part y denie s hi s debt or th e ownership
th e debtor .
It wil l b e note d that , unde r Sec . 43 ,
urt
may authoriz e th e judgmen t oblige e t o brin g an action
against th e person or corporation allege d t o hav e propert y
of th e judgmen t debtor .
Thi s i s an exampl e o f
ty
authorized by statute " t o sue , even i f h e i s not th e
s
d
or
o f
th e co
a "par
rea l
525
----------------------- Page 526----------------------RULE 39
EC. 43
unlik e
th e
forme r
Sec .
4 5
o f thi s
Rul e
a transfe r or othe r
t unti l a n action can
c u t e d t o j u d g m e n t ,
h prohibitio n t o 120
Thi s woul d avoi d unfair
i n
whic h
executio n
l pendin g an d th e
a genera l supervisor y
s wit h th e righ t t
fact involve d therein
bee n
fully
h a s
doe s
(Seavan
al.,
issue d
satisfie d
et
bee n
G.R.
th e
sam e
Carrier,
No.
Inc.,
pas s
65953,
et
Jul
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SECS
(Central
44 .
Inc.,
Sawmills,
Entry
Inc.
L-24508,
of
April
vs.
satisfaction
25,
of
Alto
Su
1969).
judgment
by
clerk
Satisfactio n o f a j u d g m e n t shal l b e e n t e r e d
b y th e cler k o f cour
e x e c u t i o n
b o o k
r i t o f
e x e c u t i o n
s h o w
o f t h e
judgment , o r u p o n th
t i n th e cour t docket , an d i n th e
,
u p o n
t h e r e t u r n
o f a
i n g
t h e
ful l
s a t i s f a c t i o n
e filin g o f a n a d m i s s i o n t o th e
s a t i s f a c t i o n o f
t h e
j u d g
a n d
a c k n o w l e d g e d i n th e sam e m a n n
c e
o f rea l propert y b y th e j u d g m e n t
c o u n s e l u n l e s s a revocatio n o f hi
m e n t
e x e c u t e d
e r a s a c o n v e y a n
oblige e o r b y hi s
s authorit y i s h i e d ,
o r u p o n th e e n d o r s e m e n t o f suc h admissio n b y th e
j u d g m e n t oblige e o r hi s counse l o n th e fac e o f th e
recor d o f th e judgment .
(46a )
Sec. 45 .
without
admission. W h e
i n
fact ,
o r o t h
o n , o n
d e m a n d
o f
g m e n t
o b l i g e e
o r
a n d
a c k n o w l e d g e
o f t h e
s a t i s f a c t i o
e d i n g
section , an d afte
m a y
o r d e r
o r
h i s
c o u n s e l
t o
t r y o f
s a t i s f a c t i o
s s i o n .
(47a)
Entry
of
satisfaction
n e v e r
e r w i s e
t h e
j u d g m e n t
t h a n
u p o n
j u d g m e n t
h i s
or
i s satisfie d
a n
e x e c u t i
o b l i g o r , t h e j u d
c o u n s e l
o r
with
m u s t
i n d o r s e ,
n a s p r o v i d e d
a n
i n
e x e c u t e
a d m i s s i o n
t h e
l a s t p r e c
s o , o r
t o b e
m a y
o r d e r
m a d e w i t h o u t
t h e
s u c h
e n
a d m i
N O T E
1.
Entr y o f satisfactio n o f th e judgmen t shal l b e
mad e in th e cour t docket an d in th e execution book on th e
base s
of:
(a)
Th e retur n o f an execution satisfie d by action
of th e sherif f in accordanc e wit h thi s Rule ;
527
----------------------- Page 528----------------------RULE 39
ECS. 46, 47
(b)
An admissio n o f th e satisfactio n o f judgmen t
execute d an d acknowledge d i n th e sam e m a n n e r a s a
conveyance o f rea l propert y by th e judgmen t oblige e or
hi s counsel ;
(c)
Th e
i n d o r s e m e n t o f suc h
a d m i s s i o
n b y
th e
judgmen t credito r or hi s attorne y on th e face o f th e recor d
of th e judgment ; or
(d)
such
satisfactio n o f judgment .
Sec .
46 .
When principal
against
surety.
W h e n
a j u d g m e n
g a i n s t a
p a r t y w h o s t a n d s a s s u r e
t h e l a t t e r
i s a l s o b o u n d f r o m t h e t
n o t i c e o f
t h e a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g ,
y a t t h e
s u r e t y ' s r e q u e s t t o j o i n i
a )
bound
by judgment
i s r e n d e r e d
t y
fo r
i m e
a n o t h e r ,
t h a t
h e
h a s
a n d a n o p p o r t u n i t
n t h e d e f e n s e .
(48
N O T E
1.
n
order
t h a t
th e
suret y
ma y
b e
boun d
b y
th e judgmen t
b e
impleade d i n
58 Phil.
372) or
wri t o f execution
(Luzon Surety Co.,
Jan.
30,
Inc
1970).
Sec . 47 .
Effect
of judgment
or final
orders.
T h e
o f a j u d g m e n t o r
fina l o r d e r r e n d e r
b y a
t o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , h a v i n g j u r i s d i
n
t o
o u n c e t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r , m a y
effect
e d
c o u r
c t i o
p r o n
b e a s
follows :
(a)
I n c a s
a g a i n s t
a specifi c t h i n g ,
b a t e o f a
will , o r t h e a d m i
d e c e a s e d
p e r s o n , o r i n
o l i t i c a l , o r
lega l c o n d i t i o n
p e r s o n o r
e o f a j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r
o r
i n
r e s p e c t
t o
t h e p r o
n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e e s t a t e o f a
r e s p e c t
o r
t o t h e
s t a t u s
p e r s o n a l ,
o f a
p a r t i c u l a r
528
----------------------- Page 529----------------------RULE 39
. 47
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SEC
t o th e matte r directl y
matte r tha t coul d hav e
, conclusiv e b e t w e e n
s s o r s i n interes t b y
c o m m e n c e m e n t
o f t h e
adjudge d o
bee n raise
th e partie
titl e s u
r
d
s
b s e q u e
a c t i o n o r
s p e
(c)
I n an y othe r litigatio n
b e t w e
am e
partie s o r thei r successor s i n interest , tha t onl y
deeme d t o hav e bee n adjudge d i n a forme r judgmen t
o r fina l orde r w h i c h appear s upo n it s fac e t o
b e e n
s o a d j u d g e d , o r w h i c h
w a s
a
a n d
necessaril y include d therei n o r necessar y thereto .
(49a)
e n
th e
i s
hav e
c t u a l l y
N O T E S
1.
Thi s section enunciate s th e rule s on res judicata
[or b a r b y forme r j u d g m e n t ,
o r direc t
e s t o p p
e l b y
judgment ] an d conclusivenes s o f judgmen t [or estoppe l by
SEC. 4
7
rul e on conclusivenes s o f judgment .
2 . In res judicata, th e partie s an d th e cause s o f action
in bot h action s ar e identica l o r substantiall y th e same .
Th e judgmen t in th e first actio n i s conclusiv e a s t o every
matte r offered an d receive d therei n an d a s t o an y othe r
matte r admissibl e therei n an d whic h migh t hav e been
offered for tha t purpose , henc e it i s an absolut e ba r t o a
subsequent action for th e sam e caus e (Yusingco, e t al. vs.
Ong Hing Lian,
infra; Vergara
vs. Roque,
et al., L-32984,
Aug.
26,
1977).
Hence ,
th e judgmen t
i n
th e
firs t
i s
bindin
g
only wit h respec t t o th e m a t t e r s actuall y raise d an
d
adjudged therei n (se e Pehalosa vs.
Tuason,
22 Phil.
303
;
Viray
vs.
Marinas,
et
al., L-33168,
Jan.
11,
1973)
an d
s
not a ba r t o anothe r actio n betwee n th e sam e partie s bu t
on a different caus e o f action .
3.
Th e
requisite s
for
res judicata
are :
(a)
(d)
Ther e
m u s t
be ,
betwee n
th e
firs t
an d
secon d
actions ,
identit y o f p a r t i e s , o f subject-matte r an d o
f
cause o f action .
Thi s requisit e i s satisfie d i f th e tw o action
s
ar e substantiall y betwee n th e sam e partie s (se e Nator vs.
CIR,
L-16671,
Mar.
30,
1962;
Malvar
vs.
Palingayan,
L-24136,
Sept.
Lian,
L-26523,
Jan.
31,
Nov.
29,
1978;
27,
1966;
Dec.
24,
Gitgano
Yusingco,
et
1971; Aroc
vs.
al.
vs.
Borromeo,
vs.
PHHC,
et
al.,
Ong
Hing
L-39674,
L-40429,
1984).
530
EXECUTION. SATISFACTION
SE
SEC.
21,
1984).
5 . Ther
e
j u d g m e n t
o r
judgmen t
5)
or i f th e
(1 Martin
i s
identit y
s o u g h t
(Tan
vs.
wil l
Arador,
o f cause s
o f actio n
b e inconsisten t
et
wit h
whe n
th
th e
pri
6,
197
secon d action
Aroc
vs. PHHC,
supra;
Vda.
de
Vocal
vs. Vda.
de Suria, et al, L-2628
1,
May 31,
1979)
eve n i f th e form s or natur e o f th e
tw o
action s be different
(Cayco, et al. vs. Cruz,
106 Phil.
65;
Gitgano
vs. Borromeo,
et al, supra).
wher e
t in
judicata i
(Almeda
Phil.
v
75
s t o
pursuanc e
thereo f a s ther e i s n o identit y betwee n th e parties , subject m a t t e r an d caus e o f actio n involve d i n th e case ,
th e
decision
w h e r e i n w a s t h e subjec t o f t h e challenge d
executio n
.R.
No.
53682,
sal e
Nov.
(Ramos,
26,
et
al.
vs.
Pablo,
et
al,
1986).
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
rul e wa s tha t
open , modify or
suc h powe r i s
d t h e j u d g
1964);
cour t do so
Oct.
31,
neithe r
a cour t o f concurren t
vacat e th e judgmen t
restricte d t o th e cour t
m e n t (Mas
vs.
Dumara
can
anothe r
(Sterling Investment
branc h
Corp.
1969).
of
vs.
i n
th e aforesai d
Unde r B.P .
exercis e
Big .
cas
129
exclusiv e
533
----------------------- Page 534----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 48
origina l jurisdictio n
ove r action s
for th e a n n u
l m e n t
of judgment s o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court s (Sec. 9).
Th e
Regiona l Tria l
C o u r t s shal l
hav e
exclusiv e
or
igina l
jurisdictio n over action s for th e annulmen t o f judgment s
of Metropolita n Tria l Courts , Municipa l Tria l Court s an d
Municipa l Circui t Tria l Court s (Sec. 19).
8.
Th e
s
of quasi-judicia l agencie s
(Amistoso vs.
Ong, et al.,
G.R.
No.
60219, June 29,
1984).
It als o applie s to judgmen
t s
rendere d in probat e proceeding s
(Sy Kao, et al. vs. C
A, et
al., G.R. No. 61752, Sept. 28, 1984).
In a lan d registra
tio n
proceeding ,
file d
b y th e plaintif f afte r
h e ha d
bee n
declared th e owne r o f th e lan d involve d in a civil case , th e
opposition thereto , filed
civil case , i s barre d
unde r th e doctrin e o
ar e
presen t an d i t i s o f
final
o r d e r
s d i c
follow
(a)
I n c a s e o f a j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r u p o
n a
s p e c i f i c t h i n g , t h e j u d g m e n t
o r f i n a l o r
d e r i s
c o n c l u s i v e u p o n th e titl e t o th e thing ; an d
(b)
I n c a s e o f a j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r agains
t
a person , th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r i s presumptiv e
e v i d e n c e o f a righ t a s b e t w e e n th e partie s an d thei
r
s u c c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t b y a s u b s e q u e n t title .
I n e i t h e r case , t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r m
a y
b e repelle d
b y e v i d e n c e o f a w a n t o f jurisdict
ion ,
534
----------------------- Page 535----------------------RULE 39
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
SEC. 48
vs.
Phil.
(G.R . No .
535
----------------------- Page 536----------------------RULE 39
EC. 48
thi s Rule .
I t observe d tha t whil e th e foreign judgment s
contemplate d therei n ma y b e conclusive , i f in rem, or
presumptive , i f in personam, it i s necessar y tha t "in eithe r
case " a civil action shoul d b e filed in ou r courts , primaril y
t o allow th e losin g part y a n opportunit y t o challeng e th e
judgmen t o n th e ground s provide d i n sai d sectio n an d
defend itsel f agains t th e enforcemen t o f tha t decision in
th e loca l forum .
Tha t civil action , bot h for adjectiv e an d jurisdictiona l
purposes , i s considere d a s on e incapabl e o f pecuniar y
estimation an d suc h categorizatio n i s bindin g i n assessin g
th e docke t an d othe r filing fee s unde r th e schemati c tabl e
in Rul e
141 .
I t i s tru e tha t th e foreign judgmen t may
ultimatel y resul t in recovery by th e plaintiff s o f monetar y
or p r o p r i e t a r y a w a r d s , bu t i n a n ordinar y acti
o n for
monetar y relief , th e caus e o f action emanate s from th e
violation o f th e right s o f th e plaintif f throug h an act or
omission o f th e defendant ; whil e in th e enforcemen t o f a
foreign judgment , th e caus e o f action an d subject-matte r
FRO M MUNICIPA L
TH E REGIONA L
TRIA L
TRIA L
4 0
COURT S
COURT S
Sectio n 1 .
Where to appeal. An appea l fro m a
j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r o f a Municipa l Tria l Cour t
may b e t a k e n t o th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t e x e r c i s i n g
j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e a r e a t o w h i c h t h e f o r
m e r
pertains .
Th e titl e o f th e cas e shal l r e m a i n a
s i t
wa s i n th e cour t o f origin , bu t th e part y a p p e a l i n g
th e cas e shal l b e furthe r referre d t o a s th e appellan t
an d th e advers e part y a s th e appellee ,
(n )
NOT E
1.
Th e forme r Sec . 1 o f Rul e 4 0 provide d tha t an
appeal from an inferior court shoul d b e take n "to th e Cour t
of Firs t Instanc e o f th e provinc e wher e th e judgmen t wa s
rendered. "
However , Sec . 1 8 o f B.P . Big . 129 thereafte r
provide d tha t th e Suprem e Court shal l define th e territor y
over whic h a branc h o f th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t shal l
exercise it s authority .
Th e territor y thu s define d shall ,
inter alia, determin e th e lower court s over which th e sai d
branc h may exercis e appellat e jurisdiction .
Sec . 2 1
o f
th e Interi m Rule s late r implemente d sai d provision o n
appeal s t o th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t from case s decide d
b y th e lowe r courts ,
includin g th e basi c procedur e
th e
an d
b y a
fo r e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e t o fil e a motio n fo r
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n shal l b e allowed ,
(n
NOT E
1.
P u r s u a n t t o R.A . 7691 , th e municipa l tria l cou
rt s
now hav e probat e jurisdictio n wher e th e gros s valu e o f
th e estate , whethe r testat e o r intestate , doe s not exceed
P100.00 0 or , i f in Metr o Manila , P200.000 .
A s pr
ovide d
in Sec .
3 o f t h i s Rule ,
a n a p p e a l fro m suc h s
pecia l
proceedin g shal l b e b y recor d o n appeal .
Th e
regle mentar y period s o f appeal s from th e inferior cour t ar e
th e sam e a s thos e from th e Regiona l Tria l Courts .
Th e secon d p a r a g r a p h o f thi s section , regardin g th e
interruptio n o
a motio n for
reconsideratio n
th e Regiona l
s i s in
consonanc e wit
bot h courts .
Sec . 3 .
How t o appeal. Th e appea l i s take n by
filin g a notic e o f appea l w i t h t h e cour t tha t rendere d
t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r a p p e a l e d
from .
T h e
n o t i c e o f a p p e a l
t o th e
appeal , th e j u d g m e n t
appeale d from , an d stat e
th e t i m e l i n e s s o f
s h a l l
i n d i c a t e
t h e
partie s
o f t h e
notic e
o f appeal ,
o n appea l w h e r e required ,
advers e party ,
(n )
shal l
b e
an d
serve d
t h e
o n
recor d
th e
NOT E
1. J u s t lik e Sec . 5 , Rul e 4 1 on notic e o f appea l f
rom
th e Regiona l Tria l Court , i t i s require d by thi s amende d
section tha t th e notic e o f appea l shal l indicat e not only
th e partie s bu t als o th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r o r par t
thereo f appeale d from , togethe r wit h th e materia l date s
showing th e timelines s o f th e appeal .
Th e las t mentione
d
r e q u i r e m e n t i s th e sam e a s th e "materia l dat a
rule "
applicable t o record s on appea l wit h respec t t o th e content s
thereof , an d for th e sam e reason s whic h impelle d th e
adoption o f tha t rule .
Sec . 4 . Perfection
of appeal;
effect
thereof.
e
perfectio n o f t h e appea l an d th e effec t thereo f shal l
b e governe d b y th e provision s o f sectio n 9 , Rul e 4 1 .
(n)
Th
NOT E
1.
Sinc e appeal s from th e inferior
b e eithe r by notic e o f appea l or recor d on
on th e perfection an d th e effect thereo f ar
Se e
th e discussion thereo f in th e note s unde r
Sec .
5 . Appellate court
docket and other lawful fee
s.
W i t h i n
t h e p e r i o d fo r t a k i n g a n a p p e a l , t
h e
appellan t shal l pa y
rendere d th e judgmen
th e ful l amoun t
othe r lawfu l fees
b e transmitte d t o
t o
t o
o f
.
th e
th e cler k o f th e cour t w h i c h
r fina l orde r appeale d fro m
th e appellat e cour t docke t an d
Proo f o f paymen t thereo f shal l
appellat e cour t togethe r wit h
539
SEC. 5
25,
1969).
I f th e
docke t
fee
pai d
wa s
insufficient
26,
(Barnido,
1966).
et
al. vs.
Thereafter ,
in
Balana,
NAWASA
et al.,
L-26275,
vs. Secretary
of
Public
Works
and
Communications
(L-20928 ,
Mar .
31
,
1966)
an d
Favis,
et
al. vs. Municipality
of Sabangan
(L-26522, Feb . 27 , 1969) , i t wa s hel d tha t non-paymen t
of th e docket fee s doe s not automaticall y resul t in dismissa l
of th e appea l or affect th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e
Court o f Firs t Instance , th e dismissa l bein g discretionar y
in th e appellat e cour t i f ther e ar e justification s for it s non paymen t
.
No.
56315,
(se e
Nov.
Fontanar,
25,
et
al. vs.
Bonsubre,
et
al., G.R
1986).
d othe r
I t
non on
o f th e
failure
t o
file
th e
notic e
o f appea l or recor d
on
appea l
SEC. 6
1988)
15,
r e c o r d o n
a p p e a l , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e t r a n
s c r i p t s
an d e x h i b i t s , w h i c h h e shal l certif y a s complete , t o
t h e p r o p e r R e g i o n a l Tria l Court .
o f hi s
certificatio n shal l b e furnishe d t h e parties ,
(n )
c o p y
NOT E
1.
Thi s wa s take n from th e forme r Sec . 5 , Rul e 4 0
an d Par . 21(b) o f th e Interi m Rules , wit h th e modification
tha t asid e from th e origina l recor d o r th e recor d o n appeal ,
th e transcript s an d exhibit s take n or submitte d in th e lower
court shal l b e elevate d t o th e Regiona l Tria l Court .
Th e
lower court , bein g a cour t o f record , transcript s o f th e
proceeding s therei n an d th e documentar y evidenc e o f th e
partie s ma y b e involve d i n th e appeal , henc e th e specific
mentio n thereo f an d th e extensio n o f th e perio d from th e
origina l 5 day s t o
1 5 day s withi n whic h th e cler k
o f
court shoul d comply wit h hi s dut y unde r thi s section .
A
certificatio n
o f t h e c o m p l e t e n e s s o f t h e d o c
u m e n t s
transmitte d t o th e appellat e cour t mus t b e furnishe d t o
th e partie s for thei r verification an d appropriat e action .
Sec .
7.
Procedure
in
the
Regional
Trial
Court.
(a)
U p o n r e c e i p t o f t h e c o m p l e t e recor d o r
th e
recor d o n appeal , t h e cler k o f cour t o f t h e Regiona l
Tria l Cour t shal l notif y th e partie s o f s u c h fact .
(b)
Withi n
fiftee n
(15 )
d a y s
fro m
s u c h
notice ,
i t s h a l l b e t h e d u t y o f t h e a p p e l l a n t t o
s u b m i t a
m e m o r a n d u m
w h i c h
s h a l l b r i e f l y d i s c u
s s
t h e
error s i m p u t e d t o t h e l o w e r court , a cop y o f w h i c
h
s h a l l b e f u r n i s h e d b y h i m t o t h e a d v e r s e
party .
W i t h i n
f i f t e e n ( 1 5 ) d a y s
f r o m
r e c e i p t
o f t h e
appellant' s m e m o r a n d u m , th e a p p e l l e e m a y fil e hi s
m e m o r a n d u m .
F a i l u r e o f t h e a p p e l l a n t t
o fil e a
m e m o r a n d u m shal l b e a g r o u n d fo r d i s m i s s a l o f t
h e
appeal .
542
(c)
Upo n t h e
appellee , o r
th e cas e shal
Th e Regiona l
th e basi s o f
i n th e
filed,
filin g o f th e m e m o r a n d u m o f th e
th e expiratio n o f th e perio d t o d o so ,
l b e c o n s i d e r e d submitte d fo r decision .
Tria l Cour t shal l decid e th e c a s e o n
th e entir e recor d o f th e p r o c e e d i n g s ha d
cour t o f origi n an d
s u c h
m e m o r a n d a a s ar e
(n )
NOTE S
I f a n a p p e a l i s t a k
e n
fro m a n
orde r o f th e
lowe r cour t d i s m i s s i n g
th e
cas e withou t a tria l o n th e merits , th e Regiona l Tria l
Court ma y affir m o r revers e it , a s th e cas e ma y be .
I n cas e o f affirmanc e an d th e groun d o f dismissa l i s
lac k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r th e subjec t matter , th e
R e g i o n a l
t i o n
T r i a l
C o u r t ,
i f i t h a s
j u r i s d i c
543
----------------------- Page 544----------------------RULE 40
SEC. 8
t h e r e o v e r , shal l tr y th e c a s e o n t h e merit s a s i f
th e
cas e w a s originall y file d w i t h it .
I n cas e o f rever
sal ,
t h e c a s e shal l b e r e m a n d e d fo r furthe r proceedings .
I f th e c a s e w a s trie d o n t h e merit s b y th e lowe r
cour t w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r th e
subjec t matter
,
th e Regiona l Tria l
th e c a s e i f i
, bu t
s h a l l d e c i d e
h t h e
p r e c e d i n g
s
o t h e
a d m i s s i o n o f
t i o n a l
e v i d e n c e i n t
t h e
c a s e
e c t i o n ,
a m e n d e d
i n
a c c o r d a n c e
w i t h o u t
w i t
p r e j u d i c e
p l e a d i n g s a n d
h e i n t e r e s t o f justice ,
a d d i
(n )
NOT E
1.
Th e first paragrap h wa s take n from th e former
Sec .
1 0 o f Rul e
40 , an d t h e secon d p a r a g r a p h
from
Sec. 1 1 thereof .
However , a major chang e ha s bee n mad e
on th e assumptio n o f origina l jurisdictio n over th e cas e by
th e Regiona l Tria l Court .
Th e
firs t p a r a g r a p h c o n t e m p l a t e s th e sit
uatio n
wherei n th e cas e wa s no t trie d o n th e merit s bu t w
a s
dismisse d on a technica l objection or questio n o f law , a s
wher e th e cas e wa s dismisse d for imprope r venu e o n
defendant' s motio n or for prescription .
N o tria l
havin g
bee n held , th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t o n appea l merel y
affirms or reverse s th e orde r o f dismissa l and , in cas e o f
reversal , remand s th e cas e t o th e lower cour t for furthe r
proceedings .
However , wher e th e questio n o f law involve s lack o f
jurisdictio n over th e subject-matter an d th e Regiona l Tria l
Court ha s jurisdictio n thereover , i t shal l tr y th e cas e o n
th e merit s a s i f th e cas e wa s originally filed wit h it .
Th e
consen t o f th e p a r t i e s t o suc h assumptio n o f origina
l
jurisdictio n over th e cas e i s not require d an d thi s abandon s
previou s ruling s whic h mad e i t optiona l on th e par t o f th e
p a r t i e s o n w h e t h e r o r no t t o submi t t o suc h
origina l
jurisdictio n (see ,
for instance ,
Zulueta
vs. Mariano,
et al.,
544
----------------------- Page 545----------------------RULE 40
SEC. 9
L-29360,
338,
July
16,
Jan.
30,
1982;
Alvir
vs.
Vera,
et
al,
L-39
1984).
T h e
o t
h e r
provision s o f Rul e 4 1 shal l appl y t o appeal s provide d
for h e r e i n insofa r a s the y ar e no t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i
t h
o r ma y serv e t o s u p p l e m e n t th e provision s o f thi s
Rule ,
(n )
NOTE S
Appellate
procedure
in
the
Intermedi
ate
Appellate
Court.
X X X
(b)
Review
Courts. In action
in th e Metropolita
Court s an d Municipa
of
s
n
l
Ru
545
----------------------- Page 546----------------------RULE 40
EC. 9
In Lacsamana,
et
al.
vs.
The Hon.
Second
Special
Cases Division
of
the IAC, et al. (G.R .
Nos .
73146-53
,
Aug . 26 , 1986) , th e Suprem e Cour t restate d an d clarifie d
th e mode s an d period s o f appeal , a s follows :
" 1)
a n
o r d i n a r y a p p e a l fro m
t h e
fina l
judgmen t or orde r o f a metropolita n or municipa l
tria l cour t t o th e regiona l tria l court , an d from th
e
regiona l
tria l
cour t
t o
th e
Cour t o f Appeal s
n
action s
o r
proceeding s
originall y
file d
i n
th e
regiona l
tria l
court ,
th e
fifteen-day
period
for
appeal provide d by Section 3 9 o f BP No . 129 an d
Section 19(a) o f th e Interi m Rule s i s interrupte d
or
s u s p e n d e d b y a m o t i o n fo r n e w t r i
a l
o r
reconsideration , unles s
th e requirement s o f
41) .
I f th e motio n
i s d e n i e d , t h e
suc h
Rul e
for ne
m o v
t h e
remainin g perio d from notic e o f denia l withi n
whic h t o file a notic e o f appeal , which i s th e only
r e q u i r e m e n t for
t a k i n g
a n a p p e a l u n d e
r th e
presen t rules .
file
less
such
Obviously ,
notice
of appeal
no extension of
is
needed,
time
much
to
allowed.
546
----------------------- Page 547----------------------RULE 40
. 9
SEC
In
a p p e a l
i n
a specia l
MULTIPL E
proceedin g
u n d e
r
Rul e 109 o f th e
wherein
multiple
of
appeal
is
thirty
required
(Section
days,
record
on
appeal
bei
ng
19[b]
o f th e
Interi m
Rules) .
f a
motion for new tria l or
denied , th e remainin g
recor d on appea l may b
for
extension of time
reconsideratio n i s filed
perio d withi n which t o
e too shor t and , henc e
to file the record on
an d
file a
a motion
appeal
ay
be granted, subject t o th e requirement s summarize d
in th e Resolution o f May 30 , 1986 . A s th e court state d
in th e cas e o f Roque
vs. Gunigundo, 'th e thirty-da y
perio d ma y b e extende d because , wher e th e recor d i s
voluminou s o r th e
a p p e l l a n t ha s othe r p r e
s s i n g
matter s t o atten d to , i t ma y no t b e practicabl e t
o
submit th e recor d o n appea l withi n th e reglementar y
period '
(89 SCRA 178 , 183) .
3)
Th e fina l
court in an appea
of a metropolita n
municipa l circui t
Cour t o f Appeal
w
in accordanc e
wit h Sectio n 2 2 o f B P No .
129
an
d
Section 22(b) o f th e Interi m Rules , or t o thi s Cour t
t h r o u g h a p e t i t i o n for revie w o n c e r t i o r a
r i i n
accordance wit h Rul e 4 5 o f th e Rule s o f Cour t an d
Section 2 5 o f th e Interi m Rules .
Th e reaso n fo
r
extending th e perio d for th e filing o f a recor d on appea l
is als o applicabl e to th e filing o f a petitio n for review
with th e
Cour t of Appeals .
The period for filing a
petition
for review
is
fifteen days.
If a
motion
for
547
----------------------- Page 548----------------------RULE 40
SEC. 9
review.
4)
In a n appea l
Court o f Appeal s unde
Section 22(c) o f th e
be take n by filing a
Appeal s
an d w i t
fifteen
days from
or judgment ; or in
is filed withi n sai
notice
of the
reconsideration
No
extension
needed,
much
5)
In
(Section s
of time
an d
to file
less
such
No .
notice
5434) .
of appeal is
allowed.
A P P E A L S
B Y
SUPREME COURT .
a n
3 of R.A .
appea l b y
CERTIORAR I
certiorar i t o
T O
thi s
Cour t
TH E
unde r
days
begins
to run
again from
notice
of denial.
548
----------------------- Page 549----------------------RULE 40
9
SEC.
motion
for
extension
of time
to
file a
petition
time
the
corresponding
docket
the
fee.
Beginning
one
thi s Decision ,
an
month
after
extensio n
the
of only
promulgation
fifteen
days
of
for
4 1
FRO M
TRIA L
Subject of appeal. A n
j u d g m e n t
o r
TH E
COURT S
appea l ma y b e
f i n a l
o r d
e r
t h a t
c o m p l e t e l y d i s p o s e s o f t h e case , o r o f a part
icula r
m a t t e r t h e r e i n w h e n d e c l a r e d b y t h e s e Rule s t
o b e
a p p e a l a b l e .
N o a p p e a l m a y b e t a k e n from :
(a)
relie f o r
A n
a n y
o r d e r
d e n y i n g
s i m i l a r
p e t i t i o n
m o t i o n
fo r
s e e k i n g
r e l
i e f fro m
j u d g m e n t ;
A n
(c)
a n
A n
i n g
(b)
i n t e r l o c u t o r y
o r d e r
order ;
d i s w a l l o w i n g
o r
d i s m i s s
a p p e a l ;
(d)
A n
sid e
o r d e r
d e n y i n g a
m o t i o n
t o
se t
a
judgmen t b y consent , confessio n o r compromis e
o n t h e g r o u n d o f fraud , m i s t a k e
o r dur
ess ,
o r
a n y
o t h e r g r o u n d
A n
o r d e r
v i t i a t i n g consent
;
(e)
o f e x e c u t i o n ;
(f)
A j u d g m e n t o r
fina l o r d e r
fo r o r
a g a i n s t
o n e o r m o r e o f severa l partie s o r i n separat e
c l a i m s ,
i m s
c o u n t e r c l a i m s ,
c r o s s - c l a
a n d
third-part y c o m p l a i n t s , w h i l e th e mai n cas
e
i s
l o w s
p e n d i n g
u n l e s s
t h e
c o u r t
a l
a n
a p p e a l therefrom ;
(g)
A n
o r d e r
w i t h o u t
prejudice .
an d
d i s m i s s i n g
I n a n y
o f t h e f o r e g o i
e s ,
t h e
aggrieve d part y ma y fil e a n appropriat e
actio n a s p r o v i d e d i n Rul e 66
A.M.
No.
07-7-12-SC,
effective
Dec.
n g
a n
a c t i o n
c i r c u m s t a n c
specia l civi l
(As amended
27,
i n
2007)
550
----------------------- Page 551----------------------RULE 41
. 1
SEC
ne w
provisio n
i n
th e
Rule s
clarifie s
an d
t o th e severa l o
36 , an d appeal s
t depen d upon th e
soun d discretion o f
r separat e judgment s
therefro m ar e not
circumstance s
th e court .
(se e
CA,
Not e
et al,
i f it dispose s o f th e
G.R.
unde r Sec.
No.
1,
60036,
Jan.
Rule
27,
entir e
39; Investments,
Inc
1987).
4 . Wher e
appellat e
vs
.
Garcia,
98 Phil.
769).
551
SEC.
eithe
th e
n cas
tria l
r a good caus e o f
denia l o r dismissal ,
e an d reman d th e
in accordanc e wit h
decision
in
th e
mai n
cas e
(Servicewide
Specialists,
Inc.
vs. Sheriff of Manila, et al.,
986).
G.R. No.
74586,
Oct.
17,
Althoug h
t h e p r o c e d u r e h a s now
bee n
c h a
n g e d
becaus e th e aforestate d putativ e error s o f th e lower cour t
can n o longer b e th e subject o f appea l bu t may b e raise d
for revie w b y th e highe r cour t unde r th e appropriat e
extraordinary wri t unde r Rul e 65 , virtually th e sam e relief s
suggested in th e aforesai d cas e ar e substantiall y available .
In th e first instance , th e final or executory judgmen t o f
th e lower cour t shal l not , o f course , b e reverse d or modified
bu t i f th e requirement s for relie f therefro m ar e present ,
such judgmen t shal l b e se t asid e b y th e highe r cour t
handlin g th e certiorar i case , which shal l the n hea r an d
decide th e sam e (instea d o f remandin g it t o th e lower court )
as i f a timely motion for new tria l or reconsideratio n ha d
been grante d
(Sec. 6, Rule 38).
In th e secon d instance , i f th e petitio n for relie f which
wa s denie d i s agains t an order disallowin g an appeal , whil e
th e review thereo f shal l now b e throug h a petitio n for
m a n d a m u s ,
i n t h a t s p e c i a l civi l actio n
t h e o
r d e r
disallowing th e appea l can b e reverse d an d th e lower court
shall b e require d t o give du e cours e t o th e appea l (Sec. 7,
Rule
38).
Sec .
2 .
Modes of appeal.
(a)
Ordinary appeal. Th e appea l t o th e Cour t
o f Appeal s i n case s decide d b y th e Regiona l Tria l
Court i n th e
e x e r c i s e o f it s origina l j u r i s d i
c t i o n
shall b e take n b y filin g a notic e o f appea l wit h th e
cour t w h i c h rendere d th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r
appeale d fro m an d servin g a cop y thereo f upo n th e
advers e party . N o recor d o n appea l shal l b e require d
e x c e p t i n specia l p r o c e e d i n g s an d othe r c a s e
s o f
multipl e o r separat e appeal s wher e th e la w o r thes e
Rule s s o require .
I n s u c h c a s e s , th e recor d
o n
appeal shal l b e file d an d serve d i n lik e manner .
553
----------------------- Page 554----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 2
b y p e t i t i o n fo r r e v i e w
i n a c c o r d a n c
e wit h
Rul e 42 .
(c) Appeal by certiorari. I n al l c a s e s w h e r e onl y
q u e s t i o n s o f la w ar e raise d o r involved , th e appea l
shal l b e t o t h e S u p r e m e Cour t b y petitio n fo r revie w
o n certiorar i i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h Rul e 45 .
(n )
NOTE S
1.
Thi s ne w section provide s for th e different mode s
of appea l from judgment s or fina l order s o f th e Regiona l
Tria l Cour t t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s o r th e Suprem e Court .
Th e firs t mod e i s th e ordinar y appeal , sometime s
referre d t o a s a n a p p e a l b y w r i t o f e r r o r du
e t o th e
requiremen t t h a t th e brie f filed for t h a t purpos e mus
t
contain a n assignmen t o f errors .
Thi s
t
th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t rendere d th e judgmen t
order in th e civil action or specia l proceedin g in th e
of it s original jurisdictio n an d th e appea l i s
presuppose s tha
o r final
exercis e
take n t o th e
Thi s
i s
t h e
mod e
o f
554
----------------------- Page 555----------------------RULE 41
2
SEC.
th e provision s o f Rul e 45 .
2 . Althoug h th e
"petition
for
ter m
review" jus t
use d
lik e
i n
tha t
th e
in
secon d
appeal s
mod e
from
i s
th e
proceeding s
regulate d
b y
thei r
Sec .
3.
Period of
corpus cases.
T h e
a
t h i n
(15)
d a y s f r o m
n o t i
fina l
orde r a p p e a l e d from .
required , t h e a p p e l l a n t
an d a recor d o n a p p e a l w
in habeas
t a k e n w i
j u d g m e n t
o r
H o w e v e
t a k e n
withi n
forty-eigh t
(48 )
h o u r s
fro m
notic e
o f j u d g m e n t
o r
f a p p e a l
fo r
n e w
shal l
tria l
b e
o r
i n t e r r u p
r e c o n s i d e
n s i o n o f tim e t o fil e a m o t i o n
o n s i d e r a t i o n
in
A.M.
No.
s h a l l
b e
a l
01-103-SC,
NOTE S
1. Th e prohibitio n in th e secon d paragrap h o f thi s
section agains t th e filin g o f a motio n for extensio n o f tim e
t o file a motio n for new tria l or reconsideratio n i s take n
from
th e
rule s
first
lai d dow n
in Habaluyas
Ente
rprises,
et al. vs. IAC, et al. (G.R . No . 70895 , Ma y 30 , 1986) an d
later reiterate d b y th e Suprem e Cour t i n it s resolutio n o f
Apri l 7 , 1988 .
Se e Not e 5 unde r Sec . 8 , Rul e 37 .
2 . Th e reglementar y perio d for appea l i s reckone d
from notic e o f th e judgmen t or order , or an y subsequen t
amendmen t thereo f
(Capistrano vs.
Corina, et al.,
93 Phil.
710).
Th e perio d t o appea l ma y b e extende d
(Bue
va vs.
Surtida, et al., L-23617, Aug. 26,
1967), bu t suc h extensio
n
is addresse d t o th e soun d discretio n o f th e cour t
(So
cco vs.
Garcia, L-18321,
Oct. 31,
1962)
an d th e mer e filing
an d
pendenc y o f th e motio n for extensio n o f tim e t o perfect
t h e a p p e a l d o e s n o t s u s p e n d t h e r u n n i n g
o f th e
r e g l e m e n t a r y p e r i o d
(Bello,
et
al.
vs.
Fern
andez,
L-16970,
Jan.
30,
1962).
556
----------------------- Page 557----------------------RULE 41
3
SEC.
th e court
t o it ,
(Reyes us.
s of th e
o f
567
----------------------- Page 558----------------------RULE 41
3
SEC.
no t t o b e
the y
ar e
applie d
designe d
hel p
secur e justice ,
not
overrid e th e sam e
.
No.
58651,
July
(Velasco, et al.
30,
vs.
Gayapa, et al.,
G.R
1987).
5.
In Neypes,
et al. vs. CA, et al.
(G.R .
141524
,
Sept . 14, 2005) , th e Suprem e Cour t announce d it s adoption
of th e so-calle d "fresh perio d rule " wit h th e avowe d inten t
t o standardiz e th e appea l period s provide d i n th e Rule s
an d t o afford litigant s fair opportunit y t o appea l thei r case s
throug h thi s extensio n o f time , grante d o n justifiabl e an d
compelling reasons .
Th e essenc e o f thi s new rul e i s th e libera l gran t o f a
fresh perio d o f 1 5 day s withi n whic h th e aggrieve d part y
in th e cas e ma y file a notic e o f appea l in th e Regiona
l
Tria l Court , counte d from receip t o f th e orde r dismissin g a
motion for ne w tria l or reconsideration .
Whil e seemingly
involving a sligh t departur e from th e provision s o f th e
presen t Sec . 3 o f Rul e 41 , th e effect thereo f i s in f
act
complementary t o th e sam e bu t ma y justifiably b e invoke d
only i n th e interes t o f substantia l justice .
T o standardiz e th e differen t appea l period s i n th e
Rules , thi s "fresh perio d rule : wa s mad e applicabl e t o Rul e
4 0 governin g appeal s from th e Municipa l Tria l Court s t o
th e Regiona l Tria l Court ; Rul e 4 2 on petition s for review
from th e Regiona l Tria l Court s t o th e Cour t o f Appeals ;
Rul e 4 3 o n appeal s from quasi-judicia l agencie s (now ,
except th e Cour t o f Ta x Appeals ) t o th e Cour t o f Appeals ;
an d Rul e 4 5 governin g appeal s by certiorar i t o th e Suprem e
558
----------------------- Page 559----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 3
Court .
thereb y
6,
2008).
559
Th e
appea l eve n i f th e
perio d
i s
file d
(Berkenkotter
th e
dismissa l o f
denia l o f th
question t h a
h a d g r a v
n g suc h
extensio n
-29736,
Oct.
31,
9 .
vs.
CA,
et
th e appea l b y
e extensio n praye
t ca n aris e i s
e l y a b u s e d
(PVTA
vs.
al.,
supra).
th e tria
d for , in
whethe r o
it s d i s
De
l cour
whic h
r no t
c r e t
los
Conversely ,
t
constitute s a
cas e th e only
th e tria l court
i o n i n d e n y i
Angeles,
et
al.,
1974).
SECS.
Sec .
4.
Appellate court docket and other lawful fees.
W i t h i n
t h e p e r i o d fo r t a k i n g a n a p p e a l , t
h e
appellan t shal l pa y t o th e cler k o f th e cour t w h i c h
rendere d th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r appeale d from ,
th e ful l a m o u n t o f th e appellat e cour t docke t an d
appeal .
6.
Record on
appeal; form
and contents
thereof.
T h e
f u l l n a m e s
o f a l l t h e
p a r t i e
t o
t h e
p r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l b e s t a t e d
i n t h e c a p t
o n o f th e
recor d o n a p p e a l a n d i t shal l i n c l u d e t h e j u d g m
n t
o r fina l o r d e r fro m w h i c h t h e a p p e a l i s t a k e n
nd ,
i n
c h r o n o l o g i c a l
o r d e r ,
c o p i e s
o f
o
s
i
e
a
n
l y
s u c
p l e a d i n
utor y
o r d e r s
m e n t o r
final orde r
h
g s ,
a s
p e t i t i o n s , m o t i o n s a n d al l
ar e
r e l a t e d t o t h e
interloc
a p p e a l e d j u d g
fo r t h e prope r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e issu e
i n v o l v e d , t o g e t h e r w i t h s u c h d a t a a s wil l s h o
w tha t
t h e a p p e a l w a s p e r f e c t e d o n time .
I f a n
i s s u e o f
fac t i s t o b e r a i s e d o n a p p e a l , t h e recor d o n appe
a l
s h a l l
i n c l u d e
b y
r e f e r e n c e
a l l t h e
e
v i d e n c e ,
t e s t i m o n i a l a n d d o c u m e n t a r y , t a k e n u p o n t h e
issu e
i n v o l v e d .
T h e
r e f e r e n c e
s h a l l
s p e c
i f y
t h e
d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e
b y t h e e x h i b i t n u
m b e r s o r
letter s b y w h i c h i t w a s identifie d w h e n a d m i t t e d o r
offere d a t t h e h e a r i n g , a n d t h e t e s t i m o n i a l e v
i d e n c e
b y t h e n a m e s o f t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g w i t n e s s
e s .
I f
t h e w h o l e
t e s t i m o n i a l an d
d o c u m e n t a r y
e v i d e n c e
i n t h e c a s e i s t o b e i n c l u d e d , a s t a t e m e
n t t o tha t
e f f e c t w i l l b e s u f f i c i e n t w i t h o u t
m e n t i o n
i n g t h e
n a m e s o f t h e w i t n e s s e s o r th e n u m b e r s o r letter s
o f
e x h i b i t s . Ever y r e c o r d o n a p p e a l e x c e e d i n g t w
e n t y
(20) p a g e s m u s t c o n t a i n a subjec t index .
(6a )
562
----------------------- Page 563----------------------RULE 4 1
6
SEC.
18,
on
Motion
for
Reconsideration],
L-25221,
1972).
no t
th e
appea l
ha s
bee n
an d t o allow th e amendmen t o f th
o r d e r t o includ e
t h e r e i n
e d dat a
(Design
Masters,
Inc.
vs. CA,
.
31,
1971; Ozaeta, Jr.,
et al. vs.
ct.
29,
1971).
I f th e printe d recor d on
dat e o f filin g thereo f whic h i s
actuall y
perfecte d o n tim e
e recor d on appea l in
an y r e l e v a n t o m i t t
et
CA,
al.,
et
al.,
L-31510,
Mar
L-26938,
(Mintu
Villarica
vs.
CA,
dismisse d
(Alfonso vs. CA, et al., L-37068, July 18,
1974).
Thi s rul e o f substantia l complianc e wa s als o applie d t o
th e cas e of Ever Ice Drop Factory vs. CA, t al. (L-33366 ,
Oct . 30 , 1972) , wherei n th e printe d recor d on appea l did
no t includ e
a p p e l l a n t ' s notic e o f appea l t o sho w
th e
timelines s thereo f (and , formerly , th e official paymen t o f
th e appea l bond) , bu t th e origina l copy o f sai d notic e o f
appea l (an d th e official receip t o f paymen t o f th e appea l
bond , whic h wa s attache d t o sai d notic e o f appeal ) wa s
found in th e origina l recor d on appea l on file wit h th e
appellat e court .
564
----------------------- Page 565----------------------RULE 41
C. 7
SE
Upo n th e
l an d i f n o
fiv e (5) day s
cour t ma y
motio n o r
565
----------------------- Page 566----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 9
a
e
a
w
t t h e i n s t a n c e o
c t it s
m e n d m e n t b y th e i n
h i c h ar e d e e m e d e s
t i o n o f
th e i s s u e o f la w o r
I f
th e tria l cour t order s th
th e appellant , w i t h i n t
o r s u c h e x t e n s i o n
, o r i f
n o tim e i s fixe d b y
ay s
fro m r e c e i p t thereof ,
d
b y
i n c l u d i n g t h e r e i n
l o g i c a l
s e q u e n c e , s u c h a d d
r t ma y
h a v e
d i r e c t e d
h i
s h a l l
f t h e
a p p e l l e e , m a y
d i r
c l u s i o n o f an y omitte d matter s
s e n t i a l t o t h e d e t e r m i n a
fac t involve d
i n th e
appeal .
e a m e n d m e n t o f th e record ,
h e tim e limite d i n t h e order ,
t h e r e o f a s m a y b e g r a n t e d
th e
orde r w i t h i n t e n
s h a l l
, i n t h e i r
redraf t
(10 )
t h e
p r o p e r
recor
c h r o n o
i t i o n a l m a t t e r s a s t h e cou
m
t o
i n c o r p o r a t e ,
a n d
t h e r e
u p o n
r a s th
origina l
Sec .
b o t h
partie s ar e
or d
o n a p p e a
f thi s
Rule , o r t
8 .
Joint
record
on
appeal.
W h e r e
a p p e l l a n t s , t h e y m a y fil e a j o i n t rec
l w i t h i n t h e t i m e fixe d b y s e c t i o n 3 o
h a t fixe d b y t h e court .
(8a )
NOTE S
1.
or
hearin g i
d
submitte d
require s
no t
hav e
t o b e
se t
th e
Barton,
76 Phil.
cour t
filin g
ha s jurisdictio n
o f a
recor d
on
t o
exten d
appea l
th e
(Moya
perio
vs.
831).
566
SE
9.
Perfection
of
appeal;
effect
thereof.
A
p a r t y ' s a p p e a l b y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s d e e m
e d
perfecte d a s t o h i m upo n th e filin g o f th e notic e o f
appea l i n du e time .
p e r
ubject
matte
appea
A party' s
f e c t e d a
r thereo f u
l file d i n
o n
, th e cour t lose s
perfectio n o f th e
expiratio n o f th e
.
SEC.
I n t e r i m
Rules , however ,
merel y
provide d
a s
follows :
"23 .
Perfection
of
appeal.
In
case s
wher e
SEC
o r d e r s e n u m e r a t e d i n Rul e 10 9 whic h ar e
dec
lare d
appealable , an d i n civil action s wher e severa l appeal s may
likewise b e take n from certai n aspect s thereof .
Th e
lower
court retain s jurisdictio n over th e specia l proceedin g o r
civil action , an d sinc e th e origina l recor d remain s wit h i t
for purpose s o f furthe r remedie s whic h th e partie s may
avail of, a recor d on appea l ha s t o b e file d by an y appellant .
Th e sam e procedur e i s followed ,
u n d e r th
sam e
rationale , in civi l case s whic h admi t o f multipl e appeals .
For instance , a judgmen t in an actio n for recovery or for
partitio n o f propert y i s separatel y appealabl e from th e
p r o c e e d i n g s o n t h a t p a r t o f t h e j u d g m e n t w
h e r e i n
accountin g for receipt s from th e propert y i s ordere d a s a
primar y o r incidenta l relief .
Whe n suc h accountin g i
s
thereafte r submitte d an d eithe r approve d o r rejecte d b y
th e tria l court , anothe r appea l lie s therefrom .
e
Special civi l
th e
actions ,
becaus e
o f th e
n a t u r e
o f
p r o c e e d i n g s t h e r e i n , provid e
f u r t h e r e x a m p l
e s . I n
expropriation (Rule 67), an orde r determinin g th e righ t
o f t h e p l a i n t i f f t o e x p r o p r i a t e a n d t h e s u
b s e q u e n t
adjudication o n th e issu e o f jus t compensatio n ma y b e th e
subject o f s e p a r a t e appeals .
I n judicia l foreclosur e
o f
mortgag e (Rule 68), th e judgmen t in th e mai n cas e on th e
righ t t o foreclose , th e orde r confirmin g th e foreclosur e
sale , an d th e deficiency judgmen t agains t a third-part y
mortgago r ma y b e th e subjec t o f separat e appeals .
I n
judicia l partitio n (Rule 69), an orde r directin g th e partitio n
of th e lan d ove r th e objection o f a part y wh o claim s tota l
ownership thereo f i s appealable , an d anothe r appea l may
b e take n from th e judgmen t rendere d o n th e project o r
schedul e o f partitio n submitte d b y th e commissioner s
appointe d b y th e cour t for tha t purpose .
3 .
th e tria l cour t lose s jurisdictio n over th e cas e or th e subject matte r involve d i n th e appeal , a s th e cas e ma y be .
I n
either instance , an d befor e th e transmitta l t o th e appellat e
570
----------------------- Page 571----------------------RULE 41
0
SEC. 1
on appeal , th e
In
(Larrobis
us.
Wislezemers,
believe d
tha t thes e doctrine s stil l apply .
42
Phil.
401).
It
Sec . 10 .
Duty of clerk of court of the lower court
on
perfection
of appeal.
Withi n
thirt y
(30 )
s
afte r
perfectio n o f al l t h e a p p e a l s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t
th e
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n , i t shal l b e t h e dut y o f th
cler k
o f cour t o f t h e l o w e r court :
up
day
h
e
(a)
T o verif y t h e
c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e
origina l
recor d o r t h e recor d o n appeal , a s th e cas e ma y be ,
an d t o m a k e a certificatio n o f it s correctness ;
(b)
T o verif y t h e c o m p l e t e n e s s o f th e r
ecord s
t h a t wil l b e t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e appellat e court ;
(c)
I f f o u n d
t o b e i n c o m
u c h
r e s
a s m a y
b e
r e q u i r
t h e
d s , a v a i l i n g o f t h e a u t h
th e
a y e x e r c i s e fo r thi s purpose ;
a k e s
m e a s u
l e t e
r e c o r
h e o r
cour t m
(d)
appellat e
c o u r t .
T o
t r a n s m i t
t h e
p l e t e ,
e d
t o
t o
o r i t y
c o m p
t h a t
an d
r e c o r d s
t o
t h e
I f t h e effort s t o c o m p l e t e t h e
l , h e
shal l indicat e i n hi s lette r o f transmitta l th e
o r t r a n s c r i p t s n o t i n c l u d e d
i n
r d s b e i n g
t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e a p p e l l a t e court ,
o n s fo r
thei r n o n - t r a n s m i t t a l , a n d t h e ste
o r tha t
coul d b e t a k e n t o h a v e t h e m available .
record s
fai
exhibit s
t h e r e c o
th e
r e a s
p s
t a k e n
a p p e a
i r e c t
s t e n o
r d o f
t h e c
t s o f
t e s t i
d o n
a p p e a
d
s
a s e fiv e
(5 ) c o p i e s o f t h e t r a n s c r i p
th e
m o n i a l e v i d e n c e referre d t o i n th e recor
l .
h a l l
T h e
s t e n o g r a p h e r s
c o n c e r n e
572
----------------------- Page 573----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 12
t r a n s c r i b e s u c h t e s t i m o n i a l e v i d e n
s h a l l
p r e p a r e
a n d affi x
t o t h e i r t r a n s c r
i n d e x
c o n t a i n i n g th e n a m e s o f th e w i t n e s s e s
ag e
wherei n thei r t e s t i m o n i e s ar e found , an d
f
th e exhibit s an d th e page s w h e r e i n e a c h
a p p e a r s
t o h a v e
b e e n
e d
o r
rejecte d b y th e tria l court .
b e transmitte d t
shall t h e r e u p
whic h th e w i t n
caus e th e page s
(12a )
o f f e r e d a n d
c e
a n d
i p t s a n
an d th e p
a
lis t o
o f t h e m
a d m i t t
Th e transcript s shal l
Sec. 12 .
Transmittal.
tria l
c o u r t s h a l l t r a n s m i t
r t t h e
t o
Th e
cler k
o f t h e
t h e a p p e l l a t e
c o u
b e
et
wa s o
th e
573
----------------------- Page 574----------------------RULE 41
C. 13
I t
appea r
t h a t
suc h
SE
doctrin e
wa s
base d
n
Sec . 1(c)
groun d for
a s indee d i t mus t b e so .
I t wil l als o b e note d tha t Se
c . 1 0
o f thi s Rule , a s now amended , make s i t th e furthe r duty
of th e cler k o f cour t t o furnis h th e partie s wit h copie s o f
hi s lette r o f transmitta l o f th e record s t o th e appellat e court ,
t o e n a b l e t h e l a t t e r t o monito r o r verif y t h e
lerk' s
complianc e wit h hi s dut y t o d o so .
Sec . 13 .
Dismissal of appeal. Prio r t o t h e trans mitta l o f t h e o r i g i n a l r e c o r d o r t h e recor d o n appe
a l
t o t h e
a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , t h e
t r i a l c o u r t
m a y ,
motu proprio
o r o n m o t i o n , d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a
l fo r
h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n o u t o f t i m e o r fo r n o n - p a y
m e n t
o f t h e d o c k e t a n d
o t h e r l a w f u l f e e s w i t h i
n t h e
r e g l e m e n t a r y p e r i o d .
(13a )
(As
amended
in
A.M.
No.
00-2-10-SC,
effective May
1, 2000)
NOTE S
1. A motio n t o dismis s th e appea l on th e foregoin g
groun d ma y als o b e file d in th e appellat e cour t (Sec. lfb],
Rule
50).
2 . Th e failur e o f th e appelle e t o mov e for dismissa l
in th e tria l cour t o f an appea l perfecte d ou t o f tim e doe s
574
----------------------- Page 575----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 13
.
vs. Valenzuela, 78 Phil. 397).
However , in th e late r cas e
of Arellano, et al. vs. CA, et al. (L-31816 , Nov . 24 , 1972) ,
it wa s hel d tha t th e Santiago doctrin e ha d been abandone d
in Miranda vs. Guanzon (92 Phi L 168), a s th e requiremen t
regardin g th e perfection o f th e appea l withi n th e reglemen tar y perio d i s no t only mandator y bu t jurisdictional .
e
petitio n i s denied , h e
hi s petitio n (De Luna,
Dec. 27, 1969).
Th e
therei n stated , i s stil
therefor unde r Rul e 3 8
denying th e petition for
remedy unde r Sec . 1 o
petition unde r Rul e 65 .
4 . With th e revision
in 1997 , an d in orde r t
Trial Court mor e or les s
in th e forme r Rul e 4
Thus , th e specia l rule s
c e r t i o r a r i , p r o h i b i t i o n , m a n d a m u s , qu o w a r r
a n t o ,
employers ' liabilit y case s (the n Sec .
17) an d in h
abeas
corpus case s
(the n Sees . 1 8 t o 21) wer e discarde d an d n
o
longer applie d t o appeal s i n th e aforesai d cases . However ,
Sec. 3 o f Rul e 4 1 wa s subsequentl y amended , effective
Jul y 15 , 2001 , t o restor e th e rul e t h a t appeal s i n habeas
corpus case s shal l b e take n withi n 4 8 hour s from notic e o f
th e judgmen t o r orde r appeale d from .
576
----------------------- Page 577----------------------RUL E
PETITION FO R REVIEW FROM TH E
TRIAL COURT S T O TH E COUR T
Sectio n
1.
How appeal
part y
d e s i r i n g t o a p p e
t h e
Regiona l Tria l Cour t rendere d i n
appellat e jurisdictio n ma y fil e a
4 2
REGIONA L
O F APPEAL S
taken; time for filing. A
a l fro m a
d e c i s i o n o f
th e exercis e o f it s
verifie d petitio n fo r
revie w
w i t h th e Cour t o f
e
s a m e
t i m e
t o
t h e
c l
t h e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g
d o c k e t
e e s ,
d e p o s i t i n g t h e a m o u n t
a n d
furnishin g th e Regiona l Tria l Cour
party wit h a cop y o f th e petition
Appeals ,
e r k
p a y i n g
a n d
o f
s a i d
o t h e r
o f P500.0 0
a t
t h
c o u r t
l a w f u l
fo r
c o s t s ,
t an d th e advers e
.
Th e petitio n shal l
SE
s u p p o r t
t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o
1 7 o f th e Interi m Rules .
Sec .
ts.
Th e
o f t
i n g
p a y m
, th
d e p o
3.
Effect
of failure
to
comply
with
requiremen
failur e o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o compl y w i t h an y
h e
f o r e g o i n g
r e q u i r e m e n t s
r e g a r d
t h e
e n t o f t h e
d o c k e t a n d o t h e r lawfu l fees
e
s i t fo r c o s t s , proo f o f s e r v i c e
o f t h e
petition ,
an d th e c o n t e n t s o f an d th e d o c u m e n t s w h i c h shoul
d
a c c o m p a n y t h e p e t i t i o n shal l b e sufficien t groun
d
for t h e d i s m i s s a l thereof ,
(n )
NOT E
1.
T h e
s p o n d e n t
m o t i o n
t o di
c e ,
d i s m
o r
b e p a t e n t l y
delay , o r tha t
o o
u n s u b s t a
Sec . 5 .
Contents of comment.
Th e
c o m m
e n t
of
t h e r e s p o n d e n t s h a l l b e file d i n s e v e n (7)
legibl e
c o p i e s , a c c o m p a n i e d b y certifie d tru e c o p i e s o f s
uc h
m a t e r i a l p o r t i o n s o f t h e recor d referre d t o t h e
r e i n
t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r s u p p o r t i n g p a p e r s an d sha
l l (a)
stat e
w h e t h e r o r no t h e a c c e p t s t h e
s t a t
e m e n t o f
m a t t e r s i n v o l v e d i n th e petition ; (b) poin t ou t suc h
i n s u f f i c i e n c i e s o r i n a c c u r a c i e s a s h e
e v e s exis t
i n p e t i t i o n e r ' s s t a t e m e n t o f m a t t e r s
l v e d b u t
w i t h o u t r e p e t i t i o n ; a n d (c ) stat e t h e
o n s w h y
b e l i
i n v o
r e a s
580
----------------------- Page 581----------------------RULE 42
CS. 6-7
SE
A
(n )
Sec . 6 .
Due course. I f u p o n t h e
filin g o f
t h e
c o m m e n t
o r s u c h o t h e r p l e a d i n g s a s t h e
c o u r t
m a y a l l o w o r r e q u i r e , o r afte r t h e e x p i r a t
i o n o f
t h e p e r i o d fo r t h e f i l i n g t h e r e o f w i t h o u t
s u c h
c o m m e n t o r p l e a d i n g h a v i n g bee n s u b m i t t e d
, t h e
Court
o f Appeal s
find s prima
facie
tha t
th e
lowe r
cour t h a s c o m m i t t e d a n erro r o f fac t o r la w t
ha t
w i l l w a r r a n t a
r e v e r s a l o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o
f t h e
a p p e a l e d d e c i s i o n , i t m a y a c c o r d i n g l y g i v
e d u e
cours e t o th e petition ,
(n )
Sec
o f Appeal
o f cour t
origina l
d o c u m e
notice ,
th e
petitio n
Dependin g o
n
th e complexity or ambiguit y o f th e issue s for
could als o requir e subsequen t exchange s by th e
such a s th e filing o f a reply an d a rejoinder
exercise of it s discretion .
See , however
resolution , it
parties ,
, in th e soun d
, Appendix R.
2 . I f w a r r a n t e d from
th e exchange s
u n d e
th e
guideline in Sec . 6 , th e appellat e court may give du e cours e
to th e petitio n and , for purpose s o f it s decision therein , it
may requir e th e filing o f memoranda .
Th e origina l rec
or d
in th e lower court may b e ordere d elevate d for tha t purpos e
or for such othe r purpose s a s determine d by th e appellat e
court .
r
581
----------------------- Page 582----------------------RULE 42
SEC. 8
Sec . 8. Perfection of
t h e t i m e l y filin g
o f a p e t i t i o n fo r r e v i e w
an d th e
p a y m e n t o f t h e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g d o c k e t
a
n d
othe r
lawfu l fees , t h e a p p e a l i s d e e m e d perfecte d a s t o th
e
p e t i t i o n e r .
T h e
r i s d i c t i o
o v e r t h e
e appeal s
file d i n d
im e t o
a p p e a l o f
R e g i o n a l
Tria l
Cour t
l o s e s
j u
n
c a s e
u e
u p o n
tim e
t h e
t h e
p e r f e c t i o n
a n d t h e
o t h e r
o f t h
e x p i r a t i o n o f th e t
parties .
H o w e v e r ,
befor e
t h e Cour t o f A p p e a l s
giv e s
d u e c o u r s e t o t h e p e t i t i o n , th e Regiona l Tria l Cou
r t
m a y
i s s u e o r d e r s
fo r t h e
p r o t e c t i o n a n d
preser v a t i o n o f t h e
r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s w h i c
h d o
no t
i n v o l v e a n y m a t t e r litigate d b y t h e appeal , approv e
c o m p r o m i s e s , p e r m i t a p p e a l s o f i n d i g e n t
litigants ,
orde r e x e c u t i o n p e n d i n g a p p e a l i n a c c o r d a n c e
wit h
s e c t i o n 2 o f Rul e 39 , a n d allo w w i t h d r a w a l
o f th e
a p p e a l .
(b)
o n S u m m a r y P r o c e d u r e , t h e a p p e a l shal l sta
y th e
j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r u n l e s s t h e Cour t o f Appeals ,
t h e law , o r t h e s e R u l e s shal l provid e o t h e r w i s e ,
(n)
NOTE S
1.
an d th e tria l cour t
th e cas e sav e t o
don e in connection wit h
e r a s provide d i n th e
p a r a g r a p h
i s
th e
genera l
rul e
i n
Sec .
2 1
thereo f tha t
th
e
582
----------------------- Page 583----------------------RULE 42
. 9
SEC
Th
motu
proprio
or
i s deeme d
f th e
unde r
likewis e
th e sam e
583
----------------------- Page 584----------------------R U L E
A P P E A L S
F R O M
T H E
4 3
[COUR T O F TAX A P P E A L S
AND ]
Q U A S I - J U D I C I A L A G E N C I E S
T O
T H E
C O U R T
O F APPEALS *
S e c t i o n 1 .
Scope. T h i s
R u l e
s h a l l
a p p l y t o
a p p e a l s [fro m j u d g m e n t s o r fina l o r d e r s o f t h e
C o u r t
o f T a x A p p e a l s a n d ]
f r o m a w a r d s , j u d g m e n
t s , fina l
o r d e r s o r r e s o l u t i o n s o f o r a u t h o r i z e d b y a n
y q u a s i j u d i c i a l a g e n c y i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i t s q u
a s i - j u d i c i a l
f u n c t i o n s .
A m o n g t h e s e
a g e n c i e s
a r e
t h e
Civi l
S e r v i c e C o m m i s s i o n ,
C e n t r a l B o a r d o f A s
s e s s m e n t
A p p e a l s ,
S e c u r i t i e s
a n d
E x c h a n g e
C o
m m i s s i o n ,
O f f i c e
o f
t h e
P r e s i d e n t ,
L a n d
R e g
i s t r a t i o n
A u t h o r i t y ,
S o c i a l
S e c u r i t y
C o m m i s s i o
n ,
C i v i l
A e r o n a u t i c s B o a r d , B u r e a u o f P a t e n t s , T r a
d e m a r k
a n d T e c h n o l o g y Transfer,* *
N a t i o n a l E l e c
t r i f i c a t i o n
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , E n e r g y R e g u l a t o r y B o a r d , N
a t i o n a l
T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s
C o m m i s s i o n ,
D e p a
r t m e n t
o f
A g r a r i a n
R e f o r m
u n d e r
R e p u b l i c
A c t
6 6 5 7 ,
G o v e r n m e n t S e r v i c e I n s u r a n c e S y s t e m , E m p
l o y e e s
C o m p e n s a t i o n
C o m m i s s i o n ,
P h i l i p p i n
e
A t o m i c
E n e r g y
C o m m i s s i o n ,
B o a r d
o f
I n v
e s t m e n t s ,
C o n s t r u c t i o n I n d u s t r y A r b i t r a t i o n C o m m i s s
i o n , a n d
v o l u n t a r y a r b i t r a t o r s a u t h o r i z e d b y l a w .
(n )
N O T E S
1.
Thi s Rul e wa s originall y embodie d i n Suprem e
C o u r t C i r c u l a r No .
1-9 1
a n d e v e n t u a l l y
b e c a m e
it s
Revise d Administrativ e
Circula r No .
1-95 w
hic h too k
effect o n J u n e
1 , 1995 , wit h modification s cause d b
y
'See Note 2 of Section 1 of thi s Rule.
"See reorganized bureaus as provided in R.A. 8293 (Intellectual
Property
Code).
584
----------------------- Page 585----------------------RULE 43
C. 1
SE
"quasi-judicial
instrumentalities "
Bank
vs.
Association
nk
Employees, et al.,
G.R.
of
No.
(Luzon
Luzon
Development
120319,
Development
Oct.
6,
4 . A
p r o s e c u t o r c o n d u c t i n g a
n a r y
i n v e s t i g a t i o n p e r f o r m s a q u a s i - j
ction ,
bu t hi s office i s not a quasi-judicia l body .
h e
quasi-judicial agencie s contemplate d in thi s Rule ,
no t exercis e
adjudicator y
o r rule-makin g
.
The preliminar y investigatio n conducte d therei n i s
tria l o f th e cas e on th e merit s bu t only determine
a crim e ha s bee n committe d an d t h a t th
probably guilty thereof .
tha t determination , h e i
it i s th e court itsel f
Hence , th e Office o f th
body an d it s actio n
mation i s not appealabl e
Rul e
43
(Bautista
law "
d
o f
th e ter m
Ba
1995).
p r e l i m i
u d i c i a l fun
Unlik e
it doe s
functions
not a
s whethe r
e accuse d
i s
,
July
6,
2001);
Orosa
vs.
,
585
Roa,
G.R.
No.
140423
vs.
Gonzales,
G.R.
No.
16
Sec . 2 .
Cases not covered. Thi s Rul e shal l no t
appl y t o j u d g m e n t s o r fina l o r d e r s i s s u e d u n d e r
th e
Labo r Cod e o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s ,
(n )
NOTE S
1. J u d g m e n t s an d fina l order s or resolution s o f th
e
Nationa l Labo r Relation s Commission ar e now reviewable ,
in th e first instance , b y th e Cour t o f Appeal s o n certiorar i
unde r Rul e 6 5 (se e Not e 2 unde r Sec. 4 thereof) , bu t thos e
o f th e Employee s Compensatio n Commissio n shoul d b e
brough t t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s throug h a petitio n for
review unde r thi s Rule .
Also , appeal s from th e Office o
f
th e Ombudsma n i n administrativ e disciplinar y case s ar e
now covere d by thi s Rul e (Fabian vs. Desierto, etc., et al.,
G.R.
No.
129742,
Sept.
16,
1998).
2 . Specia l rule s o f procedur e hav e als o bee n adopte d
for case s formerly withi n th e jurisdictio n an d adjudicatory
processe s o f th e Securitie s an d Exchang e Commission .
I n A . M .
No .
0 1 - 2 - 0 4 - S C , t h e S u p r e m e
o u r t
r o m u l g a t e d I n t e r i m R u l e s o f P r o c e d u r e for
n t r a o r p o r a t e C o n t r o v e r s i e s , effectiv e
A p r i l 1 ,
200 1
(Appendix
W).
C
p
I
c
for case s involvin g corporat e rehabilitatio n an d intra corporat e controversies , effectiv e Septembe r 30 , 200 4
(Appendix
Y).
Rul e
t h e
i d e d
w h e t
fact ,
law ,
S e c 3 .
Where
ma y b e t a k e n
p e r i o d a n d
,
h e r t h e a p p
o f
o r m i x e d q u e
t o appeal. A n appea l u n d e r t h i s
t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s w i t h i n
i n t h e m a n n e r h e r e i n
p r o v
e a l
i n v o l v e s
q u e s t i o n s
s t i o n s o f fac t an d law .
o f
(n )
NOTE S
1. Thi s i s anothe r instanc e wher e an appellat e review
solely on a questio n o f law ma y b e sough t in th e Cour t o f
Appeal s
i n s t e a d o f t h e S u p r e m e Court .
Th e
s a m e
procedur e obtain s in appeal s from th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t
wher e it decide d th e cas e in th e exercis e o f it s appellat e
jurisdiction , a s regulate d by Rul e 42 .
2 . A s a g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n , a p p e a l s o
n p u r e
question s o f law ar e brough t t o th e Suprem e Cour t sinc e
Sec. 5(2)(e) , Art . VII I o f th e Constitutio n include s in th e
enumeration o f case s withi n it s jurisdictio n "(a)ll case s in
whic h only a n erro r o r questio n o f law i s involved. "
It shoul d no t b e overlooked , however , t h a t th e sam e
provision vestin g jurisdictio n in th e Suprem e Cour t o f th e
cases enumerate d therei n i s preface d by th e statemen t tha t
it ma y "(r)eview , revise , reverse , modify , or affirm on
appeal or certiorar i as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide," th e judgment s or fina l order s o f lower court s in
th e case s therei n enumerated .
Accordingly , th e aforesai d
provision s o f Rule s 4 2 an d 4 3 constitut e th e exceptions .
For tha t matter , thi s i s th e sam e reason why appeal s
from th e judgmen t or final orde r o f th e inferior courts ,
even o n pur e question s o f law , ar e appealabl e t o th e
Regional Tria l Cour t in lin e with th e specific provision
therefor in Sec . 1 , Rul e 40 .
587
----------------------- Page 588----------------------RULE 43
SECS. 4-5
e a l
Sec . 4 .
shal l
of
appeal.
T h e
a p p
d
o
t
e
,
n
h
q
o
a l
r i
n s
th
r n
j u d g m e n t ,
f i n a l o r d e r
o r r e s o
,
o r
e d a t e o f it s las t publication , i f publicatio n
u i r e d
b y
l a w
fo r
i t s e f f e c t i v i t y
f th e
o f p e t i t i o n e r ' s
m o t i o n
fo r
n e w
a l o r
i d e r a t i o n d u l y file d i n a c c o r d a n c e w
e
i n g la w o f
t h e c o u r t o r a g e n c y a quo.
Onl y
o n e (1) m o t i o n fo r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n shal l b e allow
ed .
U p o n
p r o p e r m o t i o n a n d t h e
p a y m e n t o
f t h e
ful l
a m o u n t o f t h e d o c k e t fe e befor e t h e expiratio n
o f
t h e r e g l e m e n t a r y period , t h e Cour t o f Appeal s ma y
g r a n t a n a d d i t i o n a l perio d o f fiftee n (15) d a y s onl
y
w i t h i n w h i c h t o fil e t h e p e t i t i o n fo r review
.
N o
furthe r e x t e n s i o n
shal l
b e g r a n t e d
e x c
e p t fo r th e
m o s t c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n i n n o c a s e t o e x c e e d
fiftee n
(15) d a y s ,
(n )
Sec . 5 .
How
s h a l l
b e
t a k e n
b y
f i l i n g
r e v i e w
i n
s e v e n (7) legibl e c o
,
w i t h
p r o o f o f
s
e o f o n
t h e
a d v e r s e
p a r t y
a
n c y
a quo.
Th e o r i g i n a l c o p y
d fo r th e
Cour t o f A p p e a l s shal
y th e
p e t i t i o n e r .
U p o n t
itione r
s h a l l
p a y
C o u r t
o f
A p p e a l s
t h
fee s an d
d e p o s i t t h e
E x e m p t i o n
fro m p a y m e n t
lawfu l
fee s
a n d
t h e
d
r a n t e d
b y
t h e Cour t o f
t i n g
h e
t o
e
appeal
a
taken.
w i t h t h e
e r v i c e
n d
o n
o f
b e
c o p y
c o u r t
i n d i c a t e d
s u m o f P500.0 0
o f d o c k e t i n g
e p o s i t
f o r
A p p e a l s
u p o n
a g e
i n t e n d e
a s
s u c h
p e t i t i o n , t h e
c l e r k
d o c k e t i n g
t h e r
o r
p e t i t i o n
filin g o f t h e
fo r
Cour t o f Appeals
t h e
o f t h e
t h e
A p p e a l
v e r i f i e d p e t i t i o n
p i e s
o f
c o u r t
a n d
fo r
pet
o f t h e
o t h e r
lawfu l
costs .
an d
c o s t s
verifie d
o t h e r
m a y
m o t i o n
b e
g
s e t
f
e
A
l
t
o r t h
v a l i d
g r o u n d s
t h e r e f o r .
I f t h
C o u r t
o f
p p e a l s d e n i e s t h e m o t i o n , th e p e t i t i o n e r sha
l pa y
h e d o c k e t i n g a n d o t h e r lawfu l fee s an d d e p o s i t
fo r
c o s t s w i t h i n
fiftee n
(15 )
d a y s
fro m
n o
t i c e o f th e
denial ,
(n )
588
----------------------- Page 589----------------------RULE 43
SEC. 6
1.
I n vie w
o f t h e n a t u r e , s u b j e c t - m a t t
e r a n d
procedur e
i n case s befor e th e quasi-judicia l agencie s
u n d e r t h e i r differen t
governin g laws ,
th e a p p
e l l a t e
procedur e an d requirement s i n thi s Rul e ar e somewha t
different fro m thos e
i n r e g u l a r a p p e a l s . T h u
s , t h e
period s an d requirement s for th e appea l ar e mor e stringen t
a n d specifi c
p r o v i s i o n s a r e m a d e
for
m o t i o
n s for
reconsideratio n an d extension s o f time .
Sec . 6 .
Contents of the petition. Th e petitio n fo r
revie w shal l (a) stat e th e ful l name s o f th e partie s
t o t h e c a s e , w i t h o u t
i m p l e a d i n g
t h e c o u
r t o r
a g e n c i e s e i t h e r a s p e t i t i o n e r s o r r e s p o n d
e n t s ;
(b)
c o n t a i n a c o n c i s e s t a t e m e n t o f th e fact s
an d
issue s involve d an d th e ground s relie d upo n fo r th e
r e v i e w ; (c ) b e a c c o m p a n i e d
b y a c l e a r l y
l e g i b l e
d u p l i c a t e origina l o r a certifie d tru e cop y o f th e
award , judgment , fina l orde r o r resolutio n appeale d
fro m t o g e t h e r w i t h certifie d tru e
c o p i e s o
f s u c h
materia l portion s o f th e recor d referre d t o therei n
an d
o t h e r s u p p o r t i n g p a p e r s ; an d (d ) c o n t
a i n a
s w o r n
c e r t i f i c a t i o n a g a i n s t f o r u m s h o p p i n
g
a s
provide d i n th e las t paragrap h o f sectio n 2 , Rul e 42 .
Th e petitio n shal l stat e th e specifi c materia l date s
s h o w i n g tha t i t w a s file d withi n th e perio d fixe d
herein .
(2a)
NOT E
1.
I t h a s bee n
f t h e
enumerate d requirement s in Sec
tru e copie s o f th e recor
r
supporting papers, " doe s not
paper s referre d t o shoul d b
clarifie d
t h a t P a r . (c)
. 6 , requirin g "certified
d referre d t o therei n
an d othe
Action
y
on
r e q u i r e
the
t h e
(10 )
i t
petition.
t h e
p e t i t i o n ,
d a y s
find s t h e
fro m
T h e
C o
r e s p o n d e n t
no t a m o t i o n
n o t i c e ,
s a m e t o
o r
t
t o di
d i s
b e p a t e n t l y
withou t
m e r i t , p r o s e c u t e d m a n i f e s t l y fo r delay , o r t h
a t th e
q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d t h e r e i n ar e t o o u n s u b s t a
n t i a l t o
r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . (62 )
NOT E
1.
Th e provision s o f th e Suprem e Court' s revise d
Circular s Nos . 1-88 an d 28-9 1 hav e als o bee n adopte d in
thi s Rule , especially on th e form an d content s o f th e petition
for review .
Fo r failur e t o comply therewith , o r wher e th e
m e r i t s o f t h e p e t i t i o n d o no t w a r r a n t conside
ration ,
Sees .
7 a n d 8 authoriz e th e outrigh t dismissa l o f th
e
petition .
690
----------------------- Page 591----------------------RULE 43
SECS. 9-10
Sec . 9 .
Contents
of comment.
T h e
c o m m e n
t
shal l b e file d w i t h i n te n (10 ) day s fro m notic e i
n
seve n (7) legibl e copie s an d accompanie d b y clearl y
l e g i b l e c e r t i f i e d t r u e c o p i e s o f s u c h m a t e r
i a l
portion s o f th e recor d referre d t o therei n t o g e t h e r
wit h othe r supportin g papers .
Th e c o m m e n t shal
l
(a) p o i n t o u t i n s u f f i c i e n c i e s o r i n a c c u r a c i
e s i n
p e t i t i o n e r ' s s t a t e m e n t o f fac t a n d
i s s u e s ;
a n d
(b) stat e t h e r e a s o n s wh y th e p e t i t i o n s h o u l
d b e
denie d o r dismissed .
A cop y thereo f shal l b e serve d
o n th e petitioner , an d proo f o f suc h servic e shal l b e
file d w i t h th e Cour t o f Appeals .
(9a )
NOT E
1.
Th e content s o f th e commen t t o b e filed by th e
responden t i s mor e specifically spelle d ou t in thi s section
which , asid e from th e argument s usually require d in a
comment ,
additionall y
call s for th e specificatio n o
f
insufficiencies or inaccuracie s in th e statemen t o f fact s
an d issue s i n th e petition .
Furthermore , shoul d an y
materia l portio n o f th e recor d b e referre d t o b y th e
respondent , hi s commen t shoul d b e accompanie d by legible
certified tru e copie s o f tha t portion .
SE
r e s o l u t i o n s o u g h t t o b e r e v i e w e d , i t ma y
giv e du e
c o u r s e t o t h e petition ; o t h e r w i s e , i t shal l d
ismis s
th e same .
T h e finding s o f fac t o f th e cour t o r agenc y
c o n c e r n e d , w h e n supporte d b y substantia l evidence ,
shal l b e b i n d i n g o n t h e Cour t o f Appeals ,
n )
NOTE S
1.
e Cour t o n appea l t o th e
circumstances , th e cas e law
rul e ma y ver y wel l apply t o
section .
2 . Sec .
1 2 o f t h i s Rul e
h a s bee n i n t e r p
r e t e d t o
mea n t h a t th e appea l wil l no t sta y th e award , judgment ,
fina l
o r d e r o r r e s o l u t i o n u n l e s s t h e g o v e r n
i n g la w
direct s otherwis e
(Lapid vs.
CA, et al., G.R. No.
142261,
June
29,
2000).
Sec .
11 .
Transmittal
fiftee n
(15)
d a y s
f r o m n o t i c
a s bee n
g i v e n d u e c o u r s e , t h e
e
t h e c o u r t
o r a g e n c y
m i t
t h e
o r i g i n a l o r a l e g i b l e
r e
r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i
recor d
t o b e t r a n s m i t t e d m a y
n t o f
all p a r t i e s t o t h e p r o c
al s
m a y r e q u i r e o r p e r m i t
n o f o r
a d d i t i o n t o t h e record .
of
e
record.
t h a t
W i t h i n
t h e p e t i t i o n
Cour t o f A p p e a l s m a y requir
c o n c e r n e d
t o
t r a n s
Th e
b e a b r i d g e d b y a g r e e m e
e e d i n g .
T h e Cour t o f Appe
s u b s e q u e n t c o r r e c t i o
(8a )
Sec . 12 .
Effect of appeal. Th e a p p e a l shal l no
t
s t a y t h e a w a r d , j u d g m e n t , fina l orde r o r resolutio n
s o u g h t t o
eal s
b e
r e v i e w e d
u n l e s s t h e
Cour t o f App
592
----------------------- Page 593----------------------RULE 43
SEC. 13
shal l direc t
t m a y
d e e m just .
o t h e r w i s e
u p o n
s u c h
t e r m s
a s
(10a )
Sec . 13 .
Submission for decision. If th e petitio n
i s g i v e n du e course , th e Cour t o f Appeal s m a y se t
th e c a s e fo r ora l a r g u m e n t o r requir e th e partie s t o
submi t m e m o r a n d a withi
d a y s
f r o m n o t i c e .
m e d
submitte d
fo r d e c i s
las t
p l e a d i n g o r m e m o r a n
o r b y th e Cour t o f Appeals
i o n
upo n
th e
filin g
d u m require d b y t h e s e
,
(n )
o f th e
Rule s
NOTE S
1. A specia l procedur e
for th e t r a n s m i t t
a l an d
content s o f th e recor d t o b e elevate d t o th e Court o f Appeal s
is provide d for in Sec . 11 .
Also , unlik e th e rul e in oth
e r
cases , a n appea l unde r thi s Rul e shal l not sta y th e award ,
judgment ,
fina l orde r o r resolutio n unles s otherwis e
1 3 ar e simila r t o thos e o
f
Sec. 9 o f Rul e 42 an d a s explaine d in th e note s therein .
593
----------------------- Page 594----------------------PROCEDUR E
I N
TH E
COUR T
RUL E
ORDINARY
APPEAL S
4 4
APPEALE D
Sectio n 1 .
t o t h e
o f
t h e c a
igin ,
bu t t h
rthe r
referre d
rt y
a s t h e
O F
CASE S
Cour t o f A p p e a l s
u n d e r Rul e
41 , th e titl e
s e shal l r e m a i n a s i t w a s i n t h e cour t o f or
e
part y
a p p e a l i n g t h e
t o a s t h e
c a s e
a p p e l l a n t a n d th e
shal l
b e
fu
a d v e r s e
pa
a p p e l l e e , ( l a , R46 )
NOT E
1.
Thi s requiremen t on th e titl e o f th e civil case s
appeale d i s simila r t o t h a t i n crimina l case s
whe n
a s
provide
t o
avoid
relatio
d in Sec .
1 , Rul e
124 .
Th e eviden t purpos e i s
not b e
Counsel
and
guardians.
a d
litem
b e
r e s p e c t i v e l y
g u a r d i a n s
o f t h e
a d
partie s
litem
T h e
i n
c o
t h
c o n s i d e r e d
i n
t h e
Cour
t
o f
A p p e a l s .
W h e n o t h e r s a p p e a r o r ar e
a p p o
i n t e d ,
n o t i c e t h e r e o f shal l b e serve d i m m e d i a t e l y o
n th e
a d v e r s e part y an d file d w i t h t h e court .
(2a , R
46 )
594
----------------------- Page 595----------------------RULE 44
Sec.
o r i g i n a
o t
transmitte d
(30) day s
part y ma y
ORDINARY APPEALED
CASES
SECS. 3 , 4
3. Order
of
transmittal of
record. If t h e
l r e c o r d o r t h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l i s n
t o th e
Cour t o f Appeal s withi n thirt y
afte r th e perfectio n o f th e appeal , eithe r
fil e a motio n wit h th e tria l court , w i t h
n o t i c e t o t h e o t h e r , fo r t h e t r a n s m i t t a l o f
s u c h
recor d o r recor d o n appeal .
(31 , R46)
NOTE S
1. The former Rule provided that if the corresponding
record is not duly and timely received by the Court of
Appeals, aside from the appellee's remedy which has been
retained in this section he may also move the appellate
court to declare the appeal abandoned for failure to
prosecute.
As elsewhere observed, it was felt that the
latter alternative is too harsh as it punishes the appellant
for the nonfeasance of the clerk of the lower court, hence
only the first remedy is maintained. This will, of course,
be without prejudice to proceeding against the erring clerk
of court for the imposition of administrative or punitive
sanctions.
2. Under the former rule, it was held that the power
to dismiss the appeal under this section pertained to the
appellate court (Sec. lfcj, Rule 50), as the only instance
when the trial court may dismiss an appeal was under
Sec.
13, Rule
4 1 (Agoncillo
vs. CA,
et al., L-32094,
Nov. 24, 1972). At that time, Sec. 1(c) of Rule 50 provided,
as a ground for dismissal of the appeal, the "failure of the
appellant to prosecute his appeal under section 3 of Rule
46" (now, Rule 44).
These revised Rules, however,
eliminated that ground for dismissal of an appeal by its
deletion from the enumeration in Sec. 1 of Rule 50, hence
this section has been correspondingly amended.
Sec. 4 . Docketing of case. Upo n receivin g th e
origina l recor d o r th e recor d o n appea l an d th e
595
----------------------- Page 596-----------------------
RULE 44
SECS. 5-7
a
b
o
o
c c o m p
y th e
f th e d
f t h e
an d
notify t h
n t s
wel l
lawfu
l s
an d exhibit s transmitte d
a s t h e proo f o f paymen t
l fees , th e cler k o f cour t
shal l d o c k e t th e cas e
e partie s thereof .
Withi n t e n (10)
th e a p p e l l a n t , i n
l
fil e w i t h t h e cler k
l e
c o p i e s o f t h e a p
w i t h t h e
thereo f
u p o n t h e
(4a , R46 )
proo f o f s e r v i c e
recor d
clearl y legib
o n appeal ,
o f t w o
(2)
togethe r
c o p i e s
a p p e l l e e .
A n y
u n a u t h o r i z e d
a l t e r a t i o n , o m i s s
i o n
o r
a d d i t i o n i n t h e a p p r o v e d recor d o n appea l shal l b e
a g r o u n d fo r d i s m i s s a l o f t h e appeal ,
(n )
Sec . 5 .
Completion of record. Wher e t h e recor d
o f th e d o c k e t e d c a s e i s i n c o m p l e t e , th e cler k o
f cour t
o f t h e Cour t o f A p p e a l s shal l s o infor m sai d cour
t
an d r e c o m m e n d t o i t m e a s u r e s necessar y t o complet e
th e record .
I t s h a l l b e t h e d u t y o f sai d cour t t
o tak e
a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n t o w a r d s t h e c o m p l e t i o
n o f th e
r e c o r d w i t h i n t h e s h o r t e s t p o s s i b l e time ,
(
n )
Sec . 6.
Dispensing
with
complete
record.
Wher e
t h e
c o m p l e t i o n
o f
t h e
r e c o r d
c o u l d
n o t
b e
a c c o m p l i s h e d w i t h i n a sufficien t perio d allotte d fo r
s a i d p u r p o s e
d u e
t o i n s u p e r a b l e
o r e x
t r e m e l y
difficul t c a u s e s , t h e court , o n it s o w n m o t i o n o r o
n
m o t i o n o f a n y o f t h e p a r t i e s , m a y declar e tha
t th e
r e c o r d
a n d
i t s a c c o m p a n y i n g
t r a n s c r i
p t s
a n d
e x h i b i t s s o fa r a v a i l a b l e ar e sufficien t t o d e c i d
e th e
i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e a p p e a l , an d shal l i s s u e a
n orde r
e x p l a i n i n g t h e r e a s o n s fo r s u c h declaration ,
(n )
Sec . 7 .
t h e a p p e l l a n t
forty -
t o
fil e w i t h
t h e
court ,
w i t h i n
596
----------------------- Page 597----------------------RULE 44
SEC. 8
n t y
(20) day s fro m receip t o f th e appellee' s
appellan t ma y fil e a repl y brie f a n s w e r i n
th e appellee' s brie f no t covere d i n hi s
(12, R46 )
Withi n
t w e
brief , th e
g point s i n
mai n brief .
NOTE S
1. Th e failur e to file appellant' s brie f on tim e i s a
ground for dismissa l of th e appea l (Sec.
lfej, Rule 50
).
However , if th e failur e to do so i s du
or force
majeure
(in thi s case ,
th e
s
an d illnes s o f appellant' s counsel) , th e
be dismisse d (Monticines,
et al. vs.
913,
Sept. 4, 1973, an d case s therei n cited) .
Th e
expir y
o f th e
perio d
t o
file
e to caso fortuito
serie s o f typhoon
appea l will not
CA,
et al., L-35
appellant' s
brie f
o f th e
(Infantado
bee n
reduce d
t o alway s b e
r mimeographed .
Sec .
special
cases. I n
10 .
th e
printe d bu t
Time
certiorari ,
an d
for
sam e
ma y
ar e
filing
eithe r b e
n o
type -
p r o h i b i t i o n ,
memoranda
in
m a n d a m u s ,
qu o
w a r r a n t o a n d
habeas corpus c a s e s , t h e
partie s
shal l
file , i n lie u o f briefs , t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e m e m o
r a n d a
w i t h i n a n o n - e x t e n d i b l e perio d o f thirt y (30 )
day s
fro m r e c e i p t o f t h e n o t i c e i s s u e d b y t h e cle
r k tha t
all t h e e v i d e n c e , ora l an d d o c u m e n t a r y , i s alre
ad y
a t t a c h e d t o t h e record .
(13a , R46 )
T h e
f a i l u r e o f t h e
a p p e l l a n t
t o
f
i l e h i s
m e m o r a n d u m w i t h i n t h e perio d therefo r m a y b e a
g r o u n d fo r d i s m i s s a l o f t h e appeal ,
(n )
NOTE S
1.
r y
o f t h e
s s i o n o
memoranda ,
thereo f i s
court .
2 .
Th e
firs t p a r a g r a p h o f thi s
section ,
amendato
f o r m e r p r a c t i c e , r e q u i r e s t h e s u b m i
f
instea d o f briefs , an d th e perio d for th e filing
non-extendibl e bu t canno t b e shortene d b y th e
Th e failur e o f th e appellan t t o seasonabl y file hi s
SECS.
Sec . 11 .
Several appellants
or appellees
or se
veral
counsel for
each party.
W h e r e
t h e r e ar e
s e v
e r a l
appellant s o r appellees , e a c h c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t i n g
on e o r mor e bu t no t al l o f t h e m shal l b e serve d wit h
onl y o n e cop y o f th e briefs .
Whe n severa l c o u n s e
l
r e p r e s e n t o n e appellan t o r appellee , copie s o f th e
brie f ma y b e serve d upo n an y o f them . (14a , R46 )
Sec.
12.
Extension
of
time
for
filing
briefs.
E x t e n s i o n o f tim e fo r th e
no t
b e allowed , e x c e p t fo r goo d
filin g
an d
o f brief s
sufficien t
an d onl y i f th e motio n fo r e x t e n s i o n
th e
expiratio n
o f th e
tim e
sough t
t o
wil l
c a u s e ,
i s file d befor e
b e
e x t e n d e d .
(15, R46)
Sec. 13 .
Contents
of
appellant's
brief.
h e
appellant' s brie f shal l contain , i n th e orde r herei n
indicated , th e following :
(a) A subjec t inde x o f
wit h a diges t o f th e argument s
a n d
a t a b l e o f c a s e s
g e d ,
textbook s an d statute s cite d wit
page s w h e r e the y ar e cited ;
th e matte r i n th e brie f
an d pag e references ,
a l p h a b e t i c a l l y a r r a n
h reference s t o th e
(b) A n
a s s i g n m e n t o f error s
i n t e n d e d t
o b e
urged , w h i c h error s shal l b e separately , distinctl y
a n d c o n c i s e l y s t a t e d w i t h o u t
r e p e t i t i o n
a n d
numbere d
consecutively ;
(c) Unde r th e headin g "Statemen t o f th e Case,
a clea r an d concis e statemen t o f th e natur e o
action , a summar y o f th e proceedings , th e appeale d
ruling s an d order s o f th e court , th e natur e
j u d g m e n t an d an y othe r matter s necessar y t
"
f th e
o f th e
o a n
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e natur e
e r s y ,
wit h pag e reference s t o th e record ;
o f th e
c o n t r o v
(d)
U n d e r
t h e h e a d i n g " S t a t e m e n t
t h e
Facts, " a clea r an d concis e statemen t i n a narrativ e
o f
599
----------------------- Page 600----------------------RULE 44
SEC. 13
for m o f t h e fact s a d m i t t e d
o f
t h o s e i n c o n t r o v e r s y , t
ubstanc e
o f t h e proo f r e l a t i n g t h e r
l t o
m a k e i t clearl y intelligible , w i t
t h e record ;
b y
bot h
partie s
o g e t h e r
e t o
i n
w it h
an d
th e
sufficien t detai
h pag e reference s t o
(e)
A clea r an d c o n c i s e s t a t e m e n t o f th e is
sue s
o f fac t o r la w t o b e s u b m i t t e d t o th e cour t
fo r it s
j u d g m e n t ;
(f)
U n d e r
t h e
h e a d i n g
" A r g u m e n t ,
"
t h e
appellant' s a r g u m e n t s o n e a c h a s s i g n m e n t o f erro r
w i t h p a g e r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e record .
Th e author
itie s
relie d u p o n shal l b e c i t e d b y t h e pag e o f th e repor t
a t w h i c h t h e c a s e b e g i n s a n d t h e pag e o f th e rep
or t
o n w h i c h t h e c i t a t i o n i s found ;
(g)
U n d e r t h e h e a d i n g "Relief, " a specificatio n
o f t h e o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t w h i c h t h e appellan t seeks
;
a n d
(h)
I n c a s e s
n o t
b r o u g h t
u p
b y
r e
c o r d
o n
a p p e a l , t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f s h a l l c o n t a
i n , a s a n
a p p e n d i x , a c o p y o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r
fina
l
orde r
a p p e a l e d from .
(16a , R46 )
NOTE S
1.
o f th e
Fo r
m a t t e r s
discussio n
require d
o f th e
t o
b e
rational e
containe d
an d
purpose s
i n
appellant
' s
brief , se e De Liano, et al.
,
Nov . 22 , 2001) .
vs.
142316
SEC.
vs. CA,
vs.
CA,
et
al., G.R.
et al,
G.R.
No.
No.
60129,
95511,
July
Jan.
30,
29,
1983;
1992).
4. In Viron
Transportation
Co.,
Inc. vs. CA,
et al
.
(G.R . No . 117020 , Apri l 4 , 2003) , th e Suprem e Cour t
reiterate d
it s holdin g in
Catholic Bishop
of Balanga
vs
.
CA, e t al. (G.R . No . 112519 , Nov .
14 , 1996) wher e it
summarized th e exception s t o th e rul e tha t only error s
assigned in th e brie f may b e considere d on appeal , thus ;
in
s
accorded a broa d discretionary power t o waiv e th e lack
of prope r assignmen t o f error s an d t o consider error s
not assigned .
It i s clothe d wit h ampl e authorit y t o
review ruling s even i f they ar e not assigne d a s error s
in th e appeal . Inasmuc h a s th e Cour t o f Appeal s may
consider ground s othe r tha n thos e touche d upon in
th e decision o f th e tria l court an d uphol d th e sam e on
th e basi s o f suc h othe r grounds , th e Cour t o f Appeal s
may wit h n
th e tria l
thos e raise
thi s rule ,
instances :
(1)
Ground s no t assigne d a s error s bu t affecting
th e jurisdictio n over th e subject-matter ;
(2)
n
ar e
evidentl y plai n
th e
contemplation o f law ;
(3)
o r
clerica l
e r r o r s
withi
s u b j e c t
i n d e x
o f t h e
brief.
t h e
m a t t e r
orde r
i n
g e s t o f t h e a r g u m e n t s a n d p a g e reference
a b l e
s a n d
o f
c a s e s
a l p h a b e t i c a l l y
a r r
s t a t u t e s c i t e d w i t h r e f e r e n c
p a g e s w h e r e t h e y ar e
cited ;
(b)
U n d e r t h e
h e a d i n g " S t a t e m e n t o f
Facts, "
t h e
a p p e l l e e
s h a l l s t a t e t h a t
h e
a c c e p
t s
t h e
s t a t e m e n t o f fact s i n t h e appellant' s brief , o r unde r
t h e h e a d i n g " C o u n t e r - S t a t e m e n t o f Facts, " h e
shal l
p o i n t o u t s u c h i n s u f f i c i e n c i e s o r i n a c c u r a c
i e s a s h e
b e l i e v e s e x i s t i n t h e appellant' s s t a t e m e n t o
f fact s
602
----------------------- Page 603----------------------RULE 44
SEC. 15
t h e
fort h
h e a d i n g
" A r g u m e n t , "
e n t
hi s a r g u m e n t s
o f erro r
wit h
i n t h e
pag e
cas
r e f e r e n
o f t h e
repor t
o n
w h i c h
(17a , R46)
NOTE S
19
o n
ground s
ignore d
o r
erroneously
decide d
by
th e lower cour t
(Relativo
vs.
Castro,
76 Phil.
563; Cababasada vs.
CA, et al.,
83
Phil.
112; Carillo
vs. De Paz,
L-22061,
Oct.
28, 1966; Migue
l
vs. CA, et al., L-20274,
Oct.
30, 1969).
Th e appellee
,
however , canno t assign such error s t o hav e th e judgmen t
modified for, to do so , he mus t hav e appeale d
(Aparri
vs.
CA, et al., LI 5947, April 30,
1965; Carbonel vs.
CA,
et
al., L-40729-30,
Jan.
31,
1987).
Sec. 16.
Questions that may be raised on appeal.
Whethe r o r no t th e appellan t ha s file d a motio n fo r
603
----------------------- Page 604----------------------RULE 44
SEC. 15
i n hi s
a s s i g n m e n t o f error s an y q u e s t i o n o f la w o r fac t t
ha t
h a s b e e n r a i s e d i n t h e c o u r t b e l o w a n d w h
i c h i s
w i t h i n t h e i s s u e s frame d b y th e parties .
(18a
, R46 )
N O T E S
1. Th e appea l ca n rais e only question s o f law or fact
t h a t (a) wer e raise d i n th e cour t below an d (b) ar e withi n
th e issue s frame d b y th e partie s therein .
A n issu e
which
wa s neithe r averre d i n th e complain t no r raise d durin g
th e tria l i n th e cour t below canno t b e raise d for th e first
tim e o n appea l a s i t woul d b
s
of fair play , justic e an d du e
et al, L-30560,
Nov.
18,
cited ;
Dihiansan,
et al
vs. CA,
1987).
al, L
49539,
vs.
CA,
therei n
Sept.
14,
H o w e v e r ,
q u e s t i o n s o f j u r i s d i c t i o n b
a s e d o n
consideration s o f law ca n b e raise d i n th e appellat e cour t
for th e firs t time , bu t no t question s o f jurisdictio n base d
on fact s whic h wer e no t raise d in th e lower cour t (Gala
vs.
Rodriguez,
25 Phil
522;
Cordero
vs.
Judge
of
CFI of
Rizal,
40
2 . Sec
r
whic h doe s
m a t t e r o r
th e proceeding
in t h e a s
e d t o o r
dependen t o n
th e brief ,
r s
an d clerica l
Phil.
246).
8 ,
no t affect th e
th e validit y o f
s therei n wil l b
s i g n m e n t o f
jurisdictio n
th e judgmen
e considere d
e r r o r s ,
argue d i n
upo n plai n erro
errors. "
3 . Also , o n appeal ,
theor y o f actio n o r defens e
e
issue s frame d in th e
&
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Chu Hian
Tek,
n th e
factua l base s thereo f woul d
of furthe r evidenc e by th e
cour t
(Atkins,
102 Phil.
948),
Kroll
excep t
whe
L-
Inc.
vs.
Fortun,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
of thos e
wh o
di d
no t join or wer e
no t
mad e
partie s
o
th e
7746,
Jan.
appea l
31,
(Facundo,
1962),
vs.
except
wher e
Pabalan,
th e
etc.,
interes t
et al.,
o f thos e
L-1
wh o
l
C
wh
s
a s
t o th e r e s p o n d e n t wh o appeale d i s bindin g o n
th e
responden t wh o di d not , a s th e evidenc e o f th e former i s
th e sam e a s t h a t o f th e latte r
(Director of Lands, e t a
l. vs.
Reyes,
et al., L-27594,
Feb.
27,
1976; Alinsunurin,
etc.
vs.
Director of Lands,
et al, L-28144,
Feb.
27,
1976).
5 . I t wil l b e
ar e sue d
b y on e
f th e
defendant s
shall b e
bee n file d
,
i s
different w h e
l
co-partie s sinc
doe s no t inur
(Sec.
r e
3[cJ,
Rule
j u d g m e n t
9).
i s
Th e
rendere d
rule ,
agains t
however
severa
highes t
respec t
sinc e
th e
presidin g judg e
wa s
i n a
simila r
rul e
i s
followe d
wit h
regar d
t o
factua l
finding s
o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l s o r quas
i-judicia l
agencies .
Wit h e s t a b l i s h e d exceptions ,
th e S
uprem e
Court als o accord s respect , i f no t finality , t o thei r factua l
606
----------------------- Page 607----------------------RULE 44
SEC. 15
4 5
APPEA L
B Y
CERTIORAR I
T O TH E S U P R E M E COUR T
Sectio n
1.
Filing of
Court.
A p a r t y
d e s i r i n g t o a
fro m a
j u d g m e n t , fina l o r d e r o r
r t o f
Ta x A p p e a l s , t h e
R e g i
the r
c o u r t s , w h e n e v e r a u t h o
wit h
t h e S u p r e m e Cour t a verifie d
petition
p p e a l
in
b y
Supreme
c e r t i o r a r i
r e s o l u t i o n o f th e
o n a l
Tria l
Courts ,
b y
law , ma y
r i z e d
Cou
o r
fil e
p e t i t i o n fo r revie w o n
certiorari .
T h e p e t i t i o n
tio n
fo r
a
w r i t
o f p r e l i m i n
r o t h e r
p r o v i s i o n a l r e m e d i e s a n d
i o n s
o f l a w , w h i c h
m u s t
b e
.
Th e
p e t i t i o n e r m a y s e e k t h e
e m e d i e s
b y
v e r i f i e d m o t i o n
f i l
t i o n o r
p r o c e e d i n g s
a t a n y
t i
n d e n c y .
J
(As amended
effective
Dec.
27,
with
m a y i n c l u d e a n applica
a r y
i n j u n c t i o n
A.M.
t h e
d u r i n g
No.
s a m e
a c
i t s p e
07-7-12-SC,
2007)
NOTE S
1.
verifie d
appeal s
c r i m i
i s
i m p r i
s h a l l
elevated
penalt y
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT
a p p
d
n
G.R. No.
101680,
RULE 45
SEC. 1
A s
rule ,
th e
finding s
o f fact
o f th e
Cour
the y
ar e
born e
ou t by th e
recor d
or
a r e base d
o n s u b s t a n t i a l evidenc e
(Alsua-Betts
vs.
CA,
et
al., L-46430-31,
July
30,
1979).
However ,
as
recapitulate d by th e Suprem e Cour t in Ramos, e t al.
vs.
Pepsi
Cola
Bottling
Co.,
supra,
an d
in
it s subsequ
en t
rulings , finding s o f fact o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s may b e
reviewe d b y th e Suprem e Cour t o n appea l b y certiorar i (a)
W h e n
t h e conclusio n
i s a findin g
de d
entirely on speculations , surmise s or conjecture s
Joaquin
vs.
Navarro,
93 Phil.
257);
(b)
absur d
15);
or
groun
(
(c)
Wher e ther e i s grav e abus e o f discretio n in th e
appreciation of fact s
(Buyco vs. People,
95 Phil.
4
53);
(d)
W h e n
pre hensio n of fact s
4 Phil.
26);
t h e
j u d g m e n t
(De
la
Cruz
i s
vs.
base d
Sosing,
o n
a
et
misap
al., 9
i s c o n t r a r y t o
l a n t an d
appelle e
(Evangelista
,
103
t h e a d m i s s i o n s
vs.
Alto
Surety
o f bot h a p p e l
&
Insurance
Co.
610
----------------------- Page 611----------------------RULE 45
1
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI
SEC.
47851, Oct. 3,
1986);
(g) Whe n th e
Cour t o f Appeal s manifestl y over looked certai n relevan t fact s not dispute d b y th e partie s
and which , i f properl y considered , woul d justify a different
conclusion
(Abellana
vs. Dosdos,
LI9498,
Feb.
26,
196
5;
Uytiepo
vs. Aggabao,
L-28671,
Sept.
30,
1970;
Carolin
a
Industries,
Inc.
vs. CMS
Stock
Brokerage,
Inc.,
L-46908
,
May 17,
1980); or
(h) Wher e th e finding s o f fact o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s
ar e contrar y t o thos e o f th e tria l court , o r ar e me
r e
conclusion s withou t citatio n o f specific evidence , or wher e
th e fact s se t forth by th e petitione r ar e not dispute d by
th e respondent , or wher e th e finding s o f fact o f th e Cour t
of Appeal s ar e premise d on absenc e o f evidenc e bu t ar e
contradicte d by th e evidenc e of recor d (Manero
vs. C
A,
et al, L-49542,
Sept.
12, 1980; Ducusin
vs. CA,
et
al,
G.R. No.
58286, May
16,
1983; Cesar
vs. Sandiganbayan,
et al,
G.R.
Nos.
54719-50,
Jan.
17,
1985;
Sacay
vs.
Sandiganbayan,
et al,
G.R.
Nos.
66497-98,
July
10,
1986; Manlapaz vs.
CA,
et al, G.R. No.
56589, Jan.
12,
1987).
6.
Certiorar i a s a mod e o f appea l unde r thi s Rule ,
should b e distinguishe d from certiorar i a s a n origina l
specia l
civi l actio n
(Rule
65), u n d e r th e followin g
considerations :
a s
mod e
o f appeal ,
involve s
c.
Appea l b y certiorar i m u s t b e mad e
e
reglementar y perio d for appeal .
An origina
r
certiorar i ma y b e filed no t late r t h a n sixty (60)
notic e o f th e judgment , orde r or resolutio n sough t
assailed .
withi n
th
l action fo
day s from
t o b e
g . In
exercis e
, whil e
exercise
l an d
.
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT
Th e
Suprem e
Cour t
ca n t r e a t
petitio n
filed
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI
SEC. 4
TO THE SUPREME COURT
p e t i t i o n
s ,
w i t h
s h
t h e
i n d i c a t e d a
s t a t e t h e
p e t i t i o n e
w i t h o u t
i m
t h e r e o f
i n d i c a t e t h
d g m e n t o r fin
h e r e o f w a s
r e c o n s i d e r a
a n y , w a s file d a n d w h e n notic e o f t h e d e n i a l t h e
r e o f
w a s r e c e i v e d ; (c) se t fort h concisel y a s t a t e m e n t
o f
t h e m a t t e r s involved , a n d t h e r e a s o n s o r a r g u m e
n t s
r e l i e d o n fo r t h e a l l o w a n c e o f t h e p e t i t i
o n ; (d ) b e
a c c o m p a n i e d b y a clearl y legibl e d u p l i c a t e o r i g i
n a l ,
o r a c e r t i f i e d t r u e cop y o f t h e j u d g m e n t o
r
fina l
o r d e r o r r e s o l u t i o n certifie d
b y t h e c l e r k
o f c o u r t
o f t h e c o u r t a quo a n d t h e r e q u i s i t e n u m b e r o f
p l a i n
c o p i e s thereof , a n d
s u c h
m a t e r i a l p o r t i o
n s o f t h e
r e c o r d
a s
w o u l d
s u p p o r t
t h e
p e t i t i
o n ;
a n d
(e)
c o n t a i n a
s w o r n
c e r t i f i c a t i o n a g a i n
s t f o r u m
s h o p p i n g a s
p r o v i d e d
i n t h e
l a s t p a r a g
r a p h
o f
section 2 , R u l e 42 .
(2a )
615
----------------------- Page 616----------------------RULE 45
SECS. 5-6
1.
&
Sewerage
System
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
54526,
Aug.
26,
1986;
Phil.
Global
Communications,
Inc.
vs.
Relova,
etc., et al, G.R.
No.
60548, Nov.
10,
).
Sec .
T h e
failur e o f t
y o f th e
f o r e g o i n g
m e n t o f
t h e d o c k e t
s ,
proo f o f s e r
t e n t s o f
a n d t h e d
n y th e
p e t i t i o n s
l
thereof .
5.
Dismissal
h e
or
denial
p e t i t i o n e r t o
r e q u i r e m e n t s
of
No.
1986
petition.
c o m p l y
w i t h
r e g a r d i n g
t h e
a n
p a y
o f t h e
o c u m e n t s
p e t i t i o n , a n d t h e c o n
w h i c h
s h o u l d
a c c o m p a
h a l l b e sufficien t g r o u n d fo r th e dismissa
T h e S u
e
d e n y t h e
p
e a p p e a l
i s w i t h o u t
s t l y fo r
delay , o r t h a
ar e to o
u n s u b s t a n t
a )
p r e m e
Cour t
e t i t i o n o n
m e r i t , o r
t t h e
m a y
o n
t h e
i s
it s o w n
g r o u n d
initiativ
t h a t
p r o s e c u t e d
t h
m a n i f e
q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d t h e r e i n
i a l t o r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
(3
Sec . 6 .
Review discretionary. A r e v i e w
s no t a
m a t t e r o f right ,
bu t o f
s o u n d j u d i c i a l
s c r e t i o n ,
i
d i
616
----------------------- Page 617----------------------RULE 45
SECS. 7-8
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT
a
l
i
w
n
c
d
n d wil l b e g r a n t e d onl y w h e n t h e r e a r
a n d
m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r .
T h e
h i l e
e i t h e r c o n t r o l l i n g n o r full y m e a s u r
o u r t ' s
i s c r e t i o n , i n d i c a t e t h e c h a r a c t e
r e a s o n s
w h i c h wil l b e c o n s i d e r e d :
(a)
W h e n
t h e
c o u r t
c i d e d
a
q u e s t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e , n o t
quo
e s p e c i a
following ,
i n g t h e
r
o f t h e
h a s
t h e r e t o f o r e
d e
d e
t e r m i n e d
b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t , o r h a s d e c i d e d i t i
n a w a y
p r o b a b l y
n o t
i n a c c o r d
w i t h
l a w
o r
w i t h
t h e
a p p l i c a b l e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ;
o r
(b)
W
a r t e d
f r o m
t h e
j u d i c i a l
p r o c e e d i n
e p a r t u r e
b y a l o w e
s e o f t h e
p o w e r o f s
h e n
t h e
c o u r t a
a c c e p t e d
g s ,
r
o r
a n d
s o
c o u r t ,
quo h a s
u s u a l
fa r
a s
s o
u p e r v i s i o n .
cal l
d e p
c o u r s e
s a n c t i o n e d
t o
fa r
fo r
a n
s u c h
o f
d
e x e r c i
(4a )
Sec .
7 .
Pleadings
and
documents
that
may
be
required; sanctions.
F o r
p u r p o s e s
o f d e t e
r m i n i n g
w h e t h e r t h e p e t i t i o n s h o u l d b e d i s m i s s e d o r
d e n i e d
p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 5 o f t h i s R u l e , o r w h
e r e t h e
p e t i t i o n i s give n d u e c o u r s e u n d e r sectio n 8 hereof
,
t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t m a y r e q u i r e o r allo w t h e f
ilin g
o f s u c h
p l e a d i n g s ,
b r i e f s , m e m o r a n d a
o r d o c u m e n t s a s i t m a y d e e m n e c e s s a r y w i t h i n s u c h p
e r i o d s
a n d
u n d e r
s u c h
c o n d i t i o n s
a s i t m a y
c o n s i d e r
a p p r o p r i a t e ,
a n d
i m p o s e
t h e
c o r r e s p
o n d i n g
s a n c t i o n s i n c a s e
o f n o n - f i l i n g o r u n a u t
h o r i z e d
filin g o f s u c h
p l e a d i n g s
a n d
d o c u m e n t s
o r n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h e r e f o r ,
(n )
Sec .
If t h e
p e t i t i o n
r t m a y
r e q u i r e
r d o f t h e
cas e
o r
ee n
(15 )
d a y s fro m
8 .
Due
course;
elevation
of
i s give n d u e c o u r s e , t h e S u p r e m e C o u
t h e e l e v a t i o n o f t h e c o m p l e t e r e c o
specifie d
notice .
p a r t s
t h e r e o f w i t h i n
(2a )
617
records.
fift
SEC. 9
N O T E S
1.
Sec .
a
s relate d t o an d i s a cons
6 whic h underscore s th e
thi s Rul e i s discretionar y
w h e n t h e r e ar e specia
7 , t h e S u p r e m e
comment ,
reply ,
Cour t
rejoinde r
on
appeal .
See , however , th e resolutio n o f th e Cour t in A.M .
No . 99-2-04-S C (Appendix R)
limitin g th e pleading s tha
t
ma y b e file d afte r th e reply ,
an d th e procedur e t
o b e
followed
thereafter .
Sec . 9 .
criminal
cases.
T h e
n t h i s
R u l e s h a l l b
c r i m i n a l
c a s e s , e x c e p
p e n a l t y
i m p o s e d
i s
e
im p r i s o n m e n t ,
Rule
applicable
m o d e
e
o f
to
a p p e a l
a p p l i c a b l e
t i n
civil
and
p r e s c r i b e d
t o
c r i m i n a l
d e a t h ,
both
b o t h
civi l
a n d
c a s e s w h e r e
reclusion
perpetua
t h e
o r
lif
(n )
N O T E
4 6
CASE S
file d
g
th e a c t i o n shal l b e calle d th e p e t i t i o n e r
h e
o p p o s i n g part y th e respondent ,
(la )
an d
x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d , t h e a c t i o
n u l m e n t
o f j u d g m e n t - s h a l l b e g o v e r n e d
fo r certiorari , prohibitio n an d m a n d a m u s
65 , an d fo r qu o warrant o b y Rul e 66 .
(n )
NOTE S
T h e
p e t i t i
o n
shal l
c o n t a i n t h e ful l n a m e s an d a c t u a l a d d r e s s e
s o f al l
t h e
p e t i t i o n e r s
a n d
r e s p o n d e n t s ,
a
c o n c i s e
s t a t e m e n t
o f t h e m a t t e r s
i n v o l v e d ,
t h
e f a c t u a l
b a c k g r o u n d o f th e case , an d th e gr o u n d s relie d upo n
for t h e
r e l i e f p r a y e d
for .
I n
a c t i o n s file d
u n d e r
R u
p e t i t i o n
shal l
furthe r
i n d i c a t e t h e materia
s h o w i n g
w h e n
n o t i c e
o f t h e j u d g m e n t
o r d e r
o r
r e s o l u t i o n
s u b j e c t t h e r e o f w a s
, w h e n
a
m o t i o n fo r n e w tria l o r r e c o n s i d e r a
, wa s
file d
a n d
w h e n
n o t i c e o f t h e
e r e o f w a s
r e c e i v e d .
l e
l
65 ,
t h e
d a t e s
o r
f i n a l
r e c e i v e d
t i o n , i f any
d e n i a l
t h
I t s h a l l b e file d
i n
s e v e n
(7 ) c l e a r
l y l e g i b l e
c o p i e s t o g e t h e r w i t h proo f o f s e r v i c e t h e r e o f
o n th e
r e s p o n d e n t w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l c o p y i n t e n d e d
fo r th e
c o u r t i n d i c a t e d a s s u c h b y t h e p e t i t i o n e r , a
n d shal l
b e
a c c o m p a n i e d
b y
a c l e a r l y
l e g i b l e
d u p l i c a t e
origina l o r certifie d tru e cop y o f th e judgment , order ,
r e s o l u t i o n , o r r u l i n g subjec t thereof , s u c h materia
l
p o r t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d a s ar e referre d t o t h e r e i n
, an d
o t h e r
d o c u m e n t s
r e l e v a n t
o r
p e r t i n e n t
t h e r e t o .
T h e
c e r t i f i c a t i o n s h a l l b e
a c c o m p l i s h e d
b y
t h e
p r o p e r
c l e r k o f c o u r t o r
b y
h i s d u l y
a
u t h o r i z e d
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ,
o r
b y
t h e
p r o p e r
o f f i
c e r o f t h e
c o u r t , t r i b u n a l , a g e n c y o r offic e
i n v o l v
e d
o r
b y
h i s d u l y
a u t h o r i z e d
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .
T
h e
o t h e r
r e q u i s i t e
n u m b e r
o f
c o p i e s
o f
t h e
p e t i t i o n
s h a l l
b e
a c c o m p a n i e d
b y
c l e a r l y
l e g i
b l e p l a i n
c o p i e s o f al l d o c u m e n t s a t t a c h e d t o th e origin
al .
T h e p e t i t i o n e r shal l a l s o s u b m i t t o g e t h
e r wit h
t h e p e t i t i o n a s w o r n certificatio n t h a t h e ha s
no t
620
ORIGINAL CASES
SEC. 3
t h e r e t o f o r e c o m m e n c e d a n y o t h e r a c t i o n i
n v o l v i n g
t h e s a m e i s s u e s i n t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t , t h e C o
u r t o f
A p p e a l s o r d i f f e r e n t d i v i s i o n s thereof , o r a n y
o t h e r
t r i b u n a l o r a g e n c y ; i f t h e r e i s s u c h o t h e r
a c t i o n o r
p r o c e e d i n g , h e m u s t s t a t e t h e s t a t u s o f
t h e s a m e ;
a n d
i f h e s h o u l d
t h e r e a f t e r l e a r n t h a t a
s i m i l a r
a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g h a s b e e n file d o r i s
p e n d i n g
befor e t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t , t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l
s , o r
d i f f e r e n t d i v i s i o n s thereof , o r a n y o t h e r t r i b
u n a l o r
a g e n c y ,
h e
u n d e r t a k e s
t o
p r o m p t l y
i n
f o r m
t h e
a f o r e s a i d
c o u r t s
a n d
o t h e r t r i b u n a l
o r
a g e n c y
t h e r e o f w i t h i n fiv e (5) d a y s t h e r e f r o m .
T h
p o n d i n
d o c k e t
C o u r t
a n d d e
t t h e
t i m e o f
e
g
p e t i t i o n e r
a n d
o t h e r
p o s i t t h e
t h e
s h a l l p a y
lawfu l
fee s
t h e
t o t h e
a m o u n t o f P500.0 0
for
c o r r e s
C l e r k o f
c o s t s
filin g o f t h e p e t i t i o n .
T h e failur e o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o compl y w i t h
a n y
o f t h e f o r e g o i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s
s h a l l b e s
ufficien t
g r o u n d
fo r
t h e
d i s m i s s a l
o f t h e
p e t i t
i o n , ( n )
(As
amended
by
Resolution
of the
Supreme
Cour
t,
dated
July
21,
1998)
NOTE S
1.
J u s t
lik e
in appellat
e
proceedings , th e requirement s for origina l action s in th e
appellat e
court s
wer e
take n
from
revise d
Circular s
Nos . 1-88 an d 28-91 , a s well a s Circular No . 19-9 1 o f th e
Supreme Court .
It will again b e observe d tha t th e origina l
copy o f th e petition intende d for th e court shal l b e marke d
or indicate d a s such , since , amon g others , i t mus t b e
accompanied by a clearly legibl e duplicat e origina l or
2 .
However ,
in Balagtas Multi-Purpose
Coope
rative,
Inc., et al. vs. CA, et al. (G.R .
138520 , Sept .
16 ,
1999)',
w h e r e
t h e Cour t o f Appeal s dismisse d
a petiti
o n for
certiorar i for non-complianc e wit h th e requiremen t o f
Sec .
3 , Rul e
46 , t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t se t asid
e t h a t
d i s m i s s a l . I t pointe d ou t t h a t t h e issu e befor e
sai d
c o u r t w a s
w h e t h e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r w a s e x e m
p t from
postin g bond , henc e it s failur e t o submi t th e complain t
an d othe r document s mentione d therei n wer e not materia l
or relevan t thereto .
It s financia l statemen t wa s materia l
t o th e issu e o f it s exemptio n from postin g bon d bu t th e
sam e wa s subsequentl y filed togethe r wit h a motio n for
reconsideration .
Thi s wa s substantia l complianc e wit h
Sec . 3 , Rul e 4 6 whic h shoul d no t b e applie d in a rigi d
technica l sens e i n th e interes t o f substantia l justice .
a. In
Paras,
et
al.
vs.
Baldado
etc.,
et a
l.
(G.R.
No.
140317,
Mar.
8, 2001),
th e Suprem e
Cour t a
ls o se t
a s i d e t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a
l s whic h
dismisse d a petitio n for certiorar i wher e th e copie s o f
th e challenge d order s attache d theret o wer e no t certifie d
by th e cler k o f cour t bu t only by a notar y public .
Th e
Suprem e Cour t note d t h a t duplicat e origina l copie s o f th e
impugne d order s wer e attache d t o on e copy o f th e petition ,
an d
petitioner s
subsequentl y
submitte d
dul y
certifie d
copie s
t h e r e o f i n t h e i r m o t i o n for
r e c o n s i d
e r a t i o n .
I t accordingl y hel d t h a t ther e wa s substantia l complianc e
w i t h t h e r u l e s which , afte r all ,
ar e i n t h e n
a t u r e o f
tool s for th e a t t a i n m e n t o f justic e whic h woul d b e denie
d
b y undu e resor t t o technicalities .
b . In Molina et al.
vs. CA, et al. (G.R . No .
143156 ,
J a n . 13 ,
2 0 0 3 ) , t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t s u s t a i
n e d t h e
sufficiency o f a certiorar i petitio n eve n i f th e copie s o f th e
attache d orde r faile d t o show th e authorit y o f th e perso n
wh o certifie d th e same , an d th e sea l o f th e cour t thereo n
could no t b e identified .
I t explaine d tha t th e petitione
r s
did no t hav e a han d in th e preparatio n o f sai d documents ;
the y only relie d o n th e authorit y o f th e cour t personne l
622
----------------------- Page 623----------------------RULE 46
SEC. 3
ORIGINAL CASES
c.
In
OSM
Shipping
Philippines,
Inc.
vs.
N
LRC,
et al. (G.R . No . 138193 , Mar . 5 , 2003) , it wa s pointe d ou t
tha t Sec . 3 , Rul
p a p e r s an d
d
o n b e
duplicat e original s
e r
Rule 65 , petition s
duplicate original s
judgment , orde r o r
an d pleading s a
e
copies thereof .
Eve n und
only by
questioned
t document s
mer e
machin
d.
In
NYK
International
Knitwear
Corporat
ion
Philippines,
et al. vs. NLRC,
et al. (G.R .
No .
1462
67 ,
Feb . 17, 2003) , th e Suprem e Cour t wa s constraine d t o
explain th e meanin g o f a "certifie d tru e copy " o f th e
judgment , orde r or resolution require d t o b e attache d t o
t h e p e t i t i o n s u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n . A d v e r t i n g
t o it s
Administrativ e Circular No . 3-96 which wa s th e precurso r
of th e presen t revise d rule s o f civil procedure , it declare d
t h a t th e certifie d tru e copy shal l b e suc h othe r co
py
furnished t o a part y at hi s instanc e or in hi s behalf , by
th e authorize d officers or representative s o f th e issuin g
entity .
Tha t certifie d
regulation s therefo r o f
authenticated
original
not
a mer e xerox copy thereof
annex t o th e petition or
4 . W h e r e
t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t i
s a bod y
corporate , jus t lik e i n othe r pleading s earlie r discussed ,
an officer o f th e corporatio n ca n sign th e certificat e agains t
forum shopping , b u t h e mus t b e dul y authorize d b y a
resolutio n of th e boar d of director s (Eslaban, Jr., etc.
vs.
Vda.
de
Onorio,
G.R.
No.
146062,
June
28,
2001
).
5 . Th e deposi t for cost s i s require d t o b e mad e upon
th e
filin g
o f th e
complaint ,
unlik e
th e
presen t practic e
d i c t i o n
o v e r t h e p
o n
h i m o f it s
t s initia l
a c t i o n
o
l u n t a r y
s u b m i s s i o
4 .
Jurisdiction
T h e
over person
c o u r t
of
responden
s h a l l a c q u i r e
j u r i s
e r s o n o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t b y th e servic e
o r d e r
n
t h e
o r r e s o l u t i o n
p e t i t i o n
o r
i n d i c a t i n g i
b y
n t o s u c h j u r i s d i c t i o n ,
Sec . 5 .
m a y
d i s m i s s t h e
r e a s o n s
Action
by
the
court.
h i s
v o
(n )
T h e
c o u r
p e t i t i o n
o u t r i g h t w i t h
specifi c
for s u c h d i s m i s s a l o r r e q u i r e t h e r e
t o fil e
a c o m m e n t o n t h e s a m e w i t h i n t e n
fro m
n o t i c e . Onl y p l e a d i n g s r e q u i r e d b y
hal l
b e a l l o w e d .
Al l o t h e r p l e a d i n g s a n
m a y b e
file d o n l y w i t h l e a v e o f court ,
(n )
s p o n d e n t
(10 )
d a y s
t h e cour t s
d p a p e r s
NOTE S
1.
Th e court , o f
624
ORIGINAL CASES
itsel f m a y c o n d u c t h e a r i n g s t h e r e o n o r d e l e g a t
e t h e
r e c e p t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e o n s u c h issue s t o
a n y o f
it s m e m b e r s o r t o a n a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t , a g e
n c y o r
office ,
(n )
NOTE S
1.
For th e resolutio n o f factua l
original petitions , th e Cour t o f Appeal s
options provide d by thi s section .
issue s raise d in
i s grante d th e
625
----------------------- Page 626----------------------RULE 46
SEC. 7
file
comment.
h e r e s p o n d e n t s
b a s i s o f t h e
i p l i n a r y a c t i o
t h e
d i s o b e d i e
N O T E
1.
specifically
ORIGINAL CASES
SEC. 7
4 7
A N N U L M E N T O F J U D G M E N T S
FINA L
ORDER S A N D
RESOLUTION S
th e
n t s
o r
t i o
R e g
i n a
r e m
elie f
o t h
labl e
t h r
O R
Sectio n 1 .
Coverage. Thi s Rul e shal l gover n
a n n u l m e n t b y t h e Cour t o f A p p e a l s o f j u d g m e
fina l o
n s o f
i o n a l
r y
e d i e s
o r
e r a p p
o u g h
r d e r s
T r i a l
o f n e w
a n d
r e s o l u t i o n s
C o u r t s
fo r
i n
w h i c h
civi l
t h e
trial , a p p e a l , p e t i t i o n
a c
o r d
fo r r
r o p r i a t e r e m e d i e s ar e n o l o n g e r avai
n o faul t o f t h e
p e t i t i o n e r , (n )
NOTE S
1. A n n u l m e n t o f a j u d g m e n t i s a remed y
in law
independen t o f th e cas e wher e th e judgmen t sough t t o b e
annulle d wa s rendered .
Th e judgmen t ma y b e annulle d
on th e groun d o f extrinsi c or collatera l fraud .
A
perso n
wh o
i s no t a p a r t y t o t h e j u d g m e n t ma y su e
for it s
a n n u l m e n t provide d
h e ca n prov e t h a t th e sam e
wa s
obtaine d throug h frau d o r collusion an d t h a t h e woul d b e
adversely affecte d thereby .
An actio n for annulmen t o f
judgmen t
ma y
b e
availe d
o f eve n
i f th e judgmen t
b e
observe d
t h a t ,
a s
t o b e
et
al
ha s
be
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR
FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS
NOTE S
1. Refer to th e discussion in Not e 8 unde r Sec . 1 ,
Rule 3 7 on th e concept o f extrinsic , a s distinguishe d from
intrinsic ,
fraud .
Intrinsic fraud,
which i s found in
th e
cause o f action or th e matte r pu t in issu e an d presente d
for adjudication ,
i s no t a groun d for a n n u l m e n t
o f
judgment , even i f th e correctnes s o f such judgmen t ha s
bee n
affecte d b y th e
m i s t a k e n relianc e
o n th e
fact
constitutin g a n intrinsi c fraud ,
sinc e th e matte r w
a s
brough t t o th e attentio n o f th e court an d th e parties , an d
could
hav e
bee n th e
subjec t o f thei r correspondin g
submissions ,
objection s
or
evaluation .
Extrinsi
c
or
collateral fraud, on th e othe r hand , wa s not reveale d t o
629
----------------------- Page 630----------------------RULE 47
2
SEC.
s
available subject t o certai n conditions .
2 . Th e othe r groun d for annulmen t o f judgment s or
final order s an d resolution s i s lack o f jurisdictio n on th e
par t o f th e cour t which adjudicate d th e case .
Thi s refe
r s
t o e i t h e r lac k o f jurisdictio n ove r th e perso n o f
th e
defending part y or over th e subject-matte r o f th e claim ,
since i n eithe r cas e th e j u dgme n t o r fina l orde r a
n d
resolution ar e void .
Se e Sec . 1(a) an d (b) , Rul e 1 6 an
d
Note s 7 to 9 thereunder .
3 . Th e
secon d p a r a g r a p h o f thi s sectio n p u t
a
condition upo n th e invocatio n o f extrinsi c frau d a s a
ground for th e annulmen t sought .
Indeed , i f such groun d
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR
petitio n
tha t
sh e
di d
no t
unde r Rul e 4 7
th e fina l orde r
c frau d an d lack
e als o allege d in an
avai l
hersel f o f th
e
remedie s o f new
judgment .
Th
th e groun d tha t
not comply wit h
t o th e aforestate
available throug h
relie f from
petitio n o n
sh e di d
resortin g
n o longer
C o u r t
o f Appeal s
for
a p p r o p r
et
Sec. 3 .
Period for filing
action.
If b a s e d
on
extrinsi c fraud , th e actio n mus t b e file d withi n fou r
(4) year s fro m it s discovery ; an d i f base d o n lac k o f
jurisdiction , befor e i t i s barre d b y lache s o r estoppel ,
(n)
631
----------------------- Page 632----------------------RULE 47
SEC. 4
1. Th e perio d
of extrinsi c frau d
annulment o f contract
Civil
Code), a s wel l a s
i s
a
N.E.
674)
Ky.
1017).
548,
188 S.W.
Se e
Not e
669] (Black's
17 ,
e t
seq.
Law
in
Dictionar
th e
c o m m e n c e d
petition. T h e a c t i o n
b y
filin g
v e r i f i e d p
t h e r e i n w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e fact
e d u p o n
n g
fo r
a n n u l m e n t ,
t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s goo d
a s
wel l
a n d
a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e , a s t h e c a s e
a s
s u b s
m a y
T h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l b e file d i n s e v e n (7
c l e a r l y
l e g i b l e c o p i e s , t o g e t h e r
w i t h s u f f i c i e n t
c o p i e s
632
----------------------- Page 633----------------------RULE 47
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR
SEC. 4
FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS
c o r r e s p o n d i n g
n t s .
A
certifie d t r u e c o p y o
o r
r e s o l u t i o n s h a l l
l c o p y o f
t h e p e t i t i o n i n t e
a t e d a s
s u c h b y t h e p e t i
t o
t h e
n u m b e r
o f r e s p o n d e
f t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r
b e a t t a c h e d t o t h e o r i g i n a
n d e d for t h e c o u r t a n d i n d i c
t i o n e r .
T h e p e t i t i o n e r s h a l l als o s u b m i t t o g e t h
e r w i t h
t h e p e t i t i o n affidavit s
o f w i t n e s s e s o r d o
c u m e n t s
s u p p o r t i n g t h e
c a u s e
o f a c t i o n o r d e f e n
s e
a n d
a
s w o r n
c e r t i f i c a t i o n t h a t h e
h a s
n o t
t h
e r e t o f o r e
c o m m e n c e d
a n y
o t h e r a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g
t h e s a m e
i s s u e s i n t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t , t h e C o u r t o f
A p p e a l s
o r d i f f e r e n t d i v i s i o n s thereof , o r a n y o t h e r t r
i b u n a l
o r
a g e n c y ;
i f t h e r e
i s s u c h
o t h e r
a
c t i o n
o r
p r o c e e d i n g , h e m u s t s t a t e t h e
s t a t u s o f
t h e s a m e ,
a n d
i f h e s h o u l d
t h e r e a f t e r l e a r n t h a t
a s i m i l a r
a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g h a s b e e n file d o r i s
p e n d i n g
befor e t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t , t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l
s , o r
d i f f e r e n t d i v i s i o n
u n a l o r
a g e n c y ,
h e
u n d e r
f o r m
t h e
a f o r e s a i d c o u r t s
a g e n c y
t h e r e o f w i t h i n fiv e
s thereof , o r a n y o t h e r t r i b
t a k e s
a n d
t o
p r o m p t l y
o t h e r
t r i b u n a l
(5) d a y s t h e r e f r o m ,
i n
o r
(n )
NOTE S
1.
Jus t lik e motion s for new tria l an d petition s for
relie f from judgment , th e verified petition for annulmen t
unde r thi s section mus t stat e with particularit y th e fact s
an d
law
s u s t a i n i n g th e
groun d
therefor ,
a
n d thos e
supporting th e petitioner' s good an d substantia l caus e o f
actio n
o r defense .
Th e
firs t
i s th e
f u n
d a m e n t a l
requirement , bu t th e second i s jus t a s importan t in order
t o convinc e th e cour t tha t somethin g may indee d b e
achieved shoul d th e petition b e given du e course .
Thi s
second
r e q u i r e m e n t
mus t
furthe r b e
s u p p
o r t e d b y
affidavits or document s showing , at least prima facie, th e
validity o f petitioner' s claim .
633
----------------------- Page 634----------------------RULE 47
S. 5 6
SEC
i n ordinar y
. S h o u l d a
t h e
o r
tria
e v i d e n c e
a j u d g e
o f
NOTE S
1.
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR
SEC
A
j u d g m e n t
of
a n n u l m e n t shal l se t asid e th e questione d j u d g m e n t
o r fina l orde r o r resolutio n an d rende r th e sam e nul l
an d void , w i t h o u t prejudic e t o th e origina l actio n
bein g refile d i n th e prope r court .
However , w h e r e
th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r o r resolutio n i s se t asid e
o n th e groun d o f extrinsi c fraud , th e cour t ma y o n
motio n orde r th e tria l cour t t o tr y th e cas e a s i f a
t i m e l y m o t i o n fo r n e w
t r i a l h a d b e e n g r a n t
e d
therein ,
(n )
NOTE S
1. Wher e th e questione d judgment , fina l orde r or
resolution i s annulled , eithe r on th e groun d o f extrinsi c
fraud or lack o f jurisdiction , th e sam e shal l b e se t asid e
an d considere d nul l an d void .
Thereafter , a s provide d in
th e first sentenc e o f thi s section which mor e properly refer s
t o annulmen t on th e groun d o f lack o f jurisdiction , th e
aggrieved part y ma y refile th e action in th e prope r court .
This may involv e a different court o f competent jurisdiction
in th e instanc e wher e th e judgmen t i n th e origina l action
i s annulle d becaus e th e cour t which rendere d th e sam e
ha d n o jurisdictio n ove r th e subject-matter .
Where ,
however , th e reaso n for such annulmen t wa s becaus e o f
lack o f jurisdictio n over th e defendant , th e action may b e
refile d
i n t h e s a m e origina l
cour t provide d
i t h
a s
jurisdictio n over th e subject-matte r an d i s th e
prope r venu e or n o issu e on venu e i s raised .
fraud
court o f
extrinsi c
th e secon
d
sentence o f thi s section provide s an alternativ e procedure .
On motion o f th e prevailin g part y on justifiabl e grounds ,
h e may b e allowe d t o n o longer refile th e action an d th e
tria l court which rendere d th e questione d judgmen t shal l
b e ordere d t o tr y th e cas e anew a s i f a timely motion for
new tria l ha d bee n grante d therein .
Th e difference lie s
635
----------------------- Page 636----------------------RULE 47
SECS. 8-9
in th e fact
tha t it s origina l judgmen t wa s not tainte d by
jurisdictiona l defects , bu t by th e deception which resulte d
in prejudicia l error s therein .
Sec . 8 .
Suspension
of prescriptive
period.
T h e
p r e s c r i p t i v e p e r i o d fo r t h e refilin g o f t h e afo
resai d
o r i g i n a l a c t i o n s h a l l b e d e e m e d
s u s p e n d e
d
fro m
t h e filin g o f s u c h o r i g i n a l a c t i o n u n t i l t h
e finalit y
o f t h e j u d g m e n t
o f a n n u l m e n t .
H o w e v e r
,
t h e
p r e s c r i p t i v e p e r i o d s h a l l n o t b e s u s p e n d e
d w h e r e
t h e e x t r i n s i c f r a u d i s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e p
laintif f i n
t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n , (n )
N O T E
1.
For purpose s o f computin g th e prescriptiv e perio d
within which th e sam e origina l action may b e refiled a s
authorized in th e nex t preceedin g section , th e prescriptiv e
perio d provide d by law for suc h typ e o f action mus t first
b e considered .
Fro m tha t perio d shal l b e deducte d th e
length o f tim e which transpire d from th e dat e whe n th e
action wa s originall y filed i n th e tria l cour t up t o th
e
finality o f th e judgmen t which eventuall y annulle d th e
questioned judgmen t o f tha t tria l court .
Th e re
sultin g
balanc e o f th e prescriptiv e perio d may the n b e availe d o f
by th e aggrieve d part y for th e refilin g o f th e sam e action .
However , i f th e extrinsi c frau d which resulte d in th e
annulment o f judgmen t o f th e tria l cour t i s attributabl e t o
Sec . 9 .
Relief
available.
T h e
j u d g m e n
f
m e n t
m a y
i n c l u d e t h e
a w a r d
o f d a
,
n e y ' s fee s a n d o t h e r relief .
o
l
s
r
I f t h e q u e s t i o n e d j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r
e r o r
e s o l u t i o n h a d
a l r e a d y b e e n e x e c u t e d , t h
c o u r t
a y i s s u e s u c h o r d e r s o f r e s t i t u t i o n o r o t h
r relie f
d
r
e
m
e
636
----------------------- Page 637----------------------RULE 47
. 10
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT S OR
FINAL
ORDER S AND
SEC
RESOLUTION S
a s j u s t i c e a n d e q u i t y m a y
h e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , (n )
w a r r a n t
u n d e r
N O T E
1. Orders of restitution or reparation of damages are
authorized to be issued by the trial court where an executed
judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled on
appeal or otherwise (Sec. 5, Rule 39). If restitution can
no longer be effected, the relief may be in the form of
compensation under the same formula suggested in
Po Pauco vs. Tan Juco (49 Phil . 349), cited under the
aforesaid section of Rule 39.
Sec . 10 . Annulment
of
Municipal
Trial
Courts.
a
j u d g m e n t o r fina l o
l C o u r t
s h a l l b e file d i n t
h a v i n g
j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r
d a s
an o r d i n a r y civi l a c
7 , 8 a n d
9 o f t h i s R u l e s h a l
(n )
of
judgments
An
r d e r
or
orders
t o
a n n u l
o f a
a c t i o n
final
M u n i c i p a l T r i a
h e R e g i o n a l
T r i a l
C o u r t
t h e former . I t shal l b e t r e a t e
t i o n a n d s e c t i o n s 2 , 3 , 4 ,
l b e a p p l i c a b l e t h e r e t o ,
N O T E
637
----------------------- Page 638----------------------RUL E 4 8
PRELIMINARY
Sectio n
durin g th e p
t h e p a r t i
i n a r y
c o n f e r e n c
CONFERENC E
1 .
Preliminary conference. At an y tim e
e n d e n c y o f a case , th e cour t ma y cal l
e s a n d t h e i r c o u n s e l t o a
p r e l i m
e :
(b) T o define ,
determination ;
simplif y
an d
(c) T o
f o r m u l a t e
s t i p
t s an d
a d m i s s i o n s
o f d o c u m e n t a r y
i t t h e
numbe r o f w i t n e s s e s t o b e presente
w i t h i n t h e o r i g i n a l j u r i s d
t , o r
t h o s e w i t h i n i t s a p p e l l a t e
h e r e a
motio n fo r n e w tria l i s grante d
newl y discovere d e v i d e n c e ; an d
clarif y
th e
issue s
u l a t i o n s o f
f a c
e x h i b i t s , l i m
d i n c a s e s fallin g
i c t i o n o f t h e cour
j u r i s d i c t i o n w
o n
th e
groun d
o f
3.
a c t i o n s
i s s i o n s
made ,
t a k e n
an d
t h e r e i n
th e
the conference-
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE
EC. 3
p r o c e e d i n g s i n th e cas e unless , withi n fiv e (5) day s
fro m notic e thereof , an y part y shal l satisfactoril y
s h o w
v a l i d c a u s e w h y
t h e s a m e
s h o u l d n o
t b e
followed ,
(n )
N O T E S
1. Thes e new Rul e ha s adopte d mos t o f th e ground s
for pre-tria l i n th e tria l court s an d wit h virtually th e sam e
objective, tha t i s , t o explor e an d utiliz e al l such appropriat e
mean s a s may assis t in th e early disposition o f th e case .
The mino r differenc e i s tha t in th e Cour t o f Appeals , thi s
procedura l devic e may b e availe d o f not only in origina l
action s bu t als o in case s on appea l wherei n a new tria l
wa s grante d on th e groun d o f newly discovere d evidence .
It wil l b e recalle d tha t th e Cour t o f Appeal s can ac t a s a
trie r o f facts , henc e th e preliminar y conferenc e authorize d
by thi s Rul e i s a convenien t adjunct t o such power an d
function .
2 .
recor d
e
resolution
virtuall y
conferences
3 . Whil e
i t ma y
n a r y
conference i s initiate d by a
court , it i s not prohibite d
th e partie s t o sugges t th e
and for vali d reasons .
a p p e a r t h a t t h e p r e l i m i
call for tha t purpos e by th e
or improper for eithe r or both o f
sam e t o th e court on motion
639
4 9
A R G U M E N T
Section 1 .
When allowed. At
e
o r u p o n m o t i o n o f a p a r t y ,
e a r t h e
p a r t i e s i n o r a l a r g u m e n t o n t
a s e , o r
o n
a n y
m a t e r i a l
i n c i d e n t
t h e r e w i t h , (n )
it s o w n
t h e
i n s t a n c
c o u r t m a y h
h e m e r i t s o f a c
i n
c o n n e c t i o n
T h e
o r a l a r g u m e n t
s h a l l b e l i m i t e d
t o s u c h
m a t t e r s
a s t h e c o u r t m a y
specif y i n
it s
o r d e r o r
r e s o l u t i o n , ( l a , R48 )
Sec . 2 .
Conduct
of
oral
U n l e s s
a u t h o r i z e d
b y t h e
c o u r t ,
s e l
m a y
a r g u e fo r a p a r t y .
T h e d u r
fo r e a c h
p a r t y , t h e s e q u e n c e
o f t h e
a n d al l
o t h e r r e l a t e d m a t t e r s
s h a l
d b y t h e
c o u r t , (n )
argument.
o n l y
o n e
a t i o n
c o u n
a l l o w e d
a r g u m e n t a t i o n ,
l b e
a s
d i r e c t e
N O T E S
1. Thi s Rul e wa s take n from a section eac h o f former
Rule s 4 8 an d 49 .
Th e regulator y detail s for ora l argumen t
as provide d for in th e former Rul e 4 8 hav e been eliminate d
a s i t wa s deeme d bette r t o leav e suc h m a t t e r s t o
th e
discretion o f th e cour t on a cas e t o cas e basi s a s
th e
circumstance s an d natur e o f th e issue s may require .
2 .
th e argument s
Sec . 8 o f tha t form
th e presenc e o f
on appeal , both
640
----------------------- Page 641----------------------RULE 49
ORAL ARGUMENT
t e d fo r
r e s o l u t i o n . (2a , R49 )
N O T E
1.
Unlik e th e procedur e in th e lower courts , motion s
Suprem e Cour t an d Cour t o f Appeal s d o not contai n
o f hearin g o f sai d motion s a s n o ora l argument s
hear d in suppor t thereof ; and , i f th e appellat e court
t o hol d a hearin g thereon , it will itsel f se t th e dat e
in th e
notice s
will b e
desire s
5 0
O F
APPEA L
Sectio n
1.
Grounds for dismissal of appeal. An
appea l ma y b e d i s m i s s e d b y th e Cour t o f Appeals ,
o n it s o w n motio n o r o n tha t o f th e appellee , o n th e
followin g
grounds :
(a)
Failur e o f th e recor d o n appea l t o sho w o n
it s fac e tha t th e appea l w a s t a k e n w i t h i n th e perio d
fixe d b y t h e s e Rules ;
(b)
Failur e
e
recor d o n appea l
t h e s e Rules ;
t o
fil e
th e
notic e
o f appea l
w i t h i n
th e
perio d
prescribe d
o r th
b y
(c)
Failur e o f th e appellan t t o pa y th e docke t
an d othe r lawfu l fee s a s provide d i n sectio n 5 o f Rul e
40 an d s e c t i o n 4 o f Rul e 4 1
(As amended by Resolution
of the
Supreme
Court,
dated February
17,
1998);
(d)
U n a u t h o r i z e d
a l t e r a t i o n s , o m i s s i o
n s o r
a d d i t i o n s i n t h e a p p r o v e d
r e c o r d o n a p p e a
l a s
provide d i n s e c t i o n 4 o f Rul e 44 ;
(e)
Failur e o f th e appellan t t o serv e an d fil e
t h e r e q u i r e d n u m b e r
o f c o p i e s o f h i s b r i
e f o r
m e m o r a n d u m w i t h i n t h e t i m e
p r o v i d e d b y t
h e s e
Rules ;
(f)
n
th e
A b s e n c e o f specifi c a s s i g n m e n t o f error s i
appellant' s
brief ,
o r
o f pag e
reference s
t o
th
e
recor d a s require d i n sectio n 13 , paragraph s (a) , (c) ,
(d) an d (f) o f Rul e 44 ;
(g)
F a i l u r e
o f t h e
a p p e l l a n t t o t a k e
t h e
n e c e s s a r y step s fo r th e correctio n o r completio n o f
th e recor d withi n th e tim e limite d b y th e cour t i n
it s order ;
642
----------------------- Page 643----------------------RULE 50
C. 1
(h)
preliminar y
c i r c u l a
o u t
justifiabl e
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
SE
(i)
T h e
f a c t t h a t t h e
n t
appeale d fro m i s no t appealable ,
o r d e r
o r
j u d g m e
(la )
NOTE S
1. Th e forme r Rul e 5 0 ha s bee n amende d in th e
presen t revise d Rule s by th e deletion o f par .
(c) there
o f
(failure o f th e appellan t t o prosecut e hi s appea l unde r th e
the n Sec . 3 o f Rul e 46) , an d th e addition o f th e presen t
par . (h) regardin g non-appearanc e a t th e preliminar y
conference an d non-complianc e wit h court issuances .
The othe r ground s hav
supervening procedura l changes
of th e appea l bon d an d th
on appea l d o not hav e t o
2 . W i t h
t h e exceptio n
o f Sec .
1(b)
which
,
parenthetically , ha s been duly modified by th e deletion
o f th e forme r r e q u i r e m e n t for a n appea l bond ,
th e
foregoing ground s for th e dismissa l o f a n appea l ar e
directory an d not mandatory , an d it i s not th e ministeria l
duty o f th e cour t to dismis s th e appea l (Ayala Land, Inc.
vs. Carpo, et al., G.R. No. 140162, Nov. 22, 2000).
Henc
e ,
non-complianc e wit h Sec . 1(f) i s not a mandator y groun d
for th e dismissa l of th e appea l (Maqui, et al. vs CA, et al.,
L 41609 Feb.
24, 1976; Vda. de Haberer vs.
CA, et
al.,
L-42709, May 26,
1981).
Th e sam e i s tru e with respec t
to
21,
Sec .
1(d)
(Panes
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
583
Jan.
t
al.
31,
1983)
an d
th e
presen t
G.R. No.
Sec .
75310, Jan.
1(g)
16,
(Advincula,
1987).
28,
et
al,
L-28722,
Oct.
29,
1971).
However ,
thi s
"materia l
data "
th e
motio n
t o
dismis s
th e
appea l
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
SEC.
19
o u r t o f A p p e a l s
e d i s m i s s e d , i
e w a b l e
b y
sai d
a p p e a l i n s t e a d
e a p p e l l a t e j u
b e dismissed ,
(n )
A n a p p e a l e r r o n e o u s l y t a k e n t o t h e C
o u r t o f
A p p e a l s shal l n o t b e t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e a p p r
o p r i a t e
c o u r t b u t shal l b e d i s m i s s e d o u t r i g h t . (3a)
NOTE S
1. This provision, together with Sec. 6 of Rule 56,
was taken from Circular No. 2-90 of the Supreme Court
645
----------------------- Page 646----------------------RULE 50
SEC. 2
th e
forme r
Sec . 3
o f Rul e
50 ,
wher e
th e
b e
certifie d
t o
th e
Cour t o f Appeal s
Rosales,
105 Phil. 1131).
Thes e
th e
provision s o f Sec . 31 , R.A . 29 6
appealed t o eithe r th e Suprem e Cour t
Court o f Appeal s shoul d b e sen t t o
th e sam e shal l decid e th e appea l a
brough t befor e
wer e
(Rosales
p u r s u a n t
vs.
t o
t h a t case s erroneousl y
or th e Cour t o f th e
th e prope r cour t an d
s i f i t ha d bee n properly
it .
appellat e jurisdiction ,
wil l b e
allowed .
Also ,
elevatin g
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
SEC. 2
th e forme r practice ,
takin g a n imprope r appea l wa s
sometime s resorte d t o a s a dilator y strateg y sinc e th e
appellant wa s awar e tha t th e appeale d cas e woul d merely
b e transferre d t o th e prope r appellat e court .
Thus , for
instance ,
a j u d g m e n t
a
stipulation o f fact s woul d b e
although n o questio n o f fact
new procedure , suc h appea l
involve question s o f law shal l
th e Suprem e Cour t bu t shal l
o f th e
take
wa s
which
n o
b e
lowe r
cour t
base d
on
n t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s
involved .
Unde r thi s
a t mos t coul d only
longer b e transferre d t o
dismisse d outright .
vs.
Hernando,
89 Phil.
268 an d
Sec.
2,
R.A.
5440).
No.
51278, May 8,
1988).
t o
recal l
th e
remittitu r
o r
reman d
o f th e
recor d
an d
647
----------------------- Page 648----------------------RULE 50
C. 3
of
SE
Clemente
Celestino
vs.
1975).
5.
A resolutio n o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s dismissin g
th e appea l an d remandin g th e cas e t o th e tria l cour t for
further proceeding s i s merel y interlocutory ,
henc e
a
motion for it s reconsideratio n filed a yea r late r may b e
entertaine d
an d
grante d
(Valdez
vs. Bagasao,
L-466
08,
Mar.
8, 1978).
Sec. 3 .
Withdrawal
of
appeal.
A n
appea l
ma
y
b e
h e
f i l
t h
w i t
court
w i t h d r a w n
a s
o f righ t
a t
an y
tim e
befor e
i n g o f t h e a p p e l l e e ' s brief .
T h e r e a f t e r ,
e
h d r a w a l m a y b e allowe d i n th e discretio n o f th e
.
(4a )
648
5 1
J U D G M E N T
Section
1 .
When case deemed submitted for judgment.
A c a s e s h a l l b e d e e m e d s u b m i t t e d for j u d g m e n
t :
A .
I n o r d i n a r y a p p e a l s .
1) W h e r e n o h e a r i n g o n t h e m e r i t s o f t
m a i n
c a s e i s h e l d , u p o n t h e f i l i n g o f t h e l a
p l e a d i n g ,
brief , o r m e m o r a n d u m r e q u i r e d b y t h e R u l e s
r b y
t h e c o u r t itself , o r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e
e r i o d for
it s filing .
2 )
u p o n
t e r m i n a
p l e a d i n
W h e r e
i t s
t i o n o r
g
s u c h
u p o n
h e a r i n g
i s
h e
s t
o
p
t h e f i l i n g o f t h e
h e l d ,
las t
o r m e m o r a n d u m a s m a y b e r e q u i r e d o r p e r m
i t t e d
t o b e file d
b y t h e c o u r t , o r t h e e x p i r a t i
o n o f t h e
p e r i o d fo r it s filing .
B . I n
n s fo r
r e view .
o r i g i n a l
a c t i o n s
a n d
p e t i t i o
1) W h e r e
n o c o m m e n t i s filed ,
n t h e ex p i r a t i o n o f t h e p e r i o d t o c o m m e n t .
u p o
2 ) W h e r e n o h e a r i n g i s held , u p o n t h e fili
n g o f
t h e las t p l e a d i n g r e q u i r e d o r p e r m i t t e d t o b
e f i l e d
b y t h e c o u r t , o r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e p e r i o
d fo r it s
filing.
e m a
cas e
filin g
o f t
m a
r e q u
o u r t
t h e
(n )
3 ) W h e r e a h e a r i n g o n t h e m e r i t s o f t h
i n
i s held , u p o n it s t e r m i n a t i o n o r u p o n t h e
h e
l a s t p l e a d i n g o r
m e m o r a n d u m a s
y
b e
i r e d o r p e r m i t t e d t o b e file d b y t h e
, o r
e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e p e r i o d for it s
filin g
NOTE S
1.
Th e new provision s in thi s section ar e intende d to
clarify an d provid e specific rule s on when a cas e i s deeme d
649
----------------------- Page 650----------------------RULE 51
SEC. 1
2 . Th e
r e l e v a n t
I o f th e
Constitution ar e a s follows :
p r o v i s i o n s
o f A r t . VII
correspondin g
by th e Chief
b e issue d
o f th e cas e
e p a r t i e s
. Th e
certification shal l stat e why a decision or resolution
ha s not bee n rendere d o r issue d withi n sai d period .
(4)
Despit e
th e
expiratio n
o f th e
applica
bl e
mandator y period , th e court , withou t prejudic e t o
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a s ma y
h a v e b e e n
e d i n
consequence thereof , shal l decid e or resolv e th e
o r m a t t e r s u b m i t t e d t h e r e t o for d
n a t i o n ,
withou t furthe r delay. "
such
i n c u r r
cas e
e t e r m i
650
----------------------- Page 651----------------------RULE 51
SEC. 2
JUDGMENT
Th e j u d g m e n t shal l
m b e r s
o f t h e c o u r t
i b e r a t i o n o n t h e m e r
e n t
t o
m e m b e r
fo
(n )
65 1
T h e
p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f
d i v i s i o n
adopt s th e Constitutiona l
o f th e Suprem e Court
f case s therein .
d by th e Suprem e Court
"shal l b e
decide d
wi
and
Member s wh o actually
th e issue s in th e cas e
d [3], Art.
VII
voting
a l l t h r e e
in
the
J u s t i c e s
court.
o f
s h a l l b e
n e c e s s a r y
a t t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n
a n d
t h e
u n a n i m o u s
v o t e
o f t h e
t h r e e J u s t i c e s
s h a l l b e
r e q u i r e d
fo r t h e
p r o n o u n c e m e n t
o f a j
u d g m e n t
o r fina l r e s o l u t i o n .
I f t h e t h r e e J u s t i c e
s d o
n o t
r e a c h
a
u n a n i m o u s
v o t e , t h e
c l e r k s h a
l l e n t e r
t h e
v o t e s
o f
t h e
d i s s e n t i n g
J u s t i c e
i n
t h e
r e c o r d .
T h e r e a f t e r , t h e C h a i r m a n o f t h e
d i v i s i o n
s h a l l r e f e r t h e c a s e , t o g e t h e r
w i t h
t h e
m i n u t e s
o f t h e
d e l i b e r a t i o n , t o t h e P r e s i d i n g J u s
t i c e w h o
s h a l l d e s i g n a t e
t w o
J u s t i c e s
c h o s e n
b y
r a f f l e
f r o m a m o n g a l l
t h e o t h e r
m e m b e r s
o f t
h e c o u r t
t o s i t t e m p o r a r i l y
w i t h t h e m ,
f o r m i n g a
s p e c i a l
d i v i s i o n o f fiv e
J u s t i c e s .
T h e
p a r t i c i p
a t i o n o f
al l t h e fiv e
m e m b e r s o f t h e
s p e c i a l d i v i
s i o n shal l
b e
n e c e s s a r y
f o r
t h e
d e l i b e r a t i o n
r e q u i r e d
i n S e c t i o n
2 o f t h i s R u l e
a n d
t h e
c o n c
u r r e n c e
o f a
m a j o r i t y o f s u c h
d i v i s i o n s h a l l b e
r e q u i r e d
652
----------------------- Page 653----------------------RULE 51
3
fo r
JUDGMENT
t h e p r o n o u n c e m e n t
resolution .
SEC.
o f
j u d g m e n t o r fina l
(2a )
N O T E S
Sec.
for
and
th e
11 . Quorum.
majority
o f th e
actua l
Disposition
of
case.
al.,
T h e
C o u
t h e e x e r c i s e o f it s a p p e l l a t e j u r
v e r s e , o r modif y t h e j u d g m e n t o r fin
l e d
from , a n d m a y d i r e c t a n e w t r i
c e e d i n g s t o b e h a d .
(3a )
N O T E
1.
Wher e th e Cour t o f Appeal s direct s a new tria l or
further proceedings , th e cas e shal l ordinarily b e remande d
to th e court a quo, a s th e Cour t o f Appeal s i s not essentially
a tria l court .
However , unde r Sec . 5 o f th e aforestate d
Executiv e Orde r No .
33 , whic h amende d th e secon d
p a r a g r a p h
xpressl y
provide d tha t
"The
o f Sec .
o f B.P .
Big .
129 ,
it
i s
receiv e
evidenc e
an d
perfor m
an y
an d
act s
necessar y t o resolv e factua l issue s raise d on (a) case s
falling withi n it s origina l jurisdiction , suc h a s action s
for
a n n u l m e n t
o f j u d g m e n t s ,
a s p r o v
i d e d i n
paragrap h (2) hereof ; an d in (b) case s fallin g within
it s appellat e jurisdictio n wherei n a motion for new
tria l base d only on th e groun d o f newly discovere d
evidence i s grante d by it. "
al l
Sec . 5 .
i o n or
f i n a l r e s o l u t
c a s e s
s h a l l c l e a r l y
d i n g s o f
f a c t a n d
t h e
h
i t i s
b a s e d , w h i c h
i s i o n o r
fina l
r e s o l u t
o s e se t
Form
i o n
of
decision.
o f
E v e r y
t h e c o u r t
a n d d i s t i n c t l y
c o n c l u s i o n s
m a y
b e
i n a p p e a l e d
s t a t e t h e f i n
o f
l a w
c o n t a i n e d
i o n itself ,
d e c i s
i n
o r a d o p t e d
o n
w h i c
t h e
d e c
f r o m
t h
654
----------------------- Page 655----------------------RULE 51
JUDGMENT
SEC. 6
forth i n t h e d e c i s i o n , o r d e r , o r r e s o l u t i o n a
p p e a l e d
from .
(Sec . 40 , B P Big . 129) (n )
N O T E S
1. As indicated after this provision, this section was
actually taken from Sec. 40 of B.P. Big. 129. Art . VII I of
the Constitution contains a more comprehensive mandate
on this matter, thus:
"Sec. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused
due course or denied without stating the legal basis
therefor."
2. It will be noted that the requirement for the
statement of the facts and the law, as provided by the
Constitution, B.P. Big. 129 and the foregoing section, refers
to a decision or, for that matter, a final resolution. The
same does not apply to minute resolutions since these
usually dispose of the case not on its merits but on
procedural or technical considerations, although the court
may, if it deems it necessary, briefly discuss the matter on
the merits in an extended resolution.
I n al l a c t i o
t
ma y b e affirme
reverse d a s t o
b e p r o c e e d e
a c t i o n s h a
;
a n d
e x e c u t i o n o
a c c o r d i n g l
i n suc h
cases , a s th e
Sec
w h i c h
o v e r th
s u b j e c
d g m e n t
a p p e a l
wil l b e
Judgment
where
there
are
several parties.
n s o r p r o c e e d i n g s , a n appeale d judgmen
d
a s t o som e o f th e appellants , an d
others , an d th e c a s e shal l thereafte r
d with , s o fa r a s necessary , a s i f separat e
d
b e e n
b e g u n
a n d
p r o s e c u t e d
f th e j u d g m e n t o f affirmanc e ma y b e ha d
y , a n d c o s t s m a y b e a d j u d g e d
cour t shal l d e e m proper .
(6)
. 8 .
Questions that may be decided. No erro r
d o e s n o t
a f f e c t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n
e
t m a t t e r
o r t h e
v a l i d i t y o f t h e j u
e d
fro m
o r t h e
p r o c e e d i n g s
t h e r e i n
c o n s i d e r e d
u
e n t
o f
errors , o r c l o s
o n a n
assigne d erro r an d
a s th e cour t ma y
errors .
(7a )
n l e s s
e l y
s t a t e d
r e l a t e d
i n
t o
t h e
o r
a s s i g n m
d e p e n d e n t
7 o
th e
ra l
rule
will
JUDGMENT
o f th
9.
Promulgation
and
notice
of
judgment.
A f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t
o r
f i n a l r e s o l u t i o n
a n d
dissentin g o r separat e opinions , i f any , ar e signe d
by th e Justice s takin g part , the y shal l b e delivere d
657
----------------------- Page 658----------------------RULE 51
SEC. 11
for filin g
o n
t h e d a t e
opie s
t h e r e o f t
t h e i r
counsel ,
t o
t h e
o f
o
cler k
w h o
shal l
i n d i c a t e
p r o m u l g a t i o n a n d
b e
s e r v e d
u p o n
c a u s e
there
t r u e c
t h e p a r t i e s o r
(n )
Sec .
10 . Entry
of judgment
.
I f n o a p p e a l
o r m o t i o n fo r
e c o n sideratio n i s file d w i t h i n th e tim e
R u l e s , t h e j u d g m e n t
o r f i
s h a l l
f o r t h w i t h b e e n t e r e d b y t h e
o k o f
e n t r i e s o f j u d g m e n t s . Th e dat e
o r fina l
r e s o l u t i o n b e c o m e s
l l b e
d e e m e d a s th e dat e o f it s entry
al l
contai n th e d i s p o s i t i v e par t o f th
na l
resolutio n an d shal l b e signe d b y th e
certificat e tha t s u c h j u d g m e n t o
ha s b e c o m e fina l an d executory .
and
final
n e w
resolutions
t r i a l o r r
provide d i n thes e
n a l r e s o l u t i o n
cler k
i n
t h e
bo
w h e n th e judgmen t
e x e c u t o r y s h a
.
Th e
recor d
sh
e j u d g m e n t o r fi
clerk , wit h a
fina l resolutio n
(2a , R36 )
NOTE S
1. Sec . 9
enunciate s th e accepte d procedura l rul e
and practic e in th e promulgatio n o f judgment s in civil case s
but , for purpose s o f th e appellat e courts , i t ha s bee n
expande d t
separat e
opinion mus
e
situation s
th e filing o f
concep t
th e
o f e n t r y
dat e
whe n i t
JUDGMENT
th e former rule .
Se e Rul e 3 6 an d note s therein .
In th e
tria l courts , th e dat e o f entr y o f judgmen t i s importan t for
purpose s o f reckonin g th e period s involve d in petition s for
relie f o f judgmen t unde r Rul e 3 8 an d th e reviva l o f th e
judgmen t unde r Rul e 39 .
Whil e thos e consideration s ar
e
not involve d in judgment s o f appellat e courts , th e dat e o f
entry i s als o importan t for purpose s o f th e execution o f
judgment , a s explaine d in th e succeedin g section s o f thi s
Rule .
Sec . 11 .
w h e r e
t h e j u d g m e n t
o n , o r a
p o r t i o n
t h e r e
i a t e l y
e x e c u t o r y , t h
a y onl y
b e file d i n t h e
I n o r i g
e a l s , it s
w r i t o f e x e c
tifie d
t r u e
c o p y
r
f i n a l
r e s o l u t i o n
e office r
for it s e n f o
i o n
e x e c
o u r t
A p p e
n o f
o r i g
Execution
o r
E x c e p t
f i n a l o r d e r
o r
r e s o l u t i
i s
t o
b e
o f ,
e
of judgment.
o r d e r e d
m o t i o n
fo r
it s
i m m e d
e x e c u t i o n
p r o p e r c o u r t afte r it s e n t r y .
i n a l a c t i o n s i n t h e
C o u r t o f A p p
u t i o n shal l b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a cer
o f
t h e
e n t r y
o f
j u d g m e n t
a n d a d d r e s s e d t o a n y a p p r o p r i a t
r c e m e n t .
I n a p p e a l e d
c a s e s ,
w h e r e
t h e
m o
f o r
u t i o n p e n d i n g a p p e a l i s file d i n t h e
o f
a l s
a t a t i m e t h a t i t i s i n p o s s e s s i
t h e
i n a l r e c o r d
o r t h e
r e c o r d
o n
a p p
t
C
o
e
a l ,
t h e
r e s o l u t i o
a l l
b e
t r a n s m i t t
cas e
o r i g i n a t e
o f t h e
j u d g m e n t
w i t h
a
d i r e c t i v e
r o p e r
w r i t fo r it
g r a n t i n g
e d t o t h e
s u c h
m o t i o n
s h
lowe r c o u r t fro m w h i c h t h e
d , t o g e t h e r w i t h a certifie d t r u e cop y
o r
f i n a l o r d e r
t o
b e
e x e c u t e d ,
fo r s u c h c o u r t o f origi n t o issu e t h e p
s e n f o r c e m e n t ,
(n )
NOTE S
1.
Th e first paragrap h of thi s section provide s for
th e basi c rul e tha t th e execution o f a judgmen t or final
resolution may b e applie d for only after it s entry , th e
659
----------------------- Page 660----------------------RULE 51
SEC. 11
e x c e p t i o n b e i n g w h e r e t h e s a m e
i s o r d e r e d
t o b e
immediately executory . In fact , such order i s not necessary
where ,
b y provisio n o f t h e s e Rule s o r u n d e r set
tle d
jurisprudence , th e judgmen t i s immediatel y executory .
See ,
for i n s t a n c e , Sec . 4 o f Rul e
3 9 an d t h e
note s
thereunder .
2 . T h e
s a m e
e s th e
f u n d a m e n t a l r e q
suc h
execution ma y b e filed
genera l rul e i s tha t
and issue d by th e cour
tha t is , th e cour t o
Thus , i n
of Appeals , th e
addresse d t o an
T o obviat e an
accompanie d by
p a r a g r a p h
f u r t h e r d e c l a r
u i r e m e n t t h a t th e
motio n
for
n th e Court
issue d by it an d
enforcement .
wri t shal l b e
f th e entr y o f
. I n
case s
p e n d i n g
a motio n
o f th e tria l
provide d it i s
recor d on appeal
o n
a p p e a l
i n
t h e Cou
FO R
5 2
RECONSIDERATIO N
Section 1 .
Period for filing. A p a r t y m a y f
il e
a m o t i o n
fo r
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n
o f a j u d g
m e n t
o r
f i n a l r e s o l u t i o n
w i t h i n
f i f t e e n (15 )
d a
y s
f r o m
n o t i c e thereof , w i t h p r o o f o f s e r v i c e o n t h e a d
v e r s e
p a r t y , (n )
Sec .
No
s e c o n d m
u d g m e n t
o r f i n a l
s h a l l b e
e n t e r t a i
2 .
Second
o t i o n
fo r
r e s o l u t i o n
motion
for
reconsideration.
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a
b y
t h e
s a m e
p a r t y
n e d , (n )
Sec . 3 .
Resolution of
o u r t o f
A p p e a l s ,
a m o t i o n
fo
s h a l l b e
r e s o l v e d w i t h i n n i n e t y
w h e n
t h e c o u r t d e c l a r e s i t s
o n , (n )
motion.
r
In
t h e
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n
(90) d a y s fro m t h e d a t e
u b m i t t e d for r e s o l u t i
Sec . 4 .
Stay of execution. T h e
y
o f a
m o t i o n fo r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n file d o
b y t h e
p r o p e r
p a r t y
s h a l l s t a y
t h e
o f t h e
j u d g m e n t
o r
f i n a l
r e s o l u t i o
t o
b e
r e c o n s i d e r e d u n l e s s t h e c o u r t ,
r e a s o n s ,
shal l o t h e r w i s e d i r e c t ,
(n )
p e n d e n c
n t i m e a n d
e x e c u t i o n
n
s o u g h t
fo r
goo d
NOTE S
1.
Th e presen t Rule , which now bear s th e titl e o f
"Motion for Reconsideration, " contain s new provision s
substantially different from an d abandonin g th e previou s
practic e in th e former Rul e 52 which wa s entitle d "Rehearing. "
Thus , for instance , a copy o f th e motion for
reconsideratio n mus t b e serve d o n th e advers e party ,
thereby eliminatin g th e confusion cause d by Sec . 1 o f th e
former Rul e which provide d for th e filing thereo f ex parte.
66 1
----------------------- Page 662----------------------RULE 62
S.
14
SEC
t whil e a motion
y t h e executio n
t h e cour t ma y
di d not provid e
howe
MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
SECS. 1-4
Parenthetically , th e sam e
3 3 furthe r provide d tha t
o f it s decision or fina l
th e cour t withi n ninet y
submitte d for resolution. "
663
----------------------- Page 664----------------------RUL E
NE W
6 3
TRIA L
S e c t i o n 1 .
Period for filing; ground.
At
an y
t i m e afte r t h e
a p p e a l fro m t h e
l o w e r c o u r
t ha s
b e e n p e r f e c t e d a n d
befor e
t h e Cour t o f A p p e
a l s
l o s e s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e case , a part y ma
y fil e
a m o t i o n fo r a n e w tria l o n th e g r o u n d o f n
e w l y
d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e w h i c h
c o u l d no t h a v e
bee n
d i s c o v e r e d prio r t o th e tria l i n th e cour t belo w b y
th e e x e r c i s e o f d u e diligenc e an d w h i c h i s o f suc h
a
characte r a s w o u l d probabl y c h a n g e th e result .
Th e
motio n shal l b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y affidavit s s h o w i n g
th e fact s c o n s t i t u t i n g th e g r o u n d s therefo r an d th
e
n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , ( l a )
NOTE S
1. Sec . 1 o f th e former Rul e ha s bee n amende d her e
to mak e mor e specific th e perio d for th e filing o f a motion
for new trial , i.e. , at an y tim e after th e perfection o f th e
appea l from
an d befor e
th e case .
order o r j
l s
become s
an d
susceptible o
2 .
ation an d
certiorari
may now b
th e judgmen t
th e Cour t
Th e former
u d g m e n t
executory, "
or fina l orde r
o f Appeal s lose
provision readin g
rendere d b y th
w a s
o f th e lower court
s jurisdictio n over
"(b)efore a final
e
Cour t o f Appea
considere d
imprecis e
Rule s 5 2 an d
new trial , in
from th e Cour t
e recapitulate d
NEW TRIAL
certiorar i by th e Suprem e
such 15-day perio d from
resolution o f th e Cour t o f
eithe r o f th e aforementione d
e
requirement s o f Rul e 4 5 an d file hi s petition , sufficient in
form an d substance , withi n th e reglementar y
15day
period , or a motio n for extensio n o f tha t perio d upon
compliance with Sec . 2 , Rul e 45 .
Th e part y whos e motion
for reconsideratio n or new tria l wa s denie d an d wh o
desire s t o appea l t o th e Suprem e Court may als o move for
such extende d perio d upon th e sam e terms , preparator y
to an d for purpose s of th e filing of hi s petition .
665
----------------------- Page 666----------------------RULE 53
2-4
Sec .
o f
Appeal s
2 .
shal l
wit h tha t a
o r refus e a
notic e t o
r
t e s t im o ny
o r r e n d e
b e
r e n d e r e d
(2a)
Hearing
c o n s i d e r
and
orders.
th e
n e w
SECS
e v i d e n c e
C o u r t
togethe r
Sec . 3 .
Resolution of motion.
I
o f
Appeals , a m o t i o n fo r n e w tria l shal
withi n ninet y (90) day s fro m th e dat e w h e n
d e c l a r e s i t s u b m i t t e d fo r resolutio
Sec
o t h e r w
tria l
shall b e
Court .
T h e
t h e
Cour t
l b e resolve d
th e cour t
n
. 4 .
Procedure in new trial. U n l e s s th e cour t
i s e directs , th e
p r o c e d u r e i n th e ne w
th e sam e a s tha t grante d b y a Regiona l Tria l
(3a )
NOTE S
maintain s
may direc
Rule 3 7
in case s
th e sam e reservatio n
t suc h departur e from
wher e adherenc e theret
pendin g befor e it or
NEW TRIAL
SECS. 2-4
5 4
B U S I N E S S
Sectio n
1.
Distribution of cases among divisions.
Al l th e c a s e s o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s shal l b e allotte d
a m o n g t h e
differen t d i v i s i o n s t h e r e o f fo r hear
in g
an d decision .
Th e Cour t o f Appeals , sittin g e n banc,
shal l m a k e
p r o p e r o r d e r s o r r u l e s t o g o v
e r n th e
allotmen t o f c a s e s a m o n g th e differen t divisions , th e
c o n s t i t u t i o n o f s u c h di visi on s , th e regula r rotatio n
o f J u s t i c e s a m o n g t
c i e s
o c c u r r i n g t h e r e i n ,
th e
b u s i n e s s o f th e court ;
i n forc e unti l r e p e a l
th e
S u p r e m e Court , ( l a )
a
t
q
r
s
c
u
u
s
h
h e m ,
t h e
fillin g
o f v a c a n
an d othe r m a t t e r s relatin g t o
an d s u c h rule s shal l continu e
e d o r altere d b y i t o r b y
Sec. 2.
Quorum of the court. A majorit y of th e
t u a l m e m b e r s
o f t h e c o u r t s h a l l c o n s t i
t e a
o r u m fo r it s s e s s i o n s e n banc.
Thre e
membe
a l l c o n s t i t u t e a q u o r u m fo r t h e
s o f a
division .
Th e affirmativ e v o t e s o f th e
th e m e m b e r s
pas s a
p r e s e n t
shal l
b e
s e s s i o n
majorit y
n e c e s s a r y
o f
t o
r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e cour t
e n banc.
Th e
affirmati
v e
v o t e s o f t h r e e m e m b e r s
o f a d i v i s i o n s h a
l l b e
n e c e s s a r y fo r th e p r o n o u n c e m e n t o f a j u d g m e n
t o f
f i n a l r e s o l u t i o n , w h i c h
s h a l l b e
r e a c h e
d
i n
c o n s u l t a t i o n befor e th e w r i t i n g o f th e opinio n
b y
any m e m b e r o f th e division .
(Sec . 11 , firs t par
. o f
B P Big . 129 , a s a m e n d e d b y Sec . 6 o f E O 33) .
(3a)
NOTE S
1.
Sec . 1 i s a reproductio n of th e sam e section of th e
former Rule , an d bear s notin g for it s clarification o f th e
matter s tha t ar e handle d b y th e Cour t o f Appeal s sittin g
either en banc or in divisions .
668
----------------------- Page 669----------------------RULE 54
1-2
INTERNAL BUSINESS
SECS.
669
----------------------- Page 670----------------------RUL E
PUBLICATIO N
A N D
FINA L
5 6
O F
JUDGMENT S
RESOLUTION S
S e c t i o n 1 .
Publication. T h e j u d g m e n t s
an d
fina l r e s o l u t i o n s o f th e cour t shal l b e publishe d i n
th e
Officia l G a z e t t e
an d
i n t h e R e p o r t s offic
iall y
a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e cour t i n t h e l a n g u a g e i n
whic h
the y h a v e b e e n originall y written , t o g e t h e r wit h th e
s y l l a b i t h e r e f o r p r e p a r e d
b y
t h e r e p o r t
e r
i n
c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e writer s thereof .
Memorand a
o f al l o t h e r j u d g m e n t s an d fina l r e s o l u t i o n s
no t s o
p u b l i s h e d
s h a l l b e
m a d e
b y
t h e r e p o r t e
r a n d
publishe d i n th e Officia l Gazett e an d th e authorize d
reports ,
( l a )
NOT E
1. Sec . 1 , C A . 63 8 provide s for th
th e Official Gazett e o f only suc h decision s or
decision s o f th e Suprem e Cour t an d th e Cour t
as ma y b e deeme d by sai d court s o f sufficient
t o b e s o published .
e publicatio n in
abstract s o f
o f Appeal s
importanc e
Sec.
2.
Preparation
of
opinions
for publication.
PUBLICATION OF JUDGMENTS
SEC
N O T E S
1. Th e syllabu s i s an abstract , a headnote , or a not e
prefixe d t o th e repor t o f an adjudge d case , containin g an
epitome or brie f statemen t o f th e ruling s o f th e cour t upon
th e point s decide d in th e cas e (Kuhn vs. Coal Co., 215
U.S. 356, 30 S. Ct. 140, 54 L.Ed. 228). Th e weigh t of it s
authority i n th e different state s depend s o n whethe r th e
syllabus shoul d contai n als o finding s o f fact or , lik e ou r
practice , shal l b e confined t o point s o f law .
Th e bette r
rule , in ou r experience , shoul d b e tha t ordinarily wher e a
headnote , even thoug h prepare d by th e court , i s given n o
special force by statut e or rul e o f court , th e opinion i s t o
b e looke d t o for th e origina l an d authenti c statemen t on
th e ground s of decision (Burbank vs. Ernst, 232 U.S.
162,
34 S.
Ct.
299,
58 L. Ed.
551).
Libi,
et al.
Court,
et
al. (G.R .
accurat e
t o say tha t Fuellas provide d for
liability o f th e parent s therein .
A carefu l
show s tha t wha t responden t court quote d
in it s decision now on appea l in th e presen t
d whic h i t attribute d t o Fuellas, wa s th e
x "
Sec . 3 .
General make-up of volumes.
Th e
pub lishe d decision s an d fina l resolution s o f th e Suprem e
Cour t shal l b e calle d "Philippin e Reports, " whil e
t h o s e o f t h e Cour t o f Appeal s shal l b e k n o w n a s th e
"Court o f A p p e a l s Reports. "
Eac h v o l u m e ther
eo f
shal l c o n t a i n a tabl e o f th e c a s e s reporte d an d th e
c a s e s c i t e d i n t h e o p i n i o n s ,
w i t h a
c o m
p l e t e
a l p h a b e t i c a l i n d e x o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r s
o f th e
v o l u m e .
I t s h a l l c o n s i s t o f n o t l e s s t h a n
s e v e n
hun dr e d p a g e s printe d u p o n goo d paper , wel l boun d
a n d
n u m b e r e d
c o n s e c u t i v e l y i n t h e o r d e r
o f th e
v o l u m e p u b l i s h e d . (Sec . 23a , R.A . No . 296 )
(n
)
NOTE S
1. Th e official report s o f cour t decision s which ar e
publishe d b y th e Governmen t and , therefore , constitut e
primar y authorit y thereon , ar e thos e i n th e Philippin e
Reports , Official Gazett e an d Cour t o f Appeal s Reports ,
I N
TH E
SUPREM E
RULE
A .
ORIGINAL
Sectio n 1. Original
t i o n s fo r certiorari ,
warranto , h a b e a s corpus
a g a i n s t m e m b e r s o
,
a n d c a s e s a f f e c t i
l i c
minister s an d consul s ma y
Suprem e Court ,
(n)
COUR T
5 6
CASE S
Rules
applicable.
T h e p r o c e d u r e i n
,
a l l b e i n
th e
6 2 an d
673
----------------------- Page 674----------------------RULE 66
SEC. 2
NOTE S
1. Expressl y mad e applicabl e t o origina l action s in
th e Suprem e Cour t ar e th e following Rule s which ar e o f
primar y governanc e in th e Cour t o f Appeals , viz.: Rul e 4 6
(origina l a c t i o n s i n t h e C o u r t o f Appeals) ,
Rul e
4 8
(preliminary conference) , Rul e 4 9 (ora l argument) , Rul e
5 1 (judgment) , an d Rul e 5 2 (motion for reconsideration) .
However , suc h portion s thereo f whic h dea l strictl y with
an d ar e specifically intende d for appeale d case s i n th e
Court o f Appeal s ar e no t applicable .
2 . It wil l b e note d tha t while , excep t for it s Sec .
3 ,
Rule 52 on motion s for reconsideratio n i s applicabl e t o both
th e Cour t o f Appeal s an d th e Suprem e Court , Rul e 5 3 on
motion s for new tria l i s observe d in th e Cour t o f Appeal s
bu t i s no t mad e applicabl e t o an d canno t b e availe d o f in
th e Suprem e Cour t i n civil case s therein .
Th e apparen t reaso n for thi s i s tha t whil e th e Cour t
ORIGINAL CASES
SE
CASE S
S e c . 3 .
t h e
S u p r e m e Cour t m
revie w o n certiorari
th e
p e n a l t y i
o r
lif e i m p r i s o n m
Mode
of
appeal.
A n
a p p e a l
t o
a y b e t a k e n onl y b y a petitio n fo r
, e x c e p t i n crimina l c a s e s wher e
m p o s e d i s d e a t h , recluaion perpetua
e n t ,
(n )
NOT E
1. Rule s 4 1 an d 4 2 o f th e
196 4 Rule s o f Cou
rt ,
which prescribe d a common mod e o f appea l t o th e Cour t
of Appeal s an d th e Suprem e Court , wer e supersede d by
R.A . 5433 , R.A . 544 0 and , further , b y B.P . Big .
129 .
Appeal s t o th e Suprem e Cour t i n civil case s ma y b e mad e
only by petitio n for review on certiorar i from th e Cour t o f
Appeal s (Rule
45) an d from th e Regiona l Tria l Court s
(Rule 45 in relatio n to Sec. 17, R.A. 296).
na l
cases , appea l t o th e Suprem e Cour t shal l b e
for review on certiorari , excep t wher e th e penalt
by
th e lowe r
cour t
i s death ,
reclusion
r
life
imprisonment .
Th e deat h penalt y shal l
Eve n in crimi
b y petitio n
y impose d
perpetua
b e
subjec t t o
Procedure.
T h e
a p p e a l
s h a l l
r n e d b y an d d i s p o s e d o f i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t
i c a b l e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n ,
s ,
45 , 48 , s e c t i o n s 1 , 2 , an d 5 t o 1 1 o f Rul e 51
h i s Rule ,
(n )
NOT E
1. Sees . 3 an d 4 o f Rul e 5 1
t o
appellat e proceeding s i n th e Suprem e Cour t
refer s t o th e quoru m an d procedur e for
peculia r t o th e Cour t o f Appeals ; an d th
ar e
no t applicabl e
a s th e first
votin g which i s
e secon d i s with
676
----------------------- Page 677----------------------RULE 56
APPEALED CASES
SEC. 5
th e
source s o f th e foregoin g ground s
o f appea l i n th e Cour t o f Appeal s ar e
No . 1-88, Circular No . 2-90 an d Circular
th e Suprem e Court .
3 .
Th e
g r o u n d s for dismissa l o f a p p e a l s i
n th e
Supreme Cour t var y in a numbe r o f respect s from thos e
in th e Cour t o f Appeal s (Rule 50) sinc e th e appea l in civil
case s t o bot h court s differ in th e mod e an d requirement s
for perfectin g th e appeal , a s wel l a s th e pleading s an d
proceeding s require d thereafter .
Sec . 6.
provide d i n s e c
i n c r i m i n a l
e d i s
d e a t h , reclusion
a n
a p p e a l t a k e n
e o f
appea l shal l b e d
A n
Cour t
t i n g
i s s u e s
r t o f
A p p e a l
n . Th e
d e t e r m
o r
no t i s s
(n )
o r
t h e
lif e
S u p r e m e
imprisonment ,
Cour t
b y
n o t i c
i s m i s s e d .
a p p e a l b y certiorar i t a k e n t o th e Suprem e
fro m t h e
R e g i o n a l Tria l
Cour t s u b m i t
o f
s
f a c t m a y
fo r
b e
d e c i s i o n
r e f e r r e d t o t h e
o r
a p p r o p r i a t e
C o u
a c t i o
i n a t i o n o f t h e S u p r e m e Cour t o n w h e t h e r
u e s o f fac t ar e involve d shal l b e final ,
NOTE S
APPEALED CASES
SE
Thi s
p a r a g r a p h wa s
als o
t a k e n from
C i r c
u l a r
No . 2-90 ,
wit h th e amplification tha t th e referra l t o th e
Court o f Appeal s shal l b e "for decision or appropriat e
action, " an d tha t th e determinatio n o f th e Suprem e Cour t
as t o whethe r or not issue s o f fact ar e involved i s final .
Sec.
7 .
Procedure
if
opinion
is
equally
divided.
W h e r e
t h e c o u r t e n banc
i n
opinion , o r th e necessar y majorit y
th e cas e shal l agai n b e deliberate
s u c h d e l i b e r a t i o n n o d e
t h e
origina l a c t i o n c o m m e n c e d
i s e q u a l l y d i v i d e d
canno t b e had ,
d on , an d i f afte r
c i s i o n i s r e a c h e d ,
i n
th e
cour t
shal l
b e
o n
NOTE S
1. Thi s section wa s taken , with minor changes , from
Sec. 1 1 o f th e former Rul e 56 , which , in turn , wa s base d
on th e provision s o f Sec .
11(2) , Art . X o f th e
197 3
Constitution .
Tha t provision o f th e 1973 Constitution
wa s not adopte d in th e 1987 Constitution , henc e thi s
section doe s not hav e a constitutiona l basis .
679
----------------------- Page 680----------------------RULE 56
SEC. 7
(2)
All case s involvin g th e constitutionalit y o f
a treaty , internationa l or executiv e agreement , or
law , whic h shal l b e hear d by th e Suprem e Cour t e n
banc, an d al l othe r case s which unde r th e Rule s o f
Court ar e require d t o b e hear d e n banc, includin g
thos e involvin g th e constitutionality , application , or
operation o f presidentia l decrees , proclamations ,
orders , instructions , ordinances , an d othe r regula tion s shal l b e decide d wit h th e concurrenc e o f a
APPEALED CASES
SEC. 7
(3)
Upon th e expiration o f th e correspondin g
period , a certification to thi s effect signe d by th e Chief
Justic e o r th e presidin g judg e shal l forthwit h b e
issued an d a copy thereo f attache d t o th e recor d o f
th e cas e or matter , an d serve d upon th e parties .
Th e
certification shal l stat e why a decision ha s not been
rendere d or issue d within sai d period .
(4) Despit e th e expiratio n o f th e applicabl e
mandator y period , th e court , withou t prejudic e t o
68 1
----------------------- Page 682----------------------RULE 56
EC. 7
13 .
h e
ratificatio n o f thi s Constitution , o f th e applicabl e
perio d for th e decision or resolutio n o f th e case s or
m a t t e r s submitte d for adjudicatio n b y th e courts ,
shall b e determine d b y th e Suprem e
a s practicable .
Cour t a s soon
APPEALED CASES
1991).
Thi s doctr
. 8 , Rul e 51 .
faith
thereof .
683
----------------------- Page 684----------------------PROVISIONA L
PRELIMINARY
REMEDIE S
CONSIDERATION S
1. Th e
r e v i s e d R u l e s o f C o u r t provid e for
th e
provisiona l remedie s o f preliminar y attachment , pre liminary injunction , receivership , replevi n an d suppor t
pendente lite.
Contempt , whic h unde r th e old Rule s wa s
also considere d a provisiona l remedy , i s now classifie d a s
a specia l civil action .
2 .
auxiliary
durin g th
t o by a
know n a s ancillary or
d processe s availabl e
whic h ma y b e resorte d
protec t certai n right s an d
684
----------------------- Page 685----------------------RULE 56
EC. 5
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
88,
applie d
for
befor e
th e
defendan t
file s
hi s
answer .
685
----------------------- Page 686----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
Support pendente lite ma y
action , an d eve n for th e
basi s o r propriet y thereo f
obviously befor e th e fina l
6 . I n
preliminar y
b e sough t at
first tim e on
wa s establishe d
judgmen t in sai
a t t a c h m e n t
an y stag e o f th e
appea l provide d th e
a t th e trial , but
d cas e on appeal .
an d
i n
preliminar y
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
SEC. 6
PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT
Section
1 .
Grounds upon
which attachment
issue. At th e commencemen t o f th e actio n o r at
any tim e befor e entr y o f judgment , a plaintif f o r any
prope r party ma y hav e th e propert y o f th e advers e
party attache d a s securit y for th e satisfactio n o f
any judgmen t tha t ma y b e recovere d i n th e follow in g cases :
may
I n
a n
a c t i o n fo r
m o n e y
o r
p r o p e r t y
actio n
i s
688
----------------------- Page 689----------------------RULE 57
EC.
PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT
(e)
I n a n
a c t i o n a g a i n s t a p a r t y w h o
h a s
remove d o r dispose d o f hi s property , o r i s abou t t o
d o so , wit h inten t t o defrau d hi s creditors ;
(f) I n a n actio n agains t a part y w h o doe s no t
resid e i n th e Philippines , o r o n w h o m s u m m o n s ma y
b e serve d b y publication ,
(la )
N O T E S
1.
Th e former Sec .
former Sec .
referre d t o frau d
action
or
in contract -
in g th e
obligatio n
(dolo
causante)
an d
no t i n
t h e
performanc e thereo f (dolo incidente),
henc e th e issuanc
e
of bouncin g check s in paymen t o f th e obligation wa s not
considere d
a s a groun d for preliminar y a t t a c h m e n t
(Javellana
vs.
D.O.
Plaza
Enterprises,
Inc.,
L-28297
,
Mar.
30, 1970).
With th e presen t amendmen t o f Par .
(d) t o includ e both kind s o f fraud , th e former doctrine s
689
----------------------- Page 690----------------------RULE 67
SEC. 1
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
G.R.
Nos.
79926-27,
Oct.
17,
1991).
Insolvency o
f
th e defendan t debto r i s not a groun d for th e issuanc e o f
a wri t of preliminar y
attachmen t (Aboitiz &
Co.,
Inc.,
et al. vs. Prov. Sheriff, etc., et al., L-35990, June 17, 1981).
Sec. 1(f), concernin g summon s by publication , refer s t o
thos e case s in Sees . 14 an d 1 6 of Rul e 14 .
6 . B a s e d
o n
t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y an d effect s
o f
attachment , it may b e classified a s (a) preliminary , which
i s resorte d t o at th e commencemen t o f th e action or at any
tim e befor e entr y o f judgment , for th e temporar y seizur e
of propert y o f th e advers e party ; an d (b) final , or levy
upon execution , which i s availabl e after th e judgmen t in
th e mai n actio n ha s becom e executory ,
an d for
th e
satisfaction o f
sai d judgment .
A s t o form an d procedur e o f enforcement , ther e i s th e
regula r form o f attachmen t which refer s t o corporea l
propert y in th e possession o f th e party , an d garnishmen t
which refer s t o money , stocks , credit s an d other incorporea l
property which belong t o th e party bu t ar e in th e possession
or unde r th e contro l o f a thir d person .
Th e purpose s o f preliminar y attachmen t ar e
(a)
t o
SEC. 1
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SE
2.
Issuance
o f a t t a c h m e n t
and
ma y
contents
b e
of
issue d
order.
eithe r
ex parte
An
o r u p o n m o t i o n w i t h notic e an d h e a r i n g b y t
h e
cour t i n w h i c h th e actio n i s pending , o r b y th e Cour t
o f Appeal s o r th e Suprem e Court , an d mus t requir e
th e sherif f o f th e
cour t t o attac h
s o m u c h o f
th e
propert y i n t h e
P h i l i p p i n e s o f th e part y a g a
i n s t
w h o m i t i s issued , no t exemp t fro m execution , a s
may b e sufficien t t o satisf y th e applicant' s demand ,
unles s suc h part y make s deposi t o r give s a bon d a s
hereinafte r provide d i n a n a m o u n t equa l t o tha t
f i x e d i n t h e o r d e r , w h i c h m a y
b e t h e a m o u n
t
sufficient t o satisf y th e applicant' s deman d o r th e
valu e o f th e propert y t o b e attache d a s state d b y
th e applicant .
Severa l writ s ma y b e issue d a t th e
sam e tim e t o th e sheriff s o f th e court s o f differen t
judicia l regions .
(2a)
NOTE S
1. A wri t of preliminar y attachmen t may be sought
and issue d ex parte (Filinvest Credit Corp.
us. Reloua,
et
al, G.R. No. 50378, Sept. 30,
1982).
Unlik e preliminar y
injunction which canno t now be issue d ex parte (Sec. 5,
Rule
58),
notic e an d hearin g ar e
not require d in th e
issuanc e
Investment
House Inc.,
o f a wri t o f preliminar y
and
Finance
Co.,
Inc.
G.R.
No.
71917,
June
30,
attachmen t
vs.
State
(Belisle
Inuestment
1987).
als o exempt
(Sec.
o f th e regula r
bu t fund s o f
garnishmen t
693
----------------------- Page 694----------------------RULE 57
(PNB
vs.
et
al,
L-33112,
SEC. 3
June
15,
1978).
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SE
Th e part y
SEC. 5
& Insurance Co., Inc. vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No. 73916, jointly
decided on Nov. 11, 1987; see BA Finance Corp. vs. CA, et
al, G.R. No.
61464, May 29,
1988).
3. Ther e is no rul e allowing substitution of attache d
propert y althoug h a n attachmen t may b e discharge d
wholly or in par t upon th e security o f a counter-bon d
offered by th e defendant upon application to th e court ,
with notice t o an d after hearin g th e attachin g creditor ; or
upon application o f th e defendant , wit h notic e t o th e
attaching creditor an d after hearing , i f it appear s tha t
th e attachmen t wa s improperly or irregularly issued .
I f
an attachmen t i s excessive , th e remedy o f th e defendant
is to apply to th e court for a reduction or partia l discharg e
and substitution o f th e attache d properties .
Otherwise ,
th e lien acquire d by th e plaintif f creditor a s of th e dat e of
th e origina l levy would be lost an d thi s would , in effect,
constitute a deprivation without du e proces s of law of th e
attaching creditor' s interes t in th e attache d property a s
security for th e satisfaction o f th e judgmen t which h e
may obtain (Santos, et al. vs. Aquino, Jr., etc., et al, G.R.
Nos.
86181-82, Jan.
13, 1992).
Sec. 6 . Manner of attaching property. Th e sherif f
enforcin g th e wri t shal l withou t dela y an d wit h all
696
----------------------- Page 697----------------------RULE 57
PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT
SEC. 6
r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e a t t a c h , t o a w a i t j u d g m
e n t a n d
e x e c u t i o n
i n
t h e
a c t i o n ,
o n l y
s o
m u c
h
o f t h e
p r o p e r t y
i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s o f t h e
p a r t
y a g a i n s t
w h o m t h e w r i t i s issued , n o t e x e m p t fro m e x e c u t i
o n ,
a s
m a y
b e
s u f f i c i e n t t o
s a t i s f y t h e
a p
p l i c a n t ' s
d e m a n d , u n l e s s t h e forme r m a k e s a d e p o s i t w i t h
t h e
c o u r t
f r o m w h i c h
t h e
w r i t i s i s s u e d , o
r g i v e s a
c o u n t e r - b o n d
e x e c u t e d
t o
t h e a p p l i c a n
t ,
i n
a n
a m o u n t e q u a l t o t h e bon d fixe d b y t h e c o u r t i n
t h e
o r d e r o f a t t a c h m e n t o r t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e p r
o p e r t y
t o b e
a t t a c h e d ,
e x c l u s i v e
o f c o s t s .
N o
l e v y o n
a t t a c h m e n t
p u r s u a n t
t o
t h e
w r i t i s s u
e d
u n d e r
s e c t i o n
2
h e r e o f s h a l l
b e
e n f o r c e d
u n l
e s s
i t i s
p r e c e d e d , o r c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y a c c o m p a n i
e d ,
s e r
f t
c o m
e n t
a p p
e r
w r i
i t h
P h i
b y
i c e o f s u m m o n s
e
l a i n t ,
t h e
a
t h e
i c a n t ' s affidavi t
a n d
t o f a t t a c h m e n t
i n
t h e
l i p p i n e s .
v
h
p
,
l
t o g e t h e r
w i t h
p p l i c a t i o n
a n d
,
fo r
bond ,
o n
a t t a c h m
a n d
t h e
cop y
t h e
o r d
d e f e n d a n t
T h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f p r i o r o r c o n t e m p o r a
n e o u s
s e r v i c e
o f s u m m o n s
s h a l l n o t
a p p l y
w
h e r e
t h e
s u m m o n s
c o u l d
n o t
b e
s e r v e d
p e r s o n a l
l y o r
b y
s u b s t i t u t e d servic e d e s p i t e d i l i g e n t efforts ,
o r t h e
d e f e n d a n t i s a r e s i d e n t o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s t
e m p o r a ril y a b s e n t t h e r e f r o m , o r t h e d e f e n d a n t i
s a n o n r e s i d e n t o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , o r t h e a c t i o n
i s o n e i n
rem or quasi in rem.
(6a )
Sec . 6 .
i n g t h e
writ , t h e sherif f
a r e t u r n t h e
h e w r i t
i s s u e d , w i t h
c e e d i n g s
u n d e r t h e
w
r y
o f t h e
p r o p e r t y
a t
c o u n t e r b o n d
g i v e n
a t t a c h m e n t
i s i s s
o f o n
t h e
a p p l i c a n t .
Sheriff's
return.
Afte r
e n f o r c
m u s t likewis e w i t h o u t dela y m a k e
r e o n t o t h e c o u r t fro m w h i c h t
a
r i t
ful l
a n d
s t a t e m e n t
t a c h e d ,
b y
u e d ,
t h e
a n d
o f h i s
c o m p l e t e
t o g e t h e r
p a r t y
p r o
i n v e n t o
w i t h
a n y
a g a i n s t
s e r v e
c o p i e s
w h o m
t h e r e
697
----------------------- Page 698----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 6
NOTE S
1. Sec . 5 now complement s th e prohibition against
excessive attachmen t on th e advers e party' s property by
providin g tha t levy on attachmen t shal l b e limite d only to
so much of th e property a s may be sufficient to satisfy th e
applicant's demand .
More importantly , in view of controversie s in previou s
ruling s on whethe r levy on attachmen t may b e mad e
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SE
7 .
Attachment
of
real
and
personal
property;
recording thereof.
Rea l an d persona l propert y shal l
b e attache d b y th e sherif f executin g th e wri t i n th e
followin g
manner :
(a)
Rea l property , o r growin g crop s thereon ,
o r an y interes t therein , standin g upo n th e record s
o f th e registr y o f deed s o f th e provinc e i n th e nam e
o f title , t h e volum e a n d p a g e i n t h e r e g i s t r a
t i o n
boo k w h e r e t h e certificat e i s r e g i s t e r e d , a n d
th e
registere d o w n e r o r o w n e r s thereof .
Th e r e g i s t r a r o f deed
t s
file d
u n d e r
t h i s s e c t
o f t h e
applicant , t h e a d v e r s e party ,
t h e p r o p e r t y i s hel d o r i
i n
t h e r e c o r d s . I f t h e a t
d o n
th e e n t i r e a r e a o f t h e lan
o f title ,
th e
identificatio
s h a l l b
f s u c h
a t t a c h m
a d e s c r i p t i o n
s m u s t inde x a t t a c h m e n
i o n
i n
t h e
n a m e s
o r t h e perso n b y who m
n whos e n a m e i t s t a n d s
t a c h m e n t
i s
no t claime
d covere d b y t h e certificat e
sufficientl y
a c c u r a t e
for
n o f t h e lan d o r i n t e r e s t t o b e affecte d
e
i n c l u d e d
i n t h e
r e g i s t r a t i o n o
e n t ;
(b)
P e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y
c a p a b l e
o f m
a n u a l
d e l i v e r y , b y t a k i n g a n d
safel y k e e p i n g i t
i n hi s
c u s t o d y , afte r
i s s u i n g t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
r e c e i p t
therefor ;
(c)
stock s
o r s h a r
y ,
b y
l e a v i n g
a g e n t
thereof , a
g t h a t
th e stoc k
th e
a t t a c h m
n c e o f
such writ ;
Stock s
e s ,
o f
w i t h
o r
s h a r e s ,
a n y
o r a n
i n t e r e s t
c o r p o r a t i o n
t h e
p r e s i d e n t
o r
cop y o f t h e writ , a n d
o r
i n
c o m p a n
m a n a g i n g
a notic e s t a t i n
o r i n t e r e s t o f t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t w h o m
e n t
i s
issued ,
i s
a t t a c h e d
i n
p u r s u a
(d)
Debt s an d credits , includin g b a n k deposits ,
financia l interest , royalties , commission s a n d othe r
p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y no t capabl e o f m a n u a l delivery
,
b y l ea v i n g w i t h t h e p e r s o n o w i n g s u c h d e b
t s , o r
h a v i n g i n hi s possessio n o r u n d e r hi s control , suc h
c r e d i t s o r o t h e r p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y , o r w i
t h
hi s
agent , a cop y o f t h e writ , a n d notic e t h a t t h e debt s
owin g b y h i m t o t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t w h o m a t t a c h m
e n t
i s i s s u e d , a n d
t h e c r e d i t s a n d
o t h e r
p e
r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y i n hi s possession , o r u n d e r hi s control ,
belongin g t o sai d party , a r e a t t a c h e d i n p u r s u a n c e
o f suc h
writ ;
700
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SE
(e)
Th e
i n t e r e s t o f th e part y a g a i n s t w
h o m
attachmen t i s issue d i n propert y belongin g t o th e
estat e o f th e decedent , whethe r a s heir , legatee , o r
devisee , b y servin g th e executo r o r administrato r
o r othe r persona l representativ e
o f th e d e c e d
e n t
wit h a cop y o f th e wri t an d notice , tha t sai d interes t
i s attached .
A cop y o f sai d wri t o f attachmen t an d
o f sai d notic e shal l als o b e file d i n th e offic e o f th e
cler k o f t h e c o u r t i n w h i c h sai d
e s t a t e i s b
e i n g
settle d an d serve d upo n th e heir , legate e o r devise e
c o n c e r n e d .
I f t h e p r o p e r t y
i s i n
custodia
legis,
a cop y
s o u g h t
o f th e
t o b e
a t t a c h e d
b e file d
w i t h t h e p r o p e r cour t o r quasi-judicia l
agency , an d notic e o f th e attachmen t serve d upo n
th e custodia n o f suc h property .
(7a)
NOTE S
1. Par . (a) of thi s section i s a consolidation of Pars ,
(a) an d (b) o f th e former section .
Par . (d) spell s out th
e
incorporeal propertie s subject o f garnishmen t which , asid e
from stock s or share s an d debt s or credit s which wer e
provide d in th e former Rule , shoul d includ e ban k deposits ,
financia l interest ,
royalties ,
commission s
an d oth
e r
persona l propert y not capabl e o f manua l delivery .
2 . Pars , (c) an d (d) of Sec . 7 refer to garnishmen t
and provid e for th e procedur e therefor .
By such notic e
o f garnishment ,
th e cour t acquire s jurisdictio n ove r
th e garnishe e an d th e latte r become s a forced interveno r
in th e case .
Th e garnishe e remain s in possessio n o f
th e propert y
garnishe d
bu t hold s
i t subjec t t o
th e
ultimat e dispositio n thereo f b y th e court .
I t resu
lt s
in an involuntar y novation by chang e o f creditor s (see
Tayabas Land Co.
us. Sharuff,
41 Phil.
382).
70 1
----------------------- Page 702----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 7
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SEC.
No.
107271,
Sept.
10,
2003).
th e judgmen t
judgmen t
mortgage e which
foreclosure .
In
al,
G.R.
No.
67496,
July
7, 1986).
a
duly registere d
f th e attachin g
& Trust Corp.
, 1987), an d Not e 9
th e plaintiff s suit .
It i s not necessar y t o serv e summon s upo n th e
garnishe e i n orde r tha t th e tria l cour t may acquir e
jurisdictio n to bind him .
He nee d not be impleade d a s a
party t o th e case .
All tha t i s necessary i s th e service upon
him of th e writ of garnishment , as a consequenc e of which
704
----------------------- Page 705----------------------RULE 57
SECS. 9-10
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
Sec .
is
10 .
Examination
and persons
his
delivery
of
of
indebted
property
party
to
to
him
sheriff.
whose
or
p
contro
An y
p e r s o n
w i n g d e b t s t o t h e p a r t y w h o s e p r o p e r t y i s a
t a c h e d
r h a v i n g i n hi s p o s s e s s i o n o r u n d e r hi s c o n t
o l a n y
r e d i t o r o t h e r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n
g t o s u c h
p a r t y , m a y b e r e q u i r e d t o a t t e n d befor e t h
e c o u r t
i n
w h i c h
t h e
a c t i o n
i s p e n d i n g ,
o r
b e f o r e
a
c o m m i s s i o n e r
a p p o i n t e d
b y
t h e c o u r t ,
a n d
b e
e x a m i n e d o n o a t h r e s p e c t i n g t h e same .
T
h e p a r t y
w h o s e p r o p e r t y i s a t t a c h e d ma y als o b e r e q u i r
e d t o
a t t e n d
fo r
t h e
p u r p o s e
o f g i v i n g
i n f
o r m a t i o n
r e s p e c t i n g h i s p r o p e r t y , a n d ma y b e e x a m i
n e d o n
o a t h . T h e c o u r t may , afte r suc h e x a m i n a t i o n , o
r d e r
o
t
o
r
c
705
----------------------- Page 706----------------------RULE 57
p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y c a p a b l e o f
belongin g t o him , i n th e possessio n o
s o r e q u i r e d t o a t t e n d befor e
e
delivere d t o th e cler k o f th e court , o r
term s a s ma y b e just , havin g referenc e
thereo n o r clai m agains t th e same ,
judgmen t i n th e action .
(10a )
SEC. 11
m a n u a l deliver y
f th e perso n
t h e c o u r t , t o b
sherif f o n suc h
t o an y lie n
t o awai t th e
NOTE S
1. Th e proceedin g her e i s similar t o th e examination
of th e judgmen t obligor an d of th e obligor of such judgment
obligor authorize d in Sees . 3 6 an d 37 , Rul e 39 .
However ,
th e sai d proceedin g in Rule 3 9 i s proper only when th e
writ o f execution i s returne d unsatisfied .
Unde r thi s
section, th e examination i s not subject to a preliminary
condition but i s anticipatory in natur e an d may b e resorte d
to even i f th e writ o f attachmen t wa s not returne d becaus e
no property could be found to be levied upon thereunder .
Of course , i f th e attachin g part y ha s succeeded in locating
property of th e advers e part y sufficient for purpose s of
th e projected levy , it would be unneccessary for him to
resort t o th e examination contemplate d in thi s section .
2 . I f th e garnishe e doe s not admi t th e indebtednes s
or h e claim s th e property , th e controvers y mus t b e
determined in an independen t action (Bucra Corp.
.
vs
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SEC. 12
a c t i o n i s p e n d i
t o b o t h
p a r t i e s , t h a t t
s h a b l e , o r
t h a t t h e i n t e r
t h e a c t i o n
wil l b e s u b s e r v e
m a y ,
o n m o t i o n , o r d e
p u b l i c
a u c t i o n i n s u c
a n d t h e
p r o c e e d s
t o b
a b i d e
t h e
j u d g m e n t i n t h e
n g , u p o n h e a r i n g w i t h n o t i c e
h e p r o p e r t y a t t a c h e d i s p e r i
e s t s
o f al l
t h e
p a r t i e s
t o
d b y t h e sal e thereof , t h e c o u r t
r s u c h p r o p e r t y t o b e sol d a t
h
e
m a n n e r
a s
i t
d e p o s i t e d
a c t i o n .
m a y
i n
d i r e c t ,
c o u r t
t o
(11a )
Sec .
12 .
Discharge of attachment upon giving counterbond. Afte r
a w r i t o f a t t a c h m e n t h a s b e
e n e n forced , t h e p a r t y w h o s e p r o p e r t y h a s b e e n a t t a
c h e d ,
o r t h e p e r s o n a p p e a r i n g o n h i s
behalf , m a
y m o v e
for t h e
d i s c h a r g e
o f t h e a t t a c h m e n t wholl y
o r i n
p a r t o n t h e s e c u r i t y given .
T h e c o u r t shal
l , afte r
d u e n o t i c e a n d h e a r i n g , o r d e r t h e d i s c h a r
g e o f t h e
a t t a c h m e n t i f t h e m o v a n t m a k e s a c a s h d e p o s
i t , o r
file s a c o u n t e r - b o n d e x e c u t e d t o t h e a t t a c h i
n g p a r t y
w i t h t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t w h e r e t h e a p p l i c
a t i o n i s
m a d e , i n a n a m o u n t e q u a l t o t h a t fixe d b y t h e
c o u r t
i n t h e o r d e r o f a t t a c h m e n t , exclusiv e o f costs .
B u t
i f t h e a t t a c h m e n t i s s o u g h t t o b e d i s c h a r
g e d w i t h
r e s p e c t t o a p a r t i c u l a r p r o p e r t y , t h e c o u
n t e r - b o n d
s h a l l b e e q u a l
t o t h e v a l u e
o f t h a t
p r
o p e r t y
a s
d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e c o u r t .
I n e i t h e r case ,
t h e c a s h
d e p o s i t
o r
t h e
c o u n t e r - b o n d
s h a l l s e
c u r e
t h e
p a y m e n t
o f
a n y
j u d g m e n t
t h a t
t h e
a
t t a c h i n g
p a r t y m a y r e c o v e r i n t h e action .
A notic e
o f t h e
d e p o s i t shal l f o r t h w i t h b e serve d o n t h e a t t
a c h i n g
p a r t y .
U p o n t h e
d i s c h a r g e
o f a n a t t a c
h m e n t i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s sec
tion , t h e
p r o p e r t y
a t t a c h e d ,
o r t h e p r o c e e d s
o f
a n y
s a l e
thereof , shal l b e d e l i v e r e d t o t h e p a r t y m a k i n g
t h e
d e p o s i t o r givin g t h e c o u n t e r - b o n d , o r t o t h e
p e r s o n
a p p e a r i n g o n h i s
behalf , t h e
d e p o s i t o r
c o u n t e r bon d aforesai d s t a n d i n g i n plac e o f t h e p r o p e r t y s
o
released .
S h o u l d suc h c o u n t e r - b o n d for a n y
r e a s o n
707
----------------------- Page 708----------------------RULE 57
13
S E C
f t
part
d a
v i t s
o r othe r e v i d e n c e i n additio n t o tha t o n whic h
th e attachmen t wa s made .
Afte r du e notic e an d
hearing , th e cour t shal l orde r th e
s e t t i n g as
id e
o r th e correspondin g discharg e o f th e attachmen t
i f i t appear s tha t i t wa s improperl y o r irregularl y
issue d o r enforced , o r tha t th e bon d i s insufficient ,
o r tha t th e attachmen t i s excessive , an d th e defec t
i s no t cure d forthwith .
(13a)
NOTE S
1.
Preliminary attachmen t shal l be discharge d when
it i s establishe d tha t (a) The debtor ha s posted a counter-bond or ha s made
th e requisit e cash deposit (Sec. 12);
(b) Th e attachmen t wa
issued (Sec. 13) a s wher e ther e
(see Sec. 1), or th e affidavit
defective or insufficient (Sec.
s improperly or irregularly
i s no groun d for attachment
and/or bond filed therefor ar e
3);
708
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SEC. 1
3
(c) Th e attachmen t i s excessive , bu t th e discharg e
shall be limite d to th e exces s (Sec. 13);
(d) Th e propert y attache d i s exemp t from execution ,
henc e exemp t from preliminar y attachmen t (see Sees. 2
and 5); or
(e) Th e judgmen t i s rendere d agains t th e attachin g
creditor (se e Sec. 19).
2. Wher e th e attachmen t i s challenge d for havin g
bee n illegall y o r improperl y issued , ther e mus t b e a
hearing , wit h th e burde n o f proof t o sustai n th e wri t bein g
on th e attachin g
credito r
(Filinvest
Credit
Corp.
vs.
Relova,
supra; Benitez
vs. IAC,
et al., G.R. No.
71535,
Sept.
15,
1987;
Mindanao
Savings
&
Loan
Association,
Inc. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 84481, April 18,
1989).
An ex
parte
discharg e or suspensio n o f th e attachmen t i s a
disservice t o th e orderly administratio n o f justic e an d
nullifie s th e underlyin g rol e an d purpos e o f preliminar y
attachment in preservin g th e right s o f th e partie s pendente
lite a s an ancillary
remedy
(Peroxide Philippines
Corp.,
et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 92813, July 21, 1991).
3. Unlik
of preliminar y
resultin g from
poste d for th
ru
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SEC
bee n
can
over
e latte r
t o f
e i s
vs.
711
----------------------- Page 712----------------------RULE 57
CS. 1516
Sec .
property
attached; return
b y
t h e a t
n
i s s u e
t h e r e o n , t
b e
s a t i s f i e d
i f i t b e
sufficient for t
e e
p r o
o p e
sold
o r
m u c
n t ;
16 .
Satisfaction
of
judgment
of sheriff. If j u d g m e n t be
t a c h i n g
o b l i g e e a n d
h e
out
of
recovere d
e x e c u t i o
sherif f ma y c a u s e t h e j u d g m e n t t o
o u t o f t h e
p r o p e r t y
a t t a c h e d ,
h a t p u r p o s e i n t h e followin g m a n n e r :
(a)
B y
p a
t h e
c e e d s o f al l
r t y
i n p u r s u a n
s o
h a s shal l b e
(b)
I
in g s o
m u c h o f t h
ma y b e
n e c e s s a r y
t h a t
p u r p o s e r
n thos e
o f t h e cler
SE
y i n g
t h e
j u d g m e n t
o b l i g
sale s o f p e r i s h a b l e o r o t h e r p r
c e
o f t h e
o r d e r
o f t h e
court ,
n e c e s s a r y t o satisf y t h e j u d g m e
f a n y
e
t o
b a l a n c e
p r o p e r t y ,
t o satisf y t h e
e m a i n
i n t h e
k o f t h e
r e m a i n
d u e ,
b y
r e a l o r p e r s o n a l ,
sell
a s
b a l a n c e , i f e n o u g h for
s h e r i f f s h a n d s , o r i
court ;
(c)
B y collectin g fro m al l p e r s o n s h a v i n g
i n
t h e i r possessio n c r e d i t s belongin g t o t h e j u d g m e n t
obligor
e o f
th e a
o u n t
o f suc
ur t
i n t
t ,
, o r o w i n g d e b t s t o t h e l a t t e r a t t h e tim
t t a c h m e n t o f s u c h c r e d i t s o r debts , t h e a m
h credit s a n d d e b t s a s d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e co
h e a c t i o n , a n d
a n d
s t a t e d
i n
t h e
j u d g m e n
p a y i n g t h e p r o c e e d s
e
j u d g m e n t obligee .
Th e
sherif f shal l f o r t h w i t h m a k e a r e t u r
n i n
w r i t i n g t o t h e c o u r t o f hi s p r o c e e d i n g s u n
d e r thi s
section a n d furnis h t h e p a r t i e s wit h copie s thereof .
(15a)
Sec .
16 . Balance due collected
upon an
execution;
excess delivered to judgment obligor. If afte r realizin g
u p o n
al l
t h e p r o p e r t y
a t t a c h e d , i n c l u d
i n g t h e
p r o c e e d s
o f a n y
d e b t s o r c r e d i t s c o l l e c
t e d , a n d
a p p l y i n g t h e p r o c e e d s
t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i
o n o f t h e
j u d g m e n t ,
les s t h e e x p e n s e s o f p r o c e e d i n
g s upo n
t h e j u d g m e n t , a n y b a l a n c e shal l r e m a i n d u e
, th e
sheriff, u p o n r e a s o n a b l e d e m a n d , m u s t r e t u r n t
o th e
712
----------------------- Page 713----------------------RULE 57
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SEC. 17
t h e
o f th e
j u d g m e
L-25921,
et al.,
C & S
2. A writ of execution for recovery on the counterbond issued against the surety who was not given notice
and an opportunity to be heard is invalid (Towers
Assurance
Corp.
vs. Ororama
Supermart,
et al., supra).
3. Where, however, damages were assessed against
the counter-bond after notice and hearing, a writ of
execution to satisfy the same may forthwith issue and the
713
----------------------- Page 714----------------------RULE 57
18-19
SECS.
a c h i n g
obligee , al l th e proceed s o f sale s an d mone y collecte d
o r r e c e i v e d b y t h e
sheriff ,
u n d e r t h e o r d
e r
o f
a t t a c h m e n t , a n d al l p r o p e r t y a t t a c h e d r e m
a i n i n g
i n an y suc h officer' s h a n d s , shal l b e delivere d t o th e
p a r t y a g a i n s t w h o m a t t a c h m e n t wa s issued , a n d
th e
o r d e r o f a t t a c h m e n t d i s c h a r g e d . (19a )
NOT E
1. Sees . 1 8 an d 19 provid e for th e procedur e in th e
disposition of (1) money which wa s deposite d by a party
714
----------------------- Page 715----------------------RULE 57
. 20
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SEC
N o t h i n g
party agains t
recoverin g i n
t o hi m fro m
no t e x e m p
o r
deposi t give n
w h
th
an
t
h e r e i n containe d
shal l
preven t
th e
fully satisf y t h e a w a r d .
8EC. 20
(20a )
NOTE S
1. Thi s section govern s th e consequence s wher e th e
attaching creditor fails t o sustai n hi s action an d judgment
is rendere d agains t him .
Th e debtor whos e property wa s
attache d ca n procee d agains t th e bon d poste d by th e
attachin g credito r t o obtai n th e wri t o f preliminar y
attachment .
2 . However , even i f judgmen t wa s rendere d against
th e attachin g creditor bu t h e prove s tha t h e acte d in good
faith i n procurin g suc h preliminar y attachment , th e
adverse part y canno t recover on th e attachmen t bond
(Banque
General
Beige
vs. Bull &
Co.,
84 Phil.
164;
Worcester vs.
Lorenzana,
104 Phil.
234).
3. Sec . 20 provide s for th e procedur e to be followed
in recoverin g damage s agains t th e bond poste d by th e
attaching creditor .
Such procedur e i s th e sam e a s tha t
for recovery o f damage s agains t th e bond poste d by th e
applicant i n preliminar y injunction , receivershi p o r
replevin (see Malayan Insurance Co.
vs. Salas,
L-48820,
May 25,
1979).
4 . Th e application for damage s mus t be mad e by a
counterclaim
in th e answe r
(Ganaway
vs. Fidelity
&
Surety Co., Inc.,
45 Phil. 406; Medina
vs. Maderera del
Norte de Catanduanes, 51 Phil. 240) or by motion in th e
same action .
It shoul d b e filed in th e tria l court at any
tim e befor e th e tria l o r befor e th e appea l from th e
judgmen t therei n i s perfecte d or before such judgmen t
become s
executory ,
an d shal l includ e
al l damage s
sustaine d b y
reaso n o f th e a t t a c h m e n t durin g th e
pendency of th e cas e in th e tria l court
College vs. SSS, L-27493, May 29, 1970, an d
therei n regardin g th e
bon d i n injunctio
Mendoza, et al. vs. Cruz, et al, L-26829, Dec.
716
----------------------- Page 717-----------------------
RULE 57
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
SEC. 20
SEC. 20
5 8
INJUNCTIO N
Sectio n
1.
Preliminary
injunction
defined; classe
s.
A preliminar y injunctio n i s a n orde r grante d a t
any stag e o f a n actio n o r proceedin g prio r t o th e
j u d g m e n t o r fina l order , r e q u i r i n g a part y o r
a
c o u r t , a g e n c y
o r a p e r s o n
t o r e f r a i n f r o m
a
p a r t i c u l a r ac t o r a c t s . I t ma y a l s o r e q u i r
e t h e
performanc e o f a particula r ac t o r acts , i n w h i c h
cas e i t shal l b e know n a s a preliminar y mandator y
injunction ,
(la )
Sec.
r
th e tria l
i s e n t i
o f
permanentl y
i n j u n c t
o r
p e r s o n
o n -
9.
When
final
injunction granted.
If
afte
fro m
t h e c o m m i s s i o n
th e part y
o r
t i n u a n c e o f t h e a c t o r
t h e
preliminar y mandator y injunction .
a c t s o r c o n f i r m i n g
(10a)
NOTE S
1. Injunction i s a judicia l writ , proces s or proceedin g
whereby a part y i s ordere d to do or refrain from doin g a
particula r act .
It may b e an action in itself , brough t
specifically t o restrai n or comman d th e performanc e o f an
act (se e Art.
26,
Civil Code;
Sec.
4, Rule
39;
a
Banking Corp., et al. vs. CA, et al, L-45961, July 3,
0),
or it may jus t b e a provisiona l remed y for an d a s
incident in th e main action which may b e for othe r reliefs .
In it s customary usage , injunction i s a judicia l proces s
operating in personam, an d requirin g a person to whom it
is directe d to do or refrain from doing a particula r thin g
(Gainsberg vs. Dodge, 193 Art. 478, 101 S.W. 2d 178).
In
719
----------------------- Page 720----------------------RULE 68
SECS
1. 9
3,
Manil
199
an
a n
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
urgen t
an d
100 Phil.
1078).
paramoun t
SECS. 1,
necessit y
for th e
(Bautista, et al.
And in Lemi vs.
wri t
t o
vs. Barcelona, et
Valencia.
(L-20768 ,
(Mabuyo
Aug.
Farms,
Inc.
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
140058,
SECS. 1. 9
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SECS.
1, 9
withou t an
t h e m e r
d
improvident
procedura l
al.,
G.R. No.
which
an
July
31,
et
1989).
wil l
no t a
o f th e
e sam e
lite only
in
723
----------------------- Page 724----------------------RULE 58
SEC. 2
NOTE S
1.
vs.
e
o f
o
et
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
SEC. 2
SEC. 2
(3) It could not issu e a writ of preliminary injunction agains t th e Social Security Commission (Poblete
Construction
Co.
vs. SSC,
L-17606, Jon.
22,
1964),
th e Securitie s an d Exchang e Commission (Pineda vs.
Lantin, L-15350, Nov.
30, 1962; Phil. Pacific Fishing
Co., Inc. vs. Luna, G.R. No. 59070, Mar. 15,
1982),
or in dispute s within th e exclusiv e jurisdiction o f th e
Securities an d Exchang e Commission
(Dionisio, et
al. vs. CFI, et al, G.R. No. 61048, Aug. 17, 1983), or
th e forme r
Publi c
Servic e
Commissio n
(Iloilo
Commercial & Ice Co.
vs. Public Service Commission,
56
Phil.
28;
Regalado
vs.
Prov.
Constabulary
Commander, etc., L-15674, Nov. 29, 1961), th e Paten t
Office (Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
vs. San
Diego, L22756, Mar.
18, 1966), or th e Commission
on Election s (Macud vs.
COMELEC, et al, L-28562,
April 25, 1968), a s th e remedy lie s in eithe r th e Court
of Appeal s or th e Suprem e Court , a s th e cas e may b e
(cf. National Electrification Adm.,
et al vs. Mendoza,
et al, G.R. No. 62030, Sept. 25, 1985).
(4) It could not interfer e by injunction with th e
judgmen t o f a cour t o f concurren t or coordinat e
jurisdictio n
(Calderon
vs. Gomez,
etc., L-25239,
Nov.
18, 1967; Luciano
vs. Provincial Governor,
et
al, L-30306,
June
20,
1969), provide d
th e relie f
sought by suc h injunctio n i s on e whic h coul d b e
granted by th e court which rendere d th e judgmen t
(Abiera, et al. vs. CA, et al, L-26294, May 31, 1972),
or when no third-part y claimant i s involved . When a
thir d party , or strange r t o th e action assert s a claim
t o th e propert y levied upon , h e may vindicat e hi s
claim by an independen t action an d th e court therein
may enjoin th e execution o f th e judgmen t o f th e other
court
(Tay Sun
Jan. 7, 1994).
Suy
vs.
CA,
et al,
G.R.
No.
93640,
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
SEC. 2
but
SEC. 2
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
SEC. 2
8. Jurisdiction over all sequestration cases of illgotten wealth under the Marcos regime falls within the
exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
subject to review exclusively by the Supreme Court.
Executive Order No . 1 effectively withholds jurisdiction
over the Presidential Commission on Good Government
from all lower courts, including the Court of Appeals. This
is also to give due recognition to the related doctrines of
primary administrative jurisdiction and exhaustion of
administrative remedies as pointed out in the resolution
in Reyes, etc., et al. vs. Caneba, etc., et al. (G.R. No. 82218,
Mar. 17, 1988) which enjoins courts to allow administrative
agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their
responsibilites within their respective competence.
Regional Trial Courts may not interfere with and restrain
or set aside orders and actions of said Commission as the
acts of an administrative agency must not be casually
overturned by a court, and a court should generally not
substitute its judgment for that of said agency acting
729
----------------------- Page 730----------------------RULE 58
4
SEC.
3.
Grounds
A
for
issuance
(PCGG vs.
of
preliminary
p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n ma y
b e
o th e relie f
o f suc h relie f
m m i s s i o n o r
of, o r
, eithe r
i n
do ,
(3a
)
NOTE S
1. As
enforcemen t
t u tional except
property
r
injunction in
Rule
110.
about
acts
422;
vs.
s
1 ,
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SEC. 4
A
p r e l i m i n a r y
i n j u n c t i o n o r t e m p o r a r y
s t r a i n i n g
o r d e r m a y b e g r a n t e d onl y w h e n :
o
c e e
t l i
a p p
bond
ord
r e
(a)
T h e
a p p l i c a t i o n
i n
t h e
a c t i o n
r p r o d i n g i s verified , a n d
s h o w s
fact s e n t i
n g t h e
l i c a n t t o t h e relie f d e m a n d e d ; a n d
(b)
U n l e s s
e x e m p t e d
b y
t h e
c o
u r t ,
t h e
a p p l i c a n t file s w i t h t h e c o u r t w h e r e t h e a
c t i o n o r
p r o c e e d i n g i s p e n d i n g , a bon d e x e c u t e d t o t h e
p a r t y
o r p e r s o n enjoined , i n a n a m o u n t t o b e fixe d b y t h
e
c o u r t , t o t h e effec t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t wil
l p a y t o
s u c h p a r t y o r p e r s o n s al l d a m a g e s w h i c h
h e m a y
s u s t a i n b y
r e a s o n
o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n o r t
e m p o r a r y
r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r i f t h e c o u r t s h o u l d finall y
d e c i d e
t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t wa s no t e n t i t l e d t h e r e t
o .
U p o n
a p p r o v a l o f t h e r e q u i s i t e bond , a w r i t o f p r e l
i m i n a r y
i n j u n c t i o n shal l b e issued .
(4a )
(c)
W h e n
a n a p p l i
o f p r e l i m i n a r y
i n j u n c t i o n
o r
s t r a i n i n g
o r d e r i s i n c l u d e d i n a
i n i t i a t o r y
p l e a d i n g , t h e case , i f file d
a c o u r t ,
s h a l l b e
r a f f l e d o n l y a
d
i n t h e
p r e s e n c e o f t h e a d v e r s e
o n t o b e
c a t i o n
fo r
w r i
t e m p o r a r y
r e
c o m p l a i n t o r
a n y
i n a m u l t i p l e - s a l
f t e r
p a r t y
n o t i c e
o r t h e
t o
a n
p e r s
731
----------------------- Page 732----------------------RULE 58
8EC 4
e n j o i n e d . I n a n y e v e n t , s u c h n o t i c e s h a l l b
e
precede d o r contemporaneousl y accompanie d b y
servic e o f summons , togethe r wit h a cop y o f th e
complaint o r initiator y pleadin g an d th e applicant' s
affidavits an d bond , upo n th e advers e part y i n th e
Philippines .
However ,
w h e r e th e s u m m o n s coul d no t b e
serve d personall y o r b y substitute d servic e despit e
diligent efforts , o r th e advers e part y i s a residen t o f
th e Philippine s temporaril y absen t therefro m o r i s
a nonresiden t thereof , th e requiremen t o f prio r o r
c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s servic e o f s u m m o n s shal l
no t
apply .
(d) Th e applicatio n fo r a temporar y restrain in g orde r shal l thereafte r b e acte d upo n onl y afte r
all partie s ar e hear d i n a summar y hearin g whic h
shall b e conducte d withi n twenty-fou r (24) hour s
afte r th e s h e r i f f s r e t u r n o f s e r v i c e and/o r th
e
(n)
NOTE S
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SEC
1983).
SEC
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SE
Wi
Pars . 1 an d 2 o f
specia l rule s
r d e r s an d p r e l i m
Thi s contemplate s
pleadin g w h e r e
injunctio n or a
d therein , an d
by th e executiv e
RULE 58
6
SEC.
6.
Preliminary
injunction
not
granted
without
o f
e x t
g r a
736
----------------------- Page 737----------------------RULE 58
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SEC. 5
r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r effectiv e fo r onl y s e v e n t y - t w o
(72)
h o u r s
n e x t
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n
a s
t o s
e r v i c e
o f
s u m m o n s a n d t h e d o c u m e n t s t o b e serve d t h e r e w i
t h .
T h e r e a f t e r , w i t h i n t h e a f o r e s a i d
s e v e n t y
- t w o (72 )
h o u r s , t h e j u d g e befor e w h o m t h e c a s e i s p e n d
i n g
s h a l l c o n d u c t
a
s u m m a r y
h e a r i n g t o
d
e t e r m i n e
w h e t h e r t h e t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r
s h a l l b e
e x t e n d e d
u n t i l t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n
fo r
p r e
l i m i n a r y
i n j u n c t i o n c a n b e h e a r d .
I n n o c a s e shal l t
h e t o t a l
p e r i o d
o f effectivit y o f t h e t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a
i n i n g
o r d e r excee d t w e n t y (20) days , i n c l u d i n g t h e origina
l
s e v e n t y - t w o (72 ) h o u r s p r o v i d e d h e r e i n .
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n fo r
p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n i s d e n i e d o r n o t r e s o l v
e d w i t h i n
t h e sai d p e r i o d , t h e t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o
r d e r i s
d e e m e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y v a c a t e d .
T h e effectivi
t y o f a
t e m p o r a r y
r e s t r a i n i n g
o r d e r
i s n o t
e
x t e n d i b l e
w i t h o u t
n e e d
o f a n y j u d i c i a l d e c l a r a t i o n
t o t h a t
effect , a n d n o c o u r t shal l h a v e a u t h o r i t y t o e x t
e n d
o r r e n e w t h e s a m e o n t h e s a m e g r o u n d for w h i c h
i t
w a s i s s u e d .
H o w e v e r , i f i s s u e d b y t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a
o r a
b e r thereof , t h e
t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i
o r d e r
l b e effectiv e for sixt y (60) d a y s fro m s e r v i c e o n
l s
m e m
n g
shal
t h e
i n e
r e s
o r
m e m
l f
o r d
d
t
a
b
u
e
a l s ,
S a n d
l s t
issue d
owe r
c o u r
p a r t y
o r
p e r s o n
s o u g h t t o
b e
e n j o
.
A
r a i n i n g o r d e r issue d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t
e r
t h e r e o f
r t h e r
r s .
s h a l l
b e
effectiv e
u n t i
T h e
t r i a l c o u r t , t h e
C o u r t
o f A p p e
t h e
i g a n b a y a n o r t h e
C o u r t o f Ta x A p p e a
h a t
a w r i t o f p r e l i m i n a r y injuctio n a g a i n s t a l
t , b o a r d , officer , o r quasi-judicia l a g e n c y shal l
d e c i d e t h e
m a i n c a s e
o r p e t i t i o n
n
si x
(6 )
m o n t h s fro m t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e writ .
s amended
in A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, effective Dec. 27, 2007)
w i t h i
(A
737
----------------------- Page 738----------------------RULE 58
SEC 5
NOTE S
1. Formerly , if an ex parte injunction wa s not proper ,
a restrainin g order may b e availe d o f in th e meantime .
Whil e th e Rule s the n mad e n o specific provision s for
restrainin g orders , th e sam e wer e deeme d t o b e within
th e inheren t power s of th e court (see Sec. 5, Rule 135).
As amende d by B.P . Big . 224 , Sec . 5 als o provide d for an d
regulate d th e issuanc e o f restrainin g order s t o maintain
th e status quo unti l th e hearin g o f th e application for
temporar y injunction .
N o bon d wa s require d for th e
issuance of a restrainin g order to maintai n th e status quo
unti l th e hearin g o f th e applicatio n for temporar y
injunction .
No bond wa s require d for th e issuanc e of a
restrainin g order
(BF Homes, Inc. vs. CA, et al, L-30690,
Nov. 19,
1982).
Se e th e discussion thereo n in Dionisio,
et al vs. CFI, et al. (G.R . No . 61048 , Aug . 17, 1983), an d
Par . 8 o f th e Interi m Rule s which incorporate d such
amendment in
toto (cf. Ortigas &
Co.
vs. Ruiz, et al,
L-33952, Mar. 9, 1987).
Th e 20-day perio d of efficacy of
a temporar y restrainin g order wa s non-extendible ; th e
order automatically terminate d at th e en d o f such period
without th e nee d o f any judicia l declaration t o tha t effect
and th e court s ha d n o discretio n t o exten d th e sam e
(Golden Gate Realty Corp. vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No.
74289,
July 31,
1987).
2 . Thi s amende d section retain s most o f th e foregoing
features but with som e modification s an d exception s t o
th e genera l provision s o f Sec . 4 .
Th e limite d perio d o f th e
effectivity o f th e restrainin g orde r in th e tria l court s
remain s th e sam e bu t th e perio d for such order s issue d by
th e Court o f Appeal s ha s been increase d t o 6 0 days .
It
ha d formerl y bee n hel d
t h a t th e 20-da y limi t als o
applied to sai d appellat e court (Delbros Hotel Corp.
vs.
IAC, et al, G.R. No.
72566, April 12, 1988; Lavina, et al
vs. CA.etal, G.R. Nos.
78285 an d 79917, April 10,
1989).
Such limite d perio d did not an d doe s not apply t o th e
738
----------------------- Page 739----------------------RULE 58
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SEC. 5
SEC
ther e
e an injunction , operate s
effect to invalidat e an
order , except wher e by
i s s o frame d a s t o act
CTA, et al., L-28782,
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SECS.
Sec. 6.
Grounds for objection to,
or for motion
of
dissolution
of,
injunction
or
restraining
order.
Th
e
applicatio n fo r injunctio n o r restrainin g orde r ma y
b e denied , upo n a s h o w i n g o f it s insufficiency .
Th e
injunctio n o r restrainin g orde r ma y als o b e denied ,
or, i f granted , ma y b e dissolved , o n othe r ground s
u p o n
affidavit s o f th e
part y o r perso n
enjoined
,
w h i c h m a y b e o p p o s e d
b y th e a p p l i c a n t als
o b y
affidavits .
I t ma y furthe r b e denied , or , i f granted ,
may b e dissolved , i f i t appear s afte r hearin g tha t
althoug h th e applican t i s entitle d t o th e injunctio n
o r restrainin g order , th e issuanc e o r continuanc e
thereof , a s th e cas e ma y be , woul d caus e irreparabl e
damag e t o th e part y o r perso n enjoine d whil e th e
a p p l i c a n t c a n b e
f u l l y c o m p e n s a t e d
fo r
s
u c h
damage s a s h e ma y suffer , an d th e forme r file s a bon d
i n a n a m o u n t fixe d b y th e cour t conditione d tha t
h e wil l pa y al l damage s whic h th e applican t ma y
s u f f e r b y t h e d e n i a l o r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n o f
t h e
injunctio n o r restrainin g order .
I f i t appear s tha
t
t h e e x t e n t
o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y
i n j u n c t i o n
o r
r e str a i n i n g orde r grante d i s to o great , i t ma y b e
modified .
(6a)
Sec. 7. Service of copies of bonds; effect of disapproval
of same.
Th e part y filin g a bon d i n accordanc e
w i t h th e p r o v i s i o n s o f thi s Rul e
shal l forthwit h
serv e a cop y o f suc h bon d o n th e othe r party , wh o
may excep t t o th e sufficienc y o f th e bond , o r o f th e
surety o r suretie s thereon .
I f th e applicant' s bon d
i s foun d t o b e insufficien t i n amount , o r i f th e suret y
o r s u r e t i e s t h e r e o n fai l t o justify ,
a n d
a bo
n d
s u f f i c i e n t i n a m o u n t
w i t h s u f f i c i e n t s u r e
t i e s
approve d afte r justificatio n i s no t file d forthwith ,
th e injunctio n shal l b e dissolved .
I f th e bon d o f t
h e
advers e part y i s foun d t o b e insufficien t i n amount ,
o r th e suret y o r suretie s thereo n fai l t o justif y a
bon d sufficien t
i n amoun t wit h sufficien t suretie s
741
----------------------- Page 742----------------------RULE 08
SEC. 8
Th e complaint i s insufficient ;
o f
vs.
Sec. 8. Judgment
to include
and sureties. A t th e trial , th e
t o b e awarde d t o eithe r party , upo
advers e party , shal l b e claimed ,
awarde d unde r th e sam e procedur e
sectio n 2 0 o f Rul e 67 . (9a)
NOTE S
1. Th e procedur e for claimin g damage s on th e bond
i s th e sam e a s tha t in preliminary attachmen t
(see note s
unde r Sec.
20, Rule 57; cf. Luzon Surety
Co., Inc. vs.
Guerrero, L 20705, June 20,
1966).
742
----------------------- Page 743----------------------RULE 58
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
SEC. 8
5 9
RECEIVERSHI P
Sectio n
1.
Appointment
of
receiver.
Upo n
a
verifie d
propert y
n o r
p r o c e
o f
Appeal s
thereof ,
ma y
b e
a p p o i n t e d
o r b y th e Suprem e Court ,
i n th e followin g cases :
b y
o r
th e
Cour t
membe r
(a)
Whe n i t appear s fro m th e verifie d appli c a t i o n , an d
s u c h o t h e r proo f a s th e
c o u r t
ma y
require, tha t th e part y applyin g fo r th e appointmen t
of a receive r ha s a n interes t i n th e propert y o r fun d
whic h i s th e subjec t o f th e actio n o r proceeding ,
an d tha t s u c h propert y o r fun d i s i n dange r o f
bein g lost , removed , o r materiall y injure d unles s a
receive r b e appointe d t o administe r an d preserv e
it ;
(b)
W h e n
i t a p p e a r s i n a n a c t i o n b y
t h e
mortgage e fo r foreclosur e o f a mortgag e tha t th e
p r o p e r t y i s i n d a n g e r
o f b e i n g d i s s i p a t e
d o r
materially injured , an d tha t it s valu e i s probabl y
insufficien t t o discharg e th e mortgag e debt , o r tha t
th e partie s hav e s o stipulate d i n th e contrac t o f
mortgage ;
(c)
Afte r judgment , t o preserv e th e propert y
durin g th e pendenc y o f a n appeal , o r t o dispos e o f
i t accordin g t o th e judgment , o r t o ai d
executio n
whe n th e executio n ha s bee n returne
o r t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r
hi s
p r o p e r t y i n s a t i s f a c t i o n
o r
otherwis e t o carr y th e judgmen t int o
d unsatisfie d
r e f u s e s t o
o f
a p p l y
t h e j u d g m e n t ,
effect ;
(d)
W h e n e v e r
i n o t h e r c a s e s
i t a p p e
a r s
tha t th e
a p p o i n t m e n t o f a r e c e i v e r i s th e m
os t
c o n v e n i e n t an d
f e a s i b l e m e a n s o f p r e s e r v
i n g ,
744
----------------------- Page 745----------------------RULE 59
. 1
RECEIVERSHIP
SEC
a d m i n i s t e r i n g , o r d i s p o s i n g
y i n
litigation .
D u r i n g
t h e
p e n d e n c y
o f
o f t h e p r o p e r t
a n
a p p e a l ,
t h e
appellat e cour t ma y allo w
appointmen t o f a receive r t o b
b y th e cour t o f origi n an d
b e subjec t t o th e contro l o
a n applicatio n fo r th e
e file d i n an d decide d
th e receive r appointe d t o
f sai d court ,
(la )
NOTE S
1. Th e former Par .
referre d t
dissolved or
from thi s
governed by
SEC. 2
by th
tha t
for
by th
over
e
th e
e
such
RECEIVERSHIP
SE
damage s h e ma y sustai n b y
ment o f suc h receive r i n
hav e procure d suc h appointmen
cause ; an d th e cour t may ,
tim e afte r th e appointment ,
bon d a s furthe r securit y fo
SECS. 3-4
1. Under the former Rule, a bond for the appointment of a receiver was not generally required of the
applicant, except when the application was made ex parte.
No such distinction is made under this amended section
and a bond shall always be required from the applicant.
In fact, an additional bond may subsequently be required
by the court in the exercise of its sound discretion in light
of developments in the case.
Sec. 3. Denial of application or discharge of receiver.
Th e applicatio n ma y b e denied , o r th e receive r
discharged , w h e n th e advers e part y file s a bon d
execute d t o th e applicant , i n a n amoun t t o b e fixe d
by th e court , t o th e effec t tha t suc h part y wil l pay
th e applican t al l damage s h e ma y suffe r b y reaso n
of th e acts , omissions , o r othe r matter s specifie d i n
th e applicatio n a s groun d fo r suc h appointment .
Th e receive r ma y als o b e discharge d i f i t i s show n
t h a t h i s a p p o i n t m e n t w a s
o b t a i n e d w i t h o u t
sufficient cause .
(4a)
Sec. 4.
Oath
and
bond
of receiver.
B e f o r e
enterin g upo n hi s duties , th e receive r shal l b e swor n
t o perfor m the m faithfully , an d shal l fil e a bond ,
execute d t o suc h perso n an d i n suc h su m a s th e
court ma y direct , t o th e effec t tha t h e wil l faithfull y
discharg e hi s d u t i e s i n th e actio n an d
obe y th e
order s o f th e court .
(5a)
748
----------------------- Page 749----------------------RULE 59
S. 5, 6
RECEIVERSHIP
SEC
Sec. 6.
Service
of copies
of
bonds; effect
of
disapproval
of
same.
T h e
p e r s o n
f i l i n g a b o n d
i n
accordanc e wit h th e provision s o f thi s Rul e shal l
f o r t h w i t h s e r v e a c o p y o f s u c h b o n d
o n
e a c h
intereste d party , w h o ma y excep t t o it s sufficienc y
o r o f th e suret y o r suretie s thereon .
I f eithe r
th e
applicant' s o r t h e receiver' s bon d i s foun d t o b e
insufficien t i n amount , o r i f th e suret y o r suretie s
t h e r e o n
fai l t o j u s t i f y an d a bon d
s u f f i c i
e n t i n
a m o u n t
w i t h s u f f i c i e n t s u r e t i e s a p p r o v e d
afte r
justificatio n i s no t file d forthwith , th e applicatio n
shall b e denied , o r th e receive r discharged , a s th e
cas e ma y be .
I f th e bon d o f th e advers e part y i
s
foun d t o b e insufficien t i n amoun t o r th e suret y o r
suretie s thereo n fai l t o justify , an d a bon d sufficien t
i n a m o u n t wit h sufficien t suretie s approve d afte r
justificatio n i s no t file d forthwith , th e receive r shal l
b e appointe d o r re-appointed , a s th e cas e ma y be .
(6a)
NOT E
1.
A receivership may be denie d or lifted (a) if
appointment sough t or grante d i s withou t sufficient cause
as wer e ther e i s n o necessity therefor or it i s not
cas e for receivership , (b) i f th e advers e part y
th e
,
a proper
file s a
5 9
SEC. 6
(n)
NOTE S
1. Thi s i s anothe r instanc e wher e a person who i s
not th e rea l part y in interes t i s authorize d t o su e a s a
representativ e part y unde r Sec . 3 , Rul e 3 .
2 . Receivership canno t be effected with respect to
property in custodia legis (Lizarraga Hnos.
vs. Abada,
Phil. 124), bu t wher e th e property in th e custody o f an
administrator or executor i s in dange r o f imminen t los s or
injury , a receiver thereove r may b e appointe d by th e
probat e court (Dolor vs. Sindian, L-27631, April 30, 1971).
40
RECEIVERSHIP
Sec. 7.
Liability
for refusal
or neglect
to
ver
property to receiver. A perso n wh o refuse s o r neglects ,
upo n reasonabl e demand , t o delive r t o th e receive r
SECS.
deli
f
d i s a g r e e m e n t , a s determine d an d ordere d
b y
h e
court , ma y b e punishe d fo r contemp t an d shal l b e
liabl e t o th e receive r fo r th e mone y o r th e valu e o f
th e propert y an d othe r thing s s o refuse d o r neg lecte d t o b e surrendered , togethe r wit h al l damage s
tha t ma y hav e bee n sustaine d b y th e part y o r partie s
entitle d theret o a s a consequenc e o f suc h refusa l
o r neglect ,
(n)
NOT E
1. Thes e sanctions , contemp t an d damages , ar e
considere d necessar y an d justifie d t o obviat e th e dis respectfu l practic e o f thos e wh o woul d trifl e with court
order s by withholdin g cooperatio n from th e receiver ,
intentionally or throug h neglect .
Contemp t proceedings ,
direct or indirect , dependin g on th e act s committed , provid e
a mor e expeditiou s mode of resolving dispute s over property
sought t o
b e place d
u n d e r receivershi p
unles s
t
h e
controversy actually call s for a civil action t o resolv e th e
issue o f ownership or possession .
Since , a s note d earlier
,
th e receiver legally represent s all th e partie s t o th e action ,
th e damage s arisin g from refusa l or neglect t o surrende r
t o him th e propertie s t o b e place d unde r hi s managemen t
shall inur e in favor o f sai d parties .
Sec. 8 .
Termination of
receiver. Wheneve r th e
motio n o f e i t h e r party ,
necessit y fo r a receive r n o
afte r
d u e n o t i c e t o al
a n d
hearing , settl e th e account s
receivership; compensation of
court , motu proprio o r o n
shal l determin e tha t th e
longe r exists , i t shall ,
l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s
o f th e receiver , direc t
751
Th e cour t shal l
Sec. 9 .
Judgment to include recovery against sureties.
T h e
a m o u n t ,
i f a n y , t o b e a w a r d e d
t o an
y
part y
u p o n
an y
bon d
file d
i n a c c o r d a n c e wi
t h
t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s R u l e , s h a l l b e c l a i m
e d ,
ascertained , an d grante d unde r th e sam e procedur e
as prescribe d i n sectio n 2 0 o f Rul e 57 .
(9a )
NOTE S
1.
6 0
R E P L E V I N
Section
1 .
Application.
t h e r e c o v e r y o f p o s s e s s i o
p e r t y
m a y , a t t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t
a t a n y
t i m e b e f o r e a n s w e r , a p p l y
e
d e l i v e r y o f s u c h p r o p e r t y
n n e r
h e r e i n a f t e r p r o v i d e d , ( l a
p a r t y p r a y i n g
n o f
p e r s o n a l p r o
o f t h e
a c t i o n
o r
fo r a n o r d e r fo r t h
t o
h i m , i n t h e m a
NOTE S
1. This provisional remedy of replevin is available
where the principal purpose of the action is to recover the
possession of personal property. Where proper, replevin
must be applied for before the answer; attachment,
injunction and support pendente lite, at any time before
final judgment; and receivership, at any stage of the action
and even after final judgment.
2.
fo r
SEC. 2
al.
amended .
(a) Tha t th e
a p p l i c a n t i s th e o w n e r
e
property claimed , particularl y describin g it , o r i s
entitle d t o th e possessio n thereof ;
o f th
REPLEVIN
t h e r e o f a c c o r d i n g
d g e ,
information , an d belief ;
t o th e
bes t
o f h i s
k n o w l e
o f th e
property .
e applican t
sough t t o b e
amoun t a s
applicant' s
t o b e attached ;
t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a l l e g e d t
o b e
w r o n g f u l l y d e t a i n e d , an d
r e q u i r i n g t h e she
rif f
forthwit h t o tak e suc h propert y int o hi s custody .
(3a)
755
----------------------- Page 756----------------------RULE 60
-6
SECS. 4
Sec. 4.
Duty of the sheriff. Upo n
receivin g
suc h order , th e sherif f mus t serv e a cop y thereo f o n
th e a d v e r s e party , t o g e t h e r w i t h a cop y o f th
e
application , affidavi t an d bond , an d mus t forthwit h
tak e th e property , i f i t b e i n th e p o s s e s s i o n
o f
th e advers e part y o r hi s agent , an d retai n i t i n hi s
custody .
I f th e propert y o r an y par t thereo f b e
conceale d i n a buildin g o r enclosure , th e sherif f
must publicl y deman d it s delivery , an d i f i t b e not
delivered , h e mus t caus e th e buildin g o r enclosur e
t o b e broke n ope n an d tak e th e propert y int o hi s
possession .
Afte r th e sherif f ha s take n possessio n
of th e propert y a s herei n provided , h e mus t kee p i t
i n a secur e plac e an d shal l b e responsibl e for it s
delivery t o th e part y entitle d theret o upo n receivin g
hi s fee s an d
n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s fo r t a k i n g
an d
keepin g th e same .
(4a)
Sec. 5. Return of property. If th e advers e party
object s t o th e sufficienc y o f th e applicant' s bond ,
o r o f th e suret y o r s u r e t i e s t h e r e o n , h e canno
t
immediatel y requir e th e retur n o f th e property , but
i f h e doe s no t s o object , h e may , a t an y tim e befor e
th e deliver y o f th e propert y t o th e applicant , requir e
th e retur n thereof , b y filin g wit h th e cour t wher e
t h e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g a
bon d
e x e c u t e d t o t
h e
applicant , i n doubl e th e valu e o f th e propert y a s
state d i n th e applicant' s affidavi t fo r th e deliver y o f
th e propert y t o th e applicant , i f suc h deliver y b e
adjudged , an d fo r th e paymen t o f suc h su m t o hi m
a s ma y b e recovere d agains t th e advers e party , an d
by servin g a cop y o f suc h bon d o n th e applicant .
(5a)
Sec. 6. Disposition of property by sheriff. If withi n
five (5) day s afte r th e takin g o f th e propert y b y th e
sheriff, th e advers e
part y doe s no t objec t t o th e
756
----------------------- Page 757-----------------------
RULE 60
SEC. 7
REPLEVIN
sufficiency o f t h e bond
e s
t h e r e o n ; o r i f t h
d t h e
c o u r t affirm s it s
' s bon d
o r a p p r o v e s a n
s e p a r t y
r e q u i r e s t h e r e t
b o n d i s
objecte d t o a n d foun
f o r t h w i t h fil e
shal l
b e d e l i v e r e d t
s o n t h e
p r o p e r t y i s n o
sherif f
m u s t r e t u r n i t
, o r o f t h e s u r e t y o r s u r e t i
e a d v e r s e p a r t y s o objects , a n
a p p r o v a l
o f t h e
e w
b o n d ,
u r n
o f t h e p r o p e r t y b u t h i s
o r
a p p l i c a n t
insufficien t a n d
i f t h e
h e
a d v e r
d o e s
n o t
a n a p p r o v e d bond , t h e p r o p e r t y
o t h e a p p l i c a n t . I f for a n y r e a
t delivere d t o t h e ap pl i c a n t , t h e
t o t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y .
(6a )
NOTE S
1. In orde r t o recover th e possession o f th e persona l
propert y which wa s take n unde r a writ o f replevin , th e
defendant mus t pos t a redelivery bond a s require d by Sec .
5 an d serv e
a copy of such bond on th e plaintif f withi n 5
day s from th e takin g by th e officer .
Both requirement
s
ar e mandator y an d mus t b e complie d wit h withi n th e
5-day perio d (Case, et al. vs. Jugo, et al.,
7 7 Phil.
517).
2 . Th e defendan t i s entitle d t o th e
e
propert y take n unde r a writ o f replevin , if:
retur n o f th
Sec . 7 .
Proceedings where property claimed by third
person.
I f t h e
p r o p e r t y t a k e n i s c l a i m e d
b y a n y
p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t w h o m t h
e w r i t
o f r e p l e v i n h a d bee n issue d o r hi s a g e n t , a n d
s u c h
p e r s o n m a k e s a n affidavi t o f hi s titl e t h e r e t o
, o r
r i g h t t o t h e possessio n thereof , s t a t i n g t h e g r o u n
d s
t h e r e f o r , a n d s e r v e s suc h affidavi t u p o n t h e sheri
f f
757
----------------------- Page 758----------------------RULE 60
7
SEC.
REPLEVIN
SECS.
NOT E
1. Th e provision s o f thi s section ar e virtuall y th e
sam e a s th e
rul e for third-part y claim s i n executio n
(Sec. 16, Rule 39) an d in attachmen t (Sec.
14, Rule 57).
Sec. 8 . Return of papers. Th e sherif f mus t fil e
th e order , wit h hi s proceeding s indorse d thereon ,
wit h th e cour t withi n te n (10) day s afte r takin g th e
propert y mentione d therein .
(8a)
Sec.
9 .
Judgment.
Afte r
tria l
o f th e
issues ,
t h e c o u r t s h a l l d e t e r m i n e w h o h a s t h e r i g h
t o f
possessio n t o an d th e valu e o f th e propert y an d shal l
rende r j u d g m e n t i n th e alternativ e fo r th e deliver y
thereo f t o th e part y entitle d t o th e same , o r fo r it s
valu e i n c a s e deliver y c a n n o t b e made , an d als o
for suc h damage s a s eithe r part y ma y prove , wit h
costs .
(9a )
Sec. 10.
Judgment to
Th e amount , i f any , t o
u p o n
a n y
b o n d
f i l
h e
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s
scer tained , an d grante d unde r
prescribe d i n sectio n 2 0 o f
Rule ,
shal l
th e sam e
Rul e 67 .
b e
c l a i m e d ,
procedur e a s
(10a)
NOTE S
1. Sec . 8 ha s been amende d to reduc e from 2 0 day s
to 1 0 day s th e perio d within which th e sherif f mus t file
with th e cour t th e paper s state d therein .
2 . Th e
plaintif f
wh o
obtain s
possessio n
o f
th e
SECS. 8-10
22,
REPLEVIN
SECS. 8-10
SECS. S-io
committe d b y th e plaintiff s
an d unconnecte d wit h
defendant' s deprivatio n o f possession by th e plaintiff .
Even wher e th e judgmen t i s tha t defendant i s entitle d t o
th e property bu t n o order wa s mad e requirin g th e plaintiff
to retur n it or assessin g damage s in default o f return , ther e
could b e n o liability on th e par t o f th e suretie s unti l
judgmen t wa s entere d tha t th e property should b e restore d
(Sapugay, et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 86792, Mar. 21,
1990).
9. A wri t o f replevin may b e serve d anywher e in th e
Philippines .
Th e jurisdiction o f a court to hea r an d decide
a cas e shoul d not b e confuse d wit h it s power t o issu e
writ s an d processe s pursuan t t o an d in th e exercis e o f
said jurisdiction .
Applyin g sai d rule , Malaloan, et al. vs.
Court of Appeals, et al. [G.R. No.
104879, May 6,
1994]
reiterate d th e distinction between th e jurisdiction o f th e
tria l court an d th e administrativ e are a in which it could
enforce it s order s an d processe s pursuan t t o th e jurisdiction
conferred
upon
it
(Fernandez,
et al. vs. International
Corporate Bank, et al, G.R. No. 131283, Oct.
7, 1999).
762
----------------------- Page 763----------------------RULE
SUPPORT
Section
o f th e prope
prio r t o th
applicatio n
e d
by an y part y
t h e f i n a n
6 1
PENDENTE
LITE
1 .
Application. At th e c o m m e n
r actio n o r proceeding , o r a t an y
e j u d g m e n t o r fina l order ,
fo r suppor t pendente
lite ma
c e m e n t
tim e
a verifie d
y
b e fil
a n d
a c c o m p a n i e d b y affidavits ,
d e p o s i t i o n s o r
t h e r
authenti c doc u m e n t s i n suppor t thereof ,
(la )
Sec. 2 .
Comment. A cop y o f th e applicatio n
a n d al l s u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t s s h a l l b e s e r v
e d
upo n th e advers e party , w h o shal l hav e fiv e (5) day s
t o commen t o n th e same , unles s a differen t perio d
i s fixe d b y th e cour t upo n hi s motion .
Th e com
men t shal l b e verifie d an d shal l b e accompanie d
b y affidavits , deposition s o r othe r authenti c docu ment s i n suppor t thereof .
(2a , 3a)
Sec. 3 .
Hearing. Afte r th e commen t i s filed , o r
after th e expiratio n o f th e tim e fo r it s filing , th e
applicatio n shal l b e se t fo r hearin g no t mor e tha n
thre e (3) day s thereafter .
Th e fact s i n issu e shal l
b e prove d i n th e
evidenc e o n motions .
sam e
manne r a s
(4a)
i s
provide d
fo r
NOTE S
1. Sec . 1 ha s been amende d to mak e thi s provisiona l
remedy availabl e not only t o th e plaintif f bu t als o t o any
part y in th e action wh o may hav e ground s t o apply for
th e same .
Sec . 2 now require s th e filin g withi n th e
extended perio d of 5 day s of a comment , instea d of an
answer a s formerly provided , sinc e thi s Rul e involve s
763
----------------------- Page 764----------------------RULE 61
SECS. 4-5
e
pleading s or th e fact from which th e right o f support arise s
is in controversy or ha s not been established , th e court
canno t
g r a n t
s u p p o r t
pendente
lite
(Francisc
o
vs.
Zandueta,
6 1 Phil.
752) an d th e contrary action of th
e
a c c o u n
an d
t e r m s
t h e
p o r t . I
p a l
shal l b e
t h e
n e c e s s i t i e s
o f t h e
a p p l i
o f p a y m e n t
o r
m o d e
fo r
p r o v i d
f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s denied , t h e p r i
t r i e d a n d d e c i d e d a s earl y a s possible
Sec . 5 .
Enforcement of order.
d v e r s e
p a r t y
f a i l s t o c o m p l y
w i t h
r a n t i n g
s u p p o r t
pendente
lite,
t h e
l ,
motu
proprio o r u p o n motion , issu e a n o r d e
a g a i n s t h i m w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c
it y for
c o n t e m p t .
(6a )
a n
I f
t h e
o r d e r
c o u r t
a
g
s h a l
r o f executio n
e t o hi s liabil
764
----------------------- Page 765----------------------RULE 61
W h e n
SECS.
4-5
t h e p e r s o n o r d e r e d t o g i v e s u p p o r t
pendente
lite r e f u s
perso n w h o furnishe s
after du e notic e an d
a w r i t o f e x e c u
e s o r
suppor t
hearin g
t i o n
fail s t
t o th e
i n th e
t o e n f
o d o so , an y thir d
applican t may ,
sam e case , obtai n
o r c e h i s r i g h t o f
r e i m b u r s e m e n t a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o r d e r e d t
o
provid e suc h support ,
(n)
NOTE S
lite
is
SECS.
45
On relevan t
tha t durin g
an d mino r
ar e entitle d
law
(Sec.
3,
Rule
83; cf.
Art.
133,
Sec . 6 .
Support in criminal cases. In
c r i
m i n a l
a c t i o n s w h e r e t h e civi l liabilit y i n c l u d e s s u
p p o r t
for
t h e o f f s p r i n g a s a c o n s e q u e n c e
o f t h e
c r i m e
a n d t h e civi l a s p e c t t h e r e o f h a s n o t b e e n w
a i v e d ,
r e s e r v e d o r i n s t i t u t e d p r i o r t o it s filling , t h
e a c c u s e d
m a y
b e
o r d e r e d t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t pendente
lite t o
t h e c h i l d b o r n
t o t h e
o f f e n d e d p a r t y a l l
e g e d l y
b e c a u s e
o f t h e c r i m e .
T h e
a p p l i c a t i o n t h
e r e f o r
m a y
b e
file d
s u c c e s s i v e l y b y t h e offende d
p a r t y ,
h e r p a r e n t s , g r a n d p a r e n t s
o r g u a r d i a n a n
d
t h e
S t a t e i n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g c r i m i n a l cas e d u r
i n g it s
p e n d e n c y ,
i n
a c c o r d a n c e
w i t h t h e
p r o c
e d u r e
e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r t h i s Rule ,
(n )
NOTE S
1.
Thi s i s a new provision an d ha s for it s substantiv e
basi s th e directiv e in Art . 345 o f th e Revise d Pena l Code
which pertinentl y provides :
"Art.
345.
Civil
liability
of persons
of
crimes
against
chastity.
- Person s
guilty
rape ,
seduction or abduction shal l als o b e sentenced :
gui
lty
1.
of
it
767
----------------------- Page 768----------------------RULE 61
SEC. 7
o r d e r
Restitution.
o f t h e
W h e n
c o u r t
find s
t h e j u d g m e n t
t h a t t h e
o r
p e r s
o n wh o
h a s b e e n
p r o v i d i n g s u p p o r t
pendente
lite
i s no t
SE
769
----------------------- Page 770----------------------SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION S
PRELIMINARY
CONSIDERATION S
CONSIDERATIONS
therei n cited) .
Unde r B.P . Big . 129, suc h writ s issue d by
th e Regiona l Tria l Court s ar e now enforceabl e withi n thei r
respectiv e region s (Sec.
21flJ).
5 . Ther e ar e thre e specia l civil action s which can b e
filed in or ar e withi n th e jurisdictio n o f th e so-calle d
inferior courts , or court s o f th e first level , viz.:
(a) Interpleader , provide d th e
it s jurisdictio n
(Makati
withi n
amoun t involve d i s
Development
Corp.
vs
.
Tanjuatco,
et al,
L-26443,
Mar.
25,
1969);
70); an d
71).
Nov.
30,
1961).
in
th
e
Supreme Court .
Nor may such petition b e filed in
th e Suprem e Court i f a similar petition ha s been filed
or i s still pendin g in th e Intermediat e Appellat e Court ,
77 1
----------------------- Page 772----------------------PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
unles s
i t
b e
t o
revie w
th e
actio n
t a k e n
b y
th e
Intermediate Appellat e Court on th e petition filed with
it . A violation o f thi s rul e shal l constitut e contempt
of cour t an d shal l b e a caus e for th e summar y
dismissal o f both petitions , withou t prejudic e t o th e
takin g o f appropriat e action agains t th e counsel or
part y concerned. "
Thi s provision wa s applie d in Vda. de Ganzon, et al.
vs. Yrad, et al. (G.R . No . 52305 , Dec . 26 , 1984 , jointly
deciding tw o othe r cases) .
Thi s interi m Rul e i s intende d
to proscrib e th e malpractic e o f "forum shopping " which
trifle s with th e courts , abuse s thei r processes , an d tend s
to degrad e th e administratio n of justic e
(E. Razon, Inc.
,
et
al. vs.
Phil.
Ports
Authority,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
7519
7,
July 31, 1986; Buan, et al. vs. Lopez, Jr., G.R. No.
9,
Oct. 13, 1986), an d ha s been adopte d in thes e Rules .
7534
8.
In th e absenc e o f specia l reasons , it ha s long been
th e rul e tha t th e Suprem e Cour t wil l declin e origina l
jurisdictio n in certiorari , prohibition an d mandamu s cases ,
especially whe n it i s necessary t o tak e evidenc e an d mak e
findings on controverte d facts , sinc e it i s not a trie r of facts
and tha t i s a function which can bette r b e don e by th e
tria l court s
(Fisher vs. Yangco Steamship Co., 31 Phil. 1).
Thus , in case s wher e th e Suprem e Court an d th e Regional
Trial Court hav e concurren t jurisdiction , a s in petition s
for th e abov e writs , th e sam e will not b e entertaine d by
th e Suprem e Court unles s a justifie d showin g i s mad e a s
to why th e petition i s filed therei n instea d o f th e Regiona l
Trial Court
(see Piit vs. De Lara, et al., 58 Phil. 765).
The sam e rul e applie s t o an action for quo warrant o
wherein th e Suprem e Court ha s concurren t jurisdiction
with th e Regiona l Tria l Court . Absent sufficient reasons ,
th e action will be left for determinatio n by th e Regional
Trial Court which i s better equippe d t o tak e testimony an d
resolve factua l question s involved therei n
(see Veragut
h
vs. Isabela Sugar Co.,
57 Phil.
266).
772
----------------------- Page 773----------------------RUL E 6 2
I N T E R P L E A D E R
Section
1 .
W h e n e v e r
c on f l i c t i n g c l a i m s u p o n t h e s a m e subjec t m a t t e
r a r e
o r m a y
b e
m a d e a g a i n s t a p e r s o n w h o c l a
i m s
n o
i n t e r e s t
w h a t e v e r
i n t h e
s u b j e c t
m a t t
e r ,
o r
a n
i n t e r e s t w h i c h i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t i s n o
t d i s p u t e d
b y t h e c l a i m a n t s , h e m a y b r i n g a n a c t i o n
a g a i n s t
t h e
c o n f l i c t i n g
c l a i m a n t s
t o
c o m p e l
t h e m
t o
i n t e r p l e a d a n d litigat e t h e i r s e v e r a l c l a i m s
a m o n g
t h e m s e l v e s ,
( l a , R63 )
Sec . 2 .
Order. U p o n t h e
filin g o f t
e
c o m l a i n t , t h e c o u r t s h a l l issu e a n o r d e r r e q u i
i n g t h e
o n f l i c t i n g
c l a i m a n t s
t o
i n t e r p l e a d
w i t h
o n e
h
p
r
c
a n o t
e q u i
c o u r
e
s
m a t t
(2a ,
h e
r e
t
u b
e r
R63
r .
I f t h e i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e s o r
, t h e
m a y
d i r e c t i n s u c h
o r d e r t h a t t h
j e c t
b e p a i d o r d e l i v e r e d t o t h e c o u r t .
)
Sec . 3 .
Summons. S u m m o n s
s h a l l b
s e r v e d
u p o n
t h e
c o n f l i c t i n g c l a i m a n t s ,
t o g e t h
e r
w i t h
a
copy o f t h e c o m p l a i n t a n d o r d e r .
(3 , R63 )
e
Sec . 4 .
filin g a n a n s w e r
m o t i o n
t o d i s m i s s
o n
t y
o f t h e
i n t e r p l e a d e r
r o p r i a t e
g r o u n d s specifie d
o fil e t h e
a n s w e r s h a l l b
e n i e d ,
t h e
m o v a n t
t h i n
t h e
r e m a i n i n g p e r i
h a n
five (5) d a y s i n a
d e n i a l , (n )
e a c h
t h e
c l a i m a n t
g r o u n d
a c t i o n
o f
o r
m a y
fil e
fil e
for
a
i m p r o p r i e
o n
i n Rul e 16 .
e tolle d a n d
m a y
t i m e
o t h e r
a p p
Th e p e r i o d t
i f t h e m o t i o n
h i s
i s d
a n s w e r
w i
o d , b u t w h i c h shal l no t b e les s t
n y event , r e c k o n e d fro m notic e o f
773
SECS. 5-
7
Sec.
5.
Answer
and
other
pleadings.
E a c h
o f
an d
an
774
----------------------- Page 775----------------------RULE 62
5-7
INTERPLEADER
SECS.
an
rea l
th e
SEC8
5-7
INTERPLEADER
th e disput e an d i n
h e
claimant s
an d th e
fact
ha d
SECS. 5
forme r
bee n
di d
sue d
no t
b y
implea d
on e
th e
o f t
othe r
c l a i m a n t , h e ca n n o longe r
invok e
t h e r e m e d y
o f
interpleader (Wack- Wack
Golf &
Country
Club,
Inc.
vs.
Lee Won, et al., L-23851, Mar. 26,
1976).
777
----------------------- Page 778----------------------RUL E
DECLARATORY
AN D
SIMILA R
6 3
R E L I E F
REMEDIE S
Section 1 .
Who may file petition. An y p e r s o n
t e r e s t e d u n d e r a d e e d , will , c o n t r a c t o r
h e r
i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t , o r w h o s e r i g h t s a r e affect
b y
s t a t u t e , e x e c u t i v e o r d e r o r r e g u l a t i o n , o
d i n a n c e ,
r a n y o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t a l r e g u l a t i o n may ,
befor e
b r e a c h o r violatio n thereof , b r i n g a n a c t i o n i n
th e
a p p r o p r i a t e Regiona l Tria l C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e an
y
q u e s t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n o r validit y a r i s i n g , a
n d for
a d e c l a r a t i o n o f h i s r i g h t s o r d u t i e s , t h e r e
u n d e r .
i
o
w
e
a
r
o
n
t
r
d
A
t r u ment , t
cloud s
therefrom
1607 o
i s
R u l e ,
the
Supreme
a c t i o n fo r t h e r e f o r m a t i o n o f a n i n s
o q u i e t titl e t o r e a l p r o p e r t y o r r e m o v e
, o r t o consolidat e o w n e r s h i p u n d e r Articl e
f t h e Civi l Code , m a y b e b r o u g h t u n d e r th
( l a , R64 )
Court,
dated
(As
Feb.
amended
17,
by
1998)
Resolution
of
NOTE S
1. The first paragraph refers to declaratory relief.
The second paragraph refers to the action to quiet title,
authorized by Arts. 476 to 481 of the Civil Code; the action
for the reformation of an instrument authorized under
Arts. 1359 to 1369 of the Civil Code; and the action to
consolidate ownership required by Art . 1607 of the Civil
Code in a sale with right to repurchase.
These three
remedies are considered similar to declaratory relief
because they also result in the adjudication of the legal
rights of the litigants, often without the need of execution
to carry the judgment into effect.
2. In declaratory relief, the subject-matter is a deed,
will , contract or other written instrument, statute,
778
----------------------- Page 779----------------------RULE 63
1
DECLARATORY RELIEF
SEC.
orde r or regulation ,
or ordinance .
Th e
issue
Th e
Reparations
in
Commission
vs.
Northern
Lines,
Inc.,
(d)
Ther e mus t b e an actua l justiciabl e controversy
or th e "ripenin g seeds " o f on e betwee n person s whos e
interest s ar e advers e
(Edades vs. Edades, 99 Phil.
(e) Th e issu e mus t b e rip e for judicia l determinatio n
(Tolentino
vs. Board of Accountancy,
et al., 90 Phil.
675);
83),
SEC
(f)
Adequat e relie f is not availabl e throug h other
mean s or other form s of action or proceeding s
a vs.
Central Bank,
L-11357,
May 31,
1962).
(Ollad
Parties. Al l p e r s o n s w h o h a v e o r clai m
i n t e r e s t
w h i c h
w o u l d
b e
a f f e c t e d b
y
t h e
d e c l a r a
e c l a r a tio n shall
t h e s e
Rules , p r
t i e s t o
t h e action
Sec
io n
w h i c h
e
o r d e r
e n t a l
r e g u l a
ifie d
b y t h e
itle d
t i o n
,
shal l
e x c e p t
b e
a s
m a d e p a r t i e s ; a n d
o t h e r w i s e
n o d
p r o v i d e d
i n
e j u d i c e t h e r i g h t s o f p e r s o n s n o t p a r
.
(2a , R64 )
. 3 .
involve s
o r
t h e
validit y
o f a
s t a t u t e ,
r e g u l a t i o n , o r a n y
t i o n ,
t h e
Solicito r
In a n y act
o t h e r
G e n e r a l
executiv
g o v e r n m
shal l
b e
not
p a r t y a s s a i l i n g t h e s a m e a n d shal l b e ent
780
DECLARATORY RELIEF
SECS.
(3a , R64)
Sec. 4 .
Local government
ordinances.
In
a
n y
actio n involvin g th e validit y o f a loca l governmen t
o r d i n a n c e , t h e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g
p r o s e c u t o r
o r
a t t o r n e y o f t h e loca l
g o v e r n m e n t uni t
i n v o l
v e d
shall b e similarl y notifie d an d entitle d t o b e heard .
I f suc h ordinanc e i s allege d t o b e unconstitutional ,
th e Solicito r Genera l shal l b e notifie d an d entitle d
t o b e heard .
(4a , R64)
Sec. 5 .
Court
action
discretionary.
E x c e p t
in
a c t i o n s f a l l i n g u n d e r t h e s e c o n d p a r a g r a p h
o f
sectio n
1
o f thi s Rule ,
th e
court ,
motu proprio
o r
upo n motion , ma y refus e t o exercis e th e powe r t o
declar e right s an d t o constru e instrument s i n an y
c a s e w h e r e
a d e c i s i o n w o u l d no t t e r m i n a t e
th e
uncertaint y o r controvers y whic h gav e ris e t o th e
action , o r i n an y cas e wher e a decisio n woul d no t
t e r m i n a t e th e u n c e r t a i n t y o r c o n t r o v e r s y w
h i c h
gav e ris e t o th e action , o r i n an y cas e wher e th e
declaratio n o r constructio n i s
prope r unde r th e circumstances .
no t
necessar y an d
(6a , R64)
Sec. 6.
Conversion
into
ordinary
action.
If
befor e th e fina l terminatio n o f th e case , a breac h
o r violatio n o f a n instrumen t o r a statute , executiv e
o r d e r o r r e g u l a t i o n , o r d i n a n c e , o r a n y
o t
h e r
g o v e r n m e n t a l r e g u l a t i o n shoul d
tak e
place , th
e
a c t i o n , m a y
t h e r e u p o n
b e c o n v e r t e d
i n t o
a n
ordinary action , an d th e partie s shal l b e allowe d t o
file suc h pleading s a s ma y b e necessar y o r proper .
(6a, R64)
NOTE S
1. Unde r Sec . 5, declaratory relief may be refused
by the court wher e the sam e would not terminat e th e
78 1
----------------------- Page 782----------------------RULE 63
4-6
uncertaint y or
proper partie s
will give ris e
th e action for
facts not the n
SECS.
controversy .
For instance , ther e may b e
wh o cannot b e joine d an d whos e interest s
t o th e uncertaint y or wher e th e judgmen t in
declaratory relie f may chang e upon proof o f
availabl e to th e court
(see 3 Moran 159,
1980 Ed.).
Thi s discretion i s justifie d as , precisely , th e
p u r p o s e o f d e c l a r a t o r y relie f i s t o t e r m i n a t
e th e
controversy .
Such discretion , however , doe s not exten d
to action s for th e reformation o f an instrument , t o quiet
titl e t o rea l property or t o remov e cloud s therefrom , or t o
consolidate ownership in a pacto de retro sale .
2 . In on e case , wha t wa s sought wa s not a declara tion tha t th e responden t wa s a corporation , on which ther e
wa s n o dispute , bu t tha t it wa s separat e an d distinct from
another corporatio n for whos e liabilitie s it shoul d not
respond .
Th e rul e i s tha t wher e th e relie f sought would
b e determinativ e o f issue s rathe r tha n a construction o f
definite state d rights , statu s an d other relation s commonly
expressed in writte n instruments , th e cas e i s not one for
declaratory judgment .
Considerin g tha t in a proceedin g
for declaratory judgmen t th e relie f which may b e sought
is limite d only t o a declaratio n o f right s an d not a
determination or tria l o f issues , a declarator y relie f
proceedin g i s unavailabl e wher e a judgmen t may b e mad e
only after a judicia l investigation of th e issue s
(Kawasak
i
Port
Service
Corp.,
et al. vs. Amores,
etc., et al., G
.R.
No.
58340, July
16, 1991).
3 . Petition s
for
declarator y
relie f regardin g
th e
et
DECLARATORY RELIEF
AND SIMILAR REMEDIES
SECS. 4-6
783
----------------------- Page 784----------------------RULE 63
6
SECS. 4-
(Congressional
G.R. No.
59113,
affirmativ e
relie f a s
may
b e
8.
An action for declaratory relie f mus t b e brought
in th e proper Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e (now , th e Regional
Tria l Court) .
I t i s no t amon g th e action s withi n th e
original jurisdiction o f th e Suprem e Court even i f only
question s of law ar e involve d (se e Sec.
17, R.A. 296
;
Remotigue vs. Osmena, Jr., L-28202, Nov.
10, 1967; Rural
Bank
of
Olongapo,
Inc.
vs.
Comm.
of Land
Registration,
6 4
e c t i o n s
a n d t h e C
h t b y
t h e
a g g r i
C o u r t
o n
c e r t i o r a r
r e i n a f t e r
p r o v i d e d ,
Court,
dated
o m m i s s i o n
e v e d
p a r t y
i u n d e r
(n )
Feb.
o n
R u l e
A u d i t
t o
m a y
t h e
65 ,
b e
b r o u g
S u p r e m e
e x c e p t
a s
h e
Sec . 3 .
Time to file petition. T h e p e t i t i o n s
hal l
b e file d w i t h i n t h i r t y (30) d a y s fro m notic e o
f t h e
j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r o r r e s o l u t i o n s o u g h t
t o b e
r e v i e w e d .
T h e filin g o f a m o t i o n for ne w t r
i a l o r
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f sai d j u d g m e n t o r fina l o
r d e r o r
r e s o l u t i o n , i f allowe d u n d e r t h e p r o c e d u r a l r u
l e s o f
t h e C o m m i s s i o n
c o n c e r n e d ,
s h a l l i n t e r
r u p t
t h e
p e r i o d h e r e i n fixed .
I f t h e m o t i o n i s d e
n i e d , t h e
a g g r i e v e d
p a r t y m a y
fil e t h e p e t i t i o n w i
t h i n t h e
r e m a i n i n g p e r i o d , b u t w h i c h shal l n o t b e les s
t h a n
five (5) d a y s i n a n y event , r e c k o n e d fro m notic e o f
d e n i a l , (n )
Sec . 4 .
Docket and other lawful fees. Upo n t h e
filing o f t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e p e t i t i o n e r shal l pa y
t o t h e
cler k o f c o u r t t h e d o c k e t a n d o t h e r lawfu l fee s
a n d
d e p o s i t t h e a m o u n t o f P500.0 0 for costs ,
(
n )
785
----------------------- Page 786----------------------RULE 64
SECS. 1-4
NOTE S
1. This new Rule is based on the provisions of
Art . IX-A of the 1987 Constitution regarding the three
constitutional commissions provided for therein, one of the
common provisions therefor being as follows:
"SEC. 7. Each commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its members any case or matter
brought before it within sixty days from the date of
its submission for decision or resolution. A case or
matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution
upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the rules of the commission or
by the commission itself. Unless otherwise provided
by the Constitution or by law, any decision, order or
ruling of each commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof."
2. The remedy of certiorari in this Rule against
adjudications of the constitutional commissions is now
applicable only to the Commission on Elections and the
Commission on Audit. Pursuant to authority granted in
the aforequoted provision, and as explained in the early
part of this volume, Congress enacted R.A. 7902 amending
Sec. 9 of B.P . Big . 129, effective March 18, 1995,
eliminating such recourse to the Supreme Court and
transferring the revising power to the Court of Appeals
over all adjudications of the Civil Service Commission. For
that matter, the same amendment was made with respect
to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals.
3. As a consequence, the Supreme Court issued
Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 implementing
the foregoing amendment and including the Civil
Service Commission among the quasi-judicial agencies
whose awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions
should be elevated to the Court of Appeals on a petition
786
----------------------- Page 787----------------------RULE 64
SEC. 5
5.
It ca n b e
2 ,
Rul e
3 7 tha t a
T
h e
petitio n shal l b e verifie d an d file d i n eightee n (18)
l e g i b l e c o p i e s .
T h e
p e t i t i o n s h a l l n a m e
t h e
a g g r i e v e d part y
a s p e t i t i o n e r an d shal l j o i
n a s
r e s p o n d e n t s th e Commissio n c o n c e r n e d an d
th e
p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s i n t e r e s t e d i n s u s t a i n i n
g th e
j u d g m e n t ,
fina l orde r o r r e s o l u t i o n a quo.
Th e
petitio n shal l stat e th e fact s wit h certainty , presen t
clearly th e issue s involved , se t fort h th e ground s
787
----------------------- Page 788----------------------RULE 64
SEC. 5
an d brie f a r g u m e n t s relie d
for j u d g m e n t a n n u l l i n g
j u d g m e n t , fina l o r d e r
d i n g s o f
fact o f t h e
C o m m i s s i o
b s t a n t i a l
evidenc e shal l b e fina l a n d
s u p p o r t e d
b y
s u
non-reviewable .
Th e p e t i t i o n shal l b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a
arl y
legibl e d u p l i c a t e o r i g i n a l o r certifie d t r u e
y o f
t h e j u d g m e n t ,
fina l
o r d e r
o r r e s o l u t i
s u b j e c t
t h e r e o f , t o g e t h e r
w i t h
c e r t i f i e d t r u e
o p i e s
o f
such m a t e r i a l p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c o r d a s a r e
erre d
t o
t h e r e i n
a n d
o t h e r
d o c u m e n t s
r e l
a n t
a n d
p e r t i n e n t t h e r e t o .
Th e r e q u i s i t e n u m b e r
copie s
o f t h e
p e t i t i o n s h a l l c o n t a i n p l a i n
c o
e s o f al l
d o c u m e n t s
a t t a c h e d
t o t h e o r i g i n a l cop
cle
cop
o n
c
ref
e v
o f
p i
y
o f sai d
p e t i t i o n .
t e r
d a t
h e
fixed
Th e p e t i t i o n
shal l s t a t e t h e specifi c m a
i a l
e s s h o w i n g t h a t i t w a s file d
w i t h i n t
perio d
h e r e i n , a n d shal l c o n t a i n a s w o r n certificatio n
a g a i n s t f o r u m s h o p p i n g a s p r o v i d e d
t h e t h i r d
p a r a g r a p h o f sectio n 3 , Rul e 46 .
T h e p e
i e d b y
proo f o f servic e
c o n c e r n e d
d
o f t h e
timel y p a y m e n
t i t i o n
shal l f u r t h e r
b e
i n
a c c o m p a n
o f a cop y t h e r e o f o n t h e Commissio n
a n d
o n t h e
a d v e r s e
p a r t y ,
t o f d o c k e t a n d o t h e r lawfu l
a n
fees .
b e
s
(
NOTE S
1.
Jus t like th e othe r petition s t o th e Suprem e Court
hereinbefor e discussed , th e requirement s for th e petition
provide d by thi s section wer e take n from Suprem e Court
revise d Circular s Nos .
1-88,
19-91 an d 28-91, with
th e
change which ha s earlie r bee n note d tha t th e deposit
for cost s shal l b e mad e upon th e filing o f th e petition in
788
----------------------- Page 789----------------------RULE 64
SEC. 6-7
SE
NOTE S
1.
dilatory purposes .
2 . Sec .
should accompany
th e respondents
pleading s shal l
of th e Suprem e
Sec . 8 .
Effect of
for c e r t i o r a r i s h a
n o f th e
j u d g m e n t , fina l o r d
t o b e
r e v i e w e d , u n l e s s t
d i r e c t
o t h e r w i s e u p o n s u c
(n )
o r
r e s o l u t i o n s o u g h t
h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t
s h a l l
h t e r m s a s i t m a y d e e m just ,
Sec . 9 .
Submission
t h e
C o u r t set s t h e cas e fo r
q u i r e s
t h e p a r t i e s t o s u b m i t
shal l
b e d e e m e d s u b m i t t e d for
n g o f
t h e c o m m e n t s
o n
t h e
o t h e r
p l e a d i n g s o r p a p e r s a s
owed ,
o r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h
for
decision.
U n l e s s
o r a l a r g u m e n t , o r r e
m e m o r a n d a ,
t h e
cas e
d e c i s i o n u p o n t h e fili
p e t i t i o n , a n d
s u c h
m a y b e r e q u i r e d o r all
e p e r i o d t o d o so . (n )
NOT E
1.
Sec . 8 emphasize s th e basi c rul e tha t th e mer e
filing o f th e petition shal l not b e a ba r to execution wher e
proper unde r th e circumstances , unles s otherwis e directe d
b y th e Suprem e Cour t suc h a s throug h a temporar y
restrainin g order .
Sec . 9 , jus t lik e similar provision s i
n
th e othe r Rules , i s base d on th e provision s o f Sec .
Art . VIII o f th e Constitution .
15(2),
790
----------------------- Page 791----------------------RUL E
6 5
C E R T I O R A R I ,
P R O H I B I T I O N
AN D
MANDAMU S
Section
1 .
Petition for certiorari.
W h e
a n y
t r i b u n a l , b o a r d
o r office r
e x e r c i s i n g j u d
i c i a l o r
q u a s i - j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n s h a s a c t e d
w i t h o
u t o r
i n
e x c e s s o f it s o r h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n , o r w i t h g r
a v e a b u s e
n
o f d i s c r e t i o n a m o u n t i n g t o
it s o r
hi s j u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d t h e r e
a n y plain ,
speedy , a n d a d e q u a t e r e m e d y i n
u r s e
o f law , a p e r s o n aggrieve d t h e r e b
p e t i t i o n
act s w i t h
c e r t a i n t
e n d e r e d
a n n u l l i n
o f s u c h
t r i b u n a l
n g
s u c h
i n c i d e n t
r e .
lac k
o r exces s
o f
i s n o a p p e a l , o r
t h e o r d i n a r y c o
y m a y fil e a verifie d
i n t h e p r o p e r c o u r t , a l l e g i n g t h e f
y a n d
g
,
o r
p r a y i n g
t h a t j u d g m e n t
m o d i f y i n g
b o a r d
o r
t h e
b e
p r o c e e d i n g s
o f f i c e r , a n d
g r a n t i
a l relief s a s la w a n d j u s t i c e m a y r e q u i
T h e
p e
b y
a
certifie d t r u e
e s o l u t i o n s u b j e
a n d
d o c u m e n t s
o , a n d a
s w o r n
c e r t
i n g
a s
p r o v i d e d i n
Rul e
46 .
( l a )
t i t i o n
cop y
c t
s h a l l
b e
a c c o m p a n i e d
o f t h e j u d g m e n t ,
thereof ,
r e l e v a n t
copie s
a n d
i f i c a t i o n o f
t h e t h i r d
o f al l
o r d e r o r r
p l e a d i n g s
p e r t i n e n t
t h e r e t
n o n - f o r u m
s h o p p
p a r a g r a p h o f sectio n 3 ,
NOTE S
1. Thi s amende d section now expressly include s a
responden t
exercisin g
quasi-judicial
functions .
Th e
second paragrap h ha s als o been amende d t o additionally
requir e
a certificatio n o f non-foru m shoppin g whic h
assume s adde d importanc e by reaso n o f th e fact that ,
unde r th e presen t procedura l laws , th e Suprem e Court ,
Cour t
o f Appeal s
an d
Regiona l Tria l
Court s
hav e
concurrent jurisdiction in action s for certiorari , prohibition
an d
m a n d a m u s ,
henc e
foru m shoppin g o r multipl e
79 1
----------------------- Page 792----------------------RULE 65
SEC. l
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
AND MANDAMUS
SEC
Th e
certiorari ,
court , doe
is no wri
L-29749, April
15, 1988; Aparicio
vs. Andal, etc., et al.,
G.R. Nos. 86587-93, July 25,
1989)
or restrainin g order .
5 . For th e distinction s between th e origina l specia l
civil action for certiorar i unde r thi s Rul e an d certiorar i a s
a mod e of appellat e review , se e Not e 6 unde r Sec . 1 , Rul e
45 . Formerly , thes e specia l civil action s in Rul e 6 5 wer e
only require d t o b e filed within a reasonabl e perio d a s n o
tim e fram e for th e filing thereo f ha d been fixed by thi s
Rule
(Flordelis vs. Mar, G.R. No. 54887, May 22,
1982;
Toledo vs. Pardo, et al, G.R. No.
56761, Nov.
19, 1982;
Cubar
vs. Mendoza,
G.R.
No.
55035,
Feb.
23,
1983).
However ,
petitione r coul d b e guilt y o f lache s i f h e
failed t o avai l o f thes e remedie s withi n a reasonabl e
perio d
(Mun.
of Carcar
vs.
CF1
of Cebu,
L-31628,
Dec. 27, 1982).
Thi s Rul e now provide s for a specific
793
----------------------- Page 794----------------------RULE 66
. 1
SEC
With
is intende d
prohibitio n
carrying out
compel th e
respect
to
the purpose of
the
writ,
certiorar i
b.
With
d,
certiorari extend
t o discretionary
ministeria l acts
respect
to
the
act
sought
to
be
controlle
c.
With
respect
to the
respondent,
certiorar i
lie s
only agains t a responden t exercisin g judicia l or quasi judicia l functions , whil e both prohibition an d mandamu s
are availabl e agains t respondent s wh o exercis e judicia l
and/or non-judicia l functions .
7 . A responden t i s sai d t o b e exercisin g judicia l
functions wher e h e ha s th e power t o determin e wha t th e
law is , wha t ar e th e lega l right s o f th e parties , an d h e
undertake s t o determin e thes e question s an d adjudicat e
necessar
s
r t o
Hence ,
(Santiag
1970)
vs.
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
AND MANDAMUS
SEC. 1
1997).
SEC.
etc.,
et
al. L-38278,
June
28,
1983),
especially
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
AND MANDAMUS
SEC. 1
RULE 65
SEC. 1
61628,
Dec.
29,
1982).
Wher e
th e
orde r
i s
p a t e n t
nullit y (Vigan
Electric
Light
Co., Inc.
vs. Public
Service
Commission,
L-19850, Jan. 30,
1964; Luzon Surety Co. vs. Marbella, et
al, 109 Phil.
734; Dir. of Lands vs.
Santamaria,
44 Phil.
594), a s wher e
th e cour t a quo ha d
n o jurisdictio n
(Malayang Manggagawa
sa Esso
vs. Esso
Standard,
Inc.,
L-24224,
July
20,
1965);
798
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
AND MANDAMUS
SEC. 1
(b) Wher e
proceedin g hav e
th e lower
cour
Feb. 28, 1967), or
upon in th e lower
108 Phil.
Mar.
31,
905; Legaspi
1977);
Oil
Co.
vs.
Geronimo,
L-28101,
Jan.
31,
a
al,
1969);
(PALEA
Jan.
et
30,
al.
vs.
vs.
Phil. A
1982;
Ma
CA,
c o p i e s o f
al l p l e a d i n g s
a n d
d o c u m
800
----------------------- Page 801----------------------RULE 65
C. 2
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
SE
AND MANDAMUS
r e l e v a n t a n d
r n
p e r t i n e n t
t h e r e t o , a n d
s w o
i n
(2a)
NOTE S
1. Prohibitio n i s a preventiv e remedy .
However , t
o
preven t th e responden t from performin g th e act sough t t o
b e prevente d durin g th e pendency o f th e proceeding s for
th e writ , th e petitione r shoul d obtain a restrainin g order
and/or a wri t o f preliminar y injunction .
2 . Prohibitio n lie s agains t
functions, bu t not t o legislativ e
tc.
vs. Torres,
etc., et al., 100
t is
available agains t publi c officers wh o
an unconstitutiona l executiv e order
vs.
Siva,
et al.,
L-19870,
judicia l or
function s
Phil.
ministeria l
(Ruperto,
1098 fUnrep.J).
e
I
Mar.
1967).
SEC. 2
forum .
However ,
a s a defens e an d
significantly an d
an d may not ,
therefore , b e a s
former constitutiona l
of th e provision s of
whereof provide s in
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
SE
AND MANDAMUS
Sec. 3 .
Petition
for
mandamus.
W h e n
a
y
r i b u n a l , c o r p o r a t i o n , board ,
office r o r
p e r
o n
n l a w f u l l y n e g l e c t s t h e p e r f o r m a n c e
o f a n
ac t
w h i c h
t h e l a w
s p e c i f i c a l l y e n j o i n s a s a d
u t y
r e s u l t i n g f r o m a n o f f i c e , t r u s t , o r s t a t i o
n , o r
u n l a w f u l l y e x c l u d e s a n o t h e r fro m t h e
u s e
a n d
enjoymen t o f a righ t o r offic e t o whic h suc h othe r
i s entitled , an d ther e i s n o othe r plain , speed y an d
adequat e remed y i n th e ordinar y cours e o f law , th e
perso n aggrieve d thereb y ma y fil e a verifie d petitio n
n
t
s
u
s w o
(3a)
NOTE S
1. "Discretion, " whe n applie d t o publi c functiona ries , mean s a powe r or righ t conferre d upon the m by
law o f actin g officially ,
unde r certai n circumstances ,
uncontrolle d by th e judgmen t or conscienc e o f others .
A
purel y ministeria l ac t or duty , in contradictio n t o a
discretional act , i s one which an officer or tribuna l perform s
in a given stat e o f facts , in a prescribe d manner , in
obedience t o th e mandat e o f a lega l authority , withou t
regar d t o or th e exercis e o f hi s own judgmen t upon th e
propriet y or impropriet y o f th e act done .
I f th e
law
imposes a duty upon a publi c officer an d give s him th e
right t o decid e how or when th e duty shal l b e performed ,
such duty i s discretionary an d not ministerial .
Th e du
ty
is ministeria l only when th e discharg e o f th e sam e require s
803
----------------------- Page 804----------------------RULE 65
SEC. 3
et al.,
L-36181,
Oct.
23,
1982).
CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION
SE
AND MANDAMUS
It ha s als o been hel d tha t whil e th e discretion o f a
court will not ordinarily b e controlled by mandamus , wher e
such discretion o f th e court can b e legally exercise d in only
one way an d it refuse s t o act , mandamu s will lie t o compel
th e cour t t o excercis e it .
Mandamu s can b e employe d t o
correct error s o f lower court s t o preven t a failur e o f justic e
or irreparabl e injury wher e ther e i s a clear lega l righ t an d
ther e i s an absenc e o f any adequat e remedy , a s wher e
ther e i s n o appea l or such remedy by appea l i s inadequate .
It may als o b e employe d t o preven t an abus e o f discretion
or t o correct an arbitrar y action which doe s not amoun t t o
exercise of discretio n
(People
vs. Orais,
65 Phil.
744;
Tuvera-Luna,
Inc.
vs. Nable,
67 Phil.
340).
Further , th e genera l rul e i s tha t in th e performanc e
of an official duty or act involvin g discretion , such official
can only b e directe d by mandamu s t o act
bu t not t o
act
one way or th e other .
An exception t o thi s rul e i s wher e
ther e ha s been gros s abus e o f discretion , manifest injustice ,
or palpabl e
exces s o f a u t h o r i t y , i n whic h cas e
th e
r e s p o n d e n t ca n b e o r d e r e d t o ac t i n a p a r t i c
u l a r
manner ,
especiall y wher e a constitutiona l righ t ha s
been violate d
No.
79484, Dec.
5. Whil e mandamu s
du e cours e
t o th e
dismissed , mandamu s will
dismis s th e appea l a s
to dismis s a s an erro r
vs.
Alfonso,
vs.
PCGG, et al.,
G.R.
7,
78 Phil.
SEC. 3
ther e
ar e
othe r
availabl e
remedie s
i n
th e
ordinar y
806
----------------------- Page 807----------------------RULE 65
3
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
SEC.
AND MANDAMUS
cours e
o f law
t o enforc e
contractua l obligations .
Se
e
Commission
on
Elections,
et
al.
vs.
Quijano-Padilla,
t
al. (G.R . No . 151992 , Sept . 18, 2002) wher e thi s matte r
wa s extensively discussed , togethe r wit h th e case s cite d
therein .
10. Mandamu s can b e availe d o f only by th e part y
wh o ha s direc t lega l interes t in th e righ t sough t t o b e
enforced .
However , i f th e question i s on e o f publi c righ t
and th e object o f th e mandamu s sui t i s t o procur e th e
performanc e o f a publi c duty , it i s sufficient t o show tha t
th e petitione r i s a citizen even i f h e ha s n o specia l interes t
in th e
r e s u l t (Benitez
vs. Paredes,
et al., 52
Phil
.
113; Tahada,
et al. vs. Tuvera,
et al, G.R.
No.
63915,
April
24,
1985).
31
29,
1985).
12. Wher e th e issu e o f damage s wa s raise d in th e
tria l court in th e sam e petition for certiorari , prohibition
an d m a n d a m u s
an d t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y ha d am p l
e
opportunity t o defen d itself, th e court may validly awar d
such damages .
Sai d clai m wa s i n th e n a t u r e o f
a n
independent caus e o f action , distinct an d separat e from
th e issu e o f whethe r or not mandamu s will issue , but joined
with th e caus e o f action for th e writ s praye d for withou t
opposition on th e par t o f th e responden t therein .
Thi s i
s
allowed by Rul e 135 which permit s th e adoption o f any
suitable mod e or proceedin g i f n o specific procedur e i s
pointe d ou t an d als o in orde r t o avoi d mutiplicit y o f
suits
June
(Executive Secretary,
10,
1988).
et
al.
vs. CA,
et al,
L-37999,
807
----------------------- Page 808----------------------RULE 65
SEC. 4
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
AND MANDAMUS
sam e i s i n ai d o f th e court' s appellat e jurisdiction .
I f th e petitio n involve s a n ac t o r omissio n o f a quasi judicia l agency , unles s otherwis e provide d b y la w
o r t h e s e rules , th e petitio n shal l b e file d wit h an d
b e cognizabl e onl y b y th e Cour t o f Appeals .
SE
I n e l e c t i o n c a s e s i n v o l
a n
omissio n o f a municipa l o r a regiona
t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l b e file d e x
t h e
C o m m i s s i o n o n E l e c t i o n s , i
p e l l a t e
j u r i s d i c t i o n . (As
amended
in
,
effective Dec.
27,
2007)
v i n g a n
a c t o r
l tria l court ,
c l u s i v e l y w i t h
n
ai d
A.M.
o f it s
No.
a p
07-7-12-SC
NOTE S
1. In th e absenc e o f specia l reasons , th e Suprem e
Court althoug h i t ha s concurren t origina l jurisdiction with
th e Cour t o f Firs t Instance , will not tak e cognizanc e o f
thes e petitions .
Thi s i s especially tru e wher e th e petition
involve s question s o f fact an d may entai l receptio n o f
evidence
(Veraguth
vs. Isabela Sugar Co.,
5 7 Phil. 2
66;
Vergara vs. Suelto, et al., G.R. No.
74766, Dec. 21, 1987).
2 . A petitione r desirin g t o avai l himsel f o f thes e
extraordinary writ s i s not at complet e liberty t o file hi s
petitio n in any o f th e above-state d court s jus t becaus e
they hav e concurren t origina l jurisdiction over th e same .
H e cannot , throug h whim or capric e or t o secur e an undu e
advantage ,
disregar d th e hierarch y o f court s i n ou r
judicia l system , which hierarchy i s on e o f th e structura l
aspect s intende d for th e orderly administratio n o f justice .
Thus ,
vs.
Vasquez
,
et al. (G.R . Nos . 99289-90 , Jan . 27 , 1992), th e Suprem e
Court ha d th e occasion t o stres s th e rul e t o b e observe d in
thi s regard , a s follows :
"One final observation .
ceeding s
in thi s cas e
W e discern in th e pro -
a propensit y on th e par t o f
809
SEC . 4
CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION
SEC.
AND MANDAMUS
mission or by filing th e requisit e application for trave l
abroad .
Only wher e al l th e condition s an d require ment s for th e issuanc e o f th e extraordiar y writ s o f
certiorari , prohibitio n o r m a n d a m u s indubitabl y
obtain agains t a disposition o f th e lower court s may
our powe r o f supervisio n ove r sai d tribunal s b e
invoked throug h th e appropriat e petition assailin g on
jurisdictiona l or clearly vali d ground s thei r actuation s
therein. "
Thi s policy o f th e Suprem e Cour t not t o entertai n
direct resor t t o it unles s compellin g justification exist s
therefor ,
a s e a r l i e r explained , ha s bee n r e i t e r a
t e d
in subsequen t cases ,
suc h a s Uy
vs. Contreras,
e t
al.
(G.R. No . 123352 , Feb . 7, 1996), Bercero vs. De Guzman
(G.R. No . 123573 , Feb . 28 , 1996) , Advincula vs. Legaspi,
et al. (G.R . No . 125500 , Aug . 7 , 1996), an d applie d with
significant effect s in th e late r cas e of St. Martin Funeral
Home vs. NLRC, et al.
(G.R . No . 130866 , Sept . 16, 1998) .
3 .
e
cognizance
F o r m e r l y ,
o f thes e
t h e Cour t
origina l action s
o f Appeal s
only
in ai d
coul d
t a k
o f it s
appellate jurisdiction .
Thus , i f th e decision in th e main
case wa s not appealable , or , i f appealable , th e sam e wa s
within th e appellat e jurisdiction o f th e Suprem e Court ,
th e petition could not b e institute d in th e Court o f Appeals ,
as it woul d not thereb y b e actin g in ai d o f it s appellat e
jurisdictio n
(Breslin
vs. Luzon Stevedoring Co.,
84 Phil.
618; Pineda & Ampil Mfg. Co., et al.
95 Phil. 930).
Also ,
th e Cour
o
jurisdictio n t o entertai n a petitio
prohibitio n t o nullify a wri t o f
grantin g th e wri t i s not appealabl e
Inc.
vs. Estabello,
L-20610, Jan.
vs. Bartolome,
o f Appeal s
et al.,
ha d
n for certiorar i an d
execution a s th e orde r
(J.M. Tuazon & Co.,
9, 1975).
ar e
811
----------------------- Page 812----------------------RULE 65
SEC. 5
appealable
judgmen t
appealable
vs.
People,
ter
clarified
Court o f
1140).
However ,
th e
rul e
wa s
la
jurisdictio n
raised , a s
view of it
vs.
CA, et al.,
7, 1976).
W h e n
a c t s o r
omission s
t r i b u n
e
p e t i t i
e n t
o r
r e s p o n
. 5 .
t h e
Respondents
p e t i t i o n
and
costs
file d
in
certain
r e l a t e s t o
case
t h e
j o i n a s
w i t h
s u c h
p r i v a t e
p u b l i c
r e s p o n d
r e s p o n d e
n t
o r
r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s i n t e
e s t e d i n
s u s t a i n i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e court ; a n d
t shal l
b e t h e d u t y o f s u c h p r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t s t o
p p e a r
a n d defend , bot h i n hi s o r t h e i r ow n behal f an d i n
b e h a l f o f t h e
p u b l i c r e s p o n d e n t
o r r e s p
n d e n t s
affecte d b y t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , a n d t h e cost s a w a r
e d
in suc h p r o c e e d i n g s i n favo r o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r
shal l
b e a g a i n s t t h e p r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t s only ,
a n d no t
a g a i n s t t h e j u d g e , quasi-judicia l agency , t r i b u n
l ,
c o r p o r a t i o n , board , officer o r p e r s o n impleade d a s
publi c r e s p o n d e n t o r r e s p o n d e n t s .
r
i
a
o
d
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
AND MANDAMUS
SEC. 5
otherwis e
specificall y directe d b y th e court , the y
shall no t appea r o r participat e i n th e proceeding s
therein .
(5a)
NOTE S
1. The amendments in this section enumerate
who shall be impleaded as public respondents in the
action and their permissible participation therein, as well
as the duties and liabilities of the private respondents. It
will be recalled that in appeal by certiorari under
Rule 45, the Court of Appeals shall no longer be impleaded
as a respondent. The reason for the difference is that
Rule 45 governs an appellate review by certiorari, hence
there can properly be no public respondent since the
dispute is actually between the contending parties in the
case, that is, the appellant and the appellee in the Court
of Appeals who are respectively the petitioner and the
respondent in the Supreme Court.
uc h
process
th e
r e s p
t h e
petitio
t h e r
t h e
r e s p
t ,
togethe
t h e r
, t h e c o u r t shal l issu e a n o r d e r r e q u i r i n g
o n d e n t
o r r e s p o n d e n t s
t o
c o m m e n t
o n
o n
Cour t a n d t h e
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
SE
AND MANDAMUS
sectio n 2 , Rul e 56 , shal l b e observed .
Befor e givin g
d u e c o u r s e t h e r e t o , t h e c o u r t ma y
r e q u i r e
t h e
r e s p o n d e n t s t o fil e thei r c o m m e n t to , an d no
t a
m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , th e petition .
Thereafter , th e
cour t ma y requir e th e filin g o f a repl y an d suc h
othe r responsiv e o r othe r pleading s a s i t ma y dee m
necessar y an d proper .
(6a)
NOTE S
1. In
th e
petition s
unde r
thi s
Rul e
filed
in
th e
th e
Th e
failure o f th e petitione r to comply with any o f th e foregoing requirement s shal l b e sufficient groun d for th e
dismissal of th e petition s
(Sec. 2, Rule 56, in relation to
Sec.
3,
Rule 46).
SECS. 7-8
l l n o t i n t e r r u p t
relief.
y issu e
als o
o f
th e
Th e
t h e c o u r s e o f
u n l e s s a temporar y restrainin g
o f preliminar y injunctio n ha s bee n
i n i n g t h e p u b l i c r e s p o n d e n t fro
wit h th e case .
ma y b e a groun d fo r
(As amended in A.M. No.
2007)
a n
07-
require d b y th e
th e filin g thereo f ha s
cas e o r requir e th e
If, afte r suc h hearin g
th e expiratio n o f
c o u r t find s tha t
th e
816
----------------------- Page 817----------------------RULE 65
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
AND
SEC
MANDAMUS
base d
sanction s
o n
o r
817
----------------------- Page 818----------------------RULE 65
9
tribunal ,
c o r p o r a t i o n , board ,
SEC.
office r
o r
perso n
e cour t ma y direct ,
e t o shal l b e p u n i s h e d
issu e fo r an y damage s
wit h sectio n 1 o f
NOT E
1.
Wher e th e higher court find s tha t th e lower court
wa s in error , ordinarily th e cas e i s remande d t o th e lower
court for further appropriat e proceedings .
However , it
may rende r judgmen t on th e merit s without reman d o f
th e cas e wher e th e fact s reveale d by th e pleading s clearly
show tha t th e petitioner i s entitle d t o th e relie f praye d for
(see Lina us. Purisima, L-39380, April 14,
1978).
Thus
,
in a certiorar i cas e wher e th e lower cour t rendere d a
default judgmen t for an amoun t much higher tha n tha t
authorized by th e Rules , th e Suprem e Court decided th e
case on th e merits , instea d o f remandin g th e same , since
certiorari i s also equitabl e in character (Ledesma Overseas
Shipping Corp.
us. Auelino,
L-47698, April 28,
1978).
818
----------------------- Page 819----------------------RULE
QUO
S e c t i o n
1.
6 6
WARRANT O
Action
by
Government
against
individuals.
A n
a c t i o n fo r th e u s u r p a t i o n o f
a
publi c office , positio n o r franchis e ma y b e com mence d b y a verifie d petitio n brough t i n th e nam e
o f th e Republi c o f th e Philippine s against :
(a) A perso n w h o usurps , intrude s into , o r un lawfull y hold s o r exercise s a publi c office , positio n
o r franchise ;
(b)
A publi c office r wh o doe s o r suffer s a n ac t
which , b y provisio n o f law , constitute s a groun d fo r
th e forfeitur e o f hi s office ; o r
(c)
w i t h i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s w i t h o u t b e i n g l e g a l
l y
incorporate d o r withou t lawfu l authorit y s o t o act .
(la )
NOTE S
1. Thi s amende d Rul e i s now limite d to quo warrant o
proceeding s involving a public office, position or franchise .
Par . (c) of Sec . 1 refer s to an association which exercise s
corporate function s or power s although it ha s not been
legally incorporated . In th e cas e o f a legally incorporate d
entity , th e qu o warrant o action i s now governe d by th e
Corporation Code .
For tha t reason , th e former Sec . 2 o f
thi s Rule , which provide d for qu o warrant o agains t a
corporation ,
ha s no t bee n reproduce d here ,
an d al
l
reference s t o proceeding s i n qu o warrant o involvin g
corporation s a s provide d in th e former Rul e hav e been
eliminated .
2 . Qu o warrant o i s th e remedy t o try dispute s with
respect to th e titl e to a public office.
Where , however ,
819
----------------------- Page 820----------------------RULE 66
1
ther e
c
office
prevent
mandamu
CA,
SEC.
et al.,
L-14803,
June
30,
1961).
o i s tha t th e occupant i s
t h e offic e b y reaso n
election contest challenge s
d office on th e groun d o f
election s for sai d office
8, 1968).
qu o warrant o proceeding s
affecting electiv e
vs.
Catubig,
L-23964,
June
1,
1966).
QUO WARRANTO
SECS.
Sec .
2.
When Solicitor General or public prosecutor
must commence action. Th e Solicito r Genera l or a
publi c prosecutor , w h e n directe d b y th e Presiden t
o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , o r w h e n u p o n c o m p l a i n t
o r
otherwis e h e ha s goo d reaso n t o believ e tha t an y
c a s e s p e c i f i e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n c a
n b e
establishe d b y proof , mus t commenc e suc h action .
(3a)
Sec .
3.
may
commence
e
Solicito r Genera l
th e permissio n o
t o b e c o m m e
t h e
reques t an d upo
bu t i n suc h
Th
a t
firs t
t o
e
d e p o s i t e d i n t h e c o u r t b y th e p e r s o n a t w h
o s e
r e q u e s t a n d
u p o n w h o s e
r e l a t i o n t h e s a m e
i s
brought .
(4a)
Sec . 4 .
When
hearing
had
on
application
for
permission
to commence action. Upo n applicatio n fo r
permissio n t o commenc e suc h actio n i n accordanc e
wit h th e
nex t precedin g section , th e cour t shal l
direct tha t notic e b e give n t o th e responden t s o tha t
h e m a y
b e h e a r d i n o p p o s i t i o n t h e r e t o ;
n d i f
821
----------------------- Page 822----------------------RULE 66
permissio n i s granted ,
t o tha t effect , copie
intereste d parties , an
filed withi n th e perio
Sec.
action.
office o
exercise d
i n hi s
SECS. 5. 6
5.
When an individual
A perso n claimin g t o b e
r positio n usurpe d o r
b y anothe r ma y brin g a
ow n name .
(6)
NOTE S
1. Th e Solicitor Genera l or th e public prosecutor may
commence a quo warrant o action (a) when directe d by th e
President , (b) when h e ha s good reason t o believe tha t h e
can establish a cas e unde r th e ground s in Sees . 1 an d 2 ,
and (c) at th e reques t an d upon th e relation o f another
person (ex relatione) but , in thi s case , leav e of court
must
first b e obtained , an d h e may also requir e an indemnity
bond from th e relator .
2 . Th e person institutin g quo warrant o proceeding s
in hi s own behalf , unde r Sec . 5 , doe s not hav e to secur e
th e intervention o f th e Solicitor Genera l or th e fiscal , nor
does he hav e to obtain prior leav e of court
(Cui vs. Cui,
supra).
However , such petitioner in th e quo warrant o
proceedin g mus t ave r an d b e abl e t o show tha t h e i s
entitled t o th e office in dispute . Without such averment
or evidenc e o f such right , th e action may b e dismisse d at
any stag e
(Garcia vs. Perez, L-28184, Sept.
11, 1980).
Sec.
6 .
Parties
and
contents
of petition against
usurpation. Whe n th e actio n i s agains t a perso n
for usurpin g a publi c office , positio n o r franchise ,
th e petitio n shal l se t fort h th e nam e o f th e perso n
wh o claim s t o b e entitle d thereto , i f any , wit h a n
avermen t o f hi s righ t t o th e sam e an d tha t th e
822
----------------------- Page 823----------------------RULE 66
8-9
QUO
WARRANTO
r e s p o n d e n t i s u n l a w f u
f .
All person s w h o clai m t o b e
office, positio n o r franchis e
an d thei r respectiv e rights ,
p o s i t i o n o r f r a n c h i s e
m e
action .
(7a)
SECS. 7,
l l y i n p o s s e s s i o n thereo
entitle d t o th e publi c
ma y b e mad e parties ,
t o suc h publi c office ,
d e t e r m i n e d , i n t h e
s a
Sec . 7 .
Venue. A n actio n unde r th e precedin g
six s e c t i o n s ca n b e brough t onl y i n th e S u p r e m
e
Court , t h e
Cour t o f A p p e a l s , o r i n th e R e g i o
n a l
Trial Cour t exercisin g jurisdictio n ove r th e terri toria l
a r e a w h e r e t h e r e s p o n d e n t o r an y
o f
t h e
respondent s resides , bu t whe n th e Solicito r Genera l
c o m m e n c e s t h e
a c t i o n , i t m a y b e b r o u g h t i
n a
Regiona l Tria l Cour t i n th e City o f Manila , i n th e
Court o f Appeals , o r i n th e Suprem e Court .
(8a)
NOT E
1. Sec. 7 has been amended to include the Court
of Appeals, consonant with the provision of Sec. 9, B.P.
Big. 129 granting it original jurisdiction over quo warranto
actions, concurrently with the Supreme Court and the
Regional Trial Court.
Sec .
ay
be
reduced;
8.
action
Period
for
pleadings
given precedence.
and
proceedings
Th e
cour t
m
ma y
r e d u c e t h e p e r i o d p r o v i d e d b y t h e s e R u l e s
fo r
filin g pleading s an d fo r al l othe r proceeding s i n th e
a c t i o n i n o r d e r t o s e c u r e th e m o s t e x p e d i t i
o u s
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e m a t t e r s i n v o l v e d t h e r
e i n
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h th e right s o f th e parties .
S u
c h
actio n ma y b e give n precedenc e ove r an y othe r civi l
matte r pendin g i n th e court .
(9a)
Sec .
9.
Judgment
where
usurpation
found.
823
----------------------- Page 824----------------------RULE 66
11
SECS. 10-
judgmen t shal l
e ouste d an d
r o m , a n d t h a t th
y
be , recove r
b e rendere d
s i n an d t o th e
f all th e partie s
(10a)
Sec.
10 .
Rights
of persons
adjudged
entitled
to
public
office; delivery of books and papers; damages. If
judgmen t b e rendere d i n favo r o f th e perso n averre d
i n th e complain t t o b e entitle d t o th e publi c offic e
h e may , afte r takin g th e oat h o f offic e an d executin g
any officia l bon d require d b y law , tak e upo n himsel f
th e executio n o f th e office , an d ma y immediatel y
thereafte r deman d o f th e responden t al l th e book s
and paper s i n th e respondent' s custod y o r contro l
appertainin g t o th e offic e t o whic h th e judgmen t
relates .
I f th e responden t refuse s o r neglect s t o
delive r an y boo k o r pape r pursuan t t o suc h demand ,
h e m a y
b e p u n i s h e d
fo r c o n t e m p t a s h a v i
n g
disobeye d a lawfu l orde r o f th e court .
Th e perso n
adjudged entitle d t o th e offic e ma y als o brin g actio n
agains t th e
r e s p o n d e n t t o recove r th e damage s
s u s t a i n e d b y
s u c h
p e r s o n b y
r e a s o n o f t
h e
usurpation .
(15a)
Sec.
11 .
Limitations.
N o t h i n g
containe d
n
thi s Rul e shal l b e construe d t o authoriz e a n actio n
against a publi c office r o r employe e for hi s ouste r
from offic e unles s th e sam e b e commence d withi n
on e (1) yea r afte r th e caus e o f suc h ouster , o r th e
right o f th e petitione r t o hol d suc h offic e o r position ,
arose ; no r t o authoriz e a n actio n for damage s i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e
x t
precedin g sectio n unles s th e sam e b e commence d
n e
824
----------------------- Page 825----------------------RULE 66
12
QUO WARRANTO
SEC.
e st ab l i s h i n g th e
petitioner' s
righ t t o
th e
offic e
n
question .
(16a )
Sec .
12 .
Judgment
for costs.
I n
a n a c t i
o n
brough t i n accordanc e wit h th e provision s o f thi s
R u l e , t h e c o u r t m a y
r e n d e r j u d g m e n t fo r c o
s t s
a g a i n s t e i t h e r th e petitioner , th e relator , o r th
e
respondent , o r th e perso n o r person s claimin g t o
b e a corporation , o r ma y apportio n th e costs , a s
justic e requires .
(17a)
NOTE S
1. Th e period s withi n which
shoul d b e
b r o u g h t ar e
t h e
existence o f a caus e o f action .
cannot prospe r i f it wa s brough t
if suc h a defens e wa s not raise
lower cour t
(Abeto vs. Rodas,
s.
City Mayor, et al., 99 Phil. 252,
an action for reinstatement) .
2 . In qu o warrant
filing o f th e complaint
yea r period .
Shoul d
prejudice , th e one-year
th e plaintif f ha s th e
re-institut e th e action
109
Phil.
317).
th e qu o warrant o action
condition s p r e c e d e n t
t o
Consequently , th e action
beyon d sai d period s even
d by th e defendan t in th e
82 Phil. 59; cf.
Unabia
3.
Th e one-year period , however , i s not interrupte d
by th e prosecution o f any administrativ e remedy as , in
qu o w a r r a n t o proceedings ,
n o on e i s compelle d t
o
resor t t o administrativ e remedie s sinc e publi c interes t
require s tha t th e right t o public office shoul d b e determine d
as speedily as possibl e
(Galano, et al. vs. Roxas, L-31241,
Sept.
12,
1975; Sison
vs. Pangramuyen,
et al., L-40295
,
825
----------------------- Page 826----------------------RULE 66
SEC. 12
QUO WARRANTO
SEC. 12
b e file d b y an y registere d
an d who , even i f th e petitio n
d t o tha t office; whereas , in
th e petitione r mus t b e th e
an d wh o woul d assum e th e
In fine , thi s Rul e refer s t o
6 7
EXPROPRIATION
Section 1 .
The complaint. Th e righ t of eminen t
domai n shal l b e exercise d by th e filin g o f a verifie d
complaint whic h shal l stat e wit h certaint y th e righ t
and purpos e o f expropriation , describ e th e rea l o r
persona l propert y sough t t o b e expropriated , an d
joi n a s defendant s al l person s ownin g o r claimin g
t o own , o r occupying , an y par t thereo f o r interes t
therein , showing , s o fa r a s practicable , th e separat e
i n t e r e s t o f e a c h d e f e n d a n t . I f t h e titl e t o
an y
property sough t t o b e expropriate d appear s t o b e
i n t h e R e p u b l i c o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , a l t h o u
g h
occupie d b y privat e individuals , o r i f th e titl e i s
otherwis e obscur e o r doubtfu l s o tha t th e plaintif f
canno t wit h accurac y o r certaint y specif y wh o ar e
th e rea l owners , avermen t t o tha t effec t shal l b e
mad e i n th e complaint ,
(la )
NOTE S
1. Eminen t domain , which is properly a concept of
political or constitutiona l law , i s th e righ t o f th e Stat e t o
acquire privat e property for publi c us e upon th e payment
o f jus t compensation .
Tha t righ t extend s t o privat e
property partl y or entirely persona l an d th e proces s o f
acquisition i s substantially th e sam e
(see Act 204).
The
requirement of du e proces s call s for a rul e of procedur e to
be observe d in th e exercis e of th e right of eminen t domain
which i s mor e familiarly known in ou r jurisdiction a s
expropriation but , in th e American jurisdiction , i s often
referred t o a s condemnation .
Since our Rule on th e matte r i s of American origin ,
th e ter m "condemnation " ha s heretofor e also been used .
It wa s felt, however , tha t expropriation should b e th e more
828
----------------------- Page 829-----------------------
RULE 67
EC. 1
EXPROPRIATION
appropriat e
ter m for thi s procedura l rul e sinc e con demnatio n i s als o use d for civi l an d commercia l law
purposes , asid e from it s havin g a negativ e connotation .
Our choic e o f th e presen t ter m i s mor e specific tha n som e
concepts o f "eminent domain proceedings " in American law .
At any rate , in Louisian a an d in most o f th e state s o f
th e America n union , "expropriation " i s use d a s th e takin g
unde r eminen t domain .
I t ha s been expressly recognize d
t h a t a m e a n i n g
h a s bee n
a t t a c h e d t o t h e
t e r m
" e x p r o p r i a t i o n , " i m p o r t e d from it s us e i n fore
ig n
jurisprudence ,
whic h make s i t synonymou s wit h th e
exercis e
o f th e powe r o f e m i n e n t domain ,
i.e. ,
th e
compulsory takin g from a person , on compensation made ,
of hi s privat e propert y such a s for th e us e o f a railroad ,
canal or othe r publi c work s
(Brownsville vs. Pavazas,
2
Woods 293, Fed.
Cos. No. 2,043).
2 .
o f e m i n e n t
domai n
b y
th e
Stat e
actin g
throug h
th e
nationa l government .
Expropriation by local governmen t
unit s ha s heretofor e als o been authorize d by different
laws , togethe r wit h othe r politica l subdivision s create d
and s o empowere d by law .
Presently , however , such pro vision s on thi s power o f local politica l subdivision s hav e
been consolidate d an d embodie d in th e Local Governmen t
Code of 199 1 (R.A.
7160), an d th e pertinen t provision s
thereo f ar e quote d an d briefly discusse d in th e note s at
th e en d o f thi s Rule .
3 . Sec . 1 o f thi s Rul e require s tha t th e complaint
should alleg e bot h th e righ t an d th e purpos e o f th e
e x p r o p r i a t i o n . Wher e
th e righ t o f th e plaintif f
t o
expropriate i s conferre d by law , th e complaint doe s not
hav e t o stat e wit h certaint y th e righ t o f expropriatio n
(MRR Co.
vs. Mitchel,
50 Phil.
832).
4 . I t i s th e
a c t u a l
filin g
o f th e complain t
fo
r
expropriation which bind s th e land , an d not a mer e notic e
829
----------------------- Page 830----------------------RULE 67
2
of
th e
to
expropriat e
S E C
(Republic
vs.
Baylosis,
96 Phil. 461).
However, the owner of th
dispose of said property, despite the filing of
the grantee would merely be substitute d in
holds the land subject to the result s of the
Jr. vs. De Asis,
107 Phil. 131).
Co.
vs
Sec. 2 . Entry of
plaintiff upon depositing value with
authorized government depository. Upo n th e
filin g of
th e complain t o r a t an y tim e thereafte r an d afte r
du e notic e t o th e defendant , th e plaintif f shal l hav e
th e righ t t o tak e o r ente r upo n th e possessio n o f
th e rea l propert y involve d i f h e deposit s wit h th e
a u t h o r i z e d g o v e r n m e n t d e p o s i t o r y a n a m o u n t
equivalen t t o th e assesse d valu e o f th e propert y for
purpose s o f taxatio n t o b e hel d b y suc h ban k subjec t
t o th e order s o f th e court .
Suc h deposi t shal l b e i n
money , unles s i n lie u thereo f th e cour t authorize s
th e deposi t o f a certificat e o f deposi t o f a govern m e n t ban k
o f t h e R e p u b l i c o f t h e P h i l i p p i n
e s
payabl e o n deman d t o th e authorize d governmen t
depository .
I f persona l propert y i s involved , it s valu e shal l
b e provisionall y ascertaine d an d th e amoun t t o b e
deposite d shal l b e promptl y fixe d b y th e court .
Afte r suc h deposi t i s mad e th e cour t shal l orde r
th e sherif f o r othe r prope r office r t o forthwit h plac e
th e plaintif f i n possessio n o f th e propert y involve d
and promptl y submi t a repor t thereo f t o th e cour t
wit h servic e o f copie s t o th e parties .
(2a)
830
----------------------- Page 831----------------------RULE 67
. 2
EXPROPRIATION
SEC
NOTE S
1. Unde r P.D . 42 , wha t wa s require d t o b e deposite d
wa s an amoun t equivalen t t o th e assesse d valu e o f th e
land an d th e deposit shoul d b e mad e wit h th e Philippin e
Nationa l Ban k or an y o f it s branche s or agencie s (se e
San
Diego
vs.
Valdellon,
L-45673,
Nov.
22,
197
7).
However , unde r P.D . 1533 , effective Jun e 1 , 1978 , th e
al, L-40108,
2 . Th e
Aug.
31,
1984).
p r e l i m i n a r y deposi t
u n d e r thi s
sectio
n
c o n s t i t u t e s a d v a n c e p a
t h e
expropriation proceeds , an d stand
damage s shoul d th e proceeding s
an
Refining Co.
vs. Camus,
40
3 . Th e preliminar y
plaintif f desire s entr y on
th e action ; otherwise , it
of expropriatio n i s issue d
y m e n t
s
i n
a s
not
Phil.
deposit i s
th e lan d
could alway
before it
t h e
indemnit y
succee d
e v e n t
for
(Visay
550).
only necessary i f th e
upon it s institutio n o f
s wai t unti l th e orde r
enter s upon th e land .
Tayengco,
L-23766,
April
29,
1967).
5.
Som e modification s hav e been mad e in thi s section
o addres s contemporar y change s an d practice .
r
n s t a n c e , t h i s sectio n s p e a k s o f suc h a u t h o r i
e d
831
SEC.
7 . O n
Novembe r
7 ,
2000 ,
Congres s
enacte d
EXPROPRIATION
I t w a s t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a
t t h e
expropriation action shoul d b e governe d by Rul e 67 , an d
not R.A . 8974 a s wa s late r hel d an d followed by th e judg e
presidin g over th e expropriatio n court .
On review by
certiorari , th e Suprem e Cour t uphel d th e Regiona l Tria l
Court' s position that , in thi s particula r case , R.A . 8974
ha d supersede d Rul e 67 .
Primarily , th e Suprem e Cour t note d tw o crucia l
differences in th e respectiv e procedure s involve d unde r
t h e s t a t u t e a n d t h e R u l e .
U n d e r R.A .
8974 ,
t h e
Government i s require d t o mak e a n immediat e direc t
paymen t t o th e propert y owne r upo n th e filin g o f th e
complaint t o b e entitle d t o a wri t o f possession ; wherea s in
Rul e 67 , th e Governmen t ha s only t o mak e a n initia l
deposi t wit h
a n authorize d
governmen t
depositary
.
Further , R.A . 897 4 provides , a s a standar d for initia l
compensation , th e marke t valu e o f th e propert y a s state d
in th e ta x declaratio n o r th e relevan t zona l valuation ,
wherea s Rul e 6 7 prescribe s tha t th e initia l deposi t b e
merely equivalen t t o th e assesse d valu e o f th e propert y
for purpose s of taxation .
A s born e ou t by th e deliberation s in Congress , th e
plai n inten t o f R.A . 8974 i s t o supersed e th e syste m o f
deposit unde r Rul e 6 7 wit h th e schem e o f "immediat e
p a y m e n t " i n case s
involvin g
n a t i o n a l g o v e r n
m e n t
infrastructur e projects .
Th e appropriat e standar d o f jus t
compensation i s a substantiv e matte r wel l withi n th e
provinc e o f th e legislatur e t o fix.
Such paymen t i s base d
on
th e
zona l
valuatio n
o f th e
land ,
th e
valu e
o f th
e
improvement s unde r th e replacemen t cost method , or i f
n o such valuatio n i s immediately available , th e proffered
valu e o f th e property .
Nonetheless , it recognize s th e
continued applicability o f Rul e 6 7 on procedura l aspects .
The Governmen t theorize s tha t th e NAIA 3 facilitie s
cannot b e deeme d a s th e "right o f way, " "sit e or location "
833
----------------------- Page 834----------------------RULE 67
SEC. 3
o f different
e proceeding ,
proportionat e
t o hi s own
landowner
the n
interest
property
Sec. 3 .
Defenses and objections. If a defendan
ha s n o objectio n o r defens e t o th e actio n
takin g o f hi s property , h e ma y fil e an d serv e a
of appearanc e an d a manifestatio n t o tha t effect
specifically designatin g o r identifyin g th e propert y
t
o r th e
notic e
,
834
----------------------- Page 835----------------------RULE 67
C. 3
EXPROPRIATION
SE
o r no t
d e f e n d a n t
e ma y presen t
th e compensatio n t o
h e ma y shar e i n th e
(n)
NOTE S
1. Thi s amende d section i s patterne d mainly after
Rule 71A (e) of th e U.S . Federa l Rule s of Civil Procedur e
(see 28 U.S.C.A.
575).
2 . Th e former procedure
from th e practic e in som e
motion t o dismiss , in lieu o
responsiv e pleadin g t o a
SEC.
p a r
RULE 67
EC. 5
EXPROPRIATION
A f t e r t h e r e
t h e
p l a i n t i f f s h a l l
o r
d i s c o n t i n u e th e
a s th e cour t d e e m s
n d i t i o n
o f
s u c h a n
o r d e r ,
n o t b e p e r m i t t e d t o d i s m i s s
proceedin g excep t o n
jus t an d equitable .
suc h
term s
(4a)
NOTE S
1. Th e
objections t o
purpos e o f th
i s th e matte
Phil.
196).
5.
Ascertainment
d i t i o n o f th e
h a l l a p p o i n t
n t
a n d
of
orde r
n o t
compensation.
o f expropriation , th e
m o r e
t h a n t h r e e
d i s i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s a s
taken .
Th
th e tim e an
t o b e hel d
withi n whic h
court .
Upo n
c
b e
SEC.
5
C o p i e s o f t h e o r d e r s h a l l b e s e r v e d o n
th e
parties .
Objection s t o th e appointmen t o f an y o f
th e c o m m i s s i o n e r s shal l b e file d w it h th e cour
t
withi n te n (10) day s fro m service , an d th e sam e shal l
b e resolve d w i t h i n thirt y (30) day s afte r al l th e
commissioner s shal l hav e receive d copie s o f th e
objections .
(6a)
NOTE S
1. A s a genera l proposition , th e Suprem e Court ha s
defined jus t compensation a s th e full an d fair equivalent
of th e property take n from it s owner by th e expropriator .
The measur e i s not th e taker' s gain bu t th e owner' s loss .
Th e wor d "just " i s use d t o convey th e ide a tha t th
e
equivalent t o b e rendere d for th e property t o b e take n
shall b e real , substantial , full an d ample .
The jus t compensation for th e condemne d property i s
generally th e marke t value .
Such amoun t i s not limited
to th e assesse d valu e o f th e property or t o th e schedul e o f
marke t value s determine d b y th e provincia l o r city
appraisal committee .
However , thes e value s may serv e
as factor s t o b e considere d in th e judicia l valuation o f th e
propert y
(National
Power
Corp.
vs. Manubay
Agro
Industrial Dev.
Corp.,
G.R.
No.
150936, Aug.
18, 2004
,
citing cases; .
steps
EXPROPRIATION
Proceedings
o n
t h e
i o n e r s
wil l
by
SECS
commissioners.
p e r f o r m a n c e
shal l
faithfull y
t a k e
an d
o f t h e i r
Befor
d u
s u b s c r i b
SECS. 8-9
EXPROPRIATION
SECS.
8-9
SECS. 8-
1987
29,
1987
Sept.
30,
Furthermore , a judgmen t in expropriation proceedings shoul d provid e for th e paymen t of legal interes t a s
matter o f law from th e tim e th e Government take s over
1987;
1987).
a
842
----------------------- Page 843----------------------RULE 67
8-9
EXPROPRIATION
SECS.
L-3009
SEC. 10-
EXPROPRIATION
12 .
Costs,
by
whom paid.
SECS. 12
Th e
fee s
of th
e
c o m m i s s i o n e r s shal l b e taxe d a s a par t o f th e cost s
o f th e proceedings .
claimant s litigatin g
th e plaintiff , u n l e
o f th e propert y an
w h i c h e v e n t th e
th e owner .
(12a )
Sec .
13 .
Recording judgment,
and
its effect.
Th e
j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n e x p r o p r i a t i o n p r o c e e d
i n g s
shal l stat e definitely , b y a n adequat e description ,
th e particula r propert y o r interes t expropriated , an d
th e natur e o f th e publi c us e o r purpos e fo r whic h i t
i s expropriated .
Whe n rea l estat e i s expropriated ,
a certifie d cop y o f suc h judgmen t shal l b e recorde d
i n th e registr y o f d e e d s o f th e plac e i n whic h th
e
propert y i s situated , an d it s effec t shal l b e t o ves t
i n th e plaintif f th e titl e t o th e rea l estat e s o describe d
for suc h publi c us e o r purpose .
(13a)
Sec .
14 . Power
of guardian
in such proceedings.
(14a)
NOTE S
1.
Unde r Sec . 11, th e right of entr y can immediately
be availe d of by th e plaintif f despit e th e pendency of any
appeal tha t may b e take n from th e judgment ; but , unde r
845
----------------------- Page 846-----------------------
RULE 67
SEC. 12-14
EXPROPRIATION
SEC. 12
SEC.
12-14
EXPROPRIATION
SEC. 12-14
obviously
A s revise d
th e paymen t
o f th e dat e o f
th e complaint ,
1.
6 8
FORECLOSURE OF
ESTAT E MORTGAGE
Complaint
in
action
for foreclosure.
FORECLOSURE OF
REAL ESTATE MORTAGE
SEC. 1
th e exercis e o f jurisdiction o f
o f actio n
in
a foreclosur e
sui t
i s
condition s therein .
6 . Foreclosur e ma y b e mad e judiciall y o r extra judicially .
Extrajudicia l foreclosur e i s prope r only whe n
so provide d in th e contract s in accordanc e with Act 3135 ,
as amende d by Act 4118 .
Se e A.M . No . 99-10-05- 0 for
th e presen t procedur e therefor (Appendix T).
Rul e 68 ,
on th e othe r hand , govern s judicia l foreclosure .
7. In a foreclosure action , th e following must be joined
a s defendants :
(a)
propert y
(De
SEC. 2
(De la Riva
day s
fro m
t o f
publi c
no r mor e tha n on e
th e entr y o f th e
suc h paymen t th e
auctio n t o satisfy
NOTE S
1. Thi s section reproduce s th e former Sec . 2 of thi s
Rule but with th e clarification tha t th e judgment obligee
852
----------------------- Page 853----------------------RULE 68
EC. 2
FORECLOSURE OF
Manila,
L-26752,
et
al., L 29142, Nov.
Mar.
19,
29,
1971).
In judicia l foreclosure ,
1971; Reyes
ther e
i s
vs.
n o
suc h
Tolentino,
righ t o f
SEC.
Upon
53620,
Jan.
31,
(Lonzame
vs.
Amores,
et al.,
G.R.
1985).
th e period for
y directiv e
mortgagor .
(Ponce de Leon
vs. Arellano,
et al.
Whe n
s o a s
o pay
n th e perio d
o t h
regulation s
governin g
execution .
sale s
o f rea l
estat e
unde r
FORECLOSURE OF
SE
h o l d i n g
p r i o r e n c u m b r a n c e s
a par t thereof , an d w h
o f t h e court , als o
dives t th e right s i n
t o th e actio n an d t o
, subjec t t o suc h right
allowe d b y law .
u p o n
e n confirme d b y
upo n motion , i t shal l
th e propert y o f al l
ves t thei r right s i n
s o f redemptio n
upo n
th e
expiratio n
o f th e
redemption .
Th e secon d paragraph , however ,
for exception s a s evolved in our jurisprudence .
perio d
o f
provide s
despit e th
o f a lesse
e leas e
f Property
e
e
ha
or
855
----------------------- Page 856----------------------RULE 68
SEC. 3
79906, Jun e 20
well-settled rul
is entitle d to
parte motion of
court to issu e
(G.R . No .
deb t i s
possession after
However , wher e th e
f and , it may
in their claim , tha t
hearin g of th e
no t pai d withi n th e
perio d
pro
fo
r
such orde r o f sal e i s non-litigabl e an d may b e mad e
ex parte (Gov't of P.I.
vs. De las Cajigas,
55 Phil.
667).
However ,
require s
vs.
CA,
et al,
supra).
FORECLOSURE OF
SEC
. 4
REAL ESTATE MORTAGE
L-17928,
April
30,
1963).
e
d
(Sec.
Act 49
4.
Disposition
of
proceeds
of
sale.
T h
e
amoun t realize d fro m th e foreclosur e
sal e o f t
h e
mortgage d propert y shall , afte r deductin g th e cost s
o f th e sale , b e pai d t o th e perso n foreclosin g th e
mortgage , an d whe n ther e shal l b e an y balanc e o r
857
----------------------- Page 858----------------------RULE 68
5-6
SECS.
encumbrancer s i n th e
b e ascertaine d b y th e
encumbrancer s o r ther e
paymen t t o them , the n
authorize d agent , o r
(4a)
Sec. 5.
How sale to proceed in case the debt is not
all due. I f th e deb t fo r whic h th e mortgag e o r
encumbranc e wa s hel d i s no t al l du e a s provide d i n
th e judgment , a s soo n a s a sufficien t portio n o f th e
property ha s bee n sol d t o pa y th e tota l amoun t an d
th e cost s due , th e sal e shal l terminate ; an d afterwards , a s ofte n a s mor e become s du e for principa l
o r interes t an d othe r vali d charges , th e cour t may ,
on motion , orde r mor e t o b e sold . Bu t i f th e propert y
cannot b e sol d i n portion s withou t prejudic e t o th e
parties , th e whol e shal l b e ordere d t o b e sol d i n th e
first instance , an d th e entir e deb t an d cost s shal l
b e paid , i f th e proceed s o f th e sal e b e sufficien t
therefor , ther e bein g a rebat e o f interes t wher e suc h
rebat e i s proper .
(5a)
Sec. 6 .
Deficiency judgment.
If upo n
th e
sal e
o f a n y r e a l p r o p e r t y a s p r o v i d e d i n t h e n e
x t
precedin g sectio n ther e b e a balanc e du e t o th e
plaintif f afte r applyin g th e proceed s o f th e sale , th e
court, upo n motion , shal l rende r judgmen t agains t
th e defendan t fo r an y suc h balanc e fo r which , b y
th e recor d o f th e case , h e ma y b e personall y liabl e
t o th e plaintiff , upo n whic h executio n ma y issu e
immediately i f th e balanc e i s al l du e a t th e tim e o f
th e r e n d i t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t ; o t h e r w i s e , t
h e
plaintif f shal l b e entitle d t o executio n a t suc h tim e
a s th e balanc e remainin g become s du e unde r th e
term s o f th e origina l contract , whic h tim e shal l b e
state d i n th e judgment .
(6a)
858
----------------------- Page 859----------------------RULE 68
-6
FORECLOSURE OF
SECS. 5
agains t sai d
52 Phil.
852).
perso n
(Phil.
Trust
Co.
vs. Tan
L-29130,
Aug.
8,
1975;
DBP
vs.
Zaragosa,
L-23493,
Aug.
23,
1978; PNB
vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No
.
121739,
June
14,
1999).
Ther e ca n be
no deficiency
judgmen t a s ther e wa s n o judicia l proceedin g i n th e
foreclosure o f th e mortgag e itself .
3. A different rul e applie s in th e cas e of a mortgag e
debt du e from th e estat e o f a decease d mortgagor .
Unde r
Sec. 7 , Rul e 86 , ther e ar e thre e alternativ e remedie s
available t o th e mortgag e creditor who , however , can avai l
of only on e o f them . I f h e avail s o f th e thir d mode , tha t is
,
by relyin g upon hi s mortgag e
alon e an d foreclosing th e
same withi n th e statut e o f limitations , h e thereby waive s
any deficiency claim .
Thi s ba r t o an action for recovery
859
----------------------- Page 860----------------------RULE 68
SECS. 7-8
The
860
----------------------- Page 861----------------------RULE 68
7-8
FORECLOSURE OF
SECS.
(1)
N o
preliminar y
shal l
d by
s th e
e o f
b e issue d on
th e mortgag e
application
payment .
i s
unconscionable , unles s th e debtor pay s th e mortgag e
at leas t twelv e percen t pe r annu m interes t o n th e
principa l obligatio n a s state d i n th e applicatio n
obligation a s state d in th e application for foreclosur e
861
SECS. 7-8
6 9
PARTITIO N
Sectio n
eal
1.
Complaint
in
of
SEC. 3
to make
partition
when
partie s ar e unabl e to
cour t shal l appoin t
an d disintereste d
e th e partition ,
864
----------------------- Page 865----------------------RULE 69
CS. 4-6
c
n
t
o
PARTITION
SE
o m m a n d i n g t h e m t o se t of f t o th e
plaintif f a
d
o eac h part y i n interes t suc h par t an d proportio n
f th e propert y a s th e cour t shal l direct .
(3a)
Sec .
4.
Oath and duties of commissioners. Befor e
m a k i n g
s u c h partition ,
th e
c o m m i s s i o n e r s
shal l
tak e an d subscrib e a n oat h tha t the y wil l faithfull y
p e r f o r m
t h e i r d u t i e s a s c o m m i s s i o n e r s ,
w
h i c h
o a t h s h a l l b e file d
i n cour t w i t h th e o t h e r
pro ceeding s i n th e case .
I n makin g th e partition , th e
c o m m i s s i o n e r s
shal l v i e w
an d
e x a m i n e th e
rea l
estate , afte r du e notic e t o th e partie s t o atten d a t
s u c h v i e w an d
e x a m i n a t i o n , an d
shal l
h e a r
t h e
partie s a s t o thei r preferenc e i n th e portio n o f th e
p r o p e r t y
t o b e
s e t a p a r t
t o t h e m
a n d
t h e
comparativ e valu e thereof , an d shal l se t apar t th e
sam e t o th e partie s i n lot s o r parcel s a s wil l b e mos t
advantageou s an d equitable , havin g du e regar d t o
th e
i m p r o v e m e n t s ,
s i t u a t i o n an d q u a l i t y o
f t h e
different part s thereof .
(4a)
Sec .
5.
Assignment or sale of real estate by commissioners.
W h e n
i t i s m a d e
t o a p p e a r
t o
t h e
c o m m i s s i o n e r s
tha t
th e
rea l
estate ,
o r
portio n
6.
until
Report
confirmed.
of
commissioners;
T h e
proceedings
c o m m i s s i o n e
865
----------------------- Page 866----------------------RULE 69
SECS. 7-
8
shall mak e a full an d accurat e repor t t o th e cour t
of al l thei r proceeding s a s t o th e partition , o r th e
assignment o f rea l estat e t o on e o f th e parties , o r
th e sal e o f th e same .
Upo n th e filin g o f suc h report ,
th e cler k o f cour t shal l serv e copie s thereo f o n all
th e intereste d partie s wit h notic e tha t the y ar e
allowe d te n (10) day s withi n whic h t o fil e objection s
t o th e finding s o f th e report , i f the y s o desire .
N
o
p r o c e e d i n g h a d b e f o r e o r c o n d u c t e d b y
th
e
commissioner s shal l pas s th e titl e t o th e party o r
bin d th e partie s unti l th e cour t shal l hav e accepte d
th e repor t
o f th e c o m m i s s i o n e r s an d
rendere d
judgmen t thereon .
(6a)
Sec.
7.
Action
of the court
upon
commissioners'
report. Upo n th e expiratio n o f th e perio d o f te n
(10) day s referre d t o i n th e precedin g section , o r eve n
befor e th e expiratio n o f suc h perio d bu t afte r th e
intereste d partie s hav e file d thei r objection s t o th e
report o r thei r statemen t o f agreemen t therewith ,
th e cour t may , upo n hearing , accep t th e repor t
an d r e n d e r j u d g m e n t i n a c c o r d a n c e th er e w i th
;
or, fo r c a u s e s h o w n , r e c o m m i t th e sam e t o th
e
commissioner s fo r furthe r repor t o f facts ; o r se t
asid e th e repor t an d appoin t ne w commissioners ;
or accep t th e repor t i n par t an d rejec t i t i n part ;
and ma y mak e suc h orde r an d rende r suc h judgmen t
p r o v i d e d , b e t w e e n
t h e
a s
s e v e r a l o w n e r
(7)
Sec. 8.
Accounting for rent and profits in action for
partition. I n a n actio n fo r partitio n i n accordanc e
wit h thi s Rule , a part y shal l recove r fro m anothe r
hi s jus t shar e o f rent s an d profit s receive d b y suc h
othe r part y fro m th e rea l estat e i n question , an d
th e judgmen t shal l includ e a n allowanc e fo r suc h
866
----------------------- Page 867----------------------RULE 69
. 9-11
PARTITION
rent s an d profits .
Sec .
9.
SECS
(8a)
Power
of
guardian
in
such
proceedings.
Th e guardia n o r guardia n
a d litem o f
o r
perso n judiciall y declare d t o b e incompeten t may ,
w i t h t h e approva l o f th e cour t firs t had ,
perfor m o n behal f o f hi s war d an y act , matter
t h i n g r e s p e c t i n g th e partitio n o f rea l estate
t h e m i n o r
o r p e r s o n j u d i c i a l l y d e c
o b e
incompeten t coul d d o i n partitio n proceeding s i f h e
wer e o f ag e o r competent .
(9a)
mino r
d o an d
, o r
, whic h
l a r e d t
Sec .
10 . Costs and expenses to be taxed and collected.
T h e
c o u r t s h a l l e q u i t a b l y t a x an d a p p o r t
i o n
b e t w e e n
o r a m o n g
t h e p a r t i e s t h e c o s t s
a n d
e x p e n s e s w h i c h accru e i n th e action , includin g th e
c o m p e n s a t i o n o f th e commissioners , havin g regar d
t o th e interes t o f th e parties , an d executio n ma y
issu e therefo r a s i n othe r cases .
(10a)
Sec .
11 . The judgment
and
its effect;
copy
t
o
be
recorded
in registry of deeds. If actua l
partitio n o
f
p r o p e r t y
i s m a d e ,
t h e j u d g m e n t
s h a l l s
t a t e
d e f i n i t e l y , b y m e t e s a n d
b o u n d s an d
a d e q
u a t e
description , th e particula r portio n o f th e rea l estat e
a s s i g n e d
t o e a c h
p a r t y , a n d
t h e e f f e c t o
f t h e
judgmen t shal l b e t o ves t i n eac h part y t o th e actio n
i n severalt y th e portio n o f th e rea l estat e assigne d
t o him .
I f th e whol e propert y i s assigne d t o on e
867
----------------------- Page 868----------------------RULE 69
SECS. 12-13
property.
partition s o f
o r o f bot h
a s th e sam e
Th e
NOTE S
1. It i s in partition an d expropriation proceeding s
tha t referenc e to commissioner s i s require d a s a procedura l step in th e action .
In othe r cases , referenc e t o
commissioners i s discretionary with th e court
(see Rule
32 an d note s thereunder) .
868
----------------------- Page 869----------------------RULE 69
th e
PARTITION
SECS. 12-13
property .
They hav e
of ownership or righ t
(Araullo vs. Araullo,
righ t o f possession by
1.
7 0
ENTRY
Who
AN D
DETAINE R
may
S u b j e c t t o th e
institute
proceedings,
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e nex t
s u c c e e d i n g s e c t i o n , a p e r s o n d e p r i v e d
th e
p o s s e s s i o n o f a n y l a n d o r b u i l d i n g b y
,
i n t i m i d a t i o n , t h r e a t , s t r a t e g y , o r s t
h , o r a
lessor , vendor , v e n d e e , o r othe r perso n agains t
w h o m th e p o s s e s s i o n o f an y lan d o r buildin
u n l a w f u l l y w i t h h e l d a f t e r t h e e x p i r a
o r
t e r m i n a t i o n o f th e righ t t o hol d p o s s e s
b y
virtu e o f an y contract , expres s o r implied , o r th e
legal representative s o r assign s o f an y suc h lessor ,
vendor , vendee , o r othe r person , may , a t an y tim e
withi n on e (1) yea r afte r suc h unlawfu l deprivatio n
o r withholdin g o f possession , brin g a n actio n i n th e
prope r Municipa l Tria l Cour t agains t th e perso n o r
person s
unlawfull y w i t h h o l d i n g o r deprivin g
p o s s e s s i o n , o r an y p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s
m i n g
unde r them , fo r th e restitutio n o f suc h possession ,
togethe r wit h damage s an d costs ,
(la )
o f
force
e a l t
g
i s
t i o n
s i o n ,
o f
c l a i
Sec. 2.
Lessor to proceed against
lessee only afte
r
demand. Unles s otherwis e stipulated , suc h actio n
by th e lesso r shal l b e commence d onl y afte r deman d
t o pa y o r compl y wit h th e condition s o f th e leas e
and t o vacat e i s mad e upo n th e lessee , o r b y servin g
writte n
notic e o f suc h deman d upo n th e
perso n
found o n th e premises , o
on th e premise s i f n o perso
th e lesse e fail s t o compl y
day s i n th e cas e o f lan d
of buildings .
(2a)
SEC.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
NOTE S
1. Th e provision s of th e former Sec . 1 of thi s Rul e
hav e been maintaine d in thi s amende d Sec . 1 , except tha t
th e requiremen t for th e verification o f th e complaint ha s
been include d in th e provision s o f th e presen t Sec . 4 since ,
as a consequenc e o f th e adoption o f th e summar y rul e for
ejectment cases , al l th e pleading s authorize d therei n ar e
require d t o b e verified .
Th e
former Sec
unde r th e
laws , du
legislation
o f it
thre e
kind s
o f actio n
for th e
recover y
o f
871
----------------------- Page 872----------------------RULE 70
SEC. 2
th e
c. Action
reivindicatoria,
or action de revindication,
which i s an action for th e recovery o f ownership (and
which include s th e recovery o f possession) which must
also b e brought in th e proper Regional Tria l Court (see
Firmeza vs. David, 92 Phil.
733; Emilia vs. Bado, L-23685,
April 25, 1968).
4 . Thi s Rule provide s for th e action interdictal which
may eithe r b e for forcible entr y or unlawfu l detainer .
These two form s o f ejectment suit s may be distinguishe d
as follows :
a. In forcible entry , th e possession o f th e lan d by
th e defendan t i s unlawfu l from th e beginnin g a s h e
acquires possession thereo f by force, intimidation , threat ,
strategy o r stealth ; whil e i n unlawfu l detainer , th e
possession o f th e defendant i s inceptively lawful bu t it
become s illegal by reason of th e terminatio n of hi s right
to th e possession o f th e property unde r hi s contract with
th e plaintif f (Dikit vs. Ycasiano, 89 Phil. 44).
b . In forcible entry , th e Rul e
previou s deman d for th e defendant t o vacat
but in unlawful detainer , th e plaintif
such demand , which i s jurisdictiona l in
Medel vs. Militante,
41 Phil. 44).
SEC.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
et
al., 74
Phil.
230; Aguilar
vs.
Cabrera,
74 Phil.
666
;
Banayos
vs.
Susana Realty,
Inc.,
L-30336,
June
30,
1976;
Pharma
Industries,
Inc.
vs.
Pajarillaga,
et
al.,
G.R.
No
.
53788,
Oct.
17,
1980).
et al.,
L-22984, Mar.
27,
1968) or las t
(Racaza
Calibayan
Canonoy,
L-29422,
Sept.
30,
L-20330,
Sept. 18
1970).
allege d
t o
hav e
take n plac e
by
an y
o f th e
mean s
supra;
Nov.
16,
Sarmiento
vs.
CA,
et
al., G.R.
No.
116192,
1995).
6 . Th e
plaintif f i n forcibl e
entr y
an d unlawfu l
detainer action s may b e th e owner , a co-owner , or hi s lega l
representativ e and/or assignee , or th e landlord , th e vendor ,
th e vende e or th e person entitle d t o th e physica l possession
of th e property .
The defendan t shoul d b e th e one who i s in possession
of th e property , wh o may either b e th e lessee , th e sublesse e
or an intrude r in th e premises .
Th e
actio n
ma y b e brough t agains t governmen t
officials or agent s actin g in behal f of th e Government , even
if th e Governmen t i s not mad e a part y t o th e action .
However , if in addition to th e recovery of possession , th e
plaintif f als o seek s th e recovery o f damage s or rental s
which woul d thereby resul t in a financial liability t o th e
873
----------------------- Page 874----------------------RULE 70
SEC. 2
SEC. 3
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
comply wit h th e condition s o f th e lease , an d not only a
deman d t o vacat e th e premises ; an d wher e th e defendan t
does no t comply wit h sai d deman d withi n th e period s
provide d by Sec . 2 , the n hi s possession become s unlawfu l
(Zobel
vs. Abreu,
78 Phil. 343).
Consequently ,
bot h
demand s - t o pay ren t and t o vacat e - ar e necessar y t o
mak e th e
lesse e a deforcian t i n orde r t h a t a n eject
men t
sui t may
be
filed (Casilan
vs. Tomassi,
L-16574,
Feb.
28,
1964;
Rickards
vs. Gonzales,
109
Phil.
423;
Dikit vs. Ycasiano, ante), an d th e fact of suc h demand s
mus t b e allege d in th e complaint , otherwis e th e inferior
court canno t acquir e jurisdiction over th e cas e
(Casilan
vs. Tomassi,
supra).
A
notic e givin g
th e lesse e
th e
defendant
faile d
t o
pay
th e
ren t
o r comply
wit h
th e
875
th e
SEC 2
SEC. 2
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
et al.,
No.
L-48419,
60310,
Oct.
Mar.
27,
27,
1983; Santos,
1984;
Dionio
vs.
CA,
vs.
et al.,
IAC,
G.R.
et
al.,
No.
80638,
April
26,
1989).
Th e
e
in
th e
54753,
etc.,
G.R. No.
57259,
Oct.
13,
1983).
1969; see
SEC. 2
Banayos
vs.
Susana
the Regional
an extension
brought an
case in the
878
----------------------- Page 879-----------------------
RULE 70
2
SEC.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Regional Tria l Cour t shoul d b e dismisse
of litis pendentia which applie s even
filed first . Th e issue s raise d in sai
and shoul d properly b e threshe d ou t in
(Rosales vs.
CFIof Lanao del Norte, et
Sept.
21,
14.
d on th e groun d
if sai d action wa s
d action could very wel l
th e ejectmen t cas e
al., G.R. No.
62577,
1987).
It i s tru e tha t unde r Sec . 2 , Rul e 70 , in ejectmen t
SEC. 3
3 . Summary procedure.
Excep t
i n case s
SECS.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
or suc h as may otherwis e be expressly provided by law,
the procedure wherei n shall be in accordance wit h thei r
governing statutes .
Sec . 4 .
Pleadings allowed. Th e onl y pleading s
allowe d t o b e file d ar e th e complaint , compulsor y
c o u n t e r c l a i m a n d
c r o s s - c l a i m p l e a d e d i n t
h e
a n s w e r , an d t h e a n s w e r t h e r e t o . Al l p l e a d i
n g s
shall b e verified .
(3a , RSP )
Sec .
5 .
Action
on
complaint.
Th e
cour t
may ,
fro m
a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n
t h e
complain t an d suc h evidenc e a s ma y b e attache d
t h e r e t o , d i s m i s s th e cas e outrigh t o n an y o f t
h e
Answer.
Withi n
t e n
(10 )
d a y s
fro m
servic e
o f s u m m o n s , th e defendan t shal l fil e
hi s
answe r t o th e complain t an d serv e a cop y thereo f
o n th e plaintiff .
Affirmativ e an d negativ e defense s
not pleade d therei n shal l b e deeme d waived , excep t
lac k o f jurisdictio n ove r th e subject-matter .
Cross
claim s an d compulsor y counterclaim s no t asserte d
i n th e a n s w e r shal l b e c o n s i d e r e d barred .
Th
e
a n s w e r t o counterclaim s o r cross-claim s shal l b e
serve d an d file d withi n te n (10) day s fro m servic e o f
th e answe r i n whic h the y ar e pleaded .
(5 , RSP )
Sec . 7.
Effect of failure to answer. Shoul d th e
defendan t fai l t o answe r th e complain t withi n th e
perio d
abov e
provided ,
th e court ,
motu proprio
o r
o n motio n o f th e plaintiff , shal l rende r judgmen t a s
m a y
b e w a r r a n t e d b y t h e fact s
a l l e g e d i n t
h e
complain t an d limite d t o wha t i s praye d fo r therein .
Th e cour t ma y i n it s discretio n reduc e th e amoun t
881
----------------------- Page 882----------------------RULE 70
SECS. 8-9
8.
Preliminary
conference;
appearance
of
Th e
failur e o f th e
plaintif f t o appea r i n th e
p r e l i m i n a r y c o n f e r e n c e shal l b e c a u s e fo r th
e
dismissa l
appear s
o f hi s complaint .
i n th e a b s e n c e
e n t i t l e d t o
Th e
o f th e
defendan t wh o
plaintif f shal l
b e
j u d g m e n t o n h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m i
n
accordanc e
wit h
th e
nex t
precedin g
section .
All
(7, RSP)
Record
afte r
e cour
take n
of
preliminary conference. Withi n
th e terminatio n o f th e preliminar y
t shal l issu e a n orde r statin g
u p therein , includin g bu t no t
882
SECS. 10
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
1 . W h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s h a v e a r r i v e d a t
a n
amicabl e settlement , an d i f so , th e term s thereof ;
2 . Th e stipulation s o r admission s entere d int o
by th e parties ;
3 . Whether , o n th e basi s o f th e
th e stipulation s an d admission s mad e b y th
j u d g m e n t m a y
b e r e n d e r e d w i t
d o f
furthe r proceedings , i n whic h even t th e
s h a l l b e r e n d e r e d w i t h i n t h i r
m
issuanc e o f th e order ;
pleading s an d
e parties ,
h o u t t h e n e e
judgmen t
t y (30 ) d a y s fro
t h e o r d e r , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e i r p o s i t i o n p a p
e r s
settin g fort h th e la w an d th e fact s relie d upo n b y
them .
(9 , RSP )
Sec . 11 .
thirt y (30) day
positio n papers ,
filin g th e same
of judgment. Withi n
f th e affidavit s an d
o f th e perio d fo r
rende r judgment .
SECS. 12-13
perio d
Th e cour t shal l
no t resor t t o th e foregoin g
procedur e jus t t o gai n tim e fo r th e renditio n o f th e
judgment ,
(n)
Sec. 12.
Referral
for
conciliation.
C a s e s
Sec.
13.
Prohibited pleadings and motions. Th e
followin g petitions , motions , o r pleading s shal l no t
b e allowed :
1. Motio n t o dismis s th e complain t excep t o n
th e groun d o f lac k o f jurisdictio n ove r th e subjec t
matter, o r failur e t o compl y wit h sectio n 12 ;
2.
5 . M o t i o n
fo r
e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e
t o
fil e
Memoranda ;
7 . P e t i t i o n fo r c e r t i o r a r i , m a n d a m u s , o
r
prohibitio n agains t an y interlocutor y orde r issue d
by th e court ;
8.
9. Dilator y motion s
10.
for postponement ;
Reply ;
11. Third-part y
complaints ;
884
SECS. 12-
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
12.
Interventions .
(19a , RSP )
Sec . 14 . Affidavits.
b e submitte d unde r thi s Rul e
o f direc t persona l knowledg e
ar e admissibl e i n evidence ,
competenc e t o testif y t o th e
Th e affidavit s require d t o
shal l stat e onl y fact s
o f th e affiant s whic h
an d shal l sho w thei r
matter s state d therein .
885
----------------------- Page 886----------------------RULE 70
t purpos e
Resolution
i s inter
appeal s in
SECS. 12-U
3.
Before , an d even after , th e adoption o f th e Rule s
on Summar y Procedure , th e usua l questio n raised ,
whethe r unwittingly throug h erro r or intentionally for
delay, i s th e effect on th e jurisdiction o f th e inferior court
in ejectment case s wher e th e defendant interject s therein
an issu e on th e ownershi p o f th e realt y involve d by
claiming titl e theret o either in th e sam e case or in an action
filed in th e Regiona l Tria l Court .
In Hilario,
et
al.
vs.
Court
of
Appeals,
et
al.
(G.R. No . 121865 , Aug . 7 , 1996) , defendant s claime d
tha t they never sold t o th e plaintiff s th e lot from which
th e former wer e bein g ejected by th e latter , claimin g tha t
wha t they execute d wa s not a dee d o f sal e bu t only a
mortgag e contract .
For resolution the n wa s whethe r or
not th e conflicting position s o f th e partie s on th e issu e o f
ownership could plausibly depriv e th e Municipa l Tria l
Court o f jurisdiction over th e case .
The Suprem e Court rule d in th e
out tha t unde r Sec . 33(2) o f B.P .
Rules an d Guideline s implementin g sai d
Rul e o n Summar y Procedure , an d
negative , pointin g
Big . 129, th e Interim
law , th e Revised
R.A .
769 1 whic h
SECS. 12
4 .
quoted
,
et al. vs. CA, et al. (G.R . No . 97637 , Apri l 10, 1992) which
catalogued th e case s tha t shoul d not b e regarde d a s pre judicia l t o an ejectmen t suit , t o wit :
" 1 .
Injunction
suit
institute d
in
th e
RT C
by
defendant s in ejectment action s in th e municipa l tria l
court s or othe r court s o f th e first level (Nacord a v .
Yatco , 1 7 SCRA 92 0 [1966]) d o no t abat e th e latter ;
an d neithe r d o proceeding s on consignation o f rental s
(Lim S i v . Lim , 9 8 Phil . 86 5 [1956] , citin g Pue , et a
l .
v . Gonzales , 8 7 Phil . 8 1 [1950]) .
2 . An
'accion
publiciana' doe s
not
suspen d
an
ejectment sui t agains t th e plaintif f i n
(Ramirez v . Bleza , 106 SCRA 187 [1981]) .
3.
'writ
of
possession
th e
forme r
case' wher e
ownership
An
action
for
quieting
of
title
16 8 SCRA 51 8
to
propert y
is
not a ba r t o an ejectmen t sui t involvin g th e sam e
propert y (Quimp o v . D e l a Victoria , 4 6 SCRA 139
[1972]).
5.
Suits
for
specific
performance
with
damage
s
do
no t
affect ejectmen t
action s
(e.g. ,
t o
com
pe l
renewa l o f a leas e contract ) (Desamit o v . Cuyegkeng ,
18
SCR A
118 4
[1966] ;
P a r d o d e T a v e r a
v .
Encarnacion , 22 SCRA 632 [1968] ; Rosale s v . CFI ,
154 SCRA 153 [1987] ; Commande r Realty , Inc . v .
C.A., 16 1 SCRA 264 [1988]) .
887
----------------------- Page 888----------------------RULE 70
SECS. 12-14
[1975]).
7. An
action for reconveyance
of property or
'accion reivindicatoria'also has no effect on ejectment
suits regarding the same property (Del Rosario v.
Jimenez, 8 SCRA 549 [1963]; Salinas v. Navarro, 126
SCRA 167; De la Cruz v. C.A., 133 SCRA 520 [1984];
Drilon v. Gaurana, 149 SCRA 352 [1987]; Ching v.
Malaya, 153 SCRA 412 [1987]; Philippine Feeds
Milling Co., Inc. v. C.A., 174 SCRA 108; Dante v.
Sison, 174 SCRA 517 [1989] ; Guzman v. C.A.,
[annulment of sale and reconveyance], 177 SCRA 604
[1989]; Demamay v. C.A., 186 SCRA 608 [1990];
Leopoldo Sy v. C.A., et al. [annulment of sale and
reconveyance], G.R. No. 95818, Aug. 1991).
8. Neither do suits for annulment of sale, or title,
or document affecting property operate to abate
ejectment actions respecting the same property
(Salinas v. Navarro [annulment of deed of sale with
assumption of mortgage and/or to declare the same
an equitable mortgage], 126 SCRA 167 [1983]; Ang
Ping v. RTC [annulment of sale and title], 154 SCRA
153 [1987]; Caparros v. CA . [annulment of title], 170
SCRA 758 [1989]; Dante v. Sison [annulment of sale
with damages], 174 SCRA 517; Galgala v. Benguet
Consolidated, Inc. [annulment of document], 177
SCRA 288 [1989])."
5. In Refugia, et al. vs. CA, et al. (G.R. No. 118284,
July 5, 1996), the Supreme Court also discussed in detail
the antecedents and developmental changes culminating
in the express mandate in Sec. 33(2) of B.P. Big. 129 to
the effect that inferior courts have jurisdiction to resolve
the question of ownership where a determination thereof
888
----------------------- Page 889----------------------RULE 70
4
SECS. 12-1
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
is necessar y for a proper an d complet e adjudication o f th e
issu e o f possession .
It , however ,
lai d dow n certai n
guideline s t o b e observe d in th e implementatio n o f tha t
legislative prescription , viz.:
(1)
Th e prima l rul e i s tha t th e principa l issu e
mus t b e tha t o f possession , an d tha t ownership i s
merely ancillary thereto , in which cas e th e issu e o f
ownership may b e resolve d bu t only for th e purpos e
of determinin g th e issu e o f possession .
(2)
I t m u s t
sufficientl y
a p p e a r fro m
h e
allegation s o f th e complaint tha t wha t th e plaintif f
reall y an d primaril y seek s i s th e restoratio n o f
possession .
(3)
Th e inferior court cannot adjudicat e on th e
natur e o f ownership wher e th e relationship o f lessor
an d lesse e ha s been sufficiently establishe d in th e
ejectment case , unles s it i s duly prove d tha t ther e ha s
been a subsequen t chang e in or terminatio n o f tha t
relationship between th e parties .
(4)
Th e rul e in forcible entr y cases , bu t not in
unlawfu l detainer , i s tha t a part y wh o can prov e prior
possession can recover such possession even agains t
th e owner himself , unti l h e i s lawfully ejecte d by a
perso n havin g a bette r right , henc e i f prior possession
may b e ascertaine d in som e othe r way , th e inferior
court canno t intrud e int o th e issu e o f ownership .
(5)
Wher e
th e
questio n
o f
wh o
h a s
prio
r
possessio n hinge s o n th e issu e o f wh o th e rea l
owner is , or upon th e determinatio n o f th e validity
an d interpretatio n o f th e documen t o f titl e or any
other contrac t on which th e claim o f possession i s
premised , th e inferior court may resolv e th e issu e o f
ownership bu t any such pronouncement on ownership
is merely provisiona l an d doe s not ba r or prejudic e
an action between th e sam e partie s involving titl e t o
th e land .
889
----------------------- Page 890----------------------RULE 70
0
SECS. 15. 2
cas
890
----------------------- Page 891----------------------RULE 70
20
SECS. 15,
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
th e defendant' s appea l i s frivolou s o r dilatory , o r
t h a t t h e a p p e a l o f t h e
p l a i n t i f f i s prima
acie
meritorious .
(9a )
NOTE S
1. For correlation , Sees . 1 5 an d 20 , both bein g on
th e matte r o f preliminar y injunction in ejectmen t cases ,
ar e discusse d jointly .
2 . Unde r th e Civil Code an d th e 1964 Rule s o f Court ,
preliminar y mandator y injunction wa s availabl e a t th e
start o f th e action bu t only in forcible entr y case s (se e
Art. 539, Civil Code; cf. Sec. 88, R.A. 296 which als o spok e
only o f forcible entry) .
On appeal , provide d th e condition s
in th e former Sec . 9 o f thi s Rul e wer e present , preliminar y
mandator y injunctio n wa s availabl e only i n unlawfu l
detainer cases , a s sai d Sec . 9 referre d t o a lessor an d a
lessee
(see Art. 1674, Civil Code; Dayao vs. Shell Co. of
the Phil., Ltd.,
L-32475,
April
30,
1980).
Tha t
uncertai n
stat e
o f affair s
wa s
sough t
t o
b e
an d unlawfu l detaine r
datory injunctio n i s
Regional Tria l Cour t an
typ e o f ejectmen t cas e
cases .
Such preliminar y man als o availabl e o n appea l t o th e
d ther e i s n o distinction a s t o th e
involved .
SEC. 16
Sec. 16.
Resolving defense of ownership. Whe
th e defendan t raise s th e defens e o f ownershi p i n hi
pleading s an d th e questio n
o f possessio n canno
b e resolve d withou t decidin g th e issu e o f ownership ,
th e issu e o f ownershi p shal l b e resolve d onl y
determin e th e issu e o f possession .
(4a)
n
s
t
t o
NOTE S
1. Ejectment suits under this Rule essentially involve
the issue of physical or material possession over the real
property subject of the action.
This amended section,
which is based on the provisions of Sec. 33(2), B.P.
Big. 129, contemplates that (1) the defendant resists his
ejectment from the disputed premises not by claiming only
a right of physical possession but also the ownership
thereof; and (2) the question of possession can be resolved
only by deciding the issue of ownership. The solution
under this section is to resolve the issue of ownership but
only to determine the issue of possession. This must be so
because the issue of ownership cannot be definitively
decided in this special civil action, and the trial court does
not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of title to the
land. However, since the defendant anchors the legality
of his material possession of the property on a claim of
title, the court can, at least prima facie, determine the
plausibility or validity of his basic claim on which he
justifie s his right to possess. Otherwise, the ends of justice
may easily be trifled with by the defendant through the
simple expedient of claiming title to the property, no matter
how outrageous, and then challenging the jurisdiction of
the trial court in order to delay the disposition of a
summary proceeding.
2. This is decidedly an improvement over the
provisions of the former Sec. 4 of this Rule to the effect
that evidence of title to real property involved in an
ejectment case may be received solely for the purpose of
892
----------------------- Page 893----------------------RULE 70
6
SEC. 1
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
determinin g th e characte r an d exten t
damage s for detention .
Nonetheless
limitations , th e former rul e als o
shown in th e following doctrine s hande
thereto .
o f possession an d
, despit e such seemin g
serve d it s purpos e a s
d down pursuan t
t
f hi s
th e
f
bein g
SECS.
17
(6a)
Sec.
18. Judgment conclusive only on possession; not
conclusive in action involving title or ownership. Th e
judgment s rendere d i n a n actio n fo r forcibl e entr y
o r detaine r shal l b e conclusiv e wit h respec t t o th e
possessio n onl y an d shal l i n n o wis e bin d th e titl e
or affect th e ownershi p o f th e lan d o r building . Suc h
judgmen t shal l no t ba r a n actio n betwee n th e sam e
partie s respectin g titl e t o th e lan d o r building .
The judgmen t o r fina l orde r shal l b e appealabl e
t o th e appropriat e Regiona l Tria l Cour t whic h shal l
decid e th e sam e o n th e basi s o f th e entir e recor d
of th e proceeding s ha d i n th e cour t o f origi n an d
894
----------------------- Page 895----------------------RULE 70
SECS. 17-18
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
suc h memorand a and/o r brief s a s ma y b e submitte d
b y th e partie s o r require d b y th e Regiona l
Court.
(7a)
Tria l
NOTE S
1. Sec . 17, wit h som e structura l rearrangement ,
remain s substantiall y th e sam e a s th e former Sec . 6 o f
thi s Rule .
2. Sec . 18 i s
Sec. 7 o f thi s Rule ,
th e first paragraph ,
conclusivenes s o f judgmen
hereafte r discusse d in
p a r a g r a p h
ha s
bee n
added , spellin g
ou t
th e
specifi c
(Contreras us.
Villaraza, et al., G.R. No. 53372,
1980; Nogoy
vs. Mendoza,
G.R.
Nos. 54324-28,
1980).
Note , however , th e importan t change s
B.P . Big . 129, a s hereinbefor e discussed .
4 . In ejectment cases , th e inferior court can adjudi cate an d awar d actua l damage s beyond th e jurisdictiona l
limit i n ordinar y civil actions , a s th e amoun t o f th e
monetar y awar d i s immateria l t o it s jurisdiction , th e
restoration o f possession bein g th e primar y relie f sought
895
----------------------- Page 896----------------------RULE 70
SECS.
17-18
action
(Santos vs. Santiago, 38 Phil. 575).
However, it
has been held that plaintiff can recover from defendant
liquidated damages stipulated in the lease contract (Gozon
vs. Vda. de Barrameda, L-17473, June 30,
1964).
6. An action for ejectment is not abated by the
death of the defendant as the question of damages
must be adjudicated
(Tanhueco vs.
Aguilar L-30369,
May 29,
1970).
7. The rules of res judicata and conclusiveness of
judgment apply in ejectment suits, but subject to the
qualification that the judgment therein is conclusive only
with respect to the issue of possession of the premises and
896
----------------------- Page 897----------------------RULE 70
SECS. 17-18
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
not wit h respec t t o ownership ; bu t it i s conclusiv e with
respect t o th e righ t o f possession unde r an d by virtu e o f a
contract th e existenc e o f which ha s been prove d in sai d
ejectment sui t
(see Penalosa vs.
Tuason, 22 Phil. 303).
8. It wil l b e recalle d tha t unde r Sec . 49(c) (now ,
Sec.
47[c]) o f Rul e 3 9 whic h enunciate s th e rul e o f
conclusivenes s of judgment , th e effect of a judgmen t on a
subsequent cas e betwee n th e sam e partie s bu t o n a
different caus e o f action i s tha t such judgmen t i s conclusive
upon al l matter s tha t hav e been controverte d an d directly
adjudged or determine d therein .
Th e former Sec . 7 o f
thi s Rul e wa s a n exceptio n t o suc h doctrin e sinc e i t
restricte d th e bindin g effect o f a judgmen t in an ejectment
case only t o th e issu e o f materia l possession and , at th e
same time , declare d tha t it shal l not in any manne r affect
th e titl e t o or th e ownership o f th e propert y involved .
Thus , i f a judgmen t in a forcible entr y cas e hel d tha t th e
defendant ha d alway s been in possession o f th e property ,
such a findin g ha d no bindin g effect in a subsequen t cas e
betwee n th e sam e partie s involving th e issu e o f ownership
of th e sam e property .
Since th e second action i s base d
on a different caus e of action , th e rul e of conclusivenes s
of judgmen t could hav e applie d but , although th e issu e
of possessio n ha d bee n directl y adjudge d in th e first
case , sai d former Sec . 7 o f thi s Rul e provide d tha t such a
finding shal l not b e held conclusiv e o f th e fact s therei n
found insofar a s th e secon d cas e on titl e i s concerne d
(Penalosa vs.
Tuason, supra; Cordovis vs.
Obias, L-24080,
April
26,
1968).
I t
provision
th e issu
consistent
judgment .
SEC8. 17-18
26,
1973).
898
SEC. 19
only upon the defendants in the suit, but also against those
not parties thereto, if they are :
(a) Trespassers, squatters or agents of the defendant
fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the
judgment (Santiago vs. Sheriff,
7 7 Phil. 740);
(b) Guests or other occupants of the premises with
the permission of the defendant (Gozon vs. De la Rosa, 7 7
Phil. 919);
(c) Transferees pendente
lite
Madrigal &
Co., 94 Phil. 754);
(Planas,
et al.
vs.
445;
57469,
to
899
----------------------- Page 900----------------------RULE 70
19
SEC.
b e
d e p o s i t e d w i t h s a i d c o u r t o r a u t h o r i z
e d
g o v e r n m e n t depositor y bank , an d shal l
b e hel
d
ther e
unti l
th e fina l d i s p o s i t i o n o f th e appeal ,
unles s th e court , b y agreemen t o f th e intereste d
parties , o r i n th e absenc e o f reasonabl e ground s o f
oppositio n t o a motio n t o withdraw , o r for justifiabl e
r e a s o n s s h a l l d e c r e e o t h e r w i s e .
S h o u l
h e
d e f e n d a n t
fai l t o m a k e
t h e p a y m e n t s
v e
prescribe d fro m tim e t o tim e durin g th e pendenc y
of th e appeal , th e appellat e court , upo n motio n o f
th e plaintiff , an d upo n proo f o f suc h failure , shal
order th e executio n o f th e judgmen t appeale d fro m
wit h respec t t o th e restoratio n o f possession , but
suc h e x e c u t i o n shal l no t b e a ba r t o th e
l
takin g it s cours e unti l th e fina l dispositio n thereo f
o n th e merits .
d
a b o
l
appea
SEC. 19
NOTE S
1. This section is a copy of Sec. 8 of the former Rule,
except for the updated nomenclature of the courts and
the amendment that rentals paid during the pendency of
the appeal in the Regional Trial Court shall be deposited
in the same court, or in an authorized government
depository bank and not in the provincial or city treasury.
2. Execution pending appeal in ejectment cases is
governed by Sec. 8 (now, Sec. 18) of Rule 70, not by Sec. 2
of Rule 39. The latter provision requires good reasons
before a writ of execution can be issued in favor of the
prevailing party and is subject to the sound discretion of
the court. Its counterpart under this Rule does not require
the showing of good reasons as it is a matter of right
(San Miguel
Wood
Products, Inc. vs. Tupas, et al.,
A.M. No. MTJ-93-892,
Oct. 25, 1995).
3. The order for the issuance of a writ of execution
to immediately enforce the judgment of the inferior court
is interlocutory and not appealable (De Po vs. Moscoso,
93 Phil. 427). The same rule applies in both types of
ejectment suits.
Also, the fact that the decision of the
court a quo in ejectment cases is immediately executory
does not mean that notice of the motion to the adverse
party is unnecessary. A party would not be in a position
to stay execution unless he is notified of the filing of that
motion for execution (Kaw vs. Anunciacion, Jr., etc., et
al, A.M. No. MTJ-93-811, Mar. 1, 1995).
4. Immediate execution is proper if the judgment is
in favor of the plaintiff. If the judgment is in favor of the
defendant with an award for damages under his
counterclaims, such judgment is not immediately executory
and can be executed only after the lapse of the 15-day
period to appeal without the plaintiff having perfected his
appeal.
901
----------------------- Page 902----------------------RULE 70
SEC. 19
SEC. 19
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
not be covere d by a supersedea s bon d (Once vs. Gonzales,
et al., L-44806, Mar. 31,
1977).
The periodi c deposit o f futur e rental s i s t o ensur e th e
paymen t o f rental s accruin g after th e judgmen t o f th e
inferior cour t an d unti l th e final judgmen t on appeal .
It
shall b e in th e amoun t determine d by th e inferior court
either on th e basi s o f th e leas e contract , or , in forcible
entry cases , th e reasonabl e valu e for th e us e or occupation
of th e premise s (Sec. 8).
Th e Court o f Firs t Instanc e ha s
n o power t o increas e or reduc e th e amoun t fixed by th e
inferior court s a s th e reasonabl e ren t or compensation for
th e premise s pendin g decision o f th e appeal .
Whethe r
th e amoun t fixed by th e inferior court i s correct or not will
hav e t o b e passe d upon by th e Court o f Firs t Instanc e in
deciding th e appeale d cas e
(Estella vs. CA, et al., G.R.
No.
56284,
Jan.
30,
1982).
court
upon
tha t
85
903
----------------------- Page 904----------------------RULE 70
SEC. 19
SEC.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
execution
as
matte r of righ t
(Chung Ben
vs.
Co Bun
Kim, 98 Phil.
13; Banzon vs. CA, et al., L-46464, Nov. 21,
1979).
Thi s requiremen t i s mandator y (Chieng Hung vs.
Tan Ten, L-21209, Sept. 27,
1967; Base, et al.
vs, Levist
e,
et al., G.R.
No.
52762,
Aug.
29,
1980),
u n l e s s t
h e
defendant wa s prevente d from doing s o by fraud , accident ,
mistake , excusabl e negligence , or th e occurrenc e o f a
s u p e r v e n i n g e v e n t whic h
woul d
m a k e e x e c u t i
o n
inequitabl e
(De Laureano
vs. Adil, supra; Ng Lit,
et
al.
vs. Llanes, et al, L-49004, Nov. 10, 1982).
Such requisit e
deposit o f rental s t o sta y execution canno t b e avoide d by
th e offer or postin g by defendan t o f additiona l bon d in
lieu thereo f
(Phil. Holding
Corp.
vs. Valenzuela,
et a
l,
G.R. No. 55972, May 13,
1981).
11. Th e mer e delay on
o
apply for immediat e execution du e t o
of rental s doe s no t constitut
to execution (Silva vs.
CA,
th e
par t o f th e
plaintif f t
default in th e deposit
e a waive r o f suc h righ t
8 6 Phil. 599), bu t if despit e
vs.
in
or
SEC. 21
Regiona l Tria l Cour t shal l b e immediatel y execu tory , withou t prejudic e t o a furthe r appea l tha t
may b e take n therefro m
(10a)
NOTE S
1. In th e former Rul e 70 , th e procedur e on appea l
from th e decision o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court t o th e Court
of Appeal s was , wit h th e exception o f th e nee d for a
supersedeas bond which wa s not applicable , virtually th e
same a s th e procedur e on appea l t o th e Regional Tria l
SEC. 21
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Trial Court , a s appellat e court , t o immediately execut e it s
decision .
It i s clear from Sec . 21 , Rul e 7 0 tha t it i s only th e
execution o f th e Metropolitan or Municipa l Tria l Court' s
judgmen t pendin g appea l wit h
th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t
which may b e staye d by a complianc e with th e requisite s
provide d in Sec . 19, Rul e 70 of th e 1997 Rule s of Civil
Procedure .
On th e othe r hand , once th e Regiona l Tria l
Court ha s rendere d a decisio n i n th e exercis e o f it s
appellat e jurisdiction , suc h decision shall , unde r sai d
Sec. 21 , b e immediatel y executory , withou t prejudic e
to an appea l vi a a petition for review before th e Cour t
of A p p e a l s (Uy,
et al.
vs. Santiago,
etc., et al.,
G.R.
No.
131237,
July
31,
2000).
907
CONTEMPT
Sectio n
1. Direct
contempt
punished
summarily.
A perso n guilt y o f misbehavio r i n th e presenc e
of o r s o nea r a cour t a s t o obstruc t o r interrup t th e
proceeding s befor e th e same , includin g disrespec t
towar d th e court , offensiv e personalitie s towar d
others , o r refusa l t o b e swor n o r t o answe r a s a
witness , o r t o subscrib e a n affidavi t o r depositio n
whe n lawfull y require d t o d o so , ma y b e summaril y
adjudge d i n contemp t b y suc h cour t an d punishe d
by a fin e no t e x c e e d i n g t w o t h o u s a n d p e s o s
o r
imprisonmen t no t exceedin g te n (10) days , o r both ,
if it b e a Regiona l Tria l Cour t o r a cour t o f equi valen t o r highe r rank , o r by a fin e no t exceedin g
tw o hundre d peso s o r imprisonmen t no t exceedin g
on e (1) day , o r both , i f i t b e a lowe r court ,
(la )
NOTE S
1. Thi s is an exact copy of th e former Sec . 1 of thi s
same Rule , except for th e increase d penaltie s an d th e
specification tha t th e "superior court " referre d t o therein
is th e "Regional Tria l Court or a court of equivalent or
higher rank, " an d "lower court " i s use d instea d o f "inferior
court."
2 . Th e increase d penaltie s for direc t contemp t
under thi s
section an d for indirect contempt in Sec . 3
of thi s Rule wer e already imposed by th e Suprem e Court
in it s Administrativ e Circula r No . 22-95 , effectiv e
November 16, 1995 .
It took judicia l notic e of th e fact
tha t th e penaltie s for contempt in th e 1964 Rule s o f Court
wer e th e sam e penaltie s imposed in Sees . 1 an d 6 , Rule 64
of th e 1940 Rule s of Court , or more tha n 5 5 year s ago . It
also took cognizance of th e fact tha t th e amount of th e
908
----------------------- Page 909----------------------RULE 71
CONTEMPT
SEC. 3
direct
contempt .
th e purpos e
civil contempt
enforce th e
(see
1 7 C.J.S.
8).
Civi l contemp t i s
th e
failur e
to
do
Corp.
1980).
vs.
Jacinto
Rubber,
SEC. 2
action
(Villanueva
vs. Lim,
69 Phil.
654)
and
the
procedural and evidentiary rule s in criminal actions
are applied as far as applicable (Lee Yick Hon vs. Collector
of Customs, 41 Phil. 548; Fuentes, et al. vs. Leviste, et al.,
L-47363, Oct. 28, 1982).
Doubts should be resolved in
favor of the person charged with contempt (Concepcion
vs. Gonzales, L-15638, April 26,
1962).
The rules of
procedure governing criminal contempt proceedings
are ordinarily inapplicable to civil contempt proceedings
(Rosario
Textile Mills,
Inc., et al. vs.
CA,
et al.,
G.R. No. 137326, Aug. 25, 2003).
In the taxonomy of
cases, however, they are classified as special civil actions.
7. Courts should be slow to punish for contempt as
this drastic remedy should be exercised upon the
preservative and not on the vindictive principle
vs. Teodoro, et al., 91 Phil. 270; De Esperagoza
94 Phil. 749; Victorino
vs. Espiritu,
L-17735,
1962).
8. For an extensive discussion of the law and
jurisprudenc e on contempt, see the Resolution of the
(Gamboa
vs. Tan,
July 30,
al.
(G.R .
CONTEMPT
SEC.
NOTE S
1. Thi s
procedur e unde
from a judgmen
any court
i
change s th e
Th e presen t remedy
contemp t by
n o f certiorar i or
SECS. 6
CONTEMPT
SEC
NOTE S
1. With som e minor change s
provision i s a reproduction of th
Rule .
I t i s now specifie d
(a) b e given an opportunit y t
within such perio d fixed by th e
thereon by himsel f or counsel .
in th e phraseology , thi s
e former Sec . 3 of thi s
tha t th e responden t shoul d
o commen t on th e charg e
court , an d (b) b e hear d
Thus , th e procedura l requisite s for indirec t con temp t proceeding s ar e (a) a charg e in writin g or an
order o f th e cour t t o appea r an d explain , an d (b) a n
opportunity for th e responden t t o comment on th e charg e
and t o appea r an d explain hi s conduct .
2 . A contemp t cas e i s a specia l civil action governe d
by Rul e 7 1 an d by th e rule s on ordinary civil action s bu t
only insofar a s they ar e not inconsistent with th e rule s on
thi s special civil action .
A respondent in a contempt charg e
is not require d t o file a formal answe r similar t o tha t in
ordinary civil actions .
Instead , th e court mus t set th e
contempt charg e for hearin g on a fixed dat e on which th e
responden t mus t mak e hi s appearanc e t o answe r th e
charge (Sec. 4).
I f h e shal l fail t o appea r on tha t dat
e
withou t justifiabl e reason , th e court may order hi s arres t
(Sec. 9), jus t lik e th e accuse d in a crimina l cas e wh o fails
t o appea r when s
th e responden t in
proceedin g partake s
and shoul d follow
o required .
Th e court doe s not declar e
a contempt charg e in default sinc e thi s
of th e natur e of a crimina l prosecution
a procedur e similar theret o
(Fuentes
,
et al.
Leviste,
3 . A
et al.,
supra).
p e r s o n c a n n o t b e
p u n i s h e d for
allege d
RULE 71
SEC. 3
(Lipata
vs. Tutaan,
et al, L-16643,
Sept.
29,
1983;
Defalobos
vs. Aquilizan, et al, G.R. No. 65831, May 20,
1987; Pascua, et al.
vs. Simeon, et al, L-47717, May 31,
1988).
4 . Wher e th e contempt i s base d on th e respondent' s
refusal t o vacat e th e lan d despit e a wri t for hi s ejectment ,
th e appea l from th e contempt order necessarily involve s
or carrie s wit h it an appea l from th e order t o vacate .
However , th e perfection o f th e appea l from th e contempt
order will not preven t th e execution o f th e order o f eviction
unles s th e bon d require d b y Sec .
11 , Rul e 71 , ha s
been seasonably filed
(Heirs ofB.A. Crumb vs. CA, et al,
L-26167,
Jan. 30, 1970).
5 . Th e Crumb
case , however ,
contemplate s
th e
situation wherein th e occupant s o f th e dispute d property
wer e not defendant s in th e origina l cas e an d ha d n o
opportunity t o b e hear d therein .
Wher e th e defendant s
in th e contempt cas e wer e als o defendant s in th e original
case, they ar e concluded by th e final judgmen t therein ,
hence their conviction in a first contempt charg e for refusal
t o vacat e th e premise s an d their appea l therefrom does
not constitut e an appea l from th e order o f eviction an d
they can be proceeded against on a second contempt charg e
(Dumalagan
vs. Palangpangan,
L-34095,
July 29,
1974).
6. Where , by virtu e o f a judgmen t or orde r of a
competent court , a litigant ha s been place d in possession
of rea l property , th e reentr y o f th e advers e part y wh o wa s
evicted therefrom constitute s contempt unde r Sec . 3(b)
of thi s Rul e an d ther e i s n o tim e limit in which such
reentry constitute s contempt (Medina vs. Garces, L-25923,
July 15, 1980).
7 . Contemp
Sec. 3 , Par .
party litigant i
a defianc e o f
t b y reentr y upo
(b) o f thi s Rule ,
s adversely affected ,
th e authorit y o f
n th e
land , unde r
i s punishabl e even i f n o
a s th e act constitute s
th e court . Such act o f
914
----------------------- Page 915----------------------RULE 71
CONTEMPT
SEC. 4
h e
shoul d
no t b e punishe d fo r contempt .
th
e
court ,
fact bu
decide d
order s
a n d t
an d
decision
alleg e tha t
hear d an d
s discretio n
t charge s
o i n t h e a r i n g
(n)
NOT E
SEC. 5
f
equivalen t o r highe r rank , o r agains t a n office r
appointe d b y it , th e charg e ma y b e file d wit h suc h
court .
Wher e suc h contemp t ha s bee n committe d
against a lowe r court , th e charg e ma y b e file d wit h
th e R e g i o n a l Tria l Cour t o f th e
plac e
i n w h i c
h
th e l o w e r c o u r t i s sitting ; bu t th e p r o c e e d i n g
s
may als o b e institute d i n suc h lowe r cour t subjec t
t o appea l t o th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t o f suc h plac e
i n th e sam e manne r a s provide d i n sectio n 1 1 o f thi s
Rule .
(4a ) (As corrected
by Resolution of the
Supreme
Court,
dated July 21,
1998)
NOTE
1. A s a rule , th e proceedin g for indirect contempt
shall b e filed in an d trie d by th e court against which th e
contumaciou s conduc t wa s committed .
Ther e
ar e
exceptions to thi s procedure , viz.:
(a) Indirect contempt committe d against an inferior
court which may als o be filed in an d trie d by a Regional
Trial Court regardles s o f th e imposabl e penalty (see also
916
----------------------- Page 917----------------------RULE 71
6-7
People
CONTEMPT
vs.
Orpilla-Molina,
105
SECS.
Phil.
362);
an d
(b)
Indirec t contemp t agains t th e Suprem e Cour t
which it may caus e t o b e investigate d by a prosecutor ,
with th e correspondin g charg e t o b e thereafte r file d in
and trie d by a Regiona l Tria l Cour t
(see People vs. D
e
Luna,
102 Phil. 968), or for hearin g an d recommendatio n
wher e th e charg e involve s question s o f fact
(Estrada v
s.
CAR,
L-17481
and
L-17537-59,
Sept.
24,
1962).
Th e Suprem e Court , however , absen t an y factua l
controversy to b e resolve d or unde r th e res ipsa loquitur
rule , may dispens e wit h any referra l an d decid e th e cas e
after grantin g th e responden t th e opportunity t o commen t
an d appear , a s i t ha s don e in som e case s o f palpabl
e
contumely .
i s
may
a n
a t
s e t
(5
Sec . 7.
Punishment for indirect contempt. If th e
responden t i s adjudge d guilt y o f indirec t contemp t
committe d agains t a Regiona l Tria l Cour t o r a cour t
o f equivalen t o r highe r rank , h e ma y b e punishe d
by a fin e no t e x c e e d i n g thirt y thousan d peso s o
imprisonmen t no t exceedin g si x (6) months , o r both .
I f h e i s a d j u d g e d guilt y o f c o n t e m p t c o m m i
e d
agains t a lowe r court , h e ma y b e punishe d by a fin e
not e x c e e d i n g fiv e thousan d
peso s o r imprisonmen t
n o t e x c e e d i n g o n e (1 ) m o n t h , o r b o t h .
I
t h e
c o n t e m p t c o n s i s t s i n th e v i o l a t i o n o f a
t o f
injunction ,
temporar y
restrainin g
orde r
o r
tus
quo order ,
h e ma y als o b e ordere d t o mak e complet e
r
t t
f
wri
sta
917
----------------------- Page 918----------------------RULE 71
9
SECS. 8-
Incidentally , it will
8.
Imprisonment
until
order
obeyed.
Whe n
th e contemp t consist s
do a n ac t whic h i s
t o perform , h e ma y
court concerne d unti l
i n
ye t
b e
h e
th e refusa l o r omissio n t o
i n th e powe r o f th e responden t
imprisone d b y orde r o f th e
perform s it .
(7a)
Sec. 9.
Proceeding when party released on bail fails
to answer. Whe n a responden t release d o n bai l
fails t o appea r o n th e da y fixe d fo r th e hearing , th e
cour t ma y issu e anothe r orde r o f arres t o r ma y
order th e bon d for hi s appearanc e t o b e forfeite d
an d
c o n f i s c a t e d , o r both ; a n d , i f t h e bon d
e
proceede d against , th e measur e o f damage s shal l b e
th e exten t o f th e los s o r injur y sustaine d b y th e
918
----------------------- Page 919----------------------RULE 71
10-11
CONTEMPT
SECS.
a g g r i e v e d part y b y reaso n o f th e m i s c o n d u c t f
o r
w h i c h th e c o n t e m p t charg e wa s prosecuted , wit h
th e cost s o f th e proceedings , an d suc h recover y shal l
b e fo r th e benefi t o f th e part y injured .
I f ther
e i s
n o a g g r i e v e d party , th e bon d shal l b e liabl e an
d
dispose d o f a s i n crimina l cases .
(8a)
Sec . 10 .
Court may release respondent. Th e cour t
w h i c h i s s u e d th e orde r imprisonin g a perso n fo r
c o n t e m p t ma y discharg e
hi m fro m i m p r i s o n m e
n t
w h e n
i t a p p e a r s tha t publi c i n t e r e s t wil l no
t b e
prejudice d b y hi s release .
(9a)
Sec .
11 .
Review
of judgment
or final
order;
bond
for stay. Th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r o f a cour t i n
a cas e o f indirec t contemp t ma y b e appeale d t o th e
prope r cour t a s i n crimina l cases , bu t executio n o f
th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r shal l no t b e suspende d
u n t i l a bon d i s file d b y th e p e r s o n a d j u d g e
d i n
c o n t e m p t , i n a n a m o u n t fixe d b y th e cour t fr
o m
w h i c h th e appea l i s taken , conditione d tha t i f th e
appea l b e decide d agains t hi m h e wil l abid e b y an d
perfor m th e judgmen t o r fina l order .
(10a)
NOTE S
1.
A s
a m e n d e d , Sec .
now
allow s
an y
t
concerned , an d not only a superior court , t o imprison th e
disobedient responden t unti l h e perform s th e act ordere d
cour
b y
th e
court .
A s
hel d
b y
th e
Suprem e
Court ,
suc h
an d coerciv e i n
t o b e don e by th e
h e ca n obtai n hi s
h circumstances , th e
priso n in hi s own
Insurance Co., Inc.,
al, G.R. No.
1138
919
----------------------- Page 920----------------------RULE 71
SECS. 10-11
RULE 71
C. 12
CONTEMPT
SE
RULE 71
SEC. 12