Regalado - Civil Procedure Compendium

----------------------- Page 1----------------------REMEDIA L
G E N E R A L
LAW
1. Classification
a. Courts
of
P R I N C I P L E S
o f court s
general
in
th e Philippines :
jurisdiction:
Thos e
competen t
t o decid e thei r own jurisdictio n an d t o tak e cognizanc e o f

all kind s o f cases , unles s otherwis e provide d by th e law
or Rules .
Example : Regiona l Tria l Courts .
Courts
of
special
or
limited
jurisdiction:
Thos
e
which hav e n o powe r t o decid e thei r own jurisdictio n an d
can onl y t r y case s p e r m i t t e d b y s t a t u t e . Examp
le :
Municipa l Tria l Courts .
Th e Juvenil e an d Domesti c Relation s Court s ha d
th e ran k o f Court s o f Firs t Instanc e bu t wer e court s o f
special jurisdiction . Unde r B.P . Big . 129 , the y hav e been
integrate d int o th e Regiona l Tria l Court s a s branche s
thereof .
b . Courts
of
original
in
which ,
u n d e r t h e law ,
y
originally b e commenced .
jurisdiction:
Thos e
action s
proceeding s
o r
court s
ma
Courts
of appellate jurisdiction:
Court s
which
hav
e
th e powe r t o revie w on appea l th e decision s or order s o f
a lower court .
c. Superior courts:
Court s which hav e th e power o f
review o r supervisio n over anothe r an d lower court .
Inferior courts:
Thos e which , in relatio n t o anothe r
court , ar e lower i n ran k an d subject t o review an d super vision b y th e latter .
While , in a generi c sense , a cour t i s considere d an
inferior cour t in relatio n t o th e power s o f anothe r tribuna l
higher in rank , in it s technica l sens e an d unles s otherwis e
intended ,
i t wa s formerl y provide d t h a t th e p h r a s
e
1
----------------------- Page 2----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"inferior court " referre d t o th e the n municipa l o r city
court s
(former Sec.
1, Rule 5, in relatio n to R.A.
20
an d R.A. 3828), now calle d Metropolitan , Municipal , an d
38
Municipa l Circui t Tria l Courts .

Note , also , t h a t u
nde r
Sec. 2 , Rul e 5 , th e ter m "municipa l tria l court " a s use d i n
thes e
revise d
Rule s
include s
al l
o t h e r
court s
o f th e
sam e rank .
I n lega l circles , the y ar e als o calle d "court
s
of th e first level. " In som e official issuances , th e Suprem e
Court refer s t o the m a s "first leve l courts. "
However , th e "inferior courts " whos e decision s ar e
subject t o th e
appellat e jurisdictio n o f t h e
S u p
r e m e
Court
(Sec.
17, R.A. 296)
refer t o al l th e court s lo
wer
t h a n th e Suprem e Court . Th e ter m "lower courts " i s now
use d for tha t purpos e in th e 1987 Constitutio n (Sec. 512],
Art.
VIII), in lieu o f "inferior courts " use d in th e
193 5
an d 197 3 Constitutions .
d .
Courts
of
record:
Thos e
whos e
proceeding s
enrolled an d whic h ar e boun d t o kee p a writte n recor d

of al l trial s an d proceeding s handle d by the m
Luzano
vs. Romero,
et al, L-33245,
Sept.
30,
1971).
Courts not of record:
t o kee p a writte n
g s
hel d therein .
ar e
(se e
Court s whic h ar e no t require d
recor d
o r
t r a n s c r i p t o f proceedin
Prio r t o th e effectivity o f R.A . 603 1 on Augus t 4 ,

1969, inferior court s wer e no t o f record ; bu t i f a municipa l
court o f th e capita l o f a provinc e or a city cour t trie d a
c r i m i n a l c a s e w h e r e i n
t h e i m p o s a b l e p e n a
l t y i s
imprisonmen t o f mor e t h a n 6 month s bu t no t exceedin g
6 year s and/o r a fine o f mor e t h a n P20 0 bu t no t exceedin g
P6.000 , it s proceeding s wer e require d t o b e recorde d a s
it s decision s wer e appealabl e t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s o r
th e Suprem e Cour t (R.A. 296, a s amende d by R.A.
2613
an d
R.A.
3828,
Sec.
87[c],
last paragraph).
Howev
er ,
unde r R.A . 2613 , amendin g Sec . 45 , R.A . 296 , al l inferior
court s ar e now require d t o recor d thei r proceeding s an d
ar e accordingl y court s o f record .
2
----------------------- Page 3----------------------GENERAL PRINCIPLES
e . Constitutional
hei r
courts:
Thos e
whic h
ow e
creation an d existenc e t o
cannot b e legislate d ou t
of th e jurisdictio n an d
them b y th e Constitution .
Sandiganbayan ar e th e only
for in th e Constitution .
e
b e t t e r vie w i s t h a
y a
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y
it s
existence i s provide d for
wa s b y statutor y enactment
th e Constitutio n and , therefore ,

o f existenc e or deprive d by law
power s unqualifiedly veste d in
Th e Suprem e Cour t an d th e
court s specifically provide d
Wit h regar d t o th e latter , th
t t h e S a n d i g a n b a y a n
- m a n d a t e d cour t
i s onl
since , althoug h
in th e Constitution , it s creation
.
Statutory
courts:
Thos e
created ,
organize d
an d
wit h j u r i s d i c t i o n e x c l u s i v e l y d e t e r m i n e d b y
law .
Accordingly ,
al l o t h e r court s i n th e Philippine s ar
e
statutory courts .
2 . Th e Cour t
ha s bee n hel d t o b
with specia l jurisdictio
p e r s o n s a d v e r s
o r
assessment law s
).
o
e
n
e
f Ta x Appeal s create d by R.A . 1125

a par t o f th e judicia l syste m veste d
t o act only on protest s o f privat e
l y affecte d
b y th e tax , custom s
(Ursal
vs.
CTA,
et al.,
101 Phil.
209
On Marc h 30 , 2004 , sai d law wa s amende d by R.A .

9282 expandin g th e jurisdictio n o f th e Cour t o f Ta x
Appeal s (CTA) an d elevatin g it s ran k t o th e leve l o f a
collegiate cour t wit h specia l jurisdiction , o f th e sam e level
as th e Cour t o f Appeals , an d consistin g o f a Presidin g
Justic e an d 5 Associat e Justice s wh o shal l sit en banc or
in 2 division s of 3 justice s each .
Th e court shall , int
er
alia, hav e
exclusiv e
appellat e jurisdictio n t o
revi
e w
decision s o f th e Commissione r o f Interna l Revenu e in
dispute s arisin g from th e ta x law administere d by th e
Bureau o f Interna l Revenue , th e Regiona l Tria l Court s in
local ta x cases , th e Commissioner o f Custom s in matter s
administered by th e Burea u o f Customs , th e Centra l Board
of Assessmen t Appeal s in assessment s o f rea l property ,
th e Secretar y o f Financ e an d th e Secretar y o f Trad e
and Industr y in matter s specified therein .
Th e decisio
n
3
of sai d cour t
en banc may b e reviewe d by th e Suprem e
Court on certiorar i pursuan t t o Rul e 4 5 o f th e Rule s o f
Court
(see Appendix
CC).
3 . Th e distinctio n obtainin g i n othe r jurisdiction s

betwee n court s o f law an d court s o f equity , an d amon g
civil, crimina l an d probat e courts , doe s no t appl y i n th e
Philippine s wherei n al l court s ar e court s bot h o f law an d
equity
(Rustia
vs. Franco,
41 Phil. 280; Roa,
et al.
vs.
CA,
et al., L 27294,
June 28,
1983;
Galman,
et al.
vs.
Sandiganbayan,
et al., G.R.
No.
72670,
Sept.
12,
1986
);
an d Regiona l Tria l Court s and , t o a limite d extent , th e
lower courts , exercis e jurisdiction , accordin g t o th e cas e
involved , a s civil , crimina l or probat e court s or court s o f
land registration .
Befor e B.P . Big . 129 becam e operative ,
t h e r e wer e specia l courts ,
suc h a s th e J u v e n i l e
an d
Domesti c Relation s Courts , th e Circui t Crimina l Court s
an d th e Court s o f Agraria n Relations , whic h wer e court s
exercising only limite d an d specia l jurisdiction .
4 . Unde r ou r presen t statutor y an d jurisprudentia l
taxonomy , jurisdictio n i s classified , base d o n it s nature ,
a s follows :
a . General jurisdiction ,
or
th e
powe r
t o
adjudicat
e
all controversie s excep t thos e expressl y
p l e n a r y power s
o f th e court ;
ed
jurisdiction , whic h restrict s th e court' s
t o particula r case s an d subjec t t o suc
b e provide d by th e governin g law .
withhel d from th e
an d
special
o r limit
jurisdictio n only
h limitation s a s ma y
b . Original jurisdiction , or th e powe r o f th e cour t

tak e judicia l cognizanc e o f a cas e institute d for judicia l
action for th e first tim e unde r condition s provide d by law
an d appellate jurisdiction ,
or th e authorit y
o f
r t
highe r i n ran k t o reexamin e th e fina l orde r o r judgmen
of a lower cour t whic h trie d th e cas e now elevate d
judicia l review .
t o
;
a cou
t
for
c. Exclusive jurisdiction , or th e powe r t o adjudicat e

a cas e or proceedin g t o th e exclusio n o f al l othe r court s
4
at
tha t
stage ;
an d
concurrent
jurisdiction ,
referre d t o a s confluent or coordinate jurisdiction ,

i s th e powe r conferre d upon different courts , whethe r
th e sam e o r different ranks , t o tak e cognizanc e a
same stag e o f th e sam e cas e in th e sam e or
judicia l territories .
sometime s
which
o f
t th e
different
Concurrent origina l jurisdictio n between tria l court s
of different rank s ha s in th e mai n been eliminate d by

B.P . Big . 129 .
Fo r instance , ther e i s n o mor e concurren t
jurisdictio n i n adoptio n o r guardianshi p
proceeding s
betwee n inferior court s an d th e presen t Regiona l Tria l
Court s a s wa s provide d by th e Judiciar y Act with respect
t o th e forme r Court s o f Firs t Instance , which Act als o
provide d for concurrenc e in crimina l case s an d specia l
civil actions . However , a s amon g court s o f th e sam e rank ,
it appear s tha t a phas e o f concurren t origina l jurisdiction
still obtain s in som e instance s as , for example , in civil
and crimina l case s for libel or th e settlemen t o f th e estat e
of a nonresiden t wit h propertie s in differen t judicia l
regions .
Withal , in poin t o f stric t law , thes e situation s
ar e matter s o f venu e excep t in^crimina l case s for libel ,
sinc e
i n c r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r e , v e n u e is , a s a
rule ,
jurisdictional .
Fo r a discussion o f othe r crimina l case s
covere d
b y t h e s a m e
r u l e , se e t h e P r e l i m i
n a r y
Consideration s in Crimina l Procedur e in Volum e Two o f
thi s work . Wher e suc h concurrenc e exists , th e court first
takin g cognizanc e o f th e cas e doe s s o t o th e exclusion o f
th e othe r courts , althoug h th e Suprem e Cour t may order
a transfe r o f venu e or plac e o f tria l t o anothe r court o f
competent jurisdiction .
At an y rate , B.P . Big . 129 provide s for concurren t
origina l jurisdictio n betwee n th e Suprem e Cour t an d
either th e Cour t o f Appeal s or th e Regiona l Tria l Courts ,
or amon g al l thre e court s in certai n cases .
T o illustrat
e ,
th e Suprem e Cour t ha s concurren t origina l jurisdictio n
wit h th e Cour t o f Appeal s in petition s for th e issuanc e o f
writ s o f certiorari , prohibitio n an d mandamu s agains t
5
th
th
th
in
an
e Regiona l Tria l
e Regiona l Tria l
e inferior courts ;
action s affectin g
d consuls .
5. Also ,
Courts ; wit h th e Cour t o f Appeal s an d

Court s over th e sam e petition s agains t
an d wit h th e Regiona l Tria l Court s
ambassadors , othe r publi c minister s
unde r B.P .
Big .
129 ,
delegated jurisdictio
n
i s provide d for , i.e. , th e gran t o f authorit y t o infer
io r
c o u r t s t o h e a r an d
d e t e r m i n e c a d a s t r a l a n d
lan d
registratio n case s unde r certai n condition s (se e Sec. 34,
infra);
an d special jurisdiction ,
whic h
i s th e powe
r o f
inferior court s t o hea r an d decid e petition s for a wri t o f
habeas corpus or application s for bai l in th e absenc e o f
all th e Regiona l Tria l Judge s i n th e provinc e o r city (se e
Sec.
35,
infra).
Thi s
l a t t e r typ e o f jurisdictio n
wa s
formerly included , wit h variations , i n wha t wa s know n
a s th e interlocutor y jurisdictio n o f inferior court s unde r
th e Judiciar y Act .
6 . Mentio n
m u s t
ritorial
jurisdictio n o f a court , whic
a r e a withi n whic h it s
A s
already stated , thi s assume s
wherei n consideration s o f th e
o f th e crim e determin e no
als o
b e
mad e
o f
t h e ter
h refer s t o th e geographica l
power s ca n b e exercised .
importanc e i n crimina l case s
territor y vis-a-vis th e locus
t only th e venu e o f th e
cas e
bu t th e jurisdictio n o f th e court ; and , i n civi l cases , th e

venu e o f rea l o r mixe d actions .
em e
Court an d th e Cour t o f Appeal s
th e Regiona l Tria l Court s hav e
th e inferior court s hav e suc h
ma y b e define d b y th e Suprem e
25 , 2 8 an d 31 , B.P . Big . 129
I n al l cases , th e Supr
hav e nationa l jurisdiction ;
regiona l jurisdiction ; an d
territoria l jurisdictio n a s
Cour t p u r s u a n t t o Sees ,
.
Other classification s o f origina l jurisdictio n ar e base d

on th e subject-matte r o r th e natur e o f th e actio n bein g
trie d b y th e court ,
suc h a s civil , criminal ,
p r
o b a t e ,
admiralty an d maritime , juvenil e an d domesti c relations ,
agrarian , an d lan d registration .
Mos t o f thes e differe
n t
area s o f jurisdictio n ar e exercise d b y th e regula r tria l
6
courts , sinc e th e specia l court s lik e th e circui t crimina l
court s an d th e juvenil e an d domesti c relation s court s hav e
been abolished .
Wit h respec t t o th e latter , domesti c case s
ar e now generall y handle d b y th e newly create d Famil y
C o u r t s , h e r e i n a f t e r d i s c u s s e d . O t h e r s u b j
e c t s o f
controversie s requirin g specia l trainin g an d knowledge ,
such a s taxation , labo r an d securities , ar e handle d b y
quasi-judicia l agencies , subjec t t o th e powe r o f judicia l
review b y th e appellat e courts .
7 . J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d v e n u e a r e
s h e d a s
follows :
d i s t i n g u i
a . J u r i s d i c t i o n i s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o h e a
r a n d
determin e a case ; venu e i s th e plac e wher e th e cas e i s t o
b e hear d o r tried .
b . Jurisdictio n i s a m a t t e r o f substantiv e law ; venue ,
of procedura l law .
c. Jurisdictio n establishe s a relatio n betwee n th e
court an d th e subject-matter ; venue , a relatio n betwee n
plaintif f an d defendant , o r petitione r an d respondent .
d . J u r i s d i c t i o n i s fixe
n o t b e
conferred b y th e parties ; venu e ma y
act or a g r e e m e n t o f th e partie
vs.
Attorney-General,
20
Phil.
b y
la w
a n d
c a n
b e conferre d b y th e
s
(Manila Railroad Co.
523).
In crimina l cases , th e venu e o f th e crim e goe s int o

th e territoria l jurisdictio n o f th e cour t
(Lopez vs.
Paras,
L-25795, Oct. 29,
1966), henc e wher e th e crimina l actio n
i s institute d no t i n th e plac e specifie d b y th e Rule s an d
declare d b y th e substantiv e la w a s withi n th e territoria l
jurisdictio n o f th e tria l court , th e motio n t o quas h shoul d
b e grounde d o n lac k o f jurisdiction , an d no t imprope r
venue .
8 . Th e authorit y t o decid e a cas e an d no t th e decision
rendere d therei n i s w h a t make s u p jurisdiction .
Wher e
ther e i s jurisdiction , th e decisio n o f al l question s arisin g
in th e cas e i s b u t an exercis e o f jurisdictio n
(De l
a Cruz
7
vs.
Moir,
vs.
Ramolete,
a
court ma y
36
Phil.
L-23527,
hav e
213;
Mar.
jurisdictio n
Associated
31,
ove r
Labor
1965).
th e
cas e
Union
Consequently ,
bu t
a t
th e
same tim e act in exces s o f suc h jurisdiction .

9 . Th e e r r o r s whic h a cour t ma y commi t
e
exercise o f jurisdictio n differ from error s o f judgment
Th e
forme r
i s reviewabl e
i n a n origina l
for
c e r t i o r a r i , whil e th e l a t t e r i s correctibl e
p p e a l
(Henderson,
et al. vs.
Tan,
etc.,
et al.,
87
466;
Maritime
Co.
of the Phil.
vs. Paredes,
L-24811,
i n
th
.
actio n
b y
Phil.
Ma
r.
3,
1967;
Bulan
vs.
Masakayan,
L-24428,
June
26,
1968;
Palma vs. Q & S, Inc.,
L-20366, May
19, 1986).
Error s
o f j u r i s d i c t i o n r e n d e r a j u d g m e n t voi d or , a
t l e a s t
voidabl e
(se e Sec. lfa] an d fb], Rule 16; Rule 65),
whil e
error s o f judgmen t ar e ground s for reversa l only i f it i s
shown tha t prejudic e ha s bee n cause d thereb y
(Banco
Espahol-Filipino
vs.
Palanca,
37
Phil.
821;
Bimeda
vs.
Perez, et al.,
93 Phil.
636).
10. Requisite s for th e exercis e o f jurisdictio n
how th e cour t acquire s suc h jurisdiction :
an d
a. Jurisdiction
over
the
plaintiff or petitioner:
Thi s
i s acquire d b y th e filin g o f th e complaint , petitio n o
r
initiatory pleadin g befor e th e cour t b y th e plaintif f o r
petitioner .
b . Jurisdiction
ndent:
T h i s i s a c q u i r e
c e o r
s u b m i s s i o n b y t
t o t h e
cour t o r b y coerciv
r t t o
him , generall y by th
ff vs.
Bubla,
L-17029,
Enage,
L-30666,
Feb.
25,
over
the
d b y
h e
t h e
defendant
respo
v o l u n t a r y a p p e a r a n
d e f e n d a n t o r r e s p o n d e n t
proces s
or
servic e
Sept.
issue d
b y
th e
o f summon s
30,
1964;
cou
(Sharu
Aban
vs.
1983).
c. Jurisdiction
over
the subject-matter:
Thi s
s con ferred b y law and , unlik e jurisdictio n over th e parties ,
cannot b e conferre d on th e cour t by th e voluntar y act or
agreemen t o f th e parties .
8
----------------------- Page 9----------------------GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
d. Jurisdiction
over
the
i s
is
determine d an d conferre d b y th e
case b y th e parties , o r b y thei
order o r stipulation , or , a t times
a s by th e failur e o f a part y t
issue no t covere d b y th e pleadings
issues
r
,
o
,
of
the case:
pleading s filed i n th e
agreemen t i n a pre-tria l
b y thei r implie d consen t
object t o evidenc e on an
a s provide d i n Sec . 5 ,
Th
Rule
ce
Co.,
10
(se e
Inc.,
Lazo,
al. vs.
Jan.
30,
L-27365,
et
Republic
Surety
&
Insuran
1970).
e . Jurisdiction over the

res (or th e propert y or t
hin g
which i s th e subjec t o f th e litigation) :
Thi s i s acqu
ire d
b y th e actua l o r constructiv e seizur e b y th e cour t o f th e
thin g in question , t h u s placin g it in custodia legis, a s
in
a t t a c h m e n t o r g a r n i s h m e n t ; o r b y provisio n
o f la w
which recognize s i n th e cour t th e powe r t o dea l wit h th e
propert y o r subject-matte r withi n it s
territoria l ju
ris diction ,
a s i n lan d r e g i s t r a t i o n proceeding s o r
s u i t s
involving civi l s t a t u s o r rea l propert y i n th e Philippine s
of a
nonresiden t
defendant .
In tw o instances , th
try th e case , eve n i f i t
th e perso n o f a nonresiden
jurisdictio n ove r th e res,
persona l s t a t u s o f th e
il ippine s i n whic h th e
Sec. 15, Rule
b y publicatio n
t o compl y
(Banco
Espanol-Filipino
Midgely
vs. Ferandos,
U n d e r
Sec .
13 3 o
oreig n
corporation doin
license canno t
e cour t acquire s jurisdictio n t o

ha s no t acquire d jurisdictio n ove r
t defendant , a s lon g a s i t ha s
a s whe n th e actio n involve s th e
plaintif f o r propert y i n th e Ph
defendan t
claim s
a n
interes t
(se e
14).
In suc h cases , th e servic e o f summon s
an d notic e t o th e defendan t i s merel y
w i t h d u e
p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s
vs.
et
f t h e
Palanca,
al.,
37
L-34314,
Phil.
May
921;
13,
C o r p o r a t i o n Code ,
De
1975).
w h i l e a
g busines s i n th e Philippine s withou t a

su e o r interven e i n an y actio n here , i t ma y
b e sue d
o r p r o c e e d e d a g a i n s t befor e
r t s o r
administrativ e tribunals .
o u r
c o u
11. A s a genera l proposition , th e jurisdictio n o f th e

court i s determine d b y th e s t a t u t e i n forc e a t th e tim
e o f
th e commencemen t
o f th e actio n
(People
vs. Pa
derna,
9
L-28518,
Jan.
29,
1968;
People
vs.
Mariano,
et
al.,
L-40527,
etc.,
June
et al,
30,
G.R.
1976;
No.
Lee,
68789,
et al.
Nov.
10,
vs.
Presiding
1986),
Judge,
unles s
suc
h
statut e provide s for it s retroactiv e application , a s wher e
it i s a curativ e
legislatio n
(Atlas
Fertilizer
Corp.
vs.
Navarro,
etc., et al., G.R. No.
72074, April 30,
1987).
12. Th e settle d rul e i s tha t th e jurisdictio n o f t
h e
court over th e subject-matte r i s determine d b y th e alle gation s
of th e complain t
(Edward
J. Nell
&
Co.
vs.
Cubacub,
L-20843,
June
23,
1965;
Time,
Inc.
vs. Rey
es,
et al., L-28882,
May
31,
1971;
Ganadin
vs. Ramos,
et
al., L-23547, Sept.
11, 1980), bu t thi s rul e i s no t withou
t
exceptions .
Thus , i t wa s hel d t h a t whil e th e allegation s
in th e complain t mak e ou t a cas e for forcibl e entry , wher e
tenanc y i s averre d by wa y o f defens e an d i s prove d t o b e
th e rea l issue , th e cas e shoul d b e dismisse d for lack o f
jurisdictio n a s th e cas e shoul d properl y b e filed wit h th e
the n Cour t o f Agraria n
Relation s
(Ignacio
vs. CFI
of
Bulacan,
L-27897,
Oct.
29,
1971).
However ,
wit h
th e
integration o f th e court s o f agraria n relation s a s branche s
o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court s unde r B.P . Big .
129 ,
th e
cas e wa s require d t o b e file d wit h th e correspondin g
Regiona l Tria l Cour t i f i t wa s withi n th e jurisdictio n
thereof , for assignmen t t o th e appropriat e branch .
Al
so ,
although th e allegation s i n th e complain t mak e ou t a cas e
cognizable by a Regiona l Tria l Court , where , however ,
th e act s complaine d o f ar e show n a t th e t r i a l t o
b e
interwoven wit h a n unfai r labo r practic e case , th e actio n
should b e dismisse d sinc e jurisdictio n i s veste d in th e
Nationa l Labo r Relation s Commission .
Thi s i s s o si
nc e
th e Rule s now permi t a motio n t o dismis s base d upo n
facts not allege d in th e complain t (Mindanao Rapid Co.,
Inc.
vs. Omandam, et al., L-23058, Nov.
27,
1971, joint
l y
decidin g
t h e r e i n L-23473,
23871,
24232,
24718
an d
24956).
P978 ,
13. Wher e
bu t th e
th e complain t i s for actua l damage s o f

othe r claim s for damage s an d attorney' s
10
----------------------- Page 11-----------------------
GENERAL
PRINCIPLES
fees brin g th e tota l relie f sough t t o
mor e
t h a n P 10,00 0
(which wa s the n th e jurisdictiona l limi t for civi l case s i n

th e inferior courts) , th e totalit y o f sai d claim s put s th e
case
withi n
th e jurisdictio n
o f th e
the n
Cour t
o f Firs t
Instanc e
an d t h e t r i a l cour t e r r e d i n dismissin g
th e
complaint upo n it s mer e impressio n t h a t th e othe r claim s
wer e "bloated " for th e purpos e o f invokin g it s jurisdiction ,
w i t h o u t h e a r i n g a n d
proo f o f s u c h
fac t
(Ener
io
vs.
Alampay,
L-40010,
May
26,
1975;
Ratila
vs.
T
apucar,
L-45018, Jan. 24, 1977).
Thi s doctrin e i s stil l applicab
l e
subject t o
th e increase d jurisdictiona l
a m o u n t
u n d e r
B.P . Big . 129 an d subsequen t legislation .
14. Th e jurisdictio n o f a court , w h e t h e r in crimina l
or civi l cases ,
onc e
i t a t t a c h e s c a n n o t b e
ouste d b y
subsequent happening s o r event s althoug h o f a charac te r w h i c h w o u l d
h a v e p r e v e n t e d j u r i s d i c t i
o n fro m
attachin g in th e firs t instanc e (Ramos, e t al.
vs.
Central
Bank,
L-29352,
Oct.
4,
1971,
an d
case s
t h e r e i
n cited ;
Dioquino
vs. Cruz,
et al., L-38579,
Sept.
9,
1982)
an d
it
retain s jurisdictio n unti l i t finally dispose s o f th e cas e
(Republic
uly
21,
1986).
vs.
Pielago,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
72218,
15. Th e constitutionalit y o f a s t a t u t e mus t b e ques tione d

a t th e earlies t
ina l
case s wher e th e questio n ma
in civi l cases , i f th e
tio n i s
necessar y for th e decisio n o
th e first tim e o n appeal .
opportunity ,
excep t
i n
crim
y b e raise d a t an y stag e and ,

d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f th e ques
f th e case , eve n i f raise d for
A constitutiona l questio n wil l
also b e considere d b y th e appellat e cour t a t an y tim e i f i t

involve s th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t a quo.
sam e
rul e applie s to ordinance s
(San Miguel Brewery,
vs.
Magno,
L 21879,
Sept.
9, 1967).
Th e
Inc.
16. Basi c i n
t
th e jurisdictio n o f
action i s conferre d
and t h a t th e Rule
th e law o n procedur e i s th e doctrin e tha

a cour t ove r th e subject-matte r o f an
only b y th e Constitutio n o r th e law
s o f Cour t yiel d t o substantiv e law , i n
11

thi s case , th e Judiciar y Act an d B.P .
a m e n d e d , an d o f whic h jurisdictio
p a r t .
Jurisdictio n canno t b e fixed by th e
parties ; i t canno t b e acquire d through
large d o r diminishe d by , an y ac t
Big .
129 , bot h a s
i s onl y a
agreemen t o f th e
o r waived , en o r omissio n o f th e
parties ; neithe r ca n i t b e conferre d by th e acquiescenc e

of th e cour t
(De Jesus, et al. vs. Garcia, et al., L-26816
,
Feb.
28,
1967;
Calimlim,
et al.
vs.
Ramirez,
e
t
al.,
L-34363,
Nov.
19,
1982).
Jurisdictio n
mus t exis t
a s a
m a t t e r of law
(People
vs.
Casiano,
L-15309,
Feb.
16,
1961).
Consequently , question s o f jurisdictio n may b e
raise d for th e firs t tim e on appea l eve n i f suc h issu
e
wa s
no t
r a i s e d i n th e
lowe r
cour t
(Government
vs.
American
Surety
Co.,
11
Phil.
203;
Vda.
de
Roxas
vs.
Rafferty,
37 Phil.
957; People
vs. Que
Po
Lay,
94
Phil.
640).
A cour t ca n motu proprio dismis s a cas e whic h i s
outsid e it s jurisdictio n (Sec. 1, Rule 9).
17. Nevertheless , i n som e cases , th e principl e o f
estoppe l by lache s ha s bee n availe d o f by ou r appellat e
court s t o ba r attack s o n jurisdictio n an d thi s principl e
ha s bee n applie d t o bot h civi l an d crimina l cases , thus :
a.
In th e earl y cas e of Santiago, et al.
vs.
Valenzuela
(78 Phil . 397) , it wa s hel d tha t i f a motio n t o dismis s th e

appeal , o n th e groun d tha t sai d appea l wa s perfecte d ou t
of time , i s filed for th e first tim e wit h th e appellat e cour t
after th e appellan t ha d pai d th e docke
of printin g th e recor d on appeal , an d
appellant' s brief ,
th e appellat e
e
motion a s th e appelle e may b e considere
hi s failur e t o object on time .
t fee an d th e cost
afte r th e filin g o f
cour t shoul d den y th
d i n estoppe l b y
T h i s d o c t r i n e w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y a b a n d o n
e d i n
Miranda
vs. Guanzon (92 Phil .
168) sinc e th e "requi
re men t regardin g th e perfectio n o f a n appea l withi n th e
reglementar y perio d i s no t only mandator y bu t juris dictional, " a rulin g subsequentl y reiterate d in Garganta
vs. CA
(10 5 Phil . 412) ,
Valdez vs.
Ocumen
(10 6
Phil .
12
----------------------- Page 13----------------------GENERAL
929),
Galima vs.
CA
ntique
Sawmills, Inc. vs. Zayco
Roque
vs. Vdo. de Del Rosario
an d
Arellano, et al. vs.
CA,
1972) .
PRINCIPLES
(L-21046 ,
J a n .
(L-20051 ,
Ma y
(L-24873 ,
et al.
31 ,
1966) ,
30 ,
Sept .
(L-31856 ,
1966) ,
23 ,
Nov .
1966)
24 ,
b .
In th e late r case , however , o f Tijam
vs.
Sibonghanoy, e t al. (L-21450 , Apri l 15 ,
1968) , th e co-defendan
t
surety compan y neve r raise d th e issu e o f jurisdictio n i n
th e Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e despit e severa l opportunitie s
t o d o s o and , althoug h th e clai m bein g for only 1*1,908,
th e cas e wa s withi n th e exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n
o f th e municipa l court .
I t wa s only afte r th e cou
r t o f
Appeal s ha d affirme d th e decisio n o f th e tria l cour t i
n
favor
o f t h e plaintif f b u t
befor e
t h e finalit y
o f t h i s
decision o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s t h a t th e co-defendan t
surety compan y filed it s motio n t o dismis s o n th e groun d
of lack o f origina l jurisdictio n o f th e tria l court .
De
nyin g
said motion , t h e S u p r e m e Cour t s t a t e d : "Wer e w e
t o
sanction suc h conduc t o n it s part , w e woul d i n effect b e
declaring a s useles s al l th e proceeding s ha d i n th e presen t
case sinc e i t wa s commence d o n Jul y 19 , 194 8 an d compe l
th e j ud gm e n t creditor s t o g o u p thei r Calvar y onc e more .
The inequit y
n t
bu t revolting.
y
submittin g a
on th e merits
e
jurisdictio n o
for
an d
"
unfairnes s
o f thi s
i s
no t
only
p a t e
I t furthe r state d t h a t "afte r voluntaril
caus e an d encounterin g a n advers e decisio n

, i t i s to o lat e for th e lose r t o questio n th
r powe r o f th e
cour t . . .
i t i s
no t righ t
a part y wh o ha s affirme d an d invoke d th e jurisdictio n

of a cour t in a particula r m a t t e r t o secur e an affirmativ e
relief , t o a f t e r w a r d s den y
t h a t s a m e j u r i s d i
c t i o n t o
escape a penalty, " citin g Pindangan, etc.
vs. Dans,
et al.
(L-14591 ,
Sept .
26 ,
1962) ,
Young
Men's
Labor
Union,
etc. vs. CIR, et al.
(L-20307 , Feb . 26 ,
1965) an d
Mejia
vs. Lucas
(10 0 Phil . 277) .
Se e als o Capilitan vs.
De la
Cruz,
(L-29536-37 , Feb .
28 , 1974) ,
Summit
Guarant
y
vs.
CA, et al.
(G.R . No . 51139 , Dec . 14 , 1981) , Tajonera, et
al. vs. Lumaroza,
.
19 ,
1981),
Nieva
811 ,
et
vs.
al.
(L-4890 7
Manila
&
Banking
L-49035 ,
Dec
Corp.
(L-30
13
Sept . 2,
1983) , Florendo, et al.
(G.R .
No .
60544 ,
Ma y
19 ,
1984) ,
atcho
(L-30310, Oct . 23 , 1984) .
vs.
an d
Coloma,
Medijia
et
al.
vs.
c. In Rodriguez vs. CA (L-29264 , Aug . 29 , 1969) , th e

action involve d propert y wort h mor e tha n P200.000 , a t
tha t tim e withi n th e exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e
Supreme Court . Despit e severa l opportunitie s t o rais e tha t
issue i n th e Cour t o f Appeal s wher e th e appea l wa s taken ,
defendant di d not challeng e th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f
th e cour t an d di d s o only afte r decision wa s rendere d
therei n agains t him .
H e raise d th e issu e o f jurisdiction
,
for th e nullification o f th e decision o f th e Cour t o f Appeals ,
whe n th e cas e wa s o n appea l i n th e Suprem e Court .
Th e
Suprem e Cour t denie d hi s ple a unde r th e doctrin e o f
estoppel by laches .
d . Th e
sam e
rulin g wa s applie d
in Crisostomo
vs.
CA, et al. (L-27166 , Mar . 25 ,
1970) an d Libudan vs. G
il
(L-21163 , Ma y
17 , 1972) u n d e r th e justificatio n t h
a t
"the principl e o f estoppe l i s in th e interes t o f a soun d
administration o f th e laws, " citin g th e Tijam case .
Th e
Supreme Cour t pointe d ou t tha t th e doctrin e o f lache s i s
"based upo n ground s o f publi c policy whic h requires , for
th e peac e o f society , th e discouragemen t o f stal e claims "
an d "i s principall y a questio n o f th e

nes s o f p e r m i t t i n g a righ t or
e d or
asserted. "
inequit y or unfair clai m t o b e enforc
e. In Sarmiento vs. Salud

(L-25211 , Aug .
18 ,
1972) ,
th e Suprem e Court , i n resolvin g th e motio n for recon sideration filed therein , hel d tha t whil e i t i s tru e tha
t
a recor d o n appea l mus t sho w o n it s fac e t h a t i t
wa s
perfecte d on tim e an d suc h requiremen t i s jurisdictiona l
in nature , nevertheles s i f th e recor d on appea l doe s not
comply wit h thi s requiremen t bu t th e motion t o dismis s
th e appea l i s filed mor e tha n 6 month s afte r th e appelle e
filed hi s brief , th e motion shoul d b e denied .
Th e
sam e
rulin g wa s applie d in Dequito
Lopez
(L-27757, Mar . 28 , 1968) involvin g virtuall y th e sam e se t
vs.
14
o f facts . Thes e ruling s woul d stil l appl y i n case s wherei n
a recor d o n appea l i s required , a s wher e multipl e appeal s
ar e allowe d o r i n specia l proceedings .
f.
In Vera vs. People (L-31218 , Feb .
18 , 1970
) , it
wa s hel d t h a t whil e a j u d g m e n t i s nul l an d voi d wher e
i t
wa s promulgate d whe n th e presidin g judg e ha d alread y
ceased t o hol d office , sinc e th e accuse d faile d t o rais e t h
a t
issu e i n th e tria l cour t an d only di d s o afte r th e Cour t
o f
Appeal s ha d r e n d e r e d a j u d g m e n t advers e t o him ,
i t
woul d b e a n injustic e i f al l th e proceeding s ha d i n th
e
case woul d b e se t asid e since , afte r all , th e cour t
t h a t
rendere d sentenc e w a s on e
o f competen t jurisdiction .
The
cas e
of Carillo
vs. Allied
Workers' Association
of the
Philippines (L-23689 , Jul y 31 , 1968) wa s cite d i n suppor t
of thi s ruling .
g . In People vs.
Casuga
(L-37642 , Oct . 22 ,
1973) ,
th e accuse d
w a s c o n v i c t e d o f g r a v e s l a n d e r
, w h i c h
offense
wa s
withi n th e
c o n c u r r e n t jurisdictio n o f
th e
the n Court s o f Firs t Instanc e an d th e municipa l court s
of capital s o f province s or th e Cit y Courts . Instea d o f

appealin g t o th e t h e n Cour t o f Appeal s o r th e Suprem e
Court , a s woul d hav e bee n proper , h e appeale d t o th e
Court o f Firs t Instanc e whic h affirme d sai d conviction .
On hi s subsequen t challeng e t o th e appellat e jurisdictio n
exercised b y th e Cour t o f Firs t Instance , th e Suprem e
Court hel d t h a t th e accused ,
havin g t a k e n hi s ap
pea l
t o th e Cour t o f Firs t Instance , i s i n estoppe l t o challeng e
th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e sai d court .
h . I n People
vs.
Tamani
( L - 2 2 1 6 0 - 6 1 , J a n
. 2 1 ,
1974), althoug h th e appea l o f th e accuse d wa s demon strably filed ou t o f time , th e Suprem e Cour t nevertheles s
reviewe d th e cas e an d rendere d a judgmen t o n th e merit s
thereof , whil e declarin g i n th e sam e decision th e dismissa l
of th e appeal , in view o f th e fact t h a t th e filin g o f
th e
appea l ou t o f tim e wa s du e t o th e faul t o f th e def
ens e
counsel an d th e furthe r consideratio n t h a t th e brief s for
th e partie s ha d alread y bee n filed .
16
i .
Th e
doctrin e
lai d dow n in
Tijam
vs.
Sibonghanoy,
supra,
ha s bee n reiterate d in man y
succeed
in g
case s an d i s stil l good cas e law .
Th e rul e up t o now
i s
tha t a party' s activ e participatio n in al l stage s o f a cas e
befor e th e tria l court , whic h include s invokin g th e court' s
authority t o gran t affirmativ e
relief , effectively est
op s
such part y from late r challengin g th e jurisdictio n o f
th e
sai d
cour t
(Gonzaga,
et al.
vs.
CA,
et al.
,
G.R.
No.
144025,
Dec.
27,
2002).
j .
See ,
of the Philippines
apparently present s
Court on th e issu
from assailin g th
moreover , th e summar y in Figueroa vs. People

(G.R . No . 147406 , Jul y 14, 2008) whic h
th e prevailin g position o f th e Suprem e
e o f whe n a litigan t i s estoppe d by lache s
e jurisdictio n o f a court , in ligh t o f it s
other an d subsequen t holding s o n th e matter .

18.
even i f
actio n
u n t a r i
submitte d
Thus ,
Jurisdictio n ove r a perso n

h e wa s neve r impleade d
a s a d e f e n d a n t i f
l y
himsel f t o th e jurisdictio n
ma y als o b e acquire d
no r summone d i n th e
h e t h e r e a f t e r v o l
o f th e court .
wher e th e spouse s voluntaril y signe d th e

a g r e e m e n t t o g u a r a n t e e th e p a
origina l
impleade d defendants , an d t h a t compromis e
w a s
a p p r o v e d an d
m a d e
t h e b a
u d g m e n t
rendere d b y th e court , sai d spouse s ar
compromis e
y m e n t b y
agreemen t
s i s o f
t h e
b y
t h e
boun d
j
th e
judgmen t a s the y ar e i n estoppe l t o den y th e ver y autho rit y whic h the y invoked . B y voluntaril y enterin g int o
th e compromis e
agreement ,
the y effectively submitte
d
themselve s
t o th e jurisdictio n
o f th e cour t
(Ro
driguez,
et al.
vs. Alikpala,
et al., L 38314,
June
25,
1974
).
19. Sinc e
a C o u r t o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e (now
,
t h e
Regiona l Tria l
Court )
i s a cour t o f g e n e r a l o
rigina l
jurisdiction ,
w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r m a t t e r sh
oul d b e
resolve d by i t in th e exercis e o f it s genera l jurisdiction ,
or i n it s l i m i t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n a s a p r o b a t e
o r l a n d
registratio n court , i s no t a jurisdictiona l questio n bu t
a p r o c e d u r a l q u e s t i o n involvin g a
mod e
o f p
r a c t i c e
16
which ,
therefore ,
ma y b e
waive d
(Manalo
vs. Mari
ano,
et
al., L-33850,
Jan.
22,
1976;
Santos
vs.
Ban
ayo,
L-31854,
Sept.
9,
1982).
P a r e n t h e t i c a l l y , Sec .
2 of
P.D . 152 9 ha s eliminate d th e distinctio n betwee n th e
genera l jurisdictio n o f a Regiona l Tria l Cour t an d th e
limited jurisdictio n conferre d upo n i t b y th e forme r law
whe n actin g a s a c a d a s t r a l cour t (Ligon vs. CA,
e
t al.,
G.R.
No.
107751,
June
1, 1995).
However ,
th e hold
in g
tha t suc h situation s p r e s e n t only procedural ,
an d
no t
jurisdictional , question s stil l applies .
20 . Question s involvin g ownershi p o f o r titl
propert y shoul d b e litigate d i n a n ordinar y
or i n th e proceedin g wher e th e inciden t properl y
befor e a cour t o f genera l jurisdictio n an d no
lan d
r e g i s t r a t i o n cour t (Santos
vs.
949,
Nov.
28,
1980).
e t o rea l
civi l actio n
belongs ,
t befor e a
Aquino,
L-32
2 1 . S t a t u t e s regulatin g th e procedur e o f th e court s

will b e construe d a s applicabl e t o
undetermine d a t th e tim e o f thei r
action s pendin g an d
passage , bu t no t t o
action s whic h hav e alread y becom e fina l an d executor y

(Borre,
et al. vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No.
57204,
14,
1988).
Procedura l law s ar e retrospectiv e i n t h a t
Mar.
sens e
and
to t h a t exten t
(People
vs. Sumilang,
7 7 Phil.
764;
Liam
Law
vs.
Olympic
Sawmill
Co.,
et al.,
L-30
771,
May
26,
1984;
Yakult
Philippines,
et al. vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
No. 91856,
Oct.
5, 1990).
Thus , th e provisio n
of
B.P . Big . 129 whic h eliminate d th e nee d for a recor d on
appeal wa s given retroactiv e effect t o authoriz e th e givin g
o f du e cours e
t o a n a p p e a l , whic h shoul d hav e b
ee n
perfecte d i n 1982 wit h th e require d recor d o n appeal , b y
relievin g th e
appellan t o f th e nee d therefo r i n lin e wit h
th e chang e o f procedur e unde r B.P . Big . 12 9
(Alday
vs.
Camilon,
G.R.
No.
60316,
Jan.
31,
1983; Ouano
vs.
CA,
et al., L-44823,
June
27,
1985;
De
Guzman,
et al.
vs.
CA,
et al, G.R.
No.
52733,
July
23,
1985; Lagunzad
vs.
CA, et al, G.R. No.
52007,
Sept.
24, 1987; Mun.
Gov'
t of
17
Coron
vs.
Sarmiento
Carino,
vs.
et al.,
Gatmaitan,
G.R.
No.
65896,
et al., L-38173,
Sept.
24,
1987;
Nov.
12,
1987)
.
However ,
new cour
only wit h referenc e t o
plac e afte r th e dat e
t
apply t o th e exten t tha t
t rule s appl y t o pendin g case s

proceeding s therei n whic h tak e
o f thei r effectivity . The y d o no
i n th e opinion o f th e cour t thei r
application woul d not b e feasibl e or woul d wor k injustice ,

in whic h even t th e former procedur e shal l apply .
Thus
,
wher e th e applicatio n o f th e Rul e o n Summar y Procedur e
wil l mea n th e dismissa l o f th e appea l o f th e party , th e
sam e shoul d no t appl y since , afte r all , th e procedur e
the y
o f
Court
,
Mar.
availe d
o f wa s
(Laguio,
21,
22 .
als o
et al.
vs.
allowe d
Garnet,
u n d e r
et al.,
t h e
G.R.
Rule s
No.
74903
1980).
Substantiv e
law
i s
tha t par t o f th e
law
whic h
create s right s concernin g life , libert y o r property , o r th e

power s o f instrumentalitie s for th e administratio n o f
publi c
affair s
(Primicias
vs. Ocampo,
8 1
Phil.
650
).
Procedura l law refer s t o th e adjectiv e law s which prescrib e
rule s an d form s o f procedur e i n orde r t h a t court s ma y b e
able to administe r justic e
Substantiv e law creates ,
a s oppose d t o "adjectiv e
th e metho d o f enforcin g
for t h e i r invasio n
.,
p . 1429; citation s omitted)
(Lopez vs. Gloria, 4 0 Phil. 33).

define s an d regulate s rights ,
or remedia l law " whic h prescribe s
th e right s o r obtainin g redres s
(Black's
Law
Dictionary,
6th
Ed
Procedur e i s th e mod e o f proceedin g by whic h a lega l

righ t i s enforced , a s distinguishe d from th e law whic h
give s o r define s th e right , an d which , b y mean s o f th e
proceeding , th e cour t i s t o
monly oppose d t o th e su m o f
th e substanc e o f th e law , an
w h e t h e r o f practic e o r
ar e
effectuate d t h r o u g h th e
prope r
remedie s
(op.
administer . Thi s ter m i s com lega l principle s constitutin g

d denote s th e body o f rules ,
pleading ,
whereb y
r i g h t s
successfu l
cit.,
applicatio n
pp. 1367-1368;
o f th e
id.).

In d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a rul e prescribe d b
y t h e
S u p r e m e
C o u r t a b r i d g e s , e n l a r g e s o r modifie s
a n y
substantiv e right , t h e t e s t i s w h e t h e r th e rul e
reall y
r e gu l at e s p r o c e d u r e , t h a t is , th e judicial
proce
ss
for
enforcing
rights
and
duties
recognized
by
the
sub
stantive
law an d for justl y administerin g remed y an d redres s for
a disregar d o r infractio n o f them .
I f th e rul e take s
awa y
a veste d right , i t i s no t procedural .
I f th e rul e cre
ate s a
right , suc h a s th e righ t t o appeal , i t ma y b e classifie d
a s
a substantiv e
m a t t e r ; bu t if it operates
as a me
ans
of
implementing
an
existing
right,
then
the
rule
deals
merely
with
procedure
(Fabian
vs.
Desierto,
etc.,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
129742,
Sept.
16,
1998).
It is ,
o f th e
law
w h i c h
n t i v e o r
procedural , an d
n
in a code .
therefore ,
th e
n a t u r e
d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r
an d
i t
th e
purpos e
i s s u b s t a
no t it s plac e i n th e statut e o r it s inclusio

Thus , for instance , Arts . 53 9 an d
1674 o f th e
Civil Cod e an d Sec . 85 , R.A . 29 6 provide d injunctiv e rule s

in ejectmen t case s i n th e tria l an d appellat e stages , bu t
thes e hav e bee n properl y incorporate d wit h modification s
as Sees . 8 an d 9 , respectively , o f Rul e 7 0 o f th e
1964
Rule s o f Cour t (now , Sec . 1 5 o f revise d Rul e 70) .
Thes e
subsequent amendator y provision s o n injunction s wer e
prope r sinc e th e mer e fact t h a t thos e provision s o n in junction s wer e formerl y include d i n a substantiv e s t a t u t e
or cod e doe s no t conver t t h e m int o o r detrac t from th e
fact t h a t the y ar e procedura l laws , contrar y t o commo n
misimpression .
I n fact , t h e r e ar e man y suc h procedur
a l
rule s foun d i n th e Civi l Cod e or , for t h a t matter , i n ot
he r
code s
o r basicall y s u b s t a n t i v e
law s b u t the y
d o no t
thereb y los e thei r characte r a s procedura l laws .
in
Thi s m a t t e r i s bein g clarifie d an d emphasize d her e

view o f th e Constitutiona l provisio n t h a t th e rule s
whic h th e Suprem e Cour t i s authorize d t o promulgat e

shall no t diminish , increas e o r modify substantiv e right s
(Sec. 5 [5], Art.
VIII,
1987 Constitution).
Th e improb
abl e
positio n t h a t a clearl y procedura l provisio n become s a
19
substantiv e law by th e mer e fact t h a t it i s include d in a
compilation ,
codificatio n o r s t a t u t o r y e n a c t m e n
t o f
s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s , a l t h o u g h onl y t o i n d i c a
t e t h e
r e m e d i a l c o m p l e m e n t for
t h e e n f o r c e m e n t the
reof ,
woul d effectively subver t th e Constitutiona l inten t an d
d i m i n i s h t h e scop e
an d
e x t e n t o f t h e r u l e -
m a k i n g
powe r o f th e Suprem e Court .
20
----------------------- Page 21----------------------I .
A .
CIVI L
P R O C E D U R E
P R E L I M I N A R Y
C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
1.
Th e stud y o f civi l procedur e include s ordinar y
civi l a c t i o n s , s p e c i a l civi l
a c t i o n s a n d p r o
v i s i o n a l
remedies .
Specia l civi l action s ar e governe d b y specifi c
an d
i n d i v i d u a l r u l e s s u p p l e m e n t e d
b y t h e
g e n e r a l
provision s o n civi l actions .
2 . Definitio n o f t e r m s :
a . Cause of action:
Th e
delic t or wrongfu l a
c t or
omission c o m m i t t e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t i n violatio
n o f
th e primar y right s o f th e plaintif f
(Racoma
vs
. Fortich,
et al,
L-29380,
June
10,
1971).
b . Right of action:
Th e remedia l righ t or
t o
relie f grante d b y la w t o a p a r t y t o institut e
actio n
against a perso n wh o ha s committe d a delic t o r wron g
against him .
Th e
il e
th e
caus e
o f actio n
i s
t h e
delic t
righ t o f actio n i s th e righ t t o su e
o f t h a t delict .
o r
righ t
a n
wrong ,
wh
a s a consequenc e
Th e questio n a s t o whethe r th e plaintif f
ha s a caus e o f actio n i s determine d b y th e av er m e n

t s
i n th e p l e a d i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e act s committe d
b y th e
defendant ; w h e t h e r suc h act s giv e hi m a righ t o f actio n
i s determine d b y th e substantiv e law .
Ther e ca n
b e n o
righ t o f actio n w i t h o u t a
caus e
o f actio n
bei
n g firs t
establishe d
(se e
Espanol
vs.
The
Chairman,
et
c.
of
the
PVA,
L-44616,
June
29,
1985).
A righ t o f actio n i s th e righ t t o presentl y enforc e a
caus e
o f actio n a
es s
for th e infringemen t o f a
r e m e d i a l
lega l
righ t
affordin g
righ t belongin g t o som e
redr
definite person ; a caus e o f actio n consist s o f th e operativ e

facts whic h giv e ris e t o suc h righ t o f action .
T
h e righ t
o f actio n doe s no t aris e
u n t i l th e performanc e o
f al l
condition s preceden t t o th e action , an d ma y b e t a k e n
awa y
b y
t h e r u n n i n g
i t a t i o n s ,
o f t h e
s t a t u t e o f l i m
2 1
throug h a n estoppel , o r b
no t affect th e caus e o f
a l
right s o f actio n an d on e
accrue at different time s from
Sec. 2, p.
541).
y othe r circumstance s whic h d o

action .
Ther e ma y b e
sever
caus e o f action , an d right s may

th e sam e caus e ( 1 Am JUT 2d,
c.
Relief:
Th e redress , protection , awar d or coerciv e
measur e whic h th e plaintif f pray s th e cour t t o rende r i n
hi s favor a s a consequenc e o f th e delict committe d by th e
defendant .
d . Remedy:
Th e procedur e or typ e o f actio n whic h
may b e availe d o f by th e plaintif f a s th e mean s t o obtai n
th e relie f desired .
e .
con trac t o r
concernin g
respec t t
et
al.
Subject-matter:
Th e
thing ,
wrongfu l
act ,
propert y whic h i s directl y involve d i n th e action ,

whic h th e wron g ha s bee n don e an d wit h
o whic h th e
controvers y ha s arise n (Yusingco,
vs.
Ong
Ring
Lian,
L-26523,
Dec.
24,
1971).
Thus , in a cas e for breac h o f contract , th e contrac t

violate d i s th e subject-matter ; th e breac h b y th e obligor
i s th e caus e o f action ; th e righ t o f action i s th e consequen
t
substantiv e righ t o n th e par t jof th e oblige e t o su e f
or
redress ; th e relie f i s th e damage s o r rescissio n o r th e ac t
which th e plaintif f ask s th e cour t t o order ; an d th e remed y
i s th e typ e o f actio n whic h ma y b e availe d o f b y
th e
plaintiff ,
whic h ma y b e a n actio n eithe r for damages ,
for rescissio n or for specifi c performance .
Th e subject-matte r o f a given cas e i s determine d no t
b y th e n a t u r e o f th e actio n t h a t a part y i s enti
tle d t o
brin g bu t b y th e natur e an d characte r o f th e pleading s
an d issue s submitte d by th e partie s
(Viray vs. CA, e
t al.,
G.R.
No.
3 .
92481,
Nov.
9,
1990).
Classificatio n o f actions :
a . Real action:
On e brough t for th e protectio n o
f
rea l rights , land , t e n e m e n t s o r h e r e d i t a m e n t s
o r on e
founded on privit y o f estat e only
(Paper Industries Co
rp.
22
----------------------- Page 23----------------------PRELIMINARY
of the Phil.
975).
Example:
vs.
Accion
Samson,
CONSIDERATIONS
et al.,
L-80175,
Nov.
28,
reivindicatoria.
Personal action:
On e whic h i s no t founde d upo n th e
privit y o f rea l right s or rea l property .
Example: Action
for a su m o f money .
Mixed action:
On e brough t for protectio n or recover y
o f rea l p r o p e r t y a n d als o for a n a w a r d for d a m
a g e s
sustained .
Example: Accion publiciana wit h
a clai m
for
damages .
Fo r purpose s o f venue , a mixe d actio n
b y th e rule s o f venu e i n rea l actions .
i s governe d
b . Action in rem:
On e whic h i s no t directe d on
ly
against particula r person s bu t agains t th e thin g itsel f
and th e object o f whic h i s t o b a r indifferentl y al l w
h o
migh t b e minde d t o m a k e an y objectio n agains t th e righ t
sought t o b e enforced , henc e t h e j u d g m e n t t h e r e i
n i s
bindin g theoreticall y upo n th e whol e world .
Examp
le:
Expropriation .
Action in personam:
On
t
particula r person s o n th e basi s
t o establis h
a clai m a g a i
g m e n t
wherei n i s bindin g only upo n th
thei r successor s in interest .
of contract .
whic h
i s
directe d
agains
o f thei r persona l liabilit y

n s t t h e m an d t h e j u d
e partie s impleade d o r
Example: Actio n for breac h
Action quasi in rem:

On e directe d agains t particula r
person s bu t th e purpos e o f whic h i s t o ba r an d bin d no t
only sai d person s bu t an y othe r perso n wh o claim s an y

i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y o r r i g h t subjec t o
f t h e suit .
Example:
Judicia l
foreclosur e
o f a mortgag e
(Ocam
po
vs. Domalanta,
L-21011,
Aug.
30,
1967).
A proceedin g for a t t a c h m e n t o f propert y i s in rem i
f
th e defendan t doe s no t appea r i n court , an d i n personam
if he
a p p e a r s
(Banco
EspaAol-Filipino
vs.
Pala
nca,
supra).
23
c.
Transitory action:
On e
th e
venu e
o f whic h
s
dependent generall y upo n th e residenc e o f th e
regardles s o f wher e th e caus e o f action arose .
partie s
Example:
Persona l action .
Local action:
On e which i s require d by th e Rule s t o
b e institute d in a particula r plac e in th e absenc e o f an
agreemen t t o th e contrary .
Example: Rea l action .
Th e classificatio n o f action s int o r e a l ,
p e r s o
n a l
or mixe d i s base d o n th e subject-matte r thereof .
Wit
h
respec t t o th e bindin g effect o f th e relie f sough t o r th e
judgmen t therein , action s ar e classifie d int o action s i n
rem, quasi in rem or in personam.
Hence , a rea l action
ma y b e in personam, or a persona l actio n ma y b e in rem
(see
Hernandez,
et al. vs.
Rural Bank
of Lucena,
In
c.,
L-29791, Jan. 10, 1978).
Transitor y or loca l action s ar e
so denominate d o n th e basi s o f th e permissibl e venue s
thereof .
4 . In Yu vs. Pacleb, etc. (G.R . No . 172172 , Feb . 24 ,
2009) , th e Suprem e Cour t cite d thi s extende d discussio n
on classification o f civil action : Th e settle d rul e i s tha t th e
aim
an d
objec t
o f a n
actio n
determin e
it s
character
.
Whethe r a proceedin g is rem, or in personam, or quasi in
rem i s determine d by it s natureîn d purpose , an d by thes e
only . A proceedin g in personam i s a proceedin g
enforc
e
persona l right s an d obligation s brough t agains t th e perso n
and i s base d on th e jurisdictio n o f th e person , althoug h it
may involv e hi s righ t to , or th e exercis e o f ownershi p of,
specific property , or seek t o compel him t o contro l or dispos e

of it in accordanc e wit h th e mandat e o f th e court .
T
h e
purpos e o f a proceedin g in personam i s to impose , throug h
th e judgmen t o f a court , som e responsibilit y or liability t o
compel a defendan t t o specifically perfor m som e ac t or
action s t o faste n a pecuniar y liability on him .
An action
in personam i s sai d to b e on e which ha s for it s object
a
judgmen t agains t th e person , a s distinguishe d from a
judgmen t agains t th e propert y t o determin e it s state .
I t
24
CONSIDERATIONS
ha s bee n hel d t h a t an actio n in personam i s a proceedin g

t o enforc e persona l right s o r obligations , suc h actio n i s
brough t agains t th e person .
X
On th e othe r hand , a proceedin g quasi in rem i s on e

brough t agains t person s seekin g t o subjec t th e propert y
of suc h person s t o th e discharg e o f th e claim s assailed .
In
an
actio n
quasi
i n rem,
a n i n d i v i d u a l i s n a m e
d a s
defendant an d th e purpos e o f th e proceedin g i s t o subjec t
hi s interest s therei n t o th e obligation s o r loan s burdenin g
th e property .
Action s quasi i n rem dea l wit h th e status ,
ownership or liabilit y o f a particula r propert y bu t whic h
are intende d t o operat e o n thes e question s only a s betwee n
particula r partie s t o th e proceeding s an d no t t o ascertai n
or cu t off th e right s or interest s o f al l possibl e claimants .
The judgment s therei n ar e bindin g only upo n th e partie s
who joine d i n th e action .
25
----------------------- Page 26----------------------B .
JURISDICTIO N
U N D E R
Articl e V I
O F TH E SUPREM E
TH E
198 7
CONSTITUTIO N
COUR T
(Legislativ e Department )
"Sec .
30 . N o la w shal l b e passe d increasin g t h e
a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r
t a s
provide d i n thi s Constitutio n withou t it s advic e an d
concurrence. "
Articl e VI I
"Sec. 4 .
(Executiv e Department )
(las t par. )
Th e Suprem e
Court ,
sittin g e n
banc,
shal l b e
th e sol e judg e o f al l contest s relatin g t o
th e election , return s an d qualification s o f th e Presiden t

or Vice-President ,
an d ma y promulgat e rule s for th e
purpose. "
X
"Sec .
18 . (thir d par. )
Th e S u p r e m e C o u r t
ma y
review , in an appropriat e proceedin g filed by an y citizen ,
th e sufficiency o f th e factua l basi s o f th e proclamatio n o f
martia l law o r th e suspensio n o f th e privileg e o f th e wri t
or th e extensio n thereof , an d mus t promulgat e it s decision
thereo n withi n thirt y day s from it s filing. "
Articl e VII I
(Judicia l Department )
"Sec. 2 .
prescribe , an d
court s bu t ma
it s
jurisdictio n over
Th e Congres s shal l hav e th e powe r t o define ,

apportio n th e jurisdictio n o f th e variou s
y no t depriv e th e Suprem e
Cour t o f
case s enumerate d in Sectio n 5 hereof .
N o law shal l b e passe d reorganizin g th e Judiciar y

w h e n
i t u n d e r m i n e s t h e s e c u r i t y o f t e n u r e
o f i t s
Members. "
X
"Sec. 5 . Th e Suprem e Cour t shal l hav e th e followin g

powers :
26
----------------------- Page 27----------------------JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
(1)
Exercis e origina l jurisdictio n ove r case s
ectin g
ambassadors , othe r publi c minister s an d consuls , an d
over petition s
for certiorari,
prohibition ,
amus,
quo
warranto,
an d
habeas
corpus.
(2)
aff
mand
Review , revise , reverse , modify , o r affirm o n appea l

or certiorari, a s th e law o r th e Rule s o f Cour t
a y
provide ,
fina l j u d g m e n t s an d order s o f lowe r court
s
in :
(a) Al l
c a s e s i n w h i c h
t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n
a l i t y o r
v a l i d i t y o f a n y t r e a t y , i n t e r n a t i o n a
l o r exe cutiv e
a g r e e m e n t , law ,
p r e s i d e n t i a l
d e c r e e ,
proclamation , order , instruction ,
regulatio n i s i n question .
ordinance ,
o r
(b) Al l case s involvin g th e legalit y o f an y tax , impost ,

assessment , o r toll ,
relatio n thereto .
o r
an y penalt y
impose d
i n
(c) Al l case s i n whic h th e jurisdictio n o f an y lowe r

court i s i n issue .
(d) Al l crimina l case s i n whic h th e penalt y impose d
is
reclusion perpetua
or
higher .
(e) Al l case s i n whic h only
law i s involved .
a n erro r o r questio n o f
(3)
Assig n temporaril y judge s o f lowe r court s t o othe r

s t a t i o n s a s p u b l i c i n t e r e s t m a y r e q u i r e
. S u c h
temporar y assignmen t shal l no t excee d six month s
withou t th e consen t o f th e judg e concerned .
(4)
Orde r a chang e o f venu e or plac e o f tria l t o avoi d a

miscarriag e o f justice .
(5)
P r o m u l g a t e r u l e s concernin g
th e protectio n
an d
e n f o r c e m e n t o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ,
p l e a d i n g ,
practice , an d procedur e i n al l courts , th e admissio n
t o th e practic e o f law , th e Integrate d Bar , an d lega l
assistanc e t o th e underprivileged .
Suc h rule s
shal l
provid e
a simplifie d
an d inexpensiv e procedur e
for
27
th e speed y disposition o f cases , shal l b e unifor m for
all court s o f th e sam e grade , an d shal l no t diminish ,
increase , o r modify s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s . Rule
s
(6)
o f
procedur e o f specia l court s an d quasi-judicia l bodie s
shal l remai n effectiv e unles s disapprove d b y th e
Supreme Court .
Appoin t al l official s an d employee s o f th e Judiciar y
in accordanc e wit h th e Civi l Servic e Law. "
Articl e IX
A .
(Constitutiona l Commissions )
Commo n Provision s
"Sec. 7 .
Eac h Commissio n shal l decid e by a majorit y
vot e o f al l it s Member s an y cas e o r matte r brough t befor e

it withi n sixty day s from th e dat e o f it s submissio n for
decision o r resolution .
A cas e o r m a t t e r i s de
eme d
submitte d for decision or resolutio n upo n th e filin g o f
th e las t
pleading , brief , o r memorandu m require d b y
th e rule s o f th e Commissio n or by th e Commissio n itself .
Unles s otherwis e provide d by thi s Constitutio n or by law ,
any decision , orde r o r rulin g o f eac h Commissio n ma y b e
b r o u g h t t o t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t o n certiorari
b y
t h e
aggrieve d p a r t y withi n t h i r t y day s from receip t o f
a
copy
thereof. "
NOTE S
1. See , in thi s connection , th e note s unde r Sec . 7 ,
Rul e 56 .
2 . Considerin g th e provision s o f B.P . Big . 129 , th
fact t h a t appeal s
from
th e Securitie s
an d
E
a n g e
Commission an d i n naturalizatio n an d denaturalizatio n
case s shoul d now b e take n t o th e Cour t o f Appeals , an d
al l decision s
o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o m m
i o n s a r e
reviewabl e o n origina l action s o f certiorari , al l appeal s
in civi l case s t o th e Suprem e Cour t ca n now b e brough t
only on petitio n for revie w on certiorar i (cf.
17,
e
x c h
i s s
Sec.
2 8
----------------------- Page 29----------------------JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
R.A. 296,
as amende d
by R.A. 5440;
Santos, et al. vs.
CA, et al., G.R. No. 56614, July 28, 1987).
Moreover , as
hereafte r explained , Sec . 9 o f B.P . Big . 12 9 wa s amende d
b y R.A . 790 2 t o furthe r ves t appellat e jurisdictio n i n th e
Court o f Appeal s ove r judgments , fina l orders , award s o r
resolution s o f t h e Civi l Servic e
Commissio n an d
th e
Centra l Boar d o f Assessmen t Appeals .
29
----------------------- Page 30----------------------C.
TH E
JUDICIAR Y
REORGANIZATIO N AC T
OF
198 0
ORGANIZATION
1. Th e Judiciar y Reorganizatio n Act o f 198 0 (Batas

Pambansa
Big.
129)
took
effect
upo n
it s approva l
on
Augus t 14, 198 1 (Sec. 48).
However , th e transitor y pro -
visio n
(Sec.
44)
declare d
t h a t it s p r o v i s i o n s
"shal l
i m m e d i a t e l y b e c a r r i e d ou t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t
h a n
Executiv e Orde r t o b e issue d b y th e
P r e s i d e n t
. Th e
Cour t o f Appeals ,
th e Court s o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e
, t h e
Circuit Crimina l Courts ,
th e J u v e n i l e an d Domesti
c
Relation s Courts , th e Court s o f Agraria n Relations , th e
City Courts , th e Municipa l Court s an d th e Municipa l
Circuit Court s shal l continu e t o functio n a s presentl y
constitute d an d organize d unti l th e completio n o f th e
reorganizatio n provide d i n thi s Act a s declare d b y th e
President .
Upo n suc h declaration , th e sai d court s shal l
b e deeme d automaticall y abolishe d an d th e incumbent s
thereo f shal l ceas e t o hol d office .
Th e case s pendin g i
n
th e old Court s shal l b e transferre d t o th e appropriat e
Court s constitute d p u r s u a n t t o thi s Act , togethe r wit h
th e pertinen t functions ,
records , equipment ,
proper
t y
an d th e necessar y personnel. "
Th e constitutionalit y o f
thi s Act wa s
uphel d b y
th e S u p r e m e
banc,
wit h on e dissent ,
in De la Liana, et al.
t al.
(G.R . No . 57883 , Mar . 12 , 1982) .
Cour t
vs.
e n
Alba,
2 . T h e
C o u r t o f A p p e a l s w a s r e p l a c e d b y
t h e
Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t consistin g o f a Presidin g
Justic e an d 4 9 Associat e Appellat e Justices , whic h shal l
sit in 1 0 division s eac h compose d o f
5 members , excep t
only
for t h e p u r p o s e o f e x e r c i s i n g a d m i n i s t
r a t i v e ,
ceremonia l o r othe r non-adjudicator y function s i n whic h
instance s it ma y si t en banc (Sees. 3 an d 4).
30
----------------------- Page 31----------------------JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980
However , unde r Executiv e Orde r No . 3 3 (July 28,1986) ,
a m e n d i n g B.P . Big .
129 ,
t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a
l s w a s
r e - c r e a t e d , consistin g o f a P r e s i d i n g J u s t i c e
a n d 5 0
Associat e J u s t i c e s ,
whic h s h a l l exercis e
it s
p o w e r s ,
functions an d dutie s throug h 1 7 divisions , eac h compose d
of 3 m e m b e r s . It ma y si t e n banc for th e purpos e
o f
exercisin g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ,
c e r e m o n i a l o r o t
h e r non -
adjudicatory function s
(Sees.
3 an d
4,
a s amended) .
A majorit y o f th e actua l member s o f th e Cour t shal l

constitut e a quoru m for it s session s en banc.
Thr
e e (3)
member s shal l constitut e a quoru m for th e session s o f a
division .
Th e unanimou s vot e o f th e thre e member s o f a
division shal l b e necessar y for th e pronouncemen t o f a
decision o r fina l resolution , whic h shal l b e reache d i n
consultation befor e th e writin g o f th e opinio n b y an y
membe r o f th e division .
I n th e even t t h a t th
e t h r e e
member s d o no t reac h a u n a n i m o u s vote , th e Presidin g
Justic e shal l reques t th e Raffl e Committe e o f th e Cour t
for th e
d e s i g n a t i o n o f tw o a d d i t i o n a l J u s t
i c e s t o si t
temporaril y wit h them , formin g a specia l divisio n o f five
m e m b e r s
an d
t h e c o n c u r r e n c e o f a majorit y o f
suc h
division shal l b e necessar y for th e pronouncemen t o f a
decision o r fina l resolution .
Th e designatio n o f su
c h
a d d i t i o n a l J u s t i c e s s h a l l b e m a d e s t r i c t l y
b y raffl e
(Sec. 11, a s amended) .
Executiv e O r d e r No .
3 3 r e p e a l e d Sec . 8
o f B.P .
Big .
129 whic h ha d provide d for groupin g o f division s
t o handl e specifi c classe s o f case s (Sec.
4).
It
furthe r
provide d t h a t th e t e r m "Intermediat e Appellat e Court ,
Presidin g Appellat e J u s t i c e
an d Associat e Appellat e
Justice(s) " use d i n B.P . Big . 129 o r i n an y othe r law o r
executive orde r shal l hereafte r mea n Cour t o f Appeals ,
Presidin g Justic e an d Associat e Justice(s) , respectivel y
(Sec.
8).
Additionally , effectiv e Februar y 2 , 1997 , B.P . Big . 129
f u r t h e r a m e n d e d
b y
R.A .
824 6
(Appendix
G),
pursuan t t o whic h th e Cour t o f Appeal s shal l consis t o f
wa s
3 1
a Presidin g Justic e an d 6 8
b e compose d o f 2 3 division s
first 1 7 division s statione d
division s in Cebu City , an d
Cagayan d e Or o City .
Associat e Justices ,
o f 3 member s each
in Manila , th e
th e 21st t o 23r d
3 . Th e Court s o f Firs t Instance , th

Courts , th e Juvenil e an d Domesti c Relation
th e Court s o f Agraria n Relation s hav e
into th e Regiona l Tria l Court s for eac h o
an d shal l
, wit h th e
18th t o 20t h
division s in
e Circui t Crimina l
s Court s an d
bee n integrate d
f th e 1 3 Judicia l
Region s which replace d th e former 1 6 Judicia l Districts ,

each Regiona l Tria l Cour t t o consis t o f th e numbe r o f
branche s provide d in Section 14 o f th e Act .
4 . Th e
city
court s
an d
municipa l
court s
th e
Nationa l Capita l Judicia l Region hav e bee n merge d int o
a Metropolita n Tria l Cour t o f Metr o Manil a an d wer
converted int o branche s thereo f
(Sec. 27).
Th e
e
Court shal l constitut e othe r Metropolita n Tria l Court s
in suc h othe r metropolita n area s a s ma y b e establishe d
b y la w an d whos e territoria l jurisdictio n shal l b e
extensiv e wit h th e citie s an d municipalitie s comprisin
such metropolita n are a
(Sec. 28).
or
i n
e
Suprem
co g
5 . Th e city court s in othe r citie s whic h d o no t now

hereafte r form p a r t o f a metropolita n are a shal l b e
known a s Municipa l Tria l Courts , wit h th e correspondin g

numbe r o f branche s (Sec. 29), an d th e municipa l courts ,
whethe r o f an ordinar y municipalit y or o f a capita l o f a
provinc e o r sub-provinc e bu t no t comprise d withi n a
metropolita n are a an d a municipa l circuit , shal l likewis e
b e know n a s Municipa l Tria l Court s wit h t h e corre sponding numbe r o f branche s (Sec. 30).
Th e municipa
l
circuit court s shal l b e know n a s Municipa l Circui t Tria l
Court s an d th e Suprem e Cour t ma y furthe r reorganiz e
th e sam e
(Sec. 31).
6 . Excepte d
S u p r e m e
h e s e
from
th e
coverag e
C o u r t a n d t h e
o f th e
Act
ar e
th e
S a n d i g a n b a y a n , b u t t
32
----------------------- Page 33----------------------JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF

court s hav e bee n affecte d b y th e
introduce d therein .
Th e provision s
of 194 8 (R.A. 296, a s amended) , R.A .
th e Rule s o f Cour t a n d al l o t
t t e r s o f
i n s t r u c t i o n s a n d g e n e r a l o
reof ,
inconsistent wit h th e provision s o f thi
or modifie d accordingly .
1980
jurisdictiona l change s
o f th e Judiciar y Act
5179 , a s amended ,
h e r s t a t u t e s , l e
r d e r s o r p a r t s the
s Act ar e repeale d
7 . N o mentio n i s mad e o f th e Cour t o f Ta x Appeal s

since th e Act i s basicall y o n th e matte r o f jurisdictiona l
changes . However , appeal s from it s judgment s o r fina l
orders , whic h use d t o b e governe d by R.A . 1125 , wer e late r
require d t o b e take n t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s p u r s u a n t t
o
Revised Administrativ e Circula r No . 1-95 o f th e Suprem e
Court , whic h thereafte r wa s adopte d a s Rul e 4 3 o f thes e
revise d Rules .
See , however , th e mor e recen t change s i n
R.A.
928 2
(Appendix
CC).
JURISDICTIO N
I .
Intermediat e
o f
Appeals) :
Appellat e
"Sec.
9 . Jurisdiction.
Court shal l exercise :
Cour t
Th e
(now ,
Intermediat e
th e
Cour t
Appellat e
(1) Origina l jurisdictio n t o issu e writ s o f manprohibition ,

certiorari,
habeas corpus,
an d
damus,
quo
warranto, an d auxiliar y writ s o r processes ,

or not in ai d o f it s appellat e jurisdiction ;
whethe r
(2) Exclusiv e
origina l jurisdictio n ove r action s
for annulmen t o f judgment s o f Regiona l Tria l Courts ;
a n d
(3) Exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n over al l fina l
judgments , decisions , resolutions , order s o r award s
o f Regiona l Tria l Court s an d quasi-judicia l agencies ,
instrumentalities , boards , o r commissions , excep t
thos e fallin g withi n th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e
Supreme Cour t i n accordanc e wit h th e Constitution ,
33
th e provision s o f thi s Act , an d o f subparagrap h (1) o f
th e thir d p a r a g r a p h an d s u b p a r a g r a p h (4)
o f th e
fourth paragrap h o f Section 1 7 o f th e Judiciar y Act
of 1948 .
Th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t shal l hav e th e
powe r t o tr y case s an d conduc t hearings , receiv e
evidence an d perform an y an d al l act s necessar y t o
resolv e factua l issue s raise d in case s fallin g withi n
it s origina l an d appellat e jurisdiction , includin g th e
powe r t o gran t an d conduc t new trial s an d furthe r
proceedings .
Thes e provision s shal l no t appl y t o decision s an d
interlocutory order s issue d unde r th e Labo r Cod e
o f t h e Philippine s an d b y t h e
C e n t r a l Boar
d
o f
Assessmen t Appeals. "
Th e secon d paragrap h o f Sec . 9 abov e se t forth wa s

subsequently a m e n d e d b y Sec .
5 o f Executiv e Orde r
No . 3 3 t o rea d a s follows :
"The Cour t o f Appeal s shal l hav e th e powe r t o

receiv e
evidenc e
a n d p e r f o r m an y
a n d al l
a c t s
necessar y t o resolv e factua l issue s raise d in (a) case s
falling withi n it s origina l jurisdiction , suc h a s action s
for annulmen t o f judgment s o f regiona l tria l courts ,
as provide d in paragrap h (2) hereof ; an d in (b) case s
falling withi n it s appellat e jurisdictio n wherei n a
motio n for ne w tria l base d only o n th e groun d o f
newly discovere d evidenc e i s grante d by it. "
However , effective Marc h 18 , 1995 , Sec . 9 wa s furthe r
amende d by R.A . 7902 (Appendix F) an d now provides :
"SEC .
9 . Jurisdiction.
Th e
Cour t
o f Appeal s
shall exercise :
"(1) Origina l jurisdictio n
damus, prohibition , certiorari,
t o
issu e writ s o f manhabeas corpus,

an d
quo
warranto, an d auxiliar y writ s or processes ,
or not in ai d o f it s appellat e jurisdiction ;
whethe r
34
1980
"(2) Exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n ove r action s

for annulmen t o f judgment s o f Regiona l Tria l Courts ;
an d
"(3) Exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n over al l fina l
judgments , decisions , resolutions , order s o r award s
o f Regiona l Tria l Court s an d quasi-judicia l agencies ,
instrumentalities , board s o r commissions , includin g
th e Securitie s an d Exchang e Commission , th e Socia l
Security Commission , th e Employee s Compensatio n
Commission an d th e Civil Servic e Commission , excep t
thos e fallin g withi n th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e
Suprem e Cour t i n accordanc e wit h th e Constitution ,
th e Labo r Cod e o f th e Philippine s unde r Presidentia l
Decre e No . 442 , a s amended , th e provision s o f thi s
Act , an d o f subparagrap h (1) o f th e thir d paragrap h
an d s u b p a r a g r a p h (4) o f th e fourt h p a r a g r
a p h o f
Section 1 7 o f th e Judiciar y Act o f 1948 .
"The Cour t o f Appeal s shal l hav e th e powe r t o
tr y case s an d conduc t hearings , receiv e evidenc e an d
perfor m an y an d al l act s necessar y t o resolv e factua l
issue s raise d i n case s fallin g withi n it s origina l an d
appellat e jurisdiction , includin g th e powe r t o gran t
an d conduc t ne w trial s o r furthe r proceedings .
Tri
al s
or
-
hearing s
i n
th e
Cour t
o f Appeal s
mus t
b e
con
t i n u o u s a n d m u s t
b e complete d
w i t h i n
t h r e e
(3)
month s unles s extende d b y th e Chie f Justice. "
NOTE S
1.
Unlik e th e provision s o f Sec . 3 0 o f th e Judiciar y
Act , B.P . Big .
12 9 veste d th e I n t e r m e d i a t e Appel
lat e
Court wit h origina l jurisdictio n t o issu e writ s o f man damus , prohibition , certiorari , habeas corpus, an d al l othe r
auxiliary writ s an d processe s whethe r o r not i n ai d o f it s
appellat e jurisdictio n an d adde d th e specia l civil actio n o f
quo warrant o t o suc h origina l jurisdiction .
Furthermore ,
th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t ha d exclusiv e origina l
35
jurisdictio n over action s for th e annulmen t o f judgment s
of th e Regiona l Tria l Courts .
Th e latter , however , retai n
thei r jurisdictio n ove r action s
for t h e a n n u l m e n
t o f
j u d g m e n t s o f t h e inferio r c o u r t s (Sec. 19),
i.e. ,
t h e
Metropolitan ,
Municipa l an d Municipa l Circui t Tria l
Court s (Sec. 25).
2 . Amendator y o f previou s legislation , th e appellat e
jurisdictio n o f th e the n Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t over
quasi-judicial agencies , o r th e so-calle d administrativ e
tribunals , wa s extende d t o an d include d th e Securitie s
an d Exchang e
Commissio n
an d t h e differen t board
s
whic h too k th e plac e o f th e q u o n d a m Publi c Servic e
Commission , i.e. , th e Board s o f Transportation , Commu nications , an d Powe r an d Waterworks , whos e decision s
wer e theretofor e appealabl e t o th e Suprem e Court .
ase s
involving petition s for naturalizatio n an d denaturalizatio n
ar e now exclusively appealabl e t o th e Cour t o f Appeals .
3. However , by specific provision s o f Sec . 9 o f thi s

Act , th e S u p r e m e Cour t retaine d exclusiv e
appella
t e
jurisdictio n over th e decision s o f th e tw o constitutiona l
commissions , i.e. , Commissio n o n Election s an d Com mission on Audi t
(se e 1973
Constitution,
Art.
XII-C
an d
D).
Unde r th e 198 7 Constitution , thi s exclusiv e appellat e
j u r i s d i c t i o n w a s m a d e t o includ e
t h e Civi l
Serv
ic e
Commission (Sec. 7, Art. IX-A).
Also , likewis e specifically
excluded from th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e Interme diat e Appellat e Cour t wer e decision s an d interlocutor y
order s unde r th e Labo r Code , suc h a s thos e promulgate d
b y th e S e c r e t a r y o f Labo r an d E m p l o y m e n t an d
th e
Nationa l Labor Relation s Commission , thos e o f th e Centra l
Boar d o f Assessmen t Appeals , an d th e 5 type s o f case s
which fall withi n th e exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n o f
th e Suprem e Cour t unde r th e 197 3 Constitutio n (Sec. 5[2],
Art.
X)
a n d r e p r o d u c e d i n t h e 198 7
C o n s t i t
u t i o n
(Sec. 5[2J, Art. VIII), a s amplifie d in th e provision s o f th e
Judiciary Act specifie d by sai d Sec . 9 .
36
1980
Furthermore , i n view o f th e exclusionar y provisio n

in sai d Sec . 9 , th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t appeare d
t o hav e n o appellat e jurisdictio n ove r th e case s i n th e
specified paragraph s o f Sec . 1 7 o f th e Judiciar y Act , i.e. ,
thos e
involvin g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t a x o r j u r i s d
i c t i o n a l
question s eve n i f th e sam e als o involv e question s o f fact
or mixe d question s o f fact an d law whic h wer e appealabl e
t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s unde r Sec .
1 7 o f th e Judic
iar y
Act , a s amended .
I t i s believe d t h a t despit e th e pres
en t
formulation o f sai d Sec . 9(3) o f B.P . Big . 129 , th e former
rule , vestin g th e Cour t o f Appeal s wit h appellat e juris diction i n th e aforestate d case s wheneve r a factua l issu e
i s involved , shoul d stil l apply .
A s indicate d
by R.A . 7902 , th
mission an d th e
ar e now withi n th
Court o f Appeals .
earlier , wit h th e amendment s introduce d

e disposition s o f th e Civi l Servic e Com Centra l Boar d o f Assessmen t Appeal s
e exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e
4 . Whil e
t h e I n t e r m e d i a t e Appellat e
Cour t
wa s
authorize d t o receiv e evidenc e o n factua l issue s o n appeal ,
thi s evidentiar y hearin g contemplate s "incidenta l facts "
which wer e no t touche d upo n o r fully hear d b y th e tria l
court ,
an d
no t a n origina l an d
ful l t r i a l o f t
h e mai n
factual issu e whic h properl y pertain s t o th e tria l cour t
(Lingner & Fisher GMBH vs. IAC,
et al., G.R.
No.
63557,
Oct.
28,
1983).
Thi s
powe r
t o conduc t
ne w
t r
i a l s o r
further proceeding s i s no t obligator y o n th e appellat e
court an d i t ma y r e m a n d t h e cas e t o th e
t r i a
l cour t
for t h a t purpos e
., G.R.
No.
72981,
Jan.
5 .
of Appeal s
final order
board s or
proceeding s
exercise d
l
(De
29,
la
Cruz,
etc.
vs.
IAC,
et
al
1988).
Th e exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e Cour t

provide d for in Sec . 9(3) o f B.P . Big . 129 over
s o r ruling s o f quasi-judicia l instrumentalities ,
commission s refer s t o thos e whic h resulte d from
wherei n th e administrativ e body involve d
quasi-judicia l functions .
Suc h quasi-judicia
37

action or discretio n involve s th e investigatio n o f facts ,
holdin g o f hearings , drawin g conclusion s therefro m a s a
basi s for official action , an d exercisin g discretio n o f a
judicia l nature . Quasi-judicia l adjudicatio n require s a
determination o f rights , privilege s an d dutie s resultin g
in a decision or orde r which applie s t o a specific situation .
Rule s an d regulation s o f genera l applicability issue d by
th e administrativ e body t o implemen t it s purel y adminis trativ e policie s an d functions , o r thos e which ar e merel y
incident s o f it s inheren t administrativ e functions , ar e
not include d i n th e appealabl e order s contemplate d i n
said provision , unles s otherwis e specifically provide d by
other law s governin g th e matter .
Controversie s arisin g
from
suc h
o r d e r s ar e w i t h i n t h e cognizanc e
o f
t h e
Regiona l Tria l Court s
(Lupangco,
et al. vs. CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
77372, April 29,
1988).
6 . I t wa s formerl y hel d t h a t th e 30-da y perio d
t o
a p p e a l t o th e I n t e r m e d i a t e Appellat e
C o u r t fro
m a
decision o r fina l orde r o f th e Securitie s an d Exchang e
Commission , p u r s u a n t t o it s rule s issue d consequen t
t o Sec . 6 , P.D . 902-A , ha d no t bee n affecte d b y B.P
.
Big .
12 9 whic h provide s for a
15-da y a p p e a l peri
o d
from decision s o f court s o f justice .
Th e Securitie s an
d
Exchang e Commissio n i s not a court ; it i s an adminis trativ e agency .
Repeal s b y implicatio n ar e no t favore d
(Gimenez
Stockbrokerage
&
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
SEC,
et
al.,
G.R. No.
68568, Dec.
26,
1984).
7 . Th e aforesai d doctrin e
th e Suprem e Cour t in an appea
Insuranc e Commission t o th e the n
Court sinc e Sec . 416(7) o f th e
as amended ) provide s for a 30-day
wa s take n int o accoun t b y

l from a decision o f th e
Intermediat e Appellat e
Insuranc e Cod e (P.D. 612,
perio d for appea l from
notic e o f a fina l order , ruling ,

mission .
Th e Suprem e Cour t note d
of R.A . 5434 wer e t o b e applied , p
o f
th e Interi m Rule s whic h govern s
or decisio n o f th e Com tha t i f th e provision s

u r s u a n t t o Par . 22(c)
appeal s
from
quasi -
t h a t
th e
38
judicia l bodies ,
Sec .
1980
thereo f provide s
appea l
should b e filed withi n 1 5 day s from notic e o f th e ruling ,

award , order , decision , o r judgmen t o r from th e dat e o f
its las t publicatio n i f require d by law , or in cas e a motio n
for reconsideratio n i s filed withi n th e perio d for appeal ,
the n withi n 1 0 day s from notic e or suc h publicatio n o f
th e resolutio n denyin g th e motio n for reconsideration .
Nevertheless ,
i n lin e wit h th e rulin g i n Gimenez, s
inc e
th e Insuranc e Commissio n i s likewis e a n administrativ e
body , appeal s from it s fina l orders , decisions , resolutions ,
or award s ma y no t necessaril y b e deeme d modifie d b y
Sec .
3 9 o f B. P . Big . 12 9 whic h l i m i t s t h e perio
d t o
appea l to
15
day s
(Midland Ins.
Corp.
vs. IAC,
et
al.,
G.R. No.
71905, Aug.
13, 1986; se e als o Zenith Ins.
C
orp.
vs. IAC,
et al, G.R.
No.
73336,
Sept. 24,
1986; Malaya
n
Ins. Co., Inc. vs. Arnaldo, et al., G.R. No.
67835,
Oct.
12,
1987).
8 . Th e foregoin g doctrines , however , ar e n o longe r
controllin g i n vie w o f Circula r No . 1-9 1 issue d b y th e
Suprem e Cour t o n F e b r u a r y 27 ,
199 1 whic h provide d
tha t appeal s from quasi-judicia l agencie s shal l b e take n
t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s withi n 1 5 day s from notic e o r las t
publicatio n o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l order .
Thi s
wa s
mor e
recentl y
furthe r amplifie d b y
Revise d Adminis trativ e Circula r No .
1-95 whic h too k effect on J u n e
1 ,
1995, an d ha s now bee n formulate d a s Rul e 4 3 o f thes e
revise d Rules .
9 . I t wil l als o b e recalle d tha t
appeal s
from t
h e
decisions , order s o r ruling s o f th e thre e constitutiona l
commissions , i.e. , Civi l Servic e Commission , Commissio n
on Election s an d Commissio n o n Audit , ma y b e brough t t o
th e S u p r e m e Cour t o n certiorar i withi n 3 0 day s from
receip t thereo f unles s otherwis e provide d b y th e Consti tutio n
or by
law
(Sec.
7, Art. IX-A,
1987
Constitutio
n).
However , a s earlie r stated , Sec . 9 o f B.P . Big . 129 which
originally containe d th e sam e jurisdictiona l rul e wa s
subsequently amende d by R.A . 7902 , effectiv e Marc h 18 ,
39
1995, t o provid e t h a t appeal s from th e Civi l
Commission shoul d b e take n t o th e Cour t o f Appeals .
Servic e
10. In th e landmar k decision in St. Martin Funeral

Home vs. NLRC, et al. (G.R . No . 130866 , Sept . 16 , 1998) ,
th e Suprem e Cour t clarifie d tha t eve r sinc e appeal s from
th e NLR C t o th e Suprem e Cour t wer e eliminated , th e
legislative intendmen t i s tha t th e specia l civil action o f
certiorar i wa s an d stil l i s th e prope r vehicl e for judicia l
review o f decision s o f th e NLRC .
All reference s in th
e
amende d Sec . 9 o f B.P . Big . 129 t o suppose d appeal s from
th e NLR C t o th e Suprem e Cour t ar e interprete d an d
declared t o mea n an d refer t o petition s unde r Rul e 65 .
Consequently , al l suc h petition s shoul d b e initially filed
in th e Cour t o f Appeal s in stric t observanc e o f th e rul e on
hierarch y o f courts .
Th e concurren t origina l jurisdictio n
o f th e S u p r e m e
Cour t ca n b e
availe d o f onl y
u n d e r
compelling an d exceptiona l circumstances .
11. O n a differen t rationale ,
Cour t
rule d in Fabian vs. Desierto, etc., et al.
9742 ,
Sept .
16 , 1998 )
t h a t a p p e a l s
o f t h e
Ombudsman i n administrativ e disciplinar y case
b e take n t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s vi a a
th e
S u p r e m e
(G.R . No .
fro m
12
t h e Offic e
shoul d
verifie d petitio n for
review unde r Rul e 43 .

Strikin g down a s unconstitutiona l
Sec .
27 , R.A . 677 0 ( O m b u d s m a n Ac t o f 1989 ) whic
h
a u t h o r i z e d s u c h a p p e a l t o t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r
t "i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h Rul e
45, "
i t w a s p o i n t e d ou
t t h a t
appeal s unde r Rul e 4 5 apply only t o judgment s or fina l
order s o f th e court s enumerate d unde r Sec . 1 thereof , an d
not t o thos e o f quasi-judicia l agencies .
Furthermore , tha
t
provisio n o f R.A . 677 0 violate s th e proscriptio n in Sec . 30 ,
Art . V I o f th e 198 7 Constitutio n agains t a law whic h
increase s th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e Suprem e Cour t
withou t it s advic e an d consent .
II .
Regiona l Tria l Courts :

"SEC .
19 .
Jurisdiction
in
civil
cases.
Regiona
l
40
Trial Court s shal l exercis e exclusiv e origina l jurisdiction :
(1)
In al l civi l action s in whic h th e subjec t o f t
h e
litigation i s incapabl e o f pecuniar y estimation ;
(2)
I n
al l
civi l
action s
whic h
involv e
th e
titl e
to ,
o r possessio n
of,
rea l property ,
o r
an y
interes
t
therein , wher e th e assesse d valu e o f th e propert y
involved exceed s Twent y thousan d peso s (P20.000.00 )
or, for civi l action s in Metr o Manila , wher e suc h valu e
exceed s Fift y t h o u s a n d peso s
(P50.000.00 ) excep
t
action s for forcibl e entr y int o an d unlawfu l detaine r
o f land s o r buildings , origina l jurisdictio n ove r whic h
i s conferre d upo n t h e Metropolita n Tria l Courts ,
Municipa l Tria l Court s an d Municipa l Circui t Tria l
Courts ;
(3) I n al l action s i n a d
r i t i m e
jurisdictio n wher e th e deman d o r clai
hundre d thousan d peso s (F100.000.00 ) or
Manila , wher e suc h deman d o r clai
hundre d thousan d peso s (P200.000.00) ;
(4)
I n
al l
matter s
m i r a l t y
an d m a
m exceed s On e
, i n Metr o
m exceed s Tw o
o f probate ,
bot h testat e
n d
i n t e s t a t e , w h e r e t
e s t a t e
exceed s On e hundre d thousan
or, i n probat e matter s i n
gros s valu e
exceed s
peso s
(P200,000.00) ;
a c t
h e g r o s s v a l u e o f
d peso s (P 100,000.00)
Metr o Manila , wher e suc h
Tw o
hundre d
thousan d
(5) I n al l a c t i o n s involvin g
o f
marriag e an d marita l relations ;
(6)
I n
al l case s
t h e
t h e
no t withi n th e
c o n t r
exclusiv e juris
d i c t i o n o f a n y c o u
o r bod y
exercising [jurisdiction o f an
o r bod y
e x e r c i s i n
j u d i c i a l
functions; *
(7) I n al l civi l
i n g s *
r t , t r i b u n a l , p e r s o n
y court , tribunal , perso n
g ] j u d i c i a l o r q u a s i action s
specia l
p r o c e e d
'The bracketed portion in Par. (6) appears to be a typographica

l
erro r by repetition, while the indicated portion in Par. (7) should have a
conjunction between "civil actions " and "special proceedings. "
4 1
falling withi n th e exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n o f a
Juvenil e an d Domesti c Relation s Cour t an d o f th e
Court o f Agraria n Relation s a s now provide d by law ;
an d
(8)
I n
al l
othe r
case s
i n
whic h
t h e
d e m
a n d ,
exclusiv e
o f interest ,
damage s
o f w h a t e v e r
kind ,
attorney' s fees , litigation expense s an d cost s o r th e

valu e o f th e propert y i n controvers y exceed s On e
hundre d thousan d peso s (PlOO.OOO.OO) or , in suc h
othe r case s i n Metr o Manila , wher e th e demand ,
exclusive o f th e abovementione d item s exceed s Tw o
hundre d thousan d peso s
(P200.000.00). "
(As a
mended
by
R.A.
7691)
X
"Sec.
2 1 . Original
jurisdiction
in
other
cases.
Regiona l Tria l Court s shal l exercis e origina l jurisdiction :

(1)
In
th e
issuanc e
o f writ s
o f certiorari,
pr
ohi bition ,
mandamus,
quo
warranto,
habeas
corpus,
an d
injunction whic h ma y b e enforce d in an y p a r t o f thei r
respectiv e regions ; an d
(2) I n action s affectin g
publi c minister s an d consuls. "
ambassador s
an d
othe r
"Sec. 22 .
Appellate
jurisdiction.
Regiona l
Tr
ia l
Court s shal l exercis e appellat e jurisdictio n ove r al l case s
decided b y Metropolita n Tria l Courts , Municipa l Tria l
Courts , an d Municipa l Circui t Tria l Court s i n thei r re spective territoria l jurisdictions .
Suc h case s shal l
b e
decide d o n th e basi s o f th e entir e m e m o r a n d a and/
o r
brief s a s ma y b e submitte d b y th e partie s o r require d b y
th e Regiona l Tria l Courts .
Th e decision s o f th e Regiona l
Tria l Court s i n suc h case s shal l b e appealabl e b y petitio n

for revie w t o th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t whic h
ma y giv e i t du e cours e only whe n th e petitio n show s
prima facie tha t th e lower cour t ha s committe d an erro r o f
fact or law tha t wil l warran t a reversa l or modification o f
42
1980
th e decision o r judgmen t sough t t o b e reviewed. "

"Sec. 2 3 .
Special jurisdiction
to try special case
Suprem e Cour t ma y designat e certai n branche s o f

Regiona l Tria l Court s t o handl e exclusively crimina l
, juvenil e an d domesti c relation s cases , a g r a r i a n
s.
The
th e
cases
cases , urba n lan d refor m case s whic h d o no t fall unde r

th e jurisdictio n o f quasi-judicia l bodie s an d
agen
cies ,
and/or suc h othe r specia l case s a s th e Suprem e Cour t
may determin e in th e interes t o f a speed y an d efficient
administration o f justice. "
NOTE S
1.
R.A . 7691 , whic h too k effect on Apri l 15 , 1994
(see
Appendix
N),
e x p a n d e d t h e j u r i s d i c t i o
n o f t h e
m e t r o p o l i t a n , m u n i c i p a l a n d m u n i c i p a l circui
t t r i a l
court s i n civi l a n d crimina l cases , th e a m e n d e d ci
vi l
jurisdictio n bein g se t ou t hereinafter .
I n Administrati
v e
Circular No . 09-9 4 (se e Appendix O), th e Suprem e Court ,
b y wa y o f g u i d e l i n e s i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n
o f sai d
amendatory Act , mad e th e clarification that :
"2 . T h e
e x c l u s i o n o f t h e t e r m ' d a m a g
o f
w h a t e v e r kind '
i n d e t e r m i n i n g th e jurisdic
e s
tiona l
a m o u n t
u n d e r
Sectio n
19(8)
an d
Sectio n
33(1 )
o f
B.P . Big . 129 , a s amende d b y R.A . No . 7691 , applie s
t o case s wher e th e damage s ar e merel y incidenta l
t o o r a consequenc e o f t h e m a i n caus e o f actio
n .
However , i n case s wher e th e clai m for damage s i s th e
mai n caus e o f action , or on e o f th e cause s o f action ,
th e
a m o u n t
o f suc h
clai m
shal l
b e
n
determinin g th e jurisdictio n o f th e court. "
considere d
Thi s
j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r u l e w a s a p p l i e d i n Ouano
vs.
International
Investment
Corp.
(G.R .
No .
1
PGTT
34230 ,
July 17 ,
2002) .
On th e
m a t t e r o f th e jurisdictiona l amoun t
i n civil
cases , R.A . 769 1 additionall y provides :

43
"Sec. 5 .
After five (5) year s from th e effectivity o f
Act , th e jurisdictiona l amount s mentione d i n
19(3) , (4) , an d (8) ; an d Sec . 33(1 ) o f B
thi s
Sec .
a t a s
Pambans a
Big .
129 a s amende d b y thi s Act ,
shal l
b e
a d j u s t e d t o Tw o
h u n d r e d
t h o u s a n d
p e s o s
(P200.000.00) .
Fiv e (5) year s thereafter , suc h juris dictional amount s shal l b e adjuste d furthe r t o Thre e
hundre d thousan d peso s (P300,000.00) : Provided ,
however , T h a t i n th e cas e o f Metr o Manila , th e
abovementione d
l
jurisdictiona l
a m o u n t s
shal
b e
adjuste d
afte r
five
(5)
year s
from
th e
effecti
vit y
o f t h i s Ac t
p e s o s
(P400.000.00). "
t o F o u r
2 .
Th e jurisdictio n
differs from tha t o f th e
in th e following respects :
h u n d r e d
t h o u s a n d
o f th e Regiona l Tria l
former Court s o f Firs t
Court s
Instanc e
a . Whil e u n d e r th e Judiciar y Act , al l action s

i n
admiralt y an d
maritim e jurisdictio n wer e exclusivel y
cognizable by th e Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e regardles s o f
th e valu e o f t h e propert y involve d o r t h e a m o u n t
o f
plaintiff s clai m (Sec.
44[d]),
the y
ar e now withi n
th e
exclusive jurisdictio n o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court s only i f
th e valu e or clai m exceed s P 100,00 0 or , in Metr o Manila ,
P200,000 , otherwis e jurisdictio n i s veste d i n th e inferior
court s (Sec. 33).
b . Th e J u d i c i a r y Ac t veste d t h e Court s o f F
i r s t
Instanc e wit h exclusiv e jurisdictio n i n al l m a t t e r s o
f
probate , whethe r testat e

Th e
Regiona l Tria l Court s now
if th e gros s valu e o f
Metr o Manila , P200.000 ,
cognizable by th e inferior
or
intestat e
(Sec.
44[e]).
hav e suc h exclusiv e jurisdictio n

th e estat e exceed s P 100,00 0 or ,
otherwis e th e proceeding s ar e
court s (Sec. 33).
in
c. Action s for annulmen t o f marriag e an d al l othe r

special case s an d proceeding s no t otherwis e provide d for
wer e exclusively cognizabl e by th e Court s o f Firs t Instanc e
unde r th e Judiciar y Ac t (Sec.
44[e]) or , u n d e r
pecia l
44
legislation ,
b y t h e J u v e n i l e a n d Domesti c
R e l
a t i o n s
Courts .
Th e Juvenil e an d Domesti c Relation s Court s an d
th e Court s o f Agraria n Refor m
havin g bee n integrate
d
int o th e Regiona l Tria l
av e
exclusiv e
o r i g i n a l
s e s a n d
proceeding s bu t the y shal l
rule s o f procedur e unde r
domestic relation s case s an
same ar e subsequentl y amende
court a s ma y b e promulgate
Courts ,
t h e
l a t t e r
shal l
j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r s a i d c a
continu e t o appl y th e specia l
th e presen t law s provide d for
d agraria n cases , unles s th e
d b y suc h law o r rule s o f
d (Sec. 24).
3 . Th e writ s o f certiorari , prohibition , mandamus ,

quo warranto ,
habeas
corpus,
an d injunctio n
issue
d
by
t h e R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t s a r e e n f o r c e a b l e
w i t h i n
thei r respectiv e regions , whil e unde r th e Judiciar y Act
(Sec.
44[hJ),
t h e s e coul d b e
enforce d
onl y
w i t
h i n th e
respectiv e province s an d district s unde r th e jurisdictio n
of th e Court s o f Firs t Instance .
4 . Th e concurren t jurisdictio n betwee n th e Court s
o f Firs t Instanc e an d th e inferio r court s i n case s provide d
for unde r th e Judiciar y Ac t ha s bee n eliminated .
Th e
Regiona l Tria l Court s shal l exercis e exclusiv e origina l
jurisdictio n i n guardianshi p an d adoptio n case s which ,
unde r th e a m e n d m e n t s o f th e Judiciar y Act b y R.A . 64 3
an d R.A . 644 , wer e withi n th e confluen t jurisdictio n o f
th e inferio r courts .
Th e concurren t jurisdictio n betwee n
th e Court s o f Firs t Instanc e an d th e Cit y Court s ove
r
th e case s state d i n Sec .
chang e
3 , R.A . 6967 , i.e. , petition s for
o f nam e o f naturalize d citizens ,
cancellatio n o r
correction o f typographica l error s i n th e city registry ,

an d ejectmen t case s w h e r e th e issu e o f ownershi p
i s
involved ,
h a s likewis e bee n e li mi na t e d .
Sai d
la w i s
deeme d
repeale d
by
B.P .
Big .
12 9
(Lee
vs. Pr
esiding
Judge,
etc., et al., G.R.
No.
8789,
Nov.
10,
1986).
5 . Th e concurren t jurisdictio n betwee n th e
Court s
o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e a n d i n f e r i o r c o u r t s h a v i
n g b e e n
abolished , th e decision s o f th e inferior court s i n al l case s
45
ar e now appealabl e t o th e Regiona l Tria l Courts , excep t
cadastra l an d lan d registratio n case s decide d b y th e
inferior court s in th e exercis e o f delegate d jurisdictio n
(Sec. 34).
6 . Admiralt y jurisdiction regulate s maritim e matter s
an d cases , suc h a s contract s relatin g t o th e trad e an d
busines s o f th e se a an d essentiall y fully maritim e i n
character , lik e maritim e services , transaction s o r casual tie s (se e Macondray
&
Co.
vs. Delgado Bros.,
Inc.,
107
Phil.
781;
Delgado
Bros.,
Inc.
vs. Home
Insurance
Co.,
L16131,
Mar.
27,
1961;
Elite
Shirt
Factory,
Inc.
vs.
Cornejo,
L-26718,
Oct.
31,
1961;
Negre
vs.
Cabahu
g
Shipping
&
Co.,
L-19609,
April
29,
1966).
7 . Civi l action s in whic h th e subjec t o f th e litigatio n
i s
incapabl e
o f pecuniar y
estimatio n
hav e
invariabl y
bee n withi n th e exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n o f th e

court s o f genera l jurisdiction , i.e. , th e forme r Court s o f
Firs t Instance , now th e Regiona l Tria l Courts .
Thu
s ,
action s for suppor t whic h wil l requir e th e determinatio n
o f th e civi l statu s o r th e righ t t o suppor t o f th e plainti
ff ,
thos e for th e annulmen t o f decision s o f lower courts , or
thos e for th e rescissio n o r reformatio n o f contract s ar e
incapabl e o f pecuniar y estimation .
a . Wher e th e action supposedl y for a su
require d th e determinatio n o f whethe r th e
complied wit h th e conditio n preceden t i n
which , i f complie d with , woul d entitl e hi m
o f th e a m o u n t claimed ,
th e actio n i
m o f mone y
plaintif f ha d
th e contrac t
t o th e awar d
s on e for speci
fi c
performanc e
an d
no t for a s u m o f money ,
t h e
relie f sough t wa s incapabl e o f pecuniar y estimatio n
wa s withi n th e jurisdictio n o f th e the n Cour t
Instanc e
8,
Jan.
21,
(Ortigas
&
Co.
vp.
Herrera,
et
henc e
an d
o f Firs t
al.,
L-3609
1983).
b . A n actio n t o compe l th e obligor t o complet e th e

construction o f a hous e i s on e for specifi c performanc e
46
and i s incapabl e o f pecuniar y estimation , henc e jurisdic tion i s veste d i n th e Regiona l Tria l Court .
Wher e
th e
complaint i n sai d case , however , contain s a n alternativ e
p r a y e r for t h e p a y m e n t t o t h e oblige e o f a s
u m no t
exceeding th e presen t jurisdictiona l amoun t of F100,000 ,
or in Metr o Manila , P200.000 , in lieu o f th e completio n o f
th e construction , jurisdictio n i s i n th e inferior cour t a s
such alternativ e praye r make s th e actio n on e for a su m
of mone y (se e Cruz vs.
Tan,
8 7 Phil.
627).
c. An actio n for P1.25 0 and/o r for th e foreclosur e o f
a chatte l mortgag e o f personalt y wort h F15,34 0 (now , i t
shoul d b e mor e t h a n PIOO.OOO or , i n M e t r o Manila ,
P200.000 ) w a s u n d e r t h e jurisdictio n o f t h e Cour t o
f
Firs t Instanc e becaus e o f th e l a t t e r alternativ e relie f
sought
t
al.,
L-41641,
in th e
o f th e
th e
suit als
b y an d
of actio
et al.
28,
1979).
(Good
Development
Corp.
vs.
Tutaan,
Sept. 30,1976).
Jurisdictio n wa s likewis e veste d
Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e wher e non e o f th e claim s
p a r t n e r s h i p ' s creditor s exceede d P2.00 0 bu t
o sough t th e nullificatio n o f a contrac t execute d
betwee n th e forme r partners , a s th e latte r caus e
n i s no t capabl e o f pecuniar y estimatio n (Singson,
vs.
Isabela
Sawmill
Co.,
et al., L-27343,
Feb.
d . Wher e th e cas e hinge s upo n th e correc t inter pretatio n o f th e renewa l claus e o f a leas e contract , th e
action i s no t for unlawfu l detaine r bu t on e whic h i s no t
capable o f pecuniar y estimatio n an d is , therefore , outsid e
th e jurisdictio n o f th e inferior cour t (Vda.
de Murga
vs.
Chan, L-24680, Oct.
7, 1968).
Bu t wher e th e ejectmen
t
case wa s decide d agains t th e defendant s becaus e o f non -
paymen t o f rentals , althoug h th e interpretatio n

renewa l claus e o f th e leas e contrac t wa s als
therein , th e sam e wa s withi n th e jurisdictio n o
ferior
court s
(Nueva
Vizcaya
Chamber
vs.
CA,
et al., L-49059, May 29,
1980).
o f th e
o involve d
f th e in of
Commerce
47
III .
Famil y Courts :
1. On
October
28 ,
1997 ,
Congres s enacte d
R.A .
8369
(Famil y
C o u r t s Ac t
o f 1997 ;
se e
Appendix
P)
establishin g a Famil y Cour t in every provinc e an d city
and , i n cas e th e city i s th e provincia l capital , th e Famil y
Court shal l b e establishe d i n th e municipalit y wit h th e
highes t population .
Pendin g th e establishmen t o f suc h
Family Courts , th e Suprem e Cour t shal l designat e th e
sam e from amon g th e branche s o f th e Regiona l Tria l
Court s enumerate d i n th e Act ; an d i n area s wher e ther e
ar e n o Famil y Courts , th e case s whic h a r e withi n it s
exclusive origina l jurisdictio n shal l b e adjudicate d b y th e
Regiona l Tria l Court .
2 . Furthe r
amendator y
o f th e provision s
o
f B.P .
Big .
129 , a s amended , th e Famil y Court s shal l hav e
exclusive origina l jurisdictio n in th e followin g civi l case s
or proceedings :
habeas
a . Petition s for guardianship , custod y

corpus in relatio n t o th e latter ;
b .
d t h e
revocation
o f children ,
P e t i t i o n s for a d o p t i o n o f c h i l d r e n a n
thereof ;
c. Complaint s for annulmen t o f marriage , declaratio n

o f nullit y o f marriag e an d thos e relatin g t o marita l statu s
an d propert y relation s o f husban d an d wif e o r thos e livin g
togethe r u n d e r differen t s t a t u s
an d
a g r e e m e n t
s , an d
petition s for dissolutio n
o f conjuga l partnershi p o f gains ;
d .
Petition s for suppor t and/o r acknowledgment ;
e . Summar y judicia l proceeding s brough t unde r th e

provision s o f Executiv e Orde r No . 20 9 (Famil y Cod e o f
th e Philippines) ;
f . Petition s
for declaratio n o f statu s o f childre n a
s
abandoned , dependen t o r neglecte d
for voluntar y or involuntar y commitmen
s u s p e n s i o n , t e r m i n a t i o n
p a r e n t a l
authority unde r P.D . 603 , Executiv e
children , petition s
t o f children ; th e
, o r r e s t o r a t i o n o f
Orde r No . 5 6 (Serie s
4 8
1980
of 1986) , an d othe r relate d laws ;

g .
Petition s for th e constitutio n o f th e family home ;
an d
h . Case s o f domesti c violenc e agains t wome n an d
children , a s define d therein , bu t whic h d o no t constitut e
crimina l offense s subjec t t o crimina l proceeding s an d
penalties .
3 . I m p l e m e
t h e
Supreme Cour t approve d
D e c l a r a t i o n o f
r i a g e s
a n d A n n u l m e n t
A.M .
No .
02-11-10-S C
e
on
L e g a l S e p a r a t i
(se e
Appendix
BB).
n t i n g
t h e foregoin g
p r o v i s i o n s
IV .
o n Marc h 4 , 200 3 th e Rul e o n

A b s o l u t e N u l l i t y o f Voi d M a r
o f
V o i d a b l e
(se e
AA)
A.M .
No .
o n i n
Appendix
Metropolita n Tria l Courts , Municipa l

an d Municipa l Circui t Tria l Courts :
"SEC .
ourts,
Municipal
Trial
Courts
in
s ,
Municipa l T r
Tria l
Court s shal l
33 .
Jurisdiction
Trial
Civil
Courts
Cases.
i a l
of
and
M a r r i a g e s
an d
i n
t h e
Rul
0 2 - 1 1 - 1 1 - S C
Tria l
Metropolitan
Municipal
Court s
Trial
Circuit
M e t r o p o l i t a n Tria l
C o u r t s a n d Municipa l
Court
Circui t
exercise :
(1)
Exclusiv e
origina l j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r
civi l
action s an d probat e proceedings , testat e an d inte state , includin g th e gran t o f provisiona l remedie s i n
p r o p e r c a s e s , w h e r e t h e v a l u e o f t h e p e r
s o n a l
property , estate , o r amoun t o f th e deman d doe s no t
exceed On e hundre d thousan d peso s (P 100,000.00)
or, i n Metr o Manil a wher e suc h persona l property ,
estat e o r amoun t o f th e deman d doe s no t excee d Tw o
hundre d thousan d peso s (P200.000.00) , exclusiv e o f
interest ,
litigation
mus t b e
damage s o
damage s o f whateve r kind , attorney' s fees ,

expenses , an d costs , th e amoun t o f whic h
specifically alleged : Provided, Tha t interest ,
f whateve r kind , attorney' s fees , litigatio n
49

e x p e n s e s , a
n t h e
determination
further,
Tha t wher e ther
action betwee n
bodie d i n th e
deman d shal l b e
n d
cost s
o f
th e
s h a l l b e
filin g
e ar e severa l
th e sam e o r
sam e complaint
th e totalit y o
i n c l u d e d i
fees :
Provided
claim s o r cause s o f
differen t partie s em , th e amoun t o f th e
f th e claim s in al l th e
cause s o f action , irrespectiv e o f whethe r th e

o f a c t i o n a r o s e o u t o f t h e s a m e
f e r e n t
transactions ;
cause s
o r d i f
(2)
Exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n over case s o f
forcible entr y an d unlawfu l detainer : Provided, Tha t
when , i n suc h cases , th e defendan t raise s th e questio n
of ownershi p in hi s pleading s an d th e questio n o f
possessio n
canno t b e
resolve d
withou t decidin g t
h e
issu e o f ownership , th e issu e o f ownershi p shal l b e
resolve d only t o determin e th e issu e o f possession ; an d
(3)
Exclusiv e
origina l jurisdictio n
i n
al l
civi l
action s whic h involv e titl e t o or possessio n of, rea l

property , o r an y interes t therei n wher e th e assesse d
valu e o f th e propert y o r interes t therei n doe s no t
exceed Twent y thousan d peso s (P20.000.00) or , in civil
action s i n Metr o Manila , wher e suc h assesse d valu e
doe s
no t excee d
Fifty
thousan d peso s (P50.000.00 )
exclusiv e
o f interest ,
d a m a g e s o f w h a t e v e r
kind ,
a t t o r n e y ' s fees , l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s a n d
c o s t s :
Provided,
T h a t i n case s
o f lan d no t
declare d
for
taxatio n purpose s th e valu e o f suc h propert y shal l b e
determine d b y th e assesse d valu e o f th e adjacen t
lots. " (As amended by R.A.
7691)
"SEC .
34 .
Delegated
and
land
registration
cases.
ts ,
Municipa l Tria l Courts ,
Court s
ma y b e
assigne d b y th e
jurisdiction
in
Metropolita n
an d
Municipa l
Suprem e
cadastral
Tria l
Circui t
Cour t t o
Cour
Tria l
hea r
a n d d e t e r m i n e c a d a s t r a l o r lan d r e g i s t r a t i o
n case s
covering lot s wher e ther e i s n o controvers y o r opposition ,
or conteste d lot s wher e th e valu e o f whic h doe s no t excee d
50
1980
One hundre d thousan d peso s (PIOO.OOO.OO), suc h valu e

t o b e ascertaine d by th e affidavit o f th e claiman t or by
agreement o f th e respectiv e claimant s i f ther e ar e mor e
tha n one , o r from th e correspondin g ta x declaratio n o f
th e rea l property .
Thei r decision s i n thes e case s shal l
b e
appealabl e i n th e sam e m a n n e r a s decision s o f th e Re
gional Tria l Courts. " (As amended by R.A.
7691)
"Sec.
35 . Special jurisdiction
in certain
cases.
In
th e absenc e o f al l th e Regiona l Tria l Judge s in a provinc e
or city , an y Metropolita n Tria l Judge , Municipa l Tria l
Judge , Municipa l Circui t Tria l Judg e ma y hea r an d decid e
petition s for a wri t of habeas corpus or application s for
bai l i n crimina l case s i n th e provinc e o r city wher e th e
absent Regiona l Tria l Judge s sit. "
NOTE S
1. Th e jurisdictiona l
lusiv e
origina l j u r i s d i c t i o n
s bee n
increase d t o PIOO.OOO, o r
exclusive o f interests , damages
expense s an d costs , bu t wit
thereo f mus t b e specifically
amoun t
o f t h e inferio r
withi n
th e exc
c o u r t s
h a
i n Metr o Manila , P200.00 0

, attorney' s fees , litigatio n
h th e provis o tha t th e amoun t
alleged .
2 . Unlik e th e jurisdictiona l tes t i n joinde r o f claim s

or cause s o f actio n i n t h e sam e complain t u n d e r th
e
Judiciar y Ac t (Sec.
88), t h e totalit y o f al l th e
claim s
allege d i n al l t h e c a u s e s o f actio n
shal l furnis h
t h e
jurisdictiona l t e s t w h e t h e r t h e
s a m e p e r t a i n s
t o t h e
same o r differen t partie s an d irrespectiv e o f whethe r th e
cause s
o f actio n
a r o s e o u t o f t h e s a m e o r dif
feren t
transactions , bu t subjec t t o th e rul e in Sec . 6 , Rul e 3 i f
permissiv e joinde r o f partie s i s involved .
3 . Unde r th e Judiciar y Act (Sec. 88), an inferior cour t
issu e t h e w r i t s o f p r e l i m i n a r y a t t a c h
an d
could
m e n t
replevin wher e th e principa l actio n wa s withi n it s juris diction ,

a n d
t h e w r i t o f p r e l i m i n a r y p r o h i
b i t o r y o r
5 1
mandator y injunctio n bu t only i n
(cf. Sec.
3, Rule
70; Art.
539,
B.P .
Big .
129 , provide d t h a t th e
it s
jurisdiction , i n additio n t o th e
remedie s an inferior cour t ca n appoin
ha s jurisdictio n t o issu e a wri t o
in eithe r forcible entr y o r unlawfu l
forcibl e entr y
Civil Code).
mai n
actio n
case s
Unde r
i s withi n
foregoin g provisiona l
t a receive r an d it
f preliminar y injunctio n
detaine r cases .
4 . Th e inferior
court s
now
hav e
probat e jurisdi
c tion wher e th e gros s valu e o f th e estate , whethe r testat e
or intestate , doe s no t excee d P 100,000 , or i f in Metr o
Manila , P200.000 .
However , i t ha s bee n hel d unde r th e
former provisio n wher e th e jurisdictiona l amoun t wa s
only u p t o P20.000 , tha t wher e th e propert y wa s th e only
one wherei n th e deceden t ha d an y proprietar y rights , i s
conjugal in nature , it i s th e tota l valu e o f suc h conjuga l
property ,
an d no t only th e valu e o f th e s h a r e o
f th e
decedent therein , whic h shoul d furnis h th e jurisdictiona l
test .
Thi s i s becaus e th e settlemen t proceeding s wil l
necessarily entai l th e dissolutio n an d settlemen t o f th e
conjugal partnershi p an d th e propert y thereo f (Fernandez,
etc., et al. vs. Maravilla,
L-18799, Mar.
31, 1964).
Thus ,
unde r th e presen t jurisdictiona l rule , i f th e only propert y
o f th e conjuga l partnershi p locate d outsid e Metr o Manil a
ha s a gros s valu e of P 150,000 , whil e sai d decedent' s shar e
therei n whic h constitute s hi s estat e i s normall y P75.00 0
in value , th e proceeding s wil l hav e t o b e institute d i n th e
Regiona l Tria l Cour t sinc e th e tota l valu e o f sai d propert y
exceed s th e probat e jurisdictio n o f th e inferior court .
5 . T h e r e g l e m e n t a r y p e r i o d s for a p p e a l s
fro m
judgment s o r fina l order s o f th e differen t tria l court s
hav e bee
except i
appeal s
Fo r a
detaile d
appea l
ana,
et al.
of the
n mad e unifor m a t 1 5 day s from receip t thereof ,

n specia l proceedings , case s wherei n multipl e
ar e permitted , an d habeas corpus cases .
discussio n o n th e bases , mode s an d period s for
from
an d
t o differen t
courts ,
se e
Lacsam
vs.
The
Hon.
Second
Special
Cases
Division
52
Intermediate Appellate
Court,
et al. (G.R .
Nos .
73146
-53 ,
Aug . 26 , 1986) , se t ou t afte r Sec . 8 , Rul e 4 0 in thi s volume .
Not e als
b y r e a
Civi l
Procedur e
a s the y
work .
o th e change s t h a t hav e supervene d sinc e the n

s o n o f t h e 199 7 revisio n o f t h e
Rule s o f
an d relevan t decision s o f th e Suprem e Court ,
ar e discusse d i n th e correspondin g part s o f thi s
An amende d outlin e o f th e presen t jurisdictio n o f ou r

court s i n civi l case s i s presente d i n th e succeedin g pages .
6 . A notabl e initiativ e i s th e supervenin g adoptio n
by th e Suprem e Cour t o f th e "Rul e o f Procedur e for smal l
claims " on Septembe r 9 , 200 8 t o tak e effect on Octobe r 1 ,
200 8
a f t e r t h e r e q u i s i t e p u b l i c a t i o n . T h i s
Rul e i s
reproduce d i n full , togethe r wit h th e form s an d paper s
involved in it s operatio n an d processe s (se e Appendix EE)
and ar e spelle d ou t i n simpl e detail s a s t o abviat e th e nee d
for clarifyin g comment s
h e
application an d futur e
duc e
s i t u a t i o n s w h i c
s
o r
explanation , th e matte r
attention , wit h a repor
for now .
However ,
working s
h
o f th e
w o u l d
shoul d
Rul e
r e q u i r e
Pro
a m e n d m e n t
wil l b e duly brough t t o th e reader' s

t o f th e court' s actio n thereon .
53

JURISDICTIO N
I .
SUPREM E
I N
CIVI L
CASE S
COUR T
A . Origina l
1. Exclusiv e
a . P e t i t i o n s
for
certiorari ,
mandamu s against :
(1) Cour t o f Appeals ;
(2) Cour t o f Ta x Appeals ;
(3)
Sandiganbayan ;
(4) Commissio n on Elections ; an d
(5) Commissio n on Audit .
prohibitio n
o r
2 . Concurren t
a . Wit h th e Cour t o f Appeal s
(1)
Petition s for certiorari , prohibitio n or
mandamu s
against :
(a)
Regiona l Tria l Courts ;
(b)
Civi l Servic e Commission ;
(c)
C e n t r a l B o a r d o f A s s e s s m
e n t
Appeals ;
Nationa l Labo r Relation s
mission ; an d
Othe r quasi-judicia l agencies .
(d)
(e)
Com -
b . Wit h th e Cour t o f Appeal s an d Regiona l

Tria l Court s
(1) Petition s for certiorari , prohibitio n or
mandamu s agains t court s o f th e first
level an d othe r bodies ; an d
(2) Petition s
for habeas
corpus
an d qu o
warranto .
c.
Wit h Regiona l Tria l Court s

(1)
Action s agains t ambassadors ,
publi c minister s an d consuls .
othe r
54
----------------------- Page 55----------------------JURISDICTION IN CIVIL CASES
B .
Appellat e
1.
i t y o f
Petition s for revie w on certiorar i against :

a .
Cour t o f Appeals ;
b .
c.
Cour t o f Ta x Appeals ;
Sandiganbayan ;
an d
d .
Regiona l Tria l Court s in case s involvin g

(1)
C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o r v a l i d
a
t r e a t y , i n t e r n a t i o n a l
o r e
xecutiv e
agreement , law , presidentia l decree ,
p r o c l a m a t i o n , o r d e r , i n s t r
u c t i o n ,
(2)
(3)
(4)
II .
C O U R T
A .
ordinance , o r regulation ;
Legalit y o f a tax , impost , assessment ,
tol l or a penalt y in relatio n thereto ;
Jurisdictio n o f a lower court ; an d
Only error s or question s o f law .
O F A P P E A L S
Origina l
1.
Exclusiv e
a .
Action s for annulmen t
o f judgment s
o f
Regiona l Tria l Courts .
2 .
Concurren t
a . Wit h th e Suprem e Cour t (se e Par . 2 , sub par , a . o n th e origina l jurisdictio n o f t
h e
b .
Suprem e Court) ; an d
Wit h th e Suprem e Cour t an d th e Regiona l
Tria l Court s (se e Par . 2 , sub-par , b. ,
loc.
cit.).
B .
Appellat e
1.
Ordinar y appeal s from :

a . Regiona l Tria l C o u r t s ,
excep t
i n
cas
e s
exclusively
appealabl e
t o
th e S u p
r e m e
Court ,
supra;
an d
55

b .
Famil y Courts .
2 . Appea l by petitio n for review from :

a . Civil Servic e Commission ;
b . Centra l Boar d o f Assessmen t Appeals ;
c. Securitie s an d Exchang e Commission ;
d . Lan d Registratio n Authority ;
e . Socia l Securit y Commission ;
f. Office of th e President ;
g . Civil Aeronautic s Board ;
h . Bureau s unde r th e Intellectua l Propert y
Office;
i . Nationa l Electrification Administration ;
j . Energ y Regulator y Board ;
k . Nationa l Telecommunication s Commission ;
1.
D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r a r i a n Refor m
R.A . 6657 ;
m . Governmen t Servic e Insuranc e System ;
n . Employee s Compensatio n Commission ;
o . Agricultura l Invention s Board ;
p . Insuranc e Commission ;
q . Philippin e Atomi c Energ y Commission ;
r . Boar d o f Investments ;
s . Construction Industr y Arbitratio n Commis sion;
t .
Office o f th e Ombudsman , in administra tiv e disciplinar y cases ; an d
u n d e r
u .
Any othe r quasi-judicia l agency , instru mentality , boar d o r commissio n i n t h e

exercis e o f it s quasi-judicia l functions ,
such a s voluntar y arbitrators .
3 . Petition s for revie w from th e Regiona l

Court s i n case s appeale d t h e r e t o
lower courts .
Tria l
from th e
56
III . REGIONA L
A .
TRIA L
COURT S
Origina l
1.
Exclusiv e
a . Action s th e subject matter s whereo f ar e not
capabl e o f pecuniar y estimation ;
b . Action s involvin g titl e t o or possessio n o f
rea l propert y o r a n interes t therein , wher e
th e assesse d valu e o f suc h propert y exceed s
P20.00 0 or , i n M e t r o Manila ,
P50.000
,
e x c e p t
forcibl e
e n t r y a n d
u n l a w
f u l
detainer ;
c.
Action s i n admiralt y an d maritim e juris diction wher e th e deman d o r claim exceed s

PIOO.OOO or , in Metr o Manila , P200.000 ;
d . Matter s
o f probate , testat e
o r intestate
,
wher e th e gros s valu e o f th e estat e exceed s
P100,00 0 or , i n Metr o Manila , P200.000 ;
e . Case s no t withi n th e exclusiv e jurisdictio n
of an y court , tribunal , perso n or body exer cising judicia l o r quasi-judicia l functions ;
f . Action s an d specia l proceeding s withi n th e
exclusive origina l jurisdictio n o f th e Cour t
of Agraria n Relation s a s now provide d by
law ; an d
g . Othe r case s wher e th e demand , exclusiv e
o f i n t e r e s t , d a m a g e s , a t t o r n e y '
s fees ,
litigation expense s an d costs , o r th e valu e
of th e propert y exceed s P 100,00 0 or , in
Metr o Manila , P200,000 .
2 . Concurren t
a . Wit h th e Suprem e Court :
(1)
Action s affectin g ambassadors , othe r

publi c minister s an d consuls .
b . Wit h th e Suprem e Cour t an d th e Cour t o f
Appeals :
57
(1)
Petition s for certiorari , prohibition an d

mandamu s a s state d i n par . 2 , sub-par .
b on th e origina l jurisdictio n o f th
e
(2)
Supreme Court .
Petition s
for
habeas
corpus
an d
qu o
warranto .
B .
Appellat e
Al l case s
decide d
b y
lowe r
court s
i n
t h
e i r
respectiv e territoria l jurisdictions .
IV .
FAMILY
A .
COURT S
Origina l
1.
od y
Exclusiv e
a . P e t i t i o n s
for
g u a r d i a n s h i p , cust
o f
children ,
habeas
corpus
in
relatio n
t o
th
e
latter ;
b . Petition s for adoptio n o f childre n an d th e
revocation
thereof ;
c.
Complaint s
for a n n u l m e n t o f m a r
r i a g e ,
declaration o f nullit y o f marriag e an d thos e
relatin g t o m a r i t a l s t a t u s an d pr
opert y
relation s
o f h u s b a n d
an d
wif e
o r
th
os e
living togethe r unde r different statu s an d
agreements , an d petition s for dissolutio n
of conjuga l partnershi p o f gains ;
d . P e t i t i o n s for s u p p o r t a n d / o r ackno
wl edgment ;
e . S u m m a r y
judicia l
proceeding s
b r
o u g h t
unde r th e provision s o f Executiv e Orde r
No . 20 9 (Family Cod e o f th e Philippines) ;
f . P e t i t i o n s for d e c l a r a t i o n o f
s t
a t u s o f
c h i l d r e n a s a b a n d o n e d , d e p e n d e
n t
o r
neglecte d
children ,
for
th e
voluntar y
o r
involuntary commitmen t o f children , an d

for
t h e s u s p e n s i o n , t e r m i n a t i o
n , o r
58
restoratio n
o f p a r e n t a l
authorit y
u n d
e r
P.D . 603 , Executiv e Orde r No . 56 , s . 1986 ,
an d othe r relate d laws ;
g . Petition s for th e constitutio n o f th e family
home ; an d
h . Case s o f domesti c violenc e
an d children , a s define d
do no t constitut e crimina l
t o crimina l prosecutio n an
V .
-
M E T R O P O L I T A N ,
C I P A L
A .
C I R C U I T
agains t wome n
therein , bu t whic h
offense s subjec t
d penalties .
M U N I C I P A L ,
T R I A L
A N D
M U N I
C O U R T S
Origina l
1.
Exclusiv e
a . Action s involvin g persona l propert y value d
at no t mor e t h a n P 100,00 0 or , i n
Met
r o
Manila , =P200,000 ;
b . Action s
d e m a n d i n g
s u m s
o f mone y
o t
c.
exceeding P 100,00 0 or , in Metr o Manila ,

P200.000 , exclusiv e o f interest , damages ,
attorney' s fees , litigatio n expenses , an d
costs ;
Action s i n admiralt y an d maritim e juris diction wher e th e deman d o r claim doe s not
excee d P100.00 0 or ,
i n M e t r o M a n
i l a ,
P200,000 , exclusiv e o f interest , damages ,
attorney' s fees , litigatio n expenses , an d
costs ;
d . Probat e proceedings , testat e o r intestate ,
wher e th e gros s valu e o f th e estat e doe
s
no t excee d P 100,00 0 or , in Metr o Manila ,
P200.000 ;
e . Forcibl e
e n t r y a n d unlawfu l
d e t a i
n e r
cases ;
59
----------------------- Page 60----------------------RULE 1

C. 1
REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM

f.
SE
Action s involvin g titl e to or possessio n of

rea l property ,
o r an y i n t e r e s t t
h e r e i n ,
g .
2 .
wher e th e assesse d valu e doe s no t excee d

P20.00 0 or , in Metr o Manila , P50.000 , ex clusiv e o f interest , damages , attorney' s
fees, litigatio n expenses , an d costs ; an d
Provisiona l remedie s wher e th e principa l
action i s withi n thei r jurisdiction .
Delegate d
a .
C a d a s t r a l
o r l a n d r e g i s t r a t i o
n c a s e s
covering lot s
or opposition
of whic h doe
b e assigne d
3 .
wher e ther e i s n o controvers y

, o r conteste d lot s th e valu e
s no t excee d P 100,000 , a s ma y
b y th e Suprem e Court .
Specia l
a .
Petition s for habeas corpus in th e absenc e
o f al l th e Regiona l Tria l J u d g e s i n
th e
provinc e or city .
4 . Summar y
Procedur e
a .
Forcibl e entr y an d unlawfu l detaine r case s

irrespectiv e o f th e amoun t o f damage s or
unpai d rental s sough t t o b e recovered ; an d
b . Al l othe r cour t cases , excep t probat e pro ceedings , wher e th e tota l clai m doe s no t
exceed P 10,000 , exclusiv e o f interes t an d
costs .
60
----------------------- Page 61----------------------RULE 1
SEC. 1
GENERAL
D .
TH E
REVISE D
PROVISIONS
RULE S
O F
COURT *
P u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i
5(5 ) o f
Articl e VII I o f t h e
Constitution ,
Cour t
hereb y
a d o p t s a n d p r o m u l g a t
r u l e s
c o n c e r n i n g
t h e
p r o t e c t i o n
n t
o f
constitutiona l rights , pleading , practic e an
all c o u r t s , t h e admissio n t o t h
t h e
o n s o f
th e
s e c t i o n
e s t h e
S u p r e m e
a n d
followin g
e n f o r c e m e
d procedur e i n
e practic e o f law ,
I n t e g r a t e d B a r , a n d
u n d e r privileged :
lega l
a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e
RUL E
GENERA L
1
PROVISION S
S e c t i o n 1 . Title of the Rules. T h e s e R u l e s

l l
b e k n o w n a n d c i t e d a s t h e R u l e s o f Court . (1)
sha
NOTE S
1. Th e Rule s o f Cour t hav e th e force an d effect
o f
law
(Shioji
vs.
Harvey,
etc., et al., 43 Phil.
333;
Alvero
vs. De la Rosa,
etc., et al., 76 Phil.
428; Conlu
vs. CA,
et al., 106 Phil.
940).
The y ar e no t pena l statute s
an d
cannot be
given retroactiv e
effect (Rilloraza
vs.
Arciaga,
L 23848,
Oct.
31,
1967;
Bermejo
vs.
Barrios,
L
-23614,
Feb. 27,
1970). However , statute s regulatin g th e proce dur e o f court s ma y b e mad e applicabl e t o case s pendin g
at th e tim e o f thei r passag e an d ar e retroactiv e i n tha t
sense
(se e
n.
31,
1983).
Alday
vs.
Camilon,
G.R.
No.
60316,
Ja
2 . "Whe n b y la w j u r i s d i c t i o n i s conferre d
o n a
court o r judicia l officer , al l auxiliar y writs , processe s an d
*Theae revise d Rule s of Civil Procedure were approved by the
Supreme Court in it s Resolution in Bar Matter No. 803, dated April
8,
1997, to take effect on July 1, 1997.
6 1
----------------------- Page 62----------------------RULE 1
SEC.
2
other
mean s
necessar y
t o
carr y
i t
int o
effect
ma y
b e
employed by suc h cour t or officer ; an d i f th e procedur e t o

b e followe d in th e exercis e o f suc h jurisdictio n i s no t
specifically pointe d ou t b y law o r b y thes e rules , an y
suitable proces s or mod e o f proceedin g may b e adopte d
which appear s conformabl e t o th e spiri t o f sai d law or
rules " (Sec. 6, Rule 135).
It wil l b e
observe d
t h a t thi s
only
auxiliary
Rul e
13 5 refer s
d
o t h e r necessar y
t o
m e a n s
t o
relevan t provisio n o f
writs ,
carr y ou t
processe s
t h e
an
jurisdictio n
specifically conferre d by law on th e cour t over th e mai n

suit o r proceeding .
Se e th e relate d discussio n over thi s
ancillary jurisdictio n o f court s unde r Sec . 1 , Rul e 57 .
3. Th e Cod e of Civil Procedur e (Act No. 190) i s on e
of th e majn source s o f th e old Rule s o f Cour t whic h took
effect or/Jul y 1 , 1940 and , in turn , o f th e presen t revise d
Rules .
However , certai n provision s o f th e Cod e o f Civil
Procedur e whic h wer e
no t incorporate d i n o r repeale d
by th e Rule s ar e stil l considere d in force .
Thes e provision s
are :
"7^
"Sec .
42 .
Exceptions
in
Favor
of
Persons
under
Disability. I f a perso n entitle d t o brin g th e action

mentione d i n th e precedin g section s o f thi s chapte r
(Sec. 40. Action for
recovery
of title to or possession
of
real property
or an
interest
therein)
is , at
th e tim
e
th e caus e o f actio n accrues , withi n th e ag e o f minor ity , o f unsoun d min d or in prison , suc h perso n may ,
after th e expiratio n o f te n year s from th e tim e th e
caus e o f actio n accrues , brin g suc h actio n withi n
thre e year s afte r suc h disabilit y i s removed. "
"Sec.
45 .
perso n entitle d
eithe r o f th e
Rights Saved to Certain Persons. If a

t o brin g an y actio n mentione d i n
tw o las t precedin g section s (Sec.
3.
Actions
Sec.
other
than
for
recovery
of
44. Any other action for relief) is ,
real
at th e
property;
tim e
th
e
caus e o f actio n accrues , withi n th e
ag e o f minority ,
62
----------------------- Page 63----------------------RULE 1
SEC. 3
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
o f unsoun d mind , o r i n prison , suc h perso n ma y brin g

such actio n withi n tw o year s afte r th e disabilit y i s
remove d unles s th e righ t o f actio n i s on e o f thos
e
e n
name
whic
such
:
a
d in subdivisio n four o f sectio n forty-three , in

h cas e i t ma y b e brough t withi n on e yea r afte r
disabilit y i s removed. "
"Sec .
47 . As
to Absent
Persons.
If, w h
caus e o f actio n accrue s
agains t a person ,
h e
i s ou t
o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e I s l a n d s , o r h a s a b s c o
n d e d o r
conceale d
himself ,
a n d h a s n o know n o r vis
ibl e
propert y withi n th e Island s th e perio d limite d for
th e commencemen t o f th e actio n shal l no t begi n t o
ru n unti l h e come s int o th e Island s o r whil e h e i s
s o
absconde d o r concealed , o r unti l h e ha s know n o r
visibl e propert y withi n th e Islands ; an d if, afte r th e
caus e o f actio n accrues , h e depart s from th e Philip pin e Islands , o r abscond s o r conceal s himself , th e
tim e o f hi s absenc e o r concealmen t shal l no t b e
compute d a s an y p a r t o f th e perio d withi n whic h
tim e th e caus e o f actio n shoul d b e brought. "
It shoul d b e note d t h
e
repeal s only th e provision s o
on prescriptio n a s far a s th
wit h th e former , an d Arts .
a t Art . 2270(3) o f th e Civi l Cod

f th e Cod e o f Civi l Procedur e
e latte r ma y b e inconsisten t
110 6 t o 115 5 o f th e Civi l Cod e
do not provid e for th e abov e situations .

Art . 110 8 o
f sai d
Code provide s t h a t extinctiv e prescriptio n run s agains t
minor s o r incapacitate d person s only i f the y hav e parents ,
guardian s o r lega l representatives .
4*
Furthermore , i t ha s bee n hel d tha t no t al l th e pro vision s i n t h e Cod e o f Civi l Procedur e ar e remedia l i n
nature , suc h a s thos e pertainin g t o prescription , th e re quisite s for makin g a will , an d th e succession t o th e estat e
of th e adopte d chil d
(Primicias vs. Ocampo, etc., et al.,
93
Phil. 446).
Specifically wit h respec t t o th e above-quote d
provision s o n prescription , no t bein g procedura l i n nature ,
they canno t b e deeme d t o hav e bee n impliedly repeale d
63
----------------------- Page 64----------------------RULE 1
C. 4
SE
jus t becaus e the y wer e no t incorporate d in th e Rule s o f

Court .
Bein g substantiv e i n n a t u r e , an d no t havin
g
bee n eliminate d by substantiv e law a s abov e explained ,
thes e provision s ar e consequentl y stil l in force .
4 . In th e
ings , th e Suprem e
th e Rule s o f Cour
becaus e th e Rule
mar y objectiv e o
interes t o f jus t an d expeditiou s proceed Cour t may suspen d th e applicatio n o f

t an d excep t a cas e from thei r operatio n
s wer e precisely adopte d wit h th e pri f enhancin g fair tria l an d expeditiou s
justic e
978).
(Republic
vs.
CA,
et al,
L-3130304, May
Sec .
2 . In what
courts applicable.
s
shal l appl y i n al l t h e courts , e x c e p t
w i s e
provide d b y th e S u p r e m e Court , (n )
31,
T h e s e
a s
Rule
o t h e r
NOTE S
1.
Th e 1987 Constitutio n provide s in Art . VII I thereo f
that :
"Sec .
5 . Th e
e t h e
following powers :
S u p r e m e
C o u r t
s h a l l h a v
(5) Promulgat e rule s concernin g th e protectio n

an d enforcemen t o f constitutiona l rights , pleading ,
practice , an d procedur e i n al l courts , th e admissio n
t o th e practic e o f law , th e Integrate d Bar , an d lega l
assistanc e t o th e underprivileged .
Suc h rule s sha
l l
provid e a simplifie d an d inexpensiv e procedur e for

th e speed y dispositio n o f cases , shal l b e unifor m for
all court s o f th e sam e grade , an d shal l no t diminish ,
increase ,
o r modify s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s . Rule
o f
procedur e o f specia l court s an d quasi-judicia l bodie s
shal l r e m a i n effectiv e
unles s disapprove d b y th e
Supreme
Court. "
64
----------------------- Page 65----------------------RULE 1

SEC. 6
2 .
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
P.D . 94 6 provide d tha t th e "Rule s o f Cour t shal l
not b e applicabl e t o agraria n cases , eve n in a suppletor y

character " an d eac h Cour t o f Agraria n Relation s t h e n
ha d th e authorit y t o adop t an y appropriat e procedure ,
except t h a t i n crimina l an d expropriatio n cases ,
th e
Rule s o f Cour t shal l appl y (Sec. 16).
Unde r B.P . Big .
129 ,
said agraria n court s wer e integrate d int o th e Regiona l
Tria l Court s a s branche s thereof , an d "th e latte r shal
l
hav e exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n over sai d case s an d
proceeding s bu t the y shal l continu e t o apply th e specia l
rule s o f procedure s unde r th e presen t laws " (Sec. 24).
R.A . 665 7 subsequentl y provide d for th e designatio n
of a t leas t on e branc h o f th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t withi n
each provinc e t o ac t a s a Specia l Agraria n Court .
Th e
Special Agraria n Court s shal l hav e origina l an d exclusiv e
jurisdictio n ove r al l petition s for th e determinatio n o f
jus t compensatio n t o landowner s an d th e prosecutio n o f
all crimina l offense s unde r sai d Act (Sees.
5 6 a
n d 57).
On th e othe r hand , th e Departmen t o f Agraria n Reform
i s veste d wit h p r i m a r y jurisdictio n an d quasi-judicia l
power s t o determin e an d adjudicat e al l othe r agraria n
reform matters .
I t shal l no t b e boun d b y th e technic
a l
rule s o f procedur e
an d evidenc e b u t ma y emplo y al
l
reasonabl e mean s t o ascertai n th e fact s i n accordanc e
with justice , equit y an d th e merit s o f th e cas e
(Sec
. 50).
Sec .
3 . Cases
governed.
T h e s e
R u l e s
s h a l l
g o v e r n t h e p r o c e d u r e t o b e o b s e r v e d i n a
c t i o n s ,
civil o r criminal , an d s p e c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s .
(a)
A civi l a c t i o n i s o n e b y w h i c h a part y s
u e s
a n o t h e r fo r t h e e n f o r c e m e n t
o r p r o t e c t i o
n o f a
right ,
o r t h e p r e v e n t i o n
o r r e d r e s s o f a w
r o n g ,
(la , R2 )
A civi l a c t i o n m a y e i t h e r b e o r d i n a r y o r s
pecial .
Bot h ar e g o v e r n e d b y th e rule s fo r ordinar y civi
l
actions , subjec t t o t h e specifi c rule s prescribe d fo r
a specia l civi l action , (n )
65
----------------------- Page 66----------------------RULE 1
SEC. S
(b) A crimina l actio n i s o n e b y w h i c h t h e Stat e

p r o s e c u t e s
a
p e r s o n
fo r
a n
a c t o r
o m i
s s i o n
p u n i s h a b l e b y law . (n )
(c) A specia l p r o c e e d i n g i s a r e m e d y b y w h i
c h a
p a r t y s e e k s t o e s t a b l i s h a s t a t u s , a r i g h
t , o r a
particula r fact . (2a , R2)
NOTE S
1. In th e Philippines , ther e i s n o differenc e betwee n
a "suit " an d an "action " a s ou r court s ar e court s o f law an
d
equity
(se e Lopez
vs. Filipinos
Cia.
de
Seguros,
L-19613,
April 30,
1966).
Likewise ,
in America n law , th e
term s
"action "
a n d "suit "
a r e no w
n e a r l y , i f no t e
n t i r e l y ,
synonymou s
(Elmos
vs. James,
Tex.
Civ.
App.,
2
82 S.W.
835; Coleman
vs. Los Angeles
County,
180 Cal.
71
4,
182
P . 440), or i f ther e b e a distinction , it i s t h a t th e
ter m
"action" i s generall y confine d t o proceeding s in a cour t
of law , whil e "suit " i s equall y applie d t o prosecution s at
law or in equit y (Black's Law Dictionary,
6th Ed., p.
1434).
2 . Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s inheren t jurisdictio n tha t
it ca n alway s exercis e i n setting s attende d b y unusua l
circumstance s t o preven t manifes t injustic e t h a t coul d
resul t t o bar e technica l adherenc e t o th e law an d impre cise jurisprudenc e (Co vs. PNB, G.R. No.
51767, Ju
ne 29,
1982).
3 .
I n a n ordinar y action , ther e mus t b e rea l partie s
in interes t assertin g advers e claim s an d presentin g a rip e

issu e
(Tolentino
vs.
Board
of Accountancy,
90 Phil.
88).
S e c . 4 . In what cases not applicable. T h e s e R u l e s
shal l no t appl y t o e l e c t i o n c a s e s , lan d r e g i s t r a
t i o n ,
c a d a s t r a l , n a t u r a l i z a t i o n a n d
i n s o l v e n c y
p r o c e e d i n g s , an d othe r c a s e s no t h e r e i n p r o v i d e d
for ,
e x c e p t b y a n a l o g y o r i n a s u p p l e t o r y c h a r a c t
e r an d
w h e n e v e r practicabl e an d c o n v e n i e n t . (R143a )
66
----------------------- Page 67----------------------RULE 1
SEC. 5
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
NOT E
1.
Se e Not e 3 unde r Sec . 5 , Rul e 2 .
C' r'\
S e c . 5 . Commencement of action.
A
civi l
a
c t i o n
i s c o m m e n c e d b y t h e filin g o f t h e origina l c o m p l a i
n t
i n court .
I f a n a d d i t i o n a l d e f e n d a n t i s i m p l
e a d e d i n
l a t e r
w i t h
regar d t o
r
pleading , i
it s
admission ^ i
p l e a d i n g ,
t h e a c t i o n i s c o m m e n c e d
h i m o n t h e d a t e o f t h e filin g o f s u c h late
r r e s p e c t i v e o f w h e t h e r t h e m o t i o n fo r
f n e c e s s a r y , i s d e n i e d b y th e court . (6a )
NOTE S
1. Thi s
provisio n
assume s
significanc e
espe
cially
wher e prescriptio n i s raise d a s a defens e agains t th e
claim o f th e plaintif f i n th e complaint .
Thus , a s lo
n g a s
th e complain t whic h commence s th e actio n i s filed withi n
th e prescriptiv e period , th e clai m allege d therei n i s no t
barre d eve n i f summon s wa s serve d o n th e defendan t after
th e prescriptiv e perio d (Sotelo vs. Dizon,
et al.,
5 7 Phil.
573; Cabrera,
et al. vs. Tiano,
L-17299,
July
31,
1963).
2 . Suc h actio n ma y b e commence d b y filin g t h e
complaint b y registere d mail . Hence , i f th e complain t wa s
duly sen t t o th e prope r cour t b y registere d mai l withi n
th e p r e s c r i p t i v e perio d
a n d i n accordanc e
w i
t h t h e
requirement s o f Sec . 3 , Rul e 13 , th e fact tha t sai d com plaint , a s mailed , wa s actuall y receive d by th e cler k o f
said cour t afte r th e laps e o f th e prescriptiv e perio d i
s
immateria l a s th e dat e o f mailin g i s considere d th e dat e
of th e filing o f sai d complaint .
However , i f th e requisit
e
docket fee wa s actuall y paid , eithe r personall y or als o by
mail , subsequen t t o th e mailin g o f sai d complaint , th e
dat e o f suc h paymen t o r th e mailin g o f sai d a m o u n t
therefor shal l b e considere d a s th e dat e o f th e filin g o f
th e complain t
(Ago Timber Corp. vs. Ruiz, et al., L-23887,
Dec. 26,
o f
1967).
Wher e ther e wa s an u n d e r a s s e s s m e n t
----------------------- Page 68----------------------RULE 1

SEC. 5
th e docke t fee t o b e pai d

s t
difference o f opinion a s t o th e
du e
t o
a n
natur e o f th e
initiall y
hone
action ,
th e
plaintif f wa s permitte d t o subsequentl y complet e

th e
paymen t by payin g th e differenc e (Magaspi vs. Ramolete,
L-34840,
July
20,
1982).
3 . Ordinarily , th e rul e wa s tha t a cas e i s deeme d

filed only upon th e paymen t o f th e docke t fee .
Th e C
our t
acquire s jurisdictio n over th e cas e only upo n full paymen t
of suc h prescribe d docket fee .
All complaints , petitions ,
answer s an d simila r pleading s mus t specify th e
o f damage s bein g praye d for bot h i n th e
amoun t
bod y o f th e
pleadin g an d i n th e praye r therein , an d sai d damage s

shall b e considere d in th e assessmen t o f th e filing fees ;
otherwise , suc h pleadin g shal l no t b e accepte d for filing
or shal l b e expunge d from th e record .
Any defect in t
h e
original pleadin g resultin g i n underpaymen t o f th e docke t
fee canno t b e cure d by amendment , suc h a s by th e reduc tion o f th e clai m as , for al l lega l purposes , ther e i s
n o
origina l complain t ove r whic h th e cour t ha s acquire d
jurisdictio n
(Manchester
Development
Corporation,
et
al.
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.
75919, May 1,
1987).
However ,
t h e a f o r e s t a t e d r u l i n g i n Manch
ester
Development
Corporation,
et al. vs. CA,
et al. ha s
bee n
modified a s follows :
(1) whe n th e filing o f th e initiator
y
pleadin g i s no t accompanie d by paymen t o f th e docke t
fee, th e cour t ma y allow p a y m e n t o f th e fee withi n
a
reasonabl e tim e bu t not beyon d th e applicabl e prescriptiv e
or r e g l e m e n t a r y period ; (2) th e sam e rul e applie s
t o
permissiv e counterclaims , third-part y claim s an d simila r
pleadings ; an d (3) whe n th e tria l cour t acquire s jurisdic tio n
ove r
a c l a i m b y t h e filin g o f t h e a p p r o p
r i a t e
pleadin g an d paymen t o f th e prescribe d filin g fee but ,
subsequently , th e judgmen t award s a clai m no t specifie d
in th e pleadings , or i f specifie d th e sam e ha s bee n le
ft
for determinatio n by th e court , th e additiona l filing fee
therefor shal l constitut e a lien on th e judgmen t which shal l
b e enforce d an d th e additiona l fee assesse d an d collecte d
68
----------------------- Page 69----------------------RULE 1
SEC. 5
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
by th e cler k of cour t
(Sun Insurance
et al.
vs. Asuncion, et al.,
G.R.
Nos.
79937-38,
1989).
Office,
Feb.
Ltd.,
13,
4 . I t i s tru e t h a t Manchester lai d down th e rul e tha
t
all complaint s shoul d specify th e amoun t o f th e damage s
praye d for no t only in th e body o f th e complain t bu t als o
in th e prayer .
T h a t rule , however , ha s bee n relaxed
.
Thus , whil e th e body o f th e complain t i n thi s cas e i s silen
t
a s t o th e exac t amoun t o f damages , th e praye r di d specify
th e amount .
Thes e amount s wer e definit e enoug h an d
enable d th e cler k o f cour t t o comput e th e docke t fee
s
payable .
Furthermore , th e amount s claime d nee d no t b e
initially state d wit h mathematica l precision .
Section
5(a) ,
Rule 14 1 allow s an appraisa l "mor e or less, " tha t is , a fina l
determination i s stil l t o b e mad e an d th e fee s ultimatel y
found t o b e payabl e wil l eithe r b e additionall y pai d by or
refunde d t o th e part y concerned , a s th e cas e ma y be .
Th e
part y is , therefore , allowe d t o mak e a n initia l paymen t o f
th e filin g fee s correspondin g t o th e estimate d amoun t
o f th e clai m subjec t t o adjustmen t a s t o wha t ma y late r
be
prove d
(Ng
Soon
vs. Alday,
et al., G.R.
No.
85879,
Sept.
29,
1989).
5 . Wher e th e actio n involve s rea l propert y (such a s
an accion publiciana) an d relate d claim s for damages , th e
lega l fee s s h a l l b e assesse d o n bot h th e valu e o f
t h e
propert y an d th e tota l a m o u n t o f th e damage s sought .
Wher e th e fee s prescribe d for a n actio n involvin g rea l
propert y hav e bee n pai d bu t th e amount s for th e relate d
damage s bein g demande d therei n ar e
unspecified ,
th e
actio n
m a y
no t b e d i s m i s s e d . Th e
c o u r t a c
q u i r e d
jurisdictio n ove r th e actio n involvin g rea l propert y upo n
th e filin g o f t h e c o m p l a i n t an d
t h e p a y m e n t
o f t h e
prescribe d fee therefor .
It i s no t diveste d o f tha t author
it y
b y th e fact t h a t i t ma y no t hav e acquire d jurisdictio n over
th e accompanyin g claim s for damage s becaus e o f lack o f
specification thereof .
Sai d claim s for damage s a s t o which
n o amount s ar e state d ma y simply b e expunge d o r th e
69
----------------------- Page 70----------------------RULE 1
SEC. 6
court , on motion , ma y allow a reasonabl e tim e for th e

amendmen t o f th e complain t s o a s t o alleg e th e precis e
amount o f th e damage s an d accept paymen t o f th e fee s
therefor , provide d sai d claim s for d a m a g e s hav e
no t
becom e time-barre d
(Tacay, et al.
vs. Regional Trial Cour
t
ofTagum,
1989).
6 .
etc.,
Th e
et
al,
G.R.
Nos.
88075-77,
Dec.
20,
amoun t o f docke t fee s t o b e pai d shoul d b e
compute d o n th e basi s o f th e amoun t o f th e damage s

state d i n th e complaint .
Where , subsequently , th e judg men t award s a clai m no t specifie d i n th e pleadin g or
,
if specified , th e sam e ha s bee n left for th e determinatio n
o f t h e court ,
t h e a d d i t i o n a l filin g fe e therefo r
shal l
c o n s t i t u t e a lie n o n t h e j u d g m e n t . Suc h " a
w a r d s o f
c l a i m s no t specifie d
i n t h e p l e a d i n g " refe r
onl y
t o
damage s arisin g afte r th e filing o f th e complain t o r simila r
p l e a d i n g . Accordingly ,
t h e a m o u n t o f an y clai
m
for
damage s arisin g on or befor e th e filing o f th e complain t
o r a n y p l e a d i n g shoul d
b e specified .
T h e exce
ptio n
contemplate d a s t o claim s no t specifie d o r t o claim s whic h
although specifie d ar e left t o th e determinatio n o f th e
court i s limite d only t o damage s t h a t ma y aris e afte
r
th e filin g o f th e complain t o r simila r pleadin g sinc e i
t
wil l not b e possibl e for th e claiman t t o specify or speculat e
on
th e
a m o u n t
thereo f (Ayala
Corporation,
e t
a l
vs.
Madayag,
et al, G.R.
No.
88421,
Jan.
30,
1990).
7 . I t i s wel l settle d i n ou r jurisdictio n that , unles
s
o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d b y la w
o r r e q u i r e d b y
p u b l i c
interest , a s i n qu o warrant o action s (se e Not e 3 unde r
Sec. 11, Rule 66), befor e bringin g an actio n in or resortin g
t o th e court s o f justice , al l remedie s o f administrativ e
character affectin g o r determinativ e o f th e controvers y
at tha t leve l shoul d first b e exhauste d b y th e aggrieve d
part y
(Pestanas vs. Dyogi, L-25786, Feb. 27,
1978;
Miguel
vs. Vda. de Reyes,
93 Phil.
542; Coloso
vs. Board,
L-5750,
April 30,
1950).
It i s likewis e true ,
however ,
t
h a t th e
doctrin e o f exhaustio n o f administrativ e remedie s i s not a
har d an d fast rule .
70
----------------------- Page 71----------------------RULE 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 6
This Title doe s no t apply an d ha s been disregarde d
when :
(1) th e issu e i s purel y a lega l one , an d nothin g
o f
an administrativ e natur e i s t o b e an d ca n b e don e
(
Dauan
vs.
Secretary
of Agriculture
and
Natural
Resources,
et al.,
L-19547,
Jan.
31,
1967;
Aguilar
vs.
Valencia,
L30396,
July
30,
1971;
Commissioner
of Immigration
vs.
Vam
enta,
L-34030,
May 31,
1972; Del Mar vs.
Phil.
Veterans
Adm.,
L-27299,
June
27,
1973; Bagatsing
vs. Ramirez,
L41631,
Dec.
17, 1976);
(2) insistenc e on it s observanc e woul d
r e s u l t i n n u l l i f i c a t i o n o f t h e clai m b e i n g a s
s e r t e d
(Gravador
vs. Mamigo,
L-24989,
July
21,
1967);
(3
) th e
controverte d ac t i s p a t e n t l y illega l o r wa s performe
d
withou t jurisdictio n or in exces s o f jurisdictio n
(Indu
strial
Power
Sales,
Inc.
vs. Sinsuat,
L-29171,
April
15,
1988);
(4) th e responden t i s a departmen t secretary , whos e act s
a s a n a l t e r eg o o f t h e P r e s i d e n t b e a r th e
implie d o r
assume d approva l o f th e latter , unles s actually disapprove d
by hi m (Demaisip vs.
CA, et al,
106 Phil. 237); (5) th
er e
ar e c i r c u m s t a n c e s indicatin g t h e
urgenc y o f judici
a l
intervention
(Gonzales
vs. Hechanova,
L-21897,
Oct
.
22,
1963; Abaya
vs. Villegas,
L-25641,
Dec.
17,
1966;
Mitra
vs. Subido, L-21691, Sept. 15,
1967); (6) th e rul e doe s
not
provid e a plain , speed y an d adequat e remed y
(Cip
riano
vs.
Marcelino,
L-27793,
Feb.
28,
1972);
(7)
t h e r
e is a
violation
of du e
proces s
(Quisumbing
vs. Gumban,
G.R.
No.
85156,
Feb.
5,
1991;
Salinas
vs.
NLRC,
et
al,
G.R. No.
114671, Nov. 24,
1999); (8) ther e is estoppe l
on
th e par t o f th e administrativ e agenc y concerne d
(Vd
a. d e
Tan
vs.
Veterans
Backpay
Commission,
105
Phil
377);
(9) ther e i s irreparabl e injur y
(De Lara vs. Cloribel,
121
Phil.
1062); (10) t o requir e exhaustio n o f administrativ e
remedie s woul d b e unreasonabl e
(Cipriano vs. Marceli
no,
et al, 150 Phil. 336); (11) th e subject matte r i s a privat e
land in
lan d cas e proceeding s
(Soto vs. Jareno, L-38
962,
Sept.
15,
1986);
a n d (12 )
t h e i s s u e o f e x h a u
s t i o n
o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s h a s b e e n r e n
d e r e d
moo t
(Carale,
etc.,
et
al.
vs. Abarintos,
etc.,
e
t al.,
G.R.
No.
120704, Mar.
3, 1997).
7 1
----------------------- Page 72----------------------RULE 1
SEC. 6
Sec .
6 . Construction.
T h e s
l b e
l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d i n o r d e r
t h e i r
objectiv e o f s e c u r i n g a just , s p e e d y
v e
dispositio n o f ever y actio n an d proceeding .
R u l e s
t o
s h a l
p r o m o t e
an d i n e x p e n s i
(2a )
NOTE S
1.
Thi s section i s a recognition o f th e fact t h a t th e
rule s o f procedur e ar e mer e tool s designe d t o facilitat e th e

attainmen t o f justice .
Thus , th e libera l constructio n o
f
thes e Rule s ha s bee n allowe d i n th e followin g cases :
(1) wher e a rigi d applicatio n wil l resul t i n manifes t
failure or miscarriag e o f justice ;
(2) wher e th e interes
t o f
substantial justic e wil l b e served ; (3) wher e th e resolutio n
of th e motion i s addresse d solely t o th e soun d an d judiciou s
discretion o f th e court ; an d
(4) wher e th e injustic e t o
th e
advers e part y i s no t commensurat e wit h th e degre e o f hi s
thoughtlessnes s i n no t complyin g wit h th e prescribe d
procedur e (Tan us. CA, et al., G.R. No.
130314, Sept.
22,
1998).
2 . In fact , in lin e wit h th e spiri t an d purpos e o f th
i s
section, eve n th e suspensio n o f th e rule s ma y b e justifie d
in th e interes t o f fair play .
As- earl y a s th e cas e o f
Vda.
de Ordonez us. Raymundo (6 3 Phil . 275) , it wa s hel d t h a t
th e cour t h a s t h e powe r t o s u s p e n d t h e rules ,
o r t o
except a particula r cas e from thei r operation , wheneve r
th e end s o f justic e s o require .
Jurisprudenc e
ha s
lai d
dow n
th e
rang e
o f reason s
whic h ma y provid e justificatio n for a cour t t o restric t

adherenc e t o procedure , enumeratin g ground s for givin g
du e cours e t o a n otherwis e objectionabl e appea l b y a
suspension o f th e enforcemen t o f procedura l rules ,
viz.:
(1) i n m a t t e r s o f life , l i b e r t y , h o n o r o r p r o
p e r t y ;
(2) c o u n s e l ' s n e g l i g e n c e w i t h o u t a n y p a r t i c
i p a t o r y
negligenc e on th e par t o f th e client ;
(3) th e existenc
e o f
special or compellin g circumstances ; (4) th e eviden t merit s
of th e case ;
(5) a caus e no t entirel y attributabl e t o th e
72
----------------------- Page 73----------------------RULE 1
. 6
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
SEC
fault or negligenc e o f th e part y favore d by th e suspensio n

of th e rules ; () th e lack o f an y showin g tha t th e review
sought
i s merel y frivolou s an d dilatory ;
an d
(7)
t h e
othe r p a r t y wil l no t b e unjustl y prejudice d
t h e
r e b y
(Baylon
vs. Fact-finding
Intelligence
Bureau,
etc., et
al.,
G.R. No. No.
150870, Dec.
11, 2002).
3 . Whil e t h e Rule s ar e
liberall y construed ,
t h e
provision s on reglementary period s ar e strictly applie d a s
the y ar e "deeme d indispensabl e t o th e preventio n o f
needless delay s an d necessary t o th e orderly an d speedy
discharge of judicia l business " (Alvero vs. De la Rosa, et
al., 76 Phil.
428; Valdez vs.
Ocumen, et al,
106 Phil
929;
Mangali, et al.
vs. CA, et al, L-47296, Aug.
21, 1980;
cf.
Legaspi-Santos
vs. CA,
et al, G.R.
No.
60577,
Oct.
11,
1983) an d stric t complianc e therewit h i s mandator y an d
imperativ e
(FJR
Garments
Industries
vs.
CA,
et
al,
L-49320, June 29,
1984).
Th e sam e i s tru e wit h respe
c t
t o th e rule s o n th e m a n n e r an d period s for perfect
in g
appeal s
(Gutierrez vs.
CA, et al, L-25972, Nov. 26,
196
8),
and th e requirement s a s t o wha t shoul d appea r o n th e
face
of a
recor d
on appea l
(Workmen's
Insurance
Co.,
Inc. vs. Augusto,
et al, L-31060,
July 29,
1971),
althoug
h
thes e rule s hav e sometime s bee n relaxe d o n equitabl e
consideration s (se e Pimentel, et al. vs. CA, et al, L-39684,
June
3,
Mar.
27,
1975; Bagalamon,
31,
et
al. vs.
CA,
et
al, L-4304
1977).
All t h i n g s
d
attention t o th e fact
purpose, an d t o disregar
construction woul d b e t
considered ,
t h e
S u p r e m e
Cour t
calle
tha t "(v)ules o f procedur e exis t for a

d suc h rule s i n th e guis e o f liberal
o defea t suc h purpose .
Procedura l
rule s ar e not t o b e disclaime d a s mer e technicalities

may not b e ignore d t o sui t th e convenienc e o f
Adjectiv e
la w e n s u r e s t h e effectiv e
e n
t o f
s u b s t a n t i v e right s t h r o u g h t h e orderl y
y
administratio n o f justice .
Rule s ar e no t
o
hampe r litigant s o r complicat e litigation .
lp
provid e for a vita l syste m o f justic e wher e suitor
The y
a party .
f o r c e m e n
an d
speed
intende d
Bu t the y he
s may b e
73
----------------------- Page 74----------------------RULE 1
C. 6
hear d i
tim e in
a judg e
li c
order an
SE
n th e correc t form an d manner , a t th e prescribe d

a peacefu l thoug h adversaria l confrontation befor e
whos e authorit y litigant s acknowledge .
d
ou r
syste m
conscientiou s
e d u r e ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y
i e s "
(Kowloon House/Willy
24,
June
18,
2003,
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
United
G.R.
No.
141117, Mar.
o f justic e
observanc e
ar e
wel l
o f t h e
serve d
r u l e s
b y
vs.
CA,
quote d
in
Pulp
and
24,
et al.,
United
G.R.
Pulp
Paper
o f p r o c
b y g o v e r n m e n t official s a n d
Ng
Pub
No.
and
Chapter,
a g e n c
1400
Paper
etc.,
2004).
74
----------------------- Page 75----------------------CIVIL

ORDINARY
ACTION S
CIVI L
ACTION S
RUL E
CAUSE
S e c t i o n
1.
O F
Ordinary
ACTIO N
civil
actions,
basis
of.

Ever y o r d i n a r y
o n a
caus e o f action ,
c i v i l a c t i o n m u s t
b e b a s e d
(n )
Sec .
2 . Cause
of
action, defined.
of
a c t i o n i s t h e a c t o r o m i s s i o n b y
a r t y
violate s a r i g h t o f a n o t h e r ,
(n )
c a u s e
w h i c h
a p
NOTE S
1. Se e Not e 2 o f th e Preliminar y Consideration s an d
Note s 2 an d 5 unde r Sec . 47 , Rul e 39 .
2 . A caus e o f actio n i s th e delict or wrongfu l ac t or
omission committe d by th e defendan t in violation o f th e
primar y righ t o f th e plaintiff .
A singl e ac t o r omissio n
can b e violativ e o f
wher e ther e i s only
single caus e o f actio
violate d belongin g t o
variou s right s a t th e sam e tim e bu t

on e delict o r wrong , ther e i s bu t a
n regardles s o f th e numbe r o f right s
on e person .
Nevertheless , i f only
one injury resulte d from severa l wrongfu l acts , only on e

cause o f actio n arises .
Th e singlenes s o f a caus e o f action
lies in th e singlenes s o f th e delict or wron g violatin g th e
right s of on e perso n
(Joseph vs. Bautista, et al.,
L-414
23,
Feb.
23,
1989).
Sec . 3. One
suit for a single cause
of action.
A
part y m a y no t i n s t i t u t e m o r e t h a n o n e sui t f
o r a
singl e c a u s e o f action . (3a )
76
----------------------- Page 76----------------------RULE 2
SEC. 4
Sec .
4 . Splitting
a single
cause
of
action;
effect
of.
I f t w o o r m o r e s u i t s a r e i n s t i t u t e d o n t h e b
a s i s o f
t h e s a m e
c a u s e o f a c t i o n , t h e f i l i n g o f
o n e o r a
j u d g m e n t u p o n t h e m e r i t s i n a n y o n e i s a
v a i l a b l e
a s a g r o u n d fo r t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e o t h e r s .
(4a )
N O T E S
1.
Splittin g a caus e o f action i s th e ac t o f dividin g
a
single caus e o f action , clai m o r deman d int o tw o o r mor e
p a r t s , a n d b r i n g i n g sui t for on e o f s u c h p a r
t s only ,
intendin g t o reserv e th e res t for anothe r separat e action .
Th e purpose s o f th e rul e ar e t o avoi d h a r a s s m e n t
an d
vexation t o th e defendan t an d t o obviat e multiplicit y o f
suits .
'. 2 .
Wher e
singl e
caus e o f actio n ha s bee n split ,
th e remed y o f th e defendan t i s t o mov e t

Rul e
1 6 o n t h e groun d t h a t t h e
e r actio n
pendin g betwee n th e sam e partie s for th
or
litis pendentia
(Sec.
lfej); or ,
tio n
ha s
already bee n finally terminated , o n th e
judicata
(Sec.
IffJ).
land ,
o dismis s unde r
r e
i s a n o t h
e sam e
i f th e
groun d
cause ,
first
ac
o f res
3 . Thus , wher e th e first,actio n wa s for recovery o f

anothe r actio n for th e valu e o f plaintif f s shar e
n
th e produc e o f sai d lan d i s barred ,
a s a singl e
caus e o
f
action wa s split int o tw o suit s
(Jalandoni, e t al. vs.
MartirGuanzon,
et al., 102 Phil.
859; cf.
Pascua
vs. S
ideco,
24
Phil. 26).
Th e sam e doctrin e applie s where , in th e action
t o recove r th e land , th e plaintif f sough t t o recove r
th e
fruit s alread y appropriate d b y th e
defendan t bu
t
no t
th e futur e fruit s whic h ma y b e realize d thereo n unti l th e
possessio n o f th e land , wa s restore d t o him .
H e coul d
hav e don e s o by supplementa l complain t in sai d action ,
failing whic h h e canno t institut e anothe r action for tha t
purpos e
in violation of th e rul e of res judicata
(Bayang
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 53564, Feb. 27,
1987).
76
----------------------- Page 77----------------------RULE 2
. 4
CAUSE OF ACTION
SEC
4 . Wher e a contract i s t o b e performe d periodically ,

a s b y installments , eac h failur e t o pa y a n installmen t
constitute s a caus e o f actio n an d ca n b e th e subjec t o f a
separat e sui t a s th e installmen t fall s due , o r i t ca n
b e
included i n th e pendin g sui t b y supplementa l pleading .
However, i f a t th e tim e o f th e bringin g o f suit , severa l
installment s ar e alread y due , al l mus t b e include d a s
integratin g a singl e caus e o f action , otherwis e thos e not
included
hil.
923).
wil l
be
barre d
(Larena
vs.
Villanueva,
5 . Withal , eve n i f th e contrac t i s

it s
performanc e an d th e futur e periodi c deliverie
yet due , bu t th e obligor ha s alread y manifeste d
t o comply wit h hi s futur e periodi c obligations ,
trac t i s entir e an d th e breac h total, " henc e
be on e actio n for damage s (Blossom & Co.
Corporation,
55 Phil.
226).
53
divisibl e
s
ar
hi s
"th e
ther e
i n
e no t
refusa l
con ca n only
vs. Manila Gas
6 . Non-paymen t o f a mortgag e loan canno t b e spli t

tw o actions , on e for paymen t o f th e deb t an d
into
other
for
foreclosur e
o f th e
mortgage ,
a s
ther e
i s
one
caus e
of actio n
(Quiogue,
et al. vs. Bautista,
al.,
L-13159, Feb.
28, 1962); bu t an actio n for collection
th e
only
et
of a
mortgag e loa n doe s no t ba r anothe r for rescission o f th e

mortgag e i f suc h rescissio n i s base d on th e non-complianc e
b y th e mortgago r wit h certai n othe r condition s o f th e
mortgag e
contrac t
(Enriquez,
et al. vs. Ramos,
et
al.,
L-16797,
Feb.
27,
1963).
7. Wher e
entry i n th e
ce
constructe d b y
lot, but , afte
th e
lot
for
whil
th e plaintif f file d th e first action for forcible

belie f an d o n th e allegatio n tha t th e fen
th e defendan t intrude d upo n only on e
r th e relocatio n survey , h e discovere d tha t
othe r portio n o f th e sam e fence extende d t o anothe r

an d a s a consequenc e o f whic h h e filed anothe r action
forcibl e entry upo n tha t latte r lot , th e Suprem e Court ,
e holdin g tha t technicall y ther e wa s a splittin g o f a
77
----------------------- Page 78----------------------RULE 2

SEC. 5
single
caus e
constitute
d th e
order o f
dismis s
appearin g
th e tim
o f actio n
only
on e
sinc e
act ,
th e
allege d
forcibl e
nevertheles s
entr y
s u s t a i n e
th e lower cour t denyin g defendant' s motio n t o

th e complain t on th e groun d o f litis pendentia, it
tha t th e first action ha d not ye t bee n trie d a t
e th e secon d action wa s filed i n th e sam e court ,
henc e th e tw o case s coul d b e trie d togethe r a s one , o r th

e
second complain t coul d b e treate d a s a n amendmen t o f
th e
firs t (Tarnate
Dec.
29,
1972).
S e c .
a
i
a
o
y
a
f
c
y
n
t
t
h
g
o
o
i
h
a
a
l
n
o
v
e
v
i
l
d
n
e
r
e
n
o
i
us.
5 . Joinder of
Garcia,
causes
et
of
action.
al.,
L-26266,
p a r t y
p l e a d i n g
a s s e r t ,
i n t h e
a l t e r n
o r
w i s e , a s m a n y c a u s e s o f a c t i o n a s h e m a
s t a n o p p o s i n g p a r t y ,
w i n g
t i o n s :
s u b j e c t t o t h e
(a)
T h e p a r t y j o i n i n g t h e c a u s e s o f a c t
i o n s h a l l
c o m p l y w i t h t h e r u l e s o n j o i n d e r o f p a r t i e
s ;
(b)
T h e j o i n d e r s h a l l n o t i n c l u d e
e c i a l civi l
a c t i o n s g o v e r n e d
b y s p e c i a l r u l e s ;
s p
(c)
W h e r e t h e c a u s e s o f a c t i o n a r e b e t w e
e n t h e
s a m e
p a r t i e s b u t
p e r t a i n t o d i f f e r e n t v
e n u e s
o r
j u r i s d i c t i o n s , t h e j o i n d e r m a y
b e
a l l o w
e d
i n t h e
R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t p r o v i d e d o n e o f t h e c
a u s e s o f
a c t i o n fall s
w i t h i n
t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f s
a i d c o u r t
a n d t h e v e n u e lie s t h e r e i n ; a n d
- 1
(d)
W h e r e
t h e
c l a i m s
i n
a l l t h e
c
a u s e s
o f
a c t i o n a r e p r i n c i p a l l y fo r r e c o v e r y
o f m
o n e y
t h e
a g g r e g a t e ^ a m o u n t
c l a i m e d
s h a l l b e
t h
e
t e s t o f
j u r i s d i c t i o n . (5a )
N O T E S
1.
Th e joinde r o f cause s o f actio n in on e complain t
promote s th e policy o n avoidin g multiplicit y o f suits .
Th e rul e i n Sec . 5 , however , i s purel y permissiv e an d th e
78
----------------------- Page 79----------------------RULE 2
SEC. 5
CAUSE OF ACTION
plaintif f ca n alway s file separat e

of action
(Baldovir
vs. Sarte,
action s for eac h caus e

36 Phil.
550).
2 . Par .
(a) o f thi s sectio n require s tha t th e joinde r
of cause s o f actio n shal l comply wit h th e rul e on joinde r

of parties .
Thus , in relatio n t o Sec . 6 o f Rul e 3 , i
t i s
necessar y t h a t th e righ t o f relie f from sai d cause s o
f
action shoul d aris e ou t o f th e sam e transactio n o r serie s
of transactions , an d a questio n o f law an d fact common
t o al l th e plaintiff s o r defendant s ma y aris e i n th e action
.
3 . Unde r Par . (b) , only cause s o f actio n in ordinar y
civil action s ma y b e joined , obviously becaus e the y ar e
subject t o th e sam e rules .
Necessarily , therefore , specia l
civil action s or action s governe d by specia l rule s shoul d
not b e joine d wit h ordinar y civi l action s t o avoi d con fusion i n th e conduc t o f th e proceeding s a s wel l a s i n th e
determination o f th e presenc e o f th e requisit e element s
of eac h particula r caus e o f action . In fact , in th e specia l
civil actio n o f declarator y relie f (Rule 63), th e concept o f
a caus e o f actio n in ordinar y civil action s doe s not apply .
Not e shoul d
which provide s t
inter
alia, t o electio n
Art. IXC,
1987
s of
th e electora l t
b e taken , however , o f Sec . 4 o f Rul e

h a t thes e Rule s shal l no t apply ,
case s in th e regula r court s (se e Sec. 2[2],

Constitution).
Thus ,
unles s
th e rule
r i b u n a l
o r
body
provid e
otherwise ,
th e
prohibitio n agains t joinin g in on e actio n therei n a caus e

of actio n for qu o warrant o by reaso n o f th e ineligibility
o f th e d e f e n d a n t c a n d i d a t e (whic h i s a specia l
civi l
action) an d on e for a n election protes t du e t o electora l
irregularities , shoul d no t appl y an d bot h cause s o f action
may b e adjudicate d in a singl e case , especially in view o f
th e nee d for speed y determinatio n o f th e titl e t o a publi c
office.
4 . Pars , (c) an d (d) determin e which cour t wil l hav e
jurisdictio n ove r th e actio n wherei n severa l cause s o f
action hav e bee n joined .
Unlik e th e forme r Rule , th
e
79
----------------------- Page 80----------------------RULE 2
SEC. 5
aggregat e o r totalit y rul e applie s only wher e th e claim s

ar e principall y for sum s o f money , an d not wher e the y
ar e als o o f th e sam e natur e an d character ; an d sai d claim s
for mone y mus t aris e ou t o f th e sam e t r a n s a c t i o
n o r
serie s o f transaction s wherei n a questio n o f law or fact
common t o th e partie s may aris e i n th e action .

Also
, th e
condition in th e former Rul e tha t permissiv e joinde r o f
cause s o f action shal l b e "(s)ubject t o th e rule s regardin g
jurisdictio n (and ) venue " ha s bee n modifie d an d clarifie d
in th e presen t formulatio n o f par . (c) .
5 . I n a c o m p l a i n t file d
i n t h e S e c u r i t i
e s a n d
Exchang e Commissio n by a stockholde r o f a corporation ,
one o f th e cause s o f action therei n sough t th e annulmen t
of a dacion en pago agreement , whereb y sai d corporatio n
ceded al l it s asset s t o th e mortgage e ban k i n settlemen t
of it s account , an d t o recover sai d propert y from th e third p a r t y p u r c h a s e r t o who m
t h e m o r t g a g e e b a n
k h a d
subsequently sol d th e propert y an d wh o wa s impleade d
a s a co-defendant .
I t wa s hel d tha t suc h caus e o f act
ion
could no t b e joine d in sai d complain t sinc e jurisdictio n
thereove r lie s i n th e regula r courts .
While , ordinari
ly ,
th e purchase r corporatio n shoul d b e include d a s a part y
defendant sinc e i t ha s a n interes t i n th e subjec t matter ,
i n t h i s cas e sai d
p u r c h a s e r h a s n o i n t r a - c o
r p o r a t e
relationship wit h th e complainant , hence , th e Commissio n
ha s n o jurisdictio n over i t unde r P.D . 902-A .
Th e ru
l e o n
permissiv e joinde r o f cause s o f actio n i s subjec t t o th e
rule s regardin g jurisdiction , venu e an d joinde r o f partie s
(Union
Glass
&
Container
Corp.,
et al. vs.
SEC,
et al.,
G.R. No. 64013, Nov. 28, 1983), a s clarifie d in thi s revise d
Rule .
6 . Thi s section
of actio n whic h ar e
plaintiff/ s an d agains t
misjoinder o f partie s i s
,
i.e., whethe r th e actio
presuppose s tha t th e different cause s

joine d accru e in favor o f th e sam e
th e sam e defendant/ s an d tha t n o
involved .
Th e jurisdictiona l issue
n shal l b e filed in th e inferior cour t
80
----------------------- Page 81----------------------RULE 2

SEC. 5
CAUSE OF ACTION
or in th e Regiona l Tria l Court , i s determine d by paragraph s

(c) an d (d) .
7 . Formerly
o f actio n
a r
fferen t
person s wh o ar e
ar e joine d in
s
, th e rul e wa s tha t althoug h th e cause s

e for
s u m s o f mone y
owin g
t o
member s o f a labo r union , bu t th e sam e
singl e complain t filed by sai d unio n
di
a
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p a r
o f Rul e 3 ,
jurisdictio n shal l b e determine d
of th e demand s
(Liberty
CFI of
Bulacan,
et al., L-35252,
of thi s
natur e ar e now governe d b y th e
t y
p u r s u a n t
t o
Sec .
b y th e aggregat e amoun t
Mfg.
Workers
Union
Nov.
29,
1972).
vs.
Case s
Labo r Code .
8. Befor e th e implementatio n o f B.P . Big .

129 , it
wa s hel d t h a t wher e th e plaintif f i s uncertai n a s agains t
whom t o procee d for recover y on th e los s o f good s shippe d
t o hi m an d sue s on a joinde r o f cause s o f action agains t
th e shippe r o r arrastr e operato r a s alternativ e defendants ,
th e forme r o n a n admiralt y actio n an d th e latte r o n a
n
ordinary clai m for a su m o f money , th e joinde r o f cause s
o f actio n i s p r o p e r sinc e
t h e y aros e
fro m
t h
e s a m e
t r a n s a c t i o n . H o w e v e r ,
s i n c e on e
c a u s e o f
a c t i o n
(admiralty) wa s withi n th e jurisdictio n o f th e Cour t o f Firs t
Instance , eve n i f th e amoun t involve d in th e claim for a
sum o f mone y wa s withi n th e jurisdictio n o f th e inferior
court , th e actio n mus t b e filed an d trie d i n th e Cour t o f
F i r s t I n s t a n c e , p u r s u a n t t o Rul e 2 , Sec . 5 ,
secon d
p a r a g r a p h
(Insurance
Company
of North
America
vs.
Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd., et al., L-24108, Oct. 31,
1967;
Insurance
Company
of North America
vs.
U.S.
Line
s
Co.,
L-21839, April
30,
1968).
Th e
subsequen t dismissa l o
f
t h e a d m i r a l t y c a s e a g a i n s t on e
o f t h e a l t e
r n a t i v e
defendant s di d no t ous t sai d cour t o f jurisdictio n over th e
damag e sui t eve n i f th e clai m wa s les s t h a n th e t
h e n
jurisdictiona l
a m o u n t
(Insurance
Company
o
f North
America
vs.
U.S.
Lines
Co.,
supra).
However , sinc e
inferior court s wer e
unde r Sec .
1 9 o f B.P .
Big .
129 th e
grante d jurisdictio n over admiralt y

8 1
----------------------- Page 82----------------------RULE 2

SEC. 6
actions , a s wel l a s ordinar y civil actions , wher e th e claim

does not excee d P20,000 , th e situation s i n th e foregoin g
c a s e s w e r e
e l i m i n a t e d b e c a u s e t h e j u r i s d
i c t i o n a l
amoun t i n bot h
cause s
o f actio n
bein g
th e
same ,
sai d
amount i s determinativ e o f whethe r tha t action shoul d b e

filed in th e inferior court s or in th e Regiona l Tria l Court .
Th e amendmen t o f Sec . 19 , B.P . Big .
o f R.A . 7691 , a s earlie r indicated , doe s
r u l e o n a d m i r
c e t h a t
a m e n d m e n t
m
n g t h e
jurisdictiona l amoun t
civil action s for
a l t y
a n d
e r e l y
129 by Sec . 1
no t affect thi s
m a r i t i m e
c o n s i s t e d
c a s e s
o f
s i n
i n c r e a s i
for sai d cases , an d als o for ordinar y

a s u m o f money , t o claim s exceedin g
PIOO.OOO,
o r i n M e t r o M a n i l a , exceedin g P200.00
0 ,
exclusive o f interest , damage s o f whateve r kind , attorney' s
fees, litigatio n expenses , an d costs .
Sec .
6 . Misjoinder of causes of action. Misjoinde r
f c a u s e s o f a c t i o n i s n o t a g r o u n d fo r d i s m i
s a l o f
n a c t i o n . A m i s j o i n e d c a u s e
o f a c t i o n m a
,
o n
m o t i o n o f a part y o r o n t h e initiativ e o f t h e cour
t ,
b e s e v e r e d an d p r o c e e d e d w i t h separately , (n )
o
s
a
y
NOTE S
1. I n cas e o f misjoinde r o f cause
o f actio n erroneousl y joine d nee d only
dismissed , withou t affectin g th e actio n
other caus e or cause s o action .
o f
action , lik e misjoinde r o f parties ,
dismissa l o f
e
droppe d by
motion ,
a n d an y
e d a n d
proceede d wit
2 .
a n action .
o f th e
clai m
a g a i n s t
cour t
sua
no t
sponte
(Sec.
cas e
or
p a r t y ma y
h separatel y
th e
i s
groun d
for
Th e part y misjoine d shal l only b
orde r
Unlik e
s o f action , th e caus e
b e separate d an d
wit h regar d t o th e
Misjoinde r o f cause s
11,
on
b e
s e v e r
Rule 3).
o f non-joinde r o f partie s
whic h
i s specifically provide d for an d regulate d by th e Rule s

(Sees. 9 to 11, Rule 3), ther e i s no provisio n on or sanctio n
against non-joinde r o f separat e cause s o f actio n sinc e a
82
----------------------- Page 83----------------------RULE 2
SEC. 6
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
plaintif f need s only a singl e caus e o f actio n t o maintai n

an actio n (Sec.
1, Rule 2).
Joinde r o f cause s o f act
io n
whic h accrue d in favor o f a part y i s only a permissiv e
p r o c e d u r e , h e n c e t h e p a r t y ma y
i n s t i t u t e a
s m a n y
action s a s h e ha s cause s o f action , withou t prejudic e t o
th e provision s o f Sec .
1 o f Rul e 3 1 o n join t t r
i a l o r
consolidation o f actions .
83
----------------------- Page 84----------------------RUL E
PARTIE S
T O
CIVI L
3
ACTION S
S e c t i o n 1.
Who
may
be parties; plaintiff and de
fendant.
O n l y
n a t u r a l o r j u r i d i c a l p e r s o n s
, o r
e n t i t i e s a u t h o r i z e d b y la w m a y b e p a r t i e s i n
a civi l
a c t i o n . T h e
t e r m
" p l a i n t i f f m a y
r e f e r t
o t h e
c l a i m i n g party ,
t h e c o u n t e r - c l a i m a n t , t h e
c r o s s claimant , o r th e thir d (fourth , etc.)-part y plaintiff .
T h e t e r m " d e f e n d a n t " m a y
refe r t o t h e
o r
i g i n a l
d e f e n d i n g party , t h e d e f e n d a n t i n a c o u n t e
r c l a i m ,
t h e c r o s s - d e f e n d a n t , o r t h e t h i r d ( f o u r t h ,
e t c . ) part y defendant , (a )
NOTE S
1. A s t o wh o ar e juridica l person s wit h capacit y t o
sue , se e Art . 44 , Civi l Code .
Th e entitie s authorize d by
law t o b e partie s t o a sui t includ e th e estat e o f a decease d
perso n
(Limjoco
vs.
Intestate
Estate
of Fragante,
8 Phil.
776;
Estate
of Mota
vs.
Concepcion,
56
Phil.
712),
a politica l p a r t y
incorporate d
u n d e r Ac t 145 9
(now ,
B.P.
Big.
68,
Corporation
Code)
an d a registere d
labo r
u n i o n , u n d e r Sec .
24(d) ,
R .A .
87 5
(now ,
Sec.
243,
P.D. 442, Labor Code), wit h respec t t o it s property .
Th e
Roma n Catholi c Churc h ha s a juridica l personalit y
(Barlin
vs.
Ramirez,
7 Phil.
47).
2 . Althoug h
th e
actio n wa s brough t
agains t
th e
"Broadway Theatre " whic h i s no t a juridica l person , bu t
th e lesse e thereo f filed a n answe r an d late r entere d int o
a compromis e agreemen t admittin g liability an d pursuan t
t o whic h judgmen t wa s rendered , th e procedura l defect
wa s cured .
Th e wri t o f executio n canno t b e enforce d
a g a i n s t t h e t h e a t r e b u t a g a i n s t t h e l e s s e e
(Oscar
Ventanilla
Enterprises
Corp.
vs. Lazaro,
G.R.
No.
53856,
Aug.
21,
1980).
----------------------- Page 85----------------------RULE 3

SEC. 2
3 .
Sec .
1 o f thi s Rul e provide s tha t only natura l or
juridica l person s ma y b e partie s in a civil action and , in

thi s case , th e educationa l institutio n faile d t o compl y
with it s obligatio n t o incorporat e unde r th e Corporatio n
Law afte r it s recognitio n b y th e Government . However ,
havin g contracte d wit h it s teache r for 3 2 year s unde r th e
representatio n t h a t i t wa s possesse d o f juridica l person ality t o d o so , i t i s no w estoppe d from denyin g suc
h
personalit y
t o defea t
he r clai m
agains t
it (C
hiang Kai
Shek School us. CA, et al., G.R. No. 58028, April 18,
1989).
4 . Unde r Sec . 1 5 o f thi s Rule , an entity , whic h i s
not
registere d a s a juridica l perso n and , therefore , withou t
th e requisit e personalit y require d o f partie s t o a suit , ma y
at leas t b e sue d a s a defendan t in th e first instanc e s
o
tha t th e
m e m b e r s thereo f shal l b e disclose d b y bei
n g
require d t o b e individuall y name d i n th e answer . Thi s
exception i s dictate d b y th e nee d t o identify it s member s
since i t i s from the m t h a t th e plaintif f ma y seek relie f o n
hi s claim .
5
persona l
courts ,
plaintiff
1964).
Non-residen t alien s livin g abroa d ma y maintai n

action s agains t Philippin e resident s i n Philippin e
eve n i f a counterclai m i s brough t agains t sai d
s
(Dilweg
us.
Philip,
L-19596,
Oct.
30,
S e c . 2 . Parties
i n interest.
A **e *L p a r t
i n
i n t e r e s t i * t k e p a r t y w h o s t a n d s t o b e benefite d
o r
injure d b y - t h e j u d g m e n t i n t h e suit , o r t h e pa
rt y
y
e
t
a
o
b
n
h
u
n
e
t i t l e d t o t h e a v a i l s o f t h e suit .
U n l e s s o
e r w i s e
t h o r i z e d b y la w o r t h e s e R u l e s , e v e r y a c t i
m u s t
p r o s e c u t e d o r d e f e n d e d i n t h e n a m e o f
t h e r e a l
p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . (2a )
N O T E S
1.
A rea l part y in interes t i s th e part y wh o stand s
t o
b e benefite d o r injure d b y th e judgmen t i n th e suit , o r
th e
part y entitle d
vs.
t o
th e
-ire *
avail s
r
<
o f th e
c * '
sui t
(Salonga
(85
----------------------- Page 86----------------------RULE 3

SEC. 3
Warner,
Barnes
&
Co.,
Ltd.,
88 Phil.
125).
Th e
ter m
"party" include s a surety who , althoug h not initially a
party t o th e case , i s sough t t o b e hel d liabl e o n
it s
performance bond, hence , a s suc h party , i t ca n appea l
from
th e
orde r rendere d
thereo n
(PHHC
vs. J
eremias,
et al., L-43252,
Sept.
30,
1976).
2 . I f th e sui t i s not brough t in th e nam e o f or again
s t
th e
rea l part y
i n
interest ,
motio n
t o dismis s
may-b e
filed on th e groun d tha t th e complain t state s n o caus e o f

action (Sec.
IfgJ, Rule 16).
3 . Wher e th e action wa s brough t b y th e attorney in-fact o f th e landowne r in hi s own name , an d not in th e
nam e o f hi s principal , th e action wa s properl y dismisse d
(Ferrer vs.
Villamor,
L-33293,
Sept.
30,
1974; Marcelo
vs.
De Leon,
105 Phil.
1175).
Sec .
3 . Representatives
t h e
actio n i s a l l o w e d t o b e p
b y a
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r s o m
d u c i a r y
capacity , t h e beneficiar y shal
i n th e
titl e o f th e c a s e an d shal l
l
as
parties.
W h e r e
r o s e c u t e d o r d e f e n d e d
e o n e
l
b e
a c t i n g
i n a
f i
i n c l u d e d
b e d e e m e d t o b e t h e rea
part y i n interest .
A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e m a y b e a t
r u s t e e
o f a n
e x p r e s s t r u s t , a g u a r d i a n , a n e x e c u
t o r o r
administrator , o r a part y a u t h o r i z e d b y la w o r t h e s e
Rules .
A n a g e
n d fo r
t h e benefi t o f a n
u e o r
b e s u e d w i t h o u
p t w h e n
t h e c o n t r a c t
t o
t h e
principal .
(3a )
n t
a c t i n g i n
u n d i s c l o s e d
h i s
n a m e
p r i n c i p a l m a y
t j o i n i n g t h e
i n v o l v e s
o w n
p r i n c i p a l e x c e
t h i n g s
b e l o n g i n g
NOTE S
1.
Th e impleadin g o f th e beneficiary a s a part y in
th e sui t i s now a mandator y requirement , an d not a dis cretionary procedur e a s i t wa s i n th e forme r sectio n o f
thi s Rule .
Thi s amende d section enumerate s th e sam e
exception s t o th e rul e t h a t th e actio n shal l b e brough t i
n
86
----------------------- Page 87----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 3
th e nam e o f th
rt y
a u t h o r i z e d
e s t h e
representativ e o
(Sec.
1, Rule
d th e
assigne e o f a
Th e
judgmen t credito r
if th e forme r
e 39).
Other instance s
Arts . 487 , 1311
Code .

e rea l part y i n interest .
b y
la w
f th e
70),
debto r
o r
Th e phras e "pa
t h e s e R u l e s , " i n c l u d
owne r i n ejectmen t proceeding s

a receive r (Sec.
6, Rule
59)
i n
insolvenc y
an
proceedings .
ma y su e th e debto r o f a judgmen t debto r

denie s th e indebtednes s (Sec.
43,
Rul
unde r th e substantiv e law ar e foun d i n

, 1497 , 1664 , 210 3 an d 211 8 o f th e Civi l
2 . A labo r union , a s th e duly recognize d bargainin g

uni t o f it s members , ca n file a representativ e sui t in thei r
behal f unde r thi s sectio n whic h authorize s a part y wit h
who m o r i n whos e nam e a contrac t ha s bee n mad e for
th e benefi t o f another , t o su e o r b e sue d withou t joinin g
th e p a r t y for whos e benefi t th e actio n i s presente d
o r
defended
(Liberty Mfg.
Workers
Union
vs. CFI of Bu
lacan,
et al.,
supra;
cf.
National
Brewery,
etc. Labor
Unio
n
of
the
Phil.
vs. San Miguel
Brewery,
Inc.,
L-19017,
De
c.
7,
1963).
Thi s representativ e capacit y o f labo r union s i s
recognize d unde r th e Labo r Cod e (Sec. 243) but , generally ,
labor case s ar e no t originall y cognizabl e b y th e regula r
courts .
3 . A*corporatio n canno t maintai n a n actio n
recover property belongin g t o it s stockholder s a s i t
no interes t therein , it havin g a separat e personality
th e propertie s no t havin g bee n transferre d t o
ng Bayan, Inc.
vs.
Gregorio Araneta,
Inc.,
-31061,
Aug.
17,
1976).
t o
ha s
an d
i t (Sulo
et al., L
4 . Unde r th e presen t Rules , partie s i n interes t ma y

b e classifie d an d define d a s follows :
a . Indispensable parties:
Thos e
withou t
n o
final determinatio n ca n b e ha d o f an action (Sec.
).
who m
7
b . Necessary parties:
Thos e wh o ar e
no t indi
spen sable bu t ough t t o b e partie s i f complet e relie f i s t o b e
87
----------------------- Page 88----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 3
accorded a s t o thos e alread y parties ,

determination or settlemen t o f th e claim
action
(Sec. 8).
c.
Representative parties:
Sec .
3 o f thi s Rule .
or for a complet e
subjec t o f th e
Thos e
referre d
to
d . Pro forma parties:

Thos e wh o ar e require d to b
e
joine d a s co-partie s i n suit s b y o r agains t anothe r part y
a s ma y b e provide d b y th e applicabl e substantiv e law
or procedura l rul e
(Sec. 4).
e.
Quasi parties:
Thos e
or
representativ e sui t i s brough t
in
whos e
(Sec.
behal f a
clas s
17).
5 . Th e 194 0 Rule s o f Cour t provide d for th e ter m

"necessary parties " bu t thi s wa s change d t o "proper "
partie s in th e 1964 Rule s o f Court .
Th e presen t Rul
e s
reverte d t o th e origina l nomenclatur e
a s bein g
mor e
terminologically accurate .
In America n law on th e classification o f parties , from

whic h
w e derive d
an d
p a t t e r n e d ou r concept s
w i t h
appropriat e
modifications ,
formal
or proper partie s
ar e
thos e wh o hav e n o interes t in th e controvers y betwee n
th e immediat e litigant s bu t hav e a n interes t i n th e sub ject-matte r whic h ma y b e convenientl y settle d i n th e
suit , an d thereb y preven t furthe r litigation ; the y ma y b e
mad e partie s o r not , a t th e optio n o f th e complainant .
Necessary partie s ar e
thos e
partie s wh o hav e
suc
h
a n
i n t e r e s t i n th e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r o f a sui t i
n equity , o r
whos e right s ar e s o involve d i n th e controversy , t h a t n o
complete an d effectiv e decre e ca n b e made , disposin g o f
th e matte r i n issu e an d dispensin g complet e justice , un les s the y ar e befor e th e cour t i n suc h a m a n n e r
a s t o
entitl e the m t o b e hear d in vindicatio n or protectio n o f
thei r
i n t e r e s t s (se e
Black's
Law
Dictionary,
4t
h
ed.,
pp.
1275-1276; citation s omitted) .
Th e classificatio n therei n als o speak s o f nomina l
partie s a s thos e wh o ar e joine d a s plaintiff s o r defendants ,
88
----------------------- Page 89----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 4
not becaus e the y hav e an y rea l interes t i n th e subjec

t
m a t t e r o r becaus e an y relie f i s d e m a n d e d a s aga
ins t
them , bu t merel y becaus e th e technica l rule s o f pleading s
requir e thei r presenc e o n th e record .
Thi s woul d roughl
y
correspon d
t o ou r
concep t
o f an d rul e o n pro
forma
partie s wherei n th e joinde r o f spouse s i s required , o r i n
certiorar i action s w h e r e i n t h e cour t o r agenc y whos
e
adjudication i s challenge d i s impleade d a s th e publi c
respondent ,
wit h t h e prevailin g p a r t y a s th e priv
at e
respondent .
6 . In th e presen t definitio n o f a necessar y party , th e
additio n o f t h e
a l t e r n a t i v e claus e "or for a compl
et e
determination or settlemen t o f th e clai m subjec t o f th e
action " i s intende d t o mak e th e definitio n o f necessar y
partie s mor e comprehensiv e an d complete .
Thus , i
f th e
plaintif f credito r sue s only on e o f th e tw o join t debtors ,

th e j u d g m e n t t h e r e i n woul d accor d complet e
reli
e f a s
betwee n hi m an d sai d defendant .
However , th e co-debtor
wh o wa s no t impleade d i s definitel y a necessar y
since a judgmen t i n t h a t actio n wit h respec t t o hi
join t liability i s necessar y for a complet e settlemen t
th e deb t in favor o f th e plaintiff .
Withou t suc h
part y
s own
o f
alterna -
tiv e
c l a u s e , t h e u n i m p l e a d e d d e b t o r woul d
no
t b e
considered a s a necessar y part y an d th e procedur e an d
sanction s in Sec . 9 o f thi s Rul e coul d no t b e applie d t
o
him .
7 . P a r t i e s wh o w e r e no t initiall y
an d
forma
ll y
impleade d a s origina l partie s t o th e case , bu t late r boun d
themselve s t o comply wit h th e term s o f a judgmen t on
compromise rendere d therei n ma y als o b e considere d a s
quasi partie s in sai d cas e
(Rodriguez,
et al. vs. Ali
kpala,
L-38314,
June
25,
1974).
Sec . 4 . Spouses
as parties.
H u s b a n d
a n d w
if e
shal l s u e o * b e s u e d jointly , e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d
b y
law . (4a )
89
----------------------- Page 90----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 5

N O T E
1.
Th e provision hereo n in th e 1964 Rule s o f Cour t
wa s merel y a reproductio n o f Art . 113 o f th e Civi l Code .
Thi s
i s an
illustratio n o f joinde r o f pro forma partie
s
require d by th e Rules . Th e propriet y o f suit s by or agains t
th e spouse s shoul d now tak e int o accoun t th e pertinen t
provision s o f th e Famil y Code .
m i n
o r a
u e o
b e s
m o t h
g u a r
a d
(5a)
S
o
p
r
u
e
d
e c . 5 . Minors
or
incompetent persons.
A
r
e r s o n a l l e g e d t o b e i n c o m p e t e n t , m a y s
e d w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f h i s father ,
r ,
i a n ,
o r i f h e h a s
n o n e , a
g u a r d i a n
litem.
r
N O T E S
T
-
1.
Unde r th e
1964 Rules , a distinctio n wa s
mad e
betwee n unemancipate d an d emancipate d minors . A n
unemancipate d mino r coul d su e o r t o b e sue d "through "
hi s p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n , t h a t is , th e actio n
ha d t o b e
b r o u g h t
i n t h e n a m e
o f o r a g a i n s t s u c h
p a r e n t o r
g u a r d i a n w i t h t h e designatio n t h a t h e
w a s
b r i n g i n g
th e actio n o r bein g sue d i n t h a t capacity .
I n t
h e cas e o f
emancipate d minors , the y coul d su e o r b e sue d "wit h th e
assistance " o f th e paren t o r guardian .
Th e actio
n wa s i n
th e nam e o f o r agains t th e minor , wit h a n indicatio n tha t
h e wa s bein g assiste d therei n b y hi s paren t o r guardian .
Not e t h a t 1 8 year s i s now th e ag e o f majorit y (R.A. 6809)
an d for contractin g
Code).
2 .
Also ,
marriag e
unde r th e
(Art.
forme r
5,
Rules ,
i t wa s
Family
necessar y
tha t t o su e o r b e sue d i n th e case s provide d b y law , th

e
incompetent mus t hav e bee n judiciall y declare d a s such ,
an d h e coul d thu s su e o r b e sue d only throug h hi s paren t
or guardian .
Unde r th e presen t revision , th e sui t ca n b
e
brough t b y o r agains t hi m personall y bu t wit h th e assis tanc e o f hi s parent s o r hi s guardian .
I t i s suff
icient tha t
90
----------------------- Page 91----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 6
hi s i n c o m p e t e n c y
b e a l l e g e d i n t h e c o r r e
s p o n d i n g
pleading s an d th e tria l cour t ma y pas s upo n th e t r u t h an
d
effects
thereof .
S e c .
6 .
Permissive joinder
of parties.All
p
e r s o n s
i n w h o m o r a g a i n s t w h o m a n y
r i g h t t o
r e l i e f i n
r e s p e c t t o o r a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e s a m e t r a
n s a c t i o n
o r s e r i e s o f t r a n s a c t i o n s i s a l l e g e d t o e x i s
t w h e t h e r
jointly , severally , o r
i n th e alternative , may ,
excep t a s
o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n t h e s e Rules , j o i n a s plai
ntiff s
o r b e j o i n e d a s d e f e n d a n t s i n o n e c o m p l a i n t ,
w h e r e
any
q u e s t i o n o f l a w o r
fac t
c o m m o n
t o
al l s u c h
plaintiff s o r t o al l s u c h d e f e n d a n t s m a y aris e i n t
h e
action ; bu t t h e c o u r t m a y m a k e s u c h o r d e r s a s ma
y
b e j u s t t o p r e v e n t a n y plaintif f o r d e f e n d a n t
fro m
b e i n g e m b a r r a s s e d o r pu t t o expens e i n connectio n
w i t h a n y p r o c e e d i n g s
i n w h i c h
h e
m a y
h a v e
n o
interest .
(6 )
NOTE S
1. I n th e cas e
parties , thei r joinde r in
(Sees. 7
and 8).
Thi s sectio n
joinde r o f parties , t h
i n
one singl e complain t or
sued i n s e p a r a t e
l e t o
counterclaim s
(Go,
).
2 .
o f indispensabl e partie s an d necessar y

th e actio n i s compulsor y
enunciate s th e rul e o n permissiv e
a t is , the y ca n eithe r h e joine d
ma y themselve s maintai n or b e
suits . Thi s rul e i s als o
et al.
vs.
Go,
et al.,
applicab
95 Phil.
378
Permissiv e joinde r o f partie s require s that :
a . Th e righ t t o relie f arise s ou t o f th e sam e

s action or serie s o f transactions ;
tran
b . Ther e i s a questio n o f law or fact common t o al l

th e plaintiff s o r defendants ; an d
c.
Suc h joinde r i s
no t otherwis e
proscribe d
by
provision s o f th e Rule s on jurisdictio n an d venue .

9 1
----------------------- Page 92----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 7
"Series of transactions " mean s separat e dealing s wit h

the partie s but all o f whic h dealing s ar e directly connecte d
wit h th e sam e typ e o f subject-matte r o f th e suit .
Th e
thir d requiremen t i s contemplate d by th e provis o "except
a s otherwis e provide d in thes e Rules " state d in thi s section .
th e
Formerly , i t wa s hel d tha t severa l employees , hire d

unde r separat e contracts , coul d join in a sui t for minimu m
wage s an d non-paymen t thereo f agains t thei r employer ,
thei r contract s bein g a "serie s o f transactions " an d ther e
is a commo n questio n o f fact an d law applicabl e t o al l o f
the m
(Abrasaldo, et al.
vs. Cia. Maritima,
104 Phil.
1051
fUnrep.J).
Th e sam e rul e applie d wher e severa l employee s
wer e jointl y dismisse d an d no t pai d b y thei r employe r
(International
Colleges,
Inc.
vs. Argonza,
90
Phil.
470).
Th e foregoin g
situation s ar e now governe d by th e Labo r
Code, bu t th e doctrine s i n sai d case s ar e stil l applicabl e t
o
ordinary claim s no t involvin g labo r case s o r employer employe e
r e l a t i o n s h i p s a s lon g a s th e r e q u
i s i t e s for
permissiv e joinde r o f partie s ar e present .
3 . Wher e a complain t containe d tw o cause s o f action ,
each for a su m o f money les s t h a n P20,00 0 (which wa s
t h e n t h e m a x i m u m
o f t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a m
o u n t for
case s cognizabl e by th e municipa l tria l courts ) owe d by
th e plaintif f t o a
differen t defendan t an d arisin g from
different
an d
independent
transactions,
a l t h o u g
h th e
tota l o f bot h claim s exceede d P20,000 , th e Regiona l Tria l
Court ha d n o jurisdictio n t h e n sinc e th e totalit y rul e
involving
an d Sec
o t h e
requirement
h e
righ t t o
differen t parties , in Sec . 33(1) o f B.P . Big . 129

.
1 1 o f t h e I n t e r i m Rules ,
i s subjec t
i n
thi s
section ,
on e
o f whic h
i s
t h a t
relie f arise s ou t o f th e sam e transactio n o r serie s
of
t r a n s a c t i o n s (Flores
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
66620,
Sept.
24,
y Sec .
rties.
7.
P a r t i e s
f i n a l
Compulsory
i n
vs.
Mallare-Philipps,
1986).
joinder
of
i n t e r e s t w i t h o u t
indispensable
w h o m
pa
n o
92
----------------------- Page 93----------------------RULE 3
ECS. 7-8
determinatio n ca n b e ha d o f a n actio n shal l b e joine d

eithe r a s plaintiff s o r d e f e n d a n t s . (7)
y
on e
Sec .
i s
w h o
8 .
i s
Necessary
party.
no t i n d i s p e n s a b l e
n e c e s s a r y
bu t w h o o u g h t
part
t o b e
joine d a s a part y i f c o m p l e t e relie f i s t o b e a c c o r d
e d
a s t o t h o s e a l r e a d y
p a r t i e s , o r fo r a c o m
p l e t e
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o r s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m subje
c t o f
th e a c t i o n . (8a )
NOTE S
1. I n th e cas
n
canno t
p r o c e e d
sa
vs.
Polistico,
47 Phil.
705),
wherea s th e actio n ca
some necessar y parties .
ot
impleaded ,
an y ju
dg m e n t
woul d
hav e
whereas ,
necessar y
part y
i s
eve n
i f a
o f indispensabl e
u n l e s s t h e y
parties ,
345;
Cortez
a r e
vs.
th e
joine d
actio
Avila,
(Borla
101
Phil.
n procee d eve n i n th e absenc e o f

I f a n indispensabl e part y i s n
n o
effectiveness ;
no t
include d
i n
th e suit , th e cas e ma y b e finally determine d i n court , bu t

t h e j u d g m e n t
t h e r e i n wil l
no t
r e s o l v e t h e
whol e
controversy .
2 . I n d i s p e n s a b l e
uc h a n
interes t i n t h e controvers y
p a r t i e s
t h a t
ar e thos e wit h
fina l
decre e
woul d
necessarily affect thei r rights , s o tha t th e cour t canno t

procee d withou t thei r presence .
Necessar y partie s
ar e
thos e whos e presenc e i s necessar y t o adjudicat e th e whol e
controversy bu t whos e interest s ar e s o far separabl e tha t
a fina l decre e ca n b e m a d e i n thei r absenc e withou t
affecting
the m
Schrack,
1 Fed. Rules Service,
79 Ed.).
3 .
(Wyoga
292,
Gas
cite d in
&
Oil
1 Moran
Corp.
191,
vs.
19
Where , in an action t o annu l th e sal e o f lan d mad e
b y th e defendan t ban k t o it s co-defendan t spouses , th e

action wa s dismisse d wit h
respec t t o sai d defenda
n t
spouses , th e cas e mus t als o b e dismisse d a s agains t th e
defendant bank .
Th e defendan t spouse s ar e indispensabl e
93
----------------------- Page 94----------------------RULE 3

SEC. 9
parties , henc e havin g bee n discharge d b y th e tria l court ,

said cour t i s n o longer in a position t o gran t th e relie f
sought by th e plaintif f
(Pillado
us.
Francisco,
105 Phil.
1254 fUnrep.J).
On th e othe r hand , wher e th e actio n wa s
dismisse d agains t th e defendant s who , befor e th e filing
of sai d action , ha d sol d thei r interest s in th e lan d subjec t
o f t h e sui t t o t h e i r co-defendant ,
th e
sai d
dismissa l
against th e former , wh o ar e only necessar y partie s t o th e
suit , wil l not ba r th e action from proceedin g agains t th e
l a t t e r a s th e r e m a i n i n g defe n da n t .
Sai d
r e m a i n i n g
defendant havin g bee n veste d wit h absolut e titl e ove r
th e subjec t property , th e tria l cour t i s i n a positio n
t o
gran t th e relie f sough t i f prove d by th e plaintiff s
(Seno,
et al. us. Mangubat,
et al.,
L-44339, Dec.
2,
1
987).
S e c .
d.
W h e n e v e r
c l a i m i s
a s s e r t e d a
e p l e a d e r
s h a l l s e t
s h a l l s t a t
w h y h e i s o
e r e a s o n
for t h e
o m
o r d e r t h e
i n c l u s i o n
p a r t y
i f
j u r i s d i c t i
n e d .
r
i n
l b
a
9 .
Non-joinder of necessary parties
i n
a n y
p l e a d i n g
to
i n
be pleade
w h i c h
n e c e s s a r y p a r t y i s n o t j o i n e d , t h
f o r t h h i s n a m e , i f k n o w n , a n d
e
m i t t e d .
S h o u l d t h e c o u r t fin d t h
i s s i o n
o f
o n
u n m e r i t o r i o u s ,
t h e
o m i t t e d
o v e r h i s
p e r s o n
i t
m a y
n e c e s s a r y
m a y
b e
o b t a i
T h e
f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y
w i t h t h e o r d e
fo r
h i s
c l u s i o n , w i t h o u t j u s t i f i a b l e c a u s e , s h a l
e d e e m e d
w a i v e r o f t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t s u c h p a r t y .
T h e n o n - i n c l u s i o n o f a n e c e s s a r y p a r t y d
o e s n o t
p r e v e n t t h e
c o u r t f r o m p r o c e e d i n g
i n t
h e a c t i o n ,
a n d t h e j u d g m e n t r e n d e r e d t h e r e i n
s h a l
l b e
w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e r i g h t s o f s u c h n e c e s s a
r y p a r t y .
(8a , 9a )
N O T E S
1.
Thi s
revise d
provisio n
r e i t e r a t e s
th e
nee
for
impleadin g al l necessar y partie s i n orde r tha t th e claim s
involve d i n th e actio n ma y b e completel y determine d
94
----------------------- Page 95----------------------RULE 3

. 9
SEC
therei n an d thereb y avoi d multiplicit y o f suits .

Th e no
n inclusion o f th e necessar y part y ma y b e excuse d only o n
meritoriou s grounds , absen t whic h th e cour t shal l orde r
him t o b e impleade d i f jurisdictio n ove r hi s perso n ca n
b e obtained , subjec t t o th e sanctio n i n th e secon d para graph o f thi s section .
I f hi s inclusio n cannot , however ,
b e effecte d for vali d reasons , unde r th e thir d paragrap h
o f thi s sectio n th e actio n ma y procee d bu t th e judgmen t
therei n shal l no t prejudic e th e right s o f t h a t necessar
y
party .
Logically considered , therefore , neithe r shal l hi s
right s b e prejudice d i f hi s non-inclusio n in th e actio n in
th e first plac e wa s du e t o a vali d cause .
2 . Unde r th e circumstance s contemplate d i n th e first
p a r a g r a p h , th e cour t shal l orde r th e inclusio n o f t
h e
necessar y party , t h a t is , th e plaintif f shal l b e ordere d t o
file a n a m e n d e d complain t impleadin g th e
necessar
y
part y therei n a s a co-defendant .
Wher e th e plaintif f un
justifiedl y fail s or refuse s t o d o so , th e sanctio n i n th
e
second paragrap h come s int o pla y an d th e plaintif f shal l
b e deeme d t o hav e waive d hi s clai m agains t sai d party .
The sam e rul e applie s t o an y pleadin g assertin g a claim
against a necessar y party .
3 . It i s tru e t h a t unde r Sec . 3 o f Rul e 17 , wher e
th e
plaintif f fail s withou t justifiabl e caus e t o comply wit h a n
order o f t h e court , hi s complain t
ma y b e dismissed .
However , suc h dismissa l shal l no t b e ordere d wher e th e
plaintif f fail s t o comply wit h th e orde r o f th e cour t
for
th e joinde r o f th e necessar y part y unde r thi s Rule , i n lin e
with Sec . 1 1 thereo f whic h provide s t h a t non-joinde r o f
partie s shoul d no t b e a groun d for dismissa l o f an action .
Thus , th e rul e merel y declarin g th e waive r o f plaintiff s
claim agains t th e necessar y part y whos e non-inclusio n
wa s unjustified , a s provide d in th e secon d paragrap h o f
thi s section , i s in effect an exceptio n t o th e provision on
penaltie s impose d on a disobedien t part y unde r Sec . 3
of Rul e 1 7 whic h woul d hav e entaile d th e dismissa l o f th e

complaint itself .
95
----------------------- Page 96----------------------RULE 3
10-11
SECS.
Sec .
10 .
Unwilling co-plaintiff.
s e n t
o f an y part y w h o shoul d b e j o i n e d
no t b e
obtained ,
h e m a y
I f t h e
a s
c o n
plaintif f ca n
b e m a d e a d e f e n d a n t an d
th e r e a s o n therefo r shal l b e state d i n t h e complaint .

(10)
Sec .
11 .
Misjoinder
and
non-joinder
s.
N e i t h e r m i s j o i n d e r no r n o n - j o i n d e r
t i e e i s
g r o u n d fo r d i s m i s s a l o f a n action .
P a r
a y b e
droppe d o r a d d e d b y orde r o f th e cour t o n m o t
a n y part y
e o f
th e a c t i o
l a i m
a g a i n s t
a n d
p r o c e e d e
o r
o n
it s
o w n
initiativ e
a t
m i s j o i n e d
p a r t y
m a y
b e
partie
o f p a r
t i e s m
i o n o f
a n y
n an d o n s u c h t e r m s a s ar e just .
a
of
s t a g
An y c
s e v e r e d
d w i t h separately . (11a )
NOTE S
1. Objection s
t o defect s
in th e partie s
implea
de d
should b e mad e a t th e earlies t opportunity , th e momen t
such defect s becom e apparent , by a motio n t o strik e th e
name s o f th e partie s impleaded .
I f ther e i s misjoinder
, a
s e p a r a t e actio n shoul d b e
b r o u g h t a g a i n s t th
e p a r t y
misjoined .
Objection t o misjoinde r canno t b e raise d for
th e first tim e on appea l (Garcia vs.
Chua, [CA],
5
0 O.G.
No.
2, 653).
2 . Non-joinde r doe s not warran t dismissa l bu t th e
court shoul d orde r th e inclusio n o f th e necessary part y
(see Sanchez vs.
CFI,
4 0 Phil.
155).
Bu t if th e c
as e i s
erroneously dismisse d o n thi s groun d withou t statin g tha t
it i s withou t prejudice, an d plaintif f did not appeal , suc h
dismissal bar s th e filin g o f anothe r actio n o n th e sam e
cause
(Rivera
vs.
Luciano,
L-20844,
Aug.
14,
1965).
3 . Althoug h bot h misjoinde r o f partie s an d

o f actio n ar e no t ground s for dismissal , the y
cause s
stan d o n
different premise s a s ther e ca n b e misjoinde r o f partie s

even i f ther e i s only on e caus e o f actio n commo n t o them ,
96
----------------------- Page 97----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 12
and
ther e

ca n b e
misjoinde r o f cause s o f actio n eve n
i f
ther e i s only on e plaintiff .

4 .
In cas e o f misjoinde r o f cause s o f action , th e on e
which ha s bee n misjoine d nee d merel y b e severe d an d

proceede d wit h separately , a s provide d in Sec . 6 , Rul e 2 .
Along th e sam e rationale , Sec . 2 o f Rul e 3 1 allow s th e
court , in furtheranc e o f convenienc e or t o avoi d prejudice ,
t o orde r a severanc e an d s e p a r a t e tria l o f an y cl
aim ,
cross-claim , counterclaim , or third-part y complaint , or o f
any s e p a r a t e issu e o r o f an y n u m b e r o f claims , cr
oss claims , counterclaims , third-part y complaint s o r issues .
5.
S e c . 12 .
Class suit. W h e n t h e
s u b j e c t
m a t t e r
o f t h e
c o n t r o v e r s y
i s o n e
o f c o m m o n
o r
g e n e r a l
i n t e r e s t t o m a n y
p e r s o n s
s o n u m e r o u s
t
h a t i t i s
i m p r a c t i c a b l e t o j o i n a l l a s p a r t i e s , a n u
m b e r
o f
t h e m
w h i c h
t h e
c o u r t
f i n d s t o b e
s u f
f i c i e n t l y
n u m e r o u s a n d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a s t o full y p r o t e
c t t h e
i n t e r e s t s o f al l c o n c e r n e d
m a y
s u e o r d e
f e n d
fo r
t h e b e n e f i t o f all . A n y p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t s h
a l l h a v e
t h e r i g h t t o i n t e r v e n e t o p r o t e c t h i s i n
d i v i d u a l
i n t e r e s t . (12a )
N O T E S
1.
Th e requisite s o f a clas s sui t
ativ e
suit) are :
(or represent
--a.
Th e subject-matte r o f th e controvers y i s on e o f
common o r genera l interes t t o man y persons ;
--b .
Th e partie s affecte d ar e s o numerou s tha t
s
impracticabl e t o brin g the m al l befor e th e court ; an d
i t i
y c . Th e partie s bringin g th e clas s sui t ar e sufficiently

numerou s o r representativ e o f th e clas s an d ca n fully
protec t th e interest s o f al l concerned .
97
----------------------- Page 98----------------------RULE 3
C. 12
SE
2 . Th e complain t mus t specially stat e t h a t th e sam e

i s bein g b r o u g h t i n behal f o f o t h e r s wit h who m
t h e
partie s shar e a common interes t
(Borlasa vs.
Poli
stico,
4 7 Phil. 345;
Claudio
vs. Zandueta,
64
Phil.
819).
If
ther e i s a conflict o f interes t betwee n thos e sough t t o b e
represente d an d thos e wh o file d th e action , t h e clas s
suit wil l no t prospe r (Ibahez vs.
Roman
Catholic
Ch
urch,
12 Phil. 227).
Th e part y bringin g th e clas s sui t mus
t
hav e th e lega l capacit y t o d o s o
(Chinese Flour Importers
Association
vs.
Price
Stabilization
Board,
9
Phil.
461;
Anti-Chinese
League
vs. Felix,
77 Phil.
1012;
Recre
ation
&
Amusement
Association
vs.
City
of Manila,
100
Phil.
950).
However , wrong s suffere d by som e stockholder s d o
no t necessaril y c o n s t i t u t e t h e s a m e wrong s t o o
t h e r
stockholder s a s woul d creat e t h a t commo n o r genera l
interes t in th e subject-matte r (Mathay,
e t al. vs.
Consolidated
Bank
&
Trust
Co.,
et
al., L-23136,
Aug.
26,
1974).
Se e als o Newsweek, Inc.
vs. IAC, et al. (G.R .
No .
63559, Ma y 30 , 1986) regardin g a suppose d clas s sui t for
libel agains t suga r planter s i n Negro s whic h wa s denie d
since eac h plaintif f ha s a separat e an d distinc t reputatio n
in th e community .
3 . Formerly , whe n th e court s ha d jurisdictio n i n labor
cases , i t wa s hel d tha t a clas s sui t t o recove r wage s du e t
o
2 3 laborer s i s no t prope r a s th e p a r t i e s sough t t
o b e
r e p r e s e n t e d a r e n o t s o
n u m e r o u s
a s t o m a k
e
i t
impracticabl e t o includ e the m individuall y i n th e com -
plain t (Diaz vs. De la Rama,

73 Phil.
104).
Th e princi
pl e
woul d appl y t o othe r simila r situation s no t involvin g
labor relations .
4 . On e plaintif f wa s hel d qualifie d t o brin g a clas s
suit i n behal f o f th e member s o f th e Methodis t Episcopa l
religiou s association ,
i t a p p e a r i n g t h a t h e
ha d bee n
chosen b y sai d associatio n t o look afte r thei r interest s
(De
la Cruz
vs. Seminary of Manila,
18 Phil.
334).
98
----------------------- Page 99----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 12
5 . Th e p a r t i e s wh o b r o u g h t t h e clas s sui
hav e
control over th e cas e wit h th e righ t t o compromis e o r eve n
discontinu e th e same .
Bu t a clas s sui t canno t b e co
m promise d o r dismisse d withou t th e approva l o f th e cour t
(Sec. 2, Rule 17).
A membe r o f th e clas s i s boun d by th
e
judgmen t i n th e clas s suit , henc e thi s section give s hi m
th e righ t t o interven e i f h e desire s t o protec t hi s o
w n
individua l interests .
I n th e interes t o f justice , th e ab
sen t
member s shoul d b e notifie d o f th e filin g o f th e clas s sui t
wheneve r practicable .
t
th e
6 . A s amended , thi s sectio n now regulate s no t only

righ t an d requirement s for a group t o su e bu t als o
t o defen d in a clas s suit .

7. A taxpayer' s sui t
(se e
Gonzales
vs. Hec
hanova,
L-21897,
Oct.
22,
1963;
Phil.
Constitution
Ass
ociation,
Inc. vs. Gimenez, L-23326, Dec. 18, 1965) or a stockholder' s
derivativ e sui t ar e i n th e n a t u r e o f a clas s suit , althoug
h
subject t o t h e o t h e r r e q u i s i t e s o f t h e correspond
in g
governing law (cf. Financing Corp. of the Phil.
vs.
Teodoro,
93 Phil.
679), especially on th e issu e of locus standi.
8. Claimant s o f differen t portion s embrace d in a bi g
trac t o f lan d canno t b e impleade d altogethe r in a clas s
suit b y
o r a g a i n s t t h e m a s e a c h on e o f t h e
m h a s a
p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n hi s ow n portion , s e p a r
a t e an d
different
from
t h e other s
(se e Rallonza
vs.
Vi
llanueva,
15 Phil.
531; Berses
vs.
Villanueva,
25 Phil.
473; S
ulo ng
Bayan,
Inc.
vs.
Gregorio
Araneta,
Inc.,
et al.,
supra).
However , i f th e r i g h t t o relie f aros e ou t o f th e
sam e
t r a n s a c t i o n o r s e r i e s o f t r a n s a c t i o n s an d
t h e r e i s a
common questio n o f law or fact , the y ma y b e joine d in
one sui t a s plaintiff s o r defendant s i n accordanc e wit h
Sec. 6 o f thi s Rul e on permissiv e joinde r o f parties .
9 . An
actio n doe s
no t becom e
clas s
sui t
merel y
becaus e
i t i s d e s i g n a t e d a s suc h i n t h e p l e
a d i n g s .
Whethe r th e sui t i s or i s no t a clas s sui t depend s upo n
99
----------------------- Page 100----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 13
th e attendin g facts , an d th e complain t o r othe r pleadin g

initiatin g th e clas s action shoul d alleg e th e existenc e o f a
subject-matter o f common interest , a s wel l a s th e existenc e
of a clas s an d th e numbe r o f person s in th e allege d class ,
in orde r tha t th e cour t ma y b e abl e t o determin e whethe r
th e member s o f th e clas s ar e s o numerou s a s t o mak e i t
impracticable t o brin g the m al l before th e court , t o contras t
th e numbe r appearin g o n th e recor d wit h th e numbe r i n
th e class , t o ascertai n whethe r th e claimant s o n recor d
adequately represen t th e class , an d t o verify t h a t th e
subject-matter i s o f genera l or common interes t
(Mathay,
et al.
vs. Consolidated Bank &
Trust
Co., et al., sup
ra; cf.
Ortigas &
Co.
vs. Ruiz, et al,
L-33952, Mar.
9, 1
987).
10.
Unde r th e former Rule , whe n a suppose d clas s
suit wa s filed , i t wa s th e dut y o f th e cour t t o mak e sur e
t h a t th e p a r t i e s actuall y
befor e
i t wer e
entl y
numerou s an d representativ e o f th e class .
e r th e
presen t formulation , suc h fact i s on e o f th e requisite s
institutin g an d maintainin g a clas s suit .
Th e
anc e
o f suc h chang e i s tha t th e partie s bringin g th e sui t
th e burde n o f provin g th e sufficiency o f th e representativ
character whic h the y claim .
Corollarily , th e
n t
can assai l t h a t fact throug h a motio n t o dismis s o n
suffici
U n d
for
signific
hav e
e
defenda
th e
g r o u n d t h a t t h e plaintiff s
h a v e
n o c a p a c i t y
t o su e
(Sec.
lfdj, Rule
16), t h a t is , t h a t the y d o no t
hav e th e
representatio n tha t the y clai m
(se e Lunsod vs.
Ortega,
46
Phil
664).
S e c .
13 .
Alternative
t h e
plaintif f i s u n c e r t a i n a g a
n s
h e i s e n t i t l e d t o relief ,
f t h e m
a s d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e
g h a righ t
t o r e l i e f a g a i n s t o n e
w i t h a
righ t o f relie f a g a i n s t t h
defendants.
W h e r e
i n s t w h o o f severa l p e r s o
h e m a y j o i n an y o r al l o
a l t e r n a t i v e ,
m a y b e
e
a l t h o u
i n c o n s i s t e n t
other .
(13a )
100
----------------------- Page 101----------------------RULE 3
. 14-15
SECS
N O T E
1.
Thus ,
wher e th e owne r o f th e good s i s no t sur e
whethe r th e sam e wa s los t i n transi t o r whil e i t wa s o n

deposit i n t h e warehous e o f th e a r r a s
h e
may su e th e shippe r o r th e operato r i n th
although th e righ t agains t th e forme r i s
whil e t h a t a g a i n s t t h e o p e r a t o r
r a c t (se e
Insurance
Company
of North
America
States
Lines
Co.,
L-21839,
April
30,
1968).
S e c .
14 .
W h e n e v e r t h e
d a n t i s
u n k n o w n , h e m
w n e r ,
heir , d e v i s e e ,
n a s t h e
cas e m a y r e q u i
u e n a m e
i s d i s c o v e r e d
n d e d
a c c o r d i n g l y .
Unknown
identity
or
b e
o r
b y
r e ;
,
s u e d
s u c h
w h e n
t h e
a s
alternative ,
o n admiralt y
i s o n c o n t
vs.
of
o f a
t h e
o t h e r
h i s
operator ,
name
i d e n t i t y o r n a m e
a y
t r e
defendant.
d e f e n
u n k n o w n
d e s i g n a t i o
i d e n t i t y
p l e a d i n g
United
m u s t
o r
b e
t r
a m e
(14 )
N O T E S
1.
A relate d provisio n in Rul e
14 read s a s follows :
"Sec.
14 .
Service
upon
defendant
whose
identity
or
whereabouts
are
unknown.
In
an y
a
ction ,
wheneve r th e defendan t i s designate d a s a n unknow n
owner , o r th e lik e o r wheneve r hi s whereabout s ar e
u n k n o w n
a n d c a n n o t b e a s c e r t a i n e d b y
diligen t
inquiry , servic e may , by leav e o f court , b e effecte
d
upo n hi m by publicatio n in a newspape r o f genera l
circulation an d i n suc h place s an d for suc h tim e a s
th e cour t ma y order. "
2 . Thi s presuppose s tha t th e plaintif f really doe s not
know th e identit y and/o r addres s o f th e defendan t or i s
not in a positio n t o ascertai n suc h identit y or whereabouts .
S e c .
as
defendant.
n o t
15 .
Entity
W h e n
without
t w o
juridical
o r
m o r e
personality
p e r s o n s
101
----------------------- Page 102----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 15
o r g a n i z e d
n a l i t y
ente r int o a
th e n a m e b y
n l y
k n o w n .
I n t h e
n a m e s
a n d a d d r e s
s a i d
entit y m u s t al
a s
a n
e n t i t y
w i t h
juridica l
p e r s o
transaction , the y m a y b e s u e d u n d e r
w h i c h t h e y ar e g e n e r a l l y o r c o m m o
a n s w e r
s e s
o f
o f s u c h
t h e
d e f e n d a n t ,
p e r s o n s
t h e
c o m p o s i n g
l b e revealed . (15a )
N O T E S
1.
Rul e 14 pertinentl y provide s a s follows :
"Sec .
8 .
Service
upon
entity
without
j
uridical
personality.
Whe n person s associate d in an entit y
withou t juridica l personalit y ar e sue d unde r th e nam e
b y whic h the y ar e generall y o r commonl y known ,
service ma y b e effecte d upo n al l th e defendant s b y
serving upo n an y on e o f them , o r upo n th e perso n i n
charg e o f th e
office or plac e o f busines s maintaine d
i n suc h n a m e .
B u t s u c h servic e
s h a l l n
o t bin d
individually an y perso n
whos e connectio n wit h th e
entity has , upo n du e notice , bee n severe d befor e th e
action wa s brought. "

2 . Wit h respec t t o judgment s t o b e rendere d i n thi s
situation , Sec . 6 o f Rul e 3 6 provide s t h a t whe n judgmen t
i s rendere d agains t tw o o r mor e person s associate d i n a n
entity withou t juridica l personality , th e judgmen t shal l
set ou t thei r individua l o r prope r names , i f known .
3 .
Th e
predecesso r o f thi s
sectio n
referre d
only
t o
suit s a g a i n s t tw o o r mor e p e r s o n s associate d i n

an y
busines s an d wh o transac t suc h busines s unde r a com mon name .
Accordingly , i t wa s understoo d tha t th e sui t
c o n t e m p l a t e d t h e r e i n coul d b e b r o u g h t onl y a
g a i n s t
association s whic h d o no t hav e a n independen t juridica l
personalit y bu t ar e engage d i n business , t h u s excludin g
non-profi t o r charitabl e associations .
T h a t disti
nctio n
ha s bee n eliminate d i n thi s revisio n sinc e non-profi t o r
102
----------------------- Page 103----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 16
charitabl e association s ca n als o commi t an d b e liabl e for

actionable wrongs .
S e c .
hen eve r a part y
i m
i s no t t h e
t y o f
hi s c o u n s
30 )
day s afte r s
16 .
Death
of party;
duty
of
counsel.
t o a p e n d i n g a c t i o n dies , an d t h e c l a
r e b y e x t i n g u i s h e d , i t shal l b e th e d u
e l
t o
infor m t h e
cour t
w i t h i n
thirt y
u c h d e a t h o f t h e fac t thereof , an d t o giv e
th e n a m e a n d a d d r e s s o f hi s lega l r e p r e s e n t a t i v
e o r
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . Failur e o f c o u n s e l t o c o m p l
y w i t h
thi s d u t y shal l b e a g r o u n d fo r disciplinar y action .
Th e h e i r s o
o b e
s u b s t i t u t e d fo
r i n g th e
a p p o i n t m e n t o
t o r an d
th e c o u r t m a y
r th e
mino r h e i r s .
d
T h e
c o u r t
l e g a l
f t h e d e c e a s e d m a y b e a l l o w e d t
r t h e d e c e a s e d , w i t h o u t r e q u i
f a n
e x e c u t o r
a p p o i n t
s h a l l
o r
a d m i n i s t r a
g u a r d i a n
f o r t h w i t h
a d
litem
o r d e r
fo
s a i
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o
a r an d
b e s u b s t i t u t e d w i t h i n a perio d o f thirt y
day s
fro m notice .
a p p e
(30)
I f n o l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
i s n a m e d
b y
t h e
c o u n s e l fo r t h e d e c e a s e d
party ,
o r i f t h e
o n e s o
n a m e d
s h a l l fai l t o a p p e a r
w i t h i n t h e s p
e c i f i e d
period , t h e
c o u r t m a y o r d e r t h e
o p p o s i n g
party ,
withi n a specifie d time , t o procur e th e a p p o i n t m e n t
o f a n e x e c u t o r o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r fo r t h e estat e
o f th e
d e c e a s e d , a n d t h e latte r shal l i m m e d i a t e l y app
ea r
for an d o n behal f o f th e deceased .
Th e cour t char
ge s
i n p r o c u r i n g s u c h a p p o i n t m e n t , i f defraye d b y
th e
o p p o s i n g party , m a y b e recovere d a s costs . (16a , 17a)
N O T E S
1.
Thi s sectio n is a consolidation of Sees . 16 an d 17
of th e former Rule , wit h th e following amendments :
103
----------------------- Page 104----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 16
a . Th e dutie s o f th e counsel , a s specifie d unde r th e

first paragraph , ar e now limite d t o th e matte r o f th e deat h
of hi s clien t an d no t in cas e o f th e latter' s incapacit y or
incompetency .
Th e reaso n for th e chang e i s tha t th e deat
h
o f th e
clien t wil l requir e
hi s
substitutio n b y
hi s
lega
l
representativ e t o b e ordere d b y th e
case i s pending , o r eve n th e appointmen t
or administrato r but , thi s time , by a
jurisdiction .
In th e cas e o f incapacit
cour
o f
cour
y or
t wherei n th e
a n executo r
t o f probat e
incompetenc y o f
th e party , thi s fact wil l merel y entai l th e appointmen t o f

a guardia n a d litem by th e cour t tryin g th e cas e upo
n
bein g informe d thereo f b y counse l o f th e parties ,
th e
partie s themselves , o r othe r reliabl e sources .
b . Th e failur e o f th e counse l t o compl y wit h
s
dutie s unde r thi s section i s now a groun d for disciplinar y
hi
action ,
a s hi s inactio n wil l resul t i n undu e dela y i n th e
proceeding s or ma y prejudic e th e interest s o f hi s client' s

successors i n interest .
c.
In th e absenc e o f a lega l representativ e o f th
e
decease d party , th e opposin g part y shal l b e required ,
withi n a specifie d time , t o procur e th e appointmen t o f
an executo r o r administrato r for th e estat e o f th e decease d
in a n appropriat e specia l proceeding .
Unde r th e for
me r
procedure ,
i n suc h a contingenc y th e opposin g p a r t
y
wa s authorize d t o directl y procur e th e appointmen t o f a
lega l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e for th e decease d b y himsel f an
d
a p p a r e n t l y w i t h o u t p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y th e he
ir s o f th e
deceased and , consequently , wit h limite d judicia l interven tion i n th e choic e an d appointmen t o f suc h representative .
2 . Thes e provision s appl y wher e th e clai m survive s
an d
regardles s o f w h e t h e r e i t h e r th e
plaintif f o
r th e
defendan t die s o r w h e t h e r th e cas e i s i n th e tri
a l o r
appellat e courts .
N o s u m m o n s e s a r e r e q u i r e
d t o b e
served o n th e substitut e defendants .
Instead , th e o
rde r
of substitutio n shal l b e serve d upon th e partie s substitute d
in th e action ; otherwise , th e cour t doe s no t acquir e juris 104
----------------------- Page 105----------------------RULE 3
EC. 16
diction ove r th e substitut e part y

(Ferreria, e t al. vs.
Vda.
de Gonzales, et al., 104 Phil.
143).
Proceeding s conducte d
b y th e tria l cour t afte r th e deat h o f th e defendant , an
d
withou t suc h substitution , ar e nul l an d void
vs.
CA, et al., L-45809, Dec.
12, 1986).
3 .
(Lawas
Upo n learnin g o f th e deat h o f a party , th e tria l
court shoul d not orde

bu t th e appearanc e o f
A n orde r fo r thesubstitution o f th e
vs.
Rosales, L-18707, Feb.
th e
party , th e attorne y
r th e amendmen t o f th e complain t
th e decedent' s lega l representative .
amendmen t o f th e complain t befor e
decease d part y
i s voi d (Casenas
28,
ha s
1967).
Upo n th e
n o furthe r authorit y
t o
deat h of
appear ,
save t o inform th e cour t o f hi s client' s deat h an d t o tak e

step s t o safeguar d th e decedent' s interest ,
unles s
hi s
services ar e furthe r retaine d b y th e substitut e partie s
(Vda.
de Haberer
vs. CA,
et al., L-42709,
May 26,
1981;
Lavina, et al.
vs. CA, et al., G.R. Nos.
78295 an d
79917,
April
10,
1989;
Heirs
of Maxima
Regoso
vs.
CA,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
91879,
July
6,
1992).
Th e
defendant' s
lega l
heir s ar e hi s lega l representative s i f ther e i s n o pendin g
proceedin g for th e settlemen t o f hi s estat e
(Magdalera
vs.
Benedicto,
103 Phil.
1102 [Unrep.J).
Th e rul e
i s
tha t in
th e substitutio n o f th e deceased , priorit y i s given t o hi s
legal representative , i.e. , th e executo r or administrato r o f
hi s estate .
Th e cour t ma y allow th e substitutio n b y th e
h e i r s i n s t e a d i f t h e r e i s u n r e a s o n a b l e dela y
i n t h e
appointment o f a n executo r o r administrato r o r whe n th e
estat e wa s extrajudiciall y settle d (Lawas
vs. CA, e
t al.,
supra).
4 . Th e questio n a s t o whethe r a n action survive s o r
not depend s o n th e natur e o f th e action an d th e damag e
sued for .
I n th e cause s o f actio n whic h survive , th e wron g
complained o f affect s primaril y and principall y propert y
and propert y rights , th e injurie s t o th e perso n bein g merely
incidental ; whil e i n th e cause s o f actio n whic h d o no t
survive , th e injury complaine d o f i s t o th e person , th e
105
----------------------- Page 106----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 16
property an d property right s affecte d

Thus , for instance , th e claim o f th
th e presen t actio n t o quie t titl e
n
affects primaril y an d principall y
right s and , therefore , i s on e tha t
deat h
(Bonilla,
et al., etc.
-41715,
June
18,
1976).
bein g incidental .
e decease d plaintif f in
over th e lan d i n litigatio
propert y an d propert y
survive s eve n after he r
vs. Barcena,
et al.,
5 . Th e action s tha t surviv e agains t

ent' s
r e p r
l an
persona
lien s
perso n
th e
deced
e s e n t a t i v e s a r e : (a ) action s t o recove r r e a
d
l propert y agains t th e estate ; (b) action s t o enforc e
thereon ; an d (c> action s t o recove r for an injur y t o
or propert y by reaso n o f tor t or delic t committe d
by
th e decease d
(Board
of Liquidators,
etc.
vs. He
irs
of
Maxima M.
Kalaw,
et al, L-18805, Aug.
14,
1967).
Se e
Rul e 8 7 an d note s thereunder .
Se e als o Sec . 2 0 o
f thi s
Rul e
whic h h a s
bee n
a m e n d e d
a n d p r o v i d e s
a ne w
procedur e for contractua l money claims .
6 .
Wher e
durin g
th e guardia n i n
d
th e forme r wa s
f
th e estat e o f th
a
representativ e part y
Solas,
et al., L-49311,
th e
pendenc y
o f action s
behal f o f hi s ward ,
thereafte r
e
appointe d
decedent ,
h e
th e
file d
latte r die d
27,
an
a d m i n i s t r a t o r
ma y b e
substitute d
in th e pendin g action s
May
b y
a s
(Ypil vs.
1979).
7 . I t ha s bee n hel d t h a t whe n a part y die s an d th

e
action survive s hi s death , bu t n o orde r o f substitutio n
wa s issue d o r effecte d b y th e court , th e tria l hel d b y sai
d
court wa s nul l an d void sinc e i t di d no t acquir e jurisdic tion ove r th e lega l representativ e o r heir s o f th e decedent ,
henc e th e judgmen t wa s no t bindin g o n the m (Ferreria,
et al. vs. Vda. de Gonzales, et al., supra).
In a late r
case ,
however , i t wa s als o hel d t h a t wher e counse l faile d
t o
comply wit h hi s dut y unde r the n Sec .
1 6 t o infor
m th e
court o f th e deat h o f hi s client , th e defendant , an d
n o
substitution o f suc h part y wa s effected , th e proceeding s
an d j u d g m e n t t h e r e i n ar e vali d i f th e actio n
(
in thi s
case , ejectment ) survive s th e d e a t h o f sai d part y an d
106
----------------------- Page 107----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 16
said
decisio n
i s
bindin g upo n
(Sec.
47lb].
Rule
39;
et al
G.R.
No.
60544, May
In
die d
whil e
th e
th e
Florendo
cas e
hi s
Florendo,
19,
successo r
et
al.
i n
interes t
vs.
Coloma,
case ,
th e
defendan t
1984).
wa s pendin g o n
however ,
appea l i n th e
Cour t o f
Appeal s and , consequently , involve d only a review o f th e

evidence presente d wit h th e participatio n o f th e origina l
part y litigants .
Also , sinc e th e bindin g effect o f a judg
men t i n a n ejectmen t cas e upo n th e successor s i n interes t
of a decease d litigan t ar e specificall y provide d for in
Rul e 39 , t h e p r o c e d u r a l laps e a p p e a r s t o hav
e bee n
disregarde d i n th e interes t o f substantia l justice .
8 .
actio n
against a
becaus e o
s
therei n t
W h e r e
t h e plaintif f
f a t h e r
b r o u g h t a n
commo n carrie r for th e deat h o f hi s son , bu t

f hi s failin g healt h h e assigne d al l hi s right
o
thir d
party ,
th e
subsequen t
deat h
o f sai d
original plaintif f doe s no t terminat e th e action .

Th e
right s
assigned ar e transferabl e i n characte r an d thi s situatio n
is no t covere d by Sec .
1 7 (now include d in Sec.
16, a s
amended ) o f thi s Rul e sinc e th e plaintif f die d after h e
ha d alread y assigne d hi s right s i n th e action .
er e a
righ t i s transferre d befor e th e institutio n o f th e
Wh
action ,
th e sui t shoul d b e brough t i n th e nam e o f th e assignee ;

wher e
th e transfe r i s
mad e pendente
lite, th e as
signe e
should b e s u b s t i t u t e d for th e origina l plaintiff .
Th e
failure t o effect suc h forma l substitution , however , wil l
not preven t th e cour t from renderin g judgmen t i n favor
of th e assignee .
I f judgmen t wa s rendere d in favor o f
th e
a s s i g n o r b e c a u s e t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n wa s
no t dul y
effected ,
t h e assigno r shal l
hol d th e proceed s o f
th e
j u d g m e n t in
t r u s t for t h e assigne e
(Del
Casti
llo
vs.
Jaymalin,
et al., L 28256,
Mar.
11,
1982).
9 . Sec .
1 6 o f thi s Rul e require s tha t promp t notic e
of th e deat h o f th e plaintif f shoul d b e mad e s o tha t sub stitution by a lega l representativ e o f th e part y may b e
effected.
Wher e th e counse l o f plaintif f file d suc h motion
107
----------------------- Page 108----------------------RULE 3
CS. 17-18
for substitutio n 5 day s after a decision in th e cas e

bee n rendere d b y th e court , althoug h plaintif f ha d
SE
ha d
die d
mor e t h a n a yea r prio r thereto , sai d j u d g m e n t i s

no t
binding .
N o vali d substitutio n havin g bee n made , th e
court neve r acquire d jurisdictio n ove r th e lega l repre sentativ e for th e purpos e o f makin g hi m a part y in th e
case .
Furthermore , th e motion for substitutio n filed by
counse l for th e decease d i s nul l an d voi d a s counsel'
s
authorit y t o represen t th e clien t ha d cease d wit h th e
latter' s deat h
88;
cf.
Saligumba,
143365,
Dec.
4, 2008).
(Chittick vs. CA, et al., L-25350, Oct.

et
al.
vs.
Palanog,
4,
G.R.
19
No.
Sec .
17 .
Death
or
separation
of
a party
w
ho
is a
public
officer. W h e n a
publi c office r i s a
pa
rt y i n
a n a c t i o n i n h i s officia l c a p a c i t y a n d d u r i
n g it s
p e n d e n c y d i e s , r e s i g n s , o r o t h e r w i s e c e a s e
s t o hol d
office , t h e a c t i o n m a y b e c o n t i n u e d an d m a i n t a
i n e d
b y o r a g a i n s t hi s s u c c e s s o r if, w i t h i n thirt y (3
0 ) d a y s
afte r t h e s u c c e s s o r t a k e s offic e o r s u c h t i m e a
s m a y
b e g r a n t e d b y t h e court , i t i s satisfactoril y s h
o w n
t o t h e c o u r t b y a n y part y t h a t t h e r e i s a s u b s
t a n t i a l
n e e d fo r c o n t i n u i n g o r m a i n t a i n i n g i t a n d t
h a t t h e
s u c c e s s o r a d o p t s o r c o n t i n u e s o r t h r e a t e n s
t o a d o p t
o r c o n t i n u e t h e a c t i o n o f h i s p r e d e c e s s o r .
Befor e a
s u b s t i t u t i o n i s m a d e , t h e
p a r t y o r o f f i c
e r t o b e
affected ,
u n l e s s e x p r e s s l y a s s e n t i n g t h e r e
t o , shal l
b e g i v e n
r e a s o n a b l e
n o t i c e
o f t h e a p p l
i c a t i o n
t h e r e f o r an d a c c o r d e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e he
ard .
(18a)
Sec .
18 .
Incompetency
part y
b e c o m e s
i n c o m p e t e n t
h e court ,
u p o n m o t i o n w i t h n o t
t i o n t o
b e c o n t i n u e d
b y
o r
e n t
o r
i n c a p a c i t a t e d p e r s o n
a r d i a n
or
o r
incapacity.
i c e ,
i n c a p a c i t a t e d ,
If a
m a y
a g a i n s t
allo w
t h e
t h e
t
a c
i n c o m p e t
a s s i s t e d b y hi s lega l g u
or
g u a r d i a n
ad
litem.
(19a )
108
----------------------- Page 109----------------------RULE 3

17-19
S e c . 19 .
Transfer
a n y
transfe r o f i n t e r e s t ,
t i n u e d
b y o r a g a i n s t t h e
cour t
upo n m o t i o n direct s th e
i s t r a n s f e r r e d t o
c t i o n o r
joine d w i t h t h e origina l
of
interest.
SECS.
t h e
a c t i o n
origina l
party ,
I n
m a y
c a s e
b e
u n l e s s
o f
c o n
t h e
perso n t o w h o m th e interes t
b e s u b s t i t u t e d i n t h e
party .
(20 )
N O T E S
1. Thes e section s provid e
for
th e othe r
inst
ance s
wherei n substitutio n o f partie s i s proper , subject t o th e
condition s therei n an d wheneve r th e court , upo n motion
and notice , find s justifiabl e reaso n therefor .
Sec.
tion
2 . Th e "officer o f th e Philippines " contemplate d in

1 7 doe s no t includ e a judg e wh o i s sue d in connec wit h th e exercis e o f hi s judicia l function s a s an y
action impugnin g i t i s no t abate d by hi s cessatio n from

office
(Republic
vs.
CFI
of
Lanao
del
Norte,
L
33949,
Oct.
23,
1973, jointl y
decidin g
therei n
L-33986
an d
L-34188).
3 .
Sec .
1 7 ha s bee n amende d t o mak e i t clea r tha t
th e actio n contemplate d therei n i s on e brough t agains t

th e publi c officer in hi s official capacity .
Also , thi s s
ection
i s n o longe r limite d t o action s involvin g "a n officer o
f
th e Philippines, " a s i t wa s unde r th e former Rule , sinc e
ther e
ar e permissibl e
instance s for m a i n t a i n i n g
civi l
suit s agains t publi c officer s o f a foreign government ,
subject t o th e natur e o f th e action an d consideration s o f
internationa l law an d agreements .
Furthermore , i t
i s
not required , a s clarifie d unde r thi s revision , tha t wha t
th e successo r in office i s continuin g or threaten s t o adop t
and continu e i s an actio n o f hi s predecesso r "in enforcin g
a law allege d t o b e in violation o f th e Constitutio n o f th e
Philippines. "
Th e challenge d actio n o f a publi c officer
nee d no t necessaril y involv e a constitutiona l issue .
It i s
believe d tha t n o suc h delimitatio n wa s intende d unde r th e
old Rul e whic h authorize d suc h substitutio n a s lon g a s
109
----------------------- Page 110----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 20
it wa s satisfactorily show n t o th e cour t t h a t ther e wa s a

substantia l nee d for continuin g th e action
(se e
Moore's
Federal Practice,
Vol.
II, p.
243).
4 . Unde r Sec . 18 , a s amended , in cas e o f supervenin g
incapacity or incompetenc y o f a party , th e actio n shal l
continu e t o b e prosecute d b y o r agains t hi m personall y
an d no t throug h hi s representatives , i n lin e wit h th e
amendment s in Sees . 3 an d 5 o f thi s Rule , sinc e h e con tinue s t o b e th e rea l part y i n interes t althoug h assiste d
b y th e correspondin g guardian .
5 . Sec .
1 9 o f thi s Rul e doe s no t provid e t h a
t th e
substitution o f partie s contemplate d therei n i s manda tory , i t bein g permissibl e t o continu e th e actio n b y o r
against th e origina l part y i n cas e o f transfe r o f interes t
pendente lite.
A s th e origina l part y i s boun d by th e fina
l
outcom e o f th e case , hi s substitutio n b y th e transfere e i s
no t necessar y unles s th e substitutio n b y o r th e joinde r o f
th e latte r i s require d b y th e court ; otherwise , failur e t o
d o s o doe s no t w a r r a n t th e dismissa l o f t h e case
.
A
t r a n s f e r e e pendente
lite i s a
p r o p e r , a n d
n o t a n
indispensable ,
p a r t y in
th e
cas e
(Heirs
of
Francisco
Guballa, Sr., et al.
vs. CA, et al, G.R. No.
78223, De
c. 19,
1988).
However , wher e th e transfe r wa s effecte d befor e
t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f t h e
suit ,
t h e t r a n s f e
r e e m u s t
necessaril y b e th e defendan t o r th e plaintiff , bu t h e ma y
file
a t h i r d - p a r t y complain t a g a i n s t an d implea d
t h e
transfero r i n th e actio n wheneve r th e sam e i s necessar y
an d prope r for a complet e determinatio n o f al l th e right s
o f th e parties .
S e c . 2 0 .
Action
on
contractual
money
clai
ms.
W h e n
t h e a c t i o n i s fo r r e c o v e r y o f m o n e y
a r i s i n g
fro m
c o n t r a c t ,
e x p r e s s
o r
i m p l i e d ,
a n
d
t h e
defendan t die s befor e e n t r y o f fina l j u d g m e n t i n
t h e
c o u r
t
o f s
u t s
t i n whic h t h e actio n w a s p e n d i n g a t t h e
i m e
u c h d e a t h , i t s h a l l n o t b e d i s m i s s e d b
h a l l
110
----------------------- Page 111----------------------RULE 3

SEC. 20
instea d b e allowe d t o continu e

j u d g m e n t .
A favorabl e j u d g
th e
plaintif f t h e r e i n
s h a l l b e
a n n e r
especially provide d
i n t h
e c u t i n g
claims agains t th e estat e o f a
unti l
m e n t
entr y o f fina l
obtaine d b y
enforce d
i n
e s e Rule s
fo r
decease d
person .
th e
p r o s
(21a )
N O T E S
1. Thi s wa s th e forme r Sec . 2 1 o f th e old Rul e whic
h
ha s bee n amende d t o provid e a ne w procedur e specially
for th e dispositio n o f contractua l mone y claim s wher e
th e defendan t die s befor e th e terminatio n o f th e action
thereon .
Tw o importan t aspect s thereo f mus t inceptively
b e t a k e n not e of: (1) t h e actio n m u s t primaril y b e
for
recover y o f money , deb t o r i n t e r e s t thereon ,
an
d no t
wher e th e subjec t m a t t e r i s primaril y for som e othe r
relie f an d th e collection o f a n amoun t o f
therei n i s merel y incidenta l thereto , suc h a s
damages ; an d (2) th e clai m subjec t o f th e
from a contract , expres s or implied , entere d int
decedent i n hi s lifetim e o r th e liabilit y
d
been assume d b y o r i s imputabl e t o him .
mone y sough t
b y wa y o f
actio n aros e
o by th e
for whic h ha
2 . Unde r th e forme r procedure , th e dat e o f th e deat h

of th e defendant , i n relatio n t o th e stag e o f th e action a t
tha t time , wa s determinativ e o f th e procedur e tha t shoul d
b e followed thereafter .
I f h e die d "befor e fina l judgmen
t
in th e Cour t o f F i r s t Instance, " th e actio n shoul d b
e
dismisse d withou t prejudic e t o th e plaintif f presentin g
hi s claim therei n a s a mone y claim in th e settlemen t o f
th e estat e o f th e decease d defendan t i n accordanc e wit h
and a s require d by Sec . 5 , Rul e 86 .
Th e reaso n given
for
th e adoptio n o f suc h procedur e wa s tha t i f th e defendan t
dies an d despit e suc h fact th e cas e agains t hi m proceed s
t o j u d g m e n t , hi s e s t a t e wil l n o n e t h e l e s s h
a v e t o b e
settled in a Regiona l Tria l Cour t (then , th e Cour t o f Firs t

Instance ) wherei n suc h j u d g m e n t for mone y shal l b e
presente d a s a claim .
Consequently , unles s th e action i s
111
----------------------- Page 112----------------------RULE 3
EC. 20
dismissed upon hi s death , th e subsequen t proceeding s may

resul t in a Regiona l Tria l Cour t reviewin g th e decision o f
another o r eve n th e sam e Regiona l Tria l Cour t involvin g
th e sam e money claim .
On th e othe r hand , i f th e defendan t die d whil e th e
case wa s o n appea l from th e judgmen t o f th e Regiona l
Tria l Court , th e appea l wil l continu e wit h th e decease d
bein g s u b s t i t u t e d t h e r e i n b y hi s heir s o r o t
h e r lega l
representative .
Whe n th e judgmen t o f th e appellat e cour t
thereo n i s thereafte r rendere d an d shal l hav e becom e
final an d executory , t h a t judgmen t shal l b e th e basi s o f
th e mone y clai m t o b e file d i n th e p r o b a t e court
,
a s
likewis e authorize d by Sec . 5 , Rul e 86 .
3 .
Th e
presen t
revise d procedur e
i s believe d
t o b e
simpler an d mor e practica l since , afte r all ,

th e
cour t
wherei n th e contractua l mone y clai m wa s pendin g a t
th e tim e o f th e decedent' s deat h mus t hav e bee n fully
acquainte d wit h th e fact s an d issue s therein , o r ma y eve n
hav e bee n i n th e proces s o f renderin g judgmen t thereon .
Accordingly , t o requir e th e dismissa l o f sai d cas e an d th e
transfe r thereo f t o th e probat e cour t wil l caus e a n un
necessar y an d otherwis e avoidabl e burde n o n sai d cour t
whic h wil l the n b e oblige d t o tr y an d adjudicat e th e cas e
a s a clai m agains t th e estat e o f th e decease d defendant ,
wit h th e possibilit y tha t i t ma y eve n entai l a duplicatio n
of effort s an d proceeding s in whol e or in part .
4 . Unde r th e presen t procedure , i f th e defendan t die s
befor e entr y o f fina l judgmen t i n th e cour t wher e i t wa s
pendin g a t t h a t time , th e actio n shal l no t b e dismisse d bu
t
shall b e allowe d t o continu e unti l entr y o f fina l judgmen t
thereon .
Suc h entr y o f fina l judgmen t ma y tak e plac e i n
th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t itself , wher e n o appea l wa s take n
from it s judgment , or it ma y b e th e entr y o f judgmen t o f
th e appellat e court .
I n eithe r case , th e forme r objection
against th e probat e cour t havin g t o revie w th e judgmen t
of anothe r court , whic h ma y possibly b e o f th e sam e rank ,
112
----------------------- Page 113----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 20
i s eliminated .
b e filed in th e
an d
executory judgmen t o
th e forme r doe s
Sinc e th e money claim tha t shal l thereafte r

probat e cour t i s base d upo n a fina l
f a cour t o f competen t jurisdiction ,
no t hav e to , becaus e i t cannot ,
revie w
tha t judgmen t which , for t h a t matter , i s eve n conclusiv e

upon th e partie s theret o an d thei r privies .
5 . Thi s sectio n provide s t h a t th e actio n shal l
b e
allowed t o continu e unti l entr y o f fina l judgment , henc e
it wil l b e necessar y t o hav e a lega l representativ e appea r
and b e substitute d for th e decease d defendant .
Fo
r thi s
purpose , th e provision s o f Sec . 1 7 o f thi s Rul e shal l als o
apply sinc e th e sam e govern s regardles s o f whic h o f th e
partie s t o th e actio n die s o r whethe r th e cas e i s i n th
e
tria l o r appellat e court .
6 . Thi s sectio n s p e a k s o f c o n t r a c t s , "expres
s o r
implied, " whic h i s th e sam e terminolog y use d in Sec . 5 ,
Rul e 8 6 wit h regar d t o on e o f th e base s for th e money
claim s t o b e filed thereunder , and , formerly , in Sec . 1(a) ,
Rul e 5 7 o n preliminar y attachmen t wit h respec t t o th e
base s o f cause s o f actio n contemplate d therein .
In
Leung
Ben vs.
O'Brien, e t al.
(3 8 Phil .
182) , it wa s hel d
t h a t
th e contracts , expres s or implied , referre d t o in Rul e 57 ,
includ e al l purel y persona l obligation s whic h ar e
no t
base d on a delict or a tort , tha t is , a quasi-delict . According ly, o n t h e s a m e c o n c e p t u a l r a t i o n a l e , th e
"implied "
contract s mentione d in thi s section an d in Sec . 5 , Rul e 8 6
may properl y includ e wha t ar e referre d t o i n civil law a s
quasi-contracts , an d thi s i s th e ter m now use d in Sec . 1(a)
of Rul e 57 , a s amended .
7 . Wher e th e action i s for th e reviva l o f a judgmen t
for a su m o f mone y whic h ha s becom e stal e for non execution afte r th e laps e o f 5 years , an d th e defendan t
die s durin g th e pendenc y o f sai d action , Sec . 2 0 o f thi s
Rule
aliv e
th e
action
i s
th e
no t involve d sinc e
for
j u d g m e n t
reviva l
th e
s o
action i s
thereo f ma y
t h a t
b e
th e
merel y t o keep
sum s
presente d
awarde d
a s
claim s
i n
113
----------------------- Page 114----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 21
against th e estat e o f th e deceden t (Romualdez, e t al.

va.
Tiglao, et al,
G.R. No.
51151, July 24,
1981).
In
fact , to
b e mor e accurate , th e subject o f th e actio n i s th e dorman t
judgmen t sough t t o b e revived , an d no t a clai m for a
s u m o f mone y o f c o n t r a c t u a l origin ,
sinc e
t
h e s a m e
may als o b e sai d eve n i f th e clai m arise s from a crim e or a
tort .
Sec .
2 1 .
Indigent
party.
b e
a u t h o r i z e d t o litigat e hi s
e n s e
a s
a n
i n d i g e n t
i f t h e
e x parte
a p p l i c a t i o n a n d h e a r i n g ,
part y
i s o n e w h o h a s n o m o n e y o r
an d
a v a i l a b l e fo r food , s h e l t e r
e s fo r
h i m s e l f a n d hi s family .
p a r t y
m a
action ,
c l a i m o r
c o u r t ,
d e f
u p o n
a n
i s satisfie d t h a t t h e
p r o p e r t y sufficien t
a n d basi c n e c e s s i t i
S u c h
a u t h o r i t y
s h a l l i n c l u d e
a n
m p t i o n
fro m p a y m e n t o f d o c k e t an d o t h e r lawfu l fees ,
e x e
an d
o f t r a n s c r i p t s o f s t e n o g r a p h i c
n o t e s
w h
i c h
t h e
cour t m a y orde r t o b e f u r n i s h e d h i m .
T h e
a m o u n t
o f t h e d o c k e t
a n d
o t h e r l a w f u l
f e e s w h i
c h
t h e
i n d i g e n t w a s e x e m p t e d fro m p a y i n g shal l b e a l
ie n
o n an y j u d g m e n t r e n d e r e d i n t h e c a s e favorabl e t
o
th e i n d i g e n t , u n l e s s t h e c o u r t o t h e r w i s e p r
o v i d e s .
A n y
a
r a n t
o f
s u c h
a u t h
e n t
i s
r e n d e r e d
t s h o u l d
d e t e r m i n e
a s
d v e r s e
o r i t y
b y
t h e
p a r t y
a t
a n y
tria l
m a y
t i m e
c our t .
c o n t e s t
t h e g
b e f o r e
j u d g m
I f t h e
c o u r
afte r h e a r i n g t h a t t h e part y d e c l a r e d
a n
i n d i g e n t
i s i n f a c t a
f f i c i e n t
i n c o m e o r property , t h e p r o p
h e r
l a w f u l
f e e s s h a l l b e
a s s
c t e d b y
th e cler k o f court .
I f p a y
w i t h i n
th e t i m e
fixe d b y t h e court ,
i s s u e
for t h e p a y m e n t thereof , w i t h o
p e r s o n
e r
w i t h
d o c k e t
e s s e d
a n d
a n d
m e n t
i s
o t
c o l l e
no t m a d e
e x e c u t i o n
u t prejudic e
o t h e r s a n c t i o n s a s t h e c o u r t m a y
a )
s u
s h a l l
t o s u c h
i m p o s e .
(22
114
----------------------- Page 115----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 22

N O T E S
1. Th e t e r m "indigen t party " ha s bee n substitute d

for wha t use d t o b e calle d a "pauper litigant. "
Fo r purp
ose s
of a sui t in forma pauperis,-* paupe r litigan t is not really
a paupe r bu t a perso n wh o i s indigen t althoug h no t a
public charge , i.e. , tha t h e ha s n o property o r incom e
sufficient for hi s suppor t asid e from hi s labor, eve n i f h e
i s self-supportin g whe n abl e t o wor k an d i n employmen t
(see Black's Law Dictionary,
4th Ed., pp.
913,
1284,
citin g
People
vs. Schoharie
County,
121
N.Y.,
345,
24N.E.
830).
Thi s sam e concep t wa s adopte d for purpose s o f crimina l
case s in applyin g th e provision s o f R.A . 6033 , R.A . 603 4
and R.A . 6035 .
2 .
i s
believe d t
situation .
former Rul
o f th e
d n o
registere d
Th e
p r e s e n t
concep t
o f a n
indigen t
litigan t
o b e mor e realisti c i n ligh t o f th e contemporar y

Th e proo f o f pauperis m require d unde r th e
e consiste d merel y o f affidavit s or certificate s
correspondin g t r e a s u r e r s t h a t th e part y ha
property .
I t wa s
considere d
inaccurat e
an d
misleadin g sinc e a part y ma y b e financially soun d althoug h

h e h a s n o t a c q u i r e d o r r e g i s t e r e d an y p r o p e
r t y for
reason s o f hi s own , henc e th e presen t revisio n opte d for
judicia l interventio n wit h sanction s a s se t ou t i n thi s
section.
3 . Sectio n 21 , Rul e 3 o f th e presen t Rule s ha s not
been affecte d by th e incorporatio n o f Rul e 14 1 on Lega l
Fee s an d th e tw o amendment s thereto , now constitutin g
Section 1 9 thereof .
o f
Rule 3 coul d hav e
141 wa s adopted ,
the n amended .
n b e
harmonize d an d ca n
It i s t o b e note d tha t sai d Sectio n 2 1

bee n repeale d whe n th e presen t Rul e
o r als o amende d whe n th e latte r wa s
Th e fact i s t h a t th e tw o provision s ca
stan d together .
Thus , whe n a n applicatio n t o litigat e a s a n indigen t

litigant i s filed an d th e cour t find s tha t i t complie s wit h
Section 1 9 o f Rul e 141 , th e authorit y t o litigat e a s suc h i
s
115
----------------------- Page 116----------------------RULE 3
SEC. 22
automatically

granted .
However ,
therei n hav e not bee n complie d with , a

conducted an d th e applicatio n resolve d
o f th e parties .
Also , th e advers
l
c o n t e s t t h e g r a n t befor e j u d
c e e d i n
accordance wit h th e presen t provision s o
(Algura,
et al. vs. City of Naga,
150135,
Oct.
30,
2006).
i f bot h
requirement s
hearin g shal l b e
o n th e evidenc e
e part y ma y late r stil
g m e n t
a n d
p r o
f sai d Sectio n 2 1
et al., G.R. No.
Sec .
22 .
Notice to the Solicitor General. In
an y
a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f a n y t r e
y , l a w ,
o r d i n a n c e , e x e c u t i v e o r d e r , p r e s i d e n t i a
d e c r e e ,
r u le s o r r e g u l a t i o n s , th e court , i n it s discretion
m a y
requir e th e a p p e a r a n c e o f th e Solicito r Genera l w h o
m a y b e hear d i n p e r s o n o r t h r o u g h a r e p r e s e n
t i v e
dul y d e s i g n a t e d b y him . (23a )
a t
l
,
t a
116
----------------------- Page 117----------------------RUL E
V E N U E
O F
ACTION S
S e c t i o n
1 .
Venue
of
real
actions.
A
c t i o n s
affectin g titl e t o o r p o s s e s s i o n o f rea l property ,
o r
i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , s h a l l b e c o m m e n c e d a n d t
r i e d i n
h e p r o p e r c o u r t w h i c h
h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n
v e r t h e
r e a
w h e r e i n
t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y
i n v o l v e
,
o r a
o r t i o n thereof , i s s i t u a t e d .
t
o
a
d
p
F o r c r b
s h a l l b e
c o m m e n c e d
c o u r t
o f t h e
m u
h e r e a l
propert y i n v o
e d .
(l[a],2[a]a )
r e ^ n t r y
a n d
a n d t r i e d
d e t a i n e r
i n
n i c i p a l i t y
t h e
a c t i o n s
o r
m u n i c i p a l tria l
c i t y
w h e r e i n
l v e d , o r a p o r t i o n thereof , i s s i t u a t
S e c . 2 . Venue
of
o t h e r
a c t i o n s m a y
b e
c o m m
e r e
t h e
plaintif f o r a n y o f t h e
r e s i d e s ,
o r w h e r e
t h e d e f e n d
r i n c i p a l
d e f e n d a n t s r e s i d e s , o
e s i d e n t
d e f e n d a n t w h e r e h e m
c t i o n
o f t h e plaintiff .
(2[b]a )
personal
actions.
e n c e d
a n d
p r i n c i p a l
a n t
o r
a n y
Al l
t r i e d w h
plaintiff s
o f t h e
r i n t h e c a s e o f a n o n r
a y
b e
found ,
a t t h e
e l e
NOTE S
in
1.
Rul e 4 formerl y provide d differen t rule s o f venu e
th e so-calle d inferio r court s an d th e Regiona l Tria l
Courts , bot h i n rea l an d persona l actions , althoug h th e

lower court s hav e lon g assume d th e statu s o f court s o f
record .
Suc h varian t rule s o f venu e sometime s resulte d
in conflictin g view s requirin g clarification .
Further
more ,
Par . 9 o f th e Interi m or Transitiona l Rule s an d Guideline s
provided , a s earl y a s 1981 , t h a t "(t)h e procedur e t o b e
observed i
an d
m u
case s a n
proceedings
n metropolita n tria l courts , municipa l tria l court s

n i c i p a l circui t t r i a l c o u r t s , i n al l
d
, whethe r civi l o r criminal , shal l b e th e sam e
117
----------------------- Page 118----------------------RULE 4

SECS 1-2
a s t h a t t o b e observe d i n th e regiona l tria l courts. "

Th e
presen t revise d Rul e ha s adopte d unifor m rule s o f venu e
for al l t r i a l courts , t h e venu e for r e a l action s
bein g
determine d b y th e plac e wher e th e rea l propert y i s situate d
and , for persona l actions , by th e residenc e o f th e parties ,
wit h specia l provision s for nonresiden t defendants .
2 .
Th e
venu e
o f th e
rea l
action s
contemplate d
i n
th e first paragrap h o f Sec . 1 o f thi s Rul e shal l b e "in th

e
proper court whic h ha s jurisdictio n over th e are a wherei n
t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y involved ,
o r a p o r t i o n there
of ,
i s
situated. "
Thi s i s s o becaus e unde r th e a m e n d m e
n t s
i n t r o d u c e d b y R.A . 769 1 t o Sees .
1 9 a n d 3 3
o f B.P .
Big . 129 , bot h th e
Regiona l Tria l Court s an d th e lower
court s now hav e jurisdictio n ove r rea l actions
o n t h e v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y i n
y . T h i s
presupposes ,
however ,
t h a t suc h
olve s
th e titl e t o o r th e possessio n o f th e rea
y
interest therein .
, dependin g
c o n t r o v e r s
rea l
actio n
inv
l propert y o r an
3 . Wher e th e subject-matte r o f th e actio n involve s

variou s parcel s o f lan d situate d i n differen t provinces ,
th e venu e i s determine d b y th e singularit y o r pluralit y
o f th e transaction s involvin g sai d parcel s o f land .
Thus ,
wher e sai d parcel s ar e th e object s o f on e an d th e sam
e
transaction , th e venu e wa s i n th e t h e n Cour t o f Firs
t
Instanc e o f an y o f th e province s wherei n a parce l o f lan d
is situate d (El Hogar Filipino
vs. Seua,
5 7 Phil. 8
73).
If
th e parcel s o f lan d ar e subjec t o f separat e an d distinc
t
transactions , t h e r e i s n o commo n venu e an d s e p a r a t
e
action s shoul d b e lai d in th e Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e o f
t h e provinc e w h e r e i n eac h parce l o f lan d i s s i t u
a t e d
(Mijares, et al.
us. Piccio, etc., et al.,
101 Phil.
14
2).
4 . Action s
for t h e a n n u l m e n t o r rescissio n
o f a
sale an d th e r e t u r n o f realt y
(Muhoz us.
Llamas,
e t al.,
87 Phil.
737;
Gauieres
vs. Sanchez,
et al., 94 Phi
l.
760;
Punsalan
vs.
Vda.
de Lacsamana,
et al., G.R.
No.
55729,
Mar. 28,
1983), t o compe l th e vendo r t o accep t paymen t
118
----------------------- Page 119----------------------RULE 4
S.
1-2
VENUE OF ACTIONS
SEC
of th e p u r c h a s e pric e
o f th e lan d
(Lizares
vs.
Caluag,
et al., L-17699, Mar. 30,
1962), or to compe l th e vendo r
to
deliver th e certificat e o f titl e t o th e lan d (Espineli, e t
al.
vs. Santiago,
et al., 107 Phil.
830) ar e
rea l action s
an d
th e locatio n o f th e lan d determine s th e venu e o f th e action .
Bu t action s only t o recove r th e purchas e pric e o f th e lan d
(Garcia vs.
Velasco,
72 Phil.
248) or for recover y agains
t
th e Assuranc e
Fun d
(Hodges
vs.
Treasurer
of
th
e Phil.,
50 Phil.
16) ar e persona l actions .
5 . A n actio n for th e annulmen t o f th e cancellatio n
of th e awar d o f a lot in favor o f th e plaintiff , whic h
h e
wa s p r e p a r e d t o pa y for p u r s u a n t t o sai d award
, doe s
not involv e th e issu e o f possessio n o r titl e t o th e property ,
henc e it i s a persona l actio n
al.,
L-31095,
June
15,
1976).
(Hernandez
vs.
DBP,
et
6 . A n actio n for th e revie w o f a n a d m i n i s t r

a t i v e
decision involvin g rea l propert y shoul d h e brough t i n th e
Regiona l Tria l Cour t o f th e plac e wher e th e officer wh o
rendere d th e decisio n hold s office , an d not wher e th e
land
is situate d
(Salud
vs. Executive
Secretary,
L25446,
May 22,
1969), suc h a s wher e th e matte r in disput e i s a
fishpond permi t
(Digon
vs. Bayona,
98 Phil.
442; Sa
rabia
vs.
Secretary,
104 Phil.
115)
or
th e righ t
to a t
imbe r
concession
(Suarez
vs. Reyes,
L-19828,
Feb.
28,
1963),
th e location o f th e propert y bein g immaterial .
7 . A n actio n t o compe l t h e
mortgage
accep t
paymen t an d for th e consequen t cancellatio n o f
estat e mortgag e i s a persona l action , i f th e
ha s no t foreclose d th e mortgag e an d th e mortgago r
possessio n o f th e premises ,
sinc e neithe r
if f
mortgagor' s titl e t o no r possessio n o f th e propert
question
(Hernandez
vs.
Rural
Bank
t o
a
rea l
mortgage e
i s i n
th e plaint
y i s in
of Lucena,
Inc.,
L-29791, Jan.
10,
cts,
etc. Inc., G.R. No.
, it
is a rea l action .
1978;
152808,
cf.
Chua
Sept.
vs.
30,
Total
2005),
Office Produ
otherwise
119
----------------------- Page 120----------------------RULE 4
1-2
SECS
8. An^ actio n by th e landowne r agains t th e subdivi sion develope r for th e rescission an d terminatio n o f thei r
contract an d th e retur n t o th e plaintif f o f al l document s
an d titles , wit h damage s b y reaso n o f th e defendant' s
contractua l breach , i s a rea l action a s th e relie f sough t
wil l necessaril y entai l th e recover y b y th e plaintif f o
f
possessio n o f th e lan d or suc h unsol d portion s thereof ,
henc e th e venu e o f th e action i s determine d by th e location
of th e rea l propert y
(Tenorio
vs. Paho,
et al, L-4
8117,
Nov.
27,
1986).
9 . An action filed by th e husban d for damages , base d
on th e wife' s adulterou s acts , an d for hi s shar e i n th
e
fruit s o f th e conjuga l partnership , wit h a praye r for pre liminar y
injunctio n t o r e s t r a i n h e r fro m sellin g
r e a l
p r o p e r t y belongin g t o th e conjuga l p a r t n e r s h i p ,
i s a
persona l actio n a s h e doe s no t thereb y as k t o b e declare d
th e owne r thereof , no r for possessio n or partitio n o f th e
same , bu t merel y seek s t o exercis e hi s righ t a s adminis trato r of th e conjuga l partnershi p (De Guzman, et al.
vs.
Genato,
et al., L-42260,
April
10,
1979).
10. Th e venu e in ejectmen t case s unde r Sec . 1 o f thi s
Rul e
m a y
b e c h a n g e d b y a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p
a r t i e s
p u r s u a n t t o Sec .
4 thereo f
(Villanueva
vs.
Mosqu
eda,
et al., G.R. No. 58287, Aug. 19, 1982), bu t it mus t now be
mad e i n writin g an d befor e th e filin g o f th e action .
11. Th e rule s o f venu e for persona l action s i n th
e
inferior c o u r t s a n d i n th e Regiona l Tria l C o u r t s
a r e
generally mad e t o depen d o n th e residenc e o f th e parties .
Th e residenc e referre d t o i s th e plac e wher e th e part
y
actually reside s a t th e tim e th e actio n i s institute d
(De l a
Rosa vs. De Borja, 53 Phil. 998), no t hi s permanen t hom e
or domicil e
(Koh vs. CA, et al, L-40428, Dec. 17,
5; cf.
Arevalo
vs.
Quilatan,
G.R.
No.
57892,
Sept.
1982,
regardin g servic e o f summon s a t defendant' s residence) .
197
21,
120
----------------------- Page 121----------------------RULE 4
SEC. 3
12.
VENUE OF ACTIONS
Th e residenc e o f th e perso n i s hi s personal , actua l
or physica l habitatio n o r hi s actua l residenc e o r plac e o f

abode
(Fule, et al. vs. CA, et al., L-40502, Nov. 29,
1976),
whethe r p e r m a n e n t o r temporar y a s lon g a s h e reside
s
wit h continuit y an d consistenc y therei n
(Dangwa
Trans.
Co.,
Inc.
vs. Sarmiento,
et
al., L-22795,
Jan.
31,
1977;
Ang
Kek
Chen
vs.
Spouses
Calasan,
G.R.
No.
161685,
July
24,
2007).
S e c . 3 . Venue
of actions
against
nonresidents.
If
a n y
o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s d o e s n o t r e s i d e a n d
i s n o t
f o u n d i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , a n d t h e a c t i o n aff
ect s t h e
p e r s o n a l s t a t u s o f t h e plaintiff , o r a n y p r o p
e r t y o f
sai d d e f e n d a n t l o c a t e d i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , t
h e a c t i o n
m a y
b e c o m m e n c e d
a n d t r i e d i n t h e c o u r
t o f t h e
p l a c e
w h e r e
t h e
p l a i n t i f f r e s i d e s , o r w h
e r e t h e
p r o p e r t y o r a n y p o r t i o n t h e r e o f i s s i t u a t e d
o r f o u n d .
(2[c]a)
N O T E S
1.
Wher e a persona l actio n i s agains t a residen t
defendant an d a nonresiden t defendan t bu t wh o i s i n th e
Philippines , bot h o f who m ar e principa l defendants , th e
venu e ma y b e lai d eithe r wher e th e residen t defendan t
reside s
o r w h e r e t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n
t ma y b e
found, a s authorize d by Sec . 2 o f thi s Rule , bu t wit h an
additiona l alternativ e venue , i.e. , th e residenc e o f an y o f
th e principa l plaintiffs , p u r s u a n t t o Sees . 2 an d 3 .
It wil l b e observe d t h a t whe n ther e i s mor e t h a n
on e
defendant o r plaintif f i n th e
case ,
th e
residence s
o f th e
principa l p a r t i e s shoul d b e th e basi s for d e t e r m

i n i n g
th e prope r venue .
Otherwise , th e purpos e o f th e Ru
l e
woul d b e defeate d wher e a nomina l or forma l part y i s
impleade d i n th e actio n sinc e th e latte r woul d no t hav e
th e degre e o f interes t in th e subject o f th e action whic h
would warran t an d entai l th e desirably activ e participatio n
expected o f litigant s in a case .
121
----------------------- Page 122----------------------RULE 4
SEC. 3
2 . Sec . 4 o f th e former Rul e provide d tha t "(w)hen

improper , venu e i s no t objecte d t o in a motio n it i s deeme d
waived. "
Correlatively , Sec . 5 o f Rul e 1 6 provide d tha t
"(a)ny o f th e ground s for dismissa l provide d for in thi s
rule ,
excep t i m p r o p e r v e n u e ,
ma y b e pleade d
a s a n
affirmative defense , an d a preliminar y hearin g ma y b e
ha d thereo n a s i f a motion t o dismis s ha d bee n filed. "
Th e aforesai d Sec . 4 o f th e forme r Rul e ha s bee
n
deleted , an d Sec . 5 o f Rul e 1 6 correspondingl y modified ,
in thes e revise d Rules .
Ther e doe s no t appea r t o b e
an y
cogent reaso n t o singl e ou t imprope r venu e
fr
om th e
variou s preliminar y objection s tha t ma y b e raise d agains t
a complaint , an d requir e t h a t it ma y b e raise d only in a
motio n t o dismis s u n d e r pai n o f it s bein g considere d
waive d
tha t
such
for failur e
t o d o so .
I t i s entirel y possibl e
objectio n
w a s
no t i m m e d i a t e l y discernibl e
b u t
becam e apparen t only a t th e tim e th e defendan t prepare d
hi s answe r o r that , for an y othe r reason , h e wa s no t the n
in a positio n t o file a motio n t o dismiss .
Unde r
improper venu
ground s for
Rul e 1 6 an
if it i s
b e
allege d
a
preliminar
likewis e
subject t
thes e revise d Rules ,

e i s place d o n th e
a motio n t o dismis s
d i s entitle d t o th
therefore , th e groun d o f
sam e footin g a s th e othe r
enumerate d in Sec . 1 o f
e sam e consideration s i n that ,
no t raise d in a motio n t o dismiss , it ma y likewis e

a s
a n
affirmativ e
y hearin g thereon .
defens e
i n
th e
a n s w e r
for
A t al l events , i t i s
o th e sam e sanctio n provide d in Sec .
1 ,
Rul e 9
t h a t i f i t i s no t pleade d a s a n objection eithe r i n a mot
io n
t o dismis s o r i n th e answer , i t i s deeme d waived .
3 . W h e r e
t h e
n t o f t h e
Philippine s bu t i s permitte
of a foreign corporatio n wit
Sec. 12 3 o f th e Corporatio
plac e wher e th e defendan
p l a i n t i f f
d
h
n
t
t o su e her
th e requisit
Code) , the n
resides , or
i s a n o n r e s i d e
e (a s i n
e licens e
th e venu e
, i n rea
th e cas e
unde r
i s th e
l actions ,
wher e th e rea l propert y o r p a r t thereo f i s situated .

Thi s
i s prope r sinc e th e alternativ e venu e grante d t o plaintiff s
122
----------------------- Page 123----------------------RULE 4
SEC. 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS
is no t availabl e t o sai d corporatio n (se e

Inc.
vs.
Reyes,
L-28882,
May
31,
1971,
involvin g
agains t
a foreign corporation) .
4 . Where , o n th e othe r
n t
wh o i s a nonresiden t an d i s no t
civil action s ar e prope r only whe n
p e r s o n a l s t a t u s o f t h e p
t y o f t h e
defendant , i n whic h cas e Sec . 2
See Sec .
15 , Rul e 1 4 regardin
in
thes e cases .
hand ,
i t
i s
Time,
a
th e
sui t
defenda
foun d in th e Philippines ,
th e actio n affect s th e
l a i n t i f f o r p r o p e r
determine s th e venue .
g servic e o f s u m m o n s
5 . A n exceptio n t o t h e genera l rule s o n venu e

i s
found in civi l action s for damage s in cas e o f libel , whethe r
a crimina l actio n therefo r ha s bee n filed o r not , a s specia l
rule s o f venu e ar e provide d i n Art . 36 0 o f th e Revise
d
Pena l Code , a s las t amende d b y R.A . 4363 .
Sai d
venu e
provision s appl y t o bot h r e s i d e n t s an d
n o n r e
s i d e n t s ,
a s s u m i n g t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r t h e l a t t e r
h a s bee n
acquired (Time, Inc.
vs. Reyes,
et al., supra).
S e c . 4 . When
R u l e
shal l no t a p p l y
(a)
Rule
not
applicable.
T h i s
I n t h o s e c a s e s w h e r e a specifi c rul e o r la
w
p r o v i d e s o t h e r w i s e ; o r
(b) W h e r e t h e
p a r t i e s h a v e v a l i d l y a g
r e e d i n
w r i t i n g
b e f o r e t h e
f i l i n g o f t h e a c t i o n
o n
t h e
e x c l u s i v e v e n u e thereof . (3a , 5a )
NOTE S
1.
Sec .
4(b)
enunciate s a clarification o f th e rul e
regardin g stipulation s o f th e partie s o n venue .

I t
require s
a vali d writte n agreemen t execute d by th e partie s before
th e filin g o f th e action .
Accordingly , th e provisio n i n th
e
former Sec . 3 o f thi s Rul e t o th e effect t h a t "(b)y writte n
agreement o f th e partie s th e venu e o f a n actio n ma y b e
change d o r transferre d from on e provinc e t o another "
123
----------------------- Page 124----------------------RULE 4
SEC. 4
ha s bee n eliminated .
T o b e binding , th e partie s mus t hav e agree d o n th e
exclusive natur e o f th e venu e o f an y prospectiv e actio n
betwee n them .
Thi s adopt s th e doctrine s lai d dow n b y
th e Suprem e Cour t requirin g that , t o avoi d th e genera l
rule s o n venue , th e agreemen t o f th e partie s thereo n mus t
b e restrictiv e an d no t permissive .
Thos e decision s ar e
se t
out hereunde r by wa y o f illustrations , asid e from othe r
decisional rule s o n venue .
2 . It i s fundamenta l in th e law governin g venu e o f
action s t h a t t h e s i t u s i s fixe d t o a t t a i n t h
e g r e a t e s t
convenienc e
possibl e
t o t h e l i t i g a n t s b y t a
k i n g int o
consideration th e maximu m accessibility t o the m o f th e
court s of justic e
(Koh
vs.
CA,
et al, L-40428,
D
ec.
17,
1975).
V e n u e
i n p e r s o n a l a c t i o n s i s fixe d
fo r t h e
convenienc e o f th e plaintif f an d hi s witnesse s an d t o
promot e th e end s o f justice .
Wher e th e contract , subjec
t
o f th e suit , wa s execute d a t th e tim e whe n bot h plaintif f
an d defendan t ha d thei r busines s addresse s i n th e City o f
Manil a an d containe d a provis o t h a t al l action s o n sai d
c o n t r a c t "ma y
b e b r o u g h t i n a n d s u b m i t t e d
t o t h e
jurisdictio n o f th e prope r court s in th e City o f Manila, "
bu t a t th e tim e o f sui t thereo n al l th e partie s ha d thei
r
respectiv e offices or residence s withi n th e jurisdictio n o f
th e Provinc e o f Rizal , th e actio n thu s institute d i n
th e
Court o f Firs t Instanc e o f Riza l shoul d no t b e dismisse d
o n t h e g r o u n d o f i m p r o p e r v e n u e a s , u n d e
r
s u c h
circumstances , th e end s o f justic e ca n no t b e serve d o
r
promote d b y confinin g th e situ s o f th e actio n i n Manil a
(Nicolas
vs.
Reparations
Commission,
L-28649,
M
ay
21,
1975;
se e
als o
Capati
vs.
Ocampo,
L-22742,
Ap
ril
30,
1982).
3 .
c o n t r a
njustl y
denie s a
d e s i g n
k e int o
Th e cour t ma y declar e agreement s o n venu e

r y t o publi c polic y i f suc h stipulatio n
a s
u
part y a fair opportunit y t o file sui t in th e plac e

a t e d b y t h e Rules .
Th e cour t s h a l l t a
124
----------------------- Page 125----------------------RULE 4

SEC. 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS
consideration th e economi c condition s o f th e parties , th e

practica l nee d t o avoi d numerou s suit s file d agains t th e
defendant i n variou s p a r t s o f th e countr y an d th e peculia r
circumstance s
of th e
cas e
(Hoechst
Philippines,
Inc.
vs.
Torres,
et al, L-44351,
May
18,
1978).
4 .
In - c o n t r a c t s o f a d h e s i o n , t h e r u l e
i s t h a t
ambiguitie s therei n ar e t o b e construe d agains t th e part y
wh o cause d it .
I f th e stipulation s ar e no t obscur e
an d
leave n o doub t o n th e intentio n o f th e parties , th e litera l
meanin g o f t h e
s t i p u l a t i o n s m u s t b e hel d c
ontrollin g
(Lufthansa
German
Airlines,
et
al.
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
91544,
May
8,
1992;
RCBC
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
133107,
Mar.
25,
1999).
C o n t r a c t s of
adhesio n
ar e no t p r o h i b i t e d , b u t t h e factua l c i r c u m s t a
n c e s
o f
each cas e
m u s t b e carefull y scrutinize d t o d e t e r m
i n e
th e respectiv e claim s o f th e partie s a s t o thei r effica
cy
(see
National Dev.
Corp.,
G.R.
No.
148332,
Co.
Sept.
vs.
Madrigal
30,
Wan
Hai
Lines
2003).
T h u s , i n c o n t r a c t s i n vo l v i n g p a s s a g e t
i c k e t s , a
condition p r i n t e d a t t h e bac k thereo f t h a t al l act
ion s
arising ou t o f t h a t contrac t o f carriag e ca n b e filed only in
a particula r provinc e or city , t o th e exclusio n o f al l others ,
wa s declare d voi d an d
th e shippin g industry .
acut e
shortage o f inter-islan d
accommodation s
th e venu e
indicated , asid e from
unenforceabl e du e t o th e stat e o f
Th e Cour t note d t h a t th e
vessel s coul d no t provid e enoug h
for plaintiff s
t o t r a v e l
th e
fact
t h a t
th e
t o
passenger s
no t h a v e
t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x a m i n e
n e p r i n t
providin g
for suc h
venu e
(Sweet
Lines,
s.
Teves,
etc., et al., L-37750, May
19,
1978).
di d
t h e
fi
Inc.
In a
s u b s e q u e n t c a s e in vo l v i n g
6 s u b s
c r i p t i o n
c o n t r a c t s for c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e s eac h covere
d b y
a
mobilin e servic e agreement ,
th e subscribe r challeng
e d
th e provision s i n sai d a g r e e m e n t s providin g t h a t
th e
venu e for al l s u i t s a r i s i n g therefro m shal l b e
i n th e
prope r cour t o f Makati , wit h th e subscribe r waivin g an y
125
----------------------- Page 126----------------------RULE 4
SEC. 4
other venue .
Th e Suprem e Cour t sustaine d th e validit y
o f tha t venu e stipulation , considerin g t h a t th e subscribe r
ha s sufficien t opportunit y t o g o ove r suc h stipulatio n
durin g eac h tim e h e signe d thos e agreements , a s wel l a s
i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t s u b s c r i p t i o n s h e a c q u i r
e d whil e
r e m a i n i n g a s a s u b s c r i b e r for som e
t i m e (
Pilipino
Telephone
Corp.
vs.
Tecson,
G.R.
No.
156966,
M
ay
7,
2004;
cf. DBP
vs. National
Merchandising
Corp.,
L-22957
&
L-23737,
Aug.
31,
1971).
5.
A stipulatio n a s t o th e venu e o f a prospectiv e action
doe s no t preclud e th e filing o f th e sui t i n th e residenc e o

f
th e plaintif f or t h a t o f th e defendan t unde r Sec . 2 o f thi
s
Rule , in th e absenc e o f qualifyin g or restrictiv e word s in
th e agreemen t t h a t woul d indicat e t h a t th e venu e ca n no t
b e an y plac e othe r t h a n t h a t agree d upo n b y th e partie
s
(Polytrade
Corp.
vs. Blanco,
1969),
especially wher e th e venu e stipulatio
th e plaintif f for it s own benefi t an d
(Eastern
Assurance
&
Surety
Corp.
vs.
27033,
Oct.
n wa s impose d
convenienc e
Cui,
et
31,
b y
al., infra).
6 . Th e forme r Cour t o f Firs t

Instanc e o f Que
zo n
City ha d jurisdictio n wher e th e defendan t electri c cor poratio n ha s it s principa l office i n Quezo n City , althoug h
th e act s complaine d o f werer committe d b y it s electri c
p l a n t i n D a g u p a n City , sinc e corporat e decision s ar
e
mad e i n Quezo n City an d th e employee s i n Dagupa n City
merel y carr y ou t sai d orders , henc e th e act s sough t
t o
b e r e s t r a i n e d a r e b e i n g c o m m i t t e d i n Q u e z o
n Cit y
(Dagupan
Electric
Corp.
vs.
Paho,
et
al.,
L-49520,
Jan.
28,
1980;
cf . Limjap
vs.
Animas,
et
al.
,
G.R.
No.
53334,
Jan.
17,
1985;
Olongapo
Electric
Li
ght
&
Power
Corp.
vs.
National
Power
Corp.,
et
al.,
L-24912,
April
9,
1987).
7 . I n
action s
involvin g
domesti
ns ,
for p u r p o s e s o f v e n u e , w h a t i s c
i s t h e
location o f it s principa l plac e o f busines s
s
article s o f incorporation , no t th e branc h office
corporatio
o n t r o l l i n g
state d
i n
it
or plac e o f
126
----------------------- Page 127----------------------RULE 4
SEC. 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS
busines s
thereo f
(Hyatt
Elevators
Corp.
vs.
Goldstar
Elevators
Phils.,
Inc.,
61026
Oct.
24,
2005).
and
G.R.
Escalators
No.
8 . Wher e th e chatte l mortgag e ha d bee n fully paid ,
bu t th e mortgage e stil l sen t a telegra m demandin g pay men t from th e mortgagor , th e venu e for th e latter' s action
for damage s i s no t governe d by th e venu e stipulatio n in
th e chatte l mortgag e sinc e th e sui t i s no t base d o n sai d
contract bu t o n defendant' s ac t o f sendin g th e telegra m
(Zoleta
vs. Romillo,
G.R.
No.
58080, Feb.
15,
1982).
9 .
Sinc e a third-part y complain t i s bu t ancillar y t o a
mai n action , th e rule s o n jurisdictio n an d venu e d o no t

apply t o it . Thus , a third-part y complain t yield s t o th e
jurisdictio n an d venu e o f th e mai n action eve n i f sai d
third-part y complain t i s base d o n a separat e agreemen t
which specifie s a differen t venu e for suit s arisin g from
said
agreemen t
(Eastern
Assurance
&
Surety
Corp.
vs.
Cui, et al., G.R.
No.
54452, July 20,
1981).
10. Wher e only on e o f th e tw o defendants , bot h bein g
indispensabl e parties , filed a motio n t o dismis s for im prope r venue , whil e th e othe r filed hi s answe r withou t
raisin g suc h objection , th e hearin g shoul d no t procee d
a g a i n s t t h e l a t t e r u n t i l t h e objectio n r a i s e d
b y t h e
former shal l hav e
bee n resolve d (Punzalan
vs. Vda
.
de
Lacsamana,
G.R.
No.
55729,
Mar.
28,
1983).
11. Th e stipulatio n in a contrac t o f affreightmen t t o
th e effect t h a t sai d agreemen t "shal l b e governe d b y an d
construe d i n accordanc e wit h Singapor e Law , an d al l
dispute s a r i s i n g ( t ) h e r e u n d e r shal l b e subjec t
t o th e
exclusive jurisdictio n o f th e Hig h Cour t o f Singapore "
refer s t o th e forum o f th e action s contemplate d therein .
It may no t b e declare d invali d o n th e theor y tha t suc h
agreement woul d dives t Philippin e court s o f jurisdictio n
b y agreemen t o f th e parties , sinc e wha t ha s bee n agree d
upon wa s merel y th e venu e o f th e action which may legally
127
----------------------- Page 128----------------------RULE 4
SEC. 4
b e done .
However , sinc e th e defendan t di d no t timel y
rais e tha t issu e bu t filed tw o motion s t o lift th e wri t o f
preliminar y
a t t a c h m e n t an
befor e it eventuall y filed a motion
o f imprope r venue , suc h objection
th e tria l cour t erre d i n grantin
th e
cas e
(Phil.
International
Zileena,
et
al, G.R. No.
102904,
d a counterbon d
therefor ,
t o dismis s on th e groun d
ha s bee n waive d an d
g th e motion an d dismissin g
Trading
Corp.
vs. M.V.
Oct.
30,
1992).
12. Th e foregoin g consideration s

notwithstanding ,
th e Suprem e Court , t o avoi d a miscarriag e o f justice , ha s
th e powe r t o orde r a chang e o f venu e or plac e o f tria l in
civil o r crimina l case s o r othe r judicia l proceedin g (se e
Sec.
5[4J,
Art.
VIII,
1987
Constitution;
Magsaysay
vs
.
Magsaysay,
et al, L-49847,
July
17,
1980).
13.
Becaus e
o f th e
superventio n
o f R.A .
No .
769 1
(Appendix N)
which ,
inter alia, amende d th e jurisdictio n
o f th e regula r tria l court s i n rea l actions , pendin g fina l
action o n th e presen t revise d Rules , th e Suprem e Cour t
approve d i n advanc e an d promulgate d th e presen t Rul e 4
t o t a k e effect o n Augus t 1 , 1995 , issuin g therefo r
Administrativ e Circula r No .
13-9 5 o n J u n e 20 ,
it s
1995 .
128
----------------------- Page 129----------------------RUL E
UNIFOR M
PROCEDUR E
5
I N
TRIA L
COURT S
S e c t i o n 1 . Uniform procedure.
Th e
p r o c
e d u r e
i n t h e M u n i c i p a l Tria l Court s shal l b e th e s a m e a s
i n t h e R e g i o n a l T r i a l
e r e a
particula r p r o v i e i o n e x p r e
l i e s
o n l y t o e i t h e r o f s a i d
v i l c a s e s
g o v e r n e d b y t h e R u l e o n
(n )
C o u r t ,
e x c e p t
(a )
w h
s s l y o r i m p l i e d l y a p p
c o u r t s ,
o r
(b ) i n
c i
S u m m a r y P r o c e d u r e ,
S e c . 2 . Meaning of terms. Th e t e r m "Municipa l

Trial Courts " a s u s e d i n t h e s e R u l e s shal l i n c l
u d e
Metropolita n Tria l Courts , Municipa l Tria l Court s
i n C i t i e s , M u n i c i p a l Tria l C o u r t s , a n d M u n i
c i p a l
Circui t Tria l Courts , ( l a )
NOTE S
1. Th e forme r Rul e 6 o f thes e Rule s wa s expressl y
repeale d b y th e Interi m o r Transitiona l Rule s an d Guide line s promulgate d b y th e Suprem e Cour t effectiv e upo n
th e implementatio n o f B.P . Big . 129 .
Par . 9 o f sai d i
nteri m
rule s furthe r provide d tha t "(t)h e procedur e t o b e observe d
in metropolita n tria l courts , municipa l tria l court s an d
municipa l circui t tria l courts , i n al l case s an d proceedings ,
whethe r civil o r criminal , shal l b e th e sam e a s tha t t o b e
observed in th e regiona l tria l courts. "

de d
in Sec . 1 , wit h exceptions .
Thi s i s now provi
2 . I t ha s bee n hel d t h a t interpleade r (Rule

62) i s
available i n inferior court s althoug h the y ar e no t boun d
t o follow strictl y th e procedur e therefo r a s se t ou t for th e
t h e n C o u r t s o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e (Makati
Dev.
C
o.
vs.
Tanjuatco, L-26443, Mar.
25,
1969).
It i s submitte d
tha t
since th e procedur e i n th e presen t Regiona l Tria l Court s
i s now applicabl e t o th e inferior courts , whil e th e latte r
129
----------------------- Page 130----------------------RULE 5
EC. 2
can tr y interpleade r actions , the y m u s t perforc e

now
observe th e procedur e a s provide d for th e Regiona l Tria l
Courts .
3 . Unde r Sec . 2 2 o f B.P . Big .
129 an d Par . 21(a ) o
f
th e Interi m Rule s an d Guidelines , al l case s decide d b y
th e inferior court s ma y b e appeale d t o th e Regiona l Tria l
Courts .
I t ha s bee n hel d tha t suc h provision s ar e broa d
e n o u g h t o cove r
j u d g m e n t s
b y d e f a u l t , s u m
m a r y
j u d g m e n t s an d j u d g m e n t s o n th e pleading s r e n d
e r e d
b y inferio r courts .
Th e
c o n t r a r y doctrine s
i n
Luzon
Rubber
& Manufacturing
Co.
vs. Estaris,
et al. [L-314
39 ,
Aug .
31 , 1973] an d reiterate d in Stratchan, e t al.
v
s. CA,
et al. [L-23455 , J a n . 27 , 1985] ar e thereb y deeme d over rule d
(Guanson
vs. Montesclaros,
et al., G.R.
No.
59330,
June
28,
1983).
Th e
controvers y
in th e p a s t o
n thi s
poin t (se e
Vda.
de Hoyo-a,
et al. vs. Virata,
et al.
, G.R.
No.
71171,
July
23,
1985),
whic h
ha s
now
bee n
se t at
rest , wa s du e t o th e fact t h a t , formerly , onl y def
aul t
judgment s o f th e Court s o f Firs t Instanc e wer e appealabl e
unde r th e the n Sec . 2 o f Rul e 41 .
4 .
Wher e
th e
lower cour t
ha d
n o jurisdictio n
ove r
t h e case , t h e Regiona l T r i a l C o u r t
q u i r e
appellat e jurisdiction .
However , whil e
a n t
ma y assai l suc h jurisdictio n o n appeal , th e
submit t o th e origina l jurisdictio n o f th e
Court an d sai d cour t ca n procee d t o tr
Alvir
vs.
Vera,
L-39338,
July
16,
1984).
e s e n t
procedura l rule , se e Sec . 8 , Rul e 40 .
doe s
th e
no t
a c
a p p e l l
partie s ma y
Regiona l Tria l
y th e cas e (
Fo r
t h e
p r
5 . Formerly , th e decision s o f th e the n Court s o f Firs t

Instance , i n case s appeale d t o the m from th e decision s o f
th e inferior court s i n th e exercis e o f th e latter' s origina l
jurisdiction , wer e appealabl e t o th e Suprem e Cour t b y
certiorar i unde r Rul e 4 5 i f th e only issu e wa s whethe
r
th e conclusio n o f th e the n Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e wa
s
i n consonanc e wit h la w an d j u r i s p r u d e n c e ,
henc e
th e
issu e i s consequentl y a purel y lega l question .
Wh
ere ,
130
----------------------- Page 131----------------------RULE 5
SEC. 2
UNIFORM PROCEDURE IN TRIAL COURTS
however , th e issu e wa s whethe r th e finding s o f fact o f

said C o u r t o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e wer e s u p p o r t e d
b y sub stantia l evidence , o r suc h questio n wa s raise d togethe r
wit h a purel y lega l issue , a petitio n for revie w shoul d b e
brough t t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s i n th e form prescribe d i n
it s Resolutio n o f Augus t 12 , 1971 .
I t wa s opine d th
erei n
tha t althoug h Sec . 2 2 o f B.P . Big .
12 9 abandone d
th e
" s u b s t a n t i a l evidence "
rul e formerl y provide d
u n d e r
R.A . 603 1 i n determinin g whethe r t o giv e du e cours e t o
th e petition , th e questio n o f wher e t o file sai d petition
,
a s abov e stated , ha s no t bee n affecte d by B.P . Big .
129
(Torres, et al.
vs. Yu, et al, L-42626, Dec.
18,
198
2;
cf.
Mania
vs. Vda. de Segarra, et al, L-48257, Aug.
24,
1984).
Unde r thes e revise d Rules , appeal
of th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t rendere d i n
appellat e jurisdictio n shal l b e brough t
Appeal s regardles s o f th e issue s involved
s from a decision
th e exercis e o f it s
t o th e Cour t o f
.
Thus , S
ec . 2
o f Rul e
review
4 2 require s t h a t i n suc h appea l th e petitio n for
t o th e
Cour t o f Appeal s
mus t se t forth ,
inter alia,
"the specificatio n o f th e error s o f fact or law ,

,
allegedly committe d b y th e Regiona l Tria l Court. "
6 .
Wit h respec t
t o
th e
syste m
o f amicabl y
or
both
settlin g
dispute s a t th e barangay leve l an d which , i n prope r cases ,

i s a prerequisit e for th e institutio n o f an action in cour t
unde r P.D .
1508 ,
generall y referre d t o a s th e Kata
rungang
Pambarangay
decree ,
se e
note s
u n d e r Se
c .
1 ,
Rule 123 .
Sec . 2 o f sai d P.D . 150 8 provide d for th e case
s
withi n th e jurisdictio n o f th e lupon, whil e Sec . 3 thereo f
d e t e r m i n e d t h e v e n u e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , i
.e. , t h e
barangay
w h e r e t h e proceeding s
shal l
b e condu
cte d
(Agbayani vs. Belen, et al, G.R. No.
65629, Nov. 24,
1986).
See, however , th e correspondin g provision s o f th e Loca l
G o v e r n m e n t
Cod e
o f 199 1
(R.A.
7160)
r e p r
o d u c e d
thereunder .
7 . Excepte d from th e unifor m procedur e a s state d
in thi s Rul e ar e th e case s covere d b y th e Rul e o n Sum 131
----------------------- Page 132----------------------RULE 5
SEC. 2
mar y Procedur e promulgate d b y th e Suprem e Cour t for

inferior court s effectiv e Augus t 1 , 1983 , an d las t revise d
wit h effectivity o n Novembe r 15 , 1991 , whic h wit h respec t
t o civil case s provide s a s follows :
"Pursuant t o Section 3 6 o f th e Judiciar y Reorga nizatio n Act o f 198 0 (B.P . Big . 129) an d t o achiev e
an expeditiou s an d inexpensiv e determinatio n o f th e
case s referre d t o herein , th e Cour t Resolve d t o pro mulgat e th e followin g Revise d Rul e o n S u m m a r y
Procedure :
I .
Applicability
SECTION 1 . Scope. Thi s rul e shal l gover n th e
summary procedur e i n th e Metropolita n Tria l Courts ,
th e Municipa l Tria l Court s i n Cities , th e Municipa l
Tria l Courts , an d th e Municipa l Circui t Tria l Court s

in th e followin g case s fallin g withi n thei r jurisdiction :
A .
Civi l Cases :
(1) Al l
c a s e s o f forcibl e
e n t r y a n d u n l
a w f u l
detaine r irrespectiv e o f th e amoun t o f damage s o r
unpai d rental s sough t t o b e recovered .
Wher e at
tor ney' s fee s ar e awarded , th e sam e shal l no t excee
d
twent y thousan d peso s (P20,000.00) .
(2) Al l othe r civil cases , excep t probat e proceed ings , wher e th e tota l amoun t o f th e plaintiff s clai m
doe s no t excee d te n t h o u s a n d peso s (P10.000.00) ,
exclusive o f interes t an d costs .
X
X
II .
Civil
SEC .
3 .
Pleadings.
A .
Pleadings
d i n g s
allowed t o b e filed
Case s
allowed.
ar e
complaints ,
th e
Th e
onl y
p l e a
compulsor y
132
----------------------- Page 133----------------------RULE 5
SEC. 2
counterclaim s an d cross-claim s pleade d i n th e answer ,

an d th e answer s thereto .
B .
SEC .
Verification. All pleading s shal l b e verified .

4 .
Duty
of
court.
After
th e
cour t
deter
mine s t h a t th e cas e fall s unde r summar y procedure ,

i t may ,
fro m a n
e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e a l l e g
a t i o n s
therei n an d suc h evidenc e a s ma y b e attache d thereto ,
dismis s t h e cas e o u t r i g h t o n an y o f t h e gro
und s
a p p a r e n t therefro m for th e dismissa l o f a civil action .
If n o groun d for dismissa l i s found , it shal l forth w i t h i s s u e s u m m o n s whic h
s h a l l s t a t e t h
a t t h e
summary procedur e unde r thi s Rul e shal l apply .
SEC .
5 . Answer.
Withi n
te n
(10)
day s
from
servic e o f s u m m o n s ,
th e defendan t shal l file
hi s
answer t o th e complain t an d serv e a copy thereo f o n
th e plaintiff .
Affirmativ e an d negativ e defense s not
pleade d therei n shal l b e deeme d waived , excep t for
lack o f jurisdictio n ove r th e subjec t matter .
C
ross claim s an d compulsor y counterclaim s not asserte d i n
th e answe r shal l b e considere d barred .
Th e ans
we r
t o counterclaim s or cross-claim s shal l b e filed an d
served withi n te n (10) day s from servic e o f th e answe r
in whic h the y ar e pleaded .
SEC .
6 . Effect of failure to answer. Shoul d th e
defendant fai l t o answe r th e complain t withi n th e
perio d abov e provided , th e court , motu proprio, or on
motion o f th e plaintiff , shal l rende r judgmen t a s ma y
b e warrante d b y th e fact s allege d i n th e complain t
an d limite d t o wha t i s praye d for therein : Provided ,
however , t h a t th e cour t ma y i n it s discretio n reduc e
th e amoun t o f damage s an d attorney' s fee s claime d
for bein g excessiv e or otherwis e unconscionable . Thi s
i s withou t prejudic e t o th e applicability o f Section 4 ,
Rul e 1 8 o f th e Rule s o f Court , i f ther e ar e tw o or mo
r e
defendants .
133
----------------------- Page 134----------------------RULE 5
SEC. 2
SEC .
7 . Preliminary
conference;
appearance
of
parties.
Not late r tha n thirt y (30) day s after th e
last answe r i s filed , a preliminar y conferenc e shal l b e
held .
Th e rule s o n pre-tria l i n ordinar y case s shal l
b e applicabl e t o th e preliminar y conferenc e unles s
inconsistent wit h th e provision s o f thi s Rule .
Th e
failur e o f th e plaintif f t o appea r in th e pre
liminary conferenc e shal l b e a caus e for th e dismissa l

o f hi s complaint .
Th e defendan t wh o appear s i n th e
absenc e o f th e plaintif f shal l b e entitle d t o judgmen t
on hi s counterclai m i n accordanc e wit h Sectio n 6
hereof .
All cross-claim s shal l b e dismissed .
I f a sol e defendan t shal l fail t o appear , th e plain tiff shal l b e entitle d t o judgmen t i n accordanc e wit h
Section 6 hereof .
Thi s Rul e shal l no t appl y wher
e
one o f tw o or mor e defendant s sue d unde r a commo n
caus e o f actio n wh o ha d pleade d a commo n defens e
shall appea r a t th e preliminar y conference .

SEC .
8 . Record
of preliminary
conference.
Withi n five (5) day s afte r th e terminatio n o f th e pre liminary conference , th e cour t shal l issu e a n orde r
statin g th e matter s take n u p therein ,
no t limite d to :
includin g bu t
(a)
Whethe r th e partie s hav e arrive d a t a n ami cable settlement , an d i f so , th e term s thereof ;
(b)
Th e stipulation s o r admission s entere d
b y th e parties ;
(c)
Whether , o n th e basi s o
th e stipulation s an d admission s mad e
j u d g m e n t m a y b e r e n d e r e
ee d o f
further proceedings ,
i n whic
e n t
s h a l l b e r e n d e r e d w i t h i n
fro m
issuanc e o f th e order ;
int o
f th e pleading s an d
b y th e parties ,
d w i t h o u t t h e n
h
even t
th e j u d g m
t h i r t y (30 ) d a y s
(d)
A clea r specification o f materia l fact s whic h
remai n controverted ; an d
134
----------------------- Page 135----------------------RULE 5
(e)
Suc h othe r matter s intende d t o expedit e th e
disposition o f th e case .
SEC .
9 .
Submission
papers.
Withi n te
order mentione d i n
partie s shal l submi t
an d othe r evidenc e
of
affidavits and
position
(10) day s from receip t o f th e

th e nex t precedin g section , th e
th e affidavit s o f thei r witnesse s
o n th e factua l issue s define d i n
th e order , togethe r wit h thei r positio n paper s settin g

forth th e la w an d th e fact s relie d upo n b y them .
SEC .
10 .
Rendition
of
judgment.
W i t h i n
thirt y (30) day s afte r receip t o f th e las t affidavit s an d

positio n papers ,
o r th e
expiratio n
o f th e
perio d
for
filing th e same , th e cour t shal l rende r judgment .

However , shoul d th e cour t fin d it necessar y t o
clarify certai n materia l facts , i t may , durin g th e sai d
period , issu e a n orde r specifyin g th e matter s t o b e
clarified , an d requir e th e partie s t o submi t affidavit s

or othe r evidenc e o n th e sai d matter s withi n te n (10)
day s from receip t o f sai d order .
Judgmen t shal l b e
rendere d withi n fifteen (15) day s afte r th e receip t o f
th e las t clarificator y affidavits , o r th e expiratio n o f
th e perio d for filin g th e same .
Th e
cour t
shal l
no t
resor t
t o
clarificator y
pro
cedur e t o gai n tim e for th e renditio n o f th e judgment .

X
IV .
Common
Provision s
SEC .
18 .
Referral to Lupon. Case s requirin g
referra l t o th e Lupo n for conciliation unde r th e pro vision s o f Presidentia l Decre e No . 150 8 wher e ther e
i s n o showin g o f complianc e wit h suc h requirement ,
shal l b e dismisse d withou t prejudice , an d ma y b e
revive d
onl y afte r suc h r e q u i r e m e n t shal l hav e
bee n complie d with ,
x x x .
135
----------------------- Page 136----------------------RULE 6

. 2

SEC .
19 .
Prohibited
SEC
pleadings
and
motions.
Th e following pleadings , motions , o r petition s shal l

not b e allowe d in th e case s covere d by thi s Rule :
(a) Motion t o dismis s th e complain t x x x excep t
on th e groun d o f lack o f jurisdictio n over th e subjec t
matter , or failur e t o comply wit h th e precedin g section ;
(b) Motion for a bil l of particulars ;
(c) Motion for new trial , or for reconsideratio n o f
a judgment , or for reopenin g o f trial ;
(d) Petitio n for relie f from judgment ;
(e) Motion for extensio n o f tim e t o file pleadings ,
affidavits o r an y othe r paper ;
( 0
Memoranda ;
(g) Petitio n for certiorari ,
m a n d a m u s , o r
pro hibitio n
th e court
(h)
(i)
0)
(k)
(1)
SEC .
agains t an y interlocutor y orde r issue d b y

;
Motion t o declar e th e defendan t i n default ;
Dilator y motion s for postponement ;
Reply ;
Third-part y complaints ;
Interventions .
20 .
Affidavits.
Th e
affidavit s
require d
t o b e submitte d unde r thi s Rul e shal l stat e only fact s

of direc t persona l knowledg e o f th e affiant s whic h ar e
a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e , a n d s h a l l s h o w t h
e i r
competenc e t o testify t o th e matter s state d therein .
A violatio n o f thi s requiremen t ma y subjec t th e
part y o r th e counse l wh o submit s th e sam e t o dis ciplinary action , an d shal l b e caus e t o expung e th e
inadmissibl e
affidavi t o r portio n
thereo f from
th e
record .
SEC .
2 1 . Appeal.
shall b e appealabl e t o th e
court whic h shal l decid e th
Section 2 2 of Bata s Pambans a
Th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r

appropriat e regiona l tria l
e sam e i n accordanc e wit h
Big . 129 .
Th e decisio
n
of th e regiona l tria l cour t in civil case s governe d by
t h i s Rule , includin g
forcibl e
e n t r y an d unlawfu
l
136
----------------------- Page 137----------------------RULE 5
SEC. 2
detainer ,
prejudic e
shal l b e immediatel y executory , withou t

t o a furthe r appea l t h a t ma y b e t a k
e n
therefrom .
Sectio n
1 0 o f Rul e
7 0 shal l b e
deeme
d
repealed .
SEC .
es.
Th e
22 .
r e g u l a r
Applicability
procedur e
of
prescribe d
the
i n
regular
th e
Rule s
rul
o
f
Court shal l appl y t o th e specia l case s herei n provide d
for in a suppletor y capacit y insofar a s the y ar e no t
inconsistent herewith .
SEC .
2 3 .
Effectivity.
Thi s
o n
S u m m a ry Procedur e shal l b e effectiv e
be r 15 , 1991. "
revise d
o n
Rul e
Novem -
8 . Ne w
cour t
rule s
appl y
t o pendin g
case s
only
wit h referenc e t o proceeding s therei n whic h tak e plac e
after th e dat e o f thei r effectivity .
The y d o no t appl y
t o
th e exten t t h a t i n th e opinio n o f th e cour t thei r applica
tion woul d no t b e feasibl e o r woul d wor k injustice ,
i n
whic h even t th e forme r procedur e shal l apply .
Thus ,
wher e th e applicatio n o f th e Rul e o n Summar y Procedur e
will mea n th e dismissa l o f th e appea l o f th e party , th e
same shoul d no t appl y since , afte r all , th e procedur e the y

availe d o f wa s als o allowe d u n d e r th e Rule s o f Cour
t
(Laguio, et al.
vs. Garnet, et al, G.R. No.
74903, Mar.
21,
1989).
9.
Whil e Sec . 6 (now , Sec.
7) o f th e Rul e on
Sum m a r y
P r o c e d u r e m a k e s
a p r e l i m i n a r y c o n f
e r e n c e
mandatory , i t doe s no t logically follow tha t th e absenc e
thereo f woul d necessarily rende r nugator y th e proceeding s
ha d in th e cour t below .
A preliminar y conferenc e unde r
thi s Rul e i s aki n an d simila r t o a pre-tria l unde r Rul e 20
,
bot h provision s bein g essentiall y designe d t o promot e
amicable settlemen t o r t o simplify th e trial .
Proceedin
g s
conducted withou t pre-tria l or a legally defectiv e pre-tria l
hav e bee n voide d becaus e eithe r o f th e partie s theret o
suffered substantia l prejudic e thereb y o r wer e denie d du e
process .
Thus , unles s ther e i s a showin g o f substantia l
137
----------------------- Page 138----------------------RULE S
prejudic e
c a l e n d
e l i m i n
conference
ab initio.

cause d t o a party , th e inadverten t failur e t o
a r for a n d conduc t
a p r e - t r i a l o r p r
a r y
canno t rende r th e proceeding s illega l o r void
A party' s failur e t o object t o th e absenc e o f a
preliminar y conference , despit e opportunit y t o d o so , i s

deeme d a waive r o f th e righ t thereto , especiall y wher e
th e part y ha d alread y submitte d t o th e jurisdictio n o f
th e tria l cour t (Martinez,
et al. vs. De la Merced, et
al.,
G.R.
No.
82039,
June
20,
1989).
10.
E x c e p t i n case s covere d b y t h e a g r i c u
l t u r a l
t e n a n c y l a w s o r w h e n t h e la w
o t h e r w i s e e x
p r e s s l y
provides ,
al l action s
for forcibl e
e n t r y a n d unl
awfu l
detainer , irrespectiv e o f th e amoun t o f damage s o r unpai d
rental s sough t t o b e recovered , ar e now governe d b y th e
summary procedur e provide d i n revise d Rul e 70 .
138
----------------------- Page 139----------------------PROCEDUR E
S
I N
REGIONA L
TRIA L
COURT
RUL E
K I N D S
S e c t
h e
w r i t t e n
m s a n d
d e f e n s e s
c o u r t fo
a p p r o p r i
i o n 1 .
O F
6
P L E A D I N G S
Pleadings defined. P l e a d i n g s ar e t
s t a t e m e n t s
o f t h e
r e s p e c t i v e c l a i
o f t h e p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d
r
a t e j u d g m e n t , ( l a )
t o
t h e
S e c . 2 .
Pleadings allowed. Th e claim s o f a part y
ar e a s s e r t e d i n a c o m p l a i n t , c o u n t e r c l a i m
, c r o s s c l a i m , t h i r d
( f o u r t h , e t c . ) - p a r t y c o m p l a i
n t
o r
c o m p l a i n t - i n - i n t e r v e n t i o n .
Th e d e f e n s e s o f a part y ar e allege d i n th e a n s w
e r
t o t h e p l e a d i n g a s s e r t i n g a c l a i m a g a i n s t hi
m .
A n a n s w e r m a y b e r e s p o n d e d t o b y a reply ,
n )
NOT E
1.
In a broa d sense , th e t e r m "pleadings " include s
all paper s filed , excludin g evidentiar y matters , from th e
complaint dow n t o th e judgment .
Document s attache d t
o
th e pleading s an d mad e a p a r t thereo f ar e considere d
evidence
an d
als o
p a r t o f th e pleading s
(Asia
Banking
Corporation
vs.
Olsen
&
Co.,
48 Phil.
529).
A
bil l of
p a r t i c u l a r s c o n s t i t u t e s p a r t o f t h e p l e a d i
n g t h a t i t
supplement s (Sec.
6, Rule
12).
A coverin g lette r f
or a
pleadin g i s no t p a r t o f th e latte r (Clorox Co.
vs.
Director
of Patents,
L-19531,
Aug.
10,
1967).
Sec .
t h e
p l e a d i n g
a u s e s o f
action .
intif f
an d defendan
3 .
Complaint.
T h e
c o m p l a i n t
a l l e g i n g t h e
Th e
n a m e s
a n d
p l a i n t i f f s c a u s e o r c
r e s i d e n c e s
t m u s t b e state d i n th e complaint . (3a )

139
----------------------- Page 140----------------------RULE 6
o f th e
pla
SECS. 4-5
NOTE S
1. Th e provision s o f thi s section wit h regar d t o
a
complaint ar e als o tru e wit h an d ar e applicabl e t o othe r
initiatory pleadings , a s wel l a s t o petition s filed i n th e
tria l o r appellat e courts , excep t that , i n th e latte r case ,
i t
i s th e ac t o f th e lower cour t whic h i s complaine d o f tha t
ha s t o b e alleged , instea d o f a caus e o f action a s technically
understood .
2 . Th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t an d th e natur e o f th
e
action ar e determine d b y th e averment s i n th e complaint .
Th e praye r for relie f i s no t controllin g o n th e cour t an d
i s merel y advisor y a s t o th e natur e o f th e action , a s i t
i s
th e averment s i n th e complain t whic h control .
Se e note s
unde r Sec . 2 , Rul e 7 .
S e c . 4 . Answer.
d i n g i n
w h i c h a d e f e n d i n g
e f e n s e s .
(4a)
Sec . 5 .
t h e r
b e
n e g a t i v e o r
A n
p a r t y
Defenses.
a n s w e r
s e t s
i s
fort h
D e f e n s e s
h i s
p l e a
m a y
e i
affirmative .
(a)
A n e g a t i v e d e f e n s e i s t h e specifi c d e n
i a l o f
t h e m a t e r i a l fac t o r fact s a l l e g e d i n t h e p l e a d
i n g o f
t h e c l a i m a n t e s s e n t i a l t o h i s c a u s e
o r c
a u s e s
o f
a c t i o n .
(b)
A n affirmativ e d e f e n s e i s a n a l l e g a t i o n
o f a
n e w m a t t e r w h i c h , w h i l e h y p o t h e t i c a l l y a
d m i t t i n g
t h e
m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s
i n t h e p l e a d i n
g
o f t h e
c l a i m a n t ,
w o u l d
n e v e r t h e l e s s
p r e v e n t
o r
b a r
r e c o v e r y b y him .
T h e affirmativ e d e f e n s e s i n c l
u d e
f r a u d ,
s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , r e l e a s e , p
a y m e n t ,
i l l e g a l i t y , s t a t u t e o f
f r a u d s , e s t o p p e l ,
f o r m e r
r e c o v e r y , d i s c h a r g e i n b a n k r u p t c y , an d a n
y o t h e r
m a t t e r
(5a )
b y w a y o f c o n f e s s i o n a n d
a v o i d a n c e .
140
----------------------- Page 141----------------------RULE 6
. 4-5
KINDS OF PLEADING
SECS
N O T E S
1.
Sectio n 5(a )
define s a "negativ e defense " a s th e
specific denia l o f th e materia l allegation s in th e complaint .

A denia l i s no t specifi c j u s t becaus e i t i s s o quali
fie d
(Agton vs. CA, et al., L-37309, Mar.
30, 1982), an d thi
s is
especially tru e wher e a blanke t denia l i s mad e o f al l th e
averment s o f th e complain t instea d o f dealin g particularl y
wit h each .
Suc h a g e n e r a l denia l wil l b e deeme d
a n
admission o f th e averment s i n th e complaint .
2 . T o b e considere d a specific denial , Rul e 8 provides :
"Sec.
10 . Specific denial. Th e defendan t mus t
specify eac h materia l allegatio n o f fact th e t r u t h o f
which h e doe s no t admi t and , wheneve r practicable ,
shal l se t fort h t h e substanc e o f th e
m a t
upo n
whic h h e relie s t o s u p p o r t hi s denial .
a
defendant desire s t o den y only a par t o f an averment
h e shal l specify s o muc h o f i t a s i s tru e an d
t e r s
Wher e
,
materia
l
a n d
e
s h a l l d e n y onl y
t h e r e m a i n d e r . W h e r
d e f e n d a n t i s w i t h o u t knowledg e
o r i n f o r m
a t i o n
sufficient t o form a belie f a s t o th e t r u t h o f a mater
ia l
avermen t mad e i n th e complaint , h e shal l s o state ,
an d thi s shal l hav e th e effect o f a denial. "
3 . Sec .
5(b)
define s
an d
illustrate s
th e so-ca
lle d
affirmative defenses .
Th e enumeratio n i s not exclusive .
Thus ,
res judicata (Fernandez vs.
De Castro,
48 Phil.
123),
ultra Mrofl aoto of a oorporation , or lack of authorit y of a
person assumin g t o ac t for th e corporatio n (Ramirez vs.
Orientalist
Co.,
38 Phil.
634),
lache s (Gov't of the P.I.
vs.
Wagner,
et al., 49
Phil.
944),
an d
unconstitutionalit y
(Santiago
vs. Far Eastern
Broadcasting
Co.,
73 Phil.
408)
ar e affirmativ e
defense s whic h shoul d b e
specifical
ly
pleaded .
Furthermore , i f n o motion t o dismis s ha d bee n
filed, an y o f th e
g r o u n d s therefo r ma y b e
raise d
a s
affirmative defense s in th e answe r (Sec. 6, Rule 16).
141
----------------------- Page 142----------------------RULE 6
SECS. 6-7
S e
i s an y
c l a i m
a g a i n s
a n o p p

c . 6 .
Counterclaim.
w h i c h a d e f e n d i n g
t
o s i n g party . (6a )
A
part y
c o u n t e r c l a i m
m a y
h a v e
S e c .
7 .
Compulsory counterclaim.A c o m p u l s o r y
c o u n t e r c l a i m i s o n e w h i c h , b e i n g c o g n i z a b l
e b y t h e
r e g u l a r
c o u r t s
o f j u s t i c e , a r i s e s ^ o u t
o
f j o r i s
c o n n e c t e d
w i t h t h e
t r a n s a c t i o n o r
o c c u
r r e n c e
c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r
o f t h e o p
p o s i n g
p a r t y ' s
c l a i m
a n d
d o e s
n o t
r e q u i r e
f o r i t s
a d j u d i c a t i o n t h e p r e s e n c e o f thir d p a r t i e s o f
w h o m
t h e c o u r t c a n n o t
a c q u i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n .
S u c h
a
c o u n t e r c l a i m m u s t b e w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i
o n o f t h e
c o u r t bot h a s t o t h e a m o u n t an d t h e n a t u r e there
of ,
e x c e p t
t h a t i n
a n
o r i g i n a l a c t i o n
b e f o
r e
t h e
R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t , t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m
m a y
b e
c o n s i d e r e d c o m p u l s o r y regardles s o f t h e a m o u n t ,
(n )
NOTE S
1. In America n law from whic h w e hav e derive d th e
concept o f a counterclaim , it i s considere d a s in effect a
new sui t i n whic h th e part y name d a s th e defendan t i s
th e
plaintif f an d
t h e plaintif f become s
t h e de
fendan t
(Roberts Min.
& Mill Co.
vs. Schroder,
CCA.
Nev.
,
95 F.
2d 522).
It i s bu t anothe r nam e for a cross-petitio n
(Clark
vs. Duncanson,
79 Okl.
180,
192 P.
806,
16 A.L.R.
450) or
is a substitut e for a cross-bil l in equit y (Vidal vs.
South
American
Securities
Co.,
CCA.
N.Y.,
276 F.
855).
Th e
ter m i s broade r i n meanin g t h a n set-of f o r recoupment ,
an d include s the m bot h
(Williams vs.
Williams,
192 N.C.
405,
135
S.E.
39; Aetna
Life
Insurance
Co.
vs.
Griffin,
200 N.C.
251,
156 S.E.
515).
2 . A
clarificatio n
h a s bee n
i n c o
d i n t h e
definition o f a compulsor y counterclai m by reaso n
divergen t view s i n th e p a s t a s t o w h e t h
o t th e
amoun t involve d i n th e counterclai m shoul d b e take n
r p o r a t e
o f
e r
o r
int o
142
----------------------- Page 143----------------------RULE 6
CS. 6-7
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
SE
account whe n suc h a counterclai m i s pleade d i n th e Re gional Tria l Court , i n th e sam e m a n n e r a s th e rul e
o n
jurisdictiona l a m o u n t
r e q u i r e d for a complain t
file d
therein .
Th e p r e s e n t formulatio n make s i t clea r t
h a t
such a counterclai m ma y b e entertaine d by th e Regiona l
Trial Cour t regardles s o f th e amoun t involve d provide d
that , i n additio n t o th e othe r requirements , i t i s cognizabl e
by th e regula r court s o f justice .
Thus , for instance
, a
claim arisin g from a labo r dispute , althoug h withi n th e
jurisdictiona l amoun t provide d for Regiona l Tria l Courts ,
may no t b e raise d a s a counterclai m therei n as , unde r th e
law presentl y in force , th e sam e shoul d b e filed in th e labor
tribunal s o r agencies .
Th e sam e i s tru e wit h respec t
t o
other claim s jurisdictio n ove r whic h i s veste d exclusively
in th e quasi-judicia l agencies .
3 .
A s t h u s clarified , counterclaim s ar e classifie d an d
distinguishe d a s follows :
A compulsory counterclaim - i s on e whic h arise s ou t
o f o r i s necessaril y connecte d wit h th e transactio n o r
occurrenc e t h a t i s t h e subject-matte r o f th e opposin g
party' s claim .
I f it i s withi n th e jurisdictio n o f a regul
a r
court o f justic e an d i t doe s no t requir e for it s adju
di cation th e presenc e o f thir d partie s over who m th e cour t
cannot acquir e jurisdiction , i t i s barre d i f no t se t up in
th e actio n
(se e Sec. 2, Rule 9).
Thi s i s als o know n
a s a
"recoupment "
(Lopez vs . Glories
40 Phil,
26).
A
i s i t
opposing
se t up
in th e
s.
Gloria,
permissive counterclai m doe s no t aris e ou t o f no r

necessaril y connecte d wit h th e subject-matte r o f th e
party' s claim .
I t i s no t barre d eve n i f not
action .
Thi s i s als o know n a s a "set-of f (Lopez v
supra).
4 . Accordingly , eve n i f th e counterclai m arise s ou t

o f th e subject-matte r o f th e opposin g party' s clai m bu t
it i s no t withi n th e jurisdictio n o f th e regula r court s o
f
justice , or it require s for it s adjudicatio n th e presenc e o f
t h i r d p a r t i e s ove r w h o m
t h e c o u r t c a n n o t a
c q u i r e
143
----------------------- Page 144----------------------RULE 6
. 6-7
SECS
jurisdiction , it i s considere d a s only a permissiv e counter claim an d i s not barre d eve n i f no t se t up i n th e actio
n
(see als o Sec. 2, Rule 9).
5. A counterclai m is , therefore , compulsor y i f (a) it
arise s ou t of, or i s necessaril y connecte d with , th e trans action o r occurrenc e whic h i s th e subject-matte r o f th e
opposin g party' s claim ; (b) i t doe s no t requir e for it
s
adjudication th e presenc e o f thir d partie s o f who m th e
court canno t acquir e jurisdiction ; an d (c) subjec t t o th e
qualification o n th e jurisdictiona l amoun t wit h regar d t o
counterclaim s raise d i n th e Regiona l Tria l Courts , th e
court ha s jurisdictio n t o e n t e r t a i n th e claim .
Whi
l e a
numbe r o f criteri a hav e bee n advance d for th e determi natio n o f w h e t h e r th e
counterclai m i s compulsor y
o r
permissive , th e "on e compellin g tes t o f compulsoriness "
i s th e logica l relationshi p betwee n th e clai m allege d i n
th e complain t an d t h a t i n th e counterclaim , i.e. , wher e
s e p a r a t e trial s o f eac h o f th e respectiv e claim s wou
l d
involv e
a s u b s t a n t i a l duplicatio n o f effor t o r ti
m e
b y
th e partie s an d th e courts , a s wher e the y involv e man y
of th e
sam e
factua l
and/o r
lega l
issue s
(Quintanilla
vs.
CA, et al., G.R.
No.
101747,
Sept. 24,
1997).
In Alday
vs. FGU Insurance Corp.
(G.R .
No .
13
8822 ,
J a n . 23 , 2001) , th e Suprem e Cour t reiterate d th e criteri a
in determinin g whethe r a counterclai m i s compulsor y or
permissive , t h a t is , whethe r o r no t (I ) th e issue s o f fact

a n d la w
r a i s e d b y t h e c l a i m a n d c o u n t e r c l a
i m a r e
essentially th e
same ,
(2)
res judicata woul d ba r a
sub sequent sui t o r defendant' s clai m absen t th e compulsor y
counterclaim rule , (3) substantiall y th e sam e evidenc e
s u p p o r t o r refut e t h e clai m an d t h e counterclaim ,
o r
(4) ther e i s a logica l relatio n betwee n th e clai m an d th e
counterclaim
(citin g
Valencia
vs.
CA,
et al. [263
SCRA
275J).
Se e
als o
Tan
vs. Kaakbay
Finance
Corp.,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
146595,
June
20,
2003,
an d
case s
discu
sse d
therein .
144
----------------------- Page 145----------------------RULE 6
S. 6-7
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
6.
An after-acquire d counterclai m
if th e sam e arise s
ou t o f or i
h
th e clai m allege d i n th e complain t
bu t wa s no t se t up therein , sinc e Sec
tha t a compulsor y counterclai m "tha t
ha s
at the
time
he files his
ne d
therein "
(Tiu
Po
vs. Bautista,
17,
1981).
SEC
i s not barred , eve n

s necessaril y connecte d wit
i n th e previou s
. 8 o f Rul e 1 1
a defendin g part
answer
shal l
G.R.
No.
cas e
provide s
y
be
contai
55514,
Mar.
7 . Wher e th e counterclaim ,
an d th e sam e i s
tru e
wit h a cross-claim , wa s alread y i n existenc e a t th e tim e
th e defendan t filed hi s answe r bu t wa s not se t u p therei n
throug h oversight , inadvertence , o r excusabl e neglect ,
or whe n justic e s o requires , th e sam e ma y b e se t up b y
filing an amende d answe r (Sec. 10, Rule 11).
Wher e
sai d
counterclaim o r cross-clai m mature d afte r th e filing o f th e
answer , th e defendin g p a r t y ca n se t i t u p b y filin
g a
supplementa l a n s w e r or pleadin g (Sec.
9, Rule
1
1). In
either case , leav e o f cour t i s require d an d suc h pleading s
mus t b e filed befor e th e renditio n o f th e judgment .
8 . A
o t b e
answere d i f i t i s base d on an d
defense raise d b y th e opposin g
resul t i n sai d opposin g p a r
s
o r c r o s s - c l a i m n e e d n
inseparabl e from th e very
part y a s i t wil l merel y
t y pleadin g th e sam e fact
already raise d in hi s forme r pleadin g

(Navarro vs. B
ello,
102 Phil.
1019) or wher e th e counterclai m merel y allege s
th e opposit e o f th e fact s in th e complain t
(Ballecer
vs.
Bernardo,
L-21766,
Sept.
30,
1966).
Thus ,
wher e
th e
counterclaim s ar e only for damage s an d attorney' s fee s
arising from th e filin g o f th e complaint , th e sam e shal l b e
considered a s specia l defense s an d nee d not b e answere d
(see
Worcester
vs. Lorenzana,
104 Phil.
234).
9 . A plaintif f wh o
sory counterclai m canno t b
counterclaim .
Wher e
becaus e th e perio d for
choose s no t t o answe r a compul e declare d in defaul t on suc h

th e complain t i s for consolidation
redemptio n ha d expire d an d th e
145
----------------------- Page 146----------------------RULE 6

S. 9-10
counterclaim i s for reformatio

d o c u m e n t w a s reall y
s i s t e n t
allegation s i n th e complain t
counterclaim
(Gojo vs.
1970).
SEC
n o n th e groun d tha t th e
a m o r t g a g e , t h e i n c o n
stan d a s a n answe r t o
Goyola, L-26768,
Oct.
th e
30,
10. A counterclai m or cross-claim mus t b e answere d

withi n 1 0 day s from servic e
(Sec. 4, Rule 11).
Wher e
th e
part y i s i n defaul t o n sai d counterclai m o r cross-claim ,
th e cour t ma y rende r judgmen t grantin g suc h relie f a s
t h e pleadin g ma y w a r r a n t o r requir e th e claiman t t
o
submit evidenc e (Sec. 3, Rule 9).
11. Althoug h th e Governmen t i s generall y immun e
from suit , i f it file s an actio n agains t a privat e party ,
it
surrender s it s privilege d positio n an d th e defendan t ma y

validl y
file
a counterclai m
agains t
it (Froilan
s.
Pan
Oriental
Shipping
Co.,
95
Phil.
905).
12. It i s no t prope r t o allow a counterclai m t o b e file

d
against a lawye r wh o ha s filed a complain t for hi s clien t
an d i s merel y hi s representativ e in court , no t a plaintif f
or complainan t in th e case ,
sinc e suc h a procedur e woul
d
resul t in mischievou s consequences .
A lawye r owe s
hi s
client entir e devotio n t o hi s genuin e interest , w a r m zea l
in th e maintenanc e an d defens e o f hi s rights ,
a
n d th e
exertion o f hi s utmos t learnin g an d ability .
H e
canno t
properl y atten d t o hi s dutie s if, i n th e sam e case , h e
i s
kep t bus y defendin g himself .
Wher e th e lawye r act s
i n
th e n a m e o f a client , th e cour t shoul d no t p e r m i
t hi s
bein g impleade d a s a n additiona l part y defendan t i n th e
counterclaim i n th e ver y sam e cas e wher e h e i s actin g
only a s a counsel .
An y clai m for allege d damage s or othe r
cause s o f actio n agains t hi m shoul d b e filed i n a n entirel y
s e p a r a t e a n d d i s t i n c t civi l a c t i o n (Chavez,
e
tc.
vs.
Sandiganbayan,
et al., G.R.
No.
91391,
Jan.
24,
1991).
S e c . 8 .
i m
b y o n e part y
f t h e
Cross-claim. A c r o s s - c l a i m i s a n y c l a
a g a i n s t
co-part y
a r i s i n g o u t
146
----------------------- Page 147----------------------RULE 6
SECS. 9-10
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
t r a n s a c t i o n o r o c c u r r e n c e t h a t i s th e subjec t
m a t t e r
e i t h e r o f t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n o r o f a c o u
n t e r c l a i m
t h e r e i n . S u c h c r o s s - c l a i m m a y i n c l u d e a c l
a i m t h a t
th e part y a g a i n s t w h o m i t i s a s s e r t e d i s o r m a
y b e
liabl e t o t h e c r o s s - c l a i m a n t fo r al l o r par t o f a
c l a i m
a s s e r t e d i n t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e cross-clai
mant .
(7)
NOTE S
th e
1. A cross-clai m differ s from a counterclai m in tha t

forme r i s filed agains t a co-part y an d a cross-claim
alway s arise s ou t o f th e transactio n o r occurrenc e tha t i s

th e subject-matte r eithe r o f th e origina l actio n or o f a
counterclaim therein .
A cross-clai m whic h i s no t se t
up
in th e actio n i s barred , excep t whe n i t i s outsid e th
e
jurisdictio n o f th e cour t o r i f th e cour t canno t acquir
e
jurisdictio n ove r thir d partie s whos e presenc e i s necessar y
for th e adjudicatio n o f sai d cross-claim
(Sec. 8 o f th
i s Rule ;
Sec. 2, Rule 9).
Th e latte r cas e i s wha t som e writer s c
al l
a permissiv e cross-claim .
2 .
Th e dismissa l o f th e complain t carrie s wit h i t th e
dismissa l o f a cross-clai m whic h i s purel y defensive , bu t

not a cross-clai m seekin g affirmativ e relie f
(Torre
s, e t al.
vs. CA, et al., L-25889, Jan.
12,
1973).
S e c .
9.
Counter-counterclaims
er-crossclaims. A c o u n t e r c l a i m m a y
b e
a g a i n s t
a n o r i g i n a l c o u n t e r - c l a i m a n t .
A
c r o s s - c l a i m
i n s t a n
origina l cross-claimant ,
m a y
a l s o
and
count
b e
a s s e r t e d
file d
a g a
(n )
Sec .
10 .
Reply. A repl y i s
r f u n c t i o n o f w h i c h i s t o
s i n
e n i a l o r a v o i d a n c e o f n e w
y w a y
o f d e f e n s e i n t h e a n s w e r an
m a k e
issu e a s t o s u c h n e w matters .
o e s no t
a pleading , t h e offic e
d e n y , o r alleg e fa
o
ct
d
b
m a t t e r s a l l e g e d
d t h e r e b y joi n o r
I f a
part y
147
----------------------- Page 148----------------------RULE 6
CS. 9-10
SE
fil e s u c h reply , al l th e n e w m a t t e r s
i n th e
a n s w e r ar e d e e m e d controverted , '-h
I f t
c l a i m s
a r i s i n g
, s u c h
c l a i m s
d
o r
s u p p l e m
h e
plaintif f w i s h e s
o u t
s h a l l
o f t h e n e w
t o
b e
s e t
e n t a l complaint .
^ p P
i n t e r p o s e
m a t t e r s
f o r t h
a l l e g e d
i n
an y
s o
a l l e g e d
a n
a m e n d e
(11 )
NOTE S
1.
Th e primar y purpos e o f th e repl y i s t o joi n issue s
wit h ne w matter s raise d i n th e answe r an d thereb y au thoriz e th e pleade r o f th e repl y t o introduc e evidenc e o n
said ne w issues .
2 . Th e filin g o f th e repl y i s optiona l a s th e
ne w
matter s raise d i n th e answe r ar e deeme d controverte d
even withou t a reply . Wher e th e part y desire s t o file a
reply , h e mus t nevertheles s d o s o withi n 1 0 day s

service o f th e pleadin g responde d to (Sec. 6, Rule 11).
3 . A s the n formulated , i t wa s believe d t h a t
th e
following instances , th e filin g o f a repl y wa s compulsor y
an d mus t b e filed withi n th e sai d 10-day period :
from
i n
(a) Wher e th e answe r allege s th e defens e o f usur y

in whic h cas e a repl y unde r oat h i s required , otherwis e
th e allegation s o f usur y ar e deeme d admitte d (Sec.
11,
Rule
8); an d
(b)
Wher e
t h e a n s w e r i s base d
nabl e
documen t i n whic h cas e a verifie d repl y i
otherwis e t h e
g e n u i n e n e s s an d du e
sai d
actionabl e
d o c u m e n t ar e generall y
d m i t t e d
(Sec.
8, Rule 8).
o n
a n
actio
s necessary ,
executio n o f
deeme d
Wit h respec t t o par . (a) o n usury , th e view t h a t al

l
allegation s o f usur y ha d t o b e denie d specificall y an d
unde r oat h wa s engendere d b y th e fact t h a t th e forme r
Sec .
1 o f Rul e 9 , i n m a k i n g th e r e q u i r e m e n t
for suc h
sworn denia l unde r pai n o f admissio n o f th e allegation s
148
----------------------- Page 149----------------------RULE 6
CS. 9-10
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
on usury , di d no t mak e an y distinctio n

involved .
However ,
in Liam
Sawmill,
et al. (L-30771 , Ma y 26 , 1984) , it wa s
n t
t o Sec . 9 o f th e Usur y Law , th e first
requirin g denia l o f allegation s o f usur y
no t appl y t o a cas e wher e i t i s
h e
plaintiff , wh o i s allegin g usury .
SE
a s t o th e pleading s
Law
vs.
Olympic
hel d t h a t p u r s u a
abovecite d instanc e
unde r oat h doe s
th e defendant , no t t
Accordingly , Sec .
1 1 o f Rul e 8 now expresse s t
h a t
specific requiremen t an d provide s tha t "(a)llegation s o f
usur y i n a complain t t o recove r usuriou s interes t ar e
deeme d admitte d i f no t denie d unde r oath. "
Hence ,
i f th e
a l l e g a t i o n o f u s u r y i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e d e f
e n d a n t ' s
answer , for instance , by wa y o f defens e t o a complain t
for a su m o f money , it i s no t necessar y for plaintif f t o file
repl y
r
oath .
It
theret o
i n
mad e by
it woul d
th e same
e
answer t o
in th e
i s believed ,
orde r t o
however ,
den y
t h a t
tha t
allegatio n
i f suc h
unde
allegatio n wa s
th e defendan t in a counterclaim in tha t action ,

b e necessar y for plaintiff , in orde r t o controver t
, t o mak e a specifi c denia l unde r oat h i n th
suc h counterclai m sinc e th e latter , after all , i s
n a t u r e o f a counter-complain t o f th e defendant .
In fact , unde r Sec . 1 , Rul e 3 , th e ter m "plaintif f ma y refer

t o th e claimin g party , th e counter-claimant , th e cross claimant , o r th e thir d
(fourth , etc.)
party-plaintiff .
Th e distinctio n her e propose d i s du e t o th e fact tha
a c o u n t e r c l a i m involve s a caus e o f actio n an d
k s
affirmativ e
relief , whil e
a defens e
merel y defeat
th e
plaintiff s caus e o f actio n by a denia l or confession an d
avoidance , an d doe s no t admi t o f affirmativ e relie f t o th e
defendant
(Lovett
vs.
Lovett,
93 Fla.
611,
112
768;
Secor
vs. Silver,
165 Iowa
673,
146 N.W.
845).
4 .
t
see
s
So.
Wher e th e cas e i s submitte d o n th e pleadings , th e
failure o f th e part y t o mak e a reply doe s not mea n tha t

h e i s deeme d t o hav e controverte d th e issue s raise d i n
th e answer , a s thi s i s an exception t o th e rul e
(Falca
santos
149
----------------------- Page 150----------------------RULE 6
SEC. 11
vs.
How
Suy
5 .
Ching,
91
Phil.
456).
A part y cannot , in hi s reply , amen d hi s caus e o f
action
(Calvo
vs. Roldan,
7 6 Phil.
roduc e
therei n
ne w
or additiona l cause s
a
vs.
Palaroan,
L-27930,
Nov.
26,
1970).
Sec .
11 .
Third,
(fourth,
445)
no r
o f actio n
etc.) - part y
int
(Anay
complaint .
A thir d
i m
t h a t a
, fil e
a g a i n
, calle
(fourth ,
etc. ) -
part y
c o m p l a i n t
i s
c l a
d e f e n d i n g part y may , w i t h l e a v e o f c o u r t
s t
d
p e r s o n
no t
part y
t o
t h e
a c t i o n
t h e
t h i r d ( f o u r t h , e t c . ) - p a r t y
d e f e n d a n
t ,
fo r
c o n t r i b u t i o n , i n d e m n i t y , s u b r o g a t i o n o r a
n y o t h e r
relief, i n r e s p e c t o f h i s o p p o n e n t ' s claim . (12a )
- ..
----
'
J.'.y
... w j
NOTE S
1. A third-part y complain t i s simila r t o a cross-clai m
in t h a t th e third-part y plaintif f seek s t o recove r from
a n o t h e r perso n som e relie f i n respec t t o th e opposin
g
party' s claim , bu t i t differ s therefro m i n t h a t i n a cross
claim , th e thir d part y i s alread y impleade d i n th e actio n
whil e i n a third-part y complaint , sai d thir d part y i s no t
ye t impleaded .
Consequently, - in th e filin g o f a thir
d part y complaint , leav e o f cour t i s require d a s thereafter ,
i f granted , summon s wil l hav e t o b e serve d o n th e third part y
defendant .
2 . A third-part y complain t nee d no t aris e ou t o f or
b e entirel y dependen t o n th e mai n actio n a s i t suffice
s
t h a t th e forme r b e only "in respec t o f
th e clai m
o f th e
third-part y plaintiff s opponent .
Consequently , th e judg
men t o n a third-part y complain t ma y becom e fina l an d
executory withou t waitin g for th e fina l determinatio n o f
th e
mai n
cas e
(Pascual
vs.
Bautista,
L 21644,
May
29,
1970).
in
3 . A third-part y complain t i s simila r t o a complain t

interventio n (Rule 19) in t h a t bot h resul t in bringin g
150
----------------------- Page 151----------------------RULE 6

EC. 11
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
into th e actio n a thir d perso n wh o wa s no t originall y a

party ; bu t the y differ i n t h a t th e initiativ e i n a third-part
y
complaint i s wit h th e perso n alread y a part y t o th e action ,
whil e in interventio n th e initiativ e i s wit h a non-part y
wh o s e e k s t o joi n t h e action .
Th e d e f e n d a n t
i s no t
compelled t o brin g thir d partie s int o th e litigatio n a s th e
rul e simply permit s th e inclusio n o f anyon e wh o meet s
th e standar d se t forth therein , in orde r t o avoi d multiplicity
of suit s
(se e Balbastro,
et al. vs. CA,
et al., L-3
3255
Nov.
29,
1972).
4 . Th e test s t o determin e whethe r th e

complaint i s in respec t o f plaintif f s claim are :
"a.
Wher e
i t arise s ou t o f th e
sam e
third-part y
transactio n o n
which th e plaintiff s clai m i s based ; o r whethe r th e third part y claim , althoug h arisin g ou t o f anothe r o r different
contract o r transaction , i s connecte d wit h th e plaintiff s
claim ;
b . Whethe r th e third-part y defendan t woul d b e liabl e
t o th e plaintif f or t o th e defendan t for al l or par t o f th
e
plaintiff' s clai m agains t th e origina l defendant , althoug h
th e third-part y defendant' s liability arise s ou t o f anothe r
transaction ; an d
c. Whethe r th e third-part y defendan t ma y asser t an y
defense s whic h th e third-part y plaintif f ha s o r ma y hav e
to th e plaintiff s claim "
(se e Capayas
vs. CFI of
Albay,
et al. 77 Phil.
181).
Consequently ,
complaint i n th
in th e origina l
part y complain t
i s sue d unde r
5 .
defendan t
ma y
file
third-part y
Wher e
e sam e capacit y i n which h e i s bein g sue d

complaint .
A plaintif f may als o file a third
bu t als o i n th e sam e capacit y i n whic h h e
a counterclaim .
th e tria l
cour t ha s jurisdictio n over th e
mai n case , i t als o ha s jurisdictio n over th e third-part y

complaint regardles s o f th e amoun t involve d a s a third part y complain t i s merel y auxiliar y t o an d i s a continua 151
----------------------- Page 152----------------------RULE 6
SEC. 11
tion
of th e
mai n
action
(Republic
vs. Central Surety
&
Insurance
Co.,
et
al., L-27802,
Oct.
26,
1968;
Eastern
Assurance & Surety Corp.
vs. Cui, et al.,
G.R. No.
54452,
July
20, 1981).
Fo r th e sam e
reason ,
w h a t i s
deter minativ e o f venu e ar e th e operativ e fact s i n th e mai n case ,
an d not thos e allege d i n th e third-part y complaint .
6 . An orde r disallowin g a
third-part y complain t
i s
appealabl e
(Dtr&ioo uai
1967)
since
i t woul d finall y
h t t o
implea d th e thir d party .
Malagat,
dispos e
L-2413,
Aug.
10,
o f defendant' s
rig
7 . Wher e a
third-part y defendan t appeale d t o th e
the n Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e bu t th e third-part y plaintif f
(defendant) di d no t appea l from th e j ud g m e n t agains t
hi m in favor o f th e plaintiff , suc h judgmen t becam e exe cutory , withou t prejudic e t o th e third-part y defendant' s
appea l bein g given du e cours e a s i t pertain s only t o th e
third-part y complain t
(Firestone
Tire
&
Rubber Co.
vs.
Tempongko,
L-24399, Mar.
28,
1969)
an d suc h judgme
n t
on th e third-part y complain t i s separat e an d severabl e
from t h a t i n th e mai n case .
8 . Wher e th e tria l
cour t
dismisse d th e
compl
ain t
an d th e defendants ' third-part y complain t an d only th e
plaintif f appealed , th e Cour t o f Appeals , i n reversin g th e
judgmen t dismissin g plaintiff s complaint , canno t mak e
a findin g o f liabilit y o n
t h e p a r t o f t h e t h i r
d - p a r t y
defendant s sinc e th e defendants , a s third-part y plaintiffs ,
did no t appea l from th e dismissa l o f thei r third-part y
c o m p l a i n t a n d t h e t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s w
e r e no t
partie s in th e cas e on appea l (Go,
e t al. vs. CA,
e t al,
L-25393,
Oct.
30,
1980).
9 . A
t h i r d - p a r t y complain t canno t b e
file
in a
special civil actio n for declarator y relie f a s n o materia l
relie f i s sough t in thi s actio n
(Comm. of Customs,
e t al.
vs. Cloribel,
et al., L-21036,
June
30,
1977).
d
152
----------------------- Page 153----------------------RULE 6
CS. 12, 13
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
S e c . 12 .
Bringing
new
t h e
p r e s e n c e o f p a r t i e s o t h e r t h
rigina l
actio n i s r e q u i r e d fo r th e g r a n
relie f
i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a
r c r o s s claim , t h e c o u r t shal l orde r t h e m
n
a s d e f e n d a n t s ,
i f j u r i s d i c
c a n
b e
SE
parties.
W h e n
a n t h o s e t o th e o
t i n g o f c o m p l e t e
t o
b e
b r o u g h t i
t i o n o v e r
t h e m
o b t a i n e d . (14 )
NOTE S
1. Fo r purpose s o f Sec .
1 2 o f thi s Rule , th
cour t
m a y
a u t h o r i z e t h e filin g
o f t h e p r o p e r t h i
r d - p a r t y
complaint t o implea d th e othe r partie s no t include d i n
th e origina l complain t
(Rubio vs. Mariano, et al., L-3
0403,
Jan.
31,
1973).
e
2 . Eve n wher e th e impleadin g o f th e third-part y

defendant s doe s no t fall squarel y withi n th e requisite s o f
Sec. 12 , Rul e 6 on third-part y complaints , thei r inclusion
in th e actio n ma y b e permitte d wher e ther e i s a questio n
o f la w o r fact commo n t o th e righ t i n whic h the y
ar e
intereste d an d anothe r righ t sough t t o b e enforce d i n th e
action , henc e thei r inclusio n a s prope r (now , necessary )
partie s i s justifie d u n d e r Sec . 6 , Rul e 3 o f th e R
ule s
(Balbastro,
et al. vs. CA,
et al., supra).
Sec .
13 .
Answer
to
third
(fourth,
etc.)
- party
complaint. A thir d (fourth , etc. ) - part y d e f e n d a n t
m a y
a l l e g e i n h i s a n s w e r h i s d e f e n s e s , c
o u n t e r claim s o r cross-claims , i n c l u d i n g s u c h d e f e n s e s tha t
th e t h i r d (fourth , etc. ) - part y
h a v e
a g a i n s t t h e o r i g i n a l p l a i
p r o p e r
c a s e s , h e m a y a l s o a s s e r t
a g a i n s t
th e origina l plaintif f i n r e s p e c t o
a g a i n s t t h e third-part y plaintiff ,
plaintif f m a y
n t i f f s
a
claim .
I n
f th e
(n )
latter' s clai m
153
----------------------- Page 154----------------------RUL E
PART S
h
n
an
d
O F
7
A
PLEADIN G
S e c t i o n 1 .
Caption. Th e c a p t i o n s e t s fort h t
e
a m e o f t h e court , t h e titl e o f t h e a c t i o n ,
d t h e
o c k e t n u m b e r i f a s s i g n e d .
T h e titl e o f t h e a c t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h e
n a m e s o f
t h e p a r t i e s . T h e y shal l al l b e n a m e d i n t h e origi
na l
c o m p l a i n t
o r
p e t i t i o n ;
b u t
i n a l l s u b
s
p
o
f
e
l
f
i
q u e n t
e a d i n g s , i t shal l b e sufficien t i f t h e n a m e
t h e
r s t p a r t y
o n
e a c h
s i d e
b e
s t a t e d
w i t h
a n
a p p r o p r i a t e
i n d i c a t i o n
w h e n
t h e r e
a r
e
o t h e r
parties .
T h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e c
a s e shal l
b e i n d i c a t e d , ( l a , 2a )
NOTE S
1.
A s revised , th e captio n o f a pleadin g in civi l case
s
i s n o longe r r e q u i r e d t o s t a t e t h e designatio n
o f th e
pleading , sinc e th e designatio n o f th e pleadin g i s prop erly containe d in th e body thereo f (Sec. 2) precedin g th e
allegations .
I n crimina l cases , i t i s require d that , whe
n ever possible , th e complain t o r informatio n shoul d stat e
th e designatio n o f th e offens e o r th e sectio n o r subsectio n
of th e statut e punishin g it (se e Sec. 8, Rule 110 an d note s
t h e r e u n d e r ) .
2 .
g b u t
allegation s
an d th e
b y th e
allegation s
for (Ras
3 .
I t i s no t t h e c a p t i o n o f t h e p l e a d i n
t h e
therei n tha t determin e th e natur e o f th e action ,
cour t shal l g r a n t th e relie f w a r r a n t e d
an d th e proo f eve n i f n o suc h relie f i s praye d
vs. Sua,
L-23302,
Sept.
25,
1968).
Th e abbreviatio n "et al. " for e t alii ("an d others" )
or e t alius ("an d another" ) i s often affixed t o th e nam e o f

154
----------------------- Page 155----------------------RULE 7
PARTS
OF A PLEADINGS
SEC. 2
the perso n first mentioned , wher e ther e ar e more tha n
one party to th e action on eithe r sid e
(see In re Mc-Go
vern's
Estate,
77 Mont.
182,
250 P.
812; Lyman
vs.
Milton,
44
Cal.
630).
Sec .
2 .
The body.The bod y o f th e p l e a d i n g set s
fort h it s d e s i g n a t i o n , t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e
party' s
claim s o r defenses , t h e relie f praye d for , an d t h e dat e
o f t h e p l e a d i n g , (n )
(a)
Paragraphs.
Th e
a l l e g a t i o n s i n t
bod y
a p l e a d i n g shal l b e d i v i d e d int o p a r a g r a
s s o
m b e r e d a s t o b e readil y identified , e a c h o f w h i c h
a l l
c o n t a i n
a
s t a t e m e n t
o f a
s i n g l
s e t
o f
i r c u m s t a n c e s
s o fa r
a s t h a t c a n
b e
d o
n e
w i t h
c o n v e n i e n c e .
A p a r a g r a p h m a y b e referre d t o b
y a
n u m b e r i n al l s u c c e e d i n g p l e a d i n g s . (3a )
h
o
p
n
s
e
c
e
f
h
u
h
(b)
Headings.
W h e n
t w o
o r
m o r e
c a
u s e s
o f
actio n ar e j o i n e d , t h e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e firs t shal
l b e
preface d b y t h e w o r d s "firs t c a u s e o f action, " o f t h e
s e c o n d b y "secon d
r
th e o t h e r s .
c a u s e
o f action, "
an d
s o
o n
fo
W h e n o n e o r m o r e
p a r a g r a p h s i n t h e
a n s w e r
ar e a d d r e s s e d t o o n e o f s e v e r a l c a u s e s o f a
c t i o n i n
th e c o m p l a i n t , t h e y shal l b e preface d b y t h e w o r d
s
"answer
t o t h e firs t c a u s e o f action " o r "answe r t
o
th e s e c o n d c a u s e o f action " an d s o on ; an d w h
e n
on e o r m o r e p a r a g r a p h s o f th e a n s w e r ar e add r e s
s e d
t o severa l c a u s e s o f action , t h e y shal i b e preface d
b y w o r d s t o t h a t effect . (4)
(c)
Relief. Th e p l e a d i n g shal l specif y th e relie f
sought , bu t i t m a y ad d a g e n e r a l praye r fo r s u
c h
furthe r o r o t h e r r e l i e f a s m a y
b e d e e m e d
j u s t o r
equitable . (3a , R6) .
(d)
Date. Ever y p l e a d i n g shal l b e dated , (n )
155
----------------------- Page 156----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 3

NOTE S
1. Th e praye r in a pleadin g doe s no t constitut e an

essentia l p a r t o f th e allegation s determinativ e o f th e
j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a court . Th e q u e s t i o n o f j u r
i s d i c t i o n
depend s largel y upo n th e determinatio n o f th e tru e natur e
of th e actio n filed by a part y which , in turn , involve s th e
consideration o f th e ultimat e fact s allege d a s constitutiv e
of th e
caus e
o f actio n
therei n
(Bautista
vs.
Fer
nandez,
L-24062, April 30,
1971).
Th e praye r for relief , althou
g h
p a r t o f th e complaint , canno t creat e a caus e o f action
;
hence , i t canno t b e considere d a s a p a r t o f th e allegation s
on th e natur e o f th e caus e o f actio n
s, 2 5
Phil.
495; Cabigao
vs. Lim,
50
(Rosales vs.
Phil.
Reye
844).
2 . Th e sam e rul e obtain s in a majorit y o f th e state s

in th e America n jurisdictio n whic h hol d t h a t th e praye r
or deman d for relie f i s no t par t o f th e st at e m e n t o
f th e
caus e of actio n
(Salmons
vs. Sun & Bradstreet,
1
62 S.W.
2d
245;
Central
Nebraska
Public
Power
&
Irrigation
Dist.
vs. Watson,
et al., 299 N.W.
609; Durham
vs. Rasc
o,
227
P . 599).
Th e praye r for relie f canno t b e considere d a
s
addin g t o th e allegation s o f th e complain t o r petitio n
(Speizman vs. Guill, 25 S.E. 2d 731; Coke, et al.
vs.
Sharks,
et al., 291 S.W.
862).
Th e praye r doe s no t enlarg e
th e
caus e o f actio n state d no r doe s i t chang e th e lega l effect s
of wha t is allege d (Sandgren
vs.
West et
ux.,
115
P.
2d,
724;
State
vs. Bonham,
et al.,
193
S.E.
340).
A
goo d
praye r doe s no t ai d a defectiv e pleadin g (Somers vs. Bank
of America,
et al., 187 P.
2d 433; Villani
vs. Nationa
l City
Bank
of New
York,
256 N.Y.S.,
602).
S e c . 3 .
a d i n g
m u s t b e s i g n e
n t i n g
h i m , s t a t i n g
h s h o u l d
n o t b e a p o s t
Signature
and
address.
E v e r y
p l e
d b y t h e part y o r c o u n s e l r e p r e s e
i n e i t h e r c a s e h i s a d d r e s s w h i c
offic e
box .
156
----------------------- Page 157----------------------RULE 7

SEC. 3
PARTS OF A PLEADING
T h e
s i g n a t u r e
o f c o u n s e l
c o n s t i t
u t e s
a
certificat e b y h i m t h a t h e h a s rea d t h e pleading , tha t
t o th e bes t o f h i s k n o w l e d g e , information , an d belie f
ther e i s g o o d g r o u n d t o s u p p o r t it , an d t h a t i t
i s no t
i n t e r p o s e d fo r delay .
A n u n s i g n e d p l e a d i n g p r o d u c e s n o lega l effe
ct .
However , t h e c o u r t may , i n it s discretion , allo w suc h
deficienc y t o b e r e m e d i e d i f i t shal l a p p e a r t h a t t
h e
sam e w a s d u e t o mer e inadvertenc e an d no t intende d
fo r
d e l a y .
C o u n s e l
w h o
d e l i b e r a t e l y f
i l e s a n
u n s i g n e d p l e a d i n g , o r s i g n s a p l e a d i n g i n v i
o l a t i o n
o f t h i s R u l e , o r a l l e g e s s c a n d a l o u s
o r i n
d e c e n t
matte r t h e r e i n , o r fail s t o p r o m p t l y repor t t o
t h e
cour t a c h a n g e o f h i s a d d r e s s , shal l b e subjec
t t o
a p p r o p r i a t e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n . (5a )
NOTE S
1. Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s furthe r resolve d that , i n
addition t o th e requiremen t tha t counse l shoul d indicat e
in al l pleadings , motion s an d paper s submitte d by hi m t o
judicia l o r quasi-judicia l bodie s hi s curren t Professiona l
Tax Receip t (PTR ) an d IB P official receip t or Lifetim e
Member Numbe r (Bar Matter No. 287, Sept. 26, 2000), he
should furthe r indicat e hi s Rol l o f Attorney s Number .
Al l pleadings ,
motion s an d paper s filed i n cour
t ,
whethe r personall y or by mail , which d o not bea r counsel' s
Roll o f Attorney s Numbe r ma y no t b e acte d upo n by th e
court , withou t prejudic e t o whateve r disciplinar y action
th e cour t ma y tak e agains t th e errin g counse l wh o shal l
likewise b e require d t o comply wit h th e requiremen t withi n
5 d a y s fro m
n o t i c e . F a i l u r e t o compl y
w i
t h s u c h
requiremen t shal l b e a groun d for furthe r disciplinar y
sanction an d for contemp t of cour t
(Bar Matter No.
1132,
April
1, 2003).
2 .
I t wil l b e note d tha t thi s amende d
section furthe
r
specifically
s t r a t i v e
r e q u i r e s , u n d e r p a i n o f
157
----------------------- Page 158-----------------------
a d m i n i
RULE 7
SEC. 4
d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n o r e v e n a c i t a t i o n for
i n d i r e c t
contempt , t h a t counse l shoul d promptl y repor t t o th e
court wher e h e i s appearin g in a cas e an y chang e o f hi s
address .
I t i s elementar y tha t th e requiremen t t o mak e
of recor d in th e cour t hi s addres s or an y chang e thereo f i s
t o ensur e hi s promp t receip t o f judicia l order s or processes ;
yet , a numbe r o f lawyer s fail t o repor t suc h change s in
bot h th e tria l an d appellat e court s resultin g i n unnecessar y
delay i n judicia l administration .
Thi s situatio n i s
furthe r
aggravate d wher e eve n th e addres s o f th e part y i s no
t
s t a t e d i n t h e pleading s o r i t i s merel y
a v e r
r e d t h a t
processe s t o sai d part y ma y b e serve d o n hi s counsel .
3 .
N o s u b s t i t u t i o n o f a t t o r n e y s wil l
b e allowe d
unles s (a) ther e i s a writte n reques t for suc h substitution ,
(b) file d w i t h t h e w r i t t e n consen t o f t h e
clie
nt ,
an d
(c) wit h th e writte n consen t o f th e attorne y t o b e substituted ,
or wit h proo f o f
servic e
o f notic e
o f sai d motio n
t o th e
attorney t o b e substituted .
Unles s thes e ar e compl
ie d
with , n o substitutio n wil l b e permitte d an d th e attorne y
wh o las t appeare d i n th e cas e befor e suc h applicatio n wil l
b e responsibl e for th e conduc t o f th e cas e (Bacarro vs. CA,
et al, L-28203,
Jan.
22,
1971,
citin g
U.S.
vs.
Borromeo,
20 Phil.
189; se e Magpayo,
et al. vs. CA,
et al.,
L-35966,
Nov.
19,
1974; Sumadchat
vs.
CA,
et al, G.R.
No
.
52197,
Jan.
30,
1982; Aban
vs. Enage,
L-30666,
Feb.
26,
1983;
Yu, et al. vs. CA, et al,
G.R. No. 56766, Feb. 28,
1985).
S e c . 4 .
Verification.
E x c e p t
w h e n
o t h
e r w i s e
specificall y p r o v i d e d b y la w o r rule , p l e a d i n g s n e e
d
n o t
b e u n d e r
o a t h , v e r i f i e d o r a c c o m p a n i
e d
b y
affidavit .
A p l e a d i n g i s verifie d b y a n affidavi
th e
a f f i a n t h a s
r e a d
t h e
p l e a d i n g
h a t
t h e
a l l e g a t i o n s t h e r e i n a r e
t r u e a n d
t o f h i s
p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o r base d o n a u t h e n t
r d s .
t h a t
a n d
c o r r e c
i c r e c o
158
----------------------- Page 159----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 4
PARTS OF A PLEADING
A
p l e a d i n g r e q u i r e d
t o b e v e r i f i e d w
h i c h
c o n t a i n s a verificatio n base d o n "informatio n an d
belief, " o r u p o n "knowledge , informatio n an d belief, "
o r l a c k s prope r verification , s h a l l b e t r e a t e d a
s
an
u n s i g n e d - p l e a d i n g .
(4a )
(As
amended
in
A.M.
No.
00-2-10SC,
effective May
1,
2000)
NOTE S
1. Th e
secon d paragrap h o f thi s
section
ha s
bee n
further amende d s o tha t th e pleader' s affirmation o f th e
trut h an d correctnes s o f th e allegation s i n hi s pleadin g
shall b e base d no t only o n hi s "knowledg e an d belie f bu t
specifically o n
hi s "persona l knowledg e
o r base
d
o n
authenti c records. "
In th e 1964 Rule s o f Court , Sec . 6 o
f
Rule 7 require d persona l knowledg e o f th e fact s averred ,
whic h w a s c o n s i d e r e d to o s t r i c t sinc e a p e r s
o n ca n
reasonabl y affirm a fact base d on hi s belie f in it s t r u
t h
whe n ther e i s o r ha s bee n n o othe r fact o r reaso n contrar y
thereto .
However , t h a t liberalize d versio n i s bette r regulate d
b y th e presen t amende d provision s tha t fact s shoul d b e
atteste d t o o n th e basi s o f one' s persona l knowledg e or ,
especially wit h regar d t o old or vintag e fact s or events ,
b y th e recital s thereo f i n authenti c records .
Verificat
ion
i s intende d t o forestal l allegation s whic h ar e perjure d o r
hearsay , an d thi s purpos e i s reasonabl y subserve d b y
th e requiremen t for authenti c document s suc h a s official
record s whic h ar e exception s t o th e hearsa y evidenc e
rule .
Fo r th e sam e reason , a verification canno t b e mad e
on fact s obtaine d or arisin g in whol e or in par t from mer e
information an d belief .
2 . Verificatio n
m a y b e
m a d e b y t h e p a r t
y , hi s
representative ,
lawye r o r an y perso n wh o personall y
know s th e trut h o f th e fact s allege d in th e pleading .
W
her e
th e verification i s mad e by th e attorne y wh o als o signe d
159
----------------------- Page 160----------------------RULE 7

SEC. 4
th e
pleadings ,
th e court s ar e
incline d t o b e
libera l an d
accept substantia l complianc e wit h th e verification rul e

(Arambulo
vs.
Perez,
78Phil.
387;Matel
vs. Rosal,
96Phil.
984 fUnrep.J;
Cajefe
vs. Fernandez,
etc., et al,
10
9 Phil
743).
Thus , wher e a petitio n for m a n d a m u s wa s verifie d
by th e counse l t o b e tru e "t o th e bes t o f (his) knowledge ,
information an d belief, " i t wa s hel d t o b e sufficient
in
view o f th e sanction s respectin g attorney s in Sec . 5 (now ,
Sec. 3) of thi s Rul e (Guerra Enterprises,
Co., Inc.
vs. CFI
of Lanao
del
Sur,
et al, L-28310,
April
17,
1970).
On
th e o t h e r h a n d , a certificatio n a g a i n s t
foru m
shoppin g (Sec.
5)
m u s t b e m a d e b y t h e p a r t
y himsel f
an d no t by hi s lawye r (Santos, et al.
vs.
CA, et a
l, G.R.
No.
141947,
July
3, 2001).
3 .
s s
so
A s
require d
a
b y
rule ,
th e
pleading s
Rule s
nee d
no t b e
an d jurisprudence ,
verified unle
a s
i n
th e
following instances :
Rule
a . Petitio n for relie f from judgmen t or orde r (Sec.

38);
3,
b . Petitio n for revie w from th e Regiona l Tria l Court s

to th e Cour t of Appeal s (Sec. 1, Rule 42);
c.
Petitio n for revie w from th e quasi-judicia l agencie s
to th e Cour t of
Appeal s (Sec. 5, Rule 43);
d . A p p e a l b y c e r t i o r a r i fro m t h e C o u r t
o f Ta x
A p p e a l s t o t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t (Sec.
12,
R.A.
9282 ,
amendin g Sec.
19, R.A.
1125);
e . Appea l by certiorar i from th e Cour t o f Appeal s t o
th e Suprem e Cour t (Sec.
1, Rule 45);
f . P e t i t i o n for a n n u l m e n t o f j u d g m e n t s o
r fina l
order s an d resolution s (Sec.
1, Rule 47);
g.
Complain t for injunctio n
(Sec.
4,
Rule
58);
h .
1,
Rule
Applicatio n
for
appointmen t
o f receive r
(Sec.
59);
160
----------------------- Page 161----------------------RULE 7

EC. 4
PARTS OF A PLEADING
i.
Applicatio n
for
s u p p o r t
pendente
lite (Sec.
1,
Rule
69);
j .
Petitio n for certiorar i a g a i n s t th e j u d g m e
n t s ,
final order s or resolution s o f constitutiona l commission s
(Sec.
2, Rule 64);
k .
1.
(Sec.
1, Rule 65);
Petitio n for prohibitio n (Sec. 2, Rule 65);
m .
Petitio n for m a n d a m u s
n .
Petitio n for qu o warrant o (Sec.
1, Rule 66);
o.
Complain t for expropriatio n (Sec.
1, Rule 67);
(Sec.
3, Rule 65);
p . Complain t for forcibl e entr y o r unlawfu l detaine r

4, Rule 70);
q.
(Sec.
Petitio n for certiorar i (Sec.
Petitio n for indirec t contemp t (Sec.
r . Petitio n for appointmen t

2, Rule 93);
o f a
4, Rule
genera l
71);
guardia n
s . Petitio n for leav e t o sel l or encumbe r propert y o f

th e war d by a guardia n (Sec.
1, Rule 95);
war d
t.
Petitio n for th e declaratio n o f competenc y
(Sec.
1, Rule 97);
u .
Petitio n for habeas corpus (Sec.
3,
v .
Petitio n for chang e of nam e (Sec.
Rule
2,
o f a
102);
Rule 103);
w . Petitio n for voluntar y judicia l dissolutio n o f a

corporation (Sec.
1, Rule 104); an d
x . Petitio n for cancellatio n or correctio n o f entrie s
in th e civil registr y (Sec. 1, Rule 108).
4 .
Whil e no t require d t o b e verifie d in th e manne r
and form prescribe d by Sec . 4 o f thi s Rule , th e following
mus t
be under oath:
a . Denia l o f th e genuinenes s an d du e executio n o f
an actionabl e documen t (Sec. 8, Rule 8);
b . Denia l of allegation s of usur y (Sec.
11, Rule 8
);
161
----------------------- Page 162----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 4
c.
3[bJ,
Rule
Motio n
t o
se t
asid e
defaul t
orde r
(Sec.
9).
d.
Answe r to writte n interrogatorie s (Sec. 2, Rule 25);
e.
Answe r to reques t for admissio n (Sec. 2, Rule 26).
a n d
5. Supporting
affidavits
ar e
require d i n th e following :
or
a . Motio n
t o p o s t p o n e
v i d e n c e
(Sec. 3, Rule 30);
b .
(Sec.
4,
affidavits
for
of
a b s e n c e
merits
o f
Motio n t o postpon e for illnes s o f a part y or counse l

Rule 30);
c. Motio n
tio n
theret o (Sees.
for
1, 2,
s u m m a r y
j u d g m e n t
o r opposi
3 an d 5, Rule 35);
d . Motio n for ne w t r i a l o n t h e
g r o u n d
f fraud ,
accident , mistak e o r excusabl e negligenc e o r oppositio n
theret o (Sec. 2, Rule 37);
e .
Petitio n for relie f from judgmen t or orde r (Sec.

38);
Rule
f.
Third-part y clai m
(See.
ec.
Rule
g . P r o o f r e q u i r e d
30,
39);
(Sec.
Rule
h . M o t i o n
3,
57);
for
16,
o f a
Rule
3,
39);
r e d e m p t i o n e r
(S
p r e l i m i n a r y a t t a c h m e n t
i.
Motio n for dissolutio n
nctio n
(Sec.
6, Rule
58);
j .
Rule
o f preliminar y
inju
Applicatio n for a wri t o f replevi n (Sec. 2, Rule 60);
k .
Clai m agains t
9,
86);
an d
th e
estat e
o f a
deceden t
(Sec.
1.
Motio n for ne w
tria l
ewly discovered evidenc e in crimina l case s
121).
th e
f
on
th e
groun d
(Sec.
o f n
4, Rule
6 . Eve n wher e verificatio n i s require d b y th e Rules ,

cour t ma y giv e du e cours e t o th e pleadin g eve n i
162
----------------------- Page 163----------------------RULE 7

SEC. 5
PARTS OF A PLEADING
such verificatio n i s lackin g o r i s insufficient o r defectiv e

if th e circumstance s warran t th e relaxatio n o r dispensin g
of th e rul e in th e interes t of justic e
(Oshita vs. Rep
ublic,
L-21180,
Mar.
31,
1967;
cf.
Quimpo
vs. Dela
Victoria,
L 31822, July 31,
1972; Valino vs. Munoz, et al., L-261
51,
Oct.
22,
1970;
Villasanta,
et
al.
vs.
Bautista,
et
al.,
L-30874, Nov.
26,
1970).
Verificatio n of a pleadin g is
a
formal,
not a jurisdictional , requisit e
(Buenaventura
vs.
Uy, et al., L-28156, Mar. 31, 1987).
It is simply intend
e d
to secur e a n assuranc e tha t th e allegation s are tru e and
correct an d tha t th e pleadin g i s filed in good fait h
(Bank
of the
Phil.
Islands
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
146923,
April 30,
2003).
Hence ,
in th e
interes t of substanti
a l
justice , th e Court may simply order th e correction o f th e
unverified pleadin g or act on it and waiv e strict complianc e
wit h th e rule s
(Vda. de Gabriel vs.
CA, et al.,
G
.R. No.
103883,
Nov.
14,
1996;
Panaguiton,
Jr.
vs.
De
pt.
of
Justice,
et al., G.R. No.
167571,
Nov.
25,
2008).
7 . Pleading s file d i n th e inferior court s
n case s
covered by th e Rul e on Summary Procedur e are all required to be verifie d
(Sec. 2[BJ on Civil Cases).
S e c .
6.
Certification against forum shopping.
plaintif f o r p r i n c i p a l part y shal l certif y u n d e
i n t h e
c o m p l a i n t
o r o t h e r
i n i t i a t
e a d i n g
a s s e r t i n g
a
c l a i m
f o r
r e l i e f , o r
s w o r n
certificatio n
a n n e x e d
t h e r e t o an d
s i
Th e
r oat h
o r y p l
i n
m u l t a n
e o u s l y
file d
t h e r e w i t h : (a ) t h a t h e h a s n o t t h e r e
t o f o r e
c o m m e n c e d an y a c t i o n o r file d a n y clai m i n v o l v i
n g
t h e s a m e
i s s u e s i n a n y c o u r t , t r i b u n a l o
r q u a s i judicia l a g e n c y a n d , t o th e bes t o f hi s k n o w l e
d g e ,
n o s u c h o t h e r a c t i o n o r c l a i m i s p e n d i n g
therein ;
(b) i f t h e r e i s s u c h othe r p e n d i n g actio n o r claim ,
a
c o m p l e t e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e p r e s e n t statu s ther
eof ;
an d (c ) i f h e s h o u l d thereafte r lear n tha t th e sam e
o r s i m i l a r a c t i o n o r c l a i m h a s b e e n file d
o r i s
pending , h e shal l repor t tha t fac t withi n fiv e (5) day s
163
----------------------- Page 164----------------------RULE 5
SEC. 2
t h e r e f r o m
t o t h e
c o u r t
w h e r e i n
h i s a
f o r e s a i d
c o m p l a i n t o r initiator y p l e a d i n g h a s b e e n filed .
Failur e t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e f o r e g o i n g req
uire m e n t s shal l no t b e c u r a b l e b y m e r e a m e n d m e n
t o f
th e c o m p l a i n t o r o t h e r initiator y p l e a d i n g bu t sh
al l
b e c a u s e
fo r t h e
d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c a s e
w i t h o u t
prejudice , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d , u p o n m o t
i o n
a n d
a f t e r h e a r i n g .
T h e
s u b m i s s i o n
o
f a f a l s e
c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r n o n - c o m p l i a n c e
w i t h
a n
y o f t h e
u n d e r t a k i n g s
t h e r e i n
s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e
i n d i r e c t
c o n t e m p t
o f c o u r t ,
w i t h o u t
p r e j u d i c e
t o
t h e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e an d crimina l a c t
i o n s .
I f t h e a c t s
o f t h e p a r t y
o r h i s c o u n s e l
c l e a r l y
c o n s t i t u t e willfu l a n d
d e l i b e r a t e f o r u m s
h o p p i n g ,
th e sam e shal l b e groun d fo r s u m m a r y dismissa l wit h
p r e j u d i c e a n d shal l c o n s t i t u t e d i r e c t c o n
t e m p t , a s
w e l l a s a c a u s e fo r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s a n c t i o n
s ,
(n )
NOTE S
1.
Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s explaine
forum shoppin g when , a s a resul t o f a n
in on e forum , or in anticipatio n thereof ,
favorable opinio n i n anothe r foru m throug h
t h a n appea l o r certiorar i b y raisin g
d t h a t ther e i s
advers e decisio n
a part y seek s a
mean s othe r
identica l cause s o f
action , subject-matte r an d issues . ' T o r u m shoppin g exist s

whe n tw o o r mor e action s involv e th e sam e transactions ,
essentia l fact s an d circumstances ,
an d rais e
identica l
cause s o f action ,
subject-matte r an d issues .
A n o t h e r
indication
i s whe n
th e
element s
o f litis pen
dentia
ar e
p r e s e n t o r w h e r e a fina l j u d g m e n t
i n on e
cas e
wil l
a m o u n t t o
res judicata
i n th e othe r case .
Th
e
tes t i s
whethe r i n th e tw o o r mor e pendin g case s ther e i s identit y
o f parties , right s o r cause s o f actio n an d relief s sough t
(Ligon
vs.
1998; cf.
Melo, et al.
16,
1999).
CA,
vs.
et
al,
CA, et al,
G.R.
G.R.
No.
No.
127683,
Aug.
7,
123686, Nov.
164
----------------------- Page 165----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 5
PARTS OF A PLEADING
F o r u m
s h o p p i n g i s c o n d e m n e d b e c a u s e i
t dul y
burden s court s wit h heav y caseloads , undul y taxe s th e
manpowe r an d financia l resource s o f th e judiciary , an d
trifle s wit h an d mock s judicia l processes . Th e primar y evi l
sought t o b e prescribe d b y th e prohibitio n agains t forum
shopping, however , i s th e possibility o f conflicting decision s
bein g rendere d b y th e differen t court s upo n th e sam e
issue s (Guy vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 165849, Dec. 10, 2007,
and
companion
cases).
2 . Thi s section , wit h modifications , i s take n from
Administrativ e Circula r No . 04-94 issue d b y th e Suprem e
Court o n F e b r u a r y 8 , 199 4 for th e purpos e explaine d
therein :
"Revised
1994 applie s
th e Suprem e
intende d t o
c o m p l a i n
o t h e r
Circula r No . 28-91 , date d Februar y 8 ,

t o an d govern s th e filing o f petition s in
Cour t an d th e Cour t o f Appeal s an d i s
preven t th e multipl e filing o f petition s or
t s i n v o l v i n g t h e s a m e i s s u e s i n
tribunal s or agencie s a s a form o f forum shopping .

"Complementary theret o an d for th e sam e pur pose , th e followin g requirements , i n additio n t o thos e
in p e r t i n e n t provision s o f th e Rule s o f Cour t
an d
existin g circulars , shal l b e
th e filin g o f complaints ,
other initiator y pleading s i n
othe r t h a n th e S u p r e
t
strictl y complie d wit h i n

petitions , application s o r
al l court s an d agencie s
m e
Cour t an d th e
Cour
o f
Appeal s an d shal l b e subject t o th e sanction s provide d
hereunder. "
Th e provision s o f Revise d Circula r No . 28-9 1 hav e

bee n adopte d an d incorporate d i n Rule s 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 ,
47 , 64 an d 65 .
3 . Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s advance d th e rul e tha t
compulsory counterclaim s ar e no t contemplate d i n it s
Administrativ e Circular No . 04-94 which refer s t o initiatory
an d simila r pleadings .
A compulsory counterclai m se t up
16B
----------------------- Page 166----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 5
in th e answer s shoul d no t b e considere d a s a n initiator y

or simila r pleadin g sinc e th e defendan t h a s t o rais e a
compulsory counterclai m w h e r e proper , otherwis e
h e
waive s th e same .
Th e rational e i s t h a t th e compulsor y
counterclaim i s only a reactio n or response , mandator y
unde r pai n o f waiver , t o a n initiator y pleadin g whic h i s
th e complain t
(Cruz-Agana
vs. Santiago-Logman,
e
tc.,
et
al., G.R. No. 139018, April 11, 2005).
Ther e ar e Americ
a n
doctrines , however , holdin g tha t an y counterclai m i s in th e
natur e o f a counter-complaint or cross-petition ; hence , unde r
tha t theory it i s actually initiatory o f a claim for relie f discret e
from th e advers e party' s claim .
4 .
Asid e from som e a m e n d m e n t s t o t h e origin
a l
sanction s impose d i n Administrativ e Circula r No . 04-94 ,
thi s sectio n reiterate s a s a regula r requiremen t unde r th e
Rule s t h a t th e certificatio n agains t foru m shoppin g ma y
b e incorporate d i n th e complain t o r containe d i n a swor n
certification annexe d theret o an d simultaneousl y
filed
therewith .
Thi s enunciate s th e policy o f th e Suprem e
C o u r t e x p r e s s e d a s e a r l y a s C i r c u l a r No . 1-8
8
t h a t
s u b s e q u e n t complianc e wit h th e
r e q u i r e m e n t s
for th e
filing o f petition s or motion s i s no t a groun d

deratio n o f th e dismissa l o f sai d pleadings
t for
compelling reasons .
I n ligh t hereof , th
late d
filing o f th e certificatio n ma y b e deeme d
complianc e shoul d n o longe r b e sustained .
for reconsi ,
excep
e view t h a t be
a
substantia l
Wit h r e s p e c t t o t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e cert
ificatio n
whic h th e pleade r ma y prepare , th e rul e o f substantia l
complianc e ma y b e availe d of.
Whil e thi s sectio n requir
e s
t h a t i t b e strictl y complie d with , i t merel y underscore
s
it s m a n d a t o r y n a t u r e i n t h a t i t c a n n o t b e
a l t o g e t h e r
dispense d wit h o r it s requirement s completel y disregarde d
bu t i t doe s no t thereb y preven t substantia l complianc e o n
thi s aspec t o f it s provision s unde r justifiabl e circumstance s
(see
Gabionza
vs. CA,
et al, G.R.
No.
112547,
J
uly
18,
1994).
T h i s c e r t i f i c a t i o n o n n o n - f o r u m s h
o p p i n g
w a s d e s i g n e d t o p r o m o t e a n d facilitat e
t h e o
r d e r l y
166
----------------------- Page 167----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 5
PARTS OF A PLEADING
administratio n o f justic e and , therefore , shoul d no t b e

interprete d wit h absolut e
literalnes s (Loyola us. CA,
e t
al., G.R.
No.
117186,
June
29,
1995; Maricalum
Mining
Corp.
us. NLRC,
et al., G.R.
No.
124711,
Nou.
3,
1998;
RLC Construction and Deu.
Corp.,
et al. us. Emily H
omes,
139360, Sept.
23, 2003).
Mor e importantly , thi s section specifically state s tha t
th e "(f)ailur e t o comply wit h th e foregoin g requirement s
shall not b e curabl e by mer e amendmen t o f th e complain t
or othe r initiator y pleadin g bu t shal l b e caus e for
th e
dismissal o f th e cas e withou t prejudice , unles s otherwis e

provided ,
upo n motio n an d
afte r hearing. "
Thi s
wil l
obviate th e former practic e o f som e tria l court s in allowin g
amendmen t o f th e incomplet e pleadin g for th e incorpo ratio n therei n o f th e certificat e agains t forum shopping .
T h a t wa s
e r r o n e o u s sinc e
t h i s u n d e r t a k i n g a
g a i n s t
multipl e filing o f case s i s no t par t o f th e operativ e fact
s
require d t o b e allege d in
allegation s on th e caus e o
quire men t for admissio n o f th e
court , henc e th e absenc e
amendment .
an initiator y pleading , suc h a s

f action .
It i s a specia l re
initiator y pleadin g for filing in
thereo f i s not curabl e by mer e
Instead , th e cas e shal l b e dismisse d on motion but ,

jus t lik e th e practic e unde r Revise d Circula r No . 28-9 1 in
th e appellat e courts , suc h dismissa l shal l b e withou t
prejudice .
Thi s mor e libera l rul e i s distinguishabl e from
th e effect s o f dismissa l o f th e cas e for non-complianc e
with th e Rule s unde r th e provision s o f Sec . 3 , Rul e 1
7
which presuppose s th e pendenc y o f th e case , wherea s
wha t i s contemplate d in thi s section i s th e initiatio n o f
th e case .
Th e cas e may consequentl y b e refile d withi n
th e balanc e o f th e reglementar y perio d bu t subjec t t o
th e provision s on prescriptio n o f actions .
5 .
In
applyin g
th e
forerunne r o f thi s
section ,
S u p r e m e
C o u r t , in
t h e cas e
o f Fil-Estate
and
Development,
Inc.
us.
CA,
et al.
(G.R .
No .
958 ,
Dec . 16 , 1996) , rule d a s follows :
th e
Golf
120
167
----------------------- Page 168----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 5
"As clearly demonstrate d above , th e willful attemp t

b y p r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t s t o obtai n a p r e l i
m i n a r y
injunction in anothe r cour t after it failed t o acquir e
th e sam e from th e origina l cour t constitute s grav e
abus e o f th e judicia l process .
Suc h disrespec t
i s
penalize d by th e summar y dismissa l o f bot h action s
a s mandate d by paragrap h 1 7 o f th e Interi m Rule s
an d Guideline s issue d by thi s Cour t on 1 1 J a n u a r y
1983 an d Suprem e Cour t Circula r No . 28-91 . x x x .
X
Th e
f u r t h e r
s t r e n
Cour t
Circular
ta blishe d
e
complaint
t i t u t e s
r u l e a g a i n s t f o r u m - s h o p p i n g i s
g t h e n e d b y th e
No .
04-94 .
issuanc e
Sai d
o f S u p r e m e
circula r
formall y
es
th e rul e t h a t th e deliberat e filing o f multipl

s
t o
obtai n
favorabl e
actio n
c o n s
forum-shopping an d shal l b e a
dismissa l thereof. "
groun d for summar y
6 . A s earlie r stated , wit h respec t t o

th e conten
t s o f
t h e certificatio n
o f non-foru m
shopping ,
t h e r
ul e
o f
substantia l complianc e ma y b e invoke d unde r justifiabl e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s . H o w e v e r , i t i s m a n d a t o r y t h
a t t h e
certification b e execute d by th e petitione r himself ,
an d
no t by counsel .
Obviously , it i s th e petitioner , an d
not
th e counse l retaine d for a particula r case , wh o i s in th e
bes t positio n t o personall y know whethe r h e o r i t ha d
actually filed or cause d th e filing o f anothe r or previou s
petitio n involvin g th e sam e cas e o r substantiall y th e sam e
issues .
Hence , a certificatio n execute d b y counse l i s
defective an d constitute s a vali d caus e for dismissa l o f
th e petitio n
(Far Eastern Shipping Co. us. CA, et a I., G.R.
No.
130068,
an d Manila
Pilots Association
vs. Phil.
Ports
Authority,
et
al., G.R.
No.
130150,
jointl y
decide
d
on
Oct.
1,
1998;
cf.
Commissioner
of
Internal
Revenue
vs.
S.C.
Johnson
&
Son,
Inc.,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
127105,
June
25,
1999;
Mendigorin
vs.
Cabantog,
etc.,
G.R.
No.
136449,
Aug.
22,
2002).
168
----------------------- Page 169----------------------RULE 7
PARTS OF A PLEADING
SEC. 5
7. On the foregoing premises , where there are

several petitioners, it is not sufficient that only one of
them executes the certification, absent a showing that
he was so authorized by the others. That certification
requires personal knowledge and it cannot be presumed
that the signatory knew that his co-petitioners had the
same or similar actions filed or pending
(Loquias, et al
vs. Office of the Ombudsman,
et al., G.R.
No.
139396,
Aug. 15, 2000).
Where, however, the co-petitioners are
husband and wife with joint interest in the subject
matter of the case which is their conjugal property, the
husband alone as administrator of said property can
execute the certification
(Docena, et al. vs. Lapesura, etc.,
et al., G.R. No. NO 153, Mar. 28, 2001). Also, where all
the petitioners , being relative s and co-owners of the
properties in dispute, share a common interest therein
and a common defense in the action, one of them alone can
execute the certificate of non-forum shopping
(Cavile,
et al. vs. Cavile, et al., G.R. No. 148635, April 1, 2003).
8. This
requirement is intended to apply to both
natural and juridical persons. Where the petitioner is a
corporation, the certification against forum shopping
should be signed by its duly authorized director or
representative .
The same is true with respect to any
juridica l entity since it has of necessity the proper
officer to represent it in its other transactions (Digital
Microwave Corp.
vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 128550, Mar. 16,
2000).
In National
Steel Corp.
vs. CA,
et al. (G.R .
No . 134468, Aug . 29, 2002), the rule was liberally
applied pro hoc vice "in view of the peculiar circumstances
of the case and in the interest of substantial justice."
However,
in BA Savings Bank
vs. Sia, et al. (G.R .
No . 131214, July 27, 2000),
it was held that the
certification of non-forum shopping may be signed, for and
on behalf of a corporation, by a specifically authorized
lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts required
to be disclosed in such document.
This does not mean,
169
----------------------- Page 170----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 5
though , tha t an y lawye r representin g th e corporatio n may

routinel y sig n t h a t certification .
Tha t lawye r mus t
b e
specifically auOwrized in orde r t o validly sig n th e
same .
Further , whil e sai d counse l may b e th e counse l o f record ;
ther e mus t b e a resolutio n o f th e boar d o f director s tha t
specifically authorize s hi m t o file th e action an d execut e
th e certificatio n
(BPI Leasing Corp.
vs. CA, et
,
G.R.
No.
127624,
Nov.
18,
2003).
al.
9 . I f a cas e i s dismisse d withou t prejudic e becaus e

of th e filing by th e plaintif f o f a notic e or dismissa l befor e
th e servic e o f th e answe r o r responsiv e pleadin g p u r s u a n t
to Sec .
1 , Rul e
17 , th e subsequen t refilin g o f th e cas e b
y
th e sam e part y will not requir e a certification o f non-forum
shopping settin g forth suc h anteceden t facts .
A s alread y stated , forum shoppin g i s resorte d t o by a
part y wit h a cas e in on e forum in orde r t o possibly secur e
a favorabl e judgmen t i n anothe r forum , othe r t h a n b y
appea l o r certiorari , o r th e institutio n o f tw o o r mo
r e
a c t i o n s o r p r o c e e d i n g s o n t h e s a m e
c a u s e ,
o n t h e
supposition t h a t on e o r th e othe r cour t woul d
m
ak e a
favorabl e disposition .
Sinc e a p a r t y resort s t o
foru m
shopping t o improv e hi s chance s o f obtainin g a favorabl e
decision , tha t prohibitio n coul d no t appl y t o a situatio n
contemplate d in Sec .
1 , Rul e 17 .
Ther e i s n o ad
vers e
decision agains t th e plaintif f an d th e orde r o f dismissa l
merel y confirm s th e dismissa l o f th e complain t withou t
prejudice .
Th e apprehensio n tha t th e cas e wa s dismisse d
in orde r t o b e transferre d t o th e sal a o f anothe r ju
dg e
supposedly mor e sympatheti c t o th e plaintif f i s baseles s
an d
speculativ e
(Roxas
vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No.
139337,
Aug.
15,
2001).
10. Thi s sectio n provide s for th e matter s tha t shoul d
b e containe d i n th e certificatio n agains t forum shoppin g
in th e c o m p l a i n t o r i n i t i a t o r y p l e a d i n g s f
ile d i n th e
Regiona l Tria l Court .
Sec . 3 , Rul e 4 6 prescribe s
th e
170
----------------------- Page 171----------------------requirement s for a certification agains t forum shoppin g
in petition s filed in th e Cour t o f Appeals , which hav e als o
been adopte d for petition s filed in th e Suprem e Court ,
pursuan t t o Sec . 2 , Rul e 56 .
11. A s a
goneraLjttle- , t h e violatio n o f th e
rule-o n
f o r u m H6hofHHi g
ohoulabe - r a i s e d
a t t h e e a * l
i e s t
opportunity^ eueh- *a-a-motion t o dismis s or a simila r
pleading .
It shoul d b e note d tha t Sec . 1, Rul e 9 provide
s
tha t defense s an d objection s not pleade d in a motion t o
dismis s or in an answe r ar e deeme d waived .
Also , Se
c . 8 ,
Rul e
1 5 s t a t e s t h a t , subjec t t o th e provision s
o f sai d
Sec.
1 , Rul e 9 , a motio n a t t a c k i n g a pleading , o
rder ,
judgmen t o r proceedin g shal l includ e al l objection s the n
available , an d al l objection s no t s o include d ar e deeme d
waived .
Thus , -belatedl y raising , an.objectio n du e t o forum
shopping a t the-appellat e stag e wil l no t caus e th e dismissa l
o f th e appeal , excep t w h e r e th e cour t ha s n o jurisdictio n
over
th e subjec t
m a t t e r , or wher e
litis pendentia,
res
judicata or ba r by statut e o f limitation s ar e presen t (Young
vs. Seng, etc.,
G.R. No.
143464, Mar.
5, 2003).
12. Th e
erall y
doctrin e
of
forum
non
conveniens
lit
mean s "th e forum i s inconvenient, " an d emerge d in privat e

internationa l law t o dete r th e practic e o f globa l forum
shopping , tha t is , t o preven t nonresiden t litigant s from
choosing th e forum or plac e t o brin g thei r sui t for maliciou s
reasons , t o secur e procedura l advantages , or t o select a
mor e friendly venue .
Th e court , may , however , refus
e
imposition s on it s jurisdictio n wher e it i s not th e
convenient forum an d th e partie s ar e not preclude d from
seeking remedie s elsewhere .
Whethe r a sui t shoul d b e entertaine d
unde r thi s doctrin e depend s largely on th e
most
or dismisse d
fact s o f th e
particula r cas e an d i s addresse d t o th e soun d discretio n o f

th e tria l court .
Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s hel d t h a t
a
171
----------------------- Page 172----------------------RULE 7
SEC. 5
Philippin e cour t ma y assum e jurisdictio n ove r a conflict

of law s case , i f it choose s t o d o so , provide d tha t it i s on e
t o
which th e partie s may convenientl y resort , tha t it i s in a
position t o mak e a n intelligen t decision o n th e law an d
th e facts , an d tha t i t ha s or i s likely t o hav e th e powe
r t o
enforce it s decision .
However , whil e i t ha s th e discretio
n
t o abstai n from assumin g jurisdictio n unde r th e doctrine ,
it shoul d d o s o only afte r vita l fact s ar e establishe d
t o
d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r specia l circumstance s
requir e
th e
court' s desistance .
Since thi s doctrin e require s suc h a factua l determi nation , it i s mor e properl y considere d a matte r o f defense .
It shoul d no t b e use d a s a groun d for a motio n t o dismiss ,
and ,
in fact , Rul e
1 6 doe s not includ e sai d doctrin e a s a
ground .
I n an y event ,
suc h a
clai m o f globa l f
oru m
s h o p p i n g s h o u l d r e q u i r e t h a t al l e l e m e n t s
o f litis
pendentia
ar e
presen t an d a
fina l judgmen t in on e c
as e
will amoun t to
res judicata
in th e othe r (Bank of Am
erica
NT
&
SA,
et. al.
vs.
CA,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
120435,
Mar. 31, 2003).
Apropo s thereto , thi s equitabl e doctrin e
presuppose s a t leas t tw o forum s i n whic h th e defendan t i s
a m e n a b l e t o proces s an d
furnishe s criteri a
for
choic e
betwee n
Co.,
D.C.Pa.,
suc h
78
F.
forum s
Supp.
(Wilson
vs.
Seas
Shipping
464).
172
----------------------- Page 173----------------------R U L E

MANNE R
S e c t i o n
a l l
c o n t a i n i n
ain ,
concis e
a n d
o n w h i c h th
l a i m o r
d e f e n s e , a s
t e m e n t
o f m e r e e v i
O F MAKIN G
ALLEGATION S
I N P L E A D I N G S
1 . I n
a
general.
m e t h o d i c a l
E v e r y
a n d logica l
p l e a d i n g s h
form ,
pl
direotêtatemen t o f th e u l t i m a t e fact s
part y p l e a d i n g r e l i e s fo r h i s c
th e c a s e m a y be , o m i t t i n g t h e s t a
d e n t i a r y facts .
(1)
hi a
d e f e n s e r e l i e d o n i s b a s e d o n l a w ,
t h e
p e r t i n e n t p r o v i s i o n s t h e r e o f a n d thei r applicabil
it y
t o h i m s h a l l - b e c l e a r l y an d c o n c i s e l y stated , (
n )
NOTE S
1. A s already stated , an ^nexes to--pleadings , -ar e
considered par t o f th e pleadings , bu t th e sai d pleading s
m u s t c o n t a i n - a s u m m a r y s t a t e m e n t of t h e matt
er s
contained in th e anne x an d canno t jus t refer t o the same
(Rubios, et al.
vs. Reolo, 96 Phil. 984fUnrep.J;
La Mallor
ca
vs. CA, et al., 100 Phil. 1048; see Sec. 7 of this Rule) .
2. "Ultimat e facte" are the important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the
plaintiff's primary right and duty or directly make up
the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant
(A
lsua
us. Johnson, 21 Phil. 308).
A fact is essential if it cannot
be stricken out without leaving the statement of the
cause of action or defense insufficient
(Toribio, et al. vs
.
Bid in, etc., et al, G.R. No. 57821, Jan. 17, 1985). Hence,
conclusions, inferences, presumptions, and details of
probative matters should not be alleged.
. <t\3. "Evidentiary facts" are those which are necessary
to prove the ultimate fact or which furnish evidence of
the existence of some other facts. They are not proper as
173
----------------------- Page 174----------------------RULE 8
2-3
REMEDIAL LAW
COMPENDIUM
SECS.
allegations in the pleadings as they may only

confusing the statement of the cause of action
defense.
They are not necessary therefor,
exposition is actually premature as such facts
found and drawn from testimonial and other evidence.
result in
or the
and their
must be
4. The second paragraph is a new provision and is

in line with the rule that a party must set out with
clarity right in his pleading the matters upon which he
intends to rely for his defense.
It has been a matter of
judicia l experience that often a defense is postulated
supposedly upon certain provisions of law and, with such
bare allegation, the pleader leaves it to the court and the
opposing party to divine for themselves how said legal
provisions or principles could possibly apply or relate to
the nature of the defense invoked, a strategy made more
irksome and undesirable where several defenses and legal
provision s are invoked .
The rationale for this new
requirement where the defense is based on legal grounds
is the same as the requirement for stating the ultimate
facts where the defense is based on factual grounds.
S e c . 2 .
A
e
c
i
e
r
n
l
c
i
p
t
a
a
t
i
a
s
i
l
h
n
r t
o
m
l y
e r
Alternative
causes
of
action
or
defenses.
s e p a r a
e n t w o
o r m o r e
v e a n d
o n e
o f
b e
s u f f i c
f f i c i e
t h e i n s
t e r n a t
s t a t e m
y m a y s e t f o r t h t w o o r m o r e s t a t e m
f a
o r d e f e n s e a l t e r n a t i v e l y o r h y p o t h e t
,
i n o n e c a u s e o f a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e o
t e
c a u s e s
o f a c t i o n
o r
d e f e n s e s . W h
s t a t e m e n t s a r e m a d e i n t h e a l t e r n a t i
t h e m
i
n
u
i
e
e
t
f
v
n
n t
b
f i
e
t s
i f m a d e
i n d e p e n d e n t l y
, t h e p l e a d i n g i s n o t
y
c i e n c y o f o n e o r m o r e
.
w o u l d
m a d e i n s u
o f t h e
a l
(2 )
S e c . 3 .
Conditions precedent.
I n a n y p l e a d
i n g
a g e n e r a l a v e r m e n t o f t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o r o c
c u r r e n c e o f al l c o n d i t i o n s p r e c e d e n t s h a l l b e suf
ficient .
(3)
174
----------------------- Page 175-----------------------
RULE 8
4 5
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATION S

IN
SEC S
PLEADING S
Sec . 4 . Capacity. Fact s s h o w i n g th e capacit y

of a part y t o su e o r b e sue d o r th e authorit y o f
a
part y t o su e o r b e sue d i n a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e capaci
t y
o r th e lega l e x i s t e n c e o f a n organize d a s s o c i a
t i o n
o f p e r s o n s tha t i s m a d e a party , mus t b e averred
.
A part y d e s i r i n g t o rais e a n
issu e a s t o th e
lega l
e x i s t e n c e o f an y part y o r th e capacit y o f an y part y
t o su e o r b e sue d i n a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e capacity , sha
l l
d o s o b y specifi c denial , w h i c h shal l includ e s u c h
s u p p o r t i n g particular s a s ar e
pleader' s k n o w l e d g e . (4)
peculiarl y w i t h i n th e
NOT E
1.
Wher e
th e plaintiff s
,
th e specific circumstanc e tha t the y ar
busines s i n th e Philippines , o r tha t
upon i s singula r an d isolated , i s an
element o f th e plaintiff' s capacit y
ar e
foreign
e duly license d
th e transactio n
essentia l par t
t o su e an d
affirmatively pleade d a s require d by Sec . 4

(Atlantic
Mutual
Insurance
Co.
us.
ing
Co.,
Inc., L-18961,
Aug.
31,
1966).
corporations
t o
sue
o f
mus
o f thi s
Cebu
d o
d
th e
t b e
Rul e
Stevedor
Sec .
5. Fraud,
mistake,
condition of the
mind.
In
all a v e r m e n t s o f fraud-o r mistake , th e circumstance s
c o n s t i t u t i n g frau d o r mistak e m u s t b e stage d wit
h
p a r t i e u l a n t y . Malice ,
intent ,
k n o w l e d g e o r o
t h e r
c o n d i t i o n o f th e min d o f a perso n ma y b e a v e r r
e d
generally .
(5a )
NOT E
1. Fact s c o n s t i t u t i n g conditio n o f th e min d
ar e
permitte d t o b e averre d generall y a s it woul d b e difficult
to d o s o wit h particularity .
However , fraud an d mistak e
are require d t o b e averre d wit h particularit y i n order t o
enable th e opposin g party t o controvert th e particula r
facta allegedly constitutin g th e same .
Thi s requiremen t
175
----------------------- Page 176----------------------RULE 8
CS. 6. 7-8
REMEDIAL
LAW
COMPENDIUM
SE
assumes significanc e in motions for new tria l or

petitions for relief from judgment or order based on
fraud or mistake.
S e c . 6 .
o r
d e c i s i o n o f
j u d i c i a l o r
q u a s i - j u d i c i
icer , i t i s
s u f f i c i e n t t
w i t h o u t
s e t t i n g f o r t
t o r e n d e r
it . (6)
Judgment.
a
I n
d o m e s t i c
p l e a d i n g a j u d g m e n t
o r
f o r e i g n
c o u r t ,
a l t r i b u n a l , o r o f a b o a r d o r off
o a v e r t h e j u d g m e n t o r d e c i s i o n
h
m a t t e r s h o w i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n
NOT E
1. This provision is a necessary consequence of the
disputable presumption that a court, or judge acting as
such, whether in the Philippine s or elsewhere , was
acting in the lawful exercise of his jurisdiction (Sec. 3(n],
Rule 131).
Such judicial record may be impeached by
evidence of want of jurisdiction in the court or judicial
officer (Sec. 29, Rule 132).
S e c . 7 .
Action
or
defense
based
on
docume
nt.
W h e n e v e r
a n a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e
i s b a s e d
u p o n
a
w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t o r d o c u m e n t , t h e s u b s
t a n c e o f
s u c h i n s t r u m e n t o r d o c u m e n t s h a l l b e s e t
f o r t h i n
t h e p l e a d i n g , a n d t h e o r i g i n a l o r a c o p y t h e
r e o f s h a l l
b e a t t a c h e d t o t h e p l e a d i n g a s a n e x h i b i
t , w h i c h
s h a l l b e d e e m e d t o b e a p a r t o f t h e p l e a d i n g ,
o r s a i d
c o p y m a y w i t h lik e effec t b e s e t fort h i n t h e p l e a
d i n g .
(7)
S e c . 8 .
How
to contest
such
documents.
W h e r e
a n
a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e
i s f o u n d e d
u p o n
a
w r i t t e n
i n s t r u m e n t ,
c o p i e d
i n
o r
a t t a c h e d
t o
t h e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g
p l e a d i n g
a s
p r o v i d e d
i n
t h e
p r e c e d i n g
n d
d u e
e x e c u t i o n
d e e m e d
s e c t i o n ,
o f
t h e
t h e
g e n u i n e n e s s
i n s t r u m e n t
s h a l l
a
b e
176
----------------------- Page 177----------------------RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING
ALLEGATION S
SECS .
7-
8
IN PLEADING S
a d m i t t e d nwleag . t h e
a d ^ w u e
p a i i y
-w^der-âth ,
4
s p e c i f i c a l l y de-me a t k m , a n d uviv furfch w h a t h

e
claim s t o Ja -th e ~aets;^but th e
r e q u i r e m e n t o f a n
oat h d o e s
not a p p e a r
e n
c o m p l i a n c
o f th e
origina l i n s
no t appl y w h e n th e advers e part y d o e s

t o b e a part y t o th e i n s t r u m e n t o r w h
e
w i t h
a n
orde r
t r u m e n t i s refused .
fo r
a n
i n s p e c t i o n
(8a )
NOTE S
1. These two sections constitute the rule on actionable documents, as distinguished from evidentiary
documents. There are two permissible ways of pleading
an actionable document, i.e., (a) by setting forth the
substance of such document in the pleading and
attaching the document thereto as an annex, or (b) by
setting forth said document verbatim in the pleading.
Unless alleged in any of these modes, the rule on implied
admission in Sec. 8 will not apply.
2. A variance in the substance of the document set
forth in the pleading and the document annexed thereto
does not warrant the dismissal of the action (Convets,
Inc. us. National Deuelopment Co., 103 Phil 46).
the contents of the document annexed are controlling.
3. Where the actionable document is properly
alleged, the failure to deny the same results in the
admission of the "genuineness and due execution" of said
document, except (a) when the adverse party was not a
party to the instrument, and (b) when an order for the
inspection of the document (see Rule 27) was not complied
with.
However,
4. By "geHuiwencoc " is
not spurious, counterfeit, or
face from the one executed
Cantiveros, 40 Phil. 208), or
nature it bears has signed it
meant that the document is

of different import on its
hy the party (Bough vs.
that the party whose sigand that at the time it was
177
----------------------- Page 178----------------------RULE 8

S. 7-8
signed,
SEC
i t wa s i n word s an d figure s exactl y a s se t ou t i
n
th e
pleading s
(Hibberd
vs.
Rhode,
32 Phil.
476).
5 . By "due-execution " i s mean t tha t th e documen t

wa s signe d voluntaril y an d knowingl y b y th e part y whos e
signatur e appear s thereon , tha t i f signe d b y somebod y
else suc h representativ e ha d th e authorit y t o d o so , tha t
i t wa s dul y delivered ,
an d t h a t th e formalitie s
er e
complied
wit h
(se e
Hibberd
vs.
Rhode,
supra;
Ramirez
vs. Orientalist
Co.,
et al., 38 Phil.
634).
6 . B y th e admissio n o f th e genuinenes s an d du e
execution o f a document , suc h defense s a s tha t th e sig natur e wa s a forgery ; o r tha t i t wa s unauthorize d i n th e
case o f an agen t signin g in behal f o f a partnershi p or o f
a corporation ; o r t h a t ,
i n th e cas e o f t h e l a t
t e r , th e
corporation wa s no t authorize d unde r it s charte r t o sign
th e i n s t r u m e n t ; o r t h a t th e part y charge d signe
d
th e
instrumen t i n som e othe r capacit y t h a n tha t allege d i n
th e pleadin g settin g i t out ; o r tha t i t wa s neve r delivered
,
ar e deeme d cu t off.
Bu t th e failur e t o den y th e genuine
nes s an d du e executio n o f th e documen t doe s no t estop
a part y from controvertin g it by evidenc e o f fraud , mistake ,
compromise , payment , statut e o f limitations , estoppel , an d
wan t
of consideratio n
( 1 Martin
301,
citin g
Hibber
d
vs.
Rhode,
supra,
an d
Bough
vs.
Cantiveros,
supra).
7 . Eve n wher e
th e opposin g part y faile d t o d
en y
u n d e r oat h
th e a u t h e n t i c i t y an d du e executio n
o f a n
actionabl e documen t properl y alleged , h e ca n stil l rais e
th e defens e
i n hi s a n s w e r an d prov e a t th e tria
l t h a t
ther e i s a mistak e o r imperfectio n i n th e writing , o r t h a t
it doe s not expres s th e tru e agreemen t o f th e parties , o r
tha t th e agreemen t i s invali d o r tha t ther e i s a n intrinsi c
ambiguity i n th e writing ,
evidenc e rul e (Sec.
sinc e
the y ar e no t inconsisten
th e authenticit y an d du e
a s thes e exception s t o th e paro l

9, Rule 130) ar e no t cu t off by ,
t with , th e implie d admissio n o f
executio n o f th e instrument .
178
----------------------- Page 179----------------------RULE 8
SEC 9
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS

IN PLEADINGS
8.
In an actio n for th e
recovery o f a parce l o f lan d
claime d b y plaintiff s
a s t h e i r h e r e d i t a r y s h
a r e s , de fendant s in thei r answe r attached , by way o f defense ,
copie s
o f t h e d e e d s o f s a l e a l l e g e d l y e x e c u
t e d b y
plaintiff s in favor o f thei r brothe r over thei r share s in sai d
parce l o f land , an d a copy o f th e dee d o f sal e thereafte r
executed by sai d vende e in favor o f th e defendants .
Sai d
original deed s o f sal e an d th e subsequen t dee d o f sal e in
favor o f th e defendant s ar e actionabl e document s a s the y
constitut e thei r defens e t o th e action .
Pursuan t t o Sees
. 7
an d 8 o f Rul e 8 , the-ewjthenticity an d du e executio n o f
said deed s o f sal e a r e impliedly admitte d by plaintiff s for
failure on thei r p a r t t o file a repl y unde r oat h specifically
denying th e same .
Thi s implie d admission , however , doe s
not appl y t o th e othe r plaintiff s wh o ar e th e heir s o f on e
of th e (deceased ) origina l
partie s t o th e documents .
vendor s sinc e the y wer e no t

Furthermore , i t appear s tha t
in thei r verifie d complaint , th e plaintiff s allege d tha t the y

never sol d thei r hereditar y share s and , consequently , th e
defendant s wer e awar e tha t the y woul d b e calle d upon t o
establish th e genuinenes s an d du e executio n o f sai d deed s
o f sale .
Accordingly , th e Suprem e Cour t relieve d th e
plaintiff s o f th e
effect s o f thei r implie d
admissio n
in
th e interes t of justic e
(Toribio, et al. us. Bidin, etc., et
al.,
G.R.
No.
57821,
Jan.
17,
1985).
9 .
Wher e th e cas e ha d bee n trie d in disregar d o f th e
rul e o n actionabl e document s an d plaintif f presente d ora l

evidence t o prov e authenticit y an d du e execution , an d
failed t o object t o defendant' s evidenc e in refutation , th e
rul e is deeme d waive d (Yu Chuck us. Kong Li Po, 4 6 Phil.
608), especially wher e both partie s acte d in disregar d o f
or overlooke d
th e
rul e
at th e tria l (Central
Sure
ty
&
Insurance
Co.
us.
Hodges,
L-28633,
Mar.
30,
1971).
S e c . 9 . Official document or act. In p l e a d i n g an
officia l
d o c u m e n t o r officia l
a c t i t i s sufficien t
t o
179
----------------------- Page 180----------------------RULE 8
10
REMEDIAL
LAW
COMPENDIUM
ave r t h a t th e d o c u m e n t w a s i s s u e d
d o n e
i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h law . (9)
SEC.
o r th e
ac t
Sec .
10 .
Specific
denial.
A
d e f e n d a n t m u s
t
specif y
e a c h m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n o f fac t t h e
t r u t h
o f w h i c h h e d o e s no t a d m i t a n d , w h e n e v e r pra
c ticable , shal l se t fort h t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e m a t t
e r s
u p o n w h i c h h e relie s t o s u p p o r t hi s denial .
Wher
e
a d e f e n d a n t d e s i r e s t o d e n y o n l y a p a r t o f
a n
a v e r m e n t , h e shal l specif y s o m u c h o f i t a s
i s tru e
an d m a t e r i a l an d shal l d e n y t h e r e m a i n d e r . Wher
e
a d e f e n d a n t i s w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e o r i n f o r m a
t i o n
sufficien t t o for m a belie f a s t o th e trut h o f a materia l
a v e r m e n t m a d e i n t h e c o m p l a i n t , h e shal l s o
state ,
an d t h i s shal l h a v e th e effec t o f a denial . (10a )
NOTE S
1. There are two ways of making a specific denial,
i.e., (a ) by specifically denying the averment and,
whenever possible, setting forth the substance of the
matters relied upon for such denial ; and (b) by an
allegation of lack of knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in the
opposing party's pleading.
2. Where
the averments
in the
opposing
part
y's
pleading are based on documents which are in the possession of the defendant, or are presumed to be known by
him, or are readily ascertainable by him, a general
allegation of lack of knowledge or information thereof on
his part will not be considered a specific denial but an
admission
(see
Warner,
Barnes and
Co., Ltd.
vs. Re
yes,
et al.,
103
Phil.
662;
Capitol
Motors
Corp.
vs.
Ya
but,
L-28140,
Mar.
19,
1970;
New
Japan
Motors,
Inc.
vs.
Perucho,
L-44387,
Nov.
5,
1976; Gutierrez,
et al. vs.
CA,
et al., L-31611, Nov. 29, 1976).
The defendant must aver
or state positively how it is that he is ignorant of the facts
180
----------------------- Page 181----------------------RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS

IN PLEADINGS
SEC
11
alleged (Phil. Advertising

Counselors,
Inc. vs. Revilla,
et al, L-31869, Aug. 8, 1973). Where the answer alleges
lack of knowledge of the "exact amount due" to the
plaintiff, the same will preclude a judgment on the
pleading s but not a motion for summary judgment
if supported
by
adequate
proof
(Phil. Bank
of
Communications
vs. Guitar Match
Mfg. Co.,
Inc.
102
Phil.
1162 fUnrep.J).
3. Where the answer merely reproduces the recitals
in the complaint and denies such recitals without setting
forth the matters relied upon in support of such denials
although it is practicable to do so, such answer contains
only general denials and judgment on the pleadings is
proper
(Sy-Quia, et al. vs. Marsman,
ct al, L-23426,
Mar. 1, 1968).
4. A "aeg*tiv pregnant " is that form of denial
which at the same time involves an affirmative implication favorable to the opposing party. Such a "negative
pregnant " is in effect an admission of the averment
to which it is directed (1 Martin 306).
It is said to be a
denial pregnant with an admission of the substantial
facts in the pleading responded to (Guevarra vs. Eala, A.C.
No. 7136, Aug. 6, 2007).
Where a fact is alleged with some qualifying or
modifying language, and the denial is conjunctive, a
negative pregnant exists and only the qualification or
modification is denied, while the fact itself is admitted
(Ison vs. Ison, 115 S W 2d. 330, 272 Ky,
836).
Thus,
where the complaint alleges that the defendant deprived
plaintiff of possession on a claim of having purchased
the property from a third person, and the answer denies
merely the "material averments" and asserts that the
defendant never claimed possessory rights based on the
alleged purchase from such third person, there is a
negative pregnant as the defendant has in effect, denied
only the qualification but not the averment that he had
181
----------------------- Page 182----------------------RULE 8
REMEDIAL
LAW
COMPENDIUM
deprived the plaintiff of actual possession of the land

(Galofa vs. Nee Bon Sin, L-22018,
Jan. 17, 1968).
SEC. 11
5. The same rule applies in appellate proceedings

where the appellant's assignment of error is to the effect
that the conclusion of the Court of Appeals "is not supported by any direct testimonial evidence."
This is a
negative pregnant as such contention does not deny
the existence of indirect testimonial evidence or of
documentary
evidence
(Taniayo
us. Callejo, et al., L25563,
July 28, 1972).
6. Where the suit is brought upon the contractual
obligation under the contract of carriage contained in
bills of lading, such bills of lading can be categorized as
actionable documents which under this Rule must be
pleaded either as causes of action or defenses, and the
genuineness and execution of which are deemed admitted
unless specifically denied under oath by the adverse
party .
Even assuming that the party against whom said
provisions in the bills of lading are alleged made an
averment in its responsive pleading which amounts to a
denial, such denial is nonetheless pregnant with the
admission of the substantial facts in the pleading
responded to which are not squarely denied. Thus, while
the responding party objected to the validity of the
agreement contained in the bills of lading for being
contrary to public policy, the existence of the bills of lading
and the stipulations therein are impliedly admitted. The
denial made by the responding party is what is known in
the law on pleadings as a negative pregnant and is in
effect an admission of the averment it is directed to
(Philippine American
General
Insurance
Co.,
et al. vs.
Sweet Lines, Inc., et al, G.R. No. 87434, Aug.
5, 1992).
S e c . 11 .
Allegations not
admitted.
M*texial~ivermen t
specifically denied
deemed
i n t h e c o m p l a i n t ,
182
----------------------- Page 183----------------------RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATION S

IN PLEADING S
SEC 1 1
othe r thon - t h o s e e t o t h e - a m o u n t o f u n l i q u i d a
t e d
d a m a g e s , s h a l l b e d e e m e d a d m i t t e d w h e n n o t
s p e c i f i c a l l y d e n i e d . A l l e g a t i o n s o f u s u r y
i n a
c o m p l a i n t t o r e c o v e r u s u r i o u s interes t ar e d e e
m e d
admitte d i f no t d e n i e d u n d e r oath , ( l a , R9)
NOTE S
1. The following averments in the complaint are
not deemed admitted even if not specifically denied :
(sf) allegations as to the amount of damages, (b) allegations
which are immaterial to the cause of action
(Worcester
vs. Lorenzana, 104 Phil. 134), which includes conclusions

of fact and law, inferences, etc., and (c)'all allegations in
the complaint where no answer has been filed by the
defendant (Lopez vs. Mendezona,
11 Phil. 209; Worcester
vs.
Lorenzana,
supra).
2. The following averments in the complaint are
deemed admitted even if specifically denied: (a) allegations
as to usury, and (b) the authenticity and due execution
of actionable documents properly pleaded where the
opposing party was a party thereto. Mere specific denial
is insufficient as the Rules require that such denial must
be under
oath.
3. However , it has been held that the rule that
allegations of usury are deemed admitted if not denied
specifically and under oath is a procedural rule and the
lack of an oath in a pleading is a defect which is subject
to waiver just as a defective or imperfect verification may
be waived . Besides, the reglementary admission of the
allegation of usury arising from failure to make a denial
under oath may, like any other admission in court, be
withdrawn with leave of court under Sees. 2 and 3,
Rule 10 which permit substantial amendment of pleadings
once as a matter of right when the action has not been
placed on the trial calendar or, after the case is set for
183
----------------------- Page 184----------------------RULE 8
SEC. 12
hearing ,
et al.,
L-39452,

upo n
Oct.
leav e
31,
of cour t
(Dionisio
vs.
Puerto,
1974).
See,
in thi s connection ,
th e cas e
o f Liam
Law
vs.
Olympic
Sawmill,
et
al., supra,
cite d
unde r
Not e
3
of
Sec. 10, Rul e 6 an d th e discussio n thereon .
4 .
Wher e th e defendan t relie d solely on hi s defens e
of res judicata
an d
submitte d
th e cas e
for decisio
n
on
tha t issue , h e i s deeme d t o hav e admitte d al l th e materia l
a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e c o m p l a i n t an d j u d g m e n t
ca n
b e
rendere d
accordingly
(Dominguez
vs.
Filipinos Inte
grated
Services
Corp.,
et al., G.R.
No.
58820,
Sept.
30,
1
982).
Sec .
matter
contained
part y
12 .
therein.
Striking
out
U p o n
of
m o t i o n
pleading
m a d e
or
by
befor e r e s p o n d i n g t o a p l e a d i n g or , i f n o r e s p o
n s i v e
p l e a d i n g i s p e r m i t t e d b y t h e s e Rules , u p o n m
o t i o n
m a d e b y a part y w i t h i n t w e n t y (20 ) d a y s afte
r th e
servic e o f th e p l e a d i n g u p o n him , o r u p o n th e court'
s
o w n i n i t i a t i v e a t an y time , th e c o u r t m a y o r d e r
an y
p l e a d i n g t o b e s t r i c k e n o u t o r t h a t a n y s h
a m o r
f a l s e , r e d u n d a n t ,
i m m a t e r i a l ,
i m p e r t i n e
n t , o r
s c a n d a l o u s
m a t t e r
b e
s t r i c k e n o u t t h e r
e f r o m .
(5, R9 )
184
----------------------- Page 185----------------------RUL E
EFFEC T
O F
FAILUR E
9
T O
PLEA D
S e c t i o n 1 . Defenses
and objections
not pleaded.
D e f e n s e ^ - a ^ u l - o b j e c t i o n e - n o t - p l e a d e d e i t
h e r i n a
m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s - o r i n t h e a n s w e r a r e d e e
m e d
w a i v e d . H o w e v e r , w h e n
i t a p p e a r s f r o m t h
e
p l e a d i n g s o r t h e e v i d e n c e o n recor d tha t th e cour
t
ha s n o j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s u b j e c t matter ,
t h a t
ther e i s a n o t h e r a c t i o n p e n d i n g b e t w e e n th e
sam e
p a r t i e s fo r t h e s a m e c a u s e , o r t h a t th e a c t
i o n i s
b a r r e d b y a p r i o r j u d g m e n t o r b y s t a t u t e o
f
limitations , th e c o u r t shal l d i s m i s s th e claim . (2a )
NOTE S
1. Under this amended provision, the following
defenses are not waived even if not raised in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer : (a") lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter;
(p~) litis pendentia; (c) res judicata; and
(d) prescription of the action.
2. The omnibus motion rule in the former Sec. 2 of
this Rule also provided, as an exception thereto, "the
failure to state a cause of action which may be alleged in
a later pleading, if one is permitted, or by motion for
judgmen t on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits;
but in the last instance, the motion shall be disposed of
as provided in Section 5, Rule 10 in the light of any
evidence which may have been received."

That ground and the alternative bases for considering it, in the event it was not alleged in either a motion
to dismiss or in the answer, has been deleted as an
exception to the omnibus motion rule.
The alternative
ways for posing this ground for consideration of the
court in other pleadings, that is, in a later pleading if
185
----------------------- Page 186----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 1
permitte d or by motio n for judgmen t on th e pleadings ,

ar e contingen t o n futur e event s an d wil l only resul t
i n
delay .
O n th e othe r hand , th e failur e t o stat e a
caus e
o f actio n shoul d b e
challenge d
i n e i t h e r a
motio n t o
dismis s o r i n th e answe r s o tha t th e cas e wil l not procee
d
for consideration , despit e suc h omission , upo n a defectiv e
an d insufficient complain t which coul d hav e bee n remedie d
in th e first instanc e b y th e plaintif f dul y respondin g t
o
th e objection o n t h a t ground .
I f tha t groun d i s co
rrectl y
raise d i n a motio n t o dismiss , o r i n th e a n s w e r
a s a n
a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , t h e
c o u r t c a n a l w a y
s
allo w
a m e n d m e n t o f th e complain t an d th e cas e wil l procee d t o
tria l sans t
d on
t h a t ground
n t a s
such dismissa l
on th e merits
h a t
,
defect .
th e
I f th e
plaintif f ca n
complain t
i s
refil e
dismisse
hi s
complai
doe s not normally constitut e a n adjudication

.
Th e
foregoin g observation s
s i t u a t i o n
wher e th e complain t o r othe r initiator y
alleg e fact s constitutiv e o f a caus e
W h a t i s
contemplated , therefore ,
i s a
eaus e of
action whic h i s provide d in Sec . 1(g) o f
T-hie-is a
m a t t e r o f insufficiency o f th e pleading.
ul e 10,
whic h
w a s als o include d a s th e
sin g
th e issu e t o th e court , refer s t o t
e
evidence does not prove a caus e o f action .
refe r
t o
th e
pleadin g fail s t o
o f action .
failure
to
state
Rul e 16 .
Sec . 5 o f R
l a s t
mod e
for -rai
h e situatio n wher e th
Thisis , the
refore ,
a m a t t e r o f insufficiency o f th e evidence.
Failur e
t o stat e
a caus e o f actio n i s differen t from failur e t o prov e a caus e
of action .
The-remed y in th e first i s t o mov e for dismissa l
o f th e pleading , whil e th e remed y i n

r
t o th e evidence , henc e referenc e t o
bee n eliminate d i n thi s section .
oul d
consequently b e t o requir e th e pleadin
of action , by timel y objection t o it s
trial , t o file a d e m u r r e r t o th
n i s
w a r r a n t e d .
th e secon d i s t e d e m u
Sec . 5 o f Rule-1-0 ha s
Th e procedur e w
g t o stat e a caus e
deficiency ; or , at th e
e evidence , i f suc h motio
186
----------------------- Page 187----------------------RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
SEC. 1
3. The objection on jurisdictional grounds which is

not waived even if not alleged in a motion to dismiss or
the answer is lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter.
Lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action has been
eliminated in Rule 16 of these revised Rules, although
that objection may possibly be raised in other pleadings
or proceedings .
Lack of jurisdiction over the subjectmatter can always be raised anytime, even for the first
time on appeal, since jurisdictional issues cannot be
waived but subject, however, to the principle of estoppel
by laches.
4. The'defense of litis pendentia has been included
in the exceptions to the general rule on waiver in this
amended section by reason of the fact that, since the
other case is still pending, a resolution of the objection
raised on this ground should properly await the resolution
of and the developments in the other pending case. Upon
the occurrence of the relevant contingencies in that
other case, this objection may then be raised, unless
already submitted to the court, which by then would be
in a better position to appreciate the merits of this
objection.
5. Res judicata and prescription of the claim have
also been added as exceptions since they are grounds
for extinguishment of the claim.
It would appear to be
unduly technical, if not contrary to the rule on unjust
enrichment, to have the defending party respond all
over again for the same claim which has already been
resolved or is no longer recoverable under the law. It is
worth mentioning in this connection that, in Sec. 5 of
Rule 16 as amended, an order granting a motion to
dismiss on the grounds,
inter alia, of res judicata or
prescription shall bar the refiling of the same action or
claim.
187
----------------------- Page 188----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 1
6 . Th e
p r e s e n c e o f a n y o f t h e s e fou r
g r o u n d s
authorize s
th e cour t t o motu proprio dismis s th e clai
m ,
tha t is , th e claim s asserte d i n a complaint , counte r claim ,
cross-claim ,
t h i r d (fourth ,
e t c . ) - p a r t y c o m
p l a i n t o r
complaint-in-intervention (se e Sec. 2, Rule 6).
In orde r
t h a t i t ma y d o so , i t i s necessar y tha t th e consti
tutiv e
facts o f suc h grounds , i f not in th e answe r wit h evidenc e
dul y
a d d u c e d
t h e r e f o r , sh o u l d a p p e a r i n t
h e o t h e r
pleading s filed or in th e evidenc e o f recor d in th e case .
7 . Specifically wit h respec t t o th e defens e o f pre
scription ,
th e p r e s e n t provisio n i s simila r t o th
e rul e
adopte d i n civi l cases , bu t dissimila r t o th e rul e a
n d
rational e i n crimina l cases .
I n civi l cases , i t
ha s bee n
hel d t h a t th e defens e o f prescriptio n ma y b e considere d
only i f th e sam e i s invoke d i n th e answer , excep t wher e
th e fact o f prescriptio n appear s i n th e allegation s i n th e
complain t o r th e
evidenc e
p r e s e n t e d b y th e
plaintiff ,
i n w h i c h
cas e
s u c h
d e f e n s e i s no t d e e m e d
w a i v e d
(Ferrer
vs. Ericta,
et al., L
41761, Aug.
23,
1978;
Garcia
vs.
Mathis,
et
al., L-48577,
Sept.
30,
1980).
It woul d
t h u s a p p e a r t h a t th e non-waive r i s d e p e n d e n t
o n th e
timelines s o f invocatio n o f th e defense , o r wher e suc h
defens e i s a
m a t t e r o f recor d or evidence .
8 . I n crimina l cases , th e sam e genera l rul e o n waive r
of an y groun d for a motio n t o quas
th e accuse d fail s t o asser t th e
e
did no t file suc h motio n befor e h
t o
alleg e suc h groun d
therein .
rule ,
however ,
i s t h e g r o u n d o f
t h e r o f th e
h als o obtain s wher e

sam e eithe r becaus e h
e
pleade d
Excepte d
or
from
faile d
thi s
p r e s c r i p t i o n
e i
offense o r th e penalty , tha t is , tha t th e crimina l actio n o r

liability ha s bee n extinguishe d (Sec.
9,
).
Thi s
provisio n doe s no t requir e th e qualification s o f
a b l e i n v o c a t i o n o r r e c o r d e d fac t o f
o u n d
o f
prescriptio n a s discusse d abov e for civil actions .
Instead ,
said provisio n i s evidentl y base d o n th e ruling
e
S u p r e m e
C o u r t
t h a t o b j e c t i o n o n
o u n d
o f
Rule
117
season t h e g r
o f th
t h e
g r
188
----------------------- Page 189----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 2
p r e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e crim e
i s no t waive d
eve n
i f no t
raise d befor e th e plea , sinc e prescriptio n i s a substantiv e
r i g h t w h i c h c a n n o t b e d e f e a t e d b y p r o v i s i
o n s o f a
procedura l
law
(People
vs. Moran,
44 Phil.
387;
People
vs. Castro, 95 Phil. 462).
Fo r tha t matter , suc h objectio
n
may eve n b e raise d for th e first tim e on appea l (People
vs. Balagtas,
105
Phil.
1362 fUnrep.J;
al.
vs.
Geronimo,
[CA],
60
O.G.
8497).
Escano,
et
S e c . 2 .
Compulsory counterclaim,
or cross-claim,
not
set
up
barred.
A
c o m p u l s o r y
, or a
c r o s s - c l a i m , n o t s e t u p s h a l l b e b a r r e d . (
4a )
N O T E S
1.
Se e note s unde r Sees . 7 an d 8 , Rul e 6 .
2 . Where , in a firs t actio n agains t him ,

t
h e com pulsor y
counterclai m o f defendan t wa s dismisse d
for
non-paymen t o f docke t fee , suc h dismissa l i s no t a ba r
t o hi s filin g o f th e sam e counterclai m in a subsequen t
action
i n s t i t u t e d b y th e plaintif f involvin g th e
sam e
s u b j e c t - m a t t e r . Th e dismissa l o f sai d counterclai m
doe s
no t constitut e
res judicata
becaus e
it wa s
not
a
determination on th e merit s o f th e counterclaim .
Also ,
th e
d
g b e e
u n q u a
oe s
no
constitut
i s m i s s a l o f
sai d
c o u n t e r c l a i m h a v i n
n
l i f i e d , h e n c e w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e , i t d
t
e a n adjudicatio n o n th e merit s sinc e thi s rul e
in Sec .
2 ,
Rul e
1 7
applie s
no t only t o a complain t bu
t
also t o a counterclai m which partake s o f th e natur e o f a
complaint .
Thi s i s asid e from th e consideratio n that
,
since th e dismissa l o f th e counterclai m wa s premise d on
th e postulat e tha t for non-paymen t o f th e docket fee th e
court di d not acquir e jurisdictio n thereover , the n wit h
muc h
mor e
reaso n ca n ther e b e n o invocatio n o f r
es
judicata,
no t t o spea k o f th e
fact tha t it wa s err
o r for
th e
t r i a l c o u r t t o o r d e r s u c h d i s m i s s a l sin
c e
t h e
paymen t o f docke t fee s i s require d only for permissive ,
189
----------------------- Page 190----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
not
compulsory ,
et al.,
G.R. No.
101883,

counterclaim s
(Meliton
vs.
CA
Dec.
11,
1992).
Sec .
3 .
Default; declaration of. I f th e d e f e n d i
n g
p a r t y
f a i l s t o a n s w e r
w i t h i n
t h e
t i m e
a l l o w e d
t h e r e f o r , t h e
c o u r t
s h a l l , u p o n
m o t i o n
o f t h e
c l a i m i n g part y w i t h notic e t o th e d e f e n d i n g pa
rty ,
an d
p r o o f o f s u c h failure ,
d e c l a r e t h e d e
f e n d i n g
part y i n default .
T h e r e u p o n , th e cour t shal l pr o
ce e d
t o r e n d e r j u d g m e n t
g r a n t i n g t h e
c l a i m a
n t
s u c h
relie f a s hi s p l e a d i n g m a y w a r r a n t , u n l e s s th e
cour t
i n it s d i s c r e t i o n r e q u i r e s t h e c l a i m a n t t o
s u b m i t
e v i d e n c e .
S u c h
r e c e p t i o n
o f e v i d e n c e
m a y
b e
d e l e g a t e d t o th e cler k o f court , ( l a , R18 )
d e
shal
d i
bu t
(a)
Effect of order of default.
A part y
in
f a u l t
l b e e n t i t l e d t o notic e o f s u b s e q u e n t p r o c e e
n g s
n o t t o t a k e par t i n t h e trial . (2a , R18 )
(b)
Relief from
order of default. A part y
d
e c l a r e d
i n d e f a u l t m a y a t a n y t i m e afte r n o t i c e t h e r e
o f a n d
befor e j u d g m e n t fil e a motio n u n d e r o a t h t o se t asid
e
t h e o r d e r o f d e f a u l t u p o n p r o p e r s h o w i n g
t h a t hi s
f a i l u r e t o a n s w e r
w a s
d u e
t o f r a u d , a
c c i d e n t ,
m i s t a k e o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l i g e n c e an d t h a t h
e h a s a
m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e .
I n
s u c h c a s e , t h e
o r d e r o f
d e f a u l t
m a y
b e
s e t a s i d e
o n
s u c h
t e r
m s
a n d
c o n d i t i o n s a s t h e j u d g e m a y i m p o s e i n th e i
n t e r e s t
o f j u s t i c e . (3a , R18 )
(c)
Effect
of partial
default.
l e a d i n g
a s s e r t i n g a c l a i m s t a t e s a
f a c t i o n
a g a i n s t s e v e r a l d e f e n d i n g
o f w h o m
a n s w e r an d th e o t h e r s fai l t o
shal l
tr y t h e c a s e a g a i n s t al l u p o n
s file d
an d r e n d e r j u d g m e n t u p o n th e
n t e d .
(4a, R18 )
W h e n
c o m m o n
c a u s e
p
o
p a r t i e s , s o m e
d o so , t h e c o u r t
t h e a n s w e r s t h u
e v i d e n c e
p r e s e
190
----------------------- Page 191----------------------RULE 9
SEC.
3
(d)
Extent
of
relief to be
awarded.
j u d g m e n t
rendere d a g a i n s t a part y i n defaul t shal l no t e x c e e d

th e a m o u n t o r b e differen t i n kin d fro m tha t praye d
for no r a w a r d u n l i q u i d a t e d d a m a g e s . (5a , R18)
(e)
Where
no defaults
n g
part y irfa n actio n fo r a n
o f
nullity o f m a r r i a g e o r
o
a n s w e r , t h e c o u r t s h
n g
attorne y t o i n v e s t i g a t
l u s i o n
b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s
s n o
allowed.
If th e
d e f e n d i
n u l m e n t o r d e c l a r a t i o n
fo r
lega l
separatio n
fail s
a l l o r d e r t h e p r o s e c u t i
e
w h e t h e r
o r
e x i s t s , a n d i f
no t
c o l
t h e r e i
collusion , t o i n t e r v e n e fo r th e Stat e
i n orde r t o se
e
t o i t t h a t th e e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d
ated .
(6a, R18 )
^
^ O
i s no t fabric
S ' ' " ' - "
1. An order of default should be distinguished from

a judgment by default. An order of default is issued by
the court, on plaintiff s motion and at the start of the
proceedings, for failure of the defendant to file his
responsive pleading seasonably.
It is only thereafter,
when the evidence for the plaintiff has been received ex
parte,
tha t th e court render s a judgment by default on
the basis of such evidence.
2. This section provides for the extent of the relief
that may be awarded in the judgment by default, i.e.,
only so much as has been alleged and proved. The court
acts in excess of jurisdiction if it awards an amount
beyond the claim made in the complaint or beyond that
proved by the evidence. Furthermore, as amended, no
unliquidated damages can be awarded and said judgment
shall not exceed the amount or be different in kind from
that prayed for. If the claim is not proved, the case should
be dismissed
(Pascua, et al. us. Florendo, et al., L-38047,
April 30,
1985).
191
----------------------- Page 192----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
3 . Failur e

t o
file
responsiv e
pleadin g withi n
th e
reglementar y period , an d no t failur e t o a p p e a r a t t

h e
hearing , i s th e sol e groun d for an orde r o f defaul t
(Ro
sario,
et al. vs. Alonzo,
et al, L-17320,
June 29,
1963),
e
xcep t
th e failur e t o appea r a t a pre-tria l conferenc e wherei n th e
effect s o f a defaul t o n
th e p a r t o f th e d e f e n d a
n t ar e
followed, t h a t is , th e plaintif f shal l b e allowe d t o presen
t
evidenc e ex parte an d a judgmen t base d thereo n ma y b e
rendere d agains t th e defendan t
(Sec. 5, Rule 18).
Also ,
a defaul t judgmen t ma y b e rendered , eve n i f th e defendan t
ha d filed hi s answer , unde r th e circumstanc e i n Sec . 3(c) ,
Rul e 29 .
4 . Th e
cour t canno t
defen dan t
in defaul t
(Viacrusis
30,
motu
proprio
vs.
Estenzo,
declar e
L-18457,
a
June
1962;
Trajano,
et al. vs.
Cruz,
et al, L-47070,
Dec.
29,
1977).
T h e r e m u s t b e a motio n t o t h a t effect b
y th e
plaintif f wit h
proo f o f failur e b y
th e defendan t t o
file
hi s responsiv e pleadin g despit e du e notic e
(Soberano
vs.
MRR
Co.,
L-19407,
Nov.
23,
1966;
Sarmiento
vs.
Juan,
G.R. No. 56605, Jan. 28,
1983).
Formerly , th e defendan
t
did no t hav e t o b e serve d wit h notic e o f th e motio n
t o
hav e
hi m declare d
in defaul t
(Pielago
vs. Generosa,
7 3
Phil.
634, base d on Sec.
9, Rule 2 7 of th e old Rule s
an d
reproduce d substantiall y in Sec.
9, Rule
13; De
G
uzman
vs.
Santos,
et al, L-22636,
June
11,
1970,
citin g
Duran
vs. Arboleda,
20 Phil.
253; Inchausti
&
Co.
vs. De
Leon,
24
Phil.
224;
Monteverde
vs.
Jaranilla,
49
Phil.
297;
Manila
Motor
Co.
vs. Endencia,
72
Phil.
130;
The
Phil.
British
Co.,
Inc.,
et
al
vs.
Delos
Angeles,
etc.,
et
al,
L-33720-21,
Mar.
10,
1975).
An
i m p o r t a n t chang e
ha s
bee n effecte d b y th e presen t a m e n d m e n t s i n th e s
ens e
t h a t a n orde r o f defaul t ca n b e mad e only upo n motio n o f
th e claimin g part y an d wit h
th e defendin g party .
th e correspondin g
notic e
t o
O n
t h e o t h e r h a n d , u n d e r th e rul e o n s u m
m a r y
procedure , n o defaul t orde r i s rendere d or require d a s a
motion t o declar e th e defendan t i n defaul t i s prohibited ;
192
----------------------- Page 193----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
and a defaul t judgmen t ma y b e rendere d by th e cour t

motu proprio or on motion o f th e part y assertin g th e claim .
5.
Th e
defendan t wh o
file s
hi s
answe r in
cour t
in
tim e bu t failed t o serv e a copy thereo f upon th e advers e

part y
ma y validly b e
declare d
in defaul t (Gonzales
vs.
Francisco,
49 Phil.
747; Banares
vs. Flordeliza,
et a
l., 51
Phil.
786).
6 . Th e
fac t t h a t th e defendan t wa s
declare d
i n
default i s o f n o momen t whe n th e plaintif f woul d
no t
hav e bee n entitle d t o relie f sinc e hi s complain t di d not
state a caus e o f action , henc e th e sam e shoul d b e dismisse d
(Reyes
vs. Tolentino,
et al., L-29142,
Nov.
29,
1971).
7 . It i s withi n th e discretio n o f th e tria l cour t t o
se t
asid e
a n o r d e r o f d e f a u l t an d p e r m i t th e filin
g
o f
d e f e n d a n t ' s a n s w e r eve n
beyon d
th e r e g l e m e
n t a r y
period , or t o refus e t o se t asid e th e defaul t orde r wher e i
t
finds n o justificatio n for th e dela y in th e filin g o f t
h e
a n s w e r
(Malipod
vs.
Tan,
L-27730,
Jan.
21,
1974).
However , defendant' s answe r shoul d b e admitte d wher e
it wa s filed befor e h e ha d bee n declare d in defaul t an d
n o prejudic e
coul d
hav e bee n cause d
t o plaintiff
,
a s
default
j u d g m e n t s ar e
generall y
disfavore d
(Tra
jano,
et al. vs. Cruz, et al., supra). Wher e th e answe r is filed
beyon d th e reglementar y perio d bu t befor e th e defendan t
wa s declare d i n default , an d ther e i s n o showin g tha
t
defendant intende d t o delay th e case , th e answe r shoul d
be
admitte d
(Cathay
Pacific
Airways,
Ltd.
vs.
Rom
illo,
etc., et al, G.R. No. 64276, Mar. 4,
1986).
Also , wh
er e
th e failur e o f defendan t t o seasonabl y file he r answe r
is excusabl e an d th e liftin g o f th e defaul t orde r will not
in any way prejudic e plaintiff' s substantia l rights , th e
court shoul d apply th e Rule s liberally an d se t asid e th e
default
orde r
(Santos
vs.
De
la Fuente
Samson,
e
t al,
L-46371,
Dec.
14,
1981; cf. Akut
vs.
CA,
et al, L-45
472,
Aug.
30,
1982;
Azul,
et
al.
vs.
Castro,
et
al,
G.R.
No.
52241, Nov.
19, 1984).
193
----------------------- Page 194----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
8. A motio n t o lift an orde r o f defaul t shoul d

b e
unde r oat h or verifie d an d accompanie d by an affidavit o f
merits .
Th e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Sec . 3 o f thi s Ru
l e ar e
practicall y identica l t o thos e o f Sec . 3 , Rul e 3 8 (The Phil.
British
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
De
los
Angeles,
etc., et al.,
supra;
Claridad, et al.
vs. Santos, et al., L-29594, Jan. 27,
1983).
However ,
i f th e motio n t o lift th e
orde r o f defaul
t i s
grounde d on th e ver y root o f th e proceedings , i.e. , invali d
service o f summon s on th e defendant , affidavit s o f merit s
ar e no t necessar y (Ponio vs. IAC, et al.,
G.R. No.
66782,
Dec.
20,
1984).
Also , i f th e motio n t o lift an orde r o f defaul t i s unde
r
oath an d contain s th e reason s for th e failur e t o answer ,
a s wel l a s th e prospectiv e defenses , a separat e affidavit
o f m e r i t s a n d a verificatio n
a r e no t n e c e s s a
r y (Lim
Tanhu,
et al. vs. Ramolete,
et al, L-40098, Aug.
29,
1975;
Azul,
et al. vs. Castro, et al., supra).
9 . Wher e a motio n t o lift an orde r o f defaul t i s denie
d
an d a motio n for th e reconsideratio n o f sai d denia l orde r
i s filed base d o n substantiall y th e sam e grounds , sai d
motion for reconsideratio n i s no t pro forma a s it i s directe d
agains t a n interlocutory , a n d no t a final , orde r an d th
e
reiteratio n o f th e sam e ground s seek s a secon d look by th e
court on th e merit s o f sai d ground s
(BA Finance Corp.
vs.
Pineda,
et al., G.R.
No.
61628, Dec.
29,
1982).
10. Th e motio n t o lift th e orde r o f default , asid e fro
m
th e requirement s in Sec . 3 o f thi s Rule , mus t furthe r show
t h a t th e defendan t h a s a
meritoriou s defens e
o
r t h a t
s o m e t h i n g woul d
b e g a i n e d b y h a v i n g t h e o r
d e r o f
defaul t
se t
asid e
(Carandang
vs.
Cabatuando,
e t al.,
L-25384, Oct. 26,
1973).
Otherwise , an d i f th e motio n
i s
no t accompanie d by affidavit s o f merits , it ma y properl y
be denie d
(Ong Peng vs.
Custodio, L-14911,
Oct. 26,
1961;
The Phil.
British
Co., Inc.,
et al. vs. De
los Angeles,
etc.,
et al., supra).
194
----------------------- Page 195----------------------RULE 9

. 3
SEC
11. Th e forme r rul e wa s t h a t wher e a part y ha

d
moved t o se t asid e th e orde r o f default , h e wa s entitle d t o
copie s
o f al l
e d
thereafter .
I f
t o
b e serve d wit h
plementa l pleadings
The qualification s
H e
supplementa
thereto .
upo n a n
complain t
gina l
complaint ,
answer t o
in default
p l e a d i n g s an d o r d e r s file d an d issu
h e ha d no t don e so , h e wa s stil l entitle d
copie s o f substantiall y amende d or sup , a s wel l a s final order s o r judgments .
wer e rationalize d a s follows :
m u s t b e serve d wit h amende d pleading s an d

l pleading s a s h e may b e entitle d t o plea d
Thus , i f th e defendan t wa s declare d in defaul t
origina l complaint , th e filin g o f th e amende d
resulte d i n th e
w i t h d r a w a l o f th e ori
henc e th e defendan t wa s entitle d t o file a n
th e amende d complain t a s t o which h e wa s not
.
I f th e supplementa l pleadin g
introduce d new
claims , h e wa s entitle d t o plea d theret o a s jurisdictio n ha d

not bee n acquire d over hi m in respec t thereof .
He ha d t o b e serve d wit h a copy o f th e judgmen t by
default a s h e ha d th e righ t t o appea l therefro m an d
i n
said appea l h e may , asid e from attackin g th e propriet y
of th e relie f therei n awarded , assig n a s erro r th e orde r o f
th e cour t declarin g hi m i n default , o r refusin g t o se
t
aside suc h order , or denyin g a motion for new tria l a s
th e cas e ma y be .
Thi s w a s b e c a u s e t h e n Sec . 2 o f Rul e 1 8
ad :
"Except a s provide d in Sectio n 9 o f Rul e
13 , a
rt y
declare d i n defaul t shal l no t b e entitle d t o notic e
f
subsequent proceedings , no r t o tak e par t i n th e trial. "
Thi s
rul e w a s considere d
to o h a r s h , hence ,
a s
ow
amended , par . (a) o f thi s sectio n simply provide s tha t
whil e a part y in defaul t canno t tak e par t in th e trial , h e
s
nonetheles s entitle d t o notic e o f subsequen t proceeding s
withou t th e qualification s unde r th e former practice .
re
pa
o
n
12. I f th e cour t set s asid e th e orde r o f default ,

th e
defendant i s restore d t o hi s standin g an d right s in th
e
action .
However ,
proceeding s alread y
take n
ar e
not t o
195
----------------------- Page 196----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
be disturbe d
(Jaime vs. Maniego,
101 Phil.
828), althoug
h
it i s withi n th e discretio n o f th e cour t t o re-ope n
th e
evidenc e
s u b m i t t e d b y t h e plaintif f a n d
e n a b l
e t h e
defendant t o challeng e th e same , a s b y cross-examinatio n
o f plaintiff' s
witnesse s
o r introducin g countervailin g
evidenc e
(se e Denso
[Phil.],
Inc.
vs. IAC,
et al.,
G.R.
No. 75000, Feb. 27, 1987).
Th e lifting of an orde r of defaul
t
doe s no t rever t th e cas e t o it s pre-tria l stage , muc h les s
rende r a secon d pre-tria l mandator y
et al.,
L-49410,
Jan.
26,
1989).
(DBP vs.
CA,
13. Unde r th e forme r procedure , an d th e sam e woul d

tru e unde r th e presen t amende d Rules , th e alter v e an d successiv e
r e m e d i e s o f a p a r t y p r
l y
d i n defaul t i n th e forme r Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e
(1) H e ma y file a verifie d motio n t o se t asid e t
hol d
n a t i
o p e r
declare
were :
h e
order
o f defaul t
a t
an y
tim e
afte r
discovery
thereo f an d
befor e judgment ; (2) I f h e di d no t file on e or th e s

am e
wa s denied , h e coul d file a motio n for ne w tria l at
an y
tim e afte r servic e o f judgmen t b y defaul t an d withi n 3 0
day s therefrom ; (3) I f h e faile d t o file sai d motio n or th e
sam e wa s denied , h e coul d perfec t hi s appea l from an d o n
th e merit s o f sai d judgmen t b y defaul t withi n th e balanc e
of sai d 30-day period ; an d (4) I f h e faile d t o tak e an y o
f
such steps , h e coul d file a petitio n for relie f from judgmen t
withi n 6 0 day s from notic e o f th e judgmen t bu t withi n 6
month s from entr y thereo f (se e Lina vs.
CA, et al.,
G.R.
No.
62397,
April
9, 1985).
It shoul d b e noted , however , t h a t unde r B.P . Big .
an d th e Interi m Rules , th e reglementar y perio
ha s bee n uniforml y se t at 1 5 days , excep t
case s for whic h th e 48-hou r perio d ha s bee n
an d i n specia l proceeding s o r case s w h
129
d t o appea l
in habeas corpus
maintained ,
e r e i n
mult
ipl e
appeal s ar e permitte d an d i n which case s th e reglementar y
perio d i s stil l 3 0 days . Considerin g th e fact tha t th e perio d
for filing a motio n for new tria l i s coterminou s wit h th e
reglementar y perio d for appeal , th e 30-day period s for th e
secon d
a n d t h i r d r e m e d i e s abov e
s t a t e d woul d
no w
196
----------------------- Page 197----------------------RULE 9
. 3
SEC
apply only t o specia l proceeding s an d case s susceptibl e o f

multipl e appeals , wit h th e first an d fourth remedie s bein g
availabl e a s before . I n al l othe r civi l actions ,
al l
th e
abovestate d remedie s from a defaul t judgmen t ar e stil l
available , i t bein g understood , however , tha t th e remed y
of new tria l an d appea l shoul d now b e availe d o f withi n
15 day s from receip t o f th e judgmen t by default .
14. Wher e
however ,
th e defendan t
wa s
improper
ly
declare d i n default , a s wher e th e reglementar y perio d t o
answer ha d no t ye t expired , h e can , i f suc h defaul t orde r
i s no t lifted , elevat e th e m a t t e r b y certiorar i with
ou t
waitin g
for th e defaul t judgmen t
(Viacrusis
vs. Esten
zo,
L-18457,
June
30,
1962;
Pioneer
Insurance
&
Sur
ety
Corp.
vs.
Hontanosas,
L-35951,
Aug.
31,
1977).
I
f a
default judgmen t wa s alread y rendered , h e can als o resor t
immediately t o certiorar i a s hi s challeng e i s on th e nullity
of bot h th e orde r an d th e judgmen t by defaul t an d not
on th e merit s or correctnes s o f th e judgmen t
(Matute v
s.
CA, et al., L-26751, Jan. 3, 1969), especially wher e a wri t
of executio n wa s alread y issued , henc e appea l woul d not
b e a speed y
an d
a d e q u a t e remed y
(Omico
Mining
&
Industrial
Corp.
vs. Vallejos,
et al., L-38974,
Mar.
25,
1975;
Zenith
Insurance
Corp.
vs. Purisima,
et al., G
.R.
No.
57535,
May
24,
1982).
15. I t ha s als o bee n hel d tha t while , a s a gen
era l
rule , certiorar i may no t b e availe d o f wher e an appea l i s
available an d an appea l lie s from a judgmen t by default ,
nevertheles s i f ther e wa s grav e abus e o f discretion on th e
par t o f th e tria l court , th e specia l civil action o f certiorar i
may
b e
availe d o f by
th e
aggrieve d part y
a s
thi s
i s
an
exception t o sai d genera l rule .
Certiorar i woul d provid e a
mor e speed y an d adequat e remed y sinc e

part y in a defaul t judgmen t ha d n o opportunit
evidence in th e tria l court ; hence , on appeal
serving evidenc e presente d by th e plaintif f in
reception
thereo f woul d
b e considere d
eaf
th e aggrieve d
y t o adduc e
, only th e selfth e ex parte
(Continental
L
197
----------------------- Page 198----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
Tobacco
[Phil.],
69243,
Nov.
22,
1985).
Inc.
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
16. A petitio n for relie f from th e orde r o f defaul

t
ma y b e filed a t an y tim e afte r discover y o f th e def
aul t
order an d befor e judgmen t
(Turqueza
vs. Hernando,
etc.,
et al., G.R.
No.
51626,
April
30,
1980).
Sai d
o
rde r of
default , however , i s no t appealabl e a s th e sam e i s a
n
interlocutor y
orde r
(Vda.
de Hoyo-a,
et al.
vs.
Virata,
et al., G.R. No.
71171, July 23, 1985) an d th e sam e i s tru
e
wit h a n orde r denyin g a motio n for th e reconsideratio n
o f th e defaul t order .
17.
I t
l e
a
default order ,
order denyin g
d e
a n o r d e r
t o r y b u t
final
and ,
al.
vs.
IAC, et al,
18.
thi s
section
default
doe s
sue d
h a s
als o
bee n
held ,
however ,
t h a t
whi
bein g interlocutory , i s no t appealable , a n

a petitio n for relief , seekin g t o se t asi
o f default ,
therefore ,
G.R.
No.
i s
no t
m e r e l y i n t e r l o c u
appealabl e
74816,
Mar.
(Rodriguez,
17,
1987).
I t shoul d no t b e overlooke d t h a t par .
, whic h e n u n
,
no t appl y wher
o r impleade d u
I t
contemplate s a clai m
action agains t severa l
c i a t e s
th e
rul e
e t
o n
(c) o f
p a r t i a l
e th e defendin g partie s ar e jointl y

n d e r separat e cause s o f action .
o r sui t upo n a commo n caus e o f
defendin g partie s a t leas t on e o f
who m file s a n answe r whil e th e other s ar e i n default .
19.
I f th e answerin g defendan t succeed s i n defeatin g
th e plaintif f s claim , suc h resul t inure s als o t o th e benefi t
of th e
defaultin g defendant s
1 0 Phil.
788;
Bringas
vs.
Hernando,
ept.
24,
1986).
(Velez
vs.
G.R.
No.
Ramos,
51933,
20 .
W h e r e
a c o - d e f e n d a n t wh o
file d h i s
a n s w e r
died an d th e cas e wa s dismisse d a s t o him , th e answe r h e
filed doe s no t inur e t o th e benefi t o f th e defendan t wh o
did no t file hi s ow n answer .
Neithe r wil l th e rul e
appl y
w h e r e
t h e d e f e n s e s a l l e g e d b y t h e d e f e n d a
n t w h o
198
----------------------- Page 199----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
answere d ar e persona l to him

us.
Magbonua,
et al.,
L-43851,
2 1 .
declared
Th e
defendan t
in defaul t an d
wh o
i s
(Luzon Surety Co., Inc.

July
faile d
deprive d
30,
t o
1976).
answe r
o f th e
shal l
b e
righ t t o tak e
par t in th e tria l and , in effect , h e submit s t o whateve

r
decision may b e rendere d on th e basi s o f th e answe r an d
evidence
adduce d by th e answerin g co-defendan t (Lim
Tanhu
us. Ramolete,
etc., et al., L-40098, Aug.
29,
1975;
cf. Co us. Acosta, et al,
G.R. No.
64591, Jan.
17,
1985).
22 . Ther e i s n o provision o f th e Rule s disqualifyin g
a part y declare d in defaul t from takin g th e witnes s stan d
for hi s co-defendants .
Th e
specifi c e n u m e r a t i
o n o f
disqualifie d
w i t n e s s e s exclude s
th e
operatio n
o f th e
cause s o f disabilit y othe r t h a n t o thos e
mentione d
i n
Sees .
19 , 2 0 an d 21 , Rul e 130 .
Th e provisio n o f th
e n
Sec. 2 , Rul e
1 8 t o th e effect tha t " a part y declare d
in
default shal l no t b e
entitle d
t o notic e
o f s u b s
e q u e n t
proceeding s nor t o tak e par t in th e trial " (now , par . [a]
of thi s section , a s amended ) mean s only th e forfeitur e o f
th e
defaultin g party' s
right s a s
part y
litigan t an d
not
a disqualificatio n from merel y testifyin g a s a witness .

The incidenta l benefit o f givin g th e part y in defaul t th e
opportunity t o presen t evidenc e which may eventuall y
redoun d t o hi s advantage , throug h hi s co-defendants , i s
of mino r consequence .
Ther e i s n o reaso n why th e non
d e f a u l t i n g d e f e n d a n t s s h o u l d b e
d e p r i v e d o
f t h e
testimony o f th e part y in defaul t an d thereb y als o suffer
th e consequence s o f th e
latter' s procedura l omissio n
(Cavili, et al.
us. Florendo, et al, G.R. No.
73039, Oct
. 9,
1987, an d case s jointly decide d therein) .
23 . Unde r par . (c) o f thi s section , whe n a common
cause o f action i s allege d agains t severa l defendants , tw o
of who m seasonabl y filed thei r answer s whil e th e other s
wer e declare d in default , th e answer s o f th e former inur e
t o th e benefi t o f th e
l a t t e r an d al l th e d e f e n
d a n t s ,
199
----------------------- Page 200----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
defaulted an d not defaulted , shar e a commo n fat e in th e

action .
I t i s not withi n th e authorit y o f th e tria l cour t
t o
divide th e cas e befor e it by first dismissin g th e same , on
motio n
o f th e plaintiff ,
a s a g a i n s t th e non-default
e d
defendant s an d thereafte r hearin g it ex parte a s agains t
t h e d e f a u l t e d d e f e n d a n t s an d
r e n d e r i n g a
d e f a u l t
judgmen t agains t them .
Thi s i s a n unfai r procedur e a
n d
deprive s
th e defaulte d
d e f e n d a n t s o f du e proces
s
a s
the y ar e thereb y denie d th e benefi t o f th e answe r an d th e
evidenc e whic h coul d hav e bee n presente d b y thei r non defaulte d co-defendants , an d whic h coul d b e considere d
in favor o f all .
Further , sai d orde r o f dismissa l diveste d
th e tria l cour t o f th e jurisdictio n t o procee d wit h th e cas e
since
al l th e defendant s ar e
obligor s
henc e
indispensabl e partie s (Lim Tanhu, et al.
etc.,
et al.,
supra).
24 . Th e
p e r t i n e n t
i l Cod e
provide d a s follows
"Art. 88 .
i n
solidum,
us. Ramolete,
p r o v i s i o n s o f
t h e Civ
N o judgmen t annullin g a marriag e shal l
b e
p r o m u l g a t e d upo n
stipulatio n
o f fact s
or
by
confession
o f judgment .
In cas e o f non-appearanc e o f th e defendan t th e

p r o v i s i o n s o f a r t i c l e 101 , p a r a g r a p h 2 ,
s h a l l b e
observed. "
"Art.
101 .
N o decre e o f lega l separatio n shal l b
e
p r o m u l g a t e d
u p o n
s o r b y
confession o f judgment .
In cas
court shal l
whethe r o r
I f ther e i
s t i p u l a t i o n o f
fact
o f non-appearanc e o f th e defendant , th e
orde r th e prosecutin g attorne y t o inquir e
no t a collusion betwee n th e partie s exists .
s n o collusion , th e prosecutin g attorne y shal l
interven e for th e Stat e i n orde r t o tak e car e t h a t t

h e
evidenc e for th e plaintif f i s no t fabricated. "
and ,
u n d e r th e sai d Code , ever y collusio n t o obtai n
a
decre e o f lega l separatio n or o f a n n u l m e n t o f marriag
e
200
----------------------- Page 201----------------------RULE 9
SEC. 3
wa s void
an d of no effect (Art.
Th e
therefore ,
not answe r
personall y
interventio n o f th e prosecutin g attorne y was ,

prope r an d require d wher e th e defendan t doe s
or , even i f h e ha s answered , h e doe s not appea r
o r b y counse l a t th e trial .
thi s
221).
Th e equivalen t provision s o f th e Famil y Cod e ar e t o

effect :
"Art. 48 . In al l case s o f annulmen t or declaratio n
of absolut e nullit y o f marriag e th e cour t shal l orde r
th e prosecutin g attorne y or fiscal assigne d t o i t t o
appear o n behal f o f th e Stat e t o tak e step s t o preven t
collusion betwee n th e partie s an d t o tak e car e
evidence i s no t fabricate d or suppressed .
tha t
I n t h e c a s e s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e p r e c
e d i n g
p a r a g r a p h , n o j u d g m e n t shal l b e base d
up
o n
a
stipulation o f fact s or confession o f judgment. "
"Art. 60 . N o decre e o f lega l separatio n shal l b e

base d upo n a stipulatio n of fact s or a confession of
judgment .
In an y case , th e cour t shal l orde r th e prosecutin g
attorney or fiscal assigne d t o it t o tak e step s t o preven t
collusion betwee n th e partie s an d t o tak e car e tha t
th e evidenc e i s not fabricate d or suppressed. "
25 .
A defaul t judgmen t rendere d i n a n annulmen t
case , eve n i f procedurall y erroneous , i s nevertheles s a
vali d judgmen t (De la Cruz vs. Ejercito, L-40895, Nov.
6,
1975).
20 1
----------------------- Page 202----------------------RUL E
A M E N D E D
I N G S
A N D
1 0
S U P P L E M E N T A L
P L E A D
S e c t i o n 1 .
Amendments
in general.
P l
e a d i n g s
m a y
b e a m e n d e d
b y
a d d i n g o r
s t r i k i n g
o u t a n
a l l e g a t i o n
o r
t h e
n a m e
o f a n y
p a r t y ,
o r
b y
c o r r e c t i n g a m i s t a k e i n t h e n a m e o f a part
y o r a
m i s t a k e n o r
i n a d e q u a t e a l l e g a t i o n o r d e s
c r i p t i o n
i n an y o t h e r r e s p e c t , s o t h a t t h e a c t u a l
m e r i t s o f
t h e
m a y
s p e e d i l y
b e
d e t e
r m i n e d ,
w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t e c h n i c a l i t i e s , a n d i n
t h e m o s t
e x p e d i t i o u s an d i n e x p e n s i v e m a n n e r . (1)
Sec .
7 .
Filing
a n y
p l e a d i n g
i s a m e n
e e n t i r e
p l e a d i n g ,
i n c o r p
w h i c h
shal l
b e i n d i c a t e
shal l b e
filed . (7a )
of
amended
d e d ,
pleadings.
a
o r a t i n g
d
b y
n e w
t h e
c o p y
o f
W h e n
t h
a m e n d m e n t s ,
m a r k s ,
NOTE S
1.
Amendment s t o a pleadin g shoul d b e indicate d in
th e amende d pleading , a s b y underscoring , enclosin g the m
in quotatio n marks , puttin g the m i n capita l letters , an d
so forth , a s woul d mak e the m readil y evident .
2 . Th e
amende d
pleadin g supersede s
th e
origina l
p l e a d i n g whic h
i s d e e m e d
w i t h d r a w n
an d
n
o
longe r
constitute s par t o f th e record .
However , th e filin g
o f th e
amende d pleadin g doe s no t retroac t t o th e dat e o f th e
filing o f th e original ,
hence ,
limitation s
run s
unti l th e
filin g o f th e a
e t al.
vs. Director of Lands,
34 Phil.
e n d m e n t
whic h merel y supplement s an d amplifie s
alleged i n th e complain t relate s bac k
e
commencemen t o f th e actio n an d i s
th e
s t a t u t e
m e n d m e n t
429).
o f
(Ruymann,
Bu t
an
a m
fact s originall y
t o th e dat e
o f th
no t
th e
barre d
by
202
----------------------- Page 203----------------------RULE 10
. 1, 7
AMENDED AND
SUPPLEMENTAL
SECS
PLEADINGS
statut e o f limitation s which expire d afte r th e servic e o f

th e origina l complain t (Panay Electric Co.
vs. CA,
et al.,
G.R. No. 59647, Dec. 11, 1982).
It is th e actua l filin
g in
cour t t h a t controls ,
an d
no t th e d a t e o f th e f
orma l
admission of th e amende d pleadin g
(Republic vs. Marsma
n
Dev.
Co.,
L-18956, April
27,
1972).
3 . Wher e th e origina l complain t state s a caus e o f
actio n
b u t doe s
i t i m p e r f e c t l y , a n d a f t e r w a
r d s a n
amende d complain t i s file d correctin g th e defect , th e
ple a o f prescriptio n wil l relat e t o th e tim e o f th e filing o
f
th e origina l complain t
(Pangasinan
Trans.
Co.
vs.
Phil.
Farming
Co.,
Ltd., 8 1 Phil.
273).
However ,
suc h
rul e
woul d not appl y t o th e part y wh o wa s impleade d for th e
first tim e in th e amende d complain t which wa s filed after
th e perio d o f prescriptio n ha d alread y lapsed , henc e th e
amende d complain t mus t b e dismisse d a s t o suc h part y
wh o wa s thu s belatedl y include d i n th e actio n
(Aetna
Insurance
Co.
vs.
Luzon
Stevedoring
Corp.,
L-2
5266,
Jan.
15,
1975; Seno,
et al. vs. Mangubat,
et al., L-4
4339,
Dec. 2,
1987).
4 . Th e rul e i s tha t amendment s shoul d b e liberally

allowed (Cese vs. GSIS,
109 Phil. 306).
Thi s liberality
at
th e outse t o f th e action decrease s a s th e cas e move s t o it s
terminatio n
(Salvador
vs. Frio,
L-25352,
May
29,
1970).
However , a m e n d m e n t s t o pleading s may b e permitte d
even for th e first tim e on appea l if, withou t changin g th e
cause o f action or causin g unfai r prejudic e t o th e othe r
party , th e purpos e i s t o (a) correc t a defec t o f part
y
plaintiff , a s wher e it i s merel y t o includ e th e husban d o f
th e plaintif f wif e
(Cuyugan
vs. Dizon,
79 Phil.
81
);
or
(b) s u b s t i t u t e th e nam e o f th e rea l part y i n i
nteres t
(Palacio vs. Fely Trans. Co., L-15121, Aug. 31,
1962;
Chua
Kiong
vs.
Whitaker,
46 Phil.
578; Alonso
vs.Villamor,
16
Phil. 320).
Thus , sinc e a sol e proprietorshi p i s a busines s
organization withou t juridica l personalit y t o sue ,
a n
amendment t o substitut e th e owne r thereo f a s plaintif f
203
----------------------- Page 204----------------------RULE 10
SEC. 2
is
onl y
a
forma l
a m e n d m e n t
(Juasing
vs.
Mendoza,
et al., G.R.
No.
55687,
July 30,
Thes e
ar e authorize d a s forma l a m e n d m e n t s unde r
o f
thi s Rule .
S e c
part y
m a y
a m
e r
o f
r i g h t a
e a d i n g
i s s e r v
y t i m e
w i t h i n
2.
e n d
Amendments
h i s
as a
matter of
p l e a d i n g
t a n y
t i m e
e d or ,
i n
b e f o r e
t h e c a s e
1982).
Sec .
right.A
o n c e
a
Hardware
a s
m a t t
r e s p o n s i v e
o f a
p l
r e p l y , a t a n
t e n (10 ) d a y s afte r i t i s s e r v e d . (2a )

NOTE S
1. Amendmen t for th e first tim e i s a m a t t e r o f

t
befor e a responsiv e pleadin g i s filed or , in th e cas e o f
reply , w i t h i n
1 0 day s afte r i t wa s served .
ever ,
a m e n d m e n t
for
t h e second
o r subsequent
t
righ
a
How
i m
e m u s t
alway s b e
wit h
leav e
o f cour t
eve n befor e
responsiv e
pleadin g i s filed o r befor e th e cas e i s se t i n th e calenda

r
of th e court .
Wher e som e bu t no t al l th e defendant s hav e filed thei r
answers , th e plaintif f ma y amen d hi s complaint , onc e a s
a m a t t e r o f right , in respec t t o th e claim s asserte d onl
y
agains t th e non-answerin g defendants , bu t no t a s t o th e
claim s asserte d agains t th e othe r defendant s wh o hav e
answere d
(Siasoco,
et al., vs.
CA,
et al., 362 Phil
.
525,
Republic
vs. Africa, et al., G.R.
No.
172315, Aug 28,
2007).
2 . Eve n afte r a motio n t o dismis s ha s bee n filed by
d e f e n d a n t (Paeste
vs.
Jaurigue,
94
Phil.
179)
o
r
suc h
motion ha s bee n submitte d for decision
(Republic vs
. Ilao,
L-16667, Jan.
30,
1962),
th e plaintif f ca n stil l amen
d hi s
complaint a s a m a t t e r o f right , sinc e a motio n t o dismis s
i s no t
n erro r
o f th e
e
by
m a n
Co.,
et
al,
L-14911,
responsiv e pleadin g withi n
thi s
rule .
cour t i n refusin g suc h a m e n d m e n t

d a m u s
84
(Breslin,
Phil.
618;
et
al.
Ong
vs.
Peng
i s
Luzon
vs.
controllabl
Stevedoring
Custodio,
204
----------------------- Page 205----------------------RULE 10
C. 2
AMENDED AND
SUPPLEMENTAL
Mar.
25,
1961;
les
L-27010,
April
SE
PLEADINGS
cf.
Dauden-Hernandez
30,
1969).
vs.
De
los
Ange
3 . Amendmen t o f th e complain t may b e allowe d even

if an orde r for it s dismissa l ha s bee n issue d a s lon g a s th
e
motion t o amen d i s filed befor e th e dismissa l orde r becam e
final (Constantino vs. Reyes, L-16853, June 29,
1963).
An
amende d answe r ma y als o b e allowe d even after th e cas e
ha d bee n se t for tria l on th e merit s i f th e purpos e o f th
e
amendment i s t o submi t th e rea l matte r i n disput e withou t
intent to dela y
th e actio n
(Paman
vs. Diaz et al.,
G.R.
No. 59582, Aug.
26,
1982; cf.
Sec.
3 of thi s Rule) .
4 . It ha s als o bee n hel d tha t a complain t ca n stil l b

e
amende d a s a m a t t e r o f righ t befor e an answe r theret o
ha s bee n filed , eve n i f ther e wa s a pendin g proceedin g in
a highe r cour t for th e dismissa l o f tha t complaint .
Unde r Sec . 3 o f Rul e 10, substantia l amendment s o f
th e complain t ar e no t allowe d withou t leav e o f cour t after
an a n s w e r ha s bee n served ,
an d thi s i s becaus e a
n y
materia l chang e i n th e allegation s i n th e complain t coul d
prejudic e
t h e d e f e n d a n t wh o h a s alread y se t u p
hi s
defense s i n hi s answer .
Conversely , n o right s o f th
e
d e f e n d a n t wil l b e violate d
b y c h a n g e s m a d e i n
th e
complaint i f h e ha s ye t t o file an answe r thereto .
Th e
defendant ha s
no t presente d an y defens e t h a t ca n b
e
altered or affecte d by an amendmen t mad e in accordanc e
with Sec . 2 o f th e Rule .
In fact , h e can thereafte r addres s
th e amende d allegation s by settin g up th e defense s theret o
in
hi s
projecte d
a n s w e r (Remington
Industrial
ales
Corp.
133657, May 29, 2002).
5 . Th e defens e o f prescription , which wa s
in a motion t o dismis s nor a s an affirmativ e
th e origina l answer , may b e validly se t up
tim e in an amende d answer .
Thi s situatio
violativ e
of,
becaus e
it doe s
not raise d
defens e in
for th e first
n woul d not b e
not fall under ,
rul e in the n Sec . 2 (now , Sec. 1), Rul e 9 .

h e
th e
genera l
Th e effect of t
205
----------------------- Page 206----------------------RULE 10
ECS. 3-4
filing

o f th e
amende d
answe r
i s
S
th e
withdrawa l
original answe r an d it s substitutio n by th e former .

Sinc e
in thi s cas e n o responsiv e pleading , suc h a s
ha d bee n filed
d
no t
bee n
calendare d
d
th e
b y
th e
for
plaintif f an d
hearing ,
th e
th e
o f th e
reply ,
cas e
defendan t
ha
ha
righ t t o amen d hi s answer , pursuan t t o Sec . 2 , Rul e 10,

an d i n th e proces s se t up th e defens e o f prescriptio n
(Aznar III,
et
81190,
May
9, 1988).
Sec .
c e p t
a s p r o v
c t i o n ,
s u b s t a n
u p o n
leav e o f
i f
i t a p p e a
al.
vs.
3 .
Amendments
i d e d
i n
Bemad,
t i a l
by
t h e
et
leave
n e x t
Bu t
t o
th e
s u c h
court.
No.
E x
p r e c e d i n g
b e
leav e
s e
m a d e
ma y
cour t tha t th e
wit h i n t e n t t o delay .
Order s o f
e
matter s provide d i n thi s sectio n shal l b
motio n file d i n court , an d afte r notic e
party , an d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e
al., G.R.
of
a m e n d m e n t s ma y
court .
r s
etc.,
motio n
b e
onl y
refuse d
w a s
mad e
th e cour t u p o n th
e m a d e u p o n
t o th e advers e
heard . (3a )
Sec .
4 .
Formal
amendments.
A
d e f e c t i
n t h e
d e s i g n a t i o n o f t h e partie s an d othe r clearl y clerica l
o r typographica l error s ma y b e summaril y correcte d
b y
t h e c o u r t a t a n y
s t a g e o f t h e a c t i o n ,
a t i t s
i n i t i a t i v e o r o n m o t i o n , p r o v i d e d n o p r e j
u d i c e i s
c a u s e d t h e r e b y t o th e a d v e r s e party . (4a )
NOTE S
1.
Sec .
eliminatin g th e
3 o f thi s Rul e amende d th e former rul e by

phras e "or tha t th e caus e o f actio n o r
defens e i s substantiall y altered. "

t o f
s u c h a m e n d m e n t
i s t h a t u n d e r
"th e
amendmen t may (now) substantiall y alte r th e
action or defense. "
Thi s shoul d only b
Th e
clea r
impor
t h e
ne w
Rul e
caus e o f
true , however ,
whe n despit e a substantia l chang e or alteratio n in th e

caus e o f action or defense , th e amendment s sough t t o b e
mad e shal l serv e th e highe r interest s o f substantia l justice ,
206
----------------------- Page 207----------------------RULE 10
S. 3-4
AMENDED AND
SEC
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
preven t dela y an d t h u s equall y promot e
th e laud
abl e
objective o f th e Rule s which i s t o secur e a "just , speedy
an d
i n e x p e n s i v e d i s p o s i t i o n o f ever y
a c t i o
n a n d
p r o c e e d i n g " (se e
Valenzuela,
et al.
vs.
CA,
e
t
al.,
G.R.
No.
131175,
Aug.
28,
2001).
Philippine
Ports
Authority
vs. William
Gothong, etc., Inc.,
G.R. No.
1
58401,
Jan.
28,
2008).
2 .
Amendment s ar e not prope r an d shoul d b e denied :
a . Wher e th e cour t ha
h e
original complain t an d th e purpos
t o confe r j u r i s d i c t i o n
n a t i n g
th e objectionabl e portio n
ang,
et al.,
9 6 Phil.
845),
or
actio n
originally pleade d
i n th
th e
jurisdictio n of th e
cour t
5609,
Nov.
27,
1968;
Campos
utista,
et al., L-18453,
Sept.
29,
mus t
first hav e jurisdictio n over th
such
amendmen t
(Caspar
n o jurisdictio n
ove r
e o f th e amendmen t i s
o n t h e c o u r t b y e l i m i
(Rosario,
et
w h e r e
t h e
complain t
al.
Versoza,
Corporation
1982),
cas e
vs.
outsid e
vs.
Rueda
Carand
c a u s e o f
wa s
(Versoza
vs.
vs.
sinc e
th e
befor e
it can
Dorado,
L-2
Ba
cour t
orde r
L-17884,
Nov.
29,
1965);
b . If it woul d resul t in delay
al.,
103 Phil.
1027; Sec. 3 of thi s Rule) ;
c.
(Lerma vs.
Reyes, et
I f it woul d resul t in a chang e o f th e caus e o f actio
n
or
defens e
or chang e
th e
theor y
o f th e
cas e
(Torres
vs
.
Tomacruz,
49
Phil.
914;
Sec.
3 of thi s Rule) ,
o
ar e
i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e o r
i g i n a l
complaint
(Castillo, et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 52
008,
Mar.
25,
1988),
unles s justic e an d equit y warran t such
a m e n d m e n t whic h woul d
negat e
defendant' s
liab
ilit y
(R&B Insurance
Co.,
et al. vs. Savellano,
et al., L-4
5234,
May 8,
1985),
or wil l not resul t in substantia l injur
y
to th e advers e
part y
(Marini-Gonzales
vs. Lood,
et al.,
L-35098,
Mar.
16,
1987); an d
r
d . I f th e plaintif f ha d n o caus e o f action at th e fili

ng
of th e origina l complain t an d th e purpos e o f th e amend 207
----------------------- Page 208----------------------RULE 10
SEC. 5
ment i s
action
68 Phil.
118).

t o introduc e
(Surigao Mine
a subsequently-accrue d caus e o f
Exploration
Co.
vs. Harris,
3 . T o determin e whethe r a different caus e o f action

i s introduce d by amendment s t o th e complaint , wha t i s
ascertaine d i s whethe r th e defendan t i s bein g require d t o
a n s w e r for a liabilit y
o r lega l obligatio n completel
y
different
from
t h a t s t a t e d i n th e origina l
comp
lain t
(Rubio
vs.
Mariano,
et al, L-30404, Jan.
31,
1973).
Th e
sam e tes t ma y b e applie d wit h respec t t o supplementa l
pleadings .
4 . A s earlie r stated , a plaintif f may mov e t o amen d
hi s complain t eve n i f th e sam e wa s dismisse d on motion o f
th e defendan t provide d th e dismissa l orde r i s not ye t final .
An orde r denyin g suc h motion t o amen d th e complain t i s
appealabl e an d th e
reglementar y perio d t o perfec t th
e
appea l run s from plaintiff s receip t o f th e orde r denyin g
hi s motion t o amen d th e complain t
(Constantino vs. R
eyes,
supra).
Sec .
5.
Amendment
to
conform
to
or
authorize
presentation
of evidence.
W h e n
i s s u e s no t
raise
d
by
th e p l e a d i n g s ar e trie d w i t h th e e x p r e s s o r impli
e d
c o n s e n t o f th e parties , the y shal l b e treate d i n
al l
r e s p e c t s a s i f t h e y ha d b e e n raise d i n th e p l e a d
i n g s .
S u c h
a m e n d m e n t
o f t h e p l e a d i n g s
a s m
a y
b e
n e c e s s a r y t o c a u s e t h e m t o c o n f o r m t o th e e v
i d e n c e
an d t o rais e t h e s e i s s u e s ma y b e m a d e u p o n motio n
o f an y part y a t an y time , e v e n afte r j u d g m e n t ;
t
failur e t o a m e n d
d o e s no t affec t th e resul t
f th e
bu
o
tria l o f t h e s e i s s u e s . I f e v i d e n c e i s objecte d
t o a t
t h e tria l o n t h e g r o u n d
t h a t i t i s no t w i t
h i n t h e
i s s u e s m a d e b y th e p l e a d i n g s , th e cour t ma y a
llo w
th e p l e a d i n g s t o b e a m e n d e d an d shal l d o s
o wi t h
liberalit y
i f th e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f th e
m e r i t s
o f th e
a c t i o n an d th e e n d s o f s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c
e wil l b e
208
----------------------- Page 209----------------------RULE 10
C. 5
AMENDED AND
SE
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
subserve d thereby . Th e cour t ma y gran t a continuanc e
t o e n a b l e th e a m e n d m e n t t o b e made . (5a )
NOTE S
1. Thi s i s a n instanc e wherei n th e cour t acquire
s
jurisdictio n ove r th e issue s eve n i f th e sam e ar e no t
alleged in th e origina l pleading s o f th e parties , i.e. , wher e
th e tria l o f sai d issue s i s wit h th e expres s o r imp
lie d
consent o f th e parties .
Also , thi s rul e i s premise d on th
e
fact tha t evidenc e ha d bee n introduce d on an issu e not
raise d b y th e pleading s withou t an y objectio n b y th e
advers e party .
It , therefore , doe s no t appl y whe n th
e
cas e
wa s decide d o n a
s t i p u l a t i o n o f fact s i n
whic h
case th e pleading s ar e no t deeme d amende d t o conform t o
th e
evidenc e
(MWSS
us.
CA,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
54
526,
Aug.
25,
1986).
2 . On e lin e o f case s hold s tha t wher e th e evidenc e
s u s t a i n s a n a w a r d i n exces s o f t h a t claime d
i n
th e
complaint , bu t th e plaintif f failed t o amen d th e praye r
of it s complain t a s t o th e amoun t o f damage s t o conform
t o th e evidence , th e amoun t demande d i n th e complain t
should b e th e measur e o f damage s [Malayan Insuranc e
Co. , Inc . vs . M a n i l a P o r t Service ,
e t al. , L-23128
,
Sept . 30 , 1978 ; J.M . Tuaso n & Co . vs . Santiago , 9 9 Phil .
615] .
Ther e have , however , als o been case s wher e th e
S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s hel d
t h a t eve n
w i t h o u t s
u c h
amendment t o conform t o th e evidence , th e amoun t prove d
at th e tria l may b e validly awarde d [Tuazon vs . Bolanos ,

9 1 Phil . 106] . Th e rul e on amendmen t nee d not b e applie d
rigidly , particularl y wher e n o surpris e or prejudic e i s
caused th e objectin g part y [Co Tiamc o vs . Diaz , 7 5 Phil .
672] an d wher e ther e i s a varianc e in th e defendant' s
pleading s an d th
may trea t th e
evidence [Nationa l
Apri l 16 , 1982]
e evidenc e adduce d a t th e trial , th e cour t

pleadin g a s amende d t o conform t o th e
Power Corp . vs . CA, et al. , L-43814 ,
.
209
----------------------- Page 210----------------------RULE 10

SEC. 6
Consequently , th e tria l cour t shoul d not b e preclude d

from awardin g a n amoun t highe r tha n tha t claime d i n
t h e p l e a d i n g s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e a b s e n c e
o f t h e
require d amendment , provide d tha t th e evidenc e o f suc h
highe r amoun t ha s bee n presente d properly ,
wit
h full
opportunity o n th e par t o f th e opposin g partie s t o suppor t
thei r respectiv e contention s an d t o refut e eac h other' s
evidenc e
(Northern
Cement
Corp.
us. IAC,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
68636, Feb.
29, 1988).
3 .
Wher e th e ejectmen t cas e wa s dismisse d b y th e
inferior cour t an d o n appea l th e plaintif f filed a n amende d
complain t t o include ,
a s a d d i t i o n a l caus e o f
action ,
c o n t r a c t u a l breac h b y th e d e f e n d a n t whic h
wa
s
no t
alleged i n th e origina l complain t bu t o n whic h issu e th e
p a r t i e s ha d p r e s e n t e d t h e i r respectiv e
evidence ,
a n
amende d complain t may b e admitte d sinc e th e amendmen t
i s t o mak e th e pleading s conform t o th e evidenc e (Dayao
us.
Shell
Co.
of the Phil.,
Ltd., et al., L-32475, April
30,
1980).
Sec .
6 . Supplemental
pleadings.
U p o n
m o
t i o n
o f a part y t h e cour t may ,
u p o n r e a s o n a b l e
notic e
an d u p o n s u c h term s a s ar e just , permi t h i m t o serv e
a s u p p l e m e n t a l p l e a d i n g s e t t i n g fort h t r a n s a
c t i o n s ,
o c c u r r e n c e s o r e v e n t s w h i c h h a v e h a p p e n e d
sinc e
th e d a t e o f th e p l e a d i n g s o u g h t t o b e s u p p l e m e
n t e d .
Th e a d v e r s e part y m a y plea d t h e r e t o w i t h i n t e n (
10)
d a y s
f r o m
n o t i c e
o f t h e
o r d e r a d m i t t i n g
t h e
s u p p l e m e n t a l
pleading .
(6a )
NOTE S
1.
pleadings :
tim e
Distinction s betwee n amende d an d supplementa l
a . Amende d pleading s refer t o fact s existin g a t th e

o f th e commencemen t o f th e action ; supplementa l
210
----------------------- Page 211----------------------RULE 10

SEC. 8
AMENDED AND
SUPPLEMENTAL
pleading s refe r t o
h e
original pleading .
fact s
PLEADING S
arisin g
afte r
th e
filin g
o f t
b . A n amende d pleadin g result s i n th e withdrawa l

of th e origina l pleading ; a supplementa l pleadin g i s merely
in additio n to , bu t doe s no t resul t in th e withdrawa l of,
th e origina l pleading .
c.
An amende d pleadin g ca n b e mad e a s o f right , a s
whe n n o responsiv e pleadin g ha s ye t bee n filed ; supple menta l pleading s ar e alway s wit h leav e o f court .
2 . Unlik e
cour t
coul d
r e q u i
o t h e
supplemental pleadin
it i s now up t o
th e
former provision
r e t h e
wherei n
a d v e r s e p a r t y
th e
t o p l e a d
g i f i t deeme d th e sam e advisable ,

sai d part y t o decid e whethe r or not t o plea d
thereto , provide d tha t i f h e desire s t o plea d h e mus t observ e

th e reglementar y perio d o f 1 0 day s therefor .
3 . Fo r correlation , Sec .
bee n
transpose d t o follow Sec . 1 thereof .
o f thi s
Rul e
ha s
Sec .
8.
Effect, of amended pleading. An a m e n d e d
p l e a d i n g s u p e r s e d e s th e p l e a d i n g tha t i t a
m e n d s .
However , a d m i s s i o n s i n s u p e r s e d e d pleading s ma y
b e r e c e i v e d i n e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t th e pleader ;
an d
claim s o r d e f e n s e s allege d therei n no t incorporate d
i n th e a m e n d e d p l e a d i n g shal l b e d e e m e d waived
,
(n)
N O T E S
1.
th e
of a
2
and
and
Th e first sentenc e o f thi s section
states , in general ,
effect on th e origina l pleadin g by th e subsequen t filing

pleadin g amendator y thereof .
See , however , Note s
3 unde r Sec . 1 o f thi s Rul e for th e qualification s to
ramification s o f thi s genera l rule .
2 . Althoug h th e
supersedur e o f th e origina l plead ing, upon th e admission o f th e amende d pleading , amount s
21 1
----------------------- Page 212----------------------RULE 10
SEC. 8
t o th e
withdrawa l o f th e
former ,
expunge d
from
i n
bu t
remain s
Referenc e ca n thereb y b
t o wit h
r e g a r d t o t h e effect
h a t is ,
(a) admission s i n th e
receive d
in evidenc e
s
or defense s
allege d
o r
reiterate d i n th e amende d
it
th e
i s
recor d
readil y
o f
nevertheles s
o f th e
not
mad e
case .
t h e r e
t h e a m e n d m e n t ,
supersede d pleadin g ca n stil l b e

agains t th e pleader , an d (b) claim
t h e r e i n
bu t no t
incorporate d
pleadin g ar e deeme d waived .
Th e first effect , tha t is , th e admissibilit y in evidenc e

o f whateve r admissio n ha d bee n mad e b y th e pleade r
therei n i s in lin e wit h th e ruling s on judicia l admissions .
It wil l b e note d tha t th e admissio n mad e i n tha t pleadin g
was , before it wa s supersede d by amendment , in th e natur e
o f a judicia l admissio n whic h doe s
no t eve n
r
equir e
proo f an d
o r d i n a r i l y c a n n o t b e c o n t r a d i c t e d
b y th e
pleader .
Despit e it s bein g supersede d an d withdrawn ,
th e admission s therei n ar e stil l considere d extrajudicia l
a d m i s s i o n s an d ma y b e prove d b y th e p a r t y
relyin g
t h e r e o n b y forma l offer i n evidenc e
o f suc h ori
gina l
pleading .
Se e note s unde r Sec . 4 o f Rul e 129 .
212
----------------------- Page 213----------------------RUL E
WHE N
T O
S e c t i o n 1.
T h e
FIL E
Answer
1 1
RESPONSIV E
to
PLEADING S
the
complaint.
d
a
w
o
u
e
i
i
n
n
f
n
t
s
l
e n d a n t shal l
fil e hi s
t
h i n fiftee n
(15)
d a y s
a n s w e r
afte r
t o
th e c o m p l
servic e
o f s u m m
e s s a differen t perio d i s fixe d b y th e court , ( l a )
Sec .
2.
Answer
of
a
defendant
rivate
juridical
entity.
Wher e
th e
d e f e n d
n
privat e juridica l entit y an d servic e o f s u
mad e o n th e g o v e r n m e n t officia l designate
t o r e c e i v e th e same , th e a n s w e r shal l
n
thirt y (30) day s afte r receip t o f s u m m o
entity .
foreign
a n t i s a foreig
m m o n s i s
d b y la w
b e file d withi
n s
b y
s u c h
(2a )
NOTE S
1. In th e cas e o f a nonresiden t defendan t on whom

extraterritoria l servic e o f summon s i s made , th e perio d t o
answer mus t b e at leas t 6 0 day s (Sec.
15, Rule 14).
2 . Th e grantin g o f additiona l tim e t o th e defendan t
w i t h i n whic h
t o fil e a n a n s w e r i s a m a t t e r la
rgel y
addresse d t o th e soun d discretio n o f th e tria l cour t
(Naga
Dev. Corp. vs. CA, et al., L-28173, Sept. 30, 1971).
For
eign
authoritie s ar e t o th e effect tha t whil e court s can exten d
th e tim e for filing o f responsiv e pleadings , the y ca n not
shorten th e tim e to do so ( 1 Martin 344, citin g Aaron vs.
Anderson, 18 Ark. 268, 49 C.J. 200).
Thi s seem s to be t
h e
intendmen t o f ou r rules , a s th e presen t Rul e provide s
for discretio n on th e par t o f th e cour t t o exten d th e tim e
or allow
thu s
pleading s
"Sec .
filed
11.
after
th e
Extension
of
reglementar y
time
to
period ,
plead.
Up
o n
motion an d on such term s a s may b e just , th e cour t
213
----------------------- Page 214----------------------RULE 11
SEC. 3
ma y
exten d
th e
tim e
t o
plea d
upo n
lik e
provide d
i n
th
es e
Rules .
Th e
cour t ma y
also ,
terms ,
allow
n
answer or othe r pleadin g t o b e
filed
after
th e
tim e
fixed by thes e Rules . (8a) "

It i s believed , however , tha t th e discretion o f th e cour
t
t o admi t pleading s filed after th e reglementar y perio d ha s
expired doe s not exten d t o th e step s necessar y t o perfec t
an appea l which mus t al l b e don e withi n th e reglementar y
period , unles s prio r t o it s expiratio n a n extensio n ha s been
sought an d grante d o n justifiabl e grounds .
3 . A motion for extensio n o f tim e t o file an answe r
be
hear d
an d
grante d
ex parte
(Amante
us.
Sunga,
L-40491,
May
28,
1975).
may
4 .
An orde r allowin g
th e
filing o f a
lat e
answe r
s
i n t e r l o c u t o r y a n d
no t
a p p e a l a b l e (De
us.
Republic,
L-19533,
Oct.
31,
1963).
Ocampo
Sec .
3.
Answer
to amended
complaint.
W
h e r e
th e plaintif f file s a n a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t a s a matte r
o f right , th e d e f e n d a n t shal l a n s w e r th e sam e w i t h
i n
fiftee n
(15 )
d a y s afte r
b e i n g s e r v e d w i t h
a c o p y
thereof .
,
W h e r e
it s filin g i s
t h e
f e n d a n t
s h a l l a n s w e
a i n t
t h i n
t e n (10 )
d a y s
r d e r
m i t t i n g th e same .
A
d e
p l
w i
o
a d
ma y
serv e a s th e a n s w e r t o th e
n o
n e w a n s w e r i s filed .
n o t
T h i s
R u l e
s h a l l
t o a n
a m e n d e d
c o u n t e r c l a
c l a i m ,
a m e n d e d
thir d
(fourth ,
d
a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t - i n
m a t t e r
t h e
a m e n d e d
f r o m
n
o f right
n o t i c e
c o m
a n s w e r
o f
earlie r
t h e
file d
a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t i f
a p p l y
i m ,
t o
t h e
a n s w e r
a m e n d e d
etc.)-part y
c r o s s -
c o m p l a i n t ,
- i n t e r v e n t i o n .
an
(3a )
214
----------------------- Page 215----------------------RULE 11
. 3
WHEN TO FILE
RESPONSIVE
PLEADINGS
NOT E
SEC
1. Thi s amende d section , whil e adoptin g th e perio d

provide d by th e former Rul e for th e filing o f an answe r
t o a n amende d complaint , now make s clea r th e dat e from
which suc h perio d shal l b e reckoned .
Thus , i f th e fi
ling
of an amende d complain t i s a matte r o f right , a s wher e
n o answe r ha s ye t bee n filed t o th e origina l complaint ,
n o motion for leav e or cour t orde r grantin g suc h leav e
t o file an amende d complain t bein g involved , th e 15-day
perio d t o answe r i s counte d from servic e o f th e amende d
complaint .
I f th e filing o f th e amende d complain t i s not
a matte r o f right , the n leav e o f cour t i s required , henc e
th e 10-day perio d t o answe r run s from notic e o f th e cour t
order grantin g th e same .
Thi s simplifie d procedur e ha s
bee n mad e possibl e by th e new provision s in Rul e 15 ,
tha t is , Sec . 9 thereo f which provide s tha t a motion for
leave t o file suc h pleadin g shal l b e accompanie d by tha t
pleadin g sough t t o b e admitted , henc e th e defendan t ha s
advanc e knowledg e o f tha t propose d amende d complaint .
See note s unde r sai d Sec . 9 .
Th e alternativ e practic e unde r th e old Rul e wa s for
th e pleade r t o file a motion for leav e t o amen d hi s complaint , attachin g theret o th e propose d amende d pleading ,
with copie s o f bot h furnishe d t o th e othe r party .
In su
c h
a case , th e perio d t o file a n answe r t o t h a t amend
e d
complaint commence s afte r receip t o f th e orde r o f th e
cour t
allowin g
th e filin g o f suc h amende d
pleading .
Where , however , a motion for leav e t o amen d wa s first
filed an d then , afte r th e orde r grantin g th e same , th
e
amende d pleadin g wa s filed an d serve d on th e opposin g
party , th e reglementar y perio d starte d t o ru n from servic e
of such amende d pleading .
Thus , Sec . 3 wa s understoo d
t o mea n t h a t th e perio d shal l "ru n from notic e o f
th e
order admittin g th e amende d complaint " or th e servic e o f
th e latter , whicheve r i s later .
Tha t procedur e ha s been
215
----------------------- Page 216----------------------RULE 11
. 4-6, 6
SECS
simplified b y th e aforesai d amendments , an d ha s bee n

extende d i n applicatio n t o th e answe r t o othe r amende d
initiatory pleadings .
Se e Sec . 7 o f thi s Rul e wit h resp
ec t
to a supplementa l complaint .
Sec .
4.
Answer to counterclaim
or cross-claim.
A
o r c r o s s - c l a i m m u s t
b e a n s
w e r e d
w i t h i n t e n (10) day s fro m service . (4)

Sec .
6 . Answer
to
third
(fourth,
etc.)-party
complaint.
Th e tim e t o a n s w e r a thir d (fourth , etc.) part y c o m p l a i n t shal l b e g o v e r n e d b y th e s a m e ru
l e
a s th e a n s w e r t o th e complaint . (5a )
N O T E S
1. J u s t a s provide d
i n Rul e
6 , t h e t h i r
d - p a r t y
d e f e n d a n t shal l file
hi s a n s w e r allegin g
t h e r
e i n hi s
defense s an d hi s counterclaim s an d cross-claim s agains t
th e plaintiff , th e third-part y plaintif f o r an y othe r party ;
an d h e
ma y
a s s e r t suc h defense s
a s th e t h i
r d - p a r t y
plaintif f ma y hav e agains t th e plaintiff s claim .
2 . T h e
t h i r d - p a r t y d e f
d w i t h
summon s jus t lik e th e origina l defendant
ha s 15 , 3 0 or 6 0 day s from servic e
cas e
ma y be , t o file hi s answe r
na l
defendant .
Sec .
6 .
(10)
d a y s
p o n d e d
to . (6)
e n d a n t
i s
s e r v e
, henc e h e als o
o f summons , a s th e
jus t lik e th e origi
Reply. A repl y ma y b e file d w i t h i n t e n

fro m
s e r v i c e
o f th e
p l e a d i n g
r e s
N O T E S
1.
Thi s section use s th e wor d "may " a s it i s ordinaril y
optional for a part y t o file a reply since , by hi s failur e t o

d o so , al l
e c e d e n t
th e
ne w
m a t t e r s
allege d
i n
th e
a n t
216
----------------------- Page 217----------------------RULE 1 1
SEC. 6
WHEN TO FILE
RESPONSIVE
PLEADINGS
pleadin g ar e deeme d controverted .

However , i f h e ele
ct s
to file a reply , h e mus t observ e th e abov e period .
2 . Wher e th e las t day o f th e reglementar y perio d
falls on a Sunda y or holiday , th e pleadin g may b e filed
or t h e r e q u i r e d ac t ma y b e don e o n
th e succeedi
n g
busines s day .
Althoug h pleading s may als o b e serve d
and filed by mai l (Sec. 3, Rule 13), it ha s been hel d tha t
even i f th e Burea u o f Post s an d it s branche s ar e open
on a holiday which i s th e las t day for filing a pleading ,
such pleadin g may stil l b e filed on th e nex t day (Galang
us. WCC, et al., L-33928, Mar. 29,
1972).
3 . In th e computatio n o f th e reglementar y period ,
especially i f it i s interrupte d by th e filing o f a pleading ,
th e d a t e whe n
t h e pleadin g i s filed an d
th e dat
e
o f
receip t o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r orde r t h e r e o n ar e
t o b e
excluded .
Thus , whe n th e motion for reconsideratio n o f
a judgmen t i s filed on th e 15th or las t day withi n which
t o perfec t th e appeal , tha t day shoul d b e exclude d an d
th e part y stil l ha s on e da y t o perfec t a n appeal .
Th e
filing o f sai d motion an d th e pendenc y thereo f suspend s
th e r u n n i n g o f th e r e g l e m e n t a r y period , unles s
sai d
motio n
i s pro forma.
Where ,
thereafter ,
an
orde
r
i s
receive d denyin g sai d
motio n for reconsideration ,
th e
dat e o f suc h receip t i s als o no t considere d in th e com
putation .
Thus , excludin g suc h dat e o f receip t an d ther e
bein g a balanc e o f on e day o f th e reglementar y period ,
th e appea l ca n b e perfecte d on th e workin g day following
th e da y
o f receip t o f th e
denia l order .
Thi s
r
ulin g
clarifies
an d
set s asid e
th e doctrine s
in Federal Fi
lms,
Inc.
us. Judge of First
Instance of Manila
[78
Phil .
472]
and Taroma us. Cruz, et al. [6 8 Phil . 281] (Lloren us. De
Veyra,
L-13929,
Mar.
28,
1962).
Th e aforesai d doctrin e in
declare d
applicabl e
w h e t
deration i s filed day s befor e
e
reglementar y period .
Wher
y ,
Lloren wa s reiterate d an d
h e r th e motio n for reconsi
or on
e suc h
th e
motion
las t day
i s
o f th
filed ,
sa
217
----------------------- Page 218----------------------RULE 11
SEC. 7
2 day s befor e th e en d o f th e reglementar y perio d o f

appeal , th e dat e o f filing shal l b e adde d t o th e remainin g
day s o f th e period .
A s alread y stated , th e pendenc y o f
suchmotion shal l b e deducte d from , sinc e i t suspends , th e
r e g l e m e n t a r y perio d
u n l e s s i t fail s t o satisf y
t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Rul e
3 7 (Sec.
2).
I f t h e motio
n
i s
thereafte r denied , th e 3 remainin g day s o f th e perio d shal l
start t o ru n agai n on th e day after th e receip t o f th e orde
r
denyin g th e
motio n (De las Alas,
et al. vs. CA,
et al.,
L-38006,
May
16,
1978;
Mayor
vs.
IAC,
et
al.
,
G.R.
No.
74410, May
4, 1988).
Sec .
7.
Answer
to
supplemental
complaint.
A
s u p p l e m e n t a l c o m p l a i n t ma y
b e a n s w e r e d
w i t h i n
t e n (10 ) d a y s fro m notic e o f th e orde r a d m i t t i n g th e
same ,
T h e
a s t
a n s w
e w o
s u p p
u n l e s s a differen
a n s w e r t o t h
h e
e r t o th e s u p p
r
l e m e n t a l a n s w
t perio d i s fixe d b y th e court .

e c o m p l a i n t s h a l l s e r v e
l e m e n t a l c o m p l a i n t i f n o n
e r i s filed , (n )
NOT E
1.
Thi s i s a new provision whic h remedie s th e over sight in th e old Rul e which di d no t provid e for an answe r
t o a supplementa l complain t althoug h th e allegation s
t h e r e i n ma y
ver y
wel l
n e c e s s i t a t e t h e a p p r
o p r i a t e
response , clarificatio n or denial .
Sinc e th e filin
g o f a
s u p p l e m e n t a l complain t
r e q u i r e s leav e o f court
,
th e
procedur e for filing an answe r theret o i s simila r t o th e
case o f an amende d complain t th e filing o f whic h i s not
a m a t t e r o f right , henc e
likewis e
r e q u i r i n g
leav e o f
court therefo r (se e 2nd par., Sec. 3 of th e Rule) .
Howe
ver ,
unlik e th e latter ,
th e cour t ma y fix a differen t per
io d
for answerin g th e supplementa l complain t in lieu o f th e
r e g l e m e n t a r y 10-da y period .
Th e
differenc e
m
a y b e
ascribed t o th e fact tha t i n a n amende d complaint , th e
fact s sough t
lread y
t o
b e
incorporate d
therei n
wer e
218
----------------------- Page 219----------------------RULE 11
. 8-11
WHEN TO FILE
RESPONSIVE
PLEADINGS
SECS
known t o bu t wer e merely omitte d by th e pleade r and , in

all probability , wer e likewis e know n t o th e defendin g
party .
Th e supplementa l complaint , o n th e othe r hand ,
seeks th e introductio n o f fact s or event s which occurre d
or supervene d afte r th e filing o f th e origina l complaint ,
hence ,
for lac k o f knowledg e
thereof ,
th e defend
in g
part y ma y nee d a longer perio d o f tim e t o ascertai n an d
respon d t o th e allegation s thereof .
Sec .
8.
Existing
counterclaim
or
cross-claim.
A
c o m p u l s o r y c o u n t e r c l a i m o r a c r o s s - c l a i m
t h a t a
d e f e n d i n g part y ha s a t th e tim e h e file s hi s a n s w e
r
shall b e c o n t a i n e d therein . (8a , R6)
Sec .
after
answer.
9.
A
Counterclaim
or
o r
cross-claim
a
arising
cross-clai m
e i t h e r m a t u r e d o r w a s a c q u i r e d b y a
afte r
servin g hi s p l e a d i n g may , wit h th e
p e
i o n o f
t h e court , b e p r e s e n t e d a s a c o u n t e r c l a i
cross clai m
b y s u p p l e m e n t a l p l e a d i n g befor e
e n t .
(9, R6)
Sec .
10 .
im.
Whe n a pleade r fail s
c r o s s - c l a i m t h
c e , o r
excusabl e neglect , o r
b y leav e o f court ,
clai m b y a m e n d m e
Sec .
p o n
motio
may
t h e
Rules
11 .
Omitted
counterclaim
or
w h i c h
part y
r m i s s
m o r a
j u d g m
cross-cla
t o se t u p a c o u n t e r c l a i m o r a
r o u g h o v e r s i g h t , i n a d v e r t e n
w h e n justic e requires , h e may ,
se t u p th e c o u n t e r c l a i m o r cross
n t befor e judgment . (3a , R9)
Extension
n an d o n s u c h term s
e x t e n d
t h e t i m
s e
.
Th e cour t ma y also ,
answe r o r othe r p l e a d i n
fixed b y t h e s e Rules . (7)
of
time
to
plead.
a s ma y b e just , th e cour t
t o plea d
p r o v i d e d i n
upo n lik e terms , allo w a n

g t o b e file d afte r th e tim e
219
----------------------- Page 220----------------------RULE 11

. 8-11
SECS
NOTE S
1. Sec .
1 1 i s
e r
Sec. 2 o f thi s Rule .
commente d
o n
i n
th e
note s
u n d
2 . Se e th e discussio n i n th e note s unde r Sees .

6
and 7 o f Rul e 6 which poin t ou t tha t an after-acquire d
counterclaim or cross-clai m may b e se t up by filin g a
supplementa l pleading , whil e a n omitte d counterclai m o r
cross-clai m
ma y
b e raise d
i n a n a m e n d e d
p l
e a d i n g
p u r s u a n t t o an d unde r th e condition s in Sees . 9 an d 1 0
o f
thi s Rule .
It i s als o note d therei n tha t a counterclai m or cross clai m
nee d
no t b e a n s w e r e d i f i t i s b a s e d
o n o r i s
inseparabl e from th e defense s raise d by th e opposin g party ,
or merel y alleg e th e opposit e o f th e fact s in th e complaint .
Also , wher e th e counterclai m or cross-clai m i s only for
damage s or attorney' s fee s arisin g from th e filing o f th e
complaint , i t nee d no t b e answered .
Thes e doctrine s al
s o
apply t o after-acquire d or omitte d counterclaim s an d cross claim s subsequentl y allowe d by th e cour t t o b e filed in th e
action .
220
----------------------- Page 221----------------------RUL E
BIL L
S e c t
efor e
r e s p o n d i
mor e definit
o f an y m a
i o n
1.
O F
When
1 2
PARTICULAR S
applied
for;
purpose.
n g t o a pleading , a part y ma y mov e fo r a

e s t a t e m e n t o r fo r a bil l o f particular s
t t e r w h i c h i s no t averre d wit h sufficien t
d e f i n i t e n e s s o r particularit y t o enabl e h i m properl y

t o p r e pa r e hi s r e s p o n s i v e pleading .
I f th e p l
e a d i n g
i s a reply , t h e m o t i o n m u s t b e file d withi n t e n (10)
day s fro m s e r v i c e thereof .
S u c h motio n shal l poin
t
o u t t h e
d e f e c t s c o m p l a i n e d
of,
t h e p a r a g
r a p h s
w h e r e i n t h e y ar e c o n t a i n e d , an d th e detail s desired
,
(la )
NOTE S
1.
Unde r thi s revise d Rule , th e purpos e o f a bill o f
particular s i s t o enabl e th e defendin g part y

p r e p a r e hi s
r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n
forme r
f o r m u l a t i o n , t h e o t h e r p u r p o s e
d l y t o
enabl e hi m "t o prepar e
for trial, "
a t e m e n t
ha s bee n eliminate d for bein g inaccurate .
ther e
ar e othe r an d mor e prope r remedie s or mode s
whereb y a part y ma y char t hi s cours e o f
prospectiv e trial .
t o properl y
g . U n d e r th e
w a s
bu t
s u p p o s e
t h a t
s t
Besides ,
o f discovery
action for th e
2 . W h a t
ma y
b e c o n s i d e r e d a s a
r a t i o
n a l e for
requirin g a bil l o f particular s in prope r case s i s that ,
whil e pleading s shoul d b e
liberall y construe d wit h
a
view t o substantia l justice , court s shoul d not b e left t o
conjecture in th e determinatio n o f th e issue s submitte d
b y th e
l i t i g a n t s . Wher e
th e pleadin g i s vagu e
an d
uncertain , court s shoul d not b e led t o th e commission o f
error or injustic e by explorin g in th e mids t o f uncertaint y
an d
d i v i n i n g th e i n t e n t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s fr
om
th e
221
----------------------- Page 222----------------------RULE 12
ECS. 2-4
ambiguitie s in th e pleading s (Go

Costa, et al.,
63 Phil.
445).
Occo
S
&
Co.
vs.
De
la
3.
Th e grantin g o f a motion for a bil l o f particular s
withi n th e
soun d discretio n o f th e cour t an d
it s
rulin g wil l no t b e reverse d unles s ther e wa s palpabl e
abus e o f discretio n or it wa s a clearly erroneou s order .
Thus , th e Suprem e Cour t refuse d t o distur b th e orde r o f
th e tria l cour t dismissin g th e complain t wher e plaintif f
refuse d t o submi t a bill o f particular s despit e th e court' s
order therefor , i t appearin g tha t th e allegation s o n th e
caus e o f actio n wer e in th e natur e o f lega l conclusion s
lie s
whic h
shoul d
hav e
bee n
t e fact s
(Santos
vs. Liwag,
L-24238,
clarifie d
Nov.
b y
28,
u l t i m a
1980).
Sec . 2 .
Action by the court. Upo n th e
fil
in g o f
th e
m o t i o n , t h e cler k o f c o u r t m u s t
i m m e d
i a t e l y
b r i n g i t t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e c o u r t w h i
c h m a y
e i t h e r d e n y o r gran t i t outright , o r allo w th e partie s

th e o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e heard ,
Sec .
s
g r a n
i a n c
t h e r
m
notic e
b y t
a m o
definit
e i t h
e a d i
s e r v
n )
3 .
Compliance
(n )
with order.
I f th e
m o t i o n
t e d , e i t h e r i n w h o l e o r i n part , th e c o m p l
e
e w i t h m u s t b e effecte d w i t h i n te n (10) day s fro
o f th e order ,
e c o u r t .
e
s t a t e m e n
r i n a s e
g ,
n g a cop y t
u n l e s s a differen t perio d i s fixe d

T h e
bil l o f p a r t i c u l a r s o r
h
r
e
e
n
i
t ordere d b y th e cour t ma y b e file d

p a r a t e o r i n a n a m e n d e d
p l
h e r e o f o n
Sec .
4 . Effect of
s
no t o b e y e d , o r
i n
n c e
t h e r e w i t h , th e cour t
o f
th e
p l e a d i n g o r th e
c h th e
orde r w a s directe d o r m a
th e
a d v e r s e
non-compliance.
I f th e
c a s e o f insufficien t
ma y orde r th e
por t i o n s
k e
s u c h
party ,
orde r
c o m p l i a
s t r i k i n g ou t
t h e r e o f t o
o t h e r orde r a s
w h i
i t
d e e m s just . (l[c]a )
222
----------------------- Page 223----------------------RULE 12
CS. 5-6
BILL OF PARTICULAR S
SE
NOTE S
1. Thes e new or amende d provision s spel l ou t th e
mechanic s involve d in th e obtentio n o f a bill o f particular s
and th e sanction s for non-complianc e therewith .
Ju
dicia l
experienc e show s t h a t resor t t o a motio n for a bil l
o f
particular s i s sometime s actuall y intende d for delay or ,
even i f no t s o intended ,
nonetheles s result s i n dela
y
since th e r e g l e m e n t a r y perio d for filin g a responsiv
e
pleadin g i s suspende d
an d
th e subsequen t exchange s
ar e likewis e se t bac k i n th e meantime .
2 . Sec . 3 i s a new provisio n whic h i s intende d t
o
clarify how a bil l o f particular s ma y b e filed , t h a t
is ,
throug h eithe r a separat e o r a n amende d pleading .
Thus ,
th e former provisio n in Sec . 1(b) o f th e old

a
bil l o f p a r t i c u l a r s "shal l b e governe d
e s o f
pleadin g an d th e origina l shal l b e filed wit h th
court " ha s bee n eliminate d i n th e reproductio
former provision a s Sec . 6 o f th e presen t Rule .
Said
a bill o f
a s not al
necessarily
Rul e
by
tha t
th e
rul
e clerk o f
n o f tha t
Sec . 3 furthe r make s it clea r tha t th e motion for

particular s may b e grante d in whol e or in par t
l th e allegation s questione d b y th e movan t ar e
s o ambiguou s a s t o requir e clarification .
Sec .
Afte r servic
definit e
o f hi s
motion , th e
s i v e
p l e a d i n g
d
at th e tim e
les s t h a n
5 .
Stay
of period
to
file
responsive pleading.
e o f th e bil l o f particular s o r o f a mor e

p l e a d i n g , o r afte r notic e
o f d e n i a l
m o v i n g
part y
ma y
fil e
hi s
r e s p o n
w i t h i n th e perio d t o w h i c h h e w a s entitle
o f filin g hi s motion , w h i c h shal l
fiv e (5 ) day s i n an y event . (l[b]a )
no t b e
Sec .
6 . Bill
a
part
of pleading.
A
bil l
of
particular s b e c o m e s par t o f th e pleadin g fo r w h i c h
i t i s intended . (l[a]a )
223
----------------------- Page 224----------------------RULE 12
CS. 5-6
SE
NOTE S
1. A s understoo d unde r Sec . 1 o f thi s Rule , a motion
for a bil l o f p a r t i c u l a r s m u s t b e file d
w i t h
i n t h e
r e g l e m e n t a r y perio d
for
th e filin g
o f a r e s p
o n s i v e
pleadin g t o th e pleadin g sough t t o b e clarified . Thi s
contemplate s pleading s which ar e require d b y th e Rule s
t o b e a n s w e r e d u n d e r pai n o f p r o c e d u r a l s a
n c t i o n s ,
such a s defaul t o r implie d
admissio n o f th e
fact
s
no t
responde d to .
A specia l provision regardin g a vagu e reply
is include d in Sec . 1 , tha t is , tha t a motion for a bil l o
f
particular s directe d t o a reply mus t b e filed withi n 1 0
days , sinc e a responsiv e pleadin g i s no t require d for a
reply as , in fact , th e filing o f th e reply itsel f i s optiona
l
or permissiv e (se e Sec. 6, Rule 1 1 an d note s thereon) .
2 . Thi s specification o f a reply took th e plac e o f th e

former provision which merel y provide d for t h a t 10-day
perio d i f th e pleadin g sough t t o b e clarifie d i s on e
t o
whic h "n o responsiv e pleadin g i s p e r m i t t e d b y thes e
rules. "
Tha t i s in itsel f correc t bu t ma y b e susceptibl e o
f
misunderstandin g sinc e ther e ar e othe r pleading s evolve d
an d
sanctione d
b y practic e
a s responsiv e
pleadi
ngs ,
which ar e o f America n vintag e bu t no t expressl y provide d
for in ou r Rules .
Thus ,
afte r th e
reply ,
ther e ca n b e a rejoinde r wit h
a sur-rejoinde r an d the n a rebutte r wit h

I f thes e subsequen t pleading s ar e allowe d
a s responsiv e pleading s whic h ar e no t
least authorized , the n it woul d b e logica
a sur-rebutter .
b y th e court ,
require d bu t a t
l for it t o fix a
perio d for th e filing of a motion for a bil l o f particular s

wheneve r th e sam e i s necessar y t o mak e mor e definit e
th e allegation s i n sai d pleadings .
t o
3 .
th e
Judicia l experience , however , reveal s tha t resor t

filin g o f rejoinder s an d sur-rejoinder s o r othe r
subsequent pleading s wer e often resorte d t o for dilator y

purposes , wit h th e partie s intentionall y leavin g incomplet e
224
----------------------- Page 225----------------------RULE 12
ECS. 5-6
BILL OF PARTICULARS
thei r anteceden t pleading s in orde r t o justify th e gran t o f

leave t o file sai d subsequen t pleadings .
Consequently , th e Suprem e Cour t resolve d in A . M.
No.
99-2-04-SC
t o d i s p e n s e w i t h r e j o i n d e r s
an d
t o
substitut e a different procedur e t o subserv e th e purpos e
of affecte d partie s on a mor e meaningfu l an d productiv e
proces s designe d t o enhanc e an d expedit e judicia l action
on th e cas e
(se e Appendix R).
4 . Th e filin g o f a motio n for a bil l o f particul
ar s
interrupt s th e tim e t o plead , bu t only i f it i s sufficient in
form an d s u b s t a n c e .
F u r t h e r m o r e , th e motio n
m u s t
comply wit h Sees . 4 an d 5 , Rul e 1 5 on th e servic e an d
content s of th e notic e of motion s
(Filipinos Fabricators
&
Sales,
Inc.
vs.
Magsino,
et al., L-47574,
Jan.
29,
1988),
which provision s hav e bee n substantiall y

th e presen t revise d Rul e 15 .
reproduce d
i n
5 . I f th e motio n i s granted , th e movan t ca n

t
unti l th e bill o f particular s i s serve d on him by th e opposin g
p a r t y a n d t h e n h e
wil l
h a v e t h e b a l a n c
o f t h e
reglementar y perio d withi n whic h t o file hi s responsiv e
pleading .
I f hi s motio n i s denied , h e wil l stil l hav
uc h
balanc e o f th e reglementar y perio d t o d o so , counte d from
service o f th e orde r denyin g hi s motion .
In eithe r
e , h e
will hav e at leas t 5 day s t o file hi s responsiv e pleading .
6 .
Regardin g th e availabilit y
an d
th e
wai
e
e s
cas
rol e o f a bill
of particular s in crimina l cases , se e Sec . 9 , Rul e 116 an d

th e note s thereon .
225
----------------------- Page 226----------------------RUL E
FILIN G AN D
JUDGMENT S
1 3
SERVIC E O F PLEADINGS ,
AN D
OTHE R
PAPER S
S e c t i o n 1 . Coverage. Thi s
Rul e
shal l g o
v e r n
th e filin g o f al l p l e a d i n g s an d othe r papers , a s wel l
a s t h e s e r v i c e thereof ,
e x c e p t t h o s e fo r
i c h
a
differen t m o d e o f servic e i s prescribed , (n )
w h
Sec .
2 .
Filing and service, defined. Filin g i s th e
ac t o f p r e s e n t i n g th e p l e a d i n g o r othe r pape r t o
th e
cler k o f court .
S e r v i c e i s th e ac t o f p r o v i d i n g a part y
w i t h a
c o p y o f t h e p l e a d i n g o r p a p e r c o n c e r n e d .
I f a n y
part y h a s a p p e a r e d
b y c o u n s e l , s e r v i c e u p
o n h i m
s h a l l b e m a d e
u p o n
h i s c o u n s e l o r o n e o f
t h e m ,
u n l e s s servic e u p o n th e part y h i m s e l f i s o r d e r e d
b y
th e court .
Wher e o n e c o u n s e l a p p e a r s fo r sev
era l
parties , h e shal l onl y b e e n t i t l e d t o o n e c o p y o f a
n y
pape r serve d u p o n h i m b y th e o p p o s i t e side . (2a )
NOTE S
1.
I t i s th e dut y o f counse l t o adop t an
trictl y
maintai n a syste m tha t efficiently take s int o accoun t al
court notice s sen t t o him .
Hi s failur e t o d o s
anno t
excuse hi m from th e consequence s o f hi s non-receip t o f
court
notice s
(Babala
vs.
CA,
et al.,
L-23065,
b.
16,
1970;
Republic
vs. Arro,
et al., L-48241,
June
1987;
Antonio,
et al. vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No.
77656,
g.
31,
1987).
An attorne y o f recor d mus t notify th e cour t o f
chang e o f address .
l
o
c
Fe
11,
Au
hi s
Th e fact tha t counse l use d a different
addres s i n late r pleading s

r e q u i r e d for
indicatin
s s (Phil.
Suburban
Dev.
Corp.
t.
17,
1980).
Se e als o Sec . 3
doe s not constitut e th e notic e

hi s chang e
o f a d d r e
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
L-33448,
Sep
, Rul e 7 an d th e note s thereunder .

226
----------------------- Page 227----------------------RULE 13

1-2
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS,
SECS
JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS

2 . Notic e given t o a part y wh o i s duly represente d
by counse l is a nullit y
(Inocando vs. Inocando,
110 Phi
l.
266; Elli vs. Ditan,
L-17444,
June
30,
1962; Republic
vs.
Arro,
et al., supra; Antonio,
et al. vs. CA,
et al., supr
a),
unles s servic e thereo f o n th e part y himsel f wa s ordere d
by th e cour t or th e technica l defect wa s waive d
(Nationa
l
Lumber
&
Hardware
Co.
vs.
Manaois,
106
Phil.
109
8;
Jalover vs.
Ytoriaga,
L-35989,
Oct.
29, 1977; De Leon
vs.
CA, et al, G.R.
No.
138884, June
6, 2002).
3 . Wher e
receivin g
statio n
notic e
a t
o f th e
th e
decision wa s
groun d
company building , an d receive d

of it s lega l counse l on th e
floor
serve d
o f th e
on
th e
defendant' s
muc h late r a t th e office

nint h floor o f sai d building ,
which wa s hi s addres s o f record , servic e o f sai d decision

take s effect from sai d late r receip t at th e aforesai d office
of it s lega l
c o u n s e l (PLDT
vs.
NLRC,
et
al,
R.
G.
No. 60050, Mar. 26,

1984).
However , wher e counse l wh o
ha d thei r office o n th e thir d floor o f th e buildin g h
a d
virtuall y
acquiesce d t o servic e
o f pleading s o n t h e
m
throug h a corporatio n on th e groun d floor o f th e buildin g
by not objectin g t o previou s servic e throug h th e latter ,
subsequent servic e
in suc h m a n n e r i s vali d (PCIB
vs.
Ortiz,
et al., L-49223,
May 29,
1987).
4 . Wher e a part y i s represente d by mor e tha n on e
counsel o f record , servic e o f notic e on an y o f th e latte r i s
sufficient
(Damasco
vs. Arrieta,
L-18879,
Jan.
31,
1963
).
Service on counse l o f recor d i s notic e t o th e part y unles s
th e irresponsibilit y o f suc h counse l denie s th e part y o f
hi s
,
Nov.
da y
28,
in
cour t
(PHHC
vs.
Tiongco,
et
al.,
L-18891
5 . I n
1964).
crimina l
cases ,
notic e
t o
th e
prosecutio n
s
mad e on th e fiscal an d th e privat e prosecuto r i s deeme d
constructively
notifie d thereo f (Buro
vs. Montesa,
et
al.,
8 7 Phil. 245).
Th e court , of course , coul d als o caus e
a
copy thereo f t o b e serve d on sai d privat e prosecutor .
227
----------------------- Page 228----------------------RULE 13
SEC. 3
Sec .
3 .
Manner of filing.
Th e
filin g
o f
plead i n g s , a p p e a r a n c e s ,
m o t i o n s ,
n o t i c e s ,
o r d e r s ,
j u d g m e n t s an d al l othe r paper s shal l b e m a d e b
y
p r e s e n t i n g
t h e o r i g i n a l c o p i e s t h e r e o f ,
p l a i n l y
indicate d a s such , personall y t o th e cler k o f cour t
o r b y s e n d i n g t h e m b y registere d mail .
I n
th e firs t
case , th e cler k o f cour t shal l endors e o n th e pleadin g
th e dat e an d h o u r o f filing .
I n th e s e c o n d cas
e , th e
dat e o f th e m a i l i n g o f m o t i o n s , p l e a d i n g s ,
o r an y
othe r paper s o r p a y m e n t s o r d e p o s i t s , a s s h o w n
b y
th e pos t offic e s t a m p o n th e e n v e l o p e o r th e registr
y
r e c e i p t , s h a l l b e c o n s i d e r e d
a s t h e d a t e
o f t
filing
n v e l
shal l
h e i r
, p a y m e n t , o r d e p o s i t i n court .
o p e
b e a t t a c h e d t o th e recor d o f th e case ,
Th e
( l a )
NOTE S
1.
Th e
of whic h shal l
all th e entrie s
l
cases , numbere d
wer e receive d
a complet e titl
r
issued , o f eac
other ste p take
a
single pag e th e
Rule
cler k shal l kee p a genera l docket , eac h pag e

b e numbere d an d prepare d for receivin g
i n a singl e cas e an d shal l ente r therei n al
consecutivel y i n th e orde r i n whic h the y
and , unde r th e headin g o f eac h cas e an d
e thereof , th e dat e o f eac h pape r filed o
h
n
orde r or judgmen t entered , an d o f eac h

in th e case , s o t h a t by referenc e t o
histor y o f th e cas e
ma y b e
see n (Sec.
8,
136).
2 . U n d e r t h i s section ,
filin g b y
mai l
sh
oul d
b e
throug h th e registr y servic e whic h i s mad e by deposi t o f
th e pleadin g i n th e pos t office , an d no t throug h othe
r
mean s o f transmission .
Thus , th e dat e o f delivery o f
th e
p l e a d i n g s t o a p r i v a t e l e t t e r - f o r w a r d i n g a
genc y
o r
p r i v a t e c a r r i e r , eve n i f license d
t o ac t a s s
uc h wit h
respec t t o othe r articles , i s no t a recognize d mod e o
f
filing pleading s
whic h ca n only b e
don e
t h r
o u g h th e
Philippin e Governmen t Pos t Office or it s posta l agencies .
If a privat e carrie r i s availe d o f by th e party , th e dat e o f
22 8
----------------------- Page 229----------------------RULE 13
4-5 6
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS ,
SEC S
JUDGMENT S AND OTHER PAPER S

actua l receip t by th e cour t o f suc h pleading , an d not th e
dat e o f delivery t o th e carrier , i s deeme d t o b e th e dat e
o f
th e filing o f tha t pleadin g
(Benguet Electric
Coopera
tive,
Inc.
vs. NLRC,
et al., G.R.
No.
89070,
May
18,
1992;
Industrial Timber Corp.
vs. NLRC, et al.,
G.R. No.
111985
June
30,
1994).
Sec .
4.
Papers
required
to
be filed
and
serve
d.
E v e r y
j u d g m e n t ,
r e s o l u t i o n , o r d e r ,
p l e
a d i n g
s u b s e q u e n t t o th e complaint , writte n motion , notice ,
a p p e a r a n c e , d e m a n d , offe r o f j u d g m e n t o r si
mila r
p a p e r s s h a l l b e file d w i t h th e c o u r t s an d
s
e r v e d
upo n t h e partie s affected . (2a )
Sec .
5 . Modes of service. Servic e o f pleadings ,
m o t i o n s , n o t i c e s , o r d e r s , j u d g m e n t s a n d
o t h e r
paper s shal l b e m a d e e i t h e r personall y o r b y mail .
(3a)
NOT E
1. Asid e from persona l servic e or by mail , servic e o f
pleading s ma y als o b e effecte d b y substitute d servic e
(Sec. 8) an d judgments , fina l order s or resolution s may
b e serve d by publicatio n (Sec. 9), bu t th e las t mod e
i s
prope r only wher e th e summon s o n th e defendan t ha d
also bee n serve d by publication .
Sec .
6 . Personal service.
Servic e o f th e paper s
may b e mad e b y d e l i v e r i n g personall y a cop y t o th e
part y o r hi s c o u n s e l , o r b y leavin g i t i n hi s
offic e
w i t h h i s c l e r k o r w i t h a p e r s o n h a v i n g c h
a r g e
thereof .
I f n o perso n i s foun d i n hi s office , o r
hi s
offic e
i s no t k n o w n , o r h e ha s n o office , t h e
n b y
l e a v i n g t h e copy ,
b e t w e e n th e
h o u r s o f e i g
h t i n
th e m o r n i n g an d si x i n th e evening , a t th e party' s
o r counsel' s r e s i d e n c e ,
o f
i f k n o w n ,
wit h
perso n
229
----------------------- Page 230----------------------RULE 13
SEC 7
sufficien t ag e an d discretio n t h e n r e s i d i n g therein .

(4a)
NOT E
1.
Thi s
sectio n
ha s
bee n
amende d
t o
includ e
th e
situation wher e counse l ha s n o office, an d not only wher e

hi s office i s unknow n or ther e i s n o perso n in charg e
thereof .
Unde r suc h circumstances , servic e ma y b e mad e
not only a t th e residenc e o f th e part y h e represent s but ,
now , als o a t counsel' s residence , i t bein g assume d tha t
hi s residenc e i s als o use d by hi m a s hi s office .
In
an y o f
said cases , thi s section now require s tha t i f not serve d
o n e i t h e r t h e p a r t y o r counse l
p e r s o n a l l y t
h e r e i n ,
service shoul d b e mad e not only on a perso n o f sufficient
discretion bu t likewis e o f sufficient ag e an d wh o mus t
further b e actuall y residin g therein .
Th e additiona l
ag e
requiremen t i s intende d t o mak e i t easie r t o ascertai n
whethe r th e perso n t o who m th e pleadin g wa s entruste d
i s on e wit h sufficient discretion .
Also , th e requireme
n t
t h a t h e shoul d b e a residen t therei n i s t o obviat e
th e
possibility or th e pretex t tha t servic e wa s mad e only on a
visitor or an y perso n wh o happene d t o b e in th e residenc e
for a transien t or temporar y purpose .
S e c . 7 . Service by mail. S e r v i c e
by r e g i s
t e r e d
mai l shal l
b e m a d e
b y d e p o s i t i n g th e c o p y
i n th e
pos t office , i n a s e a l e d e n v e l o p e , plainl y a d d r e s
s e d
t o th e part y o r hi s c o u n s e l a t hi s office , i f
k n o w n ,
o t h e r w i s e a t hi s r e s i d e n c e , i f k n o w n , w i t h
p o s t a g e
f u l l y p r e - p a i d , a n d
w i t h
i n s t r u c t i o n s
t o t h e
p o s t m a s t e r t o r e t u r n th e mai l t o th e s e n d e
r afte r
t e n (10 ) d a y s i f u n d e l i v e r e d . I f n o registr y servic e
i s
availabl e i n th e localit y o f e i t h e r th e s e n d e r o r th
e
a d d r e s s e e , servic e ma y b e d o n e
b y ordinar y ma
il .
(5a)
(As
amended
by
Resolution
of the
Supreme
Court,
dated Feb.
17,
1998)
230
----------------------- Page 231----------------------RULE 13
CS
8-9
SE

NOT E
1.
Sec .
Se e Not e 2 unde r Sec . 6 , Rul e

8 .
Substituted
service.
11 .
I f
s e r v i c e
o f
p l e a d i n g s , m o t i o n s , notices , r e s o l u t i o n s , order
s an d
o t h e r
p a p e r s
c a n n o t
b e
m a d e
u n d e r
t h e
t w o
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s , th e offic e an d plac e o f r e s i d
e n c e
o f t h e part y o r h i s c o u n s e l b e i n g u n k n o w n , servi
c e
ma y b e m a d e b y d e l i v e r i n g t h e cop y t o th e cler k o
f
court , w i t h proo f o f failur e o f bot h p e r s o n a l servic e
an d s e r v i c e b y mail .
Th e servic e i s c o m p l e t e a t
th e
tim e o f s u c h delivery . (6a )
NOTE S
1. Wher e th e counse l o f recor d ha s not withdraw n
a s such , servic e o f th e j u d g m e n t o n hi s wif e a t
thei r
residenc e
i s vali d persona l servic e
(Cubar
vs. Men
doza,
G.R.
No.
55035, Feb. 23,
1983).
2 . "Substitute d service " a s applie d t o pleading s i n
th e abov e sectio n ha s a different meanin g from "substi tute d service " a s applie d t o summons , Rul e 1 4 providin g
as follows :
"Sec .
7 . Substituted
service.
If,
for justifiab
l e
c a u s e s , t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t b e s e r v e d w i t
h i n a
reasonabl e tim e a s provide d i n th e precedin g section ,
servic e
ma y b e effecte d
(a ) b y leavin g copie s o f
th e
summon s a t th e defendant' s dwellin g hous e o r residenc e
wit h som e perso n o f suitabl e ag e an d discretio n the n
r e s i d i n g t h e r e i n , o r (b ) b y l e a v i n g t h e copie
s
a t
defendant 's office or regula r plac e o f busines s wit h som e
competent perso n in charg e thereof . (8a) "
Sec .
9.
Service
of judgments,
final orders
or
resolutions. J u d g m e n t s , fina l order s o r r e s o l u t i o n s shal
l
231
----------------------- Page 232----------------------RULE 13
. 9
SEC
b e serve d e i t h e r personall y o r b y r e g i s t e r e d mail

.
Whe n a part y s u m m o n e d b y publicatio n h a s faile d
t o a p p e a r i n th e action , j u d g m e n t s , fina l order s o
r
r e s o l u t i o n s a g a i n s t h i m shal l b e serve d u p o
h i m
als o b y publicatio n a t th e e x p e n s e o f t h e p r e v a i l i
n g
party . (7a )
n
NOTE S
1. A judgmen
does not becom e
defectiv e
(Vda.
al.,
L-30486,
Oct.
uc h
judgmen t upo n th e
is not permitted .
served on a
charge o f th
th e decisio n
et al. vs.
).
t or final order serve d by ordinary mail

executory sinc e th e servic e i s fatally
de
Espiritu
vs.
CFI
of Cavite,
et
31,
1972).
Persona l
servic e
of
party , instea d o f hi s counse l o f record,

Also , wher e a copy o f th e decisio n i s
perso n wh o wa s neithe r a clerk nor on e in

e attorney' s office, suc h servic e i s invali d an d
did not thereafte r becom e executory (Tuazon,
Molina, et al., G.R. No.
55697, Feb. 26,
1981
2. Th e mer e notatio n in th e rollo tha t a copy of th e

resolution wa s sen t t o counsel , absen t a showin g o f hi s
receipt thereof, doe s not constitut e proof of servic e
(S
oria
vs. CA,
L-36378, April
7, 1976).
3. For constructiv e servic e by registere d mail , ther e
must b e conclusiv e proof tha t a first notic e by th e postmaster t o th e addresse e wa s received .
Th e presumptio n
tha t official dut y ha s bee n performe d doe s not apply
(ITT Philippines,
Inc.
vs.
CA,
et al., L-30810,
Oct.
29,
1975;
Barrameda
vs.
Castillo,
L-27211,
July
6,
1
977;
Elane vs.
CA, et al., G.R. No.
80638, April 26,
1989).
If,
however, th e postmaste r certifie s tha t suc h notic e wa s
sent, th e presumptio n arise s an d override s th e contrary
claim
of th e addresse e
(Ferraren
vs.
Santos,
L-413
23,
April 27,
1980).
Wher e th e delivery of th e first notic e
wa s not mad e becaus e th e "addresse e wa s unlocated, "
ther e
i s n o substitute d
servic e
(Arines
vs.
in,
L-30014,
July
31,
1978).
Bu t
wher e
a
cop y
th e
232
----------------------- Page 233----------------------RULE IS
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS

Cuach
of
decision wa s sen
but th e sam e
another addres s
such omissio n o r
decision
(Magno,
July
31,
1987).
t t o counse l a t hi s addres s o f recor d

wa s no t receive d becaus e h e move d t o
withou t informin g th e court thereof ,
neglec t wil l not stay th e finality o f th e
et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R.
No. 58781
4. Judgments , final order s o r final resolution s ca n

be serve d only unde r th e thre e mode s authorize d i n thi s
section, tha t is , personally , by registere d mai l o r by
publication .
The y canno t b e
serve d b y substitute d
service.
Wit h respec t t o servic e by publication , th e rul e
i s tha t resort theret o i s prope r only wher e summon s wa s
likewis e serve d by publication , an d thi s ca n resul t i n
practical problem s especially i n th e appellat e courts .
If
,
for instance ,
i t ha s bee n ascertaine d tha t a party' s
counsel i s dea d o r ha s permanently left th e country an d
withdraw n from th e cas e withou t a substitut e counse l
having entere d hi s appearance , an d th e whereabout s o f
th e party represente d by hi m ca n neithe r b e ascertaine d
nor th e fact thereo f obtaine d from th e opposin g party ,
and s u m m o n s i n tha t cas e ha d no t bee n serve d b y
publication, the n servic e o f th e judgmen t by publicatio n
is not authorize d an d woul d not b e valid .
A s jus t stated ,
substitute d servic e ca n not b e
availe d of.
Th e
logical
solution woul d b e t o authoriz e th e tria l court t o effect

service o f th e judgmen t by publication , otherwis e entry
and executio n of tha t judgmen t woul d b e void .
5. Wha t i s authorize d or require d to be serve d by
publication unde r th e thir d mode i n thi s sectio n i s th e
judgment , final order or resolution .
To avoi d absur d or
impractical results , only th e dispositiv e portio n o r th e
fallo
shoul d b e require d t o b e published , an d not th e
entire tex t o f th e decisio n o
voluminou s
an d wil l entai
expenses.
I n othe r words , th
that contemplate d i n Rul e 36
r resolutio n whic h may b e

l substantia l publicatio n
e ter m "judgment " mus t b e
.
Th e prevailin g party
233
----------------------- Page 234----------------------RULE 13
SEC. 10
may , for reason s o f hi s own , caus e th e publicatio n o f

th e whol e decision sinc e afte r al l th e sam e shal l b e a
t
hi s expense .
Sec .
o n a l
servic e i s
ervic e
10 .
Completeness
c o m p l e t e
u p o n
of
actua l
service.
delivery .
P e r s
S
b y ordinar y mai l i s c
t i o n
o f t e n (10 )
d a y s a
c o u r t
o t h e r w i s e provides .
mai l i s
c o m p l e t e u p o n a c t
s s e e , o r
afte r fiv e (5 ) d a y s
d t h e
firs t n o t i c e o f t h e
a t e i s
earlier . (8a )
o m p l e t e
f t e r
u p o n
t h e
e x p i r a
m a i l i n g , u n l e s s t h e
S e r v i c e
b y r e g i s t e r e d
u a l r e c e i p t b y t h e
fro m
t h e
d a t e
h e
a d d r e
r e c e i v e
p o s t m a s t e r , w h i c h e v e r
NOTE S
1. Thi s section , a s
days , instea d o f th e forme
service b y ordinar y mail .
l ,
th e completenes s thereo f i s
o f actua l receip t o f th e
,
unles s th e registere d mai l wa
mai l
amended , now provide s for 1 0

r 5 days , for completenes s o f
Fo r servic e b y registere d mai
now reckone d from th e dat e
firs t notic e o f th e postmaster
s receive d prio r thereto .
2 . Th e rul e on completenes s o f servic e by registere d

onl y provide s for a disputabl e p r e s u m p t i o n
an
d
may , therefore , be rebutte d
(Cabuang vs. Bello,
105 Phil.
1135).
Fo r th e rul e t o apply , servic e m u s t hav e
bee n
mad e on th e counse l de parte
(Fojas vs. Navarro, L-26
365,
April 30,
1970) an d i f it wa s sen t t o hi s addres s o f recor
d
an d h e fail s t o receiv e i t for cause s imputabl e t o
him ,
th e servic e become s fina l an d i t i s no t necessar y t o effect
further servic e
(Magno,
et al. vs. CA,
upo n
et al.,
3 . Servic e
th e
p a r t y h e r e p r e s e n t s
supra).
o f notic e
b y
registere d
avoide d
b y counsel' s
refusa l t o
afte r
notificatio n
thereof ,
a n d notic e
plet e
regardles s o f suc h refusa l t o accep t
endoza,
mai l
accep t
canno t
b e
deliver y
i s d e e m e d
(Isaac
com
vs.
234
----------------------- Page 235----------------------RULE 13
11-12
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS

SECS
89
Phil.
279).
4.
Whe n
registered mail,
t o w h e n ,
mad e
(Hernandez,
v
24
1972).
th e post office certifie s t o th e delivery of

suc h certificatio n shoul d includ e dat a a s
ho w
an d
t o who m
deliver y
w a s
et
al.
vs.
Navarro,
et
al,
L-28296,
No
5. Fo r failur e of petitioner s to clai m a copy of th e

resolution denyin g du e cours e t o thei r petitio n withi n
5 day s fro m notice , servic e becam e effectiv e afte r th e
five-day perio d an d th e finalit y o f sai d resolutio n i s
reckoned therefrom , pursuan t to Sec . 8 (now, Sec.
10),
Rule
1 8 whic h i s applicabl e t o sai d resolutio n o f th
e
appellate court (Aportadera, et al.
vs. CA, et al, L
-41358,
Mar.
16,
1988).
Sec .
11 .
Priorities
in
modes of service and fili
ng.
W h e n e v e r
p r a c t i c a b l e , t h e s e r v i c e a n d
f i
l i n g o f
pleading s an d othe r paper s shal l b e don e personally .
Excep t w i t h r e s p e c t t o p a p e r s e m a n a t i n g fro m t
h e
court , a resor t t o o t h e r m o d e s m u s t b e a c c o m p a n i
e d
b y a w r i t t e n e x p l a n a t i o n w h y th e servic e o r fil
in g
w a s no t d o n e personally .
A violatio n o f thi s r
ul e
may b e c a u s e t o c o n s i d e r th e pape r a s no t filed , (n
)
S e c .
12 .
Proof of filing. Th e filin g o f a p l e a d i n
g
o r p a p e r s h a l l b e p r o v e d b y it s e x i s t e n c e
i n t h e
recor d o f t h e c a s e .
I f i t i s no t i n t h e record , b
u t i s
c l a i m e d t o h a v e b e e n file d
p e r s o n a l l y , t h
e filin g
s h a l l b e
p r o v e d
b y
t h e
w r i t t e n
o r
s t
a m p e d
a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f it s filin g b y th e cler k o f co
ur t
o n a c o p y o f t h e same ; i f file d b y registere d mail , b y
t h e r e g i s t r y r e c e i p t a n d
b y t h e affidavi t
o f t h e
p e r s o n
w h o
d i d t h e m a i l i n g , c o n t a i n i n g
a ful l
s t a t e m e n t o f t h e dat e an d plac e o f d e p o s i t i n
g th e
mail i n th e pos t offic e i n a seale d envelop e addresse d
t o th e court , w i t h postag e full y pre-paid , an d wi t h
236
----------------------- Page 236----------------------RULE 13
11-12
SECS.
i n s t r u c t i o n s t o th e p o s t m a s t e r t o r e t u r n
t h e mai l
t o th e s e n d e r afte r t e n (10) d a y s i f no t delivered , (n
)
NOTE S
1. Sec .
11 ,
g
standin g nee d t o cur
of a pleadin g by a
o f servin g th e sam
whic h i s a ne w provision ,
fill s a
lon
b th e practic e o f delayin g th e receip t

part y throug h th e simpl e expedien t
e b y mail .
A simpl e an d commo
n
e x a m p l
w i t h a
requeste d
wit h th e
part y afte
e woul d
b e
i n
t h e m a t t e r
o f m o t i o n s
dat e o f hearing , an d a copy whereo f i s maile d

inten t t o hav e th e sam e receive d b y th e advers e
r th e hearin g thereof .
Extrem e situation s eve n
obtain in Metr o Manil a wherei n th e copy o f th e motio n i s

maile d in a pos t office in som e othe r componen t city or
municipalit y o f th e metropolita n area , althoug h th e law
firms representin g th e partie s ar e jus t acros s th e stree t
from eac h othe r i n th e sam e city or , worse , ar e i n th e sam
e
building .
Thi s sectio n ma y b e considered , no t only a s
providin g a procedura l sanctio n for suc
also layin g a basi s for administrativ e
for professiona l malpractice .
s ,
geare d towar d th e sam e objective , in
Sec. 4 , Rul e 15 .
h duplicity , bu t a s
disciplinar y actio n
Se e als o relate d provision
Sec . 3 , Rul e 7 an d
2 . Whe n th e servic e i s no t mad e personally , ther e

m u s t b e a w r i t t e n explanatio n therefor ,
eve n
i
f suc h
explanatio n i s b y it s n a t u r e acceptabl e an d manifest .
Thi s requiremen t i s intende d t o emphasiz e t h a t persona l
service i s th e rule , whil e th e othe r mode s o f servic e ar e
t h e exception s
(Zulueta
vs. Asia
Brewery,
Inc.,
G.R.
No.
138137,
Mar.
8, 2001).
Wher e
no explanatio n
i s
offered t o justify th e servic e o f pleading s by othe r modes ,
t h e d i s c r e ti o n a r y powe r o f th e cour t t o e x p u n
g e th e
pleadin g become s mandator y
(United Pulp and Paper Co.
,
Inc.
vs.
United
Pulp
and
Paper
Chapter,
etc., G.R.
No.
141117,
Mar.
25,
2004).
236
----------------------- Page 237----------------------RULE 13

SEC. 13

3 . Th e fact tha t an affidavit o f servic e accompanie d

th e
p e t i t i o n i s no t s u b s t a n t i a l complianc e
w
i t h t h e
requiremen t in Sec . 11 .
An affidavit o f servic e i s require
d
merely a s proo f t h a t servic e ha s bee n mad e t o th e othe r
partie s i n th e case .
I t doe s not , however , explai n w
h y
alternativ e mode s o f servic e othe r tha n persona l servic e
wer e resorte d to
(MC Engineering, Inc.
vs. NLRC,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
142314,
June
28,
2001).
4 . T h i s R u l e , a n d
a l w a y s
provide d for proo f o f servic e
it s
p r e d e c e s s o r , ha d
o f pleadings ,
bu t
ha d
no t
mad e
a n e q u i v a l e n t provisio n
for proo f o f t h e
filin g
thereof .
Yet , simila r controversie s als o aris e regardin g
th e validity , timelines s an d sufficiency o f th e filin g o f
th e pleadin g jus t lik e th e matte r o f th e servic e
,
henc e thes e complementar y provision s o f Sec . 12 .
Sec .
13
s o n a l
servic e
shal
n o f th e
part y s e r v e d
th e affidavi t o
.
l
Proof
of
service.
c o n s i s t
o f a
P r o o f
w r i t t e n
thereof
o f p e r
a d m i s s i o
, o r t h e officia l retur n o f th e server , o r

f t h e part y serving , c o n t a i n i n g a ful l
s t a t e m e n t o f t h e date , plac e an d m a n n e r o f service .

I f th e servic e i s b y ordinar y mail , proo f thereo f shal l
c o n s i s t o f a n affidavi t o f th e p e r s o n m a i l i n g o f
fact s
s h o w i n g c o m p l i a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 7 o f t h i s Rule
.
I f
servic e i s m a d e b y registere d mail , proo f shal l b e
m a d e
b y
s u c h affidavi t a n d
t h e r e g i s t r y
r e c e i p t
i s s u e d b y t h e m a i l i n g office . Th e registr y retur
n
car d shal l b e file d i m m e d i a t e l y u p o n it s receip t b y
th e s e n d e r , o r
d lette r
t o g e t h e r w i t h
i n
lie u
t h e r e o f th e
t h e certifie d
o r
u n c l a i m e
s w o r n
c o p y
o f t h e
notic e
g i v e n
r e s s e e .
(10a)
b y
t h e
p o s t m a s t e r
t o
th e
a d d
NOT E
1. Th e provisio n o f thi s section on proo f o f servic e
of pleading s by registere d mai l i s als o applicabl e t o th e
237
----------------------- Page 238----------------------RULE 13
SEC. 14
matte r o f provin g tha t a copy o f th e summon s wa s sen t

b y registere d mai l t o a defendan t wher e th e sam e i s
require d a s a n integra l complemen t i n th e servic e o f suc h
summon s by publication .
Se e Sees . 7 an d 15 , Rul
e 14,
an d th e comment s thereunder .
Sec .
14 .
Notice
of
lis pendens.
I n a n
a c t i o n
affectin g th e titl e o r th e righ t o f p o s s e s s i o n o f rea
l
p r o p e r t y , t h e
p l a i n t i f f a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t
, w h e n
a f f i r m a t i v e r e l i e f i s c l a i m e d i n h i s a n s w e
r ,
m a y
recor d i n th e offic e o f t h e registr y o f d e e d s o f
th e
p r o v i n c e i n w h i c h t h e propert y i s s i t u a t e d a not
ic e
o f t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e
a c t i o n .
Sai d
n o t i
c e s h a l l
c o n t a i n t h e n a m e s o f t h e p a r t i e s an d t h e
objec t o f
t h e
a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e , a n d
a d e s c r i p t i o
n o f t h e
p r o p e r t y i n t h a t p r o v i n c e affecte d t h e r e b y .
Onl y
fro m t h e t i m e o f filin g s u c h n o t i c e fo r r e c o r d
shal l
a
p u r c h a s e r ,
o r e n c u m b r a n c e r
o f t h e p
r o p e r t y
affecte d t h e r e b y ,
b e d e e m e d t o h a v e
c o n s
t r u c t i v e
notic e o f t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e action , an d onl y o f it s
p e n d e n c y a g a i n s t
b y t h e i r
rea l n a m e s .
t h e
p a r t i e s
d e s i g n a t e d
T h e
n o t i c e
o f
lis
pendens
h e r e i
n a b o v e
m e n t i o n e d m a y b e c a n c e l l e d onl y u p o n orde r o f t
h e
court , afte r p r o p e r s h o w i n g t h a
i s fo r
t h e
p u r p o s e
o f m o l e s t i n g t
r t y , o r
t h a t i t i s n o t
n e c e s s a r y t o
i g h t s o f
t h e part y w h o c a u s e d i t t o b e r e
)
t h e
h e
notic e
a d v e r s e
p r o t e c t
p a
t h e r
c o r d e d . (24a , R14
NOTE S
1.
A notic e o f lis pendens, unde
and th e condition s provide d in thi s section ,
at th e instanc e o f th e intereste d part y a
th e pendenc y o f th e actio n an d no t
tim e o f th e
part y
r th e circumstance s
ma y b e recorde d
t an y tim e durin g
necessaril y a t th e
filing o f th e complain t or th e
answe r o f th e
concerned .
238
----------------------- Page 239----------------------RULE 13

SEC. 14

2 . A notic e
o f lis pendens i s
intende d t o protec t th
e
rea l right s o f th e part y wh o cause d th e registratio n thereo f
(Natano
vs.
Esteban,
L-22034,
Oct.
28,
1966).
It
serve s a s a w a r n i n g t o prospectiv e encumbrancer s o r
p u r c h a s e r s t h a t the y shoul d kee p
thei r hand s of
f th e
propert y unles s the y wis h t o gambl e o n th e resul t o f th e
litigation
involvin g
th e
sam e
(Bisaya
Land
Trans.
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Cuenco,
L-18173, April 22,
1968;
Laroza,
et al.
vs. Guia,
L-45252, Jan.
31,
1985; cf.
Tanchoco,
et
al. vs.
Aquino,
et al., L-30670,
Sept.
15, 1987).
Th e part y
wh o
ha d th e notic e a n n o t a t e d an d wh o wo n th e litigati
o n
over th e propert y ha s th e bette r righ t a s agains t on e
wh o
bough t
i t wit h
Maria
Marasigan vs. IAC, et al.,
1987).
suc h
a n n o t a t i o n (Heirs
G.R.
No.
69303,
July
of
23,
3 . Wher e th e notic e o f lis pendens i s limite d t o

a
one-half undivide d interes t i n th e propert y i n litigation ,
th e owne r o f t h e o t h e r hal f h a s th e righ t t o se
l l hi s
u n d i v i d e d pro
indiviso
Viardo,
L-14127,
Aug.
21,
1962).
s h a r e
(Mercado
vs.
4 . A notic e o f lis pendens canno t b e ordere d to b

e
cancelled on an ex parte motion .
Ther e shoul d b e noti
c e
t o th e part y wh o cause d suc h notic e t o b e recorde d s o
t h a t h e ma y b e h e a r d t o sho w t o th e cour t t h
a t th e
notic e
o f lis pendens i s necessar y t o protec t hi s righ
t s
an d i s no t for t h e purpos e o f molestin g th e
ad
vers e
part y
(Punongbayan
vs. Pineda,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
58193,
Aug.
30,
1984).
A
notic e
of lis pendens
c a n n
o t be
ordere d t o b e cancelle d upo n th e mer e filing o f a bon d by
th e part y o n whos e titl e th e notic e i s annotated , a s thi s
section
p r o v i d e s for onl y
tw o
i n s t a n c e s w h e
n suc h
cancellation
ma y be
authorize d (Tan,
et al. vs.
Lantin,
et al., L-28526,
July
7, 1986).
5 .
e
cour t ca
o f lis
pendens
e s a r e
imputabl e
However ,
n
orde r
unde r exceptiona l
t h e
cancellatio n
e s p e c i a l l y w h e r e
circumstances , th
o f th e
s u c h
notic e
c i r c u m s t a n c
t o th e part y wh o cause d th e annotatio n o f sai d

239
----------------------- Page 240----------------------RULE 13

SEC. 14
notice , a s wher e th e litigatio n wa s undul y prolonge d t o

t h e p r e j u d i c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t b e c a u s e o f
s e v e r a l
continuance s procure d by th e plaintif f
(Mun. ofParana
que
vs. Rovira, 55 Phil. 1000).
Also , wher e th e cas e whic h
i s
th e basi s for th e lis pendens notatio n wa s dismisse d for
non-prosequitur
on
th e
par t
o f th e plaintif f (Lazaro
vs.
Mariana, 5 9 Phil.
627), or judgmen t wa s rendere d agains t
t h e p a r t y wh o
c a u s e d t h e r e c o r d i n g o f s a i
d notic e
(Capitol
Subdivision,
Inc.,
et al.
vs.
Montelibano
et al.,
109 Phil. 546), sai d notic e i s deeme d ipso facto cancelled .
6.
Lis pendens i s a Lati n ter m whic h literall y mean s
a pendin g sui t or litigation , whil e a notic e o f lis pendens
i s a n announcemen t t o th e whol e worl d t h a t a particula r
rea l propert y i s i n litigation , servin g a s a warnin g tha t
on e
wh o
acquire s
a n i n t e r e s t ove r t h e sai d
p r o p e r t y
doe s s o a t hi s ow n risk .
I t i s a rul e founde d upo n rea
son s
of publi c policy an d necessity .
A s
such ,
notic e
o f lis pendens
canno t
conceivably
b e th e lien or encumbranc e contemplate d by law .

A lien
i s a n existin g burde n o r charg e o n th e property ,
whil e
a notic e o f lis pendens i s only a warnin g t h a t a clai m

or
possibl e charg e o n th e propert y i s pendin g determinatio n
b y th e court .
No t al l claim s agains t a propert y ca n b e
considere d
a s
n o f la w
(People
vs.
RTC
81541,
Oct.
4,
1989).
lien s
w i t h i n
of Manila,
t h e c o n t e m p l a t i o
etc.,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
7 . A notic e o f lis pendens i s prope r only wher e ther e

i s an action or proceedin g in cour t whic h affect s th e titl e
to or possessio n o f rea l propert y
(Dino
vs. CA,
e t al.,
G.R. No.
95921,
Sept.
2, 1992).
It i s essentia l t
h a t th e
propert y b e directly affected , a s wher e th e relie f sough t i n
th e actio n include s th e recover y o f possession , o r th e
enforcement o f a lien , or an adjudication betwee n conflicting
claim s
o f title , possession , or righ t o f possessio n o f specific
rea l property , or requirin g it s
gister
of Deeds
vs. Mercado,
72 Phil.
transfe r or sal e
(Re
353).
240
----------------------- Page 241----------------------RULE 13
SEC
14

8. In Alberto
vs.
CA,
e t al.
088 ,
Jun e 30 , 2000) , i t wa s furthe r clarifie
o f
lis pendens likewis e applie s t o al l suit s
directly affect no t only th e titl e t o rea l
(G.R .
No .
d tha t th e
119
rul e
or action s which
property , bu t als o
thos e whic h ar e brough t t o establis h a n equitabl e estate ,
interes t o r righ t
i n
specifi c
rea l propert y
any
lien ,
c h a r g e o r e n c u m b r
a r i s i n g
durin g t h e progres s o f th e suit .
ope r i n
proceeding s t o declar e an absolut e dee d
t o redee m from a foreclosur e sale , or t
o r t o s u i t s for
t h e s e t t l e m
n t o f
partnershi p interest s i n rea l property .
o r t o enforc e
a n c e a g a i n s t i t
I t
i s
als o
pr
o f mortgage , or
o establis h a trust ,
e n t a n d a d j u s t m e
9 . However , wher e th e complain t merel y ask s for

th e paymen t o f constructio n service s an d materials , wit h
damages , bu t doe s no t
asser t an y encumbranc e over th e
propert y o n whic h th e unpai d construction s wer e made ,
th e annotatio n o f a lis pendens on th e lan d i s not proper .
It i s only a persona l actio n for collection , withou t an y
averment o f an y enforceabl e right , interes t or lien upo n
th e subjec t property .
Even i f th e contractor' s lien unde r Art . 224 2 o f th e
Civil Cod e ha d bee n allege d in favor o f plaintiff ,
st
il l th e
desired annotatio n woul d b e unjustifie d a s a collection cas e
is not th e prope r mod e for th e enforcemen t o f a contractor' s
lien .
Furthermore , sai d Art . 2242 find s applicatio n only
wher e ther e i s a concurrenc e o f credit s an d a showin g
t h a t defendant' s propert y wa s
insufficien t t o pa y
th e
concurrin g debts , o r t h a t th e clai m wa s i n connectio n
with insolvency or othe r action s wher e claim s o f preferre d
creditor s
hav e
t o b e
ascertaine d
(Atlantic
ectors,
Inc.
vs.
Herbal
Cove
Realty
Corp.,
G.R.
No.
48568,
Mar.
20,
2003).
10.
Er
1
Fo r a furthe r discussio n o f th e othe r lega l aspect s
and effect s of a notic e of lis pendens,

CA,
et al. (G.R . No . 142406 , May 16, 2005) .
se e Romero
vs.
24 1
----------------------- Page 242----------------------RUL E
1 4
S U M M O N S
S e c t i o n 1 . Clerk
to
issue
summons.
n
t h e
f i l i n g o f t h e c o m p l a i n t a n d
t h e p a y
o f t h e
r e q u i s i t e
l e g a l f e e s , t h e
c l e r k o f
t
s h a l l
forthwit h i s s u e t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g s u m m o n
U p o
m e n t
c o u r
s t o t
h e
d e f e n d a n t s ,
( l a )
Sec .
2 . Contents.
T h e
s u m m o n s
s h
a l l
b e
d i r e c t e d t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , s i g n e d b y t h e
cler k o f
c o u r t u n d e r seal , a n d contain : (a ) t h e n a m e o f
t h e
c o u r t a n d t h e n a m e s o f t h e partie s t o t h e action ;
(b)
a d i r e c t i o n t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t a n s w e r w i
t h i n t h e
tim e fixe d b y t h e s e Rules ; an d (c) a notic e tha t u n l e s
s
t h e d e f e n d a n t
s o a n s w e r s ,
p l a i n t i f f w
i l l t a k e
j u d g m e n t b y defaul t a n d m a y b e g r a n t e d t h e relie f
a p p l i e d for .
A
c o p y
o f
t h e
c o m p l a i n t
a n d
o r
fo r
i n t m e n t o f g u a r d i a n
a d litem,
i f any ,
b e
c h e d
t o t h e o r i g i n a l a n d
e a c h
c o p y
t h e
o n s . (3a )
d e r
a p p o
shal l
a t t a
o f
s u m m
NOTE S
1.
Jurisdictio n canno t b e acquire d ove r th e defen dan t withou t servic e o f summons , eve n i f h e know s o f
th e cas e agains t him , unles s h e voluntaril y submit s t o th
jurisdictio n o f th e cour t b y appearin g therei n a s throug h
hi s counse l filin g th e correspondin g pleadin g i n th e cas e
(Habana
vs.
Vamenta,
et al.,
L-27091,
June
,
1970).
Even i f jurisdictio n over hi m wa s no t originall y acquire d
du e t o defectiv e servic e o f summons , th e cour t acquire s
jurisdictio n ove r hi s perso n b y hi s ac t o f subsequentl y
filing
a motio n for reconsideratio n
(Soriano
Palacio,
L-17469,
Nov.
28,
1964),
or
by
jointl y
s u b
t t i n g a
e
30
vs.
m i
242
----------------------- Page 243----------------------RULE 14
CS. 1-2
compromis e
(Algrabe
),
or
wher e h e
th e paymen
an d sai d
of th e j
SUMMONS
agreemen t
vs.
CA,
for
et
approva l o f th e
al., L-24458-64,
SE
tria l cour t
July
31,
1969
signe d th e compromis e agreemen t t o guarante e

t o f th e obligation o f th e impleade d defendant s
agreemen t wa s approve d an d wa s mad e th e basi s
u d g m e n t on
compromis e
(Rodriguez,
e t
al. vs.
Alikpala,
et
th e
d e f e n d a n t
o n a n d
s u m m o n s w
cour t
neve r acquire d
a s t o hi m i
al,
die d
L-38314,
a s
June
befor e
serve d
o n
25,
1974).
t h e filin g
hi s
o f
co-defendant ,
Bu t
wher e
t h e a c t i
t h e
jurisdictio n over th e forme r an d judgmen t

s a nullity .
Th e decease d ha s n o mor e civil
p e r s o n a l i t y a n d e v e n t h e v o l u n t a r y a p p e a r a
n c e o f
counsel
for hi m wil l be
ineffectiv e
(Dumlao
vs.
Quality
Plastic
Products,
Inc.,
L-27956,
April
30,
1976).
2 . Th e failur e t o attac h a copy o f th e complain t t o
summon s
(Pagalaran
vs. Ball
at an, et al., 13
Phil.
135) or a copy o f th e orde r appointin g a guardia n ad litem
(Castaho
vs. Castano,
9 6 Phil. 533)
ar e mer e
tech
nica l
defects an d th e servic e o f summon s vest s jurisdictio n i n
t h e c o u r t ove r t h e
d e f e n d a n t wh o
ma y
t h e r e
b y b e
declare d in defaul t for failur e t o file an answer .
th e
3 . Wher e th e defendan t ha s alread y bee n serve d

wit h s u m m o n s o n t h e origina l complaint ,
n o f
urthe r
s u m m o n s i s require d o n th e amende d complain t i f i t
doe s no t introduc e ne w cause s o f actio n (Ong Peng vs.
Custodio,
L-14911,
Mar.
25,
1961);
b u t w h e r e
t h e
d e f e n d a n t w a s d e c l a r e d i n defaul t
o n t h e o r
i g i n a l
complaint an d th e plaintif f subsequentl y filed a n amende d
complaint , new summon s mus t b e serve d o n th e defendan t
on th e amende d complain t a s th e origina l complain t wa s
deeme d withdraw n upo n suc h amendmen t (Atkins, Kroll
& Co.
vs. Domingo,
44 Phil.
680).
4 . F u r t h e r m o r e , i f t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d no
y e t
appeare d b y filin g adversar y pleading s an d a n amende d
complaint introducin g new cause s o f actio n i s filed , a
243
----------------------- Page 244----------------------RULE 14
SECS. 3-5
new summon s mus t b e serve d upo n hi m a s regard s th e

amende d complaint ; otherwise , th e cour t ha s n o powe r
t o tr y th e new cause s o f action .
Simply sendin g a co
py
o f th e amende d complain t t o him , unde r suc h circum -
stances , i s no t equivalen t t o servic e o f summon s thereon .

However ,
i f t h e d e f e n d a n t ha d a l r e a d y a p p e
a r e d i n
respons e
t o t h e firs t s u m m o n s b y filin g a moti
o n t o
dismis s o r a n answer , h e was , therefore , alread y i n cour t
whe n th e amende d complain t wa s filed , i n whic h cas e
mer e servic e o f t h e a m e n d e d complain t upo n hi m i s
sufficient w i t h o u t
t o b e
served
(Ong Peng
serve
prope
c o u
b y
s u i
u i n
s u m
S e c .
d
b
r
r t o f
a n y
t a b l e
g th e
m o n s .
t h e
nee d
us.
for
Custodio,
ne w
s u m m o n s
supra).
3 .
By whom served. Th e s u m m o n s m a y b e
th e sheriff , hi s d e p u t y , o r o t h e r
f i c e r s , o r fo r
j u s t i f i a b l e r e a s o n s
p e r s o n a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e c o u r t i s s
(5a )
Sec . 4 .
Return.
W h e
s
b e e n
c o m p l e t e d , t h e
s e r v e r
(5 ) d a y s
t h e r e f r o m , serv e a c o p y o f
l y o r
b y r e g i s t e r e d mail , t o th
e l , a n d
shal l r e t u r n t h e s u m m o n s
s u e d
it , a c c o m p a n i e d b y proo f o
t h e
shall ,
s e r v i c e
w i t h i n
h a
fiv e
t h e r e t u r n p e r s o n a l
e
p l a i n t i f f s
t o
t h e
f service .
cler k
c o u n s
w h o
i s
(6a )
Sec .
5.
Issuance
of
alias
summons.
If
a
s u m m o n s
i s r e t u r n e d
w i t h o u t
b e i n g
r v e d
o n
a n y
o r
a l l o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s ,
t h e s e
r
s h a l l
a l s o s e r v e a c o p y o f t h e
r e t u r n o n t h e
a i n t i f f s
c o u n s e l , s t a t i n g t h e
r e a s o n s
fo r
t h e
i l u r e o f
s e r v i c e , w i t h i n fiv e (5) d a y s t h e r e f r o m .
n s u c h a
c a s e , o r i f t h e s u m m o n s
h a s
b e e n lost ,
e
clerk ,
o n
d e m a n d
o f t h e p l a i n t i f f , m a y i s s u
n
a l i a s
s u m m o n s . (4a )
s e
r v e
p l
f a
I
t h
e
244
----------------------- Page 245----------------------RULE 14
ECS. 6-7
SUMMONS
NOTE S
1. Th e enumeratio n in Sec . 3 o f th e person s wh o

ma y validl y serv e summon s i s exclusive .
Thus ,
wher e
summon s wa s served , withou t authorit y grante d b y th e
court , by a polic e sergean t (Sequito vs. Letrondo,
1
05 Phil.
1139),
by a postmaste r (Olar vs.
Cuna,
L-47935, Ma
y
5,
1978), or by a patrolma n (Bello vs.
Ubo,
et al.,
L-30353,
Sept.
30,
1982), suc h servic e wa s invali d an d th e cour
t
did no t acquir e jurisdictio n ove r th e defendant .
2 . Proo f o f servic e i s require d t o b e give n t o
th e
plaintiff s counse l in orde r t o enabl e hi m t o mov e for a
default orde r shoul d th e defendan t fail t o answe r o n tim e
or, in cas e o f non-service , s o t h a t alia s summon s ma y b e
sought .
I n eithe r case , unde r thi s amende d section , th e
server m u s t serv e a copy o f th e r e t u r n o n p l a i n
t i f f s
counsel withi n 5 day s from completio n or failur e o f th e
service , whic h r e q u i r e m e n t wa s absen t i n th e forme
r
Rules .
S e c . 6 . Service
e n e v e r practicable , th e
h a n d i n g a c o p y t h e
rson ,
or , i f h e r e f u s e s
it , b y
t e n d e r i n g i t t o him
in
person
on
defendant.
W h
s u m m o n s shal l b e serve d b y
r e o f t o t h e d e f e n d a n t i n pe
t o
r e c e i v e a n d
s i g n
fo r
. (7a )
Sec .
7 . Substituted
service.
If, fo r justifiab
l e
c a u s e s , t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t b e s e r v e d w i
t h i n a
r e a s o n a b l e
t i m e
a s p r o v i d e d
i n t h e p r e c
e d i n g
section , servic e ma y b e effecte d (a) b y leavin g copie s
o f th e s u m m o n s a t th e defendant' s r e s i d e n c e w it
h
s o m e p e r s o n o f s u i t a b l e ag e an d
d i s c r e t i
o n t h e n
r e s i d i n g t h e r e i n , o r (b ) b y l e a v i n g t h e c
o p i e s a t
defendant' s offic e o r regula r plac e o f b u s i n e s s w i t h
som e c o m p e t e n t p e r s o n i n charg e thereof . (8a )
245
----------------------- Page 246----------------------RULE 14
CS. 6-7
SE
N O T E S
1. Thes e tw o
service o f summons .
section s provid e for tw o mode s o f

Th e thir d mod e i s servic e o f summon s
by publicatio n (Sees. 14, 1 5 an d 16).

Th e cour t ma y
als o
provid e for an y othe r manne r a s i t ma y dee m sufficient
(Sec.
15).
2 . S u m m o n s c a n n o t b e serve d b y mail
W h e r e
service o f summon s i s mad e by publication , " a copy o
th e s u m m o n s an d orde r o f th e cour t shal l b
b y
registere d mai l t o th e las t know n addres s o f th e
dant " (Sec.
15).
Tha t resor t t o registere d mai
nly
complementary t o servic e o f summon s b y publication , bu t
it doe s no t mea n t h a t servic e b y registere d mai
.
f
e
sen t
defen l i s o
l
alon e
woul d suffice .
Thus , Sec . 2 2 o f th e forme r Rul e entitle
d
"Proof of service
by registered
mail,"
whic h create d
tha t
m i s i m p r e s s i o n , a l t h o u g h i t actuall y referre d onl
y
t o
th e registere d mai l a s a complemen t i n s u m m o n s b y
p u b l i c a t i o n , h a s bee n e l i m i n a t e d a n d h a s no t
b e e n
reproduce d i n thi s revise d Rule .
Fo r t h a t matter
, th e
purpos e i t intende d t o serv e i s attende d t o b y Sec .
13 ,
Rul e 13 .
3 . In ejectmen t cases ,
bein g i n personam,
rsona l
service o f summon s o n th e defendan t withi n th e stat e o f
th e foru m i s essentia l t o acquir e jurisdictio n ove r
pe
hi s
person , henc e summon s b y publicatio n i s nul l an d voi d

(Ilaya
Textile
Market,
Inc.
vs.
Ocampo,
et
al,
L-27823,
Mar.
20,
1970).
4 .
Wher e
th e
actio n
i s
i n personam
an d
th e
defen
d a n t i s i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , servic e m u s t b e
m a d e i n
accordanc e wit h Sec . 7 .
Substitute d servic e shoul d b e
availe d o f only wher e th e defendan t canno t b e promptl y
s e r v e d in
p e r s o n
(Litonjua
vs.
CA,
e t al,
-46265,
Oct. 28,
1977).
246
----------------------- Page 247-----------------------
RULE 14
SEC. 8
SUMMONS
5 . Th e
explaine d i n
impossibilit y o f persona l servic e shoul d b e

th e proo f o f servic e showin g t h a t effort s
wer e exerte d therefor , henc e th e resor t t o substitute d

service
(Keister
vs. Navarro,
et al.,
L-29067,
May
31,
1977) an d suc h fact s mus t b e reporte d in th e proo f o
f
service ,
o t h e r w i s e t h e s u b s t i t u t e d servic e i s
invali d
(Busuego
vs.
CA,
et al, L-48955,
June
30,
1971; Arev
alo,
et al. vs. Quilatan, et al.,
G.R. No.
57892, Sept. 21,
1982;
Ponio, et al. vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 66782, Dec. 20, 1984;
Venturanza vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.
77760, Dec.
11,
1987;
Samartino vs. Raon, et al., G.R. No.
131482, July 3,
2002).
Where , however , th e substitute d servic e o f summon s
u n d e r suc h circumstance s wa s no t objecte d t o b y
th e
defendant a t th e tria l wher e h e voluntaril y appeare d b y

counsel an d thi s objection wa s raise d only for th e first
tim e o n appeal , ther e wa s n o questio n tha t sai d summon s
wa s actuall y an d timel y receive d b y th e defendant .
Th e
doctrin e i n th e aforecite d case s wa s not applie d an d suc h
s u b s t i t u t e d servic e o f s u m m o n s wa s
declare d
valid .
Whateve r defect ther e wa s in suc h mod e o f servic e wa s
deeme d waive d an d th e cour t ha d acquire d jurisdictio n
over
t h e p e r s o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t b y hi s v o l u
n t a r y
submission
theret o
(Boticano
vs.
Chu,
G.R.
No.
58036,
Mar.
16,
1987; cf.
Umandap
vs. Sabio,
Jr., et al.,
G.R.
No.
140244,
Aug.
29,
2000).
6 . Althoug h th e wife wa s not personall y serve d wit h
summons , th e servic e o f suc h summon s o n he r husban d
wa s bindin g o n her , wher e he r husban d apprise d he r o f
t h a t fact b y telegra m an d sh e wa s als o serve d wit h
a
copy o f th e wri t o f preliminar y attachmen t issue d in th e
case ; hence , sh e wa s duly alerte d t o th e filing an d pen dency o f th e actio n agains t he r
(De Leon vs. Hontanosas
,
et al., L-40377,
Oct.
29,
1975).
Sec .
ridical
personality.
8.
Service
W h e n
upon
p e r s o n s
entity
associate d
without
i n
a n
ju
entit y
247
----------------------- Page 248----------------------RULE 14
SEC. 8
w i t h o u t juridica l
p e r s o n a l i t y ar e s u e d u n d
e r th e
n a m e
b y w h i c h t h e y ar e
g e n e r a l l y o r c o m
m o n l y
k n o w n ,
s e r v i c e m a y
b e
e f f e c t e d u p o n
a l l t h e
d e f e n d a n t s b y s e r v i n g u p o n a n y o n e o f t h
e m , o r
u p o n t h e p e r s o n i n charg e o f th e offic e o r plac e
o f
b u s i n e s s m a i n t a i n e d
i n s u c h
n a m e .
B u
t
s u c h
servic e shal l no t bin d individuall y an y perso n w h o s e
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e e n t i t y h a s , u p o n d u e
n o t i c e ,
b e e n s e v e r e d befor e t h e actio n w a s brought . (9a )
N O T E S
1.
A s a genera l rul e an d a s provide d in Sec .
o f
Rul e 3 , only natura l o r juridica l person s ma y b e partie s

in a civi l action , bu t "entitie s authorize d by law " ma y
likewis e b e partie s t o a suit .
Accordingly , Sec . 1 5 o f s
ai d
Rul e provide s t h a t a n entit y withou t juridica l personalit y
may b e sue d unde r th e circumstance s prescribe d therei n
in connectio n wit h a transactio n i t ma y hav e entere d int o
an d th e presen t sectio n provide s th e rul e for summon s
thereon .
I t m u s t nonetheles s b e observe d t h a t suc h entit
y
withou t juridica l personalit y ca n b e sued , bu t canno t
sue by initiatin g an origina l civil action .
However ,
i t i s
s u b m i t t e d t h a t a s a m a t t e r o f f a i r n e s s a n
d logica l
procedure , onc e it i s impleade d a s a defendan t t o a suit ,
it ma y als o fil e c o u n t e r c l a i m s , cross-claim s o r o
t h e r
initiatory pleading s for claim s i t ma y properl y avai l itsel f
of as , an d sinc e it i s already , a part y t o a suit .
Also ,
th e previou s provision s o f Sec .
9 o f thi s
Rul e
on thi s matte r referre d t o "person s associate d i n business, "

thu s givin g ris e t o th e impressio n t h a t only association s
engage d i n busines s ar e contemplate d therei n an d ca n b e
sued a s suc h defendants .
Thi s sectio n ha s bee n revise d
t o
refe r t o an d includ e "person s associate d i n a n entit y
w i t h o u t juridica l personality, "

sinc e
association s
no t
engage d i n busines s o r commercia l activity , suc h a s civic
24 8
----------------------- Page 249----------------------RULE 14
S. 9-10
SUMMONS
SEC
association s o r organizations , ca n als o commi t actionabl e

wrong s whic h ca n b e a caus e o f action in a civil case .
2 .
W h e r e
t h e a c t i o n w a s b r o u g h t a g a i n
s t t h e
"Cerisco Blackca t Trading, " whic h designatio n wa s a
combination o f th e trademar k an d busines s nam e unde r
whic h t h e
o w n e r s
o f t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t wer e
doin g
business , th e summon s serve d upo n th e "president/owner/
manager " o f sai d firm , althoug h the y wer e no t impleade d
a s defendant s i n th e complaint , wa s vali d an d th e cour t
acquire d jurisdictio n ove r t h e i r person s a s th e
sam e
complied wit h th e provision s o f Sec . 9 (now , Sec. 8) o f
thi s Rul e on servic e upo n association s
(Ablaza vs.
CIR,
et al, L-33906,
Dec.
21,
1983).
Sec .
t h e
d e f e n d a n
a i l o r
i n s t i t u t
i m b y
th e office r
o r
i n s t i t u t
specia l
sherif f fo r
9 .
t
Service
i s a
i o n ,
upon
p r i s o n e r
s e r v i c e
w h o
sai d purpose .
i s
W h e n
c o n f i n e d
shal l
h a v i n g t h e
i o n
prisoners.
b e
m a n a g e m e n t
d e e m e d
u p o n
effecte d
i n a
o f s u c h jai l
d e p u t i z e d
a s
(12a )
Sec .
10 .
Service
Whe n t h e d e f e n d a n t i s
i s e
a n i n c o m p e t e n t , s e r
h i m
personall y an d o n h i s lega l
o r
i f n o n e , u p o n
h
w h o s e
a p p o i n t m e n t shal l b e
.
I n th e c a s e o f a minor
upon
minors
and
incompetents.
a minor , i n s a n e o r o t h e r w
v i c e shal l
b e
m a d e
u p o n
g u a r d i a n i f h e h a s one ,
i s g u a r d i a n
a d
litem
applie d
,
servic e
fo r
o n hi s fathe r o r mother . (10a ,
b y
m a y
th e
als o
plaintiff
b e
mad e
11a)
NOTE S
1.
Th e importan t chang e introduce d in Sec . 9 o f thi s
Rule i s th e deputizatio n a s a specia l sherif f o f th e hea d o f

th e pena l institutio n for th e servic e o f summon s upon a
prisone r confine d therein .
Consequently , t h a t offic
er
who ha s th e managemen t o f th e priso n facility shal l b e
249
----------------------- Page 250----------------------RULE 14
SEC. 11
charge d wit h th e dut y o f complyin g wit h th e provision s

of Sees . 4 an d 5 o f thi s Rul e relativ e t o th e retur n on th
e
summon s o n th e prisoner .
2 .
Wit h regar d t o Sec .
10 ,
th e change s consis t o f
th e presen t requiremen t t h a t summon s shoul d b e serve d

upo n th e minor , regardles s o f hi s age , an d upo n hi s lega l
guardia n o r als o upo n eithe r o f hi s parents .
I n t
h e cas e
o f a n incompetent , servic e mus t als o b e mad e o n hi m
personall y o r upo n hi s lega l guardian , b u t no t o n h
i s
p a r e n t s u n l e s s , obviously ,
w h e n t h e y a r e hi
s lega l
guardians .
I n an y event , i f th e mino r o r incompeten
t
h a s n o lega l g u a r d i a n , t h e plaintif f m u s t obtai n
t h e
appointmen t o f a guardia n ad litem for him .
S e c .
11 .
Service
upon
domestic
private
juridical
entity. W h e n
i s a
c o r p o r a
t i o n ,
p a r t n e r s h i p o r a s s o c i a t i o n o r g a n i z e d u n d
e r
t h e
l a w s o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s w i t h a j u r i d i c a l p e r
s o n a l i t y ,
s e r v i c e m a y b e m a d e o n t h e p r e s i d e n t , m a
n a g i n g
p a r t n e r , g e n e r a l m a n a g e r ,
c o r p o r a t e s e c
r e t a r y ,
t r e a s u r e r , o r i n - h o u s e c o u n s e l . (13a )
NOTE S
1.
U n d e r th e formulatio n i n Sec .
1 3 o f thi
s Rul e
from whic h thi s amende d sectio n wa s taken , i t wa s hel d
t h a t servic e upo n a perso n othe r t h a n thos e mentione d
t h e r e i n i s invali d a n d doe s
no t bin d t h e corpora
tio n
(Delta
Motors
Corp.
vs.
Pamintuan,
et
al.,
L-41667,
April
30,
1976,
citin g Reader
vs.
District
Court,
94 Pac.
2nd 8581, holdin g t h a t servic e o f summon s on th e wife o f
th e corporat e secretar y wa s no t bindin g o n th e corporation ;
cf.
AM
Trucking,
Inc.
vs.
Buencamino,
et
al.
,
G.R.
No.
62445,
Aug.
31,
1983).
Bu t
in Summit
Trad
ing
&
Dev. Corp. vs. Avendano, et al. (G.R . No . 60038 , Mar .
18 ,
1985), summon s for th e corporatio n serve d on th e secretar y
o f th e presiden t thereo f wa s hel d t o b e bindin g o n sai d
250
----------------------- Page 251----------------------RULE 14
SUMMONS
SEC. 11
corporation a s th e secretar y wa s considere d a n "agent "

o f th e corporation .
Th e sam e i s tru e wher e summon s
wa s serve d o n th e administrativ e
Chie f o f Financ e o f
defendant
etc.,
corporatio n
et al.,
G.R.
(Far
No.
Corp.,
57218, Dec.
12,
et
al. vs.
Francisco,
1986).
2 . Also , i t wa s rule d tha t servic e o f summon s upo n

th e assistan t genera l manage r for operation s o f a cor poration , holdin g office at a sub-statio n i s vali d a s h e is ,
in effect , a "manager " or "agent " o f th e corporatio n (Villa
Rey
Transit, Inc., et al. vs. Far East Motor
Corp.,
et al
.,
L-31339, Jan. 31,
1978) eve n i f th e paper s wer e late r left
wit h th e telle r du e t o th e refusa l o f sai d assistan t genera l
manage r t o receiv e th e sam e upo n th e tende r thereo f t o
him .
W h e r e , however , s u m m o n s i n a cas e agains t
a
corporation ,
w i t h h e a d office i n Manil a bu t w i t h
a n
agency i n Cebu , w a s serve d o n it s suppose d b r a n c h
manage r i n Ceb u bu t h e apparentl y betraye d th e trus t
o f th e defendan t corporatio n b y allowin g a n orde r o f
default t o b e take n agains t it , i t wa s hel d tha t summon s
wa s no t validl y serve d an d n o jurisdictio n wa s acquire d
over th e
defendan t corporatio n
(First Integrated Bonding
& Insurance Co., Inc.
vs. Dizon, etc., et al, G.R. No.
61289,
Oct.
27,
3 .
lawyer wh
in behal
validit y
1983).
Alon g th e sam e
o ha d mad e tw
f o f a defendan
o f servic e o f
rationale , i t wa s declare d tha t a

o specia l appearance s i n cour t
t corporation , t o challeng e th e
summon s upo n it , i s an agen t o f
said corporatio n unde r Sec .
3 o f thi s Rul e an d summon s
intende d for sai d corporatio n ma y validly b e serve d

him
(Filoil Marketing
Corp.
vs. Marine Dev.
Corp.
e
Phil,
L-29636,
Sept.
30, 1982; Lingner
&
Fisher
vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No. 63557, Oct. 28,
1983).
4 . Th e foregoin g
by th e consideratio n tha
allowe d servic e upo n
mad e o n th e president ,
on
of
th
GMBH
doctrine s wer e obviously dictate d

t th e former Sec . 13 o f thi s Rul e
a defendan t corporatio n t o "b e
manager , secretary , cashier , agen t
25 1
----------------------- Page 252----------------------RULE 14

SEC. 11
or an y o f it s directors. "
Th e aforesai d term s wer e obvi -
ously ambiguou s an d susceptibl e o f broa d an d sometime s

illogical interpretations , especially th e wor d "agent " o f
th e corporation .
Th e Filoil case , involvin g th e litigatio
n
lawye r
o f t h e
corporatio n
wh o
precisel y
a p p e a r e d
t o
challeng e th e validit y o f servic e o f summons , bu t whos e

ver y ap pe a ra nc e for t h a t purpos e wa s seize d upo n t
o
validat e th e defectiv e service , i s a n illustratio n o f th e nee d
for thi s
revise d
terminology .
s e
necessitate d th
th e in-hous e
an employe e
an independen t
sectio n
Thus ,
wit h
th e
limite d
absur d
scop e
an d
specifi c
resul t i n th e Filoil ca
amendmen t permittin g servic e only o n

counse l o f th e corporatio n wh o i s in effect
o f th e corporation , a s distinguishe d from
practitioner .
5 . Th e aforestate d consideration s notwithstanding ,

it wa s believe d t h a t th e ultimat e tes t o n th e validit y an d
sufficiency o f servic e o f summon s i s whethe r th e sam e
an d th e attachment s theret o wer e ultimatel y receive d b y
th e corporatio n unde r suc h circumstance s t h a t n o undu e
prejudic e wa s sustaine d b y i t from th e procedura l lapse ,
an d t h a t i t wa s afforde d full opportunit y t o presen t it
s
responsiv e p l e a d i n g s . Thi s i s b u t i n accor d w i t
h t h e
e n t r e n c h e d rul e t h a t t h e e n d s o f s u b s t a n t i a
l justic e
shoul d no t b e s u b o r d i n a t e d t o technicalitie s and ,
for
whic h purpose , eac h cas e mus t b e examine d withi n th e
factual milie u peculia r t o it .
T h u s ,
w a s
i t w a s
hel d
t h a t a l t h o u g h s u m m o n s
served on a secretar y o f th e corporatio n (no t th e official

corporat e secretary ) and , therefore , suc h servic e wa s mad e
on a perso n no t authorize d t o receiv e th e same , wher e
said summon s an d th e complain t wer e i n fact seasonabl y
receive d b y th e corporatio n from it s sai d clerk , ther e wa s
s u b s t a n t i a l c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e r u l e o n s e r
v i c e o f
summon s (G & G Trading Corporation vs. CA, et al.,
G.R.
No.
78299, Feb.
29,
1988).
252
----------------------- Page 253----------------------RULE 14
SEC. 11
SUMMONS
6 . However , th e foregoin g oscillatin g holding s wer e

clarified
and/o r
overturne d
in E.B.
Villarosa
&
Partner
Co., Ltd. vs. Benito
(G.R . No . 136426 , Aug . 6 , 1999) whic h
declare d
lianc e
followed
t h a t
unde r
t h e doctrin e
th e
o f s u b s t a n t i a l
comp
1964 Rule s i s n o longer applicabl e in
view o f th e amendment s introduce d by th e 1997 Rule s o f

Civil Procedure .
I t wa s pointe d ou t t h a t th e new rul
e o n
thi s poin t i s restricted , limite d an d exclusive , a s follows :
"The designatio n o f th e person s or officer s wh o
ar e authorize d t o accep t summon s for a domesti c
corporation o r partnershi p i s now limite d an d mor e
clearly specifie d in Sec . 11 , Rul e
14 o f th e 1997 R
ule s
o f Civi l Procedure .
Th e rul e now state s 'genera
l
m a n a g e r ' i n s t e a d o f onl y ' m a n a g e r ' ; ' c o
r p o r a t e
s e c r e t a r y ' i n s t e a d o f 'secretary' ; an d ' t r e
a s u r e r '
instea d
o f 'cashier. '
Th e phras e
'agent ,
or a
n y o f
it s directors ' i s conspicuously delete d in th e new rule. "
Thi s rulin g
s. CA,
et al. (G.R . No .
summon s wa s declare
filin g
cler k
o
u g h t h e
latter appeare d t o
wa s
reiterate d
in Mason,
e t
al.
144662 , Oct . 13 , 2003) , wher e servic e o f

d invali d becaus e i t wa s serve d on a
f d e f e n d a n t c o r p o r a t i o n a l t h o
hav e
eventuall y receive d th e same .
7 . A rea l part y in interest-plaintif f

a lega l right , whil e a
rea l
part y
i s on e whos e ac t or omission violate s th e
th e former .
W h e r e
t h e defendan t
a
corporation whe n th e caus e o f action accrued
i s on e wh o ha s
in interest-defendan t
lega l right s o f
stil l existe d a s
, summon s
may properl y b e serve d on it eve n i f at th e tim e o f th e

issuanc e an d receip t o f summon s i t ha d alread y bee n
dissolved .
A defendan t corporatio n i s subjec t t o sui t
even i f dissolved ,
f th e
Corporation Code .
a s
contemplate d
in
Sec .
122
I t should , therefore , b e amenabl e t o
such coerciv e proces s whic h may b e serve d throug h an y

of th e
p e r s o n s mentione d in Sec .
1 3 (now ,
Sec.
11),
Rule
12 (Rebollido, et al.
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 81
123,
Feb.
28,
1989).
253
----------------------- Page 254----------------------RULE 14
SEC. 12
Sec .
12 .
Service
.
Whe n t h e d e f e n d a n t i
e n t i t y w h i c h
h a s
n t h e
P h i l i p p i n e s , s e r v i
r e s i d e n t
a g e n t d e s i g n a t e d i
r t h a t
p u r p o s e , or , i f t h e
n t h e
g o v e r n m e n t officia l d e
ect ,
o r o n a n y
o f i t s o
n t h e
P h i l i p p i n e s . (14a )
upon foreign private juridical
entity
s a foreig n privat e juridica l

t r a n s a c t e d
b u s i n e s s
c e
n
m a y
b e
m a d e
o n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h
r e b e
n o
s u c h
it s
la w fo
a g e n t ,
s i g n a t e d b y la w t o tha t eff
f f i c e r s o r a g e n t s
w i t h i
NOTE S
1. Thi s sectio n ha s bee n amende d t o substitut e th e
phras e "foreign privat e juridica l entit y whic h ha s tran sacted busines s i n th e Philippines, " bein g mor e embracin g
an d accurate , for th e provisio n in th e forme r Sectio n 1 4
of thi s Rul e whic h referre d t o a "foreign corporation , or
a join t non-stoc k compan y or association , doin g busines s
in th e Philippines. "
2 . Formerly , wher e th e foreign privat e corporatio n
ha d n o residen t agen t i n th e Philippine s o r officer s o
r
other agent s here , servic e o f summon s wa s mad e o n th e
governmen t official s designate d by law , t o wit : (a) for
banking , saving s an d loa n o r trus t corporations , upo n th e
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f B a n k s (Sec.
17,
R.A.
337);
(b)
for
insuranc e corporations , o n th e Insuranc e Commissione r
(Sec.
177,
Insurance Act,
a s amende d
by Act
3152);
an d
(c) in th e cas e o f othe r corporations , on th e Secretar y o f

Commerc e
(Sec.
72, Act
1259,
a s amende d by
CA
.
287,
R.A.
337 a n d
R.A.
1055).
However ,
Sec .
12 3
o f t h e
C o r p o r a t i o n Cod e no w provide s t h a t w h e n
a
foreig n
privat e corporatio n applie s for a licens e t o d o busines s
i n t h e Philippines ,
i t shal l b e g r a n t e d subjec t
t o th e
condition ,
inter alia,
t h a t i f i t h a s n o residen t
agent ,
summon s an d processe s intende d for i t shal l b e serve d
on th e Securitie s an d Exchang e Commission .
254
----------------------- Page 255----------------------RULE 14
SEC. 13
SUMMONS
3 . Wher e th e servic e o f summon s i s mad e o n th e

governmen t officia l designate d b y law ,
th e defend
an t
corporation ha s 3 0 day s from it s receip t o f th e summon s
withi n whic h t o file
it s a n s w e r (Sec.
2, Rule
11
).
I f
served o n it s residen t agent , officer s o r othe r agent s i n
th e Philippines , th e 15-day reglementar y perio d applie s
(see Facilities Management
Corp.
vs.
DelaOsa,
L38649,
Mar.
28,
1979).
4 . Th e forme r Sec .
1 4 o f thi s Rul e required ,
a s a
condition sine qua
non,
t h a t th e foreign corporatio n
i s
doing busines s in th e Philippines .
In th e absenc e o f p
roo f
thereof ,
b u t t h e clai m o f th e
plaintif f i s base d o
n
a
contract wit h sai d foreig n corporatio n whic h provide s
tha t al l controversie s arisin g from sai d contrac t "shal l
fall unde r th e jurisdictio n o f Philippin e Courts, " th e sui t
ma y b e i n s t i t u t e d i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s an d
servic e o f
summon s ma y b e mad e b y publicatio n unde r a libera l
applicatio n o f Sec .
1 7 (now , Sec.
15) o f thi s Rul
e in
relatio n
to
Rul e
4 (Lingner
&
Fisher
GMBH
vs.
IAC,
et al., supra).
even
sued
th e
i t
i s
It has ,
i f it i s
for act s
rational e
als o
however , bee n hel d tha

no t doin g busines s in
don e agains t person s i
t h a t eve n i f i t i s
t a foreign corporation ,
th e Philippines , ma y b e
n thi s countr y unde r
no t doin g busines s here ,
not barre d from seekin g redres s from Philippin e
court s
(Facilities
Management
Corp.
vs.
De
la
Osa,
supra;
Wang Laboratories,
Inc.
vs. Mendoza,
et al.,
G.R.
No. 72147, Dec. 1, 1987).
Not e tha t Sec . 12 now merel y
require s
t h a t
sacted
busines s here .
th e
foreig n
corporatio n
has
tran
Sec .
13 .
Service upon public corporations. Whe n
th e d e f e n d a n t i s t h e R e p u b l i c o f th e P h i l i
p p i n e s ,
servic e ma y b e effecte d o n th e Solicito r General ; i n
c a s e o f a p r o v i n c e , cit y o r m u n i c i p a l i t y ,
o r lik e
publi c corporations , servic e ma y b e effecte d o n it s
265
----------------------- Page 256----------------------RULE 14
SECS. 14-16
e x e c u t i v e h e a d , o r o n s u c h othe r office r o r officer

s
a s t h e la w o r t h e cour t m a y direct . (15 )
Sec .
14 .
Service
upon
defendant
whose
identity
or
whereabouts are
unknown.
I n
an y
a c t i o n w h
e r e
t h e
d e f e n d a n t i s d e s i g n a t e d a s a n u n k n o w n o w n e
r , o r
th e like , o r w h e n e v e r hi s w h e r e a b o u t s ar e u n k n o
w n
a n d
c a n n o t
b e
a s c e r t a i n e d
b y d i l i g e n t
i n q u i r y ,
s e r v i c e m a y ,
b y
l e a v e o f c o u r t , b e e f f e c
t e d u p o n
h i m
b y
p u b l i c a t i o n
i n a
n e w s p a p e r
o f
g e n e r a l
c i r c u l a t i o n a n d i n s u c h p l a c e s a n d fo r s u c h t
i m e a s
t h e c o u r t m a y order . (16a )
n
d e f
i n
P h i
p e
s t a
e c t
w h i
n w
t h e
c t u
o r
Sec .
16 .
Extraterritorial
t h e
e n d a n t d o e s no t r e s i d
t h e
l i p p i n e s , a n d
t h e
a
r s o n a l
t u s o f t h e plaintif f o r r e l
o f
c h is , p r o p e r t y w i t h i n
h i c h
d e f e n d a n t h a s o r c l a i
a l
c o n t i n g e n t ,
o r
i n w
service.
e
a n d
c t i o n
i s
no t
W h e
a f f e c t s
foun d
t h e
a t e s to , o r t h e s ub j
t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , i
m s a lie n o r interest , a
h i c h
t h e
r e l i e f
d e m a n d e d
c o n s i s t s ,
w h o l l y
o r
i n p a r t ,
i n e x c l u d
i n g
t h e
d e f e n d a n t fro m an y i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , o r t h e pr
opert y
o f t h e d e f e n d a n t
h a s
b e e n
a t t a c h e d
w i
t h i n
t h e
P h i l i p p i n e s ,
s e r v i c e m a y ,
b y
l e a v e o f c
o u r t ,
b e
effecte d o u t o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s b y p e r s o n a l
s e r v i c e
a s u n d e r s e c t i o n 6 ; o r b y p u b l i c a t i o n i n a n e
w s p a p e r
o f g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n i n s u c h p l a c e s a n d
fo r s u c h
t i m e a s t h e c o u r t m a y order , i n w h i c h c a s e a
c o p y
o f t h e s u m m o n s an d o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t shal l b e s
e n t
b y r e g i s t e r e d mai l t o t h e las t k n o w n a d d r e s s o
f t h e
d e f e n d a n t , o r i n a n y o t h e r m a n n e r t h e c o
u r t m a y
d e e m s u f f i c i e n t .
A n y
o r d e r g r a n t i n g s u
c h
l e a v e
shal l specif y a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , w h i c h shal l no t
b e
l e s s t h a n sixt y (60 ) d a y s afte r notice , w i t h i n w h i
c h
t h e d e f e n d a n t m u s t a n s w e r . (17a )
256
----------------------- Page 257----------------------RULE 14
14-15
SUMMONS
SECS.
NOTE S
1. Sec . 1 5 provide s for th e four instance s wherei n
extraterritoria l servic e o f summon s i s proper .
In a
n y o f
such four instances , servic e o f summon s may , by leav e
of court , b e effecte d by persona l service , by publicatio n
wit h a copy o f th e summon s an d th e cour t orde r sen t
b y registere d mail , o r i n an y othe r m a n n e r whic h th
e
court ma y dee m sufficient .
Wher e summonse s wer e sen t
t o defendant s wh o wer e residin g abroad , b y registere d
mai l whic h the y dul y receive d an d eve n filed a pleadin g
questioning suc h mod e o f service , th e thir d mod e o f servic e
wa s substantiall y complie d wit h an d suc h servic e i s valid ,
especially wher e th e cour t thereafte r grante d the m 9 0 day s
w i t h i n whic h
t o fil e t h e i r a n s w e r
(De
Midgely
vs.
Ferandos,
L-34313,
May
13,
1975;
Carioga,
et al
.
vs.
Malaya,
et al., L 48375, Aug.
13,
1986).
2 . Wher e th e husban d i s a nonresident , bu t hi s wife

i s a residen t an d i s hi s attorney-in-fac t wh o eve n com mence d an actio n in hi s behalf , in a complain t agains t
said nonresiden t defendant , summon s ma y validl y b e
served o n hi s wife an d th e cour t ha s jurisdictio n over sai d
nonresiden t
(Gemperle
vs.
Schenker,
et
al.,
L-1
8164,
Jan.
23,
1967).
3 . U n d e r Sec .
1 5 o f t h i s Rule , e x t r a t e r r
i t o r i a l
service o f summon s i s prope r only in four instances , viz.:
(a) whe n th e actio n affect s th e persona l s t a t u s o f
th e
plaintiff ; (b) whe n th e action relate s to , or th e subject o f
which i s propert y withi n th e Philippine s i n whic h th e
defendan t h a s o r claim s a lie n o r interest , actua l o
r
contingent ; (c) whe n th e relie f demande d in suc h action
consists , wholly o r i n part , i n excludin g th e defendan t
from an y interes t in propert y locate d in th e Philippines ;
an d (d)
w h e n t h e d e f e n d a n t n o n r e s i d e n t ' s p
r o p e r t y
ha s bee n
attache d in
th e Philippine s
(De Midgely
vs.
Ferandos,
supra).
267
----------------------- Page 258----------------------RULE 14
ECS. 14-15
4 .

A n
actio n
for
injunctio n
S
t o
restrai n
defendant s
from enforcin g agains t plaintif f it s contract s for deliver y

of coconut oil t o defendants , wit h a clai m for damages ,
i s no t amon g thos e enumerated .
I t i s a persona l
actio n
in personam
an d
persona l
o r s u b s t i t u t e d serv
ice ,
no t
extraterritoria l service , i s require d i n orde r tha t Philippin e
court s ma y acquir e jurisdictio n over th e defendant .
Thi s
i s especiall y tru e wit h respec t t o th e mone y judgmen t
s o u g h t b y plaintif f which ,
t o b e s u s t a i n e d ,
r e q u i r e s
p e r s o n a l servic e
o n t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h i n t
h e S t a t e
whic h rendere d th e j u d g m e n t sough t [Boudard , e t al .
vs . Tait , 6 7 Phil .
170] .
Th e extraterritoria l servic e o
f
s u m m o n s effecte d o n t h e
defendant s b y D H L couri
e r
servic e
w a s
nul l
an d
voi d
(The Dial
Corp.,
e t al.
vs.
Soriano,
et al., G.R.
No.
82330, May
31,
1988).
5 .
Sinc e
t h e
defendan t
i s
n o n r e s i d e n t
an
d th e
suit als o involve s rea l propert y i n th e Philippine s wherei n
said defendan t ha s a n interest , servic e o f summon s o n
hi m by publicatio n in a loca l newspape r i s authorize d by
Sec. 1 7 (now , Sec. 15) o f thi s Rule .
Whil e it ma y
b e tru e
t h a t servic e o f summon s b y publicatio n doe s no t involv e
any absolut e assuranc e t h a t sai d nonresiden t defendan t
s h a l l t h e r e b y receiv e
a c t u a l notice ,
s u c h se
rvic e
o f
s u m m o n s
i s r e q u i r e d no t
for p u r p o s e s o f ph
ysicall y
a c q u i r i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r
h i s p e r s o n b u
t s i m p l y
in p u r s u a n c e o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f fai r pla
y .
I t i s
necessary , however , t h a t copie s o f th e summon s an d th e
c o m p l a i n t b e dul y
serve d
a t d e f e n d a n t ' s l
a s t k n o w n
a d d r e s s b y r e g i s t e r e d mai l a s
a c o m p l e m e n
t
t o t h e
publication .
Th e failur e t o strictl y an d correctl y comply
w i t h
d i n g
mailin g
aforesaid
vs.
et al,
t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s
o f t h e r u l e s r e g a r
t h e
o f sai d copie s wil l constitut e a fata l defect in th e
mod e o f servic e o f summon s (Sahagun
CA,
G.R.
No.
78328,
June
3,
1991).
6
o l v e
p e r s o
y i n
. W h e r e
t h e c o m p l a i n t
t h e
n a l s t a t u s o f plaintif f o r
t h e
d o e s
a n y
n o t
i n v
p r o p e r t
25 8
----------------------- Page 259----------------------RULE 14
14-15
SUMMONS
SECS.
P h i l i p p i n e s i n w h i c h d e f e n d a n t s h a v e o r clai
m
a n
i n t e r e s t o r whic h t h e plaintif f h a s
a t t a c h e d ,
i t i s a
persona l actio n in personam.
Consequently , persona l or
s u b s t i t u t e d servic e o f s u m m o n s
o n d e f e n d a n t
s , no t
extraterritoria l service , i s necessar y t o confer jurisdictio n
on th e court .
In a persona l action for injunction , therefore ,
extraterritoria l servic e o f th e summon s an d complain t
on th e
n o n r e s i d e n t defendant s canno t confe r o n th
e
court jurisdictio n o r powe r t o compe l the m t o obey it s
order s
(Kawasaki
Port
Service
Corp.,
et al.
vs. A
mores,
58340, July
16,
1991).
7.
In Asiavest Limited vs. CA, et al. (G.R . No .
128803 ,
Sept . 25 , 1998) , an actio n wa s filed in Hongkon g agains t

Philippin e residen t for a su m o f money .
Summon
s
therei n wa s serve d directly throug h plaintiff s Philippin e
counse l upo n a n occupan t o f defendant' s residenc e i n
Quezon City .
Thereafter , th e judgmen t o f th e Hongkon g
court wa s rendere d an d sough t t o b e execute d i n th e
Philippines , bu t it wa s resiste d for lack o f jurisdictio n over
th e perso n o f th e defendant .
a
Matter s o f procedure , suc h a s servic e o f summons , ar e

governe d by th e lex loci,
in thi s case , thos e o f H
ong kong . Ther e bein g n o proo f o n thi s score , unde r th e rul e
on processua l presumptio n th e sam e ar e deeme d t o b e
th e sam e a s Philippin e law .
I n th e presen t case , s
uc h
s u m m o n s
s e r v e d o n a n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n
t i n a n
action
i n personam
i s no t
vali d
sinc e
extraterritoria
l
service o f summon s on nonresident s i s allowe d only in
th e instance s provide d unde r Sec . 17, Rul e 14 .
Servic
e o f
s u m m o n s i n t h i s cas e bein g invalid ,
t h e Hongkon
g
judgmen t canno t b e give n effect here ,
n o jurisdicti
o n
havin g bee n acquire d over th e defendant .
8. A newspape r o f genera l circulation for purpose s
of summon s by publication , i s on e which i s publishe d for
th e disseminatio n o f local new s an d genera l information ,
ha s a bona fide subscription list of subscribers , i s publishe d
269
----------------------- Page 260----------------------RULE 14
16-17
SEC
S.
at regula r interval s an d i s no t publishe

to th e interes t o f a particula r group o f
Mercado,
6 1 Phil. 632).
Se e als o
R.A.
4883 , whic h require d t h a t th e
t hav e
bee n regularl y publishe d for a t leas t
d for o r devote d
person s (Basa vs.
th e provision s of
n e w s p a p e r
tw o
year s
th e
m u s
befor e
dat e o f th e publicatio n i n question , an d P.D .

107 9
(Jan .
28 ,
1977)
a s discusse d
in Fortune
Motors
(Phil.),
Inc.
vs. Metropolitan Bank, etc.,
et al. (G.R.
No .
115068 ,
Nov . 28 , 1996) .
of
S e c .
the
16 .
Residents
temporarily
out
Philippines.
W h e n
c e d
a g a i n s t a d e f e n d a n t
i t h i n
t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , bu t
u t o f it ,
s e r v i c e may , b y l e a v e
u t
o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , a
s e c t i o n .
(18a)
a n y
a c t i o n
w h o ordinaril y
w h o
i s
i s
c o m m e n
r e s i d e s
o f court ,
t e m p o r a r i l y
b e als o effecte d o
s u n d e r t h e
p r e c e d i n g
S e c . 17 .
Leave of court. An y a p p l i c a t i o n
h e
cour t u n d e r t h i s Rul e fo r leav e t o effec t s e r v i
i n
a n y m a n n e r fo r w h i c h l e a v e o f c o u r t i s
c e s s a r y
shal l b e m a d e b y m o t i o n i n w r i t i n g , s u p p
t e d b y
a f f i d a v i t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f o r s o m e p e r s o
o n
h i s
behalf ,
s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e
g r o u n d s
fo r t
a p p l i c a t i o n . (19 )
t o t
c e
n e
o r
n
h e
N O T E S
1.
Unde r thes e provisions , servic e o f summon s by
publicatio n i s authorized , wit h prio r leav e o f court :
a .
b .
Wher e th e identit y o f th e defendan t i s unknown ;

Wher e th e whereabout s o f th e defendan t i s un -
known ;
c.
Wher e th e defendan t doe s no t resid e an d i s no t
found i n th e Philippine s b u t th e sui t ca n properl y b
e
maintaine d agains t hi m here ,
bein g in rem or qua
si
in
rem;
an d
260
----------------------- Page 261----------------------RULE 14
16-17
SUMMONS
SECS
d . W h e r e
t h e d e f e n d a n t i s a r e s i d e n t
o f t h e
Philippine s bu t i s temporaril y ou t o f th e country .
2 . S u m m o n s
in
a
s u i t i n
i n s t a
residen t o f th e Philippine s temporaril y absen t
ma y b e validl y effecte d b y s u b s t i t u
d e r
I t i s immateria l
t
personam
therefro m
t e d servic e
a g a
u n
tha t th e defendan
does no t in fact receiv e actua l notice , an d th e validit y o f

such servic e i s no t affected .
Whil e th e presen t Sec .
1 5
provide s for mode s o f servic e which ma y als o b e availe d
of in th e cas e o f a residen t defendan t temporaril y absent ,
th e norma l mod e o f servic e on suc h temporaril y absen t
defendan t i s b y suc h substitute d servic e unde r Sec . 7
becaus e persona l servic e outsid e th e countr y an d servic e
b y p u b l i c a t i o n a r e no t o r d i n a r y m e a n s o f s u
m m o n s
(Montalban,
et al. vs.
Maxima,
L-22997,
Mar.
15,
1968).
However , i t ha s als o bee n hel d tha t i n suc h cases , non complianc e w i t h t h e mode s o f servic e u n d e r Sec .
1 8
(now,
Sec.
16) i s a denia l o f du e proces s an d rende
r s
th e proceeding s nul l an d void
(Castillo vs. CFI of Bulac
an,
G.R. No.
55869, Feb.
29,
1984).
3 . Also
is a residen t
p u b l i c a t i
h e du e
proces s clause
, i t ha s bee n rule d tha t wher e th e defendan t

an d th e actio n i s in personam, summon s by
o n i s invali d a s bein g violativ e
o f t
.
Plaintiff' s
recourse ,
w h e r e
persona l
service fails , i s t o a t t a c h propertie s o f th e defendan

t
unde r Sec . 1(f), Rul e 57 , thu s convertin g th e sui t t o on e
in
rem
or quasi
in
rem
an d
summon s
by
publica
tio n
will b e valid .
Wher e plaintif f fail s t o or canno t d o so , t
h e
court shoul d no t dismis s th e action bu t shoul d orde r th e
cas e t o b e hel d p e n d i n g i n th e archives , s o t h
a t th e
action wil l not prescribe , unti l suc h tim e a s th e plaintif f
succeed s i n ascertainin g th e
defendant' s whereabout s
or hi s propertie s
(Pantaleon
vs. Asuncion
105 Phil.
761;
Citizen's Surety & Insurance Co., Inc.
vs. Melencio-Herre
ra,
et al, L-32170, Mar.
31,
1971; Magdalena Estate, Inc.
vs.
Nieto,
et al, G.R.
No.
54242,
Nov.
25,
1983;
F
ilmerco
26 1
----------------------- Page 262----------------------RULE 14
ECS. 18-20
Comm.
April 9,
1987).
Sec .
Co.,
Inc.
18 .
vs.
Proof of
IAC,
et al.,
service.
S
G.R.
Th e
No.
70661,
proo f o f ser
vic e
o f a s u m m o n s shal l b e m a d e i n w r i t i n g b y t h e ser
ve r
an d shal l se t fort h t h e m a n n e r , plac e an d dat e
o f
service ; shal l specif y an y p a p e r s w h i c h h a v e b e
e n
serve d w i t h t h e p r o c e s s an d th e n a m e o f t h e p e r s
o n
w h o r e c e i v e d t h e same ; an d shal l b e s w o r n t o w h e
n
m a d e b y a p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n a sherif f o r hi s d e p
u t y .
(20)
Sec .
19 .
Proof of service
by publication.
If t h e
s e r v i c e h a s b e e n m a d e b y p u b l i c a t i o n , s e r
c e m a y
b e prove d b y th e affidavi t o f t h e printer , h i s forema n
o r p r i n c i p a l c l e r k , o r o f t h e e d i t o r , b u
n e s s o r
a d v e r t i s i n g m a n a g e r , t o w h i c h affidavi t a
p y o f
th e publicatio n shal l b e attached , an d b y a n affidavi t
s h o w i n g t h e d e p o s i t o f a c o p y o f t h e s u m m
s an d
o r d e r
fo r p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e p o s t office ,
p o s t a g e
prepaid , directe d t o t h e defendan t b y registere d mai l
t o h i s las t k n o w n a d d r e s s . (21 )
Sec .
20 .
Voluntary
appearance.
T h e
v i
s i
c o
o n
d e f e n d a n t '
s
v o l u n t a r y
a p p e a r a
h a l l b e
e q u i v a l e n t t o s e r v
c l u s i o n
i n a m o t i o n t o d i s m i
e fro m
lac k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n
f e n d a n t
shal l n o t b e d e e m e d a
23a )
n c e
i c e
i n
t h e
a c t i o n
o f s u m m o n s .
T h e
s
i n
s s o f o t h e r g r o u n d s a s i d
o v e r t h e p e r s o n o f t h e d e
v o l u n t a r y a p p e a r a n c e .
NOT E
1.
An
, b y
t h e
defendant , by
i s equivalen t
precisel y t o
for m
o f a p p e a r a n c e
i n
c o u r t
hi s agen t authorize d t o d o so , or by attorney ,

t o servic e excep t wher e suc h appearanc e i s
object t o th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t ove r th e
perso n
of th e
defendan t
(Carballo
vs.
n,
92
Phil. 974). Se e Note s 4 an d 5 unde r Sec . 1 , Rul e
262
----------------------- Page 263-----------------------
Encarnacio
16 .
RUL E
1 5
M O T I O N S
S e c t i o n
1 . Motion
defined.
A
m o t i o n
i
s a n
a p p l i c a t i o n fo r relie f o t h e r t h a n b y a pleading , ( l
a )
NOT E
1. T h i s a m e n d e d
d e f i n i t i o n o f a m o t i o
n i s a
consequenc e o f th e provision s o f Sec . 1 , Rul e 6 which limi t
th e meanin g o f a pleadin g t o th e writte n statemen t o f th e
respectiv e claim s an d defense s submitte d b y th e partie s
for appropriat e judgment , an d Sec . 2 o f th e sam e Rul e
which enumerate s th e pleading s allowed .
However ,
a s
explained in th e note s thereunder , a motion ma y als o b e
considered in a broa d sens e a s in th e natur e o f a pleadin g
since it i s amon g th e paper s filed in court . Hence , Sec . 1 0
of thi s Rul e require s a qualifie d applicatio n t o motion s o f
th e rule s applicabl e t o pleadings .
Sec .
2.
Motions
must
be in
writing.
Al l
m o t i o n s
shal l b e i n w r i t i n g e x c e p t t h o s e m a d e i n o p e n
cour t
o r i n t h e c o u r s e o f a h e a r i n g o r trial . (2a )
Sec . 3 .
Contents.
t h e
relie f s o u g h t t o b e obtaine
w h i c h i t i s based , an d i f
n e c e s s a r y t o prov e fact
b e
a c c o m p a n i e d
b y s u p p
o t h e r
papers . (3a )
Sec .
w h i c h t h
th e right s
shal l b e
Ever y
writte n m o
m o t i o n
s h a l l s t a t e
d an d th e g r o u n d s u p o n
require d b y t h e s e Rule s o r
s allege d t h e r e i n , shal l
o r t i n g
affidavit s
an d
4 .
Hearing of motion. Excep t fo r motion s
e cour t m a y ac t u p o n w i t h o u t prejudicin g
o f th e advers e party , ever y writte n motio n
s e t fo r h e a r i n g b y th e applicant .
t i o n require d t o b e hear d an d th e notic e
263

o f t h e h e a r i n g t h e r e o f s h a l l b e s e r v e d i n
s u c h a
m a n n e r a s t o e n s u r e it s receip t b y t h e o t h e r par
t y
a t leas t t h r e e (3) d a y s befor e t h e dat e o f h e a
r i n g ,
u n l e s s th e cour t fo r goo d c a u s e s e t s t h e h e a r i n
g o n
shorte r notice . (4a )
N O T E S
1. Th e
exception s
t o
th e
three-da y
notic e
rul e
n
Sec .
4 a r e : (a ) ex parte motions ,
(b) u r g e n t m
otion s
(Bautista
vs.
Mun.
Council
of Mandaluyong,
Riza
l,
98
Phil.
409;
Supreme
Investment
Corp.
vs.
Engin
eering
Equipment,
Inc.,
L-25755,
April
11,
1972),
(c)
m
otion s
agree d upo n b y th e partie s t o b e hear d o n shorte r notic e
(Tuazon
&
Co.
vs. Magdangal,
L-15047,
Jan.
30,
1962)
or jointl y submitte d b y th e parties , an d (d) motion s for
summary judgmen t whic h mus t b e serve d a t leas t 1 0 day s
befor e it s hearin g (Sec. 3, Rule 35).
2 . Thi s amende d sectio n enunciate s th e genera l rul e
tha t al l writte n motion s shal l b e se t for hearing , eve n if,
a s jus t stated , t h a t hearin g ma y b e conducte d o n les s t h
a n
3 day s advanc e notice .
Excepte d from suc h requiremen t
for hearin g ar e th e so-calle d non-litigabl e o r non-litigate d
motions , meanin g thos e whic h ma y b e acte d upo n b y th e
court withou t prejudicin g th e right s o f th e advers e party .
Whil e
motio n
ma y b e
allowe d
t o b e
filed
ex part
e
an d i s a n exceptio n t o th e 3-day notic e rule , i t doe s no
t
necessaril y mea n t h a t th e hearin g thereo f shal l b e dis pense d with .
Th e cour t ma y stil l hea r th e sam e ex parte,
t h a t is , i n th e absenc e o f th e opposin g party , sinc e
th e
court ca n ver y wel l se e t o i t t h a t th e latter' s interest s
wil l
b e dul y protected .
An ex parte proceedin g merel y mean s
t h a t i t i s take n o r grante d a t th e instanc e an d f
or th e
benefi t o f on e party , an d withou t notic e t o o r contestatio n
b y
a n y
p a r t y a d v e r s e l y affecte d
(Janin
vs.
Logan,
209
Ky.
811,
273
S.W.
531;
Stella
vs. Mosele,
2
09 III.
App.
53,
19 N.E.
2d 433).
264
----------------------- Page 265----------------------RULE 15
MOTIONS
SECS. 5
-6
3 . It i s n o longe r sufficient t o jus t mai l a copy o f t
h e
motion a t leas t 3 day s befor e th e schedule d hearing , a s
thi s mod e o f servic e ha s often bee n abuse d t o resul t i n th e
advers e party' s receip t o f suc h copy afte r th e schedule d
hearin g du e t o th e dela y i n th e mails .
Servic e o f tha
t
copy, u n d e r thi s ne w section , shoul d b e mad e i n suc h
manne r a s shal l ensur e receipt o f tha t copy a t leas t 3 day s
befor e th e hearing .
Thi s objectiv e ca n ver y easil y b e
achieved b y persona l servic e wheneve r feasible .
Fo r t
hi s
reason , Sec .
1 1 o f Rul e 1 3 provide s t h a t , w h e n e
v e r
practicable , servic e o f pleading s an d othe r paper s shal l b e
done personally , subjec t t o th e exception s an d sanction s
specified therein .
Sec
shall b e
specify t
t
no t b e
e
motion .
6 . Notice of hearing. Th e notic e o f h e a r i n g

ad d r e s s e d t o al l partie s concerned , an d shal l
h e t i m e a n d dat e o f th e h e a r i n g w h i c h m u s
late r t h a n t e n (10 ) d a y s afte r th e filin g o f th
(5a )
Sec .
e n
motio n
cour t
6 .
Proof of
service
se t fo r h e a r i n g shal l
necessary.
b e
acte d
w i t h o u t proo f o f servic e thereof .
No
u p o n
w r i t t
b y th e
(6a )
NOTE S
1.
In th e Court s o f Firs t Instanc e
Tria l Courts ) an d th e lower courts , a motion
not contai n a notic e o f tim e an d plac e o f hearin
piec e o f pape r an d o f n o lega l effect , e.g.
f a
motion for reconsideratio n o f a judgmen t or fina
does not interrup t th e reglementar y perio d
(now , Regiona l
which doe s
g i s a useles s
, in th e cas e o
l order , it
(Manila Surety
& Fidelity Co.,

Inc. vs. Bath
Construction &
Co., LI6636
,
June
24,
1965;
cf .
Sebastian
vs.
Cabal,
L-25699
,
April 30, 1970).
Th e sam e i s tru e wher e th e dat e for th e
hearin g o f th e motio n i s unintelligible , henc e fatall y
defective
(Republic Planters Bank,
et al. vs. IAC,
et
al.,
G.R. No.
63805, Aug.
31, 1984).
265
----------------------- Page 266----------------------RULE 16

S. 5-6
SEC
2 . An y motio n t h a t doe s no t comply wit h Sees . 4 , 5

an d 6 o f thi s Rul e i s a mer e scra p o f paper , shoul d no t b
e
accepted for filing and , i f filed , i s no t entitle d t o judicia l
cognizance an d doe s no t affect an y reglementar y perio d
involved for th e filin g o f th e requisit e pleading .
Thus ,
wher e th e motio n i s (a) directe d t o th e cler k o f court , no
t
t o th e
am e i s
submitte d
parties ,
"for
th e
an d
(b)
resolutio n
merel y
s t a t e s
o f th e
cour t
t h a t th e
upo n
receip t
thereof, " sai d motio n i s fatally defectiv e (Cledera, e t a

l.
vs. Sarmiento,
et al.,
L-32450-51,
June
10, 1971).
Thi s
r u l e h a s b e e n a p p l i e d t o m o t i o n s fo r ne w
t r
i a l o r
reconsideratio n wher e n o dat e for hearin g th e motio n i s
i n d i c a t e d (Manila
Surety
&
Fidelity
Co.
vs.
Bath
Construction
&
Co.,
supra;
Fulton
Insurance
Co
.
vs.
Manila
Railroad
Co.,
L-24263,
Nov.
18,
1967; Magno
vs.
Ortiz,
L-22670,
Jan.
31,
1969; In
the Matter of Proceedi
ngs
for
Disciplinary
Action
Against
Vicente
Almacen,
L
-27654,
Feb.
18,
1970; Sebastian
vs. Cabal,
supra;
Vda.
deA
zarias
vs.
Maddela,
et
al.,
L-25932,
Mar.
19,
1971;
Phil.
Advertising
Counselors,
Inc.
vs. Revilla,
et
al.,
L
-31869,
Aug.
8,
1973;
Sacdalan
vs. Bautista,
L-38014,
Mar
.
27,
1974;
New
Japan
Motors,
Inc.
vs.
Perucho,
L
-44387,
Nov.
5,
1976;
Firme,
et al.
vs. Reyes,
et al.,
L
-35858,
Aug.
21,
1979).
Wher e th e motion t o dismiss , wit h suc h defectiv e notic e
of hearing , wa s grounde d on lac k o f caus e o f actio n an d
improper venue , whic h ground s ar e resolvabl e o n th e basi s
o f th e complain t a n d th e a n n e x e s t h e r e t o , suc h
e r r o r
a l t h o u g h no t wholl y excusabl e
wa s
g r a n t e d a
libera l
consideration an d give n du e cours e b y th e Suprem e Cour t
(Azajor vs.
CA,
et al, L-40945,
Nov.
10,
1986).
3. In
Andrada,
et al.
vs.
CA,
et al.
( L 3 1 7 9 1 ,
Oct . 30 , 1974) , i t wa s hel d t h a t a "Manifestatio n a
n d
Motion " addresse d t o th e cler k o f cour t askin g hi m t o
submit th e sam e t o th e cour t "immediatel y upo n receip t
t h e r e o f di d no t comply wit h th e requirement s o f Sec .
5 ,
266
----------------------- Page 267----------------------RULE 15
S. 8, 9
MOTIONS
SEC
Rule 15 an d th e subsequen t action o f th e cour t thereo n

did no t cur e th e flaw , for a motion wit h a notic e fatally
defective i s a "useles s piec e o f paper. " Bu t a motion (t o
dismiss) i s sufficient eve n i f notic e o f th e hearin g thereo f
i s addresse d t o th e opposin g counse l a s lon g a s i t state s
th e tim e
an d
plac e
o f hearin g
(OMICO Mining
Ind.
Corp.,
et al vs.
Vallejos,
25,
1975).
The provision s o f Sec . 4 requirin g th e notic e t o b e addresse d
t o t h e opposin g p a r t y i s merel y directory .
W h
a t i s
mandator y i s th e servic e o f th e motion on th e opposin g
counsel indicatin g th e tim e an d plac e o f hearing
(Es
tipona
vs. Navarro,
et al, L-41825,
Jan.
30,
1976; Maturan
vs.
Araula, G.R. No. 57392, Jan. 30, 1982).
Eve n if th e no
tic e
in th e motion i s defectiv e for failur e t o stat e th e exac t dat e
o f h e a r i n g , t h e defec t i s cure d b y th e court' s t
a k i n g
cognizance thereo f an d th e fact tha t th e advers e part y
wa s otherwis e notifie d o f th e existenc e o f sai d pleadin g
(Sun
Uy
Giok
vs. Matusa,
101 Phil.
727).
&
Sec . 7 .
Motion
day.
E x c e p t
fo r
m o
o n s
r e q u i r i n g i m m e d i a t e a c t i o n , al l m o t i o n s
hal l b e
s c h e d u l e d fo r h e a r i n g o n Frida y afternoons , o r
f
Frida y i s a n o n - w o r k i n g day , i n th e afternoo n o
th e n e x t w o r k i n g day . (7a )
NOT E
1.
Thi s amende d section wa s take n from B.P . Big .
129 whic h provides :
t i
s
i
f
"Sec.
16 . Time and duration of sessions. Th e
and duratio n o f daily session s o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court
shall b e
determine d
b y th e Suprem e
Court :
ded,
however,
T h a t
al l m o t i o n s , excep t
t h o s e
u i r i n g
immediat e action , shal l b e hear d in th e afternoon o f every
Friday , unles s it fall s on a holiday , in whic h cas e
h e a r i n g
nex t
succeeding
t th e
s h a l l
b e hel d
busines s
o n
day :
t h e
afternoo n
Provided,
tim e
s
Provi
r e q
th e
o f t h e
further,
T h a
267
----------------------- Page 268----------------------RULE 15
ECS. 8-9
Suprem e Cour t may , for good

motion da y in specifie d areas. "
S e c .
t h e
p r o v i s i o
t a c k i n g
a p l e a d i
s h a l l
i n c l u d e
n d
a l l
o b j e c t i o
i v e d .
(8a)
8 .
Omnibus
reasons ,
motion.
S
fix
differen t
S u b j e c t
t o
n s o f s e c t i o n 1 o f Rul e 9 , a m o t i o n a t
n g , order ,
j u d g m e n t ,
a l l o b j e c t i o n s
t h e n
o r
p r o c e e d i n g
a v a i l a b l e , a
n s no t s o i n c l u d e d shal l b e d e e m e d w a
NOTE S
1.
specific
dismiss ,
r
th e cas
See Sec .
2 .
133 an d
Th e omnibu s motio n rul e in Sec . 8 yield s t o othe r

provisions . Thus , for instance , i n a motio n t o
th e failur e t o object t o th e lack o f jurisdictio n ove
e
doe s no t constitut e waive r o f thi s objection .

1 , Rul e 9 , a s amended , an d th e discussio n therein .
Regardin g evidenc e on motions , se e Sec . 7 , Rul e
note s thereunder .
Sec . 9 .
Motion for leave. A m o t i o n fo r l e a v e
t o
fil e a p l e a d i n g o r m o t i o n shal l b e a c c o m p a n i
e d b y
t h e p l e a d i n g o r m o t i o n s o u g h t t o b e a d m i t t e d
, (n )
NOTE S
1.
Th e eviden t purpos e o f thi s ne w provisio n i s t o
provid e th e cour t wit h th e basi s for determinin g th e merit s
of th e motio n for leav e o f cour t t o file th e desire d pleadin g

or motion .
Suc h pleadin g o r motio n sough t t o
i s now require d t o b e attache d t o th e motio n
court , otherwis e th e latte r ma y b e denied .
i t i s
too demanding , i f no t unfai r t o th e cour t an d
party , t o see k a rulin g an d th e admissio n o
sight unseen , s o t o speak , sinc e th e cour
t o
fathom th e content s o f th e projecte d pleadin
o p p o s i n g p a r t y c a n n o t i n t e l l i g e
l a t e hi s
b e admitte d
for leav e o f
Indeed ,
th e advers e
f a pleadin g
t wil l hav e
g an d th e
n t l y f o r m u
268
----------------------- Page 269----------------------RULE 15
SEC. 10
MOTIONS
opposition t o th e admissio n thereof .

2 .
Thi s particularl y assume s significanc e in th e filing
of amende d an d supplementa l pleading s bot h o f whic h
requir e prio r leav e o f court .
I f initiator y pleading s ar
e
sought t o b e amende d o r supplemented , specia l car e mus t
b e take n i n th e admissio n o f th e sam e sinc e responsiv e
pleading s an d reglementar y period s ma y b e involved .
Also , th e presen t requiremen t minimize s th e tim e elemen t
whe n responsiv e pleading s woul d b e required . Thus , whe n
an amende d o r supplementa l complain t i s attache d t o th e
motion for it s admissio n an d a copy thereo f i s necessaril y
served o n th e defendant , hi s perio d t o answe r immediatel y
run s from hi s receip t o f th e cour t order admittin g th e same .
Otherwise , wher e only a motio n i s filed an d th e sam e i s
granted , th e plaintif f wil l b e grante d tim e t o file th
e
amende d o r supplementa l complaint , th e defendan t wil l
hav e t o wai t for servic e on hi m thereof , an d consequentl y
h e wil l hav e furthe r tim e t o answer .
Sec
t o
p l e a d
fa r a s
c o n c e
the r
matter s
10 .
i n g s
Form.
T h e
R u l e s
shal l appl y t o w r i t t e n
a p p l i c a b l e
m o t i o n s
s o
r n s c a p t i o n , d e s i g n a t i o n , signature , an d o
o f form .
(9a )
269
----------------------- Page 270----------------------RUL E

MOTIO N
S e c t i o n
1 .
T O
Grounds.
1 6
D I S M I S S
Withi n
t h e
t i m e
fo r bu t
b e f o r e
f i l i n g t h e
a n s w e r
t o
t h e c o m p l a
i n t
o r
p l e a d i n g a s s e r t i n g a claim , a m o t i o n t o d i s m i
s s m a y
b e m a d e o n an y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g g r o u n d s :
(a)
Tha t t h e c o u r t h a s n o j u r i s d i c t i o n o v
e r t h e
p e r s o n o f t h e d e f e n d i n g party ;
(b)
Tha t t h e cour t h a s n o j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e
r t h e
subjec t m a t t e r o f t h e claim ;
(c)
Tha t v e n u e i s i m p r o p e r l y laid ;
(d)
Tha t
c i t y
sue ;
t h e
plaintif f h a s
n o
lega l
c a p a
t o
(e)
T h a t
t h e r e
i s a n o t h e r
p e n d i n g
b e t w e e n t h e s a m e p a r t i e s fo r t h e
e ;
a c t i o n
s a m e c a u s
(f)
T h a t t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n i s barre d b y a
prio r
j u d g m e n t o r b y t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s ;
(g)
T h a t t h e p l e a d i n g a s s e r t i n g t h e c l a
i m s t a t e s
n o c a u s e
o f action ;
(h)
T h a t t h e c l a i m o r d e m a n d s e t fort h
t h e
p l a i n t i f f s
p l e a d i n g
h a s
b e e n
p a i d ,
w a i v e d ,
a b a n d o n e d , o r o t h e r w i s e e x t i n g u i s h e d ;
(i)
c t i o n
f o u n d e
s i o n s
t h e s t
T h a t
t h e
c l a i m
o n
w h i c h
t h e
a
i s
d
i s u n e n f o r c e a b l e u n d e r t h e p r o v i
o f
a t u t e o f frauds ; a n d
(j) T h a t a c o n d i t i o n
p r e c e d e n t
i l i n g t h e
c l a i m h a s no t b e e n c o m p l i e d w i t h , (la )
fo r
NOTE S
1.
A motio n t o dismis s unde r thi s Rul e differ s from a

270
----------------------- Page 271----------------------RULE 16
MOTION TO DISMISS
SEC
. 1
motion t o dismis s unde r Rul e 3 3 on demurre r t o evidenc e
in th e following particulars :
a . Th e
motio n
u n d e r t h i s Rul e i s g r o u n d e
d o n
preliminar y objection s whil e tha t unde r Rul e 3 3 i s base d
on insufficiency o f evidence .
part y
b . Th e motio n her e ma y b e filed by an y defendin g

agains t who m a clai m i s asserte d i n th e action ,
whil e a demurre r t o evidenc e ma y b e filed only by th e

defendant agains t th e complain t o f th e plaintiff .
c. Th e motio n unde r thi s Rul e shoul d b e filed withi n
th e tim e for bu t prio r t o th e filing o f th e answe r o f th
e
defending part y t o th e pleadin g assertin g th e claim agains t
him .
Th e demurre r t o evidenc e in Rul e 3 3 may b e filed
for th e dismissa l o f th e cas e only after th e plaintif f ha s
completed th e presentatio n o f hi s evidence .
d . Th e reversa l on appea l o f a dismissa l ordere d
unde r thi s Rul e produce s different effect s from th e sam e
reversa l o f a dismissa l obtaine d unde r Rul e 33 .
2 . Th e forme r Sec . 2 o f thi s Rul e provide d tha t a
motion t o dismis s hereunde r ma y b e filed by an origina l
defendant , by a third-part y defendant , by a plaintif f in a
counterclaim , or by a co-party in a cross-claim .
Althoug h
said forme r provisio n ha s no t
amende d Rule , th e procedur e i s
hereo f merel y simplifie d th e rul
motion t o dismis s ma y b e filed
tim e for bu t befor e filing th e
pleadin g assertin g a claim. "
bee n
stil l
e b y
by a
answe r
reproduce d i n thi s
th e sam e a s Sec . 1
providin g tha t suc h
part y "(w)ithin th e
t o th e complain t or
3 . A motion
t o dismis s hypotheticall y
th e
trut h of th e
fact s allege d in th e
complaint .
admit s
Such admis -
sion, however , i s limite d only t o al l materia l an d relevan t

facts which ar e wel l pleade d in th e complaint .
I t doe s
not
admit th e t r u t h o f mer e epithet s chargin g fraud ,
no r
allegation s o f lega l conclusions , or erroneou s statement s
of law . Th e hypothetica l admission o f th e trut h o f materia l
27 1
----------------------- Page 272----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
an d relevan t fact s wel l pleade d in a complain t doe s
not
exten d t o inference s o r conclusion s draw n from suc h facts ,

even i f allege d i n th e complaint ; no r mer e inference s o r
conclusion s
from fact s
no t stated ;
no r t o m a t t
e r s of,
evidence , surplusag e or irrelevan t matter s
(De Dios
vs.
Bristol
Laboratories fPhil.J,
Inc.,
et al., L-25530,
Jan
.
29,
1974); no r doe s it cover allegation s o f fact th e falsity o f
which i s subject t o judicia l notice , for, in resolvin g a motion
t o dismiss , th e cour t ma y conside r othe r fact s withi n th e
r a n g e o f judicia l notic e a s wel l a s r e l e v a n t la
w s an d
jurisprudenc e whic h court s ar e boun d t o tak e int o accoun t
(Bahez
Electric
Light
Co.
vs.
Abra
Electric
Cooper
ative,
Inc., et al., G.R. No.
59480, Dec. 8,
1982).
Neithe r
doe s
such hypothetica l admissio n exten d t o fact s whic h ar e
legally impossible , no r t o fact s inadmissibl e i n evidence ,
no r t o fact s whic h appea r b y recor d o r documen t include d
in th e pleading s
t o b e unfounde d
(Tan
vs. Direct
or of
Forestry,
et al., L-24548,
Oct.
27,
1983; Marcopper Minin
g
Corp.
vs. Garcia,
G.R.
No.
55935,
July 30,
1986).
Except i n thos e case s wher e th e cour t ma y dismis s a
cas e
motu proprio,
an actio n canno t b e
dismisse d
on
a
groun d no t allege d i n th e motio n therefo r eve n i f sai
d
ground , e.g. , prescription ,
i s provide d for i n Rul
e
1 6
(Malig,
et al. vs. Bush,
L-22761,
May
31,
1969),
unles s
such fact o f prescriptio n a p p e a r s i n th e allegation s o
f
th e complain t or in plaintiffs ' evidenc e (Garcia vs. Mathis,
etc., et al, L-48557,
Sept.
30,
1980).
Wit h
muc h
mor e
reaso n shoul d an orde r o f dismissa l b e nullifie d i f it i s base d
on a groun d no t authorize d by Rul e 16 , i.e. , for supposedl y
bein g
moo t an d academi c (Borje
vs.
CFI of Misamis
Occ,
etc., et al, L-49315,
Feb.
27,
1979).
4 .
Th e forme r doctrina l policy wa s t h a t a part y ma y
challeng e
makin g a
base d o
o f
summons ,
b e deeme
th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t ove r hi s perso n b y

specia l appearanc e throug h a motio n t o dismis s
n t h e
ground ,
e.g. , o f invalidit y o f servic e
an d b y filin g suc h motion , h e wil l no t thereb y
d t o hav e submitte d himsel f t o th e jurisdictio n o f
272
----------------------- Page 273-----------------------
RULE 16
C. 1
MOTION TO DISMISS
th e court .
However , i f th e sam e
g r o u n d s o r i n v o k e d som e
hic h
necessarily involve s th e exercis e o f
court , suc h specia l appearanc e wil l
SE
motion als o raise d othe r

a f f i r m a t i v e relie f
th e jurisdictio n o f th e
b e o f n o avai l an d th e
part y i s thereb y deeme d t o hav e submitte d himsel f t o th e

jurisdictio n o f th e court .
Thus , wher e th e defendan t filed
a motion t o dismis s o n th e groun d tha t summon s serve d
on hi m wa s invali d and , therefore , tha t th e cour t di d no t
acquir e jurisdictio n over hi s person , bu t th e sam e motion
set s fort h an oth e r groun d unde r the n Art . 22 2 o f th
e
Civil Cod e
(lack o f showin g t h a t earnes t effort s wer e
exerte d t o effect a compromis e betwee n member s o f th e
same family) an d praye d "for suc h othe r relie f a s ma y b e
deemed "appropriat e an d proper, " th e reservatio n i n sai d
motion tha t defendan t wa s makin g a specia l appearanc e
t o contes t th e court' s jurisdiction over hi s person i s nullified
an d
shoul d
b e disregarde d
(De
Midgely
vs.
Ferand
os,
L-34313, May
13,
1975).
Th e sam e rul e applie d wher e
th e defendan t challenge d th e court' s jurisdictio n over it s
perso n for invalidit y o f servic e o f proces s bu t at th e sam e
tim e raise d th e othe r groun d o f prescriptio n in it s motion
to dismis s (Republic vs. Ker & Co., Ltd.,
124 Phil.
82
3).
5. However ,
in La Naval Drug Corp.
vs. CA,
et
al.
(G.R. No . 103200 , Aug . 31 , 1994) , th e Suprem e Cour t
decided t o reexamin e an d abando n th e foregoin g doctrine .
It hel d tha t whil e lack o f jurisdictio n over th e perso n o f
th e defendan t ma y b e duly an d seasonabl y raised ,
hi s
voluntar y appearanc e in cour t withou t qualification i s a
waiver o f such defense . Furthermore , even i f h e challenge s
th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t over hi s person , a s by reaso n
of absenc e or defectiv e servic e o f summons , an d h e als o
invoke s othe r ground s for th e dismissa l o f th e action unde r
Rul e 16, h e i s no t deeme d t o b e in estoppe l or t o hav e
waive d hi s objection t o jurisdictio n over hi s person . In
support o f thi s new doctrine , th e observation may b e adde d
tha t th e defendan t ma y afte r al l invok e hi s objection s
alternatively , henc e h e woul d not thereb y b e sai d t o b e
273
----------------------- Page 274----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
inconsistently challengin g th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t

and , a t th e sam e time , callin g for th e exercis e o f
it s
jurisdiction .
Th e first question s th e jurisdictio n ove r hi s
perso n bu t th e second , assumin g th e cour t ha s jurisdictio n
over hi s person , impugn s it s jurisdictio n over othe r aspect s
of th e cas e suc h a s th e fundamenta l requisit e o f jurisdictio n
over th e subject-matte r whic h ca n only b e conferre d b y
law .
Besides , th e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f al l objection s
t h e n
availabl e subserve s th e omnibu s
motio n rul e
a
n d th e
concomitant policy agains t multiplicit y o f suits .
Ther e were , however , som e difference s o f opinio n du e
t o certai n ambiguou s statement s in th e L a Naval case .
Accordingly , Sec . 2 0 o f Rul e 14 now expressl y provide s
t h a t th e inclusio n i n a motio n t o dismis s o f othe r ground s
asid e
from
lac k
o f jurisdictio n
ove r
t h e
perso n
o f th
e
defendant shal l
on hi s part .
no t
b e
deeme d
voluntar y
appearanc e
6 . Wher e s u m m o n s wa s no t serve d o n tw o o f
th e
defendant s an d a lawye r filed , i n thei r behal f bu t withou t
thei r authority , a motio n for extensio n o f tim e t o answer ,
th e cour t doe s not acquir e jurisdictio n over sai d defendants .
N e i t h e r wa s suc h jurisdictiona l defec t cure d b y thei r
subsequent filin g o f a motio n for ne w tria l a s th e sam e
wa s base d precisel y o n suc h defect an d t o secur e t o sai d
defendant s th e opportunit y t o b e hear d
(Cavili, e t
al. vs.
Vamenta,
Jr., etc., et al., G.R.
No.
57771, May
31,
1982).
Fo r obviou s
r e a s o n s , t h e consideration s discusse d i
n
D e
Midgely
an d
L a Naval
hav e
n o applicatio n
t o thi s
cas e unde r th e circumstance s obtainin g therein .
7 . Th e controvers y regardin g th e groun d o f lac k o f
jurisdictio n ove r th e natur e o f th e action , separatel y from
th e subjec t thereof , le d t o th e eliminatio n i n thi s Rul e o f
th e forme r whic h wa s supposedl y
in th e 1964 Rule s o f Court .
a n innovativ e groun d
Wha t ma y hav e bee n intende d
t h e r e i n wer e case s
assigne d b y la w
t o quasi-judi
cia l
a g e n c i e s , s u c h a s i n t r a - c o r p o r a t e s u i t s w h
i c h w e r e
274
----------------------- Page 275-----------------------
RULE 16
SEC. 1
exclusivel y
h a n g e
Commission , o r t
wer e withi n th e
Appeals .
I f
MOTION TO DISMISS
v e s t e d i n t h e S e c u r i t i e s a n d E x c
o specia l court s suc h a s ta x suit s which
exclusiv e jurisdictio n o f th e Cour t o f Ta x
so , thi s woul d properl y constitut e lack o f
jurisdictio n over th e subject-matte r i f suc h case s ar e filed

in th e regula r tria l courts .
Withi n thei r respectiv e levels
,
th e regula r tria l court s hav e unifor m jurisdictio n wit h
regar d t o th e natur e o f th e action s the y ma y entertain ,
henc e i f th e objection i s a s t o th e subject or object involved ,
it woul d necessarily b e on eithe r subject-matte r jurisdiction
or on venu e considerations .
8 . Th e jurisdictiona l ground s whic h ma y b e invoke d
unde r th e presen t Rul e are , therefore , confine d t o lack o f
jurisdictio n over th e perso n o f th e defendin g part y an d
th e subject-matte r o f th e claim .
Th e first ha s al
read y
been discussed , bu t i t mus t not b e overlooke d tha t th e ter m
now use d i s no t limite d t o th e defendan t bu t applie s t o al
l
defendin g p a r t i e s
a g a i n s t who m claim s
ar e a s
s e r t e d
throug h othe r initiator y pleadings , suc h a s counterclaims ,
cross-claim s an d third-part y complaints .
Jurisdictio
n i s
o b t a i n e d ove r t h e o r i g i n a l d e f e n d a n t b y ser
vic e o f
summon s an d over th e othe r defendin g partie s b y servic e
o f t h e p l e a d i n g c o n t a i n i n g th e claim . Also , a
s now
amended , thi s Rul e refer s t o th e subject-matte r o f eac h
particula r clai m an d no t only t o tha t o f th e suit , a s i t
wa s
unde r th e former Rule , whic h thereb y applie d only t o th e
complaint .
a . Jurisdictio n over th e subject-matte r i s determine d
by th e allegation s in th e complain t regardles s o f whethe r
or not th e plaintif f i s entitle d t o recover upon al l or som e
of th e claim s asserte d therein .
Th e defense s asserte d
in
th e answe r or motio n t o dismis s ar e not t o b e considere d
for thi s purpose , otherwis e th e questio n woul d depen d
entirel y
upo n
t h e d e f e n d a n t (Magay
vs.
Esta
ndian,
L-28975,
Feb.
27,
1976).
275
----------------------- Page 276----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
b . Wher e a part y invoke s th e jurisdictio n o f a cour t
t o obtai n affirmativ e relie f an d fails , h e canno t thereafte r
repudiat e suc h jurisdiction . Whil e th e issu e o f jurisdictio n
ma y b e
r a i s e d a t a n y t i m e , h e i s e s t o p p e d
a s i t i s
t a n t a m o u n t t o speculatin g o n th e fortune s o f litigatio
n
(Crisostomo, et al.
vs. CA, et al., L-27166, Mar. 26,
1970).
c. Wher e th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t i s challenge d
an d th e cour t defer s resolutio n o f th e motio n o r denie s th e
same , certiorar i and/o r prohibitio n wil l li e a s i t woul d b e
futile
o n
over th
s
improper
s
out t o
for th e
e case .
venue ,
cour t t o
g o ahea d i f it ha s
n o jurisdicti
Th e sam e rul e applie s wher e th e groun d i

a s th e tria l court ,
i f th e petitio n t u r n
b e wel l founded , i s actin g in exces s o f it s jurisdictio n
(San
Beda
College
vs.
CIR,
97 Phil.
787;
Univers
ity
of
Sto.
Tomas
vs. Villanueva,
etc., et al, 106 Phil
439
; Time,
Inc.
vs. Reyes,
etc., et al, L-8882,
May
31,
1971).
Thi s
rulin g i s stil l good bu t wit h th e modification that , pursuan t
t o amende d Sec . 3 o f thi s Rule , th e cour t ca n n o longe r
defer resolutio n o f th e motion .
d . I t ha s bee n hel d t h a t eve n i f th e clai m
i n th e
complaint wa s below th e jurisdictiona l limi t for th e the n
Court s o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e , i f th e defendant , i n s t
e a d o f
movin g t o dismiss , filed a counterclai m for P12,00 0 whic h
wa s the n withi n th e exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n o f sai d
Court s o f Firs t Instance , suc h counterclai m cure d th e defect
in th e complain t
(Zulueta, et al.
vs. Pan American
World
Airways,
Inc.,
L-28589,
Resolution
on
Motion
for
Reconsideration, Jan.
8, 1973).
It i s submitted , howeve
r ,
t h a t sai d resolution , unde r th e fact s therein , wa s mor e
properl y sustainabl e unde r
lache s o n th e p a r t o f
e
preliminar y chapte r o f thi s
als o relie d o n b y th
resai d
resolutio n i n t h a t case .
th e principl e
th e defendant ,
o f estoppe l b y
a s discusse d i n th
book , an d whic h principl e wa s

S u p r e m e Cour t i n it s
afo
sold
ion
e . Wher e
a uni t
of
th e owne r o f a condominiu m corporatio n

thereo f on
installment s
with
reservat
276
----------------------- Page 277----------------------RULE 16

EC. 1
MOTION TO DISMISS
ownership
unti l th e pric e
i s fully paid ,
an d th e b
uye r
defaults , th e courts , an d no t th e Securitie s an d Exchang e
Commission, hav e jurisdictio n over th e natur e o f th e action
becaus e th e owne r remain s a s a stockholde r for th e uni t
sold, henc e n o intra-corporat e issu e i s involve d (Sunset
View
Condominium
Corp.
vs. Campos,
Jr.,
etc., et
al.,
G.R. No. 52361, April 27, 1981).
Also , an action to compe l
a corporation t o issu e share s o f it s capita l stock in paymen t
of it s contractua l obligation an d undertakin g in favor o f
th e plaintif f wil l no t b e dismisse d o n th e groun d tha t th e
court ha s n o jurisdictio n over th e natur e o f th e action sinc e
such a situatio n doe s not involv e an intra-corporat e matte r
c o n t e m p l a t e d i n P . D . 902- A a n d
i s no t w i t h i
n t h e
jurisdictio n o f th e Securitie s an d Exchang e Commission
(DMRC Enterprises
vs. Este del
Sol Mountain Reserve,
Inc.,
G.R. No.
57936,
Sept. 28,
1984).
Likewise , an action t
o
compel th e corporatio n t o registe r th e share s o f stoc k
allegedly sol d t o plaintiff s doe s no t involv e an intra-corpo rat e matte r a s plaintiff s ar e no t ye t stockholder s bu t ar e
only seekin g to b e registere d a s suc h (Rivera, e t al.
vs.
Florendo, et al, G.R. No. 57586, Oct. 6, 1986).
However
,
an actio n t o compe l th e defendan t corporatio n t o rende r
an accountin g an d distributio n o f th e share s o f stock , wit h
th e dividend s du e thereon , o f plaintiffs ' predecessor-in interest i s a n intra-corporat e conflict an d i s not withi n
th e jurisdictio n o f th e court s bu t o f th e Securitie s an
d
Exchang e
Commissio n
(Malayan
Integrated
Indust
ries
Corp.
vs. Mendoza,
etc., et al, G.R. No.
75238,
Sept.
30,
1987).
See, in thi s connection , th e Interi m Rule s o f Procedur e
for Intra-Corporat e Controversie s
(AM. No. 01-2-04-SC)
,
i m p l e m e n t i n g
A . 879 9
(Appendix
W).
t h e
p r o c e d u r a l
c h a n g e s
i n R.
9 . Wher e a motion t o dismis s for imprope r venu e i s

erroneously denied , th e remed y i s prohibitio n
(Enri
quez
vs. Macadaeg,
84 Phil.
674; Bautista
vs. De Borja,
e
t al,
L-20600,
Oct.
28,
1966).
277
----------------------- Page 278----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
10.

Wher e th e plaintiff s filed th e actio n in a cour t o
f
improper venu e an d thereafte r submitte d t o it s jurisdiction ,
th e issu e o f venu e wa s thereb y waive d an d the y ar e i n
estoppel t o repudiat e o r questio n th e proceeding s i n sai d
cour t
(Vda.
de
Suan,
et al.
vs. Cusi,
et al., L
-35336,
Oct. 27,
1983).
11.
Objection t o venu e i s als o impliedly waive d wher e
th e part y enter s int o trial , cross-examine s th e witnesse s
o f t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y a n d
a d d u c e s e v i d e n c e
(Paper
Industries
Corp.
of the
Phil.
vs. Samson,
et al., L
-30175,
Nov.
28,
1975).
12.
Lack o f lega l capacity t o su e mean s tha t th e plain -
tiff i s eithe r no t in th e exercis e o f hi s civi l right s or do

e s
no t hav e th e characte r o r representatio n t h a t h e claim s
(Lunsod
vs. Ortega,
46 Phil.
664).
a . W h e r e
t h e plaintif f i s
n o t t h e r e a l p a
r t y i n
interest , th e groun d for th e motio n t o dismis s i s lac k o f
caus e of actio n
(Casimiro vs. Roque, et al.,
98 Phil.
880).
b . A
foreig n
c o r p o r a t i o n doin g b u s i n e s s
i n t h e
Philippine s withou t th e requisit e licens e t o d o s o canno t
maintai n an y sui t in th e Philippine s
(Sec. 69, Act
1459,
now
Sec.
133,
Corporation
Code; Marshall-Wells
Co.
vs.
Elser
&
Co.,
48 Phil.
70; Atlantic
Mutual
Insurance
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Cebu
Stevedoring
Co.,
Inc.,
L-18961,
Aug
.
31,
1966), bu t no t wher e th e cas e involve s a mer e isolate d
transactio n
Pacific
Star
Line,
(Aetna
L-26809,
Casualty
Dec.
&
Surety
29,
1977;
Co.,
Inc.
Hathibhai
vs.
Bul
akhidas
vs. Navarro,
et al., L-49695,
April
7,
1986).
Bu t
if th e
said foreign corporatio n i s sue d i n ou r courts , i t may , b y
w r i t o f prohibition ,
see k
relie f a g a i n s t t h e wro
ngfu l
assumption o f jurisdictio n an d it s petitio n therefo r nee d
no t ave r it s lega l capacit y t o institut e sai d proceedin g
(Time,
Inc.
vs.
Reyes,
etc.,
et
al., supra).
c.
Th e issu e o f plaintiff s lack o f lega l capacit y t o su
e
cannot b e raise d for th e first tim e o n appea l wher e th e
27 8
----------------------- Page 279----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
MOTION TO DISMISS
d e f e n d a n t d e a l t w i t h t h e forme r a s a p a r t y
i n t h e
proceeding s
below
(University
of
Pangasinan
Faculty
Union
vs. University of Pangasinan, et al.,
G.R. No.
63122
Feb.
21,
1984).
13.
tis pendentia, a s
th e p a r
t h e r e i
substantia l
Th e
pendenc y o f
anothe r
action ,
or
li
a groun d for a motion t o dismiss , require s tha t

t i e s t o th e actio n ar e th e same ; t h a t
s
identit y i n th e cause s o f action an d relief s
s o u g h t ; a n d t h a t t h e r e s u l t o f t h e firs t a c t
i o n i s
determinativ e
o f th e secon d in an y even t (Northcott
&
Co. vs. Villa- Abrille, 4 1 Phil. 462) an d regardles s of which
part y
is successfu l
(Arceo
vs. Oliveros,
et al.,
L
-38251,
Jan. 31,
1985).
Th e motio n t o dismis s may b e filed i
n
eithe r suit , no t necessaril y i n th e on e institute d firs
t
(Teodoro
vs.
Mirasol,
99
Phil.
150;
Magsaysay
vs.
Magsaysay,
et al., L-49847,
July
17,
1980).
Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s repeatedl y
tha t whe n th e element s of litis pendentia
filed late r shoul d b e abated , base d on th
prior est tempore, potior est jure (h e wh o
i s th e bette r i n right) .
held , however ,
exist , th e action
e maxi m tha t qui
is befor e in tim e
Thi s i s especially tru e wher e i n th
e
action
firs t
filed ,
t h e cour t
h a s alread y
commence
d
proceeding s
Sports,
Inc., G.R.
(Pacsports,
No.
141602,
Phils.,
Nov.
22,
Inc.
vs.
Niccolo
2001).
Th e pendenc y o f a n administrativ e cas e betwee n th e

partie s
doe s
no t generall y
constitut e
litis pendent
ia
in
another civil or crimina l cas e betwee n the m
(So
landro
vs. Ramos, et al., L-20408, April 27,
1967).
Ther e ca
n be
litis pendentia i f th e sam e caus e o f action i s th e subject o f
a complain t in on e cas e an d o f a counterclai m in anothe r
a s lon g a s th e othe r requisite s ar e presen t (Arceo
vs.
Oliveros, e t al., supra).
Thi s groun d i s als o referre d to
in
some
decision s
a s lis pendens
or
outer
action
p
endant
(see Buan, et al. vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 75349, Oct. 13, 1986).
14. Res judicata, a s a groun d for dismissal , require s
a previou s fina l judgmen t in a cas e prosecute d betwee n
279
----------------------- Page 280----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
th e sam e partie s involvin g th e sam e subject-matte r an d

caus e
of action
(Roman
Catholic Archbishop
vs. Di
rector
of Lands, 3 5 Phil. 339).
Th e tria l cour t ca n tak e judici
a l
notic e o f th e finality o f a judgmen t previousl y decide d by
it an d th e fact tha t th e sam e cas e i s now pendin g befor e
it, th e defeate d part y havin g refile d th e sam e
(B
aguiao
vs. Jalagat, et al., L-28100, Nov. 29,
1971).
Th e princ
ipl e
of res judicata
applie s
t o al l case s
an d
proceedings
,
includin g lan d
registratio n an d c a d a s t r a l proceeding
s
(Republic
vs.
Estenzo,
L-35376,
Sept.
11,
1980).
Se e
Sees. 4 7 an d 48 , Rul e 3 9 an d th e note s thereunder .
15. Th e defens e o f prescriptio n i s waive d an d canno t
b e considere d o n appea l i f no t raise d i n th e tria l cour
t
(Ramos
vs.
Osorio,
L-27306,
April
29,
1971;
D
irector
of Lands
vs.
Dano,
et
al.,
L-31749,
Feb.
21,
1980).
However ,
i f t h e allegation s o f t h e complaint ,
o r th e
evidence presented , clearly indicat e t h a t th e actio n ha s
p r e s c r i b e d , o r w h e r e t h e r e i s n o issu e i n
fac t a s t o
prescription , th e defens e o f prescriptio n i s no t deeme d
waive d by defendant' s failur e t o alleg e th e sam e
(Chua
Lamko
vs. Dioso,
97 Phil.
821; Garcia
vs. Mathis,
supra).
Generally , estoppe l an d prescriptio n canno t b e invoke d
a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e (Republic
vs.
CA,
e t al.,
L
-45202,
Sept.
11, 1980).
En contra, not e t h a t th e rul e in crimi
na l
case s i s different , a s discusse d in Sec . 9 , Rul e 117 .
16.
A motio n t o dismis s on th e groun d o f prescriptio n
wil l b e give n du e cours e only i f th e complain t show s o n it s
face
t h a t th e actio n
h a s alread y
prescribe d
(Sis
on
vs.
McQuaid,
94 Phil.
201; Francisco,
et al. vs. Robles,
et al,
94
Phil.
1035; Aznar
III, et al. vs.
Bemad,
etc.,
et al.,
G.R. No. 81190, May 9,
1988).
If it doe s no t so a
ppear ,
th e determinatio n o f th e motion t o dismis s mus t b e deferre d
unti l tria l
(Cordova vs.
Cordova,
102 Phil.
1182; Seno
, et
al.
vs.
Mangubat,
et
al.,
L-44339,
Dec.
2,
1987).
See, however ,
Sec . 3 o f thi s Rul e whic h now prohibit s
deferment o f th e resolutio n o f th e motion .
280
----------------------- Page 281----------------------RULE 16
MOTION TO DISMISS
17.
W h e n t h e
g r o u n d for d i s m i s s a l i s
t h a t t h e
complaint s t a t e s n o caus e o f action , suc h fact ca n
b e
determine d only from th e fact s allege d in th e complain t
(Mindanao
Realty
Corp.
vs.
Kintanar,
et
al.,
L17152,
Nov.
30,
1962) an d from no othe r
(Marabilles vs.
Quito,
100 Phil.
64; Boncato vs.
Siason,
et al., L-29094,
Se
pt.
5,
1985), an d th e cour t canno t consider othe r matter s aliunde
(Salvador vs. Frio, L-25352, May 29,
1970).
Thi s imp
lie s
tha t th e issu e mus t b e passe d upo n o n th e basi s o f th e
allegation s assumin g the m t o b e tru e an d th e cour t canno t
inquir e int o th e t r u t h o f th e allegation s an d declar e the m
t o b e false ; otherwise , it woul d

a denia l
o f du e proces s
vs.
Bernabe,
L-26769,
April
30,
,
et
al., L-30380, Feb. 28, 1973).
by th e forme r Sec . 2 , Rul e 9 ,
b e a procedura l erro r an d
t o t h e plaintif f (Ventura
1971;
Galeon
vs.
Galeon
Th e exception wa s provide d
i.e. , wher e th e motio n t o
dismis s on thi s groun d coul d b e filed durin g th e trial , in

which cas e th e evidenc e presente d wa s t o b e considered .
Also , i t ha s bee n hel d tha t unde r thi s groun d th e tri
a l
cour t ca n conside r al l th e
pleading s
filed , includ
in g
annexes , motion s an d th e evidenc e on recor d
(Marcop
per
Mining Corp.
vs.
Garcia,
G.R. No.
55935, July 30,
1986),
includin g documentar y evidenc e
stipulate d
upo n
an d
which i s befor e th e
cour t
(Santiago
vs. Pioneer Sav
ings
& Loan Bank, et al.,
G.R. No.
77502, Jan.
15,
1983)
.
However , i t ha s likewis e bee n hel d tha t even i f th e
complaint state d a vali d caus e o f action , a motion t o dismis s
for insufficienc y o f caus e o f actio n wil l b e grante d i f
documentary evidenc e admitte d by stipulation s disclose s
facts sufficient t o defeat th e claim an d enable s th e cour t
t o g o beyon d th e disclosure s in th e complaint .
In
suc h
instances , th e cour t can dismis s a complaint on thi s groun d
even w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g , b y t a k i n g int o accoun
t th e
discussion s i n sai d motio n an d th e oppositio n theret o
(Tan vs. Director of Forestry, et al., L-24548, Oct. 27,
1983).
Thi s controvers y whic h appeare d t o hav e bee n du e t o
confusion ove r th e
situation s wherei n th e
complai
n t
28 1
----------------------- Page 282----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
doe s
no t alleg e
a sufficien t caus e o f actio n an d
t h a t
wherein , a t th e trial , th e evidenc e doe s no t sustai n th e
caus e o f actio n alleged , ha s bee n clarifie d by incorporatin g
said Sec . 2 in an amende d form a s th e presen t Sec . 1 o f
Rul e
9 . Refe r t o s a i d ne w
p r o v i s i o n a n d t h
e n o t e s
thereunder .
a . C o u r t s
s h o u l d
e x e r c i s e u t m o s t
c a r
a n d
c i r c u m s p e c t i o n i n p a s s i n g u p o n m o t i o n s t o
d i s m i s s
base d on thi s groun d
(Militante vs. Antero, et al., L-27
940,
June
10,
1971).
T h e
t e s t i s w h e t h e r , a s s u m i
n g
t h e
allegation s o f fact i n th e complaint , a vali d j u d g m e n
t
could b e rendere d i n accordanc e wit h th e praye r i n th e
complaint .
Wher e th e allegation s ar e sufficient bu t th e
veracit y o f th e fact s ar e assailed , th e motio n t o dismis s
shoul d
be
denie d
(Suyom,
et al.
vs.
Collantes,
et
al.,
L-40337,
Feb.
27,
1976).
e
b .
Wher e th e fact s allege d t o mak e ou t th e principa l
caus e o f actio n an d relie f ar e insufficient , th e cas e shoul d

b e dismisse d an d plaintif f canno t rel y o n ancillar y matter s
in th e complain t t o mak e ou t a caus e o f action .
Thus ,
whe n th e actio n i s for cancellatio n o f th e defendant' s titl e
bu t th e allegation s therei n ar e inadequate , plaintif f canno t
lean o n hi s allegation s o f suppose d improvement s mad e
on th e lan d a s thes e ar e purel y ancillar y t o th e principa l
relie f
sough t
(Gabila
vs.
Barriaga,
L 28917,
Se
pt.
30,
1971).
Neithe r ca n suc h defect b e cure d by th e allegation s
in a complain t i n i n t e r v e n t i o n file d b y a t h i r
d p a r t y
(Nacar
vs. Nistal,
et al., L-33006,
Dec.
8, 1982).
c.
Wher e a complain t doe s no t contai n al l th e fact s
constitutin g th e plaintiff s caus e o f action , i t i s subjec t t o
a motio n t o
evidenc e
whic h
s u p p l i e s
fectiv e
complaint , thi
whic h ma y n
dismiss .
However , i f th e defendan t permit s
t o b e i n t r o d u c e d , w i t h o u t objection ,
t h e n e c e s s a r y a l l e g a t i o n i n s u c h de
s evidenc e cure s th e defect s o f suc h complain t
o longe r b e dismisse d o n t h a t accoun t an d
th e cour t shal l awar d suc h relie f a s i s consisten t wit h th e

282
----------------------- Page 283----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
case mad e ou t b y th e pleading s an d th e evidenc e (Pascua

vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.
76851, Mar. 19,
1990).
18. Unlik e a motio n t o dismis s o n th e groun d tha t
th e complain t state s n o caus e o f action , a motion invokin g
th e Statut e o f Fraud s ma y b e filed

a caus e o f actio n doe s no t a p
f th e
complaint .
Suc h absenc e ma y
e
hearin g o f th e motion t o dismis s on
vienco,
et al. vs. Dacuycuy, etc., et al.,
27,
1981).
Fo r th e Statut e o f Frauds ,
an d 1406 , Civi l Code .
eve n i f th e absenc e o f
p e a r o n th e fac e o
b e
prove d
d u r i n g
sai d groun d
th
G.R.
(Yu
No.
55048,
May
se e Arts . 1403(2) , 140 5
19. Th e forme r Rul e di d no t provid e specific ground s

for a motio n t o dismis s wher e th e action , wa s filed withou t
th e plaintif f havin g exhauste d al l administrativ e remedie s
befor e goin g t o court , a basi c rul e o f politica l law whic h i
s
accepted in adjectiv e law .
Similarly , i t di d not hav e
an y
such provision , becaus e i t wa s not the n contemplated , for
t h e s i t u a t i o n w h e r e p r i o r r e f e r r a l for conciliat
io n
p r o c e e d i n g s w a s
r e q u i r e d b y
t h e K a t a r u
n g a n g
Pambaranga y Law (P.D.
1508), an d late r by th e Lo
ca l
Government Cod e (R.A. 7160), befor e th e cas e may b e filed
in cour t an d
t h e plaintif f di d
no t compl y wit h s
uc h
prerequisite .
Th e remed y the n wa s t o authoriz e a motion
t o dismis s suc h actio n for failur e t o stat e a caus e o f action
or eve n
uc h
grounds .
for
p r e m a t u r i t y ,
despit e
th e
dubiet y
o f s
On th e othe r hand , the n Sec . l(j) o f sai d Rul e provide d

as a groun d for a motion t o dismis s th e fact tha t th e sui t
wa s betwee n member s o f th e sam e family an d n o earnes t
efforts toward s a compromis e hav e bee n made , whic h
provision wa s actuall y take n from Art . 222 o f th e Civil
Code .
T h e s e
t h r e e s i t u a t i o n s , a n d o t h e r s
i m i l a r
contingencies , ar e now embrace d i n an d assailabl e unde r
th e new groun d for dismissa l provide d in th e revise d Rule ,
tha t is , non-complianc e wit h a condition preceden t for th e
filing o f th e claim .
283
----------------------- Page 284----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
Save for th e chang e i n terminology , therefore , th e

former ruling s b y th e Suprem e Cour t o n sai d situation s
ar e
stil l applicabl e
mutatis
mutandis
an d
ar e
w o r t h
reproducin g herein , bu t wit h th e cavea t o n th e ground s

the n availe d of, a s provide d in th e forme r Rule .
a . W h e r e
t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s n o t e x h a u s
t e d al l
administrativ e remedies , th e complain t no t havin g allege d
th e fact o f suc h exhaustion , th e sam e ma y b e dismisse d
for lack of caus e of actio n
(Pineda vs. CFI of Davao, et
al.,
L-12602,
April
25,
1961;
Sarabia
vs.
Sec.
of Agri
culture
and
Natural
Resources,
L-16002,
May
23,
1961;
Go
ne,
et
al. vs.
District
Engineer,
et al, L-22782,
Aug.
29,
1975;
Abe-Abe,
et al
vs. Manta,
et al, L-4827,
May
31,
1978),
although i t doe s no t affect th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour
t
over th e
subject-matte r (Mun.
of La Trinidad,
et
al.
vs.
CFI
of Baguio-Benguet,
et
al, L-33889,
June
28,
1983).
I f thi s objection i s no t raise d a t th e prope r time , i t i s w
aive d
an d
th e cour t
ca n
tr y th e cas e
(C.N.
Hodges
v
s. Mun.
Board,
etc., et al, L-18276, Jan.
12, 1967; Soto
vs.
Jareno,
et al, L-38962, Sept.
15,
1986).
Fo r th e instance s wh
er e
exhaustion o f administrativ e remedie s i s no t required , se e
Not e 7 unde r Sec . 5 , Rul e 1 .
b . I t wa s believe d t h a t th e sam e doctrina l rule s wil
l
apply wher e th e cas e wa s covere d b y th e K a t a r u n g
a n g
Pambaranga y La w (P.D.
1508) an d no t excepte d from th
e
compulsory proces s o f arbitratio n require d therei n a s a
precondition
for filin g a complain t in court .
Thus ,
wher e
th e complain t doe s no t stat e t h a t i t i s on e o f th e excep
te d
c a s e s , o r i t doe s no t alleg e
p r i o r a v a i l m e n t
o f sai d
conciliation process , or i t doe s no t hav e a certificatio n tha t
n o
conciliatio n
parties ,
th e
o r
cas e
settlemen t
shoul d
ha d
b e
bee n
reache d
dismisse d
o n
b y
motion .
th e
Thi s
applie s t o case s cognizabl e b y bot h th e inferio r court s an d

th e Regiona l Tria l
l, G.R.
No.
62339,
Oct.
27,
Court s
(Morata
vs.
Go,
e t a
1983).
S u b s e q u e n t l y , in
Royales,
et
al.
vs.
Inter
mediate
Appellate
1984) ,
Court,
e t
al. (G.R .
No .
65072 ,
J a n . 3 ,
284
----------------------- Page 285----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
MOTION TO DISMISS
wher e th e defendant-appellan t ha d participate d i n

cour t w i t h o u t a n y invocatio n o f P.D .
t h e
j u d g m e n t t h e r e i n h a d becom e
e x e
t sai d
defendant thereafte r sough t th e annulmen t o f th e
for allege d lack o f jurisdiction , th e sam e wa s
th e doctrin e o f estoppe l by lache s a s hel
vs.
Sibonghanoy (L-21450 , Apri l 15 ,
1968) .
th e tria l
150 8 an d
c u t o r y , b u
decision
denie d unde r
d in Tijam
Non-complianc e
with P.D . 150 8 only result s in lack o f caus e o f action or

p r e m a t u r i t y (se e
Vda.
de
Borromeo
vs.
Pogoy,
G.R.
No.
63277,
Nov.
29,
1983; Peregrina,
et al. vs. Pani
s,
et
al,
G.R.
No.
56011,
Oct.
31,
1984).
Th e
situatio n
is
analogou s t o non-exhaustio n o f administrativ e remedie s
(Gone,
et al
vs. District
Engineer,
et al, supra)
o
r , as
formerly framed , th e lack o f earnes t effort s t o compromis e
suit s betwee n family member s
(the n Sec.
lfjj, Ru
le 16;
Peregrina,
et al. vs. Panis,
et al, supra; cf
Agbayani
vs.
Belen,
et al, G.R. No.
65629, Nov.
24, 1986).
Thi s objection , no t bein g jurisdictiona l in nature , i s
deemed waive d i f no t raise d in a motion t o dismis s (Ebol
vs. Amin, et al,
G.R. No.
70237, Mar.
18, 1985; Gonza
les
vs. CA,
et al, G.R.
Nos.
59495-97,
June
26,
1987
;
cf.
Millare
vs. Hernando,
et al,
G.R.
No.
55480,
June
30,
1987; Sanchez vs.
Tupas, et al,
G.R.
No.
76690, Feb.
29,
1988).
T h e
c o m p l a i n t m a y
b e
d i s m i s s e d w h e r e
t h e
complainant , after du e notice , wilfully fail s t o appea r on
th e dat e se t for mediation , conciliation o r arbitration .
Upo n a simila r failur e o f responden t t o appear , an y
compulsory counterclai m h e ha s mad e shal l b e dismisse d
and ma y no t b e filed in cour t an d complainan t shal l b e
issued a certification for filing hi s action in th e prope r
court ,
g o v e r n m e n t
agenc y
or
offic e
(Alinsugay
vs.
Sagampang,
et
c. Th e
al,
fact
G.R.
t h a t
No.
th e
69334,
sui t
July
i s
28,
exclusivel y
1986).
betwee
n
member s o f th e sam e family i s a groun d for dismissa l i f n o
earnest effort s at compromis e ha d been mad e (Art. 222,
Civil
Code;
Art.
151,
Family
Code).
Thi s
groun d
is ,
285
----------------------- Page 286----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
therefore ,
no t availabl e
w h e r e a compromis e
o
f t h e
controversy i s no t permitte d b y law , a s wher e i t involve s
civil
status ,
validit y
o f marriag e
or lega l separatio
n ,
ground s for lega l separation , futur e support , jurisdictio n
an d futur e legitim e
(Art. 2035,
Civil Code).
Th e
sam e
rul e applie s eve n i f th e complain t ask s for suppor t i
n
arrears , whic h i s permitte d t o b e compromised , bu t i t als o
seek s
futur e
suppor t
(Mendoza
vs. CA,
et al., L23102,
April 24,
1967).
A s t o wh o ar e considere d member s o f a
"family, " A r t .
217 ,
Civi l Code ,
provide d t h a t fam
il y
relation s shal l includ e thos e (1) betwee n husban d an d wife ;
(2) betwee n paren t an d child ; (3) amon g othe r ascendant s
an d thei r descendants ; an d (4) amon g brother s an d sister s
(Gayon
vs. Gayon,
L-28394,
Nov.
26,
1970).
Art .
1
50
of
th e Famil y
Cod e
amende d t h e
foregoin g e n u m e r a
t i o n
regardin g siblings , t o specify "whethe r o f th e full or halfblood. "
Failur e t o alleg e i n th e complain t t h a t earnes t effort
s
at compromis e ha d bee
th e actio n i s no t a
o f
th e partie s i s a
44903,
April 25,
1977) or
ra l
relative s wh o ar e no
no t
member s
o f
onson,
L-32159
Oct.
28,
20 .
no t a
g r o u n d
Th e
fo r
n mad e b y th e plaintif f befor e filin g

groun d for a motio n t o dismis s i f on e
strange r (Magbaleta
wher e
sui t
Gonong,
i s
betwee n
Lcollate
t brother s o r sister s and , therefore ,

th e sam e
family
(Mendez
vs. Bi
1977).
doctrin e
a
th e
vs.
m o t i o n
o f forum
t o
non
conveniens
d i s m i s s u n d e r
i s
t h i s
R u l e .
Conceptually , thi s mean s t h a t a court , usuall y i n conflicts of-law cases , ma y refus e imposition s o n it s jurisdictio n
wher e i t i s no t th e mos t convenien t o r availabl e foru m
an d th e partie s ar e no t preclude d from seekin g remedie s
elsewher e
(Bank of America,
etc. vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No.
120135,
Mar.
31,
2003).
Moreover ,
t h e p r o p r i
e t y o f
dismissin g a cas e o n thi s principl e require s a factua l
determination , henc e i t i s mor e properl y considere d a s a
m a t t e r o f defense .
Th e tria l court , consequently , ha s th e
discretion t o abstai n from assumin g jurisdictio n ove r th e
286
----------------------- Page 287----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
MOTION TO DISMISS
th e cas e on thi s
groun d
(Raytheon
c.
vs.
Rouzie,
Jr., G.R.
No.
162894,
Feb.
International,
26,
In
2008).
Thus , for instance , wher e th e defendant' s petitio n for

review in th e Cour t o f Ta x Appeal s wa s dismisse d nolle
prosequi an d th e Governmen t institute d th e ta x collection
suit in th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t a s a consequenc e thereof ,
bu t durin g th e pendenc y o f sai d ta x collection suit , th e
d e f e n d a n t ' s p e t i t i o n for revie w i n t h e Cour t o
f Ta x
Appeal s wa s reinstated , sai d defendan t ca n the n mov e for
dismissal o f th e ta x collection sui t i n th e Regiona l Tria l
Court
on
th e
groun d
o f litis pendentia eve n
i f
h e ha d
already filed hi s answe r therein .
2 1 . Sectio n 1 o f thi s amende d Rul e lay s dow n a
branc h o f th e so-calle d "omnibu s motio n rule " whic h
provide s t h a t defense s o r objection s no t pleade d eithe r i n
a motion t o dismis s or in th e answe r ar e deeme d waived ,
except th e objection s specified therei n which ar e considere d
not waivable .
a .
Lac k o f jurisdictio
b e invoke d a s a defens e at
f
n o suc h objection wa s raise d
th e answer , an d i t ma y b e
ha d
et
al,
commence d
(Ker &
L-12396,
b .
Jan.
n over th e subject matte r may

an y stag e o f th e action , eve n i
in a motion t o dismis s or in
s o claime d eve n after th e tria l
Co.
31,
vs.
Court
of
Tax Appeals,
1962).
It wil l readil y b e observe d tha t in sai d Section 1,
t h r e e o t h e r
ded ,
exception s
hav e
bee n
expressl y
ad
namely , tha t (1) ther e i s anothe r action pendin g betwee n

th e sam e partie s for th e sam e caus e (litis pendentia), (2)
th e proceedin g i s barre d by a prior judgmen t (res judicata),
an d (3) t h e cas e w a s extinguise d b y t h e s t a t u t e
o f
limitation s (prescription) .
Thes e additiona l exception s
wer e not explicitly provide d for in th e 1964 Rule s o f Court ,
particularl y Section 2 o f Rul e 9 thereof .
Notably ,
it i s
clearly state d tha t an y o f thes e additiona l exception s may
appear in "th e pleading s or the evidence of record."
287
----------------------- Page 288----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 3
c.
Wher e an y o f th e four defense s ar e presen t i
n
th e case , Sectio n 1 direct s t h a t th e cour t shal l dismis s th
e
claim .
If, despit e suc h directive , th e cour t shal l fail t o
d o
so, th e logica l an d speed y remed y o f th e defendan t i s t o
mov e t o dismis s th e clai m regardles s o f th e statu s o f th e
initiatory o f responsiv e statu s o f th e pleading s vis-a-vi s
each other .
M a n d a m u s t o compe l suc h dismissa l ma
y
thereafte r b e availe d o f a s th e successiv e remed y shoul d
t h e c o u r t b e r e c a l c i t r a n t d e s p i t e t h e fac t
t h a t suc h
dismissa l i s it s mandator y duty .
Thi s i s asid e from
suc h
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e sanction s a s ma y b e w a r r a n t e d
b y it s
nonfeasanc e in a ministeria l function .
d.
In Matela vs. Chua Tay (L-16796 , Ma y 30 , 1962) ,
petitione r challenge d th e propriet y o f a motio n t o dismis s
on th e groun d o f litis pendentia whic h wa s presente d afte r
th e movant' s answe r t o th e complain t ha d alread y bee n
filed, henc e th e dismissa l o f th e cas e obtaine d thereb y
should b e se t aside .
Th e Suprem e Cour t disregarde d t h a t
contention sinc e bot h th e answe r (whic h wa s filed earlier )
an d th e motio n t o dismis s "containe d th e defens e and/o r
g r o u n d o f p e n d e n c y o f a n o t h e r action, "
a n d
al l t h e
r e q u i s i t e s o f res judicata
w e r e
p r e s e n t .
W i
t h
t h e
aforementione d amendmen t o f Section 1 o f thi s Rul e whic h
now
consider s
litis pendentia
a s a n exceptio n
t o t h e
omnibu s motio n rule , thi s controvers y nee d n o longe r
arise .
e.
Sept .
Quiaoit
vs.
Consolacion,
et
al.
(L-41824 ,
30, 1976) explaine d th e dictu m t h a t a motio n t o dismis s

ma y als o b e allowe d for some special reasons on ground s
other t h a n lac k o f caus e o f actio n or lac k o f jurisdictio n
over th e subject-matter , eve n afte r tria l o f th e cas e ha d
alread y begu n bu t evidenc e constitutin g a groun d for
dismissa l o f th e cas e i s discovere d durin g t h a t trial .
Th e
reaso n give n i s t h a t sai d motio n serve s t o supplemen t th e
averment s o f th e defendant' s answe r an d t o adjus t th e
issue s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s t e s t i m o n y . Thi s r u l
i n g w a s
288
----------------------- Page 289----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 1
MOTION TO DISMISS
reiterate d in Ruiz , Jr .
101566,
Mar.
26,
1993).
vs .
CA,
et al .
(G.R.
No.
f .
T h e
a m e n d m e n t o f S e c t i o n 1 o f t h i
s Rul e
providin g tha t th e exception s t o th e omnibu s motion rul e
ma y b e
gleane d from th e evidenc e o n recor d
(whic h
include s th e cas e wher e tria l ha s begun ) forestall s an y
challenge on tha t score .
Also , th e liberalizatio n o f othe
r
former holding s on belate d motion s t o dismis s thu s affirm
tha t procedura l rules , a s essentia l tool s for th e obtentio n
of justice , shoul d no t b e literall y constricte d by petrifie d
logic i n thei r application .
I n an y event , wher e th e moti
on
t o dismis s fall s outsid e th e genera l rul e o n allowabl e
ground s
du e t o
i s t o
n
may b e
and/o r tim e limits , bu t invoke s judicia l discretio n

specia l reasons , a s earlie r noted , th e bette r practic e
mov e for leav e o f cour t therefo r s o tha t th e situatio
presente d an d th e tribuna l pu t o n guard .
22 . A n action canno t b e dismisse d o n th e groun d tha t

th e complain t i s vagu e or indefinite .
Th e remed y o f
th e
defendant i s t o mov e for a bil l o f particular s or avai l o f th e
prope r
et
al.,
L-30380,
mod e
Feb.
of
discover y
28,
1973).
(Galeon
vs.
Caleon,
23 . Court s d o no t entertai n moot question s o r issues ,

t h a t is , t h o s e whic h ceas e
t o p r e s e n t a j u s
t i c i a b l e
controversy suc h tha t a resolutio n thereo f woul d b e o f n o
practica l us e or valu e an d n o lega l relie f i s neede d or calle d
for.
However , court s will stil l decid e cases , otherwis e moot

an d academic , I f (1) ther e i s a grav e violatio n o f th
e
Constitution ; (2) an exceptiona l characte r o f th e situatio n
an d th e paramoun t publi c interes t i s involved ; (3) th e
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l issu e r a i s e d r e q u i r e s formulatio n
o f
controlling principle s t o guid e th e bench , th e ba r an d th e
public , an d (4) th e cas e i s capabl e o f repetitio n ye t evadin g
review (Lu vs. Lu Ym Sr., et al. G.R. No. 153690, Aug. 26,
2008, which othe r case s jointly decided) .
289
----------------------- Page 290----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 2
Sec . 2 .
Hearing of motion.
A t t h e
h e a r i
n g o f
t h e motion , th e partie s shal l submi t thei r a r g u m e n t s
o n t h e q u e s t i o n s o f la w an d t h e i r e v i d e n c e
o n t h e
q u e s t i o n s o f fac t involve d e x c e p t t h o s e no t availabl
e
a t t h a t t i m e .
S h o u l d
t h e c a s e g o t o t r i
a l , t h e
e v i d e n c e
p r e s e n t e d
d u r i n g
t h e
h e a r i n g
s h a l l
a u t o m a t i c a l l y b e par t o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f t
h e part y
p r e s e n t i n g t h e s a m e , (n )
NOTE S
1. Thi s ne w provisio n o f th e Rul e introduce s tw o
importan t changes , i.e. , (1) a t th e hearin g o f th e motion ,
th e partie s shal l submi t al l argument s an d evidenc e the n
a v a i l a b l e , a n d
(2 )
t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e
d
s h a l l
automatically constitut e p a r t o f th e evidenc e a t th e tria l
o f th e p a r t y wh o p r e s en t e d th e same .
I t wil l
als o b e
recalle d tha t i n accordanc e wit h Rul e 15 , suc h motio n shal l
b e in writin g
(Sec. 2) an d t h a t ther e mus t b e a hea
rin g
thereo n (Sec.
4).
Th e
obviou s p
i s t o
avoid unnecessar y dela y
sufficient
fram e
l court' s
disposition o f th e motio
u r p o s e
o f t h e s e
a m e n d m e n t s
i n th e tria l court , an d t o hav e a

o f referenc e
shoul d
t h e t r i a
n b e questione d in a highe r court .
2 . Unde r
th e forme r
Rule ,
i t wa s hel d t h a
t
th e
absenc e o f a forma l hearin g on a motio n t o dismis s whic h
wa s grante d doe s no t constitut e reversibl e erro r wher e th e
motio n i s grounde d o n lac k o f caus e o f actio n an d th

e
existenc e or lac k o f i t i s determinabl e by referenc e t o th e
facts allege d i n th e challenge d pleading .
Th e issu e
raise d
in th e motio n havin g bee n fully discusse d therei n an d i n
th e opposition thereto , ora l argument s o n th e motion woul d
b e a n unnecessar y ceremony .
Th e intendmen t o f th e l
aw
in requirin g a hearin g o n th e motion , t h a t is , t o avo
i d
unfai r surprise s an d t o enabl e th e advers e part y t o mee t
th e a r g u m e n t s i n th e motion , hav e bee n sufficiently me t
unde r th e foregoin g circumstance s
vs. CA,
(Castillo, e t al.
290
----------------------- Page 291----------------------RULE 16
MOTION TO DISMISS
SEC.
3
et al.,
G.R. No.
52008, Mar. 25,
1988).
It is believe d tha t
such rulin g ma y stil l b e favorably considere d unde r th e

ne w Rule s
u n d e r th e sam e c i r c u m s t a n c e s obtainin
g
therein .
Sec . 3 .
Resolution of motion. Afte r th e hearing ,
th e cour t m a y d i s m i s s th e actio n o r claim , d e n y th e
motio n o r orde r t h e a m e n d m e n t o f th e pleading .
Th e cour t shal l no t defe r th e resolutio n o f th e
motio n fo r t h e r e a s o n tha t th e groun d relie d upo n
i s no t indubitable .
I n e v e r y case , th e r e s o l u t i o n shal l stat e clearl
y
an d distinctl y t h e r e a s o n s therefor . (3a)
NOTE S
1. Amendator
aspect s in Rul e
action open t o th
presented , i.e , t
th e pleading .
y
16
e
o
o f th
, ther
tria l
grant ,
e previou s
e ar e now
cour t whe n
t o deny ,
provision on
only thre e
a motion t
or t o allow
thes e
course s o f
o dismis s i s
amendmen t o f
Th e former practic e allowe d a fourth option , which

wa s for th e cour t t o defer resolutio n o f th e motion i f th e
groun d therefo r di d no t appea r t o b e indubitable .
Not
only wa s tha t alternativ e productiv e o f delay or abuse ,
bu t it wa s often unnecessar y an d tende d t o afford a pat h
of leas t resistance .
Furthermore , in view o f th e provision s
of th e nex t precedin g section requirin g presentatio n o f al l
available argument s an d evidence , ther e woul d b e n o nee d
for th e
tria l cour t t o defer action
unti l th e
trial .
Th e
evidence presented , an d such additiona l evidenc e a s it may

require , woul d enabl e it t o rul e upon th e dubitabilit y o f
th e groun d alleged .
Thes e
doubtful
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s resolv e an d se t asid e th e
rul e
in Antam
Consolidated,
et al. (G.R . No . 61528 , Jul y 31 ,
Inc.,
et
al. vs. CA,
1986) wherei n th e cour t
29 1
----------------------- Page 292----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 3
wa s allowe d t o defer resolutio n o f a motion t o dismis s sinc e

th e judg e di d no t hav e th e necessar y fact s t o rul e upo n
th e capacit y t o su e o f a foreign corporation ; an d the y
reinforc e
th e
holdin g
in
Foster
Parents
Plan
International/Bicol, et al.
us. Demetriou, et al.
(G.R . No .
74077 ,
Jul y 7 , 1986) tha t i t wa s gros s erro r t o defer resolutio n o f
th e motio n
lack o f caus
ar e deeme d
waitin g for
wher e th e ground s wer e lack o f jurisdictio n o r

e o f action sinc e th e allegation s o f th e complain t
admitte d an d th e issu e ca n b e resolve d withou t
tria l o n th e merits .
2 . W h e r e a h e a r i n g w a s hel d
a n d d o c u m
e n t a r y
evidenc e w a s p r e s e n t e d b y th e defendant ,
no t
o n hi s
motion t o dismis s bu t agains t th e plaintiff s applicatio n
for a wri t o f preliminar y injunction , bu t sai d evidenc e
w a s a d m i t t e d b y t h e plaintiff ,
suc h evidenc e
ca n b e
considere d
in resolvin g th e
motio n t o dismis s (Sant
iago
us. Pioneer Sauings & Loan Bank,
et al., G.R.
No.
77502,
Jan.
15,
1988).
3 . Adoptin g previou s doctrina l injunctions , suc h a s
t h a t in
Continental
Bank
us.
Tiangco
(G.R.
No.
50480,
Dec. 14, 1979), it i s now specifically require d by thi s section
t h a t t h e r e s o l u t i o n o n t h e motio n s h a l l clear
l y a n d
distinctly stat e th e reason s therefor .
Thi s proscribe s
th e
common practic e o f perfunctoril y dismissin g th e motio n
"for lac k o f merit. "
Suc h cavalie r disposition s ca n often
pos e difficulty an d misunderstandin g o n th e p a r t o f th e
aggrieve d part y i n takin g recours e therefro m an d likewis e
on th e h i g h e r cour t
a m e ,
usuall y o n certiorari .
calle d
upo n
t o
resolv e
t h e
4 . A n
o r d e r d e n y i n g a
m o t i o n
t o d i s
m i s s i s
i n t e r l o c u t o r y a n d no t
a p p e a l a b l e (Harrison
Foundry
&
Machinery,
et
al.
us.
Harrison
Foundry
Workers
Association,
et al., L-18432,
June
19,
1963),
bu t an
orde r
g r a n t i n g a motio n t o dismis s i s fina l a n d ap pe a
l a b l e
(Monares
us.
CNS
Enterprises,
105
Phil.
1333
f
Unrep.J).
However , i f th e orde r o f dismissa l i s no t a n adjudicatio n
292
----------------------- Page 293----------------------RULE 16
. 3
MOTION TO DISMISS
SEC
on th e merits , a s wher e th e venu e i s improperl y laid , tha t

th e plaintif f ha s n o lega l capacity t o sue , litis pendent
ia,
tha t th e complain t state s n o caus e o f actio n o r tha t
a
condition p r e c e d e n t for filin g th e sui t h a s no t b
ee n
complied with , suc h dismissa l i s not a ba r t o anothe r action
whe n th e circumstance s chang e an d warran t th e refilin g
and prosecutio n o f th e same .
5 . Whil e an orde r denyin g a motion t o dismis s i s
interlocutory , an d non-appealable , i f th e denia l wa s wit h
grav e abus e o f discretio n or i s withou t or in exces s o f
jurisdiction , prohibition will lie
(see Moreno vs. Macadaeg,
L-17908,
April
23,
1968;
Espiritu,
et
al.
us. Solidu
m,
et al., L-27672, July 25, 1973).
Certiorar i an d prohibitio n
ar e prope r remedie s from suc h orde r o f denia l (Alban us.
Madarang,
et al, L-32963,
Sept.
30,
1971;
Van Dorn
us.
Romillo,
et al, G.R.
No.
68470,
Oct. 8,
1985; Newsweek,
Inc.
us.
us.
IAC,
Florendo,
et
et al,
al, G.R.
G.R.
No.
No.
63559,
62082,
May
Feb.
30,
26,
1986; PNB
1992).
6 . Wher e th e defect i s curabl e b y amendmen t a s

wher e th e complain t state s n o caus e o f action , an d th e
cour t
u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y refuse s t o allo w a m e n d m e
n t ,
th e sam e i s reversibl e erro r
(Macapinlac us. Repide,
43
Phil. 770).
However , th e plaintif f mus t mov e for leav e t o
amen d th e complain t befor e th e dismissa l orde r become s

final
(Constantino
us.
Reyes,
L-16853,
June
29,
196
3).
Also , wher e th e dismissa l wa s merely for failur e t o alleg e
earnest effort s t o compromis e a sui t betwee n member s o f
th e sam e family
(Verzosa vs.
Verzosa,
L-25609, Nou. 27
,
1968), now subsume d unde r th e groun d o f non-complianc e
wit h a condition precedent , suc h refusa l i s imprope r a s
th e defect i s curabl e by amendment .
Thi s presupposes ,
of course , tha t ther e wer e really suc h earnes t effort s a s
alleged .
7 . A cas e shoul d no t necessaril y b e dismissed , on
motion o f th e defendant , becaus e th e origina l summon s
wa s wrongfully serve d or ther e wa s failur e o f service .
293
----------------------- Page 294----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 4
The cour t ca n instea d issu e a n alia s summon s for servic e

on th e
defendan t
(Far
Corp.
vs.
Francisco,
etc.
, et
al.,
G.R. No.
57218, Dec.
12,
1986).
Sec . 4 .
Time t o plead. I f th e m o t i o n i s d e n i
e d ,
t h e m o v a n t shal l fil e h i s a n s w e r w i t h i n t h e b a l
a n c e
o f t h e p e r i o d p r e s c r i b e d b y R u l e 1 1 t o w
h i c h h e
w a s e n t i t l e d a t t h e t i m e o f s e r v i n g h i s m o t
i o n , bu t
no t les s t h a n fiv e (5) d a y s i n an y e v e n t , c o m
p u t e d
f r o m
h i s r e c e i p t o f t h e
n o t i c e o f t h e d e
n i a l . I f
t h e p l e a d i n g i s o r d e r e d t o b e a m e n d e d , h e shal
l fil e
h i s a n s w e r w i t h i n t h e perio d p r e s c r i b e d b y Rul e
1 1
c o u n t e d
f r o m
s e r v i c e o f t h e a m e n d e d
p l
e a d i n g ,
u n l e s s t h e c o u r t p r o v i d e s a l o n g e r period . (4a )
NOTE S
1. In th
Rul e
provide d t h a t
r
resolutio n thereo
ha d
th e
entir e reglementar
file hi s answer
196 4 Rule s
wher e
f i s
th e
o f Court ,
Sec .
motio n t o dismis s
deferred ,
th e
4 o f thi s
i s
denie d
defendan t
y perio d al l ove r agai n withi n whic h t o

, reckone d from hi s receip t o f th e court' s
order ,
unles s otherwis e provide d b y sai d court .

Prio r
thereto , th e rul e wa s t h a t th e filin g o f a motio n t o dismi
s s
only suspende d th e runnin g o f th e reglementar y perio d
and , upo n it s denial , th e defendan t ha d only th e balanc e
of th e reglementar y perio d withi n whic h t o file hi s answer .
Thi s amende d sectio n enunciate s a chang e i n policy an d
revive s i n p a r t th e old practic e o f grantin g th e defendan t
only th e balanc e o f th e reglementar y perio d t o whic h h e
wa s entitle d a t th e tim e h e filed hi s motio n t o dismis
s ,
counte d from hi s receip t o f th e denia l order .
T
h e sam e
rul e o f grantin g only th e balanc e o f th e perio d i s followed
wher e th e court , instea d o f denyin g th e motio n t o dismiss ,
order s th e a m e n d m e n t o f th e pleadin g challenge d b y hi s
motion , i n whic h cas e th e balanc e o f th e perio d t o answe r
run s from hi s receip t o f th e amende d pleading .
294
----------------------- Page 295----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 6
MOTION TO DISMISS
However , i n orde r tha t th e defendan t may a t leas t

not b e undul y denie d th e opportunit y t o file hi s responsiv e
pleading , i n th e firs t instanc e h e shal l b e allowe d no t les s
tha n 5 day s t o d o s o wher e th e balanc e o f th e reglementar y
perio d i s les s t h a n that .
I n th e secon d instance , th e cou
r t
ma y provid e a longe r perio d unde r th e sam e contingency .
2 . Whe n th e perio d for filin g th e answe r ha s bee n
suspended , a s by defendant' s filing o f a motion for a bil l
of particulars , a motio n t o dismis s may thereafte r b e file d
withi n th e remainin g perio d t o fil e th e answe r sinc e th e
tim e t o fil e th e latte r i s coterminou s with tha t for th e former
(Dumanan,
et al.
vs. Butuan
City
Rural
Bank,
e
t
al.,
L-27675,
Dec.
15,
1982).
Sec . 5 .
Effect of dismissal.
Subjec t t o th e righ
t
o f appeal , a n orde r g r a n t i n g a m o t i o n t o d i s m
i s s
b a s e d o n p a r a g r a p h s (f) (h ) an d (i ) o f s e c t i
o n 1
hereo f shal l ba r t h e refilin g o f th e sam e actio n o r
claim , (n )
NOTE S
1. Th e action canno t b e refile d i f it wa s dismisse d
on an y of thes e grounds : (a) res judicata, (b) prescription ,
(c) e x t i n g u i s h m e n t o f t h e clai m
o r d e m a n d ,
a n d
(d) unenforceabilit y unde r th e Statut e o f Frauds .
2 . On th e matte r o f prescription , i f wha t i s referre d
t o i s t h a t th e caus e o f actio n i s barre d b y th e s
tatut e
o f limitations , t h a t is , t h a t th e actio n ha s prescrib
e d
(Arts. 1139 to
1155,
Civil Code),
th e motion to dismis
s
shall b e grounde d on par . (f) o f Sec . 1 .
I f wha t i s inv
olve d
i s th e fact tha t th e ownershi p o r othe r rea l right s claime d
hav e prescribed ,
involved
(Arts.
for th e motion t
par . (h) o f Sec .
been
extinguished
or a cas e o f extinctiv e prescriptio n i s

1117 to 1138, Civil Code), the n th e groun d
o dismis s shoul d properl y b e base d on
1 sinc e th e plaintiff s claim or deman d ha s
.
295
----------------------- Page 296----------------------RULE 16

SEC. 6
Sec .
6.
Pleading grounds as affirmative defenses.
I f n o m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s h a s b e e n filed , a
y o f t h e
g r o u n d s fo r d i s m i s s a l p r o v i d e d fo r i n t h i s
l e m a y
b e p l e a d e d a s a n affirmativ e d e f e n s e i n t h e a n s
e r
and , i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e court , a p r e
i m i n a r y
h e a r i n g m a y b e ha d t h e r e o n a s i f a m o t i o n t o
i s m i s s
ha d b e e n filed . (5a )
T h e
d i s m i s s a l
o f t h e
e r
t h i s
s e c t i o n
s h a l l
b e
w i t h o u
t o
t h e
p r o s e c u t i o n
i n t h e s a m e
o
i o n o f a
c o u n t e r c l a i m p l e a d e d i n t h e
c o m p l a i n t
t
r
n
Ru
w
l
d
u n d
p r e j u d i c e
s e p a r a t e
a n s w e r ,
a c t
(n )
NOTE S
1.
U n d e r th e
practic e befor e
1964 ,
w
h e r e th e
defendant filed a motio n t o dismis s an d th e sam e wa s
unconditionall y denied , th e ground s raise d b y hi m i n sai d
motion coul d n o longe r b e pleade d a s affirmativ e defense s
a s th e resolutio n thereo f ha d alread y bee n conclude d b y
th e denia l o f hi s motion .
I f h e di d no t file a m
otio n t o
dismiss , the n h e coul d rais e an y o f th e ground s therefo r
a s
a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s i n h i s a n s w e r
a n d
h a v e a
preliminar y hearin g thereo n a s i f a motio n t o dismis s ha d
bee n filed .
Despit e th e
1964
Rules , i t appear s
wher e
th e
chang e
o f phraseolog y
t h a t th e
defendan t
di d
sam e
no t
mov e
u n d e r th e
procedur e
t o
applied ,
dismis s
h e
an d
coul d
allege an y o f th e ground s therefor , excep t imprope r venue ,

a s affirmativ e defense s i n hi s answer .
O n th e othe
r hand ,
wher e a motio n t o dismis s on th e ground s o f res judicata
an d
litis pendentia
wer e
unconditionall y
denied
,
sai d
ground s coul d n o longe r b e raise d a s affirmativ e defense s
in th e answer , a s wel l a s th e othe r ground s t o dismis s
availabl e a t th e tim e th e motio n wa s filed , excep t thos e o f
failure t o stat e a caus e o f actio n an d lac k o f jurisdictio n
whic h wer e no t deeme d waive d
(Heirs of Juliana
Clavano
vs.
Genato,
et al. L-45837,
Oct.
28,
1977).
296
----------------------- Page 297----------------------RULE 16
6
MOTION TO DISMISS
SEC.
However , eve n i f th e defendan t ha d move d t o dismis s

th e groun d relie d upo n b y hi m wa s no t definitely
bu t
resolve d by th e court , i.e. , wher e resolutio n thereo n wa s

deferre d a s t h e n allowed , suc h groun d coul d stil l
b e
averre d a s a n affirmativ e defens e i n th e answer .

2 . Unde r th e presen t amende d section , i f n o motion
t o dismis s ha d bee n filed , an y o f th e ground s for dismissal ,
including imprope r venue , ma y b e pleade d a s affirmativ e
defense s an d preliminaril y hear d in th e discretion o f h e
court .
Th e provision s o f Sec . 4 , Rul e 4 unde r th e 1964
Rule s o f Court , whic h require d
t h a t imprope r venu e
should b e raise d
deeme d
waived ,
s e n t
revision .
in a motion t o dismis s otherwis e it i s

ha s bee n eliminate d
i n th e p r e
Also , th e rulin g in th e aforecite d Clavano cas e shoul d

b e deeme d modified by eliminatin g therefrom th e referenc e
t o th e groun d o f failur e t o stat e a caus e o f action , sinc e
t h a t
exceptio n
wa s
base d
o n
th e
forme r provision s
o f
Sec. 2 o f Rul e 9 which , a s earlie r explained , ha s bee n

deleted an d rephrase d in Sec . 1 o f th e sam e Rule .
3 . Th e secon d p a r a g r a p h o f thi s sectio n ha s
now
clarified th e effect o f th e dismissa l o f th e complain t upon
a counterclai m duly pleade d in th e action .
4 . A motion t o dismis s i s no t a responsiv e pleading ,
henc e th e filing thereo f doe s no t preclud e th e plaintif f from
doing wha t
h e ca n lawfully
d o befor e
th e defendan t
files hi s answer , i.e. , amen d hi s complain t (Rodriguez vs.
Fernan,
L-15143,
Nov.
29,
1961; Soledad
vs. Mamangun,
L-17988, May 30,
1963) an d admission of such amende d
complaint may b e compelle d by mandamu s (Republic vs.
Ilao, L-16667,
Jan.
30,
1962).
5 . An orde r grantin g a motion t o
after th e deat h o f th e plaintif f which
th e cour t in a motion t o substitut e th
heir s bu t befor e substitutio n wa s ordered
e
dismiss , rendere d
wa s duly reporte d t o
e decease d by hi s
, i s invalid .
Th
297
----------------------- Page 298----------------------RULE 16
SEC. 6
righ t t o th e propert y involve d wa s veste d i n th e heir s upo n

th e deat h o f thei r
declaration o f heirs ,
t o dismis s denie s the
in th e cas e withou t
et al., L-41715,
predecesso r withou t th e necessit y for a

henc e suc h orde r grantin g th e motio n
m th e righ t t o b e substitute d a s partie s
thei r da y in cour t (Bonilla vs. Barcena,
June
18,
1976).
6 .
Unde r thi s amende d section , an y o f th e ground s
for dismissa l provide d for in thi s Rule , ma y b e allege d a s
affirmative defense s an d a preliminar y hearin g ma y b e
ha d thereo n i f n o motio n t o dismis s on an y o f sai d ground s
ha d bee n filed an d resolved .
Sec . 5(b) o f Rul e 6 enumerate
s
some affirmativ e defense s suc h a s fraud ,
illegalit
y an d
estoppel , an d jurisprudenc e ha s als o provide d ultra vires
act s an d unconstitutionalit y o f th e s t a t u t e involve d a
s
additiona l affirmativ e defenses .
Sinc e thes e defense s
an d
other s b y wa y o f confession an d avoidanc e ar e no t amon g
th e ground s for a motio n t o dismis s unde r Rul e 16 , whil e
th e sam e ma y b e allege d a s affirmativ e defense s t o b e
prove d a s suc h durin g th e trial ,
i t woul d no t b e prop
e r t o
h a v e
a
p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g
t h e r e o n u n d e
r
t h e
circumstance s
section .
an d
for th e purpos e
contemplate d
i n thi s
T h e
f u r t h e r a m e n d m e n t
e m p h a s i z e s
t h
a t t h e
preliminar y hearin g authorize d therei n i s no t mandatory ,
since
th e gran t thereo f may b e
ha d
in the discret
ion of
the
court
(246
Corporation,
etc.
vs.
Daway,
etc.,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
157216,
Nov.
20,
2003).
29 8
----------------------- Page 299----------------------RULE
1 7
DISMISSA L
S e c t i o n 1.
Dismissal
O F
upon
ACTION S
notice
by plaintiff.
b e d i s m i s s e d b y t h e p l a i
i f f b y
f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f d i s m i s s a l a t a n y t i m e
e f o r e
servic e o f th e a n s w e r o r o f a motio n fo r s u m m
y
j u d g m e n t .
Upo n s u c h notic e bein g filed , th e cour t
s h a l l i s s u e a n o r d e r c o n f i r m i n g t h e d i s
s s a l .
Unles s o t h e r w i s e state d i n th e notice , th e dismissa l
i s w i t h o u t prejudice , e x c e p t tha t a notic e o p e r a t
n t
b
a r
m i
e s
a s a n adjudicatio n u p o n th e merit s w h e n file d b y a

plaintif f w h o h a s o n c e
d i s m i s s e d i n a c o m p
e t e n t
c o u r t a n a c t i o n b a s e d o n o r i n c l u d i n g t h e
s a m e
claim , ( l a )
NOTE S
1. Th e procedur e unde r th e former Sec . 1
o
f thi s
Rule ha s bee n maintained , bu t wit h th e clarification tha t
whe n th e notic e o f dismissa l i s filed by th e plaintiff , th e
court shal l issu e th e correspondin g orde r confirmin g th e
dismissal .
Thi s settle s th e forme r misunderstandin g
regardin g th e dat e whe n suc h dismissa l becam e execu tory sinc e ther e wa s the n n o suc h provision for a cour t
order which , bein g fina l i n nature , woul d requir e th e
corresponding entry .
2 . Unde r thi s section , dismissa l
by
motion bu t by mer e notic e o f dismissa l
o f righ t befor e th e defendan t ha s
for a s u m m a r y judgment .
Suc
t
i s effected not
which i s a matte r
answere d o r move d
h dismissa l i s withou
prejudice , except : (a) wher

provides ,
(b) wher e th e
th e sam e cas e in a cour t
(c) even wher e th e notic e
tha t it i s wit h prejudic e
f
e th e notic e o f dismissa l s o
plaintif f ha s previously dismisse d
o f competen t jurisdiction , an d
o f dismissa l doe s not provid e
bu t it i s premise d on th e fact o
299
----------------------- Page 300----------------------RULE 17

SEC. 2
p a y m e n t b y th e defendan t o f th e clai m
(se e
Serrano
vs. Cabrera,
93 Phil.
774).
involve d
Th e two-dismissa l rul e requires , however , t h a t bot h

dismissal s ar e grante d by a cour t o f competen t jurisdic tion .
3 . T o
b e
mor e
precise ,
however ,
w h a t cause s
th e
loss by a plaintif f o f th e righ t t o effect dismissa l o f t

h e
action by mer e notic e i s no t th e filing o f th e defendant' s
answer wit h th e cour t bu t th e servic e o n th e plaintif f o f
said answe r or o f a motio n for summar y judgment .
Wher e
th e plaintif f filed th e notic e o f dismissa l o f hi s actio n
in
th e cour t afte r th e filin g o f defendant' s answe r bu t befor e
service thereof ,
th e plaintiff' s notic e t o t h a t effec
t ipso
facto
brough t abou t th e dismissa l o f th e pendin g actio n
withou t nee d o f an y orde r from th e tria l cour t
(Go
vs.
Cruz,
et al., G.R.
No.
58986, April
17,
1989).
4 . Thi s sectio n i s als o applicabl e t o specia l proceed ing s
(Ventura
vs.
Ventura,
106 Phil.
1165 fUnrep.J).
Th e
former portio n thereo f regardin g dismissa l o r compromis e
of a clas s sui t ha s bee n transferre d t o Sec . 2 o f thi s Rul e
since
th e
sam e
ar e effecte d b y
motion ,
an d no t b y mer e
notice , t o th e court .
5 . Wher e
t h e firs t complain t for foreclosur e o f
a
chatte l mortgag e for non-paymen t o f certai n installment s
du e t h e r e u n d e r wa s dismisse d wit h prejudice ,
a t th e
i n s t a n c e o f t h e plaintif f u n d e r t h i s section ,
a
n o t h e r
complaint late r filed by hi m for non-paymen t o f install m e n t s s u b s e q u e n t t o thos e involve d i n t h e
firs
t cas e
should
no t b e dismisse d
on
th e groun d
o f res
judicata
since sai d secon d cas e involve d differen t
cause s o f
actio n
(Filinvest
Credit
Corp.
vs.
Salas,
et al,
G.R.
No.
63326,
July
31,
1984).
S e c .
2 .
Dismissal
iff.
E x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n
i o n , a
upon
t h e
motion
of
plaint
p r e c e d i n g
s e c t
300
----------------------- Page 301----------------------RULE 17
SEC. 2
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
c o m p l a i n t shal l no t b e d i s m i s s e d a t th e p l a
i n t i f f s
i n s t a n c e sav e u p o n approva l o f th e cour t an d upo n
s u c h t e r m s
a n d
c o n d i t i o n s a s t h e c o u r t
d e e m s
proper .
I f a c o u n t e r c l a i m h a s bee n
p l e a d e
d b y a
d e f e n d a n t p r i o r t o t h e s e r v i c e u p o n
h i m
o f t h e
p l a i n t i f f s m o t i o n fo r dismissal , th e dismissa l shal l
b e limite d t o th e complaint .
Th e dismissa l shal l b
e
w i t h o u t prejudic e t o th e righ t o f th e d e f e n d a n t
t o
p r o s e c u t e h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m i n a s e p a r a t e
a c t i o n
u n l e s s w i t h i n fiftee n (16 ) day s fro m notic e o f th
e
m o t i o n
h e m a n i f e s t s h i s p r e f e r e n c e t o h a v
e
h i s
c o u n t e r c l a i m r e s o l v e d i n th e sam e action .
Unles s
o t h e r w i s e specifie d i n th e order , a dismissa l unde r
thi s p a r a g r a p h shal l b e w i t h o u t prejudice .
A
clas s
sui t shal l no t b e d i s m i s s e d o r compromise d w i t h o u t
th e approva l o f th e court . (2a )
NOTE S
1.
Prio r t o thi s amendator y Sec . 2 , th e rul e wa s tha
t
th e plaintif f coul d no t mov e for th e dismissa l o f hi s com plain t if, befor e th e servic e o f hi s motion therefo r upon
th e defendant , th e latte r ha d filed a counterclai m which
could not remai n pendin g for independen t adjudication
by th e tria l court , henc e th e defendan t coul d object t o th e
dismissal o f th e action .
Applyin g tha t provision , it wa
s
hel d tha t after th e defendan t ha d answered , dismissa l can

b e effected only by orde r o f th e cour t on prope r notic e an d
hearing .
Suc h dismissa l canno t b e ordere d ove r th e
defendant' s objection i f th e counterclai m o f th e defendan t
cannot remai n pendin g for independen t adjudication , tha t
is , a
compulsor y
counterclai m
(se e Ynotorio
vs
. Lira,
L-16677,
Nov.
27,
1964; Lim
Tanhu,
et al. vs. Ram
olete,
et al., L-40098, Aug. 29, 1975).
Th e dismissa l unde r thi
s
rul e wa s als o withou t prejudice , except (a) whe n other wis e state d in th e motion t o dismiss , or (b) whe n state d t o
b e wit h prejudic e in th e orde r o f th e cour t
(see Ve
rgara,
et al. vs. Ocumen, et al., G.R. No. 53971, June 19,
1982).
30 1
----------------------- Page 302----------------------RULE 17
SEC. 2
A furthe r qualifyin g doctrin e wa s t o th e effect tha t

th e rul e t h a t a complain t ma y no t b e dismisse d i f t
h e
counterclaim canno t b e independentl y adjudicate d doe s
no t appl y to , an d wil l no t inur e t o th e benefi t of, a plai
ntif f
wh o deliberatel y prevent s o r delay s th e prosecutio n o f hi s
own complaint .
Especially i s thi s tru e wher e th e complain t
w a s
d i s m i s s e d a s a consequenc e
o f plaintiff' s b
ein g
non-suite d a t th e pre-tria l a s h e ha s thereb y virtuall y
abandone d
ia
vs.
CA,
et
hi s
claim s
al.,
L-30602,
in
hi s
June
complain t
30,
(Sta.
Mar
1972).
Althoug h th e aforesai d doctrine s mus t now yiel d t o

th e a m e n d m e n t s i n Sec . 2 , a s hereunde r explained , th
e
r a t i o n a l e i n t h e Sta. Maria
cas e
t h a t a plaintif f
wh o
delay s o r prevent s th e prosecutio n o f hi s ow n complain t
s h o u l d n o t b e n e f i t t h e r e f r o m , a s b y r a i s i
n g a n y
objection t o th e appropriat e dispositio n o f defendant' s
counterclaim , i s stil l a soun d rule .
2 .
Unde r
thi s revise d section ,
plaintiff
move s
for t h e d i s m i s s a l o f hi s
o whic h a
counterclaim ha s bee n interposed , th e dismissa l
limite d t o th e complaint .
Suc h dismissa
t
prejudic e t o th e righ t o f th e defendan t t o
wher e
th e
c o m p l a i n t
shal l b e
l shal l b e withou
eithe r prosecut e
hi s counterclai m i n a separat e actio n o r t o hav e th e sam e

resolve d i n th e sam e action .
Shoul d h e op t for th e
first
alternative , th e cour t shoul d rende r th e correspondin g
order grantin g an d reservin g hi s righ t t o prosecut e hi s
claim i n a separat e complaint .
Shoul d h e choos e t o h
av e
hi s counterclai m dispose d o f i n th e sam e actio n wherei n
t h e complain t ha d bee n dismissed ,
h e m u s t ma
nifes t
such preferenc e t o th e tria l cour t withi n
1 5 day
s from
notic e t o hi m o f p l a i n t i f f s motio n t o dismiss .
Thes e
alternativ e remedie s o f th e defendan t ar e availabl e t o hi m
regardles s o f whethe r hi s counterclai m i s compulsor y o r
permissive .
A simila r alternativ e procedure , wit h th e
sam e underlyin g reaso n therefor , i s adopte d in Sec . 6 , Rul e
16 a n d Sec . 3 o f t h i s Rule , w h e r e i n t h e compla
in t i s
302
----------------------- Page 303----------------------RULE 17
SEC. 3
dismisse d
latte r
instance ,
on
motio n
o f th e
als o by th e
defendant
or ,
in
th e
cour t motu proprio.
3.
Sees . 1 an d 2 o f thi s Rul e refer to th e dismissal
of
the entire case at th e instanc e o f th e plaintiff , provide
d
that , unde r Sec . 1 , ther e ha s been n o servic e o f an answe r
of a motion for summar y judgment ; and , unde r Sec . 2 , th e
defendan t ha s no t filed a counterclai m an d th e cour t
deem s th e dismissa l proper .
Absen t suc h contingen
t
considerations , th e plaintif f ha s th e virtua l freedom
desist from furthe r prosecutin g an y defendan t by causin g
th e dismissa l o f th e complaint .
Thi s
i s t o b e
t u a t i o n
contemplate d in Sec . 11 ,
dropped or adde d by orde r
proprio a t an y stag e o f
ar e just .
Thi s refer s
all parties , excep t tha t
excluded . I t doe s not ,
or irrationa l droppin g o
situation wher e ther e ha
or misjoinde r o f parties .
l
inclusion o f a defendan t wa
t h a t i t w a s p r o p e
d i s t i n g u i s h e d fro m
t o
t h e s i
Rul e 3 which allow s partie s t o b e

o f th e court , on motion or motu
th e action an d on such term s a s
t o th e maintenance of the case agains t
on e or
however
f partie
s bee n
I
mor e defendant s ma y b e
, comprehen d whimsica l
s bu t contemplate s th e
a n erroneou s inclusion
t presuppose s tha t th e origina
s mad e in th e hones t conviction

r b u t t h e s u b s e q u e n t d r o p
p i n g i s
requeste d becaus e i t ha s turne d ou t t o b e incorrect .
I t
does not mea n tha t a plaintif f i s free t o join or implea d
a n y b o d y
a s a d e f e n d a n t i n a c o m p l a i n t on
l y
t o
unceremoniously drop hi m late r a t th e plaintiff s pleasure ;
hence , th e requiremen t tha t th e droppin g b e "on suc h
term s a s ar e just " - jus t t o al l th e othe r partie s
(Lim
Tanhu,
et al. vs. Ramolete,
et al, supra).
S e c . 3.
Dismissal
due
to fault
of plaintiff.
If,
for n o justifiabl e cause , th e plaintif f fail s t o appea r
o n th e dat e o f th e presentatio n o f hi s evidenc e i n
chie f o n th e complaint , o r t o prosecut e hi s actio n
for a n u n r e a s o n a b l e lengt h o f time , o r t o compl
y
w i t h t h e s e R u l e s o r an y o r d e r o f t h e court ,
t h e
303
----------------------- Page 304----------------------RULE 17
SEC. 3
b e d i s m i s s e
o f t h e
d e f e n d a n t o r u p o n t h e court' s o
o u t
prejudic e t o t h e righ t o f th e d e f e n
t e
h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m
i n t h e
s
e p a r a t e
action .
Thi s d i s m i s s a l shal l
o f a n
a d j u d i c a t i o n
u p o n
t h e m e r
h e r w i s e
d e c l a r e d b y t h e court . (3a )
u p o n
m o t i o n
w n m o t i o n , w i t h
d a n t t o p r o s e c u
a m e
h a v e
i t s ,
o r
t h e
i n
effec t
u n l e s s
o t
NOTE S
1.
Tw o importan t change s hav e bee n introduce d by
thi s section .
Th e dismissa l o f th e cas e for failur e o f
th e
plaintif f t o appea r a t th e trial , t o b e valid , now require s
tha t (1) hi s non-appearanc e i s withou t justifiabl e
cause ,
an d
(2)
suc h prejudiciou s absenc e
i s limite d t o
th e dat e
or date s whe n th e presentatio n o f hi s evidenc e i n chie f o n
th e complain t wa s schedule d o r expected .
Th e p
rovisio n
in th e forme r sectio n referrin g t o p l a i n t i f f s failur
e t o
appea r "a t th e tim e o f th e trial " coul d resul t i n unfai r i
f
no t absur d results , considerin g th e lengt h o f th e perio d
o f th e tria l an d th e differen t stage s thereo f wherei n th
e
presenc e o f th e defendan t an d th e othe r partie s ar e no t
even r e q u i r e d .
Sinc e t h e p l a i n t i f f s p r e s e n
c e i s no w
require d only durin g th e presentatio n o f hi s evidenc e i n
chief, hi s absenc e durin g th e presentatio n o f th e evidenc e
o f th e
d e f e n d a n t o r th e o t h e r p a r t i e s , o r
eve n a t th e
rebutta l o r subsequen t stage s o f th e trial , i s no t a groun d
for dismissal .
2 . T h e
s e c o n d s u b s t a n t i a l a m e n d m e n t
t o t h i s
section i s wit h respec t t o th e dispositio n o f th e defendant' s
counterclai m i n th e
even t th e plaintiff' s complain t
i s
dismissed . A s alread y observed , h e i s her e grante d th e
choice t o prosecut e t h a t counterclai m i n eithe r th e sam e
or a separat e action , jus t lik e th e gran t o f t h a t remed y i
n
Sec. 6 o f Rul e 16 .
I t ma y b e note d t h a t in th e p
resen t
i n s t a n c e , a s wel l a s u n d e r t h e a f o r e s t a t e d
Sec . 6 o f
Rul e
16 , th e defendan t i s no t require d t o manifes t
hi s
304
----------------------- Page 305----------------------RULE 17
EC. 3
preferenc e withi n a 15-day period , a s in Sec . 2 o f thi s Rul e

The reaso n i s tha t th e motion s t o dismis s contemplate d
in Sec . 6 , Rul e 1 6 an d in thi s sectio n ar e filed by th e
defendant wh o perforc e ha s alread y deliberate d upo n th e
course o f action h e intend s t o tak e on hi s counterclai m
and which h e ma y eve n manifes t righ t in hi s motion t o
dismis s th e complaint . Th e dismissa l in Sec . 2 o f thi s Rul e
i s at th e instanc e o f th e plaintiff , henc e th e defendan t i s
grante d th e tim e an d als o th e dut y t o thu s manifes t hi s
preferenc e withi n 1 5 day s from notice , after an opportunit y
t o stud y th e situation .
3 . Wit
l a y i n g
i o n o f
counterclaim s
th e
controversia l
vs.
Co, e t al.
n
3
h th e aforestate d amendment s in Sees . 2 an d

dow n specifi c
r u l e s o n t h e d i s p o s i t
involve d
i n
doctrin e
(G.R .
No .
th e
dismisse d
in
BA
actions ,
105751 , J u n e
Finance
30 ,
Corporation
1993) ha s
bee
abandoned , togethe r wit h th e apparen t confusion o n th e

prope r applicatio n o f sai d Sees . 2 an d 3 .
Sai d sectio
n s
wer e distinguishe d an d discusse d i n th e author' s separat e
opinion in tha t case , eve n befor e the y wer e clarifie d by
th e presen t amendments , a s follows :
"Turning back t o Rul e 17, it i s readily apparen t
t h a t Section s
2 an d
3 thereo f envisag e differen t
factual an d adjectiv e situations .
Th e dismissa l
o f
th e complain t unde r Section 2 i s at th e instanc e o f
plaintiff , for whateve r reaso n h e i s minde d t o mov e
for suc h dismissal ,
and ,
as a matter of procedure,
is
withou t prejudic e unles s otherwis e state d in th e order
of th e cour t or , for tha t matter , in plaintiff s motion
t o dismis s hi s own complaint .
By reaso n thereof , t
o
curb an y dubiou s or frivolou s strateg y o f plaintif f for
hi s benefi t o r
t o obviat e
possibl e
prejudic e
t o
defendant , th e former may not dismis s hi s complain t
over th e defendant' s objection i f th e latte r ha s a
compulsory counterclai m sinc e
sai d counterclai m
woul d necessaril y b e diveste d o f juridica l basi s an d
defendant woul d b e deprive d o f possibl e recovery
305
----------------------- Page 306----------------------RULE 17
SEC. 3
thereo n i n t h a t sam e judicia l proceeding .

"Section 3 , o n
dismissa l no t procure d
cause s imputabl e t o
case , wa s petitioner' s
th e othe r hand , contemplate s a

by plaintiff , albei t justifie d by
hi m an d which , i n th e presen t
failur e t o appea r a t th e pre-trial .
Thi s situatio n i s als o covere d by Section 3 , a s extende d

b y j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a n d i s o r d
e r e d u p o n
motio n
o f defendan t or
motu proprio
by
th e
court .
Here , th e issu e o f whethe r defendan t ha s a pendin g
counterclaim , permissiv e o r compulsory , i s no t o f
determinativ e significance .
Th e dismissa l o f plainti
ff s
complaint i s evidentl y a confirmatio n o f th e failur e o f
evidenc e t o prov e hi s caus e o f actio n outline d therein ,
henc e
t h e dismissa l i s considered ,
as a
ma
of
evidence,
a n adjudicatio n o n th e merits .
Thi
doe s
not , however , mea n t h a t ther e i s likewis e suc h ab
tter
s
sence o f evidenc e t o prov e defendant' s counterclai m

although th e sam e arise s ou t o f th e subject-matte r o f
th e complain t whic h wa s merel y terminate d for lac k
o f proof .
T o hol d o t h e r w i s e woul d no t onl y
wor k
i n j
d i n g a
f u r
t i n g a
meanin
mer e
u s t i c e t o d e f e n d a n t b u t w o u l d b e
t h e r
provisio n
int o
Sectio n
a n d
r e a
w r e s
g therefro m althoug h neithe r exist s eve n b y

implication .
Thu s understood , th e complain t
can accordingl y b e dismissed , bu t relie f ca n never theles s b e grante d a s a m a t t e r o f cours e t o defendan

t
on hi s counterclai m a s allege d an d
withou t an y reservatio n therefo r o n hi
from hi s conduct , expres s o r implied ,
consente d t o th e concomitan t dismissa l
terclaim. "
proved , wit h o r
s part , unles s
h e ha s virtuall y
o f hi s coun -
4 .
I t h a s b e e n hel d t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n
c e s se t
out i n thi s sectio n ar e th e only instance s wherei n th e cour t
ma y dismis s a cas e on it s ow n motio n
(Malig vs.
Bush,
L-22761, May 31,
1969).
Nevertheless , it shoul d als o
be
recalle d t h a t i f th e cour t find s t h a t i t ha s n o jurisdict
io n
306
----------------------- Page 307----------------------RULE 17
C. 3
over th e subject-matte r o f th
action pendin g betwee n th e
cause , or tha t th e action i
b y statut e o f limitations , th
sua sponte (Sec.
1, Rule
SE
e suit , tha t
sam e partie s
s barre d by a
e cour t shal l
9).
ther e i s anothe r
for th e sam e
prio r judgmen t or
dismis s th e cas e
5 . Unles s otherwis e provide d i n

th e orde r o f
th e
court , a dismissa l unde r thi s section i s wit h prejudice .
Thus , whe n th e dismissa l doe s not contai n an y condition
at all , i t ha s th e effect o f an adjudication on th e merit s a s
it i s understoo d to b e wit h prejudic e
L-19249,
Feb.
28,
1963; cf. Insular
lan,
L-40155,
Sept.
10,
1976).
(Guanzon vs. Mapa,

Veneer,
Inc.
vs. P
6 . Failur e t o comply wit h a cour t orde r i s groun d for

d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c a s e
(Aranico-Robino
vs.
Aqui
no,
L-46641,
Oct.
28,
1977),
suc h
if f
failed t o amen d hi s pleadin g a s
(Dizon vs. Garcia,
110 Phil.
l
an d voi d a s where ,
upo n
a s
wher e
ordere d
th e
b y
th e
plaint
cour t
186), unles s th e orde r i s nul

th e
deat h
o f th e
defendant ,
th e cour t ordere d th e plaintif f t o amen d hi s complain t

contrary to Sec . 17 (now , Sec. 16), Rul e 3 which direct s
tha t i n t h a t cas e th e heir s o f th e defendan t b e me
rel y
substitute d
in lie u o f th e decease d
(Gojo
vs. Gola
ya,
L-26768, Oct. 30, 1970).
Also , th e dismissa l of th e cas e
for failur e o f plaintiff s counse l t o manifes t whethe r h e
wa s availin g o f or dispensin g wit h mode s o f discovery , a s
require d by a clerk in th e office o f th e judge , i s nul l an d
void a s n o suc h
notic e i s authorize d by th e Rule s (Koh vs.
IAC,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
7 . Unjustifiabl e
hav e th e
or
failur e
0,
Jan.
31,
vs.
Republic,
cas e
t o
se t
71388,
Sept.
inaction on
for
th e
23,
1986).
tria l i s
par t
groun d
p r o s e c u t e (Ventura
1962;
L-26794,
Insurance
Nov.
for
vs.
Company
15,
o f plaintif f t o
dismissa l
Bayan,
L-1296
America
Th e
"unreasonabl e
1967).
of North
length o f time " in failur e t o prosecut e i s addresse d t o th e

sound discretio n of th e tria l cour t (Olilang vs. Nocon, et
al., L-31072,
July
22,
1971).
Thes e
rule s
appl y
to
307
----------------------- Page 308----------------------RULE 17
SEC. 3
p r e - t r i a l s a n d a p p e a l s t o t h e forme r C o u r
f F i r s t
Instanc e
(Racimo
vs.
Diho,
L-27804,
Feb.
27,
an d
t h e cas e ma y b e
dismisse d for a p p e l l a n t ' s
r e
t o
prosecut e hi s appea l for a n unreasonabl e lengt h o f tim e
(Republic
vs.
Guarin,
et al, L-26367,
Jan.
31,
.
In
a cas e appeale d t o th e the n Cour t o f Firs t Instance ,
o
1976)
failu
1978)
th e
appellant (whethe r plaintif f o r defendant ) stand s i n th e

sam e positio n a s th e plaintif f in a cas e originall y filed in
said court , henc e th e provision s o f Sec . 3 , Rul e 1 7 als o
apply
to
Quezon
City, Inc.
54416,
Oct.
17,
sai d
vs.
appellan t
Meridian
(Capitol
Rural
Assurance
Bank
Corp.,
G.R.
of
No.
1980).
8 . I t i s plaintiff s failur e t o appea r a t th e trial

, an d
n o t t h e
a b s e n c e o f h i s l a w y e r , w h i c h
w a
r r a n t s
dismissa l
(Dayo,
et al. vs.
Dayo,
et
al, 95
Phil
.
703;
Marahay
vs. Melicor,
etc., et al, L-44980,
Feb.
6,
1990).
9 . A motio n for
th e
reconsideratio n
o f an
orde r
dismissin g th e cas e for failur e t o prosecut e nee d no t b e
accompanie d
by
affidavit s
o f m e r i t s (Gapoy
v
s. Adil,
et al, L-46182,
Feb.
28,
1978).
10. D
o f t h i s
Rule , unles s
merit s except
whic h
i s
Luciano,
L-20944, Aug.
i s m i s s a l
u n d e r
S e e s . 1 ,
a n d
otherwis e ordered , i s a n adjudicatio n o n th e

, o f course , dismissa l for lac k o f jurisdictio n
alway s
withou t
prejudic e
(Rivera
vs.
14,
1965,
an d
case s
therei n
cited) .
11. Th e principl e t h a t th e dismissa l o f th e

comp
lain t
carrie s wit h i t th e dismissa l o f th e counterclai m applie s t o
instance s wher e th e cour t ha s n o jurisdictio n over th e mai n
cas e
(Metals
Engineering
Resources
Corp.
vs.
CA,
et al,
G.R.
No.
95631,
Oct.
28,
1991).
Otherwise ,
a co
unter claim ma y no t b e dismisse d i f defendan t objects , unles s i t
can b e independentl y considere d b y th e court .
Wher
e n o
objection wa s made , th e dismissa l o f th e counterclai m wa s
valid .
A t an y rate , i f th e dismissa l o f suc h counterclai m i
s
withou t prejudice , i t ma y b e refile d a s a separat e actio n
30 8
----------------------- Page 309----------------------RULE 17
SEC. 4
unde r Sec .
Ltd., et al.
adduce d
2 , Rul e
17
vs.
CA, et al.,
12. Wher e
counse l
(Fletcher Challenge Petroleum Phil.,

G.R. No.
for
th e
123292, April 20,

plaintif f ha d
1998).
e v i d e n c e for hi s
client ,
hi s
a r a t a
subsequent hearin g canno t b e considere d
prosecut e bu t only a waive r o f th e righ t
th e
witnesse s for th e defendan t an d
admissibilit y
o f
over
vs.
Ytoriaga,
L-35989,
evidenc e
Oct.
failur e
a s failur e t o
t o cross-examin e
t o object t o th e
for
28,
t o a p p e
th e
l a t t e r (Jal
1977).
13. Th e provision s o f Sec . 3 o f thi s Rul e d o

o t
apply
to crimina l
case s
(People
vs. Bellosillo,
L-18512,
Dec.
27,
1963).
14. Fo r a critiqu e o f th e controversia l antecedent s o f

Sees. 2 an d 3 o f th e Rul e befor e thei r amendmen t in 1997
and th e curren t perception s consequen t t o such amend ments , se e Tinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago, etc.
(G.R .
No . 170354 , Jun e 30 , 2006) .
Sec .
4 .
Dismissal
of
counterclaim,
ss-claim,
or
third-party
complaint.
T h e
p r o v i s i o
f t h i s
R u l e s h a l l a p p l y t o t h e d i s m i s s a l o f
c o u n t e r c l a i m , c r o s s - c l a i m , o r t h i r d - p a r t y c o m
i n t . A
v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l b y t h e c l a i m a n t b y n
c e a s i n
s e c t i o n 1
o f t h i s R u l e , s h a l l b e m a d e
f o r e a
r e s p o n s i v e
p l e a d i n g o r
a m o t i o n
fo r
m m a r y
j u d g m e n t i s s e r v e d or , i f t h e r e i s n o n
befor e t h e
i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e a t t h e t r i a l o r
r i n g . (4a )
cro
n s
a n y
p l a
o t i
b e
s u
e ,
h e a
309
----------------------- Page 310----------------------RULE
1 8
PRE-TRIA L
S e c
s t
e a d i n
t h e
t y o f
h a t
t h e c a s e
l
p
b
d
a
l
e
u
t
t i o n
g h a s
1 .
t h e
When
b e e n
conducted.
s e r v e d
plaintif f t o
an d
A f t e r
filed ,
p r o m p t l y m o v e
b e se t fo r pre-trial .
NOTE S
(5a , R20 )
t h e
i t shal l
ex parte
1. T o obviat e
th e conflictin g
ion s
unde r th e forme r Rule , Sec . 1 now impose
tiff th e dut y t o promptl y mov e ex parte
t
for pre-trial , an d thi s h e mus t d o
d
filing o f th e las t pleadin g require d i n
s
or, i n appropriat e circumstances , b y th e
Thi s
clarifie s a n d change s th e procedur e
former Sec . 5 o f Rul e 2 0 whic h impose d
clerk o f cour t "upo n th e submission " o f
Th e transfe r o f responsibilit y t o th e
view s
an d
decis
s upo n th e plain t h a t th e cas e b e se

upo n th e
servic e
an
th e cas e b y th e Rule
cour t itself .
prescribe d i n th e
t h a t dut y o n th e
th e las t pleading .
plaintif f himself , a s
ha s bee n followe d i n othe r provision s o f th e revise d Rules ,

i s base d o n th e policy t h a t whosoeve r i s th e proponen t o f
th e particula r stag e o f th e proceedin g shoul d himsel f ini tiat e th e correspondin g step s t o hav e judicia l actio n take n
thereo n sinc e h e i s presume d t o b e th e on e intereste d i n
th e speed y dispositio n thereof .
2 . Pre-tria l unde r th e forme r Rule s wa s require d only
i n C o u r t s o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e (now , t h e Regiona l
T r i a l
Courts) an d no t i n inferior courts , bu t th e latte r coul d con duct pre-tria l i f the y s o desired .
However , Par . 9 o f
th e
Interi m Rule s require d th e inferio r court s t o observ e th e
sam e procedur e a s t h a t followe d i n th e Regiona l Tria l
Court s an d Rul e 5 now provide s for t h a t unifor m proce dure , albei t wit h qualifications .
310
----------------------- Page 311----------------------RULE 18
EC. 2
PRE-TRIAL
3 . Th e pre-tria l an d tria l o n th e
mus t b e
hel d on
es,
et al. vs. Macandog,
978).
4 . A pre-tria
pleadin g ha s bee n
plaintiff s repl y
t al.
vs.
Hontanosas,
cep t
wher e th e perio d
Th e
pre-tria l ma y b e
separat e
date s
merit s o f th e cas e
etc., et
(Heirs
al, L-45445,
of
Jose
June
Fuent
16,
l canno t validly b e hel d unti l th e las t

filed , whic h las t pleadin g may b e th e
(Pioneer Insurance &
Surety
Corp.,
e
et
al,
L-35951,
Aug.
31,
1977),
t o file th e las t pleadin g ha s lapsed .

properl y schedule d even i f th e plaintif f
ex
ha d no t ye t filed hi s answe r t o th e defendant' s compul sory counterclai m sinc e n o answe r i s require d t o b e filed
theret o
(Sarmiento
vs.
Juan,
G.R.
No.
56605,
Jan.
28,
1983; se e Koh vs. IAC, G.R. No.
71388, Sept. 23,
198
6).
Sec .
i s
mandatory .
2 .
Nature
and
purpose.
T h e
pre-tria l
Th e cour t shal l consider :
(a) Th e possibilit y o f a n amicabl e s e t t l e m e n t o r

o f a s u b m i s s i o n t o alternativ e mode s o f disput e reso l u t i o n ;
(b)
Th e
(c)
Th e n e c e s s i t y o r desirabilit y o f a m e n d m e n t s
t o th e
simplicatio n
o f th e
issues ;
pleadings ;
(d) Th e possibilit y o f obtainin g stipulation s o r

a d m i s s i o n s o f fact s an d o f d o c u m e n t s t o avoi d
un n e c e s s a r y proof ;
(e)
Th e
limitatio n o f th e
numbe r o f witnesses ;
(0
Th e advisabilit y o f a preliminar y referenc e
o f i s s u e s t o a commissioner ;
(g)
Th e propriet y o f renderin g judgmen
pleadings , o r summ a r y judgment , o r o f d
th e actio n shoul d a vali d groun d therefo r
t o exist ;
(h)
Th e advisabilit y o r necessit y o f
th e proceedings ; an d
t o n th e
i s m i s s i n g
b e foun d
s u s p e n d i n g
31 1
----------------------- Page 312----------------------RULE 18
SEC. 3
(i) S u c h o t h e r m a t t e r s a s m a y ai d i n t h e pr
omp t
d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e action ,
( l a , R20 )
NOTE S
1.
Th e purpose s o f a pre-tria l unde r th e old Rul e hav e
bee n reproduce d wit h tw o substantia l amendments , viz.:

(a) th e cour t shal l consider submission t o alternativ e mode s
o f disput e resolutio n includin g conciliation an d mediation ,
an d no t only arbitration ; an d (b) i t shal l als o conside r th e
advisabilit y
u m m a r y
o f j u d g m e n t
o n
th e
p l e a d i n g s , s
judgmen t o r dismissa l o f th e actio n o n th e base s

proceeding s a t th e pre-tria l conference .
o f th e
2 . W i t h r e g a r d t o s u b m i s s i o n t o a r
a t i o n , se e
R.A . 87 6 an d Arts . 202 8 t o 204 1 o f th e Civi l
o n
compromise s an d a r b i t r a t i o n s .
Fo r recen t
tio n
providin g for a broade r scop e o f a l t e r n a t i v e
o f
disput e resolution , se e R.A . 928 5 whic h institutionalize d
th e us e o f a n alternativ e disput e resolutio n syste m
establishe d th e Office for Alternativ e Disput e Resolutio n
(Appendix
DD).
b i t r
Cod e
legisla
mode s
an d
3 . Th e finding s o f fact o f a tria l cour t consequen t t

o
a pre-tria l conferenc e ar e finding s whic h ar e base d o n
evidenc e an d ca n accordingl y suppor t a decisio n o r a n
order
(Libudan
vs. Gil,
L-21163,
May
17,
1972).
S e c . 3
c e
o f
pre-tria l s h a
part y
w h o h a s n o
h s u c h
n o t i c e i s
i n g t h e
part y r e p r e
Notice
of
pre-trial.
T h e
n o t i
l l b e s e r v e d o n c o u n s e l , o r o n t h e
c o u n s e l .
c h a r g e d
T h e c o u n s e l s e r v e d w i t
w i t h
t h e
s e n t e d b y him .
d u t y
o f
n o t i f y
(n )
N O T E
1.
Unde r th e forme r procedure , th e Suprem e Cour t
hel d t h a t a notic e o f pre-tria l mus t b e serve d o n th e part
y
affected separatel y from hi s counse l (Heirs of Jose Fuentes,
312
----------------------- Page 313----------------------RULE 18
SEC. 4
PRE-TRIAL
et al. vs. Macandog, etc., et al. supra),

may
b e serve d directl y t o hi m or throug h
et
an d th e sam e
hi s
counse l
(Lim,
al.
vs. Animas,
etc., et al., L-39094,
April
18,
1975),
otherwis e th e proceeding s wil l b e nul l an d void (Sagarino
vs. Pelayo,
L-27927,
June 20,
1977; Patalinjug vs.
Peralta,
et al., L-43324, May 5, 1979).
It wa s th e dut y of coun
se l
upon who m suc h notic e i s serve d t o se e t o i t tha t hi s clien
t
receive s suc h notic e an d attend s th e pre-trial , otherwis e
h e wil l b e liabl e for

action
(Taroma, et al.
t.
30,
1975).
Th e procedur e
section in th e sens e
served on counsel , an
only i f h e ha s n o
grav e
vs.
administrativ e disciplinar y
Sayo, et al., L-37296,
Oc
ha s bee n simplifie d i n thi s revise d

tha t th e notic e o f pre-tria l shal l b e
d servic e shal l b e mad e on th e part y
counsel .
However , th e dut y o f counse l
served wit h suc h notic e t o duly notify hi s client thereo f

remain s substantiall y th e same .
Sec . 4 .
Appearance
of parties.
It
shal l
b e
th e
duty o f t h e partie s an d thei r c o u n s e l t o appea r a
t
th e pre-trial .
Th e non-appearanc e o f a part y ma y
b e e x c u s e d onl y i f a vali d c a u s e i s s h o w n there
fo r
o r i f a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e shal l appea r i n hi s behal f ful
l y
a u t h o r i z e d i n w r i t i n g t o e n t e r int o a n a m i
c a b l e
s e t t l e m e n t , t o s u b m i t
t o a l t e r n a t i v e m o d e
s
o f
d i s p u t e r e s o l u t i o n , an d t o e n t e r int o stipula
tion s
o r a d m i s s i o n s o f fact s an d o f documents ,
(n )
NOTE S
1. Th e specificit y introduce d by thi s new sectio n
underscore s th e necessity for th e persona l appearanc e o f
th e partie s a t th e pre-tria l conferenc e i n view o f th e
purpose s thereof .
Thi s provision i s base d on th e doctrine s
of th e Suprem e Cour t which hel d tha t th e purpos e o f th e

revise d Rule s i s t o compe l th e partie s t o appea r personally
before th e cour t t o reach , i f possible , a compromise .
Wher e
313
----------------------- Page 314----------------------RULE 18
SEC. 5
th e counse l for th e plaintif f asserte d

authority b y hi s clien t t o compromis
no t satisfie d t h a t sai d a u t h
ur t i s
authorize d t o dismis s th e cas e for
plaintif f (Home Insurance
Co.
et al.,
L-25593,
Nov.
15,
1967).
A
y for an
tha t h e ha d bee n given

e but th e cour t wa s
o r i t y existed , th e
co
non-appearanc e o f th e
vs.
U.S.
Lines
Co.,
specia l
a u t h o r i t
a t t o r n e y t o c o m p r o m i s e i s r e q u i r e d u n d e r
Sec . 2 3 ,
Rul e 138 .
Unde r Art . 1878(c) o f th e Civi l Code , a specia l
powe r o f attorne y i s require d
(se e Servicewide Specia
lists,
Inc.
vs.
Sheriff
of Manila,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
74586,
Oct. 17,
1986).
However , it ha s als o bee n hel d t h a t t
h e
authority nee d no t b e i n writin g an d ma y b e establishe d
b y competen t evidenc e o r subsequentl y ratifie d b y th e
p a r t y c o n c e r n e d (Lim
Pin
vs.
Tan,
et
al.,
L-47740,
July
20,
1982).
I f t h e p a r t y i s a c o r p o r a t i
o n , s u c h
authority mus t b e mad e wit h a n appropriat e resolutio n
of it s boar d of director s
(Republic
vs. Plan,
et a
l., G.R.
No.
56962,
Aug.
21,
1982).
2 . I t mus t furthe r b e note d t h a t th e specia l authorit
y
should confer o n th e party' s representativ e no t only th e
powe r t o e n t e r int o a compromise , a s i t wa s unde r th
e
former provision , bu t als o t o submi t t o alternativ e mode s
o f disput e settlement , an d t o e n t e r int o stipulation s o
r
a d m i s s i o n s o f fact s a n d d o c u m e n t s . Also ,
t h
e m e r e
presentatio n o f suc h writte n authorit y i s no t sufficient ,
bu t m u s t b e complemente d b y a showin g o f vali d caus e
for th e non-appearanc e o f th e part y himself .
3 . Wher e nobody appeare d a t th e pre-tria l excep t th e
counse l for th e plaintif f bu t sai d counse l ha d n o specia
l
authorit y t o represen t th e plaintif f therein , th e plaintif f
ma y properl y b e declare d non-suited .
Th e plaintif f
ma y
b e s o declare d non-suite d an d th e cas e dismisse d withou t
motion by th e defendan t (Sec. 3, Rule 17).
S e c . 5 .
Effect of failure to appear.
t h e plaintif f t o
s u a n t
a p p e a r
w h e n
s o
T h e
failur e
r e q u i r e d
p u r
of
314
----------------------- Page 315----------------------RULE 18
SEC. 5
PRE-TRIAL
t o th e n e x t p r e c e d i n g sectio n shal l b e caus e fo r dis

missa l o f th e action .
Th e dismissa l shal l b e wit h
prejudice ,
u n l e s s
o t h e r w i s e
ordere d
b y
th e
court .
A simila r failur e o n th e par t o f th e defendan t shal l

b e c a u s e t o a l l o w t h e p l a i n t i f f t o p r e s e
n t h i s
e v i d e n c e ex parte an d th e cour t t o rende r j u d g m e n t
o n th e basi s thereof .
(2a , R20 )
NOTE S
1. Thi s i s a substantia l reproductio n of Sec . 2 of th e

former Rul e 2 0 wit h th e chang e t h a t ,
instea d o f
th e
defendant bein g declare d "a s in default " by reaso n o f hi s
non-appearance , thi s sectio n now spell s ou t t h a t th e
procedur e wil l b e t o allow th e ex parte presentatio n o f
plaintiff s evidenc e an d th e renditio n o f judgmen t o n th e
basi s thereof .
Whil e actuall y th e procedur e remain s th e
same , th e purpos e i s on e o f semantica l propriet y o r
terminologica l accuracy a s ther e wer e criticism s on th e us e
of th e wor d "default " in th e former provision sinc e tha t
ter m i s identifie d wit h th e
failur e t o file a requi
re d
answer , no t non-appearanc e i n court .
2 . Th e tria l cour t ha s discretion t o declar e a part y
n o n - s u i t e d
(American
Insurance
Co.
vs.
Rep
ublic,
L 25478, Oct. 23,
1967) and , unles s otherwis e provided ,
such dismissa l ha s th e effect o f an adjudication on th e
m e r i t s (Geralde,
et
al.
vs.
Sabido,
et al.,
L-3
5450,
Aug.
19, 1982).
Such exercis e of discretion wil l not be
interfere d wit h by th e appellat e courts , absen t a showin g
o f grav e abus e thereof .
Where , a s i n on e case ,
bot h
counsel an d plaintif f di d not appea r a t th e pre-trial , a n
order of non-sui t wa s prope r
(Arcuino, et al. vs. Aparis,
et
al., L-23424,
Jan.
31,
1968).
3 . Wher e th e defendan t i s declare d in default for hi s
failure t o appea r at th e pre-trial , hi s remed y i s t o fil e a
motion for reconsideratio n withou t nee d for affidavit s o f
merit s regardin g th e fraud , accident , mistak e or excusabl e
315
----------------------- Page 316----------------------RULE 18
SEC. 6
negligenc e
(Lucero
vs. Dacayo,
L-23718, May
13,
1968),
obviously becaus e th e defense s o f th e defendan t ar e se t
out in hi s answer .
I f denie d wit h grav e abus e o f discretion
,
c e r t i o r a r i i s t h e r e m e d y a s suc h o r d e r o f
defaul t i s
interlocutory .
Th e remed y o f th e plaintif f wh o i s n
on suited , o n th e othe r hand , i s t o appea l from th e orde r o f
dismissal , th e sam e bein g a fina l order .
I f ha s als
o bee n
hel d
t h a t s a i d m o t i o n o f t h e p l a i n t i f f n e e
d no t b e
a c c o m p a n i e d b y affidavit s
o f m e r i t s sinc e
t
h e suf ficiency o f th e caus e o f actio n ca n b e determine d from
th e allegation s
e t al.,
L-46182,
Feb.
4 .
in
28,
th e
complain t
(Gapoy
vs.
Adil,
1978).
Wher e th e defendan t wa s presen t a t th e pre-trial ,
th e cour t ha s n o authorit y t o thereafte r cal l a secon

d
pre-tria l an d declar e defendan t i n defaul t for hi s absenc e
t h e r e i n
(Pioneer
Insurance
&
Surety
Corp.,
et
al.
vs.
Hontanosas,
et
al., supra;
cf.
Jaranilla,
et al.
v
s.
Adil,
et al, L-44884, Feb. 28,
1979).
Fo r t h a t matter , whe
r e a
pre-tria l ha s alread y bee n held , th e fact t h a t a n amende d
complaint
wa s late r filed , wit h leav e o f court , doe s
no t
necessitat e
anothe r pre-tria l
(Insurance
Company of
North
America
vs. Republic,
et al,
L-26794,
Nov.
15,
19
67).
5 .
Th e dismissa l o f th e cas e b y th e cour t du e
t o
non-appearanc e o f th e plaintif f an d hi s counse l a t th e
pre-trial , bu t withou t prope r notic e o f sai d pre-tria l serve d
on them , i s violativ e o f du e proces s an d th e dismissa l shoul d
be
se t
asid e
(Loquias
vs.
Rodriguez,
et
al,
L-38388,
July 31, 1975).
Wher e petitioner' s counse l wa s no t serve d
wit h a s e p a r a t e notic e o f pre-trial , althoug h hi s cl
ien t
acknowledge d receip t o f a copy thereo f in it s behal f an d o f
said counsel , sai d servic e i s insufficien t an d th e orde r o f
default an d th e ex parte proceeding s befor e th e commis sioner ar e
nul l an d voi d
(People's Realty Brokerage
Corp.
vs. Lustre,
et al, L-41495,
Oct.
20,
1978).
Thi s do
ctrin e
woul d stil l hol d t r u e a s i t doe s no t conflic t w i t
h th e
amende d Sec . 3 o f thi s Rule .
316
----------------------- Page 317----------------------RULE 18

S. 6, 7
Sec
th e cour
m a n n e r
thre e (3)
r e s p e c
n t a i n ,
a m o n g
PRE-TRIAL
. 6 . Pre-trial brief.
t an d serv e o n th e
a s shal l insur e thei r
day s befor e th e dat e
t i v e p r e - t r i a l b
SEC
Th e partie s shal l fil e wit h

advers e party , i n suc h
receip t thereo f a t leas t
o f th e pre-trial , thei r
r i e f s w h i c h s h a l l c o
others :
(a)
A s t a t e m e n t o f t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s t
t e r
a m i c a b l e
s e t t l e m e n t o r alternativ e m o d e s
o e n
int o
o f
d i s p
t e r
thereof
u t e r e s o l u t i o n , i n d i c a t i n g
m s
;
(b)
A s u m m a r y o f admitte d
stipulatio n o f facts ;
(c)
fact s an d
t h e d e s i r e d
propose d
Th e i s s u e s t o b e trie d o r resolved ;
(d)
Th e d o c u m e n t s o r exhibit s t o b e presented ,
statin g t h e p u r p o s e thereof ;
(e)
A m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f thei r h a v i n g availe d
o r
t h e i r i n t e n t i o n t o a v a i l t h e m s e l v e s o f d i s c
o v e r y
p r o c e d u r e s o r referra l t o commissioners ; an d
(f)
e s s e s ,
an d th e
Th e
n u m b e r
s u b s t a n c e
an d
n a m e s
o f th e
w i t n
o f thei r respectiv e testimonies .
Failur e t o fil e th e pre-tria l brie f shal l hav e th e

sam e effec t a s failur e t o appea r a t th e pre-trial , (n )
NOT E
1.
Thi s section make s it th e mandator y dut y o f th e
partie s t o seasonabl y fil e thei r pre-tria l brief s unde r th e
condition s an d wit h th e sanction s provide d therein .
Th e
case of Dimayacyac, et al. vs. CA, et al. (G.R . No . 50907 ,
Sept. 27 , 1979) whic h excuse d th e non-filin g o f th e pre tria l brie f o n th e groun d tha t th e former Rul e did not the n
requir e th e sam e i s accordingly abrogated .
th e
Sec . 7 .
Record of pre-trial. Th e proceeding s in
pre-tria l shal l b e recorded . Upo n th e termina 317
----------------------- Page 318-----------------------
RULE 18
SEC. 7
t i o n thereof , t h e c o u r t shal l i s s u e a n o r d e r
w h i c h
shal l r e c i t e i n d e t a i l t h e m a t t e r s t a k e n
u p i n t h e
c o n f e r e n c e , t h e a c t i o n t a k e n t h e r e o n , t h
e a m e n d m e n t s a l l o w e d t o t h e p l e a d i n g s , a n d t h e a g r
e e m e n t s
o r a d m i s s i o n s m a d e b y t h e p a r t i e s a s t o a n y
o f th e
m a t t e r s c o n s i d e r e d . S h o u l d th e a c t i o n p r o
c e e d t o
trial , t h e o r d e r shal l e x p l i c i t l y d e f i n e a n d li
mi t th e
i s s u e s t o b e tried .
Th e c o n t e n t s o f t h e o r d
e r shal l
c o n t r o l t h e s u b s e q u e n t c o u r s e o f t h e a c t i o
n , u n l e s s
m o d i f i e d befor e tria l t o p r e v e n t m a n i f e s t injusti
ce .
(5a, R20 )
NOTE S
1. T h i s p r o v i s i o n o n t h e p r o c e d u r e i n
p r e - t r i a l
proceeding s i n civi l case s i s differen t from t h a t obtainin g
in crimina l case s wherein , a s provide d in Sec . 2 o f Rul e
118, a n agreemen t o r admissio n o f a part y i n th e pre-tria l
conferenc e shal l b e admissibl e agains t hi m only i f reduce d
t o writin g an d signe d b y hi m an d hi s counsel .
However ,
th e bindin g effect o f th e pre-tria l orde r issue d unde r thi s
section i s substantiall y th e sam e a s a pre-tria l orde r i n
crimina l cases , a s provide d in Sec . 4 o f sai d Rule .
2 . Th e a m e n d m e n t o f a pre-tria l orde r i s addresse
d
t o t h e soun d
discretio n
o f t h e cour t
(Gotico
vs.
Leyte
Chinese
Chamber
of Commerce,
L-39379,
April
3
0,
1985).
3 .
Wher e th e amoun t o f bac k rental s t o b e pai d b y
th e defendan t i s state d i n th e pre-tria l orde r i n th e natur e

o f a compromis e agreemen t thereon , sai d pre-tria l orde r
in t h a t sens e ha s th e forc e o f res judicata on t h a t
issu e
(M
&
M
Management
Aids,
Inc.
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
53942,
June
29,
1984).
4 . A pre-tria l orde r i s
ile d
no t
m e a n t t o
b e
deta
catalogu e o f eac h an d ever y issu e t h a t i s t o b e o r ma y

b e
31 8
----------------------- Page 319----------------------RULE 18
C. 7
PRE-TRIAL
t a k e n u p durin g th e trial .
Issue
l y
included therei n b y necessar y implication
integra l p a r t s o f th e pre-tria l orde
ar e
expressly
stipulate d
(Velasco,
et
al.,
L-44588,
May
9,
1989).
SE
s
t h a t
ar e
implied
ar e a s muc h
a s thos e t h a t
al.
vs. Apostol,
et
5 .
I n A.M . No . 03-1-09-SC , th e Suprem e Cour t
issued a Rul e on Guideline s t o b e Observe d by Tria l Cour t
Judge s an d Clerk s o f Cour t in th e Conduc t o f Pre-tria l
an d
Us e o f Deposition-Discover y Measures ,
effect
iv e
Augus t 16 , 2004 .
319
----------------------- Page 320----------------------RULE
1 9
INTERVENTIO N
S e c t i o n 1
w h o
h a s a lega l i n t
i n
th e s u c c e s s o
n t e r e s t
a g a i n s t both ,
a d v e r s e l y
affecte d
b y a
s i t i o n o f
propert y i n t h e c
Who
may
intervene.
p e r s o n
e r e s t i n th e matte r i n litigation , o r
f e i t h e r
o r
i s
o f th e
s o
parties ,
s i t u a t e d
d i s t r i b u t i o n
o r
o r
a s
o t h e r
t o
a n
b e
d i s p o
u s t o d y o f t h e cour t o r o f a n office r
t h e r e o f m a y ,
w i t h
l e a v e o f c o u r t , b e a l l o
w e d t o
i n t e r v e n e i n t h e action .
Th e cour t shal l c o n s
i d e r
w h e t h e r o r no t th e i n t e r v e n t i o n wil l u n d u l y
dela y
o r
p r e j u d i c e t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n
o f t h e r i
g h t s o f
th e origina l parties , an d w h e t h e r o r no t t h e inter vener' s right s m a y b e full y p r o t e c t e d i n a s e p a r a t
e
p r o c e e d i n g . (2[2] , [b]a , R12 )
NOTE S
1.
Thi s righ t t o interven e i s no t a n absolut e
right .
Th e procedur e t o secur e th e righ t t o interven e i s fixed b y

th e statut e o r rule , an d interventio n ca n b e secure d only
in accordanc e wit h th e term s o f th e applicabl e provision .
U n d e r
o u r r u l e o n i n t e r v e n t i o n , t h e a l l o w
a n c e o r
disallowanc e o f a motio n t o interven e i s addresse d t o th e
sound
discretio n
of th e
cour t
(Big
Country
Ranch
Corp.
vs. CA,
et al., G.R. No.
102927, Oct.
12,
1993).
2 . Interventio n i s no t intende d t o chang e th e natur e
characte r of th e actio n itsel f (Garcia, etc., e t al.
vs.
David, et al.,
6 7 Phil. 279).
In general , an independen
t
controversy canno t b e injecte d int o a sui t by interventio n
(67A
C.J.S.
805),
henc e
suc h interventio n
wil l
no t b e
allowed wher e i t woul d enlarg e th e issue s i n th e action
an d
e x p a n d t h e scop e
o f t h e r e m e d i e s (Big
Country
Ranch
Corp.
vs.
CA, et al., supra).
an d
320
----------------------- Page 321----------------------RULE 19
SEC. 1
(Rule
3 . Interventio n i s
62) as follows :
INTERVENTION
distinguishe d
from
interpleade r
a . Interventio n i s an ancillar y action ,

pleade r i s a n origina l action ;
whil e
inter -
b . I n t e r v e n t i o n i s p r o p e r i n a n y o f t h
e fou r
situation s mentione d i n thi s Rule , whil e interpleade r
presuppose s t h a t th e plaintif f ha s
n o interes t i n
th e
subject-matter o f th e actio n o r ha s a n interes t therei n
which , in whol e or in part , i s not dispute d by th e othe r
partie s t o th e action ; an d
c.
In a complain t in intervention , th e defendant s
ar e alread y origina l partie s t o th e pendin g suit , whil e i n
interpleader th e defendant s ar e bein g sue d precisely t o
implead them .
4 . A n
i n t e r e s t i n
u p o n
a c o m p l a i n t - i n - i n t e r
o f th e
principa l actio n wherei n suc h
Th e
confusio n herei n seem s
th e
g q u e s t i o n i s t h e effec t
v e n t i o n
interventio n
t o hav e
b y
wa s
th e dismissa l
sought .
arise n from
decision s
o f th e Suprem e
Cour t
in Barangay
Mat
ictic,
etc. vs. Elbinias, etc., et al. (L-48769 , Feb . 27 ,
1987)
an d
Metropolitan
Bank
and
Trust
Co.
vs.
Presiding
Judge,
etc., e t al. (G.R . No . 89909 , Sept . 21 , 1990) .
Whil
e in
Matictic it wa s hel d tha t th e dismissa l o f th e mai n cas e
barre d furthe r action on th e intervention ,
in Metrop
olitan
th e complaint-in-interventio n
survive d
an d
wa s
allowed t o procee d despit e th e dismissa l o f th e mai n
action .
Th e tw o case s actually res t on different fact s an d
th e seemingl y opposin g decision s
t h e r e i n ar e
easil y
reconcilable .
In Matictic, th e mai n action , an expropriatio n case ,
wa s file d b y th e Municipalit y o f Norzagara y agains t
privat e respondent s wh o wer e chargin g an d collectin g toll
fees on feeder road s in Baranga y Matictic .
Later ,
th e
municipa l mayo r evince d hi s desir e t o withdra w th e
expropriation case , whereupo n petitione r baranga y filed
a motion for intervention , contendin g tha t th e resul t o f
32 1
----------------------- Page 322----------------------RULE 19
SEC. 1
th e expropriatio n cas e woul

development .
Without
for
intervention,
r e s p o n d
d t h e
expropriation case , withou t
reaso n t h a t th e sam e
isit e
prio r Presidentia l approval .
d affect it s socia l an d economi c

taking
action
on
the motion
e n t
t r i a l c o u r t d i s m i s s e
prejudice , o n th e singula r
wa s file d withou t th e
requ
O n certiorari , th e Suprem e
Court rule d tha t th e barangay , whic h i s a par t o f bu t a

different politica l
entity ,
c a n n o t questio n
th e
orde r
dismissin g th e expropriatio n case .
Sinc e sai d orde r
had
achieved
finality,
t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e m o t i o
n
for
intervention
wa s unavoidabl e a s th e mai n action , havin g
ceased t o exist , ther e wa s n o pendin g proceedin g wherei n
th e interventio n ma y b e based .
Besides , it s interest s
may
be protected in a separate case whic h it ma y prevai l upo n
th e municipalit y t o refil e or , i f th e interveno r ha s
th e
requisit e authority , i t ca n file th e action for expropriatio n
itself.
In Metropolitan,
petitione r
brough t
a replevi n
sui t
for recover y o f a i r c o n d i t i o n i n g u n i t s , i n s t a l
l e d i n a
buildin g acquire d b y privat e respondents , whic h wer e
obtaine d from Rayco r Ai r Contro l System , Inc . o n a n
arrangemen t finance d b y loan s obtaine d from petitioner .
Said airconditionin g corporatio n wa s allowed by the trial
court
to
intervene
and ,
afte r it s complaint-in-interventi
on
was admitted an d th e answer s theret o wer e filed , th e cas e
wa s se t for trial .
Prio r thereto , petitione r ban k an d th e
buildin g owner s entere d int o a compromis e agreemen t
and , o n thei r join t motion , th e complain t wa s dismisse d
wit h prejudice .
However , on motio n o f intervenor , sai d
order wa s reconsidere d an d se t aside .
Thereafter , th e t
ria l
cour t allowe d th e filin g o f a n a m e n d e d complaint-in intervention an d petitione r wen t t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s
on certiorar i t o challeng e th e correspondin g order s o f th e
lower cour t which ,
however ,
w e r e s u s t a i n e d
b y t h e
Court o f Appeals .
Th e Suprem e Court , o n appeal , rejecte d petitioner' s
c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t allowin g
t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n
s u i t t o
322
----------------------- Page 323----------------------RULE 19
SEC. 1
INTERVENTION
procee d despit e th e dismissa l o f th e mai n action .

In
truth ,
there
was
no
final
dismissal
of
the main
case
an
d
it s
r e i n s t a t e m e n t wa s proper .
Th e join t motio n o f
th e
plaintif f an d defendant s therei n t o dismis s th e cas e only
affected thei r respectiv e claim s inter s e bu t canno t affect
th e right s o f th e intervenor .
Whe n a n interveno r h
as
become a party to a suit, th e tria l cour t canno t dismis s th e
intervention sui t o n th e basi s o f a n agreemen t betwee n
th e origina l partie s t o th e action unles s th e interveno r i s
a part y in suc h agreement .
Havin g bee n permitte d t o becom e a part y t o th e
action , th e interveno r i s entitle d t o hav e th e issue s raise d
betwee n hi m an d th e origina l partie s trie d an d determined .
The plaintif f ha s n o absolut e righ t t o pu t th e interveno r
out o f cour t by th e dismissa l o f th e action , no r d o th e
original partie s t o th e sui t hav e th e power

otherwis e annu l th e substantia l right s o f sai d
When an intervenin g petitio n ha s bee n filed , a
may no t dismis s th e action i n an y respec t t o
of th e intervenor .
t o waiv e o r
intervenor .
plaintif f
th e prejudic e
Since th e complaint-in-interventio n wa s filed before

plaintiff's
action
had
been
expressly
dismissed,
th e
intervener' s complain t wa s not subject t o dismissa l on th e
groun d tha t n o action wa s pending , becaus e dismissa l o f
plaintiff s action di d not affect th e right s o f th e interveno r
or effect th e dismissa l o f intervener' s complaint .
Moreo
ver ,
t o requir e privat e r e s p o n d e n t t o refil e a n o t h e r
cas e
wil l r e s u l t i n u n n e c e s s a r y dela y an d e x p e n s e
s an d
entai l multiplicity o f suits .
Thi s would , defeat th e very
p u r p o s
n e al l
conflicting
in on e
whol e
controversy
e o f i n t e r v e n t i o n
whic h
i s t o
d e t e r m i
claim s o n th e matte r i n litigation an d settl e

actio n a n d b y
a singl e j u d g m e n t
th e
amon g th e person s involved .
5.
While , a s a rule , interventio n i s optiona l (Cruzcosa,
et al.
vs.
Concepcion,
et al.,
101
Phil.
146)
and whethe r th e failur e t o interven e may b e deeme d a s
323
----------------------- Page 324----------------------RULE 19
SEC. 1
waiver or
et al.,
r e t h e
i n t e r v
e n d i n g
case an d

estoppe l depend s on eac h cas e (Liguez
102 Phil.
577),
it i s believe d
vs. CA,
t h a t w h e
e n e r ' s r i g h t s a r e i n t e r w o v e n i n t h e p
h e
ha d du e
notic e o f th e proceedings ,
thereafte r b e estoppe d from questionin g

isio n
rendere d therei n throug h anothe r action .
th e
h e wil l
dec
6. An imprope r denia l o f a motion for interventio n

correctibl e
by
appea l (Ortiz
vs.
Trent,
13 Phil.
130;
Hospicio de San Jose, et al. vs. Piccio, et al., 99 Phil.
1039
fUnrep.J),
b u t i f t h e r e i s grav e
a b u s e o f discret
ion ,
mandamu s wil l lie , wher e ther e i s n o othe r plain , speed y
a n d a d e q u a t e r e m e d y
(Dizon
vs.
Romero,
L26252,
is
Dec.
24,
1968; Macias,
et al. vs.
Cruz,
et al., L28947,
Jan.
17,
1973,
jointl y
decidin g
t h e r e i n L 29235
an d
L-30935).
On th e othe r hand , an imprope r grantin g o f a
motion for interventio n ma y b e controlle d by certiorar i an d
prohibition .
Whe n th e right s o f th e p a r t y seekin g
t o
interven e wil l no t b e prejudice d b y th e judgmen t i n th e
m a i n cas e a n d ca n b e fully p r o t e c t e d i n a s e
p a r a t e
proceeding , th e cour t ma y den y th e interventio n sough t
(Pflieder
vs.
De Britanica,
L-19077,
Oct.
20,
1964).
7 . Fo r a n enumeratio n o f case s wherei n interventio n
wa s
hel d
t o b e proper ,
se e Batama Farmer's
Cooper
ative
Marketing Association,
et al. vs.
Rosal,
et al. (L-30
526 ,
Nov . 29 , 1971) .
8 . T o w a r r a n t intervention ,
i t mus t b e show n tha t
th e movan t ha s lega l interes t i n th e m a t t e r i n litigatio n

an d consideratio n mus t b e
adjudication o f th e right s
delaye d o r prejudiced , whil
b e protecte d in a separat e
s
mus t concur .
given a s t o whethe r o r no t th e
o f th e origina l partie s ma y b e
e thos e o f th e interveno r ma y
proceeding .
Bot h requirement
Th e interes t whic h entitle s a perso n t o interven e in a

suit mus t b e o n th e matte r i n litigatio n an d o f suc h direc
t
an d immediat e characte r tha t th e interveno r wil l eithe r
324
----------------------- Page 325----------------------RULE 19
SEC. 2
INTERVENTION
gain or los e by th e direc t lega l operatio n an d effect o f th e

judgmen t (6318 v. Nocom, G.R. No. 175989, Feb. 4, 2008).
Th e word s "an interes t in th e subject " mea n a direc t inter est in th e caus e o f action a s pleade d an d which woul d pu t
th e interveno r in a lega l position t o litigat e a fact allege d
in th e complaint , withou t th e establishmen t o f whic h
plaintif f coul d not recover (Magsaysay-Labrador, et al.
vs.
CA, et al., G.R. No. 58168, Dec. 19, 1989).
Sec . 2 .
Time
t o intervene.
T h e
m o t i o n
t o
interven e ma y b e file d a t an y tim e befor e renditio n
o f j u d g m e n t
b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . A c o p y
o
f t h e
p l e a d i n g - i n - i n t e r v e n t i o n shal l b e
t o th e
motio n an d serve d o n th e origina l parties , (n )
a t t a c h e d
NOTE S
1.
Th e forme r rul e a s t o whe n interventio n ma y
b e allowe d wa s expresse d in Sec . 2 , Rul e 12 a s "before
or durin g a trial, " an d thi s ambiguit y als o gav e ris e
t o indecisiv e doctrines .
Thus , inceptivel y i t wa s hel
d
tha t a motion for leav e t o interven e may b e filed "before
or durin g a trial " eve n o n th e da y whe n th e cas e
i s
bein g submitte d
for decision (Bool,
et al. vs. Mend
oza,
et al, 92 Phil. 892), a s lon g a s it will not undul y delay
th e disposition o f th e case . Th e ter m "trial " wa s use d in it s
restricte d sense , i.e. , th e perio d for th e introductio n o f
evidenc e
b y bot h p a r t i e s . Hence ,
i f t h e motio n
for
intervention wa s filed after th e cas e ha d alread y bee n
submitte d for decision ,
th e denia l thereo f wa s prope
r
(Vigan
Electric
Light
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Arciaga,
L29207
an d
L-29222,
July
31,
1974).
However ,
it wa s
late r
hel d
t h a t i n t e r v e n t i o n ma y b e allowe d a t an y
tim e
before th e renditio n of final judgmen t (Lichauco vs.
CA,
13, 1975).
Further , in th e exc
ep tiona l cas e of Director of Lands vs.
CA, et al. (L-451
63 ,
Sept. 25 , 1979) , th e Suprem e Cour t permitte d interven tion in a cas e pendin g befor e it on appea l in order t o avoi d
325
----------------------- Page 326----------------------RULE 19
ECS. 3 4
injustice an d in consideratio n o f th e numbe r o f partie s

wh o ma y b e affecte d b y th e disput e involvin g overlap pin g o f numerou s lan d titles .
2 .
Th e
u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e s e r u l i n g s h
a s b e e n
eliminate d by th e presen t Sec . 2 o f thi s amende d Rul e
which permit s th e filing o f th e motio n t o interven e a t an y
tim e befor e th e rendition o f th e judgmen t in th e case , in
lin e wit h th e
doctrin e
i n Lichauco abov e
cited .
Th e
justificatio n advance d for thi s i s tha t befor e judgmen t i s
rendered , th e court , for good caus e shown , ma y stil l allow

th e introductio n o f additiona l evidenc e an d t h a t i s stil
l
withi n
libera l
interpretatio n
o f th e
perio d
for
Also ,
sinc e
n o j u d g m e n t h a s ye t bee n
e d , th e
m a t t e r subjec t o f th e interventio n ma y stil l
readil y
resolve d an d integrate d i n th e judgmen t disposin g o f
claim s i n th e case ,
an d woul d no t requir e
al l
reassessmen t o f sai d claim s a s woul d b e th e cas e
judgmen t ha d alread y bee n rendere d
Looyuko,
et al. vs. CA, et al,
G.R. No.
01).
(se e
102696,
trial .
r e n d e r
b e
al l
a n over
i f th e
als o
July
12,
20
Sec .
3 .
Pleadings-in-intervention.
T h e
i n
t e r v e n o r s h a l l fil e
a c o m p l a i n t - i n - i n t e r v e n t i o
n i f h e
a s s e r t s a c l a i m a g a i n s t e i t h e r o r al l o f t h e
origina l
p a r t i e s , o r a n a n s w e r - i n - i n t e r v e n t i o n i f
h e u n i t e s
w i t h th e d e f e n d i n g part y i n r e s i s t i n g a c l a i m a
g a i n s t
t h e latter .
(2 [c]a, R12 )
Sec .
4 .
Answer
to
complaint-in-intervention.
T h e
a n s w e r
t o
t h e c o m p l a i n t - i n - i n t e r v e
n t i o n
shal l b e file d w i t h i n fiftee n (15 ) d a y s fro m noti
c e
o f t h e orde r a d m i t t i n g t h e s a m e , u n l e s s a diff
eren t
perio d i s fixe d b y t h e court .
(2 [d]a, R12 )
NOTE S
h e
1.
Wher e th e interveno r unite s wit h th e defendant ,
intervene s b y filin g a n answer-in-intervention .
I f
326
----------------------- Page 327----------------------RULE 19
INTERVENTION
SECS. 3-4
h e unite s wit h th e plaintiff , h e may file a complaint-in intervention agains t th e defendant . I f h e doe s no t ally
himsel f w i t h e i t h e r p a r t y h e ma y fil e a complaint in-intervention agains t both .
2 . Sec . 4 o f thi s Rule , a s amended , now require s an
answer t o th e complaint-in-interventio n withi n 1 5 day s
from notic e o f th e orde r admittin g th e same , unles

different perio d i s fixed by th e court .
Thi s change s
procedur e unde r th e former Rul e wherei n i t wa s optiona l
t o file a n answe r t o th e complaint-in-intervention , an
also
set s asid e th e doctrin e
in Luna
vs. Abaya,
s a
th e
d
e t al.
(86 Phil . 472) whic h hel d tha t ther e woul d b e n o defaul t

since unde r th e the n existin g rul e th e filing o f th e answe r
wa s permissive .
Thi s chang e o f procedur e doe s not , o f
course ,
affect t h e rul e enunciate d
in Froilan vs. Pan
Oriental
Shipping
Co.
(9 5 Phil . 905)
tha t i f an answe r
i s validl y file d t o t h e complaint-in-intervention ,
th e
answerin g part y ma y asser t a counterclaim therei n agains t
th e intervenor .
327
----------------------- Page 328----------------------RUL E
CALENDAR
S e c t i o n
r k o f
court ,
u n d e r
e j u d g e ,
shal l k e e p a
t h o s e
w h o s e
t r i a l
, a n d
t h o s e w i t h m
e r e n c e
shal l b e g i v e
1 .
2 0
O F
CASE S
Calendar
t h e
of
d i r e c t
c a l e n d a r
s w e r e
cases.
T h e
s u p e r v i s i o n
o f c a s e s
a d j o u r n e d
fo r
o r
c l e
o f t h
pre-trial ,
p o s t p o n e d
o t i o n s t o se t fo r hearing .
P r e f
n t o habeas corpus cases , e l e c t i o n cases ,
specia l civi l actions , an d t h o s e s o require d b y law .

( l a , R22 )
NOT E
1.
To ensur e a mor e efficient monitorin g
bot h supervisio n an d reportoria l purposes , th e
cour t i s now require d t o kee p
a t
e p a r a t e
calendar s reflectin g th e case s for pre-trial , for
whos e trial s wer e adjourne d an d postponed ,
requeste d t o b e se t for hearing .
Th e
n tia l case s mus t als o b e take n int o account .
section
f u r t h e r m a k e s i t t h e d u t y o f t h e
j u d g e t o
exercise direc t supervisio n over thos e matters .
o f case s for
cler k o f
leas t fou r s
S e c .
n m e n t
o f c a s e s
shal l
b e d o n e
T h e
2 .
t o
Assignment
t h e
of
differen t
e x c l u s i v e l y b y
cases.
trial , thos e
an d thos e
so-calle d prefere
Thi s
p r e s i d i n g
a s s i g
b r a n c h e s
o f a
c o u r t
raffle .
T h e
a s s i g
n m e n t
shal l b e
d o n e i n o p e n s e s s i o n o f w h i c h a d
e q u a t e
n o t i c e s h a l l b e g i v e n s o a s t o affor d
i n t e
r e s t e d
p a r t i e s o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e p r e s e n t . (7a , R22 )
NOT E
1. Th e assignmen t o f case s i s require d t o b e don e
exclusively b y raffle , an d thi s set s asid e th e contrar y
r u l i n g
Reyes
in
Commissioner
of
Immigration
vs.
328
----------------------- Page 329----------------------RULE 20
CALENDAR OF CASES
(L-23826 , Dec . 28 , 1964) .

Rul e reiterate s th e requiremen t
Supreme Cour t tha t th e raffl e
open sessio n wit h prio r adequat
parties .
SEC. 2
Also , thi s provisio n o f

i n som e circular s o f th
o f case s shal l b e don e
e notic e t o th e intereste
th e
e
in
d
329
----------------------- Page 330----------------------RULE
2 1
S U B P O E N A
S e c t i o n 1.
Subpoena
ecum.
S u b p o e n a
i s a
p r o
p e r s o n
r e q u i r i n g
h i m
t o a
a t t h e
h e a r i n g o r th e tria l o f
gatio n c o n d u c t e d b y c o m
t a k i n g o f hi
h i m
t o
b r i n g w
s ,
o r
othe r t h i n g s
i s
calle d
a s u
and
c e s s
subpoena
d i r e c t e d
t t e n d
a n d
h i m
t o
a n y
I t m a y
t e s t i f y
duces
tecum,
als o
b o o k s ,
u n d e r hi s control , i n
b p o e n a
t o
a n action , o r a t an y investi p e t e n t authority , o r fo r th e
d e p o s i t i o n .
i t h
duces
requir e
d o c u m e n t
w h i c h c a s e
i t
( l a , R23 )
NOT E
1.
Th e subpoen a referre d t o i n th e firs t sentenc
e
of thi s sectio n i s distinctivel y calle d a s u b p o e n a a
d
testificandum.
Thi s
i s th e
technica l
an d
desc
riptiv e
ter m
for
th e
ordinar y
obelbank,
124 N.J.
Law 360,
12 A.
Sec .
2 .
By
a m a y
b e i s s u e d by :
whom
subpoen a
2d
vs.
Br
128).
issued.
a ) T h e
c o u r t
n e s s
i s
r e q u i r e d t o attend ;
(Catty
Th e
b e f o r e
w h o m
s u b p o e n
t h e
w i t
b ) Th e c o u r t o f th e plac e w h e r e t h e d e p o s i t
i o n
i s t o b e taken ;
c)
Th e office r o r bod y a u t h o r i z e d b y la w t o
d o
s o i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h i n v e s t i g a t i o n s c o n d u
c t e d b y
sai d office r o r body ; o r
d ) A n y
J u s t i c e o f t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t
o r o f
th e Cour t o f A p p e a l s i n an y c a s e o r i n v e s t i
g a t i o n
p e n d i n g w i t h i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s .
330
----------------------- Page 331----------------------RULE 21
SEC. 3
SUBPOENA
Whe n applicatio n fo r a s u b p o e n a t o a prisone r

i s made , th e judg e o r office r shal l e x a m i n e an d stud y
carefully s u c h applicatio n t o determin e w h e t h e r th e
sam e i s m a d e fo r a vali d purpose .
N o
p r i
reclusion
perpetua
o r lif
nfine d
i n an y p e n a
t s i d e
t h e s a i d
p
c e
o r
a t t e n d a n c e
h e
S u p r e m e Court
s o n e r
e
s e n t e n c e d
i m p r i s o n m e n t
i n s t i t u t i o n
e n a l
i n
.
t o
an d
shal l
w h o
b e
i n s t i t u t i o n fo r
an y
cour t
u n l e s s
d e a t h ,
i s
brough t
co
o u
a p p e a r a n
authorize d
b y
(2a , R23 )
NOTE S
1. T h e
e n u m e r a t i o n
o f t h e p e r s o n s
o
a r e
authorize d t o issu e subpoena s ha s bee n expande d b y th e
inclusion o f th e officer or body authorize d by la w in
connection wit h investigation s conducte d by them .
Also ,
wh
a municipa l tria l cour t ma y now issu e a subpoen a for

th e attendanc e befor e it o f a prisone r eve n i f h e i s
no t
confined i n a municipa l jail , unles s suc h prisone r ha s
bee n
s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h , reclusion
perpetua
or
lif e
i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d hi s
d e s i r e d a p p e a r a n c e
h a s no t
bee n authorize d b y th e Suprem e Court .
2 . Th e
l a
n
ar e
precautionar y measure s
Thes e wer e take n
of th e Suprem e Court
s t
tw o
p a r a g r a p h s o f t h i s sectio
evolve d from judicia l experience .

from Administrativ e Circula r No .
, date d Decembe r 5 , 1977 .
Sec . 3 . Form
shal l
s t a t e t h e n a m e
o f t h e
a c t i o n o r i n v e
e d t o t h e
p e r s o n w h o s e a
t h e
c a s e
o f a
s u b
l a l s o
c o n t a i n a r e a s
b o o k s ,
d o c u m e n t s o r t h
r
t o th e cour t prima
and
contents.
o f t h e
c o u r t
s u b p o e n a
a n d
t h e
s t i g a t i o n , s h a l l
t t e n d a n c e
i s
b e
titl e
d i r e c t
required ,
an d
tecum,
i t s h a l
p o e n a
duces
o n a b l e
d e s c r i p t i o n
i n
o f t h e
i n g s d e m a n d e d w h i c h m u s t appea
facie
relevant .
(3a ,
R23)
33 1
----------------------- Page 332----------------------RULE 21
ECS. 4, 5
Sec . 4 .
m a y
q u a s h
a
m o t i o n
promptl y m a d e
t i m e s p e c i
l e
a n d
o p p r e s s i v e
b o o k s ,
d o c u m e n t s
r i f t h e
p e r s o n
i n
i s s u e d
f a i l s t o
a
o f t h e
p r o d u c t i o n

Quashing
subpoena.
T h e
c o u r
s u b p o e n a
duces
tecum
u p o n
and , i n an y e v e n t , a t o r befor e th e
f i e d t h e r e i n i f i t i s u n r e a s o n a b
,
o r
o r
t h e
t h i n g s
r e l e v a n c y
w h o s e
d v a n c e
d o e s
n o t
b e h a l f t h e
t h e
o f
t h e
a p p e a r ,
s u b p o e n a
r e a s o n a b l e
i s
c o s t
thereof .
Th e
cour t m a y q u a s h
testificandum o n th e
g r o u n d t h a t
boun d
a
th e
s u b p o e n a
w i t n e s s
a d
i s no t
t h e r e b y .
I n e i t h e r c a s e ,
m a y
b e
q u a s h e d o n th e g r o u n d t h a t
e s an d
k i l o m e t r a g e
a l l o w e d
b y
t
r e
n o t
t e n d e r e d w h e n th e s u b p o e n a w a
a , R23 )
t h e s u b p o e n a
t h e
w i t n e s s
h e s e
R u l e s
fe
w e
s served .
(4
NOT E
1.
A subpoen a duces tecum ma y
proo f tha t (a) i t i s unreasonabl e an d
article s sough t t o b e produce d d o no t
t o b e relevan t t o th e issues , an d
g
for t h e s u b p o e n a
doe s
no t a
for t h e
productio n o f th e article s desired .
b e quashe d upo n
oppressive , (b) th e
appea r prima facie
(c) th e perso n askin
d v a n c e
t h e
cos t
Th e secon d paragrap h o f Sec . 4 wa s adde d t o mak e it

explicit
t h a t a subpoen a
ad
testificandum
ma y
als o
b e
quashe d i f th e witnes s i s no t boun d thereb y (se e Sec. 10).
Also , i t wa s considere d necessar y t o reiterat e herein , b y
m a k i n g
n o n - c o m p l i a n c e a
g r o u n d for
q u a s h
a l o f a
s u b p o e n a
duces
tecum,
t h a t t h e
w i t n e s s fe
e s
a n d
k i l o m e t r a g e shoul d b e
t e n d e r e d upo n
servic e
o f th e
s u b p o e n a
(se e
Sec.
6), w h i c h
r e q u i r e m e n t
i s ofte n
deliberately o r unknowingl y overlooked .
o f
s e r
r o v
i n
s t i
v
i
s
t
S e c .
6 .
Subpoena
for
depositions.
P r o
o f
i c e o f a n o t i c e t o tak e a d e p o s i t i o n , a s p
d e d
e c t i o n s 1 5 an d 2 5 o f Rul e 23 , s h a l l c o n
u t e
332
----------------------- Page 333----------------------RULE 21

SECS. 6-8
SUBPOENA
s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i z a t i o n
fo r
a n c e
o f
s u b p o e n a s
fo r t h e p e r s o n s
n a m
n o t i c e
b y th e cler k o f th e cour t o f th e plac e
e
d e p o s i t i o n
i s t o b e t a k e n .
T h
a l l not ,
h o w e v e r , i s s u e a s u b p o e n a duces
s u c h
perso n w i t h o u t a n orde r o f th e court .
t h e
e d
i s s u
i n
sai d
i n w h i c h th
e
c l e r k
tecum
t o
s h
an y
(5a ,
R23 )
S e c .
6 .
Service.
S e r v i c e
o f a
s u b
p o e n a
shal l b e m a d e i n t h e sam e m a n n e r a s persona l o
r
s u b s t i t u t e d
s e r v i c e o f s u m m o n s .
T h e
o r i g i n a l
s h a l l b e
e x h i b i t e d a n d
a c o p y t h e r e o f d e
l i v e r e d
t o t h e p e r s o n o n w h o m i t i s s e r v e d , t e n d
e r i n g t o
h i m
t h e
f e e s fo r
o n e
d a y ' s a t t e n d a n c e
a n d
t h e
k i l o m e t r a g e a l l o w e d
b y t h e s e Rules , e x c e p t
that ,
w h e n
a
s u b p o e n a
i s i s s u e d
b y
o r o n
b
e h a l f o f
th e
R e p u b l i c o f t h e
P h i l i p p i n e s o r a n
off
ice r o r
a g e n c y thereof , th e t e n d e r n e e d no t b e made .
Th e
s e r v i c e m u s t b e m a d e s o a s t o allo w th e w i
t n e s s
a r e a s o n a b l e
t i m e fo r p r e p a r a t i o n
an d
t
r a v e l t o
th e plac e o f a t t e n d a n c e .
I f th e s u b p o e n a
i s duces
tecum, th e r e a s o n a b l e cos t o f p r o d u c i n g th e
books ,
d o c u m e n t s
o r
t h i n g s
d e m a n d e d
s h a l l
a l s o
b e
t e n d e r e d . (6a , R23 )
Sec .
7.
Personal appearance in court.
e s e n t
i n c o u r t
b e f o r e
a j u d i c
r m a y
require d t o testif y a s i f h e wer e i n
e
o n
a
s u b p o e n a
i s s u e d
b y
u r t
o r
officer .
(10 , R23 )
A perso n
i a l o f f i
Sec .
8
a s e
o f
failur e o f a
e
i s s u i n g t
s e r v i c e
t h e r e o f a
s , m a y
i s s u e a
w
o v i n c e ,
o r h i s d e
b r i n g
hi m befor e th
p
c
b
n
u
r
e
e
c
p
Compelling
w i t n e s s
attendance.
t o
attend ,
h e s u b p o e n a ,
n d
o f
t h e
a r r a n t
p u t y ,
u p o n
t h e
t h e
----------------------- Page 334-----------------------
o r judg
t h e
w i t n e s
o f t h e p r
w i t n e s s
e cour t o r office r wher e hi s attendanc e

333
c o
I n
cour t
s h e r i f f
a r r e s t
s u c h
proo f o f th e
f a i l u r e o f
t o
t o
th e
a t t e n d a
a n d
RULE 21
ECS. 9, 10
i s r e q u i r e d ,
n t
a n d
s e i z u r e o f s
b y t h e
w i t n e s s i f t
e r m i n e
t h a t h i s f a i
a
w a s
willfu l an d w i t h
a n d
u c h
t h e
c o s t o f
w i t n e s s
h e c o u r t
l u r e
t o
s u c h
s h a l l
i s s u i n g
w a r r a
b e
p a i d
a n s w e r
i t s h a l l d e t
t h e
o u t jus t e x c u s e .
s u b p o e n
(11 , R23 )
Sec . 9 .
Contempt.
F a i l u r e
b y
a n y
p e r s o n
w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e c a u s e t o obe y a s u b p o e n a serve
d
u p o n h i m shal l b e d e e m e d a c o n t e m p t o f th e cour
t
fro m w h i c h th e s u b p o e n a i s issued .
I f th e s u
b p o e n a
w a s no t i s s u e d b y a court , th e d i s o b e d i e n c e t h e
r e t o
shal l b e p u n i s h e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e applica
bl e
la w o r Rule .
(12a , R23 )
NOT E
1.
Se e
S e c . 3 , e t seq., Rul e
7 1 o n i n d
i r e c t o r
c o n s t r u c t i v e c o n t e m p t .
While ,
u n d e r t h a t
section ,
indirect contemp t i s t o b e punishe d only afte r writte n
charg e an d hearing , i t i s als o provide d t h a t "nothin g
in thi s
sectio n shal l b e
court from issuin g proces s

int o
court ,
o r fro m
p e n d i n g
such proceedings. "
s o construe d
t o brin g
holdin g
Sec . 10 .
Exceptions. Th e
o n s
8 an d 9 o f t h i s Rul e shal l no t
o
r e s i d e s m o r e t h a n o n e
o m e t e r s
f r o m h i s
r e s i d e n c e
t o
h e i s t o
t e s t i f y b y t h e o r d i n a r y
o r t o a
d e t e n t i o n p r i s o n e r i f n o
our t i n
w h i c h h i s c a s e i s p e n d i n g
, R23 )
a s
th e
hi m
t o preven t th e
accuse d part y
i n custod y
p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i
appl y t o a w i t n e s s w h
h u n d r e d
(100 )
t h e p l a c e
c o u r s e
k i l
w h e r e
o f t r a v e l ,
p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e
NOTE S
w a s obtained .
c
(9a
1.
Th e righ t no t t o b e compelle d t o atten d
upo n a
subpoena by reaso n o f th e distanc e from th e residenc e o f

th e witnes s t o th e plac e wher e h e i s t o testify i s sometime
s
334
----------------------- Page 335----------------------RULE 21
10
SUBPOENA
SEC.
called th e viator y righ t o f a witness .

Th e presen t provi
sion, unlik e it s predecessor , doe s no t distinguis h a s t o
whethe r o r no t th e witnes s reside s i n th e sam e provinc e
a s th e plac e wher e h e i s require d t o g o an d testify
o r
produc e documents .
Wha t i s now determinativ e i s tha t
t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n b o t h p l a c e s doe s no t exce
e d
100 kilometer s by th e ordinar y cours e o f travel , generall y
b y overlan d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Th e forme r distanc e o
f
50 kilometer s ha s bee n increase d in view o f th e faste r
an d mor e availabl e mean s o f trave l now obtainin g in th e
country .
2 .
In t h e cas e
o f Petition
for
Contempt
Aga
inst
Benjamin Ravanera (L-15902 , Dec . 23 , 1964) , th e Suprem e
Court decline d t o pas s o n th e issu e a s t o whethe r thi s
viatory righ t i s availabl e i n crimina l cases .
However , i
n
th e late r cas e of People vs. Montejo (L-24154 , Oct . 31 , 1967) ,
it wa s hel d t h a t thi s righ t i s availabl e only i n civil case
s .
335
----------------------- Page 336----------------------RULE
COMPUTATION
any
O F
2 2
TIM E
S e c t i o n 1 . How to compute time. In c o m p u t i n g

perio d o f tim e prescribe d o r a l l o w e d b y t h e s e
Rules , o r b y orde r o f t h e court , o r b y an y applicabl e

statute , t h e da y o f t h e ac t o r e v e n t fro m w h i c h th e
d e s i g n a t e d p e r i o d o f t i m e b e g i n s t o r u n i
s t o b e
e x c l u d e d a n d
t h e d a t e o f p e r f o r m a n c e
i n c
l u d e d .
I f t h e l a s t d a y o f t h e p e r i o d , a s t h u s c o m
p u t e d ,
fall s o n a S a t u r d a y , a S u n d a y , o r a lega l h
o l i d a y
i n t h e p l a c e w h e r e t h e c o u r t s i t s , t h e t i
m e shal l
no t ru n unti l t h e n e x t w o r k i n g day .
(n )
NOTE S
1.
Th e pertinen t provision s o f th e Civi l Cod e state :
"Art. 13 . Whe n th e law s spea k o f years , months ,

day s o r nights , i t shal l b e understoo d tha t year s ar e
o f t h r e e
h u n d r e d
sixty-fiv e
day s
each ;
months ,
o f
thirt y days ; days , o f twenty-fou r hours ;
from sunse t t o sunrise .
an d
night s
I f mo n t h s ar e designate d b y thei r name ,

the y
shall b e compute d b y th e numbe r o f day s whic h the y
respectivel y have .
hal l
In computin g a period ,
th e
b e
excluded , an d th e las t da y included. "
2 .
firs t
da y
Thi s Rul e refer s t o th e computatio n o f a period o f
tim e an d no t t o a specifi c date fixed for th e performanc e

o f a n act .
I t applie s only whe n th e perio d o f tim e
i s
prescribe d by
thes e Rules,
by order o f th e
cour t
or by
any applicabl e statute.
I t adopt s th e rul e on pretermissio
n
o f holidays , t h a t is , th e exclusio n o f suc h holiday s
i n
th e computatio n o f th e period , wheneve r th e firs t tw o
condition s state d i n thi s section
ar e present .
336
----------------------- Page 337----------------------RULE 22
COMPUTATION OF TIME
3 . Thus , th e metho d o f computatio n unde r thi s Rul e

does no t generall y appl y t o thos e provide d in a contrac t
(Art. 1159,
Civil Code),
a specifi c dat e se t for a cou
r t
hearin g or a foreclosur e sal e (Rural Bank vs.
CA, et al
.,
L-32116, April 21,1981) or prescriptiv e
(not reglementary )
p e r i o d s specificall y p r o v i d e d b y t h e Revise d
P e n
a l
Code
for felonie s
therei n
(Yapdiangco
vs. Buencamino,
L-28841,
June
24,
1983).
4 . Sinc e thi s Rul e i s likewis e base d on th e provision s
of Art . 1 3 o f th e Civi l Code , th e meanin g o f th e term

s
therei n ar e als o applicable .
Accordingly , a pleadin g filed
on th e las t da y o f th e reglementar y perio d bu t afte r
office hour s i s stil l considere d seasonabl y filed i f dul y
maile d
(Caltex
[Phil.],
Inc.
vs. Katipunan
Labor
Union,
98 Phil. 340) or i s receive d by a
perso n authorize d to do
so (se e De Chavez vs.
Ocampo, et al.,
66 Phil. 76), sinc
e
a day consist s o f 24 hours .
5 . A s
explaine d
hereafte r
i n
Rul e
39 ,
th e
perio d
of redemptio n o f rea l propertie s sold at executio n sal e i s

12 months , henc e following th e provision s o f thi s Rul e in
relatio n t o th e aforequote d Art . 1 3 o f th e Civil Code , th e
redemption perio d i s actually 36 0 days . In computin g whe n
such perio d begin s t o ru n o r ends , th e provision s o f thi s
Rule govern .
6 . I n considerin g th e
applicatio n o f th e
rul e o
n
pretermissio n o f holidays , th e secon d sentenc e o f thi s
section refer s t o th e plac e wher e th e cour t sits .
Thi s i
s
becaus e certai n non-workin g holidays , o r specia l day s
a s the y wer e sometime s termed , ar e applicabl e t o an d
observe d only in som e particula r place s or region s o f
th e country .
7. In
Philippines,
Labad
e t al.
vs.
(G.R .
The
No .
University
139665 ,
of Southwestern
Aug .
9 , 2001) ,
thi s sectio n an d th e subsequen t ramification s arisin g

therefro m wer e
explaine d b y
th e S u p r e m e Cour t
s
337
----------------------- Page 338----------------------RULE 22
SEC. 1
herei n substantiall y indicated , thus : "Base d o n Sec . 1 ,

Rul e 2 2 an d a s applie d i n severa l cases , wher e th e las t
day for doin g an y ac t require d or permitte d by law fall s
on a Saturday , a Sunday , or a lega l holiday in th e plac e
wher e th e cour t sits , th e tim e shal l no t ru n unti l th e nex
t
workin g day .
I n t h i s case , petitione r stil l ha d
unti l
Decembe r 28 ,
1998 , a Monda y an d th e nex t busines s
day , t o mov e for a
15-day extensio n considerin g t h a t
December 26 , 1998 , th e las t da y for petitione r t o file he r
petitio n for review , fell on a Saturday .
Th e motio n
for
extension filed on Decembe r 28 , 199 8 wa s filed on tim e
since i t wa s filed befor e th e expiratio n o f th e tim e sough t

t o b e extended. "
T h e
n e x t i s s u e t o r e s o l v e w a s ho w
t h e
15-da y
extension shoul d b e reckoned , eithe r from Decembe r 26 ,
1998 o r Decembe r 28 ,
1998 .
A s a rule , th e ext
ensio n
should b e tacke d t o th e origina l perio d an d commenc e
i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f s u c h p
e r i o d .
However,
in
Moskowsky
vs.
Court
of Appeals,
et
al.
(G.R. No .
104222 , Mar . 3 ,
1994) an d Vda. de Capulon
g,
et al. vs.
Workmen's Insurance
Co., Inc.,
et al. (L-3
0960 ,
Oct . 5 , 1989) , th e Suprem e Cour t allowe d th e extende d
perio d t o commenc e from th e specifi c tim e praye d for
in t h e motio n for extension .
I n t h i s case , pet
itione r
specifically manifeste d t h a t sh e b e grante d a n extensio n
of 1 5 day s from Decembe r 28 , 1998 , or unti l J a n u a r y 12 ,
1999, t o fil e h e r petitio n for review .
Th
d for
reckonin g th e commencemen t o f th e additiona l 1 5 day
should henc e b e from Decembe r 28 , 1998 .
gly ,
h e r p e t i t i o n file d
w i t h t h e C o u r t o f
l s o n
J a n u a r y 12 , 1999 , exactl y 1 5 day s from Decembe r
1998, wa s filed on time .
perio
s
Accordin
A p p e a
28 ,
8 .
O n th e c o m p l e m e n t a r y decisiona l rul e i n
th e
computation o f period s a s applie d t o pleadings , se e th e
note s unde r Sec . 6 , Rul e 11 .
338
----------------------- Page 339----------------------RULE 22
EC. 2
COMPUTATION OF TIME
9.
Th e muc h late r cas e o f Commissioner of Internal
Revenue,
et
al.
vs.
Primetown
Property
Group,
Inc.
(G.R. No . 162155 , Aug . 28 , 2007) call s for a revisitin g o f
th e foregoin g comment s an d holding s o n th e computatio n
of period s o f tim e allowe d or prescribe d by th e Rules , a
court orde r o r a n applicabl e statute . I t shal l b e note d her e
tha t th e perio d o f tim e in disput e involve s Sec . 22 9 o f th e
Nationa l Interna l Revenu e Cod e which provide s for th e
two-year prescriptiv e perio d for filing a judicia l clai m for
ta x refun d or credi t reckone d from th e paymen t o f sai d
ta x o r penalty .
Ther e wa s n o questio n tha t th e taxpayer' s
righ t t o clai m a refun d or credi t aros e on Apri l 14, 199 8
whe n i t filed it s fina l adjuste d return .
Th e controverte d
issu e wa s whethe r th e two-yea r perio d wa s equivalen

730 days , p u r s u a n t t o Art . 13 , Civil Code , a
y
petitioner , henc e th e respondent' s claim submitte d
day s afte r it s aforesai d retur n wa s on e day
t t o
s claime d b
73 1
beyon d
th e
prescriptiv e period ; or , a s contende d b y th e respondent ,

th e 731s t da y wa s withi n th e prescriptiv e perio d sinc e th e
yea r 200 0 wa s a leap yea r an d accordingly consiste d o f
366 days .
Th e
S u p r e m e
C o u r t r e c a l l e d t h a t i n Nati
onal
Marketing
Corporation
vs. Tecson
(97
Phil .
70) , it
ha d
rule d t h a t a yea r i s equivalen t t o 36 5 day s regardles s o f
whethe r it i s a calenda r yea
not alway s consistentl y so . A
t o th e fact tha t i n 1987 ,
Code o f 1987 , wa s enacted ,
Book I thereo f provides :
Sec .
3 1 .
r or a leap year , which wa s

t an y rate , i t calle d attentio n
E.O . 297 , o r th e Administrativ e
an d Sec . 31 , Chapte r VIII ,
Legal
Periods.
"Year "
s h a l
l b e
understoo d t o b e twelv e calenda r months ; "month " o f
thirt y day s unles s it refer s t o a specific mont h in which
case it shal l b e compute d accordin g t o th e numbe r o f
day s th e specific mont h contains ; "day " t o a day o f
twenty-four hours ; an d "night " from sunris e t o sunset .
339
----------------------- Page 340----------------------RULE 22
1
It

explaine d
t h a t
calenda r
SEC.
m o n t h
i s
" a mont h
designate d i n th e calenda r withou t regar d t o th e numbe r

of day s it ma y contain .
It i s th e perio d o f tim e runnin g
from th e beginnin g o f a certai n numbere d da y up to
not including , th e correspondin g numbere d day o f th e
month , an d i f ther e i s no t a sufficient numbe r o f
th e nex t month , the n up t o an d includin g th e las
t h a t month .
T o illustrate , on e calenda r m o
Decembe r 3 1 , 200 7 wil l b e from J a n u a r y
t o
J a n u a r y 31 , 2008 ; on e calenda r mont h from J a n
200 8 wil l b e from Februar y
2008. "
1 ,
, bu
nex t
day s
t da
n t h
1 ,
t
in
y o f
from
200 8
u a r y 31 ,
200 8 unti l Februar y
29 ,
Since ther e obviously exist s a manifes t incompatibility

in th e manne r o f computin g lega l period s unde r th e Civil
Code an d th e Administrativ e Cod e o f 1987 , th e Cour t
declare d tha t th
th e mor e recen
periods .
Sinc e
facts o f thi s
e aforecite d provision o f E.O . 292 , bein g

t law , govern s th e computatio n o f lega l
th e two-yea r prescriptiv e perio d unde r th e
cas e consiste d o f 2 4 calenda r month s an d
respondent' s clai m wa s filed o n th e las t da y o f th e 24t h

calenda r month ,
i t wa s consequentl y file d withi n th e
prescriptiv e period .
10.
T h i s t a x c a s e u n d e r c o m m e n t afford s
t
h e
opportunity t o invit e attentio n t o som e o f th e holding s o f
th e
Suprem e
Cour t
in National
Marketing
Corporation,
vs. Tecson, et al.
(13 9 Phil . 584) on th e antecedent s of
Art . 1 3 o f th e Civi l Cod e whic h limit s th e connotatio n o f
each "year " therei n t o 36 5 days . Prio r t o th e Civi l Cod e o f
Spain, th e Spanis h Suprem e Cour t ha d hel d t h a t whe n
th e law spok e o f months , it mean t a mont h o f 3 0 days , no t
th e "natural, " "solar, " "calendar, " (or "civil") month s in th e
absens e o f expres s provision s t o th e contrary . Thi s concept
wa s modifie d in th e Philippine s by Sec . 1 3 o f ou r Revise d
Administrativ e Code , p u r s u a n t t o whic h a "month " shal l
b e understoo d t o refer t o a "calendar " month .
Wit h th
e
enactmen t o f ou r Civi l Code , w e reverte d t o th e rul e in
340
----------------------- Page 341----------------------RULE 22
SEC. 1
COMPUTATION OF TIME
th e Spanis h Civi l Code , bu t wit h th e additio n o f "years, "

whic h w a s ordaine d t o m e a n 36 5 days .
Th e p
r e s e n t
provision s o f E.O . 29 2 agai n adopt s t h a t concep t o f a
calendar month , wit h th e modification o f how man y shal l
compose a year .
11.
A s earlie r observed , th e metho d o f computatio n
unde r thi s Rul e doe s no t i n genera l apply t o prescriptiv e
period s provide d therei n b y th e Revise d Pena l Cod e for
felonie s
s u c h a s i n A r t s . 9 0 a n d 9 1 thereof .
Th e
Yapdiangco
case ,
supra,
expand s
o n thi s
edic t
o n th e
a u t h o r i t y o f loca l a n d foreig n doctrines .
I t
i s t h e r e
d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t a m i s t a k e i s s o m e t i m e s m
a d e i n
applyin g statute s o f limitation s i n crimina l case s an d civil
suits .
Th e tw o classe s o f statute s ar e essentiall y different .
I n
civi l
s u i t s , t h e s t a t u t e i s i n t e r p o s e
d b y t h e
legislatur e a s a n impartia l arbiter .
n o f
th e pena l statute , ther e i s n o intendmen
favor o f eithe r party .
I n crimina l
th e
g r a n t o r s u r r e n d e r i n g b y a n
righ t t o
prosecut e an d declarin g a n offens e t o
I n th e constructio
t t o b e mad e i n
cases , th e Stat e i s
ac t
b e
o f grac e
n o
th e
longe r th e
subject o f prosecution , henc e suc h statute s o f limitation s

ar e liberall y construe d in favor o f th e accused .
Also , th e rul e on pretermissio n o f holiday s in civil suit s
provide s t h a t i n construin g
it s statut e o f limitations ,
th e
first da y i s exclude d an d th e las t day included , unles s tha t
last da y i s dies non in whic h cas e th e ac t may b e don e on
th e succeedin g busines s day .
I n crimina l cases , suc
h a
s i t u a t i o n canno t l e n g t h e n th e perio d fixe d b y
la w t o
prosecut e suc h offender .
Th e waive r or los s o f th e righ
t t o
prosecut e i s automati c an d by operatio n o f law .
Wher e
th e las t da y t o file an informatio n fall s on a Sunda y or
legal holiday , th e perio d canno t b e extende d u p t o th e
nex t workin g da y sinc e prescriptio n ha s alread y se t in .
Th e
questio n
o f th e
applicabilit y
o f thi s
Rul e
i n
computin g period s provide d b y a n "applicabl e statute, " a s

34 1
----------------------- Page 342----------------------RULE 22
SEC. 2
generically referre d to ,
relevan t critiqu e base d
bibliography .
Sec .
ac t
b e d
n i n g
o f t
s u c
i n t e
afte r
notic e
o n e
2 .
Effect
w h i c h
coul d yiel d th e occasio n for a

o n ou r ow n lega l syste m an d
of
interruption.
effectivel y
S h o u l d
i n t e r r u p t s
t h e
a n
r u n
h e p e r i o d , t h e a l l o w a b l e p e r i o d a f t e r
h
r r u p t i o n s h a l l s t a r t t o r u n o n t h e d a y
o f t h e
c e s s a t i o n
o f t h e
c a u s e
thereof .
Th e d a y o f t h e ac t t h a t c a u s e d t h e i n t e r r u
p t i o n
shal l b e e x c l u d e d i n t h e c o m p u t a t i o n o f t h e peri
od ,
(n)
NOT E
1.
Th e origina l draf t o f thi s sectio n referre d t o an
act o r even t whic h effectively

th e perio d o f tim e contemplate
Th e
e v e n t r e f e r r e d
majeure,
fortuitou s event s o r calamities
e ,
i s th e determinatio n o f whe n
terminated , an d how th e part y
mad e awar e o f th e perio d
I t wa s
believe d t h a t notic e thereo f
interrupt s th e runnin g o f
d i n th e precedin g section .
t o woul d
includ e
force
.
Th e question , o f cours
th e even t occurre d an d wa s
affecte d woul d kno w o r b e
o f suc h interruption .
ca n b e given b y th e cour t t o
th e parties , on a cas e t o cas e basis .

Th e wor d "event " wa s accordingl y eliminate d an d
only th e "act " don e wa s retaine d a s a n expres s caus e for
th e interruptio n sinc e tha t fact woul d obviously b e mad e
know n o r notic e thereo f give n t o th e part y concerned .
Parenthetically ,
th e
i n t e r r u p t i o n o f th e r e g l
e m e n t a r y
perio d a s understoo d i n thi s sectio n doe s no t hav e th
e
sam e concep t a s interruptio n for purpose s o f th e statut e
of limitation s or prescriptiv e period s in th e Civi l Code .
342
----------------------- Page 343----------------------RUL E
D E P O S I T I O N S
2 3
P E N D I N G
ACTIO N
S e c t i o n
1 .
Depositions
pending
action
,
when
may b e taken. By l e a v e o f cour t afte r j u r i s d i c t i
o n
h a s
b e e n
o b t a i n e d
o v e r
a n y
d e f e n d a n t
o r o v e r
p r o p e r t y
w h i c h
i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e
a c
t i o n , o r
w i t h o u t s u c h l e a v e afte r a n a n s w e r ha s b e e n serv
ed ,
th e t e s t i m o n y o f a n y p e r s o n , w h e t h e r a part y o r
not ,
m a y
b e t a k e n ,
a t t h e i n s t a n c e
o f a n y p
a r t y , b y
d e p o s i t i o n
u p o n
o r a l
e x a m i n a t i o n
o r
w r i t t e n
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . T h e a t t e n d a n c e o f w i t n e s s
e s m a y
b e c o m p e l l e d b y t h e u s e o f a s u b p o e n a a s p r o v
i d e d
i n R u l e 2 1 .
D e p o s i t i o n s
s h a l l b e t a k e n
o n l
a c c o
i o n
p e r s
n l y
leav e
y
i n
r d a n c e w i t h t h e s e Rules .
Th e d e p o s i t
o f a
o n c o n f i n e d
i n p r i s o n m a y b e t a k e n o
b y
o f c o u r t o n s u c h t e r m s a s t h e cour t prescribes ,
( l a , R24 )
NOTE S
1.
Rule s 23 t o 2 8 provid e for th e different mode s o f
discovery t h a t ma y b e resorte d t o by a part y t o an action ,

viz.:
a .
Deposition s
pendin g
actio n
(Rule
b . D e p o s i t i o n s befor e
g a p p e a l
(Rule
24);
c.
Interrogatorie s to partie s
d .
Admissio n by advers e
23);
actio n
(Rule
part y
o r
p e n d i n
25);
(Rule 26);
e .
Productio n or inspectio n o f document s or thing s

27);
an d
f . P h y s i c a l a n d m e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n
f p e r s o n s
(Rule
28).
(Rule
343
----------------------- Page 344----------------------RULE 23
SEC. 1
Rul e 2 9 provide s for th e lega l consequence s for th e

refusa l o f a part y t o comply wit h suc h mode s o f discovery
lawfully resorte d t o b y th e advers e party .
2 . In crimina l cases , th e takin g o f th e depositio n o f
witnesse s for th e prosecutio n wa s formerly authorize d b y
Sec . 7 , Rul e
11 9 for th e purpos e o f p e r p e t u a t i n
g th e
evidence t o b e presente d a t th e trial , withou t a simila r
provisio n for defens e witnesses .
However , in th e
198 5
R u l e s o n C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e , onl y t h e c o n d i
t i o n a l
e x a m i n a t i o n , a n d n o t a d e p o s i t i o n , o f p r o
s e c u t i o n
witnesse s wa s
permitte d
(Sec. 7, Rule 119)
an d thi
s wa s
followed in th e lates t revisio n (Sec.
15, Rule 119).
3 . Deposition s ar e classifie d into :
a . Deposition s o n ora l examinatio n an d deposition s

upo n writte n interrogatories ; o r
b . D e p o s i t i o n s d e bene
i o n s in
perpetuam
rei
memoriam.
esse
a n d
d e p o s i t
Deposition s d e bene esse ar e thos e take n for purpose s

of a pendin g actio n an d ar e regulate d by Rul e 23 , whil e
deposition s
in perpetuam
rei memoriam
ar e thos e
take n
t o p e r p e t u a t e evidenc e for purpose s o f a n anticipate
d
action o r furthe r proceeding s i n a cas e o n appea l an d ar e
now regulate d by Rul e 24 .
4 . Th
s h o u l d b
r i t t e n
interrogatorie
(De los
Reyes
vs.
e cour t ma y determin e whethe r th e depositio n

e t a k e n u p o n o r a l e x a m i n a t i o n o r w
s t o preven t abus e or harassmen t
CA,
et al.,
L-27263,
Mar.
17,
1975).
5 . Tria l j u d g e s shoul d encourag e

th e us e
o f th e
different mode s o f discover y sinc e a knowledg e o f th e
evidenc e o f th e advers e part y ma y facilitat e a n amicabl e
settlement or expedit e th e tria l o f a case .
However , si
nc e
resor t theret o i s no t mandatory , i f th e partie s choos e not
t o avai l o f discovery procedures , th e pre-tria l shoul d b e
set accordingl y
(Koh
vs. IAC,
et al, G.R.
No.
71388,
344
----------------------- Page 345----------------------RULE 23
SEC. 1
DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION
Sept. 23,
1986).
Thi s impass e
l y
remedie d b y th e revise d Rules .
i s
sough t t o b e
6 .
I t i s th e dut y o f eac h contendin g
lay
befor e
t h e cour t al l t h e
m a t e r i a l an d
n t fact s
know n t o him , suppressin g o r concealin g nothing ,
p r e v e n t i n g
a n o t h e r p a r t y , b y
c l e v
a d r o i t
manipulatio n o f th e technica l rule s o f evidence ,
also presentin g al l th e fact s withi n hi s knowledge .
partial
part y
t o
r e l e v a
no r
e r a n d
from
Initially , t h a t dut y t o lay th e fact s befor e th e cour

t i s
accomplished by th e pleading s filed by th e partie s bu t only
in a genera l wa y a s only ultimat e fact s ar e se t forth in th e
pleadings .
A bil l o f particular s
ma y b e ordere d by
th e
cour t on motio n o f a p a r t y bu t th e office o f a bil

l o f
particular s i s limite d t o makin g mor e particula r or definit e
t h e u l t i m a t e fact s i n a pleading ,
an d no t t o
suppl y
evidentiary matters .
Thes e evidentiar y matter s ma y b e
inquire d int o an d learne d b y th e partie s befor e th e tria l
throug h th e deposition-discover y mechanis m i n Rule s 2 4
to 29 .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , i t a p p e a r s t h a t a m o n g
fa r to o
man y lawyer s (an d no t a few judges ) ther e is , i f not a
regrettabl e
unfamiliarit y an d eve n outrigh t ignoranc e
a b o u t t h e n a t u r e , p u r p o s e s a n d
o p e r a t i o n s
o f t h e
mode s o f discovery , at leas t a stron g ye t unreasone d an d
unreasonabl e disinclinatio n t o resor t t o the m - whic h i s
a grea t pit y for th e intelligen t an d adequat e us e o f th e
deposition-discovery mechanism , couple d wit
p r o c e d u r e , coul d
effectivel y
d
o f
l i t i g a t i o n a n d s p e e d
u p
a d
ic
vs.
Sandiganbayan,
et al,
G.R.
No.
1991).
h pre-tria l
s h o r t e n t h e perio
j u d i c a t i o n (Republ
90478,
Nov.
21,
7 . Th e othe r principa l benefit s desirabl e from th e

availability an d operatio n o f a libera l discovery procedur e
are :
(1) i t i s o f grea t assistanc e in ascertainin g th e trut h
and preventin g perjur y becaus e th e witnes s i s examine d
whil e hi s memor y i s stil l fresh , h e i s generally no t coached ,
h e canno t a t a late r dat e contradic t hi s deposition , an d
345
----------------------- Page 346----------------------RULE 23
SEC. 2
hi s deposition i s preserve d in cas e h e become s unavailable ;

(2) i t i s an effectiv e mean s o f detectin g an d exposin g
fake , fraudulen t an d sha m claim s an d defenses ; (3) i t
m a k e s
a v a i l a b l e i n a simple ,
c o n v e n i e n t an
d
ofte n
inexpensiv e wa y fact s whic h otherwis e coul d no t hav e
bee n prove d later ;
(4) i t educate s th e partie s i n advan
c e
of tria l on th e rea l value s o f thei r claim s an d defenses ,
t h e r e b y e n c o u r a g i n g s e t t l e m e n t s ou t o f cour
t ; (5) i t
expedite s th e disposa l o f litigations , save s th e tim e o f th e
court an d help s clea r th e dockets ; (6) i t safeguard s agains t

surprise a t th e trial , prevent s delays , simplifie s th e issues ,
an d thereb y expedite s th e trial ; an d
(7) i t facilita
te s bot h
th e
preparatio n an d tria l o f case s
(Fortune
Co
rporation
vs.
CA, et al.,
G.R. No.
108119, Jan.
19,
1994).
8.
Sec .
1 o f thi s Rul e provide s t h a t a deposit
io n
ma y b e resorte d t o afte r jurisdictio n ha s bee n obtaine d
over any defendant , no t al l defendants .
Leav e o f
cour t i s
no t
necessar y t o tak e a depositio n afte r a n answe r t o th e
complaint ha s bee n filed , bu t suc h leav e i s require d wher e
n o answe r ha s ye t bee n filed (even i f jurisdictio n ha s bee n
obtaine d ove r an y defendant) , sinc e befor e th e filin g o f
t h e a n s w e r , leav e
o f cour t ma y b e
g r a n t e d
b u t onl y
in
e x c e p t i o n a l o r u n u s u a l
s i t u a t i o n s (Repu
blic
vs.
Sandiganbayan,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
112710,
May
3
0,
2001).
Sec .
2 .
Scope of examination.
U n l e s s o t h
e r w i s e
o r d e r e d b y t h e c o u r t a s p r o v i d e d b y s e c t i
o n 16 o r
1 8 o f t h i s R u l e , t h e d e p o n e n t m a y
b e e x
a m i n e d
r e g a r d i n g a n y
m a t t e r ,
n o t p r i v i l e g e d , w
h i c h
i s
r e l e v a n t
t o t h e
s u b j e c t o f t h e p e n d i n g
a c t i o n ,
w h e t h e r r e l a t i n g t o t h e
c l a i m o r d e f e n s e
o f a n y
o t h e r party ,
i n c l u d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e , d e s
c r i p t i o n ,
n a t u r e , c u s t o d y , c o n d i t i o n , a n d
l o c a t i o
n o f a n y
b o o k s , d o c u m e n t s ,
o r o t h e r t a n g i b l e t h i
n g s a n d
t h e
i d e n t i t y
a n d
l o c a t i o n
o f p e r s o n s
h a v i n g
k n o w l e d g e o f r e l e v a n t facts .
(2 , R24 )
346
----------------------- Page 347----------------------RULE 23
SECS. 3, 4
Sec .

3.
Examination
and
cross-examination.
E x a m i n a t i o n
a n d
c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o f d e
p o n e n t s
may pr o c ee d a s permitte d a t th e tria l u n d e r s e c t i o n
s
3 t o 1 8 o f Rul e 132 .
(3a , R24 )
NOT E
1.
Th e
does no t hav e
questions .
in th e depositio
Sec .
4 .
officer befor e who m th e depositio n i s take n

th e powe r t o rul e upo n objection s t o th e
H e shoul d merel y hav e suc h objection s note d
n (se e Sec. 17).
Use of depositions. A t th e tria l o r u p o n
t h e
h e a r i n g
o f a m o t i o n
o r
a n
i n t e r l
o c u t o r y
p r o c e e d i n g , a n y par t o r al l o f a d e p o s i t i o n
, s o fa r
a s a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r th e r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e
, m a y b e
u s e d
a g a i n s t
a n y
p a r t y
w h o
w a s
p r e
s e n t
o r
r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e t a k i n g o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n
o r w h o
ha d d u e n o t i c e thereof , i n a c c o r d a n c e wit h an y o n
e
o f t h e f o l l o w i n g provisions :
(a)
An y d e p o s i t i o n m a y b e use d b y a n y
part y
for th e p u r p o s e o f c o n t r a d i c t i n g o r i m p e a c h i
n g t h e
t e s t i m o n y o f d e p o n e n t a s a w i t n e s s ;
(b)
T h e d e p o s i t i o n o f a part y o r o f an
w h o
a t th e t i m e o f t a k i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n w a
ficer ,
director , o r m a n a g i n g a g e n t o f a publi c o r
c o r p o r a t i o n , p a r t n e r s h i p , o r a s s o c i
w h i c h i s
a part y m a y b e u s e d b y a n a d v e r s e part
an y
purpose ;
y o n e
s a n of
privat e
a t i o n
y
fo r
(c)
Th e d e p o s i t i o n o f a w i t n e s s , w h e t h e r
o r no t
a party , m a y b e u s e d b y an y part y fo r an y p u r p o s e
i f th e cour t finds : (1) tha t th e w i t n e s s i s dead ;
o r
(2) tha t th e w i t n e s s r e s i d e s a t a distanc e mor e t h a
n
on e h u n d r e d (100 ) k i l o m e t e r s fro m th e plac e o f tria
l
o r h e a r i n g , o r i s o u t o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s ,
u n l e s s i t
appear s t h a t hi s a b s e n c e w a s procure d b y t h e part y
o f f e r i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n ; o r (3 ) t h a t t h e
w i t n e s s ,
347
----------------------- Page 348----------------------RULE 23

SEC. 4
i s u n a b l e
t o a t t e n d
o r t e s t i f y b e c a u s e
o f a g e ,
s i c k n e s s , infirmity , o r imprisonment ; o r (4) tha t th e
part y offerin g t h e
d e p o s i t i o n h a s b e e n
u
n a b l e t o
procur e t h e a t t e n d a n c e o f th e w i t n e s s b y s u bp o e
na ;
o r (5 )
u p o n
a p p l i c a t i o n
a n d
n o t i c e , t h
a t s u c h
e x c e p t i o n a l
c i r c u m s t a n c e s
e x i s t a s t o
m a k e
i t
d e s i r a b l e , i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e a n
d w i t h du e
r e g a r d
t o t h e
i m p o r t a n c e
o f p r e s e n t i
n g
t h e
t e s t i m o n y
o f w i t n e s s e s o r a l l y i n o p e n
c
o u r t , t o
allo w t h e d e p o s i t i o n t o b e used ; an d
(d)
I f o n l y p a r t o f a d e p o s i t i o n i s of
fere d
i n
e v i d e n c e b y a party , t h e a d v e r s e part y m a y requir e
h i m
n t
par t
n y
o t h
t o i n t r o d u c e al l o f i t w h i c h i s r e l e v a
t o th e
i n t r o d u c e d , a n d a n y part y m a y i n t r o d u c e a
e r parts . (4a , R24 )
N O T E S
1.
Wher e th e wi tn e s s i s availabl e t o testif y
an d
th e situatio n i s no t on e o f thos e excepte d unde r Sec . 4 o f
thi s Rule , hi s depositio n theretofor e take n i s inadmissibl e
in evidenc e an d h e shoul d i n lie u thereo f b e
mad e t o
testify
(Vda.
de
Sy-Quia
vs.
CA,
et al.,
G.R.
o.
62283,
Nov.
25,
1983).
2 . A depositio n
ma y b e
use d for i m p e a c
h i n g o r
contradictin g an y witness , bu t i t ca n b e use d a s evidenc e
b y
a p a r t y ("for
a n y
p u r p o s e " ) u n d e r
t h e
specifi c
condition s se t ou t in Sec . 4 .
I f th e depositio n i s t
h a t o f a
part y or o f an employe e o f a corporatio n whic h i s a party ,
it ca n b e use d by th e advers e part y for impeachmen t o f
th e deponen t o r a s direc t evidenc e o f hi s case , whethe r
th e d e p o n e n t i s availabl e o r not ; bu t sai d deposit
io n
cannot b e use d by th e deponent-part y a s evidenc e o f hi s
case , unles s h e o r th e corporat e employe e canno t testify

for an y reaso n state d in Par . (c) .
I f th e deponen t
i s only
a witnes s an d i s availabl e a t th e trial , hi s deposition canno t
b e use d a s evidenc e bu t ma y b e use d only t o impeac h him .
348
----------------------- Page 349----------------------RULE 23
SEC. 5
I f th e deponent -witnes s i s no t availabl e unde r an y o f th e

circumstance s i n Par . (c), the n hi s depositio n ca n b e use d
a s direc t evidence .
3 . U n d e r
s t a n c e
provide d wa s mor e
o f th e deponen t
I t ha s
now bee n increase d
th e amendmen t t o
reaso n (se e Sec.
t h e
forme r
Sec .
4(c)(2) ,
t h e d i
t h a n 5 0 kilometer s from th e residenc e

t o th e plac e o f tria l o r hearing .
t o mor e tha n 100 kilometers , a s i n
th e rul e o n subpoena s an d for th e sam e
10, Rule 21).
4 . Deposition s
a r e chiefl y
a mod e
o f discov
ery .
They ar e intende d a s a mean s t o compe l disclosur e o f fact s
restin g in th e knowledg e o f a part y or othe r person s whic h
ar e relevan t in a sui t or proceedin g in court .
Depositi
on s
and th e othe r mode s o f discovery ar e mean t t o enabl e a
part y t o lear n al l th e materia l an d relevan t facts , no t only
known t o hi m an d hi s witnesse s bu t als o thos e know n t o
th e advers e part y an d th e latter' s own witnesses .
Deposition s ar e no t generall y mean t t o b e a substitut e
for th e actua l testimon y in open cour t o f a part y or witness .
Th e d e p o n e n t must ,
a s a rule , b e p r e s e n t e d
for ora l
e x a m i n a t i o n i n ope n cour t a t th e trial . Indeed ,
an y
deposition offere d t o prov e th e fact s therei n a t th e tria l o
f
th e case , in lieu o f th e actua l testimon y o f th e deponen t in
court , ma y b e oppose d an d exclude d for bein g hearsay ,
except in thos e specifi c instance s authorize d by th e Rule s
u n d e r p a r t i c u l a r condition s
an d
for
c e r t a i n
limite d
purpose s
(Dasmarinas
Garments,
Inc.
vs. Reyes,
e
tc., et
al., G.R. No.
108229,
Aug. 24,
1993).
Sec .
5 .
Effect
of substitution
of
ti t u t i o n o f p a r t i e s d o e s no t affec t
u s e
parties.
th e
righ t
Subs
t o
d e p o s i t i
o n
ha s b e e n
o l v i n g
th e sam e
sam e partie s
o r s
i n interest ,
o n s p r e v i o u s l y taken ;
d i s m i s s e d
an d
and , w h e n a n acti
a n o t h e r
actio n
i n v
subjec t i s afterwar d brough t b e t w e e n th e

o r thei r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o r s u c c e s s
al l d e p o s i t i o n s lawfull y t a k e n an d dul y
349
----------------------- Page 350----------------------RULE 23

SECS. 6-9
file d i n th e forme r actio n ma y b e u s e d i n th e latte r

a s i f originall y t a k e n therefor .
(6 , R24 )
Sec .
6 .
Objections
t
t o
th e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t
ectio n
m a y b e m a d e a t t h e tria l
n g i n
e v i d e n c e
a n y d e p o s i t
o r
an y
r e a s o n
w h i c h
w o u l d
s i o n
o f
t h e e v i d e n c e i f t h e w
s e n t an d
testifying .
(6 , R24 )
to
i o n
admissibility.
2 9
o f thi s
Subjec
Rule ,
obj
o r h e a r i n g t o r e c e i v i
i o n
o r
par t
r e q u i r e
t h e r e o f f
i t n e s s
t h e
w e r e
e x c l u
t h e n
p r e
Sec .
7.
Effect
of taking
depositions.
A
p a r t y
s h a l l n o t
b e d e e m e d
t o m a k e
a p e r s o n
h i s o w n
w i t n e s s fo r a n y p u r p o s e b y t a k i n g hi s d e p o
s i t i o n .
(7, R24 )
Sec .
intro d u c t i o n
o r
a n y
p a r t t h e
t h a t o f
c o n t r a d i
m a k e s
t h e d e p o
d u c i n g
t h e d e p o
h e us e
b y a n a d v
e d i n
p a r a g r a p
R24 )
Sec .
8 .
i n
Effect
of
e v i d e n c e
r e o f
c t i n g
fo r
a n y
o r
n e n t t h e
s i t i o n ,
using
o f
depositions.
t h e
w i t n e s s
bu t t h i s
o t h e r
t h e
o f t h e
shal l
T h e
d e p o s i t i o n
p u r p o s e
i m p e a c h i n g
t h a n
d e p o n e n t
part y
n o t appl y
i n t r o
t o
e r s e part y o f a d e p o s i t i o n a s d e s c r i b
h (b ) o f s e c t i o n 4 o f t h i s Rule .
9 .
Rebutting
deposition.
A t
(8 ,
t h e
r i a l o r
e a r i n g , a n y part y m a y r e b u t a n y r e l e v a n t e v i
e n c e
o n t a i n e d i n a d e p o s i t i o n w h e t h e r i n t r o d
c e d
b y
i m o r b y a n y o t h e r party .
(9 , R24 )
h
d
c
u
h
NOT E
1.
Th e introductio
wh o introduce s it , sinc e
hi s witness , excep t (a)
contradict th e witness , or
opposing party .
n o f th e depositio n
h e thereb y make s
i f it i s introduce
(b) i f it i s th e
bind s th e part y
th e deponen t
d t o impeac h or
depositio n o f an
350
----------------------- Page 351----------------------RULE 23
DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION SECS. 10-11, 12
Sec .
10 .
Persons
before
whom
deposition
m
ay
be
taken
within
the
Philippines.
W i t h i n
t h e
P h
i l i p p i n e s , d e p o s i t i o n s
m a y
b e
t a k e n
b e f o r
e
a n y
judge , notar y public , o r th e p e r s o n referre d t o i n
s e c t i o n 1 4 hereof .
(10a , R24 )
Sec .
11 .
Persons
may
taken
in foreign countries.
or
n t r y , d e p o s i t i o n s
i c e
o r e
a
s e c r e t a r y
o n ,
s u l g e n e r a l , c o n s u
l a r
n t o f t h e R e p u b l i c o
before
whom
depositions
be
In
a
foreig n
stat
e
c o u
m a y b e t a k e n (a ) o n
n o t
b e f
o f e m b a s s y
o r
l e g
a t i
c o n
l , v i c e - c o n s u l , o r c o
n s u
a g e
f t h e Philippines ;
(b) b
efor e
s u c h p e r s o n
o r o f f i c e r a s m a y
b e a p p o i n t
e d
b y
c o m m i s s i o n o r u n d e r l e t t e r s rogatory ; o r (c )
t h e
p e r s o n referre d t o i n s e c t i o n 1 4 hereof .
(11a ,
R24 )
NOT E
1.
among th e
any perso n
stipulate d
Thes e tw o section s hav e bee n amende d t o include ,

person s befor e who m deposition s ma y b e taken ,
authorize d t o administe r oath s an d chosen o r
upo n i n writin g b y th e parties .
Sec .
12 .
Commission
or
letters
rogatory.
A
c o m m i s s i o n o r letter s rogator y shal l b e i s s u e d onl y
w h e n n e c e s s a r y o r c o n v e n i e n t , o n applicatio n an
d
notice , an d o n s u c h t e r m s an d w i t h suc h directio n
a s a r e j u s t a n d
a p p r o p r i a t e .
O f f i c e r s m a
y
b e
d e s i g n a t e d i n n o t i c e s o r c o m m i s s i o n s
e i t
h e r b y
nam e o r d e s c r i p t i v e titl e an d letter s rogator y ma y
b e a d d r e s s e d t o t h e appropriat e judicia l authorit y
i n th e foreig n country . (12a , R24 )
NOTE S
1.
A commissio n i s addresse d t o an y authorit y in
a foreig n c o u n t r y
a u t h o r i z e d t h e r e i n t o t a k
e dow n
deposition s an d th e takin g o f suc h deposition i s subject t o
35 1
----------------------- Page 352----------------------RULE 23
13-14
SECS.
th e rule s lai d down b y th e cour t issuin g th e commission .

Letter s rogator y ar e addresse d t o a judicia l authorit y in
th e foreign countr y an d th e takin g o f suc h depositio n
i s subject t o th e rule s lai d down by suc h foreign judicia l
authority
(se e The Signe, D.C. La., 37F. Supp. 819, 820).
Letter s rogator y ar e generall y resorte d t o whe n ther e i s
difficulty or impossibility o f obtainin g th e depositio n by
commission (18 C.J.
653).
2 . A commissio n ma y b e define d a s an instrumen t
issue d by a cour t o f justice , or othe r competen t tribunal ,
t o authoriz e a perso n t o tak e deposition s or d o an y othe r
ac t b y a u t h o r i t y o f s u c h c o u r t o r t r i b u n a
l . L e t t e r s
rogatory , o n th e othe r hand , ar e define d a s instrument s
sent in th e nam e an d by authorit y o f a judg e or cour t t o
another , requestin g th e latte r t o caus e t o b e examined ,
upo n interrogatorie s filed in a caus e pendin g befor e th e
former, a witnes s wh o i s withi n th e jurisdictio n o f th e judg e
or cour t t o who m suc h letter s ar e addressed .
Und
e r ou r
Rules , a commissio n i s addresse d t o officer s designate d
either b y nam e o r descriptiv e title , whil e letter s rogator y
ar e addresse d t o som e appropriat e judicia l authorit y i n
th e foreign state .
Letter s rogator y ma y b e applie d for an
d
i s s u e d onl y
a f t e r a c o m m i s s i o n
h a s b e e n r
e t u r n e d
unexecute d
(Dasmarinas
Garments,
Inc.
vs.
Reye
s,
etc.,
et al.,
supra).
Sec .
13 .
Disqualification
by
interest.
N o
d e p o s i t i o n shal l b e t a k e n befor e a p e r s o n w h o i
s
r
g
o
a
e l a t i v e w i t
u i n i t y
r affinity , o r
o f t h e
parties ; o r w h o
g r e e ,
o r e m p l o y e e
ciall y
i n t e r e s t e d i
h i n
t h e s i x t h d e g r e e
e m p l o y e e
o r
o f c o n s a n
c o u n s e l
o f a n y
i s a r e l a t i v e w i t h i n t h e s a m e d e
o f s u c h
c o u n s e l ,
o r w h o
i s
finan
n t h e a c t i o n . (13a , R24 )
Sec .
14 .
Stipulations
regarding
taking
of
depositions.
I f t h e p a r t i e s s o s t i p u l a t e i n w r
i t i n g ,
d e p o s i t i o n s m a y b e t a k e n befor e a n y p e r s o n a u t
h o 352
----------------------- Page 353----------------------RULE 23
S. 15-16
SEC
rize d t o a d m i n i s t e r o a t h s , a t an y tim e o r place ,

i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s e R u l e s , an d w h e n s o
t a k e n
ma y b e use d lik e o t h e r d e p o s i t i o n s .
(14a , R24 )
NOT E
1.
A s earlie r explained , th e partie s ma y stipulat e in
writin g for th e takin g o f deposition s befor e an y perso n
authorize d t o administe r oaths , whethe r th e depositio n i s
to b e take n in th e Philippine s or in a foreign country . Whil e
an equivalen t o f Sec . 1 4 wa s als o provide d in th e former
Rules , i t wa s state d therei n tha t th e deposition befor e suc h
p e r s o n ma y b e
t a k e n "upo n an y
notice ,
an d
i n an y
manner. "
A s a pruden t cours e o f action , tha t phras e ha s
bee n
replace d b y
a n a m e n d m e n t requirin g t h a t
sai d
deposition s b e take n i n accordanc e wit h thes e Rules .
Sec .
16 .
Deposition
upon
oral
examination;
notice;
time and place. A part y d e s i r i n g t o tak e th e d e p o sitio n o f an y p e r s o n u p o n ora l e x a m i n a t i o n
shal l
g i v e r e a s o n a b l e n o t i c e i n w r i t i n g t o e v e r
y o t h e r
part y t o t h e action .
Th e notic e shal l stat e th e tim e
an d plac e fo r t a k i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n an d th e n
a m e
a n d
a d d r e s s
o f e a c h
p e r s o n t o b e
e x a m i n
e d ,
i f
k n o w n , a n d i f
e n e r a l
descriptio n sufficien t
la r clas s o r g r o u
o t i o n
o f an y part y u p o
cour t ma y fo r c a u
t h e
n a m e
i s
no t
k n o w n ,
t o identif y h i m o r th e particu p t o w h i c h h e belongs .
O n m
n w h o m th e notic e i s served , th e
s e s h o w n enlarg e o r s h o r t e n th e
time . (15 , R24) .

Sec .
16 .
ies
and
deponents.
Afte r
i n g a
d e p o s i t i o n
b y
m o t i o n
seasonabl y m a d e b y
b e e x a m i n e d an
cour t
i n w h i c h
t h e
k e
a n
orde r tha t th e d e p
t
Orders
for
the
n o t i c e
o r a l
protection
i s s e r v e d
e x a m i n a t i o n ,
of
part
fo r
t a k
u p o n
an y part y o r b y th e p e r s o n t o
d fo r goo d c a u s e s h o w n , th e
a c t i o n
i s
p e n d i n g
m a y
m a
o s i t i o n shal l no t b e taken , o r tha

353
----------------------- Page 354----------------------RULE 23

SEC. 17
i t m a y b e t a k e n onl y a t som e d e s i g n a t e d plac e oth

e r
t h a n t h a t s t a t e d i n t h e n o t i c e , o r t h a t
i t m a y b e
t a k e n
o n l y
o n
w r i t t e n
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ,
o r
t h a t
certai n m a t t e r s shal l no t b e inquire d into , o r tha t
th e s c o p e o f th e e x a m i n a t i o n shal l b e hel d w i t h
n o
o n e p r e s e n t e x c e p t t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e a c
t i o n an d
thei r officer s o r c o u n s e l , o r t h a t afte r b e i n g seale
d
t h e d e p o s i t i o n shal l b e o p e n e d onl y b y orde r o f th
e
court , o r t h a t s e c r e t p r o c e s s e s , d e v e l o p m e
n t s , o r
r e s e a r c h n e e d no t b e d i s c l o s e d , o r tha t t h e p
artie s
s h a l l s i m u l t a n e o u s l y
fil e
s p e c i f i e d d o c u m
e n t s
o r
i n f o r m a t i o n
e n c l o s e d
i n s e a l e d
e n v e l o p
e s
t o b e
o p e n e d a s d i r e c t e d b y t h e court ;
o r t h e c
o u r t m a y
m a k e
a n y
o t h e r o r d e r
w h i c h j u s t i c e
r e
q u i r e s t o
p r o t e c t
t h e
p a r t y
o r
w i t n e s s
f r o m
a n n
o y a n c e ,
e m b a r r a s s m e n t , o r o p p r e s s i o n .
(16a , R24 )
Sec .
17 .
Record
of examination; oath; objections
.
Th e office r befor e w h o m th e depositio n i s t o b e t a k e n

shal l p u t t h e w i t n e s s o n o a t h a n d shal l p e r s o n a
l l y ,
o r b y
s o m e o n e a c t i n g u n d e r h i s d i r e c t i o n
a n d
i n
hi s p r e s e n c e , r e c o r d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e
w i t n e s s .
T h e
t e s t i m o n y
s h a l l b e
t a k e n
s t e n o g r a
p h i c a l l y
u n l e s s t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e o t h e r w i s e .
Al l o
b j e c t i o n s
m a d e
a t
t h e
t i m e
o f t h e
e x a m i n a t i o n
t o
t h e
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e office r t a k i n g t h e d e p
o s i t i o n ,
o r t o t h e m a n n e r o f t a k i n g it , o r t o t h e
e v i d e n c e
p r e s e n t e d , o r t o t h e c o n d u c t o f a n y party , an
d an y
o t h e r obj e ct i o n t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , shal l b
e n o t e d
b y
t h e
o f f i c e r u p o n
t h e d e p o s i t i o n .
E v i d e n c e
o b j e c t e d t o shal l b e t a k e n subjec t t o th e objections .
I n l i e u o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n
n a t i o n ,
p a r t i e s s e r v e d w i t h
n o t i c e
e p o s i t i o n
m a y
t r a n s m i t
w r i t t e n
i n
t o
t h e
officers ,
w h o shal l p r o p o u n d t
w i t n e s s
an d recor d t h e a n s w e r s verbatim.
t h e
ora l
e x a m i
o f t a k i n g
t e r r o g a t o r i e s
h e m
t o
t h e
(17 ,
R24 )
354
----------------------- Page 355----------------------RULE 23
SECS. 18-19
Sec .
18 .
Motion
to
xamination.
A t an y t i m e d u r i n g t h e
t i o n ,
o n
m o t i o n
o r
p e t i t i o n
r
o f t h e
d e p o n e n t a n d
u p o n a s h
a m i n a t i o n i s b e i n g c o n d u c t e d
i n
s u c h
m a n n e r a s u n r e a s o n a b l y
s s , o r
terminate
or
limit
t a k i n g o f th e d e p o s i
o f
a n y
o w i n g
i n
t o
p a r t y
t h a t
ba d
t h e
f a i t h
a n n o y ,
o
e x
o r
e m b a r r a
o p p r e s s th e d e p o n e n t o r party , t h e cour t i n w h i c
h
th e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g o r t h e Regiona l Tria l Cour
t
o f th e plac e w h e r e th e d e p o s i t i o n i s bein g t a k e n
ma y
o r d e r t h e
office r c o n d u c t i n g t h e
e x a m i n a
t i o n
t o
c e a s e forthwit h fro m t a k i n g th e d e p o s i t i o n , o r m a
y
limi t t h e
s c o p e a n d m a n n e r o f t h e
t a k i n
g o f t h e
d e p o s i t i o n , a s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 1 6 o f
t h i s Rule .
I f t h e o r d e r m a d e t e r m i n a t e s t h e e x a m i n a t
i o n , i t
shal l b e r e s u m e d thereafte r onl y u p o n th e orde r o f
th e cour t i n w h i c h t h e actio n i s p e n d i n g .
U p o n de m a n d
o f t h e
o b j e c t i n g
p a r t y
o r
d e p o n e
n t ,
t h e
t a k i n g o f th e d e p o s i t i o n shal l b e s u s p e n d e d fo
r th e
tim e n e c e s s a r y t o m a k e a notic e fo r a n order .
I n
g r a n t i n g o r r e f u s i n g
s u c h
o r d e r , t h e c o
u r t m a y
i m p o s e u p o n e i t h e r part y o r u p o n th e w i t n e s s
th e
r e q u i r e m e n t t o pa y s u c h cost s o r e x p e n s e s
a s th e
cour t m a y d e e m r e a s o n a b l e .
(18a , R24 )
Sec .
19 .
Submission to witness; changes; signing.
W h e n
t h e t e s t i m o n y
i s f u l l y t r a n s c r i b
e d ,
t h e
d e p o s i t i o n s h a l l b e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e
w i t
n e s s
fo r
e x a m i n a t i o n an d shal l b e rea d t o o r b y him , u n l e s
s
s u c h e x a m i n a t i o n an d r e a d i n g ar e w a i v e d
b y th e
w i t n e s s an d b y th e parties .
An y c h a n g e s i
n for m
o r
s u b s t a n c e
w h i c h t h e
w i t n e s s d e s i r e s
t o m a k e
shal l b e e n t e r e d u p o n th e d e p o s i t i o n b y th e offi
ce r
w i t h
a s t a t e m e n t
o f t h e r e a s o n s
g i v e n
b y
t h e
w i t n e s s fo r m a k i n g t h e m .
T h e
d e p o s i t i
o n
s h a l l
t h e n b e s i g n e d b y th e w i t n e s s , u n l e s s th e
partie s
b y
s t i p u l a t i o n w a i v e
t h e s i g n i n g o r t h e
w i t n e s s
i s il l o r c a n n o t b e foun d o r refuse s t o sign .
I f th e
355
----------------------- Page 356----------------------RULE 23

CS. 20-23
SE
d e p o s i t i o n i s no t s i g n e d b y t h e w
office r
shal l sig n i t a n d stat e o n th e recor d t h
w a i v e r o r o f t h e i l l n e s s o r a b s e n
t n e s s o r
t h e fac t o f t h e r e f u s a l t o s i g n
i t h t h e
r e a s o n g i v e n therefor ,
i f any , a
o s i t i o n
m a y t h e n b e u s e d a s full y a s t h o u g h
l e s s
o n a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s u n d e r s e c
f th i s
R u l e , t h e c o u r t h o l d s t h a t t h e
v e n
fo r
t h e refusa l t o sig n requir e rejectio n o f
t i o n i n w h o l e o r i n part .
(19a , R24
i t n e s s , t h e
e fac t o f th e
c e o f t h e w i
t o g e t h e r
n d
t h e
d e p
s i g n e d , u n
t i o n 2 9 (f) o
r e a s o n s g i
t h e
)
deposi -
Sec .
20 .
Certification
and filing
by
officer.
Th e
o f f i c e r s h a l l c e r t i f y o n
t h e
d e p o s i t i o n t
h a t t h e
w i t n e s s
w a s d u l y
s w o r n t o
b y
h i m a n d
t h a t t h e
d e p o s i t i o n i s a t r u e recor d o f th e t e s t i m o n
y g i v e n
b y t h e
w i t n e s s .
H e
s h a l l t h e n s e c u r e l y
s e a l t h e
d e p o s i t i o n i n a n e n v e l o p e i n d o r s e d w i t h t h e
titl e o f
t h e a c t i o n an d m a r k e d "Depositio n o f (her e inser t
t h e n a m e o f w i t n e s s ) " a n d shal l p r o m p t l y fil e i
t w i t h
t h e c o u r t i n w h i c h t h e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g o r s
e n d i t
b y r e g i s t e r e d mai l t o t h e cler k t h e r e o f fo r filing
.
(20 ,
R24)
Sec
e
d e p o s i
filin g t
all t h e
21 .
Notice of filing. Th e office r t a k i n g th
t i o n shal l g i v e p r o m p t
o
p a r t i es .
(21 , R24 )
n o t i c e
o f it s
Sec . 22 .
Furnishing
copies.
U p o n
p a y m
e n t
o f
r e a s o n a b l e
c h a r g e s
t h e r e f o r , t h e
o f f i c
e r s h a l l
furnis h a c o p y o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n t o a n y part y o r
t o
t h e d e p o n e n t .
(22 , R24 )
Sec .
23 .
Failure
to
attend
of party
giving
notice.
I f t h e part y g i v i
e p o s i t i o n fail s t o
t h
a n d
a n o t h e r a t t e n d
u r s u a n t
t o t h e n o t i c e ,
n g
n g t h e notic e o f t h e t a k i n g o f a d
a t t e n d
s
i n
a n d
p e r s o n
p r o c e e d
o r
b y
t h e r e w i
c o u n s e l
t h e cour t m a y orde r t h e part y g i v i

356
----------------------- Page 357----------------------RULE 23

CS. 24-26
SE
th e notic e t o pa y s u c h othe r part y th e a m o u n t

o f
th e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s incurre d b y h i m an d
hi s
c o u n s e l
i n s o a t t e n d i n g ,
i n c l u d i n g r e a s
o n a b l e
attorney' s fees .
(23a , R24 )
Sec .
24 .
Failure of party giving notice to serve s
ubpoena. I f th e part y g i v i n g th e notic e o f th e t a k i n g
of a d e p o s i t i o n o f a w i t n e s s fail s t o serv e a s u b
p o e n a
u p o n h i m an d t h e w i t n e s s becaus e o f s u c h failu
r e
d o e s no t a t t e n d , an d
i f a n o t h e r part y a t t e
n d s
i n
p e r s o n o r b y c o u n s e l b e c a u s e h e e x p e c t s t h e
depo sitio n o f t h a t w i t n e s s t o b e t a k e n , th e cour
t m a y
orde r t h e part y g i v i n g t h e notic e t o pa y s u c h othe r
p
p
i
e
i
24
a
e
n
n
n
)
r
n
c
d
c
t
s
u
i
l
y
e
r
n
u
t h e
a m o u n t
o f t h e r e a s o n a b l e
e x
s
r e d b y h i m an d hi s c o u n s e l i n s o a t t
g ,
d i n g r e a s o n a b l e attorney' s fees .
(24a , R
Sec .
25 .
gatories;
service
of
notice
p a r t y
d e s i r i n g t o t a k
n u p o n
w r i t t e n i n t e r r
u p o n
ever y o t h e r part y
n a m e
an d a d d r e s s o f
r t h e m
an d th e n a m e o r d
Deposition
and
upon
of
written
interrogatories.
interro
e t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f an y p e r s o
o g a t o r i e s
w i t h
t h e
s h a l l
notic e
p e r s o n
s e r v e
t h e m
s t a t i n g th e
w h o
i s
t o
a n s w e
e s c r i p t i v e titl e an d a d d r e s s o
f th e
office r befor e w h o m th e d e p o s i t i o n i s t o b e tak
en .
Withi n t e n (10 ) d a y s thereafter , a part y s o serve d
m a y
s e r v e c r o s s - i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s u p o n
t h
e p a r t y
p r o p o s i n g t o tak e th e deposition .
Withi n fiv
e (5)
d a y s t h e r e a f t e r , t h e
l a t t e r m a y
s e r v e r e
- d i r e c t
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s u p o n
a
p a r t y
w h o
h a s
s e r v e d
cross-interrogatories .
Withi n thre e (3) day s afte
r
b e i n g s e r v e d
w i t h
r e - d i r e c t i n t e r r o g a t o
r i e s , a
part y m a y serv e recross-interrogatorie s u p o n th e
part y p r o p o s i n g t o tak e th e deposition .
(26 ,
R24 )
Sec .
prepare
record.
o f al l
26 .
A
Officers
c o p y
to
take
o f t h e
responses
and
n o t i c e a n d
c o p i e s
357
----------------------- Page 358----------------------RULE 23
ECS. 27-29
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s
s e r v e d
s h a l l b e
d e l i v e
r e d
b y
t h e p a r t y
t a k i n g
t h e d e p o s i t i o n
t o t h e
o f f i c e r
d e s i g n a t e d
i n
t h e
n o t i c e , w h o
s h a l l
p r o c e e d
promptly , i n t h e m a n n e r provide d b y s e c t i o n s 17
,
19 an d 2 0 o f t h i s Rule , t o tak e t h e t e s t i m o n y o f
th e
w i t n e s s i n r e s p o n s e t o th e i n t e r r o g a t o r i
e s an d t o
p r e p a r e , certify , a n d
fil e o r m a i l t h e d e p
o s i t i o n ,
a t t a c h i n g t h e r e t o t h e c o p y o f t h e
n o t i c e
a n d
th e
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s r e c e i v e d b y him .
(26 , R24 )
Sec
copies.
W h e n a
led , th e
office r t
27 .
Notice
of
filing
and
furnishing
d e p o s i t i o n u p o n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s i s fi
a k i n g i t shal l promptl y
t o al l t h e
e m
o r t o t h e
o n a b l e
parties ,
an d
d e p o n e n t
m a y
giv e
u p o n
furnis h
notic e
t h e r e o f
c o p i e s
p a y m e n t
t o t h
o f r e a s
c h a r g e s therefor .
(27 , R24 )
Sec .
28 .
Orders
for
the
protection
of pa
rties
and
deponents. Afte r t h e s e r v i c e o f t h e i n t e r r o g a t o
r i e s
a n d
p r i o r t o t h e
t a k i n g o f t h e
t e s t i m o n
y
o f t h e
d e p o n e n t ,
t h e
c o u r t
i n
w h i c h
t h e
a c
t i o n
i s
p e n d i n g , o n m o t i o n p r o m p t l y m a d e b y a part y o r
a
d e p o n e n t , an d fo r goo d c a u s e s h o w n , m a y m a k e an
y
o r d e r s p e c i f i e d i n s e c t i o n s 15 ,
1 6 a n d
1
8 o f t h i s
Rul e w h i c h i s a p p r o p r i a t e a n d j u s t o r a n o r d e
r t h a t
t h e d e p o s i t i o n shal l no t b e t a k e n befor e t h e office
r
d e s i g n a t e d i n t h e n o t i c e o r t h a t i t shal l no t b
e t a k e n
e x c e p t u p o n ora l e x a m i n a t i o n .
(28a , R24 )
Sec .
ties
in
depositions.
29 .
Effect
of
errors
and
irregulari
(a)
As t o
i e s
i n t h e n o t i c
w a i v e d
u n l e s s w r i t t
v e d u p o n
th e part y g i v i
notice. Al l
e fo r
e n
error s
t a k i n g
o b j e c t i o n
n g t h e
an d
i r r e g u l a r i t
d e p o s i t i o n
i s
p r o m p t l y
ar e
s e r
notice .
358
----------------------- Page 359----------------------RULE 23

SEC. 29
(b)
As
to
disqualification
tio n
t o t a k i n g a d e p o s i t i o n b
o n
o f th e office r befor e w h o m i t i s
v e d
u n l e s s m a d e
befor e
t h e
o s i t i o n
begin s o r a s soo n thereafte r a s th
b e c o m e s
k n o w n
o r c o u
d
w i t h
r e a s o n a b l e diligence .
(c) As
nce.
Objection s t o
t h e
to
t h e
of
officer.
e c a u s e
Objec
o f disqualificati
t o b e t a k e n i s w a i
t a k i n g
o f t h e
d e p
competency
e disqualificatio n
l d
b e
d i s c o v e r e
c o m p e t e n c y
or
relevancy
o f a
of
w i t n e s s
evide
o r
c o m p e t e n c
o n y
ar e no t w a
o r
d u r i n g t h
e s s t h e
g r o u n d o f
t h a v e
bee n obviate d
.
y , r e l e v a n c y , o r materialit y o f t e s t i m
i v e d
e
b y
t a k i n g
failur e
t h e
t o m a k e
o f t h e
ob j e c t io n
t h e m
befor e
d e p o s i t i o n , u n l
i s
o n e
w h i c h
m i g h
o r r e m o v e d i f p r e s e n t e d a t t h a t time
(d) As
to
oral
examination
and
other particular
s.
E r r o r s
a n d
i r r e g u l a r i t i e s
o c c u r r i n g
a t
t h e
o r a l e x a m i n a t i o n
i n t h e m a n n e r
o f t a k
i n g t h e
d e p o s i t i o n , i n t h e for m o f th e q u e s t i o n s o r a n
s w e r s ,
i n t h e o a t h o r a f f i r m a t i o n , o r i n t h e c o n
d u c t o f
th e partie s an d error s o f an y kin d w h i c h m i g h t b e
obviated , removed , o r cure d i f promptl y prosecuted ,
ar e w a i v e d u n l e s s r e a s o n a b l e objectio n t h e r e
t o i s
mad e
a t t h e t a k i n g o f th e deposition .
(e)
As
to form
of written
interrogatories.
Objec t i o n s
t o t h e
f o r m
o f w r i t t e n
i n t e r r o g
a t o r i e s
s u b m i t t e d u n d e r s e c t i o n s 2 6 an d 2 6 o f t h i
s
Rul e
ar e w a i v e d u n l e s s serve d i n writin g upo n th e part y
p r o p o u n d i n g t h e m
w i t h i n t h e t i m e
a l l o
w e d
fo r
servin g s u c c e e d i n g cros s o r othe r interrogatorie s
an d w i t h i n thre e (3) d a y s afte r servic e o f th e la
s t
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s authorized .
(f)
As
to
manner
of preparation.
Error s
an d
irregularitie s i n th e m a n n e r i n w h i c h th e t e s t i m o n
y
i s transcribe d o r th e d e p o s i t i o n i s prepared , signed ,
certified ,
s e a l e d , i n d o r s e d , t r a n s m i t t e d ,
filed , o r
o t h e r w i s e deal t w i t h b y th e office r unde r s e c t i
o n s
359
----------------------- Page 360----------------------RULE 24
SEC. 29
17, 19 , 2 0 t o 2 6 o f t h i s Rul e ar e w a i v e d u n l e s s a
mo -
tio n t o s u p p r e s s th e d e p o s i t i o n o r s o m e par t t h
e r e o f
i s m a d e
w i t h r e a s o n a b l e p r o m p t n e s s
afte r
s u c h
defec t is , o r w i t h d u e d i l i g e n c e m i g h t h a v e b e e
n , as certained .
(29a , R24 )
360
----------------------- Page 361----------------------R U L E
2 4
D E P O S I T I O N S
B E F O R E
A C T I O N
O R
P E N D I N G
A P P E A L
S e c t i o n
1 .
Depositions
n.
A
p e r s o n w h o d e s i r e s t o p e r p
t i m o n y
o r t h a t o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n r
e r t h a t
m a y b e c o g n i z a b l e i n a n y
i p p i n e s ,
m a y fil e a v e r i f i e d p e t i t i o
h e p l a c e
o f t h e
r e s i d e n c e
o f a n y
s e
p a r t y ,
( l a , R134 )
before
action; petitio
e t u a t e h i s o w n t e s
e g a r d i n g a n y m a t t
c o u r t o f t h e
P h i l
n i n t h e c o u r t o f t
e x p e c t e d
a d v e r
S e c . 2 .
Contents of petition. T h e p e t i t i o n s
h a l l
b e
e n t i t l e d
i n t h e
n a m e
o f t h e
p e t i t i
o n e r
a n d
s h a l l s h o w :
(a ) t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r e x p e c
t s t o b e a
p a r t y t o a n a c t i o n i n a c o u r t o f t h e P h i l i p
p i n e s b u t
i s p r e s e n t l y u n a b l e
t o b r i n g i t o r c a u s e
i t t o b e
b r o u g h t ;
(b )
t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e
e x p e c t e d
a c t i o n a n d h i s i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n ;
(c ) t h e fact
s w h i c h
h e d e s i r e s t o e s t a b l i s h b y t h e p r o p o s e d
t e s t i m o n y
a n d
h i s r e a s o n s
f o r d e s i r i n g
t o p e r p e
t u a t e
it ;
(d)
t h e n a m e s o r a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e
p
e r s o n s h e
e x p e c t s wil l b e a d v e r s e p a r t i e s a n d t h e i r a d d
r e s s e s
s o fa r a s k n o w n ; a n d (e ) t h e n a m e s a n d a d d r e s s
e s o f
t h e p e r s o n s t o b e e x a m i n e d a n d t h e
s u b
s t a n c e o f
t h e
t e s t i m o n y
w h i c h
h e
e x p e c t s
t o e l
i c i t f r o m
e a c h , a n d s h a l l a s k fo r a n o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g
t h e p e
i t i o n
n s t o
x a m i n
o s e o
e r p e t
t
o
e
p
p
e
b
e
f
u
r t o t a k e t h e d e p o s i t i o n s o f t h e p e r s
e
d n a m e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n fo r t h e p u r
a t i n g t h e i r t e s t i m o n y .
Sec .
3
h a l l
s e r v e a
n
i n t h e
p e t i t i o n a
t h e r w i t h
a cop y
o f
p e t i t i o n e
wil l a p p l y
e n a m e d
(2 , R134 )
Notice and service. T h e p e t i t i o n e r s
o t i c e
u p o n
e a c h
p e r s o n
n a m e d
s a n e x p e c t e d a d v e r s e p a r t y , t o g e
t h e p e t i t i o n , s t a t i n g t h a t t h e
r
t o t h e c o u r t , a t a t i m e a n d p l a c
36 1
----------------------- Page 362----------------------RULE 24

SECS. 4-7
t h e r e i n , fo r t h e o r d e r d e s c r i b e d
i n t h e
p e t i t i o n .
A t l e a s t t w e n t y
(20 )
d a y s
befor e t h e
d a
t e o f t h e
h e a r i n g ,
t h e c o u r t s h a l l c a u s e
n o t i c e t
h e r e o f t o
b e s e r v e d o n t h e partie s an d p r o s p e c t i v e d e p o n e
n t s
i n t h e m a n n e r p r o v i d e d
fo r s e r v i c e o f s
u m m o n s .
(3a, R134 )
Sec .
4 .
Order and examination.
I f t h e
cour t i s
satisfie d t h a t t h e p e r p e t u a t i o n o f th e t e s t i m o n y
m a y
p r e v e n t a failur e o r d e l a y o f j u s t i c e , i t shal
l m a k e
a n
o r d e r
d e s i g n a t i n g o r
d e s c r i b i n g t h e
p e r s o n s
w h o s e d e p o s i t i o n m a y b e t a k e n a n d s p e c i f y
i n g th e
subjec t m a t t e r o f t h e e x a m i n a t i o n , a n d w h e t h e r
th e
d e p o s i t i o n s shal l
b e t a k e n u p o n ora l e x a m i
n a t i o n
o r w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s .
T h e d e p o s i t i
o n s m a y
t h e n b e t a k e n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 2 3
befor e
t h e h e a r i n g .
(4a , R134 )
Sec . 5 .
Reference t o court.
Fo r t h e p u r
p o s e o f
a p p l y i n g R u l e
2 3 t o d e p o s i t i o n s fo r p e r p
e t u a t i n g
t e s t i m o n y , e a c h r e f e r e n c e t
c o u r t i n
w h i c h
t h e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n
e e m e d
t o
refe r t o t h e
c o u r t i n w h i c h
fo r s u c h
d e p o s i t i o n w a s filed .
(5a , R134
Sec .
6 .
n t o per p e t u a t e t e s
, o r if,
a l t h o u g h n o
s i b l e
i n
e v i d e n c e , i
n v o l v i n g
t h e s a m e
s
o u g h t
i n
a c c o r d a n c e
4 a n d 5
o f Rul e 23 .
Sec
If
a p p e a l
t ,
i n c l u d
s e s , o
b e f o r e
e s s e s
h e r e i n
g
s o
m a y
i s
t h e
b e
u b j e c t
p e t i t i o n
u n d e r
i t
u s e d
w o u l d
i n
m a t t e r
w i t h t h e
b e
I f a d e p o s i t i o
t a k e n
t a k e n ,
t h e
s h a l l
Use of deposition.
t i m o n y
t o
t h i s
b e
a n y
Rule
a d m i s
a c t i o n
s u b s e q u e n t l y
i
b r
p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n s
(6a , R134 )
.
7 .
Depositions
pending
appeal.
an
h a s b e e n t a k e n fro m a j u d g m e n t o f a
cour
i n g t h e Cour t o f A p p e a l s i n p r o p e r c a
r
t h e
t a k i n g
o f d e p o s i t i o n s
o f w i t n
t o
362
----------------------- Page 363----------------------RULE 24

SECS. 1-7
DEPOSITIONS BEFORE ACTION

OR PENDING APPEAL
p e r p e t u a t e thei r t e s t i m o n y fo r us e
n t o f
furthe r p r o c e e d i n g s i n th e sai d court .
c h cas e
th e part y w h o d e s i r e s t o p e r p e t u a t
m o n y
ma y m a k e a m o t i o n i n th e sai d cour
t o
t a k e t h e d e p o s i t i o n s , u p o n t h e
c e a n d
servic e t h e r e o f a s i f th e actio n w a s p e n
Th e motio n shal l stat e (a) th e n a m
o f th e p e r s o n s t o b e e x a m
t a n c e
o f th e
t e s t i m o n y w h i c h
h
c i t fro m
e a c h ; a n d
(b ) t h e r e a s o n
g t h e i r
testimony .
I f th e cour t find s
i n th e e v e
I n s u
e th e t e s t i
t
fo r
s a m e
leav e
n o t i
d i n g therein .
e s an d a d d r e s s e s
i n e d an d th e s u b s
e
e x p e c t s
fo r
t o
e l i
p e r p e t u a t i n
t h a t th e p e r p e t u a t
i o n
o f t h e t e s t i m o n y
i s p r o p e r t o a v o i d a f a i
l u r e o r
d e l a y o f j u s t i c e , i t m a y m a k e
a n o r d e r a l
l o w i n g
t h e d e p o s i t i o n s t o b e t a k e n , a n d
t h e r e u p
o n t h e
d e p o s i t i o n s m a y b e t a k e n a n d u s e d
i n t h
e s a m e
m a n n e r
a n d
u n d e r
t h e s a m e
c o n d i t i o n s
a s a r e
prescribe d i n t h e s e Rule s fo r d e p o s i t i o n s t a k e n
i n
p e n d i n g actions .
(7a , R134 )
NOTE S
1. Thi s wa s formerly Rul e 134 an d ha s bee n trans pose d here . A s distinguishe d from deposition s de bene esse
which ar e governe d b y Rul e 23 , thi s Rul e regulate s th e
takin g of deposition s in perpetuam rei memoriam, th e pur pos e o f which i s t o perpetuat e th e testimon y o f witnesse s
for probabl e us e in a futur e cas e or in th e even t o f furthe r
proceeding s in th e sam e case .
For othe r way s o f perpetu
ating testimon y in crimina l cases , se e Sees . 12, 1 3 an d 1 5
of Rul e 119 an d th e note s thereunder .
2 . Sec . 1 i s th e procedur e for perpetuatin g testimon y
of witnesse s prio r t o th e filing o f th e cas e an d in anticipa tion thereof .
Sec . 7 i s th e procedur e in perpetuatin g
testimony after judgmen t i n th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t an d
befor e i t ha s becom e executory o r durin g th e pendenc y
of an appea l therefrom .
363
----------------------- Page 364----------------------RULE 24
S. 1-7
SEC
3 . It i s submitte d tha t Sec . 1 ma y no t b e availe d o

f
in crimina l cases , bu t th e procedur e in Sec . 7 i s availabl e
in al l actions , includin g crimina l cases .
4 . Althoug h
matter , it i s als
rei memoriam unde r
tions , ar e take n
ther e i s
o submitte d
thi s Rule ,
conditionall y
n o
tha
jus
an
loca l jurisprudenc e on th e
t deposition s i n perpetuam
t lik e an y othe r deposi d t o b e use d a t th e tria l
or proceedin g only in cas e th e deponen t i s no t available .

Thi s view appear s t o b e sustaine d b y th e fact tha t unde r
S e c . 6
o f t h i s R u l e , d e p o s i t i o n s i n perpetuam
rei
memoriam ma y b e use d in th e actio n in accordanc e wit h
th e provision s o f Sees . 4 an d 5 o f Rul e 2 3 whic h provide ,
inter alia, for situation s

wherei n
canno t
testify a s a witnes s durin g th e trial .
5 . Deposition s take n unde r thi
th e existenc e o f an y righ t an d
n
perpetuate d i s no t in itsel f conclusiv
existenc e o f an y righ t no r eve n o f
th e
deponen t
Rul e d o no t prov e
th e testimon y t h e r e i
e proof , eithe r o f th e
th e fact s t o whic h the y
relate , a s i t ca n b e controverte d a t th e tria l i n th e sam

e
manne r a s thoug h n o perpetuatio n o f testimon y wa s eve r
ha d
(Alonso, et al.
vs. Lagdqmeo,
7 Phil.
75).
Howe
ver ,
in th e absenc e o f an y objection t o th e takin g thereo f an d
even i f th e deponen t di d no t testify a t th e hearin g o f th e
case ,
th e perpetuate d
testimon y
constitute s prima fac
ie
proo f o f th e fact s referre d t o in hi s depositio n (Rey
vs.
Morales,
35
Phil.
230).
364
----------------------- Page 365----------------------RUL E 2 5
INTERROGATORIE S T O
PARTIE S
S e c t i o n 1.
Interrogatories
to parties; service
thereof.
Unde r th e sam e c o n d i t i o n s specifie d i n s e c t i o n 1

o f Rul e 23 , an y part y d e s i r i n g t o elici t materia l an d
r e l e v a n t fact s fro m a n y a d v e r s e
partie s
shal
l fil e
an d serv e
u p o n t h e latte r w r i t t e n interrogatorie s
t o b e a n s w e r e d b y t h e part y serve d or , i f t h e part y
s
n
p
t
c
e r
o
a r
h e
o m
v
r
t
r
p
e d
i s a p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o
a
n e r s h i p o r a s s o c i a t i o n , b y an y office r
e o f
e t e n t t o testif y i n it s behalf ,
( l a )
Sec .
2 .
Answer
to
interrogatories.
T h e
i n t e r rogatorie s shal l b e a n s w e r e d full y i n w r i t i n g an
d
shal l b e s i g n e d a n d s w o r n t o b y th e perso n m a k i n g
t h e m .
Th e
part y u p o n w h o m t h e
i n t e r r o g
a t o r i e s
hav e b e e n s e r v e d shal l fil e an d serv e a cop y o f th e
a n s w e r s o n t h e part y s u b m i t t i n g th e
interroga
to rie s w i t h i n fiftee n (15) day s afte r servic e thereof ,
u n l e s s t h e c o u r t , o n m o t i o n
a n d fo r g o o d
c a u s e
s h o w n , e x t e n d s o r s h o r t e n s th e time .
(2a )
Sec .
3 .
Objections to
n s
t o a n y i n t e r r o g a t o r i
t o t h e
cour t w i t h i n t e n (10) day s
notic e a s i n cas e o f a motion
deferre d unti l th e objection s
shal l b e a t a s earl y a tim e
(3a )
Sec .
4 .
p a r t y
may , w i t h o u t
interrogatories.
e s m a y
afte r
; an d
ar e
a s i
Number
of
leav e
o f court ,
set o f interrogatorie s
party .
(4)
t o
b e
Objectio
p r e s e n t e d
servic e thereof , wit h

a n s w e r s shal l b e
resolved , w h i c h
s practicable .
interrogatories.
b e
serv e
mor e
a n s w e r e d
N o
t h a n
b y th e
on e
sam e
365
----------------------- Page 366----------------------RULE 25
SEC. 5
Sec .
nter r o g a t o r
c a n b e
i n q u i r e
an d th e
a n s w e r s
s pro v i d e d i n

6.
Scope
i e s
d
m a y
relat e
i n t o
m a y
and
u n d e r
b e
u s e d
use
t o
of
interrogatories.
a n y
m a t t e r s
s e c t i o n
fo r
t h e
t h a t
o f Rul e
s a m e
s e c t i o n 4 o f th e s a m e Rule .
23 ,
p u r p o s e
(5a )
NOTE S
1. J u s t lik e depositions , a part y ma y serv e writte n
interrogatorie s t o th e othe r part y withou t leav e o f cour t
only afte r answe r ha s bee n served .
Befor e that , leav
e o f
court mus t b e obtained .
Unde r th e sam e considerations ,
interrogatorie s ma y embrac e an y relevan t matte r unles s
th e sam e i s (a) privilege d or (b) prohibite d by cour t order .
2 . A
p a r t y
r i t t e n
interrogatorie
ec.
28,
1962; se e
judgmen t by defaul t ma y b e rendere d agains t

w h o
fail s
t o s e r v e h i s a n s w e r
t o w
s
Sec.
(Cason
3[c],
Rule
vs.
San
Pedro,
L-18928,
29).
3 . Afte r servic e o f t h e answer ,

leav e o f co
ur t i s
no t require d for th e servic e o f writte n interrogatorie s upo n
a part y
(Arellano
vs.
CFI of Sorsogon,
et al.,
L-34897,
July
15,
1975).
4 . Th e libert y o f a part y t o mak e discovery i s well n i g h u n r e s t r i c t e d i f t h e m a t t e r s i n q u i r e d

i n t o a r e
otherwis e relevan t an d no t privileged , an d th e inquir y i s
mad e i n good fait h an d withi n th e bound s o f law .
I n ligh t
of th e genera l philosoph y o f full discovery o f relevan t facts ,
it i s fairly rar e t h a t i t wil l b e ordere d t h a t a deposit
io n
should no t b e take n a t all .
I t i s only upo n notic e an d
good
caus e show n t h a t th e cour t ma y orde r t h a t a depositio n
shal l no t b e t a k e n .
Goo d caus e m e a n s a s u b s t
a n t i a l
reaso n on e t h a t afford s a lega l excuse .
Th e matte
r o f
good caus e i s t o b e determine d by th e court .
Th e fact t h a t a part y ha d previousl y availe d o f a mod e
of discovery , whic h i s by writte n interrogatories , canno t
b e considere d a s good caus e t o preven t hi s resor t
a
t o
366
----------------------- Page 367----------------------RULE 25
SEC. 6
INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES
deposition o n ora l examinatio n because :

(a) th e fact
tha t
information simila r t o tha t sough t ha d bee n obtaine d b y
answer s t o interrogatorie s doe s no t ba r a n examinatio n
befor e trial , an d i s no t a vali d objection t o th e takin g o
f a
deposition in good faith , ther e bein g n o duplication ; an d
(b) knowledg e by th e petitione r o f th e fact s concernin g
which th e propose d deponen t i s t o b e examine d doe s not
justif y refusa l o f suc h examination .
Th e variou s mode
s
of discovery unde r th e Rule s ar e clearly intende d t o b e
cumulative , an d no t alternativ e o r mutuall y exclusiv e
(Fortune
Corporation
us.
CA,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
1
08119,
Jan.
19,
1994).
Sec .
tories.
o u r t
for goo d
e o f
justice , a
torie s m a
t o
g i v e
6.
U n l e s s
Effect
c a u s e
of failure
to
serue
written
t h e r e a f t e r a l l o w e d
s h o w n
an d
t o
interroga
b y
p r e v e n t
t h e
a
part y no t serve d w i t h writte n interroga y no t b e c o m p e l l e d b y th e advers e

t e s t i m o n y
i n
o p e n
c o u r t , o r
failur
part y
t o
i v e a
d e p o s i t i o n p e n d i n g appeal ,
(n )
N O T E
1.
T o
benefit s o f
cases , thi s
interrogatorie s
th e part y wh
interrogatorie s
underscor e th e importanc e an d significan t

discovery procedure s in th e adjudicatio n o f
new provision encourage s th e us e o f writte n
by imposin g prejudicia l consequence s on
o fail s or refuse s t o avai l himsel f o f writte n
withou t good cause .
A simila r provisio
n
ha s bee n incorporate d i n th e succeedin g Rul e 2 6 for
non-availmen t o f request s for admissio n by th e opposin g
party .
Thes e tw o provision s ar e directe d t o th e part y
wh o fail s or refuse s t o resort to
therein , an d shoul d no t b e confuse
o f Rul e
2 9 w h i c h p r o v i d
o t h e r
consequence s upon a part y wh o refuse
with
discover y
p r o c e d u r e
y hi s
opponent .
th e discovery procedure s
d wit h th e provision s
e s for s a n c t i o n s o r
s or fail s t o comply
s dul y
a v a i l e d o f
367
----------------------- Page 368----------------------RULE 25
6
Wher e
part y
unjustifiedl y
SEC.
refuse s
t o
elici t
fact s
materia l an d relevan t t o hi s cas e b y addressin g writte n

interrogatorie s t o th e advers e part y t o elicit thos e facts ,
th e latte r ma y no t thereafte r b e compelle d t o testify thereo n
in cour t or giv e a depositio n pendin g appeal .
Th e justif
i cation for thi s i s t h a t th e part y i n nee d o f sai d fact s h
av ing foregon e th e opportunit y t o inquir e int o th e sam e from
th e othe r part y throug h mean s availabl e t o him , h e shoul d
no t thereafte r b e permitte d t o undul y burde n th e latte r
wit h courtroo m appearance s o r othe r cumbersom e pro cesses .
Th e sanctio n adopte d by th e Rule s i s no t on e o f
compulsion i n th e sens e t h a t th e part y i s bein g directl y
compelled t o avai l o f th e discovery mechanics , bu t on e o f
negatio n b y deprivin g hi m o f evidentiar y source s whic h
woul d otherwis e hav e bee n accessibl e t o him .
368
----------------------- Page 369----------------------R U L E
A D M I S S I O N
S e c t i o n
1 .
B Y
Request
for
2 6
A D V E R S E
admission.
PART Y
At
a n
y
t i m e
a f t e r i s s u e s
fil e a n d
s e r v e
u p o n
e q u e s t fo r
t h e a d m i s s i o
i n e n e s s o f
a n y m a t e r i a l
r i b e d
i n
a n d e x h i b i t e
t r u t h o f
a n y
m a t e r i a
f f a c t
s e t
f o r t h i n t h e
o c u m e n t s
s h a l l b e d e l
s s c o p i e s
h a v e a l r e a d y
Sec .
h a v e
a n y
b e e n j o i n e d ,
o t h e r
b y
t h e
a n d
d
p a r t y
t h e
a n d
2 .
o f t h e
o r
t h e
d e s c
o f t h e
m a t t e r
C o p i e s
w i t h
g e n u
d o c u m e n t
r e l e v a n t
i v e r e d
p a r t y m a y
w r i t t e n
r e q u e s t
r e q u e s t .
b e e n
l a t t e r
r e l e v a n t
w i t h
o f t h e
r e q u e s t
f u r n i s h e d ,
u n l e
( l a )
Implied admission. E a c h o f t h e m a t t e r
s
o f w h i c h a n a d m i s s i o n i s r e q u e s t e d s h a l l b e d
e e m e d
a d m i t t e d u n l e s s , w i t h i n a p e r i o d d e s i g n a t e
d i n t h e
r e q u e s t , w h i c h
s h a l l n o t b e les s t h a n
fi
ftee n
(15 )
d a y s
a f t e r s e r v i c e thereof ,
o r w i t h i n
s u
c h
f u r t h e r
t i m e a s t h e c o u r t m a y allo w o n m o t i o n , t h e p a r
t y t o
w h o m t h e r e q u e s t i s d i r e c t e d file s a n d s e r v e
s u p o n
t h e p a r t y r e q u e s t i n g t h e a d m i s s i o n a s w o r
n s t a t e m e n t
e i t h e r d e n y i n g
s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e m
a t t e r s
o f
w h i c h a n a d m i s s i o n i s r e q u e s t e d o r s e t t i n g f
o r t h i n
d e t a i l t h e r e a s o n s w h y h e c a n n o t t r u t h f u l
l y e i t h e r
a d m i t o r d e n y t h o s e m a t t e r s .
O b j e c t i
h a l l b e
s u b m i t t e d
r e q u e s t e d
w i t h i n t h e
n g o f h i s
s w o r n s t a t e
e c e d i n g
p a r a g r a p h
s h a l l b e
d e f e r r e d u n
v e d , w h i c h
r e s o l u t i o n
a c t i c a b l e .
(2a)
o n t o a n y r e q u e s t fo r a d m i s s i o n s
t o
t h e
c o u r t
p e r i o d
fo r
p a r t y
t o t h e
fili
c o n t e m p l a t e d
i n t h e
p r
a n d
h i s
t i l
s u c h
b e
a n d
t h e
p r i o r
m e n t a s
s h a l l
b y
c o m p l i a n c e
o b j e c t i o n s
t h e r e w i t h
m a d e
a s
369
a r e
e a r l y
r e s o l
a s
p r
----------------------- Page 370----------------------RULE 26

ECS. 1-3
Sec .
s s i o n
m a d e b y
r th e
p u r p o s e
l
no t
c o n s t i t
o t h e r
p u r p o s e
i m i n
an y o t h e

3 .
Effect
of
admission.
A n y
a d m i
a part y p u r s u a n t t o s u c h r e q u e s t i s fo
o f t h e
u t e a n
p e n d i n g
a c t i o n
a d m i s s i o n
no r m a y t h e
s a m e
r p r o c e e d i n g .
b y
b e
onl y
h i m
u s e d
an d
fo r
shal
a n y
a g a i n s t h
(3)
NOTE S
1. Rul e 26 , a s a mod e o f discovery , contemplate s

interrogatorie s seekin g clarification i n orde r t o determin e
th e t r u t h o f th e allegation s in a pleading .
A reques
t for
admission shoul d no t merel y reproduc e o r reiterat e th e
allegation s o f th e requestin g party' s pleadin g bu t shoul d
set forth relevan t evidentiar y matter s o f fact , or document s
describe d
i n an d exhibite d w i t h t h e
r e q u e s t
, for th e
purpos e o f establishin g th e party' s caus e o f actio n o r
defense .
O n th e othe r hand , th e advers e part y shoul
d
no t
b e c o m p e l l e d t o a d m i t m a t t e r s o f fac t
a l r e a d y
admitte d i n hi s pleadin g an d concernin g whic h ther e i s
n o issue , no r shoul d h e b e require d t o mak e a secon
d
denia l o f thos e m a t t e r s alread y denie d i n hi s answe r t o
th e complain t
1988;
Briboneria vs.
,
1992).
(Po
CA,
vs.
et al.,
CA,
G.R.
et al.,
No.
L-34341, Aug.
101682,
Dec.
22,
14
2 . Sec .
1 o f t h i s Rule , a s a m e n d e d , speci
ficall y
r e q u i r e s t h a t th e fact s sough t t o b e a d m i t t e
d b y th e
advers e part y mus t b e bot h materia l an d relevan t t o th e
i s s u e s i n t h e case .
Th e s a m e r e q u i r e m e n t s
o f bot h
materialit y an d relevanc y hav e likewis e bee n specifie d i n
th e precedin g Rul e 2 5 o n request s for admission .
Thi s
mus t b e s o sinc e th e fact in questio n ma y b e relevan t i f i
t
ha s a logica l tendenc y t o prov e a factua l matte r in th
e
cas e bu t i t ma y b e immateria l i f t h a t factua l matte r i s n
o
longer i n issue , an d vice-versa .

3 . Sec . 2 no w contain s a secon d p a r a g r a p h
t h
detaile d provision s on objection s t o request s for admission ,
a s wel l a s th e effect s an d dispositio n thereof .
wi
370
----------------------- Page 371----------------------RULE 26
SEC. 4
ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
4 . Wher e th e plaintif f failed t o answe r a reques t for

admission filed unde r thi s Rule , base d on it s allegation s
in it s origina l complaint , th e lega l effect s o f it s implie
d
admission o f th e fact s state d i n th e reques t canno t b e
aside by it s subsequen t filing o f an amende d complaint .
It shoul d h a v e
file d a motio n t o b e
relieve
o f t h e
consequence s of sai d implie d admissio n
(Bay
otel,
Inc. vs. Ker & Co., Ltd., et al., L-28237, Aug.
1982).
5. Wher e a copy o f
served only upo n th e counse l
it wa s hel d tha t ther e wa
Rul e 26 .
Th e genera l rul e
th e reques t
o f th e part y
s insufficient
tha t notice s
se t
d
View H
31,
for admissio n wa s
s o requested ,
complianc e wit h
shal l b e serve d o
n
th e
counse l
o f a
p a r t y
canno t
appl y
wher e
th e
Rule
s
expressly provid e tha t it shoul d b e serve d upo n a definit e
person .
Sec . 1 o f thi s Rul e provide s tha t th e reques t fo
r
admission shoul d b e serve d o n th e part y t o who m th e
reques t i s directed .
Hence , th e reques t for admissio n
wa s no t validly serve d an d tha t part y canno t b e deeme d
t o hav e a d m i t t e d t h e t r u t h o f th e m a t t e r s
o f whic h
admission s wer e
requeste d (Duque
vs.
CA,
e t a
l. an d
Valenzuela,
etc., et al. vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No.
125383,
July
2,
2002).
6 . However , an answe r t o a reques t for admissio n
served, whic h wa s signe d an d swor n t o by
properly
th e
counsel o f th e part y s o requested , i s sufficient complianc e

wit h thi s Rule , especially in light o f counsel' s authorit y
unde r Sees . 2 1 an d 23 , Rul e 13 8
(Lanada vs. CA, e t
al.,
G.R.
No.
102390
an d
Nestle
Philippines,
Inc., et
al.
vs.
CA, et al., G.R. No. 102404, Feb.
1, 2002).
p
R
w
i
a
u
h
t
Sec .
r t y m
l e ,
e t h e r
u p o n
4 .
Withdrawal. Th e cour t ma y allo w th e
a k i n g
a n
a d m i s s i o n
u n d e r
t h i s
e x p r e s s o r implied , t o withdra w o r a m e n d
s u c h t e r m s a s ma y b e just .
(4)
37 1
----------------------- Page 372----------------------RULE 26

SEC. 5
Sec .
6.
Effect of failure to file and serve request
for
admission. U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e a l l o w e d b y th e cou
r t
for goo d c a u s e s h o w n an d t o p r e v e n t a failur e
o f
j u s t i c e , a part y w h o fail s t o fil e an d serv e a r e q u
e s t
fo r a d m i s s i o n
o n t h e a d v e r s e
p a r t y o f m
a t e r i a l
an d r e l e v a n t fact s a t i s s u e w h i c h are , o r o
u g h t t o
be , w i t h i n t h e p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e
o f t h e
latter ,
s h a l l n o t b e
p e r m i t t e d t o p r e s e n t
e v i d e
n c e
o n
s u c h facts ,
(n )
N O T E
1.
Se e th e simila r provisio n on unjustifie d failur e o f
a part y t o avai l o f writte n
interrogatorie s a s
mod e
o f
discovery an d th e sanctio n therefo r unde r Sec . 6 o f Rul e

25 .
Th e reaso n for thes e ne w provision s i s explaine d i n
th e not e thereunder .
I n Sec . 6 o f Rul e 25 , th e sanc
tio n
consist s i n allowin g th e advers e part y t o refus e t o giv
e
testimon y o r mak e a depositio n o n appea l respectin g th e
facts involved .
Unde r thi s sectio n o f th e Rul e o n reques
t
for admission , th e part y wh o fail s o r refuse s t o reques t
th e admissio n o f th e fact s i n questio n i s himsel f prevente d
from t h e r e a f t e r p r e s e n t i n g evidenc e
t h e r e o n .
I n bot h
cases , th e cour t shal l determin e o n a cas e t o cas e basi s
w h e t h e r o r no t th e non-availmen t o f th e tw o mode s o f
discovery wa s justifie d o r th e negativ e
unjustl y prejudic e th e errin g party .
372
----------------------- Page 373-----------------------
sanction s
wil l
RUL E
PRODUCTIO N
OF DOCUMENT S
O R
2 7
O R
THING S
INSPECTIO N
S e c t i o n
1.
Motion
for
production
or
in
spection;
order.
U p o n m o t i o n o f an y
part y
s h o w i n g
goo d
c a u s e t h e r e f o r , t h e c o u r t i n w h i c h
a n a c t
i o n i s
p e n d i n g m a y (a ) orde r an y part y t o p r o d u c e an
d
p e r m i t
t h e
i n s p e c t i o n
a n d
c o p y i n g
o r
p h o t o g r a p h i n g , b y
o r o n b e h a l f o f t h e m o v i n g
p a r t y ,
o f a n y
d e s i g n a t e d
d o c u m e n t s ,
p a p e r s ,
b o o k s ,
a c c o u n t s , letters , p h o t o g r a p h s , object s o r tangibl
e
things , no t privileged , w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e o r c o n t a i
n
e v i d e n c e m a t e r i a l t o a n y m a t t e r i n v o l v e d
i n t h e
a c t i o n a n d
w h i c h ar e i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n , c
u s t o d y
o r control ; o r (b) orde r an y part y t o permi t entr y
u p o n
d e s i g n a t e d
l a n d o r o t h e r p r o p e r t y
i n h i s
p o s s e s s i o n o r contro l fo r th e purpos e o f inspecting ,
m e a s u r i n g ,
s u r v e y i n g ,
o r
p h o t o g r a p h i n g
t h e
p r o p e r t y
o r a n y
d e s i g n a t e d
r e l e v a n t o b j
e c t o r
o p e r a t i o n t h e r e o n .
T h e
o r d e r s h a l l s p e c
i f y t h e
time , plac e an d m a n n e r o f m a k i n g th e
i n s
p e c t i o n
a n d
t a k i n g
c o p i e s a n d
p h o t o g r a p h s ,
a n d
m a y
prescrib e
s u c h t e r m s an d c o n d i t i o n s a s ar e
just ,
(la )
NOTE S
1.
Th e
p r o d u c t i o n o f d o c u m e n t s afford s
mor e
opportunity for discovery tha n a subpoen a duces
tecum
as , i n th e latter , th e document s ar e brough t t o th e cour t
for th e firs t tim e o n th e dat e o f th e schedule d tria
l
wherei n suc h document s ar e require d t o b e produced .
Th e inspectio n o f lan d an d othe r rea l propert y for th e
purpose s authorize d by thi s Rul e als o avoid s th e nee d for
ocular inspection thereo f by th e court .
373
----------------------- Page 374----------------------RULE 27

SEC. 1
2 .
o r
inspection
Rul e
116, an d
durin g th

I n
c r i m i n a l
cases , motion s
for
pr o d u c t i o
3 .
o f document s ar e
governe d by
Sec .
10 ,
ma y b e availe d o f only by th e accuse d generall y

e pendenc y o f th e cas e for trial .
Thi s
mod e
o f discover y
doe s
no t
authoriz e
th e
opposing part y o r th e cler k o r othe r functionarie s o f th e

court t o distrai n th e article s o r depriv e th e perso n wh o
produce d th e sam e o f thei r possession , eve n temporaril y
(Tanda
vs. Aldaya,
89
Phil.
497).
4 . In motion s for productio n o f document s unde r thi s
Rule , i t ha s bee n hel d t h a t " a part y i s ordinaril y entitle
d
t o th e productio n o f books , document s an d paper s whic h
ar e materia l an d relevan t t o th e establishmen t o f hi s caus e
of actio n
or defense "
[General
Electric
Co.
vs.
S
uperior
Court
in and for Almeda
County,
45
C 2d
879,
ci
te d in
Martin,
Rules of Court,
3rd edition,
Vol.
2, p. 104\.
"Th e
tes t t o b e applie d b y th e tria l judg e i n determinin g th e
r e l e v a n c y o f d o c u m e n t s a n d t h e sufficienc y
o f
t h e i r
description i s on e o f reasonablenes s an d practicability "
[Line
Corp.
of the Philippines
vs. Moran,
59
Phil.
176,
180).
"O n th e groun d o f publi c policy , th e rule s providin g
for productio n an d inspectio n o f book s an d paper s d o no t
a u t h o r i z e t h e p r o d u c t i o n o r i n s p e c t i o n o f
privilege d
matter , t h a t is , book s an d paper s whic h becaus e o f thei r
confidential an d privilege d characte r coul d no t b e receive d
in evidence "
[27 CJS 224].
"In passin g on a motio n for
discovery o f documents , th e cour t shoul d b e libera l i n
determinin g whethe r o r no t document s ar e relevan t t o th e
subject matte r of th e action " [Hercules Powder Co. vs. Haas
Co.,
U.S.
Dist. Crt.,
Oct.
26,
1944; 9 Fed.
Rules
Service,
659, cite d in Moran,
Comments on the Rules of Court,
1979
Ed., Vol. 2, p. 102].
Likewise , "an y s t a t u t e declarin g
in
genera l term s t h a t official record s ar e confidentia l shoul d
b e liberall y construed , t o hav e a n implie d exceptio n for
disclosur e whe n neede d in a cour t o f justice " [Wigmore on
Evidence,
Vol.
VIII, p.
801,
citin g th e cas e oiMarbury
vs.
374
----------------------- Page 375----------------------RULE 27
PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION
SEC. 1
OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
Madison,
1 Cr.
137,
143]
(Banco
Board, et al.,
G.R. No.
70054, July
5 . I n a n America n
can compe l th e plaintiff ,
th e exhumatio n o f th e
involving th e "accidenta l
polic y
(Zalatuka
U.S.C.C.A.,
Service,
Dec.
p.
22,
Filipino
vs.
8, 1986).
Monetary
case , i t wa s hel d tha t th e cour t

unde r thi s Rule , t o consen t t o
body o f th e decease d in a cas e
death " claus e o f a n insuranc e
vs.
Metropolitan
Life
Ins.
Co.,
1939,
108 F.
[2d]
405,
2 Fed.
Rules
37).
It i s believe
e
applicable her e in a
considering tha t Sec .
or tangibl e things "
cadaver .
O n th e
cannot b e invoke d
and i s limite d
living person .
th e exhumatio n or
an d necessar y for
t h a t th e
civil
1 o f
whic h
othe r
aforestate d
rulin g coul d
cas e involvin g th e sam

thi s Rul e als o speak s
i s broa d enoug h t o
hand , Rul e 2 8 o f th e
e issue ,
o f "object s
includ e a
revise d Rule s
for th e sam e purpos e a s i t contemplate s

t o physica l an d menta l examinatio n o f a
Ther e would , however , b e n o proble m i f
postmortem examinatio n i s involve d in
purpose s o f a crimina l action .
6 . Althoug h it i s not amon g th e mode s o f discovery ,

bu t considerin g th e similarit y o f objective s sough t t o b e
subserved , not e shoul d b e take n o f th e wri t o f searc h an d
seizure authorize d for th e protectio n o f intellectua l prop erty . In a resolutio n in A.M . No . 02-1-06-SC , date d Janu ary 22 , 2002 , th e Suprem e Cour t approve d th e rul e o n
Search an d Seizur e in Civil Action s for Infringemen t o f
Intellectua l Propert y Right s (Appendix Z) which govern s
thi s judicia l process , effective Februar y 15 , 2002 .
375
----------------------- Page 376----------------------RULE
PHYSICAL
AN D
MENTA L
EXAMINATIO N
OF
S e c
a n a c t i
n d i t i o n
o f a part
h t h e
a c t i o n
2 8
PERSON S
t i o n 1.
When examination may be ordered. In
o n i n w h i c h th e m e n t a l o r p h y s i c a l c o
y i s i n c o n t r o v e r s y , t h e cour t i n w h i c
i s p e n d i n g m a y i n it s d i s c r e t i o n orde r
h
s
o
p
i m t o
u b m i t t o a p h y s i c a l
n b y a
h y s i c i a n . (1)
o r
m e n t a l
e x a m i n a t i
NOTE S
1. Th e menta l conditio n o f a part y i s in controvers y
in proceeding s for guardianshi p over an imbecil e or insan e
person , whil e th e physica l conditio n o f a part y i s generall y
involved i n physica l injurie s cases .
2 . A
bloo d
g r o u p i n g t e s t m a y b e o r d e r
e d a n d
conducte d unde r thi s Rul e on a chil d subjec t o f a paternit y
suit . Whil e th e Rul e speak s o f an examinatio n o f a party ,
such chil d i s considere d a part y for purpose s thereo f a s
th e actio n
i s brough t
for it s benefi t
(Beach
vs.
Beach,
U.S.C.A.,
D.C.,
June
28,
1940,
3
Fed.
Rules
Service,
p.
397).
3 . Sinc e th e result s o f th e examinatio n ar e intende d
b e m a d e public , t h e s a m e a r e no t covere d b
y t h e
physician-patien t privilege .
Furthermore , suc h exami t o
natio n i s no t necessar y t o trea t o r cur e th e patien t bu t

t o
asses s th e exten t o f injur y o r t o evaluat e hi s physica l o r
menta l condition .
S e c . 2 . Order
for
fo r
e x a m i n a t i o n m a y b e m
d
c a u s e s h o w n a n d u p o
t o b e
e x a m i n e d a n d t o al l o
examination.
T h e
o r d e
a d e onl y o n m o t i o n
n
n o t i c e
t o
t h e
fo r goo
p a r t y
t h e r parties , a n d shal l specif
y
376
----------------------- Page 377----------------------RULE 2 8
SECS. 3-4
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL

EXAMINATION OF PERSON S
th e time , place , manner , condition s an d scop e o f t h e

e x a m i n a t i o n an d t h e perso n o r p e r s o n s b y w h o m i
t
i s t o b e made .
(2)
Sec . 3 .
Report of findings.
I f r e q u e s t e d
by th e
part y e x a m i n e d , th e part y c a u s i n g th e e x a m i n a t i
o n
t o b e m a d e shal l delive r t o h i m a cop y o f a detaile d

writte n repor t o f t h e e x a m i n i n g p h y s i c i a n s e t
t i n g
o u t
h i s f i n d i n g s a n d
c o n c l u s i o n s .
A f t
e r
s u c h
r e q u e s t
a n d
d e l i v e r y ,
t h e
p a r t y
c a u s i
n g
t h e
e x a m i n a t i o n t o
b e
m a d e
s h a l l b e
e n t i t l
e d u p o n
reques t t o r e c e i v e fro m th e part y e x a m i n e d a lik e
repor t o f an
mad e o f t h
I f
th e part y e
th e cour t o
r e q u i r i n
a
y e x a m i n a t i o n , previousl y o r thereafte r
e sam e m e n t a l o r physica l condition .
x a m i n e d refuse s t o delive r s u c h report ,
n m o t i o n an d notic e ma y mak e a n orde r
g deliver y o n s u c h term s a s ar e just , an d i f
p h y s i c i a n
fail s o r refuse s t o mak e
th e
cour t ma y e x c l u d e
a t
th e trial .
(3a )
Sec .
4 .
Waiver
hi s
s u c h a repor t
t e s t i m o n y
of privilege.
By
i f offere d
r e q u e s t i n g
an
d
o b t a i n i n g a repor t o f th e e x a m i n a t i o n s o orde
re d
o r b y t a k i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f th e e x a m i n e
r , t h e
part y e x a m i n e d w a i v e s an y privileg e h e ma y hav e
i n t h a t a c t i o n o r a n y
o t h e r
i n v o l v i n g t
h e s a m e
c o n t r o v e r s y ,
r e g a r d i n g
t h e t e s t i m o n y
o
f e v e r y
othe r p e r s o n w h o h a s e x a m i n e d o r ma y thereafte r
e x a m i n e
h i m
i n r e s p e c t o f t h e
s a m e
m e
n t a l
o r
physica l e x a m i n a t i o n .
(4)
N O T E
1.
Wher e th
a r e p o r t o n
o n ,
t h e
consequence s ar e tha
a copy o f th e
q u e n t
e part y examine d request s an d obtain s

t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e e x a m i n a t i
t (a) h e ha s t o furnish th e othe r part y
r e p o r t o f an y previou s o r s u b s e
377
----------------------- Page 378----------------------RULE 28
examination o f th e sam e physica l

and (b) h e waive s any privileg e h e
or any othe r involvin g th e sam e
th e testimony o f any othe r perso
an d menta l
may hav e i n
controversy
n wh o ha s
SECS. 3-4
condition ,
tha t actio n
regardin g
s o examine d
him o r may thereafte r examin e him .

patien t privilege , se e Sec . 24(c) ,
Fo r th e physician 13 0 an d Not e 4
Rul e
thereunder .
378
----------------------- Page 379----------------------RUL E
WIT H
R E F U S A L
MODE S O F
T O
DISCOVER Y
2 9
COMPL Y
S e c t i on 1 .
Refusal t o answer. I f a p a r t y or o
t h e r
d e p o n e n t r e f u s e s t o a n s w e r a n y q u e s t i o n u p o
n o r a l
e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e e x a m i n a t i o n m a y b e c o m p l e
t e d
o n
o t h e r m a t t e r s o r a d j o u r n e d a s t h e p r o p o n e n
t o f t h e
q u e s t i o n
m a y
p r e f e r .
T h e
p r o p o n e n t m
a y
t h e r e a f t e r a p p l y t o t h e p r o p e r c o u r t o f t h e p
l a c e w h e r e
t h e d e p o s i t i o n i s b e i n g t a k e n fo r a n o r d e r t
o c o m p e l
a n a n s w e r .
T h e s a m e p r o c e d u r e m a y b e a v a i
l e d o f
w h e n
a p a r t y o r a
w i t n e s s r e f u s e s t o a
n s w e r a n y
i n t e r r o g a t o r y s u b m i t t e d u n d e r R u l e s 2 3 o r 2
5 .
I f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n
i s g r a n t e d ,
t h e
c o u r t
s h a l l
r e q u i r e t h e r e f u s i n g p a r t y o r d e p o n e n t t
o a n s w e r
t h e
q u e s t i o n o r i n t e r r o g a t o r y a n d
i f i t
a l s o f i n d s
t h a t t h e r e f u s a l t o a n s w e r w a s w i t h o u t s u
b s t a n t i a l
j u s t i f i c a t i o n , i t m a y r e q u i r e t h e r e f u s i
n g p a r t y o r
d e p o n e n t
o r t h e
c o u n s e l a d v i s i n g t h e
r e f u s a l , o r
b o t h o f t h e m , t o p a y t h e p r o p o n e n t t h e a m
o u n t o f
t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d i n o b t a
i n i n g t h e
o r d e r , i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y ' s fees .
u
t
t
t
o
a
r
h
i
h
u
d
t
a
f
e
n
v
I f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s d e n i e d a n d t h e c o
find s
t i t w a s
file d
w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l j u s
i c a t i o n ,
c o u r t m a y r e q u i r e t h e p r o p o n e n t o r t h e c
s e l
i s i n g t h e
filin g o f t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n ,
o
t
n
a
r b o t h
o f
h e m , t o p a y t o t h e r e f u s i n g p a r t y o r d e p o
e n t t h e
m o u n t
o f t h e
r e a s o n a b l e
e x p e n s e s
i
n c u r r e d
i n
o p p o s i n g
t h e
i n c l u d i n g
a t t o r n e y ' s
fees ,
( l a )
Sec . 2 .
Contempt of court. I f a p a r t y or
o t h e r
w i t n e s s r e f u s e s t o b e
s w o r n o r r e f u s e s
t o a n s w e r
a n y q u e s t i o n a f t e r b e i n g d i r e c t e d t o d o
s o b y t h e
379
----------------------- Page 380----------------------RULE 29
SEC. 3
cour t o f th e plac e i n w h i c h t h e d e p o s i t i o n i s b
e i n g
t a k e n , th e refusa l m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d a c o n t e m p
t o f
t h a t court .
(2a )
Sec .
3 .
Other consequences. I f an y
part y
o r
a n
office r o r m a n a g i n g a g e n t o f a part y r e f u s e s t o o
be y
a n
o r d e r
m a d e
u n d e r
s e c t i o n
1
o f t h
i s
R u l e
r e q u i r i n g h i m t o a n s w e r d e s i g n a t e d q u e s t i
o n s , o r
a n o r d e r u n d e r Rul e 2 7 t o p r o d u c e a n y d o c
u m e n t
o r
o t h e r
t h i n g
f o r
i n s p e c t i o n ,
c o p y
i n g ,
o r
p h o t o g r a p h i n g o r t o p e r m i t i t t o b e
d o n
e , o r t o
p e r m i t e n t r y u p o n l a n d o r o t h e r p r o p e r t y
, o r a n
o r d e r m a d e u n d e r Rul e 2 6 r e q u i r i n g h i m t o subm
i t
t o a p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n , t h e c o u
r t ma y
m a k e
s u c h o r d e r s
i n r e g a r d t o t h e r e f u s
a l a s ar e
just , a n d a m o n g o t h e r s t h e following :
(a)
A n o r d e r t h a t t h e
w h i c h
t h e
q u e s t i o n s
w e r e
a s
c t e r
o r
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e t h i n g
n t s o f
t h e paper , o r t h e p h y s i c a
m a t t e r s r e g a r d i n g
k e d ,
o r
t h e
c h a r a
o r land , o r t h e c o n t e
l
o r
m e n t a l
c o n d i
t i o n o f
t h e party , o r a n y o t h e r d e s i g n a t e d
fact s
s h a l l b e
t a k e n t o b e e s t a b l i s h e d fo r t h e p u r p o s e o f t h
e a c t i o n
i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e c l a i m o f t h e part y o b t a
i n i n g
t h e order ;
(b)
A n o r d e r r e f u s i n g
d i e n t
t y t o s u p p o r t o r o p p o
s
o r
e n s e s
o r p r o h i b i t i n g
i n g i n
e v i d e n c e d e s i g n a t e d d o c u
r i t e m s
o f t e s t i m o n y ,
o r
f r o m
d e n c e
o f
p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l c o n d i
o
p
a
d
b
a
i
e
e
r
m
f
(c)
A n
o r
p a r t s
thereof ,
o r
u n t i l t h e
o r d e r
i s o
c t i o n
o r
p r o c e e d i n g
e r i n g
a
j u d g m e n t b y
party ;
a n d
o r d e r
s e
b e y e d ,
fro m
a n y
d i s
c l
i n t r o d u c
m e n t s o r t h i n g s
i n t r o d u c i n g
e v i
t i o n ;
o u t
f u r t h e r
o r
t h e
d e s i g n a t e d
h i m
s t r i k i n g
s t a y i n g
o r
t o a l l o w
p l e a d i n g s
p r o c e e d i n g s
d i s m i s s i n g
p a r t
t h e
t h e r e o f , o r
r e n d
d e f a u l t a g a i n s t t h e d i s o b e d i e n t
380
----------------------- Page 381----------------------RULE 29
SECS. 4-6
REFUSAL TO COMPLY
WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY
(d)
I n lie u o f a n y o f th e foregoin g order s o r i n
additio n t h e r
any part y o r a
f
suc h o r d e r s
o r m e n t a l e
Sec . 4.
after b e i n g
admi t th e g e
h
o f an y m a t t
a n d
i f t
s s i o n s
t h e r e a f t e
f
s u c h
d o c u m e n t
act ,
e t o , a n orde r directin g th e arres t o f

g e n t o f a part y fo r d i s o b e y i n g an y o
e x c e p t a n orde r t o submi t t o a physica l
x a m i n a t i o n .
(3a )
Expenses on refusal to admit. If a part y

serve d w i t h a r e q u e s t unde r Rul e 2 6 t o
n u i n e n e s s o f an y d o c u m e n t o r th e trut
e r o f fact , serve s a swor n denia l thereo f
h e
p a r t y
r e q u e s t i n g
t h e
a d m i
r
p r o v e s
o r t h e
t r u t h
t h e
g e n u i n e n e s s
o f an y
s u c h
matte r o f f
h e m a y appl y t o th e cour t fo r a n orde r requirin g

th e o t h e r part y t o pa y h i m th e reasonabl e e x p e n s e s
incurre d i n m a k i n g s u c h proof , includin g attorney' s
fees .
U n l e s s t h e cour t find s tha t ther e w e r e goo
d
r e a s o n s fo r t h e d e n i a l o r t h a t a d m i s s i o n s
s o u g h t
wer e o f n o s u b s t a n t i a l importance , s u c h orde r shal l
b e issued .
(4a )
Sec .
5.
Failure of party
to attend or serve an
swers.
I f a
p a r t y o r a n office r o r m a n a g i n g a g e n t
o f
a part y willfull y fail s t o appea r befor e th e office r
w h o i s t o t a k e h i s d e p o s i t i o n , afte r b e i n g
serve d
wit h a prope r notice , o r fail s t o serv e a n s w e r s t
o
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s s u b m i t t e d
u n d e r
R u l e
25
, afte r
prope r servic e o f s u c h interrogatories , th e cour t o n
motio n an d notice , ma y strik e ou t al l o r an y par t o f
any p l e a d i n g o f tha t party , o r dismis s th e actio n o r
p r o c e e d i n g o r an y par t thereof , o r ente r a j u d g m e n
t
b y defaul t agains t th e party , an d i n it s discretion ,
orde r h i m t o pa y reasonabl e e x p e n s e s incurre d b y
th e other , i n c l u d i n g attorney' s fees .
(5)
Sec .
of
the
Philippines.
6.
Expenses
E x p e n s e s
against
an d
attorney' s
the
Republic
fee s
ar e
no t
38 1
----------------------- Page 382----------------------RULE 29
4-6
SECS.
t o b e i m p o s e d u p o n th e R e p u b l i c o f th e P h i l i p p
i n e s
u n d e r t h i s Rule .
(6)
N O T E S
1. Wher e th e plaintif f faile d t o answe
interrogatorie s for unexplaine d reasons , dismissa l
complaint i s warrante d unde r Sec . 5 , Rul e 2 9
omission ma y als o b e considere d a s failur e t o
th e actio n
(Arellano
vs. CFI of Sorsogon,
897,
July
15,
1975).
r th e writte n
o f th e
an d suc h
prosecut e
et al.,
L-34
2 . Th e forme r titl e o f thi s Rul e whic h rea d "Refusa l

t o Mak e Discovery " ha s bee n change d i n thi s revisio n i n
th e interes t o f accuracy .
382
----------------------- Page 383----------------------RULE
3 0
TRIAL
S e c t i o n 1 . Notice of trial. Upo n entr y o f a cas e
t h e t r i a l c a l e n d a r , t h e c l e r k s h a l l notif y
t h e
partie s o f t h e dat e o f it s tria l i n s u c h m a n n e r
a s
shal l e n s u r e hi s receip t o f tha t notic e a t leas t fiv e
(5) d a y s befor e s u c h date .
(2a , R22 )
i n
NOTE S
1. Th e word s "trial "
m e a n i n g s an d connotations .
t h e
reception o f evidenc e an d othe
e s
th e perio d for th e introductio n
Hearing , a s know n i n law ,
t
embrace s th e severa l stage s
pre-tria l stage .
A hearin g
presentatio n o f evidence .
an d
"hearing "
Tria l
hav e differen t
ma y refe r t o
r processes .
I t embrac
o f evidenc e by bot h parties .

i s no t confine d t o tria l bu
o f litigation , includin g th e
doe s no t necessaril y mea n
It doe s no t necessaril y imply
th e
p r e s e n t a t i o n o f ora l o r documentar y evidenc e

i n
open court bu t tha t th e partie s ar e afforded th e opportunity
to
be
h e a r d
(Republic
vs.
Sandiganbayan,
et
al.,
G.R. No.
152154, Nov.
18,
2003).
2 . A s a matte r o f procedura l du e process ,
require d tha t th e partie s shoul d receiv e notic e
at leas t 5 day s befor e th e schedule d date .
d
t o avoi d th e usua l misunderstanding s an d failur e
partie s t o appea r for tria l a s th e previou s rul e
it i s now
o f th e tria l
Thi s i s intende
o f th e
di d not spel l
out thes e mechanic s o f service .

Sec .
2.
Adjournments
A
cour t ma y adjour n a tria l fro m
any state d time , a s th e e x p e
t
transactio n o f b u s i n e s s ma y
n o p o w e r t o adjour n a tria l
and
postponements.
da y t o day , an d t o
d i t i o u s an d c o n v e n i e n
require , bu t shal l hav e
fo r a longe r perio d t h a n
383
----------------------- Page 384----------------------RULE 30

SECS. 3-4
o n e
m o n t h
f o r e a c h
a d j o u r n m e n t ,
n o
m o r e
t h a n t h r e e m o n t h s i n all , e x c e p t w h e n a u t
h o r i z e d
i n w r i t i n g b y t h e Cour t A d m i n i s t r a t o r ,
S
u p r e m e
Court .
(3a , R22 )
Sec .
3.
Requisites
of
motion
to
postpon
e
trial
for
absence
of evidence.
A
m o t i o n
to
p o s t
p o n e
a
t r i a l o n t h e g r o u n d
o f a b s e n c e
o f e v i d e
n c e
c a n
b e
g r a n t e d
o n l y
u p o n
a f f i d a v i t s h o w i
n g
t h e
m a t e r i a l i t y a n d
r e l e v a n c y o f s u c h
e v i d e n
c e , an d
t h a t d u e d i l i g e n c e h a s b e e n u s e d t o p r o c u r e
it .
Bu t
i f t h e a d v e r s e part y a d m i t s t h e fact s t o b e g i v
e n i n
e v i d e n c e , e v e n i f h e o b j e c t s o r r e s e r v e s t h e
righ t t o
objec t t o t h e i r a d m i s s i b i l i t y , t h e tria l shal
l n o t b e
p o s t p o n e d .
(4a , R22 )
(As corrected by Resolution of
the
Supreme
Court,
dated
July
21,
1998)
S e c . 4.
Requisites
of motion
to
postpone
trial
for
illness
of party or counsel.
A m o t i o n
to p o s t
p o n e
a
tria l o n t h e g r o u n d o f i l l n e s s o f a part y o r
c o u n s e l
m a y b e g r a n t e d i f i t a p p e a r s u p o n affidavi t o r s
w o r m
c e r t i f i c a t i o n t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e
o f s u c h
p a r t y o r
c o u n s e l a t t h e tria l i s i n d i s p e n s a b l e a n d
t h a t th e
c h a r a c t e r o f h i s i l l n e s s i s s u c h a s t o r e n d e
r h i s non a t t e n d a n c e e x c u s a b l e .
(5a , R22 )
N O T E S
1. P o s t p o n e m e n t s
a r e a d d r e s s e d t o t
h e s o u n d
discretion o f th e cour t and , i n th e absenc e o f grav e abus e
of discretion , canno t b e controlle d by m a n d a m u s (Olsen
vs. Fressel &
Co.,
37 Phil.
121).
2 . Th e provision s o f Sec .
3 o f t h i s Rul
ar e no t
applicabl e t o crimina l case s a s th e rul e o n postponement s
in crimina l case s i s governe d by Sec . 2 , Rul e 119 (People
vs.
Catolico,
L-31261-65,
April
20,
1971).
384
----------------------- Page 385----------------------RULE 30
SEC. 5
TRIAL
3 . A mer e medica l certificat e i s generally insufficient .

It mus t b e unde r oat h o r i n th e form o f a n affidav
it .
However ,
i t ha s bee n hel d t h a t eve n i f th e mot
io n t o
postpon e on accoun t o f illnes s wa s no t accompanie d by a
medica l certificate , sinc e no t every ailmen t i s attende d t o
by a physicia n an d th e require d medica l certificat e unde r
oath coul d no t b e obtaine d withi n a limite d time , suc h
requiremen t ma y b e dispense d wit h i n th e interes t o f
justic e
(Sarmiento
vs. Juan,
G.R.
No.
56605,
Ja
n.
28,
1983).
Sec . 5 . Order
of
trial.
S u b j
p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 2 o f Rul e 31 , an d
cour t
for specia l r e a s o n s o t h e r w i s e directs ,
l
b e limite d t o t h e i s s u e s state d i n th e
e c t
t o t h e
u n l e s s th e
th e tria l shal
pre-tria l orde r
an d shal l pro c e e d a s follows :

(a)
T h e
c e
i n
suppor t o f hi s
p l a i n t i f f
s h a l l a d d u c e e v i d e n
complaint ;
(b)
Th e d e f e n d a n t shal l t h e n adduc e e v i d e n c
e
i n suppor t o f h i s defense , counterclaim , cross-clai m
an d third-part y complaint ;
(c)
s h a l l
a d d u c e
l a i m ,
cross-clai m
(d)
a d d u c e
b y
them ;
T h e
t h i r d - p a r t y
e v i d e n c e
an d
o f
fourth-part y
d e f e n d a n t , i f any ,
h i s d e f e n s e , c o u n t e r c
complaint ;
Th e fourth-party , an d s o forth , i f any , shal l

e v i d e n c e o f th e materia l fact s pleade d
(e)
T h e
p a r t i e s a g a i n s t w h o m an y
c o
u n t e r clai m o r cross-clai m h a s bee n pleaded , shal l adduc e
e v i d e n c e i n suppor t o f thei r defense , i n th e orde r t o
b e prescribe d b y th e court ;
(f) Th e partie s ma y th e n respectivel y adduc e
r e b u t t i n g e v i d e n c e o n l y , u n l e s s t h e
t , fo r
c o u r
goo d
r e a s o n s a n d
u s t i c e ,
p e r m i t s
t h e m
t o
t h e i r
origina l case ; an d
i n
t h e
f u r t h e r a n c e o f j
a d d u c e
e v i d e n c e
u p o n
385
----------------------- Page 386----------------------RULE 30
SEC. 5
(g)
U p o n
h e cas e
shal l b e d e e m e d
s th e
cour t d i r e c t s t
i r
r e s p e c t i v e m e
.
a d m i s s i o n
o f t h e
e v i d e n c e , t
s u b m i t t e d fo r d e c i s i o n , u n l e s
h e partie s t o argu e o r t o s u b m i t the
m o r a n d a o r an y
furthe r p l e a d i n g s
I f severa l defendant s o r third-part y defendants ,

an d
s o forth , h a v i n g s e p a r a t e d e f e n s e s a p p
e a r b y
d i f f e r e n t c o u n s e l , t h e c o u r t s h a l l d e t e r m i
n e
t h e
relativ e orde r o f p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e i r e v i d e n c e ,
( l a ,
R30)
N O T E S
1.
U n d e r s c o r i n g t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f a p
r e - t r i a l
conference
an d
th e proceedin g
conducte d
therein
, thi s
amende d sectio n additionall y provide s that , unles s th e
court specifically directs , th e tria l shal l b e limite d t o th e
issue s state d i n th e pre-tria l order .
2 .
Par . (g) declares , for purpose s o f fixin g th e dat e
o f s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e cas e
for
decisio n vis-a-vi s
t h e
constitutiona l perio d for decidin g th e same , t h a t i t shal l
b e upo n t h e admissio n o f th e evidenc e o f th e parties .
However ,
i f t h e t r i a l cour t allow s ora l a r g u m e
n t o r
s u b m i s s i o n
o f m e m o r a n d a ,
t h e p e r i o d
s
h a l l b e
correspondingly extende d
afte r suc h proceeding s
hav e
bee n conducte d o r suc h m e m o r a n d a submitted .
Sinc e
t h e r e i s a possibilit y t h a t th e m e m o r a n d a ma y
no t b e
receive d i n th e cour t simultaneously , th e cour t shoul d
specify in advanc e or declar e afte r actua l submissio n o f
th e memorand a o r furthe r pleading s th e

cas e i s deeme d submitte d for decision .
3 .
dat e
whe n th e
Th e orde r o f tria l provide d for in Sec . 5 applie s
t o a regularl y controverte d claim .

Hence , i f th e
answe r
a d m i t s t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s obligatio n
a s allege d
i n t h e
complain t b u t
specia l defense s
ar e invoked ,
plaintif f
doe s no t hav e t o presen t evidenc e sinc e judicia l admission s
do no t requir e proo f (Sec. 2, Rule 129), an d it shoul d b
e
386
----------------------- Page 387----------------------RULE 30
EC. 6
TRIAL
th e defendan t wh o shoul d forthwit h presen t hi s evidenc e

in suppor t of hi s specia l defense s
(Yu vs. Mapayo, L-29742,
Mar.
29,
1972).
4 . Additiona l evidenc e may b e offered at th e rebutta l

stag e i f i t wa s newl y discovered , o r omitte d throug h
mistak e or inadvertence , or wher e th e purpos e i s t o correct
evidence
previousl y offered
(Lopez vs.
Liboro,
8 1
Phil.
429), subject t o th e discretio n o f th e court .
5 . A relate d rul e i n America n jurisprudenc e o n
evidence a t th e rebutta l stag e wa s adopte d b y th e Suprem e
Court
in a crimina l cas e
(People
vs. Mazo,
G.R.
No.
136869, Oct. 17, 2001) which coul d very wel l apply in al l
othe r cases .
Th e holdin g i s t h a t evidenc e offere d
i n
rebutta l i s not automatically exclude d jus t becaus e it woul d
hav e bee n mor e properl y admitte d in th e cas e in chief .
W h e t h e r e v i d e n c e coul d
h a v e bee n
mor e
p r o p
e r l y
admitte d in th e cas e in chie f i s no t a tes t o f admissibilit y
o f evidenc e i n rebuttal .
Thus , th e fact tha t testimon y
migh t hav e bee n usefu l an d usabl e in th e cas e
does not necessaril y preclud e it s us e in rebuttal .
in chie f
Sec . 6 . Agreed
statement
of facts. Th e
partie
s
t o an y actio n m a y agree , i n writing , upo n th e fact s
involve d i n th e litigation , an d submi t th e cas e fo r
j u d g m e n t o n t h e fact s a g r e e d u p o n , w i t h o u t
t h e
introductio n o f e v i d e n c e .
I f t h e
partie s
agre e onl y o n
som e
o f th e
fact s
i n issue , th e tria l shal l b e hel d a s t o th e dispute d

fact s i n s u c h o r d e r a s t h e cour t shal l prescribe
.
(2a, R30 )
NOTE S
1.
Thi s
i s know n a s a stipulatio n o f fact s an d i s
among th e purpose s o f a pre-tria l in civil case s (Sec. 2[d],

Rule 18).
Th e partie s may als o stipulat e verbally in open
387
----------------------- Page 388----------------------RULE 30
ECS. 7, 8
c o u r t . S u c h s t
e s s relie f
therefro m i s permitte d
such a s erro r or frau
. 809).
Bu t counse l canno t
evidence consist s o f
on th e basi s o f suc h
1 5
Phil.
77).
i p u l a t i o n s a r e
S
b i n d i n g
u n l
b y th e cour t o n good caus e shown ,

(Ortua vs. Rodriguez,
63 Phil
stipulat e o n w h a t thei r respectiv e

an d as k tha t judgmen t b e rendere d
stipulatio n
(Arzadon vs. Arzadon,
2 .
S t i p u l a t i o n s o f fact s a r e n o t p e r m i
t t e d i n
action s for annulmen t of marriag e
(Art.
88, Civi
l Code;
now ,
Art.
4 8 Family
Code)
a n d for
lega l
s e p
a r a t i o n
(Art.
101,
Civil
Code;
now ,
Art.
60,
Family
Code).
Formerly , i n crimina l cases , stipulation s o f fact s wer e not
permitte d (U.S. vs. Donato, 9 Phil.
701; People vs. Ord
onio,
[CA], 6 7 O.G. 4224).
See , however , Rul e 11 8 whic h now
permit s suc h stipulation s a t th e pre-tria l conference .
Sec . 7 . Statement of
judge. D
r i n g
o r tria l o f a c a s e a n y s t a t e m e n t
u d g e
w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c a s e , o r
parties ,
w i t n e s s e s o r c o u n s e l , shal l b e m
i n t h e
s t e n o g r a p h i c n o t e s . (3a , R30 )
u r i n g
m a d e
t h e
h e a
b y t h e j
t o a n y o f t h e
a d e o f r e c o r d
N O T E
o f
Sec.
1.
Thi s
17 ,
Rul e
provisio n
136 ,
th e
differ s
s o m e w h a t
from
t h a t
las t p a r a g r a p h whereo f read
s a s
follows :
"Whenever
requested
by
a party,
any
statement
made
by
a judge
of first instance,
or
by
a commissioner,
wit h
referenc e t o a cas e bein g trie d by him , or t o an y o f th
e
partie s thereto , o r t o an y witnes s o r attorney , durin g th e
h e a r i n g o f suc h case ,
shal l b e
m a d e o f recor d
i n th e
stenographi c notes. "
Sec .
8 . Suspension of actions.
T h e
s u s p e
n s i o n
o f a c t i o n s s h a l l b e g o v e r n e d b y t h e p r o v i
s i o n s o f
t h e Civi l Code ,
(n )
388
----------------------- Page 389----------------------RULE 30
EC. 9
TRIAL
NOTE S
1.
Rul e
2 1
o f th e
forme r Rules ,
providin g for th e
suspension o f action , ha s bee n eliminate d in thes e revise d

Rule s and , instead , thes e provision s o f th e Civil Code hav e
bee n adopte d for tha t purpose :
"Art. 2030 .
b e suspended :
Ever y civil action or proceedin g shal l
(1)
I f willingnes s to discus s a possibl e compromis e
i s expresse d by on e or both parties ; or
(2)
I f it appear s tha t on e o f th e parties ,
befor
e
th e commencemen t o f th e action or proceeding , offered
t o discus s a possibl e compromis e bu t th e othe r part y
refuse d th e offer .
Th e duratio n
civil action o r
b e governe d by
a s th e Suprem e
an d term s o f th e suspensio n o f th e
proceedin g an d simila r matter s shal l
suc h provision s o f th e rule s o f cour t
Cour t shal l promulgate .
Sai d r
ule s
of cour t shal l likewis e provid e for th e appointmen t
an d dutie s o f amicabl e compounders. "
of
p e
a d
o
Sec
court.
n d i n
d u c e
r
.
9 . Judge to receive evidence;
Th e j u d g e o f th e cour t w h
g shal l personall y receiv e th e e
d b y t h e parties .
H o w e
delegation
e r e th e
v i d e n c
v e r , i
to clerk
cas e i s
e t o b e
n default s
ex parte h e a r i n g s , an d i n an y cas e w h e r e th e partie s

a g r e e i n w r i t i n g , t h e c o u r t m a y
d e l e g a t e
t h e
r e c e p t i o n o f e v i d e n c e t o it s cler k o f cour t w h o
i s a
m e m b e r o f
th e bar .
Th e cler k o f cour t shal l hav e
n o p o w e r t o rul e o n objection s t o an y questio n o r
t o th e a d m i s s i o n o f exhibits , w h i c h objection s shal l
b e r e s o l v e d b y t h e cour t u p o n s u b m i s s i o n o
f hi s
repor t an d th e transcript s withi n te n (10 ) day s fro m
terminatio n o f th e hearing , (n )
389
----------------------- Page 390----------------------RULE 30
SEC. 0

N O T E S
1. Unde r th e 1964 Rules , wher e th e defendan t i s in

default , som e court s referre d th e matte r o f th e receptio n
of th e evidenc e for th e plaintif f t o a commissioner , usuall y
th e cler k o f cour t or hi s deputy .
In Laluan,
e t
al. vs.
Malpaya, e t al. (L-21231 , Jul y 30 , 1975) , it wa s hel d tha t
th e cler k o f cour t ma y b e authorize d t o receiv e evidenc e
subject t o th e conditio n t h a t i f suc h proceeding s an d th e
decision thereo n prejudic e th e substantia l right s o f th e
aggrieve d party , th e latte r shoul d b e given a n opportunit y
t o thres h ou t hi s cas e i n court .
However , th e Suprem e
Cour t subsequentl y rule d suc h practic e a s wron g an d
withou t basi s i n an y rule , an d ha s require d that , wher e
th e defendan t ha d bee n declare d i n default , th e tria l judg e
himsel f shoul d tak e dow n th e evidenc e
(Lim
Tan
hu
vs.
Ramolete,
et al., L-40098,
Aug.
29,
1975).
However ,
in
Continental
Bank
vs.
Tiangco,
et al.
(G.R .
No .
50480 ,
Dec .
14 , 1979) , i t wa s hel d t h a t th e judgmen t base d o
n
e v i d e n c e r e c e i v e d b y t h e d e p u t y c l e r k o f c
o u r t a s
c o m m i s s i o n e r i s vali d w h e r e i t w a s no t i m p a
i r e d b y
extrinsi c frau d o r lack o f du e proces s an d th e judgmen t
debtor s ha d mad e p a r t i a l p a y m e n t t o satisf y it .
Th e
Laluan cas e wa s adverte d t o an d th e doctrin e therei n wa s
reiterate d
in National
Housing
Authority
vs.
CA,
et
al.
(L-50877 , Apri l 28 , 1983) , wherei n th e partie s ha d agree d
t o th e appointmen t o f a commissioner , an d in Gochangco,
et al. vs. CFIofNegros Occ., et al. (L-49396 , J a n . 15 , 1988) .
2 . Th e p r e s e n t provisio n i s i n t e n d e d t o
effect a
rapprochemen t betwee n th e conflictin g practices , havin g
in min d th e nee d t o reliev e th e judg e o f som e o f hi s judicia
l
function s wheneve r th e sam e ca n b e safely entruste d t o a
responsibl e officer an d wit h th e necessar y safeguard s for
th e interest s o f th e parties .
Th e basi c rule , o f co
urse ,
remain s t h a t th e judg e mus t himsel f personall y receiv e
an d resolv e th e evidenc e o f th e parties .
390
----------------------- Page 391----------------------RULE SO
9
TRIAL
SEC.
However , th e receptio n o f suc h evidenc e ma y b e

delegate d unde r th e followin g conditions , viz.: (a) Th e
delegatio n
ma y
b e mad e
onl y in defaul t
or ex part
e
hearings , o r o n a g r e e m e n t i n writin g b y th e parties
;
(b) Th e receptio n o f evidenc e shal l b e mad e only by th e
clerk o f tha t cour t wh o i s a membe r o f th e bar ; (c) Sai d
clerk shal l hav e n o powe r t o rul e o n objection s t o an y
question or t o th e admissio n o f evidenc e or exhibits ; an d
(d) H e shal l submi t hi s repor t an d transcript s o f th e
proceedings , togethe r wit h th e objection s t o b e resolve d
by th e court , withi n 1 0 day s from th e terminatio n o f th e
hearing .
39 1
----------------------- Page 392----------------------RUL E
3 1
CONSOLIDATIO N
S e c t i o n
i o n s
i n v o l v i n g a c
t ar e
p e n d i n g
b e f o
j o i n t
h e a r i n g o r tria
s s u e i n
t h e a c t i o n s ;
s c o n s o l i d a t e d ; a n
e r n i n g
a v o i d
u n n e c e s s a r y c
O R
1 .
SEVERANC E
Consolidation.
o m m o n
q u e s t i o n
r e t h e
c o u r t , i t
W h e n
o f
la w
m a y
a c t
o r
fac
o r d e r
l o f a n y o r al l t h e m a t t e r s i n i
i t m a y
o r d e r
a l l t h e
a c t i o n
d i t m a y m a k e s u c h o r d e r s c o n c
t h e r e i n
a s
o s t s o r delay .
NOTE S
m a y
(1)
t e n d
t o
1.
Th e object s o f consolidation , or th e rational e o f a
j o i n t h e a r i n g a u t h o r i z e d b y Rul e 3 1 , a r e t o
avoi d
multiplicit y o f suits , guar d agains t oppressio n o r abuse ,
preven t delay , clea r congeste d dockets , simplify th e wor k
o f th e tria l cour t an d sav e unnecessar y cost s an d expenses .
Consolidation seek s t o attai n justic e wit h th e leas t expens e
an d vexatio n t o th e litigants .
Th e presen t tendenc y i s
t o
permi t consolidatio n wheneve r possibl e an d irrespectiv e
o f t h e d i v e r s i t y o f t h e i s s u e s involve d
(Palanc
a
vs.
Querubin,
et al.,
L-29510-31,
Nov.
29,
1969;
Ray
mundo,
et al. vs. Felipe,
L-30887,
Dec.
24, 1971).
2 . Th e
rul e o n consolidatio n o f case s
gene
rall y
applie s only t o case s pendin g befor e th e sam e judge , no t
t o case s pendin g i n differen t branche s o f th e sam e cour t
or
in differen t
court s
(PAL,
et al.
vs.
Teodoro,
et al.,
9 7 Phil.
461),
an d
als o applie s
t o specia l proceeding
s
(Salazar
vs.
CFI
of Laguna,
infra);
b u t
w h e
n e v e r
appropriate , an d in th e interes t o f justice , consolidatio n o f
case s in different branche s o f th e sam e cour t or in different
court s ca n b e effected .
Consolidatio n o f case s o n appea l
an d assigne d t o differen t division s o f th e Suprem e Cour t
or th e Cour t o f Appeal s i s als o authorized , an d generall y
392
----------------------- Page 393----------------------RULE 31
SEC. 1
CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE
th e cas e which wa s appeale d late r an d bearin g th e highe r

docket numbe r i s consolidate d wit h th e cas e havin g th e
lower docket number .
3 . A s
rule ,
th e
consolidatio n
o f severa l
case s
i n v o l v i n g t h e s a m e
p a r t i e s a n d s u b j e c t - m a t
t e r i s
discretionary wit h th e tria l court .
However , consolidation
of thes e case s become s a matte r o f dut y i f tw o or mor e
case s ar e trie d befor e th e sam e judge , or , i f filed wit
h
different branche s o f th e sam e Cour t o f Firs t Instance ,
one o f suc h case s ha s no t bee n partiall y trie d (Raymundo,
et al. vs. Felipe, supra).
Subject to th e qualification in
th e latte r case , i t woul d see m tha t th e former doctrin e tha t
ther e i s n o tim e beyon d which n o consolidation o f case s
can
b e effecte d
redes,
74 Phil.
6).
i s stil l
vali d
(se e
Sideco
vs.
Pa
4 . Th e thre e way s o f consolidatin g case s ar e (a) by

recastin g th e case s alread y instituted , conductin g only on e
h e a r i n g a n d
r e n d e r i n g onl y
on e
decision ,
(b
) b y
consolidatin g th e existin g case s an d holdin g only on e
h e a r i n g an d r e n d e r i n g only on e decision , an d (c)
b y
h e a r i n g onl y th e principa l cas e
an d s u s p e n d i n
g th e
hearin g o n th e other s unti l judgmen t ha s bee n rendere d
in th e principa l cas e
(Salazar
vs.
CFI of Laguna,
et al.,
64
Phil.785).
5. Case s ca n b e consolidate d for purpose s o f a singl e
appeal therefro m an d a singl e decision can b e rendere d
thereo n
(Sideco
vs. Paredes,
supra).
6 . On consideration s o
convenience o f th e parties ,
order th e consolidation o f case
sam e partie s an d issue s
f judicia l economy an d for th e

th e Suprem e Cour t ca n als o
s involvin g substantiall y th e
bu t whic h hav e bee n filed
i n
different court s o f equa l jurisdiction .

Thus , wher e a s
a
consequence of a vehicula r collision , a bu s company filed
an action for damage s agains t th e othe r bu s company in
th e prope r cour t in Quezon an d th e heir s o f th e decease d
393
----------------------- Page 394----------------------RULE 31
SEC. 2
passenge r o f on e o f th e buse s filed an actio n for damage s

a g a i n s t bot h companie s i n Cavit e wherei n sai d heir s
w e r e
r e s i d e n t s , t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t o r d e r
e d t h e
consolidation o f bot h case s in th e Cavit e court , instea d o f
requirin g sai d heir s t o interven e i n th e cas e i n Quezon
(Superlines
Trans.
Co.
vs.
Victor,
et al., G.R.
No.
64250,
Sept.
30,
1983).
Unde r th e sam e consideration , th e sam e procedur e
wa s followe d where ,
a s a consequenc e o f a vehicula
r
collision, th e passenger s o f th e bu s brough t a n actio n i n
th e t h e n Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e o f Agusa n de l Su r
o n
culpa contractual, an d th e owne r o f th e othe r vehicl e sue d
th e bu s compan y i n Misami s Oriental .
Th e Suprem e C
our t
ordere d th
f
Agusa n de l
cas e filed
other actio
et al.,
G.R.
No.
consolidatio n
o f bot h
case s
i n
th e
cour t o
Sur , upo n th e furthe r consideratio n t h a t th e

therei n ha d alread y bee n pendin g prio r t o th e
n (Vallacar Transit,
Inc., et al. vs.
Yap,
61308,
Dec.
29,
1983).
Sec . 2 .
Separate
trials.
T h e
c o u r t
,
i n
f u r t h e r a n c e o f c o n v e n i e n c e o r t o a v o i d pr
ejudice ,
m a y o r d e r a s e p a r a t e tria l o f a n y claim , cross-claim ,
c o u n
r o f
s e p a
c r o
c l a i
i n t s
i s s u
t e r
an y
r a t
s s m s ,
o r
e s .
c l a i m , o r
e i s s u e o r
t h i r d - p a r t y
o f a n y
c o m p l a i n t , o
n u m b e r
o f c l a i m s ,
c o u n t e r c l a i m s , t h i r d - p a r t y
c o m p l a
(2a )
NOTE S
1. Whe n separat e tria l o f claim s i s conducte d by th e

court unde r thi s section , i t ma y rende r separat e judgment s
on eac h clai m (se e Sec. 5, Rule 36).
2 .
e t r i a l
p r e s u p p
n th e
jurisdictio n
not
withi n it s
t h a t i t
T h i s p r o v i s i o n p e r m i t t i n g
s
o s e s t h a t t h e claim s
involve d
o f th e court .
s e p a r a t
a r e withi
Whe n on e o f th e claim s i s
jurisdiction , th e sam e shoul d b e dismissed , s o

ma y b e filed i n th e prope r court .
394
----------------------- Page 395----------------------RUL E

TRIAL
B Y
3 2
COMMISSIONE R
S e c t i o n 1 . Reference
by
consent.
By
t t e n
c o n s e n t o f bot h parties , th e cour t ma y orde r an y o r
al l o f t h e i s s u e s i n a c a s e t o b e
r e f e r
t o a
c o m m i s s i o n e r t o b e agree d u p o n b y th e partie
r
t o b e a p p o i n t e d b y t h e court .
A s u s e d
t h e s e
Rules , t h e wor d "commissioner " include s a referee ,
a n audito r an d a n examiner ,
( l a , R33)
Sec .
p a r t i e s
t h e
2 .
d o
w r i
r e d
s o
i n
Reference ordered on motion. Whe n th e

n o t c o n s e n t , t h e cour t may ,
u p o n
applicatio n o f e i t h e r o r o f it s o w n motion , direc t a

referenc e t o a c o m m i s s i o n e r i n th e followin g cases :
(a)
Whe n t h e tria l o f a n issu e o f fac t require s
th e e x a m i n a t i o n o f a lon g a c c o u n t o n eithe r s
ide ,
i n w h i c h cas e t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r ma y b e directe d t o
hea r an d repor t upo n th e whol e issu e o r an y specifi c
q u e s t i o n involve d therein ;
(b)
Whe n th e t a k i n g o f a n a c c o u n t i s n e c e s
s a r y
for th e
informatio n o f th e cour t befor e j u d g m e n t ,
o r fo r carryin g a j u d g m e n t o r orde r int o effect ;
(c)
th e p l e a
any stag e
orde r int o
Whe n
d i n g
o f a
effect
a questio n o f
s , arise s upo n
case , o r fo r
.
(2a , R33
fact , othe r t h a n upo n

motio n o r otherwise , i n
carryin g a j u d g m e n t o r
)
Sec . 3. Order of reference; powers of the

W h e n
a r e f e r e n c e i s m a d e ,
h a l l
forthwit h furnis h th e commissione r wit h a cop y
th e orde r o f reference .
Th e orde r
r
limit th e power s o f th e commissioner , an d ma y
hi m t o repor t onl y u p o n particula r issues ,
o r perfor m particula r acts , o r t o receiv e an
commissioner.
t h e c l e r k
o f
ma y
specif y
s
o
direc t
o r t o d o
d repor t
395
----------------------- Page 396----------------------RULE 32
SEC. 4
e v i d e n c e only , an d m a y fi x t h e d a t e fo r b e g
i n n i n g
an d c l o s i n g t h e h e a r i n g s an d
fo r t h e filin g
o f hi s
report .
Subjec t t o t h e specification s an d limitation s
state d i n t h e order , th e c o m m i s s i o n e r h a s a n d shal
l
e x e r c i s e t h e p o w e r t o r e g u l a t e t h e p r o c e
e d i n g s i n
e v e r y h e a r i n g befor e h i m an d t o d o al l a c t s a n d
tak e
all m e a s u r e s n e c e s s a r y o r p r o p e r fo r t h e ef
ficien t
p e r f o r m a n c e o f h i s d u t i e s u n d e r t h e order .
H e m a y
i s s u e s u b p o e n a s an d
s u b p o e n a s duces tecum,
s w e a r
w i t n e s s e s , a n d
u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d
i n t h e
o r d e r
o f
r e f e r e n c e ,
h e
m a y
r u l e
u p
o n
t h e
a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e .
T h e
t r i a l o r
h e a r i n g
befor e h i m shal l p r o c e e d i n al l r e s p e c t s a s i t w o
u l d
i f h e l d befor e t h e court .
(3a , R33 )
NOTE S
1. I n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s
t i o n , t h e
commissioner ma y rul e upo n th e admissibilit
unles s otherwis e provide d i n th e orde r o
I n
receptio n o f evidenc e befor e t h e cler
th e provision s o f
e
t h a t powe r an d
t o th e objection s
objection s shal l b
ha s submitte d hi s
2 .
u n d e r
t h i s s e c
y o f evidence ,
f reference .
k
o f cour t
u n d e r
Sec . 9 , Rul e 30 , th e cler k doe s no t hav

h e shal l jus t receiv e th e evidenc e subjec t
interpose d theret o an d suc h question s o r
e resolve d b y th e cour t afte r th e cler k
repor t t o it .
Wha t Sec . 3 authorize s t o b e limite d i s th e scop
e
o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s befor e
t h e commissioner ,
no t th e
modalit y thereof .
Th e orde r o f referenc e ma y direc t th
e
commissioner t o perfor m different act s i n an d for purpose s
o f th e proceeding s but , whateve r ma y b e th e case , th e
requiremen t for hi m t o hol d a hearin g canno t b e dispense d
wit h a s thi s i s th e essenc e o f du e proces s (Aljem's Co
rp.,
etc. vs.
CA, et al.,
G.R. No.
122216, Mar. 28, 2001).
Sec .
n t e r i n g
u p o n h i s
e
s w o r n
4 .
Oath
d u t i e s
of
t h e
commissioner.
c o m m i s s i o n e r
Befor e
s h a l l
e
b
396
----------------------- Page 397----------------------RULE 32
ECS. 5-9
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER
t o a
f a i t h f u l a n d
h e r e o f .
(14, R33 )
h o n e s t
p e r f o r m a n c e
S
t
Sec .
5.
Proceedings
before
commissioner.
Upo n
r e c e i p t o f t h e
o r d e r
o f r e f e r e n c e
a n d
u n l e s s
o t h e r w i s e provide d t h e r e i n , th e c o m m i s s i o n e r sh
al l
forthwit h se t a tim e an d plac e fo r th e firs t m e e t i n g
o f th e partie s o r thei r c o u n s e l t o b e hel d w i t h i n t
e n
(10) d a y s afte r th e dat e o f th e orde r o f referenc e an d

shal l notif y t h e partie s o r thei r counsel .
(5a ,
R33 )
Sec .
6.
Failure
of
parties
to
appear
before
commissioner. I f a part y fail s t o appea r a t th e tim e
an d plac e appointed , th e commissione r ma y procee d
ex
parte
o r ,
i n
h i s
d i s c r e t i o n , a d j o u r n
t h e
p r o c e e d i n g s t o a futur e day , g i v i n g notic e t o
t h e
a b s e n t p a r t y o r h i s c o u n s e l o f t h e a d j o u r
n m e n t .
(6a, R33 )
Sec .
l of a
w i t n e s s
y
t h e
c o m m i s s i o
l
b e d e e m e d
th e c o m m i s
7 . Refusal
t o
o b e y
of
a
witness.
T h e
s u b p o e n a
r e f u s a
i s s u e d
n e r o r t o giv e e v i d e n c e befor e him , shal

a c o n t e m p t o f th e cour t w h i c h appointe d
s i o n e r .
(7a , R33 )
Sec .
8.
Commissioner
shall
avoid
delays.
It is
th e dut y o f th e c o m m i s s i o n e r t o procee d wit h al
l
r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e . E i t h e r party , o n notic e
t o
th e
p a r t i e s an d
c o m m i s s i o n e r , m a y appl y t o
t h e
cour t fo r a n orde r requirin g th e c o m m i s s i o n e r t o
expedit e
th e
an d
t o
mak e
hi s
report .
U p o n
(8a, R33 )
Sec
t h e
c o m p l e
e e d i n g
befor e th
hi s repor
9.
t i o n
Report
of
o f th e
tria l
commissioner.
o r
h e a r i n g
o r
p r o c
e commissioner , h e shal l fil e wit h th e cour t

t i n writin g u p o n th e matter s submitte d t o
397
----------------------- Page 398----------------------RULE 32

SECS. 10-13
h i m b y t h e orde r o f reference .
p o w e r s
ar e no t specifie d o r limited , h e
W h e n
h i
fort h
hi s
shal l
se t
finding s o f fac t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f la w i n hi s report

.
H e
s h a l l a t t a c h
t h e r e t o
al l
e x h i b i t s ,
a f f i d a v i t s ,
d e p o s i t i o n s , p a p e r s an d t h e transcript , i f any , o f
th e
testimonia l e v i d e n c e presente d befor e him .
(9a , R33)
Sec .
10 .
Notice
to parties of the filing of
report.
U p o n t h e filin g o f t h e report , t h e p a r t i e s shal

l b e
notifie d b y t h e clerk , a n d t h e y shal l b e a l l o w e d te n
( 1 0 )
d a y s
w i t h i n
w h i c h
t o
s i g n i f y
o u n d s
o f
o b j e c t i o n t o t h e
f i n d i n g s o f t h e report ,
i f t h e y s o
desire .
Objection s t o th e repor t base d u p o n gro u n d
w h i c h
w e r e
a v a i l a b l e t o
t h e p a r t i e s
u r i n g t h e
befor e t h e
c o m m i s s i o n e r ,
o t h e r t h a n
o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e f i n d i n g s a n d c o n c l u s i
s t h e r e i n
se t forth , shal l no t b e c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e c o u r t
n l e s s
t h e y w e r e m a d e befor e t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r .
(10 , R33 )
S e c . 11 .
Hearing
upon
o n
t h e
x p i r a t i o n o f t h e p e r i o d o f t e n
t o
n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n , t h e
s e t fo r
h e a r i n g , afte r w h i c h t h e c o u r t
orde r
a d o p t i n g ,
m o d i f y i n g ,
o r
r
r e p o r t
i n
w h o l e
o r
i n
p a r t ,
o r
r
i t w i t h
i n s t r u c t i o n s , o r
r e q u i r i n g
t o
p r e s e n t
f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e
befor e
t h
r o r t h e
court .
(11a , R33 )
p
e
d
i
Sec .
e n
th
p a r t i e s
i n d i n g s
f a c t s h a
l a w
s h
t h e r e a f t
report.
g r
s
d
o n
u
(10 ) d a y s referre
r e p o r t shal l b e
s h a l l i s s u e a n
e j e c t i n g
t h e
e c o m m i t t i n g
t h e
e
p a r t i e s
c o m m i s s i o n e
12 .
Stipulations as
to findings.
W h
e
s t i p u l a t e t h a t a c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s f
o f
l l
b e
f i n a l , o n l y
q u e s t i o n s
o f
a l l
e r b e c o n s i d e r e d .
(12a , R33 )
S e c . 13 .
Compensation
of
commissioner.
T h e
C o u r t
s h a l l
a l l o w
t h e
r
s u c h
r e a s o n a b l e c o m p e n s a t i o n a s t h e c i r c u m s t a
n c e s
o f
398
----------------------- Page 399----------------------RULE 32
13
TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER
SEC.
th e cas e warrant , t o b e taxe d a s cost s agains t th e

defeate d party , o r apportioned , a s justic e requires .
(13, R33 )
N O T E S
1. Whe n th e commissione r di d no t hold a hearin g
in violation o f Sec . 3 o f thi s Rule , it i s erro r for th e tria
l
court t o issu e an order approvin g sai d commissioner' s repor t
over th e objection o f th e aggrieve d part y (Jaca vs. Davao
Lumber
Co., et al, L-25771,
Mar.
29, 1982).
2 . I t shoul d als o b e noted , i n passing , t h a t
th e
former Rul e 3 2 which provide d for tria l with assessor s ha s
not bee n reproduce d in th e presen t revision o f th e Rules .
399
----------------------- Page 400----------------------RUL E
DEMURRE R
3 3
T O
EVIDENC E
Sec .
1 .
Demurrer to evidence.After th e plaintif f
h a s c o m p l e t e d t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f h i s e v i d e
n c e , th e
d e f e n d a n t m a y m o v e
fo r d i s m i s s a l o n t h e
g r o u n d
t h a t u p o n t h e
fact s a n d
t h e la w
t h e plainti
f f h a s
s h o w n n o righ t t o relief .
I f h i s m o t i o n i s d e
n i e d , h e
s h a l l h a v e t h e
r i g h t t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e
.
I f h i s
m o t i o n
i s g r a n t e d
b u t
o n
a p p e a l
t h e o
r d e r
o f
d i s m i s s a l i s r e v e r s e d h e s h a l l b e d e e m e d
t o h a v e
w a i v e d t h e righ t t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e ,
( l a
, R35 )
NOTE S
1.
s on
th e
after
r s
motio
groun
th e
from
n t o
A d e m u r r e r t o evidenc e i s a motio n t o dismis

d o f insufficiency o f evidenc e
plaintif f rest s hi s case .
a
dismis s unde r Rul e
an d
i s presente d
I t t h u s diffe
1 6 whic h i s
grounde
d on
preliminar y objection s an d i s presente d
th e case , i.e. , generally , befor e a
filed b y th e movan t an d withi n th e
thereof .
Se e Not e 1 unde r Sec . 1 ,
a t th e outse t o f
responsiv e pleadin g i s
perio d for th e filing
Rul e 16 .
2 . I n t h e l a n g u a g e
o f t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t , a
d e m u r r e r t o evidenc e ma y b e issue d where ,
upo n th e
facts an d th e law , th e plaintif f ha s show n n o righ t t o relie
f .
W h e r e
t h e p l a i n t i f f s e v i d e n c e t o g e t h e r w
i t h s u c h
inference s an d conclusion s a s ma y reasonabl y b e draw n
t h e r e f r o m
d o e s n o t
w a r r a n t
r e c o v e r y a g a
i n s t t h e
defendant , a d e m u r r e r t o evidenc e shoul d b e sustained .
A d e m u r r e r t o evidenc e i s likewis e s u s t a i n a b l e
when ,
admittin g ever y prove n fact favorabl e t o th e plaintif f an d
i n d u l g i n g i n
h i s f a v o r a l l c o n c l u s i o n s f a
i r l y a n d
reasonabl y inferabl e therefrom ,
th e plaintif f ha s
faile d
t o mak e ou t on e o r mor e o f th e materia l element s o f hi s
case , o r whe n ther e i s n o evidenc e t o suppor t a n allegatio n
400
----------------------- Page 401----------------------RULE 33
SEC. 1
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
necessar y t o hi
e
p l a i n t i f f s
for
a
recovery
(
Emilio
Calma,
G.R.
s claim .
evidenc e
Heirs
No.
of
I t shoul d b e sustaine d wher e th

i s prima
Emilio
160832,
facie
Santioque
Oct.
27,
insufficien t
vs.
Heirs
of
2006).
3 . D e f e n d a n t s wh o p r e s e n t a d e m u r r e r
t o t h e
plaintiff s evidenc e retai n th e righ t t o presen t thei r own
evidence , i f th e tria l cour t disagree s wit h them ; i f th e tria l
court agree s wit h them , bu t o n appeal , th e appellat e cour t
disagree s wit h bot h o f the m an d reverse s th e dismissa l
order , th e defendant s los e th e righ t t o presen t thei r own
evidence .
Th e appellat e cour t shall , i n addition , resolv e
th e cas e an d rende r judgmen t o n th e merits , inasmuc h
a s a demurre r aim s t o discourag e prolonge d litigations .
I t c a n n o t r e m a n d
t h e cas e
for
f u r t h e r p r o c e
e d i n g s
(Radiowealth
Finance
Co.
vs. Del
Rosario,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
138739,
July
6, 2000).
4 .
I f an orde r o f dismissa l unde r thi s Rul e i s reverse d
on appeal , th e decision o f th e appellat e cour t wil l b e base d

only o n th e evidenc e o f th e plaintif f a s th e defendan t
loses hi s righ t t o hav e th e cas e remande d for receptio n
of hi s
evidenc e
(se e
Siayngco
vs.
Costibolo,
2506,
Feb.
28,
1969).
L-2
5 . Wher e th e defendant' s motion i s sustaine d an d

th e cas e i s dismisse d unde r thi s Rule , suc h orde r woul d b e
an adjudication o n th e merits , henc e th e requiremen t i n
Sec. 1 , Rul e 3 6 tha t sai d judgmen t shoul d stat e clearly
and distinctly th e fact s an d th e law on which it i s based ,
should b e complie d with .
Where , however , th e demurre r
i s denied , th e denia l orde r i s interlocutory in nature , henc e
Sec. 1 , Rul e 36 ha s no applicatio n
(Nepomuceno, et al. v
s.
Commission on Elections, et al.,
G.R. No.
60601, Dec.
29,
1983).
Suc h denia l orde r i s not controllabl e by certiorari ,
a b s e n t a n oppressiv e
exercis e
o f judicia l
a u t
h o r i t y
(Bautista,
et al. vs. Sarmiento,
et al., L-45137,
Sept
.
23,
1985;
David,
et al. vs.
Rivera,
G.R.
Nos.
139913
an d
140159,
Jan.
16,
2004).
40 1
----------------------- Page 402----------------------RULE 33
SEC. 1
6 . Fo r th e
counterpar t b u t contrar y feature s i n
c r i m i n a l cases , se e Sec . 23 , Rul e 11 9 an d t h e
ote s
thereunder .
402
----------------------- Page 403----------------------RUL E
JUDGMEN T
O N
TH E
3 4
PLEADING S
S e c t i o n 1. Judgment
on
the pleadings.
Wher
e
a n a n s w e r fail s t o t e n d e r a n i s s u e , o r o t h
e r w i s e
a d m i t s
t h e m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e a d
v e r s e
party' s pleading , th e cour t may , o n motio n o f tha t
party , direc t j u d g m e n t o n s u c h pleading .
However
,
i n a c t i o n s fo r declaratio n o f nullit y o r a n n u l m e
n t
o f m a r r i a g e o r fo r lega l s e p a r a t i o n , t h e mat
eria l
f a c t s a l l e g e d i n t h e
s b e
proved ,
( l a , R19 )
c o m p l a i n t
s h a l l a l w a y
NOTE S
1. A judgmen t on th e pleading s presuppose s tha t
ther e i s n o controverte d issu e whatsoeve r betwee n th e
p a r t i e s , henc e t h e plaintif f i s als o assume d t o hav
e
a d m i t t e d al l t h e r e l e v a n t a l l e g a t i o n s o f fa
c t o f
th e defendan t in hi s answe r (Evangelista vs. De la Rosa,
76 Phil.
115; Mercy's,
Inc.
vs.
Verde,
L-21571,
Sept
.
29,
1966).
Th e judgmen t is , therefore , base d exclusively upon
th e allegation s appearin g i n th e pleading s o f th e partie s
an d th e annexe s thereto , i f any , withou t consideratio n
of
an y
evidenc e
aliunde
(see
Rodriguez
vs.
Llo
rente,
49 Phil.
823).
2 . Th e plaintiff , by movin g for judgmen t on th e
pleadings ,
i s no t deeme d
t o hav e
admitte d
irre
levant
allegation s in th e defendant' s answe r (Araneta vs. Perez,
L-20787-8,
June
29,
1965);
n e i t h e r i s th e defenda
n t
deeme d t o hav e a d m i t t e d allegation s o f d a m a g e s i
n
th e
complain t
(Abubakar
Tan
vs.
Tian
Ho,
L-1
8820,
Dec.
29,
1962; Delfin vs.
CAR,
L-23348, Mar.
14,
1967),
henc e ther e can b e n o awar d o f damage s in sai d judgmen t
in th e absenc e of proo f
(Lichauco vs. Guash,
7 6 Phi
l. 5).
403
----------------------- Page 404----------------------RULE 34
C. 1
8E
3 . Unde r thi s Rule , a judgmen t o n th e pleading s

mus t b e o n motio n o f th e claimant .
However , i f a t
th e
pre-trial , th e cour t find s t h a t a judgmen t o n th e pleading s
i s proper ,
rio
(Sec. 2[g],
i t ma y
4 . Th e
Rule
r e n d e r suc h
j u d g m e n t motu
prop
18).
tria l
cour t
pleading s if, afte r th e

suc h
a j u d g m e n t
(Taleon
ma y
pre-trial ,
rende r
vs.
th e
Sec.
a judgmen t
fact s
of
o n th e
w a r r a n t
Public
Works
&
Communications,
an d
L-24281,
May
19,
1967).
5 . Distinction s betwee n judgmen t o n th e pleading s

s u m m a r y judgmen t (Rule
35):
a . J u d g m e n t o n th e pleading s i s prope r whe n

i t
appear s tha t ther e i s n o genuin e issu e betwee n th e parties ;
a summar y jud gm e n t i s prope r eve n i f ther e i s a n issu e a s
t o damage s recoverable .
b . J u d g m e n t o n th e pleading s
upo n th e pleading s withou t introductio n
s u m m a ry judgmen t i s base d no t only o n
also upo n th e affidavits , deposition s an d
partie s showin g that , excep t a s t o th e
ther e i s n o genuin e issue .
c.
an y
action ,
J u d g m e n t o n th e
i s base d exclusively
o f evidence ; a
th e pleading s bu t
admission s o f th e
amoun t o f damages ,
pleading s
i s
availabl e
i n
excep t for declaratio n o f nullit y or a n n u l m e n t o f
marriag e an d lega l separation ; a s u m m a r y judgmen t i s

prope r only in action s t o recove r a debt , or for a liquidate d
sum o f money , or for declarator y relief .
d . A motio n for judgmen t on th e pleading s i s subjec t
only t o th e 3-day notic e rul e
(Sec. 4, Rule 15) an d wher
e
all th e materia l averment s o f th e complain t ar e admitted ,
such motio n ma y eve n b e mad e ex parte
(Cruz vs. Op
pen,
L-23861, Feb.
17, 1968); a motio n for summar y judgmen t
require s prio r
10-day notic e (Sec. 3, Rule 35).
Se e
als o
Narra Integrated
Corp.
vs. CA,
et al. (G.R .
No .
1379
15 ,
Nov . 15 , 2000) .
404
----------------------- Page 405----------------------RULE 34
EC. 1
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
6 . J u d g m e n t s o n t h e p l e a d i n g s an d s u m m
a r y
judgment s ar e als o t o b e distinguishe d from judgment s by
default .
I t wil l b e observe d t h a t i n defaul t judgmen
t
(a) g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f fac t and/o r la w
ar e normall
y
involved ; (b) evidenc e mus t b e introduce d on th e materia l
allegations , albei t ex parte, except in case s covere d by th e
rul e on summar y procedure ; (c) al l case s may b e subject
t o judgment s by default , except thos e for annulmen t or
declaration o f nullit y o f marriag e or lega l separation ; an d
(d) motion s for defaul t judgment s may be filed

except unde r th e rul e o n summar y procedur e
upo n failur e o f defendan t t o answer ,
motu
proprio
o r o n p l a i n t i f f s motion ,
s h
r t h e
corresponding judgment .
ex parte,
wherei n
th e court ,
a l l r e n d e
7 . A s provide d in Sec . 1 o f thi s Rule , a judgmen t on

th e pleading s i s no t allowe d in action s for declaratio n o f
nullity or annulmen t o f marriag e or for lega l separation .
Th e sam e prohibitio n applie s t o a summar y judgmen t
(see Note 2 unde r Sees. 1 an d 2, Rule 35).
For tha t matter
,
an o r d e r o f defaul t a n d a j u d g m e n t b y defaul t
a r e
proscribe d in action s for declaratio n o f nullity o f marriag e
or for lega l separatio n (Sec. 3[eJ, Rule 9).
Th e foregoin
g
prohibition s ar e base d on an d expressiv e o f th e concern
an d p r o t e c t i o n e x t e n d e d b y t h e S t a t e t o th
e socia l
institution o f marriage .
Thi s protectiv e policy on th e
further enhance d by specia l procedura l
involving th e validity o f marriag e or
o f t h e s p o u s e s . O n M a r c h
iv e
M a r c h 15 , 2003 ,
t h e S u p r
p r o m u l g a t e d
i n
A.M . No .
Declaration o f Absolut e Nullity

Annulmen t o f Voidabl e Marriage s
marita l vinculum i s now

rule s on action s
for lega l separatio n
4 , 2 0 0 3 , a n d effect
e m e Cour t
02-11-10-S C
approve d
t h e
an d
Rul e
o f Void Marriage s an d
(Appendix AA) and ,
o n
i
n
A.M . No .
(Appendix
02-11-11-SC ,
BB).
th e
Rul e
o n Lega l
Separatio n
405
----------------------- Page 406----------------------R U L E
S U M M A RY
3 5
J U D G M E N T S
S e c t i o n
1 .
Summary judgment
for
claiman
t.
A
p a r t y
s e e k i n g
t o
r e c o v e r
u p o n
a
c l a i m ,
c o u n t e r c l a i m ,
o r
c r o s s - c l a i m
o r
t o
o b t a i n
a
d e c l a r a t o r y
r e l i e f m a y ,
a t a n y
t i m e
a f t e r t h e
p l e a d i n g i n a n s w e r t h e r e t o h a s b e e n s e r v
e d , m o v e
w i t h
s u p p o r t i n g
a f f i d a v i t s ,
d e p o s i t
i o n s
o r
a d m i s s i o n s
fo r
a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t
i n
h i s f a v o r
u p o n a l l o r a n y p a r t t h e r e o f ,
S e c .
2 .
Summary
party.
A
p a r t y a g a i n s t w h o
l a i m ,
o r
c r o s s - c l a i m i s a s s e r
r e l i e f i s
s o u g h t
m a y ,
a t a n y
p p o r t i n g
a f f i d a v i t s , d e p o s i t i
s u m m a r y
j u d g m e n t i n h i s f a v o
t t h e r e o f .
(2a , R34 )
( l a ,
judgment
m
for
R34 )
defending
t e d
c l a i m , c o u n t e r c
o r a
t i m e ,
d e c l a r a t o r y
m o v e
w i t h
s u
o n s o r a d m i s s i o n s fo r a
r a s t o
a l l o r a n y
p a r
N O T E S
1.
Fo r d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n a j u d g m e
n t o n
th e
pleading s an d a summar y judgment , se e th e note s unde r
Sec. 1 , Rul e 34 .
2 .
Whil e th e Rul e doe s no t specifically s o provide ,
a
s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s no t prope r i n a n actio n f
or th e
a n n u l m e n t or declaratio n o f nullit y o f a marriag e
(an d
also i n lega l separation) , jus t a s i n th e cas e o f a judgmen
t
on t h e pleadings , a s thi s Rul e refer s t o a n actio n
"t o
recove r upo n a claim, " etc. , t h a t is , t o recove r a deb t or
a
liquidate d
deman d
for
mone y
(Roque
vs.
E
ncarnacion,
et al., 95 Phil.
43).
Summar y judgments , however , ar e
mad e specifically applicabl e t o th e specia l civil actio n for
declaratory
relie f (Rule
3).
406
----------------------- Page 407----------------------RULE 35
SEC. 3
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
3 . Th e provision s o f thi s Rul e hav e been amende d

t o allow th e partie s t o submi t not only affidavit s bu t als o
deposition s or admission s in suppor t o f thei r respectiv e
contentions .
T
m o t
befor
t h e
d v e
Sec .
3 . Motion
and
proceedings
thereon.
h e
i o n s h a l l b e s e r v e d a t l e a s t t e n (10) d a y s
e
t i m e s p e c i f i e d fo r t h e h e a r i n g .
T h e a
r s e
p a r t y m a
i t i o n s ,
o r a d m i s
r e t h e
h e a r i n g .
s o u g h t
s h a l l b e
d i n g s ,
s u p p o r t i
s i o n s
o n
file ,
n t
o f
d a m a g e s ,
t o a n y
m a t e r i a l
e n t i t l e d
t o a j u d g
s e r v e
s i o n s
o p p o s i n g
a t
Afte r
l e a s t
t h e
s h o w
t h e
t h e r e
i f
t h e p l e a
d e p o s i t i o n s ,
t h a t , e x c e p t
i s
n o
b e f o
j u d g m e n t
f o r t h w i t h
affidavits ,
d e p o s
t h r e e (3 ) d a y s
h e a r i n g ,
r e n d e r e d
n g
affidavits ,
a s
a n d
t o
g e n u i n e
a d m i s
t h e a m o u
a s
m o v i n g p a r t y
i s
fac t a n d t h a t t h e
i s s u e
m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f law .
(3a , R34 )
N O T E S
1. Summar y judgmen t i s prope r only whe n ther e i s
n o genuin e issu e a s t o an y materia l fact in th e
clearly
action , an d
any questio n
(Agcanas
dbank
Corp.
vs.
i f ther e i s an y questio n or controversy upon

o f fact , ther e shoul d b e a tria l on th e merit s
vs. Nagum,
L-20707,
Mar.
30,
1970; Soli
CA,
et al,
G.R.
No.
120010,
Oct.
2 . In a motion for summar y judgment , th

question i s whethe r th e issue s raise d i n th e
either genuine , sha m or fictitious , a s shown by
depositions , or admission s accompanyin g th e motion
A genuin e issu e
for th e presentatio n o
an
issu e whic h i s
no t
to
constitut e
a
urers
Hanover Trust Co., et
136804,
Feb.
19, 2003).
3,
2002).
e crucia l
pleading s ar e
affidavits ,
.
mean s an issu e o f fact which call s

f evidence , a s distinguishe d from
fictitiou s o r contrive d s o a s
genuin e
al.
issu e
vs.
for
tria l
Guerrero,
(Manufact
G.R.
No.
407
----------------------- Page 408----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 4
3 . S u m m a
e r e th e
defendant presente d
issue s
whic h cal l
for
anueva
vs. NAMARCO,
et al.
vs. CA,
et al,

r y
j u d g m e n t
defense s
th e
i s
L-49017 an d
June
p r o p e r
tenderin g
presentatio n
L-27441,
no t
w h
factua l
o f evidenc e
30,
L-49024,
1969;
Aug.
(Vill
Guevarra,
30,
1983;
R&B
Surety & Insurance Co., et al
vs. Savellano, et al,
L45234,
May 8,
1985), a s wher e th e defendan t specifically denie d
t h e m a t e r i a l allegation s
i n t h e c o m p l a i n t (Tam
o
vs.
Gironella, et al,
L-41714,
Oct.
29,
1976).
Furthermore
,
t h e r e m u s t b e a motio n for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t
an d a
h e a r i n g o f sai d motion , t h e non-observanc e o f whic h
procedura l requirement s w a r r a n t s th e settin g asid e o f th e
summary judgmen t
(Cadirao,
et al
vs. Estenzo,
L
-42408,
Sept.
21,
1984).
4 . Th e tes t for th e propriet y o f a motion for summar y
judgmen t i s whethe r th e pleadings , affidavit s an d exhibit s
in suppor t o f th e motio n ar e sufficient t o overcom e th e
opposing paper s an d
of law , ther e i s
i s
clearl y
m e r i t
et
al,
L-40948,
June
t o justify th e findin g that , a s a matte r

n o defens e t o th e actio n o r th e clai m
o r i o u s (Estrada
29,
vs.
Consolacion,
1976).
5 . Wher e th e motio n for summar y judgmen t i s duly

verifie d an d i s base d o n fact s admitte d b y th e advers
e
party , eithe r expressl y o r impliedly , affidavit s o n suc h
m a t t e r s nee d
no t b e submitte d
(Motor Service
C
o.
vs.
Yellow
Taxicab
Co.,
96 Phil.
688).
6 . An accountin g orde r in a s u m m a r y judgmen t i s
of a n interlocutor y natur e an d i s no t appealabl e
alastas
vs. Abella,
L-26398,
Oct.
25,
1968).
7 . Unde r Sec .
o f thi s
Rule ,
(T
s u m m a r y judgmen t
ma y no t b e rendere d o n th e amount o f damages , althoug h

such j ud gm e n t ma y b e entere d o n th e issu e o f th e right t o
damages .
th e
amoun t
Phil.
704). Also ,
Thereafter , th e cour t ma y procee d t o asses s

recoverabl e
(Jugador
vs. he
Vera,
94
th e
cour t canno t impos e
attorney' s
fee s
in a
40 8
----------------------- Page 409----------------------RULE 35
SEC. 4
summary j u d g m e n t
e
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
i n
th e
absenc e
o f proo f a s
t o
th
amount thereo f (Warner,

Surety
Co.,
95 Phil.
924).
8.
Barnes
&
Co.
vs.
Luzon
In cas e o f doub t a s t o th e propriet y o f a summar y
judgment , th e doub t shal l b e resolve d agains t th e movin g

party .
Th e cour t shoul d tak e tha t view o f evidenc e most
favorable t o th e part y agains t who m i t i s directe d an d give
t h a t p a r t y t h e benefi t
o f al l favorabl e
i n f e r
e n c e s
(Gatchalian
vs.
Pavillin,
et al, L-17619,
Oct.
31,
1
962).
9 . Mer e denials , unaccompanie d by an y fact which
woul d b e admissibl e in evidenc e a t a hearing , ar e no t
sufficient to rais e a genuin e issu e o f fact sufficient to defeat
a motion for summar y judgmen t
[Plantadosi
vs. L
oew's
Inc.,
7 Fed. Rules Service,
786, June 2,
1943] even thoug
h
such issu e wa s formally raise d by th e pleading s [Fletcher
vs. Krise, 4 Fed. Rules Service,
765, Mar. 3, 1941].
Wh
er e
all th e fact s ar e withi n th e judicia l knowledg e o f th e court ,
summary judgmen t ma y b e grante d a s a matte r o f righ t
[Fletcher vs.
Evening Newspaper Co.,
3 Fed.
Rules
Se
rvice,
539,
June
28,
1940]
(Miranda
vs.
Malate
Garage
&
Taxicab,
Inc.,
99 Phil.
670).
Sec .
4.
Case
not
fully
adjudicated
on
motion.
I f o n m o t i o n
n o t
rendere d u p o n th
s o u g h t an d a
t th e
h e a r i n g o f th
an d
t h e e v i
t i n g
c o u n s e l shal l
x i s t
w i t h o u t
s u b
ar e
actually an d i n
shal l
t h e r e u p o n mak
appea r w i t h o u
t h e
e x t e n t
g e s
o r othe r relie f
s u c h f u r t h e
ar e
u n d e r
t h i s R u l e ,
j u d g m e n t
i s
e w h o l e cas e o r fo r al l th e relief s
tria l i s n e c e s s a r y , th e cour t
e motion , b y e x a m i n i n g th e pleading s
d e n c e befor e i t an d b y i n t e r r o g a
a s c e r t a i n
w h a t
materia l
s t a n t i a l c o n t r o v e r s y a n d
goo d
fait h
controverted .
fact s
w h a t
I t
e a n orde r specifyin g th e fact s tha t

t substantia l controversy , includin g
t o w h i c h
t h e
a m o u n t
o f d a m a
i s no t i n controversy , an d directin g
r p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e a c t i o n a s
409
----------------------- Page 410-----------------------
RULE 35
SECS. 5-6
j u s t .
T h e
f a c t s s o s p e c i f i e d
s h a l l b e
d e e m e d
e s t a b l i s h e d , a n d t h e tria l shal l b e c o n d u c t e d
o n th e
c o n t r o v e r t e d fact s a c c o r d i n g l y .
(4a , R34 )
N O T E
1.
Whil e Sec . 4 o f thi s Rul e authorize s th e renditio n
o f a p a r t i a l s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t ,
s u c h j u d
g m e n t
i s
interlocutory i n natur e an d i s no t a fina l an d appealabl e
judgment .
Th e appea l from th e partia l an d appealabl e
judgmen t shoul d b e take n togethe r wit h th e judgmen t i n
th e entir e cas e afte r th e tria l shal l hav e bee n conducte d
on th e materia l fact s o n whic h a substantia l controvers y
e x i s t s (Guevarra,
et
al.
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
L-49
017
an d
L-49024,
Aug.
30,
1983).
S e c . 5.
Form
of
affidavits
and
supporting
papers.
S u p p o r t i n g a n d o p p o s i n g affidavit s shal l b e m a d e
o n p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e ,
shal l
se t fort h
s
u c h
fact s
a s w o u l d b e a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e , a n d shal l
s h o w
affirmativel y t h a t t h e affian t i s c o m p e t e n t t o testif y
t o t h e m a
c o p i e s
o f al l p a
t o i n t h e
a f f i d a v i
s e r v e d
t h e r e w i t
t t e r s s t a t e d t h e r e i n .
p e r s
o r
t s h a l l
h .
p a r t s
b e
Certifie d t r u e
t h e r e o f r e f e r r e d
a t t a c h e d
t h e r e t o
o r
(5a , R34 )
S e c . 6 . Affidavits in bad faith. S h o u l d it a p p

e a r
t o i t s s a t i s f a c t i o n a t a n y
t i m e
t h a t a n
y
o f t h e
a f f i d a v i t s p r e s e n t e d
p u r s u a n t
t o t h i s
R u l e
a r e
p r e s e n t e d i n ba d faith , o r s o l e l y fo r t h e p u r p o
s e o f
d e l a y , t h e c o u r t s h a l l f o r t h w i t h o r d e r t h e
o f f e n d i n g
p a r t y o r
c o u n s e l
t o p a y
t o t h e o t h e r
p
a r t y t h e
a m o u n t o f t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s w h i c h t h e
filin g
o f t h e a f f i d a v i t s c a u s e d
h i m t o
i n c u r , i
n c l u d i n g
a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s .
I t m a y ,
a f t e r h e a r i n g ,
f u r t h
a d j u d g
g u i l t y
c o n t e m
e r
e
t h e o f f e n d i n g
o f
p t .
(6a , R34 )
p a r t y
o r
c o u n s e l
410
----------------------- Page 411----------------------RULE 35
SECS. 5-6
N O T E
1. Th
thes e section
part y bu t als
contemplate d
e sanction s for violation s o f th e provision s o f

s shal l b e impose d not only on th e offending
o upon hi s counsel .
Th e contumaciou s conduct
herei n ar e i n th e n a t u r e o f indirec t o r
constructive contempt , henc e th e sam e shal l b e punishe d

only after hearing , pursuan t t o Sec . 3 o f Rul e 71 .
41 1
----------------------- Page 412----------------------RUL E
3 6
J U D G M E N T S ,
A N D
ENTR Y
S e c t i o n
final
orders.
A j u
i n i n g
t h e m e r i t s o f
o n a l l y
a n d d i r e c t l y
g clearl y
a n d d i s t i n c t
i c h i t
i s b a s e d , s i
e cler k
o f court , ( l a )
1.
FINA L
THEREO F
Rendition
ORDER S
d g m e n t
of
o r
fina l
judgments
o r d e r
and
d e t e r m
t h e c a s e shal l b e i n w r i t i n g p e r s
p r e p a r e d
l y
b y t h e j u d g e , s t a t i n
t h e fact s
g n e d
b y
a n d
h i m ,
t h e
a n d
la w
file d
o n
w i t h
w h
t h
NOTE S
1.
p r e p
i n g
d e t e
t h e
contain
Th e decisio n o f th e cour t i s th e entir e documen t
a r e d a n d p r o m u l g a t e d b y it , a d j u d i c a t
a n d
r m i n i n g t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s t o
case . I t
s th e finding s o f fact an d law , th e reason s an d
evidence t o suppor
o f issue s leadin g
itiv e
or decreta l portio
th e judgmen t o r
t suc h findings , a s wel l a s th e discussion

u p t o it s determination .
Th e dispos
n o r th e folio i s wha t actuall y constitute s
resolutio n o f th e cour t an d whic h ca n b e
th e subjec t o f execution ,
althoug h th e othe r p a r t s o f th e
decision ma y b e resorte d t o i n orde r t o determin e th e ratio

decidendi
for suc h judgmen t or resolution .
2 . Wher e ther e i s a conflict betwee n th e dispositiv e
portio n o f th e decision an d th e body thereof , th e dispositiv e
portio n control s irrespectiv e o f wha t appear s i n th e body
o f th e decision .
However , a n exceptio n i s recognize d
wher e th e inevitabl e conclusio n from th e finding s o f fact
in th e opinio n i s s o indubitabl e an d clea r a s t o sho w tha t
ther e wa s a mistak e in th e dispositiv e portio n
(Agu
irre, e t
al. vs. Aguirre,
et al., L-33080, Aug.
15,
1974),
or
wher e
explicit discussio n an d settlemen t o f th e issu e i s foun d i n
th e body
of th e
decisio n
(Millare
vs.
Millare,
1
06 Phil.
412
----------------------- Page 413----------------------RULE 36
JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS
SEC. 1
AND ENTRY THEREOF

293; Chung, et al. vs. China National Cereals,
et al., G.R. No. 131502, June 8,
2000).
Bu t
whe n
th e
dispositiv e
etc.,
par t o f a
Corp.,
fina l orde r or
decision i s definite , clea r an d unequivoca l an d ca n b e

wholly given effect withou t th e nee d o f interpretatio n or
construction , th e sam e i s considere d a s th e judgmen t o f
th e cour t t o th e exclusion o f anythin g sai d in th e body
thereo f
(Contreras
vs. Felix,
78 Phil. 570;
Edward
vs.
Arce,
98 Phil.
688; Olac,
No.
89256, Sept. 2, 1992).
et
al.
vs.
CA,
et al.,
3 .
Th e specia l form s o f judgment s unde r th e Rule s
and jurisprudenc e are :
a. Judgmen t by defaul t (Sec.
3,
b. Judgmen t on th e pleading s
c.
Summar y
judgmen t
Rule
(Rule
(Rule
34);
35);
d. Severa l judgmen t (Sec.

e. Separat e judgmen t (Sec.
9);
4,
5,
Rule
Rule 36);
f. Judgmen t for specific act s (Sec.

g. Specia l judgmen t (Sec.
h . Judgmen t
upo n
confession ;
36);
11,
10, Rule 39);

Rule
39);
G.R.
i . J u d g m e n t
agreement ;
j .
k .
upo n
compromise ,
or on consen t
or
"Clarificatory " judgment ; an d

Judgmen t nunc pro tunc.
4 .
Judgment s upon confession or upon compromis e
stand o n th e sam e footing i n th e sens e tha t the y canno t
b e entere d int o b y counse l withou t th e knowledg e an d
special
authorit y
of th e client
(Manufacturers
Bank
&
Trust Co.
vs. Woodworks,
Inc., L-29453,
Dec. 28,
1970).
Both
ar e immediatel y
executor y
(Samonte,
e t al. vs.
Samonte,
et al.,
L-40683,
June 27,
1975),
unles s otherwis e
413
----------------------- Page 414----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 1
provide d i n th e judgment , a s ma y b e praye d for o r agree d

upo n by
th e partie s
(se e
Vda.
de Corpus
vs.
P
hodacaAmbrosio, L-30206,
Mar.
30, 1970).
Se e als o Art .
2032 ,
Civil Code ,
requirin g cour t approva l for compromise s
e n t e r e d int o b y p a r e n t s , g u a r d i a n s , r e p r e s
e n t a t i v e s ,
administrators , an d executors ; an d Art . 1878(3) o f sai d
Code whic h provide s t h a t a thir d perso n canno t bin d
anothe r t o a compromis e agreemen t unles s suc h thir d
perso n ha s obtaine d a specia l powe r o f attorne y for tha t
purpos e from th e part y t o b e bound .
However , a judgmen t on consen t i s no t t o b e fully
equate d wit h a judgmen t by confession .
Th e for
me r i s
one th e provision s an d t e r m s o f whic h ar e settle d a
n d
agree d upo n b y th e partie s t o th e action , an d whic h i
s
entere d i n th e recor d b y th e consen t o f th e court .
Ther e
mus t b e unqualifie d agreemen t amon g th e partie s t o b e
boun d b y th e judgmen t o n consen t befor e sai d judgmen t
ma y b e s o entere d an d th e cour t doe s no t hav e th e powe r
t o s u p p l y t e r m s , p r o v i s i o n s o r e s s e n t i a l d
e t a i l s no t
previousl y agree d t o b y th e parties .
O n th e othe r h
and , a
j u dg me n t b y confession i s no t a ple a bu t a n affirmativ e
an d voluntar y ac t o f th e defendan t himsel f an d th e cour t
exercise s a certai n amoun t o f supervisio n ove r th e entr y
o f judgment , a s wel l a s equitabl e jurisdictio n over thei r
subsequent
s t a t u s (Republic
vs. Bisaya
Land
Trans
.
Co.,
Inc.,
et
al,
31490,
Jan.
6,
1978).
5 . A s a r u l e , a j u d g m e n t u p o n c o m p r o
m i s e i s
immediatel y
executor y
(Pamintuan
vs.
Munos,
et
al,
L-26331,
Mar.
15,
1968;
Central
Bank
vs.
CA,
et
al,
L-38224, Dec.
10,
1974; Pasay City Gov't, et al.
vs.
CFI of
Manila, et al,
L 32162,
Sept. 28,
1984) in th e absenc
e of
a motio n t o se t th e sam e asid e on th e groun d o f fr
aud ,
mistake , etc .
(Cadano vs. Cadano, L-34998, Jan.
11
,
1973;
Zagala,
et al. vs. Jimenez, et al,
L
33050, July 23,
1987),
an d i f suc h motio n i s mad e an d denied , appea l ma y
b e
take n from t h a t orde r o f denia l
(De los Reyes vs.
Ugarte,
75
Phil.
505;
Enriquez
vs.
Padilla,
7 7 Phil.
373)
.
In
414
----------------------- Page 415----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 1
AND ENTRY THEREOF

Mabale, et al. vs. Apalisok, et
th e Suprem e Cour t hel d tha t t
a judgmen t on compromise , a part y
set asid e th e judgmen t bu t mus
a n n u l th e compromise
al. (L-46942 , Feb . 6, 1979) ,

o b e entitle d t o appea l from
mus t not only mov e t o
t als o mov e t o se t asid e o r
agreement
itself.
j u d g m e n
t
rendere d p u r s u a n t t o a
(Montejo vs.
Urotia, L-27187,
compromis e
July 22,
i s no t appealabl e
1971) an d ha s th e
effect o f res judicata from

th e momen t
it i s rendere d
(Dormitorio
vs. Fernandez,
et al., L-25889, Aug. 21,
1976;
Arcenas, et al. vs. Cinco, L-29288, Nov. 29,
1976).
Wher e
a compromis e agreemen t o f th e litigant s i s not contrar y t o
law , judicia l decisions , morals , good custom s or publi c
policy , th e cour t canno t impos e a judgmen t different from
th e term s of sai d agreemen t (PCIB vs. Echiverri, L-41795,
Aug.
20,
1980).
6 . In a case , it wa s hel d tha t wher e a judgmen t base d
on a compromis e i s sough t t o b e enforce d agains t a perso n
wh o wa s not a part y thereto , h e may file an origina l petition
for certiorar i t o quas h th e wri t o f execution . H e coul d not
move t o hav e th e compromis e se t asid e an d the n appea l
from th e orde r denyin g hi s motion sinc e h e i s not a part y
t o th e compromis e or th e judgmen t therein . A petitio n for
relie f woul d b e an inadequat e remed y a s th e execution wa s

already bein g carrie d ou t (Jacinto
vs. Montesa,
L-23098,
Feb.
28, 1967).
7 . A compromis e agreement , onc e approve d by th e
court , ha s th e force o f res judicata betwee n th e
partie s
and shoul d not b e disturbe d except for vice s o f consen t or

forgery (se e Arts.
2037 an d 2038, Civil Code).
No decre e
of lega l separatio n ca n b e grante d i f base d exclusively on
a confessio n
of jud g m e n t (Art. 101,
Civil Code,
now ,
Art. 60, Family
Code;
Ocampo
vs. Florenciano,
107 Phil.
35). Th e sam e rul e applie s t o action s for annulmen t o f
marriag e (Art. 88, Civil Code; now , Art. 48, Family Code).
8 . Whil e
j u d g m e n t upo n confessio n
ma y
b e
rendere d whe n th e defendan t appear s in cour t or files a

415
----------------------- Page 416----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 1
pleadin g expressl y agreein g t o th e plaintiff s demand , i t

ha s bee n hel d t h a t ther e i s n o law i n thi s jurisdictio n which
recognize s a judgmen t note , t h a t is , a promissor y not e
wherei n th e m a k e r authorize s i n advance , o n w a r r a n t o f
attorney , a confessio n o f ju d g m e n t agains t hi m i n th
e
event o f non-paymen t o f th e not e on it s maturity .
T
hi s i s
considere d voi d a s bein g contrar y t o publi c policy , sinc e
th e promisso r bargain s awa y hi s da y i n cour t an d thi s
migh t b e
a sourc e
o f abus e
an d oppressio n
(PN
B vs.
Manila
Oil Refining,
etc.
&
Co.,
43 Phil.
444).
9.
for
then" )
ha d
t h u
o f
th e
no t
i s
judgmen t
rendere d
nunc pro
t o ente r o r
tunc
recor d
(literally ,
suc h judgmen t
"now
a s
bee n formerl y rendere d bu t ha s no t bee n entere d a s

s rendered .
It s only function i s t o recor d som e ac t
cour t whic h wa s don e a t a forme r time , bu t whic h wa s
t h e n recorded , i n orde r t o mak e th e recor d spea k th e
truth , withou t an y change s i n substanc e o r i n an y materia l

respec t
(Lichauco
vs.
Tan
Pho,
51
Phil.
862;
Hend
erson
vs.
Tan,
87 Phil.
466).
10. Th e object o f a judgmen t nunc pro tunc i s
not
th e renditio n o f a ne w judgmen t an d th e ascertainmen t
an d determinatio n o f ne w rights , bu t i s on e placin g i

n
prope r form o n th e recor d th e j u dg me n t t h a t ha s b
ee n
previousl y r e n d e r e d ,
t o m a k e i t s p e a k th e t r
u t h an d
thereb y sho w w h a t th e judicia l actio n reall y was .
I t ma y
no t b e availe d o f t o correc t judicia l errors , suc h a s t o rende
r
a j u d g m e n t whic h th e cour t ough t t o hav e rendere d
i n
plac e o f th e on e i t di d erroneousl y rende r o r t o suppl y non
action b y th e cour t howeve r erroneou s th e judgmen t ma y
hav e bee n
(Manning International
Corp.,
et al. vs.
NLRC,
et al., G.R. No.
83018, Mar.
13,
1991).
1 1 . I t i s th e filin g o f th e signe d decision wit
h th e
clerk o f court , an d no t it s pronouncemen t i n ope n court ,
t h a t constitute s renditio n o f judgmen t
(Ago vs. CA, e
t al.,
L-17898,
Oct.
31,
1962;
Balquidra
vs.
CFI
of
Capiz,
L-40490,
Oct.
28,
1977; Castro vs. Malazo, A.M. No.
1237416
----------------------- Page 417----------------------RULE 36
1
SEC
AND ENTRY THEREOF

CAR, Aug. 21, 1980).
I f th e decision i s sen t by th e judg
e
by registere d mail , it i s considere d filed in cour t a s o f th e
dat e o f it s receip t by th e clerk , an d no t th e dat e
it s
postin g or mailin g (se e Sec. 51, R.A. 296, a s amende d by
R.A.
1186 an d R.A.
1404).
o f
12. A judgmen t mus t conform t o th e pleading s an d

th e theor y o f th e action unde r which th e cas e wa s tried .
A judgmen t goin g outsid e th e issue s an d purportin g t o
adjudicate somethin g o n which th e partie s wer e no t hear d
is invali d
(Lazo,
et al. vs. Republic
Surety
&
Insuran
ce
Co., Inc., L-27365,
Jan. 30,
1970).
13. A decision o f th e Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e wit h
absolutely nothin g t o suppor t it i s a nullity an d open t o
direct attac k
(Air France vs.
Carrascoso, et al., L-21488,
Sept.
28,
1966).
14. A judgmen t contrar y t o th e expres s provision s

of law i s erroneou s bu t it i s not void .
Onc e it become s
final an d executory , it i s a s bindin g an d effective a s an y
judgmen t and , thoug h erroneous , wil l b e enforce d a s a
vali d j u d g m e n t i n accordanc e
wit h
it s disposition s
(Mercado,
et
al.
vs.
CA,
et
al,
L-44001,
June
10,
1988)
.
15. Th e validity o f a judgmen t or orde r o f a cour t
cannot b e collaterally attacke d except on th e groun d o f
(a) lack o f jurisdiction , or (b) irregularit y o f it s entr y
apparen t from th e face o f th e record .
I f th e suppose
d
nullity i s base d on th e party' s allege d lack o f consen t t o
th e compromis e agreement , th e remed y i s t o mov e for it s
reconsideration an d t o appea l from th e th e judgmen t i f
th e motion i s denied ; or i f th e judgmen t i s alread y fina l
and executory , t o file a petitio n for relie f unde r Rul e 3 8
(Cadano
vs. Cadano,
L-34998,
Jan.
11, 1973).
16. Wher e th e judgmen t i s ambiguou s an d difficult
t o compl y with , th e remed y i s t o file a motio n for
a
so-called
"clarificatory "
judgmen t
(Almendras
vs.
Del
Rosario, L-20158, Oct. 14, 1968).
Th e court may correct
417
----------------------- Page 418----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 1
a clerica l erro r o r clarify a n ambiguit y i n th e judgmen t

even afte r it s finality (Presbitero
vs. CA,
et al, L
-34241,
May
28,
1984;
Rebuldela,
et al.
vs. IAC,
et al.
,
G.R.
No.
70856, Nov.
11,
1987).
Fo r sai d purpose , th e co
ur t
may resor t t o th e pleading s filed by th e parties , th e finding s
of fact an d th e conclusion s o f law expresse d in th e tex t or
body
of th e
decision
(Republic
Surety
&
Insurance
Co.,
Inc.
vs. IAC,
et al., G.R.
Nos.
71131-32, July 27,
1987).
17. T h e r e i s a differenc e
b e t w e e n a n
e n d e d
judgmen t an d a supplementa l judgment .
I n a
ende d
an d clarifie d judgment , th e cour t make s a thoroug h stud y
o f th e origina l judgmen t an d render s th e amende d an
clarified judgmen t only afte r considerin g al l th e factua l
an d lega l issues .
Suc h amende d an d clarifie d decision
an entirel y ne w decisio n whic h supersede s th e origina
a m
n am
d
i s
l
decision .
A supplementa l decision doe s no t tak e th e plac e
o f o r extinguis h th e original ; i t only serve s t o bolste r o r
ad d somethin g t o
e t al.
vs. Alegre,
etc.,
989).
18.
th e
et
primar y
decision
al, G.R.
No.
(Esquivel,
79425,
April
17,
Fina l order s shoul d stat e th e fact s o n whic h the
y
a r e
b a s e d
L-27402,
July 25, 1981).
(Yuson
de
Pua
vs.
San
Agustin,
Whil e th e Rule s d o no t specifically requir e
finding s o f fact an d th e law o n whic h a n orde r o f dismissa l

i s based , for th e satisfactio n o f th e losin g part y an d
t o
assist th e appellat e cour t i n th e resolutio n o f a n appea l
therefrom , a tria l cour t shoul d reaso n ou t it s orde r instea d
of merel y incorporating , b y reference , th e content s o f th e
motio n to dismis s
(Mascunana vs. Prov. Bd. of Neg.
Occ,
L-27013,
Oct.
15, 1977).
Minut e orders , or thos e merel
y
s t a t i n g t h a t t h e tria l cour t ha d resolve d t o g r
a n t th e
motio n t o dismiss , shoul d b e avoided .
Instead , th e
tria l
court shoul d specify th e reason s i o r th e dismissa l s o t h a t
th e appellat e cour t ca n readil y determin e whethe r ther e
i s prima
facie justificatio n
for th e
orde r
o f dis
missa l
(Continental Bank
vs.
Tiangco,
G.R.
No.
50480,
De
c.
14,
1979).
I n issuin g a fina l an d appealabl e order , th e tria l
41 8
----------------------- Page 419----------------------RULE 36
EC 1
AND ENTRY THEREOF

court shoul d stat e clearly th e reason s for it s issuance , with
specific reference s t o th e fact s an d law relie d upon ,
necessary for th e full understandin g thereof ; otherwise ,
t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t woul d b e a t a los s o r a t
l e a s t
unnecessaril y inconvenience d i n ascertainin g th e definit e
basi s of th e orde r (Amunategue
vs. CA,
et at., L-30
340,
June
30,
1979).
19. Ever y cour t havin g jurisdictio n t o r e n d e r a
particula r judgmen t ha s inheren t power an d authorit y t o
enforce i t an d t o exercis e equitabl e contro l ove r suc h
enforcement .
Th e cour t ha s authorit y t o inquir e whethe r
it s j u d g m e n t h a s bee n
e x e c u t e d , an d wil l
r e
m o v e
obstruction s t o th e enforcemen t thereof .
Such authorit
y
extend s not only t o such order s an d suc h writ s a s ma y b e
necessary t o carr y ou t th e judgmen t int o effect an d rende r
it bindin g an d operative , bu t als o t o such order s a s may
b e necessar y t o preven t an imprope r enforcemen t o f th e
judgment .
I f a judgmen t i s sough t t o b e perverte d an d
mad e th e mediu m o f consummatin g a wrong , th e cour t on
prope r application can preven t it
[31 Am.
JUT., Judgment
s,
Sec.
882,
pp.
363
364]
(Cabrias
vs.
Adil,
L-49
648,
Mar.
18,
1985).
20 . Th e requiremen t in Sec .
1 o f thi s Rul e tha
t a
decision shoul d stat e th e fact s an d law on which it i s base d
(see
Sec. 9, Art. X,
1973 Constitution) formerly
appl
ie d
only t o decision s o f court s o f record , an d no t thos e o
f
inferior courts , pursuan t t o Sec . 12, Art . VII o f th e 193 5
Constitution .
Thus , formerly , decision s o f an inferior court
wer e not require d t o contai n finding s o f fact an d law (then
Sec. 14, Rule 5), unles s it sit s a s a cour t of recor d in a
criminal cas e appealabl e t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s or th e
S u p r e m e
C o u r t
(Sec.
87,
R.A.
296,
as
amende
d).
However , unde r R.A . 6031 , inferior court s becam e court s
o f recor d an d th e fact s an d law mus t appea r i n thei
r
decisions .
Also , Rul e 5 ha s been expressly repeale d an d
th e procedur e in inferior court s i s now th e sam e a s tha t in
419
----------------------- Page 420----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 2
th e Regiona l Tria l Courts .

Nevertheless , i t ha s repeatedl y bee n hel d t h a t sai d
requirement , se t ou t i n th e foregoin g constitutiona l an d
statutory provisions , refer s only t o decision s o n th e merit s
an d no t t o order s resolvin g incidenta l matter s
(Me
ndoza
vs. CFI of Quezon, et al, L-35612
14, June 27,
1973,
citin g
Soncuya
vs.
National
Investment
Board,
69
Phil.
602
an d
Bacolod
Murcia
Milling
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Henares,
107
Phil.
560).
2 1 . Th e Suprem e Cour t i s no t compelle d t o adop t a
definite an d stringen t rul e o n how it s judgmen t shal l b e

framed .
I t ha s th e discretio n t o decid e whethe r a "minut e
resolution " shoul d b e use d in lieu o f a full-blown decision
in an y particula r cas e an d t h a t a minut e resolutio n o
f
dismissa l o f a petitio n for revie w on certiorar i constitute s
an adjudicatio n o n th e merit s o f th e controvers y o r subject m a t t e r o f th e petition .
Sinc e th e gran t o f a petitio n
for
review on certiorar i i s no t a m a t t e r o f righ t bu t o f sou
n d
judicia l discretion , ther e i s accordingl y n o nee d t o fully
explain th e Court' s denial .
Suc h a minut e resolutio n ca
n
only mea n t h a t th e Suprem e Cour t agree s wit h o r adopt s
th e finding s an d conclusion s o f th e lowe r court , t h a t is ,
t h a t th e latter' s decision sough t t o b e reviewe d an d se
t
asid e is correc t (Smith, Bell &
Co. [Phil.], Inc.,
et
al. vs,
CA,
et al, G.R.
No.
56294, May 20,
1991).
22 .
Sec .
40 ,
B.P .
Big .
12 9 ha s authorize d
memo -
r a n d u m decisions , a specie s o f succinctl y writte n decision s

b y a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s for expediency ,
p r a c t i c a
l i t y an d
convenienc e
i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e docke t s
t a t u s o f
our courts .
I t ha s bee n hel d t h a t suc h decision s comply
wit h
th e constitutiona l
Gas
Commission vs. CA, et al,
1999).
However ,
t o
b e
m a n d a t e
G.R.
valid ,
No.
(Oil
suc h
114323,
and
Sept.
m e m o r a n d u m
Natural
28,
decisio
n
shoul d actuall y embod y th e factua l finding s an d
lega l
conclusion s i n a n anne x attache d t o an d mad e a n integra l
p a r t o f t h e decision .
Also ,
suc h decision s shoul d
b e
420
----------------------- Page 421----------------------RULE 36

AND ENTRY THEREOF
SEC. 2
sparingly use d an d ma y b e resorte d t o only in case s wher e

th e fact s ar e accepte d in th e mai n by th e parties , ar e easily
determinabl e by th e judg e an d d o not involv e doctrina l
complication s requirin g extende d discussion .
I t may b e
employed in simpl e case s wher e th e appea l i s obviously
groundles s an d deserve s n o mor e tha n th e tim e t o dismis s
it (Yao vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.

case s therei n cited,) .
132428,
Oct. 24, 2000 an d
23 . A judgmen t for suppor t doe s not becom e fina l

becaus e th e allowanc e for th e righ t o f suppor t i s essentially
provisiona l
(Advincula
vs. Advincula,
L-19065,
Jan.
31,
1964).
24 . A judgmen t in a naturalizatio n cas e become s final
only after th e issuanc e o f th e naturalizatio n certificat e
and complianc e by th e applican t wit h R.A . 530
(Ao San
vs. Republic,
L-21128, Aug.
19, 1967),
bu t unlik e othe r
decisions , i t doe s no t reall y becom e executor y an d a
certificate o f naturalizatio n may b e cancelle d on ground s
subsequent
t o th e grantin g thereo f (Republic
vs. Guy,
L 41399,
July 20, 1982).
25 . A judg e permanentl y transferre d t o anothe r court
of equa l jurisdiction can render a decision on a cas e in hi s
former court which wa s totally hear d by him an d submitte d
for decision, with th e partie s havin g argue d th e case (Valentin
vs. Sta. Maria, et al., L-30158, Jan. 17,1974).
Thi s decision
abandon s
th e doctrin e
in People vs. Soria
(L-25175 ,
Mar . 1 , 1968) an d reiterate s th e rulin g in People vs. Donesa
(L-24162, Jan . 31 , 1973) .
Th e present doctrin e applie s t o
both civil an d crimina l cases .
Sec . 2 . Entry of judgments
and final orders.
If
n o appea l o r motio n fo r ne w tria l o r reconsideratio n
i s file d withi n th e tim e provide d i n thes e Rules , th e
judgmen t o r fina l orde r shal l forthwit h b e entere d
b y th e cler k i n th e boo k o f entrie s o f judgments . Th e
dat e o f finalit y o f th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r shal l
421
----------------------- Page 422----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 6
b e d e e m e d t
recor d
shal l c o n t a i
u d g m e n t
o r fina l o r d e
it h
a certificat e t h
s
b e c o m e fina l

o
b e
t h e
t h e
d a t e
o f it s
d i s p o s i t i v e
entry .
par t
T h e
o f t h e
r a n d shal l b e s i g n e d b y t h e clerk , w
a t
s u c h j u d g m e n t o r
a n d e x e c u t o r y .
(2a ,
fina l orde r h a
10 , R51 )
NOTE S
1.
Th e a m e n d m e n t s unde r thi s section , t o th e e
ffect
t h a t th e dat e o f finality o f th e judgmen t o r fina l
orde r
shall b e deeme d t o b e th e dat e o f it s entry , change s th e
former rul e an d abandon s th e jurisprudenc e o n wha t wa s
the n considere d th e dat e o f entr y o f judgment s an d fina l

orders .
Th e
forme r
d o c t r i n e w a s t h a t t h e e n t r
y i s no t
synonymou s o r necessaril y simultaneou s wit h th e finality
o f th e judgmen t o r fina l order .
I t wa s understoo d
the n
t h a t th e finality o f a judgmen t or fina l order , for purpose s
of appea l or execution , took plac e by operatio n o f law by
th e laps e o f th e reglementar y 15 - o r 30 - da y period , bu t
th e entr y thereo f ma y tak e plac e thereafte r a s i t i s
th e
physica l ac t o f actuall y recordin g th e dispositiv e portio n
of th e judgmen t or fina l orde r in th e book o f entrie s o f
j u d g m e n t s .
Thus , i t wa s repeatedl y hel d
e
judgmen t wa s entirel y distinc t from it
in th e latte r doe s no t affect th e
r
whic h i s counte d from th e expiratio n
(Munez,
et al. us.
987,
an d
case s cite d therein,) .
CA,
et
t h a t th e finality o f th
s entr y an d th e delay
effectivity o f th e forme
o f th e perio d t o appea l
al., L-46040,
July
23,
Thi s a m e n d m e n t i n Sec . 2 make s finality an d entr

y
s i m u l t a n e o u s b y o p e r a t i o n o f la w a
n a t e s th e
confusion an d guesswor k wheneve r th e partie s coul d
hav e access , for on e reaso n o r another , t o
o f
entrie s o f judgments .
I t als o avoid s th
ble m
wher e th e physica l ac t o f writin g ou t th e entr y
n d
not
th e
e
i s delaye d
422
----------------------- Page 423----------------------JUDGMENTS,
AND
book
usua l pro
b y neglec t o r sloth .
RULE 36
SECS. 3-5
e l i m i
FINAL ORDERS
ENTRY THEREOF
2.
Entry of the judgment or final order assumes
importance in reckoning some reglementary periods,
such as the 5-year period for execution by motion (Sec. 6,
Rule 39) or the 6-month period for a petition for relief
(Sec. 3, Rule 38). For this reason and to serve as official
records, Rule 136 requires that the clerk of court shall
keep a judgment book containing a copy of each judgment
rendered by the court in the order of its date, and a book
of entrie s of judgment s containing at length in

chronological order entries of all final judgments or orders
of the court (Sec. 9).
Sec .
3 . Judgment
for
or
against
one
or
more
of
several parties.
J u d g m e n t
m a y
b e
g i v e n
fo r
o r
a g a i n s t o n e o r m o r e o f s e v e r a l plaintiffs , a n d f
o r o r
a g a i n s t o n e o r m o r e o f s e v e r a l d e f e n d a n t
s . W h e n
j u s t i c e s o d e m a n d s ,
t h e c o u r t m a y
r e q u
i r e t h e
p a r t i e s o n e a c h sid e t o fil e a d v e r s a r y p l e
a d i n g s a s
b e t w e e n t h e m s e l v e s
a n d d e t e r m i n e t h e i r
u l t i m a t e
r i g h t s a n d o b l i g a t i o n s . (3)
Sec . 4 .
Several
a c t i o n
a g a i n s t s e v e r a l d e
, w h e n a
s e v e r a l j u d g m e n t
d g m e n t
a g a i n s t o n e o r m o r
a c t i o n t o
p r o c e e d a g a i n s t t h e
judgments.
f e n d a n t s , t h e
I n
i s
e
p r o p e r ,
o f t h e m ,
o t h e r s .
a n
c o u r t m a y
r e n d e r
j u
l e a v i n g t h e
(4)
Sec .
5 .
Separate judgments.
W h e n
t h a n
o n e c l a i m fo r relie f i s p r e s e n t e d i n a n
i o n , t h e
c o u r t , a t a n y s t a g e , u p o n a
d e t e r m i n a t
o f t h e
i s s u e s m a t e r i a l
t o a
p a r t i c u l a r c l a i
a n d
a l l
c o u n t e r c l a i m s
a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e t r a n
t i o n o r
o c c u r r e n c e w h i c h i s t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o
e claim ,
m a y r e n d e r a s e p a r a t e j u d g m e n t d i s p o s i
o f s u c h
c l a i m .
T h e j u d g m e n t s h a l l t e r m i n a t e
a c t i o n
w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e c l a i m s o d i s p o s e d
a n d t h e
a c t i o n s h a l l p r o c e e d a s t o t h e r e m a i n i n g
a i m s . I n
m o r e
a c t
i o n
m
s a c
f t h
n g
t h e
o f
c l
423
----------------------- Page 424----------------------RULE 36
SEC. 6
c a s e a s e p a r a t e j u d g m e n t i s r e n d e r e d , t h e c
o u r t b y
orde r m a y sta y
o n
o f a s u b s e q
n d
m a y
prescrib e s u c h
r y t o
s e c u r e t h e
n w h o s e
favo r t h e j u d
it s e n f o r c e m e n t unti l t h e r e n d i t i
u e n t j u d g m e n t
c o n d i t i o n s
o r
b e n e f i t
a s
j u d g m e n t s
m a y
t h e r e o f t o
b e
n e c e s s a
g m e n t i s r e n d e r e d .
t h e part y
(5a )
Sec .
6.
Judgment
against
entity
juridical
personality.
W h e n
j u d g m e n t
i s r e
a g a i n s t
t w o o r m o r e
p e r s o n s
s u e d a s a n
w i t h o u t
j u r i d i c a l p e r s o n a l i t y , t h e j u d g m e n
s e t o u t
t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l o r p r o p e r n a m e s , i
(6a )
without
n d e r e d
e n t i t y
t
s h a l l
f k n o w n .
NOTE S
1.
Sec .
give s th e
meanin g o f a
severa l judgmen t
an d Sec . 5 , a separat e judgment .

A severa l judgmen
t i s
prope r wher e th e liability o f eac h part y i s clearly separabl e
an d distinc t from t h a t o f hi s co-partie s suc h t h a t th e cl
aim s
a g a i n s t eac h o f t h e m coul d hav e bee n t h e subjec
t o f
separat e suits , an d judgmen t for o r agains t on e o f the m
wil l no t necessaril y affect th e others .
I n action s
agains t
solidary debtors , a severa l judgmen t i s no t proper .
Thus ,
unde r Sec . 3(c) , Rul e 9 , wher e ther e i s a commo n caus e o f
action agains t severa l defendant s an d som e ar e i n default ,
th e cas e shal l b e trie d o n th e basi s o f th e answe r o f th
e
non-defaultin g defendant s a s a severa l judgmen t i s no t
proper , ther e bein g a commo n caus e o f actio n agains t all .
2 . Regardin g Sec . 6 , se e th e provision s o f Sec .
,
Rul e 3 an d th e note s thereunder .
3 .
become s
immutabl e
ma y n o
longer b e
i s m e a n
A
an d
decisio n
t h a t
h a s
unalterable .
acquire d
A
15
finalit y
fina l j u d g m e n t
modifie d i n an y respect , eve n i f th e modification

t t o correc t erroneou s conclusion s o f fact an d law ;
an d whethe r i t b e mad e b y th e cour t t h a t rendere d i t o r

by th e
l.,
highes t cour t o f th e
lan d
(Collantes
vs.
CA,
e t a
G.R.
No.
169604,
Mar.
6,
2007).
424
----------------------- Page 425----------------------RULE 36
SEC.
6
AND ENTRY THEREOF
Th e
ma y n o
e
correction
entrie s
judgments ,
after th
only exception s t o th e rul e tha t fina l judgment s

longe r b e modifie d i n an y respec t ar e (1)
th
of clerica l errors , (2) th e so-calle d nunc pro tunc

whic h caus e n o prejudic e t o an y party , (3) void
an d (4) wheneve r circumstance s t r a n s p i r e
e finalit y o f th e decisio n makin g it s executio n
unjus t an d inequitabl e (Ramos vs. Ramos, G.R. No 144294,

Mar.
11, 2003;
Sacdalan vs.
CA, et al., 128967, May
2004; Peha
vs.
GSIS,
G.R.
No.
159520,
Sept.
19,
20,
2006).
425
----------------------- Page 426----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 1

RUL E
NE W
TRIA L
O R
3 7
RECONSIDERATIO N
Sectio n
1.
Grounds of and period for
or
new
trial
o r
reconsideration.
W i t
p e r i o d
fo r
t a k i n g a n
a p p e a l , t h e
a g g r
t y m a y
m o v e t h e tria l c o u r t t o se t a s i d e
m e n t o r
fina l o r d e r a n d g r a n t a n e w tria l
m o r e
o f t h e
f o l l o w i n g c a u s e s m a t e r i a
t i n g t h e
s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f sai d party :
(a)
F r a u d ,
a c c i d e n
c u s a b l e
n e g l i g e n c e
w h i c h
o r d i
u l d
n o t
h a v e g u a r d e d a g a i n s t a n
h s u c h
a g g r i e v e d part y h a s probabl y
s
rights ; o r
(b)
t ,
motion f
h i n
t h e
i e v e d
p a r
t h e
fo r
j u d g
l l y
o n e
o r
a f f e c
m i s t a k e
n a r y
d
filing
o r
p r u d e n c e
e x
c o
b y r e a s o n o f w h i c
b e e n i m p a i r e d
i n hi
N e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , w h i c h h e
c o u l d
not , w i t h r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e , h a v e d i s c o v e
r e d an d
p r o d u c e d a t t h e trial , a n d w h i c h i f p r e s e n t e d w
o u l d
p r o b a b l y a l t e r t h e result .
W i t h i n
t h e s a m e
p a r t y
m a y
a l s o
m o v e
f o
o n
t h e
g r o u n d s t h a t t h e d a
s s i v e ,
t h a t t h e
e v i d e n c e
t i f y t h e
d e c i s i o n o r fina l order ,
fina l
o r d e r i s c o n t r a r y t o
p e r i o d , t h e
a g g r i e v e
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n
m a g e s
i s
a w a r d e d
u p
ar e
e x c e
i n s u f f i c i e n t t o
j u s
o r t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o r
law .
( l a )
N O T E S
1.
th e
former Sec
"
Unde r th e
a notic e
h e
expiration
Th e
.
wor d
1
"perfecting "
ha s
bee n
in
th e
correctl y
firs t claus e
change d
t o
o f
"taking.
presen t procedure , a n appea l i s taken b y filin g

o f appeal , an d th e appea l i s perfected upo n
o f t h e las t da y t o appea l b y an y party .

I n
case s wher e a recor d on appea l i s required , appea l i s taken
b y filin g th e notic e o f appea l an d th e recor d o n appea
l ,
426
----------------------- Page 427----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 1
NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
an d th e appea l is perfected upo n th e approva l o f th e recor d

on appea l
(Destileria Lim Tuaco & Co., Inc.
vs. CA,
et al,
G.R.
No.
63053,
July 22,
1986).
Thi s sectio n
second p a r a g r a p h
n s for
reconsideratio n whic h
governe d b y th e sam e
2 .
ha s bee n furthe r reformulate d wit h a

s e p a r a t e l y t r e a t i n g o n motio
ar e similarl y bu t no t completel y
rule s o n motion s for new trial .
A motio n for new tria l shoul d b e filed withi n th e
perio d for appeal , t h a t is , withi n 1 5 or 3 0 day s from notic e

o f th e judgment .
I t suspend s th e runnin g o f th e perio d t
o
appeal , bu t doe s no t exten d th e tim e withi n whic h a n
appeal , mus t b e perfecte d (taken) , hence , i f denied , th e
movan t ha s only th e balanc e o f th e reglementar y perio d

withi n whic h t o perfec t (take ) hi s appea l
(Ramirez d
e l a
Cavada,
et al. vs. Butte,
100 Phil.
635).
3 .
However , i f a motio n for new tria l doe s no t satisfy
th e requirement s o f thi s Rule , it i s pro forma an d doe s not

suspend th e perio d to appea l
(Sec. 2; Francisco vs. Caluag
,
L-15365,
Dec.
26,
1961).
A
motio n
for
ne w
t r
i a l i s
considered pro forma where :
(a) I t i s base d o n th e sam e groun d a s tha t raise d i
n a
precedin g motio n for ne w tria l o r reconsideratio n whic h
ha s
alread y bee n denie d
(Samudio,
et al. vs. Mun
.
of
Gainza,
Camarines
Sur,
100
Phil.
1013);
(b) I t contain s th e sam e argument s an d manne r o f
discussion appearin g i n th e prio r opposition t o th e motion
to dismis s an d which motion wa s grante d
(Cruz vs.
azon
& Co.,
Inc., et al, L-23749, April
7, 1977);
Tu
(c) Th e new groun d allege d in th e secon d motion for

new tria l alread y existed , wa s availabl e an d coul d hav e
bee n allege d in th e first motion for new tria l whic h wa s
denied
(Mallare, et al.
vs. Panahon, et al,
98 Phil.
154;
Balquidra
vs. CFI,
et al, L 40490,
Oct.
28,
1977);
(d)
I t
i s
base d
on
th e groun d
o f insufficienc y
f
evidenc e
o r
t h a t
th e judgmen t
i s
contrar y
t o
law
bu
t
427
----------------------- Page 428----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 1
doe s no t specify th e suppose d defect s i n th e judgmen t

(Sec.
2;
Villalon,
et al.
vs. Ysip,
et al., 98
Phil
.
851;
Crisostomo, et al.
vs.
CA,
et al., L-27166, Mar.
25,
1970;
Villarica, et al.
vs. CA, et al., L-28363, May 15,
1974
; City
of Cebu
vs.
Mendoza,
et
al,
L-26321,
Feb.
25,
1975;
Nieto
vs. De
los Angeles,
L-35514,
Nov.
13,
1981);
an d
(e)
ident ,
I t
i s
base d
o n
t h e
groun d
o f fraud ,
acc
mistak
facts
by an
e tha
frau d
y
(Sec.
e o r excusabl e negligenc e
constitutin g thes e ground s
affidavit o f merit s (Sec.
t
an d
m i s t a k e m u s
5,
Rule
bu t doe s no t specify th e
and/o r i s no t accompanie d
2 o f thi s Rule) .
t
b e allege d
wit h
Not
particularit
8).
F u r t h e r m o r e , sai d motio n
m u s t compl y
w
i t h th e
provision s o f Rul e 15 , otherwis e it wil l no t b e accepte d for
filin g
a n d / o r wil l
n o t s u s p e n d t h e r u n n i n g
o f t h e
reglementar y period .
Se e note s an d case s unde r Sec .
6 ,
Rul e 15 .
It shoul d als o b e observe d t h a t heretofore , unde r Sec .
4 o f th e Interi m Rules , n o part y shal l b e allowe d t o file
a
secon d
motio n
de r
or
j u dg me n t o f th
n
for
new
trial
e r
t h e
circumstance s se t
sectio n
ha s now expressl
t h e I n t e r i m
s for
reconsideration.
for
reconsideration
e tria l courts .
w o u l d
o f
However ,
fina l
or
a secon d motio
s t i l l b e a v a i l a b l e u n d
ou t i n Sec . 5 o f thi s Rule .

y
adopte d th e foregoin g prohibitio n

Rule s w i t h respec t t o secon d
Thi s
i n
motion
4 .
I t ha s bee n held , however , t h a t eve n i f th e mo
tio n
for reconsideratio n i s base d o n substantiall y th e sam e
ground s
a s movant' s
memorandum
whe n
th e cas
e
wa s
submitte d for decision , it i s no t pro forma i f it specifically
point s ou t th e conclusion s allegedl y no t s u p p o r t e d b
y
th e evidenc e
(Maturan
vs. Araula,
et al, G.R.
No.
57392,
Jan.
30,
1982),
asid e
fro m
s t a t i n g a d d i t i o n a
l specifi c
reason s
for sai d
ground s
(Vina
vs.
CA,
et al,
L-39498,
Dec.
23,
1983).
42 8
----------------------- Page 429----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 1
Also , whil e a motio n for new tria l base d on frau d an d

so forth i s pro forma if unaccompanie d by an affidavit of
merits , wher e sai d motio n als o invoke s th e furthe r

t h a t it s decisio n a w a r d s excessiv e
d a m a
t h a
certification o f th e court' s finding s an d conclusions ,
motion i s
no t pro forma a s th e
latte r groun
no t
requir e affidavit s of merit s
(PCIB vs. Ortiz, et
3,
May
29,
1987).
groun d
g e s , w i
sai d
doe s
al., L-4922
5.
Furthermore , th e concept oipro forma motion s for
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s properl y directe d
a g a i n s t a
fina l
judgmen t o r order , an d not thos e agains t a n interlocutor y
order .
In th e former , a repetitio n o f th e groun d alread y
disposed o f ma y b e categorize d a s merel y for purpose s o f
delay ,
henc e
suc h
motio n
i s pro forma; bu t suc h
rul e
does no t appl y t o motion s directe d agains t interlocutor y
o r d e r s
(BA
Finance
Corp.
vs.
Pineda,
et al.,
G.R.
No. 61628, Dec. 29, 1982).
Se e als o Not e 1 1 unde r Sec .
1 ,
Rul e 65 .
6 .
On
th e pro forma
doctrine ,
it
i s
wort h
recallin g
w h a t
t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t r e i t e r a t e d i n Dacanay
vs.
Alvendia, e t al. (L-22633 ,
Oct .
31 , 1969) tha t wher e
a
motion for reconsideratio n i s bu t a reiteratio n o f reason s
an d a r g u m e n t s previousl y se t fort h i n th e
movant
' s
m e m o r a n d u m
an d whic h th e
t r i a l cour t ha d alr
ead y
considered ,
weighe d an d resolve d adversel y befor e i t
rendere d it s decision now sough t t o b e considered , tha t
motion is pro forma.
Th e sai d cas e law rest s upo n th e principl e tha t suc h a
motion ha s n o othe r purpos e tha n t o gain tim e b y delayin g
or impedin g th e progres s o f th e action .
Thi s i s th e l
ogica l
deduction tha t ca n b e draw n from a motion whic h merely
reiterate s an d repleads , an d add s nothin g mor e to , th e
argument s which ha d previously bee n submitte d t o th e
same cour t an d whic h argument s i t ha d duly considere d
and resolved .
429
----------------------- Page 430----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 1
,
But ,
Inc.

a s pointe d
ou t
in
Guerra
Enterprises
Co.
vs.
CFI ofLanao del Sur

(L-28310 , Apri l
17 , 1970)
th e
mer e fact tha t a motion for reconsideratio n deal s wit h th e
same issue s an d argument s alread y pose d t o an d resolve d
by th e tria l cour t in it s decision doe s no t necessaril y mea n
tha t th e sam e i s pro forma.
A pleade r preparin g a motion
for
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n m u s t o f n e c e s s i t y a d d r
e s s th e
argument s accepte d by th e cour t in it s decision .
In
doin g
so, h e ha s t o dwel l upo n th e sam e issue s passe d upo n b y
th e cour t and , i f in hi s motion h e ma y not discus s thos e
issues , th e consequenc e woul d b e tha t afte r a decision i s
rendere d the n th e losin g part y woul d b e confine d t o filing
only motion s for reopenin g an d new trial .
Wher e th e circumstance s o f a cas e d o no t show an

inten t o n th e p a r t o f th e pleade r t o merel y dela y
th e
proceedings , an d hi s motion reveal s a bona fide effort t o
presen t additiona l matter s o r t o reiterat e hi s argument s
in a different light , th e court s shoul d b e slow t o declar e
th e sam e outrigh t a s pro forma.
Th e doctrin e relatin g
t o
pro forma motion s ha s a direc t bearin g upo n th e movant' s
valuabl e righ t t o appeal .
I t woul d b e in th e interes t
o f
justic e t o accor d th e appellat e cour t th e opportunit y t o
review th e decision o f th e tria l cour t o n th e merit s tha n t
o
abort th e appea l by declarin g th e motio n pro forma,
tha t th e perio d t o appea l wa s no t interrupte d
consequently
such
an d
ha d
lapsed .
7 . A motion for reconsideration , i f base d on th e sam e

ground s a s tha t for a new trial , i s considere d a motion for
new tria l an d ha s th e sam e effect (Rodriguez vs.
Rovira,
63 Phil. 476).
However , wher e th e motion for new tria l i s
base d on th e las t p a r a g r a p h o f Sec . 1 , it i s proper
l y a
motion for reconsideratio n a s th e movan t merel y ask s th e
court t o reevaluat e it s decisio n withou t a tria l bein g
conducted agai n on th e issue s involve d (City of Cebu, e t
al. vs. Mendoza,
et al., supra).
430
----------------------- Page 431----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 1
8.

Fraud , a s a groun d for new trial , mus t b e extrinsic
or collateral , tha t is , it i s th e kin d o f frau d which prevente d

th e aggrieve d part y from havin g a tria l o r presentin g hi s
case t o th e court , o r wa s use d t o procur e th e judgmen t
withou t fair submissio n o f th e controversy .

Instance s
o f
collateral frau d ar e act s intende d t o keep th e unsuccessfu l
p a r t y a w a y
fro m
t h e c o u r t b y a fals e
p r o m i
s e o f
compromise , or purposel y keep s hi m in ignoranc e o f th e
suit , o r w h e r e th e a t t o r n e y fraudulentl y p r e t e n d
s t o
represen t a part y an d connive s a t hi s defeat , o r corruptl y
sells ou t hi s client' s interes t
(Magno vs.
CA, et a
l, L28486,
Sept. 10,
1981).
It i s to be distinguishe d fr
om
intrinsic frau d whic h refer s t o th e act s o f a part y at th
e
tria l whic h prevente d a fair an d jus t determinatio n o f
th e cas e
(Palanca
vs. American Food Mfg.
Co.,
L-2
2822,
Aug.
30,
1968) an d whic h coul d hav e bee n litigate d an d
determine d a t th e tria l o r adjudicatio n o f th e case , suc h
a s falsification , fals e testimon y an d s o forth , an d doe s not
constitut e a groun d for new tria l (Tarca vs.
Phil. 419; Conde vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No.
15,
1986).
Carretero, 99
70443, Sept.
9 . Mistak e generall y refer s t o mistake s o f fact bu t

ma y als o includ e mistake s o f law where , in good faith , th e
defendant wa s misle d i n th e case .
Thus , a mistak e a s
t o
th e scop e an d exten t o f th e coverag e o f an ordinanc e
(City
of Iloilo vs. Pinzon,
9 7 Phil.
968 [Unrep.J),
or a mist
ak e
as t o th e effect o f a compromis e agreemen t upo n th e nee d
for answerin g
a complain t
(Salazar
vs. Salazar,
8
Phil.
183), althoug h actuall y constitutin g mistake s o f law , hav e
bee n considere d sufficient t o warran t a new trial .
A s a genera l rule , a client i s boun d by th
hi s counse l
(Que vs. CA, et al, G.R. No.
10,
1980).
Only whe n th e applicatio n o f thi s
would resul t in seriou s injustic e shoul d an exception
be
applie d
(Villa
Rhecar
Bus
vs. De
et al,
G.R. No.
78936, Jan.
7, 1988).
e mistake s o f
54169, Nov.
genera l rul e
theret o
la
Cruz,
431
----------------------- Page 432----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 1
10.
l y

Negligenc e
m u s t
b e excusabl e
an d
general
imputabl e t o th e part y bu t th e negligenc e o f counse l i s

bindin g o n th e clien t jus t a s th e latte r i s boun d b y th e
mistake s of hi s lawye r
(Gaba vs. Castro, G.R. No.
5
6171,
Jan.
31,
1983; Ayllon
vs. Sevilla,
et al., G.R.
No.
7
9244,
Dec. 10, 1987).
However , negligenc e o f th e counse l may
also b e a groun d for new tria l i f it wa s s o grea t suc h tha t
th e p a r t y wa s
prejudice d
an d p r e v e n t e d fro m
fairl y
presentin g hi s cas e
(People vs. Manzanilla,
43 Phil.
167;
cf. Republic
vs. Arro,
et al., L-48241,
June
11,
1987).
11.
Newl y
discovere d
evidence ,
t o
w a r r a n t
new
trial , (a) mus t hav e bee n discovere d afte r trial , (b) could
no t hav e bee n discovere d an d produce d a t th e tria l despit e
reasonabl e diligence , an d (c) i f presented , woul d probably
alter th e
resul t o f th e
actio n
(National Shipyards
and
Steel Corp. vs. Asuncion, et al., 103 Phil. 67).
Mer e ini
tia l
hostility o f a witnes s at th e tria l doe s no t constitut e hi s
testimon y int o newly discovere d evidenc e (Arce vs. Arce,
106 Phil.
630).
12. Generally , a clien t wil l suffer th e consequence s
of th e negligence , mistak e or lack o f competenc e o f counsel ;
however , i n th e interes t o f justic e an d equity , exception s
may b e mad e i n instance s wher e th e part y ma y b e unjustly
deprived o f hi s property . Thus , th e cour t wil l no t disregar d
th e verifie d defens e i n th e answe r t h a t th e transactio
n
betwee n th e partie s wa s reall y a n equitabl e mortgag e an d
not a pacto de retro sale , especially wher e ther e i s evidenc e
to suppor t suc h defens e
(Escudero, et al. vs. Dulay, et al
.,
G.R. No. 60578, Feb. 23, 1988; se e als o Amil vs. CA, et al.,
G.R. No.
125272,
Oct.
7, 1999).
13. A motio n for reopenin g th e trial , unlik e a motion
for new trial , i s not specifically mentione d in th e Rule s
bu t i s nevertheles s a recognize d procedura l recours e or
devic e
d e r i v i n g v a l i d i t y a n d a c c e p t a n c e fro m
lon g
establishe d usage .
It differ s from a motio n for new trial ,
432
----------------------- Page 433----------------------RULE 37

SEC. 2
which i s prope r only after promulgatio n o f judgment , sinc e
a motio n t o reope n ma y properl y b e presente d only after

either o r bot h partie s hav e formally offered an d close d
thei r evidenc e before judgment .
Furthermore , a m
otion
for ne w tria l i s base d upo n specific ground s se t forth in
Sec. 1 , Rul e 3 7 for civil cases , an d in Sec . 2 , Rul e 12 1 f
or
c r i m i n a l c a s e s ; w h e r e a s t h e
r e o p e n i n g o f
a cas e
i s
controlled b y n o othe r rul e tha n th e paramoun t interes t
of justice , restin g entirel y on th e soun d discretion o f a tria l
court , th e exercis e o f which discretio n wil l not b e reviewe d
on appea l unles s a clea r abus e thereo f i s show n
(Alegre
vs. Reyes, etc., et al., G.R. No. 56923, May 9,
1988; Agulto
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 52728, Jan.
17,
1990).
S e c .
2 .
Contents
of
motion
for
new
trial
or
reconsideration
and
notice
thereof.
T h e
m o t i
o n
s h a l l
b e m a d e i n w r i t i n g s t a t i n g t h e g r o u n d o r
g r o u n d s
t h e r e f o r , a w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f w h i c h s h a l l
b e s e r v e d
b y t h e m o v a n t o n t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y .
A m o t i o n fo r n e w t r i a l s h a l l
b e p r o v
e d
i n t h e
m a n n e r p r o v i d e d
fo r p r o o f o f m o t i o n s .
A m o t i o n
for
t h e c a u s e
m e n t i o n e d
i n p a r a g r a p h
(a )
o f t h e
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s h a l l b e
s u p p o r t e d
b y
a f f i d a v i t s
o f m e r i t s
w h i c h
m a y
b e
r e b u t t e d
b y
a f f i d a v i t s .
A
m o t i o n
fo r
t h e c a u s e
m e n t i o n e d
i n
p a r a g r a p h
(b) s h a l l b e s u p p o r t e d b y affidavit s o f t h e w i t n e s
s e s
b y w h o m s u c h e v i d e n c e i s e x p e c t e d t o b e g i v
e n , o r
b y
d u l y
a u t h e n t i c a t e d
d o c u m e n t s
w
h i c h
a r e
p r o p o s e d t o b e i n t r o d u c e d i n e v i d e n c e .
A m o t i o n
fo r
p o i n t o u t
s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e
s
o f t h e
j u d g m e n t o r
f i n a
s u p p o r t e d
b y
t h e e v i d e n c e
y
t o l a w ,
m a k i n g
e x p r e s s
m o n i a l
o r
d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e
o n s o f la w
f i n d i n g s
l o r d e r
o r
o r
r e f e r e n c e
n c e
o r
c o n c l u s i o n
w h i c h
w h i c h
t o
a r e
a r e
t o
t h e
s h a l l
n o t
c o n t r a r
t h e
t e s t i
p r o v i s i
a l l e g e d
t o
b e
n d i n g s
o r
c o n c l u s i o n s .
c o n t r a r y
t o
s u c h
f i
433
----------------------- Page 434----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 2
A pro
forma
m o t i o n fo r
n e w
t r i a l o r r
e c o n sideratio n shal l no t tol l t h e r e g l e m e n t a r y perio d o f
appeal .
(2a )
N O T E S
1.
An affidavit o f merit s i s on e whic h state s (a) th e
n a t u r e o r characte r o f th e fraud , accident , mistak e o

r
excusable negligenc e on whic h th e motio n for new tria l i s
based , (b) th e fact s constitutin g th e movant' s good an d
substantia l defense s or vali d cause s o f actio n (Ferrer vs.
Sepeng,
L-39373,
Sept.
30,
1974),
an d
(c) th e evid
enc e
whic h h e i n t e n d s t o p r e s e n t i f hi s motio n i s
grante d
(Miranda
vs. Legaspi,
et al., 92 Phil.
290).
An
aff
idavit
o f merit s shoul d stat e fact s an d no t mer e opinion s o
r
conclusion s of law
(Malipol, et al. vs. Tan, et al., L-2773
0,
Jan.
21,
1974; Ferrer
vs. Sepeng,
supra).
Th e evidenc e mus t b e suc h a s t o w a r r a n t a reasonabl
e
belie f that ,
i f presented , th e resul t o f th e cas e woul
d
probabl y
be altere d
(Aureo
vs. Aureo,
105
Phil.
77).
Hence , collateral , corroborative , cumulativ e o r impeachin g
evidence ar e generall y no t sufficient .
2 . Wher e th e motio n for new tria l o n thes e ground s
i s no t accompanie d by an affidavit o f merits , it shoul d
properl y
be
denie d
(National
Marketing
Corp.
vs
.
De
Castro,
106 Phil.
803;
Bernabe
vs. CA,
et al,
L18278,
Mar.
30,
1967;
Ferrer
vs.
Sepeng,
supra;
Dionisio
vs.
Puerto,
et al, L-39452,
Oct.
31,
1974).
Bu t in Gan
aban
vs. Bayle (L-28864 , Nov . 24 ,
1969) , th e Suprem e Cour
t
hel d tha t verification an d affidavit s o f merit s ar e require d
only
i f th e g r o u n d s relie d
ent ,
mistak e o r excusabl e negligence .
3 . Affidavit s o f merit s ma y
th e judgmen t i s nul l an d void a s
jurisdictio n ove r th e
defendan
r
(Republic
vs. De Leon,
etc.,
or is
upo n
a r e
fraud ,
accid
b e dispense d wit h whe n

wher e th e cour t ha s n o
t o r th e
subject-matte
et
al,
101
Phil.
773),
434
----------------------- Page 435----------------------RULE 37
CS.3-5
SE
procedurall y defectiv e a s wher e judgmen t b y defaul t wa s

rendere d befor e th e reglementar y perio d t o answe r ha d
expired (Gonzales
vs. Francisco,
49 Phil.
747),
or
wher e
th e defendan t wa s unreasonabl y deprive d o f hi s day in
court (Valerio
vs. Tan,
et al., 99 Phil.
419) as whe
n no
notic e o f hearin g wa s furnishe d hi m in advanc e (Soloria
vs. De la Cruz, L-20738, Jan. 31,
1966; Gattoc vs. Sarren
as,
supra).
Affidavit s o f merit s ar e no t require d in motion s
for reconsideratio n (Mendoza
vs. Bautista,
et al.,
L
-45885,
April
28,
1983).
4 . A s t o th e manne r provide d for proo f o f motions ,
see Sec . 7 , Rul e 13 3 whic h provide s tha t motion s ma y b e
prove d by th e record , affidavits , deposition s or testimonia l
evidence .
S e c .
3.
Action
upon
motion
for
new
tr
ial
or
reconsideration.
Th e tria l cour t ma y se t asid e t h
e
j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r an d gran t a n e w trial , u p o n
s u c h t e r m s a s m a y b e just , o r m a y d e n y th e motion
.
I f th e cour t find s t h a t e x c e s s i v e d a m a g e s h a v e b
e e n
a w a r d e d
o r t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d
e r
i s
contrar y t o t h e e v i d e n c e o r law , i t ma y a m e n d s u c
h
j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r accordingly .
(3a )
Sec . 4 .
Resolution of
motion.
A motio n
fo r
ne
w
tria l o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n shal l b e r e s o l v e d w
i t h i n
thirt y (30 ) d a y s fro m th e tim e i t i s s u b m i t t e d
fo r
resolution ,
(n )
Sec .
r
ne w
an
e d
A
n d
no
tria l
5.
Second motion for new trial.
shal l
includ e
al l
g r o u n d s
A motio n fo
t h e n
availabl e
d t h o s e no t s o i n c l u d e d shal l b e d e e m e d w a i v
.
s e c o n d m o t i o n fo r n e w trial , base d o n a grou
t e x i s t i n g no r availabl e w h e n th e firs t motio n w a s
made , m a y b e file d w i t h i n th e tim e h e r e i n provide d

e x c l u d i n g th e tim e d u r i n g w h i c h th e firs t mot
io n
ha d b e e n pending .
435
SEC. 6
N o
p a r t y s h a l l b e a l l o w e d a
o t i o n
for r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a j u d g m e n t
order .
(4a ; 4 , IRG)
s e c o n d
o r
fina l
NOTE S
1. Sec . 4 i s a ne w provisio n intende d t o obviat
e
u n n e c e s s a r y prolongatio n o f t h e
t r i a l s t a g e
. Whil e
reform s hav e bee n initiate d t o limi t th e perio d o f tria
l
throug h continuou s hearings , an d th e Constitutio n itsel f
prescribe s th e perio d for renditio n o f th e judgment , th e
sam e ca n b e se t a t naugh t b y th e usua l motion s for new
tria l o r reconsideratio n wit h open-ende d period s for thei r
r e s o l u t i o n a n d whic h
i n effec t
freez e
t h e j u
d g m e n t
correspondingly .
2 . Th e
firs t s e n t e n c e o f Sec . 5 i m p l e m e n
t s th e
"omnibus motion " rul e unde r Sec . 8 , Rul e 15 , wit h th e
second sentenc e providin g for th e exception .
3 . A secon d motio n for new tria l ma y b e entertaine d
wher e th e groun d therefo r wa s no t availabl e o r existin g
at th e tim e whe n th e first motio n wa s filed .
Thus ,
i f th e
first motio n wa s base d on frau d an d wa s denied , a secon d
motion on th e groun d o f newly discovere d evidenc e can
still b e entertaine d i f suc h evidenc e wa s discovere d an d
becam e availabl e only afte r th e firs t motio n ha d bee n
filed.
Sec . 6 .
Effect of granting of motion for
I f a n e w tria l i s
g r a n t e d i n a c c o
t h t h e
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s Rule , t h e origina l
o r
fina l o r d e r shal l b e v a c a t e d , an d t
shal l
stan d fo r tria l d e novo; bu t th e recorde d
t a k e
i s
m a t e
i s s u
shal l
th e
same .
new
trial.
r d a n c e
w i
j u d g m e n t
h e
a c t i o n
e v i d e n c e
n u p o n t h e forme r trial , i n s o fa r a s t h e sam e

r i a l a n d
c o m p e t e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e
e s ,
b e u s e d a t t h e n e w tria l w i t h o u t r e t a k i n g
(5a )
436
----------------------- Page 437----------------------H.UL W

NOTE S
1. Althoug h th e recorde d evidenc e a t th e former tria l
d not b e take n anew , th e court , in th e interes t o f justice ,
recal l th e witnesse s wh o testifie d therei n for furthe r
a m i n a t i o n o r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , u n l e s s t
y a r e
longe r availabl e (Castillo vs.
Sebullina, et al.,
3
1 Phil.
518).
nee
may
e x
h e
no
2 . U n
u r e w a s
observed : An
no t appealabl
such orde r i
f th e
m o v a n t i
ro m t h e
judgmen t an d
d e r
t h e
forme r
Rules ,
t h i s
p r o c e d
orde r denyin g a motion for new tria l wa s

e sinc e th e judgmen t i n th e cas e wherei n
s rendere d i s no t ye t final .
Th e remed y o
n
suc h
s i t u a t i o n
wa s
t o a p p e a l
assig n a s a n erro r i n sai d appea l th e fact o f
denia l o f hi s motio n for ne w trial .

Thi s wa s diff
erent
from th e orde r denyin g a petitio n for relie f unde r Rul e 3 8
wherei n th e remed y wa s t o appea l from suc h order , an d
not from th e judgmen t i n t h a t cas e sinc e sai d judgmen t
ha d alread y becom e fina l an d wa s no t appealabl e
(Samia
vs. Medina,
56 Phil.
618; Bernabe
vs. CA,
et al.,
supra),
an d i n th e appea l from sai d order , th e appellan t ma y als o
assai l th e j u d g m e n t (Sec.
2, Rule
4 1 whic h ha s
bee n
repealed,) .
U n d e r
t h e p r e s e n t
revise d
Rules ,
i t
i s l
ikewis e
specifically provide d tha t an orde r denyin g a motion for
new tria l o r reconsideratio n i s no t appealable , th e remed y
bein g a n appea l from th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r i n du e
tim e (se e Sec. 9 o f thi s Rule) .
Thi s i s reiterate d in Sec
. 1 ,
Rul e 4 1 whic h provide s tha t n o appea l may b e take n from ,
inter alia, an orde r denyin g a petitio n for relie f or an
y
similar motio n seekin g relie f from judgment .
In
stead ,
according t o sai d Rule , th e aggrieve d part y may file an
appropriat e specia l civil action unde r Rul e 65 .
th e
Sec .
7.
If
g r o u n d s
t o th e
part ,
Partial
fo r
new
cour t t o
trial
motio n
affec t th e
or
unde r
reconsideration.
t h i s
i s s u e s
a s
Rul e
t o
appea r
onl y
437
----------------------- Page 438----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 8
o r les s t h a n al l o f t h e matte r i n controversy , o r onl y

one , o r les s t h a n all , o f th e partie s t o it , th e cour
t
ma y orde r a n e w tria l o r gran t r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a
s
t o s u c h i s s u e s i f severabl e w i t h o u t interferin g wit h
th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r u p o n th e rest .
(6a
)
Sec . 8 .
Effect of order for partial new trial.
h a n al l o f t h e i s s u e s ar e o r de r e d
les s t
, th e
cour t m
a s
t o t h
s u c h
j u d g m
trial .
(7a)
Whe n
retried
a y e i t h e r e n t e r a j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r
e
r e s t , o r
e n t
o r
s t a y t h e
fina l
orde r
e n f o r c e m e n t
u n t i l
afte r
t h e
o f
n e w
NOTE S
1. Thi s procedur e
i s permissibl e w h e r e e i t h
e r a
several or a separat e judgmen t i s prope r (se e Sees. 4 an d
5, Rule
36).
2 . Wher e on e
r
reconsideratio n an d th
appea l from th e sai d
action o n th e appea l
part y
e
file s a
motio n for
new
tria l o
othe r part y seek s t o perfec t a n

decision , th e cour t shoul d withhol d
unti l afte r th e motio n for new tria l o
r
reconsideratio n
vs.
Belmonte,
L-25388,
shal l
Aug.
hav e
bee n
31,
resolve d
(Simsion
1970).
3 . Wher e defendant' s motion for new tria l wa s denie d

b y th e tria l court , i t ha s bee n hel d tha t h e ca n perfect
a n
appea l from th e judgmen t an d als o procee d o n certiorar i
t o se t asid e th e orde r denyin g hi s motio n for new trial .
Ther e i s n o incompatibilit y betwee n th e tw o remedie s a s
one i s directe d agains t th e judgmen t an d th e other , agains t
th e orde r denyin g th e new tria l
(Banco Filipino Savi
ngs
& Mortgage
Bank
vs. Campos,
L-39905,
Mar.
31,
1975).
Considerin g th e provision s o f Sec . 9 o f thi s Rul e an d
Sec. 1 , Rul e 41 , resor t t o thes e dua l remedie s now may
only b e allowe d unde r exceptiona l circumstance s wher e
th e factua l situatio n an d th e demand s o f justic e justify
such recourses , an d th e claim s involve d i n th e cas e ar e s o
438
----------------------- Page 439----------------------RULE 37
8
SEC.
separabl e an d urgen t a s t o warran t relie f b y bot h appea l

an d certiorari .
4 . A motio n t o exten d th e reglementar y perio d for
filing a motio n for reconsideratio n i s no t authorized .
T
h e
reglementar y perio d for th e filing o f th e recor d on appea l
whe n require d (bu t no t th e notic e o f appea l or , formerly ,
th e appea l bond ) ma y b e extended , bu t th e perio d for
perfectin g a n appea l ma y no t b e extende d for th e purpos e
of filin g a motio n for new tria l or reconsideratio n
(Roqu
e,
et al. vs. Gunigundo, Adm.
Case No.
1664, Mar.
30, 197
9;
Habaluyas Enterprises,
Inc., et al. vs. Japzon,
et al., G
.R.
No.
70895, Aug.
5, 1985).
5 . In view o f th e fact tha t th e ruling s in th e foregoin g
case s wer e base d on th e holdin g in Gibbs vs. Court of First
Instance (8 0 Phil .
160) , an d th e Rule s o f Cour t di d
no t
the n expressl y prohibi t or allow an extensio n o f th e perio d
to file a motio n for reconsideratio n thereb y resultin g in a
division o f view s on thi s issu e in th e appellat e courts , for
th e guidanc e o f th e Benc h an d th e Bar , th e Suprem e Cour t
restate d an d clarifie d th e rule s o n thi s poin t a s follows :
"1.)
Beginnin g on e mont h after th e promulgatio n o f
thi s Resolution , th e rul e shal l b e strictl y enforce d t h a t n
o
motion for extensio n o f tim e t o file a motion for new tria l
or reconsideratio n ma y b e filed wit h th e (lower courts) .
Such
a motion
may
be filed only
in cases pending
w
ith
the Supreme Court a s th e cour t o f las t resort , which ma y
in it s soun d discretio n eithe r gran t o r den y th e extensio n
requested .
2.)
In appeal s in specia l proceeding s unde r Rul e 109
of th e Rule s o f Cour t an d in othe r case s wherei n multipl e
appeal s ar e allowed , a motion for extension of time to file
the record on appeal may be filed withi n th e reglementar y
perio d o f thirt y (30) day s [Moya vs . Barton , 7 6 Phil . 831 ;
Heir s o f Nante s vs . Cour t o f Appeals , Jul y 25 , 1983 , 123
SCRA 753] .
I f th e cour t denie s th e motion for extension ,
th e appea l mus t b e take n withi n th e origina l perio d [Bello
439
----------------------- Page 440----------------------RULE 37
SEC. 9
vs . Fernando , J a n . 30 , 1962 , 4 SCRA 185] , inasmuc h a s

such a motio n doe s no t suspen d th e perio d for appea l
[Reyes vs . Sta . Maria , Novembe r 20 , 1972 , 4 8 SCRA 1] .
Th e tria l cour t ma y gran t sai d motio n afte r th e expiratio n
of th e perio d for appea l provide d it wa s filed withi n th e
original perio d [Valer o vs . Cour t o f Appeals , Jun e 28 , 1973 ,
5 1 SCR A 467 ;
B e r k e n k o t t e r vs . C o u r t o f A p
p e a l s ,
S e p t e m b e r
28 ,
1973 ,
5 3
SCR A
2 2 8 ] " (Haba
luyas
Enterprises,
Inc., et al.
vs. Japzon,
et al., Resolution
on
Motion
for
Reconsideration,
G.R.
No.
70895,
May
30,
1986, en banc; cf.
Bacaya, et al.
vs. IAC, et al.,
G.
R. No.
74824, Sept.
15, 1986; Rodriguez, et al.
vs. CA, et al
, G.R.
No. 80718, Jan. 29,
1988).
Th e prohibitio n agains t a motion for extensio n o f tim e
to file a motio n for ne w tria l or reconsideratio n i s now
specifically provide d in th e secon d paragrap h o f Sec . 3 ,
Rul e 41 .
Sec .
9 .
Remedy against
trial or reconsideration. A n
for n e w tria l o r r e c o n s
a l a b l e ,
th e r e m e d y b e i n g a n a
o r
fina l order ,
(n )
order denying a motion for new

orde r d e n y i n g a m o t i o n
i d e r a t i o n i s no t a p p e
p p e a l
fro m th e j u d g m e n t
N O T E
1.
Se e note s unde r Sec . 6 o f thi s Rule .

440
----------------------- Page 441----------------------RULE

RELIE F
OR
3 8
FRO M J U D G M E N T S ,
OTHE R
PROCEEDING S
Sectio n
1.
Petition for
relief
order,
or other proceedings. Whe n a j u d g m e n t o r
orde r
i s e n t e r e d , o r an y o t h e r p r o c e
e r e a f t e r
t a k e n a g a i n s t a part y i n an y cour t
,
accident , m i s t a k e , o r e x c u s a b l e n e g
m a y
fil e a p e t i t i o n i n s u c h cour t an d
e c a s e
p r a y i n g tha t th e j u d g m e n t , orde r o r
b e
se t aside .
(2a )
ORDERS ,
from judgment,
final
e d i n g
i s
t h
t h r o u g h
fraud
l i g e n c e , h e
i n
th e
s a m
p r o c e e d i n g
Sec . 2.
Petition
for relief from
denial
of appe
al.
Whe n a j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r i s r e n d e r e d b y an y

c o
f r
a c
e ,
bee
u r t i n a c a s e , a n d a p a r t y t h e r e t o , b y
a u d ,
c i d e n t , m i s t a k e , o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l i g e n c
h a s
n p r e v e n t e d fro m t a k i n g a n appeal , h e m a y fil e
a petitio n i n s u c h cour t an d i n th e sam e cas e prayin g

tha t th e a p p e a l b e g i v e n d u e course ,
( l a )
NOTE S
1.
Sees . 1 an d 2 , althoug h now in transpose d order ,
ar e substantiall y th e sam e a s thei r antecedent s bu t wit h
a substantia l procedura l difference .
Whil e unde r
th e
former Rul e petition s for relie f from a judgment , final orde r
o r o t h e r p r o c e e d i n g r e n d e r e d o r t a k e n i n t
h e t h e n
municipa l court s ha d t o b e filed an d decide d in th e former
Court s o f Firs t Instance , suc h petitio n shoul d now b e filed
in an d resolve d by th e cour t in th e sam e cas e from which
th e petitio n arose .
Thus , th e petitio n for relie f from
a
judgment , final orde r or proceedin g involve d in a cas e trie d
by a municipa l tria l cour t shal l b e filed in an d decide d by
th e sam e cour t i n th e sam e cas e jus t lik e th e procedur e
followed in th e presen t Regiona l Tria l Court .

44 1
----------------------- Page 442----------------------RULE 38
SEC. 3
Thi s p r o c e d u r a l chang e
i s a
f th e
uniform procedur e adopte d for tria l court s (Rule
consideration o f th e fact tha t municipa l tria l
a l r e a d y c o u r t s o f recor d
a n d , for
, wit h
expande d jurisdictio n (se e R.A.
7691;
al. vs.
Meer,
G.R.
No.
146845,
July 2,
2002).
2 .
consequenc e
5) an d in
court s ar e
t h a t m a t t e r
Mesina,
et
A petitio n for relie f i s an equitabl e remed y an d i s
allowed only in exceptiona l case s from fina l judgment s or

order s
wher e
n o othe r
remed y
i s availabl e
(Palm
ares,
et al. vs. Jimenez,
et al., 9 0 Phil.
773).
It wil l n
o t be
entertaine d whe n th e prope r remed y i s appea l o r certiorar i
(Fajardo
vs. Bayona,
et al., 98 Phil.
659).
3 . Th e phras e "othe r proceeding " in Sec . 1 include s
an orde r or wri t of executio n (Aquino,
et al. vs. B
lanco,
et
al.,
79
Phil.
647;
Cayetano
vs.
Ceguerra,
L18831,
Jan. 30,
1965), or an orde r dismissin g an appea l (Medran
vs. CA, 83 Phil. 164).
Sinc e thes e ar e no t require d to b
e
entered , th e perio d start s from renditio n o f th e orde r o r
takin g o f th e
proceedin g or from th e dat e o f occurrence ,
since
e n t r y i s e i t h e r u n n e c e s s a r y o r inconseq
uentia l
(Samonte,
et al.
vs.
Samonte,
et
al., L-40683,
June
27,
1975), an d th e cour t wil l merel y se t asid e th e proceedin g
an d allow th e part y t o ac t a s i f th e proceedin g neve r took
plac e
(se e
Rafanan
vs.
Rafanan,
98
Phil.
162;
Bantug
vs. Roxas,
73 Phil.
13).
4 . A p e t i t i o n for relie f is , i n effect ,
a se
con d
opportunity for an aggrieve d part y t o as k for a new tria l
(Sayman
vs. CA, et al., L-29479, Feb.
21, 1983).
H
ence ,
fraud ,
accident ,
m i s t a k e o r excusabl e
negligence ,
a s
ground s for a petitio n for relief , hav e th e sam e concept s
tha t the y hav e in motion s for new trial .
Also , a
s in a
motion for new trial , a mistak e o f law (especially wher e
th e p a r t y wa s o f limite d intelligence )
sufficient
t o justif y a petitio n
for
vs.
Mesagal,
100
Phil.
360).
wa s considere d
relie f
(Vasquez
442
----------------------- Page 443----------------------RULE 38
SEC. 3
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS,

ORDERS OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS
5.
A petitio n for relie f unde r Sec .
1 o f thi s Rul e ha
s
b e e n hel
s p e c i a
proceedings ,
56 Phil.
Gonzales,
4 7
Phil.
)
a n d
guardianship
52 Phil.
498).
d
l
t o b e
a p p l i c a b l e t o al l k i n d s
o f
suc h a s lan d registratio n (Elvira vs. Filamor,

305),
intestat e
settlemen t
(Reyes
vs.
339;
Onas
proceeding s
vs.
Javilo,
(Panis
54
vs.
Phil.
602
Yangco,
S e c .
3.
Time
for
filing
petition;
contents
and
verification. A p e t i t i o n p r o v i d e d fo r i n e i t h e r o f
t h e
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s o f t h i s R u l e m u s t b e verified
, file d
w i t h i n sixt y (60 ) d a y s a f t e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r l e
a r n s o f
t h e j u d g m e n t , fina l
o r d e r , o r o t h e r p r o c e e
d i n g t o
b e s e t a s i d e , a n d n o t m o r e t h a n si x (6) m o n t h s
a f t e r
s u c h j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r w a s e n t e r e d , o
r s u c h
p r o c e e d i n g w a s
t a k e n , a n d m u s t b e
a c c o m
p a n i e d
w i t h affidavit s s h o w i n g t h e fraud , a c c i d e n t , m i s t a
k e ,
o r e x c u s a b l e n e g l i g e n c e r e l i e d u p o n , a n d
t h e fact s
c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s goo d a n d s u b s
t a n t i a l
c a u s e o f a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e , a s t h e c a s e m a y b
e .
(3)
N O T E S
1.
Th e tw o period s for th e filing of a petitio n for relie f
ar e
no t extendibl e
an d
neve r
interrupte d
(Quija
no
vs.
Tameta,
L-16473,
April
20,
1961).
Thus ,
a petiti
o n
for
certiorar i doe s no t suspen d th e period s prescribe d b y
thi s
section
(Palomares
vs. Jimenez,
9 0 Phil.
77
3),
an d
n e i t h e r doe s
a m o t i o n
for
r e c o n s i d e r a
n o f t h e
order subject of th e petitio n for relie f (Cruz vs.
Oppen,
Inc.,
L-23861,
Feb.
17,
1968),
especiall y
if
in th e
wron g court .
Thes e period s cannot b e subject t o a condition
or a contingency a s the y ar e devise d t o mee t a condition
or a contingency
(Vda. de Salvatierra vs. Garlitos,
et
al., 103 Phil. 157).
Bot h period s mus t b e complie d
(see
Phil.
Rabbit
et
al.,
L-29701,
Mar.
16,
Bus
Lines,
Inc.
vs.
t i o
filed
etc.,
wit h
Arciaga,
1987).
443
----------------------- Page 444----------------------RULE 38

SEC. 3
In on e
cas e
(Balite
vs.
Cabangon,
et al.,
L
-24105,
May 18,
1967), it wa s hel d t h a t a petitio n for relie f fi
led
on th e 65t h da y from notic e o f th e order , bu t withi n
6
month s from th e takin g o f suc h proceeding , coul d b e given
du e cours e
unde r
th e
authorit y
o f Prudential
Ba
nk
vs.
Macadaeg (10 5 Phil .
791) an d Angola vs.
Tan (10 6
Phil .
1164 fUnrep.J).
I t shoul d b e noted ,
however ,
t
h a t th e
Balite cas e involve d a proceedin g in th e the n Cour t o f
Agraria n Relation s whic h wa s no
r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e a n
r e , n o
judgmen t ha d bee n rendere d a s
a defaul t orde r only .
I
tha t
Rul e 3 8 shoul d not apply t o a
t boun d b y th e technica l
d e v i d e n c e . F u r t h e r m o
th e proceedin g aros e from
t wa s likewis e pointe d ou t
n interlocutor y order .
Also , in PHHC vs. Tiongco, et al. (L-18891 , Nov . 28 ,

1964), whil e th e petitio n for relie f wa s filed by th e new
c o u n s e l
for
t h e d e f e n d a n t s
b e y o n d
t h e
60-da y
reglementar y period , th e Suprem e Cour t ordere d th e tria l
court t o giv e it du e cours e sinc e th e origina l counse l o f th
e
defendant s ha d deprive d the m o f thei r da y in cour t by hi s
"fishy an d suspicious " actuation s o f abandonin g thei r cas e
an d withou t eve n informin g the m o f th e advers e decision
against them . Th e Suprem e Cour t als o decide d t o consider
th e petitio n a s on e for relie f no t only from th e judgmen t
bu t from th e orde r o f executio n sinc e Rul e 3 8 als o include s
relie f from suc h orders , in whic h cas e

wa s
filed withi n 6 0 day s from th e order .
sai d petitio n
However , in a mor e recen t case , th e petitio n for relie f

wa s hel d t o hav e bee n correctly denie d wher e i t wa s filed
one da y to o late , t h a t is , 6 1 day s after petitioner' s receip
t
o f th e
notic e o f t h e
d i s m i s s a l o f t h e origina l
actio n
(Phil. Rabbit Bus
Lines,
Inc.
vs.
Arciaga,
et al.,
L-29701,
Mar.
16,
1987).
Th e specia l circumstance s obtainin g in
th e first tw o case s abov e mentioned , whic h warrante d th e
relaxatio n o f th e rule , wer e no t presen t i n thi s las t state d
case .
444
----------------------- Page 445----------------------RULE 3 8
SEC . 3
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS ,

ORDERS OR OTHER PROCEEDING S
2 . Th e 60-day perio d i s reckone d from th e tim e th e

p a r t y acquire d knowledg e o f th e order , j u d g m e n t o r
proceeding s an d
same
(Perez
p.J).
entry
not from th e
vs. Araneta,
dat e h e actuall y rea d th e

103 Phil.
Phil.
1141
fUnre
Th e 6-month s perio d i s compute d from th e dat e o f

o f th e orde r o r judgment , which , a s i t wa s the
n
defined in Sec . 2 , Rul e 36 , wa s from th e recordin g o f th e
judgmen t or orde r in th e book o f entrie s o f judgment s an d
not from th e dat e o f th e orde r o f defaul t or th e renditio n
of th e judgmen t or th e finality o f th e judgment .
Howe
ver ,
a s now amended , th e dat e o f th e finality o f th e judgmen t
or fina l orde r i s deeme d t o b e th e dat e o f it s entry .
Wit h
respec t t o th e "proceedings " i n th e Regiona l Tria l Courts ,
which ca n b e th e subjec t o f petition s for relief , th e dat e
whe n th e proceeding s wer e taken control s (se e Dirige vs.
Biranya,
L-22033,
July
30,
1966).
Also ,
in judgme
nt s
u p o n c o m p r o m i s e ,
b e i n g i m m e d i a t e l y e x e c
u t o r y ,
prescriptio n run s from th e dat e o f it s rendition , henc e th e
6-month s
perio d
als o
r u n s therefro m
(Bodiogran
vs.
Ceniza,
et al., 102 Phil.
750; Dirige
vs. Biranya,
supra).
3 . A n
affidavi t
o f
m e r i t s m u s t
a c c o m p a n
y t h e
petitio n an d th e petitio n itsel f mus t b e verified .
A s i n
motion s for new trial , th e absenc e o f an affidavit o f merit s
i s a fata l defec t an d w a r r a n t s denia l o f th e pet
itio n
(Fernandez
vs.
Tan
Tiong
Tick,
L-15877,
April
28,
1961;
Concepcion
vs.
Presiding
Judge,
etc.,
et
al.,
L35489,
Dec. 15, 1982), unles s th e fact s require d t o b e se t ou t in
th e affidavit o f merit s als o appea r in th e verifie d petitio n
(Fabar,
Inc.
vs. Rodelas,
L-46394,
Oct.
26,
1977).
Also ,
like motion s for new trial , suc h affidavit s ar e not require d
whe n th e judgmen t or orde r i s void for wan t o f jurisdictio n
(Republic vs. De Leon,
101 Phil.
773), or wa s obtaine d
by
fraud or mistak e (Lupisan vs. Alfonso, et al.,
78 Phil.
842),
or wit h denia l of du e proces s (Valerio vs. Tan, etc., et al.,
97 Phil.
558).
445
----------------------- Page 446----------------------RULE 38
SECS. 4-5
Sec . 4 .
Order to file an answer. If th e petitio n i s
sufficien t i n for m an d s u b s t a n c e t o justif y th e relief ,
th e cour t i n w h i c h i t i s filed , shal l i s s u e a n o
rde r
r e q u i r i n g t h e a d v e r s e partie s t o a n s w e r t h e
sam e
w i t h i n
fiftee n
(15 )
d a y s fro m t h e r e c e i p t
thereof .
Th e orde r shal l b e s e r v e d i n s u c h m a n n e r a s
th e
c o u r t
m a y
d i r e c t , t o g e t h e r
w i t h
c o p i e s
o f t h e
p e t i t i o n an d th e a c c o m p a n y i n g affidavits .
(4a )
Sec .
ngs.
Th e c o u r t i
an t
s u c h p r e l i m
e c e s s a r y
fo r t h e
p r e
p a r t i e s ,
u p o n t h e filin
vo r
o f th e a d v e r s
o n
i s d i s m i s s e
5.
Preliminary
injunction
pending
proceedi
n w h i c h t h e p e t i t i o n i s file d m a y gr
i n a r y
i n j u n c t i o n
s e r v a t i o n
o f t h e
a s
m a y
r i g h t s
b e
o f t h e
g b y t h e p e t i t i o n e r o f a bon d i n fa
e party , c o n d i t i o n e d tha t i f th e petiti
d
o r t h e
p e t i t i o n e r
fail s
o n
th e
tria l o f
th e c a s e
advers e
part y al l d
d t o
h i m b y
unctio n
o r t h e o t
; bu t
s u c h i n j
a r g e o r
e x t i n g u i
t y ma y
h a v e a c q
u p o n
it s
m e r i t s ,
h e
wil l
pa y
t h e
a m a g e s a n d c o s t s t h a t m a y b e a w a r d e
r e a s o n
o f t h e
i s s u a n c e
o f s u c h
inj
h e r p r o c e e d i n g s f o l l o w i n g t h e petition
u n c t i o n
s h
an y
shal l
u i r e d
lie n
no t
o p e r a t e
w h i c h
t h e
t o
d i s c h
a d v e r s e
u p o n t h e propert y o f th e
par
petitioner .
(5a)
NOTE S
1.
Wher e a wri t o f executio n wa s alread y issue d an d
levy wa s mad e befor e th e petitio n for relie f wa s filed , th e
lien t h a t ma y hav e bee n acquire d over th e propert y i s not
d i s c h a r g e d b y t h e s u b s e q u e n t i s s u a n c e o f a
wri t o f
preliminar y injunction .
Thereafter , i f th e petitio
n i s
denied , th e cour t ha s th e powe r t o reinstat e th e wri t o f
execution
(Ayson
vs. Ayson,
101
Phil.
1223 (Unre
p.J).
2 .
Unles s a wri t o f preliminar y injunctio n ha s been

executio n o f th e judgmen t shal l procee d even i f
issued ,
446
----------------------- Page 447----------------------RULE 38
SEC. 6
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS,

ORDERS OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS
th e
orde r
denyin g th e
petitio n
for
relie f i s
pendin g
n
appeal .
r
appellat e
Sheriff
of Manila,
Sec.
Afte r
th e
o f
perio d
a n d
a t t
a l l e
shal l
b e d
b e
Sai d wri t ma y b e
court s
(Servicewide
et al.,
6.
filin g o f
th e
therefor ,
i f a f t e
h e
g a t i o n s
sough t eithe r i n th e tria l o
G.R.
Specialists,
No.
Proceedings
74586,
t h e
after
a n s w e r
Oct.
o r
i s m i s s e d ;
bu t i f i t
is
t h e
1986).
filed.
e x p i r a t i o n
th e
i t
no t true ,
find s
vs.
17,
answer
t h e cour t shal l hea r

r s u c h
h e a r i n g ,
t h e r e o f ar e
Inc.
sai d
petitio n
f i n d s
th e
t h
petitio n
allegation s
t o
true , i t shal l se t asid e th e j u d g m e n t , fina l orde r o r

othe r p r o c e e d i n g c o m p l a i n e d
o f u p o n
s u c h
t e r m s
a s ma y b e just .
Thereafter , th e cas e shal l stan d a s
i f s u c h j u d g m e n t , fina l orde r o r othe r p r o c e e
d i n g
h a d
n e v e r b e e n r e n d e r e d , i s s u e d o r t a k e n
. T h e
cour t shal l t h e n pr oce e d t o hea r an d d e t e r m i n e th e
c a s e a s
i f a t i m e l y m o t i o n
fo r a
n e w
t
r i a l o r
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ha d bee n grante d b y it .
(6a )
NOTE S
1. Ther e ar e tw o step s or
relief : (a) a hearin g t o determin e
order or proceedin g shoul d b e se t
a f f i r m a t i v e , a h e a r i n g
h e cas e
(Villanueva
vs. Alcoba,
101
hearing s in a petitio n for

whethe r th e judgment ,
aside ; an d (b) in th e
o n t h e m e r i t s o f t
Phil.
277).
2 . Failur e t o file an answe r t o th e petitio n for relie

f
does not constitut e defaul t as , even withou t suc h answer ,
th e cour t wil l stil l hav e t o hea r th e petitio n an d determin e
its merits .
3 . A n
o r d e r g r a n t i n g a
lie f
i s
interlocutory an d non-appealable .
hand ,
th e former rul e wa s tha t an orde r denyin
relie f wa s appealabl e and ,
i n
th e
appellant may assai l th e judgmen t on th e
p e t i t i o n for
O n
th e
re
othe r
g a petitio n for
th e cours e thereof ,
merit s (Sec. 2,
AA1
----------------------- Page 448----------------------RULE 38
SEC. 7
of th e former Rule 41), an d tha t appeal , no t certiorar i or

prohibition , wa s th e remed y whe n th e petitio n for relie f i s
d e n i e d
(De
Jesus
vs.
Domingo,
et
al.,
L-30006
-07,
Aug. 31, 1970).
Thos e doctrina l rule s hav e alread y been
change d (se e Not e 2 unde r Sec. 6, Rule 37).
Sec . 7.
Procedure
aside.
Wher e th e d e n
,
th e l o w e r cour t shal l b
t o t h e a p p e a l
a n d
f t h e
where the denial of an appeal is set

i a l o f a n a p p e a l i s se t aside
e require d t o giv e du e cours e
t o e l e v a t e t h e r e c o r d
a p p e a l e d c a s e a s i f a t i m e l y a n d prope r a p p e a l
ha d
b e e n m a d e .
(7a )
448
----------------------- Page 449----------------------RUL E 3 9
EXECUTION , SATISFACTIO N AN D
EFFECT S O F JUDGMENT S
S e c t i o n
1.
Execution
upon
judgments
or
final
orders. E x e c u t i o n shal l issu e a s a matte r o f right ,
o n motion , u p o n a j u d g m e n t o r orde r tha t d i s p o s e s
o f th e
actio n o r p r o c e e d i n g u p o n th e expiratio n o f
th e perio d t o appea l therefro m i f n o appea l ha s bee n

dul y perfected ,
( l a )
I f
d a n d
finall y r
i t h b e
applie d fo
j u d g m e n
tifie d
tru e c o p
fina l
orde r o r
t h e a p p e a l h a s
e s o l v e d ,
t h e
b e e n
d u l y
e x e c u t i o n
p e r f e c t e
m a y
f o r t h w
r i n th e cour t o f origin , o n motio n o f th e

t
o b l i g e e , s u b m i t t i n g t h e r e w i t h cer
i e s
o f th e j u d g m e n t
order s
s o u g h t
entr y thereof , w i t h
t o
o r j u d g m e n t s
b e
enforce d
notic e t o th e advers e
an d
o r
o f th e
party .
Th e appellat e cour t may , o n motio n i n th e sam e

cas e w h e n , th e i n t e r e s t o f justic e s o requires , direc t
th e
(n)
cour t
o f origi n
t o
issu e
th e
wri t
o f execution ,
NOTE S
1.
Th e t e r m "fina l order " i s use d i n tw o se
nse s
dependin g on whethe r it i s use d on th e issu e o f appeal ability or on th e issu e o f bindin g effect .
For purpose s
o f
appeal , an orde r i s "final " i f it dispose s o f th e action , a
s
distinguishe d from a n interlocutor y orde r which leave s
something t o b e don e in th e tria l cour t wit h respec t t o th e
merit s of th
al.,
L-41053, Feb.
or whethe r it
or executor y
appeal an d n
cas e
(De
la
Cruz,
et
al.
vs.
Paras,
27,
1976).
For purpose s of bindin g effect
ca n b e subject o f execution , an orde r i s "final "
after th e laps e o f th e reglementar y perio d t o
o appea l ha s bee n perfecte d (se e Perez, e t al.
et
449
----------------------- Page 450----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 1
vs.
Zulueta,
106
Phil.
264;
c.
vs.
IAC,
et al., G.R.
No.
75000,
vs.
CA, et al., L-47968, May 9,
cf.
Feb.
Denso
27,
[Phil.],
1987;
In
Montilla
1988).
2 . On th e aspec t o f appealability , thes e revise d Rule s

us e t h e adjectiv e "final " wit h respec t t o o r d e r s
an d
resolution s since , t o terminat e a case , th e tria l court s issu e
orders , whil e th e appellat e court s an d mos t o f th e quasi judicia l agencie s issu e resolutions .
Judgment s ar e not s
o
qualifie d sinc e
th e us e o f t h e so-calle d interlocutor y
judgment s i s no t favore d i n thi s jurisdiction , whil e suc h
categorization o f an orde r or a resolutio n for purpose s o f
denotin g t h a t i t i s appealabl e i s t o distinguis h the
m
from interlocutor y order s or resolutions .
However ,
by
force o f extende d usage , th e phras e "fina l an d executor y
judgment " i s sometime s use d an d tolerated ,
alth
oug h
t h e us e o f "executory "
alon e
woul d
suffice .
T h e s e
o b s e r v a t i o n s als o appl y t o t h e s e v e r a l an d s e
p a r a t e
judgment s contemplate d i n Rul e 36 , o r partia l judgment s
which totall y dispos e o f a particula r clai m or severabl e
par t o f th e case , subject t o th e power o f th e cour t t o suspen d
or defer action on an appea l from
in suc h specia l judgment , or a s
th e m a t t e r o f partia l summar
c o n s i d e r e d a s a p p e a l a b
5 a n d
explanation
therein) .
or an y furthe r proceedin g
provide d by Rul e 3 5 on
y judgment s whic h ar e not
l e (se e Sec.
4, Rule
Th e secon d paragrap h o f thi s section i s a n innovatio n

in respons e t o complaint s over th e dela y cause d b y th e
former procedur e in obtainin g a wri t o f executio n o f a
judgment ,
whic h ha s alread y bee n affirme d o n appeal ,
wit h notic e t o th e parties .
A s thing s the n stood , after
th e
entry o f judgmen t i n th e appellat e court , th e prevailin g
part y ha d t o wai t for th e record s o f th e cas e t o b e remande d
t o th e cour t o f origin whe n an d wher e h e coul d the n mov e
for th e issuanc e o f a wri t o f execution .
Th e interveni
n g
tim e coul d sometime s b e substantial , especially i f th e court
a quo i s in a remot e province , an d coul d als o b e availe d o

f
b y th e losin g part y t o dela y o r thwar t actua l execution .
450
----------------------- Page 451----------------------RULE 39
SEC 1
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND

EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
On thes e considerations ,
Circula r No . 24-94 , date d
g
an d promulgatin g i n advanc
1
o f Rul e
3 9 a n d d e c l
a s o f
J u n e 1 , 1994 .
th e Suprem e Cour t issue d

Apri l 18 ,
1994 ,
e
thi s
a r i n g
amende d
approvin
Sectio n
t h e s a m e effectiv e
Unde r th e presen t procedure , th e prevailin g part y can

secure certifie d tru e copie s o f th e judgmen t or fina l orde r
o f th e appellat e cour t an d entr y thereof , an d submi t th e
same t o th e cour t o f origin wit h an d t o justify hi s motion
for a wri t o f execution , withou t waitin g for it s receip t o f
th e record s from th e appellat e court .
Tha t motion mus
t
b e wit h notic e t o th e advers e party , wit h a hearin g whe n
th e circumstance s s o require , t o enabl e hi m t o file an y
objection theret o or brin g t o th e attentio n o f sai d cour t
matter s whic h ma y hav e transpire d durin g th e pendenc y
o f th e appea l an d whic h ma y hav e a b e a r i n g o n t
h e
execution sough t t o enforc e th e judgment .
Th e thir d paragrap h o f thi s section , likewis e a new
provision ,
i s du e t o t h e experienc e o f th e a p p e l
l a t e
court s wherei n th e tria l court , for reason s o f it s own or
o t h e r unjustifiabl e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , undul y
delay s
o r
unreasonabl y refuse s t o ac t on th e motion for executio n
or issu e th e wri t therefor .
O n motion i n th e sam e cas
e
whil e th e record s ar e stil l wit h th e appellat e court , o r even
after th e sam e hav e bee n remande d t o th e lower court ,
th e appellat e cour t ca n direc t th e issuanc e o f th e wri t o f
execution sinc e suc h ac t i s merel y in th e enforcemen t o f
it s judgmen t an d whic h i t ha s th e power t o require .
3 . Sec . 1 i s th e rul e on whe n judgment s or order s
may b e execute d a s a matte r o f right , tha t is , it become s
th e mandator y or ministeria l dut y o f th e cour t t o issu e a
wri t o f executio n t o enforc e th e judgment .
Thi s happe
n s
whe n
th e j ud g m e n t become s
executor y
(Far
E
astern
Surety & Insurance Co., Inc.
vs. Vda. de Hernandez, et a
l.
L-30359,
Oct.
16, 1975).
Unde r Sec . 2 , executio n ma
y
issue in th e discretio n o f th e cour t even befor e th e laps e o f
45 1
----------------------- Page 452----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 1
th e perio d t o appeal , t h a t is , eve n befor e th e judgmen t o

r
order ha s becom e executory .
Whe n executio n i s a matte r o f right , th e judgmen t
debtor nee d no t b e given advanc e notic e o r prio r hearin g
of suc h motion for executio n (Pamintuan, et al.
vs. M
uhoz,
et al.,
L-26331,
Mar.
15,
1968;
Far
Eastern
Suret
y
&
Insurance
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Vda.
de Hernandez,
et al.,
supra;
Development Bank of Rizal
vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No.
75964,
Dec. 1, 1987).
An ex parte motio n for th e issuanc e of th e
wri t woul d suffice sinc e th e tria l cour t ma y tak e judicia l
notic e o f th e recor d o f th e cas e t o determin e th e propriet y
o f th e issuanc e thereof .
However , wher e th e losin g part y
show s t h a t subsequen t fact s ha d take n plac e whic h woul d
rende r executio n unjust , a hearin g o n th e motio n shoul d
be
hel d
(Luzon
Surety
Co.
vs.
Beson,
L-26865
-66,
Jan.
30,
1976).
4 .
om e
executory ,
i t o f
execution ,
W h e r e
th e
cour t canno t
o r
refus e
o r d e r h a s
t o
issu e
bec
a
wr
except :
(a)
W h e n
s u b s e q u e n t fact s
a n d c i r c u m s t
a n c e s
t r a n s p i r e w h i c h r e n d e r s u c h e x e c u t i o n u n j u
s t o r
impossible , suc h a s a supervenin g caus e lik e th e ac t o f th e
C o m m i s s i o n e r o f Civi l Servic e
findin g
t h e plai
ntif f
administratively guilt y an d whic h constitute d a ba r t o hi s
reinstatemen t a s ordere d by th e tria l cour t in a civil cas e
(Butuan
City vs.
Ortiz, et al, L-18054,
Dec.
22,
1961
),
or
wher e th e defendan t ban k wa s place d unde r receivershi p
(Lipan
vs.
Development
Bank
of Rizal,
G.R.
No.
73884,
Sept.
24,
1987);
(b)
O n equitabl e
grounds ,
a s whe n ther e
ha s been
a
c h a n g e i n t h e
w h i c h
m a k e s
executio n
ang,
L-18003,
Sept.
29,
vs.
CA,
et al, L-34220,
et al,
G.R.
No.
68374,
June
s i t u a t i o n o f t h e
i n e q u i t a b l e (Albar
1962;
Heirs
Feb.
21,
18,
of
1983;
p a r t i e s
vs.
Pedro
Carand
Luna
Guminpin
vs.
IAC,
1985);
452
----------------------- Page 453----------------------RULE 39
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
SEC
1
AND EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS
(c) Wher e th e judgmen t ha s been novate d by th e
partie s
(Fua
Cam
Lu
vs. Yap Fauco,
74 Phil. 287; c
f.
Zapanta
vs. De Rotaeche,
21 Phil.
154; Salvante vs.
Cruz
,
88 Phil. 236; Dormitorio
vs. Fernandez,
et al., L-25889
Aug. 21,
1976);
(d) Whe n a petitio n for relie f or an action t o enjoin
th e judgmen t i s filed an d a preliminar y injunctio n i s
praye d for an d grante d
(se e Sec. 5, Rule 38);
(e) Whe n th e judgmen t ha s becom e dormant , th e
5-year perio d unde r Sec . 6 o f thi s Rul e havin g expire d
withou t th e judgmen t havin g been revive d
(Cunanan vs.
CA,
et
al.,
L-25511,
Sept.
28,
1968); or
(f) Wher e th e judgmen t turn s out t o b e incomplet e

(Del Rosario
vs. Villegas,
49 Phil. 634; Ignacio, et al.
v
s.
Hilario, et al., 76 Phil. 605)
or is conditiona l
(Cu Unjieng,
etc. vs. Mabalacat
Sugar Co.,
70 Phil. 380) since ,
a
matte r o f law , suc h judgmen t canno t becom e final .
as
5.
Quasha l o f a wri t o f executio n i s prope r whe n
(a) it wa s improvidentl y issued ; (b) it wa s defectiv e in
substance ; (c) it i s issue d agains t th e wron g party ; (d) th e
judgmen t wa s alread y satisfied ; (e) it wa s issue d withou t
authority ; (f) a chang e in th e situatio n o f th e partie s
render s execution inequitable ; an d (g) th e controversy wa s
never validly submitte d to th e court
(Cobb Perez vs. Lantin,
L-22320,
May
22,
1968;
Sandico,
et al. vs. Piguing,
e
t
al., L-26115, Nov.
29, 1971).
Th e sam e remed y is als o
available wher e th e wri t o f execution varie s th e term s o f
th e judgment , or wher e it i s sough t t o b e enforce d agains t
p r o p e r t y e x e m p t from executio n
o r w h e r e t h e r e
i s
ambiguity in th e term s o f th e judgment .

Ultimately , thes e
defects may als o b e challenge d on appea l or in certiorari ,
prohibitio n or mandamu s action s (Limpin, et al. vs. IAC,
et al., G.R. No.
70987, Jan. 30,
1987).
Wher e ther e i s substantia l varianc e betwee n th e
judgmen t an d th e wri t o f execution issue d t o enforc e th e
453
----------------------- Page 454----------------------RULE 39
EC. 1
same , sai d wri t is a nullit y (Malacora, et al. vs. CA, et al.,

G.R.
No.
51042,
Sept.
30,
1982, an d case s therei n cited) .
6 . After judgmen t ha s becom e executory ,

cannot amen d th e same , except :
th e cour t
(a) T o mak e correction s o f clerica l errors , mistake s

or omission s (Phil. Engineering Corp.
us.
Ceniza,
L-1
7834,
Sept.
29,
1962;
Presbitero
us.
CA,
et
al.,
L-3
4241,
May 28,
1984),
a s by an amendmen t nunc pro tunc,
bu t
substantia l change s canno t b e effected by a nunc pro tunc
a m e n d m e n t
(Maramba
us.
Lozano,
L-21533,
June
29,
1967);
(b) T o clarify an
an d justifiabl e in th e
Paredes,
63 Phil.
87),
ambiguit y whic h i s born e ou t by

contex t o f th e decision (Lacson us.
especially
theret o (Orbase, et al.

70603,
May 30,
1986); or
(c)
I n
us.
if th e
j u d g m e n t s
Nocos,
for
et
support ,
partie s
al.,
G.R.
acquiesce d
whic h
No.
ca n
alway
s
b e amende d from tim e t o time , i n ligh t o f th e circum
stance s of th e partie s
(Florendo us. Organo, 9 0 Phil. 48
3;
cf.
Canonizado
us.
Benitez,
etc.,
et al.,
L-49315
an d
G.R. No.
60966,
Feb.
20, 1984).
7 .
ha s becom
Rul e 38 ,
collatera l
a .
Th e remedie s agains t a judgmen t o r orde r which

e executor y ar e (a) a petitio n for relie f unde r
(b) a direc t attac k agains t th e judgment , or (c) a
attac k agains t th e judgment .
A
direc t
a t t a c k
agains t
th e j u d g m e n t
i s
mad e
throug h a n actio n o r proceedin g th e mai n object o f which
i s t o annul , se t aside , or enjoin th e enforcemen t o f suc h
judgment , i f no t ye t carrie d int o effect ; or i f th e propert y
ha s
bee n
dispose d
of,
th e
aggrieve d
part y
ma y
su e
for
it s recovery
(Banco Espanol-Filipino
us. Palanca,
3 7
Phil.
921).
Suc h judgmen t ma y b e annulle d on th e groun d o f
lack o f jurisdiction , frau d or tha t it i s contrar y t o law , in
an actio n brough t for sai d purpos e an d on an y o f thes e
g r o u n d s (Panlilio,
et
al.
us.
Garcia,
et al., L-29
038,
454
----------------------- Page 455----------------------RULE 39
EC. 1

Dec. 27,
in whol
000,
Mar. 18,
not , on
s
vitiate d
11,
1973).
1982), sinc e sai d judgmen t i s void a s a consequenc e

e
or
in p a r t (Agustin
vs.
Bocalan,
L-46
1985).
Thi s i s necessar y wher e a judgmen t doe s
it s face , revea l th e nullity or th e fact tha t it i
by frau d
(Cadano
vs.
Cadano,
L-34998,
Jan.
See , however , Rul e 4 7 an d th e note s thereunder .
A collatera l or incidenta l attac k i s mad e when , in

another action t o obtai n a different relief , an attac k on
th e judgmen t i s mad e a s a n inciden t i n sai d action .
Thi s
i s prope r only whe n i t i s paten t tha t th e cour t whi
c h
rendere d sai d judgmen t ha d n o jurisdictio n
(see Reyes,
e t
al. vs. Barreto-Datu,
94 Phil.
446; Resensons,
Inc., e
t al.
vs. Jimenez,
et al., L-41225,
Nov.
11,
1975; Macabingki
l
vs. PHHC, et al.,
L-29080, Aug.
17, 1976).
b . In an action t o annu l a judgmen t on th e groun d
of fraud , th e frau d mus t b e extrinsic , i.e. , a s th e mean s
w h e r e b y j u d g m e n t w a s procured ,
suc h
a s w h e
r e i t
prevente d a part y from havin g a tria l or from presentin g
all of hi s cas e to th e cour t
(Asian Surety & Insurance Co.,
Inc.
vs. Island Steel, Inc., et al, L 31366, Nov.
15,
1982)
and which affect s an d goe s int o th e jurisdiction o f th e court
(Avendana,
et al.
vs. Bautista,
et
al, G.R.
No.
52
092,
April 8,
1986).
Th e extrinsi c frau d for annulmen t of a
judgmen t i s on e committe d b y th e advers e party , not

b y plaintiff' s ow n counse l wh o
misle d
sai d plaint
if f
(Sanchez vs. Tupas, et al, G.R. No.
76690, Feb. 29,
1
988).
Intrinsi c fraud , or tha t found in th e caus e o f action or
matte r pu t in issu e an d presente d for adjudication , i s not
a groun d for annulmen t of judgmen t (Cordovis, et al.
vs.
Obias,
et
al,
L-24080,
April
26,
1968).
Th e
s
am e
procedur e a s in Rul e 38 , i.e. , a hearin g t o first determin e
w h e t h e r th e ju d g me n t i s t o b e se t aside , an d
i n th e
affirmative , a tria l on th e merits , shoul d b e followed in
th e
Cour t
o f F i r s t Instanc e
(Siyangco
vs.
Costib
olo,
L-22506,
Feb.
28,
1969).
Se e
th e procedur e
a s
now
outlined by Rul e 47 .
455
----------------------- Page 456----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 1
It wa s previousl y hel d tha t suc h actio n t o annu l th e

judgmen t mus t b e institute d i n th e ver y sam e cour t an d
sala
whic h
rendere d
th e judgmen t
(Mas
vs. Dumar
aog,
L-16252,
Sept.
29,
1964;
Sterling
Investment
Corp.
vs. Ruiz, L-30694, Oct. 31,
1969) an d withi n 4 year s from
discovery
of th e
frau d
(Anuran
vs. Aquino,
38 Phil
.
29;
Art.
1146,
Civil Code; Arellano
vs. CFI of Sorsogon,
et al.,
L-34897,
July
15,
1975).
However ,
in Dulap,
et
al.
vs.
CA, e t al. (L-28306 , Dec . 18 , 1971) , it wa s hel d tha t any
C o u r t o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e o r b r a n c h t h e r e o f
ca n t a k e
cognizance o f suc h actio n t o annu l a fina l judgment .
Thi s
wa s
reiterate d
in
Gianan
vs. Imperial,
et al. (L-37
963 ,
F e b . 28 ,
1974) ,
Francisco
vs.
Aquino
(L-33235-56
,
Jul y
2 , 1976)
an d
Singson,
et al. vs.
Saldajeno,
et al.
(L-27343 , Feb . 28 , 1979) .
However , unde r B.P . Big . 129
,
th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t (now , Court of Appeals)
ha s exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n i n action s t o annu l th e
judgmen t o f Regiona l Tria l Court s (Sec.
9[2J),
an
d th e
Regiona l Tria l Court s retai n thei r jurisdictio n

judgment s o f inferior court s in th e regio n (Sec.
6J).
t o
annu l
19[
c. A n
a c t i o n t o a n n u l a j u d g m e n t t h e r
e t o f o r e
rendere d by a Regiona l Tria l Court , an d reverse d by th e
Court o f Appeal s whos e decision ha s becom e final , i s withi n
th e exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n o f th e Cour t o f Appeals ,
p u r s u a n t t o Sec . 9 , B.P . Big . 129 . Whil e th e judgmen
t
b e i n g c h a l l e n g e d ma y
h a v e bee n
t h a t o f t h e
C o u r t
o f A p p e a l s , i t w a s a c t u a l l y a n a p p e l l a t e j u
d g m e n t
rendere d on a revie w o f th e tria l court' s decision .
Sai d
action for annulmen t coul d no t b e filed in th e Suprem e
Court sinc e factua l issue s o f allege d extrinsi c fraud , relie d
on for th e annulmen t sought , ar e not withi n it s jurisdictio n
to resolv e
(Conde,
et al. vs. IAC,
et al, G.R.
No.
70443,
Sept.
15,
1986).
d . An actio n t o annu l a judgmen t i s not necessaril y
l i m i t e d t o t h o s e p r i n c i p a l l y o r s e c o n d a r i l y
b o u n d
thereunder .
Any perso n adversel y affecte d thereb y can
enjoin it s enforcemen t an d hav e it declare d a nullit y on
456
----------------------- Page 457----------------------RULE 39
EC. 2

th e groun d o f extrinsi c frau d
an d collusio n
i n
obtainin g
suc h
j u d g m e n t (Militante
vs.
no,
et al, L-27940,
June
10,
1971).
Sec.
2.
Discretionary
use d
Edrosola
execution.
(a)
Execution
of
a judgment
or
final
order
ding
appeal. O n motio n
o f th e prevailin g part y
t h
notic e t o th e advers e part y file d i n th e tria l cour t
w h i l e i t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c a s
an d i s i n
possessio n o f eithe r th e origina l recor d o r th e recor d
o n appeal , a s t h e cas e ma y be , a t th e tim e o
h e
f i l i n g o f s u c h m o t i o n , s a i d c o u r t m a y ,
i t s
discretion , orde r e x e c u t i o n o f a j u d g m e n t o r
a l
pen
wi
e
f t
i n
fin
orde r e v e n
appeal .
befor e
th e
expiratio n
o f th e
perio d
t o
Afte r th e tria l cour t ha s los t jurisdiction , th e

motio n fo r e x e c u t i o n p e n d i n g appea l ma y b e file d
i n th e
appellat e
Discretionar y
p o n
goo d
r
du e
court .
e x e c u t i o n
r e a s o n s t o
b e
ma y
state d
i n
onl y
a
issu e
specia l
orde r
afte
or
pa
hearing .
(b)
rtial
judgments.
m a y
b
a n d
condition s
p e n d i n
Execution
of
several,
separate
A several , separat e o r partia l judgmen t

e x e c u t e d
u n d e r
t h e s a m e
t e r m s
a s e x e c u t i o n o f a judgmen t o r fina l orde r

g appeal .
(2a )
NOTE S
1.
Thi s section wa s amende d t o mak e it clear tha t
discretionary execution may b e grante d by th e tria l court
whil e i t ha s jurisdictio n over th e cas e an d i s stil l
i n
possession o f th e origina l recor d thereo f or th e recor d on
appeal in thos e instance s wher e th e latte r i s required .
Th e
latter aspec t follows th e former rul e tha t th e motion for
discretionary execution an d th e specia l order grantin g th e
same shal l b e include d in th e recor d on appeal .
457
----------------------- Page 458----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 3
I f th e tria l cour
y
reaso n o f th e perfection
therein , th e motio n for
filed in th e appropriat e
recor d o r th e recor d
bee n elevated .
t ha s lost jurisdictio n over th e cas e b

o f th e appea l from th e
executio n pendin g appea l
appellat e court t o which th
o n appea l shal l hav e
2 . I n eithe r instance , an d whethe r

r
judgmen t or a specia l judgmen t suc h a s a several
o r p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t , t h e s a m e
n d t h e
requiremen t o f a specia l orde r statin g good
th e discretionar y executio n shal l b e observed .
Not e 3
unde r Sec . 4 o f thi s Rule , infra.
judgmen t
may b e
e origina l
consequentl y
i t i s
regula
, separat e
p r o c e d u r e
reason s
for
Se e
3 . Th e
Cour t o f Appeals ,
ha s n o authorit y t o issu e
immediat e executio n pendin g appea l o f it s own decision s

t h e r e i n . Discretionar y executio n i s allowe d pendin g
appea l o f a judgmen t or fina l orde r o f th e tria l court , upon
good reason s t o b e state d in a specia l order .
A judg
men t
of th e Cour t o f Appeal s canno t b e execute d pendin g appeal .
Once fina l an d executory , th e judgmen t o n appea l mus t
b e r e m a n d e d t o t h e lowe r court ,
w h e r e a motio
n for
execution ma y b e filed only after it s entr y
(Heirs of
Justice
J.B.L. Reyes, etc., et al.
vs. CA, et al., G.R. Nos.
135180-81
an d
135425-26,
Aug.
16,
2000).
Thi s shoul d
no t b e confuse d w i t h t h e
proc
edur e
outline d in th e secon d paragrap h o f Sec . 2(a) o f th e Rul e
which govern s discretionar y executio n o f th e decision o f
th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t whic h i s o n appea l i n th e Cour t
o f Appeal s an d th e tria l cour t ha s alread y lost jurisdictio n
over th e case .
S e c .
3 . Stay
of discretionary
execution.
D i s c r e t i o n a r y e x e c u t i o n i s s u e d u n d e r t h e p r e
c e d i n g
s e c t i o n m a y b e s t a y e d u p o n approva l b y t h e prope r
cour t o f a sufficien t s u p e r s e d e a s bon d file d b y t
h e
part y a g a i n s t w h o m i t i s directed , c o n d i t i o n e d upo
n
t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f th e j u d g m e n t o r orde r a l l o
w e d
45 8
----------------------- Page 459----------------------RULE 39
C. 4
SE

t o b e e x e c u t e d i n cas e i t shal l b e
i n whol e o r i n part .
p r o c e e d e d a g a i n s t
o t h e
surety .
(3a )
finall y
sustaine d
Th e bon d t h u s give n ma y b e
o n m o t i o n w i t h n o t i c e t
NOTE S
1. Thi s
i s v i r t u a l l y t h e sam e a s i n th e f
orme r
procedur e except that , wit h th e clarification earlie r note d
regardin g th e powe r o f eithe r th e cour t a quo or th e
appellat e cour t t o allow discretionar y execution unde r th e

requirement s in th e precedin g section , th e procedur e for
th e sta y thereo f whe n sough t i n eithe r cour t an d
th e
liability o f th e supersedea s bon d shal l b e th e same .

2 . In America n law from which ou r procedur e hereo n
wa s taken , a supersedea s i s an auxiliar y proces s designe
t o supersed e enforcemen t o f a tria l court' s judgmen
brough t up for review , an d it s application i s limite d t
judgmen t from which an appea l i s take n (Mascot Pictures
Corp.
vs. Municipal
Court
of City of Los Angeles,
Cal.
App. 2d 559, 4 0 P. 2d 272).
In moder n practice , th
is use d
designate
suspended
al
Co., 26
d
t
o th e
3
e ter m
synonymousl y wit h a "stay o f proceedings, " an d

s th e effect o f an act or proceedin g which in itsel f
th e enforcemen t of a judgmen t
(Dulinvs.
Cal.
306,
P.
Co
123).
3 . See , in thi s connection , Not e 3 in th e preliminar y

consideration s o f Provisiona l Remedies , infra, regardin g
th e fixin g o f th e lifetim e o f bond s in civi l action s
or
proceeding s
(A.M.
No.
03-03-18-SC,
effective
Sept.
1,
2003).
S e c .
4 .
Judgments
not
stayed
by
appeal.
J u d g m e n t s i n action s fo
a c c o u n t i n g an d support ,
a s ar e
n o w o r m a y h
t o b e
immediatel y executory , shal l
r injunction , receivership ,
an d suc h othe r judgment s
e r e a f t e r b e d e c l a r e d
b e
enforceabl e
afte r
459
----------------------- Page 460----------------------RULE 39
SEC 4
thei r r e n d i t i o n an d shal l no t b e staye d b y a n appea l

t a k e n t h e r
e d
b y
th e tria l court
c o u r t
i n
o r d e r
s u s p e n d i n g
th e
i n j u n c t i o n
a w a r d o f
support .
e f r o m ,
u n l e s s
o t h e r w i s e
o r d e r
.
O n a p p e a l therefrom , t h e appellat e
i t s d i s c r e t i o n
m a y
m a k e
a n
, modifying ,
,
r e s t o r i n g
r e c e i v e r s h i p ,
o r
g r a n t i n g
a c c o u n t i n g ,
o r
Th e sta y o f e x e c u t i o n shal l b e u p o n s u c h term

s
a s t o bon d o r o t h e r w i s e a s ma y b e c o n s i d e r e d p
rope r
for th e
s e c u r i t y o r
t s o f th e
a d v e r s e party .
(4a )
p r o t e c t i o n
o f th e
r i g h
NOTE S
1. Generally ,
only j u d g m e n t s
an d final orde
r s
or
resolution s ma y b e executed .
Th e exception s ar e order
s
grantin g suppor t pendente lite whic h ca n b e execute d even
if th e mai n cas e i s stil l pendin g
(Sec.
4, Rule 61
), an d
order s i n injunction , receivershi p an d accountin g cases .
With respec t t o th e latter , however , thi s amende d Sec . 4
c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t suc h directive s ar e p u r s u a n t
t o a
judgment , unlik e th e former sectio n whic h referre d t o " a
judgmen t o r order directin g a n accountin g i n a n action. "
Fo r
t h a t m a t t e r , s u p p o r t pendente
lite i s cont
aine d
generally
in an
interlocutory orde r an d
no t a jud
gment .
T h i s i m p r e c i s i o n i n t e r m i n o l o g y may ,
h o w e v
e r , b e
disregarded , th e importan t consideratio n bein g tha t thes e
reliefs , a s wel l a s other s a s ma y hereafte r b e s o provided
,
shall b e enforceabl e upo n thei r renditio n an d shal l no t b e
stayed b y a n appea l take n therefrom , unles s otherwis e
ordere d b y th e court .
2 . Also , a s a rule ,
e
judgmen t ha s becom e executory ,
tria l o r reconsideratio n ha s
or certiorar i proceedin g bee
Som e
j u d g m e n t s , however ,
b y
provisio n o f th e Rules , eve n
executio n shal l issu e only i f th

tha t is , n o motion for new
bee n filed , no r ha s a n appea l
n t a k e n therefrom .
a r e i m m e d i a t e l y
executor y
i f a n appea l ha s bee n take n

460
----------------------- Page 461----------------------RULE 39

C. 4
SE

therefrom .
Thus , unde r thi s section , judgment s i n action s
for injunction , receivership , accountin g an d suppor t ar e
immediately executory an d not staye d by an appeal , unles s
otherwis e ordered .
Th e sam e i s t r u e i n th e ca
s e o f
j u d g m e n t s o f inferio r court s for th e ejectmen t o f th
e
defendant (Sec.
19, Rule
70).
Hence , i t ha s bee n hel d tha t appea l doe s no t sta

e
executio n
o f a j u d g m e n t decreein g
dissolutio n
o f a
preliminar y injunction
(Aguilar vs.
Tan,
et al.,
00,
Jan. 30, 1970).
Thi s rul e on th e immediat e execution o
a judgmen t in an injunction cas e doe s no t apply , however ,
to a judgmen t in an action for prohibitio n (Embroidery &
Apparel
Control
&
Inspection
Board
vs.
bel,
June
20,
1967).
y th
L-236
f
Clori
3 . A j u d g m e n t i n a n actio n wherei n accountin g

is ordered , a s a primar y or incidenta l relief , i s a fina l
an d
a p p e a l a b l e j u d g m e n t (Miranda
vs. CA,
e t
al.,
L-33007,
June
18,
1976; Hernandez
vs. CA,
et al.,
G.R.
Nos. 61420-21, Feb. 22, 1983 an d case s therei n cited) .
Th e
genera l rul e in partitio n tha t an appea l will not lie unti l
th e partitio n an d distributio n proceeding s ar e terminate d
doe s no t appl y wher e th e appellan t claim s exclusiv e
ownership o f th e whol e propert y an d denie s th e advers e
p a r t y ' s righ t t o an y p a r t i t i o n (Garbo vs.
CA,
e t
al.,
L-39384,
June
22,
1984).
4 . Eve n befor e th e judgmen t ha s becom e executory
and before appea l wa s perfected , th e court , in it s discretion ,
may orde r execution upon good reason s t o b e state d in a
special order , suc h as :
(a) Wher e th e laps e o f tim e woul d mak e th e ultimat e
j u d g m e n t ineffective ,
a s w h e r e t h e d e b t o r s w
e r e
withdrawin g thei r busines s an d asset s from th e countr y
(Scottish
Union
&
National
Insurance
Co.,
et al.
vs.
Macadaeg,
et al., 91 Phil.
891);
46 1
----------------------- Page 462----------------------RULE 39
C. 4
SE
(b)
Wher e th e appea l i s clearly dilator y (Rodriguez,
et al vs. CA,
et al., 105 Phil.
777; De
Vera
vs.
ntos,
L-24351,
Sept.
22,
1977);
(c)
n d th e
beneficiary
al.,
94 Phil.
W h e r e
t h e
i s in nee d
634);
j u d g m e n t
i s for
thereo f (Javier
s u p p o r t
vs.
Lucero,
Sa
a
et
(d)
Wher e
th e
article s
subjec t
o f th e
cas e
woul d
deteriorat e
(Federation,
etc.
vs. NAMARCO,
L-17819 a
n d
L-17768, Mar. 31,
1962), hence , unde r Sec .
15(a) of
thi s
Rule , th e cour t ca n jus t fix th e tim e for notic e o f executio n
sale o f perishabl e property ;
(e)
Wher e defendant s ar e exhaustin g thei r incom e
an d hav e n o othe r propert y asid e from th e proceed s from
th e subdivisio n lot s subjec t o f th e actio n
(Lao vs. Menci
as,
L-23554,
Nov.
25,
1967);
(f)
Wher e th e judgmen t debto r i s in imminen t dange r
of insolvency
(Santos
vs. Mojica, L-24266, Jan.
24,
1969)
or is actuall y
insolven t
(Padilla,
et al. vs. CA,
t al.,
L-31569,
Sept.
28,
1973);
(g)
Wher e th e prevailin g part y i s o f advance d ag e
an d i n a precariou s stat e o f health , an d th e obligatio n i n
th e judgmen t i s non-transmissible , bein g for suppor t
(De
Leon,
et al. vs. Soriano,
et al., 95 Phil.
806; cf. Far E
ast
Bank,
etc. vs. Toh,
Sr., et al, G.R.
No.
144018,
June
23,
2003);
(h)
Wher e ther e i s uncontradicte d evidenc e showin g
that , i n orde r t o hous e machinerie s whic h the y wer e forced
t o plac e on a publi c street , movant s wer e in extrem e nee d
o f th e premise s subjec t o f th e sui t an d th e possessio n
whereo f wa s adjudge d t o the m i n th e tria l court' s decision ,
an d th e correspondin g bon d t o answe r for damage s i n cas e
of reversa l on appea l ha d bee n poste d by the m (Lu
vs.
Valeriano,
G.R.
No.
51001,
Jan.
18,
1982);
or
(i)
prevailin g
r for
Wher e th e cas e involve d escrow deposit s an d th e

p a r t y
post s
sufficien t bon d
t o a n s w e
462
----------------------- Page 463----------------------RULE 39

SEC. 4
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION

d a m a g e s
i n cas e
o f r e v e r s a l
n t (Hda.
Navarra, Inc.
vs. Labrador, et al.,
PVTA
o f
th e
65 Phil.
j u d g m e
536; cf.
vs.
Lucero,
et al.,
(1)
L-32550,
Oct.
However ,
in
27,
1983).
Belfast
Surety
&
Insu
rance
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Solidum,
et
al.
(CA-G.R .
No .
40304-R ,
Nov . 4 , 1970 , 6 7 O.G . No . 36 , p . 7034) , th e Cour t

of Appeal s hel d tha t th e mer e filing o f a bon d i s not
a good reaso n for th e execution o f a money judgmen t
pendin g appeal .
I t distinguishe d thi s situatio n from
th e Navarra cas e wherei n th e money wa s deposite d
wit h th e ban k i n escrow , henc e it s withdrawa l unde r
th e securit y o f a bon d filed by th e prevailin g part y
woul d not resul t i n an y damag e t o th e depositor .
(2) T h e r e a f t e r , in Roxas
vs
CA,
et al.
(G.R .
No . 56960 , Jan . 28 , 1988) , th e Suprem e Cour t clarifie d
it s decision s wherei n som e statement s mad e therei n
generate d th e perceptio n t h a t th e filin g o f a bon
d
by th e successfu l part y
execution pendin g appeal ,
factual contex t i n which
T h u s , in City
of
i s a good reaso n for orderin g

by callin g attentio n t o th e
suc h order s wer e allowed .
Manila
vs. CA,
et al. (L-3525
3 ,
J u l y 26 , 1976) , th e Cit y o f Manil a ha d obtaine d
judgmen t for recovery o f a parce l o f lan d it ha d len t
t o th e Metropolita n
Theater .
Sinc e sai d defendan
t
wa s insolven t an d ther e wa s imminen t dange r tha t

it s credito r woul d foreclose th e mortgag e tha t i t ha d
t h e r e t o f o r e c o n s t i t u t e d o n t h e p r o p e r t y
suc h
c i r c u m s t a n c e s impelle d
th e g r a n t o f i m m e
i a t e
execution an d th e r e q u i r e m e n t o f a bon d b y t
e
plaintif f w a s
impose d
merel y
a s a n a d d i
i o n a l
measur e for th e protection o f defendant' s creditor .
In
Hda.
Navarra,
Inc.
vs.
Labrador,
et al., supra,
th e
special reaso n for immediat e execution , an d not merely
th e postin g o f a bond , wa s t o insur e it s receip t by th
d
h
t
e
part y obtainin g a favorabl e judgmen t in th e civil cas e
therein , an d th e postin g o f a bon d for delivery o f sai d
proceed s secure s suc h receipt by th e prevailin g party .
463
----------------------- Page 464----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 4
In People's Bank
(96
&
Trust
Co.
vs.
San Jose,
et
al.
Phil . 895) , immediat e executio n wa s allowe d for th e

paymen t o f suppor t o f a n hei r o f th e estat e unde
r
administration , an d hi s urgen t nee d therefor , no t th e
filing o f th e bond , wa s th e paramoun t consideratio n
for suc h order .
T o conside r th e mer e postin g o f a bon d
a s a "goo d
r e a s o n " for i m m e d i a t e
e x e c u t
i o n o f
judgment s pendin g appea l woul d becom e routinary ,
o r t h e r u l e r a t h e r t h a n t h e exception ,
an d
thi s
situation i s no t contemplate d o r intende d i n th e Rules .
5 . Whil e
insolvenc y
o f t h e j u d g m e n t d e b
t o r o r
i m m i n e n t d a n g e r thereo f ha s bee n considere d
a
good
reaso n for discretionar y execution , tha t rul e doe s no t apply
where ,
a s s u m i n g t h a t on e o f t h e j u d g m e n t de
btor s i s
insolvent , th e othe r judgmen t co-debtor i s no t and , unde r
th e term s o f th e judgment , th e liability o f th e latte r
i s
either subsidiar y t o or solidary wit h th e former
(Phi
lippine
National
Bank
vs.
Puno,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
76018,
Feb.
10,
1989).
6 . Certiorar i lie s agains t a n orde r grantin g execution
pendin g appea l wher e th e sam e i s no t founde d upo n good
reasons .
Th e fact t h a t th e losin g part y ha d als o appeale
d
from th e judgmen t doe s no t ba r th e certiorar i proceed ing s a s th e appea l coul d no t b e a n adequat e remed y from
such
p r e m a t u r e executio n
(Jaca
vs. Davao
Lumber
Co.,
L-25771,
Mar.
29,
1982).
Th e dismissa l o f th e specia l civi l actio n for certiorar i
assailin g th e
orde r a quo directin g executio n pendin g
appea l o f a specifi c portio n o f th e j u d g m e n t does.no
t
preclud e eithe r th e appellan t from appealin g th e entiret y
o f th e judgmen t o r th e sam e appellat e cour t from passin g
u p o n
t h e m e r i t s o f t h e e n t i r e a p p e a l e d j u d
g m e n t
(Silverio
vs. CA,
et al., L-39861, Mar.
17,
1986).
part y
7 . T o preven t executio n pendin g appeal , th e losin g

mus t pos t a supersedea s bon d t o answe r for such
464
----------------------- Page 465----------------------RULE 39

4
SEC
damage s a s may b e awarde d by th e appellat e cour t or for

th e performanc e o f th e judgmen t appeale d from in cas e o f
affirmance on appeal .
However , th e filing o f supersedea s
bond doe s not entitl e th e judgmen t debtor t o th e suspension
of execution as a matte r of righ t
(NAW ASA vs. Catolico,
L-21705
an d
L-24327,
April
27,
nila
vs. CA, et al., L-35253, July 26, 1976).
1967;
City
of
Ma
Hence , wher e th e
need s o f th e prevailin g part y ar e urgent , th e court can

order immediat e execution despit e such supersedea s bond
(De Leon, et al.
vs. Soriano, supra).
8.
befor e th
formerly ,
becaus e
Th e motion
e cour t
th e appea
upo n suc
for immediat e execution mus t b e filed

approve s th e recor d o n appea l and ,
l bond , wher e suc h wer e required ,
h approval ,
th e appea l i s deeme d
perfecte d an d th e tria l cour t lose s jurisdiction over th e

subject matter , except t o issu e order s for th e protection
an d preservatio n o f th e right s o f th e partie s (Sec.
9,
Rule 41; De Leon
vs. De los Santos,
79 Phil.
461).
An
order for immediat e execution i s not withi n th e exception
a s i t affect s th e right s o f th e partie s which ar e t o
b e
determine d on appea l (Abrasaldo, et al.
vs. Fernandez,
et
al., 9 7 Phil. 964). As implie d in th e former Sec . 2 , a specia l
order for immediat e execution mus t b e include d in th e
recor d on appeal , thereb y presupposin g tha t th e recor d
on appea l ha s not ye t bee n approved .
However , thes e
consideration d o not apply t o th e issuanc e an d enforcement
of alia s writ s wher e th e origina l wri t ha d been issue d prior
t o th e approva l o f th e recor d on appea l an d appea l bond
(NCBNY vs.
Tiaoqui,
100 Phil.
1104).
take n
tha t
before
by th
bein g
(Sec.
rp.
Since unde r B.P . Big . 129 appea l i s now generally

by merely filing a notic e o f appeal , it wa s the n hel d
th e motion for immediat e execution shoul d b e file d
th e notic e i s file d an d th e appea l given du e cours e
e tria l court , th e perfection o f appea l in such cas e
th e laps e o f th e las t day for al l partie s t o appea l
23, Interim Rules).
Se e
Universal Far East
Co
466
----------------------- Page 466----------------------RULE 39

SEC. 4
vs. CA, e t al. (G.R. No . 64931 , Aug . 31 , 1984) holdin g tha t

a s lon g a s suc h motio n i s file d befor e t h e appea l
i s
perfected , th e wri t ma y issu e after th e perio d for appeal .
In
Yabut
vs.
IAC,
e t al.
(G.R .
No .
6
9 2 0 8 ,
May 28 , 1986) , respondent s receive d a copy o f th e decision
on Jul y 23 ,
1984 , an d the y appeale d th e following day .
Petitioner , on th e othe r hand , receive d hi s copy o f sai d
decision on Jul y 20 , 1984 an d filed a motio n for executio n
p e n d i n g a p p e a l o n J u l y 25 , 1984 .
Sai d motio n
wa s
seasonably filed a s th e appea l o f th e responden t wa s not
perfecte d on th e da y the y filed thei r notic e o f appea l bu t
on th e expiratio n o f th e las t da y t o appeal , whic h wa
s
A u g u s t
7 ,
198 4
(cf . Montelibano
vs.
Bacolod-Murc
ia
Milling
Co.,
Inc., G.R.
No.
69800,
May
7, 1985; Bel
gado
vs. IAC,
et al., G.R.
No.
74975,
Jan.
12,
1987).
See ,
h o w e v e r , t h e a m e n d e d
Sec .
9 o f R u l e 4 1 w i t
h t h e
modification s
a n d c l a r i f i c a t i o n s o n t h i s m a
t t e r , a s
explaine d
therein .
9 . W h e r e fro m t h e decisio n o f a n d th e
enc e
presente d befor e th e tria l court , th e judgmen t credito r
clearly entitle d t o actua l damages , th e sam e ca n b e
subject o f executio n pendin g appeal , bu t no t th e
award s for mora l an d exemplar y damage s an d attorney' s
fees
(RCPI vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.
59311, Jan.
1985;
Engineering
Construction,
Inc.
vs.
NFC,
34589,
June
29,
1988).
10. Th e suret y i s charge d unde
upo n th e terminatio n o f th e cas e o n
ma y b e execute d o n motion , unlik
recover y o f damage s from bond s i n
n junctio n whic h i s governe d by Sec . 20
et al. vs. Rovira,
et al., L-28454,
evid
i s
th e
othe r
31,
r th e supersedea s bon d
appea l an d th e bon d
e th e procedur e for
a t t a c h m e n t o r
L-
, Rul e 5 8 (Apacheche,
May
18,
1978).
11. An orde r for executio n o f a judgmen t pendin g

appea l ca n b e enforce d o n a counter-bon d whic h wa s
poste d t o lift th e wri t o f preliminar y attachmen t issue d by
466
----------------------- Page 467----------------------RULE 39
C. 5
SE

th e tria l court .
Sees . 5 an d
12 o f Rul e 5 7 provid e tha t
said counter-bon d shal l respon d for any judgmen t in th e
action an d not only for a fina l an d executory judgmen t

(Phil. British Association
Co.,
Inc. vs. IAC,
et
G R
No.
72005, May 29,
1987).
al.,
Sec .
5.
Effect
of
reversal of executed judgment.
Wher e th e e x e c u t e d j u d g m e n t i s reverse d totall y o r

partially , o r annulled , o n appea l o r otherwise , th e
tria l c o u r t may , o n m o t i o n , i s s u e s u c h order s
o f
restitutio n o r reparatio n a s equit y an d justic e ma y
warran t unde r th e circumstances .
(5a)
NOTE S
1. Thi
it s purvie w
only reverse d
provide ,
t i o n o r
reparation .
s section ha s
th e situatio n
bu t actually
b y wa y o f
bee n
wherei
annulle
relief
amende d t o includ e
n th e judgmen t wa s
d (see Rule 47) an d
,
for e i t h e r
withi n
not
t o
r e s t i t u
2 . On reversal , th e propert y itsel f mus t b e returne d

t o th e judgmen t debtor , i f th e sam e i s stil l in th e possession
of th e judgmen t creditor , plu s compensation t o th e former
for th e deprivatio n an d us e o f th e property .
Thi s can
b e
effected by motion t o th e tria l court .
3 . I f restitutio n i s not possible , the n compensation
should b e mad e a s follows :
a .
I f th e
purchase r a t th e
publi c
auctio n wa s
th e
judgmen t creditor , h e mus t pa y th e full valu e o f th e

propert y a t th e tim e o f it s seizure , plu s interes t thereon ;
b . I f th e purchase r a t publi c auctio n wa s a thir d
person , th e judgmen t credito r mus t pay th e judgmen t
debtor th e amoun t realize d from th e sal e o f sai d propert y
at th e sheriff s sale , wit h interes t thereon ; an d
467
----------------------- Page 468----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 6
c.
I f th e judgmen t awar d wa s reduce d o n appeal ,
th e judgmen t credito r mus t retur n t o th e judgmen t debtor
only th e exces s whic h h e receive d over an d abov e tha t t o
which h e i s entitle d unde r th e fina l judgment , wit h interes t
on suc h exces s (Po Pauco vs.
Tan Juco,
49 Phil.
349).
Sec .
pendent
action.
6 .
fina l
Execution
an d
by
motion
or
e x e c u t o r y j u d g m e n t
by
inde
o r
orde r
m a y b e
e x e c u t
y e a r s
fro m t h e d a t e o
suc h
t i m e , a n d
b e f
t u t e o f
l i m i t a t i o n s , a
.
T h e
r e v i v e d j
c e d b y
m o t i o n w i t h i n
entr y
an d t h e r e a f t e r
th e
s ta t u t e o f l i m i
e d
o n
f it s
m o t i o n
entry .
w i t h i n
(5 )
laps e
o f
o r e i t i s
Afte r t h e
fiv e
b a r r e d
b y
t h e
s t a
j u d g m e n t m a y b e enforce d b y action
u d g m e n t
(5 )
m a y
y e a r s
a l s o b e
fro m t h e
b y a c t i o n
befor e
e n f o r
dat e
i t i s
o f it s
barre d
b y
t a t i o n s . (6a )
NOTE S
1. Thi s amende d sectio n introduce d tw o importan t

change s t o th e former doctrina l rules :
(1) Whil e th e
former
section provide d tha t th e 5-year perio d wa s t o b e compute d
from th e dat e o f th e entr y o f th e judgmen t "or from th e
d a t e i t b e c o m e s
fina l
a n d e x e c u t o r y , " t h e
secon d
alternativ e ha s bee n eliminated .
Thi s i s a consequen
c e
of th e amendmen t o f Sec . 2 o f Rul e 3 6 t o th e effect tha t
"(t)he
dat e
o f th e
finality o f th e judgmen t or fina l orde r
s h a l l b e d e e m e d t o b e t
y , " t h u s
abandonin g th e
doctrin e in
et al.
(L-46040, Jul y 23 , 1987) an d simila
(2) Th e
last sentenc e o f thi s sectio n als o
Luzon
Surety
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
s
shal l
hereafte r b e discussed .
2 .
Th e
5-year perio d
h e d a t e
o f it s
Munez,
et
e n t r
al. vs.
CA,
r holdings .
set s asid e th e rulin g i n
IAC,
et al.,
infra.,
a
i s t o b e counte d
not from th e
dat e th e judgmen t becam e fina l i n th e sens e tha t n o appea l

could b e take n therefro m bu t whe n i t becam e executor y
in th e sens e tha t it coul d alread y b e enforce d
(Tan
Ching
468
----------------------- Page 469----------------------RULE 39
6
SEC.

Ji vs.
rom
Mapalo,
et
al,
L-21933,
Feb.
22,
1971),
i.e. , f
th e dat e o f it s entry .
3 . Withi n 5 year s from entr y o f th e
prevailin g part y can secur e it s execution by
motion s for suc h writ s o f execution a s may
to enforc e th e judgment .
I f a wri t o f
judgment , th e
merely filing
b e necessary
execution wa s issue d
and levy mad e on th e propert y withi n th e 5-year period ,

th e sal e o f th e propert y
thereafte r will b e vali d provide d
it i s mad e within th e 10-year perio d
(Quiambao vs. Manila
Motor Co., L-17384, Oct. 31,
1961; Del Rosario vs.
Yatc
o,
L-18375, Dec. 29,
1966; Jalandoni, et al.
vs. PNB, et a
l.,
L-47579, Oct. 9, 1981).
If no levy wa s mad e withi n th e
5-year period , th e wri t o f execution may n o longer b e
enforced even i f it wa s issue d withi n th e 5-year period .
4 . Failur e t o object t o a wri t o f execution issue d after
5 year s from final judgmen t doe s not validat e th e writ , a s
th e question o f jurisdiction o f th e court i s involved an d
jurisdictio n canno t b e conferre d by th e will o f th e partie s
(Ramos
vs. Garciano,
L-22341,
April
29,
1969;
Sabula
o
vs. Delos Angeles, et al, L 29317, May 29,
1971).
5 . However , wher e th e execution wa s withhel d du e
to th e financia l
difficultie s o f th e
debto r
(Lancita
vs.
Magbanua,
L-15467,
Jan.
31,
1963),
or wa s
suspende d
by agreemen t of th e partie s
(Torralba vs. De los Angeles,
L-27592,
Feb.
14,
1980),
especiall y
i f it wa s wit
h
court approva l
(Manila Railroad
Co.
vs. CIR,
L-18389,
Jan. 31,
1963),
a s wher e
th e compromis e
agreemen t
approved by th e court provide d tha t th e judgmen t debtor
wa s given 6 year s from rendition o f th e judgmen t within
which to pay th e judgmen t account (Tan Ching J i
vs.
Mapalo, et al, supra), or wa s not carrie d out du e to th e
repeale d refusa l or failur e o f th e sherif f t o enforce th e
same
(Lancita vs. Magbanua, supra), or wa s
by orde r of th e
cour t (Casela
vs. CA,
suspende d
et al, L-26754,
Oct. 16, 1970), or wa s interrupte d by th e filing of a motion

469
----------------------- Page 470----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 6
for examinatio n o f th e judgmen t debto r an d a n action for

m a n d a m u s
b y th e j u d g m e n t credito r
(Potenciano
vs.
Mariano, et al., L-30904, Mar.
6, 1980), th e 5-year peri
o d
ma y be proportionatel y extende d
(Bien, et al. vs.
Sunga,
et al., L-39644, Sept. 30,
1982).
Hence , wher e th e de
lay
in th e executio n o f th e judgmen t for mor e t h a n 8 year s
wa s du e t o th e act s o f th e judgmen t debtor , th e Suprem e
Court hel d t h a t th e motio n for alia s writ s o f executio n an d
for demolitio n c o n s t i t u t e
f th e
judgmen t unde r Sec . 6 of Rul e
, e t
al, L-41334, June
18,
1976;
andez,
etc., et al, L-46127, April
,
Sr.,
G.R.
No.
158848,
Feb.
4,
i n
3 9
t , t h e S u p r e m e
reviva l
se e
(David vs.
18,
De
la
1980);
Ejercito
Rosa
vs.
Fern
Yau
vs.
Silverio
2008).
Also , wher e th e judgmen t creditor s

virtuall y al l th e requirements , mad e i
b y th e Commissio n o n Audit , for th e
th e defendan t provinc e o f th e judgmen t
still remaine d unpai d afte r 8 year
j u d g m e n
year s
should no t
execut e a
h
n o faul t
t h e g o v
v't
of
Sorsogon
.
27,
1987).
179 ,
J u n e 27 ,
effect ,
Cour t
ha d complie d wit h
n piecemea l fashion
paymen t t o the m b y
accoun t bu t whic h
s from finality o f th e
hel d
t h a t
sai d
b e include d i n computin g th e 5-year perio d t o

judgmen t b y motion .
Th e dela y wa s throug
o f th e judgmen t credito r bu t wa s imputabl e t o
e r n m e n t a l a g e n c i e s involve d
(Prov.
Go
vs.
Quotin g
Villaroya,
from
et
al,
Republic
G.R.
vs.
No.
CA,
64037,
et
Aug
al. (L-43
1985) , th e Suprem e Cour t reiterate d that :
"In computin g th e tim e limite d for suin g ou t a n

execution , althoug h ther e i s authorit y t o th e contrary ,
th e genera l rul e i s t h a t ther e shoul d no t b e include
d
th e tim e whe n execution i s stayed , eithe r b y agreemen t
of th e partie s for a definit e time , by injunction ,
y
th e takin g o f an appea l or wri t o f erro r s o a s t o oper
at e
a s a s u p e r s e d e a s , b y t h e d e a t h o f t h e p
o r
otherwise .
Any
interruption
or
delay
occasioned
by
the debtor
will extend
the time
within
which
th
writ
may
be
issued
without
scire facias."
a r t y
470
----------------------- Page 471-----------------------
RULE 39
. 6
SEC

6 . After 5 year s an d withi n 1 0
th e judgment , suc h judgmen t become s a
action an d i f unsatisfied , th e prevailin g
action
for reviva l
of j u d g m e n t
al,
L-20412,
Feb.
28,
1966;
Continental
o,
G.R. No. 50480, Dec. 14, 1979).
Th
year s
mer e
part y
(PNB
from
righ
ca n
vs.
Bank
entr y o f
t o f
file an
Perez,
et
vs.
Tiangc
e venu e of suc h actio n
i s subjec t t o th e genera l rule s o f venu e in ligh t o f t

h e
presen t circumstance s o f th e partie s
(Aldeguer vs. Gemelo,
68 Phil.
421).
Tha t action for reviva l i s subject t o suc h
defense s a s ma y hav e arise n durin g th e interi m
(se e
Cia.
General de Tabacos vs. Martinez, et al., 29 Phil. 515).
T
h e
10-year perio d for reviva l o f judgmen t i s counte d from
th e dat e of it s finality
(PNB vs. Deloso, L-28301, Mar. 30,
1970) whic h i s
now deeme d t o b e th e dat e o f e n t r
y .
However , i f it i s a judgmen t base d upo n a compromis e
which i s immediatel y final an d executory , prescription run s
from th e dat e o f it s renditio n an d not from th e dat e o
f
e n t r y (Jacinto,
etc.
vs. IAC,
et al., G.R.
No.
6647
8,
Aug.
28,
1988).
I f an a m e n d a t o r y an d "clarificatory "
judgmen t wa s rendered , i t i s from th e dat e o f th e entr y
thereo f tha t th e 10-year perio d i s reckone d
(Sta. Romana
vs. Lacson, L-27754, April 8,
a
y e a r shoul d
b e compute d
(Art.
13,
Civil
Code);
1981).
a s
henc e
For
consistin g
i f leap
year s
thi s purpose ,
o f 36 5
ar e
day s
involved ,
each leap yea r shoul d b e reckone d a s consistin g o f 36 6

d a y s (National
Marketing
Corp.
vs.
Tecson,
et
al.,
L 29131,
Aug.
27,
1969).
7 . An action t o reviv e a judgmen t i s a persona l on e
not quasi in rem
(Aldeguer vs.
Gemelo, et al., supra
an d
;
Donelly
).
vs.
CFI of Manila,
et
al,
L-31209, April
11,
1972
8 . Thi s sectio n doe s no t appl y t o j u d g m e n t s

for
support whic h d o no t becom e dorman t an d whic h ca n
alway s be execute d by motion
(Canonizado
vs. Benit
ez,
etc., et al, L-49315 an d G.R.
No.
60966, Feb.
20, 1984
),
except thos e for suppor t in arrear s beyon d te n year s from
th e dat e the y becom e du e (Florendo vs. Organo, 9 0 Phil.
483; Velayo vs.
Velayo, L-23538, July 21,
1967).
It
oe s
47 1
----------------------- Page 472----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 6
no t appl y
reentr y on
s vs.
Blanco,
i t s o f
possessio n

t o contemp t order s b y reaso n o f unauthorize d
th e lan d by th e ejecte d defendan t
8 5
i n
Phil.
90),
foreclosur e
or
case s
for
th e
withi n
issuanc e
th e
(Azote
o f
w r
s t a t u t e
o f
limitation s
(Ramos
vs.
Mahalac,
89 Phil.
270).
Ne
ithe r
i s thi s sectio n applicabl e t o specia l proceedings , suc h a s
lan d registratio n cases , henc e th e righ t t o as k for a wri t
of possessio n therei n neve r prescribe s (Rodil, e t al.
vs.
Benedicto,
et al., L-28616,
Jan.
22,
1980;
cf.
Hei
rs
of
Cristobal
Marcos
vs.
De
Banuvar,
et
al.,
L22110,
Sept.
28,
1968;
Sta.
Ana
vs.
Menla,
L-15564,
Apri
l
28,
1961); Republic vs. Nillas, G.R. No.
159395, Jan. 23, 20
07).
9 . I t ha s bee n hel d t h a t Art . 115 5 o f th e Civi l Co
de ,
w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n o f a c
t i o n s i s
interrupte d whe n the y ar e filed wit h th e cour t o r whe n
ther e i s a writte n extrajudicia l deman d by th e creditor s or
a writte n acknowledgmen t o f th e deb t by th e debtors , doe s
no t appl y t o action s t o reviv e a dorman t judgmen t (PNB
vs. Deloso, supra), bu t only to action s to collect not base d
upo n a judgment .
However , it wa s late r hel d t h a t th e filin g o f a f
irst
reviva l actio n withi n th e 10-year perio d unde r Sec . 6 o f
thi s Rul e toll s th e runnin g thereo f an d suc h interruptio n
last s durin g th e pendenc y o f sai d action .
Whe n suc h acti
on
wa s dismisse d for failur e o f summon s an d a secon d reviva l
action wa s agai n filed withi n th e balanc e o f sai d period ,
after deductin g th e perio d o f interruption ,
th e
secon d
action wa s stil l seasonabl y filed .
Art . 115 5 o f th e
Civil
Code, whic h provide s tha t th e prescriptio n o f action s i s
interrupte d whe n the y ar e filed i n court , i s unqualified .
Unde r thi s view , th e case s oiConspecto vs. Fruto (3 1 Phil .

148)
an d
Oriental
Commercial
Co.,
Inc.
vs Jureidini
(7 1
Phil . 25) , whic h hel d tha t th e effect o f a reviva l actio
n
upo n th e 10-year perio d depend s o n whethe r th e dismissa l
wa s du e t o plaintiff s abandonmen t o r not , ar e now o f
doubtful
applicabilit y
(Board
of Liquidators
vs.
Z
ulueta,
L-30738,
July
30,
1982).
472
----------------------- Page 473----------------------RULE 39
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION
SEC.
6
10.
In
Luzon
Surety
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
IAC,
et
al. (G.R
.
No . 72645 , J u n e 30 ,
1987) , th e questio n wa s raise d a s t
o
whethe r a judgmen t credito r wh o faile d t o enforc e th e
original judgmen t i s entitle d t o reviv e sai d judgmen t only
once, in view o f th e provision s o f Sec . 6 o f thi s Rul e in
relatio n t o Art . 1144(3) o f th e Civil Cod e which require s
tha t action s upo n judgment s "mus t b e brough t withi n te n
year s from th e tim e th e righ t o f actio n accrues. "
Th
e
Supreme Cour t took not e o f it s earlie r rulin g in PNB vs.
Bondoc
(L-20236 , Jul y 30 , 1965) wher e it answere d th e
question in th e negative , holdin g tha t Sec . 6 o f thi s Rul e
make s n o distinctio n a s t o th e kin d o f judgmen t which
ma y b e revive d b y ordinar y i n d e p e n d e n t action .
I
t ,
therefore , rule d therei n tha t a judgmen t rendere d i n a n
action for th e reviva l o f a previou s unsatisfie d judgmen t
is a new judgmen t in itself ; henc e i f it could not b e enforce d
within th e first five year s from it s finality , a secon d reviva l
action ma y b e resorte d t o withi n th e succeedin g five year s
t o reviv e sai d secon d judgment .
However , i t decide d t o abando n sai d doctrin e an d
adopt a s th e bette r view tha t i n th e subsequen t cas e o f
PNB vs. Deloso, supra, which hel d tha t th e ten-yea r perio d
is t o b e reckone d from th e finality o f th e origina l judgment ;
hence ,
i f withi n t h a t perio d a judgmen t revivin g th e
origina l j u d g m e n t wa s obtaine d
bu t agai n
remaine d
unsatisfied , a secon d reviva l action beyon d th e prescriptiv e
ten-yea r perio d i s not allowed .
Th e effect o f th e judgmen t
in suc h first reviva l action i s only t o gran t th e judgmen t
creditor anothe r perio d o f fiv e year s t o execut e th e sai d
judgmen t by mer e motion , failin g which a secon d reviva l
action can n o longer b e instituted .
With th e adoption o f th e las t sentenc e in thi s amende d
Sec. 6 , th e foregoin g seesawin g decision s hav e been laid
t o rest . J u s t lik e th e rul e o n a n origina l judgment , th e
revive d judgmen t may now als o b e enforce d by motion

within 5 year s from th e dat e o f it s entr y and , thereafter ,
by filing anothe r reviva l action shoul d it agai n becom e
473
----------------------- Page 474----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 7
d o r m a n t , p r o v i d e d i t i s file d withi n th e
s t
a t u t e o f
limitations .
Tha t secon d revive d judgmen t ca n als o b e
enforced i n th e sam e manne r a s th e origina l judgmen t
an d in accordanc e wit h th e provision s o f Sec . 6 .
Sec .
7.
Execution
in
case
of death
of party
In
c a s e o f t h e d e a t h o f a party , e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s
u e o r
b e e n f o r c e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g m a n n e r :
.
d
o
u
a
g
b
t
d
m
l
o
m
(a)
I n
c a s e
o f t h e d e a t h
o f t h e j u
e n t
i g e e , u p o n
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f h i s e x e c
r o r
i n i s t r a t o r , o r s u c c e s s o r i n interest ;
d g m e
obligor
t o r
s u c c
fo r
r e c o
o r
e n f o
d g m e
obligor
n y
o f h
fo r
s a t i
a n d
o f f i
t o
c o r r
fo r
s u r p
(b)
t
n
,
o
e
t
v
t
r
I n
c a s e
a g a i n s t
r
s
h
e
h
c
o f
h i s
t h e
d e a t h
e x e c u t o r
o r
o f
t h e
j u
a d m i n i s t r a
s o r i n i n t e r e s t , i f t h e j u d g m e n t b e
e
r y
o f r e a l o r
p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y ,
e
e m e n t o f a lie n t h e r e o n ;
(c)
I n
c a s e
o f t h e d e a t h
o f t h e j u
n t
, afte r e x e c u t i o n i s a c t u a l l y levie d u p o n a
i s p r o p e r t
t h e
s f a c t i o n o
t h e
c e r m a k i n g
t h e
e s p o n d i n g
an y
l u s i n h i s
y ,
t h e
f t h e
s a m e
m a y
t h e
j u d g m e n t
s a l e
e x e c u t o r
h a n d s .
o r
b e
s o l d
o b l i g a t i o n ,
s h a l l
a c c o u n t
a d m i n i s t r a t o r
(7a )
NOTE S
1.
Par . (b) applie s wher e th e judgmen t obligor die s
afte r
t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r w
hich ,
o f
course , ha s becom e fina l an d executory .
I f h e di
e s befor e
such entr y
i n
th e
cour t wherei n
th e
actio n
i s pending ,
an d
th e actio n i s for a c o n t r a c t u a l mone y

th e
amende d rul e i s t h a t i t wil l no t b e dismisse d
shal l
continu e unti l entr y o f fina l judgment .
I f it
favorabl e
j u d g m e n t , i t ma y b e enforce d a s a clai m a g
s t th e
debtor' s estat e (Sec. 20, Rule 3).
claim
bu t
i s a
a i n
474
----------------------- Page 475----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 8
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION

2 .
I f th e judgmen t obligor die s
afte r th e
entr y o f
judgmen t bu t before levy on hi s property , executio n will

issue i f it b e for th e recovery o f rea l or persona l property .
However , i f th e judgmen t i s for a su m o f money , an d th e
j u d g m e n t obligo r die s
before levy
ha s bee n
mad
e
o n
hi s property , suc h judgmen t canno t b e enforce d by wri t o f
executio n b u t
m u s t b e file d a s a clai m a g a i n s
t hi s
estat e
(se e Sec.
5,
Rule
86; Paredes
vs. Moya,
L
-38051,
Dec. 26, 1974).
I f h e die s after levy ha s bee n made , t
h e
execution sal e ma y proceed .
It i s th e actua l dat e o
f levy
on executio n which i s th e cutoff dat e
(se e Evangelista
vs.
La Proveedora, Inc.,
et al., L-32834, Mar.
31,
1971).
Sec .
8 .
Issuance,
form
and
contents
of a w
rit
of
execution. Th e wri t o f e x e c u t i o n shall :
(1) i s s
u e i n
th e
n a m e o f th e Republi c o f th e
P h i l i p p i n e
s fro m
th e cour t w h i c h grante d th e motion ; (2) stat e th e
nam e o f th e court , th e cas e numbe r an d title , th e
dispositiv e par t o f th e subjec t j u d g m e n t o r order ;
an d (3 ) requir e th e sherif f o r othe r prope r office r t o
w h o m i t i s directe d t o enforc e th e wri t accordin g t o
it s te r ms , i n th e m a n n e r hereinafte r provided :
(a)
I f t h e e x e c u t i o n b e agains t th e propert y o
f
th e j u d g m e n t obligor , t o satisf y th e judgment , wit h
interest , ou t o f th e rea l o r persona l propert y o f suc h
j u d g m e n t
obligor ;
(b)
I f i t
b e
agains t
rea l
o r
persona l
propert y
i n t h e h a n d s o f p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s ,
h e i r s ,
d e v i s e e s , l e g a t e e s , t e n a n t s , o r t r u s t e e s o
f t h e
j u d g m e n t obligor ,
t o satisf y
th e j u d g m e n t ,
w i t h
interest , ou t o f suc h property ;
(c)
I f i t b e fo r t h e sal e
o f rea l o r p e r
s o n a l
property , t o sel l suc h property , describin g it , an d
apply th e proceed s i n conformit y wit h th e judgment ,
th e materia l part s o f w h i c h shal l b e recite d i n th e
wri t o f execution ;
475
----------------------- Page 476----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 8
(d)
s s i o n o
rea l o r p
n
o f t h e
e n t i t l e
t h e r e t o
o r
profit s c o
l
p r o p e r t
i t w a s
r e n d e r e
b e found ,
an d
o n
s p e
n t e
c o s
s o
d a t
ro m
p r i
Fo r
p u r
s p
t h e
u g h
t h e
I f i t b e fo r t h e d e l i v e r y o f t h e p o s s e
f
e r s o n a l property , t o delive r t h e p o s s e s s i o
s a m e , d e s c r i b i n g it , t o t h e p a r t y
d
, a n d t o satisf y a n y costs , d a m a g e s , rents ,
v e r e d b y t h e j u d g m e n t o u t o f t h e persona
y
o f
t h e
p e r s o n
a g a i n s t
w h o m
d , an d i f sufficien t persona l propert y canno t

t h e n o u t o f t h e rea l property ;
(e)
I n
al l c a s e s
shal l
c i f i c a l l y s t a t e t
r e s t ,
t s , d a m a g e s ,
r e n
f t h e
e o f t h e
i s s u a n c e
th e
n c i p a l o b l i g a t i o n
thi s
p o s e ,
t h e m o t i o n
e c i f y
a m o u n t s
o f t h e
t
b y
m o v a n t .
(8a )
t h e w r i t
h e
o f e x e c u t i
a m o u n t
t s , o r
o f
t h e
p r o f i t s d u e
o f t h e
w r i t ,
a s i d e
u n d e r t h e j u d g m e n t .
fo r
e x e c u t i o n
f o r e g o i n g
s h a l l
r e l i e f s s o
N O T E S
1.
Thi s amende d sectio n now requires , obviously t o
avoid erroneou s implementation , tha t th e wri t o f execution

should stat e th e dispositiv e p a r t o f th e judgmen t o r order ,
instea d o f jus t th e "materia l part s t h e r e o f a s provide d i
n
th e forme r section .
For th e sam e reason , par . (e) thereo f furthe r require s
tha t th e wri t shoul d specifically stat e th e amoun t o f th e
interest , costs , damages , rent s o r profit s du e a s o f th e dat e
of it s issuance .
Fo r suc h purpose , th e movan t shal l specify
th e amount s o f sai d relief s i n hi s motio n for th e issuanc e
o f th e writ .
Judicia l experienc e ha s show n t h a t i n som e
cases ,
leavin g
th e
computatio n
sheriff ha s bee n productiv e
o f sai d
amount s
t o
th e
o f mischie f an d controversy .
2 . Also ,
w h i l e
t h e f o r m e r
r u l e w a s
t h a t t h e
satisfaction o f th e j u d g m e n t mus t b e carrie d ou t firs
t
throug h th e persona l property , an d the n th e rea l property ,
476
----------------------- Page 477----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 8
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION

of th e judgmen t obligor , tha t procedur e i s now specifically
provide d only in par . (d) o f thi s section , tha t is , wher e th
e
judgmen
persona
propert
rent s
t
l
y
or
i s for th e delivery o f th e possession o f rea l or

propert y an d ther e i s a nee d t o sel l som e othe r
o f th e judgmen t obligor t o satisfy costs , damages ,
profit s covere d by th e judgment .
Th e reaso n for thi s chang e i s t o afford th e judgmen t

obligor an elemen t o f choic e a s t o which o f hi s propertie s
may b e proceede d agains t t o satisfy th e judgment , a s som e
p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t i e s ma y
b e o f mor e
s e n t i m
e n t a l ,
commercial or othe r valu e t o hi m for hi s presen t or futur e
purposes .
Thus , unde r par . (b) o f th e nex t succeedin g
section, whil e th e sherif f ma y levy upon th e propertie s o f
th e judgmen t obligor o f an y kin d an d natur e not exemp t
from execution , h e mus t first give th e latte r th e option t o
choose which propert y or par t thereo f may b e levie d upon ,
sufficient t o satisfy th e judgment .
3 .
Th
f
execution mus t
or orde r wa s
r y
of judgmen t t
nor a motion
forme r
sectio n
provide d
t h a t
th e
wri t
issu e from th e court in which th e judgmen t

entered .
Sec . 2 , Rul e 3 6 require s th e ent
o b e mad e i f neithe r an appea l therefro m
for new tria l i s seasonabl y filed , thereb y
presupposin g tha t th e judgmen t t o b e entere d i s tha t o f

th e cour t which trie d th e case , tha t is , th e court o f origina l
jurisdiction .
Court
issue
th e
th e
CA,
I t has , accordingly , been hel d tha t th e the n
o f Firs t Instanc e o f Lagun a wa s not empowere d t o

an alia s wri t o f execution t o enforc e a judgmen t by
the n Justic e o f th e Peac e Cour t o f Calamba , an d only
latte r can issu e th e wri t o f execution (Arambulo vs.
et al., L-15669, Feb. 28,
1962).
Consequently , in view o f divergen t practice s o f som e

tria l courts , wher e th e judgmen t o f th e municipa l tria l court
wa s appeale d t o th e Regiona l Tria l Court an d th e decision
of th e latte r wa s elevate d t o th e Court o f Appeal s whos e
decision thereafte r becam e final , sai d ultimat e decision
should b e remande d throug h th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t t o
477
----------------------- Page 478----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 8
th e inferior cour t for execution .

Th e municipa l tria l court
,
as th e cour t o f origin an d whic h took cognizanc e o f th e
case in th e exercis e o f origina l jurisdiction , i s th e court
authorize d t o issu e th e wri t o f execution , an d no t th
e
Regional Tria l Cour t which participate d in th e proceeding s
in a n appellat e capacity .
Thes e observation s ar e no t affected by th e fact that ,
a s amended , th e presen t section state s tha t th e wri t o f
execution "shal l issu e from th e cour t whic h grante d th e
motion. " Suc h textua l chang e i s intende d t o encompas s
th e m a t t e r o f discretionar y executio n in Sec . 2 o f thi
s
Rul e
since ,
i n e x e c u t i o n p e n d i n g a p p e a l u n
d e r th e
circumstance s therei n contemplated , th e wri t o f execution
may b e sough t i n o r issue d eithe r b y th e tria l cour t o r
th e
appellat e court .
However , in executio n a s a matte r o f
right , whic h i s wha t i s contemplate d i n thi s section unde r
discussion , th e wri t o f execution mus t o f necessity b e issue d
b y th e cour t wher e th e judgmen t o r orde r wa s entered ,
tha t is , th e cour t o f origin .
t h th
j u d g
th
term s
4 . A
w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n m u s t confor m
w i
e
m e n t a n d i f i t i s differen t fro m o r exceed s
e
o f th e judgment , it i s a nullit y (Villoria us. Piccio,
et al., 9 5 Phil.
otio n
(Vda.
de Dimayuga
802)
an d
us.
ma y
Raymundo,
b e
q u a s h e d
et
al.,
76
on
Phil.
143),
an d appea l ma y b e take n from a denia l o f sai d motion
(Romero, et al. us. CA, et al., L-39659, July 30, 1971, wher e
it wa s hel d tha t certiorar i coul d eve n b e availe d o f a s th
e
court a quo ha d issue d a wri t o f possessio n in exces s o f
it s jurisdiction) .
A wri t o f executio n i s void whe n issue d
for a greate r su m t h a n i s warrante d by th e judgmen t or
i s for th e origina l amoun t o f th e judgmen t despit e partia l
paymen t thereof .
Th e exac t amoun t du e canno t b e left
to
th e determinatio n
o f th e sherif f (Windor
Steel
Mfg.
Co., Inc.
us. CA, et al., L-34332, Jan. 27,
1981).
5 . Whil e th e genera l rul e i s tha t th e portio n o f th
e
decision tha t become s subject o f execution i s tha t ordaine d
478
----------------------- Page 479----------------------RULE 39
C. 8
SE

or decree d i n
ar e
e x c e p t i o n s ,
y o r
uncertainty , th e
for purpose s o f
th e
dispositive par t o
decision's
ratio
an d
explicit discussion
th e body of th e
th e
dispositiv e
p a r t
thereof ,
t h e r e
viz.: (a ) w h e r e t h e r e i s a m b i g u i t
body o f th e opinion may b e referre d t o
construin g th e judgmen t becaus e
f a decision mus t find suppor t from th e
decidendi;
an d
(b) wher e
extensiv e
an d settlemen t o f th e issu e i s foun d in
decision
(Ong Ching Kian Chung, et al.
vs. China
National
Cereal
Oil and Foodstuffs
Import
and
Export
Corp.,
et al., G.R.
No.
131502,
June
8, 2
000;
Intramuros
Tennis
Club,
Inc.,
et al. vs.
Phil.
Tour
ism
Authority,
et al, G.R.
No.
135630,
Sept.
26, 2000).
6 . A wri t o f possessio n ma y b e issue d only in th e
following cases :
(a) lan d registratio n proceedings , which
ar e in rem;
(b)
extrajudicia l foreclosur e of a rea l estat e
mortgage ; (c) judicia l foreclosur e of a rea l estat e mortgage ;
which i s a quasi in rem proceeding , provide d th e mortgagor
i s in possession o f th e mortgage d propert y an d n o thir d
person , not a part y t o th e foreclosur e suit , ha d intervened ;
and (d) in execution sale s
(Mabale vs. Apalisok, L-46942,
Feb.
6, 1979).
W h e r e suc h
t h i r d p a r t i e s wer e
no t
impleaded in th e cas e which resulte d in th e execution sal e
and th e issu e o f possession wa s not passe d upon in sai d

case , sai d t h i r d p a r t i e s c a n n o t b e ejecte d o r
t h e i r
improvement s on th e lan d b e demolishe d pursuan t t o a
wri t o f possession withou t givin g the m an opportunit y t o
be hear d
(Perater, et al. vs. Rosete, et al, G.R. No. 54553,
May
29,
1984).
7 . A s alread y stated , appea l i s th e remed y from an

order denying th e issuanc e of a wri t of execution
(Soco
rro
vs. Ortiz, supra).
However , an order grantin g th e issuanc e
of a wri t of execution of a fina l judgmen t i s not appealabl e
(Molina
vs. De la Riva,
8 Phil
571; Manaois-Salonga
vs.
Natividad,
107 Phil.
268; J.M.
Tuazon
&
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Jaramillo, L-19024 35, Sept. 23,
1963), except wher e th e
order varie s th e
&
term s o f th e judgmen t (J.M.
Tuazon
479
----------------------- Page 480----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 9
Co., Inc.
vs.
Estabillo, L-20610, Jan.
10,
1975), or whe
re ,
bein g vague , th e cour t render s wha t i s believe d t o b e a
wron g interpretatio n o f th e judgmen t (Castro vs.
S
urtida,
87 Phil.
166; Corpus vs. Alikpala, L-23707, Jan.
17,
1970;
Uytiepo, et al.
vs. Aggabao, et al, L-28671, Sept. 30,
1970;
Heirs
of
Juan
Francisco
vs.
Muhoz-Palma,
e
t
al,
L-28746, Feb.
27,
1971; De Guzman, et al.
vs. CA,
et al,
G.R.
No.
52733,
July
23,
1985).
A
p a r t y wh o
h a s
voluntaril y execute d a judgment , partiall y or in toto, or
wh o voluntaril y acquiesce s i n o r ratifies , eithe r partiall y
or in toto, th e executio n o f suc h judgment , i s not permitte d
to appea l from it
(PVTA vs. De los Angeles, et al, L-3008587,
Dec.
26,
1974).
A s a wri t of executio n canno t b
e
appealed ,
n e i t h e r ca n th e orde r o f demolitio n issue
d
pursuan t theret o be appealabl e
(David vs. Ejercito, e
t al,
L-41334,
June
18,
1976).
8 . Injunctio n wil l li e t o sto p th e auctio n sal e
o f
p r o p e r t y o f a s t r a n g e r t o t h e cas e a n d i t
i s no t a n
interferenc e wit h th e wri t
c o u r t sinc e
t h e w r i
legall y
implemente d b y th e sherif
authority
(Arabay
vs.
1978;
cf. Santos
vs.
Sibug,
o f executio n issue d b y anothe r

t o f e x e c u t i o n i s bein g il
f beyon d
Salvador,
L-26815,
th e
bound s
L-31077,
May
26,
o f hi s
Mar.
17,
1981).
9 . W h e n
t h e j u d g m e n t d e b t o r h a s s i m u l
a t e d a
transfe r o f hi s propert y t o evad e execution , sai d propert y
may b e levie d upo n for th e satisfactio n o f th e judgmen t
withou t th e nee d o f an independen t actio n t o rescin d or
a n n u l t h e t r a n s f e r sinc e a n abolutel y
s i m u l a
t e d o r
fictitious contrac t i s void an d non-existen t (De Belen vs.
Collector
of Customs,
46 Phil.
241).
Sec .
9 .
Execution
of judgments
for
money,
how
enforced.
(a ) Immediate payment
on
demand.
Th e
office r shal l enforc e a n e x e c u t i o n o f a j u d g m e n t fo r
m o n e y b y d e m a n d i n g fro m th e j u d g m e n t obligo r th e
i m m e d i a t e p a y m e n t o f th e ful l a m o u n t state d i n th
e
480
----------------------- Page 481----------------------RULE 39
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION
SEC. 9
w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n a n d al l lawfu l fees .
T h e
j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r s h a l l p a y
i n c a s h ,
c e r t i f i e d b
a n k
c h e c k
p a y a b l e t o t h e j u d g m e n t obligee , o r a n y o t h e r f
o r m
o f p a y m e n t a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e l a t t e r , t h e a m
o u n t o f
t h e j u d g m e n t d e b t u n d e r p r o p e r r e c e i p t d i r e
c t l y t o
t h e
o b l i g e e
o r
h i s a u t h o r i z e d
r e p r e s e n
t a t i v e
i f
p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e o f p a y m e n t .
T h e
lawfu l fee s
s h a l l
b e
h a n d e d
u n d e r
p r o p e r
r e c e i
p t
t o
t h e
e x e c u t i n g
s h e r i f f w h o
s h a l l t u r n
o v e r
t h e
s a i d
a m o u n t w i t h i n t h e s a m e d a y t o t h e c l e r k o f c o
u r t o f
t h e c o u r t t h a t i s s u e d t h e w r i t .
I f t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g e e
o r
h i s a
u t h o r i z e d
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i s n o t p r e s e n t t o r e c e i v e
p a y m e n t ,
o b l i g o r s h a l l d e l i v e r t h e
a f o r e s a i d
p a y m e n t t o t h e e x e c u t i n g sheriff .
T h e l
a t t e r s h a l l
t u r n
o v e r
a l l
t h e
a m o u n t s
c o m i n g
i n t o
h i s
p o s s e s s i o n w i t h i n t h e s a m e d a y t o t h e c l e r k
o f c o u r t
o f t h e c o u r t t h a t i s s u e d t h e w r i t , o r i f t
h e s a m e i s
n o t p r a c t i c a b l e , d e p o s i t sai d a m o u n t t o a f i
d u c i a r y
a c c o u n t i n t h e n e a r e s t g o v e r n m e n t d e p o s i t o r
y b a n k
o f t h e R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t o f t h e locality .
T h e c l e r k o f s a i d c o u r t s h a l l t h e r e a f t e
r a r r a n g e
for t h e r e m i t t a n c e o f t h e d e p o s i t t o t h e a c
c o u n t o f
t h e c o u r t t h a t i s s u e d t h e w r i t w h o s e c l e r k
o f c o u r t
s h a l l t h e n
d e l i v e r s a i d p a y m e n t t o
t h e
j u d g m e n t
oblige e i n s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t .
T
h e excess ,
i f a n y , s h a l l b e d e l i v e r e d t o t h e j u d g m e
n t obligo r
w h i l e t h e lawfu l fee s s h a l l b e r e t a i n e d b y t h e
c l e r k
o f c o u r t fo r d i s p o s i t i o n a s p r o v i d e d b y law
.
I n n o
c a s e s h a l l t h e e x e c u t i n g sherif f d e m a n d
t h a t a n y
p a y m e n t b y c h e c k b e m a d e p a y a b l e t o him .
(b)
Satisfaction
u d g m e n t
obligo r c a n n o t p a y
t i o n i n
c a s h , certifie d b a n k
e n t
a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e
hal l
levy u p o n t h e p r o p e
o f
by
al l
levy.
o r
I f
p a r t o f t h e
t h e
o b l i g a
c h e c k o r o t h e r m o d e o f p a y m
j u d g m e n t obligee , t h e office r s
r t i e s o f t h e j u d g m e n t obligo r
48 1
----------------------- Page 482----------------------RULE 39

SEC. 9
e v e r y
b e
kin d

an d
n a t u r e
w h a t s o e v e r
w h i c h
ma y
dispose d o f fo r valu e an d no t otherwis e e x e m p t fro m

e x e c u t i o n ,
g i v i n g
t h e
l a t t e r
t h e
o p
t i o n
t o
i m m e d i a t e l y c h o o s e w h i c h propert y o r par t thereo f
m a y
b e
l e v i e d
u p o n ,
t i s f y t h e
judgment .
I f th e j u d g m e n
is e
th e option , th e office r shal l firs t
p r o p e r t i e s , i f any , an d t h
ie s
i f t h e p e r s o n a l propertie s ar e
for t h e j u d g m e n t .
s u f f i c i e n t
t o
s a
t obligo r d o e s no t exerc
lev y o n th e persona l
e n o n th e rea l propert
insufficien t t o a n s w e r
Th e sherif f shal l sel l onl y a sufficien t portio n

o f t h e
p e r s o n a l o r rea l p r o p e r t y o f t h e j u
d g m e n t
obligo r w h i c h h a s b e e n levie d u p o n .
W h e n t h e r
e n t
o b l i g o r t h a n
d g m e n t
an d lawfu l fees ,
h e
p e r s o n a l o r rea
i s
m o r e
o f t h e
t o
satisf y
i s sufficien t
propert y
h e
l
t h e j u d g m e n t an d
m u s t
sel l
propert y a s
onl y
i s
s o
j u d g m
t h e
m u c h
j u
o f t
sufficien t t o satisf y
lawfu l fees .
R e a l p r o p e r t y , s t o c k s , s h a r e s , d e b t s
, c r e d i t s ,
a n d
o t h e r p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y ,
o r a n y
i n
t e r e s t i n
e i t h e r rea l o r p e r s o n a l property , m a y b e levie d upo n
i n lik e m a n n e r an d w i t h lik e effec t a s u n d e r a wri t
o f
a t t a c h m e n t .
(c)
Garnishment of debts and credits.
Th e
office r
m a y
lev y o n
d e b t s d u e t h e j u d g m e n t obligo
r an d
o t h e r
c r e d i t s , i n c l u d i n g
b a n k d e p o s i t s ,
f i n a n c i a l
interests , royalties , c o m m i s s i o n s an d othe r persona l
p r o p e r t y
n o t c a p a b l e
o f m a n u a l
d e l i v e
r y i n t h e
p o s s e s s i o n o r contro l o f thir d parties .
L
ev y shal l
b e m a d e b y s e r v i n g notic e u p o n t h e p e r s o n o
w i n g
s u c h d e b t s o r h a v i n g i n hi s p o s s e s s i o n o r
contro l
s u c h
c r e d i t s t o w h i c h
t h e
j u d g m e n t
o
b l i g o r
i s
e n t i t l e d . T h e
g a r n i s h m e n t shal l c o v e r onl y
s u c h
a m o u n t a s wil l satisf y t h e j u d g m e n t an d al l lawfu
l
fees .
482
----------------------- Page 483----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 10
Th e
th e
cour t
g a r n i s h e e
w i t h i n
shal l
fiv e
mak e
(5)
day s
writte n
fro m
repor t
servic e
t o
o f th
e
notic e o f g a r n i s h m e n t statin g w h e t h e r o r no t
th e
j u d g m e n t obligo r h a s sufficien t fund s o r credit s t o
satisfy t h e a m o u n t o f t h e j u d g m e n t .
I f no
t , t h e
repor t shal l stat e ho w m u c h fund s o r credit s th e
g a r n i s h e e h o l d s fo r t h e j u d g m e n t obligor .
T h e
garnishe d a m o u n t i n cash , o r certifie d ban k chec k
issue d i n th e n a m e o f th e j u d g m e n t obligee , shal l
b e delivere d directl y t o th
t e n (10 )
w o r k i n g d a
i c e o n
sai d g a r n i s h e e requirin
lawfu l fee s w h i c h shal l b
e judgmen t oblige e withi n

y s
fro m s e r v i c e
o f n o t
g suc h delivery , excep t th e

e pai d directl y t o th e court .
I n th e e v e n t ther e ar e t w o o r mor e g a r n i s h e e
s
h o l d i n g d e p o s i t s o r credit s sufficien t t o satisf y th e
j u d g m e nt , th e j u d g m e n t
h a v e
t h e
r i g h t t o i
e e
o r
g a r n i s h e e s w h o s h a l l
v e r t h e
a m o u n t due , o t h e r w i s e
e
b y th e j u d g m e n t obligee .
sam
p r o
e c t
d e l
l i g
(8a,
obligor , i f available , shal l

n d i c a t e
t h e g a r n i s h
b e
,
r e q u i r e d
th e
choic e
t o
shal l
d e l i
b e
mad
Th e
e x e c u t i n g sherif f shal l observ e th e
e
c e d u r e u n d e r
p a r a g r a p h
(a ) w i t h r e s p
t o
i v e r y o f p a y m e n t
t o t h e j u d g m e n t
o b
e e .
15a)
Sec .
10.
Execution of judgments for specific acts.
(a)
Conveyance,
delivery
of deeds,
or other
specific
acts;
vesting
title.
I f a j u d g m e n t
d i r e c t s a part y
t o
e x e c u t e a c o n v e y a n c e o f lan d o r persona l property ,
o r t o delive r deed s o r othe r documents , o r t o perfor m

any othe r specifi c ac t i n connectio n therewith , an d
th e part y fail s t o compl y withi n th e tim e specified ,
th e cour t ma y direc t th e ac t t o b e don e a t th e cos t
o f t h e d i s o b e d i e n t p a r t y b y s o m e
o t h e r p
e r s o n
appointe d b y th e cour t an d th e ac t w h e n s o don e
shall hav e lik e effec t a s i f don e b y th e party .
I f rea l
o r
p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y
i s s i t u a t e d
w i t h i
n
t h e
483
----------------------- Page 484----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 11
P
e
c
e
o
l
t
h i l i p p i n e s ,
t h e
c o u r t
i n
c t i n g
a
o n v e y a n c e t h e r e o f m a y b y a n o r
titl e
f a n y p a r t y a n d v e s t i t i n o t h e
l h a v e
h e forc e a n d effec t o f a c o n v e y a n c
d u e
f o r m o f law .
(10a )
l i e u
o f
d i r
d e r d i v e s t t h
r s , w h i c h s h a
e e x e c u t e d i n
(b)
Sale
of
real
or
personal
property.
If
t h e
j u d g m e n t
b e
f o r t h e
s a l e
o f r e a l
o r
p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y , t o sel l s u c h p r o p e r t y , d e s c r i b i
n g it , a n d
a p p l y
t h e
p r o c e e d s
i n
c o n f o r m i t y
w i t h
t h e
j u d g m e n t .
(8[c]a )
(c)
Delivery
or
restitution
of
real property.
T h e
officer
s h a l l d e m a n d
o f t h e
p e r s o n
a g a i
n s t w h o m
t h e j u d g m e n t fo r t h e d e l i v e r y o r r e s t i t u t i
o n o f r e a l
p r o p e r t y i s r e n d e r e d a n d al l p e r s o n s c l a i m i
n g r i g h t s
u n d e r h i m t o p e a c e a b l y v a c a t e t h e p r o p e r t y
w i t h i n
t h r e e (3 )
w o r k i n g
d a y s , a n d
r e s t o r e p
o s s e s s i o n
t h e r e o f t o t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g e e , o t h e r
w i s e ,
t h e
officer
s h a l l o u s t al l s u c h p e r s o n s t h e r e
f r o m w i t h
t h e a s s i s t a n c e , i f n e c e s s a r y , o f a p p r o p r i a
t e
p e a c e
o f f i c e r s , a n d
e m p l o y i n g
s u c h
m e a n s
a
s
m a y
b e
r e a s o n a b l y
n e c e s s a r y
t o
r e t a k e
p o s s e s
s i o n ,
a n d
p l a c e
t h e j u d g m e n t o b l i g
n o f s u c h
p r o p e r t y .
A n y
c o s t s , d
o r
p r o f i t s
a w a r d e d
b y t h e j u d g m e n t
i e d i n t h e
s a m e m a n n e r a s a j u d g m e n t
(13a )
(d)
Delivery
of personal
d g m e n t s
for
t h e d e l i v e r y o f p e r
h e office r
s h a l l t a k e
p o s s e s s i o n
f o r t h w i t h
d e l i v e r i t t o t h e
p a r t
t i s f y a n y
j u d g m e n t fo r m o n e y a s t h e
(8a )
e e
i n
p o s s e s s i o
a m a g e s ,
s h a l l
r e n t s
b e
s a t i s f
fo r m o n e y .
property.
s o n a l
j u
p r o p e r t y ,
o f t h e
y
In
s a m e
e n t i t l e d
a n d
a n d
s a
r e i n p r o v i d e d .
N O T E S
1.
Th e provision s o n
ct s
(Sec. 10) hav e bee n clarifie d
specific act s contemplate d therei
with th e directiv e t o a part y
j u d g m e n t s
for
specifi c
by th e qualification tha t th e
n ar e thos e i n connection
t o execut e a conveyanc e o f
484
----------------------- Page 485----------------------RULE 39

. 1 1
SEC

land or t o deliver deed s or othe r documents .
Th e furt
he r
clarification i s tha t th e court , in orde r t o dives t th e titl e
o f
th e disobedien t part y an d ves t i t i n others , doe s no t hav e
t o "ente r judgment " for tha t purpose , a s formerly provided ,
since ther e i s alread y a judgmen t for suc h conveyance ; it
may now d o s o merel y "by an order " t o tha t effect .
2 . Pars , (b) , (c) , (d) an d (e)
y
separat e section s unde r thi s Rule , bu t
consolidated unde r thi s section a s the y
performanc e o f particula r act s directe d by a
3 . Whe n
part y
refuse s
propert y a s ordere d by a wri t o f

not th e remedy .
Th e sherif f
th e propert y bu t i f demolition i s
hearin g on motion an d du e notic e
special orde r unde r Sec . 14 (now ,
t o
hereo f wer e
formerl
hav e now bee n

al l involv e th e
judgment .
yiel d
possessio n
execution , contemp t
mus t ous t sai d part
involved , ther e mus t
for th e issuanc e o
Sec. 10(dJ) o f thi s
o f a
i s
y from
b e a
f a
Rul e
(Fuentes, et al.
vs. Leviste, et al., L 47363, Oct.
1982;
Atal Moslem,
et al. vs. Soriano,
et al., L-36837,
17,
1983).
28,
Aug.
4 . A wri t o f execution directin g th e sherif f t o caus e

th e defendan t t o vacat e
i s in th e natur e o f a
ha
bere
facias
possessionem
an d
authorize s
th e sheriff , witho
u t
th e nee d o f securin g a "break open " order , t o brea k open
th e premise s wher e ther e i s n o occupant therei n
(Arca
dio,
et al. vs. Ylagan, A.C. No. 2734, July 30,
1986).
Sec.
11 .
Execution of special judgments.
Whe n
a
judgmen t require s th e performanc e o f an y ac t othe r
tha n thos e mentione d i n th e tw o precedin g sections ,
a certifie d cop y o f th e judgmen t shal l b e attache d
t o th e wri t o f executio n an d shal l b e serve d b y th e
office r upo n th e part y agains t w h o m th e sam e i s
r e n d e r e d , o r u p o n
a n y o t h e r p e r s o n s r e q u i
r e d
thereby , o r b y law , t o obe y th e same , an d suc h part y
o r p e r s o n m a y
b e p u n i s h e d fo r c o n t e m p t i
f h e
disobey s suc h judgment .
(9a )
485
----------------------- Page 486----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 12

NOT E
1. Th e specia l judgmen t in thi s section i s on e which

r e q u i r e s th e performanc e o f an y act ,
othe r t h a
n th e
paymen t o f money or th e sal e or delivery o f rea l or persona l
property , whic h a part y mus t personall y d o becaus e hi s
persona l qualification s an d circumstance s hav e bee n take n
int o consideration .
Refusa l t o comply i s punishabl e by
c o n t e m p t (se e
Chinese
Commercial
Property
Co
.
vs.
Martinez,
L-18565,
Nov.
30,
1962).
A judgmen t for specific act s unde r Sec . 10, on th e othe r
hand , direct s a part y t o execut e conveyanc e o f land , or t o
deliver deed s o r othe r documents , o r t o perfor m an y othe r
specific act s i n connectio n therewit h bu t whic h act s can
b e performe d b y person s othe r t h a n sai d party .
Hence ,
on refusa l t o comply , th e cour t ca n appoin t som e othe r
perso n t o perform th e ac t directe d t o b e don e a t th e expens e
o f th e
disobedien t part y an d th e ac t whe n s o don e shal l
hav e th e sam e effect a s i f performe d b y th e part y himself .

Th e disobedien t part y incur s n o liabilit y for contemp t
(see Caluag vs. Pecson, et al., 82 Phil. 8; Francisco, et al.
vs.
National
Urban
984
[Unrep.J;
Sandico,
-26115,
Nov.
29,
1971).
Planning
Commission,
100
Phil
Sec .
third
persons.
a t e a
l i e n i n
r t h e
r i g h t , t
o b l i g o r
i n s u c h
u b j e c t
t o l i e n s
12 .
et
al.
Effect
T h e
of
vs.
levy
on
l e v y o n
f a v o r o f
t h e
Piguing,
a t
j u d g m e n t
t h e
al.,
execution
e x e c u t i o n
i t l e a n d i n t e r e s t
p r o p e r t y
et
to
s h a l l c r e
o b l i g e e o v e
o f t h e
t i m e
as
j u d g m e n t
o f t h e levy , s
a n d e n c u m b r a n c e s t h e n existing .
(16a) .
NOTE S
1.
Levy
mean s
th e
ac t or act s
by
whic h
an
office
r
set s a p a r t o r appropriate s a p a r t o r th e whol e o
f th e
p r o p e r t y o f th e j u d g m e n t debto r for p u r p o s e s
o f th e
486
----------------------- Page 487----------------------RULE 39
C. 12
SE

prospectiv e
executio n
sal e
(Llenares
vs.
Valdeve
lla,
et al,
46
Phil.
358;
Del
Rosario
vs.
Yatco,
L-18
735,
Dec. 29,
1966).
Se e Sec . 7 , Rul e 5 7 on th e procedur
e
thereof .
I f susceptibl e
o f a p p r o p r i a t i o n , t h e
officer
r e m o v e s a n d t a k e s t h e p r o p e r t y for s a f e k e e
p i n g ;
otherwise , th e sam e i s place d unde r sheriff' s guards .
Withou t a vali d levy havin g bee n made , an y sal e o f th e
propert y
t h e r e a f t e r i s voi d (Valenzuela
vs.
Agu
ilar,
L-18083, May 31,
1963).
Th e judgmen t debto r mus t b e
served wit h notic e o f th e levy , bu t eve n i f no t serve
d
therewith , thi s defect i s cure d by servic e on hi m o f th e
notic e of sal e prio r to th e sal e
(PBC vs. Macadaeg, etc.,
109 Phil.
331,
Mar.
15,
981;Pamintuan,
et
al.
vs.
Munoz,
et al.,
L-26
1968).
2 . I f th e propert y involve d i s money , stock s or othe r

incorporeal propert y i n th e hand s o f thir d persons , th e ac t
of appropriatio n by th e sherif f i s known a s garnishment.
The garnishe e wil l no t b e directe d by th e cour t t o deliver
th e fund s o r propert y t o th e judgmen t credito r a s th e
g a r n i s h m e n t merel y
set s a p a r t suc h fund s
bu t
doe s
not constitut e th e credito r a s th e owne r o f th e garnishe d
propert y
(De
la Rama
vs.
Villarosa,
et
al., L-197
27,
June
29,
1963).
3 . Th e garnishmen t o f a ban k deposit o f th e judgmen t
debtor i s not a violation of R.A . 140 5 (on secrecy of ban k
deposits) , a s it doe s not involv e an inquiry or examinatio n
of suc h deposit
(China Banking Corp., et al.
vs.
ega,
et al, L-34964,
Jan.
31,
1973).
Ort
4 . Th e preferenc e given t o a duly registere d levy on

attachment or execution over a prior unregistere d sal e i s
well-settled .
A s earl y
a s Gomez
vs.
Levy
Hermano
s
(67 Phil . 134), th e
duly annotate d on a
righ t o f a prio r
l y
registere d attachmen t
precedenc e over a
Suprem e Court hel d tha t an attachmen t

certificat e o f titl e i s superio r t o th e
bu t unregistere d buyer .
Suc h du
or levy on execution obviously take s
notic e of lis pendens which doe s
not
487
----------------------- Page 488----------------------RULE 39

SEC. 13
even creat e a lien . Unde r th e Torren s system ,

sale o f tha t propert y retroact s t o th e dat e
registered ; an d now , specifically unde r Sees . 5
P.D . 1529 , th e ac t o f registratio n i s th e
th e auctio n
th e levy wa s
1 an d 5 2 o f
operativ e ac t t
o
convey
o r
affect
th e
lan d
insofa r
a s
thir d
person s
ar
e
concerned ,
an d
o f whic h
constructive notic e
Inc.,
G.R.
No.
156580,
Sec .
a s
13 .
act s
(Du
June
the y
vs.
14,
ar e
deeme d
t o
Stronghold Insurance
hav e
Co.,
2004).
Property exempt from
execution.
E x c e p t
o t h e r w i s e
e x p r e s s l y
p r o v i d e d
b y
l a w ,
t h e
f o l l o w i n g p r o p e r t y , a n d
n o o t h e r s h a l l
b e
e x e m p t
f r o m
e x e c u t i o n :
(a)
T h e
j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r ' s f a m i l y
h o m e
a s
p r o v i d e d
b y
l a w ,
o r t h e h o m e s t e a d
i n
w h i c h
h e
r e s i d e s , a n d
l a n d
n e c e s s a r i l y u s e d
i n
c o n n e c t i o n
t h e r e w i t h ;
(b)
O r d i n a r y t o o l s a n d
i m p l e m e n t s p
e r s o n a l l y
u s e d b y h i m i n h i s t r a d e , e m p l o y m e n t , o r livel
ihood ;
(c)
o r t h
c a r a b a o
u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r
h i m i n
o r d i n a r
T h r e e
h o r s e s ,
o r t h r e e
c o w s ,
r e e
s , o r b e a s t s o f b u r d e n , s u c h a s t h e j
m a y s e l e c t , n e c e s s a r i l y
h i s
y
o c c u p a t i o n ;
(d)
H i s
n e c e s s a r y
r t i c l e s
fo r
o r d i n a r y p e r s o n a l u s e ,
;
(e)
H o
n e c e s s a r y
for h o u s e k e
b y t h e
j u d g m e n t
c h
a s
t h
j u d g m e n t
v a l u e
n o
e x c e e d i n g
u s e h o l d
c l o t h i n g
e p i n g , a n d u s e d
a n d
b y
a n d
e x c l u d i n g j e w e l r y
f u r n i t u r e a n d
o b l i g o r
u s e d
u t e n s i l s
fo r t h a t p u r p o s e
h i s
f a m i l y ,
s u
e
o b l i g o r
m a y
s e l e c t ,
o f
t
o n e h u n d r e d t h o u s a n d p e s o s ;
(f)
P r o v i s i o n s
f a m i l y
u s e
s u f f i c i e n t fo r f o u r
f o r
i n d i v i d u a l
o r
m o n t h s ;
(g)
T h e p r o f e s s i o n a l l i b r a r i e s a n d e q u
i p m e n t o f
j u d g e s , l a w y e r s , p h y s i c i a n s , p h a r m a c i s t s
, d e n t i s t s ,
e n g i n e e r s ,
s u r v e y o r s ,
c l e r g y m e n ,
t e a
c h e r s
a n d
48 8
----------------------- Page 489----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 13
EXECUTION,
AND
SATISFACTION
o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l s n o t e x c e e d i n g
h u n d r e d
t h o u s a n d p e s o s i n v a l u e ;
t h r e e
(h)
O n e
f i s h i n g b o a t
a n d
e s
n o t
e x c e e d i n g t h e t o t a l v a l u e o f o n e
o u s a n d
p e s o s o w n e d b y a f i s h e r m a n a n d
l u s e
o f w h i c h h e e a r n s h i s livelihood ;
(i)
S o m u c h o f t h e s a l a r
a r n i n g s
o f t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r fo
s e r v i c e s
w i t h i n t h e fou r m o n t h s
p r
a s
a r e
n e c e s s a r y fo r t h e s u p p o r t o
(j)
L e t t e r e d
a c c e s s o r i
h u n d r e d t h
b y t h e
lawfu
i e s , w a g e s , o r e
r
h i s
p e r s o n a l
e c e d i n g
f h i s
t h e lev y
family ;
g r a v e s t o n e s ;
(k)
M o n i e s ,
b e n e f i t s , p r i v i l e g e s , o r
a n n u i t i e s
a c c r u i n g o r i n a n y m a n n e r g r o w i n g o u t o f a n
y lif e
i n s u r a n c e ;
(1)
T h e r i g h t t o r e c e i v e lega l s u p p o r t , o
r m o n e y
o r p r o p e r t y
o b t a i n e d
a s
s u c h
s u p p o r t ,
o r a n y
p e n s i o n o r g r a t u i t y fro m t h e G o v e r n m e n t ;
(m)
P r o p e r t i e s s p e c i a l l y e x e m p t e d
b y la
w .
B u t n
t i o n e d
n t h i s
c u t i o n
s s u e d u
r i c e o r
u p o n
a
r t g a g e
t h e r e o n .
n
i
e
i
o a r t i c l e o r s p e c i e s o f p r o p e r t y m e
s e c t i o n
p o n
s h a l l b e
a j u d g m e n t
j u d g m e n t
o f
e x e m p t
r e c o v e r e d
f o r e c l o s u r e
(12a )
N O T E S
1. Economic, legal and technological changes or

developments over time since these exemptions were
provided for in the 1964 Rules of Court have necessitated
corresponding amendments.
a. The substantive concept of a family home and the
procedural or regulatory provisions thereon were
introduced by the Civil Code on August 30, 1950. The
"family home" and "homestead" provided for in the Family
Code which repealed and replaced the provisions of the
489
----------------------- Page 490-----------------------
f r o m
fo r
o f
e x
it s
a
p
m o
RULE 39
SEC. 13
former on Augus t 3 , 198 8 and , a s now state d in Par . (a) ,

refer t o th e sam e propert y excep t t h a t th e family hom e i s
s o r e f e r r e d t o i f i t h a d b e e n e i t h e r j u d i c
i a l l y o r
extrajudicially constitute d unde r th e Civil Code .
How
ever ,
unde r Art . 15 3 o f th e Famil y Code , extrajudicia l or judicia l
constitution i s n o longer require d a s th e family hom e i s
deeme d constitute d on a hous e an d lot from th e tim e it i s
occupied a s a family residenc e an d s o lon g a s an y o f it s
beneficiarie s actuall y reside s therein .
Unde r th e Civi l Code , asid e from specifie d obligation s
on th e
propert y
(Arts.
232,
243),
th e famil y hom
e
i s
exempt from executio n or attachmen t i f th e valu e doe s
no t excee d P 2 0 . 0 0 0 ,
o r P 3 0 . 0 0 0 i n c h a r t e r e
d citie s
(Arts. 231, 246).
In th e 1964 Rule s o f Court , th e exemptio n
of th e
family
hom e wa s limite d t o P3.00 0 (Sec.
12fa],
Rule
39).
Thereafter ,
th e Famil y
Cod e
increase d
th e
exemption o f th e family hom e t o no t exceedin g it s actua l
valu e a t th e tim e o f it s constitutio n i n th e amoun t o
f
P300.00 0 i n urba n areas , an d P200,00 0 i n rura l areas , o r
in suc h amount s a s ma y thereafte r b e fixed b y law ; bu t
wit h th e indefinit e an d open-ende d qualification tha t "(i)n
any event , i f th e valu e o f th e currenc y change s afte r th e
adoption o f thi s Code , th e valu e mos t favorabl e t o th e
constitutio n o f th e famil y hom e shal l b e th e basi s o f
evaluation "
(Art.
157).
A g a i n s t s u c h a c o n t e n t i o u s b a c k g r o u n d
a n d t o
f o r e s t a l l c o m p l i c a t e d s o l u t i o n s , o n p r a g m a
t i c con sideration s o f th e perennia l housin g problem s an d th e
s e n t i m e n t a l a t t a c h m e n t o f Filipino s
t o t h e i r
famil y
residences , th e S u p r e m e Cour t decide d t o g r a n t tota
l
exemption t o th e family hom e withou t regar d t o it s value ,
subject only t o specifi c unavoidabl e exceptions .
Thi s
amendmen t i n th e first paragrap h o f thi s section doe s not
diminish , increas e or modify substantiv e rights , bu t merely
operate s a s a mean s o f implementin g an existin g right ,
henc e
i t deal s
merel y wit h procedur e
(se e Fabia
n
vs.
Desierto, etc., et al.,
G.R. No.
129742,
Sept.
16,
19
98).
490
----------------------- Page 491----------------------RULE 39
. 13
SEC

b . Only ordinary tool s an d implement s use d in trad e
or employmen t ar e exempte d bu t sophisticate d tool s o f
advanced technologica l design s wit h considerabl e value ,
such a s powe r tool s use d i n industria l o r commercia l
concerns , ar e not exempt .
c.
Th e numbe r o f wor k animal s or beast s o f burde n
exempt from executio n ha s bee n increased , withou t limi t
on thei r value , provide d that , an d a s lon g as , the y ar e
use d by th e judgmen t obligor in hi s ordinar y occupation .
Thi s take s int o accoun t th e importanc e o f work animal s t o
th e f a r m e r s , wh o c o n s t i t u t e a larg e portio n o f
t h e
population , th e unavailabilit y o f facilitie s for mechanize d
farming an d th e fact tha t th e countr y operate s i n larg e
measur e o n a n agricultura l economy .
d . I n additio n t o th e judgmen t creditor' s ordinar y
clothing , al l othe r article s for hi s ordinar y persona l use ,
bu t excludin g unessentia l o r expensiv e item s suc h a s
jewelr y o r sabl e an d min k coats , ar e exempted .
Th e
additional phras e "an d tha t o f al l hi s family, " referrin g t o
said item s in th e former Rule , ha s been eliminate d for
bein g superfluou s sinc e th e sam e belon g t o th e member s
of th e judgmen t debtor' s family an d not t o him , henc e the y
ar e obviously not subject t o execution .
e . Th e valu e o f exemp t househol d
utensil s for housekeeping ,
professiona
equipment , an d fishin g boat s an d accessorie s
net), ha s bee n increased .
Th e sam e
furnitur e an d
l librarie s an d
(not only a
increas e ha s als
o
bee n mad e on th e amoun t o f provision s for individua l or
family us e an d salaries, wages or earning s necessar y for
th e suppor t o f th e judgmen t obligor' s family ; an d th e latte r
item s ar e
now s o specified in view o f previou s holding s
which distinguishe d salarie s from wages .
U n d e r t h e s a m e r a t i o n a l e t h a t t h e ceilin g
o n
exemption s for th e family home , homestea d or necessar y
lan d therefo r i s n o longe r specifically state d i n thi s
amende d
section ,
al l
monies ,
benefits ,
491
privilege s
----------------------- Page 492-----------------------
o r
RULE 39
SEC. 13
annuitie s accruin g or growin g ou t o f an y life insuranc e

ar e likewis e now exemp t regardles s o f th e amoun t o f th e
premium s pai d thereon .
O f course , a s unde r th e forme
r
section, thi s exemptio n doe s no t apply t o non-life insuranc e
coverage .
2 . Th e
exemption s
e n u m e r a t e d
herei n
canno t
b e
claimed , p u r s u a n t t o th e las t paragraph , i f th e judgmen t

i s for th e recover y o f th e unpai d pric e o f th e
e
involved or for th e foreclosur e o f a mortgag e thereon .
3 . Thes e
the y ar e deeme d
4 Phil.
641).
I t i s
off th e
exemption s o n hi
exemption s
waive d
no t
articl
m u s t b e claimed , otherwis e
(Herrera vs. McMicking,
t h e d u t y
o f th e sherif f t o
1
se t
s own initiative .
4 . Th e u s u f r u c t u a r y righ t o f a wido w ove r

a lot
whereo n sh e ha d constructe d a residentia l hous e i s not
e x e m p t fro m executio n a s
i t i s no t t h e "homeste
ad "
contemplate d unde r thi s section .
Suc h usufructuar y righ
t
ma y eve n b e transferre d or dispose d of, henc e it i s an
interest in propert y whic h ca n b e sol d on execution , unlik e
th e usufruc t o f p a r e n t s ove r propert y o f thei r childre
n
unde r parenta l authorit y the n provide d for i n Art . 32 1 o f
th e Civil Cod e
(Vda. de Bogacki vs. Inserto, et al., L-39187,
Jan.
30,
1982),
an d amende d by Art .
226 ,
Famil y
Code .
5 . O t h e r p r o p e r t i e s s p e c i a l l y e x e m p t e d
fro m
execution , a s contemplate d i n th e abov e section , are :
(a) Propert y mortgage d to th e DB P (Sec. 26, CA. 458);
(b) P r o p e r t y t a k e n ove r
b y t h e Alie n
o p e r t y
Administratio n
(Sec.
9[f],
U.S.
Trading
With
Enemy
Act);
Posta l
the
(c) Saving s o f nationa l prisoner s deposite d wit h th e

Saving s Ban k (Act 2489);
(d) Backpa y o f pre-wa r civilian employee s
304);
P r
(R.A.
(e) P h i l i p p i n e G o v e r n m e n t b a c k p a y t o
illa s
(R.A.
guer
897);
492
----------------------- Page 493----------------------RULE 39

SEC. 14
(f) Produce ,
wor k
t s
of agricultura l lessees ,
21,
R.A.
6389);
animal s
an d
subjec t
t o
far m
implemen
limitatio n
(Sec.
(g) B e n e f i t s fro m
p r i v a t e r e t i r e m e n t s y
s t e m s
o f c o m p a n i e s an d
e s t a b l i s h m e n t s , w i t h l i m i
t a t i o n s
(R.A.
4917);
(h) Laborer' s wages , excep t for debt s
food, shelter , clothin g an d medica l attendanc e
1708,
Civil
Code);
incurre d
(i) Benefi t payment s

,
R.A.
1161,
as amended by P.D.
SS S
from
24,
th e
65 and
for
(Art.
(Sec.
177);
G )
C o p y r i g h t s a n d o t h e r r i g h t s i n
t e l l e c t u a l
propert y unde r th e former copyright law , P.D . 4 9 (cf. Sec.
239.3,
R.A.
8293); and
(k)
L-17874,
Bond s issue d unde r R.A .

Aug.
31,
1963).
16
1000 (NASSCO vs.
i n
CIR,
6 . S a l a r i e s , a s distinguishe d
from wages ,
wer e
formerly not exemp t from execution .
Th e ter m "w
age "
d e n o t e s c o m p e n s a t i o n for m a n u a l
labor ,
skille
d
o r
unskilled , whil e th e ter m "salary " denote s a highe r degre e
of employmen t or superio r grad e or servic e an d implie s a
position or office (Gaa vs.
CA, et al., L-44169, Dec.
31,
1985).
Thi s distinctio n ha s been eliminate d by Par . (i) .
7 .
Se e note s unde r Sees . 7 an d 8 , Rul e 5 7 regardin g
other propertie s exemp t from attachment , henc e likewis e

exempt from execution .
Sec .
14 .
Return of
writ of
execution.
T h e
w r i t of
e x e c u t i o n s h a l l b e r e t u r n a b l e t o t h e c o u
r t i s s u i n g
i t i m m e d i a t e l y afte r t h e j u d g m e n t h a s bee n satis
fie d
i n p a r t o r i n full . I f t h e j u d g m e n t c a n n o t b e sa
tisfie d
i n ful l w i t h i n t h i r t y (30) d a y s afte r h i s r e c e i p
t o f t h e
writ , t h e office r shal l r e p o r t t o t h e c o u r t a n d s
t a t e
t h e r e a s o n t h e r e f o r . S u c h w r i t shal l c o n t i
n u e i n
493
----------------------- Page 494----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 13
effec t d u r i n g t h e perio d w i t h i n w h i c h t h e j u d g m e
n t
m a y b e enforce d b y m o t i o n .
Th e office r shal l ma
k e
a repor t t o t h e c o u r t ever y thirt y (30) d a y s o n th e
p r o c e e d i n g s t a k e n
m e n t
i s
s a t i s f i e d i n full ,
e s . T h e
r e t u r n s o r p e r i o d i
e
o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s
h th e
c o u r t a n d
c o p i e s
h e d th e
parties .
(11a )
t h e r e o n
o r
u n t i l
t h e
i t s e f f e c t i v i t y
j u d g
e x p i r
c report s shal l se t fort h t h e whol

t a k e n , a n d shal l b e file d w i t
t h e r e o f p r o m p t l y
f u r n i s
NOT E
1.
Thi s amende d provisio n change s th e procedur e i n
th e forme r Sec . 1 1 o f thi s Rul e wherei n th e lifetim e o f a
wri t o f executio n wa s 6 0 day s from it s receip t by th e officer
require d t o
become s
h e r e a f t e
p u r s u a n t
enforc e th e same , after whic h period , suc h wri t

functus
officio
an d
al l act s
don e
r
theret o ar e nul l an d void .
Unde r th e presen t amende d practice , th e lifetim e o f

th e wri t o f execution correspond s t o th e perio d withi n which
th e judgmen t ma y b e enforce d b y motion , t h a t is , withi n
5 year s from entr y thereo f sinc e thereafte r suc h judgmen t
become s dorman t an d subjec t t o a reviva l action .
Withi n
th e perio d for it s enforceabilit y an d from it s receip t by th e
officer taske d wit h it s enforcement , th e officer shal l mak e
th e periodi c report s t o th e cour t a s require d b y thi s section
unti l th e judgmen t i s fully satisfie d or become s ineffective .

Sec
tion.
B e f o r e
, n o t i
t h e r e o
o s t i
w r i t
i n
t h r e
o u s
a r e a
an d
p u b l
w h
15 .
Notice
of
sale
of
property
t h e s a l e o f p r o p e r t y
o n
c e
f m u s t b e g i v e n a s follows :
(a)
n g
t e n
I n
c a s e
notic e
(3)
o f t h e
o f p e r i s h a b l e
publi c
o f t h e
tim e
p l a c e s ,
an d
property ,
i n
m u n i c i p a l o r cit y hall ,
i c m a r k e t
e r e
i n
t h e
execu
e x e c u t i o n
plac e
preferabl y
on
b y
o f th e
p
sal e
c o n s p i c u
pos t offic e
m u n i c i p a l i t y
o r
cit y
494
----------------------- Page 495----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 15
EXECUTION. SATISFACTION
th e
s a l e i s t o t a k e p l a c e , fo r s u c h t i m e a s
m a y
b e
r e a s o n a b l e , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r
a n d
conditio n o f
th e property ;
(b)
I n c a s e o f o t h e r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t
y , b y
p o s t i n g a s i m i l a r n o t i c e i n t h e t h r e e (3) p
u b l i c
place s above-mentioned , fo r no t les s t h a n fiv e (5)
days ;
(c)
I n c a s e o f r e a l p r o p e r t y , b y p o s t i n
g fo r
twent y (20) day s i n th e thre e (3) publi c place s above mentioned , a simila r notic e particularl y d e s c r i b i n g
th e propert y an d statin g wher e th e propert y i s t o
b e sold , an d i f th e a s s e s s e d valu e o f th e propert
y
e x c e e d s
fift y
t h o u s a n d
( P 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) p e s o
s , b y
publishin g a cop y o f th e notic e onc e a w e e k fo r t w o
(2) c o n s e c u t i v e w e e k s i n on e newpape r selecte d b y
raffle, w h e t h e r i n English , Filipino , o r an y majo r
regiona l languag e published , edite d an d circulate d
or ,
i n
t h e
a b s e n c e
t h e r e o f , h a v i n g
g e n
e r a l
circulatio n i n th e provinc e o r city ;
(d)
I n al l cases , writte n notic e o f th e sal e shal l
b e give n t o th e j u d g m e n t obligor , a t leas t thre e (3)
d a y s
b e f o r e
d
i n
paragrap h
(a)
at an y tim e befor e
persona l servic e o
provide d by sectio n
t h e
s a l e , e x c e p t
hereo f w
th e sale
f pleading
6 o f Rul
h
,
s
e
a s
p r o v i d e
e r e notic e shal l b e give n

i n th e sam e manne r a s
an d othe r paper s a s
13 .
Th e
n o t i c e shal l
specif y th e
place , dat e
an d
exac t tim e o f th e sal e whic h shoul d no t b e earlie r
tha n nin e o'cloc k i n th e mornin g an d no t late r tha n
tw o o'cloc k i n th e afternoon .
Th e plac e o f th e sal
e
may b e agree d upo n b y th e parties .
I n th e absen
c e
o f s u c h a g r e e m e n t , t h e sal e
o f rea l
propert y
o r
persona l propert y no t capabl e o f manua l deliver y
shall b e hel d i n th e offic e o f th e cler k o f cour t o f th e
Regiona l Tria l Cour t o r th e Municipa l Tria l Cour t
w h i c h i s s u e d t h e wri t o r w h i c h
w a s d e s i g n
a t e d
495
----------------------- Page 496----------------------RULE 39

SEC. 16
b y t h e
a p p e l l a t e
c o u r t .
I n t h e c a s e o f
p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y c a p a b l e o f m a n u a l d e l i v e r y , t h e sa
l e s h a l l
b e h e l d i n t h e p l a c e w h e r e t h e p r o p e r t y i s
l o c a t e d .
(18a)
N O T E
1.
Thi s i s an amende d versio n o f th e former Sec . 1 8
of thi s Rule , wit h mor e specification s an d detail s

place s wher e notice s o f th e sal e shoul d b e
e
publicatio n thereof , furnishin g copie s o f th e same ,
th e las t paragraph , th e detail s o n wher e an d how
of rea l or persona l propert y shal l b e conducted .
S e c .
16 .
claimed
by
third person. I f t
s c l a i m e d
b y a n y p e r s o n
i g o r o r
h i s a g e n t , a n d
fidavi t
o f
h i s t i t l e t h e r
s i o n thereof ,
s t a t i n g t h e g r o
Proceedings
h e
where
s u c h
e t o
o r
th
and , in
th e sal e
property
p r o p e r t y
o t h e r t h a n
on th e
posted ,
l e v i e d
o n
p e r s o n
r i g h t
m a k e s
t o
t h e
o b l
a n
af
p o s s e s
u n d s o f s u c h r i g h t o r t i t l e ,
a n d s e r v e s
t h e s a m e
u p o n
t h e
office r
m a k i n g t h e
l
ev y
a n d
a
c o p y t h e r e o f u p o n t h e j u d g m e n t o b l i g e e , t h e
office r
s h a l l n o t b e b o u n d t o k e e p t h e p r o p e r t y , u n l
e s s s u c h
j u d g m e n t o b l i g e e , o n d e m a n d o f t h e officer ,
file s a
b o n d
a p p r o v e d
b y
t h e
c o u r t
t o i n d e m
n i f y
t h e
t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m a n t i n a s u m n o t les s t h a n t
h e v a l u e
o f t h e p r o p e r t y l e v i e d o n . I n c a s e o f d i s
a g r e e m e n t
a s t o s u c h v a l u e , t h e s a m e s h a l l b e d e t e
r m i n e d b y
t h e c o u r t i s s u i n g t h e w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n .
N o c l a i m
f o r d a m a g e s
f o r
t h e
t a k i n g
o r
k e e p i n
g
o f t h e
p r o p e r t y m a y b e e n f o r c e d a g a i n s t t h e b o n
d u n l e s s
t h e a c t i o n
t h e r e f o r i s file d
w i t h i n
o n e
h u n d r e d
t w e n t y (120 ) d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e filin
g o f t h e
b o n d .
T h e
o f f i c e r s h a l l n o t
b e
l i a b l e fo r
d a m a g e s ,
for t h e
t a k i n g o r
k e e p i n g o f t h e
p r o p e r t
y , t o a n y
t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m a n t i f s u c h bond " i s filed .
N o t h i n g
496
----------------------- Page 497----------------------RULE 39
. 16
SEC

h e r e i n c o n t a i n e d shal l p r e v e n t s u c h c l a i m a
n t o r
any thir d perso n fro m v i n d i c a t i n g hi s clai m t o th e
p r o p e r t y i n a
s e p a r a t e a c t i o n , o r p r e v e n t
t h e
judgmen t oblige e fro m claimin g damage s i n th e sam e
o r a separat e actio n agains t a third-part y claiman t
w h o file d a frivolou s o r plainl y spuriou s claim .
Whe n th e wri t o f e x e c u t i o n i s issue d i n favo r o f
th e Republi c o f th
r e p r e s e n t i n g
e
required , an d i n
i s sue d fo r d a m
Philippines , o r an y office r dul y

it , th e filin g o f suc h bon d shal l no t b
cas e th e sherif f o r levyin g office r

a g e s a s a resul t o f th e levy , h e shal l
b e r e p r e s e n t e d b y th e Solicito r Genera l an d i f hel d

liabl e therefor , th e actua l damage s adjudge d b y th e
cour t shal l b e pai d b y th e Nationa l Treasure r ou t
o f s u c h f u n d s a s m a y
b e a p p r o p r i a t e d fo r
t h e
purpose .
(17a )
NOTE S
1.
A s amended , thi s sectio n expresse s in a mor e
categorical manne r tha t th e officer makin g th e levy shal l
not b e liabl e for damage s t o any third-part y claiman t i f a
bon d t o indemnify th e latte r ha s been filed .
Th e office
r's
immunity from liability , however , i s only with respec t t o
damage s arisin g from hi s takin g an d keepin g o f th e
propert y claime d b y th e thir d party .
Damage s arisin g
from act s on hi s par t
t o t a k e an d kee p
h e
conditions o f th e bon d
unde r prope r showin g o
not connecte d with hi s official duty

suc h propert y
ar e no t withi n
an d h e can b e hel d liabl e therefor

f hi s culpability .
An innovation incorporate d by thi s amendmen t i s tha t

th e judgmen t oblige e can als o claim damage s agains t a
third-part y claiman t wh o file d a frivolou s or plainl y
spurious claim , an d such judgmen t oblige e can institut e
proceeding s therefor in th e sam e or a separat e action .
497
----------------------- Page 498----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 16
2 . Wher e a third-part y clai m ha s bee n filed in du e

form, th e prevailin g part y ca n compe l th e sherif f t o procee d
by th e filing o f a bon d t o answe r for damage s tha t ma y b e
incurre d a s a consequenc e o f th e execution .
On th e
othe r
hand , i f th e sherif f proceed s wit h th e sal e withou t suc h
bond , h e wil l b e personall y liabl e for suc h damage s a s
ma y b e s u s t a i n e d b y an d a w a r d e d t o th e thir
d-part y
claimant (Bayer Phil., Inc., et al.
vs. Agana, et al., L-3
8701,
April
8,
1975).
3 . Whe n a third-part y clai m i s contested , th e cour t
ha s th e powe r t o fix th e valu e o f th e propert y claime d b y
th e thir d person , s o t h a t a bon d equa l t o suc h valu e ma y
b e poste d by th e judgmen t credito r t o indemnify th e sherif f
against liability for damages ; o r examin e th e judgmen t
debtor an d otherwis e perfor m suc h othe r act s necessar y
or incidenta l t o carryin g ou t it s judgment .
I t ma y exe
rcis e
control an d supervisio n ove r th e sherif f an d othe r cour t

officers takin g p a r t i n th e executio n proceedings .
I f th e
sheriff erroneousl y seize s propert y o f a thir d person , th e
court ,
upo n th e latter' s applicatio n an d afte r summar y
hearing , ma y orde r th e releas e o f th e propert y from th e
mistake n levy an d it s restoratio n t o th e lawfu l owne r o r
possessor .
However , i f th e third-part y claimant' s proof s
do no t persuad e th e cour t o f hi s titl e or righ t o f possessio n
over th e property , th e claimant' s remed y i s se t ou t i n Sec .
16 o f thi s Rule , whic h ma y b e resorte d t o befor e or withou t
availment o f th e recourse s abov e se t forth
(Ong vs.
Tating,
et al., G.R.
No.
61042, April
15,
1987).
4 . Wher e th e third-part y clai m ha s bee n disregarde d
by th e sherif f becaus e o f th e bon d filed by th e prevailin g
party , o r i f th e cour t proceeding s o n sai d third-part y claim
resul t in a denia l thereof , th e remed y o f th e third-part y
claimant i s t o file a n independen t reivindicator y action
a g a i n s t t h e j u d g m e n t c r e d i t o r o r t h e p u r c h a
s e r a t
publi c auctio n (se e Lara
vs. Bayona,
etc., et al,
9 7 Phil.
951;
Polaris
Marketing
Corp.
vs.
Plan,
et al,
L
-40666,
49 8
----------------------- Page 499----------------------RULE 39
EC. 16
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION

Jan.
22,
1976;
supra).
Sai d
t h i r d - p a r
a v a i l
of certiorar i
as
et al.,
L-25546, April 23,
oquia,
et al., L-40018, Mar.
to
th e origina l action .
Bayer
Phil.,
Inc.
vs.
Agana,
t y c l a i m a n t c a n n o t a p p e a l no r
a
remed y
(Sierra
1974; Northern Motors,

21,
1975) sinc e
vs.
Inc.
Rodriguez,
vs.
he is no t a part y
5 . Th e right s o f third-part y claimant s shoul d no t b e

decided i n th e actio n wher e th e third-part y claim s ar e
presented , bu t i n a separat e action which th e cour t shoul d
direct th e claimant s to file
(San Francisco Oil & Pai
nt
Co.
vs. Bayer Phil,
Inc.,
L-38801,
April
8,
1975).
Th e
reaso n for thi s i s t h a t "n o ma n shal l b e affecte d
b y
proceeding s t o whic h h e i s a stranger "
(Polaris Market
ing
Corp. vs. Plan, et al., supra), an d sai d separat e action ma y
b e trie d by a differen t branc h o f th e sam e

another
cour t
(Lorenzana
vs.
Cayetano,
37051,
Aug.
31,
1977).
cour t or by
et al.,
L-
6 . In th e action for damage s upon th e bon d filed by

th e judgmen t creditor , th e suret y mus t b e impleaded ,
otherwise th e judgmen t therei n canno t b e enforced agains t
th e bon d
(Montojo
vs. Hilario,
58 Phil.
372).
Bu
t an
action agains t th e suret y i s bindin g upon th e principa l i f
th e latte r ha d knowledg e thereo f an d a n opportunit y t o
participat e in th e defens e (Sec. 46, Rule 39).
7 . Sec . 1 6 o f thi s Rul e authorize s any perso n othe r
tha n th e judgmen t debto r o r hi s agen t t o vindicat e hi s
claim t o th e propert y by an y prope r action , tha t is , by any
action entirel y separat e an d distinc t from tha t in which
th e executio n ha s issued .
Thi s i s true , however , i f su
ch
action i s institute d by a strange r t o th e latte r suit . On th e
other hand , i f th e claim o f impropriety in th e execution
proceeding s i s mad e by a part y t o th e origina l action , not
by a strange r thereto , any relie f therefrom may b e applie d
for with , an d obtaine d from , only th e executin g cour t
(Mariano vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 51283, June
7, 19
89).
499
----------------------- Page 500----------------------RULE 39
. 16
8 .
SEC
Unde r th e aforesai d section , i t i s immateria l a s t o
whethe r or no t th e sherif f mad e a vali d levy on propertie s

on executio n befor e a person , othe r t h a n th e judgmen t
debtor , claimin g ownershi p o r right s ove r th e levie d
propertie s ca n file a separat e action t o prosecut e hi s claim
thereover .
A perso n othe r t h a n th e judgmen t debto r may
file a s e p a r a t e actio n ove r sai d propertie s eve n i
f th e
sheriff s levy on th e propertie s on execution wa s considere d
void .
Th e issu e a s t o whethe r o r no t ther e wa s a n illega
l
levy o n propertie s unde r executio n ca n b e threshe d ou t i n
a s e p a r a t e actio n
(Consolidated
Bank
&
Trust
C
orp.,
et al. vs. CA, et al, G.R. No.
78771, Jan. 23,
1991,
an d
companion cases) .
9 .
in Sec .
Th e remedie s o f a third-part y claiman t mentione d

1 6 o f thi s Rule , tha t is , a summar y hearin g befor e
th e cour t whic h authorize d th e execution , o r a "terceria "

or third-part y clai m filed wit h th e sheriff , or an actio n for
damage s o n th e bon d poste d b y th e judgmen t creditor , o r
an
independen t
reivindicator y
action ,
ar e
cumulativ
e
remedie s an d ma y b e resorte d t o by a third-part y claiman t
independently o f or separatel y from an d withou t nee d o f
availing o f th e others .
I f h e opte d t o file a prope r ac
tion
t o vindicat e hi s clai m o f ownership , h e mus t institut e a n
action ,
distinc t an d s e p a r a t e from t h a t i n whic h
th e
judgmen t i s bein g enforced , wit h a competen t cour t even
befor e or withou t filin g a clai m in th e cour t which issue d
th e writ , th e latte r no t bein g a conditio n sine qua non for
th e former .
Thi s prope r actio n woul d hav e for it s object
th e recovery o f ownershi p or possessio n o f th e propert y
seized by th e sheriff , a s wel l a s damage s agains t th e sherif
f
an d othe r person s responsibl e for th e illega l seizur e o r
detention o f th e property .
Th e validit y o f th e titl e o f
th e
third-part y claiman t shal l b e resolve d in sai d actio n an d a
wri t o f preliminar y injunctio n ma y b e issue d agains t th e
sheriff (Sy,
et al. vs. Discaya,
et al., G.R.
No.
8
6301,
Jan.
23,
1990).
500
----------------------- Page 501----------------------RULE 39
6
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION
SEC. 1

10. I t wil l b e note d tha t unde r thi s section , a thir
d
part y claiman t seekin g t o vindicat e hi s clai m t o th e
property , or a judgmen t oblige e wit h a claim for damages ,
may enforc e thei r claim s in a separat e action institute d
for tha t purpos e an d no t i n th e sam e cour t wher e th e
execution proceeding s ar e bein g conducted .
O n th e othe
r
hand , suc h claim s contemplate d an d arisin g i n attach men t proceeding s (Sec.
14, Rule 57) an d replevi n suit s
(Sec.
7,
Rule
60)
ma y
involved
i s tha
already
action s
or in a separat e suit
t th e judgmen t in
fina l an d executory ,
stil l pendin g i n
11. A s show n in
case , distinc t from tha
i s prope r i f institute
On th e othe r hand ,
e
execution proceeding s i s
not a strange r thereto ,
b e
litigate d
in
th e
sam e
actio n
.
Th e reason for th e difference
th e cas e subject o f thi s section i s
whil e Rule s 5 7 an d 6 0 involv e
th e tria l court .
th e foregoin g discussion , a separat e

t i n which th e execution wa s issued ,
d by a "stranger " t o th e latte r suit .
i f th e clai m o f impropriet y i n th
mad e by a part y t o th e action ,
an y relie f therefro m may only b e
applied for an d obtaine d from th e executin g court .

It ha s bee n hel d tha t a spous e wh o wa s not a part y t
o
th e sui t bu t whos e conjugal propert y i s bein g execute d
becaus e th e othe r spous e i s th e judgmen t obligor , i s not
considered a strange r t o th e suit .
Tha t spous e canno t b e
allowed t o file a separat e action t o question th e execution
of thei r conjuga l propert y sinc e the y coul d hav e easily
questioned th e execution in th e main cas e itself .
However , ther e hav e been instance s wher e a spous e
wa s allowe d t o file a separat e cas e agains t a wrongfu l
execution , bu t the y res t on different factua l bases .
Thus ,
th e institutio n o f a separat e an d independen t action wa s
allowe d
w h e n
t h e p r o p e r t y w a s t h e exclusive
o
r
paraphernal propert y of a spous e wh o wa s not a part y to
th e cas e th e judgmen t wherei n wa s sough t t o b e executed .
In such a situation , th e aggrieve d spous e wa s deeme d t o
be a strange r to tha t mai n action (Ching vs.
CA, et al.
,
50 1
----------------------- Page 502----------------------RULE 39
. 17, 18
G.R.
No.

118830,
Feb.
24,
SECS
2003).
S e c .
17 .
Penalty
for
selling
without
no
tice,
or
removing
or
defacing
notice.
A n
o f f i c e r s
e l l i n g
w i t h o u t t h e n o t i c e prescribe d b y s e c t i o n 1 5 o f th
i s
Rul e shal l b e liabl e t o pa y p u n i t i v e d a m a g e s i n th
e
a m o u n t o f fiv e t h o u s a n d p e s o s
(F5,000.00 ) t o
an y
p e r s o n i n j u r e d t h e r e b y , i n a d d i t i o n t o h
i s actua l
d a m a g e s , b o t h t o b e r e c o v e r e d b y m o t i o n
i n th e
s a m e
a c t i o n , a n d a p e r s o n
w i l l f u l l y r e m
o v i n g o r
d e f a c i n g t h e n o t i c e p o s t e d , i f d o n e befor e t
h e sale ,
o r befor e t h e
s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t
i f i t b e
satisfie d befor e t h e sale , shal l b e liabl e t o pa y fiv e
t h o u s a n d p e s o s (P5,000.00 ) t o a n y p e r s o n injure
d
b y r e a s o n thereof , i n a d d i t i o n t o hi s actua l d a m a g
e s ,
t o b e
r e c o v e r e d
b y m o t i o n
i n t h e s a m e
a c t i o n .
(19a)
NOTE S
1.
A sal e withou t th e require d notic e i s nul l an d void
(Ago vs.
bject s
th e officer
r wh o
induce d th e
liable
as
et al.,
38
Phil.
CA,
et al.,
t o
L-17898,
liabilit y
for
Oct.
31,
1962),
damages .
an d su
Th e
credito
sherif f t o sel l withou t notic e wil l b e solidarily

a tortfeaso r
(Campomanes vs. Bartolome,
808).
2 . A n executio n sal e mad e o n th e dat e afte r th

a t
fixed in th e notic e o f sal e i s nul l an d void .
Th e s
ai d sal e
i s als o a nullit y wher e th e requiremen t for th e postin g o f
notices , a s now specifie d in Sec . 1 5 o f thi s Rule , i s not
complied
wit h
et al,
L-22606,
Dec.
(se e
12,
Prov.
Sheriff of
Rizal
vs.
CA,
1975).
Sec .
18 .
No
sale
if
At
a n y t i m e befor e t h e sal e o
o n ,
o b l i g o r
s a l e b y
p a y i n g t h e a m o u n t r e q u i
o n an d
judgment
and
costs
paid.
f propert y
m a y
r e d
o n
e x e c u t i
p r e v e n t
b y
t h e
t h e
e x e c u t i
502
----------------------- Page 503----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 19
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION

th e cost s tha t h a v e b e e n incurre d therein .
0a )
Sec .
19 .
may
direct manner and
unde r e x e c u t i
t o
th e h i g h e s t
d
i n th e notice .
sol d t o satisf y
How property
sold
on
(2
execution;
who
order of sale. Al l sale s of propert y

o n m u s t b e m a d e a t publi c a u c t i o n ,
bidder , t o
star t a t th e exac t t i m e
fixe
Afte r sufficien t propert y h a s b e e n

t h e e x e c u t i o n , n o mor e shal l b e sol d
an d an y e x c e s s propert y o r proceed s o f th e sal e shal l

b e promptl y delivere d t o th e j u d g m e n t obligo r o r
h i s a u t h o r i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e u n l e s s
o t h e
r w i s e
directe d b y th e judgmen t o r orde r o f th e court . Whe n

th e
sal e i s o f rea l property , c o n s i s t i n g o f s e v
e r a l
k n o w n lots , t h e y m u s t b e sol d separately , or , w h e n
a portio n o f s u c h rea l propert y i s claime d b y a thir d
p e r s o n , h e m a y r e q u i r e i t t o b e sol d s e p a r
a t e l y .
Whe n th e
sal e i s o f p e r s o n a l propert y c a p a b l
e o f
manua l delivery , i t mus t b e sol d withi n vie w o f thos e
a t t e n d i n g th e sam e an d i n suc h parcel s a s ar e likel y
t o brin g th e h i g h e s t price .
Th e j u d g m e n t obligo
r ,
i f p r e s e n t a t th e sale , ma y direc t th e orde r i n w h i c
h
property , rea l o r personal , shal l b e sold , w h e n suc h
propert y c o n s i s t s o f severa l k n o w n lot s o r parcel s
w h i c h ca n b e sol
the r
th e office r c o n d
hi s
deputies , ca n becom e
directly o r indirectl
(21a)
d t o advantag e separately .
u c t i n g th e
e x e c u t i o n
Nei
sale ,
no r
a purchaser , no r b e intereste d
y i n an y purchas e a t suc h sale .
NOTE S
1.
Thi s
i s a reproductio n of th e former Sec . 2 1 of
Rule , wit h th e amendmen t tha t th e sal e a t publi c
thi s
auction mus t star

sale, instea d o f
and five in th e
wa s
no t
onl
b l e o f
manipulation .
t at th e exact tim e fixed in th e notic e o f

"betwee n th e hour s o f nin e in th e mornin g
afternoon, " state d in tha t section an d which
y
i n d e f i n i t e b u t als o
s u s c e p t i
503
----------------------- Page 504----------------------RULE 39
EC. 19
2 . Th e judgmen t credito r ca n bi d an d purchas e a t

th e publi c auctio n (se e Sec. 21), bu t th e officer conductin g
th e executio n sal e o r hi s deput y ar e disqualified .
Othe r
person s disqualifie d from participatin g in sai d publi c sal e
ar e enumerate d in Art . 149 1 o f th e Civil Code , viz.:
b y
"Art. 1491 .
Th e followin g person s canno t acquir e
purchase , eve n a t a publi c o r judicia l auction ,
either i n perso n o r throug h th e mediatio n o f another :

(1)
Th e guardian , th e propert y o f th e perso n or
person s wh o ma y b e unde r hi s guardianship ;
sale
(2)
Agents , th e propert y whos e administratio n o r
ma y hav e bee n intruste d t o them , unles s th e
consent o f th e principa l ha s bee n given ;

(3)
Executor s an d administrators ,
o f th e estat e unde r administration ;
(4)
Publi c
of th e S t a t e
th e
propert y
officer s an d employees , th e propert y

o r o f an y subdivisio n thereof , o r
an y
g o v e r n m
t i o n o r
institution ,
intruste d t
a n d g o v
a n n e r
whatsoever ,
e n t
owne d
a n
controlle d
c o r p o r a
th e administratio n o f whic h ha s bee n

o them ; thi s provisio n shal l appl y t o judge s
e r n m e n t
e x p e r t s w h o ,
i n a n y
m
tak e p a r t i n th e sale ;
(5) Justices , judges

o f superio r an d inferior
employee s connecte d w i
t i o n o f
justice , th e propert y an
upo n
o r
executio n
, prosecutin g attorneys , clerk s

courts , an d othe r officer s an d
t h th e
a d m i n i s t r a
d right s i n litigatio n o r levie d
befor e
th e
cour t
withi n
who
s e
jurisdictio n
f u n c t i o
e ac t o f
acquirin g b
wit h respec
th e object
p a r t b y
(6)
o r territor y the y exercis e thei r respectiv e

n s ; t h i s p r o h i b i t i o n i n c l u d e s t h
y assignmen t an d shal l appl y t o lawyers ,
t t o th e propert y an d right s which ma y b e
o f an y litigatio n i n whic h the y ma y tak e
virtu e o f thei r profession ;
Any other s specially disqualifie d by law. "

504
----------------------- Page 505----------------------RULE 39

SEC. 20
Relativ e t o Par . (6) hereof , it i s provide d tha t a sell

er
o f good s
wh o e x e r c i s e s t h e r i g h t o f r e s a l e
i s als o
disqualified from participatin g in a publi c sal e o f sai d good s
(see
Art.
1646,
Civil
Code;
Maharlika
Publishing
Corp.,
et al. vs. Tagle, et al., G.R. No. 65594, July 9,
1986
).
3 .
Th e remed y agains t an irregula r sal e i s a motion
t o vacat e or se t asid e th e sal e t o b e filed in th e cour t which
issued th e wri t o f execution .
A shockin g inadequac y o f
pric e a t a judicia l sal e warrant s th e settin g asid e thereo f
(Barrozo vs. Macaraeg,

and void (Prov.
),
bu t
thi s rul e doe s not
a s bee n
held , however , tha t
righ t t o redeem ,
83 Phil. 378) an d suc h sal e is nul l

Sheriff of Rizal vs.
CA,
et al., ante
apply t o conventiona l sales .
I t h
even in execution sales , i f ther e i s a

th e mer e inadequac y o f pric e i s no t
materia l sinc e th e judgmen t debto r may reacquir e th e

propert y o r sel l hi s righ t t o redee m an d thu s recover an y
loss h e claim s t o hav e suffere d by reaso n o f th e pric
e
obtaine d
at th e
executio n
sal e (Barrozo
vs. Maca
raeg,
supra; Ponce de Leon vs. RFC,
L-24571, Dec.
18,
1970).
S e c . 20 .
Refusal
of purchaser
to pay.
If a
purchase r refuse s t o pa y th e a m o u n t bi d b y h i m fo r
propert y struc k of f t o h i m a t a sal e unde r execution ,
t h e o f f i c e r m a y
a g a i n s e l l t h e p r o p e r t y t
o t h e
h i g h e s t bidde r an d shal l no t b e responsibl e fo r an y
los s o c c a s i o n e d thereby , bu t th e cour t ma y orde r
th e r e f u s i n g p u r c h a s e r t o pa y int o th e cour t
th e
a m o u n t o f s u c h loss , wi t h costs , an d ma y p u n i
s h
h i m fo r c o n t e m p t i f h e d i s o b e y s th e order .
Th e
a m o u n t o f suc h paymen t shal l b e fo r th e benefi t o f
th e perso n entitle d t o th e proceed s o f th e execution ,
u n l e s s t h e e x e c u t i o n ha s b e e n full y satisfied ,
i n
w h i c h e v e n t suc h proceed s shal l b e fo r th e benefi t
o f th e judgmen t obligor .
Th e office r ma y thereafte r
reject an y s u b s e q u e n t bi d o f suc h purchase r w h o
refuse s t o pay .
(22a )
505
----------------------- Page 506----------------------RULE 39
. 21 22
SECS
NOT E
1.
Th e measur e o f damage s t o whic h th e judgmen t
creditor i s entitle d agains t th e unlawfu l interveno r i s th e
difference betwee n th e amoun t whic h woul d hav e bee n
realize d wer e i t no t for th e illega l interventio n (bu t no t t
o
exceed th e judgmen t account ) an d th e tota l amoun t which
h e actuall y recovere d o n th e judgmen t from al l sources ,
includin g th e amoun t actuall y realize d a t th e auctio n sale ,
plu s th e expense s incurre d a s a consequenc e o f th e illega l
intervention (se e Mata
vs.
Lichauco,
3 6 Phil.
809)
.
Sec .
21 . Judgment
obligee
W h e n
t h e p u r c h a s e r
i s t h e j u d g
n d
n o
third-part y c l a i m h a s b e e n filed
y
t h e a m o u n t
o f t h e bi d
i f
e e d t h e
a m o u n t o f h i s j u d g m e n t .
I f i
y onl y
th e e x c e s s .
(23a )
Sec .
22 .
as
purchaser.
m e n t
,
i t
h e
o b l i g e e , a
n e e d
d o e s n o t
no t
pa
e x c
t d o e s , h e shal l pa
Adjournment of sale. By w r i t t e n
c o n s e n
t
o f t h e j u d g m e n t obligo r a n d o b l i g e e , o r t h e i r
dul y
a u t h o r i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , t h e office r m a y ad
jour n
t h e sal e t o a n y d a t e a n d t i m e a g r e e d u p o n b y th
em .
W i t h o u t s u c h a g r e e m e n t , h e m a y a d j o u r n t
h e sal e
fro m d a y t o d a y i f i t b e c o m e s n e c e s s a r y t o d o
s o fo r
lac k o f t i m e t o c o m p l e t e t h e sal e o n t h e da y fixe d
i n
th e notic e o r th e da y t o w h i c h i t w a s adjourned . (24a)
NOTE S
1.
Th e officer ma y adjour n th e sal e from da y t o day
if it i s necessar y t o d o s o for lack o f tim e t o complet e th
e
sale o n th e dat e fixed i n th e notice .
H e ma y not , howe
ver ,
adjourn th e sal e t o anothe r dat e unles s wit h th e writte n
consent o f th e parties , otherwis e th e sal e thu s conducte d
wil l be nul l an d void (Abrozar, et al. vs. IAC, et al., G.R
.
No.
67970,
Jan.
15,
1988).
506
----------------------- Page 507----------------------RULE 39
3-25
SECS. 2

2 . Whe n ther e i s a third-part y claim , th e judgmen t
creditor
mus t
pa y
hi s winnin g
bi d i n cas h
(Filip
inos
Colleges,
Inc.
vs. Timbang,
L-12812,
Sept.
29,
1969).
3 . A wri t o f executio n in an ejectmen t cas e ma y b e
enforced in th e afternoon o f a Saturda y or after office hour s
(Sycip vs. Salaysay, et al., A.M. No. PI 58, Jan.
31,
974).
Sec . 23 . Conveyance to purchaser of

personal property
capable
of manual delivery.
Whe n
th e
p u r c h a s e r
of
any p e r s o n a l property , capabl e o f m a n u a l delivery ,
pay s th e p u r c h a s e price , th e office r m a k i n g th e sal e
mus t delive r th e propert y t o th e purchase r and , i f
desired , e x e c u t e an d delive r t o h i m a certificat
sale .
T h e
s a l e c o n v e y s t o t h e p u r c
al l t h e
r i g h t s w h i c h t h e j u d g m e n t o b l i g o r h
u c h
propert y a s o f th e dat e o f th e lev y o n e x e c u
preliminar y at ta c h m en t .
e o f
h a s e r
a d i n
t i o n o r
(25a )
Sec . 24 . Conveyance to purchaser

not capable of manual delivery. W h e
o f an y p e r s o n a l property ,
no
l
delivery , pay s th e purchas e price , th e
th e sal e m u s t e x e c u t e an d delive
a certificat e o f sale .
S u c h
t o
th e p u r c h a s e r al l t h e right s
e n t
obligo r ha d i n s u c h propert y a s
of
personal property
th e
purchase r
capabl e o f m a n u a
n
t
office r makin g
r t o th e purchase r
certificat e c o n v e y s
w h i c h
o f th e
t h e j u d g m
dat e
o f th e
lev y o n e x e c u t i o n o r preliminar y attachment .

6a )
(2
Sec.
25 .
Conveyance of real property; certificate thereof
given
to purchaser
and
filed
with
registry
of deeds.
Upo n a sal e o f rea l property , th e office r mus t giv e

t o th e purchase r a certificat e o f sal e containing :
(a)
A particula r descriptio n o f th e rea l property
sold;
(b)
Th e pric e pai d fo r eac h distinc t lo t o r parcel ;
(c)
Th e whol e pric e pai d b y him ;

507
----------------------- Page 508----------------------RULE 39

SEC. 26
(d)
A s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e righ t o f r e d e m
p t i o n
e x p i r e s
o n e
(1 )
y e a r
f r o m
t h e d a t e
o f
t h e
r e g i s t r a t i o n o f t h e certificat e o f sale .
S u c h
c e r t i f i c a t e m u s t b e
r e g i s t e r e d
i n t h e
registr y o f d e e d s o f t h e plac e w h e r e th e propert y i s
s i t u a t e d . (27a )
Sec .
26 . Certificate of sale
where property claimed
by
third person. W h e n a propert y sol d
by virtu e
o f a
w r i t o f e x e c u t i o n h a s
b e e n c l a i m e d
b y
a
t h i r d
p e r s o n , t h e certificat e o f sal e t o b e
i s s u e d
b y th e
sherif f p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n s 23 , 2 4 an d 2 5 o f thi s
Rul e
shal l m a k e e x p r e s s m e n t i o n o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o
f suc h
third-part y claim .
(28a )
NOTE S
1. Ther e i s n o righ t o f redemptio n wher e th e propert y
sold a t judicia l sal e i s persona l property .
Wher
e th e
propert y sol d i s rea l property , th e perio d o f redemptio n i s
one yea r from an d afte r th e registratio n o f th e certificat e
of sal e
mentione d
in Sec .
25
(Rosario
vs. Tayug
Rural
Bank,
L-26538,
Mar.
21,
1968; Reyes
vs. Manas,
L-27755,
Oct. 4, 1969).
I f sai d certificat e o f sal e i s not registere
d ,
th e perio d for redemptio n doe s no t ru n (Garcia vs. Ocampo,
et al., 105 Phil.
1102).
Bu t wher e th e partie s agree d on
th e dat e o f redemption , th e statutor y perio
r e d e m p t i o n w a s c o n v e r t e d int o
on
e n t i o n a l
redemptio n an d th e perio d bindin g o n the m i s
upo n
(Lazo
vs.
Republic
Surety
&
.,
Inc.,
L-27365,
Jan.
30,
1970).
d
e
for lega l
o f c o n v
tha t agree d
Insurance
Co
2 . Th e certificat e o f sal e o f rea l propert y i s merel y

a
memoria l o f th e fact o f sal e an d doe s no t confer an y righ t
t o th e possession , muc h les s th e ownership , o f th e rea l
propert y purchased .
I t i s th e dee d o f sal e execute d b
y th e
sheriff a t th e expiratio n o f th e perio d o f redemptio n
(se e
Sec.
33) whic h constitute s effectiv e conveyanc e
o f th e
508
----------------------- Page 509----------------------RULE 39
7-28
SECS. 2
propert y sold an d entitle s th e purchase r t o possessio n o f

th e propert y sol d (se e
Gonzales
vs. Calimbas,
et
., 5 1
Phil.
358).
3 .
h e o r hi
order eac h
virtu e o f
136).
al
Th e cler k shal l keep an executio n book in whic h

s deput y shal l recor d a t lengt h i n chronologica l
execution , an d th e officer' s retur n thereo n b y
whic h rea l propert y ha s bee n sold (Sec. 10, Rule
Sec . 27 .
Who may
redeem
real property so sold.
Rea l propert y sol d a s provide d i n th e las t p r e c e d i n g

s ecti o n , o r an y par t t h e r e o f sol d separately , m a y
b e r e d e e m e d i n th e
b y th e followin g persons :
m a n n e r
hereinafte r
provided ,
(a) Th e j u d g m e n t obligor , o r hi s s u c c e s s o r
i n
interes t i n th e w h o l e o r an y par t o f th e property ;
(b) A c r e d i t o r h a v i n g a lie n b y v i r t u e o
f a n
attachment , j u d g m e n t o r mortgag e o n th e propert y
sold , o r o n s o m e
par t thereof ,
s u b s e q u e n t t o
th e
l i e n u n d e r w h i c h t h e p r o p e r t y w a s sold .
S
u c h
r e d e e m i n g credito r i s terme d a redemptioner .
(
29a )
Sec .
28 .
Time
and
manner
of,
and
amounts
payable
on,
successive
redemptions;
notice
to be given
and
filed.
T h e j u d g m e n t o b l i g o r , o r r e d e m p t i o n e r , m
a y
redee m th e propert y fro m th e purchaser , a t an y tim e
withi n on e (1) yea r fro m th e dat e o f th e registratio n
o f th e certificat e o f sale , b y payin g th e purchase r
th e
a m o u n t
o f hi s purchase ,
wit h
on e per
cen
tum
pe r m o n t h interes t thereo n i n addition , u p t o th e
tim e o f redemption , togethe r wit h th e amoun t o f an y
a s s e s s m e n t s o r taxe s whic h th e purchase r ma y hav e
pai d t h e r e o n afte r purchase , an d interes t o n suc h
las t n a m e d a m o u n t a t t h e sam e rate ; an d
i f
th e
purchase r b e als o a credito r havin g a prio r lie n t o
tha t o f th e redemptioner , othe r tha n th e judgmen t
509
----------------------- Page 510----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 29
u n d e r w h i c h s u c h p u r c h a s e w a s made , th e
o f s u c h o t h e r lien , w i t h interest .
P r o p e r t y
s o r e d e e m e d m a y a g a i n
amoun t
b e
redeeme
d
w
p
p
w
i
a
t
i
t h i n sixt y (60) day s afte r th e las t redemptio n upo n

y m e n t o f t h e
s u m pai d o n t h e las t r e d e m
i o n ,
t h
t w o per
centum
t h e r e o n
i n addition ,
an d
th e
a m o u n t o f a n y a s s e s s m e n t s o r t a x e s w h i c h t h e
las t
m a y
h a v e
p a i d
t h e r e o
n
a f t e r
r e d e m p t i o n b y him , wi t h interes t o n suc h las t name d
a m o u n t , a n d i n a d d i t i o n , th e a m o u n t o f an y
lien s
hel d b y sai d las t r e d e m p t i o n e r prio r t o hi s own , wit
h
interest .
T h e p r o p e r t y m a y b e again , an d a s oft
e n
a s a r e d e m p t i o n e r i s s o disposed , r e d e e m e d fro m a
n y
p r e v i o u s r e d e m p t i o n e r w i t h i n sixt y (60 ) d a y s
afte r
t h e las t r e d e m p t i o n , o n p a y i n g t h e s u m pai d o n
th e
l a s t p r e v i o u s
r e d e m p t i o n ,
w i t h
t w o
p
er
centum
t h e r e o n
i n a d d i t i o n ,
a n d
t h e
a m o u n t s
o f a n y
a s s e s s m e n t s
o r t a x e s
w h i c h
t h e
l a s t
p r e v i o u s
p a i d
afte r t h e
r e d e m p t i o n
t h e r e o n ,
w i t h i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n , an d t h e a m o u n t o f an y
lien s
h e l d b y t h e las t r e d e m p t i o n e r prio r t o hi s o w n ,
wit h
i n t e r e s t .
Writte n n o t i c e o f a n y r e d e m p t i o n m u s t b e giv
e n
t o t h e office r w h o m a d e t h e
sal e an d a d u
p l i c a t e
file d w i t h t h e r e g i s t r y o f d e e d s o f t h e place ,
an d i f
a n y
a s s e s s m e n t s
o r
t a x e s
a r e
p a i d
b y
t h e
r e d e m p t i o n e r o r i f h e h a s o r a c q u i r e s an y lie n
othe r
t h a n t h a t u p o n
w h i c h t h e r e d e m p t i o n
w
a s
made ,
n o t i c e t h e r e o f m u s t i n lik e m a n n e r b e g i v e n t
o th e
office r a n d file d w i t h t h e registr y o f deeds ; i f s u c
h
n o t i c e b e no t filed , t h e propert y m a y b e r e d e e m
e d
w i t h o u t p a y i n g s u c h a s s e s s m e n t s , t a x e s ,
o r liens .
(30a)
Sec .
29 .
Effect
obligor,
and
a
certificate
to
thereupon;
to
whom
payments
If
t h e
of
be
on
redemption
delivered
redemption
by
and
judgment
recorded
made.
510
----------------------- Page 511----------------------RULE 39
29-30
SECS.

j u d g m e n t obligo r r e d e e m s , h e mus t mak e th e sam e
p a y m e n t s a s ar e require d t o effec t a r e d e m p t i o n b y
a redemptioner , w h e r e u p o n , n o furthe r r e d e m p t i o n
shall b e allowe d an d h e i s restore d t o hi s estate . Th e
perso n t o w h o m th e redemptio n p a y m e n t i s m a d e
m u s t e x e c u t e a n d d e l i v e r t o h i m a certificat e
o f
redemptio n a c k n o w l e d g e d befor e a notar y publi c o r
othe r office r authorize d t o tak e a c k n o w l e d g m e n t s
o f c o n v e y a n c e o f rea l property .
S u c h
certific
at e
mus t b e file d an d recorde d i n th e registr y o f d e e d s
o f th e plac e i n w h i c h th e propert y i s situated , an d
th e registra r o f d e e d s mus t not e th e recor d t h e r e o f
o n th e margi n o f th e recor d o f th e certificat e o f sale .
T h e
p a y m e n t s
m e n t i o n e d
i n t h i s a n d
t h e
l a s t
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s ma y b e mad e t o th e p u r c h
a s e r
o r r e d e m p t i o n e r , o r fo r h i m t o th e office r w h o ma
d e
th e sale .
(31a )
Sec.
30 .
Proof
required
of
redemptioner.
A
redemptione r mus t produc e t o th e officer , o r perso n
fro m w h o m h e s e e k s t o redeem , an d serv e wit h hi s
notic e t o th e office r a cop y o f th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l
orde r u n d e r w h i c h h e claim s th e righ t t o redeem ,
c e r t i f i e d b y t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t w h e r e i
n t h e
j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r i s entered , or , i f h e r e d e e m
s
upo n a mortgag e o r othe r lien , a m e m o r a n d u m o f
th e recor d thereof , certifie d b y th e registra r o f deeds ,
o r a n origina l o r certifie d cop y o f an y a s s i g n m e n t
necessar y t o establis h hi s claim , an d a n affidavi t
e x e c u t e d b y h i m o r hi s agent , s h o w i n g th e amoun t
the n actuall y du e o n th e lien .
(32a)
NOTE S
1.
Th e "successo r i n i n t e r e s t " o f th e j u d g
m e n t
debtor , the n referre d t o in Sec . 29(a) (now , Sec. 27[aJ),
include s a perso n t o whom h e ha s transferre d hi s righ t
51 1
----------------------- Page 512----------------------RULE 39
. 29-30
SECS
o f r e d e m p t i o n , o r on e t o who m h e h a s conveye d
hi s
interest s in th e propert y for purpose s o f redemption , or
one wh o succeed s t o hi s propert y b y operatio n o f law ,
or a perso n wit h a join t interes t in th e property , or hi s
spouse or heir s (Magno vs.
Viola, et al., 6 1 Phil. 80)
2 . Whil e th e forme r Sec . 3 0 (now , Sec. 28) provide d
t h a t th e perio d o f redemptio n wa s 1 2 month s "after th e
sale, " sai d perio d i s actuall y t o b e reckone d from th e dat e
of registration o f th e certificat e
o f sal e
an d th e perio d ha s
now bee n change d t o on e year .

Also , whil e Sec .
29(b)
d e f i n e d a r e d e m p t i o n e r a s on e
w h o
h a s a
lie n
b y
attachmen t or judgment , th e sam e doe s no t per s e creat e
such
lie n a s i t i s t h e levy p u r s u a n t t o sai d
w r i t o f
a t t a c h m e n t o r j u d g m e n t t h a t c r e a t e s a lie n
o n t h e
property ; hence , th e definitio n ha s bee n restate d t o rea d
t h a t suc h lien i s "by virtue " thereof .
3 . Th e secon d typ e o f proo f require d o f a redemptione r
ha s bee n simplifie d i n th e amende d Sec . 3 0 hereof , i t bein g
sufficient t o submi t
assignmen t necessar y t o
former r e q u i r e m e n
y
hi s
affidavit o r t h a t o
Th e
affidavit now require d
due .
4 . A
a
creditor wit h
th e basi s o
redito r
i s prior t o
sold, h e i
an origina l or certifie d copy o f an y

establis h hi s claim , withou t th e
t t h a t i t b e furthe r verifie d b
f a
i s
"redemptioner "
subscribin g witnes s
merel y
i s
regardin g
define d
in
thereto .
th e
Sec .
amoun t
27(b )
a s
a lien subsequent t o th e judgmen t whic h wa s

f th e executio n sale .
I f th e lien o f th e c
s
th e judgmen t unde r whic h

no t a redemptione r and ,
th e propert y wa s
therefore , ca n no t
redee m becaus e hi s interest s i n hi s lien ar e fully protected ,

since an y p u r c h a s e r a t publi c auctio n o f sai d prope
rt y
take s th e sam e subjec t t o suc h prio r lien whic h h e ha s t o
satisfy .
Unlik e th e judgmen t debtor , a redemptione r mus t
prov e hi s righ t t o redee m b y producin g th e document s
called for by Sec . 30 .
512
----------------------- Page 513----------------------RULE 39
be
SECS. 29-30
5 . Th e righ t o f redemptio n i s transferabl e an d may

voluntaril y sol d (Gomez vs. La Germinal,
3 7 Phil. 61),
bu t th e sai d righ t canno t b e levie d upo n b y th e judgmen t

creditor s o a s t o depriv e th e judgmen t debtor o f an y furthe r
right s to th e propert y
(Lichauco
vs. Olegario,
43 Phil.
540; cf.
Gonzales
Dies
vs. Delgado,
3 7 Phil.
6 . Wher e severa l parcel s o f lan d wer e

auction t o satisfy a judgment , th e defendan t
some o f th e propertie s by payin g th e pric e
wer e sol d a t th e auctio n sale .
Piecemea l
allowed since , in th e redemptio n o f propertie s
execution sale , th e a m o u n t payabl e i s
judgmen t deb t bu t th e purchas e pric e
et al, G.R. No. 52831, July 29, 1983).
in th e r e d e m p t i o n
Philippin e Nationa l Ban k or
Philippine s
an d whic h
extrajudiciall y
since ,
i r
respectiv e charters , th e
amount s owe d by th e debto
Mirang, L-29130, Aug. 8,
389).
sold at publi c
ma y redee m
a t whic h the y
redemptio n i s
sol d a t an
n o longe r th e
(Dulay vs. Carriaga,

Th e rul e is different
o f propertie s mortgage d wit h th e

th e Developmen t Ban k o f th e
wer e
foreclose d judiciall y o r
u n d e r th e provision s
o f t h e
redemptione r mus t pa y all th e
r on sai d mortgage s (DBP vs.
1975).
Th e sam e rul e applie s
t o foreclosure s by bankin g institution s in view o f th e

provision s of Sec . 78 , R.A . 33 7 (Ponce de Leon vs. RFC,
L-24571,
Dec.
18, 1970).
7 . Th e judgmen t debtor ha s alway s on e yea r from
th e registratio n o f th e certificat e o f sal e withi n which t o
redeem , regardles s o f whethe r ther e hav e been any prio r
redemption s an d th e dat e o f suc h redemptions ; an d th e
momen t sai d judgmen t debto r redeems , ther e shal l b e
n o furthe r redemption .
Th e redemptioner , on th e othe r
hand , mus t redee m withi n th e one-year period , i f h e i s
th e first redemptioner , an d within 6 0 day s from th e last
redemption , i f h e b e a subsequen t redemptioner , provide d
tha t th e judgmen t debtor ha s not exercise d hi s righ t o f
redemption .
513
----------------------- Page 514----------------------RULE 39
29-30
SECS.
8 . A s pointe d ou t i n th e forme r edition s o f thi s work ,

Rul e 3 9 the n provide d t h a t th e perio d o f redemptio n wa s
12 months , no t on e y e a r a s state d i n som e decisions ,
reckone d from th e dat e o f registratio n o f th e certificat e o f
sale . Thi s distinctio n ha s a substantia l significance , an d
ha s resulte d i n controversia l rulings , sinc e a yea r consist s
of 36 5 day s whil e
1 2 month s consis t o f only 36 0 day
s
(Art. 13, Civil Code).
ly
introduce d th e amendmen t
th e perio d o f redemptio n i
of th e certificat e of sal e
l.,
G.R.
No.
132497,
Nov.
Sec . 2 8 o f thi s Rul e ha s according

(of th e forme r Sec . 30) tha t
s on e yea r from th e registratio n
(se e Ysmael, et al. vs. CA, et a
16,
1999).
9 . Wher e th e propertie s o f th e defendan t wer e duly

attache d an d suc h preliminar y attachmen t registere d an d
annotate d on th e certificate s o f titl e thereto , sai d propertie s
ar e in custodia legis.
Th e extrajudicia l foreclosur e o f
a
prio r mortgag e on sai d propertie s an d th e issuanc e o f a
w r i t o f p o s s e s s i o n i n favo r o f t h e p u r c h a s e r
a t th e
foreclosure sale , durin g th e pendenc y o f th e action wherei n
th e a t t a c h m e n t wa s ordered ,
doe s no t defea t th e
lien
acquire d b y th e attachin g plaintiff .
Asid e from th e
fact
t h a t s a i d p r o p e r t i e s a r e i n custodia
legis
a n
d
t h e
jurisdictio n o f sai d cour t thereove r coul d no t b e interfere d
w i t h b y a n o t h e r c o o r d i n a t e a n d co-equa l court ,
th e
attachin g credito r ha d acquire d b y operatio n o f law th e
righ t o f redemptio n ove r th e foreclose d propert y pursuan t
t o Sec . 6 o f Act 3135 . Sai d attachin g credito r ma y succee d
t o th e incidenta l right s o f th e debtor , suc h a s th e righ t
o f
redemption .
Th e fact t h a t th e debto r subsequentl y waive d
hi s righ t o f redemptio n t o a thir d perso n i s o f n o momen t
since , b y t h a t t i m e , h e h a d n o mor e
r i g h t t
o waiv e
(Consolidated
Bank
&
Trust
Corp.
vs.
IAC,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
73976,
May 29,
1987; cf.
Top Rate Internat
ional
Service
vs. IAC,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
67496,
June
7,
1986;
Not e 6 unde r Sec.
7, Rule 57).
514
----------------------- Page 515----------------------RULE 39
SECS. 31-32
10. Th e period s for redemptio n in Sec . 2 8 ar e no t

extendibl e o r interrupted .
Th e partie s may , howev
er ,
agree on a longer perio d o f redemptio n bu t in suc h case , it
woul d
b e a
m a t t e r o f conventiona l redemptio n
(Lazo
vs. Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc.,
supra)
an d no t
th e lega l redemptio n unde r Sec . 28 .
11.
I t ha s
moreove r bee n rule d tha t unde r a statut e
limitin g th e righ t o f redemption , th e pendenc y o f a n

action , brough t in good faith an d relatin g t o th e validit y
of th e sal e o f th e propert y involved , toll s th e ter m o
f
th e
righ t
o f redemptio n
(Consolidated
Bank
&
Trust
Corp.
vs. IAC,
et al., supra,
citin g
Ong
Chua
vs.
Carr,
53 Phil.
975; se e
Lichauco
vs.
Olegario,
supra).
Sec .
31 .
Manner
of
using
premises
pending
redemption;
waste
restrained.
Unti l
t h e
e x
p i r a t i o n
o f t h e t i m e a l l o w e d fo r r e d e m p t i o n , t h e c o u
r t m a y ,
a s i n o t h e r p r o p e r c a s e s , r e s t r a i n t h e c
o m m i s s i o n
o f w a s t e o n t h e p r o p e r t y b y i n j u n c t i o n , o n t h
e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e
p u r c h a s e r o r t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g e e ,
w i t h
o r w i t h o u t n o t i c e ; b u t i t i s n o t w a
s t e fo r a
p e r s o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y a t t h e
t i m e o f
t h e sale , o r e n t i t l e d t o p o s s e s s i o n a f t e r w a r d
s , d u r i n g
t h e p e r i o d a l l o w e d
fo r r e d e m p t i o n , t o c o
n t i n u e t o
u s e i t i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r i n w h i c h i t w a s p r e
v i o u s l y
u s e d , o r t o u s e
i t i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s
e o f h u s b a n d r y ;
o r
t o m a k e
t h e
n e c e s s a r y
r e
p a i r s
t o
b u i l d i n g s t h e r e o n w h i l e h e o c c u p i e s t h e
p r o p e r t y .
(33a)
Sec . 32 .
Rents,
earnings
of property
pending
redemption.
T
o r
a
r e d e m p t i o n e r s h a l l n o t b e
c e i v e t h e
r e n t s , e a r n i n g s a n d i n c o m e
sol d o n
e x e c u t i o n , o r t h e v a l u e o
c c u p a t i o n
t h e r e o f w h e n s u c h p r o p e r t y
s s i o n o f
a t e n a n t .
Al l r e n t s , e a r n
d e r i v e d
and
h e
income
p u r c h a s e r
e n t i t l e d
t o
r e
o f t h e p r o p e r t y
f t h e
i s
u s e
i n t h e
a n d
i n g s
a n d
p o s s e
i n c o m e
515
----------------------- Page 516----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 33
fro m t h e propert y p e n d i n g r e d e m p t i o n shal l belon g

t o th e j u d g m e n t obligo r unti l t h e e x p i r a t i o n o
f hi s
perio d o f r e d e m p t i o n .
(34a )
NOT E
1.
Durin g th e perio d o f redemption , th e judgmen t
debtor i s entitle d t o th e possession an d t o receiv e th e fruit
s
o f th e premise s an d i s no t require d t o pa y ren t t o
th e
creditor or purchase r (Dizon
vs.
Gaborro, et al.,
L-36821,
June 22,
1978).
In fact , it ha d earlie r bee n rule d tha t
i f
t h e sherif f p u t s
t h e p u r c h a s e r a t publi c
a u c
t i o n i n
possessio n o f th e
lan d d u r i n g th e one-yea r perio d
o f
r e d e m p t i o n , a n actio n for forcibl e
e n t r y lie s
agains t
th e sherif f an d
sai d
p u r c h a s e r (Fabico
vs.
Ong
Pauco,
43 Phil.
572).
Despit e
suc h
theor y
an d
lega l
rationale ,
sinc e
judgmen t obligor i s stil l th e owne r o f th e premise s an d

rental s constitut e civi l fruit s i n law , th e forme r Sec .
o f thi s
t o
a thir d
t o th e
an d t o
th e
3 4
Rul e provide d t h a t i f th e premise s ar e rente d ou t

person , th e purchase r o r redemptione r wa s entitle d
rentals , th e sam e t o b e subsequentl y accounte d for
b e considere d a s a credi t upo n th e redemptio n price .
Asid e from th e dubiou s basi s o f suc h a rule , t h a t provision

further entaile d complicate d rule s o n how t o credi t th e
rental s an d th e possibl e effect s o n extensio n o f th e righ t
of redemption .
Th e
p r e s e n t
Sec .
3 2 h a s p u t
i g h t b y
providin g for th e rul e t h a t al l rents , earning s
derive d
fro m t h e
p r o p e r t y p e n d i n g
o n shal l
belon g t o th e judgmen t obligor unti l th e expiratio
p e r i o d o f r e d e m p t i o n , a n d no t t o t
a s e r o r
redemptioner .
t h i n g s a r
an d incom e
r e d e m p t i
n o f hi s
h e p u r c h
Sec .
33 .
Deed
and
possession
to
be
gi
ven
at
expiration
of redemption
period;
by
whom
execut
ed
or
given. I f n o r e d e m p t i o n b e m a d e withi n o n e (1) yea r
516
----------------------- Page 517----------------------RULE 39
33
EXECUTION,
AND
SATISFACTION
SEC.
fro m th e dat e o f th e registratio n o f th e certificat e o f

sale , th e purchase r i s entitle d t o a c o n v e y a n c e an d
p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y ; or , i f s o r e d e e
m e d
w h e n e v e r sixt y (60) day s hav e elapse d an d n o othe r
r e d e m p t i o n h a s b e e n m a d e , an d
n o t i c e t h e r
e f o r
given , an d th e tim e fo r redemptio n ha s expired , th e
las t r e d e m p t i o n e r i s entitle d t o th e c o n v e y a n c e
an d
p o s s e s s i o n , bu t i n al l c a s e s th e j u d g m e n t
obligo r
shall h a v e th e entir e perio d o f on e (1) yea r fro m th e
dat e
o f th e registratio n o f th e sal e t o r e d e e m th
e
property .
Th e dee d shal l b e e x e c u t e d b y th e office
r
m a k i n g th e sal e o r b y hi s successo r i n office , an d i n
t h e l a t t e r c a s e s h a l l h a v e t h e s a m e v a l i d i t
y a s
thoug h th e office r m a k i n g th e
sal e ha d c o n t i n
u e d
i n offic e an d e x e c u t e d it .
th e
t o
t
clai
th e
Upo n th e expiratio n o f th e righ t o f redemption ,

p u r c h a s e r o r redemptione r shal l b e substitute d
an d a c q u i r e al l t h e r i g h t s , title , i n t e r e s
an d
m o f th e j u d g m e n t obligo r t o th e propert y a s o f
tim e o f th e levy .
Th e possessio n o f th e propert y
shall b e give n t o th e purchase r o r las t redemptione r

by th e sam e office r unles s a thir d part y i s actuall y
h o l d i n g t h e p r o p e r t y a d v e r s e l y t o t h e
m e n t
obligor .
(35a )
j u d g
NOTE S
1. This section was taken from the former Sec. 35
of this Rule but contains two important differences therefrom.
The revised rule is that the purchaser or
redemptioner shall now be substituted for the judgment
obligor
upon
the
expiration
of
the right
of
n.
Consequently, he shall acquire all the rights, title, interests
and claims of the judgment obligor to the property as of
the time of the levy.
redemptio
Under the former Sec . 35, the purchaser or

redemptioner is substituted for the judgment obligor only
517
----------------------- Page 518----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 33
"upon

th e
execute d
Futhermore
claim o f
o f th e
executio n
an d
b y th e officer wh o
, h e shal l acquir e
th e judgmen t debto r t
levy , "excep t a s
deliver y
o f (the )
deed "
t o b e
mad e th e sal e o f th e property .

th e right , title , interes t an d
o th e propert y a s o f th e tim e
agains t th e judgmen t debto r i n
possessio n i n whic h cas e th e substitutio n shal l b e effective

a s o f th e dat e o f th e deed. "
Th e forme r rule , thus , place d to o muc h stres s upon
th e physica l ac t o f executio n o f th e dee d o f sale , bot h on
th e m a t t e r o f substitutio n an d acquisitio n o f rights , a
s
against th e automati c effect thereo n b y th e expiratio n o f
th e righ t o f re d e m p t io n whic h i s a m a t t e r o f t
im e o r
computation .
Thi s amende d section , therefore , avoid s
unnecessar y controvers y an d complication s on a simpl e
matte r o f procedure .
2 .
Th e executio n o f th e certificat e o f sal e o f persona l
propert y sol d a t publi c auctio n "convey s t o th e purchase r

all th e right s whic h th e debto r ha d i n suc h propert y a s o f
t h e d a t e o f t h e lev y
o n
i m i n a r y
attachment " (Sec. 24) and , in th e
said purchase r "shal l b e substitute d
rights , title , interes t an d clai m o
th e propert y a s o f th e tim e o f th
e x e c u t i o n o r
p r e l
cas e o f rea l property ,

t o an d acquir e al l th e
f th e judgmen t debto r t o
e levy " (Sec. 33).
Thes e provisions , accordingly , sho w tha t th e rul e o f

caveat emptor applie s
t o judicia l sale s
o f bot h re
a l
an d
persona l propert y an d th e sherif f doe s no t w a r r a n t t
h e
titl e o f th e propert y
t h u s sol d
(Pablico
vs. Ong
Pauco,
43 Phil.
572).
N e v e r t h e l e s s , a p e r s o n d e a l i
n g w i t h
registere d lan d i s charge d wit h notic e only o f lien s an d
encumbrance s note d o n th e certificat e o f title .
Hence ,
th e p u r c h a s e r o f registere d lan d i n th e executio n
sal e
h a s t h e b e t t e r r i g h t ove r t h e vende e i n a pri
o r con ventiona l sal e o f sai d lan d wher e suc h privat e sal e wa s
no t registere d i n lin e wit h th e provision s o f Sec . 51
,
P.D .
152 9
(Property Registration Decree ) an d Art .
1514 ,
Civil
Cod e
(Campillo
vs. CA,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
56483,
May
29,
1984).
518
----------------------- Page 519----------------------RULE 39
EC. 33

3 . Th e sam e provision s als o mak e th e righ t o f th e
purchase r t o th e propert y retroac t t o th e dat e o f th e
levy .
Thi s fixing o f th e dat e i s important , because , sinc e
th e sal e retroact s t o th e dat e o f th e levy , an y dispositio n
or
lie n i n favo r o f t h i r d p e r s o n s c r e
ac t s o f
th e debto r after th e levy on rea l propert y shal
e
bindin g agains t th e purchase r t o who m a fina l dee
sale
wa s subsequentl y issue d
(Guerrero
n,
et
al., L-18117,
April
27,
1963).
4 .
e
vende e
Afte r
therei n
th e
i s
dee d
entitle d
o f sal e
t o
th e sam e shal l issu e only wher e

or hi s successor s i n interes t
th e premises .
Wher e th e
d
party , th e cour t shoul d orde r a
n a t u r e o f hi s
a d v e r s e
e t al.
ha s
wri t
bee n
a t e d
l
no t
b y
b
d o f
vs. Agusti
executed ,
o f possessio n
th
bu t
i t i s th e judgmen t debto r
wh o ar e i n possessio n o f
lan d i s occupie d b y a thir
hearin g t o determin e th e
possessio n
(Guevarra,
vs.
Ramos,
et al., L-24358,
Mar.
31,
1971;
Unchuan
vs.
CA, et al.,
G.R.
78715, May 31,
1988).
Th e wri t
shal l
issue wher e th e perio d o f redemptio n ha s expire d
(
Banco
Filipino vs. IAC, et al.,
G.R. No.
68878, April 8,
19
86).
5.
A wri t o f possession may be issue d only in a lan d
registratio n proceeding , in extrajudicia l foreclosur e o f a
rea l estat e mortgag e an d i n judicia l foreclosur e i f th e
debtor i s in possession an d n o thir d person , not a part y t o
th e suit , ha d intervene d
(Gatchalian vs. Arlegui, L-41360,
Feb.
17,
1977).
It ha s been held ,
however , tha t a wri t
of possession i s a complemen t o f th e wri t o f execution .

Hence , i f unde r a fina l judgment , th e prevailin g part y
acquire s
absolut e
ownershi p
ove r th e
rea l prope
rt y
involved ,
th e wri t ma y b e
issue d for hi m t o obta
i n
possession withou t th e nee d o f filing a separat e action
agains t
th e
possesso r
(Olego
vs.
Rebueno,
L-3
9350,
Oct.
29,
1975).
A wri t o f possessio n shoul d als o b e
sought from an d issue d by th e court wher e a thir d part y
i s holdin g th e propert y adversely t o th e judgmen t debtor
(Roxas,
et
al.
vs.
Buan,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
3778,
519
----------------------- Page 520----------------------RULE 39
SECS. 34
Nov.
No.
8,
1988; cf.
G.R.
121943,
Mar.
China
Banking
24,
2003).
Corp.
vs.
Ordinario,
Sec . 34 . Recovery of
price if
sale not effective;
revival
of judgment. I f t h e p u r c h a s e r o f rea l propert y sol d
o n e x e c u t i o n , o r h i s s u c c e s s o r i n interest ,
fail s t o
r e c o v e r
t h e p o s s e s s i o n
t h e r e o f , o r i s
e v i c t e d
t h e r e f r o m , i n c o n s e q u e n c e o f irregularitie s i n
th e
c o n c e r n i n g t h e
s a l e , o r b e c a
u s e th e
j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n r e v e r s e d o r se t aside , o r b e c
a u s e
t h e part y h a s v i n d i c a t e d h i s c l a i m t o th e propert
y ,
h e m a y o n m o t i o n i n t h e s a m e actio n o r i n a separat
e
a c t i o n r e c o v e r fro m t h e j u d g m e n t oblige e t h e pri
c e
paid , w i t h i n t e r e s t , o r s o m u c h t h e r e o f a s
ha s no t
b e e n d e l i v e r e d t o t h e j u d g m e n t obligor ; o r h e ma
y ,
o n m o t i o n h a v e t h e
o r i g i n a l j u d g m e n t r e v
i v e d i n
h i s n a m e fo r t h e w h o l e pric e w i t h interest , o
r s o
m u c h t h e r e o f a s h a s b e e n d e l i v e r e d t o th e j u d
g m e n t
obligor .
T h e j u d g m e n t s o r e v i v e d
shal l h a
v e th e
s a m e
f o r c e a n d
e f f e c t a s a n
o r i g i n a l j u
d g m e n t
w o u l d h a v e a s o f t h e dat e o f t h e reviva l an d n o more
.
(36a)
N O T E
1.
Whe n th e sal e wa s no t effectiv e unde r th e ci
r cumstance s i n thi s section , i t wa s hel d tha t th e purchase r
ma y (a) brin g a n actio n agains t th e judgmen t credito r
for t h e a m o u n t pai d
b y hi m
a t t h e judicia l s
ale ,
o r
(b) file a motio n in th e sam e actio n wher e executio n wa s
issue d for th e reviva l o f th e judgmen t i n hi s nam e agains t
th e j u d g m e n t debtor , o r (c) brin g a n actio n t o re
cove r
possessio n o f th e propert y sol d t o hi m a t publi c auctio n
(Belleza
vs.
Zandaga,
98 Phil.
702).
Th e first alternativ e ha s bee n modifie d b y th e presen t
amende d sectio n i n th e sens e tha t th e purchase r ma y now
also file a motio n in th e sam e action , asid e from hi s righ t
520
----------------------- Page 521----------------------RULE 39
. 35-36
SECS

t o file a separat e action , t o recover from th e judgmen t
obligee th e amoun t pai d b y sai d purchase r a t th e judicia l
sale .
Sec.
35 .
Right
to
contribution
or
reimbursement.
W h e n
p r o p e r t y
l i a b l e t o a n
e x e c u t i o n a g
a i n s t
severa l p e r s o n s i s sol d t h e r e o n , an d mor e t h a
n a
du e proportio n o f th e j u d g m e n t i s satisfie d ou t o f
th e
proceed s
o f th e
sal e
o f th e
propert y
o f on e
o f
them , o r on e o f t h e m pays , withou t a sale , mor e t h a n

hi s proportion , h e ma y compe l a contributio n fro m
t h e o t h e r s ; a n d
w h e n
a j u d g m e n t
i s u p o
n
a n
obligatio n o f on e o f them , a s securit y fo r another ,
an d th e suret y pay s th e amount , o r an y par t thereof ,
eithe r b y sal e o f hi s propert y o r befor e sale , h e ma y
compe l r e p a y m e n t fro m th e principal . (37a )
Sec.
36 .
Examination
of
judgment
obligor
when
judgment
unsatisfied. Whe n th e
retur n o f a
wri
t o f
e x e c u t i o n i s s u e d a g a i n s t propert y
o f a j u d
g m e n t
obligor , o r an y on e o f severa l obligor s i n th e sam e
j u d g m e n t ,
s h o w s
t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t
r e
m a i n s
u n s a t i s f i e d , i n w h o l e o r i n pa r t , t h e j u d
g m e n t
obligee , a t an y tim e afte r suc h retur n i s made , shal l
b e
e n t i t l e d t o a n
o r d e r f r o m t h e
c o u r t
w h i c h
r e n d e r e d
t h e
s a i d j u d g m e n t ,
r e q u i r i n g
s u c h
j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r t o a p p e a r
a n d
b e
e x a m
i n e d
c o n c e r n i n g hi s propert y an d
incom e
befor e
s u c h
cour t o r befor e a commissione r appointe d b y it , a t
a specifie d tim e an d place ; an d p r o c e e d i n g s ma y
thereupo n b e ha d fo r th e applicatio n o f th e propert y
an d
incom e
o f t h e j u d g m e n t obligo r toward s
s a t i s f a c t i o
m e n t
obligo r shal l b e
o r c o m m i s s i
it y i n
whic h suc h obligo
n o f t h e
j u d g m e n t . B u t
n o
th e
j u d g
s o require d t o appea r befor e a cour t

o n e r o u t s i d e th e provinc e
o r
r reside s o r i s found .
(38a)
521
----------------------- Page 522----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 37

NOT E
ma y
Cour t
1.
b e
Formerly , th e examinatio n o f a judgmen t obligor

authorize d b y "a n orde r from th e judg e o f th e
o f Firs t
Instanc e
o f th e
j u g m e n t wa s rendere d o r
th e executio n wa s returned. "
provinc e
o f th e
i n
whic h
th e
provinc e from whic h

Th e alternativ e mod e w
a s
considere d unwield y sinc e a petition , an d no t a mer e
motion ,
h a d
t o b e file d
i n t h e o t h e r c o u r
t for t h a t
purpose , asid e from th e fact t h a t t o a certai n exten t th e
case ma y b e undermine d o r interfere d with .
Thi s
amende d
section now provide s t h a t th e orde r for examinatio n o f
th e judgmen t obligor shal l b e issue d only b y th e cour t
whic h rendere d th e judgment .
Sec .
37 .
Examination
of obligor
of judgment
obligor.
W h e n t h e r e t u r n o f a wri t o f e x e c u t i o n again
s t
th e p r o p e r t y o f a j u d g m e n t obligo r s h o w s t h a t
th e
j u d g m e n t r e m a i n s u n s a t i s f i e d , i n w h o l e o r i
n part ,
an d u p o n proo f t o t h e c o u r t w h i c h i s s u e d t h e
writ ,
t h a t a p e r s o n , c o r p o r a t i o n , o r o t h e r j u r i d i c
a l entity ,
h a s
p r o p e r t y
o f s u c h
j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o
r
o r
i s
i n d e b t e d t o h i m , t h e c o u r t may , b y a n order , requ
ir e
s u c h p e r s o n , c o r p o r a t i o n , o r o t h e r juridica l e
ntity ,
o r a n y office r o r m e m b e r thereof , t o a p p e a r befor e
t h e c o u r t o r a c o m m i s s i o n e r a p p o i n t e d b y
it , a t a
t i m e a n d p l a c e w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e o r cit
y w h e r e
s u c h d e b t o r r e s i d e s o r i s found , a n d b e e x
a m i n e d
c o n c e r n i n g t h e s a m e .
Th e s e r v i c e o f t h e orde
r shal l
bin d al l c r e d i t s d u e t h e j u d g m e n t obligo r an d
al l
m o n e y a n d p r o p e r t y o f t h e j u d g m e n t obligo r i n t
h e
p o s s e s s i o n
o r
i n t h e
c o n t r o l
o f s u c h
p e r s o n ,
c o r p o r a t i o n , o r j u r i d i c a l e n t i t y fro m t h e
t i m e o f
service ; a n d t h e c o u r t m a y a l s o r e q u i r e n o t
i c e o f
s u c h p r o c e e d i n g s t o b e g i v e n t o a n y part y
t o th e
a c t i o n i n s u c h m a n n e r a s i t m a y d e e m proper .
(39a )
522
----------------------- Page 523----------------------RULE 39
38-39
SECS.
NOT E
1.
A s a matte r o f consideratio n to th e obligor o f a
judgmen t obligor wh o i s sough t t o b e examined , suc h
examination i s now require d t o b e conducte d by th e cour t
which issue d th e wri t o f execution , or by a commissione r
appointed by it , withi n th e provinc e or city wher e suc h
debtor reside s or i s found .
Unde r th e former rule , suc
h
examination wa s allowe d in any plac e "within th e provinc e
in which th e orde r i s served " an d thi s coul d b e use d t o
h a r a s s o r undul y inconvenienc e suc h debto r withou t
s u b s e r v i n g t h e p u r p o s e thereof ,
especiall y
w h
e r e a
juridica l entit y i s involve d an d th e paper s neede d for th e
examination ar e a t it s hom e office .
Sec.
38 .
Enforcement
of
attendance
and
conduct
of
examination.
A
p a r t y
o r o t h e r p e r s o n
m a y
b e
c o m p e l l e d , b y a n o r d e r o r s u b p o e n a , t o a
t t e n d
b e f o r e t h e c o u r t o r c o m m i s s i o n e r
t o t e s t
i f y a s
provide d i n th e t w o p r e c e d i n g sections , an d upo n
failur e t o o b e y s u c h orde r o r s u b p o e n a o r t o
b e
sworn , o r t o a n s w e r a s a w i t n e s s o r t o subscrib e hi
s
d e p o s i t i o n , m a y b e p u n i s h e d fo r c o n t e m p t
a s i n
o t h e r c a s e s . E x a m i n a t i o n s shal l
no t b e
u
n d u l y
prolonged , bu t th e proceeding s ma y b e adjourne d
fro m tim e t o time , unti l the y ar e completed .
I f th e
e x a m i n a t i o n i s befor e a commissioner , h e mus t tak e
i t i n w r i t i n g a n d
c e r t i f y i t t o t h e c o u r t
.
Al l
e x a m i n a t i o n s
a n d
a n s w e r s
b e f o r e a c o u
r t
o r
m u s t
b e u n d e r o a t h , a n d
w h
e n
a
c o r p o r a t i o n o r o t h e r juridica l entit y a n s w e r s ,
i t
m u s t b e o n t h e o a t h o f a n a u t h o r i z e d office
r o r
agen t thereof .
(40a )
Sec.
39 .
Obligor may pay execution against obligee.
Afte r a wri t o f e x e c u t i o n agains t propert y ha s
bee n
i s s u e d , a p e r s o n i n d e b t e d t o th e j u
d g m e n t
523
----------------------- Page 524-----------------------
RULE 39
. 40-42
obligo r
ma y
pa y t o
th e
SECS
sherif f h o l d i n g th e
wri t
f
e x e c u t i o n th e a m o u n t o f hi s deb t o r s o m u c h there
o f
a s ma y b e n e c e s s a r y t o satisf y th e j u d g m e n t , i n
th e
m a n n e r prescribe d i n sectio n 9 o f thi s Rule , an d th e
sheriff' s receip t shal l b e a sufficien t d i s c h a r g e fo r
th e a m o u n t s o pai d o r directe d t o b e credite d b y th e
j u d g m e n t oblige e o n th e e x e c u t i o n .
(41a )
Sec .
and
40 .
Order
for
application
of
property
income
to
satisfaction
of judgment.
Th e
cour t
ma y
o r d e r
a n y p r o p e r t y
o b l i
g o r , o r
m o n e y d u e him , no t e x e m p t fro m e x e c u t i o n , i n t
h e
h a n d s o f e i t h e r h i m s e l f o r a n o t h e r person , o
r o f a
corporatio n o r o t h e r juridica l entity , t o b e applie d
t o th e satisfactio n o f th e j u d g m e n t , subjec t t o an y
prio r right s o v e r s u c h
property .
If, u p o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f hi s c u r r e n t incom
e an d
e x p e n s e s ,
i t a p p e a r s
t h a t t h e
e a r n i n g s
o f t h e
j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r fo r
h i s p e r s o n a l
s e r v i
c e s ar e
mor e t h a n n e c e s s a r y fo r t h e s u p p o r t o f hi s f
amily ,
t h e c o u r t
m a y
o r d e r
t h a t h e p a y
t h e j u
d g m e n t
i n fixe d m o n t h l y i n s t a l l m e n t s , an d u p o n hi s fail
ur e
t o p a y
a n y
s u c h
i n s t a l l m e n t w h e n
d u e
w
i t h o u t
goo d e x c u s e , m a y p u n i s h h i m fo r indirec t contempt .
(42a)
Sec .
41 .
Appointment
appoin t a receive r o f th e
obligor , an d i t m a y als o
d i s p o s i t i o n of , o r
h , t h e
propert y o f th e j u d g m e n
e x e c u t i o n . (3a )
of receiver. Th
propert y o f th e
forbi d a transfe
a n y
i n t e r f
t obligo r
e
j
r
e
cour
u d g
o r
r e n
t ma y
m e n t
othe r
c e
w i t
no t e x e m p t
fro m
Sec.
42 .
Sale
of
ascertainable
interest
of
judgment
obligor in real estate.
I f it appear s tha t th e judgmen t
obligo r ha s a n interes t i n rea l estat e i n th e plac e i n
w h i c h
a r e h a d ,
a s m o r t g a g
o r
o r
524
----------------------- Page 525----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 43
EXECUTION,
SATISFACTION

m o r t g a g e e o r o
t h e r e i n
c a n
b e
a s c e r t
,
t h e
receive r m a y b e o
c h
rea l e s t a t e o r
e r e i n ,
an d s u c h sal e shal
s i n
th e sam e m a n n e r a
estat e u p o n e x e c u
shall b e approve d b y
o f th e deed .
(44a
t h e r w i s e ,
a i n e d
an d
hi s
r d e r e d
w i t h o u t
t o
sel l
t h e i n t e r e s t
i n t e r e s t
an d
c o n v e y
o f th e
obligo r
s u
t h
l b e c o n d u c t e d i n al l r e s p e c t
s i s provide d fo r th e sal e o f rea l
t i o n , an d th e proceeding s t h e r e o n
th e cour t befor e th e e x e c u t i o n
)
Sec . 43 .
Proceedings
when
indebtedness
deni
ed
or
another person claims
the property. If it appear s tha t
a p e r s o n o r corporation , allege d t o hav e propert y
o f th e j u d g m e n t obligo r o r t o b e indebte d t o h i
m
claim s a n interes t i n th e propert y advers e t o h i m
o r d e n i e s th e debt , th e cour t ma y authorize , b y a n
orde r m a d e t o tha t effect , th e j u d g m e n t oblige e t o
i n s t i t u t e a n
a c t i o n
a g a i n s t
s u c h
p e r s o
n
o r
c o r p o r a t i o n fo r t h e r e c o v e r y o f s u c h i n t e r
e s t o r
debt , forbi d a transfe r o r othe r dispositio n o f suc h
interes t o r deb t withi n on e hundre d t w e n t y (120)
d a y s
fro m
n o t i c e o f t h e o r d e r , an d
m a y
p
u n i s h
d i s o b e d i e n c e o f suc h orde r a s fo r contempt .
Suc h
orde r ma y b e modifie d o r vacate d a t an y tim e b y
th e cour t w h i c h issue d it , o r b y th e cour t i n w h i c h
th e actio n i s brought , upo n suc h term s a s ma y b e
just .
(45a )
NOTE S
1.
Th e foregoin g provision s provid e th e remedie
wher e th e wri t o f executio n i s returne d unsatisfie
wher e th e thir d part y denie s hi s debt or th e ownership
th e debtor .
It wil l b e note d that , unde r Sec . 43 ,
urt
may authoriz e th e judgmen t oblige e t o brin g an action
against th e person or corporation allege d t o hav e propert y
of th e judgmen t debtor .
Thi s i s an exampl e o f
ty
authorized by statute " t o sue , even i f h e i s not th e
s
d
or
o f
th e co
a "par
rea l
525
----------------------- Page 526----------------------RULE 39
EC. 43
part y in interes t (se e Sec. 3, Rule 3).

However ,
unlik e
th e
forme r
Sec .
which permitte d th e cour t t o "forbid

disposition o f suc h interes t o r deb
b e c o m m e n c e d
a n d p r o s e
" it s
presen t counterpar t section limit s suc
day s from notic e o f th e order .
4 5
o f thi s
Rul e
a transfe r or othe r
t unti l a n action can
c u t e d t o j u d g m e n t ,
h prohibitio n t o 120
Thi s woul d avoi d unfair
prejudic e t o th e claimin g part y du e t o th e indefinit e perio d

originally provide d and , besides , th e cour t ma y alway s
modify o r exten d it s aforestate d order s whe n necessary .
2 . Althoug h ther e ma y b e instance s wherei n som e
of th e foregoin g proceeding s supplementar y t o execution
may not b e conducte d b y th e cour t whic h rendere d th e
judgment , i.e. , wher e th e judgmen t obligor o r hi s obligor
cannot b e require d t o appea r for examinatio n outsid e th e
provinc e or city wher e the y resid e (Sees. 3 6 an d 37) an d
consequently canno t b e compelle d t o appea r befor e sai d
court , i t i s stil l th e cour t whic h rendere d sai d judgmen t
which shoul d tak e th e necessar y measure s t o reac h th e
propertie s o f th e judgmen t obligor by th e issuanc e o f an
alia s wri t
of executio n
(Potenciano
vs. Mariano,
et al.,
L-30904,
Mar.
6,
1980).
3 . A cas e
s
regarde d a s stil
th e judgmen t ha s
execution proceeding
question o f law or
h e
j u dg me n t ha s
i n
whic h
executio n
l pendin g an d th e
a genera l supervisor y
s wit h th e righ t t
fact involve d therein
bee n
fully
beyon d review by sai d cour t

al.
vs. GTI Sportwear Corp.,
y
16,
1985).
h a s
doe s
(Seavan
al.,
issue d
cour t whic h rendere d

contro l over th e
o determin e every
.
Only whe n t
satisfie d
et
bee n
G.R.
th e
sam e
Carrier,
No.
Inc.,
pas s
65953,
et
Jul
4 . Wit h regar d t o receivershi p a s a n ai d t o execution

unde r Sec . 4 1 o f thi s Rule , i t ha s bee n hel d t h a
t th e
provision s o f Rul e 5 9 ar e applicable , for instance , t o th e
procedure , requirement s for a bon d an d th e function s o f
526
----------------------- Page 527----------------------RULE 39

. 44-45
SECS

th e receive r
rety
&
Insurance
Co.,
Sec.
of
court.
(Central
44 .
Inc.,
Sawmills,
Entry
Inc.
L-24508,
of
April
vs.
satisfaction
25,
of
Alto
Su
1969).
judgment
by
clerk
Satisfactio n o f a j u d g m e n t shal l b e e n t e r e d
b y th e cler k o f cour
e x e c u t i o n
b o o k
r i t o f
e x e c u t i o n
s h o w
o f t h e
judgment , o r u p o n th
t i n th e cour t docket , an d i n th e
,
u p o n
t h e r e t u r n
o f a
i n g
t h e
ful l
s a t i s f a c t i o n
e filin g o f a n a d m i s s i o n t o th e
s a t i s f a c t i o n o f
t h e
j u d g
a n d
a c k n o w l e d g e d i n th e sam e m a n n
c e
o f rea l propert y b y th e j u d g m e n t
c o u n s e l u n l e s s a revocatio n o f hi
m e n t
e x e c u t e d
e r a s a c o n v e y a n
oblige e o r b y hi s
s authorit y i s h i e d ,
o r u p o n th e e n d o r s e m e n t o f suc h admissio n b y th e
j u d g m e n t oblige e o r hi s counse l o n th e fac e o f th e
recor d o f th e judgment .
(46a )
Sec. 45 .
without
admission. W h e
i n
fact ,
o r o t h
o n , o n
d e m a n d
o f
g m e n t
o b l i g e e
o r
a n d
a c k n o w l e d g e
o f t h e
e d i n g
section , an d afte
m a y
o r d e r
o r
h i s
c o u n s e l
t o
t r y o f
s s i o n .
(47a)
Entry
of
satisfaction
n e v e r
e r w i s e
t h e
j u d g m e n t
t h a n
u p o n
j u d g m e n t
h i s
or
i s satisfie d
a n
e x e c u t i
o b l i g o r , t h e j u d
c o u n s e l
o r
with
m u s t
i n d o r s e ,
n a s p r o v i d e d
a n
i n
e x e c u t e
a d m i s s i o n
t h e
l a s t p r e c
r notic e an d upo n motio n th e cour t

e i t h e r t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g e e
d o
n
s o , o r
t o b e
m a y
o r d e r
m a d e w i t h o u t
t h e
s u c h
e n
a d m i
N O T E
1.
Entr y o f satisfactio n o f th e judgmen t shal l b e
mad e in th e cour t docket an d in th e execution book on th e
base s
of:
(a)
Th e retur n o f an execution satisfie d by action
of th e sherif f in accordanc e wit h thi s Rule ;
527
----------------------- Page 528----------------------RULE 39
ECS. 46, 47
(b)
An admissio n o f th e satisfactio n o f judgmen t
execute d an d acknowledge d i n th e sam e m a n n e r a s a
conveyance o f rea l propert y by th e judgmen t oblige e or
hi s counsel ;
(c)
Th e
i n d o r s e m e n t o f suc h
a d m i s s i o
n b y
th e
judgmen t credito r or hi s attorne y on th e face o f th e recor d
of th e judgment ; or
(d)
such
By orde r o f th e court , upo n satisfactor y proo f o f
satisfactio n o f judgment .
Sec .
46 .
When principal
against
surety.
W h e n
a j u d g m e n
g a i n s t a
p a r t y w h o s t a n d s a s s u r e
t h e l a t t e r
i s a l s o b o u n d f r o m t h e t
n o t i c e o f
t h e a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g ,
y a t t h e
s u r e t y ' s r e q u e s t t o j o i n i
a )
bound
by judgment
i s r e n d e r e d
t y
fo r
i m e
a n o t h e r ,
t h a t
h e
h a s
a n d a n o p p o r t u n i t
n t h e d e f e n s e .
(48
N O T E
1.
Th e convers e o f thi s rul e i s no t true , becaus e i
n
order
t h a t
th e
suret y
ma y
b e
boun d
against hi s principal , suc h suret y mus t

th e actio n (Montejo us. Hilario,
given an
opportunity t o b e heard , otherwis e th e
issue d agains t th e suret y i s void
.
vs. Beson,
et
al, L-26865-66,
b y
th e judgmen t
b e
impleade d i n
58 Phil.
372) or
wri t o f execution
(Luzon Surety Co.,
Jan.
30,
Inc
1970).
Sec . 47 .
Effect
of judgment
or final
orders.
T h e
o f a j u d g m e n t o r
fina l o r d e r r e n d e r
b y a
t o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , h a v i n g j u r i s d i
n
t o
o u n c e t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r , m a y
effect
e d
c o u r
c t i o
p r o n
b e a s
follows :
(a)
I n c a s
a g a i n s t
a specifi c t h i n g ,
b a t e o f a
will , o r t h e a d m i
d e c e a s e d
p e r s o n , o r i n
o l i t i c a l , o r
lega l c o n d i t i o n
p e r s o n o r
e o f a j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r
o r
i n
r e s p e c t
t o
t h e p r o
n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e e s t a t e o f a
r e s p e c t
o r
t o t h e
s t a t u s
p e r s o n a l ,
o f a
p a r t i c u l a r
528
----------------------- Page 529----------------------RULE 39
. 47
SEC

hi s relationshi p t o another , th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l
orde r i s c o n c l u s i v e upo n th e titl e t o th e thing , th
e
wil l o r administration , o r th e condition , statu s o r
relationshi p o f th e person ; however , th e probat e o f
a wil l o r g r a n t i n g o f letter s o f administratio n shal l
onl y
b e prima
facie
e v i d e n c e o f th e d e a t h o f
t h e
testato r o r intestate ;
(b)
is , wi t h
a s t o an
i n relatio
an d thei r
n t
t o t h e
c i a l
proceeding ,
th e sam e
I n othe r cases , th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r

respec t
y othe r
n thereto
s u c c e
t o th e matte r directl y
matte r tha t coul d hav e
, conclusiv e b e t w e e n
s s o r s i n interes t b y
c o m m e n c e m e n t
o f t h e
adjudge d o
bee n raise
th e partie
titl e s u
r
d
s
b s e q u e
a c t i o n o r
s p e
litigatin g fo r th e sam e t h i n g an d unde r

titl e an d i n th e sam e capacity ; an d
(c)
I n an y othe r litigatio n
b e t w e
am e
partie s o r thei r successor s i n interest , tha t onl y
deeme d t o hav e bee n adjudge d i n a forme r judgmen t
o r fina l orde r w h i c h appear s upo n it s fac e t o
b e e n
s o a d j u d g e d , o r w h i c h
w a s
a
a n d
necessaril y include d therei n o r necessar y thereto .
(49a)
e n
th e
i s
hav e
c t u a l l y
N O T E S
1.
Thi s section enunciate s th e rule s on res judicata
[or b a r b y forme r j u d g m e n t ,
o r direc t
e s t o p p
e l b y
judgment ] an d conclusivenes s o f judgmen t [or estoppe l by
verdict , or estoppe l by record , or collatera l estoppe l by

judgment ]
(Manila Electric
Co.
vs. CA,
et al., L-337
94,
May
31,
1982).
Res judicata is furthe r referre d to as
,
becaus e it ha s th e effect of, th e doctrin e on preclusion o f
claims .
Conclusivenes s o f judgmen t ha s th e effect o f
preclusion only o f issues , an d i s als o referre d t o a s th e
rul e of outer action pendant.
Par . (a) is th e rul e o
n res
judicata in judgment s in rem; par . (b) i s th e rul e on res
judicata
in judgment s
in personam; an d par .
(c) i s
th e
529
----------------------- Page 530----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 4
7
rul e on conclusivenes s o f judgment .
2 . In res judicata, th e partie s an d th e cause s o f action
in bot h action s ar e identica l o r substantiall y th e same .
Th e judgmen t in th e first actio n i s conclusiv e a s t o every
matte r offered an d receive d therei n an d a s t o an y othe r
matte r admissibl e therei n an d whic h migh t hav e been
offered for tha t purpose , henc e it i s an absolut e ba r t o a
subsequent action for th e sam e caus e (Yusingco, e t al. vs.
Ong Hing Lian,
infra; Vergara
vs. Roque,
et al., L-32984,
Aug.
26,
1977).
In conclusivenes s o f judgment , th e partie s i n bot h

action s ma y b e th e sam e bu t th e cause s o f actio n ar
e
different .
Hence ,
th e judgmen t
i n
th e
firs t
i s
bindin
g
only wit h respec t t o th e m a t t e r s actuall y raise d an
d
adjudged therei n (se e Pehalosa vs.
Tuason,
22 Phil.
303
;
Viray
vs.
Marinas,
et
al., L-33168,
Jan.
11,
1973)
an d
s
not a ba r t o anothe r actio n betwee n th e sam e partie s bu t
on a different caus e o f action .
3.
Th e
requisite s
for
res judicata
are :
(a)
Th e forme r judgmen t or orde r mus t b e final ;
(b) It mus t b e a judgmen t or orde r on th e merits ,

tha t is , it wa s rendere d after a consideration o f th e evidenc e
or stipulation s submitte d b y th e partie s a t th e tria l o f th e
case ;
(c) It mus t hav e bee n rendere d by a court , havin g
jurisdictio n over th e subject-matte r an d th e parties ; an d
(d)
Ther e
m u s t
be ,
betwee n
th e
firs t
an d
secon d
actions ,
identit y o f p a r t i e s , o f subject-matte r an d o
f
cause o f action .
Thi s requisit e i s satisfie d i f th e tw o action
s
ar e substantiall y betwee n th e sam e partie s (se e Nator vs.
CIR,
L-16671,
Mar.
30,
1962;
Malvar
vs.
Palingayan,
L-24136,
Sept.
Lian,
L-26523,
Jan.
31,
Nov.
29,
1978;
27,
1966;
Dec.
24,
Gitgano
Yusingco,
et
1971; Aroc
vs.
al.
vs.
Borromeo,
vs.
PHHC,
et
al.,
Ong
Hing
L-39674,
L-40429,
1984).
530
----------------------- Page 531----------------------RULE 39

C. 47
SE

To b e mor e accurate , th e first requiremen t shoul d
properly stat e tha t th e former judgmen t or final order mus t
be fina l an d executory
(se e note s unde r Sec. 1, Rule 39).
Regardin g th e secon d requisite , not e shoul d b e take n
o f th e fact t h a t , althoug h ther e ha s bee n n o tria l
o r
presentatio n an d consideratio n o f evidenc e therein , a
dismissa l o f t h e
complain t
u n d e r th e c i r c u m s t
a n c e s
provide d in Sec . 3 , Rul e 1 7 shal l hav e th e effect o f an
adjudication o f th e cas e on th e merits , unles s otherwis e
declared b y th e court .
Th e sam e rul e applie s whe n th e
case i s dismisse d for non-sui t du e t o th e unjustifie d failur e
o f th e plaintif f t o a p p e a r a t th e pre-tria l o f hi s
cas e
(Sec.
5, Rule 16).
Th e dismissa l by th e Suprem e Cour t o f a petitio n for
review on certiorar i throug h a minut e resolutio n i s an
adjudication on th e merit s an d constitute s a ba r t o a
relitigatio n
o f th e cas e unde r th e
rul e
o f res ju
dicata
(Commercial
Union
Ass.
Co.,
Ltd.,
et al.
vs. Lep
anto
Consolidated Mining
Co.,
et al., L-43342,
Oct.
30,
1978;
Sy vs. Tuvera, etc., et al., G.R. No.
76639, July 16,
1987).
4 . Ther e i s identit y o f parties , not only wher e th e
partie s i n bot h action s ar e th e same , bu t als o wher e th e
actions ar e betwee n thos e in privity with them , a s between

thei r successor s i n interes t b y titl e subsequen t t o th e
commencement o f th e action , litigatin g for th e sam e thin g
and unde r th e sam e titl e an d in th e sam e capacity , or wher e
ther e i s substantia l identity even i f ther e ar e additiona l
partie s (se e Aquino vs.
Sanvictores,
89 Phil.
532; Hanop
ol
vs. Pilapil,
L-19248,
Feb.
28,
1963; Cantillana
vs.
Heirs
of Frank
Scott,
L-39450,
Aug.
29,
1980),
especially
so
wher e th e additiona l part y wa s not a prope r part y in th e
first or th e secon d action
(Mallari, et al. vs. CA, et
al.,
L-26467, July 15,1981), or is a mer e nomina l part y (Medija
vs. Patcho, et al., L 30310, Oct. 23,
1984).
Se e fur
the r
th e i l l u s t r a t i v e case s o f Salud vs.
CA,
e t al. (
G.R .
No . 100156 , Jun e 28 ,
1994) an d Heirs of Vda. de Roxas
531
----------------------- Page 532----------------------RULE 39
47
SEC.
vs. CA, et al. (G.R . No . 138660 , Feb . 5 , 2004) .

Where , however , i n a prio r cas e th e partie s wer e
co-defendant s withou t an y hostil e o r conflictin g claim s
raise d i n issu e o r adjudicate d a s betwee n them , an d th e
second action i s betwee n the m a s plaintif f an d defendant ,
th e j u d g m e n t i n th e firs t actio n doe s no t constitut
e
res judicata t o ba r th e secon d actio n a s ther e i s n o identit
y
of p a r t i e s in b o t h a c t i o n s (Valdez
vs. Mendoza,
8 9
Phil.
83; Carandang, et al.
vs. Venturanza, et al., L-41940,
Nov.
21,
1984).
5 . Ther
e
j u d g m e n t
o r
judgmen t
5)
or i f th e
(1 Martin
i s
identit y
s o u g h t
(Tan
vs.
wil l
Arador,
o f cause s
o f actio n
b e inconsisten t
et
wit h
al, L-38745, Aug.
sam e evidenc e wil l sustai n th e

161162,
citin g
34 C.J.
805;
whe n
th
th e
pri
6,
197
secon d action
Aroc
vs. PHHC,
supra;
Vda.
de
Vocal
vs. Vda.
de Suria, et al, L-2628
1,
May 31,
1979)
eve n i f th e form s or natur e o f th e
tw o
action s be different
(Cayco, et al. vs. Cruz,
106 Phil.
65;
Gitgano
vs. Borromeo,
et al, supra).
6. Th e doctrin e o f res judicata doe s no t apply

th e secon d actio n i s precisel y t o annu l th e judgmen
th e first action , a s on e o f th e requisite s o f res
s
tha t ther e mus t b e a forme r vali d judgmen t
s.
Cruz, 84 Phil.
636; Dayrit vs. Dayrit,
et al, 97
8).
Neithe r doe s sai d doctrin e appl y wher e th e action i
a n n u l th e executio n sal e an d act s don e i n
wher e
t in
judicata i
(Almeda
Phil.
v
75
s t o
pursuanc e
thereo f a s ther e i s n o identit y betwee n th e parties , subject m a t t e r an d caus e o f actio n involve d i n th e case ,
th e
decision
w h e r e i n w a s t h e subjec t o f t h e challenge d
executio n
.R.
No.
53682,
sal e
Nov.
(Ramos,
26,
et
al.
vs.
Pablo,
et
al,
1986).
Thus , eve n i f th e partie s i n bot h action s remai n th e

same , ther e ca n b e n o identit y i n th e subject-matte r sinc e
tha t i n th e judgmen t sough t t o b e annulle d i s th e thing ,
contract , propert y or wrongfu l ac t involve d in th e action ,
whil e in th e cas e for annulmen t th e subject-matte r i s th e
532
----------------------- Page 533----------------------RULE 39
EC. 47

judgmen t rendere d i n tha t action .
Neithe r ca n ther e
b e
identity in th e cause s o f action a s th e caus e o f action in
th e first i s th e delict or wron g committe d by th e defendan t
in violation o f th e primar y right s o f th e plaintiff , whil e
t h a t i n th e actio n for a n n u l m e n t o f j u d g m e n t
i s t h e
wrongfu l obtentio n thereo f throug h extrinsi c frau d o r
despit e lack o f jurisdictio n over th e case .
7 .
Th e former
jurisdictio n ca n no t
of anothe r cour t a s
whic h
r e n d e r e
og,
L-16252,
Sept.
29,
th e sam e
Ruiz,
L-30694,
rul e wa s tha t
open , modify or
suc h powe r i s
d t h e j u d g
1964);
cour t do so
Oct.
31,
neithe r
a cour t o f concurren t
vacat e th e judgmen t
restricte d t o th e cour t
m e n t (Mas
vs.
Dumara
can
anothe r
(Sterling Investment
branc h
Corp.
1969).
A s hereinbefor e discussed , th e doctrine s in thes e case s

wer e subsequentl y abandoned , th e Suprem e Cour t holdin g
tha t a Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e or a branc h thereo f ha d th e
authority an d jurisdictio n t o tak e cognizanc e o f an d t o act
of
vs.
in a sui t t o annu l a fina l an d executory judgmen t or orde r

rendere d by anothe r Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e or branc h
thereo f
(Dulap,
et al. vs. CA,
et al, L-28306,
Dec.
18,
1971),
an d
th e
doctrine s
in
Dumaraog
an d
S
terling
Investment
Corporation wer e
se t aside ,
sinc e
t o su
stai n
th e sam e woul d amoun t t o judicia l legislation
(G
ianan
vs. Imperial,
et al, L-37963,
Feb.
28,
1974).
Thi s
wa s
reiterate d in Francisco, et al. vs. Aquino, et al.
(L-332
35 ,
Jul y 22 , 1976) ,
althoug h in Manalo
vs. Mariano,
et al.
(L-33850 , J a n . 22 ,
1976) , i t wa s agai n hel d t h a t
th e
jurisdictio n t o annu l th e judgmen t o f a branc h o f a Cour t
o f F i r s t I n s t a n c e belong s
t o t h a t b r a n c h a
l o n e .
Subsequently, th e doctrin e in Dulap wa s reiterate d in
Singson,
et al. vs. Saldajeno,
et al. (L-27343 ,
Feb .
28 ,
1979).
Th e
conflictin g doctrine s
e s
hav e now bee n se t a t rest .
, th e
Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t shal l
i n
th e aforesai d
Unde r B.P .
exercis e
Big .
cas
129
exclusiv e
533
----------------------- Page 534----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 48
origina l jurisdictio n
ove r action s
for th e a n n u
l m e n t
of judgment s o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court s (Sec. 9).
Th e
Regiona l Tria l
C o u r t s shal l
hav e
exclusiv e
or
igina l
jurisdictio n over action s for th e annulmen t o f judgment s
of Metropolita n Tria l Courts , Municipa l Tria l Court s an d
Municipa l Circui t Tria l Court s (Sec. 19).
8.
Th e
rul e o f res judicata applie s to fina l decision
s
of quasi-judicia l agencie s
(Amistoso vs.
Ong, et al.,
G.R.
No.
60219, June 29,
1984).
It als o applie s to judgmen
t s
rendere d in probat e proceeding s
(Sy Kao, et al. vs. C
A, et
al., G.R. No. 61752, Sept. 28, 1984).
In a lan d registra
tio n
proceeding ,
file d
b y th e plaintif f afte r
h e ha d
bee n
declared th e owne r o f th e lan d involve d in a civil case , th e
opposition thereto , filed
civil case , i s barre d
unde r th e doctrin e o
ar e
presen t an d i t i s o f
by th e defendan t wh o lost in sai d

in sai d lan d registratio n proceedin g
f res judicata.
All th e element s
n o momen t tha t th e cour t in th e civil
case wa s in th e exercis e o f genera l jurisdictio n an d in th e

land registratio n case , in th e exercis e o f specia l or limite d
jurisdiction .
Th e contrar y rulin g in Abellera
vs
. Farol
[74 Phil . 284 ] is abandone d
(Valisno, et al.
vs.
Plan, et
al., G.R.
No.
55152, Aug.
19,
1986).
Sec .
48 .
Effect
of foreign judgments
or
orders.
T h e
e f f e c t o f a j u d g m e n t o r f i n a l
o f a
tribuna l o f a
foreig n
country , h a v i n g j u r i
t i o n
t o r e n d e r t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r i s a s
s :
final
o r d e r
s d i c
follow
(a)
I n c a s e o f a j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r u p o
n a
s p e c i f i c t h i n g , t h e j u d g m e n t
o r f i n a l o r
d e r i s
c o n c l u s i v e u p o n th e titl e t o th e thing ; an d
(b)
I n c a s e o f a j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r agains
t
a person , th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r i s presumptiv e
e v i d e n c e o f a righ t a s b e t w e e n th e partie s an d thei
r
s u c c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t b y a s u b s e q u e n t title .
I n e i t h e r case , t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r m
a y
b e repelle d
b y e v i d e n c e o f a w a n t o f jurisdict
ion ,
534
----------------------- Page 535----------------------RULE 39
SEC. 48
wan t o f notic e t o th e party , collusion , fraud , o r clea r

mistak e o f la w o r fact . (50a )
N O T E S
1. Par. (a) is the rule on foreign judgments in actions
in rem, and par. (b) , in actions in personam.
2. The judgment of a foreign tribunal cannot be

enforced by execution in the Philippines. Such judgment
only creates a right of action and its non-satisfaction, a
cause of action, and it is necessary that a suit be brought
upon said foreign judgment in our local courts (see Perkins
vs. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., et al., 93 Phil. 1035).
3. In a suit upon a foreign judgment against a person
in our local courts, the defendant may interpose the
defenses in par. (b) . If, however, the defendant had also
been a party to and actually participated in the proceedings
in the foreign court, he is bound by the judgment therein
and the doctrine of res judicata will apply to such foreign
judgmen t
(General
Corporation
of the Philippines
Union
Insurance
Society of Canton, Ltd., et al., 37
313).
vs.
Phil.
4. Generally, the judgment of a foreign court is only

presumptive evidence of a right on the part of the
prevailing party and if suit thereon is brought in the
Philippines, the same may be repelled by evidence of clear
mistake
of law
(Soorajmull
Nagarmull
vs. Binalbagan
Isabela
Sugar
Co., Inc., L-22470,
May
28, 1970).
See
the illustration and discussion of this section in Asiavest
Merchant
Bankers
(M) Berhad
vs.
CA,
et al. (G.R .
No . 110263, July 20, 2001).
5. In Mijares, et al. vs. Ranada, etc., et al.
139325, April 12, 2005), the Supreme Court reiterated and
amplified the procedural rules on the recognition and
enforcement of foreign judgments embodied in Sec. 48 of
(G.R . No .
535
----------------------- Page 536----------------------RULE 39
EC. 48
thi s Rule .
I t observe d tha t whil e th e foreign judgment s
contemplate d therei n ma y b e conclusive , i f in rem, or
presumptive , i f in personam, it i s necessar y tha t "in eithe r
case " a civil action shoul d b e filed in ou r courts , primaril y
t o allow th e losin g part y a n opportunit y t o challeng e th e
judgmen t o n th e ground s provide d i n sai d sectio n an d
defend itsel f agains t th e enforcemen t o f tha t decision in
th e loca l forum .
Tha t civil action , bot h for adjectiv e an d jurisdictiona l
purposes , i s considere d a s on e incapabl e o f pecuniar y
estimation an d suc h categorizatio n i s bindin g i n assessin g
th e docke t an d othe r filing fee s unde r th e schemati c tabl e
in Rul e
141 .
I t i s tru e tha t th e foreign judgmen t may
ultimatel y resul t in recovery by th e plaintiff s o f monetar y
or p r o p r i e t a r y a w a r d s , bu t i n a n ordinar y acti
o n for
monetar y relief , th e caus e o f action emanate s from th e
violation o f th e right s o f th e plaintif f throug h an act or
omission o f th e defendant ; whil e in th e enforcemen t o f a
foreign judgment , th e caus e o f action an d subject-matte r
ar e th e foreign judgmen t itself .

I n th e former , ther e
mus t
b e proo f o f th e wrongfu l ac t o f th e defendant , whil e in th e
latter , th e matte r left for proo f i s th e foreign judgmen t
itself, no t th e fact s from whic h it prescinds .
Sec. 4 8 restrict s th e actionabl e issue s or ground s for
challengin g th e foreign judgment .
Suc h limitatio n
o n
th e revie w o f a foreign judgmen t i s adopte d in al l lega l
system s t o avoi d repetitiv e litigatio n on claim s an d issues ,
p r e v e n t h a r a s s m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s an d avoi d
undu e
imposition on th e courts .
Thi s policy o f preclusio n rest
s
on principle s o f comity , utilit y an d convenienc e o f nations .
A s a generall y accepte d principl e o f internationa l law , it
i s p a r t o f th e la w o f th e Philippine s b y virtu e o
f th e
incorporation claus e of th e Constitutio n
(Sec. 2, Ar
t. II).
See
also
the
discussion
in
Raytheon
International,
Inc.
vs. Rouzie, Jr.
(G.R. No.
162894, Feb.
26, 2008).
536
----------------------- Page 537----------------------RUL E
APPEA L
TO
FRO M MUNICIPA L
TH E REGIONA L
TRIA L
TRIA L
4 0
COURT S
COURT S
Sectio n 1 .
Where to appeal. An appea l fro m a
j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r o f a Municipa l Tria l Cour t
may b e t a k e n t o th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t e x e r c i s i n g
j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e a r e a t o w h i c h t h e f o r
m e r
pertains .
Th e titl e o f th e cas e shal l r e m a i n a
s i t
wa s i n th e cour t o f origin , bu t th e part y a p p e a l i n g
th e cas e shal l b e furthe r referre d t o a s th e appellan t
an d th e advers e part y a s th e appellee ,
(n )
NOT E
1.
Th e forme r Sec . 1 o f Rul e 4 0 provide d tha t an
appeal from an inferior court shoul d b e take n "to th e Cour t
of Firs t Instanc e o f th e provinc e wher e th e judgmen t wa s
rendered. "
However , Sec . 1 8 o f B.P . Big . 129 thereafte r
provide d tha t th e Suprem e Court shal l define th e territor y
over whic h a branc h o f th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t shal l
exercise it s authority .
Th e territor y thu s define d shall ,
inter alia, determin e th e lower court s over which th e sai d
branc h may exercis e appellat e jurisdiction .
Sec . 2 1
o f
th e Interi m Rule s late r implemente d sai d provision o n
appeal s t o th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t from case s decide d
b y th e lowe r courts ,
includin g th e basi c procedur e
therefor . Startin g with Administrativ e Orde r No . 3 , date d

J a n u a r y 19,
1983 ,
th e S u p r e m e Cour t define d
territoria l jurisdictio n o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court s
specifically tha t o f th e branche s thereof .
th e
an d
Sec . 2 . When to appeal. A n appea l ma y b e take n

withi n fiftee n (15) day s afte r notic e t o th e appellan t
of th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r appeale d from .
Wher e
a recor d o n appea l i s required , th e appellan t shal l
537
----------------------- Page 538----------------------RULE 40
SEC. 3
file a notic e o f a p p e a l an d a recor d o n appea l withi n

thirt y (30 ) d a y s afte r notic e o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina
l
order .
Th e
timel y m o
N o
m o t i o n
ne w
tria l o r
)
perio d o f a p p e a l shal l b e interrupte d

t i o n fo r n e w tria l o r reconsideration .
b y a
fo r e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e t o fil e a motio n fo r
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n shal l b e allowed ,
(n
NOT E
1.
P u r s u a n t t o R.A . 7691 , th e municipa l tria l cou
rt s
now hav e probat e jurisdictio n wher e th e gros s valu e o f
th e estate , whethe r testat e o r intestate , doe s not exceed
P100.00 0 or , i f in Metr o Manila , P200.000 .
A s pr
ovide d
in Sec .
3 o f t h i s Rule ,
a n a p p e a l fro m suc h s
pecia l
proceedin g shal l b e b y recor d o n appeal .
Th e
regle mentar y period s o f appeal s from th e inferior cour t ar e
th e sam e a s thos e from th e Regiona l Tria l Courts .
Th e secon d p a r a g r a p h o f thi s section , regardin g th e
interruptio n o
a motio n for
reconsideratio n
th e Regiona l
s i s in
consonanc e wit
bot h courts .
f th e perio d o f appea l an d th e prohibition o f

extensio n t o file a motio n for new tria l or
i s likewis e th e sam e a s th e rul e thereo n i n
Tria l Court s (Sec. 3, Rule 41).
Thi
h th e policy on uniformit y o f procedur e in
Sec . 3 .
How t o appeal. Th e appea l i s take n by
filin g a notic e o f appea l w i t h t h e cour t tha t rendere d
t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r a p p e a l e d
from .
T h e
n o t i c e o f a p p e a l
t o th e
appeal , th e j u d g m e n t
appeale d from , an d stat e
th e t i m e l i n e s s o f
s h a l l
i n d i c a t e
t h e
partie s
o r fina l orde r o r par t thereo f

th e materia l date s showin g
t h e appeal .
A r e c o r d o n a p p e a l shal l b e require d onl y

i n
specia l p r o c e e d i n g s an d i n o t h e r c a s e s o f multip
l e
o r s e p a r a t e a p p e a l s .
----------------------- Page 539----------------------RULE 40
APPEAL FROM THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS SECS. 4, 5

TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
Th e for m an d c o n t e n t s o f th e recor d o n appea l

shal l b e a s provide d i n sectio n 6 , Rul e 41 .
Copie s
o f t h e
notic e
o f appeal ,
o n appea l w h e r e required ,
advers e party ,
(n )
shal l
b e
an d
serve d
t h e
o n
recor d
th e
NOT E
1. J u s t lik e Sec . 5 , Rul e 4 1 on notic e o f appea l f
rom
th e Regiona l Tria l Court , i t i s require d by thi s amende d
section tha t th e notic e o f appea l shal l indicat e not only
th e partie s bu t als o th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r o r par t
thereo f appeale d from , togethe r wit h th e materia l date s
showing th e timelines s o f th e appeal .
Th e las t mentione
d
r e q u i r e m e n t i s th e sam e a s th e "materia l dat a
rule "
applicable t o record s on appea l wit h respec t t o th e content s
thereof , an d for th e sam e reason s whic h impelle d th e
adoption o f tha t rule .
Sec . 4 . Perfection
of appeal;
effect
thereof.
e
perfectio n o f t h e appea l an d th e effec t thereo f shal l
b e governe d b y th e provision s o f sectio n 9 , Rul e 4 1 .
(n)
Th
NOT E
1.
Sinc e appeal s from th e inferior
b e eithe r by notic e o f appea l or recor d on
on th e perfection an d th e effect thereo f ar
Se e
th e discussion thereo f in th e note s unde r
court s may now

appeal , th e rule s
e th e same .
Sec . 9 , Rul e 41 .
Sec .
5 . Appellate court
docket and other lawful fee
s.
W i t h i n
t h e p e r i o d fo r t a k i n g a n a p p e a l , t
h e
appellan t shal l pa y
rendere d th e judgmen
th e ful l amoun t
othe r lawfu l fees
b e transmitte d t o
t o
t o
o f
.
th e
th e cler k o f th e cour t w h i c h
r fina l orde r appeale d fro m
th e appellat e cour t docke t an d
Proo f o f paymen t thereo f shal l
appellat e cour t togethe r wit h
539
----------------------- Page 540----------------------RULE 40
SEC. 5
th e origina l recor d o r th e recor d o n appeal , a s th e

cas e ma y be .
(n )
N O T E S
1. Prio r t o B.P . Big . 129 , ther e wer e holding s tha t
th e failur e t o pa y th e docket fee withi n th e reglementar y
perio d wa s fata l to an appea l
(Dacudao vs. Duenas, e t al.,
108
Phil.
95;
Lanting
vs.
Guevarra,
et al.,
L-22799,
April
25,
1969).
I f th e
docke t
fee
pai d
wa s
insufficient
du e t o a n erro r o f th e treasurer , th e appea l shoul d not b e

dismisse d
July
26,
(Barnido,
1966).
et
al. vs.
Thereafter ,
in
Balana,
NAWASA
et al.,
L-26275,
vs. Secretary
of
Public
Works
and
Communications
(L-20928 ,
Mar .
31
,
1966)
an d
Favis,
et
al. vs. Municipality
of Sabangan
(L-26522, Feb . 27 , 1969) , i t wa s hel d tha t non-paymen t
of th e docket fee s doe s not automaticall y resul t in dismissa l
of th e appea l or affect th e appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e
Court o f Firs t Instance , th e dismissa l bein g discretionar y
in th e appellat e cour t i f ther e ar e justification s for it s non paymen t
.
No.
56315,
(se e
Nov.
Fontanar,
25,
et
al. vs.
Bonsubre,
et
al., G.R
1986).
2 . I t i s tru e tha t thi s section require s th e paymen t o f

th e full amoun t o f th e appellat e cour t docke t an
lawful fee s withi n th e perio d for takin g an appeal .
i s
suggested , however , tha t th e foregoin g ruling s tha t
paymen t or incomplet e paymen t o f th e fee s require d
appea l d o not automaticall y resul t in th e dismissa l
appea l shoul d b e maintained .
d othe r
I t
non on
o f th e
Th e failur e t o pa y th e docke t an d othe r lawfu l fee s i

s
also a groun d for th e dismissa l o f th e appea l in th e Cour t
of Appeal s
(Sec. l[c], Rule 50) an d in th e Suprem e Cour t
(Sec. 5fcJ, Rule 56).
However , it ha s heretofor e bee n hel d
tha t eve n in sai d appellat e courts , wit h th e exception o f
failure
t o
file
th e
notic e
o f appea l or recor d
on
appea l
withi n th e reglementar y period , i t i s not th e ministeria l

duty o f th e cour t t o dismis s th e appea l wher e on e o f th e
540
----------------------- Page 541----------------------RULE 40
APPEAL FROM THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS

SEC. 6
grounds therefor obtains (see notes under Sec. 1, Rule

50). More specifically, the non-payment of the appellate
court docket fee is not a mandatory ground for dismissal
of the appeal
(Panes vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 58321,
Jan. 31, 1983).
And although involving the matter of
non-payment or incomplete payment of docket fees in the
filing of original actions, the liberalized attitude of the
Supreme Court in Sun Insurance Office Ltd., modifying
the doctrine in Manchester Development Corporation
(see
notes under Sec. 5, Rule 1), would bolster this submission.
It has lately been held, however , that a strict
application of the rule on the payment of docket fees in
the Court of Appeals should be adopted, on the theory
that payment in full of the docket fees within the
prescribed period is mandatory
(Pedrosa vs. Hill, et al.,
G.R. No. 120804, June 14, 1996). It will nonetheless be
observed that in that case, despite timely notice and
admonition from the appellate court, appellants paid the
docket fee 4 months after the date of notice, and the
reasons given by them for such default were considered
by the appellate court as reflective of their lack of interest
and inexcusable lethargy in pursuing their appeal.
Reliance for said ruling was placed on the holding in
Guevarra vs. Court of Appeals
(L-43714, Jan.
but, again, in said case the docket fees were paid 4 1 days
late and on the flimsy excuse that the delay was due to
"inadvertence, oversight and pressure of work." It would
appear, therefore , that while compliance with the
requirement for timely payment of docket fees on appeal
is mandatory, the appellate court is not without power to
make exceptions thereto on justifiable cause, instead of
dismissing the appeal on that sole ground.
Sec
(16) day
o f cour
c o u r t
r t h e
1988)
. 6. Duty of the clerk of court. Withi n fiftee n

s fro m th e perfectio n o f th e appeal , th e cler k
t o r th e branc h cler k o f cour t o f th e lowe r
s h a l l t r a n s m i t th e o r i g i n a l r e c o r d o
54 1
----------------------- Page 542----------------------RULE 40

SEC. 7
15,
r e c o r d o n
a p p e a l , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e t r a n
s c r i p t s
an d e x h i b i t s , w h i c h h e shal l certif y a s complete , t o
t h e p r o p e r R e g i o n a l Tria l Court .
o f hi s
certificatio n shal l b e furnishe d t h e parties ,
(n )
c o p y
NOT E
1.
Thi s wa s take n from th e forme r Sec . 5 , Rul e 4 0
an d Par . 21(b) o f th e Interi m Rules , wit h th e modification
tha t asid e from th e origina l recor d o r th e recor d o n appeal ,
th e transcript s an d exhibit s take n or submitte d in th e lower
court shal l b e elevate d t o th e Regiona l Tria l Court .
Th e
lower court , bein g a cour t o f record , transcript s o f th e
proceeding s therei n an d th e documentar y evidenc e o f th e
partie s ma y b e involve d i n th e appeal , henc e th e specific
mentio n thereo f an d th e extensio n o f th e perio d from th e
origina l 5 day s t o
1 5 day s withi n whic h th e cler k
o f
court shoul d comply wit h hi s dut y unde r thi s section .
A
certificatio n
o f t h e c o m p l e t e n e s s o f t h e d o c
u m e n t s
transmitte d t o th e appellat e cour t mus t b e furnishe d t o
th e partie s for thei r verification an d appropriat e action .
Sec .
7.
Procedure
in
the
Regional
Trial
Court.
(a)
U p o n r e c e i p t o f t h e c o m p l e t e recor d o r
th e
recor d o n appeal , t h e cler k o f cour t o f t h e Regiona l
Tria l Cour t shal l notif y th e partie s o f s u c h fact .
(b)
Withi n
fiftee n
(15 )
d a y s
fro m
s u c h
notice ,
i t s h a l l b e t h e d u t y o f t h e a p p e l l a n t t o
s u b m i t a
m e m o r a n d u m
w h i c h
s h a l l b r i e f l y d i s c u
s s
t h e
error s i m p u t e d t o t h e l o w e r court , a cop y o f w h i c
h
s h a l l b e f u r n i s h e d b y h i m t o t h e a d v e r s e
party .
W i t h i n
f i f t e e n ( 1 5 ) d a y s
f r o m
r e c e i p t
o f t h e
appellant' s m e m o r a n d u m , th e a p p e l l e e m a y fil e hi s
m e m o r a n d u m .
F a i l u r e o f t h e a p p e l l a n t t
o fil e a
m e m o r a n d u m shal l b e a g r o u n d fo r d i s m i s s a l o f t
h e
appeal .
542
----------------------- Page 543----------------------RULE 40

SEC. 8

(c)
Upo n t h e
appellee , o r
th e cas e shal
Th e Regiona l
th e basi s o f
i n th e
filed,
filin g o f th e m e m o r a n d u m o f th e
th e expiratio n o f th e perio d t o d o so ,
l b e c o n s i d e r e d submitte d fo r decision .
Tria l Cour t shal l decid e th e c a s e o n
th e entir e recor d o f th e p r o c e e d i n g s ha d
cour t o f origi n an d
s u c h
m e m o r a n d a a s ar e
(n )
NOTE S
1. Thi s wa s t a k e n from Par . 21(c) an d (d) o f

th e
Interim Rules , wit h a clarification on th e content s an d
th e sequenc e in th e filing o f th e memorand a o f th e parties .
2 . Th e requiremen t in Sec . 7(b) for th e submissio n o f
appellant' s memorandu m i s a mandator y an d compulsory
rule .
Non-complianc e therewit h authorize s th e dismissa l
of th e appea l
(Enriquez vs. CA, et al.,
G.R. No.
140
473,
Jan.
28,
2003).
3 . Unde r th e former procedure , an d ther e appear s t o
b e n o reaso n for departin g therefrom , wher e th e part y
ha d appeare d by counse l in th e inferior court , th e notic e
contemplated in thi s section shoul d b e sen t t o th e attorne y
(Elli, et al. vs. Ditan, et al., L-17444, June 30,
1962;
se e
also Sec. 21, Rule 138); bu t i f th e notic e wa s sen t to th e
part y himsel f an d h e actuall y receive d th e same , suc h
notic e
i s vali d
an d
bindin g
(Valenzuela
vs. Bal
ayo,
L-18738, Mar.
30,
1963; Cordoviz vs. De Obias,
L-211
84,
Sept. 5, 1967).
Sec .
8.
Appeal from
orders dismissing case
wit
hout
trial; lack
of jurisdiction.
I f a n a p p e a l i s t a k
e n
fro m a n
orde r o f th e
lowe r cour t d i s m i s s i n g
th e
cas e withou t a tria l o n th e merits , th e Regiona l Tria l
Court ma y affir m o r revers e it , a s th e cas e ma y be .
I n cas e o f affirmanc e an d th e groun d o f dismissa l i s
lac k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r th e subjec t matter , th e
R e g i o n a l
t i o n
T r i a l
C o u r t ,
i f i t h a s
j u r i s d i c
543
----------------------- Page 544----------------------RULE 40
SEC. 8
t h e r e o v e r , shal l tr y th e c a s e o n t h e merit s a s i f
th e
cas e w a s originall y file d w i t h it .
I n cas e o f rever
sal ,
t h e c a s e shal l b e r e m a n d e d fo r furthe r proceedings .
I f th e c a s e w a s trie d o n t h e merit s b y th e lowe r
cour t w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r th e
subjec t matter
,
th e c a s e i f i
, bu t
s h a l l d e c i d e
h t h e
p r e c e d i n g
s
o t h e
a d m i s s i o n o f
t i o n a l
e v i d e n c e i n t
Cour t o n appea l shal l no t dismis s

h a s origina l j u r i s d i c t i o n thereof
t h e
c a s e
e c t i o n ,
a m e n d e d
i n
a c c o r d a n c e
w i t h o u t
w i t
p r e j u d i c e
p l e a d i n g s a n d
h e i n t e r e s t o f justice ,
a d d i
(n )
NOT E
1.
Th e first paragrap h wa s take n from th e former
Sec .
1 0 o f Rul e
40 , an d t h e secon d p a r a g r a p h
from
Sec. 1 1 thereof .
However , a major chang e ha s bee n mad e
on th e assumptio n o f origina l jurisdictio n over th e cas e by
th e Regiona l Tria l Court .
Th e
firs t p a r a g r a p h c o n t e m p l a t e s th e sit
uatio n
wherei n th e cas e wa s no t trie d o n th e merit s bu t w
a s
dismisse d on a technica l objection or questio n o f law , a s
wher e th e cas e wa s dismisse d for imprope r venu e o n
defendant' s motio n or for prescription .
N o tria l
havin g
bee n held , th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t o n appea l merel y
affirms or reverse s th e orde r o f dismissa l and , in cas e o f
reversal , remand s th e cas e t o th e lower cour t for furthe r
proceedings .
However , wher e th e questio n o f law involve s lack o f
jurisdictio n over th e subject-matter an d th e Regiona l Tria l
Court ha s jurisdictio n thereover , i t shal l tr y th e cas e o n
th e merit s a s i f th e cas e wa s originally filed wit h it .
Th e
consen t o f th e p a r t i e s t o suc h assumptio n o f origina
l
jurisdictio n over th e cas e i s not require d an d thi s abandon s
previou s ruling s whic h mad e i t optiona l on th e par t o f th e
p a r t i e s o n w h e t h e r o r no t t o submi t t o suc h
origina l
jurisdictio n (see ,
for instance ,
Zulueta
vs. Mariano,
et al.,
544
----------------------- Page 545----------------------RULE 40
SEC. 9

L-29360,
338,
July
16,
Jan.
30,
1982;
Alvir
vs.
Vera,
et
al,
L-39
1984).
Th e sam e procedure , whereb y th e Regiona l Tria l

Court assume s origina l jurisdictio n over th e cas e withou t
th e nee d for consen t theret o by th e parties , i s followed
wher e th e cas e wa s trie d o n th e merit s b y th e lower cour t
although i t di d no t hav e jurisdictio n over th e subject matter .
However , sinc e ther e wa s a n actua l tria l o f th e
case on th e merits , which normall y entaile d receptio n o f
evidence on whic h th e judgmen t o f th e lower cour t wa s
based , in th e interes t o f justice , th e partie s may b e allowe d
t o file amende d pleading s an d adduc e additiona l evidenc e
at th e tria l o f th e cas e i n th e Regiona l Tria l Court .
Sec .
9 .
Applicability
of
Rule
41.
T h e
o t
h e r
provision s o f Rul e 4 1 shal l appl y t o appeal s provide d
for h e r e i n insofa r a s the y ar e no t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i
t h
o r ma y serv e t o s u p p l e m e n t th e provision s o f thi s
Rule ,
(n )
NOTE S
1. Fo r backgroun d material s o r referentia l base s

regardin g appeal s from th e decision s o f th e inferior courts ,
see Sees . 22 , 3 8 an d 39 , B.P . Big . 129 an d Pars . 20 , 2 1
an d
22(b )
o f t h e I n t e r i m o r T r a n s i t i o n a l
le s an d
Guidelines , th e appellat e procedur e in th e even t o f a
further appea l t o th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t bein g
as follows :
"22.
Appellate
procedure
in
the
Intermedi
ate
Appellate
Court.
X X X
(b)
Review
Courts. In action
in th e Metropolita
Court s an d Municipa
of
s
n
l
Ru
appealed cases from Regional Trial

or proceeding s originally filed
Tria l Courts , Municipa l Tria l
Circuit Tria l Court s appeale d
545
----------------------- Page 546----------------------RULE 40
EC. 9
t o th e Regiona l Tria l Courts , th e fina l judgment s o r

order s o f th e latte r ma y b e appeale d by petitio n for
review t o th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t which may
give du e cours e only whe n th e petitio n show s prima
facie tha t th e lower cour t ha s committe d a n erro r o f
fact or law tha t wil l warran t a reversa l or modification
of th e decision or fina l orde r sough t t o b e reviewed .
Th e petitio n for revie w shal l b e governe d by th e
Resolution o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s date d Augus t 12,
1971, a s modifie d i n th e m a n n e r indicate d i n
th e
precedin g paragrap h hereof. "
2.
In Lacsamana,
et
al.
vs.
The Hon.
Second
Special
Cases Division
of
the IAC, et al. (G.R .
Nos .
73146-53
,
Aug . 26 , 1986) , th e Suprem e Cour t restate d an d clarifie d
th e mode s an d period s o f appeal , a s follows :
" 1)
ORDINARY APPEAL S BY MERE NOTICE OF

APPEAL .
I n
a n
o r d i n a r y a p p e a l fro m
t h e
fina l
judgmen t or orde r o f a metropolita n or municipa l
tria l cour t t o th e regiona l tria l court , an d from th
e
regiona l
tria l
cour t
t o
th e
Cour t o f Appeal s
n
action s
o r
proceeding s
originall y
file d
i n
th e
regiona l
tria l
court ,
th e
fifteen-day
period
for
appeal provide d by Section 3 9 o f BP No . 129 an d
Section 19(a) o f th e Interi m Rule s i s interrupte d
or
s u s p e n d e d b y a m o t i o n fo r n e w t r i
a l
o r
reconsideration , unles s
th e requirement s o f
41) .
I f th e motio n
i s d e n i e d , t h e
suc h
Rul e
for ne
m o v
motion fail s t o satisfy

3 7 (Section 3 o f Rul e
w tria l or reconsideratio n
i n g p a r t y h a s onl y
t h e
remainin g perio d from notic e o f denia l withi n
whic h t o file a notic e o f appeal , which i s th e only
r e q u i r e m e n t for
t a k i n g
a n a p p e a l u n d e
r th e
presen t rules .
file
less
such
Obviously ,
notice
of appeal
no extension of
is
needed,
time
much
to
allowed.
546
----------------------- Page 547----------------------RULE 40
. 9
SEC

2)
In
APPEAL S IN SPECIAL PROCEEDING S AND

OTHE R
CASE S
WHEREI N
APPEAL S ARE ALLOWED .
a n
a p p e a l
i n
a specia l
MULTIPL E
proceedin g
u n d e
r
Rul e 109 o f th e
wherein
multiple
Rule s o f Cour t an d in othe r case s

appeals
are
allowed,
the period
of
appeal
is
thirty
required
(Section
days,
record
on
appeal
bei
ng
19[b]
o f th e
Interi m
Rules) .
f a
motion for new tria l or
denied , th e remainin g
recor d on appea l may b
for
extension of time
reconsideratio n i s filed
perio d withi n which t o
e too shor t and , henc e
to file the record on
an d
file a
a motion
appeal
ay
be granted, subject t o th e requirement s summarize d
in th e Resolution o f May 30 , 1986 . A s th e court state d
in th e cas e o f Roque
vs. Gunigundo, 'th e thirty-da y
perio d ma y b e extende d because , wher e th e recor d i s
voluminou s o r th e
a p p e l l a n t ha s othe r p r e
s s i n g
matter s t o atten d to , i t ma y no t b e practicabl e t
o
submit th e recor d o n appea l withi n th e reglementar y
period '
(89 SCRA 178 , 183) .
3)
APPEAL S BY PETITION FOR REVIEW TO

THE COURT OF APPEALS .
Th e fina l
court in an appea
of a metropolita n
municipa l circui t
Cour t o f Appeal
judgmen t or orde r o f a regiona l tria l

l from th e final judgmen t or orde r
tria l court , municipa l tria l cour t an d
tria l court , may b e appeale d t o th e
s
t h r o u g h a petitio n
for revie
w
in accordanc e
wit h Sectio n 2 2 o f B P No .
129
an
d
Section 22(b) o f th e Interi m Rules , or t o thi s Cour t
t h r o u g h a p e t i t i o n for revie w o n c e r t i o r a
r i i n
accordance wit h Rul e 4 5 o f th e Rule s o f Cour t an d
Section 2 5 o f th e Interi m Rules .
Th e reaso n fo
r
extending th e perio d for th e filing o f a recor d on appea l
is als o applicabl e to th e filing o f a petitio n for review
with th e
Cour t of Appeals .
The period for filing a
petition
for review
is
fifteen days.
If a
motion
for
547
----------------------- Page 548----------------------RULE 40
SEC. 9
reconsideratio n i s filed wit h an d denie d by a regiona l

tria l court , th e movan t ha s only th e remainin g perio d
withi n whic h t o file a petitio n for review .
Hence , i t
may be
Appeal s
necessary to file a motion wit h th e Cour t of

for extension
of time to file such petition for
review.
4)
APPEAL S FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIE S

TO TH E COURT OF APPEALS .
In a n appea l
Court o f Appeal s unde
Section 22(c) o f th e
be take n by filing a
Appeal s
an d w i t
fifteen
days from
or judgment ; or in
is filed withi n sai
notice
of the
reconsideration
No
extension
needed,
much
5)
In
from quasi-judicia l bodie s t o th e

r Republi c Act No . 5434 an d
Interi m Rules , th e appea l shal l
notice of appeal wit h th e Cour t o f
h th e quasi-judicia l
body
within
notice of the ruling, award , decision

cas e a motio n for reconsideratio n
d period , the n within ten days from
resolution
denying
the
motion
for
(Section s
of time
an d
to file
less
such
No .
notice
5434) .
of appeal is
allowed.
A P P E A L S
B Y
SUPREME COURT .
a n
3 of R.A .
appea l b y
CERTIORAR I
certiorar i t o
T O
thi s
Cour t
TH E
unde r
Rul e 4 5 o f th e Rule s o f Court , Section 2 5 o f th e Interi m

Rule s an d Sectio n 7 o f PD No . 1606 , a part y ma y file
a petitio n for revie w on certiorar i o f th e judgmen t o f
a regiona l tria l court , th e Intermediat e Appellat e
Court , or th e Sandiganbaya n within fifteen days from
notice o f judgmen t or o f th e denia l o f hi s motion for
reconsideratio n filed i n du e time , an d payin g a t th e
same tim e th e correspondin g docke t fee (Section 1 o f
Rul e 45) .
In othe r words , in the event a motion for
reconsideration
is filed and
denied,
the period
of
fifteen
days
begins
to run
again from
notice
of denial.
(See Codill a vs . Estenzo , 9 7 SCRA 351 ; Turinga n vs .

Cacdac , 112 SCRA 634) .
548
----------------------- Page 549----------------------RULE 40
9
SEC.

A
motion
for
extension
of time
to
file a
petition
for review on certiorari may be filed wit h th e Suprem e

Court
within
the reglementary period,
paying
at
same
time
the
corresponding
docket
the
fee.
Copies o f th e motion for extensio n o f tim e an d o f

th e subsequen t petitio n for review on certiorar i mus t
b e serve d on th e lower cour t an d on th e advers e party .
6)
PERIOD OF EXTENSION OF TIME T O FILE

PETITION FOR REVIEW .
Beginning
one
thi s Decision ,
an
month
after
extensio n
the
of only
promulgation
fifteen
days
of
for
filing a petitio n for review may b e grante d by th e

Court o f Appeals , sav e in exceptionally meritoriou s
cases .
Th e motion for extensio n o f tim e mus t b e filed
an d th e correspondin g docke t fee pai d withi n th e
reglementar y perio d o f appeal .
Copies o f th e motion for extensio n o f tim e an d o f
th e subsequen t petitio n for review mus t b e serve d on
th e regiona l tria l cour t an d o n th e advers e party. "
3 . However , ther e hav e bee n subsequen t change s
in th e Rule s which affected th e procedur e outline d in som e
paragraph s o f thi s resume .
Thus , for a petition for review
of a judgmen t or fina l orde r o f th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t t o
th e Cour t o f Appeal s subjec t o f Pars . (3) an d (5) , se e
Rule 4 2 an d th e note s therein .
With respec t t o Par . (4)
on appeal s from quasi-judicia l bodie s t o th e Cour t o f
Appeals , se e Rul e 43 .
549
----------------------- Page 550----------------------RUL E
APPEA L
REGIONA L
Sectio n 1 .
t a k e n
f r o m
4 1
FRO M
TRIA L
Subject of appeal. A n
j u d g m e n t
o r
TH E
COURT S
appea l ma y b e
f i n a l
o r d
e r
t h a t
c o m p l e t e l y d i s p o s e s o f t h e case , o r o f a part
icula r
m a t t e r t h e r e i n w h e n d e c l a r e d b y t h e s e Rule s t
o b e
a p p e a l a b l e .
N o a p p e a l m a y b e t a k e n from :
(a)
relie f o r
A n
a n y
o r d e r
d e n y i n g
s i m i l a r
p e t i t i o n
m o t i o n
fo r
s e e k i n g
r e l
i e f fro m
j u d g m e n t ;
A n
(c)
a n
A n
i n g
(b)
i n t e r l o c u t o r y
o r d e r
order ;
d i s w a l l o w i n g
o r
d i s m i s s
a p p e a l ;
(d)
A n
sid e
o r d e r
d e n y i n g a
m o t i o n
t o
se t
a
judgmen t b y consent , confessio n o r compromis e
o n t h e g r o u n d o f fraud , m i s t a k e
o r dur
ess ,
o r
a n y
o t h e r g r o u n d
A n
o r d e r
v i t i a t i n g consent
;
(e)
o f e x e c u t i o n ;
(f)
A j u d g m e n t o r
fina l o r d e r
fo r o r
a g a i n s t
o n e o r m o r e o f severa l partie s o r i n separat e
c l a i m s ,
i m s
c o u n t e r c l a i m s ,
c r o s s - c l a
a n d
third-part y c o m p l a i n t s , w h i l e th e mai n cas
e
i s
l o w s
p e n d i n g
u n l e s s
t h e
c o u r t
a l
a n
a p p e a l therefrom ;
(g)
A n
o r d e r
w i t h o u t
prejudice .
an d
d i s m i s s i n g
I n a n y
o f t h e f o r e g o i
e s ,
t h e
aggrieve d part y ma y fil e a n appropriat e
actio n a s p r o v i d e d i n Rul e 66
A.M.
No.
07-7-12-SC,
effective
Dec.
n g
a n
a c t i o n
c i r c u m s t a n c
specia l civi l
(As amended
27,
i n
2007)
550
----------------------- Page 551----------------------RULE 41
. 1
APPEAL FROM THE
SEC
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

N O T E S
1. Thi s
ne w
provisio n
i n
th e
Rule s
clarifie s
an d
reiterate s th e judgmen t or final order tha t may b e appeale d

from, an d specifie s th e interlocutor y or othe r order s from
which n o appea l ca n b e taken .
I n th e latte r instance , t
h e
aggrieved part y ma y resor t t o a specia l civil action unde r
Rule 65 , tha t is , a petitio n for certiorar i or prohibition and ,
in th e cas e o f an orde r disallowin g or dismissin g an appeal ,
a petitio n for mandamus .
Par . (g) refer s
provide d for in Rul e
absolutely prohibite d bu
of th e cas e an d th e
2
dispose
by th e
s
final,
case
.
vs.
t o th e severa l o
36 , an d appeal s
t depen d upon th e
soun d discretion o f
r separat e judgment s
therefro m ar e not
circumstance s
th e court .
. An orde r i s considere d interlocutor y i f it doe s no t

o f th e cas e bu t leave s somethin g els e t o b e don e
tria l cour t on th e merit s o f th e case .
An orde r i
for purpose s o f appeal ,
(se e
CA,
Not e
et al,
i f it dispose s o f th e
G.R.
unde r Sec.
No.
1,
60036,
Jan.
Rule
27,
entir e
39; Investments,
Inc
1987).
3 . Wher e th e orde r i s interlocutory , th e movan t ha s

t o wai t
for t h e j u d g m e n t an d th e a p p e a l from
t
h e
judgment , in th e cours e o f which appea l h e ca n assig n a s
error th e sai d interlocutory order .
Th e interlocutory order
cannot b e appeale d from separatel y from th e judgmen t
(Mapua
vs. Suburban
Theaters,
Inc., 81 Phil.
311).
Th
e
genera l rul e i s tha t wher e th e interlocutor y orde r wa s
rendere d withou t or in exces s o f jurisdictio n or wit h grav e
abuse o f discretion , th e remed y i s certiorari , prohibition
or mandamu s dependin g on th e fact s o f th e case .
th e
4 . Wher e
appellat e
th e orde r appeale d from i s interlocutory ,

cour t ca n dismis s th e appea l eve n i f n o
objection theret o wa s file d by th e appelle e in eithe r th e

tria l or appellat e cour t
(Sec.
l[ij, Rule 50; Abesames
vs
.
Garcia,
98 Phil.
769).
551
----------------------- Page 552----------------------RULE 41

1
5. Wher e th e defendan t ha s been improperly declare d

in defaul t an d ha s perfecte d hi s appea l from th e judgmen t
SEC.
by default , h e ca n stil l avai l o f certiorar i t o preven t th e

carryin g ou t o f th e wri t o f executio n improperl y issue d by
th e tria l cour t
(Omico
Mining
&
Industrial
Corp.
vs.
Vallejos, etc., et al., L-38974, Mar.
25, 1975).
6 . A major chang e ha s bee n introduce d in Par . (b) o f
thi s section whic h declare s a s non-appealabl e a n orde r
denying a petitio n for relie f from judgment .
Thi s change
s
th e rul e in Sec . 2 o f th e former Rul e 4 1 providin g tha t a
"judgment denyin g relie f u n d e r Rul e 3 8 i s subjec t t o
appeal , an d in th e cours e thereof , a part y ma y als o assai l
th e judgmen t o n th e merits. "
I n t e r p r e t i n g t h a t provision , th e S u p r e m e Cou
r t
explained tha t i t doe s no t mea n tha t i n suc h appea l th e
appellat e cour t ma y revers e or modify sai d judgmen t on
th e merit s sinc e th e judgmen t involve d i s alread y final
an d executory .
I t pointe d ou t tha t th e purpos e o f th e Rul
e
i s t o enabl e th e appellat e cour t t o determin e no t only th e
existenc e o f an y
an d primaril y th
or defense , a s
ur t
finds tha t on e o
o f th e four ground s relie d upon , bu t als o

e meri t o f th e petitioner' s caus e o f action
th e cas e ma y be .
I f th e appellat e co
f th e ground s exist s and , wha t i s o f decisiv e
importance , tha t th e petitione r ha s

action o r defense , i t wil l revers e
set asid e th e judgmen t i n th e mai
case t o th e lower cour t for a new
th e the n Sec . 7 o f Rul e 38 .
eithe
th e
n cas
tria l
r a good caus e o f
denia l o r dismissal ,
e an d reman d th e
in accordanc e wit h
On th e othe r hand , i f th e petitio n for relie f i s agains t

an orde r disallowin g a n appea l for havin g bee n filed out
of tim e an d th e petitio n i s denied , in th e appea l from such
denia l o r dismissal , th e appellat e cour t m u s t als o b e
apprise d o f th e meri t o f th e cas e o f th e part y wh o assail s
such denia l or dismissal .
I f th e appellat e cour t find s
a
justifiabl e groun d an d a meritoriou s case , it wil l revers e
th e denia l o r dismissa l an d allow th e appea l from th e
552
----------------------- Page 553----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 2
APPEAL FROM THE

decision
in
th e
mai n
cas e
(Servicewide
Specialists,
Inc.
vs. Sheriff of Manila, et al.,
986).
G.R. No.
74586,
Oct.
17,
Althoug h
t h e p r o c e d u r e h a s now
bee n
c h a
n g e d
becaus e th e aforestate d putativ e error s o f th e lower cour t
can n o longer b e th e subject o f appea l bu t may b e raise d
for revie w b y th e highe r cour t unde r th e appropriat e
extraordinary wri t unde r Rul e 65 , virtually th e sam e relief s
suggested in th e aforesai d cas e ar e substantiall y available .
In th e first instance , th e final or executory judgmen t o f
th e lower cour t shal l not , o f course , b e reverse d or modified
bu t i f th e requirement s for relie f therefro m ar e present ,
such judgmen t shal l b e se t asid e b y th e highe r cour t
handlin g th e certiorar i case , which shal l the n hea r an d
decide th e sam e (instea d o f remandin g it t o th e lower court )
as i f a timely motion for new tria l or reconsideratio n ha d
been grante d
(Sec. 6, Rule 38).
In th e secon d instance , i f th e petitio n for relie f which
wa s denie d i s agains t an order disallowin g an appeal , whil e
th e review thereo f shal l now b e throug h a petitio n for
m a n d a m u s ,
i n t h a t s p e c i a l civi l actio n
t h e o
r d e r
disallowing th e appea l can b e reverse d an d th e lower court
shall b e require d t o give du e cours e t o th e appea l (Sec. 7,
Rule
38).
Sec .
2 .
Modes of appeal.
(a)
Ordinary appeal. Th e appea l t o th e Cour t
o f Appeal s i n case s decide d b y th e Regiona l Tria l
Court i n th e
e x e r c i s e o f it s origina l j u r i s d i
c t i o n
shall b e take n b y filin g a notic e o f appea l wit h th e
cour t w h i c h rendere d th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r
appeale d fro m an d servin g a cop y thereo f upo n th e
advers e party . N o recor d o n appea l shal l b e require d
e x c e p t i n specia l p r o c e e d i n g s an d othe r c a s e
s o f
multipl e o r separat e appeal s wher e th e la w o r thes e
Rule s s o require .
I n s u c h c a s e s , th e recor d
o n
appeal shal l b e file d an d serve d i n lik e manner .
553
----------------------- Page 554----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 2
(b) Petition for review. Th e appea l t o th e Cour t

o f A p p e a l s i n c a s e s d e c i d e d b y t h e Regiona l
Tria l
Cour t i n th e e x e r c i s e o f it s appellat e jurisdictio n
shal l b e
b y p e t i t i o n fo r r e v i e w
i n a c c o r d a n c
e wit h
Rul e 42 .
(c) Appeal by certiorari. I n al l c a s e s w h e r e onl y
q u e s t i o n s o f la w ar e raise d o r involved , th e appea l
shal l b e t o t h e S u p r e m e Cour t b y petitio n fo r revie w
o n certiorar i i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h Rul e 45 .
(n )
NOTE S
1.
Thi s ne w section provide s for th e different mode s
of appea l from judgment s or fina l order s o f th e Regiona l
Tria l Cour t t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s o r th e Suprem e Court .
Th e firs t mod e i s th e ordinar y appeal , sometime s
referre d t o a s a n a p p e a l b y w r i t o f e r r o r du
e t o th e
requiremen t t h a t th e brie f filed for t h a t purpos e mus
t
contain a n assignmen t o f errors .
Thi s
t
th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t rendere d th e judgmen t
order in th e civil action or specia l proceedin g in th e
of it s original jurisdictio n an d th e appea l i s
presuppose s tha
o r final
exercis e
take n t o th e
Court o f Appeal s on question s o f fact or mixe d question s

of fact an d law .
Th e appea l i s take n by notic e o f appea l
or b y recor d o n a p p e a l .
appea l
governe d b y Rul e 41 .
Thi s
i s
t h e
mod e
o f
Th e secon d mod e o f appea l ha s t o b e observe d wher e

th e questione d judgmen t o r fina l orde r wa s rendere d b y
th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t in th e exercis e o f it s appellat
e
jurisdictio n ove r a judgmen t or fina l orde r in a civil action
or specia l proceedin g originally commence d in an d decide d
by a lower court .
Th e appea l i s take n by a petitio n for
review filed wit h th e Cour t o f Appeal s on question s o f fact ,
of law , or on mixe d question s o f fact an d law , an d
s
governe d by Rul e 42 .
554
----------------------- Page 555----------------------RULE 41
2
APPEAL FROM THE
SEC.

Th e thir d mod e i s appea l b y certiorar i take n t o th e
Supreme Cour t only on question s o f law from a judgmen t
or final order rendere d in a civil action or specia l proceedin g
by th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t in th e exercis e o f it s origina l
jurisdiction .
Th e appea l i s take n by filing a petitio n for
review o n certiorar i wit h th e Suprem e Cour t subjec t t o
th e provision s o f Rul e 45 .
2 . Althoug h th e
"petition
for
ter m
review" jus t
use d
lik e
i n
tha t
th e
in
secon d
appeal s
mod e
from
i s
th e
quasi-judicial agencie s unde r Rul e 43 , i t shoul d no t b e

confused wit h th e "petition for review on certiorari" unde r
th e thir d mod e whic h i s a distinc t procedur e unde r Rul e
45 . Nor shoul d th e us e o f th e wor d "certiorari " in th e latte r
b e mistake n for th e specia l civil action for certiorar i in
Rul e 6 5 whic h i s no t a mod e o f appea l bu t an origina l
action .
3 . I t bear s reiteratin g tha t wha t ar e provide d for i n
Sec. 2 ar e mode s o f appeal , an d althoug h th e wor d "review "
i s use d in th e secon d an d thir d modes , the y ar e strictl y i
n
th e natur e o f appellat e
respectiv e Rules .
proceeding s
regulate d
b y
thei r
Thi s cavea t i s wort h stressin g sinc e in America n law ,

ther e i s a fundamenta l differenc e betwee n an "appeal " an d
an action t o "review. "
It i s hel d ther e tha t in th e cas e
o f
appeal , th e tribuna l b y which th e first determinatio n wa s
mad e i s not a part y t o th e proceedin g for review , whil e in
a n actio n t o review ,
t h e t r i b u n a l whic h m a d e t
h e
determination i s a part y t o th e proceedin g for review
(Milwaukee
County
vs. Industrial
Commission,
238
Wis
.
94, 279 N. W. 655).
On tha t aspect regardin g th e position
of th e lower tribunal , an d with th e amendmen t o f Rul e
45 , th e aforesai d distinction regardin g an appea l an d
a
review woul d now apply t o th e rule s on appea l in thes e
revise d Rules , wit h th e matte r o f an action for review
bein g consonan t wit h th e provision s o f an d th e practic e
involving Rule s 6 4 an d 65 .
556
----------------------- Page 556----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 3
Sec .
3.
Period of
corpus cases.
T h e
a
t h i n
(15)
d a y s f r o m
n o t i
fina l
orde r a p p e a l e d from .
required , t h e a p p e l l a n t
an d a recor d o n a p p e a l w
ordinary appeal; appeal

p p e a l s h a l l b e
c e o f t h e
in habeas
t a k e n w i
j u d g m e n t
o r
Wher e a recor d o n appea l i s

shal l fil e a notic e o f appea l
i t h i n thirt y (30) d a y s fro m
notic e o f th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l order .

r , a n
appea l i n habeas corpus c a s e s shal l b e
H o w e v e
t a k e n
withi n
forty-eigh t
(48 )
h o u r s
fro m
notic e
o f j u d g m e n t
o r
final orde r a p p e a l e d from .

Th e
p e r i o d o
t e d b y
a t i m e l y m o t i o n
r a t i o n .
N o m o t i o n fo r e x t e
fo r
n e w
t r i a l o r r e c
l o w e d .
(n)
(As
amended
effective
July
15,
2001)
f a p p e a l
fo r
n e w
shal l
tria l
b e
o r
i n t e r r u p
r e c o n s i d e
n s i o n o f tim e t o fil e a m o t i o n
o n s i d e r a t i o n
in
A.M.
No.
s h a l l
b e
a l
01-103-SC,
NOTE S
1. Th e prohibitio n in th e secon d paragrap h o f thi s
section agains t th e filin g o f a motio n for extensio n o f tim e
t o file a motio n for new tria l or reconsideratio n i s take n
from
th e
rule s
first
lai d dow n
in Habaluyas
Ente
rprises,
et al. vs. IAC, et al. (G.R . No . 70895 , Ma y 30 , 1986) an d
later reiterate d b y th e Suprem e Cour t i n it s resolutio n o f
Apri l 7 , 1988 .
2 . Th e reglementar y perio d for appea l i s reckone d
from notic e o f th e judgmen t or order , or an y subsequen t
amendmen t thereo f
(Capistrano vs.
Corina, et al.,
93 Phil.
710).
Th e perio d t o appea l ma y b e extende d
(Bue
va vs.
Surtida, et al., L-23617, Aug. 26,
1967), bu t suc h extensio
n
is addresse d t o th e soun d discretio n o f th e cour t
(So
cco vs.
Garcia, L-18321,
Oct. 31,
1962)
an d th e mer e filing
an d
pendenc y o f th e motio n for extensio n o f tim e t o perfect
t h e a p p e a l d o e s n o t s u s p e n d t h e r u n n i n g
o f th e
r e g l e m e n t a r y p e r i o d
(Bello,
et
al.
vs.
Fern
andez,
L-16970,
Jan.
30,
1962).
556
----------------------- Page 557----------------------RULE 41
3
APPEAL FROM THE
SEC.

3 . A motion t o exten d th e perio d for filing th e recor d
on appea l mus t b e filed withi n th e 30-day reglementar y
perio d for perfectin g th e appeal .
I t shoul d b e hear d an d
resolve d promptly , or befor e th e laps e o f sai d period , s o a s
t o appris e th e appellan t whethe r o r not hi s obligation t o

file th e recor d on appea l withi n th e sai d perio d i s dispense d
wit h
(Semira us. Enriquez, 88 Phil. 288).
Th e partie s or
thei r attorney s shoul d b e immediately notified o f th e orde r
issued on th e matte r s o tha t they may avai l themselve s o f
th e prope r remed y i f it i s denied .
In cas e it i s grante d
an d th e cour t fail s t o stat e whe n th e extensio n shoul d
commence t o run , it shoul d b e joine d t o th e origina l perio d
or tha t fixed by law an d mus t b e compute d from th e dat e
following th e expiratio n thereof .
I f th e orde r grantin g
th e extensio n i s issue d an d notic e thereo f serve d after th e
expiration o f th e perio d fixed by law , th e extensio n mus t
b e compute d from th e dat e o f notic e o f th e orde r grantin g
it (Alejandro
us. Endencia,
64 Phil.
321).
Th e filing o f suc h motion , however , doe s not suspen d
th e runnin g o f th e perio d for perfectin g th e appea l (Escolin
us. Garduho,
57 Phil.
294;
Garcia
us.
Buenauentura,
74 Phil. 611; King us. Joe, et al., L-23617, Aug. 26, 1967),
and th e appellan t ha s th e dut y t o ascertai n th e statu s o f
hi s motion , for i f n o action i s take n thereo n or it i s denie d
after th e laps e o f th e period , th e righ t t o appea l i s lost
(Cumplido
us. Mendoza,
et al, L-20265,
June
30, 1964).
When an appellan t ask s th e court t o exten d th e perio d for
perfectin g hi s appea l an d h e himsel f fixes th e extension
perio d in hi s motion , th e motion i s deeme d denie d i f n o
action i s take n thereo n an d th e perio d thereafte r lapse s
(Reyes, et al. vs. Sta. Maria, et al, L-29554, Nou. 20, 1972;
cf. Berkenkotter us.
CA, et al, L-36629, Sept. 28,
1973).
4 .
still ha
provide d
CA, et
Supreme
Even i f th e appea l wa s filed out o f time ,

s jurisdiction t o admi t an d give du e cours e
ther e ar e justifiabl e reason s therefor
al, 74 Phil. 235).
Th e tren d of th e ruling
Court in matter s pertainin g t o th e timelines s
th e court
t o it ,
(Reyes us.
s of th e
o f
567
----------------------- Page 558----------------------RULE 41
3
SEC.
th e perfection o f an appea l i s t o afford th e litigan t th e

amplest opportunit y t o presen t hi s cas e freed from th e
constraint s of technicalitie s
(Rodriguez, et al. vs. CA, e
t
al., L-37522, Nov. 28, 1975).
Thus , th e filing of an appea l
beyon d th e reglementar y perio d ha s bee n allowe d i n some
cases , in th e exercis e o f th e equity jurisdiction o f th e courts ,
wher e a stringen t applicatio n o f th e rul e woul d not serv e
th e demand s o f substantia l justice .
Th e rule s o f procedur e
ar e
since
t o
no t t o b e
the y
ar e
applie d
designe d
in a ver y rigi d or technica l sens e

t o
hel p
secur e justice ,
not
overrid e th e sam e
.
No.
58651,
July
(Velasco, et al.
30,
vs.
Gayapa, et al.,
G.R
1987).
5.
In Neypes,
et al. vs. CA, et al.
(G.R .
141524
,
Sept . 14, 2005) , th e Suprem e Cour t announce d it s adoption
of th e so-calle d "fresh perio d rule " wit h th e avowe d inten t
t o standardiz e th e appea l period s provide d i n th e Rule s
an d t o afford litigant s fair opportunit y t o appea l thei r case s
throug h thi s extensio n o f time , grante d o n justifiabl e an d
compelling reasons .
Th e essenc e o f thi s new rul e i s th e libera l gran t o f a
fresh perio d o f 1 5 day s withi n whic h th e aggrieve d part y
in th e cas e ma y file a notic e o f appea l in th e Regiona
l
Tria l Court , counte d from receip t o f th e orde r dismissin g a
motion for ne w tria l or reconsideration .
Whil e seemingly
involving a sligh t departur e from th e provision s o f th e
presen t Sec . 3 o f Rul e 41 , th e effect thereo f i s in f
act
complementary t o th e sam e bu t ma y justifiably b e invoke d
only i n th e interes t o f substantia l justice .
T o standardiz e th e differen t appea l period s i n th e
Rules , thi s "fresh perio d rule : wa s mad e applicabl e t o Rul e
4 0 governin g appeal s from th e Municipa l Tria l Court s t o
th e Regiona l Tria l Court ; Rul e 4 2 on petition s for review
from th e Regiona l Tria l Court s t o th e Cour t o f Appeals ;
Rul e 4 3 o n appeal s from quasi-judicia l agencie s (now ,
except th e Cour t o f Ta x Appeals ) t o th e Cour t o f Appeals ;
an d Rul e 4 5 governin g appeal s by certiorar i t o th e Suprem e
558
----------------------- Page 559----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 3
APPEAL FROM THE

Court .
Thi s new rul e
thereb y
make s th e appea l perio d
uniform by bein g invariably counte d from receip t in th e

case therei n of th e order denying the motion for new trial,
motion for
reconsideration
or any final order or
resolut
ion.
The Cour t thu s recapitulate d that , i n th e foregoin g
situations , a part y litigan t may eithe r file hi s notic e o f
appeal withi n 1 5 day s from receipt o f th e Regiona l Tria l
Court' s decision , or withi n 15 day s from receipt o f th e orde r
d e n y i n g hi s m o t i o n for
ne w
t r i a l o r m o t i o n
for
reconsideratio n whic h thereb y assume s th e rol e o f th e
"final order. " Havin g filed thei r appea l 5 day s from receip t
of sai d order , th e appea l o f petitioner s in sai d cas e wa s
within th e "fresh " appea l period .
The sam e rul e wa s followed in Spouses De los Santos

vs. Vda de Mangubat (G.R . No .
149508 , Oct .
19, 20
07)
wher e th e Cour t reiterate d th e foregoing rational e an d
procedur e t o giv e du e cours e t o th e notic e o f appea l filed
by th e petitioner s withi n th e fresh perio d o f 1 5 day s
grante d therein . Although admittedly ther e wer e existin g
procedura l rule s which coul d hav e barre d th e outrigh t
application o f th e Neypes case , th e Cour t explaine d tha t
such
p r o c e d u r a l objection s
ma y
b e s u s p e n d e d
o r
disregarde d t o promot e th e end s o f justice ; an d tha t sai d
adjective provision s wer e not insuperabl e bu t admitte d o f
exceptions t o giv e way t o th e new rul e in Neypes.
It accordingly opte d t o se t asid e wha t it considere d
undu e technicalitie s which woul d frustrat e rathe r tha n
promot e th e end s o f justice .
Parenthetically , whil e th e
Court state d in thi s late r cas e tha t i t ha d "amende d th e
Rule s o f Cour t on th e appea l perio d in Neypes," it could
not hav e been referrin g t o an unpublishe d amendmen t o f
th e wording s o f th e Rule s o f Cour t itself , bu t t o a
n
amendment o f th e doctrina l precep t thereof , tha t is , not
th e coda l tex t bu t th e jurisprudentia l precedent ,
(cf.
Makati Irs. Co Inc. vs. Reyes
etc. et al., G.R. No. 167903,
Aug.
6,
2008).
559
----------------------- Page 560----------------------RULE 41

SEC. 3
6 . Wher e th e tria l cour t dismisse d th e complaint ,

the n se t asid e suc h dismissa l order , bu t o n motion for
reconsideratio n b y th e defendan t i t agai n ordere d th e
dismissal o f th e complaint , th e perio d t o appea l i s reckone d
from receip t o f th e secon d orde r o f dismissa l
(Lucas,
e t al.
vs. Mariano,
et al., L-29157,
April
27,
1972).
7. Wher e th e
th e complain t an d
e n t e r e d a n o t h e
o d for
perfectin g a n appea l
of dismissa l
(Vda.
Jan.
29,
1975).
8.
Th e
tria l cour t se t asid e a n orde r dismissin g

grante d a ne w tria l bu t thereafte r
r o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l , t h e peri
run s from th e dat e o f th e secon d order
de Haberer vs. Martinez, et al., L-39386,
approva l by th e tria l cour t o f th e recor d on
appea l eve n i f th e
perio d
for th e appea l ha s expired ,
i s
tantamoun t t o a vali d orde r grantin g th e extensio n praye d

for b y
a p p e l l a n t i f a n y s u c h m o t i o n h a s bee n
file d
(Berkenkotter
th e
dismissa l o f
denia l o f th
question t h a
h a d g r a v
n g suc h
extensio n
-29736,
Oct.
31,
9 .
vs.
CA,
et
th e appea l b y
e extensio n praye
t ca n aris e i s
e l y a b u s e d
(PVTA
vs.
al.,
supra).
th e tria
d for , in
whethe r o
it s d i s
De
l cour
whic h
r no t
c r e t
los
Conversely ,
t
constitute s a
cas e th e only
th e tria l court
i o n i n d e n y i
Angeles,
et
al.,
1974).
Wher e th e motio n t o se t asid e th e judgmen t i s filed
on th e las t da y o f th e perio d t o appeal , tha t da y shoul d b

e
excluded .
Hence , whe n th e orde r denyin g th e motion i s
received , appellan t stil l ha s on e da y t o perfec t hi s appeal .
Thi s one-da y perio d shoul d b e compute d i n accordanc e
wit h Rul e 2 8 by excludin g th e da y o f receip t an d includin g
th e nex t da y
(Mara, Inc.
vs. CA, et al, L-26584, July
31,
1969).
10. A s a rule , i t i s th e appellat e cour t whic h
wil l
determin e whethe r th e appea l i s pro forma,
frivolo
u s or
dilatory an d thereafte r dismis s th e appeal , a s th e tria l court
ha s th e ministeria l dut y t o elevat e th e record s i f th e appea l
560
----------------------- Page 561----------------------RULE 41
4-5
APPEAL FROM THE
SECS.

i s duly perfected .
However , i f th e tria l cour t dismisse d
th e appea l becaus e i t wa s clearl y demonstrate d t o b e
dilatory an d frivolous , suc h orde r wil l not b e disturbe d by
th e appellat e cour t
(De la Cruz, et al. vs. Blanco, et al
.,
73 Phil. 596).
Mandamu s will no t lie t o compe l th e Cour t
of Firs t Instanc e t o give du e cours e t o th e appea l unde r
said circumstance s
vs. Ballester
os,
L-19161,
April
29,
1966).
11. For appeal s from decision s o f th e Regiona l Tria l
Court s unde r B.P . Big . 129 , se e Sees . 9 , 22 an d 3 9 thereof .
Sec .
4.
Appellate court docket and other lawful fees.
W i t h i n
t h e p e r i o d fo r t a k i n g a n a p p e a l , t
h e
appellan t shal l pa y t o th e cler k o f th e cour t w h i c h
rendere d th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r appeale d from ,
th e ful l a m o u n t o f th e appellat e cour t docke t an d
othe r lawfu l fees .

Proo f o f p a y m e n t o f sai d
ee s
shall b e transmitte d t o th e appellat e cour t togethe r
wit h th e origina l recor d o r th e recor d o n appeal ,
(n)
Sec . 5 . Notice of appeal. Th e notic e o f appea l

shall indicat e th e partie s t o th e appeal , specif y th e
j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r o r par t thereo f appeale d
from, specif y th e cour t t o whic h th e appea l i s bein g
t a k e n , an d stat e th e materia l date s
s h o w i n g
th e
timelines s o f th e appeal .
(4a)
NOTE S
1. Eve n if no notic e of appea l wa s filed, such defect
may b e disregarde d i f ther e wa s a recor d on appea l duly
filed, a s th e sam e i s equivalent to a notice of appea l
(Ca
lo,
et al. vs. CFI of Agusan,
98 Phil. 420; se e Phil. Resources
Dev. Corp. vs. NAW ASA, L-12803, Feb. 27, 1962). Hence ,
th e failur e to serv e a copy o f th e notic e o f appea l to th e
adverse part y wh o was , however , serve d with a copy o f
561
----------------------- Page 562----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 6
th e recor d o n appea l wherei n suc h notic e o f appea l i s

embodied , doe s no t impai r th e righ t o f appea l
(
Director of
Lands,
et al. vs. Reyes, et al., L-27594, Nov.
28,
1975).
2 .
Unde r th e Interi m Rules , a s hereinbefor e stated ,
appea l bond s ar e n o longer require d (Par. 18) an d record s
on appea l ar e require d only i n certai n case s hereinafte r
discusse d
(Par. 19fbJ; Sec. 39, B.P. Big. 129), th e genera l
rul e now bein g t h a t only a notic e o f appea l i s require d t o
perfec t a n
Sec .
appeal .
6.
Record on
appeal; form
and contents
thereof.
T h e
f u l l n a m e s
o f a l l t h e
p a r t i e
t o
t h e
p r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l b e s t a t e d
i n t h e c a p t
o n o f th e
recor d o n a p p e a l a n d i t shal l i n c l u d e t h e j u d g m
n t
o r fina l o r d e r fro m w h i c h t h e a p p e a l i s t a k e n
nd ,
i n
c h r o n o l o g i c a l
o r d e r ,
c o p i e s
o f
o
s
i
e
a
n
l y
s u c
p l e a d i n
utor y
o r d e r s
m e n t o r
final orde r
h
g s ,
a s
p e t i t i o n s , m o t i o n s a n d al l
ar e
r e l a t e d t o t h e
interloc
a p p e a l e d j u d g
fo r t h e prope r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e issu e
i n v o l v e d , t o g e t h e r w i t h s u c h d a t a a s wil l s h o
w tha t
t h e a p p e a l w a s p e r f e c t e d o n time .
I f a n
i s s u e o f
fac t i s t o b e r a i s e d o n a p p e a l , t h e recor d o n appe
a l
s h a l l
i n c l u d e
b y
r e f e r e n c e
a l l t h e
e
v i d e n c e ,
t e s t i m o n i a l a n d d o c u m e n t a r y , t a k e n u p o n t h e
issu e
i n v o l v e d .
T h e
r e f e r e n c e
s h a l l
s p e c
i f y
t h e
d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e
b y t h e e x h i b i t n u
m b e r s o r
letter s b y w h i c h i t w a s identifie d w h e n a d m i t t e d o r
offere d a t t h e h e a r i n g , a n d t h e t e s t i m o n i a l e v
i d e n c e
b y t h e n a m e s o f t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g w i t n e s s
e s .
I f
t h e w h o l e
t e s t i m o n i a l an d
d o c u m e n t a r y
e v i d e n c e
i n t h e c a s e i s t o b e i n c l u d e d , a s t a t e m e
n t t o tha t
e f f e c t w i l l b e s u f f i c i e n t w i t h o u t
m e n t i o n
i n g t h e
n a m e s o f t h e w i t n e s s e s o r th e n u m b e r s o r letter s
o f
e x h i b i t s . Ever y r e c o r d o n a p p e a l e x c e e d i n g t w
e n t y
(20) p a g e s m u s t c o n t a i n a subjec t index .
(6a )
562
----------------------- Page 563----------------------RULE 4 1
6
APPEAL FROM THE
SEC.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT S

N O T E S
1. Th e requiremen t tha t th e recor d o n appea l mus t
show on it s face tha t th e appea l wa s perfecte d on tim e i s
mandator y an d jurisdictiona l and , i f not complie d with ,
th e appellat e cour t acquire s n o jurisdiction an d th e appea l
mus t be
dismisse d
(Araneta
vs. Madrigal
&
Co., Inc.
,
L-26227-28,
Oct.
25,
1966;
DBP
vs.
Santos,
L-26387,
Sept. 27,
1966; Sec.
lfaj, Rule 50).
2 . Where , however , th e motion t o dismis s th e appea l
on thi s groun d wa s filed mor e tha n 6 year s after th e filing

of appellee' s brief , withou t justification for suc h delay , th e
motion wa s properly denie d
(Sarmiento vs. Salud, et al.,
[Resolution
Aug.
18,
on
Motion
for
Reconsideration],
L-25221,
1972).
3 . Th e dat e whe n th e origina l typewritte n recor d o n

appeal wa s filed in th e tria l cour t appear s on th e dat e o f
th e receip t thereo f a s stampe d thereo n upon it s receipt .
Hence , th e filing o f th e origina l typewritte n recor d on
appea l i n th e lower court , bein g a posterio r ac t t o it s
preparation , th e dat e o f th e filing thereo f i s not require d
t o b e state d therei n and , consequently , will not appea r in
th e printe d recor d on appea l filed in th e appellat e court .
The only exception wherei n th e dat e o f filing in th e tria l
court o f th e origina l recor d on appea l i s require d t o b e
stated therei n i s whe n an amende d recor d on appea l i s
subsequently permitte d t o b e filed, for the n th e dat e o f
th e filin g o f th e origina l recor d o n appea l withi n th
e
reglementar y perio d will show whethe r th e appea l wa s
seasonably
perfecte d
(Valera
vs. CA,
et al., L-29416,
Jan. 28,
1971).
4 . Sec . 6 , Rul e 4 1 obviously refer s t o th e recor d on
appeal filed with th e tria l court , not t o th e printe d recor d
on appea l filed in th e appellat e court .
At any rate , th e
appellat e cour t i s in a position t o determin e th e dat e
aforementioned , b y examinin g th e origina l recor d o n
563
----------------------- Page 564----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 6
appea l theret o forwarde d and , hence , formin g par t o f it s

own recor d (Reyes vs.
Carrasco,
L-28783, Mar.
31,
1971;
Sison
vs.
Gatchalian,
et al., L-34709,
June
15,
19
72).
5 . I t i s th e tria l court' s dut y t o determin e whethe r
or
no t
th e
appea l
ha s
bee n
an d t o allow th e amendmen t o f th
o r d e r t o includ e
t h e r e i n
e d dat a
(Design
Masters,
Inc.
vs. CA,
.
31,
1971; Ozaeta, Jr.,
et al. vs.
ct.
29,
1971).
I f th e printe d recor d on
dat e o f filin g thereo f whic h i s
actuall y
perfecte d o n tim e
e recor d on appea l in
an y r e l e v a n t o m i t t
et
CA,
al.,
et
al.,
L-31510,
Mar
L-26938,
appea l doe s no t show th e

stampe d on th e origina l
recor d o n appeal , th e appellat e cour t ma y ascertai n such

dat e b y examinin g th e origina l recor d o n appea l an d
determin e whethe r o r no t th e sai d recor d o n appea l meet s
th e objectiv e o f Sec . 6 , Rul e 41 , an d whic h ma y b e deeme d
to hav e bee n substantiall y complie d wit h
s. CA,
et al., L-36854,
Sept.
19,
1973;
et al.,
L-28363,
May
15,
1974).
(Mintu
Villarica
vs.
CA,
6 . Formerly , wher e th e printe d recor d o n appea l did

no t contai n an y avermen t t h a t th e appellant s ha d filed
th e appea l bon d withi n th e reglementar y perio d bu t th e
fact o f th e timel y filin g o f suc h appea l bon d wa s duly
shown on
w i t h t
h th e
appellat e
provision s
th e face o f th e origina l notic e o f appea l filed

h e o r i g i n a l recor d o n a p p e a l o n fil e wit
court , ther e wa s substantia l complianc e wit h th e
o f Sec . 6 , Rul e 4 1 an d th e appea l shoul d no t b e
dismisse d
(Alfonso vs. CA, et al., L-37068, July 18,
1974).
Thi s rul e o f substantia l complianc e wa s als o applie d t o
th e cas e of Ever Ice Drop Factory vs. CA, t al. (L-33366 ,
Oct . 30 , 1972) , wherei n th e printe d recor d on appea l did
no t includ e
a p p e l l a n t ' s notic e o f appea l t o sho w
th e
timelines s thereo f (and , formerly , th e official paymen t o f
th e appea l bond) , bu t th e origina l copy o f sai d notic e o f
appea l (an d th e official receip t o f paymen t o f th e appea l
bond , whic h wa s attache d t o sai d notic e o f appeal ) wa s
found in th e origina l recor d on appea l on file wit h th e
appellat e court .
564
----------------------- Page 565----------------------RULE 41
C. 7
APPEAL FROM THE
SE

7 . Failur e o f counse l t o sign th e recor d on appea l i s
not a groun d for dismissa l o f th e appeal .
Th e sam e coul
d
merely be require d to be signe d by hi m
(Toribio, et al.
vs.
Montejo,
et al., L-28453,
Mar.
21, 1975).
Th e sam e
is
tru e wher e th e recor d on appea l consistin g o f mor e tha n
2 0 page s doe s no t hav e th e requisit e subject inde x an d
does not contain th e full name s o f th e partie s in th e caption
a s t h e s e a r e p u r e l y m a t t e r s o f form correctibl e
b y
amendment which th e tria l cour t may orde r t o b e don e
(Abuso vs. Acosta, G.R. No. 54343, Sept. 25,
1980).
S
ee ,
however , Sec . 3 , Rul e 7 on unsigne d pleadings .

8 . Th e "materia l dat a rule " enunciate d in Sec . 6,
Rul e 4 1 nee d not b e observe d i f th e tria l cour t issue
d
an orde r t o th e effect tha t th e appea l wa s seasonabl y
perfecte d wit h th e filing o f th e notic e o f appeal , an d th e
recor d on appea l
(and , formerly , th e appea l bond) withi n
th e reglementar y perio d
(Pimentel, et al. vs. CA, et a
l.,
L-39684,
June
27,
1975).
9 . Th e materia l dat a rul e ha s been liberalize d in th e
sense tha t relianc e can b e place d on th e tria l court' s order
of approva l an d it s determinatio n o f th e timelines s o f th e
appeal , especially whe n th e timelines s o f perfection o f such
appeal ha s not bee n impugne d by th e appelle e wh o filed
no opposition t o th e approva l by th e tria l court o f th e record
on appea l
(Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. vs. CA, et al.,
L-34770, May
18, 1978; Abando
vs. CA,
et al., L-37697
,
May 31, 1978).
Th e tria l court' s approva l of th e recor d
on appea l serve s t o cur e whateve r defect or omission may
hav e been committe d therei n (Compagne des Messageries
vs. CA, et al., L-28381, Sept.
11, 1980).
Sec. 7 .
Approval of record on appeal.
filin g o f th e recor d o n appea l fo r approva
objectio n i s file d b y th e appelle e withi n
fro m receip t o f a cop y thereof , th e tria l
approv e i t a s presente d o r upo n it s ow n
Upo n th e
l an d i f n o
fiv e (5) day s
cour t ma y
motio n o r
565
----------------------- Page 566----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 9
a
e
a
w
t t h e i n s t a n c e o
c t it s
m e n d m e n t b y th e i n
h i c h ar e d e e m e d e s
t i o n o f
th e i s s u e o f la w o r
I f
th e tria l cour t order s th
th e appellant , w i t h i n t
o r s u c h e x t e n s i o n
, o r i f
n o tim e i s fixe d b y
ay s
fro m r e c e i p t thereof ,
d
b y
i n c l u d i n g t h e r e i n
l o g i c a l
s e q u e n c e , s u c h a d d
r t ma y
h a v e
d i r e c t e d
h i
s h a l l
f t h e
a p p e l l e e , m a y
d i r
c l u s i o n o f an y omitte d matter s
s e n t i a l t o t h e d e t e r m i n a
fac t involve d
i n th e
appeal .
e a m e n d m e n t o f th e record ,
h e tim e limite d i n t h e order ,
t h e r e o f a s m a y b e g r a n t e d
th e
orde r w i t h i n t e n
s h a l l
, i n t h e i r
redraf t
(10 )
t h e
p r o p e r
recor
c h r o n o
i t i o n a l m a t t e r s a s t h e cou
m
t o
i n c o r p o r a t e ,
a n d
t h e r e
u p o n
r a s th
origina l
u p o n submi t th e redrafte d recor d fo r approval ,

n o t i c e t o t h e a p p e l l e e , i n lik e m a n n e
e
draft .
(7a )
Sec .
b o t h
partie s ar e
or d
o n a p p e a
f thi s
Rule , o r t
8 .
Joint
record
on
appeal.
W h e r e
a p p e l l a n t s , t h e y m a y fil e a j o i n t rec
l w i t h i n t h e t i m e fixe d b y s e c t i o n 3 o
h a t fixe d b y t h e court .
(8a )
NOTE S
1.
or
hearin g i
d
submitte d
require s
A recor d on appea l doe s
no t
hav e
t o b e
se t
n th e tria l cour t b y th e appellant , a s i t i s deeme

for approva l upo n it s filing an d th e rul e merely
th e advers e part y t o file an y objection theret o
withi n 5 day s (Olvido

vs. Ferraris,
90 Phil.
555;
Toribio,
et al.
vs. Montejo,
etc., et al., L-28453,
Mar.
21,
1975).
Consequently , non-appearanc e o f counse l for th e appellan t
at th e hearin g for th e approva l o f th e recor d o n appea l
doe s no t w a r r a n t dismissa l o f th e appea l (Heirs of Manuel
Olango
vs.
CFIof Misamis
Oriental,
et al, G.R.
No.
55864,
April
12,
1982).
2 . Th e
d
for
th e
Barton,
76 Phil.
cour t
filin g
ha s jurisdictio n
o f a
recor d
on
t o
exten d
appea l
th e
(Moya
perio
vs.
831).
566
----------------------- Page 567----------------------RULE 41

C. 9
APPEAL FROM THE
SE

3 . A recor d on appea l filed on time , thoug h unsigne d
throug h inadvertence , may b e given force an d effect wher e
n o impairmen t o f th e right s o f th e advers e part y ca n b e
shown
(Toribio, et al. vs. Montejo, etc., et al., supra).
Sec.
9.
Perfection
of
appeal;
effect
thereof.
A
p a r t y ' s a p p e a l b y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s d e e m
e d
perfecte d a s t o h i m upo n th e filin g o f th e notic e o f
appea l i n du e time .
p e r
ubject
matte
appea
A party' s
f e c t e d a
r thereo f u
l file d i n
appea l b y recor d o n appea l i s d e e m e d

s t o h i m w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e s
p o n th e approva l o f th e recor d
du e time .
I n appeal s b y notic e o f appeal

jurisdictio n ove r th e cas e upo n th e
appeal s file d i n du e tim e an d th e
tim e t o appea l o f th e othe r parties
o n
, th e cour t lose s
perfectio n o f th e
expiratio n o f th e
.
I n appeal s b y recor d o n appeal , th e cour t lose s

jurisdictio n onl y ove r th e
subject-matte r t h e r e o f
upo n th e approva l o f th e recor d o n appea l file d i n
du e tim e an d th e expiratio n o f th e tim e t o appea l
o f th e othe r parties .
I n eithe r case , prio r t o th e transmitta l o f th e
origina l recor d o r th e recor d o n appeal , th e cour t
may issu e order s fo r th e protectio n an d preservatio n
o f th e right s o f th e partie s whic h d o no t involv e
any matte r litigate d b y th e appeal , approv e com promises , permi t appeal s o f indigen t litigants , orde r
e x e c u t i o n p e n d i n g a p p e a l i n a c c o r d a n c e w
i t h
sectio n 2 o f Rul e 39 , an d allo w withdrawa l o f th e
appeal .
(9a)
NOTE S
1. Unde r th e former procedur e a s provide d in the n
Sec. 3 , Rul e 41 , except in specified specia l cases , a regula r
567
----------------------- Page 568----------------------RULE 41
9
SEC.
appea l wa s take n by th e filing o f a notic e o f appeal , an

appea l bond , an d a recor d o n appeal .
Also , unde r th
e
former Sec . 9 o f thi s Rule , th e appea l wa s deeme d perfecte d
upo n th e approva l o f th e recor d o n appea l an d th e appea l
bon d othe r tha n a cas h bond .
Sec. 3 9 o f B.P . Big . 129 change d th e requisite s for
takin g tha t appea l b y providin g tha t n o recor d o n appea l
shall b e required , excep t i n appeal s i n specia l proceeding s
an d i n othe r case s wherei n multipl e appeal s ar e allowed .
Par . 1 8 o f th e Interi m Rule s furthe r eliminate d th e nee d
for a n appea l bon d an d reiterate d th e rul e t h a t a recor d
on appea l shal l b e dispense d with , excep t in appeal s in
special proceeding s a s provide d in Rul e 109 an d in othe r
case s wherei n multipl e appeal s ar e allowed .
Regula r
appeal s unde r thi s Rul e are , therefore , now take n b y recor d
on appea l which require s approva l by th e cour t or by notic e

o f appea l whic h doe s no t nee d suc h approval , i t bein g
understoo d t h a t bot h shoul d b e seasonabl y filed .
Th e
I n t e r i m
Rules , however ,
merel y
provide d
a s
follows :
"23 .
Perfection
of
appeal.
In
case s
wher e
appea l i s taken , th e perfection o f th e appea l shal l b e

upo n th e expiratio n o f th e las t da y t o appea l b y any
party .
In case s wher e a recor d on appea l i s require d
th e appea l i s perfecte d upo n approva l thereo f b y th e
court whic h shoul d b e don e withi n te n (10) days. "
Ther e was , consequently , a nee d for clarifyin g in
e i t h e r mod e o f a p p e a l w h e n suc h a p p e a l i s deeme
d
perfected , th e effect o f suc h perfection upo n th e parties ,
whe n th e tria l cour t lose s jurisdiction , an d over wha t aspect
of th e cas e or proceedin g suc h jurisdictio n i s lost .
2 . Unde r thi s amende d an d expande d section , i n a n
appea l by notic e o f appeal , a party' s appea l i s deeme d
perfecte d as to him upo n th e filing o f hi s appea l in du e
568
----------------------- Page 569----------------------RULE 41
. 9
APPEAL FROM THE
SEC

time .
Whil e h e ca n withdra w suc h appeal , h e canno t d o
so in orde r t o reviv e th e jurisdictio n o f th e tria l cour t an
d
enable hi m t o tak e anothe r cours e o f action callin g for th e
exercise o f tha t jurisdiction , such a s th e filing o f a motion
for new tria l or reconsideration .
Thi s i s s o becaus e by
filing hi s notic e o f appeal , insofar a s h e i s concerne d h e
ha s perfecte d hi s appea l t o th e appellat e cour t an d i t i s
in
tha t cour t wher e h e can pursu e an y furthe r remedy .
Thi s rule , i t shoul d b e noted , applie s individually an d
only t o eac h o f th e partie s s o circumstance d sinc e th e
timelines s o f thei r recours e t o appellat e remed y depend s
on whe n the y respectively receive d a copy o f th e judgmen t
or final order .
In th e meantime , th e tria l court stil l retain s
jurisdictio n over th e case .
However , wher e al l th e partie s
hav e eithe r thu s perfecte d thei r appeal s b y filin g thei r
notice s o f appea l in du e tim e an d th e perio d t o fil e such
notic e o f appea l ha s lapse d for thos e wh o did not d o so ,
the n th e tria l cour t lose s jurisdictio n over th e case a s o f

th e las t notic e o f appea l or th e expiratio n o f th e perio d t
o
do s o for al l th e parties .
Virtually th e sam e rule s apply in appeal s by recor d
on appeal , except tha t a party' s appea l i s deeme d perfecte d
as t o him upo n th e approva l o f hi s recor d on appea l
seasonably filed , bu t only wit h respec t t o th e subject m a t t e r thereof .
Wher e al l th e partie s hav e eithe r
perfecte d thei r appeal s i n suc h manne r o r th e perio d
therefor ha s expire d for thos e wh o did not d o so , the n th e
tria l court lose s jurisdiction over th e subject-matter o f thei r
appeal s upon th e approva l o f thei r record s on appea l an d
th e expiratio n o f th e perio d t o d o s o o f th e othe r parties
.
In thi s mod e o f appeal , th e tria l court lose s jurisdiction
only over th e subject-matte r o f th e respectiv e appeal s o f
th e parties , bu t retain s jurisdiction over th e cas e or specia l
proceedin g from which such appeal s wer e taken .
Thi s
i s
becaus e thi s mod e o f appea l i s involve d an d prope r in
special proceeding s wherei n th e possibility o f severa l
appeal s i s contemplated , specifically from th e variou s
569
----------------------- Page 570----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 10
o r d e r s e n u m e r a t e d i n Rul e 10 9 whic h ar e
dec
lare d
appealable , an d i n civil action s wher e severa l appeal s may
likewise b e take n from certai n aspect s thereof .
Th e
lower
court retain s jurisdictio n over th e specia l proceedin g o r
civil action , an d sinc e th e origina l recor d remain s wit h i t
for purpose s o f furthe r remedie s whic h th e partie s may
avail of, a recor d on appea l ha s t o b e file d by an y appellant .
Th e sam e procedur e i s followed ,
u n d e r th
sam e
rationale , in civi l case s whic h admi t o f multipl e appeals .
For instance , a judgmen t in an actio n for recovery or for
partitio n o f propert y i s separatel y appealabl e from th e
p r o c e e d i n g s o n t h a t p a r t o f t h e j u d g m e n t w
h e r e i n
accountin g for receipt s from th e propert y i s ordere d a s a
primar y o r incidenta l relief .
Whe n suc h accountin g i
s
thereafte r submitte d an d eithe r approve d o r rejecte d b y
th e tria l court , anothe r appea l lie s therefrom .
e
Special civi l
th e
actions ,
becaus e
o f th e
n a t u r e
o f
p r o c e e d i n g s t h e r e i n , provid e
f u r t h e r e x a m p l
e s . I n
expropriation (Rule 67), an orde r determinin g th e righ t
o f t h e p l a i n t i f f t o e x p r o p r i a t e a n d t h e s u
b s e q u e n t
adjudication o n th e issu e o f jus t compensatio n ma y b e th e
subject o f s e p a r a t e appeals .
I n judicia l foreclosur e
o f
mortgag e (Rule 68), th e judgmen t in th e mai n cas e on th e
righ t t o foreclose , th e orde r confirmin g th e foreclosur e
sale , an d th e deficiency judgmen t agains t a third-part y
mortgago r ma y b e th e subjec t o f separat e appeals .
I n
judicia l partitio n (Rule 69), an orde r directin g th e partitio n
of th e lan d ove r th e objection o f a part y wh o claim s tota l
ownership thereo f i s appealable , an d anothe r appea l may
b e take n from th e judgmen t rendere d o n th e project o r
schedul e o f partitio n submitte d b y th e commissioner s
appointe d b y th e cour t for tha t purpose .
3 .
After th e perfectio n o f th e appea l b y eithe r mode ,
th e tria l cour t lose s jurisdictio n over th e cas e or th e subject matte r involve d i n th e appeal , a s th e cas e ma y be .
I n
either instance , an d befor e th e transmitta l t o th e appellat e
570
----------------------- Page 571----------------------RULE 41
0
APPEAL FROM THE
SEC. 1

court o f th e origina l recor d or th e recor d
on appeal , th e
tria l court stil l retain s it s so-called residua l jurisdictio n t o

issu e protectiv e orders , approv e compromises , permi t
appeal s o f indigen t litigant s and , a s ha s been adde d by
amendment o f thi s section , t o order discretionary execution
and t o allow withdrawa l o f th e appeal .
4 . Tha t additiona l power o f th e tria l cour t t o orde r
discretionary execution unde r thi s amende d section should ,
however , b e correlate d wit h th e provision s o f Sec . 2 , Rul e
39 which provide s tha t it may d o s o "(o)n motion o f th e
prevailin g part y wit h notic e t o th e advers e part y filed in
th e tria l cour t whil e i t ha s jurisdiction over th e cas e an d i s
in possession o f eithe r th e origina l recor d or th e recor d on
appeal x x x at th e tim e o f th e filing o f such motion. "
I
t
furthe r provide s
t h a t afte r th e t r i a l cour t h a s lo
s t
jurisdiction , th e motion for execution pendin g appea l may
b e filed in th e appellat e court .
Thi s i s o f particula r significanc e in appeal s by notic e
of appea l wherei n after th e appea l ha s been perfected ,
th e origina l recor d i s transmitte d t o th e appellat e court
since th e tria l cour t lose s jurisdiction over th e case .
In
appeal s by recor d on appeal , however , thi s section may

still hav e qualifie d applicability sinc e after perfection o f
th e appeal , th e tria l court lose s jurisdiction only over th e
subject-matter o f tha t appea l bu t retain s jurisdiction over
th e specia l proceedin g o r civil action an d th e origina l
record s thereof .
5 . It ha s formerly been hel d tha t even i f th e appea l
ha s alread y bee n perfecte d bu t th e record s hav e no t
yet been transmitte d t o th e appellat e court , th e tria l court
still ha s jurisdiction t o se t asid e it s order approvin g th e
recor d
on
appea l
(Cabungcal
vs.
Fernandez,
L-16520,
April 20,
1964).
Also , th e rul e i s tha t an interlocutory
order remain s unde r th e contro l o f th e court an d can b e
modifie d or rescinde d befor e entr y o f fina l judgmen t
571
----------------------- Page 572----------------------RULE 41
SECS. 10-11
(Larrobis
us.
Wislezemers,
believe d
tha t thes e doctrine s stil l apply .
42
Phil.
401).
It
Sec . 10 .
Duty of clerk of court of the lower court
on
perfection
of appeal.
Withi n
thirt y
(30 )
s
afte r
perfectio n o f al l t h e a p p e a l s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t
th e
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n , i t shal l b e t h e dut y o f th
cler k
o f cour t o f t h e l o w e r court :
up
day
h
e
(a)
T o verif y t h e
c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e
origina l
recor d o r t h e recor d o n appeal , a s th e cas e ma y be ,
an d t o m a k e a certificatio n o f it s correctness ;
(b)
T o verif y t h e c o m p l e t e n e s s o f th e r
ecord s
t h a t wil l b e t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e appellat e court ;
(c)
I f f o u n d
t o b e i n c o m
u c h
r e s
a s m a y
b e
r e q u i r
t h e
d s , a v a i l i n g o f t h e a u t h
th e
a y e x e r c i s e fo r thi s purpose ;
a k e s
m e a s u
l e t e
r e c o r
h e o r
cour t m
(d)
appellat e
c o u r t .
T o
t r a n s m i t
t h e
p l e t e ,
e d
t o
t o
o r i t y
c o m p
t h a t
an d
r e c o r d s
t o
t h e
I f t h e effort s t o c o m p l e t e t h e
l , h e
shal l indicat e i n hi s lette r o f transmitta l th e
o r t r a n s c r i p t s n o t i n c l u d e d
i n
r d s b e i n g
t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e a p p e l l a t e court ,
o n s fo r
thei r n o n - t r a n s m i t t a l , a n d t h e ste
o r tha t
coul d b e t a k e n t o h a v e t h e m available .
record s
fai
exhibit s
t h e r e c o
th e
r e a s
p s
t a k e n
Th e cler k o f cour t shal l furnis h th e partie s wit h

c o p i e s o f hi s lette r o f t r a n s m i t t a l o f th e reco
rd s t o
t h e a p p e l l a t e court .
(10a )
Sec .
11 .
Transcript. Upo n th e perfectio n o f th e
l ,
t h e c l e r k
s h a l l i m m e d i a t e l y
d
t h e
g r a p h e r s c o n c e r n e d t o a t t a c h t o th e reco
a p p e a
i r e c t
s t e n o
r d o f
t h e c
t s o f
t e s t i
d o n
a p p e a
d
s
a s e fiv e
(5 ) c o p i e s o f t h e t r a n s c r i p
th e
m o n i a l e v i d e n c e referre d t o i n th e recor
l .
h a l l
T h e
s t e n o g r a p h e r s
c o n c e r n e
572
----------------------- Page 573----------------------RULE 41
SEC. 12
APPEAL FROM THE

t r a n s c r i b e s u c h t e s t i m o n i a l e v i d e n
s h a l l
p r e p a r e
a n d affi x
t o t h e i r t r a n s c r
i n d e x
c o n t a i n i n g th e n a m e s o f th e w i t n e s s e s
ag e
wherei n thei r t e s t i m o n i e s ar e found , an d
f
th e exhibit s an d th e page s w h e r e i n e a c h
a p p e a r s
t o h a v e
b e e n
e d
o r
rejecte d b y th e tria l court .
b e transmitte d t
shall t h e r e u p
whic h th e w i t n
caus e th e page s
(12a )
o f f e r e d a n d
c e
a n d
i p t s a n
an d th e p
a
lis t o
o f t h e m
a d m i t t
Th e transcript s shal l
o th e cler k o f th e tria l cour t w h o

o n arrang e th e sam e i n th e orde r i n
e s s e s testifie d a t th e trial , an d shal l
t o b e numbere d consecutively .
Sec. 12 .
Transmittal.
tria l
c o u r t s h a l l t r a n s m i t
r t t h e
t o
Th e
cler k
o f t h e
t h e a p p e l l a t e
c o u
origina l recor d o r th e approve d recor d o n appea l

w i t h i n t h i r t y (30 )
d a y s fro m t h e
p e r f e c t
i o n o f
th e appeal , togethe r wit h th e proo f o f paymen t o f
th e appellat e cour t docke t an d othe r lawfu l fees ,
a
c e r t i f i e d t r u e
c o p y
o f t h e
m i n u t e s
o
f t h e
proceedings , th e orde r o f approval , th e certificat e
o f correctness , th e origina l documentar y evidenc e
r e f e r r e d t o t h e r e i n , a n d t h e o r i g i n a l a n d
t h r e e
(3)
c o p i e s o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t s .
C o p i e s
o
f t h e
t r a n s c r i p t s
a n d
c o p i e s o
f t h e
d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e
shal l remai n
i n th e
lowe r
cour t fo r th e examinatio n o f th e parties .
(11a)
NOT E
1.
Th e former rul e wa s tha t althoug h th e clerk o f
th e lower cour t ha s th e dut y t o elevat e th e record s t o
th e appellat e court , th e appellan t mus t se e t o i t tha t such
duty i s complie d with , otherwis e th e appea l ca n
dismissed for failur e to prosecut e (Sarmiento vs. IAC,
al., G.R. Nos.
75409-10, Aug. 17, 1987).
Thi s
ften
criticized sinc e it in effect penalize d th e appellan t for
failure o f th e clerk t o comply with hi s official duties .
b e
et
wa s o
th e
573
----------------------- Page 574----------------------RULE 41
C. 13
I t

woul d
appea r
t h a t
suc h
SE
doctrin e
wa s
base d
n
Sec . 1(c)
groun d for
o f th e forme r Rul e 5 0 whic h considere d a s a

dismissa l o f th e appea l th e "failur e o f th e
appellant t o prosecut e hi s appea l unde r section 3 o f Rul e

46. "
Tha t provisio n referre d t o declared , i n turn , tha t
i f th e recor d o n appea l wa s no t receive d b y th e appellat e
court withi n 3 0 days , th e appelle e ma y obtai n a n order
directin g th e t r a n s m i t t a l o f th e sam e o r t o hav
e th e
appea l declare d a s havin g bee n abandone d for failur e t o
prosecute .
Both provisions , t h a t is , Par . (c) o f Sec . 1 , Rul e 5
0
an d Sec . 3 , Rul e 46 , hav e bee n eliminate d i n thes e revise d
Rules .
Thi s make s eviden t th e fact t h a t transmitta l o f th e
recor d shoul d b e th e sol e responsibility o f th e clerk o f court ,
a s indee d i t mus t b e so .
I t wil l als o b e note d tha t Se
c . 1 0
o f thi s Rule , a s now amended , make s i t th e furthe r duty
of th e cler k o f cour t t o furnis h th e partie s wit h copie s o f
hi s lette r o f transmitta l o f th e record s t o th e appellat e court ,
t o e n a b l e t h e l a t t e r t o monito r o r verif y t h e
lerk' s
complianc e wit h hi s dut y t o d o so .
Sec . 13 .
Dismissal of appeal. Prio r t o t h e trans mitta l o f t h e o r i g i n a l r e c o r d o r t h e recor d o n appe
a l
t o t h e
a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , t h e
t r i a l c o u r t
m a y ,
motu proprio
o r o n m o t i o n , d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a
l fo r
h a v i n g b e e n t a k e n o u t o f t i m e o r fo r n o n - p a y
m e n t
o f t h e d o c k e t a n d
o t h e r l a w f u l f e e s w i t h i
n t h e
r e g l e m e n t a r y p e r i o d .
(13a )
(As
amended
in
A.M.
No.
00-2-10-SC,
effective May
1, 2000)
NOTE S
1. A motio n t o dismis s th e appea l on th e foregoin g
groun d ma y als o b e file d in th e appellat e cour t (Sec. lfb],
Rule
50).
2 . Th e failur e o f th e appelle e t o mov e for dismissa l
in th e tria l cour t o f an appea l perfecte d ou t o f tim e doe s
574
----------------------- Page 575----------------------RULE 41
APPEAL FROM THE
SEC. 13

not preven t hi m from filing suc h a motion t o dismis s in
th e appellat e cour t a s i t involve s th e appellat e jurisdictio n
of th e latte r cour t (Garganta vs. CA, et al., 105 Phil. 421).
In on e case , th e Suprem e Cour t hel d t h a t wher e th e
appellant ha d alread
on appea l an d th e
brief, th e appelle e
raisin g such issu e
acquiesced tha t th
y pai d for th e printin g o f th e recor d

docket fee an d ha d alread y filed hi s
i s estoppe d on equitabl e ground s from
since , by hi s inaction , h e ha d virtuall y
e delay wa s justifie d (Santiago,
e t al
.
vs. Valenzuela, 78 Phil. 397).
However , in th e late r cas e
of Arellano, et al. vs. CA, et al. (L-31816 , Nov . 24 , 1972) ,
it wa s hel d tha t th e Santiago doctrin e ha d been abandone d
in Miranda vs. Guanzon (92 Phi L 168), a s th e requiremen t
regardin g th e perfection o f th e appea l withi n th e reglemen tar y perio d i s no t only mandator y bu t jurisdictional .
See, however , th e discussion on estoppe l by lache s

on thi s matter , startin g from Not e 1 7 unde r th e Genera l
Principle s at th e beginnin g o f thi s volume .
3 . I
t o perfect
or excusabl
th e tria l
Rule 38 ,
t ha s been hel d tha t wher e th e appellan t failed

hi s appea l on tim e du e t o fraud , accident , mistak e
e negligenc e an d hi s appea l wa s dismisse d by
court , hi s remed y i s a petition for relief, unde r
from suc h orde r dismissin g hi s appeal .
I f th
e
petitio n i s denied , h e
hi s petitio n (De Luna,
Dec. 27, 1969).
Th e
therei n stated , i s stil
therefor unde r Rul e 3 8
denying th e petition for
remedy unde r Sec . 1 o
petition unde r Rul e 65 .
can appea l from th e order denyin g

et al. vs. Palacio, et al., L-26927,
recours e to a petition for relief , a s
l applicabl e provide d th e condition s
ar e present .
However , th e orde r
relie f i s n o longer appealable , th e
f thi s Rul e bein g an appropriat e
4 . With th e revision
in 1997 , an d in orde r t
Trial Court mor e or les s
in th e forme r Rul e 4
Thus , th e specia l rule s
o f th e Rule s o f Civil Procedur e

o mak e appeal s from th e Regiona l
uniform , a numbe r o f provision s
1 wer e eliminate d o r modified .
an d requirement s for appeal s in
575
----------------------- Page 576----------------------RULE 42

EC. 13
c e r t i o r a r i , p r o h i b i t i o n , m a n d a m u s , qu o w a r r
a n t o ,
employers ' liabilit y case s (the n Sec .
17) an d in h
abeas
corpus case s
(the n Sees . 1 8 t o 21) wer e discarde d an d n
o
longer applie d t o appeal s i n th e aforesai d cases . However ,
Sec. 3 o f Rul e 4 1 wa s subsequentl y amended , effective
Jul y 15 , 2001 , t o restor e th e rul e t h a t appeal s i n habeas
corpus case s shal l b e take n withi n 4 8 hour s from notic e o f
th e judgmen t o r orde r appeale d from .
576
----------------------- Page 577----------------------RUL E
PETITION FO R REVIEW FROM TH E
TRIAL COURT S T O TH E COUR T
Sectio n
1.
How appeal
part y
d e s i r i n g t o a p p e
t h e
Regiona l Tria l Cour t rendere d i n
appellat e jurisdictio n ma y fil e a
4 2
REGIONA L
O F APPEAL S
taken; time for filing. A
a l fro m a
d e c i s i o n o f
th e exercis e o f it s
verifie d petitio n fo r
revie w
w i t h th e Cour t o f
e
s a m e
t i m e
t o
t h e
c l
t h e
d o c k e t
e e s ,
d e p o s i t i n g t h e a m o u n t
a n d
furnishin g th e Regiona l Tria l Cour
party wit h a cop y o f th e petition
Appeals ,
e r k
p a y i n g
a n d
o f
s a i d
o t h e r
o f P500.0 0
a t
t h
c o u r t
l a w f u l
fo r
c o s t s ,
t an d th e advers e
.
Th e petitio n shal l
b e file d an d serve d withi n fiftee n (15) day s fro m

notic e o f th e decisio n sough t t o b e reviewe d o r o f
th e denia l o f petitioner' s motio n fo r ne w tria l o r
reconsideratio n file d
i n du e tim e afte r judgment .
Upo n prope r motio n an d th e paymen t o f th e
ful l
amoun t o f th e docke t an d othe r lawfu l fee s an d th e
d e p o s i t fo r c o s t s b e f o r e t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f
t h e
r e g l e m e n t a r y p e r i o d , t h e Cour t
o f A p p e a l s m
a y
gran t a n additiona l perio d o f fiftee n (15) day s onl y
w i t h i n w h i c h t o fil e th e petitio n fo r review .
N o
furthe r e x t e n s i o n shal l b e grante d excep t fo r th e
mos t compellin g reaso n an d i n n o cas e t o excee d
fiftee n (15) days ,
(n)
NOTE S
1. Thi s
th e Cour t o f
s
necessitate d by
Judiciar y Act ,
followed in th e
former Court s o
Rul e ha d it s antecedent s in th e resolution o f

Appeal s o f Augus t 12 ,
197 1 whic h wa
th e fact tha t R.A . 6031 , in amendin g th e
di d no t prescrib e th e procedur e t o b e
review o f judgment s or final order s o f th e
f Firs t Instanc e on appea l from judgment s
577
----------------------- Page 578----------------------RULE 42

SEC. 2
in case s fallin g unde r th e exclusiv e origina l jurisdictio n

of th e inferior courts .
Tha t resolutio n wa s adopte d i
n
Par . 22(b) o f th e Interi m Rule s a s th e procedur e t o b e
followed in th e appellat e review o f suc h judgment s an d
final order s thu s rendere d b y th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t i n
th e exercis e o f it s appellate jurisdiction , an d ha s now been
formulate d int o thi s Rule , wit h som e modifications .
2 .
Rul e 4 1 , a s a l r e a d y s t a t e d , refer s
o regula r
appeal s from th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t exercisin g origina l
jurisdiction , whil e thi s Rul e contemplate s t h a t sai d tria l
court i s exercisin g appellat e jurisdiction .

I n
th e first
situation , a n appea l o n pur e question s o f law canno t b e
take n t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s an d suc h imprope r appea l
wil l b e dismisse d p u r s u a n t t o Sec . 2 , Rul e 50 .
However ,
a s hereafte r explained , appeal s t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s
from th e Regiona l Tria l Court s unde r Rule s 4 2 an d 4 3
ma y b e mad e solely on question s o f law .
Sec . 2 .
Form and contents. T h e
p e t i t i
o n shal l
b e file d i n s e v e n (7) legibl e c o p i e s , w i t h t h e orig
ina l
c o p y
i n t e n d e d
fo r
t h e c o u r t
b e i n g i n d i
c a t e d
a s
s u c h b y t h e p e t i t i o n e r , an d shal l (a ) stat e
t h e ful l
n a m e s o f t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e case , w i t h o u t i m p l
e a d i n g
t h e
l o w e r
c o u r t s
o r j u d g e s
t h e r e o f e i
t h e r
a s
p e t i t i o n e r s o r r e s p o n d e n t s ; (b ) i n d i c a t e t h
e specifi c
m a t e r i a l d a t e s s h o w i n g t h a t i t w a s file d o
n time ;
(c) s e t fort h c o n c i s e l y a s t a t e m e n t o f t h e
m a t t e r s
i n v o l v e d , t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d , t h e s p e c i f i
c a t i o n o f
error s o f fac t o r law , o r both , a l l e g e d l y c o m m i
t t e d
b y t h e R e g i o n a l Tria l
Court , a n d t h e r e a s
o n s
o r
a r g u m e n t s
r e l i e d u p o n
fo r t h e
a l l o w a n c
e
o f t h e
a p p e a l ;
(d )
b e a c c o m p a n i e d
b y
c l e a r l
y l e g i b l e
d u p l i c a t e o r i g i n a l s o r tru e c o p i e s o f t h e j u
d g m e n t s
o r fina l order s o f bot h l o w e r courts , certifie d correc t
b y t h e cler k o f c o u r t o f t h e R e g i o n a l Tria l
Court ,
t h e r e q u i s i t e n u m b e r o f plai n c o p i e s t h e r e o f
an d o f
t h e p l e a d i n g s a n d
o t h e r m a t e r i a l p o r t i o
n s o f th e
578
----------------------- Page 579----------------------RULE 42
C. 2
PETITION FOR REVIEW
SE
FROM THE RTC TO THE CA

r e c o r d a s w o u l d
f t h e
petition .
s u p p o r t
t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o
Th e petitione r shal l als o submi t togethe r wit h

th e petitio n a certificatio n unde r oat h tha t h e ha s
n o t t h e r e t o f o r e c o m m e n c e d
a n y o t h e r a c t
i o n
involvin g th e sam e issue s i n th e Suprem e Court , th e
Court o f Appeal s o r differen t division s thereof , o r
any othe r tribuna l o r agency ; i f ther e i s s u c h othe r
actio n o r proceeding , h e mus t stat e th e statu s o f
th e same , an d i f h e shoul d thereafte r lear n tha t a
simila r actio n o r p r o c e e d i n g ha s bee n file d o r i
s
p e n d i n g befor e th e S u p r e m e Court , th e Cour t o f
Appeals , o r differen t division s thereof , o r an y othe r
t r i b u n a l o r a g e n c y , h e u n d e r t a k e s t o p r o m p
t l y
infor m th e aforesai d court s an d othe r tribuna l o r
agency thereo f withi n fiv e (5) day s therefrom ,
(
n)
NOTE S
1. Th e first paragrap h detail s th e form an d content s
require d for th e sufficiency in form an d substanc e o f th e
petition .
A s now provide d herein , th e appea l unde r thi s
Rule may be on eithe r question s o f fact or o f law or on
mixed question s o f fact an d law .
It furthe r specifically
state s tha t th e lower court s o r judge s tha t rendere d th e
judgmen t or fina l orde r complaine d o f shoul d no t b e
impleade d a s p a r t i e s . Th e sam e prohibitio n i s now
provide d i n petition s for revie w o n certiorar i unde r
Rule 45 , sinc e thes e ar e petition s for purpose s o f appea l
an d no t p e t i t i o n s i n origina l a c t i o n s . Th e
o t
h e r
requirements , which will als o b e found in th e subsequen t
Rules , ar e take n from Revise d Circular No . 1-88 which
wa s adopte d by th e Suprem e Court purposely for dispatch
in appellat e proceedings .
2 . Th e second paragraph , herein referre d t o a s th e
certification agains t forum shopping , i s als o incorporate d
in th e subsequen t Rule s by way of detaile d implementation
579
----------------------- Page 580----------------------RULE 42
SECS. 3, 4-5
of Par .
1 7 o f th e Interi m Rules .
Sec .
ts.
Th e
o f t
i n g
p a y m
, th
d e p o
3.
Effect
of failure
to
comply
with
requiremen
failur e o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o compl y w i t h an y
h e
f o r e g o i n g
r e g a r d
t h e
e n t o f t h e
d o c k e t a n d o t h e r lawfu l fees
e
s i t fo r c o s t s , proo f o f s e r v i c e
o f t h e
petition ,
an d th e c o n t e n t s o f an d th e d o c u m e n t s w h i c h shoul
d
a c c o m p a n y t h e p e t i t i o n shal l b e sufficien t groun
d
for t h e d i s m i s s a l thereof ,
(n )
NOT E
1.
Thi s sectio n i s likewis e base d on th e provision s o f
Revise d Circula r No . 1-88 which , a s alread y stated , wa s

devised t o eliminat e th e cause s o f judicia l backlo g an d
delay in ligh t o f th e experienc e o f th e appellat e courts .
Sec . 4 .
Action
on
the petition.
o u r t
o f
A p p e a l s
m a y
r e q u i r e
t h e
r e
t o fil e
a
c o m m e n t o n t h e p e t i t i o n , no t a
smiss ,
w i t h i n t e n
(10 )
d a y s
fro m n o t i
i s s
t h e
p e t i t i o n i f i t find s t h e s a m e t o
withou t
merit , p r o s e c u t e d m a n i f e s t l y fo r
th e
q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d t h e r e i n ar e t
n t i a l t o
r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ,
(n )
T h e
s p o n d e n t
m o t i o n
t o di
c e ,
d i s m
o r
b e p a t e n t l y
delay , o r tha t
o o
u n s u b s t a
Sec . 5 .
Contents of comment.
Th e
c o m m
e n t
of
t h e r e s p o n d e n t s h a l l b e file d i n s e v e n (7)
legibl e
c o p i e s , a c c o m p a n i e d b y certifie d tru e c o p i e s o f s
uc h
m a t e r i a l p o r t i o n s o f t h e recor d referre d t o t h e
r e i n
t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r s u p p o r t i n g p a p e r s an d sha
l l (a)
stat e
w h e t h e r o r no t h e a c c e p t s t h e
s t a t
e m e n t o f
m a t t e r s i n v o l v e d i n th e petition ; (b) poin t ou t suc h
i n s u f f i c i e n c i e s o r i n a c c u r a c i e s a s h e
e v e s exis t
i n p e t i t i o n e r ' s s t a t e m e n t o f m a t t e r s
l v e d b u t
w i t h o u t r e p e t i t i o n ; a n d (c ) stat e t h e
o n s w h y
b e l i
i n v o
r e a s
580
----------------------- Page 581----------------------RULE 42
CS. 6-7
PETITION FOR REVIEW

SE
th e petitio n shoul d no t b e give n du e course .

cop y
thereo f shal l b e serve d o n th e petitioner ,
A
(n )
Sec . 6 .
Due course. I f u p o n t h e
filin g o f
t h e
c o m m e n t
o r s u c h o t h e r p l e a d i n g s a s t h e
c o u r t
m a y a l l o w o r r e q u i r e , o r afte r t h e e x p i r a t
i o n o f
t h e p e r i o d fo r t h e f i l i n g t h e r e o f w i t h o u t
s u c h
c o m m e n t o r p l e a d i n g h a v i n g bee n s u b m i t t e d
, t h e
Court
o f Appeal s
find s prima
facie
tha t
th e
lowe r
cour t h a s c o m m i t t e d a n erro r o f fac t o r la w t
ha t
w i l l w a r r a n t a
r e v e r s a l o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o
f t h e
a p p e a l e d d e c i s i o n , i t m a y a c c o r d i n g l y g i v
e d u e
cours e t o th e petition ,
(n )
Sec
o f Appeal
o f cour t
origina l
d o c u m e
notice ,
. 7 . Elevation of record. W h e n e v e r th e Cour t

s d e e m s i t necessary , i t ma y orde r th e cler k
o f th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t t o e l e v a t e th e
recor d o f th e cas e includin g th e ora l an d
n t a r y e v i d e n c e withi n fiftee n (15) day s fro m
(n )
NOTE S
1. Th e Cour t o f Appeal s may dismis s

outright or requir e a commen t thereon .
th e
petitio n
Dependin g o
n
th e complexity or ambiguit y o f th e issue s for
could als o requir e subsequen t exchange s by th e
such a s th e filing o f a reply an d a rejoinder
exercise of it s discretion .
See , however
resolution , it
parties ,
, in th e soun d
, Appendix R.
2 . I f w a r r a n t e d from
th e exchange s
u n d e
th e
guideline in Sec . 6 , th e appellat e court may give du e cours e
to th e petitio n and , for purpose s o f it s decision therein , it
may requir e th e filing o f memoranda .
Th e origina l rec
or d
in th e lower court may b e ordere d elevate d for tha t purpos e
or for such othe r purpose s a s determine d by th e appellat e
court .
r
581
----------------------- Page 582----------------------RULE 42
SEC. 8
Sec . 8. Perfection of
appeal; effect thereof. (a) Upo n
t h e t i m e l y filin g
o f a p e t i t i o n fo r r e v i e w
an d th e
p a y m e n t o f t h e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g d o c k e t
a
n d
othe r
lawfu l fees , t h e a p p e a l i s d e e m e d perfecte d a s t o th
e
p e t i t i o n e r .
T h e
r i s d i c t i o
o v e r t h e
e appeal s
file d i n d
im e t o
a p p e a l o f
R e g i o n a l
Tria l
Cour t
l o s e s
j u
n
c a s e
u e
u p o n
tim e
t h e
t h e
p e r f e c t i o n
a n d t h e
o t h e r
o f t h
e x p i r a t i o n o f th e t
parties .
H o w e v e r ,
befor e
t h e Cour t o f A p p e a l s
giv e s
d u e c o u r s e t o t h e p e t i t i o n , th e Regiona l Tria l Cou
r t
m a y
i s s u e o r d e r s
fo r t h e
p r o t e c t i o n a n d
preser v a t i o n o f t h e
r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s w h i c
h d o
no t
i n v o l v e a n y m a t t e r litigate d b y t h e appeal , approv e
c o m p r o m i s e s , p e r m i t a p p e a l s o f i n d i g e n t
litigants ,
orde r e x e c u t i o n p e n d i n g a p p e a l i n a c c o r d a n c e
wit h
s e c t i o n 2 o f Rul e 39 , a n d allo w w i t h d r a w a l
o f th e
a p p e a l .
(b)
Excep t i n civi l c a s e s decide d unde r th e Rul e
o n S u m m a r y P r o c e d u r e , t h e a p p e a l shal l sta
y th e
j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r u n l e s s t h e Cour t o f Appeals ,
t h e law , o r t h e s e R u l e s shal l provid e o t h e r w i s e ,
(n)
NOTE S
1.
Th e firs t tw o paragraph s reiterat e th e rul e a s t o
whe n th e appellat e cour t acquires

correspondingly loses , jurisdictio n over
perfor m or allow certai n act s t o b e
th e cas e i n th e s a m e m a n n
las t
paragrap h o f Sec . 9 , Rul e 41 .
2 . Th e thir d
tha t a
perfecte d appea l stay
order .
Tha t sta y
t o civi l case s u n
r e
which , a s revised ,
an d th e tria l cour t
th e cas e sav e t o
don e in connection wit h
e r a s provide d i n th e
p a r a g r a p h
i s
th e
genera l
rul e
s th e challenge d judgmen t o r final

o f judgment , however , i s not applicabl e
d e r th e Rul e o n S u m m a r y Procedu
provide s
i n
Sec .
2 1
thereo f tha t
th
e
582
----------------------- Page 583----------------------RULE 42
. 9
PETITION FOR REVIEW
SEC

decision o f th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t in civil case s governe d
b y sai d Rule ,
includin g forcibl e
e n t r y an d unlawfu l
detainer cases , shal l b e immediatel y executory withou t
prejudic e t o a furthe r appea l tha t may b e take n therefrom ,
repealin g for tha t purpos e Sec . 1 0 o f the n Rul e 70 .
i s
is reiterate d in Sec . 21 , Rul e 7 0 o f th e presen t revise d Rules .
Th
For othe r simila r exceptions , se e Sec . 4 , Rul e 3 9 an d

th e explanator y note s thereon .
Se e als o Sec . 12 , Rul e
4 3
which treat s o f th e effect o f appeal s from th e quasi-judicia l
agencie s concerned .
Sec . 9 . Submission for decision. If th e
petitio n
i s give n du e course , th e Cour t o f Appeal s ma y se t
th e cas e fo r ora l a r g u m e n t o r requir e th e partie s t o
submi t m e m o r a n d a withi n a perio d o f fiftee n (15)
d a y s f r o m n o t i c e . T h e
c a s e s h a l l b e d e e m e
d
submitte d
fo r d e c i s i o n upo n th e filin g o f th e l
as t
pleadin g o r m e m o r a n d u m require d b y t h e s e Rule s
o r b y th e Cour t itself ,
(n )
NOTE S
1. Th e
appellat e
cour t
may ,
on
motion , se t th e cas e on certai n specified
oral argument .
I t may requir e furthe r
such ora l argumen t or allow th e submission o
in lieu o f ora l argument .
motu
proprio
or
issue s thereo f for

memorand a after
f memorand a
2 . Th e provision her e a s t o whe n th e cas e

submitted for decision , which i s importan t in view o
mandator y period s for th e renditio n o f judgmen t
Sec. 15(1), Art . VII I o f th e 1987 Constitution , i s
base d on an d in accordanc e wit h Par . (2) o f
section o f th e aforecite d Constitutiona l provision .
i s deeme d
f th e
unde r
likewis e
th e sam e
583
----------------------- Page 584----------------------R U L E
A P P E A L S
F R O M
T H E
4 3
[COUR T O F TAX A P P E A L S
AND ]
Q U A S I - J U D I C I A L A G E N C I E S
T O
T H E
C O U R T
O F APPEALS *
S e c t i o n 1 .
Scope. T h i s
R u l e
s h a l l
a p p l y t o
a p p e a l s [fro m j u d g m e n t s o r fina l o r d e r s o f t h e
C o u r t
o f T a x A p p e a l s a n d ]
f r o m a w a r d s , j u d g m e n
t s , fina l
o r d e r s o r r e s o l u t i o n s o f o r a u t h o r i z e d b y a n
y q u a s i j u d i c i a l a g e n c y i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i t s q u
a s i - j u d i c i a l
f u n c t i o n s .
A m o n g t h e s e
a g e n c i e s
a r e
t h e
Civi l
S e r v i c e C o m m i s s i o n ,
C e n t r a l B o a r d o f A s
s e s s m e n t
A p p e a l s ,
S e c u r i t i e s
a n d
E x c h a n g e
C o
m m i s s i o n ,
O f f i c e
o f
t h e
P r e s i d e n t ,
L a n d
R e g
i s t r a t i o n
A u t h o r i t y ,
S o c i a l
S e c u r i t y
C o m m i s s i o
n ,
C i v i l
A e r o n a u t i c s B o a r d , B u r e a u o f P a t e n t s , T r a
d e m a r k
a n d T e c h n o l o g y Transfer,* *
N a t i o n a l E l e c
t r i f i c a t i o n
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , E n e r g y R e g u l a t o r y B o a r d , N
a t i o n a l
T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s
C o m m i s s i o n ,
D e p a
r t m e n t
o f
A g r a r i a n
R e f o r m
u n d e r
R e p u b l i c
A c t
6 6 5 7 ,
G o v e r n m e n t S e r v i c e I n s u r a n c e S y s t e m , E m p
l o y e e s
C o m p e n s a t i o n
P h i l i p p i n
e
A t o m i c
E n e r g y
B o a r d
o f
I n v
e s t m e n t s ,
C o n s t r u c t i o n I n d u s t r y A r b i t r a t i o n C o m m i s s
i o n , a n d
v o l u n t a r y a r b i t r a t o r s a u t h o r i z e d b y l a w .
(n )
N O T E S
1.
Thi s Rul e wa s originall y embodie d i n Suprem e
C o u r t C i r c u l a r No .
1-9 1
a n d e v e n t u a l l y
b e c a m e
it s
Revise d Administrativ e
Circula r No .
1-95 w
hic h too k
effect o n J u n e
1 , 1995 , wit h modification s cause d b
y
'See Note 2 of Section 1 of thi s Rule.
"See reorganized bureaus as provided in R.A. 8293 (Intellectual
Property
Code).
584
----------------------- Page 585----------------------RULE 43
C. 1
APPEALS FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES
SE
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

amendment s t o Sec . 9 , B.P . Big . 129 by R.A . 7902 .
ai d
Sec. 9 , a s amended , constitute s th e substantiv e basi s for
thi s Rule , an d vest s "exclusiv e appellat e jurisdictio n over
all final judgments , decisions , resolutions , order s or award s
o f Regiona l Tria l Cour t an d
quasi-judicia l agencies ,
instrumentalities , board s or commissions " in th e Cour t o f
Appeals , wit h th e exception o f thos e fallin g withi n th e
appellat e jurisdictio n o f th e Suprem e Cour t unde r th e
Constitution , th e Labo r Code an d th e Judiciar y Act .
2 . Decision s
appealabl e t o th e
on certiorar i unde r
amende d
R.A .
3 . Th
include th e
unde r th e
R.A . 876 ,
o f th e Cour t o f Tax Appeal s ar e now

Suprem e Cour t by petitio n for review
Rul e 45 , pursuan t t o R.A . 928 2 which
112 5
(see Appendix CQ.
e "voluntar y arbitrator s authorize d b y

voluntar y arbitrato r appointe d an d accredite
Labo r Cod e or pursuan t t o th e provision s
a s the y ar e considere d include d i n
"quasi-judicial
instrumentalities "
Bank
vs.
Association
nk
Employees, et al.,
G.R.
of
No.
(Luzon
Luzon
Development
120319,
Development
Oct.
6,
4 . A
p r o s e c u t o r c o n d u c t i n g a
n a r y
i n v e s t i g a t i o n p e r f o r m s a q u a s i - j
ction ,
bu t hi s office i s not a quasi-judicia l body .
h e
quasi-judicial agencie s contemplate d in thi s Rule ,
no t exercis e
adjudicator y
o r rule-makin g
.
The preliminar y investigatio n conducte d therei n i s
tria l o f th e cas e on th e merit s bu t only determine
a crim e ha s bee n committe d an d t h a t th
probably guilty thereof .
tha t determination , h e i
it i s th e court itsel f
Hence , th e Office o f th
body an d it s actio n
mation i s not appealabl e
Rul e
43
(Bautista
law "
d
o f
th e ter m
Ba
1995).
p r e l i m i
u d i c i a l fun
Unlik e
it doe s
functions
not a
s whethe r
e accuse d
i s
Whil e th e prosecutor i s makin g

s not actin g a s a quasi-court sinc e
tha t will pas s judgmen t on th e accused .
e Prosecutor i s not a quasi-judicia l
approvin g th e filin g o f an infor t o th e Court o f Appeal s unde r
vs.
CA,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
143375
,
July
6,
2001);
Orosa
vs.
,
585
Roa,
G.R.
No.
140423
----------------------- Page 586----------------------RULE 43

SEC. 2
July
14,
2006 cf.
4715
Sept.
20,
2006).

Alcaraz
vs.
Gonzales,
G.R.
No.
16
Sec . 2 .
Cases not covered. Thi s Rul e shal l no t
appl y t o j u d g m e n t s o r fina l o r d e r s i s s u e d u n d e r
th e
Labo r Cod e o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s ,
(n )
NOTE S
1. J u d g m e n t s an d fina l order s or resolution s o f th
e
Nationa l Labo r Relation s Commission ar e now reviewable ,
in th e first instance , b y th e Cour t o f Appeal s o n certiorar i
unde r Rul e 6 5 (se e Not e 2 unde r Sec. 4 thereof) , bu t thos e
o f th e Employee s Compensatio n Commissio n shoul d b e
brough t t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s throug h a petitio n for
review unde r thi s Rule .
Also , appeal s from th e Office o
f
th e Ombudsma n i n administrativ e disciplinar y case s ar e
now covere d by thi s Rul e (Fabian vs. Desierto, etc., et al.,
G.R.
No.
129742,
Sept.
16,
1998).
2 . Specia l rule s o f procedur e hav e als o bee n adopte d
for case s formerly withi n th e jurisdictio n an d adjudicatory
processe s o f th e Securitie s an d Exchang e Commission .
I n A . M .
No .
0 1 - 2 - 0 4 - S C , t h e S u p r e m e
o u r t
r o m u l g a t e d I n t e r i m R u l e s o f P r o c e d u r e for
n t r a o r p o r a t e C o n t r o v e r s i e s , effectiv e
A p r i l 1 ,
200 1
(Appendix
W).
C
p
I
c
In A.M . No . 00-8-10-SC , in it s Resolution promulgate d

on Septembe r 4 , 2001 , th e Suprem e Cour t clarifie d th e
legal fee s t o b e collecte d an d th e applicabl e perio d o f appea l
i n c a s e s fo r m e rl y cognizabl e
b y t h e S e c u r i t i
e s an d
E x c h a n g e
C o m m i s s i o n , effectiv e
O c t o b e r 1 ,
200 1
(Appendix X).
Thi s wa s furthe r amende d in an en
banc
resolution , effectiv e Decembe r 10 , 2002 .
Subsequently ,
for th e reason s state d therein ,
th e
Suprem e Cour t in it s resolutio n o f Septembe r 14, 200 4 in
A.M . No . 04-9-07-S C clarifie d th e prope r mod e o f appea l
586
----------------------- Page 587----------------------RULE 43

SEC. 3

for case s involvin g corporat e rehabilitatio n an d intra corporat e controversies , effectiv e Septembe r 30 , 200 4
(Appendix
Y).
Rul e
t h e
i d e d
w h e t
fact ,
law ,
S e c 3 .
Where
ma y b e t a k e n
p e r i o d a n d
,
h e r t h e a p p
o f
o r m i x e d q u e
t o appeal. A n appea l u n d e r t h i s
t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s w i t h i n
i n t h e m a n n e r h e r e i n
p r o v
e a l
i n v o l v e s
q u e s t i o n s
s t i o n s o f fac t an d law .
o f
(n )
NOTE S
1. Thi s i s anothe r instanc e wher e an appellat e review
solely on a questio n o f law ma y b e sough t in th e Cour t o f
Appeal s
i n s t e a d o f t h e S u p r e m e Court .
Th e
s a m e
procedur e obtain s in appeal s from th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t
wher e it decide d th e cas e in th e exercis e o f it s appellat e
jurisdiction , a s regulate d by Rul e 42 .
2 . A s a g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n , a p p e a l s o
n p u r e
question s o f law ar e brough t t o th e Suprem e Cour t sinc e
Sec. 5(2)(e) , Art . VII I o f th e Constitutio n include s in th e
enumeration o f case s withi n it s jurisdictio n "(a)ll case s in
whic h only a n erro r o r questio n o f law i s involved. "
It shoul d no t b e overlooked , however , t h a t th e sam e
provision vestin g jurisdictio n in th e Suprem e Cour t o f th e
cases enumerate d therei n i s preface d by th e statemen t tha t
it ma y "(r)eview , revise , reverse , modify , or affirm on
appeal or certiorar i as the law or the Rules of Court may
provide," th e judgment s or fina l order s o f lower court s in
th e case s therei n enumerated .
Accordingly , th e aforesai d
provision s o f Rule s 4 2 an d 4 3 constitut e th e exceptions .
For tha t matter , thi s i s th e sam e reason why appeal s
from th e judgmen t or final orde r o f th e inferior courts ,
even o n pur e question s o f law , ar e appealabl e t o th e
Regional Tria l Cour t in lin e with th e specific provision
therefor in Sec . 1 , Rul e 40 .
587
----------------------- Page 588----------------------RULE 43
SECS. 4-5
e a l
Sec . 4 .
shal l

Period
of
appeal.
T h e
a p p
b e t a k e n w i t h i n fiftee n (15 ) d a y s fro m notic e o f th e

a w a r
l u t i
fro m
i s r
, o r
d e n i
t
r e c o
i t h
g o v e
d
o
t
e
,
n
h
q
o
a l
r i
n s
th
r n
j u d g m e n t ,
f i n a l o r d e r
o r r e s o
,
o r
e d a t e o f it s las t publication , i f publicatio n
u i r e d
b y
l a w
fo r
i t s e f f e c t i v i t y
f th e
o f p e t i t i o n e r ' s
m o t i o n
fo r
n e w
a l o r
i d e r a t i o n d u l y file d i n a c c o r d a n c e w
e
i n g la w o f
t h e c o u r t o r a g e n c y a quo.
Onl y
o n e (1) m o t i o n fo r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n shal l b e allow
ed .
U p o n
p r o p e r m o t i o n a n d t h e
p a y m e n t o
f t h e
ful l
a m o u n t o f t h e d o c k e t fe e befor e t h e expiratio n
o f
t h e r e g l e m e n t a r y period , t h e Cour t o f Appeal s ma y
g r a n t a n a d d i t i o n a l perio d o f fiftee n (15) d a y s onl
y
w i t h i n w h i c h t o fil e t h e p e t i t i o n fo r review
.
N o
furthe r e x t e n s i o n
shal l
b e g r a n t e d
e x c
e p t fo r th e
m o s t c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n i n n o c a s e t o e x c e e d
fiftee n
(15) d a y s ,
(n )
Sec . 5 .
How
s h a l l
b e
t a k e n
b y
f i l i n g
r e v i e w
i n
s e v e n (7) legibl e c o
,
w i t h
p r o o f o f
s
e o f o n
t h e
a d v e r s e
p a r t y
a
n c y
a quo.
Th e o r i g i n a l c o p y
d fo r th e
Cour t o f A p p e a l s shal
y th e
p e t i t i o n e r .
U p o n t
itione r
s h a l l
p a y
C o u r t
o f
A p p e a l s
t h
fee s an d
d e p o s i t t h e
E x e m p t i o n
fro m p a y m e n t
lawfu l
fee s
a n d
t h e
d
r a n t e d
b y
t h e Cour t o f
t i n g
h e
t o
e
appeal
a
taken.
w i t h t h e
e r v i c e
n d
o n
o f
b e
c o p y
c o u r t
i n d i c a t e d
s u m o f P500.0 0
o f d o c k e t i n g
e p o s i t
f o r
A p p e a l s
u p o n
a g e
i n t e n d e
a s
s u c h
p e t i t i o n , t h e
c l e r k
d o c k e t i n g
t h e r
o r
p e t i t i o n
filin g o f t h e
fo r
Cour t o f Appeals
t h e
o f t h e
t h e
A p p e a l
v e r i f i e d p e t i t i o n
p i e s
o f
c o u r t
a n d
fo r
pet
o f t h e
o t h e r
lawfu l
costs .
an d
c o s t s
verifie d
o t h e r
m a y
m o t i o n
b e
g
s e t
f
e
A
l
t
o r t h
v a l i d
g r o u n d s
t h e r e f o r .
I f t h
C o u r t
o f
p p e a l s d e n i e s t h e m o t i o n , th e p e t i t i o n e r sha
l pa y
h e d o c k e t i n g a n d o t h e r lawfu l fee s an d d e p o s i t
fo r
c o s t s w i t h i n
fiftee n
(15 )
d a y s
fro m
n o
t i c e o f th e
denial ,
(n )
588
----------------------- Page 589----------------------RULE 43
SEC. 6

N O T E
1.
I n vie w
o f t h e n a t u r e , s u b j e c t - m a t t
e r a n d
procedur e
i n case s befor e th e quasi-judicia l agencie s
u n d e r t h e i r differen t
governin g laws ,
th e a p p
e l l a t e
procedur e an d requirement s i n thi s Rul e ar e somewha t
different fro m thos e
i n r e g u l a r a p p e a l s . T h u
s , t h e
period s an d requirement s for th e appea l ar e mor e stringen t
a n d specifi c
p r o v i s i o n s a r e m a d e
for
m o t i o
n s for
reconsideratio n an d extension s o f time .
Sec . 6 .
Contents of the petition. Th e petitio n fo r
revie w shal l (a) stat e th e ful l name s o f th e partie s
t o t h e c a s e , w i t h o u t
i m p l e a d i n g
t h e c o u
r t o r
a g e n c i e s e i t h e r a s p e t i t i o n e r s o r r e s p o n d
e n t s ;
(b)
c o n t a i n a c o n c i s e s t a t e m e n t o f th e fact s
an d
issue s involve d an d th e ground s relie d upo n fo r th e
r e v i e w ; (c ) b e a c c o m p a n i e d
b y a c l e a r l y
l e g i b l e
d u p l i c a t e origina l o r a certifie d tru e cop y o f th e
award , judgment , fina l orde r o r resolutio n appeale d
fro m t o g e t h e r w i t h certifie d tru e
c o p i e s o
f s u c h
materia l portion s o f th e recor d referre d t o therei n
an d
o t h e r s u p p o r t i n g p a p e r s ; an d (d ) c o n t
a i n a
s w o r n
c e r t i f i c a t i o n a g a i n s t f o r u m s h o p p i n
g
a s
provide d i n th e las t paragrap h o f sectio n 2 , Rul e 42 .
Th e petitio n shal l stat e th e specifi c materia l date s
s h o w i n g tha t i t w a s file d withi n th e perio d fixe d
herein .
(2a)
NOT E
1.
I t h a s bee n
f t h e
enumerate d requirement s in Sec
tru e copie s o f th e recor
r
supporting papers, " doe s not
paper s referre d t o shoul d b
clarifie d
t h a t P a r . (c)
. 6 , requirin g "certified
d referre d t o therei n
an d othe
mea n tha t al l supportin g

e certified .
It i s significant tha t in appeal s unde r Rul e 42, only

judgment s or final order s o f th e lower court s nee d t o b e
589
----------------------- Page 590----------------------RULE 43
SECS. 7-8
certified tru e copie s or duplicat e originals .

Th e
sam e i s
tru e wit h respec t t o a simila r requiremen t in appeal s under
Rul e 45 , an d i n origina l action s for certiorar i unde r Rule
65 in relatio n t o Rule s 4 6 an d 56 .
Ther e i s n o pl
ausibl e
reaso n wh y a'differen t treatmen t o r stricte r requiremen t
should b e applie d t o petition s unde r Rul e 4 3 (Cadayona
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 128772, Feb. 3, 2000; cf. Uy, et a
l.
vs. BIR,
et al., G.R. No.
129651,
Oct.
20, 2000; G
onzales
vs. CSC, et al.,
G.R. No.
139131, Sept. 27,
2002).
Sec .
7.
Effect of failure to comply with
requ
irements.
T h e failur e o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o c o m p l y w i t h
an y
o f t h e
f o r e g o i n g
r e g a r d i
n g
t h e
p a y m e n t o f t h e d o c k e t a n d o t h e r lawfu l fees ,
th e
d e p o s i t fo r c o s t s , proo f o f s e r v i c e
o f t h e
petition ,
a n d t h e c o n t e n t s o f an d th e d o c u m e n t s w h i c h sho
ul d
a c c o m p a n y t h e p e t i t i o n shal l b e sufficien t groun
d
fo r t h e d i s m i s s a l thereof ,
(n )
Sec . 8 .
u r t
of
A p p e a l s
m a
o fil e a
c o m m e n t o n
smiss ,
w i t h i n t e n
m i s s th e
p e t i t i o n i f
Action
y
on
r e q u i r e
the
t h e
(10 )
i t
petition.
t h e
p e t i t i o n ,
d a y s
find s t h e
fro m
T h e
C o
r e s p o n d e n t
no t a m o t i o n
n o t i c e ,
s a m e t o
o r
t
t o di
d i s
b e p a t e n t l y
withou t
m e r i t , p r o s e c u t e d m a n i f e s t l y fo r delay , o r t h
a t th e
q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d t h e r e i n ar e t o o u n s u b s t a
n t i a l t o
r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . (62 )
NOT E
1.
Th e provision s o f th e Suprem e Court' s revise d
Circular s Nos . 1-88 an d 28-9 1 hav e als o bee n adopte d in
thi s Rule , especially on th e form an d content s o f th e petition
for review .
Fo r failur e t o comply therewith , o r wher e th e
m e r i t s o f t h e p e t i t i o n d o no t w a r r a n t conside
ration ,
Sees .
7 a n d 8 authoriz e th e outrigh t dismissa l o f th
e
petition .
690
----------------------- Page 591----------------------RULE 43

SECS. 9-10
Sec . 9 .
Contents
of comment.
T h e
c o m m e n
t
shal l b e file d w i t h i n te n (10 ) day s fro m notic e i
n
seve n (7) legibl e copie s an d accompanie d b y clearl y
l e g i b l e c e r t i f i e d t r u e c o p i e s o f s u c h m a t e r
i a l
portion s o f th e recor d referre d t o therei n t o g e t h e r
wit h othe r supportin g papers .
Th e c o m m e n t shal
l
(a) p o i n t o u t i n s u f f i c i e n c i e s o r i n a c c u r a c i
e s i n
p e t i t i o n e r ' s s t a t e m e n t o f fac t a n d
i s s u e s ;
a n d
(b) stat e t h e r e a s o n s wh y th e p e t i t i o n s h o u l
d b e
denie d o r dismissed .
A cop y thereo f shal l b e serve d
o n th e petitioner , an d proo f o f suc h servic e shal l b e
file d w i t h th e Cour t o f Appeals .
(9a )
NOT E
1.
Th e content s o f th e commen t t o b e filed by th e
responden t i s mor e specifically spelle d ou t in thi s section
which , asid e from th e argument s usually require d in a
comment ,
additionall y
call s for th e specificatio n o
f
insufficiencies or inaccuracie s in th e statemen t o f fact s
an d issue s i n th e petition .
Furthermore , shoul d an y
materia l portio n o f th e recor d b e referre d t o b y th e
respondent , hi s commen t shoul d b e accompanie d by legible
certified tru e copie s o f tha t portion .
The appellat e cour t may als o requir e th e filing o f a

repl y
bu t furthe r submission s ar e
governe d
b y
th e
resolution in A.M . No . 99-2-04-S C (see Appendix R).
Sec. 10 . Due course. I f upo n th e filin g o f th e
commen t o r suc h othe r pleading s o r do c ume n t s a s
may b e require d o r allowe d b y th e Cour t o f Appeal s
o r upo n th e expiratio n o f th e perio d fo r th e filin g
thereof ,
an d
o n th e basi s o f th e
p e t i t i o n o r
t h e
record s th e
Cour t o f Appeal s find s prima facie tha t
th e cour t o r agenc y concerne d ha s committe d error s
o f fac t o r la w
t h a t w o u l d
w a r r a n t r e v e r s a
l o r
modificatio n o f th e award , judgment , fina l orde r o r
591
----------------------- Page 592----------------------RULE 44
CS 11-12
SE
r e s o l u t i o n s o u g h t t o b e r e v i e w e d , i t ma y
giv e du e
c o u r s e t o t h e petition ; o t h e r w i s e , i t shal l d
ismis s
th e same .
T h e finding s o f fac t o f th e cour t o r agenc y
c o n c e r n e d , w h e n supporte d b y substantia l evidence ,
shal l b e b i n d i n g o n t h e Cour t o f Appeals ,
n )
NOTE S
1.
Wha t bear s specifi c notic e in thi s section i s tha t
th e jurisprudentia l rul e t h a t th e finding s o f fact o f th

e
court or agenc y a quo ar e bindin g on th e appellat e court
ha s now bee n mad e a specifi c rul e o f procedure .
Thi s i s
similar t o th e rul e on th e finding s o f fact o f th e Cour t o f
Appeal s vis-a-vi s th e Suprem
latter , and , unde r appropriat e
creatin g exception s t o t h a t
th e simila r provisio n o f thi s
e Cour t o n appea l t o th e
circumstances , th e cas e law
rul e ma y ver y wel l apply t o
section .
2 . Sec .
1 2 o f t h i s Rul e
h a s bee n i n t e r p
r e t e d t o
mea n t h a t th e appea l wil l no t sta y th e award , judgment ,
fina l
o r d e r o r r e s o l u t i o n u n l e s s t h e g o v e r n
i n g la w
direct s otherwis e
(Lapid vs.
142261,
June
29,
2000).
Sec .
11 .
Transmittal
fiftee n
(15)
d a y s
f r o m n o t i c
a s bee n
g i v e n d u e c o u r s e , t h e
e
t h e c o u r t
o r a g e n c y
m i t
t h e
o r i g i n a l o r a l e g i b l e
r e
r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i
recor d
t o b e t r a n s m i t t e d m a y
n t o f
all p a r t i e s t o t h e p r o c
al s
m a y r e q u i r e o r p e r m i t
n o f o r
a d d i t i o n t o t h e record .
of
e
record.
t h a t
W i t h i n
t h e p e t i t i o n
Cour t o f A p p e a l s m a y requir
c o n c e r n e d
t o
t r a n s
certifie d tru e cop y o f th e enti

n g u n d e r review .
Th e
b e a b r i d g e d b y a g r e e m e
e e d i n g .
T h e Cour t o f Appe
s u b s e q u e n t c o r r e c t i o
(8a )
Sec . 12 .
Effect of appeal. Th e a p p e a l shal l no
t
s t a y t h e a w a r d , j u d g m e n t , fina l orde r o r resolutio n
s o u g h t t o
eal s
b e
r e v i e w e d
u n l e s s t h e
Cour t o f App
592
----------------------- Page 593----------------------RULE 43
SEC. 13

shal l direc t
t m a y
d e e m just .
o t h e r w i s e
u p o n
s u c h
t e r m s
a s
(10a )
Sec . 13 .
Submission for decision. If th e petitio n
i s g i v e n du e course , th e Cour t o f Appeal s m a y se t
th e c a s e fo r ora l a r g u m e n t o r requir e th e partie s t o
submi t m e m o r a n d a withi
d a y s
f r o m n o t i c e .
m e d
submitte d
fo r d e c i s
las t
p l e a d i n g o r m e m o r a n
o r b y th e Cour t o f Appeals
a perio d o f fiftee n (15)

T h e
c a s e s h a l l b e
d e e
i o n
upo n
th e
filin g
d u m require d b y t h e s e
,
(n )
o f th e
Rule s
NOTE S
1. A specia l procedur e
for th e t r a n s m i t t
a l an d
content s o f th e recor d t o b e elevate d t o th e Court o f Appeal s
is provide d for in Sec . 11 .
Also , unlik e th e rul e in oth
e r
cases , a n appea l unde r thi s Rul e shal l not sta y th e award ,
judgment ,
fina l orde r o r resolutio n unles s otherwis e
provide d by th e Cour t o f Appeals .

2 . Th e provision s o f Sec .
1 3 ar e simila r t o thos e o
f
Sec. 9 o f Rul e 42 an d a s explaine d in th e note s therein .
593
----------------------- Page 594----------------------PROCEDUR E
I N
TH E
COUR T
RUL E
ORDINARY
APPEAL S
4 4
APPEALE D
Sectio n 1 .
t o t h e
o f
t h e c a
igin ,
bu t t h
rthe r
referre d
rt y
a s t h e
O F
CASE S
Title of cases. I n al l c a s e s appeale d
Cour t o f A p p e a l s
u n d e r Rul e
41 , th e titl e
s e shal l r e m a i n a s i t w a s i n t h e cour t o f or
e
part y
a p p e a l i n g t h e
t o a s t h e
c a s e
a p p e l l a n t a n d th e
shal l
b e
fu
a d v e r s e
pa
a p p e l l e e , ( l a , R46 )
NOT E
1.
Thi s requiremen t on th e titl e o f th e civil case s
appeale d i s simila r t o t h a t i n crimina l case s
whe n
a s
provide
t o
avoid
relatio
d in Sec .
1 , Rul e
124 .
Th e eviden t purpos e i s
confusion in th e identit y o f th e cas e on appea l in

n t o t h a t whic h wa s trie d an d decide d b y th e tria l
court sinc e th e part y initiatin g th e appea l ma y

th e principa l defendan t name d i n th e lower court .
Of course ,
not b e
i f th e titl e o f th e cas e commence d in th e
tria l cour t i s erroneou s a s wher e a non-part y i s impleaded ,

such a s t h e publi c re s p o n d e n t o r th e tria l judg e
o r a
n o m i n a l
p a r t y w h o
s h o u l d n o t b e
a p a r t y
t o t h e
appeal , th e appellat e cour t ma y effect th e correspondin g
chang e or correctio n o f th e titl e o f th e cas e on appeal ,
indicatin g in it s decision th e reaso n for doin g so .
Sec . 2 .
u n s e l
a n d g u a r d i a n
e cour t
o f o r i g i n shal
a s thei r
c o u n s e l a n d
Counsel
and
guardians.
a d
litem
b e
r e s p e c t i v e l y
g u a r d i a n s
o f t h e
a d
partie s
litem
T h e
i n
c o
t h
c o n s i d e r e d
i n
t h e
Cour
t
o f
A p p e a l s .
W h e n o t h e r s a p p e a r o r ar e
a p p o
i n t e d ,
n o t i c e t h e r e o f shal l b e serve d i m m e d i a t e l y o
n th e
a d v e r s e part y an d file d w i t h t h e court .
(2a , R
46 )
594
----------------------- Page 595----------------------RULE 44
Sec.
o r i g i n a
o t
transmitte d
(30) day s
part y ma y
ORDINARY APPEALED
CASES
SECS. 3 , 4
3. Order
of
transmittal of
record. If t h e
l r e c o r d o r t h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l i s n
t o th e
Cour t o f Appeal s withi n thirt y
afte r th e perfectio n o f th e appeal , eithe r
fil e a motio n wit h th e tria l court , w i t h
n o t i c e t o t h e o t h e r , fo r t h e t r a n s m i t t a l o f
s u c h
recor d o r recor d o n appeal .
(31 , R46)
NOTE S
1. The former Rule provided that if the corresponding
record is not duly and timely received by the Court of
Appeals, aside from the appellee's remedy which has been
retained in this section he may also move the appellate
court to declare the appeal abandoned for failure to
prosecute.
As elsewhere observed, it was felt that the
latter alternative is too harsh as it punishes the appellant
for the nonfeasance of the clerk of the lower court, hence
only the first remedy is maintained. This will, of course,
be without prejudice to proceeding against the erring clerk
of court for the imposition of administrative or punitive
sanctions.
2. Under the former rule, it was held that the power
to dismiss the appeal under this section pertained to the
appellate court (Sec. lfcj, Rule 50), as the only instance
when the trial court may dismiss an appeal was under
Sec.
13, Rule
4 1 (Agoncillo
vs. CA,
et al., L-32094,
Nov. 24, 1972). At that time, Sec. 1(c) of Rule 50 provided,
as a ground for dismissal of the appeal, the "failure of the
appellant to prosecute his appeal under section 3 of Rule
46" (now, Rule 44).
These revised Rules, however,
eliminated that ground for dismissal of an appeal by its
deletion from the enumeration in Sec. 1 of Rule 50, hence
this section has been correspondingly amended.
Sec. 4 . Docketing of case. Upo n receivin g th e
origina l recor d o r th e recor d o n appea l an d th e
595
----------------------- Page 596-----------------------
RULE 44
SECS. 5-7
a
b
o
o
c c o m p
y th e
f th e d
f t h e
an d
notify t h

a n y i n g d o c u m e
l o w e r court , a s
o c k e t an d othe r
Cour t o f A p p e a
n t s
wel l
lawfu
l s
an d exhibit s transmitte d
a s t h e proo f o f paymen t
l fees , th e cler k o f cour t
shal l d o c k e t th e cas e
e partie s thereof .
Withi n t e n (10)
th e a p p e l l a n t , i n
l
fil e w i t h t h e cler k
l e
c o p i e s o f t h e a p
w i t h t h e
thereo f
u p o n t h e
(4a , R46 )
d a y s fro m receip t o f sai d notice ,

a p p e a l s b y recor d o n appeal , shal
o f c o u r t s e v e n (7)
p r o v e d
proo f o f s e r v i c e
recor d
clearl y legib
o n appeal ,
o f t w o
(2)
togethe r
c o p i e s
a p p e l l e e .
A n y
u n a u t h o r i z e d
a l t e r a t i o n , o m i s s
i o n
o r
a d d i t i o n i n t h e a p p r o v e d recor d o n appea l shal l b e
a g r o u n d fo r d i s m i s s a l o f t h e appeal ,
(n )
Sec . 5 .
Completion of record. Wher e t h e recor d
o f th e d o c k e t e d c a s e i s i n c o m p l e t e , th e cler k o
f cour t
o f t h e Cour t o f A p p e a l s shal l s o infor m sai d cour
t
an d r e c o m m e n d t o i t m e a s u r e s necessar y t o complet e
th e record .
I t s h a l l b e t h e d u t y o f sai d cour t t
o tak e
a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n t o w a r d s t h e c o m p l e t i o
n o f th e
r e c o r d w i t h i n t h e s h o r t e s t p o s s i b l e time ,
(
n )
Sec . 6.
Dispensing
with
complete
record.
Wher e
t h e
c o m p l e t i o n
o f
t h e
r e c o r d
c o u l d
n o t
b e
a c c o m p l i s h e d w i t h i n a sufficien t perio d allotte d fo r
s a i d p u r p o s e
d u e
t o i n s u p e r a b l e
o r e x
t r e m e l y
difficul t c a u s e s , t h e court , o n it s o w n m o t i o n o r o
n
m o t i o n o f a n y o f t h e p a r t i e s , m a y declar e tha
t th e
r e c o r d
a n d
i t s a c c o m p a n y i n g
t r a n s c r i
p t s
a n d
e x h i b i t s s o fa r a v a i l a b l e ar e sufficien t t o d e c i d
e th e
i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e a p p e a l , an d shal l i s s u e a
n orde r
e x p l a i n i n g t h e r e a s o n s fo r s u c h declaration ,
(n )
Sec . 7 .
Appellant's brief. It shal l b e th e dut y o f
t h e a p p e l l a n t
forty -
t o
fil e w i t h
t h e
court ,
w i t h i n
596
----------------------- Page 597----------------------RULE 44
SEC. 8
ORDINARY APPEALED CASES
fiv e (46) day s fro m receip t o f th e notic e o f th e cler k

tha t al l t h e e v i d e n c e , ora l an d d o c u m e n t a r y
, ar e
attache d t o th e record , seve n (7) copie s o f hi s legibl y
t yp ew r i t t e n , m i m e o g r a p h e d o r printe d brief , w i
t h
proo f o f servic e o f t w o (2) copie s thereo f u p o n th e
appellee .
(10a , R46)
Sec . 8 . Appellee's brief. Withi n forty-fiv e (46)
d a y s f r o m r e c e i p t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s brief ,
t h e
appelle e shal l fil e wit h th e cour t s e v e n (7) c o p i e s o f
hi s legibl y typewritten , mimeographe d o r printe d
brief, wit h proo f o f servic e o f t w o (2) copie s thereo f
upo n th e appellant .
(11a , R46)
Sec. 9 .
Appellant's reply
brief.
n t y
(20) day s fro m receip t o f th e appellee' s
appellan t ma y fil e a repl y brie f a n s w e r i n
th e appellee' s brie f no t covere d i n hi s
(12, R46 )
Withi n
t w e
brief , th e
g point s i n
mai n brief .
NOTE S
1. Th e failur e to file appellant' s brie f on tim e i s a
ground for dismissa l of th e appea l (Sec.
lfej, Rule 50
).
However , if th e failur e to do so i s du
or force
majeure
(in thi s case ,
th e
s
an d illnes s o f appellant' s counsel) , th e
be dismisse d (Monticines,
et al. vs.
913,
Sept. 4, 1973, an d case s therei n cited) .
Th e
expir y
o f th e
perio d
t o
file
e to caso fortuito
serie s o f typhoon
appea l will not
CA,
et al., L-35
appellant' s
doe s no t automaticall y resul t i n th e dismissa l

appeal or th e los s o f appellat e jurisdiction
vs.
Liwanag,
L-23697,
Dec.
28,
1968).
2 .
brie f
o f th e
(Infantado
It ha s als o been hel d tha t i f a motion t o dismis s
an appea l ha s been filed, it suspend s th e runnin g o f th e

597
----------------------- Page 598----------------------RULE 44
SEC. 10
perio d for filin g th e appellant 's brie f a s th e sam e would

b e unnecessar y shoul d th e motio n b e grante d (Alonso vs.
Rosario,
105
Phil.
654).
3 . Th e failur e t o file th e appellee 's brie f doe s not affe
ct
th e appeal .
Th e filing o f th e repl y brie f i s optiona l on
th e
p a r t o f th e appellant .
4 .
d
serve d h
longe r
require d
writte n o
Th e numbe r o f copie s o f th e brief s t o b e filed an

a s
bee n
reduce d
t o alway s b e
r mimeographed .
Sec .
special
cases. I n
10 .
th e
printe d bu t
Time
certiorari ,
an d
for
sam e
ma y
ar e
filing
eithe r b e
n o
type -
p r o h i b i t i o n ,
memoranda
in
m a n d a m u s ,
qu o
w a r r a n t o a n d
habeas corpus c a s e s , t h e
partie s
shal l
file , i n lie u o f briefs , t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e m e m o
r a n d a
w i t h i n a n o n - e x t e n d i b l e perio d o f thirt y (30 )
day s
fro m r e c e i p t o f t h e n o t i c e i s s u e d b y t h e cle
r k tha t
all t h e e v i d e n c e , ora l an d d o c u m e n t a r y , i s alre
ad y
a t t a c h e d t o t h e record .
(13a , R46 )
T h e
f a i l u r e o f t h e
a p p e l l a n t
t o
f
i l e h i s
m e m o r a n d u m w i t h i n t h e perio d therefo r m a y b e a
g r o u n d fo r d i s m i s s a l o f t h e appeal ,
(n )
NOTE S
1.
r y
o f t h e
s s i o n o
memoranda ,
thereo f i s
court .
2 .
Th e
firs t p a r a g r a p h o f thi s
section ,
amendato
f o r m e r p r a c t i c e , r e q u i r e s t h e s u b m i
f
instea d o f briefs , an d th e perio d for th e filing
non-extendibl e bu t canno t b e shortene d b y th e
Th e failur e o f th e appellan t t o seasonabl y file hi s
memorandu m i s a groun d for th e dismissa l o f th e appea l

i n t h e s e s p e c i a l c a s e s , a n d Sec .
1(e) ,
Rul e
5 0 h a s
correspondingly bee n amended .
598
----------------------- Page 599----------------------RULE 44
11-13
SECS.
Sec . 11 .
Several appellants
or appellees
or se
veral
counsel for
each party.
W h e r e
t h e r e ar e
s e v
e r a l
appellant s o r appellees , e a c h c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t i n g
on e o r mor e bu t no t al l o f t h e m shal l b e serve d wit h
onl y o n e cop y o f th e briefs .
Whe n severa l c o u n s e
l
r e p r e s e n t o n e appellan t o r appellee , copie s o f th e
brie f ma y b e serve d upo n an y o f them . (14a , R46 )
Sec.
12.
Extension
of
time
for
filing
briefs.
E x t e n s i o n o f tim e fo r th e
no t
b e allowed , e x c e p t fo r goo d
filin g
an d
o f brief s
sufficien t
an d onl y i f th e motio n fo r e x t e n s i o n
th e
expiratio n
o f th e
tim e
sough t
t o
wil l
c a u s e ,
i s file d befor e
b e
e x t e n d e d .
(15, R46)
Sec. 13 .
Contents
of
appellant's
brief.
h e
appellant' s brie f shal l contain , i n th e orde r herei n
indicated , th e following :
(a) A subjec t inde x o f
wit h a diges t o f th e argument s
a n d
a t a b l e o f c a s e s
g e d ,
textbook s an d statute s cite d wit
page s w h e r e the y ar e cited ;
th e matte r i n th e brie f
an d pag e references ,
a l p h a b e t i c a l l y a r r a n
h reference s t o th e
(b) A n
a s s i g n m e n t o f error s
i n t e n d e d t
o b e
urged , w h i c h error s shal l b e separately , distinctl y
a n d c o n c i s e l y s t a t e d w i t h o u t
r e p e t i t i o n
a n d
numbere d
consecutively ;
(c) Unde r th e headin g "Statemen t o f th e Case,
a clea r an d concis e statemen t o f th e natur e o
action , a summar y o f th e proceedings , th e appeale d
ruling s an d order s o f th e court , th e natur e
j u d g m e n t an d an y othe r matter s necessar y t
"
f th e
o f th e
o a n
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e natur e
e r s y ,
wit h pag e reference s t o th e record ;
o f th e
c o n t r o v
(d)
U n d e r
t h e h e a d i n g " S t a t e m e n t
t h e
Facts, " a clea r an d concis e statemen t i n a narrativ e
o f
599
----------------------- Page 600----------------------RULE 44
SEC. 13
for m o f t h e fact s a d m i t t e d
o f
t h o s e i n c o n t r o v e r s y , t
ubstanc e
o f t h e proo f r e l a t i n g t h e r
l t o
m a k e i t clearl y intelligible , w i t
t h e record ;
b y
bot h
partie s
o g e t h e r
e t o
i n
w it h
an d
th e
sufficien t detai
h pag e reference s t o
(e)
A clea r an d c o n c i s e s t a t e m e n t o f th e is
sue s
o f fac t o r la w t o b e s u b m i t t e d t o th e cour t
fo r it s
j u d g m e n t ;
(f)
U n d e r
t h e
h e a d i n g
" A r g u m e n t ,
"
t h e
appellant' s a r g u m e n t s o n e a c h a s s i g n m e n t o f erro r
w i t h p a g e r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e record .
Th e author
itie s
relie d u p o n shal l b e c i t e d b y t h e pag e o f th e repor t
a t w h i c h t h e c a s e b e g i n s a n d t h e pag e o f th e rep
or t
o n w h i c h t h e c i t a t i o n i s found ;
(g)
U n d e r t h e h e a d i n g "Relief, " a specificatio n
o f t h e o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t w h i c h t h e appellan t seeks
;
a n d
(h)
I n c a s e s
n o t
b r o u g h t
u p
b y
r e
c o r d
o n
a p p e a l , t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f s h a l l c o n t a
i n , a s a n
a p p e n d i x , a c o p y o f t h e j u d g m e n t o r
fina
l
orde r
a p p e a l e d from .
(16a , R46 )
NOTE S
1.
o f th e
Fo r
m a t t e r s
discussio n
require d
o f th e
t o
b e
rational e
containe d
an d
purpose s
i n
appellant
' s
brief , se e De Liano, et al.
,
Nov . 22 , 2001) .
vs.
CA., et al. (G.R . No .
142316
2 . Th e failur e o f th e appellan t t o mak e a speci

fic
assignmen t o f error s in hi s brie f or o f pag e reference s t o
th e recor d a s require d in thi s sectio n i s a groun d for th e
dismissa l of hi s appea l
(Sec. Iff J, Rule 50).
See ,
however ,
Philippine
Coconut
Authority
vs.
Corona
Inte
rnational,
Inc.
(G.R . No . 139918 , Sept . 29 , 2000) directin g a libera l
interpretatio n o f thi s ground .
600
----------------------- Page 601----------------------RULE 44
13
SEC.
3 . Th e rul e i s tha t only error s specifically assigne d

and properly argue d in th e brie f will b e considered , excep t
error s affecting jurisdiction over th e subject-matter , a s wel l
a s plai n an d clerica l errors .
However , th e appellat e cour t
may als o consider unassigne d error s closely relate d t o or
dependent upon a n assigne d erro r an d properly argue d
in th e brie f (Sec. 8, Rule 51); or unassigne d error s
which
ar e necessar y for a jus t decision in th e cas e or , in th e
interest o f justice , i f the y involv e question s passe d upo n
in th e tria l court , an d ar e matter s o f recor d havin g som e
bearin g on th e issue s submitte d
(Korean Airlines Co., Ltd.
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 114061, Aug. 3,
1994; cf. Vda. de
Javellana
De Leon
vs. CA,
vs.
CA,
et
al., G.R.
et al,
G.R.
No.
No.
60129,
95511,
July
Jan.
30,
29,
1983;
1992).
4. In Viron
Transportation
Co.,
Inc. vs. CA,
et al
.
(G.R . No . 117020 , Apri l 4 , 2003) , th e Suprem e Cour t
reiterate d
it s holdin g in
Catholic Bishop
of Balanga
vs
.
CA, e t al. (G.R . No . 112519 , Nov .
14 , 1996) wher e it
summarized th e exception s t o th e rul e tha t only error s
assigned in th e brie f may b e considere d on appeal , thus ;
in
"Guided by th e foregoing precepts , w e hav e rule d

numbe r o f case s t h a t th e appellat e cour t
s
accorded a broa d discretionary power t o waiv e th e lack
of prope r assignmen t o f error s an d t o consider error s
not assigned .
It i s clothe d wit h ampl e authorit y t o
review ruling s even i f they ar e not assigne d a s error s
in th e appeal . Inasmuc h a s th e Cour t o f Appeal s may
consider ground s othe r tha n thos e touche d upon in
th e decision o f th e tria l court an d uphol d th e sam e on
th e basi s o f suc h othe r grounds , th e Cour t o f Appeal s
may wit h n
th e tria l
thos e raise
thi s rule ,
instances :
o les s authority , revers e th e decision o f

cour t o n th e basi s o f ground s othe r tha n
d a s error s on appeal .
W e hav e applie d
a s a matte r o f exception , in th e following
60 1
----------------------- Page 602----------------------RULE 44

SEC 14
(1)
Ground s no t assigne d a s error s bu t affecting
th e jurisdictio n over th e subject-matter ;
(2)
n
Matter s no t assigne d a s error s o n appea l bu t
ar e
evidentl y plai n
th e
contemplation o f law ;
(3)
o r
clerica l
e r r o r s
withi
consideration o f whic h i s necessar y in arrivin g at a

jus t decision an d complet e resolutio n o f th e cas e or t o
serve th e interest s o f justic e o r t o avoi d dispensin g
piecemea l justice ;
(4)
Matter s no t specifically assigne d a s error s on
appea l bu t raise d i n th e tria l cour t an d ar e matter s o

f
recor d havin g som e bearin g o n th e issu e submitte d
whic h th e partie s faile d t o rais e o r whic h th e lower
court ignored ;
(5)
closely relate d t o a n erro r assigned ; an d

(6)
upo n whic h th e determinatio n o f a questio n properl y

assigne d i s dependent. "
Sec . 14 .
Contents
of
appellee's
T h e
a p p e l l e e ' s brie f s h a l l c o n t a i n , i n
herei n
i n d i c a t e d , t h e following :
(a)
h e brie f
i t h a d i
,
n d
a
t
a n g e d ,
t e x t b o o k
e s t o th e
t
w
s
a
s u b j e c t
i n d e x
o f t h e
brief.
t h e
m a t t e r
orde r
i n
g e s t o f t h e a r g u m e n t s a n d p a g e reference
a b l e
s a n d
o f
c a s e s
a l p h a b e t i c a l l y
a r r
s t a t u t e s c i t e d w i t h r e f e r e n c
p a g e s w h e r e t h e y ar e
cited ;
(b)
U n d e r t h e
h e a d i n g " S t a t e m e n t o f
Facts, "
t h e
a p p e l l e e
s h a l l s t a t e t h a t
h e
a c c e p
t s
t h e
s t a t e m e n t o f fact s i n t h e appellant' s brief , o r unde r
t h e h e a d i n g " C o u n t e r - S t a t e m e n t o f Facts, " h e
shal l
p o i n t o u t s u c h i n s u f f i c i e n c i e s o r i n a c c u r a c
i e s a s h e
b e l i e v e s e x i s t i n t h e appellant' s s t a t e m e n t o
f fact s
602
----------------------- Page 603----------------------RULE 44
SEC. 15
wit h reference s t o th e page s o f th e recor d i n suppor t

t h e r e o f , b u t w i t h o u t
r e p e t i t i o n o f m a t t e r
s i n
appellant' s s t a t e m e n t o f facts ; an d
(c)
U n d e r
t h e
appelle e shal l se t
e
o n eac h a s s i g n m
c e s
t o th e record .
cite d b y th e pag e
s e
b e g i n s an d t h e
t h e
citatio n i s found .
t h e
fort h
h e a d i n g
" A r g u m e n t , "
e n t
hi s a r g u m e n t s
o f erro r
wit h
i n t h e
pag e
cas
r e f e r e n
Th e authoritie s relie d o n shal l b e

o f th e repor t a t w h i c h th e c a
p a g e
o f t h e
repor t
o n
w h i c h
(17a , R46)
NOTE S
1. An appelle e wh o ha s no t als o appeale d canno t

mak e
assignment s
o f error s
in hi s brie f (Gorospe
vs.
Penaflorida,
101 Phil.
886) bu t he can mak e a counter assignment o f error s in orde r t o sustai n th e judgmen t
(Saenz
vs.
Mitchel,
60
Phil.
69;
La
Campaha
Food
Products,
Inc. vs. PCIB, et al.,
L-16405, June 30,
86).
2 . An appellee , in hi s brief,
raise d at th e tria l t o sustai n th
other grounds , even i f th e sam e wer
decision o f th e cour t a quo no
assignment o f error s or arguments .
e
court ca n
affir m a j u dg m e n
19
can als o argu e on issue s

e judgmen t in hi s favor on
e not include d in th e
r raise d in appellant' s
Hence , th e appellat
t
o n
ground s
ignore d
o r
erroneously
decide d
by
th e lower cour t
(Relativo
vs.
Castro,
76 Phil.
563; Cababasada vs.
CA, et al.,
83
Phil.
112; Carillo
vs. De Paz,
L-22061,
Oct.
28, 1966; Migue
l
vs. CA, et al., L-20274,
Oct.
30, 1969).
Th e appellee
,
however , canno t assign such error s t o hav e th e judgmen t
modified for, to do so , he mus t hav e appeale d
(Aparri
vs.
CA, et al., LI 5947, April 30,
1965; Carbonel vs.
CA,
et
al., L-40729-30,
Jan.
31,
1987).
Sec. 16.
Questions that may be raised on appeal.
Whethe r o r no t th e appellan t ha s file d a motio n fo r
603
----------------------- Page 604----------------------RULE 44
SEC. 15
n e w tria l i n t h e c o u r t below , h e m a y includ e
i n hi s
a s s i g n m e n t o f error s an y q u e s t i o n o f la w o r fac t t
ha t
h a s b e e n r a i s e d i n t h e c o u r t b e l o w a n d w h
i c h i s
w i t h i n t h e i s s u e s frame d b y th e parties .
(18a
, R46 )
N O T E S
1. Th e appea l ca n rais e only question s o f law or fact
t h a t (a) wer e raise d i n th e cour t below an d (b) ar e withi n
th e issue s frame d b y th e partie s therein .
A n issu e
which
wa s neithe r averre d i n th e complain t no r raise d durin g
th e tria l i n th e cour t below canno t b e raise d for th e first
tim e o n appea l a s i t woul d b
s
of fair play , justic e an d du e
et al, L-30560,
Nov.
18,
cited ;
Dihiansan,
et al
vs. CA,
1987).
e offensiv e t o th e basi c rule

proces s (De la Santa
1985,
an d case s
et
al, L
49539,
vs.
CA,
therei n
Sept.
14,
H o w e v e r ,
q u e s t i o n s o f j u r i s d i c t i o n b
a s e d o n
consideration s o f law ca n b e raise d i n th e appellat e cour t
for th e firs t time , bu t no t question s o f jurisdictio n base d
on fact s whic h wer e no t raise d in th e lower cour t (Gala
vs.
Rodriguez,
25 Phil
522;
Cordero
vs.
Judge
of
CFI of
Rizal,
40
2 . Sec
r
whic h doe s
m a t t e r o r
th e proceeding
in t h e a s
e d t o o r
dependen t o n
th e brief ,
r s
an d clerica l
Phil.
246).
Rul e 5 1 furthe r provide s t h a t "(n)o erro
8 ,
no t affect th e
th e validit y o f
s therei n wil l b
s i g n m e n t o f
jurisdictio n
th e judgmen
e considere d
e r r o r s ,
ove r th e subject t appeale d from o r

unles s state d
o r closel y r e l a t
a n assigne d erro r an d properl y

sav e a s th e cour t ma y pas s
argue d i n
upo n plai n erro
errors. "
3 . Also , o n appeal ,
theor y o f actio n o r defens e
e
issue s frame d in th e
&
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Chu Hian
Tek,
n th e
factua l base s thereo f woul d
of furthe r evidenc e by th e
th e partie s canno t chang e thei r

sinc e t h a t woul d b e outsid e th
lower
cour t
(Atkins,
102 Phil.
948),
Kroll
excep t
whe
not requir e th e presentatio n

advers e part y t o enabl e i t t o
604
----------------------- Page 605----------------------RULE 44

SEC. 15
meet th e issue s raise d in th e new theor y o f th e appellan t

(Lianga Lumber Co.
vs. Lianga
Timber Co., Inc.,
38685,
Mar.
31,
1977).
L-
Th e reversa l o f a judgmen t on appea l i s generall y

bindin g only on th e partie s in th e appeale d cas e an d doe s
not affect or inur e t o th e benefit o f thos e wh o di d no t join
or wer e not mad e partie s t o th e appeal .
However , wher
e
a judgmen t canno t b e reverse d a s t o th e part y appealin g
withou t affectin g th e
right s o f th e co-part y wh o d
i d
not appeal , or wher e th e right s an d liabilitie s o f th e partie s
wh o di d
no t a p p e a l an d thos e wh o appeale d a r e
s o
i n t e r w o v e n a n d d e p e n d e n t o n eac h o t h e r a s
t o b e
inseparable , a reversa l a s t o on e operate s a s a reversa l
a s t o al l becaus e o f th e communit y o f thei r interest s
(Tropical Homes,
51554,
Jan.
13,
1989).
Inc.
vs.
Fortun,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
4 . In th e appellat e proceedings , th e reversa l o f th e

judgmen t on appea l i s bindin g only on th e partie s in th e
appealed cas e an d doe s not affect or inur e t o th e benefit
of thos e
wh o
di d
no t join or wer e
no t
mad e
partie s
o
th e
7746,
Jan.
appea l
31,
(Facundo,
1962),
vs.
except
wher e
Pabalan,
th e
etc.,
interes t
et al.,
o f thos e
L-1
wh o
appealed an d thos e wh o did not ar e s o interwove n an d

dependent on each othe r a s t o b e inseparabl e such tha t a
r e v e r s a l a s t o on e o p e r a t e s a s a r e v e r s a
a s t o al l
(Municipality
of Orion
vs. Concha,
50 Phil.
679;
ayaba
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 95918, Mar. 5, 1993).
Thus ,
er e
th e tw o respondent s base d thei r claim t o th e lan d a
l
C
wh
s
co-heirs in pro indiviso share s in th e sam e parce l o f lan d

covered by th e sam e titl e an d neithe r responden t asserte d
a claim advers e t o th e others ; at th e trial , th e responden t
wh o di d not appea l di d no t presen t an y evidenc e bu t
adopted th e evidenc e presente d b y th e othe r o n thei r
communality o f interest s a s co-owner s o f th e lan d in
litigation ; an d th e appea l wa s from th e entir e judgmen t
involving sai d parce l o f lan d an d not merely from separat e
and distinct portion s thereof , th e reversa l o f th e judgmen t
605
----------------------- Page 606----------------------RULE 44
SEC. 15
a s
t o th e r e s p o n d e n t wh o appeale d i s bindin g o n
th e
responden t wh o di d not , a s th e evidenc e o f th e former i s
th e sam e a s t h a t o f th e latte r
(Director of Lands, e t a
l. vs.
Reyes,
et al., L-27594,
Feb.
27,
1976; Alinsunurin,
etc.
vs.
Director of Lands,
et al, L-28144,
Feb.
27,
1976).
5 . I t wil l b e
ar e sue d
b y on e
f th e
defendant s
shall b e
recalle d t h a t whe n severa l defendant s
unde r a commo n caus e o f action , an answe r filed

o f t h e m generall y i n u r e s t o th e benefi t
wh o di d no t file thei r answer , an d th e cas e

trie d o n th e basi s o f suc h answe r a s ma y hav e
bee n file d
,
i s
different w h e
l
co-partie s sinc
doe s no t inur
(Sec.
r e
3[cJ,
Rule
j u d g m e n t
9).
i s
Th e
rendere d
rule ,
agains t
however
severa
e a n appea l therefro m b y on e o f th e partie s

e t o th e benefi t o f hi s co-partie s wh o di d not
duly appeal , sav e i n th e situation s i n th e case s jus t note d

w h e r e i n a reversa l obtaine d b y on e o f th e appellant s
benefit s hi s co-partie s wh o ar e similarl y circumstanced .

If, d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y
o f t h e a p p e a l , e x e
c u t i o n a l
processe s ha d bee n enforce d agains t th e losin g partie s wh o
did no t appeal ,
upo n reversa l o f th e j u d g m e n t a
quo,
restitutio n o r reparatio n shal l b e made , i n accordanc e with
Sec. 5 , Rul e 39 , i n th e case s t h u s contemplated .
6 . Th e determinatio n b y th e tria l cour t i s entitle d t
o
th e
highes t
respec t
sinc e
th e
presidin g judg e
wa s
i n a
bette r positio n t o weig h an d apprais e th e testimon y o f

t h e w i t n e s s e s , havin g observe d thei r d e p o r t m e n t
an d
m a n n e r o f testifying .
Appellat e court s wil l generall
y
no t distur b th e factua l finding s o f th e tria l cour t unles s i
t
ha s plainl y overlooke d fact s o f substanc e an d valu e wb '
h ,
if considered , migh t affect th e resul t o f th e cas e (People
vs. Baao,
G.R.
No.
68574,
July
7,
1986; People
vs. Ibal,
G.R.
Nos.
66010-12,
July
31,
1986).
A
simila r
rul e
i s
followe d
wit h
regar d
t o
factua l
finding s
o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l s o r quas
i-judicia l
agencies .
Wit h e s t a b l i s h e d exceptions ,
th e S
uprem e
Court als o accord s respect , i f no t finality , t o thei r factua l
606
----------------------- Page 607----------------------RULE 44
SEC. 15
findings by reaso n o f thei r specia l knowleg e an d expertis e

gained from thei r experienc e in specific matter s unde r thei r
jurisdictio n
(Manila Hotel Corp.
vs. NLRC,
et al., G.R.
No. 54353, Jan. 22, 1986; Ateneo de Manila vs.
CA et al.,
G.R. No. 56180,
Oct.
16, 1986; Phil. Overseas
Drilling
and Oil Dev. Corp.
vs. Minister of Labor, et al., G.R. No.
55703, Nov. 27, 1986; Soco vs. Mercantile Corp. of Davao,
et al, G.R. Nos. 53364-65, Mar.
16, 1987).
607
----------------------- Page 608----------------------RUL E
4 5
APPEA L
B Y
CERTIORAR I
T O TH E S U P R E M E COUR T
Sectio n
1.
Filing of
Court.
A p a r t y
d e s i r i n g t o a
fro m a
j u d g m e n t , fina l o r d e r o r
r t o f
Ta x A p p e a l s , t h e
R e g i
the r
c o u r t s , w h e n e v e r a u t h o
wit h
t h e S u p r e m e Cour t a verifie d
petition
p p e a l
in
b y
Supreme
c e r t i o r a r i
r e s o l u t i o n o f th e
o n a l
Tria l
Courts ,
b y
law , ma y
r i z e d
Cou
o r
fil e
p e t i t i o n fo r revie w o n
certiorari .
T h e p e t i t i o n
tio n
fo r
a
w r i t
o f p r e l i m i n
r o t h e r
p r o v i s i o n a l r e m e d i e s a n d
i o n s
o f l a w , w h i c h
m u s t
b e
.
Th e
p e t i t i o n e r m a y s e e k t h e
e m e d i e s
b y
v e r i f i e d m o t i o n
f i l
t i o n o r
a t a n y
t i
n d e n c y .
J
(As amended
effective
Dec.
27,
with
m a y i n c l u d e a n applica
a r y
i n j u n c t i o n
shal l rais e onl y q u e s t

d i s t i n c t l y s e t forth
s a m e p r o v i s i o n a l r
e d i n
m e
A.M.
t h e
d u r i n g
No.
s a m e
a c
i t s p e
07-7-12-SC,
2007)
NOTE S
1.
verifie d
appeal s
c r i m i
i s
i m p r i
s h a l l
elevated
penalt y
Appeal s t o th e Suprem e Cour t ar e mad e only b y

petition s for revie w on certiorari , excep t only in
from judgment s o f th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t i n
n a l c a s e s w h e r e i n t h e p e n a l t y impose d
lif e
s o n m e n t
o r
reclusion
perpetua
whic h
b e
by ordinar y appeal , or formerly , wherei n th e deat h
wa s impose d an d wa s subjec t t o automati c review .
All othe r appeal s t o th e Suprem e Cour t ca n b e take n

from a judgmen t or fina l orde r or resolutio n o f th e Cour t
o f Appeals , th e Sandiganbayan , th e Regiona l Tria l Court ,
or suc h othe r court s a s ma y b e authorize d by law , only by
a verifie d petitio n for revie w on certiorar i on question s o f
law .
608
----------------------- Page 609----------------------RULE 45
SEC. 1
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT
2 . Th e appea l unde r thi s Rul e contemplate s tha t th

Regional Tria l Cour t rendere d th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r
or resolutio n actin g i n it s origina l jurisdiction .
I f i t
r e n d e r e d t h e s a m e i n t h e exercis e
o f it s
e l l a t e
jurisdiction , in th e instance s provide d for in Rule s 4 2 an
43 , th e appea l shal l b e take n t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s eve
if only question s o f law ar e raise d by th e petitioner .
a p p
d
n
3 . A questio n o f law exist s whe n ther e i s a doub t or

controversy a s t o wha t th e law i s on a certai n stat e o f
facts, an d ther e i s a questio n o f fact whe n th e doub t or
difference arise s a s t o th e t r u t h o r falsehoo d o f fa
ct s
(Ramos vs. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., L-22533, Feb.
9,
1967;
Pilar Dev. Corp. vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No.
72283, Dec.
12,
1986).
On e
tes t i s w h e t h e r th e appellat e cour t
ca n
determin e th e issu e raise d withou t reviewin g or evaluatin g
th e evidence , i n whic h cas e i t i s a questio n o f law
;
otherwise , it wil l b e a questio n o f fact .
Th e questio n mu
s t
not involv e th e examinatio n o f th e probativ e valu e o f th e
evidenc e
p r e s e n t e d (Vda.
de
Arroyo
vs.
El
Be
aterio
del
Santissimo Rosario
de Molo,
L-22005,
May
3,
1968).
A s distinguishe d from a question o f law which exist s
whe n th e doub t or differenc e arise s a s t o wha t th e law i s
on a certai n stat e o f facts , ther e i s a question o f fact whe n
th e doub t o r differenc e arise s a s t o th e t r u t h o
th e
falsehood o f allege d facts , or whe n th e query necessarily
invite s calibratio n o f th e whol e evidenc e considerin g
mainly th e credibility o f witnesses , existenc e an d relevancy
of specific surroundin g circumstances , their relation t o each
othe r an d t o th e whole , an d th e probabilitie s o f th e
situation (Bernardo, et al. vs. CA, et al.,

Dec. 7, 1992, an d case s cite d therein) .
G.R. No.
101680,
4 . Whethe r an appea l involve s only question s o f law

or bot h question s o f law an d fact i s bes t left t o t
h e
determination o f an appellat e court an d not by th e court
which
rendere d
th e decision appeale d
from
(PNB
vs.
Romillo, etc., et al., G.R. No. 70681, Oct. 16, 1985).
When
609
----------------------- Page 610-----------------------
RULE 45
SEC. 1
th e fact s ar e undisputed , th e questio n o f whethe r o r not

th e conclusio n draw n therefro m b y th e Cour t o f Appeal s
i s correc t i s a questio n o f la w cognizabl e by th e Suprem e
Court
(Commissioner of Immigration
vs.
Garcia,
L28082,
June 28, 1974).
However , al l doubt s a s t o th e correctnes s
of suc h conclusion s wil l b e resolve d in favor o f th e Cour t
of Appeal s (Pilar Dev.
Corp.
vs. IAC, et al., supra).
5 .
t o f
Appeal s ar
on appea l
Teves,
9 6 Phil.
A s
rule ,
th e
finding s
o f fact
o f th e
Cour
e fina l an d conclusiv e an d canno t b e reviewe d

t o th e Suprem e Cour t (Amigo, e t al. vs.
252) provide d
the y
ar e
born e
ou t by th e
recor d
or
a r e base d
o n s u b s t a n t i a l evidenc e
(Alsua-Betts
vs.
CA,
et
al., L-46430-31,
July
30,
1979).
However ,
as
recapitulate d by th e Suprem e Cour t in Ramos, e t al.
vs.
Pepsi
Cola
Bottling
Co.,
supra,
an d
in
it s subsequ
en t
rulings , finding s o f fact o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s may b e
reviewe d b y th e Suprem e Cour t o n appea l b y certiorar i (a)
W h e n
t h e conclusio n
i s a findin g
de d
entirely on speculations , surmise s or conjecture s
Joaquin
vs.
Navarro,
93 Phil.
257);
(b)
absur d
15);
or
groun
(
Whe n th e inferenc e mad e i s manifestly mistaken ,

impossibl e
(Luna vs.
Linatok,
74 Phil.
(c)
Wher e ther e i s grav e abus e o f discretio n in th e
appreciation of fact s
(Buyco vs. People,
95 Phil.
4
53);
(d)
W h e n
pre hensio n of fact s
4 Phil.
26);
t h e
j u d g m e n t
(De
la
Cruz
i s
vs.
base d
Sosing,
o n
a
et
misap
al., 9
(e) Whe n th e finding s o f fact o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s

ar e conflictin g
(Casica, et al. vs. Villaseca, et al., 101 P
hil.
1204
[Unrep.]);
(f)
W h e n
t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s , i n m a k i
n g it s
findings , wen t beyon d th e issue s o f th e cas e an d th e sam e
i s c o n t r a r y t o
l a n t an d
appelle e
(Evangelista
,
103
t h e a d m i s s i o n s
vs.
Alto
Surety
o f bot h a p p e l
&
Insurance
Co.
610
----------------------- Page 611----------------------RULE 45
1
SEC.

Phil.
401; Roque vs. Buan, G.R. No. 22459, Oct. 31,
196
7;
Leonardo
vs. CA,
et al., G.R. No.
51263, Feb.
28, 198
3;
Republic
vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No.
61647,
Oct.
12, 198
4;
Moran vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 59956, Oct.
13, 1984;Nakpil
& Sons, et al.
47851, Oct. 3,
1986);
(g) Whe n th e
Cour t o f Appeal s manifestl y over looked certai n relevan t fact s not dispute d b y th e partie s
and which , i f properl y considered , woul d justify a different
conclusion
(Abellana
vs. Dosdos,
LI9498,
Feb.
26,
196
5;
Uytiepo
vs. Aggabao,
L-28671,
Sept.
30,
1970;
Carolin
a
Industries,
Inc.
vs. CMS
Stock
Brokerage,
Inc.,
L-46908
,
May 17,
1980); or
(h) Wher e th e finding s o f fact o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s
ar e contrar y t o thos e o f th e tria l court , o r ar e me
r e
conclusion s withou t citatio n o f specific evidence , or wher e
th e fact s se t forth by th e petitione r ar e not dispute d by
th e respondent , or wher e th e finding s o f fact o f th e Cour t
of Appeal s ar e premise d on absenc e o f evidenc e bu t ar e
contradicte d by th e evidenc e of recor d (Manero
vs. C
A,
et al, L-49542,
Sept.
12, 1980; Ducusin
vs. CA,
et
al,
G.R. No.
58286, May
16,
1983; Cesar
vs. Sandiganbayan,
et al,
G.R.
Nos.
54719-50,
Jan.
17,
1985;
Sacay
vs.
Sandiganbayan,
et al,
G.R.
Nos.
66497-98,
July
10,
1986; Manlapaz vs.
CA,
et al, G.R. No.
56589, Jan.
12,
1987).
6.
Certiorar i a s a mod e o f appea l unde r thi s Rule ,
should b e distinguishe d from certiorar i a s a n origina l
specia l
civi l actio n
(Rule
65), u n d e r th e followin g
considerations :
a . In appea l by certiorari , th e petition i s base d on

question s o f law which th e appellan t desire s th e appellat e
court t o resolve .
In certiorar i a s an origina l action , th e
petition raise s th e issu e a s t o whethe r th e lower court acte d
withou t or in exces s o f jurisdiction or with grav e abus e o f
discretion .
611
----------------------- Page 612----------------------RULE 45
SEC. 2
b . C e
th e
review o f th e
Th e origina l
an interlocutor
th e judgmen t
plain , speed y

r t i o r a r i ,
a s
mod e
o f appeal ,
involve s
judgment , awar d or fina l orde r on th e merits .

actio n for certiorar i ma y b e directe d agains t
y orde r o f th e cour t prio r t o appea l from
o r wher e ther e i s n o appea l o r any other
o r adequat e remedy .
c.
Appea l b y certiorar i m u s t b e mad e
e
reglementar y perio d for appeal .
An origina
r
certiorar i ma y b e filed no t late r t h a n sixty (60)
notic e o f th e judgment , orde r or resolutio n sough t
assailed .
withi n
th
l action fo
day s from
t o b e
d . Appea l b y certiorar i stay s th e judgment , awar d

or orde r appeale d from .
An origina l actio n for certiorari
,
unles s a wri t o f preliminar y injunctio n or a temporar y
restrainin g orde r shal l hav e bee n issued , doe s not stay
th e challenge d proceeding .
e . I n a p p e a l b y c e r t i o r a r i , t h e p e t i t i
o n e r an d
responden t ar e th e origina l partie s t o th e action , an d th e
lower cour t or quasi-judicia l agenc y i s no t t o b e impleaded .
I n certiorar i a s a n origina l action , th e partie s ar e
th e
aggrieve d part y agains t th e lowe r cour t o r quasi-judicia l
a g e n c y
a n d t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t i e s , wh o
t
h e r e b y
respectivel y becom e th e petitione r an d respondents .
f . In certiorar i for purpose s o f appeal , th e prior filing
of a motio n for reconsideratio n i s no t required ; whil e in
certiorar i a s an origina l action , a motion for reconsideration
i s a conditio n precedent , subjec t t o certai n exceptions .
th e
review
court
contro
courts
g . In
exercis e
, whil e
exercise
l an d
.
appea l by certiorari , th e appellat e cour t i s in

o f it s appellat e jurisdictio n an d powe r o f
i n certiorar i a s a n origina l action , th e higher
s origina l jurisdictio n unde r it s power o f
supervisio n ove r th e proceeding s o f lower
Th e foregoin g distinction s se t ou t i n thi s book wer e

first adopte d by th e Suprem e Cour t in Paa vs. CA, e t al.
612
----------------------- Page 613----------------------RULE 45
SEC. 2
(G.R. No . 12560 , Dec . 4 , 1997) ; se e als o San Miguel Corp.,

et al. vs. Layos, Jr., et al, (G.R . No . 149640 , Oct . 19, 2007) .
7 .
Th e
Suprem e
Cour t
ca n t r e a t
petitio n
filed
erroneously unde r Rul e 6 5 a s on e filed unde r Rul e 4 5 i f

th e petitione r ha d allege d grav e abus e o f discretion in sai d
petition unde r th e following circumtances : (1) I f th e petition
wa s filed withi n 1 5 day s o f notic e o f th e judgmen t or fina l
order or resolutio n appeale d from ; or (2) I f th e petitio n i s
meritoriou s
(Hanjin
Heavy
Industries
and
Cons
truction
Co., Ltd. vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 167938, Feb.
19,
2009).
Sec . 2 .
Time for filing; extension. T h e
p e
t i t i o n
s h a l l b e file d w i t h i n fiftee n (15) d a y s fro m n o t i c e
o f
t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r o r r e s o l u t i o n a p
p e a l e d
from , o r o f t h e d e n i a l o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s m o
t i o n fo r
n e w t r i a l o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n file d i n d u e t i m
e afte r
n o t i c e o f t h e j u d g m e n t .
O n m o t i o n d u l y fil
e d a n d
s e r v e d , w i t h ful l p a y m e n t o f t h e d o c k e t a n
d o t h e r
l a w f u l fee s
a n d
t h e d e p o s i t fo r
c o s t s b e f
o r e t h e
e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e r e g l e m e n t a r y p e r i o d , t h e S
u p r e m e
C o u r t
m a y
f o r j u s t i f i a b l e r e a s o n s
g r a
n t
a n
e x t e n s i o n o f t h i r t y (30 ) d a y s onl y w i t h i n w
h i c h t o
file t h e p e t i t i o n , ( l a , 5a )
N O T E
1.
Th e reglementar y perio d to appea l i s 1 5 day s from
servic e
o f t h e j u d g m e n t , fina l orde r o r resoluti
on .
However , withi n tha t period , th e aggrieve d part y may file
a motion for new tria l or reconsideratio n and , i f denied ,
h e shal l hav e th e entir e 1 5 day s al l over again from notic e
of such denia l withi n which t o file hi s petition for review

on certiorar i in th e Suprem e Court .
In eithe r case , withi n such 15-day period , h e may for
good caus e file a motio n wit h th e Suprem e Cour t for
extension of tim e within which to file hi s petition for review
on certiorari , bu t h e mus t within tha t perio d submi t th e
613
----------------------- Page 614----------------------RULE 45
8EC. 3
requisit e proo f o f servic e o f suc h motion on th e respondents ,

pa y th e docke t an d othe r lawfu l fee s i n full , a s wel l a
s
deposit th e cost s o f suit .
It wil l b e note d tha t thi s i s a specia l procedur e adopte d
in th e interes t o f procedura l du e proces s an d t o afford
sufficient opportunit y t o th e appealin g part y t o file hi s
petitio n for revie w on certiorar i whic h ma y very wel l b e
hi s las t chanc e for obtainin g full appellat e revie w o f hi s
case .
Th e basi c rul e i s tha t sinc e th e subjec t o f motion
s
ar e only th e incident s i n a case , ther e mus t firs t b e
a
pendin g cas e i n th e cour t wherei n a motio n o n a n inciden t
therei n ma y b e entertained .
Here , however , althoug h n
o
such mai n cas e i s pendin g i n th e Suprem e Cour t sinc e a
petitio n therefo r i s stil l t o b e filed , th e appealin g part
y
ma y file , an d th e Suprem e Cour t wil l entertain , suc h a
motion for extensio n o f time .
Sec . 3.
Docket and other lawful fees; proof of servi
ce
of petition. U n l e s s h e h a s t h e r e t o f o r e d o n e s
o , th e
p e t i t i o n e r shal l pa y t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g d o c k
e t an d
o t h e r
l a w f u l f e e s t o t h e
c l e r k o f c o u r t
o f t h e
S u p r e m e Cour t a n d d e p o s i t t h e a m o u n t o f P500.
0 0
fo r c o s t s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e filin g o f t h e
pe
tition .
Proo f o f s e r v i c e o f a c o p y t h e r e o f o n t h e l o w e r c
our t
c o n c e r n e d
a n d
o n
t h e a d v e r s e
p a r t y
s
h a l l b e
s u b m i t t e d t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n , ( l a )
NOTE S
1. Th e openin g phras e "(u)nles s h e ha s theretofor e

done so " refer s t o th e situatio n in th e nex t precedin g section
wherei n a motio n for extensio n o f tim e t o file th e petitio n
for revie w wa s filed ,
i n whic h cas e th e petitione r
ha d
already pai d th e docke t an d othe r lawfu l fee s an d mad e
th e deposi t for cost s a s requisite s therefor .
2 . Proo f o f servic e
o f copie s o n t h e
lowe r
cour t
concerned , a s th e publi c respondent , an d o n th e advers e
614
----------------------- Page 615----------------------RULE 45
SEC. 4
party , a s th e privat e respondent , i n th e manne r provide d

by Rul e 1 3 shal l b e submitte d togethe r wit h th e petition ;
otherwise , th e sam e shal l b e dismisse d outrigh t a s wa s
th e practic e adopte d b y th e Suprem e Cour t pursuan t t o
revise d Circula r No .
1-88 an d from which th e prese
n t
requirement s wer e taken .
However , althoug h a copy o
f
th e petitio n i s serve d on th e lower cour t concerned , it i s
only for th e purpos e o f givin g notic e tha t it s judgmen t
should not b e entere d sinc e it i s not ye t executory becaus e
of th e pendin g petitio n for review thereof .
Th e lower
court doe s not , however , becom e a part y t o th e cas e sinc e
Rule 4 5 provide s a mod e o f appeal , a s explaine d in th e
following section .
Sec . 4 .
Contents of petition. T h e
a l l
b e file d
i n e i g h t e e n (18 ) c o p i e
o r i g i n a l
cop y i n t e n d e d fo r t h e c o u r t b e i n g
s s u c h
b y t h e p e t i t i o n e r , a n d shal l (a )
ul l n a m e
o f t h e
a p p e a l i n g p a r t y
a s t h e
r a n d t h e
a d v e r s e
p a r t y a s
r e s p o n d e n t ,
p l e a d i n g
t h e
l o w e r
c o u r t s
o r
j u d g e s
i t h e r
a s
p e t i t i o n e r s o r r e s p o n d e n t s ; (b )
e m a t e r i a l
d a t e s s h o w i n g w h e n notic e o f t h e j u
a l
o r d e r o r r e s o l u t i o n s u b j e c t t
r e c e i v e d ,
w h e n a m o t i o n for n e w t r i a l o r
t i o n , i f
p e t i t i o n
s ,
w i t h
s h
t h e
i n d i c a t e d a
s t a t e t h e
p e t i t i o n e
w i t h o u t
i m
t h e r e o f
i n d i c a t e t h
d g m e n t o r fin
h e r e o f w a s
r e c o n s i d e r a
a n y , w a s file d a n d w h e n notic e o f t h e d e n i a l t h e
r e o f
w a s r e c e i v e d ; (c) se t fort h concisel y a s t a t e m e n t
o f
t h e m a t t e r s involved , a n d t h e r e a s o n s o r a r g u m e
n t s
r e l i e d o n fo r t h e a l l o w a n c e o f t h e p e t i t i
o n ; (d ) b e
a c c o m p a n i e d b y a clearl y legibl e d u p l i c a t e o r i g i
n a l ,
o r a c e r t i f i e d t r u e cop y o f t h e j u d g m e n t o
r
fina l
o r d e r o r r e s o l u t i o n certifie d
b y t h e c l e r k
o f c o u r t
o f t h e c o u r t a quo a n d t h e r e q u i s i t e n u m b e r o f
p l a i n
c o p i e s thereof , a n d
s u c h
m a t e r i a l p o r t i o
n s o f t h e
r e c o r d
a s
w o u l d
s u p p o r t
t h e
p e t i t i
o n ;
a n d
(e)
c o n t a i n a
s w o r n
c e r t i f i c a t i o n a g a i n
s t f o r u m
s h o p p i n g a s
p r o v i d e d
i n t h e
l a s t p a r a g
r a p h
o f
section 2 , R u l e 42 .
(2a )
615
----------------------- Page 616----------------------RULE 45
SECS. 5-6

NOTE S
1.
Th e content s o f th e petitio n require d in thi s section
hav e als o take n int o accoun t an d include d th e provision s

of revise d Circular s Nos . 1-88 an d 28-9 1 o f th e Suprem e
Court .
2 . I t i s specifically state d tha t th e petitio n shal l s
tat e
th e full name s o f th e parties , "withou t impleadin g th e lower
court s o r judge s thereof. "
Thi s resuscitate s th e for
mer
holdin g o f t h e
S u p r e m e
C o u r t t h a t i n a n a
ppea l b y
certiorar i u n d e r thi s Rule , th e cour t o r th e judg e
wh o
rendere d th e decisio n appeale d from i s no t require d t o b e
joine d a s a part y respondent .
Th e only partie s the
ret o
should b e th e appellant , a s petitioner , an d th e appellee ,
a s respondent .
I t i s i n th e specia l civi l actio n o f ce
rtiorar i
unde r Rul e 6 5 wher e th e cour t o r judg e i s require d t
o
b e joine d a s a part y responden t
(Metropolitan
W
aterworks
&
Sewerage
System
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
54526,
Aug.
26,
1986;
Phil.
Global
Communications,
Inc.
vs.
Relova,
etc., et al, G.R.
No.
60548, Nov.
10,
).
Sec .
T h e
failur e o f t
y o f th e
f o r e g o i n g
m e n t o f
t h e d o c k e t
s ,
proo f o f s e r
t e n t s o f
a n d t h e d
n y th e
p e t i t i o n s
l
thereof .
5.
Dismissal
h e
or
denial
p e t i t i o n e r t o
of
No.
1986
petition.
c o m p l y
w i t h
r e g a r d i n g
t h e
a n
p a y
a n d o t h e r lawfu l fees , d e p o s i t fo r cost

v i c e
o f t h e
o c u m e n t s
p e t i t i o n , a n d t h e c o n
w h i c h
s h o u l d
a c c o m p a
h a l l b e sufficien t g r o u n d fo r th e dismissa
T h e S u
e
d e n y t h e
p
e a p p e a l
i s w i t h o u t
s t l y fo r
delay , o r t h a
ar e to o
u n s u b s t a n t
a )
p r e m e
Cour t
e t i t i o n o n
m e r i t , o r
t t h e
m a y
o n
t h e
i s
it s o w n
g r o u n d
initiativ
t h a t
p r o s e c u t e d
t h
m a n i f e
q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d t h e r e i n
i a l t o r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
(3
Sec . 6 .
Review discretionary. A r e v i e w
s no t a
m a t t e r o f right ,
bu t o f
s o u n d j u d i c i a l
s c r e t i o n ,
i
d i
616
----------------------- Page 617----------------------RULE 45
SECS. 7-8
a
l
i
w
n
c
d
n d wil l b e g r a n t e d onl y w h e n t h e r e a r
a n d
m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r .
T h e
h i l e
e i t h e r c o n t r o l l i n g n o r full y m e a s u r
o u r t ' s
i s c r e t i o n , i n d i c a t e t h e c h a r a c t e
r e a s o n s
w h i c h wil l b e c o n s i d e r e d :
(a)
W h e n
t h e
c o u r t
c i d e d
a
q u e s t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e , n o t
quo
e s p e c i a
following ,
i n g t h e
r
o f t h e
h a s
t h e r e t o f o r e
d e
d e
t e r m i n e d
b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t , o r h a s d e c i d e d i t i
n a w a y
p r o b a b l y
n o t
i n a c c o r d
w i t h
l a w
o r
w i t h
t h e
a p p l i c a b l e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ;
o r
(b)
W
a r t e d
f r o m
t h e
j u d i c i a l
p r o c e e d i n
e p a r t u r e
b y a l o w e
s e o f t h e
p o w e r o f s
h e n
t h e
c o u r t a
a c c e p t e d
g s ,
r
o r
a n d
s o
c o u r t ,
quo h a s
u s u a l
fa r
a s
s o
u p e r v i s i o n .
cal l
d e p
c o u r s e
s a n c t i o n e d
t o
fa r
fo r
a n
s u c h
o f
d
e x e r c i
(4a )
Sec .
7 .
Pleadings
and
documents
that
may
be
required; sanctions.
F o r
p u r p o s e s
o f d e t e
r m i n i n g
w h e t h e r t h e p e t i t i o n s h o u l d b e d i s m i s s e d o r
d e n i e d
p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 5 o f t h i s R u l e , o r w h
e r e t h e
p e t i t i o n i s give n d u e c o u r s e u n d e r sectio n 8 hereof
,
t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t m a y r e q u i r e o r allo w t h e f
ilin g
o f s u c h
p l e a d i n g s ,
b r i e f s , m e m o r a n d a
o r d o c u m e n t s a s i t m a y d e e m n e c e s s a r y w i t h i n s u c h p
e r i o d s
a n d
u n d e r
s u c h
c o n d i t i o n s
a s i t m a y
c o n s i d e r
a p p r o p r i a t e ,
a n d
i m p o s e
t h e
c o r r e s p
o n d i n g
s a n c t i o n s i n c a s e
o f n o n - f i l i n g o r u n a u t
h o r i z e d
filin g o f s u c h
p l e a d i n g s
a n d
d o c u m e n t s
o r n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h e r e f o r ,
(n )
Sec .
If t h e
p e t i t i o n
r t m a y
r e q u i r e
r d o f t h e
cas e
o r
ee n
(15 )
d a y s fro m
8 .
Due
course;
elevation
of
i s give n d u e c o u r s e , t h e S u p r e m e C o u
t h e e l e v a t i o n o f t h e c o m p l e t e r e c o
specifie d
notice .
p a r t s
t h e r e o f w i t h i n
(2a )
617
----------------------- Page 618----------------------RULE 46
records.
fift
SEC. 9
N O T E S
1.
Th e first paragrap h o f Sec . 5 , a s ha s alread y been
observed in connectio n wit h th e othe r petition s filed in

th e appellat e courts , adopte d th e provision s o f revise d
Circular No .
1-88 an d relate d circular s issue d b y th
e
Suprem e Court .
Th e secon d p a r a g r a p h i
e quenc e o f th e provision s o f Sec .
fact t h a t appellat e revie w unde r
an d ca n b e
g r a n t e d onl y
l an d
importan t reason s therefor .
2 . P u r s u a n t t o
ma y
requir e
t h e filin g o f
an d
surrejoinder whe n necessary ,
rand a o r suc h othe r document
for a full discussio n an d
Sec .
a
s relate d t o an d i s a cons
6 whic h underscore s th e
thi s Rul e i s discretionar y
w h e n t h e r e ar e specia
7 , t h e S u p r e m e
comment ,
reply ,
Cour t
rejoinde r
a s wel l a s briefs , memo s a s i t ma y dee m necessar y

consideratio n o f th e issue s
on
appeal .
See , however , th e resolutio n o f th e Cour t in A.M .
No . 99-2-04-S C (Appendix R)
limitin g th e pleading s tha
t
ma y b e file d afte r th e reply ,
an d th e procedur e t
o b e
followed
thereafter .
Sec . 9 .
criminal
cases.
T h e
n t h i s
R u l e s h a l l b
c r i m i n a l
c a s e s , e x c e p
p e n a l t y
i m p o s e d
i s
e
im p r i s o n m e n t ,
Rule
applicable
m o d e
e
o f
to
a p p e a l
a p p l i c a b l e
t i n
civil
and
p r e s c r i b e d
t o
c r i m i n a l
d e a t h ,
both
b o t h
civi l
a n d
c a s e s w h e r e
reclusion
perpetua
t h e
o r
lif
(n )
N O T E
1. Se e Not e 1 unde r Sec . 1 o f thi s Rule , an d Not e 1

1
unde r Sees . 1 t o 3 , Rul e 122 .
618
----------------------- Page 619----------------------RUL E
ORIGINAL
4 6
CASE S
Sectio n 1 . Title of cases. I n al l c a s e s originall y

i n th e Cour t o f Appeals , th e part y i n s t i t u t i n
file d
g
th e a c t i o n shal l b e calle d th e p e t i t i o n e r
h e
o p p o s i n g part y th e respondent ,
(la )
an d
Sec . 2 . To what actions applicable. T h i s

R u l e
s h a l l a p p l y t o o r i g i n a l a c t i o n s fo r c e r t i o r a
r i ,
prohibition , m a n d a m u s an d qu o warranto .
E
n s
for a n
b y
Rul e 47
by Rul e
x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d , t h e a c t i o
n u l m e n t
o f j u d g m e n t - s h a l l b e g o v e r n e d
fo r certiorari , prohibitio n an d m a n d a m u s
65 , an d fo r qu o warrant o b y Rul e 66 .
(n )
NOTE S
1. This rule formerly governed the cases which were

within the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals,
i.e., petitions for mandamus, prohibition, injunction,
certiorari, habeas corpus and other writs and processes in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction (Sec. 30, R.A. 296).
2. Under B.P. Big. 129, the Intermediate Appellate
Court (now, the Court of Appeals) has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or
processes, whether or not they are in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction ; and it has exclusive original jurisdiction over
actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial
Courts (Sec. 9; cf. Pars. 14 and 15,
Interim or Transitional
Rules
and
Guidelines).
Petitions for habeas corpus have been excluded from
the coverage of the present revised Rule since they are
actually special proceedings and the corresponding
619
----------------------- Page 620----------------------RULE 46

SEC. 3
procedura l rule s governin g th e sam e ar e provide d for in

th e Rule s on specia l proceeding s an d in Sec . 3 , Rul e 41 .
Sec . 3.
Contents
and filing of petition; effect
of noncompliance
with
requirements.
T h e
p e t i t i
o n
shal l
c o n t a i n t h e ful l n a m e s an d a c t u a l a d d r e s s e
s o f al l
t h e
p e t i t i o n e r s
a n d
r e s p o n d e n t s ,
a
c o n c i s e
s t a t e m e n t
o f t h e m a t t e r s
i n v o l v e d ,
t h
e f a c t u a l
b a c k g r o u n d o f th e case , an d th e gr o u n d s relie d upo n
for t h e
r e l i e f p r a y e d
for .
I n
a c t i o n s file d
u n d e r
R u
p e t i t i o n
shal l
furthe r
i n d i c a t e t h e materia
s h o w i n g
w h e n
n o t i c e
o r d e r
o r
r e s o l u t i o n
s u b j e c t t h e r e o f w a s
, w h e n
a
m o t i o n fo r n e w tria l o r r e c o n s i d e r a
, wa s
file d
a n d
w h e n
n o t i c e o f t h e
e r e o f w a s
r e c e i v e d .
l e
l
65 ,
t h e
d a t e s
o r
f i n a l
r e c e i v e d
t i o n , i f any
d e n i a l
t h
I t s h a l l b e file d
i n
s e v e n
(7 ) c l e a r
l y l e g i b l e
c o p i e s t o g e t h e r w i t h proo f o f s e r v i c e t h e r e o f
o n th e
r e s p o n d e n t w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l c o p y i n t e n d e d
fo r th e
c o u r t i n d i c a t e d a s s u c h b y t h e p e t i t i o n e r , a
n d shal l
b e
b y
a c l e a r l y
l e g i b l e
d u p l i c a t e
origina l o r certifie d tru e cop y o f th e judgment , order ,
r e s o l u t i o n , o r r u l i n g subjec t thereof , s u c h materia
l
p o r t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d a s ar e referre d t o t h e r e i n
, an d
o t h e r
d o c u m e n t s
r e l e v a n t
o r
p e r t i n e n t
t h e r e t o .
T h e
c e r t i f i c a t i o n s h a l l b e
a c c o m p l i s h e d
b y
t h e
p r o p e r
c l e r k o f c o u r t o r
b y
h i s d u l y
a
u t h o r i z e d
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ,
o r
b y
t h e
p r o p e r
o f f i
c e r o f t h e
c o u r t , t r i b u n a l , a g e n c y o r offic e
i n v o l v
e d
o r
b y
h i s d u l y
a u t h o r i z e d
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .
T
h e
o t h e r
r e q u i s i t e
n u m b e r
o f
c o p i e s
o f
t h e
p e t i t i o n
s h a l l
b e
b y
c l e a r l y
l e g i
b l e p l a i n
c o p i e s o f al l d o c u m e n t s a t t a c h e d t o th e origin
al .
T h e p e t i t i o n e r shal l a l s o s u b m i t t o g e t h
e r wit h
t h e p e t i t i o n a s w o r n certificatio n t h a t h e ha s
no t
620
----------------------- Page 621----------------------RULE 46
ORIGINAL CASES
SEC. 3
t h e r e t o f o r e c o m m e n c e d a n y o t h e r a c t i o n i
n v o l v i n g
t h e s a m e i s s u e s i n t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t , t h e C o
u r t o f
A p p e a l s o r d i f f e r e n t d i v i s i o n s thereof , o r a n y
o t h e r
t r i b u n a l o r a g e n c y ; i f t h e r e i s s u c h o t h e r
a c t i o n o r
p r o c e e d i n g , h e m u s t s t a t e t h e s t a t u s o f
t h e s a m e ;
a n d
i f h e s h o u l d
t h e r e a f t e r l e a r n t h a t a
s i m i l a r
a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g h a s b e e n file d o r i s
p e n d i n g
befor e t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t , t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l
s , o r
d i f f e r e n t d i v i s i o n s thereof , o r a n y o t h e r t r i b
u n a l o r
a g e n c y ,
h e
u n d e r t a k e s
t o
p r o m p t l y
i n
f o r m
t h e
a f o r e s a i d
c o u r t s
a n d
o t h e r t r i b u n a l
o r
a g e n c y
t h e r e o f w i t h i n fiv e (5) d a y s t h e r e f r o m .
T h
p o n d i n
d o c k e t
C o u r t
a n d d e
t t h e
t i m e o f
e
g
p e t i t i o n e r
a n d
o t h e r
p o s i t t h e
t h e
s h a l l p a y
lawfu l
fee s
t h e
t o t h e
a m o u n t o f P500.0 0
for
c o r r e s
C l e r k o f
c o s t s
filin g o f t h e p e t i t i o n .
T h e failur e o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o compl y w i t h
a n y
o f t h e f o r e g o i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s
s h a l l b e s
ufficien t
g r o u n d
fo r
t h e
d i s m i s s a l
o f t h e
p e t i t
i o n , ( n )
(As
amended
by
Resolution
of the
Supreme
Cour
t,
dated
July
21,
1998)
NOTE S
1.
J u s t
lik e
th e othe r petition s filed
in appellat
e
proceedings , th e requirement s for origina l action s in th e
appellat e
court s
wer e
take n
from
revise d
Circular s
Nos . 1-88 an d 28-91 , a s well a s Circular No . 19-9 1 o f th e
Supreme Court .
It will again b e observe d tha t th e origina l
copy o f th e petition intende d for th e court shal l b e marke d
or indicate d a s such , since , amon g others , i t mus t b e
accompanied by a clearly legibl e duplicat e origina l or
certified tru e copy o f th e adjudicatory issuanc e complaine d

of wherea s th e othe r copie s may b e accompanie d by only
plain copie s thereof .
I f th e origina l copy o f th e pe
tition
intended for th e court i s accompanie d by only plain copie s
of sai d documents , th e sam e may b e dismisse d outright .
62 1
----------------------- Page 622----------------------RULE 46
SEC. 6
2 .
However ,
in Balagtas Multi-Purpose
Coope
rative,
Inc., et al. vs. CA, et al. (G.R .
138520 , Sept .
16 ,
1999)',
w h e r e
t h e Cour t o f Appeal s dismisse d
a petiti
o n for
certiorar i for non-complianc e wit h th e requiremen t o f
Sec .
3 , Rul e
46 , t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t se t asid
e t h a t
d i s m i s s a l . I t pointe d ou t t h a t t h e issu e befor e
sai d
c o u r t w a s
w h e t h e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r w a s e x e m
p t from
postin g bond , henc e it s failur e t o submi t th e complain t
an d othe r document s mentione d therei n wer e not materia l
or relevan t thereto .
It s financia l statemen t wa s materia l
t o th e issu e o f it s exemptio n from postin g bon d bu t th e
sam e wa s subsequentl y filed togethe r wit h a motio n for
reconsideration .
Thi s wa s substantia l complianc e wit h
Sec . 3 , Rul e 4 6 whic h shoul d no t b e applie d in a rigi d
technica l sens e i n th e interes t o f substantia l justice .
a. In
Paras,
et
al.
vs.
Baldado
etc.,
et a
l.
(G.R.
No.
140317,
Mar.
8, 2001),
th e Suprem e
Cour t a
ls o se t
a s i d e t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a
l s whic h
dismisse d a petitio n for certiorar i wher e th e copie s o f
th e challenge d order s attache d theret o wer e no t certifie d
by th e cler k o f cour t bu t only by a notar y public .
Th e
Suprem e Cour t note d t h a t duplicat e origina l copie s o f th e
impugne d order s wer e attache d t o on e copy o f th e petition ,
an d
petitioner s
subsequentl y
submitte d
dul y
certifie d
copie s
t h e r e o f i n t h e i r m o t i o n for
r e c o n s i d
e r a t i o n .
I t accordingl y hel d t h a t ther e wa s substantia l complianc e
w i t h t h e r u l e s which , afte r all ,
ar e i n t h e n
a t u r e o f
tool s for th e a t t a i n m e n t o f justic e whic h woul d b e denie
d
b y undu e resor t t o technicalities .
b . In Molina et al.
vs. CA, et al. (G.R . No .
143156 ,
J a n . 13 ,
2 0 0 3 ) , t h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t s u s t a i
n e d t h e
sufficiency o f a certiorar i petitio n eve n i f th e copie s o f th e
attache d orde r faile d t o show th e authorit y o f th e perso n
wh o certifie d th e same , an d th e sea l o f th e cour t thereo n
could no t b e identified .
I t explaine d tha t th e petitione
r s
did no t hav e a han d in th e preparatio n o f sai d documents ;
the y only relie d o n th e authorit y o f th e cour t personne l
622
----------------------- Page 623----------------------RULE 46
SEC. 3
ORIGINAL CASES
an d th e presumptio n o f regularit y in thei r performanc e o f

official duty .
It als o declare d tha t th e failur e o f petitioner s
t o attac h som e relevan t
publi c policy no r depriv
adversely affect respondent
fact, th e Suprem e Cour
lacking document s t o b e
document s which d o no t touc h on

e th e cour t o f it s authorit y or
s ma y b e disregarde d as , in
t ha s repeatedl y permitte d suc h
submitte d t o cur e th e defect .
c.
In
OSM
Shipping
Philippines,
Inc.
vs.
N
LRC,
et al. (G.R . No . 138193 , Mar . 5 , 2003) , it wa s pointe d ou t
tha t Sec . 3 , Rul
p a p e r s an d
d
o n b e
duplicat e original s
e r
Rule 65 , petition s
duplicate original s
judgment , orde r o r
an d pleading s a
e
copies thereof .
e 4 6 doe s not requir e tha t al l supportin g

o c u m e n t s accompanyin g a
p e t i t i
or certifie d tru e copies .
ar e require d t o b e accompanie d
or certified tru e copie s o f th e
resolution .
Othe r relevan
t t a c h e d t o i t ma y b e
Eve n und
only by
questioned
t document s
mer e
machin
d.
In
NYK
International
Knitwear
Corporat
ion
Philippines,
et al. vs. NLRC,
et al. (G.R .
No .
1462
67 ,
Feb . 17, 2003) , th e Suprem e Cour t wa s constraine d t o
explain th e meanin g o f a "certifie d tru e copy " o f th e
judgment , orde r or resolution require d t o b e attache d t o
t h e p e t i t i o n s u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n . A d v e r t i n g
t o it s
Administrativ e Circular No . 3-96 which wa s th e precurso r
of th e presen t revise d rule s o f civil procedure , it declare d
t h a t th e certifie d tru e copy shal l b e suc h othe r co
py
furnished t o a part y at hi s instanc e or in hi s behalf , by
th e authorize d officers or representative s o f th e issuin g
entity .
Tha t certifie d
regulation s therefo r o f
authenticated
original
not
a mer e xerox copy thereof
annex t o th e petition or
tru e copy mus t comply with al l th e

th e issuin g entit y an d it i s th e
of such certified
true copy,
an d
, which shal l b e attache d a s an
othe r initiatory pleading .
3 . Th e lack o f certification agains t forum shoppin g

is generally not curabl e by th e submission thereo f after
th e filing o f a petition .
In exceptiona l circumstances ,
623
----------------------- Page 624----------------------RULE 46
SEC. 7
however , suc h a s th e filin g o f th e certification a day after

bu t withi n th e reglementar y perio d for filing suc h petition ,
th e belate d filing wa s allowe d a s a substantia l compliance .
Whil e th e filin g o f th e certificatio n i s mandatory , stil l th e
requiremen t
side, Inc.
2001).
mus t no t b e interprete d to o literall y (Shipvs. CA, et al., G.R. No.

143377, Feb. 20,
4 . W h e r e
t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t i
s a bod y
corporate , jus t lik e i n othe r pleading s earlie r discussed ,
an officer o f th e corporatio n ca n sign th e certificat e agains t
forum shopping , b u t h e mus t b e dul y authorize d b y a
resolutio n of th e boar d of director s (Eslaban, Jr., etc.
vs.
Vda.
de
Onorio,
G.R.
No.
146062,
June
28,
2001
).
5 . Th e deposi t for cost s i s require d t o b e mad e upon
th e
filin g
o f th e
complaint ,
unlik e
th e
presen t practic e
wherei n cost s ar e require d upo n notic e afte r th e petitio n

i s give n du e course .
Sec .
t,
how
acquired.
d i c t i o n
o v e r t h e p
o n
h i m o f it s
t s initia l
a c t i o n
o
l u n t a r y
s u b m i s s i o
4 .
Jurisdiction
T h e
over person
c o u r t
of
responden
s h a l l a c q u i r e
j u r i s
e r s o n o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t b y th e servic e
o r d e r
n
t h e
o r r e s o l u t i o n
p e t i t i o n
o r
i n d i c a t i n g i
b y
n t o s u c h j u r i s d i c t i o n ,
Sec . 5 .
m a y
d i s m i s s t h e
r e a s o n s
Action
by
the
court.
h i s
v o
(n )
T h e
c o u r
p e t i t i o n
o u t r i g h t w i t h
specifi c
for s u c h d i s m i s s a l o r r e q u i r e t h e r e
t o fil e
a c o m m e n t o n t h e s a m e w i t h i n t e n
fro m
n o t i c e . Onl y p l e a d i n g s r e q u i r e d b y
hal l
b e a l l o w e d .
Al l o t h e r p l e a d i n g s a n
m a y b e
file d o n l y w i t h l e a v e o f court ,
(n )
s p o n d e n t
(10 )
d a y s
t h e cour t s
d p a p e r s
NOTE S
1.
Thes e ne w section s o f thi s revise d Rul e hav e bee n
dictate d by th e chang e o f procedure .

course ,
Th e court , o f
624
----------------------- Page 625----------------------RULE 46

SEC. 7
ORIGINAL CASES
acquire s jurisdictio n over th e petitione r by hi s filing o f

th e petitio n but , whil e a copy thereo f i s require d t o b e
served on th e responden t prio r t o or simultaneousl y wit h
th e filing o f th e petitio n wit h th e court , it i s only upo n t
h e
service on th e latte r o f th e orde r or resolution indicatin g
th e court' s initia l action o n th e petition tha t jurisdictio n
over th e responden t i s obtained , unles s h e voluntaril y
submit s t o th e court' s jurisdiction .
The reaso n for thi s i s that , asid e from th e fact tha t n
o
summon s o r othe r coerciv e proces s i s serve d o n th e
respondent , hi s respons e t o th e petition will depen d on
th e initia l action o f th e cour t thereon .
Unde r Sec . 5 ,
th e
court may dismis s th e petitio n outright , henc e n o reactio n
i s expecte d from th e responden t and , unde r th e policy
adopte d i n thi s Rule , h e i s no t deeme d t o hav e bee
n
brough t withi n th e court' s jurisdictio n unti l after servic e
on hi m o f th e dismissa l orde r or resolution .
Should th e petitio n appea r t o hav e complie d wit h th e
requirement s i n th e nex t precedin g section an d th e cour t
consider s th e issu e raise d worthy o f judicia l consideration ,
it wil l requir e only a commen t initially an d an y othe r
pleadin g filed by th e partie s withou t leav e o f cour t will
not b e allowed .
Such unauthorize d pleading s may eithe r
b e note d withou t action or expunge d from th e record .
Sec . 6 . Determination
of factual
issues.
W h e
n e v e r n e c e s s a r y t o r e s o l v e factua l issues , t h e
c o u r t
itsel f m a y c o n d u c t h e a r i n g s t h e r e o n o r d e l e g a t
e t h e
r e c e p t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e o n s u c h issue s t o
a n y o f
it s m e m b e r s o r t o a n a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t , a g e
n c y o r
office ,
(n )
NOTE S
1.
For th e resolutio n o f factua l
original petitions , th e Cour t o f Appeal s
options provide d by thi s section .
issue s raise d in
i s grante d th e
625
----------------------- Page 626----------------------RULE 46
SEC. 7
In th e Suprem e Court , wherei n factua l issue s ar e

generally no t involve d sinc e it i s no t a trie r o f facts , thi
s
section i s no t o f equivalen t significance .
However , th
er e
ma y b e instance s wherei n a n appea l take n t o th e Suprem e
Court ostensibl y on question s o f law ma y actuall y involv e
th e prio r resolutio n o f factua l issues , i n whic h cas e th e
Suprem e Cour t ma y dispos e o f suc h imprope r appea l i n
accordanc e wit h th e provision s o f Sec . 6 , Rul e 56 .
2 . Ther e ar e als o instance s wher e th e factua l issu e
raise d i n a direc t appea l t o th e Suprem e Cour t ma y not
involve a complicate d situatio n no r entai l th e introductio n
of evidenc e for it s clarification .
In suc h cases , th e pa
rtie s
ma y b e require d t o submi t th e correspondin g pleading s
wit h th e ramificatio n desire d b y th e Cour t o r th e cas e may
b e schedule d for limite d ora l argumen t befor e th e Cour t
en banc or in division on specifie d issues .
Sec . 7.
Effect
of failure to
Whe n
n o c o m m e n t i s file d b y a n y o f t
, th e
c a s e m a y
b e d e c i d e d o n t h e
e c o r d ,
w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o a n y d i s c
n w h i c h
t h e c o u r t m a y t a k e a g a i n s t
n t party ,
(n)
file
comment.
h e r e s p o n d e n t s
b a s i s o f t h e
i p l i n a r y a c t i o
t h e
d i s o b e d i e
N O T E
1.
Th e failur e o f th e responden t t o fil e th e require d
commen t doe s no t resul t i n a sanctio n simila r t o default s

in th e tria l court s sinc e th e appellat e cour t ma y jus t decid e
th e cas e o n th e basi s o f th e recor d befor e it ,
specifically
th e petitio n an d it s attachment s bu t sans th e commen t o r

any representatio n i n behal f o f th e respondent .
On th e othe r hand , wher e th e cour t believes , eithe r
in th e interes t o f substantia l justice , o r tha t th e cas e coul d
b e justl y resolve d only wit h revelator y dat a whic h ma y b e
obtaine d from th e respondent , o r tha t hi s counse l i s not
626
----------------------- Page 627----------------------RULE 46
ORIGINAL CASES
SEC. 7
acting wit h du e diligenc e or competenc e in protectin g th e

respondent' s interest , i t may requir e th e submissio n o f
such c o m m e n t u n d e r pai n o f sanction s for indirec t
contempt .
627
----------------------- Page 628----------------------RUL E
4 7
A N N U L M E N T O F J U D G M E N T S
FINA L
ORDER S A N D
RESOLUTION S
th e
n t s
o r
t i o
R e g
i n a
r e m
elie f
o t h
labl e
t h r
O R
Sectio n 1 .
Coverage. Thi s Rul e shal l gover n
a n n u l m e n t b y t h e Cour t o f A p p e a l s o f j u d g m e
fina l o
n s o f
i o n a l
r y
e d i e s
o r
e r a p p
o u g h
r d e r s
T r i a l
o f n e w
a n d
r e s o l u t i o n s
C o u r t s
fo r
i n
w h i c h
civi l
t h e
trial , a p p e a l , p e t i t i o n
a c
o r d
fo r r
r o p r i a t e r e m e d i e s ar e n o l o n g e r avai
n o faul t o f t h e
p e t i t i o n e r , (n )
NOTE S
1. A n n u l m e n t o f a j u d g m e n t i s a remed y
in law
independen t o f th e cas e wher e th e judgmen t sough t t o b e
annulle d wa s rendered .
Th e judgmen t ma y b e annulle d
on th e groun d o f extrinsi c or collatera l fraud .
A
perso n
wh o
i s no t a p a r t y t o t h e j u d g m e n t ma y su e
for it s
a n n u l m e n t provide d
h e ca n prov e t h a t th e sam e
wa s
obtaine d throug h frau d o r collusion an d t h a t h e woul d b e
adversely affecte d thereby .
An actio n for annulmen t o f
judgmen t
ma y
b e
availe d
o f eve n
i f th e judgmen t
annulle d ha d alread y bee n fully execute d o r implemente d

(Islamic
Da'Wah
Council
of the
Phil.
vs. CA,
., G.R.
No.
80892,
Sept.
29,
1989).
I t shoul d als o
e n th e
accepte d doctrin e an d
t h i s Rule ,
lac k
o
groun d
authorize d for a n n u l m
d
resolutions .
b e
observe d
t h a t ,
a s
t o b e
et
al
ha s
be
now expressl y state d in Sec . 2 o f

f j u r i s d i c t i o n i s t h e secon d
e n t o f judgment s o r fina l order s an
2 . Althoug h thi s i s a new Rule , actuall y th e annul m e n t o f j u d g m e n t s i s a remed y

lon g a u t h o r i z
e d an d
sanctioned i n ou r jurisdiction .
Se e th e discussio n i n
Not e
8 unde r Sec . 1 , Rul e 3 9 on th e jurisprudentia l doctrine s
628
----------------------- Page 629----------------------RULE 47
SEC. 2
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR
FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS
heretofor e lai d down regardin g thi s remedy , an d which

hav e bee n considere d for purpose s o f th e presen t Rule ,
wit h modifications .
Se e als o Sec . 19(2) , B.P . Big .
129
which i s th e jurisdictiona l basi s for thi s Rule .
3 . On e importan t condition for th e availmen t o f thi s
remed y i s tha t th e petitione r failed t o mov e for new tria l
in, or appea l from , or file a petitio n for relie f against , or
tak e othe r appropriat e remedie s assailin g th e questione d
judgmen t o r fina l orde r o r resolutio n throug h n o fault
attributabl e t o him .
I f h e failed t o avai l o f thos e
othe r
remedie s withou t sufficient justification , h e canno t resor t
t o th e actio n
for a n n u l m e n t provide d
i n thi s
Rule ,
otherwis e h e woul d benefi t from hi s own inactio n o r
negligence .
Sec . 2 .
Grounds for annulment. T h e a n n u l m e n t
m a y b e b a s e d onl y o n t h e g r o u n d s o f e x t r i n s i c
f r a u d
a n d l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n .
E x t r i n s i c f r a u d s h a l l n o t b e a vali d g r o u
n d i f i t
w a s a v a i l e d of, o r coul d h a v e b e e n a v a i l e d o
f, i n a
m o t i o n fo r n e w t r i a l o r p e t i t i o n for relief , (n )
NOTE S
1. Refer to th e discussion in Not e 8 unde r Sec . 1 ,
Rule 3 7 on th e concept o f extrinsic , a s distinguishe d from
intrinsic ,
fraud .
Intrinsic fraud,
which i s found in
th e
cause o f action or th e matte r pu t in issu e an d presente d
for adjudication ,
i s no t a groun d for a n n u l m e n t
o f
judgment , even i f th e correctnes s o f such judgmen t ha s
bee n
affecte d b y th e
m i s t a k e n relianc e
o n th e
fact
constitutin g a n intrinsi c fraud ,
sinc e th e matte r w
a s
brough t t o th e attentio n o f th e court an d th e parties , an d
could
hav e
bee n th e
subjec t o f thei r correspondin g
submissions ,
objection s
or
evaluation .
Extrinsi
c
or
collateral fraud, on th e othe r hand , wa s not reveale d t o
629
----------------------- Page 630----------------------RULE 47
2
or wa s even deliberatel y suppresse d from th e opposing

part y an d th e court ,
henc e relie f unde r thi s Rul e
SEC.
s
available subject t o certai n conditions .
2 . Th e othe r groun d for annulmen t o f judgment s or
final order s an d resolution s i s lack o f jurisdictio n on th e
par t o f th e cour t which adjudicate d th e case .
Thi s refe
r s
t o e i t h e r lac k o f jurisdictio n ove r th e perso n o f
th e
defending part y or over th e subject-matte r o f th e claim ,
since i n eithe r cas e th e j u dgme n t o r fina l orde r a
n d
resolution ar e void .
Se e Sec . 1(a) an d (b) , Rul e 1 6 an
d
Note s 7 to 9 thereunder .
3 . Th e
secon d p a r a g r a p h o f thi s sectio n p u t
a
condition upo n th e invocatio n o f extrinsi c frau d a s a
ground for th e annulmen t sought .
Indeed , i f such groun d
ha d really bee n availe d o f by th e part y in a motion for

new tria l or petitio n for relie f in th e origina l cour t an d
wa s rejecte d wit h finality , h e shoul d no t b e permitte d
a no t h e r chanc e o n th e sam e groun d whic h ha d bee n
concluded by th e adjudicatio n o f th e cas e thereon .
If,
on
th e othe r hand , h e di d not avai l himsel f thereof , the n h e
mus t suffer th e consequence s o f hi s implie d waiver .

4 . Th e definin g rol e o f thi s section wa s illustrate d in
Ancheta vs. Ancheta (G.R .
No . 145370 , Mar . 4 , 2004) ,
a
saga o f lega l error s involvin g estrange d spouse s a s th e
parties .
Th e therei n responden t husban d ha d filed a n
action in th e tria l court for th e annulmen t o f thei r marriag e
du e t o psychologica l incapacit y o f hi s wife ; h e deliberately
alleged in th e complain t a wron g residentia l addres s for
th e defendan t wife ; th e sherif f serve d th e summon s on
th e wron g perso n throug h a wron g mod e o f substitute d
service ; for failur e t o answer , th e wife wa s declare d in
default ; th e publi c prosecuto r assigne d t o th e cas e di d not
rais e any objection t o th e proceedings ; an d th e tria l court
rendere d a so-calle d orde r declarin g th e marriag e nul l an d
void ab
initio.
630
----------------------- Page 631----------------------RULE 47
EC. 3

Much later , th e wife filed a petitio n
in th e Cour t o f Appeal s t o nullify
f
th e lower cour t on th e groun d o f extrinsi
of jurisdictio n over he r person .
Sh
amende d
petitio n
tha t
sh e
di d
no t
unde r Rul e 4 7
th e fina l orde r
c frau d an d lack
e als o allege d in an
avai l
hersel f o f th
e
remedie s o f new
judgment .
Th
th e groun d tha t
not comply wit h
t o th e aforestate
available throug h
trial , appea l or petitio n for

e appellat e cour t dismisse d th e
petitione r failed t o explain why
th e condition preceden t o f first
d remedie s or tha t th e sam e wer e
n o fault o f he r own .
relie f from
petitio n o n
sh e di d
resortin g
n o longer
Th e Suprem e Cour t sustaine d th e Cour t o f Appeal s

on thi s poin t sinc e a part y mus t justify th e failur e t o avai
l
of suc h remedie s in orde r t o avoi d abus e o f th e remed y
provide d by Rul e 47 .
However , th e latte r cour t erre d in
dismissing th e petitio n sinc e it wa s als o grounde d on lack
of jurisdiction .
A judgmen t or final orde r issue d withou t
jurisdictio n i s nul l an d void an d may b e assaile d anytim e
withou t complyin g wit h th e pre-condition s i n Rul e 47 ,
henc e th e sai d fina l orde r wa s reverse d an d th e cas e
r e m a n d e d t o t h e
i a t e
proceedings .
C o u r t
o f Appeal s
for
a p p r o p r
5 . A l t h o u g h Sec . 2 o f t h i s Rul e provide s

h a t
annulmen t o f a judgmen t or orde r o f a Regiona l Tria l
Court may b e base d only on th e ground s o f extrinsi c frau d

and lack o f jurisdiction , jurisprudenc e recognize s denia l
of du e proces s a s an additiona l groun d (Spouses Gorgonio
Benatiro,
etc., et al. vs. Heirs of Evaristo
Cuyos,
al.,
G.R. No.
161220, July 30, 2008, an d case s therei n cited) .
et
Sec. 3 .
Period for filing
action.
If b a s e d
on
extrinsi c fraud , th e actio n mus t b e file d withi n fou r
(4) year s fro m it s discovery ; an d i f base d o n lac k o f
jurisdiction , befor e i t i s barre d b y lache s o r estoppel ,
(n)
631
----------------------- Page 632----------------------RULE 47
SEC. 4

N O T E S
1. Th e perio d
of extrinsi c frau d
annulment o f contract
Civil
Code), a s wel l a s
for th e filing o f th e action on th e groun d

correspond s t o th e sam e perio d for
s on tha t groun d (Art.
1371,
th e tim e whe n th e perio d start s t o run .
2 . Th e defens e o f lack o f jurisdictio n may b e barre d

by lache s or estoppel .
Whil e ther e ar e severa l definition
s
of laches , a simpl e expressio n o f it s concept i s tha t it
such inexcusabl e dela y in th e assertio n o f right s or
failure t o prosecut e a claim , within a reasonabl e an d proper
period , which warrant s th e presumptio n tha t a part y ha s
waive d hi s righ t (se e Winget vs. Rockwood, 69 F. 2d 326,
332; Burton
vs. Ryan,
88 Ind.
App.
549,
165
260;
Harrison vs. Miller,
124 W.
Va. 550, 21 S.E. 2d
.
i s
a
N.E.
674)
For procedura l purposes , th e estoppe l referre d t o

her e i s actuall y estoppe l by laches , which i s tha t failur e
t o d o somethin g whic h shoul d b e don e or t o clai m or
enforce
a righ t at a prope r tim e [Hutchinson
vs.
Kenny,
2 7 F. 2d 254] or a neglect to do somethin g which on e shoul d
do or t o seek or enforc e a righ t at a prope r tim e /Jet t vs .
Jett,
171
y,
4th ed.,
enera l
Principle s
th e Suprem
jurisdictio n
wa s guilty
Ky.
1017).
548,
188 S.W.
Se e
Not e
669] (Black's
17 ,
e t
seq.
Law
in
Dictionar
th e
o f thi s volum e discussin g th e case s decide d by

e Cour t barrin g attack s raise d agains t th e
o f lower court s wher e th e complainin g part y
o f estoppe l by laches .
Sec . 4 . Filing and contents of

s h a l l b e
e t i t i o n
a l l e g i n g
s a n d t h e
l a w r e l i
t h o s e
s u p p o r t i
t a n t i a l
c a u s e o f
be .
c o m m e n c e d
petition. T h e a c t i o n
b y
filin g
v e r i f i e d p
t h e r e i n w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e fact
e d u p o n
n g
fo r
a n n u l m e n t ,
t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s goo d
a s
wel l
a n d
a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e , a s t h e c a s e
a s
s u b s
m a y
T h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l b e file d i n s e v e n (7
c l e a r l y
l e g i b l e c o p i e s , t o g e t h e r
w i t h s u f f i c i e n t
c o p i e s
632
----------------------- Page 633----------------------RULE 47
SEC. 4
n t s .
A
certifie d t r u e c o p y o
o r
r e s o l u t i o n s h a l l
l c o p y o f
t h e p e t i t i o n i n t e
a t e d a s
s u c h b y t h e p e t i
t o
t h e
n u m b e r
o f r e s p o n d e
f t h e j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r
b e a t t a c h e d t o t h e o r i g i n a
n d e d for t h e c o u r t a n d i n d i c
t i o n e r .
T h e p e t i t i o n e r s h a l l als o s u b m i t t o g e t h
e r w i t h
t h e p e t i t i o n affidavit s
o f w i t n e s s e s o r d o
c u m e n t s
s u p p o r t i n g t h e
c a u s e
o f a c t i o n o r d e f e n
s e
a n d
a
s w o r n
c e r t i f i c a t i o n t h a t h e
h a s
n o t
t h
e r e t o f o r e
c o m m e n c e d
a n y
o t h e r a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g
t h e s a m e
i s s u e s i n t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t , t h e C o u r t o f
A p p e a l s
o r d i f f e r e n t d i v i s i o n s thereof , o r a n y o t h e r t r
i b u n a l
o r
a g e n c y ;
i f t h e r e
i s s u c h
o t h e r
a
c t i o n
o r
p r o c e e d i n g , h e m u s t s t a t e t h e
s t a t u s o f
t h e s a m e ,
a n d
i f h e s h o u l d
t h e r e a f t e r l e a r n t h a t
a s i m i l a r
a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g h a s b e e n file d o r i s
p e n d i n g
befor e t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t , t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l
s , o r
d i f f e r e n t d i v i s i o n
u n a l o r
a g e n c y ,
h e
u n d e r
f o r m
t h e
a f o r e s a i d c o u r t s
a g e n c y
t h e r e o f w i t h i n fiv e
s thereof , o r a n y o t h e r t r i b
t a k e s
a n d
t o
p r o m p t l y
o t h e r
t r i b u n a l
(5) d a y s t h e r e f r o m ,
i n
o r
(n )
NOTE S
1.
Jus t lik e motion s for new tria l an d petition s for
relie f from judgment , th e verified petition for annulmen t
unde r thi s section mus t stat e with particularit y th e fact s
an d
law
s u s t a i n i n g th e
groun d
therefor ,
a
n d thos e
supporting th e petitioner' s good an d substantia l caus e o f
actio n
o r defense .
Th e
firs t
i s th e
f u n
d a m e n t a l
requirement , bu t th e second i s jus t a s importan t in order
t o convinc e th e cour t tha t somethin g may indee d b e
achieved shoul d th e petition b e given du e course .
Thi s
second
r e q u i r e m e n t
mus t
furthe r b e
s u p p
o r t e d b y
affidavits or document s showing , at least prima facie, th e
validity o f petitioner' s claim .
633
----------------------- Page 634----------------------RULE 47
S. 5 6
SEC
2 . Th e last paragrap h als o require s th e submissio n

of a swor n certification agains t forum shoppin g already
discussed in th e precedin g Rules .
Sec . 5 . Action by the court. S h o u l d th e
co
ur t
fin d n o substantia l meri t i n th e petition , th e sam e
may b e d i s m i s s e d outrigh t wi t h specifi c r e a s o n s fo r
s u c h dismissal .
S h o u l d
prima
facie
m e r i t
b e
f o u n d
i n
t h e
petition , th e sam e shal l b e g i v e n du e course , an d
s u m m o n s shal l b e serve d o n th e respondent ,
(n)
Sec . 6 . Procedure. Th e procedur e
civi l c a s e s s h a l l b e o b s e r v e d
l b e
n e c e s s a r y , t h e r e c e p t i o n o f
m a y b e
referre d t o a m e m b e r o f th e cour t
a
Regiona l Tria l Court ,
(n )
i n ordinar y
. S h o u l d a
t h e
o r
tria
e v i d e n c e
a j u d g e
o f
NOTE S
1.
In effect , an d jus t lik e th e procedur e in petition s
for relie f unde r

tw o stages , tha
for prima facie
ve ,
th e issuanc e o
such appropriat e
in Sec . 6 .
Rul e 38 , Sec . 5 o f thi s Rul e contemplate s

t is , a preliminar y evaluatio n o f th e petition
meri t
therei n
and ,
in
th e affirmati
f summon s a s in ordinar y civil case s an d
proceeding s thereafte r a s contemplate d
2 . Take n altogether , therefore , th e actio n may b e

dismissed outrigh t i f th e initiator y petitio n itsel f reveal s
lack o f m e r i t from
t h e ver y
allegation s
thereof ;
or ,
thereafte r durin g th e preliminar y evaluatio n after th e
first stag e o f th e hearing , th e sam e ma y likewis e b e
d i s m i s s e d upo n
c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e evidenc e
an d
argument s adduce d therefor .
634
----------------------- Page 635----------------------RULE 47
. 7
SEC

Sec. 7 .
Effect
of judgment.
A
j u d g m e n t
of
a n n u l m e n t shal l se t asid e th e questione d j u d g m e n t
o r fina l orde r o r resolutio n an d rende r th e sam e nul l
an d void , w i t h o u t prejudic e t o th e origina l actio n
bein g refile d i n th e prope r court .
However , w h e r e
th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r o r resolutio n i s se t asid e
o n th e groun d o f extrinsi c fraud , th e cour t ma y o n
motio n orde r th e tria l cour t t o tr y th e cas e a s i f a
t i m e l y m o t i o n fo r n e w
t r i a l h a d b e e n g r a n t
e d
therein ,
(n )
NOTE S
1. Wher e th e questione d judgment , fina l orde r or
resolution i s annulled , eithe r on th e groun d o f extrinsi c
fraud or lack o f jurisdiction , th e sam e shal l b e se t asid e
an d considere d nul l an d void .
Thereafter , a s provide d in
th e first sentenc e o f thi s section which mor e properly refer s
t o annulmen t on th e groun d o f lack o f jurisdiction , th e
aggrieved part y ma y refile th e action in th e prope r court .
This may involv e a different court o f competent jurisdiction
in th e instanc e wher e th e judgmen t i n th e origina l action
i s annulle d becaus e th e cour t which rendere d th e sam e
ha d n o jurisdictio n ove r th e subject-matter .
Where ,
however , th e reaso n for such annulmen t wa s becaus e o f
lack o f jurisdictio n over th e defendant , th e action may b e
refile d
i n t h e s a m e origina l
cour t provide d
i t h
a s
jurisdictio n over th e subject-matte r an d i s th e
prope r venu e or n o issu e on venu e i s raised .
fraud
2 . Wher e th e annulmen t wa s base d o n

committe d b y th e
offendin g party ,
court o f
extrinsi c
th e secon
d
sentence o f thi s section provide s an alternativ e procedure .
On motion o f th e prevailin g part y on justifiabl e grounds ,
h e may b e allowe d t o n o longer refile th e action an d th e
tria l court which rendere d th e questione d judgmen t shal l
b e ordere d t o tr y th e cas e anew a s i f a timely motion for
new tria l ha d bee n grante d therein .
Th e difference lie s
635
----------------------- Page 636----------------------RULE 47
SECS. 8-9
in th e fact
tha t it s origina l judgmen t wa s not tainte d by
jurisdictiona l defects , bu t by th e deception which resulte d
in prejudicia l error s therein .
Sec . 8 .
Suspension
of prescriptive
period.
T h e
p r e s c r i p t i v e p e r i o d fo r t h e refilin g o f t h e afo
resai d
o r i g i n a l a c t i o n s h a l l b e d e e m e d
s u s p e n d e
d
fro m
t h e filin g o f s u c h o r i g i n a l a c t i o n u n t i l t h
e finalit y
o f a n n u l m e n t .
H o w e v e r
,
t h e
p r e s c r i p t i v e p e r i o d s h a l l n o t b e s u s p e n d e
d w h e r e
t h e e x t r i n s i c f r a u d i s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e p
laintif f i n
t h e o r i g i n a l a c t i o n , (n )
N O T E
1.
For purpose s o f computin g th e prescriptiv e perio d
within which th e sam e origina l action may b e refiled a s
authorized in th e nex t preceedin g section , th e prescriptiv e
perio d provide d by law for suc h typ e o f action mus t first
b e considered .
Fro m tha t perio d shal l b e deducte d th e
length o f tim e which transpire d from th e dat e whe n th e
action wa s originall y filed i n th e tria l cour t up t o th
e
finality o f th e judgmen t which eventuall y annulle d th e
questioned judgmen t o f tha t tria l court .
Th e re
sultin g
balanc e o f th e prescriptiv e perio d may the n b e availe d o f
by th e aggrieve d part y for th e refilin g o f th e sam e action .
However , i f th e extrinsi c frau d which resulte d in th e
annulment o f judgmen t o f th e tria l cour t i s attributabl e t o
th e plaintif f in th e origina l action , th e suspensio n o f th e

prescriptiv e perio d authorize d in thi s section will not apply .
t
a n n u
m a g e
a t t o
Sec . 9 .
Relief
available.
T h e
j u d g m e n
f
m e n t
m a y
i n c l u d e t h e
a w a r d
o f d a
,
n e y ' s fee s a n d o t h e r relief .
o
l
s
r
I f t h e q u e s t i o n e d j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r
e r o r
e s o l u t i o n h a d
a l r e a d y b e e n e x e c u t e d , t h
c o u r t
a y i s s u e s u c h o r d e r s o f r e s t i t u t i o n o r o t h
r relie f
d
r
e
m
e
636
----------------------- Page 637----------------------RULE 47
. 10
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT S OR
FINAL
ORDER S AND
SEC
RESOLUTION S
a s j u s t i c e a n d e q u i t y m a y
h e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , (n )
w a r r a n t
u n d e r
N O T E
1. Orders of restitution or reparation of damages are
authorized to be issued by the trial court where an executed
judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled on
appeal or otherwise (Sec. 5, Rule 39). If restitution can
no longer be effected, the relief may be in the form of
compensation under the same formula suggested in
Po Pauco vs. Tan Juco (49 Phil . 349), cited under the
aforesaid section of Rule 39.
Sec . 10 . Annulment
of
Municipal
Trial
Courts.
a
j u d g m e n t o r fina l o
l C o u r t
s h a l l b e file d i n t
h a v i n g
j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r
d a s
an o r d i n a r y civi l a c
7 , 8 a n d
9 o f t h i s R u l e s h a l
(n )
of
judgments
An
r d e r
or
orders
t o
a n n u l
o f a
a c t i o n
final
M u n i c i p a l T r i a
h e R e g i o n a l
T r i a l
C o u r t
t h e former . I t shal l b e t r e a t e
t i o n a n d s e c t i o n s 2 , 3 , 4 ,
l b e a p p l i c a b l e t h e r e t o ,
N O T E
1. Sec. 19(6), in relation to Sec. 9(2), both of B.P.

Big. 129, is considered as the jurisdictional basis for this
power of the Regional Trial Courts to annul the judgments
or final orders of the lower courts.
637
----------------------- Page 638----------------------RUL E 4 8
PRELIMINARY
Sectio n
durin g th e p
t h e p a r t i
i n a r y
c o n f e r e n c
CONFERENC E
1 .
Preliminary conference. At an y tim e
e n d e n c y o f a case , th e cour t ma y cal l
e s a n d t h e i r c o u n s e l t o a
p r e l i m
e :
(a) T o c o n s i d e r th e possibilit y o f a n amicabl e

settlement , excep t w h e n th e cas e i s no t allowe d b y
law t o b e compromised ;
for
(b) T o define ,
determination ;
simplif y
an d
(c) T o
f o r m u l a t e
s t i p
t s an d
a d m i s s i o n s
o f d o c u m e n t a r y
i t t h e
numbe r o f w i t n e s s e s t o b e presente
w i t h i n t h e o r i g i n a l j u r i s d
t , o r
t h o s e w i t h i n i t s a p p e l l a t e
h e r e a
motio n fo r n e w tria l i s grante d
newl y discovere d e v i d e n c e ; an d
clarif y
th e
issue s
u l a t i o n s o f
f a c
e x h i b i t s , l i m
d i n c a s e s fallin g
i c t i o n o f t h e cour
j u r i s d i c t i o n w
o n
th e
groun d
o f
(d) T o tak e u p suc h othe r matter s w h i c h ma y

ai d th e cour t i n th e promp t dispositio n o f th e case .
(Rul e 7 , C A Interna l Rules )
(n )
Sec. 2 .
Record
at suc h conferenc e shal
c o n c l u s i o n thereof
s s u e d
e m b o d y i n g
a l l
, t h e
stipulation s an d a d m
ssue s
defined ,
(n )
Sec.
3.
of the conference. Th e proceeding s

l b e recorde d an d upo n th e
,
a r e s o l u t i o n s h a l l b e i
t h e
a c t i o n s
i s s i o n s
made ,
t a k e n
an d
t h e r e i n
Binding effect of the results of
th e
the conference-
- Subjec t t o suc h modificatio n whic h ma y b e mad e

t o p r e v e n t manifes t injustice , th e resolutio n i n th e
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s h a l l c o n t r o l t h e s u b s e q
u e n t
638
----------------------- Page 639----------------------RULE 48
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE
EC. 3
p r o c e e d i n g s i n th e cas e unless , withi n fiv e (5) day s
fro m notic e thereof , an y part y shal l satisfactoril y
s h o w
v a l i d c a u s e w h y
t h e s a m e
s h o u l d n o
t b e
followed ,
(n )
N O T E S
1. Thes e new Rul e ha s adopte d mos t o f th e ground s
for pre-tria l i n th e tria l court s an d wit h virtually th e sam e
objective, tha t i s , t o explor e an d utiliz e al l such appropriat e
mean s a s may assis t in th e early disposition o f th e case .
The mino r differenc e i s tha t in th e Cour t o f Appeals , thi s
procedura l devic e may b e availe d o f not only in origina l
action s bu t als o in case s on appea l wherei n a new tria l
wa s grante d on th e groun d o f newly discovere d evidence .
It wil l b e recalle d tha t th e Cour t o f Appeal s can ac t a s a
trie r o f facts , henc e th e preliminar y conferenc e authorize d
by thi s Rul e i s a convenien t adjunct t o such power an d
function .
2 .
recor d
e
resolution
virtuall y
conferences
Th e provision s o f Sees . 2 an d 3 regardin g th e

o f th e proceeding s
an d bindin g effect o f th
embodyin g th e result s o f th e conferenc e ar e
th e sam e a s thos e provide d for i n pre-tria l
in civil case s in th e tria l courts .
3 . Whil e
i t ma y
n a r y
conference i s initiate d by a
court , it i s not prohibite d
th e partie s t o sugges t th e
and for vali d reasons .
a p p e a r t h a t t h e p r e l i m i
call for tha t purpos e by th e
or improper for eithe r or both o f
sam e t o th e court on motion
639
----------------------- Page 640----------------------R U L E

ORA L
4 9
A R G U M E N T
Section 1 .
When allowed. At
e
o r u p o n m o t i o n o f a p a r t y ,
e a r t h e
p a r t i e s i n o r a l a r g u m e n t o n t
a s e , o r
o n
a n y
m a t e r i a l
i n c i d e n t
t h e r e w i t h , (n )
it s o w n
t h e
i n s t a n c
c o u r t m a y h
h e m e r i t s o f a c
i n
c o n n e c t i o n
T h e
o r a l a r g u m e n t
s h a l l b e l i m i t e d
t o s u c h
m a t t e r s
a s t h e c o u r t m a y
specif y i n
it s
o r d e r o r
r e s o l u t i o n , ( l a , R48 )
Sec . 2 .
Conduct
of
oral
U n l e s s
a u t h o r i z e d
b y t h e
c o u r t ,
s e l
m a y
a r g u e fo r a p a r t y .
T h e d u r
fo r e a c h
p a r t y , t h e s e q u e n c e
o f t h e
a n d al l
o t h e r r e l a t e d m a t t e r s
s h a l
d b y t h e
c o u r t , (n )
argument.
o n l y
o n e
a t i o n
c o u n
a l l o w e d
a r g u m e n t a t i o n ,
l b e
a s
d i r e c t e
N O T E S
1. Thi s Rul e wa s take n from a section eac h o f former
Rule s 4 8 an d 49 .
Th e regulator y detail s for ora l argumen t
as provide d for in th e former Rul e 4 8 hav e been eliminate d
a s i t wa s deeme d bette r t o leav e suc h m a t t e r s t o
th e
discretion o f th e cour t on a cas e t o cas e basi s a s
th e
circumstance s an d natur e o f th e issue s may require .
2 .
Whil e Sec . 4 o f the n Rul e 48 , which provide d tha t
a memorandu m may b e submitte d by a part y in lieu o f

participatin g a t th e hearing , ha s bee n eliminate d i n thi s
new rule , th e cour t ma y stil l allow th e submissio n o f
memorand a in lieu o f or in additio n t o
adduced at th e hearing .
However ,
er
Rul e wit h it s exceptiona l requiremen t for
th e detaine d person in habeas corpus case s
th e argument s
Sec . 8 o f tha t form
th e presenc e o f
on appeal , both
640
----------------------- Page 641----------------------RULE 49
ORAL ARGUMENT
at th e ora l argumen t an d a t th e renditio n o f th e judgmen t

therein , ha s not bee n reproduce d sinc e partie s t o a cas e
on appea l ar e not require d t o personall y appea r in th e
appellat e court .
Sec . 3 .
No hearing or oral argument for motions.
M o t i o n s s h a l l n o t b e se t fo r h e a r i n g a n d , u n l
e s s t h e
c o u r t
o t h e r w i s e
d i r e c t s ,
n o
h e a r i n g
o
r
o r a l
a r g u m e n t s h a l l b e a l l o w e d i n s u p p o r t thereof .
T h e
a d v e r s e p a r t y m a y
fil e o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e
m o t i o n
w i t h i n (6) d a y s fro m s e r v i c e , u p o n t h e e x p i r a t
i o n o f
w h i c h s u c h m o t i o n s h a l l b e d e e m e d s u b m i t
t e d fo r
r e s o l u t i o n . (2a , R49 )
N O T E
1.
Unlik e th e procedur e in th e lower courts , motion s
Suprem e Cour t an d Cour t o f Appeal s d o not contai n
o f hearin g o f sai d motion s a s n o ora l argument s
hear d in suppor t thereof ; and , i f th e appellat e court
t o hol d a hearin g thereon , it will itsel f se t th e dat e
in th e
notice s
will b e
desire s
with notic e t o th e parties .

If such a notic e o f hearin g i s appende d t o th e motion ,
th e cour t may simply disregar d th e same .
64 1
----------------------- Page 642----------------------RUL E
DISMISSA L
5 0
O F
APPEA L
Sectio n
1.
Grounds for dismissal of appeal. An
appea l ma y b e d i s m i s s e d b y th e Cour t o f Appeals ,
o n it s o w n motio n o r o n tha t o f th e appellee , o n th e
followin g
grounds :
(a)
Failur e o f th e recor d o n appea l t o sho w o n
it s fac e tha t th e appea l w a s t a k e n w i t h i n th e perio d
fixe d b y t h e s e Rules ;
(b)
Failur e
e
recor d o n appea l
t h e s e Rules ;
t o
fil e
th e
notic e
o f appea l
w i t h i n
th e
perio d
prescribe d
o r th
b y
(c)
Failur e o f th e appellan t t o pa y th e docke t
an d othe r lawfu l fee s a s provide d i n sectio n 5 o f Rul e
40 an d s e c t i o n 4 o f Rul e 4 1
(As amended by Resolution
of the
Supreme
Court,
dated February
17,
1998);
(d)
U n a u t h o r i z e d
a l t e r a t i o n s , o m i s s i o
n s o r
a d d i t i o n s i n t h e a p p r o v e d
r e c o r d o n a p p e a
l a s
provide d i n s e c t i o n 4 o f Rul e 44 ;
(e)
Failur e o f th e appellan t t o serv e an d fil e
t h e r e q u i r e d n u m b e r
o f c o p i e s o f h i s b r i
e f o r
m e m o r a n d u m w i t h i n t h e t i m e
p r o v i d e d b y t
h e s e
Rules ;
(f)
n
th e
A b s e n c e o f specifi c a s s i g n m e n t o f error s i
appellant' s
brief ,
o r
o f pag e
reference s
t o
th
e
recor d a s require d i n sectio n 13 , paragraph s (a) , (c) ,
(d) an d (f) o f Rul e 44 ;
(g)
F a i l u r e
o f t h e
a p p e l l a n t t o t a k e
t h e
n e c e s s a r y step s fo r th e correctio n o r completio n o f
th e recor d withi n th e tim e limite d b y th e cour t i n
it s order ;
642
----------------------- Page 643----------------------RULE 50
C. 1
(h)
preliminar y
c i r c u l a
o u t
justifiabl e
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
SE
Failur e o f th e appellan t t o appea r a t th e

conferenc e o r t o compl y wit h orders ,
r s , o r d i r e c t i v e s o f t h e c o u r t w i t h
cause ; an d
(i)
T h e
f a c t t h a t t h e
n t
appeale d fro m i s no t appealable ,
o r d e r
o r
j u d g m e
(la )
NOTE S
1. Th e forme r Rul e 5 0 ha s bee n amende d in th e
presen t revise d Rule s by th e deletion o f par .
(c) there
o f
(failure o f th e appellan t t o prosecut e hi s appea l unde r th e
the n Sec . 3 o f Rul e 46) , an d th e addition o f th e presen t
par . (h) regardin g non-appearanc e a t th e preliminar y
conference an d non-complianc e wit h court issuances .
The othe r ground s hav
supervening procedura l changes
of th e appea l bon d an d th
on appea l d o not hav e t o
e been update d t o conform with

, such a s th e eliminatio n
e fact tha t th e brief s an d recor d
b e printed .
2 . W i t h
t h e exceptio n
o f Sec .
1(b)
which
,
parenthetically , ha s been duly modified by th e deletion
o f th e forme r r e q u i r e m e n t for a n appea l bond ,
th e
foregoing ground s for th e dismissa l o f a n appea l ar e
directory an d not mandatory , an d it i s not th e ministeria l
duty o f th e cour t to dismis s th e appea l (Ayala Land, Inc.
vs. Carpo, et al., G.R. No. 140162, Nov. 22, 2000).
Henc
e ,
non-complianc e wit h Sec . 1(f) i s not a mandator y groun d
for th e dismissa l of th e appea l (Maqui, et al. vs CA, et al.,
L 41609 Feb.
24, 1976; Vda. de Haberer vs.
CA, et
al.,
L-42709, May 26,
1981).
Th e sam e i s tru e with respec t
to
21,
Sec .
1(d)
(Panes
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
583
Jan.
t
al.
31,
1983)
an d
vs. IAC, et al.,
th e
presen t
G.R. No.
Sec .
75310, Jan.
1(g)
16,
(Advincula,
1987).
3 . Othe r ground s for th e dismissa l o f an appea l are :

(a) By agreemen t o f th e parties , a s wher e th e cas e
wa s amicably settle d by the m (Arcos vs. Aradales, L-27344,
643
----------------------- Page 644----------------------RULE 50
SEC. 1
May
28,

1970);
(b) Wher e th e appeale d cas e ha s becom e moot o r

academic (Camus vs. CA, L-13125, Feb. 13, 1969; NAW ASA
vs. Cloribel,
L-26753, Nov.
28,
1969); and
(c) Wher e th e appea l i s frivolou s (De la Cruz, et al.
vs. Blanco, et al.,
73 Phil.
596; Fernion vs.
Sta. Rom
ana,
L-19161,
April
29,
1966)
or dilatory
(Soriano
vs.
Abeto,
L-19661,
Feb.
28,
1964;
Rose
Industries,
Inc.
vs.
CA,
et al, L-45581,
Dec.
29,
1978).
4 . Th e provisio n i n Sec .
1(a) t h a t th e recor
d o n
appeal , wheneve r it s filing i s required , mus t show on it s
face
t h a t t h e a p p e a l w a s p e r f e c t e d o n t i m e
i s a
jurisdictiona l requisite , an d a defect in suc h requiremen t
warrant s dismissa l o f th e appeal , eve n i f brief s o f both
partie s hav e alread y bee n filed (Gov't vs. Antonio, et al,
L-23736,
Oct.
19,
1965,
o v e r r u l i n g Santiago
vs.
Valenzuela, et al,
78 Phil.
397).
Th e certification of
th e
recor d on appea l by th e tria l cour t after th e laps e o f th e
reglementar y perio d doe s not restor e such lost jurisdiction
(Alvero vs. De la Rosa,
76 Phil.
428).
5 . I t wa s formerl y
hel d
t h a t t h e failur e o
f th e
recor d on appea l t o show on it s face al l th e fact s reflectin g
th e timelines s o f th e appea l render s i t mandator y for
t h e a p p e a l t o b e dismissed ,
a s sai d fact s ar e
juris dictiona l
(Reyes
vs. Carraso,
L-28783,
Mar.
31,
1971;
Workmen's Insurance
Co., Inc.
vs. Augusto,
et al, L31060,
July
29,
1971;
Imperial
Insurance,
Inc.
vs.
CA,
et
al,
L-28722,
Oct.
29,
1971).
However ,
thi s
"materia l
data "
rul e ha s been liberalize d startin g with th e cas e o f Pimentel,

et al. vs. CA, et al. (L-39684 , Jun e 27 , 1975) .
Bu t wher e
for
non-complianc e wit h
th e cour t a quo,
t h e lowe r
c o
an d
completion thereof .
e
th e
motio n
t o
dismis s
th e
appea l
Sec . 1(a) o f thi s Rul e wa s filed with

sai d appea l shoul d not b e dismisse d but
u r t s h o u l d o r d e r t h e a m e n d m e n t
Thi s i s different from th e rul e wher
644
----------------------- Page 645----------------------RULE 50

1
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
SEC.
the motion to dismiss was filed in the appellate court

(Ozaeta, Jr., et al. vs. CA, et al., L-26938, Oct. 29,
71)
as the provisions of Sec. 6, Rule 41 are principally intended
for the appellate courts (Tanalega, et al. vs. Tizon, et al.,
L-30345,
Mar.
27,
1974).
19
6. Where appellants' brief failed to make page

references to the record to support their factual allegations
and also failed to make a separate statement of facts, in
violation of Sec. 16(d), Rule 46 (now, Sec. 13[d], Rule 44),
the appeal may be properly dismissed (Genobiagan vs. CA,
et al.,
L-44323,
Mar.
2,
1977;
Heirs
of Abelardo
V.
Palomique, et al. vs. CA, et al., L-39288-89, Jan. 31, 1985).
7. Failur e to file appellant' s brief within the
reglementary period need not necessarily cause dismissal
of the appeal where the same was due to force majeure,
i.e., power blackouts which prevented completion of the
printing and a request for extension was seasonably filed,
with the brief thereafter actually filed by appellant
(Padosas
vs. CA, et al., L-30871, April 25,
1974).
Sec . 2 .
Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of
Appeals. A n a p p e a l u n d e r Rul e 4 1 t a k e n fro m t h e
R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t t o t h e C
r a i s i n g
o n l y q u e s t i o n s o f la w s h a l l b
s s u e s
p u r e l y o f la w n o t b e i n g r e v i
c o u r t .
Similarly , a n a p p e a l b y notic e o f
o f
b y p e t i t i o n fo r r e v i e w fro m t h
d g m e n t
o f a R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t shal l
o u r t o f A p p e a l s
e d i s m i s s e d , i
e w a b l e
b y
sai d
a p p e a l i n s t e a d
e a p p e l l a t e j u
b e dismissed ,
(n )
A n a p p e a l e r r o n e o u s l y t a k e n t o t h e C
o u r t o f
A p p e a l s shal l n o t b e t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e a p p r
o p r i a t e
c o u r t b u t shal l b e d i s m i s s e d o u t r i g h t . (3a)
NOTE S
1. This provision, together with Sec. 6 of Rule 56,
was taken from Circular No. 2-90 of the Supreme Court
645
----------------------- Page 646----------------------RULE 50
SEC. 2
which , effective Marc h 9 , 1990 , introduce d new guideline s

in appeal s t o th e Suprem e Cour t an d th e Cour t o f Appeals .
U n d e r
th e
forme r
Sec . 3
o f Rul e
50 ,
wher e
th e
appealed cas e wa s erroneousl y brough t t o th e Cour t o f

Appeals , i t shoul d no t dismis s th e appea l bu t shal l certify
th e cas e t o th e prope r court , wit h a specifi c an d clear
statement o f th e ground s therefor . Also , wher e th e appea l
wa s erroneosl y brough t t o th e Suprem e Court , a s wher e
it involve d question s o f fact , th e rul e the n wa s tha t i t
should
b e
certifie d
t o
th e
Cour t o f Appeal s
Rosales,
105 Phil. 1131).
Thes e
th e
provision s o f Sec . 31 , R.A . 29 6
appealed t o eithe r th e Suprem e Cour t
Court o f Appeal s shoul d b e sen t t o
th e sam e shal l decid e th e appea l a
brough t befor e
wer e
(Rosales
p u r s u a n t
vs.
t o
t h a t case s erroneousl y
or th e Cour t o f th e
th e prope r cour t an d
s i f i t ha d bee n properly
it .
In th e aforementione d Circula r No . 2-90 , th e Suprem e

Court took not e o f th e fact tha t th e former Rule s 4 1 an d
42 o f th e 1964 Rule s o f Court , which prescribe d a common
mod e o f appea l t o th e Cour t togethe r wit h a common
procedur e for considerin g an d resolvin g an appeal , ar e n o
longer in force .
Appeal s from th e Regiona l Tria l Court s
t o th e Suprem e Cour t ma y b e mad e only by a petitio n for
review on certiorari , excep t only in crimina l case s wher e
th e penalt y impose d wa s life imprisonmen t or reclusion
perpetua.
On th e othe r hand , appeal s from th e Regiona l
Trial Court s t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s ma y b e take n eithe r
by wri t o f erro r (ordinar y appeal ) or by petitio n for review .
Accordingly , th e Suprem e Cour t declare d tha t n o
transfe r o f appeals , erroneousl y take n t o it or t o th e Court
of Appeals , whicheve r o f thes e tribunal s ha s appropriat e
appellat e jurisdiction ,
wil l b e
allowed .
Also ,
elevatin g
such appea l t o eithe r o f sai d appellat e court s by th e wron g

mod e o f appea l shal l b e groun d for th e dismissa l thereof .
Thi s section now provide s for th e consequence s o f an
improper appea l t o th e Cour t o f Appeals .
Indeed , unde r
646
----------------------- Page 647----------------------RULE 50
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
SEC. 2
th e forme r practice ,
takin g a n imprope r appea l wa s
sometime s resorte d t o a s a dilator y strateg y sinc e th e
appellant wa s awar e tha t th e appeale d cas e woul d merely
b e transferre d t o th e prope r appellat e court .
Thus , for
instance ,
a j u d g m e n t
a
stipulation o f fact s woul d b e
although n o questio n o f fact
new procedure , suc h appea l
involve question s o f law shal l
th e Suprem e Cour t bu t shal l
o f th e
take
wa s
which
n o
b e
lowe r
cour t
base d
on
n t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s
involved .
Unde r thi s
a t mos t coul d only
longer b e transferre d t o
dismisse d outright .
2 . Wher e th e defendant-appellan t appeale d directly

t o th e Suprem e Cour t on pur e question s o f law , whil e th e
plaintiff-appellan t appeale d t o th e Cour t o f Appeal s on
question s o f law an d fact , disputin g th e fact s se t forth in
th e brie f filed b y defendant-appellan t i n th e former' s
appeal t o th e Suprem e Court , th e cas e shoul d b e remande d
to th e Court o f Appeal s which ha s jurisdiction thereo f (Hoey
vs. Aurelio
&
Co., Inc., L-31111,
June
30, 1971,
citin g
Justo
vs.
Hernando,
89 Phil.
268 an d
Sec.
2,
R.A.
5440).
It i s believe d tha t thi s i s stil l a vali d an d applicabl e rul e o f

procedure .
3 . It i s withi n th e competenc e o f th e tria l cour t t o
determin e whethe r th e appea l interpose d i s base d on pur e
question s of law or mixe d question s of law an d fact , for
th e purpos e o f decidin g on th e correctnes s o f th e procedura l
mod e o f appea l adopte d by th e appellant , th e cour t t o
which th e appea l i s t o b e take n and , consequently , whethe r
to give du e cours e thereto .
Sec . 3 (now , Sec. 2), Rul e 50
applie s only whe n th e appea l i s already brough t t o th e
Court o f Appeal s at which tim e it will determin e whethe r
th e appea l wa s brough t t o th e correc t appellat e cour t
(Heirs
of Ramon
Pizarro,
Sr.
vs. Consolacion,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
51278, May 8,
1988).
4 . Wher e th e appea l wa s dismisse d throug h frau d

practice d upon th e appellat e court , it ha s th e inheren t right
t o
recal l
th e
remittitu r
o r
reman d
o f th e
recor d
an d
647
----------------------- Page 648----------------------RULE 50
C. 3
reinstat e th e appea l (Heirs

CA,
et al., L-38690,
Sept.
12,
of
SE
Clemente
Celestino
vs.
1975).
5.
A resolutio n o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s dismissin g
th e appea l an d remandin g th e cas e t o th e tria l cour t for
further proceeding s i s merel y interlocutory ,
henc e
a
motion for it s reconsideratio n filed a yea r late r may b e
entertaine d
an d
grante d
(Valdez
vs. Bagasao,
L-466
08,
Mar.
8, 1978).
Sec. 3 .
Withdrawal
of
appeal.
A n
appea l
ma
y
b e
h e
f i l
t h
w i t
court
w i t h d r a w n
a s
o f righ t
a t
an y
tim e
befor e
i n g o f t h e a p p e l l e e ' s brief .
T h e r e a f t e r ,
e
h d r a w a l m a y b e allowe d i n th e discretio n o f th e
.
(4a )
648
----------------------- Page 649----------------------RUL E
5 1
J U D G M E N T
Section
1 .
When case deemed submitted for judgment.
A c a s e s h a l l b e d e e m e d s u b m i t t e d for j u d g m e n
t :
A .
I n o r d i n a r y a p p e a l s .
1) W h e r e n o h e a r i n g o n t h e m e r i t s o f t
m a i n
c a s e i s h e l d , u p o n t h e f i l i n g o f t h e l a
p l e a d i n g ,
brief , o r m e m o r a n d u m r e q u i r e d b y t h e R u l e s
r b y
t h e c o u r t itself , o r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e
e r i o d for
it s filing .
2 )
u p o n
t e r m i n a
p l e a d i n
W h e r e
i t s
t i o n o r
g
s u c h
u p o n
h e a r i n g
i s
h e
s t
o
p
t h e f i l i n g o f t h e
h e l d ,
las t
o r m e m o r a n d u m a s m a y b e r e q u i r e d o r p e r m
i t t e d
t o b e file d
b y t h e c o u r t , o r t h e e x p i r a t i
o n o f t h e
p e r i o d fo r it s filing .
B . I n
n s fo r
r e view .
o r i g i n a l
a c t i o n s
a n d
p e t i t i o
1) W h e r e
n o c o m m e n t i s filed ,
n t h e ex p i r a t i o n o f t h e p e r i o d t o c o m m e n t .
u p o
2 ) W h e r e n o h e a r i n g i s held , u p o n t h e fili
n g o f
t h e las t p l e a d i n g r e q u i r e d o r p e r m i t t e d t o b
e f i l e d
b y t h e c o u r t , o r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e p e r i o
d fo r it s
filing.
e m a
cas e
filin g
o f t
m a
r e q u
o u r t
t h e
(n )
3 ) W h e r e a h e a r i n g o n t h e m e r i t s o f t h
i n
i s held , u p o n it s t e r m i n a t i o n o r u p o n t h e
h e
l a s t p l e a d i n g o r
m e m o r a n d u m a s
y
b e
i r e d o r p e r m i t t e d t o b e file d b y t h e
, o r
e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e p e r i o d for it s
filin g
NOTE S
1.
Th e new provision s in thi s section ar e intende d to
clarify an d provid e specific rule s on when a cas e i s deeme d
649
----------------------- Page 650----------------------RULE 51
SEC. 1
submitted for judgment , dependin g on whethe r wha t i s

involved i s an ordinar y appeal , petitio n for review or an
origina l action ,
an d w h e t h e r o r no t a h e a r i n
g wa s
conducted by th e appellat e court .
Th e determinatio n o f
th e dat e o f submission o f
b y th e fact tha t unde r
reckonin g poin t for th e
th e cas e o r matter , an
in nature .
th e cas e i s mad e doubly importan t

th e Constitutio n suc h dat e i s th e
period s for decidin g or resolvin g
d which period s ar e now mandator y
2 . Th e
r e l e v a n t
I o f th e
Constitution ar e a s follows :
p r o v i s i o n s
o f A r t . VII
"Sec. 15 . (1) All case s or matter s filed after th e

effectivity o f thi s Constitutio n mus t b e decide d or
resolve d withi n twenty-fou r month s from dat e o f
submission for th e Suprem e Court , and , unles s reduce d
by th e Suprem e Court , twelv e month s for al l lower
collegiate courts , an d thre e month s for al l othe r lower
courts .
(2)
A cas e or matte r shal l b e deeme d submitte d
for decision or resolutio n upo n th e filing o f th e last
pleading , brief , or memorandu m require d by th e Rule s
of Cour t or by th e cour t itself .
(3)
Upo n th e expiratio n o f th e
period , a certification t o thi s effect signe d
Justic e or th e presidin g judg e shal l forthwith
an d a copy thereo f attache d t o th e recor d
o r m a t t e r , a n d s e r v e d u p o n t h
correspondin g
by th e Chief
b e issue d
o f th e cas e
e p a r t i e s
. Th e
certification shal l stat e why a decision or resolution
ha s not bee n rendere d o r issue d withi n sai d period .
(4)
Despit e
th e
expiratio n
o f th e
applica
bl e
mandator y period , th e court , withou t prejudic e t o
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a s ma y
h a v e b e e n
e d i n
consequence thereof , shal l decid e or resolv e th e
o r m a t t e r s u b m i t t e d t h e r e t o for d
n a t i o n ,
withou t furthe r delay. "
such
i n c u r r
cas e
e t e r m i
650
----------------------- Page 651----------------------RULE 51
SEC. 2
JUDGMENT
3 . Whe n an appellat e court ha s onc e declare d th e

law in a case , suc h declaratio n continue s t o b e th e law o f
tha t cas e even on a subsequen t appeal .
Th e rul e
mad e
by an appellat e court , whil e it may b e reverse d in othe r
cases , canno t b e departe d from in subsequen t proceeding s
in th e sam e case .
Th e rul e i s necessary a s a matte r o
f
policy in orde r t o en d litigation ; otherwise , it woul d b e
i m p o s s i b l e for a n
a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o p e r f o
r m i t s
dutie s efficiently i f a question , alread y considere d an d
decide d b y it , wer e t o b e litigate d ane w i n th e sa
m e
case upo n any an d every subsequen t appea l (Ramos vs.
IAC, et al., G.R. No.
72686, Mar. 8,
1989).
4 . Th e law o f th e cas e ha s been defined a s th e opinion
delivered on a former appeal .
It mean s tha t whateve r
i s
once irrevocably established , a s th e controllin g lega l rul e

or decision betwee n th e sam e partie s in th e sam e case ,
continue s t o b e th e law o f th e case , whethe r correct on
genera l principle s or not , s o long a s th e fact s on which
such decision wa s predicate d continu e t o b e th e fact s before
th e court .
U n d e r suc h circumstances ,
n o ques
tio n
necessarily involve d an d decide d on tha t appea l will b e
considered on a secon d appea l or wri t o f erro r in th e sam e
case .
Th e rul e on th e law o f th e cas e doe s not apply t o
resolution s rendere d i n connectio n wit h th e cas e bu t
wherei n n o rational e ha s been expounde d on th e merit s
of tha t action (Jarantilla vs.
CA, et al,
G.R. No.
80194,
Mar.
21,
1989).
b e
w
p a
i t
c a
r
w r
Sec . 2 . By whom rendered.

r e n d e r e d
b y t h e m e
h o
r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e d e l
s o f t h e
s e b e f o r e it s a s s i g n m
t h e
i t i n g o f t h e decision ,
Th e j u d g m e n t shal l
m b e r s
o f t h e c o u r t
i b e r a t i o n o n t h e m e r
e n t
t o
m e m b e r
fo
(n )
65 1
----------------------- Page 652----------------------RULE 51

SEC

3
N O T E
1. Thi s new Sec . 2 of th e Rul e simplifie s th e procedur e

unde r th e former Sec . 1 thereo f which ha d provide d rule s
on wh o o f th e Justice s may tak e par t in th e adjudication
of th e case .
Now , th e only determinan t i s wh o o f the m
participate d in th e deliberation s on th e merit s o f th e case ,
which deliberatio n take s plac e befor e th e assignmen t t o
th e ponente for th e writin g o f th e decision .
Thi s procedure , in effect ,
provision on whic h o f th e Justice s
may participat e in th e decision o
It i s
provide d tha t case s or matter s hear
en
banc
or by
a divisio n
t h th e
concurrenc e o f a majority o f th e
took par t in th e deliberation s on
and vote d thereon " (Sec . 4[2] an
I).
Sec . 3 .
Quorum
T h e
p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f
d i v i s i o n
adopt s th e Constitutiona l
o f th e Suprem e Court
f case s therein .
d by th e Suprem e Court
"shal l b e
decide d
wi
and
Member s wh o actually
th e issue s in th e cas e
d [3], Art.
VII
voting
a l l t h r e e
in
the
J u s t i c e s
court.
o f
s h a l l b e
n e c e s s a r y
a t t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n
a n d
t h e
u n a n i m o u s
v o t e
o f t h e
t h r e e J u s t i c e s
s h a l l b e
r e q u i r e d
fo r t h e
p r o n o u n c e m e n t
o f a j
u d g m e n t
o r fina l r e s o l u t i o n .
I f t h e t h r e e J u s t i c e
s d o
n o t
r e a c h
a
u n a n i m o u s
v o t e , t h e
c l e r k s h a
l l e n t e r
t h e
v o t e s
o f
t h e
d i s s e n t i n g
J u s t i c e
i n
t h e
r e c o r d .
T h e r e a f t e r , t h e C h a i r m a n o f t h e
d i v i s i o n
s h a l l r e f e r t h e c a s e , t o g e t h e r
w i t h
t h e
m i n u t e s
o f t h e
d e l i b e r a t i o n , t o t h e P r e s i d i n g J u s
t i c e w h o
s h a l l d e s i g n a t e
t w o
J u s t i c e s
c h o s e n
b y
r a f f l e
f r o m a m o n g a l l
t h e o t h e r
m e m b e r s
o f t
h e c o u r t
t o s i t t e m p o r a r i l y
w i t h t h e m ,
f o r m i n g a
s p e c i a l
d i v i s i o n o f fiv e
J u s t i c e s .
T h e
p a r t i c i p
a t i o n o f
al l t h e fiv e
m e m b e r s o f t h e
s p e c i a l d i v i
s i o n shal l
b e
n e c e s s a r y
f o r
t h e
d e l i b e r a t i o n
r e q u i r e d
i n S e c t i o n
2 o f t h i s R u l e
a n d
t h e
c o n c
u r r e n c e
o f a
m a j o r i t y o f s u c h
d i v i s i o n s h a l l b e
r e q u i r e d
652
----------------------- Page 653----------------------RULE 51
3
fo r
JUDGMENT
t h e p r o n o u n c e m e n t
resolution .
SEC.
o f
j u d g m e n t o r fina l
(2a )
N O T E S
Sec.
for
and
th e
1. Thi s section , which i s an amendmen t o f th e former

2 o f thi s Rule , set s ou t mor e in detai l th e requirement s
a quorum , th e votin g in a regula r division o f th e court ,
th e creatio n o f a specia l division o f five Justice s unde r
circumstance s contemplate d therefor .
2 . Thi s wa s taken , wit h modifications , from Sec . 6 o f

Executiv e Orde r No . 3 3 which amende d Sec . 1 1 o f B.P .
Big . 129 , effective Jul y 28 , 1986 , a s follows :
"Sec.
11 . Quorum.
majority
o f th e
actua l
member s o f th e cour t shal l constitut e a quoru m for

it s session en banc.
Thre e member s shal l constitut e
a quoru m for th e session o f a division . Th e unanimou s
vot e o f th e thre e member s o f a divisio n shal l b e
necessary for th e pronouncemen t o f a decision or final
resolution , which shal l b e reache d in consultatio n
befor e th e writin g o f th e opinion by any membe r o f
th e division .
I n th e even t tha t th e thre e member s d o
not reac h a unanimou s vote , th e Presidin g Justic e
shall reques t th e Raffle Committe e o f th e court for
th e designatio n o f tw o additiona l Justice s t o si t
temporarily with them , forming a specia l division o f
five member s an d th e concurrenc e o f a majority o f
such division shal l b e necessary for th e pronounce ment of a decision or final resolution .
Th e designation
of such additiona l Justice s shal l b e mad e strictly by
raffle. "
3. T o b e binding , a judgmen t mus t b e duly signe d
and promulgate d durin g th e incumbency o f th e judg e wh o
signed it . Wher e th e decision wa s promulgate d after tw o
of th e thre e justice s necessary t o constitut e a quoru m in a
653
----------------------- Page 654----------------------RULE 51
ECS. 4, 5
division ha d lost thei r authorit y t o act a s justice s by reason

of th e presidentia l acceptanc e o f thei r resignation s o f
which the y wer e informe d befor e such promulgation , said
decision is nul l an d void (Lao vs.
To-Chip, et
G.R.
No.
76594, Feb. 26,
1988).
Sec . 4 .
r t
o f
A p p e a l s , i n
i s d i c t i o n ,
m a y affirm , r e
a l
o r d e r a p p e a
a l o r
f u r t h e r p r o
Disposition
of
case.
al.,
T h e
C o u
t h e e x e r c i s e o f it s a p p e l l a t e j u r
v e r s e , o r modif y t h e j u d g m e n t o r fin
l e d
from , a n d m a y d i r e c t a n e w t r i
c e e d i n g s t o b e h a d .
(3a )
N O T E
1.
Wher e th e Cour t o f Appeal s direct s a new tria l or
further proceedings , th e cas e shal l ordinarily b e remande d
to th e court a quo, a s th e Cour t o f Appeal s i s not essentially
a tria l court .
However , unde r Sec . 5 o f th e aforestate d
Executiv e Orde r No .
33 , whic h amende d th e secon d
p a r a g r a p h
xpressl y
provide d tha t
"The
o f Sec .
o f B.P .
Big .
129 ,
it
i s
Cour t o f Appeal s shal l hav e th e power t o
receiv e
evidenc e
an d
perfor m
an y
an d
act s
necessar y t o resolv e factua l issue s raise d on (a) case s
falling withi n it s origina l jurisdiction , suc h a s action s
for
a n n u l m e n t
o f j u d g m e n t s ,
a s p r o v
i d e d i n
paragrap h (2) hereof ; an d in (b) case s fallin g within
it s appellat e jurisdictio n wherei n a motion for new
tria l base d only on th e groun d o f newly discovere d
evidence i s grante d by it. "
al l
Sec . 5 .
i o n or
f i n a l r e s o l u t
c a s e s
s h a l l c l e a r l y
d i n g s o f
f a c t a n d
t h e
h
i t i s
b a s e d , w h i c h
i s i o n o r
fina l
r e s o l u t
o s e se t
Form
i o n
of
decision.
o f
E v e r y
t h e c o u r t
a n d d i s t i n c t l y
c o n c l u s i o n s
m a y
b e
i n a p p e a l e d
s t a t e t h e f i n
o f
l a w
c o n t a i n e d
i o n itself ,
d e c i s
i n
o r a d o p t e d
o n
w h i c
t h e
d e c
f r o m
t h
654
----------------------- Page 655----------------------RULE 51
JUDGMENT
SEC. 6
forth i n t h e d e c i s i o n , o r d e r , o r r e s o l u t i o n a
p p e a l e d
from .
(Sec . 40 , B P Big . 129) (n )
N O T E S
1. As indicated after this provision, this section was
actually taken from Sec. 40 of B.P. Big. 129. Art . VII I of
the Constitution contains a more comprehensive mandate
on this matter, thus:
"Sec. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly
the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused
due course or denied without stating the legal basis
therefor."
2. It will be noted that the requirement for the
statement of the facts and the law, as provided by the
Constitution, B.P. Big. 129 and the foregoing section, refers
to a decision or, for that matter, a final resolution. The
same does not apply to minute resolutions since these
usually dispose of the case not on its merits but on
procedural or technical considerations, although the court
may, if it deems it necessary, briefly discuss the matter on
the merits in an extended resolution.
With respect to petitions for review (and this may be

considered broad enough to apply to the ordinary petition
for review, petition for review on certiorari, or petition for
certiorari) and motions for reconsideration , the
Constitution merely requires a statement of the legal basis
for the denial thereof or refusal of due course thereto.
Again, as already stated, the court may opt, but it is not
required, to issue an extended resolution thereon.
Sec . 6 . Harmless errors. N o e r r o r in e i t h e r t h e
a d m i s s i o n o r t h e exclusio n o f e v i d e n c e a n d n o e r
r o r
655
----------------------- Page 656----------------------RULE 51
SECS. 7-8
o r defec t i n an y rulin g o r orde r o r i n a n y t h i n g don e

o r omitte d b y t h e tria l cour t o r b y an y o f th e partie s
i s g r o u n d fo r g r a n t i n g a n e w tria l o r fo r se
ttin g
a s i d e , m o d i f y i n g ,
o r o t h e r w i s e
d i s t u r
b i n g
a
j u d g m e n t
o r o r d e r , u n l e s s r e f u s a l t o t a k
e s u c h
a c t i o n s a p p e a r s
t o t h e c o u r t
i n c o n s i s t e
n t w i t h
s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e . T h e c o u r t a t e v e r y s
tag e o f
t h e
m u s t
d i s r e g a r d
a n y
e r
r o r o r
defec t w h i c h d o e s no t affec t th e substantia l right s
o f t h e parties .
(5a )
Sec . 7 .
I n al l a c t i o
t
ma y b e affirme
reverse d a s t o
b e p r o c e e d e
a c t i o n s h a
;
a n d
e x e c u t i o n o
a c c o r d i n g l
i n suc h
cases , a s th e
Sec
w h i c h
o v e r th
s u b j e c
d g m e n t
a p p e a l
wil l b e
Judgment
where
there
are
several parties.
n s o r p r o c e e d i n g s , a n appeale d judgmen
d
a s t o som e o f th e appellants , an d
others , an d th e c a s e shal l thereafte r
d with , s o fa r a s necessary , a s i f separat e
d
b e e n
b e g u n
a n d
p r o s e c u t e d
f th e j u d g m e n t o f affirmanc e ma y b e ha d
y , a n d c o s t s m a y b e a d j u d g e d
cour t shal l d e e m proper .
(6)
. 8 .
Questions that may be decided. No erro r
d o e s n o t
a f f e c t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n
e
t m a t t e r
o r t h e
v a l i d i t y o f t h e j u
e d
fro m
o r t h e
t h e r e i n
c o n s i d e r e d
u
e n t
o f
errors , o r c l o s
o n a n
assigne d erro r an d
a s th e cour t ma y
errors .
(7a )
n l e s s
e l y
s t a t e d
r e l a t e d
i n
t o
t h e
o r
a s s i g n m
d e p e n d e n t
properl y argue d i n th e brief , sav e

pas s u p o n plai n error s an d clerica l
NOTE S
7 o
th e
ra l
rule
will
1. Sec . 8 , which i s an amendmen t o f th e former Sec .

f thi s Rule , now include s som e substantia l change s in
rule s on assignmen t o f errors .
Th e basi c procedu
i s tha t only error s claime d an d assigne d by a part y
b e considere d by th e court , except error s affecting it s
656
----------------------- Page 657----------------------RULE 51

EC. 9
JUDGMENT
jurisdictio n over th e subject-matter . T o thi s exception ha s

now bee n
adde d e r r o r s affectin g th e validit y
e
judgmen t appeale d from or th e proceeding s therein .
o f th
Also , even i f th e erro r complaine d o f by a part y i s not

expressly state d in hi s assignmen t o f error s bu t th e sam e
i s closely relate d t o or dependen t on an assigne d erro r
and properl y argue d in hi s brief , suc h erro r may now
b e considere d b y t h e court .
Thes e c h a n g e s ar e
o f
jurisprudentia l origin .
2 . Th e p r o c e d u r e i n th e S u p r e m e Cour t bei
n g
generally th e sam e a s tha t in th e Court o f Appeals , unles s
otherwis e indicate d (see Sees. 2 an d 4, Rule 56), it ha s
been hel d tha t th e latte r i s clothe d wit h ampl e authorit y
t o review matters , even i f the y ar e not assigne d a s error s
on appeal , i f it find s tha t thei r consideration i s necessar y
in arrivin g a t a j u s t decisio n o f th e case .
Also ,
a n
unassigne d erro r closely relate d t o a n erro r properl y
assigned (PCIB vs. CA, et al, L 34931, Mar. 18, 1988), or
upon which th e determinatio n o f th e question raise d by
error properly assigne d i s dependent , will b e considere d
by th e appellat e court notwitstandin g th e failur e t o assign
it as erro r
(Ortigas,
Jr. vs.
Lufthansa
German
Airl
ines,
L-28773,
June
30,
1975;
Soco
vs.
Militante,
et
al,
G.R.
No.
58961, June 28,
1983).
It may als o b e observe d tha t unde r Sec . 8 o f thi s Rule ,
th e appellat e cour t i s authorize d t o consider a plain error ,
although it wa s not specifically assigne d by th e appellan t

(Dilag
vs. Heirs of Fortunato Resurreccion,
76 Phil.
650),
o t h e r w i s e i t woul d
b e
sacrificin g
s u b s t a n c e
for
technicalities .
Sec.
9.
Promulgation
and
notice
of
judgment.
A f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t
o r
f i n a l r e s o l u t i o n
a n d
dissentin g o r separat e opinions , i f any , ar e signe d
by th e Justice s takin g part , the y shal l b e delivere d
657
----------------------- Page 658----------------------RULE 51
SEC. 11
for filin g
o n
t h e d a t e
opie s
t h e r e o f t
t h e i r
counsel ,
t o
t h e
o f
o
cler k
w h o
shal l
i n d i c a t e
p r o m u l g a t i o n a n d
b e
s e r v e d
u p o n
c a u s e
there
t r u e c
t h e p a r t i e s o r
(n )
Sec .
10 . Entry
of judgment
.
I f n o a p p e a l
o r m o t i o n fo r
e c o n sideratio n i s file d w i t h i n th e tim e
R u l e s , t h e j u d g m e n t
o r f i
s h a l l
f o r t h w i t h b e e n t e r e d b y t h e
o k o f
e n t r i e s o f j u d g m e n t s . Th e dat e
o r fina l
r e s o l u t i o n b e c o m e s
l l b e
d e e m e d a s th e dat e o f it s entry
al l
contai n th e d i s p o s i t i v e par t o f th
na l
resolutio n an d shal l b e signe d b y th e
certificat e tha t s u c h j u d g m e n t o
ha s b e c o m e fina l an d executory .
and
final
n e w
resolutions
t r i a l o r r
provide d i n thes e
n a l r e s o l u t i o n
cler k
i n
t h e
bo
w h e n th e judgmen t
e x e c u t o r y s h a
.
Th e
recor d
sh
e j u d g m e n t o r fi
clerk , wit h a
fina l resolutio n
(2a , R36 )
NOTE S
1. Sec . 9
enunciate s th e accepte d procedura l rul e
and practic e in th e promulgatio n o f judgment s in civil case s
but , for purpose s o f th e appellat e courts , i t ha s bee n
expande d t
separat e
opinion mus
e
situation s
o tak e int o accoun t th e filing o f dissentin g or

opinions , withou t whic h th e mai n o r majority
t no t b e promulgated .
However , in justifiabl
or by agreemen t in th e division ,
th e filing o f
dissentin g or separat e opinion s ma y b e reserve d or th e

majority opinion may b e promulgate d withou t prejudic e
t o th e subsequen t issuanc e o f a mor e extende d opinion ,
provide d th e requisit e vote s for promulgatio n o f judgmen t
hav e bee n obtaine d an d recorded .
2 . Sec .
1 0 a d o p t s th e ne w
o f
judgmen t o r fina l resolution , tha t is ,
concep t
th e
o f e n t r y
dat e
whe n i t
becam e executory shal l b e deeme d th e dat e o f it s entry ,

and not th e dat e o f th e actua l mechanica l ac t o f writin g
out th e fallo in th e book o f entrie s o f judgment s a s wa s
658
----------------------- Page 659----------------------RULE 51
SEC. 11
JUDGMENT
th e former rule .
Se e Rul e 3 6 an d note s therein .
In th e
tria l courts , th e dat e o f entr y o f judgmen t i s importan t for
purpose s o f reckonin g th e period s involve d in petition s for
relie f o f judgmen t unde r Rul e 3 8 an d th e reviva l o f th e
judgmen t unde r Rul e 39 .
Whil e thos e consideration s ar
e
not involve d in judgment s o f appellat e courts , th e dat e o f
entry i s als o importan t for purpose s o f th e execution o f
judgment , a s explaine d in th e succeedin g section s o f thi s
Rule .
Sec . 11 .
w h e r e
o n , o r a
p o r t i o n
t h e r e
i a t e l y
e x e c u t o r y , t h
a y onl y
b e file d i n t h e
I n o r i g
e a l s , it s
w r i t o f e x e c
tifie d
t r u e
c o p y
r
f i n a l
r e s o l u t i o n
e office r
for it s e n f o
i o n
e x e c
o u r t
A p p e
n o f
o r i g
Execution
o r
E x c e p t
f i n a l o r d e r
o r
r e s o l u t i
i s
t o
b e
o f ,
e
of judgment.
o r d e r e d
m o t i o n
fo r
it s
i m m e d
e x e c u t i o n
p r o p e r c o u r t afte r it s e n t r y .
i n a l a c t i o n s i n t h e
C o u r t o f A p p
u t i o n shal l b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a cer
o f
t h e
e n t r y
o f
j u d g m e n t
a n d a d d r e s s e d t o a n y a p p r o p r i a t
r c e m e n t .
I n a p p e a l e d
c a s e s ,
w h e r e
t h e
m o
f o r
u t i o n p e n d i n g a p p e a l i s file d i n t h e
o f
a l s
a t a t i m e t h a t i t i s i n p o s s e s s i
t h e
i n a l r e c o r d
o r t h e
r e c o r d
o n
a p p
t
C
o
e
a l ,
t h e
r e s o l u t i o
a l l
b e
t r a n s m i t t
cas e
o r i g i n a t e
o f t h e
j u d g m e n t
w i t h
a
d i r e c t i v e
r o p e r
w r i t fo r it
g r a n t i n g
e d t o t h e
s u c h
m o t i o n
s h
lowe r c o u r t fro m w h i c h t h e
d , t o g e t h e r w i t h a certifie d t r u e cop y
o r
f i n a l o r d e r
t o
b e
e x e c u t e d ,
fo r s u c h c o u r t o f origi n t o issu e t h e p
s e n f o r c e m e n t ,
(n )
NOTE S
1.
Th e first paragrap h of thi s section provide s for
th e basi c rul e tha t th e execution o f a judgmen t or final
resolution may b e applie d for only after it s entry , th e
659
----------------------- Page 660----------------------RULE 51
SEC. 11
e x c e p t i o n b e i n g w h e r e t h e s a m e
i s o r d e r e d
t o b e
immediately executory . In fact , such order i s not necessary
where ,
b y provisio n o f t h e s e Rule s o r u n d e r set
tle d
jurisprudence , th e judgmen t i s immediatel y executory .
See ,
for i n s t a n c e , Sec . 4 o f Rul e
3 9 an d t h e
note s
thereunder .
2 . T h e
s a m e
e s th e
f u n d a m e n t a l r e q
suc h
execution ma y b e filed
genera l rul e i s tha t
and issue d by th e cour
tha t is , th e cour t o
Thus , i n
of Appeals , th e
addresse d t o an
T o obviat e an
accompanie d by
p a r a g r a p h
f u r t h e r d e c l a r
u i r e m e n t t h a t th e
motio n
for
only in th e prope r court , an d th e

th e wri t therefo r may b e sough t in
t from which th e action originated ,
f origin or a quo.
action s originally commence d i

wri t o f executio n shal l b e
y appropriat e officer for it s
y possibl e questions , th e
a certifie d t r u e copy o
n th e Court
issue d by it an d
enforcement .
wri t shal l b e
f th e entr y o f
judgment , fina l orde r o r resolution .

3
r t o f
Appeals ,
judgmen t
Appeal s
or th e
not
. I n
case s
p e n d i n g
a motio n
o f th e tria l
provide d it i s
recor d on appeal
o n
a p p e a l
i n
t h e Cou
for discretionar y executio n o f th e

cour t ma y b e filed in th e Cour t o f
in possessio n o f th e origina l recor d
.
I f it grant s th e motion , it will
issue a wri t o f executio n bu t shal l orde r th e resolution

grantin g th e motion therefor .
A copy o f suc h resolution
and a certifie d tru e copy o f th e judgmen t or final orde r t o
b e execute d shal l forthwit h
b e transmitte d t o sai d tr
ia l
court .
4 . Wher e th e appeale d cas e ha s bee n finally resolve d
and th e judgmen t ha s becom e executory , th e situatio n
is governe d by th e amende d an d amplifie d provision s o f
Sec. 1 , Rul e 39 .
660
----------------------- Page 661----------------------RUL E
MOTIO N
FO R
5 2
RECONSIDERATIO N
Section 1 .
Period for filing. A p a r t y m a y f
il e
a m o t i o n
fo r
o f a j u d g
m e n t
o r
f i n a l r e s o l u t i o n
w i t h i n
f i f t e e n (15 )
d a
y s
f r o m
n o t i c e thereof , w i t h p r o o f o f s e r v i c e o n t h e a d
v e r s e
p a r t y , (n )
Sec .
No
s e c o n d m
u d g m e n t
o r f i n a l
s h a l l b e
e n t e r t a i
2 .
Second
o t i o n
fo r
r e s o l u t i o n
motion
for
reconsideration.
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a
b y
t h e
s a m e
p a r t y
n e d , (n )
Sec . 3 .
Resolution of
o u r t o f
A p p e a l s ,
a m o t i o n
fo
s h a l l b e
r e s o l v e d w i t h i n n i n e t y
w h e n
t h e c o u r t d e c l a r e s i t s
o n , (n )
motion.
r
In
t h e
(90) d a y s fro m t h e d a t e
u b m i t t e d for r e s o l u t i
Sec . 4 .
Stay of execution. T h e
y
o f a
m o t i o n fo r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n file d o
b y t h e
p r o p e r
p a r t y
s h a l l s t a y
t h e
o f t h e
j u d g m e n t
o r
f i n a l
r e s o l u t i o
t o
b e
r e c o n s i d e r e d u n l e s s t h e c o u r t ,
r e a s o n s ,
shal l o t h e r w i s e d i r e c t ,
(n )
p e n d e n c
n t i m e a n d
e x e c u t i o n
n
s o u g h t
fo r
goo d
NOTE S
1.
Th e presen t Rule , which now bear s th e titl e o f
"Motion for Reconsideration, " contain s new provision s
substantially different from an d abandonin g th e previou s
practic e in th e former Rul e 52 which wa s entitle d "Rehearing. "
Thus , for instance , a copy o f th e motion for
reconsideratio n mus t b e serve d o n th e advers e party ,
thereby eliminatin g th e confusion cause d by Sec . 1 o f th e
former Rul e which provide d for th e filing thereo f ex parte.
66 1
----------------------- Page 662----------------------RULE 62
S.
14
SEC
Th e presen t Sec . 2 prohibit s th e filing o f a second

motion for reconsideratio n while , formerly , th e sam e may
b e allowe d wit h leav e o f court .
Sec . 3 provide s a tim e limi t o f 9 0 day s for th
e
resolution o f th e motion for reconsideratio n reckone d from
t h e d a t e w h e n t h e s a m e i s d e c l a r e d s u b m i t t
e d for
resolution , whic h i s normall y upo n th e filing o f th e last
pleadin g require d by th e Rule s or by th e court .
Thi s
tim e
limit applie s only t o motion s for reconsideratio n in th e
Cour t o f Appeals .
I t doe s no t appl y t o motion s
for
reconsideratio n i n th e Suprem e Court , pursuan t t o th e
exception in Sec . 2(b) , Rul e 56 .
Sec. 4 o f thi s Rul e now provide s tha
for r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s h a l l s t a
f th e
j u d g m e n t o r fina l
r e s o l u t i o n ,
direc t
otherwise , unlik e th e previou s Rul e whic h
for suc h exception .
t whil e a motion
y t h e executio n
t h e cour t ma y
di d not provid e
2 . A s a backdrop , i t wil l b e recalle d t h a t und

e r
Sec.
1 o f th e forme r Rule , a secon d motio n for recon sideration wa s allowe d upo n prio r leav e o f th e court .
Thi s
wa s modified by B.P . Big . 129 which provide d tha t th e
t h e n I n t e r m e d i a t e Appellat e Cour t coul d e n t e r t
a i n a
second motion for reconsideratio n only i f th e first motion
for reconsideratio n resulte d in th e reversa l or substantia l
modification o f th e judgmen t appeale d from (Sec.
11),
whil e
i n t h e l o w e r c o u r t s onl y
on e
m o t i o
n for
reconsideratio n
shal l
b e allowe d
(Par.
4,
Interi
m
or
Transitional Rules and Guidelines).

Sai d rules ,
ver ,
did not apply t o th e Suprem e Court , Sandiganbaya n an d
Court o f Tax Appeals , unles s thereafte r adopte d by them .
howe
Subsequently, effectiv e Jul y 28 , 1986 , Sec . 1 1 o f B.P .

Big . 129 wa s amende d by Executiv e Orde r No . 3 3 providin g
tha t i n th e former Intermediat e Appellat e Court , which
wa s therei n rename d a s th e Cour t o f Appeals , "no secon d
motion for reconsideratio n from th e sam e part y shal l b e
entertained " (Sec. 6).
Thi s restrictio n ha s been adopte d
662
----------------------- Page 663----------------------RULE 52
MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
in Sec . 2 o f th e presen t Rule .

Sec. 6 o f Executiv e Orde r No .
th e "motion for reconsideratio n
resolution shal l b e resolve d by
(90) day s from th e tim e it i s
SECS. 1-4
Parenthetically , th e sam e
3 3 furthe r provide d tha t
o f it s decision or fina l
th e cour t withi n ninet y
submitte d for resolution. "
663
----------------------- Page 664----------------------RUL E
NE W
6 3
TRIA L
S e c t i o n 1 .
Period for filing; ground.
At
an y
t i m e afte r t h e
a p p e a l fro m t h e
l o w e r c o u r
t ha s
b e e n p e r f e c t e d a n d
befor e
t h e Cour t o f A p p e
a l s
l o s e s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e case , a part y ma
y fil e
a m o t i o n fo r a n e w tria l o n th e g r o u n d o f n
e w l y
d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e w h i c h
c o u l d no t h a v e
bee n
d i s c o v e r e d prio r t o th e tria l i n th e cour t belo w b y
th e e x e r c i s e o f d u e diligenc e an d w h i c h i s o f suc h
a
characte r a s w o u l d probabl y c h a n g e th e result .
Th e
motio n shal l b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y affidavit s s h o w i n g
th e fact s c o n s t i t u t i n g th e g r o u n d s therefo r an d th
e
n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , ( l a )
NOTE S
1. Sec . 1 o f th e former Rul e ha s bee n amende d her e
to mak e mor e specific th e perio d for th e filing o f a motion
for new trial , i.e. , at an y tim e after th e perfection o f th e
appea l from
an d befor e
th e case .
order o r j
l s
become s
an d
susceptible o
2 .
ation an d
certiorari
may now b
th e judgmen t
th e Cour t
Th e former
u d g m e n t
executory, "
or fina l orde r
o f Appeal s lose
provision readin g
rendere d b y th
w a s
o f th e lower court
s jurisdictio n over
"(b)efore a final
e
Cour t o f Appea
considere d
imprecis e
f misinterpretation , henc e th e amendment .
Rule s 5 2 an d
new trial , in
from th e Cour t
e recapitulate d
5 3 regardin g motion s for reconsider relatio n t o Rul e 4 5 on appeal s by

o f Appeal s t o th e Suprem e Court ,
a s follows :
a . A motion for reconsideratio n ma y b e filed withi n

15 day s from notic e o f th e judgmen t or fina l resolution o f
th e Cour t o f Appeals .
664
----------------------- Page 665----------------------RULE 53
EC. 1
NEW TRIAL
b . A motion for new tria l may b e filed at an y tim e

after perfection o f th e appea l from th e Regiona l Tria l Court
and up t o bu t withi n 15 day s from servic e o f a copy o f th e
judgmen t or fina l resolution o f th e Cour t o f Appeals .
c.
A petitio n for review on
Court may als o b e filed withi n
notic e o f th e judgmen t or final
Appeals , unles s th e part y files
two motions .
certiorar i by th e Suprem e
such 15-day perio d from
resolution o f th e Cour t o f
eithe r o f th e aforementione d
d . Accordingly , withi n t h a t reglementar y

15day
period ,
t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y ma y
fil e a motio n
for
reconsideration ; or a motion for new trial , i f proper ; or a
petition for review on certiorar i t o th e Suprem e Court .
Th e
said tw o motion s shal l b e filed in th e Cour t o f Appeals ,
an d th e petitio n wit h th e Suprem e Court , wit h copie s
served on th e advers e part y in all instances .
e . I f t h e p a r t y s e a s o n a b l y file s a motio n
for
reconsideratio n in th e Cour t o f Appeals , th e perio d t o
appeal i s se t asid e an d h e shal l hav e anothe r 1 5 day s from
receipt o f th e resolutio n o f sai d court denyin g such motion
within which t o appea l by certiorari .
I f h e files a mot
ion
for new trial , th e sam e procedur e shal l apply in th e even t
of it s denial .
In bot h instances , th e rul e on th e effect s
of pro forma motion s shal l be observed .
f.
I f th e part y decide s t o procee d directly wit h an
appea l b y certiorari ,
h e shoul d comply wit h al l th
e
requirement s o f Rul e 4 5 an d file hi s petition , sufficient in
form an d substance , withi n th e reglementar y
15day
period , or a motio n for extensio n o f tha t perio d upon
compliance with Sec . 2 , Rul e 45 .
Th e part y whos e motion
for reconsideratio n or new tria l wa s denie d an d wh o
desire s t o appea l t o th e Suprem e Court may als o move for
such extende d perio d upon th e sam e terms , preparator y
to an d for purpose s of th e filing of hi s petition .
665
----------------------- Page 666----------------------RULE 53
2-4
Sec .
o f
Appeal s
2 .
shal l
wit h tha t a
o r refus e a
notic e t o
r
t e s t im o ny
o r r e n d e
b e
r e n d e r e d
(2a)
Hearing
c o n s i d e r
and
orders.
th e
n e w
SECS
e v i d e n c e
C o u r t
togethe r
d d u c e d a t th e tria l below , an d ma y gran t

ne w trial , o r ma y m a k e suc h order , wit h
bot h parties , a s t o th e t a k i n g o f furthe
, e i t h e r orall y i n court , o r b y depositions ,
r s u c h o t h e r j u d g m e n t a s o u g h t t o
u p o n s u c h t e r m s a s i t ma y d e e m just .
Sec . 3 .
Resolution of motion.
I
o f
Appeals , a m o t i o n fo r n e w tria l shal
withi n ninet y (90) day s fro m th e dat e w h e n
d e c l a r e s i t s u b m i t t e d fo r resolutio
Sec
o t h e r w
tria l
shall b e
Court .
T h e
t h e
Cour t
l b e resolve d
th e cour t
n
. 4 .
Procedure in new trial. U n l e s s th e cour t
i s e directs , th e
p r o c e d u r e i n th e ne w
th e sam e a s tha t grante d b y a Regiona l Tria l
(3a )
NOTE S
1. J u s t lik e a motion for reconsideratio n in th e Court

of Appeal s a s provide d in Sec . 3 o f Rul e 52 , th e sam e tim e
limit for resolutio n o f a motion for new tria l therei n i s
provide d for by Sec . 3 o f thi s Rule , bu t thi s provision doe s
not apply t o th e Suprem e Court , sinc e th e provision s o f
Rul e 5 3 ar e not applicabl e t o case s therein .
Se e n
ote s
unde r Sees . 2 an d 4 o f Rul e 56 .
2 . Regardin g Sec . 4 o f thi s Rule , refer t o Rul e 37 ,
especiall y
t h e a m e n d e d
a n d a d d i t i o n a l p r o v
i s i o n s
introduce d therei n by thes e revise d Rules .
Thi s secti
on
maintain s
may direc
Rule 3 7
in case s
th e sam e reservatio n
t suc h departur e from
wher e adherenc e theret
pendin g befor e it or
tha t th e Cour t o f Appeal s

th e procedur e provide d in
o may resul t in injustic e
in th e adjudication thereof .
3 . In th e tria l courts , a secon d motion for new tria l

may b e filed wher e th e groun d therefor di d not exist at
666
----------------------- Page 667----------------------RULE 53
NEW TRIAL
SECS. 2-4
th e tim e th e first motion for new tria l wa s filed, e.g. , wher e

th e first motion wa s base d on frau d an d th e second i s base d
on newly discovere d evidenc e th e requisite s for whic h
concurred only after th e filing o f th e first motion .
Thi s
would not b e possibl e in th e Cour t o f Appeal s wher e th e
only groun d for a motion for new tria l i s newly discovere d
evidence .
667
----------------------- Page 668----------------------RUL E
INTERNA L
5 4
B U S I N E S S
Sectio n
1.
Distribution of cases among divisions.
Al l th e c a s e s o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s shal l b e allotte d
a m o n g t h e
differen t d i v i s i o n s t h e r e o f fo r hear
in g
an d decision .
Th e Cour t o f Appeals , sittin g e n banc,
shal l m a k e
p r o p e r o r d e r s o r r u l e s t o g o v
e r n th e
allotmen t o f c a s e s a m o n g th e differen t divisions , th e
c o n s t i t u t i o n o f s u c h di visi on s , th e regula r rotatio n
o f J u s t i c e s a m o n g t
c i e s
o c c u r r i n g t h e r e i n ,
th e
b u s i n e s s o f th e court ;
i n forc e unti l r e p e a l
th e
S u p r e m e Court , ( l a )
a
t
q
r
s
c
u
u
s
h
h e m ,
t h e
fillin g
o f v a c a n
an d othe r m a t t e r s relatin g t o
an d s u c h rule s shal l continu e
e d o r altere d b y i t o r b y
Sec. 2.
Quorum of the court. A majorit y of th e
t u a l m e m b e r s
o f t h e c o u r t s h a l l c o n s t i
t e a
o r u m fo r it s s e s s i o n s e n banc.
Thre e
membe
a l l c o n s t i t u t e a q u o r u m fo r t h e
s o f a
division .
Th e affirmativ e v o t e s o f th e
th e m e m b e r s
pas s a
p r e s e n t
shal l
b e
s e s s i o n
majorit y
n e c e s s a r y
o f
t o
r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e cour t
e n banc.
Th e
affirmati
v e
v o t e s o f t h r e e m e m b e r s
o f a d i v i s i o n s h a
l l b e
n e c e s s a r y fo r th e p r o n o u n c e m e n t o f a j u d g m e n
t o f
f i n a l r e s o l u t i o n , w h i c h
s h a l l b e
r e a c h e
d
i n
c o n s u l t a t i o n befor e th e w r i t i n g o f th e opinio n
b y
any m e m b e r o f th e division .
(Sec . 11 , firs t par
. o f
B P Big . 129 , a s a m e n d e d b y Sec . 6 o f E O 33) .
(3a)
NOTE S
1.
Sec . 1 i s a reproductio n of th e sam e section of th e
former Rule , an d bear s notin g for it s clarification o f th e
matter s tha t ar e handle d b y th e Cour t o f Appeal s sittin g
either en banc or in divisions .
668
----------------------- Page 669----------------------RULE 54
1-2
INTERNAL BUSINESS
SECS.
2 . A s indicate d therein , Sec . 2 wa s take n from th e

amendatory Sec . 6 o f Executiv e Orde r No . 33 , which i s
quoted unde r Not e 2 o f Sec . 3 , Rul e 51 .
3 . Sec .
for th e perio d
terminated , ha s
sinc e
s u c h
t h e
Constitution .
2 o f th e former Rule , which provide d rule s

withi n whic h a cas e shal l b e decide d or
bee n eliminate d i n thes e revise d Rule s
m a t t e r s a r e no w
p r o v i d e d for i n
669
----------------------- Page 670----------------------RUL E
PUBLICATIO N
A N D
FINA L
5 6
O F
JUDGMENT S
RESOLUTION S
S e c t i o n 1 .
Publication. T h e j u d g m e n t s
an d
fina l r e s o l u t i o n s o f th e cour t shal l b e publishe d i n
th e
Officia l G a z e t t e
an d
i n t h e R e p o r t s offic
iall y
a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e cour t i n t h e l a n g u a g e i n
whic h
the y h a v e b e e n originall y written , t o g e t h e r wit h th e
s y l l a b i t h e r e f o r p r e p a r e d
b y
t h e r e p o r t
e r
i n
c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e writer s thereof .
Memorand a
o f al l o t h e r j u d g m e n t s an d fina l r e s o l u t i o n s
no t s o
p u b l i s h e d
s h a l l b e
m a d e
b y
t h e r e p o r t e
r a n d
publishe d i n th e Officia l Gazett e an d th e authorize d
reports ,
( l a )
NOT E
1. Sec . 1 , C A . 63 8 provide s for th
th e Official Gazett e o f only suc h decision s or
decision s o f th e Suprem e Cour t an d th e Cour t
as ma y b e deeme d by sai d court s o f sufficient
t o b e s o published .
e publicatio n in
abstract s o f
o f Appeal s
importanc e
Sec.
2.
Preparation
of
opinions
for publication.
Th e reporte r shal l prepar e an d publis h wi t h eac h

reporte d j u d g m e n t an d fina l r e s o l u t i o n a concis e
s y n o p s i s
o f t h e
f a c t s n e c e s s a r y
fo r
a
c l e a r
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e case , th e
n a m e s o f couns
el ,
th e materia l an d c o n t r o v e r t e d point s involved , th e
a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d t h e r e i n , a n d a s y l l a b u s
w h i c h
s h a l l b e
c o n f i n e d t o p o i n t s o f l a w .
( S e c
. 22a ,
R.A. No . 296) .
(n )
670
----------------------- Page 671----------------------RULE 55
PUBLICATION OF JUDGMENTS
SEC
AND FINAL RESOLUTIONS
N O T E S
1. Th e syllabu s i s an abstract , a headnote , or a not e
prefixe d t o th e repor t o f an adjudge d case , containin g an
epitome or brie f statemen t o f th e ruling s o f th e cour t upon
th e point s decide d in th e cas e (Kuhn vs. Coal Co., 215
U.S. 356, 30 S. Ct. 140, 54 L.Ed. 228). Th e weigh t of it s
authority i n th e different state s depend s o n whethe r th e
syllabus shoul d contai n als o finding s o f fact or , lik e ou r
practice , shal l b e confined t o point s o f law .
Th e bette r
rule , in ou r experience , shoul d b e tha t ordinarily wher e a
headnote , even thoug h prepare d by th e court , i s given n o
special force by statut e or rul e o f court , th e opinion i s t o
b e looke d t o for th e origina l an d authenti c statemen t on
th e ground s of decision (Burbank vs. Ernst, 232 U.S.
162,
34 S.
Ct.
299,
58 L. Ed.
551).
2 . Thus , for instanc e an d by way o f illustration , in
Libi,
et al.
vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court,
et
al. (G.R .
No . 70890 , Sept . 18 , 1992) , a controvers y aros e a s t o

whethe r th e liability o f parent s for th e civil liability arisin g
from a felony committe d by thei r minor son i s primar y or
subsidiary .
Th e responden t cour t declare d i t t o b e
subsidiary, relyin g on th e suppose d holdin g t o tha t effect
in Fuellas vs.
Cadano, et al. (L-14409 , Oct . 31 ,
1961) .
Rejectin g suc h holding , an d afte r discussin g contrar y
doctrine s i n othe r cases , th e Suprem e Cour t furthe r
pointedly observed :
"Also, comin g back t o responden t court' s relianc e
on Fuellas in it s decision in th e presen t case , it i s not
exactly
subsidiary
scrutiny
verbati m
case , an
accurat e
t o say tha t Fuellas provide d for
liability o f th e parent s therein .
A carefu l
show s tha t wha t responden t court quote d
in it s decision now on appea l in th e presen t
d whic h i t attribute d t o Fuellas, wa s th e
syllabus on th e law repor t o f sai d cas e which spok e o f

'subsidiary' liability .
However , such categorization
does not specifically appea r in th e tex t o f th e decision
67 1
----------------------- Page 672----------------------RULE 56
SEC. 3
in Fuellas.

x
x "
Sec . 3 .
General make-up of volumes.
Th e
pub lishe d decision s an d fina l resolution s o f th e Suprem e
Cour t shal l b e calle d "Philippin e Reports, " whil e
t h o s e o f t h e Cour t o f Appeal s shal l b e k n o w n a s th e
"Court o f A p p e a l s Reports. "
Eac h v o l u m e ther
eo f
shal l c o n t a i n a tabl e o f th e c a s e s reporte d an d th e
c a s e s c i t e d i n t h e o p i n i o n s ,
w i t h a
c o m
p l e t e
a l p h a b e t i c a l i n d e x o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r s
o f th e
v o l u m e .
I t s h a l l c o n s i s t o f n o t l e s s t h a n
s e v e n
hun dr e d p a g e s printe d u p o n goo d paper , wel l boun d
a n d
n u m b e r e d
c o n s e c u t i v e l y i n t h e o r d e r
o f th e
v o l u m e p u b l i s h e d . (Sec . 23a , R.A . No . 296 )
(n
)
NOTE S
1. Th e official report s o f cour t decision s which ar e
publishe d b y th e Governmen t and , therefore , constitut e
primar y authorit y thereon , ar e thos e i n th e Philippin e
Reports , Official Gazett e an d Cour t o f Appeal s Reports ,
all o f whic h ar e authorize d by law .

2 . Ther e ar e a numbe r o f privatel y publishe d report s
of decision s an d resolution s o f ou r appellat e court s which ,
a l t h o u g h no t s t a t u t o r i l y s a n c t i o n e d , hav e acq
uire d
genera l acceptanc e wit h a t leas t on e duly endorse d b y th e
Supreme Cour t an d recognize d b y bein g indicate d a s th e
source o f citation s o f case s in it s decisions .
Whil e suc h publication s rende r th e servic e which th e
g o v e r n m e n t p r i n t i n g offic e c a n n o t cop e with ,
bein g
unofficial publication s th e authorit y thereo f woul d best
b e subserve d b y furthe r indicatin g th e cas e numbe r an d
dat e o f promulgatio n o f th e cas e whe n cite d in a decision .
Of course , in cas e o f conflict or doubt , th e official copy a s
reporte d in th e governmen t publication s or on file with
th e Office o f th e Cour t Reporte r shoul d b e consulte d an d
woul d prevail .
672
----------------------- Page 673----------------------PROCEDURE
I N
TH E
SUPREM E
RULE
A .
ORIGINAL
Sectio n 1. Original
t i o n s fo r certiorari ,
warranto , h a b e a s corpus
a g a i n s t m e m b e r s o
,
a n d c a s e s a f f e c t i
l i c
minister s an d consul s ma y
Suprem e Court ,
(n)
COUR T
5 6
CASE S
cases cognizable. Onl y peti prohibition , m a n d a m u s ,

qu o
, disciplinar y proceeding s
f th e judiciar y an d a t t o r n e y s
n g a m b a s s a d o r s , o t h e r p u b
b e file d originall y i n th e
NOTE S
1. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

over the cases or proceedings now specifically set out in
this new provision is based on the provisions of Art . VIII
of the 1987 Constitution, principally Sec. 5(1) and
complemented by Sees. 5(5), 6 and 11.
2. Sec. 1 of the former Rule 56 provided that "(u)nless
otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the
procedure in the Supreme Court in original as well as in
appealed cases, shall be the same as in the Court of
Appeals, except as hereinafter provided." Although this
former provision has not been reproduced, the same
principle has been substantially observed in the present
Rule which now explains the procedure in the Supreme
Court more in detail.
Sec. 2 .
Rules
applicable.
T h e p r o c e d u r e i n
original case s fo r certiorari , prohibition , mandamus

q u o w a r r a n t o a n d h a b e a s c o r p u s s h
accordanc e wit h th e applicabl e provision s o f
Constitution , laws , an d Rule s 46 , 48 , 49 , 51 ,
,
a l l b e i n
th e
6 2 an d
673
----------------------- Page 674----------------------RULE 66
SEC. 2
t h i s Rule , subjec t t o t h e followin g provisions :

(a) Al l r e f e r e n c e s i n sai d Rule s t o th e Cour t
o f
A p p e a l s shal l b e u n d e r s t o o d t o als o appl y t o
th e
S u p r e m e Court ;
(b) Th e po r t i o n s o f sai d Rule s d e a l i n g strictl
y
w i t h an d specificall y i n t e n d e d fo r appeale d case s i n
t h e Cour t o f A p p e a l s shal l no t b e applicable ; an d
(c) E i g h t e e n (18 ) clearl y legibl e copie s o f t
h e
petitio n shal l b e filed , t o g e t h e r wi t h proo f o f servic e
o n al l a d v e r s e parties .
Th e p r o c e e d i n g s fo r disciplinar y actio n agains t
m e m b e r s o f t h e judiciar y shal l b e g o v e r n e d b y t h e
l a w s a n d
R u l e s p r e s c r i b e d t h e r e f o r , a n d
h o s e
a g a i n s t a t t o r n e y s b y Rul e 139-B , a s a m e n d e d ,
(n )
NOTE S
1. Expressl y mad e applicabl e t o origina l action s in
th e Suprem e Cour t ar e th e following Rule s which ar e o f
primar y governanc e in th e Cour t o f Appeals , viz.: Rul e 4 6
(origina l a c t i o n s i n t h e C o u r t o f Appeals) ,
Rul e
4 8
(preliminary conference) , Rul e 4 9 (ora l argument) , Rul e
5 1 (judgment) , an d Rul e 5 2 (motion for reconsideration) .
However , suc h portion s thereo f whic h dea l strictl y with
an d ar e specifically intende d for appeale d case s i n th e
Court o f Appeal s ar e no t applicable .
2 . It wil l b e note d tha t while , excep t for it s Sec .
3 ,
Rule 52 on motion s for reconsideratio n i s applicabl e t o both
th e Cour t o f Appeal s an d th e Suprem e Court , Rul e 5 3 on
motion s for new tria l i s observe d in th e Cour t o f Appeal s
bu t i s no t mad e applicabl e t o an d canno t b e availe d o f in
th e Suprem e Cour t i n civil case s therein .
Th e apparen t reaso n for thi s i s tha t whil e th e Cour t
of Appeal s ca n entertai n an d gran t a motion for new tria l

on th e groun d o f newly discovere d evidence , thi s i s justifie d
674
----------------------- Page 675----------------------RULE 56
C. 2
ORIGINAL CASES
SE
by th e fact tha t it ca n resolv e factua l question s and , for

tha t matter , ca n conduct hearing s for tha t purpose .
Th e
Supreme Court , o n th e othe r hand , canno t entertai n suc h
motion s a s only question s o f fact ar e involve d therei n an d
it i s not a trie r o f facts . Besides , th e finding s o f fact o f
th e
Court o f Appeal s ar e generally bindin g on th e Suprem e
Court
(se e Goduco vs. CA, et al., L-17647, June 16, 1965).
3 . However , in crimina l cases , a different treatmen t
appear s t o hav e bee n adopted .
Thus , in a crimina l cas e
on appea l in th e Suprem e Cour t from a decision o f th e
Sandiganbayan , th e Suprem e Cour t ordere d a new tria l
on th e basi s o f tw o affidavit s exculpatin g th e appellan t
and which wer e submitte d t o it in a manifestatio n which
it decide d t o t r e a t a s a motio n for ne w tria l i n
th e
interest of justic e
(Helmuth
vs. People,
G.R.
No.
570
68,
Mar.
15, 1982).
Also , in People vs. Amparado (L-48656 ,
Dec . 21 , 1987) , th e Suprem e Cour t se t asid e it s judgmen t
and remande d th e cas e t o th e lower court for new tria l on
th e groun d o f newly discovere d evidence .
It i s believe d tha t thes e tw o
on equitabl e consideration s bu t may
creatin g an exceptiv e rul e agains t
on factua l issue s bein g sough t in
case s wer e s o treate d only

not b e considere d a s
motion s for new tria l
th e Suprem e Court .
4 . Technically , evidenc e not submitte d befor e th e

lower cour t may no t b e considere d by th e appellat e court .
However , wher e th e testimonie s in th e proceeding s in th e
prosecutor' s office wer e duly transcribe d an d not impugne d
b y th e parties , an d wer e considere d b y th e Cour t o f
Appeals , th e reman d o f th e cas e t o th e tria l court woul d
resul t in furthe r delay .
Accordingly , th e Suprem e Court
considered th e questione d evidenc e togethe r wit h th e
evidence adduce d in th e tria l court in th e adjudication o f
th e cas e (Regalario vs. NWFinance Corp., et al., L-26243,
Sept.
30, 1982).
675
----------------------- Page 676----------------------B . APPEALE D
CASE S
S e c . 3 .
t h e
S u p r e m e Cour t m
revie w o n certiorari
th e
p e n a l t y i
o r
lif e i m p r i s o n m
Mode
of
appeal.
A n
a p p e a l
t o
a y b e t a k e n onl y b y a petitio n fo r
, e x c e p t i n crimina l c a s e s wher e
m p o s e d i s d e a t h , recluaion perpetua
e n t ,
(n )
NOT E
1. Rule s 4 1 an d 4 2 o f th e
196 4 Rule s o f Cou
rt ,
which prescribe d a common mod e o f appea l t o th e Cour t
of Appeal s an d th e Suprem e Court , wer e supersede d by
R.A . 5433 , R.A . 544 0 and , further , b y B.P . Big .
129 .
Appeal s t o th e Suprem e Cour t i n civil case s ma y b e mad e
only by petitio n for review on certiorar i from th e Cour t o f
Appeal s (Rule
45) an d from th e Regiona l Tria l Court s
(Rule 45 in relatio n to Sec. 17, R.A. 296).
na l
cases , appea l t o th e Suprem e Cour t shal l b e
for review on certiorari , excep t wher e th e penalt
by
th e lowe r
cour t
i s death ,
reclusion
r
life
imprisonment .
Th e deat h penalt y shal l
Eve n in crimi
b y petitio n
y impose d
perpetua
b e
subjec t t o
automati c review and , i n th e latte r tw o cases , th e sam e

may b e elevate d by ordinar y appea l (se e Not e
1
unde r
Sec. 1, Rule 45, an d Not e 1 1 unde r Sees. 1 to 3, Rule 122).
Sec . 4 .
b e
g o v e
h th e
a p p l
l a w
Rule s
, 5 2
an d t
Procedure.
T h e
a p p e a l
s h a l l
r n e d b y an d d i s p o s e d o f i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t
i c a b l e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n ,
s ,
45 , 48 , s e c t i o n s 1 , 2 , an d 5 t o 1 1 o f Rul e 51
h i s Rule ,
(n )
NOT E
1. Sees . 3 an d 4 o f Rul e 5 1
t o
appellat e proceeding s i n th e Suprem e Cour t
refer s t o th e quoru m an d procedur e for
peculia r t o th e Cour t o f Appeals ; an d th
ar e
no t applicabl e
a s th e first
votin g which i s
e secon d i s with
676
----------------------- Page 677----------------------RULE 56
APPEALED CASES
SEC. 5
regar d t o th e disposition o f th e cas e by sai d cour t which

include s th e grantin g o f a new trial , a power which i s not
exercised by th e Suprem e Cour t in civil case s a s explaine d
unde r Sec . 3 o f thi s Rule . For th e sam e reason , Rul e 5 3

on motion s for new tria l i s not mentione d or include d in
thi s section .
Sec. 5 . Grounds
for dismissal
of
appeal.
T h e
appea l ma y b e dismisse d motu proprio o r o n motio n
o f th e r e s p o n d e n t o n th e followin g grounds :
(a) Failur e t o tak e th e appea l withi n th e regle mentar y period ;
(b)
Lac k o f meri t i n th e petition ;
(c) Failur e t o pa y th e requisit e docke t fe e an d

othe r lawfu l fee s o r t o mak e a deposi t fo r costs ;
(d) Failur e t o compl y wit h th e requirement s
regardin g proo f o f servic e an d content s o f an d th e
d o c u m e n t s w h i c h shoul d accompan y th e petitions ;
(e) Failur e t o compl y wit h an y circular , direc tiv e o r orde r o f th e Suprem e Cour t withou t justi fiabl e cause ;
(f) Erro r i n th e choic e o r mod e o f appeal ; an d
(g) Th e fac t tha t th e cas e i s no t appealabl e t o
th e Suprem e Court ,
(n)
NOTE S
1. Amon g
for dismissa l
Revised Circular
No . 19-9 1 o f
th e
source s o f th e foregoin g ground s
o f appea l i n th e Cour t o f Appeal s ar e
No . 1-88, Circular No . 2-90 an d Circular
th e Suprem e Court .
2 . Unlik e th e former practic e wher e deposit for cost s

shall b e mad e pursuan t t o a resolution therefor upon th e
appeal bein g given du e course , cost s ar e now require d t o
677
----------------------- Page 678----------------------RULE 56
SEC. 7
b e
Par
(c)
th e
deposite d upo n th e filing o f th e petition .

Hence ,
.
include s failur e t o mak e suc h deposi t a s a groun d for
dismissa l o f th e appeal .
3 .
Th e
g r o u n d s for dismissa l o f a p p e a l s i
n th e
Supreme Cour t var y in a numbe r o f respect s from thos e
in th e Cour t o f Appeal s (Rule 50) sinc e th e appea l in civil
case s t o bot h court s differ in th e mod e an d requirement s
for perfectin g th e appeal , a s wel l a s th e pleading s an d
proceeding s require d thereafter .
Sec . 6.
provide d i n s e c
i n c r i m i n a l
e d i s
d e a t h , reclusion
a n
a p p e a l t a k e n
e o f
appea l shal l b e d
A n
Cour t
t i n g
i s s u e s
r t o f
A p p e a l
n . Th e
d e t e r m
o r
no t i s s
(n )
Disposition of improper appeal. Excep t a s

t i o n 3 , Rul e 12 2 regardin g appeal s
c a s e s w h e r e t h e p e n a l t y i m p o s
perpetua
t o
o r
t h e
lif e
S u p r e m e
imprisonment ,
Cour t
b y
n o t i c
i s m i s s e d .
a p p e a l b y certiorar i t a k e n t o th e Suprem e
fro m t h e
R e g i o n a l Tria l
Cour t s u b m i t
o f
s
f a c t m a y
fo r
b e
d e c i s i o n
r e f e r r e d t o t h e
o r
C o u
a c t i o
i n a t i o n o f t h e S u p r e m e Cour t o n w h e t h e r
u e s o f fac t ar e involve d shal l b e final ,
NOTE S
1. Thi s section wa s take n from Circula r No . 2-90 o f

th e Suprem e Court , whic h took effect on Marc h 9 , 1990 ,
an d wa s dictate d by th e reason s explaine d in Not e 1 unde r
2 . Th e first paragrap h refer s t o a n erroneou s mod e
of appeal , tha t is , th e appea l which doe s not involv e th e
death penalt y or reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonmen
t
i s elevate d t o th e Suprem e Cour t b y notic e o f appea l
instea d o f a petitio n for review on certiorar i a s provide d
in Sec . 3 o f thi s Rule .
In suc h case , th e appea l shal l
b e
dismissed outright .
678
----------------------- Page 679----------------------RULE 56
C. 7
APPEALED CASES
SE
3 . Th e secon d paragrap h contemplate s th e situatio n

wherei n th e appea l wa s correctly take n on a petitio n for
review on certiorar i bu t factua l issue s ar e invoke d for
resolution , contrar y t o th e provision s o f Rul e 4 5 tha t only
question s o f law ma y b e raise d therein .
In thi s instanc
e ,
th e cas e may b e referre d t o th e Cour t o f Appeals , althoug h
th e Suprem e Cour t may als o dismis s th e appeal .
Th e
mor e libera l consideratio n i s presumabl y du e t o th e fact
tha t ther e hav e bee n jurisprudentia l exception s lai d down
by th e Suprem e Cour t t o th e rul e tha t only question s o f
law may b e raise d in appeal s by certiorari .
Thi s
p a r a g r a p h wa s
als o
t a k e n from
C i r c
u l a r
No . 2-90 ,
wit h th e amplification tha t th e referra l t o th e
Court o f Appeal s shal l b e "for decision or appropriat e
action, " an d tha t th e determinatio n o f th e Suprem e Cour t
as t o whethe r or not issue s o f fact ar e involved i s final .
Sec.
7 .
Procedure
if
opinion
is
equally
divided.
W h e r e
t h e c o u r t e n banc
i n
opinion , o r th e necessar y majorit y
th e cas e shal l agai n b e deliberate
s u c h d e l i b e r a t i o n n o d e
t h e
origina l a c t i o n c o m m e n c e d
i s e q u a l l y d i v i d e d
canno t b e had ,
d on , an d i f afte r
c i s i o n i s r e a c h e d ,
i n
th e
cour t
shal l
dismissed ; i n appeale d cases , th e judgmen t o r orde r

a p p e a l e d fro m s h a l l s t a n d affirmed ;
an d
al l
incidenta l matters , th e petitio n o r motio n shal l b e
denied .
(11a )
b e
o n
NOTE S
1. Thi s section wa s taken , with minor changes , from
Sec. 1 1 o f th e former Rul e 56 , which , in turn , wa s base d
on th e provision s o f Sec .
11(2) , Art . X o f th e
197 3
Constitution .
Tha t provision o f th e 1973 Constitution
wa s not adopte d in th e 1987 Constitution , henc e thi s
section doe s not hav e a constitutiona l basis .
679
----------------------- Page 680----------------------RULE 56
SEC. 7
2 . On thi s score , it woul d b e advisabl e t o reproduc e

herei n som e relevan t provision s o f Art .
VII I o f th e 1987
Constitution for read y reference :
"Sec. 4 .
(1) Th e
pose d
o f a Chie f J u
Justices .
It ma y si t
division s o f t h r e e ,
vacancy shal l b e filled
occurrence
thereof .
Suprem e Cour t shal l b e coms t i c e an d fourtee n Associat e

en banc or in it s discretion , in
five o r seve n Members .
Any
withi n ninet y day s from th e
(2)
All case s involvin g th e constitutionalit y o f
a treaty , internationa l or executiv e agreement , or
law , whic h shal l b e hear d by th e Suprem e Cour t e n
banc, an d al l othe r case s which unde r th e Rule s o f
Court ar e require d t o b e hear d e n banc, includin g
thos e involvin g th e constitutionality , application , or
operation o f presidentia l decrees , proclamations ,
orders , instructions , ordinances , an d othe r regula tion s shal l b e decide d wit h th e concurrenc e o f a
majority o f th e Member s wh o actuall y took par t in

th e deliberation s o n th e issue s i n th e cas e an d vote d
thereon .
(3)
Case s
b e decide d or
majority o f th e
th e deliberation s
or matter s hear d by a division shal l

resolve d wit h th e concurrenc e o f a
Member s wh o actuall y took par t in
o n th e issue s i n th e cas e an d vote d
thereon , an d in n o cas e withou t th e concurrenc e o f

at leas t thre e o f suc h Members .
Whe n th e require d
numbe r i s not obtained , th e cas e shal l b e decide d e n
banc: Provided , Tha t n o doctrin e or principl e o f law
laid dow n by th e cour t in a decision rendere d en banc
or in division ma y b e modifie d or reverse d excep t by
th e cour t sittin g en banc.
X X X
Sec. 13 . Th e conclusion s o f th e Suprem e Court
in an y cas e submitte d t o it for decision en banc or in
division shal l b e reache d in consultatio n befor e th e
680
----------------------- Page 681----------------------RULE 56
APPEALED CASES
SEC. 7
case i s assigne d t o a Membe r for th e writin g o f th e

opinion o f th e Court .
A certification t o thi s effect
signed by th e Chie f Justic e shal l b e issue d an d a copy
thereo f attache d t o th e recor d o f th e cas e an d serve d
upo n th e parties .
Any Membe r wh o took n o part ,
dissented , or abstaine d from a decision or resolution
mus t stat e th e reaso n therefor .
Th e sam e require ment s shal l b e observe d by al l lower collegiat e courts .
Sec. 14 . N o decision shal l b e rendere d by any
court withou t expressin g therei n clearly an d distinctly
th e fact s an d th e law on which it i s based .
N o petitio n for review or motion for reconsider ation o f a decision o f th e court shal l b e refuse d du e
cours e o r denie d withou t statin g th e lega l basi s
therefor .
Sec. 15 . (1) All case s or matter s filed after th e
effectivity o f thi s Constitutio n mus t b e decide d or
resolve d withi n twenty-four month s
from dat e o f
submission for th e Suprem e
Court , and , unles s
reduce d by th e Suprem e Court , twelv e month s for
all lower collegiat e courts , an d thre e month s for al l
other lower courts .
(2)
A cas e or
for resolutio n upon
brief, or memorandu m
or by th e cour t itself
matte r shal l b e deeme d submitte d

th e filing o f th e las t pleading ,
require d by th e Rule s o f Court
.
(3)
Upon th e expiration o f th e correspondin g
period , a certification to thi s effect signe d by th e Chief
Justic e o r th e presidin g judg e shal l forthwit h b e
issued an d a copy thereo f attache d t o th e recor d o f
th e cas e or matter , an d serve d upon th e parties .
Th e
certification shal l stat e why a decision ha s not been
rendere d or issue d within sai d period .
(4) Despit e th e expiratio n o f th e applicabl e
mandator y period , th e court , withou t prejudic e t o
68 1
----------------------- Page 682----------------------RULE 56
EC. 7
such responsibilit y a s ma y hav e bee n incurre d i n

consequenc e thereof , shal l decid e or resolv e th e cas e
o r m a t t e r s u b m i t t e d t h e r e t o for determination ,
withou t furthe r delay. "
Furthermore , Art . XVIII , th e Transitor y Provision s
thereof ,
require s
inter alia that :
"Sec. 12 . Th e Suprem e Cour t shall , withi n one
yea r afte r th e ratificatio n o f thi s Constitution , adopt
a s y s t e m a t i c p l a n t o e x p e d i t e t h e decisio n
o r
resolution o f case s or matter s pendin g in th e Suprem e
Court or th e lower court s prio r t o th e effectivity o f
thi s Constitution .
A simila r pla n shal l b e adopte d
for al l specia l court s an d quasi-judicia l bodies .
Sec.
13 .
Th e lega l effect o f th e lapse , befor e t
h e
ratificatio n o f thi s Constitution , o f th e applicabl e
perio d for th e decision or resolutio n o f th e case s or
m a t t e r s submitte d for adjudicatio n b y th e courts ,
shall b e determine d b y th e Suprem e
a s practicable .
Cour t a s soon
Sec. 14 . Th e provision s o f paragraph s (3) an d

(4), Section 1 5 o f Articl e VII I o f thi s Constitutio n shal l
apply t o case s o r matter s filed befor e th e ratification
of thi s Constitution , whe n th e applicabl e perio d lapse s
after suc h ratification. "
3 . Th e provisio n o f th e 1987 Constitutio n requirin g
a certification by th e Chie f Justic e tha t th e conclusion s o f
th e Cour t wer e reache d i n consultatio n befor e th e cas e
wa s assigne d t o a membe r for th e writin g o f th e opinion
(Sec.
13, Art.
VIII) refer s
t o decision s in judicial ,
no t
administrative , cases .
Also , in a per curiam decision in
such administrativ e cases , i t bein g an opinion o f th e Court

as a whol e an d ther e i s n o ponente althoug h an y membe r
of th e Cour t may b e assigne d t o writ e th e draft , a formal
certification i s no t required .
Furthermore , th e consti tutiona l mandat e tha t n o motion for reconsideratio n o f a
682
----------------------- Page 683----------------------RULE 56
SEC. 7
APPEALED CASES
decision o f th e Cour t shal l b e denie d withou t statin g th e

legal basi s therefo r doe s no t apply t o an administrativ e
case
therei n
(Prudential
Bank
vs.
Castro,
et al.,
Adm.
Case No. 2756, Mar.
15,
1988).
4 . Th e Suprem e Cour t i s clothe d wit h ampl e author ity t o review matters , eve n i f the y ar e not assigne d a s
error s on appeal , i f i t find s tha t thei r consideratio n i s
necessar y in arrivin g a t a jus t decision o f th e case . I t
may consider a n unassigne d erro r closely relate d t o a n
error properl y assigne d o r upon which th e determinatio n
o f t h e q u e s t i o n p r o p e r l y a s s i g n e d i s d e p e n
d e n t .
Furthermore , wher e th e Cour t i s in a position t o resolv e
th e disput e base d on th e record s before it , it may resolv e
th e action on th e merit s in th e publi c interes t an d for th e
expeditiou s administratio
end s o f justic e woul d
th e cas e (Roman
vs.
in e
is now embodie d in Sec
n o f justice , such a s wher e th e

not b e subserve d by th e reman d o f
Catholic Archbishop of Manila, et al.
77425, June 19,
1991).
Thi s doctr
. 8 , Rul e 51 .
5. In People vs. Jabinal (L-30061 , Feb . 27 ,

1
974) ,
th e Suprem e
Cour t emphasize d tha t it s interpretatio n
upon a law constitutes , in a way , a par t o f th e law a s o f
t h e da y t h a t la w wa s
originall y
p a s s e d , sinc e
it s
construction
merel y establishe s th e contemporaneou s
legislative inten t which tha t law intend s t o effectuate .
Thus , Art . 8 o f th e Civi l Cod e provide s t h a t judicia
l
decision s
applyin g o r
i n t e r p r e t i n g th e law s
o r th e
Constitution shal l form a par t o f th e lega l system .
It
overruled
should b
partie s
th e
als o clarifie d tha t when it s doctrin e i s subsequently

an d a different view i s adopted , th e new doctrin e
e applie d prospectively an d shoul d not apply t o
wh o ha d
relie d on th e old doctrin e an d acte d on
faith
thereof .
683
----------------------- Page 684----------------------PROVISIONA L
PRELIMINARY
REMEDIE S
CONSIDERATION S
1. Th e
r e v i s e d R u l e s o f C o u r t provid e for
th e
provisiona l remedie s o f preliminar y attachment , pre liminary injunction , receivership , replevi n an d suppor t
pendente lite.
Contempt , whic h unde r th e old Rule s wa s
also considere d a provisiona l remedy , i s now classifie d a s
a specia l civil action .
2 .
auxiliary
durin g th
t o by a
Provisiona l remedies , als o

remedies , ar e writ s an
e pendenc y o f th e action
litigan t t o preserv e an d
know n a s ancillary or
d processe s availabl e
whic h ma y b e resorte d
protec t certai n right s an d
interest s therei n pendin g rendition , an d for purpose s o f

th e ultimat e effects , o f a fina l judgmen t in th e case .
They
a r e p r o v i s i o n a l b e c a u s e t h e y c o n s t i t u t e t e
m p o r a r y
measure s availe d o f durin g th e pendenc y o f th e action ,
an d the y ar e ancillar y becaus e the y ar e mer e incident s i n
an d ar e dependen t upo n th e resul t o f th e mai n action .
3 . Prio r t o th e operationa l effectivity o f B.P . Big . 129,
inferior court s ha d jurisdiction t o issu e writ s o f preliminary
attachmen t an d replevi n (Sec.
88, R.A.
296) wher e
th e
main cas e wa s withi n thei r jurisdiction , bu t th e sam e could
b e enforce d outsid e th e provinc e only wit h th e approva l
of th e former Cour t of Firs t Instanc e (Sec. 4, Rule 133),
except thos e issue d b y th e the n City Court s wherei n such
certification wa s no t require d (Sec. 4, R.A. 5967).
Infe
rior
court s coul d als o issu e writ s o f preliminar y injunction in
forcible entr y case s (Sec.
88, R.A. 296; Sec.
3, Rule
70;
Art. 539, Civil Code).
In othe r cases , only th e the n City
Court s an d municipa l court s o f th e capital s o f province s
an d
sub-province s
coul d
issu e
w r i t s o f p r e l i
m i n a r y
injunction bu t only in th e absenc e o f th e Distric t Judg e
(Sec. 88, R.A. 296).
Also , Rul e 6 1 (suppor t pendente lite)
wa s mad e applicabl e to inferior court s (Sec.
19, Rule 5).
684
----------------------- Page 685----------------------RULE 56
EC. 5
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
The former City Court s an d th e municipa l court s o f th e

capital s o f province s an d sub-province s coul d appoin t
receiver s in th e absenc e o f th e Distric t Judg e (Sec.
R.A.
296).
88,
4 . Unde r th e presen t legislation an d provide d th e

mai n action i s withi n thei r jurisdiction , al l inferior court s
can gran t al l appropriat e provisiona l remedies , includin g
th e appointmen t o f receivers , with th e wri t o f preliminar y
injunction bein g now availabl e in eithe r forcible entr y or
unlawfu l detaine r cases .
Th e enforcement o f sai d writ s
outside th e territoria l jurisdiction o f th e inferior cour t n o
longer require s th e approva l o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court .
It shoul d b e noted , however , tha t whil e suppor t pendente
lite wa s supposedly availabl e in th e inferior court s by force
of Sec . 1 9 o f the n Rul e 5 , nevertheles s it ha d been hel d
tha t th e inferior court s could not gran t th e sam e sinc e th e
mai n cas e wherei n sai d provisiona l remed y coul d b e
involved wa s withi n th e jurisdiction o f th e former Court s
of Firs t Instanc e (Baito vs. Sarmiento,
109 Phil.
148).
It
is submitte d tha t th e Baito doctrin e stil l applie s sinc e B.P .
Big . 129 als o require s tha t th e main cas e shoul d b e withi n
th e jurisdictio n o f th e inferior court in order tha t it may
g r a n t a n y
o f t h e aforesai d
p r o v i s i o n a l r e m e
d i e s .
F u r t h e r m o r e , a s heretofor e
explained ,
Rul e
5
wa s
expressly repeale d by Par . 3 o f th e Interi m or Transitiona l
Rule s an d Guidelines .
5 . Th e presen t Rule s are , further , divers e on whe n
t h e aforesai d
p r o v i s i o n a l r e m e d i e s a r e a v a i
l a b l e .
Preliminary attachmen t an d preliminar y injunction may
b e sough t at any stag e o f th e action bu t before th e entr y
of final judgmen t in th e case .
A petition for receivership
may b e filed at any stag e o f th e action or proceedin g an d
even after fina l judgmen t therei n in orde r t o preserv e
th e propert y involve d or t o ai d execution or otherwis e t o
carry th e judgmen t int o effect .
A writ o f replevin mus t
b e
applie d
for
befor e
th e
defendan t
file s
hi s
answer .
685
Support pendente lite ma y
action , an d eve n for th e
basi s o r propriet y thereo f
obviously befor e th e fina l
6 . I n
preliminar y
b e sough t at
first tim e on
wa s establishe d
judgmen t in sai
a t t a c h m e n t
an y stag e o f th e
appea l provide d th e
a t th e trial , but
d cas e on appeal .
an d
i n
preliminar y
injunction , th e amoun t o f th e bon d t o b e poste d by th e

applicant i s addresse d t o th e soun d discretio n o f th e court .
In receivership , th e bon d a s fixed b y th e cour t i s now

alway s require d o f th e petitioner , whethe r o r no t th e
appointment o f a receive r ha s bee n applie d for ex parte.
In replevin , th e bon d t o b e poste d by th e applican t i s in
an amoun t doubl e th e valu e o f th e persona l propert y t o
b e seized .
In application s for suppor t pendente lite,
no
bon d i s generall y require d from th e applicant .
7 . I n thi s regard , th e Suprem e Cour t ha s resolve d
tha t effectiv e Septembe r 1 , 2003 , an d unles s an d unti l
th e cour t direct s otherwise , th e lifetim e or duratio n o f th e
effectivity o f an y bon d issue d in civil action s or proceeding s
or in an y inciden t therei n shal l b e from it s approva l by
th e cour t unti l th e action or proceedin g i s finally decided ,
resolve d o r terminated .
Th e conditio n mus t b e incor porate d i n th e contrac t o r agreemen t betwee n th e part y
wh o
p r o c u r e d t h e bon d
a n d t h e s u r e t y o r bondi
n g
company ,
a n d s u c h c o n t r a c t o r a g r e e m e n t s
hal l b e
submitted t o th e cour t for approval .
Th e sam e condition s
shall b e deeme d incorporate d i n th e contrac t o r agreemen t
an d shal l bin d th e partie s notwithstandin g thei r failur e
t o expressl y stat e th e sam e therein .
Th e suret y o r bondin g compan y shal l notify th e court
concerned an d th e partie s t o th e action or proceeding s o f
any act , even t or circumstanc e tha t may affect it s busines s
or operations .
Th e notice , which shal l b e given withi n 1 0
day s from th e occurrenc e o f th e act , even t or circumstance ,
shall hav e a s annexe s theret o certifie d tru e copie s o r
authenticate d document s evidencin g th e sam e act , event
or circumstanc e
(A.M.
No. 03-03-18-SC, Aug.
5, 2003)
.
686
----------------------- Page 687----------------------RULE 56
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
SEC. 6
Such bond s ar e als o involve d in execution pendin g

appeal an d in specia l proceeding s such a s appointmen t o f
an administrator , executor , guardia n o r trustee .
8. A s hereinbefor e pointe d out , th e Suprem e Cour t
approved th e Rul e on Searc h an d Seizur e in Civil Action s
for Infringemen t o f Intellectua l Propert y Right s in it s
resolution o f Ja n u ar y 22 , 2002 in A.M . No . 02-1-06-S C
(see Appendix Z).
It s provision s may serv e t o supplemen t
th e correspondin g provisiona l remedy in th e limite d typ e
of civil action s t o which it i s applicable .
687
----------------------- Page 688----------------------RULE 57
PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT
Section
1 .
Grounds upon
which attachment
issue. At th e commencemen t o f th e actio n o r at
any tim e befor e entr y o f judgment , a plaintif f o r any
prope r party ma y hav e th e propert y o f th e advers e
party attache d a s securit y for th e satisfactio n o f
any judgmen t tha t ma y b e recovere d i n th e follow in g cases :
may
(a) I n a n actio n for th e recover y o f a specifie d

amount o f mone y o r damages , othe r tha n mora l an d
exemplary, o n a caus e o f actio n arisin g fro m law ,
contract ,
quasi-contract ,
delic t o r quasi-delic t
against a part y wh o i s abou t t o depar t fro m th e
Philippine s wit h inten t t o defrau d hi s creditors ;
(b)
I n
a n
a c t i o n fo r
m o n e y
o r
p r o p e r t y
embezzle d o r fraudulentl y misapplie d o r converte d

to hi s ow n us e by a publi c officer , o r a n office r o f a
corporation, o r a n attorney , factor , broker , agent ,
or clerk , i n th e cours e o f hi s employmen t a s such ,
or by an y othe r perso n i n a fiduciar y capacity , o r
for a willfu l violatio n o f duty ;
(c)
I n a n actio n t o recove r th e possessio n o f
property unjustl y o r fraudulentl y taken , detaine d
o r c o n v e r t e d , w h e n th e property , o r an y par t
thereof, ha s bee n concealed , remove d o r dispose d
o f t o p r e v e n t it s b e i n g foun d o r t a k e n b y th e
applicant o r a n authorize d person ;
(d)
I n a n actio n agains t a party wh o ha s bee n
g u i l t y o f a frau d
i n c o n t r a c t i n g t h e d e b t o r
incurrin g th e obligatio n upo n whic h th e
brought, o r i n th e performanc e thereof ;
actio n
i s
688
----------------------- Page 689----------------------RULE 57
EC.
PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT
(e)
I n a n
a c t i o n a g a i n s t a p a r t y w h o
h a s
remove d o r dispose d o f hi s property , o r i s abou t t o
d o so , wit h inten t t o defrau d hi s creditors ;
(f) I n a n actio n agains t a part y w h o doe s no t
resid e i n th e Philippines , o r o n w h o m s u m m o n s ma y
b e serve d b y publication ,
(la )
N O T E S
1.
Th e former Sec .
1 o f Rul e 5 7 ha s been amende d
t o mak e som e o f it s provision s mor e specific .

Thus , t
h e
last tim e whe n a wri t o f preliminar y attachmen t may
b e sough t
shoul d
b e before
entry
of judgment;
P
ar .
(a) require s t h a t th e actio n shoul d b e for recover y o
f
specified sums , othe r tha n mora l o r exemplary damages ,
arising from any recognize d lega l sourc e o f obligations ; in
P a r . (b) , t h e p r o p e r t y m u s t hav e bee n
unjustl y
o r
fraudulently
taken, detaine d or converted; an d in Par . (d) ,
th e frau d ma y hav e bee n committe d i n incurrin g th e
obligation or in
the performance thereof,
an d th e act
of
concealing or disposin g o f th e property ha s been delete d
since tha t i s alread y contemplate d in Par .
(c) .
2 . Th e former
"implied" contract , a
Thi s
a m b i g u o u
th e
clarification i n it
contemplate d therei n
quasi-contract .
Th e
Sec . 1(a) o f thi s Rul e referre d to an

ter m als o use d in Sec . 5 o f Rul e 86 .
s t e r m h a s bee n
e l i m i n a t e d b y
s
former Sec .
presen t counterpar t tha t th e

include s on e arisin g from law
1(d)
referre d t o frau d
action
or
in contract -
in g th e
obligatio n
(dolo
causante)
an d
no t i n
t h e
performanc e thereo f (dolo incidente),
henc e th e issuanc
e
of bouncin g check s in paymen t o f th e obligation wa s not
considere d
a s a groun d for preliminar y a t t a c h m e n t
(Javellana
vs.
D.O.
Plaza
Enterprises,
Inc.,
L-28297
,
Mar.
30, 1970).
With th e presen t amendmen t o f Par .
(d) t o includ e both kind s o f fraud , th e former doctrine s
689
----------------------- Page 690----------------------RULE 67
SEC. 1
based on tha t distinction hav e been set aside .

It wa s formerl y rule d t h a t a cour t exceed s it s
jurisdictio n by issuin g a writ of preliminary attachment
on th e ground state d in Sec . 1(f) wher e th e complaint i s
for th e recovery of unliquidate d damage s arisin g from a
crime or tort .
Said groun d wa s declare d to be applicable
only wher e plaintiff' s claim i s for liquidate d damages ,
especially since Sec . 3 require s tha t plaintiff s claim be
over an d above all lega l counterclaim s (Mialhe vs. De
Lencquesaing,
et al., G.R.
No.
67715,
July
11, 1986;
see
als o Peregrina,
et al. vs. Panis,
G.R.
No.
56011,
Oct. 31, 1984).
Thi s doctrin e ha s been modified by th e
requirement in Par . 1(a) tha t th e damage s be for specific
amounts other tha n mora l or exemplary .
3. Under th e Rules , any party , not only th e plaintiff,

can avail of preliminary attachmen t a s long a s any of th e
grounds therefor exists .
A defendant on hi s counterclaim ,
a co-party on hi s cross-claim , an d a third-party plaintiff
on hi s third-party claim may move for th e issuanc e of th e
writ .
4 . It i s also provided tha t preliminary attachmen t
may be sought at th e commencement of th e action and
before entry of th e judgment .
Hence , th e ground s an d a
motion for preliminary attachmen t may be alleged an d
incorporated right in a verified complaint ; or if not so
alleged , thereafte r bu t befor e entr y o f judgment , a
corresponding motion therefor may be filed in th e case .
Where th e judgmen t i s already final an d executory , a
motion for execution i s th e remedy .
5. A foreign corporation duly licensed to do busines s
in th e Philippine s i s not a nonresident within th e meanin g
of Sec . 1(f), Rule 57, hence , it s property her e may not be
attached on th e mer e groun d tha t it i s a nonresiden t
(Claude Neon Lights vs. Phil. Advertising Corp.,
57 Phil.
607; State Investment House, Inc., et al. vs. Citibank, N.A.,
690
----------------------- Page 691----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 1
et al,
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
G.R.
Nos.
79926-27,
Oct.
17,
1991).
Insolvency o
f
th e defendan t debto r i s not a groun d for th e issuanc e o f
a wri t of preliminar y
attachmen t (Aboitiz &
Co.,
Inc.,
et al. vs. Prov. Sheriff, etc., et al., L-35990, June 17, 1981).
Sec. 1(f), concernin g summon s by publication , refer s t o
thos e case s in Sees . 14 an d 1 6 of Rul e 14 .
6 . B a s e d
o n
t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y an d effect s
o f
attachment , it may b e classified a s (a) preliminary , which
i s resorte d t o at th e commencemen t o f th e action or at any
tim e befor e entr y o f judgment , for th e temporar y seizur e
of propert y o f th e advers e party ; an d (b) final , or levy
upon execution , which i s availabl e after th e judgmen t in
th e mai n actio n ha s becom e executory ,
an d for
th e
satisfaction o f
sai d judgment .
A s t o form an d procedur e o f enforcement , ther e i s th e
regula r form o f attachmen t which refer s t o corporea l
propert y in th e possession o f th e party , an d garnishmen t
which refer s t o money , stocks , credit s an d other incorporea l
property which belong t o th e party bu t ar e in th e possession
or unde r th e contro l o f a thir d person .
Th e purpose s o f preliminar y attachmen t ar e
(a)
t o
seize th e propert y o f th e debto r i n advanc e o f fina l

judgmen t an d t o hold it for purpose s o f satisfyin g sai d
judgment , or (b) t o enabl e th e court t o acquir e jurisdiction
over th e action by th e actua l or constructiv e seizur e o f
th e propert y in thos e instance s wher e persona l servic e o f
summon s on th e credito r canno t b e effected (Mabunag
vs. Gallimore,
81 Phil.
354; Quasha,
et al. vs. Juan,
et
al., L-49140,
Nov.
19,
1982).
Thus ,
a proceedin g i
n
attachment i s in rem wher e th e defendant doe s not appear ,
and in personam wher e h e appear s in th e action (Banco
Espahol-Filipino vs. Palanca, 3 7 Phil. 921).
Wher e a li
en
already exists , e.g. , a maritim e lien , th e sam e i s equivalent
to an attachmen t (Quasha, et al.
vs. Juan, et al, sup
ra),
jus t lik e tha t unde r a rea l estat e mortgage .
691
----------------------- Page 692----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 1
7. Parenthetically , it will be observe d tha t in thes e

revised Rules , for accuracy an d propriety of terminology ,
th e order o f th e cour t an d th e writ issue d pursuan t
theret o ar e separatel y identifie d an d indicated . A n
implementing writ may b e signed an d issue d either by
th e clerk o f court or th e presidin g judge , but th e order can
obviously be signe d only by th e judg e himself .
The order
is base d on th e motion filed therefor an d any opposition
thereto , an d may or may not contain th e specific detail s
but only th e natur e o f th e act s desire d by th e court .
On
th e other hand , th e writ shal l b e base d on sai d order and
shall contain th e detail s require d by th e latte r or th e
provision s o f th e law or Rule s governin g th e same .
Also, on th e nomenclatur e in th e Rule s involving
registration of writs , processe s or documents , th e office
involved in or charge d therewith i s known a s th e registry
of deeds , th e book s wher e th e recordation i s mad e i s th e
register of deeds , an d th e official in charg e of th e office is
th e registrar of deeds .
8. In Mangila
vs. CA, et al. (G.R .
No . 125027 ,
Aug . 12, 2002), th e Suprem e Court observe d tha t Rule 57
speaks o f th e gran t o f thi s provisiona l remed y at th e
commencement o f th e action or at any tim e thereafter .
Since tha t phras e refer s to th e dat e o f th e filing o f th e
complaint, which mark s th e "commencement of th e action, "
th e referenc e i s to a tim e before summon s i s serve d on th e
defendant, or even before summon s wa s issued .
It the n
the provisional
thre e stages ,
court grantin g
of preliminar y
called attentio n t o th e fact tha t th e gran t o f

remedy of preliminary attachmen t involves
specifically th e issuanc e o f th e order o f th e
th e application , th e issuanc e o f th e writ
attachmen t an d th e implementatio n o f
th e writ . For th e first tw o stages , it i s not necessary

tha t jurisdiction over th e defendan t b e first obtained .
However, once th e implementation o f th e writ commences ,
th e cour t mus t hav e acquire d jurisdictio n ove r th e
692
----------------------- Page 693----------------------RULE 57
C. 2
SE
defendant for, withou t such jurisdiction , th e court ha s n o

power t o act in any manne r which woul d b e bindin g on
tha t
defendant .
Sec .
orde r
2.
Issuance
o f a t t a c h m e n t
and
ma y
contents
b e
of
issue d
order.
eithe r
ex parte
An
o r u p o n m o t i o n w i t h notic e an d h e a r i n g b y t
h e
cour t i n w h i c h th e actio n i s pending , o r b y th e Cour t
o f Appeal s o r th e Suprem e Court , an d mus t requir e
th e sherif f o f th e
cour t t o attac h
s o m u c h o f
th e
propert y i n t h e
P h i l i p p i n e s o f th e part y a g a
i n s t
w h o m i t i s issued , no t exemp t fro m execution , a s
may b e sufficien t t o satisf y th e applicant' s demand ,
unles s suc h part y make s deposi t o r give s a bon d a s
hereinafte r provide d i n a n a m o u n t equa l t o tha t
f i x e d i n t h e o r d e r , w h i c h m a y
b e t h e a m o u n
t
sufficient t o satisf y th e applicant' s deman d o r th e
valu e o f th e propert y t o b e attache d a s state d b y
th e applicant .
Severa l writ s ma y b e issue d a t th e
sam e tim e t o th e sheriff s o f th e court s o f differen t
judicia l regions .
(2a)
NOTE S
1. A wri t of preliminar y attachmen t may be sought
and issue d ex parte (Filinvest Credit Corp.
us. Reloua,
et
al, G.R. No. 50378, Sept. 30,
1982).
Unlik e preliminar y
injunction which canno t now be issue d ex parte (Sec. 5,
Rule
58),
notic e an d hearin g ar e
not require d in th e
issuanc e
Investment
House Inc.,
o f a wri t o f preliminar y
and
Finance
Co.,
Inc.
G.R.
No.
71917,
June
30,
attachmen t
vs.
State
2 . Propert y exemp t from execution i s

from preliminar y attachmen t or garnishmen t
5).
Garnishment doe s not lie agains t th e fund s
department s or offices o f th e Government ,
publi c corporation s ar e not exemp t from
(Belisle
Inuestment
1987).
als o exempt
(Sec.
o f th e regula r
bu t fund s o f
garnishmen t
693
----------------------- Page 694----------------------RULE 57
(PNB
vs.

Pabalan,
et
al,
L-33112,
SEC. 3
June
15,
1978).
Sec. 3. Affidavit and bond required. An orde r of

attachment shal l b e grante d onl y whe n i t appear s
by th e affidavi t o f th e applicant , o r o f som e othe r
perso n w h o personall y k n o w s
th e facts , tha t a
sufficient caus e o f actio n exists , tha t th e cas e i s on e
of thos e mentione d i n sectio n 1 hereof , tha t ther e i s
n o othe r sufficien t securit y fo r th e clai m sough t t o
b e enforce d b y th e action , an d tha t th e amoun t du e
t o th e applicant , o r th e valu e o f th e propert y th e
possessio n o f whic h h e i s entitle d t o recover , i s a s
muc h a s th e su m fo r whic h th e orde r i s grante d
above al l lega l counterclaims .
Th e affidavit , an d
th e bon d require d b y th e nex t succeedin g section ,
must b e dul y file d wit h th e cler k o f th e cour t befor e
th e orde r issues .
(3a)
NOTE S
1. For a writ of attachmen t to be valid , th e affidavit
filed therefor mus t contain all th e allegation s require d in
Sec. 3 of thi s Rule . Failur e to do so render s th e writ totally
defective a s th e judg e issuin g th e writ act s in exces s o f
jurisdictio n
(K.O.
Glass
Construction
Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Valenzuela, et al, L-48756,
Sept. 11, 1982).
2. Wher e th e obligation wa s duly secure d by a rea l
estate mortgage , bu t th e mortgage e instea d o f foreclosing
filed an ordinar y action t o recover th e su m o f money
involved, it i s not entitle d to a writ of preliminary attach ment since Sec . 3 of thi s Rule authorize d th e sam e only if
ther e i s no other sufficient security for th e plaintiff s claim
(Salgado vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 55381. Mar. 26, 1984).
3. Under Sec . 3 of thi s Rule , th e only requisite s for
th e issuanc e o f th e writ o f preliminary attachmen t ar e
th e affidavit s an d bond of th e applicant .
No notice to th e
adverse party or hearin g o f th e application i s required , a s
694
----------------------- Page 695----------------------RULE 57
C. 4
th e tim e which th e hearin g will entai l coul d b e enoug h t o

enable th e defendan t t o abscon d or dispos e o f hi s propert y
before th e wri t o f preliminar y attachmen t issues .
To repeat , th e gran t o f th e provisiona l remed y o f
attachment basically involve s thre e stages : first , th e court
SE
issue s th e orde r grantin g th e application ; second , th e wri t

issue s pursuan t t o th e order grantin g th e same ; and , third ,
th e wri t i s implemented .
In th e first tw o stages , it i s
not
n e c e s s a r y t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n ove r th e perso n o f
th e
defendant shoul d first b e obtained .
However , t o validly
i m p l e m e n t t h e writ , th e cour t
m u s t hav e
acquire
d
jurisdictio n ove r th e defendant , otherwis e
i t ha
s n o
authority to ac t (Cuartero vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 102448,
Aug.
3, 1992).
Thi s wa s subsequentl y reiterate d an d
explained in Mangila vs. CA, et al., supra.
Sec. 4.
Condition of applicant's bond.
Th e part y
applyin g fo r th e orde r mus t thereafte r giv e a bon d

e x e c u t e d t o th e advers e part y i n th e amoun t fixe d
b y th e cour t i n it s orde r grantin g th e issuanc e o f
th e writ , conditione d tha t th e latte r wil l pa y al l th e
cost s w h i c h ma y b e adjudge d t o th e advers e part y
an d al l damage s w h i c h h e ma y sustai n b y reaso n o f
th e attachment , i f th e cour t shal l finall y adjudg e
tha t th e applican t wa s no t entitle d thereto .
(4a)
NOTE S
1. Th e bond poste d by th e attachin g creditor respond s
for th e damage s an d cost s which may b e adjudge d t o th e
a d v e r s e p a r t y a r i s i n g from an d
b y r e a s o n o f
t h e
attachment .
Consequently , ther e mus t b e a findin g in
th e decision o f th e court imposin g such liability an d th e
costs shal l only b e thos e arisin g from th e attachmen t itsel f
and not th e othe r judicia l cost s tha t may b e impose d
against th e losing part y (Rocco vs. Meads, et al., 9 6 Phil.
885).
Th e rul e i s different with respect t o a counterbon d
695
----------------------- Page 696----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 5
for th e discharg e of an attachmen t unde r Sec . 12, infra,

which answer s for th e judgmen t account an d th e costs .
2 . Generally , th e liability on th e attachmen t bond
provided for in thi s section i s limited to actua l damages ,
but moral an d exemplary damage s may be recovered where
th e attachmen t wa s alleged an d proved t o b e malicious .
Such liability of th e bond exist s even if th e attachmen t
ha s been dissolved , whethe r by th e filing of a counter bond or by proo f tha t th e attachmen t wa s irregularly
issued, a s long a s th e court shal l finally adjudge tha t th e
attaching part y wa s not entitle d theret o
(Calderon vs.
IAC, et al., G.R. No. 74696 an d First Integrated Bonding
& Insurance Co., Inc. vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No. 73916, jointly
decided on Nov. 11, 1987; see BA Finance Corp. vs. CA, et
al, G.R. No.
61464, May 29,
1988).
3. Ther e is no rul e allowing substitution of attache d
propert y althoug h a n attachmen t may b e discharge d
wholly or in par t upon th e security o f a counter-bon d
offered by th e defendant upon application to th e court ,
with notice t o an d after hearin g th e attachin g creditor ; or
upon application o f th e defendant , wit h notic e t o th e
attaching creditor an d after hearing , i f it appear s tha t
th e attachmen t wa s improperly or irregularly issued .
I f
an attachmen t i s excessive , th e remedy o f th e defendant
is to apply to th e court for a reduction or partia l discharg e
and substitution o f th e attache d properties .
Otherwise ,
th e lien acquire d by th e plaintif f creditor a s of th e dat e of
th e origina l levy would be lost an d thi s would , in effect,
constitute a deprivation without du e proces s of law of th e
attaching creditor' s interes t in th e attache d property a s
security for th e satisfaction o f th e judgmen t which h e
may obtain (Santos, et al. vs. Aquino, Jr., etc., et al, G.R.
Nos.
86181-82, Jan.
13, 1992).
Sec. 6 . Manner of attaching property. Th e sherif f
enforcin g th e wri t shal l withou t dela y an d wit h all
696
----------------------- Page 697----------------------RULE 57
PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT
SEC. 6
r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e a t t a c h , t o a w a i t j u d g m
e n t a n d
e x e c u t i o n
i n
t h e
a c t i o n ,
o n l y
s o
m u c
h
o f t h e
p r o p e r t y
i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s o f t h e
p a r t
y a g a i n s t
w h o m t h e w r i t i s issued , n o t e x e m p t fro m e x e c u t i
o n ,
a s
m a y
b e
s u f f i c i e n t t o
s a t i s f y t h e
a p
p l i c a n t ' s
d e m a n d , u n l e s s t h e forme r m a k e s a d e p o s i t w i t h
t h e
c o u r t
f r o m w h i c h
t h e
w r i t i s i s s u e d , o
r g i v e s a
c o u n t e r - b o n d
e x e c u t e d
t o
t h e a p p l i c a n
t ,
i n
a n
a m o u n t e q u a l t o t h e bon d fixe d b y t h e c o u r t i n
t h e
o r d e r o f a t t a c h m e n t o r t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e p r
o p e r t y
t o b e
a t t a c h e d ,
e x c l u s i v e
o f c o s t s .
N o
l e v y o n
a t t a c h m e n t
p u r s u a n t
t o
t h e
w r i t i s s u
e d
u n d e r
s e c t i o n
2
h e r e o f s h a l l
b e
e n f o r c e d
u n l
e s s
i t i s
p r e c e d e d , o r c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y a c c o m p a n i
e d ,
s e r
f t
c o m
e n t
a p p
e r
w r i
i t h
P h i
b y
i c e o f s u m m o n s
e
l a i n t ,
t h e
a
t h e
i c a n t ' s affidavi t
a n d
t o f a t t a c h m e n t
i n
t h e
l i p p i n e s .
v
h
p
,
l
t o g e t h e r
w i t h
p p l i c a t i o n
a n d
,
fo r
bond ,
o n
a t t a c h m
a n d
t h e
cop y
t h e
o r d
d e f e n d a n t
T h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f p r i o r o r c o n t e m p o r a
n e o u s
s e r v i c e
o f s u m m o n s
s h a l l n o t
a p p l y
w
h e r e
t h e
s u m m o n s
c o u l d
n o t
b e
s e r v e d
p e r s o n a l
l y o r
b y
s u b s t i t u t e d servic e d e s p i t e d i l i g e n t efforts ,
o r t h e
d e f e n d a n t i s a r e s i d e n t o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s t
e m p o r a ril y a b s e n t t h e r e f r o m , o r t h e d e f e n d a n t i
s a n o n r e s i d e n t o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , o r t h e a c t i o n
i s o n e i n
rem or quasi in rem.
(6a )
Sec . 6 .
i n g t h e
writ , t h e sherif f
a r e t u r n t h e
h e w r i t
i s s u e d , w i t h
c e e d i n g s
u n d e r t h e
w
r y
o f t h e
p r o p e r t y
a t
c o u n t e r b o n d
g i v e n
a t t a c h m e n t
i s i s s
o f o n
t h e
a p p l i c a n t .
Sheriff's
return.
Afte r
e n f o r c
m u s t likewis e w i t h o u t dela y m a k e
r e o n t o t h e c o u r t fro m w h i c h t
a
r i t
ful l
a n d
s t a t e m e n t
t a c h e d ,
b y
u e d ,
t h e
a n d
o f h i s
c o m p l e t e
t o g e t h e r
p a r t y
p r o
i n v e n t o
w i t h
a n y
a g a i n s t
s e r v e
c o p i e s
w h o m
t h e r e
697
----------------------- Page 698----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 6
NOTE S
1. Sec . 5 now complement s th e prohibition against
excessive attachmen t on th e advers e party' s property by
providin g tha t levy on attachmen t shal l b e limite d only to
so much of th e property a s may be sufficient to satisfy th e
applicant's demand .
More importantly , in view of controversie s in previou s
ruling s on whethe r levy on attachmen t may b e mad e
although jurisdiction over th e affected part y ha s not been

obtained, it i s now require d tha t such levy shal l not b e
mad e unles s precede d or contemporaneously accompanied
by servic e o f summon s togethe r wit h a copy o f th e
complaint, application for attachment , affidavit an d bond
of th e applicant , an d th e writ o f attachment .
The exception from suc h requiremen t o f prio r or
contemporaneous servic e o f summon s ar e state d in th e
second paragrap h o f th e section , an d th e reason s therefor
are obvious .
2 . Th e attachin g officer mus t serv e a copy o f th e
applicant's affidavit , s o tha t th e advers e party may contest
th e ground s for th e attachment , an d ther e must also b e
service of a copy of th e applicant' s bond , so tha t th e other
part y may except t o th e sufficiency thereof .
Thi s duty i s
imposed on sai d officer even if such advers e part y i s not
found within th e province , unlik e th e condition t o tha t
effect in th e former Rule in view of such a provision in
Sec. 5 thereo f which ha s been eliminate d in th e present
revision .
3 . The deposit or bond require d of th e attachin g party
shall be in th e amoun t fixed by th e court in th e order of
attachment , or equa l t o th e valu e o f th e property t o b e
attached .
The latter alternativ e may b e resorte d t o wher e
th e attachin g part y show s t o th e court tha t h e wa s only
able t o locat e property o f th e opposin g part y which i s
insufficient in valu e to satisfy hi s claim and/or a s initially
698
----------------------- Page 699----------------------RULE 57
C. 7
SE
determined by th e court base d on th e amoun t o f such claim .

It woul d b e too demandin g t o requir e th e attachin g part y
to mak e a deposit or post a bon d equa l t o th e full amoun t
of hi s claim wher e th e verified leviabl e propert y may only
b e wort h muc h les s tha n sai d claim .
H e i s thu s permitte d
to mak e a deposit or file a bond only for th e lower value .
Unde r Sec . 2 o f thi s Rule , h e may thereafte r mov e for
another wri t o f attachment , in which cas e h e mus t agai n
mak e th e correspondin g deposit or file th e appropriat e bond
for tha t purpose , takin g int o accoun t th e valu e o f th e
additional propert y h e seek s t o attach .
Sec.
7 .
Attachment
of
real
and
personal
property;
recording thereof.
Rea l an d persona l propert y shal l
b e attache d b y th e sherif f executin g th e wri t i n th e
followin g
manner :
(a)
Rea l property , o r growin g crop s thereon ,
o r an y interes t therein , standin g upo n th e record s
o f th e registr y o f deed s o f th e provinc e i n th e nam e
o f th e part y agains t w h o m attachmen t i s issued , o r

n o t a p p e a r i n g
a t al l u p o n
s u c h r e c o r d s ,
o r
belongin g t o th e part y agains t w h o m attachmen t
i s issue d an d hel d b y an y othe r person , o r standin g
o n th e record s o f th e registr y o f deed s i n th e nam e
o f an y othe r person , b y filin g wit h th e registr y o f
d e e d s
a c o p y
o f t h e o r d e r , t o g e t h e r w i t h
a
descriptio n o f th e propert y attached , an d a notic e
tha t i t i s attached , o r tha t suc h rea l propert y an d
any interes t therei n hel d b y o r standin g i n th e nam e
of suc h othe r perso n ar e attached , an d b y havin g a
copy o f suc h order , description , an d notic e wit h th e
occupan t o f th e property , i f any , o r wit h suc h othe r
perso n o r hi s agen t i f foun d withi n th e province .
Wher e th e
propert y ha s bee n brough t unde r th e
operatio n o f eithe r th e Lan d Registratio n Ac t o r th e
P r o p e r t y R e g i s t r a t i o n D e c r e e , th e n o t i c e sha
l l
contai n a referenc e t o th e numbe r o f th e certificat e
699
----------------------- Page 700----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 7
o f title , t h e volum e a n d p a g e i n t h e r e g i s t r a
t i o n
boo k w h e r e t h e certificat e i s r e g i s t e r e d , a n d
th e
registere d o w n e r o r o w n e r s thereof .
Th e r e g i s t r a r o f deed
t s
file d
u n d e r
t h i s s e c t
o f t h e
applicant , t h e a d v e r s e party ,
t h e p r o p e r t y i s hel d o r i
i n
t h e r e c o r d s . I f t h e a t
d o n
th e e n t i r e a r e a o f t h e lan
o f title ,
th e
identificatio
s h a l l b
f s u c h
a t t a c h m
a d e s c r i p t i o n
s m u s t inde x a t t a c h m e n
i o n
i n
t h e
n a m e s
o r t h e perso n b y who m
n whos e n a m e i t s t a n d s
t a c h m e n t
i s
no t claime
d covere d b y t h e certificat e
sufficientl y
a c c u r a t e
for
n o f t h e lan d o r i n t e r e s t t o b e affecte d
e
i n c l u d e d
i n t h e
r e g i s t r a t i o n o
e n t ;
(b)
P e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y
c a p a b l e
o f m
a n u a l
d e l i v e r y , b y t a k i n g a n d
safel y k e e p i n g i t
i n hi s
c u s t o d y , afte r
i s s u i n g t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
r e c e i p t
therefor ;
(c)
stock s
o r s h a r
y ,
b y
l e a v i n g
a g e n t
thereof , a
g t h a t
th e stoc k
th e
a t t a c h m
n c e o f
such writ ;
Stock s
e s ,
o f
w i t h
o r
s h a r e s ,
a n y
o r a n
i n t e r e s t
c o r p o r a t i o n
t h e
p r e s i d e n t
o r
cop y o f t h e writ , a n d
o r
i n
c o m p a n
m a n a g i n g
a notic e s t a t i n
o r i n t e r e s t o f t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t w h o m
e n t
i s
issued ,
i s
a t t a c h e d
i n
p u r s u a
(d)
Debt s an d credits , includin g b a n k deposits ,
financia l interest , royalties , commission s a n d othe r
p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y no t capabl e o f m a n u a l delivery
,
b y l ea v i n g w i t h t h e p e r s o n o w i n g s u c h d e b
t s , o r
h a v i n g i n hi s possessio n o r u n d e r hi s control , suc h
c r e d i t s o r o t h e r p e r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y , o r w i
t h
hi s
agent , a cop y o f t h e writ , a n d notic e t h a t t h e debt s
owin g b y h i m t o t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t w h o m a t t a c h m
e n t
i s i s s u e d , a n d
t h e c r e d i t s a n d
o t h e r
p e
r s o n a l
p r o p e r t y i n hi s possession , o r u n d e r hi s control ,
belongin g t o sai d party , a r e a t t a c h e d i n p u r s u a n c e
o f suc h
writ ;
700
----------------------- Page 701----------------------RULE 57

C. 7
SE
(e)
Th e
i n t e r e s t o f th e part y a g a i n s t w
h o m
attachmen t i s issue d i n propert y belongin g t o th e
estat e o f th e decedent , whethe r a s heir , legatee , o r
devisee , b y servin g th e executo r o r administrato r
o r othe r persona l representativ e
o f th e d e c e d
e n t
wit h a cop y o f th e wri t an d notice , tha t sai d interes t
i s attached .
A cop y o f sai d wri t o f attachmen t an d
o f sai d notic e shal l als o b e file d i n th e offic e o f th e
cler k o f t h e c o u r t i n w h i c h sai d
e s t a t e i s b
e i n g
settle d an d serve d upo n th e heir , legate e o r devise e
c o n c e r n e d .
I f t h e p r o p e r t y
i s i n
custodia
legis,
a cop y
s o u g h t
o f th e
t o b e
a t t a c h e d
wri t o f attachmen t shal l
b e file d
w i t h t h e p r o p e r cour t o r quasi-judicia l
agency , an d notic e o f th e attachmen t serve d upo n
th e custodia n o f suc h property .
(7a)
NOTE S
1. Par . (a) of thi s section i s a consolidation of Pars ,
(a) an d (b) o f th e former section .
Par . (d) spell s out th
e
incorporeal propertie s subject o f garnishmen t which , asid e
from stock s or share s an d debt s or credit s which wer e
provide d in th e former Rule , shoul d includ e ban k deposits ,
financia l interest ,
royalties ,
commission s
an d oth
e r
persona l propert y not capabl e o f manua l delivery .
2 . Pars , (c) an d (d) of Sec . 7 refer to garnishmen t
and provid e for th e procedur e therefor .
By such notic e
o f garnishment ,
th e cour t acquire s jurisdictio n ove r
th e garnishe e an d th e latte r become s a forced interveno r
in th e case .
Th e garnishe e remain s in possessio n o f
th e propert y
garnishe d
bu t hold s
i t subjec t t o
th e
ultimat e dispositio n thereo f b y th e court .
I t resu
lt s
in an involuntar y novation by chang e o f creditor s (see
Tayabas Land Co.
us. Sharuff,
41 Phil.
382).
70 1
----------------------- Page 702----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 7
3. In th e cas e o f salaries , th e sam e can b e attache d

only at th e en d o f th e month or on th e payday provided
by contrac t or law , as , prior thereto , th e sam e d o not
constitute money "due " to th e debtor from hi s employer
(see Garcia vs. Castillo, 43 Phil. 364).
Furthermore , if
th e employer i s th e Government , before payday , such
funds ar e public fund s an d ar e exempt from attachmen t
or execution .
4 . Good s importe d int o th e country , whil e in th e
possession of th e Collector of Custom s an d before th e dutie s
thereon hav e been paid , canno t b e attache d sinc e th e
customs authoritie s hav e exclusive jurisdiction thereo f and
such writ of attachmen t would constitut e th e Collector of
Customs a s baile e over sai d goods , a duty incompatibl e
wit h hi s dutie s unde r th e Tarif f an d Custom s Code
(Virata, et al. vs. Aquino, et al., L 35027, Sept. 10, 1978).
5 . When th e
business , it abandon s
treate d
lik e any
et al., L-49930, Aug.
may b e subject t o
(PNB vs.
CIR, et
Governmen t enter s int o commercia l

it s sovereign capacity an d i s to be
othe r corporatio n (Malong
vs. PNR,
7, 1985).
Consequently , it s funds
a duly issue d wri t o f garnishmen t
al., L-32667, Jan.
31, 1978; PNB vs.
Pabalan, L 33112, June

15, 1978) or writ of execution
(PNR vs.
Union de Maquinistas, L-31948, July 25,
1978);
bu t th e public fund s of a municipality ar e not subject to
levy or execution if intende d for a public purpos e an d such
funds cannot be disburse d without a lawful appropriation
or statutor y authority a s require d by P.D . 477 (Mun. of
San
Miguel
vs. Fernandez,
G.R.
No.
61744,
June
25,
1984).
Even wher e th e immunity o f th e Stat e from suit
is relaxed , th e power o f th e court end s when judgment i s
rendere d an d th e Stat e i s at liberty t o determin e whether
or not t o appropriat e fund s for th e satisfaction o f th e
judgmen t
(Republic vs. Palacio, et al., L 20322, May 29,
1968), a s th e rul e in thi s jurisdiction i s tha t th e Stat e i s
liable only for tort s cause d by it s special agent s specifically
702
----------------------- Page 703----------------------RULE 57
7
SEC.
commissioned t o perform act s outsid e thei r regula r duties ,

as provide d for in Art . 218 0 of th e Civil Code (Meritt vs.
Insular
Gov't,
34
Phil. 311;
Rosete
vs. Auditor
General,
81 Phil. 453).
Where ,
however ,
a judgmen t on com promise , base d o n contractua l undertakings , ha s been
rendere d agains t a city governmen t an d an ordinanc e ha s
been enacte d for th e paymen t thereof , th e deposit o f th e
city governmen t wit h th e PN B can b e levie d upo n on
execution
(Pasay
City
Gov't
vs. CFI,
et al., L-32162,
Sept. 28, 1984; City of Caloocan, et al. vs. Allarde, etc., et
al, G.R.
No.
107271,
Sept.
10,
2003).
6 . Wher e th e propert y attache d b y

creditor ha d previously been mortgaged , th e
creditor' s lien i s inferior t o tha t o f th e
mus t first b e satisfie d in th e even t o f
th e judgmen t
judgmen t
mortgage e which
foreclosure .
In
reality , wha t wa s attache d by th e judgmen t creditor wa s

merely th e judmen t debtor' s righ t or equity o f redemptio n
(Top
Rate
International
Services,
Inc.
vs.
IAC,
et
al,
G.R.
No.
67496,
July
7, 1986).
7 . Propert y legally attache d i s propert y in custodia

legis an d canno t b e interfere d with without th e permission
of th e prope r court , bu t thi s i s confined t o case s wher e th e
propert y belong s t o th e defendan t or on e in which th e
defendant ha s proprietar y interes t
(Traders Royal Bank
vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No. 66326, Oct. 21,
1984).
For a
further discussio n o f th e effect s o f
preliminar y attachmen t an d th e right s o
creditor thereunder , se e Consolidated Bank
vs. IAC, et al. (G.R . No . 73976 , May 29
a
duly registere d
f th e attachin g
& Trust Corp.
, 1987), an d Not e 9
unde r Sec . 30 , Rul e 39 .

8. Regardin g attachmen t o f rea l property , se e als o
Sec. 69 , P.D . 1529 , or th e Property Registration Decree .
9 . Th e procedur e for levy on attachmen t on th e
different classe s o f property mentione d her e i s als o th e
procedur e t o b e followed in levy on execution .
In fact , a
s
703
----------------------- Page 704----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 8
stated at th e outset , th e latte r i s als o known in some

jurisdiction s
as
final attachment.
Sec . 8.
Effect of attachment of debts, credits and all
other similar personal property. Al l p e r s o n s h a v i n g in
t h e i r possessio n o r u n d e r t h e i r contro l an y credit s
o r o t h e r simila r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y belongin g t o th
e
p a r t y a g a i n s t w h o m a t t a c h m e n t i s issued , o r owi
n g
an y d e b t s t o him , a t t h e tim e o f servic e u p o n t h e m
o f t h e cop y o f t h e wri t o f a t t a c h m e n t a n d notic e a
s
provide d i n th e las t p r e c e d i n g section , shal l b e liabl e
t o t h e a p p l i c a n t for t h e a m o u n t o f s u c h c r
e d i t s ,
debt s o r o t h e r simila r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , u n t i l
th e
a t t a c h m e n t
i s d i s c h a r g e d ,
o r
a n y
j u d g
m e n t
recovere d b y h i m i s satisfied , u n l e s s suc h p r o p e r t y
i s delivere d o r t r a n s f e r r e d , o r suc h d e b t s a r e pa
id ,
t o t h e clerk , sherif f o r o t h e r p r o p e r office r o
f th e
cour t issuin g t h e a t t a c h m e n t .
(8a )
NOT E
1.
G a r n i s h m e n t i s a specie s of a t t a c h m e n
t for
reachin g property or credit s pertainin g or payabl e to a
judgmen t debtor .
It result s in a forced novation by th e
substitution o f creditors , tha t is , th e judgmen t debtor who
is th e origina l creditor o f th e garnishe e is , throug h service
of th e writ o f garnishment , substitute d by th e judgmen t
creditor who thereby become s th e creditor o f th e garnishee .
Garnishment ha s also been describe d a s a warnin g to a
person , who ha s in hi s possession property or credit s o f
th e judgmen t debtor , not t o pay th e money or deliver th e
property t o th e latte r but t o instea d appea r an d answer
th e plaintiff s suit .
It i s not necessar y t o serv e summon s upo n th e
garnishe e i n orde r tha t th e tria l cour t may acquir e
jurisdictio n to bind him .
He nee d not be impleade d a s a
party t o th e case .
All tha t i s necessary i s th e service upon
him of th e writ of garnishment , as a consequenc e of which
704
----------------------- Page 705----------------------RULE 57
SECS. 9-10
h e become s a virtua l part y or a forced interveno r in th e

case an d th e tria l court thereb y acquire s jurisdictio n t o
requir e complianc e by him with all it s order s an d processe s
(Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc.
us. Ramolete, et al
., G.R.
No. 60884, Nou.
13,
1991).
Sec . 9 .
Effect
of attachment
of interest
in property
belonging to the estate of a decedent.
T h e a t t
a c h m e n t
o f t h e i n t e r e s t o f a n heir , o r devise e i n t h e p r o p
e r t y
b e l o n g i n g t o
t h e e s t a t e o f a
d e c e d e n t
s h a l l n o t
i m p a i r t h e p o w e r s o f t h e e x e c u t o r , a d m i n
i s t r a t o r ,
o r o t h e r p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e
d e c e d e n t
o v e r s u c h
p r o p e r t y
fo r t h e p u r p o s e
o f
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
S u c h
p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ,
h o w e v e r ,
shal l r e p o r t t h e a t t a c h m e n t t o t h e c o u r t w h
e n a n y
p e t i t i o n for d i s t r i b u t i o n i s filed , a n d i n
t h e o r d e r
m a d e
u p o n
s u c h
p e t i t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n
m a y
b e
a w a r d e d t o s u c h h e i r , legatee , o r d e v i s e e ,
b u t t h e
p r o p e r t y a t t a c h e d s h a l l b e o r d e r e d d e l i v e r
e d t o t h e
sherif f m a k i n g t h e levy , subjec t t o t h e c l a i m o f s u c
h
h e i r , l e g a t e e , o r d e v i s e e , o r a n y p e r s o n
c l a i m i n g
u n d e r h i m .
(9a )
roperty
attached
lling
property;
Sec .
is
10 .
Examination
and persons
his
delivery
of
of
indebted
property
party
to
to
him
sheriff.
whose
or
p
contro
An y
p e r s o n
w i n g d e b t s t o t h e p a r t y w h o s e p r o p e r t y i s a
t a c h e d
r h a v i n g i n hi s p o s s e s s i o n o r u n d e r hi s c o n t
o l a n y
r e d i t o r o t h e r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n
g t o s u c h
p a r t y , m a y b e r e q u i r e d t o a t t e n d befor e t h
e c o u r t
i n
w h i c h
t h e
a c t i o n
i s p e n d i n g ,
o r
b e f o r e
a
a p p o i n t e d
b y
t h e c o u r t ,
a n d
b e
e x a m i n e d o n o a t h r e s p e c t i n g t h e same .
T
h e p a r t y
w h o s e p r o p e r t y i s a t t a c h e d ma y als o b e r e q u i r
e d t o
a t t e n d
fo r
t h e
p u r p o s e
o f g i v i n g
i n f
o r m a t i o n
r e s p e c t i n g h i s p r o p e r t y , a n d ma y b e e x a m i
n e d o n
o a t h . T h e c o u r t may , afte r suc h e x a m i n a t i o n , o
r d e r
o
t
o
r
c
705
----------------------- Page 706----------------------RULE 57
p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y c a p a b l e o f
belongin g t o him , i n th e possessio n o
s o r e q u i r e d t o a t t e n d befor e
e
delivere d t o th e cler k o f th e court , o r
term s a s ma y b e just , havin g referenc e
thereo n o r clai m agains t th e same ,
judgmen t i n th e action .
(10a )
SEC. 11
m a n u a l deliver y
f th e perso n
t h e c o u r t , t o b
sherif f o n suc h
t o an y lie n
t o awai t th e
NOTE S
1. Th e proceedin g her e i s similar t o th e examination
of th e judgmen t obligor an d of th e obligor of such judgment
obligor authorize d in Sees . 3 6 an d 37 , Rul e 39 .
However ,
th e sai d proceedin g in Rule 3 9 i s proper only when th e
writ o f execution i s returne d unsatisfied .
Unde r thi s
section, th e examination i s not subject to a preliminary
condition but i s anticipatory in natur e an d may b e resorte d
to even i f th e writ o f attachmen t wa s not returne d becaus e
no property could be found to be levied upon thereunder .
Of course , i f th e attachin g part y ha s succeeded in locating
property of th e advers e part y sufficient for purpose s of
th e projected levy , it would be unneccessary for him to
resort t o th e examination contemplate d in thi s section .
2 . I f th e garnishe e doe s not admi t th e indebtednes s
or h e claim s th e property , th e controvers y mus t b e
determined in an independen t action (Bucra Corp.
.
vs
Macadaeg, 84 Phil. 493), an d th e court which issue d th e

writ o f attachmen t cannot compel th e garnishe e t o appear
before it for examination , a s Sec . 10 applie s only wher e
th e garnishe e admit s havin g in hi s possession property
belongin g to
th e defendan t
(MERALCO
vs. Genbancor
Dev.
Corp.,
L-41756,
July
30, 1976).
Th e attachin g
creditor may resort to mode s of discovery .
Sec. 11 . When attached property may be sold after levy
on attachment and before entry of judgment. Wheneve r
it shal l b e mad e t o appea r t o th e cour t i n whic h th e
706
----------------------- Page 707----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 12
a c t i o n i s p e n d i
t o b o t h
p a r t i e s , t h a t t
s h a b l e , o r
t h a t t h e i n t e r
t h e a c t i o n
wil l b e s u b s e r v e
m a y ,
o n m o t i o n , o r d e
p u b l i c
a u c t i o n i n s u c
a n d t h e
p r o c e e d s
t o b
a b i d e
t h e
j u d g m e n t i n t h e
n g , u p o n h e a r i n g w i t h n o t i c e
h e p r o p e r t y a t t a c h e d i s p e r i
e s t s
o f al l
t h e
p a r t i e s
t o
d b y t h e sal e thereof , t h e c o u r t
r s u c h p r o p e r t y t o b e sol d a t
h
e
m a n n e r
a s
i t
d e p o s i t e d
a c t i o n .
m a y
i n
d i r e c t ,
c o u r t
t o
(11a )
Sec .
12 .
Discharge of attachment upon giving counterbond. Afte r
a w r i t o f a t t a c h m e n t h a s b e
e n e n forced , t h e p a r t y w h o s e p r o p e r t y h a s b e e n a t t a
c h e d ,
o r t h e p e r s o n a p p e a r i n g o n h i s
behalf , m a
y m o v e
for t h e
d i s c h a r g e
o f t h e a t t a c h m e n t wholl y
o r i n
p a r t o n t h e s e c u r i t y given .
T h e c o u r t shal
l , afte r
d u e n o t i c e a n d h e a r i n g , o r d e r t h e d i s c h a r
g e o f t h e
a t t a c h m e n t i f t h e m o v a n t m a k e s a c a s h d e p o s
i t , o r
file s a c o u n t e r - b o n d e x e c u t e d t o t h e a t t a c h i
n g p a r t y
w i t h t h e c l e r k o f t h e c o u r t w h e r e t h e a p p l i c
a t i o n i s
m a d e , i n a n a m o u n t e q u a l t o t h a t fixe d b y t h e
c o u r t
i n t h e o r d e r o f a t t a c h m e n t , exclusiv e o f costs .
B u t
i f t h e a t t a c h m e n t i s s o u g h t t o b e d i s c h a r
g e d w i t h
r e s p e c t t o a p a r t i c u l a r p r o p e r t y , t h e c o u
n t e r - b o n d
s h a l l b e e q u a l
t o t h e v a l u e
o f t h a t
p r
o p e r t y
a s
d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e c o u r t .
I n e i t h e r case ,
t h e c a s h
d e p o s i t
o r
t h e
c o u n t e r - b o n d
s h a l l s e
c u r e
t h e
p a y m e n t
o f
a n y
j u d g m e n t
t h a t
t h e
a
t t a c h i n g
p a r t y m a y r e c o v e r i n t h e action .
A notic e
o f t h e
d e p o s i t shal l f o r t h w i t h b e serve d o n t h e a t t
a c h i n g
p a r t y .
U p o n t h e
d i s c h a r g e
o f a n a t t a c
h m e n t i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s sec
tion , t h e
p r o p e r t y
a t t a c h e d ,
o r t h e p r o c e e d s
o f
a n y
s a l e
thereof , shal l b e d e l i v e r e d t o t h e p a r t y m a k i n g
t h e
d e p o s i t o r givin g t h e c o u n t e r - b o n d , o r t o t h e
p e r s o n
a p p e a r i n g o n h i s
behalf , t h e
d e p o s i t o r
c o u n t e r bon d aforesai d s t a n d i n g i n plac e o f t h e p r o p e r t y s
o
released .
S h o u l d suc h c o u n t e r - b o n d for a n y
r e a s o n
707
----------------------- Page 708----------------------RULE 57
13
S E C
b e foun d t o b e o r becom e insufficient , an d th e party

f u r n i s h i n g t h e s a m e fai l t o fil e a n a d d i t i o n
a l
counter-bond , th e attachin g part y ma y appl y for a
new orde r o f attachment .
(12a)
Sec. 13.
Discharge of attachment on other grounds.
Th e part y w h o s e
propert y ha s bee n ordere d
attache d ma y fil e a motio n wit h th e cour t i n whic h
th e actio n i s pending , befor e o r afte r lev y o r eve n
after th e releas e o f th e attache d property , for a n
order t o se t asid e o r discharg e th e attachmen t o n
t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e s a m e
w a s i m p r o p e r l
o r
irregularly issue d o r enforced , o r tha t th e bon d i s
insufficient .
I f th e attachmen t i s excessive , th e
discharg e shal l b e limite d t o th e excess .
I
h e
motio n b e mad e o n affidavit s o n th e par t o f th e
movan t
bu t
no t o t h e r w i s e , th e a t t a c h i n g
y
ma y
o p p o s e t h e m o t i o n b y
c o u n t e r - a f f i
f t
part
d a
v i t s
o r othe r e v i d e n c e i n additio n t o tha t o n whic h
th e attachmen t wa s made .
Afte r du e notic e an d
hearing , th e cour t shal l orde r th e
s e t t i n g as
id e
o r th e correspondin g discharg e o f th e attachmen t
i f i t appear s tha t i t wa s improperl y o r irregularl y
issue d o r enforced , o r tha t th e bon d i s insufficient ,
o r tha t th e attachmen t i s excessive , an d th e defec t
i s no t cure d forthwith .
(13a)
NOTE S
1.
Preliminary attachmen t shal l be discharge d when
it i s establishe d tha t (a) The debtor ha s posted a counter-bond or ha s made
th e requisit e cash deposit (Sec. 12);
(b) Th e attachmen t wa
issued (Sec. 13) a s wher e ther e
(see Sec. 1), or th e affidavit
defective or insufficient (Sec.
s improperly or irregularly
i s no groun d for attachment
and/or bond filed therefor ar e
3);
708
----------------------- Page 709----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 1
3
(c) Th e attachmen t i s excessive , bu t th e discharg e
shall be limite d to th e exces s (Sec. 13);
(d) Th e propert y attache d i s exemp t from execution ,
henc e exemp t from preliminar y attachmen t (see Sees. 2
and 5); or
(e) Th e judgmen t i s rendere d agains t th e attachin g
creditor (se e Sec. 19).
2. Wher e th e attachmen t i s challenge d for havin g
bee n illegall y o r improperl y issued , ther e mus t b e a
hearing , wit h th e burde n o f proof t o sustai n th e wri t bein g
on th e attachin g
credito r
(Filinvest
Credit
Corp.
vs.
Relova,
supra; Benitez
vs. IAC,
et al., G.R. No.
71535,
Sept.
15,
1987;
Mindanao
Savings
&
Loan
Association,
Inc. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 84481, April 18,
1989).
An ex
parte
discharg e or suspensio n o f th e attachmen t i s a
disservice t o th e orderly administratio n o f justic e an d
nullifie s th e underlyin g rol e an d purpos e o f preliminar y
attachment in preservin g th e right s o f th e partie s pendente
lite a s an ancillary
remedy
(Peroxide Philippines
Corp.,
et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 92813, July 21, 1991).
3. Unlik
of preliminar y
resultin g from
poste d for th
e th e bond poste d for th e issuanc e of a wri t

attachment , which respond s for damage s
th e attachmen t (Sec. 20), th e counter-bon d
e discharg e o f such attachmen t respond s for
th e paymen t o f th e judgmen t recovere d by th e attachin g

creditor (Sec.
17), regardles s o f th e wording s o f th e
bond , a s thi s liability i s deeme d incorporate d therei n
(Leelin Marketing Corp.
vs. C & S Agro Dev.
Co., et al.,
L-38971, April 28,
1983).
An order for th e execution of
th e judgmen t pendin g appea l can als o b e enforced agains t
said counter-bon d
(see Phil. British Assurance
Co., Inc.
vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 72005, May 29,
1987; Not e 1 1
unde r Sec. 4, Rule 39).
4 . Th e merit s o f th e complaint ar e not triabl e in a
motion t o discharg e an attachment , otherwis e an applicant
709
----------------------- Page 710----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 14
for th e dissolution of th e writ could force a tria l on th e

merit s of th e cas e on th e strengt h alon e of such motion
(Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp.
vs. CA, et al.,
G.R.
No. 84588, May 29,
1991).
5.
Thus , when th e preliminary attachmen t i s issued
upon a groun d which also constitute s th e applicant' s cause
of action , suc h a s an actio n for mone y or propert y
embezzled or fraudulently converte d by th e defendant ,
h e i s not allowe d t o mov e for th e dissolutio n o f th e
attachment unde r Sec . 13 of thi s Rule by offering to show
th e falsity o f th e averment s in th e applicant' s motion and
supporting document s since th e hearin g on tha t motion
for dissolution would be tantamoun t to a tria l on th e merit s
in th e
main
action
(Chuidian
vs.
Sandiganbayan,
G.R.
No.
139941, Jan.
19, 2000).
A simila r doctrina l
l e
obtains in preliminary injunction (see Not e 7 under Sec.
1, Rule 58).
ru
Sec . 14 . Proceedings where property claimed by third

person.
I f t h e p r o p e r t y t a k e n i s claime d b y
an y
p e r s o n
o t h e r
t h a n
t h e
p a r t y
a g a i n s t
w h o m
a t t a c h m e n t h a d bee n issue d o r hi s agent , a n d suc h
p e r s o n m a k e s a n affidavi t o f h i s titl e t h e r e t
o , o r
r i g h t t o t h e possessio n thereof , s t a t i n g t h e g r o u n
d s
o f suc h r i g h t o r title , a n d serve s s u c h affidavi t upo n
t h e sherif f whil e t h e
l a t t e r h a s possessio n o f
th e
a t t a c h e d p r o p e r t y , a n d
a cop y t h e r e o f u p o n
t h e
a t t a c h i n g obligee , t h e sherif f shal l no t b e b o u n d t

o
k e e p t h e p r o p e r t y u n d e r a t t a c h m e n t ,
u n l e
s s t h e
a t t a c h i n g p a r t y o r h i s a g e n t , o n d e m a n d
o f t h e
sheriff, shal l fil e a bon d a p p r o v e d b y t h e c o u r
t t o
idemnify t h e t h i r d - p a r t y c l a i m a n t i n a s u m no t l
es s
t h a n t h e v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y levie d
u p o n
.
I n
cas e o f d i s a g r e e m e n t a s t o s u c h v a l u e , t h
e sam e
shal l b e d e c i d e d b y t h e c o u r t i s s u i n g t h e
wri t o f
a t t a c h m e n t . N o clai m for d a m a g e s for t h e t a k i
n g
or k e e p i n g o f t h e p r o p e r t y ma y b e enforce d agains t
710
----------------------- Page 711----------------------RULE 57
. 14
SEC
th e bon d unles s th e actio n therefo r i s file d withi n

on e hundre d t w e n t y (120) day s fro m th e dat e o f th e
filin g o f th e bond .
Th e sherif f shal l no t b e liabl e fo r damages , fo r
th e takin g o r k e e p i n g o f suc h property , t o an y suc h
third-part y claimant , i f suc h bon d shal l b e filed .
N o t h i n g
h e r e i n c o n t a i n e d s h a l l p r e v e n t s u
c h
claiman t o r an y thir d perso n fro m vindicatin g hi s
c l a i m t o th e property , o r p r e v e n t t h e a t t a c h i
n g
part y fro m claimin g damage s agains t a third-part y
claiman t w h o file d a frivolou s o r plainl y spuriou s
claim , i n th e sam e o r a separat e action .
Whe n th e wri t o f attachmen t i s issue d i n favo r
o f th e Republi c o f th e
Philippines , o r an y office r
duly r e p r e s e n t i n g it , th e filin g o f suc h bon d sha
l l
not b e required , an d i n cas e th e sherif f i s sue d fo r
damage s a s a resul t o f th e attachment , h e shal l b e
represente d
b y th e Solicito r General , an d i f hel d
liabl e therefor , th e actua l damage s adjudge d b y th e
cour t shal l b e pai d b y th e Nationa l Treasure r ou t
o f th e fund s t o b e appropriate d fo r th e purpose .
(14a)
NOTE S
1. Se e Sec . 16, Rul e 39 for a substantiall y identica l
procedur e wher e propert y levie d upon on execution i s
claimed by a thir d person .
2 . Wher e th e propert y o f a defendan t ha s

attached , a thir d part y claimin g an interes t therei n
maintai n a separat e action t o vindicat e hi s interes t
th e property an d th e injunctiv e relie f grante d in th
case doe s not constitut e an interferenc e with th e wri
attachment issue d by th e other court a s thi s procedur
sanctioned by Sec . 14 of Rul e 57 (Traders Royal Bank
IAC, et al., G.R. No. 66321, Oct. 31, 1984).
bee n
can
over
e latte r
t o f
e i s
vs.
711
----------------------- Page 712----------------------RULE 57
CS. 1516
Sec .
property
attached; return
b y
t h e a t
n
i s s u e
t h e r e o n , t
b e
s a t i s f i e d
i f i t b e
sufficient for t
e e
p r o
o p e
sold
o r
m u c
n t ;
16 .
Satisfaction
of
judgment
of sheriff. If j u d g m e n t be
t a c h i n g
o b l i g e e a n d
h e
out
of
recovere d
e x e c u t i o
sherif f ma y c a u s e t h e j u d g m e n t t o
o u t o f t h e
p r o p e r t y
a t t a c h e d ,
h a t p u r p o s e i n t h e followin g m a n n e r :
(a)
B y
p a
t h e
c e e d s o f al l
r t y
i n p u r s u a n
s o
h a s shal l b e
(b)
I
in g s o
m u c h o f t h
ma y b e
n e c e s s a r y
t h a t
p u r p o s e r
n thos e
o f t h e cler
SE
y i n g
t h e
j u d g m e n t
o b l i g
sale s o f p e r i s h a b l e o r o t h e r p r
c e
o f t h e
o r d e r
o f t h e
court ,
n e c e s s a r y t o satisf y t h e j u d g m e
f a n y
e
t o
b a l a n c e
p r o p e r t y ,
t o satisf y t h e
e m a i n
i n t h e
k o f t h e
r e m a i n
d u e ,
b y
r e a l o r p e r s o n a l ,
sell
a s
b a l a n c e , i f e n o u g h for
s h e r i f f s h a n d s , o r i
court ;
(c)
B y collectin g fro m al l p e r s o n s h a v i n g
i n
t h e i r possessio n c r e d i t s belongin g t o t h e j u d g m e n t
obligor
e o f
th e a
o u n t
o f suc
ur t
i n t
t ,
, o r o w i n g d e b t s t o t h e l a t t e r a t t h e tim
t t a c h m e n t o f s u c h c r e d i t s o r debts , t h e a m
h credit s a n d d e b t s a s d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e co
h e a c t i o n , a n d
a n d
s t a t e d
i n
t h e
j u d g m e n
p a y i n g t h e p r o c e e d s
e
j u d g m e n t obligee .
o f suc h collectio n ove r t o th
Th e
sherif f shal l f o r t h w i t h m a k e a r e t u r
n i n
w r i t i n g t o t h e c o u r t o f hi s p r o c e e d i n g s u n
d e r thi s
section a n d furnis h t h e p a r t i e s wit h copie s thereof .
(15a)
Sec .
16 . Balance due collected
upon an
execution;
excess delivered to judgment obligor. If afte r realizin g
u p o n
al l
t h e p r o p e r t y
a t t a c h e d , i n c l u d
i n g t h e
p r o c e e d s
o f a n y
d e b t s o r c r e d i t s c o l l e c
t e d , a n d
a p p l y i n g t h e p r o c e e d s
t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i
o n o f t h e
j u d g m e n t ,
les s t h e e x p e n s e s o f p r o c e e d i n
g s upo n
t h e j u d g m e n t , a n y b a l a n c e shal l r e m a i n d u e
, th e
sheriff, u p o n r e a s o n a b l e d e m a n d , m u s t r e t u r n t
o th e
712
----------------------- Page 713----------------------RULE 57
SEC. 17
j u d g m e n t obligo r th e attache d propert y remainin g

i n hi s hands , an d an y proceed s o f th e sal e
p r o p e r t y a t t a c h e d no t a p p l i e d t o
n t .
(16a)
t h e
o f th e
j u d g m e
Sec. 17. Recovery upon the counter-bond.

Whe n
th e j u d g m e n t ha s becom e executory , th e suret y o r
suretie s o n an y counter-bon d give n pursuan t t o th e
provision s o f thi s Rul e t o secur e th e paymen t o f th e
j u d g m e n t shal l becom e charge d o n suc h counter bond , an d boun d t o pa y th e judgmen t oblige e upo n
demand , th e amoun t du e unde r th e judgment , whic h
a m o u n t m a y b e r e c o v e r e d fro m s u c h s u r e t y o r
suretie s afte r notic e an d summar y hearin g i n th e
sam e action .
(17a )
NOTE S
1. Where the writ of execution is returned
unsatisfied, the liability of the counter-bond automatically
attaches without the need for the plaintiff to file a
supplemental pleading to claim payment from the surety
(Vanguard
Assurance
Corp.
vs.
CA,
et al.,
May 27, 1975), but the creditor must have made a demand
on the surety for satisfaction of the judgment and the
L-25921,
surety was given notice and a summary hearing in the

same action as to his liability under his counter-bond
(Towers Assurance
Corp.
vs. Ororama
Supermart,
L-45848, Nov.
9, 1977; Leelin Marketing Corp.
vs
Agro Dev. Co., et al., supra).
et al.,
C & S
2. A writ of execution for recovery on the counterbond issued against the surety who was not given notice
and an opportunity to be heard is invalid (Towers
Assurance
Corp.
vs. Ororama
Supermart,
et al., supra).
3. Where, however, damages were assessed against
the counter-bond after notice and hearing, a writ of
execution to satisfy the same may forthwith issue and the
713
----------------------- Page 714----------------------RULE 57
18-19
SECS.
order for it s issuanc e i s generally not appealable .

Ther e
is no need for a separat e action to recover on th e counter bond (Imperial Insurance, Inc. vs. De los Angeles, L-28030,
Jan. 18, 1982).
While Sec . 17 provide s tha t th e counter bond i s liable for "th e amoun t du e unde r th e judgment, "
th e surety cannot be held liable for any deficiency in th e
recovery i f it i s in exces s o f th e amoun t state d in th e
counter-bond as , in thi s case , th e term s thereo f constitut e
th e law between th e parties , an d not th e Rule s o f Court
(Central Surety
& Insurance Co.,
Inc.
vs.
Ubay,
et al.,
L-40334, Feb. 28,
1985).
Sec .
18 . Disposition of money deposited. Wher e
t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t
w h o m
a t t a c h m e n t
h a d
b e e n
i s s u e d h a s
d e p o s i t e d m o n e y
i n s t e a d o f
g i v i n g
counter-bond , i t shal l b e applie d u n d e r t h e directio n
o f t h e c o u r t t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f a n y j
u d g m e n t
r e n d e r e d i n favo r o f t h e a t t a c h i n g obligee , a n d af
te r
s a t i s f y i n g t h e j u d g m e n t
t h e
b a l a n c e
s h
a l l b e
r e f u n d e d t o t h e d e p o s i t o r o r hi s assignee .
I f t h e
j u d g m e n t i s i n favo r o f t h e
p a r t y a g a i n s t
w h o m
a t t a c h m e n t w a s
issued , t h e whol e s u m deposite d
m u s t b e r e f u n d e d t o h i m o r hi s assignee .
(18a
)
Sec .
19 .
Disposition
of
attached
property
where
judgment
is for party against whom attachment was issued.
I f j u d g m e n t b e r e n d e r e d a g a i n s t t h e a t t
a c h i n g
obligee , al l th e proceed s o f sale s an d mone y collecte d
o r r e c e i v e d b y t h e
sheriff ,
u n d e r t h e o r d
e r
o f
a t t a c h m e n t , a n d al l p r o p e r t y a t t a c h e d r e m
a i n i n g
i n an y suc h officer' s h a n d s , shal l b e delivere d t o th e
p a r t y a g a i n s t w h o m a t t a c h m e n t wa s issued , a n d
th e
o r d e r o f a t t a c h m e n t d i s c h a r g e d . (19a )
NOT E
1. Sees . 1 8 an d 19 provid e for th e procedur e in th e
disposition of (1) money which wa s deposite d by a party
714
----------------------- Page 715----------------------RULE 57
. 20
SEC
against who m attachmen t wa s ordere d instea d o f hi s

postin g a counter-bon d for th e liftin g o f th e levy ; an d
(2) wher e propert y wa s attache d or sold , or money du e t o
th e part y agains t whom attachmen t wa s issue d ha d been
collected by th e court officer unde r th e wri t o f attachment ,
bu t th e judgmen t wa s agains t th e attachin g creditor .
Restitution in eithe r cas e i s indicate d an d governe d by
thes e sections , withou t prejudic e t o th e liability o f th e
attachin g credito r unde r th e following section .
Sec.
20 . Claim for damages on account of improper,
irregular or excessive attachment.
An applicatio n fo r
d a m a g e s
o n a c c o u n t o f i m p r o p e r , i r r e g u l a
r o r
excessiv e attachmen t mus t b e file d befor e th e tria l
o r befor e appea l i s perfecte d o r befor e th e judgmen t
b e c o m e s
e x e c u t o r y , w i t h
d u e
n o t i c e t o
t h e
attachin g oblige e an d hi s suret y o r sureties , settin g
fort h th e fact s s h o w i n g hi s righ t t o damage s an d
th e amoun t thereof .
Suc h damage s ma y b e awarde d
only afte r prope r hearin g an d shal l b e include d i n
th e judgmen t o n th e mai n case .
I f t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t
b e
favorabl e t o th e
part y agains t w h o m th e attach men t wa s issued , h e mus t clai m damage s sustaine d
d u r i n g th e p e n d e n c y o f th e a p p e a l b y filin g
a n
applicatio n i n th e appellat e cour t wit h notic e t o th e
party i n whos e favo r th e attachmen t wa s issue d o r
hi s suret y o r sureties , befor e th e judgmen t o f th e
appellat e cour t become s executory .
Th e appellat e
cour t ma y allo w th e applicatio n t o b e hear d an d
decide d b y th e tria l court .
N o t h i n g
party agains t
recoverin g i n
t o hi m fro m
no t e x e m p
o r
deposi t give n
w h
th
an
t
h e r e i n containe d
shal l
preven t
th e
o m th e attachmen t wa s issue d fro m

e sam e actio n th e damage s awarde d
y propert y o f th e attachin g oblige e
fro m e x e c u t i o n
s h o u l d th e bon d
b y th e latte r b e insufficien t o r fai l t o

715
----------------------- Page 716----------------------RULE 57
fully satisf y t h e a w a r d .
8EC. 20
(20a )
NOTE S
1. Thi s section govern s th e consequence s wher e th e
attaching creditor fails t o sustai n hi s action an d judgment
is rendere d agains t him .
Th e debtor whos e property wa s
attache d ca n procee d agains t th e bon d poste d by th e
attachin g credito r t o obtai n th e wri t o f preliminar y
attachment .
2 . However , even i f judgmen t wa s rendere d against
th e attachin g creditor bu t h e prove s tha t h e acte d in good
faith i n procurin g suc h preliminar y attachment , th e
adverse part y canno t recover on th e attachmen t bond
(Banque
General
Beige
vs. Bull &
Co.,
84 Phil.
164;
Worcester vs.
Lorenzana,
104 Phil.
234).
3. Sec . 20 provide s for th e procedur e to be followed
in recoverin g damage s agains t th e bond poste d by th e
attaching creditor .
Such procedur e i s th e sam e a s tha t
for recovery o f damage s agains t th e bond poste d by th e
applicant i n preliminar y injunction , receivershi p o r
replevin (see Malayan Insurance Co.
vs. Salas,
L-48820,
May 25,
1979).
4 . Th e application for damage s mus t be mad e by a
counterclaim
in th e answe r
(Ganaway
vs. Fidelity
&
Surety Co., Inc.,
45 Phil. 406; Medina
vs. Maderera del
Norte de Catanduanes, 51 Phil. 240) or by motion in th e
same action .
It shoul d b e filed in th e tria l court at any
tim e befor e th e tria l o r befor e th e appea l from th e
judgmen t therei n i s perfecte d or before such judgmen t
become s
executory ,
an d shal l includ e
al l damage s
sustaine d b y
reaso n o f th e a t t a c h m e n t durin g th e
pendency of th e cas e in th e tria l court
College vs. SSS, L-27493, May 29, 1970, an d
therei n regardin g th e
bon d i n injunctio
Mendoza, et al. vs. Cruz, et al, L-26829, Dec.
716
----------------------- Page 717-----------------------
(see San Beda

case s cited
n cases ; cf.
27,
1979).
RULE 57
SEC. 20
If the case is appealed and the judgment of the

appellate court is in favor of the party whose property
was attached, he can ask for damages sustained by him
during the pendency of the appeal by filing a motion in
the appellate court at any time before such judgment on
appeal becomes executory (Luneta Motor Co. vs. Menendez,
et al, 117 Phil. 970), but if he did not apply for damages
in the trial court, he cannot ask for damages during the
pendency of the trial by motion in the appellate court.
However, where the writ of preliminary attachment issued
by the trial court was declared null and void in an original
action before the appellate court, the damages sustained
by the party whose property was attached can be
adjudicated on appeal in the main case by the Court of
Appeals, especially since Sec. 9 of B.P. Big. 129 grants it
the power to resolve factual issues in cases falling within
its original or appellate jurisdiction. The appellate court
shall hear and decide the application and include in its
judgment the award against the surety, or it may refer
such claim to the trial court and allow it to hear and decide
the same (Hanil Dev. Co., Ltd. vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No.
71229, Sept. 30, 1986).
5. The surety must be notified of the application for
damages, otherwise the judgment thereon cannot be
executed against him. Where the judgment became final
and the surety was not impleaded by such notice, the
surety is relieved from liability
(Visayan
Surety &
Insurance Co. vs. Pascual, 85 Phil. 779).
For the same
rule in injunction bonds, see Visayan Surety & Insurance
Co. vs. Lacson (96 Phil. 878). The damages recoverable
for a wrongful attachment is limited to the amount of the
bond (Pads vs. COMELEC, L-29026, Aug. 22,
1969).
6. The procedure for claiming damages outlined in
Sec. 20 is exclusive, hence such claims for damages cannot
be the subject of an independent action, except:
(a) Where the principal case was dismissed for lack
717
----------------------- Page 718----------------------RULE 57
of jurisdiction by the trial court without giving an

opportunity to the party whose property was attached to
apply for and prove his claim for damages; and
(b) Where the damages by reason of the attachment
was sustained by a third person who was not a party to
the action wherein such writ was issued (Santos vs. CA,
et al.. 95 Phil. 360).
7. The claim for damages against the bond in an
alleged wrongful attachment can only be sought in the
same court where the bond was filed and the attachment
SEC. 20
was issued. Where the action filed in the Court of First

Instance of Manila, which issued the writ of preliminary
attachment, was subsequently dismissed for improper
venue, it was not error for said court to set the case for
hearing only on the issue of damages but which application
for damages was later withdrawn by the defendant.
Neither did the Court of First Instance of Cebu, wherein
the same case was subsequently refiled, have jurisdiction
to rule on the issue of damages on the bond as therein
claimed by the same defendant since it was not the court
which issued the writ of preliminary attachment subject
of defendant's claim for damages and it had no jurisdiction
over the surety company which issued said bond, pursuant
to Sec. 20 of this Rule. The doctrine in Santos vs. CA, et
al., supra, is not applicable since in said case, the principal
action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no claim
for damages could therefore have been presented therein
(Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp., et al. vs. Hontanosas,
et al, L-35951, Aug. 31, 1977).
8. The procedure under this section is different from
that in Sec. 17 of this Rule regarding the liability of the
surety on the counter-bond posted for the lifting of the
preliminary attachment, under which the surety may be
held liable after notice and summary hearing if execution
of the judgment was returned unsatisfied
(Towers
Assurance
Corp.
vs. Ororama
Supermart,
supra).
718
----------------------- Page 719----------------------RULE
PRELIMINARY
5 8
INJUNCTIO N
Sectio n
1.
Preliminary
injunction
defined; classe
s.
A preliminar y injunctio n i s a n orde r grante d a t
any stag e o f a n actio n o r proceedin g prio r t o th e
j u d g m e n t o r fina l order , r e q u i r i n g a part y o r
a
c o u r t , a g e n c y
o r a p e r s o n
t o r e f r a i n f r o m
a
p a r t i c u l a r ac t o r a c t s . I t ma y a l s o r e q u i r
e t h e
performanc e o f a particula r ac t o r acts , i n w h i c h
cas e i t shal l b e know n a s a preliminar y mandator y
injunction ,
(la )
Sec.
r
th e tria l
i s e n t i
o f
permanentl y
i n j u n c t
o r
p e r s o n
o n -
9.
When
final
injunction granted.
If
afte
o f th e actio n i t appear s tha t th e applican t

t l e d t o h a v e th e ac t o r act s complaine d
enjoined , th e cour t shal l gran t a fina l
i o n p e r p e t u a l l y r e s t r a i n i n g
e n j o i n e d
fro m
t h e c o m m i s s i o n
th e part y
o r
t i n u a n c e o f t h e a c t o r
t h e
preliminar y mandator y injunction .
a c t s o r c o n f i r m i n g
(10a)
NOTE S
1. Injunction i s a judicia l writ , proces s or proceedin g
whereby a part y i s ordere d to do or refrain from doin g a
particula r act .
It may b e an action in itself , brough t
specifically t o restrai n or comman d th e performanc e o f an
act (se e Art.
26,
Civil Code;
Sec.
4, Rule
39;
a
Banking Corp., et al. vs. CA, et al, L-45961, July 3,
0),
or it may jus t b e a provisiona l remed y for an d a s
incident in th e main action which may b e for othe r reliefs .
In it s customary usage , injunction i s a judicia l proces s
operating in personam, an d requirin g a person to whom it
is directe d to do or refrain from doing a particula r thin g
(Gainsberg vs. Dodge, 193 Art. 478, 101 S.W. 2d 178).
In
719
----------------------- Page 720----------------------RULE 68
SECS
1. 9
the amended Sec. 1 of this Rule, the coverage of the writ

has been expanded to include a party or a court, agency
or person for whom its directive may be intended, in line
with judicial practice and procedure which justifies or
necessitates such restraint against a court or agency
impleaded as a respondent in a higher court or a nonparty whose acts are involved in the proceeding.
2. The primary purpose of injunction is to preserve
the status quo by restraining action or interference or by
furnishing preventive relief. The status quo is the last
actual, peaceable, uncontested status which precedes the
pending controversy
(Rodulfa vs. Alfonso, 76 Phil. 225).
This rule deals with injunction as a provisional
remedy. Thus, the main action may be for permanent
injunction and the plaintiff may ask for preliminary
injunction therein pending the final judgment (see Manila
Banking Corp.
vs. CA, et al., G.R. Nos. 45961, July
1990).
3. Injunction may be preliminary or final. Preliminary injunction, under Sec. 1, is an order granted at
any stage of an action prior to the judgment or final order
therein. A final injunction, under Sec. 9, is one issued in
the judgment in the case permanently restraining the
defendant or making the preliminary injunction
permanent. For this reason, Sees. 1 and 9 of this Rule
are presented jointly for referential contrast.
3,
Manil
199
an
Injunction may also be preventive (or prohibitive) or

mandatory. As provided in these sections, a preventive
injunction requires a person to refrain from doing a
particular act, while a mandatory injunction requires the
performance of a particular act.
4. A mandatory injunction is an extreme remedy and
will be granted only on a showing that (a) the invasion
of the right is material and substantial, (b) the right of
the complainant is clear and unmistakable, and (c) there
720
----------------------- Page 721----------------------RULE 58
9
i s
a n
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
urgen t
an d
preven t seriou s damag e

al.,
100 Phil.
1078).
paramoun t
SECS. 1,
necessit y
for th e
(Bautista, et al.
And in Lemi vs.
wri t
t o
vs. Barcelona, et
Valencia.
(L-20768 ,
Feb . 28 , 1963) , a furthe r requisit e i s tha t th e effect o f th

e
mandatory injunction would not b e to creat e a new relation
betwee n th e partie s which wa s arbitraril y interrupte d by
th e defendan t (see Alvaro, et al.
vs. Zapata, et al., G.R
.
No. 50548, Nov. 25,
1982).
Tha t requisite , however , is
already assume d in preliminar y injunction which ha s for
it s purpos e precisely th e preservatio n o f th e status quo
ante (Rivera, et al. vs. Florendo, etc., et al, G.R. No. 57586,
Oct. 8, 1986).
To b e entitle d t o an injunctiv e writ , it i s necessary
tha t ther e b e a clear showin g o f th e righ t claime d by th e
applicant , althoug h n o conclusiv e proof i s necessary at
tha t stage .
Nevertheless , i t mus t b e shown , a t leas t
tentatively , t h a t i t exist s an d i s not vitiate d b y an
y
substantial challeng e or contradiction (Developers Group
of Companies, Inc. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 104583, Mar. 8,
1993).
5. A preventiv e preliminary injunction , a s succinctly
summarized by th e Suprem e Court , i s an order grante d
at any stag e o f an action prior t o final judgment , requirin g
a person t o refrain from doing a particula r act .
A s a
n
ancillary remedy , preliminar y injunction may b e resorte d
to by a part y t o protec t or preserv e hi s right s an d for n o
other purpose .
It i s not a caus e o f action in itsel f bu
t
merely an adjunct t o a main cause , in order t o preserv e
th e status quo unti l th e merit s o f th e cas e can b e heard .
Thus , a person wh o i s not a part y in th e main sui t canno t
b e boun d by an ancillary writ o f injunction sinc e h e cannot
b e affected by a proceedin g to which h e i s a strange r
(Mabuyo
Aug.
Farms,
Inc.
vs.
CA,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
140058,
1, 2002; citation s omitted) .

6 . Distinction s between injunction an d prohibition :
a . Injunction i s
generally directe d agains t a part y

721
----------------------- Page 722----------------------RULE 58
SECS. 1. 9
in the action, while prohibition is directed against a court,

tribunal or person exercising judicial powers.
b. Injunction does not involve the jurisdiction of the
court, whereas prohibition may be on the ground that the
court against whom the writ is sought acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction.
c. Injunction may be the main action itself, or just a
provisional remedy in the main action, whereas prohibition
is always a main action. Hence, for temporary restraint
in a proceeding for prohibition, preliminary injunction
must be sought therein.
7. As a general rule, courts should avoid issuing a
writ of preliminary injunction which in effect disposes of
the main case without trial. Otherwise, if the main prayer
of the complaint has been granted through a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction, there will practically
be nothing left for the lower court to try except the
plaintiffs claim for damages
(Ortigas & Co. Limited
Partnership vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 79128, June 16, 1988).
8. Where the only ground relied upon for injunctive
relief is the alleged nullity of an ordinance, if the court
should issue the preliminary writ, it would be a virtual
acceptance that the ordinance is of doubtful validity.
There would, in effect, be a prejudgment of the main case
and a reversal of the rule on burden of proof since it would
assume the proposition which the petitioner is inceptively
duty bound to prove
(Valley Trading Co., Inc. vs. CFI of
Isabela, et al., L-49529, Mar. 31, 1989).
9. In the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction,
the courts are given sufficient discretion to determine the
necessity of the grant thereof, with the caveat that
extreme caution be observed in the exercise of such
discretion. It must be with an equal degree of care and
caution that courts ought to proceed in the denial of the
writ. It should not just summarily issue an order of denial
722
----------------------- Page 723----------------------RULE 58
SECS.
1, 9
withou t an
t h e m e r
d
improvident
procedura l
al.,
G.R. No.
which
adequat e hearin g an d judiciou s evaluatio n o f

i t s o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . A perfunctor y
an
action in thi s regar d woul d b e a denia l o f

du e proces s
(Bataclan, et al.
vs. CA,
78148,
July
31,
et
1989).
10. A secon d application for preliminar y injunction ,

rest s i n th e soun d discretio n o f th e court ,
wil l
ordinarily b e denie d unles s it i s base d on fact s unknow n

at th e tim e o f th e first application .
Th e reaso n for thi
s
rul e i s th e sam e a s th e interdiction on splittin g a singl e
cause o f action whil e providin g for permissiv e joinde r o f
cause s o f action , both intende d t o avoid multiplicity o f
suits .
However , thi s rul e applie s only wher e th e secon d
application i s t o operat e on th e sam e act sough t t o b e
enjoined in th e first application , an d canno t b e invoke d
wher e relie f i s sough t agains t a different act
(Reyes
vs.
CA, et al, G.R. No. 87647, May 21,
1990).
11. A preliminar y mandator y injunctio n i s
prope r remed y t o tak e dispute d propert y ou t
possession an d contro l o f one part y an d t o deliver th
to th e othe r party .
It may issu e pendente
no t a
o f th e
e sam e
lite only
cases o f extrem e urgency , wher e th e right t o th e possession

of th e property involved i s very clear ; wher e consideration s
of relativ e inconvenienc e bea r strongly in favor o f th e
complainant seekin g th e possession o f th e property durin g
th e pendency o f th e main case ; wher e ther e wa s willful
and unlawfu l invasion o f th e plaintiff s right s over hi s
protes t an d remonstrance , th e injury bein g a continuin g
one ; an d wher e th e effect o f th e preliminary mandator y
injunction i s t o reestablish an d maintai n a pre-existin g
and continuin g relationship between th e parties , recently
and arbitraril y interrupte d by th e defendants , rathe r tha n
to establis h a new relationship whil e th e principa l cas e i s
pendin g
(Merville
Park
Homeowners
Association,
Inc.
vs. Velez, et al., G.R. No. 82985, April 22, 1991).
in
723
----------------------- Page 724----------------------RULE 58
SEC. 2
S e c 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction.

A
preliminar y injunctio n ma y b e grante d b y th e cour t
wher e th e actio n o r proceedin g i s pending .
I f th e
actio n o r proceedin g i s p e n d i n g i n th e Cour t o f
Appeal s o r i n th e Suprem e Court , i t ma y b e issue d
by sai d cour t o r an y membe r thereof .
(2a)
NOTE S
1.
Jurisdictiona l rule s on preliminary injunction :
a . Th e Suprem e Court can issu e th e preliminary writ

in case s on appea l before it or in original action s commenced
therein .
However , an origina l action for injunction i s
outside th e jurisdiction o f th e Suprem e Court bu t mus t b e
filed in th e Cour t
o f Firs t Instanc e
(Madarang
Santamaria, 3 7 Phil. 304) or in th e Court of Appeals .
vs.
b . Formerly , th e Court o f Appeal s could issu e writ s

of preliminar y injunctio n only in ai d o f it s appellat
jurisdiction .
A s thi s presuppose s tha t ther e i s a right
appeal t o sai d court , the n th e Court o f Appeal s ha d n
jurisdictio n to issu e a writ of preliminary injunction to
restrain a final judgmen t
(J.M Tuason & Co. vs. CA,
al., L-18128 an d 18672, Dec. 26,
1961).
e
o f
o
et
However , unde r Sec . 9(1) o f B.P . Big .

129 , th e
presen t Court o f Appeal s can now issu e auxiliary writ s
whether or not thes e ar e in aid o f it s appellat e jurisdiction .
Consequently, it i s submitte d tha t th e foregoing doctrin e
ha s been modified in th e sens e tha t despit e thi s chang e in
legislation, n o such auxiliary writ s can likewis e b e issued
if th e judgment of th e lower court ha s already become final
and executory , unless th e writ i s praye d for a s a provisional
remedy in an origina l action filed in th e Court o f Appeal s
challenging or seekin g t o restrai n th e enforcement o f said
judgmen t or t o annu l th e sam e a s in Rul e 47 .
c.
issue
Also , a Court of Firs t Instanc e ha d jurisdiction to

writ s o f preliminar y injunction in case s pendin g
724
----------------------- Page 725----------------------RULE 58
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
SEC. 2
before it and those pending in lower courts within its

territorial jurisdiction. However (1) The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance
to restrain acts by a writ of injunction was limited to
those being or about to be committed within its
territorial jurisdiction
(Central Bank
vs. Cajigal,
L-19278,
Dec.
29, 1962; Hacbang
vs. Leyte Autobus
Co., L-17907, May 30, 1963; De la Cruz vs. Gabor,
et
al, L-30774, Oct. 31, 1969; City ofDavao vs. Angeles,
et al, L-30719,
May
26, 1977;
Mendoza
vs. Cruz,
L-26829, Dec. 27, 1979; Sec. 44[h], R.A. 296).
Insofar
as injunctive or prohibitory writs were concerned,
Courts of First Instance had the power to issue writs
limited to or operative only within their respective
provinces or districts (now, regions, [Par. 3(a), Interim
Rules]).
The provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 135 were
delimited on this particular score by Sec. 44(h) of R.A .
296, as amended
(Dir. of Forestry, et al. vs. Ruiz, et
al, L-24882, April 30, 1971) and further modified as
above indicated. Where the order dismissing the

plaintiff employee was issued by the Commissioner of
Land Transportation in the head office in Quezon City
but the dismissal order was to be implemented by the
registrar of the LTC in Dagupan City, the Court of
First Instance in Dagupan City had jurisdiction to
issue a writ of preliminary injunction against said
registrar
(Decano vs. Edu, L-30070, Aug. 29, 1980;
cf. Olongapo Electric, etc., Corp. vs. NPC,
L-24912,
April 9, 1987).
(2) It could not issue writ s of preliminary
injunction in unfair labor practices, or where the issue
involved is interwoven with an unfair labor practice
case pending in the then Court of Industrial Relations (Chan Bros., Inc. vs. FOITAFDemocratic Labor
Union,
L-34761, Jan. 17,
1974).
The same rule
applies in proceedings under the Labor Code (see
Art. 254, P.D. 442, infra), with exceptions.
725
----------------------- Page 726----------------------RULE 68
SEC. 2
(3) It could not issu e a writ of preliminary injunction agains t th e Social Security Commission (Poblete
Construction
Co.
vs. SSC,
L-17606, Jon.
22,
1964),
th e Securitie s an d Exchang e Commission (Pineda vs.
Lantin, L-15350, Nov.
30, 1962; Phil. Pacific Fishing
Co., Inc. vs. Luna, G.R. No. 59070, Mar. 15,
1982),
or in dispute s within th e exclusiv e jurisdiction o f th e
Securities an d Exchang e Commission
(Dionisio, et
al. vs. CFI, et al, G.R. No. 61048, Aug. 17, 1983), or
th e forme r
Publi c
Servic e
Commissio n
(Iloilo
Commercial & Ice Co.
vs. Public Service Commission,
56
Phil.
28;
Regalado
vs.
Prov.
Constabulary
Commander, etc., L-15674, Nov. 29, 1961), th e Paten t
Office (Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
vs. San
Diego, L22756, Mar.
18, 1966), or th e Commission
on Election s (Macud vs.
COMELEC, et al, L-28562,
April 25, 1968), a s th e remedy lie s in eithe r th e Court
of Appeal s or th e Suprem e Court , a s th e cas e may b e
(cf. National Electrification Adm.,
et al vs. Mendoza,
et al, G.R. No. 62030, Sept. 25, 1985).
(4) It could not interfer e by injunction with th e
judgmen t o f a cour t o f concurren t or coordinat e
jurisdictio n
(Calderon
vs. Gomez,
etc., L-25239,
Nov.
18, 1967; Luciano
vs. Provincial Governor,
et
al, L-30306,
June
20,
1969), provide d
th e relie f
sought by suc h injunctio n i s on e whic h coul d b e
granted by th e court which rendere d th e judgmen t
(Abiera, et al. vs. CA, et al, L-26294, May 31, 1972),
or when no third-part y claimant i s involved . When a
thir d party , or strange r t o th e action assert s a claim
t o th e propert y levied upon , h e may vindicat e hi s
claim by an independen t action an d th e court therein
may enjoin th e execution o f th e judgmen t o f th e other
court
(Tay Sun
Jan. 7, 1994).
Suy
vs.
CA,
et al,
G.R.
No.
93640,
d . An injunction suit agains t th e telephon e company

(PLDT) which cut off it s telephon e relay station i s within
726
----------------------- Page 727----------------------RULE 58
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
SEC. 2
the jurisdiction of the regular courts, and not of the

National Telecommunications Commission, since what is
involved is an alleged breach of contract, with a prayer
for damages, which are judicial questions (Boiser vs. CA,
et al., G.R. No. 61438, June 24, 1983).
e. Formerly, the inferior courts could originally grant
preliminary injunction only in forcible entry cases (Sec.
88, R.A. 296; Art. 539, Civil Code; Sec. 3, Rule 70),
not in unlawful detainer cases (Piit vs. De Lara, 58 Phil.
766); but in unlawful detainer cases on appeal, the
appellate court may grant preliminary injunction where
the appeal appears to be frivolous or dilatory (see Art. 1674,
Civil Code; Sec. 9, Rule 70).
but
In other cases, the inferior courts could not issue writs

of preliminary injunction, except that the former City
Courts or municipal courts in capitals of provinces or
sub-provinces may do so in the absence of the District
Judge (Sec. 88, R.A. 296).
See, however, Sec. 33 of B.P. Big. 129 discussed in
the preliminary portion of this work, regarding the changes
affecting the foregoing doctrines.
2. While preliminary injunction can be challenged
by certiorari, a judgment for permanent injunction should
be the subject of an appeal (Gasilan, et al. vs. Ibanez, et
al., L-19968-69, Oct. 31, 1962).
3. "No temporary or permanent injunction or
restraining order in any case involving or growing out of
labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity
except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of
this Code" (Art. 254, P.D. 442, Labor Code, as amended
by B.P. Big. 227; Pucan, et al. vs. Benson, et al., G.R. No.
74236, Nov. 27, 1987).
For injunction and restraining
orders in labor cases, see Arts. 218 and 264 of the Labor
Code and Sec. 13 of Rule XXII, Book V, Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code. However, where the writ
727
----------------------- Page 728----------------------RULE 58
of execution issued by the National Labor Relations
SEC. 2
Commission is sought to be enforced upon the property of

a third person, a separate action for injunctive relief
against said levy may be maintained since such action
neither involves nor grows out of a labor dispute insofar as the third party is concerned
(National Mines &
Allied Workers' Union, et al. vs. Vera, etc., et al., L-44230,
Nov. 19, 1984).
4. "No Court of the Philippines shall have jurisdiction
to issue any restraining order, preliminary injunction or
preliminary mandatory injunction in any case involving
or growing out of the issuance, approval or disapproval,
revocation or suspension of, or any action whatsoever by
the proper administrative official or body on concessions,
licenses, permits, patents, or public grants of any kind or
in connection with the disposition, exploitation, utilization,
exploration and/or development of the natural resources
of the Philippines" (Sec. 1, P.D. 605; see Strong vs. Castro,
et al., G.R. No. 63658, June 29, 1985).
5. A special procedure involving restraining orders
and writs of injunction against financial institutions of
the Government is provided by P.D . 385 which bans
injunctions against foreclosures so that government
financial institutions are not denied cash inflows by
borrowers who resort to court action in order to delay the
collection of their debts by the Government (see Filipinos
Marble Co., Inc. vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 68010, May 30,
1986).
6. R.A . 8975, which was enacted on November 7,
2000, provides that no court, except the Supreme Court,
shall issue any temporary restraining order, preliminary
injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against
the Government, or any person or entity, whether public
or private, acting under the Government's direction, to
restrain or prohibit or compel the acts stated therein which
would adversely affect the expeditious implementation and
728
----------------------- Page 729----------------------RULE 58
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
completion of government infrastructure projects

(Appendix
V).
7. The Court of First Instance of a judicial district
can enjoin the sheriff from selling properties levied upon
to satisfy the judgment of a Court of First Instance of
another judicial district.
Thus, where the properties
involved were those of a stranger to the action, the Court
of First Instance of Rizal can validly issue a writ of
injunction to prevent the sale thereof which was intended
to satisfy the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Manila (said courts belonging then to different judicial
districts). This does not constitute an interference with
the processes of a court of coordinate and co-equal
jurisdiction as the sheriff was improperly implementing
SEC. 2
the writ of execution

May 31, 1972; Arabay,
Mar.
17, 1978; Santos
(Abiera vs. CA, et al., L-26294,

Inc. vs. Salvador, et al., L-31077,
vs. Sibug, L 26815, May 26, 1981).
8. Jurisdiction over all sequestration cases of illgotten wealth under the Marcos regime falls within the
exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
subject to review exclusively by the Supreme Court.
Executive Order No . 1 effectively withholds jurisdiction
over the Presidential Commission on Good Government
from all lower courts, including the Court of Appeals. This
is also to give due recognition to the related doctrines of
primary administrative jurisdiction and exhaustion of
administrative remedies as pointed out in the resolution
in Reyes, etc., et al. vs. Caneba, etc., et al. (G.R. No. 82218,
Mar. 17, 1988) which enjoins courts to allow administrative
agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their
responsibilites within their respective competence.
Regional Trial Courts may not interfere with and restrain
or set aside orders and actions of said Commission as the
acts of an administrative agency must not be casually
overturned by a court, and a court should generally not
substitute its judgment for that of said agency acting
729
----------------------- Page 730----------------------RULE 58
4
SEC.
within th e perimeter s of it s own competenc e

Pena, et al., G.R. No.
77663, April 12, 1988).
S e c
injunction.
3.
Grounds
A
for
issuance
(PCGG vs.
of
preliminary
p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n ma y
b e
grante d whe n i t i s established :

(a) Tha t th e applican t i s entitle d t
d e m a n d e d , an d th e
whol e o r par t
c o n s i s t s i n r e s t r a i n i n g th e c o
con tinuanc e o f th e ac t o r act s complaine d
requirin g th e performanc e o f a n ac t o r acts
for a limite d perio d o r perpetually ;
o th e relie f
o f suc h relie f
m m i s s i o n o r
of, o r
, eithe r
i n
(b) Tha t th e commission , continuanc e o r non performanc e o f th e ac t o r act s complaine d o f durin g

th e litigatio n woul d probabl y wor k injustic e t o th e
applicant ; o r
(c)
doing , t
o r i s
procurin g
probably i
respectin g
and tendin
Tha t a party , court , agenc y o r a perso n i s

h r e a t e n i n g , o r i s a t t e m p t i n g t o
o r sufferin g t
n violatio n o f
th e subjec t o
g t o rende r th
o b e done , som e ac t o r act s

th e right s o f th e applican t
f th e actio n o r proceeding ,
e judgmen t ineffectual .
do ,
(3a
)
NOTE S
1. As
enforcemen t
t u tional except
property
r
injunction in
Rule
110.
about
acts
422;
vs.
s
a rule , injunction doe s not lie to restrai n th e

o f a
law
allege d
t o b e u n c o n s t i
i f it will resul t in injury to right s in privat e
(J.M. Tuazon & Co. vs. CA, et al., supra).
Fo
crimina l cases , see th e note s unde r Sec .
1 ,
2 . Injunction contemplate s act s being committe d or

to be committed , hence injunction doe s not lie against
already consummate d (Reyes, et al. vs. Harty, 21 Phil.
Remonte vs. Bonto, L-19900, Feb. 28,
1966; Romulo
Yniguez, G.R. 71908, Feb. 4, 1986).
Even if th e act
730
----------------------- Page 731----------------------RULE 58
SEC. 4
complained o f hav e alread y been committed , bu t suc h act s

ar e continuin g i n natur e an d wer e i n
deroga
tio n o f
plaintiff s right s a t th e outset , preliminar y mandator y
injunction may b e availe d o f t o restor e th e partie s t o th e
status quo (Dayrit vs. De los Santos, 18 Phil. 275).
Hence ,
th e dispossessor in forcible entry can b e compelled t o restor e
possession to th e origina l possessor (see Art.
539,
Civil
Code) an d
a n electri c
compan y ca n b e compelle d
t o
provisionally reconnect th e servic e it ha d disconnecte d an d
which ac t i s assaile d in th e main action (Meralco vs. Del
Rosario, etc., et al., 22 Phil.
433).
Sec .
4 .
Verified
application
and
for
preliminary
injunction
or
temporary
restraining
er.
A
p r e l i m i n a r y
i n j u n c t i o n o r t e m p o r a r y
s t r a i n i n g
o r d e r m a y b e g r a n t e d onl y w h e n :
o
c e e
t l i
a p p
bond
ord
r e
(a)
T h e
i n
t h e
a c t i o n
r p r o d i n g i s verified , a n d
s h o w s
fact s e n t i
n g t h e
l i c a n t t o t h e relie f d e m a n d e d ; a n d
(b)
U n l e s s
e x e m p t e d
b y
t h e
c o
u r t ,
t h e
a p p l i c a n t file s w i t h t h e c o u r t w h e r e t h e a
c t i o n o r
p r o c e e d i n g i s p e n d i n g , a bon d e x e c u t e d t o t h e
p a r t y
o r p e r s o n enjoined , i n a n a m o u n t t o b e fixe d b y t h
e
c o u r t , t o t h e effec t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t wil
l p a y t o
s u c h p a r t y o r p e r s o n s al l d a m a g e s w h i c h
h e m a y
s u s t a i n b y
r e a s o n
o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n o r t
e m p o r a r y
r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r i f t h e c o u r t s h o u l d finall y
d e c i d e
t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t wa s no t e n t i t l e d t h e r e t
o .
U p o n
a p p r o v a l o f t h e r e q u i s i t e bond , a w r i t o f p r e l
i m i n a r y
i n j u n c t i o n shal l b e issued .
(4a )
(c)
W h e n
a n a p p l i
o f p r e l i m i n a r y
i n j u n c t i o n
o r
s t r a i n i n g
o r d e r i s i n c l u d e d i n a
i n i t i a t o r y
p l e a d i n g , t h e case , i f file d
a c o u r t ,
s h a l l b e
r a f f l e d o n l y a
d
i n t h e
p r e s e n c e o f t h e a d v e r s e
o n t o b e
c a t i o n
fo r
w r i
t e m p o r a r y
r e
c o m p l a i n t o r
a n y
i n a m u l t i p l e - s a l
f t e r
p a r t y
n o t i c e
o r t h e
t o
a n
p e r s
731
----------------------- Page 732----------------------RULE 58
8EC 4
e n j o i n e d . I n a n y e v e n t , s u c h n o t i c e s h a l l b
e
precede d o r contemporaneousl y accompanie d b y
servic e o f summons , togethe r wit h a cop y o f th e
complaint o r initiator y pleadin g an d th e applicant' s
affidavits an d bond , upo n th e advers e part y i n th e
Philippines .
However ,
w h e r e th e s u m m o n s coul d no t b e
serve d personall y o r b y substitute d servic e despit e
diligent efforts , o r th e advers e part y i s a residen t o f
th e Philippine s temporaril y absen t therefro m o r i s
a nonresiden t thereof , th e requiremen t o f prio r o r
c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s servic e o f s u m m o n s shal l
no t
apply .
(d) Th e applicatio n fo r a temporar y restrain in g orde r shal l thereafte r b e acte d upo n onl y afte r
all partie s ar e hear d i n a summar y hearin g whic h
shall b e conducte d withi n twenty-fou r (24) hour s
afte r th e s h e r i f f s r e t u r n o f s e r v i c e and/o r th
e
record s ar e receive d b y th e branc h selecte d b y raffle

an d t o w h i c h th e r e c o r d s shal l b e t r a n s m i t t e d
immediately ,
(n)
NOTE S
1. Express provisions in these Rules regulating the

issuance of temporary restraining orders were effected by
an amendment introduced by B.P. Big. 224, effective
April 16, 1982, in Sec. 5 of Rule 58. Prior thereto, the
only extended treatment on restraining orders was found
in R.A. 875, the Industrial Peace Act. Despite the absence
of specific provisions on such an order in the Rules prior
to the aforestated amendment, it has been sanctioned as
part of our judicial system and practice by the Supreme
Court. For that matter, Sec. 6, Rule 135 provides that
"(w)hen by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or
judicia l officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other
means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed
732
----------------------- Page 733----------------------RULE 58
. 4
SEC
by such court or officer ; an d i f th e procedur e t o b e followed

in th e exercis e o f such jurisdiction i s not specifically pointe d
out by law or by thes e rules , any suitabl e proces s or mod e
of proceedin g may b e adopte d which appear s conformabl e
t o th e spiri t o f sai d law or rules. "
2 . In equit y practic e in th e American jurisdiction , a
restrainin g orde r i s on e which may issu e upon th e filing
o f a n a p p l i c a t i o n for a n injunctio n
forbiddin g
t
h e
defendant t o d o th e threatene d act unti l a hearin g on th e
application ca n b e had .
Though th e ter m i s sometime s
use d a s a synony m o f "injunction, " a restrainin g orde r
i s properly distinguishabl e from an injunction in tha t th e
former i s intende d only a s a restrain t upon th e defendan t
unti l th e propriet y o f grantin g an injunction , temporar y
or perpetual , can b e determined , an d it doe s n o mor e tha n
restrai n th e proceeding s unti l such determinatio n (Black's
Law
Dictionary,
4th Ed.,
p.
1247,
citin g
Wetzstein
vs.
Boston, etc. Min.
Co., 25 Mont.
135, 63 Pac.
1043; Mason
vs. Milligan,
185 Ind. 319,
114 N.E. 3; Labbitt vs. Bunton,
80 Mont.
293, 260 P.
727).
3 . Th e sam e concept wa s adopte d by our Suprem e
Court which explaine d tha t i t i s an order t o maintai n th e
subject of controversy in status quo unti l th e hearin g of
an
a p p l i c a t i o n for a t e m p o r a r y injunction .
I t
i s
distinguished from an injunction in tha t it i s intende d a s
a restrain t upo n th e defendan t unti l th e propriet y o f
grantin g an injunction pendente lite can b e determined ,
and it goe s n o furthe r tha n t o preserv e th e status qu

o
unti l such determination .
Accordingly , th e grant , denia l
or liftin g o f a restrainin g orde r doe s not in an y way
preemp t th e court' s power t o decid e th e issu e in th e main
action
which
i s th e injunction
sui t (Anglo-Fil
Trading
Corp.
vs. Lazaro, G.R. No. 54958, Sept. 2,
1983).
Also , accordin g t o th e Court o f Appeals , a restrainin g

order , a s th e ter m connotes , i s merel y temporar y o r
provisional .
Whe n a restrainin g order i s allowed t o last
733
----------------------- Page 734----------------------RULE 88
4
SEC
for mor e tha n on e month , it can no longer b e sai d to b e

temporary ; an d it s purpose , which i s t o maintain th e status
quo in th e meantim e tha t th e petition i s t o b e heard , i s
therefor e abused .
It thu s acquire s th e statu s o f semi permanence , akin to a preliminary injunction (Simpas vs.
Adil, CA-GR. No. 04406SP, Oct. 28, 1975).
Apparently
t o underscor e t h a t fact , th e p r e s e n t practic e i s
t o
categorically refer t o it a s a temporar y restrainin g order .
4 . U n d e r t h i s a m e n d e d section ,
a t e m p o r
a r y
restrainin g order ha s been elevate d t o th e sam e level a s
a preliminary injunction in th e procedure , ground s and
requirement s for it s obtention .
Specifically on th e matte r
of th e requisit e bond , th e presen t requiremen t therefor
not only for a preliminar y injunctio n bu t als o for a
restrainin g order , unles s exempte d therefrom by th e court ,
put s t o res t a controversia l policy whic h wa s eithe r
wittingly or unwittingly abused . Heretofore , n o bond wa s
require d for th e issuanc e o f a temporary restrainin g order ,
except in labor case s brough t t o th e Suprem e Court on
certiorari from a decision o f th e Nationa l Labor Relation s
Commission wher e a monetar y awar d wa s granted , in
which cas e th e policy o f th e Suprem e Court wa s t o requir e
a bon d equivalen t t o th e monetar y awar d or benefit s
granted a s a condition for th e issuanc e of a temporary
restrainin g order . Th e exemption from bond in other cases ,
plu s th e fact t h a t n o hearin g wa s required ,
mad e
a
temporar y restrainin g orde r a muc h sough t relie f for
petitioners .
5. Ther e hav e bee n instance s whe n th e Suprem e
Court ha s issue d a status quo order which , a s th e very
term connotes , i s merely intende d t o maintai n th e last ,
actual , peaceabl e an d unconteste d stat e o f thing s which
precede d th e controversy .
Thi s wa s resorte d t o when th e
projected proceeding s in th e cas e mad e th e conservation
of th e status quo desirabl e or essential , bu t th e affected

part y neithe r sought such relie f nor did th e allegation s in
734
----------------------- Page 735----------------------RULE 58
C. 4
SE
hi s pleadin g sufficiently mak e ou t a cas e for a temporar y

restrainin g order .
Th e status quo order wa s thu s issue d
motu proprio on equitabl e considerations .
Also , unlik e
a
temporar y restrainin g order or a preliminar y injunction ,
a status quo orde r i s mor e in th e natur e o f a ceas e an d
desist order , sinc e it doe s not direct th e doin g or undoin g
o f act s a s i n t h e cas e o f prohibitor y o r m a n d a t o
r y
injunctive relief .
Th e furthe r distinction i s provide d by
th e presen t amendmen t i n th e sens e that , unlik e th e
amende d rul e on restrainin g orders , a status quo order
does not requir e th e postin g o f a bond .
6 . Pars , (a) an d (b) o f thi s amende d section wer e
take n from th e origina l Sec . 4 o f thi s Rule , with th e addition
t o thei r coverag e o f temporar y restrainin g orders .
th
respect t o Par . (b) , a furthe r modification provide s for th e
situation where , in prope r cases , th e court may exemp t
th e applican t from filing th e bond normally required .
Pars , (c) an d (d) wer e take n from
Administrativ e Circular No . 20-95 , providin g
for
t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o
i n a r y
injunctions , effective October 1 , 1995 .
a c o m p l a i n t o r othe r initiator y
a n
application for a wri t o f preliminar y
temporar y restrainin g orde r i s include
prescribe s th e procedur e t o b e followed
judge .
Wi
Pars . 1 an d 2 o f
specia l rule s
r d e r s an d p r e l i m
Thi s contemplate s
pleadin g w h e r e
injunctio n or a
d therein , an d
by th e executiv e
If it i s a multiple-sal a court , notic e shal l be given to

th e advers e part y or th e person t o b e enjoined an d thei r
presenc e i s require d before th e cas e may b e raffled .
In
addition thereto , jus t a s in levy on preliminary attachment ,
ther e mus t b e proo f o f prior or contemporaneou s servic e
of summon s wit h a copy o f th e complaint or initiator y
pleadin g an d applicant' s affidavit an d bond on th e advers e
party , unles s th e sam e coul d no t b e serve d o n the m
personally or by substitute d servic e for th e reason s state d
in thi s section .
735
----------------------- Page 736-----------------------
RULE 58
6
SEC.
After th e raffle, th e record s of th e cas e shall be

immediately transmitte d to th e branch selected, which
shall conduct a summary hearing within 24 hours from
the sheriff s retur n o f servic e t o all th e partie s who
shall b e hear d therein .
Whil e thi s sectio n doe s not
explicitly say so, unlike Par. 4 of Administrative Circular
No. 20-95, the sam e procedure shall be followed in singlesala stations, except those applicable only to multiple-sala
stations such as th e need and requisite s for conducting a
raffle of the case .
Sec.
6.
Preliminary
injunction
not
granted
without
notice; exception. N o preliminar y injunctio n shal l

b e grante d withou t hearin g an d prio r notic e t o th e
party o r perso n sough t t o b e enjoined .
I f i t sh
al l
appea r fro m fact s s h o w n b y affidavit s o r b y th e
verifie d applicatio n tha t grea t o r irreparabl e injury
woul d
resul t t o th e applican t befor e th e matte r
ca n b e hear d o n n o t i c e , th e cour t t o w h i c h th
e
applicatio n fo r preliminar y injunctio n wa s made ,
may issu e
ex parte a temporar y restrainin g orde r
t o b e effectiv e onl y fo r a perio d o f twent y (20) day s
from servic e o n th e part y o r perso n sough t t o b e
enjoined , excep t a s herei n provided .
Withi n th e
twenty-da y period , th e cour t mus t orde r sai d party
o r perso n t o sho w cause , a t a specifie d tim e an d
place , wh y th e injunction s shoul d no t b e granted .
Th e cour t
shal l als o determine ,
withi n th e sam e
period , whethe r o r no t th e preliminar y injuctio n
s h a l l b e g r a n t e d , a n d a c c o r d i n g l y i s s u e t
h e
correspondin g order .
H o w e v e r , s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s
th e
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s , i f th e m a t t e r i s o f
r e m e
u r g e n c y
a n d t h e a p p l i c a n t w i l l s u f f e r
v e
injustic e an d irreparabl e injury , th e executiv e judg e
of a multipl e sal a cour t o r th e presidin g judg e o f a
single-sal a
cour t
ma y
issu e
ex parte a temporar
o f
e x t
g r a
736
----------------------- Page 737----------------------RULE 58
SEC. 5
r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r effectiv e fo r onl y s e v e n t y - t w o
(72)
h o u r s
n e x t
p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n
a s
t o s
e r v i c e
o f
s u m m o n s a n d t h e d o c u m e n t s t o b e serve d t h e r e w i
t h .
T h e r e a f t e r , w i t h i n t h e a f o r e s a i d
s e v e n t y
- t w o (72 )
h o u r s , t h e j u d g e befor e w h o m t h e c a s e i s p e n d
i n g
s h a l l c o n d u c t
a
s u m m a r y
h e a r i n g t o
d
e t e r m i n e
w h e t h e r t h e t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r
s h a l l b e
e x t e n d e d
u n t i l t h e
fo r
p r e
l i m i n a r y
i n j u n c t i o n c a n b e h e a r d .
I n n o c a s e shal l t
h e t o t a l
p e r i o d
o f effectivit y o f t h e t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a
i n i n g
o r d e r excee d t w e n t y (20) days , i n c l u d i n g t h e origina
l
s e v e n t y - t w o (72 ) h o u r s p r o v i d e d h e r e i n .
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n fo r
p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n i s d e n i e d o r n o t r e s o l v
e d w i t h i n
t h e sai d p e r i o d , t h e t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o
r d e r i s
d e e m e d a u t o m a t i c a l l y v a c a t e d .
T h e effectivi
t y o f a
t e m p o r a r y
r e s t r a i n i n g
o r d e r
i s n o t
e
x t e n d i b l e
w i t h o u t
n e e d
o f a n y j u d i c i a l d e c l a r a t i o n
t o t h a t
effect , a n d n o c o u r t shal l h a v e a u t h o r i t y t o e x t
e n d
o r r e n e w t h e s a m e o n t h e s a m e g r o u n d for w h i c h
i t
w a s i s s u e d .
H o w e v e r , i f i s s u e d b y t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a
o r a
b e r thereof , t h e
t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i
o r d e r
l b e effectiv e for sixt y (60) d a y s fro m s e r v i c e o n
l s
m e m
n g
shal
t h e
i n e
r e s
o r
m e m
l f
o r d
d
t
a
b
u
e
a l s ,
S a n d
l s t
issue d
owe r
c o u r
p a r t y
o r
p e r s o n
s o u g h t t o
b e
e n j o
.
A
r a i n i n g o r d e r issue d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t
e r
t h e r e o f
r t h e r
r s .
s h a l l
b e
effectiv e
u n t i
T h e
t r i a l c o u r t , t h e
C o u r t
o f A p p e
t h e
i g a n b a y a n o r t h e
C o u r t o f Ta x A p p e a
h a t
a w r i t o f p r e l i m i n a r y injuctio n a g a i n s t a l
t , b o a r d , officer , o r quasi-judicia l a g e n c y shal l
d e c i d e t h e
m a i n c a s e
o r p e t i t i o n
n
si x
(6 )
m o n t h s fro m t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e writ .
s amended
in A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, effective Dec. 27, 2007)
w i t h i
(A
737
----------------------- Page 738----------------------RULE 58
SEC 5
NOTE S
1. Formerly , if an ex parte injunction wa s not proper ,
a restrainin g order may b e availe d o f in th e meantime .
Whil e th e Rule s the n mad e n o specific provision s for
restrainin g orders , th e sam e wer e deeme d t o b e within
th e inheren t power s of th e court (see Sec. 5, Rule 135).
As amende d by B.P . Big . 224 , Sec . 5 als o provide d for an d
regulate d th e issuanc e o f restrainin g order s t o maintain
th e status quo unti l th e hearin g o f th e application for
temporar y injunction .
N o bon d wa s require d for th e
issuance of a restrainin g order to maintai n th e status quo
unti l th e hearin g o f th e applicatio n for temporar y
injunction .
No bond wa s require d for th e issuanc e of a
restrainin g order
(BF Homes, Inc. vs. CA, et al, L-30690,
Nov. 19,
1982).
Se e th e discussion thereo n in Dionisio,
et al vs. CFI, et al. (G.R . No . 61048 , Aug . 17, 1983), an d
Par . 8 o f th e Interi m Rule s which incorporate d such
amendment in
toto (cf. Ortigas &
Co.
vs. Ruiz, et al,
L-33952, Mar. 9, 1987).
Th e 20-day perio d of efficacy of
a temporar y restrainin g order wa s non-extendible ; th e
order automatically terminate d at th e en d o f such period
without th e nee d o f any judicia l declaration t o tha t effect
and th e court s ha d n o discretio n t o exten d th e sam e
(Golden Gate Realty Corp. vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No.
74289,
July 31,
1987).
2 . Thi s amende d section retain s most o f th e foregoing
features but with som e modification s an d exception s t o
th e genera l provision s o f Sec . 4 .
Th e limite d perio d o f th e
effectivity o f th e restrainin g orde r in th e tria l court s
remain s th e sam e bu t th e perio d for such order s issue d by
th e Court o f Appeal s ha s been increase d t o 6 0 days .
It
ha d formerl y bee n hel d
t h a t th e 20-da y limi t als o
applied to sai d appellat e court (Delbros Hotel Corp.
vs.
IAC, et al, G.R. No.
72566, April 12, 1988; Lavina, et al
vs. CA.etal, G.R. Nos.
78285 an d 79917, April 10,
1989).
Such limite d perio d did not an d doe s not apply t o th e
738
----------------------- Page 739----------------------RULE 58
Supreme Court and its temporary restraining orders shall
SEC. 5
be effective unless and until it directs otherwise.

Also, the rule against non-extendibility of the limited
periods of effectivity of the order is maintained for all
courts covered thereby. However, the prohibition against
the renewal of the order applies only if the same is sought
under and by reason of the same ground for which it was
originally issued. If a new ground supervenes while the
original period still subsists or after it has terminated,
which the court finds to be different from the original
ground but sufficient to warrant the same restraint, it may
renew the original restraining order or issue another one,
as the case may be, but also subject to the same limited
periods of effectivity and terms.
3. The second paragraph, which was Par . 3 of
Administrative Circular No . 20-95, is an exception to the
preceding rule, to enable the court to respond to a matter
of extreme urgency wherein the applicant will suffer grave
injustice and irreparable injury.
The executive judge of
a multiple-sala court, or the presiding judge of a singlesala court, is empowered to issue ex parte a temporary
restraining order but (1) it shall be effective for only 72
hours, (2) he shall immediately comply with Sec. 4
regarding service of summons and accompanying
documents, and (3) he shall conduct a summary hearing
within said 72 hours to determine whether the restraining
order shall be extended until the application for
preliminary injunction can be heard.
4. It will be noted that, as a rule, the period of
effectivity of a temporary restraining order is 20 days from
notice to the party or person to be enjoined. In the special
situation under the second paragraph of this section, the
20-day period is also maintained with the specification that
the original 72 hours shall be included therein. Since
the original 72 hours is reckoned from its issuance, it
results that in this situation contemplated in the second
739
----------------------- Page 740----------------------RULE 68
5
SEC
paragraph , th e 20-day perio d shal l b e compute d from th e

date of issuance of th e temporary restrainin g order , an d
not th e dat e o f it s receipt by th e advers e party or person
sought t o b e enjoined .
After all , th e antecedent s an d fact
of issuanc e will b e readily known by th e partie s durin g
th e hearin g require d t o b e conducte d within sai d 72 hours .
5.
c o n s t a
o r
reasonabl e
(Ollendorff
Injury i s considere d "irreparable " if it i s of such

n t an d frequen t
r e c u r r e n c e t h a t n o fai r
redres s can be ha d therefor in a court of law
vs. Abrahamson,
38 Phil. 585), or wher e
is n o standar d by which thei r amoun t can b e measure d
ther e
with reasonabl e accuracy , tha t is , it i s not susceptibl e o f

mathematica l
computatio n
(SSC
vs. Bayona,
et
al.,
L-13555, May
30, 1962).
6 . In an actio n for prohibitio n wit h preliminar y
injunction against a judg e alone to prevent him from tryin g
a crimina l cas e for illega l possession of explosives , th e
postin g o f a bon d by plaintif f i s not require d sinc e no
privat e part y will be prejudice d (Lim vs. Callejo, L-27086,
July
24,
1981).
7 . A restrainin g order , lik
upon a person an d ha s no in rem
action don e in contemp t o f a court
statutory authorizatio n th e decre e
in rem on property (Auyong Hian vs.
Sept.
12, 1974).
e an injunction , operate s
effect to invalidat e an
order , except wher e by
i s s o frame d a s t o act
CTA, et al., L-28782,
8. Th e amoun t o f th e bond require d for th e issuanc e

of a wri t o f preliminar y injunction ,
an d subsequen t
reduction s in th e amoun t thereof , ar e addresse d t o th e
sound discretion o f th e court an d will not b e interfere d
with absen t a showin g of grav e abus e of discretion (San
Miguel, et al. vs. Elbinias, et al., L-48210, Jan. 31,
1984
).
The sam e rul e shoul d apply t o restrainin g orders .
740
----------------------- Page 741----------------------RULE 58
6-7
SECS.
Sec. 6.
Grounds for objection to,
or for motion
of
dissolution
of,
injunction
or
restraining
order.
Th
e
applicatio n fo r injunctio n o r restrainin g orde r ma y
b e denied , upo n a s h o w i n g o f it s insufficiency .
Th e
injunctio n o r restrainin g orde r ma y als o b e denied ,
or, i f granted , ma y b e dissolved , o n othe r ground s
u p o n
affidavit s o f th e
part y o r perso n
enjoined
,
w h i c h m a y b e o p p o s e d
b y th e a p p l i c a n t als
o b y
affidavits .
I t ma y furthe r b e denied , or , i f granted ,
may b e dissolved , i f i t appear s afte r hearin g tha t
althoug h th e applican t i s entitle d t o th e injunctio n
o r restrainin g order , th e issuanc e o r continuanc e
thereof , a s th e cas e ma y be , woul d caus e irreparabl e
damag e t o th e part y o r perso n enjoine d whil e th e
a p p l i c a n t c a n b e
f u l l y c o m p e n s a t e d
fo r
s
u c h
damage s a s h e ma y suffer , an d th e forme r file s a bon d
i n a n a m o u n t fixe d b y th e cour t conditione d tha t
h e wil l pa y al l damage s whic h th e applican t ma y
s u f f e r b y t h e d e n i a l o r t h e d i s s o l u t i o n o f
t h e
injunctio n o r restrainin g order .
I f i t appear s tha
t
t h e e x t e n t
o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y
i n j u n c t i o n
o r
r e str a i n i n g orde r grante d i s to o great , i t ma y b e
modified .
(6a)
Sec. 7. Service of copies of bonds; effect of disapproval
of same.
Th e part y filin g a bon d i n accordanc e
w i t h th e p r o v i s i o n s o f thi s Rul e
shal l forthwit h
serv e a cop y o f suc h bon d o n th e othe r party , wh o
may excep t t o th e sufficienc y o f th e bond , o r o f th e
surety o r suretie s thereon .
I f th e applicant' s bon d
i s foun d t o b e insufficien t i n amount , o r i f th e suret y
o r s u r e t i e s t h e r e o n fai l t o justify ,
a n d
a bo
n d
s u f f i c i e n t i n a m o u n t
w i t h s u f f i c i e n t s u r e
t i e s
approve d afte r justificatio n i s no t file d forthwith ,
th e injunctio n shal l b e dissolved .
I f th e bon d o f t
h e
advers e part y i s foun d t o b e insufficien t i n amount ,
o r th e suret y o r suretie s thereo n fai l t o justif y a
bon d sufficien t
i n amoun t wit h sufficien t suretie s
741
----------------------- Page 742----------------------RULE 08
SEC. 8
approve d afte r justificatio n i s no t file d forthwith ,

th e injunctio n shal l b e grante d o r restored , a s th e
cas e ma y be . (8a)
NOTE S
1. Injunction , unde r thes e sections , may b e refused
or dissolved if:
(a)
Th e complaint i s insufficient ;
(b) Th e defendant i s permitte d to post a counter-bond ,

it appearin g tha t h e would sustai n grea t damag e while
th e plaintif f can b e amply compensated ; and/or
(c) On othe r grounds , a s wher e th e bond poste d by
th e applicant turne d out t o b e insufficient or defective .
2 . Th e filing of a counter-bon d doe s not necessarily
warran t dissolution o f th e injunction a s th e court ha s t o
asses s
th e probabl e
relativ e damage s (Director of the
Bureau
of Telecommunications
vs.
Aligaen,
L-31135,
May 29,
1970).
3 . A motio n for th e dissolutio n o f th e wri t
preliminar y
injunctio n
mus t b e verifie d
(Canlas
Aquino,
L-16815,
July 24, 1961).
o f
vs.
Sec. 8. Judgment
to include
and sureties. A t th e trial , th e
t o b e awarde d t o eithe r party , upo
advers e party , shal l b e claimed ,
awarde d unde r th e sam e procedur e
sectio n 2 0 o f Rul e 67 . (9a)
damages against party

amoun t o f damage s
n th e bon d o f th e
ascertained , an d
prescribe d i n
NOTE S
1. Th e procedur e for claimin g damage s on th e bond
i s th e sam e a s tha t in preliminary attachmen t
(see note s
unde r Sec.
20, Rule 57; cf. Luzon Surety
Co., Inc. vs.
Guerrero, L 20705, June 20,
1966).
742
----------------------- Page 743----------------------RULE 58
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
SEC. 8
2. Recovery of damages for irregular issuance of

injunction, as where the main case is dismissed and the
injunction is dissolved, is limited to the amount of the bond.
Malice or lack of good faith on the part of the party who
procured the injunction which was later dissolved is not
required as a prerequisite for recovery by the injured party
on said bond
(Aquino vs. Socorro, L-23868, Oct. 22, 1970).
If there was malice, there is a right of action in a civil case
for malicious prosecution (Molina vs. Somes, 24 Phil. 66,
reiterated in Aquino vs. Socorro, supra).
3. Where the bond was posted for the purpose of
securing a writ of preliminary injunction in a prohibition
case instituted against a judge for his refusal to inhibit
himself from trying a criminal case for illegal possession
of explosives, no claim for damages can be assessed against
said bond, there being no private party who would be
prejudiced, and any damage or expense incurred by the
judg e in connection with the case would be official in
nature and for which no fund of private origin has to
answer (him vs. Callejo, supra).
4. See Sec. 4, Rule 39 regarding the effect of an
appeal from a judgment in an action for injunction and
the powers of the trial court during the pendency of such
appeal.
For the text of Sec. 9 of this Rule, see Sec. 1, ante,
under which the former has been transposed for
complementary reading.
743
----------------------- Page 744----------------------RUL E
5 9
RECEIVERSHI P
Sectio n
1.
Appointment
of
receiver.
Upo n
a
verifie d
propert y
n o r
p r o c e
o f
Appeal s
thereof ,
application , on e o r mor e receiver s o f th e

w h i c h i s th e s u b j e c t o f th e a c t i o
e d i n g
ma y
b e
a p p o i n t e d
o r b y th e Suprem e Court ,
i n th e followin g cases :
b y
o r
th e
Cour t
membe r
(a)
Whe n i t appear s fro m th e verifie d appli c a t i o n , an d
s u c h o t h e r proo f a s th e
c o u r t
ma y
require, tha t th e part y applyin g fo r th e appointmen t
of a receive r ha s a n interes t i n th e propert y o r fun d
whic h i s th e subjec t o f th e actio n o r proceeding ,
an d tha t s u c h propert y o r fun d i s i n dange r o f
bein g lost , removed , o r materiall y injure d unles s a
receive r b e appointe d t o administe r an d preserv e
it ;
(b)
W h e n
i t a p p e a r s i n a n a c t i o n b y
t h e
mortgage e fo r foreclosur e o f a mortgag e tha t th e
p r o p e r t y i s i n d a n g e r
o f b e i n g d i s s i p a t e
d o r
materially injured , an d tha t it s valu e i s probabl y
insufficien t t o discharg e th e mortgag e debt , o r tha t
th e partie s hav e s o stipulate d i n th e contrac t o f
mortgage ;
(c)
Afte r judgment , t o preserv e th e propert y
durin g th e pendenc y o f a n appeal , o r t o dispos e o f
i t accordin g t o th e judgment , o r t o ai d
executio n
whe n th e executio n ha s bee n returne
o r t h e j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r
hi s
p r o p e r t y i n s a t i s f a c t i o n
o r
otherwis e t o carr y th e judgmen t int o
d unsatisfie d
r e f u s e s t o
o f
a p p l y
t h e j u d g m e n t ,
effect ;
(d)
W h e n e v e r
i n o t h e r c a s e s
i t a p p e
a r s
tha t th e
a p p o i n t m e n t o f a r e c e i v e r i s th e m
os t
c o n v e n i e n t an d
f e a s i b l e m e a n s o f p r e s e r v
i n g ,
744
----------------------- Page 745----------------------RULE 59
. 1
RECEIVERSHIP
SEC
a d m i n i s t e r i n g , o r d i s p o s i n g
y i n
litigation .
D u r i n g
t h e
p e n d e n c y
o f
o f t h e p r o p e r t
a n
a p p e a l ,
t h e
appellat e cour t ma y allo w
appointmen t o f a receive r t o b
b y th e cour t o f origi n an d
b e subjec t t o th e contro l o
a n applicatio n fo r th e
e file d i n an d decide d
th e receive r appointe d t o
f sai d court ,
(la )
NOTE S
1. Th e former Par .
referre d t
dissolved or
from thi s
governed by
(a) of Sec . 1 of thi s Rule , which
receivershi p whe n a corporatio n ha s bee n

i s insolvent an d s o forth , ha s been delete d
amende d section a s such situation s ar e now
th e Corporation Code .
For th e sam e reason ,
th e former Sec . 2 o f thi s Rul e regardin g an application by

a creditor or stockholder for receivership over a corporation
ha s not been reproduce d here .
2 . Receivership , lik e injunction , may b e th e principa l
action itsel f (see Sec. 4, Rule 39) or jus t an ancillary remedy
if a principa l action i s indicate d unde r th e circumstance s
of th e cas e since , generally , th e court s an d quasi-judicia l
agencies may appoin t receiver s in case s pendin g before
them .
3. A receiver i s a person appointe d by th e court in
behal f o f all th e partie s t o an action for th e purpos e o f
preservin g th e propert y involved in th e sui t an d t o pro tect th e right s o f al l th e partie s unde r th e direction o f th
e
court
(see Cia. General de Tabacos vs. Guanzon, 20 Phil.
216;
Normandy
vs.
Duque,
L-25407,
Aug.
29,
196
9;
Mallari vs. CA, et al, L-26467, July 15, 1981).
As a rule
,
a part y to a litigation shoul d not be appointe d a s a receiver
without th e consent o f th e other partie s theret o (Alcantara
vs. Abbas, L-14890, Sept. 30, 1963).
A clerk of court shoul d
not b e appointe d a s a receiver a s h e i s already burdene d
with
hi s official
dutie s
(Abrigo
vs. Kayanan,
L-28601
,
Mar.
28,
1983).
745
----------------------- Page 746----------------------RULE 09
SEC. 2
4 . While th e perfection o f an appea l deprive s th e tria l

court o f jurisdictio n over th e case , th e tria l court can
appoint a receiver sinc e thi s doe s not involve any matter
litigated by th e appeal .
Whil e th e Suprem e Court ha s
jurisdictio n t o appoint a receiver , th e tria l court ha s th e
better facilitie s an d opportunity t o determin e th e property
unde r receivership
(Velasco & Co. vs. Go Chuico, et al.,
28 Phil. 39). Also, despit e such appeal , th e tria l court
retain s th e power t o issu e order s for th e protection and
preservation of th e right s of th e partie s
(Sec. 9, Rule 41).
This situatio n i s now specifically dealt with

last paragrap h o f thi s amende d Sec . 1 which provide s
th e appellat e cour t may allow th e applicatio n
appointment of a receiver to be filed in an d decided
court a quo whic h shal l als o hav e contro l
receiver .
by th
tha t
for
by th
over
e
th e
e
such
5. Wher e th e action i s merely t o obtai n a money

judgmen t on unpai d credit s an d not t o enforce a lien upon
specific propert y o r fund s i n th e possessio n o f th e
defendant , th e appointmen t o f a receiver i s improper
(Bonaplata vs. Ambler, et al., 2 Phil. 392; Arez, et al. vs.
Wislizenus, et al., 26 Phil. 625).
Also in action s involving
possession o f or titl e to rea l property , th e appointmen t o f
a receiver may be mad e only if ther e i s a clear necessity to
protect th e applican t from grav e or irremediabl e damage s
(Medel, et al. vs. De Aquino, et al., 92 Phil. 895; Camiling
vs. De Aquino, 103 Phil. 128).
Appointmen t of a receiver
is not proper wher e th e right s o f th e parties , one o f whom
i s i n possessio n
o f th e p r o p e r t y , depen d o n th e
determination o f thei r respectiv e claim s to th e titl e o f such
property (Calo, et al.
vs. Roldan,
76 Phil. 445), unles s
such property i s in dange r o f bein g materially injure d or
lost, a s by th e prospectiv e foreclosur e o f a mortgag e
thereon or portion s thereo f ar e bein g occupied by thir d
person s claimin g advers e titl e
theret o
(Motomull
vs.
Arrieta,
L-15972, May
31, 1963).
746
----------------------- Page 747----------------------RULE 59
C. 1
RECEIVERSHIP
SE
6. A proceedin g for th e appointmen t of a receiver wa s

formerly commence d by a
verified petitio n an d no t
by
motion .
Suc h petitio n shoul d alleg e al l th e necessar y
fact s justifyin g th e
appointmen t o f a receiver ,
w
it h
supporting affidavits .
A defect in th e procedur e doe s not
affect th e jurisdictio n o f th e cour t bu t w a r r a n t s t
h e
dismissal of th e application
(Velasco & Co. vs. Go Chuico,
et al., supra; Medel, et al. vs. De Aquino, et al., supra).
As
amended , thi s section woul d now allow a verified motion
t o b e file d wher e th e receivershi p sough t i s only a n
incident in th e mai n action .
7 . Formerly , city court s an d municipa l court s i n
provincia l an d sub-provincia l capital s ha d jurisdiction t o
appoint a receiver in th e absenc e o f th e District Judg e
(Sec. 88, R.A. 296).
Unde r B.P . Big . 129, al l inferior court s
now hav e jurisdictio n t o appoin t a receiver i f th e mai n
case i s withi n thei r jurisdiction
(Sec. 33).
8. Unlik e th e othe r provisiona l remedie s which can

b e availe d o f only before final judgment , receivership may
b e resorte d t o even after th e judgmen t ha s becom e final
and executory .
Thus , unde r Sec . 1(d), it can b e availe d
of t o ai d execution or t o carry th e judgmen t int o effect
(see Sec. 41, Rule 39).
9. Th e appointmen t o f a receiver durin g th e pendency
of th e action i s interlocutor y in natur e an d canno t b e
compelled by mandamus , bu t certiorar i will lie i f ther e wa s
grave abus e of discretion
(Samson vs. Barrios,
63 P
hil.
199; Berbari
vs. Imperial, et al,
43 Phil.
222).
Sec. 2.
Bond on appointment of receiver. Befor e
issuin g th e orde r appointin g a receiver , th e cour t
shall requir e th e applican t t o fil e a bon d execute d
t o t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t w h o m t h e
a p p l i c a t i o
n i s
presented , i n a n amoun t t o b e fixe d b y th e court , t o
th e effec t tha t th e applican t wil l pa y suc h part y al l
747
----------------------- Page 748----------------------RULE 69
damage s h e ma y sustai n b y
ment o f suc h receive r i n
hav e procure d suc h appointmen
cause ; an d th e cour t may ,
tim e afte r th e appointment ,
bon d a s furthe r securit y fo
SECS. 3-4
reaso n o f th e appoint cas e th e applican t shal l

t withou t sufficien t
i n it s discretion , a t any
requir e a n additiona l
r suc h damages .
(3a)
NOT E
1. Under the former Rule, a bond for the appointment of a receiver was not generally required of the
applicant, except when the application was made ex parte.
No such distinction is made under this amended section
and a bond shall always be required from the applicant.
In fact, an additional bond may subsequently be required
by the court in the exercise of its sound discretion in light
of developments in the case.
Sec. 3. Denial of application or discharge of receiver.
Th e applicatio n ma y b e denied , o r th e receive r
discharged , w h e n th e advers e part y file s a bon d
execute d t o th e applicant , i n a n amoun t t o b e fixe d
by th e court , t o th e effec t tha t suc h part y wil l pay
th e applican t al l damage s h e ma y suffe r b y reaso n
of th e acts , omissions , o r othe r matter s specifie d i n
th e applicatio n a s groun d fo r suc h appointment .
Th e receive r ma y als o b e discharge d i f i t i s show n
t h a t h i s a p p o i n t m e n t w a s
o b t a i n e d w i t h o u t
sufficient cause .
(4a)
Sec. 4.
Oath
and
bond
of receiver.
B e f o r e
enterin g upo n hi s duties , th e receive r shal l b e swor n
t o perfor m the m faithfully , an d shal l fil e a bond ,
execute d t o suc h perso n an d i n suc h su m a s th e
court ma y direct , t o th e effec t tha t h e wil l faithfull y
discharg e hi s d u t i e s i n th e actio n an d
obe y th e
order s o f th e court .
(5a)
748
----------------------- Page 749----------------------RULE 59
S. 5, 6
RECEIVERSHIP
SEC
Sec. 6.
Service
of copies
of
bonds; effect
of
disapproval
of
same.
T h e
p e r s o n
f i l i n g a b o n d
i n
accordanc e wit h th e provision s o f thi s Rul e shal l
f o r t h w i t h s e r v e a c o p y o f s u c h b o n d
o n
e a c h
intereste d party , w h o ma y excep t t o it s sufficienc y
o r o f th e suret y o r suretie s thereon .
I f eithe r
th e
applicant' s o r t h e receiver' s bon d i s foun d t o b e
insufficien t i n amount , o r i f th e suret y o r suretie s
t h e r e o n
fai l t o j u s t i f y an d a bon d
s u f f i c i
e n t i n
a m o u n t
w i t h s u f f i c i e n t s u r e t i e s a p p r o v e d
afte r
justificatio n i s no t file d forthwith , th e applicatio n
shall b e denied , o r th e receive r discharged , a s th e
cas e ma y be .
I f th e bon d o f th e advers e part y i
s
foun d t o b e insufficien t i n amoun t o r th e suret y o r
suretie s thereo n fai l t o justify , an d a bon d sufficien t
i n a m o u n t wit h sufficien t suretie s approve d afte r
justificatio n i s no t file d forthwith , th e receive r shal l
b e appointe d o r re-appointed , a s th e cas e ma y be .
(6a)
NOT E
1.
A receivership may be denie d or lifted (a) if
appointment sough t or grante d i s withou t sufficient cause
as wer e ther e i s n o necessity therefor or it i s not
cas e for receivership , (b) i f th e advers e part y
th e
,
a proper
file s a
sufficient bon d t o answe r for damages , (c) wher e th e bond

poste d by th e applican t for th e gran t o f receivership i s
insufficient, or (d) if th e bond of th e receiver i s insufficient .
Sec . 6 .
General powers of receiver. Subjec t to th e
contro l o f th e cour t i n whic h th e actio n i s pending ,
a receive r shal l hav e th e powe r t o brin g an d defend ,
i n suc h capacity , action s i n hi s ow n name ; t o tak e
an d kee p possessio n o f th e propert y i n controversy ;
t o r e c e i v e rents ; t o collec t debt s du e t o h i m s e
l f
a s receive r o r t o th e fund , property , estate , person ,

o r c o r p o r a t i o n o f w h i c h h e i s t h e r e c e i v
e r ; t o
749
----------------------- Page 750----------------------RULE
5 9
SEC. 6
compoun d fo r an d compromis e th e same ; t o mak e

transfers ; t o pa y outstandin g debts ; t o divid e th e
money an d othe r propert y tha t shal l remai n amon g
th e person s legall y entitle d t o receiv e th e same ; an d
generally t o d o suc h act s respectin g th e propert y
a s th e cour t ma y authorize .
However , fund s i n th e
hand s o f a receive r ma y b e investe d onl y by orde r
o f th e cour t upo n th e writte n consen t o f al l th e
partie s t o th e action .
(7a)
N o actio n ma y b e file d by o r agains t a receive r
withou t leav e o f th e cour t whic h appointe d h i m
(n)
NOTE S
1. Thi s i s anothe r instanc e wher e a person who i s
not th e rea l part y in interes t i s authorize d t o su e a s a
representativ e part y unde r Sec . 3 , Rul e 3 .
2 . Receivership canno t be effected with respect to
property in custodia legis (Lizarraga Hnos.
vs. Abada,
Phil. 124), bu t wher e th e property in th e custody o f an
administrator or executor i s in dange r o f imminen t los s or
injury , a receiver thereove r may b e appointe d by th e
probat e court (Dolor vs. Sindian, L-27631, April 30, 1971).
40
3 . Contract s execute d by a receive r withou t th e

approval o f th e court constitut e hi s persona l undertaking s
an d
obligation s
(Pacific
Merchandising
Corp.
vs.
Consolacion Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., et al., L-30204,
Oct. 29, 1976).
4 . Th e last paragrap h requirin g leav e o f court for
all suit s by or agains t th e receiver ha s been adde d in order
t o enhanc e th e supervisory power an d contro l by th e court
over th e performanc e by th e receiver o f hi s duties , an d t o
forestall an y
undu e
interferenc e
therewit h
throug h
improvident suits .
750
----------------------- Page 751----------------------RULE 59
7, 8
RECEIVERSHIP
Sec. 7.
Liability
for refusal
or neglect
to
ver
property to receiver. A perso n wh o refuse s o r neglects ,
upo n reasonabl e demand , t o delive r t o th e receive r
SECS.
deli
all th e property , money , books , deeds , notes , bills ,

d o c u m e n t s an d paper s withi n hi s powe r o r control ,
subjec t o f o r involve d i n th e action , o r i n cas e
f
d i s a g r e e m e n t , a s determine d an d ordere d
b y
h e
court , ma y b e punishe d fo r contemp t an d shal l b e
liabl e t o th e receive r fo r th e mone y o r th e valu e o f
th e propert y an d othe r thing s s o refuse d o r neg lecte d t o b e surrendered , togethe r wit h al l damage s
tha t ma y hav e bee n sustaine d b y th e part y o r partie s
entitle d theret o a s a consequenc e o f suc h refusa l
o r neglect ,
(n)
NOT E
1. Thes e sanctions , contemp t an d damages , ar e
considere d necessar y an d justifie d t o obviat e th e dis respectfu l practic e o f thos e wh o woul d trifl e with court
order s by withholdin g cooperatio n from th e receiver ,
intentionally or throug h neglect .
Contemp t proceedings ,
direct or indirect , dependin g on th e act s committed , provid e
a mor e expeditiou s mode of resolving dispute s over property
sought t o
b e place d
u n d e r receivershi p
unles s
t
h e
controversy actually call s for a civil action t o resolv e th e
issue o f ownership or possession .
Since , a s note d earlier
,
th e receiver legally represent s all th e partie s t o th e action ,
th e damage s arisin g from refusa l or neglect t o surrende r
t o him th e propertie s t o b e place d unde r hi s managemen t
shall inur e in favor o f sai d parties .
Sec. 8 .
Termination of
receiver. Wheneve r th e
motio n o f e i t h e r party ,
necessit y fo r a receive r n o
afte r
d u e n o t i c e t o al
a n d
hearing , settl e th e account s
receivership; compensation of
court , motu proprio o r o n
shal l determin e tha t th e
longe r exists , i t shall ,
l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s
o f th e receiver , direc t
751
----------------------- Page 752----------------------RULE 59

E C 9
th e deliver y
possessio n t o
r e c e i v e t
th e
receive r fro m
o f th e fund s an d othe r propert y i n hi s

th e perso n adjudge d t o b e entitle d t o
h e m , a n d
o r d e r t h e d i s c h a r g e o f
furthe r dut y a s such .
Th e cour t shal l
allow th e receive r suc h reasonabl e compensatio n

a s th e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f th e cas e warrant , t o b
e
t a x e d a s c o s t s a g a i n s t t h e d e f e a t e d p a r t y ,
o r
apportioned , a s justic e requires .
(8a)
Sec. 9 .
Judgment to include recovery against sureties.
T h e
a m o u n t ,
i f a n y , t o b e a w a r d e d
t o an
y
part y
u p o n
an y
bon d
file d
i n a c c o r d a n c e wi
t h
t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s R u l e , s h a l l b e c l a i m
e d ,
ascertained , an d grante d unde r th e sam e procedur e
as prescribe d i n sectio n 2 0 o f Rul e 57 .
(9a )
NOTE S
1.
See note s unde r Sec . 20 , Rul e 57 .
2 . Where , however , th e damage s sustaine d wer e not

by reason o f th e appointmen t o f th e receiver but du e to
th e receiver' s own malfeasance , th e recovery for damage s
shall b e agains t th e bon d o f th e receiver an d may b e
recovered in a separat e action , an d not by mer e motion in
th e case wherein th e receivership wa s grante d (De la Rosa
& Co. vs. De Borja, 53 Phil. 990).
3. A judgmen t in a receivership action shal l not be
stayed after it s rendition an d before an appea l i s take n or
durin g th e pendenc y o f a n appeal ,
unles s otherwis e
ordered by th e court
(Sec. 4, Rule 39).

752
----------------------- Page 753----------------------RUL E
6 0
R E P L E V I N
Section
1 .
Application.
t h e r e c o v e r y o f p o s s e s s i o
p e r t y
m a y , a t t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t
a t a n y
t i m e b e f o r e a n s w e r , a p p l y
e
d e l i v e r y o f s u c h p r o p e r t y
n n e r
h e r e i n a f t e r p r o v i d e d , ( l a
p a r t y p r a y i n g
n o f
p e r s o n a l p r o
o f t h e
a c t i o n
o r
fo r a n o r d e r fo r t h
t o
h i m , i n t h e m a
NOTE S
1. This provisional remedy of replevin is available
where the principal purpose of the action is to recover the
possession of personal property. Where proper, replevin
must be applied for before the answer; attachment,
injunction and support pendente lite, at any time before
final judgment; and receivership, at any stage of the action
and even after final judgment.
2.
fo r
Under Sec. 1(c), Rule 57, the writ of preliminary
attachment is available in an action to recover the

possession of personal property unjustly detained, which
would make it similar to a replevin proceeding. However,
the two remedies are distinguishable as follows:
a. Replevin is available only where the principal
relief sought in the action is the recovery of possession of
personal property, the other reliefs, like damages, being
merely incidental thereto; attachment is available even if
the recovery of personal property is only an incidental relief
sought in the action.
b. Replevin can be sought only where the defendant
is in the actual or constructive possession of the personalty
involved, while attachment may be resorted to even if the
personal property is in the custody of a third person.
753
----------------------- Page 754----------------------RULE 60
SEC. 2
c. Replevin extends only to personal property capable

of manual delivery, whil e attachment extend s to al l kind s
o f propert y
whethe r real ,
persona l o r incorporea l
(Machinery
&
Engineering
Supplier,
Inc. vs. CA,
et
,
96 Phil.
70).
al.
d . Replevin i s availabl e t o recover persona l property

even i f th e sam e i s no t bein g concealed , remove d or
disposed of, whil e attachmen t to recover th e possession of
persona l property unjustly detaine d presuppose s tha t th e
same i s bein g concealed , remove d or disposed o f to prevent
its bein g found or take n by th e applicant .
e. Replevin cannot be availe d of if th e property i s in
custodia legis, a s wher e it i s unde r attachmen t (Montesa
vs. Manila Cordage Co., 92 Phil. 25) or wa s seized under
a searc h
warran t
(Pagkalinawan
vs. Gomez,
L-22585,
Dec.
18, 1967; Sec. 2[c] of this Rule), whil e attachmen t
can stil l be resorte d to even i f th e property i s in custodia
legis
(Sec. 7, Rule 57, last par.).
3. Whil
th e wri t o f
same provisiona
defendan t
Enterprises,
e Sec . 1 of thi s Rul e

replevin at th e instanc e
l remedy wa s held t o b e
on
hi s counterclai m
Inc., 84 Phil.
499) an
formerly provide d for

o f th e plaintiff , th e
availabl e t o th e
(Pongos
vs. Hidalgo
d to any othe r part y
asserting affirmativ e allegation s prayin g for th e recovery

of persona l property unjustly detained .
Sec . 1 ha s been
accordingly
amended .
Sec. 2 . Affidavit and bond. Th e applican t mus t

show
b y hi s o w n affidavi t o r tha t o f som e othe r
perso n wh o personall y know s th e facts :
(a) Tha t th e
a p p l i c a n t i s th e o w n e r
e
property claimed , particularl y describin g it , o r i s
entitle d t o th e possessio n thereof ;
o f th
(b) Tha t th e propert y i s wrongfull y detaine d

by th e advers e party , allegin g th e caus e o f detentio n
754
----------------------- Page 755----------------------RULE 60
SEC. 3
REPLEVIN
t h e r e o f a c c o r d i n g
d g e ,
information , an d belief ;
t o th e
bes t
o f h i s
k n o w l e
(c) Tha t th e propert y ha s no t bee n distraine d

or take n fo r a ta x assessmen t o r a fin e pursuan t t o
law , o r s e i z e d u n d e r a wri t o f e x e c u t i o n o r
pre l i m i n a r y a t t a c h m e n t , o r o t h e r w i s e place d
u
n d e r
custodia
legis,
o r i f s o seized , tha t i t i s exemp t
o r
shoul d b e release d fro m suc h seizur e o r custody ; an d
(d)
Th e actua l marke t valu e
o f th e
property .
Th e applican t mus t als o giv e a bond , execute d

t o t h e a d v e r s e part y i n d o u b l e t h e v a l u e o
f t h e
propert y a s state d i n th e affidavi t aforementioned ,
for th e retur n o f th e propert y t o th e advers e part y
i f t h e r e t u r n t h e r e o f b e a d j u d g e d , a n d
fo r
t h e
paymen t t o th e advers e part y o f suc h su m a s h e ma y
recove r fro m th e applican t i n th e action .
(2a)
NOT E
1. In replevin , th e bond t o b e poste d by th
mus t b e doubl e th e valu e o f th e propert y
recovered ; in attachment , th e bon d i s in such
may b e fixed by th e court , not exceedin g th e
claim or equa l t o th e valu e o f th e propert y
in injunction ,
by th e court ;
require d o f th
th e cour t in
Sec.
an d approva
o r d e r a
l e v i n
d e s c r i b
e applican t
sough t t o b e
amoun t a s
applicant' s
t o b e attached ;
th e amoun t o f th e bond mus t als o b e fixed

whil e in receivership , a bon d i s now alway s
e applican t an d shal l b e in th e su m fixed by
it s discretion .
3 . Order. Upo n th e filin g o f suc h affidavi t

l o f th e bond , th e cour t shal l issu e a n
n d t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
w r i t o f r e p
i n g
t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y a l l e g e d t
o b e
w r o n g f u l l y d e t a i n e d , an d
r e q u i r i n g t h e she
rif f
forthwit h t o tak e suc h propert y int o hi s custody .
(3a)
755
----------------------- Page 756----------------------RULE 60
-6
SECS. 4
Sec. 4.
Duty of the sheriff. Upo n
receivin g
suc h order , th e sherif f mus t serv e a cop y thereo f o n
th e a d v e r s e party , t o g e t h e r w i t h a cop y o f th
e
application , affidavi t an d bond , an d mus t forthwit h
tak e th e property , i f i t b e i n th e p o s s e s s i o n
o f
th e advers e part y o r hi s agent , an d retai n i t i n hi s
custody .
I f th e propert y o r an y par t thereo f b e
conceale d i n a buildin g o r enclosure , th e sherif f
must publicl y deman d it s delivery , an d i f i t b e not
delivered , h e mus t caus e th e buildin g o r enclosur e
t o b e broke n ope n an d tak e th e propert y int o hi s
possession .
Afte r th e sherif f ha s take n possessio n
of th e propert y a s herei n provided , h e mus t kee p i t
i n a secur e plac e an d shal l b e responsibl e for it s
delivery t o th e part y entitle d theret o upo n receivin g
hi s fee s an d
n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s fo r t a k i n g
an d
keepin g th e same .
(4a)
Sec. 5. Return of property. If th e advers e party
object s t o th e sufficienc y o f th e applicant' s bond ,
o r o f th e suret y o r s u r e t i e s t h e r e o n , h e canno
t
immediatel y requir e th e retur n o f th e property , but
i f h e doe s no t s o object , h e may , a t an y tim e befor e
th e deliver y o f th e propert y t o th e applicant , requir e
th e retur n thereof , b y filin g wit h th e cour t wher e
t h e a c t i o n i s p e n d i n g a
bon d
e x e c u t e d t o t
h e
applicant , i n doubl e th e valu e o f th e propert y a s
state d i n th e applicant' s affidavi t fo r th e deliver y o f
th e propert y t o th e applicant , i f suc h deliver y b e
adjudged , an d fo r th e paymen t o f suc h su m t o hi m
a s ma y b e recovere d agains t th e advers e party , an d
by servin g a cop y o f suc h bon d o n th e applicant .
(5a)
Sec. 6. Disposition of property by sheriff. If withi n
five (5) day s afte r th e takin g o f th e propert y b y th e
sheriff, th e advers e
part y doe s no t objec t t o th e
756
----------------------- Page 757-----------------------
RULE 60
SEC. 7
REPLEVIN
sufficiency o f t h e bond
e s
t h e r e o n ; o r i f t h
d t h e
c o u r t affirm s it s
' s bon d
o r a p p r o v e s a n
s e p a r t y
r e q u i r e s t h e r e t
b o n d i s
objecte d t o a n d foun
f o r t h w i t h fil e
shal l
b e d e l i v e r e d t
s o n t h e
p r o p e r t y i s n o
sherif f
m u s t r e t u r n i t
, o r o f t h e s u r e t y o r s u r e t i
e a d v e r s e p a r t y s o objects , a n
a p p r o v a l
o f t h e
e w
b o n d ,
u r n
o f t h e p r o p e r t y b u t h i s
o r
a p p l i c a n t
insufficien t a n d
i f t h e
h e
a d v e r
d o e s
n o t
a n a p p r o v e d bond , t h e p r o p e r t y
o t h e a p p l i c a n t . I f for a n y r e a
t delivere d t o t h e ap pl i c a n t , t h e
t o t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y .
(6a )
NOTE S
1. In orde r t o recover th e possession o f th e persona l
propert y which wa s take n unde r a writ o f replevin , th e
defendant mus t pos t a redelivery bond a s require d by Sec .
5 an d serv e
a copy of such bond on th e plaintif f withi n 5
day s from th e takin g by th e officer .
Both requirement
s
ar e mandator y an d mus t b e complie d wit h withi n th e
5-day perio d (Case, et al. vs. Jugo, et al.,
7 7 Phil.
517).
2 . Th e defendan t i s entitle d t o th e
e
propert y take n unde r a writ o f replevin , if:
retur n o f th
(a) H e seasonably post s a redelivery bond ;

(b) Th e plaintiff s bond i s found to be insufficient or
defective an d i s not replace d with a proper bond ; or
any
(c) Th e propert y i s not delivere d to th e plaintif f for

reason .
Sec . 7 .
Proceedings where property claimed by third
person.
I f t h e
p r o p e r t y t a k e n i s c l a i m e d
b y a n y
p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t w h o m t h
e w r i t
o f r e p l e v i n h a d bee n issue d o r hi s a g e n t , a n d
s u c h
p e r s o n m a k e s a n affidavi t o f hi s titl e t h e r e t o
, o r
r i g h t t o t h e possessio n thereof , s t a t i n g t h e g r o u n
d s
t h e r e f o r , a n d s e r v e s suc h affidavi t u p o n t h e sheri
f f
757
----------------------- Page 758----------------------RULE 60
7
SEC.
whil e th e latte r ha s possessio n thereof , statin g th e

ground s therefor , an d serve s suc h affidavi t upo n th e
s h e r i f f w h i l e t h e l a t t e r h a s p o s s e s s i o n o f
th e
property an d a cop y thereo f upo n th e applicant , th e
sherif f shal l no t b e
boun d t o kee p th e
propert y
unde r replevi n o r delive r i t t o th e applican t unles s
th e applican t o r hi s agent , o n deman d o f sai d sheriff,
shall fil e a bon d approve d b y th e cour t t o indemnif y
th e third-part y claiman t i n a su m no t les s tha n th e
valu e o f th e propert y unde r replevi n a s provide d i n
sectio n 2 hereof .
I n cas e o f disagreemen t a s t o suc h
value , th e cour t shal l determin e th e same .
N o clai
m
fo r d a m a g e s
fo r t h e t a k i n g o r k e e p i n g o f
th e
property ma y b e enforce d agains t th e bon d unles s
th e actio n therefo r i s file d w i t h i n on e
hundre d
twent y (120) day s fro m th e dat e o f th e filin g o f th e
bond .
The sherif f shal l no t b e liabl e fo r damages , for
th e takin g o r keepin g o f suc h property , t o an y suc h
third-part y claiman t i f suc h bon d
shal l b e file
d .
N o t h i n g h e r e i n c o n t a i n e d s h a l l p r e v e n t s u
c h
claiman t o r an y thir d perso n fro m vindicatin g hi s
clai m t o th e property , o r preven t th e applican t fro m
claimin g damage s agains t a third-part y claiman t
wh o file d a frivolou s o r plainl y spuriou s claim , i n
th e sam e o r a separat e action .
Whe n th e wri t o f replevi n i s issue d i n favo r o f
th e Republi c o f th e Philippines , o r an y office r dul y
representin g it , th e filin g o f suc h bon d shal l no t b e
required , an d i n cas e th e sherif f i s sue d for damage s
as a resul t o f th e replevin , h e shal l b e represente d
by th e Solicito r General , an d i f hel d liabl e therefor ,
th e actua l damage s adjudge d b y th e cour t shal l b e
pai d b y th e Nationa l Treasure r ou t o f th e fund s t o
b e appropriate d fo r th e purpose .
(7a)
758
----------------------- Page 759----------------------RULE 60
8-10
REPLEVIN
SECS.
NOT E
1. Th e provision s o f thi s section ar e virtuall y th e
sam e a s th e
rul e for third-part y claim s i n executio n
(Sec. 16, Rule 39) an d in attachmen t (Sec.
14, Rule 57).
Sec. 8 . Return of papers. Th e sherif f mus t fil e
th e order , wit h hi s proceeding s indorse d thereon ,
wit h th e cour t withi n te n (10) day s afte r takin g th e
propert y mentione d therein .
(8a)
Sec.
9 .
Judgment.
Afte r
tria l
o f th e
issues ,
t h e c o u r t s h a l l d e t e r m i n e w h o h a s t h e r i g h
t o f
possessio n t o an d th e valu e o f th e propert y an d shal l
rende r j u d g m e n t i n th e alternativ e fo r th e deliver y
thereo f t o th e part y entitle d t o th e same , o r fo r it s
valu e i n c a s e deliver y c a n n o t b e made , an d als o
for suc h damage s a s eithe r part y ma y prove , wit h
costs .
(9a )
Sec. 10.
Judgment to
Th e amount , i f any , t o
u p o n
a n y
b o n d
f i l
h e
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s
scer tained , an d grante d unde r
prescribe d i n sectio n 2 0 o f
include recovery against sureties.

b e awarde d t o an y part y
e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h
Rule ,
shal l
th e sam e
Rul e 67 .
b e
c l a i m e d ,
procedur e a s
(10a)
NOTE S
1. Sec . 8 ha s been amende d to reduc e from 2 0 day s
to 1 0 day s th e perio d within which th e sherif f mus t file
with th e cour t th e paper s state d therein .
2 . Th e
plaintif f
wh o
obtain s
possessio n
o f
th e
persona l property by a writ o f replevin doe s not acquir e

absolute titl e thereto , nor doe s th e defendant acquir e such
titl e by re-bondin g th e property , a s they only hold th e
propert y subjec t t o th e fina l judgmen t i n th e action .
759
----------------------- Page 760----------------------RULE 60
Consequently, a buyer of such property under these

circumstances does not acquire title thereto but also holds
the property subject to the results of the suit.
3. When the chattel mortgagor defaults, and the
chattel mortgagee desires to foreclose the mortgaged
property, he must take the mortgaged property for that
purpose, but if the debtor refuses to yield possession of
the property, the creditor must institute a replevin suit,
SECS. 8-10
either to effect a judicial foreclosure directly, or to secure

possession of the mortgaged property as a preliminary to
the sale contemplated under Sec. 14 of Act 1508 (Northern
Motors, Inc. vs. MelencioHerrera, et al., L 32674, Feb.
1973).
22,
4. Where a replevin suit is filed to recover possession

of a vehicle sold in installments preparatory to the
foreclosure of the chattel mortgage thereon, the sums
adjudged to the plaintiff for replevin bond premiums,
sheriffs expenses, costs and attorney's fees can be enforced
not only against the proceeds of the mortgaged vehicle
nor is the recovery of said sums limited to said proceeds.
Such sums are not part of the "unpaid balance of the
purchase price" and Art . 1484 of the Civil Code does not
apply to replevin suits (Universal Motors Corp. vs. Velasco,
et al., L-25140, July 5, 1980).
5. The judgment in a replevin suit is required by Sec.
9 of this Rule to be in the alternative, i.e., for the delivery
of the property to the party entitled to it if, for instance,
the same had not theretofore been delivered to him since
the adverse party had filed a redelivery bond, or for the
value of the property in case the same cannot be delivered,
plus damages. The order to deliver the property implies
that the same is in the condition provided for in the
obligation.
Hence, if it is not in such condition, the
prevailing party has the right to refuse delivery and,
instead, to ask for the enforcement of the alternative relief
for the payment of its value (Ago, et al. vs. CA, et al,
760
----------------------- Page 761----------------------RULE 60
REPLEVIN
SECS. 8-10
L-19718, Jan. 31, 1966).

This right to refuse to accept
the personalty for the same reason is also available to said
party even where he had asked for such delivery pendente
lite.
6. Under Sec. 10 of this Rule, the surety's liability
under the replevin bond should be included in the final
judgmen t to prevent duplicity of suits or proceedings.
Where the party had seasonably filed a claim for damages
on the replevin bond in the Court of Appeals while the
case was pending therein, but said appellate court ordered
that the same be heard by the trial court, and said decision
of the Court of Appeals had become final and executory,
the trial court has jurisdiction to pass upon such
application for damages
(Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs.
Solas, et al., L-48820, May 25, 1979).
7. Sec. 10 provides for the amount to be paid to "any
party upon any bond filed" under this Rule. Consequently,
the provisions of Sec. 20 of Rule 57 are applicable not
only to the replevin bond of the plaintiff but also to the
redelivery bond posted by the defendant for the lifting of
the writ of replevin. Accordingly, the requisites for a
valid claim for damages against the surety which issued

the replevin bond must also be complied with in order to
hold liable the surety on the redelivery bond, and its
liability as ascertained shall likewise be included in the
judgment against the principal
(Luneta Motor Co. vs.
Menendez,
et al., L-16880, April 30, 1963).
8. A replevin bond is simply intended to indemnify
the defendant against any loss that he may suffer by being
compelled to surrender the possession of the disputed
property pending trial of the action. He cannot recover
on the bond as for a reconversion where he has failed to
have the judgment entered for the return of the property.
The surety is not liable for payment of the judgment for
damages rendered against the plaintiff on a counterclaim
for punitive damages for fraudulent or wrongful acts
761
----------------------- Page 762----------------------RULE 60
SECS. S-io
committe d b y th e plaintiff s
an d unconnecte d wit h
defendant' s deprivatio n o f possession by th e plaintiff .
Even wher e th e judgmen t i s tha t defendant i s entitle d t o
th e property bu t n o order wa s mad e requirin g th e plaintiff
to retur n it or assessin g damage s in default o f return , ther e
could b e n o liability on th e par t o f th e suretie s unti l
judgmen t wa s entere d tha t th e property should b e restore d
(Sapugay, et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 86792, Mar. 21,
1990).
9. A wri t o f replevin may b e serve d anywher e in th e
Philippines .
Th e jurisdiction o f a court to hea r an d decide
a cas e shoul d not b e confuse d wit h it s power t o issu e
writ s an d processe s pursuan t t o an d in th e exercis e o f
said jurisdiction .
Applyin g sai d rule , Malaloan, et al. vs.
Court of Appeals, et al. [G.R. No.
104879, May 6,
1994]
reiterate d th e distinction between th e jurisdiction o f th e
tria l court an d th e administrativ e are a in which it could
enforce it s order s an d processe s pursuan t t o th e jurisdiction
conferred
upon
it
(Fernandez,
et al. vs. International
Corporate Bank, et al, G.R. No. 131283, Oct.
7, 1999).
762
----------------------- Page 763----------------------RULE
SUPPORT
Section
o f th e prope
prio r t o th
applicatio n
e d
by an y part y
t h e f i n a n
6 1
PENDENTE
LITE
1 .
Application. At th e c o m m e n
r actio n o r proceeding , o r a t an y
e j u d g m e n t o r fina l order ,
fo r suppor t pendente
lite ma
c e m e n t
tim e
a verifie d
y
b e fil
statin g th e ground s fo r th e clai m an d

c i a l c o n d i t i o n s o f b o t h p a r t i e s ,
a n d
a c c o m p a n i e d b y affidavits ,
d e p o s i t i o n s o r
t h e r
authenti c doc u m e n t s i n suppor t thereof ,
(la )
Sec. 2 .
Comment. A cop y o f th e applicatio n
a n d al l s u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t s s h a l l b e s e r v
e d
upo n th e advers e party , w h o shal l hav e fiv e (5) day s
t o commen t o n th e same , unles s a differen t perio d
i s fixe d b y th e cour t upo n hi s motion .
Th e com
men t shal l b e verifie d an d shal l b e accompanie d
b y affidavits , deposition s o r othe r authenti c docu ment s i n suppor t thereof .
(2a , 3a)
Sec. 3 .
Hearing. Afte r th e commen t i s filed , o r
after th e expiratio n o f th e tim e fo r it s filing , th e
applicatio n shal l b e se t fo r hearin g no t mor e tha n
thre e (3) day s thereafter .
Th e fact s i n issu e shal l
b e prove d i n th e
evidenc e o n motions .
sam e
manne r a s
(4a)
i s
provide d
fo r
NOTE S
1. Sec . 1 ha s been amende d to mak e thi s provisiona l
remedy availabl e not only t o th e plaintif f bu t als o t o any
part y in th e action wh o may hav e ground s t o apply for
th e same .
Sec . 2 now require s th e filin g withi n th e
extended perio d of 5 day s of a comment , instea d of an
answer a s formerly provided , sinc e thi s Rul e involve s
763
----------------------- Page 764----------------------RULE 61
SECS. 4-5
merely an ancillary remedy .

Sec . 3 , in turn , now express
ly
require s tha t a hearin g on th e application b e set within
3 day s after th e filing of th e comment or th e expiration of
th e perio d therefor .
2 . Thi s provisiona l remedy i s availabl e only in an
action for suppor t (Coquia,
et al. vs. Baltazar,
83 Phil.
265) or wher e one of th e relief s sought i s suppor t for th e
applicant .
3.
Wher e th e righ t to suppor t i s pu t in issu e by th
e
pleading s or th e fact from which th e right o f support arise s
is in controversy or ha s not been established , th e court
canno t
g r a n t
s u p p o r t
pendente
lite
(Francisc
o
vs.
Zandueta,
6 1 Phil.
752) an d th e contrary action of th
e
tria l court may b e challenge d by certiorari .

Sec . 4 .
Order. T h e
c o u r t s h a l l d e t
e r m i n e
provisionall y t h e p e r t i n e n t facts , a n d shal l r e n d e
r
s u c h o r d e r s
a s j u s t i c e a n d
e q u i t y m a y
r e q u i r e ,
h a v i n g d u e r e g a r d t o t h e p r o b a b l e o u t c o m e
o f th e
cas e a n d s u c h o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s m a y
ai d i n
t h e p r o p e r r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n involv
ed .
I f
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s g r a n t e d , t h e c o u r t sha
l l fix th e
a m o u n t o f m o n e y t o b e provisionall y pai d o r suc h
o t h e r form s o f s u p p o r t a s shoul d b e provided , t a k i n
g
int o
c a n
t h e
i n g
s u p
n c i
cas e
.
(5a)
a c c o u n
an d
t e r m s
t h e
p o r t . I
p a l
shal l b e
t h e
n e c e s s i t i e s
o f t h e
a p p l i
o f p a y m e n t
o r
m o d e
fo r
p r o v i d
f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s denied , t h e p r i
t r i e d a n d d e c i d e d a s earl y a s possible
Sec . 5 .
Enforcement of order.
d v e r s e
p a r t y
f a i l s t o c o m p l y
w i t h
r a n t i n g
s u p p o r t
pendente
lite,
t h e
l ,
motu
proprio o r u p o n motion , issu e a n o r d e
a g a i n s t h i m w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c
it y for
c o n t e m p t .
(6a )
a n
I f
t h e
o r d e r
c o u r t
a
g
s h a l
r o f executio n
e t o hi s liabil
764
----------------------- Page 765----------------------RULE 61
W h e n
SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE
SECS.
4-5
t h e p e r s o n o r d e r e d t o g i v e s u p p o r t
pendente
lite r e f u s
perso n w h o furnishe s
after du e notic e an d
a w r i t o f e x e c u
e s o r
suppor t
hearin g
t i o n
fail s t
t o th e
i n th e
t o e n f
o d o so , an y thir d
applican t may ,
sam e case , obtai n
o r c e h i s r i g h t o f
r e i m b u r s e m e n t a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o r d e r e d t
o
provid e suc h support ,
(n)
NOTE S
1. Since support does not consist merely of giving

money to the beneficiary, the amended Sec. 4 of this
Rule makes mention of "other forms of support" and the
"mode for providing the support." Sec. 5, as amended,
retains the sanctions of both execution pendente lite and
contempt against the disobedient party. It also considers
the possibility that a third person may have furnished
support to the applicant, in which case a right of
reimbursement is recognized in favor of that third person
who may obtain a writ of execution, on motion in the same
case, against the party who should legally provide such
support.
2. While an order for support pendente
interlocutory, the same, however, is subject to execution.
Being an interlocutory order and one for support, the same
may be modified at any stage of the proceedings. The
remedy, if the order is with grave abuse of discretion, is
certiorari with preliminary injunction.
lite
is
3. The support granted under this Rule is provisional

in nature and the actual amount and terms of its payment shall be determined in the final judgment. If the
judgment is in favor of the defendant, the support pendente
lite is discontinued (Saavedravs.
Ybahez Estrada,
56 Phil.
33) and the court should make findings and provisions
for the restitution of the amounts unjustifiedly received
as support pendente lite. Sec. 7 now provides therefor.
765
----------------------- Page 766----------------------RULE 61
SECS.
45
4 . Th e Court o f Appeal s may gran t suppor t pendente

lite, durin g th e pendency o f th e appea l therein , wher e n o
application therefor wa s filed and/or grante d in th e tria l
court o r eve n i f th e latte r ha d denie d a n application
therefor
(Ramos vs. CA, et al., L-31897, June 30, 1972),
provide d tha t th e basi s for th e righ t t o such suppor t ha s
been proven in th e tria l court although such finding s ar e
on appeal , or ar e so proven in th e Court o f Appeal s itself .
5. In determinin
pendente lite, it i s
th e case , it bein g
kin d an d amoun t o f
to enabl e it t o justly
t h a t th e fact s
g th e sum t o b e awarde d a s support

not necessary to go int o th e merit s of
sufficient tha t th e court ascertain s th e
evidenc e which it may deem sufficient
resolv e th e application .
It i s enough
b e establishe d b y affidavit s o r othe r
documentary evidenc e in th e record .

While adultery o f
th e wife i s a good defens e in an action for support pendente
lite, th e failur e o f th e husban d t o presen t any evidenc e
thereo n a t th e hearin g o f th e applicatio n for suppor t
pendente lite, despit e hi s allegation thereof , will not bar
her from th e righ t t o receiv e such suppor t pendente lite
(Reyes vs. Ines-Luciano, et al., L-48219, Feb. 28,
1979).
6. Where , in an action for support , plaintif f did not

ask for suppor t pendente lite an d appea l wa s duly perfected
by th e defendant from th e judgmen t therein , th e tria l court
loses jurisdiction over th e cas e an d cannot thereafter issue
an order for execution pendin g appea l sinc e sai d order i s
a proceedin g involvin g th e very matte r litigate d by th e
appeal
(Vasco
vs. CA, et al, L-46763, Feb.
28, 1978).
Plaintiff-appelle e
may ,
however ,
appl y
for suppor t
pendente
lite in th e appellat e
court ,
in lin e wit h th
e
doctrine in Ramos vs. CA, et al., supra.
7 .
observed
widow
decedent
On relevan t
tha t durin g
an d mino r
ar e entitle d
considerations , it shoul d als o b e

th e settlemen t o f th e estate , th e
o r incapacitate d
childre n o f th e
t o receiv e such allowance s a s ar e
766
----------------------- Page 767----------------------RULE 61

SEC. 6
provide d
Family
Code).

by
law
(Sec.
3,
Rule
83; cf.
Art.
133,
Sec . 6 .
Support in criminal cases. In
c r i
m i n a l
a c t i o n s w h e r e t h e civi l liabilit y i n c l u d e s s u
p p o r t
for
t h e o f f s p r i n g a s a c o n s e q u e n c e
o f t h e
c r i m e
a n d t h e civi l a s p e c t t h e r e o f h a s n o t b e e n w
a i v e d ,
r e s e r v e d o r i n s t i t u t e d p r i o r t o it s filling , t h
e a c c u s e d
m a y
b e
o r d e r e d t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t pendente
lite t o
t h e c h i l d b o r n
t o t h e
o f f e n d e d p a r t y a l l
e g e d l y
b e c a u s e
o f t h e c r i m e .
T h e
a p p l i c a t i o n t h
e r e f o r
m a y
b e
file d
s u c c e s s i v e l y b y t h e offende d
p a r t y ,
h e r p a r e n t s , g r a n d p a r e n t s
o r g u a r d i a n a n
d
t h e
S t a t e i n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g c r i m i n a l cas e d u r
i n g it s
p e n d e n c y ,
i n
a c c o r d a n c e
w i t h t h e
p r o c
e d u r e
e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r t h i s Rule ,
(n )
NOTE S
1.
Thi s i s a new provision an d ha s for it s substantiv e
basi s th e directiv e in Art . 345 o f th e Revise d Pena l Code
which pertinentl y provides :
"Art.
345.
Civil
liability
of persons
of
crimes
against
chastity.
- Person s
guilty
rape ,
seduction or abduction shal l als o b e sentenced :
gui
lty
1.
of
To indemnify th e offended woman ;
2 . T o acknowledg e th e offspring , unles s th e law

should preven t the m from s o doing ;
3.
In every cas e to suppor t th e offspring. "
Thi s sectio n had , however , t o b e modifie d sinc e

Art . 345 of th e Code include d th e crim e of abduction wher e
mer e lewd designs , without carna l knowledge , i s sufficient ,
henc e ther e nee d not necessaril y b e an offspring .
I t
wa s justifie d therei n becaus e i t furthe r provide d for
indemnity t o th e victim .
Since thi s section i s on th e subject
of suppor t for th e offspring a s a resul t o f th e crime ,
it
767
----------------------- Page 768----------------------RULE 61
SEC. 7
presupposes that there had been sexual relations, and this

is true even if such act is only punished as a component of
a composite crime, such as robbery with rape, and is within
the contemplation of this section.
2. The right herein granted to the offended party,
her parents, grandparents, guardian or the State, in that
successive and exclusive order, is in line with the
provisions of Art . 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Sec.
5, Rule 110 of these Rules which authorize them to file
the basic criminal complaint and, therefore, should include
such auxiliary remedies as may be permitted therefor.
There should accordingly be no reason to deprive the
hapless offspring from being granted such provisional
support during the pendency of the criminal case wherein
the civil aspect is included.
If the civil action was
separately instituted, support pendente lite can be sought
therein. While it is true that the civil action is suspended
upon the filing of the criminal action (Sec. 2, Rule 111),
the court wherein the former is pending can issue ancillary
writs such as preliminary injunction, attachment or similar
processes which do not go into the merits of the case
(Babala vs. Abano, 90 Phil. 827) and, with this new
provision, inclusive of the provisional remedy of support
pendente
lite.
Sec . 7 .
final
o r d e r
Restitution.
o f t h e
W h e n
c o u r t
find s
t h a t t h e
o r
p e r s
o n wh o
h a s b e e n
p r o v i d i n g s u p p o r t
pendente
lite
i s no t
liabl e therefor , i t shal l o r d e r t h e r e c i p i e n t ther

eo f
t o r e t u r n t o t h e forme r t h e a m o u n t s a l r e a d
y pai d
wit h lega l i n t e r e s t fro m t h e d a t e s o f a c t u a l payme
nt ,
w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e r i g h t o f t h e r e
c i p i e n t t o
o b t a i n r e i m b u r s e m e n t i n a s e p a r a t e actio n fro m
th e
p e r s o n legall y oblige d t o giv e t h e s u p p o r t . Shoul d
t h e r e c i p i e n t fai l t o r e i m b u r s e sai d a m o u n
t s , th e
p e r s o n w h o pai d t h e s a m e m a y see k r e i m b u r s e m e n
t
768
----------------------- Page 769----------------------RULE 61
C. 7
SE
thereo f i n a separat e actio n fro m th e perso n legall y

oblige d t o giv e suc h support ,
(n)
NOT E
1.
Thi s i s anothe r new provision intende d t o provid e
a solution to th e question o f restitutio n o f suppor t pai d by
a perso n wh o i s thereafte r declare d not liabl e therefor .
While th e practica l problem i s pose d by th e fact tha t th e
applicant or recipien t may not hav e th e financia l ability
to refun d th e same , a s in fact hi s lack o f resource s wa s
one of th e base s for th e gran t of suppor t pendente lite, it
doe s no t mea n t h a t h e i s o r wil l alway s b e actua
ll y
impecuniou s or tha t ther e i s n o other person legally obliged
t o give tha t support .
Accordingly ,
t h e p a r t y wh o
wa s
e r r o n e o
u s l y
compelled t o giv e suppor t ha s th e following remedies :
(1) H e can apply for an order for such reimbursemen t by
th e recipien t on motion in th e tria l court in th e sam e case ,
unles s such restitutio n i s already include d in th e judgmen t
rendere d in th e action ; or (2) Failin g therein , h e can file a
separat e action for reimbursemen t agains t th e perso n
legally obliged t o give such support .
Should th e recipient reimburs e th e amoun t receive d
b y hi m
a s s u p p o r t t h r o u g h e i t h e r o f th e fore
goin g
alternativ e procedures , h e shal l als o hav e th e righ t t o file
a separat e action for reimbursemen t agains t th e person
legally obliged t o give him such support .
769
----------------------- Page 770----------------------SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION S
PRELIMINARY
CONSIDERATION S
1. The former Rules prescribed, as Rule 62 thereof,

the general rule that the provisions of the preceding Rules
shall apply in special civil actions insofar as they are not
inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the
provisions of the following Rules on special civil actions.
This operational application is now incorporated in Sec. 3,
Rule 1, and the present Rule 62 now regulates the special
civil action of interpleader.
2. The special civil actions of interpleader, expropriation, foreclosure of real estate mortgage, partition, and
forcible entry or unlawful detainer are commenced by
complaints.
On the other hand, special civil actions for declaratory
relief and similar remedies, review of adjudications of the
constitutional commissions, certiorari , prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and contempt are initiated by
petitions.
3. The venue of special civil actions is governed by
the general rules on venue, except as otherwise indicated
in the particular rule for said special civil action. Thus,
actions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus should
be commenced in the proper Regional Trial Court, but the
same may, in proper cases, be commenced in the Supreme
Court or the Court of Appeals (Sec. 4, Rule 65); and a
special rule of venue is provided for quo warranto
proceedings (see Sec. 7, Rule 66).
4. Under Sec. 44(h) of the Judiciary Act, Courts of
First Instance could issue writs of injunction, mandamus,
certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto and habeas corpus
only within their respective provinces and districts (see
Dela Cruz vs. Gabor, L-30774, Oct. 31, 1969, and cases
770
CONSIDERATIONS
therei n cited) .
Unde r B.P . Big . 129, suc h writ s issue d by
th e Regiona l Tria l Court s ar e now enforceabl e withi n thei r
respectiv e region s (Sec.
21flJ).
5 . Ther e ar e thre e specia l civil action s which can b e
filed in or ar e withi n th e jurisdictio n o f th e so-calle d
inferior courts , or court s o f th e first level , viz.:
(a) Interpleader , provide d th e
it s jurisdictio n
(Makati
withi n
amoun t involve d i s
Development
Corp.
vs
.
Tanjuatco,
et al,
L-26443,
(b) Ejectmen t suit s
Mar.
25,
1969);
(c) Contemp t (Sees.
(Sec. 88, R.A. 296; Rule

1 an d 4, Rule
70); an d
71).
6. By virtu e of Sec . 3 of Rul e 1 , th e provision s of

Rule 1 6 on motion t o dismis s ar e applicabl e in specia l civil
action s
(se e National
Power
Corporation
vs.
Valera,
L-15295,
Nov.
30,
1961).
7 . Unde r Sec . 9 , B.P . Big . 129, th e the n Intermediat e

Appellat e Cour t ha d origina l jurisdiction t o issu e writ s o f
certiorari , prohibition ,
m a n d a m u s an d qu o w a r r a n
t o
whethe r or not in ai d o f it s appellat e jurisdiction .
Such
original jurisdiction i s concurrent with tha t o f th e Suprem e
Court (Sec. 17[2], R.A. 296) an d th e Regiona l Tria l Court s
(Sec. 2111],
B.P.
Big.
129).
Th e confluen t
origina l
jurisdictio n o f th e Intermediat e Appellat e Court (now , th e
Court o f Appeals ) an d th e Suprem e Court in thes e case s
is, however , subject t o th e restriction in th e Interi m Rule s
which provides :
"17.
Petition for writs of certiorari, etc.
No
petition for certiorari , mandamus , prohibition , habeas
corpus
o r qu o
w a r r a n t o ma y
b e file d i n th e
Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t i f anothe r simila r
petitio n ha s bee n filed or i s stil l pendin g
in
th
e
Supreme Court .
Nor may such petition b e filed in
th e Suprem e Court i f a similar petition ha s been filed
or i s still pendin g in th e Intermediat e Appellat e Court ,
77 1
----------------------- Page 772----------------------PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
unles s
i t
b e
t o
revie w
th e
actio n
t a k e n
b y
th e
Intermediate Appellat e Court on th e petition filed with
it . A violation o f thi s rul e shal l constitut e contempt
of cour t an d shal l b e a caus e for th e summar y
dismissal o f both petitions , withou t prejudic e t o th e
takin g o f appropriat e action agains t th e counsel or
part y concerned. "
Thi s provision wa s applie d in Vda. de Ganzon, et al.
vs. Yrad, et al. (G.R . No . 52305 , Dec . 26 , 1984 , jointly
deciding tw o othe r cases) .
Thi s interi m Rul e i s intende d
to proscrib e th e malpractic e o f "forum shopping " which
trifle s with th e courts , abuse s thei r processes , an d tend s
to degrad e th e administratio n of justic e
(E. Razon, Inc.
,
et
al. vs.
Phil.
Ports
Authority,
et
al.,
G.R.
No.
7519
7,
July 31, 1986; Buan, et al. vs. Lopez, Jr., G.R. No.
9,
Oct. 13, 1986), an d ha s been adopte d in thes e Rules .
7534
8.
In th e absenc e o f specia l reasons , it ha s long been
th e rul e tha t th e Suprem e Cour t wil l declin e origina l
jurisdictio n in certiorari , prohibition an d mandamu s cases ,
especially whe n it i s necessary t o tak e evidenc e an d mak e
findings on controverte d facts , sinc e it i s not a trie r of facts
and tha t i s a function which can bette r b e don e by th e
tria l court s
(Fisher vs. Yangco Steamship Co., 31 Phil. 1).
Thus , in case s wher e th e Suprem e Court an d th e Regional
Trial Court hav e concurren t jurisdiction , a s in petition s
for th e abov e writs , th e sam e will not b e entertaine d by
th e Suprem e Court unles s a justifie d showin g i s mad e a s
to why th e petition i s filed therei n instea d o f th e Regiona l
Trial Court
(see Piit vs. De Lara, et al., 58 Phil. 765).
The sam e rul e applie s t o an action for quo warrant o
wherein th e Suprem e Court ha s concurren t jurisdiction
with th e Regiona l Tria l Court . Absent sufficient reasons ,
th e action will be left for determinatio n by th e Regional
Trial Court which i s better equippe d t o tak e testimony an d
resolve factua l question s involved therei n
(see Veragut
h
vs. Isabela Sugar Co.,
57 Phil.
266).
772
----------------------- Page 773----------------------RUL E 6 2
I N T E R P L E A D E R
Section
1 .
Interpleader when proper.
W h e n e v e r
c on f l i c t i n g c l a i m s u p o n t h e s a m e subjec t m a t t e
r a r e
o r m a y
b e
m a d e a g a i n s t a p e r s o n w h o c l a
i m s
n o
i n t e r e s t
w h a t e v e r
i n t h e
s u b j e c t
m a t t
e r ,
o r
a n
i n t e r e s t w h i c h i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t i s n o
t d i s p u t e d
b y t h e c l a i m a n t s , h e m a y b r i n g a n a c t i o n
a g a i n s t
t h e
c o n f l i c t i n g
c l a i m a n t s
t o
c o m p e l
t h e m
t o
i n t e r p l e a d a n d litigat e t h e i r s e v e r a l c l a i m s
a m o n g
t h e m s e l v e s ,
( l a , R63 )
Sec . 2 .
Order. U p o n t h e
filin g o f t
e
c o m l a i n t , t h e c o u r t s h a l l issu e a n o r d e r r e q u i
i n g t h e
o n f l i c t i n g
c l a i m a n t s
t o
i n t e r p l e a d
w i t h
o n e
h
p
r
c
a n o t
e q u i
c o u r
e
s
m a t t
(2a ,
h e
r e
t
u b
e r
R63
r .
I f t h e i n t e r e s t s o f j u s t i c e s o r
, t h e
m a y
d i r e c t i n s u c h
o r d e r t h a t t h
j e c t
b e p a i d o r d e l i v e r e d t o t h e c o u r t .
)
Sec . 3 .
Summons. S u m m o n s
s h a l l b
s e r v e d
u p o n
t h e
c o n f l i c t i n g c l a i m a n t s ,
t o g e t h
e r
w i t h
a
copy o f t h e c o m p l a i n t a n d o r d e r .
(3 , R63 )
e
Sec . 4 .
Motion t o dismiss. Withi n t h e
filin g a n a n s w e r
m o t i o n
t o d i s m i s s
o n
t y
o f t h e
i n t e r p l e a d e r
r o p r i a t e
g r o u n d s specifie d
o fil e t h e
a n s w e r s h a l l b
e n i e d ,
t h e
m o v a n t
t h i n
t h e
r e m a i n i n g p e r i
h a n
five (5) d a y s i n a
d e n i a l , (n )
e a c h
t h e
c l a i m a n t
g r o u n d
a c t i o n
o f
o r
m a y
fil e
fil e
for
a
i m p r o p r i e
o n
i n Rul e 16 .
e tolle d a n d
m a y
t i m e
o t h e r
a p p
Th e p e r i o d t
i f t h e m o t i o n
h i s
i s d
a n s w e r
w i
o d , b u t w h i c h shal l no t b e les s t
n y event , r e c k o n e d fro m notic e o f
773
----------------------- Page 774----------------------RULE 62
SECS. 5-
7
Sec.
5.
Answer
and
other
pleadings.
E a c h
claimant shal l fil e hi s answe r settin g fort h hi s clai m

withi n fiftee n (15) day s fro m servic e o f th e summon s
upo n him , servin g a cop y thereo f upo n eac h o f th e
othe r conflictin g claimant s wh o ma y fil e thei r repl y
theret o a s provide d b y thes e Rules .
I f an y claiman t
fails t o plea d withi n th e tim e herei n fixed , th e cour t
m a y , o n m o t i o n , d e c l a r e h i m i n d e f a u l t an
d
thereafte r rende r judgmen t barrin g hi m fro m an y
clai m i n respec t t o th e subjec t matter .
Th e
p a r t i e s i n a n i n t e r p l e a d e r a c t i o n
ma y
file counterclaims , cross-claims , third-part y com plaint s an d responsiv e pleading s thereto , a s pro vide d b y thes e Rules .
(4a , R63)
Sec. 6 .
Determination. Afte r th e pleading s
th e conflictin g claimant s hav e bee n filed , an d pre -
o f
tria l ha s bee n conducte d i n accordanc e wit h th e

Rules , th e cour t shal l procee d t o determin e thei r
r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s an d a d j u d i c a t e t h e i r s e v e
r a l
claims .
(5a , R63)
Sec. 7.
Docket
and
other
lawful
fees,
costs
an
d
litigation expenses as liens. Th e
docke t
an d
othe r
lawfu l fee s pai d b y th e part y wh o file d a complain t
unde r thi s Rule , a s wel l a s th e cost s an d litigatio n
expenses , shal l constitut e a lie n o r charg e upo n th e
subject matte r o f th e action , unles s th e cour t shal l
orde r otherwise .
(6a , R63)
NOTE S
1. For th e distinction s betwee n interventio n
interpleader , se e note s unde r Sec . 1 , Rul e 19 .
an d
2. Th e action of interpleade r is a remedy whereby a

perso n wh o ha s propert y in hi s possession or ha s
obligation t o rende r wholly or partially , without claimin g
an
774
----------------------- Page 775----------------------RULE 62
5-7
INTERPLEADER
SECS.
any righ t i n both , come s t o cour t an d ask s t h a t

th e
defendant s wh o hav e mad e conflicting claim s upon th e
same propert y o r wh o conside r themselve s entitle d t o
deman d complianc e wit h th e obligation b e require d t o
litigate amon g themselve s in order t o determin e wh o i s
entitled t o th e propert y or paymen t or th e obligation .
Th e
remed y i s afforde d no t t o protec t a perso n agains t a
double liability bu t t o protect him against a double vexation
in respec t
of on e
liabilit y
(Beltran,
et al. vs. People
's
Homesite
& Housing
Corp.,
L-25138, Aug.
28,
1969).
3 . Inferior court s hav e jurisdiction in interpleade r
c a se s w h e r e t h e a m o u n t involve d
i s w i t h i n t
h e i r
jurisdiction ,
althoug h the y wer e no t boun d t o follow
strictly th e provision s o f the n Rul e 63 , bu t may apply
th e g e n e r a l rule s i n ordinar y
civi l action s
(Maka
ti
Development
Corp.
vs.
Tanjuatco,
et al., supra).
T
h e
procedura l aspec t announce d in tha t cas e i s n o longer
accurat e an d ha s been modified by th e rul e on uniform
procedur e t o b e followed by th e Regiona l Tria l Court s an d
th e lower courts .
an
The inferior court woul d not hav e jurisdiction over

interpleade r cas e for th e recover y o f titl e t o
propert y or action s for specific performance , annulmen t

or rescission o f contract s an d othe r action s withi n
exclusive origina l jurisdiction o f th e Regional Tria l Courts .
rea l
th e
4 . Sec . 4 i s a new provision an d provide s for th e filing

of a motion to dismiss .
Of course , pursuan t to Sec . 3(a) of
Rule 1 , th e provision s of Rul e 16 on a motion to dismis s
may als o b e availe d o f in specia l civil action s wheneve r
th e preliminary objection s therein may feasibly b e invoked .
However , particularl y for purpose s o f thi s specia l civil
action , th e impropriet y o f resortin g t o an interpleade r
action may b e raise d a s a specia l groun d in addition t o
thos e provide d in Rul e 16 .
A specia l rul e on th e effect
of
a motion t o dismis s upon th e reglementar y perio d t o
775
----------------------- Page 776----------------------RULE 82
SEC8
answer is further provided, to make it uniform with

Rules 12 and 16.
Along the same vein, a second paragraph has been
added to Sec. 5 to expressly authorize the additional
pleadings and claims enumerated therein, in the interest
of a complete adjudication of the controversy and its
incidents.
5. Under Sec. 5, the conflicting claimants, who are
co-defendants in the action, must serve copies of their
answers not only on the plaintiff but also upon their
co-defendants. This special rule is necessitated by the
fact that the controversy actually exists among the
co-defendants and the plaintiff may have no interest in
the subject-matter. In ordinary civil actions, co-defendants
need not serve a copy of their respective answers on each
other except when the answer contains a cross-claim.
6. The costs, expenses and attorney's fees incurred
by the plaintiff in the action is recoverable from the
defendant who loses in the action and is found by the
court to have caused the unnecessary litigation (Menzi &
Co. vs. Bastida, 63 Phil. 16).
7. Interpleader cannot be availed of to resolve the
issue of breach of undertakings made by defendants,
which issues should be resolved in an ordinary civil action
for specific performance or other relief (Beltran vs. PHHC,
L-25138,
Aug. 28, 1969).
8. Where there are no conflicting claims among the
defendants, their respective claims being separate and
distinct from each other, the complaint for interpleader
may be dismissed for lack of cause of action (Vda. de
Camilo
vs. Aranio, L-15653,
Sept. 29, 1961).
5-7
9. An action for interpleader must be filed within a

reasonable time after the dispute has arisen, otherwise it
may be barred by laches. Where a party was aware of
776
----------------------- Page 777----------------------RULE 62
-7
INTERPLEADER
th e disput e an d i n
h e
claimant s
an d th e
fact
ha d
SECS. 5
forme r
bee n
di d
sue d
no t
b y
implea d
on e
th e
o f t
othe r
c l a i m a n t , h e ca n n o longe r
invok e
t h e r e m e d y
o f
interpleader (Wack- Wack
Golf &
Country
Club,
Inc.
vs.
Lee Won, et al., L-23851, Mar. 26,
1976).
777
----------------------- Page 778----------------------RUL E
DECLARATORY
AN D
SIMILA R
6 3
R E L I E F
REMEDIE S
Section 1 .
Who may file petition. An y p e r s o n
t e r e s t e d u n d e r a d e e d , will , c o n t r a c t o r
h e r
i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t , o r w h o s e r i g h t s a r e affect
b y
s t a t u t e , e x e c u t i v e o r d e r o r r e g u l a t i o n , o
d i n a n c e ,
r a n y o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t a l r e g u l a t i o n may ,
befor e
b r e a c h o r violatio n thereof , b r i n g a n a c t i o n i n
th e
a p p r o p r i a t e Regiona l Tria l C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e an
y
q u e s t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n o r validit y a r i s i n g , a
n d for
a d e c l a r a t i o n o f h i s r i g h t s o r d u t i e s , t h e r e
u n d e r .
i
o
w
e
a
r
o
n
t
r
d
A
t r u ment , t
cloud s
therefrom
1607 o
i s
R u l e ,
the
Supreme
a c t i o n fo r t h e r e f o r m a t i o n o f a n i n s
o q u i e t titl e t o r e a l p r o p e r t y o r r e m o v e
, o r t o consolidat e o w n e r s h i p u n d e r Articl e
f t h e Civi l Code , m a y b e b r o u g h t u n d e r th
( l a , R64 )
Court,
dated
(As
Feb.
amended
17,
by
1998)
Resolution
of
NOTE S
1. The first paragraph refers to declaratory relief.
The second paragraph refers to the action to quiet title,
authorized by Arts. 476 to 481 of the Civil Code; the action
for the reformation of an instrument authorized under
Arts. 1359 to 1369 of the Civil Code; and the action to
consolidate ownership required by Art . 1607 of the Civil
Code in a sale with right to repurchase.
These three
remedies are considered similar to declaratory relief
because they also result in the adjudication of the legal
rights of the litigants, often without the need of execution
to carry the judgment into effect.
2. In declaratory relief, the subject-matter is a deed,
will , contract or other written instrument, statute,
778
----------------------- Page 779----------------------RULE 63
1
DECLARATORY RELIEF
SEC.
AND SIMILAR REMEDIES

executive
orde r or regulation ,
or ordinance .
Th e
issue
i s th e validity or construction o f thes e documents .

relief sough t i s th e
and dutie s thereunder .
Th e
declaratio n o f th e petitioner' s right s
Th e concep t o f a caus e o f action in ordinar y civil

action s doe s not apply t o declarator y relie f a s thi s specia l
civil action presuppose s tha t ther e ha s been n o breac h or
violation o f th e instrument s involved .
Consequently ,
unlik e othe r judgments , th e judgmen t i n a n action for
declaratory relie f doe s not essentially entai l any execu tiona l proces s a s th e only relie f t o b e properly grante d
therei n i s a declaratio n o f th e right s an d dutie s o f th e
partie s unde r th e instrument , althoug h som e exception s
hav e bee n recognize d unde r certai n situations .
3 . Th e requisite s o f an action for declarator y relie f
are :
(a) Th e subject-matte r o f th e controversy mus t b e a
deed, will , contract , or othe r writte n instrument , statute ,
executive orde r or regulation , or ordinance ;
(b) Th e term s o f sai d document s an d th e validity
thereo f ar e
doubtfu l an d requir e judicia l constructio n
(Santos
vs. Aquino, et al., 94 Phil.
65);
(c)
ment s
Ther e mus t hav e bee n n o breac h o f th e docu questio n

(Teodoro
vs. Mirasol,
99 Phil. 150;
Reparations
in
Commission
vs.
Northern
Lines,
Inc.,
L-24835, July 31,

i s th e remedy ;
1970), otherwis e an ordinary civil action
(d)
Ther e mus t b e an actua l justiciabl e controversy
or th e "ripenin g seeds " o f on e betwee n person s whos e
interest s ar e advers e
(Edades vs. Edades, 99 Phil.
(e) Th e issu e mus t b e rip e for judicia l determinatio n
(Tolentino
vs. Board of Accountancy,
et al., 90 Phil.
675);
83),
as , for example , wher e al l administrativ e remedie s hav e

been exhausted ; an d
779
----------------------- Page 780----------------------RULE 63
S. 2- 3
SEC
(f)
Adequat e relie f is not availabl e throug h other
mean s or other form s of action or proceeding s
a vs.
Central Bank,
L-11357,
May 31,
1962).
(Ollad
4 . By reason of thes e requisites , declaratory relief

is not availabl e for a declaration of citizenship
(VillaAbrille
Lim,
et al.
vs. Republic,
99 Phil.
361),
or th e
validity or constructio n t o b e place d on a registratio n
certificate (Obiles vs. Republic, 92 Phil. 864), as thes e ar e
unilatera l i n natur e
an d withou t conflictin g advers e
interest s between two parties , henc e they d o not fall within
th e "written instrument " contemplate d in Sec . 1 .
Also, a
court decisio n canno t b e th e
subjec t o f declarator
y
relief, a s ther e ar e othe r existin g remedie s in connection
therewith , primarily , b y appea l t o th e highe r court s
(Tanda vs. Aldaya, 98 Phil. 244),
or , in cas e of ambiguit
y ,
by a motion for a so-called "clarificatory " judgment .
5 . T o b e rip e
for judicia l d e t e r m i n a t i o n ,
or t o
constitute th e "ripenin g seeds " o f a controversy , it must
appea r that , unde r th e fact s o f th e case , ther e i s
a
threatene d litigatio n i n th e immediat e future , which
litigation i s imminen t an d inevitabl e unles s prevente d by
th e
declarator y
relie f sough t
(Tolentino
vs. Boar
d
of
Accountancy,
et
al., supra).
Sec . 2 .
a n y
Parties. Al l p e r s o n s w h o h a v e o r clai m
i n t e r e s t
w h i c h
w o u l d
b e
a f f e c t e d b
y
t h e
d e c l a r a
e c l a r a tio n shall
t h e s e
Rules , p r
t i e s t o
t h e action
Sec
io n
w h i c h
e
o r d e r
e n t a l
r e g u l a
ifie d
b y t h e
itle d
t i o n
,
shal l
e x c e p t
b e
a s
m a d e p a r t i e s ; a n d
o t h e r w i s e
n o d
p r o v i d e d
i n
e j u d i c e t h e r i g h t s o f p e r s o n s n o t p a r
.
(2a , R64 )
. 3 .
Notice on Solicitor General.
involve s
o r
t h e
validit y
o f a
s t a t u t e ,
r e g u l a t i o n , o r a n y
t i o n ,
t h e
Solicito r
In a n y act
o t h e r
G e n e r a l
executiv
g o v e r n m
shal l
b e
not
p a r t y a s s a i l i n g t h e s a m e a n d shal l b e ent
780
----------------------- Page 781----------------------RULE 63

4-6
DECLARATORY RELIEF
SECS.

t o b e hear d upo n suc h question .
(3a , R64)
Sec. 4 .
Local government
ordinances.
In
a
n y
actio n involvin g th e validit y o f a loca l governmen t
o r d i n a n c e , t h e
p r o s e c u t o r
o r
a t t o r n e y o f t h e loca l
g o v e r n m e n t uni t
i n v o l
v e d
shall b e similarl y notifie d an d entitle d t o b e heard .
I f suc h ordinanc e i s allege d t o b e unconstitutional ,
th e Solicito r Genera l shal l b e notifie d an d entitle d
t o b e heard .
(4a , R64)
Sec. 5 .
Court
action
discretionary.
E x c e p t
in
a c t i o n s f a l l i n g u n d e r t h e s e c o n d p a r a g r a p h
o f
sectio n
1
o f thi s Rule ,
th e
court ,
motu proprio
o r
upo n motion , ma y refus e t o exercis e th e powe r t o
declar e right s an d t o constru e instrument s i n an y
c a s e w h e r e
a d e c i s i o n w o u l d no t t e r m i n a t e
th e
uncertaint y o r controvers y whic h gav e ris e t o th e
action , o r i n an y cas e wher e a decisio n woul d no t
t e r m i n a t e th e u n c e r t a i n t y o r c o n t r o v e r s y w
h i c h
gav e ris e t o th e action , o r i n an y cas e wher e th e
declaratio n o r constructio n i s
prope r unde r th e circumstances .
no t
necessar y an d
(6a , R64)
Sec. 6.
Conversion
into
ordinary
action.
If
befor e th e fina l terminatio n o f th e case , a breac h
o r violatio n o f a n instrumen t o r a statute , executiv e
o r d e r o r r e g u l a t i o n , o r d i n a n c e , o r a n y
o t
h e r
g o v e r n m e n t a l r e g u l a t i o n shoul d
tak e
place , th
e
a c t i o n , m a y
t h e r e u p o n
b e c o n v e r t e d
i n t o
a n
ordinary action , an d th e partie s shal l b e allowe d t o
file suc h pleading s a s ma y b e necessar y o r proper .
(6a, R64)
NOTE S
1. Unde r Sec . 5, declaratory relief may be refused
by the court wher e the sam e would not terminat e th e
78 1
----------------------- Page 782----------------------RULE 63
4-6
uncertaint y or
proper partie s
will give ris e
th e action for
facts not the n
SECS.
controversy .
For instance , ther e may b e
wh o cannot b e joine d an d whos e interest s
t o th e uncertaint y or wher e th e judgmen t in
declaratory relie f may chang e upon proof o f
availabl e to th e court
(see 3 Moran 159,
1980 Ed.).
Thi s discretion i s justifie d as , precisely , th e
p u r p o s e o f d e c l a r a t o r y relie f i s t o t e r m i n a t
e th e
controversy .
Such discretion , however , doe s not exten d
to action s for th e reformation o f an instrument , t o quiet
titl e t o rea l property or t o remov e cloud s therefrom , or t o
consolidate ownership in a pacto de retro sale .
2 . In on e case , wha t wa s sought wa s not a declara tion tha t th e responden t wa s a corporation , on which ther e
wa s n o dispute , bu t tha t it wa s separat e an d distinct from
another corporatio n for whos e liabilitie s it shoul d not
respond .
Th e rul e i s tha t wher e th e relie f sought would
b e determinativ e o f issue s rathe r tha n a construction o f
definite state d rights , statu s an d other relation s commonly
expressed in writte n instruments , th e cas e i s not one for
declaratory judgment .
Considerin g tha t in a proceedin g
for declaratory judgmen t th e relie f which may b e sought
is limite d only t o a declaratio n o f right s an d not a
determination or tria l o f issues , a declarator y relie f
proceedin g i s unavailabl e wher e a judgmen t may b e mad e
only after a judicia l investigation of th e issue s
(Kawasak
i
Port
Service
Corp.,
et al. vs. Amores,
etc., et al., G
.R.
No.
58340, July
16, 1991).
3 . Petition s
for
declarator y
relie f regardin g
interpretation o f collective bargainin g agreement s wer e

within th e jurisdiction o f th e former Court o f Industria l
Relation s an d not o f th e Court o f Firs t Instanc e (PVTA
Employees
Association
vs.
Judge
Masakayan,
al.,
L-29538, Nov. 29, 1972, jointly decidin g therei n L-27953).
th e
et
4 . Since n o materia l relie f i s sought in an action for

declaratory relief , a third-part y complain t canno t b e
entertained therei n
(Comm. of Customs, et al. vs. Cloribel,
782
----------------------- Page 783----------------------RULE 63
DECLARATORY RELIEF
SECS. 4-6
et al, L-21036, June 30, 1977).

However , a compulsory
counterclaim may b e se t up in a declarator y relie f sui t
(Visayan
Packing
Corp.
vs. Reparations
Commission,
et
al., L-29673, Nov. 12, 1987; Phil. Deposit Insurance Corp.
vs. CA, et al, G.R. No. 126911, April 30, 2003).
5 . Th e non-joinder o f person s wh o claim any interes t
which may b e affected by a declaratory judgmen t i s not a
jurisdictiona l defect , a s Sec . 2 o f thi s Rul e provide s tha t
said declaratio n shal l not prejudic e thei r interests , unles s
otherwis e provide d in th e Rule s o f Cour t
(Baguio Citizens
Action,
Inc. vs. The
City Council,
etc., of Baguio
City,
L-27247,
April 20,
1983).
6. In an action for declaratory relie f involvin g th e
determination o f th e validity o f a municipa l ordinanc e
imposing "inspection fees " on cassav a starc h shippe d out
of th e municipalit y by petitione r corporation , th e petitio n
also praye d for th e refund o f th e amoun t pai d unde r protes t
by reaso n o f sai d ordinance .
Responden t municipalit y
questione d th e propriet y o f suc h relie f in view o f th e
natur e o f an action for declaratory relie f an d th e fact tha t
it ha d not been converte d int o an ordinary action by th e
filing o f th e correspondin g pleading s therefor .
Th e
Supreme Cour t sustaine d th e gran t o f such relie f sinc e
Sec. 6 o f thi s Rul e contemplate s th e situatio n wherein ,
before th e terminatio n o f th e action for declaratory relief,
a breac h or violation o f th e ordinanc e take s place , which
fact wa s absen t in thi s case .
Further , th e responden t
did not object t o th e allegation s on thi s issu e in it s answe r
t o th e petition . Respondent' s position would give ris e t o
a multiplicit y
of suit s
(Matalin
Coconut
Co., Inc. vs.
Mun.
Council of Malabang,
Lanao de Sur,
et al, L-28183,
Aug. 13,
1986).
7 . Also , althoug h th e action s ar e for declarator y
judgment s bu t th e allegation s i n th e complaint s ar e
sufficient t o mak e ou t a cas e for reconveyanc e o f rea l
propert y (Santos vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No.
74243, Nov. 14,
783
----------------------- Page 784----------------------RULE 63
6
SECS. 4-
1986) or for recovery of readjuste d rental s

Commercial Corp., et al.
vs. CA, et al,
(Congressional
G.R. No.
59113,
Nov. 27, 1986),

with correspondin g claim s for damages ,
and th e defendant s therei n did not object or rais e an issu e
in th e tria l court t o challeng e th e form o f th e action , th e
decision ca n gran t suc h
warrante d by th e evidence .
affirmativ e
relie f a s
may
b e
8.
An action for declaratory relie f mus t b e brought
in th e proper Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e (now , th e Regional
Tria l Court) .
I t i s no t amon g th e action s withi n th e
original jurisdiction o f th e Suprem e Court even i f only
question s of law ar e involve d (se e Sec.
17, R.A. 296
;
Remotigue vs. Osmena, Jr., L-28202, Nov.
10, 1967; Rural
Bank
of
Olongapo,
Inc.
vs.
Comm.
of Land
Registration,
et al, L-47988, Feb. 20,

1981).
However , if th e petition
ha s far-reachin g implication s an d i t raise s question s
t h a t shoul d b e resolved ,
i t ma y b e t r e a t e d a s
on e
for prohibitio n
(De
la Liana,
et al. vs. Alba,
et
al,
G.R. No. 57883, Mar. 12, 1982) or for mandamu s (Alliance
of Gov't
Workers
vs. Minister
of Labor and Employment,
G.R.
No.
60403,
Aug.
3,
1983;
In re
Saturnino
V.
Bermudez, G.R. No.
76180, Oct. 24,
1986).
784
----------------------- Page 785----------------------RUL E
6 4
REVIE W O F J U D G M E N T S AN D FINA L ORDER S

OR RESOLUTION S O F TH E COMMISSION ON
ELECTION S AN D TH E COMMISSIO N O N AUDI T
Section 1 .
Scope.
T h i s Rul e shal l g o v e r
n t h e
r e v i e w o f j u d g m e n t s a n d fina l o r d e r s o r r e s o l
u t i o n s
o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n E l e c t i o n s a n d t h e C o m m i
s s i o n
on Audit ,
(n )
Sec . 2 .
Mode of review. A j u d g m e n t or
fina l
o r d e r o r r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n E l
e c t i o n s
a n d t h e C
h t b y
t h e
a g g r i
C o u r t
o n
c e r t i o r a r
r e i n a f t e r
p r o v i d e d ,
Court,
dated
o m m i s s i o n
e v e d
p a r t y
i u n d e r
(n )
Feb.
o n
R u l e
A u d i t
t o
m a y
t h e
65 ,
b e
b r o u g
S u p r e m e
e x c e p t
a s
h e
(As amended by Resolution of the Supreme

17,
1998)
Sec . 3 .
Time to file petition. T h e p e t i t i o n s
hal l
b e file d w i t h i n t h i r t y (30) d a y s fro m notic e o
f t h e
j u d g m e n t o r fina l o r d e r o r r e s o l u t i o n s o u g h t
t o b e
r e v i e w e d .
T h e filin g o f a m o t i o n for ne w t r
i a l o r
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f sai d j u d g m e n t o r fina l o
r d e r o r
r e s o l u t i o n , i f allowe d u n d e r t h e p r o c e d u r a l r u
l e s o f
t h e C o m m i s s i o n
c o n c e r n e d ,
s h a l l i n t e r
r u p t
t h e
p e r i o d h e r e i n fixed .
I f t h e m o t i o n i s d e
n i e d , t h e
a g g r i e v e d
p a r t y m a y
fil e t h e p e t i t i o n w i
t h i n t h e
r e m a i n i n g p e r i o d , b u t w h i c h shal l n o t b e les s
t h a n
five (5) d a y s i n a n y event , r e c k o n e d fro m notic e o f
d e n i a l , (n )
Sec . 4 .
Docket and other lawful fees. Upo n t h e
filing o f t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e p e t i t i o n e r shal l pa y
t o t h e
cler k o f c o u r t t h e d o c k e t a n d o t h e r lawfu l fee s
a n d
d e p o s i t t h e a m o u n t o f P500.0 0 for costs ,
(
n )
785
----------------------- Page 786----------------------RULE 64
SECS. 1-4
NOTE S
1. This new Rule is based on the provisions of
Art . IX-A of the 1987 Constitution regarding the three
constitutional commissions provided for therein, one of the
common provisions therefor being as follows:
"SEC. 7. Each commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its members any case or matter
brought before it within sixty days from the date of
its submission for decision or resolution. A case or
matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution
upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the rules of the commission or
by the commission itself. Unless otherwise provided
by the Constitution or by law, any decision, order or
ruling of each commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof."
2. The remedy of certiorari in this Rule against
adjudications of the constitutional commissions is now
applicable only to the Commission on Elections and the
Commission on Audit. Pursuant to authority granted in
the aforequoted provision, and as explained in the early
part of this volume, Congress enacted R.A. 7902 amending
Sec. 9 of B.P . Big . 129, effective March 18, 1995,
eliminating such recourse to the Supreme Court and
transferring the revising power to the Court of Appeals
over all adjudications of the Civil Service Commission. For
that matter, the same amendment was made with respect
to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals.
3. As a consequence, the Supreme Court issued
Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 implementing
the foregoing amendment and including the Civil
Service Commission among the quasi-judicial agencies
whose awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions
should be elevated to the Court of Appeals on a petition
786
----------------------- Page 787----------------------RULE 64
SEC. 5
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS, ETC.

OF COMELEC AND COA
for review , effective Jun e 1 , 1995 .

Thi s procedur e ha
s
been formulate d int o an d i s incorporate d in thi s revision
as th e new Rul e 4 3 thereof .
Except for thi s procedura l
change in th e review o f it s adjudication , th e Civil Servic e
Commission continue s to b e governe d by Art . IX o f th e
Constitution a s
a constitutiona l commissio n create d
therein .
4 . With respec t t o th e Commission on Election s an d
th e Commission on Audit , th e mod e o f review shal l b e by
a petitio n for certiorar i in accordanc e with Rul e 65 , bu t
exclusively wit h th e Suprem e Court an d withi n a limite d
perio d o f 3 0 days .
It wil l b e observe d that , in othe
r
case s an d subject t o th e rul e on th e hierarch y o f courts ,
th e Suprem e Cour t ha s concurren t origina l jurisdiction
in certiorar i action s with th e Cour t o f Appeal s and , in
p r o p e r cases ,
als o wit h th e
Regiona l Tria l
C o
u r t s .
Furthermore , unde r Rul e 65 , th e specia l civil action o f
certiorari ther e ha s now t o b e filed withi n 6 0 days .
5.
It ca n b e
deduce d from Sec .
2 ,
Rul e
3 7 tha t a
motio n for new tria l o r reconsideratio n i n th e cour t

a quo, unles s it be pro forma, toll s th e perio d for appeal ;
if denied , th e part y shal l hav e th e balanc e o f th e perio d
t o perfec t hi s appea l from th e judgment .
A spec
ifi c
provisio n thereo n i s foun d in Sec . 3 o f thi s Rule , bu
t
with th e provis o tha t th e part y may in any even t hav e
at leas t 5 day s t o file hi s petition .
Sec. 5 .
Form
and
contents
of petition.
T
h e
petitio n shal l b e verifie d an d file d i n eightee n (18)
l e g i b l e c o p i e s .
T h e
p e t i t i o n s h a l l n a m e
t h e
a g g r i e v e d part y
a s p e t i t i o n e r an d shal l j o i
n a s
r e s p o n d e n t s th e Commissio n c o n c e r n e d an d
th e
p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s i n t e r e s t e d i n s u s t a i n i n
g th e
j u d g m e n t ,
fina l orde r o r r e s o l u t i o n a quo.
Th e
petitio n shal l stat e th e fact s wit h certainty , presen t
clearly th e issue s involved , se t fort h th e ground s
787
----------------------- Page 788----------------------RULE 64
SEC. 5
an d brie f a r g u m e n t s relie d
for j u d g m e n t a n n u l l i n g
j u d g m e n t , fina l o r d e r
d i n g s o f
fact o f t h e
C o m m i s s i o
b s t a n t i a l
evidenc e shal l b e fina l a n d
u p o n for review , an d pra y

o r modifyin g t h e questione d
o r r e s o l u t i o n .
F i n
n
s u p p o r t e d
b y
s u
non-reviewable .
Th e p e t i t i o n shal l b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a
arl y
legibl e d u p l i c a t e o r i g i n a l o r certifie d t r u e
y o f
t h e j u d g m e n t ,
fina l
o r d e r
o r r e s o l u t i
s u b j e c t
t h e r e o f , t o g e t h e r
w i t h
o p i e s
o f
such m a t e r i a l p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c o r d a s a r e
erre d
t o
t h e r e i n
a n d
o t h e r
d o c u m e n t s
r e l
a n t
a n d
p e r t i n e n t t h e r e t o .
Th e r e q u i s i t e n u m b e r
copie s
o f t h e
p e t i t i o n s h a l l c o n t a i n p l a i n
c o
e s o f al l
d o c u m e n t s
a t t a c h e d
t o t h e o r i g i n a l cop
cle
cop
o n
c
ref
e v
o f
p i
y
o f sai d
p e t i t i o n .
t e r
d a t
h e
fixed
Th e p e t i t i o n
shal l s t a t e t h e specifi c m a
i a l
e s s h o w i n g t h a t i t w a s file d
w i t h i n t
perio d
h e r e i n , a n d shal l c o n t a i n a s w o r n certificatio n
a g a i n s t f o r u m s h o p p i n g a s p r o v i d e d
t h e t h i r d
p a r a g r a p h o f sectio n 3 , Rul e 46 .
T h e p e
i e d b y
proo f o f servic e
c o n c e r n e d
d
o f t h e
timel y p a y m e n
t i t i o n
shal l f u r t h e r
b e
i n
a c c o m p a n
o f a cop y t h e r e o f o n t h e Commissio n
a n d
o n t h e
a d v e r s e
p a r t y ,
t o f d o c k e t a n d o t h e r lawfu l
a n
fees .
Th e failur e o f p e t i t i o n e r t o compl y wit h an y o f

t h e
f o r e g o i n g
s h a l l
u f f i c i e n t
g r o u n d for t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e petition ,
n )
b e
s
(
NOTE S
1.
Jus t like th e othe r petition s t o th e Suprem e Court
hereinbefor e discussed , th e requirement s for th e petition
provide d by thi s section wer e take n from Suprem e Court
revise d Circular s Nos .
1-88,
19-91 an d 28-91, with
th e
change which ha s earlie r bee n note d tha t th e deposit
for cost s shal l b e mad e upon th e filing o f th e petition in
788
----------------------- Page 789----------------------RULE 64
SEC. 6-7
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS, ETC.

OF COMELEC AND COA
addition t o th e paymen t o f th e docket an d othe r lawful

fees.
2 . Thi s section require s tha t th e petitio n shal l b e
accompanied by a duplicat e origina l or certified tru e copie s
of th e judgment,
final order or resolution subject thereof
,
and i f materia l portion s o f th e recor d ar e annexed , they
mus t als o b e certified .
Othe r p e r t i n e n t o r
relevan t
documentary annexe s nee d not b e certifie d tru e copies ,
and plai n copie s will suffice
(see
Van Melle Phili
ppines
vs. Endaya,
G.R. No.
143132, Sept.
23, 2003).
For tha t
matter , thi s requiremen t for certifie d copie s ar e intende d

for th e annexe s t o th e origina l copy o f th e petition .
In al l
th e othe r requisit e numbe r o f copie s o f th e petition , only
plai n copie s o f al l such document s i s required .
Sec . 6 .
Order t o comment. I f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r
t
find s t h e p e t i t i o n s sufficien t i n for m a n d s u b s t a n
c e ,
t h e C o u r t shal l o r d e r t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o fil
e t h e i r
c o m m e n t s o n t h e p e t i t i o n w i t h i n t e n (10) d a y s
fro m
notic e thereof ; o t h e r w i s e , t h e C o u r t m a y dismis s t h
e
p e t i t i o n o u t r i g h t . T h e C o u r t m a y als o d i s m i s
s t h e
p e t i t i o n i f i t w a s file d manifestl y for delay , o r
t h e
q u e s t i o n
r a i s e d i s t o o u n s u b s t a n t i a l t o
w a r r a n t
f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s , (n )
Sec . 7 .
Comments of respondents. Th e c o m m e n t s
o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s shal l b e file d
i n e i g h t
e e n (18)
legibl e copies .
T h e o r i g i n a l shal l b e a c c o m p
a n i e d
b y certifie d t r u e copie s o f s u c h m a t e r i a l p o r t i o n
s o f
t h e r e c o r d a s a r e r e f e r r e d t o t h e r e i n t o g e t h
e r w i t h
o t h e r s u p p o r t i n g p a p e r s .
Th e r e q u i s i t e n u
m b e r o f
copie s o f t h e c o m m e n t s shal l c o n t a i n pl a i n co
pie s
o f al l d o c u m e n t s a t t a c h e d t o t h e origina l a n d a
cop y
t h e r e o f shal l b e serve d o n t h e p e t i t i o n e r .
N o o t h e r p l e a d i n g ma y b e file d b y a n y
p a r t y
u n l e s s r e q u i r e d o r allowe d b y t h e Court ,
(n
)
789
----------------------- Page 790----------------------RULE 64
CS. 8-9
SE
NOTE S
1.
Sec . 6 of thi s Rul e i s similar to th e provision s of
th e first paragrap h o f Sec . 6 , an d th e second paragrap h

of Sec . 8 , both of Rul e 65 . Th e reason therefor i s obviously
t o preven t resor t t o th e petition s unde r both Rule s for
dilatory purposes .
2 . Sec .
should accompany
th e respondents
pleading s shal l
of th e Suprem e
7 contain s specific requirement s on wha t

an d b e containe d in th e comment o f
, with th e furthe r cavea t tha t n o other
b e filed by th e partie s withou t prior leave
Court .
Sec . 8 .
Effect of
for c e r t i o r a r i s h a
n o f th e
j u d g m e n t , fina l o r d
t o b e
r e v i e w e d , u n l e s s t
d i r e c t
o t h e r w i s e u p o n s u c
(n )
filing. T h e filin g o f a petitio n

l l n o t sta y t h e e x e c u t i o
e r
o r
r e s o l u t i o n s o u g h t
h e S u p r e m e
C o u r t
s h a l l
h t e r m s a s i t m a y d e e m just ,
Sec . 9 .
Submission
t h e
C o u r t set s t h e cas e fo r
q u i r e s
t h e p a r t i e s t o s u b m i t
shal l
b e d e e m e d s u b m i t t e d for
n g o f
t h e c o m m e n t s
o n
t h e
o t h e r
p l e a d i n g s o r p a p e r s a s
owed ,
o r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h
for
decision.
U n l e s s
o r a l a r g u m e n t , o r r e
m e m o r a n d a ,
t h e
cas e
d e c i s i o n u p o n t h e fili
p e t i t i o n , a n d
s u c h
m a y b e r e q u i r e d o r all
e p e r i o d t o d o so . (n )
NOT E
1.
Sec . 8 emphasize s th e basi c rul e tha t th e mer e
filing o f th e petition shal l not b e a ba r to execution wher e
proper unde r th e circumstances , unles s otherwis e directe d
b y th e Suprem e Cour t suc h a s throug h a temporar y
restrainin g order .
Sec . 9 , jus t lik e similar provision s i
n
th e othe r Rules , i s base d on th e provision s o f Sec .
Art . VIII o f th e Constitution .
15(2),
790
----------------------- Page 791----------------------RUL E
6 5
C E R T I O R A R I ,
P R O H I B I T I O N
AN D
MANDAMU S
Section
1 .
Petition for certiorari.
W h e
a n y
t r i b u n a l , b o a r d
o r office r
e x e r c i s i n g j u d
i c i a l o r
q u a s i - j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n s h a s a c t e d
w i t h o
u t o r
i n
e x c e s s o f it s o r h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n , o r w i t h g r
a v e a b u s e
n
o f d i s c r e t i o n a m o u n t i n g t o
it s o r
hi s j u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d t h e r e
a n y plain ,
speedy , a n d a d e q u a t e r e m e d y i n
u r s e
o f law , a p e r s o n aggrieve d t h e r e b
p e t i t i o n
act s w i t h
c e r t a i n t
e n d e r e d
a n n u l l i n
o f s u c h
t r i b u n a l
n g
s u c h
i n c i d e n t
r e .
lac k
o r exces s
o f
i s n o a p p e a l , o r
t h e o r d i n a r y c o
y m a y fil e a verifie d
i n t h e p r o p e r c o u r t , a l l e g i n g t h e f
y a n d
g
,
o r
p r a y i n g
t h a t j u d g m e n t
m o d i f y i n g
b o a r d
o r
t h e
b e
o f f i c e r , a n d
g r a n t i
a l relief s a s la w a n d j u s t i c e m a y r e q u i
T h e
p e
b y
a
certifie d t r u e
e s o l u t i o n s u b j e
a n d
d o c u m e n t s
o , a n d a
s w o r n
c e r t
i n g
a s
p r o v i d e d i n
Rul e
46 .
( l a )
t i t i o n
cop y
c t
s h a l l
b e
o f t h e j u d g m e n t ,
thereof ,
r e l e v a n t
copie s
a n d
i f i c a t i o n o f
t h e t h i r d
o f al l
o r d e r o r r
p l e a d i n g s
p e r t i n e n t
t h e r e t
n o n - f o r u m
s h o p p
p a r a g r a p h o f sectio n 3 ,
NOTE S
1. Thi s amende d section now expressly include s a
responden t
exercisin g
quasi-judicial
functions .
Th e
second paragrap h ha s als o been amende d t o additionally
requir e
a certificatio n o f non-foru m shoppin g whic h
assume s adde d importanc e by reaso n o f th e fact that ,
unde r th e presen t procedura l laws , th e Suprem e Court ,
Cour t
o f Appeal s
an d
Regiona l Tria l
Court s
hav e
concurrent jurisdiction in action s for certiorari , prohibition
an d
m a n d a m u s ,
henc e
foru m shoppin g o r multipl e
79 1
----------------------- Page 792----------------------RULE 65
SEC. l
petition s on th e sam e cas e may mor e easily b e resorte d t o

by unscrupulou s litigants .
Thi s requiremen t i s reiterate d
in th e succeedin g tw o section s on prohibition an d man damus .
Se e als o th e note s unde r Sec . 4 o f thi s Rule .
2 . Th e wri t o f certiorar i i s proper to correct error s o f
jurisdictio n committe d by th e lower court , or grav e abus e

of discretion which i s tantamoun t to lack o f jurisdiction .
Wher e th e erro r i s not on e o f jurisdiction bu t an error
of law or fact which i s a mistak e of judgment , appea l i s
th e remedy (Matute
vs. Macadaeg,
et al, 99 Phil. 340;
De Galasison vs. Maddela, et al, L-24584, Oct. 30,
1975).
However , th e Suprem e Court ha s doctrinally observed
tha t it i s sometime s necessary t o delv e int o factua l issue s
in order to resolv e allegation s o f grav e abus e o f discretion
as a groun d for th e specia l civil action s o f certiorar i an d
prohibition . Also , th e conflicting view s on th e factual issue s
or th e insufficiency o f evidenc e supportin g th e respectiv e
allegations o f th e partie s necessitate d th e review thereo f
by th e responden t Court o f Appeal s at th e very least t o
determin e th e existenc e o f grav e abus e o f discretion . Thi s
situation may validly b e treate d a s an exception t o th e
restrictiv e rul e tha t in sai d special civil action s only strictly
error s o f jurisdiction can b e considere d by th e respondent
court
(Balba,
vs. Peak
Development,
Inc., et al, G.R.
No.
148288, Aug.
12, 2005).
3. Th e us e o f th e ter m "person aggrieved " in Sec . 1
is not construe d t o mean tha t any person wh o feels injured
by th e lower court' s order or decision can question said
court's disposition via certiorar i a s provide d in thi s Rule .
Wher e th e orde r o r decisio n i n questio n underwen t
adversaria l proceeding s i n th e responden t court , th e
"person aggrieved " referre d t o i s one wh o wa s a part y with
legal standin g founde d upo n materia l interes t i n th e
proceeding s before sai d court .
Thi s can further b e gleaned
from th e fact tha t a specia l civil action for certiorar i may
generally
b e dismisse d
motu proprio
i f th e petitione r
792
----------------------- Page 793----------------------RULE 65
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
AND MANDAMUS
SEC
therei n ha d failed to file a motion for reconsideration of

th e challenge d orde r or decision in th e responden t court ,
which presuppose s tha t h e i s a part y in interes t (Tang,
et al. vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 117204, Feb. 11, 2000).
4 . An origina l action for certiorar i i s an independen t
action an d doe s not interrup t th e cours e o f th e principa l
action no r th e r u n n i n g o f th e reglementar y period s
involved
in th e proceeding s
(Palomares
vs. Jimenez,
90 Phil. 773).
Consequently , to arres t th e cours e o f th e
principa l actio n durin g th e pendenc y o f th e certiorar i
proceedings , ther e mus t b e a restrainin g order or a wri t o f
preliminar y injunction from th e appellat e court directe d
to th e lower
cour t (Santiago
vs. Vasquez,
infra).
Th e
same i s tru e wit h respect t o prohibition an d mandamus .
Th e petition s for thes e writ s unde r thi s Rul e ar e origina l
and independen t action s an d not continuation s or part s
of th e tria l resultin g in th e judgmen t complaine d of.
Th e
certiorari ,
court , doe
is no wri
mer e pendenc y o f a specia l civi l actio n for

in connection with a pendin g cas e in a lower
s not interrup t th e cours e o f th e latte r i f ther e
t of injunction
(Peza, et al. vs. Alikpala, et al.,
L-29749, April
15, 1988; Aparicio
vs. Andal, etc., et al.,
G.R. Nos. 86587-93, July 25,
1989)
or restrainin g order .
5 . For th e distinction s between th e origina l specia l
civil action for certiorar i unde r thi s Rul e an d certiorar i a s
a mod e of appellat e review , se e Not e 6 unde r Sec . 1 , Rul e
45 . Formerly , thes e specia l civil action s in Rul e 6 5 wer e
only require d t o b e filed within a reasonabl e perio d a s n o
tim e fram e for th e filing thereo f ha d been fixed by thi s
Rule
(Flordelis vs. Mar, G.R. No. 54887, May 22,
1982;
Toledo vs. Pardo, et al, G.R. No.
56761, Nov.
19, 1982;
Cubar
vs. Mendoza,
G.R.
No.
55035,
Feb.
23,
1983).
However ,
petitione r coul d b e guilt y o f lache s i f h e
failed t o avai l o f thes e remedie s withi n a reasonabl e
perio d
(Mun.
of Carcar
vs.
CF1
of Cebu,
L-31628,
Dec. 27, 1982).
Thi s Rul e now provide s for a specific
793
----------------------- Page 794----------------------RULE 66
. 1
SEC
perio d for filing sai d petitions , (see Sec. 4.).

6 . C e r t i o r a r i , p r o h i b i t i o n an d m a n d a m u s
ar e
distinguished a s follows :
a.
With
is intende d
prohibitio n
carrying out
compel th e
respect
to
the purpose of
the
writ,
certiorar i
t o correct an act performe d by th e respondent ;

i s intende d t o preven t th e commission or
o f an act ; whil e mandamu s i s intende d t o
performanc e o f th e act desired .
b.
With
d,
certiorari extend
t o discretionary
ministeria l acts
respect
to
the
act
sought
to
be
controlle
s only t o discretionary acts ; prohibition ,

an d ministeria l acts ; an d mandamus , t o
.
c.
With
respect
to the
respondent,
certiorar i
lie s
only agains t a responden t exercisin g judicia l or quasi judicia l functions , whil e both prohibition an d mandamu s
are availabl e agains t respondent s wh o exercis e judicia l
and/or non-judicia l functions .
7 . A responden t i s sai d t o b e exercisin g judicia l
functions wher e h e ha s th e power t o determin e wha t th e
law is , wha t ar e th e lega l right s o f th e parties , an d h e
undertake s t o determin e thes e question s an d adjudicat e
upon th e right s of th e partie s (see Ruperto vs. Torres, etc.,

et al., 100 Phil.
1098 fUnrep.J; Mun.
Council of Lemery
vs. Prov. Board of Batangas, 56 Phil. 266).
It is
y
tha t ther e b e a law providin g for th e adjudication o f right
an d th e tribunal , board , o r officer ha s th e powe
determin e th e law an d adjudicat e such rights .
a
committee for determinin g honor s for student s
o,
et al. vs. Bautista,
et al., L-25024,
Mar.
30,
or
a boar d of judge s for an oratorica l contest , etc . (Felipe
Leuterio, et al., 9 1 Phil. 482) cannot be proper respondent s
in certiorar i proceedings .
necessar
s
r t o
Hence ,
(Santiag
1970)
vs.
8. Th e responden t act s without jurisdiction if he does

not hav e th e lega l power t o determin e th e case .
Ther e
i s
excess of jurisdiction wher e th e respondent , bein g clothe d
794
----------------------- Page 795----------------------RULE 65
AND MANDAMUS
SEC. 1
with the power to determine the case, oversteps his

authority as determined by law
(Rocha vs. Crossfield,
6 Phil. 355). And there is grave abuse of discretion where
the respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary
or despotic manner in the exercise of his judgment as to
be said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction (Alafriz vs.
Nable,
62 Phil. 278; Abad
Santos
vs. Prov.
of Tarlac,
66 Phil. 480).
a. Excess of jurisdiction, as distinguished from lack
of jurisdiction, refers to any act which although falling
within the general powers of the judge is not authorized
and is consequently void with respect to the particular
case because the conditions under which he was only
authorized to exercise his general power in that case did
not exist and, therefore, the judicial power was not legally
exercised
(Broom vs. Douglas, 175 Ala. 268, 5 7 S. 860;
see Tengco
vs. Jocson, 43 Phil. 716).
b. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words, where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason
of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent
and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or
to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to
act in contemplation of law.
It is not sufficient that a
tribunal, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion;
such abuse must be grave
(Benito vs. COMELEC, et al.,
G.R. No. 134913, Jan. 19, 2001, citing cases;.
The
remedies in Rule 65 are extraordinary, and their use is
restricted to truly extraordinary cases (see Republic vs.

Villarama, Jr., etc., et al., G.R. No. 117733, Sept. 5,
1997).
9. A requisite common to the writs of certiorari,

prohibition and mandamus is that these writs may be
availed of only if there is no appeal or any plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law from
the acts of the respondent.
795
----------------------- Page 796----------------------RULE 66
1
SEC.
a . Wher e th e proper remedy i s appeal , th e action for

certiorari will not be entertaine d (Nocon vs. Geronimo, etc.,
et al., 101 Phil. 735).
Certiorar i is not a remedy for error s
of judgment . Error s o f judgmen t ar e correctable by appeal ;
e r r o r s o f j u r i s d i c t i o n ar e reviewabl e b y certiorar
i
(Lamangan vs. De la Cruz, et al., L-27950, July 29, 1971;
Phil.
Surety & Insurance Co.
vs. Jacala,
108 Phil.
177
;
Bimeda vs. Perez, et al., 93 Phil. 636).
Th e origina l action
for certiorar i i s no t a substitut e for appea l (Lobite vs.
Sundiam,
etc.,
et
al. L-38278,
June
28,
1983),
especially
when th e remedy o f appea l wa s lost throug h th e fault o f

th e party .
However , even whe n appea l i s availabl e an d i s th e
prope r remedy , th e Suprem e Cour t ha s allowe d a writ
of certiorar i (1) wher e th e appea l doe s not constitut e a
speedy
an d
adequat e
remedy
(Salvadades
vs. Pajarillo
,
et al., 78 Phil.
77), a s wher e 33 appeal s wer e involved
from order s issue d in a singl e proceedin g which will
inevitably resul t in a proliferation of mor e appeal s
(PCIB
vs. Escolin, et al., L-27860 an d L-27896, Mar. 29,
1974)
;
(2) wher e th e order s wer e als o issue d eithe r in exces s o f
or
w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n (Aguilar vs.
Tan,
L-23600,
Jan.
30,
1970;
Bautista,
et al. vs.
Sarmiento,
et a
l.,
L-45137,
Sept.
23,
1985);
(3)
for
c e r t a i n specia
l
considerations , a s publi c welfar e or publi c policy (see
Jose
vs. Zulueta,
et al., L-16598,
May
31,
1961,
an
d
cases cite d therein) ; (4) where , in crimina l actions , th e
court reject s rebutta l evidenc e for th e prosecution as , in
case of acquittal , ther e could be no remedy
(People vs
.
Abalos, L-29039, Nov. 28, 1968); (5) wher e th e order is a
paten t nullity (Marcelo
vs. De Guzman,
et al., L-29077,
June 29, 1982); an d (6) wher e th e decision in th e certiorar i

case will avoid futur e litigation s
(St. Peter Memorial Park,
Inc. vs. Campos, et al., L-38280, Mar. 21,
1975).
Furthermore , even i f th e defendant ha d perfecte d hi s
appeal from th e judgmen t by defaul t rendere d by th e
Court o f Firs t Instance , h e can stil l avai l o f certiorar i t o
796
----------------------- Page 797----------------------RULE 65
AND MANDAMUS
SEC. 1
challenge a writ of execution issued by the trial court

pending said appeal
(Omico Mining & Industrial Corp.
vs. Vallejos, L-38974, Mar.
25, 1975).
b. As already stated, where the remedy of appeal was
lost thru the fault or negligence of the petitioner, he
cannot avail of the writ of certiorari (Florendo vs. CFI of
Ilocos Sur, 104 Phil. 661; Phil. Surety & Insurance
Co.
vs. Jacala, supra; Jose vs. Zulueta, supra; Ago
vs. Baslon,
L-19631, Jan. 31, 1964; De la Cruz, et al. vs. IAC, et al.,
G.R. No. 63612, Jan. 31, 1985), except where the court
acted without jurisdiction in issuing the order complained
of (Crisostomo
vs. Endencia,
66 Phil. 1).
10. Also, all these petitions must be verified and, in
the case of certiorari and prohibition, accompanied by
certified copies of the judgment or order complained of
and the pertinent pleadings and documents. They can all
be filed either in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals,
or Regional Trial Court (Sec. 4). The requirement for
verification is relaxed where all the issues involved appear
in and can readily be verified in the records of the case
with the court a quo or are annexed to the petition
(see Note 6 under Sec. 4, Rule 7).
11. The petitions are specifically required to be
accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or
order subject thereof.
The precursor of these revised
Rules, which was Administrative Circular No . 3-96,
provided that a certified true copy shall be such other copy
furnished to a party at his instance or in his behalf, duly
authenticated by the authorized officer or representatives
of the issuing entity. That certified true copy must further
comply with all the regulations of the issuing entity and
it is the authenticated original of such certified true copy,
and not a mere xerox copy thereof, which can be utilized
as an annex to the petition or other initiatory pleading
(NYK International Knitwear Corp.,
etc., et al. vs. NLRC,
et al., G.R. No. 146267, Feb. 12, 2003).
797
----------------------- Page 798-----------------------
RULE 65
SEC. 1
12. A remed y i s considere d "plain , speed y an d

adequate " i f it will promptly reliev e th e petitioner from
th e injuriou s effect s o f th e judgmen t an d th e act s o f th e
lower court or agency
(Silvestre vs. Torres, et al., 75 Phil.
885).
Thus , whil e in th e regula r cours e o f appea l th e
interlocutory act s o f th e court may b e assigne d a s errors ,
such remedy may not necessarily b e adequat e a s it can b e
availed o f only in th e futur e an d prejudic e may hav e been
caused in th e interim , henc e certiorar i i s permitte d t o b e
availed of
(Villalon, et al. vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No.
73751,
Sept. 24, 1986).
13. Th e rul e i s that , before certiorar i may b e availed
of, th e petitione r mus t hav e
file d a motio n for th e
reconsideratio n by th e lower cour t o f th e act or order
complaine d
of
(Villa-Rey
Transit
vs. Bello,
L-18957,
April 23,
1963).
Th e purpos e of thi s requiremen t i s to
enable th e lower court , in th e first instance , t o pas s upon
and correct it s mistake s withou t th e interventio n o f th e
higher court .
For thi s reason , it ha s been hel d tha t such
motion for reconsideration , reiteratin g th e sam e ground s
against th e order sough t t o b e reconsidered , i s not covered
by th e pro forma
rul e i f i t i s directe d a g a i n s t a
n
interlocutory order .
In th e cas e o f a fina l orde r
or
judgment , a motion for reconsideratio n prio r t o takin g
an appea l i s not required ; hence , in such case , th e pro
forma
rul e applie s
(BA Finance Corp.
vs. Pineda, et al,
G.R. No.
61628,
Dec.
29,
1982).
However , even in origina l action s unde r thi s Rule , a

motion for reconsideration o f an interlocutory order may
b e dispense d with :
(a)
Wher e
th e
orde r
i s
p a t e n t
nullit y (Vigan
Electric
Light
Co., Inc.
vs. Public
Service
Commission,
L-19850, Jan. 30,
1964; Luzon Surety Co. vs. Marbella, et
al, 109 Phil.
734; Dir. of Lands vs.
Santamaria,
44 Phil.
594), a s wher e
th e cour t a quo ha d
n o jurisdictio n
(Malayang Manggagawa
sa Esso
vs. Esso
Standard,
Inc.,
L-24224,
July
20,
1965);
798
----------------------- Page 799----------------------RULE 65
AND MANDAMUS
SEC. 1
(b) Wher e
proceedin g hav e
th e lower
cour
Feb. 28, 1967), or
upon in th e lower
108 Phil.
Mar.
31,
th e question s raise d i n th e certiorar i

bee n duly raise d an d passe d upon by
t (Fortich-Celdran
vs. Celdran,
L-22677,
ar e th e sam e a s thos e raise d an d passe d
court
(Pajo, etc., et al. vs. Ago, et al.,
905; Legaspi
1977);
Oil
Co.
vs.
Geronimo,
L-28101,
(c) Wher e t h e r e i s a n urgen t necessit y for th e

resolution o f th e question an d any furthe r delay woul d
prejudic e th e
interest s o f th e Governmen t
(Vivo vs.
Cloribel, L-23239,
Nov.
23, 1966; National Electrification
Administration
vs. CA, et al., L-32490, Dec. 29, 1983) or
of th e petitione r
(Bache
& Co.
[Phil.], Inc. vs. Ruiz,
L-42409,
Feb. 27, 1971; Gonzales,
et al. vs. IAC, et al.
,
G.R. No. 63614, Aug. 28,
1984);
(d) Where , unde r th e circumstances , a motion for
reconsideratio n woul d b e useless , a s wher e th e cour t
ha d alread y indicate d tha t i t woul d deny an y motion
for reconsideratio n of it s questione d orde r
(People vs.
Palacio, etc., et al, 108 Phil. 220);
(e) Wher e petitione r wa s deprive d o f du e proces s
and ther e i s extrem e urgency for relie f
(Luzon Surety
Co. vs. Marbella,
et al, supra);
(f) Where , in a crimina l case , relie f from an orde r o f
arrest i s urgen t an d th e grantin g o f such relie f by th e
tria l cour t is improbabl e
(Matutina
vs. Buslon,
et al,
109 Phil
140);
(g) Wher e th e proceeding s in th e lower court ar e
nullity
for lack of du e proces s (Matute
vs. CA, et
L-26751,
Jan.
31,
a
al,
1969);
(h) Wher e th e proceedin g wa s ex parte or in which

th e petitione r ha d no opportunity to object
(Republic vs.
Maglanoc,
L-16848, Feb.
27, 1963); an d
(i)
Wher e th e issu e raise d i s one purely o f law or

799
----------------------- Page 800----------------------RULE 65

SEC. 2
wher e public interes t is involved

ir
Lines,
Inc.,
et
al., L-31396,
rawi
Marantao
General
Hospital,
t
al.,
G.R. No.
141008, Jan. 16, 2001).
(PALEA
Jan.
et
30,
al.
vs.
vs.
Phil. A
1982;
Ma
CA,
14. Question s offset cannot be raise d in an original

action for certiorari .
Only establishe d or admitte d facts
can
be
considere d
(Rubio
vs. Reyes,
et al.,
L24581,
May
27,
1968; Jimenez,
et al. vs.
NLRC,
et al.,
G.R.
No. 116960, April 12, 1996; Suarez vs. NLRC, et al., G.R.
No.
124723, July 31,
1998).
15. In origina l action s for certiorar i unde r thi s Rule ,
th e finding s o f fact o f th e Cour t o f Appeal s ar e not
conclusive or bindin g upon th e Suprem e Court , unlik e th e
general rul e in appeal s by certiorar i unde r Rule 45. That
theory o f conclusivenes s doe s not apply in thi s special
civil action unde r Rul e 65
(Medran vs. CA, et al., 83 Phil.
164).
Sec . 2 .
Petition for prohibition. Whe n t h e pro ceeding s o f a n y t r i b u n a l , c o r p o r a t i o n , board , offi
cer
o r p e r s o n , w h e t h e r
e x e r c i s i n g j u d i c i a l ,
q u a s i judicia l o r m i n i s t e r i a l functions , a r e w i t h o u t o r i
n
exces s o f it s o r hi s j u r i s d i c t i o n , o r wit h grav e abu
s e
o f d i s c r e t i o n a m o u n t i n g t o lac k o r exces s o f it
s o r
hi s j u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d t h e r e i s n o a p p e a l o r
an y othe r
plain , speedy , a n d a d e q u a t e r e m e d y i n t h e o r d i n a
r y
cours e o f law , a p e r s o n aggrieve d t h e r e b y ma y file
a verifie d petitio n i n t h e p r o p e r court , allegin g th e
fact s wit h c e r t a i n t y a n d p r a y i n g t h a t j u d g m e n
t b e
r e n d e r e d c o m m a n d i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o desis t
from
further proceeding s i n t h e actio n o r m a t t e r specifie d
t h e r e i n , o r o t h e r w i s e
g r a n t i n g s u c h
i n c i
d e n t a l
relief s a s la w a n d j u s t i c e ma y r e q u i r e .
Th e petitio n shal l likewis e b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y
a certifie d t r u e cop y o f th e j u d g m e n t o r orde r subjec t
thereof ,
e n t s
c o p i e s o f
al l p l e a d i n g s
a n d
d o c u m
800
----------------------- Page 801----------------------RULE 65
C. 2
SE
AND MANDAMUS
r e l e v a n t a n d
r n
p e r t i n e n t
t h e r e t o , a n d
s w o
certificatio n o f non-foru m shoppin g a s provide d

th e thir d paragrap h o f sectio n 3 , Rul e 46 .
i n
(2a)
NOTE S
1. Prohibitio n i s a preventiv e remedy .
However , t
o
preven t th e responden t from performin g th e act sough t t o
b e prevente d durin g th e pendency o f th e proceeding s for
th e writ , th e petitione r shoul d obtain a restrainin g order
and/or a wri t o f preliminar y injunction .
2 . Prohibitio n lie s agains t
functions, bu t not t o legislativ e
tc.
vs. Torres,
etc., et al., 100
t is
available agains t publi c officers wh o
an unconstitutiona l executiv e order
vs.
Siva,
et al.,
L-19870,
judicia l or
function s
Phil.
ministeria l
(Ruperto,
1098 fUnrep.J).
e
I
Mar.
wer e appointe d unde r

(Mun. of San Joaquin
18,
1967).
3 . In orde r t h a t prohibitio n wil l

lie agains t
a n
executive officer , th e petitione r mus t first exhaus t al l
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies , a s prohibitio n i s availabl e
only
w h e n
t h e r e a r e n o o t h e r plain ,
speed y
a
n d
a d e q u a t e r e m e d i e s i n t h e o r d i n a r y cours e
o f
la w
(Cabedo,
et al. vs. Director
of Lands,
et al., L-12777
,
May 23,
1961).
4 . Certiorari , prohibitio n an d mandamu s d o no t
generally lie , subject t o well-settle d exceptions , agains t
th e legislativ e an d executiv e branche s or th e member s
thereo f actin g in th e exercis e o f thei r official functions ,
basically in consideratio n o f th e respec t du e from th e
judiciar y t o sai d department s o f co-equal an d coordinat e
rank s unde r th e principl e o f separatio n o f powers .
Als
o ,
th e act s sough t t o b e impugne d may b e essentially politica l in natur e and , a s a rule , non-justiciable , sinc e th e
remed y therefro m lie s no t i n th e court s bu t i n th e
department in regar d t o which full discretionary authority
is vested , or by th e submission thereo f t o th e judgmen t
801
----------------------- Page 802----------------------RULE 66
of th e citizenry in th e proper political

thi s doctrin e o f politica l question ,
prohibition agains t justiciability , ha s
appreciably been delimite d in it s application
SEC. 2
forum .
However ,
a s a defens e an d
significantly an d
an d may not ,
therefore , b e a s
former constitutiona l
of th e provision s of
whereof provide s in
readily availabl e a s it wa s unde r th e

an d procedura l governance , in view
th e 1987 Constitution , Sec . 1 , Art . VIII
par t a s follows :
"Judicial power include s th e duty o f th e court s o f

justic e t o settl e actua l controversie s involving right s
which ar e legally demandabl e an d enforceable , and
to determin e whethe r or not ther e ha s been a grave
abus e o f discretio n amountin g t o lack or exces s
of jurisdiction on th e par t o f any branch or instru mentality o f th e Government. "
This provision , however , doe s not apply to or provide
for justiciability over a cas e or an issu e therei n wher e a
political question in sensu strictiore i s actually involved .
5 . Whil e prohibitio n doe s no t ordinaril y li e t o
restrai n an ac t which i s alread y a fait accompli, th e
Supreme Court ha s mad e an exception t o thi s doctrin e
in Tan, et al. vs. COMELEC, et al. (G.R . No . 73155,
July 11, 1986) wher e th e creation of a new provinc e out
of th e origina l territory of Negro s Occidental ha d allegedly
been approve d in a plebiscit e an d th e existenc e of a new
provinc e ha d already been proclaimed .
Th e Court noted
th e paten t illegality an d unconstitutionality o f th e creation
of sai d new provinc e an d th e mischie f an d dangerou s
precedent o f such an act whereby thos e in th e corridor s o f
power could avoid judicia l interventio n an d review by
merely speedily an d stealthily completin g th e commission
of an illegality .
6 . Prohibition , an d not mandamus , i s th e remedy
wher e a motion to dismis s i s improperly denie d (Enriquez
vs. Macadaeg, 84 Phil.
674).
802
----------------------- Page 803----------------------RULE 65
C. 3
SE
AND MANDAMUS
Sec. 3 .
Petition
for
mandamus.
W h e n
a
y
r i b u n a l , c o r p o r a t i o n , board ,
office r o r
p e r
o n
n l a w f u l l y n e g l e c t s t h e p e r f o r m a n c e
o f a n
ac t
w h i c h
t h e l a w
s p e c i f i c a l l y e n j o i n s a s a d
u t y
r e s u l t i n g f r o m a n o f f i c e , t r u s t , o r s t a t i o
n , o r
u n l a w f u l l y e x c l u d e s a n o t h e r fro m t h e
u s e
a n d
enjoymen t o f a righ t o r offic e t o whic h suc h othe r
i s entitled , an d ther e i s n o othe r plain , speed y an d
adequat e remed y i n th e ordinar y cours e o f law , th e
perso n aggrieve d thereb y ma y fil e a verifie d petitio n
n
t
s
u
i n th e prope r court , allegin g th e fact s wit h certaint y

a n d
p r a y i n g t h a t j u d g m e n t b e r e n d e r e d
c
o m m a n d i n g th e respondent , immediatel y o r a t som e
othe r tim e t o b e specifie d b y th e court , t o d o th e ac t
r e q u i r e d t o b e d o n e t o protec t th e right s o f t
h e
petitioner , an d t o pa y th e damage s sustaine d b y th e
p e t i t i o n e r b y r e a s o n o f th e wrongfu l act s o f th
e
respondent .
T h e
p e t i t i o n s h a l l a l s o c o n t a i n
r n
certificatio n o f non-foru m shoppin g a s provide d i n
th e thir d paragrap h o f sectio n 3 , Rul e 46 .
s w o
(3a)
NOTE S
1. "Discretion, " whe n applie d t o publi c functiona ries , mean s a powe r or righ t conferre d upon the m by
law o f actin g officially ,
unde r certai n circumstances ,
uncontrolle d by th e judgmen t or conscienc e o f others .
A
purel y ministeria l ac t or duty , in contradictio n t o a
discretional act , i s one which an officer or tribuna l perform s
in a given stat e o f facts , in a prescribe d manner , in
obedience t o th e mandat e o f a lega l authority , withou t
regar d t o or th e exercis e o f hi s own judgmen t upon th e
propriet y or impropriet y o f th e act done .
I f th e
law
imposes a duty upon a publi c officer an d give s him th e
right t o decid e how or when th e duty shal l b e performed ,
such duty i s discretionary an d not ministerial .
Th e du
ty
is ministeria l only when th e discharg e o f th e sam e require s
803
----------------------- Page 804----------------------RULE 65
SEC. 3
neithe r th e exercis e o f official discretion or judgmen t

(Samson
vs. Barrios,
63 Phil.
198; Lemi
vs.
Valencia,
L-20768,
Nov.
29,
1968;
Meralco
Securities
Corp.
vs.
Savellano,
et al.,
L-36181,
Oct.
23,
1982).
2. Mandamu s will lie to compel th e performanc e of a

ministeria l duty , not a discretionary duty
(Sy Ha vs.
Galang,
L-18513, April 27,
1963),
an d petitioner must
show tha t h e ha s a well defined , clear an d certain right t o
warran t th e gran t thereo f (Avenue Arrastre & Stevedoring
Corp.
vs. Commissioner
of Customs,
L-44674,
Feb.
28,
1983; Sales vs. Mathay, et al., L 39537, May 31,
1984).
Thus ,
m a n d a m u s wil l no t li e t o compe l th e schoo l
authoritie s to graduat e a studen t who ha s failed to comply
with th e disciplinary an d academi c rule s o f th e school a s

said wri t canno t revie w o r contro l th e exercis e o f
discretionary
power s
(Magtibay
vs. Garcia,
L-28971,
Jan. 25, 1983).
Th e sam e rul e applie s to a studen t who
wa s denie d readmission to a school on similar ground s
(Tangonan vs. Paho, et al., L 45157, June 27,
1985).
3. A writ of mandamu s will not issu e to control th e
exercise of official discretion or judgment , or to alter or
review th e action take n in th e prope r exercis e o f th e
discretion or judgment , for th e writ cannot be use d a s a
wri t o f erro r or othe r mod e o f direc t review (34 Am.
Jur. 856).
Thi s doctrin e underlie s our rule s on thi s special
civil action , which i s of American vintage , an d exception s
to or permutation s thereo f ar e generally not allowed in
th e ordinary cours e o f procedure .
4 . However , in extrem e situation s generall y in
criminal cases , mandamu s lie s t o compel th e performanc e
by th e fiscal of wha t ostensibly ar e discretionary function s
where , by reason of grav e abus e of discretion onTiis part ,
hi s actuation s ar e tantamoun t t o a willful refusa l t o
perform a duty specifically require d by law
(see Note s 4
and 5 unde r Sec. 1, Rule 110).
804
----------------------- Page 805----------------------RULE 65
C. 3
CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION
SE
AND MANDAMUS
It ha s als o been hel d tha t whil e th e discretion o f a
court will not ordinarily b e controlled by mandamus , wher e
such discretion o f th e court can b e legally exercise d in only
one way an d it refuse s t o act , mandamu s will lie t o compel
th e cour t t o excercis e it .
Mandamu s can b e employe d t o
correct error s o f lower court s t o preven t a failur e o f justic e
or irreparabl e injury wher e ther e i s a clear lega l righ t an d
ther e i s an absenc e o f any adequat e remedy , a s wher e
ther e i s n o appea l or such remedy by appea l i s inadequate .
It may als o b e employe d t o preven t an abus e o f discretion
or t o correct an arbitrar y action which doe s not amoun t t o
exercise of discretio n
(People
vs. Orais,
65 Phil.
744;
Tuvera-Luna,
Inc.
vs. Nable,
67 Phil.
340).
Further , th e genera l rul e i s tha t in th e performanc e
of an official duty or act involvin g discretion , such official
can only b e directe d by mandamu s t o act
bu t not t o
act
one way or th e other .
An exception t o thi s rul e i s wher e
ther e ha s been gros s abus e o f discretion , manifest injustice ,
or palpabl e
exces s o f a u t h o r i t y , i n whic h cas e
th e
r e s p o n d e n t ca n b e o r d e r e d t o ac t i n a p a r t i c
u l a r
manner ,
especiall y wher e a constitutiona l righ t ha s
been violate d
No.
79484, Dec.
(Kant Wong, et al.

1987).
5. Whil e mandamu s
du e cours e
t o th e
dismissed , mandamu s will
dismis s th e appea l a s
to dismis s a s an erro r
vs.
Alfonso,
vs.
PCGG, et al.,
G.R.
7,
78 Phil.
lie s to compel a court to give

appea l whic h i t ha s erroneousl y
not lie t o compel a court t o
th e remedy i s t o assign such failur e
in th e cours e o f th e appea l (Lapisan
842).
6. Wher e th e appea l i s frivolous an d intende d solely

for delay ,
th e appellat e cour t may properl y den y a
petition for mandamu s seekin g t o compel th e tria l court
to certify th e appea l
(MRR Co. vs. Ballesteros, L-19161,
April
29,
1966).
805
----------------------- Page 806----------------------RULE 65
SEC. 3
7. Formerly , when ther e wa s no perio d fixed for th e

filing o f th e petition for mandamus , th e tim e wa s variabl e
as th e end s of justic e may deman d
(Reparations Commission vs. Macadaeg,
L-20619,
July 29, 1968),
bu t th e
petition mus t b e filed within a reasonabl e tim e an d th e
petitione r mus t not be guilty of lache s
(Contreras vs.
Villaraza, et al., G.R. No. 53372, Aug. 21,
1980).
The
policy o f th e Suprem e Court i s not to deny th e writ i f th e
result would b e to depriv e a part y o f hi s substantiv e right s
and leav e him withou t remedy
(Centenera vs. Yatco, 106
Phil.
1064;
Phil.
Merchant
Marine
Academy
vs.
CA,
et al., L-38212, Feb. 27, 1976).
Now , unde r th e next
section, th e petition mus t b e filed not late r tha n 6 0 day s
after notice o f th e judgment , order or resolution .
8. Wher e a municipalit y fail s withou t justifiabl e
cause t o pay a fina l money judgmen t agains t it , th e
claimant may avai l o f mandamu s t o compel th e enactment
and th e correspondin g disbursemen t o f municipa l funds
therefor .
Asid e from th e fact tha t it i s a ministeria l an d
mandatory duty to obey a final judgment , thi s remedy i s
further justifie d by th e fact tha t public fund s or property
necessar y for publi c us e ar e generall y exemp t from
attachmen t o r execution , henc e th e claiman t woul d
otherwis e
b e stuc k wit h a n empt y j u d g m e n t (se e
Municipality of Makati
vs. CA,
et al, G.R. Nos.
8988999, Oct. 1, 1990).
9 . Mandamu s doe s no t lie t o compe l th e perfor mance of a contractua l duty
(Quiogue vs. Del Rosario,
46 Phil. 337), especially if th e contract is disputed , an d
such mandamu s sui t cannot b e converte d int o an ordinary
action for breach of contract
(NAMARCO vs.
Cloribel,
L-27260, April 29, 1968).
Sec . 3 refer s to act s enjoined
by law to be done , hence , contractua l dutie s ar e outsid e
th e scope of th e writ
(Prov. ofPangasinan vs. Reparations
Commission, et al, L-27448, Nov. 29, 1977).
Furthermore ,
ther e
ar e
othe r
availabl e
remedie s
i n
th e
ordinar y
806
----------------------- Page 807----------------------RULE 65
3
SEC.
AND MANDAMUS
cours e
o f law
t o enforc e
contractua l obligations .
Se
e
Commission
on
Elections,
et
al.
vs.
Quijano-Padilla,
t
al. (G.R . No . 151992 , Sept . 18, 2002) wher e thi s matte r
wa s extensively discussed , togethe r wit h th e case s cite d
therein .
10. Mandamu s can b e availe d o f only by th e part y
wh o ha s direc t lega l interes t in th e righ t sough t t o b e
enforced .
However , i f th e question i s on e o f publi c righ t
and th e object o f th e mandamu s sui t i s t o procur e th e
performanc e o f a publi c duty , it i s sufficient t o show tha t
th e petitione r i s a citizen even i f h e ha s n o specia l interes t
in th e
r e s u l t (Benitez
vs. Paredes,
et al., 52
Phil
.
113; Tahada,
et al. vs. Tuvera,
et al, G.R.
No.
63915,
April
24,
1985).
11. A petitio n for mandamu s i s prematur e i f ther e

ar e administrativ e remedie s availabl e t o th e petitione r
(Perez
vs. City Mayor of Cabanatuan,
L-16786,
Oct.
,
1961).
Where , however , th e cas e involve s only lega l
questions , th e litigan t nee d not exhaus t all administrativ e
remedie s before such judicia l relie f can b e sought (Espanol
vs. The
Chairman,
etc., of the PVA,
L-44616,
June
31
29,
1985).
12. Wher e th e issu e o f damage s wa s raise d in th e
tria l court in th e sam e petition for certiorari , prohibition
an d m a n d a m u s
an d t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y ha d am p l
e
opportunity t o defen d itself, th e court may validly awar d
such damages .
Sai d clai m wa s i n th e n a t u r e o f
a n
independent caus e o f action , distinct an d separat e from
th e issu e o f whethe r or not mandamu s will issue , but joined
with th e caus e o f action for th e writ s praye d for withou t
opposition on th e par t o f th e responden t therein .
Thi s i
s
allowed by Rul e 135 which permit s th e adoption o f any
suitable mod e or proceedin g i f n o specific procedur e i s
pointe d ou t an d als o in orde r t o avoi d mutiplicit y o f
suits
June
(Executive Secretary,
10,
1988).
et
al.
vs. CA,
et al,
L-37999,
807
----------------------- Page 808----------------------RULE 65
SEC. 4
13. In a special civil action for mandamu s in th e Court

of Appeals , sai d court ha s th e power t o awar d damage s
praye d for a s an incident or th e resul t o f th e respondent' s
wrongful act in failing an d refusin g t o d o th e act require d
to b e done . Th e Solicitor General 's theory tha t th e rul e
in question i s a mer e procedura l one allowing joinder of
an actio n o f mandamu s an d anothe r for damage s i s
untenable , for it implie s tha t a claim for damage s arisin g
from th e commission or failur e to do an act subject of a
mandamu s suit may b e litigate d separately from th e latter .
Furthermore , th e fact tha t th e petitioner ha s obtained
authority for partia l execution o f th e judgment , consisting
of hi s reinstatemen t an d paymen t o f back salaries , does
not estop him from pursuin g hi s claim for damage s against
th e respondent for th e latter' s refusa l to comply with a
final an d executory judgmen t of competent authority .
The
Court o f Appeal s acte d correctly in allowing th e petitioner
to pursu e sai d claim for damage s by treatin g it s judgmen t
in th e mandamu s actio n a s divisibl e an d capabl e o f
being enforced in part s
(Vital-Gozon, etc. vs. CA, et al.,
G.R. No. 101428, Aug. 3, 1992).
Sec. 4.
When and where to file petition . T h e
petitio n shal l b e file d no t late r tha n sixt y (60) day s
from notic e o f th e judgment , orde r o r resolution .
I n cas e a motio n fo r reconsideratio n o r ne w tria l
i s timel y filed , whethe r suc h motio n i s require d o r
not, th e petitio n shal l b e file d no t late r tha n sixt y
(60) day s counte d fro m notic e o f th e denia l o f th e
motion .
I f th e petitio n relate s t o a n ac t o r a n omissio n
of a municipa l tria l cour t o r o f a corporation , a
board , a n office r o r a person , i t shal l b e file d wit h
Cour t exercisin g jurisdictio n
ove r th e territoria l area s a s define d b y th e Suprem e
Court. I t ma y als o b e file d wit h th e Court o f Appeal s
o r wit h th e Sandiganbayan , w h e t h e r o r no t th e
808
----------------------- Page 809----------------------RULE 65
4
AND MANDAMUS
sam e i s i n ai d o f th e court' s appellat e jurisdiction .
I f th e petitio n involve s a n ac t o r omissio n o f a quasi judicia l agency , unles s otherwis e provide d b y la w
o r t h e s e rules , th e petitio n shal l b e file d wit h an d
b e cognizabl e onl y b y th e Cour t o f Appeals .
SE
I n e l e c t i o n c a s e s i n v o l
a n
omissio n o f a municipa l o r a regiona
t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l b e file d e x
t h e
C o m m i s s i o n o n E l e c t i o n s , i
p e l l a t e
j u r i s d i c t i o n . (As
amended
in
,
effective Dec.
27,
2007)
v i n g a n
a c t o r
l tria l court ,
c l u s i v e l y w i t h
n
ai d
A.M.
o f it s
No.
a p
07-7-12-SC
NOTE S
1. In th e absenc e o f specia l reasons , th e Suprem e
Court althoug h i t ha s concurren t origina l jurisdiction with
th e Cour t o f Firs t Instance , will not tak e cognizanc e o f
thes e petitions .
Thi s i s especially tru e wher e th e petition
involve s question s o f fact an d may entai l receptio n o f
evidence
(Veraguth
vs. Isabela Sugar Co.,
5 7 Phil. 2
66;
Vergara vs. Suelto, et al., G.R. No.
74766, Dec. 21, 1987).
2 . A petitione r desirin g t o avai l himsel f o f thes e
extraordinary writ s i s not at complet e liberty t o file hi s
petitio n in any o f th e above-state d court s jus t becaus e
they hav e concurren t origina l jurisdiction over th e same .
H e cannot , throug h whim or capric e or t o secur e an undu e
advantage ,
disregar d th e hierarch y o f court s i n ou r
judicia l system , which hierarchy i s on e o f th e structura l
aspect s intende d for th e orderly administratio n o f justice .
Thus ,
in th e certiorar i cas e of Santiago
vs.
Vasquez
,
et al. (G.R . Nos . 99289-90 , Jan . 27 , 1992), th e Suprem e
Court ha d th e occasion t o stres s th e rul e t o b e observe d in
thi s regard , a s follows :
"One final observation .
ceeding s
in thi s cas e
W e discern in th e pro -
a propensit y on th e par t o f
809
----------------------- Page 810----------------------RULE 65
SEC . 4
petitioner , and , for tha t matter , th e sam e may b e said

of a numbe r o f litigant s wh o initiat e recourse s
before us , t o disregar d th e hierarchy o f court s in our
judicia l system by seekin g relie f directly from thi s
Court despit e th e fact tha t th e sam e i s availabl e in
th e lower court s in th e exercis e o f thei r origina l or
concurrent jurisdiction , or i s even mandate d by law
to b e sought therein .
Thi s practic e mus t b e stopped ,
not only becaus e o f th e imposition upon th e preciou s
tim e o f thi s Court bu t als o becaus e o f th e inevitabl e
and resultan t delay , intende d or otherwise , in th e
adjudication o f th e cas e whic h often ha s t o b e
remande d or referre d t o th e lower court a s th e proper

forum unde r th e rule s o f procedure , or a s bette r
equipped t o resolv e th e issue s sinc e thi s Court i s not
a trie r of facts . We , therefor e , reiterat e th e judicial
policy tha t thi s Court will not entertai n direct resort
to it unles s th e redres s desire d cannot b e obtaine d in
th e appropriat e court s o r wher e exceptiona l an d
compelling circumstance s justif y availmen t o f a
remedy withi n an d callin g for th e exercis e o f our
primar y jurisdiction .
For th e guidanc e o f th e bench an d th e bar , w e
elucidat e tha t suc h policy include s th e matte r o f
petition s or motion s involving hold departur e order s
of th e tria l or lower courts .
Partie s with pendin g
cases therei n shoul d apply for permission t o leave
th e country from th e very sam e court s which , in th e
first instance , ar e in th e best position t o pas s upon
such application s an d t o impos e th e appropriat e
conditions therefor since they ar e conversant with th e
facts of th e case s an d th e ramification s or implication s
thereof .
Where , a s in th e presen t case , a hold
departur e order ha s been issue d ex parte or motu
proprio by sai d court , th e part y concerne d must first
exhaust th e appropriat e remedie s therein , through
a motion for reconsideration or othe r prope r sub 810
----------------------- Page 811----------------------RULE 65
4
CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION
SEC.
AND MANDAMUS
mission or by filing th e requisit e application for trave l
abroad .
Only wher e al l th e condition s an d require ment s for th e issuanc e o f th e extraordiar y writ s o f
certiorari , prohibitio n o r m a n d a m u s indubitabl y
obtain agains t a disposition o f th e lower court s may
our powe r o f supervisio n ove r sai d tribunal s b e
invoked throug h th e appropriat e petition assailin g on
jurisdictiona l or clearly vali d ground s thei r actuation s
therein. "
Thi s policy o f th e Suprem e Cour t not t o entertai n
direct resor t t o it unles s compellin g justification exist s
therefor ,
a s e a r l i e r explained , ha s bee n r e i t e r a
t e d
in subsequen t cases ,
suc h a s Uy
vs. Contreras,
e t
al.
(G.R. No . 123352 , Feb . 7, 1996), Bercero vs. De Guzman
(G.R. No . 123573 , Feb . 28 , 1996) , Advincula vs. Legaspi,
et al. (G.R . No . 125500 , Aug . 7 , 1996), an d applie d with
significant effect s in th e late r cas e of St. Martin Funeral
Home vs. NLRC, et al.
(G.R . No . 130866 , Sept . 16, 1998) .
3 .
e
cognizance
F o r m e r l y ,
o f thes e
t h e Cour t
origina l action s
o f Appeal s
only
in ai d
coul d
t a k
o f it s
appellate jurisdiction .
Thus , i f th e decision in th e main
case wa s not appealable , or , i f appealable , th e sam e wa s
within th e appellat e jurisdiction o f th e Suprem e Court ,
th e petition could not b e institute d in th e Court o f Appeals ,
as it woul d not thereb y b e actin g in ai d o f it s appellat e
jurisdictio n
(Breslin
vs. Luzon Stevedoring Co.,
84 Phil.
618; Pineda & Ampil Mfg. Co., et al.
95 Phil. 930).
Also ,
th e Cour
o
jurisdictio n t o entertai n a petitio
prohibitio n t o nullify a wri t o f
grantin g th e wri t i s not appealabl e
Inc.
vs. Estabello,
L-20610, Jan.
vs. Bartolome,
o f Appeal s
et al.,
ha d
n for certiorar i an d
execution a s th e orde r
(J.M. Tuazon & Co.,
9, 1975).
In a case , th e Suprem e Court entertaine d an origina l

action for certiorar i an d prohibition wher e th e question
presente d in sai d petition wa s one o f law , by analogy with
th e rul e t h a t appeal s o n pur e question s o f law
ar e
811
----------------------- Page 812----------------------RULE 65
SEC. 5
appealable
judgmen t
appealable
vs.
People,
ter
clarified
Court o f

directly t o th e Suprem e Court , even i f th e
tha t may b e rendere d i n th e mai n cas e i s
to th e Court of Appeal s
(see Sangalang
109 Phil.
1140).
However ,
th e
rul e
wa s
la
t o th e effect tha t th e origina l jurisdiction o f th e

Appeal s to issu e sai d writ s in ai d o f it s appellat e
jurisdictio n
raised , a s
view of it
vs.
CA, et al.,
wa s not determine d by th e kin d o f question s

of fact or law , bu t by th e merit s of th e appea l in
s natur e
(Phil. Merchant Marine Academy
L 38212, Feb.
7, 1976).
Thi s controvers y ha s felicitously been settle d by

Sec. 9 , B.P . Big . 129 which confer s concurrent jurisdiction
on th e Intermediat e Appellat e Cour t (now , Cour t o f
Appeals) over origina l action s for th e issuanc e of said writ s
whethe r o r no t th e sam e ar e i n ai d o f it s appellat
e
jurisdiction .
Sec
s.
W h e n
a c t s o r
omission s
t r i b u n
e
p e t i t i
e n t
o r
r e s p o n
. 5 .
t h e
Respondents
p e t i t i o n
and
costs
file d
in
certain
r e l a t e s t o
case
t h e
o f a j u d g e , court , quasi-judicia l agency ,

a l , c o r p o r a t i o n , board , officer o r person , th
o n e r s h a l l
d e n t s
j o i n a s
w i t h
s u c h
p r i v a t e
p u b l i c
r e s p o n d
r e s p o n d e
n t
o r
r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s i n t e
e s t e d i n
s u s t a i n i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e court ; a n d
t shal l
b e t h e d u t y o f s u c h p r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t s t o
p p e a r
a n d defend , bot h i n hi s o r t h e i r ow n behal f an d i n
b e h a l f o f t h e
p u b l i c r e s p o n d e n t
o r r e s p
n d e n t s
affecte d b y t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , a n d t h e cost s a w a r
e d
in suc h p r o c e e d i n g s i n favo r o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r
shal l
b e a g a i n s t t h e p r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t s only ,
a n d no t
a g a i n s t t h e j u d g e , quasi-judicia l agency , t r i b u n
l ,
c o r p o r a t i o n , board , officer o r p e r s o n impleade d a s
publi c r e s p o n d e n t o r r e s p o n d e n t s .
r
i
a
o
d
Unles s o t h e r w i s e specificall y directe d

b y th e
c o u r t w h e r e t h e p e t i t i o n i s p e n d i n g , t h e
pu bl i c
r e s p o n d e n t s shal l no t a p p e a r i n o r fil e a n a
n s w e r
812
----------------------- Page 813----------------------RULE 65
o r c o m m e n t
I f th e cas e
party , t h e p
e d
t h e r e i n a s
AND MANDAMUS
SEC. 5
t o th e petitio n o r an y pleadin g therein .

i s elevate d t o a highe r cour t b y eithe r
u b l i c r e s p o n d e n t s shal l b e i n c l u d
n o m i n a l p a r t i e s . H o w e v e r , u n l e s s
otherwis e
specificall y directe d b y th e court , the y
shall no t appea r o r participat e i n th e proceeding s
therein .
(5a)
NOTE S
1. The amendments in this section enumerate
who shall be impleaded as public respondents in the
action and their permissible participation therein, as well
as the duties and liabilities of the private respondents. It
will be recalled that in appeal by certiorari under
Rule 45, the Court of Appeals shall no longer be impleaded
as a respondent. The reason for the difference is that
Rule 45 governs an appellate review by certiorari, hence
there can properly be no public respondent since the
dispute is actually between the contending parties in the
case, that is, the appellant and the appellee in the Court
of Appeals who are respectively the petitioner and the
respondent in the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, Rule 65 involves an original

special civil action specifically directed against the person,
court, agency or party a quo which had committed not
only a mistake of judgment but an error of jurisdiction,
hence they should be made public respondents in that
action brought to nullify their invalid acts.
It shall,
however, be the duty of the party litigant, whether in an
appeal under Rule 45 or in a special civil action in Rule
65, to defend in his behalf and the party whose
adjudication is assailed, as he is the one interested in
sustaining the correctness of the disposition or the validity
of the proceedings.
2. The party interested in sustaining the proceedings
in the lower court must be joined as a co-respondent and
813
----------------------- Page 814----------------------RULE 66
EC. 6
h e ha s th e duty t o defend in hi s own behal f an d in behalf

of th e court which rendere d th e questione d order .
Wh
ile
ther e i s nothin g in th e Rule s tha t prohibit s th e presidin g
judg e o f th e court involved from filing hi s own answer
and defendin g hi s questione d order , th e Suprem e Court
ha s reminde d judge s o f th e lower court s t o refrain from
doing so unles s ordere d by it
(Turquenza vs. Hernando,
et al., G.R. No.51626, April 30, 1980).
Th e judicia l nor
m
or mode o f conduct to be observe d in tria l an d appellat e
courts i s now prescribe d in th e second paragrap h o f thi s
section.
3 . Th e privat e responden t bein g an indispensabl e
party , hi s non-inclusion woul d rende r th e petition for
certiorar i
defectiv e
(Amargo
vs. CA,
et al., L-317
62,
Sept.
19, 1973).
Th e judg e in certiorar i proceeding s
is merely a nomina l or formal part y
(Republic vs. CFI of
Lanao de Norte, et al, L-33949 an d L-22986, Oct. 23,1973;
Taroma, et al. vs. Sayo, et al, L-37296, Oct. 30, 1975).
4 . A person not a part y to th e proceeding s in th e tria l
court or in th e Cour t o f Appeal s canno t maintai n an
action for certiorar i in th e Suprem e Court t o hav e th e
judgmen t
reviewe d
(Ramos
vs.
Lampa,
63 Phil
216).
See als o Tang, et al.
vs. CA, et al (G.R . No .
11720
4 ,
Feb . 11 , 2000) .
Sec . 6 . Order to comment. I f t h e p e t i t i o n
i s
sufficient
i n for m a n d
s u b s t a n c e t o justif y
s
uc h
process
th e
r e s p
t h e
petitio
t h e r
t h e
r e s p
t ,
togethe
t h e r
, t h e c o u r t shal l issu e a n o r d e r r e q u i r i n g
o n d e n t
o r r e s p o n d e n t s
t o
c o m m e n t
n withi n t e n (10) day s fro m receip t o f a cop y

e o f . S u c h
o r d e r
s h a l l b e
s e r v e d
o n
o n
o n d e n t s i n suc h m a n n e r a s t h e cour t ma y direc

r wit h a cop y o f t h e petitio n an d an y annexe s
e t o .
I n petition s for c e r t i o r a r i befor e th e S u p r e m e
Cour t a n d t h e
Cour t o f Appeals , t h e provision s o f

814
----------------------- Page 815----------------------RULE 65

C. 6
SE
AND MANDAMUS
sectio n 2 , Rul e 56 , shal l b e observed .
Befor e givin g
d u e c o u r s e t h e r e t o , t h e c o u r t ma y
r e q u i r e
t h e
r e s p o n d e n t s t o fil e thei r c o m m e n t to , an d no
t a
m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , th e petition .
Thereafter , th e
cour t ma y requir e th e filin g o f a repl y an d suc h
othe r responsiv e o r othe r pleading s a s i t ma y dee m
necessar y an d proper .
(6a)
NOTE S
1. In
th e
petition s
unde r
thi s
Rul e
filed
in
th e
Regional Tria l Court , no prior servic e o f a copy thereo f on

th e responden t i s required .
Th e tria l court , a s provide
d
in thi s section , shal l first determin e whethe r th e petition
is sufficient in form an d substanc e t o justify such proces s
and , i f so , shal l order th e responden t t o comment thereon .
Such orde r shal l b e serve d on sai d responden t together
with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto.
T
hi s
procedura l aspect i s similar t o tha t in petition s for relie f
from judgments , order s an d so forth
(Sec. 4, Rule 38).
On th e othe r hand , pursuan t t o th e second paragrap h
of thi s section ,
in petition s for certiorar i befor e
Supreme Cour t an d th e Cour t o f Appeals , ther e mus t b e
proo f of prio r servic e of a copy of sai d petition on th e
respondent , asid e from th e othe r requirement s such a s
th e content s an d certification s provide d therefor .
th e
Th e
failure o f th e petitione r to comply with any o f th e foregoing requirement s shal l b e sufficient groun d for th e
dismissal of th e petition s
(Sec. 2, Rule 56, in relation to
Sec.
3,
Rule 46).
2. Th e respondent , is now require d to file a comment ,

instea d o f an answer , t o th e petition an d thi s applie s t o
any court wherei n th e action i s filed .
I f it i s in th
e Regional Tria l Court , ther e shal l b e a hearin g or submission
of memoranda , a s provide d in an d subject to th e provision s
of Sec . 8 . In th e Court of Appeal s an d th e Suprem e Court ,
n o hearin g i s require d bu t th e Court may requir e a reply
816
----------------------- Page 816----------------------RULE 65
SECS. 7-8
and such other and further pleading s as may be necessary

and proper.
See , however, A.M. No. 99-2-04-SC laying
down the new procedure dispensin g wit h rejoinder and
providin g
instea d
for
submissio n
o f memorand a
(Appendix
R).
If the petition is insufficient in form and substance,
the sam e may be forthwith dismisse d without further
proceedings.
Sec. 7.
Expediting proceedings; injunctive
The cour t i n whic h th e petitio n i s file d ma
order s expeditin g th e proceedings , an d i t ma y
grant a temporar y restrainin g orde r o r a wri t
preliminar y injunctio n fo r th e preservatio n o f
right s o f th e partie s pendin g suc h proceedings .
p e t i t i o n s h a
th e
principa l case ,
orde r o r a wri t
i s s u e d , e n j o
m
furthe r proceedin g
l l n o t i n t e r r u p t
relief.
y issu e
als o
o f
th e
Th e
t h e c o u r s e o f
u n l e s s a temporar y restrainin g
o f preliminar y injunctio n ha s bee n
i n i n g t h e p u b l i c r e s p o n d e n t fro
wit h th e case .
The publi c responden t shal l procee d wit h th e

principa l cas e withi n te n (10) day s fro m th e filin g
of a petitio n fo r certiorar i wit h a highe r cour t o r
tribunal , absen t a temporar y restrainin g orde r o r
a preliminar y injunction ,
o r upo n it s expiration .
F a i l u r e o f t h e p u b l i c r e s p o n d e n t t o p r o c e e d
wit h th e principa l cas e
administrativ e charge .
7-12-SC, effective Dec. 27,
Sec. 8.
ma y b e a groun d fo r
(As amended in A.M. No.
2007)
Proceedings after comment is filed. Afte r
a n
07-
th e commen t o r othe r pleading s

court ar e filed , o r th e tim e for
expired , th e cour t ma y hea r th e
partie s t o submi t memoranda .
or filin g o f memorand a o r upo n
th e perio d
fo r filing , t h e
require d b y th e
th e filin g thereo f ha s
cas e o r requir e th e
If, afte r suc h hearin g
th e expiratio n o f
c o u r t find s tha t
th e
816
----------------------- Page 817----------------------RULE 65
AND
SEC
MANDAMUS
allegation s o f th e petitio n ar e true , i t shal l rende r

judgmen t fo r suc h relie f t o whic h th e petitione r i s
entitled .
However , th e cour t ma y dismis s th e petitio n i f
i t f i n d s t h e s a m e
p a t e n t l y w i t h o u t m e r i t o r
prosecute d manifestl y fo r delay , o r i f th e question s
r a i s e d t h e r e i n ar e to o u n s u b s t a n t i a l t o r e q
u i r e
consideration .
I n suc h event , th e cour t ma y awar d
i n favo r o f th e r e s p o n d e n t trebl e cost s solidaril y
agains t th e petitione r an d counsel , i n additio n t o
s u b j e c t i n g c o u n s e l t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s a n c t
i o n s
unde r Rule s 139 an d 139-B o f th e Rule s o f Court .
res
Th e Cour t ma y impos e motu proprio,

ipsa
loquitur,
othe r
disciplinar y
base d
sanction s
o n
o r
measur e o n errin g lawyer s fo r patentl y dilator y an d

unmeritoriou s petition s fo r certiorari .
(As amended
in A.M.
No. 07-7-12-SC,
effective Dec.
27, 2007)
NOTE S
1. Sec. 7 now provides for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, and not only for a writ of
preliminary injunction, but such order shall be subject to
the rules on the grounds and duration thereof.
2. Sec. 6 contemplates the outright dismissal of the
petition which is insufficient in form and substance, in
line with the last paragraph of Sec. 3, Rule 46. Sec. 8, on
the other hand, governs after the comment is filed and
authorizes the dismissal of the petition if found to be
patently without merit, dilatory or too unsubstantial to
merit consideration.
Sec. 9.
Service and enforcement of order or judgment.
A certifie d cop y o f th e judgmen t rendere d i n
accordanc e wit h th e las t precedin g sectio n shal l b e
s e r v e d u p o n t h e c o u r t , q u a s i - j u d i c i a l a g e n
c y ,
817
----------------------- Page 818----------------------RULE 65
9
tribunal ,
c o r p o r a t i o n , board ,
concerne d i n suc h manne r a s th

an d d i s o b e d i e n c e t h e r
a s
contempt .
A n executio n ma y
or cost s awarde d i n accordanc e
Rul e 39 .
(9a )
SEC.
office r
o r
perso n
e cour t ma y direct ,
e t o shal l b e p u n i s h e d
issu e fo r an y damage s
wit h sectio n 1 o f
NOT E
1.
Wher e th e higher court find s tha t th e lower court
wa s in error , ordinarily th e cas e i s remande d t o th e lower
court for further appropriat e proceedings .
However , it
may rende r judgmen t on th e merit s without reman d o f
th e cas e wher e th e fact s reveale d by th e pleading s clearly
show tha t th e petitioner i s entitle d t o th e relie f praye d for
(see Lina us. Purisima, L-39380, April 14,
1978).
Thus
,
in a certiorar i cas e wher e th e lower cour t rendere d a
default judgmen t for an amoun t much higher tha n tha t
authorized by th e Rules , th e Suprem e Court decided th e
case on th e merits , instea d o f remandin g th e same , since
certiorari i s also equitabl e in character (Ledesma Overseas
Shipping Corp.
us. Auelino,
L-47698, April 28,
1978).
818
----------------------- Page 819----------------------RULE
QUO
S e c t i o n
1.
6 6
WARRANT O
Action
by
Government
against
individuals.
A n
a c t i o n fo r th e u s u r p a t i o n o f
a
publi c office , positio n o r franchis e ma y b e com mence d b y a verifie d petitio n brough t i n th e nam e
o f th e Republi c o f th e Philippine s against :
(a) A perso n w h o usurps , intrude s into , o r un lawfull y hold s o r exercise s a publi c office , positio n
o r franchise ;
(b)
A publi c office r wh o doe s o r suffer s a n ac t
which , b y provisio n o f law , constitute s a groun d fo r
th e forfeitur e o f hi s office ; o r
(c)
A n associatio n whic h act s a s a corporatio n
w i t h i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s w i t h o u t b e i n g l e g a l
l y
incorporate d o r withou t lawfu l authorit y s o t o act .
(la )
NOTE S
1. Thi s amende d Rul e i s now limite d to quo warrant o
proceeding s involving a public office, position or franchise .
Par . (c) of Sec . 1 refer s to an association which exercise s
corporate function s or power s although it ha s not been
legally incorporated . In th e cas e o f a legally incorporate d
entity , th e qu o warrant o action i s now governe d by th e
Corporation Code .
For tha t reason , th e former Sec . 2 o f
thi s Rule , which provide d for qu o warrant o agains t a
corporation ,
ha s no t bee n reproduce d here ,
an d al
l
reference s t o proceeding s i n qu o warrant o involvin g
corporation s a s provide d in th e former Rul e hav e been
eliminated .
2 . Qu o warrant o i s th e remedy t o try dispute s with
respect to th e titl e to a public office.
Where , however ,
819
----------------------- Page 820----------------------RULE 66
1
ther e
c
office
prevent
mandamu
CA,
SEC.
i s n o disput e a s t o wh o ha s th e titl e t o th e publi

bu t th e advers e party , withou t lawfu l ground ,
s th e rightfu l occupant from assumin g th e office,
s i s th e remedy t o oust th e usurpe r
(Lota vs.
et al.,
L-14803,
June
30,
1961).
3 . Quo warrant o i s distinguishe d from an election

contest, thus :
a . Th e basi s for qu o warrant
disqualifie d
from
holdin g
f
ineligibility or disloyalty .
An
th e righ t o f a perso n t o hol
irregularitie s in th e conduct of th e
(Falcotelo vs. Gali, L-24190, Jan.
b . I f th
respondent will b e
th e office.
In
will assum e th e
valid votes .
o i s tha t th e occupant i s
t h e offic e b y reaso n
election contest challenge s
d office on th e groun d o f
election s for sai d office
8, 1968).
e qu o warrant o proceedin g succeeds , th e

ouste d bu t th e petitioner will not assum e
election contests , th e successful protestan t
office if he ha d obtaine d a plurality of th e
4 . Th e distinction s between quo warrant o action s in

elective an d appointiv e offices ar e a s follows :
a . In
qu o warrant o proceeding s
affecting electiv e
offices, th e issu e i s th e eligibility o f th e respondent .

n
those involving appointiv e offices, th e issu e i s th e validity
of th e appointment .
b . Wher e an electiv e office i s involved , th e occupant

who wa s declare d ineligible or disloyal will b e unseate d
but th e petitioner will not b e declare d
th e rightful occupan t of th e office.
In appointiv e offices, th e court will
oust th e person illegally appointe d an d will order th e
seating o f th e perso n wh o wa s legally appointe d an d
entitled to th e office
(Nuval vs.
Guray,
52 Phil.
653;
Gaerlan
vs.
Catubig,
L-23964,
June
1,
1966).
5. Quo warranto , a s a rule , i s commence d by th e

Government a s th e proper part y plaintiff .
Th e exception
820
----------------------- Page 821----------------------RULE 66
2-4
QUO WARRANTO
SECS.
is whe n a perso n claim s t o b e entitle d t o th e publi c office

allegedly usurpe d by anothe r in which cas e h e can brin g
th e action in hi s own nam e
(Sec. 5).
By analogy wit h
hel d tha t a publi c
against anothe r publi c
of th e former grante d
6 0
Phil.
57).
th e provision s o f Sec . 5 , it ha s been

utility may brin g a qu o warrant o action
utility which ha s usurpe d th e right s
unde r a franchis e
(Cui vs. Cui,
Sec .
2.
When Solicitor General or public prosecutor
must commence action. Th e Solicito r Genera l or a
publi c prosecutor , w h e n directe d b y th e Presiden t
o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , o r w h e n u p o n c o m p l a i n t
o r
otherwis e h e ha s goo d reaso n t o believ e tha t an y
c a s e s p e c i f i e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n c a
n b e
establishe d b y proof , mus t commenc e suc h action .
(3a)
Sec .
3.
may
commence
e
Solicito r Genera l
th e permissio n o
t o b e c o m m e
t h e
reques t an d upo
bu t i n suc h
When Solicitor General or public prosecutor

action
with permission
of court.
o r a publi c prosecuto r may , wit h

f th e cour t i n whic h th e actio n i s
n c e d ,
b r i n g s u c h a n a c t i o n
n th e relatio n o f anothe r person ;
cas e th e office r bringin g i t ma y
requir e a n indemnit y fo r th e expense s an d cost s o f

th e a c t i o n i n a n a m o u n t approve d b y an d
Th
a t
firs t
t o
e
d e p o s i t e d i n t h e c o u r t b y th e p e r s o n a t w h
o s e
r e q u e s t a n d
u p o n w h o s e
r e l a t i o n t h e s a m e
i s
brought .
(4a)
Sec . 4 .
When
hearing
had
on
application
for
permission
to commence action. Upo n applicatio n fo r
permissio n t o commenc e suc h actio n i n accordanc e
wit h th e
nex t precedin g section , th e cour t shal l
direct tha t notic e b e give n t o th e responden t s o tha t
h e m a y
b e h e a r d i n o p p o s i t i o n t h e r e t o ;
n d i f
821
----------------------- Page 822----------------------RULE 66
permissio n i s granted ,
t o tha t effect , copie
intereste d parties , an
filed withi n th e perio
Sec.
action.
office o
exercise d
i n hi s
SECS. 5. 6
th e cour t shal l issu e a n orde r

s o f whic h shal l b e serve d o n all
d th e petitio n shal l the n b e
d ordere d b y th e court .
(5a)
5.
When an individual
A perso n claimin g t o b e
r positio n usurpe d o r
b y anothe r ma y brin g a
ow n name .
(6)
may commence such an

entitle d t o a publi c
unlawfull y hel d o r
n actio n therefo r
NOTE S
1. Th e Solicitor Genera l or th e public prosecutor may
commence a quo warrant o action (a) when directe d by th e
President , (b) when h e ha s good reason t o believe tha t h e
can establish a cas e unde r th e ground s in Sees . 1 an d 2 ,
and (c) at th e reques t an d upon th e relation o f another
person (ex relatione) but , in thi s case , leav e of court
must
first b e obtained , an d h e may also requir e an indemnity
bond from th e relator .
2 . Th e person institutin g quo warrant o proceeding s
in hi s own behalf , unde r Sec . 5 , doe s not hav e to secur e
th e intervention o f th e Solicitor Genera l or th e fiscal , nor
does he hav e to obtain prior leav e of court
(Cui vs. Cui,
supra).
However , such petitioner in th e quo warrant o
proceedin g mus t ave r an d b e abl e t o show tha t h e i s
entitled t o th e office in dispute . Without such averment
or evidenc e o f such right , th e action may b e dismisse d at
any stag e
(Garcia vs. Perez, L-28184, Sept.
11, 1980).
Sec.
6 .
Parties
and
contents
of petition against
usurpation. Whe n th e actio n i s agains t a perso n
for usurpin g a publi c office , positio n o r franchise ,
th e petitio n shal l se t fort h th e nam e o f th e perso n
wh o claim s t o b e entitle d thereto , i f any , wit h a n
avermen t o f hi s righ t t o th e sam e an d tha t th e
822
----------------------- Page 823----------------------RULE 66
8-9
QUO
WARRANTO
r e s p o n d e n t i s u n l a w f u
f .
All person s w h o clai m t o b e
office, positio n o r franchis e
an d thei r respectiv e rights ,
p o s i t i o n o r f r a n c h i s e
m e
action .
(7a)
SECS. 7,
l l y i n p o s s e s s i o n thereo
entitle d t o th e publi c
ma y b e mad e parties ,
t o suc h publi c office ,
d e t e r m i n e d , i n t h e
s a
Sec . 7 .
Venue. A n actio n unde r th e precedin g
six s e c t i o n s ca n b e brough t onl y i n th e S u p r e m
e
Court , t h e
Cour t o f A p p e a l s , o r i n th e R e g i o
n a l
Trial Cour t exercisin g jurisdictio n ove r th e terri toria l
a r e a w h e r e t h e r e s p o n d e n t o r an y
o f
t h e
respondent s resides , bu t whe n th e Solicito r Genera l
c o m m e n c e s t h e
a c t i o n , i t m a y b e b r o u g h t i
n a
Regiona l Tria l Cour t i n th e City o f Manila , i n th e
Court o f Appeals , o r i n th e Suprem e Court .
(8a)
NOT E
1. Sec. 7 has been amended to include the Court
of Appeals, consonant with the provision of Sec. 9, B.P.
Big. 129 granting it original jurisdiction over quo warranto
actions, concurrently with the Supreme Court and the
Regional Trial Court.
Sec .
ay
be
reduced;
8.
action
Period
for
pleadings
given precedence.
and
proceedings
Th e
cour t
m
ma y
r e d u c e t h e p e r i o d p r o v i d e d b y t h e s e R u l e s
fo r
filin g pleading s an d fo r al l othe r proceeding s i n th e
a c t i o n i n o r d e r t o s e c u r e th e m o s t e x p e d i t i
o u s
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e m a t t e r s i n v o l v e d t h e r
e i n
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h th e right s o f th e parties .
S u
c h
actio n ma y b e give n precedenc e ove r an y othe r civi l
matte r pendin g i n th e court .
(9a)
Sec .
9.
Judgment
where
usurpation
found.
Whe n th e responden t i s foun d guilt y o f usurping ,

intrudin g into , o r unlawfull y holdin g o r exercisin g
823
----------------------- Page 824----------------------RULE 66
11
SECS. 10-
a publi c office , positio n o r franchise ,

b e rendere d tha t suc h responden t b
a l t o g e t h e r e x c l u d e d t h e r e f
e
petitione r o r relator , a s th e cas e ma
hi s costs .
Suc h furthe r judgmen t ma y
d e t e r m i n i n g th e respectiv e right
publi c office , position s o r franchis e o
t o th e actio n a s justic e requires .
judgmen t shal l
e ouste d an d
r o m , a n d t h a t th
y
be , recove r
b e rendere d
s i n an d t o th e
f all th e partie s
(10a)
Sec.
10 .
Rights
of persons
adjudged
entitled
to
public
office; delivery of books and papers; damages. If
judgmen t b e rendere d i n favo r o f th e perso n averre d
i n th e complain t t o b e entitle d t o th e publi c offic e
h e may , afte r takin g th e oat h o f offic e an d executin g
any officia l bon d require d b y law , tak e upo n himsel f
th e executio n o f th e office , an d ma y immediatel y
thereafte r deman d o f th e responden t al l th e book s
and paper s i n th e respondent' s custod y o r contro l
appertainin g t o th e offic e t o whic h th e judgmen t
relates .
I f th e responden t refuse s o r neglect s t o
delive r an y boo k o r pape r pursuan t t o suc h demand ,
h e m a y
b e p u n i s h e d
fo r c o n t e m p t a s h a v i
n g
disobeye d a lawfu l orde r o f th e court .
Th e perso n
adjudged entitle d t o th e offic e ma y als o brin g actio n
agains t th e
r e s p o n d e n t t o recove r th e damage s
s u s t a i n e d b y
s u c h
p e r s o n b y
r e a s o n o f t
h e
usurpation .
(15a)
Sec.
11 .
Limitations.
N o t h i n g
containe d
n
thi s Rul e shal l b e construe d t o authoriz e a n actio n
against a publi c office r o r employe e for hi s ouste r
from offic e unles s th e sam e b e commence d withi n
on e (1) yea r afte r th e caus e o f suc h ouster , o r th e
right o f th e petitione r t o hol d suc h offic e o r position ,
arose ; no r t o authoriz e a n actio n for damage s i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e
x t
precedin g sectio n unles s th e sam e b e commence d
n e
824
----------------------- Page 825----------------------RULE 66
12
QUO WARRANTO
withi n on e (1) yea r afte r th e entr y o f th e judgmen t
SEC.
e st ab l i s h i n g th e
petitioner' s
righ t t o
th e
offic e
n
question .
(16a )
Sec .
12 .
Judgment
for costs.
I n
a n a c t i
o n
brough t i n accordanc e wit h th e provision s o f thi s
R u l e , t h e c o u r t m a y
r e n d e r j u d g m e n t fo r c o
s t s
a g a i n s t e i t h e r th e petitioner , th e relator , o r th
e
respondent , o r th e perso n o r person s claimin g t o
b e a corporation , o r ma y apportio n th e costs , a s
justic e requires .
(17a)
NOTE S
1. Th e period s withi n which
shoul d b e
b r o u g h t ar e
t h e
existence o f a caus e o f action .
cannot prospe r i f it wa s brough t
if suc h a defens e wa s not raise
lower cour t
(Abeto vs. Rodas,
s.
City Mayor, et al., 99 Phil. 252,
an action for reinstatement) .
2 . In qu o warrant
filing o f th e complaint
yea r period .
Shoul d
prejudice , th e one-year
th e plaintif f ha s th e
re-institut e th e action
109
Phil.
317).
th e qu o warrant o action
condition s p r e c e d e n t
t o
Consequently , th e action
beyon d sai d period s even
d by th e defendan t in th e
82 Phil. 59; cf.
Unabia
applyin g th e sam e rul e in
o action s over a publi c office, th e

suspend s th e runnin g o f th e one th e complaint b e dismisse d withou t
perio d start s t o ru n again , an d
balanc e o f th e perio d within which t o
(Mendiola vs. Tancino, et al.,
3.
Th e one-year period , however , i s not interrupte d
by th e prosecution o f any administrativ e remedy as , in
qu o w a r r a n t o proceedings ,
n o on e i s compelle d t
o
resor t t o administrativ e remedie s sinc e publi c interes t
require s tha t th e right t o public office shoul d b e determine d
as speedily as possibl e
(Galano, et al. vs. Roxas, L-31241,
Sept.
12,
1975; Sison
vs. Pangramuyen,
et al., L-40295
,
825
----------------------- Page 826----------------------RULE 66
SEC. 12
July 31, 1978; Garcia vs. Perez, supra; Palma Fernandez

vs. De la Paz, et al., G.R. No. 79846, April 15, 1988).
4 . In th e exceptiona l cas e of Cristobal vs. Melchor,
et al. (L-43203 , Jul y 29 , 1977), th e one-year perio d wa s
not applied , o n equitabl e considerations , agains t a n
employee wh o failed t o seek relie f by qu o warrant o within

th e period .
It wa s prove d tha t hi s failur e t o join hi s coemployees a s a plaintif f in th e quo warrant o action wa s
due t o th e fact tha t not only did h e continuously pres s
for hi s reinstatemen t bu t h e wa s actually promise d such
reinstatement .
In fact , som e o f hi s co-employee s who
wer e plaintiff s in th e quo warrant o action wer e reinstate d
during th e pendency o f th e sui t an d withou t prejudic e
t o th e result s thereof .
Mor e importantly , h e could b e
expected t o rely on suc h result s a s h e wa s similarly
circumstanced a s th e plaintiff s therein .
5. It wa s formerly hel d that , unde r th e stat e o f th e
law in 1983 , in qu o warrant o proceeding s agains t elective
officials on th e groun d o f ineligibility or disloyalty , th e
Commission on Election s ha d exclusiv e jurisdiction wher e
th e defendant wa s a member o f th e Batasan g Pambans a
or wa s a provincia l or city official (Sec. 189, 1978 Election
Code) or wa s a municipa l official
(Gabatan vs. Commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 58113, May 2, 1983).
Wher e th e
defendant wa s a baranga y official, jurisdiction wa s vested
in th e proper inferior court
(Regatcho vs.
Cleto, et al.,
G.R. No.
61946, Dec.
21,
1983,
citin g Sec. 191,
1978
Election Code; Sec. 20, B.P. 222, Barangay Election Law;
an d
Sec.
8,
R.A.
3590,
Revised
Barangay
Charter).
However , unde r th e Omnibu s Election Code (B.P. 881,
effective Dec. 3, 1985), th e foregoing jurisdictiona l rule s
have been modified in th e sens e tha t a quo warrant o action
against a municipa l official i s now within th e jurisdiction
of th e Regiona l Tria l Court , whil e one against a barangay
official
remain s
wit h th e inferio r courts ,
wit h
th e
Commission on Election s retainin g it s exclusive jurisdiction
826
----------------------- Page 827----------------------RULE 66
QUO WARRANTO
SEC. 12
in qu o warrant o action s agains t th e othe r local publi c

officials abov e state d
(Sees. 253-254).
6.
Qu o warrant o t o contes t th e election o f a publi c
officer differ s from tha t provide d for in thi s Rul e in tha t
th e former i s a n electora l proceedin g unde r th e Omnibu s
Election Code for th e exclusiv e purpos e o f impugnin g th e
election of a publi c officer on th e groun d of ineligibility
for or disqualification t o hold th e office .
Qu o warrant o
unde r thi s Rule , on th e othe r hand , i s a prerogativ e wri t
by which th e Governmen t can cal l upo n an y perso n t o
show by wha t titl e h e hold s a publi c office or exercise s a
publi c franchis e
(Newsman vs.
U.S., 238 U.S.
537, 56
L . Ed. 573). Unde r th e Omnibu s Election Code , a petitio n
for qu o warrant o mus t b e filed withi n 1 0 day s from th e
proclamatio n o f th e candidate , wherea s qu o warrant o
unde r thi s Rul e presuppose s tha t th e responden t i s already
actually holdin g th e office .
Furthermore , th e petitio n
unde r th e sai d Cod e ma y

candidat e for th e sam e office
prospers , woul d no t b e entitle
quo warrant o unde r thi s Rule ,
perso n entitle d t o th e office
same i f hi s action succeeds .
b e file d b y an y registere d
an d who , even i f th e petitio n
d t o tha t office; whereas , in
th e petitione r mus t b e th e
an d wh o woul d assum e th e
In fine , thi s Rul e refer s t o
quo warrant o in general, whil e th e election law govern s

quo warrant o agains t specified electiv e officials
(Falcotelo,
et al. vs. Gali, et al., L-24190, Jan. 8, 1968).
827
----------------------- Page 828----------------------RULE
6 7
EXPROPRIATION
Section 1 .
The complaint. Th e righ t of eminen t
domai n shal l b e exercise d by th e filin g o f a verifie d
complaint whic h shal l stat e wit h certaint y th e righ t
and purpos e o f expropriation , describ e th e rea l o r
persona l propert y sough t t o b e expropriated , an d
joi n a s defendant s al l person s ownin g o r claimin g
t o own , o r occupying , an y par t thereo f o r interes t
therein , showing , s o fa r a s practicable , th e separat e
i n t e r e s t o f e a c h d e f e n d a n t . I f t h e titl e t o
an y
property sough t t o b e expropriate d appear s t o b e
i n t h e R e p u b l i c o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , a l t h o u
g h
occupie d b y privat e individuals , o r i f th e titl e i s
otherwis e obscur e o r doubtfu l s o tha t th e plaintif f
canno t wit h accurac y o r certaint y specif y wh o ar e
th e rea l owners , avermen t t o tha t effec t shal l b e
mad e i n th e complaint ,
(la )
NOTE S
1. Eminen t domain , which is properly a concept of
political or constitutiona l law , i s th e righ t o f th e Stat e t o
acquire privat e property for publi c us e upon th e payment
o f jus t compensation .
Tha t righ t extend s t o privat e
property partl y or entirely persona l an d th e proces s o f
acquisition i s substantially th e sam e
(see Act 204).
The
requirement of du e proces s call s for a rul e of procedur e to
be observe d in th e exercis e of th e right of eminen t domain
which i s mor e familiarly known in ou r jurisdiction a s
expropriation but , in th e American jurisdiction , i s often
referred t o a s condemnation .
Since our Rule on th e matte r i s of American origin ,
th e ter m "condemnation " ha s heretofor e also been used .
It wa s felt, however , tha t expropriation should b e th e more
828
----------------------- Page 829-----------------------
RULE 67
EC. 1
EXPROPRIATION
appropriat e
ter m for thi s procedura l rul e sinc e con demnatio n i s als o use d for civi l an d commercia l law
purposes , asid e from it s havin g a negativ e connotation .
Our choic e o f th e presen t ter m i s mor e specific tha n som e
concepts o f "eminent domain proceedings " in American law .
At any rate , in Louisian a an d in most o f th e state s o f
th e America n union , "expropriation " i s use d a s th e takin g
unde r eminen t domain .
I t ha s been expressly recognize d
t h a t a m e a n i n g
h a s bee n
a t t a c h e d t o t h e
t e r m
" e x p r o p r i a t i o n , " i m p o r t e d from it s us e i n fore
ig n
jurisprudence ,
whic h make s i t synonymou s wit h th e
exercis e
o f th e powe r o f e m i n e n t domain ,
i.e. ,
th e
compulsory takin g from a person , on compensation made ,
of hi s privat e propert y such a s for th e us e o f a railroad ,
canal or othe r publi c work s
(Brownsville vs. Pavazas,
2
Woods 293, Fed.
Cos. No. 2,043).
2 .
Rul e 6 7 primarily govern s th e exercis e o f th e righ t
o f e m i n e n t
domai n
b y
th e
Stat e
actin g
throug h
th e
nationa l government .
Expropriation by local governmen t
unit s ha s heretofor e als o been authorize d by different
laws , togethe r wit h othe r politica l subdivision s create d
and s o empowere d by law .
Presently , however , such pro vision s on thi s power o f local politica l subdivision s hav e
been consolidate d an d embodie d in th e Local Governmen t
Code of 199 1 (R.A.
7160), an d th e pertinen t provision s
thereo f ar e quote d an d briefly discusse d in th e note s at
th e en d o f thi s Rule .
3 . Sec . 1 o f thi s Rul e require s tha t th e complaint
should alleg e bot h th e righ t an d th e purpos e o f th e
e x p r o p r i a t i o n . Wher e
th e righ t o f th e plaintif f
t o
expropriate i s conferre d by law , th e complaint doe s not
hav e t o stat e wit h certaint y th e righ t o f expropriatio n
(MRR Co.
vs. Mitchel,
50 Phil.
832).
4 . I t i s th e
a c t u a l
filin g
o f th e complain t
fo
r
expropriation which bind s th e land , an d not a mer e notic e
829
----------------------- Page 830----------------------RULE 67
2
of
th e

inten t
to
expropriat e
S E C
(Republic
vs.
Baylosis,
96 Phil. 461).
However, the owner of th
dispose of said property, despite the filing of
the grantee would merely be substitute d in
holds the land subject to the result s of the
Jr. vs. De Asis,
107 Phil. 131).
e land may still

the action, as
his place and
action (Tuason,
5. Proceedings for the expropriation or condemnation

of parcels of land situate d in different provinces may be
brought in any of said provinces. But the defendant land
owners in each province may require a separate action
to be commenced against them in their respective provinces
to avoi d inconvenienc e an d expens e
(MRR
.
Attorney-General,
20
Phil.
523).
Co.
vs
Sec. 2 . Entry of
plaintiff upon depositing value with
authorized government depository. Upo n th e
filin g of
th e complain t o r a t an y tim e thereafte r an d afte r
du e notic e t o th e defendant , th e plaintif f shal l hav e
th e righ t t o tak e o r ente r upo n th e possessio n o f
th e rea l propert y involve d i f h e deposit s wit h th e
a u t h o r i z e d g o v e r n m e n t d e p o s i t o r y a n a m o u n t
equivalen t t o th e assesse d valu e o f th e propert y for
purpose s o f taxatio n t o b e hel d b y suc h ban k subjec t
t o th e order s o f th e court .
Suc h deposi t shal l b e i n
money , unles s i n lie u thereo f th e cour t authorize s
th e deposi t o f a certificat e o f deposi t o f a govern m e n t ban k
o f t h e R e p u b l i c o f t h e P h i l i p p i n
e s
payabl e o n deman d t o th e authorize d governmen t
depository .
I f persona l propert y i s involved , it s valu e shal l
b e provisionall y ascertaine d an d th e amoun t t o b e
deposite d shal l b e promptl y fixe d b y th e court .
Afte r suc h deposi t i s mad e th e cour t shal l orde r
th e sherif f o r othe r prope r office r t o forthwit h plac e
th e plaintif f i n possessio n o f th e propert y involve d
and promptl y submi t a repor t thereo f t o th e cour t
wit h servic e o f copie s t o th e parties .
(2a)
830
----------------------- Page 831----------------------RULE 67
. 2
EXPROPRIATION
SEC
NOTE S
1. Unde r P.D . 42 , wha t wa s require d t o b e deposite d
wa s an amoun t equivalen t t o th e assesse d valu e o f th e
land an d th e deposit shoul d b e mad e wit h th e Philippin e
Nationa l Ban k or an y o f it s branche s or agencie s (se e
San
Diego
vs.
Valdellon,
L-45673,
Nov.
22,
197
7).
However , unde r P.D . 1533 , effective Jun e 1 , 1978 , th e
deposit require d wa s change d t o te n pe r cent (10%) o f th e

amount o f compensatio n a s provide d therei n (see Not e 2
unde r Sec. 9 of thi s Rule) .
Thi s section now provide s for
th e amoun t o f th e preliminar y deposit , i.e. , th e assesse d
valu e o f th e propert y for purpose s o f taxation .
Also , mer
e
notic e t o th e landowner , withou t prior hearing , suffice s
for immediat e entr y on th e lan d
(Haguisan vs. Emilia,
et
al, L-40108,
2 . Th e
Aug.
31,
1984).
p r e l i m i n a r y deposi t
u n d e r thi s
sectio
n
c o n s t i t u t e s a d v a n c e p a
t h e
expropriation proceeds , an d stand
damage s shoul d th e proceeding s
an
Refining Co.
vs. Camus,
40
3 . Th e preliminar y
plaintif f desire s entr y on
th e action ; otherwise , it
of expropriatio n i s issue d
y m e n t
s
i n
a s
not
Phil.
deposit i s
th e lan d
could alway
before it
t h e
indemnit y
succee d
e v e n t
for
(Visay
550).
only necessary i f th e
upon it s institutio n o f
s wai t unti l th e orde r
enter s upon th e land .
4 . Owner s o f expropriate d land s ar e entitle d t o lega l

interest on th e compensation eventually adjudge d from
th e dat e th e condemnor take s possession o f th e lan d unti l
th e full compensation i s pai d t o the m or deposite d in court
(Digran
vs. Auditor
General,
L 21593,
April
29,
19
66;
Valdehueza vs. Republic, L
31032, May 19,
1966; Republic
vs.
t
Fo
i
z
Tayengco,
L-23766,
April
29,
1967).
5.
Som e modification s hav e been mad e in thi s section
o addres s contemporar y change s an d practice .
r
n s t a n c e , t h i s sectio n s p e a k s o f suc h a u t h o r i
e d
831
----------------------- Page 832----------------------RULE 67

2
SEC.
government depository at th e time , an d n o longer o f th e

Philippin e Nationa l Ban k whic h i s now essentiall y a
privat e bankin g institution .
6 . Onc e th e require d deposi t unde r thi s section
ha s bee n duly made , th e expropriato r i s entitle d t o a
wri t o f possessio n ove r th e propert y a s a matte r o f
right , an d th e issuanc e o f tha t wri t become s ministeria l
on th e par t o f th e tria l cour t (Biglang-awa, e t al.
vs.
Bacalla, etc., et al., G.R. Nos.
139927-36, Nov. 22, 2000).
7 . O n
Novembe r
7 ,
2000 ,
Congres s
enacte d
R.A. 8974 , a special law to facilitate th e acquisition of rightof-way ,

sit e o r locatio n
for n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m
e n t
infrastructure projects .
Thes e project s refer to all national
government
infrastructure,
engineering
works
and
servic
e
contracts, includin g project s undertake n by government owned
an d controlle d
corporations ,
all projects
unde
r
R.A.
6957,
a s a m e n d e d
(th e
B u i l d - O p e r a t e a n d Transfer Law) , an d othe r relate d an d necessary activitie s
regardles s o f th e sourc e o f funding .
Discret e guideline s
for expropriation requirement s an d procedur e unde r thi s
law ar e provided , with rule s an d regulation s for thei r
implementation a s prepare d by a committe e contemplate d
therein
(Appendix
U).
8. In Republic,
et al.
vs.
Gingoyon,
etc., et
al.
(G.R . No .
166429 , Dec .
19 , 2005) , th e Governmen t
questione d
th e applicabilit y
o f R.A . 897 4
i n th
e
expropriation proceeding s it ha d institute d over th e airport
facility called NAIA 3 (Ninoy Aquino Internationa l Airport
Passenger Termina l 3) . Thi s buildin g wa s constructe d by
defendan t
PIATC O
(Philippin e
I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Ai r
Terminal s Co., Inc.) in th e NAIA complex a s a nationa l
infrastructur e project unde r R.A . 695 7 (Build-Operate and-Transfer Law) , a s amended .
832
----------------------- Page 833----------------------RULE 67
EC. 2
EXPROPRIATION
I t w a s t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a
t t h e
expropriation action shoul d b e governe d by Rul e 67 , an d
not R.A . 8974 a s wa s late r hel d an d followed by th e judg e
presidin g over th e expropriatio n court .
On review by
certiorari , th e Suprem e Cour t uphel d th e Regiona l Tria l
Court' s position that , in thi s particula r case , R.A . 8974
ha d supersede d Rul e 67 .
Primarily , th e Suprem e Cour t note d tw o crucia l
differences in th e respectiv e procedure s involve d unde r
t h e s t a t u t e a n d t h e R u l e .
U n d e r R.A .
8974 ,
t h e
Government i s require d t o mak e a n immediat e direc t
paymen t t o th e propert y owne r upo n th e filin g o f th e
complaint t o b e entitle d t o a wri t o f possession ; wherea s in
Rul e 67 , th e Governmen t ha s only t o mak e a n initia l
deposi t wit h
a n authorize d
governmen t
depositary
.
Further , R.A . 897 4 provides , a s a standar d for initia l
compensation , th e marke t valu e o f th e propert y a s state d
in th e ta x declaratio n o r th e relevan t zona l valuation ,
wherea s Rul e 6 7 prescribe s tha t th e initia l deposi t b e
merely equivalen t t o th e assesse d valu e o f th e propert y
for purpose s of taxation .
A s born e ou t by th e deliberation s in Congress , th e
plai n inten t o f R.A . 8974 i s t o supersed e th e syste m o f
deposit unde r Rul e 6 7 wit h th e schem e o f "immediat e
p a y m e n t " i n case s
involvin g
n a t i o n a l g o v e r n
m e n t
infrastructur e projects .
Th e appropriat e standar d o f jus t
compensation i s a substantiv e matte r wel l withi n th e
provinc e o f th e legislatur e t o fix.
Such paymen t i s base d
on
th e
zona l
valuatio n
o f th e
land ,
th e
valu e
o f th
e
improvement s unde r th e replacemen t cost method , or i f
n o such valuatio n i s immediately available , th e proffered
valu e o f th e property .
Nonetheless , it recognize s th e
continued applicability o f Rul e 6 7 on procedura l aspects .
The Governmen t theorize s tha t th e NAIA 3 facilitie s
cannot b e deeme d a s th e "right o f way, " "sit e or location "
833
----------------------- Page 834----------------------RULE 67
SEC. 3
of a nationa l government infrastructure project within th e

coverage of R.A . 8974 . The Court explained tha t th e term
"site" doe s not of itself necessarily mean a piece of land
fixed by definit e boundaries .
I t contemplate s land ,
buildings , road s an d al l kinds o f construction s adhere d t o
th e soil . Th e law classifie s the NAIA 3 facilitie s a s real
propertie s jus t lik e th e soil on which they stand .
9 . Th e holding s in Gingoyon wer e replicate d an d
ramifie d
in Republic,
etc.
vs. Holy
Trinity
Realty
Developement Corp.
(G.R . No . 172410 , Apri l 14, 2008) .
The Court reiterate d tha t th e expropriation procedur e
unde r R.A . 8974 specifically govern s expropriation for
nationa l
governmen t
infrastructur e
projects ,
whil e
Sec. 19 of th e Local Government Code govern s th e exercise
of th e power o f eminen t domain by local government unit s
through an enablin g ordinance .
Also , i f expropriation in
engaged in by th e Nationa l Government for purpose s other
tha n nationa l infrastructur e projects , th e assesse d valu e
standar d an d th e deposit mod e prescribe d in Rul e 6 7
continue s t o apply .
If th e amoun t deposite d unde r either procedur e bear s
interest , th e landowner i s entitle d t o th e same , since it
constitute s th e civil fruit s or accession s o f th e principa l
object, tha t is , th e deposit in favor o f th e landowner in
th e expropriation account .
Wher e th e amoun t deposite d
pertain s t o separat e propertie s

which wer e expropriate d in th e sam
each landowner i s entitle d t o th e
on th e deposite d amoun t pertainin g
and it s commensurat e value .
o f different
e proceeding ,
proportionat e
t o hi s own
landowner
the n
interest
property
Sec. 3 .
Defenses and objections. If a defendan
ha s n o objectio n o r defens e t o th e actio n
takin g o f hi s property , h e ma y fil e an d serv e a
of appearanc e an d a manifestatio n t o tha t effect
specifically designatin g o r identifyin g th e propert y
t
o r th e
notic e
,
834
----------------------- Page 835----------------------RULE 67
C. 3
EXPROPRIATION
SE
i n w h i c h h e claim s t o b e interested , withi n th e tim e

state d i n t h e s u m m o n s .
Thereafter , h e shal l b e
entitle d t o notic e o f al l proceeding s affectin g th e
same .
I f a defendan t ha s an y objectio n t o th e filin g o r
th e allegation s i n th e complaint , o r an y objectio n
o r defens e t o th e takin g o f hi s property , h e shal l
s e r v e h i s a n s w e r w i t h i n t h e t i m e s t a t e d i n
t h e
summons .
Th e a n s w e r shal l specificall y designat e
o r identif y th e propert y i n whic h h e claim s t o hav e
a n i n t e r e s t , s t a t e t h e n a t u r e an d e x t e n t o f
t h e
interes t claimed , an d adduc e al l hi s objection s an d
d e f e n s e s t o t h e t a k i n g o f h i s p r o p e r t y .
N o
counterclaim , cross-clai m o r third-part y complain t
shal l b e allege d o r allowe d i n th e a n s w e r o r an y
s u b s e q u e n t pleading .
A defendan t waive s al l defense s an d objection s
no t s o a l l e g e d bu t t h e court ,
i n t h e i n t e r e s
t o f
justice , ma y permi t amendment s t o th e answe r t o
b e mad e no t late r tha n te n (10) day s fro m th e filin g
thereof .
However , a t th e tria l o f th e issu e o f jus t
c o m p e n s a t i o n , w h e t h e r
h a s
previousl y appeare d o r answered , h
evidenc e a s t o th e amoun t o f
b e pai d fo r hi s property , an d
distributio n o f th e award ,
o r no t
d e f e n d a n t
e ma y presen t
th e compensatio n t o
h e ma y shar e i n th e
(n)
NOTE S
1. Thi s amende d section i s patterne d mainly after
Rule 71A (e) of th e U.S . Federa l Rule s of Civil Procedur e
(see 28 U.S.C.A.
575).
2 . Th e former procedure
from th e practic e in som e
motion t o dismiss , in lieu o
responsiv e pleadin g t o a
, which wa s likewis e take n

American states , require d a
f an answer , a s th e prescribe d
complain t for expropriation .
835
----------------------- Page 836----------------------RULE 67

4
SEC.
Thi s wa s sometime s a bi t confusin g a s th e previou s

holding s unde r tha t former provision als o allowed th e
filing o f anothe r motion t o dismiss , a s tha t i s understoo d
in Rul e 16, t o rais e additionally th e preliminary objection s
authorized by tha t Rule .
The answer which i s now require d by thi s new section
also observe s th e omnibu s motio n rule , bu t permit s
amendment s to b e mad e theret o within 1 0 day s from it s
filing.
Furthermore , failur e t o file tha t answer doe s not
produc e al l th e disastrou s consequence s o f default in
ordinary civil action s sinc e th e defendant may nonetheles s
appear a t th e tria l t o presen t evidenc e a s t o th e jus t
compensation h e claim s and , thereafter , shar e in th e
judicia l award .
In th e interes t o f expediency , however , no counter claim, cross-claim or third-part y complaint i s allowed to
be incorporate d in th e answer or to be filed in a subsequent
pleadin g in th e case .
Sec. 4 .
Order of expropriation. If th e objection s
t o an d th e defense s agains t th e righ t o f th e plaintif f
t o expropriat e th e propert y ar e overrule d o r whe n
n o part y appear s t o defen d a s require d b y thi s Rule ,
th e
c o u r t ma y i s s u e a n orde r o f e x p r o p r i a t i
o n
declarin g tha t th e plaintif f ha s a lawfu l righ t t o tak e
th e propert y s o u g h t t o b e expropriated , fo r th e
publi c us e o r purpos e describe d i n th e complaint ,
u p o n t h e p a y m e n t
o f j u s t c o m p e n s a t i o n t o b
e
d e t e r m i n e d a s o f t h e dat e
o f th e t a k i n g o f t
h e
property o r th e filin g o f th e complaint , whicheve r
cam e first .
A fina l orde r
t h e p r o p e r t y
t y
aggrieve d thereby .
not preven t th e
compensatio n t o b e
sustainin g th e righ t t o expropriat e

m a y
b e a p p e a l e d b y a n y
Suc h appeal , however , shal l
cour t fro m determinin g th e jus t
paid .
836
----------------------- Page 837-----------------------
p a r
RULE 67
EC. 5
EXPROPRIATION
A f t e r t h e r e
t h e
p l a i n t i f f s h a l l
o r
d i s c o n t i n u e th e
a s th e cour t d e e m s
n d i t i o n
o f
s u c h a n
o r d e r ,
n o t b e p e r m i t t e d t o d i s m i s s
proceedin g excep t o n
jus t an d equitable .
suc h
term s
(4a)
NOTE S
1. Th e
objections t o
purpos e o f th
i s th e matte
orde r o f expropriation foreclose s any furthe r

th e righ t t o expropriate , includin g th e publi c
e same .
Th e only substantia l issu e thereafter
r o f jus t compensation .
2 . Bein g determinativ e o f th e question o f th e righ t

to expropriate , suc h orde r o f condemnation i s a final orde r
on tha t issu e an d i s appealabl e
(see Uriarte us. Teodoro,
86
Phil.
196).
3. Th e specia l civil action o f expropriation is , a s a

consequenc e o f th e foregoin g provision s o f Sec . 4 , on e
wherei n multipl e appeal s ar e permitted .
An appea l may
b e
t a k e n fro m
t h e
aforesai d
o r d e r a u t h o r i
z i n g
expropriation and , thereafter , anothe r appea l lie s agains t
th e judgmen t on th e jus t compensation t o b e pai d
(see
Sees. 1 0 an d 11).
Th e significanc e o f thi s fact i s that , ju
s t
as in special proceedings , th e reglementary period t o appea l
shall b e 3 0 day s an d a recor d on appea l shal l b e require d
for each o f th e permissibl e appeals .
Sec .
th e
r e n
c o u r t s
(3 )
c o m p e t e
o m missioner s
jus t c o m
5.
Ascertainment
d i t i o n o f th e
h a l l a p p o i n t
n t
a n d
of
orde r
n o t
compensation.
o f expropriation , th e
m o r e
t h a n t h r e e
d i s i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s a s
t o ascertai n an d repor t t o th e cour t th e

p e n s a t i o n fo r th e propert y sough t t o
taken .
Th
th e tim e an
t o b e hel d
withi n whic h
court .
Upo n
c
b e
e orde r o f appointmen t shal l designat e

d plac e o f th e first sessio n o f th e hearin g
b y th e commissioner s an d specif y th e tim e
thei r repor t shoul d b e file d wit h th e
837
----------------------- Page 838----------------------RULE 67
SEC.
5
C o p i e s o f t h e o r d e r s h a l l b e s e r v e d o n
th e
parties .
Objection s t o th e appointmen t o f an y o f
th e c o m m i s s i o n e r s shal l b e file d w it h th e cour
t
withi n te n (10) day s fro m service , an d th e sam e shal l
b e resolve d w i t h i n thirt y (30) day s afte r al l th e
commissioner s shal l hav e receive d copie s o f th e
objections .
(6a)
NOTE S
1. A s a genera l proposition , th e Suprem e Court ha s
defined jus t compensation a s th e full an d fair equivalent
of th e property take n from it s owner by th e expropriator .
The measur e i s not th e taker' s gain bu t th e owner' s loss .
Th e wor d "just " i s use d t o convey th e ide a tha t th
e
equivalent t o b e rendere d for th e property t o b e take n
shall b e real , substantial , full an d ample .
The jus t compensation for th e condemne d property i s
generally th e marke t value .
Such amoun t i s not limited
to th e assesse d valu e o f th e property or t o th e schedul e o f
marke t value s determine d b y th e provincia l o r city
appraisal committee .
However , thes e value s may serv e
as factor s t o b e considere d in th e judicia l valuation o f th e
propert y
(National
Power
Corp.
vs. Manubay
Agro
Industrial Dev.
Corp.,
G.R.
No.
150936, Aug.
18, 2004
,
citing cases; .
steps
2 . Th e appointmen t of commissioner s i s one of th e

involve d in expropriatio n proceedings .
Anothe r
instanc e wher e th e appointmen t o f commissioner s i s

require d i s in judicia l partition wher e th e partie s cannot
agree
(Sec. 3, Rule 69).
Thi s is different from tria l by
commissioners unde r Rule 32 wherein th e appointmen t o f
commissioners i s discretionary on th e court an d th e power
i s exercise d only unde r th e circumstance s enumerate d
therein .
838
----------------------- Page 839----------------------RULE 67
. 6Sec .
6.
e
e n t e r i n g u p
t i e s ,
t h e c o m m i s s
e a n
oat h tha t the y
EXPROPRIATION
Proceedings
o n
t h e
i o n e r s
wil l
by
SECS
commissioners.
p e r f o r m a n c e
shal l
faithfull y
t a k e
an d
o f t h e i r
Befor
d u
s u b s c r i b
perfor m thei r dutie s
a s commissioners , w h i c h oat h shal l b e file d i n cour t

wit h th e othe r proceeding s i n th e case .
Evidenc
e
m a y
b e
i n t r o d u c e d b y e i t h e r p a r t y b e f o r e
t h e
c o m m i s s i o n e r s w h o ar e authorize d t o administe r
o a t h s o n h e a r i n g s befor e them , an d th e c o m m i s
s i o n e r s shall ,
u n l e s s t h e p a r t i e s c o n s e n t t
o t h e
contrary , afte r du e notic e t o th e partie s t o attend ,
v i e w
a n d e x a m i n e
t h e p r o p e r t y s o u g h t t o
b e
e x p r o p r i a t e d
a n d
i t s s u r r o u n d i n g s , a n d
m a y
measur e th e same , afte r whic h eithe r part y may , b y
h i m s e l f o r c o u n s e l , a r g u e t h e c a s e . T h e
c
o m missioner s shal l a s s e s s th e consequentia l damage s
t o th e propert y no t take n an d d e d u c t fro m s u c h
consequentia l damage s th e consequentia l benefit s
t o b e derive d b y th e owne r fro m th e publi c us e o r
purpos e o f th e propert y taken ,
th e operatio n o f it
s
franchis e b y th e corporatio n o r th e carryin g o n o f
th e
b u s i n e s s o f th e corporatio n o r perso n t a k i n g
th e property .
Bu t i n n o cas e shal l th e consequentia l
benefit s assesse d excee d th e consequentia l damage s
a s s e s s e d , o r th e o w n e r b e deprive d o f th e actua
l
valu e o f hi s propert y s o taken .
(6a)
Sec .
7.
Report
by
commissioners
and
judgm
ent
thereupon. Th e cour t ma y orde r th e commissioner s
t o repor t w h e n an y particula r portio n o f th e rea l
estat e shal l hav e bee n passe d upo n b y them , an d
may rende r judgmen t upo n suc h partia l report , an d
direct th e commissione r t o procee d wit h thei r wor k
a s t o s u b s e q u e n t portion s o f th e propert y sough t
t o b e expropriated , an d ma y fro m tim e t o tim e s o
deal wit h suc h property .
Th e commissioner s shal l
mak e a ful l an d accurat e repor t t o th e cour t o f al l
839
----------------------- Page 840----------------------RULE 67
SECS. 8-9
thei r proceedings , an d suc h proceeding s shal l not

b e effectua l unti l th e cour t shal l hav e accepte d thei r
report an d rendere d judgmen t i n accordanc e wit h
t h e i r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .
E x c e p t a s o t h e r w i
s e
expressly ordere d b y th e court , suc h repor t shal l
b e file d withi n sixt y (60) day s fro m th e dat e th e
commissioner s wer e notifie d o f thei r appointment ,
whic h tim e ma y b e extende d i n th e discretio n o f th e

court .
Upo n th e filin g o f suc h report , th e cler k o f
court shal l serv e copie s thereo f o n al l intereste d
parties , wit h notic e tha t the y ar e allowe d te n (10)
day s withi n whic h t o fil e objection s t o th e finding s
of th e report , i f the y s o desire .
(7a)
Sec.
8. Action upon commissioner's report. Upo n
th e expiratio n o f th e perio d o f t e n (10) day s referre d
t o i n th e p r e c e d i n g se ct i o n , o r e v e n befor e
th e
expiratio n o f suc h perio d bu t afte r al l th e intereste d
partie s hav e file d thei r objection s t o th e repor t o r
thei r statemen t o f agreemen t therewith , th e cour t
may, afte r hearing , accep t th e repor t an d rende r
judgmen t i n accordanc e therewith ; or , fo r caus e
s h o w n ,
i t m a y
r e c o m m i t
t h e
s a m e
t o
t
h e
commissioner s fo r furthe r repor t o f facts ; o r i t may
set asid e th e repor t an d appoin t ne w commissioners ,
or i t ma y accep t th e repor t i n par t an d rejec t i t i n
part ; an d i t ma y mak e suc h orde r o r rende r suc h
j u d g m e n t
a s s h a l l s e c u r e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f
th e
propert y essentia l t o th e exercis e o f hi s righ t o f
e x p r o p r i a t i o n , a n d
j u s t c o
m pensatio n fo r th e propert y s o taken .
(8a)
Sec.
9.
Uncertain ownership; conflicting claims.
I f th e ownershi p o f th e propert y take n i s uncertain ,
or ther e ar e conflictin g claim s t o an y par t thereof ,
th e cour t ma y orde r an y su m o r sum s awarde d a s
compensatio n fo r th e propert y t o b e pai d t o th e
840
----------------------- Page 841----------------------RULE 67
EXPROPRIATION
SECS.
8-9
cour t fo r th e benefi t o f th e perso n adjudge d i n th e

sam e p r o c e e d i n g t o b e entitle d thereto . Bu t th e
judgmen t shal l requir e th e paymen t o f th e su m o r
sum s awarde d t o eithe r th e defendan t o r th e cour t
befor e th e plaintif f ca n ente r upo n th e property , o r
retai n i t fo r th e publi c us e o r purpos e i f entr y ha s
already bee n made .
(9a)
NOTE S
1. The primary purpose of the proceedings by the
commissioners is to determine the just compensation to be
paid to the landowner. The general rule in arriving at
such just compensation is the value of the property as of
the date of its taking or the filing of the complaint (Sec. 4)
plus consequential damages minus consequential benefits,
provided such assessed benefits do not exceed the assessed
damages (Sec. 6).
2. The value of the property means the "market value

thereof, that is, the price which it will command where
it is offered for sale by one who desires, but is not
obliged to sell, and is bought by one under no necessity
of having it"
vs. Caligsihan,
40
Phil. 326). The assessed value is only prima facie evidence
of the actual value of the property if the assessment is
based on the sworn statement of the owner (Republic vs.
Urtula, 110 Phil. 262; cf. Mun. of Daet vs. CA, et al.,
L-35861, Oct. 18, 1979), while sentimental value is not
considered
(Republic vs. Lara, 96 Phil. 170).
Thereafter,
under P.D . 76 (Dec. 6, 1972), it was provided that "(f)or
purposes of just compensation in cases of private property
acquired by the government for public use, the basis shall
be the current and fair market value declared by the owner
or administrator, or such market value as determined by
the assessor, whichever is lower" (see Sec. 92, P.D. 464,
as amended by P.D. 794, 1224 and 1259; NHA vs. Reyes,
et al., L-49439, June 29, 1983).
The last issuance on
841
----------------------- Page 842----------------------RULE 67
9
SECS. 8-
thi s matte r wa s P.D .

153 3 whic h provide d tha t "th e
compensation t o b e pai d shal l not exceed th e valu e declared
by th e owner or administrato r or any on e havin g legal
interest in th e property or determine d by th e assessor ,
pursuan t t o th e Rea l Propert y Ta x Code , whicheve r
valu e i s lower , prior t o th e recommendation or decision
of th e appropriat e Governmen t office t o acquir e th e
property " (see Republic vs. Santos, et al., G.R. No. 57524,
Jan.
8, 1986).
However ,
in Export
Processing
Zone
Authority
vs.
Dulay, et al. (G.R . No . 59603 , Apri l 29 , 1987), th e Suprem e
Court declare d a s invali d an d unconstitutiona l P.D . 1533
and all it s predecessor an d relate d decrees , i.e. , P.D . 76,
464, 794 , 1224, 1259 , 1669 an d 1670, al l of which adopte d
and laid down th e common formul a tha t th e basi s o f jus t
compensation shal l b e th e fair marke t valu e declare d by
th e owner o f th e property or th e marke t valu e determine d
by th e assessor , whichever i s lower .
It hel d tha t sai
d
decree s constitut e an impermissibl e encroachmen t on
judicia l prerogative s sinc e th e determinatio n o f jus t
c o m p e n s a t i o n i s r e s e r v e d for t h e court s
b y th
e
Constitution .
Sai d decree s would als o constitut e denia l
of du e proces s an d equa l protectio n t o th e landowne r
who i s denie d th e righ t t o question th e assessor' s deter mination , asid e from preventin g such determinatio n by
commissioners .
Th e r e t u r n t o th e former procedur e
outlined in Rul e 6 7 wa s decree d an d th e doctrin e in NHA
vs. Reyes, supra, wa s abandone d (see Manotok, et al. vs.
NHA, et al, G.R. No. 55166 an d Tiongson, et al. vs. NHA,
et al, G.R. No. 55167, jointly decided on May 21,

;
Ignacio
vs. Guerrero,
et al, L-49088,
May
;
Sumulong, et al.
vs. Guerrero, et al,
L-48685,
1987; Leyva vs. IAC, et al, G.R. No. 70959, Oct. 26,
NHA vs. Zaballero, et al, L-49291-92, Oct. 29,
1987
29,
1987
Sept.
30,
Furthermore , a judgmen t in expropriation proceedings shoul d provid e for th e paymen t of legal interes t a s
matter o f law from th e tim e th e Government take s over
1987;
1987).
a
842
----------------------- Page 843----------------------RULE 67
8-9
EXPROPRIATION
SECS.
th e lan d unti l i t pay s th e owne r thereof .

I f th e
com pensatio n i s not pai d whe n th e propert y i s taken , bu t i s
postpone d t o a late r date , th e interes t awarde d i s actually
par t o f th e jus t compensatio n which take s int o account
such
dela y
(Benguet
Consolidated,
Inc.
vs.
Republ
ic,
G.R. No.
71412, Aug.
15, 1986).
3 . Th e natur e an d th e valu e o f th e lan d a t th e tim e
it wa s take n by th e Governmen t shoul d b e th e basi s o f
th e pric e t o b e pai d t o th e owner i f th e takin g o f possession
t h e r e o f w a s m a d e
befor e
t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o
f t h e
expropriation proceedings .
Th e valu e a t th e tim e
o f
th e filin g o f t h e complain t i s d e t e r m i n a t i v e
i f
th e
takin g o f possession coincide s with or i s subsequen t t o th e
commencement o f th e proceedings , wit h interes t from
it s takin g an d wit h attorney' s fee s t o b e determine d
by th e tria l cour t
(National Power Corp.
vs. CA, et
al.,
G.R. No. 56378, June 22, 1984, an d case s cite d therein) .
4 . Th e consequentia l benefit s tha t shal l b e deducte d
refer s t o th e actua l benefit s derive d by th e owner on th e
remainin g portio n o f hi s lan d which ar e th e direct an d
proximat e result s o f th e improvement s consequen t t o th e
expropriation , an d no t th e genera l benefit s whic h h e
receive s in common wit h th e community
(29 C.J.S. 106
3;
Republic
vs.
Vda.
de
Mortera,
et al.,
94 Phil.
1042
[Unrep.J).
5 . Th e judgmen t rendered , requirin g th e paymen t
of th e awar d determine d a s jus t compensatio n for th e
condemned propert y an d a s a condition preceden t for th e
transfer o f titl e t o th e Government , cannot b e realize d upon

execution ,
a s th e legislatur e
mus t firs t appropriat e
th e amoun t over an d above th e provisional deposit (Comm.
of Public Highways, et al.
vs. San Diego, et al.,
8,
Feb.
18, 1970).
L-3009
6 . Th e tria l court ha s th e jurisdiction t o determine ,

in th e sam e expropriation proceedings , conflicting claim s
843
----------------------- Page 844----------------------RULE 67
11
SEC. 10-
of ownership over the property involved and to declare

the lawful owner thereof (Republic vs. CFI of Pampanga,
et al., L-27006, June 30,
1970).
Sec.
10.
Rights
of plaintiff
after
judgment
a
nd
payment.
Upo n paymen t by th e plaintif f t o th e
d e f e n d a n t o f t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n
f i x e d b y
t
h e
j u d g m e n t , w i t h lega l i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n fro m
th e
takin g o f th e possessio n o f th e property , o r afte r
tende r t o hi m o f th e amoun t s o fixe d an d paymen t
o f th e costs , th e plaintif f shal l hav e th e righ t t o
e n t e r u p o n
t h e p r o p e r t y e x p r o p r i a t e d an d
t o
appropriat e i t fo r th e publi c us e o r purpos e define d
i n th e j u d g m e n t , o r t o retai n i t shoul d h e hav
e
t a k e n i m m e d i a t e
p o s s e s s i o n t h e r e o f u n d e r
th e
provision s o f sectio n 2 hereof .
I f th e defendan t an d
hi s counse l absen t themselve s fro m th e court , o r
declin e t o receiv e th e amoun t tendered , th e sam e
shall b e ordere d t o b e deposite d i n cour t an d suc h
d e p o s i t s h a l l h a v e t h e s a m e
e f f e c t a s a c t
u a l
paymen t thereo f t o th e defendan t o r th e perso n
ultimately adjudge d entitle d thereto .
(10a)
Sec .
11 .
Entry
not
delayed
by
appeal; effect
of
reversal. Th e righ t o f th e plaintif f t o ente r upo n
th e propert y o f th e defendan t an d appropriat e th e
same fo r publi c us e o r purpos e shal l no t b e delaye d
b y a n a p p e a l fro m t h e j u d g m e n t .
B u t
i f
th e
appellat e cour t determine s tha t plaintif f ha s n o
right o f expropriation , judgmen t shal l b e rendere d
orderin g th e
Regiona l Tria l Cour t t o forthwit h
enforc e th e restoratio n t o th e defendan t o f th e
possessio n o f th e property , an d t o determin e th e
damage s whic h th e defendan t sustaine d an d may

recove r b y reaso n o f th e possessio n take n b y th e
plaintiff .
( l l a )
844
----------------------- Page 845----------------------RULE 67
-14
Sec .
EXPROPRIATION
12 .
Costs,
by
whom paid.
SECS. 12
Th e
fee s
of th
e
c o m m i s s i o n e r s shal l b e taxe d a s a par t o f th e cost s
o f th e proceedings .
claimant s litigatin g
th e plaintiff , u n l e
o f th e propert y an
w h i c h e v e n t th e
th e owner .
(12a )
Sec .
13 .
Al l costs , excep t thos e o f riva l

thei r claims , shal l b e pai d b y
s s a n appea l i s take n b y th e owne r
d th e j u d g m e n t i s affirmed , i n
cost s o f th e appea l shal l b e pai d b y
Recording judgment,
and
its effect.
Th e
j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n e x p r o p r i a t i o n p r o c e e d
i n g s
shal l stat e definitely , b y a n adequat e description ,
th e particula r propert y o r interes t expropriated , an d
th e natur e o f th e publi c us e o r purpos e fo r whic h i t
i s expropriated .
Whe n rea l estat e i s expropriated ,
a certifie d cop y o f suc h judgmen t shal l b e recorde d
i n th e registr y o f d e e d s o f th e plac e i n whic h th
e
propert y i s situated , an d it s effec t shal l b e t o ves t
i n th e plaintif f th e titl e t o th e rea l estat e s o describe d
for suc h publi c us e o r purpose .
(13a)
Sec .
14 . Power
of guardian
in such proceedings.
Th e guardia n o r guardia n a d litem o f a mino r o r o f

a perso n judiciall y declare d t o b e incompeten t may ,
wit h t h e approva l o f th e cour t firs t had , d o an d
perfor m o n behal f o f hi s war d an y act , matter , o r
t h i n g respectin g th e expropriatio n fo r publi c us e
o r purpos e o f propert y belongin g t o suc h mino r o r
perso n judiciall y declare d t o b e incompetent , whic h
suc h mino r o r perso n declare d t o b e incompeten t
coul d d o i n suc h proceeding s i f h e wer e o f ag e o r
competent .
(14a)
NOTE S
1.
Unde r Sec . 11, th e right of entr y can immediately
be availe d of by th e plaintif f despit e th e pendency of any
appeal tha t may b e take n from th e judgment ; but , unde r
845
----------------------- Page 846-----------------------
RULE 67
SEC. 12-14
Sec. 10, in order tha t it can exercis e such right o f entry ,

th e plaintif f mus t first pay t o th e landowner or deposit
with th e clerk o f court th e jus t compensation determine d
in th e judgment , (see Federated Realty Corp. vs. CA, et
al., G.R. No. 127967, Dec. 14, 2005)
2 . In th e even t th e judgmen t o f expropriatio n i s
reverse d by th e appellat e court an d th e cas e i s remande d
t o th e lower court with th e mandat e t o determin e th e
damage s cause d t o th e landowner ,
such landowner ha s
th e option o f provin g th e damage s eithe r in th e sam e
expropriation cas e or in a separat e action institute d for
tha t purpos e
(MWC vs. De los Angeles,
55 Phil.
776).
The judgmen t denyin g th e right o f expropriation i s not
res judicata on th e issu e of damage s arisin g from such
illegal expropriation (Republic vs. Baylosis, 109 Phil. 580).
3. Wher e th e expropriation judgmen t i s final an d
executory ,
th e non-paymen t b y th e
expropriatin g
authority o f jus t compensation doe s not entitl e th e privat e
landowners to recover possession of their expropriate d lots .
To argu e for th e retur n o f thei r property would ignore th e
fact tha t thei r righ t agains t th e expropriatin g authority
is different from tha t o f an unpai d seller in ordinary sales ,
to which th e remedy o f rescission might perhap s apply .
Being an in rem proceeding , condemnation act s against
th e property .
However , although th e right t o expropriat e an d use
th e lan d take n i s complet e at th e tim e o f entry , titl e t o th e
property remain s in th e owner unti l paymen t i s actually
mad e or deposite d in court .
Furthermore , th e landowner
is entitle d t o interes t compute d from th e tim e tha t th e
property i s actually take n t o th e tim e when compensation
is actuall y
pai d (Reyes,
et al. vs. National
Housing
Authority,
G.R. No.
147511, Jan. 20,
2003).
4 . Nevertheles s whil e th e prevailin g doctrin e i s tha t
th e non-payment o f jus t compensation doe s not entitl e th e
846
----------------------- Page 847----------------------RULE 67
-14
EXPROPRIATION
SEC. 12
landowner t o recover possession o f th e expropriate d lot ,

i n case s
w h e r e t h e g o v e r n m e n t faile d t o pa y j
u s t
compensation withi n 5 year s from th e finality o f judgmen t
in th e expropriatio n proceeding , th e owner shal l hav e th e
righ t t o recover possession o f hi s property .
Thi s i s
in
consonance wit h th e principl e tha t th e governmen t canno t
keep th e propert y an d dishonor th e judgmen t (Republic
vs. Lim,
G.R. No.
161656, June 29, 2005).
Here , th e expropriate d property ha d been use d a s a

school sit e for five year s whil e non-paymen t wa s effected
throug h lega l maneuver s o f th e local governmen t uni t
whic h
e x p r o p r o p r i a t e d t h e p r o p e r t y . U n d e r
suc h
circumstances , it ha s been hel d in Municipality ofMakati
vs. CA, et al. (G.R . Nos . 89898-99 , Oct . 1 , 1990) tha t th e
claimant could hav e availe d o f th e remedy o f mandamu s
t o compe l th e enactmen t o f th e necessary appropriatio n
ordinanc e
an d th e disbursemen t o f municipa l fund s
therefor (Yujuico vs. Atienza, Jr., et al., G.R. No.
164282
,
Oct.
12, 2005).
5 . T o repeat , th e concep t o f jus t compensatio n
embrace s not only th e correct determination o f th e amoun t
t o b e pai d t o th e owner o f th e land , bu t als o th e paymen t
thereo f withi n a reasonabl e tim e from it s taking . Withou t
promp t payment , compensation cannot b e considere d "just "
since th e owner ha s been immediately deprive d o f hi s lan d
whil e bein g mad e to wai t for a long perio d before receivin g
th e paymen t necessary t o cope with hi s loss .
T o allo
w
th e takin g o f th e landowner' s propertie s an d t o leav e the m
empty-handed whil e Government withhold s compensation
is undoubtedly oppressiv e (Apo Fruits Corp. vs. CA, et al.,
G.R.
No.
164195,
Feb.
6, 2007 Barangay
Sindalan,
e
tc.
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 150640 Mar. 22, 2007).
Jus t compensation i s intende d t o b e th e full an d fair
equivalent o f th e property expropriated .
Th e measur e i s
not th e taker' 8 gain bu t th e owner' s loss . Th e compensation
mus t b e fair not only t o th e owner bu t als o t o th e taker ,
847
----------------------- Page 848----------------------RULE 67
SEC.
12-14
by avoiding under valuation against the former and

overvaluation against the latter consequent to delay in
the payment of the award. The amount is to be ascertained
as of the time of the taking which usually coincides with
the commencement of the expropriation proceedings.
Where the institution of the action precedes entry into
the property, the just compensation is to be ascertained as
of the time of the filing of the complaint (National Power
Corp. vs. De la Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 156093, Feb. 2, 2007).
6. As noted at the outset, the Local Government Code
(R.A. 7160) now regulates expropriation by the local
political subdivisions and provides as follows:
"Sec. 19. Eminent Domain. - A local government
unit may, through its chief executive and acting

through an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent
domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the
benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of
just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution and pertinent laws.
Provided, however,
That the power of eminent domain may not be
exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner and such offer was not
accepted; Provided, further, That the local government
may immediately take possession of the property upon
the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon
making a deposit, with the proper court of at least
fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value at the
time of the taking of the property."
7. Note the variance in certain particulars between
the foregoing special provisions on local governments and
those in Rule 67, such as the specific purposes, the
initiation of proceedings, the preliminary deposit, and the
ascertainment of compensation. In The City of Cebu vs.
Dedamo, et al.
(G.R. No. 142971, May 7, 2002), which
involved a complaint for eminent domain filed by petitioner
in 1993, the Supreme Court ruled that the issue of just
848
----------------------- Page 849----------------------RULE 67
EXPROPRIATION
SEC. 12-14
compensation therei n shal l b e determine d base d on th e

fair marke t valu e at th e tim e o f th e takin g o f th e property ,
pursuan t t o Sec . 1 9 o f R.A . 7160 .
It pointe d ou t tha t
Sec. 4 , Rul e 67 , which provide d tha t jus t compensation
shall b e determine d at th e tim e o f th e filing o f th e complaint
for expropriation , canno t prevai l over R.A . 716 0 which i s
a substantiv e law .
Parenthetically , th e Suprem e Cour t wa s
referrin g to Rul e 6 7 o f th e 1964 Rule s o f Court .
in 1997 , Sec . 4 o f sai d Rul e now provide s tha t
of jus t compensatio n i s t o b e determine d a s
th e takin g o f th e propert y or th e filing o f
whichever cam e first .
obviously
A s revise d
th e paymen t
o f th e dat e o f
th e complaint ,
8. Se e als o th e pertinen t discussion in Jesus is Lord

Christian
School Foundation,
Inc. vs. City of Pasig (G.R .
No . 152230 , Aug . 9 , 2005) .
849
----------------------- Page 850----------------------RULE
REAL
Sectio n
1.
6 8
FORECLOSURE OF
ESTAT E MORTGAGE
Complaint
in
action
for foreclosure.
In a n actio n fo r th e foreclosur e o f a mortgag e o r

othe r encumbranc e upo n rea l estate , th e complain t
shall se t fort h th e dat e an d du e executio n o f th e
mortgage ; it s assignments , i f any ; th e name s an d
residence s o f th e mortgago r an d th e mortgagee ; a
descriptio n o f th e mortgage d property ; a statemen t
o f t h e d a t e o f t h e n o t e o r o t h e r d o c u m e n t a r y
evidenc e o f th e obligatio n secure d b y th e mortgage ,
th e amoun t claime d t o b e unpai d thereon ; an d th e
n a m e s an d r e s i d e n c e s o f al l p e r s o n s h a v i n g
o r
claimin g a n interes t i n th e propert y subordinat e i n
right t o tha t o f th e holde r o f th e mortgage , all o f
who m shal l b e mad e defendant s i n th e actions ,
(la )
NOTE S
1. Thi s section is a virtua l copy of th e former Sec . 1
of thi s Rule .
2 . A foreclosure action mus t be brought in th e Court
of Firs t Instanc e o f th e provinc e wher e th e lan d or any
par t thereo f i s situated .
I f a mortgag e contract cover s
several distinc t parcel s o f lan d situate d in different
provinces , th e action may b e brought in th e Court o f First
Instance o f any o f th e province s an d th e judgmen t will be
enforceable agains t any o f th e parcel s of lan d involved
(Monte de Piedad
vs. Rodrigo,
56 Phil.
301; El Hogar
Filipino vs. Seva, 57 Phil. 537; B.P.I, vs. Green, 57 Phil.
712).
Now, for Court of Firs t Instance , rea d Regional
Trial Court ; and , for province , rea d region , but subject to
th e territoria l allocation mad e by th e Suprem e Court o f
850
----------------------- Page 851----------------------RULE 68
FORECLOSURE OF
REAL ESTATE MORTAGE
th e administrativ e are a for

tha t particula r court .
SEC. 1
th e exercis e o f jurisdiction o f
3 . A mortgage e may brin g a persona l action for th e

amount due , instea d o f a foreclosur e suit , in which cas e
h e will b e deeme d t o hav e waive d hi s righ t t o procee d
against th e propert y in a foreclosur e proceedin g
(Movido
vs. RFC, et al., 105 Phil. 886).
4 . An unregistere d rea l estat e mortgag e may b e foreclosed
(Mobil-Oil Phil., Inc.
vs. Tiocares, et al., L-26371,
Sept. 30,
1969).
5 . Th e caus e
o f actio n
in
a foreclosur e
sui t
generally th e non-paymen t o f th e mortgag e loan , bu t it

may b e on othe r ground s which unde r th e contract warran t
th e foreclosure , suc h a s th e violation o f som e o f th e othe r
i s
condition s therein .
6 . Foreclosur e ma y b e mad e judiciall y o r extra judicially .
Extrajudicia l foreclosur e i s prope r only whe n
so provide d in th e contract s in accordanc e with Act 3135 ,
as amende d by Act 4118 .
Se e A.M . No . 99-10-05- 0 for
th e presen t procedur e therefor (Appendix T).
Rul e 68 ,
on th e othe r hand , govern s judicia l foreclosure .
7. In a foreclosure action , th e following must be joined
a s defendants :
(a)
Th e person s obligate d t o pay th e mortgag e debt ;
(b) Th e person s wh o own , occupy or contro l th e

mortgage d
premise s or any par t thereo f
(Soriano
vs.
Enriquez,
24
Phil. 584);
Villa
(c) Th e transfere e or grante e o f th e

vs. Fabricante,
105 Phil. 672); an d
propert y
(De
(d) Th e second mortgage e or junior encumbrancer ,

or any person claimin g a right or interes t in th e property
subordinat e t o th e mortgag e sough t t o b e foreclosed ;
bu t i f th e action i s by th e junior encumbrancer , th e first
851
mortgagee may also be joined a s defendant
vs. Reynoso, 61 Phil. 734).
SEC. 2
(De la Riva
8. If th e junior encumbrancer i s not impleade d in

th e suit , ther e will remai n with him th e unforeclosed
right of redemption which he can enforce against th e first
mortgage e or th e purchase r at th e foreclosure sale , a s h e
is a redemptione r unde r Sec . 29(b) (now , Sec. 27[bJ),
Rule 39 which ha s suppletory effect to Rule 68 pursuan t
to Sec . 3 (a), Rul e 1 . Consequently , by includin g th e
junio r mortgage e in th e suit , th e relie f sought against
him is th e foreclosure of hi s right of redemption (see Top
Rate
International
Service,
Inc. vs. IAC,
et al., G.R.
Nos.
67496 an d
68257, July
7, 1986, cite d in Not e 6
under Sec. 7, Rule 57).
Of course , if he is impleade d as a
defendent an d th e foreclosure suit prospers , h e i s entitle d
to be paid off from th e residu e after th e first mortgage e
shall hav e been satisfied
(Sec. 4).
Sec.
2.
Judgment on foreclosure for payment or sale.
I f upo n th e tria l i n suc h actio n th e cour t shal l
find th e fact s se t fort h i n th e complain t t o b e true ,
i t shal l ascertai n th e amoun t du e t o th e plaintif f
upo n th e mortgag e deb t o r obligation , includin g
interes t an d othe r charge s a s approve d b y th e court ,
and costs , an d shal l rende r judgmen t for th e su m s o
found du e an d orde r tha t th e sam e b e pai d t o th e
court o r t o th e judgmen t oblige e withi n a perio d o f
not les s tha n ninet y (90)

hundre d twent y (120) day s
judgment , an d tha t i n defaul
property shal l b e sol d a t
th e judgment .
(2a)
day s
fro m
t o f
publi c
no r mor e tha n on e
th e entr y o f th e
suc h paymen t th e
auctio n t o satisfy
NOTE S
1. Thi s section reproduce s th e former Sec . 2 of thi s
Rule but with th e clarification tha t th e judgment obligee
852
----------------------- Page 853----------------------RULE 68
EC. 2
FORECLOSURE OF
REAL ESTATE MORTAGE

shall b e ordere d t o pay th e judgmen t account withi n a
perio d o f not les s tha n 9 0 day s nor mor e tha n 120 day s
from th e entr y o f th e judgment .
Th e exact perio d must ,
of course , b e specified by th e court in it s judgment .
Th e
former provision which require d tha t such paymen t shoul d
b e mad e "within a perio d o f not les s tha n ninety (90) day s
from th e dat e o f th e servic e o f suc h order " spawne d a
numbe r o f controversie s becaus e o f it s obviou s ambiguity .
2 . I n vie w
o f th e p r o c e d u r a l s t a g e s an d
t h e
adjudicative action s require d t o b e take n by th e tria l court
in thi s specia l civil action , multipl e appeal s may b e take n
in th e case .
Thus , th e judgmen t o f foreclosur e provide d
in thi s section , bein g a final adjudication o f th e issue s
involved therein , i s appealable .
Th e orde r confirmin g
th e foreclosur e sale , contemplate d in Sec . 3 , i s als o a final
disposition wit h respec t t o th e issu e o f th e regularit y
and validity o f such sal e an d may likewis e b e challenge d
on appeal .
Th e deficiency judgmen t unde r Sec . 6 i s
furthermore a disposition on th e merit s o f th e correctnes s
of such awar d an d may properly b e th e subject o f appeal .
A s hereinbefor e stated , th e significance o f such observation
is that , by reaso n o f th e multiplicity o f appeal s availabl e
in thi s case , th e reglementar y perio d for appea l in any o f
th e thre e instance s state d shal l b e 3 0 days , an d a recor d
on appea l shal l b e required .
3 . In extrajudicia l foreclosure , th e mortgagor ha s th e
right t o redee m th e property within one yea r from th e
registratio n
o f th e dee d
o f sal e (Reyes
vs. Noblej
as,
L-23691, Nov. 25, 1967).
Th e dat e of th e sal e mentione d
in Sec . 6 of Act 3135 , a s amended , shoul d be construe d to
mean th e dat e o f registratio n o f th e
certificat e o f sal e
in
th e registr y
of deed s
(Santos
vs. Register of Deeds
of
Manila,
L-26752,
et
al., L 29142, Nov.
Mar.
19,
29,
1971).
In judicia l foreclosure ,
1971; Reyes
ther e
i s
vs.
n o
suc h
Tolentino,
righ t o f
redemption , except in th e cas e o f mortgage s with bankin g

853
----------------------- Page 854----------------------RULE 68
3
SEC.
institution s hereinafter t o b e discussed , bu t th e mortgagor

ha s th e "equity o f redemption " which h e can exercise at
any tim e after servic e of th e judgmen t of foreclosure and
within th e period provide d herein , an d even thereafter ,
provided he doe s so before th e foreclosure sal e i s confirmed
by th e court
(Anderson vs. Reyes, 54 Phil. 944).
Upon
th e confirmation o f th e foreclosure sale , titl e vest s in th e

purchaser , th e confirmation retroact s t o th e dat e o f th e
sale, an d th e right s o f th e mortgage e an d person s holding
unde r him ar e cut off, includin g th e equity o f redemption .
The purchase r cannot b e considere d a s th e successor-ininterest o f th e mortgagor , henc e h e i s not boun d by th e
term s o f th e judgmen t unde r whic h th e
foreclosur e
sale wa s authorize d
No.
53620,
Jan.
31,
(Lonzame
vs.
Amores,
et al.,
G.R.
1985).
4 . Th e provision of Sec . 2 grantin g

paymen t by th e mortgago r i s a mandator
and constitute s a substantiv e righ t o f th e
It
cannot be omitte d in judicia l foreclosure
vs. Ibahes,
95 Phil.
119; Herrera,
th e period for
y directiv e
mortgagor .
(Ponce de Leon
vs. Arellano,
et al.
et al., 9 7 Phil. 776);

nor can th e partie s by agreement
change th e procedur e outline d by thi s Rule
(Piano vs
.
Cayanong,
L-18603,
Feb.
28,
1963).
Sai d
perio d
is
suspended by an appea l take n from th e judgmen t an d i s
not revived unti l said judgment i s affirmed by th e appellat e
court an d th e cas e i s returne d t o th e tria l court (Blossom
& Co. vs. Manila Gas Corp., 47 Phil. 670).
Sec. 3.
Sale of mortgaged property; effect.
th e defendant , afte r bein g directe d t o d o
provide d i n th e nex t precedin g section , fail s t
th e a m o u n t o f th e j u d g m e n t
w i t h i
Whe n
s o a s
o pay
n th e perio d
specifie d therein , th e court , upo n motion , shal l

orde r th e propert y t o b e sol d i n th e manne r an d
u n d e r
t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 3 9
a n d
e r
o t h
regulation s
governin g
execution .
sale s
o f rea l
estat e
unde r
Suc h sal e shal l no t affec t th e right s o f

854
----------------------- Page 855----------------------RULE 68

C. 3
FORECLOSURE OF
SE
REAL ESTATE MORTAGE

p e r s o n s
t h e
propert y o r
a n orde r
operat e t o
th e partie s
th e purchaser
a s ma y b e
h o l d i n g
p r i o r e n c u m b r a n c e s
a par t thereof , an d w h
o f t h e court , als o
dives t th e right s i n
t o th e actio n an d t o
, subjec t t o suc h right
allowe d b y law .
u p o n
e n confirme d b y
upo n motion , i t shal l
th e propert y o f al l
ves t thei r right s i n
s o f redemptio n
Upo n th e finalit y o f th e orde r o f confirmatio n

o r upo n th e expiratio n o f th e perio d o f redemptio n
w h e n allowe d b y law , th e purchase r a t th e auctio n
sal e o r las t redemptioner , i f any , shal l b e entitle d
t o th e p o s s e s s i o n o f th e propert y u n l e s s a thir
d
part y i s actuall y holdin g th e sam e adversel y t o th e
j u d g m e n t
o b l i g o r . T h e
sai d
p u r c h a s e r o r l
a s t
redemptione r ma y secur e a wri t o f possession , upo n
m o t i o n ,
f r o m
t h e
c o u r t w h i c h
o r d e r e d
t h e
foreclosure .
(3a)
NOTE S
whic h
1. T o th e first paragrap h o f thi s amende d section ,

i s th e
sam e a s t h a t appearin g i n th e forme r
provision , ha s been adde d a second paragrap h regulatin g

th e issuanc e of a wri t of possession .
A s a genera l rule
,
th e purchase r i s entitle d t o possession o f th e property sold
to him upon th e finality o f th e order o f confirmation o f
th e sale ; an d th e sam e i s tru e with respect t o th e last
redemptioner ,
upo n
th e
expiratio n
o f th e
redemption .
Th e secon d paragraph , however ,
for exception s a s evolved in our jurisprudence .
perio d
o f
provide s
2 . Where , after extrajudicia l foreclosur e of a rea l

estat e mortgage , th e mortgage e purchase d th e sam e a t
th e foreclosur e sale , h e shal l b e entitle d t o a wri t o f
possession
possession
unles s th
Registry o
despit e th
o f a lesse
e leas e
f Property
e
e
ha
or
fact tha t th e premise s ar e in th e

whos e leas e ha s not yet terminated ,
s been previously registere d in th e
th e mortgage e ha d prior actua l
855
----------------------- Page 856----------------------RULE 68
SEC. 3
knowledge of th e existenc e of th e lease .

Under Sec . 7
of Act 3135 , a s amended , th e petition for such writ of
possession shal l b e mad e unde r oat h an d filed a s an
ex parte motion in th e registratio n or cadastra l pro ceedings of th e property (Ibasco, et al. vs. Caguioa, et al.,
G.R. No. 62619, Aug. 19, 1986).
3.
Thus , in Barican, et al. vs. IAC, et al.
79906, Jun e 20
well-settled rul
is entitle d to
parte motion of
court to issu e
(G.R . No .
, 1988), th e Suprem e Court reiterate d th e

e tha t th e purchase r in a foreclosure sale
a writ of possession an d that , upon an ex
th e purchaser , it i s ministeria l upon th e
a writ of possession in hi s favor .
He i s not
require d to brin g a separat e action for

th e redemption perio d ha s expired .
partie s in possession claim ownership thereo
b e added , i f ther e i s some plausibility
issue must first be ventilate d in a proper
merit s thereof .
4 . I f th e
deb t i s
possession after
However , wher e th e
f and , it may
in their claim , tha t
hearin g of th e
no t pai d withi n th e
perio d
pro
vided for in Sec . 2 , it i s th e ministeria l duty of th e court to

order th e foreclosure sal e of th e property .
A motion
fo
r
such orde r o f sal e i s non-litigabl e an d may b e mad e
ex parte (Gov't of P.I.
vs. De las Cajigas,
55 Phil.
667).
However ,
require s
th e motion for th e confirmation o f th e sal e

a h e a r i n g t o gran t a n opportunit y t o th e
mortgagor t o show caus e why th e sal e shoul d not b e

confirmed
(Tiglao vs. Botones, 90 Phil. 275), as by proof
of irregularitie s therein or of gros s inadequacy of th e price .
Lack of notice vitiate s th e confirmation of th e sale .
Wher e
th e property wa s sold to a thir d person before confirmation
of th e foreclosure sale , sai d vende e shoul d be given notice
and sai d sal e doe s not preven t th e court from grantin g
th e mortgagor a perio d within which to redeem
(Rural
Bank of Oroquieta
vs.
CA,
et al,
supra).
5. An order confirming th e foreclosure sal e mad e by

th e sheriff is appealabl e
(De la Cruz, Jr. vs. Sta. Maria,
856
----------------------- Page 857----------------------RULE 68
FORECLOSURE OF
SEC
. 4
REAL ESTATE MORTAGE
L-17928,
April
30,
1963).
6 . Upon th e confirmation o f th e foreclosur e sale , th e

equity o f redemptio n i s cut off an d titl e vest s in favor o f
th e p u r c h a s e r retroactiv e t o th e dat e o f actua l s
al e
(Grimalt vs.
Velazquez, et al,
36 Phil.
936).
Ther e wil
l ,
thereafter , b e n o furthe r righ t o f redemption , except in
judicia l foreclosur e o f mortgage s by th e Development Ban k
of th e Philippine s
(CA. 459), th e Philippin e Nationa l Ban k
(Acts 2747 an d 2938; now ,
Sec. 30, R.A.
1300),
banks
,
bankin g or credi t institution s (Sec. 78, R.A. 1300 [General
Banking Act]) an d rura l bank s (R.A. 2670).
With respec t
t o foreclosur e mad e by th e Philippin e Nationa l Bank , th
mortgagor ha s on e yea r from th e registratio n o f th e dee
of sale , whethe r th e foreclosur e wa s judicia l
30,
R.A. 1300) or extrajudicia l (Act 3135, as amende d by Act
4118) a s lon g a s th e lan d i s registere d unde r
6
(Quimson
vs. PNB, L-24920,
Nov.
24,
1970).
e
d
(Sec.
Act 49
7. Foreclosur e o f mortgage s t o bankin g institutions ,

whethe r judicially or extrajudicially , i s subject t o lega l
redemption , bu t th e part y redeemin g mus t pay th e amoun t
fixed by th e court in th e order o f execution , not th e amoun t
for which th e propert y wa s purchase d at publi c auction
(Ponce de Leon vs. RFC, L-24571, Dec. 18, 1970; Sec.
78,
R.A. 337).
Th e sam e rul e applie s to foreclosure s effected
by th e Philippin e Nationa l Ban k an d th e Development
Bank o f th e Philippines , a s provide d for in thei r respectiv e
charter s
(DBP vs.
Mirang,
L-29130, Aug.
8, 1975).
In
other executio n sales , th e redemptio n amoun t i s th e
auction pric e with interes t (Dulay vs. Carriaga, et al, G.R.
No.
52831, July 29,
1983).
Sec .
4.
Disposition
of
proceeds
of
sale.
T h
e
amoun t realize d fro m th e foreclosur e
sal e o f t
h e
mortgage d propert y shall , afte r deductin g th e cost s
o f th e sale , b e pai d t o th e perso n foreclosin g th e
mortgage , an d whe n ther e shal l b e an y balanc e o r
857
----------------------- Page 858----------------------RULE 68
5-6
residue , afte r payin g of f th e mortgag e deb t due , th e
SECS.
same shal l b e pai d t o junio r

orde r o f thei r priority , t o
court, o r i f ther e b e n o suc h
b e a balanc e o r residu e afte r
t o th e mortgago r o r hi s dul y
t o th e perso n entitle d t o it .
encumbrancer s i n th e
b e ascertaine d b y th e
encumbrancer s o r ther e
paymen t t o them , the n
authorize d agent , o r
(4a)
Sec. 5.
How sale to proceed in case the debt is not
all due. I f th e deb t fo r whic h th e mortgag e o r
encumbranc e wa s hel d i s no t al l du e a s provide d i n
th e judgment , a s soo n a s a sufficien t portio n o f th e
property ha s bee n sol d t o pa y th e tota l amoun t an d
th e cost s due , th e sal e shal l terminate ; an d afterwards , a s ofte n a s mor e become s du e for principa l
o r interes t an d othe r vali d charges , th e cour t may ,
on motion , orde r mor e t o b e sold . Bu t i f th e propert y
cannot b e sol d i n portion s withou t prejudic e t o th e
parties , th e whol e shal l b e ordere d t o b e sol d i n th e
first instance , an d th e entir e deb t an d cost s shal l
b e paid , i f th e proceed s o f th e sal e b e sufficien t
therefor , ther e bein g a rebat e o f interes t wher e suc h
rebat e i s proper .
(5a)
Sec. 6 .
Deficiency judgment.
If upo n
th e
sal e
o f a n y r e a l p r o p e r t y a s p r o v i d e d i n t h e n e
x t
precedin g sectio n ther e b e a balanc e du e t o th e
plaintif f afte r applyin g th e proceed s o f th e sale , th e
court, upo n motion , shal l rende r judgmen t agains t
th e defendan t fo r an y suc h balanc e fo r which , b y
th e recor d o f th e case , h e ma y b e personall y liabl e
t o th e plaintiff , upo n whic h executio n ma y issu e
immediately i f th e balanc e i s al l du e a t th e tim e o f
th e r e n d i t i o n o f t h e j u d g m e n t ; o t h e r w i s e , t
h e
plaintif f shal l b e entitle d t o executio n a t suc h tim e
a s th e balanc e remainin g become s du e unde r th e
term s o f th e origina l contract , whic h tim e shal l b e
state d i n th e judgment .
(6a)
858
----------------------- Page 859----------------------RULE 68
-6
FORECLOSURE OF
SECS. 5
REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

NOTE S
1. Sec . 6 provide s for a deficiency judgmen t which
shall b e rendered , on motion , whe n th e foreclosur e sal e
did not produc e proceed s sufficient t o satisfy th e judgment .
Such a deficiency judgmen t i s immediately executory i f
th e balanc e i s al l due .
Where , however , th e mortgag e wa s execute d by a
thir d person t o secur e th e obligation o f a debtor , such thir d
perso n no t havin g assume d persona l liabilit y for th e
paymen t o f th e debt , th e exten t o f recovery in th e judgmen t

of foreclosur e shal l b e limite d t o th e purchas e pric e at th e
foreclosur e
sal e an d n o deficiency j u dg m e n t ca n b e
recovere d
Suisa,
agains t sai d
52 Phil.
852).
perso n
(Phil.
Trust
Co.
vs. Tan
Th e reason for thi s i s th e fact tha t
th e mortgag e contract itsel f delimit s th e exten t o f th e relie f

against th e
third party
mortgagor.
Th e remedy o f th e
mortgage e i s t o procee d agains t th e debtor in an ordinar y
action for a su m o f money to recover th e balanc e o f th e
debt due .
2 . In extrajudica l foreclosure , th e mortgage e can als o
recover by action any deficiency in th e mortgag e account
which wa s not realize d in th e foreclosur e sal e
(DBP vs.
Mirang,
L-29130,
Aug.
8,
1975;
DBP
vs.
Zaragosa,
L-23493,
Aug.
23,
1978; PNB
vs. CA,
et al., G.R.
No
.
121739,
June
14,
1999).
Ther e ca n be
no deficiency
judgmen t a s ther e wa s n o judicia l proceedin g i n th e
foreclosure o f th e mortgag e itself .
3. A different rul e applie s in th e cas e of a mortgag e
debt du e from th e estat e o f a decease d mortgagor .
Unde r
Sec. 7 , Rul e 86 , ther e ar e thre e alternativ e remedie s
available t o th e mortgag e creditor who , however , can avai l
of only on e o f them . I f h e avail s o f th e thir d mode , tha t is
,
by relyin g upon hi s mortgag e
alon e an d foreclosing th e
same withi n th e statut e o f limitations , h e thereby waive s
any deficiency claim .
Thi s ba r t o an action for recovery
859
----------------------- Page 860----------------------RULE 68
SECS. 7-8
of any deficiency applies whether he foreclosed the

mortgage judicially or extrajudicially (Phil. National Bank
vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 121571, June 29, 2001).
This is
because said Sec. 7 provides that, in such event, he shall
neither be admitted as a creditor nor further share in the
assets of the estate.
Sec. 7. Registration. A certified copy of the
final orde r o f th e court confirmin g the sale
shall be registered in the registry of deeds .
If no
right of redemption exists, the certificate of title of
the mortgagor shall be cancelled , and a new one
issued in the name of the purchaser .
Where a right of redemption exists, the certificate of title in the name of the mortgagor shall
not be cancelled , but the certificate of sale and the

order confirming the sale shall be registered and a
brief memorandum thereof made by the registrar of
deeds upon the certificate of title .
In the event the
property is redeemed , the deed of redemption shall
be registered with the registry of deeds, and a brief
memorandum thereof shall be made by the registrar
of deeds on said certificate of title .
If the property is not redeemed , the final deed
of sale execute d by the sherif f in favor of the
purchaser at the foreclosure sale shall be registered
with the registry of deeds, whereupon the certificate of title in the name of the mortgagor shall be
cancelled and a new certificate issued in the name
of the purchaser, (n)
Sec. 8.
Applicability of
other provisions.
provisions of sections 31, 32 and 34 of Rule 39 shall
be applicabl e to the judicia l foreclosure of real
estate mortgage s under this Rule insofar as the
former are not inconsistent with or may serve to
supplement the provisions of the latter . (8a)
The
860
----------------------- Page 861----------------------RULE 68
7-8
FORECLOSURE OF
SECS.
REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

NOTE S
1. Sec . 7 ha s
of Sec . 6 1 o f P.D .
modifications , t o provid
for registratio n relativ
been supplemente d by th e provision s

1529 on lan d registration , wit h som e
e mor e specificity t o th e procedur e
e t o foreclosur e sales .
2 . Th e former Sec . 8 of thi s

foreclosure o f chatte l mortgage s ha
th e subject i s mor e properly addresse
th e Chatte l Mortgag e Law an d th e
thereo n o f th e Civil Code .
Rul e providin g for judicia l

s been eliminate d a s
d t o th e provision s o f
pertinen t prescription s
3 . For specia l provision s on foreclosur e o f mortgage s

b y g o v e r n m e n t financia l institutions , se e P.D . 385 ,
effective Januar y 31 , 1974 , with th e purpos e thereo f an d
th e limitation s
thereo n
bein g
explaine d
i n Filipin
os
Marble Corp.
vs. IAC, et al.
(G.R . No . 68010 , May 30 ,
1986).
4 . I n A.M .
No . 99-10-05-0 , th e Suprem e
Cour
t
adopte d
t h e a d d i t i o n a l Rule s o n th e P r o c e d u r
e i n
Extrajudicia l o r Judicia l Foreclosur e o f Rea l Estat e
Mortgages , effective Marc h 10, 2007 , a s follow :
(1)
N o
preliminar y
temporar y restrainin g orde r or wri t o f

injunctio n
agains t
th e extrajudicia l
foreclosure o f rea l estat e mortgag e

th e allegation tha t th e loan secure
ha s been pai d or i s not deliquent unles
is verified an d supporte d by evidenc
(2) N o
preliminar y
shal l
d by
s th e
e o f
b e issue d on
th e mortgag e
application
payment .
temporar y restrainin g orde r or wri t o f

injunctio n
agains t
th e extrajudicia l
foreclosure o f rea l estat e mortgag e shal l b e issue d on

th e allegatio n t h a t th e
i n t e r e s t o n th e loa
n
i s
unconscionable , unles s th e debtor pay s th e mortgag e
at leas t twelv e percen t pe r annu m interes t o n th e
principa l obligatio n a s state d i n th e applicatio n
obligation a s state d in th e application for foreclosur e
861
----------------------- Page 862----------------------RULE 68
SECS. 7-8
sale, which shal l b e update d monthly while th e case

is pending .
(3)
Wher e a wri t of preliminary injunction ha s
been issue d agains t a foreclosur e o f mortgage , th e
disposition of th e cas e shal l be speedily resolved . To
thi s end , th e cour t concerne d shal l submi t t o th e
Supreme Court , throug h th e Office o f th e Court
Administrator , quarterl y report s on th e progres s o f
th e case s involving te n million peso s an d above .
(4) All requirement s an d restriction s prescribe d
for th e issuanc e of a temporary restrainin g order/writ
of preliminar y injunction , such a s th e postin g of a
bond , whic h shal l b e equa l t o th e amoun t o f th e
outstandin g debt , an d th e tim e limitatio n for it s
effectivity, shal l apply a s well to th e status quo order .
Upon
resolutions
i n c o n s
accordingly
th e effectivity o f sai d additiona l rules , al rules ,

, order s an d circular s o f th e Court , which ar e
i s t e n t t h e r e w i t h , ar e repeale d o r modifie d
.
862
----------------------- Page 863----------------------RUL E
6 9
PARTITIO N
Sectio n
eal
1.
Complaint
in
action for partition
of
estate. A perso n h a v i n g th e righ t t o compe l th e

partitio n o f rea l estat e ma y d o s o a s provide d i n thi s
Rule , s e t t i n g fort h i n hi s complain t th e natur e an d
exten t o f hi s titl e an d a n adequat e descriptio n o f
th e rea l estat e o f w h i c h partitio n i s demande d an d
joinin g a s defendant s al l othe r person s intereste d
i n th e property ,
(la )
Sec .
2.
Order for partition,
and partition
by
agr
eement thereunder. I f afte r th e tria l th e cour t find s
tha t th e plaintif f ha s th e righ t thereto , i t shal l orde r
th e partitio n o f th e rea l estat e amon g al l th e partie s
i n interest .
Thereupo n th e partie s may , i f the y ar e
abl e t o agree , mak e th e partitio n a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s
b y prope r instrument s o f conveyance , an d th e cour t
shall confir m th e partitio n s o agree d upo n b y al l
th e parties , an d suc h partition , togethe r wit h th e
orde r o f th e cour t confirmin g th e
same , shal l b
e
recorde d
i n th e registr y o f d e e d s o f th e plac e
i n
whic h th e propert y i s situated .
(2a)
A
f i n a l o r d e r d e c r e e i n g p a r t i t i o n a n d
/ o r
a cc o u n t i n g ma y b e appeale d b y an y part y aggrieve d
thereby ,
(n)
NOTE S
1. Th e partitio n o f propert y may b e voluntaril y
effected by agreemen t or compulsorily a s unde r thi s Rule .
Even i f th e partie s ha d resorte d t o judicia l partition ,
they may stil l mak e an amicabl e partitio n o f th e propert y
(Sees. 2 an d 12).
863
----------------------- Page 864----------------------RULE 69
SEC. 3
2 . Action s for partition shoul d be filed in th e Court

of Firs t Instanc e of th e provinc e wher e th e property or a
par t thereo f i s situated .
I f severa l distinct parcel s o f land
are situate d in different provinces , venu e may be laid in
th e Cour t o f Firs t Instanc e o f an y o f sai d province s
(Pancho, et al. vs. Villanueva, et al., 99 Phil. 611).
3. Th e righ t o f action to deman d partition doe s not
prescrib e (De Castro vs. Echarri, 20 Phil. 23), except where
one o f th e intereste d partie s openly an d adversely occupies
th e propert y withou t recognizin g th e
co-ownershi p
(Cordova vs. Cordova,
102 Phil.
1182 [Unrep.J) in which
case acquisitiv e prescription may set in .
4 . Formerly , th e rul e wa s tha t th e order for parti tion in Sec . 2 i s not a final , bu t an interlocutory , order ,
hence it i s not appealable .
It i s when th e final judgment
is rendered , after th e proceeding s o f th e commissioner s

for th e partition o f th e lan d ar e submitte d an d confirmed ,
tha t appea l i s availabl e
(see Vda. de Zaldarriaga
vs.
Enriquez,
L 13252,
April 29,
1961).
Subsequently ,
however , it wa s hel d tha t th e decision o f a tria l court
granting recovery of propertie s for th e purpos e of orderin g
their partitio n i s a definitiv e an d appealabl e judgmen t
becaus e i t decide s th e right s o f th e partie s upon th e
issue submitted . Unles s th e issue of ownership i s definitely
resolved , it would be prematur e to effect a partition of
th e propertie s
(Miranda, et al. vs. CA, et al., L-33007,
June 18, 1976; Valdez vs. Bagaso, L-46608, Mar. 8, 1978;
Fabrica, et al. vs. CA, et al., L-47360, Dec. 15, 1986).
Thi s
ha s now been confirme d by th e addition o f th e second
paragrap h of Sec . 2 .
Sec.
3.
Commissioners
parties fail to agree. If th e
agre e upo n th e partition , th e
not mor e tha n thre e (3) competen t
person s a s commissioner s t o mak
to make
partition
when
partie s ar e unabl e to
cour t shal l appoin t
an d disintereste d
e th e partition ,
864
----------------------- Page 865----------------------RULE 69
CS. 4-6
c
n
t
o
PARTITION
SE
o m m a n d i n g t h e m t o se t of f t o th e
plaintif f a
d
o eac h part y i n interes t suc h par t an d proportio n
f th e propert y a s th e cour t shal l direct .
(3a)
Sec .
4.
Oath and duties of commissioners. Befor e
m a k i n g
s u c h partition ,
th e
c o m m i s s i o n e r s
shal l
tak e an d subscrib e a n oat h tha t the y wil l faithfull y
p e r f o r m
t h e i r d u t i e s a s c o m m i s s i o n e r s ,
w
h i c h
o a t h s h a l l b e file d
i n cour t w i t h th e o t h e r
pro ceeding s i n th e case .
I n makin g th e partition , th e
shal l v i e w
an d
e x a m i n e th e
rea l
estate , afte r du e notic e t o th e partie s t o atten d a t
s u c h v i e w an d
e x a m i n a t i o n , an d
shal l
h e a r
t h e
partie s a s t o thei r preferenc e i n th e portio n o f th e
p r o p e r t y
t o b e
s e t a p a r t
t o t h e m
a n d
t h e
comparativ e valu e thereof , an d shal l se t apar t th e
sam e t o th e partie s i n lot s o r parcel s a s wil l b e mos t
advantageou s an d equitable , havin g du e regar d t o
th e
i m p r o v e m e n t s ,
s i t u a t i o n an d q u a l i t y o
f t h e
different part s thereof .
(4a)
Sec .
5.
Assignment or sale of real estate by commissioners.
W h e n
i t i s m a d e
t o a p p e a r
t o
t h e
tha t
th e
rea l
estate ,
o r
portio n
thereof , canno t b e divide d withou t prejudic e t o th e

i n t e r e s t o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e c o u r t ma y
o r d
e r i t
assigne d t o on e o f th e partie s willin g t o tak e th e
same , provide d h e pay s t o th e othe r partie s suc h
a m o u n t s
a s t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s
d e e m e q u i t
a b l e ,
unles s on e o f th e intereste d partie s ask s tha t th e
propert y b e sol d instea d o f bein g s o assigned , i n
whic h cas e th e cour t shal l orde r th e commissioner s
t o sel l t h e rea l estat e a t publi c sal e unde r suc h
condition s an d withi n suc h tim e a s th e cour t ma y
determine .
(5a)
Sec .
not
binding
r s
6.
until
Report
confirmed.
of
commissioners;
T h e
proceedings
865
----------------------- Page 866----------------------RULE 69
SECS. 7-
8
shall mak e a full an d accurat e repor t t o th e cour t
of al l thei r proceeding s a s t o th e partition , o r th e
assignment o f rea l estat e t o on e o f th e parties , o r
th e sal e o f th e same .
Upo n th e filin g o f suc h report ,
th e cler k o f cour t shal l serv e copie s thereo f o n all
th e intereste d partie s wit h notic e tha t the y ar e
allowe d te n (10) day s withi n whic h t o fil e objection s
t o th e finding s o f th e report , i f the y s o desire .
N
o
p r o c e e d i n g h a d b e f o r e o r c o n d u c t e d b y
th
e
commissioner s shal l pas s th e titl e t o th e party o r
bin d th e partie s unti l th e cour t shal l hav e accepte d
th e repor t
o f th e c o m m i s s i o n e r s an d
rendere d
judgmen t thereon .
(6a)
Sec.
7.
Action
of the court
upon
commissioners'
report. Upo n th e expiratio n o f th e perio d o f te n
(10) day s referre d t o i n th e precedin g section , o r eve n
befor e th e expiratio n o f suc h perio d bu t afte r th e
intereste d partie s hav e file d thei r objection s t o th e
report o r thei r statemen t o f agreemen t therewith ,
th e cour t may , upo n hearing , accep t th e repor t
an d r e n d e r j u d g m e n t i n a c c o r d a n c e th er e w i th
;
or, fo r c a u s e s h o w n , r e c o m m i t th e sam e t o th
e
commissioner s fo r furthe r repor t o f facts ; o r se t
asid e th e repor t an d appoin t ne w commissioners ;
or accep t th e repor t i n par t an d rejec t i t i n part ;
and ma y mak e suc h orde r an d rende r suc h judgmen t
as shal l effectuat e a fai r an d jus t partitio n o f th e

real estate , o r o f it s value , i f assigne d o r sol d
a b o v e
s
thereof .
p r o v i d e d , b e t w e e n
t h e
a s
s e v e r a l o w n e r
(7)
Sec. 8.
Accounting for rent and profits in action for
partition. I n a n actio n fo r partitio n i n accordanc e
wit h thi s Rule , a part y shal l recove r fro m anothe r
hi s jus t shar e o f rent s an d profit s receive d b y suc h
othe r part y fro m th e rea l estat e i n question , an d
th e judgmen t shal l includ e a n allowanc e fo r suc h
866
----------------------- Page 867----------------------RULE 69
. 9-11
PARTITION
rent s an d profits .
Sec .
9.
SECS
(8a)
Power
of
guardian
in
such
proceedings.
Th e guardia n o r guardia n
a d litem o f
o r
perso n judiciall y declare d t o b e incompeten t may ,
w i t h t h e approva l o f th e cour t firs t had ,
perfor m o n behal f o f hi s war d an y act , matter
t h i n g r e s p e c t i n g th e partitio n o f rea l estate
t h e m i n o r
o r p e r s o n j u d i c i a l l y d e c
o b e
incompeten t coul d d o i n partitio n proceeding s i f h e
wer e o f ag e o r competent .
(9a)
mino r
d o an d
, o r
, whic h
l a r e d t
Sec .
10 . Costs and expenses to be taxed and collected.
T h e
c o u r t s h a l l e q u i t a b l y t a x an d a p p o r t
i o n
b e t w e e n
o r a m o n g
t h e p a r t i e s t h e c o s t s
a n d
e x p e n s e s w h i c h accru e i n th e action , includin g th e
c o m p e n s a t i o n o f th e commissioners , havin g regar d
t o th e interes t o f th e parties , an d executio n ma y
issu e therefo r a s i n othe r cases .
(10a)
Sec .
11 . The judgment
and
its effect;
copy
t
o
be
recorded
in registry of deeds. If actua l
partitio n o
f
p r o p e r t y
i s m a d e ,
s h a l l s
t a t e
d e f i n i t e l y , b y m e t e s a n d
b o u n d s an d
a d e q
u a t e
description , th e particula r portio n o f th e rea l estat e
a s s i g n e d
t o e a c h
p a r t y , a n d
t h e e f f e c t o
f t h e
judgmen t shal l b e t o ves t i n eac h part y t o th e actio n
i n severalt y th e portio n o f th e rea l estat e assigne d
t o him .
I f th e whol e propert y i s assigne d t o on e
o f th e partie s upo n hi s payin g t o th e other s th e

su m o r sum s ordere d b y th e court , th e judgmen t
shal l
stat e
th e fac t o f suc h
p a y m e n t an d
o
f th e
assignmen t o f th e rea l estat e t o th e part y makin g
th e payment , an d th e effec t o f th e judgmen t shal l
b e t o v e s t i n th e part y m a k i n g th e paymen t th e
whol e o f th e rea l estat e fre e fro m an y interes t o n
th e par t o f th e othe r partie s t o th e action .
f th e
property i s sol d an d th e sal e confirme d b y th e court ,
867
----------------------- Page 868----------------------RULE 69
SECS. 12-13
th e judgmen t shal l stat e th e nam e o f th e purchase r

o r purchaser s an d a definit e descriptio n o f th e
parcel s o f rea l estat e sol d t o eac h purchaser , an d
th e effec t o f th e judgmen t shal l b e t o ves t th e rea l
estat e i n th e purchase r o r purchaser s makin g th e
paymen t o r payments , fre e fro m th e claim s o f any
of th e partie s t o th e action .
A certifie d cop y o f th e
judgmen t shal l i n eithe r cas e b e recorde d i n th e
registry o f deed s o f th e plac e i n whic h th e rea l estat e
i s situated , an d th e expense s o f suc h recordin g shal l
b e taxe d a s par t o f th e cost s o f th e action .
(11a)
Sec.
12.
Neither
paramount
rights
nor
amicable
partition affected by this Rule.
Nothin g in thi s Rul e
containe d shal l b e construe d s o a s t o prejudice ,
defeat, o r destro y th e righ t o r titl e o f an y perso n
claimin g th e rea l estat e involve d b y titl e unde r an y
othe r person , o r b y titl e paramoun t t o th e titl e o f
th e partie s amon g w h o m th e partitio n ma y hav e
bee n made ; no r s o a s t o restric t o r preven t person s
h o l d i n g rea l e s t a t e j o i n t l y o r i n c o m m o n fro
m
makin g a n amicabl e partitio n thereo f b y agreemen t
an d suitabl e
instrument s o f conveyanc e
withou t
recours e t o a n action .
(12a)
Sec.
13 .
Partition
of personal
provision s o f thi s Rul e shal l appl y t o
estate s compose d o f persona l property ,
real an d persona l property , i n s o fa r
may b e applicable .
(13)
property.
partition s o f
o r o f bot h
a s th e sam e
Th e
NOTE S
1. It i s in partition an d expropriation proceeding s
tha t referenc e to commissioner s i s require d a s a procedura l step in th e action .
In othe r cases , referenc e t o
commissioners i s discretionary with th e court
(see Rule
32 an d note s thereunder) .
868
----------------------- Page 869----------------------RULE 69
th e
PARTITION
SECS. 12-13
2 . Th e commissioner s appointe d by th e cour t hav e

powe r an d dut y only t o effect th e partitio n o f th e
property .
They hav e
of ownership or righ t
(Araullo vs. Araullo,
righ t o f possession by
n o power t o inquir e int o th e question

t o th e possession o f th e propert y
3 Phil. 567), nor of claim s to titl e or
thir d person s (Sec. 12).
869
----------------------- Page 870----------------------RULE

FORCIBLE
UNLAWFUL
S e c t i o n
nd
when.
1.
7 0
ENTRY
Who
AN D
DETAINE R
may
S u b j e c t t o th e
institute
proceedings,
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e nex t
s u c c e e d i n g s e c t i o n , a p e r s o n d e p r i v e d
th e
p o s s e s s i o n o f a n y l a n d o r b u i l d i n g b y
,
i n t i m i d a t i o n , t h r e a t , s t r a t e g y , o r s t
h , o r a
lessor , vendor , v e n d e e , o r othe r perso n agains t
w h o m th e p o s s e s s i o n o f an y lan d o r buildin
u n l a w f u l l y w i t h h e l d a f t e r t h e e x p i r a
o r
t e r m i n a t i o n o f th e righ t t o hol d p o s s e s
b y
virtu e o f an y contract , expres s o r implied , o r th e
legal representative s o r assign s o f an y suc h lessor ,
vendor , vendee , o r othe r person , may , a t an y tim e
withi n on e (1) yea r afte r suc h unlawfu l deprivatio n
o r withholdin g o f possession , brin g a n actio n i n th e
prope r Municipa l Tria l Cour t agains t th e perso n o r
person s
unlawfull y w i t h h o l d i n g o r deprivin g
p o s s e s s i o n , o r an y p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s
m i n g
unde r them , fo r th e restitutio n o f suc h possession ,
togethe r wit h damage s an d costs ,
(la )
o f
force
e a l t
g
i s
t i o n
s i o n ,
o f
c l a i
Sec. 2.
Lessor to proceed against
lessee only afte
r
demand. Unles s otherwis e stipulated , suc h actio n
by th e lesso r shal l b e commence d onl y afte r deman d
t o pa y o r compl y wit h th e condition s o f th e leas e
and t o vacat e i s mad e upo n th e lessee , o r b y servin g
writte n
notic e o f suc h deman d upo n th e
perso n
found o n th e premises , o
on th e premise s i f n o perso
th e lesse e fail s t o compl y
day s i n th e cas e o f lan d
of buildings .
(2a)
r b y postin g suc h notic e

n b e foun d thereon , an d
therewit h afte r fiftee n (15)
o r fiv e (5) day s i n th e cas e
870
----------------------- Page 871----------------------RULE 70

2
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SEC.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
NOTE S
1. Th e provision s of th e former Sec . 1 of thi s Rul e
hav e been maintaine d in thi s amende d Sec . 1 , except tha t
th e requiremen t for th e verification o f th e complaint ha s
been include d in th e provision s o f th e presen t Sec . 4 since ,
as a consequenc e o f th e adoption o f th e summar y rul e for
ejectment cases , al l th e pleading s authorize d therei n ar e
require d t o b e verified .
Th e
former Sec
unde r th e
laws , du
legislation
referenc e t o th e Agricultura l Tenancy Act in sai d

. 1 ha s als o been transpose d t o th e new Sec . 3 ,
genera l denomination o f all agricultura l tenancy
e t o th e development s in th e coverag e o f social
sinc e 1964 .
Th e p r e s e n t Sec . 2 retain s th e substanc e

s
predecessor , th e tex t o f which wa s merely rephrase d for
simplicity an d clarity .
o f it
2 . Ejectmen t suit s can b e maintaine d with respect t o

all kind s of lan d
(Robles vs. Zambales
Chromite Mining
Co., 104 Phil. 688), bu t agricultura l land s unde r tenanc y
are now subject t o th e lan d reform laws , an d case s arisin g
thereunde r wer e withi n th e jurisdiction o f th e agraria n
courts .
Sai d agraria n courts , however , hav e now been
integrate d wit h th e Regiona l Tria l Court , a s branche s
thereof , unde r B.P . Big . 129 .
Se e th e subsequen t change s
as explaine d in Not e 2 unde r Sec . 2 of Rul e 1 .
The inferior court ha s n o jurisdiction over an agraria n
disput e even i f th e action obstensibly appear s t o b e on e
for forcible entr y
(Arevalo vs. Benedicto, et al., L-27895,
July 31,
1974).
3 . Th e
thre e
kind s
o f actio n
for th e
recover y
o f
possession o f rea l property are :

a.
Accion
interdictal, or an ejectmen t
proceedin g
unde r thi s Rule , which may b e either tha t for forcible entr y
(detentacion) or unlawfu l
detaine r
(desahucio),
which
i
s
871
----------------------- Page 872----------------------RULE 70
SEC. 2
a summary action for th e recovery of physica l possession

wher e th e dispossession ha s not laste d for more tha n one
year , an d shoul d b e brought in th e proper inferior court ;
b . Action publiciana,
or th e plenary action for
recovery of th e rea l right of possession , which should be
brough t in th e prope r Regiona l Tria l Cour t when th e
dispossession ha s laste d for mor e tha n one year ; an d
th e
c. Action
reivindicatoria,
or action de revindication,
which i s an action for th e recovery o f ownership (and
which include s th e recovery o f possession) which must
also b e brought in th e proper Regional Tria l Court (see
Firmeza vs. David, 92 Phil.
733; Emilia vs. Bado, L-23685,
April 25, 1968).
4 . Thi s Rule provide s for th e action interdictal which
may eithe r b e for forcible entr y or unlawfu l detainer .
These two form s o f ejectment suit s may be distinguishe d
as follows :
a. In forcible entry , th e possession o f th e lan d by
th e defendan t i s unlawfu l from th e beginnin g a s h e
acquires possession thereo f by force, intimidation , threat ,
strategy o r stealth ; whil e i n unlawfu l detainer , th e
possession o f th e defendant i s inceptively lawful bu t it
become s illegal by reason of th e terminatio n of hi s right
to th e possession o f th e property unde r hi s contract with
th e plaintif f (Dikit vs. Ycasiano, 89 Phil. 44).
b . In forcible entry , th e Rul e
previou s deman d for th e defendant t o vacat
but in unlawful detainer , th e plaintif
such demand , which i s jurisdictiona l in
Medel vs. Militante,
41 Phil. 44).
doe s not requir e a

e th e premises ;
f mus t first mak e
natur e (Sec. 2;
c. In forcible entry , th e plaintif f must prov e tha t h e

wa s in prior physica l possession o f th e premise s unti l
h e wa s deprive d thereo f by th e defendant ; in unlawful
detainer , th e plaintiff need not hav e been in prior physical
possessio n
(Maddamu
vs. Judge
of
Mun. Court,
etc.,
872
----------------------- Page 873----------------------RULE 70
2
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SEC.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
et
al., 74
Phil.
230; Aguilar
vs.
Cabrera,
74 Phil.
666
;
Banayos
vs.
Susana Realty,
Inc.,
L-30336,
June
30,
1976;
Pharma
Industries,
Inc.
vs.
Pajarillaga,
et
al.,
G.R.
No
.
53788,
Oct.
17,
1980).
d . In forcible entry , th e one-year perio d i s generally

counte d from th e dat e o f actua l entr y on th e land ; in
unlawfu l detainer , from th e dat e o f las t deman d
(Sarona,
et al. vs. Villegas,
letter of deman d
Dec.
22,
1966;
,
1967; DBP vs.
et al.,
L-22984, Mar.
27,
1968) or las t
(Racaza
Calibayan
vs. Susana Realty, Inc.,

vs. Pascual, L-22645,
Canonoy,
L-29422,
Sept.
30,
L-20330,
Sept. 18
1970).
5 . Wha t determine s th e caus e o f action , whethe r

forcible entr y o r unlawfu l detainer , i s th e n a t u r e o
f
defendant' s entr y int o th e land .
I f th e dispossession i s
not
allege d
t o
hav e
take n plac e
by
an y
o f th e
mean s
specified by Sec . 1 , Rul e 70 , th e action i s a plenar y action

within th e competenc e o f th e Court o f Firs t Instanc e an d
may b e filed even withi n on e yea r from th e dispossession
committe d
by
defendan t
(Banayos
vs. Susana
Realty,
Inc.,
supra;
Nov.
16,
Sarmiento
vs.
CA,
et
al., G.R.
No.
116192,
1995).
6 . Th e
plaintif f i n forcibl e
entr y
an d unlawfu l
detainer action s may b e th e owner , a co-owner , or hi s lega l
representativ e and/or assignee , or th e landlord , th e vendor ,
th e vende e or th e person entitle d t o th e physica l possession
of th e property .
The defendan t shoul d b e th e one who i s in possession
of th e property , wh o may either b e th e lessee , th e sublesse e
or an intrude r in th e premises .
Th e
actio n
ma y b e brough t agains t governmen t
officials or agent s actin g in behal f of th e Government , even
if th e Governmen t i s not mad e a part y t o th e action .
However , if in addition to th e recovery of possession , th e
plaintif f als o seek s th e recovery o f damage s or rental s
which woul d thereby resul t in a financial liability t o th e
873
----------------------- Page 874----------------------RULE 70
SEC. 2
Government , th e action cannot b e maintaine d under th e

rul e o f non-suabilit y o f th e Stat e withou t it s consent
(Tumbaga vs.
Vasquez, et al., 99 Phil. 1051 fUnrep.J).
7. Th e only issu e involved in ejectment proceeding s

is a s to who i s entitle d to th e physical or materia l possession
of th e premises , tha t is , possessio n d e facto an d not
possession de jure.
Issue s a s to th e right of possession or
onwership ar e not involved in th e action an d evidenc e
thereon i s not admissible , except only for th e purpos e of
determining th e issu e o f possession , such a s by proving
th e exten t an d characte r o f th e possessio n claime d
(Pitargue vs. Sorilla, 92 Phil. 5; se e Sec. 16).
Hence , it
wa s hel d tha t th e mer e fact tha t th e pleading s rais e th e
issue of ownership will not divest th e inferior court of it s
jurisdiction , except wher e th e issu e o f ownership i s s o
necessarily involved tha t th e issu e o f physica l possession
cannot b e determine d withou t resolvin g th e issu e o f
onwership
(Luna, Inc. vs. Nable, 6 7 Phil. 340) in which
case th e inferior court lose s jurisdiction
(Ganadin
vs.
Ramos,
L-23547,
Sept. 11, 1980).
Tha t exception was ,
however , remove d an d th e rul e modified by B.P . Big . 129
which provide s tha t in ejectment proceeding s wher e th e
question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding
th e issu e o f ownership , all inferior court s hav e th e power
to resolv e th e issu e o f ownership bu t only t o determin e
th e issu e of possession
(Sec. 33[2], changin g th e rul e in
Sec. 3[c], R.A. 5967, which wa s the n applicabl e to City
Courts) .
8. Sec . 2 applie s only t o unlawfu l detaine r an d
provide s for th e necessity o f prior writte n demand .
The
mer e failur e t o pay th e ren t or t o comply with th e term s o f
th e leas e doe s not ipso facto rende r defendant' s possession
illegal
(Canaynay
vs. Sarmiento,
79 Phil. 36; Rickards
vs. Gonzales,
infra).
a. Th e deman d require d an d contemplate d in Sec . 2
is a deman d for th e defendant to pay rental s du e or to
874
----------------------- Page 875----------------------RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SEC. 3
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
comply wit h th e condition s o f th e lease , an d not only a
deman d t o vacat e th e premises ; an d wher e th e defendan t
does no t comply wit h sai d deman d withi n th e period s
provide d by Sec . 2 , the n hi s possession become s unlawfu l
(Zobel
vs. Abreu,
78 Phil. 343).
Consequently ,
bot h
demand s - t o pay ren t and t o vacat e - ar e necessar y t o
mak e th e
lesse e a deforcian t i n orde r t h a t a n eject
men t
sui t may
be
filed (Casilan
vs. Tomassi,
L-16574,
Feb.
28,
1964;
Rickards
vs. Gonzales,
109
Phil.
423;
Dikit vs. Ycasiano, ante), an d th e fact of suc h demand s
mus t b e allege d in th e complaint , otherwis e th e inferior
court canno t acquir e jurisdiction over th e cas e
(Casilan
vs. Tomassi,
supra).
A
notic e givin g
th e lesse e
th e
alternativ e eithe r t o pay th e renta l o r vacat e th e premise s

does not comply wit h Sec . 2 of thi s Rul e
(Vda. de Murga
vs. Chan, L-24680, Oct.
7, 1968).
The deman d doe s not hav e t o specifically us e th e wor d
"vacate."
It i s sufficient tha t th e lette r t o th e occupant s
put s hi m on notic e t o move out i f h e doe s not comply wit h
th e term s of th e leas e contrac t
(Golden Gate Realty Corp.
vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 74289, July 31, 1987).
b . Eve n i f th e leas e contrac t provide s for th e perio d
within which th e rental s shoul d b e periodically paid , and ,
in civil law , deman d unde r such circumstance s i s n o longer
require d in orde r tha t th e obligor may b e in default , it i s
submitted tha t for purpose s o f bringin g an ejectmen t sui t
th e prior deman d require d in Sec . 2 mus t b e given , despit e
th e stipulate d dat e for paymen t in th e contract .
Such
demand i s a jurisdictiona l requisit e an d th e deman d shoul d
not only b e for th e paymen t o f th e rental s in arrear s bu t
also for th e occupant t o vacat e th e premises .
Furthermore ,
th e one-year perio d for th e institution o f th e ejectmen t
suit i s reckone d from th e dat e when such demand , which
is generally require d t o b e in writing , i s not complied with .
in
c. Th e one-year perio d for bringin g an ejectment sui t

unlawfu l d e t a i n e r i s counte d from th e tim e
defendant
faile d
t o
pay
th e
ren t
o r comply
wit h
th e
875
th e
----------------------- Page 876----------------------RULE 70
SEC 2
contract after demand therefor, that is, after the expiration

of the 5-day or 15-day periods provided in Sec. 2 (see Cruz
vs. Atenacio, 105 Phil. 1257 [Unrep.J).
If several demands
were made, the one-year period is counted from the
last demand letter received by the defendant (Sy Oh
vs. Garcia, L-29328, June 30, 1969; Lim Chi vs. Garcia,
L-29589, June 30, 1969), unless the subsequent demands
were merely in the nature of reminders of the original
demand, in which case the one-year period is counted
from the first demand (Desbarats vs. Laureano, L-21875,
Sept. 27, 1966).
d. Prior demand in unlawful detainer actions is not
required: (1) where the purpose of the action is to terminate
the lease by reason of the expiry of its term and is not
for failure to pay rentals or comply with the terms of
the lease contract (De Santos vs. Vivas, 96 Phil. 538);
(2) when the purpose of the suit is not for ejectment but
for the enforcement of the terms of the contract (Guanson
vs. Ban, 7 7 Phil. 7); or (3) when the defendant is not a
tenant but a mere intruder
(id.).
However, P.D. 20, dated October 12, 1972, suspended
the provisions of Art . 1673, Par. (1), of the Civil Code

which provides for ejectment "(w)hen the period agreed
upon, or that which is fixed for the duration of leases under
Arts. 1682 and 1687, has expired;" but, subsequently, Sec.
6 of B.P. Big. 25 provided for that suspension only with
respect to residential units and only when the lease is not
for a specific period. Since only Art . 1673 was suspended,
the determination of the period of a lease agreement can
still be made in accordance with Art . 1687 (Rivera, et al.
vs. Florendo, et al., G.R. No. 60066, July 31, 1986).
The present rule is that a lease contract on a monthto-month basis provides for a definite period and may be
terminated at the end of any month, hence by the failure
of defendant to pay the rental, the lease contract is deemed
terminated and may be so terminated by the plaintiff
without the necessity of prior demand (Lesaca vs. Cuevas,
876
----------------------- Page 877----------------------RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SEC. 2
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
et al.,
No.
L-48419,
60310,
Oct.
Mar.
27,
27,
1983; Santos,
1984;
Dionio
vs.
CA,
vs.
et al.,
IAC,
G.R.
et
al.,
G.R. No. 63698, Jan.

12, 1987).
Thi s applie s to verba l
contract s on a month-to-mont h basi s
(Zablan vs. CA, et
al., G.R. No. 57844, Sept. 30, 1987; Miranda vs. Ortiz, et
al., G.R. No. 59783, Dec. 1, 1987).
9 . Wher e forcible entr y wa s mad e throug h stealth ,
th e one-yea r perio d shoul d b e counte d from th e tim e
th e plaintif f learne d thereo f
(Vda.
de Prieto vs. Reyes,
L-21470,
June
23,
1965;
City
of Manila
vs.
Garcia,
et al., L-26053,
Feb.
21,
1967;
Elane
vs. CA,
et al.,
G.R.
No.
80638,
April
26,
1989).
Wher e defendant' s entr y upon th e lan d wa s wit h

plaintiff s
toleranc e righ t from th e dat e an d fact o f
entry , unlawfu l detaine r proceeding s may b e institute d
within on e yea r from th e deman d on him t o vacat e a s ther e
i s an implie d promis e on hi s par t t o vacat e upon deman d
(Yu vs. De Lara, L-10684, Nov. 30, 1962).
Th e statu s of
such a defendan t i s analogou s t o tha t o f a tenan t or lessee ,
th e ter m o f whos e leas e ha s expire d bu t whos e occupancy
is continue d by th e toleranc e o f th e lesso r
(Vda. d e
Cachuela
vs. Francisco,
L-31985,
June
25, 1980).
same rul e applie s wher e th e defendan t purchase d th
hous e o f th e former lessee , wh o wa s already in arrear s
th e paymen t o f rentals ,
an d thereafte r occupie d
premise s withou t a new leas e contract with th e landowner
(Dakudao, et al. vs. Consolacion, et al., G.R. No.
June
24,
1973;
Peran
vs.
Presiding
Judge,
Th e
e
in
th e
54753,
etc.,
G.R. No.
57259,
Oct.
13,
1983).
10. Wher e th e complaint fails to specifically aver facts

constitutive o f forcible entry or unlawful detainer a s wher e
it doe s not stat e how entr y wa s effected or how an d when
dispossession started , th e action shoul d eithe r b e accion
publiciana
or accion
reivindicatoria in th e
Court of Firs t
Instanc e [now, th e Regiona l Tria l Court ] (Sarona, et al.
vs. Villegas, et al., supra; Daveza,
et al. vs. Montecillo,
877
----------------------- Page 878----------------------RULE 70
et al., L-23842, Mar. 28,

Realty,
Inc., supra).
1969; see
SEC. 2
Banayos
vs.
Susana
11. Also, where the defendant refuses to vacate the

land on the ground that he is the lessee of the plaintiffs
predecessor-in-interest, the court will have to determine
who has the better right of possession and/or whether
said antecedent lease contract is binding on the plaintiff;
hence, the case is an accion publiciana and within the
jurisdictio n of the Regional Trial Court even if said
action was brought within one year from demand on the
defendant to vacate the premises (Bernabe vs. Dayrit, et
al., G.R. No. 58399, Oct. 27, 1983).
12. After the expiry of the term of the lease, the
possession of the lessee becomes unlawful and the lessor
may bring suit for his ejectment even without prior notice.
However, if no notice has been given and the lessee
continues in the possession of the premises with the
acquiescence of the lessor for 15 days after the expiry of
the term, an implied new lease is deemed to have been
made for the period or time provided for in the Civil Code
(Art. 1670). In the case of rural land, the implied new
lease is for a period necessary for the gathering of the
fruits which the estate may yield in one year or which
it may yield once; and, in the case of urban lands, for a
period as may be fixed by the court depending on the
length of prior occupation thereof by the lessee (Art. 1687).
This is known as the principle of tacita reconduccion
and constitutes a defense to an unlawful detainer suit
(Co Tiamco vs. Diaz, 75 Phil. 672).
For the distinction
between urban and rural lands, see Fabia, et al. vs.
Intermediate Appellate
Court
et al. (G.R . No . 66101,
Nov. 21, 1984).
13. Where the tenant filed an action in
Trial Court to compel the landlord to agree to
of the lease, and thereafter the landlord
unlawful detainer suit in the lower court, the
the Regional
an extension
brought an
case in the
878
----------------------- Page 879-----------------------
RULE 70
2
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SEC.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Regional Tria l Cour t shoul d b e dismisse
of litis pendentia which applie s even
filed first . Th e issue s raise d in sai
and shoul d properly b e threshe d ou t in
(Rosales vs.
CFIof Lanao del Norte, et
Sept.
21,
14.
d on th e groun d
if sai d action wa s
d action could very wel l
th e ejectmen t cas e
al., G.R. No.
62577,
1987).
It i s tru e tha t unde r Sec . 2 , Rul e 70 , in ejectmen t
proceedings , th e deman d t o vacat e shal l b e mad e on th e

defendant personally , or by writte n notic e o f such deman d
upon a perso n found on th e premises , or by postin g such
notic e on th e premise s i f n o person can b e found thereon .
However , sai d notic e t o vacat e may als o b e serve d by
registere d mai l an d constitute s substantia l compliance with
th e prescribe d mode s o f service .
Ejectmen t action s ar e
summary in natur e becaus e they involve a disturbanc e o f
th e socia l orde r which mus t b e abate d a s promptl y a s
possibl e withou t undu e relianc e on procedura l rule s which
only caus e delay s (Co Keng Kian vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.
75676, Aug. 29, 1990).
As revised , th e wor d "personally "
ha s now been eliminate d from th e mode o f makin g deman d
on th e defendan t unde r Sec . 2 o f thi s Rule .
15. Th e Municipa l Tria l Court ha s jurisdiction t o tr y
th e ejectment cas e while th e plaintiff s action for annulmen t
of th e mortgag e an d recovery o f ownership o f th e sam e
propert y from th e defendant i s pendin g in th e Regiona l
Trial Court .
Whil e ther e may b e identity o f partie s an d
subject-matter in th e tw o actions , th e issue s involved an d
th e relief s praye d for ar e not th e same . Also , it i s incorrect
to say tha t th e question o f ownership i s involved in th e
ejectment sui t jus t becaus e th e plaintif f allege d in he r
complaint tha t sh e wa s th e origina l owner o f th e subject
property .
On th e contrary , it only bolster s th e conclusion
tha t th e ejectmen t cas e doe s not involve th e question o f
titl e a s thi s i s th e subject o f th e cas e in th e Regiona l Tri
a l
Court .
Accordingly , th e Rul e on Summar y Procedur e
applie s becaus e th e ejectmen t cas e involve s only th e
879
----------------------- Page 880----------------------RULE 70
SEC. 3
restoration of the physical possession of the subject land

and not its ownership
(Joven vs. CA, et al., G.R. No.
80739, Aug. 20, 1992).
See the related discussion on this matter in Notes 3
and 4 under Sec. 14 of this Rule.
Sec.
3 . Summary procedure.
Excep t
i n case s
covere d b y th e agricultura l tenanc y law s o r whe n

th e law otherwis e expressl y provides , al l action s for
forcible entr y an d unlawfu l detainer , irrespectiv e
o f th e amoun t o f damage s o r unpai d rental s sough t
t o b e recovered , shal l b e governe d b y th e summar y
procedur e provide d i n thi s Rule ,
(n)
NOTE
1. With the adoption of the Rule on Summary
Procedure, effective August 1, 1983, which applies, inter
alia, to forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases but with
limits on the amount involved, ejectment cases involving
reliefs within the jurisdictional amount were governed by
said rule on summary procedure, but those exceeding that
jurisdictiona l amount were covered by this Rule.
Effective November 15, 1991, the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure applied to all cases of forcible entry
and unlawful detainer irrespective of the amount of
damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered .
Consequently, the rules therein on summary procedure
were adopted for the special civil action of ejectment under
this Rule, which from the outset had always been intended
to provide for a summary proceeding but which fell short
of its objective. Parenthetically, the aforementioned
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure still applies to all
other civil cases where the plaintiffs claim does not exceed
P 10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
Excluded from this present amended Rule are
ejectment cases covered by the agricultural tenancy laws
880
----------------------- Page 881----------------------RULE 70
4-7
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SECS.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
or suc h as may otherwis e be expressly provided by law,
the procedure wherei n shall be in accordance wit h thei r
governing statutes .
Sec . 4 .
Pleadings allowed. Th e onl y pleading s
allowe d t o b e file d ar e th e complaint , compulsor y
c o u n t e r c l a i m a n d
c r o s s - c l a i m p l e a d e d i n t
h e
a n s w e r , an d t h e a n s w e r t h e r e t o . Al l p l e a d i
n g s
shall b e verified .
(3a , RSP )
Sec .
5 .
Action
on
complaint.
Th e
cour t
may ,
fro m
a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n
t h e
complain t an d suc h evidenc e a s ma y b e attache d
t h e r e t o , d i s m i s s th e cas e outrigh t o n an y o f t
h e
ground s fo r th e dismissa l o f a civi l actio n whic h ar e

a p p a r e n t t h e r e i n . I f n o groun d
fo r d i s m i s s a
l i s
found , i t shal l forthwit h issu e summons ,
(n)
Sec . 6 .
Answer.
Withi n
t e n
(10 )
d a y s
fro m
servic e
o f s u m m o n s , th e defendan t shal l fil e
hi s
answe r t o th e complain t an d serv e a cop y thereo f
o n th e plaintiff .
Affirmativ e an d negativ e defense s
not pleade d therei n shal l b e deeme d waived , excep t
lac k o f jurisdictio n ove r th e subject-matter .
Cross
claim s an d compulsor y counterclaim s no t asserte d
i n th e a n s w e r shal l b e c o n s i d e r e d barred .
Th
e
a n s w e r t o counterclaim s o r cross-claim s shal l b e
serve d an d file d withi n te n (10) day s fro m servic e o f
th e answe r i n whic h the y ar e pleaded .
(5 , RSP )
Sec . 7.
Effect of failure to answer. Shoul d th e
defendan t fai l t o answe r th e complain t withi n th e
perio d
abov e
provided ,
th e court ,
motu proprio
o r
o n motio n o f th e plaintiff , shal l rende r judgmen t a s
m a y
b e w a r r a n t e d b y t h e fact s
a l l e g e d i n t
h e
complain t an d limite d t o wha t i s praye d fo r therein .
Th e cour t ma y i n it s discretio n reduc e th e amoun t
881
----------------------- Page 882----------------------RULE 70
SECS. 8-9
of damage s an d attorney' s fee s claime d for bein g

excessiv e o r o t h e r w i s e unconscionable , withou t
prejudic e t o th e applicabilit y o f sectio n 3(c) , Rul e 9
i f ther e ar e tw o o r mor e defendants .
(6, RSP)
Sec.
8.
Preliminary
conference;
parties. No t late r tha n thirt y

last answe r i s filed , a preliminar
b e held . Th e provision s o f Rul e
b e applicabl e t o th e preliminar y
inconsisten t wit h th e provision s o
appearance
of
(30) day s afte r th e

y conferenc e shal l
1 8 o n pre-tria l shal l
conferenc e unles s
f thi s Rule .
Th e
failur e o f th e
plaintif f t o appea r i n th e
p r e l i m i n a r y c o n f e r e n c e shal l b e c a u s e fo r th
e
dismissa l
appear s
o f hi s complaint .
i n th e a b s e n c e
e n t i t l e d t o
Th e
o f th e
defendan t wh o
plaintif f shal l
b e
j u d g m e n t o n h i s c o u n t e r c l a i m i
n
accordanc e
wit h
th e
nex t
precedin g
section .
All
cross-claim s shal l b e dismissed .
(7, RSP)
I f a sol e d e f e n d a n t shal l fai l t o appear , th

e
plaintif f shal l b e entitle d t o judgmen t i n accordanc e
wit h th e nex t precedin g section .
Thi s procedur e
shall no t appl y wher e on e o f tw o o r mor e defendant s
sue d unde r a commo n c a u s e o f actio n wh o ha d
pleade d
a c o m m o n d e f e n s e shal l appea r a t th e
preliminary
conference .
N o postponemen t o f th e preliminar y conferenc e
shal l b e grante d
e x c e p t fo r highl y
meritoriou s
ground s an d withou t prejudic e t o suc h sanction s
as th e cour t i n th e exercis e o f soun d discretio n may
impos e o n th e movant ,
(n)
Sec. 9.
five (6) day s
conference , th
th e matter s
limite d to :
Record
afte r
e cour
take n
of
preliminary conference. Withi n
th e terminatio n o f th e preliminar y
t shal l issu e a n orde r statin g
u p therein , includin g bu t no t
882
----------------------- Page 883----------------------RULE 70

-11
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SECS. 10
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
1 . W h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s h a v e a r r i v e d a t
a n
amicabl e settlement , an d i f so , th e term s thereof ;
2 . Th e stipulation s o r admission s entere d int o
by th e parties ;
3 . Whether , o n th e basi s o f th e
th e stipulation s an d admission s mad e b y th
j u d g m e n t m a y
b e r e n d e r e d w i t
d o f
furthe r proceedings , i n whic h even t th e
s h a l l b e r e n d e r e d w i t h i n t h i r
m
issuanc e o f th e order ;
pleading s an d
e parties ,
h o u t t h e n e e
judgmen t
t y (30 ) d a y s fro
4 . A clea r specificatio n o f materia l fact s whic h

remai n controverted ; an d
5 . Suc h othe r matter s intende d t o expedit e th e
dispositio n o f th e case .
(8 , RSP )
Sec .
10 .
Submission
of
affidavits
and
positi
on
papers.
Withi n te n (10) day s fro m receip t o f th e
orde r mentione d i n th e nex t precedin g section , th e
partie s shal l submi t th e affidavit s o f thei r witnesse s
an d othe r evidenc e o n th e factua l issue s define d i n
t h e o r d e r , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e i r p o s i t i o n p a p
e r s
settin g fort h th e la w an d th e fact s relie d upo n b y
them .
(9 , RSP )
Sec . 11 .
thirt y (30) day
positio n papers ,
filin g th e same
Period for rendition

s afte r receip t o
o r th e expiratio n
, th e cour t shal l
of judgment. Withi n
f th e affidavit s an d
o f th e perio d fo r
rende r judgment .
However , shoul d th e cour t fin d i t necessar y t o

clarify certai n materia l facts , i t may , durin g th e sai d
period , issu e a n orde r specifyin g th e matter s t o b e
clarified, an d requir e th e partie s t o submi t affidavit s
o r othe r evidenc e o n th e sai d matter s withi n te n
(10) day s fro m receip t o f sai d order .
Judgmen t shal l
b e rendere d withi n fiftee n (15) day s afte r th e receip t
883
----------------------- Page 884----------------------RULE 70
of th e las t affidavi t o r th e expiratio n o f th e

for filin g th e same .
SECS. 12-13
perio d
Th e cour t shal l
no t resor t t o th e foregoin g
procedur e jus t t o gai n tim e fo r th e renditio n o f th e
judgment ,
(n)
Sec. 12.
Referral
for
conciliation.
requirin g referra l for conciliation , wher e ther e i s

n o showin g o f complianc e wit h suc h requirement ,
shall b e dismisse d withou t prejudice , an d may b e
revive d onl y afte r tha t requiremen t shal l hav e bee n
complie d with .
(18a , RSP )
C a s e s
Sec.
13.
Prohibited pleadings and motions. Th e
followin g petitions , motions , o r pleading s shal l no t
b e allowed :
1. Motio n t o dismis s th e complain t excep t o n
th e groun d o f lac k o f jurisdictio n ove r th e subjec t
matter, o r failur e t o compl y wit h sectio n 12 ;
2.
Motio n for a bil l o f particulars ;
3 . Motio n for ne w trial , o r fo r reconsideratio n

of a judgment , o r fo r reopenin g o f trial ;
4 .
Petitio n fo r relie f fro m judgment ;
5 . M o t i o n
fo r
e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e
t o
fil e
pleadings , affidavit s o r an y othe r paper ;

6.
Memoranda ;
7 . P e t i t i o n fo r c e r t i o r a r i , m a n d a m u s , o
r
prohibitio n agains t an y interlocutor y orde r issue d
by th e court ;
8.
Motio n t o declar e th e defendan t i n default ;
9. Dilator y motion s
10.
for postponement ;
Reply ;
11. Third-part y
complaints ;
884
----------------------- Page 885----------------------RULE 70

14
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SECS. 12-
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
12.
Interventions .
(19a , RSP )
Sec . 14 . Affidavits.
b e submitte d unde r thi s Rul e
o f direc t persona l knowledg e
ar e admissibl e i n evidence ,
competenc e t o testif y t o th e
Th e affidavit s require d t o
shal l stat e onl y fact s
o f th e affiant s whic h
an d shal l sho w thei r
matter s state d therein .
A violatio n o f thi s requiremen t ma y subjec t th e

p a r t y o r t h e c o u n s e l w h o s u b m i t s t h e s a m e
t o
disciplinary action , an d shal l b e caus e t o expung e
th e inadmissibl e affidavi t o r portio n thereo f fro m
th e record .
(20 , RSP )
NOTE S
1. Se e Note s 7 to 10 unde r Sec . 2 of Rul e 5, an d Note s
1, 2 an d 6 to 8 unde r Sec . 4 of Rul e 7 .
2 . A s earlie r explained , wit h th e adoptio n o f th e
Revised Rul e on Summar y Procedur e applicabl e t o all case s
of forcible entr y an d unlawfu l detaine r except thos e unde r
th e agricultura l tenancy laws , th e sam e supplante d an d
i s now th e substantia l tex t o f th e presen t Rul e 7 0 on
ejectment , in lieu o f th e former provision s o f thi s specia l
civil action except thos e which hav e been retained .
Th e s u m m a r y n a t u r e an d purpos e
o f ejectmen t
proceeding s ar e mor e fully subserve d by th e new provision s
unde r which th e tria l court n o longer conduct s a hearin g
for th e reception of testimonia l evidence .
Th e adjudication
of ejectmen t cases , a s well a s thos e other case s covered by
th e aforesai d summar y procedur e rule , i s don e merely on
th e basi s o f affidavit s an d such position paper s a s may b e
required .
A mer e readin g o f th e summary rule s reveal s th e basic
objective ,
throug h th e procedura l requirement s an d
prohibition s therein , t o obviat e dilatory practice s an d
unnecessar y delay which hav e lon g been th e ban e o f
885
----------------------- Page 886----------------------RULE 70
ejectment proceedings . Tha

plemente d by th e En Banc
th e Suprem e Court which
unnecessary litigation an d
t purpos e
Resolution
i s inter
appeal s in
SECS. 12-U
i s furthe r comof April 7, 1988 of

alia directe d against
ejectment cases .
3.
Before , an d even after , th e adoption o f th e Rule s
on Summar y Procedure , th e usua l questio n raised ,
whethe r unwittingly throug h erro r or intentionally for
delay, i s th e effect on th e jurisdiction o f th e inferior court
in ejectment case s wher e th e defendant interject s therein
an issu e on th e ownershi p o f th e realt y involve d by
claiming titl e theret o either in th e sam e case or in an action
filed in th e Regiona l Tria l Court .
In Hilario,
et
al.
vs.
Court
of
Appeals,
et
al.
(G.R. No . 121865 , Aug . 7 , 1996) , defendant s claime d
tha t they never sold t o th e plaintiff s th e lot from which
th e former wer e bein g ejected by th e latter , claimin g tha t
wha t they execute d wa s not a dee d o f sal e bu t only a
mortgag e contract .
For resolution the n wa s whethe r or
not th e conflicting position s o f th e partie s on th e issu e o f
ownership could plausibly depriv e th e Municipa l Tria l
Court o f jurisdiction over th e case .
The Suprem e Court rule d in th e
out tha t unde r Sec . 33(2) o f B.P .
Rules an d Guideline s implementin g sai d
Rul e o n Summar y Procedure , an d
negative , pointin g
Big . 129, th e Interim
law , th e Revised
R.A .
769 1 whic h
expande d th e jurisdictio n o f th e inferior courts , th e

consistent rul e i s tha t sai d tria l court s retai n jurisdiction
over ejectment case s even if th e question of possession
cannot b e resolve d withou t passin g upon th e issu e o f
ownership , with th e caveat tha t in sai d cas e th e issu e o f
ownership shal l b e resolved by th e tria l court for th e sole
purpos e o f determinin g th e issu e o f possession .
Th
e
adjudication
mad e
t h e r e i n r e g a r d i n g th e issu e
o f
ownership would merely b e provisiona l an d would not bar
or prejudic e an action between th e sam e partie s involving
titl e t o th e land .
886
----------------------- Page 887----------------------RULE 70
-14
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND

UNLAWFUL DETAINER
SECS. 12
4 .
quoted
In thi s sam e cas e o f Hilario, th e Suprem e Cour t

th e holdin g
in Wilmon Auto
Supply
Corporation
,
et al. vs. CA, et al. (G.R . No . 97637 , Apri l 10, 1992) which
catalogued th e case s tha t shoul d not b e regarde d a s pre judicia l t o an ejectmen t suit , t o wit :
" 1 .
Injunction
suit
institute d
in
th e
RT C
by
defendant s in ejectment action s in th e municipa l tria l
court s or othe r court s o f th e first level (Nacord a v .
Yatco , 1 7 SCRA 92 0 [1966]) d o no t abat e th e latter ;
an d neithe r d o proceeding s on consignation o f rental s
(Lim S i v . Lim , 9 8 Phil . 86 5 [1956] , citin g Pue , et a
l .
v . Gonzales , 8 7 Phil . 8 1 [1950]) .
2 . An
'accion
publiciana' doe s
not
suspen d
an
ejectment sui t agains t th e plaintif f i n
(Ramirez v . Bleza , 106 SCRA 187 [1981]) .
3.
'writ
of
possession
th e
forme r
case' wher e
ownership
i s concededly th e principa l issu e before th e Regiona l

Trial Cour t doe s not preclud e nor ba r th e execution
of th e judgmen t in an unlawfu l detaine r sui t wher e
th e only issu e involve d i s th e materia l possession or
p o s s e s s i o n d e facto o f t h e p r e m i s e s (Heir s
o f
F . Guballa , Sr . v . C.A., et al. , etc. ,
[1988]).
4.
An
action
for
quieting
of
title
16 8 SCRA 51 8
to
propert y
is
not a ba r t o an ejectmen t sui t involvin g th e sam e
propert y (Quimp o v . D e l a Victoria , 4 6 SCRA 139
[1972]).
5.
Suits
for
specific
performance
with
damage
s
do
no t
affect ejectmen t
action s
(e.g. ,
t o
com
pe l
renewa l o f a leas e contract ) (Desamit o v . Cuyegkeng ,
18
SCR A
118 4
[1966] ;
P a r d o d e T a v e r a
v .
Encarnacion , 22 SCRA 632 [1968] ; Rosale s v . CFI ,
154 SCRA 153 [1987] ; Commande r Realty , Inc . v .
C.A., 16 1 SCRA 264 [1988]) .
887
----------------------- Page 888----------------------RULE 70
SECS. 12-14
6. An action for reformation of instrument (e.g.,

from deed of absolute sale to one of sale with pacto de
retro, does not suspend an ejectment suit between the
same parties (Judith v. Abragan, 66 SCRA 600
[1975]).
7. An
action for reconveyance
of property or
'accion reivindicatoria'also has no effect on ejectment
suits regarding the same property (Del Rosario v.
Jimenez, 8 SCRA 549 [1963]; Salinas v. Navarro, 126
SCRA 167; De la Cruz v. C.A., 133 SCRA 520 [1984];
Drilon v. Gaurana, 149 SCRA 352 [1987]; Ching v.
Malaya, 153 SCRA 412 [1987]; Philippine Feeds
Milling Co., Inc. v. C.A., 174 SCRA 108; Dante v.
Sison, 174 SCRA 517 [1989] ; Guzman v. C.A.,
[annulment of sale and reconveyance], 177 SCRA 604
[1989]; Demamay v. C.A., 186 SCRA 608 [1990];
Leopoldo Sy v. C.A., et al. [annulment of sale and
reconveyance], G.R. No. 95818, Aug. 1991).
8. Neither do suits for annulment of sale, or title,
or document affecting property operate to abate
ejectment actions respecting the same property
(Salinas v. Navarro [annulment of deed of sale with
assumption of mortgage and/or to declare the same
an equitable mortgage], 126 SCRA 167 [1983]; Ang
Ping v. RTC [annulment of sale and title], 154 SCRA
153 [1987]; Caparros v. CA . [annulment of title], 170
SCRA 758 [1989]; Dante v. Sison [annulment of sale
with damages], 174 SCRA 517; Galgala v. Benguet
Consolidated, Inc. [annulment of document], 177
SCRA 288 [1989])."
5. In Refugia, et al. vs. CA, et al. (G.R. No. 118284,
July 5, 1996), the Supreme Court also discussed in detail
the antecedents and developmental changes culminating
in the express mandate in Sec. 33(2) of B.P. Big. 129 to
the effect that inferior courts have jurisdiction to resolve
the question of ownership where a determination thereof
888
----------------------- Page 889----------------------RULE 70
4
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SECS. 12-1
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
is necessar y for a proper an d complet e adjudication o f th e
issu e o f possession .
It , however ,
lai d dow n certai n
guideline s t o b e observe d in th e implementatio n o f tha t
legislative prescription , viz.:
(1)
Th e prima l rul e i s tha t th e principa l issu e
mus t b e tha t o f possession , an d tha t ownership i s
merely ancillary thereto , in which cas e th e issu e o f
ownership may b e resolve d bu t only for th e purpos e
of determinin g th e issu e o f possession .
(2)
I t m u s t
sufficientl y
a p p e a r fro m
h e
allegation s o f th e complaint tha t wha t th e plaintif f
reall y an d primaril y seek s i s th e restoratio n o f
possession .
(3)
Th e inferior court cannot adjudicat e on th e
natur e o f ownership wher e th e relationship o f lessor
an d lesse e ha s been sufficiently establishe d in th e
ejectment case , unles s it i s duly prove d tha t ther e ha s
been a subsequen t chang e in or terminatio n o f tha t
relationship between th e parties .
(4)
Th e rul e in forcible entr y cases , bu t not in
unlawfu l detainer , i s tha t a part y wh o can prov e prior
possession can recover such possession even agains t
th e owner himself , unti l h e i s lawfully ejecte d by a
perso n havin g a bette r right , henc e i f prior possession
may b e ascertaine d in som e othe r way , th e inferior
court canno t intrud e int o th e issu e o f ownership .
(5)
Wher e
th e
questio n
o f
wh o
h a s
prio
r
possessio n hinge s o n th e issu e o f wh o th e rea l
owner is , or upon th e determinatio n o f th e validity
an d interpretatio n o f th e documen t o f titl e or any
other contrac t on which th e claim o f possession i s
premised , th e inferior court may resolv e th e issu e o f
ownership bu t any such pronouncement on ownership
is merely provisiona l an d doe s not ba r or prejudic e
an action between th e sam e partie s involving titl e t o
th e land .
889
----------------------- Page 890----------------------RULE 70
0
SECS. 15. 2
6. Th e Rul e on Summar y Procedur e applie s only to

case s filed befor e th e Metropolita n Tria l Court s an d
Municipal Tria l Courts , pursuan t to Section 36 of B.P . Big .
129.
Summary procedur e ha s n o application before th e
Regional Tria l Courts .
Hence , whe n th e respondent s
appealed th e decision o f th e Municipa l Tria l Court t o th e
Regional Tria l Court , th e applicabl e rule s ar e thos e o f th e
latter court
(Jakihaca vs. Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 83982,
Jan. 12, 1990).
Thus , whil e a motion for reconsideration
of th e j u d g m e n t o f th e Municipa l Tria l Cour t i s
prohibite d
p l e a d i n g u n d e r th e Rul e
o n Summar y
Procedure , a motion for reconsideration may validly be
filed from a decision of th e Regional Tria l Court in th e
exercise of it s appellat e jurisdiction over decision s of th e
inferior court s in ejectment case s (Refugia, et al. vs. CA,
et al., ante).
Sec.
16.
Preliminary injunction. Th e cour t may
grant preliminar y injunction , i n accordanc e wit h
th e provision s o f Rul e 5 8 hereof , t o preven t th e
defendan t fro m committin g act s o f dispossessio n
against th e
plaintiff .
A possesso r deprive d o f hi s possessio n throug h

forcibl e entr y o r unlawfu l detaine r may , withi n five
(5) day s fro m th e filin g o f th e complaint , presen t a
motio n i n th e actio n fo r forcibl e entr y o r unlawfu l
detaine r fo r th e issuanc e o f a wri t o f preliminar y
m a n d a t o r y
i n j u n c t i o n t o r e s t o r e h i m i n h
i s
p o s s e s s i o n . Th e cour t shal l d e c i d e th e motio n
withi n thirt y (30) day s fro m th e filin g thereof .
(3a
)
Sec.
20 . Preliminary
mandatory
injunction
in
e
of appeal. Upo n motio n o f th e plaintif f withi n te n
(10) day s fro m th e perfectio n o f th e appea l t o th e
Regiona l Tria l Court , th e latte r ma y issu e a wri t o f
preliminar y mandator y injunctio n t o restor e th e
plaintif f i n possessio n i f th e cour t i s satisfie d tha t
cas
890
----------------------- Page 891----------------------RULE 70
20
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SECS. 15,
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
th e defendant' s appea l i s frivolou s o r dilatory , o r
t h a t t h e a p p e a l o f t h e
p l a i n t i f f i s prima
acie
meritorious .
(9a )
NOTE S
1. For correlation , Sees . 1 5 an d 20 , both bein g on
th e matte r o f preliminar y injunction in ejectmen t cases ,
ar e discusse d jointly .
2 . Unde r th e Civil Code an d th e 1964 Rule s o f Court ,
preliminar y mandator y injunction wa s availabl e a t th e
start o f th e action bu t only in forcible entr y case s (se e
Art. 539, Civil Code; cf. Sec. 88, R.A. 296 which als o spok e
only o f forcible entry) .
On appeal , provide d th e condition s
in th e former Sec . 9 o f thi s Rul e wer e present , preliminar y
mandator y injunctio n wa s availabl e only i n unlawfu l
detainer cases , a s sai d Sec . 9 referre d t o a lessor an d a
lessee
(see Art. 1674, Civil Code; Dayao vs. Shell Co. of
the Phil., Ltd.,
L-32475,
April
30,
1980).
Tha t
uncertai n
stat e
o f affair s
wa s
sough t
t o
b e
remedie d by Sec . 33(1) o f B.P . Big . 129 (see note s thereo n

in th e preliminar y portio n o f thi s volume ) t o mak e
preliminar y injunction availabl e in both form s o f ejectment
suits .
Thi s
an d clea
injunction
and unde r
amende d section make s th e rul e mor e specific

r b y providin g t h a t preliminar y
mandator y
shal l b e availabl e at th e star t o f th e action ,
th e condition s therein , in both forcible entr y
an d unlawfu l detaine r
datory injunctio n i s
Regional Tria l Cour t an
typ e o f ejectmen t cas e
cases .
Such preliminar y man als o availabl e o n appea l t o th e
d ther e i s n o distinction a s t o th e
involved .
Preliminar y preventiv e injunction i s availabl e i n

either cas e a s th e first paragrap h o f Section 1 5 make s th e
provision s o f Rul e 5 8 applicabl e to thi s specia l civil action .
891
----------------------- Page 892----------------------RULE 70
SEC. 16
Sec. 16.
Resolving defense of ownership. Whe
th e defendan t raise s th e defens e o f ownershi p i n hi
pleading s an d th e questio n
o f possessio n canno
b e resolve d withou t decidin g th e issu e o f ownership ,
th e issu e o f ownershi p shal l b e resolve d onl y
determin e th e issu e o f possession .
(4a)
n
s
t
t o
NOTE S
1. Ejectment suits under this Rule essentially involve
the issue of physical or material possession over the real
property subject of the action.
This amended section,
which is based on the provisions of Sec. 33(2), B.P.
Big. 129, contemplates that (1) the defendant resists his
ejectment from the disputed premises not by claiming only
a right of physical possession but also the ownership
thereof; and (2) the question of possession can be resolved
only by deciding the issue of ownership. The solution
under this section is to resolve the issue of ownership but
only to determine the issue of possession. This must be so
because the issue of ownership cannot be definitively
decided in this special civil action, and the trial court does
not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of title to the
land. However, since the defendant anchors the legality
of his material possession of the property on a claim of
title, the court can, at least prima facie, determine the
plausibility or validity of his basic claim on which he
justifie s his right to possess. Otherwise, the ends of justice
may easily be trifled with by the defendant through the
simple expedient of claiming title to the property, no matter
how outrageous, and then challenging the jurisdiction of
the trial court in order to delay the disposition of a
summary proceeding.
2. This is decidedly an improvement over the
provisions of the former Sec. 4 of this Rule to the effect
that evidence of title to real property involved in an
ejectment case may be received solely for the purpose of
892
----------------------- Page 893----------------------RULE 70
6
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SEC. 1
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
determinin g th e characte r an d exten t
damage s for detention .
Nonetheless
limitations , th e former rul e als o
shown in th e following doctrine s hande
thereto .
o f possession an d
, despit e such seemin g
serve d it s purpos e a s
d down pursuan t
3 . Allegation s o f ownershi p ar e no t require d i n

ejectment suit s a s th e only issu e i s physica l possession .
However , such allegation s eithe r by th e plaintif f or th e
defendant d o not ous t th e court o f jurisdiction provide d
th e purpos e thereof , an d th e reception o f evidenc e thereon ,
is only t o prov e th e characte r an d exten t o f possession
and th e damage s for th e detentio n (Subano vs.
Vallecer,
105 Phil. 1264 fUnrep.J).
Formerly , Sec . 31(c), R.A . 5967 ,
grante d jurisdictio n t o th e the n City Court s t o decid e th e
question s o f physica l possession "in conjunction with " th e
issue of ownership in th e sam e action (cf. Pelaez vs. Reyes,
L-48168, Aug. 31, 1978), bu t thi s ha s been eliminate d by
B.P . Big . 129 . Se e not e 7 unde r Sec . 2 o f thi s Rule .
4 . Thus , wher e th e defendan t ha s entere d upon a
portio n o f th e propert y o f th e plaintiff , th e latte r ca
n
introduc e in evidenc e hi s muniment s o f titl e t o show tha t
said portio n i s embrace d withi n hi s propert y which h e
possesses , a s hi s purpos e i s merely t o show th e exten t o f
hi s possession consequen t t o hi s ownership o f th e entir e
parce l of lan d
(see Mediran vs. Villanueva, 3 7 Phil.
752).
Evidenc e o f such titl e may als o b e introduce d t o show tha
th e plaintif f i s th e possessor o f th e lan d by reason o
ownership thereof , or a s th e lawful tenan t or lesse e o f
owner, or pursuan t t o a righ t contingent upon th e fact o
ownership o f another , as , in sai d cases , th e titl e i s
introduced jus t t o show in wha t characte r or unde r wha t
right th e plaintif f i s in possession o f th e premises .
t
f hi s
th e
f
bein g
5. Wher e th e issue s in th e inferior court d o not only

rais e th e question o f th e possession o f th e lot bu t als o th e
right s o f th e partie s t o th e buildin g constructe d thereo n
and for th e recovery thereof , jurisdiction i s veste d in th e
893
----------------------- Page 894----------------------RULE 70
-1 8
SECS.
Regional Tria l Court a s it i s not one for ejectment but

for specific performanc e
(Chua Peng Hian vs. CA, et al.,
G.R. No. 60015, Dec. 19, 1983).
Where , however , th e
defendant ha s built a substantia l buildin g on plaintiff s
land an d ther e i s no disput e a s to th e ownership o f either
said lan d or buildin g by th e parties , th e inferior court does
not lose jurisdictio n over th e ejectmen t cas e an d can
17
adjudicate th e right s o f th e partie s thereover in accordance

wit h
th e Civi l
Cod e
(Alvir
vs.
Vera,
et al., L-39338
,
July 16,
1984; De la Santa vs. CA, et al., L-30560 and
L-31078, Nov.
18, 1985).
Sec.
17. Judgment. I f afte r tria l th e cour t find s
tha t th e allegation s o f th e complain t ar e true , i t
shall rende r judgmen t i n favo r o f th e plaintif f for
th e restitutio n o f th e premises , th e su m justl y du e
as arrear s o f ren t o r a s reasonabl e compensatio n
fo r t h e u s e a n d o c c u p a t i o n o f t h e p r e m i s
e s ,
attorney' s fee s an d c o s t s .
I f i t find s tha t sa
i d
allegation s ar e no t true , i t shal l rende r judgmen t
fo r t h e d e f e n d a n t t o r e c o v e r h i s c o s t s .
I
f a
counterclai m i s established , th e cour t shal l rende r
judgmen t fo r th e su m foun d i n arrear s
fro m eithe r
party an d awar d cost s a s justic e requires .
(6a)
Sec.
18. Judgment conclusive only on possession; not
conclusive in action involving title or ownership. Th e
judgment s rendere d i n a n actio n fo r forcibl e entr y
o r detaine r shal l b e conclusiv e wit h respec t t o th e
possessio n onl y an d shal l i n n o wis e bin d th e titl e
or affect th e ownershi p o f th e lan d o r building . Suc h
judgmen t shal l no t ba r a n actio n betwee n th e sam e
partie s respectin g titl e t o th e lan d o r building .
The judgmen t o r fina l orde r shal l b e appealabl e
t o th e appropriat e Regiona l Tria l Cour t whic h shal l
decid e th e sam e o n th e basi s o f th e entir e recor d
of th e proceeding s ha d i n th e cour t o f origi n an d
894
----------------------- Page 895----------------------RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SECS. 17-18
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
suc h memorand a and/o r brief s a s ma y b e submitte d
b y th e partie s o r require d b y th e Regiona l
Court.
(7a)
Tria l
NOTE S
1. Sec . 17, wit h som e structura l rearrangement ,
remain s substantiall y th e sam e a s th e former Sec . 6 o f
thi s Rule .
2. Sec . 18 i s
Sec. 7 o f thi s Rule ,
th e first paragraph ,
conclusivenes s o f judgmen
hereafte r discusse d in
virtually a reproduction of th e former

bu t with tw o major changes .
From
tha t portio n affectin g th e rul e o n
t ha s been deleted , for reason s
Not e 8 hereof .
Also , a secon d
p a r a g r a p h
ha s
bee n
added , spellin g
ou t
th e
specifi c
appellat e procedur e an d requirement s for th e elevation o f

th e cas e t o th e Regiona l Tria l Court .
Thi s als o ha s th e
effect
o f r e m i n d i n g al l concerne d t h a t th e appeal ,
regardles s o f th e issue s involved shoul d alway s b e brough t
t o th e appropriat e Regiona l Tria l Court .
3 . Formerly , th e City Courts , bu t not th e ordinar y
municipa l courts , could actually determin e th e issu e o f
titl e wher e such issu e i s raise d in th e proceeding s in an
ejectment sui t before it
(Sec. 3[c], R.A. 5967).
Appea l
from th e decision therei n could b e take n t o th e Court o f
Appeal s
(Pelaez vs. Reyes, L-48168, Aug. 31, 1978) within
th e t h e n 30-da y reglementar y perio d unde r Sec .
3 ,
Rule 41
Aug.
21,
Nou.
19,
effected by
(Contreras us.
Villaraza, et al., G.R. No. 53372,
1980; Nogoy
vs. Mendoza,
G.R.
Nos. 54324-28,
1980).
Note , however , th e importan t change s
B.P . Big . 129, a s hereinbefor e discussed .
4 . In ejectment cases , th e inferior court can adjudi cate an d awar d actua l damage s beyond th e jurisdictiona l
limit i n ordinar y civil actions , a s th e amoun t o f th e
monetar y awar d i s immateria l t o it s jurisdiction , th e
restoration o f possession bein g th e primar y relie f sought
895
----------------------- Page 896----------------------RULE 70
SECS.
17-18
and to be granted. This is now an explicit rationale of the

summary procedure adopted in this Rule.
However, damages other than reasonable rentals or
fair rental value are not recoverable by plaintiff. Reasonable attorney's fees may be allowed if the provisions of
Art. 2208, Civil Code, are applicable
(De Laureano vs.
Adil, supra; Ramirez vs. Sy Chit, L-22032, Dec. 26, 1967;
Reyes vs. CA, et al., L-28466, Mar. 27, 1971; Baens vs.
CA, et al., G.R. No. 57091, Nov. 23, 1983).
It may also be
noted that while Sec. 1 of this Rule speaks of "damages,"
Sec. 6 (now, Sec. 17) thereof uses the phrase "rent or as
reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of
the premises." It has been held that this rule does not
apply against a counterclaim of the defendant wherein
moral damages may be awarded by the inferior court
provided that the award should not exceed the amount
within the original jurisdiction of the inferior court (see
Agustin vs. Bacalan, et al, L-46000, Mar. 18, 1985).
5. The plaintiff, in ejectment cases, is entitled to
damages caused by his loss of the use and possession of
the premises, but not for damages caused on the land or
building, which latter items of damages should be
recovered by plaintiff, if he is the owner, in an ordinary
action
(Santos vs. Santiago, 38 Phil. 575).
However, it
has been held that plaintiff can recover from defendant
liquidated damages stipulated in the lease contract (Gozon
vs. Vda. de Barrameda, L-17473, June 30,
1964).
6. An action for ejectment is not abated by the
death of the defendant as the question of damages
must be adjudicated
(Tanhueco vs.
Aguilar L-30369,
May 29,
1970).
7. The rules of res judicata and conclusiveness of
judgment apply in ejectment suits, but subject to the
qualification that the judgment therein is conclusive only
with respect to the issue of possession of the premises and
896
----------------------- Page 897----------------------RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SECS. 17-18
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
not wit h respec t t o ownership ; bu t it i s conclusiv e with
respect t o th e righ t o f possession unde r an d by virtu e o f a
contract th e existenc e o f which ha s been prove d in sai d
ejectment sui t
(see Penalosa vs.
Tuason, 22 Phil. 303).
8. It wil l b e recalle d tha t unde r Sec . 49(c) (now ,
Sec.
47[c]) o f Rul e 3 9 whic h enunciate s th e rul e o f
conclusivenes s of judgment , th e effect of a judgmen t on a
subsequent cas e betwee n th e sam e partie s bu t o n a
different caus e o f action i s tha t such judgmen t i s conclusive
upon al l matter s tha t hav e been controverte d an d directly
adjudged or determine d therein .
Th e former Sec . 7 o f
thi s Rul e wa s a n exceptio n t o suc h doctrin e sinc e i t
restricte d th e bindin g effect o f a judgmen t in an ejectment
case only t o th e issu e o f materia l possession and , at th e
same time , declare d tha t it shal l not in any manne r affect
th e titl e t o or th e ownership o f th e propert y involved .
Thus , i f a judgmen t in a forcible entr y cas e hel d tha t th e
defendant ha d alway s been in possession o f th e property ,
such a findin g ha d no bindin g effect in a subsequen t cas e
betwee n th e sam e partie s involving th e issu e o f ownership
of th e sam e property .
Since th e second action i s base d
on a different caus e of action , th e rul e of conclusivenes s
of judgmen t could hav e applie d but , although th e issu e
of possessio n ha d bee n directl y adjudge d in th e first
case , sai d former Sec . 7 o f thi s Rul e provide d tha t such a
finding shal l not b e held conclusiv e o f th e fact s therei n
found insofar a s th e secon d cas e on titl e i s concerne d
(Penalosa vs.
Tuason, supra; Cordovis vs.
Obias, L-24080,
April
26,
1968).
I t
provision
th e issu
consistent
judgment .
wa s accordingl y decide d t h a t suc h exceptiv e

of th e the n Sec . 7 of thi s Rul e on th e matte r of
e o f possession shoul d b e eliminate d t o mak e it
with th e accepte d doctrin e o f conclusivenes s o f
Ther e i s n o reason why th e issu e o f possession
which wa s duly litigate d before an d decided with finality

by a municipa l tria l court in a full-blown proceedin g in an
897
----------------------- Page 898----------------------RULE 70
SEC8. 17-18
ejectment suit shoul d not b e conclusive upon th e partie s i f

raise d in another action between the m on a different cause
of action .
A summar y procedur e i s a duly recorde d
adversarial proceeding an d th e municipa l tria l court s have
long sinc e become court s of record .
Consequently, th e last sentenc e o f th e former Sec . 7
wa s reproduce d in th e presen t Sec . 18, a s it now stands ,
which reads :
"Such judgmen t shal l not ba r an action
between th e sam e partie s respectin g titl e t o th e land, " for
reason s earlie r reiterated .
Th e continuatio n o f tha t
sentence statin g "nor shal l it be held conclusive of th e facts
therein found in a cas e between th e sam e partie s upon a
different caus e o f action not involvin g possession " wa s
deleted .
Th e resul t i s that , unde r th e presen t Rule , th e
pronouncement s in th e ejectment sui t regardin g th e issu e
of ownership , bein g merely prima facie since they wer e
mad e only to determin e th e issu e o f possession , would not
b e bindin g on th e partie s in a subsequen t action over th e
titl e t o th e sam e land . However , th e finding s in th e first
case on th e question s o f materia l possession would bind
th e p a r t i e s i n th e secon d suit ,
u n d e r th e rul e
o f
conclusiveness of judgment .
9. Action s for unlawful detainer , includin g an accion
publiciana,
cannot be barre d by th e pendency of a land
registration cas e between th e sam e partie s a s th e first
involves th e issu e o f possession an d th e latte r i s on th e
issue of ownership . Ther e is no identity of cause s of action
or of th e relief s praye d for an d a judgmen t in one cannot
constitute res judicata on th e other
(Medina vs. Valdellon,
L-38510, Mar.
25,
1975).
10. Wher e th e part y sought to b e ejected under a writ
of execution wa s not impleade d in th e action an d i s a tota l
stranger t o th e defendant , certiorar i will lie as , not being
a party t o th e action , h e cannot appea l from th e judgmen t
rendere d therei n
(Sta. Ana vs.
Sunga, et al., L-32642,
Nov.
26,
1973).
898
----------------------- Page 899----------------------RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND

UNLAWFUL DETAINER
11. A judgment in an ejectment suit is binding not
SEC. 19
only upon the defendants in the suit, but also against those
not parties thereto, if they are :
(a) Trespassers, squatters or agents of the defendant
fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the
judgment (Santiago vs. Sheriff,
7 7 Phil. 740);
(b) Guests or other occupants of the premises with
the permission of the defendant (Gozon vs. De la Rosa, 7 7
Phil. 919);
(c) Transferees pendente
lite
Madrigal &
Co., 94 Phil. 754);
(Planas,
et al.
(d) Sublessees (Go King vs. Geronimo, 81 Phil.

Guevara
Realty, Inc. vs. CA,
et al., G.R. No.
April 15, 1988);
vs.
445;
57469,
(e) Co-lessees; and

(f) Members of the family, relatives and other
privies of the defendant
(Ariem vs. De los Angeles, et al.,
L-32164,
Jan. 31, 1973).
Sec. 19.
Immediate
execution
of judgment; how
stay same. I f judgment is rendered against the
defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon
motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the
defendant t o stay execution file s a sufficient
supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Tria l
Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay
the rents , damages , and costs accruing down to the
time of the judgment appealed from, and unless,
during the pendency of the appeal , he deposits with
the appellate court the amount of rent due from time
to time under the contract, if any, as determined by
the judgment of the Municipal Tria l Court . In the
absence of a contract , he shall deposit with the
Regional Tria l Court the reasonable value of the
use and occupation of the premises for the preceding
to
899
----------------------- Page 900----------------------RULE 70
19
SEC.
mont h o r perio d a t th e rat e d e t e r m i n e d b y th e

judgmen t o f th e lowe r cour t o n o r befor e th e tent h
day o f e a c h
s u c c e e d i n g m o n t h o r period .
Th
e
s u p e r s e d e a s bon d
shal l
b e t r a n s m i t t e d b y t
h e
Municipa l Tria l Court , wit h th e othe r papers , t o th e
cler k o f th e
Regiona l Tria l
Cour t t o
w h i c h t
h e
action i s appealed .
All amount s s o pai d t o th e appellat e cour t shal l
b e
d e p o s i t e d w i t h s a i d c o u r t o r a u t h o r i z
e d
g o v e r n m e n t depositor y bank , an d shal l
b e hel
d
ther e
unti l
th e fina l d i s p o s i t i o n o f th e appeal ,
unles s th e court , b y agreemen t o f th e intereste d
parties , o r i n th e absenc e o f reasonabl e ground s o f
oppositio n t o a motio n t o withdraw , o r for justifiabl e
r e a s o n s s h a l l d e c r e e o t h e r w i s e .
S h o u l
h e
d e f e n d a n t
fai l t o m a k e
t h e p a y m e n t s
v e
prescribe d fro m tim e t o tim e durin g th e pendenc y
of th e appeal , th e appellat e court , upo n motio n o f
th e plaintiff , an d upo n proo f o f suc h failure , shal
order th e executio n o f th e judgmen t appeale d fro m
wit h respec t t o th e restoratio n o f possession , but
suc h e x e c u t i o n shal l no t b e a ba r t o th e
l
takin g it s cours e unti l th e fina l dispositio n thereo f
o n th e merits .
d
a b o
l
appea
Afte r th e cas e i s decide d b y th e Regiona l Trial

Court, an y mone y pai d t o th e cour t b y th e defendan t
for p u r p o s e s o f th e sta y o f e x e c u t i o n shal l
b e
dispose d o f i n accordanc e wit h th e provision s o f th e
judgmen t o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court .
I n an y cas
e
wherei n i t appear s tha t th e defendan t ha s bee n
deprived o f th e lawfu l possessio n o f lan d o r buildin g
pendin g th e appea l b y virtu e o f th e executio n o f
th e judgmen t o f th e Municipa l Tria l Court , damage s
for suc h deprivatio n o f possessio n an d restoratio n
of possessio n may b e allowe d th e defendan t i n th e
judgmen t o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court disposin g o f
th e appeal .
(8a)
900
----------------------- Page 901----------------------RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND

UNLAWFUL DETAINER
SEC. 19
NOTE S
1. This section is a copy of Sec. 8 of the former Rule,
except for the updated nomenclature of the courts and
the amendment that rentals paid during the pendency of
the appeal in the Regional Trial Court shall be deposited
in the same court, or in an authorized government
depository bank and not in the provincial or city treasury.
2. Execution pending appeal in ejectment cases is
governed by Sec. 8 (now, Sec. 18) of Rule 70, not by Sec. 2
of Rule 39. The latter provision requires good reasons
before a writ of execution can be issued in favor of the
prevailing party and is subject to the sound discretion of
the court. Its counterpart under this Rule does not require
the showing of good reasons as it is a matter of right
(San Miguel
Wood
Products, Inc. vs. Tupas, et al.,
A.M. No. MTJ-93-892,
Oct. 25, 1995).
3. The order for the issuance of a writ of execution
to immediately enforce the judgment of the inferior court
is interlocutory and not appealable (De Po vs. Moscoso,
93 Phil. 427). The same rule applies in both types of
ejectment suits.
Also, the fact that the decision of the
court a quo in ejectment cases is immediately executory
does not mean that notice of the motion to the adverse
party is unnecessary. A party would not be in a position
to stay execution unless he is notified of the filing of that
motion for execution (Kaw vs. Anunciacion, Jr., etc., et
al, A.M. No. MTJ-93-811, Mar. 1, 1995).
4. Immediate execution is proper if the judgment is
in favor of the plaintiff. If the judgment is in favor of the
defendant with an award for damages under his
counterclaims, such judgment is not immediately executory
and can be executed only after the lapse of the 15-day
period to appeal without the plaintiff having perfected his
appeal.
901
----------------------- Page 902----------------------RULE 70
SEC. 19
In City of Manila, et al. vs. CA, et al. (L-42364,

April 9, 1987), it was held that Sec. 8 (now, Sec. 19), Rule
70, on execution pending appeal, also applies even if it is
the plaintiff-lessor who appeals where, as in that case,
judgment was rendered in favor of the lessor but it was
not satisfied with the increased rentals granted by the
trial court, hence the appeal for a further increase thereof.
In such a situation, the lessor-appellant may ask for
execution pending appeal and if the lessee desires to stay
such execution, he must file the supersedeas bond and
deposit the accruing rentals. Otherwise, the lessee could
continue occupying the premises without filing the
supersedeas bond and making the necessary deposit
despite the fact that, by his failure to appeal, said lessee
does not question the accrued and the incoming rents.
Such continued stay on the premises and acquiescence to
the new rates by the lessee could also constitute a "good
reason" authorizing an execution pending appeal under
Sec. 2, Rule 39.
5. To stay the immediate execution of judgment in
ejectment proceedings, these sections require that the
defendant-appellant must (a) perfect his appeal, (b) file a
supersedeas bond, and (c) periodically deposit the rentals
falling due during the pendency of the appeal.
The appeal should be perfected in the same manner
as in ordinary civil actions, that is, by filing a notice of
appeal and paying the appellate court's docket fee, as
provided in Rule 40, within 15 days from notice of the

judgment .
The supersedeas bond may be in cash or by surety
bond (De Laureano vs. Adil, L-43345, July 29, 1976) and
since its purpose is to answer for the rents, damages and
costs accruing down to the judgment of the inferior court
appealed from (Bagtas vs. Tan, 93 Phil. 804), it must be
in the amount determined by the judgment of the lower
court. Attorney's fees awarded in said judgment need
902
----------------------- Page 903----------------------RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SEC. 19
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
not be covere d by a supersedea s bon d (Once vs. Gonzales,
et al., L-44806, Mar. 31,
1977).
The periodi c deposit o f futur e rental s i s t o ensur e th e
paymen t o f rental s accruin g after th e judgmen t o f th e
inferior cour t an d unti l th e final judgmen t on appeal .
It
shall b e in th e amoun t determine d by th e inferior court
either on th e basi s o f th e leas e contract , or , in forcible
entry cases , th e reasonabl e valu e for th e us e or occupation
of th e premise s (Sec. 8).
Th e Court o f Firs t Instanc e ha s
n o power t o increas e or reduc e th e amoun t fixed by th e
inferior court s a s th e reasonabl e ren t or compensation for
th e premise s pendin g decision o f th e appeal .
Whethe r
th e amoun t fixed by th e inferior court i s correct or not will
hav e t o b e passe d upon by th e Court o f Firs t Instanc e in
deciding th e appeale d cas e
(Estella vs. CA, et al., G.R.
No.
56284,
Jan.
30,
1982).
6. Consequently , th e filing of a supersedea s bon d i s

not require d t o sta y execution on appea l (a) wher e th e
monetar y awar d in th e judgmen t o f th e inferior court ha s
been deposite d wit h sai d court
(Castureras vs. Bayona,
106 Phil. 340), an d (b) wher e th e judgmen t of th e lower
court di d no t mak e an y finding s wit h respec t t o an y
amount in arrears , damage s or cost s against th e defendant .
7 . Th e supersedea s bon d mus t b e filed in th e lower
bu t th e Cour t o f Firs t Instance , in it s discretion an d
good caus e shown , may allow th e defendant t o file
bon d in th e latte r court
(Tagulimot vs. Makalintal,
Phil. 40).
The requiremen t for th e filing of a supersedea s bond
is mandator y an d i f th e bond i s not filed, th e execution o f
th e judgmen t i s a mandatory an d ministeria l duty o f th e
court (Fuentes vs. Bautista, et al., L-31351, Oct. 26, 1973).
Even i f appea l ha s been perfected an d a supersedea s bond
ha s bee n filed bu t th e accruin g rental s ar e not duly
deposited, immediat e restoration o f th e premise s may stil l
b e obtaine d a s th e supersedea s bond answer s only for th e
court
upon
tha t
85
903
----------------------- Page 904----------------------RULE 70
SEC. 19
past rentals as fixed in the judgment of the inferior court

(De Laureano vs. Adil, et al., L-43345, July 29, 1976).
8. In forcible entry, the amount of the supersedeas
bond and the amounts to be periodically deposited by the
defendant to stay immediate execution, shall be that
determined by the inferior court which shall be the
reasonable value of the use and occupancy of the premises.
In unlawful detainer, the amount of the supersedeas bond
and periodic deposit of rentals shall be that stated in the
lease contract.
9. The rentals accruing during the pendency of
the appeal must be deposited on or before the dates stated
in the contract of the parties, if there is one, and in the
absence thereof, on or before the dates provided for in
Sec. 19, that is, on or before the tenth day of the month
succeeding that wherein the rental accrued . The
defendant, however, does not have to make such deposit
where the judgment of the inferior court does not fix the
reasonable compensation or the rentals due (Lunsod vs.
Ortega, 46 Phil.
664) and the Regional Trial Court
cannot supply that deficiency on appeal
(Felipe vs.
Teodoro, 46 Phil. 409); or where the judgment of the lower
court is only for other items of damages (Inigo vs. Cabrera,
77 Phil. 650); or where the defendant has vacated and is
no longer in occupancy of the premises during the period
of appeal (Mayon Trading Co. vs. Co Bun Kim, 104 Phil.
242).
10. The time for the deposit of rentals as provided in
Sec. 8 (now, Sec. 19) cannot be extended by the Court of
First Instance nor can it excuse a default in such
payments, in the absence of fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence. Neither can the Court of First
Instance modify the amount to be paid as determined by
the inferior court (Lopez, Inc. vs. Phil. & Eastern Trading
Co., 98 Phil. 348). Where such rentals are not deposited
in accordance with now Sec. 19, the plaintiff is entitled to
904
----------------------- Page 905----------------------RULE 70
21
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SEC.
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
execution
as
matte r of righ t
(Chung Ben
vs.
Co Bun
Kim, 98 Phil.
13; Banzon vs. CA, et al., L-46464, Nov. 21,
1979).
Thi s requiremen t i s mandator y (Chieng Hung vs.
Tan Ten, L-21209, Sept. 27,
1967; Base, et al.
vs, Levist
e,
et al., G.R.
No.
52762,
Aug.
29,
1980),
u n l e s s t
h e
defendant wa s prevente d from doing s o by fraud , accident ,
mistake , excusabl e negligence , or th e occurrenc e o f a
s u p e r v e n i n g e v e n t whic h
woul d
m a k e e x e c u t i
o n
inequitabl e
(De Laureano
vs. Adil, supra; Ng Lit,
et
al.
vs. Llanes, et al, L-49004, Nov. 10, 1982).
Such requisit e
deposit o f rental s t o sta y execution canno t b e avoide d by
th e offer or postin g by defendan t o f additiona l bon d in
lieu thereo f
(Phil. Holding
Corp.
vs. Valenzuela,
et a
l,
G.R. No. 55972, May 13,
1981).
11. Th e mer e delay on
o
apply for immediat e execution du e t o
of rental s doe s no t constitut
to execution (Silva vs.
CA,
th e
par t o f th e
plaintif f t
default in th e deposit
e a waive r o f suc h righ t
8 6 Phil. 599), bu t if despit e
such default o f th e defendant , th e plaintif f accepte d th e

belate d paymen t o f th e defendant , the n th e plaintif f i s
deemed t o hav e waive d hi s righ t t o immediat e execution
(Manotok
vs. Legaspi,
77 Phil.
523).
12. In th e
th e provision s o f
n o i m p r o v e m
remove d excep t by
observed .
Se e
execution o f judgmen t in ejectment cases ,

Sec . 10(d), Rul e 39 , t o th e effect tha t
e n t shal l b e destroyed , demolishe d o r
specia l orde r o f th e court , i s t o b e
th e case s of Fuentes, et al. vs. Leviste, et
al. (L-47363 , Oct . 28 , 1982) an d Atal Moslem, et al.

Soriano, et al. (L-36837 , Aug .
17 , 1983) discusse d
Not e 3 unde r Sec . 10, Rul e 39 .
vs.
in
13. Th e succeedin g Sec . 2 0 o f thi s Rul e ha s been

discussed earlier , together with Sec . 1 5 thereof .
Sec .
Appeals
or
21 . Immediate execution on appeal to Court of

Supreme
Court.
Th e
j u d g m e n t of th e
905
----------------------- Page 906----------------------RULE 70
SEC. 21
Regiona l Tria l Cour t shal l b e immediatel y execu tory , withou t prejudic e t o a furthe r appea l tha t
may b e take n therefro m
(10a)
NOTE S
1. In th e former Rul e 70 , th e procedur e on appea l
from th e decision o f th e Regiona l Tria l Court t o th e Court
of Appeal s was , wit h th e exception o f th e nee d for a
supersedeas bond which wa s not applicable , virtually th e
same a s th e procedur e on appea l t o th e Regional Tria l
Court . Thus , in th e contemplate d recourse s t o th e Court

of Appeals , th e defendant , after perfectin g hi s appeal ,
could
als o preven t th e immediat e executio n o f th e
judgmen t by makin g th e periodic deposit o f rental s durin g
th e pendency o f th e appea l an d thereby correspondngly
preven t restitutio n o f th e premise s t o th e plaintif f who
ha d already twic e vindicate d hi s claim t o th e property in
th e tw o lower courts .
2 . Unde r th e amendator y procedur e introduce d by
thi s section , th e judgmen t o f th e Regional Tria l Court shall
b e immediately executory an d can accordingly be enforced
forthwith .
It shal l not b e staye d by th e mer e continuin g
deposit o f monthly rental s by th e dispossessor durin g th e
pendenc y o f th e cas e in th e Cour t o f Appeal s or th e
Supreme Court , although such execution o f th e judgment
shall b e withou t prejudic e t o tha t appea l takin g it s due
course .
Thi s reiterate s Sec . 2 1 o f th e Revised Rule on
S u m m a ry
Procedur e
whic h
replace d
th e appellat e
procedur e in an d repeale d th e former Sec . 10 of thi s Rule .
3 . Th e issu e o f whethe r or no t decision s o f th e
Regional Tria l Court s in appeale d ejectment case s pendin g
appea l wit h th e
Cour t o f Appeal s ar e immediatel y
executory an d cannot b e staye d ha s been answere d in th e
case of Northcastle Properties & Estate
Corp.
vs. Judge
Paas
(A.M. No . MTJ-99-1206 , Oct . 22 , 1999), upholdin g
th e position tha t it i s th e ministeria l duty o f th e Regional
906
----------------------- Page 907----------------------RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY AND
SEC. 21
UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Trial Court , a s appellat e court , t o immediately execut e it s
decision .
It i s clear from Sec . 21 , Rul e 7 0 tha t it i s only th e
execution o f th e Metropolitan or Municipa l Tria l Court' s
judgmen t pendin g appea l wit h
th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t
which may b e staye d by a complianc e with th e requisite s
provide d in Sec . 19, Rul e 70 of th e 1997 Rule s of Civil
Procedure .
On th e othe r hand , once th e Regiona l Tria l
Court ha s rendere d a decisio n i n th e exercis e o f it s
appellat e jurisdiction , suc h decision shall , unde r sai d
Sec. 21 , b e immediatel y executory , withou t prejudic e
to an appea l vi a a petition for review before th e Cour t
of A p p e a l s (Uy,
et al.
vs. Santiago,
etc., et al.,
G.R.
No.
131237,
July
31,
2000).
907
----------------------- Page 908----------------------RULE 7 1
CONTEMPT
Sectio n
1. Direct
contempt
punished
summarily.
A perso n guilt y o f misbehavio r i n th e presenc e
of o r s o nea r a cour t a s t o obstruc t o r interrup t th e
proceeding s befor e th e same , includin g disrespec t
towar d th e court , offensiv e personalitie s towar d
others , o r refusa l t o b e swor n o r t o answe r a s a
witness , o r t o subscrib e a n affidavi t o r depositio n
whe n lawfull y require d t o d o so , ma y b e summaril y
adjudge d i n contemp t b y suc h cour t an d punishe d
by a fin e no t e x c e e d i n g t w o t h o u s a n d p e s o s
o r
imprisonmen t no t exceedin g te n (10) days , o r both ,
if it b e a Regiona l Tria l Cour t o r a cour t o f equi valen t o r highe r rank , o r by a fin e no t exceedin g
tw o hundre d peso s o r imprisonmen t no t exceedin g
on e (1) day , o r both , i f i t b e a lowe r court ,
(la )
NOTE S
1. Thi s is an exact copy of th e former Sec . 1 of thi s
same Rule , except for th e increase d penaltie s an d th e
specification tha t th e "superior court " referre d t o therein
is th e "Regional Tria l Court or a court of equivalent or
higher rank, " an d "lower court " i s use d instea d o f "inferior
court."
2 . Th e increase d penaltie s for direc t contemp t
under thi s
section an d for indirect contempt in Sec . 3
of thi s Rule wer e already imposed by th e Suprem e Court
in it s Administrativ e Circula r No . 22-95 , effectiv e
November 16, 1995 .
It took judicia l notic e of th e fact
tha t th e penaltie s for contempt in th e 1964 Rule s o f Court
wer e th e sam e penaltie s imposed in Sees . 1 an d 6 , Rule 64
of th e 1940 Rule s of Court , or more tha n 5 5 year s ago . It
also took cognizance of th e fact tha t th e amount of th e
908
----------------------- Page 909----------------------RULE 71
CONTEMPT
SEC. 3
fine i s intende d t o b e th e financia l equivalen t o f th e ter m

of imprisonmen t for th e offense , in relation t o th e presen t
valu e o f our currenc y which ha d t o b e considere d in light
of th e internationa l rate s o f exchange , th e consumer pric e
index an d th e minimu m wag e law .
3 . U n d e r
(Sec.
1)
direct
contempt .
th e purpos e
civil contempt
enforce th e
th e Rules , contemp t i s classifie d int o

an d indirect , or constructiv e
(Sec. 3),
It may als o b e classified int o crimina l contempt ,

o f which i s t o vindicat e publi c authority , an d
, th e purpos e o f which i s t o protec t an d
civi l right s an d remedie s o f th e litigant s
(see
1 7 C.J.S.
8).
Civi l contemp t i s
th e
failur e
to
do
something ordere d by th e court for th e benefit o f a party .

Criminal contemp t i s conduct directe d agains t th e dignity
or authorit y o f th e court . Eithe r may b e punishe d by fine
or imprisonmen t
(see Slade Perkins
vs. Dir. of Prisons,
58 Phil. 271; Converse Rubber
etc., Inc., L-27425, April 28,
4 .
committed
and can b
contempt
and can
Corp.
1980).
vs.
Jacinto
Rubber,
Direct contempt , or contemp t in facie curiae, i s

in th e presenc e o f or s o nea r a court or judg e
e punishe d summarily without hearing .
Indirect
i s not committe d in th e presenc e o f th e court
b e punishe d only after hearing .
5 . Th e us e o f contemptuou s languag e agains t a

particula r judg e in pleading s presente d in anothe r court
or proceedin g constitute s indirec t contempt ;
i f sai
d
pleadin g i s submitte d before th e sam e judge , it woul d b e
direct contemp t
(Ang vs. Castro, G.R. No. 66371, May 15,
1985).
It has , however , been heretofor e held tha t abuse s
against a tria l judg e mad e in an appea l i s a contempt o f
th e appellat e court , no t o f th e tria l court , henc e th e
former ha s th e authorit y t o dea l with such contumaciou s
conduct
(People vs. Alarcon, 69 Phil. 265).
6. Becaus e o f it s punitiv e aspects , it ha s been held
tha t a contemp t proceedin g i s in th e natur e o f a crimina l
909
----------------------- Page 910----------------------RULE 71
SEC. 2
action
(Villanueva
vs. Lim,
69 Phil.
654)
and
the
procedural and evidentiary rule s in criminal actions
are applied as far as applicable (Lee Yick Hon vs. Collector
of Customs, 41 Phil. 548; Fuentes, et al. vs. Leviste, et al.,
L-47363, Oct. 28, 1982).
Doubts should be resolved in
favor of the person charged with contempt (Concepcion
vs. Gonzales, L-15638, April 26,
1962).
The rules of
procedure governing criminal contempt proceedings
are ordinarily inapplicable to civil contempt proceedings
(Rosario
Textile Mills,
Inc., et al. vs.
CA,
et al.,
G.R. No. 137326, Aug. 25, 2003).
In the taxonomy of
cases, however, they are classified as special civil actions.
7. Courts should be slow to punish for contempt as
this drastic remedy should be exercised upon the
preservative and not on the vindictive principle
vs. Teodoro, et al., 91 Phil. 270; De Esperagoza
94 Phil. 749; Victorino
vs. Espiritu,
L-17735,
1962).
8. For an extensive discussion of the law and
jurisprudenc e on contempt, see the Resolution of the
(Gamboa
vs. Tan,
July 30,
Supreme Court on the contempt incident in People vs.

Godoy/Gacott,
Jr.
vs. Reynoso,
Jr.,
et
Nos. 115908-09, Mar. 29, 1995).
al.
(G.R .
Sec. 2 . Remedy therefrom. Th e perso n adjudge d

i n direc t contemp t b y an y cour t ma y no t appea l
therefrom , bu t ma y avai l himsel f o f th e remedie s
of certiorar i o r prohibition .
Th e executio n o f the
judgmen t shal l b e suspende d pendin g resolutio n o f
such petition , provide d suc h perso n file s a bon d fixed
b y th e cour t w h i c h rendere d th e judgmen t an d
conditione d tha t h e wil l abid e by an d perfor m the
judgmen t shoul d th e petitio n b e decide d agains t
him . (2a)
910
----------------------- Page 911----------------------RULE 71
3
CONTEMPT
SEC.
NOTE S
1. Thi s
procedur e unde
from a judgmen
any court
i
amende d provision substantially

r th e former Rules .
t holdin g a person in direct
s th e specia l civi l actio
change s th e
Th e presen t remedy
contemp t by
n o f certiorar i or
prohibition unde r Rul e 65 .

Thi s chang e ha s t o b e emphasize d sinc e unde r th e
former Rules , judgment s o f municipa l court s holdin g a
person guilty o f direct or indirect contempt wer e appealabl e
t o th e Cour t o f Firs t Instance , whil e judgment s o f th e
superior court s on direct contemp t wer e not appealabl e
(Cornejo vs. Tan, etc., 85 Phil. 772).
Th e presen t uniform
rul e ha s mad e th e procedur e mor e simpl e an d realistic .
2 . It wa s formerly hel d tha t a person adjudge d by a
Court o f Firs t Instanc e a s guilty o f direct contemp t may
institut e
an origina l
actio n
for habeas
corpus
in th
e
Supreme
Cour t
(Tinagan
vs. Perlas,
L-23965,
Jan.
3
0,
1968).
Thi s wa s a justifiabl e remed y i f th e penalt y
impose d wa s
imprisonment ,
an d no t merel y a fine
,
especially sinc e at tha t time , judgment s o f superior court s
on direc t contemp t wer e als o not appealable .
With th e
change effected by thi s amende d section , th e remedy o f
habeas corpus may possibly be availe d of in extrem e case s
in view o f th e fact t h a t ther e i s a judicia l orde r
o f
commitment an d certiorar i may lie .
Ordinarily , however ,
both remedie s may not b e simultaneously availe d o f sinc e
certiorari an d prohibition presuppos e tha t ther e i s n o other
plain , speedy an d adequat e remedy in th e ordinary cours e
of law , an d tha t i s not tru e wher e habeas corpus can an d
ha s been invoke d a s anothe r remedy .

Sec . 3 .
Indirect contempt to be punished after charge
and hearing. Afte r a charg e i n writin g ha s bee n
filed, an d a n opportunit y give n t o th e responden t
t o commen t thereo n withi n suc h perio d a s ma y b e
911
----------------------- Page 912----------------------RULE 71
-7
SECS. 6
fixed b y th e cour t an d t o b e hear d b y himsel f o r

counsel , a perso n guilt y o f an y o f th e followin g act s
may b e punishe d fo r indirec t contempt :
(a) Misbehavio r o f a n office r o f a cour t i n th e
performanc e o f hi s officia l dutie s o r i n hi s officia l
transactions :
(b) Disobedienc e o f o r resistanc e t o a lawfu l
w r i t , p r o c e s s , o r d e r , o r j u d g m e n t o f a c o u
r t ,
i n c l u d i n g th e ac t o f a p e r s o n who ,
afte r
bein
g
dispossesse d o r ejecte d fro m an y rea l propert y b y
th e judgmen t o r proces s o f an y cour t o f competen t
jurisdiction , enter s o r attempt s o r induce s anothe r
t o ente r int o o r upo n suc h rea l property , fo r th e
p u r p o s e
o f e x e c u t i n g a c t s o f o w n e r s h i p
o r
p o s s e s s i o n , o r
i n a n y
m a n n e r
d i s t u r b s t
h e
p o s s e s s i o n g i v e n t o th e p e r s o n adjudge d t o b
e
entitle d thereto ;
(c) An y abus e o f o r an y unlawfu l interferenc e
wit h th e processe s o r proceeding s o f a cour t no t
c o n s t i t u t i n g direc t contemp t unde r sectio n
o f
thi s Rule ;
(d) An y imprope r conduc t tending , directl y o r
indirectly , t o i m p e d e , obstruct , o r degrad e th e
administratio n o f justice ;
(e) Assumin g t o b e a n attorne y o r a n office r o f
a court , an d actin g a s suc h withou t authority ;
(f)
Failur e t o obe y a subpoen a dul y served ;
(g) Th e rescue , o r attempte d rescue , o f a perso n

or propert y i n th e custod y o f a n office r by virtu e o f
an orde r o r proces s o f a cour t hel d by him .
But nothin g i n thi s sectio n shal l b e s o construe d
as t o preven t th e cour t fro m issuin g proces s t o brin g
th e responden t int o court , o r fro m holdin g hi m i n

custody pendin g suc h proceedings .
(3a)
912
----------------------- Page 913----------------------RULE 71
. 3
CONTEMPT
SEC
NOTE S
1. With som e minor change s
provision i s a reproduction of th
Rule .
I t i s now specifie d
(a) b e given an opportunit y t
within such perio d fixed by th e
thereon by himsel f or counsel .
in th e phraseology , thi s
e former Sec . 3 of thi s
tha t th e responden t shoul d
o commen t on th e charg e
court , an d (b) b e hear d
Thus , th e procedura l requisite s for indirec t con temp t proceeding s ar e (a) a charg e in writin g or an
order o f th e cour t t o appea r an d explain , an d (b) a n
opportunity for th e responden t t o comment on th e charg e
and t o appea r an d explain hi s conduct .
2 . A contemp t cas e i s a specia l civil action governe d
by Rul e 7 1 an d by th e rule s on ordinary civil action s bu t
only insofar a s they ar e not inconsistent with th e rule s on
thi s special civil action .
A respondent in a contempt charg e
is not require d t o file a formal answe r similar t o tha t in
ordinary civil actions .
Instead , th e court mus t set th e
contempt charg e for hearin g on a fixed dat e on which th e
responden t mus t mak e hi s appearanc e t o answe r th e
charge (Sec. 4).
I f h e shal l fail t o appea r on tha t dat
e
withou t justifiabl e reason , th e court may order hi s arres t
(Sec. 9), jus t lik e th e accuse d in a crimina l cas e wh o fails
t o appea r when s
th e responden t in
proceedin g partake s
and shoul d follow
o required .
Th e court doe s not declar e
a contempt charg e in default sinc e thi s
of th e natur e of a crimina l prosecution
a procedur e similar theret o
(Fuentes
,
et al.
Leviste,
3 . A
et al.,
supra).
p e r s o n c a n n o t b e
p u n i s h e d for
allege d
disobedience of an order of th e court , such a s a wri t of

execution directin g th e sherif f t o plac e th e plaintif f in
possession o f th e property held by sai d person .
Sai d wri
t
is addresse d t o th e sheriff, not t o tha t person , an d it i s th e
sheriff wh o mus t perform hi s duty unde r Sec . 8 , Rul e 3 9
and in accordanc e with th e directive s containe d in th e writ
913
----------------------- Page 914-----------------------
RULE 71
SEC. 3
(Lipata
vs. Tutaan,
et al, L-16643,
Sept.
29,
1983;
Defalobos
vs. Aquilizan, et al, G.R. No. 65831, May 20,
1987; Pascua, et al.
vs. Simeon, et al, L-47717, May 31,
1988).
4 . Wher e th e contempt i s base d on th e respondent' s
refusal t o vacat e th e lan d despit e a wri t for hi s ejectment ,
th e appea l from th e contempt order necessarily involve s
or carrie s wit h it an appea l from th e order t o vacate .
However , th e perfection o f th e appea l from th e contempt
order will not preven t th e execution o f th e order o f eviction
unles s th e bon d require d b y Sec .
11 , Rul e 71 , ha s
been seasonably filed
(Heirs ofB.A. Crumb vs. CA, et al,
L-26167,
Jan. 30, 1970).
5 . Th e Crumb
case , however ,
contemplate s
th e
situation wherein th e occupant s o f th e dispute d property
wer e not defendant s in th e origina l cas e an d ha d n o
opportunity t o b e hear d therein .
Wher e th e defendant s
in th e contempt cas e wer e als o defendant s in th e original
case, they ar e concluded by th e final judgmen t therein ,
hence their conviction in a first contempt charg e for refusal
t o vacat e th e premise s an d their appea l therefrom does
not constitut e an appea l from th e order o f eviction an d
they can be proceeded against on a second contempt charg e
(Dumalagan
vs. Palangpangan,
L-34095,
July 29,
1974).
6. Where , by virtu e o f a judgmen t or orde r of a
competent court , a litigant ha s been place d in possession
of rea l property , th e reentr y o f th e advers e part y wh o wa s
evicted therefrom constitute s contempt unde r Sec . 3(b)
of thi s Rul e an d ther e i s n o tim e limit in which such
reentry constitute s contempt (Medina vs. Garces, L-25923,
July 15, 1980).
7 . Contemp
Sec. 3 , Par .
party litigant i
a defianc e o f
t b y reentr y upo
(b) o f thi s Rule ,
s adversely affected ,
th e authorit y o f
n th e
land , unde r
i s punishabl e even i f n o
a s th e act constitute s
th e court . Such act o f
914
----------------------- Page 915----------------------RULE 71
CONTEMPT
SEC. 4
contempt is punishable even if it takes place beyond

5 years from the execution of the judgment of ejectment
(Patagan, et al. vs. Panis, et al, G.R. No. 55630, April 8,
1988).
Sec . 4.
How proceedings
commenced.
Proceed ing s fo r indirec t contemp t ma y

b e initiate d
motu
proprio
b y th e cour t
agains t
w h i c h th e contemp t
wa s committe d b y orde r o r an y othe r forma l charg e
r e q u i r i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o sho w c a u s e w h y
h e
shoul d
no t b e punishe d fo r contempt .
I n al l othe r cases , charge s fo r indirec t contemp t

shal l b e c o m m e n c e d b y a verifie d
p e t i t i o n w i t
h
supportin g particular s an d certifie d tru e copie s o f
document s o r paper s involve d therein , an d upo n full
c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s fo r f i l i n
g
initiator y pleading s fo r civi l action s i n th e cour t
concerned .
I f th e contemp t charge s aros e ou t o f o r
ar e r e l a t e d t o a principa l actio n p e n d i n g i n
th
e
court ,
fact bu
decide d
order s
a n d t
an d
decision
th e petitio n fo r contemp t shal l

t sai d petitio n shal l b e docketed ,
separately , unles s th e cour t i n it
th e
consolidatio n o f th e contemp
h e p r i n c i p a l a c t i o n fo r j
,
alleg e tha t
hear d an d
s discretio n
t charge s
o i n t h e a r i n g
(n)
NOT E
1. This new provision clarifies with a regulatory norm

the
proper procedure
for commencing contempt
proceedings. While such proceeding has been classified
as a special civil action under the former Rules, the
heterogeneous practice, tolerated by the courts, has been
for any party to file a mere motion without paying any
docket or lawful fees therefor and without complying with
the requirements for initiatory pleadings, which is now
required in the second paragraph of this amended section.
915
----------------------- Page 916----------------------RULE 71
SEC. 5
Worse , an d as a consequenc e of unregulate d motions for

contempt , sai d incident s sometime s remai n pendin g for
resolutio n althoug h th e mai n cas e ha s alread y been
decided .
Ther e ar e other undesirabl e aspect s but , at any
rate , th e sam e may now b e eliminate d by thi s amendatory
procedure .
Henceforth , except for indirect contempt proceeding s
initiated motu proprio by order of or a formal charg e by
th e offended court , al l charge s shal l be commence d by a
verifie d
p e t i t i o n wit h ful l complianc e
wit h
th
e
r e q u i r e m e n t s therefo r an d shal l b e dispose d o f i n
accordance with th e second paragrap h o f thi s section .
Sec. 6 .
Where charge to
be filed. Wher e
th e
charg e fo r indirec t contemp t ha s bee n committe d
a g a i n s t a R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t o r a c o u r t o
f
equivalen t o r highe r rank , o r agains t a n office r
appointe d b y it , th e charg e ma y b e file d wit h suc h
court .
Wher e suc h contemp t ha s bee n committe d
against a lowe r court , th e charg e ma y b e file d wit h
th e R e g i o n a l Tria l Cour t o f th e
plac e
i n w h i c
h
th e l o w e r c o u r t i s sitting ; bu t th e p r o c e e d i n g
s
may als o b e institute d i n suc h lowe r cour t subjec t
t o appea l t o th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t o f suc h plac e
i n th e sam e manne r a s provide d i n sectio n 1 1 o f thi s
Rule .
(4a ) (As corrected
by Resolution of the
Supreme
Court,
dated July 21,
1998)
NOTE
1. A s a rule , th e proceedin g for indirect contempt
shall b e filed in an d trie d by th e court against which th e
contumaciou s conduc t wa s committed .
Ther e
ar e
exceptions to thi s procedure , viz.:
(a) Indirect contempt committe d against an inferior
court which may als o be filed in an d trie d by a Regional
Trial Court regardles s o f th e imposabl e penalty (see also
916
----------------------- Page 917----------------------RULE 71
6-7
People
CONTEMPT
vs.
Orpilla-Molina,
105
SECS.
Phil.
362);
an d
(b)
Indirec t contemp t agains t th e Suprem e Cour t
which it may caus e t o b e investigate d by a prosecutor ,
with th e correspondin g charg e t o b e thereafte r file d in
and trie d by a Regiona l Tria l Cour t
(see People vs. D
e
Luna,
102 Phil. 968), or for hearin g an d recommendatio n
wher e th e charg e involve s question s o f fact
(Estrada v
s.
CAR,
L-17481
and
L-17537-59,
Sept.
24,
1962).
Th e Suprem e Court , however , absen t an y factua l
controversy to b e resolve d or unde r th e res ipsa loquitur
rule , may dispens e wit h any referra l an d decid e th e cas e
after grantin g th e responden t th e opportunity t o commen t
an d appear , a s i t ha s don e in som e case s o f palpabl
e
contumely .
i s
may
a n
a t
s e t
Sec . 6 . Hearing; release on bail. If th e hearin g

no t ordere d t o b e ha d forthwith , th e responden t
b e release d fro m custod y upo n filin g a bond , i n
a m o u n t fixe d b y th e court , fo r hi s appearanc e
t h e h e a r i n g o f t h e c h a r g e . O n
t h e d a y
therefor , th e cour t shal l procee d t o investigat e th e

charg e an d conside r suc h comment , testimon y o r
defens e a s th e responden t ma y mak e o r offer .
a)
(5
Sec . 7.
Punishment for indirect contempt. If th e
responden t i s adjudge d guilt y o f indirec t contemp t
committe d agains t a Regiona l Tria l Cour t o r a cour t
o f equivalen t o r highe r rank , h e ma y b e punishe d
by a fin e no t e x c e e d i n g thirt y thousan d peso s o
imprisonmen t no t exceedin g si x (6) months , o r both .
I f h e i s a d j u d g e d guilt y o f c o n t e m p t c o m m i
e d
agains t a lowe r court , h e ma y b e punishe d by a fin e
not e x c e e d i n g fiv e thousan d
peso s o r imprisonmen t
n o t e x c e e d i n g o n e (1 ) m o n t h , o r b o t h .
I
t h e
c o n t e m p t c o n s i s t s i n th e v i o l a t i o n o f a
t o f
injunction ,
temporar y
restrainin g
orde r
o r
tus
quo order ,
h e ma y als o b e ordere d t o mak e complet e
r
t t
f
wri
sta
917
----------------------- Page 918----------------------RULE 71
9
SECS. 8-
restitutio n t o th e part y injure d b y suc h violatio n

of th e propert y involve d o r suc h amoun t a s may b e
allege d an d proved .
Th e
wri t o f e x e c u t i o n , a s i n o r d i n a r y c
ivi l
a c t i o n s , s h a l l i s s u e fo r t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f
a
judgmen t imposin g a fin e unles s th e cour t otherwis e
provides .
(6a)
NOTE S
1. Th e penaltie s
amended provision s of Sec .
r e a s o n s explaine d
it s
Administrativ e Circular No .
for indirec t contemp t unde r th e

7 hav e been increase d for th e
b y th e S u p r e m e
Cour t
i n
22-95 .
Incidentally , it will
b e noted tha t th e penaltie s for indirect contempt ar e higher

tha n thos e for direct contempt , in consideration o f th e
natur e o f th e act s committed .
2. Th e tex t o f th e former
bee n substantiall y reproduced , wit
temporary restrainin g order s an d
among th e court processe s th e violation
contempt .
Sec.
8.
Imprisonment
Sec . 6 o f thi s Rul e ha s

h th e additio n o f
status quo order s a s
o f which constitut e
until
order
obeyed.
Whe n
th e contemp t consist s
do a n ac t whic h i s
t o perform , h e ma y
court concerne d unti l
i n
ye t
b e
h e
th e refusa l o r omissio n t o
i n th e powe r o f th e responden t
imprisone d b y orde r o f th e
perform s it .
(7a)
Sec. 9.
Proceeding when party released on bail fails
to answer. Whe n a responden t release d o n bai l
fails t o appea r o n th e da y fixe d fo r th e hearing , th e
cour t ma y issu e anothe r orde r o f arres t o r ma y
order th e bon d for hi s appearanc e t o b e forfeite d
an d
c o n f i s c a t e d , o r both ; a n d , i f t h e bon d
e
proceede d against , th e measur e o f damage s shal l b e
th e exten t o f th e los s o r injur y sustaine d b y th e
918
----------------------- Page 919----------------------RULE 71
10-11
CONTEMPT
SECS.
a g g r i e v e d part y b y reaso n o f th e m i s c o n d u c t f
o r
w h i c h th e c o n t e m p t charg e wa s prosecuted , wit h
th e cost s o f th e proceedings , an d suc h recover y shal l
b e fo r th e benefi t o f th e part y injured .
I f ther
e i s
n o a g g r i e v e d party , th e bon d shal l b e liabl e an
d
dispose d o f a s i n crimina l cases .
(8a)
Sec . 10 .
Court may release respondent. Th e cour t
w h i c h i s s u e d th e orde r imprisonin g a perso n fo r
c o n t e m p t ma y discharg e
hi m fro m i m p r i s o n m e
n t
w h e n
i t a p p e a r s tha t publi c i n t e r e s t wil l no
t b e
prejudice d b y hi s release .
(9a)
Sec .
11 .
Review
of judgment
or final
order;
bond
for stay. Th e judgmen t o r fina l orde r o f a cour t i n
a cas e o f indirec t contemp t ma y b e appeale d t o th e
prope r cour t a s i n crimina l cases , bu t executio n o f
th e j u d g m e n t o r fina l orde r shal l no t b e suspende d
u n t i l a bon d i s file d b y th e p e r s o n a d j u d g e
d i n
c o n t e m p t , i n a n a m o u n t fixe d b y th e cour t fr
o m
w h i c h th e appea l i s taken , conditione d tha t i f th e
appea l b e decide d agains t hi m h e wil l abid e b y an d
perfor m th e judgmen t o r fina l order .
(10a)
NOTE S
1.
A s
a m e n d e d , Sec .
now
allow s
an y
t
concerned , an d not only a superior court , t o imprison th e
disobedient responden t unti l h e perform s th e act ordere d
cour
b y
th e
court .
A s
hel d
b y
th e
imprisonmen t i s remedia l i n natur e

character .
I t relate s t o somethin g
responden t an d b y doin g th e sam e
discharge .
I n effect , unde r suc
responden t "carrie s th e key s t o hi s
pocket "
(Galvez vs. Republic Surety &
105 Phil. 944; cf. Quinio vs. CA, et
67,
July
13,
2000).
Suprem e
Court ,
suc h
an d coerciv e i n
t o b e don e by th e
h e ca n obtai n hi s
h circumstances , th e
priso n in hi s own
Insurance Co., Inc.,
al, G.R. No.
1138
919
----------------------- Page 920----------------------RULE 71
SECS. 10-11
2 . Sec . 8 , however , doe s not apply t o a situatio n

wherein tenant s refused or failed t o pay thei r rental s t o
th e specia l administratri x o f th e property a s ordere d by
th e court .
Althoug h the y explaine d t h a t the y wer e
uncertain a s t o whom t o pay thei r rentals , asid e from their
financial incapacity , they wer e ordere d arreste d for not
complying with th e court order .
Th e Suprem e Court held
tha t th e non-payment o f th e rentals , which i s a civil debt ,
i s covere d b y th e constitutiona l g u a r a n t e e agains t
imprisonment .
Furthermore , th e subject orde r issue d unde r th e
authority o f Sec . 8 , Rul e 7 1 i s not a specia l judgmen t
enforceable unde r Sec .
11 , Rul e 39 , or executio n o f
judgmen t for specific act s which is regulate d by Sec . 10 of
th e sam e Rule .
Th e tria l court could hav e ha d it s order
executed in accordanc e with th e provision of sai d Sec . 9 of
Rule 3 9 bu t it ha d n o power t o orde r th e arres t an d
detention o f sai d tenants .
3 . Appeal s from municipa l court s t o th e Court o f
First Instanc e in contempt proceedings , an d thos e from
th e Court o f Firs t Instanc e t o th e higher courts , shal l b e
perfecte d a s in crimina l cases , tha t is , by merely filing a
notic e of appea l withi n 1 5 day s from promulgatio n of
judgment , with such perio d interrupte d by a motion for
new tria l seasonably filed
(J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. us.
Familara, et al., L-24934, Sept. 28, 1968).
In both cases ,
th e judgmen t shal l b e suspende d provide d th e appellant
files th e correspondin g bond require d by th e Rule s in th e
amount fixed by th e court s whos e judgment s ar e appeale d
from.
4 . A judgmen t holding a person in contempt , when
appealable, i s subject t o review in th e manne r provided
for review of judgment s of conviction in crimina l case s
(Perkins us. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271).
920
----------------------- Page 921-----------------------
RULE 71
C. 12
CONTEMPT
SE
5 . A s in crimina l cases , a judgmen t absolvin g a

perso n charge d wit h crimina l contemp t o r dismissin g th e
contempt charge d i s not appealabl e
(Pajao vs. Provincial
Board
of Canvassers
of Leyte,
88
Phil.
588;
Mison
vs.
Subido,
L-27704,
May 28,
1970),
unless ,
a s in crimi
na l
cases , ther e ha s bee n n o adjudication on th e merit s bu t
only a dismissa l on motion o f th e person charge d base d on
jurisdictiona l ground s
(Amoren vs. Pineda, et al., L 23666,
Sept. 23, 1967); bu t thes e ruling s d o not apply t o civil
contempt
(Converse Rubber Corp.
vs. Jacinto Rubber, etc
.,
supra) an d appea l lie s from th e order finding th e defendant
guilty or absolvin g him o f th e charge .
Sec .
12 .
Contempt
against
quasi-judicial
enti
ties.
Unles s otherwis e provide d b y law , thi s Rul e shal l
a p p l y t o c o n t e m p t c o m m i t t e d
a g a i n s t p e r s
o n s ,
entities , bodie s o r agencie s exercisin g quasi-judicia l
functions , o r shal l hav e suppletor y effec t t o suc h
r u l e s a s t h e y m a y
h a v e a d o p t e d
p u r s u a n t
t o
a u t h o r i t y g r a n t e d t o t h e m b y la w t o p u n i
s h fo r
contempt .
Th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t o f th e plac e
w h e r e i n t h e c o n t e m p t ha s bee n c o m m i t t e d
sh
al l
hav e jurisdictio n ove r suc h charge s a s ma y b e file d
therefor ,
(n)
NOTE S
1. Thi s new section wa s necessitate d by th e holding s
tha t th e forme r Rul e 7 1 applie d only t o superio r an d
inferio r
c o u r t s an d di d no t c o m p r e h e n d c o n t e
m p t
committe d
a g a i n s t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r quasi-judic
ia l
official s o r bodies ,
unles s sai d contemp t i s
clear
l y
c o n s i d e r e d an d expressl y
define d
a s c o n t e m p t
of
court, a s wa s don e in Sec . 58 0 o f th e former Revise d
Administrativ e Code .
Th e provision referre d t o con template s th e situatio n wher e a person , withou t lawful
excuse , fail s t o appear , mak e oath , giv e testimon y or
produc e document s when require d t o d o s o by th e official
92 1
----------------------- Page 922-----------------------
RULE 71
SEC. 12
or body exercisin g such powers .

For such violation , said
person shal l b e subject to discipline ,
a s in th e case o f
contempt of court , upon application of th e official or body
wit h th e Regiona l Tria l Cour t for th e correspondin g
sanctions .
Othe r act s or violation s cannot b e punishe d a s
contumacious conduct by administrativ e or quasi-judicial
entitie s unles s th e governin g law specifically define s such
violatio n a s contemp t o f court ,
o r i t unequivocall y
authorize s sai d official or body to punish for contempt ,
providin g a t th e sam e tim e th e correspondin g penalty
(People
vs. Mendoza,
et al., 92 Phil. 570; se e Sec. 13,
Chapter
3, Book
VII, E.O. 292 [Administrative
Code
of
1987]).
2 . Unde r substantiall y th e sam e considerations ,
it wa s held tha t a city council doe s not hav e th e power
t o subpoen a witnesse s an d t o punis h non-attendanc e
for contemp t sinc e ther e i s neithe r a constitutiona l
nor statutor y conferment on it o f such powers .
Unlik e
Congress whos e contempt power i s sui generis an d inheres
in it a s a coordinat e branc h of Government , no such power
can b e implie d in th e legislativ e function s delegate d t o
local legislative bodies , especially since th e contempt power
is essentiall y of a judicia l natur e
(Negros Oriental II
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.,
et
al.
vs.
Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Dumaguete, et al, G.R. No.
72492, Nov. 5,
1987).
3. Thi s new provision confer s contempt power on all
quasi-judicial entitie s or supplement s th e rule s they may
hav e adopte d pursuan t t o such power conferred by their
governin g law , unles s th e applicabl e law otherwis e
provides .
Thi s i s in effect a remedia l measur e becaus e of
th e inclusion in th e former Rule 7 1 only o f th e superior
and lower courts , thu s excludin g pro tanto th e quasi judicia l entitie s in th e exercis e o f thei r quasi-judicial , a s
distinguished from their quasi-legislative , functions .
922

Regalado - Civil Procedure Compendium

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Regalado - Civil Procedure Compendium

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

----------------------- Page 1----------------------REMEDIA L

t o decid e thei r own jurisdictio n an d t o tak e cognizanc e o f

Municipa l Circui t Tria l Courts .

enrolled an d whic h ar e boun d t o kee p a writte n recor d

Court s whic h ar e no t require d

Prio r t o th e effectivity o f R.A . 603 1 on Augus t 4 ,

th e Constitutio n and , therefore ,

f Ta x Appeal s create d by R.A . 1125

On Marc h 30 , 2004 , sai d law wa s amende d by R.A .

3 . Th e distinctio n obtainin g i n othe r jurisdiction s

b . Original jurisdiction , or th e powe r o f th e cour t

c. Exclusive jurisdiction , or th e powe r t o adjudicat e

referre d t o a s confluent or coordinate jurisdiction ,

Concurrent origina l jurisdictio n between tria l court s

of different rank s ha s in th e mai n been eliminate d by

Courts ; wit h th e Cour t o f Appeal s an d

bu t th e jurisdictio n o f th e court ; and , i n civi l cases , th e

Other classification s o f origina l jurisdictio n ar e base d

In crimina l cases , th e venu e o f th e crim e goe s int o

same tim e act in exces s o f suc h jurisdiction .

e . Jurisdiction over the

e cour t acquire s jurisdictio n t o

g busines s i n th e Philippine s withou t a

11. A s a genera l proposition , th e jurisdictio n o f th e

th e complain t i s for actua l damage s o f

----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

fees brin g th e tota l relie f sough t t o

(which wa s the n th e jurisdictiona l limi t for civi l case s i n

15. Th e constitutionalit y o f a s t a t u t e mus t b e ques tione d

y b e raise d a t an y stag e and ,

also b e considere d b y th e appellat e cour t a t an y tim e i f i t

th e law o n procedur e i s th e doctrin e tha

----------------------- Page 12----------------------REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM

parties ; neithe r ca n i t b e conferre d by th e acquiescenc e

In th e earl y cas e of Santiago, et al.

(78 Phil . 397) , it wa s hel d tha t i f a motio n t o dismis s th e

I t furthe r state d t h a t "afte r voluntaril

caus e an d encounterin g a n advers e decisio n

a part y wh o ha s affirme d an d invoke d th e jurisdictio n

c. In Rodriguez vs. CA (L-29264 , Aug . 29 , 1969) , th e

an d "i s principall y a questio n o f th e

inequit y or unfair clai m t o b e enforc

e. In Sarmiento vs. Salud

of capital s o f province s or th e Cit y Courts . Instea d o f

moreover , th e summar y in Figueroa vs. People

other an d subsequen t holding s o n th e matter .

Jurisdictio n ove r a perso n

wher e th e spouse s voluntaril y signe d th e

2 1 . S t a t u t e s regulatin g th e procedur e o f th e court s

action s whic h hav e alread y becom e fina l an d executor y

t rule s appl y t o pendin g case s

application woul d not b e feasibl e or woul d wor k injustice ,

create s right s concernin g life , libert y o r property , o r th e

(Lopez vs. Gloria, 4 0 Phil. 33).

Procedur e i s th e mod e o f proceedin g by whic h a lega l

administer . Thi s ter m i s com lega l principle s constitutin g

----------------------- Page 19----------------------GENERAL PRINCIPLES

no t it s plac e i n th e statut e o r it s inclusio

Civil Cod e an d Sec . 85 , R.A . 29 6 provide d injunctiv e rule s

Thi s m a t t e r i s bein g clarifie d an d emphasize d her e

whic h th e Suprem e Cour t i s authorize d t o promulgat e

righ t o f actio n i s th e righ t t o su e

Th e questio n a s t o whethe r th e plaintif f