III.

Civil Procedure (Part 2)

Wednesday, 7 October 2020 12:19 am

E. Pleadings

1. Kinds of pleadings

a. Complaint - pleading alleging the plaintiff's or claiming party's cause or causes of action
b. Answer - pleading in which a defending party sets forth his or her defenses.

Period to file an Answer

Kinds of Answer Period

Answer to Complaint GR: Within 30 cd from service of summons
Xpn. A different period is fixed by the Court
Answer of defendant foreign private Within 60 cd from receipt of summons of government
juridical entity official designated
Answer to Amended Complaint a. If as a matter of right
Within 30 cd after being served a copy thereof

b. Otherwise
Within 15 cd from notice of order admitting the same

NOTE: This rule is also applicable to answer to:

i. Amended counterclaim
ii. Amended cross-claim
iii. Amended 3rd(4th, etc)-party complaint
iv. Amended complaint-in-intervention
Answer to counterclaim/cross-claim Within 20 cd from service
Answer to supplemental complaint GR: Within 20 cd from notice of order admitting the
same
Xpn. Different period is fixed by court

Negative defense - specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of action

Affirmative defense - an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the
material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar by him
or her.

Negative pregnant - is a negative implying also an affirmative and which, although stated in
a negative form, rally admits the allegations to which it relates.

➢ Facts pleaded in the petition and answer, as in the case at bar, are deemed admissions of
petitioner and respondents, respectively, who are not permitted to contradict them or
subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with such admissions (Republic v.
Sandiganbayan)

c. Counterclaims - are claims which a defending party may have against an opposing party

Compulsory counterclaim - one that has the following elements:

i. It arises out of (or is necessarily connective with) the transaction or concurrence that
is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim
ii. It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction
iii. It is cognizable by the regular courts of justice and such courts have jurisdiction to
entertain the counterclaim both as to the amount and nature, except that in an original
action before the Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of amount.

Permissive counterclaim - one which does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected
with the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. Essentially, an independent claim that
may be filed separately in another.

Effect on the counterclaim when complaint is dismissed

There are three significant situation involving dismissal of a complaint and the effect of such
dismissal on the counterclaim already pleaded (Riano,2016).

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 1

 a. The first is when defendant files an answer raising an affirmative defense and a compulsory
counterclaim. If court grants such defense, the dismissal according to Sec. 6, Rule 16 of the
old Rules of Court shall be without prejudice to the counterclaim pleaded in the answer.

NOTE: However, the indicated Rule was deleted in the present Rules of Court.

b. The second situation is covered by Sec.2 of Rule 17, providing for a situation by which the
plaintiff himself files a motion to dismiss his complaint after the defendant has pleaded his
answer with a counterclaim. The approval of the court of such dismissal shall be limited to
the complaint. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his or her counterclaim in a separate action unless within fifteen (15) calendar
days from notice of the motion he or she manifests his or her preference to have his or her
counterclaim resolved in the same action.

c. The third situation is covered by Sec. 3 of Rule 17. Here the complaint is dismissed through
the plaintiff’s fault, however, the indicated dismissal is without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or separate action.

Effect if compulsory counterclaim is not answered

d. Cross-claims - any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. Such
cross-claim may cover all or part of the original claim

e. Third (fourth, etc.) party complaints - a claim which a defending party may, with leave of court,
file against a person is not yet a part to the action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any
other relief, in respect of his opponent’s claim

➢ Accordingly, the requisites for a third-party action are, firstly, that the party to be impleaded
must not yet be a party to the action; secondly, that the claim against the third-party
defendant must belong to the original defendant; thirdly, the claim of the original defendant
against the third-party defendant must be based upon the plaintiffs claim against the original
defendant; and, fourthly, the defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant
the liability asserted against him by the original plaintiff.

As the foregoing indicates, the claim that the third-party complaint asserts against the third-
party defendant must be predicated on substantive law (Philtranco Service Enterprises,
Inc. v. Felix Paras)

f. Complaint in intervention - a pleading, the purpose of which is to assert a claim against either or
all of the original parties

Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings,
becomes a litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect or preserve a right or interest which
may be affected by such proceedings.

g. Reply - a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance
of new matters alleged in, or relating to the actionable document raised in the answer

NOTE: The plaintiff may file only if the defending party attaches an actionable document to his or
her answer.

2. Pleadings allowed and not allowed in small claim cases and cases covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure

Small Claims Summary Procedure

Allowed 1. Statement of Claim/s 1. Complaint
2. Response 2. Compulsory counterclaim pleaded in the answer
3. Counterclaim 3. Cross-claim pleaded in the answer
4. Answers thereto
Not 1. Motion to dismiss the 1. Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the
allowed Statement of Claim/s; complaint or information except on the ground of lack
2. Motion for a bill of particulars; of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to
3. Motion for new trial, or for comply with the preceding section;
reconsideration of a judgment, 2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
or for reopening of trial; 3. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
4. Petition for relief from judgment, or for opening of trial;
judgment; 4. Petition for relief from judgment;
5. Motion for extension of time to 5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
file pleadings, affidavits, or any affidavits or any other paper; chanrobles virtual law
other paper; library
6. Memoranda; 6. Memoranda;
7. Petition for certiorari, 7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 2

 7. Petition for certiorari, 7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition
mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court;
against any interlocutory order 8. Motion to declare the defendant in default; chanrobles
issued by the court; virtual law library
8. Motion to declare the 9. Dilatory motions for postponement;
defendant in default; 10. Reply;
9. Dilatory motions for 11. Third party complaints;
postponement; 12. Interventions
10. Reply and rejoinder;
11. Third-party complaints; and
12. Interventions.

3. Parts of a pleading

a. Caption - sets forth the

i. Name of the court

ii. Title of the action, and

NOTE: The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be named in
the original complaint or petition, but subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name
of the first party on each side be stated with appropriate indication when there are other
parties. Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated

iii. Docket number, if assigned

b. Signature and address

Every pleading and other written submissions to the court must be signed by the party or counsel
representing him or her (Sec. 3, Rule 7, as amended).

c. Verification - The pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign said
certification.

GR:. Pleadings need not be under oath verified or accompanied by an affidavit.

Xpn. When required by law.

The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary’s
certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading, and shall allege the
following attestation:

a. The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on his or her personal knowledge,
or based on authentic documents;
b. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost
of litigation; and
c. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will
likewise have evidentiary support after reasonable opportunity for discovery.

NOTE: The amended rule requires that the authority of the affiant to sign the verification (either a
Secretary’s Certificate of a Special Power of Attorney) should be attached to the pleading which the
original rule does not require.

➢ The verification requirement is significant, as it is intended to secure an assurance that the

allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a
matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. Verification is deemed
substantially complied with when, as in this case, one who has ample knowledge to swear to
the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when
matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

The absence of a proper verification is cause to treat the pleading as unsigned and
dismissible (Felix Martos, et al. v. New San Jose Builders).

➢ A reading of respondents’ verification reveals that they complied with the abovequoted
procedural rule. Respondents confirmed that they had read the allegations in the Complaint
which were true and correct based on their personal knowledge. The addition of the words
"to the best" before the phrase "of our own personal knowledge" did not violate the
requirement under Section 4, Rule 7, it being sufficient that the respondents declared that
the allegations in the complaint are true and correct based on their personal knowledge.

Verification is deemed substantially complied with when, as in the instant case, one who has
ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the
verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are
true and correct (Georgia T. Estel v. Recaredo P. Diego, Sr., et al.).

d. The certification against forum shopping is a sworn statement in which the plaintiff or principal
party certifies in a complaint or initiatory pleading to the following matters:

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 3

 party certifies in a complaint or initiatory pleading to the following matters:

a. That he has not commence any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any
court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other
action or claim is pending therein;
b. That if there such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof.
c. And that if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed
or is pending, he shall report that fact within five calendar days therefrom to the court
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiator pleading has been filed (Sec. 5, Rule 7, as
amended).

➢ The requirement that the petitioner should sign the certificate of non-forum shopping applies
even to corporations, considering that the mandatory directives of the Rules of Court make
no distinction between natural and juridical persons.

xxx

In the case at bar, the CA dismissed the petition before it on the ground that Lombos and
Pascual, the signatories to the verification and certification on non-forum shopping, failed to
show proof that they were authorized by petitioner's board of directors to file such a petition.
x x x This Court has ruled that the subsequent submission of proof of authority to act on
behalf of a petitioner corporation justifies the relaxation of the Rules for the purpose of
allowing its petition to be given due course.

xxx

It must also be kept in mind that while the requirement of the certificate of non-forum
shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the requirements must not be interpreted too literally
and thus defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum shopping
(Pascual and Santos, Inc. v. The Members of the Tramo Wakas Neighborhood
Association, Inc.).

➢ The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the
plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court
has also stressed that the rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and facilitate
the orderly administration of justice and thus should not be interpreted with such absolute
literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial
compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is
because the requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of
non-forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot
be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. Thus, under
justifiable circumstances, the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the submission of such
certification considering that although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.

xxx

There is forum shopping when the elements of litis pendentia are present, i.e., between
actions pending before courts, there exist: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions, (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (3) the identity of the two preceding
particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration; said requisites
are also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens (Elsa D.
Medado v. Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing).

➢ The lack of certification against forum shopping is not curable by mere amendment of a
complaint, but shall be a cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice. Indeed, the
general rule is that subsequent compliance with the requirements will not excuse a party's
failure to comply in the first instance. Thus, on procedural aspects, the appellate court
correctly dismissed the case.

However, this Court has recognized that the merit of a case is a special circumstance or
compelling reason that justifies the relaxation of the rule requiring verification and
certification of non-forum shopping (Vivian T. Ramirez, et al., v. Mar Fishing Co., Inc., et
al.).

e. Effect of signature of counsel in a pleading

The signature of the counsel constitutes a certificate by him or her that he or she has read the
pleading and document; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, formed
after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

1. It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
2. The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 4

 2. The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or
jurisprudence, or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying or reversing existing
jurisprudence.
3. The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically, so identified, will likely
have evidentiary support after availment of the modes of discovery under the rules; and
4. The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically, so
identified, are reasonable based on belief or lack of information.

f. Effect of signing by a person not authorized to sign

➢ What then, is the effect of a complaint filed by one who has not proven his authority to
represent a plaintiff in filing an action? In Tamondong v. Court of Appeals, the Court
categorically stated that "[i]f a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff [by one] who
is not authorized to do so, the complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint
does not produce any legal effect. Hence, the court should dismiss the complaint on the
ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint and the plaintiff." This ruling was
reiterated in Cosco Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. Kemper Insurance Company, where the
Court went on to say that "[i]n order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on
the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Courts acquire
jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint, and to be bound by a decision,
a party should first be subjected to the court's jurisdiction. Clearly, since no valid complaint
was ever filed with the [MeTC], the same did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of
respondent [plaintiff before the lower court]." (Atty. Fe Q. Palmiano-Salvador v.
Constantino Angeles, etc.).

g. Contents

Every pleading stating a party’s claims or defenses shall, in addition to those mandated by Sec.2
Rule 7, state the following:

a. Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove a party’s claim or defense;

b. Summary of the witnesses’ intended testimonies

NOTE: Judicial affidavits of said witnesses shall be attached to the pleading and form an
integral part thereof.

GENERAL RULE: Only witnesses whose judicial affidavits are attached to the pleading shall
be presented by the parties during trial.

EXCEPTION: if a party presents meritorious reasons as basis for the admission of additional
witnesses

c. Documentary and object evidence in support of the allegations contained in the pleading
(Sec. 6, Rule 7, as amended).

NOTE: Failure to comply with this requirement shall prevent such party from presenting such
witnesses not mentioned in the pleading, unless there are meritorious reason to allow the same.

4. Allegations in a pleading

a. Manner of making allegations

Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical for, a plain, concise and direct statement of
the ultimate facts, including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his or her claim or
defense, as the case may be.

NOTE: The amended rules introduced requires the inclusion of evidence which was proscribed in
the old rule.

➢ The test of sufficiency of the facts found in a complaint as constituting a cause of action is
whether or not admitting the facts alleged the court can render a valid judgement upon the
same in accordance with the prayer thereof. The hypothetical admission extends to the
relevant and material facts well pleaded in the complaint and inferences fairly deducible
therefrom. Hence, if the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the
complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defense
that may be assessed by the defendants. (Ceroferr Realty Corp. v. CA).

b. Ultimate facts

➢ A complaint is defined as a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's
cause or causes of action. Like all other pleadings allowed by the Rules of Court, the
complaint shall contain in a methodical and logical form a plain, concise and direct statement
of the ultimate facts on which the plaintiff relies for his claim, omitting the statement of mere
evidentiary facts. Its office, purpose or function is to inform the defendant clearly and
definitely of the claims made against him so that he may be prepared to meet the issues at
the trial. The complaint should inform the defendant of all the material facts on which the

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 5

 the trial. The complaint should inform the defendant of all the material facts on which the
plaintiff relies to support his demand; it should state the theory of a cause of action which
forms the bases of the plaintiff's claim of liability.

The rules on pleading speak of two (2) kinds of facts: the first, the "ultimate facts", and the
second, the "evidentiary facts." In Remitere vs. Vda. de Yulo, 21 the term "ultimate facts"
was defined and explained as follows:

The term "ultimate facts" as used in Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, means the
essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot
be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient. . . .
(Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. 1, 1963 ed., p. 213).

Ultimate facts are important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis
of the primary right and duty, or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions
of the defendant. The term does not refer to the details of probative matter or
particulars of evidence by which these material elements are to be established. It
refers to principal, determinate, constitutive facts, upon the existence of which, the
entire cause of action rests.

while the term "evidentiary fact" has been defined in the following tenor:

Those facts which are necessary for determination of the ultimate facts; they are the
premises upon which conclusions of ultimate facts are based (Tantuico, Jr. v.
Republic).

➢ It is settled that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the
complaint.1âwphi1 In resolving a motion to dismiss based on the failure to state a cause of
action, only the facts alleged in the complaint must be considered. The test is whether the
court can render a valid judgment on the complaint based on the facts alleged and the
prayer asked for. Indeed, the elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether
the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. Only ultimate facts
and not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts, which should not be alleged in the complaint
in the first place, are considered for purposes of applying the test (D.M. Ferrer & Associates
Corp. v. UST).

c. Alternative Causes of action

➢ The inclusion of this averment for quasi-delict, while incompatible with the other claim under
the contract of carriage, is permissible under Section 2 of Rule 8 of the New Rules of Court,
which allows a plaintiff to allege causes of action in the alternative, be they compatible with
each other or not, to the end that the real matter in controversy may be resolved and
determined (La Mallorca v. CA).

d. Condition precedent

In any pleading, a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all condition

precedent shall be sufficient (Sec. 3, Rule 8, as amended).

e. Fraud, mistake, malice, intent, knowledge and other condition of the mind, judgments, official
documents or acts

In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated
with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, or other condition of the mind of a person may be
averred generally (Sec. 5, Rule 8, as amended).

f. Pleading an actionable document

Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the substance of
such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof
shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading
(Sec. 7, Rule 8, as amended).

➢ Based on the foregoing provision, a document is actionable when an action or defense is

grounded upon such written instrument or document. In the instant case, the Charge
Invoices are not actionable documents per se as these "only provide details on the alleged
transactions." These documents need not be attached to or stated in the complaint as these
are evidentiary in nature. In fact, respondent’s cause of action is not based on these
documents but on the contract of sale between the parties (Asian Construction &
Development Corp. v. Lourdes K. Mendoza).

➢ More to the point is the fact that petitioners failed to deny specifically under oath the
genuineness and due execution of the Acknowledgment in their Answer. The effect of this is
that the genuineness and due execution of the Acknowledgment is deemed admitted. "By
the admission of the genuineness and due execution [of such document] is meant that the
party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 6

 party whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for
him with his authority; that at the time it was signed it was in words and figures exactly as set
out in the pleading of the party relying upon it; that the document was delivered; and that any
formal requisites required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp,
which it lacks, are waived by him. Hence, such defenses as that the signature is a forgery x x
x; or that it was unauthorized x x x; or that the party charged signed the instrument in some
other capacity than that alleged in the pleading setting it out x x x; or that it was never
delivered x x x, are cut off by the admission of its genuineness and due execution."
(Spouses Fernando & Ma. Elena Santos v. Lolita Alcazar).

➢ In this case, the complaint is an action for collection of sum of money arising from Ledda’s
default in her credit card obligation with BPI. BPI’s cause of action is primarily based on
Ledda’s (1) acceptance of the BPI credit card, (2) usage of the BPI credit card to purchase
goods, avail services and secure cash advances, and (3) non-payment of the amount due for
such credit card transactions, despite demands. In other words, BPI’s cause of action is not
based only on the document containing the Terms and Conditions accompanying the
issuance of the BPI credit card in favor of Ledda. Therefore, the document containing the
Terms and Conditions governing the use of the BPI credit card is not an actionable
document contemplated in Section 7, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, it
is not required by the Rules to be set forth in and attached to the complaint (Ledda v. BPI).

g. Specific denials

A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he or she does not
admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he or she
relies to support his or her denial.

Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment, he or she shall specify so much of it
as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder.

Where a defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a
material averment made to the complaint, he or she shall so state, and this shall have the effect of
a denial (Sec. 10, Rule 8, as amended).

Effect of failure to make specific denial

Material averments in a pleading asserting a claim or claims, other than those as to the amount of
unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied (Sec.11, Rule 8, as
amended).

When a specific denial requires an oath

GENERAL RULE: Negative defense is sufficient if made in the form of specific denial of the material
allegations alleged in the pleading of the claimant.

EXCEPTION: Specific denial of an actionable document shall be deemed admitted unless made
under oath.

XPN TO XPN: When the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when
compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused (Sec.8, Rule 8, as
amended).

5. Effect of failure to plead

a. Failure to plead defenses and objections

Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived (Sec.1, Rule 9, as amended).

b. Failure to plead a compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim

A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall be barred (Sec.2, Rule 9, as

amended).

>Since Forbes Park filed a motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 16540, its existing compulsory
counterclaim at that time is now barred.

A compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to the proceeding in the original suit and derives its
jurisdictional support therefrom. A counterclaim presupposes the existence of a claim against
the party filing the counterclaim. Hence, where there is no claim against the counterclaimant,
the counterclaim is improper and it must dismissed, more so where the complaint is
dismissed at the instance of the counterclaimant. In other words, if the dismissal of the main
action results in the dismissal of the counterclaim already filed, it stands to reason that the
filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint is an implied waiver of the compulsory
counterclaim because the grant of the motion ultimately results in the dismissal of the
counterclaim.

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 7

 counterclaim.

Thus, the filing of a motion to dismiss and the setting up of a compulsory counterclaim are
incompatible remedies.1âwphi1 In the event that a defending party has a ground for
dismissal and a compulsory counterclaim at the same time, he must choose only one
remedy. If he decides to file a motion to dismiss, he will lose his compulsory counterclaim.
But if he opts to set up his compulsory counterclaim, he may still plead his ground for
dismissal as an affirmative defense in his answer. The latter option is obviously more
favorable to the defendant although such fact was lost on Forbes Park (Financial Building
Corp. v. Forbes Park PARK Association).

6. Default

a. When declaration of default is proper

If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of
the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the
defending party in default (Sec.3, Rule 9, as amended).

➢ Section 4, Rule 1919 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires the original parties to file
an answer to the complaint-in-intervention within 15 days from notice of the order admitting
the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. This changes the procedure under
the former rule where such an answer was regarded as optional. Thus, Lim’s failure to file
the required answer can give rise to default.

The trial court had been liberal with Lim. It considered her motion for reconsideration as a
motion to lift the order of default and gave her an opportunity to explain her side. The court
set her motion for hearing but Lim’s counsel did not show up in court. She remained unable
to show that her failure to file the required answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence. And, although she claimed that she had a meritorious defense, she
was unable to specify what constituted such defense. (Natividad Lim v. National Power
Corporation).

b. Effect of an order of default, effect of partial default

A party in default shall be entitled to notices of subsequent proceedings but shall not take part in
the trial (Sec.3 [a], Rule 9, as amended).

➢ The petitioners’ default by their failure to file their answer led to certain consequences.
Where defendants before a trial court are declared in default, they thereby lose their right to
object to the reception of the plaintiff’s evidence establishing his cause of action.31 This is
akin to a failure to, despite due notice, attend in court hearings for the presentation of the
complainant’s evidence, which absence would amount to the waiver of such defendant’s
right to object to the evidence presented during such hearing, and to cross-examine the
witnesses presented therein. (Magdiwang Realty Corporation, et al., v. The Manila
Banking Corporation).

c. Relief from an order of default, extent of relief

1. Before notice of order of default

File a motion to admit answer giving a justifiable cause for the delay in the filing of the
answer. Where an answer has been filed belatedly but before the defendant is declared in
default, the court should admit the answer in order to resolve the case on the merits rather
than on technicalities.

2. After order of default but before judgment

File a motion under oath to set aside the default order upon proper showing that his failure to
answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a
meritorious defense.

3. After judgment but before it becomes final

File a motion for new trial on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
If the motion for new trial is denied, the defendant may appeal within 15 days from receipt of
the order denying the motion for new trial.

4. After judgment becomes final

File a petition for relief under Rule 38. If the defendant was improvidently or wrongly declared
in default he may move to set aside the judgment by way of a special civil action for certiorari

5. After a period to file a petition for relief has lapsed

File a petition for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud under Rule 47
(Riguera,2017).

Extent of Relief

A judgment rendered against a party in default shall neither exceed the amount or be different in

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 8

 A judgment rendered against a party in default shall neither exceed the amount or be different in
kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages (Sec.3[d], Rule 9, as amended).

➢ The records reveal that the judgment of default was sent via registered mail to PTA’s
counsel. However, PTA never availed of the remedy of a motion to lift the order of default.
Since the failure of PTA to present its evidence was not a product of any fraudulent acts
committed outside trial, the RTC did not err in declaring PTA in default.

Annulment of judgment is not the proper remedy

PTA’s appropriate remedy was only to appeal the RTC decision. "Annulment of Judgment
under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a recourse equitable in character and allowed only in
exceptional cases where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of petitioner."

In this case, appeal was an available remedy. There was also no extraordinary reason for a
petition for annulment of judgment, nor was there any adequate explanation on why the
remedy for new trial or petition for relief could not be used. The Court is actually at a loss
why PTA had withdrawn a properly filed appeal and substituted it with another petition, when
PTA could have merely raised the same issues through an ordinary appeal (Philippine
Tourism Authority v. Philippine Golf Development & Equipment, Inc.).

➢ Section 3(d), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court limits the relief that may be granted by the courts
to what has been prayed for in the Complaint. x x x No doubt, the reason behind Section
3(d), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court is to safeguard defendant's right to due process against
unforeseen and arbitrarily issued judgment. This, to the mind of this Court, is akin to the very
essence of due process. It embodies "the sporting idea of fair play and forbids the grant of
relief on matters where the defendant was not given the opportunity to be heard thereon.
(Leticia Diona, etc. v. Romeo A. Balangue).

d. Actions where default is not allowed

i. Annulment of marriage;
ii. Declaration of nullity of marriage; or
iii. Legal separation

NOTE: If no answer if filed in any of the mentioned actions, the court shall order the Solicitor
General or his or her deputized public prosecutor, to investigate whether or not a collusion
between the parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to
see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated (Sec.3 [e], Rule 9, as amended).

7. Filing and service of pleadings

a. Payment of docket fees

➢ The rule is well-settled "that a case is deemed filed only upon payment of the docket fee
regardless of the actual date of filing in court. Thus, in the present case the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case by the payment of only P410.00 as docket fee. Neither can
the amendment of the complaint thereby vest jurisdiction upon the Court. For an legal
purposes there is no such original complaint that was duly filed which could be amended.
Consequently, the order admitting the amended complaint and all subsequent proceedings
and actions taken by the trial court are null and void (Manchester Development v. CA).

➢ In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for considering that,
unlike Manchester, private respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by
paying the additional docket fees as required. The promulgation of the decision in
Manchester must have had that sobering influence on private respondent who thus paid the
additional docket fee as ordered by the respondent court. It triggered his change of stance
by manifesting his willingness to pay such additional docket fee as may be ordered. x x x
Thus, the Court rules as follows:

1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the
payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not
accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee
within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third party claims and similar
pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed
therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable
time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate
pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment
awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for
determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on
the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 9

 the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized
deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee (Sun Insurance
Office Ltd. v. Asuncion).

➢ The rule in this jurisdiction is that when an action is filed in court, the complaint must be
accompanied by the payment of the requisite docket and filing fees. In real actions, the
docket and filing fees are based on the value of the property and the amount of damages
claimed, if any. If the complaint is filed but the fees are not paid at the time of filing, the court
acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the fees within a reasonable time as the court may
grant, barring prescription (Ballatan v. CA).

➢ It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of
the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or
nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time
but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period." (Italics supplied)

Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even
its nonpayment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case,
as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period; more so
when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such
payment.

While the cause of action of private respondent was supposed to prescribe in four (4) years,
he was allowed to pay; and he in fact paid the docket fee in a year’s time. We do not see
how this period can be deemed unreasonable. Moreover, on his part there is no showing of
any pattern or intent to defraud the government of the required docket fee (Sps. Go v.
Tong).

➢ It does not follow, however, that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint for
failure of private respondent to pay the correct amount of docket fees. Although the payment
of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial court may allow the plaintiff
in an action to pay the same within a reasonable time before the expiration of the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period. If the plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, the
defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be considered in
estoppel (NSC v. CA).

➢ Petitioners invoke the liberal interpretation of the rules as enumerated by this Court in the
case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion which is not, however, applicable as in
said case, private respondent amended his complaint several times, stating the amount
claimed and paying each time the required docket fees. While it is true that eventually the
docket fees paid are still insufficient, he nevertheless manifested his willingness to pay such
additional docket fee as may be ordered (.Original Dev’t & Construction Corp. v. CA).

➢ With the foregoing categorical pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is evident that the
exemption of cooperatives from payment of court and sheriff’s fees no longer stands.
Cooperatives can no longer invoke Republic Act No. 6938, as amended by Republic Act No.
9520, as basis for exemption from the payment of legal fees (Re: In the Matter of
Exemption From Payment of All Court and Sheriff’s Fees of Cooperatives Duly
Registered in Accordance with RA NO. 9520, [A.M. No. 12-2-03-0, March 13, 2012]).

➢ Failure to observe the requirements under Section 13(a), Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Court
and to pay the correct docket fees is fatal to the appeal. x x x with the exception of pauper
litigants,26 without the payment of the correct docket or filing fees within the reglementary
period, jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action will not vest in the trial
court. In fact, a pauper litigant may still have to pay the docket fees later, by way of a lien on
the monetary or property judgment that may accrue to him. Clearly, the flexibility or liberality
of the rules sought by the petitioners cannot apply in the instant case (Ricardo Rizal, et al.,
v. Leoncia Naredo, et al.).

8. Filing versus service of pleadings

Filing is the act of submitting the pleading or other paper to the court while service is the act of providing
a party with a copy of the pleading or any other court submission (Sec. 2, Rule 13, as amended).

9. Periods of filing pleadings

Pleadings Periods of Filing

Answer to the complaint Within thirty (30) calendar days after service of summons, unless a
different period. is fixed by the court.
Answer of a defendant foreign Within sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of summons by such
private juridical entity entity.
Answer to amended Within thirty (30) calendar days after being served with a copy thereof.
complaint: as a matter of right

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 10

 Answer to amended Within fifteen (15) calendar days from notice of the order admitting the
complaint: not a matter of same.
right
Answer to counterclaim or Within twenty (20) calendar days from service
cross-claim
Answer to third (fourth, etc.)- Same rule as the answer to the complaint
party complaint
Reply If allowed under Section 10, Rule 6 hereof, may be filed within fifteen
(15) calendar days from service of the pleading responded to.
Answer to supplemental Within twenty (20) calendar days from notice of the order admitting the
complaint same, unless a different period is fixed by the court.

10. Manner of filing

➢ The established rule is that the date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to
be considered as the date of filing thereof in court, and that in such cases, the date of actual receipt by the
court, and not the date of delivery to the private carrier, is deemed the date of filing of that pleading
(Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC).

a. Submitting personally the original thereof, plainly indicated as such, to the court.;

NOTE: The clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing.

b. Filing by registered mail;

c. Filing by accredited courier; or

NOTE: For items (2) and (3), the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, and other court
submissions, and payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the
registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court.

d. Transmittal by electronic mail or other electronic means (Sec. 3, Rule 13, as amended).

NOTE: The date of electronic transmission shall be considered as the date of filing

11. Modes of service of pleadings

1) Personal service;

GENERAL RULE: Personal delivery of a copy to:

i. the party; or
ii. to the party’s counsel; or
iii. to their authorized representative named in the appropriate pleading or motion; or
iv. by leaving it in his or her office with his or her clerk, or with a person having charge thereof.

EXCEPTION: If no person is found in his or her office, or his or her office is not known, or he or she
has no office - by leaving the copy, between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the
evening, at the party's or counsel's residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age and
discretion residing therein (Sec. 6, Rule 13, as amended).

2) Service by registered mail;

i. With registry service

Made by depositing the copy in the post office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to
the party or to the party’s counsel at his or her office, if known, otherwise at his or her
residence, if known, with postage fully pre-paid, and with instructions to the postmaster to
return the mail to the sender after ten (10) calendar days if undelivered.

ii. No registry service available

Service may be done by ordinary mail (Sec. 7, Rule 13, as amended).

iii. Substituted service

If service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be
made (either by personal service or service by mail), the office and place of residence of the
party or his or her counsel being unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy of
the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail. The
service is complete at the time of such delivery. (Sec. 8, Rule 13).

3) Service by accredited courier (Sec. 5, Rule 13).

The Court considered filing by private courier as equivalent to filing by ordinary mail. The Court

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 11

 The Court considered filing by private courier as equivalent to filing by ordinary mail. The Court
opines that this pronouncement equally applies to service of pleadings and motions (PSB v. Papa,
G.R. No. 200469, 15 January 2018).

4) Service by electronic mail, facsimile, or other electronic transmission, or other electronic means

When Applicable

Service by electronic means and facsimile shall be made if the party concerned consents to such
modes of service.

How effected

a. Service by electronic means shall be made by sending an e-mail to the party’s or counsel’s
electronic mail address, or through other electronic means of transmission as the parties
may agree on, or upon direction of the court.
b. Service by facsimile shall be made by sending a facsimile copy to the party’s or counsel’s
given facsimile number (Sec. 9, Rule 13, as amended).

5) Service as provided for in international conventions to which the Philippines is a party (Sec 5, Rule
13).

➢ There is no question that petitioner herein was remiss in complying with the foregoing Rule.
In Cruz v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that with respect to motions, proof of service is a
mandatory requirement. We find no cogent reason why this dictum should not apply and with
more reason to a petition for certiorari, in view of Section 3, Rule 46 which requires that the
petition shall be filed "together with proof of service thereof." We agree with the Court of
Appeals that the lack of proof of service is a fatal defect. The utter disregard of the Rule
cannot be justified by harking to substantial justice and the policy of liberal construction of
the Rules. Technical rules of procedure are not meant to frustrate the ends of justice. Rather,
they serve to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent
the clogging of court dockets.

Indeed, while an affidavit of service is required merely as proof that service has been made
on the other party, it is nonetheless essential to due process and the orderly administration
of justice. (Salvador O. Mojar, et al. v. Agro Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc.).

12. Amendment

a. Amendment as a matter of right

A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading
is served.

In the case of a reply to which there is no responsive pleading, it may be amended as a matter of
right at any time within ten (10) calendar days after it is served (Sec. 2, Rule 10, as amended).

b. Amendment by leave of court

Except as provided in Sec. 2 of Rule 10, as amended, substantial amendments may be made only
upon leave of court.

Amendments with leave of court shall be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made
with intent to:

1. Delay or
2. Confer jurisdiction on the court, or
3. The pleading stated no cause of action from the beginning which could be amended.

Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this Section shall be made upon motion filed in
court, and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard (Sec. 3, Rule 10, as
amended).

c. Formal Amendment

A formal amendment is a defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or
typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the court.

When can be corrected

Formal defects may be summarily corrected at any stage of the action.

How effected

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 12

 At the courts initiative or on motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party
(Sec. 4, Rule 10, as amended).

d. Substantive Amendment - See amendment by leave of court

e. Amendments to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence

When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the
parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. No
amendment of such pleading deemed amended is necessary to cause then to conform to evidence.
(Sec. 5, Rule 10)

f. Supplemental pleadings, distinction between amended and supplemental pleadings

A supplemental pleading is one which sets forth transactions, occurrences or events which have
happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented (Sec. 6, Rule 10, as
amended).

➢ Ma. Mercedes Barba v. Liceo de Cagayan University, G.R. NO. 193857, November 28, 2012

g. Effect of amended pleading

An amended pleading supersedes the original which it amends (Sec. 8, Rule 10, as amended).

When a pleading is amended, the original pleading is deemed to have been abandoned. The
original ceases to perform any further function as a pleading. The case stands for trial on the
amended pleading only (Ascano-Cupino v. Pacific Rehouse Corp., G.R. No. 205113, 26 August
2015).

NOTE: However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be offered in evidence against

the pleader and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended
pleading shall be deemed waived

Admissions made in the original pleadings cease to be judicial admissions and must be formally
offered in evidence before being utilized against the party making the admission (Ching v. CA, G.R.
No. 110844, 27 April 2000) since it is now considered as extrajudicial admissions (Torres v. CA,
G.R. No. L-37420, 31 July 1984).

NOTE: Although the original complaint is deemed superseded by the amending pleading, it
does not ipso facto follow that the service of new summons is required unless the trial court
has not yet acquired jurisdiction over them, anew summons for the amended complaint is
required (Vlason Enterprises Corp. v. CA, G.R. Nos. 121662-64, 6 July 1998).

Remedial Law Review 1 Page 13