CIVIL PROCEDURE

Course Outline

1. Introduction

1.1. Batas Pambansa 129 as amended – gives the general jurisdiction of the court

1.2. Courts and their jurisdiction - the authority to try, hear & decide cases
Courts must have jurisction, or else decision will be void
Original Jurisdisdiction: authority to hear a case for the first time; if a case falls under the original jurisdiction of the court, it
cannot be tried and decided in any other court
 La Naval Drug Corp v CA 236 S 78
Limited Jurisdiction; it is also the law that limits jurisdiction that it has conferred
Voidness comes from lack of authority. Once the court oversteps, that part of their decision will be void.
Role of RTC: Check if arbitration law is valid -> yun lang dapat
 Atwel v Concepcion Progressive Asso Inc GR 169370 April 14, 2008
 Figueroa v People GR 147406 July 14, 2008
Cannot be estopped because jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is a matter of law, and may not
beconferred by consent or agreement of parties. Lack of jurisdiction may be raised at ANY STAGE of the
proceedings, even on appeal. Tijam v. Sibonghanoy -> there is NO jurisdiction by estoppel, unless may
extraordinary reason for it.

1.3. How jurisdiction is obtained and exercised:

 over persons -> Plaintiff: by filing the complaint;
Defendant: by voluntary appearance, by service of summons
 over subject matter -> conferred by law and in the manner prescribed by law
 over res -> by placing the prop. under its custody, Ex: attachment or garnishment, seizure of prop.
-> refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or property which is the subject of action

1.4. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

Samar II Electric Cooperative Inc v Seludo Jr 671 S 78
Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal

2. General Provisions for Ordinary Civil Actions

Civil Action – suit that is for protection of rights, prevention of wrong or redress of grievance

2.1. Must be based on a cause of action

 What is cause of action – act or omission by which a party violates the rights of another
No cause of action = Dismissed
 Belle Corporation v De Leon-Banks 681 S 351 – a formal statement of the oprative facts that
give rise to a remedial right
 No splitting of cause of action – the act of instituting two or more suits from the same cause of action
Bawal because it gives rise to a conflict of judgments
 Read: City of Bacolod v San Miguel, 29 S 819
 Jalandoni v Martir-Guanzon, 102 P 859
 Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action
 Joinder: process of uniting 2 or more demands in 1 action. It is the assertion of as many causes of action a party
may have against another in one pleasing alone

Rules on Joinder of Causes of Action:

1. The Rules on Joinder of Parties must be observed
2. Special Civil Actions or actions governed by special rules are NOT covered
3. In case of different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be made in RTC, provided it has jurisdiction over
one of the causes of action and the venue lies therein,
4. When all of the causes of action are for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test for
jurisdiction

Joining is NOT mandatory, but OPTIONAL. But it is subject to rules.

Court will NOT dismiss even if there is an improper joinder BECAUSE THE COURT ONLY NEEDS ONE CAUSE
OF ACTION. If improper, court can just drop some causes of action.
 Test of single cause of action
 Read: Joseph v Bautista, 170 S 540
When there is only one delict or wrong, there is only ONE cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may
have been violated belonging to one person. (In this case: violation of contract of carriage and quasi delict)

2.2. Parties to civil actions

 Who are parties in interest
1. Natural – X possess incapacity (Incompetent, Minors, Civil Interdiction, Under Guardianship)
2. Juridical Persons
3. Those authorized by law
 Competency of parties
 Indispensable and necessary parties
o PNB v Heirs of Estanislao Militar etal 467 S 377 - Reconveyance
How does the nature of action determine the indispensable parties?

o Republic vs Marcos-Manotoc 665 S 367 -Sequestration

To determine indispensability, look at the NATURE of the case

 Joinder and misjoinder of parties

Permissive, but compulsory when…
Test of Joining: Oneness of Evidence
Misjoined party is NOT equal to dismissal -> parties may be dropped

 Death of party
 consequence of death of party
o Sarsaba vs Vda dela Torre 594 SCRA 410
o Gonzales vs Pagcor 429 SCRA 533, 540
 what counsel should do on death of party
When client is gone, the Attorney-Client relationship ceases

2.3. Venue of actions

Jurisdiction v. Venue
Juris – CANNOT be agreed upon by parties
Venue – CAN be agreed upon

2
  Real and personal actions
It is the NATURE of the action that determines venue
REAL – affects title to, possession of real property, or interest therein
-shall be tried in court which has jurisdiction over the area where the real prop is situated.
if it involves real property, it’s real action.
Is there a possibility that the case will involve a real property but NOT constitute a REAL action? It would
depend on the nature of the action and the relief you prayed for. If you prayed for a recovery of interest
pertaining to real prop, ex: usufruct, leasehold rights, etc. then that will constitute real action. Otherwise,
it will not constitute real action

PERSONAL – where plaintiff OR defendant resides. PLAINTIFF has right to choose

If you do NOT know the defendant, you can still file.
Under what circumstances can you maintain a suit without knowing identity of the defendant?
-> You can do that by starting the circumstances upon which you can make an identification of the
defendant. And then when you finally find the identity of the defendant, then you can supply the name in
so far as the defendant is concerned. But you can make allegations in the complaint where you make
reference to a particular person without identifying the person by name. You make certain allegations by
which collectively you can refer to a person of the defendant except that the name is still unknown.

 Read: United Overseas Bank Phils. V Rosemoore Mining & Development Corp. 518 S 123
(2007)
 Actions against non-residents
If affects personal status of plaintiff or any prop of defendant located in the Philippines, may be tried in
court of the place where plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found
X applicable to actions in personam, where jurisdiction over the PERSON is required. Only actions
against res or property or status of the non-resident who cannot be found
 Agreement on venue

2.4. Commencement of actions

 How and when deemed commenced
It is the payment of the correct docket fees that will constitute the commencement of an action.
Why do we need to know the commencement date of an action? To know if an action will prosper or not. To
determine whether prescription has set in. Or whether any of the reliefs will be extinguished.
Filing Date is NOT the same with commencement date.
 Read: Magaspi v Ramolete, 115 S 193
 Manchester Dev Corp v CA, 149 S 562
 Sun Insurance v Asuncion, 170 S 274
 Heirs of the late Ruben Reinoso Jr versus CA, GR No. 116121, July 18, 2011
When you pay the wrong docket fee, will the case be dismissed? No. You simply pay the correct docket fees.
When? Within a reasonable time but within the reglementary period. BUT when challenged by the defendant, you
have to pay already. If you are not able to pay and it was through the process and a judgment will issue, then it
becomes a lien on…

 When does court acquire jurisdiction over a case?

It is the payment of correct docket fees that vests the court with jurisdiction. Without this, court will not act.
 Effect of underpayment of docket fees
 Rule is payment may be allowed within reasonable time but within reglementary period
…but in several cases, both CA and SC have caused the dismissal of cases for non-payment of
docket fees.
Note: Even if your case fails, you will pay the docket fees. You pay because you are seeking for relief, whether you
are successful or not. It is for the privilege of going to court. But it can be included in the prayer that any costs incurred will
3
be paid by defendant. Because you are forced to come to court without you wanting it, so your expenses can be
recovered.

3. Procedure in Regional Trial Courts

3.1. Applicable also to Municipal Trial Courts

3.2. Pleadings in general – written statements of a party’s cause of action or defenses.

Omnibus Rule: All that is stated in your pleading is all that you can prosecute, nothing more.\
Complaint is the most important pleading.
 Kinds of pleadings
 Formal requirements of pleadings
 Parts of a pleading – Caption, Body, Relief Sought For, Cert against non-forum shopping,
Verification
Body – where you will find the basis for relief
Relief/Prayer – what you ask from court. Entirety of what you ask the court to give you. If it’s not
there, you will not be able to claim it.
 Verification when required
Verification – attesting to the correctness and truth of all the allegations appearing in the complaint. For the
purpose of making accountable either party or counsel who makes any untruthful allegation just to get a relief
from court. Verification is always under oath. So the verifier under oath, can be liable for perjury.
Verification is NOT mandatory. PLEADINGS NEED NOT BE VERIFIED UNLESS REQUIRED BY RULE OR LAW.
If it’s not required by law to be verified,, you don’t need verification. Then what should be verified? Only those
pleading required by law to be verified. For example, A Verified Complaint for Ejectment, then that complaint must
contain a verification. Can a complaint be dismissed because it’s not verified? No. It’s not fatally defective. Court
may ask for it.

RULE ON VERIFICATION: ONLY PLEADINGS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED MUST CONTAIN A VERIFICATION

PORTION. AND THIS VERIFICATION PORTION IS AN ATTESTATION BY EITHER THE COUNSEL OR PARTY
THAT ALL OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PLEADING ARE TRUE.
If a pleading is required by law or rules to be verified, and it is NOT, what is the effect? Complaint CANNOT be
dismissed. Court will simply require them to verify.

 Formal, not jurisdictional

It ia a formal requirement meaning it is only a matter of form. It does not touch onto the jurisdiction of the court.
Whereas if it’s a jurisdictional defect or a requirement, then it is what will vest the court with jurisdiction or not.
That’s why certification against non forum shopping is called a JURIDCTIONAL requirement because it needs to
be there for the court to exercise jurisdiction, failing which, the court CANNOT exercise jurisdiction.
So, Verification = FORMAL, Certification = JURISDICTIONAL
 Kilusan-Olalia v CA 528 S 45 (2007)
 Verification by Counsel
 In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v Schwani Inc. 575 S 535 (2008)
 Certification against forum-shopping in INITIATORY PLEADINGS
Certification is only required in INITIATORY PLEADINGS. That is when the court should know whether you’re coming
with dubious motives or not. Another portion: if you find out that there is another pending action, you must inform the court
within five days. What is the penalty for forum shopping? Disciplinary action on the part of counsel and/or the dismissal of
the several cases that have been filed.

Initiatory Pleading – the pleading that starts an action or a proceeding. Needs to be certified against non forum shopping
because that is the first time that the court will take cognizance of the case.

4
  Definition of Forum Shopping – party litigant asks for same relief in 2 or more fora
Underlying element of Forum Shopping that makes it undesirable: same relief in 2 or more fora
Purpose: to tell the court that there is no other case pending in any other forum. Why do people forum shop? To
increase the chances of getting a favorable judgment.
 Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Compnay Inc. et.al v Valdez GR No.
150107 28Jan2008
 Negros Slashers v Teng 666 S 629
 Counsel cannot sign certification; exception
General Rule: Party must sign.
 Digital Microwave Corp. v CA GR 128550 16Mar2000
 Guy v Court of Appeals GR 163707, September 15, 2006
 Sy Chin v Court of Appeals GR 136233, November 23, 2000
 Co-owner or Co-party may sign in behalf of co-owners or co-parties
 Cavila v Heirs of Clarita Cavile 400 S 255 (2003)
 Distinction between non-compliance of verification and certification against non-forum shopping
requirement
 Sari-sari Group of Companies, Inc. v Piglas Kamao 561 S 569 (2008)
 Median Container Corp. v Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. 561 S 622 (2008)
 Substantial requirements of pleadings
 Sufficiency of allegations
 Ultimate facts only
 Remitere v Yulo 16 S 251
 Philippine Stock Exchange v Manila Banking Corp. 559 S 352 (2008)
 Tests of sufficiency of complaint:
 Can judgment be rendered if admitted?
 Always reckon against grounds for dismissal
 Is bill of particulars applicable?
 Read Philippine Bank of Communications v Trazo 500 S 242 (2006)
 Test of sufficiency of responsive pleading
 Not susceptible to summary judgment
 Does not amount to confession of judgment
 MUST tender an issue
 Must specifically deny “material allegations” lest they be deemed admitted
o Gaza et al vs Lim GR 126863 Jan 16, 2003
 Defenses and objections MUST be pleaded either in motion to dismiss or
answer, else waived
 Alternative causes of action or defenses may be pleaded even if inconsistent with each
other
 Purpose of rule is to allow for complete adjudication of any controversy

 Counterclaims
 Rule on permissive and compulsory counterclaims
 Test to determine nature of counterclaim
 Read: Namarco v Federation of United Namarco Distributors Inc., 49 S 238
 Bungcayao Sr v Fort Ilocandia 618 S 381
 Calibre Traders Inc v Bayer Philippines 633 S 34

5
Judicial Affidavit Rule A.M. 12-8-8-SC

-what will be filed

-judicial affidavits of witnesses
-documentary or object evidence, attached to the affidavit
-when to file
-not later than 5 days before trial or hearing of motion
-what should be contained
-matters to be testified on
-questions and answers
-attestation
-grounds for objection
-disqualify the witness
-admissibility grounds
-where applicable
-all actions, proceedings, incidents requiring presentation of evidence before all courts
except SC
-civil cases
-criminal cases
-penalty not more than 6 years
-where accused agrees, regardless of penalty

3.3. Effect of failure to plead

 Order of default
 by motion only, court cannot motu proprio declare party in default
 Consequences of order of default
 judgment by default, extent thereof limited by relief prayed for
 need for presentation of evidence
 Rationale for order of default

3.4. Amended/Supplemental Pleadings

 Amendment a matter of right before responsive pleading filed
 No limitation on extent of amendment, even changing cause of action set out in original pleading
 Right to amend not affected by motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment or even
motion for judgment on the pleadings which are not considered “responsive pleading”
 Rule when some but not all defendants filed responsive pleading

 When issues joined, substantial amendments discretionary and subject to therule that the cause of
action is not substantially changed or the theory altered
 Planters Development Bank v LZK Holdings & Development Co. 456 S 366
 Young v Sy 503 S 151 (2006)
 PPA v WG&A GR 158401 January 28, 2008
 Amendment of the pleadings to conform to evidence presented during trial is allowed:
 when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the consent of the parties
 when, even if objected to, the court is satisfied no prejudice will befall the objecting party
 Supplemental pleadings not a matter of right

6
  Leobrera v CA 170 S 711 (1989)
 Quirao v Quirao GR 148120, October 24, 2003
Do you need leave to file an amended answer? Yes (?)
Why need not the amendment be consistent with the other affirmative defenses?
If it is an additional defense, should it be consistent with the other affirmative defenses or other allegations in the
answer sought to be amended? It’s okay if not. Because alternative defenses are allowed. You don’t need to be
consistent with what’s already on record because you can put ALTERNATIVE defenses. Because it’s either one or
the other. It’s never both.

 Effect of amended pleadings

 supersedes original pleading
 as a consequence, judicial admissions made in original pleadings need to be offered in evidence.
 Read Director of Lands v CA, 196 S 94
When an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, the admissions become extrajudicial admissions,
they have to be formally offered in evidence.
But they are part of the record. Why must they be formally offered? Because the amended pleading already
supersedes the original pleading so the original pleading is deemed abandoned.
You may be deemed to have taken out the pleading amended (orig), but whatever is stated there can be taken
against you for being a judicial admission. BUT there’s a condition, you (defendant) MUST offer it as evidence.
Otherwise, it has no effect.

 Dionisio v Linsangan GR 178159 March 2, 2011

Orig Complaint: Under MTC, Unlawful detainer/Ejectment case. Anf then when they changed the cause of action it
became a recovery for possession however SC held that based on the allegations, they are both still the same,
similar allegations, evidence presented were the same, no substantial change.

If you convert it from ejectment case to one for recovery of possession, should it be allowed? Kahit significant
change. Defendant x oppose, maintain his answer. Why? Because there was no need. Because the allegations in
the original answer still meet head on the allegation in the amended complaint. And there was no need for further
or additional changes because…Wait, if there were, would that be a supplemental answer? Or an amended
answer? Amended. Why not supplemental? Because if there be need to do anything, it’s not because you are
adding, but because there is a change you need to make in light of the changes made in the amended complaint.
It’s not that you’re adding, enlarging, bolstering but youre changing in light of the change that needs to be done
because of the change in theory or cause of action brought about by the amended complaint.
In this case, there was none. Issue remained the same. It was still an issue on possession.

Can u do vice versa? Recovery of Possession to Unlawful Detainer. Yes coz it’s still a possession case.
Complaint -> Answer -> Amended Complaint -> Amended answer (?) – not necessary

What was the amendment, when was it made, what was the quarrel and what was the resolution?
Conversion at pre-trial
Did the defendant oppose to amend? No. He maintained his original answer.

Amendment took place when? During pre-trial – MTC. They were trying to convert an ejectment case into a
recovery of real property case. Pwede.

Is there a limit as to when you can amend? Is there a limit as to when you can supplement? Can you amend your
complaint after judgment? No (?)

7
 Additional:
Amendment Supplement
Purpose/Why - To correct/change - To Add (coz something have developed or supervened subsequent to
filing of the pleading sought to be supplemented
What to amend Formal/Substantial ……
Effect Supersedes orig Orig still subsists. Supplement stands side by side w/ the pleading
supplemented

What happens to the allegations in the superseded (original) complaint if amended? Can they be taken against
you?

Are the allegations in a SUPPLEMENTAL complaint suppose to be consistent with allegations with the orig?
Yes. Because they stand together. They must be consistent with each other because both are being used as
pleading.

Are the allegations in the orig pleading suppose to be consistent with the allegations in the AMENDED pleading?
Not necessary. Because of the fact that the amendment will take the place of the original. If it’s no more, then you
need not be consisted with what you stated in your amended complaint.
Example: If you stated one cause of action in the orig and you decided to change your theory, you can do that
before Answer. But whatever amendments you can make according to PPA case, even after answer as long as it does
NOT prejudice the defendant and it’s for the higher end of resolving the entire issues bet parties. If you are allowed, then
what you put in your amended complaint need NOT be consistent with what was in the original. Because the original is no
more.

PPA case: Substantial amendments don’t need to conform to one another as long as the rights of the defendant
will not be prejudiced in the amendments.

3.5. Responsive pleadings

 What is responsive pleading
 Answer – Judicial admissions binding on party
 Read Santos v Lumbao 519 S 408 (2007)
Whatever you say in answer will be deemed judicial admissions.
There was no competent evidence to prove the contrary (judicial admission) , therefore they are bound by the
admission they had made.
Signed na pleading saying they were witnesses to Bilihan Ng Lupa, but denied on cross examination. What they
stated in the pleading is already judicial admissions, which are binding to the court.
 Answer – Judicial admissions NOT binding on party
 Read Gardner v CA 131 S 585
5 transfers.
Answer must be deemed to be a judicial admission. The difference in Santos and Gardner. In Gardner, they got
away with the effect of a judicial admission, because they successfully repudiated by competent evidence. In
Santos case, there was no competent evidence to prove the contrary, therefore they are bound by the admission
they had made.

Although as a general rule judicial admissions are binding, in this case since they repudiated it already in court,
then it’s an inflexible rule

8
What’s the difference between the allegations in a complaint and the allegations in an answer?
In a complaint, this is NOT evidence because if you move toward the rules on evidence, the allegations in a
complaint is not evidence, it’s neither documentary evidence nor testimonial evidence, therefore it must be
proven. That’s why youre state of action must be proven
On the other hand, allegations in a complaint will constitute evidence because these are judicial admissions.
Admissions are evidence because they need not be proven anymore. (?)

A pleading is a written statement of the parties’ causes of action or defenses. A motion is not a pleading because
it does not contain you causes of action.

Important: So the General Rule: Statements in your Answer are considered as judicial admissions. Because you
said it already, you’re admitting a fact.
In a Complaint, there is no such admission, therefore there is no judicial admission. So the concept of judicial
admission can only apply to those that are stated in the ANSWER. Yet the effects are not the same because,
DESPITE YOUR ADMISSIONS IN YOUR ANSWER BEING BINDING ON YOU AND BEING JUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS, THESE ARE STILL MATTERS THAT NEED TO BE PROVED. Therefore you can prove it
otherwise or prove it not. In the absence of contrary evidence, it will be counted binding on you.

 When to file?
o San Pedro Cineplex v Heirs of Enano GR 190754 November 17, 2010
 Bill of particulars, motion to dismiss interrupt period to file responsive pleading
 Compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim should be set up in responsive pleading. However, it may be
set up anytime thereafter (but before judgment) if omitted through oversight, inadvertence or excusable
negligence
 Remedies of party declared in default
o Otero v Tan 678 S 583

3.6. Filing and service of pleadings and judicial papers

 Service on counsel is mandatory unless otherwise ordered by court
 Improper service is ineffectual and does not bind party
 Read: Cabili v Badelles, 6 S 190
 Service of pleadings and court papers (other than judgments, final orders and resolutions) may be done
by substituted service if personal service and service by mail not successful
 Service of judgments, final orders and resolutions must be personal or by registered mail only (or by
publication where summons is served by publication)
 Service must be on counsel as service on party not permitted
 Where final order or judgment not served on party or lawyer, said judgment cannot become final
or executory.

3.7. Summons
 Rules on service is strictly construed, hence:
 For actions in personam
 against residents, service must be personal first then substituted if unsuccessful or
publication if whereabouts unknown or temporarily outside the country
 against non-residents, only personal service within the state can confer jurisdiction over
the defendant
 For actions in rem or quasi in rem
 against residents, same as above

9
  against non-residents, personal service outside the country, with leave of court, or
publication with leave of court
 For actions against domestic juridical persons, service only on those enumerated in the statute
is allowed
 For actions against foreign juridical entity, service must be on resident agent, government
regulator, or any of officers, agents within the country

 Venturanza v CA 156 S 305

 Samartino v Raon 383 S 664
 Valmonte v CA 252 S 92
 Asiavest v CA 296 S 539
 Philam Gen vs Breva 442 S 217
 BPI v Santiago 519 S 389
 San Pedro v Willy Ong and Normita Caballes GR 177598 October 17, 2008
 Santos v PNOC Exploration GR 170943 September 23, 2008
 Kawasaki Port Services vs Amores GR 58340 July 16, 1991
 Sansio Phils v Mogol GR 177007, July 14, 2009
 Guiguinto Credit v Torres GR 170926, September 15, 2006
 Potenciano v Barnes GR 159421, August 20, 2008

3.8. Dismissal of action (Rule 16)

 Grounds
 lack of jurisdiction over person
 Read Amigo v CA, 253 S 382

 lack of jurisdiction over subject matter

 Read La Naval v CA, 236 S 78
 Ilocos Sur Electric v NLRC 241 S 36
 Andaya v Abadia 228 S 705
 Republic v Bantigue Point Development Corp 668 S 158
 pendentia litis
 Read Andersons Group v CA. 266 S 423
 Ramos v Peralta, 203 S 412
 Yap v Chua 672 S 411
 res judicata
 Read Vda de Cruzo v Cariaga, 174 S 330
 Hacienda Bigaa Inc v Chavez 618 S 559
 no cause of action
 Read San Lorenzo v CA, 288 S 115
 Calalang v IAC, 194 S 514
 Perpetual v Fajardo, 233 S 720
 City of Cebu v CA, 258 S 175
 Remedy in case of granting/denial of motion to dismiss
 Order denying motion to dismiss is interlocutory, hence proper remedy is to appeal after a
decision has been rendered
 Read: Indiana Aerospace University v Commission On Higher Education, 356 S 367

10
  Bangko Silangan v CA, 360 S 322
 Yutingco v CA, 386 S 85
 Order granting motion to dismiss disposes of the case hence, appeal under Rule 41 is
applicable.

3.9. Dismissal of Action (Rule 17)

Pinga v Heirs of Santiago GR 170354 June 30, 2006
Filinvest v CA GR 142439 December 6, 2006
Heirs of Gaudiane v CA GR 119879 March 11, 2004
Cruz v CA GR 164797 February 13, 2006
Dael v Sps Beltran GR 156470 April 30, 2008
Mendoza v Paule GR 175885 February 31, 2009
Benedicto v Lacson GR 142508 May 5, 2010

3.10. Pre-trial
 Definition
 Anson Trade Center v Pacific Banking, GR No. 179999 17 Mar 2009
 Interlining Corp. v Philippine Trust Co. 428 S 583 (2002)
 Setting for Pre-Trial
 Espiritu v Lazaro, GR. No.181020 20 Nov 2009
 Polanco v Cruz, GR. No. 182426 13 Feb 2009
 A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
 Failure to have Pre-trial
 Madrid v Spouses Mapoy, GR. 150887 14 Aug 2009

 Failure of defendant to appear

 Will result in plaintiff presenting his evidence ex parte and for the court to render judgment
thereon.
 This is dissimilar to default from failure to plead where the sanction is for the court to render
judgment based on the complaint
 Summary judgment or judgment on pleadings possible if facts are discovered in pre-trial to warrant such
action
 Effect of Pre-trial Order
 General Rule: Binding on all parties, A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
 Exception: Read Heirs of Reyes v CA, 519 S 250 (2007)

3.11. Intervention (Rule 19)

Nordic Asia v CA 403 S 390
Salandanan v Sps Mendoza GR 160280 (2009)
Mactan Cebu Intl Airpot v Heirs of Minoza GR 186045 February 2, 2011
GSIS v Nocom GR 175989 February 4, 2008
Ombudsman v Maximo Sison GR 185954 February 16, 2010

3.12. Discovery
 Compulsory process wherein litigants are forced, by court rules or orders, to disgorge private
information to adverse party

11
  Purpose of discovery is to obtain knowledge of material facts within the knowledge of the adverse
party or of third parties; obtain admissions from adverse parties and to inspect relevant documents,
objects and property.
 What are discoverable?
 Limitations on discoverability
 Modes of discovery
 Deposition
 function
 when may be availed of
 Pajarilla v CA 570 S 347 (2008)
 de bene esse (pending action)
 perpetuam rei memoriam (prior to action)
 who do you depose
 Interrogatories to parties
 effect of failure to serve written interrogatories
 Requests for admission
 Sime Darby Employees Association v NLRC 510 S 204
 Production and inspection of things
 Examination of persons

 Republic v Sandiganbayan, 204 S 212

 Dasmarinas Garments v Reyes 225 S 622
 Ayala Land vs Tagle 466 S 521
 Hyatt Industrial v Ley Construction GR 147143 Mar 10, 2006
 Sime Darby v CA 510 S 204
 Security Bank v CA 323 S 330
 Solidbank v Gateway GR 164805 April 30, 2008
 Rosete v Lim GR 136051 June 8, 2006
 Jowel Sales v Sabin GR 133154 December 9, 2005

 Sanctions for refusal to make discovery (Rule 29)

3.13. Trial
 Order of trial
 Reverse trial when complaint is admitted
 Read Yu v Magpayo 44 S 163
 Reverse trial also in criminal cases
 When trial dispensed with; Absence of Party
o Republic v Vda de Neri GR 139588 March 4, 2008
o Sps Calo v Sps Tan GR 151266 November 29, 2005

3.14. Consolidation
 Test is common questions of fact or of law
 Active v CA, 181 S 774
 Superlines v Victor, 124 S 939
 Steel Corporation of the Philippines v Equitable PCI Bank 635 S 403
12
  Deutsche Bank AG vs Court of Appeals 667 S 82
 Producers Bank of the Philippines v Excelsa Industries 669 S 470
 Teston v DBP GR 144374 November 11, 2005
 Gregorio Espinoza v UOB GR 175380 March 22, 2010
 consolidation of civil and criminal cases
 consolidation of cases on appeal

3.15. Demurrer to Evidence

 Concept of demurrer
 Effect of denial or grant of demurrer to evidence
 Nepomuceno v Comelec, 126 S 472
 Radiowealth v Sps Del Rosario GR 138739 July 6, 2000
 Casent Realty v Phil Banking GR 150731 September 14, 2007

3.16. Judgment on the pleadings

 Generally applicable when there is no tender of issue
 Denial in answer may not amount to tender of issue
 Manufacturers v Diversified, 173 S 357
 Pacific Rehouse Corporation v EIB Securities 633 S 214
 Reilo v San Jose GR 166393 June 18, 2009
 Sps Song v Roban Lending GR 172592 July 9, 2008
 Doris Sunbanum v Aurora Go GR 163280 February 2, 2010

3.17. Summary Judgments

 Distinguished from judgment on the pleadings
 Vergara v Suelto 156 S 753
 Diman v Alumbres, 299 S 459
 Nocom v Camerino GR 182984 February 10, 2009
 Evangelista v Mercator Finance 409 S 410
 Monterey Foods Corp v Eserjose 410 S 627
 How motion for summary judgment is considered
 Hearing on motion is only for determining whether issues are genuine or not, not to receive
evidence on the issues set up in the pleadings
 motion is proven through affidavits, depositions and admissions submitted by movant
 Propriety of summary judgment
 Natalia v Vallez, 173 S 536
 Grand Farms v CA, 193 S 748
 Monterey Foods Corp v Eserjose 410 S 627
 Evangelista v Mercator Finance 409 S 410
 Movant may be either party

3.18. Judgments
 Requirements
 written and signed by judge
 must contain findings of facts and law applied
 must contain a dispositive portion

13
  filed with the clerk of court
 rendition reckoned from filing with clerk
 must be served on parties
 may be amended before finality upon motion or motu proprio
 entry upon finality
 entry determines prescriptive periods
 final judgment not subject to amendment
 separability of judgments

Velarde v SJS GR 159357 April 28, 2004

Miranda v CA 71 S 295
Republic v Nolasco 457 S 400
Briones-Vasquez v CA GR 144882 february 4, 2005
Navarro v Metropolitan Bank GR 165697/166484 August 4, 2009

3.19. Remedies from judgments (same court, same case)

 New Trial or Reconsideration
 FAMEN
 Fraud as a ground must be extrinsic, not intrinsic. It is intrinsic when done by a party
during trial (use of forged documents etc), extrinsic when employed outside the court
(concealing a witness or colluding with a party)
 accident and mistake as ground must be based on well-engendered belief ordinary
prudence could not guard against
 excusable negligence as ground will depend on circumstance
 Newly discovered evidence
 must be material and not discoverable during trial

 Banco Filipino v Campos 63 S 180

 Bernaldez v Francia 398 S 488
 Capuz v CA 233 S 471
 Libudan v Gil 45 S 17
 Delos Santos v Elizalde GR 141810, 141812, February 2, 2007
 Motion for reconsideration
 NT distinguished from reconsideration
 grounds
 results when granted
 remedy when denied (appeal from the judgment)
 Relief from judgment
 not available for lost remedy
 Tuazon v CA, 256 S 158
 Sps Que v CA GR 1507397 August 18, 2005
 Monzon v Sps Relova GR 171827 September 17, 2008
 available only versus final judgment
 distinguished from NT or reconsideration
 grounds
 when/how invoked
 result when granted

14
  remedy when denied (no more appeal)

 Annulment of Judgment (not same court, not same case)

 Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v Court of Appeals 681 S 580
 Sps Arenas v Quezon City Development Bank GR 166819 June 16, 2010

3.20. Execution of judgments

 Only a final judgment that disposes of the action is subject to execution
 Final judgment versus final and executory judgment
 Investment v CA 147 S 334
 Test of a final judgment: Does it leave something for the court to do with respect to the merits of the
case?
 Execution a matter of right when judgment final and executory, but only upon motion
 judgment becomes final by operation of law, i.e., when no appeal has been taken within the period
provided by law
 enforcement of judgment (execution) is ministerial and mandatory once it becomes final, subject to
certain exceptions
 execution before finality of judgment, only upon good reasons
 BF Corp v Edsa Shangrila, 294 S 109
 discretionary executions, when stayed
 City of Manila v CA, 72 S 98
 Valencia v CA, 184 S 561
 execution before or after death of judgment obligor will depend on the nature of the judgment, i.e.
recovery of property v money judgments

 Session Delights Ice Cream v CA GR 172149, February 8, 2010

 Cayana v CA GR 125607, March 18, 2004
 Stronghold v Felix GR 148090, November 28, 2006
 Yau v Silverio GR 158848, February 4, 2008
 Jerome Solco v Provido GR 138978, February 11, 2008
 Hi Yield Realty v CA GR 138978, February 12, 2002
 Honrado v CA GR 166333, November 25, 2005
 Repubic v Antonio GR 166866, March 27, 2008
 Corpuz v Sto tomas and OSG GR 186571, August 11, 2010
 Republic v Gingoyon GR 166429, February 1, 2006

4. APPEALS

4.1. Nature of appeal as a remedy

 guard against judgments of unskilled and unfair judges
 prevention as much as correction of mistakes
 not a right but a mere privilege, thus may be lost
 Dacuital v LM Engineering Corporation 629 S 702

4.2. Who may appeal

15
4.3. What are appealable
 what are final judgments
 when does a judgment or order become final
 final judgments vs judgments that are final and executory
 what are not appealable and why are they not?
 test of final nature is when it completely disposes of the case
 Exception Sec 1, Rule 41 (a-g) in which cases remedy is by Rule 65
 D.M. Ferrer & Associates v UST GR 189496 February 1, 2012

4.4. Modes of appeal

 ordinary appeal (by mere notice of appeal with court rendering judgment)
 MTC to RTC
 RTC to CA
 no extension of period to file notice of appeal
 interrupted by motion for NT or recon
 if NT or recon denied, fresh period to appeal
 Neypes vs CA GR 141524 Sept 14, 2005
 payment of docket fees must accompany notice of appeal
 petition for review (by filing petition with CA under rule 42)
 second level of review
 review of judgment in exercise of appellate jurisdiction
 RTC (appellate jurisdiction) to CA
 not a matter of right; discretionary on part of CA
 Ong v Tating. 149 SCRA 265
 appeal by certiorari (filing petition with SC)
 appeal to the SC
 from RTC on questions of law only (Rule 41)
 UMC v Velasco 98 S 545
 may be remanded to CA if involving questionof fact (rule 56, sec 6), not
dismissed
 from final order or resolution of CA or SB (rule 45) but only on questions of law
 appeal to SC not a matter of right (Rule 45, sec 6)
 Cheesman v IAC, 193 S 93
 Sumbingco v CA, 155 S 24
 What is a question of law?
 See Macawiwili and Land Bank cases below
 petition for review on certiorari vs petition for certiorari
 New York Marine v CA, 249 S 416
 Ybanez v CA, 253 S 540
Rule on appeals summarized
Macawiwili Gold Mining and Devt Co v CA 297 S 602
Land Bank of the Philippines v Ramos 685 S 540

4.5. When does court lose jurisdiction relative to filing of notice of appeal
 May notice of appeal be contested? Dismissed by court?
 duty of court when notice of appeal filed
16
  dilatory appeals

4.6. Improper appeals

 to CA from RTC on questions of law
 to SC via notice of appeal
 to CA on notice of appeal from RTC decision rendered in appellate jurisdiction
 the above modes will merit dismissal; no transfer to correct court will be allowed
(Exception is when appeal to SC on questions of law and fact in which case, the case will be
remanded to CA)

5. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

5.1. Preliminary Attachment

 Kinds of attachment
 preliminary
 garnishment
 levy on execution
 At what stage is preliminary attachment granted?
 grounds for attachment exclusive
 may be granted ex parte
 Onate v Abrogar, 241 S 659
 Davao Light & Water v CA, 204 S 343
 Sievert v CA, 168 S 692
 Carlos v Sandoval 471 S 266
 Spouses Yu v Ngo Yee Te GR 155868

5.2. Preliminary Injunction

 preceded by a 72-hour TRO, 20-day TRO (RTC) or a 60-day TRO (CA)
 within TRO, hearing must be conducted
 may be granted at any stage of the proceeding
 requirements for issuance
 coordinate body may not be enjoined
 may be a provisional remedy and the principal remedy itself

Bacolod City Water District v Labayen 446 S 110

China Banking Corp v Co GR 174569
Estares v CA GR 144755
Buyco v Baraquia GR 177486 (December 21, 2009)
Heirs of the late JBL Reyes v CA 338 S 282
Brocka v Enrile 192 S 182
Medina v Greenfield Development GR 140228

5.3. Receivership
 When is receiver appointed?
 object is preservation of property subject matter of litigation
 powers of a receiver

17
 National Investment and Development Corp v Judge Aquino 163 S 153
Traders Royal Bank v IAC 273 S 521

5.4. Replevin
 nature of a replevin suit
 question involved is one of possession but ownership may be resolved if raised
 plaintiff (claim) and defendant (counterclaim) can petition for replevin

Yang v Valdez 177 S 141

Adoma v Gatcheco 448 S 299
Paat v CA 266 S 167
Citibank v CA 304 S 679
Smart Communications v Regina Astorga GR 148132 January 28, 2008

5.5. Support pendete lite

 concept of support is that the applicant is entitled to it by reason of some relationship (say, marital or
filial) with the adverse party
 judgment of support is never final, it can be amended at any time as long as the obligation to support
subsists
 Arts 194, 195, 201, 202 of Family Code

Reyes v Ines-Luciano GR 48219

Lam v Chua GR 131286

18